LAW LIBRARY 
 
 Duke University 
 
 DURHAM, N. C. 
 
 Rec'cL 
 
 SPECIAL 
 
 ^PPROP^fATfO^ 
 
 DUKE LAW LIBRARY 
 
 I! 
 
 L00316022 
 
K 
 
 18/5. 
 • A22 
 
1. 
 
 % 
 
 PROCEEDINGS 
 
 AND 
 
 DEBATES 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CONVENTION OF LOUISIANA. 
 
 WHICH ASSEMBLE I> 
 
 AT THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS 
 
 JANUARY 14, 1844, 
 
 ROBERT J. KER, REPORTER. 
 
 NEW ORLEANS : 
 
 BESANCON, FERGlSOiV & Co-., 
 
 Printers to the Convention. 
 
 1845, 
 
\ 
 
 Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2015 
 
 https://archive.org/details/proceedingsdebat01loui 
 
DEBATES 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CONVENTION OF LOUISIANA 
 
 In conformity with their adjournment at 
 the town of Jackson, the Convention, in 
 pursuance of an act entitled "An act to 
 provide for the calling of a Convention, for 
 
 the purpose of re-adopting, amending or 
 
 changing the present constitution," met 
 this day in the room prepared for their re- 
 ception in the city of New Orleans. 
 
 At 12 o'clock, m., the Hox. Joseph 
 Walker, senatorial delegate from the 
 county of Rapides, and president of the 
 Convention, took the chair, and the secre- 
 tary proceeded to call the names of the 
 several delegates. 
 
 Forty-nine delegates responded to their 
 names. 
 
 The President rose and stated, that it 
 was only necessary for him to say that, in 
 pursuance of adjournment, the Convention 
 had re-assembled on this occasion for the 
 purpose of proceeding with its labors. 
 The Convention were now organized, and 
 he presumed ready to proceed to business. 
 
 He further stated that in the spirit of the 
 resolution adopted at Jackson, inviting 
 clergymen of the different denominations 
 to open the procedings of the Convention 
 with prayer, he was solicitious to have ex- 
 tended the invitation to the clergy of this 
 city; but that upon an examination he found 
 the resolution so worded as to confine the j 
 invitation to the clergymen in the immedi- 
 ate vicinity of Jackson. Not wishing to j 
 transcend the authority in any manner, ■ 
 of the Convention, he deemed it proper . 1 
 
 to bring this matter to their considera- 
 ; tion. 
 
 Mr. Lewis, the senatorial delegate from 
 j the county of Opelousas, moved to amend 
 -tke resolution inviting clergymen to open 
 j the proceedings with prayer, by substitu- 
 ! ting in the resolution, New Orleans, in 
 : place of Jackson; which amendment was 
 j carried. 
 
 Mr. Marigxy, representative delegate 
 j from the parish of Orleans, made the fol- 
 lowing report: 
 
 Mr. President— The committee appoint- 
 | ed by the Convention, sitting at Jackson, 
 for the purpose of making the necessary 
 arrangements for the reception and meet- 
 ing of the Convention in the city of New 
 Orleans, on the 14th of the present month, 
 have the honor to submit for your conside- 
 ration the following report: 
 
 Your committee first addressed them- 
 selves to the honorable the house of repre- 
 sentatives for the purpose of procuring the.'r 
 room for the sessions of the Convention. 
 The house having refused to grant it, your 
 committee were under the necessity of pro- 
 curing some other suitable apartment, and 
 to procure the necessary furniture to enable 
 the Convention to resume their labors. 
 The account for the furniture will be pre- 
 sented to you in a few days, and will 
 amount to about one thousand dollars. 
 
 Your committee applied to Mrs. Hawley. 
 the lessee of the St. Louis ball room, with 
 whom they made the following arrange- 
 ments, subject to vour approval: 
 
 L 58 9: 16 LAW LIBRARY 
 
4 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Mrs. tfawlej furnishes the ball room, and 
 five rooms destined for the use of the clerks 
 of the Convention; the principal room to 
 be al the .-m ice of the Convention during 
 its sessions, unless the legislature adjourn- 
 ing, the Convention should prefer the hall 
 of (lie house of representatives. 
 
 Your committee have agreed to allow 
 Mrs. Hawley fifteen dollars per day for the 
 use of .^aid locale. » 
 
 Your committee are under the impres- 
 sion that this room, in every respect, is 
 suited for the meetings of the Convention. 
 
 They would observe that Mrs. Hawley 
 rves to herself the privilege of retain- 
 ing the room on the 17th, 24th and 31st of 
 January, and the 4th of February, for the 
 purpose of giving society balls, and will re- 
 quire it on these days at 4 o'clock in the 
 afternoon. 
 
 Your committee deem it likewise proper 
 to state, for your information, that the city 
 council of the first municipality, design to 
 place chains across the corners of Royal, 
 Chartres and St. Louis streets, during the 
 sittings of the Convention, so that their 
 deliberations may not be disturbed by the 
 passage of carriages and other vehicles. 
 
 (Signed,) B. MARIGNY, Chairman. 
 
 C. ROSELIUS, 
 G. LEONARD. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne asked for the adoption 
 of the report. 
 
 Mr. Guion said that in that part of the 
 room where he was seated, not one word 
 of the documents read at the secretary's 
 desk had been heard. If it was the report 
 of the committee appointed to make ar- 
 rangements for the meeting of the Con- 
 vention in New Orleans, announcing their 
 selection of this room, he should oppose 
 its adoption. It was impossible to hear 
 anything coming from the president's seat 
 or from the secretary. He had not heard 
 what the president had said upon taking 
 the chair. A dozen members around him 
 had been equally unfortunate in catching a 
 syllable of what transpired. 
 
 Mi. Makigny replied that the difficulty 
 complained of could easily be remedied; the 
 seats of members could be brought much 
 nearer to the president's desk, and to each 
 other, so that every thing said during the 
 proceeding? would be audible, 
 
 [ Mr. Winchester submitted the follow- 
 ing resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That the report of the commit- 
 tee of arrangements, be referred to a spe- 
 cial committee of five members, with in- 
 structions to take this report into conside- 
 ration, and to report thereon, and with 
 further authority to inquire whether anoth- 
 er and more appropriate room for the sit- 
 tings of the Convention cannot be obtained 
 in the city. 
 
 Mr. Marigny was opposed to this reso- 
 lution, inasmuch as it submitted a duly al- 
 ready discharged by one committee, to the 
 supervision of another. He thought that 
 courtesy to the committee already appoint- 
 ed, would not permit that their work should 
 be submitted to a second committee with 
 the view of its being undone. The com- 
 mittee of arrangements were perfectly con- 
 versant with all the public buildings in the 
 city suitable for the meeting of the Con- 
 vention, and had selected the present Zo~ 
 cale because they thought it the best adapt- 
 ed to the purpose. The room was spa- 
 cious and airy, and combined every requi- 
 site. The terms agreed upon were' rea- 
 sonable — fifteen dollars per day. What 
 was the use of beginning de novo with an- 
 other committee. If it was for the pur- 
 pose of trying to save one or two dollars 
 a day, by getting some other place, that ob- 
 ject was, to his mind, very insignificant in 
 comparison with the importance of pro- 
 ceeding with the labors of the Convention. 
 Surely the Convention could not expect, 
 reasonably, to get a room for nothing. The 
 committee had made all researches; this 
 room was in a convenient position for pub- 
 licity, and was accessible to a great pro- 
 portion of the population, resident and 
 transient. It appeared to him to be a re- 
 buke of what the committee had done, to 
 refer their report to another committee; it 
 was casting undeserved blame upon them, 
 as they had done all in their power ^ac- 
 commodate the Convention, and to make 
 the best possible arrangement. 
 
 Mr. Winchester said he would regret 
 much if the passage of the resolution could 
 be construed into any censure upon the 
 committee of arrangements for what they 
 had done. Surely nothing was farther from 
 his mind. What he designed was, that the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 18 
 
 committee to be raised, should inquire whe- 
 ther the contract proposed to be made by 
 the first committee was proper." If the 
 committee reported that it was, then all dif- 
 ficulty would be obviated. Little experience 
 of the suitableness of this room has yet been 
 had, and that has not been of a satisfactory 
 character. It appears to be difficult to 
 hear what is said on one side of the house 
 on the other side. He had been removed 
 but two seats from the one he now occu- 
 pied, and he could there neither hear the 
 voice of the president nor of the secretary. 
 This was a serious objection. And, if the 
 voices of those officers cannot be heard in 
 the immediate vicinity, how are we to hear 
 gentlemen whose seats are at the other 
 extremity. He did not say that any better 
 place could be obtained — -but it would be 
 proper and expedient to ascertain the im- 
 possibility from further investigation. Many 
 of the members have but just arrived, and 
 have had as yet no opportunity of satisfying 
 themselves on that point. This resolution 
 would enable them to do so. It was said 
 that the Washington Armory, which wa.j 
 wider and otherwise more convenient, 
 could be had. The committee could in- 
 quire and report whether it was not prefer- 
 able for the meetings of the Convention, 
 and make such arrangements as were most 
 agreeable. He was opposed to springing 
 this matter suddenly upon the Convention. 
 Let us have at least the opportunity of in- 
 quiring whether a more suitable place — 
 one better adapted, may not be procured- 
 That was his object, and certainly no want 
 of courtesy towards the committee of ar- ! 
 rangements, who have provided this room, j 
 Mr. Dunn said he had been for some 
 days in the city, and his attention as a 
 member of the Convention, had been cal- 
 led to the subject of where the Convention 
 should meet, He had heard that the les- 
 see of this edifice had asked twenty-five 
 dollars per day for the use of this room: 
 that price he considered to be rather clear; 
 he had since learned that she consented to 
 place it at the disposition of the Conven- 
 tion for fifteen dollars. This appeared 
 reasonable, when the accommodations af- 
 forded by the room were taken into view. 
 He had canvassed the mutter, whether anv 
 3 
 
 better place could be selected, and from all 
 the information he could obtain, he was 
 convinced that none better could be had, 
 or on more reasonable terms. The Wash- 
 ington Armory, which had been spoken of. 
 he doubted much whether it could be ob- 
 tained during the present week, on account 
 of the engagements of the lessees. The 
 committee of arrangements had discharged 
 their duty as well as it could be performed, 
 and he was clearly of opinion that their re- 
 port ought to be adopted. The room is 
 large and spacious, and the seats of mem- 
 bers may very well be brought much nearer, 
 Mr. Kfnner would suggest a middle 
 course. The members of the Convention 
 had, as yet, no opportunity of fully testing 
 the advantages or disadvantages of the. 
 present location. He would, therefore, 
 propose to suspend the further considera- 
 tion of the subject until Friday next. 
 
 Mr. Downs said he was opposed to any 
 thing which would have the effect of delay- 
 ing the labors of the Convention. He did 
 not wish the time of the Convention to be 
 consumed with this matter. The commit- 
 tee of arrangements have procured this 
 room, and it appears well adapted for the 
 purpose. As to the difficulty of hearing, 
 that may be remedied by bringing the 
 ; seats of members nearer to each other and 
 ! to the president's desk. He was for dis- 
 | posing of this question at once; and was, 
 ! therefore indisposed to re-commit the sub- 
 ject, or to postpone it to another day. In 
 hearing the report read, he was at first 
 opposed to the condition, that the room 
 should be at the disposition of the lessee 
 for three or four evenings, but he had since 
 heard that the furniture could be easily re- 
 moved and returned, for the limited period 
 she required the use of the room. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff would suggest that the re= 
 port be first adopted, and that the delegate 
 from St. James (Mr. Winchester) present 
 his resolution in the form of a distinct pro- 
 position. The committee, under that reso- 
 lution, might institute the inquiry whether 
 any better place could be had. 
 
 Mr. Gryjies said that there was no ne- 
 cessity for that. Let the question be taken 
 on the proposition of the delegate from St 
 James, to refer the report- 
 
 * L 5 8 9 1 6 ^ ubrary 
 
Debates in the Convention- of Louisiana. 
 
 The President put the question on Mr. [ 
 Kenner's motion to postpone the further ! 
 consideration of the subject to Friday next. 
 Lost. 
 
 The question then recurred on Mr. Win- 
 chester's proposition to refer. Lost. 
 
 Mr. Grymes moved the adoption of the 
 report,' which motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Garcia asked and obtained leave of 
 absence for Mr. Soule, who had bee%i called 
 rem the city on account of bad health, 
 s Mr. Leonard presented a resolution that 
 seats be prepared fhr the reception of the 
 members of the Legislature, within the 
 bar of the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Eustis said he did not oppose the 
 adoption of this resolution through a want 
 of courtesy towards the members of the le- 
 gislature, but simply because the room was 
 too small to admit of the .presence of a 
 greater number of persons within the bar 
 than the members of the Convention. It 
 was desirable that the labors of the Con- 
 vention should proceed with all convenient 
 speed, and that its proceedings should not 
 be interrupted by the attendance of a great- 
 er number of persons within the bar, than 
 its members and officers, for whose accom- 
 modation the room was scarcely more than 
 sufficient. 
 
 Mr. Leonard said that the seats of 
 members could be drawn nearer, and that 
 if this were done for their accommodation, 
 sufficient room would be left for the recep- 
 tion of such members of the legislature as 
 chose to attend. 
 
 Mr. Grymes objected to the resolution, 
 because it would interfere with the business 
 of the Convention. The legislature have 
 their business to perform, and we had ours. 
 Let us do our duty, and leave them alone 
 to do theirs. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Wadsworth, the cre- 
 dentials of Messrs. Conrad and Benjamin, 
 members elect, were referred to the com- 
 mittee on elections. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad presented a resolu- 
 tion for the printing of the reports of the 
 several committees, with proper blanks 
 and with the lines numbered. 
 
 It was adopted, with an amendment by 
 Mr. Downs, that said work be executed by 
 to-morrow, and that if the printer to the 
 Convention be unable to execute it, the 
 
 secretary be authorized to have it done 
 elsewhere. 
 
 Mr. Grymes moved that the Convention 
 take up the report upon the first article of 
 the constitution of the State, relative to the 
 distribution of powers. 
 
 Which motion prevailed, whereupon the 
 Convention went into committee of the 
 whole, (Mr. Leonard in the chair.) 
 
 1st. That the powers of the government 
 of the State of Louisiana shall be divided 
 into three distinct departments, and each of 
 them to be confined to a separate body of 
 magistracy, to wit: those which are legis- 
 lative to one, those which are executive to 
 another, and those which are judiciary to 
 another. 
 
 Mr. Grymes called for the adoption of 
 the foregoing section. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad suggested that the 
 word "that" at the commencement, was 
 ^superfluous, and ought to be stricken out. 
 As the articles of the new constitution, he 
 
 presumed, would not be submitted to a 
 committee upon style, it would be neces- 
 sary to make all necessary corrections be- 
 fore they were adopted. He instanced 
 another mistake which was probably a ty- 
 pographical error. The word "confined" 
 was employed for "confided." 
 
 Mr. Downs remarked, that as there ap- 
 peared to be several typographical errors, 
 and inasmuch as members who may have 
 taken notes had not come prepared with 
 them, not expecting at this preliminary 
 sitting that the reports would come up, he 
 would move that the committee rise for the 
 purpose of making a motion for adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The committee rose, whereupon the 
 chairman (Mr. Leonard) reported that the 
 committee had had under consideration the 
 first article of the report upon the distribu- 
 tion of powers, and that they had made 
 some progress, and asked for leave to sit 
 ?„gain. 
 
 Whereupon, the Convention adjourned 
 until to-morrow, at 1 1 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Wednesday, January 15, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The proceedings were opened with 
 prayer by the Rev. Mr. Scott, 
 
 > 
 
Debates in the Convention oi Louisiana, 
 
 15 
 
 .Mr. Ratliff offered the following reso- 
 lution : 
 
 Resolved, That the committee on con- 
 tingent expenses be instructed to enquire 
 into and to ascertain the amount of mileage 
 due to each member of this body, for his 
 travelling expenses to and from his resi- 
 dence to the Convention in New Orleans, 
 and to direct the payment of the same. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to amend the fore- 
 going by adding " and that the committee 
 report to the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Guion moved to lay the whole sub- 
 ject on the table, and called for the yeas 
 and nays. The following "was the result: 
 
 Messrs, Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Brent, 
 Burton, Brumfield, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, 
 Chambliss, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Covillion, Downs, Eustis, Garrett, Grymes, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Kenner, King, 
 Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Mazureau, Peets, Penn, Prescott of Avoy- 
 elles, Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomnaej 
 Pugh, Roman, Roseiius. St. AmauaT^Saun- 
 ders. Sellers, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill and 
 Winder — 43 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Chinii, Dunn, 
 lop, Preston, Ratliff, Rea 
 Rouge, Scott of Felicia 
 
 •nard, McCal- 
 
 md 
 
 that leave of ab- 
 r. Miles Taylor of 
 ented from attencl- 
 , serious illness in 
 
 Wederstrand 
 
 Mr. Winder moved 
 sence be granted to M 
 Lafourche, who was prev 
 ing the Convention, by a 
 his family. 
 
 Mr. Eustis regretted to be under the 
 painful necessity of opposing the motion. 
 Those who knew him would not believe 
 that he was actuated by any want of cour- 
 tesy towards the gentleman in whose be- 
 half the request was presented, but would 
 attribute his opposition to the true motive 
 — a conscientious sense of duty. He read- 
 ily conceded that this was an extreme case 
 and assuredly, if under any circumstances 
 the Convention would be justified in grant- 
 ing leave of absence, the nature of the pre- 
 sent application would entitle it to indul- 
 gence. But it was not in reference to this 
 case that his objections were urged. He 
 was fearful that these requests would be 
 multiplied, and would become but too com- 
 mon, if not checked at the very outset. At 
 Jackson he had observed that thev had 
 
 gained ground to such an extent that it be- 
 came a matter of course to grant them 
 whenever they were mentioned. 
 
 Mr. E. referred to the application made 
 yesterday, by the senatorial delegate from 
 the German coast, for leave of absence to 
 another member of this body. That gen- 
 tleman was beyond seas for the recovery 
 of his health, and certainly his claims to 
 indulgence were entitled to great conside- 
 ration. . Yet, he (Mr. E.) would not have 
 given his sanction to that proceeding any 
 more than to the present application, had 
 he anticipated then other requests of a sim- 
 ilar kind. The necessity in the one case 
 was equally as astringent as in the other, 
 and he regretted that he did not object yes- 
 terday to that application. He submitted 
 to the Convention, first, the question, what 
 power had they to grant leave of absence? 
 To his understanding, any member had a 
 right to absent himself when he saw pro- 
 per, and only be made amenable to his 
 constituents for such absence, He (Mr. 
 E.) denied the right of the Convention to 
 interfere. If urgent circumstances pre- 
 vented a member from attending, let hi3 
 constituents judge of the urgency of those 
 circumstances; that is a matter for their 
 consideration, and he was opposed to the 
 Convention taking upon itself to pronounce 
 an opinion, and to absolve the absent mem- 
 ber. If the indulgence be granted upon 
 one pretext, it will be claimed upon oth- 
 ers; the only way is either to shut the 
 door or to open it widely. He repeated 
 his regret to be under the necessity of op- 
 posing the present application; it was cer- 
 tainly sanctioned by considerations per- 
 sonal to the gentleman in whose favor it 
 was asked; which had great weight with 
 him, bv.t he was so well convinced that if 
 it were granted, and the principle were re- 
 cognized, that other applications would 
 follow, and the consequence would be a 
 very serious interruption to* the labors of 
 the Convention, that he felt constrained, 
 much to his regret, to oppose it, "and to 
 insist on its rejection; to put an end at 
 once to all applications of a similar char- 
 acter. 
 
 Mr. GbtYMES sustained a similar view 
 of the subject. If the indulgence in any 
 case could be granted, then certainly the 
 gentleman whose application was pending- , ; 
 
16 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 was entitled to it. He (Mr. G.) acknowl- 1 
 edged the great worth of that gentleman, ! 
 and regretted his absence, as well as the 
 circumstances that led to it. In reference 
 to the application made yesterday to per- 
 mit the absence of another member of the 
 Convention, he (Mr. G.) would certainly 
 have opposed it had it not been for the 
 great desire he felt that the Convention 
 should take up the reports and proceed at 
 once with its labors. He apprehended 
 debate, and that was his only reason for 
 not opposing the application yesterday. 
 The Convention, to his judgment, had 
 nothing to do with permitting absence on 
 the part of its members. Their absence 
 was a matter between them and their con- 
 stituents, for which they were only ame- 
 nable to their constituents. 
 
 Mr. Dunn differed in opinion from the 
 two gentlemen who had just addressed the 
 Convention. He considered that no mem- 
 ber could propeily absent himself without 
 out leave, and leave was only to be accor- 
 ded upon the most urgent circumstances, 
 exhibited to the satisfaction of the Conven- 
 tion. Among the rules adopted at Jack- 
 son, was one to that effect. It was the 
 30th rule. The object was to keep the 
 members together, and to ensure their 
 punctual attendance for the performance 
 of the duties devolving upon the Conven- 
 tion. The present application was fully 
 sustained by imperious necessity, and 
 while he (Mr. Dunn) regretted the occur- 
 rence that caused the absence of that gen- 
 tleman, who was a most valuable member 
 . of this body, he could not but yield his 
 acquiescence to the request. He trusted 
 the motion would prevail. 
 
 The question was taken, and it was" car- 
 ried in the affirmative. 
 
 The President informed the Conven- 
 tion, that he labored under an error in sta- 
 ting yesterday that the 50th rule, that the 
 Convention may go into committee of the 
 whole, had been adopted. It appeared 
 that up to the 42d rule had been adopted, 
 and the remainder, which were few in 
 number, had not been adopted. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved that the rules be re- 
 ferred to a special committee of five, and 
 asked the president not to place him on 
 the committee, on account of his time be- 
 ing engrossed by other duties. 
 
 This motion prevailed, and the Presi- 
 dent appointed Messrs. Roman, Eustis, 
 Mayo, Kenner and Read, said committee. 
 
 The President informed the Conven- 
 tion of the resignation of Mr. Louis Exni- 
 cios, door keeper. 
 
 Mr. Grymes moved that it be entered on 
 the minutes, that the president be authori- 
 zed to appoint a door-keeper. 
 
 The President said he would prefer 
 the Convention to make the selection. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. Grymes' 
 motion, and it was lost. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to reconsider the 
 adoption of the report of the committee of 
 arrangements, to provide suitable apart- 
 ments for the Convention. He had stated 
 yesterday that the adoption of the report 
 did not bind the Convention to retain 
 their present apartments. He had since 
 learnt that the adoption of the report was 
 considered final in the matter. He would, 
 therefore, move its reconsideration, and if 
 that motion prevailed, he would next move 
 thai it be laid on the table, subject to 
 call. 
 
 The motion to reconsider was carried, 
 and the report was then laid on the table. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved that the Convention 
 proceed to the election of door keeper. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff nominated E. Remondet. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson nominated G. W. Rei- 
 necke. 
 
 Mr. Penn nominated J. K. Miles. 
 Mr. Boudousquie nominated — Faures. 
 Mr. Garcia nominated Joseph Cheva- 
 lier. 
 
 The President appointed Messrs. Dunn, 
 and Culbertson, tellers. 
 
 The result was as follows : 
 Mr. Remondet, 34 votes. 
 " Faure, 8 " 
 " Chevalier, 8 " 
 " Miles, 4 " 
 " Reinecke, 6 " 
 " Blank, 2 " 
 " Hickey, 1 " 
 The President announced that out of 
 sixty-three votes cast, Mr. Remondet had 
 received thirty-four; consequently Mr. Re- 
 mondet was duly elected. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved that seats be allowed 
 to the reporters of the several papers? 
 Adopted. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 17 
 
 On motion, the Convention took up the 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Mr. Lewis called for the reading of the 
 report upon the first article of the constitu- 
 tion of the State, and moved some verbal 
 corrections. 
 
 Mr. Prestox moved to adopt in lieu 
 of the first article reported by the commit- 
 tee, the original article of the constitution. 
 There were only a few verbal changes in 
 the report; the meaning was identical be- 
 tween the article as reported, and the cor- 
 responding article in the old constitution. 
 Mr. Preston eulogized the old constitution: 
 it was venerable for its age, and we had 
 lived under it for thirty years: there were 
 only three or four points upon which the 
 people desired change. Let the constitu- 
 tion be preserved, wherever no change is 
 required, and only let it be amended in the 
 particulars where amendments are re- 
 quired. As for verbal changes to better 
 the language, these were unnecessary, and 
 he considered it would be better to leave 
 the language as it was, and not consume 
 the time of the Convention by a dispute 
 upon words and syllables. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, was happy to 
 hear the eulogium pronounced by the dele- 
 gate from Jefferson upon the old constitu- 
 tion, and he hoped to hear him often reite- 
 rate his admiration of that instrument du- 
 ring the progress of the labors of the Con- 
 vention. As to what that delegate had said 
 about disputing on words and syllables, he 
 would remark that words and syllables 
 were ideas, and were therefore very impor- 
 tant. The time of the Convention might 
 be much less profitably spent. He was 
 pleased at what had fallen from the gentle- 
 man (Mr. Preston) in relation to the old 
 constitution, which, coming from the quar- 
 ter it did, was most satisfactory to him (Mr. 
 Conrad) inasmuch as he understood it to 
 imply that a sparing hand would be applied 
 to that instrument by those who had hither- 
 to professed the design of making sweeping 
 alterations, and of changing materially its 
 features. 
 
 Mr. Conrad said that the old constitution 
 had been made^at a most auspicious peri- 
 od; that its framers met with the harmony 
 ot a band of brothers, and were not actu- 
 ated by the violence and bitterness of par- 
 
 ty strife; but were influenced by the same 
 spirit of concession — the same lofty patri- 
 otism that animated the framers of the fed- 
 eral constitution. He was glad to hear the 
 delegate (Mr. Preston) say that we had 
 lived for thirty years under that instrument, 
 it had promoted the happiness and prosperi- 
 ty of the State. Whatever misfortunes 
 and reverses we have recently undergone, 
 were not attributable to it. 
 
 While he expressed his 'toncurreiice^in 
 the admiration of the gentleman (Mr.* 
 Preston) for the old constitution, he could 
 not concede that it was unnecessary to 
 make corrections in the language, and to 
 rectify grammatical improprieties. He 
 thought some definite plan ought to be 
 adopted in amending the constitution. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth considered it trifling 
 with great principles to discuss about mere 
 words. He explained why the committee, 
 of which he had the honor of being chair- 
 man, had incorporated an amendment in 
 the second section of the first article. It 
 was to preclude the monopoly of offices, 
 by prescribing that no person or persons* 
 holding office under one of the departments 
 of government, should exercise office un- 
 der another. The present debate appeared 
 to be about the superfluity of the word 
 "and;" If it is superfluous can it not be 
 cut out? It was puerile to debate about so 
 trifling a matter. 
 
 Mr. Dowxs said that to avoid any mis- 
 conception that might arise from what fell 
 from the member from Xew Orleans, (Mr. 
 Conrad) he would make a few remarks. 
 He agreed with the delegate from Jeffer- 
 son, (Mr. Preston) that the old constitution 
 should be touched as little as possible, ex- 
 cept in material points. The language of 
 that instrument should be preserved. It 
 was consecrated to us by the associations 
 of thirty years. We should not change a 
 word or letter where there is not some ur- 
 gent reason for doing so; and where we are 
 in doubt as to the necessity of making ver- 
 bal corrections, he would give to the origi- 
 nal language of that instrument the bene- 
 fit of his doubts. But in saying this much, 
 and in concurring so far with the delegate 
 from Jefferson, (Mr. Preston) he would 
 not have the member from New Orleans 
 (Mr. Conrad) infer, as he had seemed in- 
 clined to do in reference to the delegate 
 
18 
 
 Berates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 from Jefferson, (Mr. Preston) that he (Mr. 
 -Downs) had changed any of his opinions 
 ^as to the vital importance of those salutary 
 amendments to the constitution, which he 
 (Mr. Downs) had always advocated. He 
 had not changed his views; he had ihcught, 
 and still thinks that these amendments 
 should be made. Time, in his opinion, 
 would be saved by passing over mere ver- 
 bal corrections, after the adoption of the 
 ar£|oies; they would, he presumed, be sub- 
 mitted to a committee of revision, who 
 would suggest all such corrections as were 
 essential, and the new constitution would 
 be out as an entire work, not disjointed in 
 any of its parts. 
 
 After some debate upon questions of or- 
 der and of precedence, the question was ta- 
 ken on Mr. Preston's motion to adopt the 
 first section of the first article of the old 
 constitution; which niotion*was carried. 
 
 Mr. Preston moved to adopt the second 
 section of the first article of the old consti- 
 tution. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved as a substitute, section 
 ^econd of the report of the committee. 
 
 Mr. Guion moved to amend said second 
 section of the report, by striking out "col- 
 lection of" and inserting after the "word 
 "persons," the words "being one of these 
 departments or," and inserting in the place 
 of "none of those departments" the words 
 "one of them;" the section would then read 
 as follows: 
 
 Sec. 2. No person or persons being one 
 of those departments, or holding office un- 
 der one of them shall exercise any power 
 properly belonging to either of the others, 
 except in instances hereafter expressly di- 
 rected or permitted. 
 
 Mr. Guion said that the object of this 
 amendment was to incorporate the princi- 
 ple of the report to exclude a plurality of 
 offices in the same person, and to engraft 
 that principle upon the article of the old 
 constitution, which was to remain other- 
 wise unchanged. 
 
 Mr. Downs called for the yeas and nays 
 on Mr. Guion's motion. The result was 
 as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Brunrmeld, Burton, Chinn, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Culbertson, Dunn, Garcia, Garrett, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Legendre, 
 
 Lewis, Mazureau, Porche, Preston, Prud- 
 homme, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Feliciana, Stephens, Trist, 
 Yoorhies, Winchester and Winder — 34 
 yeas. ' 
 
 Mrssrs. Brazeale, Brent, Cade, Carriere, 
 Cenas, Claiborne, Covillion, Downs, Eus- 
 tis, Humble,- Ledoux, Leonard, McCallop, 
 Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Penn, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Ratling 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Sellers, Wad- 
 dill and Wederstrandt— 25 nays. 
 
 So Mr. Guion's amendment prevailed. 
 
 On motion, the section was further 
 amended; and on the further motion of 
 Mr. Preston, the section as amended was 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Preston movod that the committee 
 on rules be instructed to make their report 
 by to-moorow at 1 1 oclock. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow, at 11 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 TnussDA'sr, January 16, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment, and its proceedings were open- 
 ed with prayer by the Rev. Mr. Clapp. 
 
 Mr. Roman, chairman of the committee 
 appointed to examine the rules temporarily 
 adpted at Jackson, reported that the com- 
 mittee recommended the rules from No. 1 
 to No. 42, They also reported the bal- 
 ance of the rules, with some modifications, 
 for the consideration of the Convention. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, the rules 
 were taken up, and read separately. 
 
 After some modifications, by Messrs. 
 Ratliff, Downs and Lewis, they were final- 
 ly adopted. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved the incorporation of 
 the fifty-fifth rule into those adopted^upon the 
 subject of printing. 
 
 Mr. Kenner objected to its aboption, on 
 the score that it would ental very heavy 
 expense. 
 
 It was finally laid on the tnhle subject to 
 call, on the motion of Mr. Lewis. 
 
 Mr. Sellers submitted some statistical 
 information from the State treasurer, trans- 
 mitted by that officer in obedience to a call* 
 from the Convention. It exhibited the 
 population of the State, am^int of taxation, 
 and the objects upon which taxes were im- 
 posed, and was made up for the year 1843, 
 Mr. Sellers moved .that it be printed. 
 
 v 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 L9 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth moved that a commit- 
 tee be appointee to wait on the treasurer, 
 and to obtain similar information for ♦the 
 year 1844, and that the printing be suspen- 
 ded until all the information be obtained, 
 when all the documents be printed, 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth's motion was lost; and 
 the motion being taken on Mr. Sellers' 
 proposition; it was carried. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Lewis, the Convention 
 took up the 2d article of the old constitu- 
 tion, together with the amendments of the 
 committee. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved to adopt the 1st 
 section of the 2nd article of the old consti- 
 tution. 
 
 His motion prevailed. 
 
 On motion, the 2nd section of the same 
 article, as reported by the majority of the 
 committee, was taken under consideration. 
 
 Mr. Downs explained that this article 
 was reported precisely as it was in the old 
 
 Constitution, with, the exception that the 
 
 word "closing" had been substituted for 
 "comme nc e me nt . ' ' 
 
 This section was adopted. 
 
 On motion, the 3d section, as reported 
 by the majority of the committee, was -ta- 
 ken up. 
 
 This section fixes the general elections 
 throughout the State, for one day, and for 
 the first Monday in September. 
 
 Mr. Winder moved to substitute "June" 
 in place of "September." 
 
 But at the request of Mr. Sellers, he 
 withdrew the motion; and Mr. Sellers then 
 moved to strike out September, and leave 
 the period in blank, to be filled up hereaf- 
 ter by the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Marigxt said he would oppose the 
 motion to strike out September; and would 
 briefly explain the motives that induced a 
 majority of the committee on the legisla- 
 tive department to report in favor of fixing 
 the period of election in September. There 
 was no doubt but that, the principle of free 
 suffrage would be adopted by the Conven- 
 tion, and the only guarantee that would be 
 provided for the restraint of the abuses of 
 that pivilege, would be a certain probation- 
 ary residence. If the elections were fixed 
 for June or July, they would be exposed to 
 the control of the floating population, who 
 had no identity of leelinsr or interest with 
 
 the true and permanent interests of the 
 State. He disclaimed being actuated by 
 local feelings, in advocating the retention 
 of the month of September, in perlerence 
 to any other time. He had arrived at that 
 age, and had acquired that experience, 
 which would preclude him from being go- 
 verned by partial views or considerations. 
 And the best evidence he could give of his 
 frankness and sincerity, was his support of 
 a proposition that would deprive the city ? 
 which he had the honor, in part, of repre- 
 senting, of the control which she would ac- 
 quire over the balance of the State, by the 
 principle of free suffrage* unrestricted, by 
 placing the elections k\ a month which, 
 would insure the - expression of voice, only 
 of the real population who had actual in- 
 terest at stake, or who were identified with 
 the prosperity of the State. This course 
 he took in the presence of his constituents* 
 for those that thronged the galleries and 
 lobbies were his constituents. 
 
 If you fix the elections in June or July, 
 you place the result of the popular choice 
 at the control of what is well styled the 
 floating population — those birds of passage, 
 who come to New Orleans for a limited 
 season, and for some temporary purpose, 
 and who are ready to quit at any moment, 
 particularly at the period when yellow fe- 
 ver makes its appearance. By the month 
 of September, these birds of passage have 
 taken their flight, and the population of the 
 city is reduced to the actual citizens — to 
 those who have a real and permanent in- 
 terest in wholesome and judiciaus legisla- 
 tion; in the maintenance of order and the 
 preservation of our local interests. He 
 considered that no good citizen was afraid 
 of yellow fever; it was the baptism of citi- 
 zenship, and he that went through it offered 
 some guarantee of devotion to the country. 
 
 Mr. Marignt repeated, that he was toe- 
 old to become the champion of any local 
 interest. He was actuated by a sincere de- 
 sire for the interests of the whole State — 
 for every part and portion* of it, and he 
 was convinced that it was for the welfare 
 of the whole State, that the elections 
 should be held at a season of the year, 
 when the actual population would alone 
 have an opportunity of expressing their 
 will. The population of the city of New 
 
Debale3 in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 20 
 
 Orleans w*as swelled to 100,000 souls by 
 •the presence of transient persons, at this 
 time, and hereafter that excess of popula- 
 tion would be considerably augmented. 
 Should the elections be held in June, 
 the transient population would stifle the 
 voice of the resident population at the bal- 
 lot box, and not only will tire city be sub- 
 ject to this control, but the country— the 
 whole State will be swayed by it. This 
 result could be avoided— and the dangers 
 attending universal suffrage, be obviated 
 by fixing the election at a later period — in 
 the month of September, as proposed by 
 the majority of the committee. Otherwise 
 the vital interests of Louisiana will be at 
 the mercy of these birds of passage; who 
 are bound to the soil by no feelings of at- 
 tachment; no community of interests, who 
 have no property; no guarantee for their 
 fidelity. He hoped therefore, that the 
 time specified by the committee would be 
 maintained. The principal of universal 
 suffrage would no doubt be conceded, and 
 some effectual checks ought to be provided 
 against the abuses of that privilege. This 
 was one which he considered to be most 
 efficacious, and it ought to be preserved. 
 
 Mr. Roselius said, he regretted to differ 
 with the gentleman who had just addres- 
 sed the house, and to be under the necessity 
 of taking a very different view of the sub- 
 ject. Sir, said Mr. Roselius, I regret' that 
 any sectional considerations should have 
 been invoked. It is truly lamentable. 
 The question before us is one of vital im- 
 portance; it is whether the sacred princi- 
 ple of suffrage is to be subverted. If, as 
 the member from New Orleans (Mr. jVIa- 
 rigny) apprehends, it be the intention of 
 the Convention to extend the right of suf- 
 frage to all, it will only be because in its 
 wisdom it judges it to be right and proper 
 to do so. If the right be conceded, it 
 would be strange if this body were to deter- 
 mine that the high privilege should be ex- 
 tended to all, and yet in the same breath, 
 prescribe that it should only be exercised 
 when the city is deserted. When an epi- 
 demic is casting its fearful ravages and 
 seeking with insatiate fury, fresh victims. 
 At a time when one-third of the popula- 
 tion, as is usually the case, have sought 
 
 safety abroad. Is it right and proper a 
 such a time as this to open the ballot-box 
 es and call upon the citizens to vote? T< 
 announce the great priciple of the electiv 
 franchise to all, and yet fix its exercisi 
 when nobody can enjoy it; when the po 
 pulation is reduced and the number of vo 
 ters must necessarily be small, I cannot 
 said Mr. Roselius, perceive any reason fo 
 this proceeding. To disfranchise a larg< 
 proportion of the population, who, fron 
 necessity — from the urgency of danger 
 happen to be absent during a particula 
 month, or a particular season of the year 
 
 It is well known, that to avoid the pe 
 nodical visitations of the epidemic, some 
 of our most respectable citizens are in the 
 habit of absenting themselves, and havt 
 never become acclimated from the fear they 
 entertained that the attempt might be fol 
 lowed by fatal consequences. And, be- 
 cause they have never exposed themselves 
 to the fiery ordeal — have never, in the lan- 
 guage of the gentleman from New Orleans 
 (Mr. Marigny) been subject to the baptism 
 of the yellow fever, they are not to be con- 
 sidered qualified citizens, and are to be 
 debarred the sacred privilege of suffrage. 
 The political principle of suffrage, said 
 Mr. Roselius, is inherent in every freeman, 
 and I cannot see how it can be restricted 
 and denied; because a citizen does not 
 choose to incur the risk of contracting yel- 
 low fever or any other epidemic that may 
 prevail at a particular season of the year. 
 
 Mr. Roselius said he did not compre- 
 hend what the gentleman from New Or- 
 leans (Mr. Marigny) meant by "birds 01 
 passage," which was applied by him to 
 distinguish a certain portion of the popu- 
 lation. If that class were meant who ac- 
 quired no residence among us, and were 
 not entitled to the privilege of citizenship, 
 surely no one in the Convention or out oi 
 it, would pretend to maintain that the priv- 
 ilege of suffrage should be< extended to 
 them. 
 
 For himself, he (Mr. Roselius) was in 
 favor of the extension of the important right 
 of suffrage. He had always been in favor 
 of its extension. He was never opposed to 
 it, and had never expressed an opinion 
 against it. It was true, lie had been mis- 
 
Debates in the Convention oi Louisiana. 
 
 21 
 
 represented, because when a member of 
 the legislature he opposed an attempt to 
 violate the constitution; and opinions were 
 imagined for him by those who did not 
 know, which he never entertained. He 
 never was, and never should be, in favor of. 
 restricting the inestimable privileges of 
 suffrage, provided the right was protected 
 and guarded by proper enactments. Pro- 
 vided a proper registry law were passed, 
 to put a stop to frauds and corruptions; to 
 prevent outrages, and to put proper guards 
 for the assurance of the sacred privilege 
 against the frauds, forgeries and corruptions 
 which had become of late but too frequent, 
 and were perpetrated with the utmost reck- 
 lessness of purpose, 
 
 He was decidedly in favor of extending 
 suffrage to all that were entitled to it by 
 citizenship. Those that were not citizens 
 and had no intention of becoming citizens, 
 who could properly be classed as "birds of 
 passage," as " the floating population," 
 they might well fall under the ban of the 
 gentleman from New Orleans (Mr. Marig- 
 ny») but not citizens who were as'^pepiy 
 interested and had as much involved in the 
 prosperity and good government of the 
 State, as any portion of the community. 
 
 He assented so far as the arguments of 
 the gentleman (Mr. Marigny) were predi- 
 cated in relation to those that were not citi- 
 zens: who were here transiently, for a few 
 days or a few months, and who would 
 probably never return. They acquired no 
 rights of citizenship and were not entitled 
 to the privileges of suffrage. He held it as 
 a fundamental principle that the right of 
 suffrage resided in the people. What peo- 
 ple? Those comprising the community in 
 which the privilege is to be exercised. To 
 fix the period for its exercise, when one- 
 half of the legal voters were absent at the 
 north, or in the west — in the south or in 
 the east— upon business or upon pleasure, 
 flying away from the pestilence, was to 
 make a mockery of the elective franchise, 
 and to restrict it to a few persons. He 
 would vote for the proposition to strike out 
 the month of September. 
 
 Mr. Preston said he did not anticipate 
 that the subject under consideration would 
 have come up at so early a stage of the 
 proceedings, and he must, therefore, con- 
 fess that he was unprepared to discuss it; 
 it had come up so unexpectedly. 
 4 
 
 The delegate from New Orleans, who 
 had just set down, had spoken so forcibly 
 and powerfully, as to leave him (Mr. Pres- 
 ton) but little to add* He w 7 as unwilling, 
 however, to give his vote without saying a 
 word or two* 
 
 One position, said ?rlr. Preston, we must 
 assume: who shall be citizens of Louisi- 
 ana? Upon this point there are a variety 
 of opinions. For one he was in favor of 
 conceding every facility to become citi- 
 zens; not only because it was liberal and 
 just in itself, but because it would con- 
 tribute and ensure the prosperity and ad- 
 vancement of this great and growing State. 
 In the progress of the deliberations of this 
 body, he should advocate that policy as far 
 as his vote and his little say went. 
 
 A rule would have to be fixed by the 
 Convention, establishing what residence is 
 requisite for persons coming among us to 
 be citizens of the State, and to be entitled 
 to all the privileges consequent thereon. 
 In establishing that rule, we should not be 
 influenced by narrow and selfish motives, 
 but should receive with open hearts, with 
 liberality and with generosity, all that de- 
 sired to cast their lot among us. By the 
 constitution of the United States, citizens 
 of one State were entitled to all the privi- 
 leges of citizenship in another; the period 
 when the right of suffrage should be con- 
 ferred was left to the discretion of each 
 State, and in his conception, the slightest 
 impediment that could be imposed, would 
 be the best and wisest policy. He was in- 
 vincibly opposed to that error of govern- 
 ment, which enabled' one class to have ad- 
 vantage over another. Which prescribed 
 that one class of free white citizens, should 
 be debarred a privilege granted to another 
 class. He considered it anti-republican — 
 illiberal and unjust. In saying this he did 
 not wish to reflect in the slightest manner 
 upon the motives of that venerable and re- 
 spectable citizen, with whose views on this 
 occasion, he so materially differed. 
 
 But what will be the inevitable conse- 
 quence of this inequality among our citi- 
 zens? It will be a source of perpetual 
 struggle and unceasing discontent. The 
 gentleman that last addressed the Conven- 
 tion, (Mr. Roselius) alluded to the sup- 
 posed frauds committed upon the ballot 
 box. What are they? Frauds on behalf 
 of human nature. The attempt to partici= 
 
22 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 pate in & right which is unjustly withheld, 
 and which Belongs to them as creatures of 
 Ihe creator — of the Great God who en- 
 dowed them with the same inalienable 
 
 He would inquire what else could be 
 anticipated, than the struggle for equality 
 on the. part of those that were deprived of 
 ;i right common to all, and yet by an un- 
 |U8l and unworthy prejudice, limited to a 
 few? It would be, he repeated, an undy- 
 ing struggle, and would only cease with 
 the unfortunate cirumstances that gave it 
 birth. It was a manifestation of a want 
 of love. It was acting on a narrow prin- 
 ciple, instead of a broad, noble and gen- 
 erous principle. We should teach our- 
 gelves and our children, not to rely on for- 
 tuitous distinctions — not on mere acciden- 
 tal circumstances; but to rely upon the ad- 
 vantages of superior energy, superior 
 talents and indomitable perseverance. We 
 should act on this ennobling principle, and 
 teach it to our children. We should teach 
 them what is to be attained by rising early 
 and sitting up late; by indomitable perse- 
 verance and industry. That is the lesson 
 we should inculcate — not that by the mere 
 accidental circumstance of being here, they 
 are to be endowed with exclusive privileges 
 and arc dispensed from making any exer- 
 tion. We should invite our children to 
 embark in the career of usefulness and 
 laudable ambition, with all that have merit 
 — let them come from where they may, 
 and teach them that intrinsic merit can be 
 the only test, and only distinction. Let 
 the field be disputed by superior energy, 
 greater industry, greater talent, not by 
 mere priority of residence. Let the spirit 
 of emulation be stimulated by a wide com- 
 petition, in which all our citizens may en- 
 gage, without reference to artificial dis- 
 tinctions, based upon the sordid calculation 
 of a few years residence. 
 
 These, said Mr. Preston, are the gener- 
 al views of the question. Now as to the 
 particular considerations. The month of 
 September is a season of general relaxa- 
 tion. Our merchants, who have toiled and 
 labored through the winter— and who, for 
 enterprise, industry and public spirit, will 
 vie with the merchants of any other city 
 of the Union; after contributing during 
 the winter to the wealth of the city; either 
 for business or for pleasure, repair to the 
 
 north or to the west. The mechanic, who 
 has seduously toiled, does the same thing, 
 and even the common laborer, if we de- 
 scend to him, if decent it can be called, 
 relaxes his ponderous arm, and for a sea- 
 son tastes the enjoyment of repose. The 
 toil of the winter is past— the hum of ac- 
 tivity is hushed — the shaking of the earth 
 by man's labor is suspended — the hurly 
 burly for a brief period ceases; the dray- 
 man turns his mules into pasture, and avails 
 himself of the suspension of his daily 
 pursuits, to retire in the country — to go up 
 the river or across the lake. So, too, is it 
 with the planter: his labors for a season 
 are over; his crops laid by, and he goes ei- 
 ther north or west for his pleasure, or with 
 an eye to his business. Surely, he is enti- 
 tled to this relaxation! His health may be 
 impaired, and it may be necessary for him 
 to recover it, to go to the hot springs of Ar- 
 kansas, or to the mountains of Virginia; he 
 may visit some near and dear relati ve, from 
 whom he has been separated for a series 
 of years. Whatever may be the motives, 
 he'isHurely entitled to absent himself, 
 whether it be for a few days, for a few 
 weeks, or for a longer period. Must he 
 on that account be deprived of any of his 
 political privileges — must he pay a penalty 
 ibr his temporary absence? Why so? Is 
 he not as much interested in the welfare of 
 the country, as if he were actually within 
 its limits; is not his property, or his affec- 
 tions, his business or some other prepon- 
 derating consideration, or all of these, as 
 much involved, as dear to him, as if his 
 foot were actually upon the soil, and would 
 he not fly as quickly to the rescue, if the 
 State were exposed to danger, as any citi- 
 zen? But he may be afraid of the yellow 
 fever, and he may be flying, as he consid- 
 ers it, for his life, to a more salubrious 
 clime. Well, what of that. The only 
 way to cure him of his fears is to eradicate 
 that fell destroyer, and the only means of 
 accomplishing that desirable result, is to 
 invite and promote emigration. Pursue a 
 liberal course to those inclined to come 
 among us, and you will attain this end. In- 
 vite emigration by the liberality of your 
 laws, and your swamps, the prolific sour- 
 ces of disease, will be drained. They will 
 be cleared, and you will have accomplish- 
 ed as glorious a work, as that of Cesar, 
 when he drained the marshes near Rome* 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 which conferred more true glory on him, 
 than all his brilliant victories. Induce, 
 then, by all possible means, emigration; it 
 has made the United States; it has built up 
 the city of New Orleans; it has peopled 
 the great West, and is destined to accom- 
 plish the most important results. Like 
 the great Nile in its overflow, it will fruc- 
 tify and enrich the State. 
 
 Do not do any thing to keep away pop- 
 ulation: we want it all. Ninety. nine out 
 of one hundred of those that come among 
 us make useful citizens. They are found 
 to be among the most enterprising — the 
 most energetic of our citizens. Who have 
 opened the best plantations? Who have 
 distinguished themselves most at the bar, 
 in the pulpit, in the mercantile pursuits? 
 Is it not those citizens who have come 
 among us; who have removed from their 
 former homes for a more extended sphere 
 of action — a wider field for their talents and 
 industry. Some of them have come with 
 but a single trunk, which contained all 
 their worldly wealth. Some with but the 
 garment they had on, and yet they have 
 made their way; they have established by 
 their energy, their fortitude and their ge- 
 nius, a proud name among their fellow men. 
 They have built magnificent edifices, they 
 have adorned your city — they are foremost 
 in promoting every public improvement; 
 and in building up their own fortunes, they 
 have built up your city, and are destined, 
 they, and those that follow them, to make 
 the State rich and prosperous. They will 
 contribute towards paying the debts of the 
 State. The actual liabilities of the State 
 amount to four millions of dollars, and the 
 eventual liabilities to some twelve or fif- 
 teen millions. It is by the industry of 
 "those birds of passage" that we must look 
 for means to cancel that indebtedness. 
 It is from them that we are to expect the 
 clearing of our swamps and the tilling of 
 all our soil. Come, then, let us encour- 
 age them to settle among us; let them come 
 with their little means and their public en- 
 terprise, and if they have nothing but their 
 two hands, let us receive them with wel- 
 come, they possess true fortune — honest 
 hearts and strong hands; they will build 
 and improve, and our liabilities will be- 
 come as a mere drop in the bucket. Do 
 not let us listen to petty jealousies, to fool- 
 ish distinctions. Do not let any baneful 
 
 jealousies prevail between town and city. 
 The pplicy that is beneficial for the one, 
 is beneficial for the other. Let not the city 
 be pulled to pieces under the pretence of 
 building up the country. Let there be re. 
 ciprocal feelings of good will between 
 them, and an identity of feeling. Young 
 men in the city, it is true, have not always 
 the activity and energy of young men in 
 the country;'it was amid the pleasures of a 
 city life that they became frequently ener- 
 vated; in this very room, in the blandish- 
 ments of the seductive dance. To the 
 country they retire to regain their health, 
 and to reinvigorate their bodies. There 
 was a mutual dependence between town 
 and country. This was the view he (Mr. 
 Preston) took. He trusted that a liberal 
 policy would prevail, and that the Conven- 
 tion would discard all prejudices, all nar- 
 row minded distinctions — that they would 
 give every facility of acquiring all the 
 rights of citizenship, and that they would 
 impose no restrictions upon those rights, 
 when they were once granted. 
 
 We should then become a happy, uni- 
 ted and contented people, and all would 
 redound to the glory of our common State. 
 
 Mr. Marigny said that, as he observed 
 no other member of the majority of the 
 committee had seen fit to address the con- 
 vention in favor of the period fixed for the 
 Hections throughout *the State by the re- 
 port, he felt himself called upon to speak 
 again, for the purpose of responding to the 
 arguments on the other side. He under- 
 stood full well the difficulty of his posi- 
 tion, having to contend against two men of 
 brilliant and powerful talents; yet, not- 
 withstanding he hoped to triumph over 
 them by the intrinsic strength of his posi= 
 tion. 
 
 The gentlemen had misapprehended his 
 argument, when they understood his ob- 
 ject to be to deprive some two or three 
 hundred merchants of the privilege of suf- 
 frage by bringing on the elections in their 
 absence. That was not his object. He 
 apprehended no danger from that class, 
 nor did he desire to affect their right of 
 suffrage. The danger he feared was from 
 another quarter, and well known to those 
 who were at all conversant with the city. 
 By placing the elections in the month of 
 September, the evil was avoided. There 
 was no doubt but the principle of univer- 
 
•21 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 sal suffrage would be conceded by the 
 Convention: 1 1, was the democratic prin- 
 ciple, and the people required it. The 
 population of New Orleans was at present 
 one hundred thousand souls; a little reflec- 
 tion would exhibit the great preponder- 
 ahce of population in favor of the city over 
 the country, and it could very easily be in- 
 fernal, if 'the principle of universal suf- 
 frage prevailed, and that it would prevail 
 lie had no doubt; and the elections were 
 brought on at that season of the year when 
 the population of the city was at its maxi- 
 mum, what would be the consequence? 
 The democratic principle was that men 
 and not property should be the basis of re- 
 presentation. New Orleans was destined 
 to become the greatest city in the world. 
 Even as far back as 1772, a 'man of great 
 judgment and research, when the city of 
 JVew Orleans contained but three or four 
 thousand persons, while writing on the In- 
 dias, predicted that New Orleans would 
 become the greatest city in the world. A 
 glance at the map of the United States will 
 at once satisfy the most incredulous. 
 
 It requires but little segacity to perceive 
 that with universal suffrage, the city of 
 New Orleans, unless some expedient be 
 adopted, is destined to engulph the politi- 
 cal influence of the balance of the State 
 and to control its destinies. Since .tjM . 
 danger is imminent,* common prudenc™ 
 dictates that it should be avoided, and the 
 most certain way of avoiding it, with the 
 principle of free suffrage, is to bring on 
 the elections when none but the resident 
 population are in the city. There can be 
 no doubt that if the elections be held in 
 May, under the system of free suffrage, 
 New Orleans would elect the governor 
 and a majority of the legislature. The 
 true policy would be, then, to diminish 
 the influence of the city. He wished the 
 city to retain that proper weight to which 
 she was entitled, but he would neither 
 have her permanent interests nor those of 
 the country sacrificed, by taking the power 
 entirely out of the hands of those that 
 were identified with the State and its real 
 interests, and transfer them to a mass of 
 persons who had nothing at stake, and 
 who were reckless of all consequences. 
 
 Look at the city of New York. Is it 
 her merchants that control her elections? 
 or is it the population to which he had al- 
 
 luded? We should look into the future. 
 We should diminish or preclude the influ- 
 ence of a class not identified with our local 
 interests and peculiar institutions. If the 
 power be suffered to pass into their hands, 
 the resident population throughout the 
 State will be suppliants; they will be at the 
 feet of their masters. All history teaches 
 us an example. The house of representa- 
 tives in the United States; the house of 
 commons in England; the chamber of de- 
 puties, are the governing and directing 
 powers. The reason is simple, they h ive 
 the power of raising money, and appropri- 
 ating it. Hence we see that, in England, 
 Queen Victoria courts the commons; Isa- 
 bella the Cortes; and Louis Phillippe 
 trembles before the chamber of deputies. 
 These bodies have the appropriation of the 
 funds, and money governs the world. 
 
 He was no lawyer, and had not the elo- 
 quence of the gentleman who had answer- 
 ed his arguments. He felt under obliga- 
 tions to the gentleman who had last spoke 
 (Mr. Preston) for his compliments, and re- 
 turned him his acknowledgements. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, expressed a 
 desire to address the house, but as me hour 
 was advanced, he moved for an adjourn- 
 ment until to-morrow at 10 o'clock, which 
 motion prevaled. 
 
 Friday, January 17, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The proceeding were opened with prayer 
 by the Rev. Mr. Nicholson, of the Metho- 
 dist Church. 
 
 The President submitted a letter from 
 Bishop Blanc, in reference to an invitation 
 to the Catholic Clergy under his charge, 
 to open in turn, the proceedings of the Con- 
 vention with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff, on behalf of the commit- 
 tee on contingent expenses, brought to the 
 consideration of the Convention a claim 
 from Mr. Kelly for one hundred and fifty 
 dollars for printing. He desired to ascer- 
 tain the wishes of the Convention in relation 
 to said claim, and at the same time sug- 
 gested that it would be proper to confer 
 authority upon the committee to pay simi- 
 lar claims for services rendered to the Con- 
 vention, without the necessity of troubling 
 the Convention with them. 
 
 The President remarked that the pro- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 25 
 
 per course was to report the claim to the 
 Convention, and to take the sense of that 
 body thereon. 
 
 On motion, the committee were author- 
 ized to pay Mr. Kelly the amount due him. 
 
 Mr. Downs presented a resolution au- 
 thorizing the sergeant-at-arms, under the 
 direction of the president, to provide suita- 
 ble places for the reporters of newspapers 
 within the bar, and seats without, for the 
 accommodation of the public. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff said, before adopting this 
 resolution he would like to inquire what 
 would be the expense? He was not dis- 
 posed to have seats placed without the bar 
 for the public, which would be monopolized 
 by the first comers, and which would ex- 
 elude the greater portion of the public; for 
 these seats would necessarily occupy con- 
 siderable space, and those that were not 
 fortunate enough to get in in time to occupy 
 them, would be compelled to retire altogeth- 
 er. He thought it better not to provide 
 seats; the whole space in the lobbies being 
 left open for the accommodation of the 
 public, those that become fatigued or unin- 
 terested with the proceeding or debates, 
 would retire, and give place to others. It 
 would happen that our lobbies would be 
 sometimes crowded and sometimes not 
 crowded. When they were crowded we 
 could not provide seats for all, and it was 
 better to leave every one in the same con- 
 dition. Do not provide seats for some few, 
 which few would exclude the many. On 
 the principle of economy, too, said Mr. 
 Ratliff, we should spend no more money 
 than is indispensably necessary to complete 
 the great work for which we are chosen. 
 The members of the Convention, with 
 commendable liberality, have refused to 
 receive mileage for repairing to the city of 
 New Orleans to attend their duties. Let 
 us carry out the principle — that is the true 
 doctrine. If we provide chairs they will 
 be broken; and if it be benches, the whole 
 space will be occupied and rendered inac- 
 cessable to the great mass. The Conven- 
 tion by a vote, which he regretted, had re- 
 fused to invite and provide seats for the 
 members of the legislature^ and now, we 
 are asked by this resolution, to provide 
 seats for the people! Let us, at least, be 
 consistent in what we have done. If the 
 powers of eloquence of this honorable 
 body cannot charm the public to come and 
 
 hear us — if we cannot interest them by 
 the importance and interest of the topics 
 we shall discuss, he, for one, was indis- 
 posed to go to the expense of placing cush- 
 ions for the' convenience of some, while 
 many others would be unable to penetrate 
 into our lobbies, by the very room which 
 those seats would occupy. The gentleman 
 (Mr. Downs) who proposed this very reso- 
 lution, was a distinguished member of one 
 of the bodies of the legislature, the mem- 
 bers of which were excluded by the rejec- 
 tion of the resolution which invited them 
 to seats in their own bar; he certainly re- 
 gretted the result. But inasmuch as we 
 have taken that course, let us not make any 
 invidious distinctions. He (Mr. Ratliff) 
 had never" heard that seats were provided 
 by other legislative bodies for the accom- 
 modation of spectators; it was not done in 
 congress, to his knowledge, and why should 
 we incur this additional expense. We 
 have adopted the principle of economy, and 
 let us not incur one dol.ar's expense which 
 is not indispensably necessary. 
 
 Mr. Downs said the gentleman (Mr. 
 Ratliff ) made "much ado about nothing ;" 
 "a tempest in a tea pot." It was but a 
 small matter. The house of representa- 
 tives of the State, of which body the gentle- 
 man had been a member, had seats provi- 
 ded for the public ; so had the senate, as 
 the gentleman (Mr. Ratliff), if he did not 
 know, could easily see by a visit to the 
 lobbies of that body. If congress had not 
 seats provided for the auditory, it was the 
 first time he had heard it. He regretted 
 to see the gentleman (Mr. Ratliff) making 
 so great a display about nothing. If the State 
 be so poor, so impoverished, that she can- 
 not provide seats, be it so ; that was the 
 only argument that could be adduced; but 
 he could not concur in it. The gentleman 
 had spoken of the fate of a resolution invi- 
 ting the members of the legislature to seats 
 within the bar of the Convention. It was 
 true that resolution was lost, but he appre- 
 hended it was through inadvertency; it was, 
 however, totally unnecessary, as by one of 
 the rules adopted yesterday, all officers of 
 the State and of the United States, were 
 privileged to seats. Did he understand 
 the gentleman (Mr. Ratliff) to say, he was 
 sure the gentleman did not mean it, that 
 we should exclude the public, by refusing 
 the conveniences which are necessary upon 
 
26 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 their attendance, and fhat we should shut 
 ourselves up l&e another star chamber, 
 and exclude the public scrutiny? He beg- 
 ged the Convention to excuse him for troub- 
 ling i hem with so small a matter. 
 
 Mr.dVlARiGNY remarked that seats had 
 been provided at Jackson, for the accom- 
 modation of the public. He could see no 
 reason why the same courtesy should not 
 be extended to the public of New Orleans. 
 The committee of arrangements in Jack- 
 son, of which, he believed, the gentleman 
 (Mr. Ratliff) was chairman, had expended 
 three thousand dollars to fit up the hall for 
 the accommodation of the legislature. The 
 committee of arrangements, in New Or- 
 leans, have expended but one thousand 
 dollars. 
 
 Mr. Downs' resolution was adopted. 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 The Convention resumed the considera- 
 tion of Mr. Sellers' motion to strike out 
 September, as the period for holding the 
 general elections, which was under dis- 
 cussion when the Convention adjourned 
 yesterday. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad said, before the ques- 
 tion was put to vote, he had a few, and a 
 very few remarks to make, and he made 
 them rather with a view of explaining his 
 own position than with the expectation of 
 influencing the opinions of others whose 
 minds were, without doubt, finally made 
 up. 
 
 When the report was made last summer 
 by the majority of ihe committee on the le- 
 gislative department, fixing September as 
 the period for holding the general elections 
 ■ — a period which was to extend through 
 all time — as long as the Constitution we 
 were now forming would endure, — he was 
 at a loss to determine what were the mo- 
 tives that influenced the committee in this 
 selection. He had heard various months 
 suggested by various members, but until 
 the report was made, he had never heard 
 the month of September recited among 
 them. He had held his judgment in sus- 
 pense, to hear something to justify that se- 
 lection, and had listened with the expecta- 
 tion that the chairman of the committee 
 would enlighten the Convention upon the 
 subject, but had listened in vain; that gen- 
 tleman had not vouchsafed to enter into any 
 explanations, and it would seem, that the 
 duty had devolved upon his colleague from 
 
 New Orleans (Mr. Marigny) to explain 
 the motives that governed the committee. 
 He certainly had no objections to this 
 course, it was very well, but it authorised 
 him to take it for granted, that the member 
 (Mr. Marigny) had uttered and explained 
 not only his own motives but those of the 
 committee that made the report. 
 
 The President said it was not in order to 
 attack the motives of members; much less 
 to infer their motives from what may have 
 fallen from one of their colleagues in de- 
 bate. 
 
 Mr. Conrad said, the president certain- 
 ly labored under a misapprehension. He 
 attacked no man's motives. Those of the 
 gentleman (Mr. Marigny) were, without 
 doubt, laudable and patriotic, as were the 
 motives of the other members of the com- 
 mittee that concurred in recommending the 
 month of September, as the proper time for 
 holding the elections. He merely under- 
 stood the gentleman (Mr. Marigny) as, not 
 only giving his own views for the prefer- 
 ence, but those of his colleagues on the 
 committee that participated in that opinion. 
 He understood the gentleman to be the 
 organ of the committee, and to have given 
 verbally the reasons that actuated the com- 
 mitte in reporting the month of September. 
 Surely, he was not out of order in examin- 
 ing the force and cogency of those reasons. 
 
 The President said he had no design of 
 restricting the gentleman. He had merely 
 cautioned him of the rule. 
 
 Mr. Marigny hoped the gentleman 
 would be allowed the utmost latitude. He 
 would, however, inform that gentleman that 
 the opinions he had expressed upon the 
 subject were his own, and that he had not 
 taken upon himself to interpret or to ex- 
 press the views of any of his colleagues 
 upon the committee. He was perfectly 
 willing that the gentleman should analyze 
 his motives. 
 
 Mr. Conrad said, it would seem that the 
 misapprehension of the President had ex- 
 tended to his respectable colleague. He 
 repeated, again, that he contemplated no 
 assault upon motives. He had presumed 
 that the member was the organ of the com- 
 mittee and had expressed their views, but 
 l if this were not so, unquestionably the gen- 
 tleman was the organ of himself, and his 
 arguments were proper matters for exami- 
 nation. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 He had listened with profound attention, 1 
 with pleasure, to what had fallen from that 
 gentleman, and concurred — cordially.heart- 
 ily concurred in most of his sentiments. It 
 was truly remarkable, that while he con- 
 curred in those sentiments — while he ad- 
 mitted the force and cogency of the gentle- 
 man's arguments, he differed totally from 
 him in his conclusions, that to place the 
 elections in the month of September, would 
 be a sovereign remedy for the evils so 
 gloomily but faithfully depicted by him, as 
 the result of universal suffrage unrestrict- 
 ed, unguarded by any of those checks and 
 balances which the peculiar position of 
 this State appeared to render so indispen- 
 sably necessary. He had said it was re- 
 markable that he participated in the appre- 
 hensions of the gentleman, as to the ca- 
 lamities that would attend such a system, 
 and yet could not vote for the proposition 
 presented by him as so efficacious a reme- 
 dy; while on the other hand, he differed 
 from almost, if not every position of the 
 delegate from Jefferson, (Mr. Preston) with 
 whom, however, he concurred in the vote 
 that delegate would give upon the question. 
 He would take the vote of the delegate 
 from the parish of Jefferson, and the argu- 
 ment of his colleague from New Orleans. 
 The gentleman from New Orleans had 
 taken as the substratum of his argument, 
 the ground work to establish his positions, 
 that the Convention were about to adopt 
 the principle of universal suffrage, without 
 any of those salutary checks, any of those 
 wholesome restrictions that prudent sagaci- 
 ty would dictate — without any checks or 
 balances whatever. The gentleman, he 
 repeated; had drawn a gloomy but faithful 
 picture of the disorders — the calamities of 
 such a system, and had presented an ad- 
 mirable'argument against it. The gentle- 
 man had exhibited in vivid colors what 
 would be its inevitable tendency — that it 
 would stifle the voice of the real and per- 
 manent population of the State, and place 
 her true interests at the mercy of those 
 having no identity of feeling or of interest 
 in common with her — commit her destinies 
 to strangers, and the substance of her chil- 
 dren to be devoured by those "birds of pas- 
 sage" that flock among us for a brief sea- 
 son, and then fly away to other*regions. 
 
 The gentleman from New Orleans, (Mr. 
 Marigny) had drawn attention to the pe- 
 
 culiar condition of things in this State. To 
 the large proportion of slave population in 
 the country, and to the peculiarity of a 
 large commercial city, entirely dispropor- 
 tioned, in population and in wealth, to the 
 balance of the State. He had argued from 
 the ratio of increase of population in this 
 great city, that her population must in- 
 crease more rapidly than that of the bal- 
 ance of the State, and that unless some 
 means be devised to prevent such conse- 
 quence, transient persons — persons who 
 have no attachment to the soil, and no per- 
 manent interests at stake — "birds of pas- 
 sage," as he has aptly termed them, will 
 obtain possession of- the government and 
 dethrone the owners of the soil — those 
 identified with it by interest and affection, 
 and supersede them in their rightful au- 
 thority. He predicted this result, unless 
 some means should be adopted to preclude 
 it. The remedy that he suggests, as all 
 powerful, is to fix your elections in Sep- 
 tember. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, (continued Mr. 
 Conrad) I am far from believing that this 
 Convention is prepared to adopt any sys- 
 tem, from which such consequences can 
 flow. I am far from believing that it is the 
 wish of the citizens of the State — the own- 
 ers of the soil; those whose families, 
 whose interests, whose affections are bound 
 up inseparably with Louisiana — that such 
 an unfortunate and mischievous system 
 should prevail. I do not believe they 
 would ever permit the management of their 
 affairs to be confided to persons not identi- 
 fied with them in feeling and in interest. It 
 would be a gross violation of the will of 
 your constituents — a shameful betrayal of 
 your trust, to displace, by any act of yours,, 
 the rightful, the legitimate owners of the 
 soil from their just ascendency, to thrust 
 them out to give place to strangers — to 
 "birds of passage;" and not only "birds of 
 passage," Mr. President, but birds of prey 
 that would perch upon the vitals of the 
 State and devastate her institutions. 
 
 The people of Louisiana, Mr. President, 
 said Mr. Conrad, assuredly were far from 
 anticipating such a result to the labors of 
 this body; when consulted, it was true, 
 they decided in favor of amending the con- 
 stitution, but the}'' never had the remotest 
 idea that any thing so dangerous would be 
 entertained, much less consummated. It 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 94 
 
 was trap, tW the popular feeling was ill 
 lav,,,- of an extension of the right of suf- 
 jVa-r, — that it should be enlarged, and. that 
 the defects, wfeicli experience had pointed 
 ou t in the existing constitution, should be 
 removed. They were anxious that the re- 
 Btrfcted system of suffrage which now pre- 
 vailed, should be so enlarged as to extend 
 that privilege to a more numerous class of 
 citizens; they were disgusted with the eva- 
 sions and perversions to which, perhaps, 
 the system itself gave birth; but in extending 
 the right, they wished that extension to be 
 accompanied by some guarantee— some 
 assurance against the recurrence, not only 
 of the abuses they had witnessed with pain 
 and mortification, but against other and 
 graver abuses that would result from that 
 extension, if adequate checks and proper 
 remedies were not provided. Far from 
 him was the design to impute the irregu- 
 larities and violations that have been per- 
 petrated of late upon the ballot box, to this 
 or that party in particular, to this or that 
 class of citizens. He disclaimed all such 
 intentions, and was actuated here by no 
 party feeling. All men and all parties 
 may have been more or less to blame, but 
 he had yet to learn that any porlion of the 
 State desired to' see those evils realised 
 which have been so gloomily, yet so faith- 
 fully and eloquently depicted by his col- 
 league (Mr. Marigny.) If that gentleman 
 could only have convinced him that such a 
 design was entertained in this Convention, 
 and that holding the elections in the month 
 of September would be an effectual check; 
 while he would have resisted with all his 
 powers, the mischievous principle itself — 
 unlimited for evil, without guards and Avith- 
 out checks — he should have united heartily 
 upon that or any other expedient which 
 would preclude or even lessen the calami- 
 ty. He was yet to learn that the design 
 was seriously entertained by any one here, 
 to break down the walls which have been 
 raised for the protection of the true inter- 
 ests of the State, for their preservation — 
 to destroy the bulwarks erected by our fore- 
 fathers for the salvation of our institutions 
 and our liberties — to widen the breach so 
 far that all may enter, be they whom they 
 may, come from where they may — wafted 
 to us by every breeze and by every billow, 
 and floated down to us like so much drift- 
 wood upon the broad bosom of the Missis= 
 
 sippi. That all these, just by the mere ac- 
 cident of touching our soil, should be con- 
 verted into citizens, and marched to the 
 poll to stifle our voices! He could not 
 credit such a design as being actually en- 
 tertained in this body by any one, and he 
 would not believe it until it was manifested 
 to him by the yeas and nays upon the jour- 
 nal. 
 
 But suppose, said Mr. Conrad, that my 
 colleague (Mr. Marigny) is right in his 
 alarming conjecture, and that I am wrong 
 in doubting it. Do I misapprehend the ef- 
 ficacy of his remedy? The question is 
 will it prevent the evils he apprehends? I 
 think not. If the system he anticipates be 
 actually entailed upon the State it is quite 
 immaterial to me. 1 do not care when the 
 elections take place, in what month, from 
 January to December. The consequences 
 will inevitably ensue let them take place, 
 when they may. It must be borne in mind 
 that many of the natives, many of the resi- 
 dent population of New Orleans, those 
 having a visible interest, absent themselves 
 during the summer months. Some of the 
 'floating' population whose influence in our 
 elections the gentleman (Mr. Marigny) so 
 much fears, do the same thing; but the 
 great mass remain; they have not the 
 means of quitting the city, nor is it always 
 quite convenient for them to do so. The 
 city may hold out to them some induce- 
 ments to brave even the redoubtable yel- 
 low fever, and as far as some of them may 
 be concerned, there is not much choice be-, 
 tween the yellow fever on the one hand 
 and starvation on the other. This numer- 
 ous class, at least nine-tenths of that popu- 
 lation, actually remain, and would be as 
 ready to vote in September as in January. 
 
 The only effect then, of the gentleman's 
 proposition would be to exclude such of our 
 citizens as might be absent on business, 
 for pleasure, or for health, while the privi- 
 lege of suffrage would be open to unrestric- 
 ted exercise on the part of those he so 
 much dreads, it would be denied to those 
 who, even under our present restricted sys- 
 tem are entitled to a vote, merely because 
 they happened to be absent at a particular 
 season of the year, when sickness and in- 
 activity reigned. It would result then, that 
 a respectable class of our community would 
 b© disfranchised, few in numbers in com- 
 parison to the population that have excited 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 29 
 
 so far his apprehensions, while the right 
 of suffrage would be accorded to a mass, 
 for whose fidelity we possessed not the 
 slightest guarantee, for where one Ameri- 
 can citizen leaves the State for a few 
 months, a thousand transient persons either 
 arrive or remain. That would be one 
 consequence of the gentleman's proposi- 
 tion to' disfranchise some of our best citi- 
 zens. He predicted to usthe mischief that 
 wi.l follow a system of universal suffrage, 
 unrestricted, unlimited, without any checks 
 whatever, and then he tells us with the 
 most positive confidence: .-elect the month 
 of September for your elections and you do 
 away with the evil; you preclude the ca- 
 lamities that will inevitably result from 
 that baneful system of unlimited universal 
 suffrage; that is, you may adopt a vicious 
 and imprudent system, if at the same time 
 you provide a remedy. You may adminis- 
 ter the poison if you will, but take my an- 
 tidote! We must make ourselves sick to 
 enjoy the satisfaction of testing the gentle- 
 man's sovereign panacea! As well might 
 we attempt to cure a vital disease by a 
 plaster upon the finger, as to attempt to 
 arrest the host of evils which he has so 
 truly and faithfully depicted, by placing the 
 elections in September! As well might 
 we attempt to stop a creavasse caused by 
 the mighty Mississippi by a wisp of str.iw, 
 or a shovel full of earth! The eyils and 
 calamities must ensue, if you adopt the sys- 
 tem: they are inseparable from it if you do 
 not provide some limits, some checks, some 
 means of prudent restraint. Let us take a 
 retrospective glance at the population, to 
 whom the gentleman has referred. They 
 are a moving,' 4 a floating population," some 
 of them may remain for one, two, or three 
 years, may have passed though the fiery or- 
 deal of the yellow fever one summer, and 
 then mayleaye the city as unexpectedly as 
 they came into it, with as little feeling of 
 identity, as little interest in its prosperity, 
 as they had the very first day they landed 
 upon its shores. This is the class of per- 
 sons whose influence would be deleterious 
 to our elections. I fully concur, said Mr. 
 Conrad, in that opinion with my colleague 
 from New Orleans, (Mr. Marigny) but I 
 altogether deny and controvert his position, 
 that by placing the elections in September, 
 you may extend to them with impunity the 
 nght of suffrage, ai they will not be pres- 
 
 ent to avail themselves of the privilege. 
 This is a falacious and visionary notion, 
 and God forbid that we should trust our 
 safety to it, exposing ourselves heedlessly 
 and recklessly to the danger, which in the 
 gentleman's opinion, would make the ex- 
 pedient. 
 
 I would, said Mr. Conrad, not create thfc 
 mischief, and then the expedient of the 
 gentleman, admitting it to possess the efff- 
 cacy that he claims for it, will be unneces- 
 sary. I am glad, ho wever, that the gen- 
 tleman, expressed himself so decidedly, be- 
 cause it is in earnest that he appreciates 
 the evils of unrestricted universal suffrage, 
 and knowing them and deprecating them 
 with the force he has, it is not reasonable 
 to infer that he will contribute his vote to 
 impose so serious a calamity upon his coun- 
 try. The right of suffrage, I readily ad- 
 mit, Mr. President, ought to be defined 
 with liberality; but to make it of any value 
 — to prevent the greater possible evils — it 
 should be guarded, it should be fenced in 
 by proper checks and balances. The main 
 thing is to exclude those migratory resi- 
 d 
 
 ence among us — that have 
 
 us no 
 
 identity of interest or of f 
 merely with us to subserve some purely 
 personal purpose, and are ready in a mo- 
 ment to be wafted back from whence they 
 came, or any .where else, and turn their 
 backs upon us; they should be excluded 
 from the extraordinary privilege of con- 
 troling our elections; but at the same time 
 in doing this, we should exclude no citizen, 
 no man that offers positive guarantees of 
 his attachment to the country, be those 
 guarantees either in his possessions, or af- 
 fections from the privilege of suffrage. We 
 may inquire and determine upon what 
 conditions the privilege may be accorded; 
 
 this is essential to the well be 
 
 mg ana sare- 
 
 ty of the' body politic, but when once the 
 privilege is granted, we should, by every 
 means in our power, facilitate its exercise. 
 We should not give the boon with one 
 hand and withdraw it with the other. Once 
 conceded, the concessions, as the condi* 
 tions, should be final. The wheat should 
 be first separated from the chaff, and that 
 done, the utmost equality should prevail. 
 
 Xo citizen should be despoiled of his 
 right to vote, nor should he be called upon 
 at an inconvenient orinopportune moment 
 to exercise the privilege. 
 
3U 
 
 Debates in the Convention cf Louisiana. 
 
 The gentleman from Jefferson (Mr. 
 Preston) in the philanthropic dreams that 
 have been excited by his vivid imagination, 
 had depicted in glowing colors the advan- 
 tnir.-s that would accrue by making the 
 State the great recepticle for people from 
 all the world; and in his profound sagacity 
 lias discovered a new and novel system of 
 political economy, and that is this, that we 
 may by recruiting our population, it mat- 
 ters aol of what materials, extinguish all 
 our public liabilities— not by dollars, but 
 by extending to the new comers all the 
 privileges of citizenship at once, upon their 
 arrival, and increasing thereby, indefinite- 
 ly the number of voters at the ballot box! 
 [f this new system of the gentleman could 
 only be realized, it would confer upon him 
 immortality, and would entitle him to the 
 eternal gratitude of mankind. But it some- 
 how unfortunately happens for the gentle- 
 man's theory, that the State of Mississippi, 
 which has embraced universal suffrage, 
 has iormally repudiated her indebtedness. 
 If the principle of the gentleman has no 
 other merit, it has at least that of perfect 
 originality. 
 
 The only question involved in fixing the 
 time for our elections, is one of conveni- 
 ence. We are not now prescribing the 
 qualifications of electors : that point, one 
 of transcendant importance,, is not before 
 us in the decision of the present matter. 
 We are only determining at this time the 
 period when the electors shall cast their 
 suffrages, and that question is one cf pure 
 convenience. That -is all. The only cri- 
 terion is the convenience then of the vo- 
 ters. Who shall be entitled to the privil- 
 ege of suffrage, is another and distinct pro- 
 position. 
 
 I have heard, said Mr. Conrad, a great deal 
 of declamation; I will not say on this floor, 
 about the inestimable privilege of suffrage. 
 Without doubt, it is a great blessing, a 
 great boon; but, sir, it is not the only great 
 blessing. Life, health and liberty are cer- 
 tainly not inferior to it in importance. 
 Without _doubt it ought to be justly prized; 
 and if it be justly prized, it will not be ex- 
 tended to those that are unworthy to exer- 
 cise it — whose very touch would pollute it. 
 It ought not to be extended but upon pro- 
 per considerations of sound policy; but 
 when once it is extended, it becomes the 
 absolute property of him who has ac- 
 
 ! quired it; and its possession should be im- 
 plicitly respected; it should no more be in- 
 terfered with; we have no more control 
 over it than over any other individual pos- 
 session, over life, liberty or property. It 
 should no more be sacrificed than any of 
 these; on the contrary, everything should 
 be done to make it valuable, and t^ facili- 
 tate its exercise upon every proper occa- 
 sion. 
 
 The question, then, continued Mr. Con- 
 rad, resolves itself into this: which is the 
 most convenient season for the voters gen- 
 erally? which is the most convenient 
 month ? Surely there is no One member 
 of this body that will lay his hand upon 
 his heart, and say with sincerity, that it is 
 September. 
 
 If I were called upon, said Mr. Conrad, 
 to select one particular month, the most 
 inconveneient in all the calendar of months, 
 I would select September. That it is so 
 excessively inconvenient appears to have 
 been its only recommendation to the com- 
 mittee; and this very inconvenience is as- 
 sumed as one of the very strongest argu- 
 ments for its selection, by Lhe gentleman 
 who has defended that selection. It will 
 exclude some of the voters; and, as 1 have 
 demonstrated, Mr. President, among that 
 class of voters which, under the strictest 
 and most confined system of suffrage, would 
 be entitled to the privilege. The very 
 circumstance of their being absent during 
 that month from the State, is siezed upon 
 to disfranchise them, and that, while the 
 notion is entertained that suffrage ought to 
 be given to every body else. The utmost 
 latitude, and the extremest opinions are to 
 prevail in reference to suffrage, with one 
 only restriction, and that is to effect exclu- 
 sively a particular class of our citizens ; 
 they are to be cheated out of it; it is to be 
 filched from them, if they dare to go be- 
 yond the limits of the State, and remain be- 
 yond this fatal month of September; they 
 are to be forbid its exercise. Why should 
 they pay so heavy a penalty? The month 
 of September is known as one of the most 
 disagreable, if not the most disagreeable in 
 the whole year. It is excessively warm 
 and unhealthy, and both mind and body 
 suffer from its ^relaxing influence ; it 
 is at this period that one feels least dispo- 
 sed to exertion, It is then that the fevers 
 to which our climate is so unfortunately ex- 
 
Debates In the Convention c! Louisiana, 
 
 31 
 
 posed, appear in their worst and most ag- 
 gravated form. 
 
 The Convention met in this month at 
 Jackson, and what was the consequence? 
 Although that place is one of the healthiest 
 localities in the State, they felt it indispen- 
 sably necessary to adjourn ; they were 
 afraid for their own safety, as well as for 
 the safety of their families, during their j Richard Winn, of Rapides, a candidate fer 
 absence from their homes at this most in- ' congress. His early and premature death 
 auspicious and critical period of the year. j was an irreparable loss to his party and to 
 Some of them that voted against the ad- j his friends. Another gentleman who 
 joumment returned to their homes to find | stood deservedly high, and who had once 
 
 | to be made in the months of July and Au- 
 j gust, if made at all, and they would impose 
 j a dangerous risk. A gentleman who stood 
 ; deservedly high with one party, and was ad- 
 mired and respected for his talents by the 
 other party, fell a victim to the fatigues of 
 an electioneering campaign, undertaken 
 at about the same season of the year — Air. 
 
 some of the members of their families sick, ! been a candidate for 
 and in some instances a more serious ca- 
 lamity. 
 
 The inconveniences of the month of 
 September were by no means, then, pecu 
 
 governor 
 
 while 
 
 electioneering tour or visit to the Lafourche 
 parish, at the same season of the year, 
 was sun struck and almost lest the use of 
 his eves. Why should our elections be 
 
 liar to the city. It was a period of sickness j placed at a season when candidates are 
 and death too, in the country; and, as re- \ precluded from visiting the people, or ex- 
 garded the inconveniences of voters, these \ posed to a fatal danger if they do? 
 inconveniences were greater in the co\in- , It is not alone in reference to the city 
 try than in the city. In the city it was j that the inconvenience would be felt. Be- 
 nothing'to attend a precinct of election, they i sides, the residents of every city in the 
 
 world, are in the habit of frequently quitting 
 them in the summer season. Cities are 
 
 were so numerous, and so near to every 
 citizen that they might almost be consider- 
 ed at his door. But in the country it was 
 quite different; the nearest precinct of elec- 
 tion was frequently at the distance of some 
 miles from the residence of the voter; and 
 to get at the polls, he had to brave the 
 noxious influence of a September sun. It 
 was at this time that his presence, too, was 
 most indispensable upon his plantation. 
 Either some one of his family or some of 
 his slaves were laboring under some sud- 
 den attack of fever, or were liable every 
 moment to fall sick with some of the pre- 
 valent diseases. It was a notorious fact 
 that our climate, neither in the city nor in 
 the country, was favorable to good health 
 in the fall months. Now and then it be- 
 came necessary e ven for an habitual resident 
 to go abroad to recruit his health. But ad- 
 mitting that it was a trip of mere pleasure: 
 why compel any one to forego the pleas- 
 ure or the wish? Why do this? 
 
 Another reason which he (Mr. Conrad) 
 could not find it in himself to condemn, be- 
 cause it was attended with beneficial re- 
 sults, was the practice for candidates for 
 the popular suffrage, to go round and com- 
 municate, interchange and express their 
 opinions and sentiments to those whose 
 votes they solicited. If the elections be 
 fixed in September, those visits woul have 
 
 no where favorable to health. The resi- 
 dents of London, among that class who are 
 affluent, are in the habit of quitting it in 
 the summer, and spending three or four 
 months beyond its dingy atmosphere. So 
 too, with the gay and fashionable Parisans, 
 and even so far north as St. Petersburg, 
 many of the inhabitants retire in the sum- 
 mer beyond its precincts. So, too, in the 
 United States, in the principal cities in 
 the north -and south; in New York, as well 
 as in Boston and Charleston: in Mobile, 
 
 41 as 
 
 Orb 
 
 they retire to 
 
 some of those verdant shades — some of 
 those flowery prairies, so poetically descrJU 
 bed by the gentleman from Jefferson (Mr, 
 Preston). That gentleman knows, and I 
 know, said Mr. Conrad, that fixing your 
 elections in September would not materi- 
 ally effect the transient population of the 
 city. It would effect that numerous class 
 of our citizens who seek for relaxation and 
 repose; upon the whole coast, from the 
 gulf to the bay of Pensacola, in the summer 
 months — from the mouth of the Mississippi 
 to Baton Rouge, and from Baton Rouge to 
 the prairies of Attakapas. Why should 
 the elections be held in their absence? — 
 where is the necessity first? Is it to pre- 
 clude that class of persons to whom the 
 
32 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 member from New Orleans has so frequent- 
 Jy alluded "as birds of passage?" He (Mr. 
 that effect ; those '« birds of passage, " 
 that flit across our horizon for a seas- 
 on and then are seen no more, even 
 Conrad, ) denied that it would have 
 at present, with the numerous evasions of 
 our laws of election, and with the breaches 
 that have been made upon the constitution- 
 al restrictions, do not exercise any stri- 
 king influence at the ballot box, as is per- 
 ceptible from the mayors' elections, which 
 are held in April. It .would not be these 
 that would be excluded by fixing your elec- 
 tions in September. But it would be those 
 worthy citizens who have established 
 themselves among us; who are deeply in- 
 volved and interested in our destinies; who 
 have built their nests among us, and have 
 made this city their roosting place. Some 
 of their sons and daughters are to be seen 
 in this very room at night, moving through 
 the mazy dance. 
 
 These are the citizens whom you dis- 
 qualify by fixing your elections in Septem- 
 ber, and that because they do not choose 
 to expose themselves, or some female mem- 
 ber of their family to the cruel ordeal of the 
 yellow fever— that political baptism which 
 is the severe test to be ordained as the 
 only proof of their patriotism and their de- 
 votion to the State. The gentleman (Mr. 
 Marigny) is a native of Louisiana, and has 
 been exempted by his birth from that bap- 
 tism; he is therefore, ignorant of its tortures 
 and its suspenses; did he but know them, 
 Mr. President, I am convinced from his 
 well know humanity and benevolence, 
 that he would be the last one to require so 
 awful a proof of good citizenship. It bears 
 a striking resemblance to that religious 
 baptism which- prepares one for another 
 and a better world— its fountains are dis- 
 eased; its ministering priest is the physi- 
 cian; and death but too often the sponsor! 
 
 When we are young, a,nd have no fami- 
 lies dependent upon us for their daily bread, 
 we can recklessly encounter dangers, even 
 for what is less valuable than the right of 
 suffrage. But when we are invested with 
 the responsibilities of providing for the 
 wants of those to whom we are bound by 
 the most solemn and sacred ties, our lives 
 become precious indeed; it is then we de- 
 sire life and are least disposed unnecessari- 
 ly to peril it. 
 
 His colleague, (Mr. Marigny) in exam- 
 ining the evils that would result from a 
 general system of universal suffrage — un- 
 limited and unrestrained — had directed his 
 exclusive attention to a few citizens, whose 
 influence in our elections, in no event, 
 would be pernicious, and entirely over- 
 looked a numerous class of persons, who 
 offered no guarantees, whatever, for a pro- 
 per and becoming exercise of the elective 
 franchise. As a matter of right, of justice, 
 I insist (said Mr. Conrad) that nothing 
 shall be done to exclude, or to render in- 
 convenient, the exercises of the right of 
 suffrage to those that are entitled, and who 
 have for a series of years exercised that 
 privilege. But while I say this much, and 
 am willing to extend within proper limits 
 the elective franchise, I can by no means 
 participate in the opinion of the delegate 
 from Jefferson, (Mr. Preston) that we 
 would be justified, or that it would be good 
 policy to grant it to every body- — Tom, 
 Dick and Harry, that may have set their 
 fest upon our shores within the last twen- 
 ty-four hours: to the offscourings of the 
 earth. I make a distinction between that 
 class of persons and those that would alone 
 be excluded were the proposition of my col- 
 league (Mr. Marigny) to prevail. If that 
 proposition prevails, and we send out the 
 new constitution with it, we shall inflict a 
 mortal stab upon our offspring. We shall 
 send it out with the seeds ot internal dis- 
 ease, and it must come to a premature end. 
 If the American people have one senti- 
 ment that is peculiar to them, it is their 
 abhorence of injustice. I care not from 
 what quarter it may come. If in an in- 
 strument professedly designed to extend 
 the right of suffrage, there should be so 
 gross an attempt to restrict it and to pre- 
 clude it, you may depend upon it, Mr. 
 President, the people will not submit to it. 
 Their voice may be feeble at first, but it 
 will not be long before there will be one 
 general burst of indignation. It. will not 
 be long before they will be heard knock- 
 ing at the doors of your legislative halls 
 and demanding another Convention. The 
 new constitution cannot stand with any 
 such principle in it. 
 
 I have done! If I have not convinced 
 others, I have at least made known to my 
 constituents my opinion, and I am ready to 
 abide their judgments. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 83 
 
 Mr. Downs said that if he had not de- 
 signed to address the Convention, and to 
 unfold his particular views upon the pro- 
 position before the Convention, the attempt 
 made by the delegate from New Orleans, 
 (Mr. Conrad) to make him, with the other 
 members of the Convention, not only re- 
 sponsible for the particular period recom- 
 mended in the report, but for the arguments 
 assumed by the member (Mr. Marigny) to 
 sustain the proposition in its favor, would 
 constrain him to offer a few words of ex- 
 planation. 
 
 [Mr. Conrad said that he had had only 
 inferred that the report embraced the cur- 
 rent opinion of the majority of the commit- 
 tee.] 
 
 Mr. Downs: the gentleman even in that 
 is mistaken. I, for one, differed with the 
 majority of the committee, upon that par- 
 ticular point. It was agreed to make the 
 report to the Convention, with the under- 
 standing that those who differed in opinion 
 on any matter therein, should, if they 
 chose, sustain their objections before the 
 Convention. 1 regret, said Mr. Downs, 
 that the gentleman should have fallen into 
 this mistake, inasmuch as a similar charge 
 was made at a period very interesting to 
 that gentleman and his political associates, 
 and it was as flatly denied by me in the 
 Jefferson ian. 
 
 [Mr. Conrad: that is the very first time 
 I have heard any thing of the matter. I 
 do not receive the Jeffersonian.] 
 
 Mr. Downs: after the elaborate and very 
 able arguments that have been made 
 against the proposition, I find myself dis- 
 pensed from saying much. What little I 
 have to say shall be stated briefly. 
 
 I concur with many of the propositions 
 of the gentleman that last addressed the 
 Convention, as to the injustice o£excludmg 
 any class of citizens who are entitled to the 
 privilege of suffrage; but at the same time, 
 candor compels me to say, that what fell 
 from the gentleman in regard to the exten- 
 sion of suffrage, was not to my mind satis- 
 factory. I am apprehensive of his checks 
 and his balances. I am fearful that they 
 mean more than might at first strike the 
 eye. They may be convenient phrases to 
 cover a very restricted system. I was 
 much better pleased with what fell fron 
 another gentleman (Mr. Roselius) on the 
 *ame subject, and was glad to hear him 
 
 assert that he was in favor of suffrage in its 
 most liberal and extended form. 
 
 The gentleman (Mr. Conrad) in taking 
 up a system for examination, would do bet- 
 ter to consult the principles of that reform 
 as* sustained by those that advocated it than 
 to imagine them for himself. This was a 
 very unfair way of meeting and resisting 
 it. As for the extension of suffrage, no- 
 thing unreasonable or dangerous was de= 
 sired — at least, as one favorable to that 
 policy, I desire nothing of the kind. 
 
 It is with regret, said Mr. Downs, that I 
 find myself und^r the necessity of differing 
 with some of my valued political friends, 
 upon the point under discussion; I have lis- 
 tened with profound attention to all that 
 has been said. The subject is, however, 
 not new to me. I have reflected deeply — - 
 I have pondered upon it calmly and dispas- 
 sionately, and the convictions upon my 
 mind are irresistable. It is painful for me 
 i to differ with those with whom it has here- 
 tofore been my pride and pleasure to act. 
 I deeply deplore it. But I would say to all 
 those whose minds are not irrevocably 
 made up, to pause and reflect. At the first 
 blush, it may appear judicious to place the 
 elections at a season of the year w r hen it is 
 presumable that most of the transient popu- 
 lation are abroad. This ground, however, 
 cannot be sustained — it is untenable, as 
 mature reflection will show. 
 
 The delegate from New Orleans, (Mr. 
 Conra.d) takes it for granted that if suffrage 
 be extended, it will be conceded to foreign- 
 ers and strangers. This may be the idea 
 of that gentleman in relation to the exten- 
 sion of suffrage; but it is not mine, nor is it 
 the opinion of those that act with me, 
 When this question shall properly arise, I 
 am, said Mr. Downs, prepared to meet and 
 to sustain all that I may have ever ad- 
 vanced in relation to it. 
 
 Mr. President, said Mr. Dowms, this is 
 no new question to me. 
 
 [The President said it was not -in or- 
 der to extend the discussion by entering 
 into an argument upon the extension of 
 suffrage.] 
 
 Mr. Downs said it w T as very natural for 
 one to be discussive in treating uporr any 
 one of the articles of the constitution, for 
 there was a certain connection between 
 some of these articles and others. It was 
 true, the»extension of the right of suffrage 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 .11 
 
 was not Involved in the fate of the present 
 proposition, but it. had nevertheless been 
 incidentally introduced and discanted upon 
 very largely, during the progress of the 
 debate. 
 
 The question when shall our elections 
 be held, was connected with considerations 
 of political power. His attention had been 
 long and earnestly excited to the subject, 
 and with this very question of the dreaded 
 ascendancy of the city over the country, by 
 an extension of suffrage, had he entered 
 into public life. He was indifferent to any 
 sectional feelings on the subject. The first 
 question with him, was as to the principles 
 that being good, he was not to be led astray 
 by extraneous considerations. 
 
 In 1833, the first time he (Mr. Downs) 
 was a candidate before the people, the con- 
 test happened to be conducted in reference 
 to this very question of the aggrandizement 
 of the political power of New Orleans, by 
 the extension of suffrage. That contest 
 was a most exciting struggle, the most 
 exciting that he has since then passed 
 through. A bill had been introduced into 
 the legislature, to extend the right of suf- 
 frage by imposing a poll tax. His opponent 
 resisted the passage in the legislature, and 
 voted against it on the ground that it would 
 increase the influence of the city, and 
 thereby prove dangerous to the country. 
 He (Mr. Downs) replied to that argument, 
 and announced distinctly that if the princi- 
 ple was right in itself, it could not be af- 
 fected by any such local considerations. 
 The question was thoroughly examined, 
 and the tickets of each candidate were 
 headed by the principles they proclaimed. 
 The, question was then presented to him, 
 and he decided it. He has since reflected 
 upon that decision, and has seen no good 
 grounds to doubt its accuracy. 
 
 He disclaimed being actuated by any lo- 
 cal feeling of partiality towards New Or- 
 leans. That great city stood in too impos- 
 ing an attitude to be placed in an inimical 
 position, to the balance of the State, be- 
 cause she might possess the preponderating 
 influence. He considered New Orleans 
 the city of the State, and as much his city, 
 (although he did not reside within her bor- 
 ders, and probably never would,) as if he 
 were an actual resident. She was not only 
 the city of Louisiana — but the city of the 
 great west — the city of half an empire, des. 
 
 tined to hold more than half the population 
 of the United States. 
 
 He assuredly did not think it good poli- 
 cy to engender feelings of dislike and jeal- 
 ousy between New Orleans and the coun- 
 try. They were both essential to each 
 other, and the laws made for both should 
 be uniform, as far as possible. It happen- 
 ed, however, that large commercial cities 
 sometimes required a different kind of le- 
 gislation; it was only when this was indis- 
 pensable, that he could sanction any dis- 
 tinction between the city and the country. 
 
 He earnestly entreated his friends before 
 committing themselves to a final vote, to 
 examine and to ponder well all the argu- 
 ments upon the question. The right of 
 suffrage was a most important privilege, 
 and nothing should be done to impair it, 
 According to the maxim "the truth was 
 powerful and would prevail," he washed to 
 see the principle of suffrage carried out in 
 its purity, free from all cliques and all un- 
 due influence. Any other free suffrage 
 was not his free suffrage. He wished 
 every free white male citizen of the United 
 States to have a voice at the ballot box. 
 He could not vote, therefore, for any re- 
 strictions—direct or indirect — which would 
 deprive the qualified voter of his right. He 
 was for that reason opposed to fixing the 
 election in September, inasmuch as it 
 would operate against many citizens that 
 choose to be absent. He characterized 
 September as the most dangerous month in 
 the whole year, and it was sufficient for 
 him to be aware of the fact, to select some 
 more appropriate period. He was not for 
 the "yellow fever qualification," as one of 
 the city papers had aptly termed the effort 
 to place our elections in that season of 
 pestilence ! 
 
 The object of an election (said Mr, 
 Downs) is to bring out the popular will, 
 and the nearer we can approach to a full 
 expression of that will, the more perfect 
 the system. 
 
 As has been justly observed during the 
 discussion, the month of September was as 
 objectionable to the country for holding the 
 election, as it was to the city. It was 
 essential to the comfort of the citizens that 
 there should be some period of rest — some 
 period of general repose. Even the steam 
 engine that is in full operation to go to St. 
 Louis, must pause and have a rest. It 
 
Debates in the* Convention of Louisiana, 35 
 
 would be a strange anomaly if man alone 
 was to be denied the sweets of repose from 
 his exciting pursuits. The summer was 
 our period of rest. It was the siesta — the 
 Sabbath of the State. 
 
 These were some of the considerations, 
 hastily urged, that would induce him to vote 
 in favor of the motion to strike out the 
 month of September. We should impose 
 no hardships upon our citizens; we should 
 not deny them the privilege of going 
 abroad whenever they were disposed, and 
 least of all, we should not make the impor- 
 tant and inestimable privilege of suffrage, 
 the penalty. He would never consent to 
 debar them that privilege, and he could 
 not, therefore, vote for the proposition. 
 
 Mr. Peets desired saying a few words 
 before giving his vote. He should vote 
 against the proposition to strike out "Sep- 
 tember,'' but his reasons for doing so were 
 somewhat different from those that had 
 been urged. He was not governed as a 
 member of that committee by any party 
 feelings. He totally repudiated and dis- 
 claimed all such motives. His solicitude 
 was to ascertain what would be for the 
 benefit of the whole State, and when he ■ 
 was satisfied upon that point, he would vote-! 
 according^ 
 
 The true principle, in his mind, was that I 
 the time for holing the general elections, j 
 should be at the most convenient period for ' 
 the mass of the voters ; their convenience j 
 ought to be consulted and respected. 
 
 He did not entertain any very great ap- 
 prehensions of the influence of the city. I 
 She gave at present six thousand votes, I 
 and the balance of the State could poll ' 
 about twenty-one thousand. Admitting 
 that by the extension of suffrage, her vote | 
 would be increased one-third more, that ! 
 did not present any very alarming dispro- j 
 portion. 
 
 The great proportion of the population i 
 of Louisiana was agricultural, and their in- 
 te rests and convenience, forming as they 
 did the mass, ought surely to be taken into 
 account. It might happen that by bring- j 
 ing the elections on in September, some of j 
 the citizens of New Orleans might suffer ! 
 some inconvenience, but they were only a 1 
 fraction of the population. It was certain, 1 
 that if you brought on the elections early | 
 in the fall, it would be inconvenient for i 
 the planters to attend, if it were possible j 
 
 for them to do so, by reason of the inun- 
 dation of most of the streams. Mr. Peets 
 instanced, that with last election, the vo- 
 ters in the section of country he had the 
 honor to represent, were compelled to float 
 on logs to get to the polls. That period 
 of the year was quite unsuited, particular- 
 ly as regarded the country on the Red riv- 
 er and the Ouachita, it being for the most 
 part inundated. 
 
 3Ir. Miles Taylor said he was a mem- 
 ber of the committee that made the report, 
 recommending the month of September. 
 He did not believe that in the committee, 
 he had concurred in the report by voting 
 for it; in fact, he had been unable to partic- 
 ipate much in its labors, on account of his 
 bad health. If he were, however, mista- 
 ken in his recollection, and if he had voted 
 for the report, he did not feel bound to 
 vote for it here, if the arguments he had 
 heard had changed his opinion. From all 
 that had been urged, it seemed to him im- 
 portant to ascertain first, what were the 
 qualifications of the persons to be admitted 
 as voters. He wished that point to be de- 
 fined, and when it should be settled, we 
 would encounter no difficulties in fixing 
 the period for the exercise of the elective 
 franchise. 
 
 In conformity with these views, Mr. 
 Taylor moved to lay the motion of the 
 delegate from Concordia (Mr. Sellers) on 
 the table, as well as the article of the con- 
 stitution, until the article defining the qual- 
 ifications of voters was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Sellers thought the present ques- 
 tion had no bearing with the question of 
 suffrage. They were distinct; the only 
 matter under consideration has been dis- 
 cussed, and let it be decided by a vote. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor thought it the best 
 course to lay the motion and the article 
 on the table until the question of suffrage 
 was decided. 
 
 'I he question was taken on Mr. Taylor's 
 motion, and it was lost. 
 
 The question then recurred on Mr. Sel- 
 lers' motion, to strike out September and 
 leave the month in blank, and was decided 
 by yeas and nays as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Brent, Briant, Burton, Cenas, Chambliss, 
 China, Claiborne, Conrad of New Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia : 
 
36 
 
 Bsbale3 in Vug Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Garret, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Ken- 
 ner, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, 
 Lewis, Mayo, Mazureau, Penh, Prescott 
 of A.voj elles, Prescott of St. Landry, Pres. 
 ton, Pugh, Ratliff, Roman, Roselius, St. 
 imand, Saunders, Sellers, Splane, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Wads- 
 worth, Winchester and Winder — 48 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brum- 
 field, Cade, Carriere, Covillion, Leon- 
 ard, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Peets, 
 Porche, Prudhomme, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Voorhies, Wad- 
 dill and Wederstrandt — 20 nays. 
 
 Mr. Winder moved to fill the blank 
 by inserting "June." 
 
 Mr. Guion advocated the adoption of 
 June, as being the most convenient. The 
 principle had frequently been acknowl- 
 edged during the discussion of what was 
 the proper time for holding the elections, 
 that the convenience of the voters should 
 be consulted. It would suit both the su- 
 gar planting interest and the cotton plant, 
 ing interest, to place the elections in June. 
 He was in favor of fixing them for the 
 first Monday of June. 
 
 Mr. Sellers said the object of the dele- 
 gate from Lafourche (Mr. Guion) and his 
 own were identical, they differed only as 
 to the means. He considered November 
 infinitely preferable to June for the accom- 
 modation of the people and the reception 
 of votes. June was a healthy month and 
 so was November, but he thought Novem- 
 ber preferable. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for on 
 Mr. Winder's motion to fill the blank 
 with June; the following was the result: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bou- 
 dousquie, Briant, Chinn, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Guion, Huds- 
 peth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Ledoux, 
 Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Pugh, Ro- 
 man, Roselius, St. Amand Saunders, Voor- 
 hies, Winchester and Winder — 29 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Cade,Carriere, Cenas, Cham- 
 bliss, Covillion, Downs, Eustis, Garcia, 
 Garrett, Humble, Leonard, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Penn, Porche, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Preston, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, 
 
 Scott of Baton "Rouge, Scott of Jefferson, 
 Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Trist, Waddill, Wads worth and 
 Wederstrandt — 40 nays. 
 
 Mr. McRae proposed to fill the blank 
 with October. 
 
 Mr. Roselius said that the same mo- 
 tives that induced the Convention to re- 
 ject September would induce them to re- 
 ject October. All the reasons that applied 
 to the one, applied with equal force to the 
 other. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called on Mr. 
 McRae's motion. 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Covil- 
 lion, Downs, Humble, Leonard, McCallop, 
 McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Penn, 
 Porche, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Prudhomme, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Voor- 
 hies and Wederstrandt — 26 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Burton, Cenas, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eus- 
 tis, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legen- 
 dre, Lewis, Mazureau, Preston, Pugh, 
 Roman, Roselius, Ratliff, Saucers, Sel- 
 lers, Splane, Stephens, Tayffl* of As- 
 sumption, Trist, Waddill, Wadsworth, 
 Winchester and Winder — 41 nays; the 
 motion was consequently lost. 
 
 Mr. Burton thereupon moved to insert 
 the month of November, and called for the 
 ayes and naps: 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Ca<le, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, 
 Garrett, Humble, Leonard, McCallopj Mc- 
 Rae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Penn, Porche, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Preston, Prudhomme, Pugh, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Voorhies, Waddill Wederstrandt and Win- 
 der — 33 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Briant, Brumrield, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garcia, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, 
 King, Labauve, Ledoux, Lewis, Mazureau, 
 Ratliff, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, 
 Splane, Trist Wadsworth and Winchester 
 -=-34 nays; so the motionwas lost, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 .3: 
 
 Mr. Burton proposed the second Mon- 
 day in November, 
 
 Mr. Eustis said it was always with dif- 
 fidence he addressed the Convention, and 
 offered his views upon subjects with which 
 lie presumed others were much more fa- 
 miliar, ft was with great deference he 
 differed in opinion from those gentlemen 
 that addressed the ^Convention in support 
 of the several periods deemed by them most 
 suitable for holding the general elections 
 throughout the State. 
 
 It had been remarked by a member, 
 and the remark appeared to meet with gen- 
 eral concurrence, that it was exceedingly 
 unwise to make any change in the old 
 constitution, unless the changes could be 
 for the better. He had listened with ear- 
 nest attention and great pleasure to what 
 iell from the gentlemen in discussing the 
 proper period for holding the elections, but 
 he had heard nothing that satisfied him that 
 the period fixed by the old constitution 
 ought to be changed. That period has 
 been established for thirty years,- and the 
 very diversity that exists in relation to any 
 other, would seem unerringly to indicate to 
 us the propriety and expediency of maintain- 
 ing it. 
 
 The gentleman from Ouachita, (Mr. 
 Downs) it is true, has told us of the high 
 waters that prevail at that particular sea- 
 son of the year in the district represented 
 by him, and has complained of the great 
 difficulty experienced by the people there 
 to get to the polls. This is the only rea- 
 son given why the period fixed in the old 
 constitution should be changed. Admit- 
 ting it to exist, the question occurs is it suf- 
 ficient to induce us to appoint another time? 
 In July, it happens that the waters are oc- 
 casionally high: they are sometimes high, 
 but generally they are low. Taking it for 
 granted, however, that in the district of 
 Ouachita they are always high in July, and 
 that it is some inconvenience to the voters 
 to get to the polls if the elections take 
 place then, would we be justified in order 
 to accommodate the people of one district 
 — of one portion of the State — to change 
 the time to another period that would be 
 inconvenient to the balance of the State? 
 
 WeJiave heard (said Mr. Eustis) many 
 eulogiums pronounced upon the old consti- 
 tution. He did not agree in the extrava- 
 gant praises that have been lavished upon 
 6 
 
 it. He did not believe that it deserved 
 them, and if he were to ssty he did be- 
 lieve it he would not speak the truth. It 
 had been said that it was a good constitu- 
 tion. He never believed it was' a good 
 constitution. 
 
 The proper guards for the amendments 
 I or alterations we should make to the con- 
 | stitution, are the defects or imperfections 
 j that experience have pointed out. Do the 
 j interests or convenience of those that sent 
 j us here require a particular change? Ap- 
 I ply this test to determine whether it be ex- 
 | pedient. 
 
 The appointment of the particular time 
 I to hold the elections is a high political 
 : question. It is a most important question 
 j of political power. Some gentlemen con- 
 : tended that the elections ought to be fixed 
 I in the month of September. This propo- 
 j sition had but few advocates, and could not 
 I be sustained upon reasons of sound public 
 i policy. He (Mr. Eustis) disdained all 
 I other considerations. To fix it at that 
 j time, would be to deny to a class of our 
 ' citizens the privilege of suffrage, and it 
 ; would be debarring them the exercise of 
 ! political power. It would be despoiling 
 I them of a right, which was as much their 
 j property, and should be held as inviolable 
 i as their possessions. To refuse it to them, 
 I and yet extend the right of suffrage, would 
 be a gross and palpable inconsistency. 
 The arguments which should" preclude 
 ' the Selection of September, apply with 
 ; equal force to October, and have so fully 
 been explained in the debate, that it is un- 
 necessary to repeat them. 
 
 The time when the elections should be 
 held, is nothing more nor less than a ques- 
 tion of political power. Before that issue 
 all other considerations sink into insignifi- 
 cance. 
 
 In 1812, when the constitution was 
 formed, the same question of political pow- 
 er existed as in 1845. The period chosen 
 has been consecrated by the experience of 
 thirty-two years, and has been unattended 
 with inconvenience. We have seen what 
 has been the fate of the propositions ap- 
 pointing other periods; and he, Mr. Eustis, 
 would submit it to the judgment of the Con= 
 vention, to those members particularly who 
 have expressed so much veneration and at- 
 tachment for the old constitution — a senti- 
 ment in which, by the way, he did not pa) 
 
Debates in the onvention of Louisiana. 
 
 ticipate, inasmuch as he believed society 
 would have made more rapid advances, and 
 the general prosperity of the State would 
 have been greatly accelerated without it, 
 to exhibit a little of that feeling of attach- 
 ment never exhibited on this occasion; and 
 fcince they could not better, to respect a 
 provision that had stood the test of thirty- 
 two years. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff said he sincerely concur- 
 red in what fell from the gentleman from 
 New Orleans (Mr. Eurtis). We have 
 heard no complaints against the period fix- 
 ed by the constitution for holding the elec- 
 tions. It was better, then, to leave it un- 
 touched. He entertained a high venera- 
 tion for the constitution; some portions he 
 considered very defective, and those he 
 should like to see changed; but in other re- 
 spects he was for leaving the constitution 
 as it was. If, however, a change was to 
 be made, and some other period was to be 
 substituted for July, he was decidedly of 
 opinion that April ought tobe selected. It 
 was a healthy season of the year, and the 
 water was low. Within his recollection 
 the Mississippi had only once broken over 
 its banks in April. His only object was to 
 obtain the largest possible vote; he thought 
 April favorable to that purpose, particularly 
 with the establishment of convenient pre- 
 cincts of election. If the period were to 
 be changed, he considered the first Mon- 
 day in April as the most desirable time for 
 all sections of the State; but he was very 
 willing to leave the constitution untouched 
 in that particular respect. 
 
 Mr. Guion concurred with the delegate 
 from Felician (Mr. Ratliff) as to the month 
 of April being a convenient period for 
 holding the elections. He was opposed 
 to the proposition of the gentleman, (Mr. 
 Burton) because it would bring our State 
 elections on at the same time every fourth 
 year with the presidential election. This 
 was with him a very serious objection. 
 The qualifications of candidates for State 
 offices would be forgotten and swallowed 
 up by the all-exciting consideration of who 
 should be President. This would be a 
 great calamity, and would deprive the 
 State of the services of the best and most 
 useful citizens, who otherwise would be 
 elected without an unfortunate reference to 
 party politics and party excitements. 
 
 Mr. Beatty said he concurred with the 
 
 gentleman from New Orleans, (Mr. Eustis) 
 in considering the present question as a 
 question of political power. It is a ques- 
 tion as to who shall enjoy the sovereignty 
 of the State of Louisiana. Shall it be con- 
 fined to those who only are interested in 
 the welfare of the State, or be left open to 
 those who have no real interests, and who T 
 if they have an interest, have another and 
 a predominating interest elsewhere? To 
 persons who have no identity with the 
 State, and in fact, form no real portion of 
 the community. He referred to the dispa- 
 rity in the number of votes given at the last 
 election between the second municipality 
 and the first and third municipalities, taken 
 in aggregate. The second municipality 
 had given more votes than the other two 
 put together. That was a result quite un- 
 anticipated, and was a source of great as- 
 tonishment. Were we to believe that ille- 
 gal votes were cast? It was certainly the 
 general impression that there were more 
 voters in the first and third municipalities 
 than in the second. How were we to ac- 
 count for this remarkable result? Were 
 we to suppose that all the voter in the first 
 and third municipalities did not vote? The 
 occasion was one to secure a full vote. Ei- 
 ther we were compelled to adopt the hy- 
 pothesis, that all the voters did not vote, or 
 believe that the second municipality gave 
 a greater number of votes than the other 
 two, a conclusion that was not established 
 by the census, and which we were not 
 prepared for. If neither of these conclu- 
 sions were true, then it was to be inferred 
 that illegal votes had been cast. 
 
 Mr. Beatty expressed himself in favor 
 of retaining the section in the constitution 
 as it was. He considered that under the 
 section it was designed that the elections 
 should be closed in one day. They had 
 been extended to three days. He consid- 
 ered that extension unconstitutional. But 
 so as to make the provision more positive, 
 inasmuch as it had been interpreted differ- 
 ently, he was willing to insert an express 
 clause to that effect. 
 
 The month of July was usually healthy,, 
 and fixing the elections then, could not pre* 
 elude any one from the privilege of su£ 
 frage. Few persons were in the h^,bit of 
 absenting themselves so early, and if they 
 were disposed to do so, as the elections 
 came on but once in two years, if they 
 
Debates in the Convention oi Louisiana, 
 
 39 
 
 valued the privilege as they should, they 
 would willingly forego their design for a 
 few days, until the elections were held. If 
 they were not disposed to do this, they were 
 unworthy of the privilege, and the exercise 
 of it could not be to them a matter of any 
 serious consideration. 
 
 Mr. Beatty concluded by moving the 
 first Monday of July. 
 
 A motion was made for adjournment, 
 and the yeas and nays were called upon 
 said motion. It was negatived — ayes 25, 
 nays 43. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne rose to a point of order, 
 that no motion could be entertained for fix- 
 ing a particular day in a particular month. 
 The motion should be restricted to the 
 month, inasmuch as the month alone had 
 been stricken out of the report of the com- 
 mittee-— the particular time was still in the 
 provision — September alone was stricken 
 out. 
 
 The Chair sustained the point of order. 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved that the blank be 
 filled with the fourth Monday in November. 
 
 The Chair decided that this motion was 
 not in order. 
 
 Mr. Garrett expressed an intention to 
 appeal from the decision of the chair. 
 
 When, on motion, the Convention ad- 
 journed until "to-morrow, at 1 1 o'clock, 
 a, m. 
 
 Saturday, January 18, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment, and the proceedings were open- 
 ed with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Garrett stated, that he would not 
 appeal from the decision of the chair, 
 upon his motion which was decided to be 
 out of order, to nil the blank with "the 
 fourth Monday of November." 
 
 Mr. Boudousquie hoped the question 
 would be taken on Mr. Eustis' motion to 
 fill the blank with July. He considered 
 that motion to be first in order. 
 
 Mr. Splane moved to reconsider the 
 proposition of the member from St. He- 
 lena, Mr. Burton. 
 
 Mr. Grymes said, in accordance with 
 the rule that required a certain notice to be 
 given, he would notify the house of his 
 intention to introduce a proposition in re- 
 lation to this vexed question. 
 
 lie did not consider it a part of his 
 mandate f to struggle for this particular 
 
 day, month, or year. Nor did he think it 
 material, that one particular period should 
 carry over another, inasmuch as that, as 
 well as the whole article, could at any time 
 be brought to the consideration of the 
 Convention. To vote upon the proposi- 
 tion now was merely pro forma, as every 
 article and section were subject to revision 
 until the constitution was signed. All these 
 squabblings about one particular period in 
 preference to another Was, to his eoncep* 
 tion, but small game. His purpose was 
 not to propose any particular day. He 
 was as willing that the Convention should 
 determine upon November, as any other 
 time. He did not consider it as irrevoca- 
 ble. But in order to put an end to this con- 
 test, he would inform the Convention, that 
 he designed presenting a proposition — -let 
 j whatever time be fixed upon — to strike it 
 out and leave it to the legislature to select 
 such time as they may think most fitting. 
 If the Convention were so disposed, thev 
 could at once proceed to the consideration 
 of his proposition, and if it was carried, 
 the matter would be put to rest. In his 
 judgment, it would be more appropriate to 
 leave the decision of this question to the 
 legislature. 
 
 Mr. Boudousquie moved that the Con= 
 vention proceed to the order of the day, 
 being the unfinished business under con- 
 sideration when the Convention adjourn- 
 ed yesterday. 
 
 The President decided that the motion 
 to reconsider was first in order. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. Splane's 
 motion to reconsider the vote on the pro- 
 position for November, and the motion to 
 reconsider was carried in the affirmative^ 
 
 The President announced, that he had 
 appointed on the committee of revision, 
 Messrs. Eustis, Koman, Miles Taylor, 
 Brent and Mazureau. 
 
 Mr. Penn moved that the Convention 
 proceed to consider the vote taken upon 
 November. 
 
 The President decided that the unfin- 
 ished business had the precedence, which 
 was the motion of Mr. Eustis to fill the 
 blank with July. 
 
 Mr. Penn appealed from the decision of 
 the chair. 
 
 The question was taken and the decision 
 of the chair was maintained, 
 
 Mr, Ratixff said be had a few-remarks 
 
40 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 to make, and bis object in making them 
 was less to occupy the time of the Conven- 
 ii ,11 than to define his own position. He 
 had the misfortune to differ with some of 
 bis friends, and he wished to set himself 
 ri<rht as to the grounds he assumed, and 
 the points of difference between them and 
 
 To his conception the members of this 
 body were delegated to make a constitu- 
 tion, to define who were citizens, and what 
 privilege they would enjoy. When these 
 privileges were defined, they were entitled 
 to all the benefits of them. This was the 
 position he occupied, and this was his 
 guide of action. 
 
 In carrying out this fundamental and es- 
 sential point, we must resolve the question 
 which is the time most convenient and 
 most advantageous to all* Which is the 
 period that will enable the greatest number 
 of votes to be cast; that will rjriug to the 
 ballot box the greater number of citizens. 
 
 W T e should first establish in the constitu- 
 tion what is essential to ontitle one to be- 
 come a citizen. To acquire the immuni- 
 ties and rights of citizenship- — to become 
 one of us. And then determine upon the 
 essential principle, that all shall enjoy 
 equal privileges and equal rights in the ex- 
 ercise of the inestimable privilege of suf- 
 frage, as well as in the enjoyment of all 
 other rights appertaining to citizenship. 
 No one should be put to inconvenience 
 further than the nature and circumstances 
 of things should require, and the same uni- 
 form and general rule should apply as well 
 to the inhabitants upon the inundated lands 
 of Red River, as to those in the swamps 
 of Catahoula. The citizens of New Or- 
 leans, of Rapides, of Baton Rouge, should 
 be placed upon a proper equality as re- 
 garded the facilities for exercising their 
 rights of suffrage. 
 
 Let us suppose that all the citizens of the 
 State were congregated here in person for 
 the purpose of choosing that period which 
 was most eligible to them for the exercise 
 of suffrage. What time would they select? 
 Would they choose an inconvenient pe- 
 riod, when the voices of the mass would 
 not be heard—when it might be stifled and 
 unworthy and unfaithful agents might be 
 foisted upon them by bribery and corrup- 
 tion? Or would they select an eligible 
 time, when the voice of everv citizen, hiob 
 
 or low, rich or poor, might be heard. £,et 
 their will dictate to us our duty. We are 
 sent here to express and to carry into force 
 that will, and if we fail to do so, we are 
 recreant to our sacred trust — we are re- 
 creant to all pur pledges. 
 
 This, Mr. President, continued Mr. Rat- 
 liff, is the pure democratic doctrine. It is 
 true democracy. I do not allude to party 
 democracy, but to the sacred principles of 
 democracy, independent of party; and when 
 a whig comes up to that standard, which 
 they do sometimes, I am ready to go heart 
 and hand with him. What democrat will 
 gainsay this doctrine? W T hat democrat 
 will say that the public servant should not 
 be brought to the scale and his principles 
 weighed? If I cannot get that principle 
 not only recognized, but adopted, which se- 
 cures the expression of the whole voice of 
 the people, then*, Mr. President, I shall re- 
 main in a minority. No local feelings 
 shall ever actuate me. I do not say they 
 have any place on .this floor. I trust, and 
 hope in God they have none! When the 
 people thought fit to choose me to the 
 proud station of representing them on this 
 floor, I was no candidate^ Mr. President; I 
 did not go about ^electioneering. I was re- 
 presented as a red hot locofoco, but rny 
 constituents knew that I could raise my 
 voice above all party considerations when- 
 ever principles were endangered — -that I 
 preferred, whenever there was a conflict, 
 principle to party. That all personal, all 
 political considerations should, to my hum- 
 ble judgment, give w r ay to the necessity of 
 framing a good constitution — a constitution 
 of which we never should be ashamed — 
 one that would stand the test of time — that 
 it would reflect the will and wishes of the 
 people, and would carry out those essen- 
 tial and fundamental principles indispensa- 
 ble to their safety, happiness and prosperi- 
 ty. I determined, Mr. President, if I could 
 do no good, to do no harm, and never give 
 occasion to myself for bitter self-reproach. 
 In saying that much, I considered I said a 
 great deal. 
 
 These, then, are the broad principles I 
 would lay down, and by them 1 would de- 
 termine the most eligible period. First, 
 as to September; that month has been ur- 
 ged upon us, but it has been conclusively 
 shown that there are inseparable objections 
 to it. It is a period of sickness and death; 
 
Debates in the Convention oi Louisiana, 
 
 of absence from die State of many valuable 
 citizens. For these, and other powerful 
 reasons that have been advanced, it would 
 be an unfortunate and partial selection. 
 To October the same arguments apply as 
 to September; it. too. is a period of sick- 
 ness and of absence. If we select Novem- 
 ber, there are likewise to it many valid ob- 
 jections, the prinoipal^one of which is all 
 powerful- — that in every fourth year our 
 State elections would occur about the same 
 period with the presidential election, and 
 that our local affairs and interests would 
 be swallowed up by the all absorbing con- 
 sideration of who should be president; and 
 party politics would be stimulated con- 
 stantly'among us by the results of the elec- 
 tions in some of the great States of the 
 north and west, whose elections would 
 precede our own. 1 hese, Mr. President, 
 are weighty apprehensions to my mind. 
 Then as to July. It is objected to this 
 month that the weather is extremely hot, 
 and that one gentleman lost his life in un- 
 dertaking an electioneering campaign du- 
 ring that season of the year, and another 
 was seriously endangered, and that these 
 dangers would preclude candidates ftom 
 interchanging sentiments with the people, 
 unless in their anxiety to be elected, they 
 choose lo eucounter the imminent peril of 
 their lives. "We are told too, again, that 
 the people on Red River and Ouachita, 
 owing to the high stage of the waters, 
 were under the necessity of remaining at 
 home at the last election, or of going to the 
 polls upon logs. This surely is a serious 
 inconvenience, and is extremely hard, that 
 a voter cannot exercise the privilege of 
 suffrage without embarking on a [log, or 
 upon a raft, or paddling his own canoe. 
 
 The facilities of voting certainly ought 
 to be as great as can be devised; precincts 
 of elections ought to be multiplied, and 
 the people should in every way be encour- 
 aged to express their views upon men and 
 measures. Men and principles should 
 constantly be kept to the test of public 
 opinion. In this way, Mr. President, you 
 make the people independent of dema- 
 gogues; you secure an enlightened, a pure 
 system. — a. lepublican system — be it whig 
 or democrat. 
 
 I listened said Mr. RatlifF, with profound 
 attention to the eloquent remarks of the 
 gentleman from Jefferson: to the able argu- 
 
 ments of the gentleman from New Orleans* 
 and of the gentleman from Ouachita. It is 
 with great diffidence I enter the lists 
 with such giants, that I attempt to re-echo 
 the reverberation of their cannon. Delicacy 
 and a conscientiousness of the feebleness 
 of my powers, would deter me from say- 
 ing any thing after the able discussions we 
 have heard. I was under the conviction 
 that 1 had a duty to perform ; that I am 
 bound to express with the limited powers 
 I possess, the wishes of my constituents, 
 and to express their sentiments. I will 
 
 not be recreant to that 
 
 ;spo] 
 
 I 
 
 shall never shrink from a faithful and bold 
 discharge of the duties I have assumed. I 
 will not be a silent and inactive member: 
 and if 1 could not stand up in defence of 
 
 and go home 
 If I were 
 
 privilege 
 
 the rights ot the people, 1 would resign, 
 to those that sent me here, 
 called upon to select a proper 
 time for holding your elections, Mr. Presi- 
 dent, with my hand on my heart, and in 
 ail sincerity of conscious rectitude, I would 
 pronounce in favor of the month of April: 
 and I do think, sir. if the present constitu- 
 tional period should be changed, no period 
 so eligibl^rcould be found in the whole 
 calendar of months. One objection against 
 maintaining that time has been referred to 
 in the eloquent remarks of the gentleman 
 from Caddo, that the voters in that portion 
 of the State were obliged to go on rafts and 
 canoes, or forego the most nobl 
 of freemen. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff said he had reached the 
 grand climacteric'in years, when it was not 
 very convenient to tell one's a^e. He was 
 born in Louisiana, and he had some expe- 
 rience of the high waters which prevailed. 
 In all his experience . he knew of but one 
 overflow in the month of April. In that 
 month the weather is fine, and the roads 
 are good. But, it is said, that this season 
 is too busy a period for the planter to ab- 
 sent himself. He denied the assertion, 
 and he had some knowledge that the con- 
 trary was the fact. If he ever acquired a 
 reputation for any thing, it was for being a 
 tolerable good overseer. No good farmer 
 or planter would be in a position not to re- 
 pair to the polls, to exercise the privilege 
 of a freeman, from the second to the third 
 Monday in April, or even earlier. But he 
 considered that the most convenient time. 
 April was one of the healthiest months in 
 
42 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 (he year, anil with the democratic princi- 
 ple of the extension of suffrage, facilitated 
 by the establishment of convenient pre- 
 cincts of election, would be the most desira- 
 ble for the people at large. And if the 
 period for electing members to Congress 
 be placed in April, another advantage 
 would result. The representatives would 
 be elected and delegated fresh from the 
 people, and not, as it is now unfortunately 
 the case, be elected one year in advance. 
 
 Mr. Rati iff contended that it was not in 
 reference to the affluent that the period of 
 elections should be fixed. To the rich 
 man, to the man who owned one hundred, 
 'fifty, or even five negroes, there was no 
 difficulty for him to get to the polls. He 
 could leave when he pleased, and even 
 charter a steamboat to transport him. Not 
 -30 with the poor man; with the industrious 
 hard-working farmer, the honest mechanic 
 who was assiduously shoving his jack- 
 plane. They could not leave at all times, 
 and all periods were not convenient with 
 them. And yet the poor man had equally 
 his interests to protect in legislation, and 
 his privilege of suffrage was just as valua- 
 ble, and his interests ought to"be equally 
 consulted. In the spring he could vote 
 Without any great inconvenience — he could 
 go to the polls without alarming apprehen- 
 sions for his family; but in the fall it was 
 quite otherwise. It was the convenience 
 of the yeomanry, the honest yeomanry ot 
 the country, we should consult. It would 
 be inconvenient for the poor man to go to 
 the polls in the fall ; he might have a sick 
 family; would be stopped. The partner of 
 his bosom or one of his children might be 
 'a ken sick, and as he was just going to 
 start for the purpose of fulfilling the inesti- 
 mable right of suffrage, he would be ar- 
 rested by the intelligence that little Ben 
 was sick of the chills and fever. 
 
 I am, said Mr. Ratliff, a practical man. 
 I take a common sense view of things, with 
 the intellect God has given me, and he has 
 given me his share — I mean, Mr. Presi- 
 dent, my share. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff concluded by stating that he 
 was opposed to the fall months. They 
 were sickly as well in the city as in the 
 country. It was at that season of the year 
 of that dreadful pestilence which was more 
 fatal than the yellow fever — he alluded to 
 the congestive fever— prevailed; He was 
 
 decidedly in favor of choosing April for our 
 elections, otherwise, if that period did not 
 carry, he was for continuing July, which 
 was consecrated to us by the old consti- 
 tution. 
 
 Mr. Sellers craved the indulgence of 
 the Convention for trespassing upon their 
 patience, or rather he might say, their im- 
 patience. The district which he had the 
 honor to represent, in part, on this floor, 
 was deeply interested in the determination 
 of the present question. It was true, we 
 were not defining in so many words, direct- 
 ly, who should exercise the right of suf- 
 frage, but we were doing so - in point of 
 fact. In his district there were a number 
 of citizens — of persons entitled to and exer- 
 cising the right of suffrage, who absented 
 themselves in the month of July, and who, 
 if the elections were fixed for that period, 
 would be debarred the privilege of suffrage. 
 It was not material to enter into an exam- 
 ination of their motives for quitting the 
 State at that particular season of the year; 
 whether it was for pleasure, business, or 
 apprehension of the epidemics that prevail* 
 ed in the fall months, not to attempt to 
 determine how far it was prejudicial to the 
 interests of the State. True it was, they 
 come under the denomination of " birds of 
 passage." At least that expression was 
 applied to them; but, whether deserved or 
 not, one thing was certain, they had para- 
 mount interests in the State — having all 
 their property involved, they were deeply 
 interested in it by being the possessors of 
 property which was useless except attach- 
 ed to the soil. 
 
 He could not believe it was sincerely 
 contemplated to exclude them, and yet to 
 fix the elections in July would not only 
 have that effect, but likewise it would throw 
 many obstacles in the way of that popula= 
 tion,'in his district, that never left the State, 
 The stage of water that usually prevails 
 at that time of the year, was so high, as to 
 inundate the country, and preclude the pos- 
 sibility, without great difficulty, of getting 
 to the polls. The result of the inconveni- 
 ence of holding the elections in July were 
 exhibited in the fact, that in his district 
 nine hundred votes had been cast in the 
 elections of that tnonth, when in the suc= 
 ceeding month of November, fourteen to 
 fifteen hundred votes were cast. The con- 
 I sequence, it was plain to see ? was this; 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 that if the month of July be mentioned, ma- 
 ny of the legal voters actually resident, all 
 the time, would continue to be excluded, 
 not to mention the numerous class of vo- 
 ters that leave the State and return from 
 the beginning to the end of November. 
 
 These, and a good many other reasons 
 that he might adduce, but which he abstain- 
 ed from stating at this time — deeming what 
 he had said to be sufficient, would induce 
 him to vote against the month of July. The 
 policy, it seems, had been recognized, that 
 the time to be fixed should be the most 
 convenient to all the citizens, and this be- 
 ing settled, as well as the design to extend 
 the right of suffrage, he could not conceive 
 that it was the intention of any one to throw 
 shackles around the exercise of that privi- 
 lege, and to prevent its exercise. Believ- 
 ing that the selection of July, as proved by 
 experience, could exercise that tendency, 
 he should vote against that month. 
 
 Mr. Guion said he would prefer a month 
 in the spring. But failing in that, his se- 
 cond choice was to adhere to July. 
 
 He proposed the first Monday in May. 
 
 Mr. Chinn said that to him personally, 
 it was a matter of no consequence what 
 particular time was selected. But after 
 listening to the various suggestions, he 
 was inclined to think that the latter part of 
 April or the beginning of M-iy, was the 
 most opportune period. If it be designed 
 by the Convention to secure the fullest ex- 
 pression of the public will, then it must be 
 conceded that this result will be more like- 
 ly to be attained by fixing the elections in 
 the spring, than at any other period of the 
 year. 
 
 Mr. Mayo sustained the first Monday of 
 November. It was the most eligible peri- 
 od in the year, and most convenient to all. 
 In the spring months the planters were 
 busy. The roads were good in the month 
 of November, and, in almost all respects, 
 that period was the most convenient. He 
 should reserve his vote until the question 
 was put on the first Monday in November. 
 
 Mr. Splane declared his preference for 
 November. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson would inquire of the 
 mover in favor of November, if he would 
 consent, if November were carried, to 
 place the day in that month towards the 
 middle or towards the close, and would 
 not insist on the first Monday? If that was 
 
 the intention of the gentleman (Mr. Splane) 
 he would vote in favor of filling up the 
 blank with November. 
 
 Mr. Splane: any day in November, i 
 am willing to accede to. 
 
 The question was taken on rilling the 
 blank with November, and the yeas and 
 nays were cjalled for. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne sard he would vote af, 
 firmatively, but he was in favor of a later 
 period than November. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bra: 
 zeale, Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cade,Car- 
 riere, Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Covillion, Culbertson, Downs, Dunn, Oar= 
 rett, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Leonard, 
 Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Peets, Pe^in, Porche, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Pres- 
 ton, Prudhomme, Pugh, Read, Roselius, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Waddill, Voorhies, Weder- 
 strandt and Winder — 48 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Bourg, Briant f 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Derbes, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Mazureau, RallifT, 
 Roman, Ledoux and Trist — 17 nays. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin did not rise to debate the 
 question. He was aware that the house 
 were already exhausted. He had some 
 facts in hand which would go to show, that 
 if the p|riod were fixed in November, it 
 ought not to be before the latter part of 
 the month; otherwise a large number of 
 voteis would be excluded from the polls, 
 which, from the vote that took place on 
 another occasion, he judged was not the 
 intention of the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin then read a list exhibit 
 ing for the last ten years, the duration of 
 the yellow fever at its periodical visita= 
 tions. It seldom happened that the dis- 
 ease was entirely extinct before the close 
 of the month of November, or the begin= 
 ning of December. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved the fourth Monday 
 of November, and called for the yeas and 
 nays. Yeas 32, nays 35. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne moved for the third Mon- 
 day in November. 
 
 Mr. Waddill asked for a division of 
 the question. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne contended that the 
 question was not susceptible ef division. 
 
44 
 
 Debates 'in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Htere a discussion arose upon the ques 
 .„,., 0 f order, in which Messrs. Claiborne 
 Railiff and C. M. Conrad participated. 
 
 The PbEsident decided that the ques- 
 tion could be advocated. 
 
 lish a bad precedent. The Convention 
 would be obliged to ilsten to similar com- 
 munications, of immeasurable length, 
 whenever they were presented. It had 
 assembled for the purpose of amending 
 
 i ireas and nays were called for upon the constitution, aiad it was the privilege 
 ie motion to strike out the "first Mon- 1 of its members to suggest such amend- 
 
 day. * 
 
 Mr. WkdkrstraSdt sustained the first 
 •Monday in November", as the most eligible 
 period for holding the elections. 
 
 The result was 28 yeas, 39 nays. 
 
 So the house refused to strike out the 
 first Monday. 
 
 Mr. Penn moved for the adoption of the 
 section as amended. 
 
 Mr. ( ' ulbertson gave notice, that hav- 
 ing voted with the majority for November, 
 he would move for a reconsideration on 
 Monday. 
 
 ments as they deemed necessary. It was 
 encroaching upon this privilege to an- 
 ticipate the suggestion of the members, and 
 to ask the action of the Convention upon 
 peculiar views of particular individuals. 
 
 He would therefore move to refer the 
 communication to the parochial and dis- 
 trict delegation that represented the sec- 
 tion of the State in which the memorialist 
 resided. 
 
 The President said that the reading of 
 the paper had been called for, and that call 
 had been seconded. It was for the Con- 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to fill up the second vention to decide whether the reading 
 
 blank by inserting "1845." 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved that said paragraph 
 
 should go on. 
 
 Mr. C ulbertson would inquire if the 
 
 November and July, on Monday next. 
 
 Whereupon, the Convention adjourned 
 to .Monday next, at 1 1 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 be laid on the table subject to the call of; majority could control the reading of the 
 the Convention. j paper? Was there any rule to that affect? 
 
 Mr. Dunn gave notice that he would j He had heard nothing uncourteeus or irn- 
 move for a reconsideration of his vote on j proper in the paper. 
 
 The President said that there was an 
 implied right that all such papers should be 
 read. But if the Convention did not think 
 they were relavant, the reading could be 
 dispensed, and they could be disposed of as 
 the Convention might think fit. 
 
 Mr. T alor of Assumption, said that the 
 decision of the President was sustained by 
 the thirty-first rule; it was founded upon 
 reason. If the the reading of the docu- 
 ment were called for, and after the reading 
 had commenced, it was found that the time 
 of the Convention were uselessly consumed 
 it could be arrested, and a disposition might 
 be made of the paper. He was as unwil- 
 ling to prevent the reading of any suitable 
 paper as any one. But he could not be- 
 lieve in the propriety of taking up the 
 time of the Convention with long disquisi- 
 tions upon government. We had met to 
 consult and advise upon what amendments 
 were necessary to the organic law. If 
 persons out of the Convention wished to 
 enlighten us upon the reforms we ought to 
 make, they have ample opportunity of com- 
 municating to us their views in private in- 
 tercourse. And besides this, the press is 
 open to them for a full exposition of their 
 thoughts. 
 
 Monday, January 20, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. ^ 
 
 The proceedings were opened with pray- 
 er by ihe Rev. Mr. Preston. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies presented a memorial 
 from a respectable citizen of Attakapas, 
 suggesting amendments to the constitu- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Marigny moved that said memorial 
 be laid on the table. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies hoped that the memorial 
 would be read. 
 
 The Secretary proceeded to read said 
 memorial, and had read some portion of it, 
 when 
 
 Mr. Saunders moved to lay it on the 
 table, subject to the inspection of the mem- 
 bers. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies said he hoped the motion 
 of the member (Mr. Saunders) would not 
 prevail, and that the reading -would g® on. 
 
 Mr. Kenner said that if this document 
 were allowed to consume the time of the 
 Convention by being read, it would estab- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 45 
 
 The President would interrupt the gen- 
 tleman. The chair had decided the ques- 
 tion, and it was not in order to discuss it. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor said, it was not his 
 intention to discuss the matter. He would 
 move to lay the memorial indefinitely on 
 the table. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies called for the yeas and 
 nays to lay the memorial indefinitely on 
 the table, and the result was as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Brazeale, Briant,Brumfield, Burton, Downs, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, La- 
 bauve, Legendre, Lewis, McCallop, Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Porche, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Read* Roman, Roselius. 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Stephens, Taj-lor, Trist 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative — 40 
 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, 
 Chambliss, Conrad of Orleans, Covillion, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, King, Leonard, O'- 
 Bryan, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Preston, Ratliff, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Voorhies, Waddill and Wed- 
 erstrandt voted in the negative — 21 nays. 
 
 Mr. Soule asked to be excused from vo- 
 ting. He was not present when the dis- 
 cussion began. 
 
 On motion, Mr. Soule was excused. 
 
 The President submitted a letter from 
 j. A. Kelly, printer to the Convention, ask- 
 ing three hundred dollars, on account of 
 printing done by him. 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved that the president 
 be authorized to draw a warrant in favor of 
 said Kelly for the amount claimed ; but 
 subsequently modified his motion to refer 
 Mr. Kelly's letter to the committee on con- 
 tingent expenses. 
 
 Mr. I^tliff objected. He said that 
 the duties of the committee on contingent 
 expenses was to examine claims that were 
 actually due. It seemed that Mr. Kelly 
 asked an advance. If it was a claim due 
 the printer, then it would be a legitimate 
 subject of examination for the committee. 
 He was a working man and would never 
 object to any labor that might be imposed 
 upon the committee, provided it fell within 
 the appropriate functions of the committee. 
 But he would not consent that the house 
 should give this matter the go by, and di- 
 
 vest themselves of the responsibility, by 
 throwing it upon the committee. If in 
 their judgment the claim ought to be ad- 
 mitted, why then, pay it; if not, reject; 
 they kne w Mr. Kelly's situation. He was 
 in want of money to enable him to prose- 
 cute the printing for the Convention. 
 
 When a small claim was presented by 
 Mr* Kelly for work actually done, he (Mr. 
 Ratliff) asked the sense of the Convention 
 whether it should be paid, and they decided 
 that it should. But the present matter is 
 essentially different. It is for them to say 
 whether the money asked for by Mr. Kelly, 
 shall be advanced or not. 
 
 The President said the member from 
 Feliciana (Mr. Ratliff) misapprehended 
 Mr. Kelly's letter. His demand was for 
 work done. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Coxrad thought that some 
 rule ought to be adopted for all similar 
 claims, which would relieve the Conven- 
 tion. If some fifteen or twenty minutes are 
 to be consumed by an examination of th* 
 accounts of printers, the labors of the Con. 
 vention would be materially retarded. 
 
 The motion to refer prevailed. 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 The Convention resumed the considera- 
 tion of the section fixing the period for the 
 general elections. 
 
 Mr. Mayo said, that there was a misap- 
 prehension in taking the vote upon the 
 motion he made yesterday. It was under- 
 stood by himself and some other members, 
 that the question was put upon another 
 proposition. Besides, he had voted with 
 the majority, and he was entitled to move 
 for a re-consideration. His motion was to 
 fill up the last blank with "1845." 
 
 Mr. Beatty said that his motion was to 
 lay the gentleman's (Mr. Mayo) proposi- 
 tion, to fill the blank with 1845, upon the 
 table, subject to call, and that that motion 
 was carried. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies said that he labored un- 
 der a similar impression as the gentleman 
 from Catahoula, (Mr. Mayo.) 
 
 Mr. Cenas made a similar statement. 
 
 The President said the question would 
 be upon the motion of the member from 
 Catahoula, (Mr. Mayo) to reconsider the 
 vote, laying his proposition to fill the 
 blank in the third section of the second ar- 
 ticle with 1845, upon the table. 
 
16 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 The question was taken and decided in 
 the affirmative — Yeas 31, nays 30. 
 
 The Pbesident said the motion of the 
 member from Catahoula (Mr. Mayo) to 
 fill the blank with 1845, was before the 
 Convention* 
 
 Mr. Mayo said that the question of con- 
 stitutional reform, had been a subject of 
 great interest with the people for the last 
 m\ or seven years. They were anxious 
 to know what the Convention would resolve 
 upon. The people expected a liberal poli- 
 cy in regard to suffrage, and a more just 
 nd equal system of representation. They 
 v. anted to know when they were to enjoy 
 the privileges of extended suffrage. The 
 public officers, too, wished to know when 
 th« ir term of service would expire. 
 
 Mr. Read was in favor of an early peri- i 
 od, and of fixing the time as proposed. It 
 was his opinion, however, that it would 
 come in more appropriately in the schedule. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad participated in a 
 similar opinion. The- schedule provided 
 for the governor and other officers, and he 
 saw no reason why the legislative depart- 
 ment should not be included in it. It was 
 evidently unnecessary to act upon this sub- ! 
 ject at present. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to lay the motion j 
 on the table subject to call; the yeas and 
 nays were asked, and they were as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Brent, Briant, Carriere, Cenas, 
 Chambliss, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Downs, Eustis, Garcia, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, Lew- 
 is, Marigny, Mazureau, Peets, Penn, Pres. 
 ton, Prudhomme, Pugh, Read, Roman, 
 Roselius, Saunders, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Madison, 
 Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Tiist, Voorhies, Wadsworth 
 and Winder — 47 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brumfield, Burton, 
 Cade, Covillion, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, 
 Mayo, Porter, Porche, Prescott of Avoy- 
 elles, Prescottof St. Landry, Ratliff, Sou- 
 le, Waddill and Wedsretrandt — 17 nays. 
 So the motion was laid on the table, sub- 
 ject to call. 
 
 Mr. Culberteon said that he had given 
 notice on Saturday last, that he would 
 move to reconsider the vote fixing the 
 
 elections on the first Monday in No- 
 vember. Upon reflection, he doubted 
 whether the motion would meet with any 
 satisfactory result. Every available month 
 had in turn been proposed, and in turn vo- 
 ted down, with the exception of Novem- 
 ber, and the majority did not appear dispo- 
 sed to go beyond the first Monday of that 
 month. He would have preferred June, 
 May, or the second Monday in April. He 
 apprehended a motion for any of these 
 periods would not succeed, and hence, he 
 would withdraw his motion for reconside- 
 ration, and give way to the gentleman from 
 Feliciana (Mr. Dunn) who had made a sim- 
 ilar motion for reconsideration. 
 
 Mr. Dunn moved to reconsider the vote 
 for the first Monday in November. 
 
 He said, he hoped the Convention 
 would be actuated by a spirit of compro- 
 mise in fixing the time for holding the 
 elections. That spirit had influenced him. 
 We had been told, and the fact was noto- 
 rious, that the yellow fever prevailed in 
 New Orleans until a late period in th 
 month of November, This induced many 
 citizens, who absented themselves to avoid 
 the epidemic, to keep away until the dan- 
 ger was passed, and if the elections were 
 brought on at such a time, they would be 
 excluded from the privilege of suffrage. 
 
 He trusted that this consideration would 
 not fail to have its due weight with the 
 majority. For himself, he preferred the 
 month of July, but was disposed to re- 
 | linquish it, inasmuch as he had been told 
 that by reason of high water in some sec- 
 tions of the State, it would be excessively 
 inconvenient for voters resident in those 
 sections to attend the polls. 
 
 It was incontrovertible that the majority 
 ought to govern, and to enable the majority 
 to declare their sentiments, the elections 
 should be held at that season of the year 
 when the full expression of the public voice 
 could be heard. 
 
 He trusted that the sober second thoughts 
 of the majority would convince them of the 
 injustice of placing the elections at any pe- 
 riod of the year, when a large portion of 
 the legal voters would be absented. It was 
 a question of fact whether the city of New 
 Orleans was not exposed to the fatal effects 
 of the epidemic at the beginning of Novem- 
 ber. If that question were decided in the 
 affirmative, and it could be resolved in no 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 47 
 
 other way, why then, was it not evident ! til to-morrow. The information obtained 
 that a gross wrong would be done to the j might induce the majority to accept of July 
 citizens of New Orleans by requiring them : as a compromise, 
 to cast their votes at so unpropitious a pe- \ The motion to postpone was lost, 
 riod? Why not extend the time for twenty . The President stated that the question 
 days longer: that would evince a spirit of before the Convention, was the reconsider- 
 compromise, and a disposition to carry out ation of the vote taken upon the first Mon- 
 the principle of convenience, which should day in November. 
 
 be extended to all parts of the State. The question was taken, and it was 
 
 Another reason, that ought to have great negatived, 
 weight, was that the presidential elections • Mr. Benjamin moved to reconsider, the 
 e*ery fourth year, came on at this identical j vote given upon the month of July. He 
 period. It would be a great misfortune to i had voted against that month with the 
 connect general with local politics. j majority. 
 
 If the first Monday of November be Mr. Ratlitf considered this motion to 
 maintained may it not be inferred that there I be out of order: If this course were sane- 
 is something more than the convenience of tioned, it would lead to interminable pro- 
 some particular locality involved? If that j ceedings. Twenty votes might be taken 
 period be insisted upon, he (Mr. Dunn) on the negative and affirmative of questions 
 would not say an" intentional wrong was j that might arise in one day, and the next 
 contemplated, but unquestionably there day we would have forty motions for recon- 
 was the semblance of wrong ? j sideration. He did not conceive how the 
 
 We should be ready to render full justice ] gentleman could go back and raise the 
 to all; to place political power in the hands , question of July. The motion to reconsid- 
 of those to which it legitimately belonged, j er November, being lost, it appeared to him 
 and to do this we should consult the inter- j that all other motions to reconsider other 
 ests and the convenience of all. He was ' periods, were out of order, 
 influenced upon this floor by no party con- i The President said that according to 
 siderations, it was not a question of whe- j the rule, the question of July could be re- 
 ther whig or democrat should profit, but a considered. If the house determined to 
 question of what was right, just and proper, j reconsider that vote, it did not displace 
 If there be any thing improper or unjust in November, it only placed the whole subject 
 the constitution we were about forming, it ; again within the control of the house, 
 will incur the risk of being rejected, for the ! This was his understanding of the matter, 
 people will not ratify injustice — they will Mr. Wadsworte said, in conformity to 
 not sanction oppression. the rules, he would give notice of his in- 
 
 Mr. Dunn concluded by an appeal indention to move a re-consideration of the 
 favor of compromise — of concession: if no vote upon November. By giving two day's 
 period (said he) can be selected, generally j notice, he thought himself within the rule, 
 acceptable, or more acceptable than the ! and any time thereafter he could call for 
 period fixed in the constitution, why then, j question upon the reconsideration, 
 the best policy would be to maintain that j Mr. C. M. Conrad said that the gentle 
 period, consecrated as it is, by thirty-two j man (Air. Wadsworth) would have to spe- 
 years' experience. I cify in his motion when he intended to 
 
 Mr. Waddill. with a view, as he stated, take up the question of reconsideration, 
 of giving the present matter the go-by. for | Mr. Claiborne participated in the opin- 
 the present, offered a resolution appointing j ion of his colleague from New Orleans, 
 a committee of five to inquire and report and made some remarks to sustain that con- 
 upon the number of votes given at the mu- tradiction of the rule. 
 
 nicipal elections, and those given at" the Mr. Wadsworth then gave notice that 
 presidential elections. on Thursday next, he would move for the 
 
 Mr. Claiborxe, in order to give further reconsideration, 
 time for reflection, and in order to obtain | Mr. Benjamin gave notice that he would 
 the information contemplated by, the gen- move, on the same day s for a reconsidera- 
 tleman from Baton Rouge (Mr' Waddill) \ tion of his vote upon the month of July, 
 moved that the matter lay on the table un- ] Mr. Kenner inquired of the chair wheth- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 er there was any rule requiring motions to 
 be submitted in writing. 
 
 The Pbesident replied that motions had 
 to be reduced to writing when any mem, 
 ber required it. 
 
 Mr. Read moved the adoption of para- 
 graph 3d of the section. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to amend the 4th line 
 by inserting alter the words "the general 
 assembly shall meet on the third Monday 
 of January," the following: "immediately 
 after the election." Adopted. 
 
 Mr. Ctjlbeetson moved to strike out 
 that part of the section that authorised the 
 legislature to fix another period for their 
 meetings, than that appointed by the con- 
 stitution. 
 
 The question was taken, and it was ne- 
 gatived — 33 in favor, and 35 against. 
 
 A motion was made to adopt the para- 
 graph, which lead to a slight discussion 
 whether that motion was in order, in which 
 Messrs. Conrad, Roselius and Taylor of 
 Assumption, participated, 
 
 Mr. Boudousquie would ask a simple 
 question of the chair : whether questions 
 that had been negatived could be recon- 
 sidered? If they could, it seemed to him 
 the Convention could make but little pro- 
 gress. Every question that had been de- 
 hated, discussed, and voted down, could be 
 brought up de nevo before the Convention. 
 Were there any limits to these reconside- 
 rations of articles of the Convention? 
 
 The President replied that this was the 
 dilema to which the Convention were re- 
 duced. 
 
 Mr. Kenner : So far from being a 
 dilema, it was the intention of the Conven- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Preston moved to amend the 3d 
 section so as to make the sessions annual, 
 instead of biennial. 
 
 Mr. C laiborne hoped this amendment 
 would not be carried. Experience had 
 shown that the frequent sessions of the le- 
 gislature tended rather to prevent bad, 
 than secure good legislation. The prin- 
 ciple of biennial legislatures was found to 
 work well, wherever it had been tried; and 
 in addition to that consideration, and many 
 others that might be adduced; it was a 
 great economy. 
 
 Mr. Preston said that his views upon 
 this subject were not hastily formed, with 
 but little reflection. It was not necessary 
 
 for him to say a great deal in support of 
 the principle. The reasons that decided 
 his judgment, would occur and carry con- 
 viction to every man that would take the 
 trouble'of investigating the matter. 
 
 In the first place, experience indicates to 
 us the expediency of adhering to the sys- 
 tem. It has been in operation among us 
 for thirty years/and each succeeding legis- 
 lature has had ample business to engage 
 its attention. To this experience of our 
 own, we unite the experience of twenty- 
 four of our sister States, who have adopted 
 and continued the same system. 
 
 The only exception to this almost gener- 
 al rule, are the States, he believed, of Mis- 
 sissippi and Tennessee; and if the former 
 State has only biennial sessions, there are 
 so many called sessions, that it is equiva- 
 lent to holding annual sessions. 
 
 Then, continued Mr. Preston, in addi- 
 tion to the thirty years' experience that we 
 have, we find that in every constitution, in- 
 cluding the constitution of the United 
 States, and bating the two instances to 
 which he had referred; in all the consti- 
 tutions adopted before and after the consti- 
 tution of the United States, and comprising 
 a period of nearly sixty years, that this 
 principle has universally been adopted; 
 that it was adopted when the colonies be- 
 came independent States; and that it were 
 excited when they were colonies. It was 
 based on experience; and was a matter of 
 such self-evident necessity, as to be conse- 
 crated not only by our own example for 
 thirty years, but by the example of our 
 sister States of the confederacy. 
 
 The business of man, Mr. President, is 
 annual. The planter makes his annual 
 crop and balances his yearly expenses. 
 The merchant, too, posts up his books 
 with the end of the year, and prepares for 
 business for another. The lawyer settles 
 up his old business, as far as he can, and 
 prepares himself for new, and to extend 
 the circle of his clients. The physician 
 does the same thing. Our judges endeav- 
 or to clear their dockets at the end of the 
 year; and our most important officers are 
 bound annually to make their reports of the 
 conditions of the departments confided to 
 them. 
 
 It is, therefore, manifest that there is no- 
 thing so extraordinary that our legislation, 
 which should vary with the wants and 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 49 
 
 wishes of the people, should be renewed or 
 subject to examination annually. In a 
 new country there are so many important 
 interests to be promoted — so many new 
 wants arising, that the business of legisla- 
 tion is one of the very highest importance 
 to the community. Take one branch of 
 the public service for an example; our re- 
 venue laws, notwithstanding the experi- 
 ence we have had, they remain still 
 very defective, and do not produce all 
 the results that can be desired. New 
 sources of revenue, too, are springing up, 
 which should be made available to the ex- 
 igencies and wants of the State. Surely 
 our debt is very heavy, and we require 
 every cent of revenue we can raise — not 
 by inferring, however, burthens upon those 
 citizens who already contribute — but ex- 
 tending the circle of taxation; discovering 
 new objects upon which it may be laid, 
 and other classes of our citizens who 
 should contribute their proportion to relieve 
 the State from her embarrassments. It is 
 necessary and proper too, that all receiving 
 officers should be held to a strict accounta- 
 bility, and be compelled to answer for their 
 stewardship at the end of every year. And 
 who, Mr. President, can hold them so well 
 to that accountability as the legislature. 
 
 They should obtain their quietus — I use 
 it because it is an old term, but I much pre- 
 fer the expression, a full discharge —before 
 they should be permitted to retain their 
 employment for a succeeding year. The 
 treasurer of the State, too, has his annual 
 accounts to present to the legislature. I 
 like that portion of our constitution, Mr. 
 President. Then again offices are to be 
 filled — it is true, that most of the appoint- 
 ments are biennial, bnt in the event of 
 death, resignation, or other contingency to 
 the incumbent, is it not well that the 
 branch of the government that ratifies 
 those appointments should be in session 
 annually, to perform that very important 
 function. In the senate, too, is lodged the 
 pardoning power; for, by the constitution, 
 the governor may grant pardons, reprieves, 
 remit forfeitures, subject to the examina- 
 tion and ratification of the senate. The 
 power of trying impeachments, too, are 
 confided to the senate. The house of re- 
 presentatives is the grand inquest of the 
 whole State, as the grand jury of a parish 
 is the inquest of that particular parish. It 
 
 is their duties to inquire, and with the par- 
 ticipation of the senate, to perfect our so- 
 cial system — to look into the revenues. 
 There are now forty odd parishes in the 
 State, and a great number of local officers, 
 into whose conduct and fidelity the le- 
 gislature is bound to inquire into annually. 
 Why should we not adhere to that which is 
 sanctioned to us by time immemorial, by 
 the experience and the test of time? Why 
 should we abandon a good system — a sys- 
 tem that had been adhered to with but two 
 solitary exceptions. A system that is im- 
 memorial. 
 
 But, says the gentleman from New Or- 
 leans, (Mr. Claiborne) it is necessary to 
 have biennial sessions in order to prevent 
 bad legislation. This argument defeats 
 itself, for if bad legislation be the conse- 
 quence of annual sessions of the legisla- 
 ture, what guarantee have we that there will 
 be only good legislation if we have only 
 biennial sessions. And suppose but one 
 solitary aet of bad legislation is consum- 
 mated during one biennial session, how 
 are we to get rid of it before the return of 
 the next session, at the expiration of the 
 two years? 
 
 I will, said Mr. Preston, mention a case 
 in point, which will strikingly illustrate 
 that part of the argument. During the 
 session of 1844, a decided disposition ex- 
 isted in the legislature to get the State 
 clear from all connection with banking 
 corporations— to divorce her from those in- 
 stitutions. For that purpose an act was 
 passed for the relinquishment of the inter- 
 est of the State and the disposal of her stock. 
 The conditions upon which this arrange- 
 ment with the banks was to be made, was 
 subject to the consent of those institutions, 
 and in consideration of certain advantages 
 allowed them, a favorable stipulation was 
 made for private individuals, who were 
 their debtors allowing these individuals the 
 privilege of renuing upon the payment, say 
 of ten per cent, inclusive of interest. The 
 legislature, without doubt, intended ten per 
 cent, exclusive of interest, instead of inclu- 
 sive ; for otherwise the debt would never 
 be paid. The payment of ten per cent, 
 inclusive of interest would not pay the debt 
 in one hundred years, whereas the pay- 
 ment of ten per cent., exclusive of interest, 
 would pay it in ten years. The conse- 
 quence was that the banks refused to ac- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 cept the law, and by that, and that alone, 
 the State lost one hundred thousand dollars. 
 She lost them as effectually as if so many 
 dollffas were taken out of the treasury and 
 thrown into the sweeping stream of the 
 Mississippi. It is a matter of wonder that 
 the legislature have not yet corrected the 
 error, perhaps its consequences are irre- 
 trievable, and that the banks would not 
 now be disposed to embrace the stipula- 
 tions of the law; so the State will continue 
 to lose one hundred thousand dollaJs per 
 annum, which would have been saved but 
 for the unfortunate substitution of the let- 
 ters i n for e x ; for at this time when the 
 law passed cotton was at a high price, and 
 there were the strongest inducements to 
 the banks to accede. 
 
 But, if we must admit the force of the 
 gentleman's argument that bad laws are 
 passed, why then, in the name of God, do 
 not deprive us for two years of the faculty 
 of repealing them. Those who may have 
 participated in their passage will be forced 
 by public opinion to repeal them so soon as 
 the legislature is convened. That argu- 
 ment seemed to him (Mr. Preston) para- 
 mount in establishing the expediency of 
 annual legislation. But without asserting, 
 as the gentleman does, that there is bad le- 
 gislation, the very possibility that it may 
 occur, could be most conclusive. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne: Mr. Preston has mis- 
 taken me. I did not say we had bad legis- 
 lation, but simply that the legislature occu- 
 pied itself more with preventing the pas- 
 sing of bad laws than in the passing of 
 good ones. 
 
 Mr. Preston: Very well. That does 
 not prevent me from concluding that the ar- 
 guments I have used are as powerful as 
 they are just. We have as much occa- 
 sion annually to prevent bad laws, as to 
 enact good ones. Experience has proved 
 that it is necessary to be continually scru- 
 tinizing the laws; and in supposing that 
 the legislature errs oftener than is gene- 
 rally admitted, I still believe that it ef- 
 fects more good than evil, and that its pro- 
 bity will always be more useful than its 
 blunders will be dangerous. 
 
 As to the expenses, I confess that the 
 legislature is too long in session. Thirty 
 consecutive days would be amply sufficient, 
 as in South Carolina, without restricting 
 however the executive from exercising its 
 
 right of convoking extra sessions. Acting 
 thus, the expense w r ould be inconsiderable; 
 twenty thousand dollars would cover all 
 costs; twelve thousand for the sixty repre- 
 sentatives, the seventeen senators, and 
 twenty officers, at four dollars a day, with 
 eight thousand dollars mileage — reducing 
 it to that figure in consequence of the fa- 
 cilities for transit which we now enjoy. 
 Assuredly, Louisiana, whose population 
 and industry are every day on the advance, 
 could afford this annual tax. 
 
 It is in vain you will say; there are never 
 too many amendments in the business of 
 legislation. A multitude of local matters 
 must inevitably come before the legislature 
 though even you were to leave to the po- 
 lice juries of the parishes of the State, the 
 business connected with the care of the 
 rivers, lakes and bayous, slaves and other 
 subjects of minor importance. Observe 
 what is passing this year! It w T as thought 
 that in the presence of the Convention, the 
 legislature would suspend its sittings. On 
 the contrary, this multitude of small local 
 affairs give it a glut of occupation and pre- 
 vent it from adjourning. It is even possi- 
 ble that a great quantity of arrears will be 
 left! It is a misfortune you will say per- 
 haps. I agree with you; but that is anoth- 
 er reason why I shall insist on the neces= 
 sity of the amendment I have proposed. 
 
 Mr. Marigny: It is my duty, as a mem- 
 ber of the legislative committee, and as I 
 have sanctioned the clause which is attack- 
 ed, to demonstrate its utility. If the Con- 
 vention adopt the amendment offered by 
 Mr. Preston, it will fail in its duty to itself. 
 In fact, why did the people ask for the 
 Convention? What else but to provide 
 means for introducing a system of wise 
 economy, to restrain the legislature and to 
 prevent the State from compromising its 
 faith, and from contracting endless debts? 
 Every political meeting at which I have 
 been present, has professed this doctrine; 
 every speaker whom I have heard discuss 
 the subject has warmly and eloquently 
 sustained these principles and their con- 
 sequences. And now the delegate from 
 J efferson, who has no doubt used the same 
 language, comes forward to try to prove to 
 us that it is absolutely necessary that the 
 legislature should, assemble every year. 
 This is w T hat I cannot understand Re- 
 peruse the report of your committee, and 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 51 
 
 you will find that there are now not sixty | public affairs, but this will be no evil, and 
 but seventy representatives, and according on the other side the State will gain by it; 
 to every probability, there will shortly be a which is all that we have a right to desire, 
 hundred. How^ is it possible that the as- : Very well, says Mr. Preston; but local 
 sembly of this immense number of legisla- 1 affairs! local affairs! It is necessary that 
 tors can be brought about without an enor- your legisrature be charged with the ad- 
 mous expense to the State? And then, if ministration of the bayous and ferries, 
 they immediately proceed to the great ob- Have you not your police juries who would 
 ject of their mission; which is not always readily undertake the care of these affairs? 
 uppermost in their thoughts: Arrange in such a manner that the legis- 
 
 For twenty years, during which I occu- lature shall only occupy themselves with 
 pied a seat either in the senate or the house, the passing of general laws, and then a 
 I remarked that the session always lasted session of forty or fifty days every two 
 from two to three months, and out of sixty years, will amply suffice for the due dis- 
 members of the latter, there were usually charge of their duty. We are not here in 
 fifteen or twenty on leave; and propor- Louisiana as in other States, involved 
 tionably it was the same case with the without hope in the intricacies of the com- 
 senate; which abundantly proves that nei- raon law, in which the lawyers alone are 
 ther one body nor the other occupied it- at home. We have one code, one written 
 self seriously with the public interest, and law, which every one can read and under- 
 whatever might have been urged upon them stand. 
 
 to stimulate them to expedition, they never I have then the right to express my as- 
 adjourned until the 15th of March, a peri- tonishment when I hear the great econo- 
 od when it was absolutely necessary for mist, and the declared champion of the de- 
 them to look after their sugar or cotton, mocracy, engage you in the consideration 
 Thus, as men rarely change in this mode of a project which would multiply yourdif- 
 of thinking and acting, what has been will ficulties and your expenses, if you once se- 
 iigain occur, and notwithstanding all the riously entertained it. There ought to 
 fine oratory which maybe employed on the be here neither whigs nor democrats; W T e 
 subject, there will always be, year after ought all, as good Louisianians, to unite 
 year, an expense incurred of one hundred with one accord, to lay down the true prin- 
 thousand dollars for the twenty-five sena- ciples of order and economy. It is for 
 tors and seventy-five representatives. these reasons I shall vote against Mr, 
 
 But the delegate from Jefferson lays Preston's amendment, 
 great stress on certain facts, and if I right- ; Mr. Read remarked, that Mr. Preston 
 ly comprehend him, says that on correct- had committed an error in his political 
 ing a single w r ord > they had or might have statement. With the constitutions of these 
 saved one hundred thousand dollars. This States in his hand, he could prove that 
 is probable, but there is another fact which there are seven,viz: Missouri, Arkansas, Illi- 
 is still more important. Let us suppose nois, Mississippi, Tennessee, Delaware 
 that the constitution, wdiich we are now | and Ohio, whose legislatures sit only once 
 making lasts thirty years, that our legisla- in two years. 
 
 turc costs one hundred thousand dollars The President then put the question 
 each time it meets, if instead of assembling on Mr. Preston's amendment, and it was 
 once a year, it only sits once every two rejected, by a vote of 59 to 7. 
 years, is it not plain that at the end of thirty , Mr. Dowxs: 1 move that after the words 
 years you will have saved one million five January the words " which shall follow 
 hundred thousand dollars of the money of immediately after the election," be in- 
 the State, without reckoning interest] I serted. 
 
 That, at all events, is worth your one him- ' The Convention adopted the amend- 
 dred thousand dollars. ment, 
 
 It is true that henceforward, the State , Mr. Culbertso^: I move that the fol- 
 will not be permitted to pledge its faith to j lowing words be omitted: 56 unless another 
 issue bonds, to make appropriations for the I day be fixed by law." 
 bayous Pigeon, Laviolette, &c. and that This amendment was also adopted, 
 the legislature will meddle less with the ; Mr, Clabo»>-e; I move that the words 
 
52 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 '* during the day only," be substituted for 
 "one clay only." 
 
 Tins proposition became the subject of a 
 slight discussion. 
 
 Mr. Claiiiorne withdrew it. 
 
 The question was then to adopt the third 
 Ejection of the second article, except the first 
 paragraph, which remained for the con- 
 sideration of the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans opposed it. 
 
 Mr. Downs sustained it. 
 
 Mr. Lewis sided with the former. 
 
 Mr. M. Taylor with the latter. 
 
 Mr. Boudousquie then observed to the 
 President, that if they could thus adopt un- 
 der a reservation to examine, there would 
 be no end to their labor. 
 
 The President stated that such are the 
 rules, and that the Convention had decided 
 it so. 
 
 The question was then to adopt the first 
 paragraph of the third section as amended, 
 which was carried by a vote of 59 to 8. 
 
 Mr. Sellers: I move to expunge all the 
 fourth section of the second article relative 
 to the qualifications required from candi- 
 dates for representatives; and the reason I 
 assign for the motion is, that the people, 
 even to the women, are the best judges of 
 the qualifications necessary for a represen- 
 tative. 
 
 Mr. Read: I move to substitute for this 
 same fourth section, the following words: 
 " Every elector possessing the qualifica- 
 tions required by the present constitution, 
 is eligible for election to the house of re- 
 presentatives. 
 
 Mr. Grymes declared that these words 
 signify the same as those which are com- 
 prised in the section; but he made a mis- 
 take regarding the section, and was cor- 
 rected by Mr. Mayo. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin: I oppose the amend- 
 ment. We have not yet decided on any 
 thing regarding elections. Why then vote 
 in the dark? We can well understand the 
 qualifications necessary to be required 
 from candidates to the house, and know 
 nothing about those which shall distinguish 
 electors. It is better to wait a little, and 
 not in this manner mix up section after 
 section. 
 
 Mr. Boudousque wished to know if the 
 section would remain subject to call, should 
 Read's amendment pass. 
 
 The President answered it would= 
 
 Mr. Downs remarked, that in expung- 
 ing the last clause of this fourth section, it 
 would be similar to the corresponding sec- 
 tion in the old constitution, and he there- 
 fore moved that the latter be chosen. 
 
 The President then put Mr. Read's 
 amendment to the vote, when it was re- 
 jected. 
 
 Mr. Sellers moved that his motion be 
 disposed of. 
 
 Mr. Guion moved that it be laid on the 
 table, and the Convention adopted his mo- 
 tion. 
 
 The President: The question now is 
 on the fourth section of the second article. 
 
 The secretary read it as follows: 
 
 Sec. 4. No one shall be elected a re- 
 presentative that has not attained the age 
 of twenty-one years at the time of his elec- 
 tion, if he is not a free white citizen of the 
 United States, if he has not resided in the 
 State for the two years immediately prece- 
 ding the election, and the last year in the 
 parish of which he is elected representative. 
 
 Mr. Kenner: I move to substitute the 
 words "twenty-five" for "twenty-one," 
 and "five" for "two." 
 
 Mr. Lewis: Divide the question. 
 
 The President: The question now is 
 to expunge the word "two." 
 
 The yeas and nays having been called 
 for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jef- 
 ferson, Covillion, Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, 
 Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Loselius, Saun- 
 ders, Sellers, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Wadsworth, Winchester and 
 Winder voted in the affirmative —35 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Cade, Carriere, 
 Cenas, Chambliss, Culbertson, Downs, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, 
 Leonard, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, 
 Porche, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Ppeston, Ratliff, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Soule, Splane, Stephens, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in the 
 negative— 33 nays; consequently tke word 
 "two" was ordered to be expunged, and 
 
 The Convention adjourned till to-morrow 
 at 10 o'clock, a. m, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 53 
 
 Tuesday, January 21, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment, and the proceedings were open- 
 ed by prayer. 
 
 Mr. Read moved for the adoption of the 
 first paragraph, third section as amended. 
 
 Mr. Splane moved to fill the blank 
 requiring the qualification of residence, for 
 a member of the general assembly to one 
 year's residence preceding the election. 
 
 Mr. DuNNprefered five years, and mov- 
 ed that the blank be filled with that pe- 
 riod. 
 
 Mr. Splane said he would not make 
 any lengthy argument in favor of his pro- 
 position. He thought the qualification 
 of one years residence was sufficient, for 
 he felt assured that unless the candidate 
 gave unerring indications of his attach- 
 meat to the interests of the State, the priv- 
 ilege of suffrage would not be bestow- 
 ed upon him, whether the residence was 
 one or two years, and that a man really 
 designing to identify himself with the State, 
 would be as effectually identified in one 
 year as in five, or a longer period. After 
 all, it was the province of the people to 
 determine who should represent them, and 
 they were the best judges both of the abili- 
 ty and fidelity of candidates. Their judg- 
 ments would not lead them astray. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor said he was in fa- 
 vor of the proposition offered yesterday 
 by the delegate from Concordia, (Mr. Sel- 
 lers) to strike out all the qualifications and 
 leave the voters unrestricted in their choice. 
 That could very well be done, if, in defin- 
 ing the qualifications of voters, we took 
 care that none but the real residents of the 
 State, those identified with her in one way 
 or another, should be invested with the 
 highly important and vital prerogative of 
 suffrage. 
 
 The most essential question -was to de- 
 termine who should exercise the political 
 power of the State, and if that were prop- 
 erly and discreetly determined, the utmost 
 latitude could be given to the voters to se- 
 lect who should represent them. It was 
 true, it was within the range of possibiity 
 that they would make occasionally an im- 
 proper choice, but it was barely within 
 the range of possibility. It was not likely 
 they would abuse that freedom. It was 
 not likely they would elect a colored per- 
 son or a woman to represent them. But if 
 8 
 
 it be deemed necessary to erect barriers 
 against possible abuses, let them be effec- 
 tual ones. For this reason, if qualifica- 
 tions were to be required, he, Mr. Taylor, 
 would sustain those that appeared best 
 calculated to effect the purpose for which 
 they were intended. Consequently, he 
 would prefer five years to one, for the res- 
 idence, that being the longest period, and 
 offered the surest guarantee. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said he would not trouble 
 | the Convention with many remarks. He 
 i had never wearied the patience of the Con- 
 j vention by any thing extensive, and he 
 I certainly would not do so now. If we 
 consider the present question in its effects 
 and influences, it was one of the greatest 
 possible importance. The idea had been 
 inculcated that the greatest freedom should 
 be accorded to the masses, of which, Mr. 
 President, you and I are units. This doc- 
 ; trine was beautiful in theory ; but what 
 \ was its practical effects? What would be 
 j the practical results of canying out the 
 j principle of unrestricted liberty ? Why, 
 ; it would be an abrogation of all government! 
 ! What is Government ? The very term 
 ; government necessarily implies restraint, 
 j It implies that some govern and others 
 I obey. Throughout, government is a re- 
 | straint, and when it ceases to restrain, it 
 I ceases to be government; none govern and 
 j none obey — it is anarchy, and society is 
 ! resolved into a state of nature. 
 
 It is said that sovereignty resides in the 
 | people. This is true in itself ; but attempt 
 I to carry out the principle literally, and you 
 have the republics of Athens and Sparta, 
 which proved in the end to be impractica- 
 ble. A pure, unmixed democracy is an 
 absurdity. It is opposed to the very na- 
 ture of man. Some restraints are indis- 
 pensable to the protection of the minority, 
 and if you yield that up, then your pretend- 
 ed government becomes a mere farce. It 
 cannot be government unless it protects the 
 minority, and restrains by its authority, vio- 
 lence and disorder. It cannot be govern- 
 ment unless it have the force to restrain 
 any sudden ebullition of popular excite- 
 ment within bounds. 
 
 Where is the use, it may be asked, of 
 requiring a certain well defined residence 
 before one be allowed to enter the halls of 
 your legislature? It is because it would 
 be unreasonable and unsafe, to abandon 
 
54 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 that guarantee of attachment and fidelity 
 to the State. We, the people, are liable to 
 err, and to be led astray. We are liable 
 individually and collectively to be sway- 
 ed by our passions, and our interests; 
 and it is wise and prudent that we should 
 be under some of those wholesome re- 
 straints which are dictated to us in our 
 cooler moments, as necessary and indis- 
 pensable to keep us within the bounds of 
 discretion. It is utterly absurd to believe 
 that out government, that any government, 
 can exist without restraint, reposing solely 
 and entirely upon the momentary will of 
 the people; the majority of whom are omni- 
 nipotent for evil, as well as for good. The 
 minoity must be protected from the majori- 
 ty, and the majority protected against them- 
 selves. This position is irrefragible. We 
 must take the position, that there is, and ne- 
 cessarily must be, some restraint. We must 
 look at the qualifications of the represen- 
 tative, and have these qualifications posi- 
 tively prescribed. It is true, we often hear 
 that the representative is the servant of 
 the people, but this is only true in one 
 sense. In another, the representative is 
 the ruler of the people. The truth may 
 be unpalatable to the ultra democracy, the 
 ultra democrat, and the jacobins. They 
 may not relish the idea of submission in 
 the sovereign people, but relish it or not, 
 to get rid of ir, they must destroy the very 
 essence of government. He hoped there 
 were none here who indulged in the vis- 
 ionary idea, lhat restraints were idle. To 
 such Utopian dreamers the naked fact must 
 appear distasteful, but there it was, inse- 
 parable from any possible system of human 
 government. In all countries, and among 
 all people so soon as restrictions ceased, 
 government ceased. Anarchy invariably 
 followed the extinction of that vital prin- 
 ciple of government. 
 
 To establish a state of society, it was 
 requisite for each individual to give up so 
 much of his personal liberty as was essen- 
 tial to the government and well-being of 
 the whole, and which would secure to him 
 adequate protection for the liberty he re- 
 tained. To suppose, then, that he was 
 under no more restraint than in his native 
 state of liberty ; that there was no limit 
 to his conduct, but his feelings and his 
 impulses involved a paradox. It was an 
 absurdity. 
 
 Communities had the inherent right to 
 determine upon what conditions, persons 
 coming among them should participate 
 with them in the administration of the gov- 
 ernment, and exclude them altogether if 
 reasons of policy dictated it. Surely, it 
 was within their province to determine at 
 what time they would consider a person 
 coming from abroad sufficiently identified 
 with their peculiar system of policy. To 
 say that any man, even from our sister 
 States, who had just put his foot upon our 
 shores, was qualified to enter our legisla- 
 ture, and to make laws for our government 
 and the regulation of our property, was 
 asserting that which common prudence 
 and sagacity repudiated. It was an error 
 and a folly to suppose that such persons 
 could be eligible without any danger of 
 their being chosen, and if chosen, without 
 danger to the permanent interests of the 
 State. That vox popidi is always vox del, 
 said Mr. Lewis, 1 utterly deny. It is a 
 favorite but a fallacious doctrine of dema- 
 gogues. From the Peloponnesiacum hel- 
 ium to the present time, it has universally 
 been the practice of demagogues to de- 
 lude the dear people by flattering them, 
 and those who have tickled the faneies of 
 men the most, have invariably been the 
 most successful — I cannot say, they have 
 proved in most cases, to have been, the best 
 qualified to fill the stations to which they 
 were elected. 
 
 Whence proceeds, asked Mr. Lewis, so 
 much improper legislation? It is because 
 men are actuated too often by their sudden 
 impulses, and go to extremities without 
 weighing the consequences! Hence, the 
 necessity for hedging our liberties with 
 proper guards and restrictions : to limit the 
 power and the possibility of doing evil, as 
 far as human sagacity can prevail. 
 
 Can it be said that we would be acting 
 discreetly, to throw open our institutions 
 to the immediate control of persons who 
 have just come among us — who do not 
 comprehend and frequently are prejudiced 
 against those institutions; to persons more 
 especially who come from Europe — whose 
 systems of government are so entirely 
 dissimilar to that peculiar system adopted 
 in the United States? Should no proba- 
 tion be required of such, to learn our sys- 
 tem: to get rid of their prejudices? Even 
 between Louisiana and her sister State's. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 55 
 
 there is a material difference in their res- 
 pective systems of jurisprudence. Louisi- 
 ana is the only State in the Union where 
 the civil law prevails. It is the only State 
 whose jurisprudence is derived from that 
 pure source. And, whatever errors and 
 fallacies may have existed in the despotic 
 government of Rome, it is the most per- 
 fect and equal system of law. that the sa- 
 gacity of man has ever discovered. With 
 my little experience in it, I would not. 
 (continued Mr. Lewis; exchange it for any 
 other system under the canopy of Hea- 
 ven. And, are we to entrust the govern- 
 ment of our State to persons who are pro- 
 foundly ignorant of this peculiar system of 
 law? The gentleman from St. Mary's, 
 [Mr. Splane,) thinks that one year's resi- 
 dence is a sufficient qualification for a 
 member of the Legislature. I would ask 
 that gentleman, from his own experience 
 of the civil law, whether a common law 
 lawyer, *from one of the other States, could 
 have a sufficient knowledge of the civil 
 law, to take part, understanding!}', in the 
 proceedings of the legislature, having re- 
 lation to our jurisprudence, after a resi- 
 dence of but one year. He would have 
 first to unlearn all that he had learned : to 
 get rid of his prejudices in favor of the one 
 system and his aversion to the other: that 
 would be a first rate step, and it would take 
 mote than a year to qualify him for the 
 local duties, even of a police jury. I do 
 not mean to acquire that perfect knowledge 
 of the profession necessary to the barris- 
 ter at law — that intimate acquaintance 
 with its practice — but a general idea of 
 what our system of laws are, what laws 
 are actually in force, their general tenor and 
 character ; the same range of informa- 
 tion that is possessed by our farmers and 
 planters who aspire to be members of the 
 legislature. And is it to be seriously ar- 
 gued in this body, that we would be justi- 
 fied in permitting strangers that have but 
 just arrived, who do not understand our 
 laws nor our peculiar interests, to step into 
 our legislature, and without any prepara- 
 tion, at once take part in modifying our 
 system, in directing and in controlling it- 
 — that in our boundless liberality and 
 generosity we should divest ourselves of 
 political power, and confide it to perfect 
 strangers I that we should place ourselves 
 entirely at their mercy and under their con- 
 
 trol ? For one, I am unwilling to do any 
 thing of the kind. I believe in morals as 
 in politics, the nature of man is frail. I 
 cannot give my sanction to a proposition, 
 to open the door and let persons, having 
 no identity with the State, nor no feelings 
 in common with the permanent population, 
 rule us. I cannot consent that every thing 
 should be decided at the ballot box, and 
 that there should be no anchor of safety. 
 I am for imposing reasonable restraints for 
 the protection of ourselves and our chil- 
 dren, and hedging our liberties with ade- 
 quate barriers. With every breeze, the 
 popular will may have changed, and the 
 majority become the minority. There 
 would be no security nor no permanence 
 for our institutions. We would be tossed 
 to and fro upon a tempest of popular ex- 
 citement. 
 
 Let some reasonable period be then 
 adopted that will afford us some guarantee; 
 that will justify the presumption that those 
 who have come among us have become ac- 
 quainted with our institutions and are iden- 
 tified with us. Five years may possibly 
 be too much. I am not a stickler for that 
 particular period, although I doubt much 
 whether the majority of those that come 
 among us will be able to appreciate our in- 
 stitutions in less time. I am, however, 
 disposed to meet discordant views upon 
 the principle of compromise. Some pe- 
 riod is unquestionably necessary, and up- 
 on my conscience I do not think five years 
 too much. 
 
 Mr. Brext said, at the risk of being 
 considered a jacobin, a demagogue, and a 
 radical, he rose to sustain the motion of 
 the delegate from St. Mary, (Mr. Splane,) 
 and oppose the motion of the delegate from 
 East Feliciana, (Mr. Dunn.) requiring five 
 years' residence as a qualification to sit in 
 the general assembly of the State. When 
 the proposition was made yesterday to 
 strike out two years, he voted against it, 
 because he apprehended that this very 
 movement would be made to increase that 
 term of residence. But, inasmuch as the 
 blank had been created, he participated in 
 opinion with the delegate from St. Mary, 
 that one year was amply sufficient. He 
 concurred fully in the proposition presented 
 by the delegate from Baton Kouge, (Mr. 
 Read,) in the form of a substitute for the 
 section, which provided that the qualifica- 
 
Debates in the Convention of "Louisiana. 
 
 tions of the member returned to the gen- 1 
 eral assembly should be identical with 
 those oi* the voter. This was no new prin- 
 ciple. It had been consecrated in the con- 
 stitutions of several of our sister States. It 
 was the true principle of representative 
 government, and any other was at war 
 with democratic institutions. I contend 
 we are not called upon — it is not our duty 
 to impose barriers and obstacles in the en- 
 joyment of the political rights appertaining 
 to'the people. We have no right to im- 
 pose shackles which are not even to be 
 found in the old Constitution. Our mission 
 is to give the people greater liberties ; not 
 to restrain the liberties which they already 
 enjoy. Is it to throw impediments in the 
 way of popular rights, that we have met to 
 amend the old Constitution? 
 
 But, Mr, President, to show that I am 
 not mistaken in asserting that the principle 
 making the qualifications of a member of 
 the general assembly and a voter identi- 
 cal, is not a new one, but has been conse- 
 crated in the Constitution of several of our 
 sister States of the Union, — I will quote 
 from their Constitutions : 
 
 Mr. Brent read the 1st section of the 
 6th article of the Constitution of Connecti- 
 cut ; also the 4th article of the same sec- 
 tion, and the 3d article of the 7th section 
 of the Constitution of Virginia. 
 
 I will not occupy the attention of the 
 Convention by reading further extracts 
 from the Constitution of other States, show- 
 ing that they have embodied a similar prin- 
 ciple. What I have read shows that the 
 principle is not a new one, nor is it origi- 
 nal to this body. 
 
 It is a correct principle. It does not 
 establish a privileged class. It does not 
 divide our population into two classes, one 
 to be favored, and the other not. 
 
 The President said that the debate ap- 
 peared to embrace a very wide range. It 
 would be well if gentlemen were to confine 
 themselves strictly to the subject under 
 discussion. It would save a great deal of 
 time, and facilitate the despatch of busi- 
 ness. 
 
 Mr. Brent: The point I have spoken 
 of has a direct application in sustaining the 
 principle of one year's residence as a suffi- 
 cient qualification, as far as residence is 
 concerned, for a member of the House of 
 Kepresentatives. That period has been | 
 
 | deemed sufficient for an elector, and it is 
 but right, just and proper, that an elector 
 should be eligible to the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, or any office in the gift of the 
 people. In relation to the term of resi- 
 dence, is it intended that the Convention 
 should retrogade — go backwards. Can it 
 be possible, that we are to throw barriers 
 not provided by the old Constitution. If 
 we adopt the old Constitution as our 
 guide, it requires a residence of two years. 
 From whence comes this proposition, which 
 requires a residence of five years. Is it to 
 be supposed that it v/as the intention of the 
 act calling this Convention, to throw obsta- 
 cles and barriers in the exercise of the po- 
 litical rights belonging to the people. Is 
 that the reform which they had a right to 
 expect 1 I do not understand such to have 
 been the intention of the people ! But what 
 is the practice in reference to this subject 
 elsewhere. We find that in the constitu- 
 tion of fourteen of the States, but one 
 year's residence is required as a qualifica- 
 tion for the House of Representatives. 
 These States embrace the oldest, the 
 youngest, and the largest in the confede- 
 racy, to wit: Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode 
 Island, Connecticut, Virginia — Ohio is, si- 
 lent as to residence — Indiana, Illinois, 
 Michigan, and Arkansas, <&c, &c. More 
 than one-half of the members of the United 
 States confederacy require but one year's 
 residence, and are we to be asked at this day 
 to impose a greater restriction ? Is there 
 any good reason why Louisiana should 
 adopt a different principle of government 
 from her sister States ? We find some 
 States that require a residence of two years 
 to be eligible to the House of Representa- 
 tives, to wit: Missouri, Alabama, Missis- 
 sippi, Kentucky, Vermont and New Hamp- 
 shire, making twenty-one States that do not 
 require a greater residence than two years. 
 The remaining States require three years, 
 and are we to establish, an odious distinc- 
 tion, not to be found in the Constitution of 
 any other State in the Union ! 
 
 The delegate from Opelousas (Mr. Lew- 
 is) seems to think that there is a disposition 
 on the part of those that wish to liberalize 
 the Constitution to abolish all law, and 
 establish some system without control, 
 without check. 
 
 When we come, (said Mr. Brent) to 
 I that provision to curb the legislative de-. 
 
» 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 57 
 
 partment, it will be seen who goes farthest 
 to restrain, within well defined limits, the 
 power of the legislature. I am not, it is 
 true, in favor of proscribing or restricting 
 the rights of a portion of the community ; 
 but, at the same time, 1 am as reluctant to 
 break down society, as the gentleman from 
 St. Landry. 1 wish to see established 
 equal political rights, in which every man 
 may participate, be he rich or poor. That 
 the exercise of the right of suffrage shall 
 be opened to every citizen, and that every 
 voter shall be eligible to any office. These 
 are my principles, and I wish to see them 
 carried out in their integrity. 
 
 Mr. Dunn would briefly explain the 
 reasons why he proposed a residence of 
 five years. His principal reason is based 
 on the position of Louisiana, which made 
 him reluctant to entrust the administration 
 of her affairs to the hands of strangers, 
 of persons who knew nothing of our in- 
 stitutions, and whose peculiar feelings, 
 manners and education, were so essential- 
 ly different. It would take at least five 
 years for a person of ordinary intellect, 
 earning from a distant corner of our Union, 
 to become familiar with our institutions, 
 habits, history, locality, and above all. our 
 peculiar system of laws, which, as has been 
 stated by 'the delegate from St. Landry, 
 (Mr. Lewis,) differs so materially from the 
 laws of the other States of the Union. 
 Would it be the part of wisdom to intrust 
 our institutions to strangers, utterly igno- 
 rant, careless, and indifferent, to our inter- 
 ests? But it may be urged by our honor- 
 able friend and colleague from Feliciana, 
 (Mr. Ratlin 0 ) who will no doubt address 
 the Convention in opposition to my views, 
 that the people of the parish will take care 
 not to confide their interests to incompe- 
 tent hands; and it is not to be presumed that 
 they will send a stranger to represent them. 
 That is the very reason why I insist upon 
 the requisite of five years' residence. If 
 the people will not do it, it is an indication 
 that they do not wish it; and how, 1 may 
 well ask, can it be considered and stigma- 
 tized as an odious principle to engraft upon 
 the Constitution the feelings of the people 
 themselves ? The fact that the people 
 will not doit, should be conclusive of their 
 wishes. 1 w T ill concede readily that it is 
 not likely that strangers will be elected to the 
 legislature. I agree with the delegate (Mr. 
 
 Bailiff) in that opinion : but where is the 
 wrong in saying so, and placing that re- 
 striction in the Constitution? What is to 
 be gained by leaving the matter open. 
 
 But, the gentleman (Mr. Katiiff) may 
 tell us, that if one particular parish should 
 think fit to send a person to the legislature 
 not conversant with our interests, a stran- 
 ger, it would occasion no injury to the other 
 portions of the State. I beg his pardon. I 
 hope he will not insist upon such an argu- 
 ment. Not only would the incompetency, 
 the unfitness of the representatives of any 
 particular parish effect his own immediate 
 constituents, but it would prove detrimental 
 to the people of the whole State. The 
 power to do evil is not limited to the parish 
 that sent him, alone, but is commensurate 
 with the State. 
 
 I will put -it to the Convention, why if 
 | one year's residence be insufficient to qual- 
 ify a transient person to fill the important 
 station of representative — and to this no 
 one can dissent — what harm can there be 
 in incorporating the principle excluding 
 such person. If there were any invidious 
 distinctions in relation to that particular 
 class of persons, then I admit that there 
 would be something odious in the distinc- 
 tion ; there would be something personal. 
 But, inasmuch as the restriction is general 
 in its nature, it should give offence to none. 
 Besides, the exclusion is only for a definite 
 period — a period surely not disproportioned 
 to the end to be attained. 
 
 Is there any thing unreasonable in antici- 
 pating that all our public offices may be 
 filled with benefit to the State, by her na- 
 tive sons ; by those identified with her, 
 either by birth or by a residence of several 
 years ; by the strongest local attachments ? 
 Is it unreasonable to anticipate that our 
 colleges and public schools will send out 
 young men, capable of aspiring to the high- 
 est offices in the State? If there be any ad- 
 vantage in our legislation, surely the natives 
 of the soil are entitled to it. The immi- 
 gration to Louisiana is immense, and hour- 
 ly on the increase. In that respect, the 
 situation of this State is dissimilar to that 
 of Virginia, and the Bay State. Their 
 population is not on the increase, whereas 
 there is not a day that thousands are not 
 arriving in this city. I am, said Mr. Dunn, 
 glad to see them, and cordially extend to 
 them the right hand of fellowship, and 
 
 • 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 58 
 
 when they have remained long enough to 
 beeome identified and can appreciate our 
 institution* i am willing they should par- 
 ticipate freely with us in all the rights we 
 
 Mr. 0 "I. Conrad had a lew observa- 
 tions to make in reply to what fell from the 
 delegate from Rapides, (Mr. Brent.) That 
 gentleman affirmed, what in his opinion, is 
 the true republican doctrine— and that doc- 
 trine is that no restraint should be imposed 
 in selecting agents to whom are to be con- 
 fided political trusts. That doctrine may 
 be true. It may be 
 
 (Mr. Brent explained what he did say.) 
 
 Mas C. M. Conrad: The true repub- 
 lican doctrine as expounded by the dele- 
 gate, (Mr. Brent) that the qualifications of 
 members of the legislature and of other 
 public officers, should be identical with 
 the qualifications of voters, is somewhat 
 new and novel to me. I have never be- 
 fore heard it broached in Louisiana. One 
 or two States may possibly have adopted it, 
 but the great majority of the States have 
 adopted a different principle. 
 
 I will begin with the Constitution of the 
 United States. In reference to the quali- 
 fication of members to the' House of Re- 
 presentatives, it prescribes that they ihall 
 have attained the age of 25 years. So that 
 if the popular mandate were to indicate a 
 man of the most distinguished talent — a 
 political miracle like Pitt, who at the age 
 of 25 years was premier; one as distin- 
 guished as Jefferson or Henry Clay, he 
 could not be eligible unless he was 25 years 
 of age; nor could he be a representative 
 unless he had been a citizen of the United 
 States for seven years. The same quali- 
 fication that would entitle him to a vote, 
 would not be sufficient to entitle him to a 
 seat in Congress. For the latter, it is 
 indispensable that he should be a citizen 
 for seven years, and an inhabitant of the 
 State from which he was chosen. This res- 
 triction is in a Constitution framed by Madi- 
 son and Franklin, presided by Washington. 
 The republican principle for voters and for 
 members of Congress are in that instru- 
 ment essentially different. If the true 
 republican doctrine be as stated by the gen- 
 tleman from Rapides, (Mr. Brent) the 
 fathers of the Constitution were in the 
 utmost darkness and ignorance. 
 
 But let us look into the State Constitu- 
 
 tions. In Maine, a residence of five years 
 is required. In N ew Hampshire, a good 
 democratic State, seven years' residence 
 is required. In Massachusetts, a free-hold 
 and five years' residence is required. 
 
 (Mr. Brent thought the delegate from 
 New Orleans was mistaken in relation to 
 Maine.) 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad : Five years' resi- 
 dence and citizenship are essential, in 
 Maine, to be a member of the Senate, and 
 two years' residence to be a member of 
 the House of Representatives. In Con- 
 necticut, one must be a citizen and pay 
 taxes. In Vermont, two years' residence 
 is required. In Ohio, no' residence is re- 
 quired, but there is a property qualification. 
 I would beg the gentleman "from Rapides 
 (Mr. Brent) to consider one point. Louis- 
 iana is peculiarly situated. In Virginia, 
 North Carolina, the Eastern and Northern 
 States, a short residence may be allowed 
 to acquire a citizenship. Why? Because 
 immigration is small, and those that come 
 are lost in the mass like drops of water in 
 the ocean. They are not sufficient in 
 numbers seriously to affect the character 
 of the representative body. The greater- 
 proportion of the population in Louisiana 
 is new : the tide of immigration is flowing 
 into New Orleans, and the increase is 
 greater here in one year than it is in Vir- 
 ginia in five — New Hampshire in ten — 
 Rhode Island in twenty. Who -goes to 
 Maine ? Immigrants would rather go to 
 Texas. Who goes from Louisiana to New 
 Hampshire? Immigration flows south, 
 not north. 
 
 All the doctrines and examples of the 
 delegate from Rapides (Mr. Brent) have 
 no application. The resources of Louis- 
 iana, her wealth, public lands, the induce- 
 ments held out to enterprise in a large city, 
 invite, encourage immigration among us. 
 I would throw no obstacles to obstruct that 
 immigration; but I would not entrust the 
 government of the State to persons who 
 had not yet had time to become identified 
 in interest and feeling with us. There 
 are two modes of securing the identity of 
 persons coming among us with our in- 
 stitutions. One is by interest and the oth- 
 er by ties of attachment and sympathy. 
 The committee on the legislative depart- 
 ment struck out the property qualification; 
 they declared it unnecessary that there 
 
Defeats in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 59 
 
 should be any pecuniary interest to secure j 
 fidelity in the exercise of suffrage. All 
 idea of claiming fidelity by identity of pe- 
 cuniary interests, they considered obsolete. 
 If that be the true republican doctrine, be 
 it so. What remains? We have no guar- 
 antee as to pecuniary interest, as not one 
 dollar may be involved in the right of in- 
 dividual suffrage. Persons who never ex- 
 pect to acquire among us property, and who 
 came from States hostile to our own, may 
 participate with us in the government of 
 the State. What other guarantee have we ? 
 Attachment and sympathy ! How are these 
 to be created — in a day, month or year? 
 If persons who feel attachment to their na- 
 tive soil, their birth place, where they 
 have passed their youth, come here from 
 Massachusetts, Virginia, Rhode Island, 
 can they divest themselves in one year, 
 six months, from the influence of the par- 
 ticular institutions with which they are fa- j 
 miliar; from the influence of education, pre- 
 judices ? 
 
 Can an inhabitant of Massachusetts, who 
 removes among us, regard slavery in its 
 true light? will he submit to the perfect to- 
 lerance of religions, so remarkable in our 
 community — not the result of law — but the 
 result of public opinion? It must be pre- 
 sumed that the attachments he has formed 
 in his former home will preclude him from 
 imbibing, at once, a relish for our institu- 
 ions. If he resides for years, he may 
 acquire that attachment, and lose his ori- 
 ginal prejudices. But I would not trust 
 any one who would say after only one 
 year's residence in a country that he loved, 
 that country better than the one from 
 whence he came. If he loved not* the 
 country that gave him birth, and could so 
 soon forget it, he was not to be trusted — I do 
 not trust such an attachment. "No man 
 can say that his second love is strong- 
 er than his first." If we cannot better 
 the systems of other States, why attempt 
 it? Why introduce crude and novel prin- 
 ciples ? 
 
 The gentlemen from Rapides (Mr. Brent) 
 had said that if we place the residence at 
 five years, it was a retrogade movement. 
 Does he call it a retrogade movement to 
 throw guards around our institutions and 
 protect our liberties? But he sustains the 
 motion to insert one in the blank requir- 
 ing residence. The old Constitution fixes 
 
 it at two years. To make it one year, 
 surely is a retrogade movement 
 
 I would have no objection, if I knew 
 what were the qualifications for electors, 
 and provided they were adequate to make 
 them correspond with the qualifications for 
 members of the legislature. But if the 
 qualifications for electors be loose, then it 
 becomes more essential to be strict in re- 
 ference to the qualifications of those who 
 administer our law.s. 
 
 1 shall certainly vote for a longer period 
 than two years' : five years is the extreme 
 that I would go, and I am not prepared to 
 say that I will go that far. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff considered it necessary to 
 a proper discharge of the duty he owed to 
 this body, and to his constituents, to state 
 his views upon the subject under consider- 
 ation. He had voted against striking- out 
 . . . . & . 
 
 the provision requiring two years' resi- 
 dence. It had worked well in the old Con- 
 stitution, and had satisfied every one. He 
 had been active and prominent in getting- 
 up this Convention, but he had never heard 
 any complaint of that particular provision. 
 He was very willing to have left it untouch- 
 ed, but if he were to vote for a change he 
 would sustain the motion of the gentleman 
 from St. Mary's, (Mr Splane) to make 
 the residence one year. The propertv 
 qualification was odious with the people, 
 and had been disregarded. In support of 
 this opinion, he (Mr. R.) referred to a case 
 in the House of Representatives when he 
 was a member of that body, and a member 
 of the committee on elections, with a dis- 
 tinguished gentleman now in this Conven- 
 tion. The seat of one of the members was 
 contested for the want of property qualifi- 
 cation. The committee would not inquire 
 or notice this allegation, nor would the 
 House. 
 
 To show the futility of insisting upon the 
 requisition of age among other considera- 
 tions, Mr. Ratliff alluded to the fact that 
 both Mr. Clay and Mr. Randolph were 
 elected and took their seats before they 
 were twenty-five, in the congress of the 
 I nited States ; and when some inquiries 
 were made of Mr. Randolph as to whether 
 he had attained the requisite age, he re* 
 plied, "go and ask my constituents." 
 
 Let us inquire, said Mr. Ratliff, under 
 what particular circumstances the Consti- 
 tution of 1812 was adopted, which conse- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 crated the provision of two years resi- 
 dence Louisiana had not long- emerged 
 from the Spanish and French dominions— 
 about n ine years only— and Florida, which 
 was subsequently attached to Louisiana, 
 was still under the control of Spain. It 
 was supposed that some unkind feelings 
 existed The cantonments in Florida were 
 still kept up, and it was as easy to descend 
 and o-o to Louisiana, as it is now to go to 
 Texas. The day has gone by when there 
 is any danger growing out of a difference 
 in population, to guard against. We have 
 become a united people. 
 
 He did not consider that there was any 
 danger of electing any one who was not 
 entirely identified with the interests of the 
 State by some years' residence ; but sup- 
 pose, said Mr. Ratliff, that some man of 
 very distinguished abilities were chosen to 
 the legislature, would it not be an evidence 
 of his popularity, and of the confidence of 
 the people in him. There was no likeli- 
 hood that any abolitionist would be chosen. 
 No abolitionist would sneak into the affec- 
 tions of the people, for his abolition would 
 stick out at least a foot. If the period were 
 less than one year, there would be no dan- 
 ger. Suppose that any one of those dis- 
 tinguished men, Calhoun, Tyler, or Silas 
 Wright, were to remove to Louisiana, 
 would any one object to see them elevated 
 to the legislature of this State? Would 
 not the friends of Henry Clay be proud to 
 see him there? And the friends of Tyler, 
 would they not be proud of his talents; 
 would not those of Calhoun shout to see 
 him enrolled a citizen of Louisiana, and 
 his transcendent talents at the service of 
 the State? 
 
 The people, said Mr. Ratliff, are honest, 
 and are not to be deceived by renegades. 
 The delegate from Opelousas, (Mr. Lewis) 
 appeared disinclined to confide in the peo- 
 ple. I think his views are wrong. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff concluded, by an earnest 
 appeal against five years. He regarded it 
 as aristocratic to fix upon so long a period, 
 It was knocking- down the pillars of the 
 social fabrick. 
 
 Mr. Mayo opposed the proposition for 
 five years, and referred to the several con- 
 stitutions of the other States of the Union, 
 to show that nothing so restrictive and 
 partial was any where to be found. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne was not very solicitous 
 
 that the period should be fixed at five years, 
 What he considered of vastly greater im- 
 portance was, that the qualifications of the 
 electors should be properly defined by suf- 
 ficient residence. If this were done, the 
 utmost latitude might be given to the elec- 
 tors to choose without restriction or quali- 
 fication. The voice of those having a real 
 interest in the State being alone heard at 
 the ballot box, it would result that they 
 would not send improper persons to re- 
 present them. 
 
 The question upon Mr. Dunn's motion 
 for five years was put, and the following 
 was the result : 
 
 Yeas. — Messrs, Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, 
 Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of N. O., Conrad of Jeff., 
 Couvillon, Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, Lewis, Mazureau, Prudhomme, Pugh, 
 Roman, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Voorhies, Wads worth, Winches- 
 ter, and Winder— 32. 
 
 Nays. — -Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Culbert- 
 son, Downs, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, 
 Ledoux, McCallop, Marigny, Mayo, O'- 
 Brian, Peets, Porche, Porter, Prescott, of 
 St. Landry, Prescott of Avoyelles, Preston, 
 Ratliff, Read, Saunders, Scott, of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, 
 Soule, Splane, Trist, Waddle, and Weder- 
 strandt, — 32. 
 
 The President gave the casting vote, 
 and decided the question in the negative. 
 
 Mr. Lewis then moved to fill the blank 
 with four years, and called for the ayes and 
 nays. 
 
 Yeas. — Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benja- 
 min, Bourg, Briant, Bramfield, Burton, Ce- 
 nas, Claiborne, Conrad of Jefferson, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Couvillon, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Garcia, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, 
 Lewis, Labauve, Legendre, Mazureau, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Saunders, Sel- 
 ers, Stevens, Taylor of Assumption, Voor- 
 hies, Wadsworth, Winchester, and Win- 
 der— 34. 
 
 Nays — Brazeale, Brent, Cade, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Cuibertson, Downs, Garrett, 
 Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, McRea, Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, O'Brian, Peets, Pouche, Por- 
 ter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Preston, Ratliff, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Soule, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 II 
 
 Splane, Trist, Waddil, and Wederstrandt 
 —31. 
 
 So Mr. Lewis' motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Yoorhies moved a further amend- 
 ment by inserting in the seventh line, after 
 the word election, "and in case he be a na- 
 turalized citizen, the time of his residence 
 shall be computed from the date of his cer- 
 tificate of naturalization." 
 
 Mr. Voorhibs said that, in submitting 
 this amendment, it was not necessary for 
 him to say more than that this object was to 
 place the naturalized citizen and the natur- 
 al born citizen on a perfect equality. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Coxrad suggested that the 
 amendment would come in better as a pro- 
 vision after the eighth line. 
 Mr. Lewis asked for its adoption. 
 
 Mr. Downs said he had a few remarks 
 to make in relation to this amendment, and 
 had he supposed that the previous restric- 
 tion would have been carried, he would 
 have taken occasion to have urged the 
 objections that weighed upon his mind 
 against it. Half an hour ago. (said Mr. 
 Downs) the gentleman from New Orleans 
 (Mr. Conrad) denied that any intention was 
 entertained by him or those in whose views 
 he participated, to retrograde. If it was 
 a problem, then, I think, said Mr. Downs, 
 it is fully solved now. It would seem that 
 a large number in this Convention, of which 
 that gentleman is one, are disposed to re- 
 trograde instead of progressing. When I 
 say they are disposed to retrograde, it is 
 not without reason, since the opinions of 
 some of them, at least, are le ss liberal now 
 than they have heretofore been. For exam- 
 ple, the gentleman from Xew Orleans (Mr. 
 Conrad) and a distinguished member from 
 St. James (Mr. Winchester) were, in 1841, 
 both members of the House of Represen- 
 tatives, when the bill contemplating a 
 Convention from the Senate was cut up in 
 the House; and, yet, this old provision of 
 the Constitution, requiring two years resi- 
 dence, was left untouched. In the Conven- 
 tion at Jackson, the chief feature of this 
 identical section, making two years' resi- 
 dence essential to eligibility, appeared to 
 meet with no opposition from that quarter, 
 nor was it objected to in the counter report. 
 It would, therefore, seem that since last 
 August a less liberal spirit prevails in rela- 
 tion to this matter, and that I consider a re- 
 trograde movement ! 
 9 
 
 Is this the advancement that the people 
 of Louisiana are to expect? They antici- 
 pated more liberty, not additional burthens! 
 They desired less restriction, that the bonds, 
 the fetters, that have been thrown around 
 them should be taken off. 
 
 I do not concur in the Utopian proposition 
 that there should be no restriction as to 
 sex and color, but I do think that great dis- 
 cretion ought to be left to the voters — and 
 that there should be no clogs or bars to 
 the right of the people to choose whoever 
 they please to represent them. 
 
 The delegate from Catahoula (Mr. Mayo) 
 had shown conclusively that none of the 
 States of the Union required so great a re- 
 striction. 
 
 It was unfortunate to keep up prejudices 
 between Louisiana and her sister States. 
 The existence of certain prejudices had 
 done much to retard the increase of popu- 
 lation in this State, and, consequently, had 
 materially affected her prosperity. The 
 simple fact, that Louisiana had adopted the 
 parish judge system, had kept away thou- 
 sands of persons — emigrants crowded in 
 upon the line dividing Arkansas from Lou- 
 isiana as thick as bees: they even cultiva- 
 ted land in Louisiana, but they kept them- 
 selves out of her jurisdiction. Another 
 prejudice that was unfounded, and which 
 had also a beneficial tendency, was that 
 against the civil law. Our civil laws have 
 been modified and the result is, a better 
 system than prevails in the other States. 
 But the prejudice is already excited, and 
 we should do nothing to increase it. If our 
 institutions be only liberalized, many per- 
 sons of wealth will remove to the State. 
 What will be the disappointment of all such, 
 if instead of pursuing a liberal policy, we 
 should adopt one more restricted than that 
 of the old Constitution? That in place of 
 requiring two years residence, we require 
 five^ And it is not in relation alone to 
 naturalized citizens, however imprudent and 
 indiscreet a policy of exclusion towards 
 them would be, that the effects of this 
 course will be felt. It will apply to na- 
 tive citizens of the other States — to those 
 who have every identity of feeling and 
 sentiment with us for our common country. 
 They too will be debarred by this narrow 
 proscription and prejudice. 
 
 What, asked Mr. Downs, would have 
 been the result if Congress in 1803 had 
 
62 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 passed a law inhibiting emigration from the 
 other States into Louisiana; or to have 
 shackled it with such restrictions as to have 
 made it impossible for emigrants to have 
 settled among us? Suppose that such a 
 principle had been incorporated in the 
 Constitution of 1812? What would have 
 been the result? Where would have been 
 the wealth of New Orleans? Instead of 
 counting one hundred and fifty thousand 
 inhabitants* it would not have numbered 
 over forty or fifty thousand, Instead of a 
 city above Canal street five times as large 
 as the original limits of New Orleans, no- 
 thing would have been doiie, and we would 
 not now see those magnificent edifices 
 where once stood stagnant pools of water. 
 Where would have been the activity and 
 energy for which this city is so conspicu- 
 ous? Houses have multiplied, and capital 
 has found a thousand sources of profitable 
 investment. 
 
 Mr. Downs further argued that the provis- 
 ion in the Constitution requiring two years 
 residence, had been in existence thirty-two 
 years, and had not produced the slight- 
 est detriment to the State. In all that time 
 no one had been elected to office who did 
 not possess every reasonable guarantee. — 
 Where was the use of establishing an ex- 
 clusive principle ? Surely the veteran sons 
 of Louisiana did not seek it. They were not 
 afraid of coming in competition with the 
 talents, energy and industry of their fellow- 
 citizens from the other States. Why im- 
 pose a condition not required by the other 
 State s ? 
 
 The amendment offered in relation to 
 naturalized citizens presented the same nar- 
 row and contracted spirit. It was unwor- 
 thy the genius and liberality of Louisiana. 
 
 Mr. Downs concluded by hoping that if 
 no improvement in accordance with the 
 spirit of the age, tending to liberalize this 
 part of the constitution was intended, that 
 it would be at least left untouched ; and that 
 if we could not advance, we would not go 
 back and travel clown hill. 
 
 Mr. Marigny said he rose to oppose the 
 amendment presented by the delegate from 
 Attakapas, (Mr. Voorhies) and he hoped it 
 would at once be rejected. He could not 
 comprehend under what aim that amend- 
 ment could have been presented. He could 
 make no distinctions, and would never dis- 
 tinguish insiduously between naturalized 
 
 and native born citizens. By this amend- 
 ment, the naturalized citizen was singled 
 out, and made to undergo a probation of 
 nine years, that is to say, a naturalized 
 citizen would be excluded for nine years. 
 For to the five years prescribed by him to 
 become a citizen, four years were added 
 after his naturalization. It was most op- 
 pressive, without example, and without an- 
 tecedent ! 
 
 An honorable member (Mr. RatlifT) 
 had referred to several of the great men of 
 this country, who were natives of other 
 States that would be excluded by this pro- 
 vision for four years, from aspiring to office 
 were they to come to this State. Such 
 men as Calhoun, Clay and Wright. He 
 (Mr. Marigny) would ask members to 
 look back on the past history of this State, 
 and see who were among the most emi- 
 nent in the Senate, on the bench, and in 
 other high and important functions? To 
 whom was Louisiana deeply indebted? 
 Was it not to Porter, to Mazureau, to Petot, 
 to Durbigny and others, all of whom were 
 born in foreign countries ? W 7 ho was it 
 that compiled our code, and w 7 ho has been 
 one of the best expounders of the civil law ? 
 In this Convention he (Mr. Marigny) dis- 
 claimed being whig or democrat. He con- 
 sidered that the restriction of nine years 
 amounted to total exclusion. It was a 
 man's life. 
 
 He w r ould ask what was the difference 
 between a man coming from the other side 
 of the ocean and one coming to us from 
 the North, tinctured with the doctrine of 
 abolitionism ? The latter returns back in 
 the summer to his home, whereas the for- 
 mer, who has quit his native country be- 
 cause he dislikes the institution of mon- 
 archy, remains among us — becomes identi- 
 fied, and voluntarily submits to the perils of 
 the yellow fever baptism. 
 
 He was indeed astonished, amazed, that 
 so distinguished an advocate of democratic 
 principles as the gentleman from Attaka- 
 pas — one so liberal in his views, should 
 have offered such a proposition. It was 
 toryism, all pure ! For himself he (Mr. 
 Marigny) could not forget the services that 
 have been rendered to the State by natu- 
 ralized citizens, and could not consent to 
 exclude others of that class who were no 
 doubt as patriotic and intelligent. He trust- 
 ed that the gentleman (Mr. Voorhies) that 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Go 
 
 offered the proposition was laboring under 
 some misapprehension upon the subject, and 
 that it would be withdrawn. If it were 
 not withdrawn, he confidently hoped and ex- 
 pected that it would be unanimously re- 
 jected. 
 
 Mi'.Lewis said that inasmuch as his friend 
 from Attakapas who presented this propo- 
 sition, had not risen to reply to the argu- 
 ments urged against it, and no one was 
 more competent of doing so than that gen- 
 tleman, he would briefly explain what were 
 his views in relation to it. 
 
 He had heard nothing to justify the hopes 
 of the gentleman that last addressed the 
 Convention, (Mr. Marigny) that the mover 
 would withdraw the proposition. He had 
 heard nothing to sustain the strenuous op- 
 position that has been made to it. 
 
 The gentleman from Ouachita (Mr. 
 Downs) had argued against the proposition^ 
 that it had established an odious distinction. 
 It was called an odious distinction, because, 
 as had been charged — if he had not heard 
 it so qualified in this body, he had heard it 
 elsewhere. Native born citizens were en- 
 titled to no more consideration than for- 
 eigners, £m the matter of birth was purely 
 accidental and conferred no claim ; that one 
 legislation should be different for one and 
 the other. 
 
 He would make a few remarks in rela- 
 tion to this proposition — the principle was 
 the same as would come up upon another 
 question, upon which, if his health were 
 spared, he designed presenting his views 
 more at large. 
 
 It will be attempted to be shown that for- 
 eigners just landing upon our shores, and 
 coming from the very hot-beds of European 
 despotism, should be allowed equal facili- 
 ties of voting at the ballot-box with the na- 
 tive born citizens, or those identified with the 
 State by a long residence, and by a com- 
 munity of attachments and interests. The 
 question naturally arises, whether this 
 ought to be tolerated, or whether it ought 
 not to be tolerated. 
 
 There was a marked difference between 
 this and the old world. He would not now 
 enter into a discussion of the subject. — 
 We shoidd seek to elevate the character 
 and promote the permanent welfare of the 
 State, and it is necessary and proper that 1 
 the native born citizen should at least, j 
 be on an equality with the foreigner from | 
 
 other lands. If a citizen of Mississippi, 
 under this provision, were to come into the 
 State of Louisiana, he would be under the 
 necessity of remaining five years before 
 he would be eligible to a seat in the le- 
 gislature. And yet that citizen belongs to 
 a State that is an integral portion of our 
 Union. The foreigner is under the pro- 
 tection of the consul and flag of his coun- 
 try; he is not amenable to, and may claim 
 exceptions from our laws. 
 
 I know, said Mr. Lewis, a respectable 
 gentleman who has been twenty-five years 
 in this country, and has never sought to be 
 naturalized. He is a subject of Louis 
 Phillippe — and he has a right to sue in the 
 federal court, and that right he exercised 
 by having a suit that was instituted against 
 hini transferred to that tribunal. Suppose 
 a declaration for citizenship had been made 
 twenty years ago? The proof, attestation 
 and inscription are all that would be neces- 
 sary to convert the applicant into an Amer- 
 ican citizen at once. 
 
 Mr. Lewis declared himself opposed to 
 the present naturalization laws; but he was 
 for respecting them as long as they existed. 
 There should, however, be an equality un- 
 der those laws between naturalized citizens 
 and native born citizens. If native born 
 citizens from the other States of the Union 
 are required, from reasons of sound policy, 
 to remain among us five years before they 
 are eligible to public offices, at least equal 
 restrictions ought to be prescribed in re- 
 gard to foreigners who may become natur- 
 alized. A native citizen is always subject- 
 ed to the laws of the country, and is obliged 
 to bear his share of the public burthens. 
 Not so with the foreigner. He may ex- 
 empt himself from our laws and remain 
 under the laws of his own country. In the 
 mean time, he may make his declaration to 
 become a citizen, and when it suits his 
 convenience, or his interests, he may go 
 through all the forms in a few moments, 
 and at once become eligible to office, while 
 a citizen of Mississippi, coming into this 
 State, is compelled to work on the public 
 roads and perform militia duty, during the 
 time he is acquiring a residence amongst 
 us, and from which the foreigner is ex- 
 empt. Now, the object of the proposition 
 ! under discussion, is to prevent this inequal- 
 | ity, and to place the native born citizen on 
 ■ an equality with those who are natural- 
 
64 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 izcd; but not to allow the latter any advan- 
 tage over the former. 
 
 If he arrive in one of our sister States, 
 and is naturalized there, then from the 
 date of his naturalization, he is placed on 
 an equality with the native born citizen of 
 that State. 
 
 A great deal has been said to disparage 
 those feelings of patriotism which are na- 
 tional and incident to our birth place: what- 
 ever may be urged to the contrary, I have 
 great confidence in those feelings, and I 
 would not trust a man who was callous 
 or indifferent to them. 
 
 I cannot consent that there should be 
 any distinction bearing exclusively upon 
 the native born citizen, and that the for- 
 eigner, as soon as he perceives a vacancy 
 in our legislative halls, and, before the ink 
 be dry upon his naturalization papers, may 
 thrust himself into the vacancy, while a na- 
 tive born citizen would have to remain five 
 years, and be subjected to all the duties 
 and all the liabilities of citizenship. This 
 is exacting too much, and not affording a 
 sufficient guarantee for our native citizens. 
 
 Mr. Preston said: Notwithstanding all 
 that has been said to the contrary, i think 
 this Convention was called to abolish many 
 existing restrictions upon the political rights 
 of our fellow citizens, and not to impose 
 new restrictions upon us. All those who 
 struggled and clamored for a Convention, 
 did so for a Constitution more liberal to all 
 men — those who opposed it, were content 
 with existing restrictions. 
 
 I do not believe the majority of the 
 people of this State, in calling the Con- 
 vention, wished to extend the enjo3<ment 
 of the utmost rights and privileges of man 
 to every white man in the State, that 
 could be enjoyed without danger to the 
 State. The property qualification of the 
 voter, by universal consent, is denounced 
 and abandoned. The disgraceful specta- 
 cle, of the basest prostitute, enabling the 
 bully of her brothel, (I see no ladies 
 in ths room) to exercise the right of suf- 
 frage, while the poor supporter, by his 
 labor, of his lawful wife and children, is 
 constitutionally deprived of the inestimable 
 right of participating in the government of 
 the country he is obliged to defend with his 
 life, will never be witnessed in Louisiana 
 again. 
 
 But now our fellow-citizens of other 
 
 States must be disfranchised two years be- 
 cause they chose to cast their lot, as most of 
 us have done, within the limits of our State . 
 Emigration has made our lands valua- 
 ble — our State rich and powerful — and, in 
 every respect, improved the whole condi- 
 tion, physical and mental, of our popula- 
 tion, and will continue to do it, in a geome- 
 trical progression. The property qualifica- 
 tion greatly retarded it, and Alabama, Mis- 
 sissippi, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and States 
 admitted long after us, have far outstripped 
 us in the race of prosperity and population, 
 although our soil and climate, and commer- 
 cial emporium, presented advantages far 
 superior to any they possessed — ,will not 
 say the restrictions of our Constitution and 
 laws have entirely produced the result; but 
 they have had great effect in retarding our 
 progress, as is conclusively proved by the 
 facts stated by the delegate from Ouachita, 
 that the country is filled by settlers, and 
 blessed by all the comforts of family, 
 north of the geometrical line which separ- 
 ates us from Arkansas, while population is 
 sparse on its south side. The reason is, 
 that men will not stop where an invidious 
 distinction is established by law between 
 them and their fellow men. They would 
 sooner go on to Texas. "Let them go," I 
 hear spoken near me. I say, No. Let 
 them stop on our prairies — reclaim our 
 swamps — bring into productive operation, 
 of some kind, our pine woods— enrich and 
 strengthen our State, and enable her with 
 as great an area as any other State in the 
 Union, to keep pace with her sister States 
 in wealth and population, and strength and 
 education, morality, and every thing that 
 makes a State. 
 
 We have lived under the iEgis of the old 
 Constitution for thirty years, which admit- 
 ted our fellow-citizens of sister States to 
 all the rights of freemen, after a residence 
 of twelve months. Can any man say ex- 
 perience has proved this liberal principle 
 deleterious to the State, or that our safety 
 requires its repeal? If, on the contrary, 
 it be a feature in our constitution, venerable 
 by its antiquity, endeared to us by its benifi- 
 cence, for I, and every emigrant citizen, 
 have enjoj^ed the hospitable reception it ex- 
 tended to us, let us cling to it as a benefac- 
 tor and not repudiate it as an enemy. 
 
 The Constitution of the United States in 
 prescribing that the citizens of each State 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 65 
 
 shall have all the rights, privileges and ad- 
 vantages of citizens of the other States, in- 
 dicates the principle, that if possible consis- 
 tently with our safety, we should extend to 
 our fellow citizens of our sister States all the 
 privileges we enjoy ourselves. 
 
 Our government is the government of 
 one country, and therefore every citizen of 
 a sister State should feel the State as much 
 his home as his native State. We do feel 
 at home in other States, when we go there 
 As our sister States require but a single 
 years residence of us to entitle us to the 
 right of sum-age, we should be equal at least 
 to our sister States, in liberality and reci- 
 procity. 
 
 The principle of requiring long residence 
 is erroneous. It is based on excluding 
 many, depriving them of rights, treating 
 them inhospitably, in order to guard against 
 a very few, supposed to be vicious and dp,n- 
 gerous to our State. We should, on the 
 contrary, encourage all, and at least grant 
 them their rights, and guard ourselves by 
 legislative means against the injuries the 
 few might inflict, punishing those who of- 
 fend for their misconduct, and not all, whe- 
 ther they offend or not, lest some might do 
 so to our prejudice. 
 
 Believing that the provision of the Con- 
 stitution can be retained without danger to 
 our State, I will endeavor to show that not 
 more than one years residence in our State 
 should be required, in order to enable a 
 citizen of any other State to acquire a resi- 
 dence in this State, and exercise all the 
 rights of a citizen thereof. And first, it is 
 sufficient to establish re sidence. A year is the 
 period fixed by Heaven in which man expe- 
 riences all the vicissitudes of heat and cold, 
 the life of spring and the death of autumn, 
 in which he plants and gathers and enjoys 
 the fruits of the earth. The period for 
 which contracts are generally made, and in 
 which they are to be fulfilled. A years per- 
 manency in one place is evidence of a man's 
 intention there to fix his residence, because 
 he has finished there a period in time. It 
 is ordinarily considered among men, that 
 having resided a year in a place a man is 
 a resident, and that he has lost his residence 
 elsewhere. It is prima facia evidence of 
 this fact, and should be considered proof of 
 the fact by reasonable men, until the con- 
 trary appears. 
 
 When therefore a man proves himself by 
 
 such evidence a citizen of our State, what 
 reason can there be for depriving him of the 
 rights of citizenship ? 
 
 We should accord the rights of citizenship 
 to such a citizen, because every other 
 State in the Union accords those rights to 
 the citizens of Louisiana after a similar or 
 shorter residence, except the State of South 
 Carolina: and some of the States after three 
 months residence within their limits. The 
 burthens a man has to bear, commences 
 with the very first year of his residence in 
 our State. A man who has resided here a 
 year we tax, if he has taxable property, or 
 pursues taxable occupations. He works on 
 the roads, and is required to perform militia 
 duty, and serve on patrols. He is liable to 
 defend the State by personal peril and ser- 
 vices. By personal labor during a year he 
 contributes his mite to the prosperity of the 
 State. Man is naturally gregarious, and 
 cannot live a year .without affections, plea- 
 sures and social connexions, and in less 
 than that time becomes attached to the 
 country, and persons and things in it. He 
 would be entitled to vote on the presidential 
 election in the State whence he came, and 
 would be entitled here, but that he is re- 
 stricted by the constitutional provision pro- 
 posed. Thus we positively deprive him of 
 a political right, merely because he moves 
 to our State. Yet he is a citizen of our sister 
 State, the descendant perhaps of one who 
 had done much for our country in the field, 
 or the senate. He is habituated from in- 
 fancy to love this whole country and institu- 
 tions, and now interested to devote that af- 
 fection to our State, because he located 
 among us. Attachment to country being 
 equal, is he less capable of performing the 
 duties of a citizen than one of us. This 
 depends upon his education and the society 
 in which he has been reared. Now in other 
 States of the Union they have means of 
 education, and improve them equally with 
 ourselves; and whoever lives there imbibes 
 principles and attains information equal to 
 that which we possess. 
 
 Our extremely fertile lands and genial 
 climate attracts to our State a rich planter 
 from Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, or the 
 Carolinas, with his family and slaves. 
 There are a great many such in the north- 
 western parishes of the State. Far more 
 would come and embrace all the advan- 
 tages that are held out to us, if our Consti- 
 
60 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 tution and laws invited them. Is there any 
 reason why such men should pass through 
 a probation of more than one year before 
 they are enabled to enjoy the political privi- 
 leges which we possess ? 
 
 But I will suppose what is most general- 
 ly the case, that citizens of other States 
 come without means, but with honest hearts 
 and strong arms, or with education and ta- 
 lents to invest, and exert this capital in our 
 State. For the hands that nature has given 
 us, and the talents with which she has en- 
 dowed us, is capital, and most productive, 
 and constitutes a most valuable accession 
 to the State. For there are vast fields still 
 vacant for all hands that choose to be em- 
 ployed within our State. Our agriculture 
 is in its infancy. The sugar and cotton 
 lands are far from being all occupied. As 
 to provisions our production is limited, com- 
 pared with the vast resources of the State. 
 The ground is unoccupied and unimproved. 
 There are other and valuable productions 
 for which our soil and climate are undoubt- 
 edly suited, which have not yet occupied 
 our attention : I mean silk, and wine, and 
 oil. Our climate is suited to many rich 
 fruits, if properly cultivated. In the manu- 
 facture of the thousand articles for domes- 
 tic and other uses, w r e have not yet made 
 a commencement. Our commerce, which 
 will soon be first in the Union, is carried on 
 almost exclusively by the citizens of other 
 States. We are young in the vast ramifi- 
 cations in which industry might be most 
 usefully and productively employed. We 
 should court and attract population, instead 
 of repelling it by restrictions . which exist 
 nowhere else. 
 
 Now, if the rich emigrate with their 
 slaves to settle and improve our rich soil 
 and render it productive, principle requires 
 they should have a voice in selecting the 
 ofBcers of government, whose action is to 
 regulate their property, and no apprehen- 
 sion of danger requires a duration from 
 principle. He who has but his industry to 
 invest in the productive labor, and in the 
 rich rewards of enterprise which our State 
 presents, has his person, his liberty, his 
 character, and his prospects to be protected 
 and advanced by government. These are 
 as invaluable to him, and even to the 
 State, as property to the rich : and there- 
 fore he should have a voice in enacting and 
 executing the laws on which all that is 
 
 dear and invaluable to him depends. If 
 we cannot accord this right to him without 
 danger to ourselves and State, then refuse 
 it. But who can lay his hand on his heart 
 and say he apprehends danger to our State 
 or to himself by allowing our fellow-citi- 
 zens of our sister States equal rights with 
 ourselves, after residing a year in our State 
 as a citizen thereof? The liberal and gen- 
 erous mind sees in their incorporation with 
 us, with all our rights, all the certain advan- 
 tages to our State to which we have allu- 
 ded. While the supposed dangers are but 
 the airy dreams of imagination, which no 
 one really feels, or believes will ever be tan- 
 gibly felt. 
 
 This city, which is the great point of con- 
 nexion betw r een the produce of the western 
 world, and the eastern continents, and 
 southern island. Its commerce is destined 
 to be boundless in amount and extent. 
 True statesmanship indicates to us, to fur- 
 ther by all means in our power, that desti- 
 ny in our day and generation, not to retard 
 it. It can be greatly advanced by encou- 
 raging our fellow-citizens of every State to 
 embark with us in its vast commerce, with 
 equal rights, priviledges and advantages. 
 And by encouraging the good feeling which 
 would result from such a course, w r e would 
 eventually command unbounded influence 
 over western America, in policy, morals, 
 education, manner, and every branch of 
 civilization. The seaboard in all countries . 
 and ages has governed the interior by ex- 
 ample and influence, if wise and worthy of 
 imitation. We would also, by intercourse 
 with every part of the w r orld gather that 
 which was valuable in every branch of civ- 
 ilization, even at our antipodes. 
 
 We may greatly retard these brilliant re- 
 sults by throwing impediments in the road 
 of those adventurous spirits who come to 
 this emporium, to embark on the sea of en- 
 terprise which it presents, and creating in- 
 vidious constitutional distinctions between 
 the new and old inhabitants of our State, 
 prejudicial to the former. I fear that such 
 invidious and odious distinctions and legis- 
 lation of a similar character growing out of 
 it, by impeding the emigration of the friends 
 and connexions of those who have settled 
 and accumulated fortunes in our State, has 
 and will continue to induce many of the 
 latter to retire to other climes and countries, 
 with their wealth, to enjoy with it, in the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 67 
 
 evening of life, the kindness and affec- 
 tion which grows out of the ties of na- 
 ture. 
 
 It was suggested that we should have the 
 guarantee of two years residence, against 
 the spirit of abolitionism with which new 
 comers might be imbued. A year is enough 
 to enable his neighbors to turn any man's 
 views on this subject, and guard against 
 them, if dangerous to the State. It is suf- 
 ficient too, to enable the new comer to see 
 that the well regulated state of slavery in 
 our State was indispensable to the happi- 
 ness of the slave, the prosperity of the 
 State, and safety of the white population. 
 Every man capable of taking a correct 
 view of our civil society, would wish to see 
 a million instead of three hundred thousand 
 black slaves in our State. Deprive any 
 considerable portion of our population of 
 political rights, and in this respect degrade 
 them to the condition of the slave, and you 
 will make the evil of slavery dangerous by 
 exciting the sympathy of a portion of the 
 whites. But elevate every freeman in the 
 State to an equal participation in its gov- 
 ernment, and make that broad political dis- 
 tinction between him and the slave, and 
 you will raise a wall of fire kindled from 
 the united souls of freemen, around our 
 State and her institutions, against the dia- 
 bolical machinations of abolitionism. 
 
 And while on this subject of security, I 
 will observe that there is employed in car- 
 rying on our commerce and intercourse 
 with the western States, the best organ- 
 ised and physically powerful army that 
 ever appeared on the face of this globe. 
 
 Under the benificent provision of our ex- 
 isting constitution, striking out the odious 
 property qualification, a sufficient number 
 of these defenders of our country would 
 declare their residence on the shores of 
 our rivers, in the suburbs of our city, in 
 our fertile soil and genial climate, and there 
 plant their wives and chrildren, all their af- 
 fections and hopes, and future prospects ; a 
 sufficient number I say, to ensure a fellow 
 feeling in the whole army, and ensure the 
 united arms and souls of all, in our protec- 
 tion and defence against external invasion 
 and internal insurrection, and render our 
 frontier State and out-post city as secure as 
 the apex of the Alleghany. 
 
 When our city and State in their infancy 
 were really endangered by invasion and ex~ 
 
 posed to domestic insurrection — when a 
 powerful foreign army were on our soil, at 
 our very firesides, their cupidity and bru- 
 tality stimulated by our beauty and booty; 
 when every thing that clings around the core 
 of a man's heart was staked upon the"jpoint of 
 his sword, did you then enquire of your 
 brethren of other States," the brave Ten- 
 nessean, Kentuckian and Mississippian, if 
 he had resided two years on your soil, to 
 insure his fidelity in danger, or did the glo- 
 rious title of American citizen impel them 
 and you to mingle your blood in a com- 
 mon stream and struggle for the foremost 
 rank in our glorious deliverance from dan- 
 ger, when American soil was invaded. 
 
 Let us affect no fears of our fellow-citi- 
 zens of the Union, for political purposes in 
 the calm tranquility of peace, which we 
 did not feel in the hour of peril, and with 
 open hearts receive our fellow-citizens of 
 our sister States, and admit them to all the 
 rights and advantages Ave enjoy. And 
 when the storm of invasion and danger 
 shall again beat at our doors, they and their 
 friends and connexions will again cheer- 
 fully rush to our rescue, and our future and 
 common triumphs will be as glorious as 
 that which is already inscribed on the 
 the brightest page of our history. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies said, the range which the 
 debate had taken upon the simple, and as 
 he conceived, just proposition which he had 
 offered, necessitated a few remarks from 
 him. They were due, as well to explain 
 the motives that actuated him here, as to 
 define his position to his constituents. He 
 was a Louisianian, and could safely assert 
 that he was attached to the interests of the 
 State, as well as to her enduring prosperity. 
 Nor coidd it be said that he was favorable 
 to any restriction which the sternest neces- 
 sity did not imperiously require. He was 
 for the most indiscriminate freedom, consis- 
 tent with the true interests of the State and 
 her peculiar position. Those who knew 
 him were well aware that he entertained 
 no prejudices against foreigners, and that 
 he was liberal in all his political feelings. 
 
 The design of the proposition he had of- 
 fered, was only to apply to the future. He 
 was for leaving all upon an equality, and to 
 deal with all upon a strict principle of jus- 
 tice. He thought the destinies of the State 
 were safe in the hands of her children, of 
 those that were intimately identified in feel- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 68 
 
 ing, and by attachment with her. He 
 though! t hat our community were sufficient- 
 lv intelligent; that they possessed sufficient 
 talents, sufficient virtue and patriotism, to 
 administer the government of the State. — 
 Jin! hefU'as not for that against foreigners, 
 nor did he desire to interfere with all the 
 privileges which our institutions guaranteed 
 to them. He merely wished that our in- 
 stitutions should not be recklessly commit- 
 ted to strangers — persons who had but just 
 arrived among us, who were unacquainted 
 with our habits, with our pursuits — from 
 assuming the prerogation of government. 
 His proposition was to extend to none who 
 were American citizens, be they native 
 born or naturalized, but to place them on a 
 perfect footing of equality ; and only to re- 
 quire that they should reside some little 
 time among us — that they should have an 
 opportunity of comprehending the spirit and 
 genius of our institutions, before they should 
 be placed in our legislative halls, and in- 
 vested with the extraordinary privilege of 
 making our laws, and giving destination to 
 our property. 
 
 He disclaimed being actuated by any 
 spirit of illiberality — he was influenced by- 
 no narrow-minded or contracted prejudices. 
 The provision was general. It applied to 
 all American citizens who may hereafter 
 be disposed to cast their lot among us, and 
 it required them to reside four years among 
 us before they would be eligible to offices 
 of high trust and great responsibility. The 
 perpetuity of our institutions demanded that 
 we should have some guarantees, and he 
 did not conceive there was anything extra- 
 ordinary and unfair in entertaining some 
 control over the administration of public af- 
 fairs. 
 
 It was a source of deep regret and pain- 
 ful mortification that our naturalization laws 
 were perverted to gross impositions and 
 abominable frauds. 
 
 A correction should be applied some- 
 where; and inasmuch as there was nothing 
 efficient to preclude those abuses, which 
 every one admitted, it behooved us to take 
 such action as the necessity of the case sug- 
 gested, so as to prevent, or, at least, to les- 
 sen the evils to which we were exposed. 
 
 It was consonant with sound reason and 
 good policy, that we should seek to protect | 
 the permanent interests of the State and of 
 her permanent population. j 
 
 What had fallen from the delegate from 
 New Orleans, (Mr. Marigny) that to do this 
 was illiberal, and suggested by principles 
 of toryism, was idle. The principle he 
 (Mr. Voorhies) had introduced was com- 
 mon to all. A foreigner among us was 
 under the protection of his flag, and was 
 exempted from all the burthens imposed 
 upon our citizens; if it was his intention to 
 become a citizen, and he complied with 
 the laws of naturalization, all that was 
 asked of him was to undergo the same re- 
 sidence required of natural citizens from 
 our sister States. There was surely no 
 cause for him to complain. There was 
 nothing odious or illiberal in the requisi- 
 tion. It was not intended that we should 
 be under the control of a mob of foreigners 
 who do not understand our institutions, and 
 were, perhaps, inimical to those institu- 
 tions. The proposition was founded on 
 reason and justice, and it was to be hoped 
 that it would prevail. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad rose to correct a 
 mistake. The member from Jefferson (Mr. 
 Preston) had said, that, although unfortun- 
 ate yesterday, in some of his statements, 
 he ventured to say, and he asserted it as a 
 positive fact, that there was not a State in 
 the Union that made such a distinction as 
 that embodied in the proposition of the gen- 
 tleman from Attakapas. Now, if that del- 
 egate will refer to the constitution of Maine 
 he will find that in the State of Maine citi- 
 zenship for five years is required. In 
 Georgia, a naturalized citizen must have 
 been admitted nine years before he is eligi- 
 ble to the senate of that State and seven 
 years before he can be eligible to the house 
 of representatives. 
 
 Mr. Grymes said, that this debate had 
 begun before his avocations had permitted 
 him to be present. He presumed that the 
 minds of most members were made up how 
 they should vote. He rose on this occa- 
 sion to express his opinions. But he did not 
 apprehend that they would have the slight- 
 est weight. For his own part, his course 
 was decided, and he would briefly state the 
 reasons that influenced him upon this ques- 
 tion. 
 
 He considered that matters of public pol- 
 i icy of vast interest and importance were 
 | involved in it, and it did appear to him that 
 I the grounds upon which it was placed, par- 
 I ticularly the delegate from Jefferson (Mr. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 69 
 
 Preston) were not such is lie could ap- 
 prove or coneur. They may, possibly, 
 have their weight; but he could not com- 
 prehend how the Convention could be 
 placed in an antagonistical position with 
 the people. That stringent measures should 
 be adopted by the Convention, in direct 
 conflict with the mandate of the people. 
 He would ask the delegate from Jefferson 
 where was the sovereign power, if it be 
 not in this house? Is it any where else? The 
 people, in their primary and original capa- 
 city had delegated all power to their repre- 
 sentatives in Convention, and when the 
 sovereign speaks, it is by our mouths. 
 
 He did not believe the members of this 
 body would be influenced by the argument 
 that the sovereign people and the Conven- 
 tion were in a conflicting attitude — one 
 seeking to restrain, and the other shrinking 
 from that restraint. 
 
 We are, said Mr. Grymes, the sovereign 
 people themselves. The question before 
 us is one of political expediency. The 
 gentleman from Jefferson argues from the 
 exception to the general rule. 
 
 Why fly off to particular instances, to 
 which we may accord one individual assent. 
 If we adopt the exception, does it prove the 
 general rule ? Does it prove that it may 
 be applied to all nations ? In one breath 
 we are told of discord, and in another of 
 dissolution. 
 
 The delegate from Jefferson tells us 
 that we are so poor in the arts and sci- 
 ences, that we must get down upon our 
 knees and entreat Europe to pour her 
 stream of science upon us. He conceives 
 that we are so perfect that we can take the 
 exception and leave the general rule to 
 our poorer sister States. This argument can 
 have no weight. The harmony and peace 
 of the community rest upon sound general 
 principles, and not upon exceptions. This 
 aberration is not to be deprecated. There 
 is not a principle extended, by the gentle- 
 man, to local or general cases. He takes 
 the line of his departure by throwing away 
 the anchor of our safety, and then relies 
 upon miserable exceptions. 
 
 What are the positions of the delegate? 
 I will take them seriatem. If foreigners 
 are not made eligible to the legislature, this 
 exclusion, if maintained, will deter them 
 from coming among us. 
 
 Surely there is no falling off in the tide 
 10 
 
 of emigration, and it - bids fair to continue 
 to sweep over our land. It pours upon us 
 in unprecedented numbers, and we are 
 forced to the conclusion, that it is not the 
 immediate privileges which are accorded 
 — the advantages of participating in our 
 institutions, that is the predominant motive 
 that brings them to our shores. I repudiate 
 the true advantage of participating in 
 our institutions, for I hold it no advantage 
 to be exposed to the turmoil of our elective 
 system. But, says the gentleman, we want 
 these people to teach our children, to dissem- 
 minate among us the arts and sciences. Will 
 the gentleman mention the case of a sin- 
 gle individual that has been abstained from 
 quitting the European side of the Atlantic 
 because there was a restriction or a preju- 
 dice against elevating him on his arrival, to 
 the legislature? Is there any school mas- 
 ter w T ho has been deterred from quit- 
 ting the western side of the Atlantic, be- 
 cause, forsooth, he could net be a legis- 
 lator on his arrival? The tide of emigration 
 shows that no such inducement is necessa- 
 ry? Nor have I ever heard that any such 
 school master, or any profound scholar, has 
 ever retired to Europe because he could 
 not assert his right to be eligible to the 
 legislature. 
 
 I have not the statistics to show that the 
 United States, as the recepticle of the great 
 European hive, bids fair to monopolize the 
 greater proportion of that redundant popu- 
 lation. I would not restrain them from 
 coming to us: but it is evident and palpable 
 that the tide is so tremendous, that every 
 acre of land will be brought into cultivation. 
 And when undiscovered lands shall have 
 been found, new hordes will emigrate to 
 them. We may have an irruption of the 
 inhabitants of Central Asia, of Afghanistan, 
 and of the Hindoos ; and if they cut down 
 and fell our forests, without attempting to 
 regulate our institutions, we will be fortu- 
 nate indeed ! 
 
 It was a fallacy to imagine, that a parti- 
 cipation in our institutions was a source of 
 any great anxiety among those that come 
 among us. It was by no means the in- 
 ducement that led them here. 
 
 But let that be as it may, it is clear to 
 my mind that the United States have a right 
 to consult public policy, either in allowing 
 unlimited, or in restricting the conditions. 
 I will state without circumlocution what I 
 think of that point. 
 
7D 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 The United States is the property of her 
 citizens, who have a perfect right to enjoy 
 exclusively the liberties and privileges be- 
 longing to her institutions — the heritage 
 bought by the blood of their ancestors. — 
 They have fostered and perfected those in- 
 stitutions, which are our own. If we chose 
 to call others to participate, well and good. 
 
 I would go as far as the most ardent phi- 
 lanthropist. I would say, it is true we have 
 planted this tree of liberty; we have foster- 
 ed and reared it, until its branches are suf- 
 ficient to shelter both you and us. But for 
 God sake don't hack and destroy the tree; 
 don't interfere with it, but let it remain as it 
 is ! Let it be under our charge, until you 
 shall have acquired sufficient experience to 
 tend it. 
 
 The knowledge of our institutions and 
 their peculiar operation, can only be ac- 
 quired from some } r ears experience. It is 
 on ly after a sufficient lapse of time that the 
 new comer can be presumed to have form- 
 ed any permanent attachments, or to be 
 sufficiently imbued with our political rights 
 and liabilities. As to the notion that all this 
 is intuitive, and that the human mind is un- 
 erring in its comprehension of the principles 
 of popular government, that is a wild vision 
 of the brain. It cannot give a conception 
 of the apparatus of our government, which 
 must be learnt by foreigners from actual 
 experience, but which we imbibe with our 
 mother's milk. I never will believe any 
 such a thing, if I were to live to the days of 
 Methusalah. 
 
 We have a good Constitution, a good 
 government, exclusively fostered by the 
 sweat of our brow and the blood of our 
 veins. We have a right to admit partners 
 or refuse to admit them. And are we em- 
 ploying too much severity towards strangers 
 to insist that they wait a little while, and 
 watch the operation of our system — that they 
 s tudy the character of our people. When the 
 schoolmaster or other learned person, that 
 the gentleman from Jefferson would have 
 to come among us from Europe, to enlighten 
 our ignorance, arrives, and we place our- 
 selves or our children under his charge, 
 what would be his astonishment if, after he 
 had learnt us our A. B. C.'s, we should turn 
 round and say to him we know more than 
 you do, and can teach you ? Would it not 
 be as arrogant for a foreigner, a stranger 
 to our institutions, that had just arrived 
 
 among us, to tell us that he comprehended 
 them better than we did, and that he was 
 going to remodel them for us. His science 
 might be vastly superior to our own, inas- 
 much as he came from Europe, but we 
 might prefer another kind of knowledge, 
 and not be willing to be so preceded in our 
 just authority and control. We belong to 
 a race with whom liberty is indispensable. 
 Our institutions are free, and we are as 
 free as air. 
 
 I am decidedly in favor of a certain pe- 
 riod of probation for those who come among 
 us from foreign countries. They should 
 serve some little apprenticeship to under- 
 stand our institutions, to get rid of their pre- 
 judices, and to form some permanent attach- 
 ments. There is a great deal of nicety in 
 our government — the boundaries are imper- 
 ceptible, and a foreigner might be treading 
 on the toes of the Constitution without 
 knowing it was there. It Avould be a mys- 
 tery to him. As to a stranger understand- 
 ing our institutions intuitively, it was no 
 such thing. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. Voon- 
 hies' motion, and the ayes and nays were 
 called for : x 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benja- 
 min, Boudousquie, Bourg, Briant, Brum- 
 field, Barton, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Couvillon, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, Garrett, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Roman, Roselius, Saunders, Sellers, 
 Stevens, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Voor- 
 hies, Wadsworth, Winchester and Winder, 
 —39. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Cade, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Downs, Eustis,Garcia, 
 Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Leonard,McRea, 
 Marigny, Mayo, 0 'Bryan, Peets, Penn, 
 Porche, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Preston, Ratliff, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Madison, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Soule, Splane, Waddill, 
 Wederstrandt,— 32. 
 
 Whereupon, on motion, the Convention 
 adjourned. 
 
 Wednesday, January 22, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment, and the proceedings were opened 
 with prayer by the Reverend Mr. Nichol- 
 son. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 71 
 
 Mr. Ratliff, in behalf of the commit- 
 tee on contingent expenses, reported a re- 
 solution allowing 8350 to J. A. Kelly, 
 printer to the Convention, for work done 
 and to be done. 
 
 Mr. Carriere introduced a resolution 
 authorising the committee on contingent 
 expenses to allow mileage to the clerks of 
 the Convention from the town of Jackson 
 to the city of New Orleans. 
 
 Mr. Lewis objected to the adoption of 
 this resolution. The clerks were already 
 sufficiently well paid, and allowing them 
 mileage would entail heavy expense. If 
 they were not content with what they re- 
 ceived for their services, let them resign; 
 others would be very glad to take their 
 places. The motion to refer the resolution 
 to the committee on contingent expenses 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved for the rejection of the 
 resolution, and called for the ayes and 
 nayes. 
 
 Ayes — 3Iessrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Brazeale, Brent, B riant, Burton, Cham- 
 bliss, Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, Kenner, 
 King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Porche, Pugh, Rat- 
 liff, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saun- 
 ders, Sellers, Stevens, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Trist, and Waddil— 32. 
 
 Nays. — Messrs. Cade, Carriere, Cenas, 
 Couvillon, Dunn, Guion, Hudspeth, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, McCallop, McRea, Marigny, 
 O'Brian, Penn, Porter, Prescott of Assump- 
 tion, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Taylor of Assumption, 
 V T oorhies, and Wederstrandt — 25. 
 
 Order of the day. — The Convention 
 resumed the consideration of the fourth sec- 
 tion of the second article of the constitu- 
 tion, as reported by the majority, and as 
 amended by the proposition of Mr. Voor- 
 hies. 
 
 Mr Lewis called for the adoption of the 
 section. 
 
 Mr. Dowxs said: in the discharge of 
 what he deemed to be a duty, he begged to 
 trespass on the attention of the Convention, 
 and to make some remarks before the 
 question was taken, on the motion to adopt 
 the section. Perhaps he was liable to the 
 charge of remisnessj in suffering to pro- 
 gress so far without developing more fully 
 than he had done the serious objections 
 
 which operated against it in his mind. — 
 But he had not anticipated that it would 
 have been pushed so successfully, other- 
 wise he would have insisted upon his ob- 
 jections. 
 
 In the remarks he intended to offer, he 
 might speak with great earnestness — he 
 trusted that his earnestness of manner 
 would not be misconceived or misunder- 
 stood. He usually spoke with earnestness 
 whenever the question under consideration 
 involved principles of individual liberty and 
 popular rights. 
 
 It was certainly less from an apprehen- 
 sion that the proposition of the delegate 
 from Attakapas (Mr. Voorhies) which had 
 been incorported in the section, would have 
 much effect, than because the principle was 
 wrong, invidious and odious, that he raised 
 his voice against it. He felt deep regret 
 and mortification that such restrictions 
 as were embodied in the section should find 
 advocates on this floor, and lest his silence 
 might be misconstrued, he felt it to be his 
 duty to protest against the course of policy 
 which it was contemplated to pursue. 
 
 Strong and able arguments have been 
 adduced to sustain the prescriptive views 
 which are carried out so fully by the propo- 
 sition of a delegate from St. Landry, requir- 
 ing a residence of four years to be eligible 
 to a seat in the house of representatives, 
 and the proposition of the member from 
 Attakapas that applies the restriction with 
 greater securhy to naturalized citizens. — 
 He had reference particularly to the gen- 
 tleman who last addressed the Convention 
 (Mr. Grymes.) 
 
 I regret, said Mr. Dowxs, to encounter 
 such fearful odds. It seems like temerity to 
 enter the list with so renowned a champion, 
 and it would have been more appropriate 
 had the task fallen to older and more expe- 
 rienced hands; but it was not to gratify my 
 convenience, but to serve my country, 
 that I am here, and feel how inadequate 
 are my powers to resist the biting sarcasm 
 of that gentleman. I have no other course. 
 There is one position which that gentle- 
 man assumed, with which I cannot concur. 
 I took no notes and do not profess to give 
 his precise words. He said that the doc- 
 trine of a member from Jefferson (Mr. 
 Preston) appeared designed to array the 
 Convention against the people. I disclaim 
 any such design. I cannot however ad- 
 
72 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 mil that the sovereignty of the State is ex- 
 clusively vested in the Convention, and that 
 the people have no control over the actions 
 of that body. I protest against such a 
 doctrine. 
 
 But what docs the gentleman mean? 
 Does he mean that the Convention posses- 
 ses the physical power to make a constitu- 
 tion/ It* he means that, having got into 
 the Convention, by hook or by crook, Ave 
 may forget the opinions of the people — dis- 
 regard their remonstrances, and usurp their 
 sovereignties, then I would say, that our pow- 
 ers are not unlimited. We should not for- 
 get that our constituents are intelligent and 
 observant, and that if the objects for which 
 this Convention are called are frustrated, 
 they will hold us to a strict accountability. 
 If we set ourselves in defiance with their 
 opinions, we : will incur a heavy penalty. 
 He hoped no such design was entertained. 
 For myself!, said Mr. Downs, I acknowl- 
 edge my accountability to those who sent 
 me here, and if I were to violate their 
 wishes, I would never return to them, but 
 would go to Texas. There are some who 
 have got into this Convention upon the 
 strength of their pledges. Some there are 
 who appear to exult at the prospect of defeat- 
 ing the will of the people, who are evidently 
 pleased with the sarcasms that have been 
 uttered; but they should remember that they 
 will have to give an account of their stew- 
 ardship. That if they violate their pledges 
 and forget their sacred obligations, they 
 will not escape with impunity. They may 
 be nattered here, they may feel themselves 
 omnipotent, but the day must come when 
 they will be shorn of their powers and 
 their honors. By what rule do they set 
 themselves up as the sovereign people? 
 I do not desire, Mr. President, to make any 
 personal allusions. But I know an honor- 
 able member whose opinions on this ques- 
 tion are certainly not those of his constitu- 
 ents, nor are they consistent with his for- 
 mer declarations. 
 
 [The President: Sarcasms and person- 
 al reflections ought not to be indulged in.] 
 
 Mr. Keiviver: There is nothing which 
 the gentleman has said, to which excep- 
 tions might be taken. I hope he may go on. 
 
 Mr. Dowxs : I confess that my friends 
 and myself were almost in despair at the 
 debate and occurrences of yesterday. The 
 position of affairs wore a somewhat sombre 
 
 hue, but upon reflection some consolation 
 
 suggested itself to my mind. That 
 although the eloquence of the gentleman 
 from New Orleans |was so overpowering 
 as to sweep all before it, and to invest him 
 with the honors of the day, still that elo- 
 quence would not bear the test of scrutiny : 
 that it was brilliant but delusive, and would 
 vanish before the broad glare of reason. 
 I recollect that in former timesand in other 
 countries, it was sa id of one about whom 
 the world was divided, (Charles II) that 
 he never said a foolish thing nor did a wise 
 one. Not that I intend to apply this 
 remark in its full extent to that gentleman. 
 The best things will not escape the falla- 
 cies of mankind. 
 
 I remember an incident in the early his- 
 tory of the country that has some applica- 
 tion to the member from New Orleans, and 
 which convinced me that we were not en- 
 tirely overpowered. During the incipient 
 stages of our revolutionary war, a delega- 
 tion from the colonies met at Annapolis. 
 All the great men that the country then 
 boasted were in attendance. The rules 
 had not yet been provided, and there was a 
 solemn pause. Patrick Henry arose and 
 electrified his hearers by a magnificent 
 burst of eloquence ; such as never be- 
 fore had under similar circumstances been 
 heard. Richard Henry Lee, another Vir- 
 ginian, followed the father of American 
 oratory. The assembly were "spell-bound 
 and entranced. The sages of the revolu- 
 tion were at once convinced that there were 
 no greater men among them than Patrick 
 Henry and Richard Henry Lee. So over- 
 powering and astounding were their orato- 
 ry, that Mr. Chase, a man of profound 
 knowledge, and who subsequently became 
 a Judge of the Supreme Court, stepped over 
 to Mr. Wythe and observed, " Ave may as 
 AA^ell go home, Ave are unable to cope AAath 
 these Virginians." And so much impres- 
 sion did this incident make that they Avere 
 both placed at the head of the most, impor- 
 tant committees. An address Avas to be 
 prepared to the croAvn, and Patrick Henry 
 Avas placed at the head of the committee. 
 So little qualification did he possess for that 
 duty, that he Avas compelled to relinquish 
 it. The paper Avas draAvn up by Mr. Liv- 
 ingston, and it Avas one of the finest pro- 
 ductions that appeared among the admira- 
 ble State papers of that day. These two 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 1% 
 
 men with such transcendant talents for or- 
 atory, were not endowed with a turn for 
 business. The failure became known, and 
 Mr. Chase then observed, that if those two 
 individuals were mimitably superior as ora- 
 tors to their colleagues, yet they fell far 
 short in an aptitude for business and the 
 faculty of putting their thoughts on paper. 
 The practical results and tests of govern- 
 ment have been carried out by men of lit- 
 tle brilliancy, while those that have dazzled 
 and shone most conspicuously as orators, 
 have left little to impress the age with their 
 genius or to remind posterity of the bene- 
 fits they have confered. Look at two of 
 the most splendid orators that our country 
 has yet produced. Patrick Henry and 
 Randolph. What great traces have they 
 left? The few speeches that have come to 
 us are the only monuments of their wis- 
 dom. But where are their acts? On 
 what pages of history are they recorded ? 
 Whereas Franklin, a man of no brilliancy 
 whatever as an orator, has impressed the 
 age in which he lived, and in every page of 
 history is recorded the services he render- 
 ed to his country. 
 
 I would remark Mr. President, said Mr. 
 Downs, that if you take the proposition of 
 the gentleman from Attakapas, in its literal 
 sense, it impresses no restriction ; it takes 
 off the restriction of five years residence 
 for the benefit of naturalized citizens. If 
 they be naturalized, the very next day after- 
 wards they would be eligible under the 
 proposition to a seat in your legislature. 
 That, however, is not the meaning in- 
 tended. 
 
 As I understand it, Mr. President, the 
 State has no right to make exceptions, and 
 to impose invidious distinctions between 
 the citizens of our common country. A 
 citizen of our State is entitled to all the 
 privileges of citizenship, and the rule is 
 identical whether he be a naturalized citi- 
 zen or a natural born citizen. The Con- 
 stitution of the United States makes no 
 distinctions. And the State has no more 
 control over citizenship than she has over 
 the national prerogative to coin money. I 
 state authoratively that she has no right to 
 impose disabilities upon citizens by natu- 
 ralization. I rely upon the Constitution 
 to sustain that point. 
 
 If a citizen of Mississippi is eligible to 
 all the privileges of a citizen in Louisiana 
 
 according to the Federal Constitution, how 
 can the Convention impose excluding dis- 
 abilities ? It is against reason as well as 
 authority. A talented and distinguished 
 gentleman, who was an inhabitant of the 
 Mississippi territory, when it became a 
 State of the Union, but who had never gone 
 through the usual process of naturalization, 
 was elected to the legislature of Louisiana 
 from a particular district to which he had 
 removed. The question arose whether he 
 was a citizen of the United States and eli- 
 ble. The Senate decided that he was. 
 Judicial decisions sustaining the same prin- 
 ciple, that all the inhabitants of the Missis- 
 sippi at her admission into the Union 
 became ipso facto citizens of the United 
 States, have been frequently pronounced. — 
 That particular individual has held many 
 high offices in the State. 
 
 Mr. Downs contended that the proposi- 
 tion and the proviso were unconstitutional ; 
 that is, they conflicted with the Constitution 
 of the United States, inasmuch as they 
 were intended to establish a greater re- 
 striction than existed in that instrument. 
 In support of this opinion, Mr. D. quoted 
 the case of Collett against Collett, before the 
 Circuit Court of the United States ; 8 Dal- 
 las, vol. 2, page 294 : also another case 
 from the same book, which, said Mr. D., is 
 still more explicit. These decisions Mr. 
 Downs considered as deciding that the 
 States cannot impose greater restrictions, 
 in admitting foreigners to naturalization, 
 than are imposed under the act of Con- 
 gress. The States may require less, but 
 they cannot require more. In some of the 
 new States they have availed themselves 
 of that construction to admit foreigners to 
 citizenship upon easier terms. 
 
 He called upon gentlemen who appeared 
 to have such great dread" of admitting citi- 
 zenship, to point out a solitary instance 
 where any injury had resulted from the ap- 
 pointment of naturalized citizens under the 
 State or general governments. They had 
 never abused their trusts, whether employed 
 in a civil or military capacity, .and had 
 invariably been remarkable for their at- 
 tachment and devotion to the land of their 
 adoption. 
 
 Mr. Downs said, on grounds of expe- 
 diency he was strongly opposed to the 
 amendments offered. He would not retort 
 upon the delegate from New Orleans, (Mr* 
 
7 I 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Grymes) the harsh expression, which that 
 gentleman applied to the argument of the 
 member from Jefferson^ (Mr. Preston.) He 
 would not say it was "unfair," but he would 
 say that the gentleman's argument, as it 
 was an argument upon the exception, and 
 not the general rule, was illogical. The 
 gentleman from New Orleans had fallen 
 into the very error which he charged upon 
 the delegate from Jefferson. That gentle- 
 man had attempted to rest his argument 
 upon an exception — an exception liable to 
 all the objections of an exception — and has 
 adopted the contracted dogma of native 
 Americanism. Let us look into its origin. 
 When we desire to form correct opinions 
 we naturally inquire into the opinions of 
 others, and, so far as they are solid and 
 consistent, do we attach confidence in those 
 who may utter them. If the opinions ex- 
 pressed be good, we rely with greater au- 
 thority on him that advances them, in other 
 respects. This doctrine of native Ameri- 
 canism is not new. It comes from a very 
 objectionable source; a source which is as- 
 sociated in our minds with every thing that 
 is vile and degrading in politics. It first 
 made its appearance in the days of federal- 
 ism, and produced the famous alien and se- 
 dition law. Whenever the federal party 
 could get on and hold its own, and occasion- 
 ally succeed, the contest was waged upon 
 broad national principles; but, when a se- 
 ries of disasters attended all its efforts it has 
 invariably found fault with the institutions 
 of the country, and has sought to contract 
 them in their application. 
 
 So it was in 1798. That party discovered 
 it must go down unless some expedient 
 could save it, and it judged truly, for in 1800 
 it was hurled from its elevated position. 
 With a view of bolstering it up by engen- 
 dering prejudices and creating animosities 
 in the community, the alien and sedition 
 law was passed. It became a leading ques- 
 tion, and a di stinguished champion of demo- 
 cratic principles, one of whom Louisiana 
 will ever be justly proud, was conspicuous 
 in the struggle. Perhaps of all his produc- 
 tions, his arguments against that law was 
 the best. Livingston was at that time a 
 member of Congress from the State, of New 
 \ ork. I remember reading it in my. boy- 
 hood, and it made so great an impression 
 upon me that I recollect it distinctly. It is 
 one of the most admirable and conclusive 
 
 arguments, and the State should get a copy 
 
 and have it elegantly bound and deposited 
 in the archives, as well in honor of its great 
 author as because it was one of the best ex- 
 positions extant upon the subject to which 
 it refers. I have it in an abbreviated form, 
 as well as the remarks of another distin- 
 guished democrat on the same subject, (Mr. 
 Tazewell.) I will not detain the House by 
 reading over any portion of these documents, 
 but if members have any wish to see what 
 were the opinions entertained at that time 
 upon the alien and sedition law, the volume 
 is at their service. The opposition to this 
 act of oppression, was the rallying point of 
 the democratic party. In the legislature of 
 Kentucky prompt and decided action was 
 taken, and in the legislature of Virginia 
 introduced his famous resolutions. So 
 soon as the democratic party got into power 
 it was repealed, and the prisoners confined 
 under its authority were set at liberty. The 
 same principle which was then repudiated, 
 hurled under foot, is now revived with all 
 its narrow and contracting prejudices. From 
 boyhood I have reprobated it as a principle 
 of oppression and exclusion. Surely no 
 man, certainly no democrat, can give to it 
 his countenance. 
 
 The next occasion whea the principles 
 of the alien and sedition law were pro- 
 claimed was during Mr. Madison's admin- 
 istration, when the country was in a state 
 of difficulty and embarrassment, when the 
 President was menaced by enemies from 
 abroad and enemies from within. It was 
 at that critical period that a Convention was 
 held in a little village in New England, 
 which will give immortality to the place. 
 We never would, otherwise, have heard of 
 the village of Hartford. At this meeting of 
 traitors, this very question of native Ameri- 
 canism was revived and brought out, con- 
 spicuously, with another question of vital 
 and abiding interest to the South — the pro- 
 position to exclude a representation of our 
 slaves. Such is the doctrine of Massachu- 
 setts at the present day. 
 
 In connection with this part of the subject, 
 Mr. Downs would read an extract from 
 the Southern Quarterly Review for 1844. 
 The author's name was not given. But from 
 the great ability with which the article was 
 written, he presumed it was from the pen of 
 a very distinguished gentleman— Professor 
 Everett. It discussed the question of the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 annexation of Texas, which we are told 
 will produce disunion, as we were told by 
 the Hartford Convention that the represen- 
 tation of slaves would produce disunion. 
 Here is the extract: 
 
 "Some year or two after, the Hartford Con- 
 vention proposed amendments to the Con- 
 stitution. Among which, we mid a restric- 
 tion upon Congress from admitting new 
 States, without the consent of two-thirds; 
 the withdrawal of the representation allow- 
 ed to the slave -holding States, based upon 
 the slave population; the exclusion of aliens 
 from office and from the privileges of citizen- 
 ship, except after a residence of twenty-one 
 years.; the limitation of the eligibility of the 
 President to one term, and that he should 
 not come twice from the same State. These 
 amendments were proposed by the legisla- 
 ture of Connecticut to the other States of 
 the Union. We have the reports of the 
 legislatures of New Jersey and Pennsylvania 
 upon them. In both they were perempto- 
 rily rejected, and we infer they met with 
 favor nowhere." 
 
 Mr. President, said Mr. Downs, we 
 find in this little extract, the spirit of the 
 alien and sedition law revivified and blend- 
 ed, and in sweet communion with a new 
 element of political strife endangering the 
 peace and safety of the American Union. 
 It met with no favor then. I trust it mil 
 meet with no favor now. We see in these 
 precious doctrines the design to revolution- 
 ize the whole country and light the torch of 
 civil war. It is the Hartford Convention 
 sanctioning the federal doctrines of 1797, 
 and again proclaiming the same principles, 
 which when originally broached, had pro- 
 ved so disastrous to the party that espoused 
 them. And are not these principles the 
 same that have given rise to the native 
 American party — the old federal party un- 
 der a new phase? In 1800,"the federal par- 
 ty were signally defeated, and meeting 
 with a succession of reverses, they revived 
 the exploded doctrines of 1797, and made 
 war upon our institutions. Our institutions 
 were not perfect enough for them, and they 
 desired to make sweeping changes, so as 
 to accomplish better their designs. The 
 Hartford Convention of 1814 could not 
 shine, its principles were bad ones; they 
 were repudiated by the people, as in 1798, 
 and as they will be repudiated again in 1844. 
 
 Why are that party not more generous, 
 
 75 
 
 why do they take their defeat so hard, why 
 do they not adopt better principles, and re- 
 frain from invading the sacred privileges of 
 the Constitution 1 
 
 Mr. Dow xs then proceeded to show that 
 the doctrines of the present native Ameri- 
 can party were not original. That the 
 same hostility existed even before the pas- 
 sage of the alien and sedition law, and be- 
 fore the adoption of the federal Constitution. 
 He read from the Madison papers to show 
 that the same policy now advocated, to ex- 
 clude persons of foreign birth from partici- 
 pating in the goverment of the country, 
 were broached and insisted upon even at 
 that time, with great pertinacitv. He 
 commented upon the views expressed by 
 Mr. Butler, a member of the federal Con- 
 vention, which embodied the very spirit of 
 these invidious doctrines, and which have 
 been spun out in the milk and water pro- 
 ductions of the day as sustaining the policy 
 of exclusion. He said the liberal opinions 
 of Washington, Madison, Franklin, Wilson 
 and other distinguished patriots were the 
 reverse. They were not for exclusions, 
 restrictions and restraints, and for denying 
 the boon of citizenship to their fellow man. 
 He considered the opinions of Franklin the 
 more practical, because that distinguished 
 man had spent a considerable time in Eu- 
 rope, and had the best opportunity of form- 
 ing a correct judgment. What were the opin- 
 ions of Franklin ? They bore testimony 
 to the good feelings of foreigners even in 
 their own country, for our institutions, and 
 his penetrating mind could discover none . 
 of those evils which have become of late 
 a theme of so much pretended disquietude 
 and reproach. 
 
 It may be said, that during a period of 
 over sixty years, although several States 
 have formed and modified their system of 
 government, not one have incorporated the 
 principle of placing the naturalized citizen 
 in an inferior position to the native born 
 citizen. If we except the States of Geor- 
 gia and Maine, there is not a State in the 
 Union that has adopted this illiberal dis- 
 tinction. The Constitution of Georgia was 
 formed in 1790 and had reference to the 
 peculiar geographical position of that State 
 in the vicinity to the then dominions of 
 Spain. As for the State of Maine, there 
 was no discussion on the proposition in her 
 convention. It appeared to have passed 
 
76 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 without ordinary consideration. So that, 
 to use the common phrase, from Maine to 
 Georgia, no such unworthy restriction ex- 
 [stedin any of the constitutions of our sis- 
 ter States. 
 
 The weight and balance of authority was 
 then against incorporating it in the Consti- 
 tution. The opinions of the most eminent of 
 the fathers of the American Constitution and 
 of American liberty, were decidedly averse 
 to any unusual length of probation for for- 
 eigners, who sought among us an asylum 
 from oppression. The intendment and de- 
 signs or the federal Constitution were, that 
 the States should impose no greater restric- 
 tion than were imposed by the laws of 
 Congress ; and if they did, these restric- 
 tions would be inoperative. 
 
 The opinions of all the eminent men, 
 whose views he had quoted in direct con- 
 flict with the spirit of the amendment, ex- 
 hibited that we ought not to adopt it. — 
 Among these illustrious men w r as Mr. Wil- 
 son, to whom, after Mr. Madison, great 
 credit was due. He conceded that the ser- 
 vices of Mr. Madison were most eminent, 
 but next to him no one had impressed a 
 stronger mark of his mind upon the Con- 
 stitution than did Mr. Wilson. That indi- 
 vidual was a foreigner by birth, and how- 
 ever disposed some may be to carp at his 
 opinions on that account, his name is an 
 illustrious refutation of the fallacy of those 
 new fangled doctrines of the day which 
 would represent one class of citizens as 
 less attached to their country than another. 
 
 These, said Mr. Downs, are my general 
 views. They are not hastily nor incon- 
 siderately formed. Nor are they alone my 
 particular views, nor those of my particu- 
 lar party. They are the views of men 
 who are not blinded to the true interest of 
 the country, and who are not carried away 
 by the impulses of prejudice. 
 
 To show that some members of the 
 whig party folly conceive the folly of the 
 crusades urged against naturalized citizens, 
 I will (said Mr. Downs,) read an extract 
 from the Louisville Weekly Journal, the 
 editor of which paper is a distinguished 
 writer and a personal and political friend of 
 the late whig candidate for the presidency. 
 I differ with him on all political subjects. 
 It will be seen that, although he displays a 
 strong bias, yet he pronounces himself de- 
 cidedly against the recent movement of 
 
 his party to organize themselves under a 
 new name, and upon the principle of hos- 
 tility to foreigners. This article was pen- 
 ned immediately after the defeat of Mr. 
 Clay, and may be considered a sort of 
 funeral oration, or an explanation of the 
 causes that prevented the whigs from mak- 
 ing a better fight. 
 
 (Mr. Downs here read the extract refer- 
 red to, and in connection an extract from 
 the New York Tribune, another whig pa- 
 per, reprobating the policy of fighting for 
 new issues.) 
 
 So, Mr. President, you will see that the 
 views I have expressed are not exclusively 
 my own, nor that of the party to which I 
 belong. As for the success of the present 
 movement against naturalized citizens, it is 
 my deliberate opinion that the wise policy 
 inculcated by Madison, Franklin, and Wil- 
 son, will not be abandoned for half a cen- 
 tury, if even then ; and that our country, 
 with her native and adopted citizens, not- 
 withstanding the efforts to divide the com- 
 munity and to engender local prejudices 
 and animosities, will move on to the accom- 
 plishment of her high and exalted destinies. 
 
 The gentleman from New Orleans, (Mr. 
 Grymes,) who displayed a certain kind of 
 liberality, had said that the American tree 
 of liberty had been planted amid perils and 
 strife, and that all might freely come and 
 repose themselves under its shade. It is 
 true, Mr. President, that the tree is now 
 strong, and that it has taken root upon our 
 soil. It has been exposed to shocks and 
 tempests, but it has weathered the storm. 
 It should, however, be remembered that it 
 was not always strong and vigorous, nor 
 was it permanently established. Some 
 sixty or seventy years ago it was a feeble, 
 percarious plant, and was exposed to emi- 
 nent peril. It then required the protection 
 of stout hearts and willing hands, and adop- 
 ted, as well as native citizens, crowded 
 around it to keep it from danger. There 
 was then no petty jealousies — no local 
 animosities, and the blood of foreigners 
 freely commingled with the blood of native 
 citizens, to nourish the tree. It may not be 
 forgotten that, on a dark and stormy night, 
 an officer approached the Canadian shore, 
 and that he sealed the cause of liberty with 
 his life. It was Montgomery, and his Irish 
 blood was freely shed to secure and preserve 
 vitality to that tender plant. De Kalb, and 
 
Debates in the Oo 
 
 Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 77 
 
 a host of other patriot.-, contended with the j 
 nerve of freemen that it should not be up- J 
 rooted and destroyed; and if we are now | 
 basking under its foliage, we should not for- 
 get that our fellow men from all parts of the j 
 world, assisted us in rearing and preserving 
 it. We should not forget that one of the j 
 most important battles, in fact the one that 
 put a termination to the war, and secured { 
 our~independence, — I allude to the battle of I 
 York Town — another San Jacinto was 
 gained, by the joint co-operation of the 
 American forces, under Gen. Washington, 
 and the French forces, under Lafayette — 
 two columns advanced to the charge, one I 
 American and the other French. We I 
 should not, in a moment of exultation, j 
 flushed by prosperity, forget the friends j 
 that stood by us in the hour of our darkest j 
 peril. We should not forget the incalcu- 
 lable services rendered to us by Lafayette, 
 who left a proud and lofty position in his 
 own country, to sustain and defend our lib- 
 erties : who perilled his life, and freely \ 
 offered his fortune. These things should j 
 be in the recollection of the gentleman, i 
 (Mr. Grymes ) and in the recollection of the ' 
 other gentlemen, who appeared so little 
 disposed to extend the inestimable privi- ! 
 lege of American citizens beyond the imme- 
 diate boundaries of our soil. Nor was ! 
 Lafayette alone in that generous devotion to j 
 our cause. A few years ago I visited Sar- 
 atoga's plains, where a foreigner, an Eng- 
 lishman achieved the next greatest victory, 
 certainly in its results, to York Town. — 
 That victory deranged the whole plan of the j 
 enemy, and paved the way for our final 
 success. The officer to whom I allude was ! 
 General Gates. 
 
 I repeat what I asserted yesterday, that j 
 no example can be pointed out, of any detri- ! 
 ment having ever been done to the United 
 States by a naturalized citizen, either in a 
 military or civil capacity. 
 
 There was no end to the restrictions 
 upon the people, when they were once 
 begun. If you say that no citizen shall be 
 allowed the privilege of voting except he 
 has been five years in the State, vou may 
 go another step and say that he shall not 
 vote without property, you may then say he 
 shall not vote without landed property, and 
 so on until you have brought the restriction 
 within its narrowest limits. 
 
 I have developed the reasons, which, in j 
 
 my opinion, should induce us to reject the 
 section, with its odious amendments. In 
 the name of the people of Louisiana, of our 
 common constituents, I call for the rejec- 
 tion of the section, and I hope my motion 
 will prevail. 
 
 Mr. Sellers said, I will not, Mr. Presi- 
 dent, attempt to enter into the wide range 
 that this discussion has taken; and would 
 not now trespass upon the attention of the 
 Convention, were it not to repel a personal 
 allusion. The gentleman who has just sit 
 down, has alluded to my relations (frith my 
 constituents. I think that the time of the 
 gentleman would be better occupied in dis- 
 charging his own duties, than by alluding 
 to mine. I presented a proposition to strike 
 out the Avhole section, because I thought the 
 people should be left unrestricted in their 
 choice. That proposition failed, and it is 
 the sense of the Convention that there 
 should be some qualifications enumerated 
 in the Constitution, for those who may pre- 
 sent themselves for the suffrages of the peo- 
 ple. Upon that proposition I consider my- 
 self authorized to vote for the period which 
 appears to me best calculated to attain the 
 end proposed, by its adoption. 
 
 Mr. Gsymes said: Mr. President, I rise 
 with some considerable embarrassment to 
 make some remarks in reply to the speech 
 of the gentleman from Ouachita. It has 
 been said by that gentleman, that the. few 
 observations I made yesterday were mark- 
 ed with sarcasms and a harshness of ex- 
 pression. I was not conscious of being 
 sarcastic, either in word or in manner. 
 Surely nothing was further from me than to 
 say any thing which could be construed into 
 sarcasm. I am amazed that it can be con- 
 ceived I intended sarcasm, or that my 
 words could be stamped as such. In the 
 few observations I made I am not sensible 
 even of the slightest harshness. I feel, 
 under such a reproach, somewhat embar- 
 rassed, and I must say this, that either the 
 gentleman from Ouachita misapprehended 
 my remarks, or I have not understood his. 
 To suppose any severity on my part, surely 
 grows out of misapprehension and miscon- 
 struction. I answered simply the speech of 
 the honorable member from Jefferson, and 
 combatted his propositions. That was all ! 
 
 But the gentleman from Ouachita com- 
 plains that I applied the term " unfair" to 
 the arguments of the member from JefieiS 
 
7S 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 son. The gentleman from Jefferson and 
 myself have pursued the profession of the 
 law more years than it is pleasant to look 
 back upon. I would ask him if there be 
 any severity, any peculiar harshness in 
 qualifying an argument that is ingenious, 
 plausible, a? "unfair." An ingenious man 
 will draw false deductions, and if you admit 
 Iris premises, he will argue you out of house 
 and home. 1 could not say the arguments of 
 that gentleman Avere fair, when I conceived 
 them to be specious only, and I am at a loss 
 to perdtKve how I transgressed. 
 
 I disake all such explanations, and depre- 
 cate an over sensitiveness which discovers 
 offence when none is intended. I trust that 
 such a spirit will not interfere with the 
 freedom of debate. I woifd not willingly 
 offend, nor would I treat the arguments of a 
 member otherwise than with deference. I 
 would consider it to be a heinous offence to 
 wound the feelings of any one. Having 
 # set myself right upon this matter of u sar- 
 casm," I will proceed to notice the argu- 
 ments of the delegate from Ouachita, (Mr. 
 Downs.) 
 
 That gentleman found fault with what I | 
 said in relation to the powers of the Con- 
 vention, and the duties of its members. The 
 gentleman from Jefferson, (Mr. Preston) in 
 treating upon this subject, endeavored to 
 draw a distinction between the Convention 
 and the people. As if the Convention had 
 the powers independent of the people, of ex- 
 pressing its own will; in a word he endeav- 
 ored to place the Convention and the people 
 in antagonistical positions; whereas, I con- 
 tended that the Convention were the people, 
 assembled for the purpose of considering 
 their organic law. According to that gen- 
 tleman, we were endeavoring by stringent 
 restrictions to confine the people. I utterly 
 repudiate such a notion, and deny that this 
 Convention design to interfere with the 
 franchises ofthe people, of whom they are the 
 immediate and specific mandataries. I can- 
 not conceive what restrictions the Conven- 
 tion would impose, that would be contrary 
 to the will ofthe people. The people have 
 all power. It is their province to determine, 
 and they will determine through their Con- 
 vention, how far and upon what basis suffrage 
 shall be extended; who shall be eligible 
 to serve them. They will determine how 
 citizenship may be acquired by those who 
 choose to come among them. » It cannot be 
 
 shown that in this the Constitution of the 
 United States is violated; for that instrument 
 does not pretend to regulate suffrage in the 
 States. The people of the State clearly 
 have the right to say who shall exercise 
 the political power of the State. It may be 
 a question of expediency how far suffrage 
 shall be extended, and what facilities shall 
 be accorded, to acquire citizenship. Whe- 
 ther we shall require any residence, or no 
 residence. Whether a man shall have the 
 right of voting when he touches our shores, 
 or whether he shall be admitted to a pro- 
 bation, to prepare him for the duties and 
 responsibilities of citizenship. That is the 
 only real question. Upon that footing, and 
 that footing alone, should it be placed. Can 
 it be shown that by admitting every body to 
 the enjoyment of suffrage, that it will pro- 
 mote the permanent interests of the State — 
 that it will promote the happiness of her 
 real population] I have heard no argument 
 upon that point. The States of Georgia 
 and Maine have deemed some restriction, 
 similar to the proposition before us . but only 
 greater in extent, as necessary and proper. 
 But, in pi ace of arguments upon the ques- 
 tion, we are met by a disquisition upon the 
 alien and sedition law and the Hartford 
 Convention, and an attempt, a labored at- 
 tempt to show, that there is something in 
 common between them and the present pro- 
 position. The gentleman frcm Ouachita 
 need not have sought in such doubtful and 
 objectionable sources for the principle em- 
 bodied in the section, as it has been amend- 
 ed. There was no point of contact. The 
 Harford Convention had no more to do 
 with this principle than the Convention has 
 to do with an imperial Ukasse. He could 
 have found that identical principle enume- 
 rated elsewhere — consecrated in an instru- 
 ment which combined the wisdom and the 
 intelligence ofthe fathers of cur institutions. 
 He ccifd have found it in the Constitution 
 of the United States, where it stands until 
 this day undisputed and unquestioned. 
 
 But the gentleman (Mr. Downs) contends 
 that the principle requiring residence from 
 naturalized citizens, and identical with that 
 for native born citizens of the other States, is 
 i unconstitutional; and in order to establish his 
 position he has read to us a deci sion of the 
 United States Court. The gentleman will 
 j pardon me for answering him as to the 
 ] pertinence of this authority upon the ques- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 79 
 
 tion under debate. If we were in another 
 arena it would require no answer from me. 
 What is the amount of this authority] It is 
 the case of Collet! against. CoIIett; and if 
 I answer the gentleman, it is because the 
 house may expect an answer. I will read 
 the decision. The simple question in that 
 case was this, whether an individual was 
 a subject of his Britannic Majesty or a citi 
 zen cf the State of Pennsylvania. I will 
 not read the arguments of counsel for they 
 are neither here nor there, but the decision 
 of the Court upon the point involved. It is 
 quite short. 
 
 What does it amount to ! To this sim- j 
 ply. that the indiviual having been natural- ; 
 ized by the local authorities of the State of 
 Pennsylvania, having taken the oath of al- 
 legiance, and gone through all the formali- 
 ties of law, was a citizen of the United 
 States, and therefore no longer a subject of j 
 Great Britain, and could not sue in that 
 court as he desired to do. 
 
 What is the next citation of the gentle- 
 man? It is equally strange and unfortunate. 
 I will not detain the House by reading the 
 arguments of counsel: they are ingenuous: 
 but what say the court? There is no rela- 
 tion between what they say and the matter I 
 before us. The judges pronounce that a 
 certain individual a Spaniard by birth, is not i 
 a citizen of the United States and therefore 
 cannot commit treason, and thev accord- 
 ingly discharge him. There is certainly ! 
 no point of contact between this and 
 the provision requiring a residence of five j 
 years to become a citizen of Louisiana; — 
 The question in the first case, reported in i 
 Da las, was whether an individual who 
 had taken the oath of allegiance, and 
 complied with the formalities of law, I 
 before the Mayor of Philadelphia was a 
 citizen of the United States." The court 
 reply affirmatively! The next question ■ 
 was whether a Spaniard, charged with trea- 
 son, was a citizen of the United States. — 
 The court repw in the negative , and he is 
 discharged. "What analogy do these decis- 
 ions have? How do they bear, in the 
 remotest manner, an affinity with the ques- | 
 tion before us? 
 
 The gentleman from Ouachita speaks of 
 pledges given. I do not know whether he j 
 intends to include me in the number of those 
 he alluded to. I can tell'ftat gentleman, if 
 he does, that I stand on this Moor without 
 
 reference to any pledges. I was sent to 
 
 ; express my opinions, after a full declaration 
 on my part, of what those opinions were. — 
 A large portion of those who cast their suf- 
 ■ frages for me, differ with me upon many 
 political points. By electing me they adop- 
 ted my opinions. I came here against my 
 repeated declarations and wishes. I had 
 no political objects to subserve, and it was 
 with great reluctance I assumed the grave 
 responsibility of representing them on this 
 occasion. I h'ave but a short time to 
 remain in this world, and I did not certainly 
 intend to meddle with politics. There 
 were 90 many more that were willing to 
 take the onerous burthen. I have come to 
 express my opinions, and these I shall ever 
 express with frankness and candor — not 
 with harshness-— not with sarcasm — but 
 with amity — with the respect I owe to my- 
 self and others. 
 
 In regard to the principle involved in the 
 provision under debate, the gentleman from 
 Ouachita has sought to show that it is un- 
 constitutional. This is something very in-' 
 definite. It is a non seguiiur. In refer- 
 ence to what is it unconstitutional? The 
 old constitution? If It be imconstitutional 
 in that respect, then, it seems to me, that 
 any change from the disportions of the old 
 constitution will be unconstitutional, and 
 our special mission here is useless. I 
 would ask the gentleman from Ouachita in 
 what respect the provision is unconstitu- 
 tional? 
 
 [Mr. Dowxs: the Constitution of the Uni- 
 ted States.] 
 
 Mr. Oryxes: with what particular pro- 
 vision? There is only one section in that 
 instrument that has the most remote allusion 
 to the subject. And that is the second sec- 
 tion of the 4th article. (Mr. Grymes read 
 the section referred to.) 
 
 M ell (continued Mr. G.) how does it 
 opeiate in derogation to the prevision before 
 us? The first inquiry is, what dees it mean, 
 that a citizen of our State shall be entitled 
 to all the privileges of citizenship in 
 another? I would ask the gentleman from 
 Lafayette, (Mr. Preston.) if there is any 
 thing repugnant in this provision. If the 
 provision declare that a citizen of Louisi- 
 ana shall not be elegibie to a vote unless he 
 shall have resided ten years in the parish 
 where he offers his vote, will it- be said that 
 a gentleman from Mississippi is entitled to 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 a vote ten days after his arrival. Gentle- 
 men w ill not contend that the Constitution 
 of the United States sanctions such an ine- 
 quality. 
 
 [f I were disposed to be invidious, I 
 would ask the gentleman from Jefferson, 
 w ho has said so much in praise (I say 
 nought against them) of foreigners ; and I 
 would not slop them from bettering their 
 condition by coming among us, although the 
 stream grows larger and larger every day, 
 on a scale certainly commensurate with all 
 our wants : I would ask, I say, if it were not 
 perhaps invidous, the Attorney General, if 
 there were none that were bad and vicious; 
 if he never met any such at the bar ; and 
 it* it Avere alone American citizens, by 
 birth, that were to be found there. I pre- 
 sume he would find, notwithstanding his 
 eulogiums, the mass of statistics the other 
 way, 
 
 Mr. Gryaies was not disposed to be 
 illiberal or narrow minded. Our laws 
 secured to foreigners the most essential 
 privileges — greater than were accorded to 
 foreign subjects by any other nation — they 
 were protected in their person and proper- 
 ty as much as American citizens : they pos- 
 sessed the faculty of holding property and 
 of transmitting it to their heirs ; in a word, 
 they possessed every thing. But in respect 
 to suffrage, it was deemed necessary that 
 there should be something to indicate — to 
 sustain the presumption of attachment and 
 loyalty to their new country. They were 
 to hv subjected to an apprenticeship of four 
 years, after which they could be members 
 of the legislature, and were equal to parti- 
 cipate with us in the government of the 
 country. 
 
 Can they acquire the necessary knowl- 
 edge to make them good and useful citizens 
 m one single day 1 Can they approach the 
 ballot box aim discreetly use the privilege 
 so prematurely bestowed upon them ? Can 
 they have sufficient knowledge of men and 
 parties to vote understanding^ ? Why are 
 talents searched for ? If persons who have 
 no knowledge of our institutions — no knowl- 
 edge of our public men, save that intuitive 
 knowledge— that emanation of god-like in- 
 telligence and patriotism which the mem- 
 ber from Jefferson, in his admiration for 
 mankind, has implanted in the human 
 breast but which unfortunately for his 
 theory is contradicted by actual experience, 
 
 are allowed to determine and control the 
 destinies of the country at the ballot box. 
 
 There are three distinct classes of foreign- 
 ers that come among us. One class dis- 
 gusted with the restraints of monarchical 
 governments are disposed to give to our 
 liberal institutions the form of license. — 
 Another class are influenced by all the pre- 
 judices and hostilities against our institu- 
 tions which they have imbided in their 
 native land and in their early youth ; and 
 the third class are thrown upon our shores 
 by the strong arm of necessity — they have 
 not the means of sustaining life at home. 
 The latter are by far the most numerous 
 class. 
 
 If we accord to them the privilege of 
 controlling and giving destination to our 
 property, we have only to go one step fur- 
 ther, and, in order to place them upon a 
 perfect equality, by some kind of agrarian 
 law, to divide our possessions with them. 
 
 The gentleman from Ouachita has read 
 to us numerous passages from the delegates 
 in the federal Convention upon the ques- 
 tion of admitting foreigners to naturaliza- 
 tion. The views of individual members of 
 that body, among whom there appeared to 
 be some diversity of opinion, may be well 
 enough sought to satisfy our curiosity, 
 but certainly can have no effect in influenc- 
 ing our judgments, inasmuch as the Con- 
 stitution is the concentrated wisdom of the 
 whole body, and in that instrument we find 
 the identical principle recognized of a dis- 
 tinction between native citizens and for* 
 eigners, is vested with the power of pre« 
 scribing and regulating their admission to 
 citizenship. Notwithstanding the peculiar 
 opinions of Mr. Wilson, who was himself 
 a foreigner by birth, and no doubt a very 
 worthy man, and some other distinguished 
 me n the Convention that formed the Con- 
 stitution were not prepared to receive for- 
 eigners and admit them to citizenship with- 
 out any formality, and to make no differ- 
 ence between them and citizens by birth. 
 Hence, we find that in another section the 
 qualifications for members of Congress for 
 one branch, for citizens by naturalization 
 are seven years residence, and for the 
 other nine years. If the opinions of Mr. 
 Wilson did not prevail at that time, how 
 can it reasonably be expected that they 
 ought to pre vail now. And, if there be any 
 thing really odious as has been assumed* 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 the charge is Applicable to the fraraers of I is sovereign, and may use all those which 
 the federal Constitution, for there the princi- \ are not delegated to the genera] govern- 
 pie stands recorded. ment by the federal compact, but which are 
 
 I have been accused of treating with a reserved to the States and the people. It 
 certain levity foreigners. I deny that I j is clearly then, within the province of each 
 have done so. I am not inimical to them. ! State to regulate and declare upon what 
 In what I have said, I answered only what terms local citizenship may be obtained, 
 fell from the gentleman from Jefferson, and this is a question exclusively of expe- 
 who, in his admiration for foreigners, and diency. If the gentlemen who are opposed 
 in his anxiety to recruit our population with to any guarantee, and who are in favor of 
 fresh hordes, has assumed that we should admitting strangers to suffrage, can show 
 open the flood-gates and let the stream that it will be expedient to do so, then the 
 pour in upon us, in order that we should j argument has ended, and I shall cheerfully 
 have the lights of science and intelligence ' vote to strike out all and any restriction upon 
 diffused among us. I certainly do not ob- the acquisition of suffrage. But they have 
 ject to Europeans — I do not object even to ' not done so, nor will they argue the ques- 
 Asiatics, provided they do not insist upon ■ tion upon legisla ive grounds, but they take 
 our adopting their code of morals ! We | exceptions, and assume premises having 
 receive all with hospitality; they are left free no connection with the subject matter under 
 to pursue whatever trade of industry they j debate. 
 
 choose — they are placed under the protec- The gentleman from Ouachita has told 
 tion of our laws. We receive them in our us an anecdote to show that although Pat- 
 home, we give them the best that we are rick Henry was a great orator, he was not 
 possessed of, we kill the fatted calf; but if a man of business, and has insinuated an 
 we den}* them the government of our homes, analogy between that distinguished individ- 
 it is said we are harsh and illiberal. They ual and myself. I have not the pretentions 
 must not only regulate our homes, but they to think the compliment is at ail deserved, 
 must even have the choice of the cook and nor do I value myself upon any faculty I may 
 the ordering of the servants ! possess of speaking. The ait of speaking 
 
 The gentleman fro n Ouachita has allud- is, perhaps the least valuable. It is evan- 
 ed to the services we have received from escent, and when one's thoughts are ex- 
 foreigners during our revolutionary war. pressed by speech, they are retained only 
 I would not disparage any of those services, through an imperfect recollection. It is 
 I am willing to admit them to their fullest true the words may be taken down, but 
 extent. The gentleman has spoken too of the manner and expression that gave them 
 the sacrifices made by Lafayette ; that he force are not there, and they are lifeless and 
 relinquished the honors and distinction of insipid; whereas, the faculty of expressing 
 nobility to give us a helping hand. I am our thoughts in writing, is enduring through 
 surprised that the relinquishment of nobility all time, and by the possession of the press, 
 should appear to be an object of such vast may be diffused to countless thousands. — 
 magnitude to a simple republican. La- This gratification, I trust, the gentleman 
 fayette served us faithfully, but he could not from Ouachita fully enjoys. I do not pre- 
 accuse us with ingratitude. He was receiv- tend to possess any great aptitude for busi- 
 ed as the nation's guest, from one extremity ness, and in that respect I may be more 
 of the Union to the other, and our statute like Patrick Henry than the gentleman who 
 books contain the evidence that we did not institutes the comparison, 
 stint ourselves to mere outward expression, j Mr. Grymes concluded by an earnest 
 We were liberal and generous, as far as appeal in favor of the section as it had been 
 liberality and generosity could go. Ex- : amended. 
 
 elusive donations of land were made to La- ' Mr, Marigny said, that notwithstanding 
 fayette, and even so far were his services the impatience displayed by several mem- 
 acknowledged, that the office of Governor bers of the Convention, he would avail 
 of Louisiana upon its acquisition was ten- \ himself of his right to develope his views in 
 dered to him, but like a good man he order that they might have the utmost ex- 
 refused it. tension. New Orleans embraces within 
 The proposition is dear that each State I her limits a large number of naturalized 
 
* 
 
 82 
 
 Debates In the Convention of Lonisiana. 
 
 citizens, 
 
 whose cause he could not and j 
 would noi abandon; but even if there were | 
 only one among his constituents whose 
 rights were attempted 
 
 to be invaded, he 
 would, as he did now, enter the lists in their 
 defence. 
 
 I shall, said Mr. Marigny, respond brief- 
 ly to the distinguished and influential gen- 
 tieman that has just addressed ycu. 
 
 A very simple question has been con- 
 verted into one of colossal dimensions, and 
 lias been argued so as to create unnecessary 
 fears, The gigantic conceptions and pro- 
 digious subtlety of the arguments that have 
 been employed call for the experience, the 
 eloquence and the learning of one of my 
 colleagues, (Mr. Sou'e ) but indisposition 
 prevents him from addressing ths House, 
 and I feel myself called upon to attempt the 
 task at a moment, when to my great sur- 
 prise and that of m%:iy others, the senato- 
 rial delegate from my district has placed 
 himself at the head of the opposition. I do 
 not enjoy the advantages of being like him 
 an orator, a lawyer and a dia^ctician, but 
 nevertheless, I feel that Providence will 
 neither deny the force nor the logic of which 
 I stand in need to refute his arguments ! 
 
 Let us turn our eyes around this room 
 for as a general examines the force of the 
 enemy and their position, so the orator 
 should understand the assembly whom lie 
 addresses, and discover the habitual designs 
 of parties. We are here seventy-seven 
 delegates. Some are here to prevent all 
 amelioration. Others to secure to the peo- 
 ple greater privileges than those accorded 
 by the Constitution of 1812. That is to 
 say, the majority after repeated protestations 
 and renewed exertions, have succeeded in 
 calling a Convention — the minority have 
 sent their representatives here with the 
 well understood design of arresting and pre- ! 
 venting all amelioration. Here is our po- 
 sition, and here is the cause of the diver- 
 gence of opinion that has manifested itself 
 among us, and the excitement of passions 
 that have agitated our proceedings. But 
 let us look at the question. 
 
 Under the old Constitution the people 
 may select their representation from either 
 the naturalized or the na ive born citizens, 
 so much so as regards the former, that five 
 years after their arrival, upon their being 
 naturalized, they may aspire to that proud 
 distinction. W ell, the minority who have 
 
 heretofore found that principle a good one, 
 profit by the dissensions in our ranks, to 
 extend this time of probation, and design, 
 hereafter, that no naturalized citizen shall 
 enjoy the same privilege, unless he reside 
 nine years in the country — five in the re- 
 public, and fcur in the State. 
 
 I confess that never did any thing surprise 
 me more than this proviso, and I am induced 
 to believe that its mover did not fully compre- 
 hend its extent. In vain did the delegate 
 from Jefferson ask what was to be obtained 
 by this proviso. Why was it desired to destroy 
 rights consecrated for thirty years, and 
 which had been unattended with the slight- 
 est detriment to the State. What harm had 
 ever been done by naturalized citizens, that 
 they shouM be treated with so much rigor? 
 Whether it were reasonab'e, just or wise, 
 to repulse men whose ancestors participa- 
 ted so honorably in the gocd administration 
 of the country, as well as in the elaboration 
 of our laws, as in pursuit of honoiable and 
 profitable avocations. 
 
 No reply was made to that delegate, ex- 
 cept by amusing phrases, by a silence, the 
 motives of which it was easy to comprehend, 
 and by citing laws that had no bearing 
 upon the question; for these laws existed 
 elsewhere, ard there were no grounds to 
 give them weight in a Convention* the spe- 
 cial mission of which was to diminish the 
 public burthens, and to increase the public 
 piivileges. Already, by the defection of 
 which I have spoken, has it occasioned the 
 loss oftwo important rights belonging to the 
 people. 
 
 Let the minority continue but to succeed 
 in this way, and the people will soon find 
 that in place of an executive, a dictator will 
 be imposed upon them. How is it that men, 
 capab'e of reasoning, should, like the mem- 
 ber from Attakapas,.(Mr. Voorhies) imagine 
 that a stranger cannot understand our insti- 
 tutions in less than nine years. I know 7 full 
 well that it requiies seven years to leain 
 the Greek andLatin, but I did not know that 
 it required nine years to understand a con- 
 stitution of four or five pages! It is of no 
 use to argue with those who are forced to 
 take refuge in so restricted a position. 
 
 Let us see how the elevation of senti- 
 ment compensates for the feebleness of 
 argument. The delegate from Ouachita, 
 (Mr. Downs,) has eloquently described 
 the heroic march of a French column at 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 63 
 
 the memorable battle < f York town; and I See what they have done, and then com- 
 my colleague, (Mr. Grymes.) with impas ! )rehend how they can conquer and reign, 
 sable coolness, repl les, "well be it so, bus j Chafes the First, of England resisted the 
 we have largely paid for . these services.'' j lemands pf the people, and his head fell 
 But when, Mr. President, has French rider the axe directed by Cromwell, the 
 blood been paid for with gold? The prophet of the people. Louis XVI hesita- 
 French people, in whose veins it ran pure , ed between the court and the people, and 
 and generous, compelled their King to his head rolled upon the block of the con- 
 pronounce against England, and to send j vention and of the people. Charles Xth 
 aid, in men and money, to our republic — | receded before the popular movement, and 
 at that time scarcely born — and when the was conducted to the tomb through the 
 most experienced, doubted the possibil- route of exile! The nobility and clergy 
 ity of assuring its independence; and after were disposed to remain stationary in 
 these important services, in the moment of j Spain, and the people became excited, had 
 pros pei ity, we ieplv to the fraternity and ! recourse to fire — to blood — assassination — 
 sublime devotion of our faithful ally and and to poison; for it was necessary that 
 fi tend, and say proudly, "be silent, we they should triumph and that necessity 
 have paid you !" A man who poetized j made them blind and cruel, 
 the republic, as Homer poetized Mytho \ Let the minority reflect! Theirtriumph 
 locry, traversed the continent to announce | will be but momentary, the people in their 
 that at lensfth the standard of liberty float- j anger will have no more respect for per- 
 ed in the West, and that it was the interest j sons than property and when another Con- 
 of nations to assure its triumph. j vention shall be caMed, to correct the error 
 
 We reply, "Lafa yette, we ha re fully paid i of ours, nothing will prehaps remain but 
 in money for aT your services !" I knew 7 1 the mallet of the President, 
 that we wished to convert the intellectual | Mr. Culbertsox said that he had vcted 
 world into materiable matter, but I did not in favor of the proposition of the delegate 
 know that we made of merit and ofser- from Attakapas, but upon maturer reflec- 
 vices an affair of bankers and money tion, and having heard the question fully 
 brokers! chebated. he would vote against the section 
 
 Let there be no mistake, as to the de- as it had been amended, 
 signs entertained: they are neither those j On motion of Mr. Ledotjx, who expres- 
 of reason, nor conviction. Eloquence and i =;ed the desire of making some remarks upon 
 address a-e relied upon more than truth : the subject under consideration, the Con- 
 and )U3tic2. Bat where sha}\ we be led I vention then adjourned, 
 by this policy? To labor without an ob- i Thursday, January 23, 1845. 
 
 ject. and to incur useless expenses. The Contention mo-t pursuant to ad- 
 
 The peop'e. without exception of origin, journment, and its proceedings wrre open- 
 crushed in their dearest sentiments, wil : ed by prayer from the reverend Mr. Hin- 
 reject the constitution that has been adopt- | ton. 
 
 ed by management. The minority, it is Mr. Wadswor'h informed the Con- 
 true, will have accomplished their objec 4 , ; vention that this was the day on whicli he 
 which has always been to preserve the old j was agreeably to previous notice, to ask 
 constitution ; but the Treasury will be ! for the re-consideration of the section fix- 
 diminished by eighty thousand dollars, and ; fog the.geneial elections for November, 
 the people will be again thrown upon the ! The question was taken, on the motion, 
 tempest of excitement. j to re-consider, and the ayes and nays 
 
 Inimical as I have always been to radi- | were called for. 
 calism, I was far from thinking that those on j Yea- — Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benja- 
 the opposite side. wouM have pushed their ; mm Bourg. Briant Chinn, Derbes, Dunn, 
 views so far, and nothing remains for me ; Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 but to deplore their course. They are \ Lesrendre, Lewis, Mazureau Marigny, Ro. 
 about inflicting evils upon us greater than | man, St. Amant Saunders, Taylor of St. 
 those of which Ave should be cured. The j Landry, Trist. Wadsworth. Conrad of Or. 
 people, fatigued sooner or later, wnll'do that ! leans, Eustis, Claiborne, and Roselius— 27. 
 which their agents have refused to do.— \ Nays— Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brum. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 field; Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Cobtfllon, Downs, Garrett^ "Humble, Hyn- 
 Boii .M"( !aUop,M'Rea Mayo, O Brian, Peets 
 I 'ciiii, Porche, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 1 
 cott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, RatlifF , 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- j 
 nana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Splane, j 
 Stevens, Taylor of Assumption, Ledoux, I 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt, Leonard, 
 and Winder, — 37. 
 
 So the motion to re-consider was lost. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth presented a resolu- 
 tion for the appointment of an additional 
 reporter in English. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies supported the resolu- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Lewis expressed himself opposed 
 to electing another reporter; he apprehend- 
 ed that the present reporter was sufficient, j 
 If Mr. Kelly was unable to fulfill his con- | 
 tract, we should be under the unpleasant 
 necessity of displacing him. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth would modify the re- 1 
 solution by ptoposing to appoint a com- j 
 mittee to examine and report what was 
 the cause of delay in the publication of 
 the reports. 
 
 Mr. Ohinn saw no necessity for refer-: 
 ring the matter to a committee; the secre- | 
 tary might communicate all desired infor- j 
 mation. 
 
 The motion to refer to a committee of! 
 five members prevailed, and the president 
 appointed Mes.'rs. Wadsworth, Lewis. 1 
 Claiborne, 0* Brian and Waddill members 
 of the committee. 
 
 Order of the Day. — The Convention 
 took up the fourth section of the second j 
 article of the Constitution, which was un- 
 der discussion, when the convention ad- 
 journed yesterday. 
 
 Mr. Ledoux rose and said^ Mr. Presi- 
 dent, although 1 have the honor to hold a 
 seat in this body, it may appear presump- 
 tuous for me to rise from it, to enlighten 
 those who have so much more judgment 
 and experience. When I look around me, 
 I see men whose age, talents and expe- j 
 rience make them my superiors in every 
 thing, except, perhaps, in good intentions, j 
 It would seem that I would be justified in ] : 
 listening to what fell from them, and re- 
 gulating my opinion upon the weight of 
 theirs. But the subject before us is one ' 
 of too much importance, and a sense of, 
 duty will not permit me to remain silent, \ 
 
 I cannot concur in the position assumed 
 by the delegate from New Orleans, (Mr. 
 Grymes,) that we are the people. I ap- 
 prehend that this assertion embodies a 
 dangerous doctrine. The argument, that 
 because this body is a creation of the peo- 
 ple, that, therefore, whaiever it does is 
 done by the people, is tantamount to this: 
 God made man, man robs his neighbor, 
 and therefore God is the author of the 
 theft ! We are but agents of the people. 
 An experience of 30 years convinces them 
 that there were dispositions in their or- 
 ganic law, not consonant with true liberty 
 and true republicanism. They have de- 
 termined to assume the powers which 
 they confided to the frameis of the old 
 constitution, and if we are convened here, 
 it is only for the purpose of remedying the 
 evi ! s and inconveniences of which they so 
 loudly complain. This is our mission, 
 and nothing more, ! 
 
 I consider the proviso proposed by the 
 delegate from Attakapas, (Mr. Voorhies,) 
 as embracing odious restrictions upon the 
 sacred rights of the people. It is an un- 
 warrantable attempt to control their li- 
 berties. 
 
 Suppose, for example, that a planter 
 needs an overseer, and it suits him to em- 
 ploy one from the North or from Europe. 
 Can he, without a violation of principle, 
 he compelled to choose one at home or in 
 an adjoining parish ? Wfien the founders 
 of our government determined that our 
 institutions should be based on the popu- 
 lar will, it was because they confided in 
 the sagacity and judgment of the people, 
 and that the people, the source of all 
 power, would not be led astray. 
 
 Why should we distrust the people ? 
 Why should we pursue the course of seve- 
 rity towards them, and repulse those who 
 have sought an asylum upon our shores. 
 Our naturalized citizens have been as de- 
 voted, as attached to the country as our 
 native citizens. They have always been 
 faithful to us in the hour of danger, and 
 are we to repulse them in the day of pros- 
 perity ? I hope that this will not be 
 done. "N'ot on'y do those from foreign 
 countries appreciate our liberties and our 
 institutions, but they dislike any other ap- 
 pellation than that of an American citizen. 
 
 I shall never forget the appropriate and 
 beautiful response of a distinguished gen- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 85 
 
 tleman who was formerly one of our citi- 
 zens, but now a resident of New York. 
 When on a visit to Virginia he was taunted 
 with being a foreigner. You ask me, said 
 he, to the person who addressed him at a 
 public meeting, whether I am a citizen of 
 the United States ? Sir, I have been natur- 
 alized four times ; the first time I was 
 naturalized in virtue of the treaty of cession 
 of Louisiana to the United States ; the se- 
 cond time I was naturalized in virtue of the 
 establishment of a territorial form of gov. 
 ernment in Louisiana ; the third time by 
 the admission of Louisiana into the Union; 
 and the fourth time, you are no doubt anx- 
 ious to know how I again became entitled 
 to the privileges of American citizenship, 
 and who were my sponsors — it was on the 
 battle field, fire and water were the symbols, 
 victory, patriotism and glory, were my god- 
 mother, and General Jackson my god- 
 father ! 
 
 I shall not make any ccgnments upon this 
 happy retort. Foreigners who have been 
 baptised under the auspices of Washing- 
 ton, Adams, Jefferson and Jackson, will 
 never prove recreant to the sacred princi- 
 ples of the Constitution, nor insensible to the 
 impulses of patriotism. They have never 
 been recreant in the moment of danger — 
 they will not be recreant in the days of 
 prosperity and sun- shine ! 
 
 I entertain no fears of their fidelity and 
 attachment. I have unbounded confidence 
 in them, as I have in those who first drew 
 their breath in this land of liberty : I make 
 no insiduous distinctions between native 
 and adopted citizens; and I would leave the 
 people free to choose whether they would 
 entrust their interest to one of their native 
 fellow-citizens, or one of their adopted fel- 
 low-citizens, believing that upon the pat- 
 riotism, integrity and virtue, of both classes, 
 depend the durability of our institutions, 
 and the happiness of our people. 
 
 Mr. President, I think I comprehend our 
 mission. The people are competent to take 
 care of themselves. Let us commit the 
 ship of State in all confidence to their hands; 
 let them appoint, without let or hindrance, 
 the captain, engineer, and the whole crew 
 to man her, and we need entertain no fears 
 but that she will proudly sail upon a sea of 
 glory, and be wafted by the propitious gales 
 of prosperity to the port of happiness. 
 
 I shall not detain the Convention further 
 12 
 
 than to say, that I shall vote against the 
 section as it has been amended. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff rose under a sense of duty 
 to enter his solemn protest again against 
 the principle embodied in the section. It 
 was, he repeated, unjust, partial and oppres- 
 sive. He would not apologize to the Con- 
 vention for trespassing upon their attention 
 after the brilliant and masterly arguments 
 they had heard from the most distinguished 
 members of this body. He had not the vanity 
 nor presumption to suppose that any thing 
 he could say would over-balance what had 
 fallen from them, or add to its force. He 
 did not pretend to vie with them in orato- 
 ry — -they were literary men — men of great 
 weight of character. But my constitutients, 
 said Mr. Ratliff, have sent me here to per- 
 form a most important duty, and, however 
 feeble may be my powers and inadequate 
 my conceptions, I feel bound to exert myself 
 to the utmost of my poor abilities. 
 
 I trembled (continued Mr. Ratliff,) when 
 I heard the motion to strike out the qualifi- 
 cations in the section, for radical and des- 
 tructive as I have been called, I am not for 
 mutilating the old Constitution in those 
 parts that have been sanctioned and still 
 are sanctioned by the unanimous approval of 
 those that sent us here, and whose wishes 
 we ought to follow, and not our own sud- 
 den caprices. I predicted to my constitu- 
 ents what has actually occurred — that radi- 
 cal and destructive as I am called, they 
 would see me defending the Constitution 
 from the attacks of those that are denomi- 
 nated conservatives, and upholding those 
 liberal provisions in it which the people 
 have so much revered, and which induced 
 them to submit so long to the blemishes and 
 defects which it contained. 
 
 The distinguished gentleman from New 
 Orleans, (Mr. Grymes,) in order to give 
 point and force to his arguments, has ima- 
 gined the tree of liberty extending its 
 branches over the whole of this Union — 
 open to all for shelter, exposed to be hacked 
 and cut down by foreigners; and to prevent 
 this direful result, he tells us that we must 
 pass the proposition of the gentleman from 
 Attakapas, (Mr. Voorhies.) I can see, Mr. 
 President, no danger of such a calamity. — 
 Our naturalized citizens are as much in- 
 terested in the preservation of that tree, in 
 keeping it in its green and flourishing state 
 as we are ourselves ! What do the lessons 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 of experience teach us ? Has there ever 
 been a naturalized citizen, who was found 
 recreant or inimical to our institutions? 
 whose patriotism has not responded to the 
 exigencies of the public service ? I know 
 not" Sir, of a single instance; and why 
 should they all of a sudden abandon their 
 attachment and fidelity to the country and 
 conspire against its liberties? Why should 
 they do so? But if their patriotism be re- 
 allv extinct — if those that arrive upon our 
 shores be recreant to patriotic impulses, is 
 there not a strong evidence, a selfish one 
 it is true, but an all-powerful one still exist- 
 ing to restrain them from their fell purpose. 
 W hat are they to gain by destroying our 
 liberties? Do they not destroy at the same 
 time the asylum which has given them pro- 
 tection — which has placed them upon an 
 equality of rights, and where are they to 
 flee? Why prolong the term of probation? 
 Why make it longer than- the acts of Con- 
 gress have established? If five years be 
 too short, let the concentrated wisdom of the 
 nation apply the remedy. But do not let 
 Louisiana say to a bona fide American citi- 
 zen, "Sir, you must wait four years longer 
 before we can recognize you as a citizen, 
 although every where else you are, to all 
 intents and purposes, an American citizen? 
 There is something exceedingly harsh and 
 contracted in this, and it leads much further 
 than some gentlemen imagine. It may 
 embrace some of the constituents of the 
 very gentleman that presented it — some of 
 them who may have voted for him— and yet 
 he turns round and by a general principle 
 excludes some of the very individuals that 
 sent him here; for it may very well happen 
 that among the voters there had been some 
 but recently naturalized; and they would, if 
 this principle is adopted, be obliged to re- 
 linquish their privileges of citizenship, until 
 the expiration of the four years that are 
 prescribed. 
 
 [Mr. Voorhies: the gentleman is entire- 
 ly mistaken. My proposition cannot have 
 a retroactive effect, and it certainly never 
 was my design that it should. I consider 
 personal rights that have been acquired un- 
 der the sanction of our laws as vested 
 rights, and not to be interfered with. I 
 will repeat, so as to avoid any misconstruc- 
 tion of my motives, that I have no hostility 
 nor dislike for naturalized citizens. I make 
 no distinctions between them and other 
 
 citizens;' and my proposition goes no fur- 
 ther than ^/br the future, to place naturaliz- 
 ed citizens removing from other States on 
 a precise equality with other citizens, re- 
 moving to Louisiana ; and requiring four 
 years residence from both to qualify them 
 for assuming the management of our pub- 
 lic affairs.] 
 
 Mr. Ratliff: I do not understand your 
 provision thus. It embraces the past as- 
 well as the future, at least the language 
 would authorize that interpretation. But 
 to continue. 
 
 The honorable delegate from N. Orleans, 
 (Mr. Grymes,) thinks it very hard that any 
 one should complain of severity being em- 
 ployed towards foreigners, when he says 
 they are received with open arms: that the 
 fatted calf is killed for them, and that they 
 are made welcome. But that, not satisfied 
 with this noble treatment, they turn around 
 and wish to command the good man's house, 
 to order about hisvervants, and complain of 
 his cook. Very well; but if the stranger 
 should marry one of the daughters and be- 
 come a member of the family, it seems to 
 me that in that case his tastes ought to be 
 consulted, and some regard ought to be 
 paid to his wishes. 
 
 I do not in the least object to the argu- 
 ments of the delegate from New Orleans,(Mr 
 Grymes,) he struck some powerful blows, 
 and managed with infinite tact and address- 
 what will never fail to exercise some influ- 
 ence in debate — ridicule and sarcasm. 
 But after all, the result of his masterly 
 effort was not as astounding as might have 
 been anticipated. Some of the minority 
 may have been amused at his man- 
 ner of disposing of the arguments of his 
 adversaries, but he did not change a single 
 opinion, a proof that, although his argu- 
 ment was able, it was not convincing ; on 
 the contrary, one gentleman who had voted 
 with the majority, with the independence 
 and judgment that characterized him, decla- 
 red his intention to change his position, be- 
 cause he considered his first conclusions 
 were wrong, and that almost immediately 
 after the brilliant display of the member 
 from New Orleans. It is very easy to 
 perceive that reflection will not sustain the 
 principle under discussion. It is odious, 
 because it is exclusive, and, as for any 
 pretended danger that the people will elect 
 persons to represent them who are not 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 *7 
 
 identified with the State, the idea is pre* 
 posterous. They will do no such thing. 
 There are too many old stagers to take 
 the stump, in whom the people have already 
 implicit confidence, for confidence is a plant 
 of slow growth, and does not attain its ma- 
 turity in a day, or in a year. 
 
 Another consideration, if we impose re- 
 strictions, we will make our work odious, 
 and the people will not accept it. They 
 will repudiate it. It will be a Constitution 
 of mere waste paper; for such is the form of 
 our Government, that, however certain in- 
 dividuals may be inclined to doubt the saga- 
 city of the popular will, there is no pro- 
 ceeding without it. It is indispensable to 
 measures and to men. 
 
 Our mission is confined simply to amend- 
 ing such parts of the old Constitution 
 as the public voice has reprobated. 
 We have no business to attempt to antici- 
 pate the wishes of the people beyond this; 
 but we should respect, and leave inviolate 
 every disposition in the constitution, where 
 no amendments have been demanded by the 
 people. The conservatives, as they are 
 called in contradistinction to the radicals, 
 faithfully promised to stand by the old Con- 
 stitution, and permit as few changes in that 
 instrument as possible. On that ground 
 those that are here were elected, and 
 on no other; and I, a radical, now call upon 
 them to respect their engagement with the 
 people. 
 
 Why should we indulge in petty jealousies 
 and idle apprehensions ? Is it probable 
 that the legislature will ever be composed 
 of strangers to our institutions, of persons 
 having no vote or interest in our communi- 
 ty? We have only to look at the principal 
 and most of the subordinate offices of our 
 State, to be convinced that there is a natu- 
 ral leeling of preference in favor of the 
 native population. There is no need of fos- 
 tering it by unworthy appeals. The high- 
 est offices of the State are in the hands of 
 the Creoles of the State. The speaker of 
 House, the president of the Senate, the 
 governor of the State, the treasurer of the 
 State are ail Creoles. The two gentlemen 
 whose names have been mentioned, as 
 probable candidates for governor, are both 
 Creoles. Has any one complained? No, 
 the American population from the other 
 States, and the naturalized population, are 
 well satisfied that it should be so. How 
 
 many men of sterling merit never have dis- 
 tinguished themselves, for want of a proper 
 occasion? Thousands of Washingtons and 
 Bonapartes have died in obscurity, behind 
 the plough. They wanted the occasion to 
 devclope their genius. The greatest men our 
 country has ever produced, have risen by 
 | the force of their own genius. Witness 
 Henry Clay, who was once a mill boy. Do not 
 let us destroy competition; on the contrary, 
 let us stimulate it, and let the honors be to 
 that man who renders the greatest services 
 to mankind, be he born on the soil or else- 
 where. There is no fear of our being out- 
 done by persons from other countries; we 
 have natural advantages over them, that 
 give us already a decided advantage in the 
 race. Each parish, and each section of the 
 State has its men of recognized standing, 
 and they are not to be thrown aside to give 
 place to perfect strangers, that have arri- 
 I ved yesterday, cr the day before, as some 
 ! gentlemen apprehend. Why, humble as I 
 am, and feeble as are my powers, I am 
 I afraid of being beaten by no man in my 
 district, as long as I shall do my duty, and 
 when I cease to do it I ought to be beat. 
 There is not a foreigner, however brilliant 
 may be his tallents, that could beat old Cy 
 Katlifi\ in West Feliciana, if such an one 
 was made elegible to office to-morrow, and 
 was to run with him in competition for the 
 SLuTrages of the people. It is idle to pretend 
 that we shall be domineered over — driven 
 from our homes, or reduced to vassalage, if 
 we do not adopt stringent restrictions to- 
 wards naturalized citizens. I hold, (said 
 Mr. Katliff,) all restrictions upon the peo- 
 ple to be useless. If the people are dispo- 
 sed to observe these restrictions, why, then, 
 they are useless; if they are not disposed to 
 observe them, they are still useless, and 
 there is no power to enforce them against the 
 will of the people. We have the example : 
 Mr. Mcuton, the present governor of our 
 State, was elected and inaugurated, but 
 who inquired, either before cr after the 
 election, whether he had the property quali- 
 fixation or not ; who cared whether he 
 owned five thousand dollars, or not one 
 cent? They voted for him, not for his prop- 
 perty; and who doubts that if he had been 
 excluded, on account of a want of property 
 qualifications, and another election had 
 been ordered, that he would have been elec- 
 -not as he was the first 
 
88 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 time, by democratic votes alone, but by 
 both democratic and whig votes. The 
 people would have revolted in carrying out 
 one of these very restrictions, and would 
 have nullified it by their unanimous voice. 
 And again, who asked the respectable and 
 wtirthjT gentleman that preceded him, who 
 was t\\ ice elected governor, and who now 
 holds a scat in this body, if he had the prop- 
 erty qualification to F be governor. I never 
 voted for that gentleman, and yet I am 
 bound to say, and I say it with pleasure, 
 that his administration was wise and saga- 
 cious, and that he endeavored, and to a 
 certain extent, succeeded, in averting the 
 evils attendant upon an abuse of the re- 
 sources of the State, at atime when another 
 honorable gentleman, also in this body, and 
 myself stood up in support of the Governor, 
 although we were both politically opposed 
 to his administration. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin did not design to address 
 the Convention, but the propositions and the 
 doctrines that have been advanced by some 
 of the members were so startling, so novel, 
 and presented such extraordinary issues, 
 that he felt called upon to make a few ob- 
 servations. Any stranger that would have 
 entered this room during any stage of our 
 discussion, would have supposed that we 
 were debating a Constitution for Europeans, 
 or the people of the other States, and not 
 for Louisiana. For the whole burthen of 
 what has been said, has been rather what 
 privileges should be granted to strangers 
 coming among us, than what rights and 
 what guarantees we should secure to our- 
 selves. The debate has been so very dis- 
 cursive, that it has embraced the widest 
 range, and has touched almost every topic. 
 
 At first, said Mr. Benjamin, I thought 
 the President wished to restrain the discus- 
 sion within too narrow a range, but I never 
 dreamed it could be carried so far. 
 
 The question before us, divested of all the 
 extraneous matters with which it had been 
 clogged, was a simple one. It was a ques- 
 tion of security. This State is peculiarly 
 situated, and her position exacted some 
 measures of prudent forethought, in order 
 to shield her from assaults upon a vulnera- 
 ble point. Her peculiar institutions were 
 liable to attack, and it was to preclude the 
 danger which menaced her that some mea- 
 sure, similar to the one under discussion, 
 was deemed of vital importance. 
 
 A great deal has been said about the 
 voice of the people, and one gentleman has 
 taken upon himself, ex cathedra, to declare 
 what that voice is. I know not how the 
 gentleman came by his mantle of inspira- 
 tion, but I deny that he has any business 
 to interpret the will of any other constitu- 
 ency than his own. No member has the 
 right to set himself up as the exclusive 
 judge of the voice of the people, and to in- 
 sinuate that there is any contradistinction 
 between what he supposes to be the voice 
 of the people, and the particular course that 
 any delegate on this floor may see proper 
 to pursue. He may, if he chooses, con- 
 strue the voice of those that elected him to 
 represent them, but he has no right to place 
 I himself as the exponent of the will of the 
 people of the whole State. I deny his 
 competency to do so, and 1 deny his right. 
 Having disposed in a few words of the re- 
 markable position taken by the delegate 
 from Ouachita, on that matter, I return to 
 the consideration of the subject under dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 What is really the matter in dispute? It 
 is this, that no one shall be eligible to the 
 general assembly who has not resided four 
 years in the State, if he be a citizen of the 
 United States by birth or by adoption. 
 What objection can there possibly exist to 
 this provision? It is assumed that it is an 
 unequal, unjust, and anti-republican restric- 
 tion. Let us examine it in these various 
 points. And first — How is it unjust? Every 
 citizen is placed on a precise equality in 
 the requisition of residence, be he a native 
 or an adopted citizen. The principle is ex- 
 plicit. It applies to all — to the citizen of 
 New York as well as to the citizen of Mis- 
 sissippi; to the native born citizens of other 
 States, as well as to the citizen by natural- 
 ization; four years are prescribed for all. 
 
 Where is the impropriety of protecting, 
 by requiring residence, the institutions 
 which we have met to remodel and to 
 perfec;? Have we not the right to do this? 
 Is there any thing wonderful or extraordi- 
 nary in its exercise — something that has 
 never been thought of by any other govern- 
 ment; in a word, "is it an odious distinc- 
 tion?" I apprehend not. The very same 
 principle was mooted in the federal Con- 
 vention, and was finally embodied in the 
 Constitution of the United States. But are 
 there no other restrictions? What is that 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 restriction which requires that the voter 
 should be free? That he should be white. 
 Is this anti-democratic too? Next that he 
 be a male. Are these all odious distinc- 
 tions? Where do the odious "distinctions " 
 begin, the "aristocratical" exclusions? All 
 are willing that two years' residence should 
 be required. That is conceded to be cor- 
 rect. But four years is " aristocratical," — 
 an attempt to create a "privileged class," — 
 a "nobility." Is it possible that men, pre- 
 sumed to represent the elite of the State, 
 can present such conclusions; can be driven 
 into such petty evasions, and maintain the 
 absurd theories that we have heard serious- 
 ly contended for on this floor. 
 
 The member from Point Coupee, (Mr. 
 Ledoux) had stigmatized the proposition as 
 anti-republican. Yet the delegate from the 
 first district, (Mr. Grymes) had invoked at- 
 tention to that article of the Constitution of 
 the United States, which upon the very same 
 subject of qualification of persons elected to 
 the house of representatives, prescribes 
 that they shall have acquired citizenship 
 for seven years, which with the five years 
 for naturalization, would make twelve years' 
 residence for adopted citizens before they 
 would be allowed a seat in Congress. If 
 the principle be anti-republican, then Madi- 
 son, Franklin, and Washington, were anti- 
 republican, since they sanctioned it. Let 
 the gentlemen who employ that argument, 
 make the most of it. 
 
 But, says the delegate from the parish of 
 Point Coupee, if a sugar planter wants an 
 overseer, shall he be restricted to taking 
 one in his own parish when he would prefer 
 one from abroad. There is ^10 visible 
 analogy between this suppositious case and 
 the principle involved in the proposition. 
 If it pleased a sugar planter to send to the 
 North for an overseer that was profoundly 
 ignorant of the cultivation of the cane, as 
 he would be, the only sufferer from the mis- 
 management of his own crop, if he were 
 so foolish as to act so inconsiderately, no 
 one would have a right to complain; he 
 would punish his own folly. But suppose 
 there was an association of planters, is it 
 to be presumed that they would appoint an 
 overseer to superintend their joint interests 
 who was manifestly incapable and an im- 
 proper person? The representative of a 
 particular parish, is not the mere echo of 
 that parish* His vision should not be 
 
 bounded by the petty locality from which 
 he comes. He is here to guard the inter- 
 ests of his constituents; it is true he has 
 another obligation, and that is to promote 
 the interests of the whole State. It may 
 well be conceived how very important it is 
 to have men in our legislature that are im- 
 bued with our feelings and sentiments, and 
 are identified with our interests and insti- 
 tutions. 
 
 There is one subject, said Mr. Bexja- 
 min, that I approach with great reluctance. 
 It is a subject of vital importance to the 
 southern States, and should produce at least 
 unanimity in our councils, to avert a com- 
 mon danger. It is not the part of wisdom, 
 however we may differ, to wrangle where 
 the safety of all may be compromitted. I 
 would scorn to appeal to party considera- 
 tions. A question may arise in a few 
 months that will obliterate all party distinc- 
 tions; when there will be neither whigs 
 nor democrats. When the whole South 
 will coalesce and form a single party, and 
 that party will be for the protection of our 
 hearths, of our families, and our homes. 
 That man must be indeed blind not to per- 
 ceive from whence the danger comes. The 
 signs are pregnant with evil. The speck 
 upon the horizon that at first was no bigger 
 than a man's hand, overshadows us, and 
 there is not a breeze that blows that does 
 not sound the tocsin of alarm. The light 
 is shut out, and we should prepare our- 
 selves to meet the emergency, whenever it 
 may come. Our organic law would be de- 
 ficient if it did not provide a bulwark. If 
 it did not guard us from the machinations 
 of an insiduous foe. The course of events 
 within the last few months prove that we 
 must rely upon ourselves and our southern 
 confederates, to maintain our rights and 
 cause them to be respected, and not upon 
 the stipulations in the federal compact. We 
 must insist for ample securhy for these 
 rights. 
 
 Mr. Brent said he could not permit the 
 section, as it had been amended, to pass to 
 a final vote without expressing his views 
 upon it. He regarded the proviso of the 
 delegate from Atlakapas, (Mr. Voorhies,) 
 , as admirably adapted to the proposition, 
 requiring four years' residence in Louisi- 
 ana, to be entitled to the privilege of a seat 
 in her legislature. They fitted well to- 
 gether, and only one thing more was nfeceg- 
 
90 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 sarv to complete the beauty and harmony 
 of the whole. That was a provision that 
 none but native born citizens of the State 
 should be eligible to office. The proviso 
 of the gentleman from Attakapas makes a 
 distinction between native and adopted 
 citizens, or it does not. If it does not 
 make any distinction, it is idle and un- 
 necessary, and it is occupying our time 
 which could be more profitably employed. 
 If its effect be to create a distinction, I en- 
 ter my most earnest and decided protest 
 against it. I impugn no man's motives. 
 L have no doubt they are pure and patriotic, 
 and that the advocates for this restriction 
 really believe it would have a beneficial 
 effect. But motives cannot vary results. 
 I consider this provision an entering wedge 
 for the native American question in its 
 whole length and breadth, and I see no- 
 thing in that narrow and contracted doc- 
 trine to entitle it to favor. What have we 
 seen in our sister States ? That its pro- 
 gress has been marked by violence and 
 blood. Nay, sir, that it illuminates the 
 torch of the incendiary and wrapped a 
 peaceful city in flames, desecrating the 
 sanctuary of the living God! I regret, 
 sir, from the bottom of my heart, that this 
 element of discord and of strife has enter- 
 ed into the debates of this august body. 
 
 It may be said that these remarks are 
 not pertinent to the matter at . present be- 
 fore this body, 1 think it has a direct 
 bearing, and that the spirit of exclusion 
 engendered by the native American ques- 
 tion ought not to find its way into our con- 
 stitution, or into our legislation. 
 
 The question arises whether we should 
 amend the old constitution in this particu- 
 lar section ? Were the popular will pro- 
 nounced in favor of any change in it, 
 it might be proper to modify it. But such 
 is not the case* There is no complaint in 
 reference to it. It has been in existence 
 for thirty-two years, and it has worked 
 well. How many persons of foreign birth 
 have found their way to the legislature 
 under it? Remarkably few. Some fif- 
 teen or twenty perhaps, and in every in- 
 stance men of eminent talents, as illust- 
 rious for their virtues as for their patriot- 
 ism. Men. that have conferred high dis- 
 tinction upon the State, and illustrated and j 
 adorned the pages of our history..' 
 
 There is another point, said Mr. Brent, I 
 
 upon which I would offer my views. I 
 object to the people being restricted in the 
 choice of their agents more than I do to 
 the injustice of excluding a portion of 
 them from participating, if they choose, 
 in the administration of the affairs of State. 
 I complain of the proviso. But gentle- 
 men tell us that it is impossible to acquire 
 a knowledge of our institutions under five 
 years. Our institutions are not so com- 
 plex: the principles of our government 
 are few and simple. If five years be not 
 sufficient, why not prescribe forty ? Would 
 not forty years be better than five ? Li- 
 berty springs spontaneous in the human 
 breast. It withers under the sirocco breath 
 of despotism, but is soon restored to life 
 and vigor by the moisture of liberty. 
 
 It is an entire folly to suppose that be- 
 cause persons are eligible to office they 
 will necessarily be elected. There are 
 millions of citizens eligible to the office of 
 President, but there are but few elected. 
 To make foreigners eligible would not 
 necessarily result in their election. It is 
 idle to suppose that the ignorant would con- 
 trol our legislation. It is pay ing the peo- 
 ple a poor compliment to contend that they 
 would elect some ignorant foreigners over 
 an intelligent native citizen. I have great 
 confidence in man's capacity for self-go- 
 vernment. I believe in the discernment 
 of the people, and I cannot think the peo- 
 ple of Louisiana are so besotted as to 
 choose persons, no matter how incompe- 
 tent they maybe, that have but just touch- 
 ed our shores. 
 
 I cannot, (said Mr. Brent,) concur in 
 the proposition advanced two or three 
 times in tlte course of this debate, that this 
 Convention constitutes the sovereignty of 
 the State. I cannot for one admit that the 
 sovereignty of the State resides in us. 
 The sovereignty of the State is in the peo- 
 ple themselves. We are but their agents 
 — their representatives. It may happen 
 that we may violate their will and instead 
 of a better constitution make a worse one. 
 If we do that, we shall soon find where 
 the sovereignty resides. 
 
 The delegate that last addressed the 
 Convention alluded to a subject of vital 
 importance, which in his opinion, render- 
 ed the proposition before us essential. He 
 said that the signs of the times boded the 
 amalgamation of the whig and democratic 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 91 
 
 parties, for the purpose of protecting their 
 hearths, their families, and their homes. 
 
 So far as I am concerned, said Mr. 
 Brent, I do not entertain any fear from 
 the source to which he has alluded. And 
 however apprehensive I might be of those 
 evils, I see nothing in the proviso that 
 would afford any efficacious protection. I 
 fear our own citizens — the abolitionists of 
 the North — more than I do the emigrants 
 from Europe. What protection does the 
 proviso afford us from the assaults of those 
 fanatics ? The proviso does not say that 
 none shall vote nor held office, but those 
 that own slaves. It does not preclude non- 
 slaveholders from office. How is it pos- 
 sible, that this proviso can have any effect? 
 It simply declares that no adopted citizen 
 shall be allowed to represent us, unless 
 after four years' residence within the limits 
 of the State after his naturalization papers 
 have issued. 
 
 I enter my most solemn protest against 
 any distinction between native and adopted 
 citizens. Let them both stand on the same 
 footing; and in God's name, let the people 
 elect whom they please, native or adopted. 
 
 I am a native of Louisiana, but I would be 
 the last one to secure a monopoly for 
 Creoles, if they were without talent and 
 energy; and may my tongue cleave to the 
 roof of my mouth if I ever sustain a princi- 
 ple of favoritism for them. 
 
 I have stated before my objection to the 
 first part of the section. I entertain the 
 same objections, and believe it is not wise 
 to exact so long a residence from a citizen 
 who has emigrated to the State, to be enti- 
 tled to the right of suffrage, or to be a can- 
 didate for office. I am decidedly Averse to 
 excluding any in the distribution of offices, 
 and converting Louisiana into a new celes- 
 tial empire. I cannot look upon emigrants 
 frbm our sister States as enemies. We 
 have been all educated in the same school' 
 rocked in the same cradle, and can point to 
 the same great men as the fathers of our 
 country, Washington, Franklin and Jeffer- 
 son. I trust the odious clause will be strick- 
 en out, and that our fellow-citizens from 
 other States, whether native or adopted, 
 will be placed, after one year's residence, 
 on an equality with ourselves. 
 
 Mr. Chinn said he was about to make an 
 odious motion, the motion for the previous 
 question. This subject had been under dis- 
 
 cussion for two weeks,and it was perciveable 
 that all the arguments had been exhausted. 
 He would withdraw the motion, if the gen- 
 tleman from New Orleans, (Mr. Eustis,) 
 wished to speak! 
 
 Mr. Eustis said he certainly had no de- 
 sire to be heard, or he would have risen on 
 some previous occasion. In no event, how- 
 ever, would he consent to receive from 
 courtesy, that which belonged to him as a 
 matter of right. He was willing to respond 
 to the wishes of the House, by arresting the 
 debate where it was. 
 
 [The Convention having signified their 
 wish that Mr. Eustis should express his 
 views, and Mr. Chinn having withdrawn 
 his motion,] 
 
 Mr. Eustis rose and said: Mr. President, 
 it strikes me with some surprise that a 
 desire should be imputed to me to be heard, 
 when the subject under debate is deemed 
 to be thoroughly exhausted. This arises, 
 possibly, from the fact, that I happened to 
 be among those that were solicitous to 
 speak. But since the Convention is dispo- 
 sed to hear what I may offer for their con- 
 sideration, I shall in the first place remark, 
 that I am opposed to the restrictions propo- 
 sed, which would affect a large number of 
 citizens that I have the honor to represent 
 on this floor. 
 
 My design, Mr. President, is not to dis- 
 cuss the question before the Convention; 
 that I conceive has already been fully done. 
 But to suggest to the Convention a decision 
 that will be just, that it will sustain the 
 character of the State, and will stand the 
 test of truth and of time. In the firstfplace, 
 I consider the amendment an useless inno- 
 vation upon the original section in the Con- 
 stitution. That section has been in ope- 
 ration for thirty-two years, and no injury, 
 no detriment has resulted to the State. The 
 arguments that have been employed to 
 show that there is a necessity for a more 
 stringent rule, have, to my humble concep- 
 tion,entirely failed,and the only consequence 
 that would flow from the adoption of the 
 proposition, would be unfortunate dissen- 
 tions in our community, and dangerous 
 excitements. Why change that which ex- 
 perience has sanctioned? I can see no 
 necessity for doing so, while I see much 
 evil that would inevitably ensue from the 
 innovation. How would you place those 
 citizens that have been naturalized within 
 
9'J 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 the last year or two? Would they be exclu- 
 ded.' Would your provision apply to those 
 that are daily making declaration of inten- 
 tion to become citizens? It makes no res- 
 ervation in favor of such. In every view 
 of the case, then, I deem it inexpedient; 
 unjust, and oppressive. 
 
 I will not cuter into personal considera- 
 tions, for these I hold beneath the dignity 
 of this body. The question before us is a 
 political question. Let us look at the past 
 to judge of the future. Where is the ur- 
 gency, where is the necessity of adopting 
 this principle? Has our legislature ever 
 been beset by strangers, that have con- 
 spired against the prosperity of the country; 
 against her permanent interests? Have the 
 people ever selected unfaithful servants 
 from the class you would prescribe? Never! 
 But, it is not alone striking a blow at a 
 portion of the people, you strike a blow at 
 the whole people, if you embody this rule in 
 your Constitution. You say to them that 
 their choice shall be restricted. There is 
 surely here improper restraint, and view 
 the question as you may, you are invading 
 the prerogatives, not only of the persons to 
 be excluded, but of the masses — the great 
 body of the people — who are to choose those, 
 who in their opinion, are best fitted to re- 
 present them. 
 
 But it is urged that these restrictions are 
 necessary. Only demonstrate to my satis- 
 faction, (said Mr. Eustis,) that they are ne- 
 cessary and I will yield my objections. But 
 I deny they are necessary. The Constitu- 
 tion of the United States has been referred 
 to as a precedent. It is true that the Con- 
 stitution of the United States exacts a citi- 
 zenship of seven years to be eligible to the 
 House of Representatives, and nine years 
 to be a senator. But do, gentlemen, take 
 into consideration the circumstances that 
 induced that restriction ? Let us examine 
 this point. 
 
 The federal Constitution was adopted in 
 1787, about the period when we emerged 
 from a long and sanguinary war. Our in- 
 dependence had been secured, but intestine 
 disorders and contentions yet prevailed. 
 We were exposed to foreign influence. 
 The influence of England on one side, and 
 the influence of France on the other. It 
 was apprehended that we might be compro- 
 mised by one or the other. We had 
 treaties to make: our foreign relations were 
 
 yet to be established upon a permanent and 
 a proper basis; and our national position 
 was to be maintained. The Convention 
 that met to form a more perfect and sub- 
 stantial union between the States, felt the 
 importance of all these considerations, 
 and the restriction towards adopted citizens 
 was the result of the necessity of the times. 
 It was concurred in with great reluctance, 
 and we have the explicit opinions of both 
 Madison and Franklin in favor of a course 
 of liberality towards those that sought an 
 asylum upon our shores, and for that ra- 
 tional liberty denied them in the land of 
 their birth. 
 
 The weight of this precedent being then 
 settled, let us next inquire into the other 
 precedents. There are only two others. 
 The Constitutions of Georgia and Maine 
 contain a similar principle. In the latter 
 the principle was adopted without debate, 
 an evidence that little consideration was 
 given to it. As for Georgia, the principle 
 was adopted under peculiar circumstances. 
 The Constitution of that State was formed 
 in 1798. The Floridas were still under the 
 dominions of his Catholic Majesty. The 
 troubles in France were progressing, and 
 threw upon our shores the tide of her emi- 
 gration; and Spain was endeavoring to fo- 
 ment difficulties in the Western States, in 
 order to bring about a separation of the 
 Union : the State of Georgia touched the 
 Spanish line, and influenced by the appre- 
 hensions that the treaty concluded about 
 that time with Spain would not be carried 
 into effect, a great deal of distrust prevail- 
 ed, and the people of Georgia felt reluctant 
 to accord the privileges of citizenship with- 
 out exacting a residence of seven years as 
 a security. 
 
 Does not an inquiry into the facts satisfy 
 us that the restriction in both instances was 
 the result of an immediate necessity, or 
 rather a presumed necessity? but that ne- 
 cessity no longer existing, and the distrust 
 at first entertained against that class of 
 persons having been removed by a better 
 knowledge of them, and by the practical 
 experience that they have proved to be 
 among the best and most useful of our citi- 
 zens; why should they be proscribed and 
 excluded? Besides, among the twenty-six 
 States, there are but two that have sanc- 
 tioned this exclusive legislation, and one of 
 those, as I have shown, under very pecn- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 9o 
 
 liar circumstances. All the other States 
 are uniform in making no distinctions be- 
 tween one class of citizens and another 
 class of citizens. 
 
 I am of opinion that the Baconian sys- 
 tem of politics is, after all, the true one. If 
 politics be a science, it is the science of re- 
 sults. We should never reason upon ex- 
 ceptions, but we should base our opinions 
 upon actual results; and in my opinion, it 
 is better to profit by the experience of the 
 past, than to seek to change and alter those 
 principles of government that have never 
 been attended with injurious results ; but 
 which on the contrary have worked to the 
 satisfaction of all. 
 
 Moreover, what are the consequences of 
 exclusions and restrictions? Are they not 
 calculated to engender distrust- — to create 
 dissensions and bitterness, and to excite the 
 ill-will of that portion of the community 
 that are less favored? And why should we 
 distrust any portion of our citizens? We 
 know from experience how easy it is to ex- 
 cite suspicions. One of the purest and 
 best of our public men, Mr. Madison, was 
 accused of being in the pay of Napoleon — - 
 one of his creatures. This fabrication was 
 believed by many. For myself, Mr. Presi- 
 dent, I have no fear of foreign influence. 
 I do not believe in its existence. It is true 
 there are in this city a St. Patrick society, 
 a St. Andrews society, and the Society des 
 Bienfaisance. But all these are charitable 
 associations, and are commendable. As 
 for political associations among our natur- 
 alized citizens, I know of none. They 
 range themselves as other citizens under 
 our party lines — some are whigs and others 
 are democrats: there is as muclfdiyersion 
 of opinion among them in relation to polit- 
 ical measures as there are among our na- 
 tive citizens. I attack and defend no class. 
 They have like all other men their faults, 
 and their virtues, and their prejudices, and 
 their weaknesses ; but who are exempt 
 from the general lot of humanity ? There 
 is, however, no reason for the suspicion that 
 they are not equally attached to the insti- 
 tutions of the country. That suspicion is 
 unfounded. 
 
 Take another view of the subject. This 
 restriction would apply to a man who had 
 lived thirty years in the country. If he were 
 to feel disposed to be naturalized to-morrow, 
 his residence- of thirty vears would count 
 13 
 
 him nothing in accomplishing the four years. 
 It has been said that the principle is 
 uniform, and that it operates with no greater 
 severity upon the naturalized than upon the 
 native citizen. I deny the assertion. The 
 naturalized citizen is already obliged to 
 undergo a probation of five years, and after 
 that period is fulfilled, he is met with another 
 imperative requisition, for five years more. 
 Where is the necessity for this rigidity? 
 It is pretended that it is to ensure an 
 acquaintance with our institutions. Well, 
 may not a foreigner in the five years pre- 
 ceding his naturalization, make himself 
 perfectly conversant with our system of 
 government? Where is the use of submit- 
 ting him to another ordeal? Is it not 
 enough' guarantee that a man should make of 
 this country his home, have his children and 
 his affections here, possess property, more 
 or less, pay his taxes regularly and contri- 
 bute to the public burthens, for him to con- 
 sider himself identified with us, and expect 
 that others should so consider him. 
 
 I am aware that the excitement raised 
 against foreigners has been the insult of 
 our party contests; but of that I will not 
 speak. We are not here to descend into 
 party strifes, and into party feelings, but to 
 elevate ourselves to the standard of truth 
 and immutable justice. The soreness of 
 defeat, will, by degrees wear away, and 
 then a juster perception of things will be 
 apparent. I know that there are some pre- 
 judices existing, and some hostility towards 
 naturalized citizens, on the part of a 
 portion of our population, who are intelli- 
 gent and, in other respects, liberal. I 
 regret it sincerely, but we should do noth- 
 ing to aggravate that spirit. I am not the 
 apologist nor defender of democratic prin- 
 ciples, but this much I may say, that those 
 principles are at the foundation of our insti- 
 tutions, and we are, therefore, bound to 
 maintain them inviolably. I shall never, 
 by any act of mine, promote invidious dis- 
 tinctions in the political rights to be accor- 
 ded 1 to our citizens, but shall consider all 
 classes equally entitled to all the privileges 
 offreemen. 
 
 In early life, (said Mr. Eustis,) I visited 
 Europe, and I can never forget how well I 
 was received. I was treated with attention 
 and kindness wherever I went. I never 
 can be insensible to the obligations imposed 
 upon me during my sojourn, which embra- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 ced a period of nearly three years; and as j 
 long as I can raise my voice in favor of the 
 oppressed stranger who seeks a refuge in 
 Louisiana, I shall never consent that hos- j 
 pitality and friendship shall be denied him; 
 i shall never consent thatour doors shall be 
 closed against the natives of the climes that 
 seek the protection of our better and more 
 liberal system of government. If I do may 
 my right arm fall from its socket. My social 
 relations I do not permit to influence my 
 political principles. The first regulates my 
 private intercourse, the second determines 
 my duties as a citizen, and as a citizen, I 
 consider the principle under discussion 
 unjust and impolitic. It is equivalent to 
 telling the people they must choose from a 
 privileged class. This is not consistent 
 with republican instututions, and, moreover, 
 the people will not yield obedience to this 
 dictation. They are fully competent to de- 
 cide upon the pretentions of those that seek 
 their suffrages. 
 
 It is true that in the mass of population 
 that come among us, there are some who 
 may be unworthy; but their number is small. 
 They are soon found out and are not trus- 
 ted with the public confidence. When such 
 men as the Peires, the D'Aquins and the 
 St. Gemes, and many others who defended 
 us from foreign aggression and invasion, 
 seek our shores, we should indulge no 
 species of exclusion, for fear that we may 
 be perpretrating an act of injustice towards 
 men as patriotic, as liberal, and as enlight- 
 ened as any country could ever boast. I 
 shall never feel any apprehension in recei- 
 ving such men, let them come from where 
 they may. 
 
 The abuse of the naturalization laws 
 has no doubt contributed towards the distrust 
 that has manifested itself among some 
 against naturalized citizens. I admit, with 
 pain and sorrow, that these laws, of late, 
 have been violated in some instances. 
 But to whom is blame attributable? Is 
 blame alone to be attributed to the individ- 
 uals that have been hunted up by political 
 partizans, and by appeals of one kind and 
 another, seduced and led estray. Are those 
 that promoted these frauds, that knowingly 
 caused them to be perpetrated, to escape 
 all censure? It is iinfortunate and discred- 
 itable that such things have occurred, but 
 if the truth must be told, they have had 
 their origin in violent party excitements. 
 
 They have been stimulated by an unfortu- 
 nate system of betting upon elections; here 
 is the true secret. If all the members of 
 our judiciary had but done their duty, these 
 scandals never would have occurred. But 
 because evils have resulted from our own 
 fault, is it just and" proper to punish a re- 
 spectable portion of our citizens, and to 
 exclude them from a just weight in the po- 
 litical power of the State? 
 
 Mr. Stephens explained the vote he was 
 about to give, but these explanations were 
 not audible at the Reporter's desk. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor moved that the 
 motion for the adoption be laid upon the 
 table, subject to call. Lost. 
 
 The question was taken upon the adop- 
 tion and the following was the result: 
 
 Ayes — Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bouclousquie, Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Bur 
 ton,Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, C. M. Conrad 
 J. B. Conrad, Couvillon, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Grymes, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, 
 King,Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, Mazareau, 
 Prudhomme, Roman, Roselius, St. Amant, 
 Sellers, Taylor, of St. Landry, Voorhies, 
 Wads worth, Winder and Winchester— 3T. 
 
 Nays. — Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Cade, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Culbertson, Downs, 
 Eustis, Garcia, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, 
 Leonard,McCallop, McRea,Marigny, Mayo, 
 O'Brian, Peets, Penn, Porter, Prsscott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Ratliff, 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Felici- 
 ana, Scott-of Madison, Soule, Splane, Stev- 
 ens, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Waddill 
 and We der strandt— 3 6 . 
 
 The President voting in the negative, 
 it was lost. 
 
 Whereupon the Convention adjourned.. 
 
 Friday, January 24, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment, and the proceedings" were opened 
 with prayer by the Rev. Mr. Warren. 
 
 Mr. Dunn presented a claim of Robert 
 Perry, for the transportation of furniture for 
 the use of the Convention, from Jackson to 
 the Mississippi, and for an awning made 
 ! for the Convention while it was at Jackson; 
 | and on his motion it was referred to the 
 committee upon contingent expenses. 
 
 Mr. Splane complained that the reports 
 of the debates of the Convention were not 
 published. Great interest was felt to know 
 the proceedings of this body, and it was 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana- 
 
 's 
 
 desirable that publicity should be given to 
 them. With that view, he would propose 
 to make arrangements with two of the city 
 papers. 
 
 He accordingly presented a resolution 
 for the appointment of a committee of three 
 members to make a contract with two city 
 papers, for the daily publication of a synop- 
 sis of the proceedings. 
 
 Mr. Guign thought that the better course 
 was to lay the resolution on the table, until 
 the committee appointed to inquire into the 
 causes of the delay of the publication of the 
 debates made their reports. 
 
 Mr. Dowxs referred both to the delay 
 and the imperfect manner in the publication 
 of the debates. He was therefore in favor 
 of acting at once upon the subject. It was 
 desirable that the proceedings of the Con- 
 vention should appear frequently and with 
 regularity. 
 
 Mr. Lewis was opposed to appointing a 
 second committee, until the first one had 
 been discharged. If the first committee be 
 discharged, then he had no objection to 
 the appointment of a second committee. 
 
 The motion to lay on the table prevailed. 
 
 The Order of the Day. — The Con- 
 vention took into consideration section live 
 of article second, as reported by the majority 
 of the committee on the legislative depart- 
 ment, providing for the places of holding 
 the general election throughout the State. 
 
 Said motion was adopted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Brent, sections six 
 &nd seven were laid on the table, and sec- 
 tion eight, as reported by Jhe majority of 
 the committee, was taken up. 
 
 Section 8. In all elections by the peo- 
 ple, every white male citizen of the United 
 States, who at the time being has attained 
 the age of twenty-one years, and resided 
 in the State two years next preceding the 
 election, and the last year thereof in the 
 parish or election district in which he offers 
 to vote, shall enjoy the right of an elector; 
 shall in all cases, except treason, felony, 
 breach, or surety of the peace, be privileged 
 from arrest during their attendance on, 
 going to, or returning from elections. 
 
 Mr. Mayo offered the following sub- 
 stitute : 
 
 Every free white male citizen of the 
 United States, of the age of twenty-one 
 years or upwards, who has resided in this 
 State one year next preceding an election. 
 
 and the last six months thereof in the par- 
 ish or district in which he offers to vote, 
 shall be deemed a qualified elector and be 
 entitled to vote in the parish or district 
 where he actually resides, for each and 
 every officer made elective by the people 
 under this State or the United States. Pro- 
 vided, that no person in the military, naval 
 or marine service of the United States shall 
 be considered a resident in this State, by 
 being stationed in any garrison, barrack, or 
 military or naval place or station within the 
 State ; and no person under interdiction, 
 or person convicted of any crime punish- 
 able by imprisonment in the penitentiary, 
 unless pardoned, or restored by law to the 
 right of suffrage, shall enjoy the right of 
 an elector. Electors shall, in all cases, 
 except treason, felony, breach or surety 
 of the peace, be privileged from arrest 
 during their attendance at and returning 
 from the polls. 
 
 Said substitute being before the Con- 
 vention, Mr. Mayo rose and addressed 
 the Convention as follows: 
 
 Mr. Mayo said, that as he had felt it to 
 be his duty to make some remarks in sup- 
 port of the substitute he had the honor to 
 present, particularly to enable his constit- 
 uents to judge of his position relative to it. 
 He could not expect to say much upon a 
 subject which the members of the Con- 
 venton must already have become familiar, 
 that would enlighten men of the intelligence 
 possessed by the members of this body. 
 
 If the importance of any subject can make 
 discussions necessary, it is this. Though 
 as ythe question is now presented, with, 
 out knowing with certainty what provi 
 sions maybe offered to restrict the right of 
 suffrage, it is impossible to determine with 
 precision what points are to be attacked, 
 or to what restrictions an argument is to 
 be directed. 1 have heard one honorable 
 member say in his remarks on another 
 subject that he hoped strong guards would 
 be thrown around the elective franchise. 
 There are two minority reports of the 
 committee that had this subject under con- 
 sideration, by both of which a residence 
 of three years in the State is required un- 
 less the person offering to vote has a high 
 property qualification. This he thought 
 he had a right to consider as the opinion 
 of a portion of the Convention, and should 
 endeavor to combat the doctrine contained 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 in the provisions of those minority reports. 
 
 [t can hardly be necessary to state to 
 this body thatthis is one of the most im- 
 portant subjects that can come before this 
 < invention, It is a peculiarity of our re- 
 publican institutions that all power is in- 
 herent in the people, and can only be pro- 
 perly exercised, when delegated by them 
 to their representatives. 
 
 Suffrage is the paramount right upon 
 which rests the rights of life, liberty, and 
 property. It is necessary to a proper un- 
 derstanding of this subject to enquire, first, 
 who are the people, that according to cor- 
 net republican principles should have a 
 voice and express their wishes, in the 
 selection of representatives. The people, 
 strictlj"spcaking, are all the white men, 
 women and children, who are to be affect- 
 ed I>y the laws. It appears to be under- 
 stood by all that a portion of these, from a 
 want of the necessary age to fit them for 
 the exercise of a discreet choice, and also 
 women whose condition does not fit them 
 for any participation in the affairs of go- 
 vernment; all those who have not become 
 naturalized citizens according to the acts 
 of congress, and those not free, and white, 
 shall be excluded from the elective fran- 
 chise. These embrace a majority of the 
 whole—of that whole which is embraced 
 under the denomination of the people. 
 How many more does sound policy require 
 should be excluded ? I can speak with 
 certainty of the wishes of those of the 
 particular district which I have the honor 
 to represent; and can hazard but little in 
 stating that their opinion is concurred in 
 by a large majority of all the voters in the 
 northern part of the State The question 
 was distinctly made, during the canvass 
 for members to this body, and decided by 
 the people in favor of allowing to every 
 free white male citizen above twenty-one 
 years of age who may have resided t welve 
 months in the State and six months in the 
 parish in which he offers to vote, the right 
 of voting for all offices to be made elective by 
 the Constitution. This is a question of libe- 
 rality or illiberal ity to the governed, in the 
 policy of the State. I hold that onerous 
 restrictions upon the right of suffrage are 
 the results either of undue power in the 
 hands of a few, from which the many have 
 not been able to wrest it by peaceful means, 
 pr of prejudice. The government of Eng- 
 
 land is that which bears the greatest simi- 
 larity to ours, of any that does now, or 
 ever did exist, though it is a monarchy. 
 Many learned political writers among them, 
 Montesquieu, Burke, and John Locke, 
 have treated it as the best practical model 
 of government, and as approaching to per- 
 fection. That government is similar to 
 ours in this. In both there is an execu- 
 tive magistrate entrusted with the execu- 
 tion of the laws. In both there are two 
 bodies entrusted with legislation. In Eng- 
 land the house of commons is elected by 
 the people; here, both branches are elected 
 by the people. 
 
 The two governments are dissimilar in 
 this. That in England the sovereign pow- 
 er is held to be inherent in, and when 
 exercised to emanate from the king— from 
 a single individual; with us, it is laid down 
 by the declaration of independence, w r hich 
 an eminent law writer, (Judge Story, in 
 his comments upon the subject,) states, "is 
 an act of paramount and sovereign autho- 
 rity." "That all men are created equal, that 
 they are endowed by their Creator with cer- 
 tain unalienable rights, that among these 
 are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 
 That to secure these rights, governments are 
 instituted among men, deriving their just 
 powers from the consent of the governed. 
 That whenever any form of government 
 becomes destructive of these ends, it is 
 the right of the people to alter or to abolish 
 it, and to institute new government, laying 
 its foundation on such principles and or- 
 ganizing its poivers in such form, as to 
 them shall seem most likely to secure their 
 safety and happiness." According to this 
 declaration, and as universally understood 
 and acknowledged with us, government 
 derives its just powers from the consent of 
 the governed. In this the two govern- 
 ments are essentially different and irrecon- 
 cilable. In the one all the power is sup- 
 posed to reside in the king, and in the 
 other, it is declared by an act having the 
 force of the paramount law, to reside in 
 the people. 
 
 In England, the office of the members 
 of the highest branch of parliament is 
 hereditary, and men become entitled to 
 hold seats in the house of lords by here- 
 ditary right, whether they be fit for the 
 office or not. With us, the highest branch 
 of the legislature as well as the lowest is 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 elective, and the free choice of those en- 
 titled to suffrage, is exercised in elevating 
 them to their offices. 
 
 Our executive is also elective. Their 
 king hereditary, and in legal contempla- 
 tion can never die. 
 
 Our forms of government for the Fede- 
 ral, as well as State Governments are im- 
 provements upon that of England. We 
 have shaken off most of the impediments 
 to the free exercise of our inherent rights 
 and liberties, that exist in the constitution 
 of that government: but have, from abun- 
 dant caution, and I hold from some degree 
 of prejudice, retained unnecessarily some 
 of the onerous restrictions, which exist in 
 the constitution of England. At the time 
 of the formation of the constitution of the 
 United States in 1787, no person was eli- 
 gible to the house of commons in England 
 as the representative of a county, unless 
 he possessed a freehold estate of the an- 
 nual value of 600 pounds sterling, — about 
 $3000, consequently there were but very 
 few in many of the counties, who were 
 rich enough to qualify them to be chosen: 
 in other words the right of the voter was 
 restricted to a select few in many of the 
 counties. This was the first important re- 
 striction upon the choice of the people. 
 Next, no person was entitled to give his 
 vote for a commoner, unless he owned a 
 freehold estate of the annual value of 20 
 pounds, about $100. This agalh restrict- 
 ed the right of the citizen, so that not one- 
 fiftieth part of those upon whom the bur- 
 dens of government really rest, could exer- 
 cise any right to choose even a member of 
 the lowest branch -of parliament. At the 
 time of the institution of the house of com- 
 mons, the people supposed,, and correctly, 
 that they had obtained an extraordinary 
 and liberal grant of power from the mon- 
 arch. It was thought liberal, because by 
 it, a small portion of the citizens could 
 exercise a choice in the selection of rulers, 
 but so few can exercise it and the powers 
 of government are so securely lodged in 
 the hands of the wealthy, that though the 
 oppressions were probably ameliorated, 
 still they have not ceased; and tithes, taxes, 
 and rents have been and still continue to 
 be imposed upon them, that prevent them 
 from the enjoyment of prosperity, or that 
 degree of happiness, which man has a 
 right to expect under a well regulated go- 
 
 vernment. This system of a property 
 qualification to render a man eligible to 
 parliament, and to entitle a man to exercise 
 the right of suffrage, was transferred by 
 the sovereigns of England to America, and 
 was provided for in the charters granted by 
 them to the colonies in America. In the 
 charter granted by William and Mary, in 
 1691, to Massachusetts, _ it was provided 
 that the governor and council and repre- 
 sentatives being freeholders, should be an- 
 nually elected by the freeholders of each 
 town, who possessed a freehold of forty 
 shillings annual value, or other estate of 
 forty pounds. Similar provisions are to be 
 found in the other charters granted to the 
 colonies, From this, it is evident that we 
 have taken this restrictive system from 
 England. First by a direct exercise of it 
 by the English sovereigns themselves, and 
 afterwards, by copying from the charters 
 granted by those sovereigns. To show 
 how tenacious the people of this country 
 were of retaining the spirit of the consti- 
 tution of England; the constitution pre- 
 pared by John Locke for North and South 
 Carolina and adopted by those colonies, 
 then forming but one, will furnish ample 
 evidence. By that, two orders of heredi- 
 tary nobility were instituted. The legis- 
 lature was dignified with the name of par- 
 liament. 
 
 These facts show a desire, at least, on 
 the part of the early colonists to conform 
 to the English system. This desire, I ap- 
 prehend, has grown into a prejudice, and 
 as the people have become enlightened up- 
 on the subject, and formed new constitu- 
 tions in the several States, they have gra- 
 dually thrown off the restraint, until at 
 this time there are but ten out of the 26 
 States where any property qualification 
 whatever is required to entitle a citizen to 
 vote, and but one, South Carolina, that re- 
 quires a longer residence than one year. — 
 I have heard no serious complaints from 
 this degree of liberality, which permits 
 the citizen to exercise his natural right to 
 choose those who are to make laws to go- 
 vern him. What harm has been produced 
 by it ? What legislatures have been select- 
 ed that have been unfit to be entrusted with 
 the business of legrsktion ? Or if any 
 such have been chosen, is it fair and rea- 
 sonable to suppose that if a property quali- 
 fication had been required of the voter bet- 
 
98 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 ter and wiser legislatures would have been 
 selected? Legislatures that would have 
 imposed less burdens upon the people, or 
 established laws that would have tended 
 more to their prosperity, security and hap- 
 piness ? I do not think that the affirmative 
 of the proposition can be maintained. 
 
 If not, then, why not extend to all who 
 have furnished evidence of an interest in, 
 and an attachment to our institutions the 
 rights of citizens ? I heard it said, a day 
 or two ago, by an honorable member in dis- 
 cussing another subject that, if a man were 
 to come here from the country of his birth 
 and say that he had a greater attachment 
 to our institutions than he had to his own, 
 that he would not believe him. I, on the 
 contrary, should be inclined to believe 
 him from the evidence furnished by the 
 fact of his making this State his home. 
 I should, in the absence of evidence to the 
 contrary, be induced to believe that some 
 considerable and important considerations 
 were necessary to induce him to leave the 
 country of his birth and early affections to 
 take up his abode with strangers in a. fo- 
 reign land, and, should at once conclude 
 that the attachment he had to our people 
 and our institutions, induced him to make 
 the change, and that attachment, and the 
 hope of the enjoyment of prosperity here, 
 would be to me sufficient evidence of his in- 
 terest, and judging from the fact of his con- 
 tinuous residence here for one year only, I 
 should believe that he liked this country bet- 
 ter than that of his birth. 
 
 If the elective franchise be extended to 
 all those who are embraced in the sub- 
 stitute, and who appear to me to ha e a 
 kind of natural right to enjoy it, those 
 disturbances and tumults, which have 
 sometimes been witnessed at elections, 
 will cease. The unnatural restraints which 
 are sought to be broken, will be removed, 
 and the rights heretofore forbidden, but to 
 a great extent exercised in fraud of the 
 law, will be removed. 
 
 Our present constitution requires a re- 
 sidence of twelvemonths in the county ;who 
 has demanded a change in this particular? 
 1 never heard of such a demand until I 
 came into this body. Those who voted 
 for a convention, I understood, to vote for 
 it, for the purpose of having restrictions 
 upon their rights removed — not additional 
 ones imposed. Could I think that the 
 
 i safety, prosperity or happiness of the peo- 
 I pie of this State required any further re- 
 striction upon the elective franchise than 
 the substitute now under consideration will 
 afford them, I would cheerfully withdraw 
 it. But with the example of sixteen out of 
 twenty-three of our sister States, who are 
 with no greater restrictions, and many of 
 them with less than those proposed by the 
 substitute, enjoying, with the utmost degree 
 of security, quiet and prosperity, all the bless- 
 ing? of liberty. With the example also of 
 the election to this convention of the intelli- 
 gent body now assembled here by those who 
 have been constituted electors, after a re- 
 sidence of but one year in the State, the 
 property qualification having been evaded 
 by the citizens. I hope that if the present 
 proposition be not supported, I shall, at 
 least, enjoy the pleasure of hearing the 
 reasons for its rejection. The emigrants 
 from foreign countries, after becoming na- 
 turalized citizens, and those who come to 
 reside with us from other States of the 
 Union, know when they come that they 
 are liable to be called upon by the autho- 
 rities of the State to protect and defend us, 
 in our lives and property, and if their ser- 
 vices should be needed, they would, I am 
 satisfied, be found true to their duty to 
 defend us. It is our duty therefore to 
 court their emigration to the State. To do 
 so we should indicate to them, that they, 
 on coming* here, and furnishing evidence 
 of a desire to remain, will be permitted to 
 enjoy those rights which ought to be com- 
 mon to all freemen, and which would be 
 extended to ourselves and our children, 
 were me to go to those other States where 
 liberal systems prevail. 
 
 Mr. Grymes moved for the rejection of 
 the proviso — lost. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies said he was in favor of 
 the section as reported by the majority of 
 the committee ; he would therefore vote 
 against the substitute. 
 
 Mr. Boudousquie moved that the substi- 
 tute lay indefinitely on the table; and cal- 
 led the ayes and nays: 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Couvillon, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Guion, Grymes, Garrett, 
 Hudspeth, King, Labauve, Lewis, Legen- 
 dre, Marigny, Maaareau, Pugh, Roman, Ro- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 99 
 
 selius, St. Amant, Saunders, Scott of Felici- 
 ana, Sellers, Stevens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, Weder- 
 strandt, Wads worth, Winchester and Win- 
 der— 40. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 Cade, Chambliss, Downs, Eustis, Humble, 
 Hynson, Ledoux, Leonard, Mayo, McRea, 
 McCallop, O'Brian, Peirn, Porter, Prescett 
 of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Soule, Splane and Waddill, — 27. 
 
 The question reverted upon the adoption 
 of the section as reported. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies moved to amend by in- 
 serting the word " consecutive " before the 
 words two years, so as to make the resi- 
 dence two consecutive years. 
 
 Said amendment prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved to strike out from 
 the fifth line to the eight. He wished to 
 fill up the blank so as to make the section 
 correspond with a similar section in the old 
 Constitution. He saw no necessity for 
 making any further change than suppres- 
 sing the property qualifications. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said: Mr. President, it is ad- 
 mitted on all sides that we should pursue 
 that course which is best calculated to pro- 
 mote the interests of the State. I will not 
 trespass upon the time of the Convention, 
 and will simply say a few words. How- 
 ever important the debate on this matter 
 may be, I think it can be compressed into 
 a nut-shell. We never can expect any re- 
 sults without compromise. The property 
 qualification is to be relinquished, and I 
 think properly. But there should be some 
 condition which will afford a guarantee. 
 Let us have some assurance that the des- 
 tines of the State will not be committed 
 to improper hands. The report of the 
 majority of committee seems, upon this 
 point, to approach a compromise. I should 
 prefer three years to two, but I am willing 
 to yield to two years in the spirit of com- 
 promise. Some gentlemen would prefer 
 one year, others favor three years: and be- 
 tween one year -and three years, we may 
 well unite in a spirit of mutual concession 
 upon two years. The Constitution of the 
 L nited States was the work of compromise: 
 without compromise no Constitution can be 
 formed. 
 
 # My friend from Attakapas, (Mr. Voor= 
 hies,) from whose excellent judgment I dif- 
 
 j fer with great deference, has suggested to 
 I amend the section by placing the word 
 j "consecutive" before the words two years. 
 : I do not think that amendment would make 
 ; the measure any clearer, and it is, there - 
 < fore, unnecessary. I trust the section will 
 j be adopted, and that ultraism will not pre- 
 vail on either side. We may meet half 
 way, and the vital principle, of which many 
 think in danger by substituting too short a 
 period of residence, will be secured. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff said: I have listened, Mr 
 President, with a great deal of pleasure to 
 what has fallen from the delegate from St. 
 Landry, (Mr. Lewis.) I, for one, am al- 
 ways ready to respond to the spirit of con- 
 cession. I am of opinion that two years 
 is not an unreasonable period. It has been 
 suggested that if we fix. upon one year, we 
 may, in times of high political excitement, 
 be exposed to pipe laying from the adjoin- 
 ing States. Loafers and vagrants may be 
 sent among us to turn the scale at the bal- 
 lot box. I see no great hardship in re- 
 quiring two years residence, and I am wil- 
 ling to meet the gentleman upon that period, 
 Mr. Prestox : I oppose this part of the 
 report, fixing the residence at two years, 
 instead of one as heretofore. I see no good 
 reason for changing the disposition of the 
 old Constitution upon that point. It is true- 
 that the property qualification is to be aban- 
 doned. But why is it to abandoned? Be- 
 cause such is the declared wish of the peo- 
 ple: and to obtain the abandonment of that 
 odious principle was one of the three cardi- 
 nal points for which the people desired a 
 Convention. Moreover, what is the property 
 qualification at present ? Is it not a mere 
 nullity ? But is said that if the period of 
 citizenship be fixed at one year, many 
 vicious persons will vote. It wilj be the 
 same if the period be fixed at two years. 
 It is impossible to attain perfection, and to 
 preclude abuses. Vicious persons will vote, 
 fix the period when you may, and the quli- 
 fications as you please. Give to every man 
 in the community the greatest amount of 
 liberty consonant with the safety of society. 
 Place all your citizens upon a footing of 
 perfect equality as to their political rights, 
 ' and you will promote the well-being and 
 . happiness of all. 
 
 I consider, said Mr. Prestox, one year 
 amply sufficient to give us every reasonable 
 guarantee, We have had the experience 
 
100 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 of thirty-two years, and that experience has 
 satisfied me that there f§ no necessity for 
 increasing the period. We have, too, the 
 experience of our sister States. In Massa- 
 chusetts an inhabitant is allowed to vote 
 without limitation of residence. In Con- 
 necticut, six months residence is only re- 
 qtlired to be a voter; and in all the new 
 States the residence is quite trifling. . Yet 
 no harm has resulted. We find those States 
 progressing in wealth and population. I 
 oppose all useless and unnecessary restric- 
 tions. There is no fear that the people 
 will not discover the real dispositions of 
 those that come among us. Although the 
 people of the New England States have the 
 reputation of being peculiarly inquisitive, 
 we arc not without curiosity ourselves, and 
 soon discover every thing in relation to 
 new-comers. We ascertain who they 
 are — what is their business, and what they 
 intend to do. Men are gregarious and 
 seek for the sympathy of each other. 
 
 Our State stands in need of population. 
 Wo have immense resources, and these re- 
 sources can only be fully developed by a 
 dense population. We should invite and 
 encourage immigration. If we discourage 
 it, instead of flowing in upon us, it will go 
 elsewhere. It will go to the new States of 
 the West — to Arkansas, and even to Texas. 
 
 Pursue then a liberal policy. There is a 
 wide field for industry in our State. Our 
 swamp lands may be reclaimed, and even 
 our pine barrans may, by the ingenuity and 
 industry of man, be adapted to some culture, 
 w hich will make them valuable. 
 
 Let us not be actuated by narrow-minded 
 prejudices. Let us encourage, by the libe- 
 rality of our laws, talents and industry to 
 come among us. Let us profit by the enter- 
 prise and public spirit of all. The result 
 of such a policy will be that our State will 
 fill up with an industrious and energetic 
 population, and her wealth and importance 
 will become every day greater and greater. 
 Her intercourse will be extended from the 
 Allegheny mountains to the Gulf of Mexico, 
 and from the Gulf of Mexico to the farther- 
 most parts of Europe and Asia, even to 
 our antipodes. Let us invite strangers with 
 a spirit of liberality to come among us, and 
 when we have proved them by a reasonable 
 residence, let us freely accord to them all 
 the privileges and all the immunities of citi- 
 zenship. Our State will then become rich 
 
 and prosperous. In the moment of peril, 
 when an invader threatened to drive us from 
 our homes, we were not so particular about 
 residence, we were glad to receive the aid 
 and assistance of citizens from the other 
 States. The Kentuckians and the Tennes- 
 seeans that flew to our rescue, and risked 
 their lives in our defence. We need not 
 be afraid of such citizens. They have 
 proved their attachment to us upon^the field 
 of battle, and they will always be ready to 
 fight and die in defence of our liberties 
 whenever they may be assailed. 
 
 Mr. Wadswoeth said, I do not rise to 
 speak for Bunkum. I do not speak for the 
 lobbies. The gentleman from Jefferson 
 says we must be liberal. What is his idea 
 of liberality? How does he define libe- 
 rality? If his liberality be limited by 
 some little regard for ourselves, by some 
 prudent restriction. I have no objection to 
 being liberal, as is his pleasure to call it. 
 But if this liberality be at the expense of 
 our safety, if it endangers our well being, 
 and places us under the control of igno- 
 rance ane folly, then I conceive such libe- 
 rality to be insanity, it is madness. If an 
 individual were to throw aw r ay his property r 
 give it to the first person that he met, it 
 might be considered liberal, but at the 
 same time it would induce rational persons 
 to believe he was a fool. The gentleman 
 from Jefferson, in his unbounded liberality, 
 gra'sps at" the antipodes, and in his benign 
 philosophy, would bore a hole to place a 
 sveam engine, so as to get at them. I 
 would place no obstacles in the way of the 
 gentleman, I wish him every facility in get- 
 ting at his antipodes. 
 
 The gentleman from Jefferson is mista- 
 ken in the intentions that he attributes to 
 the legislature, in passing the act providing 
 for the calling of a Convention. I was a 
 member of the legislature at the time the 
 bill passed, and I did not so under- 
 stand it nor vote for it. I never contempla- 
 ted w r e should establish any such liberal 
 system as the gentleman imagines; that w*e 
 should permit strangers to intrude into our 
 houses, take our bed, and eat up our dinner! 
 
 In voting for a Convention my design 
 was to remedy existing abuses, particularly 
 in reference to the ballot box, and not to 
 ensure greater abuses by placing our insti- 
 tutions under the control of persons who 
 have no identity of feeling with us, and are 
 without intelligence and integrity. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 101 
 
 Mr. Claiborne said if every restriction 
 appeared to the gentleman from Jefferson* 
 (Sir. Preston.) to be an abridgement of lib- 
 erty, then government itself should be abol- 
 ished, inasmuch as it was restriction. 
 
 Mr. BouDorsariE found the propositions 
 advanced by the gentleman from Jefferson 
 so extraordinary that he could not refrain 
 from making a few remarks. He consider- 
 ed that we should continue to exercise some 
 control over the management, of our public 
 affairs, and not abandon them to the gui- 
 dance of mere strangers. He was not for 
 exacting the baptism of the yellow fever for 
 the security of the State, as that was too 
 frequentlya baptism that was followed by 
 death, but he thought some reasonable res- 
 idence ought to be required before we place 
 implicit confidence in strangers. He could 
 not consent that we should open our arms to 
 receive persons that would undoubtedly 
 come among us for sinister purposes. Why, 
 
 his assent to the employment of two city 
 papers and the retaining of the present 
 printer. He read the conditions under 
 which the printing of the debates had been 
 ordered. It was evident that these condi- 
 tions had not been observed. 
 
 Mr. Brent presented a resolution vaca- 
 ting the office of printer of the Convention, 
 and instructing the committee on contingent 
 expenses, to settle with Mr. Kelly for any 
 amount that might be due him to date. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth said there was a pro- 
 vision in the report for the appointment of 
 an additional reporter. 
 
 Mr. Brent: I have no objections to that. 
 Mr. Beatty considered it useless to ap- 
 point an additional reporter. The gentle- 
 man who is reporter, ought to be able tic 
 discharge the duties, and would no doubt be 
 able to do so, if his entire time were giver 
 to the Convention. But, he had understood 
 that the same individual was also reportei 
 
 eight days has not elapsed since there was | to the senate. Let him 
 an abolitionist, deputed by the governor of 
 Massachusetts, in this very building. He 
 never would consent to such a policy. It 
 was, in his opinion, dangerous in the high- 
 est degree. 
 
 Mr. Dunn considered the subject of such 
 vital importance that, for the purpose of 
 affording time for reflection, he would move 
 an adjournment. 
 
 Whereupon the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Saturday, 25th January, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment, and its proceedings were opened 
 with prayer. 
 
 The President submitted an invitation 
 to attend the exhibition of the second Mu- 
 nicipality Public Schools. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth on behalf of the spe- 
 cial committee to whom was referred the 
 duty of inquiring into the cause of delay in 
 the publication" of the reports of debates, 
 made a report recommending that a con- 
 tract be made with one of the city papers, 
 for the publication of said report, and that 
 an additional reporter be appointed. 
 
 Mr. Splane proposed to amend the re- 
 port of the committee by providing for the 
 publications in two papers, in place of one. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth made some verbal ex- 
 planations in relation to said report. 
 
 Mr. Downs complained of the irregulari- 
 ty of the publications, but could not vield 
 14 
 
 resign one or the 
 
 other. 
 
 In reference to the substitute offered b T v 
 ; the delegate from Rapides, (Mr. Brent) tc 
 | dismiss the present printer, Mr. Beattx 
 ; stated he was in favor of it, with a proviso, 
 that the committee should not pay said 
 Kelly any amount until he shall deliver up 
 the reports to date. 
 
 Mr. Brent had no objection to offer his 
 substitute as a distinct proposition. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor moved to recommit 
 the subject to the same committee, for the 
 purpose of inquiring into the contract made 
 with the printer, and the manner in which 
 the work had been done. 
 
 Mr. Brent opposed the recommitment, 
 on the ground that it was unnecessary. The 
 Convention were in possession of siiffieient 
 information to justify the dismissal of the 
 printer. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies particiDated in the views 
 of Mr. Brent. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth was in favor of recom- 
 mitting the report, in order to give the 
 printer an opportunity to be heard. The 
 first committee had not made an inquiry 
 tending to the removal of Mr. Kelly, nor 
 had they recommended that step. The 
 proposition to remove him being brought 
 directly before the Convention, it was not 
 fair to act upon it, without giving Mr. Kelly 
 an opportunity to justify- himself. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff was in favor of the recom- 
 mittal, as an act of justice. 
 
102 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 The question was taken on the motion to 
 recommit, and it was carried in the affirm- 
 ative — peas 40; nays 17. 
 
 Mr. Peets moved that the committee be 
 instructed to report by Monday next. 
 
 Whereupon, on motion, the Convention 
 adjourned to Mondav next, at 11 o'clock, 
 A. M. 
 
 Monday, 27th January, 1845. 
 The Convention met and its proceedings 
 were opened by prayer from the Rev. Mr. 
 Twitchell. 
 
 Mr. Wadswortii, on behalf of the spe- 
 cial committee to whom had been referred 
 the subject of the printing of the debates, 
 offered a report, accompanied with a reso- 
 lution, dismissing J. A. Kelly from the office 
 of printer to the convention, and providing 
 for the election of another printer. 
 
 Mr. Chinn was fearful that the present 
 resolution was premature. He did not un- 
 derstand from the report that Mr. Kelly 
 was actually delinquent in the discharge of 
 his duty. Would it not be better, at any 
 rate, to give that officer a little further trial? 
 The scolding that had been inflicted upon 
 him would be sufficient to ensure punctuali- 
 ty for the future. The reporter, perhaps, 
 had not been prompt in furnishing the de- 
 bates to the printer, and therefore the latter 
 might not be at fault. 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved for the postpone- 
 ment of the question, until Thursday. 
 
 The motion was negatived— yeas 26; 
 nays 37. 
 
 The question was taken on the adoption 
 of the report, and it was decided affirma- 
 tively — yeas 43; nays 18. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved the 2d portion of the 
 resolution by saying two printers — one for 
 the French and one for the English. 
 
 Mr. Lewis was opposed to this amend- 
 ment. There were two establishments in 
 the ciiy, the Bee and the Courier, that were 
 both competent to do this work in both lan- 
 guages. He saw no necessity for separa- 
 ting the proceeding in French from those in 
 English. It was better to publish them 
 together. This was suggested, too, 
 by motives of economy. It was not good 
 policy to divide responsibility. 
 
 Mr. Kenner inquired whether it was 
 intended to give each of the printers the 
 compensation accorded to Mr. Kelly, 
 S1500 7 
 
 Mr. Downs: I intend to divide that 
 amount between the two. 
 
 Mr. D. then went into arguments show- 
 ing the advantages of this mode of publica- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved to lay the resolution 
 on the table, subject to call. Lost, 19 ayes, 
 47 nays. 
 
 The question being on the first part of the 
 resolution, 
 
 Mr. Ratliff opposed it. He stated that 
 he had not voted for Mr. Kelly, but that 
 inasmuch as he had been elected he was 
 not for unceremoniously turning him out. 
 He could never sanction an act which had 
 the semblance of injustice. The report 
 was not explicit as to whether Mr. Kelly 
 was at fault. Mr. Kelly was the father of 
 a family, who were dependent upon him. 
 Mr. R. concluded by an earnest appeal in 
 favor of Mr. Kelly. 
 
 Mr. Dunn spoke in favor of giving to the 
 printer some further time, to see whether 
 he could progress to the satisfaction of the 
 Convention. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor supported the report 
 of the Committee. 
 
 The question was taken and decided in 
 affirmative — ayes 25, nays 23. 
 
 Mr. Marigny spoke in favor of the 
 amendment proposed by Mr. Downs, and 
 referred to the unsatisfactory manner in 
 which the reports had been printed in 
 French. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. Downs' 
 amendment, and carried in the affirmative. 
 
 Mr. Sellers moved that the same rule 
 apply that the reports be published at 
 least three times a week or oftener, which 
 motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to amend the reso- 
 lution, so that $500 be allowed to each 
 printer per ten numbers of the paper con- 
 taining the debates, which motion pre- 
 vailed. 
 
 Mr. Downs called for the adoption of 
 the first resolution. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff spoke against destituting 
 the present printer. 
 
 The first resolution was adopted. 
 
 The second resolution was taken up. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff offered a substitute ap- 
 pointing a committee to enquire into and 
 report upon what terms the printing could 
 be done. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 108 
 
 'Mr. Bevtty called for the previous 
 question, and it was ordered, — 49 ayes ; 
 19 nays. 
 
 The question was taken on the second 
 resolution, and it was passed. 
 
 The third clause providing for the pay- 
 ment of the amount Mr. Kelly was con- 
 curred in. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved that the Convention 
 proceed to the election of the printer. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies moved that the Conven- 
 tion proceed, at the same time, to the elec- 
 tion of both. 
 
 Mr. Downs called for a division of the 
 question. 
 
 Some objections being made, the presi- 
 dent, (Mr. Claiborne,) decided that the 
 question was susceptible of division. 
 
 Mr. Pugh moved to save time that the 
 president appoint the printers. Lost. 
 
 Mr. Cenas nominated Mr. Jerome Bain 
 on, of the Courier, for the printing 
 French. 
 
 Mr. Chinn nominated Mague and 
 
 "YVeisse of the Bee. 
 
 Messrs. Culbertson and Downs tellers. 
 The following was the result: 
 J. Bayon : : : 40 votes. 
 Magne and Weisse : 29 " 
 Mr. J. Bayon was proclaimed duly 
 
 elected. 
 
 On motion, the Convention proceeded 
 to the election of the printer for the English. 
 
 Mr. Gtjion nominated W. H. M'Cardle 
 of the Tropic. 
 
 Mr. Read nominated Besaneon, Fer- 
 guson & Co. of the JefFersonian Re- 
 publican. 
 
 The same tellers were continued. 
 * For W. H. M'Cardle : : 31 votes. 
 " Besaneon, Ferguson & Co. 36 " 
 
 Blank 1 : : : 3 " 
 
 Accordingly Messis. Besaneon, Fer- 
 guson & Co. were duly elected. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved that the Convention 
 proceed to the election of an additional re- 
 porter. 
 
 Messrs. Ratliff and Conrad opposed 
 the motion. 
 
 The ayes and nays were called for, and 
 the result was 46 nays — 18 ayes. 
 
 Whereupon the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Tuesday, January 28th, 1845. 
 The Convention met and its proceedings 
 were opened by prayer from the Rev. Mr. 
 Beadle. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff on behalf of the committee oil 
 contingent expenses, presented a resolution 
 authorizing the payment of $72 33 to Mr. 
 Robert Perry, for expenses incurred by him 
 in removing the furniture belonging to the 
 Convention, from Jackson to the Mississippi 
 river, and 
 
 On motion, the said resolution was 
 adopted. 
 
 Order of the Day. — Section 8. — Re- 
 port of the majority on the legislative de- 
 partment, which was under discussion when 
 the Convention adjourned yesterday. 
 
 Mr. Gryimes wished to explain his views 
 in relation to the subject under considera- 
 tion, and he would avail himself of this oc- 
 casion to do so. The question involved 
 was one of the highest moment; it was no 
 less than the conservation of our institutions. 
 Gentlemen have said that the principle in 
 the report of the majority of the committee 
 finds no place hi the Constitutions of any of 
 the States of the Union. One gentleman 
 said that he would not assert_thc fact on his 
 own knowledge, because he had found him- 
 self mistaken on other occasions, but that 
 he considered that the gentleman from Ca- 
 tahoula had established it to a demonstra- 
 tion. No doubt if the argument were true, 
 it would have great weight with the Con- 
 vention. 
 
 Mr. Grymes begged the indulgence of 
 the Convention, if in the important exami- 
 nation he was about to institute, he should 
 be under the necessity of entering into dry 
 details. So far from the principle not being 
 found in the Constitutions of the several 
 states, there is not a State in the Union in 
 which this particular principle, or an equi- 
 valent conservative principle, does not ex- 
 ist, and where its features are not strong] v 
 marked. 
 
 [Here Mr. Grymes read extracts from 
 the Constitutions of the several States, be- 
 ginning with Massachusetts.] 
 
 In the old and respectable State of Mas- 
 sachusetts this conservative principle, it 
 was seen, was embodied in the right of 
 suffrage. Massachusetts was one of the 
 happiest States of the Union. She owed no 
 debt, and her people were contented and 
 prosperous. Connecticut was another ex- 
 ample of a State well governed, that had 
 adopted a similar principle. By her Con- 
 stitution, it was necessary that the elector 
 should possess some qualifications, that he 
 
i o t Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 should have served one year in the militia, 
 and thai he should be sworn to the proper 
 exercise of the elective franchchise. 
 
 In the empire State, New York, so highly 
 distinguished for her democratic principles, 
 three yen s' residence is required, and other 
 qualifications. At the time our Convention 
 commenced its labors at Jackson, the Con- 
 vention in New Jersey had just completed 
 the Constitution of that State; between 
 Louisiana and New Jersey there was as 
 much difference as between the twinkling 
 star and the sun in his meridian splendor. 
 The natural resources of New Jersey are 
 insignificant. Her sandy plains can bear 
 no comparison with the rich lands of Lou- 
 isiana. Well, how stands the conservative 
 principle in that State? To be a member 
 of the senate, four year's residence is re- 
 quired. To this it may be answered, that 
 the only restriction affects the Senate. 
 
 The conservative principle is some where 
 in the Constitution. And so it will be found 
 that where the utmost extension is given to 
 the right of suffrage the conservative prin- 
 ciple is placed in some one of the depart- 
 ments as a check. Sometimes it is con- 
 fided to the executive department, some- 
 times to the legislative, and sometimes it is 
 placed to control the political powers of the 
 State. 
 
 The State of Pennsylvania, which is a 
 democratic State, par excellence, and which 
 has been termed the arch of the Union, re- 
 quires three years' residence for the candi- 
 date for the house of representatives; four 
 years to be a member of the senate, and 
 seven years to be governor. 
 
 Even the insignificant State of Delaware, 
 which might be governed by the corpora- 
 tion of a city, has placed a restriction upon 
 the qualifications of the members of the le- 
 gislature; it is there that the conservative 
 principle of the government is placed. To 
 be a member of the senate it is requisite 
 to hold property, and for the governor twelve 
 years' residence is exacted. 
 
 Mr. Grymes argued that property should 
 have its just weight in the government. It 
 ought not to be excluded altogether, for what- 
 ever might be said to the contrary, it afforded 
 a conclusive test of attachment to good order 
 arid good government, It contributed to 
 the elements of virtue and independence, 
 and promoted industry and public spirit. 
 H e should have been pleased to have seen the 
 
 conservative principle maintained in pro- 
 perty; he was willing, however, to give that 
 up, but what he did insist upon, was that the 
 conservative principle should be consecra- 
 ted some where in the new Constitution. 
 He was perfectly willing to adopt the new 
 theories of democratic government, although 
 he doubted in most cases, whether expe- 
 rience was not the surest guide; he was 
 ready to follow the age, but certainly he 
 did not wish to out-run it, and to impose 
 upon the community hazardous and doubt- 
 ful experiments. 
 
 He referred to that unfortunate course of 
 legislation which had involved the State to 
 an almost unlimited extent, which had im- 
 paired her resources and imposed heavy 
 burthens on the people, and attributed to 
 vicious and imprudent legislation. With- 
 out that fruitful source of mischief, Louisi- 
 ana would now occupy a very different posi- 
 tion. It was the part of wisdom to guard 
 against a recurrence of those evils. Let us 
 have some guarantee that the political power 
 of the State will not be abused; t|iat it may 
 be exercised with sound discretion and direc- 
 ted so as to secure the permanent interests 
 of the State. 
 
 He could not assent to the proposition 
 of an honorable member, (Mr. Preston,) 
 that there* was an intuitive, spontaneous 
 faculty in the human breast, to understand 
 the, principles of free government, without 
 reflection or information, and that a man 
 who had just put his foot upon our shores, 
 even if he could not read nor write, was, 
 by this intuitive knowledge, indoctrinated 
 into our peculiar system of government. 
 He could not discuss such a proposition, 
 because it carried upon its face its own refu-* 
 tation. Some time, and even some degree 
 of intelligence were necessary to appreciate 
 and comprehend the character and bearing 
 of our institutions. It required four years 
 to learn a trade; and in the professions of 
 law and medicine it takes fifteen years, and 
 great study and practice before one can be 
 well versed in the details and principles of 
 those professions. To decide upon the right 
 of property, and construe the laws of the 
 country, demands age and years of expe- 
 i rience. And will it be seriously urged 
 that a stranger can go to the ballot box, 
 and make a proper use of the privilege of 
 suffrage? \ It was preposterous to think so. 
 We might as well abandon all idea of 
 government at once. 
 
Debates in the Coiivention of Louisiana. 
 
 105 
 
 To show of what materials the popula- 
 tion — the masses of those that Ave re thrown 
 upon our shores were composed, called 
 attention to the report of the Administrators 
 of the Charity Hospital for the last year. 
 From this report it appeared that 4530 for- 
 eign paupers had been admitted into that 
 institution. These would be the persons 
 that would throng your polls, and whose 
 necessities and whose ignorance would 
 afford the opportunity to political parties to 
 turn the scales of power in times of high 
 political excitement. 
 
 Some gentlemen have gone very far, in 
 assuming and contending for the principle 
 that Ave should open our institutions to all 
 kinds of persons, who may come among us, 
 without restriction, and without guarantee. 
 One gentleman places this policy upon the 
 feeling of gratitude, with which he is in- 
 spired, because he was hospitably received 
 while on a visit to Europe. That may be 
 very well; and as far as hospitality is con- 
 cerned, no reasonable objection can be 
 made to its being fully reciprocated. But 
 was there any thing more than hospitality 
 shown to the gentleman? was he allowed a 
 vote, and the right to participate in the polit- 
 ical affairs of the country? Is it to be pre- 
 sumed that had he interfered in those mat- 
 ters, he would have been incarcerated in 
 some dungeon, and very summarily disposed 
 of. And yet it is thought extraordinary that 
 any system of restriction should prevail in 
 relation to persons coming from those very 
 countries — even the slightest — where an 
 American citizen is totally excluded from 
 all political privileges, and would be laughed 
 at, and perhaps imprisoned, if he were to 
 question the policy of that exclusion. 
 
 The fact is, said Mr. Gryxeo, our sys- 
 tem of government differs so materially 
 from theirs, that there is a perfect contrast. 
 In this country we have practical as well 
 as theoretical liberty. A man can go 
 where he pleases and when he pleases. 
 But in Europe he must have his passport, 
 and he cannot go a mile scarcely without 
 being over-hauled and his passport viseed. 
 In every thing he is subjected to the vigi- 
 lance of the law. He cannot even die in 
 peace. He musfrbe registered and record- 
 ed. There are a thousand petty vexations, 
 a thousand acts of tyrannical inquisition 
 never dreamed of by an American, until he 
 ftnds himself beyond his own country. 
 
 It must not be conceived, said Mr. 
 Grymes, that I am the enemy, or would, if 
 I could, prevent our shores from being the 
 asylum of all those that choose to seek 
 them. There is plenty of room for ail, 
 thank God; but what I would insist upon is 
 this, that Ave should not expose our institu- 
 tions to the control of persons Avho are in 
 the main profoundly ignorant of them; and 
 that Ave should at least require that resi- 
 dence which Avould afford a reasonable pre- 
 sumption of their capacity and their virtue to 
 participate Avith us in the duties and respon- 
 sibilities of American citizens. In that, as 
 in other things, I recognize the necessity of 
 a conservative principle. Without that 
 principle, our government must tend to an- 
 archy, and our institution be perverted to 
 the basest and worst of purposes. 
 
 Mr. Marigny said, I have listened Avith 
 profound attention to the remarks that have 
 fallen from my colleague, who has just ad- 
 dressed the House. I will therefore make 
 no comments upon the Constitutions of the 
 several States in regard to the particular 
 principle upon which that gentleman dAA-ells, 
 and still less Avill I make a political voyage to 
 Germany or to France. Other times — -other 
 measures ! What suits one country does 
 not suit another ; that is generally conced- 
 | ed. I am in favor — decidedly in favor of 
 i the section under discussion, and I consider 
 | it my duty as a member of the committee 
 I that reported it to defend it. The old Con- 
 | stitution required but one year's residence, 
 ! but at the same time it required the payment 
 | of a tax to exercise the right of suffrage, 
 , AA'hich last condition had become a subject 
 | of great discontent among the people. It 
 was necessary upon that point to concede 
 ' the principle ; for if kings are obliged to 
 1 make concessions, the representatiA*es of a 
 | free people are bound in the strongest man* 
 ner to respond to the popular A\ T ishes. 
 j It Avas for this reason that the committee 
 i did not hesitate for one moment to admit 
 j free suffrage as one of the necessities of the 
 ' times; and this decision Avas the more just, 
 for it cannot be denied that popular elec- 
 , tions had become a sort of monopoly, each 
 party purchased property of little value, 
 i Avhich they divided out among a numerous 
 batch of voters, whose suffrages in that way 
 j they secured. This Avas carried so far that 
 , the true intention of the Constitution be- 
 j comes a dead letter. 
 
106 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 In sanctioning the principle of universal 
 suffrage, the committee were convinced of 
 the necessity of prolonging the residence, 
 for the pin-pose of testing the attachment, 
 or rather developing the attachment of 
 strangers and citizens from the Northern 
 States, whose laws and habits differ so ma- 
 terially from our own. This change of a 
 test, considered by many as humiliating for 
 one that is reasonable and just, has, never- 
 theless, not satisfied certain members of 
 this Convention. Among others, the dele- 
 gate from Jefferson, (Mr. Preston,) has 
 taken advantage of the occassion to enter- 
 tain us with a long jeremiade upon what 
 he chooses to distinguish as the unpreceden- 
 ted, unjust and malicious period of two 
 years. Where is this great injustice after 
 all? Strangers do not come among us 
 solely to exercise suffrage, but to engage 
 in commerce and agriculture. If they be- 
 take themselves to commerce, we see them 
 endeavoring to make a fortune as quick as 
 possible; and we hear them say, so soon 
 as that object be accomplished — "well, my 
 object is attained. I have acquired wealth, 
 and I will now return to the country of my 
 birth to enjoy it." Where is the necessity 
 of taking so much interest for persons 
 whose designs are so selfish, and who take 
 no heed of us or our institutions further than 
 their personal interests may be advanced. 
 This would no longer be liberalism but 
 demagogueism. We would never know 
 who were the real population and who were 
 not. It would be necessary to be at the 
 doors and at the windows to know what 
 these new constituents would desire; and I 
 have no doubt that the delagate, if he could 
 induce you to reduce the period of residence 
 to one year, would not be satisfied with 
 that, but would ask you to reduce it to six 
 months — to three months ! I can never 
 favor so unrestricted a spirit as that, because 
 I think it contrary to the interests of the 
 country and my constituents. Let us grant 
 universal suffrage., inasmuch as that is the 
 result of social progress, but do not em- 
 brace others than those that have resided 
 two years in the State. I say this results 
 neither from ambition nor from interest. It 
 is .suggested to me by long experience and 
 an intimate acquaintance with men and 
 things. Pass any amendment reducing the 
 period, and sooner or later, you expose the 
 community to great and inevitable dangers. 
 
 Mr. Read said he would trespass upon 
 the attention of the Convention only for a 
 few moments — not for the purpose of dis- 
 cussing this matter, which had been exten- 
 sively debated, but to place the House in 
 possession of the views of his constituents, 
 and to explain the vote he was about to 
 give. When the question of the expedien- 
 cy of calling a Convention to remodel the 
 Constitution was first submitted to the peo- 
 ple of Baton Rogue, out of 700 votes only 
 80 were cast against calling the Conven- 
 tion ; and at the second trial, there were 
 only 40. One of the most prominent ques- 
 tions that contributed to this result was the 
 question of suffrage. His colleague and 
 himself had explicitly declared their opin- 
 ions in reference to this subject, as well as 
 to other matters of paramount importance. 
 In order to place the fact before the Con- 
 vention, that the people sustained this re- 
 form among others, he would beg leave to 
 read an extract from a circular issued two 
 weeks before the election, and addressed to 
 the constituency, whom he had the honor, 
 in part, of representing on this floor. 
 "The right of suffrage should be extended to 
 all f ree white male citizens, of the neces- 
 sary age and residence, regardless of 
 any property qualification. 
 "This doctrine has been warmly opposed, 
 not only in Louisiana, but in other States 
 and countries, by those upon whom fortune 
 has smiled propitiously, and before whose 
 portals the horn of plenty has poured its 
 abundance; but the shocking inaptitude of 
 measuring mind by dollars and cents, is so 
 apparent, that most are obliged to yield. 
 Some there are who may yet stiffen their 
 necks against enfranchising the hardy sons 
 of toil and misfortune, but their efforts will 
 be more fruitless than the task of Sisyphus, 
 who ' was condemned in hell, to roll to the 
 top of a hill a large stone, which had no 
 sooner reached the summit, than it fell back 
 into the plain with impetuosity, and ren- 
 dered his punishment eternal.' This class 
 of men deserve a severe rebuke, for the 
 unrighteous attempt to make property a 
 qualification over mind. The instability of 
 such a qualification is so great, the limits 
 so uncertain, and the injustice so flagrant, 
 that public sentiment has declared against 
 it. Vice and dissipation, though sparkling 
 with silver and gold, should stand abashed 
 in the presence of virtuous poverty, instead 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 107 
 
 of being permitted by the sanction of laws 
 or constitutions to crush it in the mire. 
 The ownership of twenty-live head of cat- 
 tie, under our present Constitution, entitles 
 a man to vote, but the poor day laborer who 
 has but one cow, is spurned from the ballot 
 box as a mass of putridity. Even ignorance, 
 if gilt with the precious metals, can exer- 
 cise the right of suffrage, while intelligence 
 clothed in rags must shiver in the bleak 
 winds of disfranchisement. A thousand in- 
 stances might be cited, to shov^the flagitious 
 tendency of such a doctrine, but it is unne- 
 cessary. If man can think without property, 
 he can vote without property. Such a con- 
 stitutional provision is immoral; it invites 
 to evasion and fraud, and depresses the tone 
 of society. Give us then universal suffrage, 
 properly guarded." 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad addressed the Con- 
 vention in favor of the section. He was 
 actuated by a spirit of compromise, in yield- 
 ing his assent to "two years" residence. 
 This guarantee was not as satisfactory as 
 he could have wished, but with a Registry 
 law, and some other checks, it would go to 
 some extent in protecting the ballot box from 
 violation, and preventing our institutions 
 from improper control. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Wednesday, January 29th, 1S45. 
 The Convention met, pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment, and its proceedings were opened with 
 prayer. 
 
 The Convention resumed the considera- 
 tion of the Sth section of the second article 
 of the Constitution as reported by a majority 
 of the committee. 
 
 Mr. Dunn said it was with great diffi- 
 dence he arose to address the Convention 
 on the important subject under considera- 
 tion, after having listened to the very argu- 
 mentative and eloquent speeches of dis- 
 tinguished gentlemen with whom he was 
 associated; he was impelled to do so from 
 a sense of duty, being fully aware of the 
 high responsibilities under which he acted: 
 he knew he was accountable to his constitu- 
 ents — his country — and Iris God, for every 
 vote he should cast in the formation of the 
 Constitution. He had been delegated by 
 his friends to assist in this important busi- 
 ness, and would be careful not to abuse the 
 trust reposed in him. They had required 
 of him no pledges— his opinions on all the 
 
 leading and general principles invoked 
 were well-known to them — high-minded 
 and generous as they are, it was certain they 
 never intended to constitute him a mere 
 automaton in this honorable body; and he 
 was equally certain he never would have 
 accepted the mission on any such terms — 
 | his opinions had beenformed on mature re- 
 : flection, and as yet had undergone no 
 change, but his mind was open to conviction, 
 and he was anxious to hear the reasoning 
 of gentlemen on all the important subjects 
 that would come up. 
 
 He supposed every member of the Con- 
 vention was desirous of ascertaining tht, 
 best and wisest policy for the promotion of 
 the general good: and that they would be 
 guided by their consciences and judgments, 
 and pursue the broad line of duty. 
 
 He had made up his mind to vote against 
 "striking out," and was willing to fix two 
 years as the residence of electors, upon con- 
 dition that other guards and checks were 
 established, for the purpose of protecting 
 the purity of the ballot box. That as the 
 Convention was in committee of the whole, 
 and, freedom of debate allowable, he would 
 give his views as to what further provisions 
 he conceived to be necessary. 
 
 He said the first question in order was, 
 whether the article in the old Constitution 
 required amendment — he thought it did, 
 and was sorry to differ with the Honorable 
 gentleman (Mr. Preston) from Jefferson. 
 He, (Mr. Dunn.) maintained that, to his 
 mind, there was no article in the Constitu- 
 tion that calls more loudly for amendment. 
 He said, as a conservative, he was now, as 
 heretofore, in favor of preserving the frame 
 work of the old Constitution, (though he 
 had no eulogy to pronounce upon it,) and 
 that he was only anxious to remove such 
 parts as were defective. That experience, 
 had proven the article under consideration 
 to be not only defective, but humiliatingly 
 so. It contemplated a property qualifica- 
 tion — this he was opposed to — first, because 
 he believed that in the improvement in gov- 
 ernment, it was an ascertained fact, that 
 property would take care of itself — the great 
 object of government was to protect the citi- 
 zen in the enjoyment of life, liberty and 
 property — the poor man had an interest for 
 the protection of his life and liberty, which 
 are more valuable than property. He stren- 
 ously opposed the idea that a man should 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 be disfranchised on the ground of poverty; 
 said it was safe to trust to that patriotism 
 which he was willing to believe glowed in 
 the bosom of every American. 
 
 He contended that in practice, all man- 
 ner of artifices had been resorted to, that 
 man's ingenuity could invent, to avert and 
 avoid the provisions of the article under 
 consideration. That it has been the cause 
 of the perpetration of the grossest frauds, 
 and the commission of the blackest crimes; 
 that it was a well known fact, that during 
 the canvass in the late Presidential election, 
 1500 tax receipts, for some inconsiderable 
 sums, were issued to enable the contending 
 political parties to get around the law. 
 However right the officer may have acted 
 in issuing these receipts, not being disposed 
 to impute any blame to them, as it was their 
 business to collect the revenue and taxes 
 on the lands, &c, yet no one can doubt the 
 fact that these tax -payers were evading the 
 Constitution, and jurists must agree it was 
 a fraud upon that instrument. 
 
 A variety of other instances and means 
 of making voters might be mentioned. That 
 these practices, which are attributable to 
 the demon of party, are ruinous in their 
 consequences, and degrading and demoral- 
 izing in their effects upon the community, 
 no one will dispute. Desiring then that the 
 tone of public virtue should be elevated to 
 the highest possible standard, can it be 
 supposed that the people would object to 
 providing such guards and checks as would 
 be proper and necessary to preserve purity 
 in our institutions, that would remove all 
 temptations so demoralizing to man. But 
 we have been admonished by the gentle- 
 man from Jefferson, to "let alone the rights 
 of man." Sir, we are sent here to protect 
 the rights of man, and not "let them alone." 
 If the necessary checks are not established, 
 controlling man in the path of rectitude and 
 duty, liberty will exist only in name. 
 
 Mr. D. said it was a universally acknow- 
 ledged principle, that for the purpose of 
 protecting the rights of the majority, it be- 
 came the duty of the law-maker to restrict 
 those who could not be safely trusted with 
 the privilege of voting. Hence our sons 
 are denied the privilege until they arrive at 
 twenty-one years of age, as their judgments 
 are presumed not to be sufficiently matured 
 to enable them to judge correctly. And 
 females, whose education, habits and pur- 
 
 suits in life, separate them widely from po- 
 litical strife, moving in a holier and purer 
 atmosphere, and elevated above the conflict 
 of party politics, are of course included, not- 
 withstanding they have great interests to 
 be represented. 
 
 It is (he said) a question of fact, whether 
 there is a floating population among us, who, 
 if allowed to vote unrestricted, would prove 
 dangerous to the best interests of the State, 
 striking at the very foundation of her civil 
 and religious* liberty? 
 
 He believed there was such a popula- 
 tion, and on the increase to an alarming ex- 
 tent. That such a population would be al- 
 ways found in populous cities, and insisted 
 that it was particularly important to protect 
 the agricultural interest against this evil; 
 an interest that had been protected in all 
 ages; an interest which enriches the world 
 and rewards the industrious laborer. He 
 said he would agree with the gentleman 
 from Baton Rouge, (Mr. Read) that the 
 poor man, owning but one cow, should 
 vote; the rearing of cattle was an important 
 business, and many of our best citizens in 
 the country are exclusively engaged in it. 
 He had no doubt the legislature that put a 
 tax on twenty-five head of cattle, done so, 
 not for 'he purpose of revenue, but to ena- 
 ble those citizens whose property consisted 
 alone in stock, to exercise the privilege of 
 voting. They did not intend to oppress, but 
 to protect and elevate them. He regretted 
 the gentleman from Baton Rouge would 
 not go with him, and give a better and surer 
 protection to this class of their fellow citi- 
 zens, and not leave them at the mercy of a 
 heterogeneous mass of mankind, who has no 
 sympathy or interest in common with them. 
 He did not wish to degrade New Orleans, 
 he knew there was as much kindness, gen- 
 erosity and intelligence there as would be 
 found in any city, and like alF other cities, 
 its population is mixed. There would al- 
 ways be danger of a confliction between 
 the commercial and agricultural interest. 
 It should be remembered that Louisiana 
 was unlike many agricultural States; owing 
 to its locality, the commercial interest was 
 very great and rapidly increasing. That 
 "luxury, avarice, injustice, violence and am- 
 bition take up their ordinary residence in 
 populous cities, while the hard and labori- 
 ous life of the planter will not admit of these 
 vices. The honest farmer lives in a wise 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 109 
 
 and happy state, which inclines him to 
 justice, temperance, sobriety, sincerity, and 
 every virtue that can dignity human nature." 
 Consequently to protect the planting in- 
 terest and insure equal justice in legis- 
 lation there should he restric:ions thrown 
 around the ballot box, and said if no one 
 else did, he would propose a registry law, 
 and a provision that no foreigner coming 
 into the State should be allowed to vote 
 for two years after the date of his natu- 
 ralization — and that every elector should 
 vote only at the place where he resided 
 at the time of the election. He considered 
 these provisions just and necessary. A reg- 
 ister would be necessary to prevent excite- 
 ments, mobs, frauds and perjuries — and 
 would give assurance to all that there was 
 purity in the elections. 
 
 He was far from wishing to make any 
 odious or invidious distinctions, he was 
 acting only in view of the necessity of the 
 case — we had all witnessed a great politi- 
 cal excitement — he knew that frauds had 
 been perpetrated upon the naturalization 
 laws. To prevent an occurrence of these 
 things, (which under existing laws will in 
 times of high party excitement take place 
 again,) was his only object, and he knew 
 of no better, fairer, or more liberal mode. 
 If any better, could be suggested, he would 
 adopt it. He was aware that the law of 
 Congress conferred certain privileges to 
 this class of the community, and he was un- 
 willing to deprive them of their vote or 
 of holding any office in the gift of the peo- 
 ple after the lapse of a sufficient time to 
 enable them to become familiar with our 
 institutions, and identified with the coun- 
 try — he wished all his acts in the Conven- 
 tion to be impressed with impartial justice. 
 He said the restrictions he had mentioned 
 seemed to his mind very necessary; it was 
 important to maintain the purity of the 
 ballot box. It was the palladium of repub- 
 lican liberty. When we look back and call 
 to mind what has occurred in our State the 
 last year we must agree that we are not 
 that happy, prosperous and harmonious 
 people as formerly. The fact he said he 
 should not be disguised that these are threa- 
 tening clouds — casting their dark shadows 
 over the brightness of our republican in- 
 stitutions. But he had an abiding hope, 
 that there was virtue, wisdom and patrio- 
 tism enough in the land to dispel them, 
 15 
 
 1 and to guide the ship of State safely 
 ! through the shoals and quicksands that 
 I threaten its destruction. That the star of 
 I liberty would soon emerge from behind the 
 1 cloud that now dims its brightness, and 
 I shine forth again with all its native glory, 
 ' lighting us to honor, prosperity and hap- 
 ; piness. 
 
 Mr. Brext said, that he should vote to 
 re -adopt the article of the old Constitution, 
 striking out the property qualification re- 
 quired for voters. Upon this subject, there 
 was no difference of sentiment among his 
 constituents, and he felt that in giving the 
 vote which he designed to do, he would 
 
 I represent not merely the majority which 
 elected him, but the united and undivided 
 
 I sentiments of the entire population of the 
 parish. The opinions of the people of Ra- 
 pides have long been fixed and settled in 
 favor of the extension of the right of suf- 
 frage. No diversity of sentiment exists 
 among them, and it will be seen by a refer- 
 ence to the journals of the senate and 
 house of representatives of this State, that 
 whenever a proposition has been made to 
 extend that right by all lawful and consti- 
 tutional means, that Rapides has invaria- 
 bly recorded her votes in favor of it, whe- 
 ther she were represented by wnigrs or 
 democrats. 
 
 It was true, that the announcement of 
 this fact would not be considered material 
 by those who imagined that they were the 
 representatives, not of the particular con- 
 stituency who elected them, but the repre- 
 sentatives of the pe ople of the whole State 
 at large, and were therefore under no partic- 
 ular obligation to conform to the views of a 
 particular section. But he for one could not 
 admit that doctrine — he could not believe 
 he was absolved from an immediate and di- 
 rect responsibility to his constituents, or 
 that he had been sent here for the purpose 
 of representing the views and sentiments of 
 any other people, than those who had elect- 
 ed him. It -was his intention to represent 
 truly and faithfully his constituency, and if 
 gentlemen upon this floor acted differently, 
 it was evident that the sentiments of the 
 people of Louisiana woidd not be correctly 
 ascertained. A Constitution might thus be 
 made, directly adverse to the wishes and in- 
 tentions of the people. He could not con- 
 sider that he occupied the important posi- 
 tion of a representative of the entire State 
 
no 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 of Louisiana, and he would satisfy himself 
 with endeavoring to impress upon the or- 
 ganic law the particular principles advo- 
 cated by his constituents. He would leave 
 to other gentlemen the task of representing 
 sections of the country, whose voters had 
 not contributed to place them in this hall. 
 At all events, he considered himself bound 
 fo respect and observe the views of the 
 particular parish which he had the honor 
 in part to represent, and to vote upon this 
 question in strict conformity with the known 
 and unanimous wishes of the people of that 
 parish. 
 
 There was one position advanced by the 
 honorable delegate from New Orleans, 
 (Mr. Grymes) to which he could not sub- 
 scribe. He could not admit that personal 
 and individual rights were inferior in impor- 
 tance to the rights of property. He thought 
 that it was the chief excellency and boast 
 of our institutions, that they regarded the 
 personal rights and freedom of the citizen, 
 as paramount in importance to all conside- 
 rations connected Avith property. There 
 were other governments, and those the 
 most despotic in the world, where the rights 
 of property were more securely guarded 
 and protected by sanguinary and penal en- 
 actments than they are in this country, but 
 it is the glory of our government thai it re- 
 cognizes nothing as equal in importance to 
 the freedom and liberty of the citizen. The 
 bold assumption that property is paramount 
 to personal rights, to say the least, is novel, 
 if not startling, to those who have been ed- 
 ucated in the school of our republicanism. 
 He entered to this doctrine his most un- 
 qualified dissent. The protection of per- 
 sonal liberty was paramount to all other 
 considerations, and property sank into in- 
 significance, when compared with this great 
 object of government. 
 
 The gentleman from New Orleans, after 
 passing his eulogium upon property, and 
 urging upon us the propriety of watching 
 its interests with solicitude, then advertedto 
 the present lamentable and deplorable con- 
 dition of our State affairs. He told us of the 
 causes which had operated to produce this 
 result, and he attributed it to the wild and 
 reckless spirit of extravagance which had 
 been fostered by evil legislation. He spoke 
 of the creation of a vast banking capital — 
 of an inflated currency, and of the thousand 
 mad and ruinous schemes which had been 
 
 projected by our State legislature, and which 
 were the copious fountains from whence 
 have flowed the evils that now impend 
 above us. He told us that in the past there 
 was nothing but a gloomy retrospection — 
 in the present, nothing but grinding taxa- 
 tion — and in the future, nothing but a dreary 
 and sterile waste, unrelieved by the faintest 
 glimmerings of hope. But did not the 
 honorable gentleman recollect, or has he 
 forgotten, that all these evils have arisen 
 under a property government, where the 
 spirit of conservatism and restriction has 
 stamped itself upon every page and section 
 of the organic law ? In the old Constitu- 
 tion restrictions are to be found every 
 where. With one exception, the people are 
 withheld from the exercise of all the political 
 powers which justly belong to them. And 
 even the ballot box is hedged round with 
 odious and aristocratic restrictions. Now, 
 how happens it that all these evils which 
 have been depicted by the gloAving pencil of 
 the distinguished delegate, have occurred 
 to us under the operation of a restrictiA r e or 
 conservative Constitution? Sir, the picture 
 Avhich has been delineated by the graphic 
 hand of that delegate is but too true; and 
 what more potent and convincing argument 
 could he urged against a conservative Con- 
 stitution than the very picture which he 
 has draAvn with such fidelity to nature- 
 Restriction is the rank soil from Avhich 
 have sprung these noxious and deadly 
 weeds. Such evils could not have occurred 
 to such an extent under the operation of a 
 more liberal and democratic Constitution. 
 For as water tends to its level, as the moun- 
 tain stream rushes to the river, and the 
 river pours its tribute to the sea, even so 
 does democracy tend to an economical ad- 
 ministration of the government, and a rigid 
 responsibility on the part of the public 
 officers of the country. 
 
 But, sir, a great deal has been said about 
 conservatism, and the importance of hav- 
 ing conservative features engrafted in our 
 Constitution. It is well for us, as we pro- 
 gress, to understand the definition of terms. 
 What is meant by conservatism, and Avhat 
 are we to understand by conservative fea- 
 tures in the Constitution ? If conservatism 
 means, as we have been heretofore told, to 
 protect* and defend the old Constitution from 
 the changes and amendments proposed by 
 its enemies, then, sir, so far as this section 
 
ates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 ill 
 
 was concerned, he was a conservative. 
 He was for re -adopting that provision of the 
 old Constitution which fixed the residence 
 required for a voter at the term of one 
 year. And although he professed no par- 
 ticular fondness for the old Constitution, yet 
 it was perhaps remarkable, that he had 
 never yet lifted his voice in this Conven- 
 tion, except in favor of retaining the pro- 
 visions of that instrument. It was equally 
 astonishing that the so called conservatives 
 had been the very first to lay violent hands 
 on the Constitution, and to alter and muti- 
 late that instrument, to which so much re- 
 gard and esteem had been heretofore mani- 
 fested. When we come to discuss other 
 proposed changes in that Constitution, it 
 will not do for these gentlemen to talk 
 about its antiquity, and the veneration with 
 which they regard it. They have been the 
 very first to destroy its character of sanc- 
 tity, by being the very first to enforce impor- 
 tant and radical changes in its provisions. 
 But, sir, conservatism may also have ano- 
 ther meaning. From what has been said 
 by the delegate from New Orleans, it seems 
 that conservatism means, any thing which 
 goes to restrict the exercise of popular rights. 
 If, sir, conservatism means anything, which 
 has the effect of taking power from the 
 many to give it to the few, or any thing 
 which squints towards a monarchy or an 
 aristocracy, he wished it to be distinctly un- 
 derstood, that he was not a conservative. 
 He had no lot nor parcel in it, and he 
 washed his hands clean of any thing per- 
 taining to conservatism. 
 
 The honorable gentleman from New 
 Orleans, had likewise told us that the con- 
 servative or restrictive principle, runs 
 throughout all the constitutions of the con- 
 federacy; and he has made copious quota- 
 tions from those constitutions, to show that 
 if conservatism does not exist in any one 
 given part, it will be found in some other 
 part of those instruments. He therefore 
 urges the propriety of imposing a restriction 
 in that particular article now under discus- 
 sion. Sir, the reasoning of the gentleman 
 is neither logical nor sound. The true 
 question to be ascertained, is whether it is 
 in this identical part of the constitution, 
 that the other States have thought proper to 
 locate the restriction. That they have in- 
 serted restrictive clauses in some other por- 
 tion of the constitution, is certainly no ar- 
 
 gument why a restrictive clause should be 
 inserted in the section now under debate. 
 When we come to discuss the sections 
 where restrictions have been placed in the 
 other constitutions, it will perhaps be a fair 
 argument to insist upon the propriety of 
 similar provisions. But unless the delegate 
 has succeeded in showing that the other 
 States have placed the restriction upon the 
 right of suffrage, he has entirely failed to 
 sustain his position by the numerous quota- 
 tions which he has made. 
 
 Mr. Brent said that he held in his hand 
 the volume of constitutions from which that 
 gentleman had quoted, but instead of read- 
 ing from the constitutions of the old States, 
 at the beginning of the work, he would 
 read from the constitutions of the new 
 States, to be found near its conclusion. If 
 the gentleman really desired to march with 
 the age, as he stated, he would not have 
 searched so diligently the provisions of those 
 constitutions, which were framed towards 
 the close of the last century. He would 
 have endeavored to ascertain what were 
 the principles incorporated in constitutions 
 framed more recently, as furnishing the best 
 guide to the opinions and sentiments of the 
 age. 
 
 Mr. Brent here quoted from the consti- 
 tutions of Iowa, Alabama, Michigan, Illi- 
 nois and Arkansas, and contended that 
 a spirit of liberality characterised those 
 constitutions, as regarded the elective 
 franchise, 'which was utterly at war with 
 the restrictive principle, sought to be en- 
 grafted on the constitution of this State. 
 
 He then proceeded to say that he did not 
 attach much weight to the authority of the 
 old constitutions of the confederacy. They 
 were framed at a period, when man's ca- 
 pability for self government was an unsolved 
 problem, and when the purest patriots and 
 ablest statesmen, were doubtful of the result 
 of our great experiment. Among these, 
 there was, however, one illustrious excep- 
 tion — a man whose intellect towered above 
 the age in which he lived, and mingled itself 
 with the events of the coming generation — 
 he alluded to Thomas Jefferson, the apostle 
 of democracy; whose devotion to popular 
 government stood, unshaken, the test of 
 time and trial. This statesman saw earlier 
 than others the successful issue of our re- 
 publican institutions, and in his philosophi- 
 cal writings upon government, he has left a 
 
1 12 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 priceless heritage to the young statesmen of 
 America. 
 
 Sir, said Mr. Brent, the doctrines which 
 have been contended tor by the gentleman 
 from New Oilcans, are the exploded here- 
 arid ies of an age numbered with 
 ; hose beyond the flood. Even the very con- 
 stitutions which he has quoted, do not sus- 
 tain him in his advocacy of the restrictive 
 feature sought to be incorporated in the 
 present section. He advocates two years' 
 residence as a qualification for a voter. 
 Now, sir, what are the practice and expe- 
 rience of the States upon this subject? Eight 
 States require less than one year's resi- 
 dence — seventeen States require one year's 
 residence, and only one State in the Union 
 requires two years' residence, to wit: South 
 Carolina, whose constitution was framed in 
 1790, more than a half a century since. 
 The gentleman talks of marching with the 
 age in which he lives. Does he keep pace 
 with this enlightened period, or rather does 
 he not retrogade, and go back to the dark- 
 ness and bigotry of 1790? Is this marching 
 with the age, to abandon all the principles 
 which have been consecrated in this cen- 
 tury, for a principle which has never had a 
 foothold among the constitutions of modern 
 times? He left it for the gentleman to de- 
 cide in what category he was placed. 
 
 It has been further contended in argu- 
 ment, Mr. President, that because a proper- 
 ty qualification was to be stricken out by 
 general consent, some other restriction 
 would be necessary, to supply its place. It 
 is truly consoling to reflect that gentlemen 
 with such exalted notions of property, should 
 be willing to abandon a property qualifica- 
 tion. But what are the motives which have 
 induced gentlemen to pursue this course? 
 Is it in consequence of the convictions of 
 their own judgment, that such a qualifica- 
 tion was odious and aristocratic, oris it be- 
 cause the people have spoken trumpet- 
 tongued to their representatives, demanding 
 its total and unconditional abandonment? 
 He could not undertake to speak of the mo- 
 tives of delegates upon this floor, but he 
 belie ved he could speak confidently of the 
 reasons which had induced the people to 
 desire its abrogation. It was because the 
 people believed in the logic and philosonhy 
 of Benjamin Franklin, that if you make pro- 
 perty the basis of suffrage, it is the property 
 and not the man, which votes; it is the inert 
 
 mass of unthinking matter which exercises 
 political influence, instead of the intelligent 
 and responsible being, who was fashioned 
 by the great Creator, in the likeness of his 
 own image. 
 
 But, sir, by what kind of reasoning 
 have gentlemen arrived at the conclusion, 
 that because property qualification is to be 
 abandoned, some other restriction must 
 be substituted in its place ? Of what avail 
 will it be to remove one restriction, if it is 
 to be superseded by another? If we ad- 
 vance one step forwards, and take another 
 backwards, our position will be stationary. 
 The people have said, that property quali- 
 fication must be relinquished, but have they 
 declared that the gap is to be closed, by 
 another restriction, of a form and character 
 scarcely less obnoxious ? Sir, gentlemen 
 have entirely misapprehended public senti- 
 ment on this subject. The people have 
 desired property qualification to be stricken 
 out, but they have not suggested the pro- 
 priety of filling the hiatus with another 
 restriction. That idea is purely original 
 and native in this body. 
 
 The delegate from West Feliciana, (Mr. 
 Ratliff,) had declared his intention to vote 
 for two years' residence as a security 
 against pipe-laying. The remedy does 
 not suit the disease. To suppose that the 
 purity of the ballot-box would be better 
 guarded by two years' residence than one, 
 is to suppose an absurdity. What we un- 
 derstand by pipe-laying is the voting in 
 this State of persons who do not reside 
 amongst us, but who have come here for 
 the mere purpose of controlling our elec- 
 tions. These individuals stand the test of 
 our law, and when challenged at the polls, 
 they will take all the oaths necessary to 
 entitle them to suffrage. It is as easy for 
 them to swear to two years' residence as 
 it is to one year's residence, and no guard 
 against this specie of frauds, is provided by 
 an extension of the term of residence. It 
 is idle to suppose that our elections are so 
 important that any man would come here 
 and remain twelve months merely for the 
 purpose of voting. 
 
 The alarm has been sounded about the 
 danger to be apprehended to our institu- 
 tions from the removal of those restric- 
 tions that now encompass the exercise of 
 the elective franchise. Away with such 
 chimerical and shadowy fears ! I acknow- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 113 
 
 ledge, Mr. President, (said Mr. Brent,; 
 that lam in favor of throwing open wide the 
 portals of this Constitution for the admis- 
 sion of voters to that palladium of Ame- 
 rican liberty, the American ballot-box. 
 Gentlemen tell us of the peculiar situation 
 of Louisiana — of its exposed frontier, and 
 of the fact, that in case of invasion, it will 
 be the first point of hostile attack. There 
 was a time, sir, when the thunder of in- 
 vasion rang along these streets, and when 
 a fair opportunity was given to test the 
 truth of the political doctrines now advo- 
 cated in the opposite quarter of the house. 
 If, sir, we had then distrusted every one, 
 but the natives of the soil, what would have 
 been our situation, in that hour of thick — 
 coming peril, when the very boldest held 
 his breath ? At that period, although there 
 were restrictions upon voting, there was 
 no restriction upon the right of fighting, 
 either as regarded residence or the payment 
 of a tax; and 1 have been told by an actor 
 in the memorable scenes of the Sth of 
 January, IS 15, that nearly nine-tenths of 
 the Orleans battalion were not voters, under 
 the restrictive Constitution of 1812. You 
 had soldiers, but not voters in that gallant 
 band, who drove back the heavy columns of 
 British mercenaries led on by Packenham, 
 and who, fighting undismayed amidst death 
 and carnage, upheld the striped banner of 
 our country, above the cloud and smoke of 
 battle, and secured this city from the torch 
 of conflagration, from pillage, and from all 
 the horrors of a city sacked by a brutal 
 and licentious soldiery. What a commen- 
 tary was this upon that contracted spirit, 
 which treated every one but the natives of 
 the soil, and the property holder, as a foe 
 to our country and to our institutions ! 
 A.nd what a commentary is it upon that ex- 
 clusive and restrictive spirit, which is now 
 seeking a lodgement in the organic lav/ of 
 this State ! 
 
 But, Mr. President, we have been told, 
 thai unless the door is closed against the 
 horde of foreigners, who are annually dis- 
 gorged upon our shores, that we will have 
 A sialic notions of government engrafted on 
 our legislation. Sir, there is no necessity 
 for Asiatics to come here to import Asiatic 
 notions for the government of our people. 
 Asiatic principles have already been adopt- 
 ed and acted upon in this hall. The ex- 
 clusive spirit, of Native Americanism is 
 
 essentially Asiatic in its origin, and it is 
 worthy of the parentage from which it 
 sprung. Go to China, and you will find 
 that the Chinese entertain the same opinion 
 of their own superiority over the rest of 
 the world, that seems to be entertained by 
 a certain class of politicians in this State. 
 The Chinese are too wise — too valiant and 
 too virtuous to permit ignorant foreigners 
 from Europe or America to interfere in the 
 political'concenis of the celestial empire. 
 This doctrine of Native Americanism 
 smacks strongly of the flavor of'Pekin and 
 Hons'-Kono'- "it is much better adapted to 
 the meridian of that empire, which is go- 
 verned by the "cousin to the sun and the 
 brother to the moon," than it is to the 
 meridian of the free and enlightened States 
 of the American confederacy. It suits 
 much better the pagan and idolatrous peo- 
 ple of Asia, than it does the christian 
 posterity of the wise forefathers of the 
 American Revolution. I reject it altogether 
 as unworthy of - our race, and unworthy of 
 the age in which we live. 
 
 In conclusion, Mr. President, I have 
 only to say that I consider the extension 
 of the term of residence required for a 
 voter to two years, as unnecessary and in- 
 judicious. One year is amply sufficient to 
 test the intention of an immigrant to be- 
 come a citizen of our State, and as I am 
 fortified in this opinion by the support of 
 the able statesmen who have framed the 
 other Constitutions of this Union, I shall 
 give my vote without entertaining the 
 slightest doubt in regard to its propriety. 
 
 Mr. Dowxs said, that although the whole 
 subject of suffrage was not immediately in- 
 volved in the particular matter under con- 
 sideration, yet as the debate had been gone 
 into so fully, he was induced to follow the 
 course taken by the gentleman that prece- 
 ded him in the discussion. It was more- 
 over not material when the subject was 
 debated, or wmether the discussion became 
 general on an isolated point, inasmuch as 
 the question was one of leading and vast 
 importance, and would elicit a full and free 
 investigation at some stage of the proceed- 
 ings. Both of the gentlemen that addres- 
 sed the House in favor of restriction — cer- 
 tainly one of them — had said that the ques- 
 tion was nothing more nor less than who 
 should govern the country. This being its 
 inevitable result, we should not precipitate 
 
114 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 our action, but should give to the question 
 our serious and matured reflection. For 
 good or for evil would be our decision. For 
 himself; he had reflected seriously upon the 
 question in all its bearings, and the result 
 of those reflections had not been changed 
 by the eloquent remarks of the delegate 
 from tfew Orleans, (Mr. Grymes.) 
 
 That gentleman had assumed that the 
 conservative principle ought to be some- 
 where in the Constitution. The term con- 
 servative principle was to his (Mr. Downs') 
 mind vague and indefinite. It designates 
 no quality and can be considered in no other 
 light than as a relative phrase. We must 
 know to what particular institutions it is to 
 be applied, and as applied to one govern- 
 ment it means one thing, as applied to an- 
 other, another thing. In other countries, per- 
 haps, it has an existence as well as here. 
 In Russia, the conservative principle may 
 be despotism. In Turkey, the free use of 
 the bow-string — the cutting off the hands of 
 rebellious subjects. But, in this free and 
 enlightened Republic, where the science of 
 free government has made so much pro- 
 gress, I must confess, said Mr. Downs, I do 
 not know what it means. It may perhaps 
 mean that we should be slow in abandon- 
 ing antique systems and notions of govern- 
 ment. If it means that experience has 
 demonstrated that men are more disposed to 
 put up with existing abuses than to seek 
 for reforms, and that they always progress 
 gradually and slowly, there is more dan- 
 ger of their submitting to old practices and 
 to old things, too long, than their making 
 rapid and radical changes. It will be re- 
 membered that the first steps taken by the 
 colonies in resisting the aggressions of the 
 parent State were of the mildest character. 
 The natural feelings of association and at- 
 tachment made them very reluctant to com- 
 mit themselves to an open rupture. The 
 colony of Virginia simply remonstrated, and 
 it was only after Hancock, Madison and 
 Jefferson, had declared that a bold policy 
 was the safest course, that Dickerson, 
 Wythe and others, who were fearful of ex- 
 treme measures and held back, were in- 
 duced to take a decisive stand. The dan- 
 ger then is, that men will hold on to old 
 abuses with which they have become fa- 
 miliarized, and that they will cling to them 
 with great tenacity through vague appre- 
 hensions and misgivings 0 f the dangers of 
 innovation. 
 
 We might, with as much reason insist 
 
 that science should make no progress, as to 
 attempt to arrest the progress of political 
 government. By a parity of argument, it 
 would be as logical to assume that the old 
 machinery originally employed to propel 
 steamboats was better adapted to that pur- 
 pose than the new machinery, which has 
 been perfected by experience, and that the 
 first steamboats on the Mississippi, the 
 Etna and the Vesuvius, were superior to the 
 floating palaces that now adorn our port. 
 
 The gentleman from New Orleans, (Mr. 
 Grymes,) having settled to the satisfaction 
 of his own mind the necessity for the con- 
 servative principle, as he calls it, places that 
 principle in a residence of two years. I 
 object, said Mr. Downs, to this restriction 
 upon the right of suffrage. I cannot con- 
 ceive that it is at all necessary, that it is 
 just, or that it is expedient. The old Con- 
 stitution considered one year sufficient, and 
 experience has tested that no inconve- 
 nience — that no injury has resulted, nor is 
 it likely that any such would result, or that 
 any one would approach the polls who was 
 not an American citizen, and consequently 
 clearly entitled to the franchise. I repu- 
 diate any principle that would stifle the 
 popular voice at the ballot box. If conser- 
 vatism mean anything — if it be indeed de- 
 signed for the preservation of our institu- 
 tions, I know of nothing that would more 
 effectually tend to that object than the full, 
 fair and unrestricted will of the people 
 through the ballot box. If there be any 
 peculiar preservative power in our govern- 
 ment it is the people; and to check them in 
 the exercise of their undoubted right, is to 
 destroy the only effectual conservative 
 power of which I can have any idea. 
 
 The gentleman from Rapides, (Mr. 
 Brent,) in his reply to the delegate from 
 New Orleans, (Mr. Grymes,) had shown 
 that restrictions upon the right of suffrage 
 were by no means common among the 
 States. The delegate from New Orleans 
 had assumed that wherever restrictions ex- 
 isted, the States were free from debt, and 
 possessed the best and most successful gov- 
 ments. The gentleman's argument had 
 signally failed. The truth is, that upon the 
 peril of indebtness it could not be said that 
 the argument applied either way, for it so 
 happened that States that had restrictions, 
 and those that had none were equally in- 
 
I 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 115 
 
 volved. That argument was therefore with- 
 out force. Here was the State of Louisiana, 
 it certainly could not be pretended that her 
 Constitution had not been sufficiently re- 
 stricted, involved in debt, and contradicting 
 the gentleman's position. There was one 
 thing, however, which was the result of un- 
 restricted suffrage, and it exhibited itself in 
 a remarkable maimer. It was this, that 
 people where suffrage was unrestricted, con- 
 tributed less money for the support of their 
 government than where suffrage was re- 
 stricted. In Louisiana, more money was 
 contributed by her citizens than was paid 
 by the individual citizens of the other States. 
 This fact was exhibited in a valuable publi- 
 cation — the American Almanack, from 
 which he would read a comparative state- 
 ment of the individual contributions in the 
 several States. 
 
 [Mr. Downs here read the statement re- 
 ferred to.] 
 
 Thus, it would be seen that the citizen 
 of Louisiana pays 81^99, four times as much 
 in proportion as is paid by the citizen of 
 any of the other States. It was perfectly 
 natural that this should be the result. 
 Where the taxes were divided among a 
 great many, the individual contribution be- 
 came less, and that was not the only effect, 
 the emoluments of office were less. Where- 
 as, under a restricted system of government, 
 as in Louisiana, which was confined to a 
 few, the emoluments of office were greater. 
 In proof of this, look at the State of Michi- 
 gan, the territory of Iowa, and the State of 
 Arkansas. The governors of these States 
 receive from 8800 to 1,000 per annum. 
 The salaries of the judges were in propor- 
 tion, but in Louisiana, where there is a 
 property qualification and the right of suf- 
 frage is restricted, salaries are increased, 
 and it is difficult to reduce them. In the 
 Democratic Address of 1842, it is shown 
 what are the heavy burthens imposed upon 
 the people of this State in taxes; they are 
 four times as large as the taxation of any 
 State in the Union, in proportion to the 
 population. Is there a single man that will 
 not respond to the sincere hope that some- 
 thing effectual may be done to relieve us 
 from these burthens. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, is it not clear that 
 these enormous expenses are the result of 
 a radical defect in our system? Has not 
 experience demonstrated this to be the case? 
 
 The reason is simple ; the more you re- 
 strict the government the more you con- 
 fine political power to a few hands, the 
 greater will be the expense and the greater 
 the salaries. Confine this power to only 
 half of the population, and the expenses 
 will be much larger ; but go still further, 
 and confine it to one-fifteenth, one-tenth of 
 the population, and finally place it in the 
 hands of ten men. You will find that 
 there will be enormous salaries, and the 
 patronage will be so appropriated as to per- 
 petuate power. Look for example at other 
 countries — at England and France. In 
 England, where the right of primogeniture 
 is still maintained, and there is a house of 
 lords, a monarch to be kept on the throne — 
 look at the salaries and the expenses of the 
 government ; the salaries for the judges, 
 the money spent to keep up the state of the 
 bishops, who do nothing — and to support a 
 bloated nobility, who by hook or by crook, 
 must have the means of gratifying their ex- 
 travagant habits — look at the national debt, 
 to pay the very interest on which, it is be- 
 yond all anticipation to pay the capital, — 
 the people have to be subjected from time 
 to time to additional burthens, and are 
 ground down by the weight of these exac- 
 tions. 
 
 Nevertheless, this is a government of 
 property holders, where property is the chief 
 object of protection. The political power 
 is in the hands of a few individuals, and al- 
 though the country is thoroughly cultivated 
 and is a garden spot, all its means are mo- 
 nopolized by the favored few, while the 
 many go without the very necessaries of 
 life. And yet an under secretary, or an 
 attache, gets as much salary as most of the 
 important officers in the United States. 
 
 I cannot concur, said Mr. Downs, that 
 property should be the sole object of protec- 
 tion in a government ? That property 
 should be the only consideration. I do not 
 recollect the phraseology of the gentleman, 
 (Mr. Gryrnes,) but this I gathered to be his 
 meaning. I do not say that it should not 
 have its proper weight; it will always have 
 that, but it should not be considered para- 
 mount and supersede the protection due to 
 personal rights. If protection to property 
 be considered the evidence of good govern- 
 ment, then despotic governments frequently 
 are good governments. I doubt much whe- 
 ther property is more secure in this country 
 
lie 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 than it is in England, Austria, Prussia and 
 Franco; for mere protection to property, 
 these governments answer as well and per- 
 haps better, than that of the United States. 
 In Prussia a considerable amount of the re- 
 venues derived from taxation, goes to sup- 
 port an admirable system of public schools, 
 perhaps the most perfect in existence. But 
 there is something more important than 
 mere property, which should be the serious 
 object of governmental solicitude. There 
 are personal rights to be guarded. There 
 have been revolutions to protect personal 
 rights, but none to protect property. In the 
 early history of England, we find the habeas 
 corpus extorted from a reluctant monarch, 
 and what was that for? To protect the lib- 
 erty of the subject. It, was to place the 
 subject under the protection of the law, and 
 to rescue him from tyranny and oppression. 
 That power should not invade personal 
 rights, and drive the innocent victims to the 
 gallows. Suppose there be but two class- 
 es, those who have property and those who 
 have none. The property holders will 
 never be imposed upon, but those who have 
 no property will be subjected to contribut- 
 ing money, and will likewise be called upon 
 to contribute personal services. In the 
 event of a war, property holders will not 
 risk their lives ; they will not be enrolled 
 in the militia, but will so frame the laws as 
 to shuffle off that dangerous duty upon the 
 laboring classes; they will send them, the 
 poor devils who have nothing to lose, and 
 who have no body to care for them. It is 
 the laboring classes that now form the bulk 
 of the militia; that perform fire duty, and 
 if they are denied all voice at the ballot 
 box, and are to be destituted of all political 
 rights, why then they will soon be under the 
 despotism of the property holders. On the 
 other hand, there is no danger from the 
 poorer classes; they have always been the 
 defenders and protectors of the property of 
 the rich, and will ever be so. All they ask 
 is for a fair participation in the civil rights of 
 citizenship. Property and money are power, 
 and will always exercise a sufficient control 
 over the poor, without denying to them a 
 voice in the administration under the plea 
 that they are the rabble— poor devils, and 
 should have no lot or part in the laws made 
 to govern them, except implicit and blind 
 obedience to the behests of the rich and 
 powerful. There is no necessity, no true 
 
 wisdom, in degrading the poorer classes 
 and placing them on an equality with slaves, 
 by denying them the most important privi- 
 lege of freemen. 
 
 These doctrines are not new to me. I 
 have advanced them long ago, and to dis- 
 pose of this part of the subject, in a word, 
 I will read an extract from a report made 
 by me as chairman of the committee of the 
 senate. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, from these hasty 
 views, where is the danger of extending 
 to all classes of American citizens the pri- 
 vilege of suffrage? 
 
 A friend has just placed before me a list 
 of all the States, with those that have be- 
 come involved by heavy loans. 
 
 [Mr. Downs here read the extract refer- 
 red to.] 
 
 From this statement it will be seen that 
 there are fewer States that have anticipated 
 their resources, and fettered themselves 
 with debts, with the privilege of unrestric- 
 ted suffrage. The raMo is about as five to 
 one. In some of the States, where suffrage 
 is free, have property holders suffered; nor 
 have the poorer classes, invaded as we are 
 left to infer from the argument of the dele- 
 gate from New Orleans, (Mr. Grymes,) the 
 inviolability of property; property has been 
 as secure in those States, as in the other 
 States of the Union. 1 do not myself 
 attach great weight to this argument, but 
 inasmuch as that gentleman has attempted 
 to argue the question upon precedent, I 
 have met him on that ground. I confess 
 that he has poured forth such a torrent of 
 eloquence that I knew of no better way 
 of dispelling the effect he may have pro- 
 duced than by turning against him the 
 very facts that he has advanced. 
 
 Great allowance must be made in the 
 consideration of his views, for the fact that 
 he comes from a State which though dem- 
 ocratic as regards the policy of the gene- 
 ral government, has always been restricted 
 in her local policy. It is impossible for 
 us to eradicate entirely our early impres- 
 sions, and the prejudices we may imbibe 
 for particular localities. Virginia although 
 she has occupied a conspicuous place in 
 national politics, and that too in favor inva- 
 riably of democratic principles, has made 
 less progress in those principles as regards 
 her State government than any State of the 
 Union. She has clung with singular per- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 117 
 
 tinacity to the peculiar aristocratic notions 
 which were engrafted upon her political 
 condition during the early period of her 
 settlement and while she remained a col- 
 our. Hence she has not kept pace locally 
 with democratic progress, and has shown . 
 a singular aversion to carry out those prin- : 
 ciples. In 1S39, her Convention assem- 
 bled to remodel the Constitution, and it is 
 not saying too much to assert, that there 
 were more talented men in that conven- j 
 tion than any other that has assembled 
 since the formation of the federal Consti- 
 tution. Yet it is equally certain that they j 
 were afraid of making popular reform; they 
 were so wedded to the particular state of 
 things, although, in some respects, avow- : 
 edly anti-democratic and repugnant to the | 
 progress of democratic principles, that they 
 made as few and as slight modifications as ; 
 possible. To illustrate in a strong point 
 of view this antipathy to innovation and to 
 show what was the Virginia conservatism ; 
 in the earlier part of her colonial history — 
 in 1671 — I will mention a fact related of 
 Gov. Berkley. In speaking of the New 
 England States, that had at that early period ; 
 evinced their desire for public education, j 
 he thanked God there were neither free 
 schools nor printing presses within his col- 
 ony — for learning created disputation and 
 disobedience, and the printing press pro- : 
 mulgated them. Governor Berkley was . 
 not the last of the conservatives — there are , 
 many more whose views are almost as 
 limited in 1845! j 
 
 The gentleman from New Orleans, Air. ' 
 Conrad) had referred to the authority of j 
 Mr. Madison in favor of restriction. Xo 
 man entertains a higher opinion of that 
 eminent statesman than I do, and is dispo- 
 sed to give more weight to his authority. 
 Since the member from New Orleans, (Mi 
 Conrad.) quoted Mr. Madison, I have ex- 
 amined his recorded opinions to see how far 
 they could be construed as favoring a re- 
 striction upon popular suffrage. With the 
 permission of the convention, I will read 
 a few extracts from his notes. 
 
 Extract from the Madison Papers. 
 
 "These observations" (see Debates of 
 August 7th 1787 — the same referred toby 
 Mr. Conrad) do not contain the speaker's 
 more full and natural view of the subject 
 which is subjoined. "He felt too much 
 the example of Virginia, 
 16 
 
 The right of suffrage is a iundamental 
 article in republican institutions. The reg- 
 ulation of it is at the same time, a task of 
 peculiar delicacy. Allow the right exclu- 
 sively to property and the rights of per- 
 sons may be oppressed. 
 
 In civilized communities property as 
 well as personal rights is an essential ob- 
 ject of the laws, which encourage industry 
 by securing the enjoyments of its fruits — 
 that industry from which property results, 
 and that enjoyment which consists not 
 merely in its immediate use, but in its 
 posthumous destination to objects of choice 
 and of kindred and of affection. 
 
 In a just and free government therefore 
 the rights both of persons and of property 
 ought to be effectually guarded. Will the 
 former ^be so in case of a universal and 
 equal suffrage. Will the latter be so in 
 case of suffrage confined to the holders of 
 property? * * * * It is nevertheless 
 that there are various ways in which the 
 rich may oppress the poor, in which pro- 
 perty may oppress liberty, the world is 
 tilled with examples. It is necessary that 
 the poor should have a defence against the 
 danger. 
 
 Mr. Madison, it would be seen in a vote 
 without date in the appendix, reconsidered 
 what he had advanced and promptly admit- 
 ted he had gone too far. In one place he 
 uses this remarkable language, "Mere are 
 muny ways in which the rich affect the 
 poor." That, Mr. President, is our very 
 doctrine. 
 
 I could, said Mr. Downs, read other ex- 
 tracts from these very interesting papers 
 were I not apprehensive of fatiguing the 
 Convention. 
 
 [Cries of go on, go on.] 
 
 In the 3d vol.. on the same subject, du- 
 ring the Virginia Convention, in 1529-30, 
 Mr. Madison holds the following language: 
 
 "Were the Constitution on hand to be 
 adapted to the present circumstances of our 
 country, without taking into view the 
 chancres which tune is rapidly producing, 
 an unlimited extension of the right would 
 probably vary little the character of our 
 public councils or measures. But as we 
 are to prepare a system of government for 
 a period which it is hoped will be a long 
 one, we must look to the prospective- 
 changes in the condition and composition of 
 the society in which it is to act. ***** 
 
lie 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 * * * * It must not he supposed that a 
 crowded state of population, of which we 
 have no example, and which we know only 
 by the image reflected from examples else- 
 where, is too remote to claim attention. * 
 ****** Supposing the estimate of the 
 growing population of the United States to 
 be nearly correct, and the extent of their 
 territory to be eight or nine hundred mil- 
 lions of acres, and one-fourth of it to consist 
 of inarable surface, there will, in a century 
 or little more, be nearly as crowded a pop- 
 ulation in the United States as in Great 
 Britain or France, and if the present Con- 
 stitution of Virginia, with all its flaws, has 
 lasted more than half a century, it is not an 
 unreasonable hope that an amended one will 
 last more than a century." 
 
 Thus it will be seen that Mr. Madison's 
 original opinions upon the subject of popu- 
 lar suffrage were reversed upon mature re- 
 flection; that in the first instance he frankly 
 acknowledged he felt too much the example 
 of Virginia, and asserted "that if the rights 
 of suffrage were restricted to property, 
 the rights of persons might be oppressed." 
 At a still later period of his life, in 1829, 
 when he had attained an extreme old age 
 and had retired from the service of' his 
 country, from which retirement he emerged 
 only for a temporary purpose, he reiterated 
 substantially the same opinions, but from 
 the apprehension of the great increase of 
 population and the changes that time are 
 rapidly producing in the condition and com- 
 position of society, he fears the result. He 
 still, however, repudiates the idea that pro- 
 perty is every thing, and persons nothing. 
 He re-affirms the same views that he had 
 expressed in relation to a speech made by 
 him in the federal convention, as being his 
 more full and matured thoughts. In a note 
 to that speech he says, " persons and pro- 
 perty being both essential objects of gov- 
 ernment the most that either can claim is 
 such a structure of it, as will have a reason- 
 able security for the other." In 1829-'30, 
 he says, "it cannot be expedient to rest a 
 republican government in a portion of so- 
 ciety, having a numerical and physical 
 force, excluded from and liable to be turned 
 against it, and which would lead to a stand- 
 ing military force, dangerous to all parties 
 and to liberty itself." 
 
 If we are, indeed, to be subjected to "this 
 conservatism principle," let it be declared 
 
 not only to this house, but to our constitu- 
 ents. If we are to be under a despotism — 
 if we are to be hung up at the yard arm, 
 and be reduced to a state of society which 
 will require a military force to coerce obe- 
 dience, the sooner that intention be pro- 
 claimed the better. If property be every 
 thing, it must be protected under a despo- 
 tism, at the point of the bayonet. 
 
 Surely such were not the anticipations 
 of the fathers of the revolution. Surely 
 such is not in accordance with the genius 
 of our institution ; they never designed to 
 protect property at the expense of personal 
 liberty. Property is sufficient to protect 
 itself; it is an element of power, and will 
 and can defend itself. If left to itself, no 
 apprehension need be entertained that it will 
 be assailed. Property will not only be 
 safe, by leaving suffrage unrestricted, but 
 it will become safer, And not only will 
 that be the inevitable result, but taxation 
 will be reduced by extending the sphere of 
 the elective franchise. 
 
 I most firmly believe that the extension 
 of suffrage will be followed by a reduction 
 of public salaries. As to what the legis- 
 lature may have accomplished in reducing 
 salaries, it amounts to little or nothing. I 
 do not think that their intervention can be 
 counted upon for any thing effectual. The 
 system of high salaries is beyond their 
 control under existing circumstances. It 
 is true there have been some slight 
 reduction : that the salary of the governor 
 and some of the judges have been cut 
 down, but it is equally certain that the 
 great body of municipal and parochial chan- 
 ges were in great disproportion with the 
 resources of the people. If a bill be in- 
 troduced in the legislature for the purpose 
 of making reductions, the officers that it 
 may effect, bring all their power to bear 
 in order to defeat it. I do not wish to be 
 understood as intending application of these 
 remarks to particular persons, I merely 
 narrate the facts as they are, If the bill 
 pass in one branch of the legislature it 
 invariably fails in the other, and so are re- 
 trenchments staved off from year to year. 
 
 To exhibit the exorbant charges of pub- 
 lic officers, he (Mr. Downs) would state 
 a case in point. A respectable citizen of 
 New Orleans had instituted a suit against a 
 delinquent tenant, and siezed the furniture 
 subject to his claim. The various processes 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 119 
 
 of the law having been complied with, the 
 officer presented him an account of 8^0 
 over and above the amount sued for. — 
 The whole, charges of the city were exces- 
 sive. Some steamboats paid as much as 
 
 The people were the best judges of the 
 capacity and fitness of their public officers. 
 They should be left unrestricted, and no 
 American citizen having resided in the 
 State a reasonable period, should be denied 
 
 six thousand dollars, and from that amount I the privilege of suffrage. The old Con- 
 down in proportion. Of course, the people i stitution had fixed the residence at one year, 
 of the country, contributed to this heavy ; and it ought to be maintained. The only 
 
 tax. For all the^e abuses there was but 
 one remedy — the power of the people — 
 extend the right of suffrage, so that every 
 man may declare through the ballot box, 
 whether it be his will to submit to such 
 onerous exactions. That is the only cer- 
 tain way of affecting retrenchment and 
 economy. The expenses of government 
 are four times as large in Louisiana as 
 they are in her sister States. The judges 
 
 of our supreme court were paid §500 each section of the Constitution be taken 
 more than the judges of the supreme court j up separately, and decided upon its own 
 
 thing that was really objectionable was the 
 property qualification, and that odious dis- 
 tinction being swept away, its place should 
 not be supplied by another as unnecessary 
 and as invidious, Xo separate class should 
 be built up in our community with a patent 
 nobility, with peculiar privileges that were 
 denied to other citizens through narrow- 
 minded prejudices and artificial distinctions. 
 Mr. ©owns concluded by hoping that 
 
 of the United States, and many other sala- 
 ries wore upon the same inflated basis. As 
 for the argument, that without holding 
 property one could not feel an interest in 
 the community, it had no validity, There 
 
 merits. 
 
 Whereupon the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Thursday, 30th January, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 
 were considerations — there were ties more | ment, and its proceedings were opened 
 powerful than mere pecuniary interest.— 
 There were few men however that had 
 
 ! by prayer, from the R%v. Mr. Nicholson. 
 | Mr. Scott of Baton Rouge, asked for 
 not some pecuniary interest involved, and ; leave of absence, for Mr. McCallop'of the 
 to his conception, a man would be as devo- i parish of West Baton Rouge. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies objected. 
 The question was taken, and leave was 
 granted. 
 
 The" President submitted an invitation 
 he Convention, from the officers of the 
 People's Lyceum, to attend a discourse to 
 be pronounced by Professor 3IcCauley. 
 
 Mr. Roselius called the attention of the 
 Convention to an invitation to attend the 
 examination of the public schools of the 
 second Municipality, to-day at 12 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. Duxx hoped that the business of the 
 Convention would be suspended at 12 
 o'clock, to enable them to assist at that in- 
 teresting exhibition. The subject of edu- 
 cation would no doubt claim the serious 
 consideration of this body, and no opportu- 
 nity of becoming acquainted with the details 
 of the present system of public schools in 
 the city, should be suffered to pass unim- 
 proved. He therefore moved that the mem- 
 bers of the Convention proceed in a body. 
 Mr. Lewis objected. He said no man 
 
 ted to the country with SI as .$10,000 
 
 If you admit the property qualification, 
 then you must admit the graduation of that 
 qualification. If a man possessed of $10,- 
 000 is more interested in the destinies of 
 the country than one who has not a dollar, 
 then he that owns $50,000 must be still 
 more interested than the first, and so on 
 according to property. If a man with fifty 
 negroes has one vote, he that has one hun- 
 dred ought to have two. Money then 
 should become the measure of talent, and 
 your Jeffersons, Jacksons and Clays should 
 have given place to some foreign Rothchild, 
 who would have made upon that principle, 
 a public officer, one hundred times better, 
 because he happeneed to he one hundred 
 times better off. Talent should he pro- 
 scribed and money-bags take its place. 
 Such an argument carries upon its face its 
 
 i 
 
 absurdity. The people in electing the 
 highest officers of the government should not 
 take into consideration the services and 
 
 qualifications of the man, but should ex- I certainly had a higher regard for public 
 amine his strong box to see whether he \ education than he, or would go further in 
 was the richest citizen and possessed of \ promoting it. But he could not consent that 
 
 the maximum qualification. 
 
 the iniDortant objects for which the Conven- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 tion were assembled should be arrested, and 
 that several hours should be lost. If indi- 
 vidual members wished to attend, it was 
 within their discretion to do so, but for one 
 he was opposed to a cessation of the busi- 
 ness of the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson said that, inasmuch as 
 the invitation had been accepted, and ar- 
 rangements had been made for the recep- 
 tion of the Convention, it would appear not 
 altogether consistent or courteous to abstain 
 from attending. If we had declined the in- 
 vitation on account of our public duties, our 
 motives would have been understood and 
 appreciated, but it appeared rather late to 
 urge that as an objection now. 
 
 Mr. Lewis inquired of the Secretary 
 » whether the invitation had been accepted. 
 The Secretary replied that no motion had 
 been made for its acceptance. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson: Then I labored under 
 a misapprehension. 
 
 Mr. Roselius: I move that it be accept- 
 ed, and that we proceed in a body at 12 
 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies said he would call for the 
 yeas and nays. He admitted that education 
 was an object of great public utility, but at 
 the same time the Convention were not as- 
 sembled to go about visiting public institu- 
 tions, however meritorious they might be. 
 It should not be forgotten that the expenses 
 of this body Avere $600 a day, and we 
 should, therefore, economize our time, and 
 get through our duties as quick as possible. 
 
 Mr. Splane said that he felt under the 
 necessity of voting foi>the resolution, as it 
 had been the general impression, both in 
 and out of the Convention, that the in vita* 
 tion was accepted : that it was not expressly 
 accepted, and our acceptance recorded upon 
 our journals, was a matter of pure accident. 
 Preparations have been made, • and the 
 Convention is expected to attend. He 
 must, therefore, vote for the resolution. 
 
 Mr. Dunn : This is no common, insigni- 
 ficant matter; no holiday show; but an 
 object of vast and incalculable utility. The 
 Convention could not better employ its 
 time than to give its public countenance to 
 a plan of education that embraces the whole 
 of our population. If our institutions are 
 to be preserved, it must be through the 
 intelligence of the people, and the general 
 diffu sion of knowledge. Without that, our 
 institutions are not worth one straw. 
 
 Mr. Lewis admitted the importance of 
 public education, but thought the members 
 of the Convention, whether in their official 
 or individual capacity, could give it their 
 countenance as well without as by attend- 
 ing this exhibition, if the peculiar duties 
 of the Convention permitted it, he would 
 cheerfully attend as a private citizen. 
 
 He would move for the division of the 
 question, and would vote affirmatively upon 
 the question of acceptance, as that he con- 
 sidered pro forma. Upon the question to 
 attend in a body he should vote negatively. 
 
 The question of acceptance was agreed 
 to without a division. Upon the motion to 
 attend in a body, Mr. Voorhies called for 
 the yeas and nays — yeas 27 — nays 34. 
 
 Order of the Day. — The Convention 
 resumed the consideration of the 8th sec- 
 tion of the 2d article of the Constitution, 
 relative to the qualification of voters, which 
 was under discussion when the Convention 
 adjourned yesterday. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said • When the Convention 
 adjourned yesterday, I designed making a 
 few observations in reply to the doctrines 
 advanced by the member from Ouachita, 
 (Mr. Downs ) n ancl the member from Rapides, 
 (Mr. Brent). The particular question now 
 to be voted on, must necessarily enter 
 but little into the discussion in which we 
 find ourselves. It would, more properly, 
 be upon the principal question than upon 
 the isolated point, whether the residence 
 should be one year, two years, or more. 
 The range of debate has been so extensive, 
 and I diner so far from those that oppose 
 the section, and in some respects from 
 those that advocate it, that, once for all, I 
 shall state my views upon the subject. In 
 sustaining a. proposition which is designed 
 to establish the corner stone of our republi- 
 can institutions, I hope I may be indulged 
 if I travel, in legal parlance, occasionally 
 out of the record, and follow the example 
 of the gentlemen that have preceded me, 
 with whose opinions I find myself unable to 
 agree. 
 
 In the outset I will premise that there is 
 one proposition of the delegate from Oua- 
 chita, (Mr. Downs), with which I agree. 
 I think, with him, that the property qualifi- 
 cation should be swept away from the right 
 of suffrage. I have reflected upon the sub- 
 ject for many years, and the conclusion to 
 which I have arrived is, that this restriction 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 121 
 
 is not in unison with the progress of the 
 age and the present condition of represen- 
 tative governments. Why concede the right 
 of self-government, and deny its exercise 
 to every individual member of the commu- 
 nity'? Many arguments might be adduced 
 in favor of the right to suffrage, without 
 reference to property, but I conceive it to be 
 unnecessary. While I agree upon that 
 point, I cannot consider how a government 
 can exist without restrictions upon the will 
 of a bare majority. It is for the protection 
 of the majority, as well as of the minority, 
 that there should be some positive restraints. 
 No government can exist and be effectual 
 without those restraints. It would have no 
 more strength than a rope of sand. It must 
 must have some fundamental principles — 
 some conservative power to maintain its 
 existence. I contend that this conserva- 
 tive or preservative power is essentially 
 necessary to its well being, and that no 
 government can succeed without it, however 
 it may be ridiculed. I shall not descend to 
 notice that species of argument. The idea 
 that such a notion should be entertained 
 has been treated with a great deal of levity ; 
 and such definitions have been given to the 
 word conservative, as suited the purposes 
 of those who made them. I repudiate the 
 definitions that have been assigned. 
 
 There is another preliminary point to 
 which I would refer. One gentleman as- 
 sumes that the individual members of this 
 body are the representatives of the whole 
 State. Another gentleman contends that 
 each representative is the representative 
 only of his particular parish. In this case, 
 as in most others, I think the truth is to ^e 
 found between the two extremes. We are 
 here first, to represent the interests of the 
 sections of the State from which we come, 
 and next, to consult upon and represent the 
 general interests of the whole State ; and 
 reconcile sectional interests with general 
 interests. We are to preserve the rights 
 of our immediate constituents, and do jus- 
 tice to the rest of the State. 
 
 We must not, said Mr. Lewis, suppose 
 that we are wiser than any other body that 
 "has ever assembled for the purpose of fixing 
 the constituent basis of government. If 
 we expect to arrive at any definite result, 
 we must yield up our peculiar views, if it 
 be necessary — in plain words, we must j 
 compromise our differences. I 
 
 The assertion in the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence, that all men are born free and 
 equal, cannot be understood as implying a 
 perfect equality of rights in society; for, if 
 this were so, women and minors would not 
 be excluded from participating in govern- 
 ments. The enjoyment of individual liberty 
 under governments can neither be unlimi- 
 ted nor uncontrolled. The extent of liberty, 
 and the duration of society, is dependent 
 upon the wise restrictions that are imposed ; 
 or, in other words, upon the conservative 
 principle, upon which must rest the foun- 
 dation of the social compact. I cannot, 
 therefore, subscribe to the opinion of the 
 member from Ouachita, that we should take 
 the Constitution, section by section, and de- 
 cide upon each according to its merits. On 
 the contrary, in my opinion, we should make 
 it have a general correspondence in all its 
 features : there should be no contradictions, 
 but all its dispositions should be in perfect 
 unison. 
 
 The examples, argued Mr. Lewis, 
 that have been drawn from history, to sus- 
 tain the assertion, that revolutions in the 
 political world have invariably been occa- 
 sioned by restrictions upon personal liberty, 
 are not altogether exact. The revolution 
 which precipitated Charles the 1st from the 
 throne, was not occasioned by restrictions 
 upon personal rights, if we except some 
 abuses of the star chamber, but rather by 
 the extravagant contributions levied upon 
 the people — the heavy taxes that were im- 
 posed. As to the abuses of the star cham- 
 ber, they were a matter of but secondary 
 consideration. But the principal and main 
 cause, was the excessive taxation, attempted 
 to be levied without the assent, and with 
 the reprobation of the house of commons. 
 As for personal liberty, it is notorious that 
 the English people enjoyed more personal 
 liberty at that time than the other nations 
 of Europe. It was the want of the conser- 
 vative principle, when the King attempted to 
 levy taxes without the consent of parliament, 
 that led to the change of government, and 
 finally enabled Oliver Cromwell to estab- 
 lish a despotism, the natural consequence 
 of anarchy. The government was only 
 brought to its equipoise, and the popular 
 liberty established, under Charles the II, 
 when the conservative principle was re- 
 stored. 
 
 I Look at the pages of history during the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 sanguinary revolution in France. There 
 we iind a faithful picture of an unrestricted, 
 unlimited popular government. The gov-, 
 ernmcnt of the mere majority — of brute 
 force. The monarchy and aristocracy 
 were struck down with one blow. It was 
 said by the demagogues of that day, that 
 pushed the people to excesses, that the age 
 of gold was at hand. The worst passions 
 of human nature were excited, and every 
 thing done to uproot the foundations of so- 
 ciety, and to replace them by the mad 
 dreams of political zealots. Human life 
 was sacrificed with the utmost apathy, and 
 the earth was deluged with blood. From 
 the omnipotent voice of the populace rose 
 the fatal cry, to the guilotine! to the lan- 
 terns! Death was the portion of all that 
 did not bow the head to demagogue ism; 
 and that era of liberty, which was described 
 as the realization of the perfectability of 
 human government, was followed by the 
 reign of terror! 
 
 These examples, it may be said, apply 
 only to monarchies; but I contend that men 
 are but men, whatever their institutions 
 may be, and are more or less under the in- 
 fluence of passion, and the sudden outbursts 
 of excitement. The same causes produce 
 the same, or similar effects, and when is it 
 borne in mind, that these and similar hor- 
 rors which history presents, of the fallibility 
 of our species, are the result of license and 
 of distempered notions of liberty and equali- 
 ty; we should reflect seriously upon the 
 possibility of similar occurrences, and not 
 permit ourselves to be carried away by 
 mere theories and abstractions. In repub- 
 lican governments, which in one sense are 
 essentially the governments of the people, 
 we should establish certain definite princi- 
 ples, which while they secure the expression 
 of the popular voice, and give to us 
 all the benefits of republican institutions, 
 will restrain any outbursts of sudden pas- 
 sion, or any abuses which the majority, un- 
 der temporary excitement, may be disposed 
 to commit; and which will maintain the ves- 
 ted rights of the minority. There should 
 be some bulwark to resist the waves of 
 popular tumult, beyond which there would 
 be safety and ropose ; some conservative 
 power which would ordain "thus far thou 
 shalt go, but no farther." 
 
 Mr. Lewis said he would make a few re- 
 marks that properly did not belong to this 
 
 subject. The principles of native Ameri- 
 canism had been expressly assailed by an 
 honorable member, (Mr. Brent,) who had 
 attempted to cast ridicule upon those princi- 
 ples, by representing them as being of 
 Asiatic origin, and as being worthy of the 
 children of the sun and brother to the moon. 
 That gentleman had gone still farther, and 
 asserted that the native American party of 
 Philadelphia were the authors of what he 
 termed a most disgraceful outrage upon the 
 rights of naturalized citizens; and not only 
 that, but that they had desecrated the tem- 
 ple of the living God. These were, said 
 Mr. Lewis, the substance of his charges; 
 and as a native American — one proud of 
 that title, I take this occasion to defend the 
 principles which he thinks so odious, and 
 which in his opinion have suggested so un- 
 paralelled an outrage. I deny that there is 
 anything in the event to which he refers, that 
 can attach the slightest odium to the native 
 American party. What are the facts in re- 
 lation to those riots? Who were the first 
 aggressors? There is nothing in that oc- 
 currence for which the native American 
 party cannot justify themselves before God 
 and man! A body of native Americans had 
 assembled in their own country, to discuss 
 a question of public concernment to them- 
 selves, as native Americans; and were 
 attacked and threatened by a band of for- 
 eigners. The room where they met was 
 invaded, and they were threatened with 
 being driven out. They did meet, and this 
 foreign rabble attempted to eject them. 
 Was not that sufficient to arouse them, and 
 to provoke their retaliation? Were the 
 rj^its of American citizens to be trampled 
 on with impunity? If there were blood- 
 shed and arson, be the fault on those that 
 were the cause. I am sorry that these 
 charges are made in this house, by a native 
 American. But, as a native American, I 
 repel and throw them back! 
 
 To return to the question; I do not say 
 that property should alone be protected. 
 Personal rights are more sacred, but both 
 should be an object of solicitude. Individu- 
 al interest demonstrates that if an associa- 
 tion of men were to select a person 
 to conduct their private affairs, they would 
 prefer one having a common interest with 
 them, to an utter stranger, who had nothing 
 at stake. It is those that are interested, 
 those who are liable to contribute to the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 123 
 
 support of the government, that should be 
 entrusted with the important duty of making 
 our laws, and of regulating our taxes, one 
 of the most important functions of govern- 
 ment; and it would be folly to commit to 
 those having no taxes to pay, nor airy iden- 
 tity of interest, the power to impose public 
 burthens. The power of taxation is one 
 that never can be properly exercised with- 
 out the consent of the taxed. In our con- 
 flict and separation from Great Britain, the 
 imposition of taxes without representation, 
 was one of the principal causes of com- 
 plaint. The colonies were taxed without 
 being represented. 
 
 In deciding the question of who are to be 
 the depositories of poltical power, it be- 
 hooves us to have a care not to entrust the 
 administration of the government to irre- 
 sponsible persons, who have nothing to 
 lose, and who being at the bottom of the 
 wheel, cannot be worse off- — who have 
 every thing to gain and nothing to lose. 
 
 I shall not attempt to answer the com- 
 parison instituted by the gentleman from 
 Ouachita, (Mr. Downs,) between the supe- 
 riority of a steamboat now, and one in the 
 infancy of steamboat building; by which he 
 attempts to make an analogy in the science 
 of government. I find no analogy in the 
 comparison, and I shall not waste time to 
 consider it. Past experience have con- 
 vinced me that man is incapable of govern- 
 ing himself, without restriction; in fact the 
 very term government, necessarily implies 
 restraint. The founders of our institution 
 saw the necessity of restrictions — of checks 
 and ballances; and it becomes us to profit 
 by the experience of the past, as well as by 
 their experience. 1 
 
 As regards the right of suffrage, it ought 
 to be extended to all those who offer by 
 residence and by association the presump- 
 tive proof that they are identified with us 
 and attached to our institutions. But to 
 grant suffrage indiscriminately, to persons 
 who are foreign to us in sentiment and 
 feeling, as well as by birth and education, 
 would be an act of consummate folly, for 
 which we would pay very dearly. The 
 Roman republic, whilst it confirmed the 
 perogation of citizenship to its own citi- 
 zens and preserved the conservative prin- 
 ciple, maintained its exalted position, but 
 when in the progress of time, it extended 
 that privilege to foreigners and strangers, 
 
 it weakened its power; and from that period 
 began its decayance in public spirit and vir- 
 tue. At one time the title of a Roman citi- 
 zen was the proudest that man ever boast- 
 ed. In the remotest quarter of the world it 
 paralyzed the arm of oppression. At first 
 the distinction of Roman citizenship was 
 conferred upon a few strangers, but as no 
 immediate evil resulted, the. privilege was 
 extended far and wide, until the Roman 
 citizens proper disappeared among the 
 hordes that pressed upon them. It is to 
 to be hoped that such a destiny is not re- 
 served for this republic ! 
 
 One word as regards citizens of other 
 States. We are forming a constitution of 
 Louisiana — not a constitution for the seve- 
 ral States, and one half of Europe. It is 
 proper for us to say, upon what conditions 
 we shall allow persons among us to partici- 
 pate in political power : as for all other 
 privileges they are amply accorded ; but 
 when it comes to making our laws and car- 
 rying them into effect, we should surely have 
 some guarantee of fidelity ; and no right 
 judging man, that desires the perpetuation 
 of our institutions, will think it unreasonable 
 to remain two years to qualify himself be- 
 fore he goes to the ballot box to deposite 
 his vote and to take a share in the desti- 
 nies of the State. I certainly entertain no 
 prejudices against our fellow citizens of 
 the other States. I consider them like our- 
 selves Americans, and attached as we ought 
 all to be to our common country and to 
 our glorious Union. But there are in some 
 of their local institutions and ours an essen- 
 tial difference— there is a dissimilarity be- 
 tween our systems of law and theirs, espe- 
 cially as regards minors and married wo- 
 men, and before they can understand these 
 differences and appreciate them, they ought 
 to reside among us for some time. Is two 
 years an unreasonable period? I think not, 
 and no man of experience will think that 
 it is, who reflects that constitutions are not 
 formed for exceptional cases, but for uni- 
 versal application ; and however eligible 
 some might be to citizenship by^their pre- 
 conceived notions, it would be an unsafe 
 rule to take these as our basis for action. 
 
 As regards foreigners, I must say that I 
 view their eligibility to citizenship under 
 the laws of the United States as exceed- 
 ingly unfortunate. Those laws I would 
 have repealed in toto. But, inasmuch as 
 
12 1 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 they exist, I am for respecting them. It is 
 my deliberate conviction that out of twenty 
 foreigners who immigrate to our shores 
 nineteen would not make good citizens. 
 The tw entieth may be every way deserving. 
 There are some that come amongst us 
 thai are deserving. But the' great mass 
 are the rabble, the dissolute and the vicious: 
 the pauper and the ignorant. A few of 
 them make good citizens, but precious few. 
 I think it better to give up the twentieth 
 man, that possesses qualities that would 
 make him a good American citizen, than 
 to take the nineteen that are without a 
 solitary requisite. The love of country 
 is emplanted in the human breast. It is 
 an impulse bound up with the strongest 
 ties. It is posssible that a man born in 
 another country and raised in another clime 
 may love the country of his adoption as 
 well as the country of his birth. But it is 
 barely possible. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor said, he rose to sub- 
 mit his views with great deference. The 
 question before the Convention was of 
 itself very narrow, but as auxiliary points 
 had been brought into the discussion, and 
 opinions had been expressed from which 
 he differed, he begged to state the grounds 
 of difference. 
 
 Before entering into an examination here 
 we should regulate political power, and to 
 whose hands we should commit it. I feel 
 myself called upon, (said Mr. Taylor) to re- 
 fute the deductions drawn from certain pre- 
 mises, or rather I may say the premises 
 themselves, which have been invoked, to 
 show that it would be dangerous to estab- 
 lish a government dependent upon the will 
 of the majority, unchecked by restrictive 
 powers. The revolution in England by 
 which Charles the 1st was dethroned, was 
 not occasioned, as supposed by the delegate 
 from St. Landry, (Mr. Lewis) through the 
 obstinacy of that monarch to govern without 
 the intervention of parliament; no more 
 was this so, than the afflictions of the re- 
 public were the natural consequences of the 
 government of the people. A bold and 
 daring aristocracy, anxious to maintain 
 their privileges which constitute a fraction 
 ot the country; for the popular representa- 
 tion at that day was no more than it is at 
 s present, a fictitious representation, over- 
 threw the king and suffered him to be con- 
 ducted ignominiously to the scaffold. It is 
 
 true that this revulsion was followed by the 
 establishment of a republic under the lead 
 of a man as able as he was hypocritical, 
 and that so far from producing the bene- 
 ficial results which were anticipated, it 
 stimulated greater abuses and occasioned 
 greater suffering. But the people in whose 
 name and for whose benefit the revolution 
 was professedly begun, were not at fault; 
 they contended with all their might against 
 the oppression, but it was in vain, as they 
 were divested of their power. It is a mis- 
 take to cite the protectorate of Cromwell as 
 a consequence of the disorders which were 
 the result of popular government. The 
 same remark applies to the more recent 
 revolution in France. The first constituent 
 assembly in France exhibited great judg- 
 ment, and made their reforms with proper 
 deliberation. But, when the king and the 
 nobility undertook to defeat these reforms 
 and to betray the cause of the people, by 
 deserting to the enemies of the country, as 
 were shown by the flight of the king and 
 the coalition of the European powers in 
 concert, the people justly indignant, retali- 
 ated, and from one extremity to another 
 they proceeded until they reached the reign 
 of terror. We have been told that the mob 
 at Philadelphia was excusable, because 
 they defended the privilege of American 
 citizens. For a much stronger reason 
 should we exempt from censure a people 
 who were exasperated by the connivance 
 of their sovereign in a sudden invasion. I 
 am not an apologist for the disgraceful riots 
 at Philadelphia, nor do I wish to be under- 
 stood as justifying the horrors of the French 
 revolution. All that I contend for is this, 
 that the French people were provoked, irri- 
 tated into the acts of violence which they 
 committed, and which degraded their cause. 
 But so soon as their enemies attempted to 
 coerce them their dissensions ceased, and 
 they became united as a band of brothers, 
 to meet the common danger. They repulsed 
 their enemies and preserved their indepen- 
 dence. How does that example sustain the 
 deductions of the member from St. Landry, 
 (Miv Lewis) that popular governments are 
 incompatible with public virtue, and cannot 
 exist. 
 
 ■The principal error in the arguments of 
 those that attempt to prove from history the 
 impossibility of popular governments, is, 
 that they do not sufficiently distinguish the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 125 
 
 principle from the action of those govern- j 
 ments. It is incontestible that the authority j 
 of government takes its source from the 
 will of those upon whom it is to operate, 
 whether we consider the action of the le- 
 gislative, the executive, or the judiciary; 
 and that beyond the source of power itself, 
 are the means of exercising it; but the 
 means are not at present under discussion. 
 The question is, who shall determine the 
 action and sphere of political power? I do 
 not hesitate to say that it should be the ma- 
 jority. I may be told that this would be 
 placing personal rights above the rights of 
 property. I admit it. I do not think that 
 property can be alone the connecting link 
 of society. Important as it is, it is nothing 
 more than an accessary; and it will not be 
 difficult for me to show that the arguments 
 that have been adduced in its favor are as 
 erroneous as those based upon the popular 
 revolutions in England and in France. It 
 is true that the enlightened Madison hesi- 
 tated in making persons the basis of gov- 
 ernment instead of property, but it is equally 
 true that he was influenced by the fear that 
 from the great increase of population the 
 popular action, if not checked, would be 
 dangerous to our institutions. Experience 
 has shown us that these apprehensions 
 were illusory, and the examples which the 
 delegate from St. Landry, (Mr. Lewis) 
 draws from history, do not sustain the re- 
 verse of the proposition. 
 
 The history of Rome presents no exam- 
 ple of a popular outbreak against property. 
 There never was a contest between the rich 
 and the poor, unless we designate as such 
 the commotions raised by the plebians for 
 bread. If we examine attentively the histo- 
 ry of that republic, we mid that there was 
 but one species of contest; the contest be- 
 tween the oppressed and the oppressors. 
 This was the natural consequence of the 
 peculiar and unjust system which prevailed 
 in the polity of the Roman people. Their 
 community was divided into two classes, 
 with unequal power — the plebians, that 
 were ten times more considerable than 
 the patricians, had but one-sixth of the po- 
 litical power; and in addition to this, the 
 expression of the public will was limited to 
 the seven hills of the city, which dictated 
 laws to the provinces. Can any reasona- 
 ble parallel be drawn between the system 
 of government at Rome — a splendid aris- 
 17 
 
 l tocracy — and the democratic institutions 
 of the United States? It is not to the prin- 
 ciple of property that we are to attribute the 
 force and strength of our government, but 
 it is to the principle of association, and the 
 love of personal liberty that binds us 
 together. 
 
 It seems to me, that instead of consulting 
 the several constitutions of our sister States 
 to show r that property would be unsafe, if it 
 were not made an element of the govern- 
 ment, and that those who possessed no pro- 
 perty would be dangerous legislators, it 
 would have been more appropriate to have 
 referred to our own experience to sustain the 
 contrary doctrine. Property has governed 
 in Louisiana exclusively, and w r hat has 
 been the result] What disposition has been 
 made of the public property? and w T hat for- 
 bearance has been shown in the collection 
 of revenue? We find that the State has 
 been involved to an immense amount, and 
 impoverished in her resources, and by what 
 legislation was this done? Was it by the 
 poor or by the rich: by a representation 
 based upon property, or a representation 
 based upon persons. Who created those 
 wild and visionary speculations that have 
 emptied the public treasury and violated the 
 public faith? Was it to succor the poor 
 that the Union Bank and the Citizens' 
 Bank were created, or was it to accommo- 
 date the rich, the property holders, whose 
 interests were especially represented in 
 your legislature. For whose benefit were 
 large appropriations made to the Nashville 
 railroad company, to foster the spirit of 
 speculation? By whom were your legisla- 
 tures besieged for charters of banking cor- 
 porations and visionary schemes of internal 
 improvement ? Certainly not by the poor. 
 Your representation has been based upon 
 property, and what has been the result 1 
 Has property protected itself, or has it pro- 
 tected the interests of the laboring classes? 
 A retrospection of the past will show that 
 it has not. The argument that property 
 would be endangered if representation be 
 based upon persons, is without force. We 
 have had experience of what a property 
 basis is. We have seen the extravagances 
 and follies that have attended it. Extrava- 
 gances and follies which would have been 
 still more serious in their consequences, 
 had it not been for the firmness and judg- 
 ment of a citizen, whose official station 
 
126 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 enabled him to arrest their onward march, 
 and to save some millions of dollars from 
 the yawning abyss of bankruptcy. Why 
 then prefer property to persons? Property 
 will always have its full share of weight; 
 1 would not exclude its proper influence, 
 but I would not sacrifice the interests of 
 persons to property; that is to say, I would 
 not render persons inferior to property, by 
 giving to the latter a preponderance. 
 
 In vain will it be assumed that taxation 
 is the first object of government; that to 
 those only that pay taxes belongs the gov- 
 ernment.* Either this argument has weight, 
 or it has no weight. In the first hypothesis 
 the argument is closed. In reference to 
 second, I will remark that it is not only 
 those that own the property that pay the 
 taxes, but, also, the consumer of the pro- 
 duct of the property — the laboring man 
 who purchases. The man who serves six 
 days in the militia during the year, contri- 
 butes his time, not only for the protection 
 of the State, but for the protection of this 
 very property ; and he, also, is entitled to 
 a voice in the administration of public af- 
 fairs. 
 
 An allusion has been made to the assum- 
 ed injustice of requiring two years' resi- 
 dence in the State. It has been qualified 
 as aristocratical, and as establishing an un- 
 just preference. I cannot take that view 
 of the subject. If our elections are to be 
 held biennially as has been proposed, what 
 great hardship can result ? To secure the 
 attachment and fidelity of new comers, 
 some period should be fixed upon as a test. 
 Is two years too long for that purpose ? It 
 has been said and truly said that the State 
 is peculiarly situated. Her institutions re- 
 quire a guarantee from those that are to 
 participate in wielding her destinies. Some 
 time must elapse before strangers can be- 
 come assimilated in sentiment and feeling 
 with the old population. I do not think it 
 would be wise to dispense with so neces- 
 sary a requisite as that of residence, and I 
 cannot think the period is disproportionate 
 to the necessity. Persons are arriving 
 among us in great numbers from Europe 
 and from the Northern States — those from 
 Europe, it is to be presumed, are more or 
 less imbued with the prejudices and feel- 
 ings of a political order of things entirely 
 different from our system of government; 
 and among those from the Northern States 
 
 are some that are tinctured with doctrines 
 not in unison with our domestic tranquility. 
 To allow all these, at once, to approach the 
 ballot box would surely be impolitic. It 
 would be endangering our institutions, and 
 unwisely exposing ourselves to foreign in- 
 fluence and domestic corruption. 
 
 Mr. Splane said that it was due to him 
 self and to the parish he had the honor of 
 representing, (the parish of St. Mary,) to 
 explain the position in which his consti- 
 tuents and himself stood upon this subject. 
 Before his election, he had distinctly stated 
 his views upon the several questions which 
 would in all probability come before the 
 Convention, and upon this point explicitly, 
 to remove restrictions upon suffrage, and to 
 impose none. He would read from his 
 printed address to the people of the parish 
 of St. Mary. 
 
 (Mr. Splane here read an extract from 
 the paper above referred to.) 
 
 Mr. Splane said that consequently he 
 should vote for the motion of the delegate 
 from Ouachita, (Mr. Downs,) to strike out, 
 with the view of filling the blank with one 
 year. This was in accordance with the 
 wishes of his constituents. He did not 
 pretend to know what were the wishes of 
 other constituents. He spoke only of his 
 own. 
 
 Mr. Burton offered a substitute for the 
 section, requiring that the voter should be 
 twenty-one years of age, a free white male, 
 and that he shall have resided one year in 
 the State. 
 
 Mr. Preston: that is in precise accor. 
 dance with' the old Constitution, striking 
 out the property qualification. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin raised the question of 
 order upon the receipt of the substitute. 
 
 Mr. Downs considered the substitute to 
 be in order. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne participated in the opin- 
 ion of his colleague, (Mr. Benjamin,) that it 
 was out of order. 
 
 Mr. Grymes: questions of order should 
 be decided without debate. 
 
 The President decided that the sub- 
 stitute was in order. 
 
 Mr. Guion would inquire of the chair 
 if the substitute were adopted, whether it 
 would be subject to amendment. 
 
 The President: No sir. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin, thought that this decision 
 was erroneous and would lead to confusion. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 127 
 
 Mr. Kenner inquired of the chair, 
 whether the motion for the previous ques- 
 tion, if it prevailed, would cut off the sub- 
 stitute. 
 
 The President; The motion for the pre- 
 vious question if it prevailed would bring 
 up the question to strike out. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryax thought the previous ques- 
 tion would be on the adoption of the section, 
 Mr. Chinn: the decision of the chair 
 would throw the house upon the original 
 report. 
 
 Mr. Kexxer's motion for the previous 
 question was put and carried — ayes 42 
 nays 24. 
 
 The question was then taken to strike 
 out the following words : "and has resided 
 two years in the State and one year in the 
 parish in which he offers to vote." 
 
 The ayes and nays were called for and 
 were ordered, and the result was as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Chambliss, Downs, Eustis, Garrett, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Ledoux, Leonard McRae, 
 Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Preston, 
 Read, Sellers, Splane, Waddill and VTeder- 
 strandt — 23 ayes. 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Brianu Brumfield, Carriere, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne Conrad of New Orleans. 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Garcia. Grymes, Giiion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, Lewis, Marginy. Mazureau, Prescott 
 of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Pugh 5 
 Ratliff. Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Soule, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of 
 St, Landry, Trist, Wikoff, Winchester and 
 Winder — 44 nays. 
 
 The question then recurred on the adop- 
 tion of the section. 
 
 Mr. Kenner proposed the following pro- 
 viso : 
 
 "Provided that no person of unsound 
 mind, or one who has been convicted of fel- 
 ony, or any crime, shall enjoy the privilege 
 of suffrage, and provided further that no 
 elector shall vote out of the parish in which 
 he resides, or if it be in the city of Xew 
 Orleans out of the ward in which he may 
 reside." 
 
 This proviso gave rise to a desultory dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 And on motion, the Convention adjourn- 
 ed without coming to a decision. 
 
 Friday, January 31, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment, and the proceedings were opened 
 with prayer from the Rev. Mr. Reilly. 
 
 The Chair announced that the call for 
 the previous question yesterday, on the 8th 
 section, cut off all amendments. The pre- 
 vious question was properly on the original 
 report, but we had through inadvertance 
 taken the question upon the motion to strike 
 out. 
 
 Mr. Lewis: the question has been taken 
 j and decided, and it is too late now to inter- 
 fere with that decision, 
 i Mr. Dowxs: the decision of the chair, 
 this morning, corresponds with what was 
 I stated by the member from West Baton 
 ! Rouge, (Mr. Chinn,) that the previous ques- 
 i tion was properly upon the original report. 
 
 Mr. Sellers had voted in the affirmative 
 ' upon the motion to strike out, under the be- 
 lief that the section was open to amend- 
 ' meht. He had been so informed by the 
 ! president. He would now ask to change 
 j his vote. 
 
 | Leave was granted, and Mr. Sellers' 
 
 j name was recorded in the negative. 
 
 Order of the Day. — Section eight, 
 ! article second. 
 
 Mr. Kexxer offered his proviso exclu- 
 ding from suffrage persons of unsound mind, 
 and persons guilty of criminal offences; 
 and requiring further, that each voter should 
 vote in the parish in which he resided; and 
 ia cities, in the ward in which the voter 
 
 The President decided the foregoing to 
 I be out of order. 
 
 Mr. Roman offered the following addi- 
 tional section: 
 
 Sec. 10th. "It shall be the duty of the 
 general assembly to provide by law for the 
 registration, at least three months before 
 every general election, of all the qualified 
 voters of the State,intke several parishes in 
 which they actually reside. No person 
 shall be entitled to vote except in the parish 
 of his residence, and if the parish is divided 
 | into election precincts or wards, in the elec- 
 I tion precinct or ward where he resides, and 
 1 except his name shall have been recorded 
 in the last registry made previous to the 
 election." 
 
 Mr. Roman said that the Convention 
 had sanctioned the principle of universal 
 suffrage. Each one would have to accom- 
 
128 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 modate himself to that principle; but it was 
 all important not to lose sight of the difficul- 
 ties that would beset the judges of election, 
 in distinguishing as to those who really 
 possessed the qualifications still required. 
 Fraud was more facile of practice in Louisi- 
 ana, than in any other State of the Union, 
 on account of the crowds of persons that 
 came from the other States, and more par- 
 ticularly from Europe. To convince one of 
 the motley character of that population, it 
 was only necessary to go in the morning 
 to the market; there was a confusion of 
 tongues there, equal to that of the Tower of 
 Babel. It is necessary to make some law 
 to prevent frauds, which, all agree, exist to 
 an alarming extent, and I believe the fore- 
 going proposition is of a character to effect 
 that purpose. 
 
 Mr. 1)unn said that this proposition was 
 one that ought to be considered with some 
 reflection. He therefore moved that it be 
 printed. 
 
 Which motion prevailed, and the section 
 was made the order of the day for Wednes- 
 day next. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne presented the following 
 section: 
 
 Sec. 9th. "In all cases when persons 
 offering to vote shall be naturalized citizens, 
 the residence of two years in the State, re- 
 quired by the preceding section, shall com- 
 mence from or after the date of their natu- 
 ralization." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Guion, the foregoing 
 section was ordered to be printed, and made 
 the order of the day for Wednesday next. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor presented the fol- 
 lowing additional section which was also 
 ordered to be printed: 
 
 Sec. "Absence from the State shall 
 interrupt the residence required in the pre- 
 ceding section, unless the person absenting 
 himself shall be a housekeeper, and his 
 dwelling house shall be actually and exclu- 
 sively occupied during his absence, by his 
 family, or some portion thereof." 
 
 Mr. Benjamin stated the fourth sec- 
 tion of the second article, had not been 
 adopted, nor rejected— the motion to adopt 
 that section, as amended, having failed by 
 the casting vote of the president, it was not 
 adopted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Scott, of Baton Rouge, 
 said section was laid on the table, subject 
 to call. 
 
 And Mr. Claiborne moved to amend 
 the foregoing by the following order, "and 
 that it remains on the table until the ques- 
 tion of suffrage be decided," which motion 
 prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Scott, of Feliciana, moved that the 
 seventh section of the second article, which 
 is as follows, be taken up: 
 
 "The house of representatives shall elect 
 its speaker and other officers." 
 
 Said section was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved that the Convention 
 take up the sixth section, which motion pre- 
 vailed. 
 
 Sec. 6. "Representation shall be equal 
 and uniform in this State; each parish shall 
 have at least one representative, and beyond 
 that, if entitled to any more, in proportion 
 to the population of each, ascertained and 
 calculated according to the principle of rep- 
 resentation, adopted in the constitution of 
 the United States. The first representation 
 under this constitution shall continue until 
 after the next United States census in 1850, 
 and shall be as follows: 
 The parish of Plaquemines Members. 
 
 shall have one member, 1 
 The parish of St Bernard, 1 
 " Orleans — 
 
 First Municipality, 5 } 
 Second do 4 V 12 
 Third do 3 ) 
 
 That part of the parish of Orleans on 
 the east bank of the river Missis- 
 sipi, 1 
 The parish of Jefferson, 2 
 " St. Charles, 1 
 " St. John Baptist, 1 
 " St. James, 2 
 " Ascension, 1 
 " Assumption, 2 
 " Lafourche Interior, 3 
 " Terrebonne, 1 
 " Iberville, 1 
 " West Baton Rouge, 1 
 « East do 2 
 
 " West Feliciana, 2 
 « East do 2 
 " St. Helena, 1 
 " Livingston, 1 
 " Washington, 1 
 " St. Tammany, 1 
 " Pointe Coupee, 1 
 " Concordia, 1 
 " Tensas, 1 
 Madison, 1 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana- 
 
 129 
 
 it 
 
 Carroll, 
 
 1 
 
 U 
 
 Franklin, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 St. Marv, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 St. Martin, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 Lafayette, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 \ errailion, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 St. Lan'dry, 
 
 -4 
 
 u 
 
 Calcassieu, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Avoyelles, 
 
 2 
 
 it 
 
 Rapides, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 Xatchitoches, 
 
 2 
 
 u 
 
 Sabine. 
 
 1 
 
 " 
 
 Caddo,' 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 De Soto, 
 
 1 
 
 
 Ouachita. 
 
 1 
 
 u 
 
 Morehouse. 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Union. 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Caldwell, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Catahoula. 
 
 1 
 
 u 
 
 Claiborne, 
 
 1 
 
 (C 
 
 Bossier, 
 
 1 
 
 Total, 
 
 
 72 
 
 As soon as maybe after the United States 
 census of 1850 shall have been taken and 
 promulgated, and every ten years thereaf- 
 ter the number of representatives shall be 
 fixed and apportioned, according to the 
 principles of this section, so as not to be 
 less than seventy nor more than one hun- 
 dred, and whenever a new parish shall be 
 created, a separate representative shall at 
 the same time be provided for it. which shall 
 continue until the next decimal apportion- 
 ment." 
 
 Mr. Marigxy said that this section was 
 the most important section that had as yet 
 been under consideration. As a member 
 of the committee I disaproye of the report 
 just read, of the majority of the committee, 
 and also disagree with the counter report. 
 I ask that the section be rejected, and shall 
 proceed to state on what grounds I base 
 this demand. 
 
 This section is neither in harmony with 
 the federal constitution, nor with our local 
 institutions. Still less is it in accordance 
 with the popular will, whether we take for 
 its exponents the whig party or the demo- 
 cratic party. It would be better that each 
 member should abandon this body than to 
 pass such a section. 'Representation, 53 
 says the section, "shall be equal and uni- 
 form." In this case representation should 
 undoubtedly be in the ratio of population, 
 and according to the federal basis, which 
 
 does not admit the right of property in its 
 | apportionment: a representation is allowed 
 ] to each fraction of fifty thousand citizens, 
 | and accordingly it would have to be conce- 
 | ded here that the nirmber of electors should 
 j determine the number of representations; 
 • and I would be curious to hear what certain 
 | orators would say that wish to throw aside 
 | property and take persons exclusively. 
 \ But it would appear that this is not the 
 ■ reasoning which the authors of the section 
 , attach to the words, equality and uniformity: 
 ; for they say immediately afterwards "each 
 parish snail haye the right to one represen- 
 tative at least."" How one member to each 
 ; parish? Why the fourth district, where as 
 ! many new parishes haye been created as 
 possible, has already twenty eight repre- 
 sentatiyes in the lower house, and if you 
 add to these twenty eight representatiyes, 
 those of four or five adjoining parishes that 
 have a similarity of interest, the amount 
 will be augmented to thirty two or thirty 
 three representatiyes, which will constitute 
 within three, one halt' of the whole house. 
 I Is not this a most singular mode of securing 
 i equality and uniformity. Parishes that 
 j contain scarcely two hundred electors, are 
 j each to have one representative, and if they 
 j unite by a common interest, they will em- 
 i brace in all time the majority of the house. 
 ; How can you explain this inconsistency, 
 unless you admit that you attach greater 
 value to property than to persons? 
 j To argue upon this question cannot 
 i avail you, for I have before me the calcu- 
 j lations that you have made, and the figures 
 j that you have placed opposite to the same, 
 I of each parish. You say that Caddo shall 
 i have one representative, Bossier one repre- 
 sentative, and so on with several others, that 
 ' it is needless to enumerate, but to whom 
 i you give equal weight with the parish of 
 i Plaquemines. And yet, what a striking 
 ' difference between her geographical limits 
 and the parishes of the West, which you 
 favor so liberally. She has ninety miles in 
 length, and in breadth she has, first, a pen- 
 insula of 60 miles square, between Lake 
 j Borgne, the Gulf, and the River: and, sec- 
 ' ondly, immense prairies which have been 
 | supposed inhabitable, but which, from the 
 j employment of steam to machinery for the 
 j ptupose of draining, promise to be progres- 
 | sively brought into cultivation ; thirdly, nu- 
 , merous bayous, and, finally, growing vil- 
 
L30 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 lages, such as Pointe a la Hache and the 
 Utilize. And to this parish you accord but 
 a single representative, and you pretend 
 that such a concession is in conformity with 
 eqadity and uniformity? In my opinion I 
 pronounce it to be a mockery; a violation 
 of all justice. 
 
 Again ; if the evil were confined to the 
 present, it would not be so oppressive. — 
 But the injustice does not stop here, for the 
 section goes on to say, " that whenever a 
 new parish shall be created she shall be 
 entitled to one representative." 
 
 This clause, it cannot be denied, is alto- 
 gether in favor of the Fourth District. 
 Elsewhere in the State there is a decided 
 repugnance to dividing old parishes to create 
 new ones, but in the Fourth District there 
 is but one dominant and predominating idea, 
 and that is, to divide and subdivide. In 
 addition to all this, calculations are made 
 already upon the land not yet sold, on the 
 Atchafalaya, out of which will be carved 
 some fifty or sixty parishes! When that 
 takes place, the Fourth District will have 
 a majority in the Legislature; will vote at 
 will all the appropriations; distribute as she 
 pleases, the seven or ten millions of reve- 
 nue, which the immense riches of the State 
 will pour into the treasury. In the time of 
 peace, as in the horrors of war, this favored 
 district will regulate the destinies of the 
 State — having the possession of the public 
 purse — and the balance of the State will 
 be mere servants, or adversaries, to be 
 laughed at! This cannot be. Never will 
 such a montrosity be consummated ! The 
 majority of our citizens would be like the 
 executive power in France, in Spain, and 
 in England, subjected to the caprices of a 
 legislative majority, that the body of the 
 State had not contributed. I repudiate with 
 indignation such a design. If the Conven- 
 tion untowardly gave it_their countenance, I 
 would refuse to sign the~constitution contain- 
 ing it, out of respect for the people who dis- 
 approve it. But the Convention will, I hope, 
 do its duty ; and the only response it will 
 gire to the long and excited debates, which 
 will be indulged in, to prove that what is 
 most unjust is founded in justice, will be a 
 profound silence, and the rejection, prompt 
 and absolute, of the section, the three first 
 lines only excepted. This is the motion, 
 Mr. President, which I submit; and which 
 I hope will at once prevail, so heartily anx- 
 
 ious am I that the last traces of such a 
 piece of machination shall disappear. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin suggested that, in fact, 
 the section was conceived in such a man- 
 ner as not to be in a proper form for the 
 action of the Convention. He, therefore, 
 moved that it be referred to a special com- 
 mittee of twelve ; three to be chosen from 
 each of the congressional districts. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad trusted that the Con- 
 vention, before taking farther action upon 
 the subject, 'would reject at once the princi- 
 ple, according one representative to each 
 parish. It might answer very well the 
 views of certain persons, to create new 
 parishes, for the purpose of getting the pa- 
 rochial offices, consequent upon those crea- 
 tions, but he doubled much whether the 
 Convention would establish, by their action, 
 the carving out of new parishes, tending 
 to destroy the principle of uniformity and 
 equality, and to establish among us the rot- 
 ton borough system of England. If this 
 objectionable principle were rejected, which 
 was, in fact, in contradiction Avith the three 
 first lines of the section, " that representa- 
 tion should be equal and uniform," the 
 committee, to whom his colleague (Mr. 
 Benjamin) proposed to refer the subject, 
 would be enabled to determine upon the 
 proper basis, and that once determined, it 
 would be a matter of mere arithmetic to 
 make the apportionment. 
 
 Mr. Boudousque moved that the section 
 be at once rejected, for the minority of the 
 committee were restricted to protesting 
 against the course of proceeding of the 
 majority, and the only hope they had was 
 to appeal to the justice of the Convention, 
 when the section should come up. 
 
 Mr. Downs : I was so far from anticipa- 
 ting the attacks, which the report of the 
 committee has encountered, upon the sub- 
 ject of apportionment, that I am unprepared 
 to repel them. One honorable member 
 (Mr. Marigny) rises from his seat and 
 threatens the Convention that he will not 
 sign the new Constitution if the Conven- 
 tion dare adopt this section. This section, 
 cries another member, (Mr. Benjamin) in 
 a tone no less indicative of excitement, is 
 repugnant to justice, and in direct conflict 
 with the principles of equality and justice. 
 The whole section, exclaims a third mem- 
 ber, (Mr. C. M. Conrad) is in direct con- 
 flict with the three first lines, which declare, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 as a basis, "that representation shall be 
 equal and uniform "; and all three unite in 
 vociferating, reject this section at once and 
 send the subject to another committee, 
 which will be more equitably composed 
 
 nate of the United States. And, as to the 
 particular objections urged against the basis 
 of repiesentation, I repeat again, it is the 
 very basis that the slave-holding States have 
 considered vital to their very existence. If 
 
 than the first. If this be the way in which you denounce that basis, you may main- 
 the business of the Convention is to be tain the doctrines of Massachusetts and 
 conducted ; if it be imagined that by vio- j those States that are inimical to Southern 
 lence and force of recrimination, certain ; institutions. For the sake of consistency, 
 
 designs are to be attained; then, I will say, 
 that those that employ this method will 
 find themselves wofully mistaken. Differ- 
 
 how can you argue that the basis of repre- 
 sentation in the federal constitution is pro- 
 per and just, while you denounce the very 
 
 ences of opinion should be left open to j same principle as tyrannical and oppressive 
 accommodation, and not to wilful and un- ; in our own constitution? 
 
 founded accusations. On whose motion 
 was this very committee, which is now 
 
 When the question was recently under 
 discussion, said Mr. Downs, upon the right 
 
 found to be so very objectionable, formed ? of suffrage, and the superiority was assum- 
 It was formed on the motion of one of the ed for property, while I resisted that doc- 
 very gentlemen (Mr. Benjamin) that de- j trine, I admitted that property ought to have 
 nounces it at present with so much acrimo- j the weight that legitimately belonged to 
 ny. It was framed, too, at a time when it. Slaves are the greatest sources of rev- 
 excitement and violence were unknown, enue in the State. They are identified 
 But, because the committee, composed of with a very important local interest that 
 delegates from each senatorial district, have j should have its weight in the administration 
 not reported in accordance with the peeu- j of our political affairs, 
 liar views of certain gentlemen, it is said | The gentleman from St. John the Baptist 
 that the report is glaringly unjust ; that it (Mr. Boudousquie) complains vehemently 
 is culpably wrong; and that the first com- j that each parish should have a representa- 
 mittee must be dismissed with anathemas, j tive, because some of the parishes of the 
 and a second one, more equitably compo- j State are small and insignificant. Now, it 
 sed, chosen to investigate the same matter j so happens that the very parish that dele- 
 te novo. Unless it be designed before- 1 gates that gentleman, and the adjoining 
 hand to dictate to the new committee the j parish of St. Charles, are among the very 
 very report which they shall make, what smallest parishes of the State. If the gen- 
 report can they make to satisfy those that tleman's rule were to prevail, to cut off the 
 object so strenuously to the action of the j smaller parishes from representation, both 
 first committee? It may very well happen | these parishes would be dented a separate 
 
 that the first report is not perfect, but I pro^ 
 test against the imputation that the majority 
 of the committee were actuated by the de- 
 sign of advancing sectional interests, and 
 giving a preponderance to any section to 
 
 voice in the Legislature. An examination 
 of the question, free from bitterness and 
 excitement, will demonstrate that there is 
 nothing so unjust, so odious, in allowing 
 each parish to have a representative. If, 
 
 which it was not clearly and indubitably : as in some of the republics of antiquity r 
 entitled — if such preponderence really ex- i the people assembled immediately and dis- 
 ists, which is asserted with so much vehe- 1 posed of all great questions, there would be 
 mence of declamation. There is nothing j no necessity for assigning, to each distinct 
 in the principle which is so novel or start- ; local political community a representation, 
 ling. The basis that has been adopted was j But, inasmuch as the republican principle 
 the favorite basis of the Southern States, j of representation, which was unknown to 
 and was the one incorporated, at their ex- the republics of ancient times, and which is 
 press desire, into the federal constitution, i certainly a very great improvement, exists; 
 The principle that each parish should have ' and which enables a very large extent of 
 one representative is neither new nor ex- country to live under one general govern- 
 traordinary. The Constitution of the I ment for general purposes, and a local gov- 
 United States gives to the smaller States j ernment forlocal purposes; the necessity of 
 an equal voice with the larger, in the Se- 1 bringing together the whole people to con- 
 
132 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 suit, is dispensed with; and they have the 
 facility to entrust their interests to a few 
 persons to be adequately represented. To 
 carry out the principle in its purity, how- 
 ever, it is necessary that every portion of 
 the community should have a representa- 
 tive to represent their general, as well as 
 their local wishes. Each fractional por- 
 tion having a separate territorial interest, 
 should be represented in the general assem- 
 bly of the whole community. Because the 
 population be relatively small is no reason 
 why it should be deprived of a voice when- 
 ever its independent territorial existence 
 has been established and is continued. Its 
 population may increase, but if its popula- 
 tion did not increase and if it were to re- 
 main stationery, how are its vested rights 
 to be protected and its wants and wishes be 
 made known? By allowing it to partici- 
 pate with another parish in electing a re- 
 presentative? To this I would observe that 
 the interests of even contiguous parishes 
 are not invariably identical. The parish 
 that had the greater population would gov- 
 ern the one that had the smaller population. 
 The person elected would have his local 
 attachments and personal interests with the 
 mass of the population, by whom he would 
 be chosen. Besides, the coalesced parish 
 might be at some distance, and the repre- 
 sentative might not visit it, either on ac- 
 count of its remoteness, or because it 
 was difficult of access, on account of the 
 .bayous and marshes that separated its ter- 
 ritory. 
 
 I have had, (continued Mr. Downs,) 
 during my own personal experience, some 
 acquaintance with the spirit that has actu- 
 ated our legislation. Those only have had 
 the real preponderance in the legislature 
 among whom there was a perfect unity of 
 sentiment, and as this unity of sentiment 
 was on many occasions extremely difficult 
 .among the representatives of the country 
 parishes, even when party spirit was tem- 
 porarily lulled, it has so happened that the 
 ten or eleven representatives from the city 
 have paralyzed the action of all others, 
 save themselves, and have invariably car- 
 ried the object at which they aimed. This 
 result is not difficult of solution. Wher- 
 ever there are large aggregates of persons 
 interested in any design, their objects are 
 likely to succeed, even to the detriment of 
 other interests, unless some efficatious 
 
 means be devised to preclude the weight 
 of their concentrated, and because concen- 
 trated, more powerful action. 1 contend 
 that nothing so effectual, to preserve the 
 due weight of the country, can be adopted, 
 as so to distribute the representation, that 
 each separate parish shall have a separate 
 representative. 
 
 As I have said before, the plan suggested 
 by the majority of the Convention, is not 
 deemed perfect. It may have, and doubt- 
 less has, its defects. But, let those who 
 so vehemently opposed it, suggest a better 
 one. If it be intended to take all for grant- 
 ed which is to be urged against this re- 
 port, and by endeavoring to raise an excite- 
 ment against a particular section of the 
 State, to divide the country for the benefit 
 of the city, I tell gentlemen to beware lest 
 they overreach their mark. Their burning 
 eloquence and loud denunciations may lead 
 to a result which they will sincerely re- 
 gret. The city of New Orleans may suffer 
 the rebound, and it will then be seen who 
 will gain the most — those that have sought 
 to rend all in pieces, or those that desired 
 to pursue a course of exact justice to every 
 portion of the State. 
 
 We are here, said Mr. Downs, to delibe- 
 rate with calmness; to asperse the motives 
 of no one, and to avoid stirring up angry 
 dissensions and contentious feelings. To 
 consult and to deliberate, and where we can, 
 to compromise. The report of the commit- 
 tee is before the Convention. Let them 
 amend it, if it be faulty. But, as I do not 
 think that any committee can be appointed 
 to make a report that will be satisfactory to 
 all parties upon this subject, I oppose the 
 recommittal. I consider, moreover, that 
 the motion to refer, and in some measure 
 the remarks that have been made, upon the 
 report, is an attempt to cast censure upon 
 the committee — censure which is altogether 
 undeserved and without the slightest foun- 
 dation. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said, that the present was 
 not altogether a fitting occasion to enter 
 into the merits of the report of the majority 
 of the committee. I will take another op- 
 portunity to reply to the delegate from 
 Ouachita, (Mr. Downs) and will prove that 
 the grounds he has assumed in defence of 
 the section are unfounded. Some observa- 
 tions, however, have fallen from that gen- 
 tleman that necessitate a reply. In the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 133 
 
 first place, lie is under a misapprehension, 
 if he thinks that in denouncing this report 
 I had the slightest intention of impugning 
 hi? motives, or those of the other members 
 of the committee that concurred in it. I 
 impugn no man's motives. I only com- 
 plained that the operation of the section if 
 it were adopted, would be unjust and un- 
 equal, and this I am ready to show. One 
 of two things, either the report is conform- 
 able to justice, or it is not, If it be just 
 in its disposition of the representation of the 
 State, then it ought at once to be sanction, 
 ed. If it be unjust and partial, as I hold it 
 to be, then it ought to be fully discussed, 
 and its defects laid open to inspection. Dis- 
 cussion ought not surely to be considered 
 as a criticism, or a censure of the motives 
 of its authors. I disclaim any such design. 
 I have not the slightest doubt that it ap- 
 peared exceedingly just to the delegate (Mr. 
 Downs) that the fourth district, in which he 
 resides, should have one half of the repre- 
 sentation to the legislature, for its proper 
 share. I, however, entertain quite a differ- 
 ent opinion. 
 
 3Ir. Downs: I did not say that the fourth 
 district should have one half of the repre- 
 sentation, nor does the section provide such 
 a representation. 
 
 Mr. Bex"ja3IIx: The difference is but a 
 small matter: it may vary my statement two 
 or three votes, but to be precise, I will say 
 one half of the representation within two 
 or three votes ! 
 
 I have been accused by the honorable 
 delegate. (Mr. Downs) of being the mover 
 of tins committee, and therefore, he thinks, 
 I should be precluded from objecting to the 
 report upon any point. It is true that I 
 moved for the formation of the committee, 
 but I did not certainly constitute it. For 
 it happens that as three-fifths of the com- 
 mittee are radicals, that part of the State 
 which is deemed most radical, has received 
 the lions, share. Perhaps, this remark 
 may be construed into something personal! 
 I am convinced that nothing can be done 
 until some definite and- equitable basis be 
 adopted, and for that purpose I have pro- 
 posed that the report be re-committed to 
 another committee, which will better re- 
 present the various sections of the State, 
 and which will propose a less exceptiona- 
 ble apportionment than the present one in 
 its details. 
 * 18 
 
 | We have been exhorted, said Mr. Ben- 
 jamin, to give to this question our serious 
 I consideration. We are too much interested 
 j in it not to do so. without the necessity of 
 ; an exhortation. A disposition has been ex- 
 | hibited to revive the old story about the in- 
 j fluence of the city, and to get up a petty 
 jealousy between the country and the city. 
 The tocsin of alarm has been rung, and the 
 order has gone forth that the voice of the 
 city must be stifled. There are elements 
 of discord enough without attempting to 
 arouse local jealousies and sectional feel- 
 ings. Certainly no desire is felt by the 
 delegation from the city, to deprive any por- 
 tion of the country of its just weight. The 
 best policy for all to pursue is a just and 
 equitable course, for no temporary advan- 
 tage can be a permanent gain. As for po- 
 litical considerations, they may well be re- 
 garded as out of the question, for no man 
 can tell what will be the political situation 
 of parties two years hence; nay, not six 
 months hence. 
 
 Some mysterious threats have been made 
 by the gentleman from Ouachita. I am no 
 delphic oracle to interpret the gentleman's 
 meaning. Some allusions to blows to be 
 
 struck 
 
 Mr. Downs: I do not mean a conflict of 
 arms. 
 
 Mr. Bexjaxlix: I understood the gentle, 
 man: he made mysterious threats of what 
 might occur, if the report were referred 
 to another committee. If the crentleman 
 would explain the danger, I might, perhaps, 
 to avoid some terrible and impending evil, 
 consent to vote accordmg to his wishes. 
 But. we are not children to be frightened 
 by any bugbear that his excited fancy may 
 set before us. I know of no worse evil 
 than the adoption of this report, and I shall 
 vote to refer it, 
 
 Mr. Duxes hoped that this motion would 
 not prevail. He trusted that the report 
 would be taken up and concurred in. If 
 there were errors in it, they were subject 
 to correction. He thought that the basis 
 was a just one, and peculiarly adapted to the 
 local position of the State. With due def- 
 erence, he trusted, that the house woidd 
 take up the report and act upon it, section 
 by section. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Coxrad moved to strike out 
 all of the section with the exception of the 
 two first lines, announcing the principle 
 
134 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 that representation should be equal and 
 uniform. He considered the balance of the 
 section as in positive contradiction with the 
 foregoing declaration. 
 
 Mr. Roselius said he would support the 
 motion to refer the report to another com- 
 mittee. His colleague, (Mr. Benjamin,) 
 who had made that motion, had supported 
 it so forcibly as to make it necessary for 
 him to say, on the present occasion, but 
 little. The question would come up here- 
 after more properly for discussion. The 
 present committee have fixed no basis — they 
 have established no principle for the "equal- 
 ity and uniformity of representation;" and 
 unless a basis be proposed, how can we 
 proceed properly to the adoption of the sec- 
 tion. The present question, we are told 
 is an important question. It is not only 
 important in reference to the subject 
 to which it relates, but it is impor- 
 tant in relation to the divergent opinions 
 to which it has given rise. And hence it is 
 desirable that something precise and definite 
 should be presented for our action. Does 
 the report of the committee place us in 
 possession of any thing precise and dermic? 
 It is true that the principle of uniformity 
 and equality are enunciated. But are these 
 fundamental principles carried out? I say 
 they are not carried out, but are violated in 
 the details of the section* The apportion- 
 ment made is arbitrarily without any basis, 
 either of federal numbers of the electors 
 or of the population, and to each and every 
 parish is assigned one representative. Upon 
 what principle of apportionment is this 
 representation assigned? If a parish have 
 but twenty voters it is still to have one rep- 
 resentative, and an equal voice with one 
 having five hundred or one thousand voters! 
 Is this the principle of equality and unifor- 
 mity? 
 
 There are, said Mr. Roselius, three 
 ^ modes of fixing the representation of the 
 State. The first is the basis adopted in 
 the existing Constitution— that of the quali- 
 fied electors; the second is the basis of pop- 
 ulation, and the third is a mixed basis of 
 property and population. The principal of 
 either basis are fixed and immutable. Not 
 subject to legislative control, nor to the pas- 
 sions and excitements of the moment. 
 Choose which you please, establish a fixed 
 and immutable principle, but do not involve 
 yourselves by an arbitrary rule into a laba- 
 
 rinth, from which there is no escape. Do 
 not establish a rule that will fluctuate with 
 the will of the legislature, and which will 
 be subject to the interested action of politi- 
 cal parties — to be modified and to be 
 changed as may best suit the views of that 
 party, which may happen temporarily to be 
 in the ascendant, and which they may em- 
 ploy to perpetuate that ascendency. 
 
 But I may be told that the report estab- 
 lishes a basis in accordance with the con- 
 stitution of the United States. Not to be 
 mistaken, I will refer again to the report. 
 It says: — "Representation shall be equal 
 and uniform." That is very well, but it 
 proceeds in direct contradiction, "each par- 
 ish shall have at least one representative, 
 and beyond that, if entitled to any more, in 
 proportion to the population of each, ascer- 
 tained and calculated according to the prin- 
 ciple of representation fixed in the consti- 
 tution of the United States. The first rep- 
 resentation under this constitution shall 
 continue [arbitrarily!] until after the next 
 United States census, in 1850, and shall be 
 as follows." Here follows the enumeration. 
 Is it not clear that the federal principle of 
 representation is only called into operation 
 after the year 1850, and only when a parish 
 shall be entitled by its population to more 
 than one representative. But the principle 
 of federal representation, partical and sec- 
 tional, as it is in its operation towards a 
 particular portion of the State, is silent in 
 reference to the allotment of our represen- 
 tation. The small parishes in the north- 
 west, that have been carved out with a ra- 
 pidity and earnestness which surprised me, 
 at the time, but which is now perfectly 
 comprehensible, are to have one represen- 
 tative in any event, even although under 
 this very federal basis, they would have no 
 right to claim a representation distinct 
 and separate. The federal principle is to 
 operate only to their advantage. When 
 they invoke it, it will be because they are 
 entitled to more than one representative, but 
 in the meanwhile they are to have the pre- 
 ponderance and are to wield and control 
 the legislation of the State. I would ask, 
 Mr. President, if such an arbitrary allot- 
 ment of the political power of the State, is 
 not a flagrant injustice, a wilful and posi- 
 tive wrong? Can it be said to be made 
 upon any fixed basis? I repudiate the idea 
 that there is any thing like a basis, or that 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 135 
 
 is founded upon the principles of equality, 
 "Representation shall be equal and uni- 
 form" Indeed! Is this equality and uni- 
 formity? That the political power should 
 be wielded by a minority. For taking 
 the federal basis which admits the enume- 
 ration of three-fifths of the slave population, 
 a greater number of representatives are 
 allowed to the minority than they are enti- 
 tled to. I shall, on another occasion, refer 
 to the injustice of taking the federal basis in 
 this State, for the apportionment of repre- 
 sentation. 
 
 In reference to certain expressions, that 
 have fallen during this debate, I shall not 
 say any thing. They were no doubt sug- 
 gested during the heat of debate, and signify 
 nothing. I impugn the motives of no mem- 
 ber on this floor. I believe all are actua. 
 ted by good motives, whatever diversity of 
 opinion may exist. I do not consider a ref- 
 erence to motives a proper theme for ani- 
 madversion. We have nothing to do with 
 motives. The acts of the majority of the 
 committee are before us in this report. 
 Shall we sanction that report? I think it 
 ought not to be sanctioned, because it 
 makes an unequal and partial disposition 
 of the subject. Hence it is I think it should 
 be referred, and inasmuch as the able dele- 
 gate from Ouachita, (Mr. Downs,) and his 
 intelligent colleagues upon the committee, 
 have not been able to determine upon a just 
 basis of equal apportionment, the necessity 
 of re-committing the question, appears to 
 me to be the more apparent. 
 
 Mr. Chixx said he would, if the motion 
 to refer prevailed, move that the committee 
 be instructed to report a basis in accor- 
 dance with the federal basis. 
 
 Mr. Gry3Ies said it was immaterial to 
 him how the question at issue was reached. 
 But if it is to be referred, it seemed to him 
 but fair that the committee to be raised 
 should be placed in possession of some in- 
 structions indicating the sense of the house. 
 W ith that design, without trespassing too 
 far upon the indulgence of the house, he 
 would give his views upon the report as it 
 stood. 
 
 And, in the first place, the majority of the 
 committee, it appeared, had decided in favor 
 of federal numbers, as the basis of represen- 
 tation. God forbid, said Mr, G., that, in 
 the remarks which I shall make, I should 
 wound the sensibilities of persons too ready 
 
 to take offence, or give umbrage to those 
 whose zeal prompts them overmuch to de- 
 sire success to their own particular system. 
 
 Property, in my opinion, should be the 
 basis of representation ; but next to pro- 
 perty I would take the qualified voters. If 
 neither of these are to be the basis, then I 
 am in favor of a basis founded on an enume- 
 ration of the free white population of the 
 State. As to the federal basis adopted by 
 the committee, I consider it arbitrary in its 
 character, and calculated, if established, to 
 keep up dissensions and excitement in our 
 community. It is well known that the fed- 
 eral basis was a departure from principle, 
 insisted on by the southern States as a 
 guarantee, and consented to by the northern 
 States, only as a compromise, without 
 which the union of the States was impossi- 
 ble. Its design was to preserve the^balance 
 of power and protect the southern States from 
 encroachments on the part of the northern 
 States, to which the augmentation of popu- 
 lation from local causes, would otherwise 
 have given an ascendancy. That was the 
 motive for establishing the federal basis. 
 
 But, can it be pretended that our local 
 situation as the inhabitants of the State in 
 relation to each other, makes it necessary 
 that we should take such a basis? How 
 can there be any difference requiring it, 
 when all our population indifferently are 
 the proprietors of slaves? The delegate 
 from Ouachita may reply to this, that if we 
 refuse this basis, then we repudiate one of 
 our own vital and essential institutions. 
 This response is not well founded; it is not 
 analogous to the precise situation of things; 
 In a State where all are submitted to the 
 same laws, enjoy the same franchises, hold 
 the same description of property, it is idle 
 to adopt an arbitrary system of apportion- 
 ment that is not only repugnant to our so- 
 cial position, but manifestly unjust. The 
 federal basis, it must be conceded, is proper^ 
 in reference to the Union, but what propri- 
 ety, what necessity exists for the adoption 
 of that basis in the State of Louisiana? I 
 go further and assert, that so far from their 
 being any propriety or necessity for its 
 adoption, that its inscrutable tendency would 
 be to expose that particular institution to 
 the very risk — to guard against which it 
 was insisted upon as essential in our fede- 
 ral compact, and so it was essential in our 
 federal relations. But, that necessity cer- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 tainly has no existence in our local rela- 
 tions; not the most remote. 
 
 What will be the operation of this basis? 
 Assuming that the number of representa- 
 tives be fixed at 72, and the number of 
 senators at 32, the 4th district will be enti- 
 tled to 29 members in the first body and 14 
 in the second — making a total of 43, which 
 will be only nine less than a majority of 
 the whole assembly. And yet, to this 
 strange and monstrous proposition is given 
 the attribute of "equality and uniformity.'' 
 I, in vain, seek for the balance of political 
 power in the State. It has no visible exis- 
 tence. In what particular can it then be 
 said that this apportionment is conformable 
 to the immutable principles of justice. No 
 one, assuredly, will assume so difficult a 
 a task as to reconcile it with justice; and 
 yet the glaring inequalities will continue to 
 increase and become more appalling with 
 the progress of time. 
 
 The western portion of the State is the 
 richest in agricultural resources ; it is fast 
 increasing in slave population ; and, as a 
 natural consequence, the great preponde- 
 rance of that discription of persons will 
 render its white population quite small. 
 There is not a planter that removes there 
 that does not carry with him from fifteen 
 to twenty slaves — that may be taken as the 
 relative proportion; and it may be assumed 
 that the comparative increase of white and 
 slave population is as 1 to 7. Whereas, in 
 lower Louisiana, our slave population is 
 decreasing visibly, especially in the city of 
 New Orleans, where, in a population of 
 one hundred and ten thousand whites, there 
 are but eighteen thousand slaves, making 
 its relative proportion, on the contrary, in 
 the city, in the ratio of 6 whites to 1 slave. 
 From the city of New Orleans to the town 
 of Baton Rouge, the increase of the labor- 
 ing white population is very great, and this 
 accounts for the decrease in the number of 
 slaves, which are removed to the western 
 portion of the State, and elsewhere, where 
 their labor is more productive. If, for ex- 
 ample, you take one of the new parishes 
 of the west, with an area of thirty to fifty 
 miles square ; and, to its white population 
 add three-fifths of the slaves, it is certain 
 that one of the river parishes, in lower 
 Louisiana, with a population in the ratio of 
 2 slaves for 1 white, will have less show in 
 political power than the parish in the west, 
 
 that has a slave population in the ratio of 
 15 slaves to 1 white. Can a more arbitrary 
 and unjust system be divised, and how can 
 it be expected that the Convention can 
 sanction such a plan to transfer the politi- 
 cal power of the State into hands of a few 
 persons, resident in a particular geographi- 
 cal portion of the State. 
 
 In furtherance of the design now openly 
 manifested, a regular and systematic plan 
 of operations has been carried on in this 
 very region, which it is proposed to favor 
 so especially. It is very certain, that if 
 the power to create new parishes is still 
 continued in the legislature, the carving 
 out of territory for that purpose will be 
 stimulated by the principle that each parish 
 shall have one representative, and in this 
 the west will continue to enjoy an exclu- 
 sive monopoly. The reason is very sim- 
 ple. In the older portions of the State, 
 the lands are not as productive, and the 
 inhabitants of large parishes there, are not 
 disposed to incur heavy expenses by divi- 
 ding their territory. But, in the west, the 
 lands being rich, the population can be 
 split up into fractional communities, and 
 can bear the burthens of the parochial sys- 
 tems when carried out, ad infinitum. Con- 
 sequently, the superiority of population in 
 the east will be overbalanced by the num- 
 ber of parishes in the west ; and political 
 power will reside in a corner of the State 
 which has been split up in a hundred little 
 parishes expressly to attain that prepon- 
 derance. 
 
 The more I examine the subject, (con- 
 tinued Mr. Grymes,) the more am I con- 
 vinced x that the scheme is repugnant, not 
 only to the interests of the city, but to all 
 the other distiicts, and 1 may add, to the 
 true interests of the whole State. In the 
 third district, I find that only fifteen repre- 
 sentatives and seven senators are allowed 
 by this one-sided apportionment, — a dis- 
 proportion of within one of one half be- 
 tween the third and fourth Congressional 
 districts, the latter being allowed forty- 
 three members to the legislature. So much 
 for the disproportion between the third and 
 fourth districts, without taking into con- 
 sideration the difference between the fourth 
 district and the remaining districts. 
 
 Independent of these considerations, 
 (said Mr. Grymes,) how are we to ascer- 
 tain, without statistical information, the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana , 
 
 137 
 
 population of the several districts, white 
 and slave, — the amount of taxes paid, — 
 the area of each parish, and the amount of 
 its productive labor. The delegate from 
 Ouachita, (Mr. Downs,) although on an- 
 other occasion he sustained a contrary doc- 
 trine, is in favor that property should be 
 represented and taken into account upon 
 the apportionment. But what kind of pro- 
 perty would the gentleman have represen- 
 ted^? Slaves, only ! And why not other 
 property ? If slaves, as property, are to be 
 represented, why not represent houses and 
 lots, and all other property in the city and 
 •country ] If the proprietor of a slave is to 
 be invested with greater political power by 
 reason of that possession, why should not 
 the proprietor of a house, or the capitalist, 
 partake in the extension of power through 
 representation ? Surely, all property 
 should be treated alike, and no invidious 
 distinctions made between one kind of 
 property and another kind of property. 
 
 These views (said 3Ir. Grvmes) influ- 
 ence me to indulge the hope, that if the 
 report be recommitted, as suggested by 
 the gentleman, (Mr. Benjamin) it will be 
 with a view of reporting to the considera- 
 tion of this House, some equitable plan of 
 allotting the representation of the State by 
 fixing some definite and immutable prin- 
 ciple as the basis ; and likewise, that the ! 
 committee should place the House in pos- ! 
 session of exact and precise data, without 
 which, it is impossible for the House to 
 arrive at any correct and equitable conclu- 
 sion. 
 
 Whereupon, the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Satueday, February 1, 1345. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Nicholson opened the 
 proceedings by prayer. 
 
 Mr. Downs informed the Convention of 
 the sudden indisposition of the President, 
 by which he w T as unable to attend the de- 
 liberations of this body, 
 
 On motion of Mr. Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Mr. T. W. Chinn took the chair. 
 
 Order of the Day. — The Conven- 
 tion resumed the consideration of section 
 sixth, article two, of the report of the ma- 
 jority of the committee on the legislative 
 department, fixing the apportionment of 
 representation. 
 
 Mr. Mayo said: the discussion yester- 
 day, Mr. President, forcibly reminded me 
 of a remark made pending the discussion 
 of the adjournment at Jackson last August, 
 during which an honorable member from 
 Feliciana, (Judge Saunders,) slated that he 
 would almost as soon commit his body to 
 the coils of the anaconda as to submit the 
 action of this Convention, to the influences 
 to which its members would be exposed in 
 New r Orleans. 
 
 I now, sir, feel keenly the force of that 
 remark. On yesterday when this question 
 was presented, four distinguished members 
 from New Orleans, addressed the Con- 
 vention in support of a commitment of 
 the section, relative to the apportion- 
 ment of representation, now under con- 
 sideration, to a committee of three mem- 
 bers from each congressional district of the 
 State, and the three last of those members 
 asserted with all the force of their united 
 eloquence, that near half the representa- 
 tion of the State, viz: tw r enty-nine mem- 
 bers to the house of representatives and 
 fourteen senators w^ere, by the report, ap- 
 portioned to the fourth congressional dis- 
 trict; and these statements 1 find repeated 
 in the Tropic, a city paper this morning, in 
 which the statements appear to be re- as- 
 serted, on the very high authority from, 
 which they emanated in this hall yesterday, 
 and will thus be promulgated to the coun- 
 try as facts, before the replies can be pub- 
 lished in the official papers of the Conven- 
 tion, and are not likely to be fully explain- 
 ed to all the readers of the Tropic, as that 
 paper may or may not publish the remarks 
 that may be made in answer to those state- 
 ments. 
 
 It is not my purpose, sir, to attack any 
 member on this floor, nor to defend any- 
 one, but simply to state facts and leave 
 their effect, for the determination of the 
 Convention and of the country. 
 
 It was strongly intimated by the speeches 
 yesterday to which I am now replying, that 
 this very partial plan of apportionment^— 
 this flagrant injustice as it was expressly- 
 denominated, arose as a consequence of 
 the fact, that the member from Ouachita, 
 which is within that district, was the chair- 
 man of that committee, and that from his 
 great zeal for his constituents, a less pro- 
 portion of representation had been provid- 
 ed for other parts of the State than for that 
 district. 
 
13- 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 I, sir, was a member of that committee, 
 and represented a portion of the third con- 
 gressional district. 
 
 1 confess, sir, that I was shocked and 
 astounded when I heard the assertions of 
 such gross injustice as would have been 
 perpetrated by the committee, at least by 
 that portion of it that concurred in the ap- 
 portionment of senators and representa- 
 tives, as reported, if the statements made 
 yesterday were correct. 
 
 I, at first, sir, almost distrusted the cor- 
 rectness of the numerous data of appor- 
 tionment, that I calculated and reviewed 
 before that committee reported, — and sir, 
 as a source of relief to myself having up- 
 on my desk the data upon which the appor- 
 tionment reported was made, I immediate- 
 ly set myself to work, to determine the 
 facts from the statistics in my possession, 
 which I was ready to have presented yes- 
 terday, but was unable to get the floor pre- 
 vious to the adjournment. If injustice 
 were done by any report of the committee 
 in which I concurred, I, as a member of 
 the committee, am amenable, together with 
 any other member who concurred in the 
 report, to that charge of injustice, which 
 certainly would result from the statements 
 which were made yesterday as facts. A 
 charge of injustice, sir, — of the most fla- 
 grant injustice committed by the largest 
 committee of this Convention, and com- 
 posed of one member from each senatorial 
 district ! and that charge made and reite- 
 rated by four members from this city simutl- 
 aneousiy, and accompanied at their close 
 by loud and repeated calls of question, 
 question, question, resounding through 
 the hall, before members opposed to the 
 commitment could have an opportunity of 
 ascertaining the facts; I must be permitted 
 to say carried with it, at least the appear- 
 ance of concert and design. I do not say- 
 that such was the fact, or that any design 
 existed to carry the measure by storm or 
 by surprise, but that to me it was strongly 
 indicated by the circumstances. I beg of 
 members not to understand me as casting 
 any reflection upon the motives of any one, 
 for such is not my intention. 
 
 I heartily accord to every member upon 
 this floor the utmost purity both of motives 
 and intentions. I am dealing with facts 
 only. The honorable member, (Mr. Bou- 
 dousquie,) from St. Charles, I understood, 
 
 to state, as a reason for the commitment of 
 the section under discussion, that he should 
 be glad to have this section reported on by 
 a fair committee. I do not see that mem- 
 ber in his seat to correct me, if I am in an 
 error, which I regret. I can but think, 
 sir, that this is strong language, especially 
 when taken in connexion with that used 
 by the members from New Orleans. 
 
 Now, sir, let us see how this question of 
 fairness of the committee stands. By an 
 examination of the statistics which I have 
 in my possession, and which I have no 
 doubt are correct, this fourth congres- 
 sional district by favoring which such great 
 injustice is said to have been done, was re- 
 presented in that committee by but four 
 members, which was less than one-fourth 
 of the members of the committee. There 
 are embraced in the district of seventeen par- 
 ishes, which is more than one-third of the 
 whole number of parishes in the State, and 
 which together at the last presidential elec- 
 tion gave eight thousand, six hundred and 
 one votes, being more than one-third of the 
 whole number of votes given at the last 
 election for president, or ever given at any 
 election in the State. I have not had time 
 since yesterday to add together the whole 
 number of white population of the State 
 from the imperfect census of 1840, so as 
 to determine whether it bears the same pro- 
 portion to the representation, reported for 
 the fourth district, that the proportion of 
 voters bears to it, but from a hasty glance 
 at the census, I am inclined to think that 
 if the white population were made the 
 basis, the result, would not be varied mate- 
 rially. From a table which I have pre- 
 pared since yesterday with considerable 
 care, and which is as correct as any data 
 I have been enabled to obtain has enabled 
 me to make it, it appears that the first 
 and second congressional districts embrac- 
 ing New Orleans and ten other parishes, 
 gave at the last presidential election ten 
 thousand, nine hundred and twenty-one 
 votes. The vote of New Orleans having 
 been greatly increased as appears to be ac- 
 knowledged on all hands by fraudulent 
 votes; and that twenty-eight representatives 
 are, by the report, given to those two dis- 
 tricts. 
 
 The first district gave as nearly as I can 
 determine four thousand, two hundred and 
 forty-one votes, and has ten represents- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 139 
 
 tives, provided by the report; and the^ se- 
 cond district gave six thousand, six hun- 
 dred and eighty votes and has eighteen re- 
 presentatives. The third congressional dis- 
 trict has seventeen parishes, gave seven 
 thousand, three hundred and forty-three 
 votes, and has twenty-one representatives. 
 The fourth district, as already stated, has 
 seventeen parishes, gave eight thousand, 
 six hundred and one votes, and has 23 re- 
 presentatives, instead of twenty-nine, and 
 ten senators only, instead of fourteen, as 
 was asserted yesterday. I will now read 
 the statement of facts which I have pre- 
 pared, and from which 1 have drawn my 
 conclusions, and if they are incorrect, I 
 desire to be corrected, but I think I am 
 sustained by all the statistics that exist up- 
 on the subject. 
 
 748 V 
 
 — X 
 
 •— 
 Z l 
 
 1st COXGRESSIO.V ^ - §« 
 
 •— -5 ^ 
 
 al District. 
 
 2 and I parishes. , 
 
 1st Municipality. 
 3d Municipality, 
 St. Bernard, 
 Plaquemines. 
 
 2d District. 
 
 8 and t parishes. 
 2d Municipality, 
 Right Bank of 
 
 river.. 
 Par. of Jefferson, 
 St. Charles, 
 St. John Baptist, 
 St. James, 
 Ascension, 
 Assumption, 
 
 0 
 
 2191] 
 734 | 
 
 269 
 
 1047 \ No 
 
 No. of votes, 
 of Reps. 
 
 4241 
 10 
 
 1 The 1st and 2d sena- 
 torial district run 
 
 f into the 1st and 2d 
 congressional dis- 
 
 J tricts. 
 
 Lafourche Interior. 3 
 
 Terrebonne, 
 
 ^Supposed. 
 
 3d District. 
 
 17 parishes. 
 Avoyelles, 
 Catahoula, 
 Carroll, 
 Madison, 
 Concordia, 
 St. Tammany, 
 St. Helena, 
 Livingston, 
 Washington, 
 
 2723 
 
 * 91 
 
 837 
 138 
 255 
 532 
 503 
 564 
 608 
 429 
 
 553 ^ 
 
 547 
 
 411 
 
 404 
 
 283 
 
 368 
 
 371 
 
 329 
 
 357 
 
 E. Feliciana, 
 
 2 
 
 74S 
 
 W. Feliciana, 
 
 2 
 
 551 
 
 Point Coupee, 
 E. Baton Rouge, 
 
 1 
 
 349 
 
 2 
 
 714 
 
 W. Baton Rouge 
 
 . 1 
 
 313 
 
 Iberville, 
 
 1 
 
 488 
 
 Franklin, 
 
 1 
 
 292 
 
 Tensas, 
 
 1 
 
 265 
 
 No. of Senators, 10 
 with a fraction. 
 
 4th District. 
 17 parishes. 
 
 Nq. of votes, 
 "No. of Reps. 
 
 6680 
 18 
 
 St. Mary, 
 
 1 
 
 494] 
 
 St. Martin; 
 
 2 
 
 788 1 
 
 St. Landry, 
 
 n 
 
 1365 
 
 and Calcassieu, 
 
 
 
 Lafayette, 
 
 i 
 
 492 
 
 Rapides, 
 
 2 
 
 1006 
 
 Natchitoches, 
 
 2 
 
 1102 
 
 Caddo, 
 
 1 
 
 365 
 
 Claiborne, 
 
 1 
 
 571 
 
 Union, 
 
 1 
 
 419 
 
 Ouachita, 
 
 1 
 
 306 
 
 Caldwell, 
 
 1 
 
 263 
 
 Bossier, 
 
 1 
 
 162 
 
 Sabine, 
 
 1 
 
 648 
 
 Vermillion, 
 
 1 
 
 280 
 
 Desoto, 
 
 1 
 
 202 
 
 Morehouse, 
 
 1 
 
 138 
 
 
 23 
 
 
 No. of votes, 8601 
 . . No: of Reps. 23 
 *H f No. of Senators, 10- 
 with a fraction. 
 
 No. of votes, 
 No. of Reps. 
 
 7343 
 21 
 
 In connexion with this, as unfairness and 
 injustice are also charged, or at least im- 
 plied, from the statements made yesterday, 
 in relation to that part of the report that re- 
 lates to the senatorial districts, I will, for 
 the information of the Convention in ad- 
 dition to the fact that no more than ten in- 
 stead of fourteen senators are given to the 
 fourth district, compare the number of votes 
 given by each senatorial district provided 
 for by the report at the last presidential 
 election, and if the great inequality does 
 exist, it will be apparent from the facts. If 
 not, the reverse will appear from facts. It 
 will be borne in mind that the vote in the 
 city of New Orleans, as appears generally 
 to be conceded, was greatly increased at 
 the last election by fraudulent votes, and 
 that at the presidential election in 1840 
 there were but a little upwards of three 
 thousand votes in the city, at which time 
 the vote of the city was greatly increased 
 by fraudulent votes. Each senatorial dis- 
 trict as reported by the committee, is to 
 send four senators. The first senatorial 
 district is composed of that portion of the 
 parish of Orleans, which lies on the East 
 side of the Mississippi river, and at the last 
 election for president gave five thousand, 
 six hundred and forty. eight votes, or very 
 nearly that number. 
 
 The second senatorial district is compos- 
 i ed of the parishes of Plaquemines, St. Ber- 
 
140 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 nard, the remainder of the parish of Or- 
 leans, parish of Jefferson, St. Charles and 
 St. John the Baptist, which gave two thou- 
 sand, five hundred and forty-six votes or 
 nearly. 
 
 The third senatorial district is composed 
 of the parishes of St. James, Ascension, 
 Assumption, Lafourche Interior and Terre- 
 bonne and gave two thousand, six hundred 
 and thirty-six votes, 
 
 The fourth senatorial district is compos- 
 ed of the parishes of Iberville, West Ba- 
 ton Rouge, East Baton Rouge, Point Cou- 
 pee and Avoyelles, and gave two thousand, 
 four hundred and seventeen votes. 
 
 The fifth senatorial district is composed 
 of the parishes of West Feliciana, East 
 Feliciana, Washington, St. Tammany, St. 
 Helena and Livingston, and gave two thou- 
 sand, seven hundred and twenty-four votes. 
 
 The sixth senatorial district is composed 
 of Concordia, Carroll, Madison, Ouachita, 
 Union, Franklin, Tensas, Morehouse, Cata- 
 houla and Caldwell, and gave- three thou- 
 sand, three hundred and twenty-eight votes. 
 
 The seventh senatorial district is com- 
 posed of the parishes of Rapides, Natchi- 
 toches, Caddo, Calcassieu, Claiborne, 
 Sabine, Bossier and Desoto, and gave four 
 thousand, one hundred and ninety-one 
 votes. 
 
 The eighth senatorial district is compos- 
 ed of the parishes of St. Mary, St. Mar- 
 tin, St. Landry, Lafayette and Vermillion, 
 and gave two thousand, eight hundred and 
 sixty-eight votes. Now, sir, by compar- 
 ing these districts with the votes at the 
 election which has taken place since the 
 report was made, and taking into conside- 
 ration the fact that large fractions as well as 
 small ones must always exist in apportion- 
 ing representation, and that the population 
 in the different portions of the State is con- 
 stantly changing, increasing in some por- 
 tions of the State, while it decreases in 
 others, it appears to me that the committee 
 have not only not done injustice, by the 
 proposed apportionment of senators, but 
 that on the contrary it is remarkable, that 
 •any combination of parishes has been found 
 in solid form, that results in an apportion- 
 ment as equal The vote at the election 
 for governor in 1842 was, I believe, that 
 upon which this apportionment was based, 
 and from which a greater equality will ap- 
 pear on comparing the votes, with the dis- 
 
 tricts, than by taking the vote of 1844 as 
 a basis. m . ' 
 
 While acting as a member of the com- 
 mittee that reported the section now under 
 consideration, sir, I felt the responsibility 
 that rested upon me as one of its members. 
 I was, sir, then as now fully aware of the 
 importance of the task that we had to per-; 
 form any, labored incessantly, and with the 
 utmost care, to obtain all the information 
 within my reach, with a view to apportion- 
 ing the representation upon a fair and just 
 basis, fully appreciating the danger that 
 would arise of a rejection of the Constitu- 
 tion, if the apportionment were unjust or 
 unfair, and believe that the same feelings 
 actuated, most if not all the members of 
 that committee. If any provision will be 
 more likely than another to endanger the 
 approval by the people of the Constitution, 
 if submitted to them for their approval or 
 disapproval, I apprehend that it will be that 
 relative to the apportionment. I am, I ac- 
 knowledge, at this time favorably disposed 
 to submitting the result of our deliberations 
 to the people for their rejection or approval, 
 though not pledged to do so, if I should on 
 reflection, think such course improper. If 
 any member will at any time point out a 
 fairer and better mode of apportionment 
 than that reported, I will cheerfully yield 
 any preference I may have for any part of 
 it. I did not, sir, in fact fully concur in 
 either portion of the report. There was a 
 great variety of opinions entertained by 
 different members of the committee in re- 
 lation to it, as appears from the fact, that 
 four minority reports were presented by 
 different members, in one of which I con- 
 curred, not because I supposed it perfect, 
 but because I thought it the best that could 
 be agreed upon by any considerable num- 
 ber of the members. 
 
 I disapproved of the section reported by 
 the majority, particularly on the ground of 
 forming senatorial districts to elect four 
 senators in each by general ticket. 1 great- 
 ly prefer single districts. By two of the 
 minority reports, it is provided that the ap- 
 portionment shall be made by the legisla- 
 ture, that shall first convene under the new 
 Constitution, 
 
 The section proposed by the honorable 
 member from Assumption, (Mr. Taylor,) 
 apportioning representatives, 1 thought at 
 the time it was presented, was more per- 
 
• 
 
 Debates In the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 141 
 
 feet than any of the others. It is contain- 
 ed in a minority report presented by that 
 member. If there really is injustice done 
 by the report to any portion of the State, 
 it can as well be pointed out and adjusted 
 by the Convention as by another committee. 
 I can see no good reason for such a refe- 
 rence now. I cannot think that a com- 
 mittee composed of three members from 
 each congressional district will be likely to 
 produce that result, unless it be produced 
 by appoointing six members from the city 
 of New Orleans, which the president might 
 do, as New Orleans forms part of two con- 
 gressional districts. Here Mr. Benjamin 
 interrupted the speaker by stating that no 
 delegates had been chosen to the Conven- 
 tion who resided in that portion of New 
 Orleans, embraced in one of the congres- 
 sional districts. Mr. Mayo proceeced: 1 
 was not previously aware of the fact stated 
 by the honorable member, and am glad to 
 be corrected by him. It does not appear 
 to me, sir, that the representation either to 
 the house of representatives, or to the se- 
 nate is likely to be apportioned by any 
 committee that can be appointed, that will 
 be more equal, uniform and just than has 
 been provided by the reports already be- 
 fore the Convention; much less is such an 
 object likely to be effected by a committee 
 to be composed of three members from 
 each of the four congressional districts. 
 It may be best, and justice may require that 
 the distribution and ratio be changed from 
 the plan reported, in some particulars, by 
 taking from some parishes and giving to 
 others. Rapides and Natchitoches would 
 appear to be entitled from the number of 
 votes given at the last election, to another 
 representative each; but this can certainly 
 be as easily done without a reference to an- 
 other committee as by such reference. As 
 to giving a member to each of the new 
 parishes, it appears to me that sound policy 
 and justice demand it. 
 
 The fact that each parish is a distinct, 
 political corporation, having separate and 
 distinct interests, arising from the fact of 
 its political existence, will create a neces- 
 sity for separate representation from each, 
 and though some two or three of the new 
 parishes may not at this time be entitled by 
 its numbers to a separate representation, 
 yet their population is rapidiv increasing 
 19 
 
 I and will soon entitle each to a separate 
 I representative. 
 
 I I will conclude, sir, by expressing a hope 
 ! that the Convention will proceed to the 
 ! consideration of the report without distraet- 
 ) ing its proceedings by referring the section 
 to any other committee. 
 
 Mr. Dowxs said he felt it to be his duty 
 to make some remarks in reply to what had 
 fallen from the gentleman who had so 
 strenously opposed the report of the majority 
 of the committee upon the subject of appor- 
 tionment. He had been drawn suddenly 
 into the discussion yesterday, by the pe- 
 culiar mode of attack, with which the report 
 had been assailed.- He could not but ex- 
 press his astonishment at the extraordinary 
 procedure of yesterday. It would appear 
 that there was something more at work than 
 the desire to guard mere peculiar local in- 
 terests. As soon as the subject of appor- 
 tionment was accidentally and unexpect- 
 edly called up yesterday, five of the ablest 
 members of this body, one after the other, 
 got up and poured a broadsideunto the re- 
 port. One gentleman — there were so 
 many that he did not recollect the particu- 
 lar one; and he would have to distinguish 
 them by numbers, from no. 1 to no. 5 — he 
 believed this was no. 2, proposed that the 
 report should at once indignantly be reject- 
 ed — kicked out of the Convention, while 
 another gentleman, no. 1, was for uncere- 
 moniously dismissing the original commit- 
 tee, by the appointment of another that will 
 be in his conception more just and less par- 
 tial in the discharge of the duty to be as- 
 signed it. It was very evident that if those 
 gentlemen had their way, the report would 
 have been sent to the bottom of the Missis- 
 sippi. They would find, distinguished as 
 they were, however, that it would be rather 
 difficult to get rid of the report by the vio- 
 lence of their denunciations. It was very 
 evident that their intentions were to attach 
 a bad name to the report, and get rid of it 
 in that way. They thought by raising the 
 cry of mad dog, they would have a reason- 
 able' pretence for keeping up an incessant 
 fire. Their strategy was ingenious, but not 
 novel in legislation. They wished to di- 
 vert attention from the city of New Orleans, 
 and by enlisting a feeling of jealousy 
 against the unfortunate fourth district, to di- 
 | vide the country, for the. benefit of the city, 
 i How, enquired one of the gentlemen, can 
 
112 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 justice be expected from a committee com- 
 p >sed of a majority of radicals. I do not know 
 what the gentleman meant by the term rad- 
 ical. There are a large majority of demo- 
 crats on the committee, and this is one of 
 fche very few committees in the Convention, 
 upon which there is not a majority of whigs. 
 From the very necessity of the case it had 
 to be so composed, being constituted in the 
 main, of a delegate from each senatorial 
 district, and it was impossible to appoint a 
 majority of whigs, when the large prepon- 
 derance of senatorial delegates were demo- 
 crats — but as many whigs as could be ap- 
 pointed were placed upon the committee, 
 and the worthy president of the Convention 
 had in this, as in every other proceeding, 
 exhibited the utmost impartiality. As for 
 the charge of radicalism in the committee, 
 so far from there being a majority of radi- 
 cals, there are but few radicals upon that 
 committee, and the chairman of the com- 
 mittee, myself, it is well known, is opposed 
 to one of the chief features of radicalism, 
 and in that I differ from many of my politi- 
 cal friends — the election of judges by the 
 people. To the majority of the members 
 of the committee, this serious charge of rad- 
 icalism will be something very novel. As 
 an insinuation has been made about the 
 particular complexion of the committee, I 
 will here state, that out of nine standing 
 committees of the Convention, there are 
 only three upon which there is a majority 
 of democrats, four of the committees con- 
 tain a majority of whigs, and two upon 
 which there is an equality of whigs and 
 democrats. In looking over the names of 
 the gentlemen that compose them, I find 
 the name of but one member who is at the 
 same time upon two of the most important 
 committees of the Convention — the com- 
 mittee upon the executive department and 
 the committee upon general provisions — 
 Mr. Benjamin. 
 
 The intention of the opponents of the 
 report is quite evident. They propose to 
 refer it to another committee, one more im- 
 partial. How is that committee to be com- 
 posed] Of delegates from the four con- 
 gressional districts. Now, it so happens 
 that the city of New Orleans forms a part, 
 and a controlling part of two districts. The 
 committee is to be constituted of three 
 members from each district, making twelve 
 members, and out of these twelve members 
 
 the city may have six, or one half. It is 
 not expected that any report will be made 
 by the new committee which will be satis- 
 factory. That is not the design. The 
 object is to get rid of the first report. I 
 strenuously object to this proceeding. If the 
 section reported be imperfect, why not let it 
 take the same course as the balance of the 
 report of the committee. Propose a sub- 
 stitute for it, and take the sense of the 
 house upon the substitute, or amend it so 
 as to make it meet the sense of the house. 
 Assuredly the committee never imagined 
 that their report was perfect. They presen- 
 ted it as the most perfect they could suggest 
 for the action of the house. Two points in it 
 have been the particular objects of attack. 
 The first, that the basis should be in accor- 
 dance with federal numbers, and the second, 
 that each parish should be entitled to 
 at least one representative. I see nothing 
 in these principles so obnoxious to good 
 policy or sound reason. The report of the 
 majority of the committee adopts the first 
 as the basis of representation, and as for 
 the second, we have a precedent in several 
 States of the union, and in the senate of the 
 United States, where the little State of Del- 
 aware has as much might as the great State 
 of New York. Both the report of the mi. 
 nority and the majority agree upon the fed- 
 eral basis of representation. The princi- 
 pal difference in the reports is in this, that 
 the minority recommend that the legislature 
 be entrusted, as heretofore, with the duty of 
 making the appointments. Experience has 
 demonstrated that it would be unwise to 
 leave it to the discretion of the legislature, 
 and hence the majority of the committee 
 recommend the opposite course. 
 
 It has been urged, that out of the $500,- 
 000, paid into the public treasury for taxes, 
 the city of New Orleans contributes $200,- 
 000, and that consequently she is entitled to 
 more weight. This statement is not alto- 
 gether exact, as will be seen on reference 
 to the treasurer's report. The city contrib- 
 uted, in the year 1842, but $76,780, and 
 the difference between that period and 
 1844, in the collection of revenue, cannot 
 be essential. In this amount I exclude the 
 tax upon auctioneers and boarding houses, 
 and upon hawkers and pedlers, which I 
 consider in the gross, to be paid by the 
 country. So much for that argument. 
 
 To hear the extravagant declamations of 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 143 
 
 some gentlemen, it would be supposed that 
 the fourth district was overflowing with 
 slave population, and that every acre of 
 land within it was susceptible of cultivation. 
 It is true that there is an average proportion 
 of good land, but there is a great deal that 
 will never bear cultivation. There are 
 pine barrens and swamps. And as to there 
 being an excedant of slave population; the 
 contrary is the fact. The third "congres- 
 sional district would enjoy the greatest ad- 
 vantage from the federal basis, if reference 
 be had to the number of slaves. 
 
 The great sensitiveness of the delegation 
 from New Orleans, is explained by the fact, 
 that if they succeed in getting the Conven- 
 tion to adopt the white basis, the city will 
 have the entire and full control of the legis- 
 lation of the State. If the number of repre- 
 sentatives be fixed at 79, the city of New 
 Orleans alone will have the relative pro- 
 portion of 32, besides the delegation from 
 the adjoining parishes, which may be dis- 
 posed from identity of interest and from 
 association, to unite with her. Hence the 
 bursts of eloquence that we have heard, 
 and the .withering denunciations of the re- 
 port. It is very natural that the delegation 
 from the city should seek to establish her 
 supremacy; I do not complain of it. But 
 certainly they ought not to expect the coun- 
 try to relinquish and abandon every thing. 
 No member from the country has the slight- 
 est wish to interfere with the city, and to 
 take from her any of the just weight, to 
 which she is fairly entitled. In saying 
 thus much, I express my own sentiments, 
 and those of every member from the coun- 
 try, I feel well assured. 
 
 But why make the attempt to defeat a 
 proposition which has been maturely con- 
 sidered, and which is presented, not as per- 
 fect, but as perfect as the labors of-the ma* 
 jority of the committee could make it, by a 
 violent and preconcerted mode of attack, and 
 by getting up the cry of mad dog against it, 
 so that it might be destroyed. I repeat, if 
 there be defects, and that there are defects 
 I will not permit myself to doubt, in the re- 
 port, why not remove them. As for the 
 principle of representation to each parish, 
 I think it a just and equitable one, but in 
 order to limit the principle, I would have 
 no objection that the legislature be inhibi- 
 ted from creating any new parishes, unless 
 they contained a certain number of inhabi- 
 
 tants. The power of abolishing parishes, 
 is clearly within the competency of 
 the legislature, and they availed them, 
 selves of that power, by abolishing the par- 
 ish of Warren; it might, therefore, very 
 well be left to the discretion of the legisla- 
 ture, to abolish any parish where its popu- 
 lation did not entitle it to representation. 
 
 If the white basis be adopted, it is very 
 clear that a number of parishes, not in the 
 fourth district of the State, will be deprived 
 of representation. Some of these parishes 
 are represented by gentlemen who oppose 
 this report. 
 
 [Mr. Dowjn t s here read from the census 
 the white and slave population of the par- 
 ishes of St. Charles, St. John the Baptist, 
 Rapides, the Parish of Orleans, &c, &c] 
 
 The ascendency of the city of New Or- 
 leans would be tremendous. It would 
 sweep all before it. 
 
 The question of apportionment was natu- 
 rally an exciting one. It had occasioned a 
 great deal of excitement in the former Con- 
 vention that formed the present constitution; 
 but the difficulty had arisen there, upon the 
 complexion of the senate. It was declared 
 that accommodation was impossible, and 
 yet the matter was compromised. That is 
 the only way in which it can be settled. 
 Let us then approach with calmness, and 
 use no other weapons but of persuasion 
 and of sound argument. 
 
 Mr. Conrad, of New Orleans, said it 
 was not his intention to participate in this 
 debate, but inasmuch as the two gentlemen 
 that last addressed the house, had replied to 
 those of his colleagues, who were not now 
 in their seats, called away by their engage- 
 ments, or by indisposition, he would beg 
 leave to make a few remarks on their be- 
 half, and at the same time, would state his 
 own particular views upon the subject. 
 
 The gentleman that just addressed the 
 house, rose yesterday under some apparent 
 excitement, and in his rep .y to one of my 
 colleagues, he indulged in some personal 
 asperity. He seemed to think that the fault 
 found with the report, attached to the indi- 
 vidual members that made it. This sensi- 
 tiveness of the chairman of the committee, 
 appeared unnecessary. Certainly not the 
 remotest intention could have been enter- 
 tained, to reflect, in the slightest manner, 
 upon the motives of any member of that 
 committee. 
 
1 11 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 But the gentleman from Ouachita, (Mr. 
 Downs.) seems to think that there was a 
 preconcerted movement against his report, 
 on the part of the city delegation. For my- 
 srH; Mr. President, I can assert that I nev- 
 er heard the subject of apportionment men- 
 tioned, from the time I left Jackson, until 
 yesterday, when the point was brought 
 under consideration. The gentleman com- 
 plains that the hue and cry has been raised 
 of mad dog, against the report. That may 
 very well be, as the report assuredly exhibits 
 certain signs of hydrophobia. 
 
 The delegate from Catahoula (Mr. Mayo) 
 whose calculations may be very exact 3 it 
 seems to me has taken a singular mode of 
 illustrating the equity of the apportionment 
 in the report of the committee. He has 
 based his calculation upon electors, where- 
 as the report adopts white population, in- 
 cluding three-fifths of slaves. If the basis 
 were electors, then this calculation might 
 apply, but how can it apply to a mixed 
 basis of white population and slaves. If 
 the gentlemen have adopted the federal 
 basis, as their report would indicate, let 
 them stick to it, and argue upon it, but not 
 adopt the principle of federal numbers, and 
 then attempt to sustain it by adducing the 
 number of qualified electors in each district, 
 and parish, to show that there is not a stri- 
 king disparity in the apportionment they 
 have made. 
 
 There are in my opinion two radical de- 
 fects in the report. The first is, that al- 
 though the true principle is announced, 
 " that representation shall be free and 
 equal," it contradicts and nullifies that prin- 
 ciple by declaring that each parish, no 
 matter what may be its population, shall 
 have one representative. The next objec- 
 tionable feature is the representation ac- 
 corded to slaves as a particular kind of pro- 
 perty. How should the legislature be con- 
 stituted? By the representatives of the 
 people — not the representatives of slave 
 property. This is so clear as scarcely to 
 need one word of elucidation. The reason 
 why slaves are admitted into the federal 
 basis arc peculiar, and have reference to a 
 state of things that are not analogous to the 
 local position of the State. But why, if 
 you admit slave property to representation, 
 do you refuse to admit other property? 
 Slaves in Louisiana are no more than pro- 
 perty. And yet a distinction is established 
 
 between slaves and other property, and 
 slaves are admitted to a representation by 
 the report? The argument based upon the 
 necessity, under which the federal Consti- 
 tution was framed, has as I have before 
 said, no weight in the present case. The 
 federal Constitution was a part of indepen- 
 dent sovereignties, without which no union 
 could have been formed, and which could 
 not hav§ been established at all without 
 that compromise. But, as my colleague,. 
 (Mr. Grymes) has justly observed, it was a 
 departure from principle, redered indispen- 
 ble by the existing institutions of one half 
 of the confederated States, and therefore per- 
 fectly justifiable and perfectly expedient. 
 
 I certainly do not object to any basis of 
 representation that will operate equally. 
 But the proposition in the report is unequal 
 and partial. It is not equal and uniform, and 
 hence I object to it. If property be adopted 
 as the basis, let all kinds of property enter 
 into that basis; and not a certain kind 
 of property which predominates in a cer- 
 tain portion of the State. But in the fact 
 that there are more slaves in one quarter of 
 the State than there are in the others, do 
 we discover the real reason why slave 
 property is so singularly favored. Its chief 
 recommendation lies in that ; and hence it 
 has been selected ; for, by no conceivable 
 basis could the fourth district aspire to the 
 ascendancy in political power. 
 
 How would it be found if any member 
 were to get up and propose that the sugar 
 planter should have two votes, while the 
 cotton planter be restricted to one, or the 
 reverse ? Its injustice would be apparent ; 
 and yet , a cotton planter in Ouachita or 
 Natchitoches is not only to be represented 
 himself, but three-fifths of his slaves are to 
 be taken into the basis of representation, 
 and he is to have as many additional votes 
 in that ratio, as he has slaves. It is true, 
 that he has but a single vote, but that one 
 vote may be equivalent to the votes of ten, 
 twenty or thirty white men. And why, 
 since you adopt the principle, do you esti- 
 mate but three-fifths of the slaves property; 
 why do you not say two-fifths or one-half, 
 or the whole number. If the principle be 
 consonant with equality and uniformity, 
 why not carry it out ? It is simply because 
 it is an arbitrary principle, and is revolting 
 to a sense of justice. 
 
 If the apportionment, giving to each 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 145 
 
 parish, however small, one representative, 
 was temporary, we might submit to it. But 
 such is not the case. The apportionment, 
 in that respect is irrevocable. It must 
 have, at least, one representative, and as 
 many (heaven save the mark !) as it may, 
 hereafter, be entitled to. It is to keep one 
 until it gets more, which is giving it one in 
 perpetuity. 
 
 The evil, however, great as it is, does 
 not stop here. The apportionment applies 
 to every new parish that may be created : 
 by the fact of its creation it is to have one 
 representative : thus affording to political 
 parties the means of perpetuating their 
 power, and of carrying into effect any favo- 
 rite measure they may desire. It has 
 become the practice of the monarchical 
 governments of England and France to re- 
 cruit their strength in their higher learisla- 
 tive assemblies by the appointment of a 
 batch of new peers. The result of this 
 one representative parish system will be 
 attended by something like the same conse- 
 quences. Whenever a party needs assis- 
 tance in the popular branch, they will have 
 nothing to do but to create a batch of new 
 parishes. 
 
 The right of representation is a sacred 
 right. It is not to be denied where it is 
 due, nor accorded where it is not due. It 
 is the property of the citizen, and it is in vain 
 to extend suffrage with one hand, if you 
 destroy the value of the gift with the other. 
 My opinions in relation to this particular 
 point are well known. I have fully and 
 freely expressed them ; and had my views 
 prevailed, I would have required some 
 guarantee of fidelity and attachment in 
 every case for the exercise of the privilege 
 of suffrage. But this has not been done • 
 and it comes with a peculiar bad grace — 
 with a great deal of inconsistency from 
 those who have declaimed so much in favor 
 of the inestimable right of suffrage, and 
 that it should be extended to every free 
 white male, without any restriction what- 
 ever — to propose a basis that admits three- 
 iifths of the slave population to be propor- 
 tionately equivalent to the white population; 
 and by so much reduces the political power 
 of the individual electors between them- 
 selves. 
 
 If reference be had to the law under 
 which we have assembled, it will be seen 
 that one of the objects designed was the 
 
 establishment of a more equal and just 
 system of representation — for certainly the 
 disparity in representation was most strik- 
 ing. This feature of inequality is most 
 visible in the Senate — the parish and city 
 of New Orleans having but one Senator, 
 while the parish of Pointe Coupee has one. 
 It would seem by the report this inequality, 
 with ten-fold force, is to be transferred to 
 the popular branch, and the majority are 
 to be transferred, bound hand and foot, 
 and delivered over to the tender mercies 
 of the minority — the great proprietors of 
 slaves in the north-west corner of the 
 State — who may continue at will the mul- 
 tiplication of new parishes as exigencies 
 may require. They will enjoy, as hereto- 
 fore, a monopoly of this business, inasmuch 
 as the southern and older portions of the 
 State have divided their territory as far as 
 has been deemed expedient or useful. 
 
 It is useless, if not worse, to attempt to 
 arraign sectional or local feelings against 
 the city of New Orleans. The city of New 
 Orleans is not the only portion of the State 
 that will be affected, although, it is true, she 
 will be affected, in the extent of her popu- 
 lation and of her electors, to a greater de- 
 gree. But, it is said that the growth of the 
 city, and the increase of her population, are 
 dangerous to the country ; that she will 
 monopolize the political- power of the State. 
 That consideration might properly have 
 been urged, and was urged by me, against 
 an improper, and, as I conceived, without 
 restrictions, a dangerous extension of suf- 
 frage. Suffrage has been extended, and if 
 the apprehensions of the gentlemen, now, 
 for the first time, avowed, are to be reali- 
 zed, we must_seek to avert it without sacri- 
 fice of principle. I do not desire to see 
 the city of New Orleans possess an undue 
 influence, and if suffrage were confined to 
 those only who really were interested in 
 her prosperity, and in the stability of the in- 
 stitutions of the State, there would exist no- 
 reasonable cause of alarm that she would 
 acquire that preponderance ; and, even if 
 she acquired it, in the course of usual 
 events, there would be a positive guarantee 
 that she would not abuse it. But, as I said 
 before, and which I again repeat, cities are 
 not the safest depositories of political power. 
 I would not place the country at the foot- 
 stool of the city, nor would it be good poli- 
 cy to deprive the city of all influence, and 
 
no 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 place her in the attitude of an humble and 
 servile dependant of the country. The 
 balance of power should be carefully adjus- 
 ted and the rights of both town and country 
 amply protected. 
 
 If gentlemen really feel the apprehen- 
 sions they now express, of danger from the 
 great number of voters in the city, let them 
 retrace their steps, and fix the basis of suf- 
 frage so as to decrease the number of elec- 
 tors, without affecting the rights of any 
 who are justly entitled to a vote, and who 
 may be allowed the exercise of that privi- 
 lege, consistent with the safety of the State. 
 This will be an effectual check against the 
 anticipated danger, and then there will exist 
 no pretext to infringe that golden rule of 
 republican governments — that "representa- 
 tion shall be equal and uniform." No 
 principle will be violated ; for the State has 
 an undoubted right to fence in and protect 
 her institutions, and to perpetuate her lib- 
 erties by a wise and salutary policy in refe- 
 rence to suffrage. 
 
 Mr. Dunn said that he had considered 
 with a great deal of attention this question 
 of representation. It was a subject of vital 
 importance. His opinion of the report of 
 the majority of the committee had not been 
 shaken by anything that had fallen from the 
 several gentlemen that had assailed that 
 report with so much power and vehemence. 
 The design of choosing the white popula- 
 tion as the basis of representation for the 
 State of Louisiana was fraught with mis- 
 chievous consequences ; nay, it involved 
 the existence of the agricultural interests of 
 the State. That basis was no doubt a 
 proper one in a community whose institu- 
 tions were dissimilar in most respects from 
 those of Louisiana; but here imperious 
 necessity demanded that the species of 
 property from which the greatest amount of 
 revenue was derived, and which was the 
 source of our agricultural wealth, should 
 enter and be considered a part of the basis 
 of representation. By reason of the exis- 
 tence of that very species of property, and 
 of the chief products of the State, the white 
 population of the country was comparatively 
 smaller than the same population in the city; 
 but the population cf the country was a 
 permanent population, and essentially at- 
 tached to the soil, and to the institutions of 
 the State. By far the greatest interest in 
 the State — the interest upon which the 
 
 safety and perpetuity of these institutions 
 
 mainly depended — was the agricultural in- 
 terest; and the question presented itseif, 
 shall that interest be sacrificed ; shall the 
 country be sacrificed, in order that the city 
 may control and direct the destinies of the 
 State ? Such an event as that would be 
 most lamentable; and, if it be politic to 
 avoid it, we must choose that basis which 
 will give to the country her just and neces- 
 sary preponderance. 
 
 As for any system of perfect equality in 
 representation, adapted to our peculiar con- 
 dition, it is out of the question. We have 
 a great and growing city, entirely dispro- 
 portionate to the balance of the State ; a 
 city which is not only the recipient of the 
 products of the State, but which is the reci- 
 pient of the products of an empire of States. 
 A city which is filling up with all kinds of 
 population, and which is exposed to the out- 
 breaks and commotions of the varied ele- 
 ments of which it is composed. Will any 
 one say that the country would be justified 
 in relinquishing the power which she has 
 wielded, but never abused, for the purpose 
 of transferring it to the city? Without dis- 
 paragement to the patiotism and virtue that 
 exist in New Orleans — which is without 
 doubt as great as any other city — would it 
 be safely placed? I think not, and the hon- 
 orable gentleman himself (Mr. Conrad) has 
 on more than one occasion, testified to the 
 danger of making New Orleans the arbi- 
 tress of the State. 
 
 The country is free from those passions, 
 those sudden excitements which pervert and 
 carry men's minds to fearful extremeties, 
 and therefore is a shield to our institutions 
 to guard them from sudden assaults, and 
 preserve them from the insidious machina- 
 tions of enemies from within or without. 
 It is, therefore, the part of wisdom not to 
 diminish her just weight, but on the contra- 
 ry to place it on a solid and permanent ba- 
 sis. 
 
 Every consideration of sound policy dic- 
 tates that the country should maintain her 
 ascendency. She has the power and will 
 retain it. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Monday, February 3, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 , And on motion of Mr. Scott of Baton 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 147 
 
 Rouge, Mr. T. W. Chinx was continued 
 as president during the indisposition of Mr. 
 Walker. 
 
 Mr. Brext offered a resolution that the 
 Convention meet every evening at 7 o'clock, 
 p. m., and called for the yeas and nays. 
 Yeas 32, nays 27: so the resolution was 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Read offered a resolution that an 
 additional reporter in English, be appointed. 
 
 Mr. Beatty objected to the resolution. 
 The gentleman that had been elected re- 
 porter ought to be able to discharge the du- 
 ties of that office, and would be able if he 
 were not at the same time the reporter of 
 the senate. He was opposed to all sine- 
 cures. 
 
 Mr. Dowxs was convinced of the necessi- 
 ty of an additional reporter. It was impos- 
 sible for any one man to get through, un- 
 aided, and make the report from day to day. 
 As for the present reporter being the repor- 
 ter of the senate, he would state that his 
 occupations in that body did not interfere 
 at all, he conceived, with his duties to this. 
 Either, said Mr. Downs, we should have 
 published regularly the debates, or aban- 
 don their publication altogether. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Coxrad thought it better to 
 renounce the publication of the reports, 
 than to incur any additional expense. He 
 saw no necessity for their publication in 
 such hot haste. The paper upon which 
 they were published were destined to be 
 destroyed by worms and mice. He did 
 not expect, nor did he wish to inflict any 
 thing he might say in this Convention, 
 upon posterity. 
 
 Mr. Sauxders thought that inasmuch as 
 the publication of the debates had been de- 
 termined upon, they should be made proper- 
 ly, and that no more duty should be expect- 
 ed from an officer of this body, than that 
 officer was capable of performing. 
 
 Mr. Beatty would move an amendment 
 to the resolution, that a reporter be appoint- 
 ed for the French. He was opposed to the 
 resolution, but if it were to pass, let there 
 be no distinction. 
 
 Mr. Dowxs thought it unnecessary to 
 have an additional reporter in French; for 
 the reporters in English could assist the 
 reporter in French. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne saw no necessity for 
 accelerating the publication of the full re- 
 ports. An abstract was given in the pa= 
 
 ! pers every morning, and the official reports 
 
 appeared some days after. He would move 
 I io lay the resolution and the amendment on 
 i the table. 
 
 The question was put on Mr. Claiborne's 
 motion, and it was lost — 30 yeas, 32 nays. 
 Mr. Kexxer said he believed that the 
 
 l publication of these reports were the cause 
 of the long speeches that were made. Ever 
 since the meeting of the Convention, we 
 have had the game of nine-pins, that is, one 
 gentleman gets up and imagines points of 
 
 'disagreement, and then knocks them down 
 to show his skill. Another gentleman fol- 
 
 | lows, and so the game is kept up from day 
 to day. 
 
 He would therefore move to abolish the 
 office of reporters to the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Kexxer withdrew his motion, in 
 order to take the question upon the appoint- 
 ment of additional reporters. After that he 
 would renew his motion. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. Beatty's 
 amendment, and it was lost — yeas 25, nays 
 .41. 
 
 j The question then recurred on the ap- 
 pointment of an additional English reporter 
 — yeas 31, nays 36. 
 
 Mr. Kexxer then renewed his motion 
 to abolish the office of reporters. 
 
 Mr. Covilliox moved that said motion 
 be laid indefinitely on the table — yeas 40, 
 nays 22. 
 
 Order or the day. — Section 6, article 
 second; Apportionment. 
 
 Mr. Beatty said that the question of 
 apportionment had always been, and always 
 would be, a question of great gravity 
 in a representative government. It is 
 one of those questions that must be met 
 boldly, and when settled, it must be settled 
 immutably, beyond the control of legislative 
 power. The experience of the past had 
 demonstrated the impolicy of assigning to 
 the legislature the duty of making the ap- 
 portionment, even if the basis were fixed. 
 The same causes that made the requisition 
 to that effect in the old constitution inope- 
 rative, would make a similar requisition in- 
 operative in the new constitution. It is 
 notorious that for a series of years, there 
 has been a constant murmur against the 
 present defective and unequal apportion- 
 ment of representation, and that it has been 
 continued despite of public opinion. 
 
 The plan of representation that he was 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 about to submit, was based upon federal 
 numbers. He considered that the safest 
 basis of apportionment for the State. It was 
 true that the city of New Orleans would 
 possess less influence under it than she 
 would by an apportionment according to 
 either numbers or voters, but this he ac- 
 knowledged was to him a recommendation. 
 I ti all ages and in all countries the influence 
 of large cities, whenever exercised, has 
 been detrimental to the States in which 
 they were situated. Paris has controlled, 
 and still controls the destinies of France. 
 It was there that the memorable revolution 
 that drenched her streets in blood began, 
 and it was amid her motley and excitable 
 population that the horrors of that revolution 
 were perpetrated. It was there, that one of 
 the best and noblest causes in which man- 
 kind were ever engaged, was sullied by 
 crime. It was there that revolution was 
 succeeded by -revolution, party by party, 
 until Napoleon placed the imperial crown 
 upon his head. So too, do we find that 
 Rome controlled the vast extent of territory 
 which she aspired to govern. The passions 
 of that haughty city ruled the balance of 
 the republic. The slightest convulsion 
 within her walls was felt in the remotest 
 provinces, until by her overgrown and pam- 
 pered weight, she fell to the lowest scale 
 of degradation and impotence. Had the 
 power of the republic been diffused in place 
 of being concentrated in the city of Rome, 
 the republic would have possessed some re- 
 cuperative energy to have withstood the 
 shock of the barbarous hordes, and would 
 not have been a constant prey to intestinal 
 commotion. 
 
 Let us profit by the experience of the 
 past. Let us place the country beyond the 
 corroding influence of the city. The re- 
 publics of ancient Greece were controlled 
 by their cities, and they fell a prey to luxury 
 and licentiousness. Let us pursue any 
 system that will diffuse power over the ter- 
 ritorial limits of the State, and that will not 
 concentrate it in any one part, especially in 
 *a large city. Let us avoid placing power 
 in the hands of a few. It is dangerous to 
 republican liberty. 
 
 Taking the free white population as a 
 basis, said Mr. Beatty, New Orleans 
 would have at present, more than one-third 
 of the representation of the State, and 
 should the increase of that class of popula- 
 
 tion in the city, for the future, be in the same 
 ratio as the past, in a few years the city 
 would have one half. The federal, he con- 
 ceived to be the correct basis under these 
 circumstances. Slaves were not merely 
 property; they were a portion of the popu- 
 lation, of the labor of the State; and labor, 
 he deemed, the exclusive source of wealth. 
 If, said he, we adopt the free white male 
 population as a basis, taking into consider- 
 ation the fact that the slave population of 
 New Orleans is fast diminishing, it is not 
 *beyond the range of possibility that New 
 Orleans may in a few years, without detri- 
 ment to her own interest, propose and carry 
 the abolition of slavery. In his proposition 
 he had taken the whole population of the 
 State. The whites he had estimated by the 
 census of 1840; the blacks by the assess- 
 ment roll of 1843; he then took the smallest 
 parish in the State, (in point of population) 
 as a basis for the distribution of representa- 
 tives, and dividing the whole population by 
 double the number in that parish would give 
 eighty-six representatives, instead of the 
 present number seventy-two; and he would 
 if his proposition were favorably received, 
 hereafter suggest a provision that the legis- 
 lature should have no power to create a 
 parish unless its population equalled the 
 number he had used as a division. His 
 proposition would give to New Orleans 
 about one-third of the representation. There 
 were a few parishes that he was not positive 
 had the required population, to which he 
 had apportioned a member each; but he 
 had been told that the increase of population 
 in those parishes since the census of 1840 
 was sufficient to justify him in so doing. 
 
 The more I reflect upon the subject, said 
 Mr. Beatty, the more am I convinced that 
 the federal basis is the true one for the gen- 
 eral interests of the whole State. The fol- 
 lowing are the details, according to that 
 basis of my proposition, which I shall pro- 
 pose, as a substitute for the report of the 
 majority of the committee. 
 
 "Representation shall be equal and uni- 
 form in this State, each parish shall be en- 
 titled to representation in proportion to her 
 population ascertained and calculated ac- 
 cording to the principle of representation 
 adopted in the constitution of the United 
 States. 
 
 At the first regular session ofthe legisla- 
 ture after the reception of the United States 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 149 
 
 census for 1850, and every ten years there- 1 because on this subject as on every other, 
 after, the legislature shall choose some ; it would be better to take the old Constitu- 
 
 number as a representative number. 
 
 tion, establish such changes of principle as 
 
 The number so chosen shall be taken as ■ are demanded by experience and the will 
 a divisor, and each parish shall be entitled '. of the people, and leave ail the details of 
 to one representative for every time this di- carrying them into execution to the legis- 
 visor shall be found in the dividend formed j lature, which details if properly and per- 
 ofits representative population, and to one manently established now. might be most 
 additional member for every fraction ex- j inexpedient or unjust hereafter. 
 
 ceeding the one-half of the divisor. 
 
 From close observation, I think three 
 
 The house of representatives shall never \ principal objects lead to the call of this 
 
 be composed of less than seventy nor more 
 than one hundred members. 
 
 The first representation under this con- 
 stitution, (ascertained as near as rnav be in 
 
 Convention. 
 
 1. The extension of the right of suffrage 
 to all free males of the age of majority. 
 
 2. The equalization of representation in 
 
 accordance with the above principle) shall j the senate, according to the principle of the 
 continue until after the next United States! Constitution, as to the house of represen- 
 
 census, and shall be as follows 
 
 Plaquemine 1, St Bernard 1. Orleans 
 
 tatives. 
 And* 3d. 
 
 To reform our utterly inefficient 
 
 first municipality 9. second 7, third 6. right and overwhelmingly expensive judiciary. 
 
 bank 1, Jefferson 2, St. Charles 1. St. John 
 Baptist 1, St. James 2, Ascension 2, As- 
 sumption 2, Lafourche Interior 2, Terre- 
 bonne 1, Iberville 2. West Baton Rouge 1, 
 East Baton Rouge 2, West Feliciana 2, 
 East Feliciana 2.^St. Helena 1. Livingston 
 1. Washington 1. St. Tammany 1, Pointe 
 Coupee 1, Concordia i, Tensas 1. Madison 
 1. Carroll 1. Franklin 1. St. Mary 2, St. 
 Martin 2. Vermillion 1, Lafayette 2. St 
 Landry 3, Calcassieu 1. Avoyelles 2. Ra- 
 pides 3. Natchitoches 3. Sabine 1, Caddo I, 
 De Soto 1. Ouachita 1, Morehouse 1. Union 
 1, Caldwell 1, Catahoula 1, Claiborne and 
 Bossier 1. 
 
 On the motion to refer the report of the 
 legislative committee. 
 
 Mr. Preston said, that he regarded the 
 question as the most important that could 
 come before the Convention, and at the 
 risk of being charged by the honorable del- 
 
 The question oi suffrage has been fully 
 discussed and substantially decided, and 
 although* not as liberally as I could have 
 wished, yet it has been placed upon a more 
 liberal footing than existed before. 
 
 The equalization of representation is 
 now under consideration, and when dispos- 
 ed o£ I shall consider two-thirds of ihe la- 
 bor of the Convention terminated, lor when 
 the principles of these great subjects are 
 settled, I hope we shall enter into no details, 
 and if we do, I care but little who commits 
 them to writing. 
 
 The existing Constitution announces the 
 rule that representation shall be equal and 
 uniform throughout the State, and shall be 
 forever regulated by ihe number of qualified, 
 electors, and to carry the principle into 
 effect, provided that a quadrennial census 
 should be made, and the representation ap- 
 portioned by the rule. To carry it into 
 
 egate from Ascension, with playing at ten J effect the old Constitution relied upon the 
 pins, by assuming objections tand making { guarantee of the r ath? of the members or 
 
 long arguments to combat them for the re 
 ports of our debates, he would occupy some 
 of the time of the Convention on this sub- 
 ject. The reports of speeches would show 
 he had not played a great deal at the game, 
 or been very successful. He made a speech 
 at Jackson, of some length, against the ad- 
 journment, which by the way was not re- 
 ported at all. If his friends and himself had 
 knocked down the pins on that occasion, 
 the State would have been greatly the 
 winner. 
 
 the genera! assembly to support the Con- 
 stitution. Yet the provision of the Consti- 
 tution was not always carried into effect. 
 Therefore, if the principle contained in it, 
 is the only true republican rule that can be 
 adopted, it oxight to be maintained and a 
 new and stronger guarantee established to 
 ensure its execution. That guarantee is 
 easily devised by providing that the first 
 quadrennial act of the general assembly 
 shall be to make the apportionment, and 
 that no act shall have the force of law until 
 I shall oppose the reference of the report: i it is made. It will be asked, would vou 
 20 
 
150 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 stop the operations of the government? 
 There is no danger. No member of the 
 general assembly would dare to stop the 
 operations of the government by the viola- 
 tion of his oath, to support the Constitution. 
 He would know and feel that such a course 
 would cut short his political existence; and 
 the love of life would ensure his fidelity to his 
 sworn duty. 
 
 Should we then re-adopt the principle of 
 the existing Constitution, enforce it in the 
 house, and extend it to the senate? I shall 
 maintain the affirmative, for I consider it 
 the very essence of popular and represen- 
 tative government. It is as essential to 
 popular government, as the golden rule of 
 morality — "Do unto others as you would 
 have others do unto you," is essential to 
 Christianity. 
 
 There are some members of this Con- 
 vention who have been denominated, not 
 by themselves, but by others, radicals. I 
 know not what meaning those who thus 
 christen us, attach to the term radicalism. 
 But if it be applied to my principles in re- 
 lation to the government of this State, then 
 imitating the distinguished delegate from 
 Opelousas, who the other day defined his 
 principles as a conservative, with so much 
 precision and accuracy, I will now define 
 my radicalism. I hold that all power resides 
 in the people, and prefer to all others a po- 
 pular government. That necessarily im- 
 plies that the people have the right to gov- 
 ern, and are capable of self-government: 
 and for one I place entire and the most im- 
 plicit confidence in the honesty, and also 
 the wisdom of their government. 
 
 By the people, I mean the free white 
 males above the age of majority. This 
 excludes slaves, because from necessity as 
 well as choice, we all regard slaves as pro- 
 perty alone, and have never enumerated 
 them as political persons. Policy also com- 
 pels us to exclude free colored persons from 
 the exercise of political rights, and indeed 
 may compel us to exclude them from the 
 limits of the State. It is only cavilling to 
 embarrass the subject with minors who are 
 under the control of their parents or guar- 
 dians, and represented by them; who are in- 
 capacitated by nature to govern themselves, 
 and whom, we have already determined in 
 fixing the right of suffrage, are incapable of 
 governing the State. So also women have 
 not and ought not to have any direct power 
 
 in any other government than a gynarchy. 
 In a popular government they are pro- 
 perly represented by their natural or select- 
 ed protectors. Their appropriate sphere is 
 the government of the fireside. The family 
 circle is the kingdom in which they should 
 preside, that there frugality should prevail, 
 and no defalcations occur; that their daugh- 
 ters should be the most economically, neat, 
 plain, modest and interesting; their sons 
 intelligent, industrious, generous and noble; 
 there to rear virtuous citizens for the future 
 government and defence of the country, 
 and pure and spotless wives for their aid 
 and comfort in domestic life; that there 
 should be no absconding of husbands, be- 
 cause his house was rendered his heaven 
 by his presiding angel and the cherubs that 
 dwell therein. 
 
 Having thus ascertained who are the 
 citizens of the State entitled to govern it, 
 capable of self-government, and in whom 
 we must and do confide the government, it 
 necessarily results that if they could assem- 
 ble together to exercise the powers of gov- 
 ernment, each citizen would have one voice 
 on all subjects and questions and the ma- 
 jority would govern in every thing. But it 
 is impossible for the whole to assemble and 
 act in convention, and therefore they must 
 from necessity act by agents. In the Con- 
 stitution of our government, the legislature 
 represents the will of the people, the exec- 
 utive their power, and the judiciary their 
 reason or justice. The executive officers, 
 the members of the legislature and judges 
 of our courts, are therefore the mere agents 
 and servants of the people. And it is the 
 right, the duty, and for the interest of the 
 people to appoint these agents personally, 
 if possible, and if that cannot be done by 
 the means that may be most convenient to 
 the whole people. 
 
 The executive represents the whole State, 
 and each citizen has one vote in his election. 
 But as the general assembly consists of 
 many members, each citizen must have a 
 vote, and the same number of citizens must 
 appoint the same number of representatives. 
 If a smaller number of electors may appoint 
 a greater number of representatives the ne- 
 cessary consequence is that the minority 
 may govern the majority, which is impossi- 
 ble in a popular government, because re- 
 pugnant to its vital principle. 
 
 Representation, therefore, both in the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana 
 
 151 
 
 senate and house of representatives, must be 
 equal and uniform, and be forever regulated 
 by the number of qualified electors in a dis- 
 trict or parish to be represented. Any de- 
 parture from this rule is a violation of the 
 vital principle of popular government which 
 may be attended with no great injury in 
 the particular case, but leads to a disregard 
 of principle in every other case, and a strug- 
 .gle for power to gain advantages by legis- 
 lative means, and not by greater exertion, 
 under an equal constitution and just legis- 
 lation. 
 
 It has been urged that taxation should 
 have weight in regulating representation. 
 If the parish which pays the greatest 
 tax should have the most representatives 
 then the individual who pays the highest 
 tax should have the most votes; and he who 
 pays none, or the parish which contributed 
 nothing to the State revenue, the one 
 should have no vote and the other no rep- 
 resentative. Taxation is laid to a great ex- 
 tent on property and profitable professions; 
 at the same time the revenue is principally 
 expended in legislation in the support of 
 public officers and tribunals for the protec- 
 tion of property and profits, and it is but 
 reasonable that enjoying all the advantages 
 of taxation, these should bear its bur- 
 dens. It would farther be impossible to 
 ascertain who actually paid the taxes. It 
 is certainly not those who pay the money 
 into the hands of the collector, or treasurer, 
 and take his receipt, who support all the 
 burdens of government. The merchant 
 collects and pays for the lumber makers, 
 the ship carpenter, blacksmiths and other 
 mechanics and laborers in ship building, for 
 the master, officers and crew, and deducts 
 it out of their wages and profits. So the 
 planter pays for all the mechanics and pro- 
 ducers of necessaries for his plantation ; 
 the landlord pays the tax collector, but adds 
 the tax to the rent of the tenants. Capital 
 affords the means and facilities of paying 
 taxes; but labor is the real tax payer, and 
 by this system would not be represented 
 at all. 
 
 I contend further, that property affords no 
 criterion of representation. One object of 
 government is to protect property, and it 
 contributes to the support of government; but 
 society is no doubt proportionably burdened 
 for its protection. Beside life, liberty, and 
 the pursuit of happiness, are blessings 
 
 more invaluable than property, and equally 
 require the protection of laws and repre- 
 sentation in the legislature. To prove it, I 
 have no doubt that Croesus stretched on the 
 bed of sickness, with the certainty of disso- 
 lution, would exhaust all his wealth for the 
 protraction of his life. And although pro- 
 perty contributes to the support of govern- 
 ment, the citizen contributes more in pro- 
 portion by personal services, although but 
 little of the expenses of government are in- 
 curred for his personal security. He is 
 ever ready to defend the State from inva- 
 sion or insurrection with his life. He 
 serves in the militia six days in the year, 
 works on the roads, and forms the patrols. 
 In conflagrations, to whom do you look for 
 the preservation of your property. I have 
 seen this splendid hotel on fire, and the more 
 splendid St. Charles^ and men, without a 
 dollar, in the midst of the fire and smoke, 
 and ashes and wrecks, struggling at the 
 risk of their lives to save them, while the 
 owner stood aloof from the danger. 
 
 We have heard much in the progress of 
 this discussion, of the tendency of an unre- 
 strained popular government to anarchy. 
 And there can be no doubt that this, like 
 every form of government has its evils. 
 This is but saying that every thing human 
 is imperfect. But I contend, that the more 
 popular the government is, the more secure 
 and perfect it is. 
 
 The revolutions, that the horrors of 
 which, have been depicted, to shew the 
 inclination of the people and the tendency 
 of their government to anarchy and blood- 
 shed, in my opinion, have rather proved : 
 " that mankind are more disposed to suffer 
 while evils are sufTerable, than to right 
 themselves by abolishing the forms of Go- 
 vernment to which they are accustomed." 
 The happiness of man consists principally 
 in the enjoyment of power, wealth and 
 knowledge. Popular governments diffuse 
 these among the many ; other governments 
 concentrate their enjoyment in the few. If 
 I understand the French Revolution, by an 
 artificial system, slowly, gradually and 
 firmly built up — all the power, wealth and 
 knowledge of the kingdom had been accu- 
 mulated in the king, nobles, military and 
 priesthood ; most of the property of the 
 kingdom was in their hands, and exempted 
 from taxation — that the Government pre- 
 sented one vast spectacle of extravagance, 
 
152 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 profligacy, pollution and corruption, the 
 burdens of which, were imposed upon la- 
 bor alone. The oppression and sufferings 
 of the peasantry became absolutely insup- 
 portable, when they rose in the might of 
 man and washed the kingdom, in blood, to 
 be sure, because surrounding tyrants, and 
 sympathizing despots forced them to do it. 
 But,*they regenerated France, because it 
 was necessary she should be born again. 
 And what is France now ? At her head, 
 the only patriot King in Europe — wisdom 
 in council, and energy in war, and economy 
 in government. Wisdom and knowledge 
 diffused, and power not felt, and millions 
 of families as happy and secure as humani- 
 ty will permit. 
 
 The decapitation of Charles the First, 
 was the death of the most corrupt and ty- 
 rannical government in Europe, and which 
 had become absolutely insupportable to the 
 people — and the restoration of Charles the 
 Second, was the restoration of civil liberty; 
 and in some degree of popular government. 
 His Gharter to Rhode Island, Republicans 
 of the present day have clung to with tena- 
 city, and condemned to perpetual imprison- 
 ment a martyr of liberty, substantially for 
 resisting it. An eminent cotemporary his- 
 torian, has declared, that under its regime, 
 " no where in the world has life, liberty 
 and property, been safer than in Rhode 
 Island." 
 
 And what is the situation of England at 
 present ? By an artificial system of gov- 
 ernment and legislation well digested and 
 long and gradually imposed on the people 
 by laws of primogeniture, pensions and 
 sinecures, stars and garters, innumerable 
 civil officers, vast armies and navies, a gov- 
 ernment is firmly fixed on that devoted peo- 
 ple, which condemns nineteen million out 
 of twenty millions to toil from day light 
 until dark, for a bare subsistence of their 
 miserable families amidst squallid wretch- 
 edness. The whole landed property of 
 the kingdom, by giving the government to 
 the landed interest alone, is in the hands of 
 the million ; and the whole production of 
 the tenantry, except barely enough for 
 their subsistence, is extracted, to support 
 the profligacy of this aristocracy. But this 
 was insufficient, and they have, by legisla- 
 tion, created a debt of the Government of 
 four thousand millions of dollars, from the 
 the Government to the same aristocracy the | 
 
 interest of which, is to be paid by the labor 1 
 of the poor, and toil of the peasantry, to 
 the same bloated aristocracy, to support 
 their extravagance and debauchery. But 
 for the vast armies and navies, which the 
 same toil and labor is made by government 
 to support, the people of England would 
 rise from their degradation and sweep their 
 oppressors into non-existence, and men 
 would rule instead of property, and its* 
 pampered possessors obtained apparently 
 by law, but in reality, by legal robbery. 
 
 Let us then conclude that riches are 
 power, have intrinsic value, and afford in 
 themselves advantages, and happiness 
 enough, without giving them constitutional 
 and political power, and that they will al- 
 ways be sufficiently sought and acquired 
 without fictitious aid from legislation. 
 
 It is more seriously pressed that the 
 federal basis of representation shall be 
 adopted, that is, that three-fifths of the 
 slaves should be enumerated in calculating 
 the representation. 
 
 The first objection is, that it is an arbi- 
 trary rule ; there is no more reason for 
 enumerating three-fifths than one-fifth of 
 the slaves, or the whole. It is an arbitrary 
 departure from principle, justifies other de- 
 partures and leads to the overthrow of re- 
 presentative government. 
 
 It is a basis which was adopted by inde- 
 pendent States, of heterogeneous popula- 
 tions, interests and institutions, about to 
 form a more perfect union principally for 
 external defence and intercourse, objects 
 that would affect each State very much, in 
 proportion to their population and produc- 
 tion, and, therefore, the territory and labor 
 of each might well enter into the calcula- 
 tion of the representation of the whole. 
 
 It was, besides, a mere compromise 
 without which, the union of these inde- 
 pendent States for the greater good and se- 
 curity of the whole, it is admitted, could 
 not have been effected. It was necessary 
 to quiet the whole, and in fact operates as 
 equally on the whole as any rule that could 
 have been adopted. To regulate the re- 
 presentation in Congress by the number 
 of electors in each State, could not have 
 been adopted with any thing like equality, 
 because the qualification of electors de- 
 pended on the will and legislation of each 
 State, some requiring high qualifications 
 and others admitting universal suffrage. 
 
 t 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 153 
 
 Bui this federal basis can have no appli- 
 cation here, where no union is to be formed 
 nor compromise to be made. It has no 
 necessary connexion with the representa- 
 tion in the legislature of one independent 
 State, having a homogeneous population 
 throughout its limits, common interests 
 and the same institutions. As applied to 
 this single State, it is an unequal basis, be- 
 cause it could and would necessarily lead 
 to this anti-republican consequence, that 
 the minority of electors would govern the 
 majority. Indeed, that is the avowed ob- 
 ject of its supporters. The gentleman 
 from East Feliciana said, we have the 
 power in the country and we will retain it. 
 That puts an end to all argument on the 
 subject and reduces the question to sub- 
 mission 01 revolution. 
 
 It is unreasonable to give one portion of 
 the citizens a greater weight in the Legisla- 
 tive branch of the Government than ano- 
 ther portion, although equal in numbers. — 
 For example, to give a parish having three 
 hundred electors a representative in the 
 Legislature, and . another parish having only 
 three hundred electors two representatives, 
 because they own live hundred slaves. Or 
 to simplify the matter more, to give you 
 double the weight in the Legislature which 
 I possess, because you own, we will say 
 for round numbers, two slaves, especially 
 if they be so old or so young as to be value- 
 less ; although I may own houses and lots, 
 lands and stores, and ships, and boats, and 
 mills and manufactories. It is unreasona- 
 ble, because the two men are equal and the 
 two portions of men are equal. And the 
 man aside, I can never agree that two 
 slaves shall have more weight in the politi- 
 cal government of the State, than I possess. 
 
 To admit the federal basis would as ne- 
 cessarily make the free parishes and free 
 men without slaves, abolitionists, as it tends 
 to make the Northern States abolitionists 
 with far less reason. And you could not 
 keep even the slaves from a knowledge 
 growing at every election that two of them 
 had more weight in the government than a 
 • free man, which would "soon destroy the 
 institution of slavery to the infinite injury 
 of the agriculture, the wealth, and I will 
 say, happiness too of our State. But let 
 every slave know that he is what he is, and 
 must necessarily be in this state, property, 
 and let every free man know, that he has a 
 
 voice and weight in the government, and 
 that the slave has none, and you will raise 
 a Chinese wall between abolitionism and 
 slavery, that will secure forever this inva- 
 luable institution of our State. 
 
 These evil consequences of the federal 
 basis would be greatly promoted by admit- 
 ting the free colored population to partici- 
 pate in influence in the government instead 
 of entirely excluding them as the existing 
 Constitution does. 
 
 A leading object of the proposal is to 
 give the agricultural portion of the State 
 an influence in the government to which 
 their numbers do not entitle them. This 
 would be unjust, if it could be ac- 
 complished, and would produce no good 
 but much evil, if accomplished. The har- 
 monious and equal union of the agricultu- 
 ral, commercial and manufacturing inter- 
 ests of the State, and of every other species 
 of industry, useful to morals or physical 
 happiness,- promotes the prosperity of all; 
 whilst if antagonistical feeling and strug- 
 gle^ could be got up, each would strive to 
 destroy the success of the other, to the 
 great detriment of all. 
 
 The great and avowed object of chang- 
 ing our ancient Constitution as to the, basis 
 of representation, and of departing from all 
 principle, is arbitrarily to deprive the cities 
 of New Orleans and Lafayette of the weight 
 and representation in the General Assem- 
 bly, to which the number of their electors 
 justly entitle them. 
 
 If we depart from the Democratic rule 
 of the old Constitution to take taxation as 
 the basis of representation, these cities pay 
 ! half the taxes of the State. The Treasu- 
 rer's report shew that by adding to the 
 ; taxes on houses, lots and slaves in these 
 j cities, the taxes upon professions, taxes 
 I upon the fees of public officers, on auctions, 
 on banks and insurance offices, on pedlars 
 and hawkers, succession devolving to non- 
 residents, &c. &c, these cities pay more 
 than half the taxes of the State. And the 
 observations of the gentleman from Oua- 
 chita, that the country indirectly pay a 
 great portion of these taxes, is not well 
 founded. Though some of our produce is 
 sold at auction, and most of it pays com- 
 mission to merchants ; although some of 
 our planters board at hotels and contribute 
 to the support of professions which pay 
 taxes, yet nineteen-twentieths of the tax- 
 
154 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 paying power and resources of this city is 
 derived from the commerce which grows 
 out of the exchange of the vast production 
 of the mighty Western world with the At- 
 lantic cities, the Continents of Europe and 
 the Islands of the South. 
 
 If we depart from the true principle of 
 Democratic government to base representa- 
 tion on wealth, the estimation of the landed 
 property of the cities of New Orleans and 
 Lafayette is one half the estimation of the 
 landed property of the whole State. But, 
 the country has now 160,000 slaves, for 
 the sake of round numbers, say slaves of 
 the value of fifty millions of dollars. When 
 you take into consideration the capital in- 
 vested by our merchants and others in ships 
 and steamboats, and all their paraphernalia, 
 the vast magazines of dry goods, hardware 
 and groceries, extending from the parish of 
 St. Bernard to Carrolton, the incalculable 
 amount of rich and costly furniture which 
 has accumulated in the private and public 
 houses during a century, the stocks of all 
 kinds, and real money hoarded away, 
 $8,000,000 now lying in the banks. When 
 you consider the manufactories, machinery, 
 tools and materials of these great cities, 
 you can scarcely calculate how much the 
 aggregate value of all these would exceed 
 the value of all the slaves of the country. 
 
 So that there can be no reason for de- 
 parting from the essential principle of a 
 representative government, except arbitra- 
 rily to arrest the growing influence in the 
 government of these growing cities. And 
 this is ba*sed partly upon prejudice against 
 them and partly upon a supposed diversity 
 of interests between town and country, It 
 is said cities are sores upon the body poli- 
 tic, and of course, New Orleans will be a 
 mighty sore; that the planters are virtuous 
 and patriotic and incorruptible. To the 
 last proposition, I subscribe most cheer- 
 fully ; in the first position I am an unbe- 
 liever. I believe great commercial cities 
 have exercised a mostbeneficient influence 
 on the States to which they belong. Com- 
 merce unites the citizens of the same State 
 as it does nations by the strong ties of reci- 
 procal usefulness, and mutual benefits. It 
 harmonizes, civilizes, enlightens all, and 
 equalizes their comforts and pleasures. It 
 unites us to our Antipodes, it converts man- 
 kind into one family, it is the system of 
 peace, it will extirpate war and annihilate 
 barbarity. 
 
 And while I subscribe most cheerfully 
 to the virtue and patriotism of the agricul- 
 tural portion of the State, I must claim 
 equal virtue, patriotism and intelligence for 
 the bone and muscle of these cities. There 
 is froth above and dregs below ; but the 
 soul and body is sound and pure. And 
 when we look at the vast schools of learn- 
 ing and morality which the concentration 
 of population and wealth enables us to es- 
 tablish and support, no one can doubt that 
 as our advantages are greater, we must at- 
 tain the greatest perfection in all that is 
 useful to man, and exercise the most bene* 
 ficent influence on all who enjoy our inter, 
 course. 
 
 I have next racked my imagination to 
 discover in what the interest of town and 
 country can conflict, but the more I study, 
 the more I find their interest one and indi- 
 visible. The merchant and every profes- 
 sion rejoices in the prosperity of the agri- 
 culture in the country, because it contri- 
 butes to their own prosperity. They look 
 with an anxiety to the abundance of the 
 erops, and a fear to every thing that may 
 deteriorate them only inferior to that of the 
 proprietor himself. They are proud of the 
 virtue, intelligence and patriotism of our 
 planters and farmers. The gentlemen of 
 the country have the same deep and abiding 
 interest in the prosperity and welfare of the 
 city. It is the pride of the West and of 
 the whole country and peculiarly of the 
 people of Louisiana. 
 
 There is a peculiar mutuality of interest 
 to which I will allude, and I have done: — 
 
 The gentlemen of the country have a 
 great interest in the city. A single one of 
 their children may well take charge of and 
 manage their whole plantation. The com- 
 merce, the enterprizes, the vast industry 
 connected with our great city will always 
 afford business and a living for the rest of 
 their offspring. 
 
 The business of the city to be done by 
 the youth requires but little physical exer- 
 tion. Being much divided into many hands 
 it is not calculated to enlarge and develope 
 the mental faculties. A great many there- 
 fore grow up in softer habits, with feebler 
 frames and intellects, less invigorated than 
 those who are reared in the country. They 
 are habituated also to indulge much in light 
 but expensive amusements ; the theatres, 
 balls, social parties, expensive dress and 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana.- 
 
 155 
 
 indulgences of every kind. Their income 
 does not meet their expenses, and they are 
 led to seek employment in the villages and 
 towns of the country, and other business 
 which it affords, where their faculties, men- 
 tal and physical develope more, and where 
 the details of commerce and the light orna- 
 mental and useful occupations in which 
 they have been engaged, are more available. 
 The amusements in which they have in- 
 dulged do not exist, they have no motives 
 to their former habits of expense, they en- 
 gage in business, their income exceeds 
 their outlay, and they are successful in 
 business. The young men of the country 
 of more energy, more physical ability come 
 to the city, engage in commerce and pro- 
 fessions, have no expensive habits, are in- 
 different to amusements, care not about 
 wasting too much time in social intercourse 
 or money in dress, attend only to business, 
 keep all their gain, and are soon entirely 
 successful. 
 
 Thus the eminent professional men and 
 large merchants, of great cities, to a great 
 extent, come from the country, and the 
 teachers, merchants, professional men of 
 the country go from the cities. The breed 
 is crossed probably to the very great ad- 
 vantage of both —As by cropping 
 
 off their excressences and transplanting 
 certain trees in other soils, they produce a 
 more abundant and luxuriant fruit, so with 
 the youth of our city and country, by mo- 
 derating the exuberances which a growth 
 in either produces, and adding the advan- 
 tages which are peculiar to the city or 
 country life, the abler, better and more 
 useful citizen is produced in each. 
 
 Let us then abandon all prejudices, repu- 
 diate arbitrary power, and cling to princi- 
 ple and the old Constitution, where it is 
 |>ased upon a principle so essential to the 
 rights of man. Otherwise the nature of 
 man will struggle for his equal rights until 
 they are attained. In this age we cannot 
 go backwards in intelligence and freedom, 
 we cannot become ignorant and slavish, 
 but must advance in a geometrical progres. 
 sion until the goal of perfection is ap- 
 proached. Commit the government of the 
 State to men, and not to things, and to free 
 and equal men, and our harmony will be 
 eternal, and our strength invincible. In 
 this city is a necleus of freemen, around 
 which, the army on our great river, and 
 
 brave men from every part of the country 
 will unite, and in any possible contingency 
 render our destiny as great as the early 
 events of our history is glorious. 
 
 I will conclude in the words of a great 
 philosopher, statesman, jurist and poet of 
 former times, which contains the whole 
 pith of the argument : 
 
 "What constitutes a State ? 
 Not high-raised battlement or laboured mound, 
 Thick wall or moated gate ? 
 Not cities proud with spires and turrets crown'd ; 
 Not bays and broad arm'd ports. 
 Where laughing at the storm, rich navies ride ; 
 Not starr'd and spangled Courts, 
 Where low-brow'd baseness wafts perfume to pride, 
 No — men— Mgh-minded men, 
 With powers as far above dull brutes endued, 
 In forest, brake or den, 
 
 As beasts excel cold rocks and brambles rude ; 
 Men, who their duties know, 
 
 But know their rights, and knowing, dare maintain, 
 Prevent the long aimed blow, 
 And crush the Tyrant while they reiidihe chain, 
 These constitute a State.''' 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, the substitute 
 of Mr. Beatty was ordered to be printed. 
 
 Whereupon the Convention adjourned 
 until this evening at 7 o'clock. 
 
 Tuesday, February 4, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment, and its proceedings were opened 
 with prayer from the Rev. Mr. Clark. 
 
 Order of the Day. — The 6th section 
 of the 2d article— Apportionment. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said he desired to make 
 some remarks in support of his motion to 
 refer the report of the majority of the com- 
 mittee to a special committee. He would 
 extend that motion to embrace in the refer- 
 ence the substitute offered by the delegate 
 from Lafourche. (Mr. Beatty.) It was pal- 
 pable that without something definite for the 
 consideration of the house, it was impossi- 
 ble to proceed with order and regularity, 
 and to avoid entering upon a thousand di- 
 vergent propositions that would be suggest- 
 ed during this desultory debate. The re- 
 port before the house was unsatisfactory; 
 the apportionment it suggested was arbi- 
 trary, and did not even conform to the very 
 basis which it assumed, The principle of 
 allowing one representative to each parish, 
 whatever might be its population, was inde- 
 pendent even of the principle of federal 
 numbers, for the representation of one 
 member was to be allowed without refer- 
 ence, and without regard to the federal 
 numbers in the parish. There was then, 
 
Lafi Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 no basis for the Convention to act upon in 
 the proposition of the majority of the com- 
 mittee, and hence it became necessary to 
 recommit their report to another committee 
 in order that some definite plan, founded 
 upon a general principle of equality and 
 uniformity, let that principle be what it may, 
 should be submitted to the action of the 
 Convention ; otherwise you involve this 
 body in an inextricable labrynth, for if we 
 take up the details before we agree upon 
 the basis, it will be impossible to arrive at 
 any result. Discussion will succeed dis- 
 cussion; proposition will succeed proposi- 
 tion; and we shall be no nearer coming to 
 a conclusion ten days hence than we are 
 now. It is indispensable that a committee 
 should take the initiatory action, and by an 
 examination of the subject; report to us 
 some satisfactory basis, and at the same 
 time place the house in possession of data 
 which will enable them to apply that basis 
 to the details of any proposition they may 
 submit. It would be appropriate, too, in 
 furtherance of that design, to instruct the 
 committee, to be raised, upon the views 
 and feelings of the majority of the house, in 
 order that their report might conform to 
 the will of that majority. From the tone 
 and feeling that has been manifested since 
 the discussion began, it is evident that there 
 is a great diversity of opinion upon the ba- 
 sis of representation, as well as upon the 
 details of apportionment, upon any basis 
 that might be adopted. The principal 
 points is to resolve the basis upon which 
 representation shall be allowed; that being 
 settled, there will be nothing more than an 
 arithmetical calculation, which will not 
 occupy the committee more than an hour. 
 When the sense of the majority shall be 
 ascertained, as to the basis to be adopted, 
 nothing will be easier than to instruct the 
 committee accordingly; and for the commit- 
 tee to report, in conformity with the instruc- 
 tions, the result of their labors. It may 
 happen that the committee may err in their 
 calculations, butit will be easy for the house 
 to detect the errors and correct them, as 
 it may happen that the committee, feeling 
 themselves restricted by the instructions 
 they may receive, may make such a dis- 
 tribution of the representation as will pro- 
 voke the animadversions of the minority. 
 But, in any event, their report will supply 
 the house with a rule, a basis, a principle 
 
 upon which each member may act, and 
 upon which the popular voice may deter- 
 mine. 
 
 The details of the report of the majority 
 of the committee, gives the lie to the enun- 
 ciation with which it begins, "that repre- 
 sentation shall be equal and uniform." I 
 object, said Mr. Benjamin, to any decep- 
 tion; I wish the people of the State to be 
 fully informed of the designs entertained 
 upon this vital question. Let the facts be 
 disclosed, in order that they may deter- 
 mine whether the principle proposed, be in 
 accordance with the true republican doc- 
 trine. Whether there shall be submission 
 or revolution. If that be the issue let us 
 know it. If such be the irrevocable will 
 of the majority of the Convention, let it be 
 stated in plain and undisguised terms. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin next proceeded to review 
 the arguments of the delegate from Ouachi- 
 ta, (Mr. Downs.) He insisted that the 
 principle allowing one representative to the 
 parishes not entitled to such representation 
 by their population, was a violation of that 
 "equality and uniformity" which was the 
 foundation of representation in all republi- 
 can governments. That the federal basis 
 was not proper nor just in Louisiana, be- 
 cause it was not equal nor uniform in its 
 operation; and that the reasons and motives 
 that rendered that basis necessary in the 
 constitution of this State — that our local in- 
 stitutions were identical throughout the 
 State; and that the compromise that pro- 
 duced the federal basis had no relation to 
 the social condition of the body politic in 
 Louisiana. 
 
 Slaves were by our laws, nothing but 
 property. But, says the delegate from La- 
 fourche, (Mr. Beatty) we should allow them 
 to form a part of the basis of representa- 
 tion because they . are productive labor* 
 and labor should be represented. If this ar- 
 gument hold good, then it might with equal 
 propriety be urged that we should allow re- 
 presentation to oxen, horses, &c, which 
 are attached to the glebe, and which are 
 equally productive labor. This is the first 
 time that I have ever heard the notion that 
 labor should form a part of the basis of re- 
 presentation broached, and especially that 
 particular kind of labor. 
 
 Mr. Downs replied to the arguments of 
 the delegate from New Orleans (Mr. Ben- 
 jamin) and insisted that there was nothing 
 
Debates in the Convention ot Louisiana. 
 
 157 
 
 in the report of the committee to call for the 
 violent assault made upon it. He regret- 
 ted the line of argument assumed by the 
 gentleman, (Mr. Benjamin) as he had no 
 doubt it would figure in the abolition jour- 
 nals of the north, while he admitted the 
 ability and eloqnence with which that gen- 
 tleman had handled the subject. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said he did not know how 
 to understand the member (Mr. Downs.) 
 That member complimented him for the 
 ability with which he had treated the sub- 
 ject under consideration, and then taunted 
 him (Mr. B.) with the notoriety he would 
 acquire at the north, because he opposed 
 this slave basis. He thought the gentle- 
 man (Mr. Downs) was not consequent with 
 himself, and was much more likely to ob- 
 tain notoriety among that faction by reason 
 of his advocacy and peculiar mode of sus- 
 taining that basis, than he (Mr. Benjamin) 
 who so strenuously objected to it. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad next spoke in favor 
 of a recommittal, and Mr. Downs replied to 
 him, objecting to the recommittal. 
 
 The question was then put and the yeas 
 and nays called for, with the following re- 
 sult: 
 
 Ayes — Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Briant, Brumfield, Cenas, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jef- 
 ferson, Culbertson, Derbes,Garcia,Grymes, 
 Hudspeth, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legen- 
 dre, Marigny, Mazureau, Roman, Roselius, 
 St. Amand, Taylor of St. Landry, and Win- 
 chester — 25. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Burton, Cade, Chambliss, Covillion,Downs, 
 Dunn, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Leonard, 
 McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porche, 
 Porter, Prescott, Pugh, Preston, Prudhom- 
 me, Ratliff, Read, Saunders, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Weder- 
 strandt, Wikoff and Winder — 39 nays; so 
 the motion to recommit was lost. 
 
 Mr. Preston then presented a substitute 
 for the section, in conformity with his pro- 
 mise on Monday. ' This substitute provides: 
 that representation shall be equal and uni- 
 form throughout the State; that the basis 
 shall be the electors of the State 5 a census j 
 of which to be taken in 1846, and every j 
 fourth year thereafter: and no legislative j 
 act to have the force of law unless such 
 21 
 
 census be taken and the apportionment 
 made in conformity; that the number of re- 
 presentatives shall not be less than sixty nor 
 more than ninety. 
 
 The substitute of Mr. Beatty was next 
 in order. 
 
 Mr. Sellers moved that the substitute 
 i be laid upon the table, in order that the 
 section reported by the committee may be 
 taken up and discussed, This motion pre- 
 vailed. 
 
 The substitute offered by Mr. Pres- 
 ton for the first period of the section, was, 
 on motion of Mr. Downs, laid on the table. 
 This substitute would adopt an electoral ba- 
 sis, and do away with the provision entitling 
 each parish to one representative. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin then moved to strike out 
 of the section, "each parish shall be entitled 
 to one representative." 
 
 Mr. Downs rose in opposition to the mo- 
 tion. He argued that the principle was 
 not a novel one. It had, he said, a prece- 
 dent in the constitution of the United States, 
 and in those of Massachusetts, New Hamp- 
 shire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, 
 and New York. This was as far, he said, 
 as he had examined. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said in substance, that his 
 convictions were that such a provision 
 would be a continual source of strife in the 
 legislature, and perverted to party uses and 
 exigencies. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff coincided with Mr. B., and 
 was in favor of striking out; he was also in 
 favor of the electoral basis. 
 
 Mr. Charles M. Conrad likewise sup- 
 ported the motion to strike out, and express- 
 ed himself in the strongest terms hostile to 
 the provision giving one member to a 
 parish, irrespective of its population. 
 
 Mr. Porter rose and said, one gen- 
 tleman (Mr. Preston) had declared in this 
 debate, that the only true principle of re- 
 presentation is numbers — that one man in 
 one place should have as much influence 
 as one man in another — and that to estab- 
 lish any other principle was to overthrow 
 and to annihilate popular government, To 
 this I would reply, said Mr. Porter, that the 
 gentleman was mistaken as to the other 
 I principles of representation being subver- 
 I sive of republican governments, inasmuch 
 | as numbers was not generally adopted as 
 I the sole basis of represention in our sister 
 i States. 
 
158 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 I will not imitate the example of gentlemen 
 who have gone to ancient Greece and 
 Rome to find examples, but I will refer to 
 the constitutions of the several States in this 
 country, where the science of free govern- 
 ment, in my opinion, is much better under- 
 stood. The book of constitutions from 
 which I shall sustain my positions, is a book 
 of results. I have never seen the debates 
 of any other than the Virginia Convention; 
 and have no knowledge of the proceedings 
 of any other, with the exception of the Con- 
 vention of the State of Tennessee, where 
 the principle of giving to each county that 
 had two-thirds of the ratio of representation 
 a representative, was adopted, which effec- 
 'uallygave to each county a representative. 
 In the Virginia convention,where the subject 
 of apportionment was more ably debated, 
 with due deference to this house, than any 
 where else, they settled down upon any 
 thing else than numbers. Representation 
 was based on the divisions of the State, east 
 and west of the mountains, upon taxation 
 and numbers, ail having their due weight. 
 
 Mr. Porter contended that the principle 
 of restraining the influence of large cities 
 was well known and appreciated in all the 
 States of the Union. Equally well under- 
 stood was the principle of conceding to 
 each distinct and separate political commu- 
 nity comprised within the local subdivisions 
 of a State, a voice in the general adminis- 
 tration of public affairs. The question upon 
 this floor was not understood. It was not 
 population alone, but locality and incor- 
 porated interests that entered, for the most 
 part, in the representation of the ma- 
 jor portion of our sister confederacies. The 
 principle was recognized in several of the 
 States that, with the increase of numbers 
 to be represented, decreased the represen- 
 tation. In Maine every county and frac- 
 tional subdivision is represented. As for 
 the particular objection applied to new pa- 
 rishes in Louisiana, that was easily obvia- 
 ted. Let the legislature be inhibited by 
 this constitution from creating any new pa- 
 rishes which shall not embrace an area of 
 20 to 25 miles square, and which shall not 
 contain a certain definite population. He 
 was not in favor of cutting up parishes to 
 increase sectional influences, nor did he be- 
 lieve that such had been done. The crea- 
 tion of new parishes had been for the con- 
 Vi m i one e of the people residing therein, In 
 
 Massachusetts a representative was allowed 
 to each of the fractional subdivisions into 
 which the territory of that State had been 
 divided. In New Hampshire the same 
 principle prevailed, with a clause according 
 one representative for each one hundred 
 and fifty persons, and two representatives 
 for four hundred and fifty, and thus increas- 
 ing the scale. In Vermont the representa- 
 tion was by towns — the fractional subdi- 
 visions into which that State was districted. 
 In Rhode Island so great was the appre- 
 hension of concentrated power, that it was 
 expressly provided that no town should have 
 more than one sixth of the representation; 
 it is provided that each town and city shall 
 always have one representative: of course 
 the towns cannot be all of one size. In 
 Connecticut each town shall have one re- 
 presentative. In New York, a large agri- 
 cultural State, and densely populated, pro- 
 vision is made that each county shall have 
 at least one representative. In New Jersey 
 a representative is accorded to each county, 
 however small may be its population. The 
 State of Pennsylvania has also guarded 
 against the influence of Philadelphia, by 
 restricting the representation of that city. 
 In Delaware no basis is laid down; each 
 county, without respect to numbers, has 
 three senators and seven representatives. 
 In Maryland likewise a similar restriction 
 prevails. Baltimore is not allowed to vote 
 with the county, and in the town of An- 
 napolis a freehold of fifty acres is required 
 to vote with the county. In the actual con- 
 stitution of Maryland — the constitution adop- 
 ted in 1838, — -it is expressly provided that 
 should any of the counties fall short of the 
 number fixed upon as the basis, they shall 
 nevertheless retain their then representa- 
 tive. That State had carefully guarded 
 against the influence of her metropolis. 
 The old constitution declares that each 
 county shall elect four delegates — the new 
 constitution provides that any county or 
 city, having less than fifteen thousand souls 
 federal numbers, shall be entitled to elect 
 three representatives, (no odds how much 
 less,) every county having a population of 
 fifteen thousand: souls, and less than twen- 
 ty-five thousand souls, federal numbers, 
 shall be entitled to four delegates — and 
 that every county having twenty-four thou- 
 sand souls and less than thirty-five, shall 
 have five delegates; and that every county 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 159 
 
 having a population of more than thir- 
 ty-rive thousand souls, federal numbers, 
 shall elect six members, (and no more.; 
 and that the city of Baltimore shall not 
 h?.ve more than six members; and it further 
 provided that in the apportionment hereaf- 
 ter, the counties having two. three and four 
 representatives, their representation shall 
 not be reduced. Thus. Baltimore, having 
 more than one third the whole population, 
 can never have but six votes, less than one 
 twelfth of the whole representation. 
 
 In South Carolina, the apportionment 
 is arbitrary; there are one hundred and 
 sixty-one members in the house. The 
 cities of Charleston. St. Phillip and St, 
 Michaels, have fifteen representatives and 
 two senators, making seventeen in both 
 houses, out of one hundred and sixty- 
 one members, say one ninth, and can 
 have no more. Thus the influence of 
 Charleston is guarded against, which pos- 
 sesses about one third of the population of 
 the whole State. In the revised constitu- 
 tion an apportionment is made, and it pre- 
 scribes that if any election district shall 
 appear, from its population or taxes, not 
 to be entitled to representation, it shall, 
 nevertheless, send one representative. 
 
 In North Carolina each county is enti- 
 tled to send, without respect to population, 
 two representatives and one senator. The 
 amended constitution provides that the 
 senate shall be formed on taxation, the 
 lower house of federal numbers: and each 
 county to have one member, whether it 
 have the ratio or not. Here, again, federal 
 numbers, taxation and county representa- 
 tion is maintained. 
 
 In Georgia the constitution provides that 
 one senator shall be elected from each j 
 county, without respect to population. 
 The basis is federal numbers: the ratio is 
 fixed at fifteen hundred persons, and so on 
 in progression. Twelve thousand persons j 
 shall be entitled to a representation of four j 
 members; but no county shall have more j 
 than four, nor less than* one. So far, said j 
 Air. Porter, we have found no representa- 
 tion based solely on numbers, from Maine J 
 to Georgia. • j 
 
 Mr. Porter here gave way to a motion 
 to adjourn, and has possession of the floor ] 
 to-movrow. 
 
 Wednesday, February 5, 1845. 
 I The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 i ment and its proceedings were opened with 
 ! prayer. 
 
 Order of the Day — See. 6, Art. II. 
 Apportionment. 
 
 j 3Ir. Porter resumed his remarks: 
 i In the Constitution of Kentucky, the 
 j basis of representation is the qualified 
 ! voters; and here, for the first time, the gen- 
 ; tleman has found the principle he contends 
 i for. The same principle is to be found in 
 ' the constitutions of Ohio, Indiana and Dli- 
 ; nois. and it is also in Tennessee, but with 
 : a proviso, that each county having two- 
 | thirds the ratio, shall have one member. 
 | which really gives one member to each 
 I county. IN'ow, sir, except in the four 
 j States above named, and in the old consti- 
 | union of Louisiana, (which it is well known 
 is but a transcript of the Kentucky consti- 
 tution,) the principle the gentleman con- 
 tends for is not to be found in the Book of 
 Constitutions. 
 
 Before I proceed to examine the balance 
 of the constitutions, I would, briefly here 
 state, that all of those States, (the four 
 above) are inland States, having no sea- 
 board or sea-port towns, which can ever 
 grow up to have any overshadowing influ- 
 ence, or antagonist interests from the 
 country — when I have examined the ba- 
 lance of the constitution, I shall return to 
 this part of the subject and discuss it more 
 at large. 
 
 The next constitution then is that of the 
 State of Mississippi, and here again the 
 same principle of county representation is 
 again taken up — wmite population with the 
 proviso that each county shall always have 
 one representative. 
 
 Alabama, again, white population, pro- 
 vided however, that each county- shall have 
 at least one representative. 
 
 3Iissouri, white population, provided 
 each county shall have at least one repre- 
 sentative — again this principle is carried 
 out. 
 
 Michigan, white population, provided 
 each county shall be entitled to one repre- 
 sentative. 
 
 Arkansas, white population, provided 
 each county, although its population mav 
 not give the existing ratio, neveuheless it 
 shall always have one representative. 
 
 Sir, we see after pxamintncr the eonsti- 
 
100 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 tution.s of all the twenty -six States, that the 
 principle of county representation is most 
 scrupulously maintained, in over twenty 
 of those constitutions; that it is an almost 
 all pervading principle, — but we will now 
 return to those exceptions to the general 
 rule, the four States above named. Now, 
 Sir, 1 frankly state, that if 1 was a citizen 
 of either of those States, I should have but 
 little objection to abandoning county repre- 
 sentation; and why? because it is utterly 
 impossible that any antagonist, or separate 
 interests, can grow up between the towns 
 and country. As before said, they are all 
 inland States, and have no sea-port towns. 
 For example, Sir, could the city of Nash- 
 ville exist without the State of Tennessee? 
 Could it live a year, or even a month, with- 
 out the support it receives from the coun- 
 try? Could Louisville exist without the 
 support it receives from Kentucky? Could 
 Cincinnati move on in her rapid progress 
 in improvements, but for the immense pro- 
 duce of the State that is continually crowd- 
 ing the city. And Sir, could any of the 
 towns of Illinois or Indiana exist, without 
 the States in which they are situated. Sir, 
 it is evident that they are mutually de- 
 pendant on each other, and the one cannot 
 exist without the other. 
 
 Now, sir, 1 would ask gentlemen, in all 
 candor, if the State of Louisiana stands on 
 the same footing towards its metropolis? 
 Sir, suppose the sponge was this day ap- 
 plied to all the beautiful and highly culti- 
 vated fields in Louisiana' — suppose that this 
 State was this momentlaid waste,what would 
 be the effect on this city? Sir, it would be but 
 d drop in the bucket; it would feel the shock, 
 (so to speak,) but for a moment. No, sir, 
 the growth of this city depends not on the 
 State; it will grow with the growth, and 
 prosper with the prosperity of every city, 
 town, hamlet and plantation in the vast 
 valley of the Mississippi. Then, sir, is it 
 not right to guard against this mighty, this 
 growing and over-shadowing influence? 
 Sir, have we not abundant examples for so 
 doing? South Carolina, having a house of 
 one hundred and sixty-one members, has re- 
 stricted Charleston, and two counties, St. 
 Phillip and St. Michael, to fifteen votes in 
 the lower house and two in the senate, 
 making seventeen votes, out of one hundred 
 and sixty-one, say one ninth; the city hav- 
 ing near one third the population of the 
 
 State. The State of Maryland has limited 
 Baltimore, which has one third the popu- 
 lation of the State, to six votes. New- 
 York city has but one eighth the popu- 
 lation of the State, yet she is restricted by 
 county representation, and restricted in the 
 senate. . Rhode Island guards against this 
 concentration of power, by saying express- 
 ly that no town or city shall ever have 
 more than one sixth the whole numbers to 
 which the house is hereby limited. If 
 these restrictions are necessary in those 
 States, are they not doubly so here? for no 
 bounds can be set to the growth of this city. 
 Then, sir, it is evident that it has been the 
 continual policy of more than twenty States 
 to guard against the concentration of power, 
 and to give to each corporation or county 
 a representation. Now, sir, I would ask 
 where is the safest repository >of power, in 
 the city or in the country? I hope the gen- 
 tleman from New Orleans, (Mr. Conrad) 
 who is now advocating the opposite side 
 from me, will pardon me for quoting his re- 
 marks whilst he was debating another ques- 
 tion on this floor; 1 only regret that I can. 
 not give them with the same force and elo- 
 quence that the gentleman did; he said that 
 "the safest repository of power was in the 
 country;" I concur with him heartily; but 
 the gentleman went farther and said that 
 "cities were but sores on the body politic;" 
 I concur again with the gentleman, and 
 ask where is the safest repository? But I 
 hope I will be permitted to quote again 
 from the gentleman, whilst discussing this 
 question, and arguing that there could be 
 no antagonist interest; he most beautifully 
 represented the State of Louisiana as the 
 kind mother giving nourishment and sup- 
 port to her beautiful offspring (New Or- 
 leans) a beautiful figure, and I wish to keep 
 it up. Where ought the government of the 
 family to be, with the mother or the child ? 
 But, sir, this spoiled child (before it is half 
 grown) is demanding the keys of the house- 
 hold, and would manage in despite of ma- 
 ternal authority the concerns of the whole 
 family. Shall the government be given to 
 it, or shall it remain where it is, and where 
 it has never been abused. He asks gen- 
 tlemen, if they are prepared to destroy this 
 maternal government under which they 
 have grown up and prospered, and place it 
 in the hands of a city, subject to all the 
 evil passions, sudden excitements, violent. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 161 
 
 ..avulsions, and all the distracting elements 
 which abound in every city. Sir, it is to be 
 
 hoped that the sober good sense of this 
 house will refuse to do so ; but sir, is there 
 not another point of view in which we may 
 argue the propriety of county representa- 
 tion ? permit me to ask is there not a strong 
 analogy between the principle of represen- 
 tation as carried out by the United States 
 among the different States, and as carried 
 out by the States of this Union among their 
 respective counties ; sir, when a State is 
 admitted into the Union, it always has at 
 least one representative ; but farther sir, it 
 has two senators ; the smallest State in the 
 compact, as soon as it is organized, has in 
 the senate equal representation with the 
 largest : then sir, numbers are not strictly 
 maintained in either the United States or 
 in the Constitutions of the different States. 
 Sir, this is a subject in which my constitu- 
 ents are directly and -vitally concerned — 
 the question is, are they to have a repre- 
 sentation in each parish or not? If you 
 strike out the provision now under consi- 
 deration, they are deprived of representa- 
 tion from each parish ; those parishes, Cad- 
 do and De Soto, have a much larger terri- 
 tory and more population than many of the 
 old parishes, which have long had one re- 
 presentative each, whilst those two parishes 
 are represented on this floor by only one. 
 Sir, (Mr. Porter said) in conclusion, per- 
 mit him to say, had he done less than 
 submit his humble views on this subject, 
 he should feel that he was unworthy of 
 the high honor conferred on him by a kind 
 and confiding constituancy. Sir, said he, 
 taking the results of the sober deliberations 
 of more than twenty Conventions in the 
 United States, it was his settled judgment 
 that each organized parish ought always to 
 have one representative, and he would vote 
 for that principle ; and furthermore, that the 
 city of New Orleans shall not (let her popu- 
 lation be what it may) have more than a 
 certain proportion of the representation of 
 the State, (say one-sixth.) 
 
 Mr.RosELius said, there was nothing more 
 to be deplored than the efforts made to excite 
 the country against the city. It is not our 
 mission, Mr. President, to face these preju- 
 dices, nor should they be suffered to influ- 
 ence our action. Our mission, in my 
 humble conception, is to perfect the social 
 compact which should unite all the citizens 
 
 of the State, and every portion of it in a 
 common community of interest. Can a 
 nobler or more important object be con- 
 ceived? And yet, when the question is 
 presented to us, to establish the basis, the 
 very foundation of our representative sys- 
 tem, upon a just and proper footing; to 
 lay the corner stone of our social fabric, 
 it would seem that passion is to supercede 
 reason, and an arbitrary rule is to prevail 
 over equality of political rights. An odious 
 and tyrannical rule is proposed, in place of 
 a just, equal and uniform principle. And, 
 when we object to this, as unjust and par- 
 tial, we are referred for a precedent to the 
 federal constitution. The federal basis was 
 adopted under circumstances essentially 
 different from those which attend the pro- 
 ceedings of this body. No parellel can be 
 established between the necessity in the 
 one case and the necessity in the other. 
 In our State there is no necessity, no occa- 
 sion for the federal basis, and its operation 
 here would be unjust and partial. It would 
 deprive a large portion of the people of 
 their just representation, and would trans- 
 fer political power to the hands of a few 
 persons, whose political weight would in- 
 crease with the number of slaves they 
 possessed. 
 
 There can be no compromise, said Mr. 
 Roselius, when principle is involved. I 
 shall never consent to any compromise in- 
 volving principle. Where the matter is 
 one of convenience, a compromise may 
 well enough be made. But, upon vital 
 questions — questions affecting our very in- 
 stitutions, upon these, I hold it, would be 
 culpable to compromise. 
 
 The gentleman from East Feliciana, 
 (Mr. Dunn,) with the candor and sincerity 
 that distinguished him, placed the attempt 
 to apportion the State, so as to destroy all 
 the power of the city upon its true ground. 
 That gentleman said, "we have the power 
 and we shall keep it. This is the sum and 
 substance of all the arguments in favor of 
 the report of the majority of the committee; 
 for whatever other grounds be assumed, 
 and whatever efforts be made to sustain the 
 proposition, the whole matter resolves itself 
 in point of fact to this, "we have the power 
 and shall keep it." It is not right, but 
 might, that is to prevail. 
 
 I have listened, said Mr. Roselius, with 
 a great deal of attention to the remarks of 
 
162 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 the delegate from Caddo, (Mr. Porter.) 
 rhat gentleman has read to us extracts 
 from various constitutions to show that 
 numbers are nol generally regarded. The 
 principle invoked, wherever it may be 
 found, is superannuated. It was originally 
 derived from the state of representation in 
 England. It is apart and parcel of the 
 rotten borough system of that country, 
 which has not even yet been entirely des- 
 troyed, notwithstanding the passage of the. 
 Reform Bill. In northern States it has 
 continued to prevail by the force of habit. 
 Among the States enumerated by the dele- 
 gate from Caddo, figures Rhode Island, 
 whose charter was obtained from that vi- 
 cious and unprincipled monarch, Charles 
 the Second. The people, it is true, have 
 submitted to the partial and unjust princi- 
 ple where it has prevailed, but is that an ar- 
 gument to authorize us to impose that prin- 
 ciple upon our constituents? In Massa- 
 chusetts, it is pushed so far, that in an iso- 
 lated spot, situated on the sea coast, where 
 people repair to get oysters and fish, and 
 which -contains a few huts for some 6 or 8 
 fishermen, yclept a town, a representative 
 is allowed. 1 have this from a respectable 
 gentleman formerly from that State. There 
 are doubtless other towns of no greater 
 magnitude similarly distinguished, but this 
 one he mentioned to me from his own per- 
 sonal knowledge. 
 
 Mr. Roselius concluded by an earnest 
 appeal, against the adoption of the section, 
 and in favor of its recommittal. 
 
 Mr. Dunn said, that as an allusion had 
 been made to, a remark of his in the few 
 observations he had submitted upon the 
 subject under debate, he felt called upon to 
 explain the scope of that remark. It cer- 
 tainly did not intend that it would be proper 
 to do injustice towards the city. He con- 
 templated nothing of the kind. So far from 
 it, he had come here with no other design 
 than to do full and ample justice to every 
 part and portion of the State. In reference 
 to a proper apportionment of representation, 
 which is the foundation of republican gov- 
 ernment, he (Mr. Dunn) had said that the 
 country had been invested with her fair 
 proportion of representation, and she would 
 not concede it to her prejudice. I deny, 
 (said Mr. Dunn,) that there is any injustice 
 in the principle recommended by the ma- 
 ] ority of the committee that federal numbers 
 
 should be the basis, or that there is any 
 thing arbitrary in that basis. On the con- 
 trary, I contend that it is peculiarly adapted 
 to the State, and is the only principle that 
 can be established for the permanent wel- 
 fare of both city and country. Take either 
 population or electors as the basis, and 
 you make New Orleans the arbitress, the 
 mistress of the whole State. New Orleans 
 will control Louisiana. It is to preclude 
 this result that I insist so strenuously in 
 favor of federal numbers as the basis, be- 
 cause that basis is uniform in the balance 
 of the State, and will place the agricultural 
 portion of the community beyond the power 
 of the city. I repeat, I think the city a dan- 
 gerous depository of political power, and I 
 wish the country to maintain its ascen- 
 dancy. 
 
 As for the principle according represen- 
 tation to each parish, it may or may not be 
 defective. That principle may admit of 
 some modification. But, so far as it has 
 the effect of dividing and diffusing political 
 power, it appears to be reasonable and just. 
 As I am now convinced that the best mode 
 of arriving at a satisfactory solution of the 
 question invoked, will be by referring the 
 whole subject to a committee. I will move 
 for the reconsideration of the vote, by which 
 the question of reference was lost. 
 
 Mr. Saunders presented a substitute to 
 the propositions under consideration, and 
 asked that a committee of twelve be ap- 
 pointed, three from each congressional dis- 
 trict, to take into consideration the various 
 propositions that were offered, and to re- 
 port the result of their labors to the Con- 
 vention. 
 
 Mr. Grymes contended that it was al- 
 ways in order to recommit. In this partic- 
 ular case, this is the only reasonable course 
 he could adopt. A majority have decided 
 in this body, beyond the power of reason, 
 that there is necessarily a contrariety of in- 
 terests between the city and the country, 
 and the former must be shorn of her 
 strength. Every thing that has transpired, 
 the various suggestions and propositions 
 that come from the majority, clearly demon- 
 strates that no quarter is to be shown to the 
 city. It is useless then, to argue a question 
 so far prejudged. I consider the city a vic- 
 tim to the vague and idle apprehensions of 
 the country. All that remains for us is to 
 make the best of a bad bargain, and be duly 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 163 
 
 grateful for the best terms that may be 
 offered. We have been told that the great 
 God of nature has implanted in the human 
 breast a love of justice and a perception of 
 right, but unfortunately this beautiful senti- 
 ment has no practical force upon the calcu- 
 lations of interest and the effect of power. 
 We have before us the example how weak 
 is this assumed love of justice and percep- 
 tion of right in restraining the force of 
 numbers ! 
 
 I cannot (said Mr. Grymes) perceive any 
 conflict between the interests of the city 
 and the interests of the country. There is 
 no misfortune that effects the country that 
 is not felt, as there is no revulsion in the 
 city that is not felt in the country. But it 
 is useless to say any thing upon that point. 
 The majority have willed that there should 
 be a contrariety of interests, in order that the 
 • city may be curbed. Well, be it so. You 
 have the power to do it, and will no doubt 
 do it effectually. All that the city may ask, 
 is that you shall do it reasonably and con- 
 sistently. 
 
 I repeat that all the propositions that have 
 been made are designed for the sole purpose 
 of keeping the city in vassalage to the 
 country. We must submit. But in the 
 name of God, let the principle upon which 
 you act, have the semblance of equality and 
 uniformity. The proposition of the gentle- 
 man from East Feliciana, (Mr. Saunders) 
 appears to have that in view, and hence, 
 appreciating his motives, I unite with him 
 in the motion he has made. 
 
 Mr. Peets said, that notwithstanding 
 the eloquent remarks of the city delegation, 
 they had not shown how it was possible to 
 make an apportionment upon strict princi- 
 ples of equality. It was out of the question 
 to do so. There is only one way of equali- 
 ty, and that is by general ticket. But as 
 that system suits no one, it is necessary 
 that we should adopt an arbitrary rule, 
 whether it be the number of electors — fed- 
 eral numbers, or territorial representation: 
 in each there will be a disparity and con- 
 sequently a want of perfect equality. It 
 seemed to him (Mr. Peets) that if the num- 
 ber of representatives could arbitrarily be 
 fixed at from seventy-five to one hundred, 
 instead of from one hundred to one hundred 
 and fifty, it might with equal propriety be 
 conceded that it was as fair to apportion 
 that number throughout the State. I never 
 
 would consent that the city should be op- 
 pressed — but I do contend that small pa- 
 rishes have an unquestionable right to be 
 represented. This is proper and just in 
 itself. But it is politic, in order to prevent 
 the concentration of power — particularly in 
 a large city. For these reasons, said Mr. 
 Peet, I shall vote against striking out. 
 
 The question was taken upon striking out 
 the following words from the report of the 
 majority of the committee, "each parish 
 shall be entitled to one representative." 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for — 40 
 yeas — 32 nays. 
 
 Mr. Saunders then moved that the re- 
 port of the majority of the committee and 
 the other propositions be referred; which 
 motion prevailed with an amendment, that 
 the propositions of the delegate from Jeffer- 
 son, (Mr. Preston) and the delegate from 
 Lafourche, (Mr. Guion) be also referred — 
 38 yeas to 34 nays. 
 
 Whereupon the Convention adjourned 
 until this evening at 7 o'clock. • 
 
 EVENING SESSION. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Preston the Conven- 
 tion took up section 14 of the report of the 
 majority of the committee, and adopted said 
 section as follows: 
 
 Sec. 14. Not less than a majority of the 
 members of each house of the general as- 
 sembly shall form a quorum to do business: 
 but a smaller number may adjourn from 
 day to day, and shall be authorized by law 
 to compel the attendance of absent mem- 
 bers, in such manner and under such pen- 
 alties as may be prescribed thereby. 
 
 The 15th section was then adopted. 
 
 Sec. 15. Each house of the general as- 
 sembly shall judge of the qualifications, 
 elections and returns of its members; but a 
 contested election shall be determined in 
 such manner as shall be directed by law. 
 
 The Convention then took up the 1 6th 
 and 17th sections, and adopted them as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 Sec. 16. Each house of the general as- 
 sembly may determine the rules of its pro- 
 ceedings, punish a member for disorderly 
 behavior, and, with the concurrence of two- 
 thirds, expel a member, but not the second 
 time for the same offence. 
 
 Sec. 17. Each house of the general as- 
 
L64 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 sembly shall keep and publish weekly a 
 journal of its proceedings, mid the yeas and 
 nays of the members on any question shall 
 al the desire of any two of them, be enter- 
 ed on the journal. 
 
 The Convention then proceeded to the 
 consideration of the 18th section. 
 
 Sec. 18. Each house may punish by im- 
 prisonment, during the session, any person 
 not a member, for disrespectful and disor- 
 derly behavior in its presence, or for ob- 
 structing any of its proceedings: provided, 
 such imprisonment shall not at any one time 
 exceed ten days. 
 
 This section underwent some verbal 
 amendments. Mr. RatlifF opposed the sec- 
 tion as unnecessary. The legislature did 
 not need any such rule, and it might be 
 abused and lead to oppression. If the le- 
 gislature were annoyed by any disturbance, 
 they could appeal to the criminal laws of 
 the country. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth replied that a resort to 
 the courts would not be efficacious to assure 
 the deliberations of the legislature from any 
 obstructions, as persons who might be 
 evilly disposed could obstruct the proceed- 
 ings of the legislature, and then, when 
 brought before the courts, would have the 
 faculty of giving security. 
 
 Mr. Downs said he considered this pro- 
 vision necessary not only to protect the legis- 
 lature, but also to enforce obedience to its 
 mandates. He corroborated this view of 
 the subject, by an actual occurrence in 
 which some bank or other corporation, had 
 refused to allow the legislature to make an 
 examination. 
 
 Mr. Kenner stated he was opposed to 
 the section. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for— yeas 
 54, nays 7. 
 
 The Convention then took up section 19, 
 and adopted it as follows: 
 
 Sec 19. Neither house during the ses- 
 sion of the general assembly shall, without 
 the consent of the other, adjourn for more 
 than three days, nor to any other place than 
 that in which they may be sitting. 
 
 The Convention then took up section 20, 
 as follows: 
 
 Sec. 20. The members of the general 
 assembly shall severally receive from the 
 public treasury a compensation for their 
 services, which shall be four dollars per 
 day during their attendance on, going to, 
 
 and returning from the sessions of their re- 
 spective houses, provided that the same 
 may be increased or diminished by law; but 
 no alteration shall take effect during the 
 period of service of the members of the 
 house of representatives by whom such al- 
 teration shall have been made: And 'pro- 
 vided, also, that this compensation shall 
 exist for the period of sixty days only, but if 
 the general assembly shall at any time ex- 
 tend the session beyond sixty days, they 
 shall not receive any compensation for any 
 period beyond the said sixty days. 
 
 Mr. Eustis proposed to add to the fore- 
 going section the following, "and provided 
 farther, that no adjournment shall exceed 
 ten days." 
 
 Mr. Benjamin opposed the proposition. 
 He said that it was not desirable to prevent 
 the legislature from re-assembling during 
 the same year, if deemed essential. The 
 object to be attained was an abre vial ion o 
 the legislative sessions, and it was accom- 
 plished by allowing the members a per 
 diem for sixty days only. If they saw fit 
 to remain but fifteen days in session, and 
 meet again during the year, he could see 
 no valid objection against it. The sessions 
 of the legislature, but in particular cases it 
 might be necessary and appropriate for the 
 legislature to have two sessions in one 
 year. 
 
 Mr. Eustis replied that in point of fact 
 there was no difficulty — the difficulty sug- 
 gested by his colleague (Mr. Benjamin) 
 was merely verbal. The object of his (Mr. 
 E.'s) proviso, was to preclude the legisla- 
 ture from extending their sessions to anoth- 
 er portion of the year. And as to any ne- 
 cessity for their meeting a second time, tha< 
 was provided for by the section empower 
 ing the governor in cases of emergency to 
 convene them. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne conceived that he under- 
 stood the object of the gentleman (Mr. 
 Eustis.) He thought that if the words "du- 
 ring the same session" were inserted, ii 
 would meet the views of the delegate from 
 New Orleans (Mr. Benjamin.) 
 
 Mr. Eustis accepted the amendment. 
 
 Mr. McRea moved for the rejection of 
 the clause limiting the session to sixty days. 
 
 Mr. Dunn sustained the motion to reject. 
 The public business might require a longer 
 session than sixty days* That period would 
 not be probably long enough for the legis- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 165 
 
 lature convened under the new constitution, 
 immediately after its adoption. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth was opposed to the 
 clause, because it would only affect the 
 members who were poor. It would drive 
 them from the legislature — they would be 
 starved out by the wealthier members. It 
 was paying the legislature, moreover, a 
 very bad compliment to assume that the 
 pnly way of getting them to attend to their 
 duties, was to deprive them of their salaries 
 after a certain time. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff made an earnest appeal in 
 favor of striking out the clause, 
 
 Mr. Claiborne moved that the legisla- 
 tive session be extended to seventy-five days. 
 
 Mr. Dunn proposed ninety days. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin thought sixty days more 
 than sufficient — especially when the legis- 
 lature would be relieved, as was designed, 
 of the petty local business, which would be 
 confided to the police juries of the several 
 parishes. The legislature of South Caro- 
 lina was never in session more than twen- 
 ty days, and three times that period should 
 certainly be amply sufficient in Louisiana. 
 Full one half of the time of the legislature 
 was consumed in bills of a purely local 
 character — such as the establishment of a 
 ferry, and this cost the State more than the 
 privilege to the individual was worth. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Baton Rouge, confirmed 
 the observations of the delegate (Mr, Ben- 
 jamin) by his legislative experience. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth replied that it some 
 times happened that a bill represented as 
 local, involved the interests of a great por- 
 tion of the whole State. He instanced the 
 Raccourcie Cut-off. 
 
 Mr. 'Read proposed to allow the mem- 
 bers of the legislature one half of their pay 
 after the expiration of the sixty days. 
 
 Whereupon, on motion, the Convention 
 adjourned. 
 
 Thursday, February 6, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment, and its proceedings were opened 
 with prayer, by the Rev. Mr. Goodrich. 
 
 The Hon. t. W. Chinn, delegate from 
 the comity of Iberville, in the Chair. 
 
 The Chair announced the following 
 members to compose the committee upon 
 the 6th section, article 2d — Apportionment; 
 to whom was referred the report of the ma- 
 jority of the committee on the legislative 
 22 
 
 department upon apportionment, and the 
 various other propositions. 
 
 First Congressional District, — Messrs. 
 Wadsworth, Benjamin and Grymes. 
 
 Second Congressional District. — Messrs. 
 Preston, Roman, and Beatt3 r . 
 
 Third Congressional District. — Messrs. 
 Saunders, Scott, and Ratliff. 
 
 Fourth Congressional District.— -Messrs. 
 Downs, Porter, and Lewis. 
 
 Chairman of the Committee. — Mr. Lafay- 
 ette Saunders. 
 
 Order of thf Day. — Section 9, pre- 
 sented by Mr. Claiborne, requiring that 
 the residence of two years in the case of 
 naturalized citizens, should commence on or 
 after the date of their certificate of natural- 
 ization. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne said, that his only object 
 in presenting this section, was to preclude 
 the frauds and corruptions which might re- 
 sult on the eve of an election, by a whole- 
 sale process of naturalization. By this 
 section, the steam process of manufacturing 
 American citizens, would be arrested. 
 Naturalization would take its proper course, 
 and the two years intervening would afford 
 naturalized citizens a proper opportunity of 
 becoming acquainted with our political par- 
 ties, and with public men. He hoped that 
 the section would be favorably received by 
 all v/ho desired to preserve the purity of 
 the ballot box. 
 
 Mr. Guion favored the object designed 
 by the delegate from New Orleans, (Mr. 
 Claiborne) but would propose a substitute 
 to this effect. 
 
 "No person shall be entitled to exercise 
 the right of suffrage in this State, who has 
 not been for the last two years a citizen of 
 the United States." 
 
 Mr. Claiborne: I accept the gentle- 
 man's proposition. 
 
 Mr. Eustis said, that he would not have 
 troubled the House with any views of his 
 if any other member had manifested a dis- 
 position to oppose the adoption of this sec- 
 tion; but as no one had done so, he was un- 
 willing that the question should go by de- 
 fault. What he would offer was not by 
 way of mere argument, but by way of coun- 
 sel. He considered this question as too 
 important to be a subject of disputation. 
 
 I think, said Mr. Eustis, that I see the 
 Convention about to commit a capital er- 
 [ ror. That through an excitement which I 
 
IGG 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 believe (o be but transitory, we are about 
 to yield to the sudden impulses of passion. 
 From the passions of the day, I would ap- 
 pea I to the fathers of the day. I would ap- 
 peal to you as supreme magistrates of the 
 State, whether it be politic — whether it be 
 expedient, to engraft upon the constitution 
 this principle of exclusion. Would it be 
 wise to pronounce it the judgment — the law 
 of the State? I shall not repeat what I said 
 when a similar subject was under considera- 
 tion. But I will leave that and pass to the 
 subject before us. And first, permit me to 
 submit to the judgment of the Convention, 
 that the proposition of my colleague (Mr. 
 Claiborne) is an innovation; that nothing 
 of the kind is to be found in the old consti- 
 tution, nor has it been demonstrated to be 
 necessary in the thirty- two years of expe- 
 rience that we have had under that consti- 
 tution. 
 
 In none of the recent constitutions of our 
 sister States, although this never-ending 
 subject of foreign influence has been agita- 
 ted among them, with equal, if not greater 
 violence, than with us, has such a principle 
 of exclusion been adopted. Complaints of 
 foreign influence then, as here, have been 
 heard; these complaints have been reitera- 
 ted in the political contests and defeats of 
 the day, until the ear has tired of them, and 
 yet in none of the constitutions, remodelled 
 or amended amid all this excitement, has 
 any such principle been engrafted upon 
 them — a principle odious by its exceptional 
 and personal character. In appealing to 
 the judgment of the Convention, I would 
 ask them, not to neglect the injunctions of 
 expediency. Not to forget the political his- 
 tory of the country. The operations of the 
 constitution and laws of the several States 
 that have been in existence for more than 
 half a century, and which to my mind have 
 established, and 1 say it with great defer- 
 ence to the opinions of others, the funda- 
 mental doctrine of political equality. We 
 should bear in mind that we are now about 
 to establish the corner stone, upon which 
 will rest the quiet and repose of this whole 
 community, the sovereignty of the whole 
 State. With due humility I would suggest, 
 whether it would be well to abandon the 
 lessons of experience to follow new and un- 
 tried elements, and which the necessities 
 of the times neither call for nor justify. 
 These are the results of my reflections, and 
 
 I would entreat the Convention to pause 
 and ponder the consequences before they 
 commit themselves to a policy which will 
 give great dissatisfaction, and which will 
 operate exclusively and with peculiar harsh- 
 ness upon a valued portion of our commu- 
 nity. With due deference to the opinions 
 of others, I cannot consider this exclusion 
 as just. The State of Louisiana, in com- 
 mon with her sister confederates, has re- 
 linquished the power of making citizens, 
 and has invested it in the general govern- 
 ment of the whole Union. Congress have 
 established five }^ears as a proper period to 
 admit foreigners to naturalization, and even 
 if we have the constitutional power, which 
 may admit of argument, it would not be 
 politic, wise or expedient to add any thing 
 to that restriction. When a foreigner re- 
 sides permanently among us for five years, 
 with the intention of becoming a citizen, 
 and of making this favored land his home — 
 when he marries among us, and has all his 
 affections concentrated in our midst — when 
 every feeling and sentiment dear to the hu- 
 man heart unites him to the soil — is it rea- 
 sonable, is it proper to treat him with dis- 
 trust; to deny him the confidence reposed 
 in other citizens, and to require him to wait 
 two years longer before he be placed upon 
 a perfect equality. This distinction will 
 rankle at the heart of the naturalized citi- 
 zen, and he will feel with pain and mortifi- 
 cation that the fundamental laws of the 
 country place him in an inferior position, 
 and in a position in which he is held up as 
 a constant mark for suspicion, and per- 
 chance for reproach. Instead of being a 
 united family, we distract and divide our 
 community; we destroy harmony and reci- 
 procity of feeling, and create dissatisfaction 
 and discontent. And why this? Where is 
 the necessity? The object of government 
 is to represent the interests, the feelings 
 and the wishes of all; to harmonize society 
 and to bind it together indissolubly, for the 
 attainment of liberty and of happiness. My 
 colleague (Mr. Claiborne) says it is to pre- 
 vent frauds! He thinks that a temptation 
 will exist on the eve of an election to make, 
 as he expresses it, "citizens by steam," and 
 that this section will preclude that result. 
 Admitting, for the sake of the argument, 
 that we have been admonished by past expe- 
 rience, that frauds do particularly occur on 
 the eve of elections, no other mode of pre- 
 
Debates in the Convention ot Louisiana: 
 
 1G7 
 
 venting them can be employed than a legal 
 mode.° We find that our sister States suffer 
 from the same assumed inconvenience that 
 we do, and yet no local legislation has ever 
 been made to meet the case. Certainly 
 it would not be proper with a view of pre- 
 venting the naturalization of improper per- 
 sons to preclude the natualization of persons 
 legally qualified. It might happen, that the 
 term of five years might expire on the eve of an 
 election, and that a resident foreigner might 
 wish to complete his naturalization with the 
 view to the exercise of the privileges of suf- 
 frage. What is there wrong in that. 
 There is no more harm in his being natu - 
 ralized at one time rather than another, if 
 the laws of Congress be fulfilled, and if he 
 have resided the necessary period and can 
 make the necessary proof. There are na- 
 tives who are as jealous of the liberties of 
 the country in the other States, as there 
 are in Louisiana; frauds are as rife else- 
 where as here, and yet none of the consti- 
 tutions of our sister States, formed amid all 
 the excitement which has prevailed among 
 them, have adopted such a principle of ex- 
 clusion. I have said, that as the foreigner 
 when he comes here, is required by the 
 laws of Congress to reside five 3-ears before 
 he can be admitted to citizenship, it would 
 be unjust to require two years more resi- 
 dence on the part of the State. Are the 
 five years, in which he may obtain a tho- 
 rough practical acquaintance with our in- 
 stitutions, to count for nothing in the sup- 
 posed necessity that an unusual residence is 
 essential to indoctrinate him in sound Amer- 
 ican principles. I will proceed to show 
 what is the law of Louisiana in relation to 
 the acquisition of residence by aliens. I 
 refer to Moreau's Digest of the laws, page 
 309. It is as follows : 
 
 "That any alien coming into this State 
 from a foreign country, or from any State 
 of the United States, or any citizen of the 
 United States coming into this State as 
 aforesaid, shall after having resided one 
 year without any interruption in one of the 
 parishes of this State, having in the mean- 
 time purchased or rented a house or room, 
 or parcel of land, or pursued some profession 
 or employment for a support, be considered 
 as having acquired a residence in the parish 
 where such individual has so resided and 
 complied with the above requisitions, by 
 making proof of the same before any judge or 
 
 justice of the peace within this State > who is 
 hereby authorized and required to receive 
 such evidence and make it a part of the 
 records of his court, and to grant to the in- 
 dividual an attested certificate to that effect, 
 and the oath of the individual applying, sup- 
 ported by the evidence of another, shall be 
 deemed sufficient." 
 
 The old constitution imposed upon the 
 Legislature the duty of pointing out the 
 maimer in which a man coming into the 
 State should declare his residence. In pur- 
 suance of that requisition the first law, 
 which was amended by the act of 1818, 
 which I have read, required that the person 
 coming into the State desirous of acquiring 
 residence should give notice in writing to 
 the judge of the parish, where he proposed 
 to reside of such intention, and at the expi- 
 ration of twelve months from such notifica- 
 tion he should be considered a resident. 
 The act of 1818 is the law of the State, and 
 methinks it would be a wrong violation of 
 the spirit of justice to embody a principle in 
 your constitution at variance with our past 
 practice, and not called for by any sound 
 reasons of goed policy. The existing stat- 
 ute has regulated the conduct of citizens 
 and sojourners. Justice is the foundation 
 of law. Can the assumed emergency, and 
 I do not deny that frauds have been commit- 
 ted, be met by this section? I think not. 
 But how can the evil be remedied? I an- 
 swer by having judges who obey the laws. 
 If you cannot trust your judges, we have 
 assembled to little purpose; our labors to 
 form a new constitution will be productive 
 of no good. If you can't trust your judges 
 then, there is an end to the liberties of your 
 country. For important as the right of suf- 
 frage may be considered, and important as 
 it is in fact, it is nothing in comparison 
 with an efficient and irreproachable judi- 
 ciary. You may extend the right of suf- 
 frage, but unless you embody in your con- 
 stitution such wise and wholesome regula- 
 tions as will ensure to your judiciary the 
 confidence and respect of reasonable and 
 well-thinking men, the extension of suf- 
 frage, as far as the expectation of the public 
 and the permanent good of the State be con- 
 cerned, will be a mere humbug; for suffrage 
 wilijiot and cannot affect those salutary re- 
 forms which are essential in that most im- 
 portant branch of the public service. It 
 cannot reach your judiciary, and purge it 
 
Sebatej in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 from the dross with which it may be en- 
 cumbered. The idea that good govern- 
 ment can exist merely by the will of the 
 people, independent of good institutions, 
 i 3 a paradox — it is a mistake. The people 
 govern through their institutions, and if you 
 cannol trust your institutions it is better for 
 us to go home. It must be admitted that 
 many of the judicial functions are treated 
 with levity, and in some instances with 
 shameful profligacy. Our naturalization 
 laws for example, are good. There is not 
 a lawyer that will contravert this opinion. 
 Take the old act, passed under Mr. Jeffer- 
 son's administration; it is a* most excellent 
 law. It was passed at a period and in a 
 body conspicuous for intelligence and purity 
 of heart, in the ancient days of the glories 
 of the republic, and it bears the stamp of 
 integrity and of genius. What do the nat- 
 uralization laws require? Every one knows 
 the history of those laws. The periods for 
 residence have successively been changed. 
 
 Under the administration of Washing- 
 ton, in 1790, the term of residence required 
 for naturalization was at first only two 
 years, and the power was delegated to all 
 the State courts to admit persons to citizen- 
 ship after the completion of that residence. 
 In 1795, five years after, the period was in- 
 creased to five years. In 1798, under the 
 administration of John Adams, it was 
 placed at fourteen years. The judgment 
 of the people of the United States was pro- 
 nounced against this extension of residence, 
 and in 1802, under Mr. Jefferson, theiden. 
 tical term of residence, five years, was re- 
 stored as under George Washington. The 
 adjudication of citizenship is by a most 
 solemn judicial proceeding. The proof 
 has to be furnished of all the qualifications 
 essential to citizenship, to the satisfaction 
 of the judge, and an oath is administered be- 
 fore God and man— a proceeding infinitely 
 more solemn than attends the rendition of 
 an ordinary judicial decision. The judge 
 who can so far forget his duty as to dese- 
 crate the sacred requirements "of that law — 
 to prostitute his official station, by a total 
 disregard and violation of its provisions; 
 who can forget the obligations it imposes 
 upon him, which are between him and his 
 God, is guilty of an offence that words are 
 inadequate to express. Setting upon the 
 life of a fellow being, and pronouncing his 
 sentence without adequate proof, is noth- 
 
 ing in comparison with the responsibility 
 incurred by that judge who admits a man 
 to citizenship who is not entitled to it. It 
 strikes at the very foundation of the politi- 
 cal edifice — there is no name for such an 
 act. 
 
 The sentence of reprobation pronounced 
 by the senate of Louisiana upon a profligate 
 judge, who had thus far dishonored himself 
 and exposed the institutions of his country, 
 will act as a warning to all who would imi- 
 tate his example. It will show them that 
 they are neither above nor beyond punish • 
 ment, if their moral perceptions are so 
 blunted as to impel them to such outrages. 
 
 It is not by imposing restrictions then, 
 on the rights of citizenship, when these 
 rights are once acquired by foreigners; it is 
 not by exclusive legislation that you can 
 hope to effect the object of precluding 
 frauds upon the naturalization laws. You 
 must strike at the root of the evil. You 
 must exact that your judges do their duty, 
 and hold them to do that duty. There is 
 no defect in the laws themselves of natu- 
 ralization which facilitates the perpetration 
 
 these frauds. The defect and the cause 
 of the evils that may exist, lie in the man- 
 ner in which those laws are executed. 
 Here is the true cause. 
 
 I am ready and willing to go as far as 
 any one, to put a, stop to these evils. 1 am 
 ready to apply proper remedies, but I can- 
 not sanction a principle which is subver- 
 sive of the rights of persons claiming to be 
 citizens, and, who are citizens, in conformi- 
 ty with the supreme laws of the land, and 
 in virtue of solemn decisions of courts of 
 justice. 
 
 There is no complaint of the manner in 
 which foreigners are admitted to citizen- 
 ship in our federal courts. The proceed- 
 ings of law are enforced there. They are 
 strictly observed by Judge McCaleb, as they 
 have been by all his predecessors, and not 
 a case ha? ever occurred in those courts to 
 which the least exception could be had. 
 
 It is properly within the competency of 
 the legislature to provide laws to meet the 
 emergencies of the present case. This 
 section, in our fundamental law, at any rate 
 is superfluous. The legislature might di- 
 rect that the courts should not naturalize 
 within three months preceding an election. 
 What is to prevent them from doing that? 
 I do not suggest this myself, as a remedy; 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 160 
 
 but it can be done by the legislature, with- 
 out embodying in your fundamental law an 
 untried novelty — an exclusive and mische- 
 vious principle. There is another reme- 
 dy, and a mors effectual one. If you can't 
 trust your judges in the matter, forbid them 
 from naturalizing foreigners at all. Take 
 away from them the power, and I will 
 go with you.- That can be done by a 
 single line. The exercise of the power of 
 naturalization by State courts has been con- 
 ceded by congress through comity, and it 
 is within the competency of the State to 
 decline the authority. This is perfectly 
 plain to members of the legal profession. 
 The judicial power of the United States is 
 vested in a supreme court and such infe- 
 rior courts as congress may from time to 
 time ordain and establish. This is the 
 extent of the judicial power of the United 
 States; it goes no further. I repeat, if you 
 can't trust your judges in the matter of 
 naturalization, take away from them the 
 power to naturalize. I do not say they are 
 unworthy of confidence; nor would 1 act 
 upon that principle. In some cases con- 
 gress has given State tribunals jurisdiction 
 in revenue matters; in other cases in crimi- 
 nal causes; this jurisdiction has sometimes 
 been declined, therefore, no difficulty can 
 exist if the State should think proper to re- 
 linguish, or the parts of her courts of 
 justice, jurisdiction in naturalization cases. 
 
 Mr. Eustis alluded in the course of his 
 remarks, to the importance of placing the 
 judiciary system upon a proper basis ; of 
 sustaining its character for impartiality, for 
 intelligence; for honor and for integrity. 
 A well organized judiciary was, in his con- 
 ception, the most essential safeguard to the 
 rights of the citizens, and the greatest pre- 
 servative of our public institutions. 
 
 In conclusion, he thanked the Conven- 
 tion for their patient attention. He appeal- 
 ed to them to reflect well upon the conse- 
 quences of attempting to apply a remedy 
 for temporary abuses, which were perfectly 
 within the competency of the State authori- 
 ties to remedy; and for which we might in- 
 voke a principle in the constitution in vain. 
 We should profit by the experience of the 
 past; by the experience of wise statesmen, 
 and not wander in the dark without chart or 
 compass to direct them. In the fundamen- 
 tal basis of our government nothing should 
 appear but what experience has sanctioned, 
 the maturest judgment has confirmed. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne said it was not his in- 
 tention to enter into a discussion of the 
 question involved. He was convinced, 
 without prejudice to any class of our fel- 
 low citizens, that some rule in the consti- 
 tution was essential. The section before 
 the Convention applied to the future: it was 
 not to preclude the effects of naturalization, 
 but simply to prevent the abuses of naturali- 
 zation on the eve of an important political 
 combat. Objection was taken to this, and 
 it was pronounced by the gentleman (Mr. 
 Eustis) a harsh and rigorous restriction. 
 With equal propriety it might be said to be 
 harsh and rigorous to require residence at 
 all, and that the opposite extreme, making 
 residence unnecessary in the acquisition of 
 citizenship, would be the just and proper 
 policy. If every reasonable restraint in 
 government is to be considered a harsh re- 
 striction, we had better abolish the govern- 
 ment at once, and resolve society into its 
 original state of individual independence 
 and anarchy. 
 
 I repeat, Mr. President, that it is not my 
 intention to argue this question; I will leave 
 that task to more competent hands. The 
 gentleman (Mr. Eustis) complains that this 
 subject has been suggested under excite- 
 ment. If the delegate means to say that I 
 have supported it under any excitement, or 
 under the influence of prejudice, I deny em- 
 phatically the charge. If any one has been 
 excited, it has been the member himself. I 
 deny that I wish to make exceptional re- 
 straints, bearing exclusively on naturalized 
 citizens, or that I designed exciting feelings 
 of ill will between naturalized citizens and 
 native citizens. Here again it is the gen- 
 tleman who is at fault and not I. I have 
 made no appeals to local feelings. We 
 have required two years' residence to ac- 
 quire citizenship from our fellow citizens of 
 the other States, and they are in the mean 
 time, during these two years, subjected to 
 all the duties and obligations of citizens; 
 whereas a person from another country, be- 
 fore he is naturalized, is exempt from all 
 these duties, and has certain advantages in 
 being allowed the privilege of suing in a 
 particular court, and of having transferred 
 any civil proceedings instituted against him 
 to that court. I wish to put the native citi- 
 zen on an equality with the naturalized citi- 
 zen, in relation to residence. That is all, 
 and I am indeed astonished it should have 
 provoked so much feeling. 1 disclaim all 
 
no 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 prejudice against naturalized citizens, who 
 have conformed to the spirit and intention 
 of pur laws. I am acquainted with many 
 most excellent naturalized citizens, and the 
 proof that there is nothing improper in the 
 principle proposed, is, that they heartily 
 concur in the necessity of some rule by 
 w hich our naturalization laws may be pre-- 
 served from the prostitution of party pur- 
 poses, and from abominable frauds and cor- 
 rupt evasions. This platform is large 
 enough for native citizens and naturalized 
 citizens — -for all reasonable and judicious 
 of whatever country or party they may be. 
 I repeat again, far be it from me to excite 
 passions or create excitement. I sin- 
 cerely deprecate any thing of the kind on 
 any occasion, and more especially on an 
 occasion when there should be so much 
 moderation and so much patient and dispas- 
 sionate investigation. 
 
 Mr. Marigny said that it would seem 
 from the presentation of this proposition, 
 that the lessons of experience were not al- 
 ways salutary. After the debate, no less 
 full than it was animated, upon the subject 
 of the qualifications to be required for 
 membership to the house of representatives, 
 during which debate a principle was em- 
 bodied in the original proposition that four 
 years residence, to count from the (Jate of 
 the certificate of naturalization, should be 
 essential to the qualifications of naturalized 
 citizens, making in all nine years' resi- 
 dence, was rejected by the casting vote of 
 the president. It was to be supposed that 
 a similar exclusion would not be pressed 
 upon our attention. That the principle 
 having once been rejected, it would have 
 been considered settled, and would not have 
 made its appearance again to disturb our 
 deliberations. 
 
 But, this reasonable presumption is dis- 
 appointed, and it is attempted to exclude 
 for two years the citizen, who has been 
 naturalized in virtue of your laws, and who 
 has resided the full period they prescribe. 
 After receiving his brevet of citizenship 
 from your highest tribunals, and with all 
 the solemnities of an oath, he is told that 
 this is not yet sufficient: that he must wait, 
 although he is a citizen, two years longer 
 before he can exercise the most important 
 privilege of citizenship— the right of suf- 
 frage! It must be acknowledged, that this 
 is a most anomalous and curious proceed- 
 
 ing! And the attempt to engraft it upon 
 the constitution again, after it has signally 
 failed upon another point, is a most extra- 
 ordinary mode of reviving an extinct ques- 
 tion, and of giving it vigor. 
 
 I am diametrically and invincibly op- 
 posed to this section, because it is unjust, 
 and partial, and not only is it unjust and 
 partial, but it is likewise opposed to the 
 true interests of the city and State; and is 
 aimed more particularly at the city. — al- 
 though it comes from a delegate of the 
 city, contrary to my expectations, and I 
 may add, to my great surprise. That dele- 
 gate, one would have presumed, from what 
 he has seen passing in the house, would at 
 least perceived that his proposition was un- 
 fortunate and not opportune, to say the 
 least. In fact if the country delegation 
 should sanction this principle, it will not 
 be because they consider it just or reason- 
 able, but because they will comprehend 
 how prejudicial it will be to the,eity, against 
 which they appear determined to do every 
 thing to paralyze any little influence she 
 may still retain in the operations of the 
 government. 
 
 I feel well assured that if a foreigner was 
 to land in the parish of St. James, and was 
 to go through all the formula necessary to 
 citizenship, and at the expiration of five 
 years, was to propose to vote, no one would 
 stop him and require two years' more resi- 
 dence, if this section were actually in force; 
 and certainly it would be but reasonable 
 that they should not; for if in a probation 
 of five years, he was not identified in feel- 
 ing with our community, it would be evi- 
 dent that he would never be identified — no 
 more in two years longer than ten years 
 longer, or fifty years longer! Why should 
 it be different as relates to a person from 
 Europe landing in New Orleans? 
 
 Why? The answer is obvious. It is 
 because the electoral influence of the city 
 is dreaded. The increase of the popula- 
 tion of the city is becoming greater and 
 greater every day; and it is apprehended 
 under the influence of universal suffrage, 
 the city will acquire sufficient force to wrest 
 power from those that are dilapidating the 
 public treasures. It ought to be sufficient- 
 ly well known that if the denunciations 
 hurled against naturalized citizens were 
 well founded, and which it would be rea- 
 sonable to presume I would comprehend at 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana- m 
 
 mv advanced age and with a political ex- 
 perience of thirty years, I would be the 
 last one to sustain them, in what I consider 
 to be their just privileges, and which privi- 
 leges could only be forfeited by an hostility 
 to our institutions and a disregard of their 
 duties as citizens. If they were pernicious 
 to our institutions in a time of peace, or in 
 a time of war, I certainly would not hesi- 
 tate to sustain the interests cf the land of my 
 birth. It is not at my age that reason and 
 judgment are seduced by the sudden inspi- 
 rations of an extravagant and dangerous 
 philanthrophy. To my experience, adopt- 
 ed citizens have uniformly conducted them- 
 selves in a manner which evidences that 
 the interests of the country, that its pros- 
 perity and the perpetuation of its institu- 
 tions are dear and sacred to them. The 
 principal design in this determined hostility 
 to adopted citizens, appears to have its 
 chief weight in the prejudices of the coun- 
 try against the influence of the city by cut- 
 ting off a large class of persons from the 
 privilege of suffrage. And, 1 again repeat, 
 that it is with astonishment and regret, I 
 find my celleague from New Orleans pro- 
 moting that object, without reflecting upon 
 the secret designs of the country, at a mo- 
 ment when it is a question to make the 
 number of electors the basis of representa- 
 tion. His attempt to sustain the section 
 upon the ground, that the proposition is 
 based upon a perfect equality between the 
 citizen of New York or of Massachusetts 
 arriving among us, and a person arriving 
 from Europe has signally failed. It is evi- 
 dent that the latter has to undergo a proba- 
 tion of five years before he can be politi- 
 cally on the same footing with a native 
 citizen, and if you require two years longer 
 at the expiration of the five years, it is 
 evident that the latter requisition operates 
 with greater severity in one case than the 
 other. 
 
 The framers of the present constitution, 
 among whom I had the honor of being one 
 in 1812, apprehended much less than you 
 appear to do this foreign influence. They 
 required as well from naturalized citizens 
 as from native citizens a residence of but 
 one year in the State and six months in the 
 parish. Why were they s0 liberal? Be- 
 cause they knew from experience; an expe- 
 rience which was fully confirmed by the 
 glorious events of the 8th January, 1815, 
 
 that it did not require an indefinite period 
 for strangers to become attached to Our in- 
 stitutions and to peril all in their defence. 
 It may be alleged that foreigners never 
 make good citizens; that they are never at- 
 tached to our institutions. This has been 
 said and will be said again. But what do 
 facts prove? What does history say? It 
 denies emphatically all such allegations. 
 Never has the tocsin of danger been sound- 
 ed; never has the drum called patriots to 
 arms, without foreigners hastening to your 
 camps and enroling themselves in your 
 companies before even they have their 
 certificates of naturalization. They repair 
 to the thickest of the fray; to the most ex- 
 posed and dangerous positions and dispute 
 in valor and in patriotism with the natives 
 of the soil, the meed of the public praise. 
 It would seem that love of liberty is in- 
 herent among the thousand and tens of 
 thousands who seek an asylum from the 
 despotisms of Europe. There are some na- 
 tions, France for example, where the pros- 
 perity and advancement of the United States 
 is a part and portion of the public impulse 
 and the public feeling, and it would be al- 
 most ungrateful to attempt to repress that 
 sentiment. Louis Phillipe, the citizen king 
 and the profound and sagacious statesman, 
 may have paid" a visit to the young Queen 
 of England to express to her his desire to 
 preserve the peace of the world, but in 
 great emergencies be fully persuaded that 
 France and the United States are insepa- 
 rable allies. There is no Frenchman who 
 does not appreciate the secret hatred borne 
 by England towards our republic, and does 
 not participate with hearty good will in our 
 dislike of England and her intermeddling 
 policy. Authentic facts and glorious re- 
 sults are the evidence of reciprocal parti- 
 ality for each other, between the United 
 States and France. Neither the gold nor 
 the machinations of England can arrest this 
 mutual enthusiasm, not only between the 
 good and virtuous of both countries, but 
 even between the vicious and the depraved, 
 even pirates; for we have the proof, that not 
 all the gold of England could purchase the 
 men under Lafltte, at Barrataria, but that 
 even at the very risk of their lives as out- 
 lawed criminals, as soon as the fleets of 
 England appeared off our shores they re- 
 paired at once to the ximerican camp and 
 offered their services in defence of the 
 
# 
 
 172 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 American cause. They abandoned their 
 crimes for the purpose of contending against 
 r } 1 1 - natural enemy of the United States; 
 and w hile they took the most dangerous po- 
 sitions on one side, the naturalized citizens 
 on the other, marched in close and serried 
 columns, to meet the common enemy and 
 to drive him back. Wherever heroic deeds 
 were to be done, pressed forward a natural- 
 ized citizen; your cannons were manned 
 by them. In one place stood a St. Geme, 
 t he Achilles of the American army, defying 
 danger and striking a blow for liberty; in 
 another a Dominique Gou, a Garrigue 
 Fleaujac, and a host of others, of whom 
 Louisiana will ever be proud to rank among 
 her citizens. Even the people of color 
 who had sought refuge among us from St. 
 Domingo, felt the general enthusiasm, and 
 full of heroic courage they marched under 
 the command of the brave Savorry, who 
 stimulated them by the cry " March on, my 
 friends, march on against the enemies of the 
 country." And as in that solemn hour of 
 death and of victory, there neither was on 
 the field of honor distinctions of classes nor 
 distinctions of languages; the hero of the 
 day, the immortal Jackson pressed to his 
 bosom that brave man, whose disinterested 
 devotion had rendered him so formidable. 
 
 Can we cast a retrospective glance at the 
 past— can we reflect and do justice to the 
 services of foreigners—first in assisting us 
 to achieve our independence and secondly 
 in preserving it, and say that we really ap- 
 prehend danger from their becoming citi- 
 zens ? No ; it cannot be. Your hearts 
 cannot dictate so odious an exclusion! It 
 must proceed then, from the fear you enter- 
 tain that the city will absorb the political 
 power of the State, if you do not restrict her 
 citizens, and deprive a large portion of 
 them of the right of suffrage. But your 
 fears of the city are illusory, and if they 
 were not illusory, you should take no other 
 than constitutional, legal and proper mea- 
 sures to avert the object of your terrors. 
 Do not vaunt so much the talents and elo- 
 quence of the city, and be frank enough to 
 admit, that your only design is to keep pos- 
 session of the public treasury? It is that 
 which induced you, on the one hand, to re- 
 sist an uniform basis of representation — a 
 basis founded on the electors; and on the 
 other hand, it increases to decrease by 
 every means the circle of suffrage in the 
 city, although you do not choose to make 
 
 war directly against the principle of uni- 
 versal suffrage. I consider the proposition 
 before us as supported in a principle of Ma- 
 chiavelism, and it certainly can never re- 
 ceive my sanction. 
 
 Mr. Downs said, that he was totally op- 
 posed to the adoption of this section. His 
 reasons were similar to those he had given 
 when a similar principle of exclusion was 
 under debate. The section was not clear, 
 as it was, and he presumed went beyond 
 tha designs of its authors. At least an in- 
 terpretation might be given to it still more 
 exclusive and unjust. It might be under- 
 stood as applying even to citizens who have 
 been previously naturalized, and whose 
 term of naturalization at the period of the 
 final adoption of the new constitution had 
 not reached the term of two years. In 
 order to prevent that construction, he would 
 propose an amendment that this section 
 should be operative only in future cases of 
 naturalization. He should, however, vote 
 against the section, even if his amend- 
 ment prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Soule said that before the Conven- 
 tion decided upon a matter which had given 
 rise to so much discussion, he desired to 
 submit a few observations and to show 
 what were the grounds that would deter- 
 mine the vote he was about to give, I am 
 opposed, said Mr. Soule, to the original 
 proposition of the gentleman from New Or- 
 leans, (Mr. Claiborne) to the substitute of- 
 fered by the delegate from Lafourche, (Mr. 
 Guion) and also to the amendment of the 
 member from Ouachita (Mr. Downs;) al- 
 though if I thought it possible that either of 
 the principal propositions would prevail, I 
 would vote in favor of the amendment. Let 
 it not be presumed that my opposition to 
 those propositions is based upon the incon- 
 venience that would result in attempting to 
 carry them into practice. As a naturalized 
 citizen, upon that point I shall be silent. I 
 oppose them because they are repugnant to 
 our institutions; and in saying this, I dare 
 to hope that I am conforming to the legiti- 
 mate desires of our common constituents, 
 who appointed us their mandatories, that 
 we might consult upon the great and funda- 
 mental principles of republican government, 
 and not upon mere questions of temporary 
 expediency, which germinate passion, and 
 give rise to local animosities and bitter 
 feelings of resentment, 
 
 Yes, Mr. President, I can solemnly aver 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 173 
 
 that I was far from expecting that this Con- 
 vention would disappoint the wishes of the 
 people and controvert the very objects for 
 which they called it into existence. No 
 one questioned at the moment it convened 
 that it would be a faithful exponent of the 
 public wishes, and its panegyrists have told 
 qn several occasions since its convocation, 
 that if there was an incontestable fact it was 
 this: that the Convention could not express 
 any thing else than the sentiments of the 
 people — in a word, so great were the iden- 
 tity between the creature and the creator, 
 that they were one and the same thing. 
 Nothing, however, is more unfounded! But 
 it would appear that in calculating the con- 
 sequences of such an avowal, some have 
 taken care to shield themselves under 
 the pretext that it is impossible to take 
 the will of the people as a guide for the 
 proceedings of this body. Surprised, as I 
 might well be, at such an avowal, I have 
 listened with deep attention to the argu- 
 ments of those that favor it; and I must 
 say, in all sincerity, that I have heard no- 
 thing to sustain then* position. 
 
 I am convinced more than ever, that the 
 principles of the government under which we 
 live consecrates the most perfect equality, 
 and that this principle has its source in the 
 common will of the masses, and therefore 
 cannot be dependent upon the will of the few. 
 I am, however, necessitated to declare that 
 ail the various efforts made here to induce,no 
 matter what majority, .to sanction a clause 
 despoiling an entire class of our fellow citi- 
 zens of their most precious and inestimable 
 rights, by depriving them for two years of 
 the rights of citizenship under the United 
 State s, convince me that if reason and jus- 
 tice be upon the side of those whose cause 
 I maintain, the force of numbers in this 
 Convention lies somewhere else, and it 
 would seem that a disposition prevails to 
 give a very different construction to the 
 principles that constitute republican or pop- 
 ular governments. 
 
 Can any one believe, Mr. President, that 
 such a proposition as the one embraced in 
 the section before us would have been sug- 
 gested had the late presidential struggle 
 terminated differently? We are too prompt 
 to cede to the weakness of humanity; too 
 easy to fall under the dominion of our pas- 
 sions, and when they reign supreme, we 
 are not reluctant to disregard the dictates 
 23 
 
 of reason and of justice! And why? We 
 are told of conformities! We are asked to 
 sanction doctrines that have no other mo- 
 tive than temporary conformities. But I 
 would ask, are we assembled here to yield 
 our judgment to a temporary outcry against 
 a portion of our citizens, which has been 
 excited by the political defeat of one of the 
 contending parties, and to legislate agreea- 
 bly to the passions and feelings of the mo- 
 ment. Or are we here to treat of princi- 
 ples, and to settle the fundamental basis in 
 accordance with republican principles? If 
 the first be in fact, our object, we had bet- 
 ter declare the Convention a permanent le- 
 gislative body, for mere legislation is but 
 the result of the occurrences of the day and 
 of the common routine of human life, and 
 to each event or modification of the politi- 
 cal or social phases, we should provide an 
 enactment. But if we are sincere in the 
 desire to accomplish the only mission for 
 which we are assembled, should we not 
 first ascertain whether the measure pro- 
 posed is consistent with fundamental prin- 
 ciples. 
 
 It must be obvious, from the range and 
 character of the functions pertaining to this 
 body, that our mandate is a restricted one, 
 and that it is clearly defined. The law un- 
 der which we have assembled, declares for- 
 mally that we are to consult upon but three 
 measures of general utility to the State. As 
 regards these measures, at least, we can- 
 not exonerate ourselves from the responsi- 
 bility imposed as well by the law itself, as 
 by the will of the people. The abstract in- 
 dividual right of resisting the realization of 
 these three great measures I concede; for 
 the minority have their representatives here 
 for the purpose of defeating them, inasmuch 
 as the minority could not defeat the popular 
 will in calling the Convention. I find no- 
 thing extraordinary in that desire on the 
 part of the minority but what I find most 
 extraordinary, and I may add most deplora- 
 ble, is this, that the minority have by some 
 means or other succeeded in converting 
 themselves into the majority of this body, 
 and have placed themselves in a position to 
 defy the popular will and to defeat all ex- 
 pectations that this assembly will carry into 
 effect the objects for which they were con- 
 vened. 
 
 Inasmuch as the mandate calling this 
 Convention is a restricted mandate, let us 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 st o what arc the restrictions which are at- 
 tached to it. It is first declared that the 
 Convention shall extend the right of suf- 
 frage, that is, they shall give greater liberty 
 to suffrage than was permitted in the old 
 constitution. In vain have I sought in that 
 instrument for any distinction in the privi- 
 leges and in surities accorded to citizens, 
 between native citizens and naturalized 
 citizens. There is no such distinction, and 
 I can very well conceive the reason. 
 When that constitution was formed no one 
 thought of the distinctions which certain 
 persons are so desirous of creating at the 
 present time, or if these distinctions were 
 thought of, no one dared to mention them, 
 as at that time the preponderence of the 
 population were naturalized citizens, and 
 such an attempt would have stifled in the 
 bud. Such a line of demarcation in 1812 
 would have been considered an outrage — - 
 an odious attempt at proscription, and would 
 not have been entertained for a single mo- 
 ment by any constituent body emanating 
 from the people. It would have been stri- 
 king a blow at the fathers of the very men 
 who sat in that Convention — they would 
 have been the first victims to the measure 
 which is now before us for approval. 
 
 What, asked Mr. Sotjle, is the essential 
 character of the government under which 
 we live? Is it an aristocracy or a democra- 
 cy that controls our destinies? Some might 
 hesitate to reply pertinently to this question. 
 I shall be candid enough not to hide any 01 
 my impressions. The democratic princi- 
 ple of which we boast, is not so absolute 
 nor so general as to preclude ail vestiges ot 
 aristocracy, and I must confess that in cer- 
 tain departments of our government, the 
 senate for example, — when perhaps it may 
 be prudent as one of the conservative prin- 
 ciples upon which so much has been said 
 in this body, — its traces are very visible. 
 It pervades other portions of our system, 
 unfortunately; but it must at least be con- 
 ceded that above all our system of govern- 
 ment, is a representative system of govern- 
 ment, and that the first corollory is, who 
 shall be represented? Is it not all the con- 
 sistent portions of the people, or in other 
 words, those that formed a portion of the po- 
 litical society at the formation of the gov- 
 ernment? That must necessarily be con- 
 ceded, unless one portion of the people 
 relinquish their political rights, and I even 
 
 doubt whether they have that power; you* 
 cannot sacrifice them and prescribe them 
 from equal political privileges with their 
 peers, without overthrowing the very prin- 
 ple upon which reposes the edifice of gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 Temporary expediencies have been in- 
 voked. But what is the nature of these 
 temporary expediencies. To my mind, 
 these expediencies smack of despotism — 
 of the subserviency of the many to the few! 
 I am yet to hear any valid reasons for these 
 assumed expediencies. For 32 years, has 
 the old constitution guaranteed the same 
 privileges to native and adopted citizens, 
 without distinction, and no one until now 
 has ever complained of the inexpediency 
 of placing the one and the other upon an 
 equal footing. Assuredly, there must be 
 some other motives — -some other designs 
 than those that are professed, and which it 
 is endeavored to sustain by a reference to 
 the abuses said to have existed at our last 
 elections. Will any one tell me what con- 
 nexion is there between those abuses and 
 the question before us? These abuses are 
 the results of some defects in the mode of 
 carrying out the naturalization laws of the 
 United States, a subject which is under the 
 exclusive control of Congress — all power 
 upon the subject of citizenship having been 
 transferred by the States to the federal gov- 
 ernment. But what is the question before 
 us? Is it to preclude improper naturaliza- 
 tions? Congress alone have control upon 
 the subject. It is not this! What is it 
 then? It is to deny the legal effects of na- 
 turalization in pursuance of the laws of the 
 United States and of the decree Qf a com- 
 petent court, and to suspend the operation 
 for two years in the State of Louisiana. 
 To state the proposition fairly is enough to 
 show its partial and exclusive bearing! 
 
 My personal position as one of those be- 
 longing to the class of citizens whom it is 
 proposed to proscribe and to mark with the 
 seal of exclusion, forbids me from entering 
 into the details of the question. But I may 
 be permitted to ask, taking a general view 
 of the measure as a high political question, 
 whether it is conformable to the principles 
 of justice, and whether it can be carried 
 into effect without a violation of the su- 
 preme and superior law of the land — the 
 laws of the federal government. They pre- 
 scribe how citizenship shall be acquired, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana: 
 
 175 
 
 and these requisitions are exclusive of State \ adopted citizen should not be actuated De- 
 control. A man once recognized as a citi- j similar impulses, and governed by similar 
 zen in pursuance of those laws cannot be ; sentiments of love for a free government? 
 compelled to forego the privileges that citi- ; Is the adopted citizen so devoid of intelli- 
 zenship confers,"no more for two years gence and patroitism as to be insensible and 
 than for twenty years, or a total exclusion, indifferent to the interests of the govern- 
 His rights of citizenship once acquired are ment of his choice? He has left his native 
 complete, and can neither be revoked nor country to avoid persecution, or to better 
 suspended. If these privileges were not his condition; he comes to Louisiana, and 
 available as soon as acquired, the proud dis- 1 i after having resided honorably five years 
 tinction conferred by the federal govern- ; in the State, he asks and obtains his natu- 
 ment would be a mockery and the person | ralization papers, presuming that they con- 
 acquiring citizenship would be liable to be fer the privileges of citizenship ; he ap- 
 ousted from the privileges, or to have them proaches the ballot box to participate in the 
 interrupted or curtailed at the whim of our j selection of those that administer the gov- 
 accidental majority. ! eminent, which imposes taxes and obliga- 
 
 But if this Convention, representing the ; tions upon him, and he is repulsed. ^ He is 
 sovereignty of the people of Louisiana, told that he is not yet an American citizen, 
 had this power, I doubt very much if but that he must wait two years more, be- 
 the people would sanction its exercise, fore he can exercise the privileges of citi- 
 The people of Louisiana would not ap- zenship. 
 
 prove so great an outrage. They would But we have been told thaf a certain de- 
 repudiate it, and repulse.it with scorn and 1 gree of intelligence is necessary to under- 
 indigrnation. The attempt to introduce it stand our institutions, and in this intelii- 
 into the constitution shows how pernicious gence foreigners are wofully deficient. I 
 are political excitements and passions. : deny there is more ignorance among the 
 They would transgress the fundamental I foreign emigrants, considered as a whole, 
 principles of the government, and trample j than among the masses of our other popu- 
 upon the equal rights of those who were so j lation; or that there is less general aptitude 
 unfortunate as to fall under the ban of par- : in understanding our institutions. The truth 
 tizan displeasure. is, that a perfect knowledge of government 
 
 There is no justice, said jMr. Soule, • is confined to the smaller portions of socie- 
 where there is not equality. Equality is ■ ty. Government is a science of reflection 
 the foundation of justice. What is the ob- 1 and observation, and has to be studied at 
 ject of requiring residence to acquire citi- ; tentively. The theory of government 
 zenship? Is it not for the purpose of iden- ■ is an abtruse matter, but the operation of 
 tifying the new-comer with the institutions ; government is felt by every one. Every 
 of the country, and of familiarizing his I man knows whether he enjoys more or 
 mind with their operations? Well, if that less liberty, or is exposed to few or greater 
 be the intention, and assuredly there can be ■ burthens. It is unnecessary to be pro- 
 no other, why do you think that two years ; foundly versed in government to appreciate 
 is sufficient for a native citizen from one of all this; one man feels results as well as 
 the other States, when you exact seven another, although he may not clearly on- 
 y T ears for an European? Is not the five i derstand how these results are effected, 
 years amply sufficient, without exacting at ] As for guarantees of fidelity and attach- 
 the end of that period two years more for j ment to the State, there is nothing to make 
 him to acquire all the information and all ' an European less susceptible of these at- 
 the attachment to the land he has chosen by ! tachments than a New Yorker or a Bosto- 
 preference, or by necessity, if you will, for ; nian. I claim no superiority in point of in- 
 his home and for his affections? There is j telligence between the natives of our coun- 
 not so great a disparity between the apti- ; try and the natives of another- One com- 
 tude of one class of persons to understand \ munity may possess more general knowl- 
 republican institutions, and another class. 1 edge, and may have made greater progress 
 The native has his patriotic impulses and in the arts and sciences than another ; but 
 his appreciation of the institutions of his in all civilized countries the general apti- 
 country. But is that any reason why an 1 tude for acquiring information is about 
 
I 
 
 176 Debates in the Com 
 
 equal; and a man from a foreign country is 
 as capable of understanding the system of 
 our government as the native of the soil — 
 that is in the aggregate. 
 
 It is unfortunately but too true that frauds 
 have taken place, and that our courts of jus- 
 tice have relaxed and enfeebled our laws; but 
 can it be said with truth that our adopted 
 citizens have sullied our institutions to a 
 greater extent than native citizens? or that 
 they have promoted, as a class, the evils 
 which we all deplore? Facts will not bear 
 out that assertion. I have in my posses- 
 sion a title, by which a miserable property 
 in the third Municipality has been transfer- 
 red to no less than eight hundred and sev- 
 enty-five individuals, of whom two thirds 
 at least are native Americans. But you 
 may say that strangers also participated! I 
 admit that they have. The great plotters, 
 however, the .manipulators of the electoral 
 frauds, were not strangers! In virtue of 
 what principle of justice will you wreak 
 your vengeance — upon the instruments, 
 while you suffer the authors to go unpun- 
 ished. 
 
 I complain as much, and with as much 
 justification, of the frauds that have been 
 perpetrated as any one. I ask, with as 
 much sincerity as any one, that measures 
 be taken to arrest them; but I cannot con- 
 sent that one constitution should be marked 
 and blurred over with inequalities and ex- 
 clusions, which would not in fact prevent 
 frauds, but which would result in positive 
 injustice and great individual^wrong. Let 
 us not then be impelled by sudden passion 
 to do an act, which in momemts of calm 
 reflection oui judgements would condemn; 
 and which in after time, when the present 
 excitement shall have passed away, we 
 should blush to find embodied in our or- 
 ganic law. 
 
 Mr. Downs observed that this section 
 was entirely useless in any event; and in 
 support of the opinion that if evils resulted 
 from the naturalization laws, congress was 
 both competent and appeared willing to ap- 
 ply the proper remedies. He read the re- 
 port of the committee upon the judiciary of 
 the senate of the United States, presented 
 by Judge Berrien. The gentleman who 
 made this report, belonged to the political 
 party from whom the assaults upon adopted 
 citizens came; but that gentleman had dis- 
 carded all those wild and visionary notions 
 of danger from naturalization, that have 
 
 ention of Louisiana. 
 
 become of late so constant a theme of de- 
 clamation. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne expressed astonishment 
 that the member from New Orleans, (Mr. 
 Marigny, ) could imagine that he, Mr. 
 Claiborne, would promote any scheme to 
 cut off the just influence of the city. The 
 absurdity of such a charge appeared upon 
 its face. He certainly wished the city to 
 possess her just weight. He again repeat- 
 ed he was not partial to any class in the 
 community; they were all entitled to pro- 
 tection; but what he had insisted upon was, 
 that the section was proper, inasmuch as it 
 was calculated to arrest frauds and evasions 
 on the eve of our political contests. 
 
 The question was taken on the amend- 
 ment proposed by Mr. Downs, and it pre- 
 vailed without a division. 
 
 The question then recurred on the adop- 
 tion of the section, and the yeas and nays 
 were called for. 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benja- 
 min, Boudousquie, Bourg, Briant,Brumfield, 
 Cenas, Claiborne, C. M. Conrad, F. B. 
 Conrad, Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Grymes, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Mazureau, W. B. Prescott, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saun- 
 ders, Sellers, M. Taylor, R. Taylor, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Wadsworth, Wikoff, Winchester 
 and Winder — 42. 
 
 Nays—Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Cade, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Downs, Eustis, Gar- 
 cia, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Leonard, 
 McCallop, McRea, Mariginy, Mayo, O'Bry- 
 an, Peets, Porche, Porter, W. M. Prescott, 
 Preston, Ratliff, Read, W. B. Scott, T. W. 
 Scott, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Waddill and 
 Wederstrandt— 32. 
 
 Mr. Stephens moved to rescind the rule 
 for evening sessions, and the yeas and nays 
 were called for. 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, 
 Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Grymes, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Hyn- 
 son, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, 
 Leonard, McCallop, Mazureau, Porche, 
 Preston, Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhom- 
 me, Kenner, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, 
 Soule, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, Weder- 
 strandt, Winchester and Winder — 42. 
 Nays — Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, 
 
Debates in the Conve 
 
 Cade, Carrie re, CKambliss, Covillion. 
 Downs, Eustis, Humble, Lewi.?, McRea, 
 Marigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Pugh, Read, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Felici- 
 ana. Scott of Madison, Sellers, Splane, 
 Trist, Waddill. Wads worth and Wikort-30. 
 
 Whereupon the Convention adjourned 
 until to-morrow at 1 1 o'clock, A. M. 
 
 Friday, February 7, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment and its proceedings were opened 
 with prayer from the Rev. Mr. Warren. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Saunders, the Com- 
 mittee on Apportionment were authorized 
 to order such printing to be done as they 
 deem essential. 
 
 Mr. Penn, who was absent yesterday 
 at the moment of taking the vote upon the 
 clause requiring that the residence of natu- 
 ralized citizens should be counted from the 
 date of their certificate of naturalization, 
 asked leave to record his vote in the nega- 
 tive, which was granted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ratliff, the com- 
 mittee on contingent expenses were autho- 
 rized to pay each of the Convention printers 
 $500, for subscriptions to their paper. 
 
 Order of the Day. — Mr. Roman's 
 proposition requiring a registration of the 
 votes. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved that the following 
 words be struck out, "the general Assem- 
 bly shall provide by law, that the electors 
 having the requisite qualifications, shall 
 have their names enregistered in the par- 
 ishes in which they respectively reside." 
 
 Mr. Roman said, that when he submit- 
 ted to the consideration of the house the 
 section now under advisement, he was, he 
 would acknowledge, under the full belief 
 that if there was a right which it behoved 
 every member of this body to guard, and 
 in the defence of which, all would unite, 
 it was the right of suffrage — or in other 
 words, the ballot box from the pretensions 
 of those who could not approach it with- 
 out violating its purity. Notwithstanding 
 this, the delegate from Ouachita, (Mr. 
 Downs) asked that the words expressing 
 the most efficacious mode, and, in fact the 
 only means left us to secure so desirable a 
 result should be stricken out. And, what 
 are the reasons that he vouchsafes to sus- 
 tain this demand? None, that he has as 
 
 / 
 
 ition of Louisiana, ttn 
 
 yet chose to declare! I hope, (continued 
 Mr. Roxax) that the Convention will not 
 sanction that motion, but that they will 
 adopt the section as it is. 
 
 Should we decide differently, the people 
 will think that we have made no fitting re- 
 turn for their confidence, and will only find 
 in the decision we have taken upon suffer- 
 age a momentary and imperfect proceeding, 
 in place of protecting suffrage we have 
 abandoned it to caprices and passions of 
 parties. Each time that a man votes who 
 is not possessed of the qualifications re- 
 quired, it is evident that he destroys the 
 effect of a legal vote, and that the legal 
 vote by this is deprived of the right of suf- 
 frage. And, as whatever is true in regard 
 to a single individual, is true in regard to a 
 number of individuals, it results that an 
 entire election may be vitiated by the viola- 
 tions that paralyzed the weight of the legal 
 voters. 
 
 Who among us, (continued Air. Roman) 
 would authorize, I do not say by doctrines, 
 but by his silence, so great an abuse upon 
 the elective franchise? There is on the 
 contrary none that would not put a stop to 
 them. There is, I repeat, but one way of 
 avoiding the recurrence of these disgrace- 
 ful transactions in our elections, and that is 
 by a registration, in pursuance of the con- 
 stitution, where the names of electors 
 would figure a sufficient length of time be- 
 fore the election — giving every proper faci- 
 lity to inquire whether each individual 
 aspiring to the privilege of suffrage, has the 
 qualifications required by law. and that on 
 reference to the roll, the commissioner of 
 election would have an unerring guide of 
 the votes they ought to receive. 
 
 Let us examine, said Mr. Roman, whe- 
 ther the opposition of the delegate from 
 Ouachita, (Mr. Dowxs) is founded upon 
 any serious and valid reasons, and as that 
 gentleman has not seen fit to inform me 
 what are his reasons, I am forced neces- 
 sarily to infer them. Is it because he 
 thinks we should not embody in our con- 
 stitution that which is not to be found in the 
 constitutions of any of the States in the 
 Union. I would reply to this, that it is 
 not fair to refute by analogy a measure 
 purely local. There is not a State in the 
 Union whose population is as mixed as 
 ours; there is not a State where there are 
 a? many strangers constantly arriving from 
 
I 
 
 178 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 every clime —there is not a State where the 
 election laws have been violated to so great 
 an extent; and it therefore becomes neces- 
 sary to distinguish the electors from those 
 who are not. But, if it be said, that this 
 provision is consecrated in no constitution, 
 it may be replied, that admitting this be so, 
 it is sanctioned by the laws of several of 
 the States; for example, by Pennsylvania 
 and Massachusetts, where it has been in 
 vigor for nearly fifty years, and where it 
 has been found fully to answer the designs 
 of a wise policy. Never are frauds and 
 violations upon the ballot box spoken of, 
 comparable to the frauds, and violations in 
 this State. Why not adopt the same means 
 to arrive at the result? 
 
 Will it be contended that the measure 
 proposed is applicable only to large cities, 
 and therefore it ought not to find its place 
 in a general constitution? When a mea- 
 sure has been found, not only useful but 
 absolutely necessary, we should not fear 
 to embody it in the fundamental law; we 
 should rather fear to submit it to the legis- 
 lature which often may be vacillating and 
 undecided. Our legislature has been thirty, 
 two years in existence and has taken no 
 steps — not even the most remote, upon the 
 subject, although it certainly was of suffi- 
 cient importance to attract attention; and 
 judging of the future by the past, it is in- 
 dubitable the legislature will do nothing to 
 guard the ballot box, unless constrained by 
 the constitution. 
 
 But is it true that this measure is alone 
 necessary in large cities? To respond to 
 this question affirmatively, it would be ne- 
 cessary to deny that there are any frauds 
 committed in the country. It is notorious 
 that, ficticious property has been assigned 
 to individuals in order to enable them to 
 vote under the restriction of the old consti- 
 tution, requiring property qualification, and 
 this property qualification being dispensed 
 with in the new constitution, frauds may 
 be committed in reference to citizenship 
 and to residence. It may be that the frauds 
 to which I have alluded are neither as ex- 
 tensive nor as great as has been represent- 
 ed. 1 have no intention in alluding to them 
 other than to show by notorious facts that 
 the proposed measure is no less necessary 
 to the country than the city. 
 
 It has been assumed that nothing is easier 
 in the country than for the spectators at an 
 
 election to know who are legal voters, and 
 who are not, and that, therefore, an enrol- 
 ment of the names of the voters would be 
 troublesome and expensive — and besides 
 unnecessary. I admit, that in some of the 
 parishes this reciprocal knowledge exists, 
 but it might happen that the votes objected 
 to by the minority of the parish might be 
 received by the majority for the purpose of 
 increasing their vote — and that the inspec- 
 tors might not refuse these votes. As for 
 the expense, that would be a mere trifle — 
 certainly not to be taken in consideration 
 with the importance of preserving the pu- 
 rity of the ballot box! The duty of ma- 
 king this registration might be confided to 
 any suitable public officer — to the assessors 
 for example who in their rounds might take 
 down the names of the legal voters. This 
 task would be easier as the assessors would 
 be well acquainted, from the nature of his 
 duties, with the resident population. A 
 justice of the peace or other magistrate 
 might be invested with the power of exam- 
 ining the list; seeing that it was posted up 
 at the most public places in the parish, and 
 in a word, to carry out all the details re- 
 quired by law. Admitting that for the pur- 
 pose of having this duty properly per- 
 formed, it were necessary to expend a cer- 
 tain amount of the public money, which 
 could not but be trifling in amount, would 
 not the public good amply justify it? 
 
 I do not think, said Mr. Roman, that it is 
 a fair objection to urge the omissions and 
 errors that sometimes may occur in the as- 
 sessment roll of taxes. The assessment 
 roll, in the country parishes, is affixed only 
 at the court-house door, but the list of voters 
 might be placed at every public place, and 
 so promulgated as to meet the eye of every 
 citizen; and if, in the case of taxes, it is a 
 matter of little moment whether an individual 
 contributes a little more or a little less to 
 the taxes, it is a matter of greater interest 
 that each qualified voter should secure his 
 right of suffrage, and no voter who valued 
 that privilege would be found delinquent or 
 indifferent. In the first instance the loss 
 is not a matter of much consideration ; but 
 the second is of essential consequence, and 
 may affect the political portion of the State, 
 in reference to divergent opinions and con- 
 flicting ascendencies. Moreover, the zeal 
 which would animate every citizen to vote 
 himself, not onjj in favor of his own politic 
 
p 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 179 
 
 eal predilections, out also to secure the 
 votes of those entertaining similar opinions, 
 would secure the enregistration, not only of 
 the legal voters, but many that were not. 
 
 I would further remark that in the law, 
 in virtue of which we are assembled, it is 
 provided that the eighth section of the second 
 article be so amended as to fix and deter- 
 mine, in a more specific manner, the quali- 
 fications of all persons exercising the right 
 of suffrage. What has been done up to 
 this day, in relation to the first duty assign- 
 ed us in this section? We have abolished 
 the property qualifications on the'one hand, 
 and extended the time of residence on the 
 other. Is this sufficient? I answer emphati- 
 cally no! It is indispensable to give to the 
 inspectors the means of distinguishing who 
 are the legal voters from those who are not. 
 It is apparent that the only efficacious 
 means is enregistration, yet nevertheless it 
 is opposed. Will the gentleman propose 
 something better? It is evident that the 
 purity of the ballot box should be maintain- 
 ed; I trust there is no difference of opinion, 
 at least, upon this point: and if it is to be 
 maintained what other plan can be so effec- 
 tual, especially in a densely populated city, 
 thronged with transient persons. How can 
 we pretend that we have discharged our 
 duty, if incurring the former difficulties and 
 aggravating the abuses that heretofore have 
 existed, in extending the circle of suffrage, 
 we do not provide some effectual checks to 
 restrain suffrage to those to whom it has 
 been judged fit to extend it. Can we base 
 our omissions of this duty upon the plea that 
 we have an apprehension of imposing re- 
 strictions, and that we should not put the 
 people to the slightest inconvenience? But 
 what is a little inconvenience? or what are 
 a few indispensable restrictions, in compari- 
 ison with the public safety, and with the 
 re spectability and purity of our elective sys- 
 tem 7 We cannot hide from ourselves the 
 fact, that the frauds committed in this State 
 upon that system, have become a bye word 
 of reproach, and that it would indeed be dis- 
 creditable to our reputation as a member of 
 the federal union, and as a proud and chiv- 
 alric State; if this Convention be suffered to 
 complete its labors without imposing an ef- 
 fectual barrier against similar recurrences; 
 I hope then the Convention will not hesi- 
 tate to pass the section I have proposed. 
 I have but one object in view, and that is 
 
 j to protect the rights of every citizen of the 
 ; State. 
 
 Mr. Downs said it was not without pow" 
 erfi.il, and to his mind conclusive reasons? 
 that he had moved to strike out the princi- 
 pal portion of the section under considera- 
 tion; and inasmuch as he had been asked to 
 give his reasons, he would briefly submit 
 ihem. 
 
 In the first place, it was a safe rule to es- 
 tablish nothing in this constitution which 
 did not involve an indispensable principle, 
 and he (Mr. Downs) doubted much whether 
 there was any uniformity of opinion as to 
 what a law of registration was. Each one 
 would interpret the meaning according to 
 his own judgment. Each one would give 
 to it the application which he judged to be 
 the most fitting; and we would, in effect, 
 be establishing an indefinite and doubtful 
 registration. But to this, it may be answer- 
 ed, that the legislature will define the pow- 
 er. If the legislature will do this, where 
 I is the necessity for incorporating it in the 
 | constitution? The legislature will be fully 
 ! competent, in the exercise of their judg- 
 ; ment, not only to decree the principle as 
 \ effectually as it could be done in the con- 
 j stitution, but also to carry out the details. 
 A change of circumstances may occasion a 
 change of ideas; and it is for the legislature 
 to be governed by the necessities that may 
 exist. Our mission here is to establish 
 the fundamental principles of government; 
 not to decree upon matters of temporary 
 expediency. Moreover, this section, if 
 adopted, would be nothing more than an 
 injunction; and suppose the legislature 
 should not think proper to conform to it, 
 what will enforce obedience to this injunc- 
 tion ? 
 
 Far be it from me to justify any of the 
 frauds whicli it has been alleged has been 
 committed, and which, no doubt, have been 
 committed. I abhor them with all my 
 soul; and I should indeed be gratified if a 
 termination could be put to them. I would 
 have them feretted out and exposed to 
 public indignation; and I very much regret 
 that one branch of the legislature that has 
 taken up the subject, should have confined 
 the examination to one particular parish, 
 instead of making it general to every parish 
 where the commission of frauds have been 
 charged. I would not have this investiga- 
 tion confined at all — I would not restrict it 
 
180' Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 to any particular party, or any particular 
 individuals, but I would make itgeneraland 
 would submit all to the same rigid exami- 
 nation. There are several parishes where 
 these frauds have been committed, and 
 they have been committed to a greater ex- 
 tent in New Orleans. 
 
 Mr. Roman: I did not say that frauds 
 had been 'committed in a particular parish. 
 I said they had been suspected in that par- 
 ish, and measures had been taken to expose 
 them. This was a matter of public noto- 
 riety, and as such I stated it. 
 
 Mr. Downs: Be that as it may; I alluded 
 in general terms to the frauds that have 
 been signalized by popular rumor. I con- 
 sider, I repeat, all such desecrations of the 
 ballot box as a sacrilege committed upon 
 our political institutions; for the corruption 
 of the ballot box necessarily involves the 
 corruption of our institutions, and will taint 
 them until they become one mass of putridi- 
 ty. Those who commit them should be 
 proceeded against with all the rigors of 
 offended and outraged justice. But while 
 1 reprehend all frauds, and am solicitous to 
 preclude them, I cannot give my sanction 
 to any measure that will deprive or put to 
 trouble and inconvenience, a large number 
 of legal voters; and the result of which will 
 be, by subtleties and distractions, to give 
 rise to greater frauds than those it was in- 
 tended to avert. How are our elections, 
 in fact, now managed? Each party have 
 at the polls their challenging committees. 
 In doubtful cases oaths are administered 
 and questions are asked. What can be 
 suggested of greater force than this scrutiny 
 of parties, and the zeal manifested to reject 
 or admit a vote as it may be favorable to 
 the one or the other political party? Should 
 it be abandoned and a preparatory list be re- 
 lied upon as decisive of the qualifications 
 of the persons seeking to vote? would it be 
 the elector who would have to hunt up the 
 person authorised to enregister the name, 
 or would it be the duty of the latter to draw 
 up the voters in order that their names 
 might be recorded? This cause would 
 have a direct tendency to facilitate frauds, 
 and to establish them on a greater and more 
 extended scale. The officers to be appoint- 
 ed to this particular duty, of taking down 
 the names, no matter what particular offi- 
 cer, would necessarily belong to one or the 
 other of the great contending parties, and 
 
 l would not in every instance be proof 
 against the temptation of placing names not 
 entitled to suffrage, upon the list, and ex- 
 cluding those that were entitled to suffrage, 
 who were known to be opposed to his po- 
 litical party; and as this proceeding would 
 be secret, as far as possible, and the public 
 would not be able to comprehend its extent, 
 the ballot box, instead of being protected by 
 the vigilance "of the two parties, and by 
 the spectators present at an election, would 
 be subject to the entire control of one or 
 two officers. Would that be wise or po- 
 litic? 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad hoped that the Conven- 
 tion would not adopt the proposition of the 
 delegate from Ouchita, (Mr. Downs.) It 
 was a matter beyond dispute that frauds have 
 been committed upon our elections to a 
 great extent, and the delegate from Oua- 
 chita, (Mr. Downs) mis-aprehended the del- 
 egate from St, James, (Mr. Roman,) when 
 he supposed these frauds were confined- to 
 a solitary parish. Frauds have been com- 
 mitted to a greater or less extent all over 
 the State. Their extent and their degrees 
 of enormity have varied with the local po- 
 sition of the different parishes, and with 
 circumstances. They have scarcely been 
 observable in places where the population 
 was small, and they have been multiplied 
 and carried out in all their ramifications 
 where the population was numerous. Ac- 
 cordingly, they have been most rife in the 
 city, where the opportunities and the material 
 was found to exist in a greater degree. I 
 do not wish to reflect upon the city, which 
 I have the honor, in part, of representing; 
 but it is to show that 1 am impartial in ref- 
 erence to all evasions of our electoral laws; 
 and because it is necessary to admit the 
 evil, in order to insist upon the remedy; 
 
 In the first ward of the first Municipality, 
 at the last election, a much greater number 
 of votes were received than were dreamed 
 of; some two hundred or three hundred 
 more. My colleague, (Mr. Benjamin,) also 
 a resident of the same ward, thinks that 
 the number of illegal votes was not as 
 great as I have stated, but I do not think 
 I have over estimated them. By 
 whom were these votes created? It is fair 
 to infer, by one or both of the political par- 
 ties. 1 do not except either; and far be it 
 from me to attach greater blame to the 
 democratic party than to the whig party. I 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, isi 
 
 believe both are culpable; and it is useless 
 and worse than useless to criminate and 
 re-criminate. Every well thinking man 
 should be impressed with the necessity of 
 arresting these evils — as none can deny 
 their existence. Many of those that cast 
 their suffrages at the last election could not ; 
 now be found by ail the vigilance of the j 
 police. They have dissappeared from the 1 
 city: some are in Europe; some in the 
 western States, and some in the eastern 
 States: in Canada, in Texas, and every 
 where else. They never were residents 
 of our city; merely temporary sojourners, j 
 It was very difficult to prevent illegal votes [ 
 from being cast, under our laws. Some J 
 would escape the vigilance of challenging 
 committees, and would be received. The : 
 individuals themselves, in some* instances, ! 
 were not aware of their total want of capacity j 
 to vote, and would approach the ballot box un- 1 
 der the full conviction that ihey were enti- J 
 tied to suffrage, when in point of fact they j 
 were not. Mr. Conrad instanced some ex- , 
 amples within his knowledge. The abuse 
 of suffrage was certainly one of the great- j 
 est evils that threatened the durability of a j 
 representative system of government. The 
 political power of the State should be con- 
 fined to those to whom that power was as- 
 signed, for good and valid reasons. It 
 ought to be restricted to those having a per- j 
 manent interest in our institutions, be it a 
 pecuniary interest, the love of country, or 
 attachments to the peculiar institutions of 
 the State. A man who steals a loaf of j 
 bread to gratify the cravings of hunger, or j 
 a coat to cover himself, is punished with 
 the greatest rigor of the law; but a man j 
 who steals the important right of suffrage — ! 
 for it is a theft for a man to vote, knowing ' 
 that he has no right to vote — escapes 1 
 without punishment, for the fine is seldom, 
 never, indicted: and yet I hold, said Mr. 
 Conrad, the purloining of the privilege of 
 suffrage to he one of the greatest offences 
 that can be perpetrated upon our institutions. 
 It directly affects their stability, and brings 
 our system of government into reproach. 
 Every invasion of the right of suffrage, is 
 a crime that every well thinking man should 
 stigmatise and desire to see punished effec- 
 tually, I should rather see a purloiner of 
 the right of suffrage sent to the penitentiary, 
 than a poor miserable devil vrho had conV 
 mined a common peHv larcenw 
 24 
 
 But if punishments are not to be inflicted 
 or enforced for violations of the elective 
 franchise, let us at least attempt to preclude 
 the recurrence of these outrages. The ne- 
 cessity for some efficacious remedy is ap- 
 parent. What remedy shall we apply? I 
 know of none that would be as effectual as 
 the proposition of the delegate from St. 
 James (Mr. Roman) and I therefore give it 
 my heart}* concurrence. 
 
 The gentleman from Ouachita (Mr. 
 Downs) has complained that some investi- 
 gation into the frauds that have been com- 
 mitted is not sufficiently general; that it is 
 restricted to one particular parish. For 
 the sake of consistency these examinations 
 should not be partial; but after all, I very 
 much doubt their efficacy. These arc 
 something like an eipost mortem examina- 
 tion. They may call our attention to the 
 particular malady that afflicts the body poli- 
 tic, but for any other purpose they are per- 
 fectly useless. And even in this they fail 
 to leave any practical effect. They arouse 
 and embitter political animosities, and keep 
 up political excitement, I repeat, they are 
 worse than useless, It is evident from the 
 experience of the past that some safe-guard 
 is needed for the protection of suffrage. 
 Let us not debate, or waste our time in al- 
 ledged frauds; we know the allegations to 
 be true, that frauds are committed, and we 
 should devise some effectual check in our 
 organic laws. It seems to me that this 
 subject is worthy of ail cur attention, and 
 all our solicitude; there is no mode so effec- 
 tual of publicity as the registration of the 
 votes, and it will supply to the inspectors of 
 election a similar guide as the assessment 
 -they will be deprived of that guide. 
 
 and we should substitute somethin 
 
 g in its 
 
 But says the delegate from Ouachita (Mr. 
 Downs) the section does not define in terms 
 sufficiently explicit the mode of enrollment. 
 This is not the object of the section. It is 
 not designed to confuse and embarrass the 
 details. These will properly be an object 
 of legislative consideration. There is no 
 penalty prescribed for omitting to act upon 
 the registration, and the legislature, say? 
 that gentleman, may do as they please. So 
 may they do in reference to several other 
 principles adopted in this constitution. In 
 the first place, it is not presumable that thsv 
 will neglect to carry out the principles of 
 
182 
 
 r > # 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 the constitution — principles which they are 
 sworn to observe and to execute. But, 
 whether they violate their duty and their 
 Oath or not, it cannot be urged as an 
 objection to our perfecting the work as- 
 signed us. I repeat, it is not likely they 
 will refuse to carry out the provisions of the 
 constitution, but if they do, that will be a 
 matter between them and their constitu- 
 ents. We shall have discharged our duty 
 upon a very essential and vital subject. As 
 for the penalty consequent upon refusing or 
 neglecting to be placed upon the enroll- 
 ment, it is embodied in the section itself, 
 which prescribes that no one shall be con- 
 sidered a duly qualified voter unless his 
 name appear upon the register. This will 
 be the most effectual way to carry out the 
 law that the legislature may make into com- 
 plete execution. The omission of this pen- 
 alty has been severely felt in other States 
 of the Union, that have adopted a similar 
 plan, and experience has suggested to the 
 delegate from St. James to supply the 
 omission. 
 
 As for what the delegate from Ouachita 
 (Mr. Downs) has told us, that this enroll- 
 ment of the qualified voters will be but a 
 secret system, subject to great abuses, it is 
 evident that the member has consulted ra- 
 ther his imagination than his judgment. 
 How can he suppose that the law will not 
 be so framed as to guard against all par- 
 tialities. Moreover, it will not be contem- 
 plated to give to the officer any control. 
 Any person may have his name placed upon 
 the list, but the list will be subjected to the 
 inspection of all the citizens, and if any 
 name be found thereon subject to doubt as 
 to the qualification, some judicial officer 
 will be charged to investigate the grounds 
 of opposition and to pronounce upon it after 
 hearing the party and his testimony. The 
 ridicule consequent upon the publicity of 
 the proceedings will deter those having no 
 right to vote, from causing their names to 
 be placed upon the register; and thus the 
 register will be found to contain few, if any 
 names, to which objection may reasonably 
 be made. 
 
 The delegate from Ouachita has referred 
 to another objection. He apprehends that 
 the electoral franchise will be compromit- 
 ted by other proceedings; I consider the 
 right of suffrage to be much more endan- 
 gered by the existing system, How many 
 
 persons have voted in our elections that 
 had no right to vote, while in the tumult 
 and confusion that have reigned about the 
 polls, a multitude of legal electors have 
 been excluded from their right of suffrage. 
 
 The necessity for enrollment has been 
 compared, with a view of making it odious, 
 to a passport. I do not consider that there 
 is any thing degrading in being registered 
 as an American citizen, fully entitled to 
 participate in all rights appertaining there- 
 to. A list of the electors is a list of the citi- 
 zens of th© State, in Avhich any one might 
 be proud to find his name. If it be objected 
 that the enrollment in the country is un- 
 necessary, and that can be sustained, I have 
 no objection to restrict the operations of 
 the measure to incorporated towns. The 
 indolent, the vicious, the floating popu- 
 lation, do not repair to the country. There 
 is no way for them to get along there. But 
 they congregate in our large towns, prin- 
 cipally in the limits of] New Orleans, where 
 they lead a precarious existence and are 
 willing to sell themselves to the highest 
 bidder. To relieve the city of New Or- 
 leans from the influence of such persons, if 
 it be deemed not essential to provide a re- 
 gistration law in the country, I do think 
 that the section under consideration is most 
 material, and I am solicitous to 'secure its 
 advantages for the city. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff considered that the propo- 
 sition as it related to the country, was en- 
 tirely unnecessary. The inhabitants in 
 each electoral precinct knew each other, 
 and w T ould not suffer strangers to vote 
 among them. He was not prepared to say 
 that it was not necessary for the city of New T 
 Orleans. But to cover the whole subject, 
 he would propose a substitute to the follow- 
 ing effect, " that laws be passed to define 
 explicitly the rights of citizens entitled to 
 suffrage under the present constitution." 
 
 Mr. Brent said 3 he could vote neither 
 for the proposition of the gentleman from 
 St. James, (Mr. Roman) nor for the substi- 
 tute of the gentleman from Feliciana, (Mr. 
 Ratliff.) I cannot consent that the legisla. 
 ture shall have the power of controlling the 
 elective franchise, which being the constit- 
 uent principle of the popular sovereignty, 
 should not depend upon the legislation of a 
 body that is subjected to the influence of the 
 ephemeral successes of party. It is the 
 constitution itself that should define all that 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisianat 
 
 1S3 
 
 appertains to the exercise of suffrage, and 
 who should enjoy that right: and when once 
 it is defined, it should not be in the power 
 of the legislature to contract it, or to throw 
 obstacles in the way of its free and uninter- 
 rupted exercise. There is no necessity for 
 conferring authority upon the legislature to 
 adopt this inconvenient s}'stera of enroll- 
 ment, and the only motive which I can con- 
 ceive for pressing it so earnestly upon the" 
 Convention, is that it may be the pretext 
 for restricting the right of suffrage and de- 
 feating»one of the most important measures 
 that we were called upon to consummate. 
 
 The decision upon another odious restric- 
 tion, yesterday, affecting this very same 
 right of suffrage, convinces me that any pro- 
 position to contract suffrage, and to fetter 
 its free exercise, will meet with a favorable 
 reception in this body. I say this with pain 
 and mortification, and I may add, that great 
 as the triumph of the people in the final 
 achievement* of the measure of calling a 
 Convention was, their disappointment will 
 be as great to find that their earnest expec- 
 tations of adequate reforms will not be re- 
 alized through this body. Those who have 
 been chosen to carry out the popular will 
 in some instances appear to have forgotten 
 their mission, and to have united with the 
 smaller number of restrictionists in control- 
 ling the action of this body: it is in this 
 way, that the objects for which the Conven- 
 tion were called are to be defeated, or if 
 partially accomplished, to be saddled with 
 so many exclusions and conditions as to 
 make the result of little or no benefit to the 
 people. We have so far made but little 
 progress in the great work assigned to us, 
 and yet we find fetters and restrictions in 
 all that we have done. To such an extent 
 has this unfortunate spirit been earned, that 
 it has become almost a matter of indiffer- 
 ence with those that have opposed it from 
 the beginning, whether it be continued on 
 to the end— that restriction be piled upon 
 restriction until there be but one general 
 system of restriction, which when submitted 
 will be indignantly repudiated by the people, 
 andjDe consigned to everlasting reproach. 
 
 Upon every occasion when the popular 
 prerogatives have been involved, we have 
 been told of the abuses of suffrage and the 
 frauds that have been committed upon the 
 ballot box, as if we' were not fully instruct- 
 ed as to the existence of these frauds and 
 
 the causes of these frauds. No one can 
 abhor violations of the right of suffrage 
 more than I. But it may well be ques- 
 tioned how far the existing restrictions have 
 not contributed towards these frauds, and 
 the irregularities that have occurred: and if 
 they have had that effect, what are we to ex- 
 pect from more tyrannical restrictions of the 
 elective franchise? Assuredly, this mea- 
 sure of emolument will not preclude frauds. 
 On the contrary, it will hazard the right of 
 the legal voter to suffrage, and will promote 
 fraud rather than prevent it. Wherever a 
 similar plan has been tried it has been 
 found necessary to repeal it; it has germi- 
 nated the most stupendous frauds. It is 
 very easy to perceive the license it* gives 
 to illegal voting; the list of names is om- 
 nipotent; the inspectors of elections are but 
 mere automatons, as far as they possess the 
 right of interrogating and discovering whe- 
 ther the person offering to vote is a legal 
 voter; they are pointed to the list — if the 
 name be there he votes, if it be not there 
 he cannot vote, although he can prove on 
 the spot that he is a legal voter. Whether 
 the name be there or not depends upon 
 one, two or three individuals; they may re- 
 fuse to put down the name of a legal voter, 
 and put down the names of a hundred ille- 
 gal voters — to subserve some party object. 
 These few individuals are constituted into 
 a star chamber, an inquisition, whose 
 powers are unbounded over the right of 
 suffrage. 
 
 I do not know what particular mode will 
 be devised to call up the voters to get their 
 names placed upon this oracular list. In 
 the city of New Orleans it may be by the 
 beat of the drum; but in the country, in 
 those parishes where the population is 
 sparse, and plantations are distant from 
 each other from five to ten miles, and from 
 the court house fifty or sixty miles, it will 
 be difficult, if not impossible, for the inhabi- 
 tants generally, to conform to this arbitrary 
 rule; and yet if their names are not on the 
 list, they are to be deprived of their right 
 of suffrage, the fundamental right of every 
 American citizen, and one which it never 
 should be in the power of any one to con- 
 trol or preclude. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne said, he certainly would 
 never sanction any principle that would de- 
 prive a legal voter of his right of suffrage. 
 If the proposition would have that effect in 
 
184 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 his conception, he never would sustain it. 
 He was not prepared to say that it would 
 not be attended with some inconvenience 
 in the country. Of this, gentlemen from 
 the country were the most competent 
 judges, and he was ready to accede to their 
 wishes in that respect. But for the city, 
 he considered this measure indispensable, 
 and that it could not be attended with any 
 inconvenience worth mentioning. Unless 
 it were adopted, each municipality electing 
 separately its representation to the legisla- 
 ture and its local officers, it would be very 
 easy for persons to pass over from one mu- 
 nicipality to the other, and vote in the mu- 
 nicipalities in which they did not reside. 
 A regular system of what was called 
 "colonization," could be carried on by po- 
 litical parties. The only way to prevent 
 this was by a list of all the legal voters — 
 excluding no one that was a legal voter, 
 but enabling the inspectors to decide who 
 were actual residents and legal voters. His 
 object went no further than to prevent eva- 
 sions and frauds, and to secure suffrage to 
 those really entitled to it. 
 
 As for the objection, that it is degrading 
 for an American citizen to have his name 
 enrolled upon this list, 1 think it, (said Mr. 
 Claiborne,) frivolous. We have our 
 names called over by the secretary every 
 morning as members of this Convention, 
 and no one thinks that degrading. So far 
 from there being any degradation in being 
 enrolled as an American citizen, I think it 
 an honor, of which any man might well be 
 proud. 
 
 Mr. Mayo said, Mr. President— -I am 
 willing to go as far as any member of the 
 Convention to sustain any measure to pre- 
 vent frauds at elections. But I do not 
 think that the provision of the section 
 which it is now proposed to strike out, 
 will have a tendency to effect that object; 
 on the contrary, I think its tendency will 
 be to multiply them. 
 
 Those parts of the constitution that re- 
 late to the elective franchise will have to 
 he construed by commissioners of elections 
 who are seldom lawyers, but who, on the 
 contrary, are men not in the habit of con- 
 struing constitutional law. Hence it is ne- 
 cessary to make all laws upon that subject 
 as plain and intelligible as possible. The 
 more we multiply constitutional and other 
 provisions upon the subject the more 
 
 doubts and uncertainties will arise in their 
 interpretation; and the provision now under 
 consideration is peculiarly calculated to 
 produce that result. Let us examine its 
 provisions. It provides that a "registra- 
 tion shall be made at least three months 
 before every general election of all the 
 qualified voters of the State in the several 
 parishes in which they actually reside" 
 
 By the 8th section, which we have 
 adopted, it is provided that a residence of 
 two years in the State and one year in the 
 parish, shall entitle a person to voje. I 
 supposed, sir, that that section settled the 
 time that was to be required of a voter; 
 but this ? (probably without intending it) 
 will require an additional residence of three 
 months in the parish and State, in all cases 
 where its apparent intention cannot be 
 evaded. The registry must be made three 
 months before every general election, and 
 by the last clause of the section presented, 
 it is provided that 'mo person«shall be en- 
 titled to vote" "except his name shall have 
 been recorded in the last registry." Now, 
 sii*, it is apparent that as the voter's name 
 cannot be registered until he has resided 
 two years in the State and twelve months 
 in the parish in which he offers to vote, and 
 the registry must be made three months 
 before every general election, that three 
 month's residence will be required bywirtue 
 of the registration law, in addition to the 
 two years in the State and one year in the 
 parish, which is required before the regis- 
 try is made. There is in this a plain and 
 palpable conflict between the two sections. 
 Commissioners of elections cannot be ex- 
 pected to make uniform decisions upon 
 these conflicting provisions. One set of 
 commissioners will decide, that section 8th 
 as adopted, being unequivocal and plain, 
 will entitle a person to vote, who at the 
 time of offering his vote, has resided two 
 years in the State, and one year in the par- 
 ish. Another set of commissioners will 
 decide that the name of the person offering 
 to vote must appear on the registry, and 
 that the residence required must have ex- 
 pired at least three months before the elec- 
 tion, as required by the registry clause. 
 There can be no doubt in my mind but that 
 the section now offered will require a resi- 
 dence of twenty-seven months in the State 
 and fifteen months in the parish, instead of 
 the time required by the 8th section; or it 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 185 
 
 will extend a right to vote to all persons, 
 whose names may be registered, though 
 they may have removed from the State 
 since the registry of their names. But will 
 the registry clause have a tendency to 
 prevent frauds? It appears to me that it 
 will not; but that, on the contrary, it will 
 open a door to very numerous frauds. All 
 persons whose names will be found on the 
 last registry will claim a right to vote, not- 
 withstanding they may have removed out 
 of the State permanently before the election; 
 and this right unintentionally, I suppose, 
 appears to be granted by the registry clause. 
 This certainly opens a door to fraud; so far 
 as it would be construed to permit a person 
 to vote after removing from the State. 
 Another objection, sir, to this provision has 
 struck me as being peculiarly entitled to 
 consideration. It is that it is calculated to 
 confer power upon the political party that 
 may have the ascendancy in the legislature 
 when the. registry lav/ may be made. It 
 cannot be denied, that the. legislature is al- 
 ways composed of different political par- 
 ties; such has always been the case, and 
 probably always will be; and each of those 
 parties is always striving to perpetuate its 
 power. The registry law if made will be 
 made by the party in the legislature that 
 may at the time of making it, be in the as- 
 cendancy. The appointment of ^registers 
 will be made from the party who at the 
 time may be in power. The registers will 
 be party men. The duration of their offices 
 will depend upon the will of a party — and 
 they will probably be appointed to hold 
 their offices, as coroners now do, during 
 the pleasure of the appointing power, whe- 
 ther it be the legislature or the governor. 
 They will be located in districts to suit the 
 convenience of the friends of the party ap- 
 pointing them. All the means to effect the 
 registry will be party means; it will all be 
 moved by party machinery, and the ends to 
 be obtained wiilbe party ends. And, sir, I 
 think we may safely predict a wo to the 
 party that may be in the minority in the 
 legislature at the time of making the regis- 
 try law. In addition to this, sir, it will be 
 extremely inconvenient to voters in the 
 country to get their names registered. 
 The office of the register will necessarily 
 be remote from many of the citizens, and 
 they must all, previous to every general 
 election, leave their work and business and 
 
 travel some 10, 20 or 40 miles to the regis- 
 ter's office to have their names registered. 
 They get there and find that the register is 
 absent. They must return home without 
 accomplishing their object. To return a 
 j second time for the purpose will be more 
 than they desire to do, and more than they 
 | probably will do, and their right to vote 
 j will be lost. Men will have a repugnance 
 I at having to acquire a right to vote at such 
 j a price, and the business part of them, at 
 | least, instead of spending the time and go- 
 - ing to the trouble that will be necessary to 
 j entitle them to exercise the right, will stay 
 | at home and attend to their business. It 
 j was suggested by the honorable member 
 ! from St. James, (Mr. Roman,) who has 
 no doubt passed in review a favorite mode 
 of registry: that the register could sit in his 
 I office and in a few hours make up a regis- 
 i try of the voters in his district. This, he 
 no doubt could do, but it must be remem- 
 I bered, that this register is likely to be a 
 ; party man: if so, he will be more likely to 
 think of the names of those in his district 
 j who he thinks will vote with his party, 
 I than of those who will vote against it. 
 ; This is natural, and arises from the frailty 
 ! of the nature of man. In politics men de- 
 ! sire to think their party right. This in- 
 ' duces a belief and they believe accordingly. 
 t If any were left off from the list that ought 
 j to be upon it. it would be likely to be those 
 who would vote against the party to which 
 . the register belonged. If any were put on 
 the list that ought not to-be on it, it is rea- 
 i sonable to suppose that the greatest number 
 ! of such would be the friends of the politi- 
 | cal party of the register. It was further 
 suggested, that after the register had com- 
 ; pleted his list, he could have it examined 
 by a justice of the peace, or other officer, 
 which would be a sufficient guaranty of its 
 accuracy. I do not think this would be 
 | very effectual. Officers are not fond of 
 criticising the acts of each other, and the 
 registry would be more likely to be ap- 
 proved, as a matter of course, than to be 
 critically examined and corrected. 
 
 In conclusion, sir, I will remark, that 
 we have already removed the cause of a 
 large portion of the frauds at elections, by 
 removing the property qualifications; and I 
 do not think the present provision calcula- 
 ted to remove the cause of others, but to 
 increase them. 
 
18G 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad thought the appre- 
 hensions of the member from Catahoula, 
 (Mr. Mayo) chimerical. Every person 
 asking ((/be enregistered would be enreg- 
 istered; he might even send his name. The 
 enregistratioh would be pro forma. But 
 whether the name enregistered should re- 
 main, would depend upon the fact whether 
 it was that of a qualified voter. The list of 
 all the names would be exposed to public 
 inspection, and if there were any about 
 whom there was any doubt a proper legal 
 investigation would be had before some 
 magistrate appointed fo.r that particular 
 purpose, and the evidence would be heard 
 lor and against, and upon that evidence 
 would the decision be made. The enreg- 
 istration could not not be prostituted to any 
 party purpose. Its only object would be to 
 protect the ballot box; to secure suffrage 
 to those entitled to it, and to preclude 
 persons not entitled to it, from voting. 
 
 Whether this particular proposition to 
 register the names of the qualified voters 
 was feasible in some of the parishes with- 
 out great inconvenience, he (Mr. Conrad) 
 did not pretend to determine. It might 
 very well be obnoxious to the objections 
 that have been urged by some of the dele- 
 gates. But he was convinced of its expe- 
 diency and its usefulness in the city of New 
 Orleans, and that it could be carried into 
 execution with but little trouble and without 
 detriment to the right of suffrage. 
 
 The gentleman from Catahoula had al- 
 luded to some conflict between this section 
 and the 8th section of the 2d article, 
 which had been adopted. If this conflict 
 actually existed after adopting the present 
 section, it would be in the power of the 
 Convention to reconsider the 8th section, 
 and make both conform. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff announced that he would 
 withdraw his proposition for the present, 
 and took occasion to repeat his objections to 
 the section offered by the delegate from St. 
 James, (Mr. Roman.) 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor argued that this pro- 
 position to register the names of the voters 
 would have no beneficial effect, while it 
 might be a source of some trouble and in- 
 convenience. He thought it unnecessary, 
 because the frauds which it was assumed it 
 would prevent, were already precluded. In 
 fact what gave rise to these frauds? It was 
 first the requisition in the old constitution 
 
 that property was. essential to suffrage. We 
 have done away with this property qualifi- 
 cation, and in lieu of it we require a longer 
 residence; and by the adoption of the pro- 
 position yesterday, Ave prevent the effects 
 of any frauds upon the naturalization laws 
 by requiring two years' citizenship. We 
 have thus struck at'the root of the evil. 
 The frauds employed to evade the constitu- 
 tional provision of taxable property to se- 
 cure suffrage will no longer be made, be- 
 cause suffrage does not depend upon pro- 
 perty — therefore we effectually put a stop 
 to them. We have provided for residence, 
 and finally arrested the next most prolific 
 source of fraud, naturalizations made with 
 a view to operate upon the result of imme- 
 diate elections; for such naturalizations will 
 no longer be of any service to political pal- 
 ties . The only remaining matter which 
 may be an object of evasion is residence; 
 Ave have required tAvo year's residence for 
 suffrage, but this may be avoided, and per- 
 sons may vote before they have acquired 
 that residence. I think that if we strike 
 out from the section the requisition upon 
 the legislature for a registry law, and retain 
 that part which requires that persons shall 
 offer their votes in the parishes in which 
 they reside, and no where else; and. in cities 
 in the particular Avards of their residence; 
 by multiplying electoral precincts, we shall 
 have done all that it is possible for us to do 
 to accomplish the design of guarding the 
 ballot box. The people themselves at the 
 several election precincts, Avill be^able to 
 prevent non-residents from voting, and this 
 will be found much more effectual in fulfil- 
 ling the essential of residence than a regis- 
 try of the votes proposed by three or four 
 persons, who may abuse their poAver, and 
 debase it to party purposes. 
 
 Mr. Downs said, that the only effect of 
 a registry la\v in Louisiana would be a 
 repetition at our elections of the same 
 frauds Avhich occurred in New York and 
 Philadelphia under the regime of a similar 
 laAV. The clubs and political associations 
 of both parties in the three months pre- 
 ceeding our elections Avould be sedulously 
 engaged in getting names of persons upon 
 the list upon Avhose votes they could rely; 
 and when the list was finally made out, a 
 regular system of intrigue and corruption 
 might be employed to influence and con- 
 trol the votes of a majority upon the list 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 187 
 
 Secret agents might be sent out to tamper 
 with the voters, to coerce some and to se- 
 duce others. Our elections would become 
 objects of corruption, and in place of fraud 
 being repressed, it would be strengthened 
 and placed in a commanding position, with 
 absolute sway over the decrees of the bal- 
 lot box. 
 
 Mr. Claiborxe suggested that it might 
 be better to lay the section on the table, in 
 order to reflect further upon the subject, 
 and so to amend it, to make it unexception- 
 able in its operation if it were really defec- 
 tive. 
 
 Mr. Grymes said he was opposed to 
 postponing action upon the section, because 
 in this way we would be accumulating our 
 duties instead of getting through with them. 
 This question was not over difficult of solu- 
 tion, and surely the long debate to which it 
 had given rise was not at all necessary to 
 elucidate its merits or point out its defects. 
 
 I consider, said Mr. Grymes, that a re- 
 gistry lav.- should not be embodied in the 
 constitution, and this not because I conceive 
 it to be a restriction upon the popular will, 
 which certain persons would so enlarge as 
 to make any practicable system of govern- 
 ment utterly impossible; but because it is 
 unnecessary, it is unsuited to the country 
 and useless in the city, and is, moreover, 
 nothing more than a simple matter of legis- 
 lation, as much within the competency of 
 the legislature without a constitutional pro- 
 vision, as if there were a thousand consti- 
 tutional pfoMsions. 
 
 It is a maxim of jurisprudence, that the 
 innocent should not suffer because it is ne- 
 cessary to punish the guilty. This maxim 
 is equally applicable to legislation. Under 
 the.- pretext of punishing the fraudulent — 
 those not entitled to suffrage, a thousand 
 freemen and laboring men would be pre- 
 cluded their right of suffrage. So whose 
 benefit would this provision enure ? Who 
 would be the first to enregister their names? 
 Partizans, indolent persons- — persons who 
 expected to sell their votes, and all others of 
 a similar class; while the farmer, and the 
 hard-working artizan would either forget or 
 neglect through the press of his occupation 
 to present himself in time, and would suffer 
 the penalty of exclusion. This ought not 
 to be. It cannot be done without great in- 
 justice. And, moreover, what is the es- 
 sential difference between three inspectors 
 
 of election to decide upon the qualifications 
 of persons offering to vote, and three per- 
 sons authorized to receive and register the 
 names of the voters? Does it not amount, 
 practically, to the same thing, as far as the 
 prevention of frauds is concerned? Is it to 
 be supposed that the latter would be a 
 greater check than the former] I do not 
 believe it. There will always be persons 
 ready to corrupt at elections, and frauds will 
 more or less be employed to effect the re- 
 sult. The only thing that can be done is to 
 
 i determine with precision the qualifications 
 necessary to suffrage, and to make these 
 qualifications conform to the exigencies of 
 our position. 
 
 I certainly cannot vote for a principle 
 that would operate with great severity upon 
 a numerous class of legal voters, because 
 I may be told it will prevent illegal voting, 
 which I do not think it will affect. 
 
 ?>Ir. C. M. Conrad proposed to strike 
 out the words "in the several parishes in 
 which they may reside," and to substitute 
 the following, "residing in cities and villa- 
 ges that are incorporated or may be incor- 
 
 | porated." 
 
 Mr. Benjamin expressed himself in fa- 
 vor of the section as it was presented. Ex- 
 perience has demonstrated the necessity for 
 a registry law, and another striking consid- 
 eration why such a measure is indispensa- 
 ble, and which has not been urged in this 
 debate, is that the Convention has sanction- 
 ed the principle that elections in this State 
 shall be concluded in one day. How will 
 it be possible in this city, clivided even as 
 it is into wards, to receive all the votes, if 
 contests arise and have to be decided in the 
 uusual way before the inspectors? It will 
 be out of the question; and it will be in the 
 power of a minority, at will, to prevent the 
 result of an election, or to prejudice it. 
 Many citizens will be precluded from vo- 
 ting; every voter who is a member of the 
 party that may be supposed to be in the as- 
 cendancy may be challenged as to his right 
 of voting by members of the opposite part}', 
 and every device may be employed to pro- 
 crastinate and defeat the reception of par- 
 ticular kinds of votes. It is because I fear 
 this result, said Mr. Benjamin, and because 
 I think with the senatorial delegate from 
 New Orleans, (Mr. Grymes) that the right 
 of an American citizen to suffrage ought not 
 to be compromitted, that I am In favor of 
 
188 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 the section. Without intending to accuse 
 one political party or justify the other, I 
 would invoke the voice of public notoriety, 
 whether it is not a matter of constant oc- 
 currence at our elections, that there are 
 continual contests as to the right of suf- 
 frage. Why, in the very contested elec- 
 tions that occupied the attention of this 
 Convention at Jackson, between my col- 
 league (Mr. Conrad) and myself on the one' 
 part, and Messrs. La Sere and Plauche on 
 the other; the principal grounds of com- 
 plaint of both parties were the frauds that 
 were committed. Our combatants declared 
 that legal voters had been refused their 
 right of suffrage at the polls. We declared 
 that our political friends, in many instances 
 had been denied the privilege of suffrage, al- 
 though entitled to it, because certain illegal 
 ballots were refused. The inspectors of 
 both political parties reciprocally accused 
 each other of being the cause of these diffi- 
 culties, and of the election not having been 
 legally held, Similar difficulties will oc- 
 cur again and to a greater extent with en- 
 larged suffrage. It may happen that one 
 political party may keep from voting a large 
 portion of the other political party. This 
 will give rise to tumult and disorder; per- 
 haps even blood shed. Such results cer- 
 tainly ought to be avoided, and how can 
 they be better avoided than by a list that 
 will be conclusive of the right of each vo- 
 ter. It will facilitate voting and take from 
 the inspectors the unfortunate duty, in a 
 moment of the greatest political excite- 
 ment, of deciding upon the reception of a 
 ballot, that may decide the contest in favor 
 of the one or the other political party. 
 Constitutional points, and cases where the 
 construction of the law itself is doubtful, may 
 arise Unexpectedly before the inspectors, 
 and they be called upon suddenly for a de- 
 cision. These inspectors are seldom cho- 
 sen from the legal profession and are not 
 conversant with the interpretations of laws. 
 What is the consequence? Each inspec- 
 tor belongs to a political party, and is 
 frequently selected because "he is promi- 
 nent in that party. Each inspector is 
 stimulated by the excitement that pre- 
 vails, and which has prevailed for several 
 weeks before the election. The point of 
 difficulty is raised, and there is a party law- 
 yer on each side counselling each an in- 
 spector. Books are brought in; arguments 
 
 are made, and the election is suspended in 
 the mean time. The result is that the in- 
 spectors disagree as widely as their coun- 
 sel, and their respective determinations 
 take a party hue. 
 
 I remember at the last election a diffi- 
 culty that was sprung, all at once, upon a 
 number of voters. They were denied the 
 right of suffrage because it was pretended 
 they had lost their legal residence by a visit 
 to the north or across the lake. At first the 
 point was disputed — the law was referred 
 to, and contrary constructions were given 
 to it. The inspectors were bewildered, 
 and as a last resort application was made 
 to the parish judge, whose duty, it was said, 
 was to decide the point. An express was 
 sent to that officer, and he returned an en- 
 igmatical response. The voters, exaspe- 
 rated by the attempt to exclude them, de- 
 posited their ballots by force. God forbid 
 that I should justify any violence — -I do not 
 pretend to say that it was proper— -but I 
 mention the occurrance to show the ne- 
 cessity of adopting some suitable measure 
 to establish the right of the voters, indepen- 
 dent of the inspectors, and before the very 
 moment when they are about to offer their 
 ballots. I knew of no plan as effectual as 
 a registry. It is exposed for some months 
 before the election to the public inspection, 
 and all that may be urged against the right 
 of any person to vote, can be preferred and 
 determined upon. It is finally homologated 
 or confirmed by a competent authority, and 
 and as soon as a person preseiffs himself, 
 claiming the right to vote, reference can be 
 had to the list, arranged alphabetically. If 
 his name is there — he votes — it is a proof 
 that he is a legal voter, and is conclusive. 
 If his name is not there it is equally con- 
 clusive that he is not a legal voter — -for if 
 he was a legal voter either he or his friends 
 would have his name placed on the list. 
 As for the trouble, if that be an argument, 
 the same argument would apply to the 
 trouble of voting. To vote may be consid- 
 ered troublesome, but it is a duty; so would 
 it be a duty to have one's name registered 
 and if a man placed any value upon the 
 right of suffrage, he would not consider the 
 one a more unnecessary duty or a greater 
 trouble than the other. 
 
 There is certainly nothing degrading in 
 the idea of being registered as an Ameri- 
 can citizen. If a Roman citizen wa-i 
 
 i 
 
Debates in the Convention oi Louisiana. 
 
 189 
 
 proud of his title of citizenship, I can see 
 no reason why an American citizen should 
 be ashamed of being recorded and recog- 
 nized in the capacity of a citizen. 
 
 Mr. Downs would ask the member, (Mr. 
 Benjamin,) if it were proper that the con- 
 stitution should be made to suit future legis- 
 lation, or whether future legislation should 
 be required to conform to the constitution? 
 for all the argument of the member, (Mr. 
 Benjamin,) resolved itself into this: shall we 
 insert a special act of mere legislation in our 
 constitution, because the particular mode 
 of conducting the elections in New Orleans 
 are attendant with difficulties, and do not 
 conform to the wishes of either, or both of 
 the political parties. If the election laws 
 in the city be defective, whose fault is it 
 that they are not amended, changed or 
 modified'? The legislature have full power 
 over the subject; and if I am not much mis- 
 taken, when a proposition was made, during 
 the last session of the legislature, to correct 
 the defects of those laws, and to appoint 
 three inspectors in place two, which was 
 the only radical source of difficulty, the 
 gentleman, (Mr. Benjamin,) opposed it. 
 How can we be asked to embody in the con- 
 stitution a matter that does not properly be- 
 long to it— which is impotent for good, and 
 powerful for evil? If the election laws of 
 the city must needs be amended — if this be 
 conceded at4ast, why not apply to the legis- 
 lature? As for the particular system of reg- 
 istration, we have had an example of that 
 already; fh a list of 1300 names, to whom 
 the right of voting was attempted to be given 
 by ficticious property, to vote the whig tick- 
 et. Let your election in the city be con- 
 ducted as they are in the country, and no 
 apprehension need be entertained of diffi- 
 culties, riots, and the shedding of blood. 
 
 Mr. CM. Cone ad thought the gentle- 
 man from Ouachita, (Mr. Downs,) over es- 
 timated the beneficial effects of appointing 
 three inspectors of election in the city in 
 place of two. The evil did not arise from 
 there being but two judges of election. 
 The presence of an additional judge could 
 not have precluded the difficulties that have 
 occurred, and which will occur again, un- 
 less something be done to ascertain before 
 the election who are the qualified voters. 
 Where so many votes are to be cast, this 
 knowledge is indispensable. It is too late 
 and will not answer to dispute the matter 
 25 
 
 at the polls, amid all the heat and excite- 
 ment of a political contest. He disclaimed 
 again the intention of imposing upon the 
 country any inconvenience that might re- 
 sult from a principle essential to the city. 
 He thought the interests of both could be 
 reconciled, as their object was the fame in 
 this matter, to protect the ballot box from 
 frauds. 
 
 He would offer the following as a substi- 
 tute for that portion of the section which 
 the delegate from Ouachita had moved to 
 strike out. It had been handed him by a 
 delegate from one of the country parishes: 
 
 "The general^ssembly shall provide by 
 law that a register of the names of all the 
 qualified voters residing in towns and vil- 
 lages whose white population exceed one 
 thousand, shfll be made out within three 
 months preceeding any general election." 
 
 Mr. Sellers proposed a substitute to 
 the effect, that citizenship should only be 
 acquired by actual residence within a cer- 
 tain period in the parish; to be counted 
 from the date of a declaration of intention 
 made and recorded in any court of record, 
 
 Mr. Scott, of Baton Rouge, called for 
 the previous question which was sustained 
 and the question was taken by ayes and 
 nays, upon Mr. Downs motion to strike 
 out, which resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfied, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Downs, Eustis, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, 
 Ledoux,McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, 
 O'Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porche, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Prudhomme, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott ot Feliciana, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Sellers, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Voorhies, Waddill and 
 Wederstrandt voted in the affirmative — 44 
 ayes ; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Briant Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Garcia, Guion, Hudspeth, King, Labauve, 
 Leonard, Lewis, Ma^ureau, Pugh, Ratliff, 
 Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Wadsworth, 
 Wikoff and Winchester, voted in the nega- 
 tive — 21 nays; the motion was carried. 
 
 On motion the Convention adjourned till 
 to-morrow at 11 o'clock, A. M. 
 
190 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 (Saturday, February 8, 1845. • 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Saunders in the chair. 
 
 Its proceedings were opened with prayer 
 from the Rev. Mr. Clark, 
 
 Mr. Ratliff, on behalf of the commit- 
 tee on contingent expenses, submitted the 
 accounts of the Jeffersonian Republican, 
 and Courier for $500, the amount due each 
 for subscription. 
 
 Said accounts were referred. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff, on behalf of the same 
 committee, submitted thejgelaim of J. A. 
 Kelly, late printer to ^ae Convention, 
 amounting to $1,474 00. Mr. R. stated 
 that the committee had examined Mr. Kel- 
 ly's claim and had unanimously reported in 
 favor of that amount. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to lay the resolution 
 on the table, in order that the members of 
 the Convention might make some investi- 
 gation. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff opposed this motion. The 
 facts were before the Convention, and they 
 could decide as well now as at any other 
 time. Besides, it was not fair to keep Mr. 
 Kelly here on -expenses. If we owe him 
 this money, let us pay him; if it be less, let 
 us pay him the amount really due. At con- 
 siderable expense and trouble, he came 
 here to fulflill his contract; we have seen fit 
 to supersede him, let us settle with him — 
 and that without unnecessary procrastina- 
 tion and delay. 
 
 Mr. Lewis had no objections to paying 
 Mr. Kelly, provided there was some guaran- 
 tee that he would deliver the book contain- 
 ing the report of the debates and journals. 
 As for that pamphlet, he had not seen a 
 copy of it yet. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor spoke in favor of al- 
 lowing the amount, inasmuch as from the 
 report of the committee it appeared to be 
 due; and he had understood that the book 
 was in the hands of a respectable binder to 
 be bound. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin stated that he had exam- 
 ined Mr. Kelly's claim, and after making 
 certain reductions, he had united with the 
 committee in their report. The book con- 
 taining the report of debates and the jour- 
 nals, were in the hands of a respectable 
 book binder, and would be forthcoming as 
 soon as the binding was completed. 
 
 Mr. Brent had no > doubt that the com- 
 
 mittee had fully examined the subject and 
 were convinced that it was due. He 
 thought, however, that the members of the 
 Convention should have some time to ex- 
 amine for themselves. 
 
 After some further remarks from Messrs. 
 Mayo, Roselius, Culbertson and Ratliff, and 
 an assurance on the part of Mr. RatlifTthat 
 the committee would not audit the claim 
 until they were satisfied that the book would 
 be forthcoming as soon as bound; and after 
 reading the certificate of Mr. Bloomfield, 
 the binder, the question was taken to lay- 
 on the table, and it was lost. 
 
 The question then recurred on the adop- 
 tion of the report of the committee, allow.- 
 ing the amount reported by them. 
 
 The yeas and na}« were called foiyand 
 the following was the result : 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benja- 
 min, Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, 
 Cade, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of New 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Ledoux, Legen- 
 dre, Leonard, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, 
 Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 King, Preston, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, 
 Read, Roman, Roselius, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Sellers, Soule, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt, 
 Wikoff and Winder — 54. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Carri- 
 ere, Chambliss, Covillion, Hynson, Peets, 
 Penn and Porche — 9. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 The section proposed by Mr. Roman 
 relative to a registry law, under discussion 
 when Convention adjourned yesterday. 
 
 Mr. Cade moved to strike out the bal- 
 lance of the section from the word "resi- 
 dence." 
 
 Mr. Roman moved to insert after the 
 words "shall not have the right to vote," the 
 words "at any election whatever." 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad opposed the motion 
 of the delegate from Lafayette (Mr. Cade) 
 to strike out that part requiring the voter to 
 vote in his election precinct. Mr. Conrad 
 said that this requisition - was necessary to 
 facilitate the reception of the votes and to 
 prevent frauds. He proposed to amend the 
 sentence by adding after the words "in the 
 parish," the words "and in cities and towns, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 191 
 
 in the several wards in which they may be 
 divided." 
 
 Mr. Preston said he rose for the purpose 
 of moving that the 2d clause of the section 
 be stricken out, as the first had been. The 
 Convention, he would again remark, had 
 met but for three things — First, to extend 
 the right of suffrage. Secondly, to apportion 
 more equally the representation of the State. 
 Thirdly and lastly, to reform the judiciary. 
 He did not believe this body were assem- 
 bled for any other purpose. It was not 
 surely assembled to fall into minute legisla- 
 tion; to exhaust the patience of the people, 
 and our own patience, and finally end by 
 doing nothing. These ordinary . matters 
 were proper subjects for the legislature. 
 Can we not place confidence enough in the 
 legislature to leave it to them. The legis- 
 lature, by the old constitution, has the pow- 
 er to regulate elections. Oh! but it is said, 
 the legislature will not act. If the legis- 
 lature does not act, it is because action fur- 
 ther than has been had is not necessary. 
 If any particular parish wants a particular 
 modification it can get that modification of 
 the election laws. It happened, if he were 
 not misinformed, and if he were he could 
 be corrected, that a portion of the inhabi- 
 tants of the parish of Livingston voted in 
 the parish of Ascension. Why waste our 
 time with this ordinary .legislation. He 
 hoped the new constitution might not last 
 ten years, and conceiving this matter to be 
 purely legislative, was adverse to placing it 
 in that instrument. A great deal had been 
 said by one gentleman (Mr. Conrad) yes- 
 terday about the criminality of voting with- 
 out having the legal qualifications, and that 
 any one so offending should be sent to the 
 penitentiary. I cannot consider it (said Mr. 
 Preston) a penitentiary offence for an Ame- 
 rican citizen to attempt to get his right of 
 suffrage. I would as soon think of prose- 
 cuting Promotheus for stealing fire as I 
 would think of punishing a man for at- 
 tempting to exercise a right which is im- 
 planted in the human soul. I approve of 
 every word in the section, and yet I shall 
 oppose it, because I think it a simple mat- 
 ter of legislation; but if it be pressed I shall 
 vote for it, although it should not be intro- 
 duced in the constitution. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad said that the gentle- 
 man from Jefferson (Mr. Preston) had a 
 strange way of testifying his approbation 
 
 i ; of the section. He approves of it and yet 
 I is ready to strangle it. The gentleman 
 I (Mr. Preston) thinks this is a small sub- 
 . ject. I think it is one of the very greatest 
 i importance. It relates to our social or- 
 . ganization, and therefore must be of the 
 highest magnitude. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor said that the subject 
 under consideration had taken a wide 
 range. He differed from some of the views 
 taken upon this question by the delegate 
 ; from Jefferson, (Mr. Preston.) He consid- 
 ered that it was not only proper and just to 
 establish the principle in the constitution, 
 but that it was a principle proper to that 
 instrument. The division between parishes 
 was one thing, and the boundaries of an- 
 election precinct another. An election 
 precinct might embrace a portion of two 
 parishes, but the delegate from Jefferson 
 appeared to confound the territorial divis- 
 ions with the election precincts. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff presented the substitute 
 which he had temporarily withdrawn yes- 
 terday. 
 
 A question of order was here raised by 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad. He contended that this 
 substitute was not in order, inasmuch as it 
 was not on the same subject matter as the 
 original section; which .gave rise to a. 
 discussion upon the point of order, in which 
 Messrs. Downs, Ratliff, Voorhies, Miles 
 Taylor, and C. M. Conrad participated. 
 
 Mr. Preston said that he had remarked 
 at the moment, that he approved of every 
 word in the section, but after reflection, and 
 a circumstance occurring to his mind, 
 which he would suggest to the Convention, 
 convinced him that his first impression was 
 wrong. The section would operate to the 
 exclusion of a portion of his constituents 
 residing at a remote precinct — the Ckeniere 
 Cominacla. They were fishermen for the 
 most part, and raised water-melons. They 
 were in New Orleans in the month of July, 
 and it was impossible for them to vote at 
 their precinct. They were as well known 
 in the city of Lafayette as the mayor; but 
 under this section their votes could no 
 longer be received elsewhere in the parish 
 than at the precinct of the Cheniere Comi- 
 nada. He thought it a pernicious restrict 
 tion, and it would be attended with great 
 inconvenience to the voters. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. Cade's 
 motion, and it prevailed — yeas 36; nays 25, 
 
192 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 The question then recurred on Mr. Con- 
 rad's amendment, as amended by Mr. Ro- 
 man, s 
 
 Mr. Read opposed the amendment. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne sustained it as necessa- 
 ry and proper. 
 
 Mr. Porter thought that the 5th section 
 of the 2d article accomplished the views of 
 the advocates of this proposition. 
 
 The question was taken upon Mr. Con- 
 rad's amendment, and the yeas and nays 
 were called for. 
 
 y eas — Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benja- 
 min, Bourg, B riant, Brumfield, Cade, Cenas, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Eustis, Garcia, Guion, Hudspeth, King, Le- 
 gendre, Leonard, Lewis, Marigny, Mazu- 
 reau, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, 
 Wikoff and Winder— 36. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Downs, Humble, 
 Hynson, Ledoux, McCaliop, McRae, Mayo, 
 O'Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porche, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St.Landry, 
 Preston, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Madison, 
 Splane, Stephens and Wederstrandt — 26. 
 
 The question then recurred on the adop- 
 tion of the section as amended. 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benja- 
 min, Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Cade, Car- 
 riere, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 King, Legendre, Leonard, Lewis, Mazu- 
 reau, Penn, Porter, Pugh, Roman, Rose- 
 lius, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Voorhies, Wikoff and Winder— -37, 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 Chambliss, Downs, Garrett, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Ledoux, McRea, McCaliop, Mayo, 
 Peets, Porche, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Ratliff, Read, Scott of Madison, Spl ane, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt— 24. 
 
 Mr. Sellers introduced his proposition 
 which he had withdrawn temporarily, and 
 asked that it be printed and laid on the ta- 
 ble subject to call, which was ordered. 
 
 Whereupon the Convention adjourned 
 over to Monday. 
 
 \ 
 
 Monday, February 10, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Walker resumed the chair, having 
 recovered his health sufficiently to attend 
 the Convention. 
 
 The proceedings were opened with pray- 
 er from the Rev. Mr. Woolridge. 
 
 Mr. Splane offered a resolution appoint- 
 ing a committee to inquire into the expe- 
 diency of electing an additional reporter in 
 English. 
 
 The resolution was adopted, and the 
 president appointed Messrs. Splane, Scott 
 of Madison, and C. M. Conrad, the com- 
 mittee. . 
 
 The Convention took up the twentieth 
 section of the second article which is as 
 follows: 
 
 Sec. 20. "The members of the general 
 assembly shall severally receive from the 
 public treasury a compensation for their 
 services, which shall be four dollars per 
 day during their attendance on, going to, 
 and returning from the sessions of their re- 
 spective houses, provided that the same 
 may be increased or diminished by law; but 
 no alteration, shall take effect during the 
 period of service of the members of the 
 house of representatives by whom such al- 
 teration shall have been made: And pro- 
 vided, also, that , this compensation shall 
 exist for the period of sixty days only, but if 
 the general assembly shall at any time ex- 
 tend the session beyond sixty days, they 
 shall not receive any compensation for any 
 period beyond the said sixty days." 
 
 Mr. McRAE^moved to strike out the pro- 
 viso. 
 
 And Mr. Scott of Baton Rouge, that the 
 following be substituted therefor, "provided 
 that the session shall not exceed sixty days." 
 
 Mr. Brent moved that this proviso 
 should not apply to the first legislature held 
 in pursuance of this constitution. 
 
 Mr. Beatty considered that this was 
 merely directory, and that as the supreme 
 court would determine that laws passed by 
 the legislature, after the sixty days, were 
 as valid as if passed before; that it would 
 be ineffectual to arrest prolonged sessions 
 of the legislature. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, consideied 
 that this objection of the gentleman from 
 
 I Lafourche, (Mr. Beatty,) was without force. 
 After the expiration of the sixty days the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 193 
 
 legislative character of the body would 
 cease. They would be no more than an 
 assemblage of citizens, and certainly not 
 empowered to legislate. 
 
 Mr. Cone ad of New Orleans, would not 
 pretend to say what would be the decision 
 of the supreme court, but inasmuch as two 
 members of the legal profession had arrived 
 at contrary conclusions, it was evident that 
 the question was somewhat ambiguous. 
 
 Mr. Read from East Baton Rouge, 
 moved to amend the section by adding: — 
 Provided also, that no session shall extend 
 10 a period beyond sixty days, except the 
 session of the first legislature which is to 
 convene after the adoption of this constitu- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Beent moved to amend the section 
 by inserting after "days," "from the date of 
 its commencement;" the amendment was 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Downs offered an additional provi- 
 so, to wit: 
 
 "And unless, also, the session be pro- 
 tracted on a request of the governor, or by 
 a vote of two-thirds of the members of the 
 legislature." 
 
 To this proviso Mr. Tayloe objected. 
 He would not consent to invest any portion 
 of the legislature with discretionary pow- 
 er in this matter. He should have no ob- 
 jection if it rested with the executive, who 
 would be properly responsible for its use, 
 and with whom in fact it always lay; for he 
 had the perogative of calling, at any time, 
 an extra session. But the object of the 
 Convention was to limit the power of the 
 legislature, to curtail what appeared to be, 
 with it, an inherent vice, superabundant 
 and unnecessary legislation. Sixty days is 
 a term sufficiently long for a session; or it 
 is not; if it be not, extend it; if it be, why 
 cumber the section with clauses and provi- 
 sos, the effect of which will be to enable 
 the legislature to evade the spirit of the 
 section, and prolong its sessions to any 
 length of time it may please them? Con- 
 fine them to sixty days, and the necessity of 
 action will present itself to them from the 
 first day they convene; let them understand 
 that the power to prolong it rests with them 
 and they will fritter away their time, leav- 
 ing the public business in such a state that 
 there would be no difficulty in getting a 
 vote of two-thirds for the prolongation of the 
 session. For his own part he thought sixty 
 
 days sufficient for all ordinary puposes of 
 legislation; if an extraordinary case arose, 
 then the governor had nothing to do but to 
 call an extra session. He, therefore, 
 thought an absolute prohibition necessary, 
 and in this the language of the constitution 
 should be imperative; if not, they might as 
 well strike out the section altogether. 
 
 Mr. Downs remarked that the difference 
 between the legislature extending its ses- 
 sions and the governor calling a new one, 
 would be that the latter mode would be by 
 far the more expensive. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Baton Rouge, moved, be- 
 fore the adoption of these two amendments, 
 to strike out entirely the second proviso, 
 which says that no member shall receive 
 his per diem after sixty days' expiration of a 
 session. 
 
 Said motion was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Downs' amendment was now put — 
 rejected; nays 51, yeas 11. The question 
 was now on the adoption of the first part of 
 the proviso of the gentleman from Baton 
 Rouge, (Mr. Read,) and the result was as 
 follows:— yeas 50, nays 18. The first part 
 of the proviso was then adopted. 
 
 The second clause of the proviso of the 
 gentleman from Baton Rouge, (Mr. Read,) 
 was read and adopted. 
 
 Mr. Maeigny then offered another pro- 
 viso, to the effect that no member of the 
 legislature shall receive for their mileage 
 more than $40, going to and returning 
 from the seat of government. 
 
 Said proviso was. laid on the table indefi- 
 nitely. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to amend by fixing the 
 pay of members,going to and returning from 
 the general assembly, at ten cents per mile, 
 instead of four dollars per day. 
 
 The amendment of Mr. Mayo was, on 
 motion of Mr. Poetee, laid on the table — 
 yeas 37, nays 28. 
 
 Mr. Beatty then moved to insert a 
 clause after the word "commencement," in 
 the section, "that any legislative action had 
 at the expiration of sixty days, would be 
 null and void." Without such a provision 
 it was his opinion, and that of some other 
 gentlemen of [the bar around him, that 
 the legislature would continue to sit 
 beyond the term of sixty days, and the su- 
 preme court would pronounce their legisla- 
 tion valid; without this clause the language 
 of the section would be taken as merely de» 
 
194 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 claratory and not as prohibitory. The 
 member from Avoyelles moved to lay the 
 clause on the table. The motion was lost, 
 yeas 24, nays 27. 
 
 The whole section, as amended, was on 
 motion of Mr. Beatty, thenput-and adopt- 
 cd— yeas 58, nays 8. 
 
 The section, as adopted, reads thus: 
 
 Sec. 20. "The members of the general 
 assembly shall severally receive from the 
 public treasury a compensation for their 
 services, which shall be four dollars per day 
 during their attendance on, .going to, and 
 returning from the sessions of their respec- 
 tive houses, provided that the same may be 
 increased or diminished by law; but no al- 
 teration shall take effect during the period 
 of service of the members of the house of 
 representatives, by whom such alterations 
 shall have been made; and provided also, 
 that no session shall extend to a period 
 beyond sixty days from the date of its com- 
 mencement; that any legislative action had 
 at the expiration of sixty days would be null 
 and void; except the session of the first leg- 
 islature which is to convene after the adop- 
 tion of this constitution." 
 
 The 21st section was next read and adop- 
 ted without debate. It reads as follows: 
 
 Sec 21. "The members of the general 
 assembly shall, in all cases except treason, 
 felony, breach or surety of the peace, be 
 privileged from arrest during their atten- 
 dance at the sessions of their respective 
 houses, and going to or returning from the 
 same, and for any speech or debate in eith- 
 er house, they shall not be questioned in 
 any other place." 
 
 The 22d section was read and without 
 debate adopted, to wit: 
 
 Sec 22. "No senator or representative 
 shall, during the term for which he was el- 
 elected, nor for one year thereafter, be ap- 
 pointed or elected to any civil office of profit 
 under this State, which shall have been 
 erected or the emoluments of which shall 
 have been increased during the time such 
 senator or representative was in office; 
 except to such offices or appointments as 
 may be filled by the election of the people." 
 
 Section 23d was, on motion of Mr. Lewis 
 laid on the table, subject to the call of the 
 house. [The section renders any minister 
 of religion eligible to the general assembly 
 or to any office of profit or trust under the 
 government.] He had reflected much on 
 
 the subject,and although good reasons might 
 have existed for such a section when the 
 old constitution was framed, the questien 
 was, did they still apply? He thought not 
 and meant hereafter to move for its rejec- 
 tion, at which time he would submit to the 
 house the grounds of his action. 
 
 The 2,4th section was adopted without de- 
 bate, to wit: 
 
 Sec. 24. "No person who may at any 
 time have been a collector of taxes, or who 
 may have been otherwise entrusted with 
 public money, shall be eligible to the gen- 
 eral assembly, or to any other office of 
 profit or trust under the State government, 
 until he shall have obtained a quietus for 
 the amount of such collection, and for all 
 the public moneys with which he may have 
 been entrusted." 
 
 The 25th section was also adopted with- 
 out originating any debate, as follows: 
 
 Sec. 25. "No bill shall have the force of a 
 law, until on three several days, it be read 
 over in each house of the general assembly, 
 and free discussion allowed thereon, unless 
 in case of urgency, four-fifths of the house 
 where the bill shall be depending may deem 
 it expedient to dispense with this rule." 
 
 The 26th section was also adopted, to 
 wit: 
 
 Sec. 26. "All bills for raising revenue 
 shall originate in the house of representa- 
 tives, but the senate may propose amend- 
 ments as in other bills; Provided, that, they 
 shall not introduce any new matter under 
 the color of an amendment which does not 
 relate to raising a revenue." 
 
 The 27th and last section was next read 
 and adopted: 
 
 Sec. 27. "The general assembly shall 
 regulate by law, by whom and in what 
 manner writs of election shall be issued to 
 fill the vacancies which may happen in 
 either branch thereof." 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad gave notice that at a 
 future day he would move for the re-con- 
 sideration of the eighth Section, with the 
 view of having a clause incorporated with 
 it, which he handed to the secretary to 
 have read, and moved at the same time 
 that it be printed. It adds, in addition to 
 the age and residence qualifications for 
 voting, the further one'of an annual State tax 
 of one dollar, or the voter, or his father, or 
 his mother must pay , annually, house 
 rent. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 195 
 
 The motion to print was lost. 
 
 Mr. O' Bryan moved that the rules be 
 dispensed with and that the resolution be 
 taken up forthwith. 
 
 Mr. Conrad declined; he had not yet 
 made the motion to re-consider; when he 
 should, thg gentleman might take such ac- 
 tion on it as he thought proper. 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved reference of a reso- 
 lution which he offered to the committee 
 of revision; it was to prevent the language 
 of the eighth section having a retro-active 
 effect. Referred. 
 
 Mr. M. Taylor called up the eleventh 
 section with the view of amending it the 
 better to define the residence qualification 
 as laid down in the section. He read his 
 amendment. It provides that any person 
 leaving the State for sixty days, and having 
 in it no house or workshop in which a 
 servant or a portion of his family remains in 
 charge, shall be considered as having for- 
 feited the residence qualification of this 
 constitution. He explained how necessary 
 it was to be clear and explicit on this sub- 
 ject, and how reasonable was his proposi- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. C, M. Conrad moved that the reso- 
 lution be printed, which was carried; and 
 on motion of Mr. Cenas the Convention 
 adjourned till 11 o'clock to-mof row. 
 
 Tuesday, February 11, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment, and its proceedings were opened 
 by prayer. 
 
 The Convention took up section 9th of 
 the report of the majority of the committee 
 as follows: 
 
 The members of the Senate shall be cho- 
 sen for the term of four years, and when 
 assembled shall have the power to choose 
 its officers every two years. 
 
 On motion of Mr. CM. Conrad, sec- 
 tions 11th and 12th relative to the Senate 
 were laid on the table until the house shall 
 have determined the question of apportion- 
 ment. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Benjamin, the Con- 
 vention took up the 4th section of the 2d 
 article, which had been amended and not 
 adopted as amended by the casting vote of 
 the President. 
 
 Mr. Chinn moved to amend by adding 
 to the qualification to be a representative, 
 the following words: "and shall possess 
 
 landed property to the amount of $500 
 at least." 
 
 Mr. Voorhies moved for the rej ection 
 of the amendment and called for the ayes 
 and nays, which resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumjield, Bur- 
 ton, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Grymes, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, McCallop, MeRea, Marigny, 
 Mayo, Mazureau, O' 'Bryan, Beets, Porche, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Fe- 
 liciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Wed- 
 ersirandt, Wikoff, and Winder, voted in the 
 affirmative — 52 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Briant r 
 Chinn, Conrad of New Orleans, Culbertson, 
 Dcrbes, Legendre, Lewis, Pugli, Roman, 
 and St. Amand voted in the negative — 
 13 nays. 
 
 Mr. Humble moved to adopt the original 
 report of the committee, which gave rise 
 to a debate. Messrs. Brent and Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Humble and Downs, con- 
 tending that the original report was in or- 
 der; and Messrs. Benjamin, Guion and 
 Claiborne, that the section as amended was 
 in order. 
 
 The Chair decided that the section as 
 amended was in order. 
 
 Mr. Downs appealed from the decision of 
 the Chair. 
 
 The question was put shall the decision 
 of the Chair be maintained, and the yeas 
 and nays being called for, resulted as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 Messrs. Auburt, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Brazeale, Briant, Brumjield, Cenas, Cham- 
 bliss, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of New Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Cid~ 
 bertson, Derbes, Dunn, Garrett, Grymes, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Hynson, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Pres- 
 cott ofAvoyett.es,Pugh,P?*udhomme, Roman, 
 St. Amand, Saunders, Sellers, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, 
 Wadsworth, Wikoff and Winder voted in 
 the affirmative — 41 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Burton, Cade, Carriere, 
 Downs, Eustis, Humble, Ledoux, Leonard, 
 McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, O'Bry 
 
196 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 an, Peels, Penn, Porche, Porter, Prescott 
 of St. Landry, Preston, Ratliff, Read, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott 
 of Madison, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Trist, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in the 
 negative, 31 nays. 
 
 The section as amended being before the 
 Convention, Mr. Guion moved to amend 
 by striking out the word "four," so that 
 to be eligible to the house of representative 
 "three" years be. sufficient. 
 
 Mr. Downs asked for a division of the 
 question. 
 
 Mr. Prescott of St. Landry, offered the 
 following substitute for the whole section. 
 "That all persons eligible to the right of 
 suffrage be eligible to a seat in the legisla- 
 ture.' r 
 
 The question was taken upon striking 
 out the word "four," and the ayes and nays 
 were called for, which resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Briant, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, 
 Chambliss, Chinn, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Downs, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Humble, 
 Hynson, Ledoux, Leonard, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rea, Marigny, Mayo, O 'Bryan, Peets,Penn, 
 Porche, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Preston, Ratliff , Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Soule, Splane, Ste- 
 phens, Trist, Waddill, and Wederstrandt, 
 voted in the affirmative — 44 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brumfield, Burton, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, Grymes, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Le- 
 gend re, Lewis, Mazureau,Prudhomme,Pugh, 
 Roman, St. Amand, Saunders, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, 
 Wadsworth, Wilwff, and Winder voted in 
 the negative — 29 nays. 
 
 The question was then taken upon filling 
 up the blank with "three," and the ayes 
 and nays were called for, which resulted 
 as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Briant, Brumiield, Burton, Cenas, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of NewOrleans, Conrad 
 of Jefferson, Covillion, Culbertson,* Derbes, 
 Dunn, Garcia, Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 .Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Mazureau, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Sellers, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, 
 Wadsworth, Wikoff and Winder voted in 
 affirmative—- 38 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Cade, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Downs, Eustis, Garrett,Humble y 
 Hynson, Ledoux, Leonard, MCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Marigny, Mayo, O' Bryan, Peets, Penn, 
 Porche, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Preston, Ratliff, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of^Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Soule, Splane, Stephens, 
 Trist, Waddill, and Wederstrandt, vofed in 
 the negative — 35 nays. 
 
 Mr. Prescott of St. Landry offered his 
 section as a substitute. 
 
 The question was raised, whether the 
 substitute was in order. The President 
 decided that it was. 
 
 Mr. Conrad moved to lay it indefinitely 
 on the table, which motion prevailed. 
 The ayes and nays being called for, re- 
 sulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bow 
 dousquie, Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Bur- 
 ton, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Co- 
 villion, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, 
 Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, 
 Saunders, Sellers, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Voorhies, Wadsworth, Wikoff and Win- 
 chester voted in the affirmative — 38 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Cade, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Downs, Eustis, Garrett, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Ledoux, Leonard, McCallop, 
 McRae, Marigny, Mayo, CBryan, Peets, 
 Penn, Porche, Porter, Prescott of Avoy- 
 elles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Soule, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Trist, Waddill, and Wederstrandt, voted 
 in the negative — 36 nays. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne presented the following: 
 "No one shall be eligible to be a represen- 
 tative upless he shall, at the period of his 
 election, have been a free white male citi- 
 zen of the United States and have attained 
 the age of 21 years, and have resided with- 
 in the State three years preceding the 
 election, and the last year in the parish. 
 
 The foregoing was adopted; those voting 
 in the affirmative, are, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Cade,Ourriere, 
 Chambliss, Downs, Eustis, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Ledoux, Leonard, McCallop, McRae, 
 Marigny, Mayo, C Bryan, Peets, Penn, 
 Porche, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 197 
 
 Pfiescott of St. Landry, Preston, Ratliff, 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Fe- 
 liciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, SouU, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Trist, Waddill and Wedefstrandt voted in 
 the affirmative— 36 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Briant, Brumjield, Bur- 
 ton, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Confad of 
 New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Covil- 
 lion, Culberlson, Defbes, Dunn, Garcia, 
 Garret, Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, 
 King, Labauve, Legendre,Lewis,Mazureau, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. 
 Amarid, Saunders, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Voorhies, Wadsworth, Wikoff, Winchester 
 and Winder voted in the negative — 40 nays. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Benjamin, the Con- 
 vention took up 3d article of the constitu- 
 tion as reported by the majority of the 
 committee upon the executive department. 
 
 Sec. 1. The supreme executive power 
 of this State shall be vested in a chief ma- 
 gistrate, who shall be styled the Governor 
 of the State of Louisiana. He shall hold 
 his office during the term of four years, and 
 together with the lieutenant governor, cho- 
 sen for the same time, be elected as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 Sec. -. The citizens entitled to vote for 
 representatives shall vote for a governor 
 and lieutenant governor, at the time and 
 place of voting for representatives. Their 
 votes shall be returned by the officers pre- 
 siding over the election, to the seat of gov- 
 ernment, addressed to the speaker of the 
 house of representatives, and on the second 
 day of the session of the general assembly 
 then next to be holden, the members of the 
 general assembly shall meet in the house 
 of representatives to examine and count the 
 votes. The person having the greatest 
 number of votes for governor shall be de- 
 clared duly elected, if such number be a 
 majority of all the votes given; but if no 
 person have such a majority, then from the 
 two persons having the highest numbers on 
 the list of those voted' for as governor, the 
 general assembly shall choose immediately 
 by ballot the governor. The person hav- 
 ing a majority of the votes given for lieu- 
 tenant governor, shall be the lieutenant 
 governor, and if no person have a majori- 
 ty, then from the two persons having the 
 highest numbers on the list, the general as- 
 sembly shall in the same manner, choose 
 26 
 
 the lieutenant governor. The first sec- 
 tion was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Ledoux moved to substitute the 2d 
 section of the minority report for the 2d 
 section of the majority report. He re- 
 marked, that the only difference between 
 the two sections was* that the election of 
 governor by the report of the minority was 
 entirely confided to the people. 
 
 MINORITY REPORT: 
 
 Sec. 2. The governor shall be elected 
 by the qualified electors of the State, at the 
 same time and place where they shall res- 
 pectively vote for representatives and sena- 
 tors. The' returns of every election shall 
 be sealed up, and transmitted to the secre- 
 tary of the State, who shall deliver them to 
 the speaker of the house of representatives, 
 who shall open and publish them in pre- 
 sence of both houses of the general assem- 
 bly; the person having the greatest number 
 of votes shall be governor; but if two or 
 more shall be equal and highest in votes, 
 one of them shall be chosen governor by 
 the joint vote of the members of the gene- 
 ral assembly. Contested elections for gov- 
 ernor shall be determined by both houses 
 of the legislature, in such manner as shall 
 be prescribed by law. 
 
 Mr. Roman said, he could see no reason 
 why this section of the report of the major- 
 ity should be thrown aside. It appeared to 
 him to lead to the same result, inasmuch as 
 it tended to elect the candidate having the 
 plurality oi votes. And, moreover, sakl 
 Mr. Roman, the committee anxious to com- 
 ply with the law convening this Conven- 
 tion, presumed, that in order to carry out the 
 design of that law, they could not do better 
 than to base their action upon the federal 
 constitution. 
 
 Mr. Soule said, that he considered the 
 section offered by Mr. Ledoux, on behalf 
 of the minority of the committee, was in- 
 finitely preferable. Had he entertained 
 any doubts on the subject the remarks of 
 the member from St. James, (Mr. Roman) 
 would have dispelled them. How is it 
 that the delegate has discovered that we 
 should conform strictly to the law conve- 
 ning the Convention, for which I insisted 
 with whatever feeble powers I may pos- 
 sess, when a few days ago that gentleman 
 was one of those that were most favorable 
 to restrictions, and going beyond the requi- 
 sites of the law, by establishing odious dis-- 
 
198 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 tinctions among our citizens. If, as the 
 gentleman assumes, the report of the major- 
 ity will have the same practical effect as 
 that of the minority, why does he object 
 to the latter since it presents a more popu- 
 lar principle; and if it be really true that 
 the legislature could not do otherwise than 
 elect °the candidate having the plurality, 
 wliy place it in their power to defeat the 
 public wishes? 
 
 The annals, said Mr. Soule, of the fede- 
 ral government are too fresh in our remem- 
 brance not to admonish us that the legisla- 
 tive department of the government is quite 
 capable of abusing this power. Who does 
 not remember with indignation, that when 
 the majority of the popular voices were 
 cast for the revered Jackson, the wishes of 
 the people were set at naught, and the mi- 
 nority candidate was made the president? 
 If it be really the desire of those that favor 
 the report of the majority, that the candi- 
 date having the plurality should have the 
 preference, state it clearly and distinctly in 
 the constitution , so that there cannot be any 
 mistake, and that the representatives of the 
 people may not impose upon the will of the 
 people a candidate who is not the choice of 
 the people. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said, he was in favor of the 
 principle contained in the minority report. 
 He prefered that principle, but it appeared 
 to him that the style of the majority report 
 was the best, and the principle of the 
 former could be engrafted upon the latter. 
 He would suggest an amendment to the 
 majority report to that effect. 
 
 Mr. Soule thought that if the words 
 were added to the section reported by the 
 minority, "and the lieutenant governor," 
 after the word "governor,'' this would 
 meet the views of the delegate from St 
 Landry. 
 
 On motion the Convention adjourned. 
 _______ 
 
 Wednesday, February 12, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment, and its proceedings were opened 
 with prayer from the Rev. Mr. Hinton. 
 
 Mr. Splane, on behalf of the committee 
 appointed to investigate the causes of the 
 delay in the publication of the reports of 
 debates, offered a resolution that an addi- 
 tional reporter in English be appointed. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad expressed his dis- 
 sent from the report. He had not attended 
 
 the meeting of the committee, and hadflr 
 been in his seat when he was appointed on 
 it, he would have requested the President 
 to have excused him from serving. It was 
 conceded on all hands that the reporter 
 could not keep up a daily report with the 
 deliberations of this body, but he saw no 
 necessity ' for this. Where was the neces- 
 sity that all that occurred here should be 
 transmitted with all the rapidity of steam 
 presses and steamboats over the country. 
 Whether the reports were a few days be- 
 hindhand he considered a matter of no very 
 great consequence. It was no doubt pleas- 
 ing for members to see themselves in print 
 — perhaps he himself was under the influ- 
 ence of this weakness, but he saw no oc- 
 casion for this hot haste, which would cur- 
 tail additional expense and was after all, 
 but a small matter. 
 
 Mr. Chinn said that when Mr. Kelly 
 was displaced, it was said that the reporter 
 was not at fault, and now it is admitted that 
 he cannot keep up with the daily proceed- 
 ings of the Convention. This appears to 
 be a striking contradiction. He was op- 
 posed to the resolution. 
 
 Mr. Splane said that there was no con- 
 tradiction in point of fact. Mr. Kelly pub- 
 lished nominally weekly, whereas the 
 present printers publish daily. 
 
 The question was taken on the adoption 
 of the resolution — Mr. Labauve in the 
 chair. The result was 33 yeas; 32 nays — 
 Mr. Labauve voting in the negative, the 
 motion to adopt was lost. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Voorhies the motion 
 to adopt was reconsidered.' 
 
 And on the motion of Mr. Beatty the 
 further consideration of the subject was 
 postponed until 2 o'clock, in order that the 
 question should be decided in a full house, 
 Mr. Beatty expressing himself averse to the 
 passage of the resolution. 
 
 The motion for postponement prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Eustis, on behalf of the committee 
 on revision, reported the sections which had 
 been referred to that committee, 
 
 After some remarks from Messrs. Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Downs, Miles Taylor, Ro- 
 man and Benjamin, Thursdays of each 
 week were set apart for the consideration 
 of the reports of the committee upon re- 
 vision. 
 
 Mr Beatty, in comformity with the rules, 
 gave notice that on Friday next he would 
 
* 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 199 
 
 move for the reconsideration of the 5th sec- 
 tion of the 2d article, with the design of ma- 
 king it conform to the 10th section. The 
 opposition in sense, was not merely verbal, 
 and therefore would not fall under the su- 
 pervision of .the committee on revision. 
 
 On motion, the Convention proceeded to 
 the consideration of the unfinished business 
 of yesterday, being the 2d section of the 3d 
 article, reported by the majority of the com- 
 mittee on the executive department. 
 
 Mr Ledoux had moved to substitute the 
 2d section of the report of the minority of 
 the committee, as follows : 
 
 Sec. 2. The governor shall be elected 
 by the qualified electors of the State, at the 
 same time and place where they shall re- 
 spectively vote for representatives and sen- 
 ators. The returns of every election shall 
 be sealed up, and transmitted to the secre- 
 tary of state who shall deliver them to the. 
 speaker of the house of representatives, 
 who shall open and publish them in pre- 
 sence of both houses of the general as- 
 sembly; the person having the highest num- 
 ber of votes shall be governor ; but if two 
 or more shall be equal and highest in votes, 
 one of them shall be chosen governor by 
 the joint vote of the members of the gen- 
 eral assembly. Contested elections for go- 
 vernor shall be determined by both houses 
 of the legislature, in such manner as shall 
 be prescribed by law. 
 
 Mr Lewis moved to amend the 2d sec- 
 tion of the report of the majority by striking 
 out in the 19th line the words, "If such 
 number be a majority of all the votes given; 
 but if no such person have such a majority, 
 then from the two persons having the high- 
 est number on the list of those voted for as 
 governor, the general assembly shall choose 
 by ballot the governor. 
 
 Mr Mayo offered the following amend- 
 ment to the 2d section of the report of the 
 minority, as reported by Mr Ledoux, to 
 wit, viz : 
 
 Sec. 2. The citizens entitled to vote for 
 representatives, shall vote for a governor 
 and [lieutenant governor at the time and 
 place of voting for representatives. The 
 returns of every election shall be sealed up 
 and transmitted to the secretary of state, 
 who shall deliver them to the speaker of 
 the house of representatives, and during 
 the first week of the general assembly 
 then next to be holden, the members of the 
 
 general assembly shall meet in the house 
 of representatives to examine the returns 
 of the election; the person having the high- 
 est number of votes for governor, shall be 
 governor, but if two or more shall be equal 
 and highest in votes for governor, one of 
 them shall be chosen governor by the joint 
 vote of the members of the general assem- 
 bly. 
 
 The person having the highest number 
 of votes for lieutenant governor, shall be 
 lieutenant governor: but if two or more 
 persons shall be equal and highest in votes 
 for lieutenant governor, one of them shall 
 be chosen lieutenant governor by the 
 joint votes of the members of the general 
 assembly. 
 
 Mr C. M. Conrad said that upon ma- 
 ture reflection he was in favor of the prin- 
 ciple reported by the majority of the com- 
 mittee. He supposed a case, where five 
 persons were candidates for the office of 
 governor, and four of them obtained, re- 
 spectively, 2,500 votes, and the fifth 2,501 
 votes, it was clear that the latter had not 
 obtained the majority of the votes, and yet, 
 in virtue of the report of the minority, he 
 would be the governor. Would this be 
 just or expedient ? He thought not. The 
 time might arrive when there would be lo- 
 cal divisions in the State — contests for su- 
 premacy between the east and the west, 
 the north and the south—between the city 
 and the country' — it might happen that ar- 
 rangements might be made, that particular 
 candidates should run in particular sections, 
 so as to divide the strength of these sections 
 and lead to the success of a particular can- 
 didate, if the principle in the minority 
 report prevailed, and it might give rise to 
 these arrangements, and the result would 
 be, that a governor, chosen by a minority, 
 would be foisted on the people. He could 
 not consent to anything leading to the pos- 
 sibility of these occurrences, though it 
 might be alledged that the principle in the 
 minority report was the popular principle. 
 He contended that if the legislature_ made 
 the selection where there was not an abs3~ 
 lute majority, it was after all, the choice of 
 the people through their representatives. 
 The representatives of the people were the 
 mandatories of the people, and their choice, 
 it was reasonable to infer, would be the 
 choice of the people. It was a mistake to 
 suypose that where the representatives of 
 
200 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 the people anted on behalf of the people, it 
 was not the act of the people. 
 
 Mr. Kenner could not take this view of 
 the subject. He considered it very objec- 
 tionable to place the legislature between 
 the candidates and the people. While he 
 favored the principle of the minority report, 
 he preferred the phraseology of the majority 
 report, which could be amended in that par- 
 ticular respect. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne said, that experience had 
 demonstrated that the legislature would not 
 make an improper use of the power. For 
 thirty-two years they had invariably select- 
 ed the candidate for governor that had the 
 highest number of votes, when there was 
 no election by the people. It was not like- 
 ly they would pursue a different course, un- 
 less there were sufficient grounds for.it, and 
 in such cases, he conceived they should be 
 vested with the discretionary power ; as. 
 their choice would under such circum- 
 stances, be that of the people. 
 
 Mr. Lewis had a word or two to say in 
 reply to what fell from his friend from New 
 Orleans, (Mr. Conrad.) In the case sup- 
 posed by that gentleman, if three candidates 
 were to run, two obtaining almost an equal 
 vote and the third obtaining one hundred 
 votes less, should the legislature chose the 
 middle man, he (Mr. L.) would ask whether 
 there would not be a minority governor, 
 and a minority governor with a vengeance! 
 He was opposed to the legislature interven- 
 ing at all — if they selected the candidate 
 having the highest number of votes, their 
 intervention was useless ; if they selected 
 one of the others, their intervention would 
 give just cause of complaint. He was not 
 disposed to allow the legislature to mask 
 their power of electing the governor. If 
 they are to elect the governor at all, let it 
 be done as in South Carolina, in every in- 
 stance. He was for going the whole 
 length. Upon this subject, he disagreed 
 with some of those with whom it was his 
 pride and pleasure to act on most occasions, 
 and he might be called in reference to this 
 matter, a radical. In Massachusetts, when 
 there was no choice of governor at the first 
 election, the two highest candidates were 
 sent a second time before the people. The 
 objection to this plan was its inconvenience. 
 He was decidedly in favor of the principle 
 in the minority report. 
 
 Mr. Downs sustained the proposition to 
 
 substitute the 2d section of the minority re- 
 port for the 2d section of the report of the 
 majority. We have already had an exam- 
 ple in the federal government, that the 
 wishes of the people might not be consult- 
 ed, and that there might be gome bargain 
 or intrigue to defeat their wishes. 
 
 Mr. Marigny said, that in fact the legis- 
 lature ought not to intervene with election. 
 That the plurality of votes ought to suffice 
 when there was not an absolute majority. 
 The first station in a country, said Mr. Ma- 
 rigny, let it be filled by an officer called a 
 king or governor, was invariably an object 
 of intrigue, and sometimes of revolutions, 
 when it is not the people who elect imme- 
 diately. History abounds with examples. 
 He would refer particularly to the history 
 of Poland, where although the crown had 
 been elective, yet the election had been 
 confined to a mere fraction of the people. 
 In the election of the popes at Rome, the 
 cardinals are confined to their cells, in order 
 to prevent them from the intrigue and cabal 
 which would otherwise attend the election. 
 Does any one suppose, asked Mr. Marigny, 
 that the legislature, if they have the power, 
 will elect the plurality candidate to be go- 
 vernor? Not at all! They would elect the 
 greatest intriguer, and it might reasonably 
 be inferred, generally, that the candidate 
 having less votes among the people would 
 be the most active and most eager in de- 
 termining votes in the legislature. 
 
 Mr. Chinn moved that the substitute 
 and amendments be laid on the table and 
 called for the ayes and nays. 
 
 Yeas. — Messrs, Aiibert, Beatty, Benja- 
 min, Boudousquie, Bourg^ Cenas, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Cade, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 CuTbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, Leonard, Lewis, McCallop, Prescott 
 of St Landry, Preston, Prudhopime, Pugh, 
 Ratlijf, Roman, St. Amand, Saunders, 
 Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Trist, Voorhies, Winchester and 
 Winder — 43 yeas. 
 
 Nays. — Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Bur- 
 ton, Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, 
 Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, McRae,Marigny, 
 Mayo, CP Bryan, Peets, Porche, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Read, Scott of Ba- 
 ton Rouge, Scott of Madison, Taylor of As- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 201 
 
 sumption, Waddill and Wederstrandt — 24 
 nays. 
 
 Mr. 3Iayo then offered the following 
 amendment, to be inserted after the last 
 word "representatives,*" in the first para- 
 graph. 
 
 " The returns of every election shall be 
 sealed up and transmitted to the secretary 
 of state, who shall deliver them to the 
 speaker of the house of representatives to 
 examine the returns of the ejection. The 
 person having the highest number of vote 
 for governor shall be governor; but if two 
 or more shall be equal and highest in votes 
 for governor, one of them shall be chosen 
 governor by the joint vote of the members 
 of the general assembly." 
 
 Mr. Lewis then moved to strike out from 
 the nineteenth line the words, "If such num- 
 bers be a majority of all the votes given, 
 but if no person have such a majority then 
 from the two persons haying the highest 
 numbers on the list of those voted for as 
 governor, the general assembly shall choose 
 immediately by ballot the governor," and 
 insert in lieu thereof the words, " but if 
 two or more persons shall be equal and 
 highest in the number of votes polled for 
 governor, one of them shall be immediately 
 chosen governor, by joint vote of the mem- 
 bers of the general assembly." 
 
 Mr. Downs moved for a division, to take 
 the question upon striking out, when 
 
 Mr. Beatty announced that the hour 
 had arrived to take up the resolution for the 
 election of an additional reporter. 
 
 The question was taken upon the reso- 
 lution, and it was decided in the affirmative 
 by the casting vote of the President. 
 
 Mr. Wadswobth nominated Mr. Denis 
 Corcorax for reporter. 
 
 Mr. Splaxe nominated Mr. Ilsley. 
 
 The votes being counted, it appeared 
 that Mr. Ilsley was duly elected. 
 
 ^ hereupon, on motion, the Convention 
 adjourned. 
 
 Thursday, February 13, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment, and its proceedings were open I 
 ed with prayer by the Rev. Mr. Stephens. 
 
 Leave cf absence was granted to Messrs. I 
 Sellers and Wilder on account of sick- 1 
 ness. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies offered the following re- 
 solution: 
 
 Resolved, That all those members of the 
 Convention who do not answer to their 
 I names at 10 o'clock, when they are called, 
 I shall not be entitled to their per diem. 
 ! .Mr. Mayo moved, "except in case of 
 | the sickness of any member who may fail 
 to do so;" to 'which, no objection was 
 made. 
 
 Mr. Kennee was in favor of the motion, 
 and called for the sense of the house upon 
 it. The question was then put and lost. 
 
 Order of the Day. — Article 3d, Exe- 
 cutive Department; section 2d. 
 
 Mr. Dunn addressed the Convention on 
 the amendment proposed by Mr. Lewis on 
 the previous day, which was to strike out 
 all the following words: 
 
 "If such number be a majority of all the 
 votes given; but if no person have such a 
 majority, then from the two persons having 
 the highest number on the list of those 
 voted for as governor, the general assembly 
 shall choose immediately by ballot the 
 governor." 
 
 Mr. Dunn said, he was unwilling to give 
 a silent vote on this subject, and would 
 therefore give his reasons for his vote. 
 The governor he considered a very impor- 
 tant officer — he was charged with "the exe- 
 cution of the laws — he was clothed with 
 the veto power — the appointing power — ■ 
 the pardoning power — he was commander- 
 in-chief of the militia. In view of the mag- 
 nitude of this officer, he asked if it was 
 right or consistent with the fundamental 
 principles of democracy, that he should be 
 elected otherwise than by a majority of the 
 votes cast? He maintained that the will of 
 the majority of the whole people should be 
 required, directly at the ballot box, if pos- 
 sible, and if on a failure of any candidate's 
 receiving a majority, then the election to 
 be sent back to the people, or referred to 
 the legislature to make a choice from the 
 two highest. 
 
 He maintained that if a plurality of votes 
 were to elect, the governor would not feel 
 that responsibility to the people which he 
 conceived to be necessary for the perma- 
 nency of a representative government, and 
 was at a loss to understand why so many 
 gentlemen were unwilling to trust the legis- 
 lature: he was inclined himself to repose 
 a higher confidence in that tribunal; he es- 
 teemed the legislators as the representatives 
 and agents of the people; there might be 
 
•202 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 among them log rolling, but was unwilling 
 to disparage by supposing them dishonest; 
 he looked upon the legislature as a delibe- 
 rative and responsible body, with power to 
 make laws and to elect senators, and 
 thought, as a dernier resort, the election of 
 governor might be safely left to them; he 
 had no doubt it was far better, more expe- 
 dient and more consistent with democratic 
 principles to do so, than to have a gover- 
 nor elected by a mere plurality of votes, 
 for he held that the wish of the majority 
 should be manifested either at the ballot 
 box directly, or through the people's 
 agents, the legislature. 
 
 In some States the plurality system might 
 answer very well, but in a State like Lou- 
 isiana it would not do at all; in the country 
 the white population is sparse, -and it would 
 be giving to New Orleans the power of 
 making the governor. He was surprised 
 that gentlemen who yesterday feared the 
 influence of the city on account of numbers, 
 were to-day voting to insure her, if not now, 
 in ten years hence, all of our governors. 
 He said the tendency of the plurality sys- 
 tem would be to produce faction; that the 
 love of office was very great, and would 
 have its influence that way, and conse- 
 quently would be the means of causing a 
 multiplicity of candidates, and it would be 
 impossible for any one to get a majority; 
 the weakest and most objectionable might 
 be elected, one who might feel responsible 
 to his party and friends only. He confessed 
 he was surprised at the popularity of this 
 measure; considered it a sweep-stake race, 
 the foremost nag to take the purse, and had 
 no doubt there would be many entries, as 
 the forfeit is nothing, and the price of entry 
 only age and residence. Money orjproper- 
 ty belongs to the days gone by, and is re- 
 pudiated by this Convention, and not consid- 
 ered a necessary qualification. He said 
 there were many other reasons that might 
 be urged, .but as he was certain the Con- 
 vention were determined on their course, 
 he would not detain it longer, and would 
 only add as an additional reason that in- 
 duced him to vote as he should, the fact 
 that in this State there are two distinct 
 races — American and French; that hereto- 
 fore a great jealousy existed between them, 
 which time has in a great degree happily 
 effaced. He believed the plurality system 
 would have a tendency to re-kindle and in- 
 
 I flame that feeling, and knew that all think- 
 ing men would be pleased to obviate it. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, felt sure 
 that the desire of the Convention, or a ma- 
 jority of them, was to elect a chief magistrate 
 by a majority of the people, and the only 
 difficulty in his mind was how that was to 
 be done? He did not agree with some 
 members that the legislature would be able 
 to discriminate so as to bring abojit that 
 result, because a large majority of that le- 
 gislature frequently represented but a small 
 minority of the people, in the aggregate. 
 That arises from their being elected by lo- 
 calities. 
 
 The principles of this section, as report- 
 ed, has the very effect which some gentle- 
 men attributed to its opposite,viz: the causing 
 a multiplicity of candidates; but the plurality 
 principle brought two candidates before the 
 people, and therefore was most likely to 
 promote the desire that the majority should 
 rule. 
 
 The motion to strike out was called for 
 and the yeas and nays asked. Before the 
 vote was taken, Mr. Claiborne desired to 
 take exceptions to some remarks which had 
 fallen, as regards the principle of interfering 
 with the legislative will. He would always 
 advocate such expression, where there is 
 no expression or public will. He depre- 
 cates the danger there must and will be in 
 leaving the door open on such occasions; 
 and objects on that account to any such 
 plan going into effect. While at the same 
 time he thinks that the minority should not 
 have the power of defeating the will of the 
 majority; therefore he opposes the motion to 
 strike out. 
 
 The question was then put, and carried, 
 to strike out. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Brazeaie, 
 Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, 
 Cenas, Chambliss, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 Downs, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, Kenner, Leonard, Lewis, 
 McCallop, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, 
 Peets, Penn, Porche, Porter, Preston, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, St. Amand 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Madison, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Trist, Waddill, Wadsworth 
 and Wederstrandt — 48 ayes; and 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Briant, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, Derbes, 
 Dunn, King, Labauve, Legendre, O'Bryan, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 203 
 
 Roman, Taylor of St. Landry and Wikoff— 
 14 nays; so the motion to strike out pre- 
 vailed. 
 
 Mr. Lewis then moved to fill the blank 
 in the seventeenth line, with the words, 
 the person having the greatest number of 
 votes for governor, shall be declared duly 
 elected ; but if two or more persons shall 
 be equal and highest in number of votes 
 polled for governor, one of them shall be 
 immediately chosen governor by the joint 
 vote of the members of the general as- 
 sembly." • 
 
 Mr. Preston could not see the use of 
 this clause. He thought much valuable 
 time was lost in legislating for improbabili- 
 ties. It was far better to make a practical 
 constitution, than* waste our time on impro- 
 babilities y for it certainly never could be 
 contemplated or expected, that any of the 
 candidates would get an equal number of 
 votes, and therefore opposed the motion. 
 
 Mr. Conrad thinks the motion made is 
 a correct one, for such things have happen- 
 ed as in Massachusetts, in the case of Gov. 
 * Morton, and elsewhere, and may happen 
 again. 
 
 Mr. Preston thinks it never did, nor ever 
 would occur. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans, then ad- 
 verted to the fact of a tie vote being not an 
 uncommon thing, even" as near as the par- 
 ish of Ascension, where in several in- 
 stances on very important occasions, tie 
 votes had been given. He therefore thought 
 the amendment a wise and salutary one. 
 
 Motion to reject was put and lost, and then 
 the amendment was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Preston thought that the latter 
 clause should be stricken out, and moved 
 to strike it out. Moved and seconded. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson thought the same 
 principle should apply to the lieutenant 
 governor as to the governor's election. 
 
 Mr. Lewis wishing to test that principle 
 moved the adoption of the latter clause, in 
 which the sense of the house was taken, 
 and it was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Guion moved, that the report be 
 so amended that the words "secretary of 
 state" be inserted in place of the words 
 "speaker of the house," which was agreed 
 to. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to strike out all after 
 the word "representatives," in the fourth 
 line, as the commissioners contemplated by 
 
 the. report, might be faulty in their returns. 
 
 Mr. Downs is of opinion that the proper 
 mode would be to insert the words "proper 
 officer created by law," and made a motion 
 to that effect, which prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Soule desired the insertion of the 
 words "greatest number," in lieu of the 
 words beginning at the 24th line. 
 
 Mr. Mayo then moved to strike out all 
 after the word "elected," in the 8th line 
 down to the 15th line, and to insert "the 
 votes to be counted during the first week," 
 instead of the second day, "by joint vote, 
 &c," and then supposed the case of the 
 legislature not having a quorum on the 
 second day. 
 
 Mr. Lewis would much prefer the phrase- 
 ology should remain undisturbed, The 
 new legislature cannot commence without 
 a governor : again, the house might per- 
 haps disagree, as has happened elsewhere 
 in the election of senators ; in that case, as 
 in the case of the senators, who were not 
 elected by this disagreement, we should be 
 placed in the same position with regard to 
 a governor; and he is clearly of opinion 
 that it is right to fix a day for the legisla- 
 ture to do their duty. 
 
 Mr. Mayo withdrew his motion and the 
 question was then put on the section as 
 amended, and which reads as follows : 
 
 Sec. 2. The citizens entitled to vote for 
 representatives shall vote for a governor 
 and lieutenant governor, at the time and 
 place of voting for representatives. The 
 returns of every election shall be sealed 
 up and transmitted by the proper returning 
 officer created by law to the secretary of 
 state, who shall deliver them to the speaker 
 of the house of representatives, and on the 
 second day of the session of the general 
 assembly, then next to be holden, the mem- 
 bers of the general assembly shall meet in 
 the house of representatives to examine 
 and count the votes, the person having the 
 greatest number of votes for governor shall 
 be declared duly elected, but if two or more 
 persons shall be equal and highest in num- 
 ber of votes polled for governor, one of 
 them shall be immediately chosen governor 
 by the joint vote of the members of the 
 general assembly. The person having the 
 greatest number of votes for lieutenant gov- 
 ernor, shall be the lieutenant governor, but 
 if two or more persons shall be equal and 
 highest in number of votes polled for lieu- 
 
204 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 tenant governor, one of them shall be imme- 
 diately chosen lieutenant governor by the 
 joint vote of the members of the general 
 assembly. 
 
 Messrs. Auhert, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, 
 Chambliss, Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad 
 of Jefferson, CovilHon, Culbeftsori, Doivns, 
 Euslis, Garrett, Guion Hudspeth, Humble, 
 Hynson, Kenner, Ledoux, Leonard, Lewis, 
 McCallop, Marigny, Mazureau, McRae, 
 Mayo, Peets, Penn, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Prudhomme, Porclie, Porter, Pugh, 
 Ratliff, Read, Saunders, Splane, Stephens, 
 Soule, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Madi- 
 son, St. Amand, Trist, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Voorhies, Waddill, and Wederstrandt 
 — 52 ayes. 
 
 Messrs. Chinn, Derhes, Dunn, Garcia, 
 King, Labauve, Legendre, O' Bryan, Ro- 
 man, Roselius, Taylor of St. Landry, and 
 Wikoff- — 12 yeas; the section was therefore 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Roselius, while the vote was being 
 taken, desired to express his reason for 
 voting in the negative; it was, that in his 
 opinion, the section as it stood, gave the 
 power to a minority to elect a governor. 
 
 The 3d section was then taken up, it 
 reads as follows: "The governor shall be 
 ineligible for the succeeding four years af- 
 ter the expiration of the time for which he 
 shall have been elected." 
 
 Mr. Saunders moved a momentary sus- 
 pension of the rules of the house to make 
 a report from the apportionment committee. 
 Suspension granted. He then made said re- 
 port; asked that it be laid on the table and 
 made the special order of the day for Mon- 
 day next. Agreed to. 
 
 The 3d section was then adopted with- 
 out amendment, being the same as that in 
 the constitution of 1812. 
 
 The 7th section was then readopted as 
 in the constitution of 1812. 
 
 "Sec. 7. The governor shall at stated 
 times, receive for his services a compensa- 
 tion, which shall neither be increased nor 
 diminished during the term for which he 
 shall have been elected." 
 
 The 8th section was then taken up, and 
 Mr. Grymes moved to strike out in the 
 45th line all the words after the word "ex- 
 cept when in the service of the United 
 States." He felt that we should not, in 
 justice, require that our governor should be 
 
 the only man required to keep his sword 
 in the scabbard. On the contrary, he 
 would leave him free to act as circum- 
 stances and his duty to his country might 
 require. 
 
 Mr. Conrad did not regard it in the same 
 light as the delegate from the county of 
 Orleans, for although we may elect a gover- 
 nor of sufficient capacity for all the other 
 duties of the office, still if we made him the 
 commander of our forces in time of war or 
 invasion, he might not possess the proper 
 qualifications for a general. It had hereto- 
 fore been the custom to employ majors gen- 
 eral who had been trained to arms for such 
 a purpose. 
 
 Mr. Kenner thought for that reason that 
 the whole section was wrong, and moved 
 to reject it. To his mind the beginning 
 and the end of the section are totally at va- 
 riance. 
 
 Mr. Conrad here referred to the case of 
 Mr. Madison, who, although a very good 
 man, still made but a poor general when 
 called into service as commander-in-chief. 
 The sense of the house was taken on the 
 section as amended, and it was so adopted. 
 It reads thus: 
 
 Sec. 8. He shall be commander-in-chief 
 of the army ot this State and of the militia 
 thereof, except when they shall be called 
 into the service of the United States. 
 
 Section 9th then came up for discussion. 
 
 Mr. Splane moved to strike out the 
 whole section. 
 
 Mr. Downs thought it was improperly 
 printed, there being two copies of it in dif- 
 ferent parts of the house. 
 
 The secretary explained, that there were 
 certain sections reported as not requiring 
 amendment, which had been inserted in 
 the first printed copy. 
 
 Mr. Roman desired to take them in the 
 order adopted by the constitution. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to take them in the 
 order reported by the committee, which was 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Dunn moved to strike out all after 
 the second line, beginning at the word "na- 
 tive," &c. &c. 
 
 Mr. Dunn said he was induced' to m&ke^ 
 this motion from a sense of justice to the; 
 naturalized citizens of our State; many of 
 of them by a long residence have acquired 
 rights that should not be disregarded- 
 Whilst we admit the constitutional power 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 205 
 
 of this Convention to engraft the report of 
 the committee into the constitution* and 
 thereby preclude the natralized citizens from 
 filling the office of governor— -still we must 
 feel that in a moral point of view it would 
 be wrong to do so. It seemed to him to 
 be invidious and highly inexpedient. 
 
 It should be remembered, sir, that we | 
 have in our State many valuable citizens of 
 this class, who have been here a long time; 
 they have vested their all here; thei;e la- 
 hoi has been bestowed, and their capital 
 expended in the improvement of the coun- j 
 try; the constitution which we are called I 
 to amend, guaranteed to them the 
 privilege which is now asked to be taken 
 from them. And, sir, who called this Con- \ 
 vention? Who assisted in electing the dele- 
 gates here assembled] This very class ; 
 contributed in conferring upon us the power 
 we now have. Did they do so with the j 
 expectation of our curtailing the privileges 
 secured to them under the old constitution? 
 Surely not. Nor was it contemplated by ! 
 the people of the State, (those at least, who 
 reside in the parish I have the honor, in 
 part, of representing.) 
 
 He said he could see no necessity what- j 
 ever for the restriction insisted upon. That 
 many of our foreign friends had intermar- 
 ried with our families; their interests were 
 completely interwoven with our own, and 
 he should regard them as Americans, and 
 not doubt their patriotism. To draw the line 
 of distinction disparaging to them, would 
 be casting a fire-brand into the bosom of 
 society, that would be productive of great 
 discord — of great mischief. Sir, 1 ask if 
 it would be just, fair, or honorable, to cur- 
 tail them of those rights which they have 
 enjoyed for so long a time under the old 
 constitution? I shall not sanction it. I 
 consider it r under the circumstances, wrong, 
 and shall vote to strike out the word "na- 
 tive." Let the time be limited to sixteen 
 years' residence as a citizen of the United 
 States, and to ten years' residence in the 
 State, and we shall have a sufficient guar- 
 antee of interest and attachment to the 
 country. _ This, he said, he considered 
 conservative — all extremes he looked upon 
 as radical. 
 
 Mr. President, it should be remembered 
 that in the Florida parishes there are many 
 good men, who were born there prior to the 
 acquisition of that part of our State— thev 
 27 
 
 are not American born; would you deprive 
 them of any 'privilege ? For instance, our 
 worthy friend Mr. Carpenter, (the sergeant 
 at arms,) was born in Florida, under the 
 Spanish government; would you deprive 
 him of the privilege of being our governor?" 
 (The gentlemen around me say that will 
 be provided for.) To provide for it, sir, is 
 to make another distinction — let us avoid 
 that, and say in the liberality of our hearts 
 that we will give no ground of complaint 
 to any of our people, whether they come 
 from Florida, or come across the big 
 waters. 
 
 He said it was painful to differ with those 
 with whom he usually concurred, but was 
 bound to do so upon this occasion — he was 
 aware that there was a great prejudice at 
 this time against foreigners ; he felt the 
 force of it himself, and was admonished to 
 be just; he believed the naturalization laws 
 required amendment; but this was not the 
 forum — the subject belonged to congress; 
 and he had no doubt with some altera- 
 tion that would prevent frauds upon the 
 elective franchise, all prejudice would be 
 removed, and the public mind tranqualized. 
 This Convention has already done some- 
 thing that he considered calculated to pre- 
 vent fraud, and he expected would do more 
 before it adjourned; but he was unwilling 
 to go to any extreme upon this or any other 
 subject that may arise in our deliberations. 
 
 Mr. Lewis was opposed to striking out 
 one word of the provision made in the sec- 
 tion; aye, to striking out one single it'ord. 
 Gentlemen may as well meet this question at 
 once; and he regards the motion to strike out 
 as a test vote on the principles of the whole 
 section. I regard the provision to be a 
 good one. There are so many in favor of 
 none but a citizen of the United States 
 ever becoming a governor of a State, that 
 we may well pause and examine the ques- 
 tion. This is no novel question; if it were 
 why then have New York, Maine, Virginia 
 and many other States, engrafted it in their 
 constitutions? Are they less liberal, less 
 patriotic, less democratic in their views 
 than we are? 1 think not. No' sir, it is a 
 measure called for by sound policy, and, 
 sir, I desire to record my vote upon it, 
 whether it pass or not, for the benefit of 
 my children, that they may look upon and 
 reflect upon my vote upon this question 
 when I am no more. Moreover, I think , 
 
206 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 sir, the provision requiring the governor 
 to be possessed bona-fide of landed property 
 to the value of $5000 before eligible to the 
 office, a wise provision. I deem a property- 
 qualification in the person filling such an of- 
 fice an important pre-requisite. But 1 re- 
 gret that this question was called up until 
 the question of the pre-requisites for a seat 
 as senator, had been settled. It would have 
 been far better to have settled that question 
 first; and then we should have better known 
 what guards ought to be thrown around the 
 claimants for executive favor at the hands 
 of the people. Desiring to secure the in- 
 terests of the whole people, I would dislike 
 to see a man elected governor, with power 
 under the legislature to tax the people, 
 without his being called upon to aid in 
 such revenue. But if the motion to strike 
 out prevail, the chances are that the first 
 governor under the new constitution will 
 have no property qualifications. What in- 
 terest can he then have in looking to the 
 taxing power, having no taxes himself to 
 pay? The taxing power has always been 
 considered the most important in the gov- 
 ernment of any free State or country. If 
 the governor possesses nothing to tax, self 
 interest is taken away, and when that is ta- 
 ken away I fear for the interests of the com- 
 munity, either from disregard or in-atten- 
 tion on his part to the interests of his fel- 
 low citizens. I think the property qualifi- 
 cation recommended, to be the best guaran- 
 tee for such protection of equality on the 
 taxing power. It has been suggested that 
 nothing but residence is requisite. Now, 
 sir, I for one am opposed totally to that 
 doctrine. I desire no uncertainty left, for 
 a popular election to decide the merits of; 
 I desire to see the principle fixed that we 
 cannot be left to any such chance as that, 
 the country is to be goverecl by those who 
 . have no property at stake themselves. 
 Moreover, 1 think that the governor of the 
 State should first arrive at the years of dis- 
 cretion. To be at the helm of affairs where 
 such vast interest? are concerned, requires 
 that many frosts shall have passed over the 
 head of any man of 21 years ere he can be 
 suffered to have arrived at such an age as to 
 pass for a man arrived at the years of dis- 
 cretion. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson thought it would be bet- 
 ter to divide the question, but the president 
 decided it could not be divided. 
 
 Mr. Beatty thinks it would be better to 
 strike out a part of it. He would strike 
 out the first clause, for we have not the 
 right under the constitution of the United 
 States, to deprive any citizen of another 
 State, who has the necessary residence 
 under our constitution, from being the gov- 
 ernor of the State; secondly, he would strike 
 out the property qualification, but in orde- 
 to guard against all danger, he would sug- 
 gest that it be required of him that he shall 
 have been a citizen of the United States 
 for at least ten years before he can be eli- 
 gible to the office of governor of the State 
 of Louisiana. 
 
 Mr. Grymes thought this was a circuit- 
 ous way of arriving at the question; he 
 wants the vote taken on striking out, and 
 then, if that fail, it can be so amended as to 
 take in or leave out particular parts of the 
 section. 
 
 Mr. Downs thought that the experience 
 of the previous day would have shown the 
 fallacy of such a course. 
 
 Mr. Dunn persisted in his motion to 
 strike out, particularly the word native. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to strike out all after 
 the word " except" in the 2nd line to the 
 8th line. 
 
 Mr. Conrad is of opinion that the con- 
 stitutional objection raised on this question, 
 by the member from Lafourche, is perfectly 
 untenable and unfounded. For his part he 
 thinks the convention has the power to 
 make the requirements of citizenship 15 
 years, or in fact any time they please. The 
 Congress of the United States provides 
 that he must have been a citizen of the U. 
 States a certain number of years before he 
 can be eligible, and that none but a native 
 citizen can be president of the U. States. 
 There is nothing in the constitution of the 
 United States, denying the power of the 
 several States from settling themselves, the 
 qualifications of their own chief magis- 
 trates. It is no new question. I would 
 refer to the State of Maine and would read 
 from the constitution one of its clauses. 
 The governor to be eligible, shall not be 
 less than thirty years of age, and he must 
 be a natural born citizen of the U. States. 
 
 Mr. Beatty feels yet perfectly satisfied 
 that it is prohibited in the constitution of the 
 United States, for the Convention to make 
 any such provision. If we can, why not 
 confine it to native born citizens of Louisi- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 207 
 
 ana? No citizen, in his opinion, from an} 7 
 other State should be placed on a different 
 footing, than if he were born in this State. 
 No limit should be placed, except the term 
 of residence, and that he conceives to be a 
 right of the Convention. He thinks the 
 age of 35 years a just and equitable right 
 on their part to fix upon as a pre-requisite 
 qualification for a governor, but beyond 
 that he is opposed to their power, as con- 
 flicting with the constitution of the United 
 States. 
 
 Mr. Taylor: while he agreed that his 
 mind' was impressed with the views of 
 the member from New Orleans, will yet 
 vote for the measure recemmended by the 
 member from Lafourche. 
 
 He agrees with the member from New 
 Orleans, that the argument about the Uni- 
 ted States and a single State is entirely dif- 
 ferent. It is said by the member from La- 
 fourche, that one who is a citizen of any 
 one State shall be entitled to the same privi- 
 leges in any other State. I do not believe 
 in any such broad construction. If the 
 State herself wants to make a distinction 
 among her own citizens, and does so, oth- 
 ers coming into the State have no right to 
 complain. He might then challenge • our 
 right to exclude him. We exclude not only 
 the naturalized citizen of the United States, 
 but also all the naturalized citizens of Lou- 
 isiana. It would then amount to the exclu- 
 sion of the naturalized citizen, and there 
 would be no discrimination, because we 
 should all see at once there was no differ- 
 ence between those from other States and 
 our own citizens. But the executive of the 
 State, it is said, is to be entrusted with the 
 power of commander of the army and navy 
 of the State and United States, yet it is 
 known that all foreign negotiations, the de- 
 claration of war, &c, are entrusted, by the 
 constitution, to the general government. 
 They have the power to make all foreign 
 negotiations, to declare war, dec, and 
 should war be declared, there is no proba- 
 bility of any naturalized citizen interfering 
 in such case with our rights; for this reason 
 I shall vote to strike out. 
 
 Mr. Bbext said he desired to offer a few 
 remarks on this important question. He 
 considered it clear, that this State had no 
 power to adopt the section now under de- 
 bate, as reported by the committee. All 
 would admit, even those who were most 
 
 zealous in upholding the rights of the States 
 that no State sovereignty had any right to 
 destroy the effect of legislation by the fed- 
 eral government, when that legislation was 
 authorized by the national constitution. 
 This was the question at issue, and to this 
 point he desired to direct a few observa- 
 tions. 
 
 The 4th paragraph of the 8th section of 
 the 1st article of the constitution of the 
 United States, declares that "Congress shall 
 have power to establish an uniform rule 
 of naturalization, throughout the United 
 States." By this article the several States 
 ceded to the general government all con- 
 trol over the subject of naturalization, and 
 consequently any legislation which it may 
 have adopted upon the subject must be re- 
 garded as paramount and supreme. Has 
 this power been exercised by the general 
 government, and if so, can its action be 
 nullified and set at nought by the authority 
 of one of the States? These are the en- 
 quiries which naturally suggest themselves 
 to the # attention of the Convention. 
 
 Uniform rules of naturalization have 
 been established by the general govern- 
 ment, and Congress has declared that im- 
 migrants to this country, who reside here 
 five years and pursue certain formalities, 
 shall be entitled to all the rights and privi- 
 leges of American citizens. .This legisla- 
 tion cannot be counteracted or countervail- 
 ed by any exercise of power upon the part 
 of the States'. He who has the act of Con- 
 gress and the judgment of a court in his fa- 
 vor, is to all intents and purposes an Amer- 
 ican citizen. His citizenship cannot be 
 invalidated or nullified by any law emana- 
 ting from a State authority. 
 
 Itls true that this Convention has power 
 to affix any qualification it pleases for him 
 who aspires to the office of governor, with 
 this reservation, that in so doing it does not 
 make any distinction between American 
 citizens. This the constitution of the Uni- 
 ted States expressly prohibits, for in the 2d 
 section of the 4th article it declares that the 
 citizens of each State shall be entitled to all 
 the privileges and immunities of citizens in 
 the several States. The language is* clear, 
 unambiguous and comprehensive. The ob- 
 ject of it is, to place every American citizen 
 upon the same footing of equality. The 
 constitution does not speak of native or na- 
 turalized citizens, but its broad shield -is 
 
208 
 
 Debates In the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 thrown over all who, by birth or by law, 
 arc entitled to the inestimable privileges of 
 American citizenship. It issues its man- 
 date to the several States, and it forbids 
 them, with the strong voice of supreme au- 
 thority, from enacting any distinction in 
 favor or against the citizens of each particu- 
 lar State. Should you pass the clause now 
 under debate, such a distinction would be 
 created, and thus the fundamental law of 
 the Union would be disregarded and tram- 
 pled under foot. A native citizen from 
 Mississippi, for instance, coming to this 
 State would be eligible to the office of 
 governor, but a naturalized citizen from any 
 other State would be rejected and excluded 
 from that office. Would this not be clearly 
 creating a distinction in one State, between 
 citizens of the several States? Could it 
 then be said that the citizens of each State 
 had been vested with the privileges and im- 
 munities of citizens in all the States? If 
 not, then most undeniably and unequivocal- 
 ly, the State authorities of Louisiana will 
 have violated and destroyed the integrity of 
 the federal constitution. Other States may 
 have usurped this power, but, Mr. Presi- 
 dent, (said Mr. Brent) I will never give my 
 vote to sanction such an usurpation. I will 
 cheerfully support the motion which has 
 been made to strike out the clause requi- 
 ring that the governor should be a native 
 citizen of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Saunders thinks there is an error 
 on the minds of gentlemen who- have spoken 
 on this constitutional question, as to our 
 right to define the qualifications of our go- 
 vernor. 
 
 He views the language of the constitu- 
 tion in its literal sense, not in the broad 
 sense which the gentleman from Rapides 
 appears to do. The constitution does not 
 say that a citizen of another Stale shall have 
 a right to hold the office in any particular 
 State. Why, if so, a citizen of Mississippi 
 could be balloted for, and claim a right, if 
 elected by the people of Louisiana, to be 
 our governor. According to the view which 
 the gentleman from Rapides appears to take 
 of the matter, citizens of other States shall 
 enjoy the same privileges and immunities 
 they enjoyed in their own State. If so, a 
 citizen of Massachusetts, coming here would 
 have the right to vote as he voted under the 
 laws of his own State. There, as in New 
 York, negroes are entitled to vote, and if 
 
 such doctrine prevail, negroes would have 
 a right here. His reason for retaining the 
 word "native" in the section, is simply be- 
 cause he thinks the governor should be a 
 native born citizen in the time of war, 
 which may occur at any moment. IJe re- 
 ferred to a certain former governor, who 
 with all other good qualities, would have 
 been placed in a dilemma in case we 
 should have, in his term, been at war with 
 France. No man can be expected to act 
 with the same energy and fidelity against 
 his native land as his duty would require of 
 him. He therefore shall vote to exclude 
 foreigners from the right of being governor 
 of the State of Louisiana. 
 
 Mr. Brent rose to explain, but the Pres- 
 ident reminded him, that without permission 
 of the house, he could not speak again on 
 that subject, which being immediately 
 granted, he stated that the construction 
 placed upon his remarks by the member 
 from East Feliciana, (Mr, Saunders) was 
 incorrect; for no native or adopted citizen 
 would be entitled to vote immediately on 
 his arrival. He did not contend for any 
 such principle; what he contended for was 
 this, that we are expressly told by the con- 
 stitution of the United States itself that no 
 distinction shall be drawn between a na- 
 tive and an adopted citizen, in their rights 
 and immunities. Whenever the foreigner 
 has complied with the law of congress, the 
 rights and immunities of each, shall be one 
 and identically the same, and any other 
 construction than this on the words of the 
 constitution cannot be sustained. 
 
 Mr. Conrad then addressed the Conven- 
 tion: We all know, Mr. President, that 
 birth and citizenship are not synonomous 
 terms. We all agree that none but citizens 
 of Louisiana shall vote, nor be elected go- 
 vernor. I cannot perceive how the clause 
 in the constitution referred to, can have any 
 thing to do with the question we are de- 
 bating. 
 
 Mr. Preston rose not to detain the house 
 for but very minutes, as they had kindly 
 listened to him on a previous occasion 
 when a similar principle was discussed. 
 The only argument used is this, that the 
 executive being now made commander in 
 chief of the army and navy; that in the time 
 of war a foreign born citizen would not, 
 and could not do justice at such a time to 
 the State, He thinks this argument en- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 209 
 
 tirely futile and erroneous. In the first 
 place, we ought not to take war or the pos- 
 sibility of war, into consideration in this 
 case at all. We are moreover, not likely 
 to have war for a long period to come, at 
 least. The progress of civilization taken 
 in connexion with the present civilized 
 state of the world, 'will present the re- 
 currence of wars. But suppose there were 
 a war, who declares war? not this State; 
 and suppose the case might happen, that 
 in such an emergency, an adopted citizen 
 should happen to be governor of Louisiana, 
 and that his loyalty were doubted? a reme- 
 dy for the case could easily be provided. 
 When he becomes a citizen of the United 
 States he renounces all allegiance to for- 
 eign countries. His feelings and his inte- 
 rests become identified with our institu- 
 tions and our laws; he respects and obeys. 
 It is constantly before his mind that he has 
 exchanged a land of oppression for a land 
 of freedom, and according to the experience 
 1 have had of the adopted citizens' feelings, 
 I regard them as faithful and constant as 
 that of any citizen amongst us. Besides, 
 let me call your attention to the fact that 
 during the revolution, and also during the 
 last war, we called them into our ranks as 
 officers and soldiers; and what instance 
 have we ever had of their want of loyalty, 
 courage or patriotism? None. 
 
 Then do not let us legislate upon a doubt. 
 I conceive, (said Mr. Preston) that it would 
 be a violation of principle. Young aspir- 
 ing men there are in professional and plant- 
 ing interests (whom chance decreed should 
 draw their breath in a foreign country,) 
 there are, who ought not to be, must not 
 be, prevented from the highest honorable 
 aspirations. Again, suppose a man comes 
 from Europe with a child two years of 
 age, in due time the parent becomes a citi- 
 zen, and makes a good one. By his labor 
 and his usefulness he prospers, and in due 
 course of time he sends that son to school, 
 where my child also goes. They continue 
 there together for years; his child is smart- 
 er than mine, he progresses faster, and 
 finally becomes a man, much more intelli- 
 gent than mine ever will be. His whole 
 youth has been passed here, his whole in- 
 terests are here, and have ever been here. 
 Is it right to deprive that man of the same 
 privileges my son enjoys from the mere ac- 
 
 cident of his not being a native born? It 
 is unjust, it is invidious, and no principle 
 like that ought to be entertained for a 
 single moment. I hope, and 1 think, that 
 the sense of justice of this Gonvention will 
 induce members to vote as I shall, to reject 
 the clause. 
 
 Mr. Grymes intended to pass by the 
 matter under discussion without any no- 
 tice, but in the course of the debate, he 
 was amazed at the constitutional question, 
 which had been raised by the member from 
 Lafourche, (Mr. Beatty,) and argued and 
 commented upon so strenuously by the 
 member from Rapides, (Mr. Brent.) For 
 the first time in my life, said Mr. Grymes, 
 have I heard such ideas as are now ad- 
 vanced; there is no article in the con- 
 stitution, which, speaking for itself; says 
 that it has a tendency to deprive this 
 State, or any other State, of the sover- 
 eign power to regulate the qualifications of 
 officers in this, or any other State. Under 
 several similar regulations in other States, 
 it is now clearly settled, that each State 
 has a constitutional right to define the 
 qualification of electors, and further, to de- 
 fine what the qualifications of those who 
 aspire to office shall be. It has been stated 
 on this floor that there is no impartial or 
 fair dispensation made in the pale of the 
 constitution of the U. S., in support of the 
 principles that we are contending for should 
 prevail. What then are those principles? 
 It is asserted on this floor that the 2d sec- 
 tion of the 4th article of the constitution 
 says, ''that the citizens of each State shall 
 be entitled to all the privileges and im- 
 munities of the several States." Now, 
 Mr. President, how can impartial dispensa- 
 tion be had, unless those States who have 
 never parted with their sovereignty shall 
 have the right and privilege of regulating 
 not only of their own domestic relation and 
 affairs, but also the right of making a pro- 
 per qualification for every officer in their 
 government, beginning at the governor and 
 thence descending to the most minor of- 
 fices. But, sir, we have been told by. the 
 gentleman from the parish of Rapides, (Mr. 
 Brent,) that after the luminous exposition 
 he has given us of constitutional law, 
 that no one can pretend to take the field 
 against him on that question. For my own 
 part, I am willing to pass .by the constitu- 
 
210 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 tional logic of the gentleman; and why, 
 because I think that if he be serious in the 
 principles which he has advanced, he will 
 dispute the right of the State of Louisiana 
 to meet and debate upon what shall be her 
 organic laws of future government. 
 
 The next position that gentlemen have 
 rung so many changes upon on this floor, 
 is on the question of the expediency, whe- 
 ther we should or should not make any dis- 
 crimination between those who were native 
 born and those who were adopted citizens. 
 I ask any gentleman here present, be he a 
 native citizen or be he an adopted citizen 
 of the United States, whether he can ever 
 cease to love the country of his birth? If 
 he does so, he is no advantage to this coun- 
 try, and is not fit to remain in it. If native 
 born Americans could ever forget the soil 
 on which they were born, disfranchise 
 every one of them; cast them off sooner 
 than the foreigners who come here, either 
 for their interest or their pleasure. But, 
 sir, that is impossible; no native born Ame- 
 rican that loves the country in which he 
 was born, and glories in her free institu- 
 tions ever can or will do so. Now let us 
 look at the case of the foreigner; the laws 
 of nature can never be reversed; God im- 
 plants that sentiment, "the love of country 
 in our hearts,'' and no sophistry, and no 
 metaphysics can deprive him of those sen- 
 timents which the God of nature has made 
 our natural impulse. What then would be 
 the situation of the State of Louisiana provi- 
 ded we were to have a governor born in a for- 
 eign country in the time of war! A sudden 
 eruption may not happen, but it has hap- 
 pened, and it may happen again. Can we 
 expect that man to use all his energies? al- 
 though he may not act overtly treasonably, 
 or in any other way against the laws and 
 institutions of the country; still is it to be 
 supposed that he can ever forget the coun- 
 try of his birth? The voice of nature is 
 louder than the voice of honor, and then 
 what follows? The governor halts between 
 duty and feeling, while the native born 
 American citizen loving and cherishing the 
 land of his nativity, steps forth at the first 
 cry of invasion s nd defends her rights," 
 and meets the invader's first footsteps. 
 Suppose in the ease of war we have in our 
 governor a foreigner; no man doubts him 
 e ither in his integrity or otherwise; he sits 
 in his cabinet and appears to do all that is 
 
 required of him under the law, and yet er- 
 rors may creep into his proceedings which 
 will be fatal not only to the interests of Our 
 own State, but also to the' interests of our 
 common country. To presume that "in ha 
 ture, which in nature is not," is a mockery 
 and a farce. Men coming from a foreign 
 country cannot be politically born again, 
 although they go through the form of natu- 
 ralization in this country. This love of 
 their own country holds them in thraldom 
 and paralyzes their exertions whentheirown 
 country is concerned. He (Mr. G.) regards 
 the elevation of a foreigner to office as gover- 
 nor of the State of Louisiana, perhaps more 
 to be dreaded than from any other reason 
 (that he has yet advanced,) for the follow- 
 ing: 
 
 In the first place let us imagine we had 
 a German elected governor; second place, 
 an Irishman; third place, a Scotchman; 
 fourth place, an Englishman; and fifth place 
 a Frenchman. Now then our community 
 is made up of Creoles proper. French 
 Creoles, native French, native Americans, 
 Germans, Irish, Scotch, and English. 
 
 Well, if either of the above five different 
 classes should be fortunate enough to have 
 one of their tribe elected, what a rejoicing 
 there would be; and why, because, as a 
 matter of course, they would get all the 
 offices among the countrymen and asso- 
 ciates of the man elected. Some men ad- 
 vance the idea that no such thing could 
 possibly exist; but those who have been 
 watching the impulses of the human heart, 
 and their natural tendencies, or the actions 
 of men, will be at no loss to ascribe to 
 them their proper position. You know 
 that this world is made up of jealousies, 
 and that it is a world of strife between man 
 and man; and more especially in our Lonsi- 
 ana, it is so between the different sects of 
 foreigners amongst us. These are proverbial 
 truths and susceptible of every day's de- 
 monstration. Our State is filling up rapid- 
 ly with Germans, Irish, Scotch and Eng- 
 lish, and the people of all nations. Is it to 
 be supposed, that if we had a German gov- 
 ernor he would forget his German brethren 
 in the distribution of the offices within his 
 gift? Certainly not; and if he did not do 
 it, he would be a man who has no sympa- 
 thy or fellow feeling with his-countrymen. 
 This is not doubted by them. They are 
 attached to each other strongly by their 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 211 
 
 mother tongue, and their love of "fader 
 and." So with the Irish, the English and 
 
 of the executive and judiciary, the poor 
 American citizen knocks at your door, and 
 
 .he Scotch. The German then gives the j asks you to reserve and protect one right, 
 offices within his gift to his brethren, the ! and at least give him one privilege: that this 
 Germans. What a hubbub among: the j Convention will find it in their hearts to 
 
 Irish, English and Scotch ! ! ! The Irish 
 governor distributes the "loaves and fishes" 
 among his countrymen. 
 
 The Scotchman and the Englishman 
 cannot be unmindful of their natural feel- 
 ings, and then in such an event what is the 
 result] Dissensions, difficulties, heart- 
 bickerings steps in. and discord reigns 
 throughout, and amongst whom? — why 
 amongst the very people we profess it 
 is our desire to serve. Now, sir. 
 let us look at the other side of the medal. 
 If there be a preference to be given in this 
 question, it is to a native born American; 
 and, sir, whenever you see in our country 
 a native born citizen applying for an office, 
 he occupies, as he ought to do, the first 
 rank; and when lie comes forward there is no 
 disconent; the passions and the excitement 
 of all the foreigners die away; and why? 
 Reason tells them, common sense tells 
 them, that the offices of the country and 
 State in which they live naturally be- 
 longs to them. 
 
 The foreigner in such a case has nothing 
 to appeal to to raise a cabal, a faction, or 
 or party. All experience has shown that 
 when that question is raised every tongue 
 is silent. 
 
 The American character, however, for 
 the last twelve years, has measurably been 
 one of a yielding disposition, a kind of neu- 
 tral character, hardly seeming to care who 
 got the offices, as they had something bet- 
 ter to attend to. Xow, when the question 
 and right is raised, you will rind every i 
 young American at his post. >But while I 
 say this I say more, that distinguished and ' 
 able foreigners will always be welcome, 
 not only in Louisiana, but in every part of 
 our common country, to share the posts of 
 duty. 
 
 But, sir, shall we not have the poor con- 
 solation in Louisiana? Shall we not have 
 one scintilla of American pride and feeling 
 left? Shall we be deprived of one single 
 item to hang on to, in making our new con- 
 stitution? In a word, is the boon too great 
 to ask at the hands of this Convention, that 
 while the foreigners are cared for, espe- 
 cially in ail else, in the offices and favors 
 
 say no — I do not believe they will. 
 
 Mr. Soule moved to adjourn, desiring to 
 address the Convention on this subject to- 
 morrow. 
 
 The Convention then adjourned. 
 
 President, in the Chair. 
 Waeeex opened the sit- 
 
 Friday, February 14th, 1545. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 Air. "Walker, 
 
 The Rev. Air. 
 ting with prayer. 
 
 Leave of absence was granted to Messrs. 
 Covillion and Hynson. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff offered a resolution to au- 
 thorize the committee on contingent ex- 
 penses to pay the sergeant-at-arms thirty 
 dollars, being for thirty days services of the 
 boy Leon, hired by him, to clean up the 
 hall used by the Convention. The resolu- 
 tion w T as adopted. 
 
 The Convention then took up the Order 
 of the Day — being the same under discus- 
 sion yesterday. 
 
 Mr. So "CLE having yesterday expressed 
 his desire to address the house on this sub- 
 ject, would call their attention to a few re- 
 marks he desired to make on it. 
 
 The question yesterday debated has other 
 important features, in the same section, 
 which should recommend it to the rebuke of 
 this house, and he desires to lay them be- 
 fore the Convention in such relief as will 
 show the spirit in which they were con- 
 ceived. He acknowledges that the matters 
 which were under discussion yesterday, 
 were very important, of sufficient impor- 
 tance to command the attention of and to 
 excite the eloquence of the gentleman who 
 then spoke. This question lias already been 
 presented in a different form. Then it was 
 known how the members for restriction 
 would vote. The question was the right of 
 suffrage, in which was involved the question 
 now agitated. The same spirit of jealousy 
 which then existed now exists, and the at- 
 tempt is now made to introduce the measure 
 into debate, and to cover it with a seeming 
 spirit of generosity, and they now desire to 
 justify themselves and to make it appear 
 that they do not wish to make a difference 
 
212 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 between the members of this body and the 
 citizens, and that they have no desire to 
 bring nativeism into the question; but he 
 rejoices that they have shown it to us in its 
 naked deformity, by asking us to draw a line 
 of distinction between one citizen and ano- 
 ther. He has listened with an attentive 
 ear to the arguments used in support of the 
 section, but however eloquent and brilliant 
 was the effect, it is nevertheless certain 
 that powerful genius is powerless when op- 
 posed to the principle of truth, however 
 much it may be sought to be disguised. He 
 says it is impossible to vindicate this mea- 
 sure. As he said on a former occasion, 
 "without equality there could he no justice." 
 This principle is not to be denied in a re- 
 publican government; it is a primary right 
 that all citizens shall be on an equal footing, 
 and if that be correct he thinks he shall be 
 able to show to the Convention that it does 
 not fall within their power to divest any 
 member of this social compact or partner- 
 ship of any of the primary rights appertain- 
 ing to him without his expressed consent. 
 He feels great delicacy in his own position 
 on this question, but hopes the Convention 
 will do him the justice to believe, that, un- 
 less he had conceived that by his silence on 
 the subject it would be supposed thai he 
 had been convinced by the brilliant oratory 
 of the gentleman from New Orleans, he 
 should have abstained from addressing the 
 Convention, and been content to give a 
 silent vote on the measure. 
 
 Neither the confidence with which the 
 member from Assumption, (Mr. Taylor) had 
 asserted that it was an incontrovertible 
 truth, that we had the right to prohibit any 
 particular class of citizens from becoming 
 governor, nor the ingenious interpretation 
 which , the member from East Feliciana, 
 (Mr. Saunders) sought to give to the fede- 
 ral compact in order to sustain this section, 
 had been able to convince him. He has 
 not dared to suffer himself to be carried 
 away by the luxuries of fancy indulged in 
 by the member from Orleans, (Mr. Grymes) 
 in opposition to the arguments he appears 
 so much to disregard. 
 
 Does the right exist to make a distinction 
 between citizens of the same country? 
 
 This is the true, the only question to de- 
 termine. Mr. Beatty, immediately after the 
 candid and manly course of Mr. Dunn, in 
 sisted that it was unconstitutional; notwith 
 
 standing the arguments of the gentlemen of 
 a contrary opinion, He (Mr. S.) thinks, that 
 the doctrine of Mr. Beatty, of which Mr. 
 Taylor admits the. results, and of which 
 doctrine the member from Rapides has so 
 admirably maintained the principles, is' the 
 pure and sound doctrine; and that it is and 
 was so regarded as well by the greatest 
 statesmen of the past as of the present day, 
 and that it has been considered the only 
 tenable doctrine, by the ablest writers of 
 the country. In retaining this odious fea- 
 ture in our fundamental laws, we are told 
 we are but following the example of the 
 framers of the federal compact. 
 
 Let us see how the States have sustained 
 this doctrine. When the country was un- 
 der excitement; when the two parties were 
 fighting for power, even in the very halls of 
 Congress, and when it was to be feared that 
 some unholy feeling for one of two nations 
 of Europe, should be the base upon which 
 they would build their hopes of success for 
 federal power, then the restriction was 
 judged necessary that none but a native 
 born citizen should be eligible to the office 
 of president of thejUnited States* But it is 
 nevertheless true, that then, as now, this 
 measure was considered an exception to the 
 general rule, and it will not be denied that 
 in that case more than all others, it showed 
 the sanctity of the feelings of the framers of 
 the constitution; for while it was a settled 
 rule that all were equal, for the sake of ex- 
 pediency they engrafted the strange pro- 
 vision of depriving foreigners of that right. 
 It was then determined that all citizens 
 were equal, and were entitled to the same 
 privileges, but policy, or rather the expedi- 
 ency of the moment, required that foreigners 
 should be excluded from the highest office 
 in the country. The framers of the consti- 
 tution, after they had made this one excep- 
 tion, showed their wisdom by depriving the 
 States of the power to do the same thing. 
 Mr. Brent showed yesterday most conclu- 
 sively to his mind, by reference to the pre- 
 cise words of the constitution, "the citi- 
 zens of each State shall be entitled to all 
 the privileges and immunities of citizens in 
 the several States;" that the framers of that 
 instrument, most clearly intended to pro- 
 hibit the States from following their exam- 
 ple, by thus placing (except in that particu- 
 lar case) all the citizens of the republic on 
 the same footing of perfect equality. The 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 213 
 
 gentlemen who differ with us in opinion 
 maintain confidently the adverse position: 
 that signifies nothing, said Mr. Saunders, 
 (if lam mistaken in the gentleman's words 
 I desire to be corrected.) it is nothing more 
 than a guarantee that the citizens in every 
 State shall have the right to acquire gen- 
 eral rights under the constitution in the 
 several States. He (Mr. S.) is bold enough 
 to assert that such a construction is untena- 
 ble: that it is a construction de tying the 
 spirit in which it was established: it is then 
 construction and not ours; but tor fear of 
 error he will read the article again. (Here 
 he read the article.) 
 
 Mr. Brext, with whom he (Mr. S.) shall 
 vote on this question, clearly showed that 
 the intention of the trainers of the constitu- 
 tion was, that the citizens of one State 
 should not be regarded as strangers in any 
 other State, but that in all things they 
 should be regarded as equal to the citizens 
 of that State. Mr. Grymes affects to be- 
 lieve in this interpretation of Mr. Brent's, 
 that the idea is a novel one, and indulged 
 in a vein of humor and wit in endeavoring 
 to rebut it: but wit and railery are not ar- 
 guments. If any one has advanced a novel 
 idea on this subject it is Mr. Grymes him- 
 self, and he (Mr. S.) will endeavor to prove 
 it. The member from New Orleans, who 
 first took the floor on this subject, endeavor- 
 ed to expound to the Convention that ine- 
 quality was not thought of by the framers 
 of the constitution* To maintain that posi- 
 tion he had to presume that when that clause 
 which I have cited was made part of the 
 constitution, that convention had not even 
 cast a thought on the naturalization laws: 
 but could the honorable member have based 
 an argument on such a supposition? The 
 hypothesis is however excusable, particu- 
 larly as it accorded with the principle he 
 was defending. But in all the intercourse 
 which it has been his good fortune to have 
 with Mr. Grymes, and he acknowledges 
 with pride and with pleasure that it has 
 been considerable, he has had reason to 
 know the candid nature and deportment of 
 the honorable member. He is "in hopes 
 that he may yet convince him that he is in 
 error in the views which he has advanced, 
 and he "feels confident that if he does so, he 
 will change his opinions and vote as he 
 (Mr. Soule) will. 
 
 How, Mr .'President, (said Mr. S.) could 
 28 * 
 
 it have happened that the framers of the 
 constitution lost sight of the laws of na- 
 turalization? We rind in the constitution, 
 first, a formal exception relating to the 
 presidency; second, an uniform rule of na- 
 turalization for the whole United States 
 Therefore according to his (Mr. S.'s) mind 
 it was clear that in the latter clause, they 
 had it in contemplation to guard particular- 
 ly against any further abuse of the excep- 
 tion contained in the first clause, on the 
 part of the different States. The assertion 
 was. however, made so clearly and positive- 
 ly here yesterday to the contrary, that he 
 thought that either his memory or his judg- 
 ment of the matter were at fault, and he 
 now only returns to the question because 
 he is convinced that he is right and the op- 
 posite party wrong. 
 
 It may perhaps have happened that the 
 gentleman, looking at the constitutions of 
 several other States, has conceived that it 
 was really constitutional. This corollary 
 would seem really plausible, and might rea- 
 sonably create a doubt, had not the federal 
 constitution itself shown its inapplicabilitv, 
 nay. its falsity- to the views and principles 
 laid down by the makers thereof. Those 
 wise statesmen looked to the time, when for 
 t he want of information, or from tacit sub- 
 mission on the part of the people, through 
 their delegates, that State governments 
 would violate the federal compact. And 
 to whom did they confide the power to re- 
 strain? To the judiciary. 
 
 In the 6th article of the constitution you 
 will find these words: '-This constitution 
 and the laws of the United States which 
 shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall 
 be the supreme law of the land. The 
 judges in each State shall be compelled to 
 conform thereto, any constitutional or legal 
 provisions made in the laws of any other 
 State to the contrary notwithstanding."'' 
 
 It was to prevent this evil, the evil of 
 some of the States, who would or might 
 abuse the power vested in them, and con- 
 sidered by them' as sovereignty, introducing 
 foreign matter into their constitutions, that 
 the remedy was provided by the framers of 
 the constitution of the United States. 
 . The principle now contended for is ab- 
 horrent to the first principles of republican 
 government. 
 
 The judges of the United State- courts 
 can pay no attention- and will not, to any 
 
214 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 section of a constitution which we may 
 make, or which the people of Louisiana 
 may ever see proper to ratify. And where 
 is there a more odious or detestable princi- 
 ple than that which makes an abuse of pow- 
 er a constitutional right? 
 
 States will deviate sometimes, legisla- 
 tures likewise; but judges are still left to 
 bring them back "nolens volens" to the su-" 
 preme laws of the land. Away, then, with 
 the authority they so much rely upon as to 
 the conduct of the other States upon this 
 point, to influence us! Perhaps those 
 States who entered into the confederation 
 have some weight in their reasons; while 
 those who entered the union before we did, 
 evidently are no authority for us, as they 
 were the opinions of widely different char- 
 acters from them of the present day. And 
 yet he (Mr. S.) is at a loss to conceive why 
 the authority of two or three States should 
 be consulted paramount to that of so many 
 other States, twenty at least. In order to 
 state this question fairly, there are six States 
 whose constitutions contain the provision 
 sought to be engrafted on ours, viz: the 
 States of Arkansas, Missouri, Alabama, 
 Virginia, New York and Maine. What? 
 with twenty-six States entered into this fed- 
 eral compact, all having in view, and be 
 fore their eyes, the constitution of the gen- 
 eral government; while twenty reject the 
 odious measure proposed to us; and six in- 
 flict the wrong; shall we be told that we 
 ought to add one more to the restricting 
 States? No, wisdom forbids it, justice for- 
 bids it. He felt that he had said enough 
 on this point; if experience, the experience 
 of other States, and the authority of some 
 of our greatest men in the union can have 
 weight, surely he had said enough, in en- 
 deavoring, as he had, to express their opin- 
 ions and sentiments. God forbid that 
 placing all on a footing of equality, we 
 should hesitate to choose between the wis- 
 dom of twenty states, and the intemperance 
 of six. 
 
 Let us now pass to the most important 
 question of this debate; and let us see 
 whether the principles advanced by Messrs. 
 Conrad, Grymes and Saunders, be or be 
 not correct; that when the framers of the 
 constitution inserted in the federal compact 
 the article on the naturalization laws, they 
 did or did not have in view such a case as 
 is now before us. Now, he (Mr. S.) con- 
 
 tends that they had just such a case in view. 
 We must not dupe ourselves by imagina- 
 tion; and there is no one but is bound to 
 admit that we cannot sanction such a prin- 
 ciple as is contended for, without trampling 
 that sacred instrument, the constitution of 
 the United States, under foot. Whenever 
 it was acknowledged by the States, that 
 the federal constitution was the supreme 
 law of the land, that power invested in the 
 hands of, and granted to congress, became 
 an exclusive privilege. Mr. Grymes de- 
 nies this, and affects to treat it as a new 
 idea, and extraordinary. It may be so — 
 but the authors of the federalist, whom I 
 must regard, (despite his great regard for 
 the opinion of his friend, Mr. G.) as the 
 best authority, do not seem to agree in 
 opinion with the idea advanced by Mr. G, 
 on this question. 
 
 By referring to page 231 of the Federal- 
 ist, we find the following remarks on this 
 interesting subject: 
 
 " The dissimilarity in the rules of natu- 
 ralization has long been remarked as a 
 fault in our system, and as laying a founda- 
 tion for intricate and delicate questions. 
 In the fourth article of the confederation it 
 is declared, that the free inhabitants of each 
 of these States, paupers, vagabonds and 
 fugitives from justice excepted, shall be 
 entitled to all privileges and immunities of 
 free citizens in the several States, and the 
 people of each State shall in every other, 
 enjoy all the privileges of trade and com- 
 merce, &c. There is a confusion of lan- 
 guage here, which is remarkable. Why 
 the terms free inhabitants, are used in one 
 part of the article ; free citizens in another, 
 and people in another ; or what was meant 
 by superadding " to all privileges and im- 
 munities of free citizens "—all the privi- 
 leges of trade and commerce, cannot be 
 easily determined. It seems to be a con- 
 struction scarcely avoidable, however that 
 those who come under this denomination of 
 free inhabitants of a State, although not 
 citizens of such State, are entitled, in every 
 other State, to all the priviliges of free citi- 
 zens of the latter ; that is to greater privi- 
 leges than they may be entitled to in their 
 own State ; so that it may^be in the power 
 of a particular State, or rather every other 
 State is laid under a necessity, not only to 
 confer the rights of citizenship in other 
 States, upon any whom it may allow to 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 215 
 
 become inhabitants within its jurisdiction. 
 But were an exposition of the term of in- 
 habitants to be admitted, which would con- 
 fine the stipulated privileges to citizens 
 alone, the difficulty is diminished only, not 
 removed. The only improper power would 
 still be retained by each State, of naturali- 
 zing aliens in every other State. In one 
 State, residence for a short time, confers 
 all the rights of citizenship; in another 
 qualifications of greater importance are 
 required. An alien, therefore legally inca- 
 paciated for certain rights in the latter, 
 may, by previous residence only in the 
 former, elude his incapacity : and thus the 
 law of one State, be preposterously rendered 
 paramount to the law of another, within 
 the jurisdiction of the other." 
 
 " We owe it to mere casuality, that very 
 serious embarrassments on this subject 
 have been hitherto escaped. By the laws 
 of several States certain descriptions of 
 aliens, who had rendered themselves obnox- 
 ious, were laid under interdicts inconsistent, 
 not only with the rights of citizenship, but 
 with the privileges of residence. What 
 would have been the consequence, if such 
 persons by residence or otherwise, had ac- 
 quired the character of citizens under the 
 laws of another State and then asserted 
 their rights as such, both to residence and 
 citizenship within the State proscribing 
 them? Whatever the legal consequences 
 might have been, other consequences would 
 have resulted of too serious a nature not to 
 be provided against. The new constitu- 
 tion has accordingly with great propriety, 
 made provision against them, and all others 
 proceeding from the defect of the confede- 
 ration on this head, by authorizing the gen- 
 eral g overnment to establish a uniform rule 
 of naturalization throughout the United 
 States." 
 
 In another part, viz : on page 164, we 
 find these words, which clearly shews the 
 States had no right over the matter. "This 
 must necessarily be exclusive because if 
 each State had power to prescribe a distinct 
 rule, there could be no uniform rule." 
 
 Under the old constitution, provision 
 similar to that of the actual constitution 
 had placed the old States on a par, each 
 State having the right of making their own 
 laws of naturalization and many of their con- 
 stitutions sanctioned just such provisions 
 as they are now trying to fasten on to our 
 
 constitution. The framers of the constitu- 
 tion of the United States, in order to put an 
 end to this conflict, decreed, that Congress 
 alone should be invested with the power to 
 regulate it. What then are we doing here? 
 we certainly have not the right to disfran- 
 chise all citizens or any citizen who has 
 under the laws of Congress, acquired as 
 many rights as we ourselves have, and yet 
 it is sought to be done, and under the garb 
 of this very law we rely upon. The doc- 
 trine we contend for is not a novel doctrine, 
 it is a doctrine established and perfected 
 when the constitution of the United States 
 was made. 
 
 The confident assertions however to the 
 contrary, made him, (Mr. S.) more than 
 doubt whether the great Hamilton, and 
 other eminent statesmen, bore him out in 
 his view of the question, and he was again 
 compelled to resort to authority and either 
 give way to the eloquent speech of Mr. 
 Grymes, or still further to adhere to the 
 doctrine laid down by Mr. Brent. 
 
 He has examined every work extant, that 
 he knows of, treating on this subject, for 
 anything that could change the Convention 
 or his mind, but has not been able to do so, 
 on the contrary he is more and more satis- 
 fied, that the States have no power over the 
 matter, and that it rests exclusively with 
 Congress. Hear what Story says in rela- 
 tion to it. 
 
 In the third volume, first page, para- 
 graphs, 1097, 1098, 1099, read thus : 
 
 Sec. 1097. The next clause is, "that 
 Congress "shall have power to establish an 
 uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform 
 laws on the subject of bankruptcies through- 
 out the United States." 
 
 Sec. 1098. The propriety of confiding 
 the power to establish an uniform rule of 
 naturalization to the national government 
 seems not to have occasioned any doubt or 
 controversy in the Convention. For aught 
 that it appears on the journals, it was con- 
 ceded without objection. Under the con- 
 federation, the States possessed the sole 
 authority to exercise the power; and the 
 dissimilarity of the system in different 
 States was generally admitted, as a promi- 
 nent defect, and laid the foundation of ma- 
 ny debate and intricate questions. 4s the 
 free inhabitants of each State were entitled 
 to all the privileges and immunities of citi- 
 zens in all the other States, it followed that 
 
21G 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 a single State possessed the power of farm- 
 ing into every other State, with the enjoy- 
 ment of every immunity and privilege, any 
 alien, whom it may choose to incorporate 
 into its own society, however repugnant 
 such admission might be to their polity, 
 conveniences, and even prejudices. In 
 effect every State possessed the power of 
 naturalizing aliens in every other State; a 
 power as mischievous in its nature, as it 
 was indiscreet in its actual exercise. In 
 one State, residence for a short time might 
 and did confer the rights of citizenship. 
 In others, qualifications of greater impor- 
 tance were required. An alien therefore, 
 incapacitated for the possession of certain 
 rights by the laws of the latter, might, by 
 a previous residence and naturalization in 
 the former, elude at pleasure all their salu- 
 tary regulation for self-protection. Thus 
 the laws of a single State were preposte- 
 rously rendered paramount to the laws of 
 all the others, even within their own juris- 
 diction. And it has been remarked with 
 equal truth and justice, that it was owing 
 to mere casualty, that the exercise of this 
 power under the confederation did not in- 
 volve the Union in the most serious em- 
 barrassments. There is great wisdom, 
 therefore, in confiding to the national gov- 
 ernment the power to establish a uniform 
 rule of naturalization throughout the Uni- 
 ted States. It is of the deepest interest to 
 the whole Union, to know who are entitled 
 to enjoy the rights of citizens in each State, 
 since they thereby, in effect, become enti- 
 tled to the rights of citizens in all the 
 States. If aliens might be admitted indis- 
 criminately to enjoy all the rights of citi- 
 zens at the will of a single State, the Unio 
 might itself be endangered by an influx of 
 foreigners hostile to its institutions, igno- 
 rant of its powers, and incapable of a due 
 estimate of its privileges. 
 
 Sec. 1099. It follows from the very na- 
 ture of the powert that to be useful, it must 
 be exclusive; for a concurrent power in the 
 States would bring back all the evils and 
 embarrassments, which the uniform rule of 
 the constitution was designed to remedy. 
 And, accordingly, though there was a mo- 
 mentary hesitation, when the constitution 
 first went into operation, whether the pow- 
 er might not still be exercised by the States 
 subject only to the control of congress, so 
 far as the legislation of the latter extended, 
 
 as the supreme law; yet the power is now 
 firmly established to be exclusive. The 
 federalist, indeed, introduced this very 
 case as entirely clear to illustrate the doc- 
 trine of an exclusive power by implication, 
 arising from the repugnancy of a similar 
 power in the States. "This power must 
 necessarily be exclusive," says the authors; 
 "because if each State had power to pre- 
 scribe a distinct rule, there could be no 
 uniform rule." 
 
 This language is clear and precise, and 
 distinctly says, that when a citizen acquires 
 a citizenship in any one State, he is enti- 
 tled to the same rights and privileges as are 
 the citizens in any and all the other States. 
 Thus far, the authority goes to show that 
 the States had no right to infringe on the 
 privileges thus left exclusively with con- 
 gress; — and he, (Mr. Soule,) thinks this 
 section of the constitution passed, in view 
 of the very emergency, we are now placed 
 in, with regard to naturalized citizens, 
 Story, so thinking, expresses himself in 
 vol. 3, pp. 673, chap. 40, paragraph 1798, 
 99, 1800. 
 
 Sec. 1798. The fourth article of the 
 constitution contains several important pro- 
 visions, some of which have been already 
 considered. Among these are the faith and 
 credit to be given to State acts, records and 
 judgments, and the mode of proving them, 
 the effects thereof; the admission of new 
 States into the union, and the regulation 
 and disposal of the territory and other prop- 
 erty of the United States. We shall now 
 proceed to those which still remain for ex- 
 amination. 
 
 Sec. 1799. The first is, "the citizens of 
 each State shall be entitled to all privileges 
 and immunities of citizens in the several 
 States." There was an article on the 
 same subject in the confederation, which 
 declared "that the free inhabitants of each 
 of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fu- 
 gitives from justice excepted, shall be enti- 
 tled to all privileges and immunities of free 
 citizens in the several States; and the peo- 
 ple of each State shall, in every other, enjoy 
 all the privileges of trade and commerce, 
 subject to the same duties, impositions and 
 restrictions as the inhabitants thereof re- 
 spectively," &c. It was remarked by the 
 Federalist that there is a strange confusion 
 in this language. Why the terms free in- 
 habitants, are used in one part of the arti- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 217 
 
 cle, free citizens in another; or what is 
 meant by superadding to "all privileges and 
 immunities of free citizens," "all the privil- 
 eges of trade and commerce," cannot easi- 
 ly be determined. It seems to be a con- 
 struction, however, scarcely avoidable, that 
 those who come under the denomination of 
 free inhabitants of a State, although not 
 citizens of such State, are entitled, in every 
 State, to all the ^vileges of free citizens of 
 the latter; that is, to greater privileges than 
 they may be entitled to in their own State. 
 So that it was in the power of a particular 
 State, (to which every other State was 
 bound to submit,) not only to confer the 
 rights of citizenship in other States, to any 
 persons whom it might admit to such rights 
 within itself, but to any persons whom it 
 might allow to become inhabitants within its 
 jurisdiction. But even if an exposition 
 could be given to the term inhabitants, 
 which would confine the stipulated privi- 
 leges to citizens alone, the difficulty would 
 be diminished only, and not removed. The 
 very improper power was, under the confed- 
 eration, still retained in each State, of na- 
 turalizing aliens in every other State. 
 
 Sec. 1800. The provision in the consti- 
 tution avoids all this ambiguity. It is plain 
 and simple in its language; and its object 
 is not easily to be. mistaken. Connected 
 with the exclusive power of naturalization 
 in the natural government, it puts at rest 
 many of the difficulties which affected the 
 construction of the article of the confedera- 
 tion. It is obvious that if the citizens of 
 each State were to be deemed aliens to 
 each other, they could not take or hold real 
 estate, or other privileges, except as other 
 aliens. The intention of this clause was 
 to confer on them, if one may so say, a gen- 
 eral citizenship; and to communicate all the 
 privileges and immunities which the citi- 
 zens of the same State would be entitled to 
 under like circumstances. 
 
 Such being the doctrine of Story, he 
 thinks it puts the question at rest. He con- 
 siders it connected with the naturalization 
 laws. It is the language and it is the 
 spirit of the constitution and the settled 
 policy of the country. Who then doubts 
 we have properly considered the construc- 
 tion of this clause of the constitution of the 
 United States? Who now doubts that this 
 restriction would be a flagrant violation of 
 the national compact? 
 
 There are other features connected with 
 this restrictive measure, worthy of conside- 
 ration, which render it still more odious. 
 Is not the ground taken by Mr. Grymes, 
 the ground of expediency, proof positive, an 
 acknowledgement on his part of want of 
 argument or reasons to sustain him in the 
 ground which he takes? He (Mr. S.) 
 thinks it is; for certainly it can form no 
 part of our duties, nor have any effect in 
 regulating the power with which we are 
 confided. We are here to legislate not for 
 an hour, a day, a week, nor for half a cen- 
 tury. We are here for the purpose of rais- 
 ing a political foundation that shall ensure 
 the political rights, the happiness and lib- 
 erty of generations to come. We cannot 
 be too careful, therefore, in yielding to our 
 feelings on the ground of expediency. We 
 are here to lay the corner stone of our pub- 
 lic security, and to remove those defects in 
 the constitution of 1812, which thirty-two 
 years' experience have made clear to the 
 people of Louisiana. But we are to do this, 
 work with candor and without prejudice; 
 and we must show to future generations 
 that in forming a constitution by which 
 they were to be governed, that we Were 
 not actuated by the transient and evanes- 
 cent expediency of the moment. We must 
 show them that we lost sight of party spirit 
 at the moment, and we only desired to give 
 them a constitution based on the immuta- 
 ble principles of truth and justice, equal 
 rights and equal privileges. And yet we 
 are told that expediency requires that the 
 governor of Louisiana should not be a for- 
 eigner. This language shows a deep-root- 
 ed feeling, on the part of the opposers to 
 it,, which cannot be disguised. Whence 
 comes this feeling? Even in his, (Mr. S's) 
 time, he recollects things which appear as 
 yesterday to him, foreign to the question of 
 native born and adopted citizenship. Oth- 
 er matters and other names occupied public 
 attention, and other men were then the vic- 
 tims of the hour. Is it because the times 
 are changed, that we have to seek new 
 subjects to emulate on the altar of preju- 
 dice? Be it so, attempt to enforce the 
 spirit of persecution. The times are not far 
 off when, yielding this question, it will not 
 only embrace the limits of the State, but 
 will gradually come down to districts, then 
 to parishes, then to towns, and finally we 
 shall be told that we must choose our go- 
 
218 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 vernor or representatives from such a plan- 
 tation.. 
 
 Here Mr. Claiborxe called Mr. Soule 
 to order, as in his opinion he was giving to 
 the debate an unwarrantable latitude, and 
 was impugning the motives of members of 
 the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Soule did not intend to impugn the 
 motives of any one; nor was he aware 
 that he had said any thing which could be 
 so construed, at any rate nothing was far- 
 ther from his mind in any remark he had 
 made. 
 
 Mr. Garcia had listened attentively to 
 Mr. Soule, found nothing objectionable in 
 his remarks, and was of opinion he was 
 not out of order, this appeared the general 
 opinion of the house, &c. 
 
 Mr. Soule proceeded. He was not 
 aware that he had done more than relate 
 the history of the past; and as no bad feel- 
 ings rankled in his bosom, he could not 
 imagine how his analysis could have given 
 offence to the president. It is in the nature 
 of the spirit of restriction to become daily 
 worse. If to day it is permitted to restrict 
 the privileges of naturalized citizens, in a 
 short time the same feeling will be pursued 
 towards citizens of other States, then to 
 some particular class of native born citizens 
 of Louisiana, then another, until finally it 
 will be limited to a single sugar plantation. 
 Mr. Grymes' reasoning would go to show 
 that a native born citizen is a supreme 
 being to an adopted citizen; if that be so, 
 why is not a Louisianian superior to the 
 citizens of another State? And then why 
 not one class of Louisianians better than 
 another class? By such restriction you 
 will bring about confusion and discordance, 
 and you will annihilate love of country! 
 
 In the mandate of the people we are told 
 (and it cannot be denied) to "extend the 
 right of suffrage." But of what avail would 
 that be, if the principle of restriction pre- 
 vail? we must tell them at the same time, 
 "you can only elect one or the other of 12 
 men for your governor;" if 12, why not any 
 other number? Such a doctrine does not 
 conform to the true principles of democracy 
 — it is not founded on truth or justice. 
 
 Mr. Grymes has told you that if this mo- 
 tion to reject does not prevail, you will have 
 placed in the hands of an adopted citizen, 
 as governor, powers that may clash with 
 his nature and his duty. For arguments 
 
 sake, let us admit it. The framers of our 
 United States constitution, and the report of 
 the committee which we are now debating, 
 have fortunately placed before our eyes and 
 within our grasp, the evil and the remedy. 
 
 The members of this Convention, com- 
 prising the committee on executive affairs, 
 had wisely reported so that the least possi- 
 ble evil should be met bythe greatest pos- 
 sible good. Well, the c<«itutional power, 
 determined recently to' be such as should 
 guide this Coonvention in admitting, "that 
 in case of a war, the governor cannot and 
 shall not command our military forces with- 
 out the advice and consent of the legisla- 
 ture," (and Mr. S. thinks that provision 
 would have never left the governor in a 
 false position,) has been stricken out. I 
 will not say who did ^rike out that pro- 
 vision now, nor why it was stricken out; 
 the parties who are intimately connected 
 with the subject on the other side will un- 
 derstand my meaning. 
 
 The question ig, have we acted wisely 
 in removing the guard which had been 
 placed on the constitutional powers of the 
 governor, in a military point of view? the 
 power which would have prevented abuse 
 on the part of foreigners, (or the foreigner 
 who might have popularity enough to be 
 elected governor,) was taken away from the 
 constitution by the member from New Or- 
 leans himself, and then when the guard is 
 removed, he tells you of it himself, but will 
 not tell you, 't'was I that did it.' 
 
 We have been asked what would be the 
 situation of a naturalized citizen acting as 
 governor of Louisiana, and we at war with 
 the country of his birth? He could well re- 
 tort by taking in his hand the history of the 
 American revolution, and ask who were the 
 only traitors during that eventful period? 
 He would not soil his lips with their names; 
 they were not, however, adopted citizens. 
 He has the warmest feelings, the warmest 
 affections for the native born Americans, 
 and will have always his best wishes; and 
 in all cases where they seek office if they 
 have equal qualifications, his support, in 
 preference to any naturalized citizen. 
 
 He can only say in reply to the gentle- 
 man from New Orleans, that, if, contrary 
 to all probability, any naturalized citizen 
 should be at the head of our government, 
 and who at the moment 1 of danger should 
 halt between duty and feeling, he does not 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 219 
 
 hesitate to say he would be hurled from 
 power; or he would be compelled to rush 
 forward to the battle field, crying with the 
 knights of old, of his (Mr. S.'s) native coun- 
 try, "Faisce que doit, advienne que pourra." 
 He conceives that all naturalised citizens, 
 not only by duty, but by inclination, would 
 uphold the rights and liberties of his coun- 
 try in any emergency; they come from a 
 land of oppression to a land of liberty, and 
 there are few men who cannot appreciate 
 the difference; and feeling it, will help to 
 maintain the rights of freemen of this land 
 of their choice and their adoption. Mr. 
 Grymes' last argument was predicated upon 
 the evils that would ensue from the elec- 
 tion of a naturalized citizen as governor, 
 in time of peace, and took it for granted 
 that the loaves and fishes which governors 
 have it in their power to distribute, would 
 be distributed among his fellow coun- 
 trymen; and that he would do so must be 
 taken for granted, or he would not other- 
 wise follow the natural feeling of his heart. 
 
 He agrees with the gentleman thus far, 
 that whenever there is an office to bestow, 
 and the native born citizen is qualified for 
 it, he ought to have it, he is entitled to the 
 preference, but without equal ability and 
 equal capacity, he does not agree with the 
 honorable member that he should have any 
 preference, and he feels confident that any 
 naturalized citizen whom the people might 
 so far honor with their confidence as to 
 make him Governor, (notwithstanding the 
 opinion expressed by the member from 
 New Orleans,) would strictly follow this 
 just rule ; but if the naturalized citizen be 
 the most fit, the most capable, he would 
 deprecate the policy of giving the office 
 to another because he was native born. 
 The rule could not be applied with justice. 
 Make your laws if you will, so as to pre- 
 vent foreigners becoming citizens but when 
 you have admitted them as members of the 
 same social compact, they must be on an 
 equal footing with the natives. Our feel- 
 ings should always be governed with equal- 
 ity ; the provision of the section now before 
 us, is not to guard, and protect those rights, 
 but the very contrary, to destroy them. 
 But gentlemen forget while they are so 
 strenuous for what they conceive to be due 
 to the native born citizen, that duty which 
 they owe to the people as a whole. I say 
 the whole people because the number of 
 
 naturalized citizens who could or would 
 aspire to the office of governor, is so small 
 that the wrong done to them would be 
 scarcely felt and if alone on their account 
 I might withdraw my opposition to the sec- 
 tion, but by sustaining it you deprive the 
 whole people of their franchise — you de- 
 prive them of the right of extending that 
 franchise, you restrain them, you set tire 
 limits on them; and by setting limits on 
 their choice, the people may be restrained 
 to choose their governor, from perhaps the 
 least capable of our citizens. 
 
 There are gentlemen who are constantly 
 crying out the danger of repeated Conven- 
 tions, of the impolicy of making constitu- 
 tions upon constitutions. Let those who 
 are so deeply impressed with that danger, 
 then beware; for it is not by going contrary 
 to the will of the people that the evil can 
 be remedied. The people know what they 
 want, and if you disobey their mandate, 
 they have the power to right themselves., 
 and they will do it: if we, instead of obey- 
 ing their mandate, obstinately persist in 
 pressing restriction after restriction upon 
 their rights and privileges, instead of ex- 
 tending the right of suffrage which we are 
 here for; we forget our duties, and labor in 
 vain, for the people will strike a death blow 
 to all our labors, and the constitution will 
 never be ratified. It seemed, sir, to cause 
 some surprise, that I should have asserted 
 that the restrictive system sought to be 
 forced into our constitution was odious in 
 every possible way. 
 
 Sir, the spirit of restriction never stops; 
 they are not content with depriving the na- 
 turalized citizen of his rights, but they go 
 further, and make another distinction be- 
 tween that class of citizens v/ho became so 
 prior to the treaty of cession; they make a 
 difference between the citizen of 1803 and 
 1812; which are now confoimded with tliose 
 from 1812 to 1845. The committee do not 
 wish to include in the exclusion those who 
 came in under the treaty. Odious as is to 
 me the principle of excluding any class, the 
 idea of granting special privileges to any 
 one portion of naturalized citizens over 
 another portion of them, is a thousand times 
 more odious. The injustice of it is not the 
 most odious part; it is repugnant to the very 
 letter, to say nothing of the spirit of the 
 constitution of the United States. 
 
 The 9th section of Article 1 reads thus : 
 
220 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 "No bill of attainder, or expost facto law, 
 shall be passed." Congress has no power 
 to pass such a law; the highest, the most 
 important consideration forbids them — the 
 organic law of the land. Surely, Sir, we 
 can have no power then, to do what they 
 are expressly forbidden to doL The for- 
 eigner, when he becomes a citizen of the 
 United States, forswears allegiance to all 
 foreign powers ; he binds himself to the 
 country of his adoption; he makes a con- 
 tract of political association, and when he 
 takes (he oath which is unalienable, he be- 
 comes vested with all the rights of citizen- 
 ship, and he cannot be deprived of them. 
 In this section, you deprive all who have 
 become citizens since 1803; you deprive 
 them of one of the privileges secured them 
 by the constitution and laws of the land. 
 Can you do so ? You cannot; and if you 
 do, not all the eloquence, nor sarcasm, nor 
 sophistry, which has been resorted to, in 
 aid of the odious measure, can strip it of its 
 true character — an unjust and outrageous 
 violation of the constitution of the U. States. 
 
 Gentlemen say, you have the right to do 
 this. I deny it. You may wonder at my 
 boldness, but I tell you the highest tribunal 
 in our land has settled the question, (the 
 Supreme Court of the U. S.,) and I special- 
 ly desire to call your attention to the case 
 of the Dartmouth College, vs. the State of 
 Massachusetts. That college received its 
 charter from the king of England. After 
 Massachusetts became one of the United 
 States, a resolution was brought into the 
 legislature modifying some of the clauses 
 of the charter, and making sundry other 
 rules for the government of the college; 
 that resolution passed, but the original trus- 
 tees thinking it was a stretch of power, re- 
 sisted the law, and carried the case up to 
 the Supreme Court. The decision was in 
 favor of the trustees of the college, on the 
 ground that no State or individual had the 
 right to do any act that could impair the 
 faith of a free existing contract. Why, then, 
 have we the right to take away the vested 
 rights of naturalized citizen? Rights ac- 
 quired under the constitution and laws of 
 congress made in pursuance thereof? We 
 cannot do so, and I defy you or any man to 
 show me the shade of an argument or 
 reason for such an assumption of power. 
 
 Here the honorable member said that 
 his physical strength would not allow him 
 
 to proceed, and kindly thanked the house 
 for their patience and indulgence in listen- 
 ing to his remarks. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin rose to address the Con- 
 vention on this question with some embar- 
 rassment, jjhich, however, was alone 
 caused from hot having had the pleasure of 
 listening to the arguments from the begin- 
 ning of the discussion, as he was compelled 
 to be absent yesterday difring the greater 
 part of the debate. 
 
 He has listened to the eloquent remarks 
 that have to-day been made, with much 
 pleasure; and congratulates the honorable 
 gentleman, not alone on his forensic ability, 
 but because he has said and embraced in 
 his speech all that can be said on that side 
 of the question. I feel, Mr. President, that 
 it is a duty which I owe to the members of 
 this Convention, to the members of the 
 committee who made the report which is 
 now under consideration, to state here 
 plainly, openly, clearly, that it was at my 
 suggestion that the word "native," (the gist 
 of controversy,) was inserted in the section 
 now before us for our consideration. If, 
 therefore, sir, there be censure to be cast 
 upon any one, for that apparantly objection- 
 able word, upon my shoulders it must in 
 justice fall. It becomes then, I conceive, 
 a part of my duty to reply to the arguments 
 offered by the honorable delegate who last 
 addressed you; and to the best of my hum- 
 ble ability to endeavor to refute them. 
 
 The very able and eloquent address 
 which he has made you, comprises, not 
 alone all his own views on this subject, 
 but without doubt includes all that has been 
 advanced by other members who agree 
 with him in opinion. Consequently tha 
 few remarks with which I shall trouble the 
 Convention, will be taken, (as I desire 
 they should be,) as my reply to all that has 
 been advanced by those who are opposed 
 to the principle which I desire to see es- 
 tablished in our organic laws. 
 
 The honorable gentleman, (Mr. Soule,) 
 had scarcely commenced his .remarks on 
 this question, ere he thought proper to re- 
 buke the spirit of this provision, and ascribed 
 to us feelings that ennoble ho man. He is 
 mistaken, greatly in error, if he supposes 
 that the section under consideration was 
 ever conceived or thought of, under what 
 he pleases to term the doctrine of "native - 
 ism." 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 221 
 
 I ask the gentleman to show, if he can, 
 where, how, and in what manner the na- 
 tive born American has ever shown any 
 jealousy towards his naturalized brother- 
 citizen. Look at the history of the coun- 
 try, and point out to me, if you can, a single 
 instance where any such feeling has been 
 known to exist. Nor, sir, have we done 
 any thing in this hall, that I am aware of, 
 either in discussing the rights of suffrage, 
 or in any other way, that should render us 
 liable to censure, on the part of either our 
 brother-delegates or our constituents. 
 
 How have we invaded or restricted the 
 rights of the naturalized citizens? Have 
 you deprived him of the rights -which he 
 has constitutionally acquired ? Have you 
 placed him, heretofore, on a different foot- 
 ing from the citizens of our sister States? 
 Are not all on the same footing? Then 
 what becomes of the assumption that 
 we have restricted them in their rights? 
 When they can show me that, then I shall 
 be willing to acknowledge that I have been 
 mistaken in the previous acts of this Con- 
 vention. 
 
 So far as I understand the action of the 
 Convention up to this time, it is that we 
 have said we deem it essential that no 
 man shall have a voice in our elections 
 who has not been here for the period of 
 two years. 
 
 The position advanced by some of the 
 members on this floor, on a recent occasion, 
 that political residence could be acquired 
 by aliens, is to his, (Mr. B.'s) mind, an 
 absurd] one; and we did not then fail so to ex- 
 press ourselves fully and sustain the falsity 
 of such a doctrine. How then stands the 
 case? 
 
 They assumed that principle; we denied 
 it — and what was the action of the Conven- 
 tion on the subject? Why, they decided 
 simply that an alien could not acquire a 
 political residence. What then becomes of 
 the charge that we have attacked the rights 
 and privileges of the foreigner? Where 
 then is the odious restriction which, trum- 
 pet-tongued, we have so repeatedly been 
 charged with, by the honorable member, 
 as endeavoring to fasten "upon the foreign- 1 
 er? We have respected their feelings, and ; 
 have in all respects harmonized with them | 
 as with our American brethren. Do those | 
 gentlemen think, who profess so mud 
 zeal here, and pretend to so much love foi 
 29 
 
 the foreigner, that they are alone in their 
 feelings of gratitude to those foreigners 
 who, in the hour of our country's need, 
 came to our aid? No sir. All Americans 
 feel it. But feeling it and acknowledging 
 it, as I am willing to do, that we are indebt- 
 ed to them for that service, is that a reason 
 why we should place ourselves politically 
 at their mercy? Is that a reason why we 
 should deliver ourselves, bound hand and 
 foot, over to them, that they may ob- 
 tain tire mastery over us in our own govern- 
 ment and of our own institutions? For 
 my part, sir, 1 shall forever oppose any 
 measure, come from what quarter it may, 
 that will tend to take from the hands of the 
 American people the reins of their own 
 government. 
 
 The honorable gentleman in adverting to 
 the primary rights with which all Ameri- 
 can citizens are vested, endeavored to illus- 
 trate his argument by making a compari- 
 son between the common partnerships of 
 individuals and the political partnerships 
 of naturalized and native born citizens, and 
 tried to show you, as an argument, that 
 they were equally concerned in the wel- 
 fare, or misfortunes of the government, and 
 had to contribute, if necessary, their quota 
 to its wants. For my part I cannot con- 
 ceive there is any analogy in the two cases, 
 and if there were, the gentleman's argu- 
 ment would not be aided by it, for it fre- 
 quently happens in partnerships for business 
 that it is mutually agreed that' one of the 
 partners is alone and solely charged with 
 the government of the partnership affairs. 
 
 But, sir, I deny the gentleman's premises, 
 I deny what he has been pleased to term 
 an axiom, that all men are entitled to equal 
 political rights, and that we have no power 
 under our mandate from the people, to cir- 
 cumscribe those lights. If such were the 
 case, sir, whence have we derived tne pow- 
 er upon the restrictions as to residence, 
 color, age, which we have already imposed 
 without our right to do so being questiond? 
 If the gentleman's argument be correct, it 
 should hold good throughout, but its error 
 is evinced when it is carried to its extreme, 
 and its falsity is proven by a complete re- 
 el uci in ad absurdum. 
 
 Sir, scarcely a provision of any kind 
 can be proposed in this hall without an 
 outcry about "restriction." Every meas- 
 ure proposed is at once attacked as a "re- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 222 4 
 
 striction" upon the people. Allow me to 
 ask for what pupose we are here? Is it 
 not to make a constitution? And what is a 
 constitution except a system of rules and 
 restrictions intended 1o secure a permanent 
 government, which shall be unaffected by 
 the changing views and passions of the 
 hour; which shall restrict majorities and 
 protect minorities? If the people are to be 
 governed without restrictions at all, as some 
 honorable members would seem to insist, 
 what a farce are our proceedings? Why 
 not, on every question that shall arise, as- 
 semble the people in your public square 
 and let the majority decide? Surely, sir, 
 this is no correct view of our mandate or 
 our duties; and since every right thinking 
 man must admit that some guards and re- 
 strictions must be imposed on the people, in 
 every constitution, let gentlemen prove 
 when a restriction is proposed that it is 
 in-opportune or inexpedient, and not con- 
 tent themselves with merely exclaiming 
 against restrictions. Sir, gentlemen who 
 push their arguments to these extremes are 
 not the true friends of popular government. 
 
 It was well remarked the other day in de- 
 bate, by an honorable delegate from New 
 Orleans, (Mr. Grymes) that a government 
 may become so popular as to be no govern- 
 ment at all. An absence of all restrictions, 
 leaves of necessity, power in the hands of 
 the strongest or in other words, reduces 
 society to anarchy; and yet when we en- 
 deavor to avoid this result by guarding our 
 government, our institutions, and the pros- 
 perity of our country from danger, honora- 
 ble members reply by accusing us of a bias 
 towards aristocracy or monarchy. The 
 question under discussion has been pre- 
 sented on two grounds, both of which I 
 shall endeavor to treat — 1st, have we the 
 power; 2d, is it expedient to insert this pro- 
 vision in our new constitution. 
 
 The gentleman has roundly asserted that 
 this State has not the constitutional power 
 to prescribe, as a qualification for governor, 
 that he should be a native born citizen of 
 the United States. This, sir, is indeed a 
 novel, and I may be allowed to add, a start- 
 line remark from a gentleman so learned 
 ajid so eminent in his profession as the 
 honorable delegate from New Orleans. I 
 can say, sir, with truth, that having grown 
 up from my earliest youth under the insti- 
 tutions of the country, having been com- 
 
 pelled to make them my special study in 
 the practice of my profession, and having 
 the right to say, without I hope being ac- 
 cused of presumption, that they are familiar 
 to me, I never till this hour heard a doubt 
 suggested as to the constitutional power of a 
 State to prescribe the qualifications required 
 for holding office in its government. 
 
 On what can the opponents of so plain 
 and so clear a right, base their opposition? 
 Surely not on the paragraph which has been 
 quoted from the constitution, that "the 
 citizens of each State shall enjoy all the 
 privileges and immunities enjoyed by the 
 citizens of other States," for .who denies the 
 rights of citizens of other States as hereby 
 guaranteed to him? If any one, I am not 
 aware of it. It does not, however, follow 
 that we are to admit all the arguments the 
 gentleman draws from these premises. The 
 constitution does not say, that in conse- 
 quence of his being a citizen of the United 
 States, and of another State, that he shall 
 be vested thereby with the right of an elec- 
 tor in every State, nor that from that cause 
 he shall possess a qualification for any of 
 the public offices in the State government 
 without complying with the requirements of 
 the laws of such State. 
 
 Such a proposition as that now advanced 
 is really too absurd to come from so re- 
 spectable a source. If that doctrine be sus- 
 tained, why, Sir, a citizen of Mississippi 
 may cross your border to-morrow, place his 
 name before the people, and if he gets 
 votes enough may insist upon his right to 
 take the gubernatorial chair. And can it 
 be possible that gentlemen think they can 
 meet this question by the argument drawn 
 from an examination of the constitutions of 
 our sister States? Those who preceded me 
 on the same side showed as authority a 
 similar provision in the constitutions of six 
 States, and urged this fact to show that the 
 power had never been questioned. To this 
 the honorable delegate replies that nineteen 
 States have no such provision in their con- 
 stitutions, and he infers from this that the 
 framers of these constitutions believed they 
 did not possess the power of inserting such 
 a clause. This is indeed a most extraor- 
 dinary inference. Surely, Sir, the absence 
 of such a clause in those constitutions, 
 proves nothing more than that their framers 
 deemed it inexpedient to insert it. Since, 
 however, authority is desired upon this 
 
Debates in the Convention oi Louisiana! 
 
 223 
 
 question, to me so plain as to admit of no 
 dispute, let us examine authorities and see 
 which side they lend their weight. Among 
 the States which have adopted this so-called 
 odious restriction in their constitutions is 
 the State of Virginia. In the year 1830, a 
 convention was called to alter, amend or 
 remodel the old constitution or adopt a new 
 one, as in their wisdom to them should 
 seem fit. That Convention, Sir, numbered 
 among its members some of the ablest men 
 ever known in this Union. Mr. Munroe, 
 who served as president of the United States 
 for two terms, then presided over that body. 
 Mr. Madison who had also been president 
 of the United States for the same period of 
 time, who moreover had a hand in the 
 making of the first constitution of Virginia, 
 and also in the making of the sacred instru- 
 ment, (which we are now accused of en- 
 deavoring to render nugatory) the constitu- 
 tion of the United States; and Mr. Marshall, 
 who so long and so ably filled the office of 
 chief justice of the United States, were 
 members of that body. 
 
 In that constitution, so made by the 
 aid and advice of these same men, it 
 is provided that no person should be 
 governor of Virginia, unless he was — 
 1st, thirty years of age ; 2d, a native 
 born citizen of the United States at the 
 adoption of the constitution ; 3d, that he 
 must have resided five years in the State 
 before eligible. And, Sir, are we to be told 
 that such men as Madison, one of the 
 framers of the constitution of the U. S. him- 
 self — Monroe, who had for years been ad- 
 ministering the laws under that constitution 
 as president of the United States — and 
 Marshall, who for upwards of thirty years, 
 had presided on the supreme bench, did iiQt 
 understand the constitution of their country; 
 and that they engrafted an unconstitutional 
 provision in the constitution of Virginia? 
 Are we to be told that such men, full of ex- 
 perience, of vast and profound learning, as 
 pure men as ever lived in this country, 
 whose names and fame are without spot or 
 blemish, — are we, I again p v sk, to be told 
 that they voted for -the insertion of a clause 
 in the constitution of their own beloved 
 State, which the honorable delegate from 
 New Orleans represents as a palpable viola- 
 tion of the constitution of the United States? 
 Between such authority and the authority 
 of the honorable gentleman, much as I 
 
 value it on other occasions, I cannot pause; 
 and if I err, I can only say I am glad to err 
 in such company. And even had my im- 
 pressions been different from what they are, 
 I should with such authority before me have 
 questioned my own judgment and yielded 
 my own opinions. But we do not rely on 
 that authority alone. We have, we think, 
 evidence of a more imposing and more im- 
 portant character yet to offer. It is the action 
 of the congress -of the United States on this 
 very question. Several of the States who 
 have engrafted the so-called odious provision 
 in their several constitutions, viz: the States 
 of Arkansas, Missouri, and Alabama, were 
 not members of the old confederation of 
 thirteen States; they came into the Union 
 long after. Each one of these States was 
 compelled to submit its constitutions to the 
 congress of the United States, that the same 
 might be by them examined to see that no 
 clause or provision was inserted therein 
 that should clash with any of the provisions 
 of the constitution of the United States. 
 Now, see what we do see? why, that con- 
 gress has sanctioned these several consti- 
 tutions, and admitted the States named into 
 the Union with this terribly odious provision 
 in them. Shall we, Sir, say that thrice the 
 representatives and senators of the whole 
 country, the presidents of the United States, 
 have obstinately maintained an unconstitu- 
 tional right to be a constitutional one? Shall 
 we say that they have thrice been the dupes 
 of their own ignorance, and the enemies 
 of the constitutional rights of their own 
 countrymen:? One would almost be tempt- 
 ed to smile at the idea, were this not so 
 serious a question. 
 
 In a word then, sir, I assert that our 
 power to insert the clause disputed, is not 
 a doubtful question; that we have the 
 power to do so constitutionally, and the 
 only question we now h#ve to decide is, is 
 it expedient for us to do so? My own im- 
 pression is, that we should imhesitatingly 
 insert it, if we k study our own interests. 
 When I first proposed to the committee to 
 insert it in the section, it was a natural in- 
 stinct that prompted me to believe that it 
 was necessary. Smce then I have given 
 the subject calm and serious deliberation, 
 and I have daily, nay, hourly become more 
 and more convinced of the necessity and 
 propriety of the measure. Sir, I have lis- 
 tened with delight to the eloquent eulogy 
 
 V 
 
224 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 pronounced 1)}" the delegate from New Or- 
 leas on the brave men who lent us their 
 aid in 1815 — on Savaiy, St. Gemes, and 
 their associates — I have witnessed, in im- 
 agination, the memorable scenes so graphi- 
 cally and eloquently described by the hon- 
 orable gentleman from Rapides, (Mr. 
 Brent) and I have felt my heart glow with 
 feelings of gratitude towards the brave and 
 generous men, who, amidst the smoke and 
 carnage of battle, breasted the British 
 bayonets, and, side by side with American 
 citizens, perilled their lives in our country's 
 cause — honor and gratitude to them all? — 
 and I will yield to no man in expressing on 
 all occasions, and in all suitable manner, 
 the acknowledgements that are due to their 
 eminent services. 
 
 But, sir, let us not allow our feelings to 
 obtain the mastery over our judgment. 
 Those brave men were the sons of France, 
 and the enemy was the hereditary foe of 
 France. Sir, does the gentleman, can any 
 man believe, that if our invaders had been 
 French, these gallant men would have gone 
 to battle against their countrymen. Sir, 
 they would have recoiled with horror at the 
 fore -thought with the same instinctive ab- 
 horrence as if called on to smite the cheek 
 of the mother that bore them. How then, 
 sir, can we place as the commander-in- 
 chief of our armies ? an individual, who, in 
 the event of a war with the country of his 
 birth, would be exposed to this conflict of 
 duties and of feelings. The honorable 
 gentleman tells us that in an event like 
 this, a gallant spirit, stifling all that love of 
 country, of our natal soil, that the creator 
 has implanted in the breast of every man, 
 would take for his motto, "fais ce que dois 1 
 advienne que pourra" Sir, this may sound 
 very finely in theory, but every feeling of 
 our nature would recoil from its practice. 
 I call on the gentleman to point out to me 
 the man, nay sir, I ask if he himself, and 
 surely there is none whose eminence as a 
 citizen would render him more worthy of so 
 exalted a station, I ask if he himself, as 
 commander of our armies, were called to 
 lead our forces into the field against the 
 country of his birth, would he not feel his 
 inmost soul revolt at the bare idea? Wheth 
 er the bare sight of the flag of his native 
 country would not bring back upon his 
 memory every thought and feeling of his 
 childhood and his youth, and whether he 
 
 could steel his heart to tlie task of carrying 
 death and carnage into the midst of those 
 in whose ranks might, perchance, be found 
 the playmates of his childhood, the com- 
 panions of his youth, nay, perhaps a brother 
 or a parent? Never, sir, never could he 
 do it. It is our duty then, sir, in making 
 this organic law, to provide in such manner 
 as to render it impossible, in any contin- 
 gency, for our chief magistrate to be placed 
 in such a position. The necessity is too 
 apparent to admit of doubt. 
 
 But, sir, the gentleman tells us that if this 
 clause were to affect the naturalized citizens 
 alone he might yield his opposition. He 
 however sees in it a restriction on the citi- 
 zens- at large in circumscribing the circle 
 from which they are to choose their chief 
 magistrate, This may be, sir, and all that 
 we can answer is, that the necessities 
 of the case make the restrictive expedient, 
 and therefore it is that we support it. We 
 are accused of usurping power not con- 
 fided to us by the people, and inserting 
 clauses on which they have not expressed 
 their opinion. To this we reply, that it was 
 impossible that every question that might 
 arise in the performance of our duties 
 could be foreseen or pre-judged by the peo- 
 ple; and I, for one understand that, by the 
 mandate with which they have honored me, I 
 am authorized to use the best judgment and 
 discretion in my e power in acting and voting 
 as to me shall seem best adapted to secure 
 their happiness and prosperity on all ques- 
 tions that shall arise in the course of our 
 deliberation? 
 
 Once again, sir, let not the feelings which 
 dictated the proposal of this measure be 
 misunderstood. Let it not be said that it is 
 an attack directed against the naturalized 
 citizen. He is received with open arms 
 into the -country. Every avenue to fortune 
 which cupidity could desire, every path to 
 office which the most unbounded ambition 
 can aspire, are all opened to him. Is it too 
 much to ask that there should be one 
 small spot reserved sacred for the native of 
 the soil ? tha?t the chief magistracy of the 
 State, as that of the United States, shall be 
 regarded as a temple within whose pre- 
 cincts none but the American people them- 
 selves shall ever be permitted an entrance? 
 Our duty to our country makes it necessary 
 that we should so determine, and I trust that 
 such will be the vote of this Convention- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 225 
 
 Mr. Marigny desired to address the I 
 house on this question, but as it was so late j 
 he moved to adjourn till to-morrow morning 
 at 10 o'clock, 
 
 Mr. Voorhies objected, and called for 
 the yeas and nays, which resulted as follows, 
 viz : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou> 
 dousquie, Bourg, Brazeale, Briant, Brum- 
 fold, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbert- 
 -ton, Derbes, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, 
 Grymes, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Ken- 
 xer, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Lewis, McCal- 
 lop, McRea, Mayo, O'Bryan, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Pfudlwmme, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Roman, 
 Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Soule, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, 
 Waddill, Wadsworih, Wederstrandt, Wi- 
 Uoff, Winchester and Winder voted in the 
 affirmative — 55 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Burton, Cade, Carrier e, 
 Comllion, Humble, Legendre, Mazureau, 
 Porter, Splane, Taylor of St. Landry, and 
 Voorhies voted in the negative — 12 nays. 
 
 So the Convention stood adjourned till 
 to-morrow morning 10 o'clock. 
 
 Saturday, February 15, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment, and the proceedings were open- 
 ed by prayer from the Rev. Mr. Nicholson. 
 
 Mr. McRae asked leave of absence for 
 Messrs. Scott^ and Read of East Baton 
 Rouge, and Mr. McCallop of West Ba- 
 ton Rouge;] which was granted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Wederstrandt leave 
 of absence was also granted to his colleague 
 Mr. Ratliff, of West Feliciana. 
 
 Mr. Benja3iin offered a resolution in 
 the following words: 
 
 Resolved, That an appropriation of 8500 
 be placed at the disposition of the commit- 
 tee on contingent expenses for the printing 
 done by order of the committee on the ap- 
 portionment of the State, agreeably to the 
 resolution of this Convention. 
 
 The resolution meeting with opposition, 
 the sense of the Convention was taken on 
 it, and it was carried. 
 
 The Convention then proceeded to the 
 
 Order of the Day.— Art. 3, on exe- 
 cutive department; Sec. — . 
 
 Mr, Marigny rose to address the Con- 
 
 vention, under no idle desire on his part to 
 figure in the debates. It is a matter of re- 
 gret to him that there are so very few of 
 the members present; because, what he de- 
 sires to say to the Convention, pertains to 
 the past history of the State of Louisiana, 
 and therefore, every man in it ought to be 
 informed of the facts as they occurred in 
 the formation of our govetrnment when we 
 came into the Union. Mr. Marigny sta- 
 ted, in the first place, that he was opposed 
 to the principle sought to be engrafted upon 
 our constitution, the principle of nativeism, 
 in every shape and form. He has paid 
 particular attention to the arguments of his 
 colleagues from New Orleans in favor of 
 the adoption of such a principle, but they 
 failed to carry conviction to his mind. . 
 
 He thinks that the proposition has re- 
 solved itself down simply to this: "We 
 will not have a naturalized citizen for our 
 governor." And, I would ask, said Mr. 
 Marigny, what are the reasons assigned 
 for this extraordinary course on their part. 
 
 1st. That in time of peace, his partial 
 predilections for his countrymen would na- 
 turally induce him to distribute amongst 
 them the offices within his gift. 
 
 2d. That in time of war, the recollec- 
 tions of his infancy, the natural feeling in- 
 herent in the breast of every man, to love 
 and reverence the country of his birth, 
 would have so powerful an influence over 
 him, in the feelings of his heart, which so 
 much controls the action of men, that his 
 efforts would thus be paralyzed if he had 
 to go forth to the battle field to meet his 
 own countrymen. 
 
 Here then, said Mr. M/rigny, we have 
 the two only reasons, assigned by some of 
 his colleagues fof persevering in the reten- 
 tion of the word native in the section; and 
 it is about that single word that they have 
 kicked up this fus's. For his, (Mr. M's) 
 part, he thinks they have got alarmed with- 
 out cause. His colleague, Mr. Soule, met 
 them with crave arguments; he called their 
 attention to certain articles in the constitu- 
 tion, and shewed clearly what was the su- 
 preme law of the land; he further shewed 
 from Story's commentaries, and the valua- 
 ble articles published in the Federalist, that 
 the measure now proposed was not only- 
 unconstitutional,' but that it was unjust. 
 That is all very well in its way. Some 
 men arrive at the £nd of the journey by one 
 
220 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 path, some by another; the simile' will ap- 
 ply as well to an actual physical journey of 
 labor, as to the intellectual one of politics. 
 While Mr. Soule, and those who sustain 
 that side of the question, have met their 
 opponents on the constitutional question, 
 his task shall be to meet them with matters 
 of fact, and to show them clearly, that it is 
 contrary to the true interests of Louisiana 
 to insert such a clause as is contemplated, 
 to exclude the naturalized citizen from his 
 right to become governor of Louisiana, and 
 further, he thought such a measure would 
 'be pestiferously odious, and supremely" 
 infamous. 
 
 He desires to carry this Convention back 
 to the time when the State of Louisiana 
 came under the dominion of the govern- 
 ment of the United States as a territory: 
 that was in the year 1803. At that period, 
 he, Mr. Maeigny, was in his twentieth 
 year, an epoch in man's life when he feels 
 the deepest interest in his country's affairs; 
 and the time when his memory is stored 
 with those interesting events, which make 
 for his after life a source of so much happy 
 or serious reflection. 
 
 This country then ceded by treaty, be- 
 came a territory of the United States, and 
 they apparently were acknowledged to pos- 
 sess the same rights as pertained to other 
 citizens of the United States. But how 
 were the facts of the case? The territorial 
 governor sent to us, took every possible 
 measure in his power to ride over the peo- 
 ple rough shodden, and to pass such ordi- 
 nances as were in direct violation of the 
 rights secured to us under the treaty of 
 session. What did the people then in 
 those days? The most respectable Creoles 
 of the country called a meeting, at a house 
 in Conde street, and undertook measures 
 that should redress their grievances. Now, 
 Mr. Marigny asked who presided at that 
 meeting, which met for the purpose of 
 making this solemn declaration of the rights 
 of the citizens of Louisiana? Why, it was 
 Elieum Bore, a man whose lion-heart and 
 ready nerved arm was always prepared to 
 meet danger, and to defy the menaces of 
 the people's oppressor. Who addressed 
 the people at this critical moment; who in- 
 structed qus in our rights, immunities and 
 privileges? Why, forsooth, it was natural- 
 ized citizens, men whose more intimate 
 knowledge with the laws of our country 
 
 rendered more peculiarly fit to expound 
 such principles to us, as were identified 
 with the popular cause. 
 
 The governor became enraged at their 
 proceedings and ordered out a force of 200 
 men, with two pieces of cannon, to disperse 
 our assembly; and yet these men stood 
 boldly, bravely up to the contest, and de- 
 fended our rights. They sent a committee 
 consisting of three members, to confer with 
 the government of the United States on this 
 extraordinary proceeding against Ijie as- 
 sembly, and in that very committee were 
 to be found Messrs. P. Bubigny and P. 
 Sauve, both naturalized citizens. The re- 
 sult ofethat mission was not satisfactory. 
 The government refused to do any thing for 
 our relief, further than that they went: 
 they put in force the infamous ordinance of 
 '87, by virtue of which the governor nomi- 
 nated all the officers, executive and legal, 
 without consulting any other than his own 
 proper will. Even further than that did 
 they carry it. Justice herself was stripped 
 of her robes, and we beheld, day by day, 
 the singular spectacle of one man disposing 
 of life, liberty and property, by simply en- 
 dorsing on the back of the proceedings, 
 "judgment for the plaintiff," or "judgment 
 for the defendant." That was in reality 
 an odious and insupportable tyranny. And 
 now, sir, I would ask you who undertook 
 the resistance to this oppression? Was it 
 our Creole population? No, sir. Again 
 were we indebted to our naturalized citi= 
 zens. Those naturalized citizens, too, 
 whose talents and information had been 
 called into requisition by the governor, and 
 who profited by his administration, pre- 
 ferred rather to defend and protect the 
 rights and privileges of their adopted coun- 
 try's citizens, than bask in the sunshine of 
 executive favor. 
 
 Those very men, irritated by the wrongs 
 inflicted by the powers that were, upon the 
 people of Louisiana, stirred up our citizens 
 to provide a remedy for the evil; yes, sir, 
 these~very men, or that class of citizens 
 whom we now attempt to decry, found a 
 remedy for the disease under which we 
 then were suffering. They found a man, 
 who, by his talents and means of fortune, 
 was capable of devoting himself to the pub- 
 lic good, and he was sent on as our repre- 
 sentative to Congress to effect our political 
 liberation. This was, I believe, in 1811. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 227 
 
 And where did they find such a man? Was 
 it among the Creoles? No; again we had 
 recourse to an adopted citizen. Mr. Ju- 
 lien Poydras, a planter of Point Coupee, 
 was their choice, and most happily did he 
 accomplish the objects of his mission. This 
 plain and simple gentleman appeared at the 
 White House in the same unstentatious 
 garb as did our revered Franklin, at the 
 court of Versailles; and so well was he re- 
 ceived and appreciated by the representa- 
 tives and senators in Congress, that by his 
 means and efforts we were allowed a 
 place among the States, and thereby re- 
 leased from the iron rule under which we 
 had suffered. 
 
 Shortly after that, the Convention of 1812 
 met under happy auspices; I had the honor 
 of being one of its members. That same 
 noble spirit who had achieved our political 
 regeneration, Julien Poydras, was called 
 to the chair as president of the Convention; 
 and in those days I assure you nobody 
 thought of that honor belonging exclusively 
 to a native -born citizen. 
 
 The government being organized, al- 
 though the first governor was a Creole, we 
 still had to have recourse ■ to the natu- 
 ralized citizen to perform all those duties of 
 office which were required by the different 
 posts in the administration of the govern- 
 ment, holding among themselves great ex- 
 perience of our political state, and the per- 
 fect knowledge of that language which was 
 necessarily introduced into our legislative 
 and judicial halls. 
 
 Besides that, we saw them called to the 
 posts of honor and profit, from judges down 
 to the minute officers, as justices of the 
 peace. And now sir, point out to me if you 
 can, during the space of thirty years, which 
 have since then rolled by, whether a single 
 one of those naturalized citizens have ever 
 gave cause for impeachment. You cannot 
 do it, and sir, as a mark of your gratitude 
 for such eminent services rendered by the 
 naturalized citizen you now tell him, (if this 
 section prevail) that a naturalized citizen is 
 not a fit man to hold the office of governor 
 of your State. Kis not towards those whom 
 a blind, and foolish jealousy for others fame, 
 have caused them to cast odium on the 
 memory of one who has deserved well of 
 Louisiana, that I would address myself, but 
 I would state to you, sir an, historical fact 
 perhaps not generally known. 
 
 We have heard the praises of those one 
 thousand foreigners who onChalmette plains 
 took up arms in defence of our soil, and 
 of our common country and who there per- 
 formed prodigies of valor — but I imagine 
 generally we are ignorant to whom we 
 were then indebted for that intrepid and 
 brave body of men. Let me tell you; 
 it was to Judge Dominick Hall, an English 
 naturalized citizen, of whose acquaintance 
 I shall ever feel proud ; and whose memo- 
 ry I shall ever kindly cherish. 
 
 Gen. Jackson by a proclamation dated in 
 Mobile declared, that he would not give 
 employment to any of the pirates of Barra- 
 taria, or in the Gulf of Mexico. His arri- 
 val was anxiously expected, and some few 
 days after he arrived and made his quarters 
 in Royal street near the present residence 
 of Judge Morphy. 
 
 The. legislature which was then in session * 
 appointed a committee consisting of Messrs. 
 Rauffignar, Villere, and himself, Mr. Ma- 
 rig ny, to wait on Gen. Jackson, and in- 
 form him of the means we could place at 
 his disposal. We mentioned at the same 
 time what we conceived to be the advan- 
 tage to be derived from the service of a body 
 of men, who anxiously desired to enlist un- 
 der our flag. They were under the com- 
 mand of one Dominick You, and could not 
 fail to prove a corps of infinite injury to the 
 enemy. He, Gen. Jackson, still, how- 
 ever, persisted in his refusal, and we left 
 much chagrined. The idea struck us to go 
 and consult with Judge Hall. After listen- 
 ing attentively to us, he suggested a very 
 simple plan to accomplish what we aimed 
 at, and that was, to get the legislature to 
 pass a resolution asking the United States 
 court to grant them an amnesty for the pe- 
 riod of four months. That during that pe- 
 riod the result of the war would be known, 
 and whether conqueror or conquered, the 
 pirates would then cease to disturb the 
 tranquility of the country. For, said he, 
 if we by their aid conquer, we shall pardon 
 them for their services, and if we be con- 
 quered, then justice will no longer be at 
 our disposal. We followed his advice, 
 and arranged all in the manner he suggest- 
 ed. The pirates deserved their pardon! 
 by braving death in defence of that country 
 whose laws 'they had< violated, and in car- 
 rying death and carnage into the ranks of 
 that man's countrymen, who was fifteen 
 
228 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 years an admiralty judge, and whom, since 
 his death, they have unjustly stigmatized the 
 memory of, as a traitor. The friendship 
 which I have ever entertained towards Gen. 
 Jackson, has neutralized my feelings touch- 
 ing his difficulties with Judge Hall. But 
 the fact which I have just related, is a part 
 from their misunderstanding, and I mention 
 it to show that a naturalized citizen can 
 feel even in the most trying circumstances 
 as far as he is concerned, pure principles of 
 honor, and the sanctity of his oath. 
 
 Let us now look at another side of the 
 picture. Do you know who endowed your 
 colleges in which the youth of the country 
 was instructed ? who established asylums 
 for the poor and distressed orphans ? was it 
 citizens of our own State ? No. It was 
 naturalized citizens. Julien Poydras^left 
 $200,000 to the asylum which bears his 
 name, $40,000 to West Feliciana, and $40,- 
 
 000 to Point Coupee parishes for similar 
 purposes. Alexander Milne, attracted by 
 the same spirit of philanthropy, left also 
 $200,000 for similar purposes. Nicolas 
 Girod left a legacy to the city of $100,000- 
 Before them another naturalized citizen, 
 Don Andre de Almonaster, built at his own 
 cost, the Cathedral, the Ursuline Convent, 
 and the Hospital. Turn on which ever 
 side you will, you cannot fail to see monu- 
 ments of the liberality of the foreigner, and 
 
 1 say it without intention to disparage any 
 one,you may look in^vain for any such evi- 
 dence on the part of the native born Ame- 
 ricans. And yet you contend that it is 
 right to exclude that class of citizens from 
 the first magistracy of the State, even 
 though he leaves his fortunes to endow 
 your colleges, and your institutions of lear- 
 ning or charity ; and even though he pos- 
 sess in an eminent degree a knowledge of 
 the science of government and the perfect 
 confidence of the people. Nothing can be 
 more odious, or unjust, than such conduct 
 on our part. Had your predecessors, the 
 members of the convention of 1812, suf- 
 fered themselves-' to insert such a 'clause 
 in that constitution to the one now asked 
 for, in the one we are striving to make, is it 
 to be supposed that those naturalized citi- 
 zens whose patriotism, and munificence I 
 have to-day set forth and made clear to you; 
 is it likely, I ask, that they^vould have 
 been as prodigal in their bounties, towards 
 those who would place such odious restric- 
 
 tions on their rights ? Do not, Mr. Presi- 
 dent, let us in 1845 make such a distinc- 
 tion as our predecessors have repudiated, 
 and you cannot do so without reflecting on 
 their memories. 
 
 Mr. Marigny now takes occasion to say 
 to Messrs. Saunders, Benjamin, Grymes, 
 and Co., that their satirical and sarcastic 
 course will not avail them before this Con- 
 vention, If they conceive that this question 
 can be settled by such ruses as they have 
 sprung upon us, they are mistaken; if they 
 think that this question is to be settled by 
 rhetoric, by unjust representations, by out 
 of the way comparisons, or by wit, they 
 grossly deceive themselves. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, let us take a look 
 at the cunning position they have assumed. 
 They tell you, one with an easy manner, 
 the other with a dolorous accent, that in the 
 time of peace a naturalized governor would 
 distribute, what in their peculiar style of 
 eloquence they are pleased to term "the 
 loaves and fishes," amongst their own 
 countrymen — and that no one jelse would 
 have a chance to taste the one or the other, 
 and that he would laugh in his sleeve if a 
 poor native born American was to present 
 himself for any little corner of the public 
 favor; and therefore the gentlemen, reason- 
 ing by analogy, think it is right that they 
 should have that small boon granted to the 
 natives, to name among their own coun- 
 trymen a governor who would not be subject 
 to such influences. As if, Mr. President, 
 the office of governor was to be put up 
 every four years as in a lottery, and the first 
 drayman coming either from Germany or 
 from Ireland, if you will, had a chance for 
 the first prize, and getting that he would 
 have the right to divide ail the loaves and 
 fishes out forthwith among his brother dray- 
 men or associates, or acquaintance. So 
 absurh an idea as this could never have en- 
 tered into the heads of these gentlemen, 
 unless they found them among the 
 
 of the town of Jackson. They re- 
 mind him, (Mr. M.) a good deal of the fable 
 of the mountain in labor, which, alas, only 
 brought forth as in this instance, 'a mouse.' 
 There, are, however, reasons which are 
 powerful, to entitle this provision to the re- 
 ouke of the Convention, and he (Mr. Ma- 
 rigny) will endeavor to exemplify them. An 
 honest foreigner and a good man arrives 
 on our shores—he acquires his citizenship 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 229 
 
 in the regular mode prescribed by the con- 
 stitution of the United States. He is at- 
 tached to our institutions by thirty years of 
 residence and identity with our interests. 
 His children are born on our soil, and bind 
 him still stronger to the interests of our 
 country; the circle of his friends and ac- 
 quaintance gradually is increasing from day 
 to day; his talents and abilities are beyond 
 dispute, and he is regarded as a man who 
 would do honor to any country. And yet, 
 if 5 r ou were to talk to my colleagues who 
 have taken the opposite side to the one I 
 espoused, of placing such a man at the head 
 of our governmental affairs — of confiding to 
 such a man our civil and military affairs — 
 they would tell you he is a foreigner, and 
 in time of war between the United States 
 and his own country, he would remember 
 his own village clock. He would remember 
 the early scenes of his childhood, his little j 
 sports with his schoolfellows on his own 
 native meadows. He would be so imbued j 
 with such touching reminiscences that hej 
 could not serve you faithfully, and for these 
 powerful natural reasons would either in- 
 duce the poor man to either betray you or 
 sell you to the enemy. What a bugbear, 
 Mr. President, have the gentlemen held up 
 to us? and to what extreme nonsensical 
 provisions have our friends on the other 
 side forced themselves. War ! war ! ! is 
 the sound in which they build their whole 
 argument. War ! f is the mystic term, 
 around which, and to which, they all cling, 
 as if it bore some cabalistic spell to carry 
 them through this ordeal. 
 
 Now (said Mr. Marigny) I desire to join 
 issue with the gentleman from New Or- 
 leans, (Mr. Benjamin.) You, Sir, admit 
 that in 1815 we had all cause to admire and 
 be grateful for the courage and bravery dis- 
 played by the foreign force on the plains 
 of Chalmette; but at the same time you ask 
 whether the same courage and energy 
 would have been evinced had they been 
 called upon to meet the sons of France in 
 deadly strife. Contrary then, Sir, to all 
 parliamentary usage, you call upon the 
 other distinguished member from New Or- 
 leans, who had the floor just previous to 
 your address, and say to him, and you, 
 Sir, suppose you had been placed at the 
 head of an army to meet in deadly combat 
 your own countrymen; could you, would 
 you have done it? Upon what principle 
 3 
 
 or by what right do you ask that colleague 
 of ours to account to you, even if he be a 
 naturalized citizen? By what right, I again 
 ask, do you force a man to reply to you, 
 nolens volens, when he is sick, which he 
 tells you at the conclusion of his address, 
 he is. I tell you, Sir, that you have inflict- 
 ed on him an unjust provocation, and al- 
 though you may consider it as a fair speci- 
 men of parliamentary eloquence to indulge 
 in such vagaries, I give you distinctly to 
 understand that I take up the glove in his 
 behalf; and Sir, I trust that you will not 
 complain of my not being a native of the 
 country, since I descend from those ancient 
 warriors who conquered the country and 
 here represent six generations of Louisi- 
 anians. 
 
 You say that the foreigner is not to be 
 trusted, because when war is declared be- 
 tween this and his native country, he will 
 not act against her. You either cannot be 
 serious, or else you know nothing of his- 
 tory, (and I really had given you credit for 
 having forgotten more than I know.) ■ His- 
 tory contradicts yourposition at every page. 
 
 Who defended BuenosAyres against the 
 memorable expedition of Great Britain, 
 when Spain could neither defend herself, 
 nor allay the storm? It was a Frenchman 
 who had become a naturalized Spaniard. 
 His name 'w r as Di Linieres. At his voice, 
 and at his call, the militia of the country 
 were united and became as a band of bro- 
 thers fighting for freedom. He disciplined 
 them; led them encouragingly along, until 
 he made the attack upon the British 
 at their head. He disconcerted them so, 
 as at the end of a few months, to reduce 
 their army of 8000 men to 4000, and final- 
 ly he drove them from the country to their 
 vessels in waiting, and thus they were driv- 
 en from that country. 
 
 At a later period, the self same England 
 sent a fora of 6000 veteran troops to take 
 possession of the island of Porto Rico. 
 Some naturalized Frenchmen attached to 
 the country of their adoption, animated the 
 Creoles to a worthy spirit of resistance. 
 Abercrombie lost an arm in the battle there 
 fought. He saw his army dwindled down 
 to nothing, and he took his departure sud- 
 denly from there. 
 
 I will not again call your attention to 
 the events of 1815 in Louisiana; out you 
 know that our proud and confident enemy, 
 
230 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 England, sent upon our shores 15,000 of 
 her old and well tried veteran troops, vete- 
 rans that had served and . conquered under 
 the redoubtable Wellington. And by whom 
 were they met!? By whom were they con- 
 quered? Why by the naturalized citizens 
 principally in the State of Louisiana, com- 
 bined with the efforts of the native Ameri- 
 can force. 
 
 The cry now is,- however, but oh! if 
 they had been Frenchmen invading our 
 soil, we should have heard another story. 
 It may be that you desire despite the merits 
 of the natives of France to throw aside 
 their pretensions; and yet, he, Mr. Marig- 
 ny, will do the gentleman to whom he par- 
 ticularly replies,*(Mr. Benjamin,) the jus- 
 tice to believe that such an idea was never 
 entertained by him, yet such is the inevita- 
 ble tendency of the principle he advances 
 if carried out. 
 
 The enquiry he (Mr. Marigny) desires 
 to make is this, do the gentlemen think to 
 frighten us, the Frenchmen, with their vivid 
 description of the horrors of war? He 
 knows, as we all know, that Frenchmen,' 
 or their descendants, form the largest por- 
 tion of the population of Louisiana; and it 
 does appear to him as if the gentleman 
 wished to direct the whole of his oratori- 
 cal battery against that class of our citizens, 
 when in exalting, as they do, their native 
 genius, they create armies and navies; the 
 ocean covered with vessels of war; and then 
 with a rhetorical flourish, they make all 
 these French, that they may make a screen 
 to retire behind when they please, and 
 thereby hide their odious system of pro- 
 scription. 
 
 Fortunately for me, said Mr. M., all 
 your fine quotations are lost on me. I have 
 never read any of those works, which are 
 supposed necessary to make a logical man. 
 But, Mr. President, I am one of those who, 
 looking at things *s they are, feel myself 
 capable of meeting the emergency of the 
 hour; and of according my political acts to 
 the political wants of my country . France 
 to do, is not as France was, in the time of 
 Louis the 14th and Louis the 15th. It is 
 now constitutional France — France, go- 
 verned by a constitutional monarchy — by 
 a monarch who has less power than the 
 president of the United States, in any of 
 the departments of government, and who 
 can't even draw from the treasury the 
 
 means of sustaining his court, without a 
 vote of the chamber of deputies. 
 
 How then is it likely that we can ever 
 be engaged in a war with France?— that 
 country which can have ho other feelings 
 towards us but those of amity an/l friend- 
 ship. Nothing but an alliance between 
 England and France could possibly bring 
 about such a state of things; but experience 
 daily proves to us that such an event can 
 never happen, at least "for centuries to 
 come. 
 
 When Talleyrand and Louis Phillippe 
 entered into that alliance of amity and. 
 friendship with England, of which so many 
 talk, and which so few understand, it was 
 because they believed the measure was 
 necessary, in order to carry out the object 
 of the revolution of July, 1830, at which 
 the rest of Europe had became alarmed, 
 and which they labored to destroy the 
 effect of. This policy has been proved to 
 be wise and salutary on the part of those 
 statesmen — and it was not for the purpose 
 of furnishing England with a pair of colos- 
 sal boots, to bestride the world, as was 
 wisely conjectured at the time, that such 
 treaty was entered into. 
 
 Since that period more than fourteen 
 years have elapsed; France goes on pros- 
 pering and to prosper. She will no lon- 
 ger war with England, but with the spin- 
 dle and loom, and her forty millions of peo- 
 ple have accorded to the verdict; The 
 French people are now an united and con- 
 tented people. There is no longer any dis- 
 tinction between classes, either heriditary 
 honors or the honors of wealth, which has 
 heretofore bound down their spirits and 
 kept them in poverty and misery, the real 
 source of all their political revolutions. 
 While Great Britain, with her twenty-eight 
 millions, has eight millions of them in Ire- 
 land, who are ready at any moment to cast 
 off their vassalage; groaning, as they are, 
 under the systems imposed on them, an 
 exacting priesthood that they do not wor- 
 ship under, and an intolerant and insatia- 
 ble aristocracy. 
 
 No, that alliance between England and 
 France ought not to inspire dread in the 
 United States, because it is a natural 
 alliance, springing from a community of 
 interests. They know in France that we 
 regard and repair on board their ships' in 
 this country with pleasure, and that they 
 
Debates In the Gonvention of Louisiana. 
 
 231 
 
 can alone arrest the trident from the hands 
 of England, and gain the supremacy of 
 the ocean, by their friendly feelings and 
 sympathy with the United States of Amer- 
 ica. 
 
 It is nothing, therefore, but a mistaken 
 notion engendered in the minds of those 
 gentlemen,^ to satisfy their feelings of self 
 love and self opinion, when they talk to 
 you about the danger to be apprehended 
 from a state of war, and consequent treason 
 in Louisiana. 
 
 What has surprised him, (Mr. Marigny,) 
 more than all else is that the eloquent gen- 
 tleman, (Mr. Benjamin,) did not on this 
 occasion indulge in the pathetics; that he 
 did not conjure up such a scene as we have 
 in Coriolanus, where the tender wife and 
 venerable mother were made to appear, 
 habited in sable weeds, and with hair stream- 
 ing to the winds, were made to supplicate 
 on their knees before the governor, in the 
 name of Bordeaux and Toulouse, to spare 
 the blood of Frenchmen. 
 
 Such a figure as that might have pro- 
 duced some effect* 
 
 The gentleman who last addressed us 
 must indeed have a great love for his do- 
 mestic hearth, to get into such a labyrinth 
 of elegant description as he has about the 
 recollections of his infancy; about the 
 school house, where he first got the im- 
 pression that he was destined to become a 
 great man, as all boys do; about the grassy 
 meadows on which he indulged in his boy- 
 ish sports — in short, about all those tender 
 recollections of infancy which, despite our- 
 selves, fond memory will make us cherish 
 in our hearts. 
 
 For myself, Mr. President, I am no poet, 
 and do not indulge in such vagaries. But, 
 Sir, I pretend to have my share of common 
 sense, and with the history of my country 
 in my handj 1 am ready to prove that all 
 the gentleman's assertions are nothing but 
 hypothesis, contradicted by facts them- 
 selves. That moreover, the sentiment of 
 honor implanted in the human heart, is 
 stronger than that of love of country; and 
 that a naturalized governor of Louisiana, 
 (notwithstanding the fancyings of Mr. Ben- 
 jamin,) would prefer falling on the field of 
 battle, than to lose his character as a man 
 of honor. 
 
 Did Marshal Saxe remember that he 
 was a German, when he commanded the 
 
 army of Louis the 15th, on the plains of 
 Fortenay, against the allied armies of Ger- 
 many and England? Was i». notLangeron, 
 a Frenchman, who had been naturalized in 
 Russia, who commanded the troops of the 
 emperor of Russia when the allied forces 
 made their triumphal entry into Paris ? 
 True it is, that he recollected the country of 
 his nativity, in this wise, by his affectionate 
 attention and solicitude for all those 
 Frenchmen, who had or were suffering 
 from the effects of the war. But on the 
 field*of honor all those feelings vanished. 
 He thought alone of duty; not even the glo- 
 rious name of his own native country could 
 have charms for him, and drive from his 
 heart his feelings of duty to the country to 
 which he had sworn allegiance and fidelity. 
 Do you ask another proof? I have one at 
 hand, and one, I think, that will satisfy the 
 most sceptical, of the position I have taken. 
 Yon must all recollect, and no doubt do, 
 how the unfortunate Marshal Ney was 
 tried in France, before the Chamber of 
 Peers, after the restoration of Louis 18th. 
 His lawyer, the celebrated Dupin, sen., 
 after exhausting all the eloquence, logic, 
 and law which was at his command, found 
 that they did not produce such an impres- 
 sion, as to overbalance the influence of the 
 crown upon the feelings of his judges. 
 Suddenly he bethought himself of an idea, 
 which he felt sure would save him. He 
 arose again, and in a loud voice proclaim, 
 ed to the astonishment of all present — " ; 
 defy you all, to touch a hair of his head I 
 the Marshal is not a Frenchman, and you 
 cannot arraign him before this assembly 
 on a charge of treason to his country." 
 The noble prisoner, forgetting his unfor- 
 tunate situation, but yielding to a soldier's 
 impulse, cried out, " Who gave you per- 
 mission to employ such means to save my 
 life. Let it be taken, if they will have it, 
 but never say that I deny the country of 
 my choice and my adoption ! I feel the 
 sanctity of my oath, and I feel moreover 
 that France has the first place in my heart." 
 These are the kind of men that they would 
 proscribe from filling the office of Governor 
 of Louisiana. 
 
 If ever there was a time in my life, Mr, 
 President, that I regretted my inability to 
 speak English fluently, it is now. I would 
 now desire so to impress the voice of truth, 
 and reason, upon the hearts of the mem- 
 
232 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Eouisiana, 
 
 bers of this convention, that like myself 
 they would see and feel (and I feel certain 
 and sure that like myself they have seen 
 and are prepared to resist the odious re- 
 striction, which it is endeavored to fasten 
 upon us,) that they would say with me, en- 
 graft such an infamous proposition upon 
 yoar Constitution and we will tread it under 
 foot as we would a venemous adder. 
 
 Are you aware, Mr. President, what we 
 have most to dread in Louisiana? It is not 
 the English. It is not the French. It is 
 not our native citizens; but it is a class of 
 men who call themselves Americans, who 
 have the unblushing impudence to express 
 themselves ready, like another Hartford 
 Convention, to propogate amongst us the 
 odious doctrine of absolutism, and even 
 abolitionism itself. The orator of yester- 
 day, (Mr. Benjamin,) knows this as well 
 as I do. Why, then, did his surpassing 
 eloquence spare them? Where are his 
 shafts of satire upon this subject? 
 
 The real cause of his silence is this, that 
 he will not find fault with any thing that 
 can operate against his preconceived opin- 
 ions; and further, that in calling up his pro- 
 scriptive system against these dangerous 
 men, he would introduce the measure gene- 
 rally, against the native born Americans of 
 other States, of which, if we are to believe 
 what we hear, he was a citizen himself. 
 
 But Sir, I again ask you, by what right 
 do you expect to disfranchise in 1845, 
 those who had rights guaranteed to them in 
 1812? rights which never having been dis- 
 puted, are vested rights. Did you consult 
 the people, or did you take it for granted 
 that Mr. Benjamin's doctrine is the correct 
 one; that this Convention can do as they 
 please? They will doubtless tell you that 
 we are here, in the capacity of sovereign 
 masters, with all the privileges of the 
 Montmorencys, the Dumas, the Bridge- 
 waters, and the Wellingtons ! ! ! But Sir, 
 I tell you, I, Bernard Marigny tell you, 
 that you are after all, nothing but the ser- 
 vants of the people— nothing more, nothing 
 less. Presume on your authority! if you 
 do, they will soon bring you to a just appre- 
 ciation of their power over you; and it 
 would not at all surprise me, if they were 
 to obstinately persist, at the very next elec- 
 tion, in selecting a governor from the very 
 men whom you are now so anxious to ex- 
 clude from that privilege. 
 
 What then would you do, poor weak 
 mortals? Why, you would be like the 
 buttercup and daisy, which the first show- 
 er of rain would forever wash away from 
 the face of the earth, resisting as you do 
 public sentiment and opinion. The only 
 thing, Mr. President, that is ^ wanting to 
 complete the iniquity of the course sub- 
 mitted to us for consideration is, to restrict 
 our ancient catholic population, and make 
 ineligible as governors; under the solemn 
 mockery that a majority of the citizens. of 
 Louisiana are protestants. But that course 
 sir, you dare not take. The moment has 
 not yet come, when you have the power to 
 fasten your restrictions further upon us. 
 
 It is upon the naturalized citizens, and 
 particularly upon the French naturalized 
 citizens, that you have directed your bat- 
 tery. Hence the great exertions of Mr. 
 Benjamin to depict the dangers of a war 
 with France. Hence spring all those sal- 
 lies of imagination with which we have 
 been so much favored recently. For my 
 part, sir, believing it to be an unjust course ( 
 on their part, I cannot but hope as 1 expect, 
 that this Convention will deal out to them 
 prompt but severe retributive justiee. 
 
 Mr. President, I have done. I have 
 endeavored to explain to you the reasons 
 for the vote I shall give on this question, 
 I have endeavored to express my senti- 
 ments in taking the floor on this question, 
 as I conceived to be the duty of a watch- 
 man at the tower of liberty. 
 
 The history of the past, and the present 
 position of things, admonish me, that I 
 have -only foretold you of the future, and if 
 I did not appear before you in the robes of 
 eloquence, yet it cannot be denied that I 
 have furnished you with facts, so strong, 
 which give the most positive and direct 
 lie to the sophisms advanced by gentlemen 
 opposed to me; and the only reason for 
 my attacking their trenches, is that I con- 
 ceived I might carry them by the force of 
 truth. 
 
 It may be that you will class my speech 
 as rude, but I want to bear in mind that my 
 greatest happiness is to meet my antago* 
 nist face to face. 
 
 Mr. Roselius said, that it had been sug- 
 gested to him by some of his friends, that 
 on account of the peculiar position in which 
 he was placed with regard to the question J 
 now under discussion, he ought not to par- 
 
Debates in the Convention ot Louisiana. 
 
 233 
 
 ticipate in the debate; that it had also been 
 intimated to him that a contrary course 
 would have a tendency to injure his popu- 
 larity. But, sir, (said Mr. R.) after having 
 considered and weighed the friendly advice 
 thus given, I have come to the conclusion 
 to reject it. I value the approbation and 
 good will of the generous constituency 
 who have sent me here to represent them, 
 as much as any member of this house; but, 
 sir, I would be unworthy of being their 
 representative, were I to attempt to concil- 
 iate their favor by a dereliction of duty. 
 Nor do I believe, sir, that there is the 
 slightest foundation for the apprehensions 
 of my friends. I know my constituents 
 too well to think, for a single moment, that 
 their friendly feeling towards me can be 
 impaired by pursuing an independent and 
 straight forward course. They have sent 
 me here, sir, to give a full and free expres- 
 sion to my honest and conscientious views 
 on this, and every other subject, which may 
 be presented to the consideration of this 
 Convention. 
 
 Sir, what is the question now before us? 
 It is proposed to introduce into the new 
 constitution an additional qualification for 
 the office of governor. The one sought 
 to be introduced was not in the old consti- 
 tution, it is an innovation, and he (Mr. Ros- 
 elius) thinks that when any innovation is 
 sought to be made in the organic law, those 
 who propose it should assign some good 
 reason for the change, either on the score 
 of necessity, policy, or at least expediency. 
 He (Mr. Roselius) considers it wrong, 
 and therefore he shall oppose it. He 
 will not follow the gentlemen who 
 have discussed the constitutionality or un- 
 constitutionality of the proposed measure; 
 he admits for argument's sake, that the 
 Convention has the power; but is it right, 
 just, reasonable, politic o"r expedient for 
 us to use it? He (Mr. Roselius) says, that 
 the question cannot be answered affirma- 
 tively, without an obvious violation of the 
 most fundamental principles of government. 
 The first and paramount object of this con- 
 vention in framing an organic law, should 
 be to extend and secure to all the citizens 
 of the State, without distinction, equal 
 rights, privileges, and immunities." If 
 then this is incontrovertible, how *can it be 
 pretended, that a line of demarkation can 
 be introduced into our new constitution as 
 
 proposed in the section before us, without 
 violating tm principle? If to be placed 
 on the same piatform and level; if equality 
 of rights and privileges, which ought to exist 
 in every well constituted government, be 
 acknowledged to be the proper foundation 
 of our government ; why is it asserted 
 that naturalized citizens are foreigners ? 
 why should you desire to exclude them 
 from any of those rights, acquired by them 
 when they become citizens ? The dis- 
 tinction is- an odious one, and should not, 
 and he hoped would not be sanctioned by 
 this convention. They have rights acqui- 
 red and secured to them under the laws 
 and constitution of the United States; those 
 laws expressly provide, that when he whose 
 lot it was to be accidentally born on another 
 shore, shall have complied with the re- 
 quirements of the naturalization laws of 
 Congress, from that moment he is to be ta- 
 ken and considered as a citizen of the Uni- 
 ted States. He is to all intents and pur- 
 poses a citizen of the country, and although 
 born on some far distant shore, he is enti- 
 tled to the same rights and privileges as 
 those who were born on the soil. I have 
 endeavored to account to myself, and satisfy 
 my own mind as to the motives which ac- 
 tuated the decision of the members of the 
 committee, in introducing into the constitu- 
 tion a clause so contrary to the spirit of the 
 institutions of our country. By what rea- 
 son or by what principle can they pretend 
 to justify such an odious measure. The 
 power it is true, is for argument's sake 
 admitted, but though he (Mr. Roselius) has 
 listened with an attentive ear day after day 
 to the eloquent remarks of gentlemen, 
 he has never yet heard one sound argument 
 for its adoption. Why sir, I have asked 
 them at least a hundred times to explain 
 to me, (and I have asked myself the ques- 
 tion a thousand times) why this restrictive 
 policy was necessary, and all the answer . I 
 ever could get from them is this: in a sar- 
 castic and solemn style they tell us of their 
 liberality in admitting naturalized citizens 
 to fhe privileges they themselves en- 
 joy. They tell • us this is the as- 
 sylum for the oppressed of all oth- • 
 er countries, but at the same time they ask 
 us to grant them one small boon; they tell 
 us in the same breath (in which they make 
 the assertion, that we have the same and 
 equal privileges that they have;) that it is 
 
234 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 nothing but right we should leave to the 
 native born citizen one exclusive privilege, 
 that of rilling the governor's chair. But 
 why should this particular office be 
 only accessible to those who are born in the 
 United States? By what reason or by 
 what argument do these gentlemen arrive 
 at this conclusion? They are apparently 
 candid, and they tell you they are guided 
 by the impulse of their feelings. He (Mr. 
 Roselius) does not doubt that they have 
 been guided more by their feelings than 
 their reason. My colleague from New 
 Orleans, (Mr. Benjamin) tells you that his 
 feelings prompted him to ask the insertion 
 of the word "native," in this section, be- 
 cause they operated on his heart, and that 
 afterwards when he had examined the 
 question, his judgment co-operated with 
 his feelings, and more and more convinced 
 him of the necessity of the proposed elause 
 in the section. It is not surprising, sir, 
 that a man who suffers his judgment to be 
 influenced by his feelings, should be led 
 astray by those feelings; and let his judg- 
 ment be warped in carrying out a principle 
 which his predilections prompt him to 
 adopt. You, Mr. President, have had ex- 
 perience in the profession of law — have 
 you ever yet found a client who thought 
 he had not right on his side, or who 
 thought that his adversary was not about 
 to wrong him? Whenever a man is acted 
 upon by his feelings, he must necessarily 
 be distrustful of the conclusion to which 
 his reason leads him. This no doubt is 
 the cause why my friend and colleague, 
 (Mr. Benjamin) finds the conviction so 
 strong upon his mind as to espouse the 
 cause which he now does, with so much 
 zeal, so much force, and so much elo- 
 quence. But, sir, to what do the argu- 
 ments which the gentleman advances 
 amount? to what do they tend? Let us 
 take a sober, calm view of the question, 
 sift the arguments, as they have been im- 
 properly dignified, and to what weight are 
 they entitled? It is stated by one of the .gen- 
 tlemen that a naturalized citizen ought not 
 to be trusted with the executive power 
 in the State of Louisiana, because the du- 
 ties of the office are such as might expose 
 him to temptations that he might not be 
 able to resist. In the first place in the ap- 
 pointing power, his feelings for his coun- 
 trymen would be so strong and uppermost 
 
 in lids breast as to make them the especial- 
 recipients of his official favor. 
 
 Mr. President, I say this is a most un- 
 founded and gratuitous assertion. It is true, 
 sir, there 
 
 " Breathes no man, with soul so dead, 
 Who never to himself hath said : 
 This is my own, my native land !" 
 We delight in the retrospective view we 
 take of the land of our birth; memory lin- 
 gers on the school'-house where we were 
 first taught to lisp our letters. We delight 
 to think of the church where we first offer- 
 ed up our prayers to the Giver of all Good. 
 We recur with lively emotions to those 
 scenes in which our infancy was passed. 
 The vineyards, the copses, the meadows, 
 the orchards, through which in early life 
 we rambled, must ever come up in the 
 feelings of the heart of man with pleasura- 
 ble emotions. But, sir, when a man has 
 had the moral courage to leave his home 
 and cross the wide Atlantic, to cast his lot 
 permanently upon a foreign shore, he sev- 
 ers those ties, and contracts others equally 
 strong and binding. After going through 
 the probation required by law, he becomes 
 a citizen of the United States. And now, 
 sir, I will ask you why the assertion is 
 made that he cannot be trusted to fulfil the 
 duties of governor of the state of Louisi- 
 ana? Why, forsooth, because of his at- 
 tachment to his native land, and of the 
 scenes of his early youth! But, sir, does 
 not every man know that there is a wide 
 difference between the innate and natural 
 attachment a man may have for the locality 
 of his birth; the delight he may experience 
 to recur back to that spot on account of the 
 associations connected with it, and the at- 
 tachment for the government under whose 
 tyranny he first drew his breath? The 
 governments of Europe exist in opposition 
 to and in defiance of the will of the peo- 
 ple, and are sustained by standing armies; 
 the people would overthrow them if they 
 could. How, then, can it be supposed that 
 a man, born under a government where 
 power is a synonymous term for oppression, 
 should yet be so devoted to that govern- 
 ment as to unfit him for performing the du- 
 ties required from a governor of Louisiana, 
 an4 would not hesitate to forget the sanctity 
 of his oath? The gentlemen on the other 
 side of this question can bring forward no 
 argument to sustain such a position. 
 
 It is next urged, that a naturalized citi- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana : 
 
 235 
 
 zen could not properly discharge the duties 
 of governor in case the state should be at 
 war with the country of his nativity. My 
 colleague (Mr. Marigny) has told you, and 
 told you truly, that history gives the lie to 
 this assertion, and that it is unsupported by 
 any example in this or in any other country, 
 or by the experience of by-gone days. — 
 The history of the United States, and of 
 this state in particular, justify me in the as- 
 sertion, that the naturalized citizens have 
 never proved recreant to their adopted 
 country in the hour of trial and danger. — 
 J Tis not because their hearts are filled 
 with recollections of the place of their na- 
 tivity that it must be supposed they are at- 
 tached to the mercenary soldiery of a des- 
 potic government, sent to invade this soil 
 of the country|of their adoption. No, sir, 
 the love of country is one thing, the love 
 of oppression another; and it ought to be 
 clear, to the minds of those gentlemen, as 
 no doubt it will be in their cooler, calmer 
 moments, that the European comes to this 
 land of freedom to escape from the odious 
 and galling systems of the despotism un- 
 der which he has suffered. If this be true,- 
 sir, what becomes of this argument of the 
 gentlemen? It is scattered like chaff be- 
 fore the wind. But, sir, although it is quite 
 easy to draw conclusions from false premi- 
 ses to correspond with the feelings of gen- 
 tlemen, still we have an undeniable right 
 to call on them to establish, by proof or cor- 
 rect reasoning, why it is that a naturalized 
 citizen should not be entrusted with the 
 executive power of the state? It has been 
 very broadly hinted that a naturalized citi- 
 zen is unfit to have the executive power 
 confided to him. But, sir, this again 
 is mere assertion; and we all know how 
 easy it is to assert. But fortunately for 
 the cause of truth and justice, proof is 
 somewhat more dicumlt, §God forbid that 
 I should say one word that might produce 
 any unpleasant feelings by one portion of 
 our citizens towards another. I rebuke 
 the invidious distinction, and say that we 
 should pause before we throw into the midst 
 of our population the torch of discord, which 
 inevitably will lead to bloodshed and civil 
 war. The experience of the last two years 
 has brought an example by which we 
 ought to profit. I care not who on that 
 occasion was in the right, or who was in 
 the wrong; it suffices for me to show the 
 
 pernicious effects of *a wrong principle 
 carried out. Some will tell you one party 
 was right, some Ihe other; but when you 
 reflect that a popular outbreak, such as was 
 experienced in Philadelphia, where the 
 government of the state found itself for 
 several days impotent to suppress the riots, , 
 may by a similar contingency happen in 
 our midst from a similar cause, ought we 
 not to pause, I ask, before we throw 
 amongst our citizens the firebrand of dis- 
 cord? The first duty of the citizen is to 
 support and uphold the majesty of the law, 
 and the second to maintain unimpaired 
 those rights and privileges guaranteed to 
 him by the constitution under which' he 
 lives. And he who preaches different doc- 
 trines propagates heresies that, if enter- 
 tained and carried out, will destroy the 
 republic. He (Mr. Roselins) thinks that 
 there is no one in this convention that 
 would force measures to that .point; and 
 yet he foresees that unless we are very 
 cautious, we shall introduce something into 
 our constitution that will have the effect of 
 producing heart-burnings, bickerings, jeal- 
 ousies and discords. For his part, he de- 
 nounces the bickerings of the present day 
 as contemptible. The argument advanced 
 is that no one but a native born citizen is 
 fit to be entrusted with the executive gov- 
 ernment of this state. They say it should 
 be a palladium which none but native born 
 Americans should enter. Are not the re- 
 strictions already sufficiently strong without 
 mingling the conservative principles in our 
 organic laws with the spirit of ostracism 
 which these gentlemen appear desirous of 
 establishing? And, sir, I ask you why it is 
 that this odious distinction between the na- 
 turalized and native born citizen should ex- 
 ist with regard to the office of governor of 
 the state? Gentlemen tell us that the ex- 
 clusive eligibility to the office of governor 
 is a small boon which the natives of the 
 soil ask of the naturalized citizens. The 
 very idea, sir, here expressed, is^absurd in 
 the extreme. The laws of the land recog- 
 nize no distinction between one class of 
 citizens and another; how then can a boon 
 be asked by one or accepted by the other? 
 Why, sir, is there any principle of free gov- 
 ernment — -any principle of republicanism- — 
 to sanction such a pretension? They say 
 that a naturalized citizen is not to be en- 
 trusted with the powers we confer on our 
 
236 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 governor. What, is the power of that 
 governor, compared with the power of the 
 government we are now exercising? ■ Why, 
 sir, it dwindles into insignificance in the 
 comparison. Do you ask any proof to 
 convince you that the insertion of the words 
 "that he shall be commander in chief of 
 'the army and navy of the state of Louis- 
 iana" is a questionable feature? If you 
 do, sir, I shall give you proof positive as to 
 the navy; for we have not one single ves- 
 sel of war belonging to the state. But one 
 thing seems to have been forgotten by those 
 gentlemen who are so anxious to restrict 
 the rights and privileges of the naturalized 
 citizens, and that is this: that in their de- 
 sire to decry the rights of that class, they 
 seem to have forgotten that no state in the 
 union has a right to any special marine 
 force; and so far as the question goes as 
 to the military qualifications of the man 
 who may be elected governor of the state 
 of Louisiana, and thereby become com- 
 mander in chief of the forces of the state, 
 he (Mr. Roselius) does not think they 
 should be so sensitive; if we' may judge 
 from the past. For, sir, it may happen 
 again, as it has already happened, that the 
 governor, whose imperative duty it is made 
 by the constitution to be the commander 
 in chief of the army, will not know even 
 the first principle of the science of war. 
 Among all the governors we have had, 
 there has 1iot. been one who "the division 
 of a battle knew more than a spinster," or 
 could lead a single battalion into the field, 
 or form and command a single company, 
 much less an army. And yet we have so 
 decided it, and as this honorable conven- 
 tion has so decided it, it is no doubt a very 
 wise provision. 
 
 But what is there in the functions and 
 duties of the governor so very difficult 
 and arduous that ro one except a native 
 citizen can discharge them? He is the 
 chief magistrate of the State — a high and 
 important trust is confided to him. Not- 
 withstanding this, however, his duties are 
 comparatively few. What does he do? 
 Once a year he writes a message to the 
 legislature of the State, which, judging by 
 the specimens which we have had for the 
 last two or three years, ought not to have 
 taken more than two or three hours of his 
 time; any intelligent man could have done 
 it in two hours, any man of common educa- 
 
 tion, or any one who had | been three or 
 four years at a common school, could do it 
 in three hours. There is no great myste- 
 ry then in this difficult function required 
 of the governor. What else has .he 
 to do? Why he has a duty to perform, 
 which, to a vain man is no doubt very agree- 
 able, because it keeps about him a host of 
 needy office hunters, and that is not very 
 irksome, and no great labor, if he be' 
 pleased as some men are, with the flattery 
 of fawning sycophants. And he has the 
 great privilege of nominating cer- 
 tain officers, who may be approved 
 or rejected by the senate. And yet this is 
 the task that we have heard so much said 
 about, and no man can perform this 
 great herculean task unless he be a native 
 born citizen. And now sir, let me ask you 
 another question; does he not have a sec- 
 retary of state? and does he not also have a 
 private secretary? Does not the private 
 secretary write out all the appointments 
 which the governor has the right of 
 making by and with the advice and 
 and consent of the Senate ? And perhaps 
 out of two hundred or two hundred and fifty 
 greedy office hunters who annoy and har- 
 rass him, he may have the proud satisfac- 
 tion of appointing some ten or twelve, pro- 
 vided, nevertheless, the senate see fit to con- 
 firm his nominations. What other great 
 power has he? I may be answered per- 
 haps, the removing power. Yes, sir, I 
 am sorry to be obliged to state that this 
 power, although not vested in the govern- 
 or, has of late years been usurped by him; 
 and that usurpation has been sanctioned by 
 the supreme court, by a strange, and to my 
 mind altogether unsatisfactory courie 
 of reasoning. I allude to the case of Prieto 
 and Nicholson, vs. Thompson and others, 
 in which it was decided that the governor 
 has the power to remove one officer by 
 appointing another; and that thus he can 
 do indirectly what the constitution forbids 
 him to do directly. The next question we 
 come to, in looking to the extraordinary 
 mental powers required from the governor, 
 is the pardoning power. That power I 
 admit to be of an elevated and serious or- 
 der. But few governors will ever exercise 
 that power, except in those very rare cases 
 in which it clearly appears that injustice 
 has been done to the accused, and even 
 then he cannot exercise it without the con- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 237 
 
 sent of the senate. This is the substance 
 of the power which we are told cannot be 
 entrusted to any other than a native citizen. 
 Now let me ask the advocates of this clause, 
 on what ground it can be contended that a 
 man who has been 30 years a citizen of the 
 United States, who has acquired a residence 
 and citizenship in Louisiana for 20 or 25 
 years, whose family has grown up around 
 us, and who has the same identity of inter- 
 est that we have, is not a fit and proper 
 subject to present his claims to us for the 
 highest office in our gift ? 1 say that he 
 has, and if 1 do not much mistake the feel- 
 ings of this convention, they will say so 
 too. If on consideration you judge it ne- 
 cessary to extend the time of a man's po- 
 litical residence, before he shall have the 
 privilege to aspire to the gubernatorial 
 chair, I will join you. If you say it shall 
 be 30 years, or even fifty, I have no objec- 
 tion. If you adopt such a principle, you 
 jnust in justice apply it to all, as well to 
 the native as to the adopted citizen, and 
 if you do, I shall be disposed to vote for it. 
 
 And, sir, let me tell you, much as it 
 pains me to speak of myself, which I do 
 with the utmost reluctance, that throughout 
 all our deliberations, and in all the other 
 public stations in which I have been placed, 
 I have never been actuated by any other 
 principle than that of broad and equal jus- 
 tice to all men. I have been charged, sir, 
 on this floor, when voting on certain ques- 
 tions, with a learning to the views of a cer- 
 tain party with which I have never been 
 connected. But, sir, when I come into this 
 body, I feel that I belong to no party. I 
 have been a partizan, it is true, and I may 
 continue to.be so, but, it has been and will 
 continue to be, upon the solemn conviction 
 that I am right in the principles that I es- 
 pouse. Whene ver those with whom I gene- 
 rally act y depart from what I conceive to 
 be correct principles, they will not find me 
 in their company. When I voted for two 
 years' residence for an elector, and three 
 years' residence for a representative, I did 
 so on the broad principle of equality, be- 
 cause the rule was uniform, and granted to 
 all the same rights and privileges without 
 any distinction. For my part, sir, I care 
 not for the calumny of men who seek to 
 place me in a false position. I conceive 
 this to be an occasion in which I am called 
 apon to mete out even-handed justice ; and 
 
 if the decision. I have formed in my own ' 
 mind be erroneous, I do not know it. I regard 
 it as a question of distinction betw T een one 
 class of citizens and another,and as such I am 
 determinedly opposed to -it ; no matter by 
 whom brought forward. I feel as an inde- 
 pendent man should feel, and cannot be in^ 
 fluenced by the hisses or applause of the 
 populace, and I care nothing for the evanes- 
 cent smiles of popular will, conscious as I 
 am that I am doing my duty as a member' 
 of this convention to the best of my ability. 
 . Let us look a little farther into the extra- 
 ordinary powers of the governor of Loui- 
 siana; there is one which I had forgotten, 
 and that is the veto -power.- This power is 
 of an important and delicate nature : }i re- 
 quires knowledge and discretion ; but is it 
 so difficult that none but a native can exe- 
 cute that power ? Let me refer to prece- r 
 dents. The experience of the past has 
 proved that the most scandalous abuse of 
 that power recorded in the history of the 
 country, was perpetrated by one of our na- 
 tive bom citizens, the present president of 
 the United States. I could call your atten- 
 tion to another example of this abuse of 
 power, were it not that I am fearful of hurt- 
 ing the' feelings of honorable gentlemen of 
 this convention. I trust, sir, that what I 
 have already said, will be sufficient to con- 
 vince you that a naturalized citizen is not 
 so utterly incapable of discharging the du- 
 ties and exercising the powers of governor 
 as some gentlemen seem to imagine. 
 
 Mr. Roselius thought that no argument 
 ha.d been advanced in support of the propo- 
 sition; its advocates had indulged in decla- 
 mation., The objection so often repeated 
 that a naturalized citizen cannot safely be 
 trusted with the office of governor, in time 
 of war, may be answered in another way* 
 It is well known, that the command of the 
 army and navy, (and he must again repeat 
 that he was ignorant of there being a navy 
 in the State of Louisiana,) with the excep- 
 tion of an insurrection or sudden invasion, 
 belongs to officers appointed by the general 
 government; a most wise provision, calcu- 
 lated to guard against the danger of com- 
 mitting the direction of our military opera- 
 tions to incompetent and unskilful hands. 
 What would have been the result in 1814 
 and 1815, had we then had alone to rely 
 upon a governor who was ignorant of the 
 first principles of the art of war; and here 
 
233 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 let me say, said Mr. RoseliuS, that while I 
 thus speak of him, it is a duty I owe to my- 
 self to say, that he was a good man-— a man 
 whose memory is embalmed in the hearts 
 of the citizens of this State. But suppose 
 we had sent this good man, the governor, 
 instead of General Jackson, to meet Paken- 
 ham, the probability is he would have been 
 defeated; and taking into consideration the 
 ordinary calculations of chance, I think we 
 may safely say that his defeat would have 
 been signal. Suppose, then, we indulge in 
 this boundless field of conjecture, is it not 
 likely to be possible that a naturalized cit- 
 zen who had endeared himself so highly to 
 the people as to get the office, would be 
 equally fit to perform all the duties of the 
 office, and do good service in the field too? 
 But, Sir, on what ground can it be said, 
 that a man so situated as to unite the suf- 
 frages of the people in despite of the acci- 
 dency of his birth, would ever become a 
 traitor as governor of Louisiana? Asser- 
 tions are easily made, but in order to estab- 
 lish facts, proofs are necessary. Argument 
 and logic are unavailing when the premises 
 on which they rest are false, and not sus- 
 tained by facts. Have I or have I not 
 shown, that all the powers conferred and 
 duties imposed on the executive of this 
 State, are not so very difficult as some peo- 
 ple strive to make them? What are those 
 duties and powers compared to those of the 
 judiciary? The judiciary constantly exer- 
 cises power over the property, the honor, 
 the reputation, and even the life and death 
 of the citizen. Such is the tremendous 
 power wielded by that department. We 
 can, therefore, be at no loss to define which 
 position is the most delicate, important and 
 difficult. 
 
 If I be not mistaken, aiid I do not think 
 I am, the judges of the supreme court of 
 this State exercise more real power in one 
 single session, than five governors could 
 in the space of 20 years. The fortune, life 
 and reputation of every citizen is more or 
 less in their keeping. If my opponents are 
 correct in their system of excluding the na- 
 turalized citizen from the executive chair, 
 why not exclude him also from the bench? 
 Answer this, gentlemen, if you can. Why 
 then, I repeat the question, are not the same 
 qualifications required for a judge as for a 
 governor? My fear is, that I shall be told 
 in reply chaque tin a son tour, we'll come 
 
 to them by-and-bye. I tell you therefore, 
 sir, to be consistent; if you shut the na- 
 turalized citizen out from the office of gov- 
 ernor, you must also exclude him from 
 holding any office in the State government. 
 
 We all know that people are apt to 
 draw unfavorable*- /inferences from the 
 course which pufrffc men are sometimes 
 compelled to take, and I feel that such may 
 be the predicament in which I am now 
 placed. Sir, I hope that 1 shall not be 
 charged with vain glorys when I say that I 
 have never asked for an office, no, not even 
 for a%ote. It is true that I have been 
 honored, undeservedly, with high and dis- 
 tinguished offices, and there is no man who 
 more gratefully appreciates the kindness 
 he has received and the confidence reposed 
 in him than he, Mr. Roselius, does. At the 
 time he was appointed attorney general for 
 the State of Louisiana, he was not even 
 personally acquainted with the executive; 
 and when his name has been brought be- 
 fore the people for any other office it has 
 not been at his own solicitation or request. 
 And, sir, I have come to the firm resolution 
 never to accept any political office hereafl 
 ter. I have had enough of politics. I feel 
 that I have sufficient firmness of purpose 
 never to swerve from that resolution. But, 
 sir, 1 want nothing incorporated in this con- 
 stitution except on correct principles; those 
 principles are immutable; they cannot fluc- 
 tuate nor be influenced by the ups and 
 downs, or the ins and outs of party. In 
 framing a new organic law, give to all 
 equal rights and equal privileges, without 
 distinction, without restriction. I admit 
 your right to restrict, but while you do re- 
 strict, let your restrictions be general. Do 
 not discriminate between one class of citi- 
 zens and another. The constitution of the 
 Uniteo" States recognizes no such odious 
 and arbitrary distinction. But notwithstand- 
 ing this, certain gentlemen seem disposed 
 to tell those desirous to make this their 
 adopted country, "you may obtain the name 
 of citizens, but on condition that you be- 
 come hewers of wood and drawers of wa- 
 ter." Sir, I know that such are not the 
 sentiments of the American people. That 
 people takes a noble pride and pleasure in 
 proclaiming to the oppressed and persecu- 
 ted of every clime and country, its willing- 
 ness to extend the inestimable blessings of 
 liberty to all who wish to avail themselves 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 239 
 
 of the invitation. Xo one has deplored 
 more than I have, the shameful prosti- 
 tution of the name of American citizen, 
 for contemptible party purposes, by con- 
 ferring it on' those who by law were not 
 entitled to it; and who for that very rea- 
 son were unworthy of it. Individuals 
 who have been guilty of fraud and per- 
 jury are unfit to become citizens of the Uni- 
 ted States; and every one who has been 
 naturalized in violation of the laws of con- 
 gress, stands in that predicament. Mr. 
 President, I consider it a proud distinction 
 to be an American citizen; but I fear that 
 the respect which that name has heretofore 
 commanded in every part of the world, will 
 be diminished, if not entirely destroyed, un- 
 less the laws relative to naturalization are 
 administered with that purity winiout which 
 the ministers at the altar of justice become 
 a disgrace and curse to the country in 
 which they rule. In the days of Roman 
 greatness and glory, her citizen required 
 no pass-port. In whatever part of the 
 world he travelled, even among the fiercest 
 barbarians, the exclamation "civis sum Ro- 
 *manws" proved a talisman to him: the up- J 
 lifted arm of the assassin was paralyzed, j 
 and the instrument of death dropped harm- 
 less from his hands. Such should be the 
 charm of the words "I am an American 
 citizen." But, sir, that will never be the 
 case unless the rights and privileges ap- 
 pertaining to the citizens are scrupulously* 
 guarded and protected, without odious dis- ; 
 tmetions and disquaiications. • 
 
 Mr. Lewis desiring to offer a few re so- ! 
 lotions on this subject, moved an adjourn- 
 ment to Monday morning, which was car- 
 ried. 
 
 Moxday, February 17, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- j 
 ment, and its proceedings were opened i 
 with prayer from the Rev. Mr. Wood- j 
 bridge. 
 
 ^ The Convention proceeded to the discus- 
 pfcn of the clause recommended by the ma- ! 
 jority of the committee on the executive 
 department, requiring that none should be j 
 eligible to the office of governor but a natu- j 
 ral born citizen of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said that this question had ! 
 been most elaborately discussed, particu- I 
 larly by those that opposed the principle j 
 in the section, that the chief executive office \ 
 
 I of the State should be restricted to native 
 ! bonr citizens. I consider, said Mr. Lewis, 
 | this principle to be vital, and one of the 
 most important that will come before this 
 | house for decision. I shall not follow the 
 • wide field of debate that has been opened 
 | by the gentlemen that have preceded me in 
 I opposition to this principle; but I shall re- 
 strict myself to showing that it is expedient: 
 and that as to the argument of miconstitu- 
 I tionality, it is without the slightest founda- 
 tion. 
 
 \ We have been frequently told, in the 
 ' progress of our proceedings, that we should 
 ! leave nothing discretionary with the legis- 
 i lature; that our duties are clearly defined; 
 | that in reference to suffrage, we are to ex- 
 I tend it; and from the dispositions of the law 
 | it has been inferred that we should endeav- 
 or to carry out the presumed will of the 
 I people. What says the law convening this 
 | Convention, upon the subject of suffrage? 
 ■ That the 8th section of the 2d article of the 
 constitution be amended, so as to fix and 
 | determine in a more specific manner the 
 ! qualifications of all persons exercising the 
 right of suffrage. 
 
 There is nothing in this section, said Mr. 
 Lewis, which, strictly speaking, authorizes 
 us to extend suffrage any more than to re- 
 strict it. Its palpable signification is this: 
 that the particular section of the old con- 
 stitution upon suffrage is vague and indefi- 
 nite, and that we are to amend it so as to 
 make it more clear and explicit. From its 
 context, it may be safely inferred that it 
 was the design of the people to leave us a 
 certain discretionary power to amend the 
 constitution, as well in respect to changes 
 that were foreseen as those that were not 
 foreseen, and upon which we were not 
 made acquainted with the popular desires. 
 We are to consult expediency and the pub- 
 lic welfare, in all the changes we may 
 deem it proper to make to the organic law; 
 the people reserving to themselves the right 
 to sanction or disapprove our work: as it 
 may be presumed they would not yield their 
 acquiescence to any system of government 
 which did not meet their approbation. 
 
 This general principle being laid down, 
 which may be considered a satisfactory re- 
 sponse to the argument that we should not 
 go beyond the letter of the stipulations in 
 the act calling the Convention, I come to 
 the question directly at issue; and I would 
 
240 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 here remark tiiat the delegate from New 1 
 Orleans (Mr. Marigny) has misinterpreted 
 the appeal made by the gentleman from 
 New Orleans, (Mr. Benjamin) to his col- 
 league (M. Soule.) That appeal was a 
 vivid exposition of the feelings of the human 
 heart, and of the sentiments and emotions 
 wjiich'the Deity has implanted therein. I 
 am of opinion that these emotions and sen- 
 timents are paramount, whatever may be 
 said to the contrary upon this and similar 
 questions, and which would tend to estab- 
 lish that a man who crosses the Atlantic 
 and comes among us, is as susceptible of 
 entertaining American feelings, and of being 
 indoctrinated with them with the same fa- 
 cility, and to as great an extent, as a native 
 born citizen who has imbibed them from 
 his infancy. I deny this most emphatically. 
 I believe it to be a delusion. Nor can I 
 admit the right of foreigners to complain, 
 if the native citizens of the country should 
 think lit to stop the privileges that have 
 heretofore so liberally been accorded to 
 them. . The United States is the patrimony 
 of native Americans; and we have a per- 
 fect right to prescribe how far foreigners 
 shall be allowed to participate with us, or 
 whether we shall suffer them to participate 
 at all in the administration of our govern- 
 ment. Their persons and property being 
 protected, they have no right to ask any- 
 thing more; for this is all that is accorded 
 by the most liberal and enlightened nations 
 of Europe to the native citizens of the Uni- 
 ted States, while in their dominions. 
 
 I now come to treat of the constitution, 
 ality of the provision excluding foreigners 
 from holding the office of governor of the 
 State. And here I will take occasion to 
 say, that far from me is the design to wound 
 the feelings of any that may be born in a 
 different hemisphere from our own, in the 
 remarks I may make. Nor is it my inten- 
 tion to dispute the rights of those persons 
 that are already naturalized; their rights, 
 in my judgment, are as sacred as those of 
 native American citizens. I regret the ex- 
 istence of the naturalization laws, but as 
 long as they are in existence, I am for re- 
 specting them. My object is only for the 
 future, and I would be the first one to sus- 
 tain an amendment that would do away 
 with any misapprehension upon the subject. 
 I would not do this as a concession to the 
 menaces that have been made, and the 
 
 doubts that have been raised as to our pow- 
 er; but because I conceive it to be just and 
 proper to recognize * in the most positive 
 manner the just pretensions of those who 
 were citizens at the adoption of this con- 
 stitution. 
 
 The gentleman from New Orleans, (Mr. 
 Soule) has fallen into a singular miscon- 
 ception in relation to the federal constitu- 
 tion and the original articles of confedera- 
 tion, that surprise me*— coming from one so 
 able and distinguished as a jurist. He 
 calls the articles of the confederation the 
 old constitution, in contradistinction to what 
 he terms the new constitution; and seems 
 not to be familiar with the character and 
 extent of that original instrument. The 
 powers of the general government under it 
 were very limited; the states retaining the 
 uncontrolled exercise of most of their sove« 
 reign powers as independent communities. 
 When it became manifest to them that such 
 a system was impracticable for national 
 purposes, they, yielding to the exigencies 
 of the case, met in convention, and con- 
 ceded as much power as was requisite to, 
 give force and stability to the general gov- 
 ernment, and enable it to act in its general 
 sphere. All other powers not expressly 
 delegated to the federal government by the 
 compact — the constitution — were reserved 
 to the stales respectively, or to the people. 
 This is the fundamental principle which 
 'restrains the federal government and re* 
 stricts it within certain limits, beyond which 
 it*cannot go, So far as it keeps within 
 these limits, it is supreme and absolute; 
 but beyond them it cannot go without en- 
 croaching upon the reserved rights of the 
 states. If this principle were to be impair- 
 ed, the just balance between the states and 
 the federal government— --the equilibrium 
 between them— would be destroyed, and 
 our federative«system would be brought to 
 a violent termination. The delegate from 
 New Orleans (Mr. Soule) confounds the 
 true state of things. It is not the federal 
 government, as his argument pre-supposes, 
 that formed the states, but it was the states 
 that formed and established the federal gov- 
 ernment. As I have premised, the states 
 conceded only as much power as was in- 
 dispensable to the functions of the federal 
 government, and no more. The states, in 
 other respects, retained their sovereignty, 
 and have consequently the undoubted right 
 
Debates in the Contention of Louisiana. 
 
 241 
 
 to administer, as they may judge best, their ! 
 own local affairs. The federal government 
 does not pretend to interfere with them, nor ; 
 would her interference be submitted to. \ 
 There is nothing in the constitution to au- j 
 thorize it: for the states, jealous of their 
 rights, have made in that instrument an 
 express grant of powers, and what has not 
 Been expressly granted is expressly retain- j 
 ed. The general government has no more 
 right to regulate suffrage in a state than it [ 
 has to say who shall be eligible to the of- ' 
 rices of the state: and, in order to prevent 
 any misapprehension, we find in the amend- 
 ments to the constitution (art. 1 1) the fol- 
 lowing distinct enunciation: "The enume- 
 ration in the constitution of certain rights 
 shall not be construed to deny or disparage 
 others retained by the people." And in 
 article 12, the following: "The powers not 
 delegated to the United States by the con- 
 stitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, 
 are reserved to the states respectively, or 
 to the people.'*' 
 
 That the states or the people retain these 
 powers is apparent from the fact that the 
 general government has no other power 
 than what is delegated to it by the states, 
 and consequently those powers not delega- 
 ted reside, as heretofore, in the state, and 
 is part of their inherent sovereignty. The 
 converse of this proposition would convert 
 the federal government into a central gov- 
 ernment, and would place the state govern- 
 ments as mere appendages to its power. 
 
 Great stress has been laid by the gen- 
 tlemen that have appealed to the constitu- 
 tion, as determining the want of authority 
 in the state to insist upon the qualification 
 of native citizenship for a particular sta- 
 tion, that by a certain article which they 
 have quoted, citizens of one state shall be 
 entitled to all the privileges and immunities 
 of citizens of the other states; and that, 
 in virtue of that article, we have no right 
 to inhibit any class of citizens from our sis- 
 ter states to hold office and to be eligible 
 thereto under our state government. It is 
 evident that the language of this section 
 will not bear the construction attempted to 
 be placed upon it. But, to exhibit at once 
 what this construction would lead to, it is 
 only necessary to remark that it would 
 make a colored citizen of Massachusetts, 
 or any other of the free states eligible to 
 office among us. The absurdity of that 
 
 construction must be apparent, which would 
 lead to such a result; and yet, if we have 
 no right to discriminate, the only question 
 which would have to be resolved would be 
 the. citizenship of the individual in any one 
 of our sister states: and if he were a negro, 
 we would be bound, if he were a citizen, 
 to admit his eligibility. 
 
 How, asked Mr. Lewis, does the del- 
 egate from Xew Orleans, Mr. (Soule.) get 
 rid of the authority of the State to prescribe 
 the condition of native citizenship among 
 other qulifications for governor. He cites 
 a passage from the Federalist, which, refer- 
 ring to the powers ceded by the States 
 to the federal government and writ- 
 ten for the express purpose of securing 
 the assent of the States, deprecates any 
 attempt to exclude foreigners, and to draw 
 a line of demarcation between them and 
 native citizens. This language in the Fed- 
 eralist at that day, had some pretext to 
 excuse it, but in my humble conception, 
 it would have been much better for the 
 permanent interests of the country, had the 
 policy of naturalization never existed. 
 
 Another delegate, (Mir. Roselius.) has 
 attempted to destroy the argument %f expe- 
 diency in favor of the principle before us, 
 by lessening the responsibilities and the 
 importance of the office of governor. He 
 has favored us, too, with* an eulogium upon 
 the merits of naturalized citizens, and 
 shrinks with evident .feeling from the term 
 foreigner, applied to them. I cannot see 
 any thing so very distasteful in this expres- 
 sion, and that it can be construed into an 
 insult to remind a man of the country of 
 his birth. For myself on an occasion 
 when I was in Canada, although I was 
 still in America, and on the very borders of 
 the United States, 1 felt as a foreigner, and 
 if any one had told me that I w,as a for- 
 eigner, a citizen of the United States, I 
 certainly would not have been ashamed of 
 it. The title of citizenship conferred by- 
 adoption does not obliterate the register of 
 ones birth-place, nor does it divest a man 
 of his natural predilections. Whatever, 
 therefore, may be said to the contrary, a 
 foreigner continues to be a foreigner — be he 
 naturalized or not, and only ceases to be 
 such, when he returns to his native coun- 
 try. 
 
 I have great deference, said Mr. Lewis, 
 for the opinions of eminent men, and when 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana; 
 
 cue's own judgment is in suspense, I think 
 the weight of their authority may well be 
 invoked to decide a controversy. In the 
 present case there is great conflict of opin- 
 ion, and it may be expedient, although .the 
 authority of great names is not always con- 
 clusive, to place some reliance upon the 
 declarations and actions of men who have 
 been conspicuous among us for patriotism 
 and intelligence. To the three great names 
 cited by the gentleman from New Orleans, 
 (Mr. Benjamin,) as favoring the principle 
 which has been characterized in this house 
 as odious and exclusive, I may add the 
 name of Daniel D. Tompkins, president of 
 the convention of New York, which form- 
 ed the present constitution of that State, 
 excluding naturalized citizens from the of- 
 fice of governor. It has been intimated 
 that we are behind the age—that we, who 
 support that principle, are seeking to re- 
 vive old and exploded distinctions. If we 
 are obnoxious to the charge, it is some con- 
 solation to know that we are in tolerable 
 good company. There is one of the great 
 champions of " the democracy " with us — ■ 
 Martin Van Buren, who was a member of 
 the New York convention, and sustained 
 the adoption of the same principle in the 
 constitution of that state, if I mistake not. 
 Other names, of other distinguished men 
 might be added, bitt it is not worth while. 
 
 It is not -alone upon one point that 
 the opposition have shown great suscepti- 
 bility. The simple apprehension that has 
 been expressed that there would be dan- 
 ger in having a naturalized citizen gov- 
 ernor in the event of a war with the nation 
 of which he was originally a subject, has 
 excited a great deal of feeling. The gen- 
 tleman from New Orleans, (Mr. Marigny,) 
 has auricularly foretold that we shall never 
 have a war except with Great Britain.— 
 That as to a war with France, that was ut- 
 terly out of the question. It cannot possi- 
 bly happen. The progress of civilization 
 in France has been so great, and the liens 
 of attachment that bind us and France to- 
 gether are so strong, that war is impossi- 
 ble ! We may expect hostilities with Eng- 
 land, and then we may count on the assis- 
 tance of the French nation to help us to 
 give John Bull a thrashing, for the French 
 people have an inveterate hatred to Eng- 
 lishmen. I do not know why there would 
 be greater probabilities of a war with one 
 
 than with the other nation. The mass of 
 the American people are descended from 
 the same race as the English. We have 
 derived from the parent state most of our 
 institutions, and many of our great franchi- 
 ses. The writ of habeas corpus, the right 
 of trial by jury, &c. &c. War, however, 
 may occur with both, and if it does, we 
 should have enough national feeling to carry 
 us successfully and honorably through the 
 contest. Unfortunately for the gentleman's 
 predilections, the great friendship entertain- 
 ed in our behalf by that nation, was not 
 sufficient to induce her to pay a certain in- 
 demnity, which she had procrastinated for 
 years and years, and which was only re- 
 covered by the firmness of that great and 
 good man, General Jackson, during his 
 presidential term ; when war was presented 
 by him as the only alternative, in case the 
 money was not paid. It has been said that 
 several adopted citizens, Frenchmen by 
 birth, when war was anticipated as the in- 
 evitable result of the misunderstanding, 
 immediately declared in this city their in- 
 tention not to take up arms against their na- 
 tive country. 
 
 I can very well understand the gentle, 
 man's (Mr. Marigny) predilections. 1 un- 
 derstood him to boast of his French origin, 
 and to declare that he represented six gen- 
 erations of Louisianians. I cannot go as 
 far as the gentleman. I have lost my gen- 
 ealogical tre'e, and I cannot trace my family 
 much this side of one of the sons of Noah, 
 who after the deluge peopled our globe. 
 
 The love of country is one of the strong- 
 est feelings of the human heart. It is ex- 
 emplified in the Swiss, who pines away 
 and dies, unless he can return to his barren 
 mountain and to his solemn glaciers. It is 
 admitted to be all-controling by the mem- 
 ber from New Orleans (Mr. Roselius) who 
 has depicted the strength and durability of 
 schoolboy reminiscences, which, he says, 
 nothing can eradicate. For myself, said 
 Mr. Lewis, I confess I am under the influ- 
 ence of an undying love for the land of my 
 birth, and I cannot conceive how any man, 
 who is not devoid of honor, can be insen- 
 sible to that sentiment. I believe it burns 
 in the breast of every man. And, if a for- 
 eigner were to tell me that he preferred 
 the United States to his own country, if I 
 could believe him, I would think him un- 
 worthy of being the citizen of any country, 
 
 ♦ 
 
♦ 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 24S 
 
 The gentleman from New Orleans, (Mr. 
 Roselius,) tells us that in the transport of 
 attachment and fidelity to our country, na- 
 turalized citizens would repair to the field 
 of battle on the first appearance of danger, 
 ami that they would imbrue their hands in 
 the blood of their brothers and of their kin- 
 dred. If this be not a stretch of the ima- 
 gination, it is a paradox against which 
 both nature and reason protests. 
 
 Mr. Lewis disclaimed the intention of 
 wounding the feelings of any one that had 
 sought a refuge from the privations and ty- 
 rannies of European governments, under 
 the shadow of our liberal institutions. But 
 he considered it was impossible for a man 
 to forego or be insensible to the love of 
 country, whether he were born in the Uni- 
 ted States, in England, in France, in Chi- 
 na, or in the empire of the Mogul. If I 
 were to abandon my native country, (said 
 Mr. Lewis.) and become a citizen of ano- 
 ther country, I could never raise my arm 
 against the country of my birth. I could 
 never shed the blood of my fellow coun- 
 trymen on the field of battle. The most 
 cruel tortures would appear to me prefera- 
 ble to this horrible sacrifice of the dearest 
 and tenderest ties ; and I cannot believe the 
 love of country is less fervid in the bosom 
 of others than in my own. 
 
 The gentleman from New Orleans, (Mr. 
 Marigny.) has adverted to the daring 
 and heroic deeds of the French citi- 
 zens who were resident in New Orleans in 
 1815. Their devotion is easily understood. 
 An inveterate hatred towards the English 
 nerved their arms, and not any particular 
 fondness for our cause. Had it been a 
 French instead of an English invadino- ar- 
 my, would the result have been the same ? 
 I question it very much. Even as it was 
 there was_ disaffection. Louallier, a sub- 
 ject of France, and citizen of the United 
 States, a member of the Legislature, issued 
 inflammatory appeals to his countrymen, 
 and resisted the authority of the comman- 
 der in chief, invoking the interposition of 
 the French consul. I was well acquainted, 
 ('said Mr. Lewis) with Louallier. He was 
 a most estimable man, and we were upon 
 such habits of intimacy, that he appointed 
 me his executor at his death. He cherish- 
 ed his native country to the last, and inva- 
 riably gave to it the preference, as all for- 
 eigners do, although it is pretended that 
 
 | they are better Americans than the natives 
 j of the soil ; because the latter are Ameri- 
 cans by necessity, as we are tauntingly told,- 
 ! the former through choice. So it is said 
 ; by those who are their panegyrists!- I 
 [ again repeat that I have no hostility towards 
 any class of citizens — but I do think we 
 : should cherish a national character — a love 
 ; of country. 
 
 ! A great deal of stress has been laid upon 
 the services which, it is assumed, we re- 
 ! ceived from foreigners during our revolu- 
 | tionary struggle. Washington was cer- 
 i tainly in a position to appreciate those ser- 
 vices? And what was his testimony? That 
 all the foreigners were mercenary and un- 
 I trustworthy, with the exception of Lafay- 
 ette. 
 
 It is an error to suppose that, this appre- 
 hension of foreign influence is something 
 new — something that has originated, as 
 we are told, with the party excitements of 
 flie day. Such is not the fact. The fa- 
 I ther of his country, the great Washing- 
 ] ton in his farewell address, admonished 
 his countrymen to beware of foreign in- 
 j fluence. The patriarch of democracy, 
 the man who is most eulogised by those 
 j who profess to be the sole exponents of 
 democratic principles, Thomas Jefferson, 
 wished that there was an ocean of fire be- 
 tween the United States, and the Kings 
 I doms of Europe. "Were these men 
 excited by temporary and evanescent 
 j resentments. Were they disappointed par- 
 tizans, or were they convinced by . their 
 j own sad experience of the danger that 
 menaced their country? It seems to me, 
 (said Mr. Lewis,) that this is a question in 
 which every American must feel an abi- 
 ding interest, and if naturalized citizens are 
 as devoted to our country as we are told 
 they are, and as attached to our institutions 
 as is assumed, they ought not to entertain 
 any other than purely local feelings upon 
 this subject, or feel differently from the 
 natives of the country. 
 
 Mr. Brent, said that he regarded the 
 action of this convention, so far as related 
 to the section under debate, as of but lit- 
 tle importance in the practical operation 
 I of the government. The probability 
 was extremely remote, that any natural- 
 ized citizen would ever be elected governor 
 of the State, and so far as that particular 
 office was concerned, it was wholly imma- 
 
244 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 terial whether the prohibition be adopted 
 in the constitution or not. But if the prin- 
 ciple be true, that a naturalized citizen, in- 
 vested with \he rights of citizenship by the 
 act of congress, and the decree of a com- 
 petent court, is not worthy to be trusted 
 with the office of governor, the principle 
 cannot, and must not, be permitted to stop 
 here. If a citizen of foreign birth be so 
 suspicious, that you cannot trust him with 
 the administration of the laws, I, for one, 
 cannot consent that he should sit around 
 our council boards, to assist in framing the 
 laws by which we are governed, and above 
 all, I cannot consent that he should ever 
 be permitted to minister as a high priest at 
 the altar of justice. No, sir, the door of 
 the constitution must be closed effectually 
 against him, and it is our high and impera- 
 tive duty, to sweep all the departments of 
 government, with the besom of Native 
 American reform. . The executive depart- 
 ment is confessedly less important than 
 the legislative or the judiciary. Are you 
 to exclude the adopted citizen from an of- 
 fice of minor importance, only to invest him 
 with more heavy and more weighty respon- 
 sibility? I can never consent to this. — 
 The principle is either a good one or a bad 
 one. If a good one, it must be pushed to 
 its consequences, if a bad one it must be 
 utterly discarded and rejected; A grave 
 and momentous question of principle is 
 then submitted to our consideration, and it 
 becomes the convention to pause and pon- 
 der well upon the decision which it is 
 about to pronounce. 
 
 We were told on Friday last, by a delegate 
 from New Orleans, (Mr. Benjamin,) that 
 he had decided this question, first, by his 
 feelings, and that afterwards his reason had 
 justified the decision. 1 must be permit- 
 ted to say, sir, that the delegate has taken 
 an unsafe counsellor to his bosom, that will 
 be apt to lure him from the path of duty, 
 into the mazes and perplexities of error. — - 
 If our judgment is to be clouded by the 
 mists of feeling and prejudice, how can our 
 decision be such as would best suit our 
 own honor, and promote the solid and per- 
 manent good of our common constituency! 
 We are not merely legislating for ourselves, 
 or the age in which we live, but we are 
 legislating for the unborn millions who are 
 to eome after us, and fill the places which 
 now we occupy. Our aim should be to 
 
 reach conclusions that will stand the test of 
 time and scrutiny, and not such as are ba- 
 sed upon the unsteady and treacherous 
 foundation of the evanescent feelings of 
 the hour. 1 have the advantage of that 
 delegate. I have no feelings, no antipa- 
 thies, no predilections to gratify. What- 
 ever conclusion I have • arrived at, has 
 been reached by my judgment, unmin- 
 gled and unalloyed by feeling — by ei- 
 ther hate, or passion, or prejudice. It has 
 been repeatedly asserted in argument, that 
 there was a party in this convention who 
 desired to dispense with eveey qualifica- 
 tion for office. If such a party exists, I 
 have no knowledge of its existence. I have 
 maintained, repeatedly, that there should 
 be no higher qualifications for office than 
 what is required to exercise the right of 
 suffrage. That principle I will never sur- 
 render, until my confidence in popular go- 
 vernment is overthrown and destroyed. — 
 No argument has been urged to show its 
 impropriety, nor can any be advanced, con- 
 sistent with democratic notions of govern- 
 ment. The qualified electors are the sove- 
 reigns of the state. As the depositories of 
 political power, they hold in their hands 
 the issues of life and death. All offices 
 hold, or ought to hold, their tenure from 
 them, and they decide, through the ballot 
 box, all the great political questions that 
 are agitated before the country. Should 
 this tremendous power be confided to men 
 whom you are forced to disqualify from 
 holding the very offices they have created? 
 You permit them to vote, and by their vote, 
 perhaps, to sway the destinies of this great 
 nation, and yet you will not permit them 
 to be voted for. Can a greater absurdity 
 than this be conceived? The creature is 
 elevated above the creator. The very or- 
 der of things is inverted, and the govern- 
 mental pyramid stands upon its apex. In- 
 stead of our institutions reposing upon the 
 broad foundation of the popular sovereign- 
 ty, -it seems to be supposed that its stabili- 
 ty can only be secured by a reliance upon 
 the officers and agents of the people, — 
 From whence was the doctrine derived, 
 that the agent is greater than the principal? 
 Such a doctrine I repudiate ; for it is nei- 
 ther legally nor politically correct. 
 
 It is to be hoped, sir, that after this ex- 
 planation, our principles will not hereafter 
 be perverted or misrepresented. Here we- 
 
Debates in the C/onvention of Louisiana. 
 
 245 
 
 plant the flag-staff of democratic equality. 
 Gentlemen may fight under whatever flag 
 they please — I stand here to defend this 
 banner, and if need be, to perish in its de- 
 fence. 
 
 A leading object in this convention ap- 
 pears to be, to impose restrictions *on the 
 people. In the parish which I have the 
 honor in part to represent, there were but 
 thirteen votes, as well as 1 recollect, against 
 the call for. a Convention, and some seven 
 or eight hundred in its favor. Had the 
 idea suggested itself, that this body when 
 assembled, would employ itself in imposing 
 additional restrictions upon the people, in- 
 stead of removing those that already op- 
 pressed them, the tables would have been 
 turned, and the glorious thirteen would 
 have alone voted in favor of the measure. 
 The object however, was conceived to be 
 very different from what has been advoca- 
 ted and avowed in this House. We sup- 
 posed that it was to remove obstructions — 
 to strike off the shackles, and not to forge 
 new fetters to impede the people in the ex- 
 ercise of their undoubted rights. But, sir, 
 I am digressing, 
 
 The honorable delegate from Opelousas, 
 (Mr. Lewis) who has just resumed his seat, 
 has endeavored to support the restrictive 
 feature embraced in the present section, 
 and he has urged a variety of arguments to 
 which I desire to respond.- And here at 
 the outset, you cannot but remark the sin- 
 gular adroitness, whieh he and other gen- 
 tlemen, on the same side of the question, 
 have displayed in evading the constitutional 
 argument which has been so earnestly 
 pressed against them. They think they 
 can Carry their point, by bold and unfoun- 
 ded assertions— by appealing to the prin- 
 ciple of the sovereignty of the States , and 
 by invoking the authority of great names in 
 their behalf. But, sir, we cannot permit 
 them to escape the issue which is made be- 
 tween us, by a resort to any other authori- 
 ty than that of the federal constitution it- 
 self. I bring them back to the point from 
 which they have wandered, and V hold 
 them to the plain and unequivocal lan- 
 guage of that instrument. Their arguments 
 cannot stand the test of the federal com- 
 pact. That instrument repudiates their 
 narrow and contracted doctrines, and it 
 settles with the voice of supreme authority, 
 the question we are now discussing - . What 
 32 
 
 does it say? What does it declare? It 
 says, "that the citizens of each State, shall 
 be entitled to all the privileges and immu- 
 nities of the citizens of the several States." 
 These two lines adjudicate the question. 
 They are plain and simple,- and their 
 meaning is apparent to any comprehen- 
 sion. Apply this simple declaration to 
 that principle, which seeks to exclude a 
 class of citizens recognized to be such, by 
 the several States, and what becomes of 
 the argument of constitutionality? But let 
 me illustrate by example — suppose a for- 
 eigner, to have been naturalized in the State 
 of Illinois, under the act of Congress, and 
 by the decree of a competent court, admit- 
 ting him to all the rights of citizenship. 
 Under the laws of that State he is invested 
 with all the privileges of an Illinois citizen, 
 and is eligible to all the offices created by 
 her constitution. He removes to this 
 State, and is instantly struck with disabil- 
 ity and disfranchised from holding the of- 
 fice of governor, whereas no such prohibi- 
 tion extends to the native citizen of any 
 other State ; can you say, that under these 
 circumstances, "the citizens of each State 
 are invested with all the privileges and im- 
 munities of the citizens of the several 
 States?" Have you not disfranchised a 
 citizen of Illinois, and deprived him of a 
 privilege which you extend to citizens of 
 the other States ? And is not this a palpa- 
 ble and flagrant violation of the constitu- 
 tion ! Sir, gentlemen cannot evade nor es- 
 cape from the conclusion. The federal 
 compnet has denied to the States, any au- 
 thority to create distinctions between dif- 
 ferent classes of citizens. All are placed 
 upon the same broad platform of political 
 equality, and no difference can be made be- 
 tween them, without nullifying and tram- 
 pling under foot the fundamental law of tire 
 land. This State, in the exercise of its 
 sovereignty, can declare who shall be eli- 
 gible to the office of governor, provided, 
 that in so doing, it does not attempt to 
 create a distinction between American citi- 
 zens. This is the only limitation upon 
 its power, and to that limitation it ought 
 to be, and it must be held. 
 
 But how sir, do gentlemen attempt to 
 overcome this plain and palpable construc- 
 tion of the constitution ? They tell us 
 with an air of triumph, as if thereby the 
 constitutional argument was utterly de» 
 
246 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 molished, that some five or six other States 
 of the Union have thought proper to adopt 
 a principle similar to the one now propo- 
 sed. 1 cannot conceive how the complex- 
 ion of the argument is altered by this as- 
 tounding discovery. Does one wrong 
 justify another, or does the frequency with 
 which a crime is committed, extenuate in 
 any degree, the guilt of an offender? 
 Are we to defend an usurpation of power, 
 by quoting other usurpations ? Upon this 
 principle, every assassin who lifts his 
 weapon against the throat of his fellow 
 man, could justify himself by contending 
 that others had been guilty of a similar of- 
 fence. 
 
 But the gentleman from New Orleans, 
 (Mr. Benjamin,) has referred us to a pre- 
 cedent in the Virginia Convention. He 
 tells us that three of the most distinguished 
 men in that celebrated Convention, to wit: 
 James Monroe, the president of it, James 
 Madison and John Marshall, were in favor 
 of a similar exclusion. That they were 
 members of the Convention that adopted 
 the exclusion, is undoubtedly true, but that 
 they supported it is not equally clear. On 
 the contrary, my information leads me to a 
 different conclusion. While the gentle- 
 man was invoking the authority of these 
 great names, he forgot to tell us that James 
 Monroe had withdrawn from the Conven- 
 tion on account of ill health, and was not 
 present when this question was decided, 
 and that James Madison had voted against 
 it. As to Mr. Marshall, I consider it im- 
 material whether he voted for or against it. 
 I think it more^than probable he voted for 
 it. No man entertains a higher opinion of 
 him as a profound and learned jurist, than 
 I do, but 1 am free to confess, I attach but 
 Mttle importance to his opinions upon poli- 
 tical matters. He was a federalist in the 
 days of the black cockade, and deeply im- 
 bued with all the heresies of that school, 
 whose temporary ascendancy resulted in 
 fastening upon the country, the odious 
 alien and sedition laws, the most disgrace- 
 ful legislative enactments that have ever 
 blurred and blotted the statute books of the 
 nation. That he sympathized deeply with 
 his party in its hostility to foreigners, 1 
 doubt not, and is it to be regarded as 
 strange, that under these circumstances, he 
 should have clung to the tenets of that po- 
 litical school in which he was reared ? I 
 
 repeat, sir, that whatever others may do, 1 
 attach no weight or importance to the 
 mere political opinions of chief justice Mar- 
 shall. All that we have heard, then, sir, 
 about these great names, vanishes into thin 
 air, and the gentleman is left unsupported 
 by the *very authority on which he has re- 
 lied. 
 
 The member from Opelousas (Mr. 
 Lewis) has invoked the doctrine of State 
 rights, against the authority of the gen- 
 eral government, to establish an uniform 
 rule all over the Union, in relation to the 
 immunities and privileges of the citizens of 
 any one of the States, in all the other States 
 of the confederacy. He says the general 
 government has no such right. I. am hap- 
 py to find the gentleman advocating the 
 doctrine of State rights, and to hear him 
 declare that he is a strict constructionist, 
 which is not the creed of the political par- 
 ty to which he belongs. I am rejoiced to 
 have the weight of his ability on that side 
 of the question. But I cannot concur with 
 him in the application of that principle to 
 the question now under debate. State 
 rights do not involve any thing more, than 
 the assertion and maintenance of the re- 
 served rights of the States: The right of 
 admitting foreigners to citizenship,, has been 
 conceded to the general government by the 
 consent of the States, and the States have- 
 likewise consented to the principle en- 
 grafted in the constitution, that no distinc- 
 tion shall be made between different class- 
 es of American citizens. How then is this 
 an invasion of State rights ? The gentle- 
 man is evidently mistaken, and the position 
 which I have assumed, is beyond the cavil 
 of the strictest constructionist, and the most, 
 astute advocate of State rights. 
 
 The delegate from Opelousas then pro- 
 ceeded to dilate upon that intense and death- 
 less attachment to our native land which, 
 he says, burns with a steady and undying 
 lustre in every human heart. He spoke of 
 it as universal, pervading all classes and 
 conditions of mankind, and he attributed a 
 power to it beyond that of any other senti- 
 ment which warms and animates the breast 
 of man. I fear, sir, the gentleman has 
 been disporting himself upon the fields of 
 fancy, and that he has not only misread the 
 book of nature, but misinterpreted or over- 
 looked the instructive lessons of history. 
 The theory of the gentleman may be a good 
 
Debates in the Convention oi Louisiana. 
 
 247 
 
 one, but it ha9 nothing to repose upon but 
 poetry and imagination. Against his poet- 
 ry I will array history; against his fancy 1 
 will place facts. 
 
 Look at our revolutionary war; were 
 there not numerous instances* of persons 
 born and educated in England, who had 
 fought bravely and gallantly in her armies 
 upon the continent, but who nevertheless 
 threw up their commissions, and as officers 
 and soldiers joined our standard and cam- 
 batted nobly in our behalf, from the com- 
 mencement to the close of that struggle ? 
 Hand to hand and shoulder to shoulder, 
 they fought beside the natives of the soil, 
 against the forces of the invader; and from 
 Bunker Hill to the Plains of Eutaw, there 
 was no battle field which did not reek witlr 
 the blood of Englishmen, shed in the holy 
 cause of freedom. The names of Gates 
 and Lee, and a host of others, could be cited 
 to prove that, in a good cause, brave and 
 honest men will not hesitate to unsheath 
 their swords against the land of their na- 
 tivity. What now becomes of the argu- 
 ment which has been urged to show the 
 impossibility of that which has so fre- 
 quently happened? Can it be said, with 
 the pages of history before us, that no con- 
 scientious man will take up arms to main- 
 tain the rights of mankind, against the 
 country of his birth? Sir, honorable gen- 
 tlemen who dispute this proposition deal 
 altogether in fancy, and amuse themselves 
 in the realms of fiction. History and ex- 
 perience are sad commentaries upon the 
 tales of their imagination ! 
 
 The argument of the delegate from Ope - 
 lousas leads to strange and unnatural re- 
 sults. Although the immigrant is kindly 
 and hospitably received upon our shores; 
 although he is amply protected in person 
 and property, by the parental care of a gov- 
 ernment which sheds its blessings as the 
 heavens distil their dew; yet according to 
 that delegate, his attachment to his native 
 land is so absorbing that he cannot strike 
 one blow in behalf of the land of his adop- 
 tion, even though he may have been driven 
 by tyranny and oppression from the home 
 of his nativity. Is it the nature of man to 
 forget evils inflicted or benefits conferred? 
 I doubt not that the love of country is strong 
 and deep-seated in the human heart ; but 
 like all other sentiments, it can be crushed 
 and destroyed by unkindness and oppres- 
 
 sion. Why should the emigrant from Eu- 
 rope feel a stronger attachment for the 
 home of his nativity than for the home of 
 his adoption? From his earliest childhood, 
 in the country of his birth, he has seen 
 nothing around him but a people crushed 
 and down-trodden by the iron heel of ty- 
 ranny, writhing under the scourge of an 
 imperious aristocracy, or plundered by the 
 rapacity of a grasping and bigoted clergy. 
 Were those scenes calculated to awaken 
 the latent affections of his heart? Do you 
 think that his memory would love to linger 
 over those passages of woe, or that the 
 emigrant would turn with joy from the spec- 
 tacle of this free and happy people, to blast 
 his vision, with the misery and pain and 
 wretchedness which he had left behind? 
 Forced to cross the wide Atlantic, by either 
 religious or political persecution, he finds a 
 home and an asylum, peace and protection, 
 on our happy shores. Here he .establishes 
 himself; he builds up his fortunes * he sur- 
 rounds himself with friends and family and 
 kindred, and is it to be wondered at — is 
 there any thing astonishing or unnatural in 
 the fact, that he becomes identified with us 
 in interest — that he reveres our institutions, 
 and is ready to protect and defend them 
 with his life ? Is it remarkable that he 
 should prefer the country of his adoption, 
 with liberty and equality, to the country of 
 his nativity, where there is a gloomy des- 
 potism and a constant restraint upon all his 
 actions? To suppose the contrary, is to 
 suppose something that would indeed be 
 marvellously strange, and not at all consist- 
 ent with the resentments of the human 
 heart, for the insults and outrages of op- 
 pression. Is it natural for man to kiss the 
 hand that smites him; or, like the frozen 
 adder, to sting the bosom which warms him 
 into life? Again I repeat, sir, that patriot- 
 ism, like all other sentiments, may be eradi- 
 cated by unkindness, ingratitude or oppres- 
 sion. 
 
 Do you not recollect that when Coriola- 
 nus was exiled by the decree of the three 
 tribes, that he returned to Rome at the head 
 of aforeign soldiery, determined to raze the 
 city to its foundations — to give its temples 
 and palaces to the "flames, and strew their 
 ashes on the gale — and that he was restrain- 
 ed from the work of vengeance; not by 
 patriotism— Jiot by love of country; but by 
 the^entreaties of his beautiful wife; and of 
 
248 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 his aged and venerable mother? The fire 
 of patriotism had been quenched by the 
 wrongs inflicted on him, and it was entirely 
 the operation of another sentiment, which 
 was the salvation of Rome. History tells 
 us that if nothing but patriotism had stood 
 between him and his revenge, the eternal 
 city, with all her pride and pomp, would 
 have been laid in ashes by the hands of her 
 injured and exiled son. 
 
 We have heard many fantastic notions 
 advanced about the strength of early im- 
 pressions, and the strong influence which 
 they exert upon the character of man; and 
 we have had poetical allusions made to the 
 school-houses and orchards and play-grounds 
 of our childhood, as if the heart of man 
 could recieve no impression whatever, ex- 
 cept in the tender years of early life. This 
 is all sheer fancy, and the very extrava- 
 gance of poetry. You can no more com- 
 pare the ties of early association, to those 
 stronger and more powerful feelings? which 
 bind and rivet the heart of man in its ma- 
 turity, than you can compare the first faint 
 light of the sun, whice streaks the eastern 
 horizon, to the blazing splendors of his me- 
 ridian glory. 
 
 In discussing this question, an honorable 
 delegate from New Orleans (Mr. Benja- 
 man) referred to the glorious battle of the 
 8th of January, 1815; and it was with sur- 
 prise and astonishment, that I heard him 
 express a doubt whether we would have 
 been triumphant on that occasion, if we had 
 been forced to encounter the armies of 
 France, instead of the armies of England. 
 This is a slur upon the *French population 
 of New Orleans. This doubt is derogatory 
 to the character of a high»minded and chi v- 
 alrous people, who are as conspicuous for 
 their attachment to our institutions and 
 government, as any other class of our citi- 
 zens. Do you suppose, sir, that if a French 
 army had landed upon our shores , breathing 
 war and vengeance, and threatening this 
 city with rapine and violence, that there 
 would have been a French sword in New 
 Orleans that would have slept in its scab- 
 bard, and would not have started indignant- 
 ly forth to protect and defend the city, or if 
 that should be unavailing, to sweep to its 
 revenge. I have too high an opinion of 
 French chivalry to suppose that this class 
 of our population would have been traitors 
 to themselves and the land of their adoption, 
 
 merely because the invaders were French- 
 men. No sir, the result, under any circum- 
 stances, would have been the same, and 
 the flag of our country would have waved 
 in victory above the lilies of France, as it 
 did above the lion of England. 
 
 Why seek to deny the love of liberty in 
 the bosom pf others, when we feel it burn- 
 ing so strongly in our own? I yield to no 
 one in attachment and devotion to my na- 
 tive land; but I love it not merely because 
 it is my native land— not because my eyes 
 first happened to open to the light of day 
 upon its soil, but I love it for the same rea- 
 son that William Tell loved the glaciers 
 and ice-ribbed mountains of Switzerland — 
 because it is the abode of freedom. Nature 
 has showered upon her its richest gifts. 
 Behold her lordly rivers — her giant lakes 
 — -her fertile valleys — her majestic moun- 
 tains. Here it is that "boon nature" has 
 scattered free anc} wild "her germs of fruits 
 — her fairest flowers." But it is for none 
 of these, that my heart warms to her with 
 inextinguishable love. I love her because 
 here it is we have established a govern- 
 ment of freedom and equality — here it is 
 we have asserted and vindicated the rights 
 of man, and here we have established an 
 asylum where the exile can lie down in 
 peace, and where all are left free and un- 
 disturbed in the pursuit and enjoyment of 
 happiness. I can well conceive how the 
 same feeling which animates my bosom, 
 can find a resting place in the bosom of the 
 adopted citizen. 
 
 Hence it is, Mr. President, that I dislike 
 all attempts to breed and foment differences 
 among our population of different origin. 
 What, after all, is the mere circumstance 
 of birth-place? It is the man, and not the 
 place of birth, that, we should look to. 
 Once recognize these exclusions and dis- 
 tinctions, and you can place no limit to the 
 principle . Society itself will be broken up 
 and divided into innumerable fragments, 
 that have lost entirely the principle of co- 
 hesion. This clamor about the danger to 
 be apprehended from foreign influence, is 
 all sound and fury, signifying nothing. If 
 you wish to have a dangerous and deadly 
 enemy in your midst, you have only to dis- 
 franchise the foreign population, and you 
 have at once accomplished the result. The 
 disfranchisement itself will be a bond of 
 union, and a hostile body will be organized 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 249 
 
 in your very midst, who, having no interest 
 or participation in our government, will 
 avail themselves of the first opportunity to 
 strike it a fatal blow. If one solitary in- 
 stance could be pointed out, where evil had 
 been inflicted by the hand of an adopted 
 citizen, there would be some show of plausi- 
 bility in the arguments we have heard. But 
 there is no pretence that in our past histo- 
 ry, there is any thing which justifies this 
 alarm. I must therefore recur to first prin- 
 ciple, and insist that no distinction shall be 
 made between different classes of American 
 citizens. 
 
 But, Mr. President, I object to stigma- 
 tising our adopted citizens as foreigners. I 
 make no distinction between an 'American 
 by birth, and one declared to be such by an 
 act of Congress and in pursuance of a ju- 
 dicial decision. An adopted citizen is not 
 a foreigner. His rights are as sacred as 
 those of the t native, and he cannot be dis- 
 posed of them without violating the funda- 
 mental law of the land. But, sir, if we 
 permit ourselves to distinguish between 
 different classes of our citizens, a due re- 
 gard for our own safety will prompt us to 
 provide against real, instead of imaginary 
 dangers. The greatest peril which now 
 menaces the south, comes from a different 
 quarter from that at which this exclusion is 
 levelled. I speak of the dangers which 
 threaten from the machinations of the north- 
 ern abolitionists, those wretches, who, in 
 seeking to stir up our slaves to sedition and 
 revolt, are hurling fire-brands, as it were, 
 upon banks of gunpowder. You recollect, 
 sir, the picture which was drawn upon this 
 subject by the delegate from New Orleans, 
 (Mr. Benjamin.) I cordially concur with 
 nim, as to the frightful aspect in which this 
 question now presents itself. Would it not 
 be much wiser, sir, to guard against this 
 impending danger, the reality of which is 
 acknowledged, than to attempt to shield 
 ourselves against an imaginary peril. If 
 these restrictions are to commence, let them 
 be carried out, and let every one be ex- 
 cluded from office but native Louisianaians. 
 If adopted citizens are to be disqualified 
 from office because it is feared that some of 
 the prejudices of early association may 
 cling to them, the same disqualification 
 should attach to the abolitionist, and to him 
 who comes from the land of abolition. The 
 State of Louisiana, surrounded by this Chi- 
 
 nese wall of restriction, would then indeed 
 be a new celestial empire. 
 
 I believe, sir, that the doctrine of native 
 Americanism, is too narrow and contracted 
 to take root in the soil of Louisiana. The 
 people of this State can never be under the 
 influence of that spirit of selfish exclusion. 
 Besides, we have nothing legitimately to do 
 with the subject. We were delegated to 
 make a constitution for all the people of 
 Louisiana, without regard to their origin. 
 The question of native Americanism was 
 not broached before the election of this 
 body, and I conceive that we will entirely 
 disregard our duty, if we seek to incorpo- 
 rate in this constitution, any principles 
 which have not received the sancfion and 
 approbation of our common constituency 
 I shall vote for the motion to strike out. 
 
 Mr. Beatty begged the indulgence of 
 the Convention to make ' a few remarks, 
 which his position to this question rendered 
 appropriate and necessary. It was I, said 
 Mr. Beatty, that first raised the question of 
 constitutionality in reference to this clause, 
 and suggested the propriety of striking it 
 out. In my humble opinion, if it were to 
 be retained, it would be of no effect; and 
 the only point involved is, whether such a 
 principle ought to be found in the constitu- 
 tion. Whoever will ta.ke the trouble of ex- 
 amining it carefully, will find that it creates 
 not only an odious distinction among . our 
 citizens, but that it is repugnant to the spir- 
 it, if not to the very letter of the constitu- 
 tion of the United States. If foreigners 
 are to be excluded from citizenship; if grave 
 and weighty reasons exist for such a policy, 
 let it be done. There is a legal and con- 
 stitutional way; but a national way only, to 
 effect that purpose. But when a foreigner 
 does become a citizen in virtue of the acts 
 of congress and of a judicial decision pro- 
 nouncing him to be such, he is beyond all 
 question invested with all the prerogatives, 
 all the immunities, all the rights of a citi- 
 zen by birth, and there is no power to ex- 
 clude or to withhold from him any of his 
 political franchises. If he be eligible to 
 hold some offices, he must be considered as 
 eligible to hold all. The principle cannot 
 be suspended, and he be incapacitated from 
 a particular station, and that too in the face 
 of the fundamental law of the country that 
 makes no distinction between him and oth- 
 er citizens. The exclusion in the section 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 presents but a very inadequate remedy, if 
 there be evil resulting from the admission 
 of foreigners to citizenship; and if these 
 evils really do exist, it is not for this body 
 to attempt to enforce a corrective, for it has 
 neither the right nor the power to discrimi- 
 nate, and to say that this particular class 
 of citizens are trust-worthy, and another 
 class are not trust-worthy. That such a 
 class of citizens shall be eligible to office, 
 and another class shall not be eligible. If 
 it were invested with any such authority, it 
 would be competent to invalidate all the 
 proceedings had for naturalization, and to 
 declare that the proprietor of a certificate 
 of naturalization was not entitled in Louis- 
 iana to the immunities and privileges of 
 citizenship. That he was not entitled to 
 suffrage, although he possessed all the es- 
 sential qualifications of a voter. 
 
 I freely concede, said Mr. Beatty, and I 
 am happy to hear the gentleman from St. 
 Landry avow the doctrine, that the people 
 and the States have certain reserved rights; 
 but, the enunciation and substantive grants 
 of power to the federal government in the 
 constitution is exclusive of any reservation 
 on the part of the States of the particular 
 power which is granted. With reference 
 to the power of naturalization, the States 
 have conceded that Congress shall have 
 the power of establishing an uniform rule 
 of naturalization. Whether this were wise- 
 ly done or not, answers not our purpose to 
 inquire. It has been done, and is conclu- 
 sive of the rights acquired in all the States 
 of the union by the process of naturaliza- 
 tion. It is likewise equally clear that the 
 first paragraph of section 2d article 4th of 
 the constitution, stipulating that the citizens 
 of each State shall be entitled to all the 
 privileges and immunities of citizens in the 
 several States, contains no reservations, but 
 is a universal principle, applicable to all 
 citizens, and the only test of which is citi- 
 zenship. It means, and can only mean, 
 that a citizen of one State shall be placed 
 on a precise equality as regards political 
 privileges with the citizen of another State. 
 It matters not, then, that citizenship be ac- 
 quired by birth or by naturalization; and 
 the constitution makes not the slightest dif- 
 ference. 
 
 But there are other political rights be- 
 sides suffrage and eligibility to State offi- 
 ces which are directly involved, if this con- 
 
 struction be not the proper one. If the 
 Convention have the power to declare, in 
 this constitution, that naturalized citizens 
 shall not be eligible to the office of govern- 
 or, they may declare that naturalized citi- 
 zens shall not vote — that they shall not 
 have the faculty of holding property — of 
 having a trial by an impartial jury — of be- 
 ing informed of the nature and cause of any 
 accusation i that may be brought against 
 them — of being confronted with the wit- 
 nesses against them — of having compulso- 
 ry process to compel the attendance of their 
 witnesses — of being allowed the assistance 
 of counsel — the right of habeas corpus, or 
 any other of those political rights for which 
 the national compact has provided. There 
 is nothing in the constitution of the United 
 States that establishes any of those rights 
 more clearly and definitely than the right 
 of political equality; and if the latter be in- 
 vaded by declaring that a particular class 
 of citizens shall be ineligible to a particular 
 office in the State, then with equal reason, 
 and with as much authority, may the State 
 abridge any or all of the other political fran- 
 chises of citizenship. 
 
 There is another striking objection, Mr. 
 President, to this section. It is not only in- 
 vidious and exclusive as regards the na- 
 turalized citizen in reference to the native 
 citizen, but it would operate, if it were sus- 
 ceptible of practical operation, partially and 
 odiously between the naturalized citizens 
 themselves. An inhabitant of the State, 
 although a foreigner by birth, at the time 
 of the treaty of cession of Louisiana, would 
 be eligible to the office of governor, while 
 a native of the territory of Florida, born be- 
 fore the acquisition of that territory by the 
 United States, would not be eligible to that 
 office. 
 
 A reference has been had, during this 
 debate, to the peculiar opinion of Chief 
 Justice Marshall in favor of a similar prin- 
 ciple of exclusion. For that eminent jurist 
 I certainly entertain great respect, but I 
 think his authority is entitled'" to but little 
 weight in the solution of the question. In 
 purely legal matters, where the constitu- 
 tional power was not involved, his dicta is 
 always sound; but upon constitutional ques- 
 tions I know of no worse guide. He in- 
 variably lent towards the power of the gov- 
 ernment, and where there was no express 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 grant, was always ready to imply one upon 
 the slenderest pretences. 
 
 Some stress has been laid, in this dis- 
 cussion, upon the assumption that a similar 
 principle has been embodied in the consti- 
 tutions of one or two of the new States, and 
 have obtained the acquiescence of the fed- 
 eral government. There is no* weight in 
 that argument, and I do not think it merits 
 more than a passing notice. 
 
 To the argument of a deficiency in con- 
 stitutional power to deprive the citizens of 
 the other States of the same political privi- 
 leges and rights which we enjoy, it is 
 agreed that if this doctrine be true, it might 
 lead to an absurd result. That a negro in* 
 Massachusetts might be vested with the 
 privileges of citizenship by that State, and 
 that consequently he necessarily, under that 
 construction, would be entitled to all the 
 privileges and rights of a white citizen of 
 that State in Louisiana. To this I would 
 reply, that the constitution of the United 
 States never contemplated any other than 
 the white population in its dispositions of 
 government; and that an absurd inference 
 cannot be an argument against the princi- 
 ple itself. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff said he rose less with the 
 expectation of influencing the minds of his 
 colleagues, than to discharge a solemn du- 
 ty to his constituents. Much has been said 
 upon this question, and ably said by the op- 
 ponents and the advocates of the principle. 
 I consider it, Mr. President, as an entering 
 wedge, and if we sanction it, it will be but 
 the prelude to other and more general ex- 
 clusions. 
 
 So much has been offered (said Mr. R.) 
 upon the constitutional points by gentlemen 
 more competent than I can pretend to be, 
 that I will dispense with saying any thing 
 upon that head. The delegate from Ra- 
 pides (Mr. Brent) has well told you that as 
 to the practical operation of this principle 
 it would be well, and that it was only ob- 
 jectionable because it was restrictive, and 
 an invidious discrimination between the 
 rights of one portion of our citizens and an- 
 other portion of our citizens. Our own ex- 
 perience proves how remote is the possi- 
 bility that an adopted citizen will fill the 
 chair of State. In thirty-two years, which 
 dates our existence as an independent 
 State y we have only had one adopted citi- 
 zen elevated to the chief magistracy of the 
 
 State. According to that result, to author- 
 ize the apprehensions entertained of an 
 adopted citizen filling the chair of State at 
 the period of an invasion, a cycle of thirty- 
 two years would have to revolve, and even 
 then there would be no danger unless the 
 person holding the office of governor was a 
 native of the country waging hostilities 
 against us: for it is not assumed that there 
 would be any danger in a citizen from any 
 other country, or that he would be less 
 faithful under such an emergency than a 
 native citizen. The only peril would be 
 that the governor for the time being chanced 
 to have been born in the country with 
 which we w r ere at war. The improbabili- 
 ty of any such a contingency is so palpable, 
 even if we admit that an adopted citizen 
 would be recreant under such circum- 
 stances to his adopted countiy, which I am 
 far from believing, that it is truly astonish- 
 ing that so much time and so much elo- 
 quence has been spent to alarm and excite 
 our imaginations, when a little reflection 
 would show us that it was a mere phantom. 
 
 But, admitting Mr. President, for the 
 sake of the argument, that such a thing 
 might happen, why attach greater danger to 
 Frenchmen than to Englishmen, Scotch- 
 men, or Irishmen, should a Frenchman 
 happen to be the governor of the State? I 
 am sorry to see a particular direction giv- 
 en to these assaults; for experience has 
 shown us that the French people have 
 always been the devoted friends and al- 
 lies of the United States, and that as adopt, 
 ed citizens they are remarkable for all those 
 qualities which characterize them as a 
 brave,, chivalrous and intelligent race. As 
 for what has been said of the attachments 
 to one's place of nativity, and that it would 
 be something monstrous to expect an adop- 
 ted citizen to fight against his native coun- 
 try in the event of a war with it and the 
 United States; and to meet in mortal com- 
 bat his brothers and relatives — his former 
 countrymen — it is only a flight of the fan- 
 cy, for we have seen in our revolutionary 
 struggle, father fighting against son, and 
 brother against brother ; and the same peo- 
 ple contending against each other, for the 
 United States were then a portion of the 
 British empire; the heroes of our revolu- 
 tion were the descendants of Englishmen, 
 and were reared from their earliest infancy 
 with as much loyalty towards the crown as 
 
252 
 
 Debates in tha Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 if they had been born and reared on the oth- 
 er side of the Atlantic. Their subsequent 
 hostility to the crown is conclusive that 
 early impressions do not exercise a con- 
 ' trolling and" exclusive power over us. 
 
 I fear me much, said Mr. Ratmf?', that 
 these and similar exclusions, have had their 
 rise in party disappointments. The hon- 
 orable delegate (Mr. Benjamin) has told 
 us that his advocacy of the proposition 
 proceeds from the dictates of his heart; 
 that this is the monitor that has counselled 
 him. If the honorable gentleman will con- 
 sult his reason, he will find that this is 
 not the counsel of his heart. That his 
 judgment and his reason have been tem- 
 porarily overcome by the defeat and disas- 
 ters of the November presidential cam- 
 paign. The delegate (Mr. Benjamin) on 
 another occasion spoke eloquently of a 
 little cloud, no bigger at first than a man's 
 hand, which is now overshadowing the po- 
 litical horizon. When, during the presi- 
 dential contest, that gentleman and his po- 
 litical associates were admonished of the 
 appearance of that cloud, when they were 
 warned of the danger, they treated it as 
 visionary, as intended to operate upon 
 the election and to secure the success of 
 the democratic candidate. But now the 
 gentleman comes over to us. He sounds 
 the alarm and tells us that we were right- 
 that there is danger, and we should avoid 
 it by union and harmony in our councils. 
 That the day is fast approaching when 
 there will be but one party, and that all 
 other considerations will merge into the 
 necessity of guarding our homes and our 
 firesides from the ruthless spirit of north- 
 ern fanaticism. Let the gentleman sustain 
 this position and he will he right. But 
 how are we to guard against the danger 
 which he anticipates ? By, dividing and 
 distracting our communities, and establish- 
 ing insidious and odious distinctions among 
 them ? The gentleman did not contem- 
 plate this, when he spoke so mournfully 
 and so prophetically of the dangers that en- 
 vironed us! Why then make these odious 
 distinctions? Why inculcate a feeling of 
 distrust and mutual jealousy? Naturalized 
 citizens are every way identified with us, 
 as experience amply proves, and would be 
 as ready to resist abolition, or any other 
 evil with which we might be menaced, as 
 native citizens. They would be as true to 
 
 us in war as they are true to us in peace, 
 and as ready to take up and defend the 
 common cause, whether it be assailed from 
 within or without. Why then exclude 
 them? Why fhem tell them that they are 
 unworthy of trust, and that there is one sta- 
 tion beyond their fidelity ? If they are un- 
 worthy to hold the office of governor, 
 should the partialities of tlteir fellow citi 
 zens elevate them to that post, they are 
 unworthy of holding any civil or military 
 employment, (especially the latter.) You 
 should exclude them from all. If their fi- 
 delity he so deficient that there be danger 
 to trust them with the office of governor, 
 then the principle of exclusion ought to be 
 carried out. They are unfit to be repre- 
 sentatives to your legislature, to be senators, 
 judges— -to be sheriffs, or even constables. 
 Exclude them altogether, if you have the 
 power. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin rose to correct the dele- 
 gate from Rapides, (Mr.- Brent,) particular- 
 ly in one point, where that gentleman had 
 seen fit to controvert his (Mr. Benjamin's) 
 statement, that Mr. Madison, in the Vir- 
 ginia convention, gave his sanction to a sim- 
 ilar principle in refereece to the office of 
 governor. The delegate from Rapides de- 
 nied this fact, and also asserted that 
 Mr. Monroe was not present when the 
 question was taken, and therefore did 
 not vote for it. It was true Mr.- Mon- 
 roe was not in his seat, owing to indispose 
 tion, when the section finally passed, but 
 upon examination it would be found that 
 his name was appended to the constitution, 
 as well as Mr. Madison's ; and it was quite 
 clear that if either of those distinguished 
 statesmen had disapproved of the principle, 
 or had considered it in conflict with the 
 constitution of the United States, whieli i$ 
 has been here alleged to be, they never 
 would have put their names to that instru- 
 ment. There was, however, m reference 
 to Mr Madison, still more direct testimony* 
 establishing conclusively the fact that he* 
 sustained in the convention this very prin- 
 ciple. [Mr. Benjamin here read an extract 
 from the Debates in the Virginia Conven- 
 tion, page 722.] It is the gentleman from 
 Rapides who is in error as to the point of 
 fact, and not I. 
 
 Mr, Preston* : It was on my authority 
 that the delegate from Rapides (Mr. Brent) 
 asserted that Mr. Madison did not sanction, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 253 
 
 gs asserted by the member from New Or- 
 leans, (Mr. Benjamin) that principle of ex- 
 clusion. In going from the Convention, I 
 mentioned it casually to the delegate from 
 Rapides, as being my impression from a 
 perusal of the report of debates in the Vir- 
 ginia Convention. I did not consider it a 
 matter of much importance, and did not 
 expect to have my statement called into 
 question. But if the Convention will in- 
 dulge me for a moment, I think I can es- 
 tablish it by a reference to the debates. 
 
 Mr. Brent : While the gentleman from 
 Jefferson is examining the reports of the 
 debates, I will take occasion to refer to the 
 point of difference between the delegate 
 from New Orleans (Mr. Benjamin) and 
 myself. That delegate concedes I was 
 right in reference to Mr. Monroe, who I 
 stated was not present when the vote was 
 taken. As to the inference drawn by the 
 member, (Mr. Benjamin) that because Mr. 
 Madison and Mr. Monroe signed the con- 
 stitution, they approved of every thing in 
 li, 1 beg to differ in opinion with that gen- 
 tleman; their signatures are by no means 
 conclusive of any such fact. Because 
 they considered, as a whole, the constitu- 
 tion was a good one, does it follow that 
 they approved of each and every part of 
 it? I expect to place my name at the end 
 of the constitution we are now forming, 
 and yet I have bitterly opposed what I 
 considered exclusive and odious restric- 
 tions upon the right of suffrage and the 
 qualifications of representatives to the legis- 
 lature; and hereafter, with equal justice it 
 may be pretended, because my signature 
 is appended to the whole constitution, that 
 I approved and sanctioned those restric- 
 tions. 
 
 Mr. Pkestox : I find that Mr. Monroe, 
 on account of the prostration of his health, 
 was not present when this matter was acted 
 upon. Mr. Powell moved a substitute for 
 the section requiring that none should be 
 eligible to the office of governor but a na- 
 tural born citizen, and proposed in lieu 
 thereof that none should be eligible but a 
 citizen of the commonwealth for - years. 
 Mr. Madison, it appeared, voted for this 
 substitute; but the language of the report, 
 I admit, is somewhat ambiguous. Be it as 
 it may, the position of Virginia and the po- 
 sition of Louisiana, in respect to this mat- 
 ter, are so dissimilar as to render this pre- 
 33 
 
 cedent of no possible weight in our delibe- 
 rations. 
 
 Mr. Bexjaxix said that he was anxious 
 to set this matter right, inasmuch as his 
 statement had been controverted, and it 
 might be inferred it was his design to mis- 
 lead the Convention. He explained to the 
 Convention how it happened that Mr. Mad- 
 ison voted in favor of the substitute of Mr. 
 Powell. The discussion had turned upon 
 the question whether the governor should 
 be elected by the legislature or by the peo- 
 ple. Mr. Powell's substitute comprised a 
 section upon that subject. It was that the 
 governor should be elected by the people; 
 and upon that question Mr. Madison voted 
 aye. The yeas and nays were not called 
 for on the passage of the section, as it is 
 embodied in the Virginia Constitution, ex- 
 cluding foreigners naturalized. The ques- 
 tion was taken simply upon its adoption, 
 and according to the reports of the proceed- 
 ings, both Madison and Marshall were 
 j present, and the section was adopted ne- 
 | mine eoniradiscente. I was right, said 
 Mr. B.,in what I asserted, and I am borne 
 out in it by the records. 
 
 Mr. Grymes said that if he had enter- 
 tained the slightest doubts upon the expe- 
 diency and constitutionality of the propo- 
 sition, the debates that had taken place 
 j would have dissipated them. He alluded 
 j particularly to the remarks of the two learn- 
 j ed and distinguished delegates from the 
 | parish of Orleans, (Messrs. Roselius ana 
 \ Soule.) Not a single expression has es- 
 caped from those gentlemen that has " not" 
 : filled me with apprehensions for the future 
 : and pain for the present. I will not un- 
 ; dertake the idle task of refuting the consti- 
 j tutional objections that have been urged, 
 because 1 consider that one of the gentle- 
 men (Mr. Soule) in attempting to establish 
 their validity, has incontestibly established, 
 to my humble conception, that they have 
 no foundation. 
 
 As for the sylogism drawn from the sick- 
 ness of Mr. Monroe, and the singular con- 
 struction that has been placed upon the sig- 
 nature of Mr. Madison affixed to the consti= 
 tution itself, I have but one remark to make, 
 and that is this, that it is a dispute upon p, 
 matter of no consequence; for be that as it 
 may, the principle is the same. ■ One thing 
 is clear, that Mr. Madison never would 
 have- suffered the section ta have escape^ 
 
254 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 his scrutiny, if there had been any conflict 
 between it and the constitution of the Uni- 
 ted States, as has been strangely assumed 
 in this Convention. The report of the de- 
 bates show, moreover, that the clause was 
 not in the original report — that it was sug- 
 gested by an amendment — that to this 
 amendment, Mr. Powell proposed a sub- 
 amendment, and that the whole matter was 
 more or less discussed. It may hence be 
 concluded that it could not have passed un- 
 noticed, both the attention of an intelligent 
 and observant people and the scrutiny of 
 an active and penetrating press. It may 
 be, as has been said by one of the delegates, 
 that what is suited for one locality is un- 
 suitecl for another. But as to the principle 
 involved violating the constitution? that is 
 out of the question, for such a violation 
 could not have escaped the attention of the 
 distinguished statesmen to whom my col- 
 league (Mr. Benjamin) has referred, and 
 never would have found its way in an in- 
 strument which they participated in making. 
 
 But to proceed with the question of expe- 
 diency. How have the learned and elo- 
 quent gentlemen (Messrs. Soule and Rose- 
 lius) established that this principle is inex- 
 pedient? To my humble judgment, all that 
 they have said upon this point, proves the 
 very reverse of what they have assumed. 
 In refuting their arguments, which I natter 
 myself I shall be enabled to do, I shall re- 
 fute the arguments of those whose views 
 they may be supposed particularly to repre- 
 sent— for the distinguished position they 
 both occupy — -the brilliant career which 
 they have pursued — the enviable reputation 
 they enjoy in this community, and the nu- 
 merous marks of popular favor they have 
 received from their fellow citizens, whose 
 enthusiasm they cannot but appreciate, in- 
 duce me to take them as the model, and I 
 trust they will not be offended with me for 
 so doing, if the class of citizens who would 
 be affected if the principle under discussion 
 were to be engrafted upon our constitution. 
 
 The zeal, says one of these learned gen- 
 tlemen, which is displayed in favor of this 
 principle of exclusion, deserves a severe 
 rebuke, because it was an emanation of 
 jealousy, prejudice, and a most inveterate 
 antipathy towards foreigners. What does 
 he mean by this? One of two things — 
 either that this discreditable and unworthy 
 sentiment actuates the members of this 
 
 Convention who sustained the proposition, or 
 that it is an inherent vice in the American 
 character. If it be designed for those, who 
 in the Convention have sustained the pro- 
 position, I ought perhaps, as one of that 
 number, to return him my acknowledg- 
 ments for his reprimand; but I doubt much 
 whether he has any just cause of complaint, 
 be it against whom it may. The adversa- 
 ries whom he may have met at the bar in 
 his professional career, are not enemies of 
 his renown, and the esteem and homage 
 that are paid to him ought surely to be suf- 
 ficient to satisfy him, without charging his 
 confreres of being jealous of his progress. 
 If, on the other hand, his allusion is intend- 
 ed to be general, and to depict the defects 
 which he has found in the American char- 
 acter, I would ask him, how is it that he 
 has attained, among the American people, 
 so high a notch in the pinnacle of fame, and 
 that honors and distinctions have so lavishly 
 been bestowed upon him? How is it that 
 the other gentleman has .also attained 
 similar distinctions and similar rewards? 
 Was it through the naturalized citizens 
 alone that they were enabled to attain their 
 present exalted positions, or was it through 
 the generosity and liberality of native 
 Americans? They must take the one or 
 the other horn of the dilemma. If they pre- 
 tend that it is to their fellow naturalized cit- 
 izens that they are indebted for their suc- 
 cessful career, and it be assumed by them 
 that they have met with only jealousy and 
 antipathy on the part of the native citizens, 
 it is high time that we should think of pro- 
 tecting ourselves — that we should establish 
 some, place of refuge; some mound where, 
 like the Indian, we may die in peace, with- 
 out loosing the type of our nationality. 
 
 I do not imagine that they are very solicitous 
 whether we retain that peculiar type or not. 
 It is quite probable they would see us con- 
 founded and lost among the European herds 
 that swarm upon our shores, with infinite 
 satisfaction. But I trust we will take bet- 
 ter care of ourselves, and without designing 
 to depreciate other nations, or elevating the 
 United States above them, I may say that 
 we are deeply interested in retaining our 
 national character, be it for weal or for woe. 
 It is true that we have been told that the 
 natives of this country are slow of appre- 
 hension — that we stand in need of the 
 stream of intelligence that m flows upon us 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 255 
 
 from Europe, and should be duly sensible 
 of their continued efforts to elevate us in 
 the scale of civilization. I admit their 
 greater proficiency in the arts and sci- 
 ences, but I am not less attached to our 
 simple and humble pretensions. I think 
 we should preserve our national traits as 
 they have been handed to us by our ances- 
 tors, who formed us into a nation and be- 
 queathed to us our liberties, and we should 
 be excused if We prefer them to those of 
 other nations. 
 
 What do the gentlemen mean by inalien- 
 able rights, of which they have spoken so 
 emphatically? Do they mean that the in- 
 numerable'embroys of citizens that spawn 
 from the sources of the Xeva to the mouth 
 of the Rhine, and from the mouth of the 
 Rhine to the straits of Gibraltar, are pos- 
 sessed upon reaching our shores of vested 
 rights; for if they are, and we are without 
 the power of imposing restrictions and pro- 
 hibitions upon them, it is clear that we 
 might as well abandon our country at once. 
 Such a pretension is offensive to nature! I 
 must presume that those who set it up do 
 not comprehend, do not appreciate our in- 
 stitutions ; and when 1 see them cutting 
 and hacking away at the fundamental ba- 
 sis of our social organization, to carry out 
 their singular] and dangerous doctrines — 
 they who are capable and intelligent men, 
 I cannot but fear the ignorant and the dis- 
 solute of the class whose pretensions they 
 so warmly espouse, to the exclusion of the 
 native citizens of the country! What are 
 we to do with the masses, if their leaders 
 are earned so far away by the counsels of 
 presumption I 
 
 With such notions as these, I can well 
 understand that they detect some lowering 
 clouds upon the disc of our political hori- 
 zon, threatening us with violence and strife. 
 They predict to us a civil war, and exhort 
 us not to precipitate it. Between whom is 
 this civil. war to be waged? Will it be 
 between the naturalized citizens of one na- 
 tioftj and the naturalized citizens of anoth- 
 er, or will it be waged by the combined 
 force of the naturalized citizens against the 
 native citizens ? Is it come to this, that in 
 our own country, in our own homestead, 
 we cannot determine upon the qualifica- 
 tions of our governor, without exciting those 
 whom we have received with hospitality — 
 With whom we have generously shared our 
 
 political privileges ; but who now turn 
 round and defy us to preserve one little 
 mark of our nationality™t the peril of a 
 sanguinary struggle ; of a civil war ! Sure- 
 ly, it is time for us to reflect seriously upon 
 our position. Our liberties are endanger- 
 ed. The first assault will be made upon 
 our state government, and when that is re- 
 duced to a mere corporation of the repub- 
 lic, this hetrogeneous mass will still com- 
 plain of unnecessary rigor. They will call 
 for the repeal of that article in the federal 
 constitution, excluding them from the office 
 ,of President, and will never be satisfied un- 
 til they have placed one of themselves in 
 possession of the chief executive power of 
 the Union. The descendants of those that 
 achieved the independence of the United 
 States, and established its liberties, will be 
 swept away by the tornado, and not a ves- 
 tige will be left to tell of their existence ! 
 Methinks I already see that destructive 
 movement— that dead level without limit — 
 that universal platform, upon which there 
 will not exist declivity enough to carry off 
 the putrid evaporations. Like the waters 
 of the dead sea it will cover the surface of 
 the United States, and I was in hopes at 
 least, that there should be one elevated 
 spot where we might seek refuge and safe- 
 ty, and leave the strange fish that were 
 congregated below us to perish by them- 
 selves. 
 
 r I hese gentlemen, said Mr. Gryhies, ar- 
 range every thing to their own fancies*. 
 They resolve at will all difficulties, and 
 overcome all obstacles. Foreign nations 
 could not do better than to be regulated by 
 their counsels, for they tell us that wars 
 hereafter are impossible. No one desires 
 more sincerely than I that their predictions 
 may be fulfilled, but I must acknowledge 
 that my confidence in the future is not 
 equal to theirs. That which has been in 
 all times may very well be again, and if it 
 does happen, how are we to obviate the 
 temptations that may be set before a gov- 
 ernor of foreign birth ? That, we are told, 
 is a matter of no difficulty. The legisla- 
 ture may prescribe that the governoi shall 
 not command in person, and tjie danger, if 
 there be any, in that way may be avoided. 
 Is not the position taken to relieve us from 
 the difficult) 3 " evidently ridiculous ? The 
 State elects a governor, and at the very 
 moment when his services become the 
 
256 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 most essential, the legislature ordains that 
 he be dressed up l^.e the Grand Lama, and 
 exhibited to the enemy in a glass case. 
 Such arguments as these make me doubt 
 the judgment of those who urge them. 
 Every thing that savors' of the ridiculous 
 in matters of government, fills me with re- 
 gret. 
 
 I was misunderstood by those who have 
 commented on what I said, in reference to 
 the partiality which a naturalized Governor 
 would feel for the citizens of the country 
 that gave him birth, and that hence I infer- 
 red that none but. a native citizen should, 
 hold that office. I meant that a native ci- 
 tizen, who might be the governor, would 
 act with impartiality towards all the vari- 
 ous classes of naturalized citizens in the 
 State, whether German, French or Irish, 
 and that it would be easier for him to keep 
 the equilibrium than a governor taken from 
 any one of the different populations ; and 
 this opinion I found entirely sustained by 
 what fell from one of the honorable dele- 
 gates, (Mr. Roselius,) who acknowledged 
 the existence of a natural affection for the 
 land of our birth. 
 
 To my mind, the man that can suppress 
 that feeling, is nothing more than a painted 
 sepulchre ; guilded without, but rotten 
 within. I cannot believe in the devotion 
 of such a citizen to the land of his adop- 
 tion. It is because I fear the collision of 
 races, and that I wish to see the type of 
 our nationality preserved, that I would fain 
 snatch the office of governor from the dead 
 level that will swallow up our institutions 
 and blot us out from the list of nations. 
 Any one who wishes to retain our iden- 
 tity as a people will then be with me. 
 It is time that we should put some limit — 
 that we should prescribe some check to 
 guard our institutions. Otherwise we shall 
 be hunted from river to river — from moun- 
 tain to mountain — from valley to valley, 
 until we are lost in the mazes of oblivion, 
 ft; But we are.told that the office of gover- 
 nor is unimportant. This strikes me as a 
 reason not to want it, rather than to dis- 
 pute about it, on the part of those who hold 
 it to be so insignificant. I do n'ot agree 
 with this assertion. The power of the 
 governor is felt every where. He is in im- 
 mediate relations with all the other depart- 
 ments of the government, and his political 
 action may be likened to a drop of water 
 
 falling upon a rock. It insensibly but surely 
 leaves its traces. Let the naturalized ci- 
 tizen be satisfied with sharing with us all 
 offices of profit and honor in the State, with 
 this solitary exception. . It is said to be 
 unimportant, why not gratify us, then, 
 with it. It is all that we ask— 4he sovereigns 
 of the soil ! 
 
 In speaking of native Americans, and 
 in defending their rights and pretensions, 
 let it not be understood that I favor the 
 counsels of the political party known as 
 Native Americans. I hold in perfect dis- 
 gust the source from whence that party 
 originated. I am anxious that my position 
 on this question should not be confounded 
 with any of their movements. Neither 
 must it be understood that I am hostile to 
 naturalized citizens. I am not so. I am 
 not for restricting their rights, but in refer- 
 ence to this particular office, for the perma- 
 nency of the institutions of my country, I 
 really think the rule ought to be establish- 
 ed, that none but a natural born citizen 
 should be governor of Louisiana, 
 
 Whereupon the Convention adjourned, 
 
 Tuesday, February 18, 1845, 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. The Rev. Mr, Twitchard 
 opened the proceedings by prayer. 
 
 Mr. Taylor offered a resolution " tha* 
 this Convention do now rescind one of the 
 standing rules of the house, viz: That one 
 which requires the Convention to meet at 
 10 o'clock." He (Mr. Taylor) thought 
 that the rule was practically bad, although, 
 no doubt, it was if acted up to on the part 
 of the members, one of the best rules in the 
 house. But theory and practice, we all 
 know, are different things. The rule as it 
 stands is of no benefit, but the very reverse; 
 and as it has not been productive of any ad- 
 vantage, he desired to see it rescinded. 
 
 The President reminded the member 
 that a standing rule of the house could not 
 be set aside, unless the Convention agreed 
 to dispense with the rules of the house, 
 and consider his resolution. Mr. Taylor 
 then moved that the rules of the house be 
 temporarily suspended ; which question 
 being: submitted to the Convention, was 
 decided in the affirmative. 
 
 Mr. Sellers then offered a resolution, 
 that those members who do not answer to 
 their names when they are called at 10 
 o'clock^ shall lose their per diem. 
 
Debates in the Convention oi Louisiana, 
 
 257 
 
 Mr. Taylor regrets much to differ with j Mr Marigxy called upon the President 
 the crentleraan from Carroll, but believing \Jlo decide the matter. ^ 
 as he does, that the measure proposed The President replied that Mr. Guion's 
 by him, will not work well, and that the i motion was clearly the one before the 
 reasons which doubtless actuate him in ■, house. 
 
 suggesting this resolution are fallacious, he ) Mr. Marigxy then moved the previous 
 is bound to oppose it, and insist upon the ' question, which was, that the sense of the 
 revision of the rule. And why, sir? be- j house should be taken on Mr. Beatty's 
 cause there are a certain portion of the j resolution. 
 
 members, of which 1 humbly claim to be | Mr. Guiox could not but think, with all 
 one, who are always at hand when the deferenee to the opinion of the member 
 Convention is to meet as per adjournment; j from New Orleans, that the motion made 
 but there is another class, that have other ! by him clearly had the preference, because 
 business out of doors, that they will attend ' a motion to lay on the table was, by the 
 to, and do, before they come here, and ; rules of the house, one of the motions that 
 will necessarily keep them away until 11 had precedence over any other subject pre- 
 
 who desire to be sented to the consideration of the Conven- 
 tion, except a motion to adjourn. The 
 President dicided that the motion made by 
 Mr. Guion, was the first in order, and 
 therefore the motion before the house. 
 The question was then put, and the yeas 
 have as many other personal matters to ! and nays being called for, resulted as fol- 
 attend to as those who are not punctual j lows, viz: 
 
 in their attendance, is made to lose one Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Brum- 
 hour each day; while the man who is not i field, Claiborne, Chinn, C. M. Conrad F. 
 punctual, keeps, by his absence, all our j B. Conrad, Culbertson, Garrett, Guion, 
 proceedings in waiting for him. He hopes j Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Lecren 
 
 o'clock. Will those 
 punctual, come. What proportion do 
 they bear to those who do not come ? 
 The answer is at hand. We never 
 get a quorum until eleven o'clock ; and 
 the punctual man, who by the bye, may 
 
 and trusts, therefore, that the house, In or- 
 der to place all upon an equal footing, will 
 change the standing rule so that the hour 
 of 1 1 o'clock may be named, and thereby 
 enable the whole Convention to be present 
 at that hour. 
 
 On motion of Mr. O'Bryan, leave of ab- 
 sence was granted to Mr. Scott of Madison, 
 and on motion of Mr. Penx, Mr. Burton 
 
 dre, Lewis, Mazureau, Prudhomme, Pugh, 
 Roman, St. Amand, Saunders, Sellers, B. 
 Taj-lor, Wadsworth, Winchester and Win- 
 der — 23 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, 
 Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Derbes, Downs, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, Humble, 
 Hynson, Leonard, McCallop, McRea, Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Penn, Por- 
 
 had also leave of absence granted, both for ; ter, W. B. Prescott, W. M. Prescott, 
 
 a few da^s only. 
 
 Preston, RatlirT, Read, Roselius, W. B. 
 
 Mr. Labauve now called upon the Presi- ' Scott, Soule, Splane, Stephens, M. Taylor, 
 dent, to know whether leave of absence Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt 
 
 had been granted to him yesterday. The 
 secretary replied, no: Mr. Labauve said, 
 that being sick, and confined to his room, 
 he had requested a friend, a member of this 
 body, to ask such permission. The Con- 
 vention promptly excused the gentleman, 
 for his non-attendance on yesterday. 
 
 The Order of the Day was then taken i which resulted in shewin 
 up, and was the same as under discussion ! 59 members present, 
 yesterday. A question was then raised*, ' 
 which was the subject before the Conven- 
 tion? The amendment offered bv Mr 
 
 and WikofF — 40 nays; the motion to lay 
 Mr. Beatty's resolution on the table was 
 consequently lost. 
 
 Mr. Beatty then called up the motion 
 which he had previously made to strike 
 out, &c, but before any action was had on 
 it, Mr. Chinn moved a call of the house, 
 
 that there were 
 
 Beatty to strike out, or the proposition of- 
 fered by Mr. Guion to lay Mr. Beatty's 
 amendment indefinitely on the table. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth then moved, that in 
 view of the great importance of the subject, 
 and as it was no doubt the wish of the Con- 
 vention generally that the vote on it should 
 not be forced, in so thin a house, he desired 
 to propose to them that the further consid- 
 
258 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 eration should be postponed until 1 o'clock, | 
 at which time the .Convention would doubt-, 
 less be full. The proposition of Mr. 
 Wads worth was unanimously assented to, 
 and the further consideration of the subject 
 was postponed till 1 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. Chinn then moved that the Conven- 
 tion take up the apportionment bill, as 
 reported by the special committee to whom 
 that subject had been referred, and which 
 was made the special order of the day, for 
 yesterday, (Monday.) 
 
 Mr. Conrad thought it would be better 
 to take up the balance of the sections on 
 the executive department, and get through 
 that question at once. He felt sure that 
 -with a little energy and concert of action, 
 much more work than has been done, might 
 be done in this Convention. 
 
 Mr. Saunders, the chairman of the com- 
 mittee to whom was referred the apportion- 
 ment bill, said that he had made the said 
 report, in his capacity of chairman; that he 
 had done so with the hope and expectation 
 that every man in the Convention might be 
 heard on this interesting subject. He 
 thinks it would be better to postpone the 
 consideration of it for the present, and with 
 a view to bring that about, he moved that 
 the report be taken up and again laid on 
 the table, subject to the call of the house, 
 which motion was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Conrad then moved that the Con- 
 vention do proceed with the articles on the 
 executive department, which motion also 
 prevailed. 
 
 The section next in order was 
 Sec. 4. The governor shall enter on 
 the discharge of his duties on the second 
 Monday of January, in the year , and 
 shall continue in office until the Monday 
 next preceding the day that his successor 
 shall have been declared duly elected, or 
 until his successor shall have taken the oath 
 or affirmation prescribed by this Consti- 
 tution. 
 
 Mr. Peets moved to strike out the word 
 "second" and insert the word "fourth" pro- 
 ceeding the words "Monday of January," to 
 which no objection being made, the motion 
 prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to strike out the word 
 "preceding" and insert the word "suc- 
 ceeding." 
 
 The secretary explained that it was a 
 misprint, as the words in the original re- 
 
 port made by the committee was "succeed- 
 ing." 
 
 Mr. Mayo then moved to strike out the 
 word "or" in the 6th line, and insert the 
 word "and," which motion was adopted, 
 
 Mr. Chinn then moved to fill the blank 
 in the 3d line with 1846, after the word 
 "year," which was likewise adopted. 
 
 Mr. Conrad thought there was still an 
 ambiguity in the section, and moved to 
 strike out the 4th, 5th and 6th lines. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin thought it should be made 
 clear and explicit, leaving nothing to doubt; 
 and he was of opinion that that might be 
 accomplished by striking out the two last 
 lines, and made a motion to that effect. 
 
 Mr. Roman agreed with Mr. Benjamin 
 and seconded the motion. 
 
 Mr. Downs was opposed to striking out, 
 because if we did, such an emergency 
 might happen that we should have no gov- 
 ernor at all. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin explained that such 
 emergency was provided for in the next 
 section. 
 
 Mr. Conrad could not reconcile the 
 clauses in the two sections, they seemed to 
 .him palpably at variance, and therefore 
 should press his motion to strike out, which 
 motion was put and lost. 
 
 Mr. Conrad then moved to strike out 
 all after the word "until," in the 4th line, 
 
 down to the word "constitution," in the 
 
 line, but afterwards withdrew his motion. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved to reconsider the 
 vote by which the blank was filled with 
 1846, because we were yet unable to say 
 when this constitution on which we are en- 
 gaged would be ratified by the peogle. 
 
 Mr. ^Downs agreed with Mr. Ratliff; 
 he suggested that a blank had been left in 
 some previous part of the constitution on 
 which they had acted, to be filled up hereaf- 
 ter, and hoped the motion to reconsider 
 would prevail, so as to fill up all the blank 
 when we are near the close of our labors. 
 
 Mr. Conrad concurred with Mr. Downs. 
 
 The question was then put on Mr. Rat- 
 liff's motion, which was decided in the af- 
 firmative. He then moved to strike out 
 11346 and leave it blank for the present, 
 which motion also prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved to fill the blank with 
 the "4th Monday in January, next succeed- 
 ing his election," because it might so hap- 
 pen that a governor under the old constitu- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 259 
 
 tion might be retained in office, (unless 
 some time be specified,) and he would have 
 the power of nominating all the officers un- 
 der the new constitution. This he thought 
 wrong. 
 
 Mr. Beatty, although he agreed with ' 
 Air. Kenner in his views as to appoint- 
 ments of officers, thought it could be better j 
 provided for hereafter, when we have made 
 further progress. 
 
 Mr. Keener withdrew his motion. 
 
 Mr. Cone ad then moved to strike out 
 the words "in the year," and insert the 
 words "next succeeding his election," which ; 
 motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Lewis then moved the adoption of 
 the section as amended, which motion like- 
 wise prevailed, and the section as adopted 
 read thus: 
 
 Sect. 4. The governor shall enter on ; 
 the discharge of his duties on the fourth 
 Monday of the January next ensuing his 
 election, and shall continue in office until 
 the Monday next succeeding the day that j 
 his successor shall have been declared duly 
 elected, and his successor shall have taken 
 the oath or affirmation prescribed by this 
 Constitution. 
 
 The next section was read. 
 
 Sect. 5. No member of Congress, nor 
 officer of the general government, nor min- 
 ister of the gospel, or of any religious so- j 
 ciety whatever, shall be eligible to the of- j 
 fices of governor or lieutenant governor. 
 
 Mr. Downs thought it would be better 
 to strike out the word "eligible" and insert i 
 the word "hold.". 
 
 Mr.- Gryxes does not take the same 
 view of the matter as the gentleman from 
 Ouachita. If any change should be made, 
 in his opinion the phraseology should be ! 
 made still stronger than it was. His feel- 
 ings of propriety have frequently been 
 shocked at witnessing the rapacity of men 
 for office. Why, he himself has seen a 
 judge descend from the supreme bench and 
 electioneer for the office of senator to Con- | 
 gress, in the representative chamber itself. J 
 He himself was asked by that individual for 
 his vote, and his reply was, "yes, I will vote 
 for you if you will first resign the office you j 
 now hold, but not without." He does not ' 
 think it right when any man is desirous of 
 obtaining any office, that he should, at the 
 same time while he is aspiring to another, 
 be the holder of another office at the same 
 
 moment. He thinks it a privilege which 
 no man in a" republican government ought 
 to enjoy. He -desires to see purity of pur- 
 pose more rigidly adhered to than could be 
 under such a system as we have had. 
 
 Mr. Marigny does not agree with Mr. 
 Grymes in the opinions he has advanced. 
 He thinks they are not tenable. He admits 
 that a particular case might occur when a 
 judge of the supreme court would take advan- 
 tage of his influence, but still he is not of 
 opinion that for any such isolated case as 
 has been referred to,we should establish any 
 rule, the effect of which would be a flagrant 
 violation of others' rights. He thinks that 
 the talents and character of a man should 
 be passports to office, and he does not think 
 it right if, for instance, the people, or a re- 
 spectable portion of them, were to select as 
 their choice, one of their district judges 
 for their candidate for either governor, or 
 lieutenant governor, to deprive them ? of that 
 right. It would also be very hard to de- 
 prive that man of an office (because it 
 might be necessary in a pecuniary point of 
 view to him for the support of his family,) 
 which he held, until it was ascertained that 
 he had not been placed in a worse position 
 by accepting, how he would be placed in 
 by accepting any nomination however flat- 
 tering it might be to his feelings as a man; 
 why if such a man were to resign one of- 
 fice, and be defeated before the whole peo- 
 ple for such an one as he aspired to, the 
 consequences would probably be ruinous to 
 the interests of his family. He thinks fur- 
 ther, that the measure proposed is a restric- 
 tion on the rights of the people and as such 
 he is opposes to it. 
 
 Mr. Chtnn would go farther than even 
 Mr. Grymes, and he moved to amend the 
 section so that after the words "General 
 Government," the words "or of this State" 
 should be inserted; and further he moved 
 to strike out the word "eligible," and in- 
 sert "elected." 
 
 Air. Dowxs opposed the proposition of 
 Mr. Chinn, because he regarded it as an 
 unjust restriction. It was not his intention 
 to prolong or bring about a debate on this 
 subject when he proposed to change 
 the word "eligible" to "hold." His 
 intention was to provide for any such 
 possibility as that a man could hold two 
 offices at one time — but certainly not to 
 take away the right of eligibility from any 
 
260 
 
 Debates in tixe Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 man; for that right was to his mind as sa- 
 cred as the right of suffrage* itself. The 
 more I reflect on it, (said Mr. Downs,) the 
 more I become convinced that this question 
 strikes at the face of the right of suffrage. 
 
 Why, sir, we are told that those who 
 hold an office, no matter what, and no mat- 
 ter how capable or competent he may be, 
 must resign before he can have any preten- 
 sions to any other place. Yes ! every man 
 of them. He (Mr. Downs) desires to ar- 
 gue on the principle advanced, as a general 
 principle. He thinks it is unreasonable 
 and unjust; for in that case, to hold amy 
 office under the general or state govern- 
 ment, would be a disqualification : and he 
 is opposed to restrictions on the rights of 
 the people, unless called for by the stern- 
 est necessity. He thinks further that it is 
 to the interest of, and moreover their duty, 
 to get the services of the best and purest men 
 that can be found for the office of governor, 
 for they are called upon to exercise very re- 
 sponsible duties, even in the appointing 
 power. Now, (said Mr. Downs,) if we 
 carry out the doctrine of Mr. Grymes, 
 without attempting in any way to dispute 
 the facts advanced by him in proof of the 
 unjust influence which was exercised by 
 one certain individual in procuring the of- 
 fice of United States Senator, I contend 
 that if we establish any rule, (if it be in any 
 wise feasible to do so,) to guard against 
 similar abuses of the popular will, the ef- 
 fect will be to stop the wheels of govern- 
 ment. For his part, he was opposed to 
 saying to any man, you cannot have any 
 other office than the one you now hold, 
 unless you first resign, (even before you put 
 up any pretensions,) the one you now hold; 
 according to such a doctrine, why no 
 man could be a candidate for re-election 
 who was at the time during which the can- 
 vass was going on serving the State to the 
 best and utmost of his ability, in the senate 
 or house of representatives at Washington. 
 
 The rule might apply, if Mr. Chinn's 
 motion prevailed, even to the lawyers of 
 the State, for their commissions make them 
 officers of the State also; and then it might 
 happen that he, (Mr. Grymes,) would be 
 debarred from the privilege of becoming 
 governor, certainly while holding the office 
 he does, as a member of this convention, 
 his name could not be used. Perhaps if 
 the lawyers' influence could prevail, Mr. 
 
 Grymes would stand the best chance of 
 success, for in such a case, anxious to get 
 him out of the way of themselves, the lesser 
 lights, they might be willing, and doubtless 
 would strain every nerve to get him elec- 
 ted. Well, even that power would operate 
 against his election to that office, if persis- 
 ted in. 
 
 For his, (Mr. Downs') part, he discards 
 the idea put forth, even by implication, 
 that office is created for the incumbent. He 
 thinks it is created for the people, and the 
 people alone-. He feels that it is due to* 
 them to make their own free selection, and 
 not in any manner restrict them in their 
 choice. This is a new restriction, and as 
 such he opposes it. It amounts to a mul- 
 tiplication of disabilities. Suppose one 
 had such a case as this, how would it work? 
 
 A man who has been honored with nu- 
 merous offices in the gift of the people, may 
 be their representative in congress, or in the 
 senate, at the moment when he is the choice 
 of the people for the office of governor. This 
 section would disqualify him entirely from 
 accepting the nomination, unless he re- 
 signed his office, and were he to do that, 
 other important interests of 1 the people 
 would be left unattended to, and perhaps 
 totally neglected', 
 
 He is opposed to any measure which 
 has the inevitable tendency which such a 
 principle must have, to restrict not alone 
 the rights of an individual, but also the 
 rights of the people at large. 
 
 Mr. Grymes was surprised at the views 
 taken by the gentleman from Ouachita on* 
 this question, for there cannot be any re- 
 striction where the party said to be restrict- 
 ed has an alternative. He does not con- 
 ceive by the proposed measure either the 
 rights of individuals or communities will be 
 narrowed or restricted. • 
 
 He, (Mr. Grymes,) wants the principle 
 engrafted in our constitution, for nothing 
 will tend so much to sap the foundation of 
 our country's liberty, as the alarming in- 
 crease of the trading politicians we are sur- 
 rounded with, and beset by. He looks 
 upon them as a species of cormorants — 
 whose capacious maw is never filled — and 
 whose machinations and manoeuvrings are 
 constantly undermining the social fabric, 
 which the toil, labor and endurance of our 
 ancestors has raised for us; and to his (Mr 
 Gryme's) mind, the only way to prevent 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 261 
 
 their increase, is to destroy the power of ' posed to leave the section as it is. The 
 that class of persons — to take away from j substitute cf his friend from Baton Rouge, 
 them the ability to engage in the nefarious goes" further than he is willing to go. With 
 traffic. To bring about sueh a state of: Mr. Grymes, he thinks there is a peculiar 
 things, as will result in the people forcing j impropriety in a judge soliciting another 
 a man into office, instead of his being able office, while he retains his seat upon the 
 to force himself in, by acts of chicanery, bench; at the same time Mr. Chinn's 
 trickery, bribery, or otherwise. amendment prohibits every one who may 
 
 Is it not apparent to all that the intrigu- 1 hold an office of honor or profit in the State, 
 ing politician and placeman is never satis- : from offering his name for the office of go- 
 fred? that he is always knocking at the vernor or lieutenant governor. He thinks 
 portal of those in power ? and that he aims there are many State officers why ought 
 incessantly in all the primary meetings of not to be disqualified, such for instance as 
 the party in power, to get the control of : tax collectors, notaries, comptrollers or 
 the public omees? When they get one, j even members of the legislature, from offer- 
 they are never satisfied until they monopo- ing for such place. He thinks the provision 
 lize the whole; for themselves, family or 1 made by the committee, inserting the words 
 friends — then progressing from one to the members of congress, a wise one; for he has 
 other, in proportion to its lucrativeness, un-*i seen too much log-rolling going on at Wash- 
 til they reach the ladder's topmost round. i ington City. The _demagogueism there is 
 All the tumults and riots which we have at so great, that members of congress unfortu- 
 onr elections, spring from the unholy and nately use their official position more with 
 unhallowed means resorted * to by aspiring a view to make themselves popular at home, 
 politicians and office seekers, to stifle the looking evidently back to that home to be 
 popular will. rewarded therefor, by some higher office in 
 
 Mr. Grymes thinks it is the duty of this ; the State, than in attending to the real 
 Convention so to make our organic laws, ! and substantial duties which the interests 
 as will throw all possible obstacles in the | of his whole constituents demand at his 
 way of such traders in politics — and there. I hands. For these reasons, he agrees with 
 by check the consequences which such a the member from New Orleans, and will go 
 state of things as he has described as is as far any one, in promoting plain, practical 
 the natural result of their present course, j men, and in sustaining their rights; but he 
 Mr. Dowxs will no doubt tell you, sir, does not agree with Mr. Chinn, for the rea= 
 that the idea I now advance, is that the ! sons he has stated; therefore he moved to 
 people are not competent to judge of the to lay his (Mr. C.'s) substitute on the table* 
 qualifications of their State officers; but if [ Mr. Prestox thought, both with Mr. 
 he does, Mr. Grymes will join issue with j Conrad and Mr. Downs, that Mr. Chinn's 
 him, and tell him, that there are many j substitute ought to be maintained. He has 
 things in theory, which are very pretty, j but very few remarks to offer on this ques- 
 which do not work well in practice. He j tion, and will not detain the Convention 
 would have all to feel as he does. He j long. His first objection to it, is on the 
 cares nothing for an office seeker, he dis- j score of its restrictive property. He wanted 
 Tikes the whole race of them. He wants I as little restriction on the popular will as 
 the political power of the State preserved j possible. A distinguished gentleman hao! : 
 in the hands of the people, and not in the j observed here a few days since,- that the 
 hands of a parcel of political wire workers, j business of this Convention was to impose 
 He (Mr. G.) wants to leave the people to ! restrictions upon the people, in the formation 
 judge and select for themselves. He knows j of a new constitution. He does not agree 
 that then they would give no preference to | with that honorable gentleman. His views 
 a man because he was in an office; and he j as to the calling of this Convention, are, 
 further knows that they would not be ! that the old Constitution had in it too many 
 likely to commit so gross an act, as that of j restrictive qualities; and he (Mr. P.) is con- 
 political turpitude. j vinced that'the object of the people in call- 
 
 Mr. Coxead had intended to vote for the ing this Convention, was to ameliorate and. 
 amendment of Mr. Downs, but from the re- take off the restrictive parts of the present- 
 marks offered by Mr. Grymes, he is 'dis- constitution, and so to make our organic laws 
 34 
 
262 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 that the whole people might have the fullest 
 chance to express their will. 
 
 ^he* committee of the legislative depart- 
 ment has reported a section to this Conven- 
 tion which he opposed most strenuously, but 
 to his (Mr. Preston's,) it was but a mole hill 
 compared to a mountain, when compared 
 to the principles sought to be forced upon 
 the people under the section now before us. 
 He regards this new proposal, which has 
 been so suddenly sprung upon us, as one 
 detrimental alike to pure a& to equitable 
 principle. It is clearly the spirit of the age 
 to extend to the people the largest liberty 
 consistent with public security, and he (Mr. 
 Preston) challenges any gentleman on this 
 floor, to point out one single State that has 
 adopted in their constitution any clause, that 
 one of her citizens who may hold a minor 
 office, should be thereby debarred from the 
 privilege of aspiring to a higher, even the 
 highest office, while performing the duties 
 of such minor office. 
 
 Experience has shown us very positively 
 that the most practically experienced men 
 to fill offices are those who have risen grad- 
 ually from inferior offices to those of a 
 higher grade. He regards all office as a 
 school for a man to learn the art of govern- 
 ment. Why, sir, if this section prevail, you 
 will virtually say, that if the people should 
 select a man for a high station on whom 
 they had before conferred an inferior office, 
 that your present restriction is intended to 
 keep all such candidates out of the field. Is 
 it right for you to do this? There are many 
 men whom he (Mr. Preston) has known, 
 who have risen from the force of hard and 
 industrious labor, to be among the first men 
 of our country. What was their object in 
 devoting themselves to their laborious stu- 
 dies, even to midnight? yes ! he has known 
 many who had worked steadily by the mid- 
 night lamp, to acquire some science of go- 
 vernment; others, other sciences, and are 
 you, sir, going, as you surely will if this 
 resolution pass, to say to those men, your 
 labor is in vain; for if you succeed in get- 
 ting a minor office in Louisiana, you can 
 never expect to reach a higher one unless 
 you first give up the small office you hold? 
 The argument which is used amounts posi- 
 tively to that. Mr. Grymes says so dis- 
 tinctly and positively. But what do all men 
 struggle and labor for, unless it be to raise 
 their name for knowledge and character 
 
 among their fellow men? to rise higher in 
 the world? He (Mr. Preston) could have 
 pointed out a more equitable mode of reach- 
 ing this question, than some of the gentle- 
 men have perhaps ever thought of. His 
 idea would be, if you don't wish capable 
 men to fill your offices, curtail the salaries, 
 reduce them down so low that no one will 
 think them worth their attention, and then 
 you will remove the grand incentive so 
 much dreaded by Mr. Grymes, of offices only 
 being sought and chicancered for, for what 
 they are worth. For his part, however, he 
 must say, that he has never yet known a 
 man who held an office to get rich from the 
 emoluments of his office. 
 
 The hour of 1 o'clock having arrived, at 
 which hour it was agreed to take up the 
 discussion on the motion made by Mr.Beatty 
 to strike out, &c, the- President reminded 
 Mr. Preston of it, and remarked that he 
 could not proceed without the leave of the 
 house. The Convention seemed unani- 
 mously to desire that Mr. Preston should 
 proceed, but, he remarked, that as he was 
 not well, and as this question had been sud- 
 denly broached to the house, he should 
 prefer having some moments to reflect on 
 all its important bearings before proceeding 
 with his remarks; and therefore gave way 
 to the regular business of the Convention. 
 
 The motion before the Convention was 
 Mr. Beatty's, to strike out the word " na- 
 tive," &c. Before the vote was taken, 
 several gentlemen desired to express the- 
 re a sons which would govern them on the; 
 vote they were about to give. 
 
 Mr. Roman remarked that he was placed 
 in a singular position in regard to this mat- 
 ter; while he was a member of the commit- 
 tee who made the report of which the sec- 
 tion we are now about to act upon was one, 
 he objected in committee to the insertion 
 of the word "native," because he did not 
 then think it was necessary; but subse- 
 quent events have shown him clearly that 
 such a word is necessary in the section. 
 What has been done since? why we have 
 opened the door wider in our new constitu- 
 tion; we have established the principle of. 
 universal suffrage, and we have further 
 agreed that a man receiving a plurality of 
 votes, may become governor of Louisiana. 
 For these reasons, and with the certainty 
 that he felt that it was absolutely necessary 
 to take some measures to prevent the great 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 263 
 
 frauds which had been recently perpetrat- | lie believed we had not the power to do it, 
 ed, he thought now that the insertion of the j under the constitution of the United States, 
 word "native," was a wise provision in the ; The question was then put on striking 
 section, and therefore he should vote against : out, on motion of Mr. Dowxs, the word 
 striking out. "native" first, ond resulted as follows : 
 
 Mr. Yoorhies is of opinion that we Messrs. Beatty, Biazeale, Brent, B riant, 
 have the power to retain the word "native" ; Cade, Cenas, Culbertson, Carriere, Derbes, 
 — but he thinks it is inexpedient and un- Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Humble, 
 called for. Therefore he shall vote to Hynson, Labauve. Leonard, MeCallop, 
 strike it out. McRae, Marigny, Mayo, O' Bryan, Peets, 
 
 Mr. Cclbertsox, desired in a few words Penu, Porter, W. B. Prescott, W. M . Pres- 
 to give his reasons for the vote he should cotu Preston, Ratliff, Read, Roselius, W. 
 give on this question. He has been anx- B. Scott, Soule, Splane, Stephens, M. Tay- 
 iously and attentively listening to the ar- lor, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Weder- 
 guments of the able gentlemen who have strandt and Wikoff — 41 yeas ; and 
 addressed this Convention on this interest- Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Brum- 
 ing subject. The result of his reflections field, Chinn, Claiborne, C. M. Conrad, 
 is this — that we have more to fear from F. B. Conrad, Garrett, Grymes, Guion, 
 the northern abolitionists than we had from Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Legendre, Lew- 
 our own naturalized citizens. If the Con- is, Mazureau, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, 
 vention would entertain such a proposition • St t Amand. Saunders, Sellers, R. Taylor, 
 as he was about to send to the secretary's Wadsworth. Winchester and Winder — 27 
 desk to be read, he would endeavor to sus- j nays. 
 
 tain it by reason and by argument. If they So the woid "native" was stricken out 
 would not, he should vote to strike out, from the section. 
 
 but offered it as an amendment. The Mr. Dunn then proposed to substitute 
 amendment offered, was in these words : for the balance of the section, the words, 
 "That no person shall be eligible to the "Xo one shall be eligible either to the office 
 office of governor of the State of Louisiana, of governor or lieutenant governor, unless 
 unless he be a native born citizen of Louis- he shall have attained the age of 35 years, 
 iana, or has acquired a residence in the and has been a citizen of the United States 
 State as a citizen of the United States, be- for the period of sixteen years, and has been a 
 fore this constitution goes into effect." j resident citizen of Louisiana ten years pre- 
 
 This amendment of Mr. Culbertson was 1 ceding- his election." 
 then put and lost. Mr. Beatty moved as an amendment to 
 
 Mr. Coxrad then rose, and said that the motion, to strike out all the words be- 
 as it had become fashionable for the dele- ginning at the 6th line, with the word 
 gates of this Convention to assign their ^nor," to the word ''and," inclusive in the 
 reasons for the different votes they gave line. 
 
 on this floor, he was fearful his constitu- Mr. Brent offered a substitute for the 
 ents might not think him a fashionable amendment to the amendment ; it was in 
 man. And in imitating the example of the these words : "No person shall be eligible 
 distinguished gentlemen who have prece- to the office of governor or lieutenant gov- 
 ded him, he feels himself called upon to ernor, who is not a qualified elector of this 
 give two reasons for his vote on this . State." 
 
 question. The 1st is, that the Convention .Mr. Prestox suggested that the sub- 
 has the power to insert the word "native," j stitute had better be put in an affirmative 
 under the constitution of the United States. ' form so as to make it read, "Every qualifi- 
 And 2d, that in our situation it is expedient ed elector shall be eligible to the office of 
 to do so. | governor or lieutenant governor." 
 
 Mr. Garcia then rose for the purpose' Mr. Dunn thought that justice had not 
 of expressing his views on the vote he was been done him in this matter, and rose to 
 about to give. He regarded the insertion a point of order v He insisted that the 
 ot the word "native" unnecessary, for three I substitute for the latter clause in the sec- 
 reasons. 1st, because it was unjust. 2d, tion under debate offered by him, was cer= 
 because it was unnecessary. 3d because, [ tainly the first in order. 
 
264 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Mr. Beatty is also of opinion that 
 .either Mr. Dunn's proposition or his #wn 
 must be in order. 
 
 Mr. Labauve, temporarily in the chair, 
 decided that Mr. Dunn's motion was not 
 the first in order, but gave the preference 
 to the substitute of Mr. Brent, as amended 
 by Mr. Preston. 
 
 Mr. Dunn then appealed from the decis- 
 ion of the chair. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne thinks that we are going 
 wrong. The usual mode of proceeding is 
 to take up section by section, or clause by 
 clause. 
 
 Mr. Grymes called Mr. Claiborne to or- 
 der. He said that when any motion was 
 made on a point of order, it was not de 
 bateable. 
 
 The question was then taken — shall the 
 decision of the chair be sustained ? which 
 was decided in the negative; 38 to 27. 
 
 Mr. Beatty then moved to strike out 
 the property qualification in the section be- 
 fore the house, which was decided as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Briant, 
 Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Downs, Dunn, Gar- 
 rett, Humble, Hynson, Leonard, McCal- 
 lop, McRae, Mayo, Q'Bryan, Peets, Penn, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, RatlifF, 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge. Sellers, Soule, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor, Trist, Voorhies, 
 Waddili; Wederstrandt, Wikoft, and Win- 
 der ; 38 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Brunifield, 
 Briant, Chinn, Claiborne, F. B. Conrad, 
 C. M. Conrad, Cublertson, Derbes, Garcia, 
 Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, Ma? 
 zureau, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, 
 Saunders, Taylor, and Winchester voted 
 in the negative; 28 nays ; so the motion 
 to strike out prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Winder then offered to amend the 
 section, by striking out all after the words 
 a 35 years," and inserting as a substitute, 
 "and been a citizen of this State 15 years." 
 
 Mr. Brent then moved to strike out the 
 words '35 years*' and insert '21 years.' 
 
 Mr. Conrad would also like to see the 
 words "and a citizen of the United States," 
 inserted in the section before us, after the 
 words "a citizen of this State." 
 
 Mr. Taylor is of opinion that these 
 words are not necessary, as no individual 
 
 could be a citizen of Louisiana, unless he 
 were a citizen of the United States, and the 
 amendment offered by Mr. Winder speci- 
 fies that he shall have been five years a citi- 
 zen of Louisiana. 
 
 Mr. Conrad had in his mind when he 
 made the proposal, the fact that in several 
 other States, among them the State of Illi- 
 nois, there was no requirement for an elec- 
 tor to be a citizen of the United States, nor 
 was it required as a pro-requisite in any of 
 the officers of the State. This, he thought 
 ought to be remedied by us, and as he was 
 not aware that there was any direct provis- 
 ion for it as yet in our constitution, he thought 
 it proper to press his amendment. 
 
 Mr. Winder then consented to adopt the 
 amendment offered by Mr. Conrad. 
 
 Mr. Dunn thought the question might be 
 divided. 
 
 Mr. Head offered a substitute for the 
 whole matter under debate, which was to 
 strike out all that part of the clause begin- 
 ning at the words ^35 years," and to insert 
 "who shall not be 2% years of age, and two 
 years a citizen of the United States, and of 
 this State, next preceding his election.^ 
 
 Mr. Dunn moved to lay the substitute in- 
 definitely on the table. 
 
 Mr. Downs would second that motion. 
 Although he is in favor of all necessary re? 
 form, he thinks the motion made by Mr. 
 Read is going too far, and for that reason 
 he opposed it. 
 
 The question was then taken, the yeas 
 and nays being called for, and resulted as. 
 follows : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou> 
 dousquie, Bourg, Briant, Brunifield, Cade, 
 Carriere, Cejias, Chinn, Claiborne, C. M f 
 Conrad, F. B. Conrad, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Downs, Dunn, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Hynson, Kenner s King, Labauve, 
 Leonard,. Lewis, Marigny, Mayo, Mazu- 
 reau, Peets, Penn, W- B. Prescott, W. M. 
 Prescott, Pugh, Roman, Roselius,St.Amand, 
 Saunders, Sellers, Soule, Splane, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Trist, Voorhies, Wikoff, Winchester 
 and Winder— 53 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Humble, McCal- 
 lop, O'Bryan, Porter, Preston, Read, W. 
 B. Scott, Waddili and Wederstrandt-^ 
 12 nays. 
 
 So the substitute was laid on the table in- 
 definitely. 
 
Debates in the Convention ot Louisiana. 
 
 285 
 
 Mr. Brent then moved a division of the 
 question, so that the question might be ta- 
 ken on striking out ten years, first. 
 
 The question was then put, and decided 
 by yeas any nays, as follows: 
 
 Messrs, Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou~ 
 dousquie, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Carriere, Cenas, Chinn, Conrad 
 of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Garcia, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, ()'- 
 Bryan, Peets, Penn, Preston, Pugh, Read, 
 Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, 
 Splane, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Waddill, Wikoffj Winchester and 
 Winder — 40 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Cade, Claiborne, Derbes, Downs, 
 Dunn, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Leonard, 
 McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott ofSt.Landry, 
 W. B. Scott, Sellers, Soule, Stephens, 
 Trist, Voorhies and Wederstrandt — 24 
 nays. 
 
 The words "ten years" were therefore 
 stricken out. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan wanted the blank filled 
 with five years, but on being told his mo- 
 tion was out of order, he said he desired to 
 reconsider his vote, and moved a reconsid- 
 eration of the vote. 
 
 Mr. Taylor called Mr. O'Bryan to 
 order, and 
 
 The President decided that the motion 
 of Mr. O'Bryan was out of order, and that 
 Mr. Winder's amendment came up next in 
 order. 
 
 Mr, Downs thinks when a section has 
 been divided, that the clauses become sep- 
 erate questions, and the sense of the House 
 may be taken on them as such, seperately. 
 He then read the 101st rule from Jeffer- 
 son's manual in support of his views of the 
 matter, which fully sustained the position 
 he had taken, 
 
 Mr. Conrad does not see that the rule 
 heretofore adopted by the President of the 
 Convention conflicts with the Manual; but 
 
 The President, from the authority ad- 
 vanced by Mr. Downs, saw clearly that 
 his previous impression had been errone- 
 ous, and he was now convinced that any 
 question may be amended when it is divi- 
 ded. 
 
 When that decision was made, 
 Mr. King moved to fill the blank with 
 twenty.one years. 
 
 Mr. Preston hoped that the amendment 
 would not prevail. The old constitution 
 only requires a residence of six years — 
 that had surely worked well enough. It is 
 true for his part, that if two men of equal 
 natural capacity were to be candidates, the 
 one old, the other young, that he should and 
 would always give the preference to the old 
 man. But, sir, the old constitution has 
 answered in this particular as well as could 
 be desired. Why then change it? Why 
 restrict the people from choosing whom 
 they see fit? For his part, he said, he 
 should always prefer the gray headed man, 
 (perhaps from a natural sympathy on that 
 account,) to the young man, even in time of 
 war, even although we might have in that 
 young candidate another Bonaparte, who 
 astonished the world at the age of twenty- 
 five. 
 
 The question before the Convention is, 
 are we to restrain the people from choos- 
 ing whom they please? Can any good 
 come of it? Experience has shown that 
 there is no necessity for increasing the term 
 of residence from that established in 1812. 
 His (Mr. P's) desire is to maintain an es- 
 tablished principle, unless it can be shown 
 to be injurious to the interests of the peo- 
 ple, and that naturally leads him to ask the 
 question, who is the government? The 
 servants of the electors. Who the electors? 
 Surely their masters. 
 
 He does not, therefore, wish to see the 
 people prevented by any such restrictions 
 from choosing whom they please. In pri- 
 vate transactions we have the right of choo- 
 sing agents under twenty-one years of age, 
 and he is clearly of opinion that we_ should 
 not distort the old constitution on the subject 
 now under discussion. The resident popu- 
 lation will always have the control of that 
 matter, and it is not at all likely that a new 
 comer or a youth will be selected to fill the ' 
 post of governor. 
 
 He hopes the motion to fill the blank 
 with twenty-one years will not prevail, but, 
 that the term chosen will bethat in the con - 
 stitution of 1812; 6 years. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin then moved to adjourn till 
 11 o'clock to-morrow, which motion pre- 
 vailed. 
 
 Wednesday, February 19, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment ; and at the request of the Pres° 
 
266 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 ident, the Hon, Mr. Stevens officiated as 
 chaplain, 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 The Convention resumed the considera- 
 tion of the last clause of section 3d of the 
 report of the majority of the committee on 
 the executive department, which is as 
 follows : 
 
 " No person shall be eligible to the 
 office of governor who shall not have 
 attained the age of thirty-five years, and 
 have been ten years next preceding his 
 election a resident within the State." 
 
 Mr. King withdrew the amendment 
 offered by him yesterday to this section. 
 
 Mr. O' Bryan moved to fill the blank in 
 the clause by five years. The question 
 was taken on the previous motion of Mr. 
 Winder to fill the blank with fifteen years, 
 and the yeas and nays were called for. 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, B riant, Brumfield, Cenas, F. B. 
 Conrad, Culbertson, Derbes, Garcia, Gar- 
 lett, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, W. B. Pres- 
 cott, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Saunders, 
 Taylor, Wadsworth, Wikoff, Winchester, 
 and Winder — 29 ayes; and 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Cade, Carriere, Clai- 
 borne, Downs, Dunn, Humble, Leonard, 
 McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo,0'Bry- 
 an, Peets, Porter, W. M. Prescott, Pres- 
 ton, Read, W. B. Scott, Sellers, Splane, 
 Stephens, M. Taylor, Trist, Voorhies, 
 Waddill, and Wederstrandt — 27 nays. 
 
 Mr. Winder then moved to add to the 
 requisition, "a citizen of the United States, 
 and of the State;" and called for the yeas 
 and nays on that motion • and the result 
 was as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Cade, Cenas, 
 Claiborne, Chinn, F. B. Conrad, Culbert- 
 son, Derbes, Dunn, Guion, Garrett, Hud- 
 speth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, 
 Lewis, Mazureau, W. B. Prescott, Prud- 
 homme, Pugh, Roman, Saunders, M. Tay- 
 lor, R. Taylor, Voorhies, Wadsworth, 
 Wikoff, Winchester, and Winder — 35 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Carriere, Downs, Garcia, 
 Humble, Leonard, McCallop McRae, Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, W. 
 M. Prescott, Preston, Read, W. B. Scott, 
 Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Trist, Waddill, 
 and Wederstrandt— 23 nays. 
 
 Mr. Lewis therefore moved to add after 
 the word "citizen," the words "free white 
 male," which amendment was sustained 
 without a division* 
 
 Mr. Dunn moved that the section offer- 
 ed by him yesterday, be adopted as a sub- 
 stitute for the foregoing section as amend- 
 ed. 
 
 Mr, Wadsworth moved to lay Mr. 
 Dunn's motion on the table, which pre- 
 vailed — yeas 31, nays 28. 
 
 Mr. Mayo then proposed a substitute to 
 the following effect: "that no one should be 
 eligible to the office of governer who was 
 not a free white male citizen of the United 
 •States, who hath not attained the age of 
 thirty years, and hath been a resident 
 within the State ten years next preceding 
 his election." 
 
 Mr. Benjamin objected to this section 
 being taken under consideration. It was 
 not in order, it being a renewal in effect 
 of the proposition that had been rejected. 
 
 Mr. Kenner called for the previous 
 question, which was ordered — yeas 28, 
 nays 30. 
 
 The question then recurred on the adop- 
 tion of the section — yeas 33, nays 25. 
 
 Mr. Mayo then gave notice that he 
 would move for a reconsideration of the 
 vote on Tuesday next. 
 
 The Convention then took up the fol- 
 lowing section : 
 
 Sec. 5. No member of Congress, or 
 person holding any office under the United 
 States, or minister of any religious society, 
 shall be eligible to the office of governor, 
 or lieutenant governor. 
 
 Together with the substitute offered for 
 the same by Mr. Chinn. 
 
 Mr. Preston said he felt called upon to 
 raise his voice against the substitute offered 
 by the delegate from West Baton Rouge. 
 Experience has demonstrated that this ex- 
 clusion is entirely unnecessary. No State 
 in the Union has as yet found such a princi- 
 ple proper or expedient, and why adopt it 
 here ? It would seem from the arguments 
 of those who sustain this principle, that the 
 mere investure of a public office should op- 
 erate as an exclusion to all other public 
 offices. And yet what other means have 
 the people of judging of the capacities, the 
 zeal, the virtue of a citizen, unless it be 
 by the services that he may render them in 
 the various stations of public life? 1 con- 
 
 / 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 26? 
 
 tend that the gradations of public employ- 
 ments are a school, and that a man who has 
 passed through that school, necessarily of- 
 fers to the people greater facilities of judg- 
 ing of his fitness and of his qualifications; 
 and that so far from its being considered a 
 matter of exclusion because he holds one 
 office, it should be a recommendation to 
 another, provided he has shown himself 
 competent to the first. The people will 
 see what are actually his merits ; they 
 will see h\m pass through a severe ordeal, 
 and if he is capable, they will raise him 
 to the highest offices. It is a mistake to 
 suppose that the people do not possess 
 discernment. That they cannot judge of 
 the qualifications of a candidate when they 
 have the opportunities of examining into 
 his pretensions.. They will not take an 
 incompetent man, if they can get a com- 
 petent one to represent them, or administer 
 their government, and if a man of ordinary 
 understanding, by some accident gets into 
 a subordinate station, he is seldom if ever 
 preferred by them to a higher or more re- 
 sponsible one. When his incompetency 
 is once discovered, his political aspirations 
 may be considered as at an end. 
 
 The extent to which a similar article in 
 the old constitution was interpreted went, 
 that they should not be competent to hold 
 one office when elected to another, but it 
 was never understood that they should not 
 hold one office and be a candidate for ano- 
 ther. What detriment has resulted from 
 the common practice throughout the State, 
 which has been sanctioned by usage] No 
 injury has been the result; then wherefore 
 establish this exclusion? Does the confi- 
 dence reposed in a citizen which induces 
 his fellow citizens to send him to the house 
 of representatives of the United States, or 
 to the senate of the United States, disquali- 
 fy him from the office of governor, or any 
 other station ? Or that confidence — that 
 knowledge of his peculiar fitness which has 
 elevated him to a station on the bench, dis- 
 qualify him for being governor of the State, 
 or a member of congress? I am of a con- 
 trary opinion. I think that the public are 
 gainers by the experience of these officers, 
 and that this experience is acquired by 
 being indiscriminately employed in the va- 
 rious branches of the public service. We 
 have very important interests at Washing- 
 ton to represent, and I may say there is not 
 
 a State in the Union so deeply interested 
 in the legislation of that body as Louisiana. 
 The city of New Orleans has vast commer- 
 cial relations; she is the great city of the 
 west and south west, and is directly involv- 
 ed in all the treaties made with foreign 
 nations, and in the peculiar foreign policy 
 of the government. It is of the very highest 
 importance that the State should send capa- 
 ble and efficient representatives to congress. 
 These representatives meet with the most 
 distinguished men from the other States of 
 the Union — with governors, judges, and 
 senators, that have been delegated, like 
 themselves, to congress. They compare 
 notes, they glean information of the partic- 
 ular local position of every individual State, 
 of its advancement, of its progress; how its 
 peculiar system of polity works, and yet with 
 all this general information you place a bar 
 upon them in the constitution, and assume 
 that they shall not be eligible to the office 
 of governor. I can see no good reason for 
 I this. They have escaped from the turmoils 
 of petty local excitements and local politics; 
 they have their minds enlarged by legisla- 
 ting for the general interests of the whole 
 country, and yet, if their fellow citizens 
 choose to elevate them to the post of gov- 
 ernor, they are denied that right by an ar- 
 bitrary edict in your constitution. They 
 are told they cannot do it, and to be a 
 member of congress is to be excluded from 
 all political preferment in the State. This 
 is certainly an unjtist exclusion — an exclu- 
 sion repugnant to every principle of expe- 
 diency or of good policy, and. I feel certain 
 that the gentleman who offers it would have 
 so considered it when he was himself a 
 member of congress. 
 
 No one is less disposed to believe than I, 
 that military talents are the only talents for 
 the office of chief magistrate. But I can- 
 not perceive why a citizen of the State in 
 the military service of the United States, 
 should be excluded from holding civil offi- 
 ces in this State. I contend that it apper- 
 tains alone to the people to determine whe- 
 ther any particular individual suits them for 
 a particular office, and to deny to them the 
 rights of free and unrestricted choice, is to 
 impose odious restraints upon them, and to 
 make invidious exclusions affecting parti- 
 cular persons. No principle is more tho- 
 roughly democratic, than rotation in office, 
 and how is that principle to be carried out, 
 
268 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 if a man is to be retained as a fixture in one 
 office, that is, if he does his duty he may 
 expect to be retained, but as long as he is 
 retained he must not aspire to any other 
 office. As a general rule, it may be as- 
 sured, ffrat a man who fills one office well 
 is capable of filling another well, and it is 
 not an unsafe principle to act upon. Fre- 
 quent elections, frequent recurrence to ori- 
 ginal principles, are the safeguards of re- 
 publican governments. Why distrust the 
 people; the people are far more competent 
 than we are to judge who is best qualified 
 to serve them. Let us not restrict their 
 choice. Let us leave them unrestrained, 
 to select where they please, and when they 
 please, to carry on their government. 
 
 Suppose the people of Louisiana were 
 disposed to elevate to the chief magistracy 
 of the State some citizen who had rendered 
 them essential service, in a military station, 
 under the - federal government — a citizen 
 who had averted some eminent danger, 
 would you deny to them the privilege of 
 doing so ? They would feel a lasting sor- 
 row at not having the opportunity of testi- 
 fying their gratitude, and in the disposition 
 of their honors, to reward him adequately 
 accordingly to his deserts. What I object 
 to is, that this rule debars the people of 
 their undoubted privileges of selecting when 
 they will. It disfranchises a large number 
 of worthy citizens, and as I can see for no 
 earthly reason. Why should yotf pronounce 
 the attorney or the district attorney of the 
 United States, incapable of aspiring to any 
 office in the State unless he returns first to 
 the walks of private life? I agree with 
 the democratic principle of rotation in 
 office, but I understand it to mean not that 
 a man should necessarily be expelled from 
 office with no other motive than to give 
 place to another. I do not understand that 
 principle thus. I understand it that the 
 people should have frequent opportunities of 
 making changes, if they choose. I under- 
 stand it as facilitating the means of holding 
 their agents to a strict and immediate re- 
 sponsibiltiy. 
 
 One argument that has been assumed by 
 the advocates of the proposition of the gen- 
 tleman from West Baton Rouge (Mr.Chinn) 
 is, that the judicial ermine ought to be kept 
 pure and unsullied; that judges will descend 
 from the purity and dignity of their stations, 
 and become candidates for office, if this 
 
 provision be not adopted; and that the con^ 
 sequences will be deleterious in the ex- 
 treme, both as regards the standing of the 
 judge and the proper discharge of his du- 
 ties. I think there is no weight in the ar- 
 gument. If a judge be too pure and unsul- 
 lied to aspire to any station, he is too pure 
 for this world, and ought to be translated to 
 another. But a more serious' objection is 
 urged. It is said that he will electioneer-^ 
 that he will meddle in elections. What is 
 meant by electioneering, for there are dif- 
 ferent meanings attached to that word? Is 
 it pretended that because a man, yielding 
 to the solicitations of his fellow citizens, 
 consents to become a : candidate for a par- 
 ticular ststion, and deems it to be his duty 
 to express freely his opinions and sentiments 
 in a public manner — to converse with his 
 fellow citizens— that there is any thing 
 wrong in that? And in a large district if 
 it be not convenient to meet them all in one 
 place, he meets them at several— is there 
 anything in that objectionable? Any thing 
 improper in its being done by a judge or 
 other functionary, more than any other 
 man? Is there any violation of principle ? 
 I can see none. None, if the chief justice 
 of the supreme court were to address his 
 fellow citizens at different points of the 
 State, and in a calm and dignified manner 
 enunciate the principles that would govern 
 him, were the partialities of some of his 
 fellow citizens that had nominated him for the 
 office of governor, confirmed by the general 
 choice of all the peopled I cannot perceive 
 how this could result in the pollution of our 
 elections! It is true that things do occa- 
 sionally occur at our elections, that are dis- 
 gusting. But these are the abuses of a 
 popular system of government. They do 
 not, however, outweigh the manifold bene- 
 fits and blessings of that system — one advan- 
 tage of which, is the very facility afforded to 
 the people of scrutinizing the pretensions of 
 those that would serve them; of examining 
 into their qualifications. It is intelligence 
 speaking to intelligence. It puts the can- 
 didate to the ordeal of public opinion-*— He 
 is scanned with scrutinizing eyes-— to make 
 use of a common expression, the people 
 have the opportunity of twigging him, to see 
 of what stuff he is made. Where is the 
 harm in this? If this is what is considered 
 electioneering, I can see no harm in it. 
 But if by electioneering he meant the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 269 
 
 ibuses the excrescences, the aberrations 
 from correct principles, I admit these are 
 lamentable, still they are no argument 
 against the general principle. When men 
 of high intelligence become candidates for 
 office, they instruct and enlighten the peo- 
 ple of the State. They instruct those of 
 less experience as to the capabilities of the 
 State; the true course of State policy. No- 
 thing is calculated more to enlighten the 
 electors. They hear aspiring men discuss 
 grave and important topics of public con- 
 cernment, and are always ready and anx- 
 ious to be present at these debates. When 
 important political questions are pending, 
 how often have we seen (he public meet- 
 ings thronged, and the anxious crowd re- 
 maining until 11 o'clock at night to hear 
 the words of experience of some old, grave 
 man, who has been called upon to shed the 
 light of his intelligence upon those ques- 
 tions. The people are ever ready to glean 
 all the information they can, in order to act 
 understandingly. The consequence of dis- 
 cussion is that the people obtain informa- 
 tion, and the humblest citizen who retires 
 to his simple cottage, carries with him and 
 treasures up some of the important facts 
 that may have been elicited in that discus- 
 sion. It is this interchange of thought and 
 facility of hearing every public question dis- 
 cussed, that disseminated so much general 
 information among the people, and gives 
 them a decided advantage over the people of 
 other countries, What makes the servility of 
 the Russian serf; the fanaticism of theSpanish 
 peasantry] It is the distance at which they 
 are kept from the power that governs them. 
 They are not instructed by their public 
 men, nor enlightened as to measures of 
 publ ic policy. They are not the sources of 
 honors and rewards, as the people of this 
 happy country. No public man feels him- 
 self here too proud or too pure to address 
 his fellow citizens, and suggest to them his 
 views. The result is, that the good of the 
 country is promoted. 
 
 i will repeat again, that the people are 
 capable and have the virtue to select their 
 public servants for themselves, without any 
 restraint or restriction, and the strongest 
 proof of that intelligence and virtue is, that 
 a viscious man always appeals to virtue 
 and to the rectitude of 'his purposes. This 
 observation holds good throughout the 
 length and breadth of the land, and shows 
 35 
 
 the regard which is felt for virtue and in- 
 telligence among the masses. I care not 
 where a candidate may address the people, 
 be it in the midst of a tavern, where a 
 mob may be collected together, this ap- 
 peal-is invariably heard, which shows that 
 he well understands that that is the chord 
 he must touch, if he expects success. This 
 proves that although there are excesses, 
 there is no lack of virtue or intelligence in 
 the people themselves. An ignorant man 
 who aspires to serve the people, is invari- 
 ably destined, if the masses only have the 
 ! opportunity, to have the shallowness of his 
 I capacities detected. The humblest among 
 them will say, "well, that man has no more 
 I sense than I : how can he pretend to such 
 an office?" The people pride themselves 
 upon the talents of their public officers. 
 They have great virtue. I speak general- 
 ly, Out of twenty indiscriminately taken, 
 the twentieth may be a base man ; but he 
 is the exception. 
 
 There is no disgrace, to my humble con- 
 ! ception, to the ermine of judicial dignity, 
 in a judge addressing the people, when the 
 ! partialities of his fellow citizens induce him 
 i to become a candidate for any public sta- 
 ; tion. He may address them by public 
 speech or in writing. The principle of 
 our government is, that every man should 
 have the freedom of speech-, and be eligi- 
 ble to serve his country, whether he be a 
 private citizen or the incumbent of any par- 
 ticular office. This glorious privilege 
 cannot appropriately be infringed in any 
 instance, and the judge of the supreme 
 court, who may be indueed to become a 
 | candidate, is just as much exposed to be 
 ! conned and to be scrutinized as any other 
 citizen that may offer. 
 
 ^.1 have no opinion in that policy that 
 would house a man up, and claims for him 
 merits that the world have never been able 
 to discover. Talents he may have, but if 
 they are not exerted, of what use are they? 
 If, like the unfaithful steward in holy writ, 
 he hide away that which is given him 
 to be increased and to be multiplied, of what 
 use is the gift ? 
 
 I come now to speak of that clause in 
 the section, which excludes ministers of 
 the gospel. I shall say but little upon that 
 point, as I have understood that it is the 
 intention of the delegate from Opelousas, 
 (Mr. Lewis) wheii the subject properly 
 
270 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 comes up in another and more appropriate 
 portion of the constitution, to express his 
 views upon it ; and. I feel he is more com- 
 petent to the task than I am. But, as I 
 vote against this principle in its partial ap- 
 plication here, I will state briefly my rea- 
 sons for doing so. I consider that the ob- 
 jections that may originally have existed, j 
 and which may have justified that exclu- 
 sion, have had no practical effect for the 
 last fifty years. I consider that it is con- 
 trary to principle. That it is an absurd 
 restriction. The people are, I repeat, com- 
 petent to vote for whom they please, and 
 every voter should be eligible for every 
 civil station — be he ecclesiastical or lay- 
 man. A minister of the church is allowed 
 to vote, and yet he is debarred the privi- 
 lege of being voted for. If there be really 
 danger to the community by investing him 
 with the ordinary rights of citizenship, say 
 so at once and deprive him of all those 
 rights. The civilized christian world have 
 set apart one day in the seven, as a day of 
 repose — the sabbath — when the business 
 of religion is to be exclusively pursued. I 
 belong to no particular sect of religion ; yet 
 I think the setting apart of a particular day 
 an appropriate moral institution ; and I can 
 see nothing in the functions of a minister 
 of the gospel, — inculcating the holy pre- 
 cepts of religion, that should debar his con- 
 gregation — his friends and neighbors of 
 electing him to any station, or he from ac- 
 cepting it. There is nothing in these 
 functions to make him a bad or dangerous 
 man ; on the contrary, there is the very 
 reverse ; and at any rate, the people may 
 well be trusted with the faculty of exerci- 
 sing a sound discretion on the premises. 
 Why under heaven should there be such 
 an exclusion? In the superanuated con- 
 stitution, as some reason had to be given — 
 some pretext, it was said in the preamble, 
 because ministers were dedicated to God, 
 and to the care of souls. If that was the 
 only reason, it was a most insufficient one. 
 Every body believes in God. I am per- 
 suaded there is not an atheist at least in the 
 world ! What is there in the inculcation 
 of religious doctrines to debar a man from 
 secular pursuits ? Away then with all such 
 distinctions — distinctions without any ne- 
 cessity. It may once have been found 
 necessary to establish this exclusion through 
 fear of a connection between church and 
 
 state. But the necessity no longer has an 
 existence. We are not surely going back 
 to the age of superstition and of despotism. 
 Let us make a practical constitution ; a con- 
 stitution of equal rights and equal privile- 
 ges ; not a constitution of exclusions. Let 
 us not permit the spirit of jealousy— nor 
 feel envious that others may get higher 
 than ourselves— being convinced that if we 
 individually can be losers, the public are 
 the gainers. In this way we shall raise 
 the character of the State to the highest 
 pinnacle, and make her great and respect- 
 able among her confederated States. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said, he rose not for the pur- 
 pose of discussing the question involved, 
 but rather to make the motion to lay the 
 proposition now before the house, indefi- 
 nately on the table. The subject would 
 come up more appropriately when the sec- 
 tion on the general provisions prescribing 
 that no one should hold two offices at the 
 same time, would be reached. The whole 
 subject was embraced in that section. He 
 thought it useless and worse than useless 
 to sprinkle the constitution over with ex- 
 ceptions; when in one general rule well 
 discussed and well conceived, the whole 
 matter could be settled. He had been call- 
 ed a restrictionist. If by that was' meant 
 that he was in favor of restraining the will 
 of majorities within a circumscribed limit, 
 and protecting the rights of minorities, then 
 he was a restrictionist. But, restrictionist 
 as he might be, he was not disposed to 
 place the bar of proscription upon any class 
 of citizens, and to disfranchise them on ac- 
 count of their particular occupation. He 
 could see no jusst caue for proscribing min- 
 isters from holding civil employments, and 
 for conceding that their sacred calling dis- 
 qualified them. He would move to lay 
 the section on the table, and when the 
 subject came up in its appropriate place, 
 he would then take the liberty of suggesting 
 his views to the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Dunn said, he had not the pleasure 
 of hearing the arguments which had been 
 urged by different members on this ques- 
 tion, but he would take this occasion to 
 express his views. He hoped the house 
 would deliberate well before they rejected 
 the proposition of the honorable gentleman 
 from West Baton Rouge (Mr. Chinn.) It 
 was one in which the public interest was 
 deeply concerned ; he would not dwell on 
 
 4 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 271 
 
 the subject, but would call the serious at- 
 tention of the Convention to the propriety 
 of a judge being eligible to the office of 
 governor, or any other political office, 
 whilst exeicising the functions of judge, 
 and vice versa, any political officer being 
 eligible to the office of judge. He would 
 remark that his opinions were not formed 
 from observation; for he had had the pleas- 
 ure of practising law before judges who 
 were above suspicion; judges in whom 
 the public repose entire confidence, but he 
 was satisfied the substitute offered by the 
 gentleman from Baton Rouge was right in 
 principle, and that public interest and pub- 
 lie feeling demanded its adoption. The 
 judiciary has been wisely considered by 
 all statesmen, as the delicate part of gov- 
 ernment ; distrust in the rectitude or abil- 
 ity of a judge, is the most fatal feeling that 
 can pervade a community. The legisla- 
 tive and executive departments of govern- 
 ment may be distrusted, and still the peo- 
 ple may do very well ; but the moment 
 confidence in the judiciary is lost, the feel- 
 ings of the social compact are poisoned at 
 the fountain head. Sir, the judge should 
 be independent of every influence that 
 possibly could operate upon him. Yes, 
 independent of his own ambition ; and there 
 cannot be too many guards and checks 
 thrown around him, confining him to the 
 important and delicate business, belonging 
 to his office. What is the business of a 
 judge? It is to administer "equal and ex- 
 act justice." To dispense to every man 
 his just due. This, considering the infirma- 
 ties of human nature, is a most difficult 
 duty to perform ; and is worthy the reflec- 
 tion of this Convention, whether it is like- 
 ly to be correctly performed by politicians; 
 for it is not only necessary that it be per- 
 formed, but it should be done in such a 
 manner as to inspire public confidence. 
 Sir, it is not sufficient for a judge to decide 
 right, but he should do so under such cir- 
 cumstances, as to show that he has ^ done 
 it; his learning, his talents, and patience, 
 should all be put in requisition, to decide 
 according to law and justice, and then to 
 conciliate the public by proving that he 
 has succeeded. If he indulges in political 
 aspirations, is he likely to do so? Should 
 not a judge devote himself entirely to the 
 duties of his office? And is it not due to 
 him, that he be placed in a situation above 
 
 the reach of the suspicious— the invidious, 
 or the malicious ? It is for the Convention 
 to determine how he would likely be es- 
 teemed as a judge, who canvasses for po- 
 litical preferment as a partizan, in times of 
 high excitement like the present ; and what 
 would be the situation of the judge after 
 the canvass, and after defeat ; fancy him, 
 Mr. President, returning to the bench after 
 a warm contest, with all the feelings of a 
 slandered and persecuted man. Sir, could 
 you expect him to perform his duties with 
 that dignity, that candor, that impartiality, 
 and that equinimity, which are necessary 
 to the advancement of his own honor, and 
 his country's welfare ? he would be super, 
 human if he diti ; and it is for this house to 
 determine whether it is consistent with hu- 
 man nature for a judge under such circum- 
 stances, not to smart under the infliction of 
 fancied or real wrongs. May he not be 
 tempted to remember the services of his 
 friends? and may he not be prejudiced in 
 his judgments by the discovered hatred of 
 his opponents ? and if not— then sir, may 
 he not be suspected? There are men 
 adroit in management, and there is danger 
 they might bring the power of their official 
 stations to bear upon their elections. 
 
 It is expected that this Convention will 
 direct that the judge shall hold his office 
 for a term of years, and it is fair to presume 
 the incumbent will continue to discharge 
 his duties until his time expires. But if 
 publie interest or party feeling require him 
 to become a candidate for political honors, 
 then it should not be considered unjust or 
 unwise to require him to resign, especially 
 when we recognize the doctrine of rotation 
 in orfice. We should look at this subject 
 with an eye single to the great interest of the 
 people, and not the advancement of friends, 
 or partizans. The old rule of climbing, 
 by holding on to the round of the ladder 
 until a further step is successfully taken, 
 should be abrogated; it is wrong in theory, 
 and in practice gives one party the advan- 
 tage—patronage of office, an influence like- 
 ly to be abused. 
 
 Mr. President: not only this Convention, 
 but the whole people would prefer that the 
 best, wisest, and greatest man in the State 
 should forevei forego the privilege of be- 
 ing the highest and most honorable officer, 
 rather than injustice should be done by a 
 candidate judge to the humblest and most 
 
272 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 insignificant person in the community; 
 yes, rather than the public should even 
 suspect that injustice has been done. The 
 people have but one feeling on this sub- 
 ject, and that is, the judge should punish 
 the guilty, ana" protect the innocent. Sir 
 we can but agree that the sacred ermine, 
 should not be soiled for a single moment, 
 nor should even a passing cloud darken 
 the oracle of law and justice, but it should 
 be known, and felt by every one, that the 
 courtis a refuge for the oppressed, an assy- 
 lum for the widow and orphan, and a hiding 
 place for the wronged and helpless. 
 
 In reference to the ineligibility of priests 
 and ministers of the gospel, Mr. Dunn 
 said, he felt himself called upon to defend 
 the clergy, avowed himself their friend, 
 and a friend to the church. He believed 
 the clergy generally would concur with 
 him, because he believed they would say 
 their business was with men's souls — their 
 profession was a high and exalted one, 
 elevated far above party strife, and the 
 petty things that belong to earth. It would 
 be degrading them to suppose they had po- 
 litical aspirations, and gentlemen on this 
 floor admit it; but object to the restriction. 
 Sir, (said Mr. Dunn) it is not to underrate 
 them, that the restriction is asked, it is not 
 to prevent them from exercising any privi- 
 lege which they consider within the sphere 
 of their profession— no, sir, it is to protect 
 the purity of the church, and maintain the 
 dignity and consequence of the clergy; and 
 at the same time to guard the institutions 
 of man against all dangers, all undue and 
 fanatical influences, that hypocrites may 
 impose. For, Mr. President, there are 
 hypocrites — men who pretend to be chris- 
 tians, when in reality they have only the 
 external appearance, the sacred cloak is 
 thrown over them to hide their depravity; 
 " wolves in sheep's clothing." Such men, 
 whose only study is deceit, and only aim, 
 self promotion, would degrade the christian 
 and disgrace the church to accomplish their 
 object. It is to restrain such men that this 
 restriction is required ; to secure the pulpif 
 from such profanity and desecration. The 
 church should be shielded against the odi- 
 um that a demagogue preacher might cast 
 upon it. He concluded by saying that 
 some of his best friends were clergymen, 
 and he had no doubt he was truly repre- 
 senting their views and feelings. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, participated in 
 opinion with the delegate from Feliciana, 
 (Mr. Dunn,) as to the propriety of excluding 
 ministers of the gospel from holding civil 
 employments. He did not think with the 
 delegate from Opelousas, (Mr. Lewis,) that 
 the section alluded to in the general pro- 
 visions, embraced the subject as fully an(l 
 as definitely as the section now before the 
 house; and was therefore opposed to the 
 motion to lay upon the table. With refer- 
 ence to the provision excluding members 
 of congress from being candidates for other 
 offices in the gift of the people, he was op- 
 posed to that provision. He thought, howr 
 ever, in reference to judges, it was neces- 
 sary. They ought not to be involved in 
 the party politics and excitements of the 
 day, and if they were to be candidates while 
 holding on to their judicial appointment, it 
 would expose them at any rate to suspicion; 
 and even that ought to be avoided. He 
 did not concur in the singular remark of 
 the delegate from Jefferson, (Mr. Pres- 
 ton,) that judges who did not intermeddle in 
 politics, and descend into the arena of party 
 contests as candidates for office, were top 
 pure for this world and ought to be trans- 
 posed to another. The delegate, too, from 
 Jefferson, (Mr. Preston,) has opposed the 
 exclusion of ministers of the gospel. That 
 delegate has on some occasions eulogized 
 the old constitution. Does he forget that 
 this very provision is in the old constitution? 
 and I think the experience of thirty-two 
 years has fully confirmed its wisdom. The 
 delegate from Jefferson, it seems, only 
 means to eulogise that particular portion that 
 suits him, notwithstanding his professed 
 reverence for the whole instrument. 
 
 The most cogent reasons exist for exclu- 
 ding teachers of religion from eligibility to 
 offices, and for excluding them from enter- 
 ing the arena of politics. Their mission 
 is to assuage the violence of party politics, 
 not to increase it by being themselves can- 
 didates for public offices. In the language 
 of the old constitution, which appears to be 
 distasteful to the member from Jefferson, 
 because they are antiquated, it is well laid 
 down that they are dedicated to the service 
 of God and the cause of souls. That is 
 their appropriate sphere of action. There 
 is besides great danger in opening to them 
 the road to civil preferment. From the line 
 of their duties they h&ve every opportunity 
 
Debates in the Convention ot Louisiana, 
 
 273 
 
 of acquiring a great control over society, 
 and there is too much reason to fear they 
 would abuse that influence if they were ex- 
 posed to the temptations of worldly ambi- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said it was not his design to 
 discuss this subject at the present time, for 
 the reasons he had before alleged. He 
 conceived it, however, necessary to make 
 one or two remarks. The usual phillipic 
 had been pronounced, admonishing us of 
 the danger of placing ministers and teach- 
 ers of religion on the same footing as the 
 balance of their fellow citizens. It seemed 
 to him that if this apprehension have any 
 serious ground, the remedy should extend 
 to disqualification, not simply from holding 
 office, but from the right of suffrage. 
 
 I would be the last<one, said Mr. Lewis, 
 to withdraw a minister from the sacred desk, 
 and vote for him to fill a political office. 
 But I think we have no right to disfranchise 
 him. We have no more right to say that 
 he shall not be eligible to office, than we 
 have to say that a lawyer or a butcher shall 
 not be eligible. Such exceptions and ex- 
 clusions are a blot upon our constitution. 
 They are scars upon it. The particular 
 pursuits of a man are no good cause of ex- 
 clusion, notwithstanding the eloquence of 
 ' the gentleman ; and they are paying a poor 
 compliment to human nature, when they 
 pretend that the very calling which would 
 tend to elevate a man to the purest standard 
 of morality, would make him incompetent 
 in political matters. The history of the ex- 
 clusion in the old constitution is well known. 
 It is not worth while to slur the motive over. 
 It arose from an apprehension that the 
 Catholic religion, which was then the ex- 
 elusive religion, would exercise a deleteri- 
 ous influence if its ministers were not ex- 
 cluded from holding office. I do not al- 
 lude to the fact because I have any misgiv- 
 ings of that church; but to show that the 
 exigencies for similar restrictions towards 
 any sect, no longer exist ; and that all the 
 notions formerly entertained have no pre- 
 sent application. 
 
 Mr. Downs concurred in opinion with 
 the delegate from St. Landry, (Mr. Lewis,) 
 that the exclusion of clergymen was en- 
 tirely unnecessary, and that it was invidi- 
 ous and unjust. 
 
 Mr. Marigny opposed the motion to lay 
 the section on the table-. 
 
 Mr. Chinn withd rew his substitute. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff spoke in favor of postpo- 
 ning the question. 
 
 Mr. Chinn called for the adoption of the 
 section. 
 
 The question was taken upon Mr. Lew- 
 is' motion to lay the section indefinitely on 
 the table. The ayes and noes being call- 
 ed for, 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Cenas, Culbertson, Der- 
 bes, Guion, Humble, Denner, King, Leon- 
 ard, Lewis, McRae, Mayo, Mazureau, 
 O'Brian, Peets, Penn, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Preston, Ratliff, Read, Roselius, Saunders, 
 Sellers, Soule, Splane, Stevens, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Tri-st and Waddill voted in the 
 affirmative — 29 ayes, and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Boudousquie, Bourg, 
 Briant, Brumfield, Cade, Carriere, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Downs, Dunn, Garrett, Huds- 
 peth, Labauve, Legendre, McCaleb, Ma- 
 rigny, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Prud- 
 homme, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Wederstrandt, Winchester and Winder vo- 
 ted against the motion — 30 nays. 
 
 The question then recurred on the adop- 
 tion of the section. 
 
 Mr. McRae proposed the following 
 amendment : "that attorneys and counsel- 
 lors at law shall be excluded." 
 
 Mr. Roselius: I move a sub-amendment 
 that practising physicians be also excluded. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to exclude all persons 
 convicted of infamous crimes, 
 
 But before these amendments were sub- 
 mitted, 
 
 Mr. Beatty called for the previous ques- 
 tion. 
 
 The President put the question "shall 
 the previous question be now put?" ayes 
 37; noes 19. 
 
 The question was then taken on the 
 adoption of the section, and was carried in 
 the affirmative, as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Bourg, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Cade, Claiborne, Carriere, Ce- 
 nas, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Culbertson, Downs, Dunn, Garcia, 
 Garrett, Humble, Labauve, Legendre, Mc- 
 Calop, Marigny, Mazureau, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Roman, 
 Roselius, St. Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Selleri, Soule\ Taylor of Assumption, 
 
274 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Wederstrandt and Winder — 37 ayes; and 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brent, Downs, Huds- 
 peth, Kenner, King, Lewis, McRae, Mayo, 
 O'Brien, Peets, Penn, Preston, Splane, 
 Stevens, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, Wad - 
 dil and Winchester — 19 noes. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow, at 1 1 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Thursday, February 20, 1845. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Prestos opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer. 
 
 The journal was read and approved. 
 
 Mr. Chinn gave notice that at the proper 
 moment he would introduce a new, and one 
 that he conceived to be a very important 
 section, into our new constitution. He 
 sent it up to the secretary's desk (being in 
 bad health,) and fearful that he might not 
 at the moment be in his seat when it was 
 wanted to be read. Before the secretary 
 read it, he remarked that it came under the 
 head of "general provisions," and he should 
 not and did not intend to call it up at this 
 time. The section which he proposed and 
 which he wished adopted reads thus: 
 
 "Any person who, from and after the 
 adoption of this constitution, shall send a 
 challenge, or be in any way engaged in 
 fighting a duel with deadly weapons, either 
 as principal, second, or even as a witness, 
 shall be hereby deprived and deemed ineli- 
 gible to any office of honor or profit under 
 this coustitution." 
 
 The resolution of the honorable gentle- 
 man was laid on the table subject to call, 
 at his own request. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan then moved a series of 
 resolutions, which he moved should be 
 adopted. 
 
 1st. That when the Convention adjourns 
 on Friday next, it shall adjourn to meet 
 again on Tuesday the 1 1th of March next 
 at 12 A. M., in the hall of the house of re- 
 presentatives, at the State house. 
 
 2d. That in the meantime the business of 
 this Convention shall cease, and the per 
 diem of the members and officers of this 
 Convention shall also be suspended during 
 said adjournment. 
 
 3d. That the committee on contingent 
 expenses be requested to notify Madame 
 Hawley that we have returned her posses- 
 sion of the room called the "ball room," at 
 present occupied for the deliberations of 
 this body; to date from to-morrow the 21st 
 
 Mr. Dunn moved to lay the resolutions 
 on the table indefinitely. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved a call of the house, 
 on which it appeared there were 55 mem- 
 bers present. But Mr. Dunn's motion ap- 
 pearing in order, according to the decision 
 of the president, the question recurred in 
 laying Mr. O'Bryan's motion on the table. 
 The motion of Mr. Dunn resulted as fol- 
 ows: 
 
 Yeas— Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Brent, Briant, Brumfield, Carriere, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad 
 of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Garrett, Humble, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Leonard, Lewis, McCallop, 
 Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Porche, 
 Preston, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, 
 Roman, St. Amano!, Saunders, Sellers, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt, 
 Wikoff and Winder— 46. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Cade, Hudspeth, McRae, 
 O'Bryan, Prescott of St. Landry, Prescott 
 of Avoyelles, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, and Taylor of St. Landry — 9. 
 
 The resolutions of Mr. O'Bryan were 
 consequently laid on the table indefinitely. 
 
 Mr. Dunn then offered a resolution that 
 this Convention should hereafter meet at 10 
 o'clock every morning, (Sundays and holi-- 
 days excepted) and adjourn at 3 P. M;; fur- 
 ther, that no motion to adjourn to meet at 
 any other periods than those specified, shall 
 be entertained by this house, unless called 
 for by a two-thirds vote; and further, that 
 a motion to adjourn this Convention for the 
 purpose of removal to any other part of the 
 State shall be entertained by a majority 
 vote, if the member introducing such a pro* 
 position give three days' notice to this Con- 
 vention. 
 
 Mr. Waddill thought that there was 
 really too much time lost in discussing 
 about these miner matters, and we are in 
 the meantime losing much valuable time 
 that ought to be devoted to more serious 
 ones; and therefore he moved to lay Mr. 
 Dunn's resolution indefinitely on the table. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies had tried, he said, to en- 
 force the 10 o'clock rule with perseverance 
 and earnestness, but to no avail. He 
 thought the loss of delinquent members' per 
 diem would make them punctual, and there- 
 fore that was the mode to bring them 
 promptly here at 10 o'clock. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 275 
 
 Here Mr. Ratliff reminded him that 
 he was not in order, as the motion was not 
 debatable. 
 
 Mr. Brent offered a substitute to the 
 resolution of Mr. Dunn, to this effect: that 
 no leave of absence be granted to any 
 member of the Convention, no matter on 
 what account, except in the event of his 
 being sick; and that in no case of absence 
 from the Convention he should be entitled 
 to his per diem, unless he had previously 
 obtained leave of absence from the Conven- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Kenner then moved to lay the reso- 
 lution of Mr. Dunn and the substitute to it 
 on the table indefinitely, on which motion 
 the yeas and nays were called for. 
 
 Mr. Taylor here remarked that the call- 
 ing of the yeas and nays on every trifling 
 occasion had become unreasonable, and 
 amounted to an useless waste of time and 
 money. He would, for the sake of illus- 
 tration, give the time and cost of the useless 
 debate now before the house: it already had 
 taken the time of the Convention ten 
 minutes, and that, according to the calcula- 
 tion of our per diem expenses, would cost 
 the State some $2,62-100; and therefore to 
 save further trouble and useless expense he 
 hoped the call for yeas and nays would not 
 be persisted in, and he appealed more es- 
 pecially to those gentlemen who were so 
 loud in their expressions of economy. 
 
 The call was, however, persisted in, and 
 resulted as follows: 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Brent, Brumfield, Cade, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, Garcia, 
 Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Leonard, Lewis, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Marigny,'0 'Bryan, Porche, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Preston, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, 
 Read, Roman, St. Amand, Saunders, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Voorhies, Waddill, Weder- 
 strandt, Wikoft and Winder— 49. 
 
 Nays— Messrs. Brent, Carriere, Dunn, 
 Mayo, Peets, Peen and Porter— 7. 
 
 The Pperident then submitted to the 
 Convention a letter of invitation from Mr. 
 Labuzan, on the part of General Lewis, in- 
 viting the Convention to attend at and wit- 
 ness a review and sham battle, which was 
 
 to take place near the city in honor of the 
 birth day of Washington; and further, to 
 partake of a collation thereafter. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Claiborne the invita- 
 tion was accepted. 
 
 Mr. W. B. Scott now called the atten- 
 tion of the Convention to the resolution he 
 had offered in relation to removing the sit- 
 ting of this Convention to Jackson; he de- 
 sired it should be taken up and laid on the 
 table, subject to call. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies moved to lay the resolu- 
 tion on the table indefinitely. 
 
 The yeas and nays were again called for 
 and resulted as follows: 
 
 Yeas— Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Brent, Briant, Brumfield, Cade, Carriere, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Downs, Garcia, Garrett, Hudspeth, Hum- 
 ble, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, 
 Lewis, Mayo, Mazureau, Penn, Porche, 
 Prescott ofSt.Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Ratliff, Roman, St. Amand, Saun- 
 ders, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, Voorhies, 
 Wederstrandt, Winchester and Winder — 45. 
 
 Nays— Messrs. Dunn, Leonard, McCal- 
 lop, McRae, Marigny, O'Bryan, Peets, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Read, Scott, 
 of Baton Rouge, Scottof Feliciana, Waddill 
 and Wikoff — 14. So the resolution was 
 laid on the table indefinitely. 
 
 Mr. Taylor then desired to engage the at- 
 tention of the house to a new rule which he 
 desired to see adopted; it was to this effect: 
 "The yeas and nays shall not hereafter be 
 taken on any question, unless ten members 
 rise to support the call for them." 
 
 He was induced to do this for two rea- 
 sons. 1st. Because it was evident these 
 frequent calls for the yeas and nays on un- 
 important matters only tended to retard the 
 deliberations of the Convention. 2d; That 
 the effect evidently was to keep the mem- 
 bers of the Convention here so much longer 
 than was necessary, to say nothing of the 
 expense of it to the people. 
 
 The President here reminded Mr. Tay- 
 lor that when any rule of the house was 
 contemplated by the resolutions offered by 
 members, to be changed, that the rules 
 adopted already by the Convention, required 
 the resolution offering to alter the same 
 should lie over for one day. 
 
 No objection being offered, the resolution 
 
276 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 to introduce the new rule was postponed 
 till to-morrow, the 21st, with the under- 
 standing that it was to be taken up imme- 
 diately after the reading of the journal. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved that Mr. Roselius 
 be added to the committee on contingent 
 expenses. He stated that the members 
 composing that committee were sometimes 
 at a loss to know what was just or unjust in 
 the printers' accounts; that if the Conven- 
 tion would add Mr. Roselius to the commit- 
 tee, they would have the advantage of prac- 
 tical experience and knowledge. No ob- 
 jection being made, Mr. Roselius was, by 
 the president, added to the committee. 
 
 The Convention then, on motion of Mr. 
 Humble s proceeded to the order of the day, 
 which was the report of the committee of 
 revision, on those articles adopted in the 
 new constitution by this Convention. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved the adoption of the 1st 
 section of the 1st article of the constitution, 
 as reported by the committed of revision, 
 which reads thus: 
 
 "The powers of the J government of the 
 State of Louisiana shall be divided into 
 three distinct departments, and each of 
 them to be confided to a separate body of 
 magistracy, to-wit: those which are legisla- 
 tive to one, those which are executive to 
 another, and those which are judicial to 
 another." 
 
 It was adopted. 
 
 The 2d section of the 1st article was then 
 called up. 
 
 Mr. Mayo then moved to insert the 
 words ''hold any office," after the word 
 "shall," in the second line. 
 
 Before any action was had Upon Mr. 
 Mayo's motion, 
 
 Mr. Kenner desired to express his opin- 
 ions as to the duty of the committee of re- 
 vision. It was simply to correct any gram- 
 matical errors that might have crept into 
 the sections of an article, as first adopted; 
 but he emphatically desires to gay that he 
 denies the right of that committee to change 
 the letter or the spirit of the section, as it 
 has already passed. For, said he, if that,, 
 permission be given, we shall sit here till 
 doomsday. We shall settle a matter to- 
 day, and some five or six weeks hence We 
 shall have the same discussions and the 
 same arguments over again, ad infinitum. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin regrets that he is obliged 
 to object to the %& section as reported^ but 
 
 he is confident that, as it stands, it is iden- 
 tically the same as in the old constitution. 
 In the section of that constitution, there 
 was^a doubt existing in its phraseology ; 
 and the object of this Convention, when 
 they altered it, was to prevent one depart- 
 ment of our State government from inter- 
 fering with any of the others ; in other 
 words, to specify what shall be the powers 
 of each department. 
 
 The committee of revision, however, in 
 their report of the 2d section, (the one now 
 before us) have brought the ambiguity back 
 again; and he (Mr. Benjamin) decidedly 
 prefers the language adopted in the section 
 by the Convention to that in the report. 
 He therefore moved to reject the report of 
 the committee as to the 2d section; but af- 
 terwards, (on an explanation given him by 
 Mr. Taylor) he moved to withdraw his first 
 motion, and then moved that it be referred 
 back to the same committee for their recon- 
 sideration, which motion prevailed'. 
 
 That question being disposed of, 
 
 Mr. CoNrad moved that the Convention 
 should proceed to the orders of the day, 
 which was, first, 
 
 Sec. 6. The governor shall have power 
 to grant reprieves for all offences against 
 the State, and, except in cases of impeach- 
 ment, shall, with the consent of the senate, 
 have power to grant pardons and remit fines 
 and forfeitures after conviction. In cases 
 of treason, he aaay grant reprieves until the 
 end of the next session of the general as- 
 sembly, in which the power of pardoning 
 shall be vested* 
 
 The section was adopted. 
 
 Section 7th was then taken up. It is as 
 follows: 
 
 Sec. 7. All commissions shall be in the 
 name and by the authority of the State of 
 Louisiana, and shall be sealed with the 
 State seal and signed by the governor. 
 
 That section was adopted. 
 
 Section 8th was the next in order; it read 
 as follows: 
 
 Sec. 8. In case of the impeachment of 
 the governor, his removal from office, death, 
 refusal to qualify, resignation, or absence 
 from the State, the powers and duties of 
 the office shall devolve upon the lietttenat 
 governor for the residue of the term, or un- 
 til the governor, absent or impeached, shall 
 return or be acquitted. The legislature 
 may provide by law for the case of removal, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 277 
 
 on the table, amendments and all, since it 
 appeared that we were not likely to make 
 any progress in it : but 
 
 Mr. Conrad replied that he did n&t think 
 time was lost in this body by settling an 
 important principle on a correct and proper 
 basis; that he was not satisfied with it as it 
 stood, and that he was determined to be so 
 the word ^disability" be substituted, which ! before he quit it: for he had the floor, and 
 was agreed to. ! would keep it until he was satisfied on the 
 
 Mr. Cbnas offered an amendment, which j principles involved in the question. As it 
 was, that the words ' 'duly qualified'* be ad- j stands now, he considers it ambiguous in 
 ded after the word "elected," in the - line. ' the latter part of the clause. He desires 
 Mr- Cexas said that there appeared to ! to know, from the committee who made the 
 
 death, resignation or inability, both of the 
 governor and lieutenant governor, declaring 
 what officer shall act as governor, and such 
 officer shall act accordingly until the dis- 
 ability be removed, or a governor shall be 
 elected. 
 
 Mr. Bexjazviin moved that the word " in- 
 ability" in the 9th line be stricken out, and 
 
 him to be a contradiction between the sec- 
 tion under consideration and the 4th sec- 
 tion. In that, it reads ' : The governor 
 shall continue in office until his successor 
 shall have taken the oath of office," <fcc; 
 in this, it says not only that the governor, 
 but " the lieutenant governor shall perform 
 the duties of the office." 
 
 Mr. Roxax thinks the conduction which 
 Air. Conrad complains of is more imagina- 
 ry than real. He does not think the sec- 
 tions conflict. 
 
 Mr. 3Iayo thinks, upon close examina- 
 
 report, whether it was their idea or inten- 
 tion for the legislature, in case of such a va- 
 cancy or vacancies, as is^provided for in 
 the section, to elect the chief magistrate for 
 the whole unexpired term, or only until a 
 new election can be had by the people? He 
 is just as' sensible as any gentleman on this 
 floor that time is precious, and that we have 
 none to lose; but he, Mr. Conrad, does not 
 think we should be stopped by the consid- 
 eration of a few moments of time, in com- 
 parison with the necessity of putting to 
 rights, or at least striving to understand, an 
 
 tion of the words of the section, that it con- important provision in the constitution 
 
 diets with itself. The first part of it says 
 that, in certain emergencies, the lieutenant 
 governor shall take the place of, and perform 
 the duties of the governor. In the latter 
 part of the section it says that " the legisla- 
 ture shall make the appointment." He 
 thinks that thfs will produce confusion, a 
 
 Mr. Sauxders moved, as an amendment, 
 to insert the words "at the time appointed 
 by the legislature" after the word "elected." 
 
 Mr. Roaiax rose to explain. He re- 
 marked that it was only during the tempo- 
 rary disability of the governor or lieutenant 
 governor, or both, or in case of their death, 
 
 thing certainly not to be desired. He that the legislature could be called upon ; 
 thinks, and therefore moves, that the words and that then tire legislature would elect 
 
 "both of them" be stricken out, and the 
 words "of both" inserted. 
 
 .Mr. Roaiax thought the gentleman had 
 made a mistake in the meaning of the sec- I 
 tion. To his mind, it carried the impres- 
 sion that the governor and lieutenant gov- 
 
 the person chosen by them for the balance 
 of the unexpired term of the office. 
 
 Mr. Bexjaaiix thinks Mr. Saunders' 
 amendment will cover the ground, and 
 therefore seconds, it. 
 
 Mr. Beatty desires to know if it be in- 
 
 ernor must have both placed themselves ' tended to give to. the legislature the power 
 under disability before the legislature could of appointing for four years, in case it 
 
 take the matter in hand. 
 
 might happen a governor or lieutenant gov- 
 
 The amendment offered by Mr. Mayo, ernor shortly after their election, when their 
 was then submitted to the Convention, and j own power as legislators only lasted for two 
 
 adopted 
 
 Mr. Coxrad moved to insert the words 
 
 years. 
 
 Mr. Coxrad- agreed in part with Mi. 
 
 " or disability" after the word "refusal," in j Beatty: the section before us provides for the 
 
 the second line; as the officer elected might 
 be temporarily sick when he would be re- 
 quired to qualify under this section. 
 
 Mr. Chixx remarked that it would be 
 better, he thought, to lav the whole section 
 36 
 
 vacancy, he cannot help thinking, in a 
 doubtful manner. 
 
 Mr. Saexders again pressed his amend* 
 ment, but Mr. Beatty did not think that thai 
 amendment covered the ground in doubt, 
 
278 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Mr. Saunders then proposed to change 
 his amendment, to withdraw the first and 
 substitute therefor the words fri for the resi- 
 due of the term." 
 
 Mr. Beatty is not yet satisfied; he does 
 not think it yet meets the case. 
 
 Mr. Pugh thought the difficulty could be 
 obviated by inserting the words "for the 
 residue of the constitutional term." 
 
 Mr. Downs thought the principle ought 
 to apply as well to the lieutenant governor 
 as to the governor. 
 
 The president then requested of members 
 to reduce their amendments and substitutes 
 to writing. He said the members (he was 
 sorry to say) sometimes jumped up and of- 
 fered amendments, one after another, so 
 fast that it was impossible to know, or even 
 to try to recollect which was first in order. 
 
 Mr. Penn then offered a substitute for all 
 the latter part of the section, striking out 
 all beginning at the 6th line, and inserting 
 ■ 'in case of removal, resignation, incapacity 
 or death of the governor and lieutenant gov- 
 ernor, the legislature shall declare what of- 
 ficer shall be appointed for the residue of 
 the constitutional term." 
 
 Mr. Benjamin, with all due deference to 
 the opinion of the gentleman last up, thinks 
 Mr. Downs' proposition will come nearer 
 to the wants of the case,, and shall prefer it. 
 
 Mr. Downs then proposed to insert the 
 words, as the last clause of the section, 
 "and such officer shall not act accordingly, 
 until the disability be removed, for the resi- 
 due of the term." 
 
 This proposition was agreed to, and the 
 section as amended was adopted. It reads 
 as follows: 
 
 "In case of the impeachment of the gov- 
 ernor, his removal from office, death, refusal 
 or inability to qualify, resignation, or ab- 
 sence from the State, the power and duties 
 of the office shall devolve upon the lieuten- 
 ant governor for the residue of the term, or 
 until the governor absent or impeached 
 shall return or be acquitted. The legisla- 
 ture may provide by law for the case of im- 
 peachment, removal, death, resignation, dis- 
 ability, or refusal to qualify, of both govern- 
 or and lieutenant governor, declaring what 
 officer shall act as governor; and such offi- 
 cer shall act accordingly, until the disabili- 
 ty be removed, for the residue of the term." 
 
 The President then laid before the 
 Convention a letter which he had received 
 
 from Mr. McCabb, on the part of the com- 
 mittee of arrangements, inviting this Con- 
 vention to attend a celebration to be held at 
 Clapp's church on the 22d February next, 
 by the scholars composing the free school 
 system of the second municipality, and to 
 hear an address to be delivered on that oc- 
 casion by Mr. Benjamin. 
 
 The next section in order was 
 Sec. 9. The lieutenant governor, or oth- 
 er officer discharging the duties of govern- 
 or, shall during his administration, receive 
 the same compensation to which the gov. 
 ernor would have been entitled, had he 
 continued in office. 
 
 It was adopted with some objection made 
 by Messrs. Taylor and Mayo, but after- 
 wards withdrawn. 
 
 The next matter presented was 
 Sec. 10. The lieutenant governor shall 
 by virtue of his office, be president of the 
 senate, but shall only have a casting vote 
 therein. Whenever he shall administer 
 the government, or shall be unable to at- 
 tend as president of the senate, the sena- 
 tors shall elect one of their own members, 
 for that occasion. 
 
 Mr. Taylor moved" to amend by striking 
 out the words, "shall only have a casting 
 vote therein," and insert "have a right, 
 when in committee of the whole, to debate 
 and vote on all subjects, and when the sen- 
 ate are equally divided to give the casting 
 vote." 
 
 Mr. Mayo objected to it on account of its 
 having a tendency, in his opinion, to make 
 an interference in the different depatments 
 of the government — the executive with the 
 legislative. He thinks they ought rather 
 to be separated than thrown together. 
 
 Mr. Roman agreed with Mr. Mayo, for 
 in the event of granting him those privi- 
 leges, he would become a legislator in ad- 
 dition to his executive right. Besides, in 
 the senate of the United States they have 
 no committee of the whole, (nor does he 
 believe they have any in this State,) they 
 form themselves into quasi committees. 
 The vice president of the United States 
 never takes part in the debates. He is not 
 a legislator, and he only votes and speaks 
 in case of a tie. 
 
 Mr. Downs agreed with Mr. Roman, 
 that in the senate of this State, they had no 
 committee of the whole, at least they had 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 279 
 
 not had one for the last seven years, and 
 probably never would have. 
 
 Mr. Taylor is induced to press his 
 amendment, however, for he did not bring 
 this proposal forward without having ma- 
 turely reflected upon it. He conceives the 
 advantage which would result, would be 
 great and important. 1st, by increasing 
 the duties, you thereby attach more impor- 
 tance to the office, and are likely to pro- 
 cure the services and talents of a man of 
 ability; as it is, it is comparatively an office 
 of no consequence; he can only be useful 
 in case of an equal division, no matter how 
 talented he may be; and he is required to 
 sit in the chair with his mouth shut, except 
 in the case of a tie vote. There would be, 
 to his mind, 2dly, another advantage, that 
 is, in case of the death or disability of the 
 governor, we shall have secured the servi- 
 ces of an able man to take his place; while 
 on the other hand, in such an emergency 
 we might be found with a very ordinary 
 man as lieutenant governor, to administer 
 important duties that required great discre- 
 tion, firmness and knowledge of such busi- 
 ness. In one case you give him a chance 
 to shew his ability, on the other you but 
 burden him with an unpleasant part. He 
 can see no possible harm to arise from his 
 amendment, and therefore still presses it on 
 the attention of the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Beatty agrees with Mr. Taylor, 
 and thinks the distinction drawn by some 
 gentlemen is nothing but a verbal one, for 
 he has no other duties assigned him except 
 to be president of the senate, and he is not 
 called to do any other duty but what per- 
 tains to legislative capacity. 
 
 Mr. Coxrad, after a short reflection on 
 the matter, thinks there is much reason in 
 Mr. Taylor's suggestions. He would be 
 willing to give the lieutenant governor the 
 power of debating in the senate, because 
 should he be a man of ability, his views on 
 many important questions that may be dis- 
 cussed, might be valuable; and he would 
 move as a further amendment to insert al- 
 ter the word "senate," "shall have the right 
 of participating in the debates;" but he 
 would not be willing to increase the privi- 
 lege to the extent claimed, in the right of 
 voting on all occasions. He would cer- 
 tainly confine his vote to the casting vote 
 alone. 
 
 Mr. Ta ylor wished to inform the Con- 
 
 vention that this is no new idea; and that 
 the same feature is to be found in the con- 
 stitution of Indiana and some others. 
 
 Mr. Porter is opposed to granting either 
 of the extra privileges asked for the lieuten- 
 ant governor. He has examined the con- 
 stitutions of several States, viz: of Missis- 
 sippi, Ohio, Virginia, Georgia, New Jer- 
 sey, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and 
 Maine, and no such powers are granted 
 therein. In fact there are very few that 
 give the power, and for his part, he thinks 
 not only precedent is against it, but that wc 
 should be careful not to allow any of the 
 departments to interfere with each other; 
 whereas, accept this amendment and we 
 shall have one new debater and one addi- 
 tional vote, and that, too, to be given by an 
 officer in the executive department. 
 
 Mr. Boudousquie is of the same opinion 
 as Mr. Porter. He thinks it would destroy 
 the just equalibrium of power that ought 
 particularly to be observed in the senate. 
 When the constitution of the United States 
 was framed an equal representation was 
 secured to all, particularly in the senate, 
 and there can be no doubt if they had one 
 new debater and a vote on all questions, 
 that the equilibrium, there as here, would 
 likewise be destroyed. Besides, the influ- 
 ence of the lieutenant governor as an ex- 
 ecutive officer (on all occasions when he 
 saw fit to take part in the debates,) would 
 be great, and that also should be guarded 
 against. He thinks with Mr. Porter, that 
 it would give too much power to the execu- 
 tive branch over the legislative branch, 
 and therefore he moved to lay the amend- 
 ment of Messrs. Taylor and Conrad indefi- 
 nitely on the table, which motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Read moved to strike out the words 
 "for that occasion," in the last line, and 
 insert the words "for the time being." 
 Adopted. 
 
 Mr. Dowxs was desirous of making a 
 suggestion which the Convention might re- 
 flect upon, and which if entertained, would 
 change the character of the whole section. 
 It seemed to him that the committee in 
 making the office and in defining the duties 
 of the lieutenant governor, as they have 
 done, must have been more anxious to make 
 the office than to give the incumbent any 
 thing to do. While he had no particular 
 objection to the creation of such an officer, 
 he thought with the member from Assump- 
 
280 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 tion, that he ought to be a man of talent 
 and ability; and he is of opinion that such a 
 man miglit be of immense service to the 
 State. He would recommend, that the office 
 should be made of that value as would in- 
 duce able men to seek it, and he thought 
 that by his performing the duties of secre- 
 tary of state in lieu of that of president of 
 the senate, that the object might be accom- 
 plished; in that way we could afford to pay 
 a man something worth his attention. He 
 recommends that the words in the section 
 be so changed as to accomplish it, and that 
 the section be recommitted to the committee 
 for that purpose. 
 
 I am very well aware, sir, (said Mr. 
 Downs,) that I shall be told that this is a 
 new idea. I admit it — but sir, I think I 
 have good reasons to offer for making this 
 change in the section. In the first place, if 
 he is only to act as president of the senate, 
 will the sum be sufficient to induce any man 
 to seek the office, or take it, where the 
 emoluments are only two hundred and forty 
 dollars, $4 per day for sixty days — and then 
 only biennial sessions? It is too insigni- 
 cant a sum for a man to devote his time for, 
 who is worth having. In the second place, 
 it must be clear to every one, that in case 
 of such an emergency as the death of the 
 governor, it is every way desirable that we 
 should have a man (designated as his suc- 
 cessor to hold the reins of government for 
 the remainder of his term,) who has some 
 knowledge of the science of government, 
 and who knows something of the policy pur- 
 sued by the governor at the time of his 
 death or disability; and by making the lieu- 
 tenant governor act as secretary of state, 
 he will be placed in constant communication 
 with he governor, will consult with him on 
 all occasions, will become better known to 
 the people, and will make himself a more 
 useful officer of the government, without it 
 costing the State one dollar more. In the 
 third place, it would diminish the patronage 
 of the executive, for we should then have 
 the duties performed by two in lieu of three 
 officers. He thinks two enough, because, 
 under the changes contemplated in our new 
 constitution to change the mode now in ope- 
 ration of appointing many officers, he means 
 such officers as sheriffs, justices of the peace, 
 •and many other officers, which it is gene- 
 rally believed will be hereafter elected by 
 the people; the duties required in the exec- 
 
 utive department will be diminished. For 
 his part he thinks the office of state trea- 
 surer should be one coming directly from 
 the people. In the fourth place, he would 
 be as a cabinet counsellor as at Washing- 
 ton. There all the secretaries enter into 
 deliberations with the president on all im- 
 portant matters; they set at the board with 
 him, and give free vent to their opinions on 
 a footing of perfect freedom, and frequently 
 have an important influence on the actions 
 of the president. In many other States 
 they have provided for a separate counsel, 
 to advise with the governor on State mat- 
 ters. Although he (Mr. Downs) would not 
 now recommend such a measure here, yet it 
 is always better to have some constitutional 
 adviser who could bring his talents and in- 
 formation in aid of the governor, on every im- 
 portant occasion. In the fifth place, it would 
 raise the character and importance of the 
 office of secretary of state, which from some 
 cause has heretofore been regared as an 
 office of too little importance. In all pre- 
 vious administrations in this State, it has 
 been considered that the governor was 
 everybody; and the secretay of state, and 
 his other officers, next to nobody. 
 
 He thinks it would lead to good in another 
 way. Heretofore, without referring to any 
 particular governor, he has noticed a great 
 defect, the result of which might lead to 
 serious evil — and that is the frequent and 
 continued absence of both governor and 
 secretary of state from the capital, particu- 
 larly during the sickly seasons, and very 
 frequently when important action is wanted 
 it is left entirely to the governor's private 
 secretary, an officer not known in the con- 
 stitution. He has many other reasons 
 which have considerable weight with him. 
 There may be objections to his plan, but if 
 so, he is not aware of them. It is a new 
 principle he admits, but he thinks it a rea-? 
 sonable one, and therefore should be adopt- 
 ed. He would be glad members would 
 lake time to reflect a little on it, and with 
 that view he would move to re-commit the 
 section. 
 
 Mr. Maeigny would detain the Conven- 
 tion but for a very few moments. He desired 
 to remark that the only reason why the 
 framers of the constitution of 1812 did not 
 Create the office of lieutenant governor, 
 was, that the State was then too poor; and 
 it was deemed then an unreasonable thing 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 281 
 
 to make such an important office without 
 attaching to it a respectable salary. What, 
 (said Mr. Marigny,) do Mr. Downs' five 
 reasons amount to? For his part, he regards 
 them as having no bearing on the ques- 
 tion; indeed, he considers them ridiculous. 
 What would become of your lieutenant gov- 
 ernor, if he be only a secretary of state 1 
 lieutenant governor if called upon in case 
 of the death of the governor to perform the 
 duties of governor, without a secretary of 
 state? for in that case you would have no 
 secretary of state. 
 
 He remembered the difficulties which 
 occurred after Mr. Derbigny's death, and 
 how they retarded and fettered the progress 
 of the government. The senate, which 
 elects its president every year, took the 
 helm of affairs, as provided for in the con- 
 stitution. In case they had elected a new 
 president every year, and the governor had 
 died shortly after his entering on the duties 
 of the office, we should have seen four go- 
 vernors in the period of four years — and 
 how do they propose to remedy it? On the 
 one hand by making a lieutenant governor; 
 on the other hand, by making the secretary 
 of state the governor's successor in case of 
 death or disability ! ! ! To pay the former 
 a salary of $240, and the latter the same 
 price paid to the secretary of state. Our 
 course reminds him of a man crazy to play 
 a game of "marionettes," but at the same 
 time was too mean to pay for it. He thinks 
 the section is risht in all but one thing, and 
 that is that the lieutenant governor should 
 have a salary more in proportion to the 
 importance of his station; that he should 
 get a salary of from say $ 1000 a $1500. 
 That would not be too great a sum. When 
 economy is necessary, it is time to be eco- 
 nomical, but that sum canbe spared, when 
 the revenues of the State are constantly 
 increasing. He objects to the proposed 
 amendment of the member from Ouachita: 
 he thinks, as he said before, it would be 
 ridiculous to entertain it for a moment, and 
 shall oppose it with his vote. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin agrees with Mr. Marig- 
 ny; the proposition made by the gentleman 
 from Ouachita, (Mr. Downs,) struck him 
 with great astonishment. He thinks by 
 following such a plan we should be com- 
 plicating the offices for no practical advan- 
 tage, and we should have to provide for 
 unseen cases. One of the reasons which 
 
 made him yield in committee to the creation 
 of the office of lieutenant governor, was 
 that by forming a kind of executive council 
 between the three officers, the governor, 
 lieutenant governor, and secretary of state, 
 was that much benefit might be derived 
 from it pratically, as for instance in the se- 
 lection of officers and otherwise, it might 
 happen in many cases of importance that 
 the governor would yield to the suggestion 
 of each or both of the others if he found 
 himself alone in his opinion, which he 
 would not do if he had only his secretary of 
 state to consult with. The main reason 
 alleged for the lieutenant governor being 
 allowed the privilege to enter into the de- 
 bate, was that he might have an opportuni- 
 ty to distinguish himself, and that thereby 
 we should bring forward our best talent for 
 the office; but it seems to me, sir, this is a 
 mistaken notion. In his, (Mr. B.'s,) opinion 
 the privilege of presiding in the senate and 
 of giving the casting vote when senators 
 divide, becoming thereby the senator of the 
 Siate at large, is a great honor; and he 
 thinks there is no citizen, however brilliant 
 in his talents, but might well be proud to 
 accept the office; add to that the possible 
 chance that every lieutenant governor will 
 have of stepping into the executive chair 
 from unforseen causes, surely there are 
 sufficient inducements to make the post an 
 enviable one, and he, Mr. B., has no fear 
 that the office will go begging while we 
 have so many able men amongst us. 
 
 For these reasons he shall oppose the 
 amendment offered by the member from 
 Ouachita. 
 
 Mr. Roman had but a few remarks to 
 offer, for he conceived that the whole 
 ground had been covered by the two gen- 
 tlemen from New Orleans. 
 
 He agrees with the gentleman from 
 Ouachita, that the office of secretary of 
 state should be one of dignity. If refer- 
 ence, however, was had to the next clause, 
 it would be found that provision had been 
 made to raise the dignity of that office, 
 which would hereafter not render him liable 
 to be displaced at the will of the governor, 
 after his appointment had been confirmed 
 by the senate. 
 
 In reply to the remarks made by the 
 gentleman from Ouachita, (Mr. Downs,) he 
 felt it due to himself to say a few words. 
 The assertion is made that for some time 
 
282 
 
 Debates in the Convention of onisiana. 
 
 during the summer months, and during the 
 sickly season, the executive government 
 has been abandoned generally, for years 
 bach, at least, to the private secretary. As 
 to himself, he feels bound to give the asser- 
 tion an unqualified denial. While he had 
 the honor to fill the gubernatorial chair, he 
 had invariably selected for the office of 
 secretary of state, a gentleman who was a 
 resident of New Orleans and who never 
 left the city, and the duties of the executive 
 department had never devolved on the pri- 
 vate secretary; and so far as he knows and 
 believes, up to the period of his leaving 
 office, the same rule adopted by him had 
 been the invariable rule. What had been 
 the course pursued by the present governor 
 he was ignorant of. But how could the 
 evil complained of be remedied by the pro- 
 position of the gentleman from Ouachita? 
 Why, if the lieutenant governor were elected 
 by the people at large, he might be selected 
 from, and no doubt would, one of the coun- 
 try parishes, and then he would most likely 
 have to leave the city during the sickly sea^ 
 son too. He thinks there is no weight in 
 the reason assigned. He desires to say a 
 few words in reply to the delegate from New 
 Orleans, Mr. Marigny. He is of opinion 
 that he is also mistaken as to the propriety 
 of paying the lieutenant governor 81000 to 
 $1500 a year for his services. The com- 
 mittee who made the report came to the 
 conclusion that, in fixing the emoluments of 
 the office, they should be governed by the 
 duties he had to perform. When he per- 
 formed the duties of president of the senate, 
 he got the same pay as other senators did, 
 and should he by chance be, called upon to 
 act as governor, he would get the same 
 salary that was provided for the governor. 
 In both cases, he thinks, the committee is 
 right, and that the salary in either case is 
 enough. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff accords with Mr. Downs 
 in his motion for one reason, that, in uniting 
 the offices as asked to be done, we should 
 be virtually going back again and striking 
 out the office of lieutenant governor. He 
 has been ever opposed to the creation of 
 that office. He thought it an useless one, 
 and one only introduced into the constitu- 
 tion for the purpose of vesting some man 
 with a title without having any thing to do. 
 Mr. RatlifT remarked that we had now 
 really arrived at that point described by 
 
 some English traveller, who had written 
 and published an account of his travels in 
 America, and that the Americans were the 
 most extraordinary people on the face of 
 the earth, in one thing, and that was, in the 
 pursuit of offices of all grades and kinds; 
 and he further remarked, what was pretty 
 true, that nothing less than a squire or a 
 colonel could be found in the United States. 
 Here we want to create an office to put 
 somebody in it, not that there is any occa- 
 sion for it, any more than there is for a fifth 
 wheel to a coach. He further would ob- 
 ject to it for another reason. He would be 
 elected by a party. He will act as a party 
 man, and the more talents and the more 
 energy he has, the more dangerous he will 
 be. It was intended that the senate, the 
 natural guardian of the rights of the mi- 
 nority, should be a check on executive 
 power; now, how can that check be said to 
 exist, when in case of a tie vote the presi- 
 dent of the senate has the power b j his 
 vote of ratifying the acts of a governor, 
 right or wrong? The probability is, as 
 one thousand to one, that being in the ex- 
 ecutive department, himself, that he and 
 the governor would be hand and glove, and 
 would understand each other thoroughly. 
 Another objection to having such an officer 
 would be, that we should be almost surely 
 to get some incompetent man. No man of 
 talent who can find something better to do 
 with his time, will be found willing to make 
 the canvass of the State, and expend a 
 thousand dollars at the very least, in doing 
 it, for the great privilege of getting two 
 hundred and forty dollars every two years. 
 Well then, some one is elected who knows 
 nothing of the duties of the office; he will 
 be embarrassing the senate at every step 
 they take, and they will retort upon him, 
 and then we shall have a pretty scene of 
 confusion. Let us then abolish and do away 
 with the office, and elect a secretary of 
 state in place of him, who shall succeed the 
 governor in case of death or disability, and 
 then give him the power to appoint in such 
 case another secretary of state, for the un- 
 expired term of his office—- that would do 
 very well. For his part, he don't want to 
 see so many big names in our constitution. 
 He is in favor of having a secretary of state 
 elected by the people, and in case of any 
 difficulty as to an interregnum, let the leg- 
 islature provide for it, As it is now, we 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 283 
 
 shall never get a man of talents for the post 
 in the world; he will be some man who 
 never had any thing to do with politics in 
 his life, and 
 
 Here Mr. Beatty called the honorable 
 delegate to order, for, (said he,) Mr. Presi- 
 dent, he is discussing not the motion before 
 the house, but he is discussing a principle 
 definitively adopted into the constitution two 
 hours ago. 
 
 The President did not think Mr. Rat- 
 lifT out of order. 
 
 Mr. Beatty appealed from the decision 
 of the president, but on the call (in several 
 parts of 1ne hall) of "go on," "go on," 
 "go on," Mr. Beatty did not persist in 
 his appeal. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff: "the gentleman thinks, 
 sir, I am not in order; well, I think sir, I 
 ought to know, for I have had a greater 
 deal more experience in parliamentary pro- 
 ceedings, I reckon, than he has;, and I as- 
 sert that I have a right to speak, sir. He, 
 Mr. McRae, can appeal to the president, 
 and ask if he has not always bowed with 
 submission to the decision of the chair, and 
 he always will do so; but he can always 
 address the house: he knows he can, for he 
 does not, like many others, offer to address 
 the house twice on the same subject. 
 
 He, Mr. McRae, said he had-almost got 
 through with his remarks, when he was so 
 kindly interrupted, and should detain the 
 Convention but one moment longer. 
 
 How, sir, was it possible to disconnect 
 the questions without inquiring into the 
 possible duty and the defined duty in the 
 section of the lieutenant governor, without 
 attempting to show that the lieutenant gov- 
 ernor would be a mere automaton, a kind of 
 nothing, except for the purposes of politi- 
 cal power, unless the motion of the delegate 
 from Ouachita prevailed? It was not pos- 
 sible. Well, sir, I want no lieutenant gov- 
 ernor, but I want a secretary of State elect- 
 ed by the people." 
 
 Here Mr. Ratliff turned round to Mr. 
 Beatty, and asked if that was unparliamen- 
 tary? 
 
 - Some of the views of the delegate from 
 St, James met his hearty concurrence, with 
 respect particularly to the keeping of the 
 duties separate of each officer of the gov 
 ernment. He, Mr. McRae, wants each, 
 separate and distinct. He wants the secre- 
 tary of state to perform the duties proper- 
 
 ly belonging to his office; to give all in- 
 formation of the acts of the executive de- 
 partment when called upon in a proper 
 manner; to make annual reports for the in- 
 formation of the citizens at large; and 
 moreover, he would like to see him one of 
 those officers, who, if he does his duty 
 well, should not be made ineligible for a 
 second term. 
 
 The lieutenant governor is a mere name 
 any how, and he thinks we might yet 
 abolish the office and make an elective se- 
 cretary of state; or if we can't do that — 
 why, then, couple the two offices of lieute- 
 nant governor and secretary of state toge- 
 ther, and at least take away from him his 
 political power in the senate. We could 
 now make a section before we get through 
 with this article in the constitution defining 
 the mode by which a successor to the secre- 
 tary of state may be appointed, in case it 
 might happen he was called upon to take 
 the duties upon himself as governor. For 
 these reasons, and with the view of reach- 
 ing what he aimed at, he should vote for 
 the motion of the gentlemen from Ouachita. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved the previous ques- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Downs protests against this off 
 handed way of cutting off debate. 
 
 Mr. Downs then proceeded : He said 
 that he was pleased to hear from Mr. Ro- 
 man himself, that he (Mr. D.,) was mis- 
 taken in the assertion which he had made 
 with regard to the executive abandoning 
 their duties at the capital during the greater 
 part of die summer and fall months. He 
 stands corrected, but in justification of him- 
 self, he felt bound to say, that in the section 
 of the country in which he resided the as- 
 sertion he had made was matter of public 
 rumor. He was glad to know the facts of 
 the case were otherwise. He desired to 
 say in answer to Mr. Marigny, that at least, 
 it would have been expected in all fairness 
 and reason that he should have advanced 
 some arguments to rebut his (Mr. D's.) 
 assigned reasons for the amendment, before 
 he so sweepingly termed them as ridicu- 
 lous. He could conceive nothing ridicu- 
 lous in the amendment^ and he is at a loss 
 to know what to attribute Mr. Marigny's 
 assertion to, in so calling it — unless indeed, 
 it was the small piece of paper on which 
 it was written, being something supremely 
 ridiculous in his eyes. 
 
284 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 The only argument he attempted to 
 combat was that it would be right and pro- 
 per to make the lieutenant governor secre- 
 tary of state — and that the duties of that 
 office should pertain to him, with the emo- 
 luments of that office ; and he gave us no 
 argument in answer, but endeavored to 
 turn it into ridicule. Now, sir, I want ar- 
 gument, not assertion. It is very easy to 
 say, in an off-hand way — "oh! it is ridicu- 
 lous!" but sensible people are very apt to 
 ask, why? And when no satisfactory re- 
 ply is made, the ridicule, and the sarcasm 
 connected with the ridicule, recoil upon 
 the person who roundly makes the unwar- 
 rantable assertion ; unwarrantable because 
 he can shew no cause for it. 
 
 If in the reply which has been made to the 
 proposition of Mr. Taylor, it could be shown 
 me that when a man who has been elected 
 lieutenant governor would feel perfectly at 
 his ease, to be pent up inthe seat as president 
 of the senate, to hear himself attacked and 
 abused without a chance to say one word 
 in reply, as was- the case with Calhoun, 
 Van Buren, and Johnson, I might perhaps 
 agree with Mr. Benjamin, that the honor is 
 commensurate with the sacrifice of feeling. 
 When he can satisfy me that to be presi- 
 dent of the senate and a chance at the first 
 office in the State, to arise from the death 
 or disability of the incumbent, is a very 
 agreeable present, or a very flattering per- 
 spective; and when he can satisfy me that 
 in the event of the duty being assigned to 
 him by Mr. Benjamin, of being an assistant 
 state counsellor, without any other pay than 
 $4 a day for the period of sixty days, every 
 other year, and that will induce men of a 
 high order of talent to present themselves 
 before the people for their suffrages oh ac- 
 count of the distinguished honor conferred 
 on them, then I shall indeed be astounded. 
 Again, the idea of calling on the lieutenant 
 governor to assist in cabinet deliberations, is 
 a new idea. The vice-president of the United 
 States has nothing to do with their delibe- 
 rations in the cabinet council at Washing- 
 ton; neither Burr, nor Calhoun, nor Van 
 Buren, nor Johnson, ever formed one of the 
 members of such council. And suppose 
 we were to do so here? we could not in 
 reason ask him to devote his time for such 
 service without remunerating him for his 
 tim^, trouble, and the expenses he incurred 
 in his attendance. Ifyow do that ,■ you will 
 
 make the office one of three things, and 
 perhaps the whole combined : 1st, an in- 
 significant one ; 2d, a disagreeable one; 
 and 3d, an unprofitable one. He (Mr. 
 Downs) has not yet heard any good argu- 
 ment to induce him to change his first views, 
 and hopes, therefore, that the motion to re- 
 commit will yet prevail. 
 
 Mr. Conrad rose not to detain, but for 
 one single moment to express his views as 
 to the present position of the question be- 
 fore the Convention. 
 
 It seemed to him that the only difference 
 between the wants of the gentleman from 
 Ouachita, and the gentleman from West 
 Feliciana, was this : one wants the lieuten- 
 ant governor to be secretary of state, while 
 the other wants the secretary' of state to be 
 lieutenant-governor, only abolishing the ti- 
 tle, and they both agree that the officer to 
 be elected shall be elected by the people. 
 One wants to abolish the name, Jjut both 
 wanted to keep the office. In all else they 
 agree. Is it worth the time that has been 
 taken to argue it ? 
 
 The question is now, shall the lieutenant 
 governor be president of the senate? or 
 shall he be the secretary of state? To 
 that complexion it must come at last. He 
 therefore seconded Mr. Beatty's motion for 
 the previous question. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin then moved that the mo- 
 tion made by Mr.Downs be laid indefinitely 
 on the table. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne desired to say, that he 
 thought the amendment proposed by Mr. 
 Downs was worthy of consideration — and 
 as such he would like to have it recommit- 
 ted. He thinks that no proper person 
 would be found willing to take the office 
 as at present tendered to him, under this 
 Constitution. 
 
 The question was then put on Mr. Ben- 
 jamin's motion, to lay indefinitely on the 
 table, and was decided as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Brent, 
 Briant, Cade, Cenas, Chinn, F. B. Conrad, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Garrett, Hudspeth y Kenner, 
 King, Labauve, Legendre, Leonard, Lewis, 
 McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureatt, O'Bry- 
 an, Peets, Prescott of Avoyelles, Roman, 
 Roselius, St. Amand, Sellers, Soule, 
 Splane, Taylor, Trist, Voorhie's, Wads- 
 worth, Winchester and Winder — 38 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Claiborne, Conrad, Downs, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 285 
 
 Humble, McCallop, Porter, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Saunders, W. B. 
 Scott, T. W. Scott, Miles Taylor, and 
 Waddill — 15 nays. 
 
 So Mr. Benjamin's motion to lay the 
 motion of Mr. Downs indefinitely on the 
 table was carried. The question was then 
 put on the adoption of the section, as 
 amended by Mr. Read. The section was 
 adopted and read as follows : - 
 
 "The lieutenant governor shall by virtue 
 of his office, be president of the senate, and 
 shall only have a casting vote therein 
 whenever he shall administer the govern- 
 ment, or shall be unable to attend as 
 president of the senate* the senators shall 
 elect one of their own members for the time 
 being." 
 
 Mr. Benjanin then moved an adjourn- 
 ment until to-morrow at 11 o'clock, which 
 prevailed. 
 
 Friday, February 21, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Convention was opened by prayer 
 from Mr. Stephens, in the absence of any 
 regular minister of the gospel. 
 
 Mr. Roselius moved that the invitation 
 tende red to this Convention to attend the 
 examination of the scholars, forming the 
 free school system of the first municipality, 
 at the French theatre, be accepted ; and he 
 further moved, that the Convention pro- 
 ceed to that place in a body, at 12 o'clock, 
 to attend at and witness the examination of 
 the students. 
 
 He said, in support of his motion, that 
 this Convention would there see some 
 2000 children, getting, some of them per- 
 haps, nothing more, but at least all getting 
 an ordinary education. The rich man's 
 child mingling with the poor man's child, 
 and thereby gradually acquiring that great 
 sound principle that merit alone is a pass- 
 port to future eminence. The best evi- 
 dence of the feasibility of the plan proposed 
 is this : they are striving to introduce edu- 
 cation generally, and particularly amongst 
 the poorer classes, who cannot afford to 
 pay for such education. He trusts the 
 Convention will meet his suggestions in 
 the proper spirit. The question before 
 them is an important one, and perhaps one 
 of the most important that could be pre- 
 sented to this Convention, 
 
 37 
 
 There is, it is true, a committee on edu- 
 cation appointed by this Convention, but 
 he has not heard that they had yet made a 
 report. If this committee will attend that 
 assembly of the children educated at the 
 public expense, and listen to the examina- 
 tion of the pupils, he (Mr. R.) feels sure, 
 that they will be more than ever impressed 
 with the necessity of making such a pro- 
 vision in our new constitution as will cover 
 the whole ground. Now let us look at 
 the practical operation of our accepting 
 this invitation, and attending the examina- 
 tion. It will have a moral effect, and one 
 that will be lasting in its character ; that 
 the Convention should attend the examin- 
 ation of the students of the free school 
 system, established but one year, and under 
 that system there are already more than 
 2000 pupils ; the larger part the children 
 of people unable to afford them education 
 unless it were gratuitous. The committee 
 on education of the Convention, are charged 
 with a high and important trust. They 
 doubtless would be prepared soon to re- 
 port, and no doubt ably. But to his (Mr. 
 R.'s) mind there was no opportunity like 
 the one now offered for witnessing the 
 practical benefits of the system. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Roselius, the invita- 
 tion was accepted, and the Convention 
 agreed to attend the said examination in 
 a body at 12 o'clock. 
 
 It was moved and seconded to adjourn 
 till Monday, 11 o'clock; lost. 
 
 The next question that was called up 
 was on motion of Mr. Taylor, viz : 
 
 To take up his motion of yesterday in 
 relation to the calling of the yeas and nays 
 on any question, without there were ten 
 members lining to support the call for the 
 yeas and nays. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Baton Rouge, moved to 
 lay it on the table, subject to the call of the 
 house. The motion was put and lost. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin regrets to see the dispo- 
 sition manifested, to force a vote on this 
 Or any other question. He thinks that ev- 
 ery opportunity should be extended for the 
 purpose of securing a full vote in all mat- 
 ters submitted to this body. 
 
 Mr. Conrad was opposed to delay, and 
 thought the Convention was as full now as 
 ever it was at the same hour. He says 
 that many of the articles of the constitu- 
 tion have been adopted with no more mem- 
 
286 
 
 Debate^ in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 bers than are now present; but for a mere 
 rule of the house, he thinks we have an 
 abundant number of members. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff next addressed the house. 
 He was fearful from what he saw among 
 the members, that they were now attempt- 
 ing to inflict upon us a gaglaw; and as such 
 he was opposed to it. He objects as much 
 as any one to the frequent calling of the 
 yeas and nays, for he knows it in almost 
 every case to be an useless waste of the 
 people's money, for to that it comes at last. 
 Nevertheless, there maybe important ques- 
 tions come up, in the decision of which he 
 may specially desire to record his vote, 
 and yet under the proposed rule. No one 
 would have a chance to get the record fill- 
 ed, unless he run about the house and get 
 ten members to call for the yeas and nays. 
 Thinking it unjust, he should certainly 
 oppose it. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin remarked that there was 
 a question before the house, to adjourn till 
 Monday morning, and further to take up 
 this question then, the very first thing after 
 the reading of the journal. The motion 
 was then put and carried. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin then moved an adjourn- 
 ment to 11 o'clock Monday morning, which 
 was carried. 
 
 Monday, February 24, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Clark opened the proceed- 
 ings by prayer. 
 
 On motion; Messrs. Garcia, Soule and 
 B riant were excused from attendance on 
 account of sickness; and leave of absence 
 was granted to Messrs. Splane, Pugh, Cade, 
 McRae and Lewis. 
 
 • Mr. Taylor of Assumption, moved that 
 the Convention adjourn till to-morrow at 11 
 o'clock, a. m., for want of a quorum; which 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan submitted the following 
 resolution, viz: 
 
 "Resolved, That from and after the 15th 
 day of March next, the Convention will 
 grant no leave of absence to any member, 
 unless in case of sickness of the member or 
 some one of his family." 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, suggested, 
 as there was a bare majority, to lay the 
 resolution over until Thursday at 10 
 o'clock, p. m. 
 
 Mr. Winder moved to lay the resolution 
 on the table indefinitely, and the yeas and 
 nays being called for, resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brumfield, Ce- 
 nas, Dunn, Hudspeth, King, Legendre, 
 Leonard, McCallop, Mazureau, Porche, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prudhomme, Ra4fcfF, 
 Roman, St. Amand, Saunders, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Land- 
 ry and Winder voted in the affirmative — 22 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Carriere, Covillion, Der- 
 bes, Downs, Garrett, Hynson, Marigny, 
 Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Trist, Voorhies, 
 Waddill, Wederstrandt and WikofF, voted 
 in the negative — 22 nays; the vote being 
 equally divided, the president voted in the 
 negative, the motion was consequently lost. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to amend by ' 
 striking out the u 15th of March," and in- 
 sert in lieu thereof the words "the 24th 
 day of February." 
 
 Mr. Ratliff: Why that is to day. 
 
 Mr. Beatty: That is what I intended. 
 
 Mr. Dunn moved that the resolution and 
 amendment be laid on th# table till to-mor- 
 row. 
 
 Mr. Sellers opposed the motion to post- 
 pone. 
 
 The question was taken, and Mr. Dunn's 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption raised the 
 question of order,, 
 
 On the question of order, the President 
 decided that this resolution was out of 
 order, inasmuch as the rule offered Friday, 
 by Mr. Taylor of Assumption, was made 
 the special order of the day for to-day, im- 
 mediately after the reading of the journal. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, called up 
 the rule offered by him, and made the spe- 
 cial order of the day for to-day # viz: 
 
 "The yeas and nays shall not be taken 
 on any question, unless ten members rise 
 to support the call for them." 
 
 Mr. Porter said he did not intend to 
 discuss this matter, but would simply make 
 a few suggestions which he hoped would 
 induce the honorable delegate from La- 
 fourche, (Mr. Taylor,) to withdraw his 
 proposition. It was not in accordance with 
 parliamentary rules, and was without pre- 
 cedent. The expediency of calling for the 
 yeas and nays, had been concurred in by 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 287 
 
 the wisest statesmen, and was sanctioned 
 by universal practice. Unless this Con- 
 vention were about deliberately to pro- 
 nounce that they were unable to proceed j 
 without this gag, and it was essential to 
 paralyze liberty of action, in order to facili- 
 tate their proceedings; he could not see how 
 such a motion could be entertained. The 
 great body of the members were not talk- 
 ing members; they did not discuss and de- 
 bate every question; but still they wished 
 to show their constituents how they voted, 
 and by whom great measures were defeat- 
 ed. It was the right of both the majority 
 and minority to ascertain by whose votes 
 questions of importance were lost or car- 
 ried. If the present proposition be carried, 
 the next movement should be to close our 
 doors, and expel our reporters, as was at- 
 tempted a few days ago, and do every 
 thing in secret. I am, said Mr. Porter, 
 for no such proceedings. I wish all our 
 acts and all our votes to be public ; that 
 every man, as well as myself, may show 
 the position assumed, and incur a just 
 share of individual responsibility. But in- 
 dependent of this rule being arbitrary and 
 pernicious in its consequences, I very 
 much doubt whether it will have the effect 
 which gentlemen profess to be their design, 
 that of economising and saving our time. 
 The yeas and nays wilt be called for as 
 usual, and if they are not taken because 
 there are not ten members to rise to sup- 
 port the call, debates will inevitably be the 
 result. Each individual that supports the 
 call, as he is refused the liberty of record- 
 ing his vote, will explain his position; and 
 more time will be consumed in a half dozen 
 speeches a day, perhaps, than would be if 
 they were called for and taken in the usual 
 way. Ill feelings and contentions too, will 
 arise, and not only will the design prove 
 abortive, but our proceedings will be ar- 
 rested from time to time. Mr. Porter 
 terminated his remarks by hoping that the 
 gentleman would withdraw the proposition. 
 
 -Mr. Taylor of Assumption, said he 
 would briefly submit his reasons for sug- 
 gesting the proposition under considera- 
 tion. The gentleman from Caddo,. (Mr. 
 P orter,) says that the proposition involves 
 
 departure from all parliamentary rules. 
 The delegate is under a mistake in making 
 this assertion. All deliberative bodies I 
 have an easy mode of ascertaining the 
 
 different divisions of sentiment that may 
 prevail. They resolve themselves into 
 committee of the whole, where great latitude 
 I is allowed to the discussion, but when the 
 yeas and nays are not allowed. 
 
 When the question is placed in a definite 
 form, the committee rise and a direct vote 
 by yeas and nays is taken, and then the 
 point at issue rs closed. A great deal of 
 time has been lost in the Convention by 
 the C8.ll, on every occasion, for the yeas and 
 nays, even upon trivial matters. I do not 
 say trivial in themselves, but insignificant 
 as matters of record. On one occasion, 
 the yeas and nays w^ere called for four times 
 on motions to adjourn. The yeas and nays 
 too, are called upon allowing some petty 
 claim which involves no principle, and is a 
 question only of a few dollars, more or less. 
 No one (said Mr. Taylor.) respects more 
 than I, the proper use of the call for the 
 yeas and nays, or would be more reluctant 
 to yield or deny that privilege when any 
 principle was at issue. Nor have I any ap- 
 prehension that this proposition will have 
 that result. Its only results will be to pre- 
 vent an useless waste of time upon insig- 
 nificant matters, where no principle will be 
 involved. I apprehend no difficulty from 
 the rule; there will always beJbund eleven 
 members ready to sustain the call for the 
 yeas and nays, whenever the question may 
 possess the least ingredient of principle. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff could not concur in the ne- 
 cessity or expediency for any such gag. 
 By the old constitution, which is in vigor 
 until superseded by the new one, as well 
 in relation to this body as in other matters, 
 it is provided that the yeas and nays on 
 any question shall, at the desire of any two 
 of the members of the legislature, be enter- 
 ed upon the journal. The proposition that 
 has been submitted by the member from 
 Lafourche, (Mr. Taylor.) will engender 
 acrimonious feelings and bitter resentments. 
 Nothing can be gained by it. It will be 
 throwing a firebrand into the Convention. 
 It will excite prejudices, and so far from 
 economizing our time, for every simple re- 
 sponse, yes or no, we shall be inflicted with 
 a speech. And in fact, no other mode will 
 exist for a member to develop to his con- 
 stituents what are his sentiments upon any 
 important matter that may come up, and 
 upon which the majority may not be dis* 
 
288 
 
 Debates in the Oonvention of Louisiana* 
 
 posed to accord the privilege of the yeas 
 and nays to the minority. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff referred to the motion made 
 this morning to adjourn; because, said he, 
 there happened not to be, at the identical 
 moment, a quorum. The gentleman from 
 Lafourche (Mr. Taylor) complains of asking 
 the yeas and nays upon motions to adjourn. 
 These questions are sometimes of grave 
 importance. They are directly connected 
 with important questions of principle, that 
 might be defeated if the adjournment took 
 place. In this very instance, when the 
 gentleman this morning moved to adjourn, 
 if a quorum had not been in attendance 
 immediately after his motion, it would have 
 been very essential to have called for the 
 yeas and nays, to see, and let the people 
 know, who voted for an adjournment, and 
 the consequent loss of one day's proceed- 
 ings, because a quorum was not at the pre- 
 cise moment in attendance; because some 
 gentlemen's watches happened to be a little 
 slow, or, like myself, they had some person 
 holding on to their elbow. 
 
 The Virginia Convention, which was, 
 both in point of talent and the character 
 of its members, said Mr. Ratliff, the most 
 distinguished body in the United States, had 
 but two rules. There was no squabbling, 
 no difficulty, jio gags; every thing went on 
 harmoniously and prosperously to a suc- 
 cessful completion. In that, body, so far 
 from prescribing the rigid rules we have 
 heard spoken of in this body, it is a fact 
 that they adjourned for several days, to af- 
 ford five members who were unavoidably 
 detained from their seats, the privilege of 
 voting upon an important question. There 
 was no feverish haste and excitement. The 
 public business was sedulously attended to, 
 but with calm, cool, dispassionate judg- 
 ment; no taking advantage on account of 
 absence, nor no gags upon the minority. 
 
 I trust, said Mr. Ratliff, that this propo- 
 sition will be rejected. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Lafourche, begged per- 
 mission to call attention to one fact. The 
 constitution of the United States contained a 
 provision upon this very subject : that the 
 yeas and nays, at the desire of one-fifth of 
 the members of either branch of congress, 
 shall be entered upon the journal. The 
 gentleman from Feliciana, (Mr. Ratliff,) 
 speaks of the Virginia Convention with high 
 respect, I concur with him in a high esti- 
 
 mation of that body, but I do not think, as 
 he does, that it was the most important 
 body that ever assembled in the United 
 States. The Federal Convention, to my 
 conception, was the most important and the 
 wisest political assembly that ever met, 
 and this very provision was the result of 
 their action ; the expression of their en- 
 lightened views and experience upon record. 
 According to it the call for the yeas and 
 nays in this body, would have to be sanc- 
 tioned by eighteen members; whereas, ac- 
 cording to my proposition, the number is 
 limited to eleven. I cannot consider it in 
 the light of a gag. It would facilitate busi- 
 ness, and would throw no impediment in 
 the way of a call for the yeas and nays, 
 upon questions having any pretensions to 
 importance. 
 
 Mr. Downs opposed the proposition. It 
 was desirable that our time should not be 
 uselessly consumed; yet taking it for grant, 
 ed that the ayes and nays were called for 
 more frequently than the occasion required, 
 he did not see how this proposition would 
 effect the object assumed. It was of the 
 very last importance that the present free- 
 dom should be allowed in calling for the 
 ayes and nays, and it might very well hap-* 
 pen that questions, that some might treat 
 as trivial, would be viewed in a very differ- 
 ent light by others. 
 
 Mr. Marigny moved for the adoption of 
 the rule, and called for the yeas and nays: 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Brum- 
 field, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of New Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jeffersson, Covillion, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Marigny, Mazureau, Porche, 
 Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Voorhies and 
 Winder voted in the affirmative— 26 yeas; 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Carriere, Downs, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Leonard, McCallop, Mayo, O'Bryan, 
 Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Rat- 
 liff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Sellers, Stephens,, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Waddill, Wederstrandt and Wi- 
 koff .voted in the negative — 29 nays; con- 
 sequently the motion was lost. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY, 
 
 ARTICLE THIRD, AS REPORTED BY THE 
 MAJORITY. 
 
 Sec. II. "While he acts as president of 
 
Debates in tJie Convention oi Louisiana, 
 
 289 
 
 the senate, the lieutenant governor shall I 
 receive for his sendees the same compen- ! 
 sation which shall for the same period be | 
 allowed to the speaker of the house of re- j 
 presentatives, and no more." 
 
 Mr. Marigny moved to amend by stri- : 
 king out all the words^of the first line, more- j 
 over the words, "the same compensation j 
 which shall for the same period be allowed ! 
 to the speaker of the house of representa- j 
 tives, and no more," and insert in lieu | 
 thereof the words " a compensation shall ; 
 be fixed by the legislature." 
 
 Mr. Marigxy said he did not think it 
 becoming the dignity of the State, to allow j 
 to so high a functionary, so small a compen- 
 sation as four dollars a day. and that only 
 during the legislative sessions, which were j 
 to be held biennially. If it be expedient, j 
 said (Mr. M.) on the one hand, to use a j 
 prudent economy, on the other we should 
 avoid a niggardly parsimony. In leaving 
 the compensation to the discretion of the 
 legislature, we need entertain no apprehen- ! 
 sion that they will be disposed to act with j 
 too much liberality. But, we will leave it 
 to them to decide what is a fair compensa- 
 tion, for it may well happen that a person j 
 mav be designated, on account of his great j 
 merit, whose fortune is but small: and if j 
 you maintain this provision in your const*- j 
 tution, you will exclude from that office all 
 other citizens but those whose circum- 1 
 stances and positions are independent. 
 
 Mr. Marigxv's motion was lost. 
 
 On motion, the said lith section, as re- 
 ported, was adopted, viz : 
 
 Sec. 11. "While he acts as president of 
 the senate, the lieutenant governor shall 
 receive for his services the same compen- 
 sation which shall for the same period be 
 allowed to the speaker of the house of re- 
 presentatives, and no more." 
 
 The 12th section was then called up; 
 viz : 
 
 Sec 12. "A secretary of state shall be 
 appointed and commissioned, to hold his 
 office during the pleasure of the governor. 
 The records of the State shall be kept and 
 preserved in the office of the secretary. 
 He shall keep a fair register of the official 
 acts and proceedings of the governor, and 
 when necessary, shall attest them. He 
 shall, when required, lay the said register 
 and all papers, minutes and vouchers rela- 
 tive to his office, before either house of the 
 
 general assembly, and shall perform such 
 other duties as mav be enjoined on him 
 by law." 
 
 Mr. Claiborne moved to strike out the 
 words "during the pleasure of the~govern- 
 or," and insert in lieu thereof the words 
 "during the term for which the governor 
 shall have been elected, if he shall so long 
 behave himself well." 
 
 Mr. Claiborne said his object, by this 
 amendment, was to make the secretary of 
 state independent — not the creature of ex- 
 ecutive will. It might happen that the 
 duties of that office may become incompati- 
 ble with a dependance upon the executive 
 will. He was by law required to keep an 
 official register of the official acts and pro- 
 ceedings of the governor, and to submit 
 them to the general assembly when re- 
 quired. There was no propriety in placing 
 him in a subservient position, and hence 
 his (Mr. Claiborne's) amendment. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans, moved to 
 amend the amendment, by striking out the 
 words "if he shall so long behave himself 
 well." 
 
 Mr. Coxrad: these words were superflu- 
 ous, "as long as he behaves himself well." 
 They were nothing. The secretary of State, 
 like all other officers, is subject to removal 
 by impeachment for misconduct. 
 
 Mr. Downs: they are similar to the pro- 
 visions in the old constitution. 
 
 Mr. Claiborxe was indifferent as to that 
 matter. He would accept of the suggestion 
 ; of his colleague. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin was in favor of the sec- 
 , tion as reported. He conceived it would 
 be exceedingly inconvenient, if, in the event 
 of a disagreement between the governor 
 and the secretary of State, the former was 
 ' compelled to retain the latter. The public 
 i service would perhaps suffer, and inasmuch 
 as the secretary of State was in direct and 
 constant intercourse with the governor, and 
 the latter was elected by the people, it 
 seemed to him that the governor should be 
 allowed the privilege of retaining the sec- 
 retary of State, or of dismissing him if the 
 state of their official and personal relations 
 render it necessary. 
 
 Mr. Porter expressed his decided pre- 
 i ference for the section as amended by the 
 delegate from New Orleans, (Mr. Clai- 
 | borne.) In referring to the constitutions of 
 ! the several States, I find that in fifteen the 
 
290 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 secretary of State is elected on joint ballot 
 by the legislatures; three in which the sec- 
 retary of State is elected by the people; and 
 three only, to-wit: the States of Kentucky, 
 Louisiana, (whose constitution is moddeled 
 on that of Kentucky) and Delaware, where 
 the secretary is appointed by the governor 
 by and with the advice and consent of the 
 senate. Mr. Porter said he concurred 
 fully in the views of the delegate from New 
 Orleans, that the secretary of State might 
 not be placed in a position to be the tool or 
 the automaton of the governor. He said 
 that the provision which the gentleman last 
 up (Mr. Benjamin) had boasted of having 
 introduced in committee, that the secretary 
 of State should be removable at the discre- 
 tion of the governor, was to be found but in 
 one constitution in the United States. He 
 was opposed to the one man power, even in 
 appointing to office, but when it comes to 
 appointing and removing, with or without 
 cause, a State officer, he hoped such a pow- 
 er would never be recognized here. Mr. 
 Porter terminated his remarks by suggest- 
 ing the provision upon the same subject in 
 the constitution of Tennessee. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, said that the 
 supreme court had virtually decided that 
 the governor could remove from office 
 where the tenure was limited, not by di- 
 rectly displacing the officer, but by appoint- 
 ing another in his stead, that is, he could 
 drive out one nail with another. This he 
 considered a most dangerous power. Mr. 
 C. argued against the dependence of the 
 secretary of State upon the governor. He 
 considered it inexpedient and impolitic. 
 The secretary of State was the custodian 
 of the public records, and instead of being 
 the creature of the governor, he should be 
 a check upon that officer. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. Clai- 
 borne's amendment as amended by Mr. 
 Conrad, and carried in the affirmative. 
 
 Mr. Peets offered the following substi- 
 tute, viz: 
 
 "A secretary of State shall be elected by 
 the qualified electors of the State at large, 
 at the same time of the election for govern- 
 or, and shall hold his office during the term 
 for which the governor shall have been 
 elected." 
 
 Mr. Porter withdrew his proposition 
 and accepted the proposition of Mr. Peets. 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, moved that 
 
 the said substitute be postponed until the 
 Convention take up the mode of appointing 
 the members of the judiciary. Mr. Tay- 
 lor thought that the question would then 
 more properly come up, and that it could 
 then be discussed once for all. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad opposed the post- 
 ponement. The principle of electing the 
 Secretary of State by the people was some- 
 what dissimilar from the principle of elect- 
 ing the judges by the people. 
 
 The question was taken upon the post- 
 ponement, and it was decided in the nega- 
 tive. 
 
 The question then recurred on the adop- 
 tion of the proposition of Mr. Peets. 
 
 Mr. Marigny: 1 cannot conceive how 
 it can enter into the immagination of any 
 one to elect the secretary of state by the peo- 
 ple. It is equivalent to throwing confusion 
 and disorder into the administration of the 
 executive department. What in fact is the 
 secretary of stale as regards the governor? 
 He is the officer that comes in most direct 
 contact with the governor, and is. his coun- 
 sellor and adviser. If you elect a popular 
 man to the office of secretary of state, it 
 may well happen that you give to the gov- 
 ernor a powerful adversary, between whom 
 and the chief of the State, there will be a 
 mutual ill-will, prejudicial to the interests 
 of the State and to the harmony which 
 should pervade its councils; this misunder- 
 standing will be considerably augmented 
 by political differences between these func- 
 tionaries and the hypothesis; such a result 
 is fully warranted by the present political 
 contests between democrats and federalists, 
 or whigs and democrats; and others that 
 will continue to agitate and distract the 
 country. Why create a difficulty for the 
 mere pleasure of creating it? Is it not much 
 simpler that the governor should appoint 
 the secretary of state, as he appoints all 
 other officers with the advice and consent 
 of the senate? An experience of thirty- 
 two years, and I contend always that ex- 
 perience is the best guide, that no inconve- 
 nience, no obstacle, no schism has resulted 
 from the full liberty given to the governor 
 to choose that officer; whereas under the 
 territorial government we had a striking ex- 
 ample of the innumerable difficulties that 
 grew out of the misunderstanding between 
 the governor and the secretary of state. 
 The governor at that period was Charles 
 
Debates £n the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 291 
 
 Cole Clay Claiborne, and the secretary of 
 state was Thomas Boiling Robertson. 
 Both these men were the bosom friends of 
 Jefferson. The first one was nominated by 
 Mr. Jefferson, probably because he had 
 lent his essential aid in his contest with 
 Burr; and the second was appointed simply 
 on account of personal friendship. But 
 Mr. Jefferson forgot the most essential part, 
 and that was whether these two men would 
 agree in the close and intimate official rela- 
 tions in which he had placed them. It so 
 turned out that their characters were the most 
 dissimilar. Robertson, with whom I was 
 on the most intimate terms of friendship, 
 and whom I sought because the originality 
 of his character amused me, was always, 
 notwithstanding his great talents and moral 
 worth, in dispute with governor Claiborne. 
 It was sufficient that the latter had expres- 
 sed an opinion or formed an idea, for the 
 former to contradict and oppose it. The 
 cabinet, if I may so designate the executive 
 conferences, was fire and the sword. Xo 
 one, perhaps, could better describe the 
 secretary of state, so eccentric and original, 
 as I could; but I forbear from relating the 
 many anecdotes that would most fully illus- 
 trate it. He assumed to be descended 
 from the celebrated Pocahontas — he de- 
 spised wealth and detested the laws — and 
 it was a matter of astonishment to me, with 
 such opinions, how he could have succeeded 
 in a political career. It frequently hap- 
 pens that necessity impels men to a course 
 contrary to their wishes, afi8 so it might 
 well have been with him. As he was ne- 
 cessitated to live in society, notwithstand- 
 ing his great aversion for law, he asked 
 for and obtained the office of judge of the 
 district court of the United States. Xo one 
 was more surprised at this than I; and 
 meeting him some days afterwards, I 
 inquired how it was that he was enabled to 
 conciliate his dislike with his interest? 
 Bah, bah, replied he, I shall hear these 
 lawyers until they have entangled their 
 cases, and then I will decide by throwing a 
 dollar in the air, by head or tails! 
 
 I do not know whether he ever carried 
 into effect^ his singular plan; but he had 
 talents sufficient to comprehend a suit, and 
 too much integrity to have made a game of 
 his duties. I tell this anecdote merely to 
 exhibit the originality of the man. Noth- 
 ing in the world, it may well be conceived. 
 
 would be so unpleasant as the forced inter- 
 views between two officers who heartily 
 detested each other, and yet who were 
 brought into constant intercourse by these 
 duties. ■ I was nineteen years of age when 
 Louisiana became an integral portion of 
 the United States, and my experience, as 
 w r ell as my recollections, induce me to hope 
 that you will not adopt the proposition of 
 the delegate, (Mr. Peets.) 
 
 Mr. Ratliff said that as this was the 
 first opportunity he had had to express his 
 views upon the question of electing public 
 officers by the people, he would avail him- 
 self of this occasion to take a stand against 
 executive patronage. He concurred with 
 the delegate from New Orleans, (Mr. Con- 
 rad,) that the question of electing the secre- 
 tary of state, was distinct from that of elect- 
 ing the judges by the people. There was 
 no necessary connexion between them. 
 He could not give any weight to the argu- 
 ment assuming a necessity for the secretary 
 of state and the governor to be bosom 
 
 j friends. Their duties were distinct and 
 
 i separate. 
 
 What were the duties assigned to the sec- 
 retary of state? That he should keep a fair 
 register and attest all official acts and pro- 
 ceed of the governor, and shall, when re- 
 quired lay the same and ail papers, and min- 
 utes, and vouchers relative thereto, before 
 either house of the general assembly, and 
 shall perform such other duties as may be 
 prescribed by law. The governor may con- 
 sult him, or not, at his pleasure; but there 
 is no necessity for the executive to take or 
 follow his advice. It struck me as some- 
 what singular that a gentleman belonging 
 to the political party that the gentleman 
 from New Orleans, (Mr. Benjamin,)' be- 
 longs, should be a stickler for a dependence 
 of the secretary of state upon the governor; 
 and it reminded me of the different view 
 taken by the political party of which that 
 gentleman is a conspicious member, when 
 President Jackson removed Mr. Duane 
 and appointed Mr. Taney in his stead, 
 because the former was adverse to his 
 views in relation to the removal of the de- 
 posits. That particular act of the presi- 
 dent was treated as an abominable abuse of 
 power. 
 
 If the secretary of state is to be made the 
 creature, the dependant upon the executive, 
 upon the plea of his being the confidential 
 
292 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 p,dviser, why not extend the principle to the 
 attorney general; for the attorney general 
 is just as much the confidential adviser of 
 the governor as the secretary of state? Ex- 
 amine the lav/ carefully, and determine how 
 the secretary of state can faithfully dis- 
 charge his particular duties, if he be placed 
 under the immediate control of the govern- 
 or, and the latter should find it convenient 
 or expedient to suppress any record or con- 
 ceal the failure of performance of any par- 
 ticular duty. Instead of being as he ought 
 to be, and as his functions ought to make 
 him, independent of the mere will of the 
 governor, and a check upon that officer, he 
 will be a dependant, exposed to be turned 
 out if he dare dispute the executive plea- 
 sure. I am opposed to extending executive 
 power. I am for restraining it within its 
 appropriate limits, and those that have de- 
 nounced so much the abuse to which it is 
 susceptible now, have the opportunity in 
 our state government of restricting its 
 range; an opportunity wl^fch, if they be 
 consistent, they will not fail to improve. 
 Why give to the legislature the preference 
 of electing the secretary of state, in place 
 of the people? Are n ot the people the true 
 sources of all power, and if they are com- 
 petent to elect the governor, why are they 
 incompetent to elect the secretary of state? 
 When the question of electing the judiciary 
 comes up, I anticipate great opposition, 
 because from the nature of the judicial 
 functions some arguments may be given 
 for continuing something like our present 
 system; but it is evident that there is not 
 that dissimilarity between the functions of 
 governor and secretary of state that there 
 is between the governor and members of 
 the judiciary; and that the same arguments 
 will not, therefore, apply with the case of 
 the secretary of state. Where is the ne- 
 cessity for extending the power of the gov- 
 ernor over the secretary of state, and 
 making the latter the mere echo of the 
 former — the blind and passive instrument of 
 executive will ? The abuses of executive 
 patronage, as I have before said, has been 
 a theme of declamation for both political 
 parties — the meanness, sycophancy and ser- 
 vility of office seekers, has been held up as 
 a national reproach; and, we have been 
 told, that all the evils which it engenders, 
 s hould be arrested. How better can we 
 a rrest them, than by laying the axe to the 
 
 root of the evil. It is said that, perhaps, 
 the secretary of state who may be elected 
 by the people, may be of opposite political 
 opinions from the governor? If this should 
 happen, so far from being any objection to 
 the system, it is an advantage, for no one 
 can keep as sharp a look out as a political 
 adversary; and if such an one is secretary 
 of state to a governor of opposite political 
 opinions, he is sure to be a most efficient 
 check upon the executive department, if 
 there be the slightest tendency to abuse or 
 to stretch its powers. The governor, let 
 him be elected by this or that party, should 
 be the governor of the State, and not the 
 governor of a party. I admire the response 
 attributed to Mr. Polk, that he was the 
 president of the people, and not the presi- 
 dent of a party. The governor whose mo- 
 tives and rule of conduct are right, has 
 nothing to fear from the juxta-position of a 
 secretary of state who may entertain differ- 
 ent political opinions, or who may not be 
 his bosom friend and associate. Mr. R. 
 concluded by hoping that the section would 
 be adopted, and that the people would have 
 the same privilege of electing the secre- 
 tary of state as they had of electing the 
 governor. 
 
 Mr. Leonard was not opposed to the 
 principle of electing the secretary of state 
 by the poople, but he thought that inasmuch 
 as the secretary of state was by law re- 
 quired to keep a register of the doings and 
 proceedings of the executive department, 
 the governor should have the right to in- 
 spect at will these records for the purpose 
 of seeing that they were faithfully kept; and 
 that as the secretary of state was bound to 
 exhibit to the legislature when called upon, 
 these records, he should be bound to exhibit 
 them to the governor when required so 
 to do. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor said, that before the 
 question was taken, he would beg leave to 
 submit his views. He had not anticipated 
 that the question would have come up to- 
 day, but his opinions had long since been 
 formed. Although he was opposed to the 
 election of judicial officers by the people, 
 the objections that operated upon his mind 
 in reference to the judiciary, had no appli- 
 cation to the election of other officers. 
 The present office was one that he con- 
 ceived might, with great propriety, be filled 
 by the popular suffrages. He was adverse 
 
Debates iii the Conization of Louisiana, 
 
 293 
 
 to the appointment of the secretary of state 
 by the governor. That officer should not 
 be the creature of the governor, nor de- 
 pendant upon him for his continuance in 
 office. He should be independent of the 
 executive. His duties bore but a slight re- 
 lation to those of the governor. The inti- 
 mate relations with the governor, attributed 
 in this debate to the secretary of state, 
 were held by the private secretary, rather 
 than by the secretary of state. As he (Mr. 
 Taylor) understood the details, the simple 
 duty of the secretary of state as related to 
 the executive department, was, to keep the 
 records. The secretary of state had but 
 few duties imposed on him by lav/, and 
 some of these had never, within his know- 
 ledge, been discharged in a manner satis- 
 factory to the public. He referred to the 
 duties that devolved upon him as superin- 
 tendent of the public schools: these duties 
 were more important than all the others 
 that had devolved upon him, and no secre- 
 tary of state had ever discharged them as 
 could have been desired. He recollected 
 the promise that had been made in one of 
 the reports upon that subject, by an incum- 
 bent of the office — a promise that had never 
 been fulfilled, either by that incumbent, or 
 any of his successors in office. There ap- 
 peared to have been great neglect. No 
 suggestions had been made, nor nothing 
 accomplished in relation to our common 
 schools. These duties were the most im- 
 portant assigned to that officer. The elec- 
 tion of the secretary of state by the people, j 
 would involve a direct responsibility;- his i 
 official conduct would be scrutinized, and if: 
 approved of, he would be re-elected. This \ 
 would secure an effective action upon the ! 
 most important duty that is assigned to 
 him — that of superintending public edu- 
 cation. 
 
 So far as any intimacy is concerned be- 
 tween the governor znd the secretary of 
 of state, it is, as an argument, of very tri- j 
 vial^ importance. The governor, if in 
 doubt, may consult the attorney general, j 
 He is the appropriate law officer of the 
 State. He may consult any private citizen 
 at all times, and have the benefit of his 
 experience and of his counsels. He may i 
 likewise ask information from all the offi- 
 cers of the government^-the most extended 
 sources of intelligence is before him, and 
 there is no necessity for his having the se- 
 
 i 38 
 
 cretary of state as an especial cabinet advi. 
 ser. 
 
 Mr. Roselius said, that he could not 
 agree with the member that had just addres- 
 sed the Convention, as to the extent of the 
 executive power. It was perfectly clear 
 that one individual could not wield that 
 immense power alone! Is it fair, just or 
 proper to make the governor responsible 
 for the acts of agents with whom he had 
 nothing to do, and over whom he had no 
 control I By what means and through 
 whose agency does he exercise the execu- 
 tive power with which he is invested / It 
 ! was through the medium — the agency of 
 officers that were subordinate to him. 
 > These officers are numerous. First was 
 I the secretary of state, without whom the 
 ! governor could scarcely perform a single 
 act. It was that officer that countersigned 
 I every commission. It is unnecessary to 
 : refer to all the other officers through whom 
 ; the executive acts. The attorney general 
 | is placed in the same category as the sec- 
 | retary of state. Let members but reflect 
 upon the consequences of the doctrine that 
 [ is here broached. The chief magistrate is 
 ; responsible to the people fur the manner in 
 ' which the executive trust is administered, 
 ! and is it right that he should be debarred 
 any control over the instruments through 
 whom he exercises the powers conferred 
 upon him. As for making the subordinate 
 officers of the executive department mere 
 creatures of the will of the governor, I 
 repudiate the idea; but I consider that this 
 is one question, and the mode of appoint- 
 ment is another question. The secretary 
 of state ought certainly to be independent 
 of any servility to the governor, b':t at the 
 same time the governor should not be pla- 
 ced in a servile attitude towards the secre- 
 tary of state. Suppose that the secretary 
 of state chooses to arrogate to himself, that 
 the governor shall not examine the ar- 
 chie ves, that he shall have no control over 
 them, w-ould not that be an absurd and ex- 
 travagant idea, and inconsistent with the 
 supervision which the governor is pre- 
 sumed not only to exercise over his own 
 immediate department, but over every other 
 officer of the State, to see that the laws are 
 carried into effect? There is but one step 
 further to go beyond the undoubted pre- 
 rogatives of the governor, and that is to 
 dispense with the office altogether. If you 
 
 ■ 
 
294 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 take away the executive power without 
 lodging it somewhere else, it must be 
 merged into the two other departments — 
 for the first section of the first article of the 
 constitution prescribes that the powers of 
 the government of the State shall be divi- 
 ded into three distinct departments. If the 
 intention be not to abolish the office of gov- 
 ernor or to make him a mere automaton, is it 
 just, right and proper to devolve the respon- 
 sibility upon him for the manner in which 
 the laws are carried out, if he have no 
 voice in the selection of proper officers to 
 enforce those laws ? What idea have gen- 
 tlemen of the executive power when they 
 advocate such notions ? What is the ex- 
 ecutive power designed for, if it be not to 
 see that the laws are faithfully executed? 
 One branch of that duty is to enter our 
 courts of judicature, and to see that these 
 laws are properly administered, and that 
 portion of the executive duty is assigned 
 to the, attorney general. Another branch 
 is to enforce the revenue laws, although 
 assigned to a particular officer; but all act- 
 ing under the general supervision of the 
 governor. Any other view of the subject 
 is Utopian. 
 
 As for the argument assumed by the del- 
 egate that last addressed the house, that 
 the secretary of state is the superintendant 
 of public schools, or as the gentleman chose 
 to denominate it, the common schools, I 
 confidently believe, said Mr. Roselius, 
 that the subject of education would be con- 
 suited by the appointment of a separate 
 officer. This portion of the duty assigned 
 to the secretary of state is by no means 
 incidental to the office, no more than to any 
 other office of the State. To be properly 
 discharged, it will take up the time and 
 the energies of one distinct officer, with 
 some assistants. Why, sir, in this city 
 alone, two individuals are employed exclu- 
 sively in superintending the public schools 
 in two municipalities alone; and they are 
 men of exalted abilities and long experi- 
 ence. I trust that a clause will be intro- 
 duced in the constitution for the establish- 
 ment of a general system of public educa- 
 tipn, which shall pervade the whole State, 
 and that a special office will be created for 
 the superintendence of public schools, to 
 watch over and to direct the proper appli- 
 cation of funds destined for the support of 
 these schools. I do not presume that one 
 
 individual would suffice to the administra- 
 tion of that department throughout its de- 
 tails, but in the carrying out of the prin- 
 ciples, he might avail himself of the assist- 
 ance of subordinates. 
 
 Mr. Mayo said, that inasmuch as refe- 
 rence had been made to the subject of edu- 
 cation, he would state for the information 
 of members, that the committee appointed 
 upon that subject, would shortly make a 
 report, recommending the creation of the 
 office of superintendent general of public 
 schools. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson : I am not in favor of 
 the proposition of the delegate (Mr. Peets) 
 but will vote in favor of the proviso of the 
 ■member from Caddo (Mr. Porter.) 
 
 The question was taken on the proposi- 
 tion of Mr. Peets, and the yeas and nays 
 were called for. 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Brumfield, Carriere, Co- 
 vilHon, Downs, Garrett, Humble, McCal- 
 lop, Mayo, O' Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porche, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prudhomme, 
 Ratliff, Read, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Stephens, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Trist, Waddill, and 
 Wederstrandt — 26 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Bourg, 
 Cenas, Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eus- 
 tis, Grymes, Hudspeth, Hynson, King, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Leonard, Marigny, 
 Mazureau, Prescott of St Landry, Preston, 
 Roman, Roselius, St Amand, Sellers, Tay- 
 lor of St Landry, Voorhies, Wadsworth, 
 Wikoff, and ¥/inchester — 30 nays; conse- 
 quently the substitute was lost. 
 
 Mr. Porter then submitted the follow- 
 ing substitute, for the whole section, viz: 
 
 "A secretary of state shall be appointed 
 by joint vote of the general assembly, and 
 commissioned during the term of four years; 
 he shall keep a register of all the official 
 acts and proceedings of the governor, and 
 shall when required lay the same and pa- 
 pers, minutes and official vouchers relative 
 thereto, before the general assembly, and 
 shall perform such other duties as shall be 
 enjoined by law." 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor said that this was the 
 worst mode of appointment that could be 
 devised. It never could receive his sanc- 
 tion. The people were, in the mass, free 
 from corruption. The legislative body was 
 small, and there was some reason to appre. 
 
Debates in the Convention ot Louisiana. 
 
 295 
 
 hencl that there might be trick and manage- 
 ment. He went heart in hand for the elec- 
 tion by the people, but he wguld not assign 
 it to the legislature. He infinitely prefer- 
 red the responsibility devolving upon the 
 chief magistrate, to make a suitable appoint- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth conceived that the gen- 
 tleman (Mr. Taylor) had placed his objec- 
 tion upon improper grounds. His remarks 
 cast an unfair reflection. If I were dis 
 posed to sustain the section, I would vote 
 for an amendment to it, that no member of 
 the legislature should be eligible to the of- 
 fice of secretary of state. But to suppose 
 that the legislature are corrupt, and would 
 be influenced by trick and management, 
 was casting a reflection, not only unde- 
 served, but out of place. I do not see any 
 reason why the power to elect that officer 
 should not reside as weli in the legislature 
 as in the people. The legislature repre- 
 sented the will of the people; its members 
 were honorable and high minded men, se- 
 lected for their intelligence and integrity, 
 by their fellow-citizens. 
 
 I do not see the necessity suggested by 
 the member from New Orleans, for a sepa- 
 rateofficer to superintend the public schools; 
 but if such were necessary, I think it would 
 be much better to appropriate 82500 for 
 that officer than to continue to appropriate 
 it to the inspector and adjutant general, 
 whose duties might well enough be dis- 
 pensed with. We would do much better 
 to have an officer to inspect the children 
 throughout the State, and to see that they 
 were properly educated. The secretary of 
 state was as proper an officer to do that 
 duty as any one else. The office at present 
 was a sinecure, and the incumbent would 
 no doubt be as competent to the discharge 
 of the duties under the appointment of the 
 legislature, as he would be under the ap- 
 pointment of the governor. 
 
 Mr. Dowxs said he was in favor of elect- 
 ing the secretary of state by the people, 
 without intending to cast any reflections on 
 the legislature, which, if he did, would be 
 casting a reflection on himself as a member 
 of that body. It was seven years since 
 he entered the legislature, and he concur- 
 red with the delegate from Lafourche, that 
 the elections by the legislature were the 
 most uncertain and least satisfactory of all 
 the other modes. It was infinitely better 
 
 that the executive or the people should ap- 
 point. The people would do right, and the 
 executive was held to a strict accounta- 
 bility. But where the appointment was di- 
 vided among one hundred men, it was con- 
 siderably le ssened, and no one felt, per- 
 haps, -the proper weight of his single ballot. 
 He would therefore vote against the pro- 
 position, because he conceived it to be in- 
 expedient. 
 
 Mr. Taylor said that the gentleman 
 from Plaquemines had misunderstood him. 
 He intended to say that a large body like 
 the people, were not susceptible of corrup- 
 tion; whereas, in a small constituency, as 
 the legislature, a bad selection was more 
 likely to be made. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff concurred in opinion with 
 the delegate from Ouachita, (Mr. Downs) 
 that, for local offices, the legislature were 
 not the proper source of appointments; but 
 for officers whose functions embraced the 
 whole state, he thought the legislature well 
 fitted to make these selections, and in sup- 
 port of that opinion, he referred to the ex- 
 perience we have had in that peculiar mode 
 of appointment for the state treasurer. No 
 State in the Union had invariably possessed 
 the same quantity of talent and integrity 
 that were so conspicuous in every individ- 
 ual that has held that office in Louisiana, 
 since the formation of the old constitution. 
 
 Mr. Porter said he would offer one or 
 two words in support of the proposition 
 submitted by him. The subject had occu- 
 pied much of his attention, and he was con- 
 vinced that there was nothing obnoxious in 
 the legislature selecting the secretary of 
 state. In the State of New York, the 
 principal officers, such as the attorney gen- 
 eral, the surveyor general, &c. &c," were 
 elected by the legislature. Fifteen States 
 in the Union elected their secretary of state 
 in that way, and there were but three 
 States where the appointment was made by 
 the governor, viz: Louisiana, Kentucky and 
 Delaware. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the adoption of said substitute, resulted as 
 follows: 
 
 Messrs. Culbertson, McCaliop, Peets, 
 Porter, Ratliff and Waddili voted in favor of 
 said substitute; and 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Bourg, Brent, Bri- 
 ant, Brumfield, Carriere, Cenas, Conrad of 
 New Orleans, Covillion, Derbes, Downs, 
 
296 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Grymes, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, Leonard, Marigny, Mayo, Mazure&u, 
 O'Bryan, Penn, Porche, Preseott of Avoy- 
 elles, Prescott of St.Landry, Preston, Prud- 
 homme, Read, Roman, Roselius, St.Amand, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, Voor- 
 hies, Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, Wikoff and 
 Winchester voted against the adoption of 
 said substitute — 49 nays ; the same was 
 lost. 
 
 Mr. Roman moved to amend said section, 
 by inserting after the word " shall " the 
 words " be nominated and appointed by the 
 governor with the advice and consent of the 
 senate," which amendment was adopted. 
 
 On motion, the section as amended was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 12. A secretary of state shall be 
 nominated and appointed by the governor, 
 with the advice and consent of the senate, 
 and commissioned to hold his office during 
 the term for which the governor shall have 
 been elected. The records jof the State 
 shall be kept and preserved in the office of 
 the secretary. He shall keep a fair regis- 
 ter of the official acts of the governor, and 
 when necessary, shall attest them. He 
 shall, when required, lay the said register 
 and all papers, minutes and vouchers rela- 
 tive to his office, before either house of the 
 general assembly, and shall perform such 
 other duties as may be enjoined on him by 
 law. 
 
 Whereupon the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Tuesday, February 25, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The proceedings were opened with pray- 
 er by the Rev. Mr. Stanton. 
 
 Mr. Mayo said this was the day fixed on 
 for a reconsideration of the 3d section of 
 the executive department. But seeing such 
 a thin house he moved the same he laid 
 over until Tuesday next; which was agreed 
 to. 
 
 Mr. Saunders gave notice that on some 
 future day, when this house is full, he will 
 move for a reconsideration of the vote given 
 yesterday on the subject of making the 
 secretary of state an elective office by the 
 people. There are in this Convention, Mr. 
 President, two parties of those who call 
 
 themselves democrats: the one' in favor of 
 making all offices elective by the people, 
 the other who^eem disposed to retain the 
 appointing power as now practised. 
 
 Mr. Saunders was of opinion that the 
 middle path was the better one, and among 
 those offices which he considered ought to be 
 left to the choice of the people is that of 
 secretary of state. It is one of the most 
 important offices in the State, and he thinks 
 that, the people would be pretty sure to 
 make a wiser and better selection than 
 either the members of the legislature or the 
 governor. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Baton Rouge sent up to 
 the president the report made in 1844 by 
 the secretary of state, on public education, 
 and moved that it be printed for the use of 
 the committee (appointed by this Conven- 
 tion) on education. The motion was 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr: Eustis submitted a report from the 
 committee of revisal on the 2d section of 
 article 1. It read as follows: 
 
 "Article 1st, as reported by the commit- 
 tee of revisal, section 2d. No one of these 
 departments, nor any person holding office 
 hi any one of them shall exercise power 
 properly belonging to either of the others, 
 except in the instances hereinafter express- 
 ly directed or permitted." 
 
 Mr. Eustis remarked that it was pre- 
 sented in a different form, and hoped it 
 would be approved; but should the Con- 
 vention see fit not to adopt, it would only 
 remain for the committee to try it again. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved that it be printed for 
 the use of the Convention. Agreed to. 
 
 Special Order or the Day. — Mr. 
 Q'Bryan's resolution offered yesterday now 
 came up for consideration. It reads thus: 
 
 "Resolved, That from and after the 15th 
 day of March next, the Convention will 
 grant no leave of absence to any member, 
 except in case of sickness of the member 
 or some one of his family." 
 
 Mr, Be att y moved to strike out 15th ' 
 March, and insert 25th February, which 
 was agreed to. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff hoped the Convention 
 would reject the resolution. It is a well 
 known fact that there are here, thirty-one 
 members against their will. He (Mr. Rat- 
 liff) does not wish to draw any invidious 
 comparisons between city and country 
 members. The city members could easily 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 297 
 
 attend the sittings of this body, and attend 
 to their own affairs also during the recess, 
 without inconvenience, but they must not 
 suppose that country members had nothing 
 to do in their own affairs. They protested 
 against being obliged to hold their sittings 
 in New Orleans; they desired to remain at 1 
 Jackson. It would therefore be very hard 
 if they were compelled to remain here all 
 the time, without the privilege, if their af- 
 fairs required it, of getting leave of absence 
 for a few days at a time. Nobody pretends 
 to say that country members have abused 
 this privilege; that is not pretended. By 
 what right do you attempt to exercise such 
 a high-handed movement] Do you find any 
 authority for it, either in the national or 
 State constitution? But suppose we pass 
 the resolution, what effect can it have on 
 those thirty-one members who are here 
 protesting against your right to bring them 
 here? Would it be right, were they absent 
 for a few days at a time without leave, 
 which this resolution says shall not be 
 granted, to have them held up to the gaze 
 of the world as derelictive of their duty? 
 No, sir, such injustice cannot prevail. We 
 have no right to deprive any member of his 
 per diem, if this motion shall prevail; and I 
 have no hesitation in saying that I would 
 never refuse, as chairman of the committee 
 on contingent expenses, to sign the war- 
 rants of the members you seek to ostracise. 
 He (Mr. Ratliff) is sorry to find some of 
 the members disposed to be so arbitrary. 
 But, sir, I warn this house in time, they 
 may remove me from the committee if they 
 will, but so long as I am chairman of the 
 committee on contingents I shall, with the 
 statutes in my hand, totally disregard what 
 I conceive so illegal a measure. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved the adoption of the 
 resolution. It is very clear that every body 
 gets leave of absence whenever he asks for 
 it, and if Mr. Ratliff has the right to act as 
 he pleases on the decision of the Conven- 
 tion, why then every body has the same 
 right. Mr. Beatty thinks no member is 
 entitled to his per diem, who does not at- 
 tend to the duties of the office; and more- 
 over, he does not hesitate one moment to 
 say that he would instantly ask the presi- 
 dent of any committee to be dismissed 
 from said committee, who should disregard 
 the expressed will of the Convention. The 
 question is, have we the power to pass this 
 
 resolution? Clearly. Then those who re- 
 sist its will must take the consequences. 
 
 Once passed, we shall hear no more of 
 the pecuniary wrong we are inflicting on 
 members. We shall find that members 
 will prefer remaining at their posts to losing 
 their salaries. Experience has shown that 
 we can't get along as we have been acting; 
 we are frequently kept waiting for the want 
 of a quorum, and the house is scarcely ever 
 with more than two-thirds of its members. 
 But once stop the $4 a day, and we shall 
 soon see a change. He (Mr. Beatty) 
 has business in the country himself, but he 
 is never absent when the roll is called. 
 Why can't other members do as he does, 
 get some one else to attend to it in his ab- 
 sence. 
 
 He (Mr. Beatty) sees no force in Mr. 
 Ratliff 's allusion to his and thirty others 
 being in New Orleans instead of Jackson, 
 against their will. He (Mr. Beatty) vo- 
 ted in Jackson to adjourn to New Orleans, 
 but that is no reason why a change of lo- 
 cation for our sittings should effect a ques- 
 tion of righ^. He further presses the adop- 
 tion of the resolution. 
 
 Mr. Coxrad will vote against the reso- 
 lution, because he cannot possibly imagine 
 that it will be productive of any good. The 
 discussion of the resolution has already 
 cost as much as it would cost to discuss an 
 important measure. The loss of their per 
 diem is not at all likely to keep those at 
 their posts who have no nobler feelings to 
 animate them. Besides, it is not at all 
 likely that any member of the body absents 
 himself for the mere pleasure of it, and we 
 are therefore bound to conclude that nothing 
 but urgent necessity could induce him to 
 absent himself. At any rate, the evil can- 
 not be remedied by the proposed resolu- 
 tion, and he shall oppose it. 
 
 Mr. Dowxs takes the same view of the 
 matter as Mr. Beatty, and therefore will 
 vote for the resolution. The absence of 
 members has become a serious inconven- 
 ience, and there cannot be a doubt but that 
 on many important questions we do not get 
 the popular vote. He does not pretend to 
 deny that gentlemen may have good and 
 weighty reasons for absenting themselves; 
 reasons they are compelled to regard, and 
 therefore he cannot undertake to find fault 
 with that which he might be compelled to 
 do himself, but then he desires every one 
 
298 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 who does so, to take the responsibility of 
 going from necessity or from choice. There 
 are now twelve members, he believes, ab- 
 sent on leave. The Convention render 
 themselves thereby responsible for such ab- 
 sence; this he wants corrected. Let them 
 go without the consent of this body, and 
 then the responsibility rests on their own 
 shoulders. 
 
 It is a bad habit which we have copied 
 from the legislature, of which we ought to 
 break ourselves. It is not the practice in 
 any other State; and in Congress such a 
 thing is unknown. A well informed gen- 
 tleman the other day remarked to him (Mr. 
 Downs) that it was then a matter of great 
 surprise to find so much of the proceedings 
 of the legislature filled up with discussions 
 on leaves of absence. He (Mr. Downs) 
 will then be glad to see the resolution pass, 
 but should it fail, he will feel it his duty to 
 call for the yeas and nays on every ques- 
 tion of leave of absence, so that the re- 
 sponsibility may fall where it belongs. 
 
 Mr. W. B. Scott did not think any al- 
 lusion to the proceedings in Congress was 
 pertinent to the question now before this 
 Convention, because it was a notorious 
 fact that there was no legislative body in 
 the country where more time was frittered 
 away than there; and, said Mr. Scott, I 
 know of several cases in this Convention 
 where a temporary absence is absolutely 
 indispensable; and believing as I do, that 
 no member of this body will absent him- 
 self without some strong reason for doing 
 so, I shall oppose the resolution. 
 
 Mr. Downs replied that he did not de- 
 sire to cast censure on any one, and all he 
 asked, without enquiring into the motives 
 which compelled members to absent them- 
 selves, was that they should take the re- 
 sponsibility. 
 
 Mr. Taylor is of opinion that the reso- 
 lution as it stands, will be perfectly useless. 
 He says there are one-tenth of the mem- 
 bers who answer to their names and then 
 are very seldom seen afterwards in the hall; 
 one goes about his business here, another 
 there, and unless we call them strictly to 
 account this resolution will not do any 
 good. 
 
 The question was then put on Mi-.O'Bry- 
 an's resolution, amended by Mr. Beatty, 
 and resulted as follows: 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Brent, 
 
 Brumfield, Carriere, Chambliss, Claiborne, 
 Downs, Eustis, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, 
 Ledoux, Legendre, Marigny, Mazureau, 
 O'Bryan, Peets, Porche,Porter,Prudhomme, 
 Roman, Roselius, Saunders, Sellers, Trist, 
 Voorhies and Wederstrandt— 28. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Bourg, Briant, Burton, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Leon- 
 ard, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, Penn, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Ratliff, Read, St. Amand, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Stephens, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Waddill, Wikoffand Winder— 31. So the 
 resolution was lost. 
 
 The Convention then proceeded to the 
 order of the day. 
 
 ARTICLE THIRD, AS REPORTED BY THE 
 MAJORITY. 
 
 Constitution of 1812, section 9. He shall 
 nominate and appoint, with the advice and 
 consent of the senate, judges, sheriffs, and 
 all other officers whose offices are estab- 
 lished by this constitution, and whose ap- 
 pointments are not herein otherwise pro- 
 vided for: Provided, however, that the le- 
 gislature shall have a right to prescribe the 
 mode of appointment to all offices to be es- 
 tablished by law. 
 
 Mr. Humble moved to amend the sec- 
 tion by striking out the words "judges, 
 sheriffs, and others." 
 
 Mr. Dunn moved a division of the ques- 
 tion, and the vote be first taken on striking 
 out the word "judges." 
 
 Mr. Penn called for the yeas and nays, 
 but gave way to 
 
 Mr. Downs, who remarked that although 
 he would most probably vote for striking 
 out the word "judges" from the section, 
 he was not prepared to say he should go 
 for that measure, when we were further pro- 
 gressed with the constitution, and came 
 to discuss the judiciary system. He was 
 rather disposed to believe that the time for 
 so great a change as contemplated— -an elec- 
 tive judiciary — has not yet arrived, and 
 that it will not work well now. At some 
 future period the change may be productive 
 of good. At any rate he shall reserve his 
 final action on the matter, till he hears the 
 question discussed on both sides. 
 
 Mr. Marigny is determinedly opposed 
 to any change in the section, which it will 
 
Debates in the Gonvention of Louisiana, 
 
 299 
 
 be observed is the section verbatim of the 
 one in the constitution of 1812. That sec- 
 tion gives the power to the governor of 
 nominating judges, by and with the advice 
 and consent of the senate; and therefore it 
 is a power that behooves us to study, 
 whether properly given or not ; and it is a 
 question we ought not to run headlong 
 against in the heat of our feelings. 
 
 In the first place we should consider well 
 what we have already done to increase 
 popular rights. We have established uni- 
 versal suffrage; and we have removed the 
 property qualification, (heretofore consid- 
 ered a disability unless possessed by the 
 citizen,) as a requisite for eligibility to the 
 office of governor. Of this augmentation 
 to popular rights and privileges, he, (Mr. 
 Marigny,) does not complain; on the con- 
 trary, he thinks we have acted wisely for 
 the benefit of the people as a whole, and in 
 accordance with the liberal spirit of the 
 age. But in approaching the judiciary, he 
 thinks we ought to take into consideration 
 that we are approaching an interest which 
 should claim our serious attention; actua- 
 ted, as we doubtless all are, by a spirit of 
 justice, and with a determination to de- 
 prive no one of his just rights, we cannot 
 forget that it is our duty to protect every 
 citizen in all his just rights and his proper- 
 ty, is a vital and important principle. The 
 tranquility of the State materially depends 
 upon our action on this subject; and we 
 cannot do better, nor can we show more 
 wisdom, in any of the deliberations of this 
 Convention, on this question. The more 
 guarantees you offer, and the more safe- 
 guards you throw around the judiciary de- 
 partment to make it completely indepen- 
 dent of the popular will, (or caprice if 
 you will,) the more you will show that you 
 are actuated by a wise and honorable spirit. 
 What becomes of the independence of a 
 judge, where his election depends on popu- 
 lar will? Suppose you were now to say 
 that the judges of the supreme court should 
 be elected by the people. Is it not too 
 probable that some favorite political parti- 
 zan would be raised to the office, in lieu 
 of a man of great legal attainments and 
 moral worth? And then, whatis the conse- 
 quence? Why, instead of having on the 
 bench a man who feels the sanctity of his 
 oath, and is properly impressed with feel- 
 ings of duty, as would be the case were he 
 
 nominated by the governor and confirmed by 
 the senate, who are always the conservative 
 body, that protects the rights of the minori- 
 ty, and who feel their responsibility. We 
 should have a man on that hitherto digni- 
 fied bench, who would suffer his judgment 
 to be scourged by his politics, and the pas- 
 sing popular feeling of the hour. Let us 
 follow up the question, and ask what would 
 be the result of having a district judge elec- 
 ted by the people? He decided all civil 
 and criminal matters — and will it not be 
 dangerous to the rights of a community,if the 
 election of district judges, is left to the 
 will of a majority of the people; a judge who 
 has the destiny in his hand over the liberty, 
 even the life of an individual, who it might 
 happen would be a very popular man, and 
 however guilty, may, nevertheless, by his 
 popularity place the judge in a position of 
 awful responsibility. I am sure you will 
 see at once the position a judge may thus 
 be placed in — between a conscientious dis- 
 charge of his duty and his desire to lean 
 to the side of friendship and spare the feel- 
 ings of the numerous friends of the offender 
 to the law* Let us then preserve the 
 bench, independent of such influences, or 
 justice will take her departure from 
 amongst us. 
 
 It is a matter well known to you all, that 
 no man but of the highest respectability 
 and character, and one who is well known 
 to the executive, has ever yet been nomi- 
 nated to the office of parish judge, and that 
 he is afterwards looked up to as a kind of 
 father in his parish. 
 
 Well, change their position, take away 
 from them their independence, and what 
 follows? Make them dependent on the 
 voices of the people, and the result, it takes 
 no prophet to foretell; they will daily be 
 thrown in contact with wily lawyers, who 
 are alone seeking popularity themselves, 
 and will so pervert the decisions of a judge, 
 if he decides against them, as to render the 
 judge unpopular to his clients and their 
 friends; and thus he, the judge, will be 
 compelled to give an unjust decision or lose 
 his place. 
 
 He (Mr. Marigny) makes these remarks 
 in no invidious sense to either lawyers or 
 politicians. His only object is to show the 
 ordinary feelings which operate on the hu- 
 man heart, and thereby to convince the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Convention of the truth of (he position he 
 advances. 
 
 We are told that the office of parish 
 judge can, with benefit to the State, be 
 abolished, and merged into the office of 
 district judge. He thinks this would tend 
 to injurious consequences. From the Ba- 
 lize to the uppermost parts of the State, 
 men can be found sufficiently skilled to per- 
 form the simple duties of a parish judge, 
 who would be -totally incapable of perform- 
 ing those of a district judge. 
 
 On the subject of sheriffs, I have a few 
 words to say, said Mr. Marigny ^ What is 
 their duty? One of their duties is, to be- 
 come conservator of the public money; and 
 to whom, if not appointed by the governor, 
 are they accountable? Would it be their 
 duty to account to the people? It would 
 really be droll to see how they would go 
 about iL A popular sheriff might readily 
 pocket a portion of the public money, and 
 if he only had the talent of keeping in with 
 his supporters and friends, by the means of 
 some snug parties, &c, he ivould be re- 
 elected sheriff despite his defalcation. 
 
 The more he (Mr. Marigny) reflects on 
 this subject, the more he has become con- 
 vinced that it would be truly the greatest 
 misfortune that could possibly befall Louis- 
 iana, if she were to establish an elective 
 judiciary. Those who feel disposed to que s- 
 tion his democratic principles and call him 
 a federalist, or any other name they please, 
 may do so; but he unhesitatingly says, that 
 he will never give his consent to such an 
 abuse of power, as we are called upon- to 
 consummate. 
 
 He would be glad that, while we fixed 
 the judiciary department on a firm and in- 
 dependent footing, some limitation should 
 ■ be made as to the tenure of office ; and 
 also that speedier means may be found to 
 bring a delinquent magistrate or judge to 
 account, without having to go through the 
 tedious and difficult process of impeach- 
 ment. And when the question comes up, 
 in discussing the judiciary department, he 
 will make some suggestions on those sub- 
 jects. In the mean time, he hopes Mr. 
 Humble's motion will not prevail. 
 
 Mr. Brent said he should vote for the 
 amendment of the gentleman from Ouachita, 
 (Mr. Humble) for two reasons ; the first 
 was, because he was opposed to giving the 
 executive any power whatever over the ju- 
 
 diciary; and second, because this was not 
 the moment nor the proper time to discuss 
 in what form or manner judges should be 
 appointed or chosen. The striking out, as 
 proposed by Mr. Humble, does not, in his 
 opinion, touch that question. It is simply 
 to define the powers of the governor over 
 the constitutional officers of the State, and 
 he hopes the questions will not now be 
 confounded. 
 
 The question was then put on the amend- 
 ment offered by Mr. Humble, and amended 
 by Mr. Dunn, to strike out the word 
 "judges," and resulted as follows, viz: 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Car- 
 riere, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Ledoux, Leonard, Mc-Cal- 
 lop, McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Penn, 
 Porche, Porter, W. B. Prescott, W. M. 
 Prescott, Ratliff, Read, Saunders, W. B. 
 Scott, Stephens, Trist, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Waddill and Wederstrandt — 30 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Briant, Cenas, Clai- 
 borne, C. M. Conrad, F. B. Conrad, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Le- 
 gendre, Marigny, Mazureau, Prudhornme, 
 Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, T. W. Scott, 
 Sellers, R. Taylor, Voorhies, Wikoff and' 
 Winder — 28 nays. 
 
 So the question being carried, the word 
 "judges" was stricken out* Messrs. Miles 
 Taylor and W. M. Prescott, while the vote 
 was being taken, declared themselves un- 
 favorable to an elective judiciary. 
 
 The question was then put on striking 
 out the word " sheriffs," and resulted as 
 follows: 
 
 Messrs, Bourg, Brent, Briant, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, C. 
 M. Conrad, Covillion, Culbertson, Der- 
 bes, Downs, Dunn, Garrett, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Kenner, Ledoux, Leonard, McCallop, 
 McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Penn, 
 Porche, Porter, W. B. Prescott, W. M. 
 Prescott, Prudhornme, Ratliff, Read, W.B* 
 Scott, T. W. Scott, Sellers, Stephens, M. 
 Taylor, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Weder- 
 strandt, Wikoff and Winder — 43 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Cenas, Claiborne, F. B. Con- 
 rad, Eustis, Hudspeth, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Marigny, Mazureau, Roman, 
 Roselius, St. Amand and Taylor — 14 nays. 
 
 So the word "sheriffs was stricken out 
 of the section. 
 
 Mr. Conrad moved to strike out the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 301 
 
 word "of" in the 56th line, and insert the 
 word "to." 
 
 Mr. Taylor moved to amend, by striking 
 out from the 54th line, the words "provided 
 however that," and to insert at the end of 
 the 57th line "provided they shall not be 
 elected by the general assembly, or by 
 either of the two houses." 
 
 Mr. Conrad moved to amend the amend- 
 ment of Mr. Taylor, by striking out the 
 word "they" after the word "provided," 
 and insert the words "the said officers," 
 which amendment was accepted by Mr. 
 Taylor ; but 
 
 Mr. Porter moved to lay the original 
 provision and all the amendments on the 
 table, which motion was seconded by Mr. 
 Kenner. 
 
 Mr. Taylor insisted on his amendment. 
 He thought it would be impossible to per- 
 feet the constitution, without giving the 
 legislature some power to fill those offices 
 which are not and could not be inserted in 
 that instrument; such, for instance, as bank 
 directors, and many others; which, never- 
 theless, it is just as necessary to vest the 
 power somewhere, to fill. At the same 
 time, while giving them the power to create 
 the offices, he thought it but right to pre- 
 vent them from having the power of se- 
 lecting those who should fill them, believ- 
 ing that power properly belonged to the 
 executive. 
 
 Mr. Conrad thinks that even if Mr. 
 Taylor's amendment be rejected, that the 
 original proviso is correct and necessary- — 
 otherwise we shall arrive at the very point 
 we are so desirous of avoiding, viz : that 
 offices of a purely local character, should 
 not devolve upon the governor, and since 
 he has reflected on the subject he will vote 
 against Mr. Taylor's amendment. 
 
 Mr. Porter insists, that the proviso con- 
 tended for by Mr. Conrad, is in the power 
 of ordinary legislation, and if the principle 
 contended for prevail, the offices taken 
 away from the control of the people neces- 
 sarily fall back upon the nominating power 
 of the governor; and he (Mr. P.) is totally 
 opposed to this one man power. 
 
 Mr. Taylor could not see the applica- 
 tion of the gentleman's remarks to the 
 question before us: because the section as 
 it stands, gives the power to the governor 
 tx) appoint all the officers under the consti- 
 tution—that is, the governor and senate. 
 39 
 
 And suppose the legislature were to create 
 new offices under their constitutional power 
 to do so — why, unless such cases are spe- 
 cially provided for, it is clear the governor 
 has the power of appointing all such offi- 
 cers. He cannot therefore see where his 
 proviso clashes with any general princi- 
 ple. 
 
 The question was then put on Mr. 
 Porter's motion to lay the whole matter 
 with the amendments, on the table, and 
 lost. 
 
 The question then recurred on Mr. Tay- 
 lor's amendment. Before however it was 
 put, Mr. Read sent up a substitute for Mr. 
 Taylor's amendment to the following 
 effect: "That all officers created by the 
 legislature, shall be elected by the people." 
 
 Mr. Saunders, temporarily in the chair, - 
 decided that Mr. Read's substitute was not 
 in order. 
 
 The question then recurred on Mr. Tay- 
 lor's amendment, which on being put it 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Read again offered his substitute as 
 an amendment, but. after a few moments 
 reflection, withdrew it. 
 
 The section as amended was then adopt- 
 ed as follows: 
 
 Sec. 9. Constitution 1812. "He shall 
 nominate and appoint, with the advice and 
 consent of the senate, all oficers, whose 
 offices are established by this constitution, 
 and whose appointments are not otherwise 
 provided for ; provided, however, the leg- 
 islature shall have the right to prescribe the 
 mode of appointment to all other offices to 
 be established by law." 
 
 Sec. 10, of the constitution of 1812, was 
 then taken up and adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 10. "The governor shall have the 
 power to fill up vacancies that may hap- 
 pen during the recess of the legislature, by 
 granting commissions, which shall expire 
 at the end of the next session." 
 
 The Convention then took up section 
 12, of the constitution of 1812, viz: 
 
 Sec. 12. "He may require information 
 in writing from the officers in the execu- 
 tive department, upon any subject relating 
 to the duties of their respective offices." 
 
 After which, the 13th section of consti- 
 tution 1812 was adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec, 13. "He shall from time to time 
 give the general assembly information re- 
 specting the situation of the State, and re- 
 
302 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 commend to their consideration such meas- 
 ures as he may deem expedient." 
 
 The 14th section, constitution of 1812, 
 was then read by the secretary, viz: 
 
 Sec. 14. "He may on extraordinary 
 occasions convene the general assembly at 
 the seat of government, or at a different 
 place if that should become dangerous from 
 an enemy, or from contagious disorders; 
 and in case of disagreement between the 
 two houses with respect to the time of ad- 
 journment, he may adjourn them to such 
 time as he may think proper, not exceed- 
 ing four months." 
 
 Mr. Porter moved to amend by insert- 
 ing after the word "assembly," in the sec- 
 ond line, the words "or continue their ses- 
 sions for a period not exceeding thirty 
 days. 5 ' ' He enforced his amendment by 
 this remark, that it would be productive of 
 of great expense to call the legislature 
 together after a period of four months, when 
 the business might be accomplished at once 
 with a comparatively trifling expense. 
 
 The question being put on Mr. Porter's 
 amendment, it was lost, and then the sec- 
 tion was adopted. 
 
 Sec. 15, constitution of 1812, was then 
 adopted as follows: 
 
 "He shall take care that the laws be 
 faithfully executed/' 
 
 The next section called up was section 
 20, constitution of 1812, and is as follows: 
 
 Sec. 20. "Every bill which shall have 
 passed both houses, shall be presented to 
 the governor; if he approve, he shall sign 
 it; if not, he shall return it with his objec- 
 tions, to the house in which it shall have 
 originated, who shall enter the objections 
 at laige upon their journal, and proceed to 
 reconsider it; if after such reconsideration, 
 two-thirds of all the members elected to 
 that house shall agree to pass the bill, it 
 shall be sent, with the objections, to the 
 other house, by which it shall likewise be 
 reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds 
 of all the members elected to that house, 
 it shall be a law; but in such cases, the 
 votes of both houses shall be determined by 
 yeas and nays, and the names of the mem- 
 bers voting for or against the bill, shall be 
 entered on the journal of each house re- 
 spectively. If any bill shall not be re- 
 turned by the governor within tendays(Sun- 
 days excepted,) after it shall have been 
 presented to him, it shall be a law in like 
 
 manner as if he had signed it, unless the 
 general assembly, by their adjournment, 
 prevent its return, in which case it shall 
 become a law, unless sent back within 
 three days after their next sitting." 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to amend the section 
 by striking out "two-thirds" in the 9th line, 
 and inserting the words "a majority." He 
 thinks in making the amendment he is 
 right, for, after a bill has been returned to 
 the legislature with the reasons assigned by 
 the governor for his veto, he thinks it 
 would take a very large majority in the first 
 instance to carry it over his head. He 
 does not think the legislature would be 
 hasty, but would weigh well the objections 
 of the governor, before they concluded to 
 adopt it in such a case. 
 
 Mr. Downs is constrained by a sense of 
 duty to oppose this amendment^ and his 
 experience in the subject, makes him un- 
 willingly trespass on the house for a few 
 minutes. Up to this time he has yet to 
 learn that the veto power has ever brought 
 on the country, either in the general gov- 
 ernment or in this State any disastrous re- 
 sults. True it is when the executive inter- 
 poses the veto power, great dissatisfaction, 
 and sometimes popular indignation follows 
 it, but when people get calmed down, and 
 begin to reflect on it — the exercise of that 
 privilege has most generally been found to 
 have resulted beneficially to the real inter- 
 ests of the people. He will only cite one 
 case, which came under his own observa- 
 tion. The governor saw fit to veto a bill 
 passed by the general assembly, which 
 however, they passed over his head, by 
 the constitutional majority, but it was not 
 long before they found out their error. He 
 admits that he himself was amongst them 
 in error. This veto of the governor was 
 the first check on the wild spirit of internal 
 improvements, and happy for the State 
 would it have been had it been sustained. 
 We should have saved $500,000, together 
 with all the interest which has been paid 
 on it ever since. 
 
 It is not argued, I presume, said Mr. 
 Downs, that the executive should lend too 
 attentive an ear to any local measure, and 
 thereby interest his feelings in its success; 
 and how often do we see these local mat- 
 ters and feelings absorb legislative action. 
 
 The veto power, if to be sustained at 
 all, should be kept, just as it is ; it is the 
 
Debates in the Contention of Louisiana- 
 
 303 
 
 greatest check that can possibly be put on 
 partial or hasty systems of legislation; 
 and these systems have already cost us too 
 much in our prodigal course of expendi- 
 ture. 
 
 He, Mr. D. would add more on this 
 subject did he conceive it necessary; but 
 he feels so confident that a very large ma- 
 jority of this Convention agree with him 
 in opinion, that he will no longer trespass 
 on their time. 
 
 Mr. Conrad moved to lav Mr. Mayo's 
 amendment indefinitely on the table. 
 
 Mr. Mayo then withdrew the amend- 
 ment he had offered, remarking at the same 
 time, he did not expect it would excite so 
 much debate. But, he desired now to renew 
 his motion in another form, and therefore 
 moved to insert three-fifths in lieu of a ma- 
 jority, heretofore proposed by him. Sure- 
 ly, said he, in exacting two-thirds of all 
 the members elected, they ask more than 
 is ordinarily in attendance in the two 
 bodies. 
 
 Mr. Taylor, in answer to this new pro- 
 position, stated a fact that had come under 
 his observation, and tends to show the 
 propriety and wisdom of the remarks of 
 Mr. Downs, in regard to the veto power. 
 It was this : an act was passed, authorizing 
 and directing the emission of State bonds, 
 to the amount of five millions of dollars, 
 for the benefit of a certain banking estab- 
 lishment in this city — but the governor 
 returned it, with his objections. Notwith- 
 standing the veto of the governor, it lacked 
 but one vote of becoming a law; and had 
 the required number been only three-fifths, 
 it would have become a law, and we 
 should have been involved in five millions 
 more of State debts than we now are. 
 
 The question was then put on laying 
 Mr. Mayo's amendment on the table inde- 
 finitely and carried. 
 
 Mr. Mayo then proposed another amend- 
 ment, which was to strike out the words 
 "unless sent back within three days after 
 their next meeting," and insert in lieu 
 thereof, "in which case it shall not be a 
 lav/;" for the case might happen, that if not 
 sent b?ck precisely within three days, it 
 might be considered as overlooked, and 
 thereby certain supercheries of the gover- 
 nor's would reap the benefit. 
 
 Mr. Roselius regrets to hear any gen- 
 tleman on this floor advance an idea so de- 
 
 rogatory to the character of a chief magis- 
 trate, whom at least we should not think 
 capable of turning traitor to the interests of 
 the State without some strong reasons. 
 
 Mr. Conrad thinks the text in the fede- 
 ral constitution is precisely similar to that 
 in the sections before us, and he has never 
 yet heard of any abuses under it. 
 
 Mr. Mayo feels confident that it is not 
 the text, and in support of his position he 
 read from the constitution of the United 
 States: "in such case it shall not be a law." 
 
 Mr. Taylor agrees as to that provision, 
 but experience has shewn that it was a bad 
 one, It has happened that a bill has been 
 defeated by being withheld. This provi- 
 sion for which we are contending, is to 
 guard against such an abuse of power, and 
 to protect the rights of the people; that is, 
 if the legislature adjourn before the consti- 
 tutional term. 
 
 The amendment was then rejected, and 
 the section was adopted. 
 
 The Convention then took up section 
 21, of constitution 1812. It reads thus: 
 
 "Every order, resolution, or vote, to 
 which the concurrence of both houses may 
 be necessary, except on a question of ad- 
 journment, shall be presented to the gover- 
 nor; and before it shall take effect, be ap- 
 proved by him; or being disapproved, shall 
 be re-passed by two-thirds of both houses." 
 Which was adopted. 
 
 The Convention also adopted section 
 22d, of constitution of 1812, viz: 
 
 "The free white men of this State shall 
 be armed and disciplined for its defence; 
 but those who belong to religious societies, 
 whose tenets forbid them to carry arms, 
 shall not be compelled to do so, but shall 
 pay an equivalent for personal services." 
 
 The Convention also adopted section 
 23d, of constitution of 1812: 
 
 "The militia of this State shall be organ- 
 ized in such manner as may be hereafter 
 deemed most expedient by the legislature." 
 
 Mr. Conrad moved a reconsideration of 
 the 10th section. He remarked, that the 
 provision contemplated in the section was 
 made when we had annual sessions of the 
 legislature. The consequence might be, 
 that if we suffered the phraseology to re- 
 main in the section as it is, that the gover- 
 nor would have the power of filling all the 
 vacancies for the period of two years, in- 
 stead of one, if the office was vacated im- 
 
304 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 mediately after the adjournment of the 
 legislature; because, under the constitution 
 lie would have no right to call them toge- 
 ther more than once in two years. He 
 therefore moved to strike out the word 
 "legislature" and insert "senate." Recon- 
 sideration agreed to. 
 
 Mr. Downs suggested another amend- 
 ment, which was accepted by Mr. Conrad, 
 and which was in these words, ''unless 
 otherwise provided for in this constitution." 
 
 Both amendments were then agreed to, 
 and the section as re-amended, was adopt- 
 ed; it now reads thus : 
 
 "Sec. 10. Constitution of 18.12. The 
 governor shall have power to fill up va- 
 cancies that may happen during the recess 
 of the senate, by granting commissions 
 which shall expire at the end of the next 
 session, unless otherwise provided for in this 
 constitution." 
 
 Mr. Ledoux desired to present to the 
 consideration of the Convention, a portion 
 of the minority report made by him on this 
 article of the constitution, when he was at 
 Jackson. It is as follows : 
 
 "There shall be appointed by the govern- 
 or, with the advice and consent of the 
 senate, an auditor of state, whose duty it 
 shall be to examine and approve all ac- 
 counts before they are paid by the trea- 
 surer. He shall assist the legislature in 
 examining the accounts of the treasurer, 
 and perform all other duties which may be 
 required of him by law." 
 
 Mr. Ledoux stated that his reasons for 
 presenting this section, were principally, 
 that it would place a more effectual safe- 
 guard in protecting the fiscal branch of the 
 government, by far the most important 
 among them, and the one requiring the 
 greatest care. It is more especially to do 
 this, by special appointment, since the le- 
 gislature is only to meet hereafter every two 
 years. But, said Mr. Ledoux, this i_s no 
 new question. The office of state auditor 
 is common to most all of the States, at least 
 within his knowledge, and although in the 
 other States that office is appointed by the 
 legislature, still he (Mr. Ledoux) thinks it 
 would be better to make him an officer 
 under the constitution. 
 
 Mr. Wadswohth is opposed to the sec- 
 tion, because he sees no use whatever in 
 making an office under the constitution 
 which properly belongs to the legislature 
 
 to make; and under such circumstances, he 
 will oppose the section. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne is oppose^ to. it. He> 
 does not object to the principle proposed in 
 the section, because he admits it as a wise 
 and salutary provision; the only reason he 
 objects to it is, that he does not desire to 
 multiply offices in the constitution, when 
 the legislature can much better make laws 
 required to carry out such basis as we lay 
 down constitutionally for their government. 
 He (Mr. Claiborne) conceives that the 
 office is a simple one, he only having to 
 audit the accounts of the state treasurer; 
 and it is a fact well established that that 
 officer cannot, without making himself per- 
 sonally responsible, distribute a dollar ex- 
 cept under the authority of law, and without 
 proper vouchers to warrant his doing so 
 under the mandates of the laws. 
 
 Mr. Roman remarked, that the section 
 now offered to the Convention, was propo- 
 s ed in the committee at Jackson. It was 
 not then entertained by the committee, and 
 he hopes it will not be by the Convention 
 now assembled. The reasons that induce 
 me, (said Mr. Roman) to hope it will not 
 now find favor, are— -first, because, in my 
 opinion, it will be placing the public purse 
 in the hands of or at the control of the gov- 
 ernor; and the second is, that it will place 
 the treasurer of the state under surveillance 
 and as the creature of the governor. He 
 (Mr. Roman) thinks such a course is uncal- 
 led for on the part of the Convention. We 
 have placed guards sufficient around the 
 constitution on this question, and with that 
 we should be satisfied. 
 
 Mr. Downs thinks that with all due dif- 
 ference to the opinions of the member 
 from St. James, that such an officer as is 
 called for in the section proposed by the 
 delegate from Point Coupee, is, or will be, 
 much needed. The only question for us to 
 consider, is, shall we make him an officer 
 recognized by the constitution, in other 
 words, an officer under the constitution, or 
 not? For my part, sir, I can safely say that 
 I am not alone in the opinion, that an 
 auditor, to supervise and audit the claims 
 against the State, is one that is much re- 
 quired. 
 
 We have heretofore, sir, as now, been 
 peculiarly fortunate in our state treasurers, 
 and their duties have been performed with 
 singular fidelity and ability. To all those 
 
Debates in the Oonvemion of Louisiana, 
 
 gentlemen it affords me much pleasure to 
 render the just dues to which they are so 
 much entitled; but, Mr. President, the du- 
 ties of the treasurer are largely on the in- 
 crease, and they will be more and more so 
 when the fiscal affairs of the State become, 
 (as they are bound to do,) more complicated 
 and difficult to manage. The duties re- 
 quired to be performed in the treasury de- 
 partment of this State are incompatible, the 
 one, with the other. First : He is a re- 
 ceiver and collector. Second : His duty 
 is faithfully to keep, and- disburse the public 
 money. Third : His duty is to audit the 
 accounts ; the most difficult, and important, 
 of all the duties imposed upon him. 
 
 The law, it is true, lays down now, the 
 measure of his duty — it says what is to be 
 paid, and what should not be paid. But 
 the law should have gone further ; and in 
 the absence of sheriffs, and courts of jus- 
 tice, it should have invested special powers 
 of law in an auditor and protected him in 
 the discharge of his duties in guarding the 
 state treasury as an officer appointed for 
 that purpose : and it should be made his 
 duty to see that every subordinate officer, 
 accountable to the treasury department, 
 promptly rendered an account of his charge . 
 And he (Mr. Downs) cannot but believe, 
 with all the good management, and care, 
 and assiduity, now bestowed by the state 
 treasurer in the duties of his office — -that 
 for the want of such an officer as now is 
 asked for, much money is lost. 
 
 In the treasury of the United States they 
 have an auditor, treasurer, district attorney, 
 and besides all that they have an officer 
 appointed whose special business it is, to 
 watch steadily, and see that all the revenue 
 laws are strictly enforced. Whether it be 
 the legislature, the proper body to bring 
 this reformation, or whether it rests with 
 us, is the only matter of question. He (Mr. 
 Downs) thinks the offices connected with 
 the state treasury should be divided. They 
 have done so, in other states, without in- 
 creasing the expenses of the office — and 
 even were it to cost more, the increased 
 revenue from a watchful care over it, would 
 more than make the increased expense, 
 one hundred-fold to the benefit of the State. 
 
 In every view then of the case, he cannot 
 but favor the section proposed by the dele- 
 gate from Point Coupee, Mr. Ledoux. 
 
 Mr. Roman agrees with Mr. Downs, in 
 
 some of his remarks, He (Mr. Downs) 
 says the question is, shall we do the re- 
 quisite business to carry out the views of 
 the member from Point Coupee or shall the 
 legislature do it ? That is the question. 
 He (Mr. Roman) thinks the Governor 
 should not do it — for the reasons he has ad- 
 vanced — and therefore thinks we had bet- 
 ter discuss the subject when we come to 
 treat of the office of state treasurer. 
 
 Mr. Conrad agrees most cordially with 
 Mr. Roman that the time to discuss this 
 question is, when we reach that portion of 
 our work regulating the duties of state 
 treasurer. And with that view he moved 
 to lay the section proposed by Mr. Ledoux 
 on the table, subject to call — which motion 
 was put and carried. 
 
 Mr. Down's moved to take up the report 
 of the committee on apportionment : 
 
 But the Convention on motion of Mr. W. 
 B. Scott adjourned till to-morrow at 11 
 o'clock. 
 
 Wednesday, February 26, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr, Clark opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer. 
 
 On motion, Mr. Covillion was excused 
 from attendance on account of illness. 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 ARTICLE SECOND OF THE MAJORITY REPORT 
 AS AMENDED. 
 
 Sec 0. Representation shall be equal and 
 uniform in this State, and beyond that, if 
 entitled to any more, in proportion to the 
 population of each, ascertained and calcu- 
 lated according to the principle of represen- 
 tation adopted in the constitution of the 
 United States. 
 
 The first representation under this con- 
 stitution shall continue until after the next 
 United States census in 1850, and shall be 
 as follows: 
 
 The Parish of Plaquemines, 1 
 " St. Bernard, 1 
 
 " Orleans, 
 
 First Municipality, 5 ) 
 Second " 4 V 12 
 Third « 3) 
 
 That part of the parish of Orleans on 
 the East bank of the river Missis- 
 sippi, 1 
 The Parish of J efferson, 2 
 St. Charles, 1 
 
308 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 The Parish of St. John the Baptist, 1 
 
 St. James, 2 
 Ascension, 1 
 Assumption, 2 
 Lafourche Interior, 3 
 Terrebonne, 1 
 Iberville, 1 
 West Baton Rouge, 1 
 East " " 2 
 West Feliciana, 2 
 East " 2 
 St. Helena, 
 Livingston, 
 Washington, 
 St. Tammany, 
 Pointe Coupee, 
 Concordia, 
 Tensas, 
 Madison, 
 Carroll, 
 Franklin, 
 St. Mary, 
 St. Martin, 
 Vermillion, 
 Lafayette, 
 
 St. Landry, 4 
 Calcasieu, 1 
 Avoyelles, 2 
 Rapides, 2 
 Natchitoches, 2 
 Sabine, 1 
 Caddo, 1 
 De Soto, 1 
 Ouachita, 1 
 Morehouse, I 
 Union, 1 
 Caldwell, 1 
 * 4 Catahoula, 1 
 
 " Claiborne, 1 
 
 " Bossier, 1 
 
 Total, 72 
 
 As soon as may be, after the United 
 States census of 1850 shall have been taken 
 and promulgated, and every ten years 
 thereafter, the number of representatives 
 shall be fixed and apportioned, according to 
 the principles of this section, so as not to 
 be less than seventy nor more than one 
 hundred; and whenever a new parish shall 
 be created, a separate representation •shall 
 at the same time be provided for it, which 
 shall continue until the next decimal ap- 
 portionment, 
 
 Mr. Saunders, chairman of the commit- 
 tee to whom was referred the said section, 
 
 submitted the following report, as a substi- 
 tute for the same, viz: 
 
 Sec. 6. Each parish shall be entitled to 
 representation in proportion to its popula- 
 tion, ascertained and calculated according 
 to the principle of representation adopted 
 in the constitution of the United States; 
 Provided, that no parish or city shall ever 
 be entitled to more than one-fifth of the 
 whole number of representatives. 
 
 Sec. 7. No new parish shall be created 
 with an extent of territory less than four 
 hundred square miles, nor with a population 
 less than the full representative number re- 
 quired at the time of its creation, to entitle 
 it to a representative; nor shall any parish 
 be so divided as to leave it with a smaller 
 area or population than is above expressed. 
 
 Sec. 8. In the year 1846, and every tenth 
 year thereafter, a census shall be made of the 
 population of this State, in such a manner 
 as shall be prescribed by law, for the pur- 
 pose of ascertaining the number of the fed- 
 eral population in each parish. 
 
 Sec 9. At the first regular session of the 
 legislature after the making of each census, 
 the legislature shall apportion the represen- 
 tation amongst the several parishes on the 
 basis of the federal population, in the man- 
 ner following, viz : Some number shall be 
 chosen as a representative number, which, 
 when applied in making the apportionment, 
 shall give a number of representatives not 
 less than seventy, nor more than one hun- 
 dred; the number so chosen shall be taken 
 as a divisor, and each parish shall be en- 
 titled to one representative for every time 
 that the divisor shall be found in the divi- 
 dend formed of its representative population, 
 and to one additional member for every frac- 
 tion exceeding the one -half of the divisor; 
 and any parish having a federal population 
 less than the whole divisor, but exceeding 
 one-half of it, shall be entitled to one re- 
 presentative; and the legislature shall be in- 
 competent to act on any other subject mat- 
 ter till the apportionment directed by this 
 article shall have been made. 
 
 Sec. 10. The first representation under 
 this constitution (ascertained as near as 
 may be in accordance with the above prin- 
 ciples,) shall continue until the first appor- 
 tionment be made by the legislature, and 
 shall be as follows, viz: 
 The parish of Plaquemines, 1 
 St. Bernard, 1 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 The Parish of Orleans, 
 
 
 First Municipality, 6 
 
 r 
 
 
 Second 44 '4 
 
 
 
 Third " 4^ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 Right Bank, 
 
 i 
 
 u 
 
 Jefferson, 
 
 2 
 
 it 
 
 St Charles, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 St. John the Baptist? 
 
 1 
 
 u 
 
 St. James, 
 
 2 
 
 tt 
 
 Ascension, 
 
 2 
 
 tt 
 
 Assumption 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 Lafourche Interior, 
 
 2 
 
 u 
 
 Terrebonne, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Iberville, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 West Baton Rouge, 
 
 2 
 
 u 
 
 East 44 11 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 West Feliciana, 
 
 2 
 
 tt 
 
 East 44 
 
 2 
 
 « 
 
 St. Helena, 
 
 2 
 
 u 
 
 Livingston, 
 
 1 
 
 tt 
 
 Washington, 
 
 1 
 
 « 
 
 St. Tammany, 
 
 1 
 
 (4 
 
 Pointe Coupee , 
 
 1 
 
 <( 
 
 Concordia, 
 
 1 
 
 U 
 
 Tensas, 
 
 1 
 
 M 
 
 Madison, 
 
 1 
 
 ft 
 
 Carroll, 
 
 1 
 
 M 
 
 Franklin, 
 
 1 
 
 C( 
 
 St. Mary, 
 
 2 
 
 it 
 
 St. Martin, 
 
 2 
 
 it 
 
 Vermillion, 
 
 1 
 
 •< 
 
 Lafayette, 
 
 1 
 
 l< 
 
 Str Landry, 
 
 4 
 
 (I 
 
 Calcasieu, 
 
 1 
 
 M 
 
 Avoyelles, 
 
 1 
 
 tt 
 
 Rapides, 
 
 3 
 
 ti 
 
 Natchitoches, 
 
 2 
 
 tt 
 
 Sabine, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Caddo, 
 
 I 
 
 It 
 
 De Soto, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Ouachita, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Morehouse, 
 
 1 
 
 tt 
 
 Union, 
 
 1 
 
 tt 
 
 Jackson, 
 
 1 
 
 Ci 
 
 Caldwell, 
 
 1 
 
 M 
 
 Catahoula r 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Claiborne, 
 
 1 
 
 U 
 
 Bossier, 
 
 1 
 
 
 Total, 76 
 
 Mr. Marigny said the consideration of 
 the report of the committee would give 
 rise to great debate — there were twenty- 
 five members not in their seats, and he 
 would therefore propose that the subject be 
 postponed until Monday next. 
 
 Mr. Saunders was opposed to this post- 
 ponement. There was no probability that 
 the house would be fuller on Monday than 
 it was now. The subject was surrounded 
 by difficulties, but nothing was to be gained 
 by putting it off. He hoped the house 
 would not adopt the suggestion to post- 
 pone, but would proceed at once to a con- 
 sideration of the report. 
 
 Mr. Marigny said his object was to 
 preclude another discussion. If the sub- 
 ject were discussed now, it would be dis- 
 cussed de novo when there was a fuller 
 house. 
 
 Mr. 'Chas. M.Conrad: the gentleman's 
 remarks might apply to the propriety of 
 fixing a day for taking the vote, but I can 
 see no necessity for suspending the discus- 
 sion. 
 
 Mr. Marigny moved that the whole 
 matter be laid on the table, and made the 
 special order of the clay for to-morrow at 
 12, m., which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Saunders said, as the chairman of 
 the committee that made the report, it was 
 proper for him to explain why its defence 
 did not properly rest on him. The prop- 
 osition which he had the honor of submit- 
 ting, proposed the electoral basis, and on 
 his motion it was referred to the special 
 committee, who were afterwards charged 
 with the examination of various other pro- 
 positions. Upon that committee there was 
 but one besides himself, perhaps, that was 
 favorable to his proposition. The other 
 members of the committee did not deem 
 the federal basis proper; he was not him- 
 self particularly wedded to his own propo- 
 sition. He admitted that the subject was 
 surrounded with innumerable difficulties. 
 He thought, nevertheless, without being 
 disposed to view with too muqh partiality 
 his own proposition on account of its pater- 
 nity, that the principle in the old constitu- 
 tion was the simplest mode, and most in 
 accordance with the democratic principle. 
 He would not discuss the questions in- 
 volved in the report, but would leave them 
 to those more capable and more competent 
 to do justice to the subject. In reference 
 to that portion of the report that referred to 
 the city, he conceded it was not in exact 
 proportion with her population; but precise 
 equality in the representation for the city- 
 was not looked for — was not expected by 
 the city members thcmselves ; The prin- 
 
303 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 ciple was false which assumed that every 
 man, woman and child should be repre- 
 sented. It could not be practically carried 
 out, and was subject to exceptions. The 
 true principle — the principle of the revolu- 
 tion, was that all parts of the country should 
 be heard, not that they should be equally 
 represented. Is it to be presumed that if 
 the colonies could have had a single rep- 
 resentative on the floor of the house of 
 commons, that the revolution for independ- 
 ence would have occurred at the period it 
 did? Other causes might and would have 
 contributed to the separation from the 
 mother country, but- 'the leading cause of 
 that event, was not that the colonies were 
 not equally represented, but that they were 
 not heard at all ; and that the taxes were 
 imposed without their being heard. The 
 application of the principle, that every 
 man, woman and child should be repre- 
 sented, would be illustrated by supposing 
 that the city had fifty members accorded 
 to it, and the Florda parishes had ten, the 
 balance of the State would for the most 
 part be totally unrepresented. It resulted 
 then, that the principle of representation, 
 based on population, was antagonistical to 
 the principle that all the political portions 
 of the country should be heard. Popula- 
 tion should be heard, but the principle 
 should not be carried to the extent that 
 every man, woman and child be repre- 
 sented. By the report, one-fifth of the rep- 
 resentation is accorded to the city. I will 
 concede that much, and will for the sake 
 of compromise, even yield up one-sixth. 
 But, I cannot consent that other interests 
 should not be heard, and that the city 
 should monopolize all political power. 
 With these few explanations, he would 
 leave the defence of the report to those 
 with whose opinions it more especially 
 conformed. 
 
 Mr. Preston said he had the honor of 
 being a member of the committee and he 
 disagreed entirely with their report. His 
 views upon this subject had been expressed 
 upon another occasion. He would not re- 
 port them, but would simply state his dis- 
 sent from the report. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan submitted the following as 
 a substitute to the first section of the report, 
 viz: 
 
 "Each parish shall have one representa- 
 tive, and beyond that if entitled to any more 
 
 in proportion to the number of voters in 
 each; Provided, that no parish or city shall 
 ever have more than one-sixth of the whole 
 number of representatives. 
 
 Mr. Taylor raised the question of order. 
 
 The President decided said substitute 
 to bs out of order. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan then moved to amend said 
 section by striking out the words "its popu- 
 lation ascertained and calculated according 
 to the principle of representation adopted 
 in the constitution of the United States." 
 
 Mr. Grymes moved to amend the mo- 
 tion of the gentleman from Lafayette (Mr. 
 O'Bryan) by striking out the proviso. 
 
 Mr. Beatty said the amendment of the 
 gentleman from Lafayette, (Mr. O'Bryan) 
 and the amendment of the gentleman from 
 New Orleans (Mr. Grymes) would destroy 
 the whole effect of the report of the com- 
 mittee. The committee had bestowed 
 great attention to the difficult subject that 
 was submitted for their consideration, and 
 the result of their investigation was, that 
 the federal basis offered the most equal and 
 most convenient mode of apportioning the 
 State. Whether they were correct or not 
 in that opinion, it was for the house to de- 
 cide. The solution of the inquiry whether 
 population should be represented would 
 not be difficult, if there were in this State 
 but one species of population. In such a 
 contingency an apportionment in reference 
 solely to numbers might be proper. But 
 the peculiar local circumstance of two 
 populations in the same State- — a white 
 population and a slave population — produced 
 inequalities that rendered a basis firmer 
 alone on white population, extremely par- 
 tial and unequal in its operation. The 
 preponderance of whites over slaves in some 
 of the political divisions of the State, and of 
 slaves over whites in others, were so mani- 
 fest that the very idea of excluding slaves 
 altogether from entering into the basis, was 
 evidently connected with the grossest injus- 
 tice; it was tantamount to surrendering all 
 the political power into the hands of tho 
 city, where the white population was on tho 
 increase and the slave population the de- 
 crease. A great portion of the menial la- 
 bor performed in the country by slaves was 
 performed in the city by white persons; the 
 larger proportion of these white persons 
 were not citizens of the United States, and 
 were for the most part as devoid of interest 
 
Debates in ttie Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 in the country as our slaves. Is there to be | will give about the same result,) that the city 
 no guarantee for the people of the country 
 in the character of the basis of representa- 
 tion ? They possess the greatest propor- 
 tion of the territery of the State and the 
 preponderance of productive labor. All 
 the arguments that apply to a mixed basis, 
 in which property shall enter as a constit- 
 uent part, equally apply to the admission of 
 slaves into the basis of our representation, 
 inasmuch as slaves are property; and so far 
 as population is concerned, let gentlemen 
 argue as they will, slaves are legally per- 
 sons. Laws are made for their protection; 
 for the punishment of crimes committed by 
 them;- and defining the relations of master 
 and slave. Is it proper that the proprietors 
 of this species of property should be denied 
 that weight in the councils of the State, to 
 which they are entitled 1 If you adopt the 
 white basis you give to the city of New Or- 
 leans one half of the representation. Some 
 gentlemen appear willing to take that ba- 
 sis, and then restrict the city to one-fifth of 
 the representation. But this would not op- 
 erate fairly as regards the southern portion 
 of the State; it would be taking from it a 
 portion of its political power and transfering 
 it to the north and west. That would be 
 its inevitable effect, and if there be a doubt 
 upon the subject it will be dissipated by a 
 reference to the sub-report. That if the 
 basis of electors were adopted which gives 
 to the city of New Orleans forty-seven mem- 
 bers out of one hundred and eight, and the 
 representation of the city be then reduced 
 to one-fifth of the whole, as is proposed by 
 some members, the effect of it would be great- 
 ly to alter the relative strength of the dif- 
 ferent sections of the State in the house of 
 representatives. That although he desi- 
 red to see the city limited in her represen 
 
 of New Orleans will be entitled to forty- 
 seven members out of one hundred and 
 eight, leaving sixty-one to be divided among 
 the balance of the State. If one-fifth be 
 then subtracted from the city, the delega- 
 tion from the first and second congression- 
 al districts will not exceed twenty-seven, 
 while seventy-three will be allowed to the 
 balance of the State. By the federal basis, 
 the first and second districts will be equal 
 in representation to the third and fourth — or 
 if they are not precisely equal, there will 
 not be any great disparity between them. 
 
 There is yet another difncuity if the white 
 basis be adopted. It will disfranchise a 
 number of the parishes, unless the number 
 of representatives be placed beyond what 
 has been judged proper or expedient by the 
 committee. Some of the parishes that 
 would be deprived of representation, have 
 been in tlie enjoyment of that privilege 
 since the formation of the State government, 
 Mr. Beatty instanced the parishes of St. 
 Charles, St. John the Baptist, St. Bernard, 
 &c, &c. Yet they would be disfranchis- 
 ed, or else a representative would have ar- 
 bitrarily to be allowed them, which would 
 justify the complaint of an attempt to intro- 
 duce the rotten borough system. The com- 
 mittee judge that such was not the sense of 
 the house from the action it had taken, and 
 the only means of doing justice to these par- 
 ishes, without the violation of a principle, 
 was the adoption of the federal basis of re- 
 presentation. This was conclusive with 
 many other valid reasons of that prefer- 
 ence for the basis. 
 
 Having briefly referred to the general 
 features of the report, he would now notice 
 the disposition in the second section, upon 
 iie creation of new parishes. This wag 
 
 tation, he could not consent to limit her in ! evidently a wise and necessary provision, 
 
 such manner as to give an ascendancy to 
 to the north-west part of the State to which 
 they were not entitled. That the north- 
 west gained more than any other section of 
 the State in taking the voters as the basis — 
 except the city of New Orleans— it is there- 
 
 as it would prevent majorities in the legi 
 lature from distributing the balance of po- 
 litical power by the creation of new parish- 
 es that were without a sufficiency of territo- 
 ry or population to justify that creation. 
 It established a permanent rule upon the 
 
 fore evident that if this basis be chosen, and I subject, and together with the provision 
 we then cut off from the south the represen- 1 that no parish should ever have more than 
 
 tatives which the city gains by that ba 
 that the relative weight of the different sec- 
 tions would be materially changed, appears 
 from the number of votes polled in 1840, 
 (and the basis of population or of electors, 
 40 
 
 one-fifth of the representation; it secured a 
 proper equality between the representation 
 of all the various portions of the State. It 
 justly looked to the future. It was not a 
 temporary enactment; and it was plain it 
 
310 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 could only refer to the parishes of Orleans 
 and Jefferson; and it was not likely that 
 any of the country parishes would ever 
 swell to a size totally disproportionate with 
 the other parishes. The cities of New 
 Orleans and Jefferson were destined to 
 compose but a single city. If some restric- 
 tions were not placed these two parishes 
 would ultimately obtain control of the whole 
 State, either independently by themselves 
 or with the assistance of the adjoining and 
 neighboring parishes, between whom there 
 was an identity of interest and of feeling. 
 That this would be the result, no one can 
 doubt. There were advantages, too, from 
 the concentration of power in the city, as 
 well as the influence exercised over tlie 
 legislature, so long as the city remained the 
 seat of government; and from the absences, 
 which characterises our legislative sessions, 
 of the country members, which left the 
 country occasionally without its full repre- 
 sentation. If the seat of government were 
 taken from the city, it would be the city 
 then that would be exposed to that inconve- 
 nience. If the country lost its just weight, 
 said Mr. Beatty, no one is to blame but 
 themselves. It was no less for the true 
 interests of the city than for the country, 
 that she should be possessed of the prepon- 
 derating control. This was admitted 
 by sensible men, whose interests were con- 
 fined to the city. The federal basis repre- 
 sented the productive labor of the State. It 
 was a permanent, not a fluctuating and un- 
 certain mode of representation; and in view 
 of the political position of the State, it was 
 recommended by the soundest considera- 
 tions of good policy. Nothing was farther 
 from his intentions than to act unjustly to- 
 wards the city; he wished her to have all 
 the weight to which she was entitled, con- 
 sistent with the interests of the country, 
 and to the permanency of our institutions. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption said he felt 
 it to be his duty to reply to some of the re- 
 marks that had fallen from the gentlemen 
 that last addressed the house, (Messrs. Saun- 
 ders and Beatty.) The first named dele- 
 gate has said that the true principle was not 
 that numbers should be represented, but 
 that they should be heard; and from that 
 position he has drawn the remarkable con- 
 clusion, that if the colony of Massachusetts 
 had had but one delegate on the floor of the 
 house of commons, the American revolu- 
 
 tion would not have occurred. That the 
 mere*privilege of being heard, forsooth, 
 would have removed every just cause of 
 complaint against the mother country, and 
 that no matter how despotic were the meas- 
 ures of the parliament, the colonies could 
 have had no pretext for the revolution, if 
 they had only had the privilege of being 
 heard. I most emphatically (said Mr. Tay- 
 lor) dissent from and condemn such an 
 opinion. 
 
 The delegate from Lafourche, (Mr. Beat- 
 ty) and his colleagues upon the committee 
 who concurred with him in opinion, have 
 not examined the naked question. They 
 have looked at supposed results, and have 
 been frightened by the phantoms conjured 
 up by their own imaginations. They fear 
 the concentration of power in the city; they 
 fear that the country will be trodden down 
 by the multitudes of the city. I am very 
 far from apprehending the consequences 
 which they assume to be inevitable, and 
 for one am not disposed to sacrifice a fun- 
 damental principle in representative gov 
 ernments, with the idle hope of remedying 
 an imaginary evil. That representation in 
 the popular branch of the legislature should 
 be apportioned according to numbers, is 
 essential to the existence of republican 
 government. If, from local causes, there 
 should be a preponderance of power in a 
 particular district, the evil, without doubt, 
 should be remedied; but the remedy must 
 not destroy the principle itself. In the 
 present instance, I think that the gentle- 
 men upon the committee have exaggerated 
 the consequences of following out the true 
 principle, and that they have overlooked 
 the peculiar composition of the legislative 
 department. One feature in its organiza- 
 tion affords a guarantee against the disas- 
 ters they anticipate. The committee on 
 the legislative department, in its report, re- 
 commends that representation in the senate 
 shall be based in a great degree on territo- 
 ry, and that the city shall elect only one- 
 eighth of the whole number of senators. It 
 is evident, from this fact, that whatever may 
 be the preponderance of the city in the 
 house of representatives, if the principle of 
 equality and uniformity of representation 
 be carried out, that it never can control 
 the destinies of the State. Ample security 
 is given to the country in the constitution 
 of that body. Admit it for one moment, 
 
Debates in the Convention ef Louisiana, 
 
 311 
 
 that New Orleans should have the prepon- 
 derance in the house of representatives, 
 would not the absolute veto of the senate 
 upon every act of that house be a sufficient 
 check against the undue exercise of power" 
 on the part of the city? But let us go far- 
 ther. What would be the consequence of 
 limiting the city in the house of represen- 
 tatives as well as in the senate? It would 
 present the unexampled spectacle of the 
 majority being bound hand and foot, and 
 delivered over to the power of the minority. 
 The rights and interests of the many would 
 be made dependant upon the will of the few. 
 
 These gentlemen say the country is in 
 danger from the city. That at no dis- 
 tant day, the city will contain a large 
 majority of the people of the State, arid 
 that then it will be in its power to oppress 
 us; and then they would logically jump to 
 trie conclusion that we should so arrange 
 representation as to put it in our power to 
 oppress them. "Oh," say gentlemen, "we 
 cannot trust the inhabitants of the city. 
 They will be a majority, and they may op- 
 press us.*' Indeed! and if we take power 
 into our hands, might we not abuse it and 
 oppress them? If the minority cannot trust 
 the majority, how, I would ask, can the 
 majority trust the minority? I do not 
 hesitate to pronounce the proposition to 
 limit the representation of the city in both 
 branches of the legislature, as monstrous in 
 theory, and to assert, that if adopted, it 
 will lead to the most unhappy consequen- 
 ces. I felt compelled to notice what fell 
 from gentlemen on this subject, though it 
 is not immediately under discussion, and 
 could not well say less on it, though I will 
 not now say more. 
 
 Now, said Mr. Taylor, with the permis- 
 sion of the house, I will proceed to examine 
 the question we are called on to decide (the 
 motion of Mr. O'Bryan to strike out fed- 
 eral numbers.) We have already deter- 
 mined who are to be the depositaries of 
 political power. It is to be vested in the 
 white male citizens of the State who have 
 attained the age of twenty-one years. It 
 is the deliberate sense of the Convention, 
 that they, and they only, shall exercise it. 
 And now, after having settled that question, 
 correctly as I think, we are about to de- 
 cide how the legislative power in the house 
 of representatives shall be distributed among 
 the electors of the different parishes of the 
 
 State. W r e have declared, in effect, that 
 all the members of our political community 
 are equal, and that they are entitled to equal 
 weight in our elections. 
 
 If this be true — if they are equal — their 
 representation ought to be apportioned 
 among the different parishes according 
 to their respective numbers. But after this 
 solemn declaration, it is proposed to ap- 
 portion them according to federal numbers. 
 If this rule of apportionment is adopted, the 
 principle of equality among our citizens, is 
 at once violated, and may be said with truth 
 that we 
 
 • ; 3Iake the promise to the ear. 
 
 And break it to the hope. 5 ' 
 
 There are three simple bases or modes 
 of apportioning representation. First : 
 with reference to population; second: in 
 proportiom to taxation; and third: accord- 
 ing to the number of qualified electors. 
 From our peculiar position, we are preclu- 
 ded from adopting the basis of population. 
 We have amongst us a class of beings, of 
 our own species, who are holden as proper- 
 ty: there is another class, free persons of 
 color, who, though they are possessed of 
 personal freedom, do not exercise any 
 political rights. That basis, therefore, in 
 my view, is out of the question. 
 
 The next basis — that of taxation — is 
 liable to great objection. The existence 
 of the institution of slavery obliges us to 
 adopt various measures for the purpose of 
 securing that species of property, and pre- 
 serving it in a proper state of subordination. 
 Our militia system, and that of police pa- 
 trols, are very burdensome to the white 
 population: and in consequence the princi- 
 pal weight of taxation is thrown on slave 
 property. Whether a proper system of 
 taxtion might not be devised, is not now 
 the question. 
 
 The constitution of the United States pro- 
 vides that to the whole number of free per- 
 sons, shall be added three fifths of all other 
 persons. These persons are slaves, and 
 three-fifths of them would be represented. 
 This would be in fact making the principle 
 of taxation enter into the apportionment of 
 representation ; for the only manner in 
 which slaves can have any possible con- 
 nection with our political system, is in their 
 character of property, which makes them 
 subjects of taxation. 
 
 The system of taxation in actual exis- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 tence in this State, is so arbitrary and un- 
 equal, that until it is altogether reformed, 
 very few would be likely to favor this ba- 
 sis. Without attempting, however, any 
 investigation into the advantages or disad- 
 vantages of any of these simple bases, I 
 will confine my attention to the one propo- 
 sed. This, in my opinion, includes with- 
 in itself all the vices of the two first men- 
 tioned bases, without any of their advanta- 
 ges. In the first place, free colored per- 
 sons would make a part of the representa- 
 tive number. In the next place, foreigners 
 not naturalized would enter into the com- 
 position of them ; and finally; all toshe citi- 
 zens of other States, who happen to be pre- 
 sent in the State at the time the census is 
 taken, would also make a portion of them. 
 Now it happens that nearly all of these 
 three classes of persons, who have no po- 
 litical rights, are congregated in New 
 Orleans. Oat of a little upwards of 23,000 
 free colored persons in the State, nearly 
 20,000 of them are inhabitants of the city. 
 It is the same with foreigners not natu- 
 ralized. 
 
 If taxation upon slaves alone were the 
 basis, it would operate unequally, not only 
 as regards city and country, but in reference 
 to different portions of the country in rela- 
 tion to each other. The number of slaves 
 are not equal in the different political di- 
 visions of the State, and where slaves pre- 
 dominated, representation would be great- 
 er in proportion than where white persons 
 predominated. No matter in what point 
 of view we examine the results of such a 
 basis, it is eminently unjust and unequal. 
 It embodies, I repeat again, all the vices 
 without any of the benefits of the other 
 modes. There are other considerations 
 growing out of the peculiarity of our situ- 
 ation and of our institutions that should ad- 
 monish us not to adopt it. If we do adopt 
 it, the consequences will produce, sooner 
 or later, conflict between the city and 
 country. If it be true that slaves are di- 
 minishing in the city, the same causes that 
 have contributed to that result will continue 
 to operate, and the inhabitants of the city 
 will not be slow in perceiving that they 
 lose political power in the ratio of the de- 
 crease of slaves from among them, and 
 with its consequent increase in other por- 
 tions of the State, that the element oi repre- 
 sentation is not white men, but slaves. This 
 
 will cause a line of demarcation between 
 city and country. The first feeling will 
 be opposition to that species of property 
 that has been employed as a means to de- 
 prive them of their political power. The 
 next will be aversion to the cause from 
 whence it originated. These fee ings are 
 natural to the human heart. All history 
 teaches us, that when men are deprived of 
 what they conceive to be a right, they hate 
 the instrument by which it is effected, and 
 if this injustice be persisted in, at no dis- 
 tant day, I will venture to predict, that op- 
 position will ripen into a deadly hostility, 
 and the citizens of New Orleans will be 
 united as one man against the institution 
 which is made use of to produce the in- 
 equality. 
 
 It would be most impolitic to do any 
 thing to bring about such a state of feeling. 
 We abhor and detest the unwarrantable in- 
 terference of northern fanatics with our in- 
 stitutions, and we are united to resist their 
 incendiary efforts. Far otherwise will it 
 be, if you disfranchise a portion of the 
 white population, in whom you have said 
 the political power of the State resides, un- 
 der pretext of depriving the city of New 
 Orleans of her influence; and then trans- 
 fer that power to the proprietors of your 
 slaves — the city will increase in white po- 
 pulation and decrease in slave population, 
 and you will raise up in the city an antag- 
 onist inteiest against that species of prop- 
 erty in the country. I apprehend the con- 
 sequences of such a course, because I am 
 sensible of the danger. 
 
 Is there a delegate on this floor that does 
 not perceive that it will transfer the practi- 
 cal cry of abolition from the north to our 
 own soil: to our own capital. There are 
 other reasons why we should preserve an 
 identity of interest and of feeling between 
 the city and the country. Dangers may 
 arise where the aid and assistance of the 
 city may be necessary. Let us not then 
 adopt a rule that will sow the seeds of dis- 
 sention; that will cause envy and jealousy, 
 and which will result in an open rupture 
 between the city and the country. 
 
 Let us be just to the city, and then if we 
 are assailed, if our rights are invaded, if 
 our slave property is disturbed by foreign 
 invasion, or domestic insurrection, her citi- 
 zens will aid us in the conflict, and not be 
 numbered with our enemies. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 SiS 
 
 Mr. Downs said, I do not consider the 
 point stands in the same situation as before 
 the last committee made their report. The 
 arguments in favor of the federal basis are 
 not so strong as without the proviso recom- 
 mended by the last committee. But 1 yet 
 think the arguments are sufficiently s'rong j 
 to adopt that principle. No man admires | 
 more the eloquent and beautiful theories of 
 the gentleman from Lafourche (Mr. Tay- j 
 lor,) than I; but however plausible they 
 may be, they fail to satisfy my mind of the 
 practical results. 1 will not attempt to 
 follow the gentleman through all the inge- 
 nious ramifications of his argument; but I 
 will proceed to combat his principal point 
 of objections to the report, which I think! 
 entirely erroneous. All that be has said ! 
 may be reduced to this, that the federal j 
 basis operates with peculiar harshness upon 
 the city of New Orleans. I defy any one 
 to find any thing else in his argument. 
 This is the substance, this is the basis of 
 all that he has said, and he overcomes it 
 himself by admitting and recommending 
 the inequality of representation in the senate 
 as regards the city, as both proper and ex- 
 pedient. Showing that in despite of beau- 
 tiful theories, that the idea of equality in 
 representation, is impracticable. The idea 
 of perfect equality in representative govern- 
 ments, is one of those speculative ideas 
 that may serve as a basis for impassioned 
 declamation, but which will not stand a 
 rigid scrutiny. There is no community — 
 no city — no village, where every individual i 
 can flatter himself with exercising ths ! 
 same amount of political power; and it < 
 must hence be conceded that such perfect j 
 equality is not possible. We may attempt j 
 and very properly do attempt to reach that! 
 equality, but we know the result in its per- ' 
 feet state to be unattainable; and I therefore 
 contend that when we endeavor to estab- 
 lish it, we should not be led astray by false 
 and visionary theories, but should confine 
 ourselves to practical results, which have 
 stood the test and received the sanction of 
 experience. 
 
 Taking experience then as our guide, I 
 would ask in what manner is the federal 
 basis so unjust towards the city? I am | 
 told that it despoils her of a portion of her i 
 political power. It seems to me that this j 
 basis represents a numerous class to be ! 
 found in the city which are not to be found j 
 
 in the country, or if found, only in small 
 numbers. I allude to the laboring classes 
 of the white population. In fact, *w ho re- 
 places that population in the country? It 
 is the slaves, who are counted not in an 
 equality as to their numbers, but in the 
 proportion of three-fif'hs. I say this with- 
 out intending to disparage the poorer 
 classes that woik in the city from day to 
 day as laborers, and for whom I have been 
 steadfast in claiming the political and im- 
 portant right of suffrage. But as it is evi- 
 dent that this class predominates in the 
 city, and from the agricultural pursuits of 
 the country, slaves predominate; there the 
 federal basis is peculiarly appropriate, so 
 as to reconcile the difference arising from 
 the two kinds of population as to their 
 relative numerical superiority in the city 
 and in the country. But admitting for the 
 sake of the argument, that greater relative 
 political power be conceded to the proprie- 
 tors of slaves than to those not possessed 
 of that property, how can the gentleman 
 (Mr. Taylor) imagine that this will tend to 
 introduce abolition among us, and make the 
 city the hot-bed of that abominable doc- 
 trine. This argument of the gentleman 
 defeats itself, for it there be any such pos- 
 sibility, the necessity is strong why the 
 country should look for protection to herself. 
 It is not from without that we can be suc- 
 cessfully assailed, but it is from within, and 
 there it is we should be invulnerable. The 
 country never should be placed in a state 
 of dependence upon the city for her safety, 
 and should she ever be in that unfortunate 
 position, the danger will indeed be fearful 
 and irretrievable. The federal basis in de- 
 spite of the theories and declamations of 
 the gentleman, is a bulwark against aboli- 
 tion. Hence the expediency and peculiar 
 fitness of that basis in a slave holding State; 
 and to all the arguments that have been 
 addressed to sectional prejudices, and all 
 the appeals to the city, 1 reply, by a simple 
 fact, that now, when the country has the 
 political ascendancy, and has both the will 
 and the means of protecting herself, that 
 so far from this creating an unnatural feel- 
 ing of jealousy on the part of the city, the 
 city is wilh her, identified in feeling and in 
 interest — so far did this unanimity of sen- 
 timent prevail, that on a recent occasion, 
 when the State of Massachusetts permitted 
 herself to address us upon this very prin. 
 
314 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 ciple or federal representation, with the 
 view of affecting the question of slavery, 
 the senate, without a reference of the sub- 
 ject to a committee, instantly passed reso- 
 lutions expressive of their indignation at 
 such interference— these resolutions were 
 taken down to the house of representatives, 
 at the moment engrossed by an animated 
 debate, but no sooner were they an- 
 nounced by the secretary of the senate, than 
 the debate was suspended — the resolutions 
 were instantly* concured in unanimously, 
 and returned to the senate. 
 
 The principle of federal representation, 
 (continued Mr. Downs) is good or bad. If 
 the principle be bad, it must be conceded 
 to be bad altogether, and the abolitionists 
 who declaim so loud against it, must be in 
 the right. But the proof that this princi- 
 ple is a vital one is this, that it preserves 
 the union of the States; for no one will pre- 
 tend that if that basis were abrogated, the 
 Union would hold together twenty-four 
 hours. It would tumble to pieces. It is 
 conceded that as a natural principle it is 
 both wise and expedient— it would not do 
 to dispute that point — but it is said that the 
 same reasons do not exist for its local ap- 
 plication in this State. I admit that the 
 reasons are not so powerful; but yet I con- 
 tend that the effect itself is the same, for it 
 establishes the equilibrium between the 
 parishes themselves, and reconciles the 
 disparity in population between those that 
 have an excess of white population and 
 those that have an excess of slave popula- 
 tion. 
 
 I did not expect to be so suddenly enga- 
 ged in the debate, but the arguments of the 
 member from Lafourche, (Mr. Taylor) ap- 
 peared to me to be so singular and so erro- 
 neous, that 1 could not refrain from reply- 
 ing to them. He seems to think i* involves 
 an unjust preference to choose arbitrarily 
 one kind of property for the basis of repre- 
 sentation, instead of all kinds of property. 
 The gentleman overlooks the difficulty of 
 subjecting all kinds of property to equal 
 taxation, and some particular kinds of pro- 
 perty in fact, to any taxation. Slaves are 
 visable property — they are attached too to 
 the territory. It would be impossible to 
 apportion representation equally upon all 
 kinds of property, were it taken into the 
 basis, and to make the distribution of the 
 representation with such mathematical pre- 
 
 cision that each portion .of the political 
 community should have its just proportion. 
 It is evident that great difficulties must at- 
 tend the imposition of taxes upon capital. 
 It is clear that a loan of one hundred thou- 
 sand dollars would yield more interest than 
 a plantation of the same value — yet the 
 plantation could be easily taxed — so could 
 houses and slaves, but it would be very 
 difficult to reach capital and to apportion 
 taxation proportionally upon it. So would 
 it be with the attempts to apportion repre- 
 sentation upon so fluctuating and uncertain 
 a basis. There is' no difficulty in taxing 
 slaves; they are easy to be identified — 
 whereas, the calculations that would be ne- 
 cessary in reference to other kinds of pro- 
 perty, and the fluctuating character of that 
 property would make it very unsatisfactory 
 as a basis. 
 
 But it seems the gentlemen are not sat- 
 isfied with attacking the principle of fede- 
 ral representation in the report, but they 
 must needs destroy the proviso. I always 
 entertained the conviction that when we 
 reached that question, every one would 
 comprehend the necessity of restraining the 
 power of the city within rational limits, 
 compatible with the relative power and the 
 safety of the ballance of the State. I cer- 
 tainly have no hostilities nor prejudices 
 against the city, but I do think that this pre- 
 caution which is a distinguishing trait in 
 the old constitution, ought to be observed. 
 The danger of concentrated power is too 
 obvious to be insisted upon. It is evident 
 that a number of individuals collected to- 
 gether in a city can exercise greater pow- 
 er, and that their power will be more effi- 
 cient than the same number of persons scat- 
 tered over a wide expanse of territory. The 
 combination of numbers was a favorite 
 principle of Napoleon, and it was upon that 
 principle that he won his most distinguish- 
 ed battles. It was the concentration of a 
 large force at a particular point. Without 
 carrying out the comparison further, I may 
 say, that in the political contests decided 
 in the legislature, as in the strategic of mil- 
 itary service, that body is the strongest 
 which can soonest coalesce, and among 
 whom there is the greatest point of attrac- 
 tion. So that in the city, one hundred 
 thousand persons who have ready linearis of 
 communicating with each other, who may 
 be instructed and harangued with the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 315 
 
 utmost facility as to any particular point of 
 policy, have more power than double that 
 number scattered over various parishes of 
 the country, not perhaps knowing each 
 other, and distrustful of one another from 
 the want of that constant intercourse that 
 exists in the city. A single representative 
 would be more efficacious in representing 
 the combined interests of the city, by rea- 
 son of his contact and intercourse with the 
 citizens, than the representative of an ex- 
 tensive parish, where the population was 
 scattered, and where the means of meeting 
 with them were extremely difficult. 
 
 For these reasons, said Mr. Downs, I 
 hope that the present report will be taken 
 up in the spirit of conciliation, and where* 
 it is faulty it can be amended. As 1 said, 
 on the occasion, when the first report was 
 so violently denounced, no report could be 
 made that would meet with a better recep- 
 tion, and I find that my anticipation has 
 been completely realized; for the labors of 
 the last committee appear to be as unpalata- 
 ble as those of the first. 
 
 Mr. Duxn said he concluded in the main 
 with the arguments adduced by the dele- 
 gate from Ouachita (Mr. Downs.) He 
 could not consider the federal basis as an 
 arbitrary rule, but as "a principle appropri- 
 ately befitting our peculiar institutions. He 
 was ready and willtng, on all occasions, to 
 do justice to the city, and if he could be 
 convinced that injustice was done to the 
 city, he would cheerfully make every repa- 
 ration, short of abandoning a fundamental 
 principle. The true point of difficulty, after 
 all, between the abolitionists and ourselves 
 was slave labor opposed to white labor. 
 That was the foundation of all their pre- 
 tended philanthropy, and it was therefore 
 essential that we should let them know that 
 the principle against which they waged 
 w T ar, was consecrated among us to perpe- 
 tuity. Although slaves were, in one sense, 
 property, they were in another, no less a 
 portion of our population; and both as per- 
 sons and as property, they ought to enter 
 into the basis of our representation. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff objected strenuously to this 
 basis. ^ There was something derogatory 
 in the idea of placing a slave, in reference 
 to representation, upon an equality with a 
 white man. It would give rise to feelings 
 of jealousy; for the consequence would be 
 that the proprietor of slaves would have a 
 
 much greater weight at the ballot-box than 
 the honest citizen that was too poor to pos- 
 sess them. It was true that both would be 
 allowed to deposit but a single ballot, but 
 the ballot of the owner of the slave would 
 be, in fact and in effect, double, treble, or 
 quadruple, in proportion to the number of 
 his slaves. The father of five minor child- 
 ren would have but a single voice at the 
 ballot-box, while the owner of an old, de- 
 crepid and worn-out negro and four negro 
 children, would be entitled not only to the 
 representation accorded to him as a citizen 
 of the country, but likewise to the repre- 
 sentation accorded- to these slaves. The 
 principle was unjust — it was unequal, and 
 operated exclusively in favor of the rich; 
 and hence it was distasteful to him. It 
 was not only in the city, where there were 
 inequalities of condition. There were poor 
 people in the country — hard-working, in- 
 dustrious people in the country— that had 
 to do their own work, and were not posses- 
 sed of slaves. It would be repugnant to 
 the true principles of democracy to say, 
 that a farmer without slaves, working on 
 h s own farm, should have less weight in 
 the government than the rich proprietor 
 adjoining his little farm, who had a hun- 
 dred negroes. But, whether the principle 
 affected city or country, we ought to act 
 with impartiality, and not make humiliating 
 distinctions. If the city is to be restrain- 
 ed within the limits of a just proportion of 
 the representation, and that w T as obviously 
 proper, let it be done by unexceptionable 
 means. Do not let us sacrifice the rights 
 of any portion of our constituents, and say 
 because a man owns slaves he shall have 
 greater weight than another man that has 
 none. They are all citizens alike, wheth- 
 er rich or poor. 
 
 I feel quite confident that the delegate 
 from Oachita, (Mr. Downs,) never elec- 
 tioneered among his constituents -on the 
 principle that a person without slaves was 
 not the equal of a rich planter with fifty or 
 sixty negroes, and that the former was not 
 entitled to as much weight at the ballot 
 box. If the gentleman had done so, he 
 would not be where he now is. 
 
 Mr. Downs: Did the gentleman commu- 
 nicate to his constituents before the elec- 
 tion that he would take the position he now 
 assumes upon this subject? 
 
 Mr. Ratliff : I did not, because I nev- 
 
316 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 er imagined that the poor would be placed 
 upon an an equality with negroes — and that 
 representation would he claimed for" the 
 latter upon the same principle that it is ac- 
 corded to freemen, to wit : that poor white 
 people performed the menial services re- 
 quired of our slaves ! That may be true, 
 Mr. President; but I think there is a vast 
 difference between the one and the other, 
 whatever may be the opinions of others to 
 the contrary. There are various conside- 
 rations which should induce us to pause and 
 reflect well, before we adopt a basis not 
 founded upon principles of equality. If the 
 tariff be continued, it is not at all improba- 
 ble that the surplus of the slave population, 
 will be employed in the cultivation of su- 
 gar, and where then will be the balance of 
 power? The delegate from Oachita will 
 find that he has committed a sad mistake. 
 I admit with that gentleman that perfect 
 equality may not be attainable, but at least 
 let us endeavor to approach that standard 
 as near as possible. 
 
 In reference to the State of Virginia, I 
 have one remark to make. It was not in 
 reference to the question of slavery that the 
 federal basis was adopted, but to maintain 
 the equilibrium between the eastern and 
 we stern portions of that State — the two 
 great geographical divisions. I would pre- 
 fer rather to take population and land than 
 the federal, because the land is stationary, 
 if I were restricted to the one or the other 
 of these two modes of apportionment. 
 
 These are my present views, Mr. Presi- 
 dent, and I reserve to myself the right of 
 making such further suggestions as may 
 occur to me in the progress of this debate. 
 
 Whereupon, on motion, the Convention 
 adjourned until to-morrow at the usual hour. 
 
 Thursday, February 27 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The proceedings, were opened with 
 prayer, by the Rev. Mr. Goodrich. 
 
 The journal was read and approved. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Taylor, the delegate 
 from West Baton Rouge, Mr. Chinn, was 
 excused, for his non-attendance for several 
 days past — during which time he was sick. 
 
 Mr. Mayo, chairman of the committee on 
 education, submitted the following report 
 and resolutions, viz : 
 
 "As it is through the medium of educa- 
 
 tion that the intellectual faculties of man 
 are cultivated, and his physical and mental 
 powers regulated and perfected, the subject 
 would appear to justify as much attention 
 and care as any other that can engage the 
 attention of the legislator. 
 
 "This State has for many years acted 
 with a degree of liberality in making ap- 
 propriations for the erection and support of 
 colleges and academies, and for the educa- 
 tion of indigent children. 
 
 "By the report of the State treasurer, 
 dated 11th January, 1844, it appears that 
 the sum of $1,710,559 40-100, from the 
 year 1812 to the 31st December, 1844, has 
 been expended by the State for the support 
 of public schools, colleges, academies, semi- 
 naries, and asylums ; and by the same re- 
 port it appears that $463,791 71-100, 
 which is more than one -fourth of the whole 
 sum, has been expended for the building 
 and support of the colleges of Louisiana 
 and Jefferson. The first of which is not 
 now in operation ; and owing to the want 
 of a regular system of education, has not 
 produced results that ought to have been ex- 
 pected from so large an amount of expen- 
 diture. 
 
 "The college of Jefferson is in opera- 
 tion, and has seventy or eighty students, as 
 appears from the report of the committee of 
 the house of representatives on the subject 
 of education, lately made to that body. 
 
 "The annual appropriation for that insti- 
 tution being $ 10,000, the annual expendi- 
 ture for each student, supposing the number 
 to be eighty, is $125, paid by the State, in 
 addition to all the expenses of tuition, board, 
 &c, which is paid by individuals. 
 
 "These facts are stated for no other pur- 
 pose than to bring to view the disproportion 
 in the expenditure, and actual waste of pub- 
 lic money for want of a well regulated sys- 
 tem of education. 
 
 "A large portion of the State is in a 
 situation, in relation to schools, which is 
 truly to be lamented ; produced by various 
 causes, some of which are peculiar to local 
 situations where the population is extreme- 
 ly sparse, rendering it impracticable to sup- 
 port schools in the neighborhood, for want 
 of sufficient number of children to attend 
 them without sending them from home to 
 board, which many persons of large fami- 
 lies either have not the . means to do, or if 
 they have, are not disposed to appropriate 
 
Debates In the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 317 
 
 them for that purpose, in other neighbor- 
 hoods where schools could be supplied if 
 the people desired. No interest or zeal ap- 
 pears to be felt on the subject, and children 
 are permitted to grow up in ignorance, for 
 want of a disposition on the part of the pa- 
 rent to educate them. The money that has 
 been expended for the support of schools 
 has in many, if not a majority of the par- 
 ishes, failed to produce the beneficial re- 
 sults which were intended. Incompetent 
 men have been employed as teachers, 
 whose object has been to get the public 
 money, more than improve the children un- 
 der their care ; and when the public money, 
 to which a school has been entitled, has 
 been exhausted, the schools in many in- 
 stances have been broken up, and no more 
 taught in the neighborhood until another 
 supply of money has been expected from 
 the State to pay the teacher. 
 
 "Owing to facts like these, the children 
 that have occasionally attended the schools 
 have received, in many places, but little 
 benefit from them. One of the causes of 
 the failure in the expenditure of the funds 
 of the State, distributed to the parishes gene- 
 rally, has been that indigent children only 
 have been entitled to the benefits of the 
 public funds. Men of the high sentiments 
 and noble feelings that characterize the 
 citizens of this State feel a repugnance at 
 the thought of educating their children by 
 the use of a fund that none but the poor and 
 needy can be partakers of. Hence it is be- 
 lieved that many persons, unable to educate 
 their children at their own expense, have 
 too much pride and feel that it would be 
 humiliating to themselves and their children 
 to partake of a bounty thus offered. AY hen 
 the fact of partaking furnishes of itself evi- 
 dence of their poverty and indigence : and 
 though this may to some extent arise from 
 false pride, still the fact exists, and the ef- 
 fect is the same as though the objection 
 were a good one. Another cause of the 
 failure has been that large expenditures 
 have been made for building colleges and 
 academies for the promotion" of the higher 
 branches of literature, before providing the 
 means for teaching the first rudiments of £ 
 common education. 
 
 "The necessary steps ought first to be 
 taken to place within the reach of the mass 
 of the children throughout the State, such 
 an education as will fit them for the higher 
 41 
 
 I branches, and in such a manner as to place 
 I all on an equal footing in the enjoyment of 
 the benefits to be derived from the funds of 
 the State. This would create a laudable 
 ambition between those whose progress 
 and advancement would fit them for the 
 higher schools ; and thus the higher as well 
 as the lower would be supported. The 
 progress of the child in the acquisition of a 
 substantial education, would emulate the 
 : parent ; parents would encourage each 
 other : and when the spirit of education 
 could be fairly put into operation, it is be- 
 lieved that it would here, as it has done in 
 ; many of the States of the United States, 
 and in Prussia and Germany, carry with it 
 public opinion, which in this country is ail 
 that is necessary to sustain any measure 
 that promises to be permanently useful. 
 
 ''The rx*opie must see and feci the im- 
 portance ^of the subject, ihz necessity of 
 action. The subject must receive their ap- 
 probation ; excite their interest and zeal ; 
 they must act together with their influence 
 and money to carry it into operation. The 
 public mind in this State has never been 
 sufficiently aroused to the importance of 
 educating the youth. Any system that may 
 be- organised, not calculated to enlist the 
 feelings and receive the cordial approba- 
 tion and support of a majority of the citi- 
 zens, cannot be relied upon to effect the 
 object desired, viz : that of furnishuig to 
 the greatest number of the rising genera- 
 tion, upon equal terms, the best education 
 that the resources of the State, and of its 
 citizens generally, will justify. 
 
 "To overcome these difficulties would 
 require a system more in detail, than it 
 would be proper to incorporate into the 
 constitution, and which would often have to 
 be changed and improved, as circumstances 
 and observation might require. 
 
 "Provision ought to be made by the 
 State for as large a fund for immediate use 
 as its financial condition will permit, and 
 also for a permanent fund for future use, 
 large enough if possible to afford the means 
 to all the children in the State of obtaining 
 a knowledge of reading, writing and arith- 
 metic; branches which are indispensably 
 necessary to every citizen in his intercourse 
 with his fellow man and with the world. 
 
 "Your committee have, by a provision 
 which they report herewith, endeavored to 
 lay the foundation for a permanent nSid, 
 
316 
 
 Debates in the Convention of fcoufekni 
 
 which will have the power of increase 
 within itself; to meet the increase of chil- 
 dren, and of expenditure that improvements 
 may require, as will be seen by the provi- 
 sions reported. 
 
 "A provision is also contained in the re- 
 port providing for the appointment of a su- 
 perintendent of education; the object of 
 which is to secure an efficient officer whose 
 sole business shall be to attend to the duties 
 of that office, and who shall constitute the 
 head of an organized school department of 
 the State. By another section it is made 
 the duty of the legislature to encourage the 
 institution of common schools throughout 
 the State, for the promotion of literature 
 and the arts and sciences, and to provide 
 means for their support. By enjoining the 
 encouragement and support of education 
 upon the legislature, it will be part of the 
 duty which every member of Jhat body 
 will be sworn to perform, to give it atten- 
 tion. 
 
 "The cultivation of the mental faculties 
 for the promotion of wisdom, morality and 
 virtue, is amongst the first duties of a State. 
 The chief object of constitutions and laws 
 being to render its citizens secure in their 
 lives, liberty and property, the importance 
 of a good education to each individual, to 
 every community, and to the State, cannot 
 be too highly valued, it is certainly of too 
 great value to be estimated by any pecunia- 
 ry consideration. 
 
 "From the genius, nature and spirit of 
 republican government, it is and must be 
 based upon public opinion; which to be salu- 
 tary in its operation must be virtuous and 
 enlightened. 
 
 "The permanence of our institutions 
 ever have, and must continue to depend 
 upon the genius of our constitution and 
 laws, sustained by that spirit of freedom 
 which actuates every man who is truly an 
 American. 
 
 "Upon education we may safely confide 
 as the conservative power of the State, 
 that will watch over our liberties and guard 
 them against fraud, corruption and decay. 
 
 "Without morality, virtue and intelli- 
 gence to regulate the genius and spirit ofre* 
 publicanism, the latter one constantly ex- 
 posed to be swept away by the iron pile of 
 ignorance and vice, when wielded by dema- 
 gogues, to destroy our liberties. 
 
 "Morality and virtue may- exist without 
 
 the peculiar culture of schools; but a man 
 can hardly be said to be intelligent without 
 knowing how to read, and without that kind 
 of knowledge that generally has its source 
 in an education acquired at school. With- 
 out intelligence, virtue and morality would 
 cease to perform their legitimate functions, 
 and to have that influence upon the body 
 politic which it is necessary they should 
 exert. Without these necessary ingre- 
 dients to sustain the purity and harmony of 
 our constitution and laws, unless the people 
 know and appreciate their rights, and know 
 how to maintain and protect them, the 
 vicious and disorderly will protect and 
 screen each other from the operation of the 
 laws; the restraining influence of the social 
 and political compact will be annihilated^ 
 and dissolution and ruin will be the inevi. 
 table result. 
 
 "There can be no security, the true spirit • 
 of liberty cannot exist where vice, ignorance 
 and immorality predominate. 
 
 "Where a right direction is given to the 
 young and tender mind, correct principles 
 inculcated and impulses given, morality, 
 virtue and reason commence their reign, 
 and with the necessary culture fit their pos- 
 sessors to be useful to themselves, orna- 
 ments to society, and safe-guards to the 
 State. The strength of the State and the 
 happiness of its people increase with the 
 increase of useful knowledge. Without 
 knowing their rights and duties men be- 
 come dangerous to the State, nuisances to 
 the community, and burdensome to them- 
 selves. By laying the foundation of a sys- 
 tem susceptible of being carried into practi- 
 cal operation, and which will secure to the 
 rising generation the means by which they 
 may be educated. 
 
 "The greatest degree of social and indi- 
 vidual prosperity will be secured to our pos- 
 terity, and a strong guarantee of protection 
 to our constitution and laws. 
 
 "Louisiana should possess the means of 
 educating her youths at home. Southern 
 men should have southern heads and hearts, 
 with sentiments untarnished by doctrines at 
 war with our rights and liberties. It is of 
 the first importance that correct impres- 
 sions be made upon the minds of children; 
 for it is difficult to unlearn what has been 
 learned amiss. 
 
 "When our children return from the 
 j north, after having received an education 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 319 
 
 there^ they have to be re-acclimated, and sold or disposed of, and all estates of de- 
 not unfrequently fall victims to the effects ceased persons to which the State may be 
 of the change. Many of the most promis- or hereafter become entitled by law, shall 
 ing youths of the State have been swept be held by the State as a loan, and shall 
 away within a very short period after their be and remain a perpetual fund, on which 
 return with an accomplished education, j the State shall pay an annual interest of 
 from the effects of a change of climate. — per cent., which interest, together w T ith 
 Youths who were the fondest hopes of their all the rents of the unsold lands, shall be 
 parents, and promised to be ornaments, not ! inviolably appropriated to the support of 
 only to them, but to the State, and whose I schools and institutions of learning through- 
 loss to both is irreparable. | out the State, until the rents or interest, or 
 
 "All this can be remedied by entering : both together, shall amount to the sum of 
 
 upon the work ourselves, with a determina- ; per annum ; after which the annual 
 
 tion to "accomplish it. A good education [ excess of such rents and interest may be 
 furnished to the rising generation, will af- j applied by the legislature to other objects, 
 ford us a better guarantee of protection ' Sec. 4. The funds arising from the rents 
 than fleets and armies. Shall w T e not then or sales, which may hereafter be made, of 
 be inexcusable for neglect to make the | any lands heretofore granted by the United 
 trial? j States to this State, for the use of a serai- 
 
 " It is said that a man will give all he : inary of learning, ''and of any land that may 
 has for his life. If so, ought he not, with ! hereafter be granted for that purpose, and 
 equal reachless, give the same price, if ' any interest that may accrue upon such 
 necessary, to secure his life, liberty and j funds, shall be inviolably applied to the use 
 happiness, and the prospect of conferring j specified, or that may be specified in the 
 upon his posterity the same blessings, en- ! gmnt. 
 
 riched and ennobled by the highest degree ; And your committee recommend the 
 of intellectual attainments ? * ' adoption of the following resolution: 
 
 " All of which is respectfully submitted, \ Resolved, That our representatives and 
 together with the accompanying provisions ] senators in congress be requested to use 
 and resolutions. their best efforts to procure the passage of 
 
 [Signed] "G. MAYO, j a law, granting to this State the unsold 
 
 "Chairman." lands within this State, belonging to the 
 
 Report of the committee on the subject j United States, or as large a portion thereof 
 of education: j as possible, for the purpose of education; 
 
 Sec. 1. The governor shall nominate, ; and to co-operate, if necessary to effect that 
 and by and with the advice and consent of j object, with the representatives and sena- 
 the senate, appoint a superintendent of edu- ; tors in congress from other States, 
 cation, who shall hold his office for two ! On motion of Mr. Mayo, said report and 
 years; whose duties shall be prescribed by resolutions were laid on the table subject 
 law; and who shall receive such compen- ' to call, and ordered to be printed, 
 sation as the legislature may direct. Mr. Benjamin moved a re -consideration 
 
 Se£. 2, The legislature shall encourage ; of the vote just taken on the printing of the 
 the institution of common schools through- j report just read. He thinks the expense 
 out the State, for the promotion of literature of printing may be avoided. We shall be- 
 and the arts and sciences, and shall pro- fore we want to touch the matter it treats 
 vide means for that purpose and for their j of, have it published in our official reports, 
 support. i and we ought to endeavor to make ihe prin- 
 
 Sec 3. The proceeds of all lands that ! ter's bills as light as possible, for they are 
 have been or hereafter may be granted by [ now so heavy as to be hard to meet, 
 the United States to this State, for the use j The re-consideration was granted, and 
 and support of schools, and of all land that j then 
 
 may have been or may hereafter be granted ! Mr. Benjamin moved that the sections 
 by the United States, or by any person or j accompanying the report and the resolution 
 persons, body politic or corporate, to this j connected therewith be printed, and fur- 
 State, and not granted expressly for any I nished this Convention forthwith, which 
 other purpose, which shall hereafter be j motion prevailed. 
 
320 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana 
 
 The special order of the day was the re- 
 port of the committee of revision. 
 
 The committee of revision submitted the 
 following report to the Convention : 
 
 SECTION SECOND OF ARTICLE FIRST, AS RE- 
 PORTED BY THE COMMITTEE OF REVISION. 
 
 Sec. 2. No one of these departments 
 nor any person holding office in one of 
 them, shall exercise power properly be- 
 longing to either of the others, except in 
 the instances hereinafter expressly directed 
 or permitted. 
 
 Mr. Roman asked if there was not a 
 misprint in the report now before us, and 
 whether the word "or" was not in the ori- 
 ginal report the word "and ?" 
 
 The secretary referred to the report of 
 the committee and found it to be the word 
 "or" as printed. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved the adoption of the 
 section, and it was accordingly adopted. 
 
 The Convention then proceeded to the 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Section 6th, of the report of the special 
 committee, composed of three members 
 from each congressional dictrict, viz : 
 
 "Each parish shall be entitled to repre- 
 sentation in portion to its population, ascer- 
 tained and calculated according to the prin- 
 ciple of representation adopted in the con- 
 stitution of the United States. m Provided, 
 that no parish or city shall ever be entitled 
 to more than one-fifth of the whole number 
 of representatives." 
 
 Mi-.Marigny took the floor and address- 
 ed the Convention. 
 
 Mx. President, I had hoped that the spe- 
 cial committee to whom was referred the 
 subject of apportionment, and whose report 
 we have now before us, would have been 
 not only more prudent, but more just than 
 they have, 1 had expected they would 
 have eschewed the federal basis, which has 
 been already the cause of so many warm 
 discussions— and looking back to the con- 
 stitution of 1812, would have preferred the 
 basis, "the electoral," which they adopted, 
 and certainly there was then less danger 
 than now, in establishing a representative 
 apportionment— based on slave population, 
 no matter what the ratio may be agreed 
 upon here. But since they seem blindly 
 determined to allow no more to the city 
 than one-fifth of the representatives of the 
 State — to that city, which contains , one- 
 third of the population of the State, and con- 
 
 tributes at least two-thirds of all the money 
 paid into the State treasury — and while it 
 is further made clear to us, that the influ- 
 ence of the city is further to be overshad- 
 owed, and neutralized by the adoption of 
 the federal basis, I have no course left me 
 but to endeavor to hold up to your gaze this 
 monstrous usurpation of power, this flagrant 
 violation of every principle of equality, pro- 
 bety and justice, and to point out to you the 
 dangerous consequences which must inevi- 
 tably flow from such a course. 
 
 Would to God, X could be inspired with 
 language that should carry conviction to 
 your minds as to the outrageous injustice 
 this measure is to perpetuate ! I feel my- 
 self that I appreciate that wrong ; and I 
 shall by every effort in my power endeavor 
 to shew you, that you cannot act with such 
 injustice to New Orleans, without under- 
 mining the social fabric itself. I will not 
 as some other speakers have done, refer 
 you to some hundred extracts from authors 
 on this subject, which alone go to shew 
 that what those authors said and wrote be- 
 longed to a different age, and a different 
 locality from ours, No, I shall confine 
 myself to the section of country in which 
 we live, and with the historical facts of that 
 country. I shall endeavor to tear away 
 the veil from that committee, without fear, 
 favor, or affection. 
 
 What was the state of slavery in Ameri- 
 ca at the time of the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence? The powers of Europe who 
 had divided among themselves this vast 
 continent, universally and openly acknow- 
 ledged the right to trade in slaves. Then 
 you heard nothing of abolition, or of aboli- 
 tionism, and slavery was then universally 
 allowed to exist throughout the new world, 
 with perhaps one small spot, that was in 
 the blue mountains of the Island of Jamaica, 
 where the Maroons maintained themselves 
 for the period of eighty years, and finally 
 the British government had to make terms 
 with them, which were to leave them un- 
 molested on condition that they did not in- 
 terfere in the colonial affairs—^-and abstain- 
 ed from seducing or enticing away from the 
 plantations the negro slaves thereon. 
 
 But how did the monarchical powers act 
 towards these beings, whom by law were 
 consigned to the service of the whites 1 
 It is that which demands our attention, par- 
 ticularly, so far as regards Louisiana. 
 
Debates in the Conventioirof Louisiana, 
 
 321 
 
 The Spanish government had one crimi- I 
 nal jurisprudence alike for the white -and 
 negro population, and no negro could then 
 be executed unless the signature of the | 
 King had been procured to the warrant. 
 This was fully exemplified during the ad- 
 ministration of the Baron de Carondelet, in | 
 1797, when a slave named Jean Baptiste 
 committed an atrocious murder. The peo- 
 ple loudly called for the prompt execution 
 of the murderer, who was condemned to be 
 hung, and jet the Baron (fere not take 
 upon himself to see the verdict of the law 
 enforced. 
 
 He consulted with J. B. Vidal, the King's i 
 commissioner and procurator, who told him 
 that he was not authorised to order the exe- 
 cution, without laying himself liable to a 
 heavy penalty. Popular indignation and | 
 fury rose to the highest pitch, and the 
 governor had at last, to incur whatever 
 penalty the court of Madrid might see fit to 
 impose on him, and consent to the execu- 
 tion of the slave : all the facts of the case 
 were forwarded to the court of Spain, who 
 referred the same to the department charged 
 with the affairs of the West Indies ; they 
 disapproved of the Baron's course, and con- 
 demned him to pay a fine of 8500. This 
 case is mentioned in Judge Martin's His- 
 tory of Louisiana. 
 
 Besides that, a slave had a right, of 
 which he could not be deprived, to purchase 
 his own freedom. All he had to do, was"to 
 go before a judge, who put a valuation on 
 him, or had him valued — and if the master 
 could not prove that the slave had unlaw- 
 fully acquired the money, he had the right 
 to purchase his freedom in spite of his mas- 
 ter. The slave had also the right to ac- 
 quire and hold property, and the master had 
 no right, even if he died a slave to inherit 
 his own slave's property. Slaves had then 
 the right of assembling together for amuse- 
 ment every Sunday, and of enjoying them- 
 selves in such games as they please. This 
 privilege being abused on more than one 
 
 occasion, the 
 
 Jean Paul Lanosse, 
 
 was desirous of putting an end to it, and ap- 
 plied to the same councillor to whom Ca- 
 rondelet had applied for advice, and from 
 him he learnt that it was a privilege accord- 
 ed to them under an act of "Isabella" the 
 catholic, and could not be abrogated. He 
 further read him a passage of sacred histo- 
 ry, where it was laid down, that Saint Ma- 
 
 deleinae, tired and weary from six days la- 
 bor, applied to the Lord for the privilege of 
 dancing on Sund</y, and he granted it. 
 
 Where are now these privileges ? They 
 have vanished under the operation of the 
 black code, and yet, while you, under the 
 name of law, and under pretence of right, 
 have stripped these same beings of every 
 privilege, you at the same time are very 
 glad to put up your claims for representa- 
 tion on their account. Further, you want 
 some 25,000 to 30,000 free persons of color, 
 which the constitution of 1812 has deprived 
 of the right of representation included in 
 your basis. 
 
 The framers of that constitution were 
 consistent, because after they had estab- 
 lished the principle that colored people 
 should have no voice in the councils or re- 
 presentative voice in the legislature, they 
 discarded all but the electoral basis. 
 
 But what do you do ? First you aim the 
 same blow at them ; and sencondly, you 
 class them with animals, as cattle. You 
 shall never be anything yourselves it is 
 true say you, but we mean to take advan- 
 tage of the possession of you, to usurp from 
 others in consequence of such possession, 
 the right of representation. 
 
 I shall endeavor to shew you how un- 
 reasonable and dangerous is this scheme 
 of usurpation which you are striving to force 
 through. 
 
 Under the Spanish government, free 
 blacks enjoyed all the privileges of white 
 persons. That led to an amalgamation be- 
 tween the white and colored races, until 
 finally they have become within four de- 
 grees of the white man ; and did not pru- 
 dence forbid me, I could name several 
 families who are descendants of those per- 
 sons, whose color depends on that law to re- 
 cognize them as white. Xow let us see 
 the results of that law. The Governor of 
 Louisiana, Gaivez, was desirous of taking 
 possession by conquest of the Floridas, but 
 being short of troops of the line, and with a 
 white population not amounting to over 
 20,000 persons, he called into service ev- 
 ery male inhabitant under forty-five years 
 of age, and all those free colored persons 
 who were recognized as citizens under the 
 law. They crossed by the marshes leading 
 towards Pearl River till they reached that 
 point, and found their way across to the 
 Gulf of Mexico, and thence finally arrived 
 
Debates in the Oonventloii of Louisiana. 
 
 before Pensacola, where Campbell was in 
 command. 
 
 A naturalized Spaniard by the name of 
 Rousseau, whose descendants are as nu- 
 merous as his name was famous, furnished 
 them with artillery in flat bottomed boats. 
 Another by the name of Guillemard, placed 
 them advantageously for the attack, and 
 after they had succeeded in making two 
 breaches in the enemy's entrenchments, 
 the colored regiment, under the command 
 of one of Galvez' aids de camp, rushed in, 
 and were the first who entered Fort St. 
 Michael. 
 
 So pleased was the king of Spain with 
 this act of bravery, that he granted to five 
 of them the privilege of carrying a sword, 
 and wearing the ribbon of honor. Fi- 
 nally, under the administration of De Mi- 
 reau, a negro by the name of St. Malo, 
 endeavoring to imitate the example set him 
 by the blacks of Jamaica, fortified himself 
 in the neighborhood of Lake Borgne, with 
 a force of one hundred and fifty men, and 
 for a period of thirty years maintained his 
 ground, and became the terror of every set- 
 tler on Terre aux Bceuffs. Who was relied 
 on to put down this dreaded rebel? Why 
 the very colored people of whom we have 
 before spoken. They marched courageously 
 to the scene of action, led by the same aid 
 de camp [Mr. de Marigny, the father of 
 the gentleman now addressing the house] 
 of Galvez, who had commanded them at 
 Pensacola, surprised St. Malo in his re- 
 treat, and captured him, with seven of his 
 followers, and brought them to the city, 
 where they perished on the gibbet. 
 
 Again, who does not recollect that it is 
 to this same class that we are indebted for 
 ridding the country of the celebrated Bowles, 
 in 1800, during the administration of Cassa 
 Calvo. That bold and daring man had 
 been raised among the Indians — formed 
 the plan of bringing over the Creeks and 
 Seminoles to the aid of Spain. At first 
 he succeeded. He went to Jamaica, re- 
 turned with men and money, and encamped 
 at Apalachicola ; directing his attack upon 
 fort St. Mark, (which was commanded by 
 one Portil.) He displayed tact and cour- 
 age in his movements ; but unfortunately 
 for himself, committed such depredations as 
 to awaken Louisiana to a sense of her own 
 danger, should he succeed. 
 
 De Cassacalvo formed a body of men. 
 
 2000 strong, which he placed under the 
 command of Col. Trudeau. Fruitless en- 
 terprise ! it succombed to the Indian rifle 
 and tomahawk. What then was to be 
 done? Why they again called out the 
 people of color, and 800 of them marched 
 to the seat of action under De Salles and 
 De Breni Desclouet. They arrived shortly 
 after, and raised the seige. Bowles was 
 immediately afterwards taken prisoner, 
 and died in the dungeons of Havana. 
 
 Yes, Mr. President ; these men did what 
 I have told you under the Spanish govern- 
 ment, whilst they had the prospect of citi- 
 zenship before their eyes for their children. 
 I do not claim here for those they have left 
 behind them either those rights or those 
 privileges ; but I do say that it is in the 
 highest degree impolitic to make our rep- 
 resentation based on any principle which 
 should remind them of what they were, and 
 what they are. In other words, I do not 
 think we ought to take any step which would 
 have the effect of embittering their feelings 
 against us on account of the present state 
 of things. It surely cannot be on their ac- 
 count that you want to establish the federal 
 basis. No, for they have asked you no- 
 thing, and you have determined to give 
 them nothing, so far as rights and privile- 
 ges are concerned. Why, then, take them 
 into consideration in making your basis ? 
 Why carry them into the dire necessity of 
 comparing the past with the present? 
 Why, I ask? because ambition blinds you, 
 and without troubling yourselves about -the 
 consequences of such a measure, you think 
 alone of benefiting the country at the ex- 
 pense of the city,*as if the city was peopled 
 by a set of Vandals, ready to pounce upon 
 and destroy your plantations. As if the in- 
 habitants of New Orleans thought of no- 
 thing but pillage, plunder and rapine, lilie 
 the brigands of Calabria; who hid them- 
 selves from the gaze of the traveller be- 
 hind the jutting rocks, more effectually to 
 surprize and destroy them. 
 
 But, sir, what great harm has New Or- 
 leans ever done to the country, that she is 
 now so roughly and unjustly handled, and 
 for which they claim so much from her ? 
 They teli you it is the Irishmen they fear. 
 The Irishmen, is their everlasting cry. 
 That is the bugbear. You would almost 
 think, when you heard that cry, as I have 
 heard it dinned into my ears, that a band 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana 
 
 328 
 
 of Irish had rushed into the churches, and 
 destroyed and defaced the image of Christ 
 himself— and yet these Irishmen are a very 
 industrious kind of people. We meet them 
 in all the walks of life, and in every society. 
 If poverty and laborious toil were consi- 
 dered as vices now-a-days, I might think, 
 perhaps, that they were a very vicious peo- 
 ple, for it is true that the masses are not 
 rich. But, thank God, in our country, to 
 be rich is nothing — to be industrious eve- 
 ry thing. Who does not know that intelli- 
 gence and genius are like the vigorous 
 plants of spring, whose strength can only 
 be developed by a rich soil, and whose 
 verdure is constantly exposed to the pow- j 
 erful and genial influence of the sun. 
 
 There is no country on the face of the | 
 globe where examples abound as they do I 
 in this, to support the position I have ta- j 
 ken. 
 
 After the conquest of Canada, when the j 
 Canadians and the Acadians were doomed j 
 to exile rather than submit to the English 
 yoke, some 3000 of them arrived upon our j 
 shores — upon the soil of Louisiana. T§fe ! 
 whole population at that time numbered i 
 about 2000. The naked and squalid con- I 
 dition of this large mass of human beings, : 
 who were fugitives from their own eoun- ! 
 try, naturally inspired our citizens with 
 alarm and dread — I may say consterna- 
 tion ; and the question was every where 
 asked if we were to give such people a 
 home amongst us. Every one then seem- 
 ed to vie, who could inflict the greatest 
 indignity on them ; and finally the idea 
 seemed to be general, that they should be 
 made to return the way from whence they 
 came. 
 
 But after some more reflection, upon the 
 advice and by the firmness of some gene- 
 rous men, the feeling of selfishness was 
 conquered, and listened to the call made 
 upon them by the famous chevalier de Vil- 
 lires. This knight, brave man, worthy to 
 rank amongst the knights of ancient days, 
 was the last of seven brothers who had all 
 borne arms in the wars of Canada; one of' 
 whom, was renouned for his valor and his 
 military talents, and who finally yielded up 
 to Gen. Washington fort Necessity when 
 he laid siege to it, and if for nothing else, 
 he deserved the good wishes of every 
 American; for, probably, by that actT he 
 preserved to us the man who was des- 
 
 tined to become the hero and the father of 
 his country. His name-sake then crossed 
 the periled ocean, domicilated himself 
 amongst us, and married a Miss Livaudais. 
 It was well known that had he chosen to 
 have returned to France, that honors and 
 wealth awaited him for the military services 
 he had rendered to his co.untry in Canada. 
 It was this man then, when his heart was 
 touched by feelings of pity and commis- 
 eration when he beheld the distress' and 
 sufferings of these voluntary exiles from 
 their country, that was determined, so 
 far as he was concerned, that those brave 
 men who had served under Montcalm 
 should not be inhospitably driven back to 
 the shores of the gulf. What did he do? 
 Why he buckled on his sword to his side, 
 (for in those days it was the brave spirit, and 
 not the everlasting dollar as now, that 
 commanded esteem in Louisiana,) and re- 
 paired to the levee. 
 
 There the Acadians were in doubt and 
 despondency. He mixed amongst them, 
 encouraged them and kept their drooping 
 spirits, others followed this noble example; 
 the result was, that the Acadians, finding 
 themselves protected, immediatel y after- 
 wards settled in different portions of the 
 State. In the vast and fertile regions of La- 
 fourche, Attakapas and Iberville, they thrived 
 and with their thrift, the country pros- 
 pered and so steadily persevering have they 
 been, that you cannot turn to any page in 
 the history of our country, but you will 
 find the names either of those very men, 
 who were about to be driven away, 
 or their children, or their children's chil- 
 dren, figuring largely" thereon. They have 
 furnished us with our best citizens, and we 
 have every reason to be satisfied with them 
 wherever they have been called into the pub- 
 lic service — and if I mistake not very much, 
 the present governor is descended from that 
 very class of citizens whom I have been de- 
 scribing to you. 
 
 The question then naturally arises, why 
 are the Irishmen more dangerous than the 
 Acadians? Why can't they thrive and pros- 
 per in Louisiana as they have done ? The 
 most of them have received in their na- 
 tive country a primary education, and that 
 is more than the Acadians did — and we are 
 not without examples before us, that they 
 know how to buffet with the world as well 
 as others, and therefore we see that many 
 
324 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 have succeeded in their pursuits. They 
 have therefore a common interest with 
 Us in the prosperity of the State and 
 they have already furnished us two public 
 men, who would and do compare favorably 
 with any men in any country, Messrs, 
 Judge Porter and Dick. It must therefore 
 be apparent that m'conjuring up of the phan- 
 tom which they have, of the danger of 'Irish- 
 men' it could only been done for the pur- 
 pose of frightening us from our propriety of 
 conduct, and bring us bound hand and foot 
 by [cause of our fears of raw heads and 
 bloody bones, into their unjust and outra- 
 geous doctrines. 
 
 The President called Mr. Marigny to or- 
 der for not confining himself to the subject 
 under debate. 
 
 Mr. Marigny — I am in order Mr. 
 President, I honorably conceive ; for I 
 am defending the privileges of 145,000 
 Irishmen — and sir if it be permitted in a 
 criminal court, to suffer the attorney of the 
 accused to rest his defence on what he con- 
 ceives his strongest ground, surely it is not 
 right to check me, in explaining in my own 
 way the reasons which governs my action 
 in this matter, and which I am willing to 
 give and am trying in my own humble way 
 to do. But sir, if any one here is dissatis- 
 fied, or displeased with what I say, why let 
 them take me up and throw me out of the 
 window. But if they do, that wont hurt 
 me, for 1 shall be sure, while defending 
 their political rights, to have some of the 
 145,000 Irishmen outside waiting to catch 
 me in their arms. 
 
 The President remarked that he was nei- 
 ther displeased nor dissatisfied with Mr. 
 Marigny for what he had said, but he must 
 remind the gentleman that he was not 
 speaking to the subject before the house, 
 but was indulging us with the history of 
 Louisiana, which was not the subject of 
 'debate now before the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Marigny hopes the President will 
 pardon him for the length of his peroration 
 but it was absolutely necessary to bring up 
 the argument in its proper shape. He, 
 will now endeavor to draw the inferences 
 which he has laid down in the premises. 
 The report before us has but one object, 
 and that is, to secure for the country the po- 
 litical power of the State; to reduce New 
 Orleans down to a fifth, on an unfair basis. 
 That is the main question— and yet, sir, 
 
 those who had the hardihood to propose it, 
 had not the courage to confess it ; no, not 
 even to admit it in argument. Their tal- 
 ent was not to be found, because their 
 courage failed them at the moment they 
 wanted to use it, and why? They knew 
 they had an unrighteous and unjust cause. 
 Even the delegate from Ouachita, whose 
 ability is so great, and whose imagination 
 is so fertile, was yesterday more at sea than 
 ever I have seen him. He seems as if he 
 was groping about in the dark, trying to 
 get hold of something to keep him up, no 
 matter what, in support of his views of the 
 matter now before us for consideration. 
 He reminded him more of a flounder fresh 
 caught and put into a tub, than any thing 
 he could think of — first plunging this way, 
 then that way, and all for the purpose of 
 getting out of his false position, at the same 
 time not willing to give his life without a 
 struggle or two. But sir; badinage apart; 
 let us examine how the question stands, and 
 what are the arguments advanced. The 
 main argument of the gentleman from Oua- 
 cflita is this: that New Orleans ought not to 
 make our laws ; and, that if she got hex just 
 proportion, under this or any other basis, she 
 was bound to do so. Now sir, how can 
 that be, when with all her dreaded power, 
 on the adoption of the new constitution, 
 New Orleans will only have one eighth of 
 the representation in the senate. It will 
 be emphatically twenty-eight versus four, 
 and in spite of all the dread entertained by 
 country members, the governor will be, 
 he is bound to be elected from the country. 
 During the last thirty-two years under the 
 constitution of 1812, we have lived and 
 prospered— the country has prospered, if 
 not more, at least as much as the city. And 
 how many governors have we had from 
 the city? One ; and even he died at the 
 end of two years. All the other governors 
 were from the country parishes. 
 
 It is not, therefore, true that they have any 
 thing to fear on that account. It is said the 
 country is afraid of the city. This is a 
 round assertion, but I can see no cause for 
 it. The real cause lies deeper. The coun- 
 try wants to bind down and fetter the city, 
 so that she, the country, may get her hands 
 upon the treasury. It is of no use for coun- 
 try members to deny it — there is where 
 the shoe pinches. 
 
 During the last twenty years, the legis- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 325 
 
 lature have made appropriations to the 
 amount of eight millions of dollars, cut of 
 which the city has received fifty thousand 
 dollars for the Draining Company, one 
 hundred Thousand for the Mexican Gulf 
 Rail Road, and five hundred thousand for 
 the Nashville Rail Rail Road; in all, six 
 hundred and fifty thousand. All the bal- 
 ance, no less than $7,350,000, has gone 
 into the hands of the country members, for 
 their several constituents' interests, when 
 ever and howsoever they saw fit to divide it 
 amongst themselves. 
 
 Thus, then, let us blindly pa'ss the sec- 
 tion as it stands, and it is not very difficult 
 to see the result. The city, which always 
 has filled, and always will, (and they know 
 it, every man of them,) fill the State treasu- 
 ry, is to be kept as the fat bird for them to 
 pluck. The city will get nothing in the 
 distribution of the public funds, and the 
 millions which have yet to flow into the 
 public treasury, will be as the millions here- 
 tofor squandered for useless and improvi- 
 dent efforts at internal improvement. 
 
 Is there any one here bold enogh to 
 deny this? No, sir, there is not a man 
 among them that dare to do it ; and 
 why? because the fkcts will stare him in 
 the face, and give the lie to his asser- 
 tions. The only answer that they have at- 
 tempted to make is, that the city and the 
 adjoining parishes have an identity of in- 
 terest, and consequently would combine- 
 that we should be able, here in the city, to 
 control the votes of the parishes of Plaque- 
 mines, St. Bernard, Jefferson, St. Charles, 
 &c, &c. Now, Mr. President, I had ex- 
 pected some more sensible reason than this 
 to be advanced; I had hoped we should not 
 have had this humbug and balderdash 
 forced upon us; but as it has come, we must 
 endeavor to m'eet it with the voice of truth, 
 and with the weapons of truth; despite the 
 learned, shrewd and wise delegate from 
 Ouachita, Mr. Downs' assertions and argu- 
 ments. Unfortunately for that gentleman, 
 (much as I esteem him,) I am compelled to 
 say that in the discussion of this question, 
 and with his long experience, he ought 
 never to have said, that we could bring 
 over any parish, by giving them an appro° 
 priation of $50 to $100,000. It was an 
 admission- 1 had not expected to hear from 
 his lips; because if so, he would thereby 
 admit that he has his price. 
 42 
 
 And now, Mr. President, to the main 
 question, which has been so much harped 
 upon. What does the city want from the 
 country? Nothing. What dees the coun- 
 try want from the city? Everything. These 
 are truths which they don't want to under- 
 stand; but they are, nevertheless, true, 
 whether they will or whether they wont 
 understand them. Mr. President, disguise 
 it as they will, and I desire in my expres- 
 sions to give offence to no one, yet it is 
 clear to my mind,* that the country is de- 
 pendent on the city. And if they are so in 
 one sense, they should be also in a political 
 point of view, and why? because they can- 
 not do without us; either in the sale of the 
 productions of their labor, or in the gratifi- 
 cation of their love of pleasure; I am now, 
 said Mr. Marigny, about to recur to the 
 history of our country. 
 
 Having promised the country members 
 to remove the seat of government from New 
 Orleans to the country, some years since, 
 (to give it a trial,) We consented to remove 
 the sessions of the legislature' to Donald- 
 sonville; that was the decision; and the lo- 
 cation was made there. Thanks to the de- 
 lightful dreams of those days, for the future 
 prosperity of Louisiana! ! said the contrac- 
 tor, for he got $50,000 for the job of put- 
 ting up a State house. 
 
 But what was the end of this scheme? 
 The members of the legislature had scarcely 
 assembled, ere they began to complain, 
 and many even 3 it is said,cnecZ with bitterness 
 and mortification at being cooped up in so 
 small a place. Every steamboat that land- 
 ed was boarded by the legislature, almost 
 in a body, to know the news "from town." 
 
 Each day was to them an unsupportable 
 burden. Each night was fraught with ugly 
 dreams, and each succeeding morning they 
 would say: "I would not pass another such 
 a night for aril the world," &c, &c. 
 
 At last they all had a dream — it seems 
 one and all were taken charge of by Queen 
 Mab, and she clearly showed them the 
 walls of the new State house were about 
 to fall over their heads and crush them into 
 mummies. Oh what a catastrophe! horri- 
 ble indeed! You could not convince them 
 to the contrary, and back they came to 
 New Orleans. 
 
 I have not yet said all on this subject 
 which I intended to say, and you must 
 
326 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 bear with mc 
 mcnts longer. 
 When it was de 
 
 Mr. President, a few mo- 
 
 dded to hold this Con- 
 
 vention at Jackson, in August last- — a re- 
 tired spot, where people could be quiet and 
 calm; where there would be a chance for 
 reflection, &c. The members met, and 
 the business of the Convention proceeded; 
 but, day after day, it was painful to hear 
 the complaints of members; first one thing 
 and then another, did not please them; and 
 it seemed that almost all had got tired of 
 the place before they had been there a 
 week. 
 
 For my part, Mr. President, I did not 
 suffer as they did; I have a happy disposi- 
 tion, and am always satisfied, place me 
 where you will. I found in Jackson many 
 estimable people* I could always say 
 some things that were new to them; and it 
 was, and is always a pleasure to me, to 
 have such friendly chats as I had with the 
 citizens of Jackson. My leisure moments 
 were, therefore, not as theirs; mine were 
 contented and happy — theirs the reverse. 
 I did not endeavor to keep an account of 
 the health of the town — they did. 
 
 I did not complain of any thing; and yet 
 these country members were complaining 
 all the time. First: they said they had no 
 books to refer to; second: they said they had 
 no chance to get statistical information, 
 and that both were necessary to carry on 
 and complete the work confided to them by 
 the people; and finally they got awfully 
 scared; and although they did not say that 
 they were afraid the house would tumble 
 about their ears, yet they did say that they 
 were afraid of the cold plague — and there- 
 fore it was a duty which they owed to them- 
 selved and the State to clear out, and go 
 home as soon as possible. 
 
 Well, they adjourned, and to meet again 
 in New Orleans. And now what follows? 
 Heiejhey are— that's certain ; and a noble 
 body they are — that's equally certain; but 
 do you suppose that there is a man 
 amongst them who has not something to 
 attend to? some question of interest or pleas- 
 ure on hand? I do not believe there is a gen- 
 tleman present, who will ever doubt or de- 
 ny it, that so long as there is any monies 
 in the treasury to pay them, we shall hear 
 no complaint. But would it not be well 
 for them to enquire out of whose pockets 
 it comes? No, they dare not ask the ques- 
 
 tion; and why? because truth, honor and 
 justice compels them to say that it is to 
 New Orleans they have to look up for the 
 supply of the very means they are now 
 working upon; because she contributes 
 more than two-thirds of the revenue of the 
 State. The fear of the country members 
 is, that New Orleans will, ere long, wake 
 up, and refuse to pay the piper as they 
 have heretofore done; and now they want 
 to fasten us down quietly, so that hereaf- 
 ter they may raise the cry of nullification, 
 should we object. Even this ingenious 
 argument will fail them; for I admit that it 
 is ingenious. But, sir, Louisiana is too 
 well known in her sincere attachment to 
 the Union, I hope, for any such rigmarole 
 to be forced down our throats at this late 
 hour. But one thing I will say to the 
 country members on this floor, and that is, 
 that they will find it a harder task than they 
 are aware of or anticipate, to fasten down 
 200,000 free American citizens, who have 
 the same rights as they have, to their 
 triumphant car — and to make that popu- 
 lation their vassals. If they try it, they 
 will find themselves mistaken. 
 
 If you want to be satisfied on that head, 
 you have but to turn to the history of 
 Switzerland, there they deposed the "Hud- 
 speths" from power, who relied so much 
 on their descent from Julius Caesar. In 
 Vienna they made light of the revolt; but 
 they taught their soi disant masters that a 
 people cannot, and will not be imposed 
 upon without their own consent. Without 
 leaving behind such restrictions, bitter re- 
 grets on their parts, as well for the princi- 
 ple itself, as in what the treasury will have 
 to suffer to put it to rights. Turn which- 
 ever way you will, and you will find the 
 same feeling, connected with the same 
 principles. Look at the course of the 
 people of the Netherlands, who success- 
 fully placed themselves in resistance to 
 Philip II of Spain, a monarch who had at 
 his control an immense army, till then in- 
 vincible, and had, furthermore, inexhausti- 
 ble resources from his rich mines in South 
 America; yes, they resisted an odious tax, 
 odious, moreover, because the right was 
 claimed to tax the people according to their 
 pleasure; and yet this simple people would 
 not, and did not suffer such a tax to be 
 levied from them. 
 
 But why should I call your attention to 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 827 
 
 the facts chronicled in Europe, when we I You will make unjust and onerous 
 have so many nearer home, that we can \ laws, burdening one portion of the people 
 cite? for the benefit of the other, which must end 
 
 We all know that the day of our birth as j in resistance to. and refusal to bear the bur- 
 arepublic, was that on which we resisted an den. 
 
 onerous and unjust tar. And yet you will, : The great aim of gentlemen from the 
 I mean you gentlemen of the country. ' country seems to be to crush the city, and 
 contend that it is perfectly fair in you to ! give all to the country: that you say. per- 
 dispose of one-third of the^rights of two ; haps not in so many words, but by your 
 hundred thousand citizens, at your own ' actions, which speak louder than words, 
 will and pleasure: and that afterwards it is : in curtailing the representation of New Or= 
 in your power and in your province, to rob ■ leans to one-fifth, and you thereby place 
 them of that which they contribute to the ; the whole revenue of the State in the hands 
 support of the government: and what for? to of the country. I warn you again that you 
 enrich and improve the country parishes, at must abandon your position, for it is based 
 the expense of the city; to'draw from the la- on injustice, and will be disastrous in its 
 bor and the sweat of the citizens' brow all j consequences if persevered in. 
 you want to enrich yourselves. Oh. it is a God knows 1 am not fond of turmoil or 
 monstrous doctrine! and 1 marvel much, | strife, and have a natural horror of revolu- 
 to see my friend, Mr. Downs, having any j tions. I have, it ."is true, had my fortune 
 thing to do with such an unclean thing. impaired, but not my reputation. Well, 
 
 Some may say, and doubtless do, that j then, I tell you that if you persevere in this 
 there is no injustice in it; but have they j iniquitous scheme, I will not sign the con- 
 examined the subject? If they have not, | stitution, and I will advise my constituents 
 they had better do so ere it is too late. I not to submit to the taxes you impose un- 
 
 Carry out your doctrine and you "out ' der it; for when I voted for the call of a 
 Herod Herod.'' Macheavel himself, could | Convention, it was done with a view of 
 not have conceived a more odious one. ! dealing out even handed justice to all; not 
 Here is a people who make the State" what , to aid in any system that should cater to the 
 it is; a people forming one-third of the ! avarice or cupidity of the minority. But 
 population; who pay two-thirds of all that should you do this, it cannot be said that I 
 is paid into the treasury, in the shape of did not warn you of the danger. If you 
 taxes. Yes, they are taxed two-thirds of j take advantage of your numerical force" on 
 the public revenue; and yet they are to be ; this floor, and cast the torch of discord 
 restricted in the right of representation, 1 among our hitherto happy State, on your 
 and to be cut down to fifteen against sixty- shoulders the odium and disgrace that will 
 one, whom you plainly tell us, have no be attached to it will surely fall. I feel, 
 feeling in common with the city. : Mr. President, that I have done mv dutv. I 
 
 Once more I say beware ! For our la- j may not live to see the evil day. but at least 
 lors here are in vain, unless you get the when the people pass my grave, and read 
 sanction of the people to your constitution; on the cold marble, the name of Bernard 
 and from your present chance, that is more 3Iarigny, they will say, "he foresaw and 
 than doubtful. Is it not better, then, to foretold" in 1845, what has now come to 
 take the basis establised in the constitution pass. He did all he could to prevent it. 
 of 1812? The framers of that instrument Oh! that they had listened to his warning 
 were all good men and true, and knew the voice." 
 
 wants and ^situation of the country. We | Mr. Conrad deems the section before 
 have now 7000 electors in the city, under the Convention is one of such high and vast 
 the proposed course in the suffrage, they I importance — in fact, a section upon which 
 will reace 12,000. Take this report, how- j most probably will be determined whether 
 ver, and the constitution of 1845 never will ' our labors here are to result in any thino-.- 
 be ratified: but if it be ratified,all the old jeal- j whether the constitution we are endeavorino" 
 ousies and heart-burnings will be revived I to makelwill be ratified or rejected by the 
 throughout the country. You will plant the j people: that he cannot give a silent vote on it, 
 tree of abolition in our midst, and planting j and must therefore trespass, but for a. short 
 ever it is it not sure to grow? | time however, on the attention of the house. 
 
328 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Sir,- said Mr. Conrad, when the report 
 was laid on the table, I read it, and care- 
 fully, I assure you; but, sir, I am free to 
 say that it was with regret, and I was dis- 
 appointed and surprised. I do not desire, 
 Mr. President — far be it from me— to ques- 
 tion the capacity, intelligence, or the mo- 
 tives of any member of the committee; but 
 I was disappointed because I regarded it 
 as a perfect failure on their part, in per- 
 forming the duty assigned them, and that 
 they were entrusted with, which was to 
 separate the difficulties that surrounded the 
 question, and present us with a project 
 brsed upon fair and equitable principles. 
 
 The debate upon this subject, when pre- 
 viously before the house, was lengthy; and 
 finally, when we came to the conclusion 
 to re-commit the subject to a new commit- 
 tee, that they might alter the whole frame 
 and shape of it, and the more certainly to 
 arrive at the desired end, we appointed one 
 member from each congressional district 
 on that committee. That was virtually in- 
 structing them that we desired to have the 
 report made, and the project to be submit- 
 ted by them, on totally different principles 
 to the one we had so recommitted. How, 
 sir, have they discharged that duty? Why, 
 by retaining that very principle which was 
 so odious in the eyes of a majority of the 
 Convention. Yes, sir, they have retained 
 the federal basis. On that question I have 
 already said so much, in discussing the per- 
 nicious effects of that principle, that little 
 more remains to be said on it now; in fact, 
 I do not think one otherword is necessary. 
 Certain it is, that nothing has since been 
 said in this hall which could change my 
 opinion, or which can justify the members 
 of the committee in the course they have 
 seen fit to take. I then said, and I now 
 repeat without going further into details, 
 that the federal basis was not, and never 
 would be the proper basis on which to frame 
 representation. My reflections since then 
 have more and more confirmed me in that 
 opinion, and in the propriety of our course 
 in rejecting the first report. 
 
 The principle is engrafted in the consti- 
 tution of the United States, it is true, but 
 that is no model for State governments. 
 It was there inserted as a compromise, to 
 conciliate and harmonize the different and 
 conflicting interests of the North and South, 
 and therefore can have no possible bearing 
 
 on the making of a State constitution. It is 
 true, they have cited one or two States where 
 the principle is adhered to, but if they will 
 look a little closer into the question, they 
 will discover that it was the consequence 
 of divisions in those States on the question 
 of slavery. Thus, in the western part of 
 Virginia, the inhabitants were in favor of 
 its abolition; while those of the eastern 
 and central portions of the State as tena- 
 ciously clung to that institution. In order, 
 therefore, to preserve a proper equilibrium, 
 they insisted on a guarantee, and that was 
 found in adopting the federal basis. But 
 who will pretend to say, that there is any 
 difference of opinion as to abolitionism in 
 Louisiana? There is not a single advocate 
 for such a doctrine to be found here, and 
 consequently we can have no motive on 
 that account to engraft that basis on our 
 constitution. Another gentleman argues 
 that we should take that as the basis be- 
 cause the negro is property. I should not 
 object to a basis founded on property quali- 
 fication, but further, I think property is the 
 proper basis on which representation should 
 he made. 
 
 He (Mr. Conrad) much regretted that 
 Mr. Beatty was not in his seat, for he had 
 expected that the committee would have 
 reported on that subject, among others; and 
 he cannot but think that the committee, in 
 referring to the federal constitution, thought 
 more of the person of the slave than re- 
 garding him in the light of property. But 
 suppose they had so regarded it, the report 
 would not be the less defective, nor the 
 principle they contend for less obnoxious, 
 because one part of the State would be fa- 
 vored at the expense of the other. 
 
 In some parts of the State-^as for in- 
 stance in the piney woods, throughout the 
 Florida parishes—there are few slaves, 
 comparatively speaking; while in the rich, 
 alluvial lands in the western portion of the 
 State, they are very numerous. Upon the 
 point of injustice alone, then, the report is 
 defective; for if we are to assume the basis 
 on a property qualification, to be ■ fair and 
 equal, it must be on all descriptions of 
 property; that is, on real estate as well as 
 slave property, and should be regulated by 
 the tax list. The assessment roll would 
 show what property a man was possessed 
 of, and if property qualification be deemed 
 
Debates In the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 229 
 
 necessary, then ail should be placed on 
 the same footing. 
 
 It is of no use to endeavor to conceal the 
 real though hidden motive of the section as 
 reported. 'Tis said that murder will out: 
 and if we are to be slain, why not come out 
 and say so? It can answer no good end- 
 no practical or beneficial result can spring 
 from deception, or by keeping us in the 
 dark as to your motives. All your differ- 
 ences of opinion merge into one. and that 
 one is, Down with the power of New Or- 
 leans ! Honor to those open and candid 
 men, say I, who have had the manliness 
 to admit that that is what they are aiming 
 at. Why not say as they do, that the real 
 object of pressing this section is to weaken 
 the influence of the city? That is the real 
 motive , and ought to be avowed. But, sir, 
 if not admitted, it is nevertheless true; and 
 it is imjust and oppressive, and the result 
 cannot fail to prove disastrous to the in- 
 terests of the State. It does not even con- 
 tain one principle of abstract justice, and 
 is calculated to create and foment jealousies 
 not only throughout the whole city, but 
 throughout the State at large. 
 
 He (Mr. Conrad) is not prepared to go as 
 far as Mr. Taylor, when he says hat the citi- 
 zens of Xew Orleans may hereafter, to get rid 
 of one evil, choose the other, and prefer 
 the abolition of slavery, rather than wear 
 the galling cha'ins of the country's oppres- 
 sion. But this I will say — I do say — and 
 I want it proclaimed from the mountain's 
 top — that this unreasonable and unjust prin- 
 ciple which they are endeavoring to fasten 
 upon the city, will undoubtedly tend to 
 alienate the feelings of one portion of our 
 State from the other; and that, if persisted 
 in, and engrafted on our constitution, Xew 
 Orleans will give the State no peace. She 
 will never be satisfied until they come back 
 to fair, honest and correct principles, and j 
 ner citizens shall no longer be regarded as \ 
 aliens by the citizens of the parishes. They 
 will regard it as an indelible stain — a blot; j 
 and they will never stop till it is expunged, j 
 
 But that is not even the most crying in- 
 justice of the report. They give to each 
 parish one representative, without regard 
 to its population. That is the report, re- 
 jected before, and sent to this last commit- 
 tee to re-model. It comes back in the 
 same garb in which it went, and yet it is 
 notorious that, during the first debate, the 
 
 idea was scouted at and voted down, after 
 a long, sharp and somewhat excited debate. 
 
 The best evidence that the new commit- 
 tee were not ignorant of what they were 
 doing is. that Mr; Beatty admits that he 
 and his colleagues took the decision of this 
 house in its natural sense, and that was, 
 that the committee should make such a re- 
 port as they might deem most advisable; 
 that is. however, duly regarding the sense 
 of the Convention as expressed in debate. 
 
 But, sir. how have they discharged that 
 duty? Why, by renewing the same iden- 
 tical, exploded and condemned proposition. 
 They say. in extenuation of their course, 
 that they must either disregard the implied 
 instructions of the Convention, or look in 
 vain for a proper basis; and without that im- 
 portant starting point they could do nothing. 
 Gentlemen, let me respectfully ask you how 
 it happens that, when the Convention told 
 you, as it emphatically did, that you should 
 not give to every parish a representative, 
 unless its population entitled them to it, 
 you, in the plenitude of your wisdom, de- 
 termine to do it any how? You seem to 
 find excessive pleasure in making your ac- 
 tions tally — by the rale of contrariness. 
 The question, however, naturally arises : 
 what makes you act so ? Certainly not in 
 obedience to the mandate of the Conven- 
 tion. Xo, that you have not the hardihood 
 to reply. 
 
 Mr. Conrad now read several sentences 
 from the report, and clearly showed that 
 they had, in endeavoring to steer clear (as 
 they said) of Scylla, run upon Charybdis; 
 in other words, they had taken the matter 
 into their own hands, and meant to sink or 
 swim in supporting their own peculiar no- 
 tions on the subject, with as much apparent 
 show of sincerity as could be made fo ap- 
 pear on the face of the transaction. But. sir, 
 they have given you no reason, no argu- 
 ment, why they should place such an arbi- 
 trary rule as they have reported, on the 
 city of New Orleans, in curtailing her rep- 
 resentation to one-fifth of the representa- 
 tion of the State. 
 
 This is a new clause ; it is not found in 
 the original report, and doubtless springs 
 from the fertile imagination of the gentle- 
 man from Lafourche, whose hobby it is 
 to restrict and keep down the city. This 
 is a more serious attack than it appears to 
 be at the first blush,; and whv? because it 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 is singular that what should have been 
 omitted by the first committee, who evi- 
 dently had in view the restriction of the 
 rights and privileges * of New Orleans, 
 should be supplied by this second commit- 
 tee; unless, they were still more hostilely 
 inclined to the interests of the city. And 
 no doubt the argument they used among 
 themselves was, "pshaw! let the city go 
 to the devil, provided we can only get the 
 country to unite, and fasten her down for- 
 ever." And yet these men talk of justice ! 
 
 Let us suppose for a moment, that New 
 Orleans may hereafter become as populous 
 as London or Paris. Let us imagine that 
 she will hereafter have four-fifths of the 
 population, and that she will continue to 
 pay three-fourths of the taxes paid into the 
 treasury. What then will be the position 
 of New Orleans with one-fifth of the rep- 
 resentation? On what principle of justice 
 can this be sustained? There is one thing 
 the committee have done, which is sensible 
 and truthful; they have struck out the word 
 "equal," audit no longer reads, "represen- 
 tation shall be equal," &c; but the reason 
 why they were moved to accord to us this 
 act of justice, is "in the deep bosom of the 
 ocean buried," for certainly if they had 
 any, they have kept it to themselves. They 
 meet — decide, — rule things their own way 
 —make a representation to suit themselves, 
 and never condescend to give us any rea- 
 sons for what they have done. Not one 
 particle of explanation do they give us. It 
 is a great pity that those gentlemens' ideas 
 of propriety were not more acute. And 
 the more you study the question, the more 
 you must be convinced that the whole 
 movement is done to show their contempt 
 and loathing of the city of New Orleans 
 and her rights. 
 
 Formany years, Mr. President, when I 
 was a member of the legislature, I regret 
 to have to say that I could not help noti- 
 cing the jealousies exhibited by certain 
 men. If for instance, the country called 
 for an appropriation, and any of the city 
 members saw fit to oppose it, they would 
 raise the cry of "jealousy to the interests 
 of the country;" and that cry afterwards 
 became proverbial among the country 
 members. But on the other hand, when- 
 ever any city member proposed a measure, 
 asking any thing for the benefit of the city 
 or parish of Orleans, the country members 
 
 would and did always imagine, or pretend 
 to believe that it would increase the power 
 of the city delegation, and therefore oppos- 
 ed it. Such feelings as these do credit 
 to no man or set of men, and more particu- 
 larly do they not reflect any on the mem- 
 bers of an august body like this, who may 
 see fit to indulge in them. Why not then 
 cast such feelings from us? He (Mr. Con- 
 rad) hopes this Convention will meet this 
 and every other question that is to be dis- 
 cussed, and every principle to be settled, 
 without calling to their aid a spirit of jeal- 
 ousy, or of ostracism. It must be borne 
 in mind that when the spirit of jealousy 
 existed against New Orleans, as I have be- 
 fore described it to you, that then she had 
 but one-sixth of the representation of the 
 State, and one-seventh in the senate. 
 
 Let us look back a little however, and 
 see if this Convention or their committees 
 have acted so far in a spirit of justice or 
 in a spirit of moderation, or in a spirit of 
 jealousy; and I was going to say, spiteful 
 revenge for injuries never inflicted but im- 
 agined by the overwraught imaginations of 
 the gentlemen from the country. The le- 
 gislative committee reported that we should 
 hold our elections here in the month of 
 September! Every body agreed that that was 
 unjust, and yet it was pressed upon us by 
 the country members with much zeal, be- 
 cause then it was said the yellow fever 
 would prevail, and keep down that dreaded 
 hydra— the power of New Orleans. 
 
 Some wanted one time, to suit his section 
 of country; others preferred a time when 
 they should not be compelled to go to the 
 polls on "a log," or a "dugout," and final- 
 ly, to suit the views of the country mem- 
 bers, and their constituents, the first Mon- 
 day in November was agreed upon. 
 
 Now, sir, to show not only the cunning, 
 but the abuse of power sought to be forced 
 on us by the committee whose report we 
 now have under consideration, I call your 
 attention to the fact, that with a perfect 
 knowledge that universal suffrage is to pre- 
 vail, they recommend that each parish 
 shall have one representative; no matter 
 how many residents calling themselves 
 white, may reside therein; they further re- 
 commend that the city of New Orleans 
 should be divided into three districts, or 
 municipalities, (of course to paralyze as 
 much as possible her political power,) for 
 
Debates in tfee Gonvi 
 
 'ention oi Louisiana, 
 
 331 
 
 it was doubtless that which influenced the 
 delegate from Lafourche to introduce such 
 a report as he has. And what is to be the 
 result of this proposition ? we shall have 
 three classes of citizens : 1st, favored citi- 
 zens — 2d, citizens tolerated — 3d, citizens 
 oppressed; and those of the third class 
 will necessarily be, under the new arrange- 
 ment, the city of New Orleans. 
 
 The great prerogative of the people in 
 all free governments, consists in the taxing- 
 power; to lay the tax; appropriate the same, 
 and finally to raise future revenue. It was 
 that which led to the revolution in Eng- 
 land. It was that which led to the first 
 French revolution, and its consequent hor- 
 rible scenes. And it was that which led 
 to the declaration of our own independence, 
 and therefore I reason that we should en- 
 deavor so to shape our course as to steer 
 clear of all the difficulties we have had pre- 
 sented heretofore to our minds. What se- 
 curity I ask should we have against the 
 abuses which the country members may 
 inflict upon us, if this basis (federal) is 
 established. Is it right that a minority 
 shall have the power of taxing the majori- 
 ty? If so, let some of the gentlemen get 
 out their democratic dictionaries and ex- 
 plain it. 
 
 The legislature then, with that principle 
 established, will be able to tax you ad infi- 
 nitum. First, they will tax your property; 
 second, they will' revive that odious meas- 
 ure by laying a tax upon some property, 
 while some other property will be screened 
 in the country from the payment of any 
 tax; third, those brokers who were regard- 
 ed by the legislature in a moment of ex- 
 citement as public nuisances, have to pay 
 $250 per annum for a license to pursue 
 their avocations. They might as well have 
 carried the ridiculous doctrine out, (for 
 such an idea as that practised as it is, is a 
 shameful proceeding) and made it $1000, 
 then made a law that he who earned $ 500 
 over and above his expenses, should pay 
 that also into the treasury, (provided he 
 lived in New Orleans; in order to make 
 the burden lighter on the wealthy planter 
 in the country. Wherever we find ine- 
 quality of representation, there we find one 
 class of the citizens taxed for the benefit of 
 the other class, who has the advantage of 
 such extra legislators. 
 
 Mr. Conrad trusts that every thing like 
 
 inequality will be discarded by this Con- 
 vention; that no steps will be taken, nor 
 any action had by them but on the broad 
 principle of equal justice to all. He had 
 seen with regret some of the country mem- 
 bers appear to have been seized with a 
 kind of indescribable fear whenever you 
 mention New Orleans. They seem to re- 
 gard us as a 'monster whose ravenous ap-. 
 petite is never to be satisfied till we have 
 swallowed up every thing between theBa- 
 lize and the Sabine river; of course taking 
 in Red river and the Ouachita country. 
 And they think the only way they can muz- 
 zle the huge animal, is to catch him while 
 young, and gag him at once. But, Mr. 
 President, is this the right way for men, 
 who call themselves sensible, and for the 
 most part doubtless are, to meet a grave 
 question like this ? I do not, sir, (said Mr. 
 Conrad) appeal to the magnanimity of 
 members, but to their sense of justice. I 
 tell them they do not meet this question in 
 the proper spirit, or if they did they never 
 would commend so palpable a political 
 outrage as they are now called upon to do. 
 I will not appeal, sir, to any thing but their 
 sense of justice, for be assured, that if the 
 people see any disposition manifested in 
 this Convention to rob the many of their 
 rights or privileges for the benefit of the 
 few, the constitution never will be ratified. 
 
 The President laid before the Conven- 
 tion a letter of invitation from the fire de- 
 partment, asking their co-operation in cele- 
 brating their anniversary on the 4th of 
 March, which was accepted. 
 
 Mr. Pea t n moved that the debate on this 
 subject should cease, and the vote be taken 
 on Wednesday the 5th of March, which 
 motion was agreed to. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies then moved an adjourn- 
 ment until to-morrow at 11 o'clock, which 
 also prevailed, and the Convention ad- 
 journed. 
 
 Friday, February 28, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment, and its proceedings were opened by 
 prayer from the Hon. Mr. Stevens, dele- 
 gate from Sabine. 
 
 Ordder of the Day. — The Convention 
 resumed the consideration of the Report of 
 the special committee upon apportion- 
 ment. The question pending being the mo- 
 tion of the delegate from Lafayette (Mr, 
 
33J 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 O'Brian) to strike out; under discussion 
 when the Convention adjourned yesterday. 
 
 Mr. Roselius, I will postpone the re- 
 remarks I intend to offer, if any gentleman 
 in favor of the report desires to address the 
 house. 
 
 No one having responded to the invitation, 
 Mr. Roselius said, the first thing that struck 
 him with astonishment in the report of the 
 special committee Was the disappearance 
 of the principle enunciated in the first re- 
 port, of equality and uniformity in repre- 
 sentation. That great and fundamental 
 principle was consecrated in the old consti- 
 tution. Was it the intention of the Com- 
 mittee by exchanging it, to deny its truth ? 
 Did the gentleman on the committee come 
 to the conclusion that representation ought 
 not to be equal and uniform \ If they have, 
 said Mr. R., 1 should feel indebted to them 
 if they would favor me with some explana- 
 tions why and wherefore this important 
 principle should be departed from. Sure- 
 ly, surely, nothing has been urged or can 
 be urged why this great and all pervading 
 political principle should be abandoned. 
 
 Is it necessary, asked Mr. Roselius, to 
 recur to the fundamental principle of repre- 
 sentative governments for the purpose of 
 establishing this great truth — from which 
 we cannot depart without endangering, nay 
 without overthrowing the whole fabric 
 upon which our free institutions are reared. 
 Is it necessary to recur to those original 
 principles, for the purpose of shewing the 
 pivot upon which those institutions turn, the 
 very corner stone upon which they are 
 based. It would be trespassing upon the time 
 of the house to do so. The discussion up- 
 on the question would be trite. It was self 
 evident, and therefore with amazement I 
 find the principle exchanged, obliterated 
 from the report. 
 
 The first and all pervading principle of 
 a representative democratic government is, 
 that all the citizens of the political commu- 
 nity were entitled to an equal participation 
 in the political rights conferred by the so- 
 cial compact, to deliberate together and to 
 decide upon the measures of public policy 
 that were most expedient and proper. Such 
 an immediate and direct expression of the 
 will of the members of the community con- 
 templated a limited extent of territory and 
 a limited number of persons. But, what 
 was the expedient devised to obviate the im- 
 
 practicability of assembling all the people, 
 scattered over a wide extent of territory to- 
 gether, and obtain the expression of their 
 individual wilt. Representation was em- 
 ployed to effect that object, and consequent- 
 ly it is apparent, that representation should 
 be in strict conformity with? a settled ratio 
 based on the number of persons belonging 
 to the political family that have a right to 
 representation, or mother words to be heard 
 in the decision of all political questions that 
 may arise. No wonder, sir, I was amazed, 
 thunderstruck, to find that great political 
 principle obliterated, and' no wonder I 
 should feel great anxiety in the course that 
 this Convention may ultimately pursue. 
 
 The honorable members that have par- 
 ticipated in this debate in support of the 
 propositions in th« report, have not conde- 
 scended to give us their reasons for the 
 abandonment of the principle, that represen- 
 tation shall be equal and uniform. They 
 have not favored us with any argument in 
 relation to that point. If they have I have 
 not heard it. I have heard much discus- 
 sion, much eloquent declamation, but not 
 a single reason advanced. I have listened 
 in vain to hear any thing assuming to justi- 
 fy this house in laying its hands upon the 
 fundamental principle of our social fabric, 
 upon which the Safety of the country ma- 
 terially depends — the great pillar which 
 sustains the political edifice. 
 
 The gentleman from Ouachita, (Mr. 
 Downs,) to my utter astonishment, I must 
 confess, declares that there is no such 
 thing as an equality of representation; that 
 it is a chimera, a wild delusion. He says 
 farther, that the idea of equal rights is an 
 absurdity: That they are beautiful theo- 
 ries, but impracticable in practice. Is it 
 come to this? And do we hear it urged in 
 this ^body— the sad conclusion avowed in 
 this assembly, that the beautiful system of 
 government, that We have the happiness to 
 live under, is a mere chimera— a mere 
 stretch of the immaginatibn — nothing more 
 than a fancy sketch — without any thing 
 solid- — without any thing tangible to rest 
 upon! If this be so, methinks our labors 
 will be in vain. It were better we should 
 at once disperse. Unless equality of re- 
 presentation and equality of rights be tan- 
 gible things— be real and substantive, our 
 labors cannot conduce to the advantage of 
 our constituents, 1 boldly and emphati- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 333 
 
 cally deny the truth of that gentleman's 
 proposition. I say that the assertion is 
 destitute of foundation,- and is not sustained 
 bv the practice or the experience of our 
 government. I say that the experiment in 
 the United States, have established beyond 
 a possibility of a doubt that there are such 
 things as equality of rights and equality of 
 representation. That they are not only 
 feasible, but that they are the only founda- 
 tion upon which a republican government 
 can rest. Away, then, away, then, sir, 
 with the idea that there is no such thing as 
 as equality of rights and equality of repre- 
 sentation. It is not true, And if it be true, 
 and 'they are, indeed, mere immaginary 
 things — mere Utopias of excited fancy — it 
 is better we should not Avaste our time and 
 our labor in filling seats in this assembly. If 
 we take that as the argument of the gentle- 
 man that would despoil the city, that would 
 shear her of her political strength, it is not 
 a good argument; it is no argument at all! 
 So far from authorising a departure from 
 the fundamental principle of equality and 
 uniformity, it proves nothing. It has no 
 foundation. It is contradicted by the ex- 
 perience of mankind. This same princi- 
 ple; which has been questioned in this 
 body— which has been deliberately pro- 
 nounced a mere chimera, is spreading over 
 the world — is gaining ground over the uni- 
 versal world! 
 
 The reasons that have been given for 
 restricting the city in defiance of all princi- 
 ples of . equality and uniformity were un- 
 worthy of the dignified and liberal mem- 
 bers that composed this assembly. To 
 use a happy expression of a member — it 
 was unworthy of the fathers of the State. 
 The people have confided to their repre- 
 sentatives here, the important trust of re- 
 organizing the organic law of the State. 
 Petty feelings and local jealousies should 
 find no place in this hall. Such an assem- 
 bly convened for such a purpose should not 
 be actuated by sectional feelings and petty 
 strifes. No one portion should be agran- 
 dized at the expense of another, but equal 
 yustice ought to be meated out to all alike. 
 
 From what has already taken place in 
 reicrence to the subject now under con- 
 sideration, I begin to fear that there is a 
 premeditated design to sacrifice the city of 
 New Orleans and to believe that there is 
 alas ! but too much truth in the vemark of 
 43 
 
 rtn honorable delegate, that the doom of the 
 city of New Orleans is about to be pro- 
 nounced, and that she is to be put under the 
 bow of a majority of this house. Let us 
 examine into the facts. It is incontroverti- 
 ble that there exists a settled determination 
 to disfranchise the city, not only by adopt- 
 ing a basis unfavorable to her just represen- 
 tation—but by subjecting her to the penal- 
 ties of a proviso. The obvious tendency 
 of the adoption of the section as reported, 
 will be to confine the representation of the 
 city to fourteen members— excluding one 
 member allowed to the right bank of the 
 river, in the parish of Orleans. If the basis 
 of elector were assumed for the representa- 
 tion, according to the data furnished by the 
 committee, the city of New Orleans would 
 be entitled to forty-seven members. ]Siow, 
 sir, there is a striking difference between 
 the forty-seven members to which the city 
 would be justly entitled, and the fourteen 
 that is conceded to her by the restrictive 
 system of the committee. What would fee 
 the number to which the city would be en- 
 titled taking population generally as the 
 basis ? She would have a right to not less 
 than thirty-four. But let us go on one step 
 further. What would be the result if the 
 federal basis were adopted ? From the 
 same data furnished by the committee, it 
 appears that the city would be entitled to 
 twenty-three representatives. Yet we are 
 proscribed in the report to fourteen ! 
 
 The two measures proposed by the com- 
 mittee in their report, are aimed directly at 
 the city of New Orleans. They can have 
 no other tendency than to diminish — do I 
 say diminish — to destroy the just and equal 
 proportion of the representation to which 
 the city is entitled. To smother the voice 
 of the city — -to disfranchise her — to deprive 
 her of her political rights. It cannot be 
 with any other design. In fact the design 
 is openly avowed! One of the eloquent 
 gentlemen attempting by the force of his 
 logic and in the fervency of his fancy, to 
 reconcile the city to this most iniquitous 
 measure, tells the city delegation, taunting- 
 ly, that they should feel thankful for retain- 
 ing one-fifth of the political power. I think 
 (says the gentleman) that this is a great 
 deal too much, but through complaisance, 
 with the view of drowning your clamors, I 
 will accede to the proposition that you re- 
 tain one-fifth. Wondrous magnanimity ? 
 
f 
 
 904 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 I know nothing, said Mr. Roselius, to 
 which this boast of excessive generosity 
 can more appropriately be compared than 
 to the vain boast of a highwayman who 
 after robbing you of your purse, in a fit of 
 magnanimity* tosses you a few coppers to 
 bear you on your journey. There is no 
 difference as to the principle. You have 
 no more right to despoil the city of New 
 Orleans of her just political rights than the 
 highwayman has to empty the purse of the 
 traveller. In both cases it is might — not 
 right. In both cases, it is power — illegal- 
 unholy and unrighteous power. What right 
 has this Convention to say that a man be- 
 cause he chooses to fix his abode in the 
 city should have less political weight than 
 a man who chooses to settle in a country 
 parish — that a citizen of New Orleans shall 
 have less political weight than a citizen 
 settled in the swamps of Catahoula or in 
 the wilds of Ouachita ? Is there any cause 
 of incapacity about the citizen of New Or- 
 leans that renders him morally inferior to 
 a citizen of the country? Why should he 
 not participate equally in the common pri- 
 vilege of representation ? Has he commit- 
 ted treason against the State because he 
 happens to reside in the city ? Is he guilty 
 of felony — what high misdemeanor is he 
 amenable for, that he should be stigmatized 
 as unworthy of equal political privileges ? 
 It may be that the citizens of New Orleans 
 have less intelligence than the inhabitants 
 of the country— that the standard of intelli- 
 gence is not in favor of the city. Has the 
 city less virtue ? What offence has its citi- 
 zens committed that they should be punish- 
 ed politically ? Surely there must be some 
 political offence, or else they would not be 
 curtailed of their just rights ! 
 
 I have not heard gentlemen advance 
 anything of that sort against the city. 
 
 But, why should we adopt the representa- 
 tion based upon federal numbers, as it is 
 called? Why incorporate slaves into the 
 basis of representation ? One gentleman, 
 a friend of mine, whose motives are as pure 
 as those of any member, says that they 
 should enter into the basis, because Lou- 
 isiana is a slaveholding State — that slaves 
 are persons — -that they have rights which 
 ought to be protected. This language ap- 
 pears to me to be somewhat extraordinary, 
 in a country where slaves are counted as 
 wealth — as property— that they ought to 
 
 be heard in our councils, and should be ta- 
 ken into the constitutional apportionment of 
 representation to which their masters are 
 entitled. 
 
 We must concede one trf two things; ei- 
 ther slaves are property or persons, politi- 
 cally speaking. I do not pretend to argue 
 that in a moral sense they are not persons, 
 but according to the political condion of 
 things in the State, and as forming an ex- 
 clusive portion of the population of the State,, 
 they cannot be considered politically as per- 
 sons, Suppose a representative govern- 
 ment, a pure and unlimited democracy; 
 some such unlimited democracy as Athens, 
 Sparta, or Thebes existed here, under the 
 peculiar form of that species of government, 
 would the slaves be allowed to participate ! 
 Were the Helots called in to deliberate, to 
 cast their votes ? No! Would our slaves 
 be allowed to deliberate among us if we 
 were living under a pure democracy ? No! 
 How, then, can it be pretended that the 
 slave population should enter into the basis 
 of representation? Why not own the pur- 
 pose openly, that this unjust, arbitrary rule 
 is introduced to destroy the political rights of 
 New Orleans. That basis can be main- 
 tained on no other grounds. But it is said 
 that it is proper because it is found in the 
 federal constitution! This argument can 
 only be employed with the view of provo- 
 king an idle and useless discussion. Do 
 those that advance it really believe it pos- 
 sesses any weight. Do they think us so 
 ignorant — so unmindful of the history of the 
 country to be deluded by it ! Once be- 
 fore it was introduced in the progress of the 
 debate. I protest against any such argu- 
 ment. Are we here deliberating a com- 
 pact to unite different States under one go- 
 vernment — States among some of whom 
 slavery exists, and among others where it 
 does not exist ; are we here for such a pur- 
 pose ? The federal basis in the constitu- 
 tion of the United States, was a compro- 
 mise. It is notoriously nothing else! Hero 
 we have assembled for no such purposes, 
 and under far different circumstances. We 
 represent but one people, interested in the 
 same institutions, the same laws and the 
 same customs, and I hope" to God, animated 
 by the same feelings; and having a single eye 
 to the public good, and whatever is promo- 
 tive of the interests of every section. 
 
 To recur again to the circumstance of 
 
 I 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 335 
 
 the compromise upon representation in the ! 
 federal constitution. I presume— I take it 
 for granted that others are as familiar with 
 tkfe circumstances that led to it, and proba- \ 
 bly more so than I am, They must con- \ 
 "cede that there is no analogy between the j 
 two cases. Net the remotest. How could j 
 there be ? In the one case thirteen inde- 
 pendent States, having different laws", dhTe- 
 tent customs, and in some respects, diffe- j 
 rent feelings, were about to form a more i 
 perfect union, for national purposes. Here | 
 we have assembled for the purpose of form- 
 a constitution for one people. But we are 
 told that this basis predominates in the 
 slaveholding States. I regard that asser- 
 tion as not well founded. So far as it is 
 founded upon the constitution of Virginia, it 
 is a mistake. The great question in the 
 Virginia Convention was, the basis of pop- 
 ulation — of qualified voters, and a mixed 
 basis of qualified voters and taxation. It is 
 true that federal numbers were adoptecf 
 finally, but they were adopted by the legis- 
 lature of Virginia, and not by the Conven- 
 tion. Locality has been alluded to as a 
 proper element to enter into the basis of 
 representation. I am willing to subscribe 
 
 to the expediency of this suggestion. Po- 
 pulation alone I do not think forms a pro- 
 per basis. Any measure having in view a 
 mixed basis — property and population, or 
 fixation and qualified voters, would be pre- 
 ferable, but the majority have decided dif- 
 ferently. So far from entertaining the idea , 
 of placing the basis according to popula- ' 
 tion, gentlemen say that a particular kind < 
 of property should be preferred. They say 
 slaves should be represented — and are in j 
 favor of a mixed basis composed of popula- 
 tion, and exclusively of slave property. If 
 slaves be adopted because they are proper- j 
 ty, they are the most unstable and least j 
 permanent kind of property. Why not 
 adopt other property ? — Real property? ' 
 Why confine it to slaves ? 
 
 If we recur back to the course of pro- 
 ceedings from the very beginning, we shall 
 find that the motive is to'aim a fatal blow I 
 at the city. It is to dimmish what we are 
 told is her overshadowing influence. She ! 
 is to be stript of her political privileges, 
 and to be laid prostrate. And why is toe 
 city to be proscribed and her power annihi- 
 lated? Because, says one gentleman, (Mr. 
 Downs) the hero of Marengo discovered 
 
 and acted upon the principle that masses 
 were irresistible on the field of battle, and 
 inasmuch as the population in the city have 
 better opportunities of congregating to- 
 gether and meeting in council, than the in- 
 habitants of the country, that are more iso- 
 lated, and are dispersed over a greater ex- 
 tent of territory, therefore New Orleans 
 shall not be allowed to exercise the power 
 that legitimately belongs to her! It seems 
 to me that the very converse of the propo- 
 sition would be true. In order that people 
 should act wisely and prudently, they ought 
 to have the opportunity of consulting to- 
 gether, and of communicating their ideas 
 with each other. The more facilities they 
 possess of interchanging, the better quali- 
 fied they must be for the proper discharge 
 of their duties as citizens, and to select pro- 
 per, agents to whom they may commit the 
 political powers of the government.-— 
 Whereas, if the citizens are dispersed over 
 a wide expanse of territory, communication 
 becomes difficult, if not impossible ; they 
 have no opportunity of interchanging opin- 
 ions ; there is no discussion to enlighten 
 them ; there is no harmony among them. 
 It strikes my humble conception that the 
 j consideration of compactness, and the fa- 
 j cility of consulting and counselling upon 
 | any emergency, so far from disqualifying 
 I the citizens that possess these advantages, 
 it should be an additional reason why they 
 should exercise their political power and 
 , be heard equally with the rest of the com- 
 : munity. 
 
 But, sir, we are told that the people of 
 ; New Orleans will possess the ballance of 
 ,' power. If the mass of the citizens of the 
 State are congregated here, why should 
 they not exercise their just proportion of po- 
 litical power? If they settte in New Or- 
 leans, it is because it is to their advantage. 
 Because they find it to their interest to do 
 so. But is the mere circumstanco of their 
 locality — of the place where they may cast 
 thek lot, to deprive them of their political 
 rights? Is there any justice, any reason in 
 this? New Orleans is to be despoiled of 
 her just representation ; but it is not to be 
 lost. It is to be filched from her and trans- 
 ferred to the fourth congressional district, 
 which has not, from its remoteness, a par- 
 ticle of identity or sympathy with her. The 
 moment that the combined forces of the 
 country have succeeded in reducing us, in 
 
336 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 taking from us our rightful portion of po- 
 litical power, it is quite likely they will 
 begin to squabble among themselves as to 
 the distribution of the spoils? That will be 
 the next difficulty. 
 
 Is it not more becoming not to depart 
 from the paths of justice—not to introduce 
 an arbitrary rule — a flagrant and unjust 
 principle directed towards a particular por- 
 tion of the citizens of the State? 
 
 Mr. Roselius said, that although this 
 discussion had occupied a great portion of 
 the time of the Convention, he was unwil- 
 ling to listen to the peculiar line of argu- 
 ment addressed to the house by. those hos- 
 tile to a just representation to the city, with- 
 out making a reply. The question involv- 
 ed was too vital. It struck at home, and 
 its terrible effects upon the constituency, 
 that he had the honor in part of represent- 
 ing, induced him, although in a feeble state 
 of health, to raise his voice to prevent, if 
 possible, this crying injustice from being 
 consummated. 
 
 He presumed that the new constitution 
 would be submitted to the people at large 
 for their ratification, Few, if any— -if he 
 were not mistaken — -were favorable to the 
 idea that the constitution should go iuo ope- 
 ration without having first passed the ordeal 
 of public ^opinion. If there were any so 
 disposed, they would be assuming a fearful 
 responsibility by attempting to force the 
 constitution upon the people. He appre- 
 hended that the course to be pursued would 
 be to ascartain whether the constitution 
 was acceptable to the people. If he were 
 right in that view, was it to be expected 
 that the people of New Orleans would vote 
 for ratifying a constitution which outraged 
 every principle of justice, as far as they 
 were concerned; that they would be so lost 
 to a proper sense of the injury as not tore- 
 sent it by repudiating indignantly the in- 
 strument in which they were stigmatized 
 and excluded from a just participation of 
 political power common to the balance of 
 the State. Let not gentlemen lay the flat- 
 tering unction to their souls, that the re- 
 flecting citizens of New Orleans, as has 
 been stated, will be satisfied after a while. 
 This notion, if entertained, is a gross de- 
 lusion, and those that entertain "it know 
 nothing of the character of the people of 
 New Orleans. Before this issue all party 
 distinctions will cease. Not a single vote 
 
 in the city will be cast in favor of a con- 
 stitution which contains so infamous a pro- 
 position. The city will be united in its re- 
 sistance, and will have the sympathies and 
 voices of the country who are not insensi- 
 ble to the dictates of justice. This con- 
 stitution, with such a principle, will never 
 be sanctioned— never ! never I never I In 
 common parlance, the delegation from the 
 city will take the stump in opposition to its 
 ratification, and will point out its gross and 
 flagrant injustice. They will appeal from 
 the decision of this Convention to the de- 
 cision of the people. 
 
 Mr. Vooehies called up the resolution 
 offered on yesterday by Mr. Penn, viz: 
 
 Resolved, That Wednesday, the 5th of 
 March, at one o'clock, be and the same is 
 hereby fixed for taking the vote on the ap- 
 portionment. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Pouter, said resolu- 
 tion was laid on the table indefinitely. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, 2^ o'clock 
 this day was fixed for the taking of the vote 
 on the apportionment. 
 
 The 7th section, as reported by said 
 committee of 12, was then called up, viz: 
 
 "No new parish shall be created with 
 an extent of Territory less than four hun- 
 dred square miles, nor with a population 
 less than the full representative, nor shall 
 any parish be so divided as to leave it with 
 a smaller area or population than is above 
 expressed." 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan offered the following as a 
 substitute for said section, viz : 
 
 " Each parish shall have one represen- 
 latiye, and beyond that, if entitled to any 
 more, in proportion to the number of voters 
 in each ; Provided that no parish or city 
 shall ever have more than one sixth of the 
 whole number of representatives." 
 
 On Motion of Mr. Grymes, the section 
 and substitute were laid on the tab.e, sub- 
 ject to call. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Porter, the rule fixing 
 half past two o'clock to-day, for taking the 
 vote on the apportionment,' was rescinded. 
 
 Mr. Downs said it was not his intention 
 to have taken up the valuable time of the 
 Convention by offering any remarks. He 
 was drawn into the debate by the attacks 
 that were made upon himself and the other 
 members of the committee. He had wait- 
 ed long to see whether any other gentle- 
 man from the country would rise to repel 
 
Debates in the Convention ot Louisiana, 
 
 33 7 
 
 the reflections indulged in by the gentle- 
 man that represent the city, but as no one 
 had done so, the duty devolved upon him. 
 
 I have heard nothing, said Mr. Downs, 
 to shake my conviction in the expediency 
 of adopting the federal numbers as the 
 basis of representation. I will not there- 
 fore add any thing to the arguments I have 
 already adduced upon that point. I think 
 these arguments are irrefutable, 
 
 I will now proceed to examine the pro- 
 viso reported by the last committee, which 
 has also given rise to some severe animad- 
 versions. The original report created a 
 great deal of dissatisfaction on the part of 
 the delegation from the city — and particu- 
 lar complaints were uttered against the 4th 
 congressional district which was held en- 
 tirely responsible for the character of that 
 report. Its assumed injustice and partiali- 
 ty were made the pretext of referring the 
 subject to another committee, whose opin- 
 ions it was confidently predicted would be 
 of an opposite character. But now, that 
 the last committee have acted, the same 
 gentlemen are in no better humor ; and so 
 far from considering their situation as being 
 bettered they seem to think that they have 
 fallen from the grid-iron into the fire ! I 
 really think the gentlemen would have con- 
 sulted their interests quite as well had they 
 avoided the particular mode of arguing that 
 side of the queslion-^-and not have attempt- 
 ed to domineer over the country, by vio- 
 lence and threats, and by the employment 
 of epithets calculated to wound the feelings 
 of that portion of the population of the State, 
 residing in the country. 
 
 One gentleman from New Orleans spoke 
 of the country as being habited only by 
 reptiles. 
 
 (Mr. Roselius. I referred to the unin- 
 habited portions of the country. I certain- 
 ly did not intend to apply the term to any 
 portion of the people, and I cannot under- 
 stand how the gentleman could so construe 
 what I said.) 
 
 Mr. Downs: another one of the gentle- 
 men from the city, assumes that whether a 
 country parish have a representative or not, 
 is a matter of perfect indifference. It may 
 be so to the getiileman, and 1 have no doubt 
 that it is, but the matter is quite different 
 to the parish herself- Her representation 
 is as essential to her as the representation 
 of the city is essential to the city, and per- 
 
 haps more so; for New Orleans being the 
 seat of government, without any delegation 
 in the legislature, would have sufficient 
 political influence to protect and promote 
 her local interests. 
 
 (Mr. C. M. Conrad: The gentleman 
 mistakes my remark. I said that it was a 
 matter of indifference whether a small par- 
 ish was represented distinctly, or conjoint- 
 ly, with another parish of similar dimen- 
 sions. Their interests were identical.) , 
 
 Appeals have been made to the city to 
 reject the constitution, unless the country 
 be willing to divest herself of political power, 
 and transfer it to the city ; and we hava 
 been told, that if the country did not con- 
 cede this to the city the constitution will be 
 rejected. Such a resort would be unfor- 
 tunate indeed; but I entertain no fears that 
 if the constitution be rejected, it will be on 
 that ground. The citizens of New Orleans 
 will see that they are allowed one fifth of 
 the members in the house of representa- 
 tives; and that so far from this allowance 
 manifesting an illiberal and contracted 
 spirit on the part of the country, it is a fair 
 proportion, and is in accordance with the 
 ratio that has been allowed to the city from 
 the formation of the State government, with 
 trifling variations. 
 
 From my examination into the subject, 
 said Mr. Downs, I find that according to 
 the apportionment of 1812, New Orleans 
 had four out of twenty-four representatives. 
 In 1826, according to the apportionment of 
 that year, New Orleans had seven out of 
 fifty representatives, being about one-sev- 
 enth; and in 1841, the period of the last 
 apportionment, the city was allowed ten 
 out of sixty representatives, being one-sixth. 
 So there is but little difference in the 
 amount of her political influence for the 
 last thirty-two years, and it cannot now, 
 with any truth, be said that there is any 
 disposition improperly to curtail her influ- 
 ence, and to deprive her of any portion of 
 the weight to which she has heretofore 
 been entitled. 
 
 In conceding to New Orleans one-fifth or 
 one-sixth of the representatives, by reason 
 of the concentration of her population, she 
 will possess a formidable power. If, in ad- 
 dition to their advantage of concentration, 
 she retains the seat of government, her in- 
 fluence will to a considerable extent mock 
 the legislation of the country. We have 
 
833 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 the political fact of a section of country in 
 the United States without a representation, 
 having her interests as carefully watched 
 over, and her wants and wishes responded 
 to as fully as if she actually was in posses- 
 sion of a numerous and active delegation. 
 He (Mr. Downs) alluded to the District of 
 Columbia. 
 
 So far from there being a disposition to 
 oppress the city of New Orleans and to act 
 with severity towards her, our legislation 
 is constantly making exceptions in her fa- 
 vor, and it may be said that a separate body 
 of laws have been made exclusively for her 
 convenience and the development of her 
 interests. It rs true, that her position as a 
 great commercial city requires, in a great 
 measure, the adoption of different princi- 
 ples; but independent of that consideration, 
 the utmost latitude is allowed to her repre- 
 sentatives. Why, it was only this morning 
 that this spirit to accommodate the city was 
 strikingly manifested, as it is almost daily 
 in the proceedings of the legislature. The 
 city of New Orleans was exempted from 
 the provisions of the fee bill, on the mo- 
 tion of the senator from New Orleans, in 
 the senate, where she has but a single 
 member. When an increase was made in 
 the apportionment, it was principally on her 
 own account and for her benefit, for her 
 proportion of increase was greater than al- 
 lowed to the balance of the State. Eleven 
 members had been conceded to her, but 
 upon an examination of that apportionment, 
 it was found that one of the parishes was 
 omitted, and on the motion of a distinguish- 
 ed member of the senate, now no more one I 
 member, was taken from the city and given 
 to the parish that had been omitted. 
 
 But say the advocates of those that favor j 
 a monopoly of political power on behalf of j 
 the city, the city pays the greatest amount 
 of taxes and therefore ought to have the 
 preponderating influence. I contend there ; 
 is as much error in this assertion as there 
 is in others that are so lavishly made to 
 sustain the unreasonable pretensions of the 
 city. The total revenue of the State for the 
 year 1843, according to the treasurer's re- 
 port, is $345,730, of which New Orleans 
 contributes $65,483 — leaving a balance of 
 $280,247 in favor of the country; and 
 which shows that the city pays about one- 
 fifth of the taxation. Taxation, too, then 
 it seems, tallies precisely with the repre- 
 
 sentation accorded to her of one-fifth. To 
 this amount of $65,483, those who attempt 
 to sustain the assertion that New Orleans 
 pays the greatest portion of the taxes, would 
 add the amount of revenue derived from 
 auctioneers and upon certain professions. 
 But I contend that this amount is not de- 
 rived from the city. It is derived and is 
 a tax upon the people of the country- — it is 
 they who pay it. Who fill your boarding 
 houses but transient persons who have, in 
 fact, to contribute the tax upon those estab- 
 lishments? The same remark will hold 
 good to the tax upon auctioneers,, for whose 
 produce is it that is sold? It is true that 
 the tax is collected in the city of New Or- 
 leans, and upon that is raised the super- 
 structure that it is she that pays it. I con- 
 tend that it is no more the city of New Or- 
 leans that pays it, than that she pays the 
 millions that are collected in duties at her 
 custom house. The city of New York once 
 raised a similar pretension, that she was 
 entitled to great favors because her custom 
 house contributed the greatest portion of 
 the revenue derived from imposts. But to 
 this pretension Mr. Jefferson appropriately 
 replied: why, then remove the custom house 
 to the opposite side, and it is there then 
 that these duties will be paid. 
 
 A great deal has been said about the 
 board of public works; it is pretended that 
 all the expenditures it entailed were for the 
 country. But who after all enjoyed the ben- 
 efits of these improvements? It was the 
 city of New Orleans. It opened to her 
 new business, and augmented her commer- 
 cial wealth. The whole amount of those 
 expenditures amounted to $540,053. They 
 were, in fact, more for the benefit of the 
 city than for the country, but placing them 
 entirely to the account of the country. 
 What have we on the other hand to bal- 
 ance those appropriations? Let us look at 
 the amounts appropriated to the city. 
 For the draining company, $50,000 
 Charity hospital, 225,000 
 N. Orleans and Nashville R. R., 500,000 
 Mexican Gulf Rail Road, 100,000 
 
 $875,000 
 
 Here we have $875,000 to offset $540,- 
 053 appropriated to the board of public 
 works. In addition to this there is an an- 
 nual appropriation to the Charity Hospital 
 of $15,000. This item of the Charity 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, sbu 
 
 m 
 
 Hospital is nearly sufficient to offset the | was propriated by the establishment of 
 appropriation to the Port Hudson rail road, branches. 
 
 Hence it may be inferred upon what an un- In addition to all the other advantages 
 substantial basis rests all the declaration enjoyed by the city from the patronage of 
 that the country is hostile to the city and . the State. Mr. Dowxs instanced the pre- 
 wishes to monopolize the treasury to her- ponderance of public offices in the city — 
 self. But this is not all; the city comes in the preponderance of the judiciary in the 
 tor several other largesses. As regards c [ t y. New Orleans was the residence of 
 the Charity Hospital — far be it from me to the principal public officers of the State, and 
 regret the liberality of the State, —I have W as the recipient of almost all the rnoney 
 invariably voted lor these appropriations drawn from the treasury to meet the cur- 
 and invariably will vote for them, because ren t expenses of the government, 
 that institution is an honor to humanity — its Mr. Downs, in conclusion, disclaimed 
 doors are thrown open to the unfortunate the slightest feeling of prejudice against the 
 and the needy, let them come from where c ity. "it was an unfounded assertion that 
 they may. But I allude to these appropria- the' country was jealous of the city. ' No 
 tions to show that the country is not nig- SU ch feeling was entertained, as he con- 
 gardiy and illiberal towards the city. It i ceived he had abundantly shown in this de- 
 would be convenient for similar institutions (bate. For himself, he was proud of the 
 to be established and sustained by the -boun- city as the metropolis of the south. He 
 ty of the State, in the country, where pov- wished heT to thrive and to flourish. But 
 erty and wretchedness are not even known* ; a t the same time the interests of the coun- 
 although limited in their extent, when com- try ought not to be sacrificed. The course 
 pared to the city. But yet nothing of the recommended by prudence and sound dis- 
 kind has been attempted in order not to di- cretion, was to give the city her just rela- 
 vert a single dollar from the institution in j five weight, without committing the desti- 
 the city. The imposition of taxation, too, j nies of the country into her hands. Was 
 said Mr. Dowxs. bears with greater severi- i t perceivable that the onward career of 
 ty upon the country than upon the city. The Xew York. Philadelphia and Baltimore 
 tax upon slaves applies to all slaves, old. ; were impeded by restricting those cities in 
 young, worn out, and decripit. It is not their representation. Such had not been 
 the effective force that is taxed. The plan- the consequence, and it would not be the 
 ter, work as he may, is scarcely able to j consequence here* 
 
 make the two ends meet, while the mer- 1 Whereupon, on motion, the Convention 
 chant that sells his produce is taxed only j adjourned. 
 
 something like twenty dollars for all his , 
 
 transactions. Examine the list of bankers Saturday, March 1, 1845. 
 
 and capitalists, and you will find that they The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 are wielding millions of capital and real- ment. 
 
 izmg the interest without paying one dollar . The Rev. Mr. Watkess opened the pro- 
 of tax upon that capital. A termination cee dings by prayer. 
 
 ought to be placed upon the heavy burthens . The Convention, in the absence of other 
 imposed upon the country. The people, j preliminary business, proceeded to the 
 although groaning under it, have got accus- ORDER OF -THE DAY. 
 
 tomed to it, as usage establishes precedents section sixth — art. -. 
 
 with as much force as written law. Hence Before proceeding with the debate, 
 it is, we find that although the States are Mr. President: said Mr. Chixx, I con- 
 expressly prohibited from issuing bills ot ; ceive, with so small a numbei of members 
 credit, still custom has established it so present, we ought not to proceed with such 
 completely that there is not a court of jus- an important debate as the one we have 
 tice that would pronounce the issues of a before us : and therefore I propose and 
 bank illegal. And how did these institu- | move that the further consideration of it be 
 tions come among us, and for whose par- postponed until Monday, 
 ticular benefit were they created? They [Several members * came in while the 
 were created for the city, and it was not honorable delegate was making his re- 
 imtil the bank fever raged, that the country | marks, and as he perceived the house had 
 
 v 
 
340 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 become ordinarily full, he withdrew his 
 motion.] 
 
 Mr. Mayo took the floor. He was, he 
 said, desirous to say a few words, to enable 
 his constituents, as well as the Convention, 
 to understand the reasons for the vote he 
 should give upon the present question. I 
 am in favor of making the duly qualified 
 electors the basis of representation. The 
 Convention has, by the section which it 
 has adopted upon the subject of suffrage, 
 decided that all free white male citizens 
 above twenty-one years of age, who have 
 resided two years in the State and one year 
 in a parish, shall be permitted to exerci se 
 the rights of electors, and by that provision 
 have entrusted to those persons, and those 
 only, the exercise, in the first instance of 
 the sovereign power of the people. In 
 other words, we have delegated to the 
 electors the political power of the State. 
 It appears to roe, that an apportionment 
 of representation based upon voters will 
 be likely to be more permanent, and less 
 likely to fluctuate, than any other that has 
 been proposed, and for that reason more 
 just. Notwithstanding my preference for 
 the electoral basis, however* sir, I am 
 induced to vote against striking out the 
 clause which provides for the federal ba- 
 sis, which I understand has been pro- 
 posed and reported by the committee as 
 a compromise. I fear the consequences 
 of striking out may be as they were 
 found to be on another occasion, when 
 it was proposed to strike out ten years 
 — the term of residence required by the 
 report of the committee on the executive 
 department, to qualify a citizen to be elig- 
 ible to the office of governor, I then vo- 
 ted against striking out ten, notwithstand- 
 ing I was in favor of a shorter period ; 
 fearing that if it were stricken out, the 
 blank would be filled with a number less 
 acceptable to myself and the friends of a 
 shorter period than ten years. When the 
 question was taken on striking out "ten," 
 almost all who desired a shorter, as well 
 as those who desired a longer period, voted 
 to strike out. Ten was stricken out, and 
 the consequence was that the blank was 
 filled with fifteen, which, I am induced to 
 believe, was less acceptable to a majority 
 of the Convention than ten would have 
 been. My reason then sir, for voting 
 against striking out, is not that I prefer the 
 
 federal basis ; but because I fear that if 
 that basis be stricken out some other may 
 be inserted that will be less acceptable to 
 me than that which it is proposed to strike 
 out. If all who prefer the basis of electors, 
 as well as those who prefer the basis of 
 the whole population, white and black to- 
 gether ; those who prefer the whole white 
 population and those who prefer the basis 
 of all white males over twenty years of 
 age, vote to strike out, the clause will cer- 
 tainly be stricken out, and it is impossible 
 to conjecture what will be inserted in its 
 place. The federal basis has much to re- 
 commend it. A portion of the rights of 
 persons are extended by our laws to slaves. 
 They are by law protected in their lives, 
 and from cruel treatment from their masters, 
 and to that extent are recognized by law as 
 having, in part at least, the rights of per- 
 sons. This reasoning, by which an in- 
 crease of representation on their account is 
 claimed, has some degree of plausibility, 
 as well as that hy which the increase is 
 claimed on the ground of their being pro- 
 perty, which some think should, in part, form 
 the basis of representation. 
 
 The argument upon the question of stri- 
 king out the federal basis has [.been very 
 discursive, and has embraced the question 
 of restricting the representation of New Or- # 
 leans. It does not appear to me that the 
 question of restricting the represention of 
 the city has properly anything to do with 
 the present question, for I believe and hope 
 it is intended to limit its represention to a 
 less number than it would be entitled to un- 
 der any ratio of apportionment that has been 
 proposed, that is, less than would be ap- 
 portioned to her by a regular division on 
 the basis of voters— the federal number, or 
 any other basis proposed. But as the ques- 
 tion has been debated as though the ques- 
 tion of restriction were now really before 
 us, I will follow the example set by others, 
 and reply to some remarks that have been 
 made, and will here observe that I shall 
 not say anything with an intention to give 
 offence to any one, that I entertain feelings 
 of respect towards the delegation from the 
 city, as well as towards the city itself. 
 
 The member from New Orleans, (Mr. 
 Roselius) who addressed the Convention 
 yesterday, expressed the utmost astonish„ 
 ment that the last committee that reporte 
 upon the subject of apportionment, should 
 
 4 ! 
 
Debates In tha Convention ot Louisiana. 
 
 841 
 
 have expunged, as he termed it, the prirri 
 pie of equality and uniformity of represen- 
 tation, which are contained,, he informed us, 
 in the present constitution. The words 
 equal anduniform are contained in the pre- 
 sent constitution, but the principle of 
 equality and uniformity of representation 
 are not to be found in it. Great alarm was 
 manifested at the disappearance of the 
 words equal and uniform from the report, 
 and we were told that by obliterating them 
 from the fundamental law, we were lay- 
 ing sacriligious hands upon the constitution ; 
 that by departing from the all pervading 
 principle of equality and uniformity, the 
 whole fabric upon which democratic gov- 
 ernment was based, would be overthrown. 
 I confess sir, that the use of the terms dem- 
 ocratic principles always affords me plea- 
 sure when I have a hope that those princi- 
 ples can be put in operation, and pain, 
 when accompanied by the reflection that 
 they must be violated. The words equal 
 and uniform, it is true, are used in the sec- 
 tion of the present constitution, upon the 
 subject of representation. It is also true 
 that they are only used in that instrument 
 to be violated: for that constitution provides 
 for a representation in the senate most un- 
 equal and unjust, and entirely disproportion- 
 ate to the number represented. However 
 well the use of these terms may suit others, j 
 I do not desire to see them used in the con- 
 stitution we are framing, at least not in the 
 sense in which they are used in the present 
 constitution, to define anything relating ; 
 to the apportionment of representation, ! 
 because their meaning is vague, hide- 
 finite and incomprehensible. What do : 
 they mean in the present constitution, or 
 what will they mean if inserted in the sec- 
 tion under discussion? Representation shall 
 be equal af!d uniform. The use of the 
 terms, it is true, are well calculated to im- 
 press upon the unobserving mind, the idea 
 of harmony and consistency ; but how is 
 equality and uniformity to be enforced by 
 virtue of their use. Representation must 
 be equal. Equal to what, or equal with 
 what ? Equal with the different areas of 
 territory, of the different parishes or sec- 
 tions of country represented ? Equal by 
 being proportioned to the number of quali- 
 fied electors in each parish ? — to the whole 
 population of black and white I — to the fed- 
 eral numbers?— to all white males over a 
 44 
 
 certain age ? Uniform with what 1 I think 
 sir. the true answer to these questions, and 
 definition to the terms, as used in the pre- 
 sent constitution will be found to be — equal 
 with nothing, and uniform with nothing, 
 and that no definite meaning can be ascrib- 
 ed to them, and for this re son I prefer that 
 they should be omitted in framing the pre- 
 sent constitution. 
 
 Thus mueh sir, for the amazement of 
 the delegate at the disappearance of these 
 words, This was" not, however, the whol€! 
 cause of amazement. It is true sir, that 
 this report, at which such great astonish- 
 ment is manifested by a portion at least of 
 the delegation from the city, is not charged 
 with apportioning to the fourth congression- 
 al district twenty-nine members to the 
 house of representatives and fourteen sena- 
 tors, as was, without the least foundation 
 however, charged against the report of the 
 first committee ; but a charge is brought 
 against this of a graver character, that it 
 desecrates the principles of democratic gov- 
 ernment ; and as if to illustrate and aggra- 
 vate the charge, it was asserted by the hon- 
 orable delegate and from the record too, 
 viz : the statistical tables accompanying the 
 report of the last committee, that by making 
 the apportionment upon the basis of voters, 
 JNew Orleans would get forty-seven repre- 
 sentatives, and that to deprive the city of a 
 representation in proportion to the number 
 represented, was unjust, unholy and un- 
 righteous, I have examined" this record, 
 this statistical table sir. as the honorable 
 delegate from the city would probably have 
 done, if the interest of his constituents had 
 appeared to him to be violated by it, and 
 find that it is incorrect. The greatest num- 
 ber that will be given to Mew Orleans un- 
 der any census of voters, is twenty out of 
 one hundred and one, as is correctly shown 
 by one column of this statistical table, and 
 not forty-seven, as appears from another 
 column of the same statistics under the 
 head of ^representation on basis of voters."' 
 This apportionment of forty-seven repre- 
 sentatives for the city is not based, as it 
 purports to be. upon any census or other 
 calculation of voters ; but as is shown by 
 making the calculation from another coh 
 iiiiii), is based upon all white males over 
 twenty vears of a^e. accordino: to the cen- 
 sus of 1640, 
 
 This basis would be unequal and unjust, 
 
342 
 
 Debates in tlie Contention of Louisiana* 
 
 even if the same diversity of interest exis- 
 ted between the different parts of the city 
 -with each other and with the country, that 
 exist between different portions of the coun- 
 try, for the reason that there are ^embraced 
 in the census of the city, a greater num- 
 ber of foreigners not naturalized and of 
 strangers and transient persons who hapen 
 to be in the city when the census is taken, 
 and who have no common interest to en- 
 title them to representation, nor any attach- 
 ment to our institutions, than there are of 
 such persons embraced in the census of 
 the country. As such diversity of interest, 
 however, does not exist between the dif- 
 ferent portions of the city, so as to divide 
 the vote of its representation, upon ques- 
 tions where the interest of the city and 
 country may be different, the injustice would 
 be increased on that account. This sta- 
 tistical table sir, is peculiarly calculated to 
 produce confusion, in making our calcula- 
 tions ; and why it has been prepared in the 
 manner it has, I am unable to determine. 
 By one basis eighty-seven members are 
 apportioned — by another, ninety-eight— -by 
 a third, ninety-nine — by a fourth, one hun- 
 dred and one — and by a fifth, one hundred 
 and eight. The column by which the 
 largest number of repre sentatives is appor- 
 tioned purports to give the number on the 
 basis of voters, when in fact such is not the 
 basis, as any one may see by calculation ; 
 but instead of it, the number of represen- 
 tatives given by that column is based upon 
 all white males over twenty years of age. 
 Why there should have been such a diver- 
 sity of the number of representatives, ap- 
 portioned by the different basis, I am una- 
 ble to comprehend, when nothing is easier 
 than to find a representative number for each 
 basis, that would have produced a result of 
 the same number, or very nearly for each. 
 
 Having shown the error in the statistics 
 reported, on which the assertion was foun- 
 ded, that the basis of qualified electors 
 would give New Orleans forty-seven mem- 
 bers, I will notice some of the assertions 
 that were based upon it. 
 
 The delegate from the city, (Mr. Rose- 
 lifis) stated to us of the country, that we had 
 no more right to restrict the city in its rep- 
 resentation in proportion to the numbers to 
 be represented ; in other words, to deprive 
 her of her forty-seven members which I 
 understand him to mean, than the high- 
 
 way-man, the robber sir, had to take from 
 the traveller his money or goods. 'That 
 in either case the power was exercised by 
 might without right. Apportion to the city 
 forty seven members ! Why sir, we might 
 as well bind the country hand and foot, and 
 deliver her over to the city at once. 
 
 I suppose sir, the object was to admonish 
 the members of the danger of committing 
 such an enormous crime, and that by com- 
 mitting them beforehand, they would be in- 
 duced to desist from the commission of the 
 sacriligious act. 
 
 Highway-men and robbers sir, applied to 
 the delegates from the country, who pretend 
 , at least to desire nothing but justice ! ! I 
 have sir, no desire to retort upon the dele- 
 gation from the city, but will examine a lit- 
 tle into the character and justice of the 
 charge, and hope members from the coun- 
 try will not be moved from their position 
 by the use of such denunciation and epi- 
 thets. It was asserted by the delegate that 
 the proposition that the number of the rep- 
 resentatives should be equal to the number 
 of the represented, was one, the absolute 
 truth of which, was undenied and undenia- 
 ble ; that no reason had been nor could he 
 given for laying sacriligious hands upon 
 this demecratic principle of republicanism. 
 
 I was struck with the force of these re- 
 marks, and fearing that a correct principle 
 might be violated, I gave the subject my 
 best attention, and on examining it, con- 
 clude that the principle which requires that 
 the number of representatives should be 
 equal to the number of the represented, 
 holds good, only, when the local situation 
 of the represented is alike, — when the num- 
 ber of the represented are scattered over a 
 country of equal extent, or when the in- 
 terests of the represented are equally diver- 
 sified, then, and then only, car? the princi- 
 ple hold good. But when the circumstan- 
 ces and local situation of the represented 
 cease to be similar ; when they cease to 
 bear similar relations to each other, the 
 principle ceases, and entirely disappears, as 
 it certainly does under the circumstances 
 that exist between this city and the coun- 
 try. And another principle takes its place, 
 which if my conclusion be correct, is that 
 representation should be so regulated, as iu 
 give to the representation of equal numbers, 
 equal weight in legislation, upon subjects 
 tchere a diversity of interests exists. This 
 
Debates in the Convention of Loufeiana, 
 
 I take to be the true principle, and the 
 onlv true one under circumstances like 
 those that exist in this State. The concen- 
 tration of influence which a number of 
 representatives will have, all coming from 
 the same point, and representing simi- 
 lar interests, will necessarily give them 
 greater power than the same number of 
 representatives wiii or can have,, represent- 
 ing each a large district of country, with a 
 great diversity of interests. The former 
 will vote together, and will always be 
 strengthened by a portion of the represen- 
 tation from the country, the interests of 
 whose constituents frequently differ from 
 each other as much as that of either diner 
 from the city; the consequence of which 
 is that they can seldom it ever act and vote 
 together, while the city can, and her inter- 
 est requires that she should do so. It was 
 stated yesterday by the delegate from 
 Ouachita, that the principle that the number 
 of representatives should be equal to that 
 of the represented, was beautiful in the .y 
 but chimerical in practice. It is, sir, beau- 
 tiful both in theory and practice where it 
 holds good as a principle ; but it is not a 
 principle that can be applied in this case, 
 and as it cannot properly be applied, it is 
 not under the circumstances, and for the 
 particular question, a principle at all. 
 
 Let us test the operation of the appor- 
 tionment as it exists at present, and has ex- 
 isted ever since the present constitution 
 was formed. New Orleans has but one- 
 sixth of the members, and never has had, 
 at least not for many years, if ever. Has 
 she not had as much influence and weight 
 in legislation, in proportion to her numbers 
 represented, as the country? I maintain 
 that she has, and much more; and that she 
 has used it to the detriment of the coun- 
 try. 
 
 It was observed yesterday by the dele, 
 gate from Ouachita, (Gen. Downs) that 
 the various banks of the city were conceived 
 here, and that it was here thai the instru- 
 ■tents were found to put them into opera- 
 tion: and though these remarks have not 
 been replied to, I feel certain that they can- 
 not with truth be denied. 1 have endeavor- 
 ed since yesterday to obtain the journals 
 of the legislature in order to prove bv refe- 
 rence to them, that the various charters of 
 the bauks in the city were presented by its 
 own members, but have not been able to 
 
 procure them. I am informed however, 
 on authority that I consider good, that such 
 was the fact, and presume that no one will 
 attempt to controvert it. It was here that 
 the fiist impulse was given to the rotten 
 bank system in this State. It was here, 
 under the influence of the city delegation, 
 that it was determined to flood the country 
 with a spurious currency in the shape of 
 bank bills, containing promises to pay, 
 which were made only to be violated, re- 
 gardless of the consequences to the honest* 
 laborer, who was induced to take them in 
 payment for the product of his labor, and 
 so high did the banking mania rage here, 
 that I heard a senator in his place say yes- 
 terday that the projects of charters flew 
 about the city like failing leaves in autumn, 
 and that they were piled up so high on 
 the secretary's desk in the house of repre- 
 sentatives, of which he was then a member, 
 that he could not see the secretary's face 
 for them. And for whose benefit were 
 these banks chartered? Those who con- 
 cocted them and acted a principal cart in 
 bringing them into existence and operation, 
 were certainly first to be served: the £ood 
 or ill effects to others were incidental, or 
 more properly speaking, accidental. 
 
 The merchant, broker, schemer and 
 idler, were all to be served, and if in serv- 
 ing them an accidental service were to re- 
 suit to the productive laborer, well; and if 
 ruin resulted to the latter, it still was well. 
 The result that has been produced aireadv. 
 is but too well known, not only to the pro- 
 ducer in the country, but to many of the 
 city, for whose benefit the banks were 
 chartered. The whole country, with the 
 exception of a few fortunate individuals, 
 has been involved in universal ruin. 
 
 By delegating the power to banks to do 
 the business of banking, the sovereign 
 power of the State was also delegated and 
 transferred from the people to these soulless 
 corporations. They regulated the cur- 
 rency so far as it had any regulation, regu- 
 lated the price of exchanges, controlled 
 the price of merchandise, and of manv of 
 the products of the State, and controlled 
 also the morals and virtue of the people: 
 or probably it may be said with more truth, 
 that by the operation and influence of banks, 
 ail was thrown into such disorder and con- 
 fusion, as to be out of the reach of arty reg- 
 ulator. The legitimate sources of the 
 
344 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 sovereign power were enfeebled and para- 
 lyzed, and the power itself held with an 
 iron grasp by the banks. The spirit of 
 justice that usually characterizes every 
 well regulated community, succumbed to 
 their power. To secure the payments of 
 the debts of these institutions, the State has 
 given her bonds to the amount of upwards 
 of twenty millions of dollars, as appears by 
 the State treasurer's report of December, 
 1843. The exact amount now due upon 
 them I do not remember, but it is nearly 
 that sum. Now, sir, I ask who is to pay 
 these bonds that have thus been fastened 
 upon us by the influence of the city, and 
 of its delegation in the legislature? I may 
 be answered, the banks will pay them, and 
 you need not concern yourselves about 
 them. I still hope that the most of them 
 will be paid through the medium of the 
 banks, and thus prevent the necessity of 
 raising the amount by a direct tax; but if 
 the banks pay them, they must first raise 
 the amount from the citizens, the merchant 
 or planter, or both, in order to be enabled 
 to do so. They must get the money be- 
 fore they can pay it, and there is no way to 
 get it but out of the produce of labor. But 
 it is again said the merchant pays the most 
 of it, as he is the principal borrower from 
 the banks. Very true he does so, but 
 where does he get his money to pay with? 
 He must necessarily increase his profits 
 upon the producer to a sufficient amount to 
 enable him to pay this interest* and realize 
 a profit besides, for himself. Hence it 
 is perfectly clear, it is undeniable, that 
 this enormous debt that has been fas- 
 tened upon the banks, must all be paid by 
 the product of useful labor, much the larg- 
 est portion of which is performed in the 
 country. Nothing useful is made but by 
 useful labor— so that at the least, the most 
 of their debt of twenty millions must be 
 paid by the people in the country. It may 
 be said in reply, that the planters and oth- 
 ers in the country have voluntarily borrow- 
 ed large amounts from the banks, and have 
 been as much benefited as the city mer- 
 chant. It is true that they have borrowed 
 large sums during the rage of the specula- 
 ting mania, and would still do so to relieve 
 themselves from the consequent embar- 
 rassment; but when they borrow they have 
 none to turn upon, as the merchant has, to 
 make the interest from that they have to 
 
 pay to the banks, and the profits upon that 
 interest. They are real paymasters, and 
 ihe real sufferers, and when they become 
 involved in the banks by mortgages or oth- 
 erwise, it is fortunate if they escape without 
 losing all they have. These are conse- 
 quences that have resulted to the country 
 by the influence of the city, when her rep- 
 resentation in the legislature has been but 
 one-sixth. 
 
 We all know that one-sixth of the legis- 
 lature could not by its vote simply, unaid- 
 ed by the votes of members from the coun- 
 try, carry any measure; but in legislation 
 of this kind, it is always easy to present 
 inducements to some of the members in a 
 large body, come from where they may., 
 that will be extremely inviting to them to 
 aid in an enterprise, which can be made to 
 appear to be laudable. A branch of the 
 bank must be established in the parishes of 
 some of the members, cashierships given 
 to others, and loans made to the balance 
 until a sufficient number is found willing 
 to serve the people in their own way r to get 
 the charter passed, It is said that men 
 have their price, which it is likely there is 
 some truth in, though I do not think that 
 direct bribes would be either offered or ac- 
 cepted by the representatives of the people; 
 still some of them may doubtless be flatter- 
 ed, some more than is for the good of their 
 constituents. The city delegates in such 
 cases have the advantage of a concentrated 
 vote, while the country members will al- 
 ways be divided. Considering these cir- 
 cumstances, has not the city with one-sixth, 
 ten members out of sixty in the house of 
 representatives, had her full share of weight 
 and influence in that body ? And if she 
 has, which I trust I have sufficiently shown, 
 why should we grant her more? Where 
 is the injustice in limiting her to that pro- 
 portion? If to do so would be unjust, I 
 hope we shall be furnished with some bet- 
 ter reason than has yet been furnished; for 
 I for one, certainly would not do injustice 
 to the city sooner than to any part of the 
 country, and as I observed on a previous 
 occasion, to commit injustice in the appor- 
 tionment will be more likely tfjan any other 
 cause, to endanger the sanction by the peo- 
 ple to the constitution we are framing. 
 
 A sense of justice which I feel assured 
 is entertained by every member from the 
 country to the whole State, and every part 
 
Debates la the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 845 
 
 of it, will prevent any injustice to the city; j 
 and I hope at the same time, that the de- 
 cision necessary to impose such limits upon 
 her as to prevent her from wielding an un- 
 due weight in legislation, will also be exer- 
 cised by the country members. — those j 
 members who come from those parts of the 
 State inhabited in part by men, and in part 
 by reptiles, as the delegate stated. I did ■ 
 not understand him as using the term rep- 
 tiles in an offensive sense, but taken in 
 connexion with some of his other remarks, 
 it was difficult to avoid the idea of a com- 
 parison of the citizens with reptiles. It is 
 true that in all the northern part of the 
 State there are reptiles, wolves, tigers and 
 bears, that roam over the forest ; but our ! 
 constituency is composed of a magnani- : 
 mous, patriotic and virtuous people; of men ! 
 who understand their rights, and know 
 pretty well how to preserve them. An- 
 other honorable delegate from the city, (Mr 
 Marigny) has told us that New Orleans is 
 the mistress of the State, and the country 
 her servants. Truly she is sir, with the 
 concentrated influence of one-sixth of the 
 representation of the State, and has been 
 for a long period, mistress of the State; and 
 has ruled her servants with an iron rod, 
 and now sir, when we manifest a disposi- 
 tion to take this rod from her, and so to 
 enfeeble her as that she will only be able 
 to act towards us the part of a step-mother! 
 instead of a mistress, we are compared by 
 her delegate to highwaymen and robbers , 
 
 I repeat sir, again, that notwithstanding 
 the extraordinary tone assumed by some of 
 the city delegation, that I have no disposi- 
 tion to pass the line of justice; at that line 
 it is my intention to take my stand, and 
 when the question is presented, to vote for 
 such a proposition as will give the city such 
 a proportion of representation as will se- 
 cure to her a weight and influence in legis- 
 lation, in proportion to the numbers repre. 
 sented, and no more; and I think the pro- 
 portion she now has, is large enough for 
 that purpose. 
 
 Mr. Eustis rose to address a few brief 
 remarks to the house on this important ques- 
 tion. It is true that his colleagues have 
 coverednearly the whole groundfand yet he 
 feels there is a propriety in his taking up 
 the time of the Convention for a few mo- 
 ments, in order to satisfy his own convic- 
 tions of duty and further, that his constitu- 
 
 ents may know the principles which govern 
 him in the vote he is about to give. He. 
 (Mr. Eustis,) will endeavor not to repeat 
 what has been said by his colleagues on 
 this subject, because he is not disposed to 
 weary or tire the Convention, but he will 
 offer some views not yet advanced, and 
 which have been doubtless overlooked. It 
 is true, Mr. President, that I shall have to 
 approach this subject with a perfect knowl- 
 edge that at this moment we are in a mi- 
 nority on the question now r before us for 
 consideration; but, sir, it is not the first time 
 in my life that I have seen minorities rise 
 into respectable majorities, by the everlast- 
 ing and immutable principles of truth and 
 justice being clearly expounded to those 
 heretofore in error* It is to such a class of 
 gentlemen he, (Mr. Eustis,) feels he is now 
 addressing himself; he believes them to be 
 gentlemen as sincerely and devotedly at- 
 tached to the interests of the State as he, 
 (Mr. Eustis,) himself is ; and he will go 
 further, and say that which he believes to 
 | be the truth, that there is not a man among 
 them who is opposed to the view he takes 
 of the question now under discussion, no 
 ; matter what his state of feeling be, political 
 or otherwise, that would knowingly commit 
 j an act of injustice. 
 
 The gentleman who opened the debate, 
 i whom I regret not to find in his seat, the 
 I member from Ouachita, has told you that 
 ; Xew r Orleans is the heart of the State. He 
 j has shown you that there is an identity of 
 I interest and feeling between Xew Orleans 
 i every part of the State, even the most 
 , and remote. The sequitur of which 
 : is, that Xew Orleans comprises within 
 | herself the body politic of Louisiana. There 
 we agree. Xo tree is felled, no spade is 
 put into the ground, the result of which la- 
 bor is not felt here. Agreeing, then, with 
 the gentleman from Ouachita, as I cordially 
 do, in these premises, certainly neither he 
 nor any of his friends, have any reason to 
 complain — for no more complaint could be 
 made on the ground admitted by Mr. Downs, 
 than the body, or the limbs of the body, 
 would have a right to complain in perform- 
 ing their separate functions, whose lite and 
 being proceed from the pulsations of that 
 heart. 
 
 Xew Orleans is, in many respects, dif- 
 ferent from any other city in the Union. 
 She resembles no other capitol in the Uni- 
 
S46 
 
 Debates in the Contention of Louisiana, 
 
 ted States; and when the gentleman from 
 Ouachita entitled her the heart of the State, 
 he named her appropriately and well, v 
 
 .She was almost a giant at her birth ; and 
 she has grown so wonderfully as to astonish 
 the world. Her brierrian arms extend 
 from the Rocky to the Allegheny moun- 
 tains. 
 
 On her destiny depends the weal or woe 
 of Louisiana. And you might just as well 
 take the heart from the human body, and 
 expect a man to live, as to take New Or- 
 leans out of the State and look for any thing 
 but general decay and ruin throughout the 
 balance of the State of Louisiana. 
 
 Let us imagine, sir, that in spite of the uni- 
 versal opinion as to her future influence, 
 her representation privilege should be cur- 
 tailed, would that impede her growth? would 
 that destroy her power, and her influence? 
 or would she lose one scintilla of her mag- 
 netic attraction to every citizen of the ad- 
 joining Stales? No sir! The history of 
 the past most clearly shows that such an 
 hypothesis is not tenable; and shows you 
 very emphatically that her march is on- 
 ward. It is not for the sake of power that 
 she wants her delegation on a fair and 
 proper basis, because that power she is 
 bound to have, and exercise, and no one — 
 no system — either foreign or domestic, can 
 ever take away from her her power. She will 
 always be powerful in the intelligence of 
 her citizens, in her wealth, and in the in- 
 dustrious pursuits of her honest, hard-work- 
 ing men. 
 
 Strike, then, the blow you meditated 
 against her. No, sir, you dare not; and 
 why? because in doing it you give her 
 double power; and how? why by placing 
 yourself in the wrong. The mere efforts 
 you make to wrong New Orleans of any of 
 her just rights; and the more you try to heap 
 restriction upon restriction, on her the more 
 fearful, I warn you, will be the just retri- 
 bution that awaits you, for she cannot be 
 impeded in her onward march by any such 
 course as you are now pursuing. By your 
 own showing this is your last ground; and 
 even that will not avail you, for no human 
 efforts can curtail her power or future great- 
 ness. 
 
 What surprises me more than aught else 
 is the double injury which is to be inflicted 
 on us, by mincing up the federal basis, with 
 the liberal provision of limiting us to one- 
 
 nfth of the representation even under that 
 unjust and arbitrary rule. What can two 
 such principles have in common? Take 
 away the restrictive principle from the fede- 
 ral basis and apply'it to the electoral basis, 
 still the injustice remains, and besides, 
 sir, I cannot conceive how 7 they became 
 grouped together, nor how they could ar- 
 rive at the same conclusion by bringing 
 together two principles utterly at war with 
 each other; they at once show the futility of 
 what we have heard so much of— the bene- 
 fits of universal suffrage — if the section be 
 persevered in, which is now before the 
 Convention. On the one hand you say 
 that all free, white male citizens over twen- 
 ty-one years, shall be the basis on which 
 you will erect political power, and that on 
 that depends the safety and welfare of the 
 country. On the other hand, you are stri- 
 ving with all your might and main to de- 
 stroy the very temples which you professed 
 yourself so desirous of raising; yes, you ac- 
 tually set to work to pull down the fair fab- 
 ric of your own creation. Why, sir, this 
 is boys' play, and not fit for sensible men 
 to be engaged in. Have you any good 
 reasons to give for such foolish conduct? 
 You cannot have. 
 
 The law of 1841, calling this Conven- 
 tion, distinctly says that one of the main 
 reasons is for the purpose of establishing a 
 more equitable system of representation, as 
 well in the senate as in the lower house, so 
 that every parish and every district in the 
 State, should be more equally represented 
 than under the constitution of 1812, and 
 more proportionate to their respective pop- 
 ulation. That is what the law calling this 
 Convention clearly says. And now what 
 does the report say? That says that every 
 parish in the State shall be equally repre- 
 sented, except New Orleans. I ask can 
 any thing be more remarkable than such a 
 declaration coming from men who have met 
 here to obey the mandate of the people, 
 which is to give us a more equitable repre- 
 sentation,ihu.n the one they have the boldness 
 to make? which is nothing more nor less 
 than saying that they are here for the pur- 
 pose of putting aside the electoral for the 
 federal basis, with the plain and unblush- 
 ingly avowed object of having the city of 
 New Orleans shorn of her power. Is this 
 the feast to which we have been invited? 
 Is this the great sturnalia of democracy? 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 347 
 
 If it be. then, indeed, am I mistaken in the rests in their hands, they will exercise it 
 obiect of mv mi-- "on. The grand question with moderation and with justice: and here 
 is/ are we to be just or not? The answer we approach the most absorbing part of the 
 rests with vcu. But mv view of the para- question. Let us not misunderstand it, but 
 mount duties of a member of this Conven- calmly see how it stands, lou may say to 
 tion is, that he should be just and impartial, the city of New Orleans, you will be too 
 
 One question more on this subject. Was ' powerful under the proposed representation, 
 such a doctrine as that contended for, even if we act up to the basis we have adopted, 
 broached in the legislature while they ; and give you your just proportion : you will 
 were passing the bill, calling this Conven- then be the majority, and we must 
 tion? Was the slave basis ever thought of; some means to check you. In other words, 
 to be proposed to the people, as a proper you, as a minority, holding temporary pow- 
 representative basis? Xo, indeed: for if it er. desire to shackle down and' fetter the 
 had, we never should have been here. ; majority. And yet you cannot mean that, 
 What would the Florida parishes have said? j because you claim equal representation, 
 where the ploughs are followed by the Ail the professions that he, 3Ir. Eustis. has 
 farmers' children, and who can be seen heard advanced on this subject must be 
 resularlv in the cotton field in the fall, gath- hollow and heartless. If you do not admit 
 ering in the crop: why. they would have re- : the principle, that majorities must govern 
 fused to send any man, however talented. ; in all cases, pure democracy is not in you., 
 who advanced the doctrine of the federal j and justice has taken leave of you forever, 
 basis as the proper one on which to base Our political condition is too artificial tor 
 State representation. The doctrine is re- , us to think of departing from that cardinal 
 pudiated by every State, or almost every principle: we have here two distinct races, 
 State in the Union: and it was repudiated each entitled to their several positions, and 
 ijv the franiers of the constitution under protected in their rights: and he who will 
 which we now live. : reflect at all on our condition and present 
 
 He, Mr. Eustis. addresses men of sense, situation, must come to the conclusion that 
 men who know not only how to read, but numbers cannot govern safely here. It is 
 to understand also what they read: and not just; and institutions based on justice 
 they know that the causes why Virginia alone can stand. 
 
 agreed to adopt that basis was altogether A small tax cost one monarch his head, 
 owing to the contrariety of local interests, another his empire. Look well, then, to 
 in that ancient and powerful State; • and what you are doing; for injustice cannot, 
 even then they left it to the wisdom of the will not thrive.. The object for which this 
 legislature which was to put the constiru- Convention was called together was to 
 tion into being. He hopes the Convention take away from the old constitution those 
 will pause well, and reflect upon the man- restrictions which amounted to unequalitv 
 date of the people who sent them here: and in the rights of the citizen, and to place all 
 that wiH promptly reject the basis proposed on an equal footing. The friends of popu- 
 to them by the committee. It is impolitic, \ lar government, of whom there are some in 
 it is unwise and uncalled for: it is rebuked this Convention, and during the agitation 
 by legislative wisdom, by the salutary les- ; of the question of calling this Convention, 
 sons of the past, and by the examples 1 the most energetic and powerful arguments 
 which have been set us by the formation against restricting the masses, and yet 
 ot every other State government. they come here forgetting all the logic and 
 
 But-ajpay they k that is all very well, your eloquence they then brought to bear on this 
 reasonTare very-good, your argument indis- interesting subject, and thinking, as per- 
 putable, it is true. But that is not enough, haps they do, that might makes right, they 
 We are determined that New Orleans very cooly tell you "that that is perfectly 
 shall be limited in her delegation! And right now. which was wrong before; then 
 why.' because it will give her too much they were struggling for power; now they 
 power. think they have attained it. they ask ykm 
 
 Mr. Eustis thinks, however, that although to insert a new, a more onerous restriction 
 a majority of the members of this Conven- I than can be round in the constitution of 
 tion are from the country, and the power j 
 
348 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 1812; the restrictions in which we are 
 now here for the purpose of removing. 
 
 In 1812 the power of New Orleans was 
 comparatively as great as it is now; then 
 we had a population of 24,000, and were en- 
 titled to four representatives. Was it then 
 considered necessary to restrict New Or- 
 leans? Now we have a population of at 
 least 150,000, and when we ask for a just 
 share of representation, we are very cooly 
 told, no, you cannot have it; you must be 
 restricted; you must be shorn of your pow- 
 er. Talk to them of the framers of the old 
 constitution being governed by principle 
 and love of country, and they will tell you 
 that, people, now-a-days, think more and 
 see further than they did formerly. For 
 his part, Mr. Eustis, thinks that although 
 they talked less, they thought more, and 
 more wisely too; for they never engrafted a 
 restrictive provision in that instrument, that 
 was in direct violation of one of the funda- 
 mental principles laid down as the feasis of 
 that constitution. We are forced therefore to 
 arrive at the conclusion that the old consti- 
 tution was at least a model of consistency, 
 and as such, it is entitled to our respect. 
 There was no restriction on New Orleans 
 in 1812; where is the necessity for it now? 
 They say circumstances have changed the 
 relative position of the city and country. 
 We then ask them, in all candour, to ex- 
 plain how? and the only answer we can 
 get is, that by the industry, diligence and 
 enterprize of her citizens shew has monopo- 
 lized the trade of the country villages ; that 
 she has become the grand centre of the 
 State; and that in consequence she has ac- 
 quired so great a power over the country, 
 in her mercantile interests, as to render it 
 necessary to restrict her political power. 
 
 I appeal, sir, to the justice and good 
 sense of every member on this floor, is that 
 an argument to offer, in the discussion of a 
 grave and vital principle affecting a people's 
 rights ? Are we to be told that because 
 we have known how, by industry and appli- 
 cation to our affairs, to make our position 
 better than it was ; that we are therefore to 
 be deprived of our rights by a constitutional 
 provision to punish us for what have ever 
 been considered as virtues in the human 
 character? If on the principles of republi- 
 canism we are entitled to the power, we 
 ought to have it ; and it is not reasonable 
 in those who oppose us to meet the question 
 
 by saying only that we have too much pow- 
 er already. The only answer we can get 
 from them is — New Orleans has too much 
 power, and must be restricted. Mr. Tay- 
 lor was right when he told you that you 
 could not curtail her representation in the 
 lower house, without committing an act of 
 injustice, while you have the power in your 
 own hands in the senate, in which you have 
 seven-eighths of the members from the 
 country. Unless then you mean to contend, 
 that you, as a minority, have the political 
 right to commit a grievous wrong, because 
 you have the numerical force, you must re- 
 trace your steps, and come back again to 
 the true Democratic doctrine, that majori- 
 ties alone must govern. 
 
 It is very natural for every one to look out 
 for their own rights; nothing is more rea- 
 sonable* but at the same time they should 
 not forget the cardinal principle that they 
 should at the same time do unto others, as 
 they would that others should do unto them. 
 Let all be equal. Don't try to govern a 
 majority with a minority. New Orleans 
 asks from you nothing but justice, and protec- 
 tion in her rights. Some represent one in- 
 terest, some another on this floor. On the 
 one hand we have those who represent the 
 interests of the sugar planter,on the other, we 
 have representatives of the cotton growing 
 interest, while the middle interest is that of 
 the commercial and manufacturing portion 
 of our community. Now let all be fairly 
 dealt with. A representative government 
 cannot exist unless each interest be repre- 
 sented. That is the only perfect representa- 
 tion, and the only one recognized by the 
 people of the present day, as constituting a 
 real barrier to acts of oppression. Repre- 
 senting masses may do very well elsewhere, 
 but will not answer here. While a por- 
 of our population is regarded as pro- 
 perty, you will say that there is an interest 
 identified with that property which also re- 
 quires protection, and that it should be repre- 
 sented as other interests. To this L^nswer, 
 no. Take the senate, there you have the 
 power to protect that interest, but do not 
 deprive us of our proper proportion of pow- 
 er in the lower house. There is another 
 and stronger reason than any which has 
 yet been advanced, why it would be mani- 
 festly unjust to deprive us of that power; 
 and that is, that the taxing power rest with 
 the house of representatives. The city is 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 849 
 
 seriously interested in preventing an abuse 
 of that power; which, if the strength lay 
 altogether in the hands of the country, she 
 would be unable to present, giye us then, 
 the means to protect ourselves. Take the 
 basis you call tor. and restrict the city as 
 you propose, and New Orleans will hare 
 cause to remember the month of March. 
 1645. ell may they remember the ides 
 of March, which witnessed the act of a 
 grave body of the people's agents, bv'which 
 our children and our children's children 
 were disfranchised, robbed of their privile- 
 ges, because they lived in the city. If you 
 do it, it will be a deed without a name. 
 But he, (Mr. Eiistis,) trusts they will re- 
 flect, and not commit so gross an act of in- 
 justice*, for New Orleans cannot, will not 
 submit to it. We ask nothing from you 
 but equal representation* 
 
 You insist that the power, of right, be- 
 longs to you. But there you are wrong ; 
 you can have, no one can have a right to 
 commit an act of injustice. We are go- 
 verned in the course we take by reason 
 and justice, and it is our sincere desire to 
 show you that the course you are taking is 
 impolitic, and that it is alike your interest 
 and your duty to render us justice, and give 
 us the means, at least, of protecting our own 
 rights. 
 
 Under the law calling this Convention, 
 it is made our duty to provide a more just 
 and equitable representation. 
 
 From the commencement of our existence 
 as a State. New Orleans has been entitled 
 to one sixth of the representation in the 
 lower house : that, up to this time, has on- 
 ly given her ten members. We now come 
 and ask you in her name, for a more just 
 and equitable number of representatives, to 
 be allotted to her ; to grant her that which 
 she is entitled to on a fair and equitable ba- 
 sis; and the law calling you into existence 
 as a body, has told you that that is your 
 duty. But you turn a deaf ear to her claims; 
 you are blind to the progress she has made, 
 to her increase in wealth, in population, 
 and in science. You fold your arms quietly 
 and say — no! now we have vou in our pow- 
 er, we mean to curtail you and that forever. 
 He, (Mr. Eustis.) cannot think that justice \ 
 has yet departed from all the country mem- ' 
 bers, and to them he appeals. Give us at 
 least the means of protecting ourselves | 
 from unjust taxation. 
 45 
 
 Why animosity should exist against Xew 
 Orleans, he, (Mr. Eustis.) is at a loss to 
 conceive ? For his part, were he a coun- 
 ! tiyman, it seems to him he should lock up 
 ; to her with pride. Our increased popuhi- 
 ' tion serves but to augment her usefulness 
 i to all : we are daily increasing our mercan- 
 tile interests, and our mechanical interests. 
 ] We have ail sorts of employment going on 
 in those branches, to say nothing of the fine 
 arts, which are here cherished, fostered 
 j and protected. In short, we have every 
 thing here which is calculated to, and does 
 ; contribute to the welfare and happiness of 
 ! the State at large, and yet theidea. is held 
 out that is right, that it is necessary to re- 
 i strict — no, deprive is the more proper word, 
 ! those very men. who are so laudably enga- 
 ged in contributing to the welfare of the 
 State, off their right to be represented in 
 ycnr halls of legislation. Oh ! that such a 
 novel idea should have been broached in 
 the year 1845, by the collected wisdom of 
 ; the State! 
 
 Recollect that we are all here to 
 make a just and equal representation. Do 
 | as you threaten us you will. Bat remember 
 ; that injustice is revolting: we shall have no 
 j rest, no peace, until the injury is repaired. 
 Agitation will succeed agitation, until the 
 evil is removed ; and it may happen, that 
 , you will find too late, that ijy adhering to 
 your present course, you have destroyed the 
 : labor of vour own hands, the constitution of 
 ! 1345. 
 
 Mr. Wadswoeth thinks the delegate 
 from Xew Orleans is wrong in -attributing: 
 to the country members motives which do 
 not exist. It is not. to his mind, apparent 
 that they desire to curtail the city". The 
 question is, shall we establish the federal 
 basis or not. So far as Xew Orleans is 
 concerned, he thinks it is immaterial whe- 
 ther the basis established be the white- or 
 the federal basis. Rethinks that put it on 
 any tooting, she will always have 
 enough representatives allotted to her to 
 protect her rights and interests. 
 
 V\ e of the country prefer the federal ba- 
 sis, because we consider it necessary for 
 the protection of our interests. The pros- 
 perity of the city depends on the prosperity 
 of the country. It is the country alone that 
 makes the city, and he. (Mr. Wadswcrth.) 
 thinks it is our first duty to have the produc- 
 
350 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 tivo property provided for in our legisla- 
 tion. 
 
 The country members now simply desire 
 to fix the basis ; and it is droll they should 
 attack Us on that point. The proper time 
 for them to complain of restriction would 
 have been, when we came to apportion on 
 a basis that was fixed, if they had cause to 
 do so. 
 
 Mr. Brent said, that he was desirous of 
 offering some remarks in support of the 
 vote which he intended to give upon this 
 question. I feel (said he) Mr. President, 
 that it is my duty, whatever opinion I might 
 entertain about the correctness of the prin- 
 ciples embraced in the report of the com- 
 mittee, in the abstract, to give them my 
 support under the circumstances, which at 
 present recommend them to our considera- 
 tion. In forming our judgment, we should 
 not confine ourselves to an examination of 
 one point merely, but we should survey the 
 whole horizon and decide under all the cir- 
 cumstances what would be best calculated 
 to secure the peace, the happiness and pros- 
 perity of our people. 
 
 Before, however, proceeding to examine 
 the principles embraced in the report, al- 
 low me to advert, very briefly, to the tone 
 and the temper in which this discussion 
 has been hitherto conducted. Sir, the re- 
 port of the committee has been denounced 
 from the commencement, in a spirit of bit- 
 terness and acrimony, altogether unusual in 
 the halls of legislation. Its supporters have 
 been stigmatized by an honorable gentle- 
 man from New Orleans, (Mr. Roselius) as 
 highwaymen, robbers and plunderers, and 
 in fine, the vocabulary of abuse and invec- 
 tive has been ransackedfor epithets, which 
 have been showered upon them with a libe- 
 ral and a lavish hand. Although this is a 
 game at which two can play, and although 
 I would be fully justified by parliamentary 
 rules, in retorting these epithets upon those 
 who have sent them, yet, it is far from my 
 design, to employ the time of this Conven- 
 tion, in any such unprofitable work, as that 
 of recrimination. The question before us 
 is too important and momentous in its 
 character for me to attempt to increase the. 
 excitement of a discussion, which has 
 proved too angry to be wise, and too harsh 
 to be agreeable. Above all, sir, on an oc- 
 casion like the present, should reason, not 
 passion, be awake. 
 
 But the honorable delegates from New 
 Orleans have not been content with either 
 argument or denunciation. In case we do 
 not think proper to adopt the basis of re- 
 presentation which they deem most suita- 
 ble; in other words, if we do not consent 
 that all the political power and influence of 
 this State, shall be absorbed in the vast 
 whirlpool of this great city, we are threat- 
 ened with revolution. Blood, I suppose, 
 sir, is to flow. We are to have let slip the 
 dogs of war upon us, and the thunders 
 of revolution are to shake this common- 
 wealth to her centre. Sir, honorable gen- 
 tlemen overshoot the mark, if they expect 
 that the deliberations of this body are to be 
 overawed by menaces of rebellion or revo- 
 lution, let them come from what Quarter 
 they may. We are not to be deterred or 
 frightened from the discharge of our duty 
 by threats of revolution even from the im- 
 portant city of New Orleans, Whether 
 our principles be palatable or unpalatable 
 to the city delegation, we intend 'to support 
 them by our voice and our votes, and we 
 are willing to surrender ourselves now, and 
 at all times, to the judgment of the country ] 
 
 An honorable delegate from New Or- 
 leans (Mr. Eustis) speaking of some unde- 
 finable and mysterious danger, tells us to 
 "beware of the ides of March. He dreads 
 lest the ides of March should become cele- 
 brated in our history for some dark and 
 fatal deed. Sir, if I recollect history aright, 
 the ides of March have become memorable, 
 because upon that day a tyrant was slain. 
 If we are to have the same cause to remem- 
 ber this day, which Rome had; if tyranny 
 is to be rebuked and despotism laid in its 
 grave; if the rights of the people are to be 
 this day secured by the adoption of a wise 
 and just system of representation, whereby 
 each interest will be protected, and the 
 rights of the weak shielded against the 
 power of the strong, then, sir, will this day 
 justly become memorable in American as it 
 is celebrated in Roman history. 1 might, 
 sir, carry out the parallel, if I chose, in a 
 way not at all suited to the notions of the 
 honorable delegate from New Orleans, but 
 I pass on, leaving it to be run out by others. 
 
 The federal basis, proposed in the report 
 of the committee, and which has been at- 
 tacked in such violent and unmeasured 
 language, has at least one recommendation 
 in its favor. It is of an antique and vene 
 
Debates in the Convention oi Louisiana. 
 
 851 
 
 rable type. It conies down to us from a 
 good old age. It is closely linked with the 
 names of the best and most virtuous patriots 
 of the land, and the maledictions which 
 have been so unsparingly showered upon 
 it, do not affect us, its present supporters, 
 but rather fall upon the grey hairs and 
 venerable forms of the wise fathers of the 
 federal constitution; upon, the heads of 
 Washington and Madison, and Franklin, 
 and Pinckney, and Rutledge, and Living- 
 ston, and -that long line of illustrious states- 
 men who have circled the American name 
 with a halo of undying and imperishable 
 glory. Against the character of such men 
 as these, the originators and projectors of 
 this basis, no successful attempt can be 
 made, not even when conducted by the 
 talents, ability and eloquence of the city 
 delegation. They are lifted too high by 
 their virtues to be reached by the shafts of 
 abuse and invective, and the thunders of 
 denunciation roll harmless at their feet. 
 
 This principle, now the point of attack, 
 is one of the compromises of the federal 
 constitution, and it should be doubly dear 
 -to us, because it is one of those compro- 
 mises; without it, this Union never could 
 have existed, and without it, this Union 
 could not exist for an hour. It may be said 
 to be the very corner stone upon which is 
 pillared the vast fabric of our national edi- 
 fice. Let it be disturbed— let it be shaken 
 from its foundation, and the whole magni- 
 ficent structure will soon be reeling and 
 rocking to its fall. 
 
 Sir, honorable gentlemen lose sight 
 entirely of the position in which we place 
 ourselves, by refusing to adopt this princi- 
 ple in our State constitution. There is no 
 man in this hall but what desires to see this 
 principle maintained in all its integrity in the 
 national constitution. So far as relates to 
 the general government, the principle is 
 admitted to be fair and just and equitable, 
 but when applied to State purposes, it be- 
 comes monstrous and shocking to every 
 notion of justice and propriety. Is there 
 not rank and flagrant inconsistency in this 
 advocacy on the one hand, and opposition 
 on the other? Do gentleman mean to as- 
 sent that a bad principle, when inserted in 
 a State constitution becomes a good princi- 
 ple when engrafted on the national consti- 
 tution? Is principle of such material that 
 it can be thrown into a state of fusion and 
 
 moulded to suit the whim, caprice and fancy 
 of houorable delegates on this floor? Is the 
 national constitution an alembic in which 
 by a chemical process, all the base ores 
 can be transmitted into the precious* metals? 
 How, sir, do gentlemen reconcile the an- 
 tagonistical positions, which they have as- 
 sumed in reference to this principle ? 
 When they shall account for their incon- 
 sistency; when they shall furnish argn- 
 ments in favor of the principle as found in 
 the national constitution, it will be time 
 enough then to refute the reasoning they 
 have urged in the present debate. 
 
 An honorable delegate from West Feli- 
 ciana (Mr. RatlifT) has summed up the ar- 
 guments against the federal basis, by in- 
 forming us, that according to that basis, five 
 negroes are equal to four white men. 
 This argument, and this mode of stating 
 the argument, is not original with that de- 
 legate. It is all borrowed. And allow me 
 to say, Mr. President, that it comes from a ' 
 very suspicious quarter. I have seen the 
 gentleman's speech before in print. I have 
 read his arguments in the columns of the 
 Liberator and the Emancipator, and in the 
 speeches of Mr. Giddings and Mr. Adams, 
 and other abolitionists of the north. Sir, 
 the gentleman has given us nothing new, 
 he is a mere copyist, and has only follow- 
 ed in the wake of others who have gone 
 before him. But to show that I do not 
 misrepresent, I will give the first edition of 
 the gentleman's speech as it was delivered 
 in May last by the honorable Mr. Giddings, 
 a member of congress, from the State of 
 Ohio. I quote from the remarks of that 
 gentleman, delivered in the house of repre- 
 sentatives upon the annexation of Texas. 
 
 Mr. Giddirgs said — "But if Texas be 
 admitted to the Union, it will be admitted 
 as a slave territory, out of which several 
 slave States will be formed, with all the ad- 
 vantages of a slave representation* under 
 our federal constitution ; the effect of which 
 will be, to give the slaveholders of Texas 
 an influence in the election of President, 
 Vice President and members of Congress, 
 in exact proportion to their disregard of the 
 liberty for which our revolutionary fathers 
 contended ; or in other words, to the num- 
 ber of persons they shall hold in degra- 
 dation and slavery. On this point I desire 
 the particular attention of northern demo- 
 crats, 1 say then that if the freemen of 
 
353 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 Texas shall each hold five slaves, each will 
 exercise the same influence in electing fed- 
 eral'officers, that will be held and exercised 
 by four northern freemen. If each shall 
 hold fifty slaves, he will have an influence 
 in electing federal officers equal to thirty- 
 one hard working, intelligent and virtuous 
 democrats of New England or New York." 
 
 Sir, here is the whole argument of the 
 delegate from West Feliciana. Mr, Gid- 
 dings has travelled over this ground before 
 him, and permit me to say, that the Ohio 
 abolitionist has the advantage of that dele- 
 gate, in the fact that he at least is consis- 
 tent in his opposition to the measure. He 
 has no connection whatever with slavery, 
 but the delegate from West Feliciana in- 
 sists upon making him submit to a princi- 
 ple which he is not willing to apply to him- 
 self and his constituents. Is there justice 
 or right in this proceeding? Can we say 
 with truth to our northern brethren, that 
 we regard this principle as wise and just in 
 our federal constitution, but that we deem 
 it odious and unjust when proposed for 
 adoption in our own State constitution? It 
 can hardly be supposed that their meta- 
 physical acumen will be as keen as ours, 
 to draw the subtle distinction between a 
 principle which is good at onetime and one 
 place, and bad at another time and another 
 place. Sir, the judgment of condemnation 
 pronounced upon this principle by the Lou- 
 isiana convention, will have its effect, and 
 may it not have a disastrous effect, so far 
 as the interests of the south are concerned. 
 It would do well for the members of the 
 convention to reflect upon this, and not to 
 condemn hastily, before they give to the 
 subject that investigation which its impor- 
 tance demands. 
 
 Honorable gentlemen should recollect 
 that we act in a double capacity, and have 
 a double duty to perform. We not only 
 represent the sovereignty of Louisiana, as 
 a distinct and independent commonwealth; 
 but we represent her as constituting one of 
 the great sisterhood of American States. 
 W e are not only Louisianians, but we are 
 members of the great family of the Ameri- 
 can Union. That we are deeply and vi- 
 tally interested in upholding the basis of 
 representation established by the federal 
 constitution, no one will pretend to deny. 
 We should pause, sir ; we should move with 
 caution and circumspection to any conclu- 
 
 sion that may tend in any degree to unset- 
 tle that basis, or to furnish arguments in 
 behalf of the efforts now made to disturb it. 
 
 The principle of representation estab- 
 lished in the Federal constitution, is now 
 the chief point of attack by the northern 
 abolitionists. That fanatical party has al- 
 ready accomplished one result, important 
 to the acquisition of its ends. The 21st 
 rule of the house of representatives has 
 has been rescinded. One of the outworks 
 has been carried by storm. The floodgates 
 have been opened by the American Con- 
 gress, for the admission of incendiary pe- 
 titions, and the dark and thundering torrent 
 of Abolition is sweeping its billows, and 
 foaming and maddening around the walls 
 of our capitol. But the attack made upon 
 this principle in the federal constitution, is 
 confined neither to fanatics or associations 
 of individuals, but it has been headed by 
 one of the sovereign States of this confede- 
 racy. A $tate no less important than Mas- 
 sachusetts has thought proper to enlist in 
 this crusade against a principle, the destruc- 
 tion of which would lead inevitably to the 
 dissolution of our glorious and happy Union. 
 
 Here is the evidence of it, taken from 
 the official records of the nation. I read 
 from the proceedings of the United States 
 Senate, on the 23d of January, 1844, as 
 follows. 
 
 Slave Representation,- — "Mr.- Bates 
 presented a resolution adopted by the legis- 
 lature of Massachusetts, instructing the 
 senators and requesting the representatives 
 from that State, to vote for such an amend- 
 ment to the constitution, as will allow only 
 free persons to be represented, or in other 
 words, to abrogate the slave representation. 
 The resolution proposing the amendment 
 was read, as follows. 
 
 "Resolved, That the following amend- 
 ment to the constitution ofthe United States 
 is hereby recommended to the considera- 
 tion of congress, to be acted on according 
 to the fifth article. The third clause of 
 the second section of the first article, shall 
 read in the words following: Representa- 
 tion and direct taxes shall be apportioned 
 among the several States which are or 
 may be included in this Union, according 
 to their respective numbers of free persons, 
 excluding Indians, not taxed," &c. 
 
 Here, Mr. President, is the proof, that 
 against this particular feature in the federal 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 353 
 
 constitution, the whole battery of abolition- j 
 ism is now directed. Massachusetts, for- 
 getful cf her ancient renown, has lent the 
 power of her great name; tG assist the sac- 
 rilegious work of pulling down the noblest 
 fabric of government which was ever reared 
 by mortal hands. Shall we join her in the 
 crusade against the rights of the south — 
 against one of the compromises ofthe consti- 
 tution, and against the existence of our glo- 
 rious Union? Are we to adopt the argu 
 ments of Mr. Giddings, and affix the seal 
 of our reprobation upon that principle pro- 
 scribed and denounced by Massachusetts? 
 By refusing to apply this principle to our- 
 selves, do we not virtually admit that it is 
 unjust and unfair, and do we not place our- 
 selves in the position of doing that to others 
 which we would not should be done unto 
 us? And cannot the abolitionists close the 
 lips of our representatives upon the floor of 
 Congress, by quoting the proceedings of 
 the Louisiana convention, and particularly 
 by quoting the speech of the honorable del- 
 egate from West Feliciana? One of two 
 things is clear. Either the southern States 
 have no right to insist upon the maintenance 
 of the federal basis in the constitution ofthe 
 United States, or they^ cannot with justice 
 and propriety, object to the application of 
 that principle to themselves. I am the ad- 
 vocate of equal and exact justice. That 
 which I mete out to others, I am willing 
 should be meted out to me. I desire to 
 force no man to submit to a principle which 
 I am not willing shall be applied to myself. 
 
 We are told that the case is very differ- 
 ent as regards the State government and 
 the general government, and that the rea- 
 sons which render this principle necessary 
 in the latter, do not apply to the former. 
 Sir, I cannot understand the logic of the 
 honorable gentlemen, who insist, that slaves 
 should be represented in the national Con- 
 gress, but should not be represented in the 
 State legislature; Throwing out of view 
 the consideration, that slaves are both per- 
 sons and property, it does appear to me 
 that the reasons are much stronger why 
 this principle should be adopted in a slave- 
 holding State, than that it should be adopt- 
 ed by the general government, While the 
 authority of a State to abolish slavery, is 
 not, and cannot be questioned, on the other 
 hand the general government has no right 
 to interfere with the internal regulations and 
 
 institutions of a State. If then, any desire 
 to protect that institution prompted the in- 
 corporation of that principle in the federal 
 constitution, the necessity is much more 
 apparent for its enactment in the State con- 
 stitution. 
 
 If we were differently situated — if we 
 were legislating for a people to whose laws 
 the institution of slavery was unknown, the 
 arguments of gentlemen in favor of the 
 electoral basis, would to my mind be irre- 
 sistible. But for weal or for woe, that in- 
 stitution exists amongst us, and there is no 
 desire among the people of this State that 
 it should cease to exist. The mere fact of 
 its existence, must necessarily lead to a 
 modification of our laws. Every motive 
 of self preservation requires, that the legis- 
 lation of the country should be accommo- 
 dated to its existence, and the principle of 
 representation adopted in the federal con- 
 stitution, seems to be peculiarly adapted to 
 the circumstances which surround us. 
 
 But the honorable delegate from West 
 Feliciana, has attempted to make an issue 
 upon this question between the poor man 
 and the rich man, and he has told us that 
 if he had avowed himself prior to the elec- 
 tion, in favor of the federal basis, that he 
 would notnow be occupying the seatwhich 
 he at present filli. He thinks that the poor 
 men in his parish would have voted against 
 him. I am at a loss to understand how 
 the poor men of his parish would have 
 been injured by the adoption of the federal 
 basis. Although under this system, slaves 
 are to enter into the basis of representation, 
 yet in voting for the representatives, the 
 vote of the poor man is equal to that of the 
 rich. Any principle which goes to in- 
 crease the representation of his parish, will 
 confer as much benefit upon the poor as 
 upon the rich, and if it should turn out that 
 the delegate has advocated a principle 
 which will diminish the representation of 
 his parish, he will find it very difficult to 
 satisfy his poor constituents that he has 
 correctly represented their interests. I am 
 differently situated. 1 avowed myself in 
 favor of the federal basis before the elec- 
 tion, and notwithstanding this avowal, 1 
 can assure v the gentleman, that I received a 
 very liberal support from the poorer classes 
 of the community. Nay sir, I received a 
 much more liberal support from them than 
 I did from the more aristocratic and wealthy 
 
354 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 classes, who seemed to entertain the opin- 
 ion that my election might in some degree, 
 tend to subvert that form of government 
 which best comported with their nobility. 
 
 A great deal has been said in argument, 
 about equality and uniformity in represen- 
 tation. The changes have been sounded 
 upon this doctrine of equality, from the 
 highest to the lowest note of the gamut. 
 This principle appears to strike honora- 
 ble gentlemen with very unequal force. 
 Those who are loudest in preaching up 
 equality to-day, on to-morrow will not 
 hesitate to disfranchise whole classes of 
 citizens at one fell swoop. If I know my 
 own heart, there is no principle which I 
 cherish with greater reverence than the 
 principle of political equality. It is the 
 polar star of my political hopes. My at- 
 tachment to it will survive, when these 
 gentlemen after having accomplished their 
 purposes, shall fall back upon their cher- 
 ished doctrines of restriction and conserva- 
 tism. 
 
 To obtain exact and mathematical equal- 
 ity in representation, is next to an impos- 
 sibility. We may approximate to it, but 
 the thing itself can never be obtained. The 
 laws of population, and the geographical 
 and political divisions of the State forbid 
 it. Where large bodies of men are con- 
 centrated upon a single point, and embra- 
 ced in one political community, and where 
 the residue of the population of the State 
 is scattered over a vast extent of territory, 
 and divided into numerous political com- 
 munities, it is impossible for any system to 
 distribute the political power of the State 
 with perfect equality. While one portion 
 of the population is concentrated, and 
 moves in solid column, to the accomplish- 
 ment of its purposes, and while the other 
 portion is divided and acting without uni- 
 son, it is evident that the large and compact 
 body, must of necessity have more weight 
 and power, no matter what system may 
 be devised, having reference only to the po- 
 litical consideration of numbers. For in- 
 stance, the representatives of this city, mo- 
 ving in solid phalanx, representing one in- 
 terest, and animated by one common im- 
 pulse, are just as formidable to the dele- 
 gates from the country, as would be a col- 
 umn of disciplined regulars, encountering 
 the forces of a raw and undisciplined mi- 
 litia. Sir, these gentlemen are for keep- 
 
 ing the promise of equality to the ear, but 
 breaking it to the hope." 
 
 Look at our experience under the old 
 constitution. That instrument provided 
 that representation in this State should be 
 equal and uniform, and be forever regulated 
 and ascertained by the number of qualified 
 electors. Could any thing be more just or 
 beautiful than this in theory? And yet sir, 
 the promise of equality was kept only 
 to the ear, it was broken- to the sense. 
 Nothing could be more unfair or more 
 grossly unequal than the representation, as 
 it was practically distributed under this 
 provision of the constitution. In proof of 
 this, I have only to refer to the history of 
 the past. At two consecutive ejections in 
 1842 and 1843, it is well known that one 
 of the political parties carried this State by 
 large majorities upon the popular vote; in 
 one case, electing their* governor by fifteen 
 hundred majority, and in the other, electing 
 an undivided delegation to Congress, and 
 yet it is notorious that this same party was 
 unable to place a majority at that very time, 
 in the State Legislature. What was the 
 cause of this? The city of New Orleans 
 throwing its vast weight into the opposite 
 scale, decided then as it has always deci- 
 ded the political fortunes of the State. 
 
 Now the federal basis will have some 
 tendency to throw power to the country 
 parishes, and thus create an approximation 
 towards equality, though of itself it will 
 be insufficient to produce the whole result. 
 Another advantage possessed by a large 
 city where numbers alone are represented, 
 is, that nothing is lost by the fractions 
 which may exist over and above the repre- 
 sentative number. Whereas, the losses to 
 the country parishes from this source alone, 
 are almost incalculable. For instance, 
 suppose four thousand five hundred to be 
 the representative number, established by 
 law. Now it is evident that the city can 
 only lose upon one fraction, whereas each 
 and every parish in the State, may sustain 
 a loss as heavy as that of the city itself. 
 One-third of the people of this State, em- 
 braced within the limits of this city, cannot 
 by any possibility be subjected to the loss, 
 of more than one fraction, whereas the two- 
 third's of the population out of the limits *of 
 the city, may be subjected to the loss of 
 forty-four fractions, there being forty-five 
 parishes in the State, including the parish 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 355 
 
 of Orleans. Suppose each parish in the 
 State to have a fraction of three thousand 
 over and above the representative number, 
 then the loss to the population of the city 
 will be but three thousand, whereas the 
 population of the country will sustain in 
 the apportionment of representation, a loss 
 of one hundred and thirty-two thousand. 
 To take round numbers for purposes of 
 illustration, suppose that there are one 
 hundred thousand persons in the city, and 
 two hundred and fifty thousand in the 
 country parishes. The population of the 
 city will then count as ninety. seven thou- 
 sand, and the population of the country 
 as only one hundred and eighteen thou- 
 sand. Here is a great and a vast advantage 
 possessed by the city, owing to the concen- 
 tration of her numbers, and the fact that 
 she constitutes but one political commu- 
 nity. 
 
 In view of these things. Mr. President, 
 I avow myself without hesitation, in favor 
 of that principle embraced in the report of 
 the committee, which provides that no par- 1 
 ish or city m the State shall have more , 
 than one-fifth of the whole representation. 
 This will give News Orleans twenty rep- j 
 resentatives out of one hundred, and what 
 use she can have for a larger representation | 
 I am at a loss to imagine. Do gentlemen 
 expect us to establish a different rule from 
 that which has been established by other 
 States situated similarly with ourselves? 
 Pennsylvania, an exceedingly large and 
 populous State, has thought proper to re- 
 strict the city of Philadelphia, whose rela- 
 tive proportion to that State is much less 
 than that of New Orleans to Louisiana. — 
 Maryland has arbitrarily limited the city of 
 Baltimore to eight representatives, about 
 one-eleventh of the whole number. South 
 Carolina has placed a still greater limit 
 upon the city of Charleston, and without 
 any very urgent necessity, and yet we are 
 asked to allow New Orleans, whose in- 
 fluence already overshadows the State, her 
 full representation according to numbers, 
 and without any limitation throughout all 
 time to come. * This Convention may per- 
 haps accede to her wishes. The represen- 
 tatives of the agricultural interest may 
 agree to surrender their constituents to the 
 tender mercies of the stock jobbing and 
 trading classes of New Orleans, but if they 
 
 do, it will be a sad and fatal error, and 
 bitterly will their posterity rue it. 
 
 Strong appeals have been made to us on 
 the score of supposed identity of interest be- 
 tween the city and the country. I regret to 
 say that this identity of interest exists only 
 in the fancy of those who have made the 
 appeal. It has no foundation in fact. New 
 Orleans does not depend upon Louisiana 
 for her wealth and prosperity. Her roots 
 strike wider, and she gathers strength and 
 nourishment from other sources, than from 
 the State upon whose soil she stands. 
 Look at her geographical position. The 
 laws of nature which carry down the wa- 
 ters of the river to the sea are not more 
 certain in their operation, than are those 
 laws of trade which are building up this 
 city with the rapidity of magic. Through- 
 out all time to come, the trade of that vast 
 and fertile region which lies between the 
 Rocky and the Alleghany Mountains must 
 centre in her ports. And then south of her 
 lies the Gulf of Mexico, which, to borrow 
 the language of another, like a monarch 
 bowl at a feast, pours the rushing libation 
 of its tides and wealth at her feet. Beyond 
 
 me broad Atlantic which 
 
 rim 
 
 necred with this city, that for its value and 
 rapid augmentation, is scarcely equalled by 
 any on the face of the globe. Sir, the do- 
 mestic trade of this city with this State, 
 compared with her vast foreign trade, is 
 but as a rivulet to the sea — a molehill to a 
 mountain. How then do gentlemen make 
 out that identity of interest? New" Orleans 
 relies mainly upon a foreign trade, earned 
 on with other States and other nations; and 
 yet we are to be told that the country pa- 
 rishes have an interest identical with hers! 
 It is an empty dream — an idle fancy. The 
 country parishes of the State may languish 
 in hopeless adversity, while New Orleans, 
 like a huge vampyre, will feed and fatten 
 and flourish upon their desolation and de- 
 cay. Whatever disaster overwhelms the 
 city will extend its ravages to the country, 
 but when the country is affected, for the 
 reasons w T hich I have stated, the city does 
 not necessarily sympathize in her affliction. 
 There is much greater danger if the bal- 
 ance of power should tend that way, that 
 New Orleans will oppress the country, 
 than that the country will oppress the city. 
 We have been challenged to produce 
 
350 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 any instance in which New Orleans has ' 
 •shown a disposition to trample upon the 
 rights of the country. Have tke city dele- 
 gation forgotten so soon the history of what 
 was called the wharfage tax; and will they 
 inform us what was the effect of that mea- 
 sure — what its object — who supported and 
 who opposed it? Its effect was to tax the 
 labor and toil of the producing classes of 
 the country; its object was to redeem the 
 shin plasters which had been issued by the 
 broken and bankrupt municipalities of this 
 city; and its ardent and unwavering suppor- 
 ters were the delegation from New Orleans. 
 Will gentlemen persist in denying that 
 New Orleans has ever attempted to op- 
 press the country, when we cite them to 
 this instance, yet fresh in the minds of us 
 all. Sir, there are none so blind as those 
 who will not see. 
 
 In the remarks which I have deemed it 
 my duty to make, I do not desire to be con- 
 sidered as placing myself in an attitude of 
 hostility to this great city. If I know my- 
 self, I have no feeling of unkindness in my 
 bosom towards heiv No one desires more 
 earnestly than I do, to witness her success 
 and prosperity. No one is more anxious 
 to see her fulfil the glorious destiny which 
 lies before her; and I trust yet to behold 
 her the queen city of the earth, sending the 
 white-winged messengers of her commerce 
 to the four quarters of the globe and gath- 
 ering to her exuberant bosom, the riches of 
 the sea and of the land. May peace be 
 within her walls, and prosperity within her 
 palaces. But> Mr. President, the feeling ; 
 of pride with which I contemplate her pres- 1 
 ent position and future prospects? cannot 
 outweigh my sense of duty nor induce me 
 to forget the admonitions of the past. It is 
 for the good of all parties concerned, that 
 no one class of our citizens — no one inter- 
 est in the State should have a predomina- 
 ting influence over the rest. Concentrate 
 power where you will, in the hands of one 
 man or one set of men, and it will be 
 abused. It is the disposition of man — the 
 propensity of his perverted and depraved 
 nature, and it should be guarded against by 
 wise and salutary enactments. There is 
 every ground to apprehend that without 
 some restraint, the commercial interest will 
 absorb and engulph, like a Maelstroom, 
 all the other great interests of our State. 
 We must guard against it in time, or when 
 
 the evil does come, it will be too late to 
 remedy. I shall sustain, sir, the report of 
 the committee, without alteration and with- 
 out amendment. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff would not have troubled 
 the Convention nor have uttered"one other 
 word, to the few brief remarks which he 
 made on that subject when it was previous- 
 ly before the Convention, had: not he been 
 so specially selected as the victim to be 
 offered up to appease the excited and in- 
 dignant feelings of the gentleman from Ra- 
 pides, Mr. Brent. That gentleman has 
 seen fit to address himself (irr the violent 
 phillipie with which we have just been in- 
 dulged) most especially to him, the bumble 
 member from West Feliciana. Well, be- 
 fore he is led up to the altar to be sacri- 
 ficed, he desires to express his views clear- 
 ly and plainly, for he objects to the mis- 
 representations of the gentleman from Ra- 
 pides, or to those of other gentlemen, come 
 from whatever quarter they may, and what 
 is more, he wants it distinctly to be under- 
 stood, he will never submit to have the ex- 
 pressions he uses to be perverted to serve 
 any gentleman for an argument, (for want 
 of a better one.) 
 
 As he does not expect to be here when 
 the vote is taken on the question now be- 
 fore the house, he is the more anxious to 
 trespass on their attention for a short time, 
 not to gratify a%y personal feeling he may 
 have in the matter, but because he wants 
 the position he has taken to be properly 
 understood by,his constituents. He (Mr. 
 : Ratliff) makes no pretensions to book- 
 I learning; at home every body knows him as 
 a plain practical man. He does not in- 
 dulge, therefore, in studies which he does 
 not profess to understand, and he does not 
 profess to understand any of the principles 
 of abolitionism, which the gentleman 
 seems disposed to attribute to him. I have 
 never, Mr. President, read the Emancipa- 
 tor in my life, a paper which has been 
 quoted by Mr. Brent as containing similar 
 remarks as those which I advanced when 
 this question was previously discussed. I 
 have never yet read any of Mr. Giddings' 
 or Mr. Slade's writings or speeches, which 
 have been quoted as containing sentiments 
 similar to those said to have been advanced 
 by me; and yet, if we are to judge from 
 some of the quotations which we have had 
 read to us, they are principles which might 
 
Debates in tne Contention of Louisiana. 
 
 857 
 
 readily be advanced by an humble peasant 
 or a prisoner in his cell. The reasons, 
 perhaps, why he has never had the advan- 
 tage of Mr. Brent in getting such informa- 
 tion, as he has indulged us with the know- 
 ledge of, are perhaps two-fold. 
 
 In the first place, he has never subscribed 
 to any abolition paper whatever. In the 
 second place, he feels certain that the rea- 
 son he never got any sent to him, must 
 have been from one of two causes, either 
 that he was so well known as their deter- 
 mined and deadly enemy; or that they had 
 regarded him as too small and insignificant 
 a personage to serve their purposes. How 
 the honorable gentleman came in posses- 
 sion of such documents he does not pretend 
 to know, but one thing is certain, he (Mr. 
 Ratliff ) would hate to let the vile trash soil 
 kis fingers. When he was a candidate be- 
 fore the citizens of West Feliciana, no such 
 question was presented to them, as is stated 
 to have been before the citizens of Rapides, 
 and if they had been, and he and his col- 
 league, Mr. Wederstrandt, had maintained 
 the doctrine of federal basis, he thinks one 
 thing is very clear, they never would have 
 been members of this body. 
 
 He desires at once to join issue with the 
 gentleman from Rapides. He says the 
 same reasons exist here for us to adopt the 
 federal basis, as existed in the formation of 
 the federal constitution to adopt it in that 
 instrument; in other words, that they should 
 be the same in the federal and State gov- 
 ernment. I cannot conceive there is a 
 shadow of reason for such an analogy as 
 he has endeavored to make. 
 
 In the first place, the one is a compro- 
 mise entered into between the north and 
 the south, when the interests, habits, cus- 
 toms and feelings are as different from those 
 of the south as we can well imagine. In 
 the federal constitution, therefore, the fed- 
 eral basis is the proper one; it has tended 
 to allay angry feelings between the differ- 
 ent sections of our country, and has pro- 
 duced a happy effect, tfut that is not so in 
 •the States. 
 
 in the second place, the other, the con- 
 stitution of a State, is a kind of family mat- 
 ter, and the grand object every member of 
 a Convention should have uppermost in his 
 mind, is to deal out even handed justice to 
 all. Now, in this State we have forty-five 
 parishes, all the same people, all governed 
 46 
 
 by the same laws, and all identified with 
 the State by a common identity of interest 
 and feelings. If that be so, and it cannot 
 be denied, where is the justice of giving a 
 wealthy parish a greater number of repre- 
 sentatives on account of her having a larger 
 amount of slave population than others? 
 It is said that my parish would be benefit, 
 ted by taking the federal basis, but, sir, it 
 shall nevertheless not have my support on 
 that account, for any evanescent advantage. 
 I take a larger view and a longer one, per- 
 haps, than the gentleman thinks I do; for 
 what if, as is daily the case, the slave pop- 
 ulation is being carried from our poor and 
 worn out lands to the rich alluvial bottoms 
 of the adjoining parishes. With the ne- 
 groes will be transferred the influence 
 .sought to be given to the possession of 
 slave property besides, it is partial legisla- 
 tion and unjust, and shall not be sanctioned 
 by me. Resides, it is hard, to tell what 
 may turn up in thirty or forty years, and it 
 is my desire that hereafter I may leave no 
 vote of mine on record but what is based 
 on fair, just, and honorable principles. In 
 giving to all an equal chance to be heard 
 according to their proper proportion on an 
 equal and fair basis of their white popula- 
 tion, we shall not lay ourselves open to cen- 
 sure for abandoning any of those principles 
 we hav^ professed. Besides, I think the 
 gentlemen who have taken the opposite 
 side of the question will (when the figures 
 come to be looked over again,) find them- 
 selves mistaken, and w T hile they wish to in- 
 crease their own power at the sacrifice of 
 principle, feel rather awkward to find that 
 instead of restricting New Orleans by 
 adopting the federal basis, they will have 
 added to her representation nine members 
 more than she would be entitled to under 
 the electoral basis. According to the vo- 
 ters of 1844, she would only be entitled to 
 twenty representatives out of one hundred 
 and one; and by the federal basis she 
 would be entitled to twenty-nine, yes, al- 
 most thirty. It must be remembered that 
 the census is taken in the month of June, 
 then every body is here. We have a large 
 part of the floating population of the world, 
 while in the country we only increase in 
 population from the proceeds of our labor. 
 Now if New Orleans has the advantage 
 over us fairly and honorably under the elec- 
 toral basis, why in God's nam© let her 
 
S58 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 keep it. If fixed at one-sixteenth of the 
 house (of 100 or 120) why she can't have 
 more than twenty representatives. Simply 
 say that each parish shall have at least one 
 representative; don't let us scare members 
 away by supposing particular parishes are 
 to be favored; and while upon that part of 
 the subject, let me refer to the population 
 white and black, in the parish of Rapides. 
 I find there are 3,243 whites, and 10,511 
 slaves. He charges me that West Felici- 
 ana will be benefited by this basis being 
 adopted. Suppose I were to act as the 
 gentleman, in his zeal for mjs character be- 
 fore my constituents wants me, how could 
 I even dare to look them in face? and when 
 asked by them how I came to abandon 
 their principles and my own, as professed 
 on all proper occasions, I should have to 
 say to them, "why, I know I was doing 
 wrong all the time, and I felt ashamed of 
 what I was doing; but I did it just to in- 
 crease the political power of our parish, 
 perhaps for ten years, certainly not over." 
 What do you imagine would be the an- 
 wer? let me tell you, they would say that 
 
 "d not fairly represented them, for they 
 neve* would take political power at the ex- 
 pense of principle. 
 
 The present position of the gentleman 
 reminds him very much of a somewhat 
 similar case in his own parish. A man 
 who had committed a very grave offence, 
 found but few friends to sustain him; and 
 among those who censured him the most, 
 was a certain eminent gentleman. Shortly 
 after that, he became suddenly struck with 
 the idea that the man was innocent, and 
 every one wondered at this change in his 
 conduct; it finally, turned out that a fee of 
 $1000 had wraught this wondrous change. 
 Now, sir, I can't for the life of me help 
 thinking that the 10,511 negroes in the par- 
 ish of Rapides have had a similar effect on 
 the mind of the gentleman, in making him 
 so strenuous an advocate for the federal ba- 
 sis. I am a no time serving democrat, sir, 
 I desire to serve my country on the broad 
 principles of democracy, equal rights, and 
 equal privileges; and 1 have never, nor ever 
 will I take ground with any party that 1 
 consider wrong. 
 
 My motto is the same as that of the cel- 
 ebrated and eccentric Davy Crockett. "Be 
 sure you are right, then go ahead." And 
 this question when first presented, set me 
 
 to investigating, and I asked myself after 
 the examination of it, which is the fairest 
 basis? I was compelled to come to the 
 conclusion that it was the electoral basis, 
 and that no othei basis ought for a moment 
 to be thought of. And now, sir, I would 
 ask all men of all parties in this house, to 
 come up and meet the question fairly, lay 
 down a fair basis and settle it as if we were 
 one family; fix it upon correct principles, 
 and let no one throw impediments in the 
 way, for the paltry gratification of a short- 
 lived triumph of party. In support of his 
 (Mr. RatlifFs) position, he quoted the opi- 
 nions of Mr. Monroe on this subject. 
 
 " My idea has been, that it will be wise 
 to base representation on the white popu- 
 lation in the house of delegates; and to 
 place an adequate check on the result of 
 their deliberations in the senate. This is 
 my opinion. By basing the representation 
 on the white population, we are resting on 
 principle ; on a principle corresponding 
 with the bill of rights and with the consti- 
 tution; for our government is in the hands 
 of the white people. We shall by this 
 means rest on fundamental principles, and 
 gratify the feelings of the people in every 
 part of the community. Our constitution 
 rests on that basis." 
 
 And, sir, said he, if I be in error, which 
 I feel sure I am not, I at least err in very 
 good company, for President Monroe be- 
 sides being a good man, was a man of emi- 
 nent ability, with a clear head and cool 
 judgment; and withal, a pure republican. 
 And he was in favor, as we see, of the 
 electoral basis, when he was a member of 
 the Virginia Convention, over which he 
 presided. 
 
 Take then that basis, and you reduce 
 the number of the representatives to twenty 
 in a town of one hundred and one. And 
 yet they are awfully scared. The gentle- 
 man from Rapides has informed us, in 
 reply to a warning of the gentleman from 
 New Orleans, (Mr. Eustis) to "beware the 
 ides of March." THat the ides of March" 
 was famous for having crushed a tyrant ; # 
 evidently making thereby a responsive al- 
 lusion to the city of New Orleans being 
 now the tyrant. Now, sir, let me tell the 
 gentleman from Rapides that he had better 
 take the advice of Mr. Eustis, for if he 
 persevere unto success in carrying any 
 other basis than the electoral basis, the 
 
Debates In the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 359 
 
 days of our political liberty are numbered ; 
 for nothing is more to be dreaded, than that 
 in the struggle for political power in a con- 
 stitution intended for all, party strife should 
 be mingled in it. If it be permitted to en- 
 ter into the conflict, the rights of the peo- 
 ple are sure to be invaded, restricted and 
 trampled upon, in the bitterness of partizan 
 feelings. And tyranny takes the place of 
 justice — representation would be a farce, 
 and monarchy and aristocracy would hold 
 the sway. Let us look at the other States 
 surrounding us, and all bordering on the 
 old States. 
 
 In the States of Ankansas, Missouri, 
 Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi and Ten- 
 nessee, either the bases in their constitu- 
 tions are, "the free white male population 
 over twenty. one," or, "the electoral." 
 
 In South Carolina it is a mixed basis, 
 but not a federal basis. And have these 
 States ever been charged with abolition- 
 ism ? 
 
 How was it in Virginia? Why it was 
 settled by a compromise — and they left it 
 to the legislature to determine the details, 
 so as to render the diverse interests of the 
 State one common interest. 
 
 Have not the New Orleans members 
 shewn every desire to meet you in the 
 same spirit of compromise? They have, 
 and I respect them for it. 
 
 In the Virginia Convention on the ques- 
 tion to combine, the vote stood 47 and 47, 
 the speaker voted in the negative. On 
 federal numbers, the vote was 47 yeas and 
 49 nays; rejected. On three-fifths, 47 yeas 
 and 49 nays; rejected. And the compro- 
 mise was only made in taking the federal 
 basis, as the basis agreed upon, by striking 
 out the property qualification of twenty- 
 five acres of land as the electoral qualifica- 
 tion. How then can that authority be re- 
 ferred to, when even on the compromise, 
 there was only a majority of five votes for- 
 mat basis — and twice rejected on all other 
 modes proposed. Throw that authority 
 aside then. 
 
 We were sent here to extend the right of 
 suffrage. I dont suppose any body will 
 deny that— now how are we about to do 
 it? Surely not by giving one parish a spe- 
 cial privilege over another, because they 
 have more slaves in it. He, (Mr. RatlifT) 
 while he admits the eloquence of Mr. 
 Brent, is not convinced by a single argu- 
 
 ment that he has advanced.- And he will 
 never consent to put the black man on a 
 footing with the white man. He had 
 rather be chargedhvith any epithet in the 
 vocabulary of vituperation which he, th' 
 gentleman, may see fit to apply to hi , 
 than go home to his constituents and tell 
 them that he had ever consented to place 
 one hundred slaves, or the owner of them, 
 on representative equality with sixty free 
 white citizens. In deciding the principle 
 of universal suffrage, we have virtually 
 given in our adhesion to the electoral ba- 
 sis. But if we now change the represen- 
 tative basis, from the electoral basis to the 
 federal basis, we shall virtually undo that 
 work, and give a preponderating influence 
 to those parishes with a large number of 
 slaves, that will overbalance the smaller 
 parishes. And I would further remark, 
 that many of those parishes thus favored, 
 contain large quantities of wild land, unin- 
 habited; and when the large masses of ne- 
 gro population are concentrated on the allu- 
 vial lands, they are inhabited but by an in- 
 considerable number of whites; in many 
 instances, by no one but the overseers on 
 the plantations for miles and miles to- 
 gether. And shall we say that Rapides 
 and such parishes are to overshadow West 
 Feliciana, St. Helena, Livingston, and all 
 the smaller parishes? He conceives that 
 this Convention will never sanction such a 
 doctrine. He feels sure that the calcula- 
 tion made by the committee, which says, 
 that New Orleans would have forty-seven 
 votes on the electoral basis is incorrect; 
 for he knows the committee never dreamt 
 of it. Taking the vote of November, 1844, 
 the number would be twenty and a small 
 fraction; and yet they say, New Orleans 
 will swallow up the whole State. Give 
 her a fair proportion, in God's name then, 
 be it what it may; then in ten years make 
 any apportionment on just and fair princi- 
 ples. 
 
 The cry against New Orleans then, I 
 repeat, sir, is all a humbug, a solemn farce. 
 She has too much at stake in the country, 
 and is too closely identified with the inter- 
 ests of the different parishes for us to dread 
 any thing from her. Where should we go 
 to for succor in case of insurrections ? to 
 the favored nabob with his one hundred 
 slaves ? No, you would fly for aid to that 
 very city, and those whom you now would 
 
Debates In the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 deprive of their just rights, noble, generous 
 spirits as they are, would promptly come 
 to your relief with bold hearts and ready 
 hands. 
 
 Let posterity be the judge when they 
 want to change their constitution. It has 
 been tauntingly said that 1, sir, have gone 
 over to the enemy — that enemy who on 
 every possible occasion took advantage to 
 grind down the country in the making of 
 their wharfage laws and the like. But let 
 me tell the gentleman that there he has 
 again woke up the wrong passenger, for I 
 was a member of the legislature myself 
 when that bill was passed, and I opposed 
 it with all my might and main, and I have 
 always and on all occasions, opposed any 
 measure not dictated by the pure principle 
 of justice. Let him or any one scan my 
 public acts for the last ten years, and I 
 think he will find them as consistent as 
 those of any man. Yes, sir, 1 am sure he 
 will find the old horse as near the truth as 
 any body else. 
 
 When our country was at war, who but 
 the poor white men were found in the 
 ranks? Did the one hundred negro men 
 go? No, indeed. Why, sir, I recollect well 
 when volunteers were called for to go to 
 Florida, several of those worthy white men, 
 whom you now propose to class sixty of as 
 only equal to one hundred negroes, were 
 the first to step forward. I recollect one 
 man, Capt. Jourdan, then a pilot, earning 
 two hundred dollars per month, gave up 
 his situation, left the wheel, and fought the 
 battles of his country nobly and heroically. 
 That man has since returned wounded and 
 sick. Another man went with him, and 
 did good service to his country, in the field, 
 and in his care and assiduity in attending 
 t) the company he commanded. He re- 
 turned home sick, and remained so for a 
 long period. I allude to the gentleman 
 from my parish, who now holds a seat in 
 the legislature of this State; for poor though 
 he is, it is such noble and chivalrous spirits 
 the people delight to honor. 
 
 I could cite still another case, that it 
 gives me pleasure to enumerate. Mr. Mc- 
 Donough, now a clerk on board the Luda; 
 he went out in that memorable campaign, 
 and returned, though wounded, with honor, 
 and deserving the gratitude of his country. 
 
 Such men as these it is wis are called 
 upon to curtail the privileges of. I think, 
 
 sir, it is our duty to protect them in, and 
 (whenever we can,) extend their rights. 
 
 Let all be fairly dealt with, and if West 
 Feliciana be entitled to but one vote, she 
 will nevertheless be heard in the legisla- 
 tive halls. He, Mr. Ratliff, was sent to 
 this Convention more as a personal com- 
 pliment, than on the score of ability, but, 
 sir, there is no lack of great men in that 
 parish, who are always ready to step forth 
 and defend and protect her rights when 
 necessary. 
 
 Mr. President, I am done. I felt it due 
 to myself to reply to the unjust attack made 
 on me, by the gentleman from Rapides; to 
 say what I have said. I trust the Conven- 
 tion, which has given me a kind and at- 
 tentive hearing, will remember that; as it 
 is admitted that an honest man is the no- 
 blest work of God, it would be unjust to 
 deprive any man of his political rights be- 
 cause he is poor. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin rose with a view of as- 
 signing his reasons for the vote he should 
 give. The section under discussion em- 
 braces two principles to which he is oppo- 
 sed — 1st, the federal basis; 2nd, the restric- 
 tion on the rights of the city in her repre- 
 sentation. The only question before us at 
 this moment is, to strike out the federal ba- 
 sis. When in the committee, he opposed 
 the insertion of that basis, not because he 
 did not think New Orleans would get as 
 much by adopting that as by taking any 
 other basis that might be selected. On the 
 contrary, he thought New Orleans would 
 gain by it in that respect ; but he opposed 
 it, because he thought it radically wrong. 
 He cannot be charged with interested mo- 
 tives, then, for the city ; because he is sat- 
 isfied she will be the looser if the federal 
 basis be not established; but he opposed it 
 because he thought it would operate unjustly. 
 He regards representation as a co-relative 
 term ; that there can be no representa- 
 tion, unless from the choice of those repre- 
 sented; and he \d opposed to any other ba- 
 sis than that of free, white population ; and 
 while New Orleans would be benefited by 
 the adoption of the federal basis, consider- 
 ing it as I do, (said Mr. B. 5 ) unjust, I feel 
 bound to oppose it. 
 
 Mr. Ledoux: Mr. President, I shall take 
 this opportunity to explain my position and 
 my vote upon this most important question. 
 I am most decidedly in favor of the dulr 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 851 
 
 qualified electors, as the basis of represen- 
 tation, because that embraces the principle 
 for which we have been contending since 
 we have met here— that is, that our govern- 
 ment is essentially a government of men, 
 not of property ; and that is the principle 
 that I wish to consecrate in the constitution 
 we are framing. Gentlemen, I know, pre- 
 fer the federal basis, because the country 
 parishes will thereby gain political advan- 
 tage. For my part, sir, there is no advan- 
 tage in the world, either personal or politi- 
 cal, that would induce me to abandon prin- 
 ciple, or deviate from justice. I say that 
 if, in adopting this, which I consider the 
 most fair, equal and republican basis of re- r 
 presentation, it should appear that the par- 
 ish of Orleans, or any other parish in the 
 State, was entitled to one third of the whole 
 representation in the legislative halls, let 
 her have it; if to one half, let her have it; 
 principle expects it, reason and justice de- 
 mand it. Gentlemen are unwilling to make 
 distinctions between man and man, and yet 
 they do not hesitate to make distinctions be- 
 tween large collections of men — between 
 large and small parishes. True democra- 
 cy, in my judgment, knows no distinctions. 
 It places the rich and the poor, the small and 
 the large, upon the same footing — all upon 
 the same platform of equality. I know 
 well, Mr. President, that in assuming this 
 position, I incur the dissatisfaction of many 
 friends, both in the Convention and out of 
 it ; but, sir, I must not forget that I have a 
 country to serve, as well as friends to gra- 
 tify. I must not forget that I have embra- 
 ced principles which 1 thought best calcu- 
 lated to promote the interests of my coun- 
 try, and which I swear never to abandon. 
 I must not forget, especially, that I occupy 
 upon this floor the proud position of a rep- 
 resentative of the State of Louisiana — of a 
 representative of the whole state, and as 
 such I cannot, and will not, permit injustice 
 to be done to any portion of it. I came 
 here "to do unto others, a\ I would be done 
 by." This is the only true, genuine, un- 
 questionable democracy — the only demo- 
 cracy that is synonymous with justice ; and 
 I would frown most indignantly upon any 
 departure from it. These considerations, 
 Mr. President, weigh heavy on my mind, 
 and to act contrary to them, would be to 
 act the hypocrite to my judgment and my 
 conscience. 
 
 The question was then put on the motion 
 of Mr. O' Bryan's amendment, which was 
 to strike out the following words: "its po- 
 pulation, ascertained and calculated accor- 
 ding to the principle of representation adop- 
 ted in the Constitutton of the United 
 States," and decided as follows : 
 
 Mess. Benjamin, Brazeal 5 Brurmield, Bur- 
 ton, Carriere, Cenas, Claiborne, Culbert- 
 son, Eustis, Grymes, Humble, King, Le- 
 doux, Legendre, McRae, Marigny, Mazu- 
 reau, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Preston, 
 Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Soule, Taylor, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt; 28 yeas : and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Brent, Bryant, Cham- 
 bliss, Chinn, Berbes, Downs, Garrett, 
 Hudspeth, Hynson, Mayo, Porche, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Pugh, Roman, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Madison, Se.lers, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, and Wadsworth ; 22 nays. 
 
 Mr. Read desired, in giving his vote, to 
 explain the reasons that influenced that 
 vote. He will go as far as any member of 
 this house, in restricting New Orleans to a 
 fair proportion of the representation of the 
 State, but he is unwilling to do so by means 
 of the federal basis, believing! that this basis 
 would work injustice and inequality be- 
 tween the country Parishes. He is in fa- 
 vor of the electoral basis. 
 
 So the motion to strike out the federal 
 basis prevailed. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan then moved to fill up the 
 blank with the words "the number of elec- 
 tors in it," 
 
 But before any action was had on it, 
 
 Mr. Chinn moved to adjourn until 11 
 o'clock on Monday next. 
 
 Monday, March 3, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Beatty opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer. 
 
 The journal of Saturday, first March, 
 was read and approved. 
 
 Mr. Covillion moved that leave of ab- 
 sence be granted to Mr. Prescott of Avoyel- 
 les, on account of illness. 
 
 Mr. W ederstrandt moved that leave 
 of absence be granted to his colleague, Mr. 
 Ratliff, for a few days. 
 
 Mr. Saunders also moved that leave of 
 absence be granted to Messrs. King, Huds- 
 
362 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 pcth and Taylor, of St. Landry, for a short 
 period. 
 
 Leave of absence was granted to all, but 
 not without serious opposition from Messrs. 
 Downs, Eustis, Humble and Voorhies. 
 
 Mr. Downs desired the reporter to record 
 his name, in these proceedings, as did also 
 Mr. Humble, in opposition to these' ever- 
 lasting calls for leave of absence. They 
 were both opposed to leave of absence be- 
 ing granted except for illness. 
 
 Mr. Eustis desired also to have his name 
 recorded against it. He thinks the Con- 
 vention has no right to grant leave of ab- 
 sence to any of its members, without some 
 good cause be shown why a member ab- 
 sents himself. 
 
 Mr. Chinn thought the gentlemen were 
 catching at straws, for how could they reach 
 the object they aimed at unless they inflict- 
 ed some penalty on delinquent members — 
 or unless they made it a rule of the Con- 
 vention, to say, that those who did not 
 reach the hall by the usual hour, should 
 have no per diem, nor any seat in the Con- 
 vention, if he were thrice guilty of absent- 
 ing himself without good cause. The gen- 
 tlemen, however, had the right accorded to 
 them to record their names against all leave 
 of absence whatever, except on account of 
 sickness. 
 
 The Convention then took up the 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 ARTICLE SECOND, SECTION SIXTH, OF THE 
 REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE, AS 
 AMENDED. 
 
 Each parish shall be entitled to repre- 
 sentation in proportion to ; Provided, 
 
 that no parish or city shall ever be entitled 
 to more than one-fifth of the whole number 
 of representatives. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan moved to fill the blank in 
 said section with the words " the number 
 of qualified voters in it." 
 
 Mr. Downs submitted the following sub- 
 stitute, viz : 
 
 " Representation shall be equal and uni- 
 form in this State, and shall forever be 
 regulated and ascertained by the number of 
 qualified electors therein ; Provided, that no 
 portion of the State now constituting one 
 parish or city shall ever be entitled to more 
 than twenty representatives, and that each 
 parish shall have at least one representa- 
 tive ; and, Provided further, that no new 
 parish shall be created with a territory less 
 
 than four hundred square miles, nor with a 
 number of electors less than the ratio at the 
 time, nor when the creation of such new 
 parish would leave any other parish without 
 the said extent of territory and number of 
 electors." 
 
 In the year , and every four years 
 
 thereafter, an enumeration of all the elec- 
 tors shall be made in such manner as shall 
 be directed by law. The number of repre- 
 sentatives shall, in the several years of 
 making these enumerations, or during the 
 next succeeding session of the general as- 
 sembly, be so fixed, according to the prin- 
 ciple of this section, as not to be less than 
 eighty, nor more than one hundred; Pro- 
 vided, that the general assembly shall be 
 incompetent to pass any law after the enu- 
 meration until the apportionment shall be 
 made. 
 
 Until the first enumeration shall be made, 
 as directed in this section, the parish of Or- 
 leans shall be entitled to twenty represen- 
 tatives, to be elected as follows: eight by the 
 1st municipality, eight by the 2d munici- 
 pality, three by the 3d municipality, and one 
 for that part of the parish on the right bank 
 of the Mississippi : 20 
 The Parish of Plaquemines, 2 
 " St. Bernard, 1 
 
 " Jefferson, 3 
 
 St. Charles, 1 
 " St. John the Baptist, 1 
 
 " St. James, 2 
 
 ft Ascension, 2 
 
 •* Assumption, 2 
 
 " Lafourche Interior, 2 
 
 " Terrebonne, 2 
 
 " Iberville, 2 
 
 M West Baton Rouge, 1 
 
 " East " " 3 
 
 " West Feliciana, 2 
 
 « East " 3 
 
 " St. Helena, 1 
 
 " Livingston, 1 
 
 ** Washington, 1 
 
 «« St. Tammany, 1 
 
 " Pointe Coupee, 1 
 
 " Concordia, 1 
 
 " Tensas, 1 
 
 " Madison, 1 
 
 " Carroll, 1 
 
 w Franklin, I 
 
 u St. Mary, % 
 
 St. Martin, i 
 " Vermillion, I 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 363 
 
 The Parish of Lafayette, 2 
 
 " St. Landry, 5 
 
 " Calcasieu, 1 
 
 u Avoyelles, 2 
 
 " Rapides, 4 
 
 " Natchitoches, 4 
 
 " Sabine, 2 
 
 « Caddo, 1 
 
 " De Soto, 1 
 
 " Ouachita, I 
 
 " Morehouse, 1 
 
 ** Union, 1 
 
 " Jackson, 1 
 
 Caldwell, 1 
 
 " Claiborne, 1 
 
 Bossier, 1 
 
 Total, 97 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, the printing 
 of the above substitute was ordered, and the 
 consideration of the same postponed until 
 printed. 
 
 Before the printing was ordered, Mr. 
 Chinn rose to oppose the printing of the 
 project offered by Mr. Downs, because it 
 only procrastinates the matter; we have 
 been already three weeks engaged on this 
 question, and if the motion to print prevail 
 there is no knowing how much longer it 
 will take. It certainly is time to do some- 
 thing with this question. 
 
 Mr. Downs remarked, that his object was 
 not delay, but to facilitate and hasten the 
 matter, as doubtless it would do if every 
 member had a printed copy of the project 
 before him. 
 
 Mr. Chinn further objected to the print- 
 ing on the score of economy. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies moved to lay the whole 
 section on the table, until the project of Mr. 
 Downs be printed. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin could not see the neces- 
 sity of postponing the consideration of the 
 section, as Mr, O'Bryan's motion to insert 
 " the number of qualified electors in it," is 
 substantially the same principle as sub- 
 mitted in Mr. Downs' project. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne suggested that the pro- 
 ject of Mr. Downs should be printed in 
 French as well as English; which was 
 agreed to. 
 
 Mr. Sellers moved to amend Mr. O'- 
 Bryan's motion by filling the blank with 
 the words " in proportion to its population, 
 black and white." 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan moved to lay said amend- 
 ment indefinitely on the table. 
 
 Mr. Sellers would have no objection to 
 lay on the table subject to call, but if to be 
 laid there indefinitely, he would preler to 
 debate the question at once — and asked the 
 question if it was in order to debate any 
 question that was moved to be laid indefi- 
 nitely on the table. 
 
 The President replied that it was de- 
 bateable. 
 
 Mr. Sellers was about to address the 
 house, but withdrew at the request of 
 
 Mr. Guion, who desired to move another 
 amendment, which he trusted the house 
 would see fit to rdopt. It was a mixed 
 basis, made on votes and taxable property. 
 There can be no doubt that property should 
 be represented in some shape, as well as 
 men, and he therefore proposed the follow- 
 ing amendment : " Each parish shall be 
 entitled to representation according to the 
 number of qualified electors, together with 
 the taxable property it may contain." 
 
 Mr. Voorhies does not think any proper 
 calculation can be made, on which we could 
 depend, or which would operate fairly and 
 equally. 
 
 Mr. Guion thought that nothing was 
 more simple — property might be estimated 
 by the tax rolls, although that he would 
 hardly consider just. But a board of com- 
 missioners could be appointed by the legis- 
 lature, whose duty it should be to make an 
 estimate of the voters and taxable property 
 in each parish. He is surprised that the 
 committee made no report on the feasibility 
 of this plan. He thinks it clearly the only 
 just basis we can adopt. 
 
 This new proposal called Mr. Wads- 
 worth up, who proved that the Convention 
 should reconsider the vote of Saturday. 
 He thinks the federal basis is the only fair 
 one, and he therefore moved to lay the 
 whole subject on the table, until Thursday . 
 next ; which motion did not prevail. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth then gave formal no- 
 tice that he should ask the reconsideration 
 of the vote taken on the first instant, on 
 striking out the federal basis, on "Wednes. 
 day, the fifth instant. 
 
 The question was then put on Mr. 
 Guion's amendment, and resulted as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Bourg, Chinn, Guion, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Mazureau, Pugh. Ro- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 man, Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Sellers and Winder voted 
 in the affirmative — 15 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Car- 
 riere, Cenas, Chambiiss, Claiborne, Covil- 
 lion, Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, 
 Leonard, McRae, Marigny, Mayo,0'Bryan, 
 Peets, Porche, Porter, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Preston, Read, Scott of Feliciana, Scott 
 of Madison, Soule, Stephens, Voorhies, 
 Waddill, Wadsworth, Wederstrandt and 
 WikofT voted in the negative — 41 nays ; the 
 motion therefore was lost. 
 
 Mr. Sellers then renewed his motion, 
 and moved as a substitute for Mr. O'Bry- 
 an's amendment, that the blank be filled 
 with the words "whole population," and the 
 yeas and nays being called for, resulthd as 
 follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Chinn, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Guion, Kenner, Labauve, 
 Pugh, Roman, Saunders, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Wadsworth and 
 Winder voted in favor of the substitute — 
 17 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale, Brent, Bri- 
 ant, Brumfield, Burton, Carriere, Cenas, 
 Chambiiss, Claiborne, Conrad of New Or- 
 leans, Covillion, Culbertson, Downs, Eus- 
 tis, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Legendre, 
 Leonard, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazu- 
 reau, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Porche, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Read, Roselius, St. Amand, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Soule, Stephens, Voorhies, Waddill, 
 Wederstrandt and WikofF voted against 
 the substitute — 41 nays; so that substitute 
 was rejected. 
 
 The next question presented was the 
 amendment of Mr. O'Bryan, on which 
 
 Mr. Pouter rose, and stated that he 
 should vote for the principle proposed, but 
 would like to have some alteration in the 
 phraseology of the amendment, and was 
 proceeding to explain, when 
 
 Mr. Downs remarked that that was the 
 duty of the committee of revisal, but in 
 the meantime they might take the vote } 
 which should settle the principle. 
 
 Mr. Chinn thought that there was ano- 
 ther question which ought to be settled 
 first, and that was the restriction that was 
 to be placed on the city of New Orleans. 
 
 Thinking so, he moved it be laid on the 
 
 table subject to call. 
 
 Mr. Downs is of opinion that it is a 
 matter of no consequence whether the ques- 
 tion of restriction is decided now, or at some 
 future time. We are now called upon 
 to decide the principle on which we are to 
 establish a basis. If this proposition is 
 adopted, he will move the further conside- 
 ration of the whole matter under debate 
 until to-morrow, when we settle all the mi- 
 ll uti a at the same time ; but he does not 
 think we ought to postpone the considera- 
 tion of the amendment of Mr. O'Bryan, in 
 which we do nothing more than fix what 
 the basis shall be. 
 
 Mr. Conrad thinks Mr. Chinn is right, 
 and that the restriction to be placed upon 
 New Orleans had better be settled before 
 this question is taken. He therefore se- 
 conds the motion to lay the amendment of- 
 fered by Mr. O'Bryan on the table, subject 
 to call. 
 
 The question on Mr. Chinn's motion was 
 then put and lost. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan's amendment was then de» 
 cided by yeas and nays, and resulted as fol- 
 lows. 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Carriere, Cenas, Cham- 
 bliss, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Covillion, Culbertson, Downs, Eustis, Gar- 
 rett, Humble, Hynson, Legendre, Leonard, 
 McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, O'Bry- 
 an, Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Prudhomme, Read, St. Amand, 
 Saunders, Soule, Stephens, Voorhies, Wad- 
 dill, Wederstrandt and Wikoff voted in the 
 affirmative — 38 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Briant, 
 Chinn, Derbes, Dunn, Guion, Kenner, La» 
 bauve, Porche, Pugh, Roman, Scott of Ba- 
 ton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Ma- 
 dison, Sellers and Winder voted in the ne- 
 gative — 18 nays: 
 
 While the vote was being taken, 
 
 Messrs. Downs and Brent remarked 
 that they voted for it, not as their first, but 
 as their second choice. 
 
 Mr. Dunn remarked that he had been 
 always in favor of the federal basis, and 
 therefore he should vote against it. 
 
 So the Convention adopted the electoral 
 basis, as the basis of representation, 
 
 Mr. Downs then moved to lay the sec- 
 tion as amended on the table, until hit pro- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 365 
 
 ject could be printed and submitted to the 
 consideration of the Convention : say till 
 to-morrow. 
 
 Mr. Beatty objected. He thought we 
 ought to progress with the section as it is. 
 and if necessary, the gentleman from Oua- 
 chita could accomplish as much in the way 
 of amendment, as by waiting for the prin- 
 ted substitute proposed by him. We could 
 proceed with the written one. 
 
 Mr. Downs' motion was put and lost, 
 Mr. Downs then proposed his substitute, 
 as before set forth, for the whole section as 
 reported. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan moved to reconsider the 
 vote for printing, and wishes the substitute 
 to be read, which was done. 
 
 Mr. Dunn then rose to a point of order. 
 He conceives that it cannot be in order, for 
 this reason. The section proposed by Mr. 
 Downs says that "each parish shall have 
 at least one representative." Now that 
 clause has already been rejected by the 
 Convention. 
 
 The President agreed with Mr. Dunn, 
 that the substitute was out of order. 
 
 Mr. Downs was sorry to differ in opin- 
 ion with the President, but he was con- 
 strained to do so, with Jefferson's Manual 
 in his hand. On page 101 it is laid down 
 that a proposition once rejected by the house, 
 may again be submitted when combined 
 with other matter not previously acted upon. 
 He further read from page 94, that wher- 
 ever a different proposition is made,- any 
 thing previously acted on may be again 
 connected with it. He thinks the question 
 may now be settled, in company with the 
 new questions presented in the substitute, 
 whether each parish shall be entitled to 
 one representative or not, and also that no 
 new parishes shall be created, until they 
 have the proper basis of representation. 
 Alone it would not be in order, but combi- 
 ned with other clauses, it is clearly so. 
 
 The President, while he was satisfied 
 with the reasons given by Mr. Downs, 
 would take this occasion to remark, that he 
 should adhere to the first decision he has 
 given on this question, for where he had 
 previously decided as Mr. Downs now asks 
 him to do, his decision was not sustained 
 by the house. He would prefer leaving 
 the Convention to decide the matter for 
 themselves. 
 
 4? 
 
 | Mr. Dunn then asked that the decision of 
 i the president be maintained. 
 I Mr. Beatty moved to lay Mr. Downs' 
 substitute indefinitely on the table, and to 
 take up the report of the committee, and 
 debate the section reported, clause by 
 clause. 
 
 Mr. Downs hopes the motion made by 
 Mr. Beatty will not prevail. He desires 
 to have his substitute printed, and submit- 
 ted to the Convention as a whole ; he 
 therefore prefers waiting until to-morrow. 
 The matter is an entire subjec; it may 
 have merit in it which the members may 
 not see at once, from the simple reading of 
 it ; and which would certainly be better 
 understood, if properly reflected on. The 
 object of introducing it is to harmonize the 
 feelings of the Convention, and with a view 
 to settle this vexed question in a spirit of 
 compromise. He (Mr. Downs) hopes the 
 Convention will regard it in that light, and 
 not hurry the matter through without time 
 for reflection, nor throw it hastily aside. 
 He therefore confidently expects that it 
 will be laid on the table subject to call. 
 He is moreover anxious, before this ques- 
 tion is submitted, to have a full house, to 
 decide on the merits of the important prin- 
 ciples connected with it. 
 
 Mr. Beatty, however, persisted in his 
 motion, when 
 
 Mr. Benjamin rose to expiairi to the 
 Convention, that to his mind the mem- 
 ber from Ouachita, (Mr. Downs.) must have 
 taken an erroneous view of the result to be 
 produced by laying his substitute on the ta- 
 ble ; for certainly, said he, (Mr. Benja- 
 min,) it cannot be denied that we can 
 offer the same principles in the shape 
 of amendments to the section as re- 
 ported by the committee, which he has em- 
 bodied in his proposal of compromise. 
 That is certainly no new question. It has 
 been done repeatedly, and the right to do 
 it has never been questioned, to his knowl- 
 edge, in any deliberative body. To lay a 
 substitute on the table in any form, even 
 indefinitely, is not a rejection of the princi- 
 pies contained in it. We reject it as a 
 whole, because as a whole it may not all 
 be germain to the particular question we 
 have under consideration, but any of those 
 portions of it which are, may be selected 
 from it and offered as amendments to the 
 section under debate. The object of the 
 
300 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 gentleman from Lafourche seems to be, 
 simply to reject the section, but not to 
 touch the right of introducing the principles 
 contained in the project of Mr. Downs, nor 
 to prevent him from introducing them as 
 amendments to the section before us. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to lay the substi- 
 tute on the table, subject to the call of the 
 house ; which motion was put and car- 
 ried. 
 
 Mr. Downs then moved to take up the ar- 
 ticle as reported,, as to the organization of 
 the senate. But his motion was lost, and 
 the Convention then took up the 6th sec- 
 tion of the 2d article of the constitution. 
 
 Mr. Mayo then moved to strike out the 
 words "one-fifth," and insert "one-sixth" 
 in the last clause; whereupon 
 
 Mr. Marigny took the floor : 
 
 It appears to me, Mr. President, that the 
 gentlemen oh the other side of this ques- 
 tion, are a queer set of people. They are 
 eternally telling you that they want nothing 
 but justice, and yet they always manage to 
 ave it a kind of one-sided justice; every 
 o- for themselves, and nothing for us. 
 One, in the plenitude of his consideration, 
 gives us one-fifth of the representation; 
 now, another thinks one-sixth is a plenty 
 for us; and yet they are both actuated by a 
 spirit of justice! ! The grand though hid- 
 den object of all these movements is to de- 
 stroy the influence and power of the city; 
 that has to be done some how or other. 
 But I think, sir, and perhaps it will be 
 much to the astonishment of my colleagues, 
 that I have a plan to propose, that will test 
 their sincerity. They are eternally prating 
 to us about the moral influence which the 
 city of New Orleans has upon the coun- 
 try members; that they are either feast- 
 ed over, flattered over, cajoled over, or de- 
 ceived over to measures which are spe- 
 cially to be made beneficial to the city, and 
 to the prejudice of the country, and it is in 
 consequence of the fear which they enter- 
 tain, or express, for that malign influence, 
 that they now have the modesty to say, 
 we must be deprived of our equal and just 
 representation in the house of representa- 
 tives. Well, he, (Mr. M.) thinks he has a 
 plain and simple remedy to cure the dis- 
 ease, provided the constitution of the pa- 
 tient be not too much impaired. 
 
 It is perfectly clear to every man of 
 sense, to every right thinking man, that the 
 
 hue and cry made by these members is not 
 based upon the grounds which they pro- 
 fess, but it is that they may get their hands 
 upon the treasury, while we of the city 
 contend that we have a right to exercise our 
 just and fair proportion of influence in the 
 direction of the affairs of that treasury. 
 Now then, in order to get rid of the dread- 
 ed influences which they charge upon us 
 as possessing over the country members, 
 if they will act honestly and give us our 
 just and fair proportion of the representa- 
 tion, let them take away the seat of gov- 
 ernment from New Orleans and carry it 
 into the country, even to Jackson if they 
 see fit ; provided, however, that they make 
 the session to be holden in June. If you 
 refuse this proposition, you will at once 
 show, and palpably too, that you are not 
 sincere in your professions; and that the 
 only thing you are resolutely bent upon, is 
 to deprive us of our just representation 
 "nolens volens." Why, on the score of 
 economy alone, (which some of you pro= 
 fess to be so much in favor of) you cannot, 
 if you are sincere, object to my proposal, 
 for every body knows if you take away from 
 the legislature the excuse of debating 
 upon local matters as they do now in bills 
 to establish ferries, &c &c. and put them 
 to their work in the month of June, in a 
 country village, that they will get through 
 as much or more work in twenty days, 
 than they would in an agreeable place, at 
 an agreeable season of the year, in six 
 weeks ; and thus instead of a session of the 
 legislature costing the State $50,000 as 
 now, $20,000 would pay the expenses: 
 
 Mr. Marigny makes these suggestions 
 with the view of waking up the members 
 to a proper reflection of our duties here, 
 and to test their sincerity of purpose. We 
 are here to make a lasting constitution, but 
 we must make it a just one, granting equal 
 rights to all, or the $80,000 which has been 
 appropriated and will be spent, to defray 
 the expenses of our labor, will have been 
 thrown away. 
 
 Act unjustly towards New Orleans, and 
 she will vote against your constitution "en 
 masse." And that vote y connected with 
 the vote of those who do not desire to dis- 
 turb the constitution of 1812, will defeat 
 the very object for which we are ostensibly 
 met, to wit, to amend that constitution to 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 367 
 
 suit the present and future wants of the 
 people of Louisiana. 
 
 Factions, or party spirit have no business 
 in this body. We are met, or we should 
 be, as a band of brothers, to mete out even 
 justice; and yet you tell us, the country is 
 afraid of the city. That assertion natur- 
 ally makes the city afraid of the country, 
 for people who in the first place take alarm, 
 are very apt to do some rash and foolish act. 
 
 I repeat to you, then, (said Mr. Marig- 
 ny) there is but one way to compromise. 
 You give the city her fair and equal share 
 of representation, and we give you the seat 
 of government in the country. 
 
 He therefore moved to postpone all fur- 
 ther consideration of the matter for two or 
 three days, so as to give the members time 
 to reflect upon his proposition. 
 
 The President pro tern, Mr. Labauve, 
 decided that the motion w r as not in order. 
 
 Mr. Sauxders appealed from the deci- 
 sion of the chair. He thinks the sugges- 
 tions made by Mr. Marigny are in every 
 way entitled to the consideration of the 
 Convention, and they approach nearer to 
 a prospect of settling the conflicting opin- 
 ions between the city and country members, 
 than any that he has yet heard proposed. 
 He thinks them worthy of consideration, 
 both in a pecuniary and political point of 
 view, and he will support Mr. Marigny in 
 their adoption. And therefore, to give 
 proper time for an harmonious compromise 
 of the question, he - appeals from the deci- 
 sion of the chair, and hopes the motion to 
 postpone will prevail, 
 
 Mr. Beatty desiring to make some re- 
 marks on the subject before the Conven- 
 tion, Mr. Saunders withdrew his appeal, 
 and Mr. Beatty proceeded: 
 
 He felt it to be his duty to say, that 
 amongst the members of the committee, 
 who had made this report, the greater num- 
 ber thought one-fifth was too large. a pro- 
 portion to allow to New Orleans in the re- 
 presentation of the State ; while the city 
 member thought it was not enough. But 
 finally, the committee came to the conclu- 
 sion to report one-fifth as the suitable and 
 proper proportion, although much differ- 
 ence of opinion had existed. He desires to 
 say that he shall oppose the motion to strike 
 out. He is prepared, in deference to the 
 report before us, to go as far as one-fifth, 
 but if the motion prevail to strike out that 
 
 part of the section, he thinks Mr. Mayo's 
 proposal to fix the proportion at one-sixth 
 will prevail. He thinks himself that one- 
 fifth is a fair and liberal apportionment, but 
 he warns those gentlemen who press with 
 so much zeal the striking out the one -fifth, 
 to pause and reflect well upon what they 
 are doing. He (Mr. Beatty,) makes no 
 threats as to the course he intends to take, 
 but he assures them, according to his poor 
 judgment, that they will lose instead of 
 gaining by striking out the one-fifth, and 
 that they will finally; get less than the one- 
 fifth. 
 
 Gentlemen may pursue what course they 
 see fit. If no alteration is made in the 
 section touching the report in that respect, 
 he will firmly maintain it in that particular, 
 but should it be stricken out, he shall feel 
 at liberty to act according to his discretion; 
 at the same time he does not hesitate to 
 say that he is in favor of restricting the po- 
 litical power of the city. The section of 
 the country which he represents in part, 
 all call for restriction on the city, and he 
 will vote for any measure then that shall 
 come the nearest to one-fifth, provided it 
 does not exceed that amount. It does not 
 require any prophet to foresee, that if she 
 be not restricted, that she and the adjoin- 
 ing parishes will, in ten years, held the 
 controlling power of the State within their 
 hands. All the different interests of the 
 State will be at her mercy and control : 
 the sugar interest, the cotton interest, the 
 grazing interest, in short every interest of 
 every class. Give her one-fourth of your 
 representation, and she will swallow up all 
 the others. He thinks one half the State 
 Is in favor of the federal basis, which he 
 considers more equal and fair than the elec- 
 toral basis. He considers the country has 
 much to fear from the thousands that annu- 
 ally are filling up New r Orleans. Under 
 the free suffrage system, which we have 
 established in our constitution, the number 
 of voters will be increased under the elec- 
 toral basis fully five thousand votes. That 
 will swell the vote up to twenty thousand. 
 It is this preponderance of power he desires 
 to prevent. In this city there are many 
 single men engaged in business pursuits, 
 and therefore the number of voters undei 
 the electoral basis are greatly increased 
 compared with what they will be in the 
 country. There one voter will probably re- 
 
368 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 present his whole family, which may con- 
 sist often or twelve persons, and with only 
 one vote in the family, and that his own. 
 For these reasons he shall vote against 
 striking out, and should it prevail, he shall 
 then feel himself free from any pledges he 
 may have given in committee. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin had moved to strike out 
 the 4th proviso, but he withdrew that mo- 
 tion until it should be ascertained whether 
 there was to be any restriction on New 
 Orleans on the popular branch, and to 
 what extent it would be pressed. 
 
 The questions then before us are, 
 
 First: Shall there be restriction? 
 
 Second: What shall be the ^extent of it? 
 
 He, Mr. Benjamin, is opposed to restric- 
 tion in every shape and form. 
 
 He feels that it is his duty to make some 
 remarks in reply to what has been said by 
 the member from Lafourche, (Mr. Beatty,) 
 because he was evidently referred to by 
 him. The committee, whose report we 
 have under consideration, was composed 
 of twelve members, being from each con- 
 gressional district; there were two mem- 
 bers from the city of New Orleans. "When 
 the committee met he found himself the 
 only member present from the city, his col- 
 league from some cause being unable to 
 attend. There were eleven members pres- 
 ent. At first they decided that New Or- 
 leans should be restricted; and they propo- 
 sed she should be confined to one-sixth of 
 the representation. He, Mr. Benjamin, 
 opposed it; and tried by every argument in 
 his power, to prove to them how unjust it 
 would be in its operation on the city, and 
 its interests; but he was voted down. Fi- 
 nally I, said Mr. Benjamin, was notified by 
 the members of the committee, that they 
 had concluded to fix the restriction at one- 
 fifth, provided I would agree to abide by it. 
 Finding that they were decided and unani- 
 mously against me, and that one-fifth was 
 better than one- sixth, if we were to be re- 
 stricted, I consented to agree to the report. 
 That was the dilemma in which he, Mr. 
 Benjamin, was placed. He thought it bet- 
 ter, if the country was determined to cur- 
 tail our rights; as she seemed determined 
 to do this, he felt convinced he would be 
 doing right in securing the best he could 
 for his constituents. His colleagues, when 
 he represented the state of things, would 
 scarcely believe that a majority of the com- 
 
 mittee would, or could sustain so unjust a 
 measure; they thought that they would be 
 impressed with the truth, that the pure re- 
 publican doctrine demanded that represen- 
 tation should be equal and uniform; and 
 further, that if it were deemed necessary to 
 put a curb on the city of New Orleans to 
 check her power and influence, that it was 
 not in the lower branch that the check 
 should be placed, but on the senate, which 
 is emphatically the conservative body of 
 our government; and they then plainly told 
 hirn, (Mr. B.,) they could not be satisfied 
 with this report; and that if so made, they 
 would throw themselves at the mercy of 
 the Convention; and should oppose it. The 
 committee were then so informed; and they 
 replied, that if he, Mr. Benjamin, felt him- 
 self at all compromitted, and would not sus- 
 tain the report fixing the limit at one -fifth, 
 they should not feel themselves bound to it, 
 but should reserve the privilege to move 
 an amendment making it at one-sixth. He 
 feels it necessary further to explain to the 
 Convention why he yielded to the allowing 
 each parish one representative, without re- 
 gard to its population; which question had 
 been adversely determined by previous ac- 
 tion of the Convention. When he came 
 to make the calculation that there were 
 many of the old parishes whose white 
 population had become so small, but whose 
 property interest was nevertheless large; 
 that they would not be entitled to a repre- 
 sentation, without on the same principle as 
 that established by the Convention as the 
 basis of representation. The new parishes 
 came in, who were precisely in the same 
 situation that they were; he was compelled, 
 in fairness, to withdraw his previous oppo- 
 sition to it— and hence the reason why the 
 report comes back as previously reported, 
 with his consent. But when it is consid- 
 ered that the question was put in this form, 
 can you deprive the new parishes of one 
 representative, without depriving Saint 
 Charles, St. John the Baptist, Washington 
 and many other small parishes, of their re- 
 presentation? And moreover, when it is 
 taken into consideration that this clause 
 was only to remain in force until a new 
 census could be made of the State; and the 
 Convention would, by the action of the 
 committee, be spared from censure; and 
 that hereafter all new and old parishes 
 would be placed on an equal footing; is it 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 369 
 
 not to be considered a prudent and necessa- 
 ry conception, to give no cause of com- 
 plaint, but to give to every parish now, 
 one representative, and then leave it to fu- 
 ture events to determine what each is fairly 
 and justly entitled to? It was for those 
 reasons he consented to that clause of the 
 report. 
 
 He does not wish to deprive the north- 
 western or the Florida parishes of any of 
 their rights; if they grow faster than the 
 old parishes, let them have the full benefit 
 of their growth: let the political influence 
 of every one of them be increased as they 
 grow in wealth and population. And he, 
 Mr. Benjamin, will further say, as has al- 
 ready been said to the Convention before, 
 while speaking of the rights of the city, let 
 every one enjoy their rights to the fullest 
 extent; be just, and be fair to one and all. 
 Some may not be entitled to representation 
 under the new census which is to be made 
 next year, unless classed with other small 
 parishes. But until we get correct data, 
 which we have not now, as the census of 
 1840 is so incorrect that it cannot be re- 
 lied on, it is neither fair nor right to deprive 
 them of the privilege of being heard on the 
 question of apportionment, when it shall 
 come up to be acted upon in the legislature, 
 on the principles we have established in 
 the Convention. For these reasons he con- 
 curred in giving to each parish one repre- 
 sentative to start upon. 
 
 He has before said that he was forced 
 into giving his assent to the one-fifth prin- 
 ciple of restriction; but as the other mem- 
 bers of the committee are now freed from 
 the obligation, he, Mr. Benjamin, feels 
 himself equally free; and his first act of 
 freedom shall be to say that he will vote 
 against restricting us to one-fifth of the 
 representation of the State. 
 
 To his, Mr. Benjamin's mind, the argu- 
 ment advanced by Mr. Eustis was too for- 
 cible, not to have its proper weight before 
 the Convention; and that was, that not 
 persons alone should be considered, but 
 general interests, also, should be consider- 
 ed in determining a basis of representation; 
 in other words, that no class of citizens 
 should be placed in the power of another 
 class: and for that reason he thinks that 
 "total numbers" form the only element on 
 which a fair representation can be based. 
 
 To a certain extent I am bound, said Mr. 
 
 B., to admit the argument which has been 
 used; that legislative power, when concen- 
 trated, is more than an equivalent to the 
 same numerical number of votes in a legis- 
 lative body, without that concentration. 
 And that, which in theory may appear in- 
 consistent, is not so in practice; as thus: 
 twenty-five or a thirty men who are united in 
 one common interest, will have a greater 
 influence and greater power in the decision 
 of a question, than the same number, who 
 have not the. power of centrative inter- 
 est. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, although I know 
 and feel that I may be blamed by some, for 
 making this admission, yet, conscientiously 
 believing it, I do not stop to look at any 
 other than such consequences as finally re- 
 sult to the candid, open and fair man. 
 
 Let us suppose, for instance, that the city 
 should become entitled to fifty votes, and 
 the country to fifty votes, in a house of one 
 hundred members; there cannot be a doubt 
 if fifty be united, that they have an advan- 
 tage over the fifty who have no concert of 
 action. And, sir, said Mr B., feeling this, 
 I should be willing, in the spirit of compro- 
 mise, to allow something to the country as 
 an equipoise; and when that is done they 
 can ask no more. What do they now 
 want? Suppose we pay, as we do now, 
 one half the revenue of the State, and even 
 it is doubtful if Ave shall not soon pay three- 
 fourths of it, can we be satisfied with one- 
 fifth of the representation? can we be satis- 
 fied to let two-thirds of our just weight go 
 for one-fifth? If country members would 
 say lo us, that concentration increases your 
 power one-fifth, and that to take that 
 amount from our power would be consider- 
 ed an equivalent to satisfy what they con- 
 ceive our advantage over them from that 
 concentration of interest; then I could un- 
 derstand them; and then, sir, I might, and 
 doubtless should, meet them on that ground 
 of compromise. Just let them say, your 
 representation shall be equal to ours on the 
 basis we have adopted, less one-fifth; just 
 let them say, that if you are entitled to fifty 
 votes then you shall have forty members in 
 the lower house, and we will divide the 
 other ten proportionably among the other 
 portions of the State; then I would under- 
 stand you, and then I would join you, but 
 don't say that you will restrict us to twenty 
 members, when with even such a fair al- 
 
370 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 lowance as 1 propose to you, we are justly 
 entitled to. forty on your own democratic ba- 
 sis. He (Mr. Benjamin) thinks we have 
 but two grand divisions of interest in the 
 State, the one commercial and the other 
 agricultural; because although the agricul- 
 ture of the State is divided into two sepa- 
 rate and distinct interests, the sugar and 
 cotton interest, still so far as .the city is 
 concerned with the country, or the country 
 with the city, they make but one interest; 
 and yet we are virtually told in case agri- 
 culture should suffer to the value of one- 
 fifth, and commerce should thrive and pros- 
 per to the extent of the other four-fifths of a 
 whole, that the country would have a right 
 to appropriate to their own use all the reve- 
 nue which is derived by New Orleans from 
 her immense trade with the great valley of 
 the Missouri, Ohio, and Mississippi rivers; 
 that the country interests are always to be 
 first provided for; the country is to absorb 
 all. If wealth and population are discard- 
 ed altogether from your minds, and you are 
 to be frightened out of your propriety by 
 the fear of concentration of interests, then 
 I shall protest in loud terms against your 
 unjustifiable course. What we ask of you 
 is, not to take all; and the only ground Ave 
 can meet you upon is that of pure and sim- 
 ple justice. We do not know how far you 
 mean to press your restrictive measures 
 upon the interests of New Orleans. We 
 regret to find you in such a desponding 
 mood; we are sorry to hear you say that 
 the country is about to be sacrificed for the 
 benefit of the city* Such a contingency 
 cannot arise, for the interests of the city 
 and country are identical in almost every 
 minutia of our mutual transactions. There 
 is but one possible way to bring their in- 
 terests in conflict, and that is by an undue 
 use of the taxing power; but look back and 
 see what results have heretofore proved; 
 the country has always, up to this time, had 
 the advantage of the city on the question 
 of appropriations. When the city is im- 
 posed upon, and when her dearest rights 
 are invaded, do they suppose that New Or- 
 leans will bind herself hand and foot, and 
 deliver herself over to the country? Gen- 
 tlemen are greatly mistaken if they think 
 so. On what principle do they expect it? 
 do they rely on their power? If they do 
 they have lost sight of reason, and 
 one would really think they had in the 
 
 course they are pursuing. Do they im- 
 agine by fawning the spirit of jealousy 
 against the city, and thereby discrimi- 
 nating in the legislature, by passing laws 
 that are unequal in their operation, that 
 they can succeed in their schemes of in- 
 justice to the city? It will not result as they 
 expect, even should they try it. 
 
 On what principle of justice can one 
 hundred thousand persons residing in the 
 country, claim the right of taxing, unequal- 
 ly, three hundred thousand because they 
 live in the city? How much less have they 
 not that right when it is well known that the 
 same country only contributes one -fourth in 
 taxation of the amount paid into the treasu- 
 ry — she contributes $100,000, New Or- 
 leans 8300,000. Can it be wondered at 
 then that those who support the government 
 should murmur and complain when they 
 are deprived of their just portion of repre- 
 sentation? The house of representatives, 
 in which house originate all bills for reve- 
 nue, might take it into their heads to pay 
 the State tax by a special tax on the com- 
 merce of the city; and if we are shorn of 
 our power in that branch of the govern- 
 ment, and we are reduced down to one-fifth 
 against four-fifths, where shall we look for 
 relief? We may look for justice elsewhere, 
 but we shall look in vain. 
 
 We have heard a great deal about the 
 immense advantage which the country is to 
 city, and that we could not get along with- 
 out the country. In his (Mr. B.'s) opinion, 
 it is the city which for years back has sus- 
 tained and supported the country; yes, she 
 has done so for the last twenty years. 
 
 Are not #100,000 raised in the city and 
 paid into the treasury as a tax upon profes- 
 sions, besides the taxes imposed on all auc- 
 tion sales, and also the tax paid into the 
 treasury by foreign merchants? The first 
 is taken from the labor of men engaged in 
 professional pursuits. The second results 
 from the sale of goods sent here from the 
 north or from Europe for sale at auction; 
 that pays two and a half per cent. State 
 | tax. 
 
 I Now who pays these taxes, the city or 
 I the country? Why, New Orleans pays it 
 | directly, and in fact under this onerous law, 
 i they pay more; and how? Why, both the 
 foreign and native importer and trader, who 
 have to submit to such exhorbitant taxes. 
 The foreigner now does not import more 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 371 
 
 than one-fourth of what he used to, and the 
 latter is forced into the New York market 
 to lay in his supplies, all which expense 
 adds to the cost of his goods. Goods can't 
 be imported here, owing to the heavy tax, 
 and millions are sent to New York, which 
 find their way here by that route with 
 heavy profits— they take a commission at 
 every turn. Thus the country, by such a 
 course, lays an immense burden on the 
 city. It is somewhat singular to hear the 
 arguments of Messrs. Downs and Mayo on 
 this subject, indeed he (Mr. B.) cannot but 
 think they have become the dupes of their 
 own sophistry, when they tell us that it is 
 the country that pays the revenue, and that 
 without them we should not have the means 
 of doing so. Then reasoning on those false 
 premises, they say they are bound to pro- 
 tect themselves in the representation of the 
 State, and that out of one hundred repre- 
 sentatives, of which, one half really be- 
 longs to the city, they just want eighty, that 
 is the argument; they say, when we are 
 served, you may take the rest; we are de- 
 sirous of leaving to you your just weight! 
 
 This brings to mind the course of those 
 gentlemen when we were discussing the 
 division of the State into four congression- 
 al districts. One of the members from the 
 fourth district, while the matter was under 
 discussion, was desirous of postponing the 
 consideration of the question as to the fourth 
 district until the other three were regulated. 
 The first, second and third districts being 
 agreed upon, he finally had to take the rest 
 of the State for the fourth, when he might 
 have done better, had he not been too 
 anxious to increase her political power. 
 
 i Now they desire to apply the same princi- 
 ple to the city, you take what we leave— 
 and they say that twenty out of one hun- 
 dred is enough for us. 
 
 But this is a question that they must 
 meet fairly — it must be decided on its 
 merits — we must protect all interests that 
 
 < are growing in value. Diminish the vote 
 of the city as far as you think it should be 
 fairly done, to make up for her increased 
 
 . power from a concentrated vote; say in 
 your proviso that no parish shall have no 
 more than a certain number, but strike out 
 from your constitution that they shall never 
 have more than one -fifth. If you do not 
 you will plant in it the gemi3 of its own 
 destruction. He (Mr. Benjamin,) will not 
 
 indulge in any thing like a threat ; but this 
 he will say, that if we do not act on the 
 principles of impartiality and justice, and 
 although he will not say that the constitu- 
 tion will not be ratified, yet if we do adopt 
 the section as it stands, it will only be one 
 step towards the destruction of our political 
 fabric. 
 
 For these reasons he (Mr. B.) moved to 
 strike out the proviso in toto. 
 
 Mr. O 'Bryan takes the same view as 
 does Mr. Benjamin, for this reason — while 
 it says too much, it says too little. Sup- 
 pose we were to have hereafter four or five 
 large cities in the State, and their popula- 
 tion were to entitle them to one-fifth of the 
 representation, what then would become of 
 the country ? 
 
 Mr. IC. M. Conrad was desirous of 
 making a few brief remarks. He had al- 
 ready addressed the Convention on the in- 
 justice and impropriety of restricting New 
 Orleans so as to deprive her of her proper 
 power in the legislature. He said it was 
 his firm conviction that all parts of the 
 State should be fairly and equally repre- 
 sented in the legislative halls, no matter 
 what basis is assumed, whether it be num- 
 bers, taxation, or what not — that each 
 should have what it is entitled to, whether 
 it be numbers or taxable property, under 
 our plain declaration that representation 
 shall be equal and uniform. They would 
 admit this to be correct doctrine if it were 
 to be applied to any of the parishes, such, 
 for instance, as Natchitoches or Livingston, 
 but the moment you get to the city of New 
 Orleans the tune is changed entirely; then 
 there must be an exception. And what 
 new reasons have we had urged upon us 
 to sustain the exception? Why, that there 
 is a concentration of power in cities. Up- 
 on my soul, (said Mr. Conrad,) I cannot 
 see into the meaning of it. Have one hun- 
 dred thousand persons in the city more po- 
 litical power than the same number would 
 have in the country? 
 
 He (Mr. Conrad,) differed with his col- 
 league, (Mr. Benjamin,) in the admission 
 which he had made on that subject, and he 
 thinks facts will sustain him in his posi- 
 tion. Let us examine the vote in the city 
 of New Orleans, where there is the larger 
 number of voters than at any other given 
 point, for the last twenty years, and we 
 shall invariably find, that it has been more 
 
372 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 divided than it ever was in many parts of 
 the country. Is it pretended that here is 
 the great point of concentration ? If they 
 Will go back and examine the facts as they 
 are, they will find that concentration is 
 more likely to be found in the vote of St. 
 Landry or Lafouche Interior, St. Mary or 
 Livingston. Is there any great concen- 
 tration of power in the city delegation in 
 this hall ? No, they will find that on al- 
 most every question which has been so far 
 acted upon by this Convention, that they 
 are nearly equally divided. In this case 
 they are united, because the proposed mea- 
 sure inflicts a vital stab at the rights of all 
 the citizens of New Orleans, and it would 
 be unlike honorable men, if they could re- 
 main with arms folded, when so important 
 a measure as the disfranchising their own 
 constituents was under discussion. 
 
 He cannot, then, see the danger of con- 
 centration, and he is bound to think, from 
 what lights he has before him, that it is a 
 chimera of their fancy. 
 
 Talk about sympathy, mutual inter- 
 course, &c; why the people of New Or- 
 leans, many of them, don't know their next 
 door neighbors ; while in the country par- 
 ishes they are intimately acquainted, and 
 generally throughout the neighborhoods in 
 which they live, although miles apart. 
 
 He thinks that to a certain extent, in a 
 certain contingency, it might be right to 
 make some deduction, but that would alone 
 be if the seat of government were retained 
 in New Orleans. 
 
 A gentleman remarked here, recently, 
 that no State or country could be properly 
 governed where cities preponderated. Now 
 it is clear, that either the interests of the 
 city and country are identical, or that they 
 conflict with each other. If they are iden- 
 tical, and he cannot see that they conflict, 
 where is the policy of this measure ? And 
 even if they do conflict with each other, 
 there is even then no justice in it. 
 
 He is sorry to see that there is a spirit 
 infused into the minds of the members of 
 this Convention, that there is a conflict of 
 interest between the city and country; for 
 his part he regards it as a mere imagina- 
 tion, unless, indeed, they placed it upon the 
 ground that they fear the taxing power will 
 be abused by the city members. Now if 
 that be true, which he by no means admits, 
 have we not provided a remedy ? Is not ! 
 
 the senate a check ? Has not the country 
 seven-eighths of the members of that body 
 in their interests ? And it is well known 
 that no revenue billy nor any other, can be- 
 come a law without the consent of both 
 houses. Where, then, is the necessity of 
 restricting the city in the lower house, to 
 guard that power ? The only reason which 
 we have yet had assigned for the necessity 
 is, that if they do not restrict her, why, she 
 will soon have the majority and govern the 
 State. When he (Mr. Conrad) addressed 
 the Convention on a recent occasion, he 
 said he considered it less a matter of con- 
 sideration that each parish should have a 
 representative, than that each and every 
 interest in the State should be represented. 
 In this he was opposed by Mr. Downs, who 
 thought that unless each parish had a re- 
 presentative, they could not be said to be 
 represented, for they had local matters to 
 attend to as well as those of larger parishes. 
 He (Mr. Conrad,) returns now to that ques- 
 tion. Why should not fair allotments be 
 made to each portion, and each interest in 
 the State ? Why are we to take away the 
 political power of the southern part of the 
 State to give it to the north-western part of 
 it? Why should we turn a majority of the 
 people of the State, and a majority of the 
 interests of the State, into a minority in our 
 halls of legislation 1 
 
 This is not only a blow at New Orleans, 
 but also at the whole sugar growing and a 
 portion of the cotton growing interests. 
 When he speaks of the cotton interest, he 
 alludes to the Florida parishes, who grow 
 a large part of the cotton crop of the State, 
 and who are clearly identified with New 
 Orleans, By this blow they are deprived 
 of their just weight in the legislature. He 
 was in hopes that the committee, composed 
 as it was of members from each congres- 
 sional district, would have been governed 
 in their report by more wisdom, and more 
 justice, than they have, and he yet confi- 
 dently relies upon the just feelings of many 
 of the members of the Convention to strike 
 the proviso out of the section ; for, if re- 
 striction were at all necessary, where is 
 the propriety of imposing it on the southern 
 portion of the State ? None at all. 
 
 Some of his (Mr. Conrad's) colleagues, 
 have truly told you, that if you insert such 
 a clause as the one before us, in your con. 
 stitution, it will not be ratified by the peo- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 373 
 
 pie. He is far, very far from saying any 
 thing that can be construed into a threat on 
 .his part. So far as the new constitution 
 has been progressed in, he gives it a deci- 
 ded preference to the old one, but if a pro- 
 vision be engrafted in it like the one be- 
 fore us, he should certainly prefer the old 
 one, and mark my words, sir ! the people 
 will so decide.' What are we here for, but 
 to make a constitution that will be accepta- 
 ble to the people at large? Why then in- 
 clude a provision that the majority will re- 
 pudiate? But, sir, suppose it were to be 
 ratified, it will not last long. It is a libej 
 on the American character, to say that they 
 would tamely submit to despotism. The 
 people, when they come to reflect, will 
 never put up with any thing but justice, 
 fairness and equality, and it will soon be 
 like 
 
 ;< The baseless fabric of a vision, 
 Leaves not a wreck behind." 
 
 They say to us, how are you going to 
 amend it, when we have you in our pow- 
 er? You may complain as much as you 
 please, but we have got you in our power, 
 bound hand and foot. Let me say that al- 
 though you have four-fifths of the house of 
 representatives, and seven-eights of the sen- 
 ate, and although you have provided that 
 the legislature may make the necessary 
 amendments to the constitution; that all 
 combined together will not do it. The ma- 
 jority will turn a deaf ear to the complaints 
 of the city, and thereby we are deprivedjof 
 all peaceable means to redress our grievan- 
 ces, and we are then driven to one of- two 
 alternatives — base submission, or violent 
 opposition. Now it is perfect folly to blink 
 this question; to that it must come. 
 
 He (Mr. Conrad) shudders when he re- 
 flects upon the consequences to flow from 
 the adoption of the principle of restriction 
 now pressed upon us so warmly, and so 
 vehemently. It may not be that" they or 
 we are to reap the fruits of this unjust 
 measure; but it will surely come to pass 
 in the next generation. All history tells 
 us, that the American people will not sub- 
 mit to be ruled by* a minority. It forms a 
 part of their political religion, to repudiate 
 any such doctrine, and they will not long 
 submit to any paper constitution that is not 
 based on the principles of justice. The 
 Rhode Island rebellion will be nothing to 
 the scenes that will be enacted here. So 
 far as he is concerned, for the sake of peace 
 . 48 F 
 
 and harmony, he is disposed to make some 
 concessions. Surely two-thirds of the 
 lower house, and seven-eights of the sen- 
 ate, ought to be sufficient with the veto of 
 the governor, to satisfy them. But as there 
 is a limit to the necessity, so there must be 
 a limit to the rule. 
 
 Let us then inquire what is the amount 
 of the absolute necessity in restricting ? 
 Take that, but take no more. 
 
 He has but few words to add. He had 
 hoped during the progress of this debate, 
 that the difficulty would be compromised. 
 He now regrets to find that it is not likely 
 to come from the quarter he had expected 
 it. He thinks they are acting unreasona- 
 bly, and not as true friends of their coun- 
 
 He is himself greatly in favor of concili- 
 ation and harmony, and with a view to 
 give time for reflection, he trusts they will 
 take advantage of the adjournment. 
 
 Mr. Conrad then moved an adjournment 
 until to-morrow at 11 o'clock, which was 
 carried. 
 
 Tuesday, March 4, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Prestox opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer. 
 
 This being the day fixed for the re -con- 
 sideration of the vote given on the adoption 
 of section 3d of article 3d; on the motion of 
 Mr. Mayo, said section was called up, viz: 
 
 ■Sec. 3. "No person shall be eligible to 
 the office of governor or lieutenant govern- 
 or who shall not have attained the age of 
 thirtyrfive years, and has not been fifteen 
 years a free white male citizen of the Uni- 
 ted States, and of this State next' preceding 
 his election." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Mayo, said section 
 was laid on the table, subject to call. 
 ORDER OF THE DAY.? 
 
 Section 6th of the report of the commit- 
 tee to whom the same was referred, and as 
 amended, viz: 
 
 "Each parish shall be entitled to repre- 
 sentation in proportion to the number of 
 qualified electors in it; provided, that no 
 parish or city shall ever be entitled to more 
 than one-fifth of the whole number of re- 
 presentatives." 
 
 Mr. Bexjamix moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by striking out entirely the proviso. 
 
374 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Mr. Saunders inquired of the chair 
 whether it were in order to present a pro- 
 ject and refer it to the house, as if they 
 were in quasi committee? 
 
 The Chair replied that it was. 
 
 Mr. Saunders: If that be the case, I will 
 submit a project, which I will take the 
 liberty of introducing with a few prepara- 
 tory remarks. It will obviate tjie difficulty 
 jn the way of a favorite measure with the 
 house, and yet will not violate a principle: 
 the measure is one in which I heartily con- 
 cur, that each parish be entitled to a dis- 
 trict representation. I repudiate the idea 
 that every individual person in the political 
 community can be equally represented. 
 What I assumed in the few remarks I made 
 upon another occasion was this, that every 
 political locality had the right of being 
 heard, and that argument has remained un- 
 answered ; the gentleman from Lafourche 
 (Mr Taylor) in commenting upon my po- 
 sition^ misunderstood my language. What 
 I said, with the view of illustrating the po- 
 sition I took, was this, and I repeat it again, 
 that if the colonies had been heard the revo- 
 lution would not have taken place at the 
 period it did. Other causes would, without 
 doubt, at a later period, have produced that 
 revolution. 
 
 With the permission of the house, I will 
 read to them the project: 
 
 "Until the first election after the month 
 of January 1855, the members of the house 
 of representatives shall be elected in the 
 following manner: 
 
 "Every parish may elect one member, 
 and 7000 inhabitants, (including slaves,) 
 shall be the mean increasing number which 
 shall entitle a parish to an additional repre- 
 sentative. 
 
 "And to prevent the house of represen- 
 tatives becoming too numerous, the mean 
 increasing number shall be proportionally 
 increased in the year of our Lord one thou- 
 sand eight hundred and fifty-five, and every 
 ten years afterwards; so that the house o 
 representatives shall never consist of more 
 than one hundred members. 
 
 "Every parish which shall hereafter be 
 established, shall be entitled to elect one 
 representative, when it shall contain 7000 
 inhabitants, and not before; and until the 
 year 1855 the representation shall be as 
 folio ws, viz: 
 
 The parish of Ascension, 2 
 
 " Assumption 2 
 
 " Avoyelles, 2 
 
 " Baton Rouge, East 2 
 
 " West 1 
 
 " Bernard, St. l 
 
 " Bossier, 1 
 
 " Caddo, 1 
 
 u Calcasieu, 1 
 
 Caldwell, 1 
 
 Carroll, 1 
 
 " Catahoula, 1 
 
 Charles, St 1 
 
 " Claiborne, 1 
 
 " Concordia, 2 
 
 Be Soto, 1 
 
 " Feliciana, East 2 
 
 West, 2 
 
 " Franklin, 1 
 
 " Helena, St. 1 
 
 " Iberville, 2 
 
 " James, St. 2 
 
 " Jefferson, 2 
 " John the Baptist, St. 1 
 " Lafourche Interior, 2 
 
 Lafayette, 1 
 
 " Landry, St. 3 
 
 " Livingston, 1 
 
 tk Madison, 1 
 
 " Martin, St. 2 
 
 " Mary, St. 2 
 
 ** Zvlorehouse, 1 
 
 < 4 Natchitoches, 2 
 
 " Orleans, 15 
 
 " Ouachita, 1 
 
 v 4i Plaquemines, 1 
 
 " Pointe Coupee, 2 
 
 *' Rapides, 3 
 
 Sabine, 1 
 
 " Tammany, St. 1 
 
 " Tensas, 1 
 
 " Terrebonne, 1 
 
 " Union, 1 
 
 " Vermillion, 1 
 
 44 Washington, 1 
 
 " Jackson, 1 
 
 Total, 79 
 
 it will be seen that one representative is 
 allowed to each parish indiscriminately, 
 and that 7000 inhabitants, (including 
 slaves,) will be the mean increasing num- 
 ber that shall entitle a parish to an addi- 
 tional number. The reasons for this mode 
 of apportionment are these, that without 
 knowing what will be the ultimate cours 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 375 
 
 taken by the Convention upon this question single party for the protection of our rire- 
 of apportionment: and without pretending sides and our hearths. And- yet, after all 
 to be an oracle, as to the decision, from these solemn warnings, the gentleman pro- 
 the current of private feeling I am led to j tests against the policy of adopting the 
 believe that the old parishes of St. Helena, slave basis, and reads to us the speeches of 
 St. Tammany. Washington, St. Charles j Giddings, I suppose for the purpose that 
 and St. Bernard, will not be disfranchised, nothing should be left out of view, 
 but that a representation will be allowed ; One thing to my mind is clear — that 
 them. Assuming that as a most proba- slaves, whether considered as persons or 
 pie result, there will not be, I presume, j property, are a just element of representa- 
 any disposition to make them exceptions, j tion. If they be persons, in political par- 
 and consequently the new parishes will be j lance, well then the matter of representa- 
 entitled to an equal participation with them tion is beyond a doubt. If they be proper- 
 in the right of representation; therefore, no j ty, they are productive property: and 
 parish will be without its representative, where they predominate, white labor of the 
 For myself I cannot see any objection to I same description is excluded; and hence 
 this representation of political locality. So ' white population will not abound. I cer- 
 far as precedent is concerned, the rule ; tainly have not the remotest design to corn- 
 will have a most beneficial tendency. The ' pare the poor man with the slave, when I 
 State of Massachusetts has the best local ! insist upon the federal basis; but I consider 
 government in the Union. The town of! my slave as the producer, and myself as 
 Hull, where there is scarcely a dozen per- ! the consumer; and in every country pro- 
 sons, has a representation. The principle ! duction and consumption afford a proper 
 in the constitution of that State is, that cor- j basis of taxation, and consequently of re- 
 porations shall be represented. The prin- : presentation. One advantage of my pro- 
 ciple in my project is that each parish cor- j position, to which I can safely allude, is 
 poration shall have a representative, and that it obviates the necessity for a consti- 
 the necessity for a restriction upon any j tutional restriction upon the representation 
 parish is obviated by the increase of the j of the city, which is considered in a very 
 mean increasing number, so that the legis- ; objectionable point of view by the delegates 
 lature can never be composed of more than i from the city. 
 
 one hundred members, to be divided in : On motion of Mr. Dowxs, said project 
 strict accordance with the ratio established, j was ordered to be printed. 
 
 Among the extraordinary things, said j On motion of Mar. Duxx. the section un- 
 Mr. Saunders, that have marked this most \ der consideration and project were laid on 
 extraordinary discussion, is the pertinacity ; the table, and made the special order of the 
 that has been manifested against slaves | day for to-morrow at 12 o'clock, M. 
 being considered a portion of the basis of ! Mr. Mayo then moved the reconsidera- 
 representation. However extraordinary [ tion of the vote on the adoption of section 
 that may be, it is not yet to be compared j 3d of article 3d, viz: 
 
 with the attempt to connect this question of "Xo person shall be eligible to the office 
 apportionment with the question of aboli- 1 of governor or lieutenant governor, who 
 tion. "What has the external basis of politi- \ shall not have attained the age of thirty-five 
 cal representation in Louisiana, to do with i years, and has not been fifteen years a free 
 the question of slavery? j white male citizen of the United States, 
 
 The gentleman from New Orleans, (Mr. j and of this State, next preceding his elec- 
 Beniamin,) upon some occasion alluded to , tion." 
 
 a portentious cloud that had risen upon the ! Mr. Guiox called for the yeas and nays 
 disc of our political horizon, which was ' on the motion to reconsider* which resulted 
 at first no bigger than his own little beau- j as follows: 
 
 tiful hand, but which suddenly threatened ! Messrs. Brazeale, Front, Carriere, 
 to overcast the whole horizon. The gen- \ Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Dunn, Gar- 
 tleman had heard the roaring of the distant j rett, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Leonard, 
 thunder, and admonishes us of our danger. McRae, McCallop, Marigny, Mayo ; 0'Bry- 
 He told us that the time was fast approach- j an, Peets, Porche, Porter, Prescott of St. 
 ing when there would be among us but a j Landry, Read. Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 
370 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Soule, Ste- 
 phens, Trist, Waddill and Wederstrandt vo- 
 ted in the affirmative — 30 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Guion, Kenner, Legendre, Mazureau, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, 
 Saunders, Sellers, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Voorhies, Wikoff and Winder voted in the 
 negative — 28 nays; consequently said mo- 
 tion was carried. g| 
 
 Mr. Marigny obtained leave to change 
 his vote. 
 
 Mr. McCallop having voted in the neg- 
 ative through mistake, moved that he be 
 -permitted to change his vote, and the yeas 
 and nays being called, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Carriere, Cham- 
 bliss, Chinn, Claiborne, Covillion, Downs, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, 
 Kenner, Ledoux, Leonard, McRae, Marig- 
 ny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porche, Porter, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Pugh, 
 Read, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, 
 Soule, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt and 
 Wikoff voted in the affirmative — 40 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, BenjamimBourg, 
 Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, Conrad 
 of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Guion, Legendre, Mazu- 
 reau, Roman, St. Amand and Winder voted 
 in the negative — 18 nays; consequently the 
 same was granted. 
 
 Mr. Mayo then moved to amend said 
 section 3d, by striking out the word "fif- 
 teen," and insert in lieu thereof the word 
 I'ten." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Saunders, the taking 
 of the vote on the motion to strike out the 
 word "fifteen," and insert in lieu thereof 
 the word "ten," was postponed until two 
 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin informed the Convention 
 that he would, before the adjournment of 
 this day, submit a project of compromise on 
 the question of apportionment, taking the 
 whole population, including slaves, for the 
 basis; which he moved might be printed, 
 and taken up to-morrow with the project 
 offered by Mr. Saunders. On the question 
 to receive the project and print the same, 
 
 the yeas and nays being called for, 52 voted 
 in the affirmative and 9 in the negative; 
 consequently the said project was received 
 and ordered to be printed. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Dunn, the Convention 
 then took under consideration the 10th sec- 
 tion of article 2d, as reported by the majori- 
 ty, viz: 
 
 "The State shall be divided into eight 
 senatorial districts, each of which shall 
 elect four senators, to be voted for by the 
 persons entitled to vote for representatives, 
 as follows: 
 
 "All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river, shall comprise the first district. 
 
 4t The parishes of Plaquemines, St. Ber- 
 nard and the remainder of the parish of Or- 
 leans, parish of Jefferson, St. Charles" and 
 St. John the Baptist, shall compose r the 
 second district. 
 
 "The parishes of St. James, Ascension, 
 Assumption, Lafourche Interior and Terre- 
 bonne, shall compose the third district. 
 
 "The parishes of Iberville, West Baton 
 Rouge, East Baton Rouge, Point Coupee 
 and Avoyelles, shall compose the fourth 
 district. 
 
 "The parishes of West Feliciana, East 
 Feliciana, Washington, St. Tammany, St. 
 Helena and Livingston shall compose the 
 fifth district. 
 
 "The parishes of Concordia, Carroll, 
 Madison, Ouachita, Union, Franklin, Ten- 
 sas, Morehouse, Catahoula and Caldwell, 
 shall compose the sixth district. 
 
 "The parishes of Rapides, Natchitoches,. 
 Caddo, Calcassieu, Claiborne, Sabine, 
 Bossier and De Soto, shall compose the 
 seventh district. 
 
 "The parishes ©f St. Mary, St. Martin,- 
 St. Landry, Lafayette and Vermillion, shall 
 compose the eighth district. 
 
 "Provided, That the legislature shall : 
 have the power, in any year in which they 
 shall apportion representation in the house 
 of representatives, to divide any one or 
 more of said senatorial districts, each to be 
 entitled to elect two senators." 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to strike out the 10th 
 section, with the view of offering the fol- 
 lowing minority report as a substitute: 
 
 The senate shall consist of thirty-two 
 members, to be elected for four years by 
 the voters qualified to vote for representa- 
 tives, and at the same time, one -half every 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 377 
 
 two years; and the apportionment of sena- ' 
 tors "shall be as follows: 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines and St. 1 
 Bernard, and that portion of the parish of. 
 Orleans on the right hank of the river, shall 
 have one senator. 
 Parish of Orleans shall have. 
 
 First Municipality. 2 ) 
 
 Second " 1 5 
 
 Third 1 3 
 
 The parish of Jefferson. 
 
 M St. John Baptist and ) 
 St. Charles, $ 
 " St. James, 
 B Ascension and As- ) 
 sumption. } 
 " Lafourche and Terre- ) 
 bonne. y 
 M Iberville and W. Ba- 
 ton Rouge, 
 " East Baton Rouge. 
 . West Feliciana, 
 
 " East Feliciana. 
 
 St. Helena and Liv- 
 ingston, 
 " Washington and St. 
 
 Tammany, 
 " Point Coupee, 
 u m C o nc ordia and Tensas, 
 " Carroll and 3Iadison, 
 " Catahoula and Frank- \ 
 lin, I 
 " St. Mary and St. Mar- < 
 . tin. < 
 u • Lafayette and Ver- i 
 million, < 
 " St. Landry, 
 " Sabine and Calcasieu, 
 " Avovelles, 
 " Rapides, 
 44 Natchitoches, 
 " Caddo and De Soto. 
 " Claiborne and Bossier, 
 Ouachita and Caldwell; 
 Union and Morehouse. 
 
 _ | 
 
 Total, 32 
 And whenever a new parish shall be ! 
 created, it shall be attached to the senato 
 rial district from which most of it was ta 
 ken, or to another contiguous district, at the 
 discretion of the legislatue, but shall not be ' 
 attached to more than one district. 
 
 Mr. CM, Conrad was not prepared to 
 form a definite opinion as to the merits of 
 the majority or minority reports, but it 
 
 struck him upon the moment, that'it would 
 be better to adopt the principle of lar^e 
 senatorial districts than small senatorial 
 districts. Whether the districts in the re- 
 port of the majority were of the proper size, 
 and of the proper territory, he was unable 
 to determine from merely hearing the re- 
 port read from the secretary's de^k. He 
 was of the opinion, however, in reference 
 to the minority report, that the districts 
 were too small. According to it, the sen- 
 ate would be but a miniaure house of re- 
 presentatives — a double house of represen- 
 tatives, with but one characteristic diffe- 
 rence — greater inequality in representa- 
 tion, 
 
 Mr, Conrad thought that large districts 
 would operate more favorably upon the 
 character for intelligence of the body. It 
 would be impossible fur men with only a 
 little local reputation to be elected. He 
 instanced the great ability of the senate of 
 the United States, probably the ablest bo- 
 dy in the world, arising from the fact of 
 their being selected rrom the States they 
 represented at large. The same result, too, 
 was attained, to a less extent, in the house 
 of representatives at Washington. That 
 body was confessedly superior to the local 
 legislatures, and the cause was obvious. 
 
 Mr. Downs took a different view of the 
 subject. He thought that government the 
 best, where political power was divided 
 into minute portions, and where it was not 
 concentrated in the hands of a few. As 
 for the gentleman's (Mr. Conrad's) argu- 
 ment that large districts would be more fa- 
 vorable co a superiority of intelligence in 
 the body, we have in this convention the 
 refutation of that theory. The members 
 from the senatorial districts were not su- 
 perior in point of intelligence, to those from 
 the representative districts. There was 
 nothing in that argument. The people 
 would send the ablest men among them, 
 whether the districts be -large or small ; 
 and, after all, the senate is a representa- 
 tive body. It represents the people of a 
 political division, and the constituency 
 should be in as close contact with their 
 senator almost as with their members of the 
 house of representatives, It might happen 
 that if the districts were larg~e, one portion 
 of a district would control another portion, 
 and that those districts might be formed of 
 territory that was not contiguous. Mr. V 
 
378 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 instanced the formation of the congressional 
 districts. The third congressional district 
 afforded a striking illustration. There the 
 Florida parishes were put with parishes on 
 the other side of the Mississippi, with 
 whom they had but little intercourse. At 
 first some pretensions to equality might be 
 preserved between the parishes — there 
 might be some compromises at first, but 
 after a while the parish that had the nomi- 
 nal strength, would appropriate the senator 
 to herself exclusively in perpetuity. 
 
 The hour of two having arrived, Mr. 
 Mayo moved that the vote be taken on his 
 motion to strike out from the 3d section of 
 article 3d, the words "fifteen," and insert 
 in lieu thereof the words "ten," and the 
 yeas and nays being called for, resulted as 
 follows: 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Dunn, Gar- 
 rett, Humble, Hyrison, Ledoux, McCallop, 
 McRae, Marigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, 
 Porche, Porter, Preston, Read, Scott of Ba- 
 ton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Ma- 
 dison, Sellers, Soule, Stephens, Trist, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in the af- 
 firmative — 30 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Bur- 
 ton, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferso, Culbert- 
 son, Derbes, Garcia, Grymes, Guion, Ken- 
 ner, Labauve, Legendre, Mazureau, Prud- 
 homme, Pugh, Roman, Roselius s St. Amand, 
 Saunders, Taylor of Assumption, Voorhies, 
 Wodsworth, Wikoff, Winchester and Win- 
 der voted in the negative — 34 nays ; con- 
 sequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Mayo then moved the re-adoption 
 of the said section 3d, viz: 
 
 Sec. 3. "No person shall be eligible to 
 the office of governor or lieutenant govern- 
 or, who shall not have attained the age of 
 thirty-five years, and has not been fifteen 
 years a free white male citizen of the Uni- 
 ted States, and of this State, next preceding 
 his election." 
 
 Which motion prevailed. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow, at 1 1 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Wednesday, March 5, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The proceedings were opened with pray- 
 
 er by the Hon. Mr. Stephens, a member 
 of the Convention, in the absence of a min- 
 ister of the gospel. 
 
 Mr. Saunders then moved that all dis- 
 cussion shall cease, and the vote be taken 
 on the different projects submitted on the 
 apportionment of the State, this day at 2 
 o'clock. He would not press this matter 
 forward, but that he feels sure that all fur- 
 ther discussion will only tend to make it a 
 more vexed question; and in order to avoid 
 all acrimonious feeling, he presses this mo. 
 tion on the attention of the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, trusts that 
 this motion will not prevail. He has but 
 one or two remarks to make, in relation to 
 his desire to lay it on the table for the 
 present. One is, that to-day we shall have 
 before us a motion to re-consider a very 
 important question, which is made the 
 special order of the day, to-wit: Mr. Wads- 
 worth's proposition to re-consider the vote 
 on the federal basis. There is another 
 which is uppermost in the minds of the 
 members, restricting the city; besides that 
 we have two new propositions on the sub- 
 ject of apportionment before us, to consid- 
 er of, as substitutes for the whole section. 
 One of those propositions has been printed 
 and laid on our table; the other one has not 
 yet been brought into the hall, and of 
 course we have had no opportunity to ex- 
 amine it. Now, Mr. President, said Mr. 
 Taylor, it would appear very absurd on 
 our parts if we were to undertake to vote, 
 and perhaps upon a call of yeas and nays, 
 on questions that we have neither read nor 
 discussed. Why, sir, if we do this, we 
 may as well say at once that all delibera- 
 tive assemblies amount to but a farcical 
 operation; and that debating on any ques- 
 tion is an useless matter. 
 
 If the motion prevail, it puts an end to- 
 all discussion; it takes away our character 
 as a deliberative assembly. He therefore 
 hopes it will not prevail. 
 
 He wants to hear something as to the 
 advantages embraced in these projects;- he 
 wants them laid open, and their plans de- 
 veloped; and it might happen in the course 
 of the discussion that he would have a few 
 humble remarks to offer himself, as would 
 doubtless many others, from whose enlight- 
 ened minds he would derive such informa- 
 tion as might enable him to arrive at cor- 
 rect conclusions. Besides, he feels sure 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 379 
 
 that he is not alone in this situation, there 
 are many others who want to be satisfied 
 ere they are called upon to vote. 
 
 Mr. 3Iarigxy said he did not under- 
 stand the way they were going to spring ! 
 this federal basis upon us again. He hopes j 
 the vote will not be taken without giving j 
 to the members the right to discuss it, 
 which they are clearly entitled to do. He ! 
 is willing to give them all a chance, but he 
 is not willing to have a gag law placed 
 upon the members of this Convention. 
 
 Mr. Duxx thought Mr. Saunders, on 
 this occasion, was out of order, a thing 
 very unusual with him. 
 
 Mr. Sauxders said that although he felt 
 convinced he was in order, yet he would 
 not press the motion. He remarked that 
 it was dictated by the best of motives, to 
 put an end to a discussion that could end in 
 no good, as every body's mind, he thought, 
 was made up; but he withdrew it, because 
 he clearly saw that no man could play a card 
 nere, no matter how good, but what it was 
 sure to be truped. He therefore withdrew 
 his motion. 
 
 Mr, Scott, of Raton Rouge: From the 
 diversity of opion which he had found, in 
 conversing with the different delegates, 
 was induced to think that we should first 
 come to some settlement as to the remo- 
 val of the seat of government; and he 
 thought a compromise, satisfactory to all, 
 could be arrived at. With that view he 
 desired to offer a resolution which would 
 reach the case, but 
 
 The President reminded him that the 
 motion to re-consider, made by Mr. Wads- 
 worth, was the first motion before the Con- 
 vention; and that motion being- called up. 
 
 Mr. Claiborxe moved to lay said mo- 
 tion on the table, subject to call. He thinks 
 that, as many projects have been submit- 
 ted to the consideration of the Convention., 
 some of which may, and doubtless do, ap- 
 proximate in some degree to the federal 
 basis, it were better uptake them up first, 
 and see what they were; besides, it would 
 be somewhat uncourteous to call up Mr. 
 Wadsworth's motion, when he was not in 
 his seat. He, therefore, presses his mo- 
 tion, to lay Mr. WadsworuYs motion to 
 re-consider on the table, subject to call. 
 This motion was sustained, when 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption moved a 
 re-consideration of the vote just taken. He 
 
 thinks the Convention is placing itself in a 
 very singular and strange position, for after 
 having settled a very important principle, 
 viz: the federal basis; and having yesterday 
 agreed to take up two important matters for 
 consideration early this morning, they are 
 now laid over, to take up the discussion on 
 other matters, unconnected with either of 
 the questions. He is desirous of doing 
 something, and not being at sea for ever. 
 
 Mr. Claiborxe stated that his motion 
 had been before the Convention, and it was 
 then decided to lay it on the table, subject 
 to call, which call would doubtless be made 
 as soon as 3Ir. Wadsworth found a suita- 
 ble moment, after he took his seat in the 
 Convention; he being absent now, he 
 hoped the motion to re-eonsider would not 
 prevail. 
 
 The motion to re-consider was then put, 
 and lost. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, the next ques- 
 tion taken up by the Convention, was the 
 10th section of the 2d article of the consti- 
 tution; which is as follows: 
 
 Sec. 10. The State shall be divided into 
 eight senatorial districts, each of which 
 shall elect four senators, to be voted for by 
 persons entitled to vote for representativs, 
 as follows: 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the East side of the river Missis- 
 sippi, shall comprise the first district. 
 
 The Parishes of Plaquemines, St. Ber- 
 nard, and the remainder of the parish of 
 Orleans, parish of Jefferson, St. Charles 
 and St. John the Baptist, shall compose 
 the second district. 
 
 The parishes of St. James, Ascension, 
 Assumption, Lafourche Interior and Terre- 
 bonne, shall compose the the third district. 
 
 The parishes of Iberville, West Baton 
 Rouge, East Baton Rouge, Pointe Coupee 
 and Avoyelles, shall compose the fourth 
 district. 
 
 The parishes of West Feliciana, East 
 Feliciana, Washington, St. Tammany, St. 
 Helena and Livingston, shall compose the 
 fifth district. 
 
 The parishes of Concordia, Carroll, 
 Madison, Ouachita, Union, Franklin, Ten- 
 sas, Morehouse, Catahoula and Caldwell, 
 snail compose the sixth district. 
 
 The parishes of Rapides, Natchitoches, 
 Caddo, Calcassieu. Claiborne, Sabine, Bos- 
 
380 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 sier and De Soto, shall compose tho sev- 
 enth district. 
 
 The parishes of St. Mary, St. Martin, 
 St. Landry, Lafayette and Vermillion, shall 
 compose the eighth district. 
 
 Provided, that the legislature shall have 
 the power, in any year in which they shalj 
 apportion representation in the house of 
 representatives, to divide any one or more 
 of said senatorial districts, each to be enti- 
 tled to elect two senators . 
 
 Mr. Conrad desired to make two or 
 three remarks — not particularly in reply to 
 any remarks which Mr. Downs had made, 
 but more especially to explain some re- 
 marks' which he had himself made yester- 
 day, and he took this opportunity to do so. 
 Mr. Downs is mistaken when he thinks 
 that he (Mr. Conrad) would or could af- 
 firm, that you could not find proper men 
 in small districts, fit to represent the State 
 in the senate. What he said was this, that 
 such men were not likely to be selected, 
 because in almost every section of the State 
 there are large family interests which would 
 operate prejudicially to the claims of men 
 of talent, if the districts were made suffi- 
 ciently small for them to bring family in- 
 fluence to bear, and that therefore we 
 might possibly get an inferior man elected 
 on account of such influence. That was 
 his remark, neither more nor less. The 
 member from Ouachita objects to the re- 
 duction of the number, because when the 
 senatorial district was composed of a large 
 number of parishes, there would necessa- 
 rily be many vrho never would have the 
 senator from their parish. But he seems 
 to have forgotten, that under his own ar- 
 rangement, that difficulty is provided for; 
 for every parish is now to have a repre-. 
 sentative in the lower house, to attend to 
 their local wants. It appears to him, 
 therefore, that is sufficient to satisfy the 
 different parishes, without letting each 
 of them have a direct voice in the senate. 
 A State senate is not regarded as the place 
 where local matters are presented ; that is 
 properly pertaining to the lower house, 
 while the senate has wisely been created 
 to keep a check on improvident or hasty 
 legislation in local matters; acting more 
 for the general than for special interests-. 
 The great aim of modern republics in crea- 
 ting such a body, seems to have been ac- 
 complished, in making them answer as 
 
 such check. There is amongst them, less 
 feeling and passion, than is to be expected 
 where representatives are contending for 
 local benefits. And therefore the less in- 
 terests they have in common,the more they 
 serve as a check upon eaeh other. Mow 
 suppose two men are elected, one to the 
 legislature, the other to the senate, from 
 the same parish, or from adjoining parishes, 
 whose feelings and prejudices are identi- 
 cal, it is natural to suppose they have an 
 identity of feeling on all questions that 
 come up for consideration. In such a case, 
 the aim of making the one body a check 
 upon the other, is not accomplished; while 
 on the other hand, it would be, if the sena- 
 tor were elected from a different neighbor- 
 hood. He has repeatedly declared, that he 
 did not advocate this report He does not 
 approve of eight senatorial districts, any 
 more than he would of thirty. In the one 
 case they would be too large, and in the 
 other too small — he thinks a middle course 
 decidedly preferable. As the matter now 
 stands, we know there is great dispropor- 
 tion; for instance, St. Charles and St. John 
 the Baptist, form one district; and Con- 
 cordia forms another, Point Coupee anoth- 
 er ; these are altogether disproportioned, 
 taking into view the present situation and 
 size of the State. 
 
 He would prefer some person who is 
 more acquainted with the localities of the 
 different parishes — their population, and 
 the several interests in each portion of the 
 country, than he if, would take this sub- 
 ject in hand, and propose some plan by 
 which we should stear clear of the two 
 extremes— for it has ever been allowed 
 to be one of the wisest sayings, "in medio 
 tutissimus ibis." 
 
 After Mr. Conrad had concluded his re- 
 marks, the Convention took up the 
 
 Order of the Day — which was, 
 
 Section 6th of the report of the special 
 committee as amended, viz: 
 
 "Each parish shall be entitled to repre- 
 sentation in proportion to the number of 
 qualified electors in it; Provided, that no 
 parish or city shall ever be entitled to more 
 than one-fifth of the whole number of rep- 
 resentatives." 
 
 The secretary then read the projects of 
 Messrs. Downs, Saunders and Benjamin, 
 The first was furnished in the report of the 
 3d instant, and the second in that of the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 381 
 
 4th ins t. The one offered by Mr. Benja- 
 min, is as follows: 
 
 Sec. 1. Representation shall be equal 
 and uniform in this State, and each parish 
 shall be entitled to representation according 
 to the total number of its population. 
 
 Sec. 2, In the year 1846, and every 
 tenth year thereafter, a census shall be 
 made of the total population of the State, 
 in such maimer as shall be prescribed by 
 law. 
 
 Sec. S. At the first regular session of 
 the legislature, after the making of each 
 census, the legislature shall apportion the 
 representation amongst the several parish- 1 
 es on the basis of the whole population, in 
 the manner following, viz: Some number J 
 shall be chosen as a representative hum- j 
 ber, which, when applied in making the 
 apportionment, shall give a number of re- | 
 presentatives not less than seventy, nor 
 more than one hundred: the number so : 
 chosen shall be taken as a divisor, and | 
 each parish shall be entitled to one repre- 
 sentative for every time .that the divisor 
 shall be contained in the dividend formed 
 of its .total population, and to one addition- 
 al number from every fraction exceeding 
 the one-half of the divisor; and any parish 
 having a total population less than the 
 whole divisor, but exceeding one half of it, 
 shall be entitled to one representative; and 
 the legislature shall be incompetent to act 
 on any subject matter till the apportionment 
 herein directed shall have been made. 
 
 Sec. 4. The first representation under 
 this constitution, (ascertained as near as 
 may be in accordance with the above prin- 
 ciple, by assuming 4500 as a representative 
 number,) shall continue until the first ap- 
 portionment shall be made by the legisla- 
 ture, and shall be as follows, viz: 
 
 First Municipality, 9 
 Second " 8 
 Third « 5 
 West Bank, 1 
 The parish of Plaquemines, 1 
 St. Bernard, 1 
 J efferson, 2 
 St. Charles, 1 
 St. John the Baptist, 1 
 " St. James, 2 
 4< Ascension, 2 
 " Assumption, 2 
 Lafourche Interior, 2 
 " Terrebonne, % 
 49 
 
 The Parish of Iberville 
 
 2 
 
 West Baton Rouge. 1 
 
 East, do 2 
 
 West Feliciana, 2 
 
 East, do 2 
 
 St. Helena, 1 
 
 Livingston, 1 
 
 Washington, 1 
 
 St. Tammany, 1 
 
 Point Coupee, • 1 
 
 Concordia, 1 
 
 ►Tensas, 1 
 
 Madison, 1 
 
 Carroll, 1 
 
 Franklin, 1 
 
 St. Mary, 2 
 
 St. Martin, 2 
 
 Vermillion, 1 
 
 Lafayette, 1 
 
 St. Landry, 4 
 
 Calcasieu, 1 
 
 Avoyelles, 1 
 
 Rapides, y 3 
 
 Natchitoches, 3 
 
 Sabine, 1 
 
 Caddo, 1 
 
 De Soto, l 
 
 Ouachita, l 
 
 Morehouse, i 
 
 I nion, l 
 
 Jackson, 1 
 
 Caldwell, 1 
 
 Catahoula, I 
 
 Claiborne, I 
 
 Bossier, 1 
 
 Total, 86 
 
 Mr. O'Bryax thought the first motion in 
 order was that of Mr. Mayo, to strike out 
 one-fifth, and insert one-sixth; but Mr. 
 Mayo, during the absence of Mr. Downs, 
 when he wished to be heard on this ques- 
 tion, withdrew his motion, and moved that 
 the next in order be taken up, which was- 
 that of Mr, Saunders. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor is of opinion, that if 
 taken up in the manner proposed, that they 
 should all go together. 
 
 Mr. Mayo pressed the consideration of 
 Mr. Saunder's project. 
 
 Mr. Marigxy differed with the gentle- 
 man from Ouachita. He thinks Mr. Ben- 
 jamin's proposal is clearly the one first in 
 order. He offered it as a compromise of 
 this vexed question, and the house agreed 
 to consider it first as such, 
 
382 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Mr. Mayo, desirous of beginning some- 
 where, agreed that Mr. Benjamin's plan 
 should be first called up, and so moved. 
 
 Mr. Downs, however, thought it would 
 be better to take up the report, and then 
 adopt one or the other of the proposed sub- 
 stitutes. 
 
 The question was put on Mr. Mayo's 
 motion and carried. The compromise 
 substitute, offered by Mr. Benjamyi, was 
 hen before the* Convention. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan then moved to lay that 
 substitute on the table indefinifely. 
 
 Mr. Downs rose to explain his views 
 in seconding the motion of Mr. O'Bryan, 
 to lay the substitute of Mr. Benjamin on 
 the * table. He does not do so with the 
 view of rejecting it on slight grounds. 
 This is offered as a compromise, he, (Mr. 
 D.,) wants a compromise; and he is satis- 
 fied that the question cannot be settled 
 otherwise. He now thinks that a compro- 
 mise can be made in this matter; and it is 
 with that feeling he approaches the subject. 
 He wants a compromise that will be satis- 
 factory, both to the city and to the country. 
 He thought the proposition of the last com- 
 mittee, limiting New Orleans to one-fifth, 
 would have met the general approbation of 
 all sides of the house; but like all other 
 projects, it seems to be not satisfactory. 
 It is very hard to satisfy either party at 
 first; both sides have objections to any 
 measure of compromise, when first pre- 
 sented; and it is very natural they should 
 have; for man is too prone to think himself 
 infallible, as well in the city as in the coun- 
 try; but when they come cooly and calmly 
 to reflect on any measure, their previously 
 expressed opinions gradually yield to the 
 force of truth and reason. He, Mr. Downs, 
 does not expect any project, based on a 
 compromise, to be taken at once; it is con- 
 trary to our nature to receive at first, that 
 which is opposed to our pre-conceived 
 opinions. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin, with that spirit of truth 
 and candor for which he is justly distin- 
 guished, has come into our midst in the 
 spirit of conciliation and harmony; has 
 made a suggestion which will lead to good 
 results; he is endeavoring to throw oil on 
 the troubled waters, it would seem, and if 
 any good should result from his offer, 
 (which, he, Mr. Downs, trusts there will,) 
 to him alone, should belong the honor and 
 
 the credit of the final settlement of this 
 difficult question. I allude to the admis- 
 sion in his speech that it would be just and 
 fair to reduce New Orleans one-fifth 
 not to his project, so called, which is no 
 compromise at all. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin has admitted that a ne- 
 cessity does exist for restricting the pow- 
 ers of the city; and he has explained it to 
 you in so clear and concise a manner, that 
 I am willing to take what he has said for 
 granted, without amendment. He claims 
 a fair and full representation for her, in the 
 first place, under any basis which may be 
 established, (and we have established the 
 electoral basis;) although he, Mr. Downs, 
 is willing to take that or the federal basis, 
 and then deduct one-fifth from representa- 
 tion, to be divided amongst the country 
 parishes, to counter-balance the influence 
 which a concentrated vote would have. 
 He, Mr. Benjamin, went further; he said 
 that after duly weighing the matter, he was 
 compelled to say that it was nothing bufc 
 justice, that each parish should have one 
 representative at least. He found that the 
 new parishes were no smaller than the old 
 parishes; and that they had as large a pop- 
 ulation. In all this he has acted in a frank 
 and manly way, and come to the position 
 first opened by me. Indeed it is clear, that 
 where all are placed on an equality; on the 
 same platform, where the same feelings and - 
 interests are identified, (as they are, New 
 Orleans excepted,) between every parish 
 of this State; that no .distinction should be 
 made. He, Mr. Downs, wants no advan- 
 tage taken of the admissions of Mr. Benja- 
 min; so far from injuring the cause which 
 he has been upholding, he, (Mr. B.,) has 
 strengthened it; and by giving up his un- 
 tenable points, he has strengthened all the 
 others. He feels certain that Mr. Benja- 
 min has thereby acted for the best interests 
 of his constituents; and that his course 
 shows him to be a good logician, a man of 
 sense; and thereby has only exemplified an 
 old saying, that "one good reason is better 
 than five hundred bad ones." No man 
 comes here to fight for power; all we de- 
 sire is right and justice, and if we could get 
 more it would be impolitic, for "truth is 
 mighty, and will prevail." Andlamfree 
 to confess, that I have become convinced, 
 from the arguments of Mr. Benjamin, that 
 we from the country are likely to be met 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 353 
 
 in a better and more conciliating spirit. ' around the city, and keep out the product: 
 
 by the city, than was at first evinced- 
 something is now conceded — we have now 
 made some progress, and I think we shall 
 and may agree. 
 
 But there is one element of power in 
 
 and people of the country — then see where 
 they will be. and how many professional 
 men, or auctioneers, will have any thing to 
 pay into the treasury. It cannot be said 
 to be paid by the country altogether or by 
 which they have greatly the advantage of the city altogether : but when they say, as 
 
 us. which has not yet. I believe, been ad- 
 verted to — and to that I desire, said Mr. 
 Downs, to call the attention of the Conven- 
 tion- — and that is. the press of the city, 
 which have always united in favor of 
 the city. That is. and always has been, a 
 powerful lever. Just look at them for the 
 last week. There are only two demo- 
 cratic papers in the city, and being a demo- 
 crat myself, I naturally looked first into 
 them. In the first one, I found, to my sur- 
 prise, that they were opposed to the inter- 
 ests of the country. Well, thought I, that 
 is surprising : and so I turned to the other, 
 and I found that one more strongly in favor 
 of the city and opposed to the country in- 
 terests than the first one. Xow, suppose 
 we have the legislature established here; 
 with the influence of the press, com- 
 bined with the legislative power they ask, 
 the country will truly be swallowed up 
 by the overshadowing influence and power 
 of the city: and that is one of the strongest 
 reasons why she ought to be restricted. 
 
 True, we have country presses, and they 
 are bold and fearless in the cause of the 
 country and the people's rights ; but then 
 their voice cannot be heard, ere it will be 
 too late to check any pernicious scheme that 
 may be proposed. When the principle of 
 restriction is admitted generally, as it is by 
 Mr. Benjamin, it will only then remain for 
 us to determine the extent of it. Mr. Ben- 
 jamin thinks that after having ascertained 
 
 they do, that the city can get along without 
 the country, it reminds him of a story he 
 once heard, of two yankee boys, who shut 
 themselves up in a close room and swap- 
 ped jackets all day. until they had made five 
 dollars a piece. So it would be with the 
 merchants and traders of Xew Orleans, if 
 you cut them off from the trade of the coun- 
 try — they would have to go to swapping 
 their goods with one another for a living. 
 The tax, then, is paid by the whole people, 
 by the merchants, mechanics, farmers and 
 planters — the latter's proportion in the pro- 
 fits made out of them by the former. 
 
 The supposition of Mr. Benjamin is in- 
 correct in another point of view. He seems 
 to think that Xew Orleans contains one 
 half of the white population in the State — 
 but he (Mr. Downs,) does not think it is 
 even one third ; and therefore, although he 
 is willing to agree with Mr. Benjamin in 
 his first proposition, he declines agreeing 
 to the last premises which he has advanced 
 — he thinks they are erroneous. 
 
 The question then proposed by Mr. Ben- 
 jamin is, to give Xew Orleans her proper 
 apportionment; (less one -fifth for her con- 
 centration,) that would be fair. I will, so 
 far as I am concerned, accept the proposi- 
 tion. It did not, perhaps, occur to the g-en- 
 tleman that to reduce New Orleans one- 
 fiftJi, and to limit her to one-fifth of the 
 whole representation of the State, amounts 
 to very nearly the same thing. This at 
 
 the precise amount which the city is entitled j first appears a paradox, but it is not so. 
 
 to, on any basis that maybe agreed upon, that 
 a deduction of one-fifth is reasonable, and 
 those country members with whom he (Mr. 
 Downs,) has had an opportunity to con- 
 verse with, seem to think favorably of the 
 proposition! But at the same time he (Mr 
 
 There are six basis of representation em- 
 braced in this tabular statement of the sub- 
 committee, which has been printed and is 
 in the hands of all the members: 
 
 First is on white population with the re- 
 presentation number.or as Mr. Beatty prefers 
 
 D.) feels bound to say, that Mr. Benjamin's > to call it, a divisor of 1746, which gives 
 
 supposition that Xew Orleans would be en- 
 titled t o one half of the representation, less 
 one-fifth, is quite erroneous ; and about as 
 much so as the argument he advanced as 
 to the tax on professions and auction sales, 
 being paid exclusively by the city. Just 
 let them construct another Chinese wall 
 
 New Orleans thirty-four members. 
 
 Second is on federal population, with a 
 divisor (see how I follow a good example,) 
 of 3, 222, which gives Xew Orleans twenty- 
 nine members. 
 
 Third is on the basis of voters, with a 
 divisor of 490, I suppose, calculated on the 
 
384 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 voters of 1844; for this is not stated in the 
 table, which gives New Orleans eleven 
 members instead of forty-seven, as errone- 
 ously stated in the table. 
 
 Fourth is on the basis of the white popu- 
 lation, with a divisor of 3,676, which gives 
 New Orleans twenty-eight members. 
 
 Fifth is on the basis of 1844, with a di- 
 visor of 276, which gives New Orleans 
 twenty members. 
 
 And sixth on federal numbers in the tax 
 roll of 1843, and a divisor of 3,636, which 
 gives New Orleans twenty-three members. 
 
 Now taking one-fifth off of each of these 
 numbers for New Orleans and not calcula- 
 ting fractions, but taking the nearest full 
 number above or below to simplify the cal- 
 culation, and New Orleans would have by 
 number one, thirty-four members, less 
 6 80-100, equal to twenty-seven members. 
 By number two, she would have twenty- 
 nine, less six, equal to twenty-three mem- 
 bers. By number three, she would have 
 eleven, less two, equal to nine members. 
 By number four, she would have twenty- 
 eight, less six, equal to twenty-two mem- 
 bers. By number five, she would have 
 twenty, less four, equal to sixteen members. 
 By number six, she would have twenty- 
 three, less rive, equal to eighteen members. 
 
 The average for the whole six would be, 
 for New Orleans nineteen members; for 
 four of them, leaving out the extreme num- 
 bers of two or three, the average would be 
 19 75-100 members, say twenty members 
 for New Orleans, about one -fifth of a num- 
 ber of representation, varying from eighty 
 to one hundred, and as near as may be to 
 one-fifth of the number suggested in the 
 substitute offered yesterday. 
 
 How would this work in the future? fa- 
 vorably to New Orleans certainly, but not 
 so favorably as to make it dangerous. 
 Probably at the next apportionment, espe- 
 cially if not made for four or five years, a 
 divisor on voters basis would be taken off, 
 perhaps not less than five hundred. This 
 applied to New Orleans with a vote of fif- 
 teen thousand— and I do not think it will 
 exceed that for many years, considering 
 how much the residence of two years for 
 citizens of other States and naturalized citi- 
 zens will curtail her- — would give her thirty 
 members, less six, equal to twenty-four, 
 which would be one-fourth of one hundred; 
 and by increasing the divisor, say to six 
 
 hundred, this could be reduced to twenty 
 five, less five; just twenty, equal to one-fifth 
 of a hundred, and this by fixing the divisor 
 at a proper point, the proportion might be 
 so regulated as to have a reduction of one- 
 fifth on her full number, just equal to one- 
 fifth of the whole representation of the 
 State. But to prevent this enlargement of 
 the divisor from disfranchising small par- 
 ishes, the principle ought to be adopted, 
 that each parish ought to have one repre^ 
 sentative. 
 
 The calculations I have made here, it 
 must be admitted, are not mine. They 
 were suggested by an examination into the 
 project of Mr. Benjamin. You admit two 
 principles, 
 
 1st, that the city ought to be restricted 
 one fifth of the proportion of representation* 
 and 
 
 2d, that each parish shall have at least 
 one representative. 
 
 One fifth taken from the political power 
 ol the city, I think, Mr. President, will be 
 satisfactory to every portion of the State. 
 He, (Mr. Downs,) found no fault with the 
 city members for their course in this mat- 
 ter. On the contrary, he is pleased to see 
 them stick up to their duty in the protection 
 of their local interests. By this compro- 
 mise you get one fifth of the representation, 
 on a population of 100,000. You have in 
 addition every other advantage, for it is 
 well known and admitted that the influence 
 of cities over the country is enormous. It 
 is a well known and admitted fact, that Pa- 
 ris governs France; London, England; and 
 in ancient days, Rome was considered not 
 only mistress of Italy, but of the world. 
 
 So it may be with New Orleans. Her 
 advantages are immense. Her commerce, 
 her manufacturing interests, her increas- 
 ing population, and the march she is ma- 
 king in spreading throughout the country 
 the fine arts ; by the concentration of tal- 
 ent constantly to be found in her city, is but 
 the dawn of a bright futurity for her. Look 
 at New Orleans as she was forty-years ago, 
 and then look at her now. She was then, 
 truly, compared with the present moment, 
 as a molehill to a mountain. This has 
 been produced by her peculiar geographical 
 position, and by the industry of her citizens, 
 aided by the power of steam ; and truly she 
 has increased as if by magic power. Well, 
 if she has increased in the last forty years 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 385 
 
 as we know she has, what may we not look 
 forward^ for the future. She can now 
 place one foot on the Allegheny or Rocky 
 mountains, and the other on the isthmus of 
 Darien ; for she commands the trade of 
 the whole valley of the Mississippi and its 
 tributary streams on the one hand, and the 
 full trade of the Gulf of Mexico on the other; 
 and should the commercial world, (for they 
 alone can or will do it,) connect the At- 
 lantic and Pacific oceans by a canal from 
 Chagres to Panama, there will be no end 
 to her prosperous course. God speed her. 
 say I, (said Mr. Downs,) in her forward 
 course, if you but deprive her of the power 
 plitically, to unjustly deprive the balance of 
 the State of their just rights. 
 
 Mr. Taylor then addressed the Conven- 
 tion at considerable length, in reply to Mr. 
 Downs, to which he briefly rejoined, and 
 
 Mr. Dums then moved to pdjourn, but 
 before the adjournment, Mr. Trist was on 
 motion of Mr. Kenner, excused for his non- 
 attendance, on account of sickness. 
 
 The Convention then adjourned till 11 
 o'clock to-morrow morning. 
 
 Thursday, March 6, 1S45. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Prestox opened the pro- 
 ceedings with praver. 
 
 . ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 The project submitted by Mr. Bexjaaiix 
 for the apportionment of representation. 
 
 The question pending was on the motion 
 of Mr. O "Bryan, to lay said project indefi- 
 nitely on the table. 
 
 Mr. Duxx said he hoped the motion of 
 the gentleman from Lafayette (Mr. O'Bry- 
 an) would not prevail. Under present cir- 
 cumstances he thought it ought not to pre- 
 vail. This subject had been for some time 
 under consideration. It involved a most 
 vital question in government, . and one 
 which in its settlement was invariably at- 
 tended with great and innumerable difficul- 
 ties, "The inequality in representation was 
 one of the principal causes for the call of 
 this Convention. Mr. Dunn alluded to the 
 restricted voice which was allowed to the 
 Florida parishes in the legislation of the 
 States. It was manifestly disproportionate 
 not only in reference to the population, but 
 to the wealth and intelligence of that por- 
 tion of the country. It may well happen 
 
 that we may not concur in the details of 
 this proposition. But it is offered as a com- 
 promise, and as such it ought to be sustain- 
 ed; it ought to be calmly and dispassionate- 
 ly considered, and patiently discussed. 
 
 I know, said Mr. Dunn, that an opinion 
 prevails in the city, that there is a preju- 
 dice entertained against her in the country, 
 I think that impression has no foundation. 
 I disclaim it for my constituents and myself. 
 I entertain no prejudice against any por' 
 tion of the State. There is no such feeling 
 in my bosom. I entertain, it is true, a set- 
 tled conviction that the country should re- 
 tain the preponderance of power, because I 
 conceive it is essential to the safety and 
 perpetuity of the institutions of the State — 
 that it is called for by the peculiar position 
 of the country; and is, in' a word, as neces- 
 sary for the protection of the interests of the 
 city as for those of the country. I may, 
 perhaps, in view of the exigencies of the 
 case, insist upon more than the delegates 
 from the city are willing to accord, but if 
 we differ, and a difference of opinion here 
 is quite natural, we honestly differ. My 
 colleagues from the country and myself are 
 actuated in this particular, at least, I am 
 sure, by the purest motives, and I am ready 
 to concede similar motives to the city dele- 
 gation. The love of power is inherent in 
 the bosom of every man, and there will al- 
 ways be a struggle for its possession. This 
 subject is one within the peculiar domain 
 of compromise, and in the spirit of compro- 
 mise I am ready to adjust it on fair and rea- 
 sonable grounds. Some members on both 
 sides appear disposed to assume extreme 
 grounds, and then contend that they will 
 not compromise because principle is in- 
 volved, and principles ought not to be com- 
 promised. This is a fallacious doctrine, 
 and if it were acted on by each member of 
 this body the formation of a constitution 
 would be a work of impossibility. Are 
 gentlemen so wedded to their peculiar no- 
 tions as to think that a difference of opinion 
 cannot, by any possibility, be justified? If 
 this be indeed their- conviction, then argu- 
 ment and reason are superfluous. 
 
 I think that the federal basis is appropri- 
 ate to our condition. It is suited to our 
 mixed population — to the agricultural pur- 
 suits of the country, where the operative 
 population are slaves; and to the elements 
 forming our great commercial metropolis. 
 
886 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 where white operatives, to a considerable 
 extent, are destined to supersede slave ope- 
 ratives. By whom are the countless bales 
 of cotton — the innumerable hogsheads of 
 sugar that encumber your levees, and which 
 add to the wealth of the city, produced? Is 
 it not by our slaves in the country; and 
 whether you classify them as property or 
 as persons, are not their proprietors enti- 
 tled to some representation for their protec- 
 tion, and the protection of that labor? Most 
 assuredly. There is nothing unreasonable 
 in the demand., nor can it be said that to 
 grant it involves a sacrifice of principle. 
 
 Mr. Dunn avowed himself ready to con- 
 cede all that could be conceded, to settle 
 this question to the mutual satisfaction of 
 all. He did not desire to deprive the city 
 of her just and proper proportion of power. 
 He wished that to be distinctly understood, 
 but at the same time he could not consent 
 that the country should yield up one tittle, 
 one jot, of what was really her proportion 
 of political power. If the question was pro- 
 posed to be compromised, so that the coun- 
 try should have the necessary guarantees 
 for safety, he was ready to accede to that 
 proposition. In relation to the smaller par- 
 ishes, Mr. Dunn avowed himself favorable 
 to their retaining a separate representative, 
 but to enable • them to do so, some rule 
 should be adopted which would not neces- 
 sitate the relinquishment of any portion of 
 the representation accruing to the larger 
 parishes, from whatever basis should final- 
 ly be adopted by the Convention. To his 
 conception, the representatives of the larger 
 parishes had no authority to consent to give 
 up any portion of their political power, in 
 order that it should be transferred to a par- 
 ish deficient in population. For his part, 
 he could not, nor would not, assent to it, on 
 behalf of his constituents. If this difficulty 
 could be obviated, and it might be readily 
 obviated, by placing the representation 
 number sufficiently low to admit of the sep- 
 arate representation of the smallest par- 
 ishes, he would give such a plan his assent. 
 At the same time it would be proper not to 
 enlarge the total number of representatives 
 beyond reasonable bounds — although some 
 increase might well be made to accommo- 
 date the smaller parishes, from the pecu- 
 liar exigencies of the case, as well as from 
 the fact that the legislature was to meet 
 only biennially, and by the abridgement of 
 
 the sessions, the expenses would be thereby 
 considerably lessened from whaflkey have 
 heretofore been, even although the number 
 of members should be augmented. 
 
 Mr. Dunn trusted that all selfish and sec- 
 tional feelings would be discarded ; that the 
 members of this body would meet this ques- 
 tion in a spirit of mutual compromise, and 
 that, like a band of brothers, they would 
 settle it without asking or making improper 
 sacrifices. He would not participate in a 
 victory obtained over the just and equitable 
 rights of any section. Such a triumph 
 would be evanescent. It would be of short 
 duration — it would be a victory of which 
 the majority should not be proud. There 
 would be a reaction, and the torrent of pop- 
 ular opinion would destroy the work that 
 had been done. It was better to deliberate 
 a month longer than to take a forced vote. 
 It was not only necessary that we were 
 convinced ourselves that we were right, 
 but Ave should also use every effort to con- 
 vince those who differed in opinion with us 
 that they were wrong, and give them a full 
 opportunity of convincing us that we were 
 really about perpetrating the gross and 
 glaring injustice of which they so vehement- 
 ly complained. The union of the States 
 was the work of compromise. It is of the 
 very essence of popular governments that 
 there needs must be compromises. We 
 were forming a constitution for ages — for 
 posterity — not a mere legislative act that 
 could be instantly undone if it did not an- 
 swer public expectation. Without com- 
 promises this great and glorious nation 
 would never have gathered the profits of its 
 revolutionary struggle. It would have re- 
 lapsed into its past state of colonial vassal- 
 age, or the States might, perhaps, have 
 maintained a precarious and uncertain ex- 
 istence as rival petty sovereignties, exposed 
 to perpetual struggles with one another 
 and to internal commotions. 
 
 We have a striking example, said Mr. 
 Dunn, on a recent occasion of our national 
 history, how effectual was the spirit of 
 compromise to preserve the union from in- 
 ternal strife, and to avert a terrible calamity. 
 One of the confederated States of this Union 
 conceiving that her interests were sacrificed 
 by the majority, proceeded to the very ut- 
 most verge in resisting the authority of the 
 federal government — declaring* that the par- 
 ticular law against which she complained, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 387 
 
 should not be executed within her borders. 
 Everv one felt that a fatal -crisis was at 
 hand,' and that the durability of our institu- 
 tions were put to the severest test they had 
 ever encountered. Dismay and apprehen- 
 sion pervaded every bosom as to what 
 would be the result upon our institutions 
 of this unfortunate collision, which seemed 
 to be so inevitable, when the great states, 
 man of the west, bade the troubled ele- 
 ments of the commotion to be calm, and in 
 the spirit of compromise offered the olive 
 branch of peace. His interposition was 
 effectual — the lowering clouds disappeared 
 from the horizon — the integrity of the union 
 was maintained, and not one drop of Amer- 
 ican blood was spilt ! This was the happy 
 result of compromise. Let us then cherish 
 that policy, and by respecting the rights of 
 all, endeavor in the spirit of mutual conces- 
 sion, so to accommodate and to reconcile 
 these rights as to preclude every cause for 
 contention and jealousy between the vari- 
 ous sections of the State. 
 
 I hope, Mr. President, that this project 
 will not be laid upon the table, but that it 
 will be taken -into consideration, examined 
 dispassionately and calmly, according to 
 its merits, and in the spirit which has been 
 avowed by its mover. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said, that one of the most 
 difficult subjects to be adjusted in a repub- 
 lican government was this very question of 
 apportionment. Each fractional division 
 of the community was anxious to partici- 
 pate in the distribution of political power, 
 and was fearful that its neighbor should 
 possess too much power. It was one of 
 those questions where each one might well 
 enough be distrustful of his own judgment. 
 How can any one expect that he can in- 
 duce those who differed with him to change 
 their opinions, when he begins by telling 
 them that he is impractically wedded to his 
 own — and that whatever may be their ar- 
 guments, he will not change "that opinion. 
 This question, 1 am sorry to see, has been 
 discussed in such a spirit of intolerance as 
 to have caused much warmth of feeling, 
 and to have provoked personalities that 
 ought to have been avoided. Hence I have 
 consulted our past history, with*the view 
 of ascertaining if there were no examples 
 which would induce us to meet on some 
 middle ground — some ground of com- 
 promise. 
 
 I One of my brother delegates (Mr. Rose- 
 lius,) has told us that he will never consent 
 to a compromise of principle, and so per- 
 i suaded is he that he is right in that doc- 
 j trine, that I have no hopes of inducing him 
 | to yield his support to my proposition, 
 j I think he is wrong, and 1 regret his deter- 
 1 mination. With similar resolutions, it 
 may be said to be impossible to form a 
 ' constitution. We have the knowledge 
 that there were great divergences of opin- 
 ion in the federal convention — and it is a 
 notorious fact, that the constitution never 
 would have been formed had there not been 
 mutual concessions on the part of its illus- 
 trious framers. If a similar spirit had not 
 pervaded the Virginia convention, to which 
 reference has so frequently been had, and 
 in which some of the same distinguished 
 men participated, the constitution of that 
 State would never have been formed. 
 
 Whoever, said Mr. Benjamin, has watch- 
 ed the progress of this debate, will admit 
 that the pervading spirit of the majority, is 
 to restrict the city of New Orleans, and to 
 deprive her of a just portion of her repre- 
 sentation, on the plea that it would be dan- 
 gerous to the country, were justice meted 
 out to her upon the principles and in con- 
 formity with an equal and uniform repre- 
 sentation. It appears that the delegation 
 from the city must make concessions to 
 these fears, or withdraw from the Conven- 
 tion. There is no other alternatve. I am 
 as anxious as my colleagues can be to in- 
 sist upon the just proportion of power be- 
 longing to the city, but as I am met by the 
 determined and impracticable resistance of 
 the majority of this body, I am willing to 
 make some concessions, provided the coun- 
 try is disposed to meet us in something 
 like a similar spirit — and will not expect 
 the city to make all the sacrifices. 
 
 I freely admit that I do not desire to see 
 the* preponderance of power in the city ; and 
 I think that the arguments adduced by the 
 country members on that point, have re- 
 mained unanswered. They have told us 
 that the principle of uniformity and equality, 
 however good and rational in itself, cannot 
 be maintained under the peculiar circum- 
 stances in which the city and State stand 
 towards each other. That the city has a 
 concentrated and compact population, while 
 the country is comparatively but sparsely 
 peopled, and abounds, from its agricultural 
 
3S8 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 pursuits, in a particular class of* working 
 population that are less numerous in the 
 city than in the country, and which may 
 finally be confined to the country. They 
 insist that even if there were any thing like 
 equality between the city and the country 
 in their representation, the latter would 
 virtually be the possessor of the balance of 
 power, inasmuch as the colmtry is divided 
 and subdivided into parishes, between whom 
 there is a conflict of interest, and some 
 local prejudices ; and that the city, acting 
 as a unit, would have a decided advantage 
 in controlling the destinies of the State. 
 Here again I am under the necessity of 
 admitting, however I may differ from my 
 colleagues from the city, that these argu- 
 ments have not been satisfactorily contro- 
 verted by us. We must endeavor so to ap- 
 portion the representation, as to preserve a 
 just balance between the town and country. 
 
 I am satisfied that my constituents will 
 approve any arrangement of this difficult 
 question that may be made upon a basis of 
 reciprocity, which will not exact all the 
 concession on their part, but which will, in 
 a spirit of compromise, be met with con- 
 cessions on the part of the country. 
 
 The proposition which I had the honor 
 to submit, and which is now before the 
 Convention, for its decision, has this strik- 
 ing advantage, that it is based on equality 
 and uniformity, and that principle is strictly 
 adhered to— "-the only point of concession 
 on the part of the city is in this, that the 
 apportionment under it is not as favorable 
 to the city as to the country. But there is 
 no exception in it. It is not like the pro- 
 position of the^gentleman from Ouachita, 
 (Mr. Downs,) which acknowledges the prin- 
 ciple of equality and uniformity, and then 
 sacrifices that principle to an odious ex- 
 ception against the city. The effect of 
 either may be the same, but my proposi- 
 tion avoids a special restriction upon the 
 city. That restriction would produce ill 
 feelings and would never be acquiesced in, 
 because it is based on a revolting exclusion 
 of a particular section. It would wound 
 and rankle the feelings of the people of the 
 city. # By my compromise there is a mutu- 
 al concession, and by natural causes the ef- 
 fect favors the country. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin concluded by hoping that 
 his proposition would receive a favorable 
 hearing, both from the members from the 
 
 country as well as from his colleagues from 
 the city. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, moved that 
 the taking of the vote on the motion of Mr 
 O' Bryan to lay indefinitely on the table 
 the project of Mr. Benjamin, be postponed 
 until to-morrow at 2 o^clockp. m.; and the 
 yeas and nays being called for, resulted as 
 follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Brent, Briant, Carriere,Chinn, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Derbes, Dunn, Garrett, Grymes, 
 Hynson, Legendre, Leonard, McCallop, 
 McRae, Marigny, Mazureau, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, 
 Read, Roman, Roselius, St. Airland, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, §cott of Feliciana, Sellers, 
 Soule, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Wederstrandt, and Wikoff — 38 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Burton, Chambliss, 
 Covillion, Humble, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, 
 Porche, Porter, Scott of Madison, Waddill 
 and Wads worth — 13 nays; consequently 
 said motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, then called 
 up the following section, submitted by Mr. 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, viz: 
 
 Sec. — The seat of government shall 
 from and after the year be per- 
 
 manently located out of the city of New 
 Orleans, and not within a distance of 
 miles from the said city. 
 
 Mr. Taylor thought that the question 
 of the seat of government being once deci- 
 ded, it would be easier to come to a solu- 
 tion of the question upon apportionment. 
 
 Mr. Grymes took this occasion to ex- 
 press his concurrence in the views expres- 
 sed by Mr. Benjamin upon the subject of 
 his (Mr. Benjamin's) compromise. He 
 thought with that gentleman that the city 
 ought riot to be invested with an absorbing 
 influence over the country. In reference 
 to the seat of government, Mr. Grymes 
 said he considered it to be of no great value 
 to the city himself, although it was quite 
 likely that some of his constituents might 
 regard it in a different light. What was 
 of greater value in his eyes was, that the 
 city should^ not be despoiled of her just 
 relative weight in the legislation of the 
 country. That was all He asked for, and 
 if the removal of the seat of government 
 were essential to attain that object, he was 
 ready to give it up. He would give it up 
 
Debate's in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 389 
 
 as a part of the compromise to ensure the 
 city something like a fair representation—- 
 for a mess of pottage. 
 
 Mr. Humble moved to postpone said sec- 
 tion until the Convention take under con- 
 sideration the general provisions. 
 
 Mr. Humble said he preferred the pro- 
 ject of Mr. Downs to the other projects 
 that had been presented. It was the most 
 equitable and just for the country; and he 
 hoped the question of apportionment would 
 be first disposed of. 
 
 Mr. Ilumble's motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Chinn then offered the following 
 substitute, viz: 
 
 At the first session of the legislature after 
 the adoption of this constitution, a law 
 shall be passed locating the seat of govern- 
 ment at the town of Baton Rouge, in the 
 parish of East Baton Rouge. 
 
 Mr. Porter opposed the motion to take 
 up the substitute, or to act upon the matter 
 in its present shape. He was himself fa- 
 vorable to a removal of the seat of govern- 
 ment from New Orleans, but where it 
 should be placed was a matter upon which 
 public opinion had not pronounced. It was 
 not for the Convention to take upon them- 
 selves to decide that question. Nor did he 
 think it proper on other grounds, that this 
 decision should be made by the Conven- 
 tion, and incorporated into the constitution. 
 There were elements of strife enough in 
 this Convention, without originating a new 
 bone of contention." Whatever might be 
 said to the contrary, the city desired to retain 
 the seat of government, and if such a sec- 
 tion as that offered by the delegate (Mr. 
 Chinn) were passed, it might be employed 
 as a means to cause the rejection of the 
 constitution by sectional appeals, particu- 
 larly in the city of New Orleans. 
 
 Mr. Humble expressed similar views to 
 those enumerated by Mr. Porter. 
 
 Mr. Winder submitted the following 
 substitute, viz: 
 
 Resolved, That the first general assem- 
 bly to be elected under this constitution, 
 shall determine upon the place where the 
 seat of government of this State shall be 
 permanently located from and after the first 
 day of January, 1850; provided, that it be 
 not fixed in the city of "New Orleans, nor 
 less than sixty miles from the same, by the 
 usual route of travelling. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Baton Rouge, said that the 
 50 
 
 solution of this question would determine 
 some of the difficulties that grew out of 
 the question of apportionment and for that 
 reason, he trusted it would be first disposed 
 of. 
 
 Mr. Read thought that the seat of gov- 
 ernment should be transfered from New 
 Orleans. Large cities were riot the ap- 
 propriate places for the functions of popu- 
 lar governments. The conflict of interests, 
 and the most weighty considerations of 
 public policy, had induced most of the 
 States of the Union to transfer their seats 
 of government into the interior. The ne- 
 cessity was more particularly applicable to 
 the city of New Orleans. What have we 
 here? A floating population, with diver- 
 gent feelings and interests. The influence 
 of the city could not be otherwise than per- 
 nicious to sound legislation, and if we were 
 lo trace the prolific causes of our public 
 debt, and our extravagant expenditures, we 
 would find it in the seat of government be- 
 ing located in the city, and subject to its 
 commercial impulses. Never, said Mr. 
 Read, was economy and prudent legislation 
 more essential to the salvation of the State. 
 Tn taking the seat of government from New 
 Orleans, independent of all other conside- 
 rations, we shall diminish our public ex- 
 penses very considerably. The public pro- 
 perty in the o-ity where the legislature con- 
 venes, could be sold to great advantage, and 
 with one half of the amount realized, and 
 probably less, more suitable and appropri- 
 ate buildings could be procured in the coun- 
 try for the reception of the public officers. 
 
 Mr. Dunn hoped that the expression of 
 a willingness on the part of the New Or- 
 leans delegation to give up the. seat of gov- 
 ernment, would be taken in connection- 
 with the proposition of Mr. Benjamin, as a 
 part of the eomprcunise assented to by the 
 city. If it Were so considered, he would 
 move to substitute Jackson for Baton 
 Rouge. Jackson was his first choice. 
 
 Mr. Porter would inquire whether this 
 was a regular bargain entered into out of 
 doors? 
 
 Mr. Dunn replied, he saw nothing in this 
 matter that savored of bargain or corrup- 
 tion. If the question of the seat of gov- 
 ernment were settled by its removal from 
 the city, the influence of the city over our 
 legislation would be to some extent impair- 
 ed, and the question of apportionment pro 
 
390- 
 
 Bebates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 tarte, would have fewer difficulties. He 
 saw no reason why the Convention should 
 not fix the seat of government. It could 
 be more effectually done by the Conven- 
 tion than by the legislature. In the legis- 
 lature there were various concurrences to 
 be obtained before the measure could be 
 consummated, and it might be defeated 
 against the wishes of the people. It might 
 bs lost in the senate, after it had passed the 
 house of representatives, or it might pass 
 both houses and be vetoed by the governor. 
 It was exposed to many casualties if left to 
 the legislature, and the better plan was for 
 us to decide that question as the immedi- 
 ate organs of the people. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans, was some- 
 what surprised at what fell from the gentle- 
 man from East Feliciana, (Mr. Dunn) on the 
 subject of the removal of the seat of govern- 
 ment being offered as a compromise on the 
 part of the city. He (Mr. Conrad) disclaimed 
 the remotest knowledge of any such com- 
 promise. He considered the two questions 
 as entirely distinct— the removal of the seat 
 of government, and the apportionment of 
 representation. He thought the question 
 of the removal of the seat of government, 
 was best committed to the legislature. It 
 was a question for the decision of the legis- 
 lature, and not for the decision of the 
 Convention. The experiment had been 
 made to take the seat of government from 
 New Orleans, and it had proved abortive. 
 The year succeeding, the legislature re- 
 turned back to the city, and it was fre- 
 quently here asserted, that this country 
 legislation was not very remarkable for its 
 sagacity. The question after all was 
 nothing more than this, which village or 
 town shall have the honor and profit of 
 feeding the members of the legislature for 
 a given time. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said that lie had under- 
 stood that certain members of the Legisla- 
 ture had expressed the opinion that if the 
 seat of government were taken out of the 
 city, they would be disposed to act with 
 less rigor towards the city in reference to 
 her representation. He had no objection 
 that the question of the seat of government 
 should first be decided, and if its decision 
 were to exercise a favorable influence up- 
 on the question of apportionment, he would 
 be glad to have the benefit of that influence 
 
 for his proposition. But he would certain- 
 ly vote against th.£ removal. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies submitted the following 
 substitute, viz : 
 
 At the first session of the legislature un- 
 der this constitution, a law shall be -passed 
 to fix a suitable location for the seat of go- 
 vernment of this State, which shall take ef- 
 fect in the year 1850; and shall not be 
 subject to any change before the year 1870, 
 and every twenty years thereafter, if deem- 
 ed proper and expedient. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth thought it an errone- 
 ous idea to suppose that the city of New 
 Orleans exercised any -control over the le- 
 gislature, because it was the seat of go- 
 vernment. The question at any rate, pro- 
 perly belonged to the legislature. There 
 was certainly less apprehension of any in- 
 fluence directed towards the legislature be- 
 ting pernicious in the city than in the coun- 
 try. The city was the focus of all the in- 
 terests of the State, and the legislature 
 were sure to be in possession of both sides 
 of every question. Say what you will, 
 New Orleans was the centre of all infor- 
 mation. The idea that was put forth by 
 some persons, that the members of the le- 
 gislature were seduced from their line of 
 duty in the city, was a most humiliating re- 
 proach. Will any member of this body 
 admit that any attempt has been made to 
 seduce him with a plate of gombo, or a 
 stuffed turkey. Yet this was the silly 
 slang that was heard whenever it was pro- 
 posed to take the seat of government from 
 New Orleans. The Legislature had tried 
 the experiment once, and it had signally 
 failed. They have had the power for thirty- 
 two years, to remove the seat of govern- 
 ment, and have done so but once ; and im- 
 mediately afterwards, they repented and 
 brought it back — a sufficient proof that it 
 is best located where it is. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved for the previous 
 question. 
 
 The President then put the question, 
 "shall the main question be now put ?'| 
 which motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies then moved to lay inde- 
 finitely on the table the said section, and 
 the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs, Benjamin, Boudousquie, Car- 
 riere Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of New 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes,Eus- 
 tis, Garcia, Ledoux, Legendre, Marignv, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 391 
 
 Mazureau, Porche, Preston, Roman, Ro- 
 selius, St A'mand, Soule, Yoorhies, Wads- 
 worth and Winchester — 23 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs, Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Briant, Brumfield, Burton Cham- 
 bliss, Chinn, Covillion, Downs, Dunn, 
 Garrett Humble Hynson, Kenner, Leon- 
 ard, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott, of St. Landry, Prud- 
 homme, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Saunders, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers. Stephens, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Waddill, Wederstrandt, 
 Wikoff and Winder — 40 nays. The mo- 
 tion was therefore lost. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to fill the blank with 
 "1349," and the yeas and nays being called, 
 Messrs. AuberuBeatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Carriere, Cov'illion, 
 Garett, Hynson, Kenner, Labauve, Leon* 
 ard, McRae, Mayo, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Pugh Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Soule, Stephens, Wad- 
 dill, and Wikoff voted in the affirmative— j 
 25 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Brazeal,e Brent, 
 Briant Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Derbes, Downs, Dunn, Eustis , 
 Garcia, Humble, Ledoux, Legendre, Mc- 
 Callop, Marigny, Mazureau, O'Bryan, 
 Peets^ Porchef Porter, Prudhomm, Ratliff, 
 Roman, Roselius, St. Arnand, Scott of Ma- 
 dison, Sellers, Yoorhies, Wadsworth, Wed- 
 erstrandt, Winchester and Winder voted 
 in the negative — 37 nays; consequently the 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Wederstrandt then moved to fill 
 the blank with "1848;*' the yeas and nays 
 being callecf for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Chambliss, Chinn, Co- 
 vflfion, Downs, Dunn, Garrett, Humble 
 Hynson, Kenner, Labauve, Leonard, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan Peets, 
 Porter, Prescott of St Landry, Preston, 
 Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Saunders, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Waddill Wederstrandt, Wikoff 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative — 39 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Briant. Carriere, Cenas, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Derbes, Eustis, Garcia, Ledoux, Legendre, 
 
 "Marigny, Mazureau, Porche, Prudhcmme, 
 Roman, Roselius, St, Amand, Soule, Voor- 
 hies, Wadsworth and Winchester voted in 
 the negative — 25 nays; said motion was 
 cpa-ried. 
 
 Mr* Marigny moved that the Conven- 
 tion adjourn till to-morrow at 1 1 o'clock, 
 a. m., and the yeas and nays being called, 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Cenas, Chambliss, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Ken- 
 ner, Ledoux, Legendre, Leonard, McCal- 
 lop, McRae, Marigny, Mazureau, O'Bryan, 
 Porche, Porter, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Preston, Ratliff, Roman, Roselius, St. 
 Amand, Scott of Madison, Soule, Stephens, 
 Wadsworth, Wikoff and Winchester voted 
 for the adjournment — 36 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Burton, Carriere, Chinn, Go. 
 villion, Downs, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, 
 Labauve, Mayo, Peets, Pugh, Read, 
 | Saunders, Scott of Baton Reuge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Sellers, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Yoorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt and Win- 
 der voted against the adjournment — 27 
 nays; consequently the motion was car- 
 ried. 
 
 Friday, JVIarch 7, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. • 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Nicholson opened the 
 proceedings by prayer. 
 
 The journal was read and approved. 
 Mr. Ratliff offered the following reso- 
 lution: 
 
 Resolved, That the sum of one hundred 
 and forty-seven dollars be allowed D. O. 
 Nadaud, as a remuneration for that amount 
 paid by him to an assistant, to enable him 
 to keep his records up with the proceedings 
 of the Convention, and that the committee 
 on contingent expenses be authorized to 
 pay the same. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff explained that it was the 
 opinion of himself and another member of 
 the committee on contingent expenses, that 
 ? the allowance asked for in this resolution, 
 was nothing more than just and proper; 
 and on the score of economy alone, it 
 , ought to be allowed. The duties which 
 were imposed upon Mr. Nadaud were very 
 , heavy, and in transcribing the journal he 
 , has already had to employ a young Sscn to 
 
392 Debates n tfie Conventionof Louisiana, 
 
 help him, to whom he paid one-half of his 
 salary. Mr. Read had examined the books 
 with him, and found the work well and 
 faithfully done. In addition, he was charged 
 with the duties of clerk to the committee on 
 contingent expenses; he had to make out 
 all the warrants for the members, and 
 keep a regular account of them. That he 
 had done so with great fidelity and care, 
 and was always prompt, obliging and effi- 
 cient. He thought, as the labor was too 
 inuch for one man to perform all these 
 duties, that it was economical to permit 
 him to select a young man to aid, as it 
 was done at a less -expense than the hiring 
 of another clerk. 
 
 Mr. Vooriiies moved to lay the resolu- 
 tion on the table, subject to call. It ap- 
 peared to him that we have many clerks 
 who are half their time idle, and who ought 
 to have been employed at that business; 
 as it now stands, we have no information 
 on which to base any action, to appropriate 
 such a sum of money as asked for. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff further explained, that in 
 addition to what he had already advanced, 
 he would simply state, that Mr. Nadaud 
 had been a general runner for this Con- 
 vention, between the hail and the treasu- 
 rer's office on Canal street; and further, 
 his work was more than one man could do; 
 that it was by his advice Nadaud had en- 
 gaged that young maa>; because he thought 
 it would be cheaper. In the legislature 
 he found errors would creep' into the ac- 
 counts of the committee on contingent ex- 
 penses, and he thought it would result in 
 saving money, by employing Mr. Nadaud 
 to attend to those duties. He preferred it 
 to coming before the Convention to ask for 
 another clerk. Upon examing the records 
 he has found as many as fourteen pages to 
 be copied in a large book. Mr. President, 
 said Mr. Ratliff, I speak knowingly on this 
 subject; whenever any call is made upon 
 me to take any thing out of the treasury, I 
 have invariably made it a rule to investigate 
 the causes which are said to have produced 
 the necessity for allowing it. I have found 
 that it was necessary that the sum claimed 
 was a fair remuneration to pay .the person 
 whom Mr. Nadaud has employed; he was 
 employed by my advice, on the score of 
 economy, and I do hope this Convention 
 will not boggle any longer about this small 
 matter; it costs us money every moment 
 
 we are debating this question; and surely 
 there is no man on this floor, who could 
 suppose that I, who have been so frequent- 
 ly called the guardian of the treasury, 
 would recommend any call upon it, unless 
 called for by the real justice of the claim 
 for it. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies yet objected; he wanted 
 yet to see what the other clerks were about, 
 (who were doing nothing,) that they could 
 not have done this work. 
 
 But when the question was put, Mr. Rat- 
 liff' s resolution was carried. 
 
 Mr. Wadbill then offered the following 
 resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That in commemoration of the 
 annexation of Texas, whereby the peace, 
 safety and glory of the Union are preserved, 
 this Convention will now adjourn, to meet 
 on Tuesday, the 11th inst., at 11 o'clock, 
 a. m. 
 
 Mr. Waddill said that in addition to the 
 glorious censumation which we have this 
 day heard, of the final settlement of this 
 measure, so important to the interests of 
 Louisiana. He feels it incumbent upon 
 him to say that there is another reason 
 which induced him to offer this resolution; 
 and that is, that the legislature is now on 
 the point of adjourning; and there are some 
 seven or eight members of this Convention 
 who are also members of that body, who 
 will be unable to attend our deliberations, 
 until that body adjourns, and they are now 
 holding morning and evening sessions, and 
 will continue to do so until Monday, when 
 they will adjourn. We have many very 
 important matters, which are to be imme? 
 diately acted on by the Convention; and we 
 should have the benefit of their experience, 
 and their votes, so as to have as full an ex- 
 pression of public sentiment on these mat- 
 ters as possible. He hoped, for these two 
 reasons combined, that the motion would 
 prevail; but there is another one, which had 
 also some weight? and should be taken into 
 consideration; which was, that there were 
 many members residing within a short dis- 
 tance from the city, who had matters re- 
 quiring their attention at home; and who 
 had as yet no opportunity to visit their 
 homes; and he thought no better opportuni- 
 ty offered than the present. 
 
 Mr. Porter moved to amend by having 
 a clause added, that when we adjourned to- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 393 
 
 day we should meet again at the State 
 house. 
 
 Mr. Chinn objects to the resolution, be- 
 cause we shall lose two days in glorifying 
 over a thing which may or may not have 
 happened. We have no evidence of the 
 fact of Texas being annexed; it is nothing 
 more than rumor — we had better wait and 
 see. We have lost a great deal of time al- 
 ready, and he cannot see the necessity of 
 losing two more days. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne would be very willing to 
 agree to the motion of the gentleman from 
 Baton Rouge, if he would modify it in such 
 a way as to stop the expenses. The State 
 is now at a very large expense, two delibe- 
 rative bodies in session at one time. It is 
 true we have important business now be- 
 fore us, and we ought to have the counsel 
 of every member of the Convention; be- 
 sides it is also true there are many of the 
 members absent on leave, while there are 
 others who have never absented themselves, 
 who ought to have some opportunity of 
 going home. Let the pay be stopped then 
 — let members take this opportunity to 
 visit their homes, and then return and go 
 to work in earnest. 
 
 Mr. Dunn moved to lay Mr. Waddiil's 
 motion indefinitely on the table; but much 
 as he was in favor of annexation, he 
 thought we had better not adjourn this Con- 
 vention, at least until we were certain of it; 
 he thinks we should not hallo before we get 
 out of the woods. He pressed his motion, 
 and the yeas and nays being called for, re- 
 sulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Chinn, F. B. Conrad, 
 Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Gar- 
 rett, Hynson, Legendre, Lewis, McCallop, 
 Mayo, Mazureau, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saun- 
 ders, Sellers, Scott, Stephens, Miles Tay- 
 lor, Voorhies, Wederstrandt, and Winder— 
 37 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Brazeale, Cenas, Clai- 
 borne, Humble, Leonard, McRae, Peets, 
 Porter, RatlifT, Read, W. B. Scott, S. W. 
 Scott, Soule, Waddill, and Wikofl— 16 
 nays; so the resolution offered by Mr. 
 Waddill was lost. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Baton Rouge, renewed the 
 motion to adjourn, in the following form: 
 
 Resolved, That when the Convention 
 
 adjourns to-day, it will adjourn to meet on 
 Tuesday next, the 11th inst. at 11 o'clock, 
 a. m. The yeas and nays being called for, 
 (Mr. Claiborne in the chair,) resulted as 
 follows: 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Briant, Cenas, Humble, 
 McCallop, McRae, Porter, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Read, Roman, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, and SSule — 13 
 yeas; and 
 
 • Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Chinn, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Gar- 
 rett, Hynson, Legendre, Leonard, Lewis, 
 Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Preston, Prud- 
 homme, Pugh, Ratliff, Roselius, St. Amand, 
 Saunders, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Voorhies, 
 Waddill, Wederstrandt, WikofT and Win- 
 der — 39 nays; consequently the motion was 
 lost. 
 
 The next question in order was the re- 
 solution offered on yesterday by Mr. Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, and which was under dis- 
 cussion when the house adjourned, viz: 
 
 The seat of government shall, from and 
 after the year 1848, be permanently located 
 out of the city of New Orleans, and not 
 
 within a distance of miles from the 
 
 said city. 
 
 Mr. Saunders proposed a substitute for 
 the whole resolution, but was reminded by 
 Mr. Claiborne, who was in the chair, that 
 the vote having been already taken on the 
 previous question, it could not be offered 
 in the form of a substitute. No substitute 
 could be offered unless it were" to fill the 
 blank. Mr. Saunders thought the chair 
 was in error; as the vote on the previous 
 question was certainly improperly taken — 
 the only question before us, is on the whole 
 section, and he conceives he has the right 
 to offer a substitute for the whole. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne reminded Mr. Saunders 
 that he was still out of order — he couldnot 
 be accountable 'for any thing that was done, 
 when he was not in the chair; and the rules 
 of the house were peremptory on the sub- 
 ject. 
 
 Mr. Chinn thinks he can cure the evil, 
 although he feels satisfied that the chair is 
 right in its decision; as a motion for the 
 previous question had already been sus- 
 tained by the Convention. In order there- 
 fore, properly to bring up the matter be- 
 
£94 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 fore the house, he should move a reconsid- 
 eration of the vote given on yesterday on 
 the previous question. The question was 
 then put and the motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Saunders then renewed his motion 
 to adopt the substitute submitted by him. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies was of opinion that if any 
 substitute were in order, certainly it was 
 the one offered by him, but not acted upon 
 on yesterday. 
 
 The President thought Mr. Saunders' 
 motion was clearly in order, but Mr. Bren»t 
 moved to lay the whole matter on the ta- 
 ble. 
 
 Mr. Saunders thinks Mr. Brent's mo- 
 tion is a correct one, and will reach the 
 case, if he will say all except one substi- 
 tute. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies is convinced that the mo- 
 tion he made yesterday is the only one 
 which should properly be before the Con- 
 vention. The substitute which is embra- 
 ced in that motion, will test the question 
 clearly and plainly , whether the seat of 
 government is forever to be removed from 
 New Orleans or not. For his own part, 
 he is in favor of leaving it to the legislature, 
 who are not likely to decide so important 
 a question on slight grounds. He is him- 
 self opposed to the removal of the seat of 
 government at present, and certainly not 
 out of the city permanently, if the legisla- 
 ture may hereafter deem it advisable, and 
 for the interests of the State to bring it 
 back again. For these leasons, he hopes 
 the sense of the Convention will be taken 
 on the substitute as proposed by him, and 
 which reads as follows: 
 
 a At the first session of the legislature 
 under this constitution, a law shall be pass- 
 ed, to fix a suitable location for the seat of 
 government for this State, which shall take 
 effect in the year 1850, and shall not be 
 subject to any change before the year 1870, 
 and every twenty years thereafter, if deem- 
 ed proper and expedient. 
 
 Mr. Brent then moved to lay said sub- 
 stitute on the table indefinitely. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin hopes that Mr. Brent's 
 motion will not prevail. It is true that 
 the substitute, as offered by Mr. Voorhies, 
 does not fully meet his (Mr. B's.) views, 
 as it is stated, but nevertheless, he shall 
 support it, because it contains one great 
 principle, for which he (Mr. Benjamin) is 
 contending; and that is, that this Conven- 
 
 tion should not bind the people down any 
 more than is absolutely necessary, to keep 
 the course of government equal and even, 
 and moreover, just towards all. For that 
 reason, he thinks it is not right for this 
 Convention to designate any particular spot 
 as the seat of government, so permanently, 
 that the people themselves cannot (if they 
 would) change it when it is once estab- 
 lished, and that will be the inevitable re- 
 sult if we incorporate it in this constitu- 
 tion, when it is once established. 
 
 If the motion to lay this substitute on 
 the table prevail, we shall be virtually say- 
 ing that a very insignificant minority of the 
 State shall have the power of ruling at 
 their will and pleasure, an immense major- 
 ity. It will not (said Mr. Benjamin) I 
 trust, be improper for me to express my 
 astonishment that those gentlemen who op- 
 posed us so strenuously on the most im- 
 portant and vital questions that we have 
 already discussed; and who then were the 
 loudest in their condemnation of any re- 
 strictive measure, should so suddenly be 
 found willing to admit his assertion, made 
 on the 14th of February last, that we were 
 here, in Convention, to impose such re- 
 strictions as were deemed necessary, to be 
 inserted in the constitution for the happi- 
 ness and welfare of all; and it will not fur- 
 ther, 1 hope, be considered out of place, 
 when I say that the way and manner in 
 which they have shifted their ground, re- 
 flects no credit on them, either in their ac- 
 tions, or in the manner in which they have 
 seen fit to abandon principles, which they 
 professed to cherish, and that, on the very 
 ground which they scouted at us conserva- 
 tives for, viz. the expediency of the case. 
 Beautiful consistency! ! they say it is ex- 
 pedient to fetter down the people in the 
 choice of the spot where the seat of gov- 
 ernment shall be held. We say it -is both 
 inexpedient and unjust to fetter the people 
 at all, in their wishes on a subject purely 
 of locality; the people at large are the best 
 judges of these matters, and they will 
 doubtless elect their representatives here- 
 after with such views as their own, on that 
 and every other local subject, as they have 
 heretofore done. We consider such a mea- 
 sure unjust in every sense, and we further 
 say that if you insert it in our constitution, 
 you stifle the popular voice. And shall 
 we in 1845, when men are supposed to be 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 395 
 
 endowed with more powers of thinking and 
 reflection, than the gentleman opposed to 
 us in this measure thought they were in 
 1812, shall we force upon them a restric- 
 tion which will be monstrous in theory, 
 and more than monstrous in practice? The 
 question is, what right have we to do it? 
 We might with propriety say, that it shall 
 be fixed at any named point for a certain 
 number of years; then, if it is found to be 
 inconvenient, the legislature, with all the 
 facts before them, (coming as they do fresh 
 from the people, and knowing their wants,) 
 could readily obey the wants and wishes of 
 their constituents; but to say that we are 
 now* to fetter and bind down the people, 
 and mark out a chalk line for them to walk 
 on hereafter; and that such a spot, and only 
 such a spot shall be the ground on which 
 the legislative affairs of the State shall be 
 conducted, is saying a little more than I 
 could have expected from those who are, 
 or profess to be, so fond of "the largest 
 liberty;" of those who cry out eternally, 
 the only pure principle of democracy is, 
 that "majorities must govern." The more 
 he (Mr. B.) reflects on the singular posi- 
 tion those gentlemen have placed them- 
 selves in, the more he regrets it for their 
 sakes; because if they be sincere in their 
 professions, they cannot argue themselves 
 out of their false position. 
 
 He therefore opposes Mr. Brent's motion 
 to lay on the table. 
 
 Mr. Brent remarked, in reply to the del- 
 egate from New Orleans, Mr. Benjamin, 
 that it is not the popular will they desire to 
 restrict ; but the legislative will ; for, sir, 
 said he, nothing is clearer, than if the ma- 
 jority of the people desired to change their 
 seat of government, it would not be so 
 very difficult to change the constitution in 
 that or any other respect. But it is the 
 agents of the people, the members of the 
 legislature themselves, whom we are desi- 
 rous to check ; and he, (Mr. Brent) wants 
 the seat of government of the State of Lou- 
 isiana, unalterably out of New Orleans — 
 and most especially beyond the power of 
 the legislature to bring it back again. If 
 former legislatures have failed in their pro- 
 mises to the people, and been governed by 
 different motives to what they have pro- 
 fessed — if this Convention, which it was 
 the wish of the people, should meet at 
 Jackson, have adjourned their sittings to 
 
 New Orleans to make a constitution, he 
 (Mr. Brent) thinks it high time for us to 
 insert the clause asked for, in the consti- 
 tution. 
 
 Mr. Eustis then rose to address the Con- 
 vention. 
 
 Mr. President, I hud not intend e*d to of- 
 fer any remarks on this subject, while the 
 compromise question was before the Conven- 
 tion; and which I regarded more as a ques- 
 tion of action than debate; but since it has 
 been deemed proper to press this question 
 to a vote at this moment, and as I conceive 
 it has been improperly connected with the 
 question of apportionment, I desire frankly 
 to submit my views on the proposition, as 
 briefly as possible, and to address myself 
 particularly to those who style themselves 
 the friends of popular rights, and who pro- 
 fess to be, like myself, partisans of the doc- 
 trine of anti-restriction. 
 
 Mr. Eustis remarked that it would be in- 
 deed a singular thing on our part to say, in a 
 written constitution, that we cannot confide 
 in the judgment of the people, nor in the 
 wisdom of the legislature. Are the people 
 so reckless, so incompetent, or so vicious, 
 that they cannot be trusted to name the 
 place where they shall make 'the laws 
 which are to govern them ? • This is re- 
 striction with a vengeance, when you say 
 that a majority shall not be deemed capable 
 of selecting any village or spot they please 
 for the seat of government. Is it proper to 
 introduce such a clause in our constitution? 
 Is it in the mandate that sent us here? It 
 is in no way a proper subject even for dis- 
 cussion, much less to make it a part of our 
 constitution. Why should we go into de- 
 tails to fix the place where the capitol shall 
 irrevocably be, discarding from our mind 
 what future exigencies may call for? It is 
 neither expedient nor politic to insert it in 
 the constitution. For his (Mr. E.'s) part, 
 he cares not whether it be Baton Rouge, 
 or Donaldsonville, or Cheneyville, or Jack- 
 son, that may be selected, but it is a matter 
 of moment to interpose when we see the 
 Convention about to violate an elementary 
 principle by thus imposing another restric- 
 tion on the will of the people, which is no 
 where to be found in the instructions of 
 those very people who sent us here. But 
 it is said that the legislature will not remove 
 it from New Orleans, and if they do, it will 
 be brought back almost immediately. Why 
 
390 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 should we consider the legislatures and the 
 people for the last thirty years, as stultified. 
 Is it to be supposed they did not know what 
 public convenience required? and if we 
 are to presume, as we must, that they did, 
 how can it be said or supposed that the 
 people hereafter will not be as capable of 
 judging what is for the benefit and con- 
 venience of the people at large, as those 
 who have preceded us ? He (Mr. Eustis) 
 was somewhat suprised to hear of the re- 
 moval of this Convention from Jackson to 
 New Orleans referred to, and he regarded 
 from the manner in which it was intro- 
 duced, it was meant as a kind of reflection 
 on his colleague, (Mr. Benjamin) and him- 
 self: but as he knows that both voted on 
 princjple he does not regret the vote they 
 gave on that occasion; it was a measure 
 called for by sound policy, and he believed 
 as well for the interest of the country as for 
 the city. The interests of the city particu- 
 larly required it, as subsequent events 
 have most clearly proved to us in the de- 
 liberations of this body. 
 
 Subsequent facts have clearly shown 
 that we should never have made a constitu- 
 tion at Jackson. The great efforts that were 
 then made to cast censure on the majori- 
 ty, for removing the sittings of the Conven- 
 tion, and which were resorted to for politi- 
 cal purposes, have not produced the effect 
 intended; no body now disapproves of the 
 charge; and the small rumor of dissatisfac- 
 tion, which we heard at first, has passed 
 off; until finally all sensible people are sat- 
 isfied that it was a wise measure. 
 
 What evidence have we to predicate the 
 necessity of making the removal of the seat 
 of government from New Orleans a ques- 
 tion of constitutional provision? The rule 
 he, Mr. Eustis, craves attention to, is the*, 
 rule of experience, which is the test of 
 truth. For thirty-two years the country 
 members of the legislature possessed not 
 only the physical power, but also the desire 
 to remove the seat of government away from 
 the city; but yet they never attempted it but 
 on one occasion, and that resulted in se- 
 rious loss to the State. He alludes to the 
 session of 1830, which was held at Don- 
 aldsonville. Why did they adjourn then, 
 to meet in this city? and why has it been 
 here ever since? You have but to com- 
 paie the regularity in the proceedings of the 
 sessions held, in the city, with the irregu- 
 
 larity of that held at Donaldsonville, and 
 you have the reply; besides the work was 
 so much better done here than there, that 
 it is easy to account for its. removal back 
 to the city. It was* moreover, found im- 
 possible to keep the members there; they 
 were absent so frequently and so constant- 
 ly, that it was a difficult matter to get a 
 quorum present. Place the capitol within 
 sixty miles of New Orleans, and you will 
 find it impossible to keep the members 
 away from the city; some will come to at- 
 tend to their business; some for the purpose 
 of enjoying the winter amusements of the 
 city, (for men are alike every where;) and 
 the consequence will be that your public 
 buildings will be deserted. It is a matter 
 of no moment to New Orleans whether the 
 legislature be held here or not; and for his 
 part he would disregard her interests, if 
 they clashed or interfered with the interests 
 of the whole State. But as we have had 
 one lesson of experience, we ought to pause 
 and reflect before we do that for which we 
 were not sent here, and which is neither 
 politic nor expedient. All very true, say 
 you, but, oh! that city influence] Far from 
 its being a pernicious one; it is a benefit 
 to you. Have you not daily on your desks 
 the proceedings of the preceding day, 
 spread before you by a scrutinizing press, 
 who will scan your every act? And why 
 should you avoid it? A vigorous and inde- 
 pendent press is the very best possible 
 check on improvident legislation; and 
 you ought to feel proud and gratified to 
 have it in your power to satisfy your con- 
 stituents, and to show them the propriety 
 of your conduct, and the motives that 
 prompt you in your actions. On the other 
 hand, transport your State archives to some 
 place on the banks of Red River, or to the 
 prairies of Calcasieu, or to Ouachita, or to 
 the borders of some of our immense forests, 
 and then what shall we see? We shall 
 find that, without that salutary check, an 
 independent press, where the proceedings 
 of the legislature can be promptly dissemina- 
 ted in every portion of the State, (which in 
 Louisiana, can alone be found advanta- 
 geously in New Orleans,) ^ that instead of 
 knowing what those proceeding are, before 
 it be too late to remedy the evil, laws have 
 been made to satisfy the cupidity or the 
 avarice, or the vain-glorious efforts ol 
 some men, who are constantly agitating 
 
Debates in the Convention ol Louisiana. 
 
 397 
 
 measures, which in effect, destroy the iran- j 
 quility of the public mind, without produ- j 
 cing "ought else, than injustice to the majori- j 
 ty of the people. 
 
 It is said that the influence of cities is I 
 great: admitted, and it ought to be in every ; 
 proper point of view: but that influence is j 
 not a fatal one, unless used for particular | 
 purposes of self interest or self aggrandize- j 
 ment; but when we turn to the largest j 
 States in the Union, what do we find? 
 You hear of no acts of public oppression in 
 the cities of Boston or Richmond, or of acts 
 that tinge the cheek of every American 
 with shame. No: such acts are generally 
 perpetrated in obscure places, where the 
 press cannot be heard in time to avert the 
 evil. For instance, was it not in Harris- 
 burgh that the charter of the U. S. Bank 
 was granted? And did not men go from all 
 parts of the country, who were paid, and 
 loaded with money, and every other induce- : 
 ment, "that could be made to operate, for the j 
 purpose of securing the passage of that bill? j 
 And did not this occur before the news of 
 what was going on could be spread abroad? j 
 if did. Would that iniquitus measure have | 
 besu foisted on the people, had the seat of 
 government been in Philadelphia, where 
 their press is active, and their perceptions 
 not only intelligent, but quick? most assu- 
 redly not. And is it for us, a State burden- 
 ed with an-immense debt, large enough to 
 pave the state house with gold, to remove 
 our legislature beyond" the reach of the 
 watchful and argu's eyes of the press? 
 
 Look at the State of New York. Is not 
 the legislature of that State, which convenes 
 at Albany, most perfectly under the control 
 of the lobby members? Has it not become 
 a common thing in New York, whenever 
 any measure is talked of as being before 
 the legislature, to hear it said, oh! it all de- 
 pends upon the lobby; it can't pass without 
 they are in favor of it? Yes, sir, that lobby 
 is more powerful than all the members put 
 together, and this unscrupulous body of 
 men hold them in such thraldom that legis- 
 lation is brought to a stand, unless they 
 come to an understanding with the venal 
 wretches; and this same thing must and 
 will happen inXouisiana if we remove our 
 seat of government beyoi#the reach of an 
 active and independent press. Albany, 
 though now a large city, is nothing in com- 
 parison to the city of New York, and the 
 51 
 
 same improper and unjust laws made at 
 Albany could not have been passed in the 
 city of New York, with their ever watchful 
 press reporting their every act. Thus dis- 
 graceful and improper legislation is consu- 
 mated in small towns and villages before 
 the evil can be remedied, and all for the 
 want of proper information. 
 
 The honorable delegate from Ouachita 
 (Mr. Downs) tells you that in consequence 
 of the immense progress New Orleans 13 
 making in her growth and commerce, the 
 country villages are dismantled and all the 
 business is done here; and yet it is in some 
 one of those deserted villages that he is de- 
 sirous of fixing permanently the seat of gov- 
 ernment. How can those gentlemen who 
 are so opposed to restriction, carry this re- 
 strictive principle so far without reflecting 
 on the injustice they are doing their con- 
 stituents in depriving them of the privilege 
 of fixing the seat of government in any part 
 of the State which they may deem most ad- 
 vantageous, and where the general good 
 will be the -most especially promoted? 
 
 He (Mr. Eustis) leaves them to answer 
 the question, and he hopes the motion to lay 
 Mr. Yoorhies substitute on the table, will 
 not prevail. 
 
 The question was then put to lay Mr. 
 Yoorhies substitute indefinitely on the table 
 and resulted as follows!: 
 
 3Iessrs. Aubert, Beatty. Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, Chambliss, 
 Chinn, C. M. Conrad, Derbes, Dunn, Gar- 
 rett, Humble, Hynson, Lewis, McCallop, 
 Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, V\ T . M. ?res- 
 cott, Preston, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Saun- 
 ders, W. B. Scott, S. W. Scott. Sellers, 
 Stephens, Miles Taylor, Trist, Waddill, 
 Wederstrandt and WikofT— 36 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Carriere, Ce- 
 nas, Claiborne, F. B. Conrad, Culbertson, 
 Eustis, Grymes, Legendre, Leonard, Ma- 
 zureau, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Soule, 
 Yoorhies, Wadsworth and Winchester —19 
 nays: consequently the motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Sauxders then submitted the fol- 
 lowing resolution, viz: 
 
 The general assembly which shall sit 
 after the first election of representatives un- 
 der the new constitution, shall within the 
 firt month after the commencement of the 
 session designate and fix the seat of gov= 
 ernment at some place not less than sixty 
 miles from the city of New Orleans, bv th& 
 
398 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 nearest travelling route, and if on the Mis- 
 sissippi river, by the meanders of the same; 
 and when so fixed, it shall not be removed 
 except by the consent of four-fifths of the 
 members of both houses of the general as- 
 sembly. 
 
 The sessions of the general assembly 
 shall be held in New Orleans until the end 
 of the year 1848. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies moved to amend said sub- 
 stitute by striking out the words "at some 
 place not less than sixty miles from the city 
 of New Orleans by the nearest travelling 
 route, and if on the Mississippi river, by the 
 meanders of the same." 
 
 Mr. Benjamin agrees with Mr. Voor- 
 hies, because he desires to leave the peo- 
 ple free and untrammelled on this point. 
 He is totally opposed to restricting them in 
 their choice as to the spot where the seat 
 of government shall be held, preferring to 
 leave it open for them to remove from, or 
 retain it in the place they may first desig- 
 nate; according to the exigencies of the mo- 
 ment. It is a power not delegated to us. 
 He never heard of its being made a ques- 
 tion before, and we therefore ought to leave 
 it to their own decision; that, he (Mr. B.) un- 
 derstands to be the purport of the amendment 
 and he therefore sustains it. Let the legis- 
 lature regulate it according to their con- 
 stituents' wishes, and not us, because we 
 do not know; we have no means of know- 
 ing what are their wishes. TJie object of 
 the amendment seems to be, that it should 
 be submitted again to the people; and sure- 
 ly those who object so much to restricting 
 the people in their desires, cannot refuse 
 to act up to their professed principles. 
 
 Mr. Read took this occasion to say that 
 it was a matter of general desire in his pa- 
 rish that the seat of government should be 
 removed; that it was made a question be- 
 fore the people at the election in July. 
 
 Mr. Saunders desires to repudiate the 
 idea that he would press any measure 
 which the people generally did not approve, 
 but he knows that his constituents do wish 
 the seat of government irrevocably removed 
 from the city of New Orleans; and it is his 
 deliberate conviction that four-fifths of the 
 people out of the city want the same thing. 
 
 Mr. Brent said that his constituents 
 were almost unanimous in calling for the 
 removal; indeed he did not believe there was 
 one man in ten who was not in favor of it, 
 
 Mr. Dunn concurred fully with his col- 
 league, (Mr. Saunders) as to the general 
 wish to have the seat of government re- 
 moved from New Orleans, but nevertheless 
 he should vote against that portion of the 
 substitute offered by Mr. Saunders, which 
 places the limit of distance from the city at 
 sixty miles r One of the reasons, he thinks r 
 to be taken in consideration (when you fix 
 upon a scite for the seat of government) 
 should be, to have it as near the centre of 
 the State as possible. .New Orleans is more 
 than one hundred and fifty miles from the 
 centre of the State; yesterday he proposed 
 that the distance should be fixed at not less 
 than one hundred and twenty miles from 
 the city. Some spot might be selected as 
 near the centre of the State as possible; in 
 that way all would be satisfied, there would 
 then be no complaints; no charge of injus- 
 tice to any; but he should oppose the limit 
 of sixty miles, because he should regard 
 New Orleans and Donaldsonville as about 
 the same thing; indeed he would prefer its 
 being held here, if in either. He thinks 
 the first thing we have to do is, to remove 
 it from the city, and then put it as near the 
 centre of the State as possible. 
 
 Mr. Conrad thinks that the reasons ad- 
 vanced by the gentlemen who sustain the 
 removal of the seat of government from- 
 New Orleans, in which their several con- 
 stituents are so unanimous in desiring to 
 have done, are the strongest possible 
 reasons why Mr. Voorhies' amendment 
 should prevail; because if their constituents 
 are so unanimous on the subject there will 
 certainly be no great diversity of opinion 
 among their representatives, and they can 
 settle the matter in the legislature during 
 the first week of the session; but he thinks 
 the mode recommended in the substitute is 
 not the correct one, and that we are pro- 
 ceeding in an anti-republican manner, and 
 that it is an assumption of power on our 
 part which has not been delegated to us. 
 He should feel that he would be doing 
 wrong if he were to vote to keep it in New 
 Orleans, and therefore does not believe it is 
 right to force it either to, or out of any par- 
 ticular spot, it being a question purely bo- 
 longing to the people at large, and one in 
 which they have*I right to suit their own 
 convenience. Besides that, there, would 
 seem to be a peculiar impropriety in the 
 measure, so far as New Orleans herself i* 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 309 
 
 concerned. In passing this substitute, you 
 virtually fix a stigma, a brand on the city. 
 You say that all the State may enter into 
 competition for the prize except New Or- 
 leans, and that while all the representatives 
 from the country may enter into the can- 
 vass, that the representatives from New 
 Orleans must stand still and look on as si- 
 lent, but humiliating spectators. The in- 
 justice is still greater to New Orleans when 
 it is considered that the city is not repre- 
 sented on this floor in proportion to her pop- 
 ulation, as other parts of the country are. 
 One of the main objects of calling this Con- 
 vention was to equalize the representation, 
 which years ago was found to be unfair un- 
 der the existing apportionment, and yet we 
 are about to decide a question which has 
 never to his (Mr. C.'s) knowledge been 
 regularly before the people, while New Or- 
 leans is not equally nor fairly represented 
 in comparison with the country parishes in 
 this Convention. 
 
 The only fair course to pursue is to leave 
 it to the legislature, and then we shall have 
 a fair chance to be heard in it. It is true, 
 you have the power in your hands, but do 
 not be unjust; if with the majority you have, 
 you take away a right from us to be heard 
 on a question as vital to our own interests, 
 as they can possibly be to the country. You 
 will commit an act of the most outrage- 
 ous kind, and for that reason alone, if for no 
 other, he shall vote for the amendment of- 
 fered by Mr. Voorhies. 
 
 Mr. Saunders is of opinion that this 
 measure has been fully before the Conven- 
 tion since our first meeting, and discussed 
 incidentally, more or less, every day, and 
 therefore he moves the previous question, 
 which, however, he withdrew for the mo- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies wished it distinctly under- 
 stood that the measure now before us had 
 never been discussed, or talked of in his 
 section of country, and therefore he does 
 not feel himself instructed on the subject. 
 
 Mr. Porter would vote for the amend- 
 ment proposed by Mr. Voorhies, because 
 he thought it was a matter properly per- 
 taining to the legislature, who would come 
 fresh from the people, and would know 
 what their wishes were. He has heard 
 some one say he was npt willing to trust 
 the legislature. All he can say in reply 
 to such an assertion is, that he has every 
 
 confidence that the members who would bo 
 elected from the portion of the country in 
 which he resides, would faithfully perform 
 their duty, and carry out the wishes of their 
 constituents ; and he doubts not other mem- 
 bers from the different parts of the State 
 would do the same thing. There was an- 
 other reason why he should vote for the 
 amendment; which was, because he thought 
 that when the legislature did settle the lo- 
 cation, they would make one that would be 
 permanent, and he much preferred that to 
 leaving it in the unsettled state things are 
 now in. He referred to the situation of 
 the present State house, which doubtless 
 would have been better cared for, if there 
 was any certainty of its being permanently 
 fixed here. 
 
 The question was then put on Mr. Voor- 
 hies' amendment, and resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Cenas, Clai- 
 borne, C. M. Conrad, F. B. Conrad, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Grymes, 
 Legendre, Mazureau, Porche, Porter, W. 
 M. Prescott, Preston, Roman, Roselius, 
 Read, St. Amand, Soule, Stephens, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Wads worth and Winches ter— -27 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Brumlield, Burton, Cade, Cham- 
 bliss, Chinn, Covillion, Garrett, Humble, 
 Hynson, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, 
 O'Bryan, Peets, W. B. Prescott, Prud- 
 homme, Pugh, Ratliff, Saunders, W. B. 
 Scott, T. W. Scott, T. B. Scott, Sellers, 
 Miles Taylor, Waddill, Wederstrandt, Wi- 
 koff, and Winder — 34 nays; consequently 
 the amendment was not carried. 
 
 Mr. Beatty then moved the adoption of 
 the resolution, as offered by Mr. Saunders; 
 but 
 
 Mr. Claiborne moved to strike out four- 
 fifths, and insert two-thirds. He remark- 
 ed that if this resolution was persisted in, it 
 Would operate unjustly and injuriously, for 
 it would be virtually placing it out of the 
 power of the legislature, after they had 
 once established at any given point, to re- 
 move it in case they should make a bad se- 
 lection at first ; for it is well known that 
 the interests of those interested in keeping 
 it at the place first designated, would cer- 
 tainly be able to gather together more than 
 one -fifth of the votes of the legislature ; for 
 who does not know that the ties of neigh- 
 borhood are powerful? who does not know 
 
400 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 that there is always a charm about our own 
 village clock? That feeling will alone in- 
 duce them to exert every sectional interest 
 in order to keep it in that spot where it was 
 first placed, however inconvenient it may 
 be to the people otherwise. Besides, that 
 the principle of the whole substitute is an 
 odious and restrictive one, and that too sup- 
 ported as it is by those who have declaim- 
 ed the loudest on this floor against all re- 
 strictions. Some of the gentlemen who 
 support this measure, and who are so fond 
 of looking to the constitutions of other 
 States as models for us, had better have re. 
 course to their books, to see if they can 
 find one single State in the Union with 
 such an odious and uncalled for restriction 
 as the one now before us. The evil could 
 scarcely ever be remedied by any legisla- 
 tion, even if it were placed in an un- 
 healthy spot, because four-fifths of both 
 houses could not be found united even then, 
 when they had to contend against the sec- 
 tional interest of the surrounding parishes. 
 He is opposed to the whole section, be- 
 cause he thinks we have no business to 
 touch the question, and that it pioperly be- 
 longs to the Convention to settle it. But 
 he makes the motion to insert two-thirds in 
 lieu of four-fifths, for the purpose of ma- 
 king it less obnoxious. 
 
 Mr. Saunders then moved for the previ- 
 ous question, and the President then put the 
 question, "shall the main question be now 
 put?" and the yeas and nays being called 
 for, resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Cham- 
 bliss, Chinn, Dunn, Garrett, "Hynson, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Pugh, Read, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Waddill, Wederstrandt, Wi- 
 koff and Winder— 31 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Garriere, Ge- 
 nas, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Govillion, Culbert- 
 son, Derbes, Eustis, Grymes, Humble, 
 Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Porche, Por- 
 ter, Preston, Prudhomme, RathfF, Roman, 
 Roselius, St. Amand, Soule, Stephens, 
 Trist, Voorhies, Wads worth and Winches- 
 ter — -30 nays. 
 
 Mr. Claibore then called on the presi- 
 dent to vote: who voted in the negative, 
 
 which made the vote equal, and therefore 
 the motion was lost. 
 
 The President then said that he voted 
 in the negative because he thought the re* 
 striction was too great upon the legislature; 
 but that if that restriction were modified, it 
 was most likely he should vote for it. 
 
 The resolution of Mr. Saunders became 
 again the question before the house, and 
 was on the motion to strike out 4 'four-fifths^ 
 and insert "two-thirds." 
 
 Mr. Benjamin was of opinion that the gen- 
 tlemen in their over-hot zeal to kill N. Or- 
 leans, are over-shooting their own mark: he 
 thinks two-thirds is entirely too much, as it 
 will be next to impossible to get that num- 
 ber of members in the legislature together, 
 much less a majority of two-thirds of the 
 whole; he thought three-fifths is all that in 
 reason should be asked. For, said he, sup- 
 pose they were to pick out some inconve- 
 nient or sickly spot, that would become ob- 
 noxious to the members, they would have 
 no power to remove it; and there they 
 would have to stay in spite of themselves, 
 for sectional interest would be sure to defeat 
 them. Alter it, if you will, so that it shall 
 require four-fifths to remove it back to New 
 Orleans, but don't pass any section which 
 will be so onerous on the balance of the 
 State, as the one now before us. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne remarked that he was 
 disposed to meet the gentlemen who were 
 pressing this matter with so much zeal, as 
 far as they could reasonably expect, and 
 for that purpose he had proposed two-thirds 
 instead of four-fifths, which he regarded as 
 tantamount to saying that the seat of gov- 
 ernment never should be changed when 
 once established. They are constantly al- 
 luding to the baneful influence of New Or- 
 leans, of her grasping disposition to obtain 
 power, and of her efforts to destroy the 
 country. Let them beware, in the course 
 they are now pursuing, they don't destroy 
 the constitution itself. We have conceded 
 to them the basis of representation; we 
 "have conceded to them seven-eighths of the 
 senate; and we have, one after another, 
 conceded so many points, that we can go 
 no farther. In order, however, to test the 
 question, he will accept the amendment to 
 his amendment, which proposes three-fifths 
 in lieu of two-thirds. 
 
 Mr. Beatty said he regretted that the 
 previous question did not prevail, for much 
 
Debates in the Contention of Louisiana. 
 
 401 
 
 as he was desirous to see the seat of gov- 
 ernment removed from New Orleans, he 
 should prefer it to remain where it was, in 
 preference to giving the power to the leg- 
 islat re to change it at any time they 
 saw fit. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne, on reflection, withdrew 
 his acceptance of + he amendment made "by 
 his colleague, and pressed the original 
 amendment made by him, which was to 
 strike out four-fifths and insert twd-thirds. 
 
 Mr. Winder then moved a division of 
 the question, so as to take the vote first on 
 striking out four-fifths, and then to tpke the 
 vote on the balance of the section, which 
 was agreed to, and thereupon, Mr. Clai- 
 borne's motion to strike out was put, and 
 the yeas and nays being called for, result- 
 ed as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Carriere, 
 Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of New Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Eustis, Grymes, Kenner, 
 Ledoux, Lewis, Marigny, Mayo. Mazu- 
 reau, Porter, Preston, Prudhomme, Ro- 
 man, Roselius, St. Amand, Soule, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Wadsworth, and Winchester 
 voted in favor of the motion — 29 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubeit, Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Burton, Cade, Chambliss, China, 
 Dunn, Garrett, Humble, ] lynson, Labauve, 
 McUall ip, McRae, O'Bryan, Peets, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Pugh, Ratliff, J(ead, 
 Saunders, Scott of Raton Rouge Scott of 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Waddill, 
 Wederstrandt, WikofF and Winder voted 
 against the motion — 33 nays; consequent- 
 ly the same was lost. 
 
 Mr. Dunn then moved to amend said 
 substitute by inserting one hundred and 
 twenty miles, instead of sixty miles. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to strike out sixty 
 miles, and insert one hundred miles. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved for the previous 
 question. 
 
 The President put the question, " shall 
 the main question now be put," and the 
 yeas and nays being called for, resulted as 
 follows : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Burton, Chambliss, Chinn, Garrett, 
 Humble, Hynson, Labauve, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Mayo, Peets, Pugh, Read, Saunders, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor 
 
 of Assumption, Waddill, Wederstrandt, 
 WikofF and Winder voted in the affirmative 
 — 29 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Cade, Car- 
 riere, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of New 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Guion, Grymes, Kenner, Legendre, 
 Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, O'Bryan, Por- 
 ter, Prescolt of St Landry, Preston, Prud- 
 homme, RalifT, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, 
 Soule, Trist, Voorhies, Wadsworth, and 
 Winchester voted in the negative — 35 
 nays : consequently the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Covillion moved that the word 
 sixty be stricken out, - and one hundred and 
 twenty inserted in lieu. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies moved to insert two hun- 
 dred. 
 
 Two o'clock having arrived, the special 
 order of the day was called up, which was 
 the substitute offered by Mr. Benjamin, on 
 the question of apportionment. [This pro- 
 ject having been before published is omit- 
 ted.] 
 
 Mr. Saunders moved to suspend the 
 rules of the Convention, so as to enable us 
 to finish the business now before them ; 
 which motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne thought his amendment 
 to insert two-thirds instead of three-fifths, 
 was next in order. 
 
 The President, however, explained that 
 the Convention had refused to make a 
 blank, and there was therefore nothing to 
 fill. 
 
 Mr. W. B. Scott moved to lay all the 
 amendments on the table, except the amend- 
 merit of Mr. Saunders. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth reminded him that it 
 was precisely the same thing as calling for 
 the previous question, which had just been 
 negatived. 
 
 Mr. Scott then withdrew his motion. 
 
 Mr. Labauve then moved for a division 
 of the question on the motion of Mr. Dunn, 
 that was, on the motion to strike out the 
 word sixty. 
 
 The President then put the question on 
 striking out the word "sixty;" which was 
 decided by yeas and nays, as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Carriere, 
 i Cenas. Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 ; Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, 
 j Grymes, Legendre, Leonard, Lewis, Mazu- 
 
402 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 reau, Porter, Prescott-of St. Landry, Pres. 
 ton, Prudhomrne, Roman, Roselius, St. 
 Amand, Soule, Stephens, Voorhies, Wads- 
 worth and Winchester voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 31 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Auberr, Beatty, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, 
 Chambliss, Chinn, Garrett, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Kenner, Labauve, McCallop, McRae, 
 Marigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Pugh, 
 Ratliff, Read, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Sellers, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, 
 Waddill, Wederstrandt, WikofF and Winder 
 voted in the negative — 35 nays ; conse- 
 quently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans moved to 
 amend, by inserting after the words " four- 
 fifths" the words " the members present of 
 each house of the general assembly ; which 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Saunders then moved for the adop- 
 tion of his substitute, and the yeas and nays 
 being called for, resulted as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, 
 Chambliss, Chinn, Covillion, Dunn, Gar- 
 rett, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, La*bauve, 
 Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, 
 Peets, Prescott of St. Landry, Pugh, Rat- 
 lifT. Read, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sel- 
 lers, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Trist, Waddill, Wederstrandt, WikofF and 
 Winder voted in the affirmative — 39 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Carriere, Ce- 
 nas, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Downs, Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, Legen- 
 dre, Leonard, Marigny, Mazureau, Porche, 
 Porter, Preston, Prudhomrne, Roman, Ro- 
 selius, St. Amand, Soule, Voorhies, Wads- 
 worth and Winchester voted in the nega- 
 tive^ — 28 nays; consequently the motion 
 was carried. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin then moved that the Con- 
 vention adjourn until Tuesday next at 11 
 o'clock, a. m., and the yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Brent, 
 Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Jef- 
 ferson, Culbertson, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Grymes, Humble, Kenner, La- 
 bauve, Lewis, Mazureau, Porche, Porter, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Read, Roman, Ro- 
 selius, St. Amand, Saunders, Scott of Ba- 
 
 ton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Soule, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Wads- 
 worth and Winchester, voted in favor of 
 adjournment — yeas 35 ; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Brazeale, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Chinn, 
 Conrad of Ne w Orleans, Covillion, Derbes, 
 Garrett, Hynson, Legendre, Leonard, Mc- 
 Callop, Marigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, 
 Preston, Prudhomrne, Ratliff, Scott of Ma- 
 dison, Sellers, Voorhies, Waddill, Weder- 
 strandt, and Winder, voted against the ad- 
 journment — nays 29; the same was car- 
 ried. 
 
 And thereupon the Convention adjourn- 
 ed until Tuesday, the 11th instant, at 1*1 
 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Tuesday, March 11, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment, and its proceedings were open- 
 ed with prayer from the Rev. Mr. War- 
 ren. 
 
 Mr. Hynson asked and obtained leave 
 of absence for Mr. Brent. 
 
 Mr. Lewis asked and obtained leave of 
 absence for Mr. WikofF. 
 
 Mr. Cade asked and obtained leave of 
 absence for Mr. O'Bryan. 
 
 Mr. Trist was dispensed from attend- 
 ance on account of sickness. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth presented a resolution 
 that ,a committee of three be appointed to 
 make the necessary" arrangements for the 
 reception of the Convention in the hall of 
 the house of representatives. 
 
 Mr. Marigny moved to amend the re- 
 solution by requesting the committee first 
 to inquire whether the hall of the house of 
 representatives was calculated to accommo- 
 date the members of the Conveution. 
 
 Mr. Marigny was of opinion that there 
 was not room sufficient in the hall of the 
 house of representatives to accommodate 
 all the members of the Convention. 
 
 Messrs. Wadsworth and Boudousquie, 
 expressed their entire conviction that there 
 was ample room in the house of represen- 
 tatives to accommodate seventy-seven per* 
 sons. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies was opposed to the ap- 
 pointment of a committee. He deems it un- 
 necessary. All that the Convention had 
 to do, was to adjourn from one hall to the 
 other. He moved to lay the resolutions on 
 the table. 
 
 I 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 403 
 
 After some remarks from Messrs. Voor- 
 hies and Pugh, 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs the resolution 
 and amendment was laid indefinitely on 
 the table. 
 
 Action was then had for the delivery of 
 the room and the disposal of the furniture 
 not necessary,and on motion of Mr. Downs, 
 it was resolved that when the Convention 
 adjourn, it adjourn to meet in the hall of the 
 house of representatives. 
 
 A motion was then made for the adjourn- 
 ment, in order to afford time to the clerks 
 to remove the papers, and to make ar- 
 rangements for the reception of the Conven- 
 tion to-morrow. • 
 
 Mr. Downs objected. The yeas and 
 nays were called for — 15 yeas — 36 nays. 
 
 Th e order of the day was taken up, being 
 a motion to lay Mr. Benjamin's project of 
 apportionment on the table. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved that the debates 
 on the subject of representation should 
 cease at 2 o'clock on Thursday- and that 
 the vote be then taken. 
 
 Thrs motion prevailed. 
 
 The Convention adjourned. 
 
 Tuesday, March 12, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The proceedings were opened with 
 prayer by the Rev. Mr. Clark. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to add the Bulletin to 
 the number of the city papers to be subscri- 
 bed for, for the use of the Convention, and 
 that the secretary be requested to have the 
 same lurnished to each member. He was 
 anxious to get regularly, at least a synop- 
 sis of the debates; and it appeared that from 
 some cause or other, the debates were not 
 regularly published. 
 
 Mr. Chinn was anxious to know what 
 would be the expense' of it. He said that 
 Mr. Kelly had been removed, most likely 
 without cause. Then we had only one re- 
 porter, now we have two, and the reports 
 ought to be up; the fault must lay some 
 where. 
 
 Mr. Kenner was opposed to taking the 
 Bulletin or any other paper, unless the sub- 
 scription to the Jeffersonian Republican 
 and Courier were discontinued; for, said 
 he, we have discharged Mr. Kelly because 
 tie was supposed not to have performed his 
 :luty; and he can see no reason why both 
 
 the other papers should not be discharged 
 from the service of this Convention also. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin is opposed to striking off 
 the subscription to the Courier, because 
 the editor of that paper has fulfilled the ob- 
 ligations he has come under to this Con- 
 vention, faithfully. The French reporter 
 also seems to have performed his duty, and 
 therefore we ought not to deprive the 
 French population of having the debates 
 regularly published for them, while both 
 printer and reporter perform their duty 
 regularly. 
 
 Mr. Kenner consented to leave the Cou- 
 rier in the employ of the Convention for 
 the reasons stated, but 
 
 Mr. Downs remarked that it was not 
 either his wish or intention in making the 
 motion he had, to disturb the present state 
 of things, either as regards the printers 
 or reporters. He does not wish to disturb 
 the system which we are now practising 
 upon. It is true that our debates are not 
 up in the paper we have selected; but that 
 may arise from many causes; but the main 
 difficulty, no doubt, arises from the report- 
 er being so much overtasked before the 
 Convention elected a second reporter to aid 
 him in his work, and every body knows 
 how hard it is to make up for lee-way. 
 Under these circumstances, he conceived it 
 better every way to take the paper which 
 he recommended as containing good con- 
 densed reports of the proceedings. The 
 expense will be so small, that it is hardly 
 worth the while of this Convention to 
 make it a matter of debate, when two or 
 three dollars a day will pay the whole ex- 
 penses. He hopes, therefore, that no fur- 
 ther objection will be raised to his motion. 
 
 Mr. Beatty thinks that there is another 
 matter connected with this subject, that re- 
 quires attention; and that is, who is in 
 fault in this matter? is it the printer, or is 
 it the reporters? and if the latter, which one 
 of them is delinquent in the performance of 
 his duty? These are questions that ought 
 to be investigated, and the person in whom 
 the fault lies be discharged at once. The 
 French reporter has published his proceed- 
 ings regularly. What then can be the 
 cause of the delay on the part of the Eng- 
 lish reporters? This should be investiga- 
 ted at once. He (Mr. Beatty) is opposed 
 for these reasons, to the resolution offered 
 by Mr. Downs, and hopes it will not prevail. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 Mr. Boudousquie wants to know the 
 amount it will cost; and Mr. Beatty then 
 moved to lay the resolution of Mr. -Downs 
 on the table. 
 
 Mr. Downs replied to Mr. Beatty that it 
 was hardly worth while to oppose his re- 
 solution for the small amount which it 
 would cost the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Beatty then moved to lay the reso^ 
 lution of Mr. Downs indefinitely on the ta- 
 ble, which motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr Beatty then offered a resolution, in 
 the following words, viz: 
 
 Resolved, That a committee of three 
 members be appointed to inquire whether 
 it be the fault of the reporters or of the pub- 
 lishers that the debates in English have not 
 been published to date, with instructions to 
 report a resolution removing the delin- 
 quents from office. 
 
 Which resolution was adopted. 
 
 The President appointed Messrs. Beat- 
 ty, RatlifT and Downs, members of said 
 committee. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved to amend the above 
 before the question was put; which amend- 
 ment was accepted, that the facts of the 
 case should be submitted; for although he 
 would go as far as any one to turn out an 
 incompetent, or a careless officer, yet be- 
 fore he can do that, he must have the facts 
 before him. 
 
 Mr. Lewis asked leave of absence for 
 Mr. Brumfield for a few days, and the same 
 was granted. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 The project submitted by Mr. Benjamin 
 on the apportionment, the same as publish, 
 ed in the official reports of the inst. 
 
 The President then informed the Con- 
 vention that this subject should properly 
 lay over until Thursday. 
 
 Mr. O' Bryan moved to lay Mr. Benja- 
 min's project on the table indefinitely. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved to amend by substi- 
 tuting the words, "subject to call" for ^in- 
 definitely," which being accepted, it was 
 agreed to. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff then moved to take up the 
 7th article of the constitution, which pro- 
 vides for the revising of the same. He 
 thinks a settlement of that question will 
 materially aid in bringing to an harmonious 
 adjustment the apportionment question. 
 
 Mr. Downs thought we had better pro- 
 ceed with the section in relation to the re- 
 presentation in the senate; but 
 
 Mr. Ratliff 's motion prevailed, and the 
 Convention took up the 7th article of the 
 constitution, as follows: 
 
 Any amendment or amendments to this 
 constitution may be proposed in the senate 
 or house of representatives, and if the same 
 shall be agreed to by a majority of the 
 members elected to each house, such pro. 
 posed amendment or amendments shall be 
 entered on their journals, with the yeas and 
 nays taken thereon, and the secretary of 
 State shall cause the same to be published 
 thiee months before the next general elec- 
 tion, in at least one newspaper in every 
 parish of the State in which newspapers 
 shall be published; and if. in the legislature 
 next afterwards chosen, such proposed 
 amendment or amendments shall be agreed 
 to by a majority of the members elected to 
 each house, the secretary of State shall 
 cause the same to be published in manner 
 aforesaid, at least three months prior to the 
 next general election for representatives to 
 the State legislature, and such proposed 
 amendment or amendments shall be sub- 
 mitted to the people at said election -; and 
 if the people shall approve and ratify such 
 amendment or amendments by a majority 
 of ail the qualified voters of this State, vo- 
 ting thereon, such amendment or amend- 
 ments shall become a part of the constitu- 
 tion : Provided, that if more than one 
 amendment be submitted at a time, they 
 shall be submitted in such manner and form 
 that the people may vote for or against- 
 each amendment separately and distinctly. 
 
 Mr. Humble moved that the article be 
 adopted as reported. 
 
 Mr. Mayo then moved to insert after the 
 word "election" in the 10th line, the words 
 "for representatives to the next general 
 election." 
 
 Mr. Humble opposed it, thinking it right 
 in its present shape. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff saw no good to be derived 
 from amending it as Mr. Mayo proposed. 
 He thinks it sufficiently explicit as it says, 
 and it is understood most clearly to mean 
 the biennial elections for representatives to 
 the general assembly. 
 
 Mr. Mayo feels convinced that in ma- 
 king a constitution, it is our duty to make 
 it as definite as possible; in fact we cannot 
 make it too definite- — it removes all doubt. 
 He should therefore press his amendment; 
 which on motion, was put and lost. 
 
 Mr. Boudousquie moved an amendment 
 
Debates in the Convention oi Louisiana. 
 
 405 
 
 to have the advertisements printed in the 
 French as well as in the English language. 
 It was as follows: by inserting after the 
 word "published/' the words "in French 
 and English." which motion was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne was not disposed to let I 
 this article pass, without examining more [ 
 closely into its merits, and he thinks it is 
 susceptible of amendment. He regards a 
 constitution as no light matter ; as a thing 
 not to be touched, unless for weighty rea- 
 sons ; and on examining the article before 
 us, we find a bare majority of the legisla- 
 ture will have the power of proposing 
 amendments to it, and also that a bare ma- 
 jority of the second legislature may agree 
 to any such amendments, and therefore 
 take the vote of the people upon it. 
 
 Now he (Mr. Claiborne) fears that by 
 so easy a mode being open to the .legisla- 
 ture, we shall have incessant changes pro- 
 posed, and we shall be constantly kept in 
 a state of excitement: a thing always to he 
 avoided when possible, or unless some 
 great political benefit is to enure to the 
 people. But he fears it will be made a 
 kind of plaything, for we all know how 
 these things have been managed before the 
 people. He is of opinion, that the evil may 
 be remedied by increasing the required ma- 
 jority in the legislature at the first proposal 
 of amendment, for if a larger amount of the 
 members than a bare majority be required, 
 the people will examine the amendment 
 with a greater confidence, and will natural- 
 ly feel that it is not offered on slight 
 grounds; the second time after the people 
 have divided on it, it will not be so much a 
 matter of moment. Besides, if we retain 
 the bare majority we shall be more subject 
 to the caprice and whims of particular 
 parts of our country, who. may by a concen- 
 tration of strength, be able to carry such a 
 measure through, and thus we shall be in 
 a constant state of agitation. Now, as he 
 thinks we ought not for slight causes to 
 touch that instrument which it is now cost- 
 ing the State of Louisiana a large amount 
 of money and trie valuable time of her citi- 
 zens to perfect, he is desirous to throw such 
 guards around it as will prevent our future 
 legislatures from lightly tearing to pieces, 
 and leaving it as a piece of patch work. 
 He therefore offers an amendment to this 
 effect, to strike out the words t: a majority" 
 and insert "two-thwK" 
 52 
 
 Mr. Pouter thinks- the amendment is 
 uncalled for. He thinks it will go further, 
 and say that we shall not amend it at all, 
 for two-thirds of both branches will be next 
 to an impossibility to get. For if it be 
 wrong in the first instance, if the first legis- 
 lature should abuse its power, the whole 
 matter would be before the people at their 
 next election, and they would take it in 
 hand and send a new set of representatives 
 to the' second legislature, who could reme- 
 dy the evil. Besides, it has to go to them 
 finally, and there would at least be six 
 years for them to reflect gravely on the ne- 
 cessity of the change called for before they 
 will be called upon to determine it definitely. 
 He then thinks there is nothing to be 
 dreaded from the article as it stands, and 
 trusts it will not be altered. 
 
 Mr. Clairorxe in reply to the delegate 
 from Caddo. (Mr. Porter) would remark 
 that it is not on the second action of the 
 legislature he would put any restriction, 
 but upon the first: take away the chances 
 of offering any amendment to the constitu- 
 tion, unless it were called by the sternest 
 necessity, and we shall not be incessantly 
 in agitation from the uncalled for and unne- 
 cessary amendments that will be proposed, 
 by either demagogues or aspiring politi- 
 cians. He is desirous that the door should 
 not be left open to gratify either the vanity 
 or ambition, or caprice of such men. If 
 the people of this State approve of the con- 
 stitution we are framing, he (Mr. C.) hopes 
 to live in peace for the balance of his davs; 
 but if this article passes as it stands, we 
 shall be in constant commotion, 
 
 Mr. Porter in reply, stated that he had 
 perfectly understood the question: what he 
 endeavored to say was, that the succeeding 
 legislature could readily undo the acts of the 
 first, if they proposed any amendment to the 
 constitution not agreeable to the people. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff objects to the amendment 
 proposed by the delegate from Xew Orleans, 
 (Mrs Claiborne) because he thinks it is 
 quite unnecessary; and that instead of good, 
 evil may result from it. If gentlemen will 
 carefully examine the phraseology of the 
 report, (for it is his [Mr. R.'s] own report, 
 every word of it.) it will be discovered that 
 there are sufficient safeguards thrown around 
 the people's power to check hasty or im- 
 provident amendments to the constitution. 
 If he (Mr. Ratliff) could desire to amend 
 
406 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 the -report at all, lie would be in favor of 
 taking off rather than adding restrictions 
 on the popular will; but as it is, it will take 
 six years before any amendment can be 
 perfected. The first legislature have to 
 propose the amendment, then when it has 
 been published three months prior to the 
 election of the succeeding legislature, in 
 French and English, throughout the State, 
 (lie thanked the delegate from St. John the 
 Baptiste for reminding him of the omission 
 he had made in leaving out the word 
 ''French" in the report,) the second legis- 
 lature have to act upon it, and if they ap- 
 prove of it, then at the next general election, 
 two years afterwards, the people finally de- 
 cide upon accepting or rejecting it. Thus 
 you see it takes three biennial elections be- 
 fore it can be adopted, and he (Mr. R.) thinks 
 that is restriction enough. He (Mr. R.) 
 knows the difficulty of getting the people 
 aroused to the necessity of altering or 
 amending a constitution, He it was who 
 ten years ago, first set the ball in motion, 
 which has resulted in the deliberations of 
 this Convention. He worked for four years, 
 diligently, aided by the delegate* from 
 Ouachita, (Mr. Downs) in the legislature; 
 well then, it took two years before the 
 amendments principally needed in the old 
 constitution, could be properly understood 
 by the people — so that six years is the 
 lowest possible time that an amendment 
 could be before the people for their action, 
 The principle on which this report is based 
 is the same as in the constitution of Penn- 
 sylvania, a State which has been remarked 
 for her stability and for the regularity of 
 her laws, and she has never made but one 
 amendment in her constitution since it was 
 adopted. He suggested it to the committee 
 as, in his opinion, the best that could be 
 found. 
 
 Mr. R. then read that portion of the con- 
 stitution of Pennsylvania relating to the 
 subject under debate; he remarked there 
 was some slight alteration in the phraseolo- 
 gy, but nothing material; and when it is re- 
 flected that it was re-adopted in 1838, the 
 difficulty and danger apprehended on the 
 subject is more apparent than real. He 
 does not desire to see any more restrictions 
 imposed upon the people than are necessa- 
 ry. He feels that our fault is, in conceiv- 
 ing ourselves perfect, which he, (Mr.R.) by 
 no means does, for by what process of ra- 
 
 tiocination can we take upon ourselves to 
 say that we are wiser than our children will 
 be? And if they should hereafter desire to 
 amend the constitution, it is nothing but 
 right that they should have the power to do 
 it. He (Mr. R.) is no more desirous than 
 the delegate from New Orleans is to put it 
 ib the power of demagogues to prevail over 
 the popular will, but something may creep 
 into the constitution to which there are ob- 
 jections, and he believes it would be wrong 
 to increase the disability of the people 
 themselves to rectify it. He thinks it will 
 make it moie palatable to the people if they 
 find they have the power to correct any er- 
 rors we may commit in framing it. When 
 once ratified, and when people settle down 
 again under these new organic laws, calm 
 deliberation will succeed; it may then be 
 found that errors have crept into the con- 
 stitution which require amendment; and 
 when they are thoroughly convinced of it, 
 they ought to have every possible chance to 
 remedy the evil He (Mr. R.) agrees with 
 Mr. Van Buren, that there is no danger in 
 leaving it to the sober second thought of 
 the people. He has gone as far as he 
 thought it was necessary in the report, 
 which he hopes will not be disturbed. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin, after reflecting on the 
 amendment proposed by his colleague, (Mr. 
 Claiborne,) has come to the conclusion that 
 the proposition is a reasonable and proper 
 one. He desires to make a few remarks to 
 explain what has led him to think so, and 
 why he sustains it. It is universally ad- 
 mitted that one of the greatest curses that 
 can befall a country, is the uncertainty of 
 the laws, which are so constantly being 
 changed; some improvement in that respect 
 is loudly called for; now it is an alarming 
 evil. It is well known that at every session 
 of the legislature there are always more or 
 less who come with their own peculiar no- 
 tions as to certain errors that may exist in 
 particular statutes, and that steadily devote 
 themselves to altering or repealing them, 
 until they get them to their taste. The fol- 
 lowing session, others com* with views to- 
 tally opposed to those who made the laws 
 before to suit themselves; and they use 
 every exertion (generally too, successfully,) 
 to repeal all acts which had previously been 
 passed by the same genus of politicians, 
 but who are opposed to each other on the 
 material principle of the law in existence; 
 
 I 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 407 
 
 thus laws are passed at one session and re- j made for the protection of minorities. In 
 pealed at another, and the reeultis, that our j such a case, the protection is null and void, 
 laws are constantly conflicting the one with i and it would be better to have no constitu- 
 the other, and there is no stability in our j tion at all, than to 7 rely upon any thing so 
 system, to the great detriment and injury of | illusory for protection against the sudden 
 the citizen. Now, if this be so, and it be j changes of popular feeling. Do.ubtless all 
 a great erying evil, how much greater will | the members of this Convention are actu- 
 it not be, 'if we insert in our constitution ated by a desire to make the constitution 
 that a majority of the legislature shall have one of a permanently, beneficial, and lasting 
 the power to' propose amendments to the ! character. What is proposed to you to ac- 
 constitution? Whv, we shall have amend- j complish that desirable result? Simply to 
 ment after amendment proposed at every j say |that two-thirds of the legislature shall 
 session to suit the views of those visionary j be required to propose any amendment to the 
 schemers who cannot accomplish what they j people ere it be deemed necessary to raise 
 aimed at without such amendment. | it as a question before them. When that is 
 
 It is not questioned that in all republican ' done, the people themselves are to deter- 
 governments majorities must rule; but it is ; mine. At the second legislature a majori- 
 no less true that the constitutions of all the j ty coming fresh from the people and know- 
 States are made for the purpose of protect- ; ing their wishes, will be sufficient. He, 
 inor the rights of the minority from being Mr. Benjamin, thinks that no more rea- 
 trampled upon by the majority; and that the \ sonable proposition could have been made, 
 onlvreliance the minority can have, is the ' and he fully coincides with his colleague, 
 measure of restriction thrown into the con- ! Mr. Claiborne. The argument used in op- 
 stitution by which they are to be governed, j position to it is, that the people will always 
 Without the constitution be framed in such | have it in their power to prevent any im- 
 a way as to accomplish both these ends, it ; proper amendment from succeeding, as thev 
 will be an useless instrument. He (Mr. j can prevent it at the election of the second 
 Benjamin) has advanced that doctrine on I legislature; but that is not a good argument, 
 this floor more than once; but this day he j for the people having confidence in their 
 is strengthened in his position by the lan- j representative, will doubtless ratify and 
 guage of the President of the United States, j confirm his acts relative to the amendment 
 James K. Polk, an authority which he does j and will send him back to finish the work 
 not believe will be questioned, by the gen- j which he has begun, and thus the minority 
 tlemen who are opposed to the position are placed in the power of the majority, 
 taken by him, Mr. Benjamin. and what it is necessary for us to guard 
 
 In his inaugural address, he says: j against is, that the power be not delegated 
 
 ;< By the theory of our government majori- to them, for such an [abuse, as will inevita- 
 ties rule; but this right is not an arbitrary : bly result from trusting an unscrupulous 
 or unlimited one. It is a right to be exer- 1 majority. 
 
 cised in subordination to the constitution, But there are other evils to be guarded 
 and in conformity to it. One great object against, because it is not always that the 
 of the constitution was to restrain majori- majority in the legislature represents the 
 ties from oppressing minorities, or en- majority of the people of the State, and 
 eroaching upon their just rights. Minori- I therefore it is no proof, because such ma. 
 ties have a right to appeal to the constitu- 1 jority may be.. found, that the people at large 
 tion as a shield against such oppression." i desire such alteration in their constitution; 
 
 Who will not agree to that? It is the and it is more than likely that scarcely a 
 only true andg»rrect doctrine that can' be I session will pass withonthavingamendments 
 sustained in Country where we are gov- 1 made to the constitution, by bare majorities; 
 erned by constitutional law. But if you and then we shall be constantly agitated 
 leave your constitution at the mercy of a by these appeals to the people, to know 
 single vote in the legislature, you may just j whether such and such an amendment shall 
 as well stop your labors, for you cannot be confirmed or rejected. A constitution 
 progress without breaking down one of the is not a piece of patch-work, for people to 
 fundamental principles of our system of tinker on. If we are guilty of any great 
 government, viz : that constitutions are oversight in making it, it will not be diffi- 
 
40S 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 cult to get two-thirds of the legislature to 
 propose an amendment, if palpably defec- 
 tive. As much then, as there is reason to 
 expect such prompt amendment on the one 
 side, there is also as much to fear that 
 questionable amendments might be forced 
 through, if it only required a bare majority; 
 but you may depend, if a constitution be 
 made to serve the purposes of a party, it is 
 no constitution, but a political engine, to 
 crush minorities. He, Mr. Benjamin, will 
 not go so far away as Pennsylvania, which 
 State the delegate from West Feliciana has 
 called our attention to, to show the efficacy 
 of the proposed system; he will go no far- 
 ther than to our neighboring State, Missis- 
 sippi; she is constantly agitated by such 
 amendments; not a session passes her legis- 
 lature but what they make some amend- 
 ments or alterations in their constitution, 
 until at last it has become a complete piece 
 of patch-work, bearing no kind of resem- 
 blance to what it was at its adoption. Are 
 the people of this State prepared to follow 
 that example? And yet they are bound to 
 adopt or reject the constitution when placed 
 before them; and if they adppt it, we are 
 just as likely to have just such a piece of 
 patch-work as they . have. The delegate 
 from West Feliciana; (Mr. Ratliff,) boasts 
 of the time which it took to get this Con- 
 vention called together; but if one party 
 can change it every four years, by a simple 
 majority, we shall have no other constitu- 
 tion than the will of that majority. For 
 instance, the legislature which has just ad- 
 journed, if they had had the power to pro- 
 pose any such amendment as is herein con- 
 templated, the legislature, to meet in 1847, 
 could, in January, 1847, pass on it a sec- 
 ond time, and put it before the people for 
 acceptance or rejection; thus, in less than 
 four years, an obnoxious amendment may 
 be hurried through, step by step, depriving 
 the minority of their rights. He feels con- 
 vinced there is no safety for them, as the 
 report stands; and that by inserting two? 
 thirds, a geat evil may be remedied. He 
 hopes the Convention will reflect on it well, 
 and that they will not now destry the work 
 of their own hands. The object of a con- 
 stitution is to protect all equally, not to 
 give one portion a right to impose on anoth- 
 er portion of the citizens; and that cannot 
 be called a restriction, which is intended as 
 a protection to the rights of the whole 
 equally. 
 
 He shall support the amendment of hi s 
 colleague, (Mr. Claiborne,) and hopes it 
 will prevail. 
 
 Mr. Marigny does not agree in opinion 
 with his colleague, (Mr. Benjamin.) He 
 thinks the report of the committee is well 
 enough as it is, without the proposed 
 amendment. Whatever may be his, Mr. 
 Marigny's, opinion of the learning and 
 ability of the members of this Convention, 
 he is, nevertheless, not satisfied that it has 
 absorbed the whole talent of the State. 
 He sees no reason to doubt that future le- 
 gislatures will contain as many talented and 
 enlightened minds as are to be found in this 
 hall; and he should not be surprised to find 
 them still more able; for in proportion as 
 we advance in extending our population, it 
 is reasonable to suppose that our future 
 course will also be marked, as weilby great 
 improvements in the science of goverument 
 as in the other arts and sciences. Besides, 
 it is to be supposed that whenever any 
 amendment to the constitution shall have 
 been favorably entertained, and proposed 
 by the legislature, and which cannot, not? 
 withstanding, have any force or weight, 
 until the people shall have three times 
 passed upon its merits, and it had also gone 
 through a second examination by a legisla- 
 ture, chosen expressly with the knowledge 
 of the people, that they were to act upon it. 
 It is to be supposed, he said, that the legis- 
 lature had not acted precipitately in the first 
 place, if it should successfully pass through 
 all those ordeals, and that no serious conse- 
 quences would be likely to result from the 
 adoption of the amendment. 
 
 By insisting on a vote of two-thirds of 
 each house, you will render it next to im- 
 possible to make any amendments to the 
 constitution at all. If a majority of this 
 Convention, whose business it is to revise 
 the old constitution, is considered enough 
 to settle any principle requiring attention 
 in it, why is not a majority of the legisla? 
 ture capable of discussing and determining 
 on ■ the propriety of submiijkig an amend- 
 ment, of their own constitunfti, to the peo- 
 ple themselves? They must surely think 
 poorly of the legislature, as well as of the 
 people, when they deem it necessary to 
 throw so many impediments in the way of 
 both of them. 
 
 Such a measure shall not be sanctioned 
 by him, for he thinks all proper guards are 
 thrown around the question by the commit- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 409 
 
 tee, to prevent it from abuse: and he shall 
 therefore sustain the report. 
 
 Mr. Soule proposed to his colleague. 
 Mr. Claibore. that three-firths would be 
 more likely to meet the views of the Con- 
 vention, and' hoped he would accept that 
 amendment to the one offered by him. 
 While, on the one hand, although the legis- 
 lature may be every way competent and 
 worthy, he should not like to see an amend' 
 ment left to the mercy of a single vote; on 
 the other hand, he is not desirous of seeing 
 too much restriction. He thinks by placing 
 it on the footing he recommends, (of three- 
 fifths.) the fears of those who dread the 
 constant changes in the constitution will be 
 allayed; while, at the same time, we shall 
 be responding to the just wishes of the 
 people. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne accepts the amendment 
 proposed by his colleague, (Mr. Soule) but 
 before he takes his seat he desires to say a 
 few words to the delegate from West Fe- 
 liciana. (Mr. Ratliff) in regard to what has 
 fallen from him as to the difficulties which 
 there were to get the legislature to present 
 the question to thepeople.. whether the con- 
 stitution of 1812 should be altered or 
 amended or not. It is true that a bare ma- 
 joritv was only required, but the gentleman 
 ought also to have stated that the law was 
 compelled to be passed within twenty 
 days after the meeting of the legislature. 
 The shortness of the time allowed by the 
 old constitution was a far greater difficulty 
 to surmount than it would have been to got 
 a vote of two-thirds, later in the session. 
 He knows full well that that was the great- 
 est difficulty in the case; besides that there 
 was another, which was. that many of the 
 members threw difficulties in its.way, fear- 
 ing that the whole constitution was to be 
 changed. He desired to state these tacts, 
 to account for the position assumed by the 
 Orleans delegation in former years, in op- 
 posing the call. It was not against, the 
 principle they contended, but it was owing 
 altogether to her peculiar position at that 
 time. She haS then but six members in 
 the lower house and one in the senate; she 
 was treated with much more injustice than 
 now. Her representation was so small, 
 compared with her rights, that we could not 
 object to come here to represent her large 
 interest with only seven members. But 
 subsequently a new apportionment was 
 
 | made, and she received something nearer 
 I her just quota. The gentleman from West 
 Feliciana must himself recollect, that after 
 her representation was increased. Xew Or- 
 leans did not oppose the call of the Conven- 
 tion as she did when so unequally repre- 
 sented as she was with six members. 
 
 His mam object in proposing to amend 
 the report before us was., as he has said al- 
 ready, to do away with such continual agi- 
 tation, both in the legislature and among 
 the people. He does not believe that they 
 want to change sections of their constitu- 
 i tion as regularly as the leaves blow from 
 the trees in the fall of the year. In fact, 
 ; he thinks it better that a constitution should 
 remain imperfect in some of its parts, than 
 ! that it should be made the play-thing of 
 ; parties, orpolitical agitators. 
 
 Mr. Downs will sustain the report of 
 the committee, in preference to the amend- 
 ment offered, which requires three-fifths of 
 the legislature to propose any amendment 
 to the constitution we are now framing. 
 He has paid particular attention to the quo- 
 [ tation read from President Polk's inaugural 
 | address, quoted for the first time, so unex- 
 i pectedly and in such flattering terms, by 
 the honorable delegate trom Xew Orleans. 
 I (Mr. Benjamin.) but he does not think 
 | they are properly applicable to the matter 
 we have now under discussion : in fact he 
 does not think they have any application 
 whatever to it. Xo one denies that minori- 
 j ties ought to be protected ; but that is no 
 j reason why they alone should make the 
 I constitution, or why they should prevent an 
 amendment being made in the constitution, 
 called for by the majority. A convention 
 is called for the purpose of making a con- 
 stitution, which is a compact between the 
 whole people, and the majority of that con- 
 vention is to decide on every question of 
 interest to them as a whole. Therefore, 
 it is neither two-thirds nor three-fifths, nor 
 any thing but a simple majority who have 
 the right of deciding any question here. 
 The same rule app ies in our legislative 
 bodies, and the same principle' was recog- 
 nized by the Convention of 1812; and yet, 
 if the principles laid down by Mr. Polk be 
 applied in the sense, and the construction 
 given to them by the delegate from New 
 Orleans, (Mr. Benjamin,) it would be made 
 to say that the majority should yield to the 
 | will of the minority. That the minority 
 
410 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 and not the majority, should govern. If 
 that be not the basis of his argument, why 
 is it that the legislature, ( (who is not as- 
 sembled to make a constitution, but laws 
 under that constitution,) should be required, 
 when they see an amendment necessary to 
 that instrument, to have two-thirds of the 
 members of that legislature supporting that 
 amendment, before it can be submitted to 
 the people, unless it be the adoption of the 
 doctrine that minorities ought to govern 
 majorities? Certainly then, when you 
 come to make the application to this new 
 constitution, they have no analogy to each 
 other. The majority here and every where 
 makes the constitution, not the minority. 
 The difficulty of getting two-thirds or three- 
 fifths of the members of the legislature to 
 propose an amendment to the constitution 
 would be so great, that to adopt either 
 would be tantamount to saying there never 
 should be an amendment to it. 
 
 He can see no reason why we should 
 adopt such a principle, for certainly if we 
 do, we never can amend the constitution. 
 It has become usual in America to amend 
 their constitutions in a peaceable and or- 
 derly manner. In other countries, many 
 of them amend their's by bloody revolu- 
 tions ; and why should we tie up the hands 
 of our citizens, and say to them, you shall 
 not amend your constitution, and that to 
 submit to it is better than violence. He 
 (Mr. Downs) recollects when, many years 
 ago, he first came to the bar, the idea pre- 
 vailed, and he heard the remark made by 
 a very distinguished man, that the consti- 
 tution of 1812 never would, nor could be 
 amended; and when asked for his reasons, 
 he said they were many : First, that there 
 would be the opposition to it of all those 
 who held offices for life, under that consti- 
 tution. Second, the short time allowed 
 under the constitution of 1812— -twenty 
 days only being allowed to consummate the 
 bill after the first meeting of each legisla- 
 ture, being all but saying it could not be 
 done. And, third, that the difficulty still 
 stronger to be surmounted than all, was the 
 manner in which the question should be 
 put to the people. Subsequent events, and 
 the delays which he (Mr. Downs) has wit- 
 nessed, and the difficulties which he with 
 others has contended against, to surmount 
 all these concurrent oppositions to the mea- 
 sure, have long since satisfied him that the 
 
 gentleman who years ago made that re- 
 mark to him was right; and he knows fur- 
 ther, that if two-thirds of the legislature 
 had then been required, that we never 
 should have been in attendance on this 
 Convention ; and so it will be, when we 
 say that two-thirds sha 1 be required before 
 the legislature can propose an amendment 
 to the constitution we are now making ; no 
 amendment ever will be made — and our 
 agreeing to any such amendment virtually 
 says, that when this constitution is adopted 
 it is to last forever, and never can be 
 amended. For this reason alone he would 
 feel bound to sustain the report of the com- 
 mittee, were there no others. The proba- 
 bility is, that a very long time may and will 
 elapse, before any great change will be 
 called for in the constitution ; but there 
 may be one or two small points overlook- 
 ed, which can gradually be remedied by 
 the legislature and the people. He does 
 not desire to see these small amendments 
 refused without the necessity of uprooting 
 the whole instrument ; and he thinks the 
 plan proposed by the committee the most 
 conservative of .any that he has seen. 
 People, when they become familiarized 
 with the constitution, will become more 
 and more attached to it, and will not desire 
 a change ; at the same time they will most 
 likely claim the privilege of altering or 
 amending any portion which works adverse- 
 ly to the interests of the whole — and then it 
 is that the power of the legislature should 
 be acknowledged, and that the people 
 should be heard through their representa- 
 tives, and the right should be in them to 
 pick out any particular clause, and amend 
 it, if a majority of the people demand the 
 change. .On the one hand there can be 
 no danger, for it must be sanctioned, not 
 only by the legislature, but by the people 
 also, no less than three successive times. 
 On the other hand, we have a constitution 
 which is placed in the hands of the minori- 
 ty, and the majority of the people cannot 
 touch it, or alter or change one single word 
 in it, unless it pleases the minority to let 
 them. Now, let us suppose that the point 
 sought to be amended were a very impor- 
 tant one to the interests of the whole State, 
 and some local cause or interest were to 
 stop it forever, on account of the two-third 
 or three-fith rule being applied. Will the 
 people tolerate it ? and the first question 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana: 
 
 411 
 
 they would ask, shall or shall not majori- 
 ties govern ? For his part he thinks they 
 ought to govern, and that they will. There 
 is no necessity for hasty changes ; for, as 
 experience has proved, one party or the 
 other hold the power of government in their 
 hands for a succession of years, and they 
 would do nothing that could impair the 
 confidence people had in them. It could 
 not be done by the sudden move of any 
 party, for party purposes. Consequently 
 there is nothing to be dreaded from 
 hasty changes in our constitution : and 
 those who advance that doctrine base their 
 argument on an absurd theory. 
 
 Mr. Downs hopes the amendment will 
 not prevail. We are constantly improving 
 in the science of government, as in all else, 
 and we ought not to tie either our own 
 hands or the hands of those who aiib to 
 come after us. We ought not to say that 
 we shall not alter or amend the constitu- 
 tion, for we do not know what new neces- 
 sities may arise ; at any rate, we ought not 
 to fetter down those who are to succeed us, 
 but leave them free to take advantage of 
 their own situation, and make their organic 
 laws to suit the necessity and requirements 
 of the age they may live in. There will 
 be no excitement from a free and fail' dis- 
 cussion — agitate measures as much as you 
 please, that tend to ameliorate the condi- 
 tion of the citizen ; submit them to the legis- 
 lature and the people as often as you please : 
 that can do no harm. The only real cause 
 for agitation or revolution is, when the peo- 
 ple are cramped, fettered, restricted and 
 oppressed. 
 
 Mr. Coxrad remarked, that when he 
 read the report of the committee, it met his 
 entire approbation. He yet approves of 
 the principle contained in it, which pro- 
 vides for the partial amendmet of the con- 
 stitution, in preference to calling a Con- 
 vention for every slight alteration it may 
 require. He thinks it is expedient, and is 
 a happy idea : but when he comes to look 
 further into it, he finds that we shall be go- 
 ing too far, in giving to a bare majority" of 
 the legislature the power to bring forward 
 any measure of amendment they saw fit. 
 To say nothing of the expense it will cost 
 the State in publishing the amendments, 
 which may be offered by those who have 
 the power to make their chimerical notions 
 bear a reasonable semblance, and therebv 
 
 carry with them a majority of the legisla- 
 ture, but which, when adopted, are invari- 
 ably a fruitful source of regret to all engag- 
 ed in it. We must bear in mind that we 
 have another duty to perform ; and that is, 
 to prevent any article containing in it a dan- 
 gerous principle of innovation on the rights 
 of any, either the majority or the minority; 
 and more especially to place it beyond the 
 power of the former to oppress the latter. 
 It is moreover admitted, that all constitu- 
 tions are made to furnish to the majority a 
 check upon themselves : to guard them 
 against momentary impulses, which are so 
 often afterwards regretted. 
 
 Nothing is more true than the assertion 
 made by the delegate from Ouachita (Gen. 
 Downs,) that, in our form of government, 
 majorities alone should govern ; but while 
 admitting that, it is equally true, that there 
 shou d be no doubt or question that that 
 majority of the whole people does exist in 
 the majority of the legislature, before pow- 
 er shall be entrusted to that majority which 
 may deprive the real majority of the people 
 of their just rights. The power, then, he 
 admits should be reserved to the majority 
 of the people. No change in the constitu- 
 tion ought to be made rashly, hastily, and 
 without the greatest necessity, and without 
 due reflection withal : and he (Mr. Conrad) 
 thinks it would be more wise, more politic, 
 and more in accordance with the will of 
 the majority, to submit to some slight im- 
 perfections in our social compact, rather 
 than run headlong into every wild scheme 
 that may be proposed as an amendment to 
 it ; and thereby accustom ourselves to per- 
 petual changes. We should endeavor so 
 to frame our constitution that it shall have 
 a stability about it which will not require 
 constant alterations. An instance of the 
 necessity for permanency in a constitution 
 is given in the history of Greece, where a 
 distinguished and celebrated philosopher 
 and statesman, after making a code of laws 
 for his country, prevailed upon the people 
 to swear on their oaths not to change it till 
 his return, which they did. He never re- 
 turned, for he died abroad : but although the 
 people would have committed perjury had 
 they changed it in their own time, they had 
 no cause to regret it, for the system work- 
 ed well, and was not subject to the con- 
 stant uncertainties to which we are liable 
 in these davs. Can it then be considered 
 
412 
 
 Debates m the Oonventieii of Louisiana, 
 
 unreasonable to ask that three-fifths of the 
 legislature should be required before any 
 amendment shall be made in our constitu- 
 tion ? He thinks the more it is reflected l 
 upon, the more it will be apparent to every 
 member of the Convention, that it will 
 insure to us that very stability we require. 
 
 But the hpnorabfc-delegate from Ouachi- 
 ta, (Mr. Downs.) contends that thereby we 
 shall be depriving the majority of their 
 rights. He must pardon me for saying that 
 is not so, for when he himself comes to re- 
 flect a moment, he is. bound to admit, from 
 his great experience in legislative business, 
 that the legislature Is very frequently not 
 the mirror of the people ; but on the con- 
 trary they do not reflect the feelings of a 
 majority of the people. 
 
 How can it be said that the legislature 
 who proposes the question of amendment 
 the first time, is expressing the wishes of a 
 majority of the people? They were not 
 elected with any such question before the 
 people, and if they were instructed, it 
 would most likely be by a minority of their 
 constituents.- Men are generally elected to 
 the legislature on account of their personal 
 merit, and consequent popularity; from 
 which the people expect to derive some lo- 
 cal benefit, but those very electors would 
 never have chosen them, if they had sup- 
 posed they were to touch the constitution. 
 It is clear then that such members are not 
 elected on the question of necessity to 
 amend the same, and therefore that cannot 
 be called "placing it once before the peo- 
 ple." 
 
 But take the plan proposed in the report, 
 and what will be the consequence? Al- 
 though they assert that which I am willing 
 to. admit, there cannot come any harm from 
 submitting a question to* the people, it is 
 nevertheless clear, that if we do not put a 
 check upon unnecessary changes and 
 amendments, that they will be constantly 
 and continually made. £ admit there-is no 
 harm, lsay, in submitting a question to the 
 people, but there should be some safe- 
 guard in the constitution to prevent these 
 frequent recurrences of constitutional ques- 
 tions to the people. Suppose the first leg- 
 islature elected without reference to amend- 
 ing, should propose an amendment, and the 
 second legislature ratifies what the first has 
 done — the chances are, when the people 
 begin to study and examine them, that nine 
 
 out of ten of them will be rejected, and then 
 all the expense in promulgating these theo- 
 ries, will have to come out of the pockets 
 of the people at last. 
 
 Mr. Conrad need not go far away from 
 home to show the fallacy of the arguments 
 advanced against the necessity of a check 
 upon sudden innovations in the constitution 
 of a State. He has it on good authority, 
 that in the State of Mississippi, no legisla- 
 ture meets or has met there for years back, 
 but what some alteration is made in the 
 constitution, and so steadily and so labori- 
 ously have they worked at it, that it is now 
 little more than a common statute, some- 
 thing similar to our code of practice. We 
 want a medium, and in that the delegates 
 from West Feliciana and Ouachita (Messrs. 
 Ratliff and Downs) say they agree with 
 him; but when we come to compare notes, 
 they say we are going to extremes, and 
 that it is not right to put it out of the 
 power of the people; but have they re- 
 flected where their doctrine will carry us] 
 Surely not;- for every reasonable person 
 will admit that a middle is always prefera- 
 ble to an extreme course, in any case. 
 
 The difficulties which will exist in ta. 
 king the plan proposed by Mr. Soule, viz: 
 of amending the article so as to read three- 
 fifths instead of "a majority" of the legis- 
 lature being required to entertain an 
 amendment to the constitution, will cer- 
 tainly be much less, and more easily over- 
 come, if proper, than the old plan of hav- 
 ing to force it through in the first twenty 
 days after the meeting of the legislature. 
 For a while we heard that it was impossi- 
 ble; that it could not be done; but yet we 
 see that popular sentiment has prevailed, 
 and here we are altering and amending the 
 constitution. Even with that modification, j 
 then, it would seem that it was accom- 
 plished, and what therefore, have we to 
 dread from the easier task of getting three- 
 fifths of the legislature, when we have 
 overcome a so much greater one, without 
 any of those frightful evils with which we 
 have been so much and so often threaten- 
 ed, if Mr. Soule's amendment to Mr. Clai- 
 borne's should prevail. He (Mr. Con- im 
 rad) will surely sustain the amendment. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth: I have but one ques- 
 tion, Mr. President, to ask of those gentle- I 
 men, who oppose the amendment offered by 
 the delegate from- New Orleans, and thai 
 
Debates in tire Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 413 
 
 is, what is the object of a Convention, 
 unless it be to protect minorities in their 
 rights? Any body with half an idea, must 
 have seen hoAv often majorities trample on 
 the rights of minorities when they have the 
 power to do it; and he (Mr. Wadsworth) 
 knows, on many occasions, that the mem- 
 bers of the legislature have proved as great 
 tyrants as ever the Czar of Russia was. 
 There is not, there cannot be anything like 
 perfect equality, until the minority can say 
 to the majority, "thus far shalt thou come, 
 but no farther." . We of the minority have 
 the privilege of asking protection in our 
 rights, and but for that, why do we make a 
 constitution? It is a matter of great satis- 
 faction to him that he can refer, as has 
 done the delegate from New Orleans, (Mr. 
 Benjamin) to such good democratic doctrine 
 as we have, coming from such a distin- 
 guished and elevated man as the president 
 of this great republic of freemen — -from the 
 man who holds the first office in the world; 
 for there is none so dignified or morally 
 sublime, as to be at the head of a free peo- 
 ple capable of self-government. President 
 Polk says : 
 
 "One great object of the constitution was 
 to restrain majorities from oppressing mi- 
 norities, or encroaching upon their just 
 rights , Minorities have a right to appeal 
 to the constitution as a shield against such 
 oppression. That the blessings of liberty 
 which our constitution secures may be en- 
 joyed alike by minorities and majorities, 
 the executive has been wisely invested 
 with a qualified veto upon the acts of the 
 legislature." 
 
 That very principle, the veto, is what we 
 ask you to accord us, and let that veto be in 
 the people through their representatives. 
 Don't change the constitution you are mak- 
 ing as well for the interest of majorities as 
 minorities, unless three-fifths of the legisla- 
 ture think the amendment is imperatively 
 necessary. We are told that we are fur- 
 ther protected by the veto of the governor. 
 In ordinary matters it is right and proper 
 that the veto power should be in the hands 
 of the governor; and" the only object of in- 
 troducing a restriction in a constitution is 
 to create a people's veto, and that is the 
 very object of introducing this amendment. 
 It is to take away from corrupt or venal 
 men, (if any such there be in the legisla- 
 
 ture,) the power to trample on the rights of 
 the minority. 
 
 How do those gentlemen who oppose 
 this necessary restriction, account for the 
 restriction which was imposed on the city 
 of New Orleans in the removal of the seat 
 of government, which cannot be brought 
 back at all, and which cannot be removed 
 from some spot to be selected sixty miles 
 above the city, unless four-fifths of the le- 
 gislature agree to it? And yet, here, while 
 we are deciding the most important matter 
 which can be brought before us, and which 
 may produce the most grave results in the 
 success or failure of this very constitution, 
 we find them on one side to-day, on another 
 to-morrow. Then, they say, they want a 
 restriction of four-fifths ; -now, they say, 
 they want none at all, on a question which 
 needs it more than any other portion of the 
 constitution! Out upon such consistency ! ! 
 He (Mr. Wadsworth) will sustain the 
 amendment for these reasons. 
 
 Mr. Soule feels it a duty which he owes 
 to himself and to the Convention, to ex- 
 plain the motives which governed him 
 when he proposed an amendment to the 
 amendment offered by his colleague from 
 New Orleans, (Mr. Claiborne.) While 
 he agreed with the honorable delegate 
 from Ouachita, (Mr. Downs) that majori- 
 ties must pule in republican forms of gov- 
 ernment, still, it is nevertheless as clearly 
 and positively an admitted fact, that the 
 making of a constitution is mainly for the 
 purpose of protecting the minority, and to 
 restrain the majority from the abuse of 
 ;power, which they would otherwise have 
 the right of exercising, without such check 
 as can be provided in a constitution. 
 
 There are two grand objects before us for 
 consideration in this question; the one is a 
 declaration ofnecessity for amendment — the 
 other the trial of the question before the su- 
 preme authority, the people. Now, so long 
 as it is not before the people, it cannot be 
 considered as properly before the legislature, 
 who have never consulted their constitu- 
 ents on it ; but who may be induced from a 
 variety of motives to press an amendment 
 to the constitution, and thereby press it up- 
 on their constituents, who never dreamt of, 
 nor ever wanted it. Why then is it need- 
 ed to place a restriction on the people, by 
 saying to them, as you virtually do, that 
 
414 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 they want a change of which they never 
 had any idea, and on which you have nev- 
 er consulted them ? But at the same time 
 it is not right to check too far the will of 
 the majority of the people, (particularly if 
 it does not encroach on the rights of the 
 minority,) and in the proper , protection of 
 the rights of the majority, he will go as 
 far as the member from Ouachita, (Mr. 
 Downs.) Therefore, the legislature is the 
 proper place where such amendments 
 should be proposed ; but in order to guard 
 against continual excitements at every ses- 
 sion of the legislature, and furthermore es- 
 pecially to save the expense to the people, 
 besides the trouble we put them to in cal- 
 ling upon them, too often — and further,, 
 thinking a middle course was the wisest, 
 most just and fair, that he had offered the 
 amendment of three-fifths to the motion 
 made by his colleague, requiring two-thirds. 
 He would have gone for the report; as it 
 stood, had he not clearly seen that a single 
 vote would have the power to carry amend- 
 ments before the people, of which, per- 
 haps, five out of six would result in no bene- 
 ficial effect. 
 
 Mr. Preston thinks that every one will 
 admit that the proposal submitted by the 
 committee, in the repoit before us, is less 
 liable to objection than the rule we have 
 in our present constitution. The only ques- 
 tion for our consideration is, which is the 
 best way to set it to work in such a manner 
 as will answer the ends aimed at. A new 
 question has been raised upon us, in rela- 
 tion, to it ; of a restrictive character, viz: 
 that three-fifths of the legislature should be 
 required to adopt an amendment to the 
 constitution; but he (Mr. Preston) dislikes 
 any of these restrictive measures, and there- 
 fore agrees with the report of the commit- 
 tee, as made. He will endeavor to show, 
 by a simple fact, that if you take away from 
 the house of representatives the power of 
 moving an amendment to the constitution, 
 by a majority, that you can have no chance 
 in the senate, because they are no index of 
 the popular will, (for it is admitted that 
 they are to be organized on a restric- 
 ted plan.) And further, if you press that 
 question at all, there the chances are always 
 against popular rights, when you have to ap- 
 peal to a body of men, who are elected 
 to restrict, not to respond to popular wants. 
 It will be the inevitable result, if this 
 
 amendment prevail, that a small fraction of 
 the senate can defeat at will, any measure 
 connected with the required amendments 
 to the constitution, which may have been 
 unanimously passed by the lower house; 
 and thus a fraction even of the minority 
 may fetter down the majority forever. 
 
 The proposition in simple form amounts 
 to this, that one-fifth of the senate shall 
 paralyze the action of the whole of the 
 house of representatives. Such a doctrine 
 is anti-republican, and inexpedient, for it 
 says the people shall never have an oppor- 
 tunity to change their organic laws. 
 
 The extract which has been read to you 
 from President Polk's inaugural address, 
 has nothing to do with the case we have 
 now before us for consideration; it is a per- 
 fectly different matter; he refers to the con- 
 stitution of the United States, and not to 
 separate States. He evidently meant that 
 many of the States who had an identity of 
 interest, should not oppress any two or three 
 other States — as for example, the free 
 States have no right to interfere with the 
 slave States— but that has no kind of rela- 
 tion to the making of a constitution of any 
 one State; for if it had, the next thing you 
 would hear, would be that any one of the 
 three branches of government, created to 
 carry out the will of the people, had no 
 right to pass any law r s, for fear a small ma- 
 jority should swallow up the minority. Far 
 beyond that is the question we have now 
 to determine, which is whether a people 
 shall have the right to amend their own or- 
 ganic laws when they don't suit them; or 
 whether they shall be fettered down and re- 
 stricted by the vote of one-tenth of the peo- 
 ple, by means of the vote of one-eighth of 
 the senate. 
 
 Have you ever reflected what such a 
 state of things would result in, if we adopt, 
 this three-fifths amendment? You would be 
 laying yourselves open to abuses of all kinds, 
 in all the departments of government, but 
 more especially in the judiciary. It is pro- 
 verbial, even in republican governments,, 
 that those who are in office, will have a 
 blind side to the defects of the incumbent. 
 If you have not properly reflected on what 
 the result would be, it would be well to say 
 to you, that if you deprive the people of the 
 watchful power which is provided for them 
 in this report, you will at one single blow 
 dash down the whole edifice of democracy, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 415 
 
 and not alone destroy it for ourselves, but 
 .for -those who are to come after us. 
 
 To make an organic law. or any other 
 law. we must have some spontaneous ex- 
 pression of popular will: and it either is to 
 result beneficially to the people at large, 
 why should we restrain fcl Why shonld 
 we say that in ten or twenty years hence, 
 those who then may be desirous of chan- 
 ging their' senatorial representation, should 
 he debarred from doing so, although the 
 senate may have become like so many rot- 
 ten boroughs? By pursuing the course we 
 do towards them, we say to them, we know 
 what is better for you than you do your- 
 selves, and. therefore, we have determined 
 {hat two-fifths of the legislature shall con- 
 trol your action in remedying or righting your 
 own grievances. But all such arguments 
 are based on false premises. Let it be re- 
 flected upon by those around me, and who 
 have had every opportunity to study facts as 
 they have appeared upon the very face of 
 things for the last twenty years. Let them 
 look at the progress that has been made in 
 the arts and sciences, in mechanics, in ag- 
 riculture, in morality, and then say if they 
 have reason to expect that those who may 
 survive for that period, or those who are 
 now pursuing their onward course, are like- 
 ly to retrogade from what we are now? 
 Where then the necessity to restrict them 
 in their dearest privilege — that of self- 
 government — without forcing them to go to 
 the tedious and expensive form of a State 
 Convention? Those who are to come after 
 us, advancing, as the world is. in morality, 
 in peace 'and tranquility, and in the repu- 
 diation of vices which have been too com- 
 mon in our days, will certainly know better 
 how to govern themselves than we can. 
 The great bug-bear which is held out to us 
 is, that it will create too much agitation. 
 Agitation is feared in monarchial govern- 
 ments: kings tremble when it is mentioned: 
 but popular governments ought not to dread 
 it, for popular will is the breath of their 
 nostrils — they cannot exist without it. To 
 agitate a 4 question that is to result deneficial- 
 iy to our fellow man, cannot be injurious in 
 a free government — on the contrary, it 
 must be beneficial. We should encourage 
 men to study government in every depart- 
 ment. The only means of Learning any 
 science, either of political government or 
 any other, is by study; and if no question or | 
 
 I problem is ever propounded to a man for 
 study, why his intellect would be as a stag- 
 nant pool. It is true that in England and 
 France popular rights are not studied, but 
 it ought not to be so with us: and, thank 
 God, here the humblest peasant, the poor- 
 est man in the community, who is gifted 
 with intelligence, has not only the right to 
 think for himself, but may pursue his course 
 of ambition with the rest, until, if he have 
 merit and integrity, he may reach the pina- 
 cle of fame. 
 
 We have heard a great deal about agita- 
 tion, and about demagogues, but they have 
 yet failed to show us where the latter exist 
 in these times, unless it be those who Strive 
 to learn; and as to the former, he (Mr. Pres- 
 ton) thinks the more there is of it, the bet- 
 ter, if in a holy cause; and none can be 
 more so than that which is to ameliorate the 
 condition of man, politically or otherwise. 
 
 It is far wiser and better then, to leave to 
 a majority the power to act, when you have 
 placed all proper checks to prevent haste in 
 legislation, and to leave them then free to 
 act as to them may best seem fit. All other 
 methods will be at war with republican 
 government: and you might just as well 
 say that henceforward minorities shall 
 govern : which you know right well would 
 lead to bloodshed and civil war. 
 
 The question was then put on Mr. Soule's 
 amendment of Mr. Claiborne's motion, it 
 was to strike out the words *'a majority," 
 and insert the words "three-fifths;" and re- 
 sulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudosquie, 
 Briant, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son. Derbes. Dunn, Garcia, Kenner. La 
 bauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Mazureau. Prud- 
 homme, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, 
 Sellers. Soule, Taylor of Assumption, Voor- 
 hies, Wadswonh and Winder voted in the 
 affirmative — 29 yeas : and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Burton, Chambliss, 
 Chinn, Covillion, Culbertson, Downs, Gar- 
 rett. Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, King. 
 Lewis. McCaliop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo 
 Peets, Peim, Porche, Porter, Preston, Rat- 
 litf. Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Madison, Stephens. Waddill and Weder- 
 straudt voted in the negative — 29 navs: the 
 vote being equally divided, the president 
 voted in the negative, con-equentlv the mo- 
 tion was lost. 
 
416 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Mr. Boudousquie gave notice that he 
 would, on a future day, move the re con- 
 sideration of said vote. 
 
 Mr. Conrad moved to amend by insert- 
 ing after the words "members elected to 
 each house," the words "and approved by 
 the governor;" which amendment was 
 adopted. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow, at 1 1 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Thursday, March 13, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Goodrich opened the pro^ 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Peets presented a resolution re- 
 scinding the rule of the Convention for the 
 meeting at 11 o'clock, and prescribing that 
 the Convention shall, for the future, meet at 
 10 o'clock, A. M. 
 
 Mr. Humble moved to amend by making 
 the hour of meeting at half past 9 o'clock, 
 but subsequently withdrew his amendment. 
 
 Mr. Peets' resolution was then adopted. 
 
 Mr. Chinn said he did not feel altogether 
 satisfied with the vote given by him yester- 
 day upon the question, whether it should 
 be a majority or three-fifths of the legisla- 
 ture, who should propose amendments to 
 the constitution. He would therefore move 
 for a reconsideration, with the view of 
 changing his vote, which motion prevailed,. 
 And upon his further motion, the section 
 was laid on the table, subject to call. 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 The Convention resumed the considera- 
 tion of the article touching the mode of re- 
 vising the constitution. 
 
 Mr. Downs said, that after a careful ex- 
 amination of this section, he was convinced 
 there was nothing to justify the fears that 
 had been expressed. The mere fact that 
 the legislature are obliged to act upon 
 amendments that may be suggested at two 
 different sessions, and to promulgate their 
 action thereon through the public papers; 
 and the total impotency of the legislature to 
 carry into effect, without the express as- 
 sent of the people, any such amendment, 
 rendered the power of the legislature de- 
 pendent on the will of the people, and re- 
 moved the slightest ground of apprehension. 
 It is then useless to alarm one's self, or to 
 alarm others, by supposing that the legisla- 
 ture would be enabled to change, at will, 
 
 every disposition in the constitution, 
 Moreover, I have not understood that it 
 should require more than a simple majority 
 of the legislature to determine whether an 
 amendment should or should not be sub- 
 mitted to the examination of the people — 
 especially, when it is expressly provided 
 that the amendment shall not be embodied 
 in the constitution, unless it receive the ex- 
 press assent of the people. It would be as 
 well to abandon the section altogether, if 
 the action of the legislature is to be restrict- 
 ed to two-thirds or three-fifths; for I con- 
 ceive that Ihe legislature have the power 
 by a simple majority, to propose, at any 
 time, amendments which they may judge 
 expedient. And the people have the un- 
 doubted right to make amendments when- 
 ever they may conceive these amendments 
 to be essential. I invoke the serious atten- 
 tion of members to this subject. I consider 
 the section as conservative, and I trust that 
 no greater restriction will be placed upon 
 the legislature to propose amendments than 
 the bare majority of the two houses. 
 
 Mr. Lewis did not propose to discuss the 
 matter, but would make an explanation in 
 reference to a particular point. The diffi- 
 culty was to ascertain the majority of the 
 voters, and the only way to avoid that diffi- 
 culty was, to have a census of the good 
 people of Louisiana. If this census were 
 not provided for in the constitution, it ought 
 to be. When amendments were suggested 
 by the legislature, and voted on by the peo- 
 ple, the difficulty of ascertaining whether 
 those who voted with the majority in favor 
 of the amendments, were actually the ma- 
 jority of the voters, would vanish upon re- 
 ference to the last census. He presumed 
 it would not be pretended by any one that 
 less than a majority should have the right 
 of changing the organic law. He was wiL 
 ling to concede that a bare majority of the 
 legislature would suffice to suggest amend, 
 ments to the people; but we must, to be 
 consistent, require a majority of the electors 
 to ratify the amendments. If the majority 
 desired the amendments, they would de- 
 clare them to be necessary. He con- 
 sidered that the will of the majority should 
 govern, but the expression of such will 
 should be placed beyond the shadow of a 
 doubt. The reverse of this principle, he 
 thought, was anti-democratic and anti-re- 
 publican. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 417 
 
 * Mr. Lewis thereupon proposed to amend 
 the section so as to require a majority of 
 the whole number of electors. 
 
 Mr. Pkeston was opposed to this amend- 
 ment, because it would be impracticable, 
 'and might be employed by the minority to 
 defeat the expression of the public will. 
 He saw no good reason why those who did 
 not vote should be counted as opposed to 
 the amendments proposed by the legisla- 
 ture to the constitution. A large proportion 
 of our citizens were men of business — en- 
 terprising citizens who might be for the mo- 
 ment out of the State, and be unable to vote 
 upon the question. Others might be sick. 
 Again, in certain quarters of the State, by 
 reason of the high waters, many voters 
 might be debarred from expressing their 
 concurrence; and thus, although in fact 
 an immense majority were in favor of the 
 amendments, they would be defeated from 
 casual circumstances. It was a fair infer- 
 ence that every citizen who placed any 
 value upon the right of suffrage, would vote 
 if it were possible. Such citizens were 
 the only ones who should, in fact, be counted 
 upon such an occasion. The importance 
 of the questions would excite the greatest 
 degree gf interest — they would be canvass- 
 ed, and it was reasonable to presume that 
 the friends and opponents of these measures 
 would vote in mass. The lazy — those who 
 were too indifferent or too indolent to go to 
 the polls — ought not to be counted. The 
 rule proposed by the gentleman from St. 
 Landry (Mr. Lewis) was too uncertain. 
 The only certain rule was to base the de- 
 cision upon those that actually went to the 
 polls. 
 
 I hope, said Mr. Preston, that the gen- 
 tleman (Mr. Lewis) will not insist upon his 
 amendment, but will leave the section as 
 it is. 
 
 Mr. Dunn could not concur in opinion 
 with the delegate from Jefferson. On the 
 contrary, he thought that every amendment 
 to the constitution should receive the une- 
 quivocal assent of the body of the people, 
 for the constitution is designed essentially 
 to protect the rights of the minority. It is 
 not only the electors who are involved in 
 the amendments that may be made to the 
 organic law. Our wives and children, 
 transient persons, and those who may riot 
 have the right to vote, are equally interested. 
 The guarantees for their protection should 
 
 be inviolably maintained, und not be sub- 
 ject to sudden changes. 
 
 Moreover, said Mr. Dunn, there was 
 something solemn and positive about the 
 enactments of the constitution; something 
 stable and fixed, that rendered that in- 
 strument essentially different from the 
 mere acts of the legislature. These 
 latter were the resolves of a simple majori- 
 ty, and were open to amendment whenever 
 the passing convenience or the necessities 
 of the majority might require it. It was 
 proper enough they should be subjected to 
 a simple majority, as they were acts of 
 mere expediency; but for the constitution 
 he could not assent to the same principle. 
 The constitution was the social compact. 
 It w r as not a mere passing thing, but it was 
 the basis upon which the institutions of the 
 country reposed. It was for the benefit of 
 all; and it should not be subject to sudden 
 revulsion upon every evanescent change in 
 the popular current. It was, in its nature, 
 designed to be enduring, and should not be 
 heedlessly or lightly touched. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff apprehended that this 
 amendment would produce similar difficul- 
 ties to those which arose from a similar 
 disposition in the old constitution. It will 
 be difficult, if not impossible to discover 
 whether the actual majority of the efectors 
 have voted in favor of the amendments pro- 
 posed to the constitution. There will be 
 great contrariety of opinion, whether the 
 majority that may have voted in favor of 
 the amendments, are a majority of the total 
 number of electors. In that way, the will 
 of the majority may be thwarted. More- 
 over, the section contemplates an interval of 
 four years, for the amendments will have 
 to be submitted to the action of two differ- 
 ent sessions of the legislature. The peo- 
 ple will have sufficient time for reflection, 
 and it Avould be hard indeed if the neglect 
 of some persons who failed to vote, should 
 deprive the majority of those that voted 
 of a desirable reform. It is an unjust prin- 
 ciple to infer, as in the old constitution, 
 that those that did not vote were opposed 
 to reform. The inconvenience of that rule 
 were manifested in the difficulties that at- 
 tended the calling of this Convention ■ that 
 desirable result was procrastinated, and be- 
 set whh impediments, that were overcome 
 only after a great deal of trouble and per- 
 severance. 
 
us 
 
 Bebates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 I am sure, said Mr. Rati iff, that the de- 
 legate from St. Landry, (Mr. Lewis) with 
 his accustomed penetration, will see that 
 his amendment will occasion much embar- 
 rassment, and may be invoked as the 
 means to defeat the will of an actual ma- 
 jority of the people. It will be borne in 
 mind, that the act of consulting the wishes 
 of the people as to the expediency of call- 
 ing this Convention, was concurred in by a 
 much smaller majority on the first than on 
 the second occasion. 
 
 As to the dangers assumed to exist if the 
 amendments are placed within the compe- 
 tency of a simple majority of the Legisla- 
 ture, I think that the delegate from Oua- 
 chita (Mr. Downs) has shown it to be illu- 
 sory. In the State of New York some 
 such restriction exists as has been intimated 
 in this debate, but it must be recollected that 
 the sessions of the New York legislature 
 are annual, and that these questions are^sub- 
 mitted and decided by the people within 
 two years. Whereas, the sessions of our 
 legislature being biennial, four years will 
 intervene, affording ample time to the peo- 
 ple to determine whether they deem the 
 amendments necessary. 
 
 I should prefer the section without the 
 amendment; but if the delegate from St. 
 Landi 1 ^ insists upon it, I shall vote in its 
 favor rather than to lose his valuable coope- 
 ration. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said he certainly could not 
 think of withdrawing his amendment. He 
 deemed it just and proper. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad said he differed to- 
 tally in opinion from the delegate from Jef- 
 ferson (Mr Preston.) So far from considering 
 that those that did not vote upon such amend- 
 ments were in favor of them, he thought 
 the contrary inference should be drawn. It 
 was a fair presumption that they conceived 
 the constitution to be good as it was, and 
 that they desired no change. He admitted 
 that when these amendments were involv- 
 ed, we should endeavor to ascertain the will 
 of the actual majority of the electors; but 
 how could that be ascertained positively? 
 There are serious difficulties in relying 
 upon the census, as proposed by the dele- 
 gate from St. Landry, (Mr. Lewis) as the 
 test by which the majority would be ascer- 
 tained. The duty of making the census is 
 generally confided to persons incapaole of 
 determining the various legal questions that 
 
 would arise as to residence and naturaliza- 
 tion, and many persons would be placed 
 thereon who were not legal voters. From 
 the nature of the proceedings, names migh 
 be placed upon the roll that ought not to 
 be there, and others omitted that ought to* 
 be there. 'How is it possible to ascertain 
 whether the majority of those voting are 
 in fact, a majority of the whole body ot 
 electors? The subject is surrounded with 
 difficulties. I will suggest an amendment; 
 it does not satisfy my mind, but it may in 
 some measure obviate the difficulty. I 
 would propose that the questions for 
 amendments shall be twice submitted to 
 the people, and shall only be considered 
 binding when ratified by a majority on both 
 occasions. 
 
 The amendment of Mr. Conrad was rtfet 
 adopted. 
 
 The question then recurred on the adop- 
 tion of the amendment proposed by Mr. 
 Lewis, to strike out the words "voting 
 thereon," and the yeas and nays were call- 
 ed for, as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Brazeale, Briant, Carriere, Chinn, Clai- 
 borne, Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Downs, Dunn. Garcia, Garrett,* Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, 
 King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Leon- 
 ard, Lewis, McCallop, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Mazureau, Peets, Porche, Porter, Prud- 
 homrne, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, Sellers, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Voorhies, 
 Wads worth, Wederstrandt and Winder — 46 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Burton, Cade, Chambliss, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, McRae, 
 Penn, Preston, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, and Waddill — 1 1 nays. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said, that the more he re- 
 flected upon the proposition of his col- 
 league, (xMr. Soule) the more he was con- 
 vinced it was just and proper. The ques- 
 tion that has excited the warmest interest 
 in this Convention, has undoubtedly been 
 the question of apportionment. The dele- 
 gates from the country, however they may 
 differ upon the details as relate to them- 
 selves, upon this and other questions, unite 
 in solid column whenever there is a ques- 
 tion to restrict the city; and to effect that 
 object the more surely, they have recently 
 resolved, that however great may be her 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 419- 
 
 augmentation, arising from the increase of 
 her population, her immense resources and 
 the intelligence of her citizens, her influ- 
 ence shall- be impaired by cutting her up 
 into fragments. Her delegation have com- 
 plained bitterly of the injustice about to be 
 done her — and the violence of the dissen- 
 tion, and the helplessness of her position, 
 has induced the offer of a compromise. 
 Should this compromise be carried into 
 effect, it will necessarily make a portion of 
 the constitution. What will it be worth, 
 if you sanction the principle that a bare ma- 
 jority of the legislature may unsettle and 
 undermine it, as every thing else, in that 
 constitution? What real protection will it 
 afford to the city? It will be competent 
 for the legislature to impose still more one- 
 rous conditions upon the city, and the city 
 will be without the means of defending 
 herself, for she will be in the minority in 
 the legislature, as she is in this body. 
 
 But we are told that if we are ag'rieved 
 by any of these amendments, we may ap- 
 peal to the people. How are we to make 
 ourselves heard? What sympathy will be 
 i'elt for the city in the parishes of the ex- 
 treme north-west? Here, in this Conven- 
 tion, the city is at least heard; full justice 
 may not be conceded to us, but our com- 
 plaints cannot be entirely overlooked. I 
 see (said Mr. Benjamin) danger in the fu- 
 ture, unless there be some positive assu- 
 rance that what is agreed upon in this Con- 
 vention, and which may receive the sanc- 
 tion of the people, shall not be subjected 
 to the mere control of a simple majority 
 of the legislature. If the action of this 
 Convention is to be exposed to such an or- 
 deal, for one, I must say, I attach but very 
 little value to any settlement made upon 
 questions in which the city may be inte- 
 rested, and which shall be embodied in the 
 new constitution. Hence it is with extreme 
 regret and surprise, I see any member of 
 the city delegation lending his countenance 
 to the proposition before us, to invest a 
 simple majority of the legislature with the 
 extraordinary power of promoting, sudden 
 and radical changes in the organic law. 
 
 The delegate from Ouachita (Mr.Downs) 
 tells us that this power confided to the le- 
 gislature, is a conservative power! To my 
 mind, it is the very reverse of any thing 
 conservative — it might with more proprie- 
 ty be termed destructive — for it will be de- 
 
 structive of every compromise assented to 
 in the constitution, for the . protection of 
 the remnant of rights, which may be left to 
 the city. 
 
 We do not ask (said Mr. Benjamin) that 
 the same formalities be required to amend 
 the new constitution's were required to 
 amend the old constitution, although great 
 as these difficulties have been represented, 
 they have yielded to the papular wishes. 
 All that we ask is that a simple majority of 
 the legislature be not invested with the 
 power of bringing about precipitate chan- 
 ges. Let there be some guarantees that 
 the compromises solemnly entered into, 
 will not heedlessly be disturbed, and that 
 the rights of the minority shall not be ex- 
 posed to further invasions. If this con- 
 templated facility in amending- the consti- 
 tution be carried, it will be subject to the 
 control of that party that may be momenta- 
 rily in the ascendant, and it will seek to 
 perpetuate its power by modifying the 
 constitution so as to suit its particular pur- 
 poses. All that we ask, is the restriction 
 of one-tenth ove? and above, an ordinary 
 majority; and is that an unreasonable de- 
 mand? 
 
 I trust, therefore, that the vote of yester- 
 day will, upon reconsideration, be reversed. 
 The city, it is true, is deeply involved in 
 the issue of this question. But the coun- 
 try is likewise exposed to danger. To- 
 day New Orleans may be sacrificed, and 
 to-morrow it may be the town of Feliciana. 
 
 Mr. C M. Conrad predicted that 
 the very first fruits of this license to the 
 legislature to amend the constitution, would 
 be a proposition to return to the annual 
 sessions of the old constitution. The legis- 
 lature would come to the conclusion that it 
 was impossible to attend properly to the 
 public service unless they met annually. 
 They would so manage it as to carry their 
 point, and here would be one salutary re- 
 form that would be superseded. From this 
 they would go on attacking the provisions 
 of the constitution in detail, until they suc- 
 ceeded in making the most radical changes. 
 Most of the provisions had been adopted 
 in reference to other provisions. Had they 
 been acted upon without such reference, 
 some of them would not have been adopt- 
 ed, and others that were lost, would have 
 received, in all probability, the sanction of 
 this body. 
 
420 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne said that in all the con-^ 
 stitulions of our sister States, where it was 
 contemplated that the legislature should 
 propose amendments to the people, a simi- 
 lar provision prevailed, requiring three- 
 lifths. Mr. C. in support of this opinion, 
 read extracts from the constitutions of 
 Maine, Michigan, Alabama, New Hamp- 
 shire, &c. &c; all (said Mr. Claiborne) 
 good and orthodox democratic States ! 
 
 The question was then taken upon Mr. 
 Soule's amendment, and the yeas and 
 nays were called for* 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Briant, Carriere, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, 
 Grymes, Guion, Kenner, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, Marigny, Mazureau, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Sel- 
 lers, Soule, Taylor, of Assumption, Wads- 
 worth and Winder — 32 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Burton, Cade, Cham- 
 bliss, Covillion, Downs, Garrett, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, King, Leonard, Lewis, 
 McCallop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Penn, 
 Porche, Porter, Preston, Ratliff, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Stephens, Voorhies, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt — -30 nays. 
 
 The section, as amended, was then 
 passed — 40 yeas; 23 nays. , 
 
 The Convention then took up Mr. Ben- 
 jamin's project of apportionment. 
 
 Mr. Downs said he would vote in favor 
 of laying this project indefinitely on the 
 table. It had nothing in it like a compro- 
 mise, and was in fact more prejudicial to 
 the interests of the country than any other 
 plan that had been suggested. It gave to 
 the city twenty-three representatives out of 
 eighty-six. It assumed the principle of 
 equality and uniformity, but it sacrificed 
 that principle. The city was placed by 
 herself in possession of more than one-fourth 
 of the representation, and if to this were 
 added the representation of the surrounding 
 parishes, upon the coast, and on the other 
 side of the lake, the available force of the 
 city in the legislature would be thirty-nine, 
 to wit: twenty-three for the city, and six- 
 teen for the parishes upon the coast as far 
 as Iberville, and including the representa- 
 tion of the lake parishes. Take thirty-nine 
 from eighty-six and the balance would only 
 be a fraction exceeding one-half, which 
 
 would have to be divided and split up among 
 the various country parishes. The concen- 
 tration of the city would oe more than suf- 
 ficient to overbalance the strength of the 
 country parishes, which would be divided 
 among themselves. 
 
 The city contained 19,000 free persons of 
 color, and these, together with all transient 
 persons, .were included in the gentleman's 
 (Mr. Benjamin's) project for the benefit of 
 the city. It is useless to claim for it the 
 credit of being a concession to the country. 
 It is no concession at all, and it speaks for 
 itself. I consider my project as essentially 
 a compromise. It is based upon the elec- 
 tors, and the city has by it within one-fifth 
 of the whole number to which she would 
 be entitled by the most favorable basis. 
 The gentleman (Mr. Benjamin) admits" that 
 the city should not have her full representa- 
 tion. What then, can be fairer than my 
 proposition ? 
 
 Mr. Downs then moved to substitute his 
 project for that of Mr. Benjamin, with the 
 following proviso: Provided] that in future 
 apportionments the total representation of 
 the city shall be confined to one -fifth of the 
 representation of the balance of the State. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved for the rejection 
 of Mr. Downs' project. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor moved to strike out 
 Mr. Downs' proviso; which motion led to a 
 slight debate, in which Messrs. Downs, 
 C. M. Conrad and Benjamin participated* 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor made a statistical 
 comparison of the representation under the 
 several projects that were before the Con- 
 vention, with the view of explaining the 
 errors which existed in the tables that had" 
 been referred to. He maintained that the 
 basis of electors was the least favorable to 
 the city; and certainly, he might add, the* 
 least objectionable. 
 
 Mr. Beatty was opposed to the elec- 
 toral basis; he conceived it would create' 
 great difficulty and doubt. The persons 
 who might be deputed to make the census, 
 might place innumerable names upon if 
 that were not voters. This result was not 
 unlikely to occur in the city, thronged at 
 certain seasons of the year with transient 
 persons, and it might be done with the 
 view of increasing the political power of 
 the city. Persons who were under the ago 
 of twenty-one years might also bo placed 
 upon this census. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana 
 
 V2l 
 
 Mr. Milks Taylor replied to these ob- 
 jections, that the census would be made in 
 pursuance of that section of the constitution 
 "which would require it. If the officers 
 charged with this duty should prove delin- 
 quent, it would be a violation of the consti- 
 tutional requisition. It was not perhaps 
 risht to anticipate that result, and to infer 
 thev would lend their countenance to any 
 such infraction. 
 
 Mr, C. M. Cons ad denied the accuracy 
 of the arithmetical calculations of the dele- 
 gate from Ouachit?, (Mr. Downs) and in- 
 sisted that the project offered by Mr. Ben- 
 jamin was in fact a compromise of the 
 question, as far as the city was concerned. 
 
 The question was taken, on the motion 
 to lay the project of Mr. Benjamin indefi- 
 nitely on the table, and the yeas and nay? 
 were called" for. 
 
 Messrs. Brazeaie, Burton. Cade. Cham- 
 bliss, Covillion. Downs, Garrett. Hudspeth, 
 Humble. Hynson, Leonard, Lewis, Me- 
 Callop. McRae, Mayo, Peets, Perm. Porche. 
 Porter. Preston, Prudhomme, Ratlifh" Read. 
 Scott of Baton Rouge. Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Stephens, Voorhies, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt — 30 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Beatty. Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Briant, Carriere. Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Culbertson. Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia. 
 Grymes, Guion. Kenner, King. Labauve, 
 Ledoux. Legendre. Marigny, Mazureau. 
 Pugh, Roman. Roselius. St. Amand. Sel- 
 lers. Soule. Taylor of Assumption. Wads- 
 worth and Winder — 33 nays. 
 
 Mr. Makigny said that, instead of fol- 
 lowing a straight line, it seemed that the 
 majority were disposed to attain their ob- 
 ject by a crooked and tortuous path. It 
 may be proper to recall facts which may 
 lead them back to fundamental principles, 
 the delegate from Ouachita (Mr. Downs) 
 had proposed apportionment according 
 to the federal basis. The delegation 
 from New Orleans, with a portion of the 
 delegation from Lafourche, opposed that 
 proposition. This mode had been thrown | 
 aside. Agitation and excitement have pre- 
 vailed since the very inception of this ques- 
 tion. One of the country delegates, speak- 
 ing apparently from the* card, got up and 
 informed the delegates from the citv. that if 
 ? he city would relinquish the seat of govern- 
 ment the difficulty would be compromised. 
 51 
 
 I and the city would be permitied to retain 
 \ her just weight. A committee were ap- 
 pointed who reported a basis embracing the 
 entire population. Their report created 
 ! fresh discussions, in the midst of which the 
 ! day and hour were fixed for taking the final 
 ; vote; but, in the meanwhile, the question 
 of the seat of government was decided in 
 \ favor of the country, . 
 
 I supposed that this concession having 
 been made, the country delegation would 
 Have sustained the compromise offered by 
 Mr. Benjamin; but so far from this opinion 
 being well founded, I .find that it has only 
 escaped the fate of being- laid indefinitely 
 j on the table, by a bare majority of two 
 votes ! What is the prognostic of that re- 
 ;s It? Is it designed, after inducing us to 
 make one concession by holding out to us 
 an inducement, to force us into another 
 concession. The seat of government has 
 most uncermoniously been withdrawn from 
 the city, and a circle has been placed 
 around the citv— is it now designed to de- 
 spoil us of a large proportion of our repre- 
 sentation? 
 
 This course of proceeding, it cannot be 
 denied, will have the effect of changing this 
 hall into. an arena for gladiators! But th ?c 
 that count upon their numerical force delude 
 themselves. The rights of the city shall 
 not be invaded — trampled upon with impu- 
 nity. No sooner shall the measures be 
 adopted, designed to prostrate the city, than 
 I will rise and move an adjournment, sine 
 die. With a certain intention, it has been 
 circulated in the public papers, that a por- 
 tion of the Orleans delegation, upon this 
 very subject of apportionment, withdrew 
 from the Convention in 1512. but that they 
 were soon compelled by public opinion to 
 return. To this allusion to a past event, I 
 answer that the difficulty arose in reference 
 to the apportionment in the senate, a much 
 less important matter than the apportion- 
 ment in the house; secondly, that after 
 withdrawing, the members were induced to 
 return, because they wished to get rid of 
 the odious territorial government. Thanks 
 be to God. this alternative is not now pre- 
 sented to us. We have a republican system 
 of government, and the consequences will 
 be much more pernicious for those that 
 drive us to this expedient, than for us. 1 
 may be charged with speaking warmly 
 upon the subject, but I conceive that f h c 
 
422 
 
 Debates in the Convention -of Louisiana. 
 
 time has come boldly to take our stand and 
 to maintain our ground — to speak plainly 
 and emphatically. The city of New Or- 
 leans will not submit to oppression and to 
 wrong. You may impose on her the ne- 
 cessity of an extreme measure, and when 
 her delegation have left, you may continue 
 to pile restriction upon restriction upon the 
 devoted head of the city. You may en- 
 deavor to sacrifice her, but she will be be- 
 yond your reach. Your constitution will 
 be rejected. The riches, the power, the 
 resources of the city are not your disposable 
 effects, and if you attempt to deprive the 
 city of her just weight, I will move for the 
 adjournment sine die. It were better that 
 it were dissolved, or that at any rate, that 
 the Orleans delegation should not partici- 
 pate in proceedings destined to sacrifice 
 the dearest interests of their constituents. 
 Whereupon, the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Friday, March 14, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The proceedings were opened with pray- 
 er, by Mr. Stephens, in the absence of a 
 minister of the gospel. 
 
 The journal was read and approved. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff, chairman of the commit- 
 tee on contingent expenses, submitted the 
 following resolution, which was adopted, 
 viz : 
 
 Resolved, That the committee on con- 
 tingent expenses be authorized to pay Mrs. 
 Hawley nine hundred and twenty-six dol- 
 lars, for the rent of the St. Louis ball room 
 for the sitting of the Convention, from the 
 13th January until the 11th of March, 
 and other expenses, gas, water, &c, while 
 there. 
 
 The President reminded the Secretary 
 that the first thing in order was a trans- 
 lation of the speech -of Mr. Marigny, made 
 just before the adjournment; but the Con- 
 vention dispensed with it. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff inquired of the Secretary, 
 whether a motion made by him yesterday, 
 to reconsider the vote of three -fifths, then 
 taken on the 7th article of the constitution, 
 had been placed on the journal. He was 
 informed it had not been, when the journal 
 was amended, and the motion thereon re- 
 corded. 
 
 Mr. Chinn objected, but when 
 
 Mi*. Kenner asked at what time the dele- 
 
 gate from Feliciana would be ready to take 
 it up, 
 
 Mr. Ratliff replied, to-morrow if you 
 will; in fact at any time— it was then set 
 for to-morrow, at 2 o'clock. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Which was the project submitted by Mr. 
 Benjamin, which project Mr. Downs moved 
 to amend by striking out all the words and 
 sections after the word " Sta'te," and insert 
 the following : 
 
 article second. 
 
 " And shall forever be regulated and as- 
 certained by the number of qualified elec- 
 tors therein ; Provided, that at any future 
 apportionment, " the full representation of 
 New Orleans, with its present limits, shall ' 
 be reduced one-fifth, and that each parish 
 shall have at least one representative ; and 
 provided further , that no new 'parish shall 
 be created with a territory less than four 
 hundred square miles, nor with a number 
 of electors less than the ratio at the time, 
 nor when the creation of such new parish 
 would leave any other parish without the 
 said extent of territory and number of elec- 
 tors. In the year , and every four 
 
 years thereafter, an enumeration of all the 
 electors shall be made, in such manner as 
 shall be directed by law. The number of 
 representatives shall, in the several years 
 of making these enumerations, or during 
 the next succeeding session of the general 
 | assembly, be so fixed, according to the prin- 
 ciples of this section, as not to be less than 1 
 eighty, nor more than one hundred ; Pro- 
 vided, that the general assembly shall be 
 incompetent to pass any laws after the enu- I 
 meration until the apportionment shall be 
 made. Until the first enumeration shall 
 be made, as directed in this section, the 
 parish of Orleans shall be entitled to twen- 
 ty representatives, to be elected as follows : 
 Eight by the first municipality ; eight by 
 the second municipality; three by the 
 third municipality, and one by that part of 
 the parish on the right bank of the Mis* 
 sissippi. 
 
 The Parish of Plaquemines, 2 
 " St. Bernard, 1 
 
 " Jefferson, 3 
 
 St. Charles, 1 
 " St. John the Baptist, 1 
 
 St. James, 2 
 
 Ascension, 
 *' Assumption, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 423 
 
 The Parish of Lafourche Interior, 
 
 
 (< 
 
 Terrebonne, 
 
 
 tt 
 
 Iberville, 
 
 9 
 
 tt 
 
 West Baton Kouge, 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 il 1 
 
 East do do 
 
 q 
 o 
 
 
 W est Feliciana, 
 
 o 
 
 it 
 
 East do 
 
 q 
 
 i i 
 
 CI i TT 1 
 
 St. Helena, 
 
 1 
 
 ii 
 
 Livingston, 
 
 i 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Washington, 
 
 1 
 
 t i 
 
 St. Tammany, 
 
 1 
 
 
 Point Coupee, 
 
 1 
 
 I i 
 
 Concordia, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Tensas, 
 
 1 
 
 t i 
 
 Madison, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Carroll, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Franklin, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 St. Mary, 
 
 2 
 
 tt 
 
 St. Martin, 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 Vermillion, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Lafayette, 
 
 9 
 
 AJ 
 
 tt 
 
 St. Landry, 
 
 5 
 
 it 
 
 Calcasieu, 
 
 1 
 
 tt 
 
 Avoyelles, 
 
 2 
 
 tt 
 
 Rapides, 
 
 4 
 
 it 
 
 Natchitoches, 
 
 4 
 
 it 
 
 Sabine, 
 
 2 
 
 it 
 
 Caddo, 
 
 1 
 
 
 De Soto, 
 
 1 
 
 
 Ouachita, 
 
 1 
 
 t'i 
 
 Morehouse 
 
 1 
 
 tt 
 
 Union,* 
 
 I 
 
 
 Jackson, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Caldwell, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Catahoula, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 Claiborne, 
 
 - o 
 
 tt 
 
 Bossier, 
 
 1 
 
 Total, 
 
 
 97 
 
 Mr. Benjamin, remarked that the mo- 
 tion made by Mr. Miles Taylor, is the first 
 n order, and if the house will act on it he 
 las no objection, but he thinks the posi- 
 ,ion of the case is this : after that question 
 ; hall have been decided, as the house pre- 
 viously refused to lay his project on the' ta- 
 ble, if Mr. Taylor's motion be lost he shall 
 haove to lay the substitute offered by the 
 lelegate from Ouachita on the table. " 
 j The President decided that Mr. Tay- 
 or's amendment to Mr. Downs' project 
 vas in order. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne called the attention of 
 lembers to the concessions already made 
 y the city to the country. We concede 
 ) you your own basis of representation, 
 
 provided you make it operate equally. 
 The question now to settle is, whether the 
 city is to be restricted in her just propor- 
 tion of representation or not, in the popular 
 branch of the legislature; the senate is 
 clearly the conservative branch, where (if 
 any where,) restriction should be placed on 
 representation. But if you restrain us in 
 the lower house, in addition to the restric- 
 tion you put upon us in the senate, why 
 then we can carry the spirit of compromise 
 no further, and being overpowered by nu- 
 merical force, we shall have but one course 
 left, and that is, to vacate our seats as mem- 
 bers of this Convention. 
 
 Mr. R'atliff believing that the motion 
 made by the delegate from Assumption 
 (Mr. Taylor) will have the effect to firmly 
 establish the electoral basis, and as he 
 (Mr. R.) wants no restriction, except in 
 self-defence, he shall support the motion to 
 strike out. 
 
 Mr. Downs: This is the first time that 
 the question has come directly before the 
 Convention, whether or not the city of New 
 Orleans shall be restricted in her represen- 
 tation in the house of representatives, and 
 before the vote is taken, he (Mr. D.) de- 
 sires to give a brief history of what has 
 been done heretofore on the subject, in 
 committee; and to offer some few observa- 
 tions to the attention of the Convention. 
 The idea of restricting the city in her re- 
 presentation, originated in the committee 
 with the honorable delegate from East Fe- 
 liciana (Mr. Saunders.) Ke'proposed that 
 the city should be restricted to one-sixth of 
 the representation ; others proposed one- 
 fifth; and one of the members of the com- 
 mittee objected to all restriction, while the 
 honorable delegate from East Feliciana in- 
 sisted that to restrict her to one-sixth of 
 the representation was not too much ; but 
 as a measure of compromise one-fifth was 
 the proportion which it was finally agreed 
 upon she should be allowed as her repre- 
 sentation in the house of representatives. 
 It now appears, since the report has been 
 made, that New Orleans objects to any 
 restriction whatever, and, in consequence, 
 we have listened day after day to a very 
 lengthy and excited debate. It was to al- 
 lay this excitement, and to meet the ques- 
 tion in a spirit of compromise, that he, (Mr. 
 Downs) as had two other delegates, sub- 
 mitted to the Convention the project which 
 
424 
 
 Debates in the Gonventionof Louisiana. 
 
 he .had clone. It is provided therein that 
 the city shall always be entitled to twenty 
 representatives, but never to any more ; it 
 is further provided that the lower house 
 shall be composed of not less than seventy 
 nor more than one hundred members. 
 
 The debate, however, continued with 
 the same spirit, in the course of which the 
 delegate from New Orleans himself (Mr. 
 Benjamin,) admitted that some restriction 
 was necessary upon the representation of 
 the city, in consequence of the concentra- 
 tion of her interest, giving to her greater 
 power than numerically appeared. To 
 make his substitute agreeable to New Or- 
 leans, on that admitted principle,' that she 
 should be restricted l-5th of her full repre- 
 sentation, on the basis agreed upon, he 
 (Mr. Downs) submitted another one, which 
 amounted to curtailing her just one-fifth, 
 and that proposition is the one now under 
 discussion. But it seems that did not satis- 
 fy them, and the following day one of her 
 delegates (Mr. Benjamin,) introduced a 
 project based on total population, and cal- 
 led that a compromise ; a very extraordina- 
 ry one indeed, when it is remembered that 
 when that basis was submitted to the Con- 
 vention, seventeen could only be found to 
 vote for it, while forty voted against it. 
 The delegate from New Orleans (Mr. Ben- 
 jamin) calls that a very reasonable propo- 
 sition ; but he (Mr. Downs) desires to 
 call the attention to the fact, that under his 
 (Mr. B.'s) proposal, New Orleans will be 
 entitled to a greater representation than she 
 would be under any other basis — larger 
 than she would have been under the federal 
 basis. Could, then, the country membeis 
 who feel the necessity that exists to put 
 some restriction on the city, accept that 
 proposal, which, instead of restricting, in- 
 creased her power? Long discussions took 
 place, and it seemed to be generally conce- 
 ded that New Orleans should be entitled to 
 her fair representation, which was her just 
 proportion, on the electoral basis, le c s one- 
 fifth. This, he thought, was a reasonable 
 deduction; he (Mr. Downs) has changed 
 his ground frequently to meet them; three 
 times has he retreated from his first posi- 
 tions; can they ask for further receding? 
 He cannot conceive they ought to; he has 
 studied earnestly to make the substitute 
 now under consideration agreeable to all. 
 He is now somewhat inclined to think. 
 
 however, that all his concessions only ex- 
 cite more and more opposition. He brought 
 his mild and conciliatory proposition yes- 
 terday, thinking that it would be surely 
 satisfactory; but it appears to be as little in 
 favor as any of them. But the city dele- 
 gates must not think that we are to keep re- 
 ceding for ever, and give up every thing; 
 we have already yielded a great deal to 
 them; but if they are now to come to us 
 and say we must have it all as we want, 
 they must not be surprised, if he among 
 others, t: kes the studs and stops just where 
 he is. All compromises they proposed are 
 all on one side — none on the other. He 
 understands the delegate from New Or- 
 leans (Mr. Marigny) to say, that the remo- 
 val of thereat of government was a kind of 
 ! compromise, and that m consequence, it 
 was tacitly admitted that the city should 
 not be restricted in her representation. He 
 (Mr. Downs) did not hear the arguments 
 that were advanced when that question was 
 discussed; but he remembers that coming 
 into the hall, while the vote was being ta- 
 ken; he voted against the removal, because 
 when the resolution was read to him, he 
 saw at once that it was no concession on 
 the part of the city. He may be wrong 
 in the view took of it he hastily; but as he un- 
 derstands it, it provides that the legislature 
 shall pass an act in future. You can't com- 
 pel them to do that; the idea is futile. If 
 that act were certain, it might have at least 
 the semblance of concession; but they have 
 onl}' left it to the legislature to vote on this 
 matter, and that may depend upon the very 
 vote which we are now about to settle. If 
 the resolution had said that Baton Rouge, 
 or any other place out of the city, should 
 be the spot where alone the seat of govern- 
 ment could be placed, he might regard 
 it as a concession, but as it is, it amounts 
 to nothing at all. Throughout the history 
 of Louisiana, she has never been entitled to 
 more than one-sixth, and now we propose 
 to give her full representation in the elec- 
 toral basis less, one-fifth. There are ma- 
 ny of the country members who think we 
 have already acceded too much ingoing that, 
 far; but he warns those members that if the 
 motion to strike out, prevail, it will be say- 
 ing in so many words, that hereafter New 
 Orleans is not to have any restriction what- 
 ever imposed on her in her representation. 
 He therefore hopes the motion to strike out 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 425 
 
 will not prevail; amend it if you will, and 
 he may, and will doubtless, acquiesce; 
 but do not strike it out. He thinks the 
 principle is a good one, and is more favora- 
 ble to New Orleans than any plan that has 
 yet been proposed on the basis agreed to 
 by this Convention. 
 
 [Mr. Porter here addressed the Conven- 
 tion at some length, in support of the pro- 
 position offered by Mr. Downs. His re- 
 marks "having been handed him for revision, 
 were not returned in time for publication.] 
 Mr. Kexxer felt some embarrassment 
 in approaching this subject. But that 
 should not deter him from explaining his j 
 reasons for the vote he should give. The j 
 silver-headed gentleman who last addressed | 
 this Convention, who has shown such a 
 depth of research, and who has quoted to 
 us parts of so many constitutions, which he 
 considers germain to the question now be- 
 fore us, himself admitted his embarrass- j 
 ment, how much more so } ought he (Mr. I 
 K.) to feel, who has not gone into that 
 elaborate study. He (Mr. Kenner) will 
 sustain the motion to strike out, for the ar- 1 
 guments of the delegate from Caddo have 
 foiled to carry conviction to his mind. He 
 (Mr. K.) has listened attentively to all that 
 has been advanced on the subject under 
 discussion, and he can only discover a 
 single point on which he conceives the 
 friends of the report can ai all rely; and 
 that is, the danger to the country from the \ 
 concentration of the city vote. Now let us | 
 see what is to be dreaded from this over- 
 shadowing influence, that is to destroy the 
 country. It is asserted that New Orleans 
 is in a small compass, and can be brought 
 together in a mass to affect the interests of 
 the State at large. Now how can they 
 show the danger to exist? They have 
 given no proofs, they have cited no parallel 
 case in this, or any other country. What 
 remedy do they propose for the evil which 
 they say will ensue if New Orleans be not 
 restricted? Why, they say that she must 
 be shorn of one-fifth of that representation 
 which she is justlyss-entitled to, under the 
 basis which we have established. Now 
 the city would be entitled on a fair division, 
 to twenty-five members. Suppose you 
 take off five, and leave as you do twenty. 
 Would that remedy the evil you profess to 
 dread — the power and force of concentra- 
 
 tion? If it will, you have at least failed to 
 show it, for to his (Mr. K.'s) mind, twenty 
 raen united on any plan or project, can and 
 will accomplish as much as twenty-five. If 
 you desire to weaken that power of con- 
 centration, the only way to do it will be to 
 take the plan proposed by the delegate from 
 Assumption, and that is, to cut up the re- 
 presentation into a certain number of elec- 
 toral districts where the interests are not- 
 identical: it is the only fair and legitimate 
 way of accomplishing it. 
 
 How much better would it be for those 
 who are opposing New Orleans, and are 
 trying to deprive her of her just rights, to 
 come out at once and say that they do not 
 want New Orleans to have as much power 
 and influence as the country has. There is 
 another consideration which should be call- 
 ed to our attention in the settlement of this 
 question. We have decided that we will 
 remove the seat of government from New 
 Orleans, and as a matter of course, that so 
 much dreaded lobby influence ascribed to 
 the city is also removed, and therefore we 
 shall not have so much to fear from the acts 
 of our legislature as formerly. There will 
 be no more fine dinners, no more fine 
 wines, that can be brought to bear upon a 
 question before the legislature. He, how- 
 ever 5 does not agree with the delegate from 
 Plaquemines, (Mr. Leonard) that the mem- 
 bers of previous legislatures have been 
 affected by means of the stomach. At 
 any rate the seat of government is remo- 
 ved, and we shall have no more of the hub- 
 bub and confusion we have been wont to 
 see, by the greedy applicants to have this 
 or that bill passed, as formerly, and who 
 then kept up such a clamor that you could 
 hardly hear yourself speak. He (Mr. 
 Kenner) feels bound to say something in 
 reply to the delegate from Ouachita, (Mr. 
 Downs) as to the city never having been 
 entitled heretofore to more than one-sixth, 
 and even in many cases to one-seventh. 
 The constitution of 1812 placed both city 
 and country on precisely the same footing, 
 and guaranteed equal rights to both under 
 it. The legislature gave to her that which 
 she was justly entitled to at the time, ta- 
 king into view the number of members in 
 the house, and the basis agreed upon to 
 qualify a man to vote, and they could 
 have made no other apportionment without 
 
420 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 depriving the other parishes of rights that 
 were equally guaranteed under that consti- 
 tution. 
 
 He hopes therefore, he has explained 
 sufficiently the reasons that govern him. 
 
 Mr. Downs remarked that he did not 
 say there was a special provision that she 
 should not have more than one-sixth. 
 
 Mr. Porter remarked that he had heard 
 it argued out of doors, that hy dividing the 
 city into districts, we should divide the 
 concentration we fear. But if we are to 
 look to what passes in this hall for illus- 
 tration, what do we find? Why, that whigs 
 and democrats unite on any question that 
 is to benefit the city. They divide on poli- 
 tics alone, and let the agricultural interest 
 protect itself the best way it can. 
 
 The question was then taken on the motion 
 of Mr. Taylor, of Assumption, to strike out 
 the proviso in the first section of the amend- 
 ment of Mr. Downs, which was as follows: 
 
 Provided, that at any future apportion- 
 ment, the full representation of New Or- 
 leans, with its present limits, shall be re- 
 duced one-fifth, and that each parish shall 
 have at least one representative. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, re- 
 sulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Briant, 
 Oarriere, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, 
 Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, 
 Ledoux, Legendre, Leonard, Lewis, Ma- 
 rigny, Mazureau, Preston, Sathff, Roman, 
 Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, Sellers, 
 Soule, Taylor of Assumption, and Wads- 
 worth— 35 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent; 
 Burton, Cade, Chambliss,Covillion,Downs, 
 Garrett, Humble, Hynson,. Labauve, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Penn, 
 Porche, Porter, Prudhomme, Pugh, Head, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge. Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Splane, Stephens, Voor- 
 hies, Waddill, Wederstrandt, and Winder 
 — 32 nays; consequently said motion pre- 
 vailed. 
 
 Mr, Taylor of Assumption, then offer- 
 ed the following proviso, viz: 
 
 Provided, that at each apportionment 
 hereafter to be made of the representation 
 in the house of representatives, that part of 
 the parish of Orleans lying on the east side 
 of the Mississippi river, shall be divided 
 
 into election districts in such manner that 
 no one district shall elect more than two 
 representatives. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to lay indefinitely 
 on the table, the amendment and proviso, 
 and the yeas and nays being called for, 
 when 
 
 Mr. Downs remarked, that if the whole 
 proviso be laid on the table, we shall have 
 made no progress at all. He conceives 
 there are two principles connected in the 
 proviso — one of which has been accepted, 
 the other rejected; but we have settled the 
 basis of representation. And why then 
 should we travel backwards? If the gen- 
 tlemen want to disturb the basis, let them 
 move a reconsideration,- and then they will 
 be able to arrive at their ends, if they can suc- 
 ceed in bringing back another basis to start 
 upon; but no, they will not do that, because 
 they know it will be decided in the same 
 way. We have already been three weeks 
 at work on this business, and he does hope 
 w"e shall not undo all that we have hereto- 
 fore done. The delegate from Lafourche 
 (Mr. Beatty) ought at least to have told us 
 what he intended to propose as a substi- 
 tute to the one under consideration, before 
 he proposed so unceremoniously to lay it 
 on the table. He hopes they will proceed 
 with his substitute. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth then resumed the mo- 
 tion he had made about a week or two 
 since, to reconsider the vote taken on the 
 federal basis, which then resulted in its re- 
 jection — for he thinks after all, it is the 
 only fair basis. 
 
 Mr. Conrad is of opinion that the mo- 
 tion made by the delegate from Lafourche 
 (Mr. Beatty) is clearly the one in order. 
 He does not understand what the honora- 
 ble delegate from Ouachita (Mr. Downs) 
 meant by saying that one principle in this 
 proviso has been adopted. He does not by 
 any means regard it in that light. We have 
 been discussing the proposition of the de- 
 legate from New Orleans (Mr. Benjamin) 
 which the delegate from Ouachita has in 
 vain been endeavoring, to put aside for his 
 own. 
 
 Mr. Downs remarked that his project 
 was first presented, and was therefore the 
 first in order. 
 
 Mr. Conrad: If it be true that his sub- 
 stitute is the first in order for discussion, I 
 can only say we have been out of order for 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 427 
 
 two weeks. I think Mr. Beatty's motion 
 is most clearly in order, in any event, and 
 that is to lay the project of the delegate 
 from Ouachita on the table, for the purpose 
 of taking up the other. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin remarked that the New 
 Orleans delegation had agreed to take any 
 basis that might be agreed upon, provided 
 there was to be no restriction on the rights 
 of the city after that basis was settled. But 
 this substitute does restrict. After this 
 Convention has fixed a basis, although less 
 favorable than some others, to the city, and 
 after they have also determined there shall 
 be no restriction, he cannot hesitate which 
 course to take — while he should prefer the 
 amendment of the delegate from Assumption 
 (Mr. Taylor) to the substitute of the delegate 
 from Ouachita, (Mr. Downs) he should still 
 be compelled to vote against it. 
 
 Mr. Taylor is yet clearly of opinion 
 that the question now -under consideration, 
 is the substantial question before the house. 
 A week ago last Monday, (said Mr. Taylor) 
 the house voted on the basis; there were a 
 variety of basis offered. "Total popula- 
 tion" was one of those offered, but " quali- 
 fication" was the one chosen. The propo- 
 sition now before us of Mr. Downs, con- 
 tains nothing at war with that basis, but 
 the substitute offered -by Mr. Benjamin 
 embodies a proposition which has been 
 negatived by the house; and if we proceed 
 to discuss the project of Mr. IJenjamin, we 
 shall thereby negative one of the pinciples 
 we have already adopted. The only matter 
 he humbly conceives before the Convention 
 on which they can properly act, is the ap- 
 portionment of the State on the basis of 
 qualified electors. The only way we could 
 properly proceed with the substitute of Mr. 
 Benjamin, would be by moving a reconsid- 
 eration, and without it were carried it could 
 not clearly be in order for us to discuss 
 what we have already determined on. 
 
 Mr. Dunn thinks that in proceeding with 
 the substitute we have now under consider- 
 ation, we are entirely out of order. When 
 the delegate from Ouachita (Mr. Downs) 
 first introduced his project, he raised that 
 question, because- it embraced a provision 
 which this house had previously rejected, 
 viz: that each parish should have at least 
 one representative, without regard to popu- 
 lation. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin replied to the delegate 
 
 from Assumption, that there is this differ- 
 ence, when he (Ms. B.) proposed his sub- 
 stitute to this house as a compromise, a 
 motion was made to lay it on the table, 
 which motion failed. The Convention 
 evidently then kept it before them for fur- 
 ther consideration; and now, when a mo- 
 tion to lay the substitute of Mr. Downs on 
 the table is made, it is called out of order. 
 
 Mr. Downs has not raised it as a ques- 
 tion of order, but merely to show the inex- 
 pediency and impropriety of it. The Con- 
 vention determined by a vote of 28 to 18, to 
 fix the basis on qualified electors, and 
 therefore he thinks it better to go on as we 
 are going, and that if we do not we shall 
 only be retrogading. 
 
 The President desired to call the atten- 
 tion of the members of the Convention to 
 the fact, that to lay the substitute on the 
 table, amounted to a rejection of the whole 
 of it. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff wished to know if he was 
 in order in moving to reconsider his vote, 
 for he began to see pretty plainly that the 
 city wanted the lion's share. 
 
 Mr. Wadswoeth was clearly in favor ot 
 the proviso offered by the delegate from 
 Assumption, as the only one which, while 
 allowing New Orleans her fair share of re- 
 presentation according to any basis, still 
 the country would be better protected from 
 any thing like a concentrated vote when 
 there would be such a variety of interests 
 represented. He thinks it is fair for both 
 sides. 
 
 Mr. Conrad, in reply to the delegate 
 from West Feliciana, remarked that he had 
 understood him to say, that the city want- 
 ed the lion's share — thereby saying that 
 the basis claimed is fairer for the city than 
 the one which is adopted. If the honora- 
 ble delegate will take the trouble to re-ex- 
 amine his calculations he will find it is not 
 so. Out of the whole population of the 
 State, 250,000, there are 84,000 whites 
 and free blacks, leaving 166,000 slaves — 
 of which there are 25,000 in the city. 
 Therefore the country could lose nothing 
 on that score ; and that was the reason why 
 the delegate from Ouachita labored so in- 
 dustriously for many days to establish the 
 federal basis. Did he not then urge it on 
 the Convention as one of the means of re- 
 stricting the city? Then the city objected, 
 as now, to restriction of any kind, But if 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 you are determined to restrict us, at least 
 don't do so in so many words. Take the 
 whole population., if you choose, but do not 
 restrict. He was astonished to find Mr. 
 Ratliff in such an error. Now, thus mat- 
 ters stand between the country and city : 
 the delegate from Ouachita says it is true 
 you will restrict New Orleans, but then 
 you will increase the influence of the adja- 
 cent parishes ; but there again he is mista- 
 ken. The number of slaves in the first 
 congressional district is 28,000, in- the 
 second 30,000, together 58,000. In the 
 third district it is 58,000, equal to the other 
 two ; and in the fourth district it is 50,000, 
 nearly equal to the first and second. 
 
 Now, then, how can the adjacent parish- 
 es be benefitted by the plan proposed by 
 the delegate from Ouachita, for it appears 
 that the third and fourth districts bear the 
 proportion of two to one oyer the first and 
 second districts. These are facts and 
 figures, and yet they get up and tell us se- 
 riously that this is the most favorable pro- 
 ject for New Orleans^ Figures dont prove 
 it, nor does the census. They are at war 
 with all these declarations. He regards 
 the proposition made by his colleague the 
 fairest compromise that has been offered, 
 and ^as such he shall sustain it; and he 
 conceives the Convention in refusing to 
 lay it on the table, have properly made it 
 the order of the day, and public interet 
 requires we should again take it into con- 
 sideration. He voted to lay the substitute of 
 Mr. Downs on the table, because he 
 thought that of his colleague would fully 
 meet the wishes of the Convention. He 
 reconciled himself to it by thinking it was 
 the best that could be got, and he is yet at 
 a loss to know how those who voted for the 
 federal basis could possibly refuse to take, 
 as their next choice, the total population. 
 
 The question was then put on Mr. Beat- 
 ty's motion to lay Mr. Taylor's proviso on 
 the table indefinitely, and resulted as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Carriere, Cenas, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, Con- 
 rad of .Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Garcia, Grymes, Guion, Kenner, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh, Ro- 
 selius, St. Amand, Saunders and Sellers — 
 27 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs, Brazcale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 
 Chambiiss, Covillion, Downs, Eustis, Gar- 
 rett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, King, 
 Ledeaux, Leonard, Lewis, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Mayo, Peets, Penn, Porche, Porter, 
 Preston, Prudhomme, RatlifT, Read, Ro- 
 selius, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison, Splane, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Voorhies, Waddill, 
 Wadsworth and Wederstrandt — 39 nays. 
 So the motion did not prevail. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved the reconsideration 
 of the vote given, to strike out the proviso 
 in the amendment of Mr. Downs; and the 
 yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade ? 
 Chambiiss, Covillion, Downs, Dunn, Gar- 
 rett, Humble, Hynson, McCallop, McRae, 
 Mayo, Peets, Penn, Porche, Porter, Prud- 
 homme, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Ba- 
 ton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Ma- 
 dison, Splane, Stephens, Voorhies, Weder- 
 strandt and Winder voted in the affirmative 
 — -31 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Bri- 
 ant, Carriere, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son* Culbertson, Derbes, Eustis, Garcia", 
 Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Leonard, 
 Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, Preston, Ro- 
 man, Roselius, St. Amand, Sellers, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption and Wadsworth voted in 
 the negative — 33 nays ; consequently the 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Taylor then moved that his proviso 
 be adopted. 
 
 Mr. Clairorne hoped that the delegate 
 from Assumption would withdraw the pro- 
 viso, or at any rate amend it. If that be 
 the price of the boon, which he has confer- 
 red upon the city by aiding in removing the 
 restriction on her rights, the boon itself 
 will not be very acceptable to the city. He 
 would say to that gentleman, that if it be di- 
 vided into twelve districts, it is very possi- 
 ble people might not be able to get suitable 
 persons, to their minds at least, to serve 
 them in such a narrow compass as one- 
 twelfth of the city. Why separate the city 
 at all ? and if you do, why divide the mu- 
 nicipalities ? He should move to lay the 
 whole subject on the table indefinitely. 
 
 Mr. Tayror was desirous of giving 
 some of the reasons that induced him to 
 propose this amendment. The delegate 
 from New Orleans thinks he (Mr. T.) had 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana; 
 
 429 
 
 acted upon the principle of extending a 
 boon to the city of Xew Orleans in the vote 
 he had given not to restrict the city ; no- 
 thing was further from his mind ; he acted 
 in accordance with what he believed to be 
 right, and from a sense of justice. He de- 
 signed to do right, and did what he com 
 ceived to be so. But he made his propo- 
 sition because he thought it proper and 
 just,[iand he believes it will lead to happy 
 consequences. Gentlemen seem to think 
 there is great injustice in it, but he does 
 not ; but, on the other hand, that there is 
 propriety in it, and that it will result in 
 good. As it now stands, no matter what 
 the divisions of interest may be, the" smal- 
 lest majorities may carry the whole num- 
 ber, without regard to those interests, and 
 it is his design to put all the population on 
 the same footing. If, for instance, one- 
 third of the population of Louisiana, (be- 
 cause that is about the number of the popu- 
 lation of Xew Orleans.) were to elect by 
 general ticket one third of the representa- 
 tives, the smallest majority would then de- 
 termine the politics of that representation, 
 and they might thereby determine the po- 
 litical complection of the State. In such a 
 way those whom the people want are pas- 
 sed over, and party hacks substituted in 
 their place. Besides, if we give represen- 
 tation to the people themselves, it will pre- 
 vent combinations from being formed that 
 shall shut out and exclude any particular 
 portion of the city, as was the case at the 
 last election, when the second municipality 
 was entirely excluded from a participation 
 even in our very debates. He has noted 
 the remarks which have been made, as to 
 the municipalities themselves being divis- 
 ion enough, but as he thinks this is bet- 
 ter, he adhere? to*' it, for he wants no dis= 
 tmction made between citizens, and it is 
 that same principle that induced him to 
 vote against restricting the city. 
 
 Mr. Beatty remarked, that if we were 
 going to divide the city into districts, we 
 had better ao it here at once, because if we 
 left it to the legislature, then it is clear they 
 would have it in their power to lay off the 
 districts in such a way as to give ' the vote 
 to one or other of the political parties, as 
 might best suit them. 
 
 Mr. Conrad rose to address the house, 
 but was momentarily interrupted by the 
 
 call of "question," which however, subsi- 
 ding, he proceeded. 
 
 The avowed object, Mr. President, it 
 seems is, to limit the power of the city; but 
 is if right to gerrymander it to suit party 
 purposes, as might be done, and no doubt 
 I would be? The gentleman from Assump- 
 | tion says, that his vote" on the question of 
 I restriction was no boon, but justice. Ad- 
 | United — but has he not now carried that 
 justice too far; has he not made them re- 
 presentatives for wards? It is a matter of 
 experience how difficult it is to get men to 
 serve in the council, .even who are capable. 
 He' .would much prefer municipalities to the 
 mode proposed. The report say , no mu- 
 nicipality shall send more than a parish. 
 He considers the legislature a dangerous 
 place to refer this division to; it will always 
 be a fruitful source of strife, and will give 
 them every opportunity for legerdemain and 
 gerrymandering'/ It would be better done 
 here, if it is to be done; but he thinks it is 
 enough to divide it into municipalities, and 
 if needs be, divide them into two districts 
 each. 
 
 Mr. Ceaiboexe. who joins Mr. Conrad 
 in his opinions and fears, would submit to 
 the house, while he called their attention to 
 and particularly to the attention of the dele- 
 gate from Assumption, a substitute to the 
 proviso of that gentleman— was fa divide 
 the representation into municipalities, in 
 such a way that neither could have less 
 than one-fcurih of the whole representation. 
 Each mimicipality has a separate and dis- 
 tinct line, and interest, not however in a 
 general way as to the latter, but he (Mr. 
 Claiborne) thinks it is the only reasonable 
 Way of dividing the representation. 
 
 Mr. Waeswoeth is surprised to find 
 gentlemen so greedy to control the interests 
 of the whole State, as they seem to be — to 
 his mind they want to concentrate the vote 
 of ]Niew T Orleans so as to control the vote of* 
 the State. The country is divided, then 
 why not the city? Has any man ever 
 dreamt of such a thing as the whole coun- 
 try sending their members here, perhaps, 
 by a majority of one vote 1 Xew Orleans 
 is bound eventually to govern the whole 
 State, if we do not watch her political 
 power with argus eyes. That he (Mr.W.) 
 firmly believes, for she is not alone depend- 
 ing on Louisiana for her prosperity and 
 
430 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 greatness; the wealth of the whole western 
 States is poured into her lap, and she is 
 supported by her commerce, which extends 
 throughout the world. 
 
 We all know there was a Tyre, a Rome, 
 a Carthage, and an Athens, which in their 
 days attracted the attention of the world; 
 amongst them let us select Rome to carry 
 out my argument. She controlled the 
 world, and Athens handed down to us that 
 mind which now controls our actions. Let 
 them build up their Cincinnati, St, Louis, 
 and all their other large western cities — 
 but they have all to come here at last, and 
 there is no telling to what power New Or- 
 leans may not arrive ere a century rolls 
 around. 
 
 He (Mr. Wads worth) cannot but think 
 there is another question which ought to 
 be taken into consideration by the gentle- 
 men who object to the division, and that 
 is, that it is to the interest of the city her- 
 self that she should be divived* for if not, 
 the hour is not far distant when the second 
 municipality will control the political power 
 of New Orleans. There you find the en- 
 terprize, the intelligence of her citizens, 
 making rapid strides, and distancing her 
 sisters. This then is a thing to be thought 
 of, and reflected upon by all. All we want 
 is to divide the vote in such a way that by 
 one vote in the city, the State of Louisiana 
 shall not be governed by New Orleans. 
 
 The great idea here is, that New Orleans 
 will control; this is the only way it can be 
 prevented, and therefore he shall support it. 
 
 Mr. Roselius has felt great solicitude 
 that justice should be done to the city; and 
 if we are to judge from the vote of this 
 morning, the question may be considered as 
 settled, that the majority of this Convention 
 are opposed to imposing a restriction upon 
 her. He (Mr. Roselius) rejoices at the re- 
 sult; for all she asks is justice. She does 
 not want to control the interests of the 
 State; all she asks is that the same basis 
 should be applied to her as to the other 
 portion of it. He feared that New Orleans 
 was to be placed under a ban, but he is in- 
 deed happy to know that the idea is aban- 
 doned, and that she is not now to be put in 
 shackles. 
 
 The result is honorable to this Conven- 
 tion as a body ; and he (Mr. R.) is willing 
 to make any concession to accomplish that 
 ajreat and just end. He does not care into 
 
 how many parts the representation is cut 
 up, provided they do not divide it into too 
 small districts — that is a matter of minor 
 importance, compared with the grand prin- 
 ciple of restriction. 
 
 Mr, Claiborne felt convinced that New 
 Orleans would have preferred some slight 
 restriction, in preference to this mode of di- 
 viding us into so many districts. Why, 
 said the gentleman from Plaquemies, (Mr. 
 Wadsworth,) should not the city be divided 
 into districts, as well as the country into 
 parishes? If he thinks we have any perso- 
 nal political interests in view, in maintain- 
 ing that the city ought not to be divided, he 
 is much mistaken; for his part he repels it. 
 He only looks to the general interests of 
 his constituents. He did not come here to 
 seek pupularity; but he came with the deter- 
 mination, to the best of his humble ability, 
 to protect the rights of those who sent him. 
 
 Mr. Saunders thinks in sustaining this 
 motion we are going to much into detail. 
 Who can say what may be the condition of 
 the city even gfty years hence? The objec- 
 tion to it is, that if the division to be made 
 produced a bad or pernicious effect, it is 
 without a remedy; and therefore he shall 
 ' not support the motion. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne then withdrew his sub- 
 stitute to the motion made by Mr. Taylor; 
 I and seconded Mr. Beatty's motion to lay the 
 proviso on the table indefinitely,^ and cal- 
 led for the yeas and nays, which resulted 
 as follows: Yeas 26, Nays 36. 
 
 And on motion T the Convention adjourn- 
 ed till to-morrow at 10 o'clock, a. m- 
 
 Saturday, March 15, 1845i 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn^ 
 ment. 
 
 The proceedings were opened with pray- 
 er by the Rev. Mr. Pritchard. 
 
 Mr. Beatty, on behalf of the special 
 committee, to whom were assigned the du- 
 ty of making certain enquiries in relation 
 to the delay in the publication of the re- 
 ports of debates, presented a report accom- 
 panied by a resolution requiring the re- 
 porters in English to deliver their reports 
 on the day following the proceedings in 
 the Convention. The resolution was mo- 
 dified on motion of Mr. Dunn, and wad 
 adopted. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 The Convention resumed the considcra* 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 431 
 
 tion of the subject of apportionment; being 
 the proposition of Mr. Miles Taylor to di- 
 vide the city of New Orleans into represen- 
 tative districts. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin desired a temporary post- 
 ponement of this question. He was about 
 preparing a substitute, which he designed 
 offering; but before submitting it to the con- 
 sideration of the Convention, he wished to 
 advise with his colleagues from the city. 
 He wished it to be understood, inasmuch 
 as the country appeared to wish it, that he 
 did not intend to oppose the districting of 
 the city. All that he objected to was, that 
 the legislature should be empowered with 
 control over the formation of these districts. 
 He wished them to be placed beyond the 
 power of the legislature; to be definitely 
 settled in the constitution. He would pro- 
 pose in his proposition, that the three mu- 
 nicipalities should be divided each into two 
 representative district: to be represented in 
 the ratio of electors as determined upon by 
 the Convention. He would, therefore, re- 
 new his request, that the subject be laid 
 over for the present. 
 
 Mr. Downs was opposed to any further 
 delays. This subject had monopolized a 
 great portion of the time of the Convention. 
 For the last three days it has been discuss- 
 ed; it has been turned into every form and 
 shape. This is the last day of the week: 
 if we defer it until Monday, it is most like- 
 ly it will consume the whole week. The 
 city ought to be satisfied, inasmuch as, not- 
 withstanding all the arguments that have 
 been adduced, showing the necessity of re- j 
 straining her influence within such reason- 
 able limits as would give some gurantees to 
 the country. She has succeeded in carry- 
 ing her point, and is to have a full repre- 
 sentation. What more can she possibly 
 desire? The only guarantee that the coun- 
 try now asks, is, that her huge represent- 
 tion, totally disproportionate with the bal- 
 ance of the State, may be divided, in order j 
 to prevent the concentration of her vote. 
 And yet it seems that even with this con- 
 cession, she is not yet satisfied. When the j 
 subject of representation was before the [ 
 committee at Jackson, a similar suggestion 
 was made to divide the city into smaller ie- 
 preventative districts than were offered by 
 the existing local division into municipali- 
 ties; but this was resisted by the Orleans j 
 delegation, and with some show of reason, 
 
 I on the ground that, inasmuch as the city 
 ! was to be restricted, it was not just to re- 
 strict her further by dividing her into small, 
 j er districts. The committee under the cir- 
 I cumstences assented. But now the whole 
 matter is changed; she is to have a full dele- 
 gation, and the only restriction to be im- 
 posed upon her, if restriction it can be call- 
 ed, is, that her delegation shall be divided 
 so as to represent more immediately the 
 various local districts and fractions of her 
 population. I am indeed astonished that 
 objection should be made to this reasonable 
 provision on the part of her delegation. 
 And if anything further were wanting to de^ 
 monstrate the influence of the concentrated 
 power of the city, we would find a striking 
 illustration in the proceedings and debates 
 upon this very question within the last 
 three days! The delegation of the city 
 consists only of eleven members in this 
 house. Only one. seventh portion of the 
 whole number of members; and yet we find 
 that New Orleans has succeeded in every 
 thing. If with so great an inferiority in 
 numbers, she can carry her designs, what 
 will be the result when she has one-half, 
 or may control one-half of the members in 
 the house of representatives? One fact to 
 which I have alluded, is observable from 
 the votes taken yesterday: and that is this, 
 that wherever New Orleans is concerned, 
 the carries along with her all the votes of 
 the surrounding parishes. The division of 
 the city into representative districts is ask- 
 ing but very little, for it will tend only, at 
 best, partiality to effect the object of pre- 
 venting the too great concentration of pow- 
 er in the city. 
 
 I trust, said Mr. Downs, that this matter 
 will not be further procrastinated. The 
 gentleman (Mr. Benjamin) it seems to me, 
 can very well present his proposition now; 
 it can be discussed, and he can explain it 
 to his colleagues. If it be postponed, I 
 shall move immediately to take up tire re- 
 port of the original committee upon appor- 
 tionment, and from what country members 
 have witnessed since yesterday, I am in- 
 clined to believe that the result will not be 
 as favorable to the city as heretofore; and 
 that the country will see the necessity for 
 checking her power before it is too late. 
 
 Mr. Cttlbertsox said he had not trou- 
 bled the house with many remarks, because 
 he believed there were others far more ca- 
 
432 
 
 Debates in the Gonventios of Louisiana. 
 
 pable than he could pretend to be, to parti- 
 cipate in the various discussions that had 
 arisen upon this and similar questions. He 
 did not believe it necessary, that because a 
 man possessed the laculty of speaking he 
 should make a speech merely to have the 
 gratification of seeing it printed. The time 
 of the Convention was too precious for any 
 thing of tha.t kind. And I doubt very much 
 whether it should be indulged in, at the sa- 
 crifice of important objects, for which this 
 Convention was called. 
 
 I will take advantage of the present oc- 
 casion, in the name of my constituents, to 
 express the general satisfaction produced 
 by the decisive vote taken yesterday; they 
 were happy to find that the Convention 
 were at length disposed to render full jus- 
 tice to the city, upon the sacred principle 
 of equality and uniformity. This resolu- 
 tion was worthy of the purest principles of 
 republicanism. It was a recognition of 
 of those principles, well worthy of the fa- 
 thers of our constitution. And if in their 
 desire to protect the interests of the city, 
 those members of the Orleans delegation 
 that have addressed the house, have em- 
 ployed all their skill and all their talents to 
 carry their point, I trust they may not in- 
 cur the slightest reproach from the country 
 delegation. The warmth of debate, and 
 the vital importance of the subject, may 
 have given rise to some pointed expres- 
 sions; but this might very well happen from 
 the peculiar character of the questions in- 
 volved. It has manifested their fidelity to 
 their duties. They are no more deserving 
 of reproach than a servant, an indented ap- 
 prentice would be for the scrupulous exac- 
 titude with which he may have fulfilled his 
 duties to his master. 
 
 Since the country, through an apprehen- 
 sion of the concentrated power of the city, 
 desire to lessen her influence by dividing 
 her into districts, the city is disposed to 
 concur; but all that she asks is, that if this 
 division must needs be made, it shall not be 
 so made as to be the cause of serious diffi- 
 culties and of grave disorders. I trust that 
 a reasonable delay will be granted, in order 
 that the Orleans delegation may have the 
 opportunity of conferring with one another 
 as to some mode the least exceptionable of 
 forming the various districts into which it 
 is proposed to divide the city. The dele- 
 gate from Ouachita (Mr. Downs) thinks we 
 
 should economize our time. I think so too; 
 not upon one abstract point, but a general 
 rule; it will, in my opinion, be economizing 
 our time to allow the city delegation time 
 to make a definite proposition in which all 
 may concur. This, I take it, is the inten- 
 tion of my colleague, Mr. Benjamin. The 
 request is a reasonable one, and I trust it 
 will be conceded. 
 
 Mr P Boudousquie proposed to lay the 
 question relative to the apportionment of 
 the city upon the table, and to take up that 
 portion applicable to the country. The Or- 
 leans delegation, added Mr. B., desire to 
 confer with one another, and with their 
 constituents. By Monday they will be 
 enabled to submit their labors to the Con- 
 vention. 
 
 Mr. Beatty was opposed to delay — not 
 because he was averse to the particular 
 plan indicated by the gentleman (Mr. Ben- 
 jamin) for districting the city, but because 
 there was one point that ought, and should, 
 be settled at once. IJe could not consent 
 that the legislature should have the power 
 to interfere and change the districts. He 
 wished them to be established in the. con- 
 stitution permanently. If it were left to 
 the legislature it would be subject to party 
 action and party control. The number of 
 districts in the city was less important than 
 that they should be definitely formed as to 
 their territorial limits. If you leave the 
 question open for the future decision of the 
 legislature, you expose it to the movements 
 of party, and to political projects. I would 
 rather see the city vote en masse than that 
 it should be divided according to the ascen- 
 dancy of the one or the other of the two 
 great political parties. When the whigs 
 would be in the ascendency, the districts 
 would be so formed as to operate in their 
 favor. When the democrats were in pow- 
 er the districting would be made so as to pro- 
 mote their objects. I trust that the Con- 
 vention will provide against that result, by 
 prescribing in the constitution the territo- 
 rial extent of the districts, and their num. 
 I ber. When the Convention have definite- 
 ly settled that the districts formed in the 
 city shall be permanent, then they may re- 
 fer the details to the delegation from the 
 city, in order that they may confer and 
 agree upon the most acceptable number of 
 districts into which the city shall be du 
 vided. 
 
Debates in the Con?ention of Louisiana, 
 
 433 
 
 The question was taken upon Mr. Bou- 
 dousquie's motion to lay the subject of ap- 
 portionment, so far as it related to the city 
 of New Orleans, upon the table, and it was 
 carried in the affirmative. 
 
 Mr. Dowxs moved that the Convention 
 take up the subject of apportionment, which 
 had been laid upon the table subject to 
 call, and called for the yeas and nays upon 
 his motion. 
 
 Mr. Humble said he was convinced that 
 the Convention would never get at the end 
 of its business, if important questions were 
 to be constantly postponed. He had wit- 
 nessed with regret the disposition to pro- 
 crastinate. In my young days, said Mr. 
 Humble, I worked in a black-smith shop, 
 and I think, to make use of a common ex- 
 pression, it is best to strike while the iron 
 is hot. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. Downs' 
 motion, and the result was 28 yeas, and 
 26 nays. 
 
 The question recurring on the provision 
 presented by Mr. Miles Taylor, 
 
 Mr. BsNJAMEf offered the substitute to 
 which he had referred at a previous stage 
 of the proceedings. 
 
 3Ir. Cade offered an amendment to the 
 effect that none of the representative dis- 
 tricts in the city be entitled to a greater 
 number than allowed to the largest coun- 
 try parish. 
 
 Mr. Makig>"y considered that the amend- 
 ment of the delegate from Lafayette, (Mr. 
 Cade,) was contrary to the principle con- 
 secrated by the vote of yesterday ; and that 
 with a view of arresting the chimerical no- 
 tions entertained in regard to the motives 
 for asking a delay, he would feel himself 
 under the necessity of voting for the pro- 
 viso of the delegate from Lafourche, (Mr. 
 Taylor.) 
 
 Mr. Claiborne would protest, by his 
 vote, against any unjust and vexatious divi- 
 sion of the city into representative districts. 
 The request of my colleague (Mr. Benja- 
 min) was a reasonable one. I have had 
 no opportunity of conferring generally with 
 my constituents, but those whom I have 
 casually met are averse to such fractional 
 divisions of this city. The facts speak for 
 themselves. The city is already divided 
 into municipalities, and each municipality 
 is sub-divided into wards; so that in our 
 elections, besides these divisions, we would 
 
 ! have representative districts, senatorial dis- 
 ! tricts and congressional districts — a mix- 
 ture already sufficiently confusing: and if 
 the city is again to be sub-divided into re- 
 ! presentatve districts for the legislature, we 
 shall be exposed to perpfetual confusion and 
 disorder. I would ask the country mem- 
 , bers how they would like to have their pa- 
 rishes cut up in a similar manner, with the 
 view of breaking up a supposed amity of 
 action! How would the delegates from St. 
 Landry, for example, like to have their pa- 
 rish cut up into fragments, and that too, 
 - without giving them the opportunity of con- 
 i ferring with one another, or with their com- 
 ' mon constituents! They would be indig- 
 nant, and with good reason, against such a 
 ; proposition; and yet it is made for the city, 
 i and her delegation are expected to concur 
 ! in it without consulting. 
 
 My colleague (Mr. Benjamin) has told 
 you that he wished to have a little time to 
 ■ advise with the other members of the Or- 
 leans delegation. Yet this reasonable 
 request has been refused. We are to be 
 : forced to acquiesce in any arbitrary division 
 : of the city, that it may please the majority 
 | in this house to entertain. We are forbid- 
 I den to consult with our constituents. This 
 | is a mode of proceeding which I utterly 
 i condemn. And I shall feel under a neces- 
 sity to vote, not only against the proposition 
 of my colleague, (Mr. Benjamin) but also, 
 under the circumstances, against the propo- 
 : sition of the delegate from Lafourche, 
 ! (Mr. Taylor). 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth said that he was aston- 
 : ished at the vehement opposition of the 
 gentleman that just resumed his seat, 
 against the districting of the city, Notwith- 
 standing the convincing and powerful ar- 
 guments against the monopolizing weight 
 of the city, she is to have her just share of 
 representation upon the basis that has been 
 adopted. Is not this sufficient to content 
 her representatives? But must she be al- 
 ; lowed to absorb and to swallow up the po- 
 litical power of the country. Let her dele- 
 gation beware! Xo one anticipated that 
 she would be allowed so large a number of 
 members as she will get under the basis 
 | that has been adopted. Why, she will 
 have from twenty to twenty-five represen- 
 : tatives immediately, according to that basis! 
 . If she should force the members from the 
 I country to retrace their steps, the result 
 
434 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 might not be so favorable to her. This de - 
 sire to engross the greater proportion of the 
 representation, reveals designs which 
 should make the country particularly care- 
 ful. It seems to be but natural that the 
 city should be divided, in order that its lo- 
 calities and conflicting interests should be 
 distinctly represented, and that the whole 
 of her large delegation should not be in 
 the position of voting as an unit upon all im- 
 portant questions. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Baton Rouge, concluded 
 that the only reason urged for .delay, was 
 the desire of the Orleans delegation to con- 
 sult with their constituents. What would 
 the delegation from the city say if a coun- 
 try member, upon any important question, 
 should rise and ask that it should be post- 
 poned, in order that he might consult his 
 constituents? Why, the idea would be 
 scouted at; and yet the Orleans delegation, 
 who are in the very midst of their constitu- 
 ents, ask us to postpone this question, which 
 has been under a protracted debate, in or- 
 der that they may confer with their constitu- 
 ents. The circumstances that have marked 
 our proceeding for the last few days, are 
 sufficient to convince any one, that the city 
 ought to be restricted. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff was in favor of the princi- 
 ple of the gentleman from Lafourche, (Mr. 
 Taylor.) The gentleman's idea was a most 
 excellent one, inasmuc ash it will give to 
 the minority an opportunity of being heard 
 in the legislature. And when that gentle- 
 man was thanked by the Orleans delega- 
 tion for his magnanimity in throwing off all 
 restriction from the city, he replied becom- 
 ingly, that he had done nothing more than 
 his duty, by rendering justice to the City. 
 Thus it will be seen, that justice has been 
 rendered by the country to the city, and it 
 may be said, against the will of the city. 
 Justice then, has been forced upon the city 
 in one instance, and I predict it will be 
 forced upon her in another. This proposi- 
 tion for dividing her into representative dis- 
 tricts will be held as an act of justice by 
 the minority. But one side of the question 
 was heard by her delegation in the legis- 
 lature. They were usually a 1 whigs, or 
 all democrats. By this provision the mi- 
 nority will have an opportunity of being 
 heard; and thus justice has been forced 
 upon the city. I was very much delighted 
 with the proposition of the delegate from 
 
 Lafourche, (Mr. Taylor,) when he offered 
 it yesterday. I make the almost blasphe- 
 mous exclamation, that an angel from heav- 
 en could not have had a happier conception, 
 nor offered a proposition more just or more 
 rational. 
 
 Mr. Marigny moved that the subject of 
 districting the city be referred to the Or- 
 leans delegation, in order that they may 
 confer together, and report a plan for dis- 
 tricting the city. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved' to amend the motion 
 of Mr. Marigny, by instructing the com- 
 mittee that the city should be divided into 
 twelve representative districts. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth thought that this num- 
 ber was too large; it would be attended with 
 some inconvenience. In some of these 
 little districts it would be difficult to find 
 men of sufficient talents to depute to the 
 legislature. That might perhaps be reme- 
 died by a provision allowing the voters to 
 select a person to represent them, beyond 
 their district. He could see no reasona- 
 ble objection to this; for he held that if the 
 people of one parish were disposed to se- 
 lect a person from another parish, to repre- 
 sent them for particular reasons, they 
 should be left free to do so. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies was willing to accede to 
 reducing the districts in the city to nine. 
 He thought that number would be amply 
 sufficient for the purpose designed, and he 
 was willing to consult the convenience of 
 the city as far as he could. 
 
 Mr. Brent proposed to place the num- 
 ber to be submitted to the committee at ten. J 
 
 Mr. Downs acquiesced in this proposi- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Eustis said that the intention of the 
 Convention in relation to the city, was but 
 too apparent — the principle of action was 
 upon the maxim, "divide and conquer;" the 
 city was to be sacrificed in detail. 
 
 In vain does she protest, through her de- 
 legates, against the willful wrong that is 
 about to be done her. Hence it would 
 seem that after the country has forced jus- 
 tice upon her, to use the language of an 
 honorable delegate, it is found strange that 
 she does not display her gratitude, if not in 
 words, at least by an humble submission to 
 whatever the majority may be pleased to 
 order. Ever since the unfortunate word 
 compromise has been heard in this house, 
 the fate of the city has appeared to me to 
 
Debates in ike Convention of Louisiana. 43^ 
 
 be irretrievably pronounced. The meas- 
 ure of her disasters are accomplished, and 
 not only of her disasters, but those of the 
 country. For let gentlemen from the 
 country say what they may, the true in- 
 terests of the city and country are one and 
 the same. It should be borne in mind, that 
 we are forming a constitution for the whole 
 State— for the people of the city as well as 
 for the people of the country, and that 
 equal justice ougiit to be meted out to all. 
 What will be the result of this proscriptive 
 policy? You have already placed a ban 
 upon the city, you have taken the seat of 
 government from her limits, and have pre- 
 scribed that it shall not be established 
 within sixty miles thereof ; and to com- 
 plete that active proscription, you fix the 
 sessions of the legislature in the month of 
 January, at a period of the year when it 
 will be excessively difficult for the city re- 
 presentation. And this is what is termed 
 forcing justice upon the city I 
 
 But how does the* second act of your 
 generosity compare with the first? You 
 now propose a territorial division of the 
 city into minute particles, by which the 
 city will lose her nationality, if I may be 
 permitted to use that expression for the 
 want of a better. Since the city must 
 needs be divided, since she must be cut up, 
 be it so ! But at least do not insist upon 
 such divisions as will be productive of the 
 greatest disorder and confusion. There is 
 not a member from the country that would 
 not find it extremely harsh and unjust after 
 the Convention had determined that the 
 particular parish he represented, should be 
 split into fragments for the purpose of di- 
 viding its representation, that the details 
 should be settled without any reference to 
 the delegation from the parish. Why act 
 with this exclusive severity against the pa- 
 rish of Orleans? The city is already di- 
 vided! division of municipalities — division 
 of races — division of languages — division 
 of manners and of prejudices — in a word, 
 division in every thing. So much so, that 
 one would seek in vain any other city 
 where there exist greater and more radical 
 differences; and where those differences 
 are destined to exist for a longer period, 
 and that independent of all law and of all 
 constitutions! Divide the city since it is 
 your pleasure, but have some regard for the 
 interest and the convenience of its inhabi- 
 
 tants! There are particular portions of the 
 city where the population is dense; there 
 are other portions wheye its population is 
 sparse. According to your principle there 
 would be a representative from the meat 
 market, and a representative from the vege- 
 table market. The delegate from Plaque- 
 mines (Mr. Wadsworth) thinks that the in- 
 convenience of getting suitable persons to 
 represent these various districts may be 
 obviated by allowing latitude to the voters 
 to choose any one residing in the parish to 
 represent them. But the gentleman over- 
 looks a fact that such a provision would be 
 entirely useless. The feeling of locality 
 is peculiarly strong, and no district would 
 be willing to admit that there was no one 
 sufficiently instructed to represent in the 
 legislature. They would prefer electing 
 one of their own citizens than to choose a 
 citizen from a neighboring district, even 
 although it were from the adjoining dis- 
 trict. 
 
 I pray the Convention to consider the 
 difficulties that would arise from districting 
 the city into several small districts. Make 
 the districts then as large as possible, con- 
 sistent with your designs. These are not 
 difficulties of a day; they are not momen- 
 tary; they vary with circumstances, and 
 a division that might answer well enough 
 at one period, would be most unfortunate 
 at another. The best plan, in my humble 
 judgment, would be to adopt the provision 
 of the gentleman from Lafourche, (Mr. Tay- 
 lor) and leave with the legislature the dis- 
 cretion of varying the districts as circum- 
 stances may require. But if the city is to 
 be divided, and not only divided, but the 
 divisions to be permanent, make the evil as 
 small as possible, and give the inhabitants 
 of the city as little inconvenience as pos- 
 sible. 
 
 Mr. Brent could not refrain from ex- 
 pressing his astonishment at this cry 
 of proscription from the city delegation. 
 They have gone on triumphantly, and suc- 
 cess upon one point has been only the pre- 
 lude of success to another; and I may say, 
 that they have obtained a controlling influ- 
 ence in this Convention. The expediency 
 of restricting the city was concurred in by 
 a large majority; but now, that principle of 
 safety for the country has suddenly been 
 conceded to the city. The interests of 
 agriculture, the permanent interests of the 
 
436 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 country, have been sacrificed to the interest 
 of commerce; and yet those that have ob- 
 tained the sacrifice .have raised the cry of 
 proscription! This reminds me of the pre- 
 text of the wolf reproaching the lamb for 
 having troubled the limpidity of the stream! 
 In the name of justice and of reason", what 
 ground is there for opposing the division of 
 the city into small districts. I can see rm 
 just reason for it. 1 consider it as the in- 
 evitable sequence of the principle of equali- 
 ty and uniformity, which has heretofore 
 been so constantly invoked by the city 
 delegation. Is it reasonable that the city 
 should elect en masse her entire delegation, 
 when the delegation from the country is 
 distributed among innumerable parishes? 
 That the delegation of the city should be 
 returned in a solid column to the legislature 
 by the majority of but a single vote, while 
 the country parishes stand in an isolated 
 position in reference to each other, the 
 maxim to which the gentleman from New 
 Orleans refers, has no application to the 
 city, but it refers with striking effect to the 
 position of the country. The city knows 
 full well how to act upon it. Divide and 
 conquer has been her principle of action to- 
 wards the country. The country is divi- 
 ded, anc 1 hence the preponderating influ- 
 ence of the city which is united — which 
 votes her entire strength as an unite to place 
 the city upon an equality with the country. 
 She ought to be divided, and her strength 
 should be distributed among her various 
 localities and divergent interests. 
 
 The vote of yesterday, abandoning the 
 principle of confining the influence of the 
 city to her just relative position, caused as 
 much surprise on the part of the city dele- 
 gation, as it did on the part of that portion 
 of the country delegation that retained the 
 stand originally assumed. In fact, it was 
 something truly remarkable, that in a Con- 
 vention principally composed of members 
 representing the agricultural interest, such a 
 concession should have been made! But 
 the matter may be considered in the light of 
 the thing adjudged, and there is no other al- 
 ternative for those that concur with me in 
 opinion that this judgment is both eroneous 
 and unfortunate, but to submit. 
 
 The principle of equality and uniformity 
 has been adopted, and all that we ask is, 
 that the city shall conform to that principle. 
 
 As for the argument of the gentleman from 
 New Orleans, (Mr. Eustis) that there is a 
 want of homogenity in the population of 
 the city, I wou-ld answer, that it is with 
 a view of representing these various inter- 
 ests that the division of the city into small 
 representative districts is desirable, and 
 that these local differences will in that way 
 serve to equalize the representation be- 
 tween the city and country. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne would remark that the 
 gentleman from Rapides (Mi*. Brent) had 
 argued the question as if the delegation 
 from New Orleans had opposed the scheme 
 for districting the city. The gentleman 
 from Feliciana (Mr. RatlifT) had argued it 
 as affording the minority in the city the 
 opportunity of being heard^as if their voices 
 had heretofore been suppressed. Neither 
 of these positions were correct. The dele- 
 gation from the city had alone' contended 
 that the districting of the city should not be 
 made so as to create disorder and confusion. 
 In reference to the sec*ond point, there was 
 no foundation for the assertion of the dele- 
 gate from Feliciana. The composition of 
 the Orleans delegation in this body without 
 going farther, proved it to be unfounded; 
 the members representing the city were 
 chosen irrespectively of party politics. — 
 They were sustained and voted for by both 
 whigs and democrats indiscriminately. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin proposed that the city 
 should be divided into six elections dis- 
 tricts/and that the formation of these dis- 
 tricts should be referred to the city delega- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies proposed that the repre- 
 sentation from the city should be distribu- 
 ted among eight election districts, as fol- 
 lows: three representative districts for the' 
 First Municipality; three for the Second 
 Municipality; and two for the Third Muni-' 
 cipality. 
 
 Mr. Waddill moved that the further 
 consideration of the question of apportion- 
 ment, as it related to the city of New Or- 
 leans, be postponed until Monday; his mo- 
 tion was lost. 
 
 The question then recurred on the mo- 
 tion of Mr. Voorhies, to establish eight 
 representative districts in the city, and it 
 was carried in the affirmative by yeas 30, 
 and nays 23. 
 
 Mr. Cade withdrew his motion, and the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 437 
 
 resolution presented by Mr. Downs was 
 adopted and referred to the Orleans dele- 
 gation. 
 
 Mr. Beatty proposed to substitute sec- 
 tions ten and eleven of the second commit- 
 tee, to similar sections in the report of the 
 majority of the committee on the legisla- 
 tive department. 
 
 Mr. Lewis proposed to amend the report 
 further, and instead of requiring that new 
 parishes should contain, instead of four hun- 
 dred square miles, to require six hundred 
 and twenty-five miles square. Mr. L. ex- 
 plained the necessity for this amendment. 
 It was concurred in. The Convention then 
 resumed the proposition of Mr. Beatty. 
 
 Mr. Bexjamix rejnarked that there Was 
 a contrariety between the principle con- 
 secrated in section eleven in the report of 
 the second committee and that part of the 
 Report of the majority of the first committee, 
 which prescribed that each parish should 
 have at least one representative; and that, 
 therefore, he would move to strike out that 
 clause entirely. 
 
 Mr. Dowxs replied that this clause was 
 essential to insure representation to some 
 of the old parishes whose population were 
 quite small: as for the new parishes, for 
 whom it might be thought that this princi- 
 ple had been invoked, they were increasing 
 very fast in population, and would soon be 
 entitled to a plurality in representation. 
 
 Mr. Bexjamix thought that for the pre- 
 sent, representation should be allowed to 
 every parish. But some principle ought 
 to be embodied in the constitution which 
 would allow representation hereafter solely 
 in reference to the principle of equality and 1 
 uniformity, a settled basis-, and if the par- 
 ish fell below that number, should be 
 merged with such neighboring parish as she 
 should select, and conjointly, they should 
 send a delegation upon the basis .of the 
 electoral number. 
 
 Mr. Dowxs thought that this question 
 involved the acknowledgment or denial of 
 the principle that each parish shall be en- 
 titled to one representative. • The gentle- 
 man (Mr. Benjamin) is willing to concede 
 the principle for the present. But to my 
 mind there is no difference in conceding it 
 now and conceding it hereafter. If the 
 principle be good, it is good now, and is 
 good hereafter. The intention of the gen- 
 tleman is manifest; he wishes the city to p-et 
 56 ' " 
 
 possession of the representatives of certain 
 parishes as soon as it may appear thatthev 
 shall fall beneath some increased electoral 
 number, although they may in fact have in- 
 creased in population: the same question id 
 here at issue again, shall the city absorb 
 the political power of the State? 
 
 Mr. Poster would ask the gentleman 
 from New Orleans (Mr. Benjamin) wheth- 
 er his construction was this, that if the 
 population diminished in proportion 5 with its 
 increase in another, or whether the in- 
 crease or diminution should be counted from 
 the present actual number. If fhe first was 
 his construction, some of the" old parishes 
 would be exposed to the danger of losing 
 their representation. In the second place, 
 the new parishes had nothing to fear, for it 
 was not presumable that the alluvial soil of 
 the Mississippi would ever lose' its settlers 
 so fast as to convert any of them into rotten 
 boroughs. 
 
 Mr.- Bexjahiix said that the population 
 of the State should remain stationary in the 
 several parishes. We have decided that 
 there shall be but one hundred members in 
 the house of representatives: if hereafter the 
 electoral number be placed at one thousand 
 voters for each representative, how can it 
 be expected that parishes having but three 
 hundred and fifty voters shall be entitled to 
 a distinct representative ? If we admit this, 
 then w 7 e are virtually introducing the rotten 
 borough system, and we shall transfer the 
 inequality of representation from the senate 
 to the popular branch of the legislature. 
 
 Mr. C. M. CoXrad wa-s under the im- 
 pression that this question had alread}- been 
 settled. The second" committee upon the 
 question of apportionment had reported, it 
 would be remembered, a plan of repartition, 
 by which that concession was made tempo- 
 rarily, so as to include the new parishes of 
 the north-west. But upon apportionment 
 being made upon the electoral number they 
 would not be entitled to distinct representa- 
 tion, unless they reach that number. I was 
 opposed at that time to this concession, and 
 if I yield my assent to it now, it is only upon 
 ( the ground that it is temporary, and as a 
 ' portion of the compromise. 
 I course I can never consent that such 
 j a clause should be obligatory hereafter. 
 ! That woidd be falling into the disparities 
 : that have marked the existing constitution. 
 The senatorial representation has been 
 
433 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 very unequal; why has it been so? Because, 
 notwithstanding the increase in certain por- 
 tions of the State, the senatorial districts 
 have invariably remained the same. 
 
 It would be a renewal of the rotten bo- 
 rough system. One of the causes for 
 which this body is convened is to make a 
 fairer apportionment in the senate. How 
 can we, with that mission before us, seek 
 to introduce the same inequalities in the 
 house of representatives? It would be a 
 sacrifice of principle. 
 
 The proposition of Mr. Benjamin was 
 not adopted. Upon a call for the yeas and 
 nays, the vote stood 24 yeas and 31 nays. 
 
 Mr. Beatty proposed the creation of a 
 committee, composed of blank members, to 
 be chosen from each congressional district, 
 to whom shall be assigned the duty of veri- 
 fying the calculations upon the provisional 
 apportionment. 
 
 Mr. Downs maintained that the calcula- 
 tions and the tables reported by the com- 
 mittee were correct, and it was needless to 
 refer them to a committee. They spoke 
 for themselves. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin thought that there might 
 be error, and it was better to refer. 
 
 Mr. E. M. Conrad was in favor of the 
 reference, because members, in the uncer- 
 tainty which basis would be adopted, had 
 not examined and verified the calculations 
 for themselves. 
 
 Mr. Vooriiies was convinced that the 
 calculations were sufficiently exact to jus- 
 tify us in proceeding. He had examined 
 them some time ago, with a view of in- 
 forming himself. Other members might 
 have done the same. He hoped there 
 would be no further procrastination. 
 
 Mr. Kenner inquired what were the cal- 
 culations upon the table, by which Mr. 
 Downs, the member from Ouachita, was 
 governed. 
 
 Mr. Downs replied that he took the re- 
 sult of the Presidential elections in some 
 particular sections of Louisiana ; for in- 
 stance, in the second municipality frauds 
 may have been committed, but in the north- 
 western portion of the State, the commission 
 of frauds had not been even alleged. The 
 elections were properly conducted, and the 
 number of voters was, on the whole, an ac- 
 curate guide. 
 
 Mr, Kenner said he could not consent 
 to adopt the electoral vote of 1844 as his 
 
 guide. He considered that the Presiden- 
 tial election was one tissue of fraud. If 
 our recent elections are to be assumed as 
 a basis, why not take the elections in 
 July for State officers. There was then 
 an election for members of the house of re- 
 presentatives, members to the Convention, 
 and in some districts members of the senate. 
 It would be certainly a much fairer stand- 
 ard. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth said that the gentle- 
 man from St. James (Mr. Kenner) was 
 wrong in estimating the elections in July 
 as affording a proper guide. In some of 
 the parishes they might be so considered, 
 but in his (Mr. Wadsworth's parish) it was 
 not a fair guide. The voters there were 
 not called out. There was no excitement. 
 Mr. Slidell run for congress without oppo- 
 sition ; so did Mr. White for the senate, 
 and I had no competitor. This is apparent 
 from the vote given. That parish is, I am 
 convinced, capable of giving a much heavier 
 vote. She did so at the last Presidential 
 election. But it is said that frauds were 
 committed at that election. About one 
 hundred and fifty persons came from the 
 city of New Orleans, upon the plea that 
 they had been unable to vote in the city, 
 and therefore were entitled to vote in the 
 district ; and they were allowed to vote. It 
 is said that the election was conducted 
 with great irregularity. But it was con- 
 ducted under the influence of party. It 
 was a' one sufficient that a hand and two 
 feet should approach the ballot box, in or- 
 der to be allowed the sacred right of suf- 
 frage. According to that mode of receiv- 
 ing votes, I might have taken down a band 
 of Irishmen or Germans, and their votes 
 would have been received and counted. 
 The privilege of suffrage is too important, 
 and too essential to the well-being of our 
 country, to be desecrated and abused. I 
 am in favor of the federal basis of repre- 
 sentation, but if you adopt the principle of 
 electors, carry out that principle, and give 
 to each parish the number of votes to which 
 she is really entitled by the number of her 
 electors. If the gentleman from St. James 
 repudiates a reference to the number of 
 votes cast in the Presidential election, be- 
 cause he may consider it not an accurate 
 gufde, I object to the election of July, so 
 far as the parish of Plaquemines is con- 
 cerned, I do not claim "representation 
 
Debates in the Convention ot Louisiana, 
 
 439 
 
 for that parish upon the electoral vote of] 
 November, but I would claim it, and insist ] 
 upon it as being a reference to a well au- 
 thenticated list of the legal voters. 
 
 Whereupon the Convention adjourned 
 over until Monday. 
 
 Monday, March 17, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The proceedings were opened with pray- 
 er, by the Rev. Mr. Shaw. 
 
 Mr. Burton asked leave of absence for 
 Mr. Peim, on account of sickness, which 
 was accorded. 
 
 Mr. Cenas, in behalf of the committee j 
 appointed to divide the city of New Orleans ; 
 into eight districts, offered a report to that 
 effect. He remarked that it had been , 
 found extremely difficult to comply with the 
 resolution of the Convention, and that it 
 was almost impossible in doing it to 
 render justice to several of the districts : 
 for that reason they had recommended that 
 the number be reduced to six instead of; 
 eight. 
 
 The following is the nearest approxima- j 
 tion they can make to the instructions of j 
 the Convention to divide it into eight dis- j 
 tricts — in fact the only one which the com- 
 mittee would agree to : 
 
 The committee composed of the delega- , 
 tion of New Orleans, to whom was referred 
 the project of a division of the city of Xew 
 Orleans for the choice of representatives to 
 the house of representatives, into eight dis- 
 tricts, report — 
 
 That the division of the three municipali- 
 ties into eight districts is inconvenient and 
 difficult to be carried into effect, so as to 
 secure a just and equal representation: and j 
 it is therefore recommended that the num- 
 ber of districts be reduced to six, each mu- 
 nicipality being divided into two election 
 districts. 
 
 The following division, although far from 
 being satisfactory to the committee, is the j 
 only one, dividing the city into eight dis- ; 
 tricts, upon which they have been able to 
 agree, viz: 
 
 1st. First district — To extend from the 
 iine of the parish of Jefferson to the mid- 
 die of Benjamin, Estelle and Thalia streets. 
 
 2d. Second district— To extend from the i 
 last mentioned limits to the middle of Julia 
 
 street, until it strikes the New Orleans ca- 
 nal; and thence down said canal to the lake. 
 
 3d. Third district— To comprise the resi- 
 due of the second municipality. 
 
 4th. Fourth district — To extend from the 
 middle of canal street to the middle of St. 
 Louis street, until it shall reach the Metai- 
 rie road, thence along said road to the New 
 Orleans canal. 
 
 5th. Fifth district — To extend from the 
 last mentioned limits to the middle of St. 
 Philip street, thence down said street un- 
 til its intersection with the Bayou St. John, 
 thence along the middle of said Bayou un- 
 til it intersects the Metairie road, thence 
 along said road until it reaches St. Louis 
 .street. 
 
 6th. Sixth district — To be composed of 
 the residue of the first municipality. 
 
 7th. Seventh district — To be composed 
 of all that portion of the third municipality 
 above the Pontchartrain rail road. 
 
 8th. Eighth district — To be composed of 
 all that part of the third municipality below 
 the Pontchartrain rail road. 
 
 After this report had been read, 
 
 Mr. Cenas moved that the same and the 
 section submitted, be laid on the table, 
 subject to call. He was anxious that the 
 city delegation should be present when it 
 was discussed, and he observed many of 
 his colleagues were absent. 
 
 Mr. Downs assured the delegate from 
 New Orleans that he did not wish to be 
 discourteous, but he thinks it is perfectly 
 unnecessary to postpone this matter any 
 longer. It is true the business of the Con- 
 vention should progress, and he (Mr. D.) 
 wants to see it. It is too much to ask that 
 we should be kept waiting forever. 
 
 The question to lay on the tabe was then 
 put and lost, 
 
 Mr. Voorhies then moved to take up 
 the section and report together. 
 
 Mr. Brext moved to adopt that part of 
 the report dividing the city into eight dis- 
 tricts ; which was carried, He then moved 
 to lay the balance of the report on the table 
 indefinitely; which was also carried. 
 
 Mr. Spbanb then moved that the ser- 
 geant-at-arms be directed to make suita- 
 ble arrangements for the reception of la- 
 dies who may desire to attend the delibe- 
 rations of this Convention ; which motion 
 prevailed. 
 
440 
 
 Debates in the Gonventionof Louisiana, 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Tho substitute of Mr. Downs to the pro- 
 ject of Mr. Benjamin. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to amend that portion 
 of the section, now the order of the day, 
 which originally constituted the 10th sec- 
 tion of the report made by the delegate 
 from East Feliciana, (Judge Saunders) as 
 chairman of the committee to apportion re- 
 presentation, and also all of the 11th sec- 
 tion as it stodti in ..said report to the word 
 "in," in the 5th line, and to insert the fol- 
 lowing: "At the first regular session of the 
 legislature, to be holden in the year 1847, 
 and every tenth year thereafter, the legis* 
 lature shall apportion the representation 
 amongst the several parishes on the basis 
 of qualified electors, to be .determined by 
 the number of legal votes polled in the sev- 
 eral parishes at the general election for 
 members to the general assembly, next 
 preceding the session of the legislature; 
 that is, to make the apportionment as 
 above — Provided, that the apportionment 
 be made." 
 
 Mr. Mayo stated that the only ^Iteration 
 proposed by the amendment, was to change 
 the phraseology from federal population to 
 qualified electors, which is the basis that 
 has been adopted; and to change the mode 
 of determining the number of electors upon 
 which the apportionment is to be made, 
 and to provide that instead of taking the 
 census of voters as made by the census- 
 taker, that the number of votes actually 
 polled at the last preceding election shall 
 be the guide. I think, sir, that it will be j 
 much safer to trust to the judges of election j 
 to decide who are the qualified electors, j 
 than to a single individual who may be ap- i 
 pointed to take the census. The judges of ' 
 the election will be sworn officers, and will 
 make their decision at the elections in a 
 public manner. They are always authorized 
 to administer an oath to every person of- 
 fering to vote, against whose vote a reason- 
 able objection may be made, and a decision 
 is made before the public. The census- 
 taker on the contrary, is always liable to 
 be operated upon by improper influences. 
 The census is taken in private; is not ac- 
 companied by any of the solemnities that 
 will necessarily guard the ballot boxes at 
 the election. The decision in the event of 
 entrusting the whole matter to the census 
 taker, will be made by him, and not subject 
 
 to revision by any other power or person. 
 If, on the contrary, the legal votes polled be 
 made the criterion, the whole matter, in 
 case of fraud or error, will go before the le- 
 gislature that is to make the apportionment, 
 who can revise and correct any errors or 
 frauds that may be found to have been 
 committed. Under the amendment the 
 same legislature will have to make the ap- 
 portionment that would have to be made 
 under the provision as it now stands in the 
 section, providing that a census should be 
 taken in the year 1846; no apportionment 
 could be made under that census till the 
 next year. 
 
 I repeat, therefore, that the only substan- 
 tial alteration that is proposed by the 
 amendment, is to leave the decision of the 
 number of qualified* voters to the judges of 
 
 election, 
 
 instead of leaving it to 
 
 census 
 
 taker. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin rose to a point of order. 
 He ihjnks the delegate from Catahoula (Mr, 
 Mayo) is clearly out of order, inasmuch as 
 the Convention had already adopted that 
 part of the section on Saturday last. 
 
 Mr. Mayo differs with the member from 
 New Orleans, and still considers he is in 
 order. He regards the section as an im- 
 portant one, as it affects the correct phrase- 
 ology of the section itself, 
 
 Mr. Downs thinks that it may be adopt- 
 ed, and should be for the sake of preserving 
 consistency in the section. 
 
 The President decided that the clause 
 was already adopted. 
 
 Mr. Mayo then moved a re-consideration 
 of the vote taken on Saturday. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth gave notice a few days 
 ago that he should move a re-consideration 
 of the vote taken on the federal basis. He 
 found we are so much at loggerheads here, 
 that lie is now induced to call it up, 
 
 Mr. Dunn moved that to-day, at two 
 o'clock, the vote be iaken on Mr, Wads f 
 worth's motion. 
 
 Mr. McRae thinks both these delegates 
 are out of order, as one motion to recon- 
 sider had been made and was lost. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies agreed with Mr. McRae, 
 that such was the fact. 
 
 The President says the whole discus- 
 sion is out of order. 
 
 The question then recurred on the mo- 
 tion of the delegate from Catahoula, to re- 
 consider the vote taken on Saturday, on 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 441 
 
 the following amendment offered by Mr. 
 Beatty, viz : 
 
 Sec. 10.. In the year ■ , and every 
 
 tenth year thereafter, a census shall be 
 made of the population of this State, in such 
 manner as shall be prescribed by law, for 
 the purpose of ascertaining the number of 
 qualified electors in each parish. 
 
 Sec. 11. At the first regular session of 
 the legislature, after the making of each 
 census, the legislature shall apportion the 
 representation amongst the several parish- 
 es on the basis of the qualified electors as 
 aforesaid, and in the manner following, to 
 wit : some number shall be chosen as a 
 representative number, which, when appli- 
 ed in making the apportionment, shall give 
 a number of representatives not less than 
 seventy nor more than one hundred ; the 
 number so chosen shall be taken as a divi- 
 sor, and each parish shall be entitled to 
 one representative for every time this divi- 
 sor shall be found in the dividend formed 
 of its representative population, and to one 
 additional member for every fraction ex- 
 ceeding the one-half of the divisor — and 
 -any parish having a number of qualified 
 -voters less than the whole divisor, but ex- 
 ceeding one-half of it, shall be entitled to 
 one representative, and the legislature shall 
 be incompetent to act on any other subject 
 .matter until the apportionment directed by 
 this article shall have been made. 
 
 Mr. Sellers thinks that the votes taken 
 at an election is no test of the number of 
 qualified electors in a parish, because there 
 may be many causes to keep people away 
 from the polls, but that is no reason why a 
 citizen should be deprived of any of his pri- 
 vileges in the right of representation. The 
 only proper test is a correct census ; and to 
 that the legislature would have to resort to 
 settle any disputed election they might 
 have to decide on the electoral basis, or 
 any other. 
 
 Mr. Beatty is of opinion that the dele- 
 gate from Concordia (Mr. Sellers) is right ; 
 and if gentlemen will reflect at all on this 
 subject, they cannot fail to arrive at the 
 same conclusion, and that is, that the votes 
 taken at an election are no test what per- 
 sons are, or are not, qualified electors ; for 
 instance, an election takes place in a par- 
 ish having one thousand qualified voters, 
 but perhaps will not poll over one hundred, 
 and why ? because there is probably no op- 
 
 position to any set of candidates who may 
 be before the people, and therefore,, all in- 
 terest being lost in the election, the voters 
 don't go near the polls ; but that is no rea- 
 son why they should be curtailed of any of 
 the privileges properly belonging to them. 
 He (Mr. Beatty) thinks also that such a 
 system as is sought to be introduced by this 
 amendment amounts to nothing more nor 
 less than being & premium upon fraud, and 
 that those who can smuggle through the 
 largest number of voters, shall be entitled 
 to the greatest share in the representation 
 of the State. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne agrees with both the 
 delegates from Concordia and Lafourche, 
 (Messrs. Beatty and Sellars,) and he thinks 
 the measure proposed in the amendment is 
 the worst possible one that can be adopted; 
 for, besides the reasons advanced by them, 
 it is a matter of notoriety, that there is, on 
 some occasions, in many of the parishes an 
 excitement which brings out all the voters, 
 while in a neighboring parish, no such 
 cause existing, they do not one-half of 
 them repair to the polls. Therefore that 
 can be no criterion. Besides that, it must 
 be borne in mind that it is opening the 
 door to frauds of a stupendous character on 
 the ballot box, which it is our duty most ef- 
 fectually to guard from pollution. 
 
 Mr. Prestos differing from the delegate 
 from New Orleans, (Mr. Claiborne) thinks 
 that the motion or amendment offered by the 
 delegate from Catahula (Mr. Mayo) is per- 
 fectly correct, and ought to be sustained ; 
 because he thinks judges of elections, re- 
 gularly appointed and under oath, are more 
 to be relied on than those who are taking 
 the census of the State. Besides he thinks 
 that those who do not attend at general 
 elections should suffer in the representation 
 of their parish ; and while the judges are 
 surrounded by close and vigilant party com- 
 mittees, the census-taker may, for the sake 
 of his own party predilections, omit to take 
 down any but those of his own way of 
 thinking. The census taker may then stay 
 at home and neglect his duties, without your 
 having the power to check him in any way, 
 or to urge him on to his work. While on 
 the part of the judges of elections, there 
 cannot be any danger of such neglect. But 
 there is another question growing out of 
 this that must not be lost sight of, viz : the 
 expense of taking the census each year/ 
 
442 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 In short, a census never has been taken 
 correctly in Louisiana yet. Apportion- 
 ments have been made without regard to 
 the census, and from the best information 
 that can be laid before the legislature, 
 they get the best criterion to go upon which 
 they can. All census which we have 
 had any thing to do with have been very 
 defective ; for these reasons he hopes the 
 motion of the delegate from Catahula, (Mr. 
 Mayo) will prevail. > 
 
 Mr. Brent asked for information, in 
 what way can a census be taken to settle 
 the qualifications of a voter? Is the cen- 
 sus-taker to submit them to the test of an 
 oath ? In his (Mr. Brent's) parish, Rapides, 
 a full census never has been made. 
 
 Mr. Taylor dissents from the opinions 
 advanced by the delegates from Rapides 
 and Jefferson on this question, because 
 they contend that when the year arrives 
 that the legislature shall be called upon to 
 apportion off the representation of the State, 
 they are to be governed by the votes actu- 
 ally cast at the preceding election. If we 
 should now establish such a principle, it 
 will be in direct opposition to what we 
 have already done, when we said that re- 
 presentation is based upon the number of 
 "qualified electors," There is a material 
 difference between qualified electors and 
 those who vote; but why should we depart 
 from the principle we have already laid 
 down and take another rule, which is so 
 very liable to be an improper and unjust 
 one? No reason has yet been assigned for 
 it, that has even the semblance of necessi- 
 ty for such a course. On the one side we 
 have a rule established, which will (eventu- 
 ally at least, if not at the moment) secure 
 to every citizen his just rights. On the 
 other, you say that those rights may be 
 taken away from him by the passing acci- 
 dent of the hour. Let us suppose that a 
 tempest raged in one particular part of the 
 State; in another, a pestilence; in another, 
 some local indisposition on the part of the 
 voters to attend the polls; in another, a 
 sudden rise of water that should prevent 
 men from going to vote however much they 
 wanted to; and all these things have hap- 
 pened before, during our election. Why 
 should we disfranchise' those who might 
 be thereby prevented from casting their suf- 
 frages in those very elections, of any of their 
 political rights? Assuredly we ought not. 
 
 He, (Mr. Taylor) in seriously calling 
 your attention to these things, is giving you 
 no fancy sketch. An election held in 
 New Orleans during the prevalence of an 
 epidemic, or one held in Opelousas while 
 such a fever was raging, as they have be- 
 fore been visited by, would certainly be no 
 criterion as to the number of qualified 
 electors in either place. If then the bal- 
 ance of the State should have polled a full 
 vote, mark the injustice you al*e doing 
 those who were unable to do so from causes 
 beyond their control. Is it not equally 
 clear, that when any candidate for the legis- 
 lature is, as is often the case, so much es- 
 teemed and beloved by all parties and 
 classes, that he has no opponent, that a 
 small vote only will be cast in that parish; 
 many of the qualified electors not deeming 
 it requisite to attend the polls? And is it 
 not equally clear that in every closely con- 
 tested election every legal vote is put into 
 the box; and as parties at such times are 
 less scrupulous than at less excited mo- 
 ments, many illegal votes are forced into 
 the box likewise? In the one case you 
 diminish the representation of those who 
 have chosen a good public servant, because 
 there was no necessity for every man to 
 attend the polls. And in the other, you 
 increase the representation of those who 
 may happen to have had an exciting elec- 
 tion, and who have committed more or less 
 frauds; for it is notorious, that some par- 
 ishes have polled twice the number of votes 
 on certain occasion than they were ever 
 known to have qualified voters before, and 
 evidently by introducing fraudulent votes; 
 and yet these gentlemen say this is an ad- 
 mirable plan. They object to relying on 
 the officers appointed to take the census, 
 because they affirm that they will not do 
 their duty. That is laying down premises 
 which he (Mr. Taylor) cannot admit, for 
 it is presumable, in the first place, that the 
 officer will peiform his duty; and in the 
 second place, it is .certain that he will have 
 only one chance to neglect it, while people 
 are as watchful of their rights as they are. 
 The delegate from Rapides (Mr. Brent) 
 asks how is a census-taker to know the 
 voters? In cases of any doubt they should 
 have the right to swear the parties; and fur- 
 ther, the doubt may in every case be re- 
 moved, if you have two in each district 
 who will act together, The delegate from 
 
\ 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Xouisiana, 413 
 
 Jefferson seems particularly to dread the ex- 
 pense; but that is expensive economy when 
 we lavish money for the purpose of estab- 
 lishing an arbitrary rule, and hoard it up 
 when it is wanted for a useful purpose. 
 
 Mr. Conrad remarked, that when this 
 question was up some days ago, and when 
 the taking of the census was adopted, he 
 had then stated that injustice would be done 
 in many cases; and if the taker of the cen- 
 sus was either a careless man, or one liable 
 to yield to improper influences, that some 
 parishes might by chance be fairly returned, 
 while the most of them would be returned 
 unfairly. And yet, he (Mr. Conrad) thinks 
 that we should not mend the matter by 
 taking the vote taken previous to the ap- 
 portionment as a guide of the number of 
 qualified electors in each parish. The 
 delegate from Assumption (Mr. Taylor) 
 has clearly shewed not only the impracti- 
 cability of it, but the manifest injustice there 
 would be in adopting that plan. What 
 course then shall we pursue between these 
 two extremes; shall we take the one he 
 (Mr. Conrad) has before suggested of ta- 
 king the votes given at two successive elec- 
 tions, allowing the largest number of votes 
 cast in each parish, as her number of quali- 
 fied, or shall we establish a registry of the 
 qualified electors? This last plan was con- 
 siderably mooted here, before we knew that 
 we were about to adopt the electoral basis. 
 That being done, there cannot be any im- 
 propriety in renewing that plan as the least 
 liable to objection; and certainly, nothing 
 will be easier than to establish an office to be 
 kept constantly open for-4he qualified elec- 
 tors to record their names. The argument 
 used against it, when it was proposed be- 
 fore, was, that it would not answer as well 
 as a census; because it would be an use- 
 less expense to keep such an office in the 
 country parishes; for there, all the voters 
 were known; but that it might do well 
 enough in New Orleans. But he (Mr. 
 Conrad) nevertheless, thinks that a registry 
 law is a plan deserving of serious consi- 
 deration. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne remarked, in reply to 
 what had fallen from the honorable dele, 
 gate from Jefferson (Mr. Preston) in rela- 
 tion to the danger to be apprehended from 
 a census-taker lending himself to suit party 
 purposes by alone taking down the names 
 of those only who favored the party to 
 
 which he was attached; that he conceived 
 the argument would apply directly the re- 
 verse to what he had intended it to do. 
 As on the contrary, if the party to which 
 he belonged had the ascendancy in any 
 particular parish, the census-taker would 
 get down as many names as possible, in 
 order to increase the representation of that 
 parish, and thereby as much as possible to 
 increase the political power of his party, 
 Besides, if one census. taker cannot be trust- 
 ed, let three be appointed; and let all three 
 be made to swear to the whole work — 
 then there would not likely to be either 
 favoritism or neglect. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to amend the motion 
 of the delegate from Catahoula (Mr. Mayo) 
 by substituting the words "the two last 
 elections" instead of "the last election," 
 which motion to amend was accepted by Mr 
 Mayo. The question was then put on the 
 motion of the delegate from Catahoula, to 
 reconsider the vote of Saturday, and deci- 
 ded as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, 
 Humble, Hynson, McCallop, McRae, 
 Mayo, Peets, Porche, Porter, Prudhomme, 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciaua,Scott of Madison, Splane, Voorhies, 
 Waddill, Wadsworth, and Wederstrandt — 
 26 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbert- 
 son, Derbes, Dunn, Garrett, Guion, Hud- 
 speth, King, Ledoux, Lewis, Marigny, 
 Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, Saunders, Sel- 
 lers, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Win- 
 chester, and Winder — 2S nays; conseque- 
 ntly the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth again called for a re- 
 consideration of the vote on the federal ba- 
 sis, but withdrew it immediately. 
 
 Mr. Brent then moved the adoption of 
 all the remainder of the substitute after the 
 41st line, apportioning all the other parishes 
 except New Orleans. 
 
 Mr. Beatty opposed it, because he has 
 serious objections to the apportionment 
 submitted in the project before us. In the 
 first place, it is unequal and unjust — and in 
 the second, it is based on the votes given 
 in 1844, when it is >^ell known that a 
 large quantity of illegal votes were polled 
 in several of the parishes, and therefore 
 
444 Debates in the Convention of -Louisiana. 
 
 that is no criterion for us to rely upon. 
 There can be no excuse for us to punish 
 those who have not violated the law, for 
 the purpose of rewarding those who have. 
 It would be far better to postpone the ap- 
 portionment in toto, until the census be 
 taken in 1845. From what we can gather 
 from the secretary of State's office, it is 
 very likely that in three or four weeks we 
 shall have sufficient returns made to war- 
 rant us in making, with the proof before us, 
 a fair and equitable apportionment, and 
 therefore he (Mr. Beatty)- would suggest 
 that the whole subject be laid on the table, 
 subject to call. 
 
 That the Convention may know the 
 grounds of my opposition to the report, I 
 would state that I have carefully examined 
 the census of 1841 with that of election re- 
 turns of 1844, and I find such a material 
 variance that I can hardly persuade myself 
 it is possible; but taking the census of 1841 
 as being the most likely to be correct, I find 
 that if we take the number of voters in St. 
 Charles as the minimum to allow one repre- 
 sentative: Jefferson will be entitled to two 
 representatives instead of three, which is 
 given to her in the project before us; and 
 that Lafourche Interior is entitled to three 
 instead of two. What then constitutes the 
 great difference between Lafourche Interior 
 and the other parishes who have sudden- 
 ly swelled their numbers? Lafourche In- 
 terior has been increasing in population 
 constantly and steadily. The real truth is, 
 that the judges of the election have there 
 scrupulously performed their duty accord- 
 ing to law. 
 
 The parish of East Baton Rouge is al- 
 lowed three, when she is only entitled to 
 two; and Natchitoches is allowed four, al- 
 though that parish has been several times 
 divided since the census was taken, by 
 which she was only entitled to two. And 
 all the other parishes are to have at least 
 one. For these reasons he asks the delay 
 he does in this matter, in sufficiently good 
 season before we adjourn to act with some 
 data on which we can rely, and on which 
 we can make a fair and just apportionment. 
 He hopes, therefore, the motion of the del- 
 egate from Rapides (Mr. Brent)- will not 
 prevail; for if we are to continue this sub- 
 ject now, he shall «iove to take up the pa- 
 rishes regularly, one by one. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth remarked that the only* | 
 
 fair way to settle this question would be, 
 first to establish the basis, and then give to 
 each parish what she is justly entitled to, 
 according to the certificate of the assessor 
 of the parish, who is, by law, required to 
 furnish it to the secretary of State. He 
 feels convinced that it would operate un- 
 justly to take the vote of 1844 for a guide 
 in the present apportionment; for he knows, 
 himself, that there were some 130 to 150 
 voters who Went down to the parish of 
 Plaquemines, from New Orleans, and who 
 voted there. 
 
 The assessor's return is the nearest ap- 
 proach to truth we can come. He held in 
 his hand the- return of that officer, for the 
 parish of Plaquemines, deposited in the 
 secretary -of State's office, on the 26th of 
 February last, by which it appeared that 
 that parish contained within her limits 926 
 legal voters. Mr. Moreau, the assessor, he 
 knows well, and he knows him to be a man r 
 of probity and honor. 
 
 Mr. Conrad thinks it would be better to 
 have a special committee appointed, to make 
 the apportionment among the several pa- 
 rishes; and he trusts the delegate from La- 
 fourche will accede to the suggestion. 
 That committee will have an opportunity 
 to examine all the returns that have, or will be 
 shortly made, and will have many opportu- 
 nities of arriving 5 at facts, that a single indR 
 vidual could not. 
 
 Mr. Brent hoped the matter would not 
 be procrastinated any more; we had it be-- 
 fore us now for nearly five weeks, and it 
 was truly time to do something with it. 
 The project before us is as nearly correct' 
 as it is possible to come at. And as for 
 the census of 1841, that is no way to be re" 
 lied on, for it represents the parish of Ra- 
 pides as containing 450 voters, when it is, 
 to his knowledge, that there are over 1000. 
 Some object to one starting point, some to 
 another; we cannot expect that all should 
 be satisfied^ and he (Mr. Brent) thinks if 
 we are not now prepared, we never shall be. 
 
 Mr. Conrad remarked that the only way 
 of allaying discussion is the one he pro- 
 posed, viz: to appoint a committee to get 
 the proper information, and report to the' 
 Convention, while we proceed with some 
 other subject. 
 
 Mr. Taylor agrees entirely with the 
 delegate from New Orleans, and hopes the 
 member from Lafourche will accept it as a- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana: 
 
 445 
 
 substitute for his motion. He thinks there 
 is a peculiar propriety in it. for we have 
 adopted, finally, the general principle on 
 which representation is to be based, and it 
 onlv now remains to make the calculation, 
 to allow to each parish that to which she is 
 fairly entitled. If the gentleman from La- 
 fourche accepts, he will vote for the ap- 
 pointment of a committee. 
 
 Mr. Downs is totally opposed to it — it 
 will do no good. It was referred to a com- 
 mittee at Jackson: that report was rejected; 
 then to a congressional committee, then to 
 a sub-committee, in order to get the infor- 
 mation. The delegate from Lafourche, him- 
 self, made that report. The apportionment 
 now proposed in the substitute is taken t>n 
 the same figures as reported by him. Still 
 we are in the dark. How long are we to 
 postpone it? The subject has been before 
 us more than two months, and even" time 
 we come near a settlement of it, off they 
 fly on some new track. We had far better 
 go home, and tell our constituents to send 
 some body else here to do it, for we cannot. 
 
 We must take the best facts we can, if 
 we are going to do any thing — we cannot 
 do impossibilities. If we approximate as 
 near to what is right, as the facts and figures 
 warrant us in doing, no one can accuse us of 
 injustice. Suppose some injustice may be 
 done at first, a new apportionment will be 
 made in 1 $46, and then all the faults will 
 be before the legislature at their, first ses- 
 sion, who can make a more reasonable ap- 
 portionment if this be found defective . The 
 new constitution besides, is not likely to go 
 into operation until after 1846. 
 
 It is necessary for us to provide some 
 rule for our government. Shall we stay 
 here two or three weeks waiting for infor- 
 mation? For his part, he protests against 
 delay. Among all the projects before us, 
 this is the only one based- on the principle 
 we have adopted; and he thinks we are as 
 well prepared now as we ever shall- be. 
 A motion to postpone is tantamount to say- 
 ing that we cannot get along with it at all. 
 
 Mr. \oorhi£s agrees with the delegate 
 from Ouachita, (Mr. Downs) and he thinks 
 if that motion prevail we had better adjourn 
 sine die. . 
 
 Mr. Conrad remarked that the object 
 was not delay, but dispatch. He asked the 
 delegate from Ouachita (Mr. Downs) 
 yhethftr the apportionment submitted by 
 57 
 
 him and now before the house, was all cal- 
 culated from die table reported to us by the 
 committee? 
 
 Air. Downs: Yes. all but the parish of 
 Plaquemines and the second municipality 
 he made these exceptions, and has always 
 said so. 
 
 Mr. Mayo remarked that as some gen- 
 tlemen had made the same inquiry on Sat- 
 urday: it was surprising they had not taken 
 the trouble to examine- To any one, com 
 versant with figures, it would not take over 
 an hour to examine the whole of it. 
 
 Mr. Beatty agrees as to the calculations. 
 The only question is, whether the votes of 
 1S44 are to toe taken as the basis of calcu° 
 lation. He would test that, by moving to 
 refer to a special committee composed of one- 
 member from each congressional district, 
 that part of the section fixing the number of 
 representatives to each parish; and the yeas 
 and nays being called for — 
 
 .Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin. Bourg, 
 Briant. Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson. Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Legendre, Lewis, Marig- 
 ny. Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, 
 St Amand. Taylor of Assumption. Trist, 
 Wads worth, Winchester and Winder, voted 
 ; in the affirmative — 25 yeas: and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Coviilion, Downs, 
 Dunn. Garrett. Humble. Hyn son, King, Le- 
 doux, McCallop. McRae. Mayo, Peets, 
 Porche, Porter, Prudhomme, Read, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Felici- 
 ana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Splane, 
 Voorhies, Waddill and Wederstrandt, voted 
 in the negative — 30 nays: the motion was 
 lost. 
 
 The apportionment of the city of Xew 
 Orleans was suspended for the considera- 
 tion of the Orleans delegation. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin then moved a division of 
 the question, so as to take the vote on each 
 parish separately. 
 
 The secretary then read the following ap- 
 portionments, which were adopted: 
 The Parish of Plaquemines, 2 
 " St. Bernard, 1 
 
 " Jefferson. 3 
 
 St. Charles, 1 
 " St. John the Baptist, 1 
 
 " St. James, . 2 
 
 " Ascension, ' 2 
 
 " Assumption, 2 
 
446 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 When he read the number allotted to 
 Lafourche Interior as two — 
 
 Mr* Beatty moved to insert three in- 
 stead of two, as she was fully entitled to 
 that number on every principle of equality. 
 
 Mr. Guion seconds the motion of his 
 colleauge,*(Mr. Beatty.) He contends that 
 great injustice is done to the parish of La- 
 fourche Interior, in allowing her only two 
 members, when she is clearly entitled to 
 three. She has 800 voters under the pres- 
 ent constitution, (usually polls about 700 
 votes) and when universal suffrage shall 
 be in operation, she will give 1200. Why, 
 then accord her but two, when Rapides 
 is allowed four, when, from the admission 
 of her own delegate, (Mr. Brent) there are 
 not over, or but a fraction over 1000? 
 
 Mr. Brent replied that Rapides usually 
 polled 900 votes. « By referring to the 
 statement he finds Lafourche Interior is not 
 entitled to more than two on any basis. 
 
 Mr. Guion stated that it clearly showed 
 the injustice of the project before us. As 
 his colleague (Mr. Beatty) has stated, no 
 one is allowed to vote in Lafourche Inte- 
 rior but those who are beyond dispute enti- 
 tled to do so, under the strictest construction 
 of the law. To so rigid a rule does the pa- 
 rish judge adhere, that he refused to suffer 
 a citizen to vote who had removed out of 
 that parish into the parish of Jefferson for 
 a period of three months only; he was not 
 entitled to vote in Jefferson, and like a good 
 citizen, who wanted to do his duty to his 
 country, he went to Lafourche, thinking he 
 would of course have a right to vote there, 
 but the judge refused him under the strict 
 letter of the law, because he was not a citi- 
 zen of the parish. Now, if he (Mr. Guion) 
 is correctly informed, a kind of universal 
 suffrage in the north-western parishes pre- 
 vails; he knows that it was the case in 
 Natchitoches, where the only question 
 asked was, "are you a resident of Natchi- 
 toches?" and he presumes it is so, as he has 
 heard it is in the other parishes. 
 
 The parish of Lafourche is clearly enti- 
 tled to three members. 
 
 Mr. Dunn is disposed to vote for giving 
 three members to the parish of Lafourche. 
 She always had three, in a house of sixty 
 members under the old constitution. By 
 reference to the table before us, he finds 
 that she has a free white population of 
 3986, which is as large a population as that 
 
 of East Feliciana; she is allowed three, 
 and he thinks but just to allow three also to 
 Lafourche. 
 
 Mr. Guion wished to call the attention 
 of the Convention to the fact, that Lafourche 
 has a free white population of 3986, while 
 Rapides has only 3243, nearly 800 differ- 
 ence; what justice is there in this? Where 
 are the votes to come from, if they get them 
 with a less population? The idea is pre- 
 posterous.* 
 
 Mr. Brent remarked that the project we 
 are now discussing, is based on the vote of 
 1844; the electoral basis is what we have 
 determined on, and from the shewing of the 
 delegate from Lafourche himself, (Mr. Beat- 
 ty) she is clearly not entitled to more than 
 two representatives, on any basis, and yet 
 she modestly claims three. It will be time 
 enough to talk about Rapides, when it 
 comes to her turn. On what do they found 
 their pretensions ? 
 i Mr. Guion : On our population. 
 
 Mr. Brent: How can that be when 
 Rapides gave nearly twice as many votes 
 in 1844, as Lafourche? 
 
 Mr. Guion : The system of universal 
 suffrage is prevalent in the north-west 
 parishes. 
 
 Mr* Beatty: What he (Mr. B.) com- 
 plained of was this, that on none of the basis 
 were they willing to allow Lafourche more 
 than two; but there would have been a 
 vast difference between two out of sev- 
 enty-seven and two out of ninety- seven. 
 What is the reason why Natchitoches, 
 which parish has been split up into several, 
 should be entitled to four, when she had only 
 two under the old apportionment. This is an 
 unfair rule; for it is not shewn that her po- 
 pulation is double that of Lafourche, and 
 without people you cannot have voters. It 
 only shows more clearly the injustice of 
 taking the vote of 1844 as a proper basis 
 to start from. 
 
 Mr. Downs thought it could be accounted 
 for in this way: Lafourche Interior joins 
 Terrebonne, and consequently when the 
 large fraction over the 276 (the number 
 fixed on) was in favor of Terrebonne more 
 than the small one was in favor of La- 
 fourche, it was thought more just to give it 
 to Terrebonne; and moreover contiguous as 
 they are, and with the same interests, he 
 thought it the fairest way to settle it, being 
 regarded .almost -as one. •' • 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 447 
 
 Mr. Gnox does not understand that 
 logic. What has Lafourche to do with 
 Terrebonne?' She is entitled to two mem- 
 bers, and she has got them; but that does 
 not satisfy Lafourche Interior, who is de- 
 prived of one she is entitled. 
 
 The question was then taken on the mo- 
 tion offered by 3Ir. Beatty, to strike out 
 "tiro" and insert "three," and resulted as 
 follows : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Briant, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans. 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 King, Legendre, Lewis, McCallop, Marig- 
 ny, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Wadsworth, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the af- 
 firmative— 32 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, 
 Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, McRae, -Mayo, 
 Peets, Porche, Porter, Prudhomme, Read, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sel- 
 lers, Splane, Stephens, Voorhies, Waddill, 
 and Wederstrandt, voted in the negative — 
 26 nays; the motion was carried. So that 
 the section now reads "the parish of La- 
 fourche Interior shall be entitled to three 
 members." 
 
 Air. Wadsworth: moved for the recon- 
 sideration of the vote given on the adoption 
 of the representation of the parish of Pla- 
 quemines. He said that the reason which 
 induced him to make the motion, was, t|iat 
 upon mature reflection he found that the 
 parish of Plaquemines was justly entitled to 
 three representatives. When the paper 
 was first handed to him which he read to 
 this house, (it was while he was addressing 
 the Convention) the number taken as the 
 basis, 276, had not occurred to his mind; 
 but the subsequent debate, and the maimer 
 in which the Convention had met the just 
 claims of Lafourche Interior, had called his 
 attention again to the certificate of the as- 
 sessor of his parish. In that he says, under 
 oath, that there are 926 legal voters in the 
 parish of Plaquemines. I do not want 
 (said Mr. Wadsworth) to go to the election 
 of 1844 at all, but I refer to my proof, which 
 is certified by the secretary of State : well 
 then, having 926 voters in our parish, we 
 are clearly entitled to three representatives. 
 I ask for nothing but justice at your hands, 
 
 and it is with the Convention to say whether 
 my constituents are to get it. 
 
 The question was then put, and the yeas 
 and nays being called for, resulted as 
 follows : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Briant, 
 Carriere, Claiborne, Conrad of Xew Or- 
 leans, Culbertson, Derbes, Eustis, Guion, 
 Ledoux, Legendre, Leonard, Marigny, 
 Porche, Pugh, St. Amand, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Trist, Waddill, Wadsworth and 
 Winchester voted in the affirmative-^23 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale, Brent, Bur- 
 ton, Cade, Chambliss, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Covillion, Downs, Dunn, Garrett,Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, King, Lewis, McCallop, 
 McRae, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Porter, 
 Prudhomme, Read, Roman, Roselius, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Splane, 
 Stephens, Voorhies and Wederstrandt vo- 
 ted in the negative — 38 nays; said motion 
 was therefore lost. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth remarked, that was 
 making fish out of one and flesh out of an- 
 other, with a vengeance ; and he solemnly 
 protests against such a flagrant act of in- 
 justice and oppression. 
 
 Mr. Taylor moved for the reconsidera- 
 tion of the vote giving two representatives 
 | to the parish of Assumption. Df>on ex- 
 : amining more clearly, he, as had the dele- 
 ! gate from Plaquemines, discovered that the 
 [ parish of Assumption was fairly entitled to 
 i three members. The population of La- 
 fourche Interior was three thousand nine 
 hundred and eighty-six, that of Assumption 
 four thousand one hundred and toree, about 
 | one thousand more than that of Rapides. 
 L T pon every principle of justice then she is 
 entitled to it. 
 
 Mr, Brent replied, that he held to the 
 basis which the Convention were acting 
 upon, the vote of 1344, and therefore should 
 oppose it. 
 
 The qustion was then put and resulted 
 as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin. Bourg, 
 Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Guion, Ledoux, Legendre, Leonard, 
 Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Trist, Wadsworth, Winchester and Winder 
 voted in the affirmative — 27 yeas ; and 
 
446 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion," Downs, 
 Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, King, 
 Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, 
 Porche, Porter, Prudhomme, Read, Rose- 
 lius, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Stephens, 
 Voorhies, Waddill and Wederstrandt voted 
 in the negative — 31 nays; consequently 
 said motion was lost. 
 
 The Convention then adopted the follow- 
 ing representation. 
 
 For the parish of Terrebonne, 2 
 " Iberville, 2 
 
 " West Baton Rouge, 1 
 
 When the parish of East Baton Rouge 
 was called, and three representatives were 
 named, 
 
 Mr. Winchester moved to strike out 
 
 three" and insert " Wo." 
 
 Mr. Read claimed three upon every 
 principle of fairness ; he remarked that at 
 the election in November they had polled 
 seven hundred and twenty-six votes, and 
 no frauds had been committed, as he was 
 prepared to shew, by the certificate of Judge 
 Tepin and L. C. Morris, now sheriff of the 
 parish. 
 
 Mr. Wadswoeth sees that this Conven- 
 tion is disposed to do great injustice to his 
 parish — they forget right because they 
 have mifht. He regards the whole mat- 
 ter as a struggle for political power, and 
 the higher you go up the river the more 
 liberal you become. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin wants to make one re- 
 mark before he gives his vote. From the 
 published statement he feels satisfied that 
 East Baton Rouge is entitled to three re- 
 presentatives, and so feeling, no political 
 loss or gain can induce him to vote against 
 a measure which is so plainly and clearly 
 just. He shall therefore vote against the 
 motion to strike out. 
 
 Mr. Winchester was desirous of know- 
 ing why the Convention was clothed with 
 such a power as it seems they were about 
 to use. You refuse justice to the parish 
 of Assumption, and grant it to East Baton 
 Rauge. Certainly the one is as much en- 
 titled to it as the other. 
 
 Mr. Porter remarked that it would be 
 singular indeed, if we were to allow three 
 members to Lafourche Interior, with six 
 hundred and twenty-five voters, and refuse 
 
 the same number to East Baton Rouge, 
 with seven hundred and twenty-six voters. 
 
 Mr. Taylor took this occasion to say, 
 that although the parish of Assumption had 
 been treated with great injustice, he should 
 not be governed by any spirit of retaliation, 
 but should the more tenaciously cling to a 
 fair and just cause, and he should vote 
 against striking out, firmly convinced that 
 East Baton Rouge was entitled to three 
 members. 
 
 The question was then put on Mr. Win- 
 chester's motion to strike out "three" and 
 insert "two," and the yeas and nays being 
 called for resulted as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Conrad of Jefferson, Le- 
 gendre, Leonard, Mazureau, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Sellers and Winchester voted in 
 the affirmative — 9 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Briant, Burton, Cade, Car- 
 riere, Cenas, Chambliss, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of New Orleans, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Downs, Dunn, Garrett, Gui'on, 
 Humble, Hynson, King, Ledoux, Lewis, 
 McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, 
 Porche, Porter, Prudhomme, Pugh, Read, 
 Roselius, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Wads worth, Wed- 
 erstrandt and Winder voted in the negative 
 — 49 nays ; consequently the motion was 
 lost, and the representation of said parish 
 of East Baton Rouge was fixed at three re- 
 presentatives. 
 
 On motion the representation of the par- 
 ish of West Feliciana was fixed at two re- 
 presentatives. 
 
 On motion the representation of the par- 
 ish of East Feliciana was fixed at three re- 
 presentatives. 
 
 On motion the representation of the par- 
 ish of St. Helena was fixed at one repre- 
 sentative. 
 
 The parish of Livingston to be entitled 
 to one representative. 
 
 Mr. McRae moved to amend the repre- 
 sentation of the parish of Livingston, by 
 inserting " two" instead of "one" represen- 
 tative. TJie yeas and nays being called 
 for, 
 
 Mr. McRae claimed two representative.* 
 as being justly due to Livingston; and when 
 her vote of 1844 is considered, she is entU 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 449 
 
 tied to it. The question was put. and the 
 yeas and nays being called tor. resulted as 
 follows : 
 
 Messrs. Dunn, Garrett. Hudspeth. Ale- 
 Rae, Porche and Saunders voted in the af- 
 firmative — 6 yeas : and 
 
 Messrs. AuberuBeatty. Benjamin. Bourg, 
 Brazeale, Brent, Briant. Burton. Cade, 
 Carriere, Cenas. Chambliss, Claiborne. 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Covillion. Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, 
 Guion. ^Humble. Hynson, King. Ledoux. 
 Legendre, Leonard, Lewis, McCallop, )Ia- 
 rigny. Mayo. Mazureau. Peets, Porter. 
 Prudhomme. Pugh. Read. Roman, Roselius. 
 St. Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge. Scott of 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers. Splane. 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wads worth, Weder- 
 s-trandt, Winchester and Winder voted in 
 the negative — 53 nays ; consequently the 
 motion "was lost, and the representation of 
 the parish of Livingston was fixed at one 
 representative. 
 
 On m%ion the representation of the par- 
 iah of Washington was fised at one repre- 
 sentative. 
 
 Mr. Lewis then desired to call the atten- 
 tion of the Convention to the great injustice 
 which had been done to the parish of As- 
 sumption, and moved to reconsider his vote 
 on that question. He said it was passing 
 strange that justice shoidd be denied to a 
 parish in her representation which had 
 more population, and consequently more 
 actual voters, than the parishes of Lafourche 
 and East Baton Rouge ; which, with less 
 numbers, and less actual voters, the Con- 
 vention had decided shoidd be entitled to 
 three votes each, while Assumption is cut 
 down to two. There is a manifest injus- 
 tice in it— and it is proper for us to reflect 
 seriously before we let it go any further. 
 
 Mr. Porter said that Lafourche had get 
 one too many, but we ought not to continue 
 to do wrong, which we should do if we 
 went on in this way ; and more particular- 
 ly when we have agreed to take the vote of 
 1844 as a basis, on which representation 
 shall primarily be made. 
 
 Mr. Mayo is opposed to a reconsidera- 
 tion, unless when it is done we reconsider 
 the vote allowing three members to La- 
 fourche ; for although he admits that it was 
 wrong to give Lafourche three members. 
 
 it must, nevertheless, be borne in mind 
 that two wrongs do not make one right. 
 
 Mr. Lewis being reminded by Mr. Gar- 
 rett that one reconsideration had already 
 been had on this question, withdrew his 
 motion. 
 
 The Convention then, on motion, pro- 
 I ceeded to fix the representation of St. Tam- 
 many — it was accorded one vote. 
 
 The question then was on allowing the 
 parish pi Pointe Coupee one vqte, but 
 
 Air. LEDorx moved to amend the same 
 by inserting "two" instead of "one"' re- 
 presentative. He remarked that it was 
 natural to suppose that a parish with two 
 thousand of white population should be en- 
 titled to at least two representations ; more 
 particularly when the position of the inhabi- 
 tants of the parish is taken into considera- 
 tion, and how they are situated towards 
 each other. The two thickly populated 
 parts of the parish are the upper and the 
 lower : the lower part is peopled entirely 
 by the French, or Creoles descended from 
 them — the upper part by Americans. 
 They seldom see each other, and have but 
 little identitv of interest or feeling. Takino- 
 then into view the peculiar geographical 
 position of the parish, with a front on the 
 Mississippi river eighty miles in length, 
 and further, 'the well known fact that the 
 Americans have no chance to be heard in 
 the legislature while the interests of the 
 lower part of the parish are antagonistical 
 to theirs he thinks the Convention ought 
 injustice, looking at the same time to the 
 amount of her population, to allow her two 
 representatives. 
 
 Mr. Bre^t opposed it, on the ground 
 that we are proceeding on the electoral 
 vote of 1844, and that she is not entitled 
 to two representatives under that rule, 
 having only polled three hundred and forty- 
 nine votes. 
 
 Mr. BrRTox remarked, that if that mo- 
 tion prevails, he shoidd also oner one to 
 increase the representation for St. Helena 
 and Livingston, for there were several 
 French settlements in those parishes which 
 came under the same rule. 
 
 The question was then put, and the yeas 
 and nays being called for, resulted as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 Messrs. Dunn, Guion, Ledoux, Legendre, 
 Marignv. Porche, Push, Sauiiders, Tavloi 
 
450 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 of Assumption and Weclcrstranclt voted in 
 flivor of said motion — 10 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert,Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, 
 Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, King, 
 Leonard, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, 
 Mazureau, Peets, Prudhomme, Read, Ro- 
 man, Roselius, St. Amand, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, 
 Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Trist, Voorhies, 
 Waddill, Winchester and Winder voted 
 against the motion — 47 nays; consequently 
 the same was lost, and the representation 
 of the said parish of Point Coupee was fixed 
 at one representative 
 
 The representation of the following pa- 
 rishes were then fixed as follows: 
 
 The Parish of Concordia, 1 
 
 " Carroll, 1 
 
 " Franklin, 1 
 
 " St. Martin, 3 
 
 " Lafayette, 2 
 
 " Calcasieu, 1 
 
 " Tensas, 1 
 
 44 Madison, 1 
 
 44 St. Mary, 2 
 
 44 Vermillion, 1 
 
 44 St. Landry, 5 
 
 44 Avoyelles, 2 
 
 The parish of Rapides being called, and 
 four representatives being proposed to be 
 allowed her— 
 
 Mr. Taylor moved to strike out the 
 word "four" and insert 4 'two." 
 
 Mr. Brent opposed the motion. He 
 contends it would be unjust in the highest 
 degree to deprive the parish of Rapides of 
 the number of representatives which she 
 is justly entitled to, under the basis estab- 
 lished, and the rule adopted, to take the 
 vote of 1844 as the ground- work of calcu- 
 lation. By reference to the table he finds 
 that she is entitled to four representatives, 
 for she has an excess over one-half of forty, 
 while Baton Rouge has only an excess of 
 thirty-seven over the half; if it be just to 
 her, it is certainly also just to Rapides. 
 
 The basis fixed is the electoral — take 
 that and the vote of 1844, and she is fully 
 entitled to four representatives. But let us 
 even take the census of 1841, or the votes 
 of 1840; St. Landry had then but three,, 
 now she has five; St. Martin had but two, 
 
 now she has three. What is fair for one 
 is fair for both. We have heard of no 
 charge of fraud in the vote of Rapides, and 
 she cast one thousand and six votes in 1844. 
 To deprive her then of her just rights under 
 the basis and the rule of computation that 
 we have established, would be unjust and 
 tyranical. 
 
 Mr. Taylor said he agreed with 
 him that that which was fair for one was 
 fair for both; and this Convention had nega- 
 tived the principle for which he was con- 
 tending, viz: the computation of the vote of 
 1844. 
 
 He (Mr. Brent) says that we have es- 
 tablished that as a rule, but he ( Mr. Tay- 
 lor) denies that the Convention has done 
 any such thing; on the contrary, they have 
 repudiated it. There is no more unjust 
 principle that could be established. Adopt 
 that, and you deprive honesty of its proper 
 weight, and you hold out a premium on 
 fraud. Although he will not say that he 
 knows of any fraud in Rapides, jtill the 
 principle which those gentldrnen support, is 
 a bad one. The* only real evidence before 
 this Convention is the United States cen- 
 sus of 1840. In that we find the figures 
 call for eight hundred and eighty-eight, 
 over twenty-one years of age in Assumption 
 a population much more stationary than 
 Rapides has, and principally made up of 
 old settlers, and more steady than they are 
 in new countries; while in Rapides in 1840 
 the whole number of males did not exceed 
 one thousand and two, over twenty years 
 of age. If Assumption then is only enti- 
 tled to two representatives, having a popu- 
 lation over twenty-one years of age, by 
 what rule of arithmetic can he jmake out 
 that Rapides is entitled to four. In Ra- 
 pides parish they voted some three or four 
 more than they had in 1840, counting all 
 the whites over twenty-one. There has 
 been no more emigration to Rapides than 
 there has been to Assumption, and if the 
 census were taken to-morrow, our white 
 population would fall but little, if any, short 
 of theirs. 
 
 Why then, he (Mr. Taylor) asks; is it 
 pretended that four representatives are ask- 
 ed for one thousand and two white male 
 citizens over twenty years of age, when 
 only two is allowed to eight hundred and 
 eighty-eight? 
 
 For these reasons he presses his motion 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 4oI 
 
 to amend the substitute, but as he thinks 1 parish ^ince the last census into several par- 
 it nothing but fair to allow her three repre- ishes. But from the best information he 
 sentatives instead of two, as previously mo- j can get she cannot be entitled to more than 
 ved by him, he now moves to amend his I three representatives, 
 first motion, and insert "three''' instead of Mr. Brazeale thought that would be 
 "four." ; unjust, because it was to his knowledge, 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth complained bitterly as that she had a population of at least 14,000, 
 to the course of injustice pursued towards ; and polled at the last election 1100 votes, 
 Plaquemines. He asked if it was not ■ Under the rule we have been acting on, she 
 strange that his parish had polled one j is clearly- entitled to four representatives, 
 thousand and forty-four votes in Xovem- | Mr, Brext took the same view of the 
 ber, and Rapides one thousand and six — : question as Mr. Brazeale, and contended 
 should not she be allowed three, on the she was entitled to four representatives, al- 
 veiy principle that they themselves claim though he supposes they shall have to sub- 
 four? ! mit to whatever the Convention chooses 
 
 He regards it as a species of greediness to do. 
 on their part, to ask four for themselves and Mr. Conrad: Looking at the vote of Sa- 
 refuse us three; and when you talk to them bine (638) thought, that parish must con- 
 about it, they say, oh! we go upon princi- : tain more than one-third of what was 
 pie! Peculiarly honest souls! They will formallyNatchitoches; and if so, even under 
 do right until the 'shoe pinches them, j the rule which gentlemen press, she eoulu 
 Why should Rapides have more than Pla- Lnot be entitled to more than three represen- 
 quemines asks; he (Mr. Wadsworth) does ! tatives. 
 
 not suppose that they made any extraordi- j Mr. Voorhies thinks Mr. Conrad is in 
 nary efforts to keep out votes: and she h%s* error, and that from the rule adopted of 
 no right to ask four representatives while j taking the vote of 1S44, to start upon, she 
 he holds the certificate that Plaquemines was entitled to four representatives.— 
 contains nine hundred and twenty-six vo- j When he voted before on the subject of 
 ters, and is refused more than two. Plaquemines, that question had not been 
 
 Mr. Brext contends that under any basis i raised, 
 you please, except the total white popula- j The question was - then put, on Mr. 
 tion, she is entitled to four representatives. C4uion's motion, and the yeas and nays be- 
 He asks nothing more for her than what ing called for, resulted as follows: Yeas 
 she is entitled to. He contends that her 33, and nays 26, so the motion was car- 
 total population is double that of Assump- ried, and Natchitoches is entitled to three 
 tion. And why is it doubled. Were the members. 
 
 votes polled in Rapides in 1844 fraudu- Mr. Brext gave notice that he should 
 lent? You have nothing to offer in proof move a reconsideration of the vote allow- 
 but your own mere supposition. He (Mr. , ing five members to St. Landry, to-mor- 
 Brent) presents facts against presumption; row' morning. And then, on motion, the 
 and as it would be unjust and unfair to re- Convention adjourned till to-morrow morn- 
 duce the number from four to three, he ; ing at 10 o'clock. 
 
 hopes the motion will not prevail. 
 
 The question was then put, and the yeas ■ Tuesday, March 13, 1S45. 
 
 and nays being called for, resulted as fol- The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 lows; yeas 35, nays 24^ consequently said ment. 
 
 motion was carried, and the parish of Ra- , The Rev. Mr. Beatty opened the pro- 
 
 pides had three representatives allotted to ceedings with prayer. 
 
 ner - Mr. Voorhies presented the following 
 
 The next parish in order was Natchi- as an additional provision to the section 
 toches-, to whom the report gave four mem- upon the qualifications of electors, inhibit- 
 b ers - , ing persons of unsound mind, paupers, 
 
 Mr. Guiox moved to strike out four and non-commissioned officers in the service of 
 insert three. He remarked, we have no the United States, soldiers, &c, from sufi 
 correct data here as to what her actual po- j frage; which resolution was 'ordered to be 
 pulation is, because they have divided the | printed. 
 
452 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Mr. Read offered a resolution requiring 
 that the reports of the Convention be pub- 
 fished in the " Jeffersonian Republican" 
 daily, and instructing the committee on 
 Contingent expenses to allow such sum as 
 may cover the expense incurred in bringing 
 up the back reports. 
 
 The question was divided. The first 
 resolution was lost — yeas 25, nays 33; as 
 follows : 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale, Brent, Car- 
 riere, Cenas, Downs, Dunn, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Ledoux, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, 
 Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prudhomme, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Splane, Taylor of Assumption, Waddill and 
 Wederstrandt — 24 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Briant, 
 Burton, Cade, Chambliss, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Covillion, Culbertson, Gar- 
 rett, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, La- 
 bauve, Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Porche,* 
 Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, Sellers, Ste- 
 phens, Trist, Voorhies, Wadsworth and 
 Winchester— 30 nays. 
 
 The second branch of the resolution was 
 then laid on the table. 
 
 Mr. Garrett asked the use of the hall 
 of the Convention to-morrow evening, to 
 enable Mr. Hardinge to deliver a free lec- 
 ture on Mnemotechriy. Laid on the table. 
 
 The Convention then resumed the con- 
 sideration of the apportionment bill. The 
 following parishes were apportioned; Pla- 
 quemines % Caddo 1, De Soto 1, Ouachita 
 1, Morehouse 1, Union 1. 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved to allow Union two 
 representatives instead of one, as according 
 to the votes polled at the last presidential 
 election she was entitled to this number. 
 
 This was opposed by Messrs. Benjamin 
 and Brent. 
 
 Mr. Downs explained that he had put 
 Union down for one representative, because 
 a portion of her voters had been recently 
 taken from her by the creation of the new 
 parish of Jackson, which latter parish had 
 been allowed one member. 
 
 TKe question was taken on allowing 
 Union two members, and Mr. Garrett 
 called for the yeas and nays. 
 
 Messrs. Downs, Garrett, Humble and 
 McCallop — 4 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty,Benjamin,Bourg, 
 Brazeale, Bfent, Briant, . Burton, Cade, 
 Carricre, Cenas, Chambliss, Claiborne, 
 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Covillion, Culbertson, Dunn, Garcia,Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Hynson, Kenner, King, La- 
 bauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, McRae, 
 Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Porter, Prudhom- 
 me, Pugh, Read, Roman,- St. Amand, . 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Splane,Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Voorhies, 
 Waddill, Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, Win- 
 chester and Winder — -54 nays. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor moved to strike out 
 "two," and insert " one." 
 
 Mr. Mayo contended that Catahoula 
 had a large fixed population, and the in- 
 crease for the last few years was greater 
 than the number taken from the parish, in 
 creating the parish of Franklin. 
 
 Mr. Downs sustained the claims of Cat- 
 ahoula to two representatives. She was 
 undoubtedly entitled fo that representation; 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor withdrew his motion 
 upon the statements of the two gentlemen. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said, before acquiescing 
 in the pretensions of Claiborne to two re- 
 presentatives, he would inquire of the del- 
 egate from that parish, whether a certain 
 portion had not been cut off to form new 
 parishes. 
 
 Mr. Peets stated, that a small strip, 
 containing only a few inhabitants, had been 
 taken off to form the parish of Jackson-. 
 The increase in the parish of Claiborne of 
 population, entitled her clearly to an addi^ 
 tional representative. 
 
 Mr. Downs bore testimony from his 
 knowledge of the parish, of the facts stated 
 by Mr. Peets. 
 
 Two representatives were accorded to 
 Claiborne. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth then moved to recon- 
 sider the vote on the representation of Pla- 
 quemines. Mr. Wadsworth contended, 
 that according to a recent census taken by 
 Mr. Moreau, assessor of the parish, there 
 were nine hundred and twenty-six voters 
 in Plaquemines, and that therefore taking 
 the divisor of two hundred and seventy-six, 
 which had been agreed upon, she was en- 
 titled to three representatives. 
 
 The motion to reconsider was carried. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies moved to strike out "two*" 
 and insert "three." 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for* 
 
 Mr. Wederstrandt stated, that yester- 
 day he voted in error; having subsequently 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 153 
 
 examined the subject fully, he was happy 
 that the opportunity was offered him to cor- 
 rect the error. He is always open to con- 
 viction, and ready to correct any error that 
 he may have been led into, and cheerfully 
 awards to Plaquemines her just represen- 
 tation. 
 
 Mr. C- M. Coxrad went into an exposi- 
 tion of the reasons why he would vote in 
 the negative. He said that according to 
 the census of 1540, the parish of Plaque- 
 mines had an entire population of but 
 thirteen hundred and fifty souls. It was 
 impossible, within four years, for her popu- 
 lation to increase so fast as to enable her to 
 give nine hundred and twenty-six votes, as 
 she did at the last presidential election. It 
 was notorious that great frauds had been 
 perpetrated upon the right of suffrage in 
 that parish. 
 
 Mr. Wadswoeth denied the right of the 
 gentleman (Mr. Conrad) to argue the ques- 
 tion after the call for the yeas and nays. 
 But inasmuch as he had been permitted to 
 do so, I will (said Mr. W.) reply to his 
 mere inferences. The gentleman has no 
 right to argue upon the returns of the elec- j 
 don at the presidential campaign in the 
 parish of Plaquemines. I know full well | 
 that it is subjected to the imputation of fraud- 
 ulent voting. I do not ask the Convention to 
 apportion the representation upon that re- 
 sult; but I come here armed with an offi- 
 cial certificate from the assessor of taxes, 
 a sworn officer of the State, and upon that 
 certificate — not upon my own statements, 
 although great weight has been attached 
 to the statements of other gentlemen in 
 reference to the qualified voters in their 
 parish, — I ask that simple justice may be | 
 done to those I have the honor in part of 
 representing. The gentleman (Mr. Con- 
 rad') may say what he pleases about frauds 
 being perpetrated in Plaquemines, but all 
 that he may say will not invalidate nor 
 affect the weight of a certificate of an offi- 
 cer of the State under oath, who as the as- 
 sessor of taxes, makes a statement that 
 must be conclusive, as to the representation 
 which is due to the parish of Plaquemines, 
 in accordance with the basis adopted by 
 the Convention. 
 
 The question was taken upon allowing 
 Plaquemines three representatives, and the 
 yeas and nays were called for. 
 
 Messrs, Brazeale. Brent., B riant. Burton, 
 56 
 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Downs, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Leon- 
 ard, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Peets, Porche, Porter, Prudhomme. Pugh, 
 Read, W. B. Scott, T. W. Scott, T. B. 
 Scott, Splane, M. Taylor, Trist, Voorhies, 
 Wad-dill, Wadsworth and Wikoff — 33 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs; Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Cade, Cenas, Claiborne. C. 31. 
 Conrad, Dunn, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenher, King, Labauve, Le- 
 gendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Sellers and Stephens — 23 nays. 
 
 Mr. Brent said that he had given no- 
 tice, that he would move for a reconsidera- 
 tion of the vote, according to the parish 
 of St. Landry five representatives. I am 
 satisfied however, Mr. President, (said he) 
 from a subsequent examination, that her 
 claim to five representatives, is as just as 
 the claim of Rapides and' Natchitoches to' 
 four representatives each; and as I design 
 to press the claims of the two latter par- 
 ishes, 1 will withdraw my motion to re- 
 consider the vote upon the parish of St. 
 Landry, and appeal to the course pursued 
 towards that parish, for a reconsideration 
 of the vote, awarding but three represen- 
 tatives to each- of the parishes of Rapides 
 and Natchitoches. 
 
 I trust that this Convention is not so far 
 governed by prejudice, as to shut its eyes 
 against the light of truth. For the parish 
 which I in part represent, I have no favors 
 to ask. I only demand for her strict and 
 impartial justice. If principles have been 
 established, if fixed rules have been adopt- 
 ed by this Convention, I have only to re- 
 quest, that her representation may be 
 awarded to her in conformity with those 
 rules. No matter what test may be ap- 
 plied, the parishes of Rapides and Natchi- 
 toches are more justly entitled to four re- 
 presentatives each, than is the parish of St. 
 Landry to five representatives. 
 
 The census of 1840 informs us, that the 
 white population of St. Landry and Calca- 
 sieu combined, amounts to eight thousand 
 five hundred and twenty-eight souls. The 
 white population of Rapides and Natchi- 
 toches amounts to ten thousand two hun- 
 dred and eighty-five — -there being an excess 
 in favor of Rapides and Natchitoches of 
 one thousand seven hundred and fifty-seven, 
 the disproportion on the part of the entire 
 
454 
 
 Debates in the Conventionof Louisiana. 
 
 population, black and white, is still greater. 
 The entire population of St. Landry and 
 Calcasieu is seventeen thousand two hun- 
 dred and ninety, whereas the entire popu- 
 lation of Kapides and Natchitoches is twen- 
 ty-eight thousand four hundred and eighty- 
 two, the excess being in this instance ele- 
 ven thousand one hundred and ninety-two. 
 And yet this Convention has decided, that 
 the two former parishes are to be equal in 
 representation to the later — -that is to say, 
 six representatives have been allowed to 
 St. Landry and Calcasieu, and only six to 
 Rapides and Natchitoches. I would ask 
 gentlemen if there is in this apportion- 
 ment the remotest semblance of justice? 
 
 I have examined these statistics, not be- 
 cause we are to be governed in the appor- 
 tionment of representation by the popula- 
 tion, either, black or white, or both com- 
 bined, but because this Convention, so far, 
 appears to have been governed by any other 
 basis than that which has been established 
 by the solemn vote of this body. I wish 
 to show that, no matter what basis be de- 
 termined on, an equal and uniform repre- 
 sentation has not been awarded to the two 
 parishes of Rapides and Natchitoches. 
 
 But let us proceed farther. The Con- 
 vention has decided that the basis of repre- 
 sentation shall be the qualified electors of 
 the State. It has decided that two hundred 
 and seventy-six shall be the representative 
 number in the present apportionment; and 
 that any parish having two hundred and sev- 
 enty-six voters, shall be entitled to one re- 
 presentative. It has also further decided, 
 that any parish having a fraction of one-half, 
 over and above the representative number, 
 shall be entitled to an additional represen- 
 tative. Accordingly, a few moments since, 
 the parish of East Baton Rouge was allow- 
 ed three members, she having polled 
 seven hundred and twenty-four votes at 
 the last presidential election, two repre- 
 sentatives having been allowed to her 
 for five hundred and fifty-two votes, the 
 double of the representative number; and 
 one representative for a fraction of one 
 hundred and seventy-two votes over and 
 above that number. It will be recollected 
 that in making this apportionment, the 
 presidential vote of 1844 was expressly 
 referred to, and taken by general consent 
 as the test, by which the number of voters 
 should be ascertained. I now claim for 
 
 the parishes of Rapides and Natchitoches 
 the benefit of that rule, which was delibe- 
 rately established in the case of East Ba- 
 ton Rouge. 
 
 Governed by this test, what will be the 
 representation that should be awarded to 
 the parish of Rapides? She polled at the 
 presidential election of 1844, one thousand 
 and five votes. The representative num- 
 ber of two hundred and seventy-six, Avill 
 divide this three times, and leave a frac- 
 tion of one hundred and seventy-eight, 
 larger by six than the fraction upon which 
 the parish of East Baton Rouge was al- 
 lowed an additional representative. The 
 claims of the parish of Natchitoches are 
 still stronger — she polled eleven hundred 
 and two votes. The representative num- 
 ber will divide this three times, and leave 
 a fraction of two hundred and seventy-four 
 votes. She lacks but two votes of having 
 her full quota for four representatives; 
 yet you have given the parish of East Ba- 
 ton Rouge an additional representative for 
 a fraction of one hundred and seventy-two, 
 and you have refused Rapides a represen- 
 tative for a fraction of one hundred and 
 seventy-eight, and Natchitoches a repre- 
 sentative for a fraction of two hundred and 
 seventy-four. The Convention may call 
 this equality and uniformity, but the peo- 
 ple will hardly give it that designation. 
 
 But there is a still more striking and 
 glaring inequality in the case of the Ope- 
 lousas representation. The parishes of 
 St. Landry and Calcasieu, polled together, 
 at the last presidential election, one thou- 
 sand five hundred and twenty-seven votes. 
 The united vote of Rapides and Natchito- 
 ches was two thousand one hundred and 
 seven, exceeding by five hundred and 
 eighty, the vote of St. Landry and Calca- 
 sieu- Yet you have given six representa- 
 tives to the two former parishes, and six to 
 the two latter. The five hundred and eighty 
 voters in Rapides and Natchitoches have 
 no representative, although they have the 
 full quota for two additional representa- 
 tives, and a fraction of twenty-eight over 
 and above. Now mark the injustice. The 
 parish of Lafourche Interior, polling but 
 six hundred and eight votes, twenty-eight 
 votes more than the excedent of theRapides 
 and Natchitoches vote, over the St. Land- 
 ry vote, has been awarded three represen- 
 tatives. Five hundred and eighty voters 
 
Debates in the Convention ot Louisiana. 
 
 455 
 
 in Rapides and Natchitoches are not honor- 
 ed with a solitary representative; but six 
 hundred and eight voters in Lafourche are 
 worthy of three representatives. Of what 
 material are the men of Lafourche made, 
 that such an extraordinary preference 
 should be manifested towards them by 
 this Convention? What a mockery of that 
 principle of equality, which has been as- 
 sumed as the basis of representation: and 
 what rank and flagrant injustice and op- 
 pression! 
 
 But it may be urged that the parish of 
 Sabine once formed a portion of the parish 
 of Natchitoches, and that two representa- 
 tives have been granted to her. This is 
 true, but how does it afreet the case? Let 
 us see. The parish of Sabine gave, at the 
 last presidential election, six hundred and 
 thirty-eight votes. If we add these to the 
 two thousand one hundred and seren votes, 
 cast by the parishes of Rapides and Nat- 
 chitoches, we have a total of tw*o thousand 
 seven hundred and forty-five votes. The 
 number of representatives awarded to these 
 three parishes is eight, to-wit: two to Sa- 
 bine, three to Rapides and three to Natchi- 
 loches. Let us now see what was the total 
 number of votes cast in St. Landry, Calca- 
 sieu and Lafourche Interior, and compare 
 them with the votes of the three parishes 
 just named. Calcasieu and St. Landry 
 gave one thousand five hundred and twen- 
 ty -seven votes; Lafourche Interior six hun- 
 dred and eight — making a total of two 
 thousand one hundred and thirty-five. And 
 yet to these two thousand one hundred and 
 thirty-rive voters, you have apportioned 
 nine representatives, to-wit: five to St. 
 Landry, one to Calcasieu and three to La- 
 fourche: whereas you have conceded Only 
 eight representatives to two thousand ..even 
 hundred and forty-five voters. Is not this 
 equality and uniformity with a vengeance? 
 The men in Rapides, Natchitoches and 
 Sabine appear not to have found as much 
 favor in the eyes of this Convention as 
 the men residing on Lafourche and in the 
 prairies of Opelousas. Two thousand se- 
 ven hundred and forty-five freemen in the 
 valley of Red River," are only entitled to 
 eight representatives; but a number of six 
 hundred and ten less, in other quarters of 
 the Stale, are entitled to nine representa- 
 tives. The Louisiana Convention will 
 
 truly make itself distinguished in the eyes 
 of its constituency, for its impartiality, its 
 justice, and its very correct and conscien- 
 tious regard for the rights of others. 
 
 Sir, has reason lost its sway; have truth 
 and justice been thrown to the winds; and 
 will this Convention persist in inflicting a 
 grievous wrong upon two of the sister 
 parishes of this State? I ask gentlemen to 
 pause and not consummate the foul injus- 
 tice of this iniquitous apportionment. — 
 You have made a donation, a free-will of- 
 fering, of one representative to Lafourche, 
 to which she is not entitled — for she has 
 but a fraction of fifty-six, after giving her 
 two members, and yet you deny Rapides 
 a member for a fraction of one hundred and 
 seventy-eight,' and Natchitoches a member 
 for a fraction of two hundred and seventy- 
 four. If you chcose tc be bountiful and 
 generous, do not be unjust. If you are 
 determined to shower favors upon La- 
 fourche, do not rob and filch Rapides and 
 Natchitoches of their just representation. 
 We are too proud to ask any boon at the 
 hands of this Convention. We only de- 
 mand exact and rigorous justice. If I 
 have used strong language, the provocation 
 has been great and the injustice crying. 
 
 If the presidential vote of 1844 is to be 
 the criterion in apportioning the represen- 
 tation to some of the parishes, it should 
 govern as to all, unless ihere is a well found- 
 ed suspicion that the election has been 
 fraudulently and illegally conducted. No 
 suspicion that I am aware of, rests upon 
 my parish; and why should she be placed 
 under Jhe ban of this Convention? I do 
 hope, sir, that the majority of this Con- 
 vention that have voted to despoil Rapides 
 and Natchitoches of their just representa- 
 tion, will reconsider that vote. That they 
 will not persist in a gross and flagrant act 
 of injustice, and sacrifice the principle they 
 have announced in this apportionment, 
 that representation shall be equal and uni- 
 form. Let it also be borne in mind, that 
 one of these parishes, Rapides, contributes 
 more to the treasury, and is the largest 
 tax-paying parish in the State, except the 
 parish oi Orleans. If any parish deserves 
 favorable consideration, she does; but I re- 
 peat she asks no favors; she wants no 
 boons extended to her. She only demands 
 her just rights, for whether you take popu- 
 
456 
 
 Pebates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 lation, property, qualified electors or tax- 
 ation, she is clearly entitled to an addi- 
 tional representative. 
 
 Mr. Guion raised the question of order 
 whether Mr. Brent, under the rules, could 
 move for the reconsideration without giv- 
 ing two days previous notice, as he had 
 voted with the minority. 
 
 Mr. Lewis had voted with the majority, 
 and his opinions were still the same in re- 
 ference to the representation accorded to 
 the two parishes embraced in the gentle- 
 man's (Mr. Brent's) motion; but with the 
 view of giving that member, the opportu- 
 nity of testing the question over again, he 
 would move for the reconsideration. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor hoped that the mo- 
 tion would include the parish of Assump- 
 tion. That parish was clearly entitled to 
 an additional member, as he was prepared 
 to show to the satisfaction of every one. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved that the vote upon the 
 apportionment to Assumption also be re- 
 considered. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said that in his opposi- 
 tion to taking the number of votes polled 
 at the presidential election as a guide to 
 apportion the representation, he was in- 
 fluenced by the conviction that these re- 
 turns were for the most part unworthy of 
 reliance, by reason of the numerous frauds 
 that marked that contest. He had heard 
 nothing to induce him to change that opin- 
 ion. " This morning, in a conversation 
 with the delegate from Rapides, (Mr. 
 Brent) in which that gentleman attempted 
 to convince me that his parish was entitled 
 to four 'members, the very arguments he 
 employed satisfied me that my first impres- 
 sions were correct; for there is nothing in 
 our assuming the basis of qualified voters 
 that would justify us to make the appor- 
 tionment in reference to the votes cast in 
 the presidential election. These returns 
 cannot be taken as a guide with any pro- 
 priety. The election laws received va- 
 rious interpretations in various parts of the 
 State. In some parishes, the constitution- 
 al requisitions were implicitly observed, 
 and the spirit and intent of the laws were 
 strictly maintained, in other parishes great 
 laxity prevailed, and iatitudinarian con- 
 structions were placed, by which general 
 and unqualified suffrage was permitted. 
 In the western and north-western parishes, 
 the system of free suffrage more especially 
 
 prevailed—every one were allowed to vote 
 without reference to the most essential re- 
 quisites of the constitution. Whereas, in 
 lower Louisiana, the conditions of suffrage 
 were in the main strictly insisted upon, and 
 no one was allowed to vote unless his name 
 was on the tax-list, or unless, if acciden- 
 tally omitted, he exhibited his receipt show- 
 ing that he was a bone fide tax payer. 
 Hence we find the true cause for the great, 
 disparity in the votes given between the 
 eastern and western parishes. It is true, 
 that under ordinary circumstances, we 
 would be justified in taking, as our guide, 
 the number of votes given at a general 
 election, where there was enough excite- 
 ment to bring the people out. But to do 
 so, there should not be such a sudden and 
 wonderful increase as to excite general 
 suspicion, which suspicion would be con- 
 firmed, as i in the present case, upon a re- 
 ference to the census of population. We 
 have before'usthe census for .1840, and by 
 that test we can at once perceive that the 
 astonishing increase of voters in particular 
 portions of the State, has been the result 
 of frauds upon the ballot box. In no other 
 way can we account for such an increase. 
 The census affords us the more unerringly 
 the means of arriving at a correct conclu- 
 sion in reference to the voters, because 
 one must bear a relative proportion to the 
 other. 
 
 If then we take the census as a criterion, 
 where is the injustice, of which the delegate 
 from Rapides (Mr. Brent) so vehemently 
 declaims ? The population of the parish 
 of Rapides in 1840, was three thousand 
 two hundred; the population of the parish 
 of Lafourche Interior three thousand nine 
 hundred and eighty- six. Yet Rapides is 
 allowed, by the apportionment, the same 
 representation as Lafourche Interior. The 
 .gentleman (Mr. Brent) seems to think 
 there is great injustice done to Rapides ! 
 Is it not enough to place her representa- 
 tion upon an equality with a parish that 
 outnumbered her in population, and where 
 it is reasonable to presume that the in- 
 crease has been since 1840 in a propor- 
 tionate ratio? Must we despoil the parish of 
 Lafourche of a representative and give it to 
 Rapides, merely because Rapides, having 
 allowed every one to vote, cast more 
 votes than the parish of Lafourche, where 
 great strictness prevailed, and the ballot 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 457 
 
 box was more sedulously guarded ? Sure- ' 
 ly the delegate from Rapides cannot, with 
 any reason, ask us to do this, nor can he 
 expect it to be done with any propriety ! 
 I am at a loss to understand why the gen- 
 tleman (Mr. Brent) should complain so bit- 
 terly: I can see nothing to justify it ! 
 
 But the gentleman accuses us of partial- 
 ity in allowing to the parishes of St. Lan- 
 dry and Calcasieu, six representatives, 
 while we allow but five to the parishes of 
 Natchitoches and Sabine. How is this 
 accusation borne out 1 We find by refer- 
 ing to the census that the population of 
 Natchitoches, (and Sabine was then in- 
 cluded as a portion of Natchitoches,) was 
 seven thousand and forty-two, while the 
 population of St. Landry was seven thou- 
 sand one hundred and twenty-nine. The 
 more I examine the question the more am 
 I convinced that the grossest injustice and 
 inequality would result, were we to take 
 the number of votes in the several par- 
 ishes at the presidential election, as a 
 standard in apportioning the representation 
 of the different parishes. It is from that 
 conviction that I have opposed the conces- 
 sion of three representatives to the parish of 
 Plaquemines, and that I am opposed to ex- 
 tending the representation of Natchitoches 
 to four and Rapides to four. I place no 
 reliance upon the returns of the election 
 for president in 1S44 in the different par- 
 ishes, as indicating their relative qualified 
 voters, and for that reason, and taking the 
 population of each parish as a better indi- 
 cation of the qualified voters, I have as- 
 sented to giving three representatives to 
 Lafourche Interior, because I believe she 
 is entitled to that number. 
 
 As to the pretensions of the parish of 
 Assumption, for which an additional rep- 
 resentative is claimed by one of her dele- 
 gates, (Mr. Taylor) I am disposed to ac- 
 knowledge the claim, because I find that 
 in 1S40 her population was four thousand. 
 I trust, however, there is no design to con- 
 nect the interests of Assumption with the 
 other -parishes, for which a reconsidera- 
 tion has been moved, and to compromise 
 the different pretensions of each, upon the 
 principle of their delegation's voting re- 
 ciprocally the one for the other, so that 
 they may combine their relative strength. 
 If anything like that is designed— if there 
 is to be any such thing as log-rolling, I 
 
 shall oppose the reconsideration of the 
 vote upon Assumption, as well as the re- 
 consideration of the vote upon Rapides 
 and Natchitoches; for I would rather that 
 Assumption should be deprived of an addi- 
 tional representative than to participate in 
 any such design. 
 
 The delegate from Rapides (Mr. Brent) 
 assures us that the increase of population 
 in the north-western portion of the State 
 has been such that we must prepare to re- 
 linquish the balance of power and submit 
 to the government of that portion of the 
 State. That may be, but I will not be- 
 lieve that the increase of the population is 
 as great as it has been represented, until it 
 be demonstrated by something more con- 
 clusive than mere assertion. I do not 
 want declamation — I want figures. I want 
 statistics to establish the result, and until 
 it be shown by such testimony, I must be 
 excused for entertaining doubts, and acting 
 upon the only satisfactory data that is yet 
 before me. The present apportionment of 
 representation is but temporary. It will 
 continue only until a census be made by 
 the State of the qualified voters, and upon 
 that census the representation will be ap- 
 portioned. If Rapides be really entitled 
 to four representatives, she will then get 
 them; and if the increase in the north-west 
 has been so prodigious as to entitle her un- 
 checked to assume the reigns of govern- 
 ment, it will be time enough when that 
 fact will be established for us to submit to 
 the yoke. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor said that the dele- 
 gate from New Orleans (Mr. Benjamin) 
 seemed to suppose that some understand- 
 ing existed between the delegates of the 
 several parishes for which a reconsidera- 
 tion had been moved, in order to increase 
 their representation. This insinuation 
 made it necessary for him to declare that 
 the parish of Assumption stood entirely up- 
 on her pretensions, as did the parishes of 
 Rapides and Natchitoches. As a matter 
 of courtesy the motion for reconsideration 
 had been made to embrace the three par- 
 ishes, but upon the different questions 
 themselves, said Mr. Taylor, I shall vote 
 according to the dictates of my judgment, 
 based upon the data before me. 
 
 As our means of information are rather 
 scant and limited, and defective in their 
 general character, I went this morning to 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 the office of the State treasurer for the pur- 
 pose of discovering the amount of taxes 
 contributed by the several parishes, as un- 
 der our constitution the quality of a tax 
 payer is indispensable to the exercise of 
 suffrage, and presuming that the amounts 
 assessed in the several parishes would af- 
 ford some approximation to their legally 
 qualified voters. I may be told that there 
 is an exception to taking the amount of 
 taxation as an indication, arising from the 
 fact that a large portion of the lands settled 
 upon in the north-west have been acquired 
 from the general government, and that the 
 period for which they are exempted from 
 taxation has not yet expired, and therefore 
 there are more voters than tax payers in 
 the parishes in that section of the State. 
 I am disposed to concede some difference, 
 but it is too trifling to vary the result to 
 any considerable extent, particularly in re- 
 ference to the parish of Rapides. 
 
 The tableau of taxes for the year 1844, 
 shows that there are nine hundred and six- 
 ty-one tax payers in the parish of Assump- 
 tion : nine hundred and twenty-two in the 
 parish of Natchitoches, and five hundred 
 and sixty-six in the parish of Rapides. 
 From this statement it appears conclusive 
 that Assumption is clearly entitled to three 
 representatives. The increase of her popu- 
 lation since 1840 has been considerable, 
 and I would remark that a great many new 
 settlements are forming beyond the banks 
 of the Bayou Lafourche. I owe it to can- 
 dor to state, in order that no misapprehen- 
 sion may exist, that while I shall vote to 
 increase the representation of Assumption 
 an additional member, I shall vote against 
 the increase proposed for Natchitoches and 
 Rapides, because I do not think their pre- 
 tensions to four members have been made 
 out — at least not to my satisfaction. 
 
 Mr. Brent said, in reply to what fell 
 from the gentleman from Assumption, (Mr. 
 Taylor) as far as the parish of Rapides 
 was concerned, he would remark, that a 
 great number of persons there had settled 
 upon lands acquired from the United States, 
 and that the period for which these lands 
 were exempted from taxation had not yet 
 elapsed. Hence it was they paid no tax, 
 although they were entitled under the con- 
 stitution to vote, and this satisfactorily ex- 
 plained any apparent discrepancy between 
 the tax list and the number of votes cast. 
 
 If I had before, said Mr. Brent, enter- 
 tained any doubt about the design of a mar 
 jority of this body to apportion the repre- 
 sentation arbitrarily and tyrannically, with- 
 out reference to the rules which it has it- 
 self adopted, that doubt would have been 
 dispelled by the extraordinary arguments 
 which have been advanced by the delegate 
 from New Orleans, (Mr. Benjamin.) This 
 Convention has decided that representation 
 is to be regulated and fixed by the number 
 of qualified electors in each parish, We 
 are now engaged in making the appor- 
 tionment for the year 1845, but the dele- 
 gate from New Orleans, entirely disre- 
 garding the basis we have adopted, has been 
 able to find nothing to justify the high- 
 handed course of the majority, but a re- 
 ference to the white population of Rapides 
 in 1840. Instead of endeavoring to show 
 that we have not votes enough to entitle us 
 to four representatives in 1845, he goes 
 back to the situation of our white popula- 
 tion in 1840. This is a new way to make 
 an apportionment upon the basis of qualifi- 
 ed electors, to go back five years in the 
 history of a parish, and ascertain how ma- 
 ny men, women and children it had five 
 years ago. Sir, does the number of the 
 white population in Rapides in 1840 fur- 
 nish any index as to the number of voters 
 in 1845 ? Gentlemen, know little of the 
 history of our section of the State — its pro- 
 gress — its advancement and rapid Increase 
 in population, wealth and productiveness, 
 who reason from such premises to such a 
 conclusion. They may infer what they 
 please, they may apportion the representa- 
 tion as they please, for it seems they have 
 the majority, but they cannot deny the fact, 
 which is apparent on the face of the statis- 
 tics, fhat the parish of Rapides is justly 
 entitled to four representatives, upon the 
 basis of qualified electors. 
 
 Away then, sir, with all such arguments 
 as have to travel back five years in the his- 
 tory of our country, for some fact upon 
 which to repose, and that fact at last to 
 have no connection with the subject mat- 
 ter of our present inquiry. • We have 
 adopted the basis of qualified electors. 
 Let us adhere to it. Let us do justice to 
 the different parts of the State, and abide 
 by the rules which we ourselves have es- 
 tablished. 
 
 But it has pleased honorable gentlemen 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 to attempt to invalidate the only data we 
 have for ascertaining the number of quali- 
 fied electors in this State, at this time. 
 The pretext for this is that frauds were 
 committed at the last Presidential election. 
 It is to be regretted that this alarming dis- 
 covery was not made at an earlier period, 
 and particularly before the representation 
 was awarded to the parish of East Baton 
 Rouge. It was not until we ascended from 
 lower and eastern Louisiana to the north- 
 era and western portion of the State that 
 these fraudulent election returns became 
 invested with such suspicion as to meet 
 with the indignant rebuke of this honora- 
 ble body. 
 
 I am well aware, Mr. President, that 
 the returns of the late Presidential elec- 
 tion, in the northern and northwestern 
 parishes have revealed' an unpalatable fact 
 to the people residing on the coast of the 
 Mississippi, and in the southern quarters of 
 the State. It announces to them that the 
 balance of power, which they have so long 
 held, is about gliding from their grasp, 
 and will shortly be transferred from their 
 hands to the hardy yeomen of the west. 
 No wonder that such strenuous attempts 
 are made to avoid these returns, for al- 
 though the number of votes in the eastern 
 portion of the State has been swelled by 
 innumerable frauds, yet it is manifest that 
 the west is rapidly gaining the ascendancy 
 by the progressive increase of its popula- 
 tion. The motive for these attempts is 
 obvious. The election returns of 1844 
 disclose at once their weakness and our 
 strength. 
 
 But the honorable delegate from New 
 Orleans (Mr. Benjamin) informs us that 
 the elections in the north-western parishes 
 were loosely conducted — that every one 
 was permitted to vote — that no questions 
 were asked — and that the constitutional 
 requisites for suffrage were not insisted up- 
 on, and as a pretext why the parish of La- 
 fourche Interior should have an additional 
 representative, although not entitled to it 
 by the number of her voters, we are told 
 that the elections in that parish were so 
 fairly and conscientiously conducted, that 
 the necessity was very apparent of award- 
 ing to her an additional representative. 
 Here is a new element introduced into the 
 basis of representation. We must amend 
 the section we have adopted, and that our 
 
 constituents may know what we have done, 
 and how we have done it, it should be sta- 
 ted that two representatives were awarded 
 to Lafourche for her qualified electors and 
 one for her remarkable honesty, so that the 
 paragraph would read thus : Qualified vo- 
 ters two, honesty one, total three. Politi- 
 cal power is hereafter to be given to hon- 
 esty, and representation to be distributed 
 according to the scarcity of voters. The 
 people of Louisiana, who love truth and 
 justice, and hate wrong and oppression, 
 will know what value to attach to such 
 flimsy pretexts as these. 
 
 But, Mr. President, in the course of the 
 apportionment we will shortly reach the 
 city of New Orleans. I have some curiosi- 
 ty, sir, to know upon what data we will be 
 called upon to decide in fixing her repre- 
 sentation; and would it not be a little re- 
 markable if these gentlemen who have 
 been shocked at the idea of imaginary 
 frauds in the north-western quarter of the 
 State, should claim the full benefit of the 
 undoubtedly fraudulent vote polled in this 
 city. Upon no other basis can New Or- 
 leans be allowed twenty representatives, 
 now claimed for her, than upon the suppo- 
 sition that her vote at the last presidential 
 election was fair and honest. Was it so, 
 sir? And is it not known and admitted that 
 the most infamous frauds Were practised in 
 this city, upon that occasion? I do not 
 make this statement from my own knowl- 
 edge, but I predicate it upon the authority 
 of one of the delegates from Lafourche, 
 (Mr. Beatty) who publicly preferred this 
 charge upon the floor of this Convention, 
 and no representative from the city has yet 
 ventured to deny it. I take it for granted 
 that the fact is now well known, and will 
 not be disputed. Something has been 
 said this morning about thirteen hundred 
 tax receipts that were fraudulently issued 
 to subserve election purposes, by the author- 
 ities of East Baton Rouge. At what point 
 in the election were these tax receipts felt? 
 Where did they make themselves known, 
 by swelling to that extent the number of 
 votes cast? Sir, if I mistake not, if I have 
 not been wrongly informed, these tax re- 
 ceipts were expressly ordered for city con- 
 sumption; and if you wish to find them in 
 the votes of the last presidential election, 
 you must look for them in the ballot boxes 
 of New Orleans. Here was a fraud com- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 mitted upon a scale of magnificence, which 
 throws into the shade all the minor frauds 
 that were practised in the country parishes 
 of the State. But, sir, I suppose when we 
 come to the city,the gentlemen who are ever 
 so watchful of her interests, will insist upon 
 allowing to her the full benefit of her thir- 
 teen hundred spurious and illegal votes. 
 The enormous vote of the second munici- 
 pality, is doubtless to be allowed its full 
 representation, though resting upon fraud, 
 while the parishes of Rapides and Natchi- 
 toches are to be shorn of their just influ- 
 ence, upon the mere surmises and inferen- 
 ces of gentlemen, that the election was 
 loosely and irregularly conducted. The 
 ordinary vote of Rapides is eight hundred 
 and fifty or nine hundred — her vote in the 
 presidential election was one thousand and 
 live. The increase was not remarkable, 
 unusual or calculated in any degree to ex- 
 cite suspicion. In this respect it can com- 
 pare very favorably with New Orleans. 
 The ordinary vote of the city is less than 
 four thousand, her vote at the presidential 
 election was five thousand six hundred and 
 thirty-eight. Besides, by a reference to 
 the census of 1840, you will find that the 
 proportion of white males over twenty 
 years, in the parish of Rapides, is unusu- 
 ally large in a population of its size. In 
 1840 there were one thousand and two 
 white males in that parish above twenty 
 years of age. Now when you recollect 
 that every one who was at that time seven- 
 teen years of age, would have been old 
 enough to have voted in 1844, there is 
 nothing remarkable in the fact that she. 
 polled one thousand and five votes in 1840. 
 On the contrary, the census of 1840 sub- 
 stantiates and verifies the vote of 1844. 
 I will not pretend to deny but that some 
 may have voted there who did not reside 
 in the parish of Rapides, but the number 
 was comparatively few; and making every 
 allowance for non-residents, she is justly 
 and fairly entitled to four representatives. 
 
 I conceive the presidential election of 
 1844 to be the best criterion for determin- 
 ing the number of votes in each parish, 
 except where there are well founded doubts 
 of the legality of the vote. Never was 
 there greater interest felt in the result of 
 any political contest. Popular opinion was 
 thoroughly canvassed — appeals were made 
 to the people, of the most exciting charac* 
 
 ter, and the vote of every qualified elector 
 was secured at the ballot box. Now, sir, 
 where there are no charges of fraud, what 
 better or fairer test could be desired of the 
 number of qualified voters in each parish? 
 If the number of votes has been swelled at 
 any one point to an unusual and suspicious 
 extent, or if, as in the case of new Orleans, 
 it has been debased by known and ac- 
 knowledged frauds, I would reject it, and 
 fall back upon some previous election, or 
 some other data, that would enable us to 
 dispense equal and exact justice. But in 
 all other cases where there are no charges 
 of fraud based upon probable grounds, I 
 would adhere to the returns of that elec- 
 tion as the surest and the safest guide. 
 Taking them as the tesV the parishes of 
 Rapides and Natchitoches have not had 
 justice dealt to them. I hope, sir, that the 
 Convention will retrace its steps, and rem- 
 edy the wrong which it has inflicted. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin : The city will readily 
 consent to base her representation upon 
 the population in 1840, if the country will 
 do the same. 
 
 Mr. Brent: I have said that that was not 
 the basis determined upon by the Conven- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Dunn said that the vote given to 
 increase the representation of Plaquemines, 
 and the attempt now making to increase 
 the representation of the parishes of Nat- 
 chitoches and Rapides] confirmed him in 
 his opposition to taking the basis of votes, 
 and particularly the returns of the presiden- 
 tial election as a basis for the apportion- 
 ment. In making a comparison between 
 the relative claims of the parishes of Ra- 
 pides and East Feliciana he could not 
 but be convinced of the greater claims 
 of the latter to additional representation. 
 Yet East Feliciana is to have but three 
 representatives! Rapides is accorded the 
 same number, but her delegation are not 
 satisfied — they needs must have four to con- 
 tent them. If four representatives are 
 granted to Rapides, I shall feel myself un- 
 der the necessity of insisting upon four 
 representatives for East Feliciana, be- 
 cause her claims are better founded. Again, 
 the parish of Jefferson is allowed but three 
 representatives, and yet it is manifest, 
 whether you take population, qualified 
 electors or taxation, she has greater claims 
 to four than the parish of Rapides, The 
 
Debates in the Convention ot Louisiana. 
 
 461 
 
 total number of representatives should not 
 have gone beyond seventy-five, and here 
 we are at ninty-eight, and Rapides and 
 Natchitoches contending for two more re- 
 presentatives. Where are we to stop if 
 we admit the reasonableness of the argu- 
 ment of the delegate from Rapides, (Mr. 
 Brent)? 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad hoped that the question 
 of apportioning the representation would 
 be decided upon sound principles of gene- 
 ral equity and justice, and not 'upon parti- 
 cular political considerations. The returns 
 in the presidential election of 1844 are 
 confessedly a very defective guide to ascer- 
 tain the qualified voters of the State, and 
 little or no reliance can be placed upon 
 them. Extraordinary efforts were made 
 by both parties to carry the State, and un- 
 fortunately they were both not sufficiently 
 
 - scrupulous as to the means of obtaining 
 the preponderance at the ballot box. A 
 great deal of illegal voting took place; in 
 some of the parishes the vote was extra- 
 ordinary large, where the constitutional 
 requisitions and the enactments of the law 
 were observed it was proportionately small. 
 A delegate from the parish of Livingston, 
 told us a day or two ago, that the vote in 
 that parish fell below the number of quali- 
 fied voters. This probably was the case 
 in the Lafourche parishes; while in other 
 parishes, Rapides and Plaquemines, for 
 example, the increase was beyond all cal- 
 culation;. It would be unjust to adopt the 
 vote of 1844 as a standard, because in 
 some of the parishes the number of votes 
 was disproportionately large in compari- 
 son with the number of tax payers, the 
 legal voters; while in a few other parishes, 
 the vote was actually below the number of 
 their qualified electors. I shall not cer- 
 tainly attempt to make any discrimination 
 between the parishes; but this I can assert, 
 that the votes of those parishes- were the 
 
 : largest where the contest was most hotly 
 disputed, and where the greatest efforts 
 
 ; were made to secure the majority, of in- 
 
 j crease it — where the judges were the least 
 
 I scrupulous, and where there were the 
 greatest facilities afforded for manufactur- 
 ing voters! 
 
 The gentleman from Rapides (Mr. Brent) 
 
 | asks whether we are about to introduce a 
 new principle into the basis of apportion- 
 
 : ment— and to give so many representatives 
 59 
 
 to a parish because it is entitled to them 
 by reason of its qualified electors or its 
 population, and so many for its honesty in 
 conducting its elections. The gentleman 
 thinks such a system of rewards and pun- 
 ishments quite a novel idea. So do I ; but 
 nevertheless I think it would be better to 
 augment the representation of a parish 
 where the eleclions had been properly con- 
 ducted, than to augment thfe representation 
 of a parish where they had been impro- 
 perly conducted, and to allow its illegal 
 and fraudulent voters to be counted in the 
 apportionment of its representation! 
 
 The same deputy has referred" to the 
 number of votes cast in the parish of Ra- 
 pides at the presidential election of 1844, 
 as entitling it to one more representative. 
 If the votes cast were legal, it must be 
 conceded that pro-creation goes on faster 
 and with greater rapidity, and that the 
 young sooner attain the age of majority in 
 the parish of Rapides than any where else 
 in the known World! If we consult the 
 statistics of population, whether in the Uni- 
 ted States, or the kingdoms of Europe, we 
 find that males bear a striking proportion 
 to females, and that the increase in popu- 
 lation is pretty nearly equal, and in accor- 
 dance with the immutable laws of nature. 
 How, I would ask the gentleman from Ra- 
 pides, can it be possible that a population 
 of three thousand two hundred in 1840 
 could give One thousand and five electors 
 in 1844, under our"restricted system of suf- 
 frage? 
 
 Mr. Brent : There were in 1840 as 
 the gentleman will see from the census, one 
 thousand and two individuals' under twenty 
 year?. 
 
 Mr. Conrad — It is incontestible that 
 tliere was much gi eater latitude taken in 
 the western portion of the State than in 
 lower Louisiana; and. hence the vote in 
 the former is considerably greater. But 
 the fact that illegal votes were cast in a 
 parish, and that its electors are apparently 
 more numerous than those in a parish 
 where the election was legally conducted, 
 should not give it any advantage over the 
 latter. That would be rewarding fraud. 
 I am ready to admit that population is in- 
 creasing very fast in the western parishes, 
 but surely not in a ratio greater than in the 
 parish of Orleans. And yet the city is 
 perfectly willing to take the census of 1840', 
 
462 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 which is presumed to be so unjust towards 
 the western parishes! 
 
 The delegate (Mr. Brent) complains of 
 the injustice of the apportionment in refer- 
 ence to the western parishes. Now what 
 are the facts? That the western parishes 
 get more representatives than any other 
 portion of the State. Out of ninety-eight 
 representatives, they will have thirty-three, 
 more than one t^iird; and if we add the re- 
 presentation in the neighboring parishes, 
 whose interests are identical In the third 
 congressional district, the fourth district 
 will have the greater portion of the weight 
 of members in the legislature. The in- 
 crease in the apportionment in lower Lou- 
 isiana, exclusive of the city, is quite small. 
 In Florida it is scarcely any thing — nothing 
 in the lake parishes! So elated is the 
 delegate from Rapides (Mr. Brent) at 
 the prospect, that he tells us that the bal- 
 ance of power is lost to us forever. That 
 may very well be, but let us enjoy that 
 power until you can show us you have 
 the numerical superiority, and then as a 
 matter of course, we must submit. But 
 not till then ! 
 
 Mr. Brazeale hoped that an additional 
 representation would be conceded to the 
 parish of Natchitoches. It was clearly 
 entitled to this increase, and he could not 
 believe, with facts such as had been addu- 
 ced in support of this claim, that the ma- 
 jority in the Convention would persist in 
 denying to that parish justice. He would 
 call for the ayes and nays upon the motion 
 to reconsider. 
 
 The question was taken with the fol- 
 lowing result : 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Couvillion, 
 Downs, Humble, Hynson, Mc Galop, Mc s 
 Rae, Mayo, Peets, Porche, Porter, Prud- 
 homme, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana,Scott of Madison,Splane, 
 Stephens, Voorhies, Waddill, Wadsworth, 
 Wederstrandt. — 27 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benja- 
 min, Bourg, Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, Gar- 
 rett, Guion, Hudspelh, Kenner, King, La- 
 bauve, Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazu- 
 reau, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, Saunders, 
 Sellers, Taylor of Assumption, Winches- 
 ter and Winder.— 31 nays. 
 
 The motion to reconsider was lost. 
 
 Mr. Brent then moved for the re-con- 
 sideration of the vote apportioning the 
 parish of Rapides, and called for the yeas 
 and nays. 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, 
 Humble, Ilynson, McCallop, McRae, 
 Mayo, Peets, Porche, Porter, Prudhomme, 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison, Splane, Stephens, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wadsworth and Wed- 
 erstrandt — 27 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of New 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh, 
 Roman, St. Amand, Saunders, Sellers, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Winchester and Win- 
 der — 31 nays; so the house refused to 
 reconsider.* 
 
 The question was then taken to recon- 
 sider the vote upon the apportionment, to 
 the parish of Assumption. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor called for the yeas 
 and nays. 
 
 Messrs, Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Briant, Carriere, Cenas, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Garcia, 'Guion, Kenner, Labauve, 
 Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, McCallop, Ma- 
 rigny, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, St.Amand, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Splane, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, 
 Winchester and Winder — 32 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Chambliss, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, 
 Downs, Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, King, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porche, 
 Porter, Prudhomme, Read, Saunders, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, 
 Stephens, Voorhies and Waddill — 27 nays; 
 so the question was reconsidered. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor then moved that As- 
 sumption have three representatives m 
 place of two, and called for the yeas and 
 nays — yeas 31, nays 28. 
 
 Mr. Humble then moved that the Con- 
 vention reconsider the vote upon the ap- 
 portionment to the parish of St. Landry- 
 Inasmuch as the parishes of Rapides and 
 Natchitoches were placed below the num- 
 ber to which they were entitled, it was but 
 fair to equalize the representation by re- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 463 
 
 ducino" the number of representatives to the 
 parish of St. Landry. He would, therefore, 
 move to reconsider the vote upon the ap- 
 portionment to St. Landry, with the view 
 of moving a reduction in that apportion- 
 ment. . 
 
 Mr. Lewis said that he would not de- 
 bate the question, but would simply re- 
 mark, that the argument employed by the 
 gentleman (Mr. Humble) to sustain his 
 motion for the reconsideration of the vote 
 upon the apportionment to the parish of St. 
 Landry, was a species of reasoning that he 
 did not think would satisfy the consciences 
 of gentlemen that were disposed to reduce 
 the representation to the parish of St. Lan- 
 dry, for no other motive than because they 
 conceived that injustice" had been done to 
 the parishes of Rapides and Natchitoches. 
 If such an argument as this were to prevail, 
 we would at once convert this house into 
 an arena for gladiators. He would submit 
 the facts, and if gentlemen were willing to 
 act upon the principle, so be it! If gentle- 
 men believe that the parish of St. Landry 
 has more representatives allotted to her 
 than she is entitled to, I ask no better favor 
 '(said Mr. Lewis) than for them to vote to 
 reduce her. But if they are convinced, 
 upon. an examination, that she is really en- 
 titled to the number at present allotted to 
 her, I trust they will not vote in favor of 
 this motion through a feeling of revenge or 
 from the disposition to retaliate for a sup- 
 posed wrong perpetrated upon some other 
 parishes. 
 
 The total amount of taxes assessed upon 
 persons and estates in the parishes of Nat- 
 chitoches and Sabine, to whom five repre- 
 sentatives are allowed, were eleven hun- 
 dred and sixty-seven; that is to say, there 
 were eleven hundred and sixty-seven tax- 
 payers in the two parishes; while in the 
 year 1843, one year preceding, (I have not 
 the tax list for the parish of St. Landry for 
 1844, but the number of tax-payers Iras 
 not certainly decreased) where in the parish 
 of St. Landry alone, leaving out Calcasieu, 
 were fourteen hundred and twenty-eight — 
 exceeding both the parishes of Natchi- 
 toches and Sabine. I cannot comprehend 
 why the parish of Natchitoches, having 
 fewer tax-payers, should be placed upon a 
 precise equality with the parish of St. Lan- 
 dry. If gentlemen believe, upon their 
 consciences, that the assessment of taxes 
 
 entitle the parish of Natchitoches to be 
 placed upon that equality, or that there is 
 an equality of legal voters, then I expect 
 them to vote for this motion. But it is my 
 conviction that whether you take total po- 
 poulation, federal numbers, or any other 
 possible basis of apportionment, that the 
 parish of St. Landry would out number the 
 two parishes of Natchitoches and Sabine 
 together. These are the only remarks I 
 shall make. In casting our votes, I pre- 
 sume, we are governed by the best lights 
 before us, and are actuated by a disposition 
 to do equal justice to all. Not by particular 
 sectional of views, to enhance the relative 
 political weight of one section at the ex- 
 pense of another — to rob the south to give 
 it to the west; but to give to each that 
 voice in the government to which it is 
 fairly entitled. If I have erred, upon being 
 made sensible of my error, I shall retrace 
 my steps. I trust that the house will not 
 yield to the motion to reconsider, for the 
 discreditable motives that have been as- 
 signed. 
 
 Mr. Mayo would call attention to a par- 
 ticular fact; from a statistical table before 
 him, it appeared that St. Landry and Cal- 
 casieu had given at the last presidential 
 election, thirteen hundred -and sixty- five 
 votes. 
 
 Mr. Lewis : The votes of Calcasieu 
 were not counted, owing to some difneulty 
 or informality in the returns; the thirteen 
 hundred and sixty-five votes alluded to by 
 the gentleman, were the votes given by St. 
 Landry alone. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth would state a fact that 
 had come to his knowledge as a member 
 of the house of representatives, in a con- 
 tested election, that had not. arisen in that, 
 house — it was ascertained that no returns 
 were made from the parish of Calcasieu. 
 
 Mr. Vgorhies : There were some of 
 the returns from Calcasieu included in 
 the returns from St. Landry. 
 
 Mr. Brext would vote in favor of the 
 motion to re-consider, not because he did 
 not think that the parish of St. Landry was 
 not entitled to five members, but because 
 he considered that her claim to them was 
 no better than that of Natchitoches and 
 Rapides to four. Since the majority had 
 refused to give Natchitoches and Rapides 
 the number to which they were fairly en- 
 titled, he thought it no more than right to 
 
4G4 
 
 Debates in the Conventionof Louisiana. 
 
 reduce St. Landry so as to equalise the 
 representation. It was necessary to make 
 the reduction so as to maintain a just stan- 
 Q ar d — according to the qualified voters, St. 
 Landry was not more entitled to five rep- 
 resentatives than Rapides to four. 
 
 The question was taken upon Mr. Hum- 
 ble's motion to reconsider, and Mr. Lewis 
 called for the yeas and nays. 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cham- 
 bliss, Covillion, Downs, Humble, Hynson, 
 McCallop, McRea, Mayo, Porche, Porter, 
 Prudhomme, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Madison and Splane — 17 ayes; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Briant, Garriere, Cenas, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, 
 Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, Ma- 
 rigny, Mazureau, Pugh, Peets, Read, Ro- 
 man; Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Voorhies, Wadsworth, Wed- 
 erstrandt, Winchester and Winder — 42 
 nays. 
 
 So the Convention refused to reconsider. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to refer the appor- 
 tionment for the city, to the Orleans dele- 
 gation, with instructions to apportion the 
 representation into eight districts, as fol- 
 lows : eight representatives to the First 
 Municipality; eight to the Second Munici- 
 pality; three to the Third Municipality and 
 one to the right bank. 
 
 Mr. Eustis suggested that it would be 
 better to leave the number of representa- 
 tives to be allotted to each district, to the 
 discretion of the Orleans delegation in 
 making to them the reference. He was 
 not prepared to say that the allotment in 
 the proposed instructions was not a fair 
 distribution, but he thought it best to leave 
 the question opened. 
 
 Mr, Beatty : I have no objection. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to strike out from the 
 apportionment, the number twenty repre- 
 sentatives for the city, and to substitute 
 sixteen, 
 
 Mr. Beatty, with the view of taking the 
 question upon Mr. Brent's motion, with- 
 drew the proposition to refer. 
 
 Mr. Brent had one or two remarks to 
 make. The city would not be entitled to 
 more than ten votes, unless the returns of 
 the presidential election were taken as a ba= 
 
 sis. I object to that criterion as relates to 
 the city of New Orleans. When I claimed 
 these returns as exhibiting the number of 
 qualified voters in the parish of Rapides, 
 where no frauds were committed, it was 
 objected, that they could not be received 
 because frauds had been committed in some 
 of the other parishes, particularly in the 
 parish of Orleans. These charges of 
 frauds in the city were often repeated and 
 have never been denied upon this floor. 
 In fact the great disparity that existed be- 
 tween the votes given in New Orleans at 
 the Presidential election, and those given 
 in the election for two delegates to the 
 Convention, about fifteen days after, sub- 
 stantiates the charge. In the latter elec- 
 tion the votes fell ©ne hundred and thirty 
 to one hundred and fifty short of the former. 
 
 Mr. Beatty would explain in _a few 
 words why he would vote against the 
 motion to reduce the delegation of the city 
 from twenty to sixteen. It is well known, 
 said Mr. B., that I was in favor of restrict- 
 ing the power of the city by a direct vote. 
 I cannot vote^to do that indirectly which 
 the Convention have determined contrary 
 to my wishes should not be done directly. 
 If we take the census of the State as our 
 authority, there is no parish entitled to the 
 representation accorded her. If you con- 
 sult population, the city of New Orleans is 
 entitled to double the representation allow- 
 ed her. A different rule prevailed in rela- 
 tion to suffrage in the upper portion of the 
 State, from that in the lower portion. Ev- 
 ery one indiscriminately were allowed to 
 vote in the upper portion of the State, 
 while suffrage was restricted in the lower 
 parishes to the legal voters. Gentlemen 
 may shake their heads, but this is an un- 
 deniable fact. I have it from persons 
 resident in that portion of the State, who 
 are cognizant of the fact. There is no 
 question of the cause that produced the 
 apparent disparity in the vote given at the 
 presidential election, between the parishes 
 in the north and those in the south. The 
 proof is, that the south obeyed the law, 
 and that is the reason why her vote is 
 smaller, and instead of being punished, she 
 ought to be rewarded for her fidelity. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth said, that so far as the 
 repartition of the apportionment were predi- 
 cated upon voters, it was the most indefi- 
 nite and vague standard that could be 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 465 
 
 adopted. Frauds wore committed at the 
 last presidential election all over the city. 
 In the first ward of the First Municipality, 
 where the Whig party predominated the 
 vote was larger than was ever given be- 
 fore—frauds were rife every where in the 
 city — both parties were equally culpable 
 in conniving at them. There was nothing 
 but fraud; every body and any body went 
 to the polls and exercised that sacred pri- 
 vilege, that our forefathers fought for seri- 
 ously, and shed their blood. The ballot 
 box was prostituted. Those who had no 
 identity with the country were allowed to 
 vote upon the presentation of a miserable 
 certificate, which they had but just obtain- 
 ed, I could have brought a cargo of 
 emigrants that had just reached the Balize, 
 and in twenty-four hours they would have 
 been converted into legal voters by the po- 
 litical jparties. If such outrages are per- 
 sisted in at our elections, they must inevi- 
 tably sap the foundation of our liberties! 
 I am not, said Air. Wads worth, an ene- 
 i my to foreigners. Far from it. I have 
 no objections to their becoming citizens 
 when they are really identified in feeling 
 with the country^ When I reflect upon 
 the numerous frauds committed in the city, 
 I am really amazed that so much ado should 
 be made about the alledged frauds in the 
 parish of Plaquemines. All will remem- 
 ber the cab votes ! In the investigation 
 that took place in relation to those votes, it 
 was discovered that the tax receipts were 
 invariably for two wheeled cabs — the tax 
 was two dollars on two wheeled cabs, and 
 four dollars on four wheeled cabs, but to 
 cheapen the transaction, the tax was paid~ 
 on the two wheeled cab, although there 
 was no such thing in the city as a two 
 wheeled cab. The consequence was, 
 however, that according to these receipts 
 the city was overrun with two wheeled 
 cabs ! 
 
 And yet, after all the frauds in which 
 the u city has been so prolifiic, the delega- 
 tion from the city objected to the allotment 
 of the delegation to which the parish of 
 Plaquemines is entitled, because, say they, 
 frauds have been committed in that parish 
 upon the ballot box. This charge comes 
 with a peculiar bad graca from that quar- 
 ter. The city of New Orleans ought to 
 blush in making it. 
 
 I have been invariably in favor of fede- 
 
 ral numbers as a basis. It is less favora- 
 ble to the parish which I have the honor 
 to represent than the basis of electors. 
 But, in as much as the basis of electors 
 has been chosen, it ought to be adhered to 
 in good faith, and each parish should be 
 entitled to the representation to which it 
 can exhibit a good title by an exhibit of 
 its tax papers. 
 
 Whereupon, on motion, the Convention 
 adjourned. 
 
 Friday, March 14, 1845. 
 [The following remarks of Mr. Porter, 
 in support of the propostion of Mr. Downs 
 on the apportionment, was ommitted in the 
 debates of the 14th inst.] 
 
 Mr. Porter said he regarded the mo- 
 tion as a very important one, and thinks 
 that the city of New Orleans ought to be 
 restricted in her representation, for he 
 feels perfectly sure that no interest which 
 is purely commercial, should be suffered to 
 control both the political and agricultural 
 interests of the State, and that must be the 
 result if we establish the principle that re- 
 i presentation shall be strictly according to 
 numbers. Gentlemen may think that 
 country members are blind as to the ef- 
 fect such a measure would produce, but he 
 would say the city members were not, they 
 were well aware of the power and influ- 
 ence it would give the city. Mr. Porter 
 said that when he was discussing, some 
 days ago, the subject of country or parish 
 representation, he had taken the trouble to 
 read from all the constitutions in the United 
 States, with a view to show that represen- 
 tation was mot based solely on numbers; 
 and he thought he had succeeded, for he had 
 found but four States, in that course of ex- 
 amination,that had laid down numbers exclu- 
 sively, and they were inland States, having 
 no large cities. The gentleman that fol- 
 lowed him in the discussion (Mr. Rose- 
 lius) had said, (I quote his remarky,) "the 
 principle invoked, wherever it may be 
 found, is a superanuated one;" and to prove, 
 his remarks, he said the constitution of 
 Massachusetts was established in 1779. 
 And he said "among the States enumera- 
 ted by the gentleman from Caddo, figures 
 the State of Rhode Island, whose charter 
 was obtained from that vicious monarch, 
 Charles the Second," &c. Let us for a 
 moment examine this subject, and see if 
 
46G 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 this principle be a superanuated one. The 
 State of Maine in the year 1819, amended 
 and re -adopted her constitution, retaining 
 the principle alluded to; the State ot Mas- 
 sachusetts remoddled and re-adopted her's 
 in 1820, containing the principle first 
 adopted that each sub division of the State 
 should have at least one representative. 
 The constitution of Rhode Island, which 
 was read from, is not the charter of that 
 vicious monarch, Sic, but is the constitu- 
 tion adopted by the people, in November, 
 1842. The same may be said of nearly 
 all the New England constitutions; they 
 have been revised and re-adopted ; the 
 principle, therefore, is not a superanuated 
 one, even in the old constitutions. 
 
 I will now, to show that the principle of 
 giving to each county one representative, 
 is not a superanuated one — read from a 
 few of the most modem constitutions. 
 [Here Mr. Porter referred to the'pages and 
 sections from which he read]. The con- 
 stitution of Tennessee contains this provis- 
 ion, "that each county having one-half the 
 ratio, shall have one representative." This 
 he said, gave to each county one represen- 
 tative. This was one of the new constitu- 
 tions. 
 
 Mr. Porter then read from the constitu- 
 tion of Mississippi, as follows: "Provided, 
 however, that each county shall always be 
 entitled to at least one representative." 
 
 Alabama — the constitution also reads as 
 follows: "Provided, however, that each 
 county shall be entitled to at least one re- 
 presentative." 
 
 The constitution of Missouri reads as 
 follows: "Each county shall haVe at least 
 one representative." 
 
 The constitution of Michigan— "Each 
 organized county shall be entitled to at 
 least one representative." 
 
 The constitution of Arkansas reads as 
 follows, "Provided, that each county now 
 organized shall, although its population 
 may not give the existing ratio, always be 
 entitled to one representative." 
 
 The States of Pennsylvania and New 
 York, in their constitutions, hold precisely 
 the same language as. the constitutions 
 above read. These are all modern consti- 
 tutions. Then we find in both the ancient 
 and modern constitutions, this principle of 
 giving to each county one representative, 
 irrespective oi numbers, has been steadily 
 
 adhered to, at least in more than twenty 
 constitutions. So much, then, for the gen- 
 tlemens' bold assertions. 
 
 The gentleman from Assumption, (Mr. 
 Taylor) whom he has always heard with 
 attention, the other day, in discussing the 
 report of the committee which provided 
 that no parish or city should ever be enti- 
 tled to more than one-fifth of the represen- 
 tation in the State legislature, he said that 
 this principle of restriction was a new one, 
 "and that it presented a new spectacle, not 
 hitherto to be found in the history of our 
 country." Another honorable gentleman 
 had said "it was a deed without a name." 
 If the gentlemen, would indulge him, he 
 would examine this subject. 
 
 Whilst the committee had this subject 
 under consideration, and I had the honor of 
 being one of that committee, the delegation 
 from the city, that were on the committee, 
 concurred in the restriction, and one of 
 them, (Mr. Benjamin) in argument after- 
 wards in this house, admitted that some re- 
 striction ought to be placed on the city, in 
 consequence of the concentration of num- 
 bers, &c; but the gentleman from Assump- 
 tion (Mr. Taylor) appears to be more the 
 representative of the city than the city 
 members themselves; he has fell much in 
 love with the city; 1 know not why; perhaps 
 in consequence of some of her splendid 
 ladies or municipalities-, I know not; but 
 he has (so to speak) pushed the represen- 
 tatives of the city out of the way, and taken 
 the city on his own broad shoulders. But 
 if the gentlemen will follow me to the sea- 
 board States, I think I will show them that 
 restrictions have been imposed in nearly, 
 or quite all the States that have large sea- 
 port towns. 
 
 Here Mr. Porter referred to the page 
 and section in the book of constitutions, 
 and read first from the constitution of 
 Georgia, as follows : "Each county con- 
 taining three thousand persons, agreeable 
 to the foregoing plan of enumeration, shall 
 be entitled to two members; seven thou- 
 sand to three members, and twelve thou- 
 sand to four members; but each county 
 shall have at least one, and not more than 
 four members." He wished here, first., to 
 call gentlemens' attention to this fact, that 
 representation did not increase according 
 to population; for instance, three thousand 
 in one county gave two representatives, but 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 467 
 
 when increased to twelve thousand gives 
 but four. Now, if representation had 
 increased according to numbers, twelve 
 thousand would have been entitled to eight 
 members; then, as numbers concentrate, 
 representation decreases; but furthermore, 
 no county shall have more than four repre- 
 sentatives. Now sir. suppose that one -half 
 the population of the State of Georgia was 
 in the city of Savannah, (which now has 
 say over one-fourth) what proportion in the 
 representation of the State would that coun- 
 ty have ? There are sixty-three members 
 in the legislature; then sir, though there 
 might be a majority of the whole State in 
 this county, she would have but four repre- 
 sentatives, less than one-fifteenth. Here, 
 then, is a spectacle in the history of our 
 country, and here there is a name found for 
 the deed we were about to perpetrate. But 
 I hope the gentleman will follow me along 
 the sea-shore; South Carolina has a large 
 sea-port town, Charleston— let us see if 
 there is no restriction there. Here Mr. 
 Porter read from the constitution of the 
 State of South Carolina, showing that the 
 house consisted of one hundred and sixty- 
 one members, and that the city of Charles- 
 ton and the counties of St. Philip and St. 
 Michael together, were entitled to but 
 fifteen members in the lower house, which 
 is but one-tenth; and in the senate to but 
 two members out of thirty-eight, which is 
 one-nineteenth. Here, again, is a much 
 stronger restriction than has been asked 
 for. Here, then,we have a ^air of spectacles 
 through which we may read, in the history 
 of our country, of similar restrictions. 
 Xorth Carolina has no large sea-port town, 
 but she gives to each county one represen- 
 tative,which is a sufficient restriction where 
 there is no large town. The State of Vir- 
 ginia has no large city, but if I recollect 
 aright, the city of Richmond has but one 
 representative. The State of Maryland I 
 will next call to the attention of the gentle- 
 men: and, sir, I wish their particular atten- 
 tion. Here Mr. Porter referred to the page 
 and section of the constitution of -Maryland, 
 from which he was going to read; he said 
 he would not read the ninth section, but he 
 would call the attention of the house to it, 
 for the tenth section, which he would read, 
 alluded to it. 
 
 The ninth section appoints the representa- 
 tion to all the counties; the lowest number 
 
 to any county is three, the highest rive; in 
 the tenth section it is provided as a check 
 on the city of Baltimore, that in all future 
 apportionments these numbers shall not be 
 reduced, but (said he) I will read the sec- 
 tion: "From and after the period when the 
 next census shall be taken and effectually 
 promulgated, and from and after every se- 
 cond census thereafter, the representation 
 in the house of delegates from the several 
 counties, and from the city of Baltimore, 
 shall be graduated and established on the 
 following basis; that is to say, every county 
 which shall have, by the said census, a 
 population of less than fifteen thousand 
 souls, federal numbers, shall be entitled to 
 elect three delegates; every county having 
 a population of fifteen thousand souls and 
 less than twenty-five thousand souls, fede- 
 ral numbers, shall be entitled to elect four 
 delegates; and every comity having by the 
 census a population of twenty-five thousand 
 and less than thirty-five thousand souls, 
 federal numbers, shall be entitled to elect 
 five delegates; and every county having a 
 population of upwards of thiily-five thou- 
 sand souls, federal numbers, shall be enti- 
 tled to elect six delegates; and the city of 
 Baltimore shall be_ entitled to elect as many 
 delegates as the county which shall have 
 the largest representation on the basis 
 aforesaid, may be entitled to elect; pro- 
 vided, and it is hereby enacted, that if any 
 of the several counties herein before men- 
 tioned, shall not, after the said census of 
 the year eighteen hundred and forty shall 
 have been taken, be entitled by the gradu- 
 ation on the basis aforesaid to a represen- 
 tation in the house of delegates equal to 
 that allowed to such county by the ninth 
 section of this act, at the election of dele- 
 gates for the December session of the year 
 eighteen hundred and thirty-eight: such 
 county shall, nevertheless, after the said 
 census for the year eighteen hundred and 
 forty, and any future census, and forever 
 thereafter, be entitled to elect the number 
 of delegates allowed by the provisions of the 
 section, ccc, &c." 
 
 Mr. Porter said, we see here a house of 
 delegates of seventy-nine members, and 
 the city of Baltimore having but six votes 
 out of that number and but one in the 
 senate, and this number in the house can 
 never be reduced by any future apportion- 
 ment— -neither can the citv ever have more 
 
f$$ Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 than six. Yet gentlemen have the hardi- 
 hood to state on this floor, that restrictions 
 are unheard of things — deeds without a 
 name, <fcc. In the report before us, the 
 city of New Orleans is not named, but in 
 the case above the cMty of Baltimore is par- 
 ticular named, pointed out, and restricted. 
 
 Here I might stop and, rest this matter, 
 but I will proceed. Rhode Island, the 
 constitution of which says expressly that 
 each county shall have one representative, 
 and that no town or city shall have more 
 than one-sixth of the members to which 
 this house is hereby limited. Here is an- 
 other express restriction, but gentlemen as- 
 sert that it is an unheard of outrage and 
 injustice, unknown in all civilized coun- 
 tries. And the city of New York has a 
 population of only one-eighth of the whole 
 State, and that empire State has given to 
 each county one representative ; this, with 
 a restriction which is laid on the city in the 
 senate, and the fact that she is a farming 
 State, and not a planting one, and that those 
 farms generally contain only from twenty- 
 five to one hundred acres, it is morally im- 
 possible that a city should ever get the as- 
 cendancy over the country. The same re- 
 marks will apply to Pennsylvania ; though 
 in the State of Massachusetts, there is no 
 absolute or express restriction, yet that 
 State is represented by towns, and there 
 are some counties that have from twenty 
 to thirty towns represented. Therefore it 
 is utterly impossible that Boston should 
 ever overshadow the country. Mr. Porter 
 here said he would read from the constitu- 
 tion of Maine : "The house of represen- 
 tatives shall not be less than one hundred, 
 or more than two hundred." No town 
 shall ever have more than seven delegates; 
 in a house of one hundred, this Would be 
 one-fourteenth; and in a house of two hun- 
 dred, one twenty-eighth. I will not pur- 
 sue this subject further, we have found 
 restrictions wherever they were necessary, 
 from Georgia to Maine. And they are 
 much greater every where, whilst there is 
 no other city that requires half the restric- 
 tion, yet it is called a solecism in govern- 
 ment ; an abandonment of republican prin- 
 ciples, &c. &c. 
 
 One of the honorable gentlemen from 
 the city ( Judge Eustis) says there can be 
 no antagonist interest between the city 
 and the country ; that "every tree -that is 
 
 felled and spade that opens a drain 5 ' in th3 
 country, is for the benefit of the city. But 
 is this an evidence that the city in all fu- 
 ture time will do that which is most just 
 and equitable towards the country. It 
 proves that all we do, and all the improve- 
 ments which are made in the country are 
 for the benefit of the city. But why did 
 not that eloquent gentleman proceed and 
 tell us the whole truth; the subject was one' 
 which would have suited a gentleman of 
 such ability. Why did he not tell us that 
 every tree that was felled and every drain 
 that was opened, not in Louisiana alone, . 
 but in the State of Mississippi, Tennessee, 
 Kentucky, Virginia, Pennsylvania, thence 
 sweeping down the west side of the Ohio 
 and the Missouri, including the free States, 
 and indeed one half the States in the Union? 
 Why, I say, did he not tell us that where - 
 ever the axe was laid to the root of a tree, 
 wherever a drain was opened, wherever a 
 ploughshare turned a furrow, or a scythe 
 or reap hook saved a harvest, in this vast 
 valley, from the base of .the Rocky moun- 
 tains to the gulf of Mexico, they were la- 
 boring for the prosperity of this vast city ? 
 that all those improvements are to advance 
 its interests, and that this city has no more 
 comity of interest with this State than it 
 has with the balance of this vast valley? 
 Why did he stop at the boundary of this 
 little State. 
 
 Sir, said Mr. Porter, I was in this city 
 thirty years ago ; what was it then com- 
 pared to what itts now? It was then set- 
 tled principally by native Louisianians ; 
 where are they now ? by whom will this 
 vast city be peopled ? by the sons of native 
 Louianians ? No, in forty years they will be, 
 in this city, few and far between. But, 
 sir, it will be peopled by commercial men 
 from the four quarters of the globe ; by all 
 tongues, kindreds and people ; the most 
 commercial and enterprising men from the 
 whole world, will be tempted by their cu* 
 pidity, and with a view of bettering their 
 fortunes to settle here, having no interest 
 in common with the State, opposed in prin- 
 ciple to our peculiar institutions, and hold- 
 ing, as they will, the rights of government 
 in their hands, what may we expect 1 I 
 appeal to native Louisianians to pause be- 
 fore they act. This State can never have 
 a large population, independent of the city. 
 It is a planting country, the farms must be 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 469 
 
 large, and the population never can be 
 dense ; but, sir, there can be no bounds set 
 to the growth of this city. It must have a 
 larger population than the whole State be- 
 sides. 
 
 Now, sir, I ask, is it right that one 
 small parish, less perhaps, than ten miles 
 square, having # but one interest, and that 
 entirely commercial, should dictate laws to 
 the whole State, and oppress the agricul- 
 tural interest at discretion? Now sir, it is 
 utterly impossible that a majority of the 
 whole State can ever be crowded into one 
 parish for the purposes of agriculture. 
 Then when such concentration of numbers 
 takes place, they must be almost exclu- 
 sively commercial; the question is, shall 
 the commercial interest swallow up all the 
 rest? Sir, if the city is hereafter to dic- 
 tate laws to this State, what may we not 
 look for in the way of wharfage taxes and 
 additional items of expense on our pro- 
 duce? Sir, if this be permitted, the mind 
 of man, the greatest stretch of the human 
 imagination, may not be able yet to see the 
 injustice and oppression that may be visit- 
 ed on the hard laboring and planting part 
 of this community. Sir, one of the great 
 objects of Thomas Jefferson in the, acqui- 
 sition of Louisiana, was to save western 
 produce from the inquisitorial duties and 
 taxes then laid on it. If we yield to city 
 legislation, I fear we have* gained but little. 
 Sir, the whole valley of the Mississippi is 
 deeply concerned in this matter, and in the 
 decision of this question. Sir, (said Mr. 
 Porter) we have heard much that is elo- 
 quent said on the other side of this ques- 
 tion, but I have not heard one argument 
 that I even thought plausible, except on 
 the subject of taxation. Gentlemen have 
 said here that if you- restrict the city, and 
 the country have the majority, they might 
 tax the city, and this would" be taxation 
 without representation. Then give the 
 city the advantage, and the same might 
 be said by the country; but this is suppo- 
 sing a case that 1 think never can exist, 
 that is, that the country woulcl tax a certain 
 species of property in the city higher than 
 thev would tax the same in the country. 
 This is a supposition so unjust and unrea- 
 sonable, that I really think it is altogether 
 without foundation " But if gentlemen are 
 sincere, and arc really afraid of being thus 
 axed, and are only requiring additional 
 60 
 
 representation to protect them from this 
 injustice, I will offer them a compromise 
 which will effectually secure }hem against 
 this injustice. If they do not wish to have 
 this large representation for the purpose 
 of giving them the political, and all other 
 powers belonging to the State, they will 
 not desire more than twenty members, if 
 I they can be protected against improper 
 ! taxation. Mr. Porter said he would read 
 ! from the constitution of Tennessee, which 
 he would offer at a proper time to embody 
 in this constitution. Mr. Porter read a 
 j part of the section as follows : "All pro- 
 perty shall be taxed according to its value; 
 that value to be ascertained in such man- 
 ner as the legislature shall direct, so that 
 the same shall be equal and uniform 
 throughout the State; no one species of 
 property from which a tax may be collect- 
 ed, shall be taxed higher than any other 
 species of property of equal value," &c. 
 Now if gentlemen are sincere, they will 
 accept this proposition. 
 
 Mr. Porter said the gentleman from As- 
 sumption (Mr. Taylor) had said, whilst 
 opposing restricting New Orleans, that he 
 was willing to restrict her in the senate. 
 He (Mr. Porter) thought the city ought to 
 be restricted in both. Sir, if you give the 
 city a majority in the lower house, having 
 the number" of one hundred, and it having 
 from the city and its vicinity, some eight 
 senators out of thirty-two, leaving some 
 twenty-five senators only from the coun- 
 try, 1 ask any reasonable man if the senate 
 could long resist the force of numbers that 
 would be against them? It is not a sup- 
 posable case that the senate could always 
 resist such an influence; but supp6se the 
 case, and what would he the effect ? Why, 
 sir, the wheels of government must be 
 suddenly stopt: the shock could not be 
 sustained, and revolution must be the con- 
 sequence, Sir, it will not do to create an- 
 tagonist interests between the two houses. 
 
 Mr. Porter said he might have felt too 
 much excited on this subject, but he was 
 sure he had no prejudice against the city, 
 and would not knowingly do her or any 
 individual on earth any injustice; he hoped 
 the restriction would be retained. 
 
 Wedxespay, March 19, 1S45. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
470 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 The proceedings were opened with pray- 
 er by the Rev. Mr. Hinton. 
 
 The journal of yesterday was read and 
 adopted. 
 
 The Secretary announced tha^t he had 
 not received the receipt from the reporter 
 for his reports. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Bei#amin, Mr. Soule 
 was excused attendance in his seat, in con- 
 sequence of ill health. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 The order of the day being the motion 
 of Mr. Brent, the delegate from Rapides, 
 to reduce the number of representatives 
 reported by the committee for the city of 
 New Orleans, from twenty to sixteen, 
 
 Mr. Downs had the floor from the pre- 
 vious day, but being indisposed, he yielded 
 his place to 
 
 Mr. Humble, who rose and briefly ad- 
 dressed the house. lie said that during a 
 long residence in the northwestern part of 
 the State, he had been a close observer of 
 what had been passing around him. In 
 the parishes of Catahoula and Caldwell the 
 laws were as well and truly observed as 
 they have been in any part of the State. 
 At every election poll in. those parishes, a 
 tax list was exhibited, and no man was al- 
 lowed to vote who was not truly recorded a 
 tax payer and property holder. There 
 were charges levelled at the citizens of 
 those parishes; they were compared to 
 highwaymen, and called intriguers. He 
 (Mr. Humble) saw nothing but habits of 
 industry practised by the people while he 
 lived there, which had been for the last 
 twenty years, and he knew that th*e laws 
 and constitution were no where more strict- 
 ly observed. 
 
 Mr. Splane said, that it devolved upon 
 him to say a few words in reference to the 
 subject under debate, and he only regretted 
 that he had not been able sufficiently to in- 
 vestigate many facts in reference to it. Al- 
 though opposed to some of the members of 
 the Orleans delegation, he still considered 
 them too liberal to inflict injustice on any 
 portion of the State. He would, however, 
 wish to lay before the house the fact, that 
 the vote polled in New Orleans was, in 
 1838, three thousand and ninety-two, in 
 1842, three thousand three hundred and 
 forty-seven, and in 1844 the vote had increas- 
 ed to five thousand six hundred and thirty- 
 eight. How was this enormous increase? 
 
 He asked the gentlemen to explain. He 
 considered that a great injustice had been 
 committed against the parishes of Natchi- 
 toches and Rapides. He did not under- 
 stand why these parishes were not entitled 
 to the same share of representation as La- 
 fourche or Assumption, and if we take either 
 the federal or electoral basis for our guide, 
 the facts will fully support this opinion. 
 There were other facts, too, to which he 
 would call the attention of the gentlemen, 
 and amongst them that of the" thirteen hun- 
 dred voters who were made in one day at 
 Baton Rouge. Amongst other persons 
 who were acquainted with those proceedings 
 were the surveyor general and the sheriff 
 of the parish. The latter officer had made 
 out thirteen hundred tax receipts, and a 
 tract of land was laid off and sold under 
 the superintendence of the parish judge. 
 The principal number of these voters came 
 down to the city, and their votes go to swell 
 up the figures on which the apportionment 
 is sought to be based. There were, how- 
 ever, (he had understood so at least,) about 
 one hundred and ten of them democrats ; 
 he had heard that some of them had voted 
 in the parish of Jefferson, but they were 
 very few. These were the means taken 
 to increase the vote of New Orleans from 
 1842 to 1844, an increase of upwards of 
 one half the former year, and if any parish 
 therefore should t>e restricted, he considers 
 that New Orleans should be the one. 
 With these views, therefore, he would vote 
 in favor of the motion of the delegate from 
 Rapides. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans, in reply 
 to the delegate who spoke last, said, that if 
 the number of votes cast in the year 1840 
 were taken by that gentleman, he wouid 
 find it still greater than that of 1842. It 
 was a fact well known that the elections 
 in 1838 and 1842 were in July; those of 
 1840 and 1844 were held in November, 
 and consequently the vote must necessarily 
 have been much larger, being both Presi- 
 dential elections ; and it was further a mat- 
 ter of notoriety that the election of 1844 
 was one of great and peculiar excitement, 
 and on that occasion no measures were 
 left untried to increase the number of votes. 
 But many of these illegal voters — illegal 
 under the present • constitution — will be 
 rendered legal by the operation of the new 
 constitution. They will then have resi- 
 
Debates in the 0 on vent ion of Louisiana. 
 
 471 
 
 dence, which is the only qualification ne- 
 cessary- The sixty thousand free white 
 population of New Orleans fairly entitle her 
 to (according to the ratio allowed to Ra- 
 pide) sixty representatives, giving one for 
 every thousand. If you give a certain 
 number of inhabitants to a given terrify, 
 the rate of apportionment is quite out of 
 proportion. If we take the census of 1840 
 for country parishes, why not take it for 
 New Orleans ? He would not ask the 
 number that she is fully entitled to howev- 
 er, but he thought twenty representatives 
 where sixty was due, wast the least num- 
 ber that could be granted. 
 
 Mr. Brazeale offered as an amend- 
 ment to the motion of the delegate from 
 Rapides to allot fifteen representatives for 
 the city of New Orleans, viz: 
 
 For the First Municipality, 7 
 44 Second Municipality, 5 
 " Third Municipality, 3 
 
 15 
 
 And for that part of the parish of > j 
 Orleans over the river, y 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to lay both amend- 
 ments on the table indefinitely. 
 
 Mr. Bocdousquie seconded the motion. 
 
 Mr. Downs said, he hoped the motion 
 would not prevail. The members from 
 New Orleans had urged the reduction of 
 the representation of many of the country 
 parishes with much ardor, and they ap- 
 peared to excult in every case in which 
 their efforts had been successful. But he 
 would remind the gentleman that New Or- 
 leans was not yet settled, and they should 
 bear in mind the old adage, "that they who 
 live in glass houses should not throw 
 stones." He was, however, satisfied to 
 try them by their own rule, if the gentle- 
 men from Orleans were not satisfied with 
 the ratio of 1842, they should go back to 
 1840. For want therefore of better data, 
 he would for a moment scrutinize the votes 
 taken in New Orleans, and thus show the 
 great disparity of increase from 1840 to 
 1844 here, to what it could almost by pos- 
 sibility arrive at in any reasonable manner. 
 The total population of the first munici- 
 pality in 1S40; was forty-eight thousand; 
 that of the Second, twenty-one thousand; 
 and yet in 1844, the second municipality 
 polled seven hundred more votes than the 
 First. It seemed to him like giving a 
 
 bounty to fraud. Here was more fraud 
 committed in the Second Municipality than 
 there was throughout the rest of the State. 
 Gentlemen need not have gone to Plaque- 
 mines to seek the election frauds, they 
 were to be found nearer home; but it some- 
 times proved a good way to defend a bad 
 position by commencing an attack upon 
 our enemies. A more tremendous fraud 
 was never perpetrated; the facts were be. 
 fore them. Thirteen hundred voters made 
 at Baton Rouge, one hundred and ten of 
 whom were democrats; but the rest were 
 for New Orleans; where, he would ask, 
 did these men vote, but in the second mu- 
 nicipality!; Many persons voted here who 
 had no legal right to do so. He. was aware 
 of a circumstance which afforded an illus- 
 tration. A steamboat that traded some 
 way up the Ouachita river, arrived here 
 during the election, her owners on board, 
 two of them whigs. and one a democrat, 
 and all non-resident here! The democrdtoc 
 voter presented himself at an early period 
 of the polling to record his vote, but was 
 told that he, not being a resident, could not 
 vote. Towards the close of the election, 
 however, he met his two whig friends who 
 inquired at once whether he had voted: 
 when he told them he had not, from having 
 been refused on account of being a non= 
 resident — they immediately brought him 
 to the place where they had voted them- 
 selves, consequently his vote could not be 
 refused. He (Mr. Downs) saw" no great 
 evil in a man voting at a general election 
 wherever he might be at the time, but he 
 could not tolerate the idea that the Con- 
 vention were to take such a basis for the 
 representation of New Orleans. He was 
 willing to do ample justice. Let New Or* 
 leans be divided into eight districts with 
 two representatives to each, and one over 
 the river: he thought no complaint could 
 be made to this. The vote on the question 
 now debating from time to time has shewn 
 the power of the city members over those 
 from the country. They have fought us with 
 one-tenth our number, and now if we are 
 to give them one-fifth, must not their pow- 
 er be irresistible. They will after a short 
 time, not even consult the country on the x 
 measures to be brought forward; the extent 
 to which this may be carried cannot be now 
 judged. Feeling, however, that the most 
 calamitous consequences are to be dreaded 
 
472 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 if the power of the city is not limited, he 
 sincerely hoped that the motion would noj 
 pass. He hoped gentlemen would ma- 
 turely reflect before acting in this great 
 question, as it was a measure which might 
 involve the danger of placing the power, of 
 the government in the city, and wresting it 
 completely from the great masses qf the 
 people. 
 
 The city have now more than one-sixth 
 allotted to them, it is better to limit them 
 to this than to grant too much. The most 
 dangerous power which can be given to 
 men, is that which strengthens the power 
 of its possessors • to retain it. They may 
 convene again, and should you ask them to 
 give up their power, they will laugh at the 
 idea. When New Orleans contains half 
 a million of inhabitants, her power will in- 
 crease so as to become overwhelming. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans, said he 
 felt himself called on to reply to the few 
 observations which had fallen from the 
 gentleman from Ouachita. Frauds had 
 been spoken of as having been committed 
 in the second municipality, but he said 
 before and would say again, that the vote 
 in the city by the evasion of the property 
 qualification has always been greatly swell- 
 ed. Bnt could any one say that in the 
 respective parishes throughout the State, 
 similar frauds were not perpetrated? He 
 knew it to be a fact that there had been. 
 
 Mr. Brent here made some observa- 
 tion relative to the Baton Rouge tax re- 
 ceipts. 
 
 Mr. Conrad said he would like to know,' 
 out of what lands the vote was raised in 
 Rapides. 
 
 Mr. Brent replied, from the Congress 
 lands. 
 
 Mr. Conrad remarked that that was 
 the easiest mode of working and after all, 
 of the two, it was the one oT the least merit. 
 But with regard to the second municipali- 
 ty, the frauds were not greater there than 
 in other municipalities. The gentleman 
 had spoken of Baton Rouge, no one ever 
 pretended that these voters came from any- 
 where else but from New Orleans, that 
 they were other than citizens of New Or- 
 leans, and who will be fully entitled to vote 
 under the new constitution. So far as re- 
 gards the number of representatives for 
 each municipality, he believed the delega- 
 tion from New Orleans were not going to 
 
 quarrel about it, they only wished for a fair 
 representation for the city. A large 
 amount of emigrant population too, are 
 constantly entering the second municipal- 
 ity, which accounts for the rapid increase 
 of that part of the city, and it is also clear 
 from the best data that can be had, that the 
 increase of population in the country bears 
 no proportion at all, compared with that of 
 the city, which contains seven^eights of 
 the whole white population of the State. 
 
 Mr. Marigny said that he felt called 
 upon to repel the constant attacks made 
 by the delegate from Ouchita, (Mr. Downs) 
 who, it appeared to him, had endeavored, 
 from the commencement of the session, to 
 excite the passions and feelings of country 
 members against those from the city. 
 That delegate was not content with using 
 the weight and influence which his talents 
 fairly entitle him to, but managed to bring 
 to riis aid the overwhelming .aid of local 
 predjudice against some of the delegates 
 of that house. . He charges the delegates 
 from Orleans with obtaining everything 
 they wished, with crushing every measure 
 they were opposed to. The delegate has 
 forgotten that he (Mr. Downs) brought 
 forward his own project for apportionment, 
 with the federal basis for representation. 
 After long debates, in which the delegate 
 took frequent and distinguished part, the 
 subject was again referred. The delegate, 
 who seems to have the power of ubiquity, 
 particularly wherever the fourth congres- 
 sional district is concerned, is again at his 
 post; he is in the minority, but like a skil- 
 ful general, he is engaged in attack, and 
 though sometimes foiled, yet he will con-? 
 tinue to attack until at length he comes off 
 victorious : so was it with the delegate from 
 Ouachita. The committee return a differ- 
 ent basis; but he (Mr. D.) offers a substi- 
 tute, he now offers the basis of qualified 
 voters, the basis assailed by him at the 
 onset. He advocated and this he carried, 
 Next he fears improper influence from the 
 proximity of the city to the legislature, and 
 forthwith commences the attack, he gains 
 his point; and not satisfied with removing 
 the seat of government out of the city of 
 New Orleans, he gets a proviso inserted, 
 that it shall never be "within less than six- 
 ty miles" thereof. No particular place 
 either has been fixed for its removal to; 
 perhaps one delegate may wish to remove 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 it to Lafourche; another will, it may be pre- 
 sumed, propose the college of Jefferson as 
 a suitable place, because the State has ex- 
 pended some five hundred thousand dollars 
 on that building; some other may say that 
 Baton Rouge ds the only place to hold the 
 legislative sessions. It did not, however, 
 suit the views of the delegate to. fix a place; 
 but lest it might come back to New Or- 
 leans he has placed the restriction, that it 
 shall require four-fifths of the legislature 
 to carry the measure. Did the gentleman 
 call this democracy ? A restriction of 
 1 four-fifths of a majority placed on the free 
 will of a free people; if that was democra- 
 cy, then he no longer understood the term 
 as he did before. After all this, New Or- 
 leans did expect a representation propor- 
 tioned to her population of qualified elec- 
 tors, and the city delegates gave up all the 
 rest. But the delegate, (Mr. D.) whose 
 tactics are as admirable as his talents are 
 great, had maintained in his project, 
 another proviso, that no new parishes 
 should be created that did not contain an 
 area of six hundred and twenty-five square 
 miles, thereby shutting out the old parishes 
 from ever subdividing themselves and leav- 
 ing it to the .fourth congressional district 
 alone to subdivide, and thereby increase the 
 representation. Thus the delegate has ob- 
 tained more for his parish than he even 
 asked for, and a restriction has sought to 
 be placed on New Orleans. When the 
 question of removal was brought forward, 
 the delegates from New Orleans remained 
 silent, lest they might be reproached with 
 using undue influence; the delegate (Mr. 
 D.) has, however, in his opinion, used un- 
 controllable influence wherever the inter- 
 ests of the fourth congressional district was 
 at stake. He (Mr. Marigny) would be 
 most happy to see his friend, the delegate 
 from Ouachita, emigrate to the city of New 
 Orleans, and would exert his best efforts 
 to place him in the house 1 of representa- 
 tives or in the senate, feeling well assured 
 that he would prove a sterling friend to the 
 interests of New Orleans, from the power- 
 ful 'sway he has, exercised against her in 
 his advocacy of the fourth congressional 
 district. 
 
 Mr. Downs said he felt much indebted 
 to the delegate (Mr. Marigny) for his com- 
 plimentary remarks, at the same time he 
 Would observe that whilst he rendered him 
 
 (Mr. Downs) all the victory, he reserved tf) 
 himself all the benefits of the triumph, for 
 in every struggle where the interests of 
 the fourth congressional district were at 
 stake, he had been defeated; and he was 
 at a loss to understand how or where he 
 had been the victor. For the last few days, 
 wherever an effort was made to restrict the 
 power of country parishes, distant from this 
 city, the New Orleans delegation have vo- 
 ted in solid column for the restriction. He 
 would advise the gentlemen that New Or- 
 leans, with a circle of fifty miles, will have 
 the power of wielding the interests of the 
 State to any extent, as she has now with 
 a small proportion, on that floor, and as he 
 feared she would that day. As to the re- 
 moval of the seat of government, that 
 is a mere visionary boon; it is only in 
 case the legislature wish it, but who can 
 compel them? And if he had now the pow- 
 er to abrogate the provision for removal, 
 he would do it, as he could not look upon 1 
 any measure otherwise than chimerical, 
 which can never reach any practical re- 
 sult. He had been charged with log-rol- 
 ling, but he confessed if any such means 
 had been used by him, it was with but very 
 poor success. He thought he rolled to 
 little purpose; and he considered that this 
 removal provision was worthless; the time 
 consumed in obtaining it was, in his opin- 
 ion, completely thrown away. Gentlemen 
 say we have got a representative for every 
 parish; this, if the number were limited 
 to seventy members in the house of repre- 
 sentatives, would be something; but when 
 that number is raised to one hundred, it 
 becomes of no avail. He was driven from 
 •one proposition after another, until the 
 power of New Orleans is left almost un- 
 limited. He would only say that if she 
 gets the power, she will hereafter ride 
 rough-shod over the people of the State, 
 and the yeas and nays of this day will be 
 looked to by those who will come after. 
 He hoped the motion would not prevail. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said that when gentle- 
 men upon that floor would be called to give 
 an account of the stewardship of their votes 
 of that day, they would be able to stand a 
 proper test. Were they to be threatened? 
 he would ask, and told that because two 
 members were taken off northern Louisi- 
 ana and arlded to lower Louisiana, the 
 city of New Orleans was to be restricted/ 
 
474 
 
 Debates In the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 He said no; the delegation from New Or- 
 leans say no. That Convention should 
 never force a measure upon them which 
 would brand her citizens as unworthy; they 
 shall be left unshackled. He told the 
 country members before, he tells them now 
 to choose their own basis, to take any they 
 please, but no restriction for New Orleans. 
 We (the city delegates) had taken the ba- 
 sis offered. The delegate from Feliciana 
 had said a few days ago, that justice was 
 forced upon the city; he would tell that 
 gentleman that justice was no bitter pill 
 for them to swallow. He knew not upon 
 what principle the delegate from Ouachita 
 attacked the conduct of the Orleans dele- 
 gation. In regard to the country parishes' 
 apportionment, the parish of Natchitoches 
 formerly had one representative; it is now 
 divided, and the original parish now gets 
 five; but when gentlemen have failed to 
 breakdown the political power of lower 
 •Louisiana, they fall back upon New Or- 
 leans to avenge themselves. 
 
 Mr. Brent said: I conceive, Mr. Presi- 
 dent, that no claim could be more unjust 
 than that now advanced by the city of 
 New Orleans, to twenty representatives. 
 I sliould like to know upon what data, what 
 basis, and what principle, such a claim is 
 to be allowed? I go for meting out the 
 same justice to her which she has extend- 
 ed to others, and I desire that the chalice 
 of which she has made us drink, shall be 
 commended to her own lips. Are the peo- 
 ple of New Orleans of a different mould 
 and texture, that higher privileges and 
 greater favors should be conferred on them 
 than are conferred on the free citizens of 
 other quarters of the State? The delegates 
 from the city have positively refused to 
 apportion the representation of the parishes 
 of Rapides and Natchitoches upon the ba- 
 sis of votes cast in the presidential election 
 of 1844, and at the same time they have 
 not insinuated any charges of fraud, against 
 the fairness of that election. They now, 
 sir, turn round, and planting "themselves 
 upon the acknowledged fraudulent vote of 
 this cfty, insist that her representation 
 shall be awarded to her upon that basis, 
 which they themselves have rejected and 
 denounced. That there is gross injustice 
 and manifest wrong in such a proceeding, 
 no one can pretend to deny. The honest 
 vote of two parishes has been repudiated 
 
 and set aside, by the action of the city dele- 
 gates; und now these same gentlemen seek 
 to avail themselves of a vote which has 
 been swelled and enlarged to an unprece- 
 dented extent, by the most abominable and 
 stupendous frauds. I call tke attention of 
 the Convention particularly to this point, 
 that the city. of New Orleans is not entitled 
 to twenty representatives upon any other 
 data than the presidential election of 1 844. 
 The tax list and the vote of no previous 
 election will give her more than sixteen 
 representatives. How then can the dele- 
 gates from the city, after despoiling two * 
 parishes of their just representation, ac- 
 cording to the vote of 1844, now insist that 
 they are to have the full benefit of the 
 wrong which the city herself has commit- 
 ted? Such a claim comes with bad grace, 
 and should meet with no favor in the eyes 
 of tin's Convention. 
 
 That the vote of this city was fraudulent 
 to a great extent, in the Presidential elec- 
 tion of 1844, is fully evident, from the fact 
 that a few days afterwards, at a special 
 election held for two members of this i>ody, 
 her vote fell fifteen hundred short of what 
 it was at the presidential election. The 
 excess of fifteen hundred was unquestiona- 
 bly fraudulent and spurious, and did not 
 properly belong to the fair and honest vote- 
 of this city. And yet the representatives 
 of the city, in their eagerness for political 
 power, do not hesitate to claim for the city 
 the full benefit of the frauds whicli were 
 thus notoriously committed. I leave the 
 people of the country to judge between us. 
 
 But let us see at what result facts and 
 figures will bring us, in apportioning the 
 representation of the city. Every parish 
 that has two hundred and seventy- six voters, 
 is to have one representative, and for every 
 fraction exceeding the representative num- 
 ber by half, it is to have an additional re- 
 presentative. Now, the city of New Or- 
 leans polled, at 'the last presidential elec- 
 tion, five thousand six hundred and thirty- 
 eight votes. If we strike off fifteen hun- 
 dred for illegal votes, which is a moderate 
 deduction, it will leave four thousand one 
 hundred and thirty-eight as the number of 
 legally qualified electors in this city. Thd 
 representative number of two hundred and 
 seventy-six, will divide this fifteen times, 
 and leave a fraction of two hundred and 
 seventy-four, which would entitle her to 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 475 
 
 sixteen representatives, according to the 
 rule we have established. For this num- 
 ber I shall vote, and justice demands that 
 her representation should be reduced to 
 this point. 
 
 Some intimations were thrown out yes- 
 terday, by a delegate from New Orleans, 
 (Mr. Benjamin) as to the probability that 
 some of the country parishes had combined 
 and log-rolled together, for the purpose of 
 acquiring an undue preponderance in the 
 State legislature. No charge of that kind 
 can be brought with truth against our sec- 
 tion of the State, for if we have log-rolled 
 with any one, we have log-rolled to very 
 little purpose. It may be that we are 
 rather the victims, instead of the perpetra- 
 tors of the act. Now it is, to say the least 
 of it, a somewhat singular coincidence, 
 that the city delegates and the delegates 
 from a certain favored region called the 
 sugar district, have been voting in solid 
 column upon all questions connected with 
 the apportionment of the State. Unfortu- 
 nately for us, they constitute a majority of 
 this body, and hence we have seen them, 
 by the strong hand of power, taking repre- 
 sentatives away from cotton parishes that 
 were justly entitled to them, and giving 
 them by way of largess to sugar parishes, 
 that had no just claim or title to them. 
 Now, sir, if this coincidence sho.uld go a 
 little further, and if the delegates from the 
 favored region, in consideration of the ser- 
 vices rendered by the city, should vote to 
 give her a representation to which she is 
 not entitled, it might not be log-rolling; 
 such a thing of course could not be believ- 
 ed, but evil disposed persons might think 
 that it had a most awful squinting in that 
 direction. 
 
 So far, in the apportionment of represen- 
 tation, the Convention appears to have 
 been guided by no fixed rules, but on the 
 contrary, it appears to have substituted its 
 1 arbitrary caprice for the basis of represen- 
 tion, established by the deliberate vote of 
 this body. To show how unjust has been 
 its tyrannical use of power, I will call the 
 attention of the Convention to a few facts 
 connected with the apportionment of repre- 
 sentation to the parishes of Pointe Coupee 
 and Lafourche Interior.' I find by the 
 census, that the white population of Pointe 
 Coupee is two thousand and eighty-seven; 
 the white population of Lafourche is three 
 
 thousand nine hundred and eighty-six ; the 
 total population of Pointe Coupee is seven 
 thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight ; 
 the total population of Lafourche is seven 
 thousand three hundred and three ; the 
 number of votes cast in Pointe Coupee was 
 three hundred and forty-nine, and the num- 
 ber cast in Lafourche was six hundred and 
 eight. 
 
 Here, sir, it appears that Pointe Coupee 
 has more than one half the white popula- 
 tion of Lafourche, more than half the vo-« 
 ters, and a larger total population, and yet 
 you have given her but one representative, 
 and Lafourche Interior three representa- 
 tives. There .may be justice, equality and 
 uniformity in this, but my vision cannot 
 discover these qualities in that apportion- 
 ment. Pointe Coupee happens to be wash- 
 ed by the waters of Red river, and this has 
 sealed her doom. 
 
 It is with mortification and deep regret, 
 Mr. President, that I am forced to declare, 
 that but little is to be expected from the 
 sense of justice of this Convention. The 
 north-west quarter of the State has been 
 put under the ban, and not only have no 
 favors been extended to it, but its demand 
 for justice has been spurned and scouted 
 at. We are forced to submit. We must 
 bow in acquiescence to the declared will 
 of the majority. But I would advise those 
 gentlemen who seem so anxious to con- 
 trol the growing influence of the west, to 
 fasten the chains well, and bind the rivets 
 sure, if they expect to keep us in subjec- 
 tion. I tell them that the political power 
 of this State is fast leaving the banks, of 
 the Mississippi, and setting with a strong 
 and irresistible tide to the western and 
 northern quarters of the State. There is 
 no emigration to the eastern part of the 
 State except to New Orleans, while upon 
 the west there pours a constant stream of 
 emigration, that must inevitably produce 
 the result which I have predicted. The- 
 delegates from the north-west section of 
 the State, constitute but one-seventh of this 
 body, yet, sir, when we return to the coun- 
 cils of the State, even under the unjust ap- 
 portionment which has been made, we 
 shall have more than one fourth of the 
 whole representation. At that time we 
 shall be able to protect ourselves. Until 
 then we must submit with«the best grace 
 we can, to the behests of the majority-. 
 
4TG 
 
 Debates in tlie Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Mr. Roselius would show the gentle- 
 man (Mr. Brent) that his position was a 
 Wrong one, and that New Orleans was 
 fairly entitled to much more than twenty 
 representatives. The number of qualified 
 voters had been established as the ratio of 
 representation, let the apportionment there- 
 fore be made according to the fixed basis. 
 Ho would lay down as data for this pur- 
 pose the vote of 1844. Was it not known 
 to every member of this house, that the 
 -franchise is fast extending? Was it not 
 most evident and clear to every reflecting 
 mind, that this apportionment of represen- 
 tation is to be made with reference to the 
 new, and not the old, constitution? and 
 therefore he deemed it just to take for his 
 guide the number of votes polled at the last 
 election, because they have all the quali- 
 fication requisite by law. Under the pro- 
 visions of the new constitution every male 
 white citizen of the United States, who 
 shall have resided two years in the State, 
 and one year in the parish, is an elector. 
 Under the present constitution a property 
 qualification is required, and therefore the 
 number of voters must be manifestly in- 
 creased when that necessity is removed. 
 TJje next data to go on, and which forms 
 the strongest evidence in favor of the right 
 of New Orleans, is the population. Eve- 
 ry white male found in the city over the 
 age of twenty years is qualified to vote, the 
 exceptions being alienage, not being a citi- 
 zen of the United States, or not being two 
 years resident in the State. For these ex- 
 ceptions proper deductions must be made. 
 According to correct statistical information, 
 the total population of the city in 1840 was 
 twenty-three thousand three hundred and 
 sixty-seven. It requires no argument to 
 prove that this number has increased ; it 
 has almost doubled ; but at least no one 
 will attempt to say that it has diminished; 
 and taking every reasonable deduction 
 from this number, and in view of the fact 
 that of those, all who have remained since 
 in the city will have residence, the qualifi- 
 cation for citizenship, New Orleans is en- 
 titled to forty members instead of twenty. 
 He hoped gentlemen would look at these 
 facts before they voted. New Orleans was 
 about to get twenty members, when she 
 was entitled to forty ; and he would like to 
 know upon what principle gentlemen pro- 
 posed to reduce one half- still less* He 
 
 trusted that there was still some principle 
 left on that floor — if there was any princi- 
 ple remaining, it would show itself in the 
 action taken upon this question. Is not 
 the basis adopted ? therefore why not ap- 
 portion according to it? When he saw 
 the unholy purpose of disqualifying the citi- 
 zens of New Orleans, solely because they 
 were living in New Orleans, discounte- 
 nanced and lost, he greatly rejoiced, for he' 
 felt that there was some justice left in the 
 house; but when he sees an attempt made 
 to curb New Orleans, to restrict her repre- 
 sentation, to deprive her of her rightful 
 political power, then indeed he feared that* 
 justice had disappeared. But he hoped it 
 would not be. It was a most flagrant in- 
 justice, this effort to cut off the number of 
 New Orleans representatives, and he could 
 only compare it to the conduct of Lear's 
 daughters. The king who had abdicated 
 the throne, was to have had an hundred 
 knights of his own to attend him ; but 
 when he sought the hundred otte" of his 
 daughters said that fifty were sufficient, 
 and another said twenty-five, another ten 
 — and at length the poor old king was" 
 coolly told by his ungrateful children, that 
 their attendant knights would occasionally 
 attend on him, and so his hundred knights 
 were reduced to none at all. And thus the' 
 attempt is made to restrict New Orleans. 
 Twenty representatives is at first proposed, 
 then sixteen, somebody else will propose 
 ten, and at length our country friends will 
 doubtless tell the city of New Orleans that 
 she shall have no representatives, the' 
 country members will look after her inter- 
 ests occasionally* He therefore hoped 
 that common justice would not be denied 
 the city; she was entitled to forty members, 
 she is satisfied to take half that number, 
 and therefore he hoped it would not be 
 lessened. 
 
 Mr* Wadsworth was willing to adopt 
 the same basis- for New Orleans for as 
 any other parish in the State. He was 
 an advocate for uniform and equal repre- 
 sentation. But when he came to view 
 th'e gross frauds committed at the last elec- 
 tion, he was unwilling to predicate the ap- 
 portionment on such a basis. In the first 
 ward of the first municipality, where the 
 vote polled in 1840 was four hundred, it 
 amounted up to eight hundred and ninety- 
 five in 1844; it was not possible to attain- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 477 
 
 this increase, and yet in Piaquemine, 
 where they had an alluvial soil, continu- 
 ally increasing, the vote of 1844 was re- 
 jected. The city members advocate the 
 doctrines to-day which they jumped up i 
 against yesterday. He did not wish to re- ! 
 strict them, but he wished them to be con- I 
 sistent, let them apply the same principle 
 to every parish alike, and let that principle 
 be equal and uniform representation. 
 
 Mr. Culbertsox briefly replied to the 
 last speaker in reference to the vote of the 
 previous day on Piaquemine. He said that 
 if time had been allowed New Orleans to 
 make out a proper and correct census of 
 her qualified electors, New Orleans would 
 be found entitled to more than twenty re- 
 presentatives. If it were that any portion 
 of the State were deprived of its just share 
 of representation, that was no reason why I 
 the citizens should be restricted in their 
 privileges. The delegates had been sent | 
 there to act according to the rules of right 
 and justice, and not for the benefit of this j 
 parish or that. According then to the 
 strictest construction of those principles, 
 would he record his vote and act at all | 
 iimes, while he held a seat on that floor. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor observed that the 
 charges made by the delegate (Mr. Brent) | 
 against oppression being used towards a j 
 portion of the State, were altogether unsup- 
 ported by solid fact; they were as idle as 
 the wind, and destitute of ail correctness. 
 
 According to the first report of the com- 
 mittee, it was proposed that the house 
 should consist of seventy-two members, 
 and to the seventeen parishes in the north- 
 western portion of the State, nineteen re- 
 presentatives were allotted. The number , 
 now is fixed at ninety-eight members, and ! 
 the seventeen parishes are increased to 
 eighteen, with twenty-five members. which i 
 is a larger proportion of, ninety-eight, than ! 
 nineteen is of seventy-two. The Lafourche j 
 district, which had originally eleven re- 
 presentatives, has now but fourteen, which I 
 bears a less proportion by nearly one-third, 
 while the north-west is increased nearly 
 that amount. In regard to New Orleans, 
 he considers nineteen representatives as 
 her right, under the basis adopted, and 
 thought that were a correct census availa- 
 ble, she would be entitled to even a larger 
 number. She would have a right to some- 
 
 61 
 
 thing over one-fifth at least, of the whole 
 representation. 
 
 After a few words from Mr. Mayo, Mr. 
 Benjamin's motion to lay on the table in- 
 definitely, was put and carried. The yeas 
 and nays being called for, resulted as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 Messes. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Briant, Carriere, Cenas, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Le- 
 gendre, Leonard, Lewis, xMarigny, Mazu- 
 reau, Preston, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Soule, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Trist, Wadsworth, Winchester, 
 and Winder, voted in the aifirmalive — 40 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Garrett, 
 Humble, Porche, Porter, Prescott of Avoy- 
 elles, Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, 
 Read, Scott of East Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of East Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sel- 
 lers, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt and 
 Wikoff, voted in the negative — 31 nays. 
 
 Mr. Beatty then renewed his motion 
 for the adoption of the section. 
 
 Mr. Dowxs moved to limit the number 
 of representatives for New Orleans to sev~ 
 enteen. 
 
 Mr. Gry:.ies moved the previous ques- 
 tion, which was: shall the main question 
 be now put? and his motion prevailed. 
 The yeas and nays being called for, it was 
 found that, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Briant, Carriere, Cenas, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eus- 
 tis, Garcia, Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legen- 
 dre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, Preston, 
 Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saun- 
 ders, Sellers, Soule, Taylo^ of Assump- 
 tion, Trist, Wadsworth and Winder, voted 
 in the affirmative* — 40 yeas; and 
 
 3Iessrs. Brazeale, Brent, Bui ton, Cade, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, "Garrett, 
 Humble, Hynson, McCallop, McRae, 
 Mayo. Peets, Porche, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, prescott of St. Landry, Prud- 
 homme, Read, Scott of East Feliciana, 
 Scott of East Baton Rouge, Scott of Madi- 
 
478 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 son, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Voorhies, Waddill, Wedersfrandt and 
 Wikoff, voted in the negative— 30 hays. 
 
 The adoption of the section was then 
 put and carried. The yeas and nays be- 
 ing called for, the following gentlemen vo- 
 ted in the affirmative: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Beafcty, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Briant, Carriere, Cenas, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, D unn, 
 Eustis, Carcia, Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legen- 
 dre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, Preston, 
 Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saun- 
 ders, Sellers, Soule, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Trist, Wadsworth, Winchester and 
 Winder — 40 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Chambliss, Coviliion, Downs, Garrett, 
 Humble, Hynson, MeCallop, McRae, 
 Mayo, Peets, Porehe, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Prud- 
 homme, Read, Scott of East Feliciana, 
 Scott of East Baton- Rouge, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt and 
 Wikoff— 30 nays. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved that the committee 
 be instructed to divide the apportionment 
 as follows: 
 
 To give the First Municipality 8 
 " " Second " 6 
 « " Third " 5 
 n « Over the river 1 
 
 20 
 
 Mr. Conrad thought that the matter 
 ought to be referred to the delegation from 
 Orleans. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson said he thought there 
 would be no effort on the part of any 
 member of the city delegation to interfere 
 unjustly with one portion of the city more 
 than another. 
 
 Mr. Grymes considered it premature on 
 the part of tie Convention to * interfere 
 with the distribution of the: city .represen- 
 tations-. For his own part he cared not 
 how the matter was disposed of, but there 
 was ncf possibility that the arrangement, if 
 improper, could escape detection. Giving 
 instructions before hand, seemed like an 
 interference with the duties of the commit- 
 tee. When the report is made, the house 
 
 will have it in their power to act as they 
 think proper on it. 
 
 Mr. Brent having withdrawn his mo- 
 tion, the section as adopted was then re- 
 ferred to the Orleans delegation without 
 opposition, and Mr. Marigny was appoint- 
 ed chairman. 
 
 The Convention then adjourned till to- 
 morrow morning at 10 o'clock. 
 
 Thursday, March 20, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment, and its proceedings were opened 
 with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Cenas, on behalf of the Orleans 
 delegation, to whom were referred the ap- 
 portionment of twenty representatives to 
 the parish of Orleans, reported the compo- 
 sition of the several districts in the three 
 municipalities, and that the following 
 should be the number allotted to each : 
 First municipality eight, second municipali- 
 ty seven, third municipality four, and the 
 right bank one. 
 
 Mr. Cenas called for the adoption of the 
 report. 
 
 Mr. Winchester moved that the report 
 be laid temporarily on the table, as all the 
 members of the Orleans delegation were 
 not in their seats. 
 
 Mr. Downs hoped that there Avould be 
 no further postponement. He saw no ne- 
 cessity for deferring action upon the report, 
 inasmuch as there was no difference of 
 opinion, he presumed, upon it. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne hoped that the report 
 would be laid on the table, subject to call. 
 The only question was this, that the Or- 
 leans delegation were not all, at this mo- 
 ment, in their seats. The courtesy ought 
 to be extended, so that they might partici- 
 pate in a matter exclusively affecting the 
 city. They had been compelled to make 
 this apportionmenW-to cut up and fraction- 
 ize the city ; this was a most difficult and 
 unpleasant task. None were satisfied with 
 its performance. One of the delegates had 
 
 pressly dissented~-that gentleman was 
 seat He hoped, under all 
 
 not be acted upon, but in the full presence 
 of the city delegation. 
 
 The question was taken on the motion 
 to postpone the consideration of the report? 
 and it was lost. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 479 
 
 The question then recurred upon the 
 adoption of the report. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne begged that it be dis- 
 tinctly understood, that the Orleans delega- 
 tion had acted through compulsion. This 
 division of the city into petty fractions, was 
 distasteful to all the citizens of New Or- 
 leans. Their representatives had acted 
 through compulsion, and not through 
 choice. For himself he could never ac- 
 cede to it. 
 
 The report was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff, on behalf of the commit- 
 tee on contingent expenses, offered a reso- 
 lution allowing $34, for the hire of a 
 servant. After some remarks from Mr. 
 Humble, and explanations from Mr. Ratliff, 
 the resolution was adopted. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 The Convention resumed the consid- 
 eraion of the apportionment of represen- 
 tation. 
 
 Mr. Makigny suggested an alteration in 
 the boundaries of one of the districts in the 
 third municipality. This alteration was 
 made, together with a correction suggested 
 by Mr. Benjamin. 
 
 Mr. Lewis proposed to fill the blank for 
 taking the census, by inserting the year 
 1850. The United States census would 
 then be taken, and the census-takers of the 
 United States and of the State, would be a 
 check upon each other. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies said, that the gentleman's 
 object would be better obtained, by fixing 
 the period for taking the census of the Str.te 
 in 1851, and the succeeding legislature, 
 could make the apportionment with both 
 before them. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor thought the census 
 should be made as soon as practicable. 
 We were unable to know precisely, when 
 the first legislature, under the new consti- 
 tution, would assemble. That legislature 
 should ordain the taking of the census, and 
 the succeeding legislature should ordain the 
 apportionment. If the legislature assem- 
 bled in 1846, the census might be taken in 
 
 1847, and the apportionment be made in 
 
 1848. He would propose 1847. 
 
 Mr. Lewis conceived that 1850 would 
 be long enough to postpone taking the 
 census, and not too long. It would be best 
 not to disturb the present apportionment, 
 which was within two of the maximum 
 number, until that period. We would see 
 
 I how it would work. He would, therefore, 
 
 j call for the vote upon 1850. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin saw no necessity for 
 having the census taken by two different 
 sets of officers. To have this statistical 
 information twice in ten years, would be 
 better than once in ten years. It would be 
 
 -"Very useful for other purposes. This might 
 be done by prescribing that the first State- 
 census should be taken in 1847; the second 
 in 1855 ; and then every tenth year 
 thereafter — -he would propose that as a 
 substitute. 
 
 The question was then taken upon Mr. 
 Voorhies' motion, to fill the blank with 
 1851, and it was lost. 
 
 The question recurred on Mr. Lewis' 
 motion for 1850, and it was lost. 
 
 The Convention then took up Mr. Ben- 
 jamin's proposition. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor withdrew his mo< 
 tion, and the proposition of Mr. Benjamin 
 prevailed. 
 
 Mr* Dunn proposed a proviso after the 
 fifth line to the sixth section, to the effect, 
 that each parish containing five thousand 
 inhabitants, including slaves, shall be en- 
 titled to two representatives ; and each 
 parish containing one thousand inhabitants, 
 shall be entitled to three representatives. 
 
 Mr. Humble would rise to a point of 
 order* This proposition had been twice 
 rejected. 
 
 Mr. Dunn said that the subject matter 
 had never been acted upon by the Con* 
 vention. It formed a portion of the com- 
 promise offered by the delegate from New 
 Orleans, Mr. Benjamin. 
 
 Mr. Downs: It has twice been rejected. 
 
 Mr. Dunn wished to explain the object 
 he had in view in presenting the proposi- 
 tion. Its importance would be obvious 
 upon a moment's reflection. The Con- 
 vention had established a rule, that every 
 parish should have one representative. 
 The city of New Orleans was very popu- 
 lace. It was growing every day and would 
 ultimately possess a very dense and con- 
 centrated population. Where was the 
 check upon the city? Where was the pro- 
 tection for the country? In 1847, scarcely 
 a single parish would be entitled to more 
 than a single representative. The repre- 
 sentative number would be raised, and the 
 representation would be absorbed by the 
 city of New Orleans. The country par= 
 
• ■ 
 
 480 Debates in the Conu 
 
 ishes would have each but a single repre- 
 sentative. Was there any thing to act as 
 a check, as a guard; any tiling to prevent 
 New Orleans from controlling the legisla. 
 tion of the State? Any thing here to pre- 
 serve an equality of power between the 
 city and the country? I do not know 
 where to find it, and hence I have deemed 
 it my duty to offer this proviso. As it is, 
 the political power reside in the city of 
 New Orleans and the smaller parishes, 
 they will control the destinies of the State, 
 and the voices of those parishes that con- 
 tribute the heaviest taxes and have the 
 greatest amount of operative labor, will be 
 stifled. They will not be heard in the 
 councils of the State. If it be the sense 
 of the house that the equilibrium of politi- 
 cal power shall be maintained, this proviso 
 prevents that question. Gentlemen are 
 wrong in supposing that it changes the 
 basis of representation. It does not change 
 that basis, but it preserves simply the 
 rights of those parishes whose voices ought 
 to be heard and respected — those that pay 
 the most to the government, but who from 
 the preponderance of slave labor have the 
 smallest white population. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies would move to Jay this 
 proposition indefinitely upon the table. 
 It was clearly out of order. The same 
 matter had been already before the Con- 
 vention, and had been distinctly rejected. 
 It is now attempted to revive it; The Con- 
 vention after having had under advisement 
 several propositions, have finally deter- 
 mined upon the basis of qualified voters. 
 A proposition offered by the delegate from 
 Ouachita (Mr. Downs) to restrict the city 
 was rejected. And now that we have as- 
 sumed the basis of qualified voters, we are 
 asked to embody in the same provision the 
 very contrary principle. How can they 
 exist together. One or the other must 
 prevail. The federal basis has been voted 
 down. The proposition was -out of order 
 and therefore -ought to be laid indefinitely 
 upon the table. 
 
 Mr. Dunn called for the yeas and nays 
 upon the motion to lay his proposition inde- 
 finitely upon the table. 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Bourg, 
 Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Burton, Cade, 
 Cenas, Carriere, McCallop, Claiborne, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Downs, Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hyn- 
 
 ention of Louisiana, 
 
 son, Kenner, Porter, Ratliff, Read, Rose- 
 lius, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Mad- 
 ison, King, Labauve, Leonard, Legendre, 
 Lewis, McRae, Mayo, Mazureau, O'Bry- 
 an, Peets, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott 
 of St. Landry, Roman, Saunders, Soule, 
 Stephens, Splane, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, Waddill 
 and Wederstrandt — 50 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Dunn, Guion, 
 Porche, Pugh, St. Amand, Sellers and 
 Winchester — 7 nays. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies then moved for the adop- 
 tion 'of the section. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne asked for the reconsid- 
 eration of the apportionment of representa- 
 tion for the city of New Orleans, for the 
 purpose of moving that the city be divided 
 into nine representative districts, so as to 
 admit of the third municipality being divi- 
 ded into three districts. This will be 
 much more convenient than dividing that 
 municipality into two representative dis- 
 tricts. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson sustained the motion 
 made by Mr. Claiborne. 
 
 It was reconsidered and amended as 
 suggested. 
 
 Mr. Dunn gave notice that he would 
 move for the reconsideration of the vote 
 granting three representatives to the par- 
 ish of Plaquemines. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan moved for the considera- 
 tion of the vote upon the apportionment to 
 the parish of Natchitoches, and asked for 
 a dispensation of the rules. 
 
 Mr. Kenner objected to the dispensa- 
 tion of the rules. 
 
 The question was taken and it was de- 
 cided in the negative. 
 
 Mr. Garcia gave notice that he would 
 move for the reconsideration of the vote 
 granting but one representative to the pa- 
 rish of St. John the Baptist. 
 
 Mr. Garcia complained that great injus- 
 tice had been done to that parish in the ap- 
 portionment. 
 
 Mr. Marigny gave notice that he would 
 move for the reconsideration in the appor- 
 tionment to Point Coupee, for the purpose 
 of giving two representatives in place of 
 one. 
 
 The question then recurred upon the 
 adoption of the section. 
 
 Mr. Saunders said that it was obvious 
 that the section met with the concurrence 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 of a large majority of the house. In say- 
 ing that he would vote against it, he would 
 state his reasons without argument. The 
 subject had been thoroughly discussed. 
 He would not add any thing to that discus- 
 sion — it would be useless, and he would 
 confine himself to an emphatic vote against 
 the section. It met with his concurrence 
 but in a single respect, and that was that 
 it would put an effectual stop to further le- 
 gislation. We have had enough legisla- 
 tion to last us half a century. A body 
 composed of half French, half Spaniards, 
 and half Yankees could do no harm in a 
 session of but 60 days, and that only once 
 every two years. 
 
 He considered that the principle adopted 
 for the basis, was the worst of all princi- 
 ples — it was the most unfair — the most un- 
 certain upon which our action could have 
 been predicated. The worst basis upon 
 which the wealth, prosperity and intelli- 
 gence of the State could depend. That 
 was his leading objection. He had hoped 
 that the house of representatives would 
 have been diminished insteachof being in- 
 creased. A house of fifty members would 
 have been large enough to have excluded 
 corruption, and would have been much 
 more convenient for the despatch of busi- 
 ness. Our own experience had demon- 
 strated to us that this body, consisting of 
 seventy^seven members, was too large.. 
 By the apportionment of representation in 
 the house, and the proposed increase in 
 the senate, the legislature would be com- 
 posed of 130 members. If there was no 
 other argument, the argument of economy 
 ought to have great weight. But it was 
 inexpedient — these bodies were unwieldy. 
 They would be found fit for no practical 
 purpose, and the only result would be, as 
 he had before said, that the legislation 
 would be impeded and arrested, This, he 
 repeated, was some consideration with him. 
 The whole thing was wrong. He was 
 convinced that one man would more effec- 
 tually represent the interests of the city of 
 New Orleans than twenty, and the same 
 remark would apply to the other parishes. 
 
 Mr* Culbertsox : suppose that this rep- 
 resentative was to get sick; what would 
 you do then? 
 
 Mr. Saunders : I would wait until he 
 got well. • 
 
 Mr. Claiborxe would state the reasons 
 
 why he would vote against the section. 
 He considered that the city of New Orleans 
 was, in effect, limited as effectually 'as if 
 an express restriction had been placed up- 
 on her in the constitution as was original- 
 ly proposed. Each parish had arbitrarily 
 been allowed one representative, without 
 reference to any basis wliatever. There 
 were forty-seven members apportioned in 
 this way. We had reached the number 
 ninety-eight, within two of the maximum 
 number to which representation was al- 
 lowed. It was utterly impossible for New 
 Orleans under any future apportionment to 
 obtain more members than were at present 
 allotted to her, whatever might be the in- 
 crease in her population. The balance of 
 the representatives, after giving to the 
 small parishes one representative, would 
 be absorbed by the larger country parish- 
 es that would get two and three represen- 
 tatives^ It was therefore apparent that the 
 city of New Orleans would never possess 
 more than one fifth of the political power 
 of the State, and there, after all, is the re- 
 striction against which the allegation from 
 the city have contended. 
 
 But the apportionment is not only unjust 
 in reference to the city of New Orleans; 
 it is unjust in reference to the country par- 
 ishes in relation to each other. In some 
 of the country parishes the qualified voters 
 will predominate, while in others, from its 
 operative labor, taxation will predominate. 
 Representation will increase in the former 
 while it will decrease in the latter. The 
 latter will bear the burthens of the govern- 
 ment, and will be denied a voice in the 
 government. It will be taxation without 
 representation. The idea was shocking — ■ 
 taxation and representation should go to- 
 gether; they were inseparable. A 'mixed 
 basis with elector's and taxation would have 
 been more just and equal in its operation, 
 both in reference to the city and to the 
 • country parishes. The principle of this 
 apportionment was then most unjust. 
 
 Another very serious objection that he 
 had to it was, that the amity of represen- 
 tation in the city of New Orleans had been 
 completely destroyed. It was cut up into 
 minute fragments, against, the will of the 
 Citizens, and with no other view than to 
 divide and separate its. interests, and to 
 weaken the assertion and maintenance of 
 
482 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 them. He would therefore vote against 
 the section. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said that he would vote in 
 favor of the section, although he did not 
 approve of the measure in every par- 
 ticular. 
 
 Mr. Porter would vote against the sec- 
 tion for reasons very different from those 
 assigned by the delegate from New Or- 
 leans, (Mr. Claiborne.) He considered 
 there were no restrictions upon the city of 
 New Orleans, and he thought some restric- 
 tions were indispensably necessary for the 
 protection of the country. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff would vote in favor of the 
 section, but would join in a motion for the 
 reconsideration in order to reduce the num- 
 ber of representatives to fifty. It was ab- 
 surd to place the maximum at one hundred 
 and then go as far as ninety, eight. Why , 
 did we not apportion one hundred at once, 
 or make it ninety-eight. The yeas and 
 nays were called for, and the following was 
 the result. 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benja- 
 min, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Bur- 
 ton, Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Downs, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, King, Labauve, Legendre, 
 Ledoux, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, JVIazu- 
 reau, O'Brien, Peets, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Ratliff, Read, Roselius, Soule, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Stephens, Splane, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Voorhies, Waddill, 
 Wederstrandt and Winder— 50 yeas. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Boudousquie, Claiborne, 
 Dunn, Garcia, Kenner, Marigny, Roman, 
 Saunders, Sellers, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Wikoffand Porter; — 12 nays. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved that the Convention 
 take up the section in relation to the ap- 
 portionment of representation in the senate; 
 which motion prevailed. 
 
 The question pending when the subject 
 was last before the Convention was the 
 motion of Mr. Downs to substitute the re- 
 port of the minority for that of the ma- 
 jority. 
 
 Mr. Guion said that he could not con- 
 cur with either the report of the minorifj- 
 or the report of the majority of the com- 
 mittee. He would offer a new project, 
 and would move that it be printed, and that 
 
 I the further consideration of the subject be 
 postponed until Saturday. 
 
 The motion to print was carried. 
 
 Mr. Mayo had no objection to the print- 
 ing, but he thought we might as well pro- 
 ceed with the discussion of the subject. 
 He moved for a reconsideration of the vote 
 postponing the consideration of the subject 
 until Saturday. It was lost.- 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to take up the ar- 
 ticle of impeachment. 
 
 Mr. Dunn thought it better to establish 
 the judiciary first. # 
 
 It was taken up. 
 
 The first section of the article on the 
 subject of impeachment being under con- 
 sideration, 
 
 Mr. Mayo offered the following as a 
 substitute: "The power of impeachment 
 for all officers, except clerks of court, jus- 
 tices of the peace, sheriffs, coroners, and 
 all other parish officers, shall be vested in 
 the house of representatives alone." 
 
 Mr. Mayo said, that the object of the 
 substitute, as would be seen from its terms, 
 was to change the mode of trying parish 
 officers; to take that power from the legis- 
 lature, and confer it upon the courts of the 
 several parishes in which the officers re- 
 sided, and where they had their residence. 
 
 There are many reasons which present 
 themselves to my mind in favor of a trial 
 by the courts, though I confess this subject 
 has been suddenly and unexpectedly 
 brought up, and I have not had time to 
 prepare a substitute with as much care as 
 I could desire, nor to arrange my ideas sa 
 as to present them to the Convention in as 
 clear a manner as I ought. My object is 
 to have a provision established that will 
 insure justice to officers, and to the people, 
 whose servants they are — which, I think, 
 the provision reported is calculated to pre- 
 vent. It is true, the present provision is 
 in the words of the old constitution. "The 
 power of impeachment shall be vested in 
 the house of representatives alone." The 
 effect of this provision has been generally 
 to prevent justice. Officers, especially 
 those who hold their offices for a short pe- 
 riod, as sheriffs, are seldom sought to be 
 impeached, when guilty of misdemeanors 
 in office, on account of the great trouble 
 and expense to the prosecutor, witnesses 
 and the State, that would accompany the 
 prosecution; and if charged before the le- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 483 
 
 gislature, the prosecution is generally a I which I think is peculiarly entitled to con- 
 political one, in which the conviction or sideratiou, which is, that the sessions of 
 acquittal depends upon the influence of the the legislature are to be biennial only. 1 
 political parties in the legislature. believe it is generally desired by members 
 
 This is a kind of trial which of all others of the Convention to limit the term of office 
 known to our laws, ought to he avoided, i of the parish officers to about two years. 
 Officers, sir, it is well known, are general- If so. and both the members of the legis- 
 lv just as good as other men. and no better, lature and parish officers come into office 
 Why then should they not be placed upon together, an impeachment of a parish offi- 
 an equality with other men, in the mode of cer could hardly ever take place, for they 
 administering justice to them? I confess, j would hardly be guilty of a misdemeanor, - 
 sir. that the reason why they should not. and have a ; charge presented to the legis- 
 especially parish officers, is incomprehen- lature within the sixty days, the time to 
 sible to me. All other men must have \ which sessions of the legislature are limit- 
 their rights of life, liberty and property, ed: and if not then, and they hold their 
 decided on by the courts. This is, it ap- offices but two years, they will serve out 
 pears to me, the mode which is most likely their whole time, notwithstanding the most 
 to ensure justice to all. It appears to me, aggravated charges exist against them be- 
 sir, to be peculiarly proper that officers i fore the next session of the legislature will 
 against whom causes of complaint exist, ! take place, and consequently there will be 
 should pass through the usual ordeal of no means of reaching them whatever. I 
 being presented to the grand jury in the hope, sir, that the substitute will be adopt- 
 first instance. If the charge is thought to ed. 
 
 be well founded by the grand jury, and suf- ! Mr. Drxx said that, as the chairman of 
 ricient to justify them in finding an indict- the committee had not seen proper to take 
 ment, they will do so, and the case will be the floor, he deemed it his duty to reply to 
 presented to the court and petit jury as the arguments of the gentleman, (Mr. 
 criminal cases are for final trial. If the Mayo.) I consider, said Mr. Dunn, that 
 grand jury think no sufficient cause exists the legislature is the proper tribunal for 
 to put an officer upon his trial they will not the trial of all public officers. As for the 
 find a bill, and thus the matter will end. ! proposition of the gentleman (Mr. Mayo) 
 The officer will be saved the mortification that parish officers should be an exception 
 and infamy of being publicly put upon a to the general rule, I do not think it w r ould 
 trial without a cause. If, on the contrary, : work well. For example, take the office 
 the accusation be presented to the legisla- of sheriff. The sheriff is a most important 
 ture, the charge becomes one of notoriety, public officer ; a great deal, if not every 
 and whether true or false, must fix in the thing in his official duties, depends upon 
 minds of the public a stigma upon the his promptitude and stern independence; 
 character of the accused, that it will take otherwise his duties would not be properly 
 years to correct. executed. It is a situation of great respon- 
 
 Ifin the event of a trial being had in sibility, and its incumbent should not heed- 
 the courts, a bill be found, the officer ac- lessly be exposed to the malignity of evil 
 cused has the assurance of being tried by minded persons, who would be ready to 
 a jury of men with whom he is acquaint, get up a prosecution against him on ac- 
 ed, and who are acquainted with him: count of his prompt discharge of his official 
 they know and are qualified to judge from duties. Proceedings might be instituted 
 their knowledge of his general deportment against him by such persons, with no ex- 
 of the motives by which he has been ac- pe.ctation of procuring his conviction, but 
 tuatedin whatever he may be charged wjth merely with a view of spreading their ac- 
 doing, or omitting to do. If he is guilty, cusation upon record. It would be open- 
 they will be as likely to award his justice ing the door for the malicious. The argu- 
 as members of the legislature, who know ment of the gentleman that the trials of pub- 
 nothing about him; and if innocent, surely : lie officers for official misconduct, could be 
 m tie wni be in but little danger from a jury, . had in the same manner as in ordinary 
 all of whom must concur to convict him. • criminal cases, would not hold good for 
 Another reasoiuexisis for this measure, j many reasons. The object in ordinary 
 
0 
 
 484 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 cases is to maintain the supremacy of the 
 laws, and to inflict the punishment which 
 their violation deserves. There is no other 
 motive. But if a public officer were sub- 
 mitted to the same kind of trial, upon alle- 
 gations of misconduct, other considera- 
 tions would enter largely into the investi- 
 gation. It might be considered an object 
 oT paramount importance to convict him 
 for the purpose of removing him and ob- 
 taining h;s office,' whereas, in an ordinary 
 prosecution for murder or larceny, no other 
 feeling prevails but the desire to maintain 
 the law. The provision under considera- 
 tion would expose a public officer to the 
 machinations of his enemies. The popu- 
 lar tide might be roaring against him, and 
 at this unpropitious moment they would 
 sacrifice their victim. They. would raise 
 the cry against him of mad dog, and in 
 times of high excitement, he would be de- 
 barred the privilege of establishing his in- 
 nocence* It will he recollected that it is 
 not very long since several sheriffs in Mis- 
 sissippi resigned their offices, because they 
 were threatened with being lynched if 
 they discharged their duties. The same 
 thing may possibly occur in Louisiana 
 and ought there not to be some protection, 
 for the independence of so responsible an 
 officer.- I would have public officers inde- 
 pendent; not exposed to be assailed at eve- 
 ry step, and to be placed under a criminal 
 accusation at the mere will and pleasure 
 of persons whose ill will they may have 
 encountered. Malignant motives might 
 lurk behind these accusations ; they might 
 be got up by an unsuccessful competitor. 
 The object of a public trial is to obtain an 
 impartial verdict. To place the accused 
 beyond the influence of personal ill will. 
 The house of representatives is most evi- 
 dently fitted for the trial of public officers, 
 who may have laid themselves open to the 
 charge of dereliction of duty. And ,am I 
 to be told, that that enlightened body, com- 
 bining the concentrated wisdom of the 
 State, is less competent to try a public of- 
 ficer than the ordinary juries of the parish- 
 es. These jurors may be influenced by 
 prejudice, passion or interest, in a matter 
 in which they may be personally connect- 
 ed. If the only objection to the impeach- 
 ment and trial by the legislature is the con- 
 sumption of time, this is an objection of 
 but little weight. The time of the legis- 
 
 lature has heretofore been but little occu- 
 pied with impeachments. 
 
 It is the business of the government to 
 protect public officers in the discharge of 
 their duties. Impeachments should not be 
 easy. The bad passions of men were con- 
 stantly at work. Man was a frail and 
 wicked being. It was unjust to draw a 
 distinction between officers of a higher and 
 lower grade. The character of the sheriff 
 was as dear to him as the character of the 
 governor or the judges of the supreme 
 court. There should be no distinction ; 
 we should mete out justice to all. What 
 democratic principle authorized any such 
 distinction. The same privilege was due 
 to all alike. 
 
 Mr, Grymes was not prepared to say 
 that he was opposed to this proposition, so 
 far as it was intended to provide ways and 
 means for the speedy trial of minor officers 
 accused of malfeasance. But he had very 
 serious objections to introducing this mat- 
 ter, into this article. The power of im- 
 peachment resided alone in the house of 
 representatives, and there it ought to re- 
 side. If the gentleman from Catahoula 
 (Mr. Mayo) intended that the legislature- 
 should be invested with the power of pro- 
 viding by law for the trial of sheriffs and 
 other parochial officers, 1 would have no 
 objection. But I do not call that an im- 
 peachment. 
 
 Mr. Mayo said there appeared to be no 
 difference in the object designed by him 
 and the views expressed by the delegate 
 from New Orleans, (Mr. Giymes.) The 
 only difference was in the mode of effect- 
 ing the object. He may have miscon- 
 ceived the term impeachment, but as he 
 understood that term, it was the trial and 
 conviction of a public officer for a misde- 
 meanor while in office. If his proviso 
 were adopted it would have the effect of 
 relieving the legislature from the trial of 
 cases where parochial officers were in- 
 volved, upon charges of malfeasance. That 
 appeared also to be the design of the dele« 
 ga # te from New Orleans. 
 
 Mr. Conrad considered the system of 
 subjecting impeachments to the house of 
 representatives as very defective, and very 
 objectionable. It was attended with great 
 expense, great inconvenience, and great ^ 
 trouble, and was insufficient to secure the 
 end proposed. It had fpund its way into 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 486 
 
 our constitution, and into the constitutions 
 of other States, merely because it was ac- 
 cidentally embodied into the constitution of 
 the United States. He said accidentally, 
 because, in examining the proceedings of 
 the federal convention, he found that in 
 the three or four drafts that had been pre- 
 pared of a constitution, impeachments had 
 been invariably assigned to the judiciary 
 department, and that the leading men in 
 that convention, such as Hamilton, Madi- 
 son and Pinckney, were in favor of con- 
 filling it to that department. How it came 
 afterwards to be lodged in the senate, we 
 were unable to discover from the debates 
 in the convention, but it appeared that 
 several States' voted against it. The ex- 
 periment has proved to be an unfortunate^ 
 one, and whatever may be the intellectual i 
 superiority of the senate of the United 
 States, it is one of the most inappropriate 
 bodies that could have been selected for 
 the purpose. 
 
 The increase in our senate would make 
 it very un wieldly for such, investigations. 
 He (Mr. Conrad) would suggest as a better ! 
 plan, that a provision be adopted directing 
 that a commmittee of twelve members of | 
 the senate should be appointed, who, to- ; 
 gether with the judges of the supreme j 
 court, should hear and determine all cases j 
 of impeachments. This would secure a ; 
 speedy trial, and would obviate many of the 
 objections that exist against the present j 
 mode of proceeding. 
 
 Mr. Conrad then submitted the follow* 
 ins substitute. 
 
 Impeachments of the governor, lieuten- 
 ant governor or secretary of State, shall be j 
 tried by the senate and the chief justice of 
 the supreme court, who* in such cases, shall 
 preside. 
 
 Impeachments of the judges of the su- ; 
 preme court shall be tried by the senate. 
 
 Impeachments of all inferior judges and 
 clerks of courts, shall be tried by the su- 
 preme court. 
 
 All other impeachments shall be tried 
 by a committee of not less than 
 members of the senate, presided by the pre- 
 siding judge of the supreme court, for the 
 time being. 
 
 Mr. Beatty had a few words to sav 
 upon the proposition now before the 
 house. He was not in favor of any pro- j 
 ject that would require the impeachment j 
 62 
 
 or trial of inferior officers by trie legisla- 
 ture. The proceedings in relation to then: 
 should be regulated by law. He was not 
 prepared to fix upon any particular plan. 
 The only difficulty, in his mind, was in 
 reference to the inferior judges. In ordi- 
 nary cases, if the grand jury found a true 
 bill against a public officer, the proceedings 
 might be had before an inferior court: and 
 with regard to inferior judges, if they were 
 charged with derelictions, the matter might 
 be investigated by the superior court. • He 
 thought a larger discretion should be pla- 
 ced in the legislature. So far from im- 
 peachments being too easy, he thought it 
 more likely that there would be greater 
 difficulty in getting rid of impioper officers, 
 than retaining good ones. 
 
 Whereupon, Mr. Mario^y moved that 
 the Convention adjourn over until Monday 
 next, on account of the religious services 
 of Friday and Saturday. The yeas and 
 nays were called for, and the motion to 
 adjourn prevailed. 
 
 Monday', March 24. 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The proceedings were opened with 
 prayer by the Hon. delegate from Sabine, 
 Mr. Stephens. 
 
 The journal of Thursday was read and 
 approved. 
 
 .Mr. Wadsworth rose to ask leave of 
 absence for a few days for Mr. Leonard. 
 He observed, that in order to gratifv that 
 gentleman's friends, and the members of 
 the Convention, he would inform the 
 house that though Mr. Leonard was woun- 
 ded, yet he was not so mortally, and he 
 would be able to* take his seat in a few 
 days. 
 
 Leave of absence was granted to Messrs. 
 Mayo, YVederstrandt and Trist. for a few 
 days.. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson moved to insert on the 
 journal the reason of an adjournment from 
 Thursday over to Monday (this day,) 
 which was, that good Friday and the day 
 following, were rigidly observed by per- 
 sons of the Catholic faith. 
 
 The motion to insert was ruled by the 
 President as not being in order, and was 
 withdrawn. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth presented a letter from 
 the English printers, praying for additional 
 
486 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 compensation for the work done by them 
 for the Convention. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, the same was 
 referred to the eommittee on contingent ex- 
 penses. 
 
 Mr. Beatty gave notice, that he would 
 on Thursday next, bring before the house 
 a new basis for the future distribution of 
 representation, without any reference to 
 that at present adopted by the Conven- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to take up the re- 
 port on the senatorial representation. 
 
 The President said that the last sub- 
 ject under consideration, when the Con- 
 vention adjourned, was the first in order, 
 and should have the preference. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne coincided with the opin- 
 ion of the chair, and hoped that the un- 
 finished business would be proceeded with 
 at once. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to lay the unfinished 
 business (the law of impeachment) on the 
 table, subject to call, with a view to take 
 up the senatorial representation reports. 
 
 The motion was then put, and the yeas 
 and nays being called for, it was found 
 that - 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Cenas, Chambliss, Couvillion, Downs, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, Lewis, O'- 
 Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyel- 
 les, Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, 
 Read, Scott of East Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Splane, 
 Stephens, Voorhies, Waddill and Wikoff, 
 voted in the affirmative — 27 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Garrett, Kenner,»King, Labauve, 
 Ledoux, Legendre, McGallop, Marigny, 
 Mazureau, Roman, Sellers, Soule, 'Taylor 
 of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, and 
 Wads worth, voted in the negative — 26 
 nays. 
 
 Mr. Walker would then inconsequence, 
 he said, of the thin attendance of members, 
 give his casting vote in the negative, and 
 the motion was lost. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 The report of the committee to whom 
 was referred the article of the new consti- 
 tution on impeachment. 
 
 First section, "That the power of im- 
 
 peachment shall be vested in the house of 
 representatives alone." 
 
 Mr. Mayo on Thursday, offered as an 
 amendment to the above: "That the power 
 of impeachment, for all officers except 
 clerks of courts, justices of the peace, 
 sheriffs, coroners and all other parish offi- 
 cers, shall be vested in the house of repre- 
 sentatives alone." 
 
 Mr. Soule said, that the latter clause of 
 the amendment could not well be sustain- 
 ed there, as it would place the parish 
 judge beyond the reach of impeachment. 
 He would therefore move the adoption of 
 the first section of the report from the com- 
 mittee, as it clearly concentrates the prin- 
 ciple of impeachment in the house of re- 
 presentatives. By subsequent sections, 
 the officers who may be impeached can be 
 more easily defined, and the tribunals be- 
 fore whom they should be tried, can be 
 also laid down. 
 
 Mr. Downs was opposed to laying the 
 amendment on the table without giving the 
 matter some consideration. It might be 
 said, indeed it was so found, that in some 
 cases the uncertain test of impeachment 
 was found to be a failure of justice. But 
 it might be amended so as to obviate such 
 a result. It was perhaps, going too far not 
 to enumerate any particular officers, and 
 might become a dangerous principle; but 
 it is well known that sheriffs have been 
 before now impeached, and that no good 
 was ever derived from the process, but on 
 the contrary, the State was put to much 
 expense, and without any good result be- 
 ing obtained. 
 
 Mr. Soule perfectly agreed with the 
 views expressed by Mr. Downs; but re- 
 peated that his object was merely to let the 
 first section contain the principle that im- 
 peachment was to be concentrated in the 
 legislature, then it will be easy to define 
 how it is to be applied and regulated. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor remarked, that he 
 considered the first step to be, to invest 
 the power of impeachment in the proper 
 place; the object was, as all knew, to in- 
 sure good government. It is a principle 
 adopted by other States, as well as by the 
 general government, and he was decidedly 
 of opinion that it should be invested in the 
 house of representatives, without any re- 
 striction. That is the grand inquest of 
 the State, and when the representatives of 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 487 
 
 the people think any officer has behaved 
 improperly in the discharge of his official 
 duty, it shall and ought to be their right to 
 declare it. Then if he is convicted on 
 such charge by two-thirds of the senate, he 
 shall be discharged. The law of impeach- 
 ment is to reach and punish acts, that un- 
 der ordinary legislation cannot be reached. 
 It is easy however, to obviate all possible 
 inconveniences by granting to the legisla- 
 ture the power to try by such process as 
 they may deem fit, other officers than those 
 to be named in this law. We have a law 
 now, that when a justice of the peace or a 
 parish judge shall extort large fees in his 
 office, he may be impeached, and tried by 
 the district judges. But it has been known 
 that in many instances, the district judges 
 have felt unwilling to remove from office 
 judges and justices who have been guilty 
 of high misdemeanors. And again, there 
 are a multitude of inferior officers, who 
 often commit malfeasances, and for these 
 proper provisions, should be made by the 
 legislature, that such acts be brought be- 
 fore competent tribunals, who would pun- 
 ish such acts. He had no objection to the 
 unrestricted power being vested, therefore, 
 in the house of representatives, and after- 
 wards introducing general provisions. 
 
 The President said that if the section 
 was taken up in division, he thought it 
 would save much time and trouble. 
 
 Mr. Sotjle moved to lay Mr. Mayo's 
 amendment on the table. Carried without 
 dissent. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies moved to add after the 
 last word in the first section, the words 
 " subject to the modifications hereinafter 
 to be made." 
 
 Mr. Beatty considered the addition as 
 being useless, as the powers and modifica- 
 tions of the bill could be clearly defined in 
 the subsequent sections. 
 
 Mr. Brent was in favor of a proviso by 
 which the trial of inferior officers would be 
 held before the district court. 
 
 Mr. Beatty was as much in favor of the 
 qualifying clause as Mr. Brent ; but it will 
 come better within the province of the le- 
 gislature to make such a provision, than in 
 that of the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said that as far as practicable 
 every section of the article would be con- 
 strued with reference to each other. He 
 understood impeachment to be a charge or 
 
 accusation brought against an individual, 
 and, therefore, the power of impeachment is 
 the power to accuse, and, consequently, is 
 wholly distinct from trial or judgment.-— 
 The object of impeachment is to reach 
 crimes that cannot well be come at under 
 ordinary legislation. Leave, therefore, the 
 broad power of impeachment in the house 
 of representatives alone, and then come to 
 definitions. He considered the addition 
 offered by Mr. Voorhies as wholly unne- 
 cessary. He did not believe that the pow- 
 er of impeachment, which is the accusa- 
 tion of a public functionary, could be sub- 
 jected properly to strict modification ; the 
 principle must be a general one in the con- 
 stitution. It is so in the constitution of 
 other states in the Union; it is contained 
 in that of the general constitution of the 
 United States, and it may be found in the 
 house of commons of England. He was 
 opposed to the introduction of any modifi- 
 cation of the section, because none could 
 be made with direct reference to any re- 
 sult. Mr. Voorhies' amendment was then 
 put and lost. The adoption of the section 
 was then called for, and being put, was car- 
 ried unanimously. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin offered, in the absence of 
 his colleague (Mr. Conrad, of New Or- 
 leans) the following, as a su bstitute for the 
 second section of the article reported by the 
 committee: 
 
 " Impeachments of the governor, lieu- 
 tenant governor and secretary of state shall 
 be tried by the senate and the chief justice 
 of the supreme court, who, in such cases, 
 shall preside." 
 
 • Mr. Beatty moved to insert " attorney 
 general," after lieutenant governor, in-the 
 substitute; and his amendment was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to insert " state 
 treasurer," after 44 secretary of state," in 
 the same section; to which there was no 
 objection offered. 
 
 Mr. Cenas moved the insertion of the 
 words " or senior associate judge of said 
 court, after " chief justice," &c, as the 
 latter officer might be, under certain cir- 
 cumstances, rendered ineligible to preside. 
 This amendment was also adopted. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to insert after the 
 words " state treasurer," in the section, 
 " and district judge." • 
 
 Mr. Brent was of opinion that after des- 
 cending from the judges of the supreme 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 court, all other officers should be. tried by 
 the same process as ordinary criminals. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin was opposed to the 
 amendment. He thought that the inde- 
 pendence of the district judges could be as 
 well maintained by trial before the supreme 
 court, as before the senate. Impeachment 
 cannot be made against them but by the 
 grand inquest; and those charges which are 
 likely to be preferred can be better judged 
 and appreciated by men well versed in ju- 
 dicial proceedings, such as the judges of 
 the supreme court, than they possibly 
 could by the senate, a majority of whom 
 in all probability are but little learned in 
 those matters. Besides this, an expense 
 of two or three hundred dollars a day pend- 
 ing a trial before the senate, is entailed up- 
 on the state; whereas, the supreme court 
 judges being salaried officers, a trial before 
 that body will be comparatively trifling as 
 to the expense. With these views, he 
 was satisfied that the supreme court was a 
 proper tribunal for the trial of district 
 judges. 
 
 Mr. Downs could not agree with the 
 views of the last speaker for the reasons 
 laid down. He did not feel satisfied that 
 important trials arising from impeachment 
 might be committed to the judges of the 
 supreme court. It was well remarked by 
 an eminent and talented man (Judge Sto- 
 ry) that the trial by impeachment by the 
 senate, which at first appeared to be an 
 anomaly, was found a great safeguard in 
 political affairs. It was found of great val- 
 ue in other countries—in the house of lords 
 of Great Britain, in the United States sen- 
 ate ; impeachment involved, generally 
 speajdng, political offences; and it is well 
 understood that the members of a senate 
 are better practically acquainted with poli- 
 tics than could be the bench of the supreme 
 court. Thus, charges arising from politi- 
 cal excitement against any individual are 
 seldom brought by that party to which he 
 belongs; and if we constitute a high judi- 
 cial court a tribunal for the hearing of po- 
 litical cabals, we shall convert it into an 
 arena of politics; no matter what the results 
 may be, one party will applaud, another 
 will be sure to condemn. The supreme 
 court should be thought far beyond the 
 reach of all politicaj. feelings. He was 
 aware that improvements were necessary, 
 
 but for all other officers, a general clause, 
 he thought, might be introduced. 
 
 Mr. Lewis argued in favor of the inde- 
 pendence of the district judges being fully 
 maintained. They had trials of great con- 
 sideration and importance brought before 
 them, and generally were appealed to as a 
 final resort; therefore it was necessary that 
 they should be placed beyond the reach of 
 frivolous and harrassing pursuits, and be 
 rendered just as independent in the dis- 
 charge of their official duties as the judges 
 of the supreme court. He hoped the Con- 
 vention would continue to maintain the 
 same principles which had governed the 
 citizens of Louisiana since she had been 
 erected into a State. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to add "judges of the 
 commercial and criminal court of New Or- 
 leans, and judges next in jurisdiction to the 
 supreme court," 
 
 After some modification, Mr. Downs' 
 amendment was inserted in the section- 
 after which it was adopted, as follows: 
 
 Sec. 2. Impeachment of the governor, 
 lieutenant governor, attorney general, sec- 
 retary of State, State treasurer, judges of 
 the criminal court, and judges of courts 
 next in jurisdiction to the supreme court, 
 shall be tried by the senate and the chief 
 justice of the supreme court, who in such 
 cases shall preside, or in his absence, the 
 senior asso'ciate judge of said court. 
 
 Impeachment of the judges of the su- 
 preme court shall be tried by the senate. 
 
 Mr. Be att y moved to add another 
 clause: "Provided, that the legislature' shall 
 enact a law for the trial and removal from 
 office, of justices of the peace, and all other 
 officers of the State, by indictment or other - 
 wise." 
 
 Mr. Downs wished to add an amend- 
 ment to include the "punishment," as well, 
 as removal of offenders. 
 
 Mr. Beatty having accepted the amend- 
 ment offered by Mr. Downs: 
 
 Mr* Taylor of Assumption, said he was 
 more in favor of the original suggestion. 
 The object under consideration was solely 
 the removal from office of bad officers; the 
 legislature could apply other punishment at 
 any time, when the offence required it. A 
 high judicial functionary when impeached 
 was liable to be removed from office; but 
 if his acts were criminal, he would be sub 
 ject to the ordinary tribunals of the conn 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 try afterwards. He thought this would be 
 making a distinction highly necessary be- 
 tween inferior and higher officers. 
 
 Mr. Sellers inquired if this impeach- 
 ment were to extend to military as well as 
 civil officers? 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, moved to 
 strike out "punishment.'' and add to the 
 clause the words -"for misdemeanor in 
 office. 5 " * 
 
 Mr. Cozs-rad thought that "punishment" 
 was unnecessary; the removal from office 
 was all that was now required. Crimes 
 were punishable by law, and there is no 
 law to prevent a judge from being punish- 
 ed, no more than any other individual. 
 
 Mr. Downs contended that the amend- 
 ment offered by him was an important one. 
 He could well imagine cases where remo- 
 val from office would be very inadequate 
 to the offence that might be complained of. 
 Cases where great oppression might be 
 exercised by sheriffs or others; and the 
 main reason why he would support the in- 
 troduction, was that it would more fully se- 
 cure the accountability of all officers. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, said that 
 the class of officers alluded to were now 
 punishable by law. Justices of the peace 
 were punished if they exacted high or ex- 
 orbitant fees, and there were a variety of 
 other acts that were already provided 
 against in the statutes. In this case he 
 did not see how they (the Convention) 
 could go beyond the* "removal from office.' 5 
 
 Mr. Eustis was in favor of including 
 the power of punishment, because the ! 
 criminal powers of the State extends only 
 to a class of offences which are defined, ; 
 where the laws of impeachment is intended 
 for a class of offenders which cannot be de- 
 fined; and he would, therefore, instead of 
 bringing an offender before one tribunal | 
 tpr removal from office, and sending him j 
 before another for the crime, vest the whole 
 power in the one, and include both punish- 
 ment and removal. 
 
 Mr. Coxrad thought the amendment gflj 
 Mr. Downs not only useless but dangerous, i 
 If, as was observed, the law of impeach- j 
 ment is confined to offences which are not 
 susceptible of strict definition, it is proper 
 that judgment shall not extend beyond re- j 
 moval from office. If a man is to* be pun- 
 ished, who commits a crime, is it not well I 
 known that no one ran be tried and pun- { 
 
 ished for an offence not defined by law be- 
 forehand? It would be a subversion of the 
 principles of free government, to punish a 
 man for an offence not laid down in the 
 law. The legislature are prohibited by 
 the constitution from enacting an ex post 
 facto law. The constitution of the United 
 States contains the same principle. He 
 hoped that the law of impeachment would 
 not be permitted to extend beyond the re- 
 moval from office. 
 
 After some observations of Mr. Beatty, 
 in the affirmative, the question to strike 
 out "punishment* 5 was put. and lost; and 
 the clause was adopted as follows: 
 
 '■The legislature shall provide by law, 
 for the trial, punishment and removal of all 
 other officers of the State, by indictment or 
 otherwise." 
 
 Mr. Cexas moved the following as a 
 substitute to the report of the committee, 
 which was adopted as follows: • 
 
 Sec. 3. All officers against whom ac- 
 cusations of impeachment shall be prefer- 
 red, shall be suspended from their office 
 during the pendency of their trial. 
 
 To which was added, on motion of Mr. 
 Benjamin: 
 
 Provided, That the appointing powers 
 may make a provisional appointment to nil 
 such vacancies until the decision shall be 
 made on such impeachment. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, the first clause 
 of section four of the committee report, 
 "the governor and all the civil officers 
 shall be liable to impeachment for any mis- 
 demeanors in office," was stricken out, and 
 the remainder of the section was adopted: 
 
 Sec. 4. Judgment in cases of impeach- 
 ment shall not extend further than to re- 
 moval from office, and disqualification to 
 hold any office of honor or trust under this 
 State; but the parties convicted shall nev- 
 ertheless be liable and subject to indict- 
 ment, trial, and punishment according to 
 law. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Section ten of the majority report on the 
 senatorial representation. 
 
 The State shall be divided into eight 
 senatorial districts, each of which shall 
 elect four senators, to be voted for by per- 
 sons entitled to vote for representatives. 
 &c. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to take up the report 
 
490 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 of the minority as a substitute for that of 
 the majority. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved the following reso- 
 lution: That the State be divided into 
 districts, each to return two senators. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to strike out "eight" 
 in the section. 
 
 Mr. Conrad proposed an adjournment 
 in consequence of the absence of some dele- 
 gates on professional engagements. The 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Beatty renewed his motion and 
 proposed sixteen districts. He proposed 
 this number in consequence of the present 
 practice, well known, that exists, of sena- 
 tors controlling the appointments by the 
 executive made in their districts. Many 
 other abuses, now prevailing, would be 
 removed by this arrangement. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor said that although 
 the subject had been a good deal discussed 
 before, yet a part of what had been said on 
 that occasion might have been forgotten. 
 As he was one of the majority committee 
 who reported the proposed number, (eight) 
 he would wish to make a few remarks in 
 support of it. He considered that correct 
 principles and sound policy require that 
 the State should be divided into large dis- 
 tricts, and by an attentive examination of 
 other constitutions this view will be clearly 
 sustained. The great object of legislation 
 is to secure wise action on the part of the 
 members comprising the legislative body, 
 and in view of that opinion it has been or- 
 dained that there shall be two distinct 
 bodies. The senatorial branch is designed 
 to act as a check upon the lower house, 
 and in order to secure great and wise de- 
 liberation; to prevent the passage of laws 
 which may have been adopted in the house 
 owing to the peculiar construction of it, arid 
 when only a minority of the people were 
 in favor of them; because it often happens 
 that a majority of the members have been 
 elected by a minority of the people, owing 
 • to the division of the electoral districts, then 
 therefore this check becomes eminently 
 necessary. This may not be. secured by 
 electing senators from parishes, for then 
 the same constituencies will be electing 
 both senators and representatives in the 
 lower house. The most obvious remedy 
 is, therefore, to throw several parishes into 
 one senatorial district. At least let each 
 of the senatorial be comprised of two elec- 
 
 toral districts. By this means will be se- 
 cured the more equal representation of the 
 people, as parishes of different political 
 cSmplexion will be merged in one body 
 when electing their senators. This was 
 no novelty; large senatorial districts have 
 been adopted in New York, in Michigan, 
 and elsewhere; if lessons are to be had 
 from experience, he would only point to 
 the New England States. In seventeen 
 States the senate is returned by a different 
 constituency to that by which the house of 
 representatives is elected, and that was the 
 principle which he wished to see preserved 
 here. When the subject came up regular- 
 ly before the house, he would, however, 
 be prepared more fully to investigate the 
 matter. At present he trusted that the mo- 
 tion would not prevail. ' 
 
 The motion to adjourn was then renewed 
 and carried, till to-morrow at 10 o'clock. 
 
 Tuesday, March 25, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met, and its proceed- 
 ings were opened with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Boudousquie asked and obtained 
 leave of absence for Mr. Chinn, confined 
 to his room by illness. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 The Convention resumed the considera- 
 tion of the project reported by the majority 
 of the committee on the legislative depart- 
 ment, providing for the apportionment of 
 the senate, together with the project of the 
 minority of the same committee, offered by 
 Mr. Downs as a substitute for the .report 
 of the majority of the committee. 
 
 Mr. Guion had presented the following 
 as a substitute for both reports : 
 
 The Senate shall consist of thirty-two 
 members, to be elected for four years, by 
 persons qualified to vote for representa- 
 tives, and the apportionment of Senators 
 shall be as follows, to wit : 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines, St. Ber- 
 nard and Jefferson, together with that por- 
 tion of the parish of Orleans oh the right 
 bank of the river Mississippi, shall con- 
 stitute the first district, with three senators. 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the left side of the river, shaJ] 
 constitute the second district, with foift 
 senators. 
 
 The parishes of St. Charles and St. John 
 the Baptist, shall constitute the third dis- 
 trict with one senator. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana: 
 
 491 
 
 The parishes of St. James and Ascen- 
 sion shall constitute the fourth district with 
 two senators. 
 
 The parishes of Assumption, Lafourche 
 Interior and Terrebonne, shall constitute 
 the fifth district, with two senators. 
 
 The parishes of Iberville, West Baton 
 Rouge and Pointe Coupee, shall con- 
 stitute the sixth district, with two senators. 
 
 The parishes of West Feliciana and 
 East Feliciana, shall constitute the seventh 
 district, with two senators. 
 
 The parish of East Baton Rouge, shall 
 constitute the eighth district, with one sen- 
 ator.- 
 
 The parishes of Washington, St. Tam- 
 many, St. Helena and Livingston, shall 
 constitute the ninth district, with two sen- 
 ators. 
 
 The parishes of Concordia and Tensas 
 shall constitute the tenth district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of Madison and Carroll, 
 ^:hall constitute the eleventh district, with 
 one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Avoyelles and Rapides, 
 .-hall constitute the twelfth district, with 
 two senators. 
 
 The parishes of Catahoula, Caldwell 
 and Franklin, shall constitute the thirteenth 
 district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Ouachita, Union, More- 
 house and Jackson, shall constitute the 
 fourteenth district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Natchitoches, Caddo, 
 Sabine, De Soto and Claiborne, shall con- 
 stitute the fifteenth district, with three sen- 
 ators. 
 
 The parishes of St. Landry and Calca- 
 sieu shall constitute the. sixteenth district, 
 with two senators. 
 
 The parishes of St. Martin, St. Mary. 
 Lafayette and Vermillion, shall constitute 
 the seventeenth district, with two senators. 
 
 The question in order was the motion 
 to strike out "eight" as the number of 
 districts, (which motion had been made 
 the preceding day,) from the report of the 
 majority of the coinmittee. 
 
 Mr. Gvios said, that having submitted 
 his proposition as a substitute for the re- 
 purts both of the majority and minority of 
 the committee on the legislative depart- 
 ment, it became him, in a few words, to 
 explain his views in relation to the several 
 propositions. He was opposed lo the pro- 
 
 ject of the gentleman from Assumption, 
 (Mr. Taylor) because the districts were 
 too large. It approximated too much to 
 the general ticket system, which formerly- 
 prevailed in several of the States for the 
 election of members to Congress, and which 
 had been repudiated by almost every State 
 in the Union. He had still another ob- 
 jection to it. It commingled different popu- 
 lations, different interests, and different 
 feelings ; which were irreconcileable. The 
 proposition of the minority of the commit- 
 tee, presented by Mr. Downs, was objec- 
 tionable because the districts were too 
 small. He could concur in neither of 
 these propositions, and hence he had em- 
 bodied his views -in a separate proposition. 
 In making it out, he had kept in view three 
 elements, which he* deemed indispensable 
 to the formation of the senate . They were 
 I population, territory, wealth or taxation. 
 He had endeavored to bring his project as 
 near these principles as possible. There 
 might be, and were probably, errors in it; 
 they were open to amendment. But as 
 far as his vote went, he could not consent 
 to any other legislation than one that com- 
 bined territory, population and wealth, 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor had a few words to 
 say in reply to the gentleman from La- 
 fourche (Mr. Guion) in respect to what that 
 delegate calls the general ticket system. 
 He dislikes it, he says, because it approxi- 
 mates to the general ticket system which 
 congress has repudiated. I admit that 
 congress have legislated so as to prevent 
 the election of its members by the general 
 ticket system. But the objection did not 
 grow out of any vice inherent in the gene- 
 ral ticket system. The measure was 
 adopted to protect the small States from the 
 combined action of the larger States. The 
 representation of the several States being 
 unequal — some of them were so large as to 
 be entitled to forty representatives, and 
 others were so small as to be entitled to 
 only one. A number of the States elected 
 their representation in congress by general 
 ticket — for example : Georgia, Alabama, 
 and New Jersey. These were States of 
 a medium size, and were undivided in their 
 representation on the one side or the other 
 of any political question. This gave them 
 a preponderating influence over States 
 where the district system prevailed, and the 
 larger States in order to maintain their 
 
492 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 weight wojild have been induced to adopt 
 the same system; the result of which would 
 have been that a majority of but a single 
 vote would have returned the forty repre- 
 sentatives to which the State of New York 
 was entitled. The same would have been 
 the result in Pennsylvania, and the other 
 larger States, and they would have control- 
 led the legislation of the country in favor of 
 the one or the other of the political party 
 which may have obtained the local majori- 
 ty. Congress were not vested Avith the 
 power of placing the States upon a perfect 
 equality, by reducing the larger States to a 
 size bearing a tolerable proportion with the 
 smaller States. The only power possessed 
 by congress was to divide or district the 
 States so as to preclude a concentration of 
 their power. The circumstances here are 
 essentially different. We can effect the 
 same object by more direct means by 
 equalizing the senatorial districts, which 
 congress had not the power -to do in refer- 
 ence to the States in their representation 
 to that body. 
 
 There can be no doubt that large dis- 
 tricts are more favorafjle to ascertaining 
 'the will of the majority. By the district 
 system as applied to congress, it may hap-r 
 pen and has happened, that a minority in 
 the State, by a peculiar distribution of the 
 district, have elected a majority of the re- 
 presentatives. It will be seen that there 
 is nothing in common with the reasons 
 that induced congress to direct elections to 
 be held by districts, and the motives which 
 should govern us in apportioning the repre- 
 sentation to the senate. Moreover, con- 
 gress legislated in reference to a different 
 body than the one which now claims our 
 attention. By throwing the State into large 
 districts, we approximate nearer to the 
 will of the majority. The conflicting ma- 
 jorities in the several paiishes neutralize 
 each other, and the result is determined 
 by the aggregate vote of the several par- 
 ishes. But, Mr. President, the delegate 
 from Lafourche (Mr. Guion) has assumed 
 another ground of objection. He says that 
 the report of the majority, throws together 
 people of different interests and of different 
 feelings. If that gentleman will take the 
 pains to examine the report, he will find 
 that he is in error. With the exception of 
 but one single district, the districts are 
 formed of parishes having a great simi- 
 
 larity of interests, and in the district in 
 which perhaps there is some apparent dis- 
 similarity, it is quite possible that the in. 
 terests of the component parts will become 
 identical. 
 
 The first district embraces the city of 
 New Orleans. I imagine there is a perfect 
 identity of interests in that district. 
 
 The second district is composed of 
 sugar parishes. 
 
 The third district is composed of sugar 
 parishes. 
 
 The fourth district is composed of sugar 
 parishes, but cotton may be cultivated. 
 
 The fifth district is composed of cotton 
 parishes. 
 
 The sixth district is composed of cotton 
 parishes. 
 
 The seventh district is composed of cot- 
 ton parishes. 
 
 There is but one distiict in which are 
 combined parishes of opposing interests — 
 that is parishes which cultivate different 
 staples. It embraces Iberville and Avoy- 5 
 elles — some sugar parishes and some cot- 
 ton parishes; but it is not certain that sugar 
 will not become the sole. staple in that dis- 
 trict. At any rate, this is the only district 
 liable to the gentleman's objections. I 
 doubt whether any plan could be suggested' 
 that could' throw together local interests 
 with greater uniformity than the one under 
 consideration. 
 
 - Mr. Downs said he hoped that the pro- 
 ject advocated by the gentleman who had 
 just resumed his seat, and who had announ- 
 ced himself as the author of the project, 
 would not prevail. If the gentleman's ar- 
 gument were good, why not extend it fur- 
 ther, and instead of dividing the State into 
 eight large senatorial "districts, say that 
 there should be but one single district, 
 comprising the whole State, and that the 
 members composing the senate shall be 
 elected by general ticket? If it be a good 
 rule, it should operate to its full extent. 
 Perhaps the gentleman thinks that like 
 taking arsenic for the chills and fever, it is 
 excellent in small quantities. It reminds 
 me, said Mr. Downs, of an anecdote 1 
 once heard, of a person who took a dose ot 
 medicine without knowing of what it was 
 composed; he took a small dose at first, and 
 he thought it done him so much good that 
 he w T ould take a double dose, in order to 
 perfect the cure; it came near killing him, 
 
Debates in the Convention oi Louisiana. 
 
 493 
 
 This, I presume, may be the case with 
 the gentleman's (Mr. Taylor's) proposition. 
 If it be so good, we had better take p. 
 double dose. j 
 I cannot see why local interests should 
 not be immediately represented. The 
 closer you can establish the connection 
 between the representative and the con- 
 stituency, the nearer you approach the 
 perfection of the system. If the proposi- 
 tion of the gentleman (Mr. Taylor) were 
 to prevail, it might happen that a man 
 would be sent to the senate from a district 
 where every voter in the parish of his resi- 
 dence might have voted against him, and 
 that for particular reasons which would 
 operate in the remote parishes. Mr. D. 
 instanced the formation of his own senato- 
 rial district, in the report of the majority, 
 in illustration, it was composedd of remote 
 parishes: it might be in the power of the 
 parishes on the Ouachita to elect the sena- 
 tor, or might be in the power of the parish- 
 es adjacent to the Mississippi. In either 
 case it would be unnecessary for th -can- 
 didate to consult any but the predominating 
 influence. Either you must place the re- 
 presentative in immediate contact with the 
 represented, or it will be tantamount with 
 those not in immediate contact, and who 
 do not possess a direct influence, to have 
 no representative at all. Take for exam- 
 ple the parishes of Avoyelles and East 
 Baton Rouge. If East Baton Rouge have 
 the preponderating influence, is it to be 
 presumed that she will elect a man resi- 
 ding in Avoyelles, however good a man he 
 may be to represent her interests? Or can 
 it be presumed that such a person can re- 
 present her interests as effectually as one 
 of her own local citizens, who is familiar 
 with all her wants? For all practical pur- 
 poses, the remote parish having the minori- 
 ty of voters, might as well .not vote at all. 
 According to the distribution of districts as 
 proposed by the delegate from Assumption, 
 (Mr. Taylor) it would be necessary enly 
 for a candidate to consult and obtain the 
 favor of the voters residing in the parish 
 that combined the majority of the votes; as 
 for the smaller parishes,' he might treat 
 them with the utmost ^difference. For 
 myself, were I to offer in such a district, 
 every voter in the parish of Ouachita 
 might vote against me, and still 1 might be 
 elected, f might tell the people of OuarVi- 
 63 
 
 ta to go to the devil, for there were enough 
 votes in Catahoula to elect me. Such a 
 ^ystem would be intolerable, and although 
 I there were good things in the constitution, 
 it might so exasperate the people that they 
 might reject it upon that ground alone. I 
 hope it will be struck out. I am glad to 
 be undeceived as to the paternity of this 
 project. I had supposed that it emanated 
 from the gentleman from St. James, (Mr. 
 Winchester) and i must confess that I was 
 much perplexed, how one whose views 
 were like my own. more practical than 
 thoeretical, could have devised such a plan. 
 It does not belong to that gentleman, but 
 comes from one who is remarkable for his 
 novel theories. But come from where it 
 may, I am opposed to it, and I trust it will 
 bo thrown aside. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor said he was unwil- 
 ling to trespass upon the attention of the 
 Convention; but inasmuch as this obnox- 
 ious project has been referred to me for its 
 paternity, I shall say what occurs to my 
 mind in support of it. "What the gentle- 
 man from Ouachita (Mr.Downs)says- about 
 its being rejected, may very well happen; 
 but its rejection will not, I opine, determine 
 it to be a bad system. It will not show it 
 to be impolitic — it will not determine that 
 its adoption would not have been advanta- 
 geous to the State, and subserve the inter- 
 ests of the people. fThat delegate savs I 
 am a theorist. True, it may be, that I en- 
 tertain some views peculiar to myself. — 
 But that is no reason why a proposition I 
 may offer should be rejected, when it is in 
 consonance with the truth, and sanctioned 
 by experience. Surely, it should not be 
 rejected because the gentleman fromOuach- 
 ita (Mr- Downs) may imagine that I am a 
 theorist! What are we aiming at by our 
 actions here to promote the public good? 
 If we parcel the State into petty districts, 
 we place these districts in possession of 
 certain cliques — we make them the arena 
 for iutrigue. Such a proceeding, would, I 
 think, be most unfortunate. Small bodies 
 are accessible to improper influences. — ■ 
 I They will not do. I am one of those that 
 ' always have believed in public virtue, and 
 | that the people act for the public good. If 
 | you make the district so small, you will en- 
 ! able men of but small abilities to make per- 
 : sonal solicitation to the voters, and to place 
 their hope of success upon the art of touch- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 ing the feelings, in touching the prejudi- 
 ces, and in combining the petty partiali- 
 ties. If the district be large, the aspirant 
 will rely upon the weight of his character 
 
 it will preclude personal solicitations — 
 
 he will rely upon his merits; upon his abi- 
 lities. This is the policy I would sup- 
 port. But the projet of the delegate from 
 Ouachita(Mr. Downs) affords ample space 
 for the exercise of petty arts, and will en- 
 able improper persons to exercise a con- 
 trolling sway upon our legislation, In large 
 districts the popular favor will only be at- 
 tained by those who have become conspic- 
 uous by their merit — who have won the 
 public confidence. In small districts it is 
 true the candidate may be personally 
 known; but his capacities to serve the peo- 
 ple may not be known. We meet, in the 
 ordinary course of life, with persons with 
 whom we may become intimate to some 
 extent, and yet not know their capacities. 
 That would be the kind of knowledge which 
 would prevail in small districts. In large 
 districts the people would not be unac- 
 quainted with those offering to serve them. 
 It is true, they may not have met at each, 
 other's houses — they might not have met 
 at taverns, at drinking establishments. But 
 before being presented as candidates they 
 would have made themselves known — - 
 they would have made their names famil- 
 iar,and if they were suitable, they would be 
 chosen. The people in the district would be 
 acquainted with them, as the people of the 
 whole State are acquainted with the can- 
 didates for governor, or in the particular 
 congressional district 'with the particular 
 candidate for congress. That is the only 
 information that would be useful or im- 
 portant to enable the people to select pro- 
 per agents. It is not to gratify personal 
 feeling — not to exalt a man simply for the 
 purpose of exalting him; but it is to secure 
 such representatives as are competent to 
 render effective service to the State, and to 
 contribute to her prosperity by a wise po- 
 licy. 
 
 The delegate from Ouachita has assum- 
 ed one or two cases to exhibit the mon- 
 strous character of this projet. He suppo- 
 sed that in his district under thjs projet he 
 might be voted for and sent to the senate 
 by the majority in the district; and yet, 
 knowing that he was independent of the 
 wishes of thefpeople of the parish of Ouach- 
 
 ita, he might disregard their wishes. I 
 consider that he would not be the represen- 
 tative of the peculiar people of Ouachita; 
 bjiut that he would represent the people of 
 the whole district. If in the discharge of 
 his duties some peculiar local interest in 
 that parish should conflict with the gener- 
 al interest, and he should prefer the gene- 
 ral interest to the local interest, he would 
 do right — he would be acting conscien- 
 tiously. But if he did so merely because 
 he was opposed to the people of Ouachita, 
 he would find that he could* not violate his 
 public duties with impunity — -that the ma- 
 jority in the other parishes would be rea- 
 dy to unite with the people of Ouachita in 
 disapproving of his course, and that he 
 would be left out. Whether the district 
 be large or small, the majority must still 
 govern, and the result would be the same 
 as regards an unfaithful public officer. 
 
 The delegate from Ouachita(Mr. Downs) 
 told the Convention a story illustrating the 
 evil character of this projet. He said, be- 
 fore introducing it, that if the principle 
 were good, we should elect all the mem- 
 bers of the senate by general ticket. No 
 doubt he assumed this position so as to il- 
 lustrate it by' his anecdote. It certainly 
 told against himself — a district of one- 
 eighth of the State would not surely be ob- 
 noxious to the objections which exist 
 against a district comprising the whole 
 State. Like his dose of the fever and ague, 
 if carried to an extreme, it would kill the 
 patient. To a reasonable extent it would 
 operate beneficially; but if it were doubled, 
 -trebled or quadrupled, it would prove dele- 
 terious — his anecdote can have no other 
 application than that 
 
 1 cannot agree with the gentleman (Mr, 
 Downs) that the larger parishes would mo- 
 nopolise the selection of the member of 
 the senate, T£ie mass of the voters would 
 be less solicitous about the residence of the 
 candidate than in reference to his peculiar 
 fitness for the station. In the senatorial 
 district of Lafourche, as heretofore consti- 
 tuted, there are three large, populous par- 
 ishes; and yet the senator has been inva- 
 riably selected from the smallest parish — 
 the selection has been made on the ground 
 that the person so selected was best known 
 and most popular. It has been wise as 
 judicious, and has therefore been concurred 
 in, I conceive that it would* not be be- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 495 
 
 cause a man resided m Ouachita or Cata- 
 houla that he would be elected from the 
 district embracing those parishes; but be- 
 cause he vvas best known, or better quali- 
 fied to act for the public good. 
 
 Mr. PosTER^aid that he would vote in 
 favor of the motion to strike out the. sev- 
 enth district, which embraced a distance 
 from the Arkansas* line to the Gulf of Mex- 
 ico. It comprised remote territory, be- 
 tween which there was no similarity or 
 identity of interest. For example, from 
 the northern part of Caddo, or Claiborne, 
 to the south-east part of Calcasieu, there 
 were about three hundred miles. 
 
 What identity of interest could be sup- 
 posed to exist between that parish and the 
 parishes on Red River. This is the first 
 time that I have ever heard the principle 
 innunciated, that there should be no iden- 
 tity of interest between the representative 
 and the represented. It is urged covertly, 
 for those who would carry it out, do not 
 dare to avow it distinctly. I consider it a 
 novelty. The gentleman from New Or- 
 leans (Mr. Conrad) said that the gentleman 
 from Ouachita (Mr. Downs) charged him 
 with a novelty in changing the districts, 
 from seventeen to eight: he said the gen- 
 tleman (Mr. Downs) w r as making a great 
 change from the principle of the old con- 
 stitution, in proposing to make thirty or 
 thirty-two districts; and that eight is near- 
 er to seventeen than thirty or thirty-two. 
 By the old constitution, one member is al- 
 lowed to each senatorial district ; the in- 
 crease in population has been immense, 
 but instead of increasing the number of 
 senatorial districts to keep up with that in- 
 crease, and with the settlement of more 
 extended territory, we are asked to re- 
 duce the districts to one-half. The popu- 
 lation of the whole State in 1312, was less 
 than one-half of the city of Xew Orleans, 
 at the present time. If this proposition be 
 seriously entertained, it must be on some 
 very novel principle. One gentleman (Mr. 
 Taylor) says that we ought to take expe- 
 rience as our guide. I am glad to hear that 
 gentleman refer to precedent, because I 
 think that his position is not sustained by 
 such a reference. I will take occasion to 
 examine, as briefly as possible, the consti- 
 tutions of the several States. There are 
 but three that hold the doctrine advocated 
 by the gentleman: to begin with Maine— 
 
 In Maine, one senator is apportioned to 
 each district. In Massachusetts, the num- 
 ber of counties are added together, where 
 there are not numbers sufficient to give 
 one representative in the senate. In New 
 Hampshire, one senator from each district. 
 Vermont *is not divided ; twelve members 
 elected from the State at large. Rhode 
 island, one senator from each town or city 
 in the State. Connecticut, no district ;• 
 twelve members. New York four senators 
 from each district. This is the only State 
 where we meet with large districts. In 
 relation to Massachusetts, there is only one 
 exception, and that is the district of Nan- 
 tucket, composed of Nantucket and an ad- 
 | joining county; every other county is adis- 
 | trict in reference to Massachusetts. The 
 ! gentleman has signally failed. 
 
 But to resume the examination of the 
 
 ■ constitutions of other States. New T Jer- 
 I sey, each county shall elect one senator. 
 I Pennsylvania shall not be laid off to elect 
 : more than two senators, except in refer- 
 
 i ence with the city of Philadelphia. Deia- 
 j ware, three senators from each comity — 
 
 ■ the senators may be increased, but not the 
 ! districts — each county is a district and can- 
 
 not be divided. Maryland, (old constitu- 
 | tion) two senators from each county. (New 
 ! constitution) one from each county,and one 
 | from the city of Baltimore. Virginia is 
 j divided into thirty-two senatorial districts, 
 one member from each. North Carolina, 
 I one senator from each county in the State, 
 j South Carolina, one senator from eachdis- 
 | trict, except Charleston. Georgia, one 
 • member from each county. Kentucky, the 
 : same number of senatorial districts shall 
 i be established as there are senators in the 
 State. Tennessee, each district shall have 
 one senator. Indiana, each county forms 
 one senatorial district: the largest district 
 is entitled to four members. Louisiana, 
 each district shall have one senator. Mis- 
 sissippi, the senatorial districts shall re- 
 main as fixed by law. Illinois, one sena- 
 tor to each district. Alabama, each dis= 
 trict is limited to one senator and no more. 
 Michigan elects by large districts. Ar- 
 kansas, each county is a senatorial district, 
 according to number. 
 
 Where now stands the gentleman's rule. 
 Here, said Mi> Porter, I hold in my hands 
 the collected wisdom of the several States 
 of the Union in reference to their local 
 
496 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 government, and only in three States does 
 the gentleman's doctrine receive the slight- 
 est countenance; in all States the very- 
 contrary system prevails. 
 
 I did not expect to say any thing upon 
 the subjectj and would not have troubled 
 the Convention if the attempt had not been 
 made to create large districts, and which 
 attempt has been urged with great vehe- 
 mence. If you combine, for example, the 
 Ouachita parishes and those upon the Mis- 
 sissippi, you attempt to embody distinct 
 and somewhat -different local interests. 
 Either the parishes in the one section or 
 in the other will have the ascendancy, and 
 will pay no attention to the views of that 
 portion of the district which embraces the 
 minority. There is one clear and evident 
 principle, the representatives and the con- 
 stituency must be identified; if you destroy 
 .the identity you destroy, at the same time, 
 the responsibility. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor rose to correct a 
 misapprehension that appeared to exist in 
 the mind of the gentleman from Caddo(Mr. 
 Porter) in relation to what he (Mr. Taylor) 
 had said yesterday. He was not wedded 
 to the allotment of particular parishes to 
 particular districts. He was in favor of the 
 principle that the constitution of the senate 
 should be different from the constitution of 
 the house of representatives. It was in- 
 tended that they should operate on each 
 other as ^ check, and therefore it was es- 
 sential that they should vary in their for- 
 mation. The senatorial districts and the 
 representative districts should not be iden- 
 tical, and to prove that his position was 
 sustained by precedent, he had referred to 
 the constitutions of several of the other 
 States, and particularly to the New Eng- 
 land States, as showing that the composi- 
 tion of the upper and lower houses of their 
 legislatures were materially different. The 
 quotations of the gentleman from Caddo 
 sustains that view of the case. 
 
 Mr. Porter read from the report of the 
 minority of the committee, to show that ac- 
 cording to that report the formation of the 
 senate was entirely different from the for- 
 mation of the house. It is, said Mr. Por- 
 ter, precisely what the gentleman wants. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad said he would move 
 to strike out "eight" from the.report of the 
 majority ofHhe committee. He considered 
 the division of the State into eight districts 
 
 to be too small. The proposition of the 
 gentleman from Ouachita (Mr. Downs) to 
 divide the State into thirty-two districts was 
 on the other hand, too great. He thought 
 in this matter, as in many others, the truth 
 lay between the two extremes. He could 
 not concur with the delegate from Oua- 
 chita, that a good principle should be car- 
 ried out to its utmost limit. It was'more 
 politic to limit such principles within the 
 range of experience. More mischief had, 
 in his opinion, grown out of the attempt to 
 carry good principles to an extremity, than 
 had arisen from bad principles. He ar- 
 gued that there should be an essential dif- 
 ference in the formation of the senate and 
 the formation of the house of representa- 
 tives. The senate was designed as a check 
 upon the house of representatives; the lat- 
 ter was the immediate echo of local inter-, 
 ests, but the senate should be the exponent 
 of the will of the aggregate people of the 
 whole State — -the guardian of the interests 
 of the State, It had nothing to do with 
 mere local matters. These were properly 
 within the functions of the immediate rep- 
 resentative in the house of representatives, 
 and it was his duty to promote these in- 
 terests in that body. The senate partici- 
 pated with the executive in making all the 
 appointments for the State. According to 
 the old constitution, they participated in the 
 selection of the members comprising the 
 third department of the government — the 
 judiciary, We have not yet consulted upon 
 the reorganization of the judiciary, but if 
 any thing like the present system is to be 
 maintained, it is obvious that the senate 
 will continue to have very important func- 
 tions to perform. 
 
 In support of his views, Mr. Conrad 
 said he had high authority. The gentle- 
 man from Ouachita (Mr. Downs) had spo- 
 ken in terms of great praise of the eminent 
 abilities which distinguished the services 
 of Mr. Wilson in the federal Convention, 
 That delegate, I must say, said Mr. Con- 
 rad, did no more than justice to that dis- 
 tinguished individual. 
 
 [Mr. Conrad here read extracts from the 
 remarks made by Mr. Wilson on the com- 
 position of the senate in the federal Con- 
 vention.] 
 
 As for the idea, said Mr. C, that the 
 large parishes in the district will domineer 
 over the smaller parishes, it is illusory. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 ..497 
 
 Nothing of the kind will happen. They 
 will not monopolize the senatorial delega- 
 tion to themselves. The fact that the city 
 
 i of New Orleans is divided into three muni- 
 cipalities, and entitled to ten members to 
 the house of representatives, have invaria- 
 bly, by common consent among themselves, 
 apportioned the representation to the local 
 subdivisions, and that with a great deal of 
 liberality and fairness, is a proof that the 
 disposition to monopolize does not exist. 
 An illustration of the fact that no such 
 sectional feeling exists, is found in the 
 
 ; composition of the delegation to this body 
 from the city. It so happens that one of 
 the largest divisions of the city — the second 
 municipality — has not a member that re- 
 sides within her limits, and yet there were 
 
 ; residents of that municipality who were 
 candidates. 
 
 If you divide the State into small dis- 
 tricts, you open the door for petty intrigues 
 1 and petty acts. You will, have small dis- 
 tricts and small men. Mr. C. declared 
 himself opposed to eight districts and to 
 thirty-two districts. He would sustain sevi 
 enteen districts. That was his favorite 
 number, because it was neither too" large 
 nor yet too small. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said he conceived it 
 would facilitate the settlement of the ques- 
 tion to take up the report of the majority 
 of the committee, as the basis for the ac- 
 tion of the Convention. It had made a 
 fair and equitable division of the political 
 power of the State into eight parts. That 
 point, the only one of great difficulty , was 
 in his opinion, settled by the report. The 
 remainder was only a matter of conven- 
 ience and of details. We have here set- 
 tled the principle. If any of these dis- 
 tricts desire to be sub-divided, it can be 
 done. He had made a synopsis of the va- 
 rious propositions, and he found that there 
 was not any very material difference in the 
 distribution of the political power. Ac- 
 cording to the project of the senator from 
 Lafourche, (Mr. Guion)and the project re- 
 ported by .the majority of the committee, 
 the city is to have four, senators, and lower 
 Louisiana as far as Terrebonne, eight. The 
 proposition of the delegate from Ouachita, 
 (Mr. Downs) gives to the city four mem- 
 bers — the only difference between his pro- 
 ject and the others, is in two points; in- 
 stead of giving eight delegates to lower 
 
 Louisiana, he gives seven, and takes the 
 remaining one and transfers it to the north- 
 west; the second difference is in this, that 
 in place of giving the sugar parishes of At- 
 takapas and Opelousas four senators, he 
 gives them three, and transfers the one 
 withdrawn to the parishes of Natchitoches 
 and Rapides. The question then presents 
 itself, shall lower Louisiana have seven 
 senators as proposed by the delegate, [Mr. 
 Downs] or shall she have eight, as in the 
 other reports? 
 
 The next question is, shall the Attaka- 
 pas and Opelousas parishes have four sen- 
 ators or three? As soon as these questions 
 shall be resolved, the whole difficulty is 
 at an end. .The reports all concwr as to 
 the principle; and with reference to the 
 size of the districts, the delegations for 
 them can decide whether they ought to be 
 divided. In reference to the district spo- 
 ken of by the delegate from Caddo, I am 
 ready to admit that his arguments have 
 convinced me that that district embraces 
 territory and interests that ought not to be 
 commingled together; and I am disposed 
 to vote in, favor of dividing it. And too, 
 with any other district, which it may be 
 proper to divide for similar reasons. By 
 pursuing the course I have suggested, we 
 can get through by the hour of adjourn- 
 ment, and shall have satisfactorily settled - 
 the apportionment of the senate. 
 
 Mr. Downs said, that the conformity 
 alluded to by the member (Mr. Benjamin) 
 was a proof that all the reports were pretty 
 near right. The report of the minority of 
 the committee had been spoken of in de- 
 bate as his peculiar project. That was a 
 mistake. It was the report of a large 
 number of the delegates upon the commit- 
 tee of the legislative department, al- 
 though a minority of that committee. (Mr. 
 Downs here rea.d the names of those 
 concurring with the report.) It approach- 
 ed much nearer justice, to his conception, 
 than any of the other reports. 
 
 Mr. Downs said, he was sorry to hear 
 appeals made to local divisions. That an 
 upper and lower Louisiana should be 
 brought in a conflicting point, although he 
 had felt, perhaps, there was an upper 
 Louisiana, and that the upper end suffered. 
 If this distinction is to be openly avowed, 
 it is as well that we should know it. 
 
 The only objection that the gentleman 
 
498 - 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 (Mr. Benjamin) can find to the report of 
 the minority is, that it does not give as 
 many representatives to lower Louisiana, 
 as that section is entitled to. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin: What I referred to is, 
 that one senator had been taken from lower 
 Louisiana, and another from the Attakapas 
 parishes, and had been transferred to the 
 cotton district. 
 
 Mr. Downs: It would seem that the pa- 
 rish of Plaquemines has suddenly become 
 a great favorite in a part of the house, 
 where she has hitherto been looked upon 
 with a great deal of suspicion. The dif- 
 ference of the project of the delegate from 
 Lafourche (Mr. Guion) is, that he takes 
 a senator from my district and transfers it 
 to that portion of the parish of Orleans, on 
 the right bank of the river. The parish of 
 Jefferson has never objected to the appor- 
 tionment of one senator. The parishes of 
 St. Bernard and Plaquemines have been 
 satisfied with the allotment of one senator. 
 But it seems with a view of strengthening 
 lower Louisiana, and ' weakening upper 
 Louisiana, a senator is taken from the lat- 
 ter and given to a little nook and corner on 
 the Mississippi, opposite New Orleans, 
 which contains so small a portion of vo- 
 ters that, as was observed by a gentleman 
 residing in the neighborhood, it was diffi- 
 cult to find out as many as were represent- 
 ed. And yet to provide for it, a large slice 
 is taken out of the district which I have the 
 honor of representing, and had supposed 
 this to have been an error in printing, but 
 upon referring to the manuscript, 1 find 
 that such is not the case. It has been said 
 that by the project of the minority, that a 
 senator has been taken from Attakapas. I 
 will mention a circumstance in relation to 
 this portion of this apportionment that is a 
 matter of history. I suggested it, on the 
 committee, that St. Martin should have 
 one senator, but it was urged that it was 
 better that St. Martin and St. Mary should 
 go together, and be allowed one senator. 
 In relation to Sabine and Calcasieu, they 
 were placed together without reference to 
 an upper or a lower interest in the State. I 
 have no objection that Calcasieu and St. 
 Landry should go together, and if that 
 modification is desired, I am willing to ac- 
 cede to it; in other respects there is not 
 any great variance in the reports. The 
 Lafourche district in the report of the mi- 
 
 nority corresponds with the apportion, 
 ment of that district in the projects of the 
 two gentlemen from Lafourche. The 
 greatest point of difference then, is that a 
 senator is taken from my district, and a 
 parish is lopped off the parish of Caldwell, 
 which has invariably been embodied in 
 that senatorial district, and that to give a 
 senator to a nook' and corner that is half 
 caved in, or which may all cave in before 
 the new constitution shall go into effect. I 
 cannot see any great injustice in the pro- 
 ject of the minority, but I see a great deal 
 of injustice in the project of the gentle- 
 man from Lafourche (Mr. Guion) that 
 takes away one senator from one section of 
 the country which is entitled to it, and 
 transfers it to another which can have no 
 such pretension. The gentleman from 
 Assumption, in the course of his argument, 
 and the gentleman from New Orleans, who 
 followed him, spoke of the influence of 
 cliques, and that if small districts were 
 made, they would be controlled by small 
 men. If the gentlemen intended to point 
 to me, they have shot wider of their mark 
 than they could possibly have supposed. 1 
 never expect to profit in any way with the 
 distribution, by the creation of a small dis- 
 trict; so far as my personal communica- 
 tions have went, they have always em- 
 braced one of the largest districts in the 
 State. I may say with one exception, the 
 largest, so far from having had a small 
 district to represent, the parishes embra- 
 ced in that district have been apportioned 
 by the several projects into four districts. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad : So far from intend- 
 ing to refer to the gentleman, had I had 
 any such intention, I would have cited him 
 as an illustration that large districts were 
 better qualified to make the selection of 
 the senator. 
 
 Mf. Miles Taylor disclaimed any al- 
 lusion to the delegate from Ouachita. 
 
 Mr. Downs : I accept cheerfully the dis- 
 claimer of the two gentlemen. Still that 
 does not dispense me from replying, inas- 
 much as their remarks will be published, 
 I had remarked that the district I repre- 
 sented was a proper division for four sena- 
 tors; heretofore it has embraced the entire 
 parishes of Union, Caldwell, Ouachita 
 and Morehouse, besides fractions of other 
 parishes, as Madison, Carrol, &c. There- 
 fore nothing said upon that point could have 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 any application to me. We all disclaim 
 politics, but nevertheless there is a vein 
 running through whatever we say or do. 
 I certainly am not influenced by any po- 
 litical motive in the creation of these dis- 
 tricts. I might, by their formation in a 
 certain manner, subserve the interest of 
 the party to which I am attached, but I 
 have no design to make the apportionment 
 a political machine. While up, I will re- 
 mark that I consider the project of the gen- 
 tleman from Lafourche (Mr. Guion) as ob L 
 jectionable on the score of there being no 
 uniformity between the districts ; some are 
 to have one senator and others are to have 
 four. That is an anomaly. I think there 
 should be uniformity, whether the districts 
 should be large or small. By striking out 
 eight, we can then act in detail. It is 
 much better to act in this way than to have 
 the case filled out first and to attempt to 
 force into it a body which may be totally 
 disproportionate in size. I do not think 
 there is any thing sacramental in the num- 
 ber thirty-two. I am indifferent whether 
 there be a few less. We can settle that 
 matter in detail. 
 
 Mr. Guion had one word to say in re- 
 ply to the gentleman from Ouachita ; that 
 delegate had complained that there was a 
 large slice taken out of his district. I have 
 to repeat what I stated this morning, that 
 T was governed in making the apportion- 
 ment by territory, population, and wealth. 
 If his district have not the population, ter- 
 ritory and wealth to entitle it to an addi- 
 tional member, it is the misfortune of the 
 district. It was because I conceived, from 
 a close examination, that it had neither 
 population, territory or wealth to entitle it 
 to an additional member that I took it away 
 and assigned it to a territory that had. As 
 for the gentleman's objection that there is j 
 no uniformity in the districts, I think it 
 has no force, having rigidly adhered in my 
 proposition to the three essential elements 
 of territory, population and wealth combin- 
 ed, it makes no difference whether the 
 districts be uniform or not. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said that the argument of 
 Mr. Downs did not touch the argument ad- 
 vanced by him. The only question at is- 
 sue was whether certain river .and sugar 
 parishes should be included with those of 
 the northern portion of the State— whether 
 
 49D 
 
 lower Louisiana should have seven or eight 
 senators. 
 
 The question was then taken to strike 
 out eight from the report of the majority 
 of the committee, and the yeas and nays 
 were called for: 
 
 Messrs, Aubert, Beatty, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, Burton, 
 Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- 
 bertson, Dunn, Garcia, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, King, Labauve, Le- 
 cleaux, Lewis, McCallop, Mazureau, O'- 
 Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, 
 JPugh, Ratliff, Read, Saunders, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Tay- 
 lor of St. Landry, Voorhies, Waddill, 
 Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, Wikoff and 
 Winder — 50 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Eenner, Ma- 
 rigny, Roman, Taylor of Assumption, and 
 Winchester — 7 nays. 
 
 Mr. Brent then moved to fill the blank 
 with thirty-two. 
 
 Mr. Kenner preferred entering into de- 
 tails, and apportioning the senate without 
 fixing absolutely the number of senators at 
 once. He moved to lay the first section 
 on the table, subject to call. 
 
 The motion to adopt thirty-two as the 
 number of senators was lost — thirty-two to 
 thirty- one. 
 
 Mr. O'Brien moved to fill the blank 
 wtth thirty. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff was in favor of small dis- 
 tricts ; he said they were just and proper, 
 inasmuch as-thay facilitated the expression 
 of the voice of the minority. Constitutions 
 were not made for the protection of the ma- 
 jority ; majorities were able to protect 
 | themselves. But constitutions were made 
 to protect the minority. If we establish 
 large districts we smother the voice of the • 
 minority. We place it in the power of a 
 reckless majority to domineer ovei\a mi- 
 nority. The true democratic principle' 
 was to place the representative and the 
 represented in close contact. The nearer 
 you can establish that contact the better 
 representation you have of the immediate 
 constituency. The senator would be 
 known and appreciated through his district. 
 He could represent all the local interest of 
 1 his district, He appealed to the judgment 
 
500 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 of the members from the country not - to al- 
 low the influence of the State to be neu- 
 tralized by large districts. The intelli- 
 gent and profound delegate from Ouachita 
 had foreseen the result. As for myself, 
 said Mr. Ratliff, I will never willingly al- 
 low the good old parish of West Feliciana 
 to be devoured by her sister and neighbor- 
 ing parish of East Feliciana. What I pre- 
 dicted to my constituents has actually oc- 
 curred. It is those that style themselves 
 conservatives, that are knocking down the 
 pillars of the old constitution, and it is the 
 radicals that are throwing themselves in 
 the breach to prevent the work of destruc- 
 tion. They may accomplish their design - % 
 they may make the n ew constitution odious 
 to the people, but I shall continue on every 
 occasion to oppose, to the extent of my fee- 
 ble abilities, their designs* 
 
 Mr. Kenner renewed the motion to lay 
 the first section on the table, and proceed 
 with the apportionment of the State. 
 This was the only way o f expediting the 
 subject. 
 
 * The motion to lay on the table was lost 
 — yeas 31, nays 30. 
 
 On the motion to, fill the blank with thirty, 
 the vote stood, yeas 30, nays 32. So 
 the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Guion then moved to divide the State 
 into seventeen senatorial districts. Lost — ■ 
 28 to 35. 
 
 Mr. Kenner then renewed the mo- 
 tion to lay the first section on the table 
 Carried. 
 
 Mr. Downs then moved to take up his 
 substitute as a basis. 
 
 Mr. Saunders moved an adjournment. 
 Lost. 
 
 Mr. Downs' motion was put and lost. 
 
 Mr. Guion's substitute then came up, 
 and Mr. Downs moved to lay it on the 
 table. 
 
 Mr. Kenner then moved to adjourn. 
 Lost, by the casting vote of the President. 
 
 A question of order then arose as to 
 which proposition was properly before the 
 Convention, which was discussed at some 
 length, and it was finally decided that the 
 proposition of Mr. Guion was next in or- 
 der. 
 
 Whereupon the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Wednesday, March 26, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 "The proceedings were opened with 
 prayer by Mr. Stephens. 
 
 The journal of yesterday was read and 
 approved. 
 
 The President offered an explanation, 
 showing how the error which had occurred 
 in regard to the question before the house 
 yesterday when the Convention adjourned. 
 It was owing to his absence for a few min- 
 utes during the day, when several motions 
 had been made, and from his not being- 
 made acquainted with the exact question 
 before the house on his resuming the chair. 
 He decided, therefore, the majority report 
 of the committee to be before the house 
 then. The first paragraph of which was 
 laid on the table, subject to the call of the 
 house. 
 
 Mr. Downs then offered the first para- 
 graph of the minority report, as a substitute 
 for the second of the majority. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth considered that the pa- 
 rish of Plaquemines, with an extent of one 
 hundred miles on both sides of the river, 
 and which was allowed one senator in sev- 
 enteen under the constitution of 1812. was 
 entitled to two senators in a senate of 
 thirty-two members. As far as territory, 
 property and population went she was fully 
 entitled to two representatives in the upper 
 house. 
 
 Mr. Conrad was of opinion that the 
 house had refused to take up the minority 
 report yesterday, and therefore contended 
 that the motion of Mr. Downs was out of 
 order. He (Mr. C.) was about to offer in 
 detail to-day wh^at had been rejected in to- 
 tality yesterday. The delegate from 
 Puachita (Mr. Downs) appeared alarmed, 
 and expressed some regret when a col- 
 league of his (Mr. Conrad's) had alluded 
 to distinction between the north and the 
 south of the State, where the southern por- 
 tion was allotted thirty-three representa- 
 tives out of ninety and upwards. But in 
 this the senatorial apportionment as offered 
 by the minority committee there appears to 
 be a northern and southern interest. The 
 parent (Mr. Downs) of the projet, for he 
 has adopted it as his own, seems to regard 
 it with much anxiety. He (Mr. Conrad) 
 would like to see if he has apportioned the 
 State moive equally than the representation 
 apportionment. For ten districts in the 
 northern, portion of the State, with an en- 
 tire population of twenty-one thousand, tne 
 plan proposes ten senators; and for ten dis a 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 501 
 
 trlcts in the northern portion of the State, 
 with a total population of forty-three thou- 
 sand, there are the same number laid down. 
 This certainly did not appear to be an 
 equitable distribution. The south has 
 been sacrificed to the north, in the lower 
 house, and now the north claims the same 
 advantages in" the senate. The property 
 qualification has been abandoned for "mem- 
 bers of the legislature, for the right of suf- 
 frage. Every basis of representation pro- 
 tective of the southern interest, has been 
 abandoned for that which is most favorable 
 to the north; those parishes thai pay least 
 are sacrificed to those that pay most to the 
 State treasury: and the consequence is that 
 representation is exactly in an inverse ra- 
 tio to- the amount of taxation, those who 
 pay least getting the largest amount of re- 
 presentatives; those who pay the most are 
 they worst represented. The responsibili- 
 ty of representation is thus destroyed. 
 There should be some little protection for 
 .property; some guard against lavish expen- 
 diture. The way this should be had is by 
 apportioning the senate with a view of 
 qualification either of property or taxation. 
 
 But here it is found that these ten north- ! 
 western districts pay seventy-seven thou- j 
 sand dollars taxes, and the ten south-western 
 pay one hundred and thirty-nine thousand 
 dollars, and yet, with double population, 
 paying double the .taxes and sending the 
 Same number of representatives to the legis- 
 lature, it is proposed to give them an 
 equal senatorial allotment. 
 
 In this examination he (Mr. C.) confined j 
 himself to country parishes; if he were to 
 take others into consideration, the dispro- j 
 portion would be found greater still; in 
 New Orleans it would be found the dispro- j 
 portion quadrupled. He could not support 
 any project of this kind. He was in favor j 
 of that offered by Mr. Guion, and even that 
 did not go far enough. He thought too 
 much attention had been paid to extent of 
 territory, and not enough to property, taxa- j 
 t ion and population. Territorial extent I 
 had already been sufficiently looked to in 
 the organization of the lower house; and 
 in order to fix a basis for the apportionment | 
 of the senate, and that the house might go I 
 on with some principle to guide ahem, he | 
 would move To lay the subject, before the 
 house, on the table momentarily, in order I 
 'o take into consideration the following: 
 64 
 
 Whereas, Representation in the lower 
 house of the general assembly has been 
 based solely on numbers,' 
 
 Resolved, That in the apportionment of 
 representation in the senate, taxation and 
 property shall be taken into estimate. 
 Mr. Ratliff rose to order. He did not 
 
 j understand how the gentleman's motion 
 could be entertained". 
 
 Mr. Downs saw T no use whatever in 
 
 1 adopting a basis. He thought a basis had 
 
 j been adopted before, and the delegate ("Mr. 
 
 | Conrad)" as soon as he came to detail threw 
 he tbasis overboard. There was no use in 
 making rules which would never be follow- 
 
 j ed. If the delegate had twenty rules, they 
 would depart from all. as circumstances 
 might seem to demand it. He hoped tho 
 motion would not prevail. 
 
 Mr. Wads worth hoped the motion- 
 would prevail. He was one of those who 
 advocated the rights of property as well as 
 those of persons. Personal rights are pro- 
 tected in the lower house; why not, there- 
 fore, leave the senate as a safeguard for 
 property/ A basis of apportionment had 
 been fixed for the former apportionment, 
 and it was adhered to. Butnowthe sc-iia- 
 torial representation will lie given to the 
 pine woods, and thus the wealthy parishes 
 of the" State will be sacrificed for the poor 
 ones. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff saw no good result that 
 could arise from laying down a basis, as he 
 supposed they could not strictly confine 
 themselves to it. Let the house proceed On 
 the property population and taxation of each 
 parish, and apportion by the best fixed rule, 
 taking the combined considerations into the 
 estimate. If any rule is adopted,*it will be 
 deviated from the first step. He was un- 
 willing to declare himself in favor of a 
 property representation in the senate ; he 
 thought territory should be considered as 
 well. 
 
 Mr. ClaiboPvXE did not understand why 
 a principle for the apportionment of the 
 senate, should be established beforehand. 
 There existed the same necessity for a ba- 
 sis being established for the upper as for 
 the lower house; it was equally necessary 
 that this basis should not be the same; if 
 otherwise, they shall be subject to the same 
 prejudices and passions in both cases, and 
 devoid of that salutary check so necessary 
 in the constitution of republican govern 
 
502' 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 ments. Let us now establish proper land- 
 marks to guide in the correct apportionment 
 of senatorial representation, and abide by 
 them; without such a principle we shall be 
 proceeding at random — a vast deal of time 
 will be consumed in discussing local inter- 
 ests, and sectional feelings Avill mar us at 
 every turn. In consideration of the forma- 
 tion of the lower house*naving been made 
 with disregard to property and taxation, it 
 is only just that those should have a fair 
 weight in the senatorial house. 
 
 Mr. Downs contended that the gentle- 
 man was out of order, in discussing a 
 question not belore the house. 
 
 Mr. Conrad proceeded to make some 
 observations in support of the resolution 
 which he had just submitted, when 
 
 The President called on him to confine 
 himself to the motion "to lay on the table." 
 
 The question was then put, and the yeas 
 and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Boudousquie, Briant,Ce- 
 nas, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad 
 of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Guion, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, 
 Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, Saunders, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Wadsworth, Winchester 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative — 23 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Chambliss, 
 Covillion, Downs, Garrett, Hudspeth, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, 
 O'Bryan, Peets, Porche, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Prud- 
 homme, Ratliff, Read, Scott of East Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of East Feliciana, Sellers, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Voorhies,*Waddill, Wederstrandt and Wi- 
 kofF voted in the negative — 36 nays. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth moved to strike out 
 one senator, and insert two, for the parish- 
 es of Plaquemines, St. Bernard, and that 
 part of the parish of Orleans situate on the 
 west bank of the Mississippi. 
 
 Mr. Bwns offered the first paragraph of 
 the minority report, as a substitute for that 
 of the majority. 
 
 Mr. Kenner said, the proposition of the 
 gentleman was not in order. The subject 
 matter under consideration, involving as it 
 did, the city of New Orleans, was entirely 
 different to that included in the motion, 
 which was the parish of Plaquemines— and 
 
 therefore he contended the motion to ou 
 out of order. 
 
 Mr. Downs then offered the section of 
 the minority report, apportioning New Or- 
 leans in lieu of that of the majority. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor moved to lay the 
 subject on the table. The Orleans delega- 
 tion were averse to dividing the city, ac- 
 cording to the report, and he would there- 
 fore oppose. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to amend Mr. 
 Taylor's motion, on the table Subject to 
 call, as there were many members of the 
 Orleans delegation absent on professional 
 business. He offered this with a view to 
 go on with the other apportionment, there 
 being no difference entertained on the 
 number of senators for the city, the only 
 question that might arise being the manner 
 of dividing them. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson disagreed with his 
 colleague, as he considered the division 
 reported a very fair and just one. 
 
 The yeas and nays were then called, 
 and the result was as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Cenas, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Leg- 
 endre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh 7 
 Roman, Saunders, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Wadsworth, Win- 
 chester and Winder voted in the affirmative 
 —31 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Culbertson, Downs, 
 Humble, Hynson, McCallop, McRae, O'- 
 Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Prud- 
 homme, R ttliff, Read,Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Splane, Ste- 
 phens, Waddill, Wederstrandt and WikofF 
 voted in the negative- — 29 nays; so the 
 motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Downs then offered the following : 
 The parishes of Plaquemines, St. Bernard, 
 and that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 on the right bank of the Mississippi, shall 
 have one senator. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth moved to insert "two" 
 senators, instead of 'jone." He had re- 
 ceived some official documents showing 
 the amount of taxation paid into the treas- 
 ury by that parish. In the year 1843 Pla* 
 
Debates hi the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 503 
 
 quemines paid $14,000, and that sum was 
 now considerably increased. That parish 
 had an extent of one hundred miles on both 
 sides of the river, and when it had been 
 allotted one senator out of seventeen, by 
 the constitution ofl812, it was fairly en- 
 titled to two out of thirty-two. 
 
 Mr. Downs said that if they gave that 
 portion of the State more than one senator, 
 it would change the principle of the report 
 altogether. The parishes of Jefferson, St. 
 Charles and St. John the Baptist will com- 
 prise the second district. The parishes of 
 Ouachita. Caldwell, Union and Jackson, 
 (newly added) with larger population by 
 far, will have one senatorial representa- 
 tive; and he could not see the justice or 
 necessity of taking a member from other 
 parishes and adding to Plaquemines and 
 St. Bernard. The senatorial delegate from 
 Piaquemine fully agreed with the project of 
 the minority now offered. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth said that the gentle- 
 man from Ouachita (Mr. Downs) knew 
 that he (Mr. Wadsworth) and the senato- 
 rial delegate from Plaquemines (Judge Leo- 
 nard) differed on that subject. The latter 
 is of opinion that life and liberty should 
 alone be protected ; but he (Air. Wads- 
 worth)was one of those who always thought 
 that as long as a man had a dollar in his ' 
 pocket, that property was more valuable 
 to him than liberty without it? Is not the 
 acquirement of property the incentive to 
 us all? Do not all labor with this view? 
 All our exertions are to secure property. 
 The representation of taxation and proper- i 
 ty, therefore, should be a vital principle in 
 the formation of the senate. You have uni- 
 versal suffrage the basis of the house of re- 
 presentatives — for the sake of justice, then, 
 let the senate standby to prevent the State 
 from being flooded with ruin by a prodigal 
 waste of the treasury funds. Who will it 
 ruin? Not the poor; they are ruined al- 
 ready — then it must fall on those who pos- 
 sess means. What protection have we, 
 then, if we have it not in the senate? He 
 would predicate the apportionment on pro- ; 
 perty; the members of the lower house, ! 
 members of congress, governor, are all vo- 
 ted for on the principle of universal suf- 
 frage; if the property qualification is aban- 
 doned, men will be elected who have no- 
 tiling to lose/but all to gain. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor would support the 
 
 motion to insert two, on the ground of ex- 
 tent of territory of that parish, and of the 
 prospect of its future increase of wealth 
 ! and population, from its proximity to the 
 ! city of New Orleans. 
 
 Mr. Benjamix was in favor of the amend* 
 ! ment. He found that in 1843 Washing- 
 ton and St. Tammany had paid the sum of 
 83,700 taxes, and Plaquemines $12,000 in 
 j the same year, though he had no doubt the 
 latter sum was increased to 813,000 in 
 1844. He also found that Plaquemines, 
 i St. Bernard, and the west bank had a po- 
 pulation double the number of St. Helena, 
 Livingston and St. Tammany. On any 
 basis that could be adopted two senators 
 were fairly due to this district. 
 
 Mr. Splaxe opposed the amendment. 
 Taking a view of the. relative positions of 
 j St. Mary and St. Martins, compared with 
 j t:ie district before the house, lie would in- 
 j sist upon four members for the former, if 
 two were given to the latter. He was sa- 
 ! tisfied with two; but it was in considera- 
 I tion of the apportionment now offered be- 
 ing adhered to. It was unequal and unjust 
 to extend the number allotted. 
 
 ?vlr. Beatty said that the parishes un- 
 der consideration, were, upon any basis, 
 entitled to two senators, either as to extent 
 of territory, population or property. He 
 was surprised to hear members take up a 
 principle and adopt it whenever it suited 
 them, and abandon it the next moment. 
 
 Mr. Marigxy supported the amendment. 
 He briefly reviewed the progress of the pa- 
 rishes of Plaquemines and St. Bernard 
 from 1812 to the present time; and con- 
 tended that this apportionment should not 
 be made with a view to the present ; but 
 that due regard must be had to the grow- 
 ing 1 improvements which are constantly ta- 
 king place around us. 
 
 The question was then put, and the yeas 
 and nays being called for, the result was as 
 follows, viz : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Botu 
 dousquie, Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Gar- 
 cia, Hudspeth, King, Labauve, Legendre, 
 Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, 
 Roselius, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Wadsworth, Wikoff and Win- 
 chester voted in the affirmative — 26 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Cade, Chambliss, Conrad of New" Orleans, 
 
Debates in the 
 
 Covillon, Downs, Dunn, Guion, Humble, 
 Hynson, Keller, McCallop, McRae, O'- 
 Bryan, Penn, Porter, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Fe- 
 iciana, Scott of Madison, Splane, Ste- 
 phens, Voorhies, Wad dill and Wedder- 
 strandt — 31 nays. So tlie motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved the adoption of the 
 section. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to strike out " that 
 part of the parish of Orleans situate on 
 the right bank of the river Mississippi." 
 This amendment was lost. 
 
 The section was then put, on motion of 
 Mr. Downs, and carried. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin then moved that the par- 
 ishes of Jefferson, St. Charles, and St. 
 John the Baptist be entitled to three sena- 
 tois. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved that Jefferson be al- 
 lowed one senator; and that the parishes 
 of St. Charles and St. John the Baptist be 
 stricken out. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne opposed, conceiving 
 the object to be to deprive the district of 
 one senator, which was given to it in the 
 report. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Jefferson, would support 
 the motion to divide the question, if two 
 senators were allotted to Jefferson. 
 
 Mr. Garcia was in favor of giving two 
 senators to Jefferson ; the last accounts of 
 the treasurer show that seventeen thousand 
 eight hundred and seventy. eight dollars 
 taxes had been paid to the State by her ; 
 she has a white population of four thousand 
 eight hundred and sjxty-six, and a total 
 population of ten thousand four hundred 
 and seventy. The interior of the parish is 
 unlike that to be met with in other parts of 
 the State, consisting of dry and fertile 
 tracts ; she commands a large extent of ter- 
 ritory on the sea-shore too, where the popu- 
 lation is increasing everyday. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to divide the ques- 
 tion. He said that the question that should 
 be first put to these was, whether Jefferson 
 should be divided from the other or not. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth would be satisfied to 
 let Jefferson have two senators and give 
 the others one, and have the three elected 
 by general ticket. If a senator is taken 
 away from this part of the State, it will be 
 given to the Florida district, where they 
 
 onvention of Louisiana, 
 
 could not predicate a senator on a property 
 qualification. 
 
 Mr. Downs preferred having separate 
 parishes, as a general rule, and had adopt- 
 ed that principle in his report, except in 
 two instances, where the parishes could 
 not well be divided. 
 
 The question to divide w r as then put, on 
 motion of Mr. Benjamin, and carried in. 
 the affirmative— 34 voting in favor, and 27 
 agaifist it, 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Jefferson, then renewed 
 his motion to insert two instead of one sen- 
 ator for his parish, He felt assured that 
 the returns for taxation has been recently 
 largely increased. But he was satisfied 
 to rest on the taxes paid in 1843, and to 
 take even the census of 1840 for his claim 
 to two senatorial members. In 1843 the 
 tax on real estate in that parish amounted 
 to eighteen thousand dollars, apart from the 
 revenue derived from taxes on professions, 
 no inconsiderable item, from the fact that 
 there is growing up in the parish the second 
 city in the State. The population in 1840 
 was pu,t down at fen thousand five hundred. 
 She is the fourth or fifth parish in the State 
 in every respect, as to property, taxation, 
 population, and prospects, and fully entitled 
 to two senators. He looked upon a re- 
 striction in this case as striking out all pro- 
 per principle of representation. He was 
 satirled even to let her remain joined to 
 the two other parishes, provided three sen- 
 ators were allotted to them. 
 
 Mr. Preston was in favor of the motion 
 offered by his colleague. There were 
 how T ever other and weighty considerations 
 why Jefferson should be allowed two sena- 
 ators. She was essentially a commercial 
 parish, and it was necessary that the sena- 
 tors should be elected by those whom they 
 represent. He therefore agreed to divide 
 this parish from St. Charles and St. John 
 the Baptist, because there were different 
 interests to be protected. He was opposed 
 to having so large a number as thirty-two 
 in the senate, but since that had been 
 agreed to, and that they had one senator 
 in 1812, when the parish was small, he 
 could see no injustice in allotting two 
 members to it. She has always had one 
 in seventeen ; you now double the number, 
 and therefore can hardly refuse to double 
 the representation. The papulation ani 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 505 
 
 wealth of the parish has increased, and in 
 the last five years the number of votes pol- 
 led has increased from three to eight hun- 
 dred, But the citizens of Lafayette and 
 Jefferson have been kept back by legisla- 
 tion; privileges were denied them that were 
 accorded New Orleans ; but recently La- 
 fayette has obtained justice, she is now a 
 port of entry, and because her port char- 
 ges are considerably below those of New 
 Orleans, the increase of shipping, com- 
 merce and attendant benefits are becoming 
 more manifest every day. If this constitu- 
 tion lasts ten years* he had no doubt but 
 that the parish of Jefferson would be equal 
 at that time, in point of population, wealth 
 and voters, to the parish of New Orleans. 
 He hoped it would not last ten years. He 
 would again say, that Jefferson, having 
 property, taxation, population and voters 
 entitling her to two senators, it would be 
 unjust, nay, he would call it almost iniqui- 
 tous — though he used the term with ail due 
 respect for gentlemen on that floor — to give 
 , them but one senator, which they had in 
 I 1812, when now their advantages have be- 
 come so extended and increased. Give 
 her at least two in thirty-two ; do her jus- 
 tice, that is all she asks. 
 
 Mr. Downs fully admitted that the gen- 
 tleman (Mr. Preston) has made out # a strong- 
 case for his parish,. as far as taxation, popu- 
 lation and wealth went, but based on ter- 
 ritory, or local divisions of the State, he 
 felt himself obliged to differ. In distribut- 
 ing the apportionment and dividing the 
 districts they had not given to any parish 
 more than one senator, and as the number 
 is likely to be thirty-two, it would lead to 
 a subversion of other parishes from the al- 
 lotment as reported. It is admitted with 
 reason that the representation of a com- 
 mercial community is not to be taken on 
 the same grounds as an agricultural one, 
 but it seemed to him that when New Or- 
 leans gets but four senators, it can't be pre- 
 tended that the parish of Jefferson can 
 claim any thing like half the representa- 
 tion of New Orleans ; and in regard to the 
 gentleman's (Mr. Preston's) opinion hyela- 
 tion to J efferson being equal to New Or- 
 leans in ten years, he thought the calcula- 
 tion rather a large one, and something 
 which transcends any thing ever known in 
 this country. Jefferson is not the only 
 fixed parish on the same basis as was the 
 
 allotment of 1812. We will find Ascen- 
 sion, Assumption, Lafourche and others, 
 very nearly in the same position as they 
 held under the old constitution. He should 
 number vote against a larger than one, at 
 least as long as the senate was confined 
 to thirty-two members. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor confessed himself 
 somewhat amused at the controversy. ' He 
 saw gentlemen severally advocate popula- 
 tion, property, and territory; by others these 
 were regarded as the united elements of a 
 basis. He was one of those who regard- 
 ed territory as a basis ; there will be all 
 through this distribution a contest for po- 
 litical power, and one portion may perhaps 
 be sacrificed by the adroitness of the re- 
 presentatives from another. When Plaque- 
 mines was brought up, with a large extent 
 of territory, and we propose to give it a 
 •certain representation, his honorable friend 
 from St. Mary rises and says " you have 
 not population sufficient." Jefferson comes 
 up next, and the gentleman from Ouachita, 
 with his usual penetration, discovers "that 
 she has not territory." Thus gentlemen 
 make their knife cut both ways, and can 
 blow hot and cold at the same time. 
 
 Mr. Splaxe did not understand what the 
 gentleman (Mr. Taylor) meant by "blow- 
 ing hot and cold," but he saw that the dele- 
 gate (Mr. Tayter) who always advocates 
 New Orleans, although he does not repre- 
 sent her, was here indirectly endeavoring 
 to give New Orleans and the country im- 
 mediately around her, eight votes in the 
 senate. Because New Orleans was to 
 have four, so that if Plaquemines got two, 
 and Jefferson two, the influence in the 
 senate would be swallowed up in the city. 
 He would oppose any effort to such an 
 effect. 
 
 Mr. Wadswoeth would vote to give 
 Jefferson two senators, on the same prin- 
 ciple as he claimed two for Plaquemines; 
 and he would then ask two for Plaque- 
 mines, and he trusts that gentlemen would 
 not be so inconsistent as to refuse him. 
 Although they had done him great wrong 
 in already refusing him two senators, yet 
 he would never do wrong to other parishes 
 because his own was unjustly dealt with. 
 Mr. Splane has said the farming interests 
 require protection, then why refuse him 
 two senators? That is just the principle 
 he advocates; he considers cities as mere 
 
506 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 agents for the country; but he (Mr. Splane) 
 professes himself an advocate for the plant- 
 ing interest, and in his very first vote he 
 denies the principle by refusing two sena- 
 tors to Plaquemkies. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans, was in 
 favor of giving two members to Jefferson. 
 As regarded the statement of Mr. Downs, 
 that the interests and position of Lafayette 
 and New Orleans were in every way iden- 
 tified with each other, that was purely a 
 mistake; they have no feelings of interest 
 with one another; they were essentially 
 different in commercial business, in pur- 
 suits and in population. The delegate (Mr. 
 Splane) will find that the taxation for Jef- 
 ferson, for 1843, to be nearly equal to that 
 of St. Mary and St. Martin, and assuming 
 that those parishes were entitled to two 
 representatives accordingly, he would vote 
 for two representatives for them ; and for 
 all parishes having population, property 
 and territory, he would give a fair represen- 
 tation. He therefore considered it nothing 
 but justice to give Jefferson two senators. 
 
 Mr. Brent was opposed to giving more 
 than one senator to Jefferson. By refer- 
 ring to statistics it will be found that the 
 parishes of St. Landry, Rapides and Nat- 
 chitoches will be entitled to two senators if 
 Jefferson gets two; and as they want but 
 one, he was unwilling to *give the latter 
 any more. The taxes paid by Jefferson in 
 the year 1843 amounted to seventeen thou - 
 sad eight hundred and thirty-eight dollars; 
 the population in 1840 was ten thousand 
 four hundred and seventy; Rapides paid in 
 1843 sixteen thousand four hundred and 
 ninety-six dollars, and her population in 
 1840 amounted to fourteen thousand one 
 hundred and thirty- two, and at the last 
 election Rapides polled two hundred votes 
 more than Jefferson; as regards territory, 
 Rapides is far greater in extent than Jef- 
 ferson; Natchitoches has a greater extent; 
 and that of St. Landry is nearly double. 
 
 Mr. Preston said if they regarded terri- 
 tory alone, Jefferson would be entitled to 
 twenty times the number of senators that 
 New Orleans is. But the growing inter- 
 ests of Jefferson, its commerce and great 
 prospects, induce us not only to look to 
 the present state of things, but to the pro- 
 gressive importance of the parish. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne contended that as one 
 district, with four senators was to be formed 
 
 out of the three parishes, Jefferson, St. 
 Charles and St. John the Baptist, it was 
 only fair, when they had separated Jeffer- 
 son, to let her have two of them. He con- 
 sidered her, on any basis, fully entitled to 
 them. 
 
 "Question" was called from all parts of 
 the house, and *being put, it was lost, by a 
 vote of 29 yeas and 36 nays. 
 
 The motion to allot one senator to the 
 parish of Jefferson was then put and car- 
 ried. 
 
 The parishes of St. Charles and St, 
 John the Baptist were allotted one district 
 with one senator. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved that St. James and 
 Ascension form one district. 
 
 The motion, after a remark or two from 
 Mr. Beatty, was carried. 
 
 Mr. Kenner then moved to give the 
 district formed by those two parishes, two 
 senators; when 
 
 A motion was made to adjourn, and car- 
 ried. 
 
 Thursday, March 27, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment, and its proceedings were opened 
 with prayer, by the Hon. Mr. Stephens, 
 delegate from Sabine, at the request of the 
 President. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 The Convention resumed the considera- 
 tion of the apportionment for the senate. 
 
 Mr. Kenner had moved that the par- 
 ishes of Ascension and St. James form a 
 senatorial district with two senators. 
 
 Mr. Kenner said, that when the Con* 
 vention adjourned, the question pendin 
 was to allow two senators to the distri 
 composed of the parishes of St. James a 
 Ascension. He was prepared to show 
 that this apportionment was out sheer justice. 
 By the reports, both of the majority and mi- 
 nority of the committee, as well as the pro- 
 ject presented as a substitute by the dele- 
 gate from Lafourche, (Mr. Guion) what 
 was known as the fourth judicial district, 
 comprising two parishes on the Mississippi 
 and three on the Lafourche, was allowed 
 four senators. The only difficulty was in 
 allotting this representation between them- 
 He would call the attention of the Conven- 
 tion to a fact or two which would place the 
 claims of these two parishes, St. James 
 and Ascension, in a proper light. Their 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 50f 
 
 total population was fifteen thousanu n,., 
 hundred and twenty-nine, the total popu- 
 lation of the parishes on the Lafourche 
 was eighteen thousand eight hundred 
 and seventy. The amount of taxes paid 
 by the former was nineteen thousand 
 seven hundred and forty-seven dollars and 
 three cents, and by the latter seventeen 
 thousand nine hundred and eighty-one dol ; 
 lars and sixty-eight cents. Thus it would 
 be seen that while there was an excess in 
 the population in favor of the three parishes 
 on the Lafourche, there was a con- 
 siderable excess in the amount of taxes 
 contributed by the two parishes on the Mis- 
 sissippi. They were then nearly equal in 
 population, and more than equal in taxation. 
 In reference to extent of territory, the dif- 
 ference between the two parishes on the 
 Mississippi and the three parishes on the 
 .Lafourche was not material, and if value 
 was taken as the measure, the result would 
 be in favor of St. James and Ascension. 
 These facts, he conceived, were sufficient 
 to satisfy members that one-half of the 
 senatorial representation allowed to the 
 fourth judicial district, ought to be awarded 
 to Ascension and St. James. Let us ap- 
 ply another test. If we take the total 
 population of all the parishes combined in the 
 fourth judicial district, amounting to thirty- 
 four thousand three hundred and ninety- 
 nine, and divide it by four, the number of 
 senators allowed to the district, we find 
 that eight thousand five hundred and ninety- 
 nine persons would be entitled to a senator, 
 and that according to that estimate St. 
 James and Ascension would be entitled to 
 two members of the senate. 
 
 If we take the total amount of taxes con- 
 tributed by all these parishes as a basis for 
 their relative representation, and divide 
 the amount by the figure four, the total 
 number of senators allowed them, we find 
 that nine thousand four hundred and thirty- 
 two dollars of taxation would entitle the 
 population contributing that amount to a 
 representation of one upon the floor of the 
 senate; and that according to the requisite 
 quotas St. James and Ascension would be 
 entitled to more than two senators. Take 
 any conceivable basis that would operate 
 equally and uniformly, and it will be found 
 that they are entitled to two senators. 
 There is another consideration that should 
 have great weight. Of the eleven mem- 
 
 in this body from the fourth judicial 
 district. iu^_ „„ 0 byf; one or two that are 
 opposed to this allotment of political pow. 
 er, and to this division of the senatorial 
 delegation. The wishes of the people of 
 both the parishes are decidedly in favor of 
 their unity in continuing to form a distinct 
 senatorial district. 
 
 If we indulge in a prospective view of 
 the augmentation and mutual increase of 
 these two parishes — which line of argument* 
 appears to ha\e had, as it ought to have, 
 some influence with the Convention, inas- 
 much as the dispositions of the constitution 
 are permanent— in the space of thirty years 
 they will be entitled to more than is now 
 claimed for them, A large body of land 
 known as the Houma grant, containing 
 from one hundred and fifty to one hundred 
 and sixty thousand acres, every foot of 
 which is susceptible of cultivation, lies in 
 one of these parishes, the parish of Ascen- 
 sion, and is just about being brought into 
 the market. Owing to the contest between 
 the grantees and the United States, it has 
 heretofore remained a perfect waste. The 
 contest,in relation to it, however, is defi- 
 nitely settled. ^ This parish, next to one, 
 produces the largest quantity of sugar. It 
 is increasing both in wealth and in popu 
 lation, to a considerable extent. The 
 other parish, the parish of St. James, is 
 one of the wealthiest parishes of the State. 
 Combined together, they are entitled to 
 two senators. The people of both parishes 
 heretofore, for the last thirty-two years, 
 have lived in the same political community; 
 they have formed ties which they would be 
 reluctant to sever. It is to be hoped that 
 nothing of the kind will be attempted, and 
 that while they shall be continued as form- 
 ing a separate senatorial district, they will 
 be allowed that representation in the senate 
 to which they are justly entitled, and which 
 is not only claimed by their immediate re- 
 presentatives upon this floor, but which is 
 conceded unanimously by the delegations 
 from the other parishes in the judicial dis- 
 trict, with but a solitary exception. 
 
 Mr. Beatty said that whatever might 
 be the opinion of his colleagues upon the 
 question now submitted, and even although 
 he might stand alone upon that question, 
 he would, nevertheless, under his convic- 
 tions, feel himself bound to vote against 
 the proposition of the member that had just 
 
508 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 addressed the Convention. It was no d ;r 
 ficult matter to represent^ 1 "- — ~mioii of a 
 parish under th* fe**St flattering auspices, 
 when it Avas desired to increase her politi- 
 cal power. But in the present instance, 
 the parishes of Lafourche and Terrebonne 
 had nothing to apprehend from a compari- 
 son with St. James and Ascension, when 
 all the facts were"' disclosed. With one- 
 half of the slave population of the two lat- 
 ter parishes, they made more sugar. It 
 was true they contributed lees taxes ; that 
 there was less operative wealth, but their 
 territory was more densely settled, and yet 
 a large portion of that territory remained 
 still unsettled, the resources of which were 
 developed; while but a small portion of 
 Ascension was susceptible of further set- 
 tlement, and as for the parish of St. James, 
 it was all settled. Both Ascension and St. 
 James were old parishes ; Lafourche and 
 Terrebonne were comparatively of much 
 more recent date, especially the latter. 
 The parish of Lafourche, next to the parish 
 of St. Mary, is the largest producer of su- 
 gai, and Terrebonne ranks next to La- 
 fourche. But although Terrebonne is as 
 yet secondary in importance, I have no 
 hesitation in saying that the day is not dis- 
 tant when she will be the richest and most 
 populous parish in the district. These 
 parishes, whether in reference to the pre- 
 sent or to the future be had, have as much 
 right to two senators as the parishes of St. 
 James and Ascension ; but if this be done, 
 it will be necessary either to increase the 
 senatorial delegation from four to five, or 
 else the parish of Assumption will be dis- 
 franchised. 
 
 It is well known, Mr. President, that I 
 should have preferred large districts to small 
 districts. But if there is to be a division into 
 small districts, 1 will never yield my assent 
 that it be based upon political motives; and 
 yet the result will be, if this allotment and 
 division be made, the" furtherance of such 
 motives. I will not object if a separate, 
 senator be allowed to St. James, provided 
 that Ascension and Assumption be placed 
 together for one senator, and Lafourche 
 and Terrebonne have the other two.~— 
 This seems to me would be a much more 
 appropriate and equitable division of terri- 
 tory and of political power., 
 ~* As to the arguments, said Mr. Beatty, of 
 the difference in the taxation, I will reply 
 
 , ... .xic land tax is arbitrarily fixed by the 
 legislature. The Lafourche parishes are 
 placed at less than the parishes of Ascen. 
 sion and St. James. Why, I am really at 
 a loss to discover. The lands are certain- 
 ly more productive in the Lafourche par- 
 ishes than in the parishes of Ascension 
 and St. James. As to extent of territory, 
 it is undeniable they have a vast superiori- 
 ty, particularly the parish of Terrebonne. 
 The parish of Terrebonne dates its exis- 
 tence scarcely twenty years back: whereas 
 St. James and Ascension were established 
 with the earliest settlements in Louisiana. 
 If we are to take into consideration thefu= 
 tore, as well as the present, then their 
 claims are incontestibly superior to those 
 of St. James and Ascension. But what is 
 the design of this division? Is it to give 
 two senators to two parishes, while three 
 are to have but two? 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor conceived it to be 
 incumbent upon him, as a delegate of one 
 of tlie parishes interested in this question, 
 to state his views and tb declare what 
 principles would actuate him in the vote 
 he was about to give. He took it for 
 granted that it was the unanimous wish of 
 the Convention that four senators should be 
 allowed to the parishes embraced within 
 the fourth judicial district. At one time it 
 was suggested to allow them five senators. 
 This was not proposed in the house, but 
 was spoken of among individual members. 
 He (Mr. Taylor) did not think them en- 
 titled to that number, and had the Conven- 
 tion been disposed to accord that number, 
 he would have voted against it, on the 
 ground, and with the perfect conviction, 
 they were not entitled to it; and that neces- 
 sarily if it were given to them, it would 
 have to be taken from another section that 
 was better entitled to it. He could not 
 agree in the allotment of the #>ur senators 
 as suggested by the delegate from La- 
 fourche (Mr. Beatty.) The house knew 
 that he (Mr. Taylor) resided in the parish 
 of Assumption. He had no connection 
 with the parishes of St. James or Ascen- 
 sion; or if hebhad, they were less intimate 
 than those with the lower parishes of La- 
 fourche Interior and Terrebonne. His 
 predelictions were therefore favorable io 
 the lower parishes which formed the sena- 
 torial district under the old constitution 
 But he was actuated by a sense of justice, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 509 
 
 and taking into consideration the relative 
 population of the two parishes on the Mis- 
 sissippi, and the three on the Lafourche, 
 with the amount of taxation contributed by 
 them, he thought the two parishes of St. 
 James and Ascension were better entitled 
 to two senators than the three remaining 
 parishes were entitled to three senators. 
 It was true that the two parishes were not 
 equal in every respect to the three; there 
 was a disparity in the population; but yet 
 they came nearer to the standard for two 
 senators than the three remaining parishes 
 for three senators. To establish his view 
 of their relative pretensions, he would re- 
 fer to some statistics. St. James and As- 
 cension have a population of fifteen thou- 
 sand four hundred and ninety-nine, La- 
 fourche and Terrebonne have a population 
 of eleven thousand seven hundred and thir- 
 teen^. As between St. James and Ascen- 
 sion, and the other two parishes of La- 
 fourche and Terrebonne, if either be enti- 
 tled to two, St. James and Ascension are 
 better entitled to two senators than the two 
 other parishes, St. James and Ascension 
 have a population of fifteen thousand four 
 hundred and ninety-nine, and the three re- 
 maining parishes of Assumption, Fafourche 
 Interior, and Terrebonne, have an aggre- 
 gate population of eighteen thousand six 
 hundred and sixty; a little more than one- 
 fifth. From that result, it appears that 
 Ascension and St. James are more entitled 
 to two senators than the three parishes are 
 entitled to three senators. The fairer al- 
 lotment would be to divide the four sena- 
 tors equally between the parishes on the 
 Mississippi, and the parishes on the La- 
 fourche. 
 
 He was m favor of large districts, but he 
 felt pursuaded that the Convention would 
 not act upon that principle. If the dis- 
 tricts were separated, and St. James was 
 allowed one senator, and Ascension one 
 senator, there would remain two senators 
 for the remaining three parishes. How 
 ought they to be distributed? If the house 
 will look into the tabular statement prepar- 
 eJ by the second committe<#on the appor- 
 tionment of the house of representatives, 
 they will find the population of Assump- 
 tion to be seven thousand one hundred and 
 fifty-seven; the population of Lafourche 
 Interior seven thousand seven hundred and 
 fifty-three; and Terrebonne four thousand 
 65 
 
 four hundred and ten. It is evident that 
 Lafourche Interior would be better entitled 
 to one senator than either of the other two 
 parishes, and there would be nothing more 
 than simple justice in granting her a sena- 
 tor if the remaining senator could be ap- 
 portioned to Assumption and Terrebonne; 
 and that would be a proper distribution. 
 But unfortunately there are physical dis- 
 abilities. The first parish in descending 
 the Lafourche, is the parish of Assumption; 
 it only touches Terrebonne at a remote 
 point near the Atchafalaya, which is diffi- 
 cult of access. It would therefore be ex- 
 ceedingly inconvenient to unite these two 
 parishes in their senatorial representation. 
 The population of Assumption was nearly 
 equal to that ofLafourche Interior /her white 
 population was larger. If Lafourche Inte- 
 rior were united with Terrebonne in her 
 representation, although there Would be a 
 peculiar fitness in placing them together 
 from the contiguity of their territories, 
 yet there would be great inequality both 
 in reference to extent of territory and po- 
 pulation. From the local position of the 
 three parishes it is difficult to divide them 
 into separate senatorial districts and to pre- 
 serve the principle of equality and uni- 
 formity. All that could be done would be 
 to make them as equal as circumstances 
 would permit. He would not oppose the 
 formation of separate senatorial districts, 
 although he would prefer that they should 
 be formed into two senatorial districts: 
 Ascension and St. James to be one senato- 
 rial district, and Assumption, Lafourche 
 Interior and Terrebonne, to be the other 
 senatorial district. It is true, as has been 
 stated by the delegate from Lafourche, that 
 this would result in making both whig. 
 But so far as his (Mr. Taylor's) actions 
 Were involved as the representative of the 
 people, he knew of no other rule of action 
 than their wishes, and was not to be con- 
 trolled by the political divisions of whig or 
 democrat. He was the representative of 
 the parish of Assumption; the representa- 
 tive of the wishes of the people. It was 
 his duty to consult the wishes of the peo- 
 ple, and he knew full well that they.desired 
 no political division which w,ould dissolve 
 their political connection with the two con- 
 tiguous parishes. Were he not to examine 
 and base his actions upon their desire in 
 that respect, he would violate hisdufy, end 
 
510 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 his course would not be in accordance 
 with their wishes. He cared not whether 
 the result were favorable to the whig party 
 or to the democratic party; his vote was 
 not predicated in reference to party politics, 
 but it was in reference to what the people 
 were entitled to, and what the majority de- 
 sired. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved the reconsideration 
 of the vote giving one senator to St. James 
 and Ascension. Upon this motion a dis- 
 cursory discussion occurred, which termi- 
 nated in a motion of Mr. Brent to lay the 
 subject under debate, upon the table. 
 
 The motion was then put, and the yeas 
 and nays being called for, it was found 
 that 
 
 Messrs. Beatty Brazeale, Brent, Cade, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Humble, 
 Hynson, Lewis,McCallop, McRae, O'Bry- 
 an, Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoy- 
 elles, Prescott of St. "Landry, RatlifY, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison, Splane, Stephens, 
 Voorhies, Waddill,Wederstrandt and Win- 
 der voted in the affirmative — 29 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert,, Benjamin, Boudousquie, , 
 Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eus- 
 tis, Garrett, Garcia, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Ledoux,Legendre, 
 Marigny, Mazureau, Prudhomme, Pugh, 
 Roman, Saunders, Sellers, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Wads- 
 Wikoff and Winchester voted in the nega- 
 tive — 36 nays; consequently the motion 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Kenner desired to know how any 
 delegate could rise and assume to know the 
 sentiments of the people of a district better 
 than the immediate representatives of that 
 district; delegates, too, that come from a 
 different portion of the State. It was per- 
 fectly legitimate for all the members to 
 participate in the apportionment of the re- 
 presentation of any particular district, but 
 when the allotment was made, it seemed 
 to him that it was for the people themselves 
 to determine what distribution they w r ould 
 make of the number allowed them, among 
 themselves. „He considered it an interfe- 
 rence into family affairs, to attempt to re- 
 sist the wishes of the people of the district, 
 and could not but notice the continued ef- 
 forts made by the delegates from Ouachita 
 
 and Rapides (Messrs. Downs and Brent; 
 to misconstrue the wishes of a district that 
 had its own representatives on this floor to 
 express its views. How would the gentle- 
 man from Rapides relish it, were I to rise 
 and state that his parish was a large parish 
 and that it ought to be divided, because 
 this division would be favorable to a cer- 
 tain expression of political opinion with 
 which I concurred. It is well known to 
 me, that the inhabitants of the valley of that 
 parish entertain, unanimously, political 
 opinions adverse to those entertained by 
 the inhabitants residing in the Piney 
 Woods. I am well aw r are of the disposi- 
 tion to divide the golden district of Acadia. 
 But if it is to be doomed, it will be by no 
 man having any identity of interest with it; 
 it will be by those who have no feeling in 
 common; who come from another quarter 
 of the State. I trust the Convention will 
 give no encouragement to the disposition 
 to cut it up, but that they will determine to 
 maintain it intact. 
 
 Mr. Downs: If the gentleman thinks that 
 I wish to enterfere in the distribution of the 
 . senatorial delegation of this district, he is 
 entirely mistaken. I do not care one straw 
 whether St. James have all, if the other 
 parishes choose to consent. What I object 
 to is putting together two large parishes in 
 one district. But I do not care how the 
 district be divided, provided these two pa- 
 rishes do not stand together to elect the 
 two senators. I am opposed to the princi- 
 ple, that any district should elect more than 
 one senator. It was on that ground that I 
 objected to allowing two senators to the 
 parish of Jefferson. 1 think it important 
 that there should be uniformity in the dis- 
 tricts, and this result should be consulted 
 as far as practicable. If St. James and 
 Ascension be really entitled to tw T o sena- 
 tors, let these parishes have them, but let 
 each parish elect one, as a separate sena- 
 torial district. He would move that they 
 be established into separate senatorial dis- 
 tricts. 
 
 Mr. Roman hoped that this motion 
 would not pre^il. For the last thirty-two 
 years St. James and Ascension have form- 
 ed one senatorial district. The populations 
 residing in the parishes have the same 
 habits, the same kind of agricultural indus- 
 try and the same interests. They have en- 
 trusted their delegation to ask the Convcn* 
 
Debates in the Convention oi Louisiana: 
 
 oil 
 
 lion to preserve their actual political organ- 
 ization and identity. I can see no good 
 reason why this reasonable request should 
 be refused, when a. compliance with it can 
 be of no detriment to any portion of the 
 State. The delegate from Ouachita (Mr. 
 Downs) complains that it is obnoxious to 
 his favorite system, of small districts. If 
 he indeed have the power, which I much 
 fear he has, to control the action of this 
 body, and we must pass under the yoke 
 while he is cutting up the State into insig- 
 nificant fractions, let him at least have some 
 clemency; let him hear our admonitions. 
 These divisions, ad infinitum, may be car- 
 ried to a dangerous exces. They will 
 undermine and destroy the wise system of 
 checks and balances which the founders of 
 our institutions deemed it essential to estab- 
 lish between the two branches of the legisla- 
 tive department. The senate will cease to 
 be a check upon the house of representa- 
 tives so soon as you supersede the original 
 basis of its organization, and cause its mem- 
 bers to eminate from the same constitu- 
 ency, and to partake of the same responsi- 
 bility. 
 
 I trust, Mr. President, that if there be a 
 majority of this body, who are in favor of 
 dividing the senatorial representation into 
 minute fractions, they will at least respect 
 the wishes and feelings of such parishes as 
 have, under the old constitution, formed 
 united senatorial districts, and which are 
 very reluctant to lose their past po- 
 litical association. 
 
 Mr. Brent : The delegates from St. 
 James and Ascension seemed to apprehend 
 that great injustice was about to be done 
 to their part of the State. He did not 
 believe that any disposition existed to de- 
 prive that or any other portion of the State 
 of its just representation. He could not 
 agree with the delegate from Ascension, 
 that the members from other parts of the 
 State had nothing to do with this matter; 
 that k was a family affair. He conceived 
 that all parts of the State were interested 
 in the apportionment for th# senate. It 
 was a matter of general consideration that 
 no one portion should have a greater con- 
 centration of political power than another 
 portion. He was decidedly favorable to 
 small districts; that each district should 
 have one voice, but that no district should 
 have two voices in the senate. It was de- 
 
 j sirable, and indispensable, to carry out that 
 principle with uniformity. How can these 
 delegates object to that? They assume 
 that the lodal representation are unanimous 
 in desiring those two parishes to be an 
 exception from the rule which the majority 
 of this body have shown a disposition to 
 sanction. But it would seem that the dele- 
 gation from the locality, composing the 
 whole district, are not united in opinion; I 
 understand they are divided in opinion. 
 These parishes are susceptible of being 
 divided into^ separate districts, and I have 
 heard no good reason advanced why that 
 should not be done. I cannot consider this 
 question in the light in which the delegate 
 (Mr. Kenner) had attempted to place it; 
 and cannot concur that it should be left 
 solely to a majority of the local delegation 
 to determine. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved that the district 
 composed of the two parishes of St, James 
 and Ascension, have two senators. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan moved that this district 
 should have one senator. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad desired to know 
 whether it was the design of the gentlemen 
 to take this senator from the south for the 
 purpose of giving him to the north-w T est? 
 
 The north-western portion of the State, 
 said Mr. Conrad, had, in point of fact, but 
 half the population, and contributed scarce- 
 ly one-half of the taxation of the State, and 
 yet she was all®wed an equal representa- 
 tion with the balance of the State. Was 
 it intended to favor her still further? 
 
 Mr. Brent said it. was unfortunate for 
 the gentleman to refer to the voters, as 
 they incontestably exhibited that the north- 
 ern and western parishes of the State had 
 the preponderance of members. To ex- 
 hibit this, he would call the attention of the 
 gentleman to the votes c .st in the last 
 presidential election. By calculating the 
 number of votes given in the several pa- 
 rishes embraced within the senatorial dis- 
 tricts, it would be seen that in proportion 
 to population the senatorial districts in the 
 south were allowed a larger represetation 
 than they were entitled to, while the dis- 
 tricts in the north and north-west were put 
 dow#at less than they were entitled to. 
 The gentleman's insinuation, then, that the 
 north and north-west were peculiarly fa- 
 vored was not sustained by a reference to 
 the facts, It was o# the contrary, the pa- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 rishes in the south that were specially fri- 
 vored. 
 
 [ Mr. Brcfli read a comparative state- 
 rnent of the returns of the last presidential 
 election to substantiate what he had ad- 
 vanced, j 
 
 Mr. Downs said it was altogether super- 
 fluous tor the gentleman from New Or- 
 leans (Mr. Conrad) to ask for any such 
 information. It. had already been explicit- 
 ly disavowed, that there was any intention 
 to take away one senator from the districts 
 embracing the parishes of Ascension, St. 
 James, Assumption, Lafourche and Ter- 
 rebonne. Four senators had been con- 
 ceded to these parishes by common con- 
 sent. The north-west did not want this 
 senator. The only point of difference was, 
 whether two parishes should form a dis- 
 trict to send two members, and should send 
 them conjointly. He was not averse to 
 their having the two senators, but he was 
 opposed to any one district in the country 
 sending two members. Where some ne- 
 cessity existed for it — where one parish 
 was large and another parish was small — 
 where the circumstances were imperious 
 he might yield the principle to such excep- 
 tions. But in the present instance there 
 was no such necessity, and he saw nothing 
 to justify a departure from the general 
 rule. 
 
 Mr. Splane said he represented the 
 same kind of interest as was involved in 
 the decision of the question now pending 
 before the Convention. It cannot be for 
 one moment supposed] that 1 wish to curtail 
 the influence of the parishes of St. James 
 and Ascension. On the contrary, I am 
 deeply interested as the representative of 
 * a parish having an identity of interest, that 
 the sugar growing region should have as 
 many representatives as is consistent with 
 justice. That each district should send 
 one senator, is a favorite principle with 
 me, but I am not in favor of any district 
 sending more than one, where it can pos- 
 sibly be avoided.. I would consent that 
 St. James and Ascension should have two 
 senators, but; on condition that each should 
 send, separately, one senator. 
 
 One of the arguments advanced by the 
 delegate from Lafourche (Mr. Guion) to 
 sustain his proposition that each senatorial 
 district should send two senators was, that 
 it would take the appointing power out of 
 
 ihe hands of one senator from the district 
 which might be abused. I think that the 
 gentleman paid a poor compliment to the 
 executive department. . And if his doctrine 
 were true, that the senator from the dis- 
 trict possessed the appointing power, then 
 so far as the parish of St. Mary was con- 
 cerned, the several senators from Attaka- 
 pas had signally failed in the discharge of 
 their duties in reference to the appoint- 
 ments made for that parish — for it had hap. 
 pened that all the appointments had been 
 made out of the senatorial district, from the 
 neighboring county of Opelousas, with but 
 a solitary exception: that of a sheriff — that 
 was actually taken from St. Mary! 
 
 Mr. Ratliff avowed himself in favor of 
 the one district system, and went into an 
 exposition both in reference to the popula- 
 tion* of the parishes embraced in the al- 
 lotment under consideration and their taxa- 
 tion; and he thought upon the whole, it 
 was fair to allow them two senators, but he 
 was unwilling to" vote that they should form 
 one united district. It was impossible to 
 have a perfect equality in the representa- 
 tion; in the present instance it was out of 
 the question. All that we could do was to 
 approach that equality as nearly as possi- 
 ble. He would vote in favor of granting 
 two senators to the parishes of St. James 
 and Ascension, but would insist that they 
 form separate senatorial districts. 
 
 Mr. Downs thought the gentleman (Mr. 
 Ratliff) would be more likely to effect his 
 object by voting against granting two sena- 
 tors to the two parishes united. If that 
 question failed, then their delegation would 
 be ready to divide the district in order to 
 obtain the two senators. 
 
 Mr. Roman called for the yeas and nays 
 upon the question that St. James and As- 
 cension form one senatorial district and bo 
 entitled to two senators. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquic, 
 Bourg, Briant, Burton, Cade, Chinn, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of* Jef- 
 ferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Ken- 
 ner, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, 
 Jicwis, Mazureau, Fresco tt of St. Landry, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff; Roman, Saun- 
 ders, Sellers, Taylor of Assumption, Tay- 
 lor of St. Landry, Voorhies, Wadsworih 
 and Winchester — 39 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 513 
 
 field, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, McCallop, McRae, O'Bry- 
 an, Pcnn, Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoy- 
 elles, Head, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Splane, 
 Stephens, Waddill, Wederstrandt, and 
 Winder — 25 nays. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff gave notice that he would 
 move for the reconsideration in order to 
 establish two senatorial districts in the par- 
 ishes of St. James and Ascension. 
 
 Mr. Taylor proposed to form one dis- 
 trict of the parishes of Assumption, Ter- 
 rebonne and Lafourche and to give the dis- 
 trict two senators. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to constitute La- 
 fourche into one district with one senator, 
 and Terrebonne and Assumption into 
 another district with one senator. 
 
 Mr. Guiox said that the particular lo- 
 calities of these parishes would make it 
 necessary, in order to malie the two dis- 
 tricts equal, that a portion of the parish of 
 Lafourche should be connected with the 
 parish of Assumption. To place the par- 
 ish of Assumption as a separate district, 
 and the parishes of Lafourche Interior and 
 Terrebonne as another district, would be 
 making the districts glaringly unequal. 
 He did not believe that such a design could 
 be entertained. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff said there appeared to be 
 suddenly a mania for a perfect equality be- 
 tween the districts. And yet those that 
 are now such sticklers for that equality, 
 had no objection to make Ascension and j 
 St. James a district, and give that district j 
 two senators, although not strictly entitled 
 to them by population. He (Mr. Ratliff) 
 conceived that a perfect equality in every 
 respect was impossible, we could only ap- 
 proach that equality. It was that consider- 
 ation that induces him to vote to give St. 
 James and Ascension two .senators, but 
 with the design, at least on his part, that 
 the two parishes should be divided into 
 iwo districts. The great object was to 
 secure to a similarity of interests and a 
 continuity of territory, a separate repre- 
 sentation, and thus to protect the rights of 
 the minority. As far as it was practicable 
 he desired to see every distinct population 
 and every distinct interest represented in 
 the legislature. He was not influenced by 
 any political considerations. .If a small 
 parish of different feelings and interests 
 
 were connected with a large parish, the 
 result would be that the voice of the for- 
 mer would be stifled. For example, if the 
 parish of West Baton Rouge were united 
 with the parish of East Baton Rouge, the 
 voice of West Baton Rouge would never, 
 in all probability, be heard. The only 
 way of avoiding such a result was to give 
 a separate and distinct representation, as 
 was practicable, to each parish or distinct 
 political community. 
 
 Mr. Guion disliked to trouble the Con- 
 vention. His constituents might feel them- 
 selves indebted to the member from Feli- 
 ciana for volunteering his assistance in 
 their behalf. But (said Mr. Guion) I 
 do not feel indebted to him. 1 consider 
 myself as capable of representing their 
 interests, and as much more conversant 
 with their views. These parishes have 
 been united ever since 1812. They have 
 a similarity of interests, and their popu- 
 lations are homogenious. There is a pe- 
 culiar fitness in their remaining united as 
 heretofore. The gentleman has intimated 
 that there was some inconsistency in my 
 voting to give two senators to the district 
 composed of St. James and Ascension. I 
 see no inconsistency between that vote and 
 my present position. These two parishes 
 composed a senatorial district under the 
 old constitution, and I have voted to grant 
 them an additional senator, because, as 1 
 stated on a previous occasion, I consider 
 that representation in the senate should not 
 be based on taxation, population and wealth 
 alone, but upon all three combined. These 
 will be a fraction over after allowing two 
 senators to Assumption, Lafourche, and 
 Terrebonne, and that fraction may be 
 transferred to Attakapas, in conformity 
 with what I conceive to be a very just rule. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor called for the yeas 
 and nays to constitute the Lafourche par- 
 ishes into one senatorial district, with two 
 senators, and the result was as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Auburt, Brumfield, Benjamin, 
 Burton, Boudousquie, Bourg, Briant, Cade, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Deibes, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Marigny, Mazureau, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Pugh, Roman, Saunders, Sellers, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 
514 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Voorhies, Wadsworth, Winchester and 
 Winder— 38 yens; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Beatty, Brent, Cham- 
 bliss, Covillion, Downs, Humble, Hynson, 
 Ledoux, McCallop, McRae, O'Bryan, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Splane, Stephens, Waddill and Wed- 
 erstrandt — 25 nays. 
 
 Mr. Chinn moved that the county of 
 Iberville remain constituted as in the con- 
 stitution of 1812, and be entitled to two 
 senators. He said that upon reference to 
 the statement prepared by the sub-commit- 
 tee, it appeared that the parishes of Iber- 
 ville and West Baton Rouge contained a 
 total population of thirteen thousand one 
 hundred and thirty-three souls. The total 
 amount of taxes contributed by these pa- 
 rishes was sixteen thousand seven hun- 
 dred and eighty-one dollars and ninety- 
 two cents. It is true that this amount 
 is not quite equal to that contributed 
 by St. James and Ascension, but there 
 is no material difference, either in re- 
 gard to the taxation or the population. 
 Perfect equality, as has been well said, is 
 not attainable. These parishes are rapid- 
 ly on the increase. They were allow r ed 
 one senator in 1812, and it seemed to him 
 that the augmentation of another senator 
 was not asking too much. There was an 
 identity of interests and a similarity of feel- 
 ing between the population of the two pa- 
 rishes, and it was their unanimous wish 
 that their political association should be 
 continued, 
 
 Mr. Voorhies said he had no objection 
 to make to the motion of the delegate (Mr. 
 Chinn) that the parish of Iberville should 
 have two senators, provided that this sena- 
 tor should not be taken from the county of 
 Attakapas. The total population of Attaka- 
 pas, according to the statement made by a 
 committee of this house, was twenty-five 
 thousand four hundred and sixty-five souls. 
 The population of St. Mary and St. Martin 
 was seventeen thousand six hundred and 
 twenty-four. The parish of St. Martin 
 paid nine thousand seven hundred and 
 ninety-four dollars and eighty-nine cents, 
 and the parish of St. Mary eleven thousand 
 six hundred and ninety-five dollars and 
 ninety-five cents, making a total of twenty- 
 one thousand four hundred and ninety dol- 
 
 lars and eighty-five cents. On the score 
 of territory they maintained a high pre-em- 
 inence? A great deal of valuable land still 
 remained uncultivated. If any district were 
 entitled to two members, it was a district 
 composed of St. Mary and St. Martin. 
 
 Mr. Chinn had not the least doubt of the 
 correctness of the statement of the delegate 
 from Attakapas, (Mr. Voorhies) and if it, 
 were proper for him to commit himself, he 
 would now declare his intention to vote 
 that the united parishes of St. Mary and 
 St. Martin should have two senators. The 
 increase in population and wealth of the 
 district he had the honor, in part, of repre- 
 senting upon this floor, clearly entitled it to 
 two senators. Its united territory was ex- 
 tensive and fertile; its population was 
 steadily on the increase. In the smaller 
 parish— the parish of West Baton Rouge, 
 this increase of population was more par- 
 ticularly remarkable, and was evidenced 
 by the increased vote given at the recent 
 elections. It gave at the last elections 
 three hundred and thirteen votes. 
 
 Mr. Brent would remark that if we 
 kept on increasing the number of senators 
 at this rate, we would not stop until we 
 had reached sixty or one hundred members 
 for the senate. There were several large 
 districts better entitled to two senators than 
 the parish of Iberville, that claimed but 
 one. He instanced the parishes of St. 
 Landry and Rapides, and yet these parish- 
 es were satisfied with one senator each. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to add the parish of 
 Point Coupee to Iberville and West Baton 
 Rouge, and to allow two senators to that 
 district. 
 
 Mr. Ledoux said that the parish of Point 
 Coupee was clearly entitled to one sena- 
 tor. The people of that parish had voted 
 with great unanimity for a Convention, 
 which they wojLild not have done had they 
 thought they would be deprived of their 
 voice in one branch of the legislature. The 
 Convention had no right to deprive the pa- 
 rishes of the representation they enjoyed 
 under the old constitution. • Such a course 
 would be exceedingly unjust, and might in- 
 terfere with the ratification of the new con- 
 stitution. 
 
 He (Mr. L.) commented upon the injus- 
 tice of the representative apportionment in 
 allowing Point Coupee but one member of 
 the house, when she had as large a popu. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 515 
 
 lation as Plaquemines, to which three had 
 been allotted. Mr. L. then read a number 
 of statistical statements, to show that Point 
 Coupee was in every respect entitled to 
 ample representation, both in the house 
 and senate. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff remarked that Point Cou- 
 pee had adhered rigdidly to the constitu- 
 tion in voting, and hence the vote bore but 
 a small proportion to the population. That 
 parish had a large extent of territory, and 
 from his personal knowledge ought to be 
 continued as a separate senatorial district. 
 
 Mr. Labauve agreed with Mr. Ledoux, 
 that Point Coupee should have a separate 
 senator, and should not be united with 
 West Baton Rouge and Iberville. There 
 was no connection, political or otherwise, 
 between them* and an amalgamation was 
 altogether to be deprecated. He hoped 
 Mr. Lewis 7 motion would not prevail. 
 
 Mr. Lewis withdrew his motion. 
 
 The question was taken on constituting 
 the parishes of Iberville and West Baton 
 Rouge one senatorial district, and it was 
 carried in the affirmative. 
 
 The question then recurred on allowing 
 two senators to that district, and the yeas 
 and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Briant. 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Kenner, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Mc- 
 Callop, Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Waddill 
 and Winchester — 23 3#as. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Cenas, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Dimn.Garrett. Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, King, Lewis. 
 McRae, O'Bryan, Peets, Penn," Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Prudhomme, RatlifF, Read, Scott of Fe- 
 liciana, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Yoorhies, Wederstrandt and Winder — 
 38 nays. 
 
 ^ Mr. Read moved that the parish of 
 East Baton* Rouge compose one senatorial 
 district, and that this district be entitled to 
 cue senator. He said that in 1312, one 
 senator had been accorded to the parish of 
 East Baton Rouge. Her increase in 
 population and in wealth had been very 
 great; her present population was placed 
 upon the statement made by the committee 
 
 upon apportionment, at eight thousand one 
 hundred and thirty-eight. She contributed 
 in taxes nine thousand four hundred and 
 twenty-nine dollars ; and at the last presiden- 
 tial election, she gave seven hundred and 
 twenty-four votes. She had an incontesta- 
 ble right, whether we consider population, 
 extent of territory or taxation, to a senator, 
 and he presumed no objection would be 
 made to his motion. His motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Ledoux moved that the parish of 
 Point Coupee compose one senatorial dis- 
 trict, and be allowed one senator. He 
 said that this body were assembled for the 
 purpose of enlarging the liberties of the 
 people — not to restrain them. If the num- 
 ber of senators for other districts are to be 
 increased, it must not be done by taking 
 away the senatorial representation accord- 
 ed to any district by the old constitution. 
 Far better would it be to augment the num- 
 ber of senators beyond thirty-two, than to 
 create dissatisfaction by an act of positive 
 injustice. 
 
 The motion to make the parish of Point 
 Coupee a district, and to give it one sena- 
 tor, prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Covillion moved that the parish of 
 Avoyelles compose a senatorial district, 
 and be entitled to one senator. 
 
 Mr. BouDorsciriE was disposed to vote 
 in favor of this motion, if the gentleman 
 from that parish would submit some data 
 showing that the parish of Avoyelles was 
 entitled to a distinct senatorial represen- 
 tation. 
 
 Mr. Covillion said he would cheerfully 
 communicate the information asked for by 
 the gentleman, (Mr. Boudousquie.) The 
 population of Avoyelles was six thousand 
 six hundred and six, according to the state- 
 ment lying upon the desks of members; it 
 contributed six thousand four hundred and 
 ninety-four dollars and ninety-two cents of 
 taxes. From some local causes, its resources 
 had but recently began to be developed. Its 
 lands were fertile, and if it were not, strictly 
 speaking, under the basis entitled at present 
 to claim a distinct senatorial representa- 
 tion, it would, in the course of* a very few 
 years, have an excess, both of population 
 and taxation, which would entitle it to more 
 than one senator. 
 
 Mr. Brent bore his testimony in favor 
 of the statement made by the delegate (Mr. 
 Covillion.) The territory of Avoyelles 
 
516 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 was vast and fertile. Its natural position 
 separated it from the contiguous parishes. 
 It was true, that in ^reference to present 
 population and taxation, it was not entitled, 
 perhaps, to a distinct representation. But 
 the principle had been adopted in relation 
 to other sections of the State, that the ex- 
 cess of the population of one parish over 
 and above l£e number necessary to entitle 
 it to a senatorial delegation, should be 
 transferred to another contiguous parish 
 having a less population. If this principle 
 were observed in the present instance, 
 Avoyelles would be entitled to one sena- 
 tor, inasmuch as Rapides would be entitled 
 to one senator, and have over and above 
 a sufficient fraction remaining to transfer 
 to the parish of Avoyelles. It was clear 
 that united together in one senatorial dis- 
 trict, the two parishes would be entitled to 
 two senators. The only result would be, 
 that if the gentleman's motion prevailed, 
 they would vote separately, and there would 
 be one senator for each parish, which 
 met the concurrence of the people of both 
 parishes. 
 
 Mr. Lewis was opposed to single dis- 
 tricts on principle, and wished, whenever 
 it was practicable, to give two senators to 
 each district. He was, moreover, unwil- 
 ling to arrange the district so as to require 
 more than thirty-two senators. 
 
 Mr. Kenner said, that the parish of 
 Avoyelles, together with the parish of Ra- 
 pides and the parish of Catahoula, had 
 heretofore formed but one senatorial dis- 
 trict. He was averse to small districts. If 
 these parishes be entitled to more than one 
 senator, let them have the benefit of an in- 
 crease; but let them remain as heretofore, 
 united in one district. There was a great 
 deal of force in the remark of the delegate 
 from Lafourche (Mr. Guion) that districts 
 with single senators, were objectionable, 
 because they placed too much power in the 
 hands of a single person in relation to the 
 confirmation of appointments. 
 
 Mr. Covillion, in reply to the delegate 
 (Mr. Kenner) would remark, that when a 
 similar question came up in relation to the 
 parishes of Ascension and St. James, the 
 gentleman considered it an improper inter- 
 ference for other delegates to meddle 'with 
 the wishes of the members from parishes 
 that desired, for convenience sake, to be 
 united. That delegate said it was a family 
 
 affair. Is not this as much a family af. 
 fair? The gentleman has shifted his po- 
 sition now, that he is beyond his locality. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad thought there was a 
 material difference between the two cases. 
 In the case of the parishes forming the 
 county of Acadia nothing was sought but to 
 continue that district as it was in the old con- 
 stitution, and to give it an additional sena- 
 tor. But in reference to Avoyelles, the 
 matter was materially different. That pa- 
 rish was lopped off of a district composed 
 of three parishes, with the view of creating 
 it into a separate senatorial district. Its 
 total population was only six thousand six 
 hundred and six; while the total population 
 of Ascension and St. James was fifteen 
 thousand four hundred and ninety-nine. 
 The contribution in taxes, "of Ascension, 
 was six thousand four hundred and ninety- 
 four dollars and ninety-two cents'; the con- 
 tribution of St. James alone was nine thou- 
 sand seven hundred and seventy-three 
 dollars and sixty- seven cents, nearly double 
 the amount paid by Avoyelles, Surely 
 there was no similarity between the claims 
 of St. James and Ascension and those of 
 Avoyelles. I regret, said Mr. Conrad, that 
 I am under the necessity of voting against 
 giving a separate senator to Avoyelles, but 
 I cannot vote in favor of it in conformity 
 with any principle. 
 
 Mr. Boudousquie was ready to do jus 
 tice to the claims of any parish. But real- 
 ly he thought that Avoyelles could not 
 reasonably expect#o have a distinct sena- 
 torial representation. Both in population 
 and taxation she was deficient. The pa- 
 rishes of St. Gharles and St. John the 
 Baptist had been continued as a senatorial 
 district, and were allowed but one senator, 
 and yet they contributed in taxes thirteen 
 thousand five hundred and thirty-seven dol- 
 lars, more than double the amount paid by 
 the parish of Avoyelles. Their united 
 population was ten thousand four hundred 
 and seventy -six; while the total population 
 of Avoyelles was only six thousand six hun- 
 dred and six. It was unfair to fallow them 
 but one senator, and Avoyelles one. It 
 would not be in consonance with the prin- 
 ciple of equality and uniformity. Let the 
 same couse be adopted in relation to Avoy- 
 elles as was adopted for the county of Ger- 
 man coast; and inasmuch as it has not by 
 itself the requisite essentiais to be a sepa 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 517 
 
 rate senatorial district, let it be united with 
 some adjacent parish. It might be united 
 with the parish of Catahoula, whose total 
 population is four thousand nine hundred 
 and fifteen, and which contributes a tax of 
 two thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine 
 dollars and ninety-five cents. These two 
 parishes combined would be entitled to a 
 senator. 
 
 Mr. Bexjamix said that inasmuch as it 
 appeared to be conceded that that the pa- 
 rishes of Rapides and Avoyelles combined, 
 were only entitled to two senators, he saw 
 no objection to allowing them to choose 
 one senator each. It was true that the 
 parish of Avoyelles had neither the requis- 
 ite population nor the requisite taxation to 
 entitle it to a senator. But on the other 
 hand, Rapides had more than the requisite 
 population and taxation to constitute her into 
 a senatorial district. The excess of her 
 population could be carried to the account 
 of Avoyelles. He would have no objection 
 to this, were it distinctly understood that the 
 two parishes should not have more than 
 two senators. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies said with this condition, 
 he would have no objection to allowing a 
 senatorial delegation to Avoyelles; but if 
 hereafter more than one senator for Ra- 
 pides were claimed, he would move to re- 
 consider the vote creating the parish of 
 Avoyelles into a separate senatorial dis- 
 trict. 
 
 Mr. Claiborxe could not vote in favor of 
 granting a distinct senatorial delegation to 
 the parish of Avoyelles, because it was evi- 
 dent that she was not entitled -to it. If 
 Avoyelles were united to the parish of 
 Rapides, for the purpose of forming a sena- . 
 torial district, he would vote to give to that 
 district two senators, because the popula- 
 tion and taxation of Rapides and Avoyelles 
 united would entitle them to that represen- 
 tation. But to make Avoyelles a particular 
 favorite, and to show in her behalf an un- 
 just preference over other parishes, was 
 what he could not assent to. 
 
 Mr, C. M, Coxrad would remark that 
 we were not here to act upon the diplo- 
 matic negociations entered into by the re- 
 presentatives of different parishes," with the 
 view of arranging their respective claims. 
 He doubted much whether the delegation 
 from Rapides were authorised to make any 
 such concession as had been intimated in 
 66 
 
 this debate. That parish was allowed one 
 senator, because she had the requisite popu- 
 lation and contributed the requisite amount 
 of taxation; over and above that it appeared 
 she had a fraction, and she was clearly 
 entitled to have that fraction represented, 
 by uniting it with some other parish, that 
 had not by itself the requisite population. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies said he was well acquain- 
 ted with the parish of Avoyelles. It was 
 true, as stated by the delegate from Xew 
 Orleans, (Mr. Conrad) that it was a por- 
 tion of the State which had been settled 
 many years ago. But from local causes 
 it had made little or no progress until with- 
 in the last ten years. He had been there 
 when it was a wilderness. He was well 
 acquainted with its topography. He had 
 returned within a recent period, and was 
 really astonished at its advancement. 
 Plantations were opening on all sides, and 
 population was flowing in steadily. If the 
 parish of Rapides contained a greater ex- 
 tent of territory, some deduction would have- 
 to be made for a considerable body of 
 pine lands which would not be very availrble 
 to culture; whereas there was but little of 
 the territory of Avoyelles which would be. 
 a waste; its lands were very productive, and 
 from their fertility he doubted not that 
 Avoyelles would become one of the wealthi- 
 est parishes of the State. Anciently but 
 little was done in the way of cultivation. 
 The old settlers followed the chase, and 
 one of them, who was very well known and 
 who traded with New Orleans, Jean Pierre 
 Lemoine, acquired in that occupation one 
 hundred thousand dollars. It was not at 
 all unlikely that in the end, Avoyelles 
 would outstrip Rapides by the extent of 
 her productions. 
 
 Mr. Chixx said he could not consent to 
 give a distinct senatorial delegation to 
 Avoyelles, because it was evident it was 
 not entitled to it, either in reference to po- 
 pulation or taxation. He would renew the 
 motion, that the parishes of Catahoula and' 
 Avoyelles form one senatorial district, with 
 one senator. 
 
 Mr. BouDorsQEiE said, that he had sug- 
 gested the union of these parishes. But 
 his attention had been called to the physi- 
 cal obstructions that existed against such' 
 an union. By reference to a map, he saw 
 that it would be extremely inconvenient to 
 the inhabitants, and might operate to their 
 
518 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 detriment. He would sustain the union 
 of Avoyelles and Rapides in the formation 
 of a senatorial district. 
 
 Mr. Walker, with the leave of the 
 Convention, would make a few explana- 
 tions in relation to the peculiar positions of 
 Avoyelles to the other parishes, with which 
 she had heretofore been united in the for- 
 mation of a senatorial district. The par- 
 ish of Avoyelles was in fact an isolated 
 parish. She was divided by physical cau- 
 ses from both Rapides and Catahoula. It 
 was extremely difficult to pass over at 
 times, to or from her territory, to that of 
 the adjacent parishes. . Nature had evi- 
 dently designed that she should have a 
 distinct political representation from that 
 of the surrounding country. In reference 
 to any present disparity, either in her 
 population or taxation, he would remark 
 that this was but transient. She was des- 
 tined at no distant day to excel both in po- 
 pulation and in wealth, and would in the 
 end, probably outstrip the parish of Ra- 
 pides. Being well acquainted with these 
 facts, and as a delegate from the district 
 which embraced this parish, he had deem- 
 ed it not improper to offer these explana- 
 tions. 
 
 Mr. Chinn said he could very well di- 
 vine the object of the present effort to 
 make Avoyelles a senatorial district. When 
 this was accomplished, Rapides would be 
 constituted into a senatorial district. Here 
 we have two senators where there has 
 heretofore been but one. But that is not 
 yet all ; a portion of the ancient district, to 
 wit: the parish of Catahoula has been kept 
 in reserve for the formation, with perhaps 
 some contiguous^territory, of a third dis- 
 trict. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for, on 
 Mr. Covillion's motion to constitute the 
 parish of Avoyelles into a senatorial dis- 
 trict, with one senator. 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Chambliss, Co- 
 villion, Culbertson, Downs, Garrett, Huds- 
 peth, Humble, Hynson, King, Ledoux, 
 Lewis, McCallop, McRae, O'Bryan, Peets, 
 Penn, Porter, Preseott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Ratliff, 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Fe- 
 liciana, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandtand Win- 
 der — -40 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Boudousquie, Briant, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans,Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Derbes, Dunn, Guion, 
 Kenner, Labauve, Legendre, Mazureau, 
 Pugh, Roman, Saunders, Wadsworth and 
 Winchester — 19 nays. • 
 
 Whereupon, the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Friday, March 28, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment, 
 
 The proceedings were opened with pray- 
 er by the Rev. Mr. Nicholson. 
 
 The journal of yesterday was read and 
 approved. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 The majority report of the committee on 
 the division of the State into senatorial dis- 
 tricts. 
 
 Mr. Cade moved to take up that part of 
 the report apportioning the eighth district, 
 constituting the parishes of Opelousas and 
 Attakapas, 
 
 Mr. Dunn rose to a question of order, 
 contending that the section apportioning 
 the Florida parishes was the proper ques- 
 tion before the house. 
 
 Mr. Lewis differed in opinion with the 
 delegate from East Feliciana, (Mr. Dunn.) 
 He thought it was in order to take up any 
 part of the report, and contended that it 
 was against all principles either of fair- 
 ness or etiquette to give a preference to the 
 new parishes over the old ones. He con- 
 ceives that the old parishes of the State 
 should be fairly apportioned first, and then 
 we should proceed to divide, on the same 
 principles of fairness, what was left among 
 the younger parishes. This courtesy de- 
 manded. Mr. Lewis illustrated it by say- 
 ing that the Congress of the United States 
 pursued that course, as the old thirteen 
 States take the precedence and are always 
 called first ; so it should be here. In this 
 there can be no injustice to the Florida 
 parishes, for there is no danger of their not 
 getting what they are fully entitled to. He 
 hopes Mr. Cade's motion will prevail. 
 
 Mr. Dunn thought that was a strange 
 argument ; for his part, he said he was of 
 opinion that the Florida parishes were fol- 
 ly equal to, and just as much deserving of 
 attention, as any of the older parishes* 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 519 
 
 Mr. Lewis replied, that be had not said 
 they were not equal, but that they were 
 younger, and that it was nothing but an 
 act of courtesy in the younger parishes to 
 give way to the older ones, when no un- 
 fair advantage was ever dreamt of towards 
 them. 
 
 Mr. Dunn still insisted that no distinc- 
 tion ought to be made, and hopes the Con- 
 vention will proceed as they are going on, 
 and take the parishes in the order reported 
 by the committee. 
 
 Mr. Cade remarked that his desire in 
 calling the attention of the Convention to 
 this matter was, that he was anxious, be- 
 fore they proceeded further, to suggest a 
 change in the district ; and that if they pro- 
 ceeded in the order laid down, they could 
 not cleverly do so, particularly as the com- 
 mittee had reported his section of the coun- 
 try as the very last deserving of considera- 
 tion, and if they proceeded in the order laid 
 down, he could not well accomplish what 
 he aimed at. 
 
 Mr. Brent remarked that the change 
 could be made as we progressed with the 
 report. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff was also in favor of pro- 
 ceeding with the report as it stands. He 
 will have no objection if sufficient reasons 
 can be adduced to change any part of it. 
 He wants nothing for his district of coun- 
 try but what is just, fair, honorable, and 
 right. He regrets to hear the arguments 
 advance'd on this floor, that new parishes 
 coming into a State should be regarded in 
 the light of a step-mother in a family. Let 
 us look, (said Mr. R.,)at the constitution of 
 the United States, and that tells us that all 
 the new States, when admitted into the 
 Union go in on an equal footing with the 
 old States. The same -rule then should 
 apply to those parishes in our State that 
 have been taken in under the treaty. The 
 mere calling over the names of the old thir- 
 teen States in Congress first, amounts to 
 nothing ; it is a simple matter of courtesy, 
 which has been regarded in the same light 
 that gentlemen daily practice, that is, al- 
 ways to give place to an old man, who 
 claims attention first. But, Mr. President, 
 (said Mr. R.) I g0 further than that, and 
 say that I do not think it is right we should 
 give way, when we have reason to believe 
 thafrthe rights of our constituents are in 
 danger; and I feel, sir, like the venerable 
 
 Mr. Thomas, who formerly, in contending 
 for the rights of the Florida parishes, when 
 it was contemplated to deprive them of 
 equality of representation, remarked that 
 they should not take him out of the hall 
 while defending those rights, unless it were 
 feet foremost. Now, sir, I say that so 
 long as I have power to stand, and raise 
 my voice in this hall, that I will not, can- 
 not, be driven off from maintaining the 
 rights of those parishes. Men talk here as 
 if we wanted some advantage. Sir, we 
 want no advantage, but want justice ; we 
 are not afraid to ask it, and you are bound 
 to give it. 
 
 The question was then put on Mr. Cade's 
 motion, and the same was carried. 
 
 A discussion then arose, whether or not 
 a dispensation of the rules was necessary 
 to take up the question out of the ordinary 
 course. 
 
 The President decided that a majority 
 of the Convention had clearly the right to 
 take up any part of a report which they 
 saw fit to, not previously acted upon. The 
 Convention then proceeded to the conside- 
 ration of the senatorial representation of 
 the counties of Opelousas and Attakapas. 
 
 Mr. Cade moved to add to the parish 
 of St. Landry, the parish of Calcasieu, 
 make the same one district, and allow her 
 two senators. He conceived it was nothing 
 more than what they were justly, entitled 
 to, and so thinking, he pressed his motion 
 to the attention of the house. 
 
 Mr. Lewis then moved, that the parishes 
 of St. Mary and St. Martin should form 
 one district, and be entitled to two sena- 
 tors. 
 
 Mr. Cade then proceeded to divide them, 
 and allow the parish of St. Mary to elect 
 one senator, and the parish of St. Martin 
 the other. He urged that the parish in its 
 population, wealth, and importance, has a 
 right to a separate conservative voice in the 
 upper house. 
 
 Mr. Tator regretted to oppose the hon- 
 orable delegate from Lafayette, (Mr, Cade) 
 but yet he was bound to do so on princi- 
 ple, He has always regarded the ques- 
 tion thus, that the senate is the body 
 where the minority looks to for protection 
 against any encroachment on the part of the 
 majority; and therefore, that is not likely 
 to be accomplished, if we elect the repre- 
 sentative and senator by the very same 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 votes; for if we do, there will then be no 
 check; both being elected by the same 
 popular vote, they will be bound to, and 
 doubtless will, act together, without regard 
 to any other than sectional interests — the 
 very thing intended to be guarded against. 
 He therefore moved that the parishes of 
 St. Mary and St. Martin form one dis- 
 trict, with two senators. 
 
 Mr. Splane had hoped that this Con- 
 vention would not have interfered in fami- 
 ly matters, and as such, he regarded this 
 question. He remarked that the parish of 
 St. Mary was every way entitled to what 
 she asked at the hands of this Convention, 
 under the very principle upon which we 
 have heretofore acted. She is entitled to 
 it upon any basis, (whether it be popula- 
 tion or taxation) which is to be regarded 
 in this matter. In the first place, she has 
 a population of over nine thousand. In 
 the second place, she paid into the State 
 treasury in 1843, twelve thousand dollars, 
 and in 1844 over fifteen thousand dollars. 
 He (Mr. Splane) hopes that this Conven- 
 tion will permit the members from the 
 Attakapas and Opelousas counties to di- 
 vide out the senatorial districts in their 
 section, as to them may seem most fit, 
 and the most in accordance with the wish- 
 es of the people, whom they represent. 
 
 Mr. Dunn was desirous of making a few 
 brief remarks in reply to the gentlemen 
 who had addressed the Convention on this 
 subject. He was of the same opinion as 
 the delegate from Assumption, as to small 
 senatorial districts being decidedly not in 
 accordance with the spirit of our institu- 
 tions; and which heretofore has been so 
 happily illustrated in large districts being 
 so much preferable, because minorities are 
 thereby always protected by the safe- 
 guard thrown around their rights, in the 
 check afforded to them through the senate, 
 over the acts of the popular branch of the 
 government. He (Mr. Dunn) was mo- 
 mentarily in expectation that the same 
 question would be started, as regards the 
 senatorial delegation of East and West Fe- 
 liciana, and he therefore takes this oppor- 
 tunity, as the question is precisely similar, 
 to express his dissent to any such divis- 
 ion. He Ihinks that it is in accordance 
 with sound reason, that the same people 
 who elect representatives to the lower 
 house, should not alone elect a senator; 
 
 and why? Because if you do, where is 
 the very thing we profess to aim at. the 
 check? A senator is a much higher, a 
 much more dignified officer than that of 
 the representative of the lower house. He 
 is clothed with far more delicate and im- 
 portant powers; he acts not only as the 
 judge in the bestowal of subordinate offi- 
 ces upon the governor's recommendation, 
 but he is liable to Ije called upon at any 
 moment to sit as a judge in .cases of im- 
 peachment. How much more important 
 then are his duties, than if he were to be 
 governed by local interests and feelings; 
 and how much more necessary to sepa- 
 rate him from any such local influences? 
 A senator should be a man thinking of no 
 particular spot; but of the weal and wel- 
 fare of the whole State; the best evidence 
 that can be given of the importance of such 
 an office, is, that it ever has been deemed 
 advisable to have such a check on the 
 house of representatives; further, we see 
 there is in cases of impeachment, a check 
 upon that check; because a bare majority 
 of the senate is not sufficient for convic- 
 tion of the officer under trial; and why? It 
 shows plainly that that proviso is placed 
 as a check upon men who might either be 
 actuated by improper motives, or from sec- 
 tional feelings; for that reason, and from 
 the fact that two-thirds are required for 
 conviction, it is apparent that it is neces- 
 sary to restrict even them in their power, 
 whenever we can do so, for we thereby 
 the more effectually keep them independ- 
 ent of local feelings and prejudices; evi- 
 dently the thing most feared in all delibe- 
 rative bodies. He (Mr. Dunn) believes 
 that the interests of the State require that 
 the senatorial districts should be extended 
 as to territory, and diminished as to num- 
 bers. It makes senators more independ- 
 ent, they take a bolder and more enlarged 
 view of the interests of the State, than if 
 they were to be held accountable to any 
 one parish? and they then feel that they 
 are indeed the conservative branch of the 
 government. 
 
 It is for this reason that he is opposed to 
 any separation in the parishes of St. Mary 
 and St. Martin. As they will have their 
 elections every two years for one of the 
 senators, and as they have pretty much an 
 identity of interests, they should be Kfept 
 together. He thinks it important that th* 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 521 
 
 representation should be confined, if not 
 into large, at least into convenientgjlis- 
 tricts. 
 
 Mr. Taylor, while he is not desirous of 
 discussing this subject, cannot see the 
 benefit to result from it, which is claimed 
 by some of those who wish it; but certainly 
 for the reasons which he has heretofore j 
 assigned, whenever any proposition is made j 
 to connect two parishes together, as a sen- 
 atorial district, such as St. Mary and St. 
 Landry, he shall always vote for it, because j 
 he thinks it important for the maintenace 
 of the check which ought always to be 
 in the senate over the acts of the lower 
 house. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff is of opinion, thaf two 
 senators being allowed to St. Mary and St. 
 Martin, with a population of seventeen 
 thousand six hundred and twenty-four, is 
 disproportionate, when it is considered 
 that St. Landry alone has a population of 
 fifteen thousand two hundred and thirty- 
 three, and that therefore she will claim 
 likewise two senators. In the parishes of 
 East and West Feliciana, with a popula- 
 tion of twenty-two thousand seven hundred 
 and twenty-two, and paying into the trea- 
 sury twenty-five thousand seven hundred 
 and forty-four dollars, they might with the 
 same propriety claim three senators; but 
 although those two parishes have that ex- 
 cess, he does not claim it for them. Then 
 why give it to St. Mary and St. Martin? 
 If we do not' closely watch this matter, we 
 shall increase the number beyond bounds. 
 The ratio must be made according to popu- 
 lation and taxationfand then if that rule be 
 observed, how small the difference between 
 St. Mary, St. Martin and St. Landry. We 
 have already said that Point Coupee shall 
 be entitled to one senator; West Baton 
 Rouge and Iberville to one; and if we 
 adopt the principle contended for, we are 
 bound to increase the number ©f senators, 
 rather than diminish them, unless we are 
 guilty of gross injustice to some of the pa- 
 rishes. 
 
 Mr. Lewis desired to make a few re- 
 marks particularly to satisfy the delegate 
 from West Feliciana, but more especially 
 to show that the Attakapas and Opelousas 
 members were asking nothing but what 
 was fair and just. It is a matter well 
 known that the parishes adjoining St. Ma- 
 ry and St. Martin, viz: the parishes of As- 
 
 sumption, Lafourche Interior, and Terre- 
 bonne, had a large fraction of population 
 left in their district over and above what 
 was considered as requisite to entitle them 
 to two senators, and that those parishes 
 were willing to accord that fraction to the 
 parishes of St. Mary and St. Martin. The 
 parish of St. Landry moreover had no idea 
 of being divorced from the parish of Cal= 
 casieu in her political ties of connection; 
 and it was also worthy of remark that the 
 parishes of St. Landry and Calcasieu 
 formed an amount of territory not inferior 
 to the old parish of Natchitoches, now di- 
 vided into six, seven, or eight parishes. It 
 is true that the population is not so great 
 as is to be found in other parishes, but 
 there can be no doubt that St. Mary, St. 
 Martin, St. Landry, Lafayette and Ver- 
 million are justly entitled, when you add 
 the parish of Calcasieu to them, to five 
 senators. Let gentlemen examine their 
 statistics on this subject, and their fears 
 will vanish, as to our getting more than we 
 are entitled to. Instead of Calcasieu and 
 Sabine forming one district with one sena- 
 tor, join Calcasieu to St. Landry, and ac- 
 cord them two senators; that would be fair 
 and reasonable; and for the same reason 
 he thinks when you take into consideration 
 the amount of population, and the large 
 amount of property in the parishes of St. 
 Mary and St. Martin, that they are also 
 fully entitled to two senators. 
 
 Mr. Bkext proposed a division of the 
 question. 
 
 Mr. Vooehies objects on the ground 
 that it is not called for, and is, moreover, 
 inexpedient and unnecessary. He repre- 
 sents the county of Attakapas, consisting 
 of four parishes — St. Mary, St. Martin, La- 
 fayette and Vermillion, and he knows that 
 to divide the two former parishes is un- 
 necessary; formerly they were one parish; 
 there are no water courses to divide them; 
 it is the same country, and peopled by the 
 same class of citizens, having one common 
 interest. Yesterday he had advocated the 
 separation of Rapides from Avoyelles on the 
 ground that they were separate and dis- 
 tinct communities; and even in this case 
 he might not have any material objection, 
 if it were considered a matter desirable to 
 his constituents, but the members from St. 
 Martin were opposed to it, and as he could 
 see no possible advantage to be derived 
 
522 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 from the separation, and feeling % that no 
 injustice would be done to any of them by 
 remaining together, he should vote to keep 
 taem united as a district. It is very cer- 
 tain that they are entitled to two senators, 
 particularly when it is known that what 
 Lafourche loses she is willing to accord to 
 those parishes. 
 
 Mr. Cade withdraws his motion,and ac- 
 cepts the one offered by Mr. Taylor, to 
 keep the parishes united as one district 
 with two senators. 
 
 Mr. Splane then pressed a division. 
 He contended that they were not united; 
 that their interests were not identical, St. 
 Mary being a parish exclusively engaged 
 in the cultivation of sugar cane, while St. 
 Martin was considerably engaged in the 
 culture of cotton, and had also a large 
 grazing interest. He remarked, therefore, 
 that they ought to be separated; that St. 
 Mary was rapidly filling up by emigration; 
 that she had a population about equal to 
 that of St. Martin; that her citizens were 
 desirous of a separaie representation in the 
 senate, and as such, he felt bound to press 
 it on the considera.ion of the Convention, 
 and therefore renewed the motion to di- 
 vide. 
 
 The question was then put, and the yeas 
 and nays being called for, resulted as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, 
 Humble, McCallop, McRae, O'Bryan, 
 Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Splane, Stephens*, Waddill and We- 
 derstandt — 25 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudous- 
 quie, Bourg, Briant, Cade, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Hynson, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, Prescott 
 of St. Landry, Pugh, Roman, Saunders, 
 Sellers, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Voorhies, Winchester and 
 Winder— -36 nays. So the motion was 
 lost. 
 
 Mr. Splane then moved to attach Ver- 
 million and Lafayette to the parishes of 
 St. Mary and St. Martin. 
 
 Mr. Cade hoped the motion would not 
 
 prevail, for the parishes of Vermillion and 
 Layette were identical in interest — were 
 as one people; and were fully entitled to a 
 separate representation in the senate. 
 
 Mr. Conrad remarked, that although he 
 was generally in favor of large senatorial 
 districts, he thought that such an apportion- 
 ment would be unfair, and as such he op. 
 posed it. 
 
 Mr. Splane withdrew his motion, and 
 then 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor renewed his motion 
 to constitute the parishes of St. Mary and 
 St. Martin one senatorial district; and his 
 motion prevailed. He then moved that 
 the district be entitled to two senators; 
 which motion being put, the yeas and nays 
 being called for, resulted as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Cade, Carriere, 
 Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Co- 
 villion, Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, 
 McCeilop, Marigny, Mazureau, O'Bryan, 
 Peets, Prescott of Avoyelles, PresCott of St. 
 Landry, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Scott 
 oi Baton Rouge, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Voorhies, Wikoff, Winchester and Winder 
 •—-49 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Burton, Hynson, Marigny, Penn, 
 Porter, Ratliff, Roman, Scott ot Feliciana, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt— 10 nays; so 
 the motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan then moved that the par- 
 ishes of Lafayette and Vermillion do con- 
 stitute one senatorial district, and shall be 
 entitled to one senator; which motion also 
 prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Lewis then moved that the parishes 
 of St. Landry and Calcasieu should form 
 one senatorial district, and be entitled to 
 two senators. 
 
 Mr. Downs objected to the manner in 
 which the Convention was proceeding. He 
 thought it was decidedly better for them to 
 go on in the regular way, as reported by 
 the committee. 
 
 Mr. Waddill most perfectly agreed 
 with the delegate from Ouachita, that we 
 are proceeding irregularly; but he objects 
 on another and stronger ground to the mo- 
 tion before the house. In the first place, 
 Calcasieu is not large enough for one dis« 
 
* 
 
 debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 523 
 
 uict by itself, and St. Landry has already 
 got more than her share in the representa- 
 tion in the lower house. So has Calcasieu, 
 under the system of representation we have 
 adopted in the lower house; she has one, St. 
 Landry five. He dislikes to see gentlemen 
 not content with holding on to what they 
 have, still eternally grasping at more po- 
 litical power. He feels convinced that the 
 report of the committee is every way more 
 just, and that it will be much fairer to con- 
 stitute the parishes of Sabine and Cal- 
 casieu one senatorial district, than the 
 amendment proposed. 
 
 Mr. Downs is of opinion that we are 
 going on altogether too fast, and before we 
 know where we are, we shall have passed 
 the number we have agreed upon, thirty- 
 two, and have made at least thirty-four 
 senators. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne reminded the delegate 
 from Ouachita, (Mr. Downs) that what had 
 been granted to the parishes of Si. Mary 
 and St. Martin had been taken away from 
 the parishes adjacent to New Orleans, and 
 therefore could make no difference in the 
 total number. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff insists, that if the motion 
 prevail, it will give us thirty-three sena- 
 tors. Now gentlemen, he conceives, ought 
 to be more candid, and not conceal their 
 object until too late; if it be their intention 
 to make sections of any particular portion 
 of the country, why not come out and man- 
 fully say so? because, if they do, then they 
 can be prepared to defend themselves. 
 Now let us look on what pretensions this 
 clause, is founded f Forsooth, it is simply 
 this, that the parish of St. Landry in con- 
 sequence of the heavy burden she is under, 
 in taking under her wing a parish having 
 a population of one thousand six hundred 
 and eighty- eight, and paying into the State 
 treasury about one thousand six hundred 
 and fifty dollars, should be entitled to 
 another senator, beides the one allotted to 
 her. She is, by the report, entitled to one 
 senator; and by the apportionment in the 
 lower house, to five representatives — to- 
 gether six; surely as much as ought, in the 
 name of common sense, to be asked for 
 her. The reason assigned for giving to 
 Point Coupee one senator, was, that she 
 was not fairly represented in the house of 
 representatives; but the same thing cannot 
 ! be said of St. Landry, for she is there fully 
 
 represented, having five members allowed 
 her. He (Mr. Ratliff) thinks he can now 
 see through the movement in taking up 
 the eighth district out of its regular course. 
 He feels convinced that they expected to 
 lead us along blind-folded and in the dark, 
 and for the great and insuperable burden 
 which they were to take upon themselves 
 in the junction to their parish of another 
 with the enormous amount of one thousand 
 six hundred and eighty-eight in population, 
 they were to be entitled to one additional 
 senator. Why, neither of the reports asked 
 for more than four senators for that district. 
 The majority report asks for four, the mi- 
 nority three, and now they" modestly insist 
 upon five. There they are again, trying 
 to get the lion's share; "turkey for. them, 
 all the time !!!" Going on at the rate and 
 in the manner we are, we shall be involved 
 in inextricable confusion. We have al- 
 ready run the house of representatives up 
 to ninety- eight, when we have positively 
 said that it should not go beyond one hun- 
 dred. God knows where we shall stop, in 
 the way we are progressing. Now we say 
 the senate shall not exceed thirty-two, but 
 if we give them the extra one they claim 
 we must either increase the number, or 
 else take it off from some other part of the 
 country. In East and West Feilciana 
 there is a population of twenty thousand 
 and over, and they pay into the State trea- 
 sury taxes to the amount of twenty-five 
 thousand dollars and over. Now we are 
 more modest than our friends of the prairie, 
 for we only ask two. He (Mr. R.) warns 
 gentlemen that our course will be any 
 thing but satisfactory in making the senate 
 so large a body; from what he (Mr. Ratliff) 
 now sees going on, he expects nothing less 
 than that there will be thirty-five or thirty- 
 six senators created; and if the matter be 
 not properly understood, and checked at 
 once, he should not be surprised to see it 
 reach the number of forty-five. The only 
 plea they put in for the extra senator, is, 
 that they take in the one thousand six hun- 
 dred and eighty-eight citizens of Calcasieu, 
 which he (Mr. Ratliff) thinks does not 
 sustain their pretensions. He objects to 
 increasing the representation in the senate, 
 unless it be shown — first, that it is war- 
 ranted by the population; and second, that 
 the taxes paid into the State treasury give 
 them some reasonable claim; for if we do 
 
524 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 not adhere strictly to such a rule, we shall 
 presently find the claims as thick as mush- 
 rooms of a summer's morning. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies thinks the delegate from 
 West Feliciana is very unreasonable; he 
 makes a great flourish of trumpets about 
 his moderation, in asking but two senators 
 for East and West Feliciana; but he has 
 forgotten to tell you that he will modestly 
 claim one senator for two parishes, in his 
 darling district, Washington and St. Tam- 
 many, who pay together into the State treas- 
 ury four thousand five hundred dollars; and 
 that he will also claim one senator for the 
 parishes of St. Helena and Livingston, 
 who pay in taxes three thousand seven 
 hundred. Now then, here are four parishes 
 who contribute to the expenses of sus- 
 taining the government of Louisiana a lit- 
 tle over eight thousand dollars, and with 1 a 
 total population of twelve thousand eight 
 hundred and thirty-seven souls, and yet for 
 these parishes it is thought perfectly right 
 and fair to ask for two senators; while for 
 those districts having twice the population, 
 and paying three times the amount of State 
 tax which they do, we are charged with 
 being unreasonable when we ask for that to 
 which we are fully entitled. Besides the 
 section of country for which these two sen- 
 ators are asked, is one that is as thickly 
 settled now as it ever will be, from the 
 very nature of the country itself, it is bound 
 to be stationary. 
 
 He (Mr. Voorhies) thinks it is nothing 
 but just and fair to curtail the representa- 
 tion of those parishes, in the senate, who 
 contribute so little to support the expenses 
 of the State, and increase that of the pa- 
 rishes who bear the bulk of that burden. 
 Besides there is no prospect of their ever 
 getting in any better way; for the last ten 
 or fifteen years they have not increased one 
 jot, they have made no progress, nor is 
 there any prospect of it; they will remain 
 as they have been, in "statu quo,' 1 from now 
 to eternity. 
 
 He regards all that is said by the mem- 
 ber from West Feliciana, about his great 
 moderation, as intended to mislead the 
 members; for certainly if he did desire to 
 have justice done in the premises, he would 
 promptly say "take one member from the 
 • Florida parishes and add to the Opelousas 
 district, for you are justly entitled to it; 
 your country is rapidly filling up, and from 
 
 the large body of your alluvial lands, you 
 are bound to increase, not only in popula- 
 tion, but in wealth and importance;" that 
 is the way he would talk if he \vere sincere. 
 
 Mr. Lewis remarked that he was no 
 prophet, and could not, like the honorable 
 delegate from West Feliciana, predict what 
 was to happen hereafter; but, looking at 
 facts as they are, he thinks that the claim 
 set up for another senator for St. Landry, 
 annexing to it the parish of Calcasieu, is 
 just, reasonable and fair. The county of 
 Opelonsa is now entitled to one senator 
 in a house of seventeen. She has always 
 increased in wealth and population, as 
 much as any other portion of the State. 
 Her territory comprises one-fifth of the 
 State of Louisiana. 
 
 The delegate from West Feliciana (Mr. 
 RatlifF) states that we claim another sena- 
 tor, simply because we take into our dis- 
 trict the parish of Calcasieu. There he is 
 in error; for when you come to look into 
 the matter, you will find that St. Landry is 
 nearly herself entitled to two senators — ■ 
 whether you regard her population, or the j 
 amount she pays into tne treasury— and 
 that by adding Calcasieu to the district, 
 she is most unquestionably and clearly en- 
 titled to it. The Lafourche district have 
 an average of about nine thousand to a sen- 
 tor; the Opelousas and Attakapas districts 
 about one thousand more; and if it be in- 
 tended to make a fair division, which was 
 •preached yesterday, and is to-day, by gen- 
 tlemen around us, surely that which is j 
 good to give is good to take. If Attakapas 
 is entitled to three senators, Opelousas 
 ought to be entitled to two. 
 
 Mr. Burton expressed himself as really 
 gratified to know that one member at least 
 (Mr. Voorhies) had candor enough to ad- 
 mit what his intentions were, viz: to cut 
 down the senatorial representation of the 
 poor pine-woods parishes, to add to that 
 of the prairie country. But while eulo- 
 gizing the latter he has misrepresented the 
 former; for it is by no means so poor a 
 country as he describes it— the parish of 
 Livingston contains some considerable bo- 
 dies of fine and valuable lands. He (Mr. 
 Voorhies) Asserts that the pine-woods pay 
 comparatively nothing into the State trea- 
 sury, but he has forgotten to tell you that 
 whatever their proportion of the taxes is f 
 it is always paid, and is not like the rich 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 525 
 
 prairies of Opelousas. in debt for thirteen 
 thousand dollars back taxes due the State. 
 Poor.the citizens of the piriey-woods maybe, 
 but they are a hard working, honest and in- 
 dustrious people; they pay what they owe, 
 while others make a great fuss about what 
 they are taxed, but forget to tell you that 
 their taxes remain unpaid. He is opposed 
 to cutting men down in their political rights 
 on account of their poverty: but if that is 
 the object and the cause, it would certainly 
 be more fair to acknowledge it candidly 
 at once. He protests against any such 
 course as we are now pursuing. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff remarked that he thought 
 he might have been in error in asserting 
 that the number of senators would be so 
 largely increased, for he finds that the 
 number so far, has not been increased over 
 thirty -two, if no further change be made. 
 The only question for us to consider in 
 the matter before us. is the parish of St. 
 Landry joined to Calcasieu, entitled to two 
 senators? He does not think they are. 
 
 Mr. Downs insists that it will increase 
 the number of senators to thirty-three, if | 
 [his motion prevail. 
 
 Mr. Cade remarked, that what was 
 taken off from the hrst district has alone 
 been added to the eighth, and that when j 
 we add one parish to the district, if the 
 other parish be joined to some other of the 
 districts, there will then be no increase of 
 the number. 
 
 Mr. Porter is of opinion that by taking j 
 in the parish of Calcasieu, the district is 
 really entitled to tw*o senators, and shall 
 vote for allowing that number to it. rely, 
 ing on the justice of the Convention not to 
 take it off from any other part of the coun- 
 try without good cause. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne regards it as a very i 
 plain and simple question — it is, whether 
 it is more fair and equitable to give to Cal- i 
 casieu and Sabine, who, together, pay 
 taxes to the amount of three thousand six j 
 hundred dollars, and with a population of 
 six thousand, a senator, or to give two to 
 St. Landry and Calcasieu who pay, in j 
 taxes, sixteen thousand six hundred dollars, 
 and-whose population is about seventeen 
 thousand three hundred. He (Mr. Clai- 
 borne) cannot hesitate in such a plain mat- ! 
 ter, and will vote for allowing the district 
 two senators. 
 
 The question was therjjput, an d resulted | 
 
 as follows, the yeas and nays being called 
 for : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Burton, Brumfield, Briant, 
 Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, 'Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jef- 
 ferson, Culbertsbn, Derbes, Downs, Dunn, 
 Enstis, Guion. Hudspeth, Humble. Hyn- 
 sorij Kenner, King. Labauve, Legendre, 
 Lewis, McCallop, Marigny. Mazureau, 0'- 
 Bryan, Peels, Penn, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Prud- 
 homme. Ratliff, Read, Roman, Saunders, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana)' 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Splane, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Voorhies, Wederstrandt, Wi- 
 koff, Winchester and Winder voted in the 
 affirmative — 57 yeas ; and 
 
 Mr. Abel Waddiil voted in the negative 
 — 1 nay; consequently the motion was 
 carried, and the district composed of the 
 parishes of St. Landry and Calcasieu, with 
 two senators, was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff then moved to take- up the 
 report regularly, where we left it on yes- 
 terday, and beginning at the apportion- 
 ment of East and West Feliciana, Wash- 
 ington. St. Tammany. Livingston and St. 
 Helena. 
 
 Mr. W'ederstraxdt moved a division 
 of this district, and proposed that West 
 Feliciana should form one district, and elecf 
 one senator. 
 
 Mr. Dunst opposed that motion. He 
 thinks that East and West Feliciana are 
 so closely identified together in interest 
 and feeling, they have always acted togeth- 
 er so perfectly, are of the same political 
 family, and every way so harmoniously, 
 that a separation is not called, for. The 
 people of these parishes have never, to his 
 knowledge, shown any desire for this sep- 
 aration, and no possible good can result to 
 the State. There are, it is true, a few 
 more votes in East Feliciana than _in W r est 
 Feliciana, but the former have never inter- 
 fered to the prejudice of the latter ; in fact 
 they are so much one family that it would 
 be wrong to separate them. Both parishes 
 hold their political meetings at Jackson 
 with perfect good feeling and harmony; 
 and while it is clear there is no necessity 
 for a division, he hopes the motion will 
 not prevail. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff trusts that the Convention 
 
Debates in the 
 
 will agree to the division proposed by his 
 colleague, (Mr. Wederstrandt.) The dele- 
 gate from East Feliciana must certainly 
 have forgotten, when he said he never 
 heard- of a desire to have a separate sena- 
 torial district: for he (Mr. R.) had heard 
 it repeatedly, and as the delegate from East 
 Feliciana (Mr. Dunn) has, lie knows, been 
 frequently in WestFeliciana on recent oc- 
 casions, he could not have failed to hear 
 some remarks on a topic so generally dis- 
 cussed. It is true, they arc both demo- 
 cratic parishes, but when people are them- 
 selves desirous of the division, why deny 
 it to them? 
 
 The population of East Feliciana is 
 eleven thousand eight hundred and sixty- 
 two, and pays into the treasury twelve 
 thousand five hundred and ninety-three 
 dollars State tax. That of West Felici- 
 ana, ten thousand nine hundred and ten 
 total population, and pays State taxes to 
 the amount of thirteen thousand one hun- 
 dred and fifty dollars and forty-eight cents. 
 There is scarcely any difference in the 
 size and wealth of the parishes. The 
 parish of West Feliciana has a front of 
 nearly one hundred miles on the Missis- 
 sippi river, and is divided from the parish 
 of East Feliciana by a large creek. As it 
 is the desire then of West Feliciana to sepa- 
 rate, why should she not be indulged in 
 her wish? 
 
 Besides, the honorable delegate from 
 East Feliciana, (Mr. Dunn) who is about 
 to remove from that parish to Baton Rouge, 
 cannot be supposed to feel as deep an in- 
 terest for the welfare of these parishes as 
 he has done, while it was his permanent 
 home. It is a well known fact that there 
 is a bone of contention in East Feliciana, 
 about dividmg that parish, in which West 
 Feliciana desires to take no part ; she has 
 no dissensions in her borders, and does not 
 wish to be mixed up in a family quarrel. 
 He (Mr. R.) regards that as a powerful 
 reason for the separation. East Baton 
 Rouge has a separate senator; Pointe Cou- 
 pee, a little bit of a parish, has one; Avo- 
 yelles has one, which was magnanimously 
 yielded to her by Rapides; and now a ques- 
 tion is raised, when we reach the parishes 
 of East and West Feliciana, whether the 
 same favor should be extended to them 
 which has been accorded to the others. 
 The delegate from East Feliciana 5 (Mr. 
 
 vention of Louisiana. 
 
 Dunn) has graciously remarked, that that 
 parish has never tried to usurp power from 
 West Feliciana, nor has she shown any 
 jealousy of our prominent men. But sup- 
 pose those feelings, heretofore so harmo- 
 nious, were to clash? How then? Would 
 it not be more clear and satisfactory for 
 her to say, we have not only no desire to 
 interfere with you, but we will place it 
 out of our own power, by consenting to a 
 division? Let them say, we set you free, 
 and take away from ourselves every pos- 
 sible claim to do it hereafter. That is the 
 way to show sincerity. He (Mr. R.) trusts 
 that the house will accord to West Felici- 
 ana what she has already done to other 
 parishes. 
 
 Mr. Scott of East Feliciana, then addres- 
 sed the Convention. 
 
 Mr. President, (said he:) My situation 
 here is a peculiar one; particularly so when 
 I find myself in direct opposition to one o 
 my immediate colleagues from the parish 
 of East Feliciana. But, sir, I am here as 
 the representative of the parishes of East 
 and West Feliciana, and, as such, I am 
 bound to act in this case as I believe strict 
 justice to the two parishes requires. I 
 have voted throughout this contest in favor 
 of small senatorial districts, I believe a 
 majority of my constituents are in favor of 
 dividing those parishes into two senatorial 
 districts, and believing thus, I feel con- 
 strained to urge a division of those two 
 parishes, each to form one senatorial dis- j 
 trict, and hope the house will sustain me 
 in doing so. 
 
 Mr. Chinn asked if he had correctly un- 
 derstood the delegate from East Feliciana, 
 that a majority of the people in both those 
 parishes desired the division. 
 
 Mr. Scott replied that he was so con- 
 vinced. 
 
 Mr. Saunders remarked that he was 
 opposed to the system of cutting up the 
 senatorial districts into such small parts; 
 for if the senators are elected by the same 
 people as elect representatives to the lower 
 house, there is then no check, and it does 
 away with the necessity for the two houses 
 But in this case, (although it violates a rule 
 which he regards an important one,) a& 
 the people of West Feliciana seem so de- 
 sirous to be separated from us, he wiii 
 vote for the motion of the delegate from 
 West Feliciana, (Mr, Wederstrandt) 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 52? 
 
 Mr. Chinn, although he prefers large 
 districts, from what he has heard, shall 
 vote to separate the parishes, allowing each 
 one senator. 
 
 Mr. Lewis being opposed totally to cut- 
 ting up the districts in such small parts, 
 shall vote against the motion. 
 
 Mr. Splane, for the very opposit rea- 
 son, shall spuport it, 
 
 The question was then put, and the yeas 
 and nays being called for, resulted as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Cade, Chambliss, Chinn, Covil- 
 lion, Culbertson, Downs, Garrett, Humble, 
 Hynson, McCallop, McRae,0'Bryan, Peets, 
 Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Ratliff, 
 Read, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sel- 
 lers, Splane, Stephens, Waddill, Wcder- 
 slrandt and WikofT— 34 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bri- 
 ant, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Guion, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh, Ro- 
 man, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Wads worth, Winchester and Win- 
 der — 26 nays ; consequently said motion 
 Avas carried, and the parish of West Feli^ 
 ciaira constitutes one senatorial district, 
 and is entitled to one Senator. 
 
 Mr. T. W. Scott then moved that -East 
 Feliciana shall constitute one senatorial 
 district, with one senator, which motion 
 prevailed. 
 
 Mr. McRae then moved that the parish- 
 es of St. Helena and Livingston, do con- 
 stitute one senatorial district, and be enti- 
 tled to one senator. 
 
 Mr. Labauve then moved to amend 
 said motion by annexing the whole four 
 parishes together, St. Helena, Livingston, 
 St. Tammany and Washington, with one 
 senator. 
 
 He contended that that was as much as 
 they could in common fairness lay claim 
 to. All, together, pay into the State trea- 
 sury only eight thousand five hundred 
 dollars of State tax, and have a total popu- 
 lation of twelve thousand eight hundred 
 and thirty-seven. Upon what principle of 
 justice can they ask more? Iberville and 
 West Baton Rouge are connected, and are 
 only allowed one senator. Now let us 
 
 compare the two districts, and ascertain, 
 if we can, on what ground they set up 
 their claims to two senators; whether it be 
 on taxes, or population, or an imaginary 
 rule, that they are entitled to them any 
 how. The parishes of West Baton Rouge 
 and Iberville have a total population of 
 sixteen thousand seven hundred and eighty, 
 three, which is four thousand more than 
 the whole four parishes put together; and 
 they pay into the State treasury, sixteen 
 thousand seven hundred and eighty. one 
 dollars, which is more than double what is 
 paid in by those parishes which now 
 claim two senators, when we were yester- 
 day refused more than one. Why, the 
 pay of the members which they will send 
 to the legislature, will absorb pretty nearly 
 the amount of the taxes they pay. Gen- 
 tlemen ought to be consistent, and on the 
 same ground that they refused it yesterday 
 to his district, expect to be dealt with to- 
 day themselves. He therefore, shall press 
 his motion on the Convention, to make the 
 whole four parishes into one district, with 
 one senator. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth saw very clearly, that 
 some were desirous of playing a game of 
 grab, if we are to take any basis into 
 consideration, as a proper starting point, 
 for representation in the senate. The dis- 
 trict in which Plaquemines is situated, and 
 which has been refused more than one 
 senator, is more entitled to two, than the 
 whole four parishes put together; whether 
 on the score of property, territory or taxa- 
 tion. She pays into the treasury twelve 
 thousand one hundred and seventy-four 
 dollars in taxes; two thousand two hundred 
 and eighty-nine dollars taxes on profes- 
 sions; together, fourteen thousand four 
 hundred and sixty-three dollars. And her 
 wealth in property, is assesed at two mil- 
 lions eight hundred and twenty-seven 
 thousand dollars. Now how do these four 
 parishes together, compare? Why, they 
 pay into the treasury eight thousand five 
 hundred dollars State tax; and property 
 assesed at. one hundred and thirty-two 
 thousand and seven hundred dollars; hence 
 it is clear that Plaquemines district doubles 
 them in every respect. It is admitted that 
 the senate is constituted as a check upon 
 the house of representatives, and for the 
 protection of property, and every body 
 understands that property is the most vital 
 
528 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 thing in the world to protect. Besides, it I r 
 is a country that will never improve; it can e 
 never increase, because it is a poor miser- 1 
 able barren soil. Why, you can scarcely 1 
 grow cow-peas on it. He recollects hear- } 
 ing, that a gentleman who was travelling < 
 through that country not long since, heard ' 
 a sound resembling a moan of some fe- ^ 
 male in distress; he pushed on more rapid- - 
 ly, and as he progressed some miles, the ; 
 sound gradually became more distinct; at 
 last he came up to the spot where it pro- 
 ceeded, and lo! he found that it was caus- 
 ed by a weed which was trying to grow. 
 And yet it is for such a country that we are 
 to be despoiled of our just rights. We 
 are refused two senators, to which we are 
 justly entitled, to satisfy the modest pre- 
 tensions of the pine woods inhabitants. 
 Oh! shame! ! where is thy blush? 
 Mr. Ratliff replied to the remarks of 
 the delegate from Plaquemines, (Mr. Wads- 
 worth). He remarked that he had not known 
 what it was to have the blush of shame on 
 his face; that all the declamation of the 
 gentleman from Plaquemines, his sneers or 
 denunciations, (or those of any member 
 from any other portion of the State,) should 
 not. deter him by their unnecessarily severe 
 remarks, to falter in the performance of 
 what he conscienciously believed to be his 
 duty to his constituents. But while he 
 stood up to defend the rights of the Florida 
 parishes on this floor, he did not wish, nor 
 would he suffer any of those who make 
 such a great pother and fuss about allow- 
 ing the poor piney-iuoods parishes two 
 senators, to rest, until he had shown them 
 two things; first, that what is fair for one, 
 is fair for another; or as has been observed 
 here to day y» "what is good to give is good 
 to take." Second, that it is not wrong to 
 be generous, provided, in doing it, you be 
 also just. 
 
 Now Mr. R. contends that we have not, 
 nor do we desire to depart from any just 
 rule, when we ask you to protect the four 
 parishes from the avarice and cupidity of 
 those parishes that are richer.. 
 
 He will endeavor to offer such arguments 
 to this Convention as shall at once satisfy 
 them that he is right. It was well known 
 that when we came to the apportionment— 
 not only of the house of representatives, 
 but of the senate—that we should have 
 much difficulty; and to his (Mr. Ratliff's) 
 
 mind, this is the very time to settle it. We 
 are, it is true, a little too much excited, 
 but as he shall advance nothing but what 
 the figures will prove, he thinks. he shall 
 rather allay it than otherwise. Now the 
 district reported by the committee, which 
 was to have been one district, in being di- 
 vided ought not to lose any thing that she 
 would have been entitled to in the aggre- 
 gate. Let us see what the figures say. 
 Why, that the parishes of East and West 
 Feliciana, St. Helena, Livingston, Wash- 
 ington and St. Tammany, have a popula- 
 tion of thirty-five thousand eight hundred — 
 about nine thousand to a senator; that they 
 pay together into the State treasury thirty- 
 four thousand two hundred and ninety-five 
 dollars, State taxes; something over eight 
 thousand dollars for each senator claimed. 
 Now if it be true that the bulk of this popu- 
 lation, and the largest amount of the taxes 
 be paid in the two first mentioned parishes, 
 and they are disposed, as they are, to 
 give the other parishes in the Florida 
 district the surplus they have over and 
 above what would entitle them each to one 
 senator, why should they not have the right 
 to do so? Notwithstanding the piney-woods 
 people are not as rich as some other parts 
 of the State, they are a virtuous and cor- 
 rect white population, and as such they are 
 entitled to our protection in their rights. 
 In the aggregate then these six parishes 
 are entitled to four senators,and if East and 
 West Feliciana are satisfied with two, no 
 objection should be made in giving the 
 other two to the remaining four parishes. 
 
 St. Mary and St. Martin pay short of 
 ten thousand dollars of taxes each, and the 
 Florida parishes average about nine thou- 
 sand dollars; and if the bulk of the taxes 
 be paid in some few, we are yet one people. 
 He asks for the Florida district nothing bui 
 even-handed justice; and she is justly enti- 
 tled to four senators; as to the division that 
 is a matter of no moment. The original 
 report gives us four, and the substitute gives 
 us also four; why then should there be any 
 objection? He has heard of none except 
 from the honorable delegate from Iberville, 
 (Mr. Labauve) and he can hardly think 
 that he is sincere. 
 
 Mr. Dunn agreed that the large fraction 
 , created by the division of East and West 
 i Feliciana, should be given to the eastern 
 I parishes in the district. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 529 
 
 Mr. Splane remarked that he was in 1 thousand eight hundred, and pay thirty 4oui 
 favor of allowing the four parishes two thousand dollars taxes. The difference 
 senators It is perhaps true that there is then is alone in the amount of taxes, while 
 not population enough in those parishes the population of the latter is greater. He 
 alone but East and West Feliciana, and j mentions this fact to show the injustice 
 East Baton Rouge, have each large frac- 1 there will be in rejecting the motion be- 
 dons over, which she is clearly entitled to | fore us. 
 
 the benefit of. The honorable delegate j Mr. Penh then addressed the Conven- 
 from Plaquemines (Mr. Wadsworth) has in- j tion. He contended that equity and justice 
 dulged us with a humorous story about a j demanded, according to any basis, that a 
 weed trying to grow there, making a pite- j senator should be given to the parishes of 
 ous and mournful noise in the struggle for . St. Helena and Livingston ; and therefore 
 its life and progress. Now it is the first j he trusts the motion of the delegate from 
 time that he ever heard of vegetable mat- | Iberville (Mr. Labauve) will not prevail, 
 ter emitting sound from poor land. He | Their population, territory and extent of 
 has heard people say, in the rich alluvial j their voters, entitle them to it. While it 
 bottoms, they could hear the corn grow, 1 is true that a portion of their lands are poor 
 •but he never heard of it in poor lands. He and unproductive, it is nevertheless equally 
 should vote for allowing her two senators, j undeniable that there are other portions, in 
 moreover as a compliment, for it was in j Livingston particularly, which are rich and 
 that region of country he drew his breath, fertile, and which can be extensively cul- 
 and this was the first time he had ever had tivated in raising the sugar cane and cot- 
 it in his power to repay her by one single ton. and therefore we may reasonably look 
 act of gratitude. He feels proud that he i forward to an increasing population for 
 now can do so. They are not either as ; her. St. Helena is also increasing, and 
 poor a country as the gentleman repre- has a white population equal to that of St. 
 sents; there are many fine bodies of land 1 James. He (Mr. Penn) calls attention to 
 in parts of it, which produce sugar cane i the fact, that St. James gave in November 
 and corn to as great profusion as in any I last only five hundred and thirty-two votes, 
 part of Louisiana. ' j and has a territory of three thousand 
 
 Mr. Chixx, in opposing the motion.is go- 1 square miles; while St. Helena and Liv- 
 verned by a sense of conscientious duty. He ingston gave seven hundred and five votes, 
 knows the population and resources of the and has a territory of at least one thousand 
 parishes, and knowing them, as he does, he and three hundred square miles; — upon 
 is bound to take that course. Although he : what principle of equity or justice can they 
 feels indisposed to say any thing that can j refuse to give one senator *to St. Helena 
 operate against that portion of the country, ! and Livingston, when they gave St. James 
 yet he cannot disguise it from himself that ; one ? He (Mr. Penn) is one of those who 
 the total population of them is short ofthir- 1 does not think that slaves, regarded as 
 teen thousand, and that they only pay into [ property, should be entitled to any repre- 
 the treasury a sum short of nine thousand i sentation. Let us see how Iberville and 
 dollars. It is not a country likely to grow j West Baton Rouge compare with St. He- 
 either in population or in wealth, as results j lena and Livingston. In the former they 
 have proved, taking the census of 1840 j have a white population of one thousand 
 compared with the present number of their three hundred and twenty-three, in the lat- 
 population. ter one thousand three hundred and seven- 
 
 Mr. Ratliff desired to' call the atten- ty-one — together two thousand six hundred 
 tion of the Convention to a few more and ninety-four, and poll seven hundred and 
 figures that would throw additional light ninety-three votes; while in St. Helena 
 on the subject. West Baton Rouge, Iber- and Livingston their white population is 
 ville, Point Coupee and East Baton Rouge not far from four thousand, and they poll 
 have a population of thirty-five thousand seven hundred and five votes; and yet 
 seven hundred and seventy-five, and pay while they refuse those two parishes one 
 forty-three thousand two hundred and nine- senator, they claimed yesterday one for 
 ty-seven dollars taxes. The six Florida each of their, parishes, 'it is true they pay 
 parishes have a population of thirty-five more taxes, but that is not a principle in 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 republican governments, to base represen- 
 tation on. How can those who voted to 
 give one senator to St. John the Baptist 
 and St. Charles, refuse it to St. Helena and 
 Livingston ? At no distant day, St. Tarn- 
 many and Washington are destined to be- 
 come the suburbs of New Orleans, and so 
 rapidly are they increasing that at the last 
 election they gave two hundred votes more 
 than were cast in West Baton Rouge and 
 Iberville, and yet they contend that those 
 parishes are not entitled to one senator as 
 much as they are to two. St. Tammany 
 contains nine hundred square miles, is 
 sixty miles long and ninety miles wide; 
 people are constantly settling in it from 
 New Orleans, and a part of it is as rich as 
 any part of Plaquemines. So fine is the 
 land between the two islands, that recently 
 as many as fifty families have settled there. 
 He trusts, after this statement of facts, the 
 Convention will readily agree to allow them 
 two districts between the four parishes, 
 each district with one senator. 
 
 Mr. Taylor enquired from the President 
 whether it was proposed to unite them all 
 in one district. 
 \ The President replied that it was. 
 
 Mr. Taylor was opposed to giving St. 
 Helena and Livingston one senator, whose 
 joint population was only five thousand 
 seven hundred and odd; but if the four 
 parfshes were united, he would vote to give 
 ihem two senators. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth asked on what princi- 
 ple he assumed to be so generous? 
 
 Mr. Taylor replied that he did not re- 
 gard population alone, but thought terri- 
 tory should also be taken into considera- 
 tion in the apportionment of the senate. 
 He had acted and voted on the same prin- 
 ciple, with regard to Plaquemines. 
 
 Mr. Penn remarked, that the Tanchi- 
 pahoe was the natural boundary between 
 the parishes, and was so considered by 
 their inhabitants. He trusts the districts 
 will be separated. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin remarked, that the ques- 
 tion before this Convention was simply 
 whether St. Helena and Livingston should 
 form one district with one senator. What! 
 make a senatorial district with a population 
 of less than six thousand, black and white, 
 and pays into the treasury not over four 
 thousand dollars? Why the .idea is pre- 
 posterous, for there is nothing to look for- 
 
 ward to in the way of increase, either in 
 wealth or population. There is not a sec- 
 tion in any part of the State, that will not 
 grow faster than these Florida parishes. 
 The delegate from Iberville (Mr. Labauve) 
 has justly observed, that in no part of the 
 State is there an instance where any one 
 of the districts has been allowed a senator 
 on any such principles— there is no reason 
 in it, no justice in it whatever. 
 
 The friends of the measure press it on 
 the score of the number of voters; but that 
 is an erroneous footing to place it. The 
 number of voters may do to base represen- 
 tation on in the lower house, but as we have 
 no property qualification any where, it can- 
 not be allowed to go further. Some check 
 is surely wanted. How are we to protect' 
 property, if we do not do it in the senate; 
 we cannot therefore throw away that check 
 without doiiig a crying injustice to those 
 parishes who pay the bulk of all the taxes 
 of the State. 
 
 Why the richest parishes will get the 
 smallest appropriations, while the poor 
 ones will divide out among themselves 
 what the rich pay. The past history of 
 the State has proved it, and it is destined 
 to be her future history, if such a principle 
 prevail; for then the taxing part of the com- 
 munity have nothing left to protect them 
 from oppression and injustice. 
 
 Yesterday we refused two senators to 
 West Baton Rouge and Iberville, who pay 
 sixteen thousand dollars into the State 
 treasury, but they certainly were entitled 
 to four, if these two parishes are entitled 
 to one, for they pay less, than a fourth of 
 that sum. He (Mr. Benjamin) joins with 
 the delegate from Iberville (Mr. Labauve) 
 in his expression of indignation at such 
 gross injustice — judging from the past they 
 are not likely to increase in numbers or in 
 wealth; and we should look for something 
 more stable in basing senatorial represen- 
 tation, than the vivid imagination of gen- 
 tlemen from the Floridas. 
 
 Mr. Conrad remarked, that these four 
 parishes would have four representatives, 
 whilst West Baton Rouge and Iberville 
 would only be entitled to three. This 
 should have just been reversed. For at 
 least they should not ask for special privi- 
 leges in the upper house which has al- 
 ready been accorded to them in the lower 
 house. 
 
Debates in the Convention oi Louisiana, 531 
 
 Mr. Read remarked, that they were en- 
 titled to four members before in the house 
 of representatives. 
 
 The question was then put on Mr. La- 
 bauve motion, and the yeas and nays being 
 called for, resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg,Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Eustis, Garcia, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Legehdre, McCal- 
 iop, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, Sellers, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Land- 
 ry, Voorhies, Wadsworth, WikofF, Win- 
 chester and Winder voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 29 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Chinn, Burton, Cade, Covillon, Downs, 
 Dunn, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, 
 McCallop, McRae, O'Bryan, Peets, Penn, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Prudhomme, RatlifT, Read, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Splane, Ste- 
 phens, Waddill and W 7 ederstrandt voted 
 in the negative — nays 32; consequently 
 the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Penn then moved that St. Helena 
 and Livingston form one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth remarked that he 
 stood here in an isolated position; no body 
 stands up for his parish; there arc no com- 
 binations to help him; while the Florida 
 parishes pull together to a man. Is not 
 that a warning to us what we are to expect? 
 Do not the people recollect who dragged 
 from the treasury one million two hundred 
 thousand dollars under pretence of building 
 up the Nashville road, but in reality to 
 benefit the piney woods parishes? Who 
 but the members from that very county? 
 They grabbed then for money, and now 
 they are grabbing for power, so that they 
 may get more. Why, I ask, should the 
 land of cow peas be suffered to suck up the 
 treasury of the State? * 
 
 What have we got to resort to to 
 pay the one million two hundred thousand 
 dollars taken from the treasury for their 
 benefit? They were not satisfied with 
 that, but they wanted more; and so plausi- 
 ble were they about it, in connecting it with 
 one of the banks, the amelioration of 
 exchange bank charter, that they actually 
 humbugged me; he was induced to vote on 
 T hi? measure to benefit the pine wood- 
 
 country. Thank God, Governor Roman 
 saw the injustice of it, and placed his veto 
 on it — that was a proud feather ifl his cap, 
 and one for which I shall ever honor him. 
 
 And what does she ever furnish us with 
 to entitle her to one-sixteenth of the re- 
 presentation in the senate ? Why,- a few 
 bricks and pine boards ! ! Poor people, 
 they say, are always greedy — they must be 
 fed, and must have something to depend up- 
 on : they can't depend upon their land, for 
 if they dig it forever, they can never get 
 anything to grow; consequently they grasp 
 at political power, that they may get their 
 hands into the treasury. Are we to give 
 up one-sixteenth of the political power of the 
 State to those who do not own one-hundreth 
 part of the property in the State ? Why, 
 the idea is preposterous and absurd. Let 
 the river parishes look well to those things, 
 for when they get the power they will ride 
 over us rough shod. 
 
 Mr. W. B. Scott replied that if the 
 money was raised for an unholy purpose 
 the plan was not conceived in the Florida 
 parishes, nor for their benefit. 
 
 Mr. W t adsworth : That may be, but 
 they grabbed the biggest share of the spoils* 
 when it was done. 
 
 Mr. Conrad remarked that the plan 
 was conceived by the Floridians; he recol- 
 lects it well, 
 
 Mr. Penis is convinced that the delegate 
 from New Orleans is in error— it w T *s con- 
 ceived in the city of New Orleans, and a 
 meeting .was held to consummate it in the 
 hotel then kept by Mr. Bishop. But while 
 it is admitted that that money was squan- 
 dered, for whose benefit was it? The 
 piney woods parishes ? No sir, it was to 
 make ditches through the morasses and 
 -swamps, and building bridges over the dif- 
 ferent bayous back of the city and border- 
 ing on the lake— a section of country which 
 so much resembles the larger part of the 
 parish of Plaquemines, and which he so 
 glowingly pictures as the rich alluvial soil 
 of Plaquemines ! 1 1 He (Mr. Penn) 
 knows that the senator from the piney 
 woods parishes was not in favor of the bill 
 which governor Roman vetoed, and for 
 which he (Mr. Penn) honors him as much 
 as does the delegate from Plaquemines. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth : W r ho was the sena 
 tor from the piney woods parishes ? 
 
 Mr, Penn : T'was L I was not here 
 
532 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 when the bill was vetoed, as 1 was obliged 
 to be absent in the West Indies, on account 
 of my bad health. I opposed the bill, and 
 I gloried in the veto when I heard of it. 
 
 The question was then put on the motion 
 of Mr. Penn, and the yeas and nays being 
 called for, resulted as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Cade, Covillion, Downs, Dunn, 
 Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, McCal- 
 lop, McRae, O'Bryan, Peets, Penn, Por- 
 ter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Prudhomme, R.ttliff, Read, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison, Splane, Waddill 
 and Wederstrandt voted in the affirmative 
 —33 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Briant, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culberlson, 
 Derbes, Eustis, Garcia, Hudspeth, Ken- 
 ner, King, Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, Sellers, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Wadsworth, Winchester and Winder voted 
 in the negative — 28 nays; so the motion 
 prevailed, and the parishes of St. Helena 
 *and Livingston form one senatorial district, 
 and are entitled to one senator. 
 
 Mr. Penn then moved that the parishes 
 of St. Tammany and Washington form one 
 senatorial district, with one senator. 
 
 The question was then put, and the yeas 
 and nays being called for resulted as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton,Brum- 
 field, Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 Derbes, Downs, Dunn, Garcia, Humble, 
 Hynson, Ledoux, Lewis, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, O'Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison, Splane, Stephens, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Waddill and Weder- 
 strandt voted in the affirmative— -37 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Briant, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbert- 
 son, Hudspeth, Garcia, Kenner, King, La- 
 bauve, Legendre, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, 
 Sellers, Taylor of Assumption, Winchester 
 and Winder voted in the negative-23 nays; 
 so that motion was carried. 
 
 Mi\ Sellers then moved that the par- 
 
 ishes of Concordia and Tensas, shall consti- 
 tute, one district, with one senator; which 
 was adopted, 
 
 He then moved that the parishes of Mad- 
 ison and Carroll shall constitute one dis- 
 trict, with one senator, 
 
 Mr. Sellers remarked, in asking for the 
 latter he would simplystate facts which would 
 be better than any speech he could make, 
 to show to the Convention the justice of the 
 demand. The parishes of Madison and 
 Carroll pay into the State treasury twelve 
 thousand and eighty-six dollars, and has a 
 population of ten thousand seven hundred 
 and sixty-nine. He thinks these facts 
 combined entitle her to one senator. 
 
 The motion was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Garrett then moved that the pa- 
 rishes of Union, Morehouse and Jackson 
 form one district, with one senator. 
 
 Mr, Kenner was desirous of knowing if 
 the Convention intended to pass the num- 
 ber of 32 senators, because if not, it was 
 time to pause and reflect; before we knew 
 where we were, we should have reached 
 thirty-four at least. He then asked if 
 Jackson had not been ma,de out of the pa- 
 rish of Ouachita principally? And if so, 
 whether it would not be better to put Jack- 
 son in a district with Ouachita? 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to add Ouachita 
 to the district proposed by the delegate 
 from Ouachita, (Mr. Garrett); the motion 
 would then read: 
 
 "The parishes of Ouachita, Union, 
 Morehouse and Jackson, shall constitute 
 one district with one senator. 
 
 Mr. Downs is of opinion that when the 
 question .comes to be better understood by 
 the Convention, that the opposition to it 
 will, in a great measure, be withdrawn. 
 The three parishes which it is proposed to 
 form into one senatorial district, is a much 
 larger district than any yet formed, in ter- 
 ritory. He here referred to a map, from 
 which it appearecf that it contained two 
 thousand five hundred and twenty square 
 miles. The district composed of Jackson, 
 Union and Morehouse, extends ten town- 
 ships, sixty miles, due north and south, 
 and eleven townships and sixty-six square 
 miles due east and west, along the Arkan- 
 sas line, and contains about one hundred 
 and seventy townships, two thousand five 
 hundred and twenty square miles; which 
 would be eight hundred and forty square 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 533 
 
 miles each, Hearty double the extent of the 
 parishes fixed by this constitution; hav- 
 ing four streams navigable for steam boats: 
 the Ouachita river, running through it 
 from north to south; the Bayou Darbone 
 penetrating directly north west, forty miles 
 to Farmersville. and beyond that in two di- 
 rections, by different branches, to the State j 
 line and the line of the parish of Union, i 
 navigable by steamboats with a little im- « 
 provement; the Bayou Bartholomew; the 
 tikmr. of Morehouse, penetrating fifty miles ; 
 or more, north-east, and bounded on the 
 (parish of Morehouse) south and east by ! 
 the Bayou Boeuf, Lafourche and Boeuf river; 
 the last navig'able for steamboats, and the | 
 two first capable of being made so. 
 
 The parish of Morehouse contains two 
 of the most beautiful and fertile alluvial ' 
 prairies in the State — Prairie Mer Rouge, ' 
 said to derive its name from having former- j 
 ly, when the favorite resort of the Indian 
 or the French pioneer, been red with straw- : 
 berries, and deer and cattle reposing on it 
 red with them: and Jefferson, named after 
 the founder of democracy and the purcha- ' 
 ser of Louisiana. Here it was, that -in j 
 Prairie 3Ier Rouge where Baron de Bas- 
 trop, (now the name of the parish scite,) . 
 Morehouse, after whom the parish was ; 
 named, with Hunter, Xancarrow, and other 
 talented citizens and foreigners made their ; 
 favorite resorts. On the banks *of the 
 Bayou Bartholomew^ are some of the fin- 
 est cotton lands in the State, and it is one 
 of the most beautiful streams, penetrating 
 far beyond the limits of the State, and at 
 one point within twelve miles of the Miss- ' 
 issippi, whose turbid waters sometimes 
 flow through it. 
 
 The parishes of Union and Jackson con- 
 tain much of the finest pine-wood or up- 
 land in the State; so much so, that consid- ! 
 erabie quantities of it was entered by spec- j 
 ulators in 1335-6, and is now settling | 
 rapidly. 
 
 They do not, it is true, show as large a 
 tax return as their size and real importance 
 call for; but that has been heretofore mea- 
 surably the fault, in part, of the want of a 
 correct assessment; and in part, by the 
 fact that the largest bodies of it were pur- 
 chased from the United States government, 
 which are not taxable for five" years after 
 the purchase; therefore, the tax list is no | 
 criterion for us to be governed bv. Here- 1 
 68 
 
 tofore these three parishes have voted to- 
 gether, and in the course we have been 
 pursuing, of giving double representation 
 to the old senatorial districts, whose popu- 
 lation had increased to that degree as to 
 justify the call, it is certainly nothing more 
 than fair and just to allow these parishes 
 one senator, for on any basis you please, if it 
 could be correctly come at , they are equi- 
 tably entitled to it. He (Mr. Downs) feels 
 convinced that before long the voters of 
 Jackson will be more numerous than those 
 of Ouachita or Union. The largest part 
 of it was taken from Ouachita, in territory, 
 but the greatest population still remains in 
 Ouachita; yet such is the character and 
 face of the country, that Jackson is desthw 
 ed, at no distant day, to be more densely 
 populated than either of them, and without 
 taking the population of either. On the 
 subject of voters in the lower house, there 
 can be nothing to complain of, for Union, 
 by the basis we have chosen, was entitled 
 to two representatives, one of which was 
 given to Jackson: and therefore there is 
 no increase on account of the making of the" 
 new* parish. 
 
 He (Mr. Downs) hopes when all these 
 facts are duly reflected upon, and when if 
 is considered that the district contains two 
 thousand five hundred and twenty square 
 miles of land, is not only now thickly set- 
 tled, but has a bright prospect for the fu- 
 ture, she ought to be fairly represented irr 
 the senate of the Slate; and that for these 
 reasons the Convention will adopt the mo- 
 tion as proposed. 
 
 Mr. Humble protests against joining 
 Caldwell with Franklin. He said there 
 was a natural division between the parish- 
 es: an immense swamp, and io join them 
 would not be satisfactory to either of the 
 parishes. 
 
 Mr. Keener being anxious to examine 
 a map of that portion of the State, which 
 a friend had just handed him, moved an 
 adjournment until to-morrow morning. 
 
 Mr. Downs objected, and remarked that 
 after he had examined the map, it was not 
 likely he would be better informed on the 
 geography of the country than the whole 
 delegation of the Ouachita district. 
 
 The question was then put on the mo- 
 tion to adjourn, and the yeas and nays be- 
 ing called for, resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs, Aubert, Beattv, Boura, Brian*; 
 
534 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Bru infield, Cenas, Claiborne, C. M. Con* 
 rad, F. B. Conrad, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Lewis, McCallop, Mazureau, 
 Pugh, Roman, Sellers, Stephens, Miles 
 Taylor, R. Taylor, Voorhies, Winchester 
 and Winder — 30 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Burton, Cade, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Garrett, 
 Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, McRae, O' Bry- 
 an, Peets, Penn, Porter, W. B. Prescott, 
 W. M. Prescott, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Splane, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt— 29 nays. 
 
 The President, Mr. Walker, voted in 
 the negative, so the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Kenner thought it was very unu- 
 sual and uncourteous for the delegate from 
 Ouachita, to have tauntingly remarked as 
 he had, (when he had said he wished to 
 study the geography of the country to sat- 
 isfy himself as to the extent of the territory 
 embraced in the Ouachita country) that 
 even after he had done so, he would know 
 nothing of it, or words to that effect. 
 
 Mr. Conrad then moved an adjourn- 
 ment, and the question, on a call of the yeas 
 and nays, resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Bourg, Briant, Brum- 
 field, Cenas, Claiborne, C. M. Conrad, F. 
 B. Conrad, Derbes, Garcia, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Lewis, McCallop, 
 Pugh, Roman, Stephens, Miles Taylor, 
 Voorhies, Winchester and Winder— 23 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Garrett, 
 Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, McRae, O'- 
 Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porter, W. B. Pres- 
 cott, W. M. Prescott, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Splane, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt— 28 nays; so 
 the motion was lost. 
 
 An animated discussion then took place 
 between Mr. Downs on the one side, who 
 insisted on proceeding with the section 
 under debate, and Messrs. Taylor and Con- 
 rad on the other, who opposed it on the 
 ground of its being unusual to press a mo- 
 tion when a delay was asked for, on ac- 
 count of the house being so thin, and the 
 question so important; pending which, on 
 motion of Mr. Brent, the Convention ad. 
 journed till to-morrow at 10 o'clock. 
 
 Saturday, March 29, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment, and its proceedings were opened 
 with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff on behalf of the committee 
 on contingent expenses, reported unfavor- 
 ably upon the application of the *printers 
 to the Convention, for the publication of the 
 English reports of the debates and journals 
 of the Convention, asking some additional 
 compensation to bring up the reports. 
 Mr. R. accompanied this report with some 
 verbal explanations. He said, that the pre- 
 sent printers were well aware of the nature 
 of their contract before they undertook it. 
 That the whole subject of printing for the 
 Convention had been thoroughly examined 
 and discussed when the former printer was 
 removed. They were to furnish ten copies 
 of their paper containing the debates and 
 proceedings, and to publish these debates 
 and proceedings in their paper three times 
 a week, and oftener, if necessary, to keep 
 up with them. For the subscription to their 
 paper, or in other words, for furnishing 
 ten copies containing the debates and pro- 
 ceedings, they were to receive five hundred 
 dollars, and were to receive two dollars 
 per page for publishing the debates and 
 proceedings in pamphlet form. The latter 
 duty required a mere transfer of the types 
 from their newspaper. There was no 
 obligation in the contract for the printers 
 to do any other work^and when other ser- 
 vices were required from them, it was the 
 practice of the committee to audit their ac- 
 counts for extra work. The committee 
 should continue to authorize the payment 
 of all such claims unless otherwise directed 
 by the Convention. The report recom- 
 mended that nothing further should be al- 
 lowed the printers for the publication of 
 the journals and debates, for the reasons 
 assigned, and he hoped that it would be 
 adopted, 
 
 Mr. Ratliff concluded by moving the 
 adoption of the report. 
 
 Mr. Downs hoped that the report would 
 not be adopted, and that it would lay over 
 for further consideration. It may be that 
 according to the strict and literal construc- 
 tion of the contract with the printers, thai 
 they were not entitled to any additional 
 compensation. But that should not be the 
 sole question with the Convention. If ^ 
 can be shown that this work has extended 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana 
 
 53 r> 
 
 beyond the calculations of the printers, and ! ficing too much, and although they may 
 rhat they are actually incurring a loss, is it feel under a moral obligation to prosecute 
 equitable or fair that the Convention should.) the work, they may be without the means 
 hold them literally to the bond without j of doing so. Not the least important func 
 cuaranteeing them at least from a positive j tion connected with this Convention, are 
 l oss — there are some considerations con- the publication of its proceedings. Let us 
 nected with this matter, which should in- guarantee the printers at least against a 
 duce us to lend a willing air to their appli- loss. Let the committee inquire what is 
 cation. It should be borne in mind, that j really their expenses for doing the work 
 when they took the printing for the Con- : and pay them accordingly, and not one 
 vention, the debates and journals were fif- ; cent more than they are justly and fairly 
 teen days behind hand. It required time ■ entitled to. But, I beseech you, said Mr. 
 and expense to bring up these proceedings. ' Downs, not because you have got it in the 
 In fact it was exacting from them that bond, -to exact the last pound of flesh, 
 which was not strictly speaking, in their j Even if it be in the bond, and it can be 
 contract; for their duties J^egan only from \ satisfactorily shown that there is a loss, do 
 the day of their election; whereas, they ' not take advantage of that, but extend thai 
 had to bring up work that was behind j relief which the circumstances may require, 
 hand. We ourselves had not anticipated I hope then, that the report will be recom- 
 so long a session. It was not supposed ' mitted with instructions to inquire and re 
 that the Convention would be in session port upon the value of the services and 
 more than sixty days, and here we were , upon what the printers are fairly and 
 still, and to the best conjecture he could honestly entitled to. 
 
 form, here we would remain for thirty days : Mr. Ratliff said, that the exuberant 
 and perhaps sixty days. The extension j imagination of the gentleman from Ouachi- 
 of the session and the accumulation of la- j ta, had given a coloring to this matter, 
 b or — the very voluminous character of the i which was not in exact accordance with 
 debates and proceedings, imposed a very ; the precise state of facts, That gentleman 
 heavy and onerous duly upon the pi inters, j has discovered what does not exist in the 
 If it can be established to our satisfaction ; application of the printers themselves 
 that they have double the duty to perform, They say not one word about arrear pub- 
 is it unreasonable to give them a fair com- j lications. They were well aware of these 
 pensation. All the officers of the Conven- j arrear publications when they undertook 
 tion werej paid liberally in proportion to the contract. The only question which 
 their services — we ourselves were paid presented itself to the committee was, 
 liberally. Is it just to expect and to re- j whether they should receive an additional 
 quire that the printers should be an excep- ! sum to the five hundred dollars already 
 tion to the general rule? By associations ' paid them for furnishing their paper con- 
 among the compositors they exact a fixed taining the debates. 
 
 remuneration for the amount of the labor Mr. R. read from the letter of the print- 
 performed by them conformably to a tariff, ers. 
 
 and unless they are paid thereto, their ser- j The only matter then involved, wa? 
 vices are not to be had. The proprietors ! whether they shouUk receive extra com 
 of newspapers are compelled to submit to \ pensation for furnishing their paper. The 
 these conditions, and there is no way by ! committee had examined the subject and 
 which they can economise their expenses, j were of the opinion that they were not, 
 so far as the preparation of the matter is ! and had so reported to the house. The 
 involved. We are assured by the printers same terms were made with the proprie- 
 that the compensation allowed them is in- 1 tor of another newspaper, the Courier, for 
 sufficient to meet their expenses for the j the publication of the same debates and. 
 publication of the proceedings. Suppose i proceedings in French. That proprietoi 
 they are under the necessity by a want had never appeared nor complained of the 
 of means to continue the work": we can- : insufficiency of the remuneration. He too ; 
 not exact from them impossibilities. We ! had taken the contract with a full kpowl- 
 have perhaps no means of compelling them j edge of the extent of the labor, and of the 
 to go on; they may find that thev are sacri- 1 remuneration—he was a practical printer. 
 
536 • Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 and had acquired a large fortune in the 
 printing business. This was a proof of 
 his judgment and discretion in conducting 
 the business. Is it to be supposed that his 
 lips would have remained hermetrically 
 sealed to the present moment— that he 
 would have never even intimated in the 
 remotest manner, that he was entitled to 
 one dollar extra compensation, if he had 
 any grounds of complaint? He was assu- 
 redly duly sensible of his own interests, 
 and had they been compromited by this 
 contract, it is not to be presumed that the 
 argus eyes of self-interest would not have 
 discovered before this, that it was a losing 
 business. 
 
 I consider (said Mr. Ratlin*) that a con- 
 tract with a legislative body might to be 
 held as sacremental as a contract between 
 private individuals. It has been unfortu- 
 nately too much the habit to interfere with 
 these contracts whenever printers were 
 concerned. In 1830, the democratic party 
 set the example of giving the State print- 
 er an extra compensation; they raised his 
 salary from four thousand dollars to seven 
 thousand dollars. I voted against this pro- 
 position upon principle. A few years af- 
 terwards the whigs followed the same ex- 
 ample, and gave to the printer they had 
 elected, also an additional compensation. 
 But in both instances, the journals speak 
 for me. I have in every instance voted 
 against granting additional compensation 
 to printers, because they are practical men, 
 and must know the extent of the labor re- 
 quired from them. In the present instance, 
 the whole matter was perfectly understood. 
 It^had been fully discussed in the removal 
 of the former printer; and before in 
 fact he was removed, the printed tickets of 
 the candidates for the succession, were lay- 
 ing upon our tables. (JIn the house of rep- 
 resentatives, the city papers are furnished 
 for the session at from one hundred dol- 
 lars to one hundred and twenty dollars. 
 As chairman of the committee on contin- 
 gent expenses for a number of years in 
 that body. I am conversant with the amount 
 usually demanded by their proprietors. 
 The Picayune is furnished for one hun- 
 dred dollars, and all the papers contain a 
 synopsis of the proceedings. I do not 
 think it just or proper to increase the com- 
 pensation of the printers, or any other offi- 
 cers that may be employed by a legisla- 
 
 tive body. 1 was against it ten years, 
 ago, and I am against it now. No party 
 •considerations nor personal predelictions 
 will induce me to change a contract for 
 the public printing to the prejudice of the 
 State. On one occasion I recollect that I 
 succeeded in reducing the salaries of the 
 officers of both branches of the legislature, 
 but this retrenchment was of little or no 
 avail, for at the end of the session, when 
 the members begin to feel rich, they put 
 back the compensation where it was be- 
 fore, with perhaps few exceptions. I do 
 not think a contract with the State a rope 
 of sand. In their present application, the 
 printers were unfortunate in trying the 
 committee. It would have been better 
 policy for them to have waited until the 
 last day of the session, when it is very 
 likely their demands would at once have 
 been assented to. In a conversation with 
 one of them, 1 told him that he had nothing 
 to expect from the committee, and observ- 
 ed to him jocosely, that it would have 
 been better had he postponed the demand 
 for the last day of the session. Perhaps 
 this is the intention of the proprietor 
 of the Courier, who has more experience 
 in such matters. I would observe that 
 four of the committee concurred in the re- 
 port, and that we were unable to consult 
 with the two remaining members, Mr, 
 Roselius and Judge King. 
 
 Mr. Splane said that we were spend- 
 ing more money in this discussion than 
 would cover the additional expense for 
 bringing up the report. He hoped the 
 subject would be recommitted to the com- 
 mittee with instructions to report upon the 
 facts. 
 
 Mr. Beatty was willing, if the printers 
 found the contract an onerous one, to dis- 
 charge them from their contract, for he 
 must confess that he was not satisfied with 
 the manner in which the work was done. 
 He would not vote to give one cent. 
 
 Mr. Downs: does the gentleman mean 
 that the printing is badly executed? 
 
 Mr. Beatty: I complain of the matter 
 printed. 
 
 Mr. Downs said that the gentleman from 
 Feliciana (Mr. Ratliff) had omitted to men- 
 tion a very essential point, in referring to 
 the number of newspapers furnished to 
 the legislature during its session. There 
 were but sixty copies of each paper fur- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 537 
 
 - 
 
 nished to the house of representatives; 
 whereas, the printers to the Convention 
 furnished of each number containing the 
 debates, seven hundred and seventy copies. 
 The subscription to the smallest city pa- ! 
 per, and they all have the same piice of 
 subscription for three months, and to fur- 
 nish seventy-seven copies, would amounx 
 to two thousand three hundred and ten 
 dollars. Do not give the printer one cent 
 more than he is fairly entitled to. The 
 gentleman says that the printer of the de- 
 bates in French does not complain; the 
 gentleman it would seem is mistaken. The 
 proprietor of the Courier will no doubt 
 make a similar application, and I have no 
 objection that this paper should be inclu* 
 ded in the investigations to be assigned to 
 the committee under the motion. 
 
 Mr. Humble said the gentleman (Mr. 
 RatlifT) was mistaken in stating that the 
 printers of the reports of the debates in 
 English had never asked for additional 
 compensation. From the showing made, 
 it appeared they were entitled to some- 
 thing. The delegate from Baton Roug^, 
 (Mr. Read,) the delegate from New Or 
 leans, (Mr. Benjamin) and the delegate 
 from Lafourche, (Mr. Beatty) on another 
 occasion sustained their claim. It was better 
 to recommit the subject, and if the facts o£ 
 the case justified it, it was but right to al- 
 low them some additional compensation 
 to bring up the reports. 
 
 Mr. Pugh said he felt under the neces- 
 sity of voting against this resolution. The 
 legislature had been very profuse in their 
 expenditures. This body should inculcate 
 economy by setting the example of re- 
 stricting the public expenses within proper 
 bounds. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson would sustain the sug- 
 gestion first made by the delegate from 
 Ouachita. It was proper that the subject 
 should be inquired into, and if the contract 
 was really prejudicial to the printers, some 
 relief ought to be extended to them. If 
 for example, he was to contract for the 
 building of a house, and he found that the 
 person contracting was really losing mon- 
 ey, he would not hold him to the contract, 
 without a sufficient remuneration for any 
 loss. What he would do for himself in- 
 dividually, he felt authorized to do on be- 
 half of those whose interests he represent- 
 ed, 
 
 The question was taken upon Mr. 
 Downs' motion to recommit, and it was 
 carried in the affirmative. 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Brum- 
 I field, Burton, Cade, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 Culbertson, Downg, Garrett, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, 
 Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Splane, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, 
 Waddill, Wederstrandt, WikorT and Win- 
 der — 36 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Chinn, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Derbes, Hudspeth, King, Legendre, Mazu- 
 reau, Prudhomme, Pugh, RatlifT, Roman, 
 Saunders, Sellers, and Winchester — 18 
 nays. 
 
 Mr. Splaxe gave notice, that he would 
 on Wednesday next move for the reconsid- 
 eration of the vote, constituting St. Mary 
 and St. Martin one senatorial district. 
 
 Mr. Chixx gave notice, that on Wednes- 
 day next he would move for the reconsid- 
 eration of the vote giving but one senator 
 to the county of Iberville. 
 
 Mr. Pugh gave notice that lie would in-' 
 troduce a proposition requiring that each 
 parish and senatorial district should pay its 
 own senators and representatives. 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 The Convention resumed the considera- 
 tion of the section providing for the appor- 
 tionment of the senate. 
 
 When the Convention adjourned yester- 
 day, Mr. Garrett had moved to constitute 
 a senatorial district to be formed of the 
 parishes of Union, Jackson and Morehouse. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin had moved to add|the 
 parish of Ouachita. 
 
 Mr. Hoible reminded the delegate 
 from New Orleans (Mr. Conrad) of his 
 promise to address the Convention in sup- 
 port of the motion to add the parish of 
 Ouachita to the parishes of L T nion, More- 
 house and Jackson. 
 
 Mr. G. M. Coxrad said that it was not 
 his intention to have addressed the Con- 
 vention to-day, because he observed that 
 there were more seats vacant than usual. 
 There would be manifest injustice in taking 
 the vote to-day, and should that course be 
 taken, he would give notice that he would 
 move the reconsideration of the vote, for 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 from the complexion of the house at 
 present, he inferred that as many sena- 
 torial districts would be created in 
 the west as its representatives would 
 desire, he would barely remark as the. 
 gentleman (Mr. Humble) desired that he 
 should express his views upon the propo- 
 sition before the house, that he conceived 
 it just and proper. With the addition of 
 Ouachita, the district would not be as large 
 as many that had been constituted, either 
 in regard to taxation or population. From 
 the best means we have before .us of 
 judging of this matter, we find that the 
 population of Union is one thousand eight 
 hundred and thirty-eight; Ouachita, four 
 thousand six hundred and forty. These 
 are the only two parishes in the dis- 
 trict whose population are indicated in 
 the statement before us. In relation to 
 Morehouse, we have one little datum. — - 
 Morehouse gave, in 1844, at the presi- 
 dential election, when the vote was un- 
 usually large, one hundred and thirty- 
 eight votes. At the same election, Oua- 
 chiita gave about twice the num- 
 ber ; hence it would seem that there is no 
 jrreat injustice in uniting Morehouse with 
 Ouachita in forming the district. The total 
 population of Morehouse, it may safely be 
 inferred, is not one-half that of Ouachita. 
 The population of both may be set down 
 as two thousand seven hundred and fifty- 
 seven. Having obtained a pretty ac- 
 curate idea of the population, let us see 
 what is the amount of taxation. By the 
 report of the State Treasurer, we find that 
 Ouachita, including Morehouse, pays four 
 thousand six hundred and fifty dollars and 
 forty-eight cents. This includes the taxation 
 upon the property of residents and non- 
 residents — of minors and of white persons, 
 and free persons of color. It gives us 
 some notion of the wealth of Union and 
 Morehouse. With regard to the parish of 
 Jackson, we know nothing further than 
 that it is a new parish, created during the 
 last session of the legislature ; and from 
 what has been mentioned incidentally in 
 debate upon the apportionment of the parish 
 of Claiborne in the house of representa- 
 tives, we may presume that it is sparcely 
 populated, and in reference to its contribu- 
 tions to the treasury, they must be insig- 
 nificant indeed, A portion of the parish 
 of Union was also taken to form the parish 
 
 of Jackson, and the voters residing in that 
 portion should be deducted from the vote 
 of Union. 
 
 One of the principal causes that led to 
 the convocation of the Convention was the 
 inequality of representation in the Senate. 
 This was one of the evils which we were 
 mainly called upon to remedy. Some 
 equality ought to be maintained in form- 
 ing the districts^or we might as well leave 
 the apportionment as it is in the old consti- 
 tution, 
 
 I have heard, said Mr. Conrad, of ap- 
 portioning the representation of a State for 
 mere party purposes— for mere temporary 
 objects, but I never heard of a deliberate 
 attempt being made by any constituent 
 body to perpetuate a system of injustice. 
 The majority in the Convention have re- 
 fused to increase to an additional member 
 the senatorial representation of the old 
 county of Iberville. In 1812, at the for- 
 mation of the constitution, one senator was 
 allowed to the parishes of Iberville and 
 West Baton Rouge, composing that dis- 
 trict, and only one is now allowed in 1845, 
 While the disposition is clearly manifested 
 to restrict the senatorial representation of 
 the parishes in the south and south-east, 
 and to deny them that representation to 
 which they are entitled by their population 
 and taxation, the very contrary spirit is ex- 
 hibited towards the north and north-west- 
 ern parishes of the State. These latter, 
 without either the necessary population and 
 with but a small proportion of the taxation, 
 it seems are to be multiplied into innume- 
 rable districts. In increasing the number 
 of senators to thirty -two, we have added 
 fifteen to the seventeen already apportion- 
 ed in the old constitution. What disposi* 
 tion are we making of these fifteen? We 
 have given to the parish of Avoyelles one 
 senator, to the parish of Rapides one sena- 
 tor. Here we have two senators in a dis- 
 trict where there was heretofore but one 
 senator, and the parish of Catahoula, 
 which belonged to the district, is reserved 
 to form a third senatorial district. We 
 have appropriated but eight senators to the 
 south and south-eastern parishes, including 
 the city of New Orleans, and the remain- 
 ing seven are to be monopolized by the 
 north-western parishes, Upon no prin- 
 ciple of equality can such an apportionment 
 be justified; upon reviewing our work it 
 
Debates in the Convention ot Louisiana, 539 
 
 will be seen that the noith-west has not 
 only obtained the preponderance of the in- 
 crease of representation in the house, but" 
 that her representatives are asking for her 
 a similar preponderance in the senate. 
 For her benefit an arbitrary rule was 
 adopted, that each parish should have one 
 representative without reference to popula- 
 tion, as her territory had previously been 
 multiplied into a number of small parishes, 
 this rule operated especially in her favor. 
 
 He was not disposed to take one iota of 
 representation from the parishes of the 
 north-west. He wished every jot to be ex- 
 tended to them to which they were justly 
 entitled. But we must have a rule to 
 which we should adhere invariably. He 
 regretted to have felt himself under the ne- 
 cessity of voting against the increase of 
 senatorial representation to the piney wood 
 parishes. He could not find that they were 
 entitled to it. He was, however, better 
 pleased that this additional representation 
 was extended to those parishes, because 
 injustice had been done to the parishes of 
 the south and south-west, although, even 
 on that ground, he could not feel himself 
 authorized to sacrifice what he considered 
 a principle. Fromtheearnestnesswhich he 
 could see manifested to press a vote upon 
 the question before the house, he was con- 
 vinced he was" loosing his own time and 
 that of the Convention in discussing this 
 subject, and he would not have trespassed 
 upon the attention of the house had he not 
 been called upon by the delegate (Mr. 
 Humble) to redeem the pledge that he had 
 made yesterday. Any vote that may now 
 be taken he would not consider definitive 
 of the question, as he had said at the be- 
 ginning of his remarks, he would move 
 for the reconsideration, and would take 
 that occasion to express himself more fully. 
 
 Mr. Downs said that he did not design 
 addressing the Convention, but the argu- 
 ments of the delegate from New Orleans 
 rendered it necessary for him to do so. I 
 am at a loss to understand, said Mr. Downs, 
 what the gentleman means by announcing 
 that he will address the Convention here- 
 after, more fully upon the subject. It 
 strikes me that he has thoroughly explored 
 the whole matter. I may say that his ar- 
 gument was so full that it run over, and if 
 his object was to prove that there was any 
 thing unjust in giving a senator to a district 
 
 to be composed of three parishes, I think 
 he has shot w 7 ide of the mark, The gen- 
 tleman assumes that much too large a share 
 is about to be given to the parishes above 
 Red river, on the Ouachita, and on Red 
 river. If you will cast your eye upon the 
 map you will see that much the largest 
 portion of the State lies in that section. 
 The parishes of Jackson, Union and More- 
 house contain an area of two hundred and 
 fifty square miles by the regular surveyors' 
 charte — an extent that would embrace 
 New Orleans, the parishes on the coast, 
 the parishes on the Lafourche, and a great 
 deal more. Whoever will examine dis- 
 passionately the apportionment will find 
 that the large extent of country embraced 
 in the north-western portion of the State is, 
 in point of fact, the largest portion of the 
 State. • To that section but six senators 
 are allowed, while the nine other senators 
 are for the most part, distributed from the 
 Balize to Point Coupee. These nine sen- 
 ators have been monopolized in this par- 
 ticular section of the State, with the ex- 
 ception of the Attackapas and Opelousas 
 parishes, because perhaps sugar is princi- 
 pally cultivate'd in those parishes. When 
 ever the effort is made to give ah equiva- 
 lent representation to the north-western 
 parishes the hue and cry is raised, and 
 they are placed under the ban ! It is really 
 astonishing that so strenuous an opposition 
 should be made to giving a fair representa- 
 tion to a territory that embraces the largest 
 portion of the State. Look upon the map 
 and you will readily see the vast difference 
 in point of territory, between that section 
 and the lower portion of the State. 
 
 But the delegate (Mr. Conrad) says that 
 the parish of Morehouse is an insignifi- 
 cant parish, because it gave in the last pre- 
 sidential election, but one hundred and 
 thirty-eight votes. How many votes did 
 the parish of St. Charles, which together 
 with the parish of St. John constitutes a 
 senatorial district, give at the same elec- 
 tion ? It gave one hundred and thirty-eight 
 votes — precisely the same number. And 
 if it be taken into consideration that More- 
 house is a frontier parish, and not so much 
 exposed to political excitement as the par= 
 ish of St. Charles, which is so near the 
 city of New Orleans, it would be seen that 
 the former has nothing to lose from the com- 
 parison. Moreover, the parish of Union 
 
540 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 gave four hundred and nineteen votes at 
 that election — the parish of St. John the 
 Baptist gave two hundred and fifty-five 
 votes, which, added with the vote of the 
 parish of St. Charles, makes a total of 
 three hundred and ninety-three votes. 
 Thus it will be seen that the parish of 
 Union gave alone, more votes than the 
 parishes of St. John the Baptist and St. 
 Charles put together; and yet these two 
 parishes have been allowed a senator with- 
 out the slightest difficulty. Whereas 
 when it is proposed to form a senatorial 
 district composed of the parish of Union 
 which gave more votes than the other two 
 put together, in connection with the par- 
 ishes of Morehouse and Jackson, it is pre- 
 tended that these three parishes are insuf- 
 ficient to form a district, and that a fourth 
 parish must be added — the parish of Oua- 
 chita, which gave three hundred and twelve 
 votes at the last presidential election, to 
 Complete the district. Is there any justice 
 in'such a pretension ? Its injustice is pal- 
 pable. We have not yet created a single 
 district having but one senator with a plu- 
 rality of parishes, that is to say in any case 
 more than two. Here we have three par- 
 ishes placed in the same senatorial district 
 with but a single senator, and still the gen- 
 tleman from New Orleans (Mr. Conrad) 
 tells us that three parishes aie not enough 
 to form this district — -that they are in the 
 north-west, and therefore, according to his 
 notions, there must be four. If this be 
 the gentleman's conception of justice, all 
 that I have to say is, that it is peculiar, and 
 I trust it is not shared by the majority of 
 this body. 
 
 What are the motives that actuate some 
 members of this body to suppress the voice 
 of a particular portion of the State? Is it 
 through political motives? It has been al- 
 leged that a systematic plan has been 
 adopted, of which I am accused of being 
 the author and promoter, to multiply new 
 parishes in the north-west, with the view 
 of organizing the political 'power of that 
 section. There is no foundation for any 
 such charge. The first parish that was 
 formed, the parish of Caldwell, was created 
 at the instance of Judge Morgan, a most 
 decided whig. As for the formation of the 
 parish of Union, it was created in 1838, at 
 the solicitation of a number of citizens 're- 
 siding within its territory, which was cut j 
 
 off from itercourse, to a great extent, by 
 the bayou Darbone, from the rest of the 
 'territory. They wished to set up for them- 
 selves. Its formation was promoted by 
 persons more zealous than I; by zealous 
 whigs; and so close is the contest in that 
 parish, so rapidly is the whig cause gaining 
 ground, that I can inform the gentleman, 
 and his political associates, and I have no 
 doubt that the information will give them 
 great satisfaction, that at the last election 
 the democratic party only carried the elec- 
 tion by thirteen votes majority. 
 
 The gentlemen who so strenuously op- 
 pose the formation of tljis district may be 
 deceiving themselves; they may be cutting 
 off their own noses. As to Morehouse, the 
 democratic party can make no show of a 
 contest in that parish; they are completely 
 in the minority, and if there were anything 
 to turn the whigs, in that and the adjoining 
 parish, it would be this attempt to suppress 
 the voice of that portion of the State, at- 
 tempted by those in this house professing 
 similar political opinions. 
 
 Thus we see that Union is divided, 
 Morehouse is whig by two or three to 
 one; as for the remaining parish of Jack- 
 son, it was created during the last session 
 of the legislature. The question of its 
 creation was made before the people; the 
 whig candidates pledged -themselves to 
 effect it; they used it as a means to pro- 
 mote their success, and the consequence 
 was that the democratic party lost the elec- 
 tion of tWo additional members to the 
 house, because they did not take up this 
 question, and two whigs were accordingly 
 returned. The move was got up by that 
 party, and it was that party that profited by 
 it. I have nothing to say against it; but it 
 did not originate with me. Its political 
 complexion is not yet tested, but it is filling 
 up fast with population. The district so 
 composed may be whig, and elect a. whig 
 senator^ it is by no means certain for the 
 democrats. And thus, if the formation of 
 those parishes into a district is opposed 
 solely in reference to political questions, 
 the gentlemen may be deceiving themselves 
 as to the probable result. 
 
 But it has been insinuated that the pop- 
 ulation in the north-west are opposed to the 
 Creole population; that they are in favor oi 
 innovations, and against the civil law. It 
 is not a fact; the democratic party have de 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 541 
 
 eiared that they are not in favor of. any ma- 
 terial change in the civil lav/. It is true 
 that the new comers have their prejudices 
 against that system, but when they have 
 resided long enough in the country to be- 
 come acquainted with it, they are satisfied 
 with its operation; they are adverse to its 
 being superseded. The people of the 
 north-west are American citizens, arid as 
 much entitled to a full participation in po- 
 litical power as the people of any other 
 portion of the State. It is true that they 
 • may not be in the main as wealthy; there 
 may be some amongst them who are poor, 
 and subject to the same reproach as the 
 people residing in the piney woods across 
 the lake, who have been taunted with their 
 povert}\ It is bad policy to use such an 
 argument, and the wisdom of that states- 
 man who employs it, must be excessively 
 small. The gentleman should recollect 
 that there is another kind of wealth re- 
 quired for the protection of the country — »it 
 is courage, strong hands and bold hearts; 
 and I doubt much, if- danger should arise, 
 whether the rich parishes, that have been 
 so much eulogised by the delegate from 
 New Orleans (Mr. Conrad), and the dele- 
 gate from Plaquemines (Mr. Wadsworth), 
 in contradistinction with what these gen- 
 tlemen are pleased to term poor parishes, 
 would render as efficient succour to the 
 country as the latter. They may be poor 
 rf you will, but they are rich in patriotism, 
 and for every one citizen that would volun- 
 teer, you would find four or five offering 
 their services in the poor parishes of St. 
 Tammany, of Livingston, and Washington, 
 and if you will, of Union and Ouachita. If 
 you repudiate them now because they are 
 poor, they may turn their backs upon you 
 in the moment of peril; in the emergency 
 they may respond to your call for help, that 
 if money is- so powerful, why do you not 
 defend yourselves? why ask help- from those 
 you have despised because they are poor? 
 
 ,In 1815 who repaired with the greatest 
 alcarity to the field of battle to repulse the 
 common enemy? D id the poor and humble 
 inhabitants of the lake parishes hang back 
 on that occasion? Were the people of the 
 north-west insensible to the call of duty? 
 Volunteers were raised in those parishes 
 and in the parish of Ouachita. Did the 
 unworthy motive 3 that they were not them- 
 Selves in danger,, influence their action, and 
 69 
 
 paralize their noble impulses ? Should 
 danger arise again, although you may have 
 repulsed them, they would be too generous, 
 too noble to refuse you their assistance. 
 They will leave their fire-sides, in the re- 
 mote west, from the pine barrens across the 
 lake, and will fly to your relief. It is bad 
 policy to attempt to despoil them of their 
 political privileges. These pine barrens, 
 which they are reproached with inhabiting, 
 are the natural ramparts to protect the 
 State. , I have considered it as one of the 
 most fortunate physical peculiarities of the 
 country, that there are these strips of pine 
 barren running throught it, and in close 
 contiguity with the rich alluvial lands. In 
 these latter the slave population, from the ' 
 productiveness of .the soil, will always pre- 
 dominate; whi^e in the poorer lands the 
 white pojJtilation must greatly predominate 
 
 Let us then give equal protection to all 
 alike, and let us remember that there is a 
 mutual dependence. 
 
 Mr. C. >M. Conju-t: The gentleman 
 from Ouachita has taktm such a discursive 
 range that, although I did not intend to 
 trouble the house again, 1 deem it not un- 
 necessary to notice some of his observa- 
 tions. He commenced with a high eulo- 
 gium on his patriotism and disinterested? 
 ne'ss, and if it were not for his remarks I 
 would have taken it for granted that he was 
 uninfluenced by any selfish or political con» 
 siderations. 1 have heard no one impeach 
 that gentleman's motives, and yet he has 
 seen proper to enter into a long and_eiabo= 
 rate defence of them. I did not suppose 
 that the n gentleman was under the influence 
 of political motives, although I presumed, 
 as was quite natural, that he was anxious • 
 to obtain as large a -representation as he 
 could for the section of the country which 
 he represented on this floor. But the gen= 
 tleman has fancied that he was liable to 
 suspicion for the purity of his motives. 
 This reminds me of an anecdote told by a 
 distinguished gentleman in a political can- 
 vass, of two women not remarkable for 
 their chastity, between whom a struggle 
 arose which should call out harlot first. 
 The gentleman, it seems, wishes to take 
 the start; he calls hard names first. The 
 gentleman has assumed for an argument 
 that a feeling exists in this house to do in- 
 justice to the poorer parishes. Who has 
 made any charge of that kind? No one 
 
542 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 but the gentleman from Ouachita. The 
 gentleman from Plaquemines, alluding to 
 the poverty of the land as indicating the 
 sparseness of the population, humorously 
 said that one could hear <*. weed trying to 
 grow. The gentleman from Ouachita 
 must be susceptible indeed if he can con- 
 strue this into a reproach. Why, the gen, 
 fcleman from Livingston, (Mr. McRae,) one 
 of the representatives of this particular re- 
 gion, laughed at this fancy as a joke; but 
 it seems that the gentleman from Ouachita 
 has constituted himself the champion of 
 poverty, and imagined that a class of our 
 population are assailed for no other pur- 
 pose than to show his skill and magnanim- 
 ity in defending them. Let us throw aside 
 declamation — let us throw aside preju- 
 dice. No one pretends that thef o is less 
 intelligence, less patriotism, in the poor 
 parishes than there is in the rich. . Let us 
 look at the subject in its true and only 
 point of view. The basis of electors is not 
 favorable to equality and uniformity of re- 
 presentation throughout the State, In the 
 rich parishes, where the lands are fertile, 
 the slave population must predominate, and 
 the burden of taxation will principally fall 
 upon these parishes. In the poor parishes 
 there will be an excess of white population 
 and but little taxation. The result will.be, 
 that the parishes contributing the smallest 
 amount of taxes, will have the greatest 
 share of political power ^ and that those 
 parishes contributing the most taxation 
 will have little or no voice in determining 
 even the burdens they are to bear ! That 
 is the reason why I object to such a system; 
 * and not because I wish to establish any dis- 
 tinction between the poor and the rich, for i 
 am well aware that riches and wealth are 
 not necessary corelatives. I am convinc- 
 ed that taxation should form an ingredient 
 in representation, as well as electors or 
 population. The house have decided dif- 
 ferently, and I have yielded the point. The 
 house of representatives has been based 
 on popular suffrage, Is not that already 
 a sufficient concession? Must the senate 
 be constituted in a similar manner? The 
 gentleman from Ouachita has tacitly agreed 
 that in the formation of the senate, some 
 regard ought to be paid to wealth and tax- 
 ation. It was otl that principle . that we 
 gave a senator to St, Charles and St, John 
 the Baptist: to Pointe Coupee; and increas- i 
 
 ed the senatorial representation in the La= 
 fourche parishes, in Attakapas and Ope- 
 lousas ; not in reference to population 
 alone, but likewise in reference to the large 
 amounts contributed by these parishes. 
 Surely nothing could be more conformable 
 to the principle of population and taxation, 
 and. I am at a loss to conceive how v;e 
 could have incurred the reproach of hav- 
 ing shown no consideration for the poorer 
 parishes ofthe State; with having despised 
 and insulted them. The gentleman from 
 Ouachita has assumed this position, and 
 has undertaken to panegyrize the inhabi- 
 tants residing in the lake parishes. No one 
 respects them more than I do. No one is 
 more anxious that they should have a pro- 
 per representation; and I have had more 
 connection with them than the gentleman 
 from Ouachita. Their peculiar interests 
 are "assimilated with those of this portion 
 of the State, of which they form a part, 
 and certainly there is more identity of feeL 
 ing between them and us, than between 
 them and the people of the remote north- 
 west. Declamation cannot overthrow facts. 
 As for. the comparison instituted by the 
 gentleman from Ouachita between the par- 
 ishes of St. Charles and St, John the Bap- 
 tist, and the parishes of Union, Morehouse 
 and Jackson, for the purpose of showing 
 that the three latter are better entitled to a 
 senator than the two former, it will not 
 stand the test of scrutiny. 
 
 The parishes of 'St. Charles and St. 
 John* the Baptist pay double the taxes of 
 Union, Morehouse and Jackson, all three 
 united. It may be as the gentleman says, 
 that the parishes in lower Louisiana do 
 not cover as large an extent of territory 
 as the parishes in the north-west. It may 
 ^be that they are not as perceptible on the 
 map; but if it requires, as the gentleman 
 suggests, a microscope to discover them 
 there, in comparison with the more extend- 
 ed parishes in his district, there is no ne» 
 cessity for any microscope to see the large 
 piles^of money that they pour into the trea° 
 sury, and in the distribution of which they 
 ought certainly to have some control. 
 
 Mr. Chinn said that the house was so 
 thin it would be better to postpone acting 
 upon the question at present. 
 
 Mr. Downs: I am not surprised at the 
 disposition exhibited to .procrastinate ac- 
 i tion upon this question, It appears to be 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 543 
 
 a very sore spot. I hope that it will be 
 decided at once. 
 
 The question was taken upon Mr* Ben- 
 jamin's motion to add the parish of Oua- 
 chita to the parishes of Union, Morehouse 
 and Jackson, in the formation of the sena- 
 torial district, and the yeas and nays were 
 called for : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Chinn, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Gar- 
 cia, Hudspeth, King, Legendre, Mazureau, 
 Pugh, Roman, Roselius, Saunders, Sel- 
 lers, Taylor of St. Landry, Wadsworth and 
 Winder — IS yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Chambliss, Co- 
 villion, Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, Eustis, 
 Garrett, Humble, Hynsori, Ledoux, Lewis, 
 McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, O'Bry- 
 an, Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoy- 
 elles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Prud- 
 horflme, Ratliff, Read, Scott ot Baton Rouge, 
 Scott ot Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Soule, 
 Splane, Stephens, # Waddill, Wederstrandt 
 and Wikoff — 41 nays. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said, that if the formation of 
 the districts could be so arranged as to give 
 the old Ouachita district' two senators by 
 striking off the parish of Catahoula from 
 the Rapides district, and adding it to the 
 Ouachita parishes for that purpose, and bj. 
 that means apportion five senators between 
 them and Rapides, and the Natchitoches 
 senatorial district, he thought that would 
 be a fair allotment. • That would be giving 
 to that section of the State about an equal 
 ; voice with the Opelousas and Attakapas 
 I districts, to wit, five senators; and he did 
 not think that any more ought to be con- 
 ceded, 
 
 Mr. Huxble said that he was as well 
 acquainted with that section of the country 
 as the gentleman from New Orleans (Mr. 
 Marigny) was with lower Louisiana. 
 There was peculiar fitness in uniting Frank- 
 lin and Catahoura to form a senatorial dis- 
 trict but as for placing Caldwell in that 
 'district, he would as soon think of attach- 
 ling it to the parish of Plaquemines; it would 
 'answer just about as well. 
 
 Mr. Garrett contended in favor of 
 forming the parishes of Union, Morehouse 
 land Jackson into a separate senatorial dis- 
 trict. From all the data combined, he 
 thought it was no more than just that they 
 should form a distinct senatorial district. 
 
 The parishes of Caldwell and Ouachita 
 should also form a senatorial district, and 
 Catahoula and Franklin another. This 
 would give but three senators to a very 
 large extent of country, possessing great 
 fertility of soil, and which was fast in- 
 creasing in population. 
 
 In apportioning the representation in the 
 senate, he was guided not alone* by refer- 
 ence to taxation, but by reference to extent 
 of territory as well as population. . In vo- 
 ting to give the Gounry of Acadia two sena- 
 tors, he was influenced by the amount of 
 taxation contributed by the two parishes of 
 St. James and. Ascension. They were 
 entitled to two senators on no other ground. 
 By a parity of reasoning, some considera- 
 tion ought to be given to extent of territory 
 and locality. The small parishes of St. 
 John and St. " Charles were formed into a 
 senatorial district, and certainly they pos- 
 sessed but one of the elements of represen- 
 tation. They contributed a large amount 
 , of taxes, but were deficient, comparatively, 
 in reference both to extent of territory and 
 to electors. The dissimilarity between the 
 parishes throughout the State, in the sever- 
 al requisites for representation, should not 
 be overlooked. In some there was a pre= 
 ponderance of votes, of territory; and in 
 others a preponderance of wealth. If taxa= 
 tion were admitted as the sole ingredient 
 of representation, we would give to those 
 parishes that were wealthy the sole privi- 
 lege of being heard, and would disfranchize, 
 or suppress to a great extent, the voices of 
 other sections of the State, where there 
 was the greatest extent of population and of 
 territory. To do justice it was necessary 
 to take them all into consideration, and so 
 
 to apportion the representation that all 
 might be heard. 
 
 Mr. Garrett said that local eauses had 
 contributed to arrest the progress of the 
 section of the State which he had the hon- 
 or, in part, of representing. The Maison 
 Rouge grant covered a large extent of ter- 
 ritory, and that and other conflicting claim 
 had prevented the settlement of the country 
 to some considerable extent. These causes, 
 however, would not much longer operate. 
 A decision was about finally to be had upon 
 the Maison Rouge claim, and whatever 
 might be the issue of that decision it was 
 I immaterial, so that the title were settled 
 I and the lands brought into market. As 
 
Debates in the^Coiwention of Louisiana, 
 
 soon as that were done* they would be 
 covered with inhabitants, and the increase 
 in population and in wealth would be most 
 remarkable. The object is to -adopt a sys- 
 tem of apportionment that will be perma- 
 nent, and ii there is any apparent deficiency 
 at present, in any particular, in that por- 
 tion of the State, it will not be of long con- 
 tinuance. The fertility 'of the soil, and the 
 great natural advantages it posseses, offer 
 a positive guarantee that its great resour- 
 ces will not remain long undeveloped to 
 their fullest extent. 
 
 It has been assumed in. this debate that 
 more is asked for the north-western par- 
 ishes than has been conceded to the other 
 sections of the State. This is not sustain- 
 ed by a reference to the apportionment that 
 lias thus far been made. The four sena- 
 torial districts in the south and south-west 
 have been doubled in their representation, 
 and in addition a senator has been added to 
 Opelousas, to Acadia, to Attakapas, and to. 
 Lafourche. 
 
 No disposition existed on his part to do 
 injustice to any section of the State, or to 
 any peculiar interest; and while he was 
 ready to concede cheerfully what was due 
 to other parishes, all that he asked for was 
 that impartial justice should be meted out 
 to the parishes in his section of the State. 
 
 Mr. Sellers, much to his regret, found 
 himself under the necessity of voting 
 against forming these three parishes into a 
 distinct senatorial district. Upon no prin- 
 ciple could he find himself authorised to 
 vote for a district which was so totally defi- 
 cient in every necessary requisite, whether 
 as relates to population or taxation. The 
 taxation of Morehouse was only seven hun- 
 dred and seven dollars; of Union only one 
 thousand five hundred and eighty-one dol- 
 lars; and the total population of Union was 
 only one thousand eight hundred and thirty- 
 eight; of Morehouse we had no data as to 
 population; and Jackson was a new parish, 
 but just created, a portion of the territory of 
 which had been taken from Union. If 
 any other territory were added to that dis- 
 trict, which would justify its pretentions to 
 a senator, he would have no objection; but 
 as it was, under a concientious sense of 
 duty, he could not vote for the proposition. 
 
 The question was taken upon forming 
 the parishes of Morehouse, Union and 
 Jackson into a senatorial district, with one 
 
 senator, and the yeas and nays were called 
 for: 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Chanibliss, Co, 
 villion, Culbertson, Downs, Eustis, Garrett, 
 Humble, Hynson, McCallop, McRae, Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Peim, Por- 
 ter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, -Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott 
 of Madison, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Voor- 
 hies, Waddill, Wederstrandt and Wikoff— 
 38 yeas. 
 
 Messrs., Beatty, Chinn, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Derbes, Garcia, Hudspeth, King, Legendre, 
 Lewis, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, 
 Saunders, Sellers and Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry — 18 nays. 
 
 Mr. Garrett move'd that the parishes of 
 Caldwell and Ouachita should form* one 
 senatorial district, with one senator; and 
 the yeas^and nays being called for, resulted 
 as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Brum- 
 field, - Burton, Cade, Carrie re, Chambliss, 
 Covillion, Culbertson, Downs, Eustis. Gar- 
 rett. Humble, Hynson, McCallop, McRae, 
 Marigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Penn, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, Pugh, 
 Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Soule, 
 Splane, Stephens, VoQrhies, Waddill, Wed- 
 erstrandt and Wikoff voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 39 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Chinn, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, 
 Hudspeth, King, Lewis, Mazureau, Roman, 
 Roselius, Saunders, Sellers and Taylor of 
 St. Landry voted in the negative— 16 nays. 
 
 Mr. Mayo then moved that Catahoula 
 and Franklin form one senatorial district, 
 with one senator. Carried. 
 
 Mr. Brent then moved that the parish 
 of Rapides be constituted one senatorial 
 district, with one senator. Carried. 
 
 Mr. Peets moved that the parishes 
 of Bossier and Claiborne form one senato- 
 rial district, with one senator. Carried. 
 
 Mr. Brazeale moved that the parishes 
 of Natchitoches and Sabine form one sena- 
 torial district, with two senators. Carried. 
 
 Mr. Porter moved that the parishes o! 
 Caddo and De Soto be formed into one 
 senatorial district, with one senator, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 045 
 
 But before the question was put, Mr. 
 Marigny moved that four senators be al- 
 lowed to the city of New Orleans, and that 
 the j be elected by general ticket. 
 
 Mr. Culbektson moved to amend the 
 motion by apportioning the four senators 
 to the city of New Orleans as follows: two 
 to the first municipality; one to the second 
 municipality, and one to the third munici- 
 pality. 
 
 Mr. Soule sustained the motion of Mr. 
 Culbertson. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved the adjournment. He 
 did so because this was an important ques- 
 tion as related to the city, and he obser- 
 ved that her delegation were not at the 
 moment in general attendance. The ques- 
 tion was taken, and the yeas and nays were 
 called for — 19 yeas and 35 nays. 
 
 Mr. Eustis was. not aware that this 
 question would have been presented to-day, 
 and it was probable there was more differ- 
 ence of opinion among the' delegation from 
 the city, than there would have been had it 
 not arisen suddenly, and had they had an 
 opportunity for some previous conference. 
 Before the vote was taken he would beg 
 leave to make his views known, and at the 
 same time would crave the indulgence of 
 the house for his total Want of preparation. 
 We have determined that the legislature 
 shall be composed of two houses, to-wit: 
 the house of%epresentatives and the sen- 
 ate. Every law must receive the concur- 
 rence of both bodies; and be subjected to a 
 double supervision. Of course it is of ab- 
 solute necessity that these bodies should be 
 differently constituted. # The republican 
 doctrine is this, that political power ought | 
 to be committed to the electors. The de- 
 sign of our system of government is to carry 
 into effect what may be considered the 
 settled will of the majority; not a mere 
 accidental majority, but, if I may so ex- 
 press myself, the permanent will of the 
 majority. 
 
 What is the difference in the organiza- 
 tion of the two houses " of the legislature 
 which has been deemed, and found by ex- 
 perience to be sufficient in placing them 
 mutually as checks upon each other? The 
 constituency of both are alike, that is to 
 say, they are both chosen by the same 
 body of electors. In the composition of 
 the senate three conditions have been found 
 sufficient checks against the errors, im- 
 
 prudences, or temporary excitement of the 
 popular branch. They have been found 
 to attain the object designed, and with them 
 the system has worked admirably without 
 any property qualifications. The Conven- 
 tion have decided that property shall not 
 be a necessary ingredient of political pow- 
 er, and if any vote has been given to sustain 
 the contrary doctrine, it has escaped my 
 attention. The three distinct conditions, 
 to which I have referred in the formation of 
 the senate, are first, that the inexperience 
 of twenty-one may be reviewed, and that 
 by requiring maturer age, greater expe- 
 rience, and better judgment may be found. 
 The subject may be considered in another 
 point of view. By a longer term of ser- 
 vxeej greater stability and consistency is 
 given to the senate. This, and an essen- 
 tial difference in the formation of the elec- 
 tion districts, is sufficient to place the sen- 
 ate as an effectual barrier to improper or 
 indiscreet legislation, which may grow T ou t 
 of temporary excitements, and sudden ebul- 
 lutions in the house of representatives. 
 
 In a republican government like our 
 own, where all power emanates from the 
 people, every man is interested in the per- 
 petuity of our institution and in their pro- 
 per administration, whether he rolls in 
 wealth or whether he be obliged to sustain 
 himself from the fruits of his daily labor. 
 The idea that property is essentially con- 
 servative is a fallacy. The -plans and fol- 
 lies of men of fortune have do'ne more harm 
 among us in a few years, than could have 
 been done in centuries by the rest of the 
 population. It is that class of persons that 
 have set at defiance our laws; that have 
 violated them with impunity, and I feel 
 convinced that if our State has been* 
 brought to the verge of bankruptcy, it is to 
 be attributed to the improper influence 
 which property has acquired over our le- 
 gislation: Our institutions could not rest 
 upon a worse basis than that. The only 
 safe basis is one reposing upon the popular 
 will. 
 
 Mr? Eustis insisted that the senatorial 
 districts ought to .embrace a greter extent 
 of territory than the representative dis- 
 tricts. Without this radical distinction, 
 the two houses would present such'a simi- 
 larity as would render one of them entirely 
 superfluous. The object should be to neu- 
 tralize local influences which would be re» 
 
546 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 presented in the popular branch, and to se- 
 cure the representation of general interest. 
 If, for example, you divide the city into four 
 senatorial districts, it will no longer be the 
 ensemble of the city which will be repre- 
 sented, but the local districts. The conse- 
 quences of such a system will be most 
 pernicious. The city has already been di- 
 vided into nine representative districts; let 
 there then be no division into senatorial 
 districts; let her elect her senators, at least, 
 by general ticket, and you will obviate 
 some of the inconveniencies that will grow 
 out of the division which has already been 
 made. But if the dictates of sound policy 
 are not to prevail; if we are determined to 
 remain deaf to reason and argument, and 
 there needs must be another division of the 
 city, let us take for our guide the natural 
 division of races. Let us divide ihe city 
 from St. Louis street — -the upper district 
 will be composed of the Anglo Saxon; the 
 lower of the Gallic race. 
 
 I have refrained from interfering with 
 the formation of the districts in the coun- 
 try, although I am decidedly in favor of 
 large districts, and should be pleased if 
 such were the sense of the Convention. I 
 voted in favor of giving a full representa- 
 tion to the parishes across the lake, not- 
 withstanding the comparative sparseness 
 of their population, because I conceived 
 they had isolated interest that ought to be 
 represented. The interests of the- city are 
 identically one and the same, and I trust 
 that the unity of its interests may be pre- 
 served in the upper branch of the legisla- 
 ture, although I fear that such will not be 
 the case. We want a strong government 
 —-a popular government, and the more 
 .popular it is the stronger it will be. If we 
 fail to give it popularity, it will possess no 
 force, and our labors will be useless in the 
 annals of the State. 
 
 Mr. Soule regretted that he could not 
 agree with the gentleman that had just ad- 
 dressed the Convention. Justice, in my 
 opinion, requires that the Convention 
 should sanction the proposed measure, and 
 in so doing we shall only be carrying out a 
 work already accomplished. I deplored 
 the original division of the city into three 
 municipalities, because I foresaw that it 
 would lead to further divisions. But inas- 
 much as that division is consummated, and 
 that we have realized its fruits, it is proper 
 
 that the three distinct interests which it has 
 created should be distinctly represented. 
 All that now can be accomplished is to 
 prevent the first municipality from beino- 
 sacrificed to the second. If the city elect 
 her senators by general ticket, that portion 
 of the city which can give the greatest 
 number of votes will decide the fate of the 
 balance of the city; and where fraud can 
 be brought to bear, the probity of one sec- 
 tion will be the victim of machinations and 
 corruptions of another. My . experience 
 and reflection has fully confirmed me in 
 that opinion. In the third municipality, 
 within a period of ten years, but six or 
 eight fraudulent votes have been given at 
 its elections. In the first municipality, or 
 rather in some portions of that municipal- 
 ity, fraud has been rife; and in the second 
 municipality, I may dare to say, it has 
 been pushed to the greatest extremity. 
 
 We have JDeen told with a great deal of 
 force, that as relates to the senatorial re- 
 presentations, they should embrace a larger 
 extent of interest than the representation 
 to the popular branch of the legislature. 
 That in the latter fractions of interest were 
 represented, whereas, in the former, the 
 entire interest of the whole locality ought 
 to be represented. If this principle be 
 true, then it results that wherever local di- 
 visions already exists they should be re- 
 presented. JNfo one can deny that the in- 
 terests of the municipalities are opposed 
 with each # other, and that it has occurred 
 that the interests of the one have been im- 
 molated on "some occasion to subserve the 
 purposes of the other. I dare, to say that 
 if the proposition of the gentlemen (Mr. 
 Eustis) be sanctioned by the Convention, 
 and I have not the slightest doubt of the 
 rectitude of his motives, that before three 
 years the second municipality will be able 
 and will control the election of the four 
 ..senators. If the Convention can bring 
 themselves to believe' that such a result 
 would be just, that it would be fair, let them 
 adopt the suggestion of the gentleman. 
 But if on the other hand they think that 
 the city proper is entitled to, and has an 
 inalienable right of being heard, let them 
 sanction that right irrevocably— let them 
 ordain that the third municipality shall also 
 have ks senator. Far from me is the de- 
 sign of doing any injustice to the second 
 municipality^! think too, that she should 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 54? 
 
 have her separate voice to protect her sep- 
 arate interests. If it is thought that she is 
 entitled to two senators, let her have them. 
 All that I ask for, and it is for the common 
 interest'of all alike, is that they should be 
 relieved from making the election by gen- 
 eral ticket, which would result in the op- 
 pression of the one or of the other. As in 
 reference to dividing the city into two dis- 
 tinct parts as suggested by the gentleman, 
 (Mr. Eustis) and which he says is founded 
 upon the natural divisions of races, it is 
 one of the very worst and most excep- 
 tionable divisions that could be made. I 
 will neves sustain any measure calculated 
 to divide population of different origin. Let 
 the 4fcglo Saxons and the Gaul commingle 
 together as American citizens : let them 
 sustain the honor and glory of their com- 
 mon country, and let them never forget 
 that however they may differ upon other 
 points they should be one and inseparable 
 in the maintenance and defence of our free 
 and enlightened institutions. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for upon 
 Mr. Culbertson's motion to divide the city 
 of New Orleans into three senatorial dis- 
 tricts. 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, B riant, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Cade, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 Culbertson, Downs, Garcia, Garrett, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Ledoux, McCallop, McRae, 
 Marigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Penn, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles," Prescott of 
 St. Landry, RatlhT, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, 
 Sellers, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Wad- 
 dill, Wederstran'dt and Wikoff— 37 yeas; 
 and • 
 
 Messrs. Cenas, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Hudspeth, Lewis, Mazureau, Roman, Ro- 
 selius and Taylor of St. Landry— 10 nays. 
 
 Mr. Mazureau gave notice that on 
 Wednesday next he would move for the 
 reconsideration of the vote dividing the city 
 into three senatorial districts. 
 
 Whereupon, on motion, the Convention 
 adjourned, j 
 
 Monday, March 31, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The proceedings were opened with 
 prayer by the Rev. Mr. Warren, 
 
 The journal was read and approved. 
 
 Mr. Read asjted leave of absence for 
 
 Mr. Scott of Baton Rouge, and Mr. Hyn- 
 son of Rapides, for a few days each; which 
 was granted. 
 
 Mr. Winder asked leave of absence for 
 Mr. Guion, on account of sickness; which 
 was also granted, 
 
 Mr. Derbes asked leave of absence for 
 Mr. B riant for a few days; also granted, 
 
 Mr. Read then asked leave of absence 
 for a few days for Mr. Duplantier, acting 
 as minute clerk. He stated to the Con- 
 vention that Mr. Duplantier would leave a 
 competent person in his place, and that it 
 was a matter of great importance in some 
 of his private business, to have the privi- 
 lege of .a few days absence from his duties 
 in the Convention. Leave was promptly 
 granted. 
 
 The President notified the Convention 
 that this was the moment to review peti- 
 tions and memorials, and reports of com- 
 mittees. In the absence of such, he sug- 
 gested there was a discrepancy in the tenth 
 section of the report as it stood: the last 
 clause being a proviso, giving to the legis- 
 lature the power in any year, to apportion 
 the representation in the senate, and to di- 
 vide the State into senatorial districts. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to strike out the 
 whole subject matter under discussion; 
 wnich was seconded by the delegate from 
 Assumption, Mr. Taylor. • 
 
 Mr. *Kenner remarked, that when the 
 President announced the matter now be- 
 fore the Convention, he was in the act of 
 presenting a resolution for their considera- 
 tion, and as he conceived it of some im= 
 portance, he hoped he would now be al= 
 lowed to offer it. Permission being grant- 
 ed, the following resolution was read: 
 
 Resolved, that the committee on contin- 
 gent expenses be instructed to report to the 
 Convention what amount of money has 
 been p^id to the different printers, for 
 printing already done to this date. 
 
 Mr. Mayo offered to amend the resolu- 
 tion by adding the words, "and to whom." 
 
 Mr. Kenner in accepting the amend- 
 ment, remarked, that it was simply his 
 object to arrive at the facts of the case. 
 He wanted all the information possible be, 
 fore the Convention. 
 
 The resolution was then adopted, and 
 tfeads as above with the words "and to 
 whom," added after the word "date." 
 
548 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 Mr. Downs then renewed his motion 
 to strike out, but remarked that it might 
 be so amended as to read that when 
 making the apportionment, they might di- 
 vide the number when more than one. 
 He therefore moved to strike out the words 
 <s each to be entitled to elect two senators," 
 and insert "having more than one sena- 
 tor." 
 
 Mr. WADSWOETit then .addressed the 
 Convention: 
 
 Mr. President— great injustice has been 
 done to my parish in the apportionment of 
 the senate. I have already said much on 
 this subject, but I intend before we get 
 through with this matter to say a great 
 deal more. Why, sir, so far as 1 have 
 been observing the action of this Conven- 
 tion, I am bound to say, that gross injus- 
 tice has also been done to other parishes. 
 Some have been improperly favored by a 
 detestable species of log-rolling, while 
 others have been the victims of that com- 
 bination. I therefore give notice that 1 
 shall move a reconsideration of the vote al- 
 lowing to Plaquemines, St. Bernard and 
 Orleans right bank, one senator. But, sir, 
 to the question now before the house: *It 
 is proposed to give- the legislature the 
 power of reducing, if more than one. Jn 
 other words, when there is one already, 
 there shall be ho increase; this is not fair; 
 we want a proper representation, arid based 
 upon proper principles. Let us then con- 
 sult together, and base representation in 
 the senate on property. 
 
 He (Mr. Wadsworth) thinks the dele- 
 gate, from Ouachita does not meet the 
 question properly, nor in the proper spirit. 
 He says all those who have two, may be 
 interfered with. Now that is not the way 
 to meet a question like this; we want per- 
 manency, we want it fixed distinctly and 
 permanently. Property alone is the pro- 
 per basis. We are no children, and we 
 are not here to operate for the particular 
 aggrandisement of any particular man or 
 set of men. If that be not the object of 
 grasping at political power, what is it? He 
 hopes it does not arise from any particular 
 desire to secure property without labor; 
 and if it be not, then let your property be 
 made secure to you by the laws of your 
 country, And that will never be done If 
 you give up the only safe-guard you have 
 
 in the senate; for if you do, the needy- 
 greedy men will make the man of property 
 a hewer of wood and a drawer of water 
 for them. It is much more important than 
 for us to labor for the purpose of making 
 some men great and distinguished! Yes 
 sir, property must be protected; what do 
 men work and toil for? Property. What 
 do even our clerks, our reporters, our sec. 
 retary work for? Property. True, they 
 have doubtless a strong desire to acquire 
 reputation and character, but that is not 
 the ruling, governing motive; it is to get 
 money, to acquire property. Property is 
 the ne plus ultra, the goal for which all men 
 strive. It produces money, and that pays 
 your taxes; that supports your govern- 
 ment. Life and liberty are perfectly 
 worthless without property. Every man 
 understands this, and he (Mr. W.) repeats, 
 that the pursuit of property is what we are 
 all aiming at. 
 
 Why are laws made to punish for steal- 
 ing? For the protection of property. All 
 laws are made for it, and yet gentlemen are 
 desirous, it would, seem, of securing politi- • 
 cal power by alone consulting the interests 
 of the poorer classes of people. 
 
 Mr. Taylok had intended to fill the 
 blank, had the motion to strike out pre- 
 vailed with another provision. As it" 
 stands now, it is perfectly useless. Earli- 
 er in the discussion of this question, he j 
 was disposed to have it permanent, but he ! 
 now sees reasons which induce him to j 
 abandon the view he first took of it; and I 
 instead of making it permanent, look to 
 future reorganization. He would move I 
 a substitute for the whole' proviso, which 
 reads as follows: 
 
 The legislature, in any year i'ff which 
 they shall apportion representation in this 
 house of representatives, shall have the 
 power to divide the State into senatorial 
 districts. No parish shall be divided, in 
 the formation of a' senatorial district. The 
 number of senators shall not be less than 
 twenty. five, nor more than thirty-four; 
 and they shall be apportioned among the 
 senatorial districts according to the total 
 population contained in the senatorial dis 
 tricts. Provided, that no parish shall be 
 entitled to more than one eighth of the. 
 whole number of senators. 
 
 Mr. Taylor further remarked, that we J 
 have now apportioned senators to the dif* j 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 .40 
 
 ierent districts without any fixed rule as a 
 basis. Some have taken territory, others 
 population, others taxes paid into the State 
 treasuryf others taxes and population, and 
 others population and territory combined; 
 and probably others by neither of these. 
 For his part, he was in favor, whenever 
 it could be properly done, that total popu- 
 lation should be the basis; but he had been 
 governed in his action on the question be- 
 fore the Convention as now presented, by 
 population and territory. In the present 
 apportionment, he is satisfied in the main. 
 He thinks it perhaps the fairest that could 
 have been made at this time, but he should 
 regret to see it made perpetual. Because 
 the only reason which can probably be 
 assigned, for the great apparent disparities 
 in the different portions of the State as to 
 population, wealth and taxes, is, that it 
 may be owing to the short period of time 
 that Louisiana has been established, and ; 
 perhaps accidental circumstances may have 
 promoted the growth of some sections of 
 the State, which have led to greater popu- j 
 lation, while other sections have not pro- 
 greased as much, with equal natural ad- 
 vantages, for the want of opportunity and 
 time. We must then look to the future, 
 and if they have the advantage of soil and 
 climate, they will also doubtless become 
 filled with an industrious and thriving com- 
 munity. When their natural advantages 
 are developed, and we can safely do so, 
 then we should abandon territory, as a 
 component part of the basis, and make it 
 total population alone. When time has 
 been given to test the advantages of every 
 portion of the country, it may, and doubt- 
 e3s will happen, that some parts wilL sup. 
 port an immense population, some com- j 
 jaratively thin, and some perhaps none at I 
 (ft. But he is clearly of opinion, that before 
 -aany years shall have rolled round, the re- 
 purees of every parish in the .State will 
 )e so fully developed that then it will be 
 •ight and proper to take total population 
 is a basis. Many gentlemen think that 
 he present appropriation is altogether too 
 Partial, too favorable to a particular part of 
 he State. He was»not himself disposed 
 o accord it, as he was governed by the 
 ensus of 1840; but so much has been said 
 bout the increase of population in that j 
 ection of country, that it may happen she j 
 as not got too much. But while he 
 1/70 
 
 | would not move a reconsideration of the 
 j apportionment as it stands, he offers the 
 I substitute to provide for the future, and if it 
 ! be found that the progress in any of those 
 parishes has been as great as it is said it 
 I is, and they be entitled to more than at 
 | present accorded, why let them have it. 
 
 Mr. Brazeale moved to lay the substi- 
 tute indefinitely on the table. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne hopes that motion will 
 I'not prevail. He is firmly convinced that 
 i the substitute is the only way we can ex- 
 ] pect to destroy the system of rotten bo- 
 | roughs, which has been passed upon by 
 the Convention. They deny that such is 
 j the case, and that they are entitled to what 
 I they have got; but if he (Mr. C.) is noS 
 j much mistaken, they have agrc'ed in anti- 
 I cipation of what they may be : not what 
 | they are. 
 
 Now, if these gentlemen have been sin- 
 j cere,. heretofore, in their round assertions, 
 here is a good opportunity to show their 
 [sincerity. For if they believe in the ex* * 
 traordinary increase, it provides for the 
 very thing they want; that is the 'test bv 
 which they can be tried. If they support 
 this motion 'we may well pause, and say 
 perhaps we have been mistaken; but if 
 they do not, we shall the more clearly see 
 how we have been sacrificed to build up 
 the political power of that section of the 
 State. 
 
 The question was then put on laying the 
 substitute offered by Mr. Taylor, indefi- 
 nitely on the table, and the yeas and navs 
 being called for, resulted as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Co- 
 villion, Downs, Humble, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Mayo, O 'Bryan, Peets, Porche, Pres= 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana*, Splane, Ste- 
 phens, Waddill, Wederstrandt and Wikon\ 
 — 29 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg,CeL.as, 
 Chihn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Dunn, Hudspeih, Kenner, 
 King, Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazu^ 
 reau, Pugh, St. Amand, Saunders, Sellers, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Trist, Voorhies, Winchester and Winder — 
 23 nays; so-the motion to lay on the table 
 prevailed. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Mr. Dpwxs then moved the adoption of 
 the amendment proposed by him. 
 
 Mr. 'Kenner then moved to lay the 
 whole proviso, together with the amend- 
 ment offered by Mr. Downs, indefinitely on 
 the table. 
 
 Mr. Downs hopes the motion will not 
 prevail. He shall vote against it, because 
 he wants small senatorial districts. They 
 are probably now inconvenient, but here- 
 after should they prove so, the legislature 
 can cure the evil. 
 
 The question then recurred upon the 
 motion of Mr. Kenner, to Jay the proviso 
 and amendment indefinitely on the table, 
 and the yeas and nays being called for, re- 
 suited as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Le- 
 gendre, Lewis, Marign\ r Mazureau, Pugh, 
 R itliff, St. Amand, Sellers, Splane, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, 
 Wadsworth, WikofT, Winchester and Win- 
 der — 32 "yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, .Brent, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Downs, 
 Humble, Ledoux, McCallop, McRae,Mayo, 
 Q 'Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porche, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of Si. Landry, 
 Prudhomme, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Stephens, . Voorhies, 
 Waddill and Weder strand t — 28 nays ; so 
 the proviso and amendment were indefi- 
 nitely laid on the table. 
 
 Mr. Downs then moved the adoption of 
 a section in the minority report, as follows: 
 
 ''And whenever a new parish shall be 
 created, it shall be attached to the sena- 
 torial district from which most of it was 
 taken, or to another contiguous district, at 
 the discretion of the legislature, but shall 
 not be attached to more than one district;" 
 which was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Downs then moved to amend the 
 I Oth section, and insert in lieu of the 
 words "eight senatorial districts, 5 ' the fol= 
 lowing senatorial districts, and the senators 
 to be elected shall be voted for by persons 
 entitled to vote for representatives ; which 
 substitute was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Downs then moved the adoption of 
 the section as amended. 
 
 The first clause of the section read as 
 follows ; " The State shall be divided into 
 
 the following senatorial districts; senators 
 to be elected by persons qualified to vote 
 for members of the house of representa- 
 tives." The remainder of the section was 
 the same that had already been reported. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth said he wished to say 
 a few words before the vote was taken on 
 the adoption of this section of the constitu. 
 tion. He was seriously opposed to it, as 
 he considered it a great injustice to that 
 section of the country which he represent- 
 e'd. He would repeat, that in 1812, out of 
 a senate of seventeen, his parish had been 
 allotted one senator, with -half the popula- 
 tion, property and wealth that she has at 
 present ; yet, with all these doubled, and 
 the number of senators also doubled, has 
 she not a right to two? Predicate m your 
 apportionment on any basis you wish, and 
 she will be found fully entitled to two. 
 Compare the allotment given to her with 
 that of the pine-woods parishes. How 
 ridiculous!' Parishes that can scarcely 
 support their own people have got two sen., 
 ators for the one given to those who bear 
 the burden of filling the treasury, who pay 
 the debts of the State. Parishes that have 
 doubled themselves in wealth and popula- 
 tion since 1812, are denied representation 
 for pine-woods and sand banks. You might 
 as well represent the deserts of Arabia! 
 We are the wealth, the producing sources, 
 and yet we are to have no power in the 
 State ! You give us half the number of 
 those gentlemen who can scarcely live up- 
 on their resources. Let it not go abroad 
 that this Convention has worked upon log- 
 rolling principles. Show yourselves as 
 high-minded, honorable gentlemen, who, 
 when properly matured reasons, predicated 
 on matters of fact, were laid before you, 
 accorded the right due to all fairly and 
 justly. When it has been ascertained that" 
 some portions of this State have been 
 highly favored in the matter of this senato- 
 rial representation, will you have it said 
 that you denied that portion that has aided 
 you in the payment of your debts, any com- 
 parative amount of representation with 
 others? If it is denied him, he would not 
 say that he would expatriate himself from 
 Louisiana, but he would say that it ^ ; as 
 the greatest piece of injustice ever com- 
 mitted -against his section of the country, 
 in the annals of history. In the house of 
 representatives log-rolling was carried on, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 -551 
 
 he knew it, where small matters were con- 
 cerned: and one gentleman would, when 
 he wanted to carry some particular bill, 
 perhaps,, go to another and say, " If you 
 vote for this bill of mine, I will sup- 
 port yours. " But here, in this Conven- 
 tion, where the concentrated sovereignty 
 of the State was assembled to commence 
 such a system ! It Was beneath the digni- 
 fy of this house to countenance such a 
 course. He now gives notice that he 
 would move a reconsideration of the vote 
 on Thursday, with a view to increase the 
 number of senators awarded his parish. 
 
 Mr. Coxbad moved an amendment to 
 the clause, though, he said, without any 
 hope of carrying it at that time. The amend- 
 ment was to follow after ; ' persons^' in the 
 clause, and reads "who shall have paid 
 during the last-six months, Or who shall be 
 at the time of eleotion, liable to pay a State 
 tax of. one dollar.' 1 His object was, that 
 as the lower house was formed without 
 any reference to property qualification, he 
 wished to see some regard paid to this 
 principle in the election of senators. Elec- 
 tors should at least be tax payers. 
 
 Mr. Claibobxe moved to lay the amend- 
 ment on the table, subject to call. 
 
 Mr. Bre:ct moved to lay it indefinitely 
 on the table. 
 
 The question was put on Mr. Brent's 
 motion, and the yeas and nays being ask- 
 ed for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brum field, 
 Barton, Cade, Chinn, Carriere, Chambliss. 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garrett. Hudspeth, Humble, Kenner, Kin?. 
 Ledoux, Lewis. McRae. Mari^ny, 3Iayo, 
 O'Bryan, Peels, Penn, Porche', Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry. Pugh, KatlirT, Read, Saunders, Scott 
 of Feliciana. Scott of Madison, Sellers, 
 Soule, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 somption, Trist, Yoorhies, Waddill, Wed- 
 erstraudt, Wikoff. Winchester and Winder 
 voted in the affirmative — 49 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg-, Clai- 
 borne* Conrad of Orleans, Legendre, Mazu- 
 reau, St. Amand, Taylor of St. Landry 
 and Wadsworth voted in the negative— 
 1 1 nays; so the motion prevailed,~and the 
 amendment was laid indefinitely on the 
 table. 
 
 Mi. Claiborne said that there was no 
 fixed principle whatever adopted; eqaal 
 
 j justice should, he thought, be shown to all 
 | classes, but in the coarse now pursued a 
 most ojpfect abandonment of all protection 
 to property had been adopted in the lowei 
 1 house. He therefore hoped that in the or- 
 ganization of what might be termed the 
 ■ conservative branch of the legislature, this 
 principle would have been regarded: that 
 is now, however., so formed, as to be the 
 mirror of the other house: property, taxa- 
 tion, and even population has been disre- 
 garded, and the consequence is. that two- 
 thirds of the State have had allotted to 
 them about one-third of the representation, 
 and consequently one-third of the popula- 
 ' tion is awarded to two-thirds of the repre- 
 sentation in the senate. He would repel 
 all allusions to rich and poor. The only 
 distinction he knew was, that he respected 
 the honest poor man as much as he did the 
 honest rich one; but that was no reason 
 why those persons living in the poorer 
 parts of the State should be accorded high- 
 er political privileges than those in the 
 more wealthy portions of it. He would 
 submit to it, however, if it was the will of 
 the majority, but he doubted whether the 
 people after them will accept it. 
 
 Mr. Prestozv was also opposed to it on' 
 various grounds: First, equal justice was 
 not dealt out to all; second, he was op- 
 posed to the number of the senate— that 
 was an error of the old constitution, it it- 
 one of ours; third, he was opposed to fix- 
 ing the districts, as it was impossible for 
 this Convention to say what will be re- 
 quired ten years hence: it should therefore 
 be left to subsequent legislature's to deter- 
 mine what is fair and equitable. He 
 would propose some such amendment as" 
 the following: "TQhat the legislature of 
 1845 should lay off the State in senatorial 
 districts in number not less than twenty nor 
 exceeding thirty; that the same number of 
 electoral votes should be included in every 
 district, to be decided by the preceding 
 general elections. The division to be 
 made every four years." 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, would be 
 compelled, he said, to vote against the 
 adoption, as there was no provision con- 
 tained in H for future apportionment. Had 
 there been any such principle inserted, he 
 would be in favor of it even as it was. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth would vote agam?: 
 the nrono virion for two reasons: first, that 
 
582 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 he was fearful this apportionment was ac- 
 complished by log-rolling, and next, that 
 it had brought about the worst qpitional 
 feelings between two parts of the country; 
 feelings that may result in the worst con- 
 sequences to the interests of the people 
 at large. 
 
 Mr. Downs wished to place on record 
 a refutation of the charges brought against 
 this measure. The idea that injustice had 
 been done one portion of the State more 
 than another, was perfectly groundless; it 
 was quite impossible that any apportion- 
 ment could be made that would not disap- 
 point individual members; every delegate 
 was wedded to*the interests of his own 
 section of country; he was — yet he could 
 not acquiesce in the opinion that injustice 
 had been done. They had not adopted 
 any basis in particular; the apportionment 
 had been made with reference to the re- 
 quirements of each district, and equally 
 as far as it was practicable: yet he was far 
 from impugning any man's conduct; he 
 would not charge members with log-rolling, 
 as the gentleman from Plaquemines (Mr. 
 Wadsworth) had so courteously done, 
 Wherever he (Mr. Downs) met an antago- 
 nist, if he could not beat him on fair 
 grounds he submitted. 
 
 Mr. Kenner had no intention of stating 
 his reasons for the vote he was about to 
 give, but when he heard the observations 
 which had fallen from the delegate from 
 Ouachita, (Mr. Downs) in reference to the 
 way in which this measure was carried on, 
 he felt called on to join the delegate from 
 Jefferson, (Mr. Preston) and the delegate 
 from New Orleans (Mr. Claiborne) in their 
 opinion on this subject. He would say it 
 was a gross piece of improper conduct, 
 and log-rolling, as ever was perpetrated on 
 any floor. 
 
 When we have seen two senators allotted 
 where one alone was due, and where, vice- 
 versa, we have seen only one given to those 
 districts entitled to two, honestly and fairly; 
 and then, when we term that log-rolling, 
 we are coolly told that it is mortification 
 and chagrin by which we are governed. 
 For his (Mr.Kenner's) part he denies that, 
 and he takes this occasion expressly to say, 
 while disclaiming any such motives, that 
 the course pursued in this matter heretofore 
 by the member from Ouachita (Mr. Downs) 
 and his friends, has been an arbitrary one, 
 
 and a downright and flagrant act of injus- 
 tice. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne asserted that his oppo- 
 sition arose from principle, he felt no perso- 
 nal ill-will or cast no reproach upon any 
 gentleman. Every principle of justice had 
 been departed from in the formation of the 
 senate. The senatorial representation 
 had been snatched from lower Louisiana 
 and given to distant districts. He repeated 
 what he had before asserted, that he oppo- 
 sed the adoption because he considered it 
 unjust, and made without due regard to the 
 interests of every portion of the State alike. 
 
 Mr. Saunders is opposed to the section 
 as it stands; the 'substitute which has been 
 offered and rejected comes the nearest to 
 getting a fair and equal representation in 
 the senate. As it is now, it is unequal 
 and unjust, and is evidently a political com- 
 bination for political purposes. 
 
 Mr. Taylor would make no such im- 
 putation on the motives of others. He feels 
 that he himself, in opposing the section as 
 it stands, will act according to the best 
 dictates of his judgment; he regards it as 
 unequal, but at the same time others who 
 sustain the measure may be by principles 
 equally pure. 
 
 Mr. Lewis remarked that he did not rise 
 to discuss this question, but simply to as- 
 sign the reasons which would govern him 
 in his vote. He opposes it with reluctance, 
 but when he looks] at the unfair and une 
 qual distribution made in some parts of the 
 country, to the injury of those parishe 
 which are every way entitled to equal repre 
 sentation; when I see, said Mr. L., great and 
 glaring errors in the section as it stands, 
 am compelled to vote agaiast it, with th 
 hope that the Convention will retrace their 
 steps, and fix upon some principle on which 
 to base a just and equal representation 
 throughout the State. Although we are 
 told that we ought not to begin this matter 
 over again, that it will be a long and tedi- 
 ous business, still I think that the best in- 
 terests of the country will be promoted by 
 doing so. There is another reason, Mr. 
 President, which has great weight in influ- 
 encing me to vote against: it is this — that I 
 am particularly desirous of seeing impor- 
 tant changes made in our existing consti- 
 tution, and I feel convinced that this very 
 section, if incorporated in the new consti- 
 tution, will defeat it. It will create so 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 553 
 
 much dissatisfaction that the people will 
 not ratify it, after all our labors. We shall 
 then be left where we were before this 
 Convention met. and even in a woise po- 
 sition: for after such a total failure as we 
 shall have made, it will be more difficult 
 than ever to get another Convention called. 
 And now one word to the reporter; I will 
 thank him to report what I do say, or not 
 report me at all. My remarks made on 
 the 24th instant, are reported in such a 
 puerile and ridiculous style as to call for 
 this request from me. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff regrets to hear so many 
 severe remarks as have been made on this 
 question. The strictures and reflections 
 which he has heard are not calculated to 
 produce harmony, or good of any kind: 
 for his part he is willing to take the sec- 
 tion as it stands, as a man takes his wife, 
 for better or for worse. If there be such 
 gross, such glaring injustice as we have 
 been told exists in the section, why are 
 they not pointed out? Why are not rea- 
 sons shown why they should be corrected? 
 If they be so glaring and so oppressively 
 unjust, he for one is ready and willing to 
 correct them; but no, after all, we hear of 
 but one complaint, and that is a struggle 
 for one other senator. 
 
 Lafourche got what she wanted: Xew 
 Orleans what she wanted: Attakapas and 
 Opelousas all they could possibly desire — 
 all are satisfied except Plaquemines, and 
 she wants one more. If that be the state 
 of the case, where is the glaring injustice ? 
 where the great political combination with 
 which we have been charged? He (Mr. 
 Ratliff) emphatically denies, and he called 
 upon the reporter to particularly note }i 
 down, that he emphatically repudiates the 
 idea that he has any thing to do with a po- 
 litical combination for party purposes. He 
 (Mr. R.) did not come here to make a con- 
 stitution for a party, but for the whole State 
 of Louisiana. He was never known to be 
 engaged in political caucusing, he has, and 
 he always will act conscientiously, irre- 
 spective of party; and those who knew 
 him best and longest, know that well. 
 The great difficulty seems to be that the 
 delegate from Ouachita has got two sena- 
 tors in his district more than he is entitled 
 to; now if he has done so, he (Mr. Ratliff) 
 does not know it; but if he has, he did it 
 manfully, and by his superior skill and 
 
 management. He came boldiy forward, 
 and lustily did he maintain the justice 
 of his* cause; if they have fallen in 
 the rencountre, they are unfortunate; they 
 must take the chances of war, even though 
 it be defeat. For his (Mr. R.'s) part, he- 
 gives him credit for his boldness. 
 
 But let us see if he has taken more than 
 he is entitled to. They say that the north- 
 western parishes have gained two, to which 
 they are not entitled; and yet they have 
 not shown us how. If they had pursued 
 the course he wanted them to take, to have 
 reduced the number of senators to twenty- 
 five, and then equalized the districts, giving 
 to each its just proportion, all this noise 
 and outcry about injustice we should never 
 have heard one word of. But no; then 
 the delegates from St. James and Ascen- 
 sion Avanted to go into detail; and now, af- 
 ter all the labor, they want to destroy the 
 the whole. They got the first slice off 
 the loaf, and yet they are not satisfied. If 
 Ouachita has gained any thing in the ap- 
 portionment, it is an advantage to them 
 which cannot be helped. He (Mr. Ratliff) 
 does not want the legislature to interfere in 
 this matter at all. He wants the senatori- 
 al districts permanently fixed in the consti- 
 tution, that people may have something to 
 depend on. If a man be poor, and he pays 
 only one dollar into the treasury, he suf- 
 fers as much in paying that one dollar as 
 if it were one hundred, that the rich man 
 pays. Where then is the difference? 
 
 He (Mr. Ratliff) thinks that both the 
 senate and house of representatives are 
 too large; thirty-four in the first, and nine- 
 ty-eight in the second; but now it cannot 
 be helped. Nobody voted to reduce it, 
 and now when we have exceeded the re- 
 port of the committee by two only, it is 
 a dreaded increase; and yet they produced 
 that increase themselves; one in St. Mary 
 and St. Martin, and one in St. Landry. If 
 the delegates from Jefferson, from Plaque- 
 mines, and from Iberville, had got one 
 more apiece, they, like the fellow when 
 lie got his pockets filled, would have been 
 perfectly satisfied. 
 
 The out cry they make about the piney- 
 woods plantations getting two senators, is 
 all for* effect; for they know that East and 
 West Feliciana gave it to them, and when 
 it is seen that the six Florida parishes pay 
 as much into the treasury, 'and have as 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 targe a population together, as any other 
 parishes having four senators, why should 
 there be all this complaint? East and 
 West Feliciana had a right to give her ex- 
 cess in both taxation and population to 
 the piney-woods parishes if she chose, 
 and she has wisely done; for there is an 
 identity of interest and feeling between 
 them, their citizens intermarry with each 
 Qrther; in fact they* are her right bower. 
 And yet there is great complaint; the dele- 
 gate from Plaquemines incessantly com- 
 plains about the crying injustice done to 
 his parish, and taxes us with having formed 
 a political combination. New Orleans 
 don't ask equality, she has got all she ask- 
 ed for. These complaints then are with- 
 out foundation. As for the political com- 
 bination of which so much has been said, 
 it is an unjust imputation. He does not 
 believe one word of it. He (Mr. Ratliff) 
 shall vote for the adoption of the section, 
 because he does not believe it can be bet- 
 tered. 
 
 Mr. Claibornk objects to the argument 
 advanced by the gentleman from Felici- 
 ana, (Mr. Ratliff) that East and- West Fe- 
 liciana have a right to give their excess to 
 the piney-wood parishes, because if -that 
 argument be good, New Orleans may with 
 equal propriety give her surplus of wealth 
 and population to the parishes surrounding 
 her; and if she were to do so, she would 
 give one to every parish adjacent to her 
 on the river, for sixty miles; that dis- 
 tance where her baneful influence, it is said, 
 is felt. 
 
 Mr. Conrad said, if the argument of the 
 delegate from West Feliciana be a good 
 one, why should not the principle be ap- 
 plied between Jefferson and New Orleans, 
 where it is universally admitted the inter- 
 course and identity of interests are much 
 greater than that between the eastern and ; 
 western portions"of the Florida parishes? 
 He (Mr. C.) will not only vote against this 
 section, but against any constitution which 
 contains any such odious feature. It will, 
 if it be passed, be the most flagrant act of 
 injustice that was ever perpetrated, and 
 Louisiana will be the first State that has 
 ever been guilty of inserting such a clause 
 in her constitution. 
 
 Mr. Splane remarked that if there was 
 any gerrymandering in the case, it must 
 be on the side of those who are complain- 
 
 ing so bitterly about it, or in their fruitful 
 imaginations. 
 
 Mr. 0' Bryan thinks gentlemen are in 
 error when they say that the first and sec- 
 ond districts gave a larger number of votes 
 than the third and fourth districts; but if 
 they will examine their tables, they will 
 find that instead of giving two-thirds, they 
 only gave a little over one-third. 
 
 Mr. Mayo remarked with some aston. 
 ishment, the charge of gerrymandering, ap. 
 plied to some of the members of this body. 
 He has heard it advanced to-day for the 
 first time. If such an idea has ever en- 
 tered in the head of any member of this 
 Convention, he knows it not — -certainly it 
 never has been thought of by him. IJut 
 since it has been dwelt on in such strong 
 terms, he desires to call attention to the 
 fact, that there is not such gneat dispropor- 
 tion as they seem to suppose. Now, the 
 first and second districts, in one of which 
 New Orleans is situated, and which is re- 
 stricted by common consent, (and which is 
 the only restriction he, Mr. M., knows of) 
 they are entitled to eleven senators for ten 
 thousand nine hundred and twenty-one 
 votes; the third district to eleven senators 
 for seven thousand four hundred and thir- 
 ty-three votes; the fourth district to twelve 
 senators for eight thousand six hundred 
 and one votes. Again, taking it on terri- 
 tory, entire population, white population, 
 or any basis, he does not think that any 
 body of men could make it fairer than it is; 
 He differs entirely from the delegate from 
 West Feliciana, (Mr. Ratliff) who says the 
 north-western parishes have got the ad- 
 vantage in this apportionment ; for they 
 have nothing more than what justice ac- 
 cords them. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff said he wished to state 
 one other fact, that he intended to state 
 when up, but omitted it. Gentlemen on 
 the other side complain that the senatorial 
 'districts of this State do not correspond with 
 the congressional districts, that the third 
 and fourth districts have a large majority 
 of the State senators. I happened to be a 
 member of the legislature when the State 
 was laid out into four congressional dis* 
 tricts, and well remember the memorabie 
 struggle on that occasion; and that the 
 party opposed to myself in politics were in 
 the majority; and at one time the districting 
 the State at all, was almost entirely 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 .755 
 
 despaired of ; and that I supported the final 
 passage of the bill in opposition to many 
 of the leading members of m.y party; and if 
 o-entlemen districted the State into congres- 
 sional districts unequally, why now com- 
 plain that those districts being the largest 
 should have the majority of State senators. 
 
 Mr. Dowxs said: Mr. President, I have 
 been so often alluded to in this discussion, 
 especially by the member from East Feli- 
 ciana, (Mr. Saunders) and the member 
 from St. James (Mr. Kenner); and so often 
 and so pointedly held up to the Convention 
 and the public, here and elsewhere, as the 
 author of all the troubles, and difference of 
 opinion and excitements in which we now 
 find ourselves; and of all the injustice that 
 has been done by one section of the State 
 to another; that in justice to myself, in jus- 
 tice to the friends with whom I act, and 
 above all, in justice to my constituents and 
 the quarter of the State from which I come, 
 I cannot suffer the question to be taken 
 without some reply to these unexpected 
 and unauthorised charges. The represen- 
 tation in the senate, which has now been 
 established in detail by the Convention, 
 and on which you are about to put the final 
 question, is said to be unjust, to give too 
 much to the fourth district,, and to be my 
 project. I deny, 'sir, both these charges. 
 This representation is most unjust, but if it 
 were, it is not the work of my hands; it is 
 not my project. The minority report is 
 my pioject; this section as it now stands is 
 based on the report of the majority of the 
 committee, with some slight modifications. 
 Had the report of the minority been adopted 
 it would have been less tinctured with poli- 
 tics than this, for if there is any political 
 bearing in either, it is in the one now 
 adopted,l not that proposed by me; and is 
 against my party. 
 
 It is said by some that I wield great pow- 
 ^r in this hall, and always for party purpo- 
 ses. It is notluncommon in debate to flat- 
 er that we may conquer, to magnify the 
 power of an opponent to destroy him. But 
 how have I shown either my power or dis- 
 position to favor my party in this matter] 
 Did I oppose St. Mary and St.« Martin 
 having two senators instead of one? Did 
 I oppose St. Landry and Calcasieu having 
 two? or would I have succeeded if I had? 
 
 If I had the political power, with the will 
 which has been ascribed to me, of putting 
 
 I down political opponents, is it not likely I 
 ] should have made some effort to do so, 
 I when I knew that not one of the senators 
 ' thus provided for, would support the mea3- 
 ! ures of the party with whom I act? No, 
 sir, I looked at the measure, as I always 
 ; do in my private and political relations, as 
 ; an act of justice between equal parties. 1 
 ! found they were justly and fairly entitled to 
 i them, and I did not say a word against 
 '. them. . 
 
 How was it when one senator was al- 
 j lowed to Concordia and Tensas? What 
 i interference there? How with Carroll and 
 Madison? was there any interference there 7 
 | If I had had any political power, and was 
 j using it for political effect, I should certain - 
 I lv have made some effort to combine them 
 I differently. No, sir ; I am actuated, I 
 j always have been actuated by a desire to 
 
 ■ do right. 
 
 There may, sir, it is true, be some 
 1 inequality, some injustice done to the par- 
 I ishes of Plaquemines and - Jefferson, they 
 ! may have some cause to complain. But 
 I why should they blame me? The member 
 j from Lafourche, (Mr. Guion) in his project 
 i took one member from my senatorial dis- 
 trict, leaving but one, to four parishes, 
 though by no project was more than two 
 I parishes in any case given but one member 
 ! or. put in one district. I thought the Con- 
 
 ■ veniion would adhere to the number, thirty- 
 j two, and that unless one was taken away 
 
 | from that neighborhood, none would be left 
 ! for my district. If I had thought the num. 
 | ber would have been extended beyond 
 thirty-two, I should not so seriously have 
 j insisted on this reduction. But I do not 
 \ think there is much cause of complaint, 
 , particularly as to Plaquemines, since 
 j one of her delegates concurred in the mi- 
 nority report, which allowed her but one. 
 
 There is a better way of retracing our 
 steps than saying we have been at childs' 
 play. If we cannot amend any thing that 
 is wrong in this report, we shall be boys 
 indeed. Let us, then, reconsider any thing 
 that is wrong. Let us correct any errors 
 into which we may have been led; but do 
 not reject the whole. 
 
 I am astonished at the strong feelings 
 which I see evinced on this occasion. The 
 feelings of the honorable members from 
 j Plaquemines and Jefferson are natural, be- 
 I cause they think justice has not been done 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 them. But why should there be so much 
 feelings with others? Why should the 
 member from St. James (Mr. Kenner) and 
 the member from East Feliciana (Mr. 
 Saunders), both of one party, and the lead- 
 ers of one party, when they do not pretend 
 that any injustice has been done to either of 
 their districts, so much complain of the 
 party movements of others. Was there 
 any party movement in putting in the La- 
 fourche district the four senators for five 
 parishes, into two districts instead of four? 
 Why was not Ascension and St. James 
 divided? What will be the effect of the 
 present combination? Four senators of the 
 whig party constantly, .whereas if the dis- 
 trict had been divided there would have 
 been generally one, some times two demo- 
 crats elected. Hence the earnestness of 
 the member who now accuses me of politi- 
 cal motives. Let him take the beam out 
 of his own eye first. Let him divide As- 
 cension, and St. James, and Assumption, 
 Terrebonne, and Lafourche, first, and then 
 complain of me for political motives. 
 
 For his (Mr. Downs') part, he wants no 
 combinations, no distribution made, unless 
 upon the principles of justice. "Fiat justi- 
 tia, mat coelum" All that hejknew of the 
 report now before the Convention, was that 
 he had gone through the details, but he de- 
 clares before God, he never thought of po- 
 litical calculation; never thought of calcula- 
 ting the political effect it would have. He 
 hopes sincerely, that no effort will be made 
 to spread so false an assertion, that he has 
 ever endeavored, either by log-rolling or 
 otherwise, to procure political power. It 
 would be a disaster to the State, if such an 
 idea were to get abroad, that either party 
 could so far forget themselves. It will 
 create bickering and heart burnings wilh- 
 out end. But if any effort be made, if the 
 idea even prevail that political feeling is to 
 be mixed up in this controversy, to defeat 
 the constitution, let them not lay that flat- 
 tering unction to their souls. No scheme 
 could be devised so effectually to defeat 
 the object they aimed at; that would leave 
 the success of their opponents no longer 
 doubtful. There is no good in trying to 
 defeat it by such means, but much danger 
 to all who attempt it. 
 
 He (Mr. Downs) protests against con- 
 stant allusions being made to him, and his 
 position in the fourth district. To hear 
 
 some talk of him on this floor, one would 
 think he never breathed nor moved without 
 some political object. They are mistaken 
 if they think prejudice will be excited 
 against him in this hall, in which he is 
 broadly accused of his political dependence 
 on the fourth district. Gentlemen are 
 .much mistaken if they suppose that he has 
 any political dependence there or else- 
 where. He can tell them, if he would, 
 but he will not, how and why he has less 
 interest in political in that quarter than any 
 other man on this floor. And yet they all 
 cry out that his part of the State are de- 
 pending upon him! They are all parading 
 it forth that he is seeking some particular 
 political object in every thing he says and 
 does, and forthwith they are down upon 
 him, as if their politics salvation depended 
 on thwarting him. All he can say is that 
 . he came here with good intents, and to act 
 to the best of his humble ability for the 
 public good; and those who are now so 
 fond of assailing him here, had better take 
 care, for they ought not yet to have forgot- 
 I ten that they have made one democratic 
 president, for Van Buren would never have 
 been president if he had not been rejected 
 by the senate. He was fighting the peo- 
 ples' battle, and they rushed promptly and 
 steadily forward to his rescue. Now, if he 
 (Mr. Downs) wanted to acquire political 
 renown and fame, he would say to them, 
 go on, gentlemen, redouble your attacks; 
 but he has no political aspirations; he has 
 no object in view from any course he has 
 pursued in public life, here or elsewhere. 
 He looks not beyond the question before 
 him; and he strives to do his duty faithfully 
 to those who sent him. But do gentlemen 
 suppose that if they succeed in putting him 
 (Mr. D.) down, and with him the fourth 
 district, that they will remain quiescent? 
 No, indeed; put him (Mr. D.) and his other 
 friends in this hall, down, (so that they be 
 forever silenced,) you will soon find another 
 set here who sustaining their rights you will 
 soon find another and more powerful voice 
 springing up to supply their places, a war 
 roir's from the dragons teeth. He (Mr. D.) 
 has no poaver but what they (the people) pos- 
 sess. The gentlemen fight not ngawsi 
 him; and whether he is prostrate or not, 
 the principles he advocates will still remain. 
 He regrets to find these attacks made upon 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 him; but he is constrained, he is obliged to j back again, and act over the scenes on 
 repel them. &e suffrage question? Doit, and you will 
 
 It is well known that the delegate from j find the whole party will be # overthrown 
 West Feliciana (Mr. Ratlin; and he : ' and destroyed. If you do that we shall all 
 brought forward the plan to amend the con- j be where we started in January last, 
 stitution, perhaps tlrat may have had some i Soldiers often fight in a cause they don't 
 influence in their course towards him; per- understand, but he would ask every mem- 
 haps again, there may be some lurking ber to pause and reflect, for upon this vote 
 feeling that their power is gone, since this l will probably much depend the trouble 
 movement to amend the constitution corn- : which is ahead of us. For his (Mr. D.'s) 
 meneed, which would naturally make them part he shall go on as usual, but many may 
 indignant. He can attribute the course have cause to regret the course they are 
 pursued towards him to no other rational pursuing. The yeas and nays will shew 
 feeling. ; If it be so: he regrets they : the injustice, if any, and he is vailing to 
 are not more liberal and patriotic. A sus- ' meet it on its merits. If fney believe any 
 picion exists in his (Mr. D.'s) mind, that body is wrong, let the people say so: and 
 there were certain leaders, who were in when it is generally pronounced through- 
 favor of the great reform we have met to out the State, that the feeling commenced 
 endeavor to effect, but they cannot prove about Lafourche, St. Martin, St. Mary and 
 their sincerity by opposing it He (Mr. St- Landry, and that there was a burst of 
 D.) has no personal feeling on the matter, political feeling about East and West Feli- 
 Results may operate against hirn^as well ciana 3 and the Florida parishes, the people 
 as for him; but it is nevertheless'irom opin- will know how to judge, 
 ions according to the dictates of our own He (Mr* Downs) is of opinion tnat" the 
 hearts, while some enter into them more apportionment we have made will be as 
 from feeling than innate propriety. satisfactory as any that could have been 
 
 If there be any plan that is preferable, made with the information we had before 
 why not adopt it.' Why not amend the us. Try it then. He does not think there 
 section and change the basis? Well, what is any danger of dissatisfaction, but if there' 
 basis shall we Ik? Some want property: be, he is not the cause of it; when his part 
 some total population; .both these have of the country was assailed, then it was 
 been already rejected. alone that he objected to the report. He 
 
 Now suppose we do 'set the report aside, never interfered after that; in fact it- was 
 The only basis which we have as yet estab- the great leader of the whig party who has 
 lished, is the electoral basis, Jane if you had more to do with it than any one else- 
 send it back what will be the result? Upon the whole he thinks the distribution 
 There is no other basis on which we can a fair one, and whenever the" majoiirv set- 
 agree, that would bring about a different ties it, he will abide by it. 
 result. The fourth district would be gain- The question was then put on the adop- 
 ers by any other basis you would take. tion, and the yeas and nays being called 
 
 The question to be asked is this, "is it for, resulted as follows: 
 intended to produce distrust and odium on Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, Bar 
 this Convention? Are we to be regarded ton, Cade, Carriere. Chambliss, Downs, 
 as a parcel of children, who- put up a cock Garrett, Humble, Ledoux, McCallop, Mc- 
 crib just for the pleasure of knocking it Rae.Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Perm, Porche, 
 down again? There must be some hidden Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 object in all these movements, which time . St. Landry, Prudhomme, Read. Ratling 
 alone can develope. We are here to do Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 all that we can, we cannot be expected to Splane. Stephens, Waddill, Wederstrandt, 
 do more* why then destroy what we have ' and Wikoff— 31 yeas, 
 done; at the end of the proceedings they Messrs. Aubert, Beatiy, Benjamin, 
 come up and destroy the whole. Is it in- Bourg. Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad 
 tended by the constant reference to* the of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cuibert. 
 house of representatives, that we are to j son, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Hud- 
 break up and get into confusion? Is it to j speth, Kenner, King, Legendre, Lewis, 
 upset all and begin again 1 Are we to go j Marigny, Mazureau/Preston, Pugh, St- 
 
58 
 
 Bebatei in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Amand, Saunders, Sellers, Soule, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Wads worth, Winches ter and 
 Winder — 34 nays ; so the motion was 
 lost, and then, 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock. 
 
 ♦ Tuesday, April 1, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The proceedings were opened with 
 prayer, 
 
 Mr. Ratliff % chairman of the commit- 
 tee on contingent expenses, to whom was 
 referred the inquiry relative to the several 
 amounts of money paid the printers, report- 
 ed that five thousand and seventy -four dol- 
 lars had been paid for printing up to date, 
 including one hundred dollars paid to J. 
 Byon for printing the journals of the Con- 
 vention of 1812; of this amount three thou- 
 sand four hundred and seventy -four dollars 
 had been paid to J. A. Kelly; to Besancon, 
 Ferguson & Company, one thousand dol- 
 lars; one half of which amount on account 
 of extra printing; and five hundred dollars 
 to J. Bay on, for subscription to his paper. 
 Nothing had been paid J. Bayon for extra 
 printing, because no account had been pre- 
 sented by him, 
 
 Mr, Chinn said, that having voted with 
 the majority yesterday, he would move for 
 the reconsideration of the vote on the sec- 
 tion relative to senatorial apportionment. 
 He would propose something in the shape 
 of a compromise. It was not entirely" sat- 
 isfactory to himself, and he was prepared 
 to relinquish it if any thing better could be 
 suggested. Previous to submitting it in a 
 more formal shape, he would state its gen- 
 eral outlines. He proposed to give an ad- 
 ditional senator to Plaquemines and St. 
 Bernard; an additional senator to New Of= 
 leans, giving to the second municipality 
 two senators, so as to place her upon an 
 equal footing with the first municipality; 
 an additional senator to the parish of Jef- 
 ferson, and an additional senator to the 
 county of Iberville, This would carry the 
 number of senators to thirty-eight. When 
 it was recollected that the sessions of the 
 legislature were to be held biennially, the 
 objection of the additional expense, was a 
 matter of but little moment. 'Whether the 
 number were thirty-two, or thirty, eight. 
 
 was not of much consequence, and inas- 
 much as the number had been tacitly fixe* 
 at thirty-two, it was better to add a fe\ 
 more to obviate well grounded complaints 
 of injustice to certain parishes. In con 
 nection with this subject, it would be we! 
 to take up another proposition which Viae 
 been submitted by the delegate from L& 
 fourche, (Mr. Taylor) that the legislator 
 should have the power of apportioning th« 
 districts. If that proposition were carried 
 it would facilitate action upon the section 
 It contained a very judicious principle, 
 that no one parish should have more thai' 
 one-eighth of the whole number of sena 
 tors. 
 
 These are briefly (said Mr. Chinn) 1113 
 views in relation to this matter. I have 
 not consulted with any individual in par 
 ticular, in regard to it. 
 
 Mr. ^Vadsworth moved to refer the 
 subject of apportionment to a committee o, 
 five, with instructions to allow one sena- 
 tor more to the parishes of Plaquemines 
 and St. Bernard; one more senator to the 
 parish of Jefferson; one more to the count) 
 of Iberville, and to report in favor of tht 
 election of the four senators allowed tc 
 New Orleans by general ticket, and to re. 
 port to-morrow. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor moved a recess ot 
 half an hour, to enable members to consult 
 upon the subject. 
 
 This motion prevailed. 
 
 On reassembling, Mr. Voorhies moved 
 to reconsider the vote upon the section. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth said it would be bet- 
 ter to remain a month longer in consider- 
 ing this subject, than to make an unjust 
 apportionment. We did not come here for 
 our own convenience, but to do the public 
 business, and that business ought to be 
 done in a satisfactory manner, He re- 
 newed his motion to refer to a committee 
 of five. 
 
 Mr, Humble sustained the motion to 
 reconsider, and thought that with some 
 amendments the sections would be render- 
 ed satisfactory to alh 
 
 Mr, Claiborne moved to postpone the 
 vote on the motion to reconsider until to- 
 morrow at 12 o'clock, as by that time the 
 Convention could come to an understand- 
 ing as to the mode of proceeding for the 
 purpose of obtaining a satisfactory appor- 
 tionment, He declared that the two first 
 
Bsbatss in the Ccnv&ntioii ot Louisiana 
 
 552 
 
 districts had been sacraficed to the two The motion to reconsider prevailed, 
 others, and was of opinion that what was The question recurred on the adoption 
 taken from the city should be divided of the proposition. 
 
 among the parishes of the first and second j Mr. Benjamin hoped that it would be 
 congressional districts.* adopted inasmuch as its adoption Wlu d 
 
 Mr. Winchester asked if the motion , greatly facilitate the final disposition of the 
 to reconsider should prevail, whether the : subject of apportionment in the senate. If 
 section would be open to amendment, members could only be assured that there 
 without, a separate vote of reconsideration . was a remedy hereafter for any inequality 
 on every paragraph. Many members. op- or injustice in the representation, they 
 posed the section from various and «on- 1 would accept of the present apportionment, 
 dieting motives, so that ample room for Mr. Preston sustained a similar view 
 amendments must be allowed. It would of the subject. He said the chief cause of 
 be better, perhaps, to fix a basis of appor- the rejection of the section yesterday, was 
 tionment, and refer the subject of appor- the failure of this proposition. Had that 
 tionment to a committee. proposition been adopted, he would not 
 
 Mr. Voorhies observed that experience himself have voted against the section., al- 
 had shown that the reference of similar though it did great injustice to the parish 
 subjects to the Convention had produced of Jefferson, and was obnoxious in some 
 no good result. other particulars. What he particularly- 
 
 Mr. Conrad wished to know positively objected to in the section was, that it per- 
 if a reconsideration in precisely the state petrated perpetual injustice. It we adopt 
 in which it stood before the final vote — the proposition of the delegate from As- 
 that is, whether subsequently it would be sumption Dir. Taylor) we obviate that ob- 
 necessary to have as many partial votes of jection. There will be a remedy, and 
 reconsideration as there were senatorial dis- those who complain with jus: cause against 
 tricts, or whether a vote of reconsideration the injustice of this apportionment will sub- 
 would bring up the whole subject again, mit to a temporary wrong, knowing that 
 susceptible of any modification or amend- there is ultimate redress. They will sub- 
 ment. This waj an important point which 1 mit as a man would submit, who, having a 
 should be clearly understood before the "just cause, should lose it and have the 
 vote, as the decision would greatly influ- right of an appeal to a superior court to do 
 ence that vote. . him justice. 
 
 Mr. Saunders proposed a resolution Another objection to the section was, 
 providing that all the paragraphs of the that the apportionment was not made upon 
 secetion should be reconsidered by one any substantial data. The United States 
 and the same vote. ' census for 1840 was no criterion of the 
 
 Mr. Ratliff maintained that the recon- population in 1845. in a State where popu- 
 sideration should at first be taken on the j lation was increasing ' so rapidly. The 
 entire section, and subsequently upon the r voters at the last presidential election, he 
 details. ; considered a better criterion, but it has 
 
 The President decided that if the mo- been strenuously objected to on account of 
 tion to reconsider prevailed, the section alleged frauds. There is nothing definite 
 would come up for amendment or modifi- in the documents before us to make the 
 cation. [ representation with any certainty; that, 
 
 Mr. Clairorne said that the section however, 'would be a matter of no consid- 
 had been framed without any fixed basis j eration, if we could obtain justice hereafter 
 or principle. It was evident, therefore, 1 — if we could have a rule established 
 that if we recommenced in the same man- ! which would be equal and uniform in its 
 ner. we would arrive at a similar result. ; operation. If we can obtain justice in 
 
 Mr. Brazeale moved to reconsider the 154$, he would willingly submit to present 
 vote on Mr. Miles Taylor's proposition, j wrong. 
 
 empowering the legislature to fix the ap* ' Mr. Benjamin moved an amendment 
 portiomnent in the senate hereafter in any making the duty of the legislature impera = 
 year in which they may apportion repre= j tive in apportioning the senate- Adopted 
 Bsntation in the hou<?e of representatives. \ 
 
560 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Mr. Saunders moved to add after the 
 word "population," the words "and slaves." 
 
 Mr. Beatty considered this amendment 
 totally unnecessary. 
 
 Mr. Penn presented a substitute to the 
 section, that the legislature be empowered 
 to make the apportionment. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved to lay said substi- j 
 lute on the table. 
 
 Mr. Lewis objected to this course. He j 
 deprecated all hasty and inconsiderate ac- 
 tion. In the original resolution he objected 
 particularly to the basis of total population, 
 and thought no senatorial apportionment 
 could be fair, in which territory did not en- 
 ter as an element of the basis. He was 
 wilbng to combine the white population, 
 taxation and territory into one basis. He 
 maintained the necessity of a different 
 basis for the senate, fiom that selected for 
 the house, in order that the two branches 
 being differently constituted, might operate 
 as a check on each other. If he had a fa- j 
 vorite basis for the senators, it was terri- ■ 
 tory, whether the land were rich or poor; j 
 and this he would select, if the Convention j 
 preferred an exclusive basis* 
 
 Mr. Kenner opposed the substitute, I 
 because it had nothing definite about it, i 
 leaving the basis of apportionment to the 
 whim and caprice of the legislature. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth said that if the terri- 
 tory were taken, Plaquemines would be en- j 
 titled to one-third of the entire senate, 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said that these substitutes 
 frequently threw the Convention into con- 
 fusion. Why not amend the resolution to | 
 suit the views of the Convention ? 
 
 Mr. Humble moved to lay both resolu- 
 tions on the table; subject to call, and take j 
 up representation. 
 
 Mr. Penn withdrew his substitute, and j 
 Mr. Humble then withdrew his motion. 
 
 Mr. Wabsworth suggested that there : 
 
 DO s I 
 
 was one provision in the proposition, which j 
 conflicted with the section of apportion- j 
 ment. It declared that no parish should J 
 be divided in the formation of a senatorial 
 district. In the section of apportionment, 
 that part of the parish of Orleans on the 
 right bank was added to the parishes of 
 Plaquemines and St. Bernard. He had no 
 objection to relinquishing it to the parish 
 of Orleans, if the delegation from the city 
 desired it. There was another point in the 
 proposition to which he would invite atten- 
 
 tion: the number of senators was fixed at 
 thirty-four; he objected to that number, 
 because there were three or four districts 
 to be provided for,. which would make the 
 number thirty-eight. He referred to the 
 parishes whose senatorial delegation was 
 deficient, and to whom justice ought to be 
 done. It was a great mistake to suppose 
 that small legislative bodies were better 
 adapted to subserve the public interests 
 tha*h large bodies. Small bodies admitted 
 of combination and intrigue, they facili- 
 tated log-rolling, and it was in the power of 
 a few individuals to obtain complete con- 
 trol over them. There was no doubt that 
 a greater ■number of senators were accorded 
 to some sections of the country than these 
 sections were entitled to; but inasmuch as. 
 it has been done, and not to travel over the 
 same ground, he would propose that the 
 number of senators be' fixed at thirty-eight, 
 and that the additional four senators be al- 
 lotted in the manner which he had already 
 indicated. 
 
 The city had been arbitrarily deprived of 
 the right to a full apportionment, and what 
 had been taken from her should be given 
 to the surrounding countiy. 
 
 Mr. Garrett submitted a substitute, in 
 which the basis is composed of territory 
 and white population; the senate limited 
 to thirty-four members; an enumeration of 
 the population to be made in 1855, and 
 every tenth year thereafter, — no parish to 
 have more than one-eighth the whole num- 
 ber of senators. 
 
 Irlr. Claiborne moved to lay these pro- 
 positions on the table, subject to call. 
 
 Mr. Kenner objected. It was yielding 
 all the advantage gained by having brought 
 the subject before the house. If postponed, 
 no basis would ever be established. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff said that to place negroes 
 in the basis of apportionment, was abhor- 
 rent to his feelings. They were recogni- 
 zed in our laws as property, and they were 
 nothing else. He has heard one delegate 
 say that this was nothing more than a strug-' 
 gle for political power. If this were so, 
 it was time for the cotton region to look 
 out for itself. If the war cry is to be 
 raised, and it is actually a struggle for po- 
 litical power, we will have to draw the 
 sword and throw away the scabbard. We 
 shall have to take our position with our 
 backs to the wall. I was glad (said Mr= 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 561 
 
 Railiff) that the gentleman from Acadia I 
 (Mi. Kenner) explained what he intended 
 bv one of his remarks. 1 was electrified, j 
 because I understood him to say, that one ! 
 interest in this house had the advantage. | 
 and that they would keep it. But the gen- 
 tleman has disclaimed any such meaning, j 
 and I am gratified to hear it, 1 know that-j 
 gentleman too well to believe he would \ 
 take any undue advantage. I am guided ! 
 in my votes by my convictions of what is* 
 just and proper. Sometimes I vote with j 
 gentlemen with whom 1 concur in political [ 
 sentiment: but whenever I think they are j 
 wrong. I vote against them. This is how- \ 
 ever, an honest difference of opinion. It 
 does not show their want of integrity, nor 
 mine. I have not come here to be blind- 
 folded. 
 
 Gentlemen have spoken of a compro- ' 
 raise. And what is the compromise they 
 propose? Thev ask us to concede four 
 senators more. I am reluctant to concede 
 another senator to Jefferson, not because I 
 do not think her entitled to it, but because 
 with the city of New Orleans, with which j 
 she is closely identified, 1 think that she- 
 will have her full share of political power. 
 The cities of Xew Orleans and Lafayette; 
 are destined to be blended together. Thev ; 
 are even now separated but by an imagi- 
 nary line, and as long as I have been a 
 member of the legislature, I would be una- j 
 ble to discover the boundaries that sepa- 
 rate them. Actual experience has demon- 
 strated to us that the cky of Xew Orleans 
 with but one member of the senate, has! 
 been fully able to protect herself. There j 
 is not an instance on record, in which she j 
 has been oppressed by the country; But 
 I am sorry to say that the reverse Las been : 
 
 . the case with the country. The country j 
 has been oppressed by the city; look at ' 
 the wharfage bill, and the vehement efforts ; 
 that were made to continue that system 
 
 ! of exaction. The representatives of the ; 
 surrounding parishes were on that occa- 
 sioif, as on all other occasions, where the 
 interests of New Orleans are involved, 
 combined with the city. From the Ba- [ 
 lize to the bayou Lafourche, the onlv ex- 
 ception was in the representative of the I 
 parish of Terrebonue. I remember that 
 parish, since elected to Congress, united 
 with me his vigorous efforts to overthrow 
 that iniquitous system. Let the gentleman 
 
 from Plaquemines traverse his votes, and 
 it will he seen that "he has invariably vo- 
 ted in favor of the city. He has looked to 
 the interest of Plaquemines and to the in- 
 terests of New Orleans to the end of the 
 chapter. That gentleman has spoken dis- 
 paragingly of the resources of the Florida 
 parishes. He has complained . that their 
 soil was sterile. But I feel sure that the 
 gentleman did not complain when these 
 same miserable parishes, as he appears to 
 consider them in relation to apportion- 
 ment, gave their six hundred votes majori- 
 ty for Polk, lie did not then consider them 
 sand-hill cranes. I hope that he will live 
 to repent it. But it is not by caricatures 
 that gentlemen can succeed in disfranchis- 
 ing the citizens of any portion of the 
 State, and if we are driven to the wall, and 
 the third and fourth c ongressional districts 
 are compelled to combine in their own de- 
 fence, they can defy all attempts to sacrifice 
 them. 
 
 Mr. Hoible considered this a very im- 
 portant matter. Let us not destroy what 
 we have done. He should have preferred, 
 
 we in 
 
 td have been 
 
 or, had 
 
 the first instance established a basis of re- 
 presentation. But inasmuch as we have 
 progressed without one. let us consummate 
 our labors. If there be inequalities in the 
 representation, let us remedy them. Let 
 us first heal the wound that may have been 
 indicted. 
 
 Sir. Dowse suggested te Mr. Garrett to 
 withdraw his proposition, and offer its 
 principles in detail. Mr. Garrett did so. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to strike out "total 
 population" from Mr. Taylor's project. 
 Lost — yeas 28. nays 34. 
 
 Mr. Eustts maintained that the- amend- 
 ment suggested by the delegate from Feli- 
 ciana (Mr. Saunders) to add the word 
 "slaves" to '''population,'' was entirely su- 
 perfluous.. 
 
 Mr.. Preston sustained the same view 
 of the subject. 
 
 Mr. Saunders modified the amendment 
 proposed by him, so as to read the " total 
 population, Indians excepted."' 
 
 Mr. Wadswohth objected to excluding 
 Indians. He could see no good ground for 
 such an exclusion. They were the origi- 
 nal proprietors of the soil, and it was true 
 that we had taken their lands from them. 
 
562 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 But surely that is no reason why we should 
 deprive them of political privileges. 
 
 Mr. Saunders explained that his object 
 was to prevent quibbling, but he withdrew 
 the amendment. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to add the words "and 
 territory" to "total population." 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to amend by except- 
 ing sand banks, impregnable swamps and 
 sea marshes. Lost — yeas 23; nays 29. 
 
 The question then recurred on Mr. 
 Lewis' amendment to add to the words 
 "total population" the following, ' : and ter- 
 ritory equally," and called for the yeas 
 and nays. 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfleld, Car- 
 riere, Chambliss, Downs, Garrett, Huds- 
 peth, Humble, Labauve, McRae, Mayo, 
 O'Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Prud- 
 homme, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, Wed- 
 erstrandt and Winder — 30 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- ! 
 dousquie, Burton,Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Ken- 
 ner, King, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, Ma- 
 zureau, Preston, Pugh, Roman, St. A- 
 mand, Saunders, Sellers, Splane, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Voorhies,Waddill, Wads worth 
 and Winchester — 32 nays. 
 
 Mr. x\Iayo moved to insert before the 
 word "population," "white, and three- 
 fifths of other persons." 
 
 Mr. Beatty called for the previous 
 question, 
 
 A motion was made to adjourn; lest, 
 yeas 30, nays 31. 
 
 But .before the question was put on Mr. 
 Beatty's call for the previous question, on 
 motion, the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Wednesday, April 2 7 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The proceedings were opened with pray- 
 er by the Rev. Mr. Hinton. 
 
 The journal of yesterday was read and 
 approved. 
 
 RESOLUTIONS AND REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. 
 
 Mr. Beatty desired to offer some reso- 
 lutions, which he conceived were much 
 wanted in this Convention, and asked the 
 
 dispensation of the rules that they might be 
 considered : 
 
 Resolved, that all motions to lay on the 
 table shall be decided without debate. 
 
 Resolved further, that when the previ- 
 ous question be asked, and maintained by 
 the Convention, the vote shall be taken on 
 all the amendments proposed without de- 
 bate. 
 
 Mr. Porter objected, for, he remarked, 
 it would cut off all debate; and was about 
 to state his reasons more fully when, 
 
 The President reminded him that the 
 resolutions were not properly before the 
 Convention, and therefore not debateable. 
 
 The question being then put, " will the 
 Convention dispense with its rules," it was 
 decided in the negative. 
 
 Mr. Chinn rose to call the attention of 
 the Convention to the importance of this 
 matter. He does not think they are suffi- 
 ciently impressed with it, or they would 
 have given it more ready attention. 
 
 A pause ensuing, 
 
 Mr. Brent asked for leave of absence 
 for Mr. Chambliss; which was granted. 
 
 Mr. Beatty then remarked, that as the 
 house seemed to be fuller, he would again 
 press his motion, and moved "to reconsider 
 the vote taken on the dispensation of the 
 rules. It had been remarked by the dele- 
 gate from Caddo, (Mr. Porter) that ifthese 
 resolutions be adopted, all debate is cut off'; 
 but this is not so. The only alteration 
 will be that the amendments will be adopt- 
 ed or rejected without debate, after the 
 previous question has been sustained. 
 
 Mr. Porter : That is the reason why I 
 objected. 
 
 Mr. Mayo is now disposed to vote for it. 
 He did not understand it when it was pre- 
 sented before. 
 
 The motion to dispense with the rules 
 was again submitted to the Convention and 
 lost, four-fifths not having sustained the 
 motion. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Section 10. The substitute offered by 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, as follows: 
 
 " The legislature, in any year in which 
 they shall apportion representation in the 
 house of representatives, shall divide the 
 State into senatorial districts. No parish 
 shall be divided in the formation of sena- 
 torial districts. The number of senator* 
 ghali not be lees than twenty-five, nor mora 
 
Bebates iii the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 563 
 
 than thirty-four, and they * shall be appor- 
 tioned among the senatorial districts, ac- 
 cording to the total population contained in 
 the senatorial districts; provided that no 
 parish shall be entitled to more than one- 
 eighth of the whole number of senators." 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to amend the same 
 by inserting after the words " in any year" 
 the words e< after the year 1855." 
 
 He explained the reason why this amend- 
 ment was offered. It was because in that 
 year the census would be taken, and the 
 legislature could make a more just appo- 
 tionment after that than before. 
 
 Mr. Beatty said that the question last 
 Under discussion yesterday, was on a mo- 
 tion made by him for the previous question, 
 and as He conceives that to have the pre- 
 ference, he presses it to the vote of the 
 Convention. 
 
 Mr. Downs remarked, that it was not 
 his intention to debate this question, but 
 simply wanted it voted on. 
 
 Mr. Taylor trusts that the delegate 
 from Lafourche will withdraw his motion : 
 
 Mr. Beatty : I insist on the motion. 
 
 Mr. Mayo, remarked that he had yester- 
 day introduced an amendment, to insert the 
 word "white" between the words total 
 and population, and " three- fifths of the 
 slaves," and that when he made that mo- 
 tion it was clearly the first in order. 
 
 Mr. Saunders, temporarily in the Chair, 
 decided that the motion for the previous 
 (Question was the first in order. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne would certainly not vote 
 for the previous question il the amendment 
 of the delegate from Ouachita was the only 
 one that was to be proposed to the substi- 
 tute before the house. 
 
 Mr. Taylor accepts the amendment of- 
 fered by the delegate from Ouachita, (Mr. 
 Downs.) 
 
 The question was then put, " shall the 
 main question be now put?" and the yeas 
 and nays being called for, resulted as fol- 
 lows i 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Chinn, Conrad of Jef- 
 erson, Dunn, Kenner, Labauve, Legendre, 
 Mazureau, Preston, Pugh, St. Amand— 11 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Boudousque, Bourg, 
 Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, 
 Carrier©, Cenas, Claiborne, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Downs, Eustis, Garrett, Guipn, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Ledoux, Lewis, Mfc= 
 
 Gallop, McRae, Mayo, O'Bryafi, Peels, 
 Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prud- 
 homrrie, Ratliff, Read, Roman, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Seller's ,-Splane, Stephens, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, 
 Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, WikofF, Win- • 
 Chester and Winder— -48 nays; so the mo- 
 tion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Downs then renewed his 'motion to 
 insert the words " after the year 1855," 
 and strike out the words "in any year." 
 
 Mr. Kenner inquired if that contem- 
 plates after the census to be taken in 1855, 
 
 Mr. Downs: Yes. 
 
 Mr. Kenner: .Then, sir, I must oppose 
 it, and call for the yeas and nays on the 
 motion. It is not likely, the way We are" 
 going on with the constitution, that it will 
 last over twenty years, and more than half 
 the time will have elapsed before the sen- 
 ate is properly and fairly apportioned. 
 
 Mr. Preston then addressed the house 
 as follows: 
 
 Mr. President : As the section is now 
 amended I oppose its adoption^ first, be- 
 cause population is made the basis of sena- 
 torial apportionment; and second, because 
 the apportionment is to be postponed until 
 1856. 
 
 I yielded yesterday my vote in favor of 
 the total population as the basis, against 
 my judgment and feelings,- but in the spirit 
 of compromise, in a moment of excitement, 
 in the hope that gentlemen from the greai 
 and growing west, Would be reconciled to 
 abandon the excessive representation in 
 the senate whicjti they had obtained in de- 
 tail, thinking the basis of population most 
 favorable to them. And if they refused 
 that, by an apportionment in 1848 any in- 
 equality would be remedied, and exact jus- 
 tice done to all. But now I find the total 
 population adopted as the* basis, and the 
 apportionment postponed to 1856. 
 
 I have, with others, expatiated so much" 
 on the absurdity, in determining political 
 power, of placing slaves on an equality 
 with the free, minors with majors, females 
 with males, that I will not trouble the Con- 
 vention with another word on the subject. 
 And, although it would perhaps favor the 
 city and portion of the State I represent, 
 to include in the enumeration free colored 
 persons and unnaturalized foreigners, of all 
 countries and climes, for if you go into our 
 
 ■ # 
 
564 
 
 Debates In the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 markets you will hear all languages and 
 see all colors, I am opposed to it; for I see 
 no more reason for enumerating them than 
 for persisting on square miles, as some gen- 
 tlemen still do with great zeal, as a basis of 
 appo rtionment. 
 
 As to territory, it has no more to do with 
 the basis of political power, than fire, air or 
 water. These elements were given by a 
 bountiful Creator for the support of his crea- 
 tures, but while unappropriated to the des- 
 tination of Providence, should have no in- 
 w fluence upon man or government. If ter- 
 ritory should have any influence, a farm 
 appropriated to the objects of society, the 
 support of man, the happyiess of the fire- 
 side, should have more influence than un- 
 cultivated leagues of the richest land. But 
 besides such land we have swamps of vast 
 extent, fit only for the habitancy of noxious 
 reptiles, and barren pine woods and prai- 
 rie's, which would scarcely afford a suste- 
 nance to the crows that fly over them. 
 Some gentlemen propose to exclude these. 
 It would require a corps of surveyors to 
 apportion our senatorial representation. 
 
 In opposition to such schemes, I hold 
 that white men above the age of minority, 
 who are in reality the lords and masters of 
 Louisiana, should be equally represented 
 in the senate, as well as in the house of 
 representatives in her government. 
 
 In the next place, I oppose the adoption 
 of the section, because of the postponement 
 of the apportionment until 1856.. A pre- 
 text for adjourning the Convention from 
 Jackson, was that we had not the statisti- 
 cal information there, necessary to make 
 the apportionment. This was an admis- 
 sion not only that we must have a basis, 
 and not fix the districts arbitrarily, but 
 also that we should have certain informa- 
 tion of the extent of the basis in each dis- 
 trict. In a popular government we must 
 have an equal representation apportioned 
 on a certain basis. A leading object of 
 calling this Convention was to equalize the 
 representation in the senate; to abolish the 
 arbitrary and unequal districts which exis- 
 ted, and apportion the senate equally, as I 
 think, among the voters. 
 
 But in making the apportionment now, 
 we have no certain information. No mem- 
 ber knows the number of voters in any 
 district. The census of 1840 h no crite- 
 Hon now, of population in the growing 
 
 parishes. It was not originally made by- 
 State authority, and perhaps with little 
 accuracy. I am certain the population of 
 the senatorial district which I represent in 
 this Convention, is double now, what it is 
 represented to have been in 1840 The 
 only criterion which approximates to cer- 
 tainty now, is the division of the State into 
 congressional districts in 1842. We are 
 bound to believe that the legislature divi- 
 ded the four districts as equally as possi. 
 ble, giving each that weight to which it 
 was entitled by its population or voters, 
 This is the last authorative proceeding 
 upon which we ought to make our calcu- 
 lations. And if the apportionment is to be 
 postponed until 1850, I for one must insist 
 that it shall prevail, and that eight senators 
 shall be allowed to each congressional dis- 
 trict. 
 
 But it is in our power to have absolute 
 certainty, by causing a census to be made 
 immediately; and why should we perpetu- 
 ate that which is uncertain, arbitrary and 
 unjust, when certainty and equality is at- 
 tainable? To end this two months' strug- 
 gle for power without right, 1 would vote 
 for the unjust apportionment which has 
 been effected in detail, if you would permit 
 it to be amended or righted in 1848. Like 
 the just suitor who submits with cheer- 
 fulness to the injustice of a decision against 
 him, because there is a speedy appeal to a 
 tribunal where justice will be done. It is 
 only the iniquity of perpetual inequality 
 that the spirit of freemen cannot brook. 
 
 As we are now wandering in the dark 
 with no compass to guide us, let us as soon 
 as possible ascertain our population, if that 
 is to be the basis, by a correct census; and 
 then we will have justice and equality, 
 with arithmetical certainty. The senate 
 is the divisor, the population the dividend, 
 and the quotient the number entitled to a 
 senator, or senatorial district. And why 
 should we postpone this arithmetical cer- 
 tainty of justice and equality? There can 
 be no reason, except that some gentlemen 
 think they have gained advantages by a 
 struggle for power in the dark. And that 
 is the very reason why an immediate ap- 
 portionment should be made. 
 
 We have agreed that an apportionment 
 of representation in the house, shall be 
 made in 1848. What reason can there * 
 exist why an apportionment of the senate 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 565 
 
 should not be made at the same time, and 
 with the same trouble and expense. I ap- 
 peal to gentlemen from the west, where 
 the population is rapidly increasing in con- 
 sequence of the extent of their territory, 
 the fertility of their soil and genial cli- 
 mate. It will continue to increase beyond 
 their most sanguine anticipations* I re- 
 joice to see it, and should rejoice to see 
 their ascendancy in the power of the State, 
 on account of their truly republican princi- 
 ples. But trust with confidence to that 
 natural growth to give that portion of the 
 State political power and ascendancy with 
 right, and do not take it by might. . 
 
 We have it in our power to do speedy 
 justice in our own day and generation. 
 Our great fallacy consists in* overlooking 
 the present, and providing only for the 
 unborn millions. They will provide for 
 themselves, far better than our limited 
 i views can provide for their improved con- 
 , dition. Ten years is a political life-time 
 . in this country. If you perpetuaie'an arbi- 
 j trary apportionment based upon uncertain- 
 ties, or rather upon certain inequality. 
 Now, I care nothing about your apportion- 
 ment in 1856, when in all probability, 
 I, and many of us, shall lay cold beneath 
 "a load of monumental clay." Let us 
 struggle for right and justice and equality 
 now, with the certainty that its attainment 
 and enjoyment in our day, will be the best 
 guarantee that our chilldren ? growing up in 
 our principles, will maintain the same 
 rights and equality, when they ascend the 
 , stage^ of action, and we descend to our 
 original clay. 
 
 Mr. M. Taylok said, he was placed in a 
 singular attitude in relation to the substi- 
 tute presented by him. Before the previ. 
 ous question was called by the delegate 
 from Lafourche Interior (Mr. Beatty) he 
 had said to ihe delegate from Ouachita 
 (Mr. Do wns,) that he had no particular ob- 
 jection to the time mentioned in his amend- 
 ment; that he should be willing to see a 
 vote taken on it, and that, although he pre- 
 ferred the time proposed in the substitute, 
 < he should still vote for the substitute if his 
 (Mr. D.'s) amendment prevailed. At this 
 stage of ihe proceedings the delegate from 
 Lafourche Interior (Mr. Beatty) moved the 
 previous question. If this had been sus- 
 tained it would have cut off the amend- 
 ment, and prevented any vote being taken 
 
 on it. This I did not think right, said Mr. 
 T. I was disposed to allow my proposi- 
 tion to be amended so as to meet the views 
 of a majority of the house if possible, I 
 thought the amendment of the delegate 
 from Ouachita (Mr. D.) might be accepta- 
 ble to a number of the members who had 
 | before voted against the proposition, and 
 that it could not affect those who were in 
 favor of the principle involved in it. If the 
 vote had been taken directly, at that time 
 on the amendment, I should in all proba- 
 bility, have voted against it. But when 
 the previous question was moved, as I 
 thought, not only to prevent debate, but to 
 cut off the amendment, I thought it right 
 to accept it, and with that view stated to the 
 house, that if I had the right to do so, that 
 I would accept. It was decided, however, 
 that it was out of order, because the house 
 was proceeding to vote on the call for the 
 .previous question. The house refused to 
 order the previous question, and now (said 
 Mr. T.) the amendment is before us, and I 
 feel at liberty to vote against it, notwith- 
 standing I was willing to accept it under 
 the peculiar circumstances to which I have 
 alluded; but as yet I have not decided how 
 I shall vote on that question. 
 
 The delegate from Jefferson (Mr. Pres= 
 ton) says, that in the formation of senate- 
 rial districts, territory should go for nothing, 
 and that the people alone ought to be con. 
 sidered. That, as a general principle, is 
 undoubtedly true. But like all general 
 principles, it is subject to particular excep= 
 tions. If this were a country which was 
 fully peopled, I should at once concur with 
 that gentleman in applying the principle 
 to numbers, But such is not the fact. It 
 is but a ( few years since the State was es- 
 tablished. We are comparatively a new 
 people; we have large districts contain- 
 ing the finest lands in the Stale, that have 
 scarcely been explored. Others that are 
 admirably adapted to the pursuits of hus- 
 bandry are now in the course of settlement, 
 and none has as yet a population rn any 
 degree equal to what it will in a few years 
 contain. The experience of the past ad- 
 monishes us of the necessity of being in 
 some degree influenced at this time by the 
 extent and character of territory in the for- 
 mation of senatorial districts. When we 
 look around us, we see on every side a hap. 
 py population and smiling fields, whe&but 
 
566 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 a few years ago we should have found a 
 wilderness. The 'delegate from Jefferson 
 has forgotten that we ought to look ahead, 
 and from the past, anticipate the future. 
 We are in a state of rapid progress. — 
 Where we to-day find a solitude, to-mor- 
 row may be filled with teeming thousands. 
 One portion of the country from the fertili- 
 ty of its soil and the facilities of internal 
 communication, will attract thousands of 
 emigrants, and another, from its sterility, 
 or the want of other natural advantages, 
 will either remain unoccupied, or be in- 
 habited by a small and scattered popula- 
 tion. In consequence of this peculiarity 
 in our situation, we may with great pro- 
 priety allow territory to influence us some- 
 what in apportioning the senatorial repre- 
 sentation. In proportion as we advance 
 in population this consideration will be en- 
 titled to less weight. In a very few years 
 the fertile districts will be filled up, and the 
 relative increase of population in the dif- 
 ferent country parishes will then be nearly 
 equal. When this is the case, the appor- 
 tionment ought to be based on population: 
 and it is because I entertain these views 
 thatl think the question whether the first 
 apportionment should be made in 1848 or 
 in 1856 is of comparatively little impor- 
 tance. 
 
 It seems that some gentlemen labor un- 
 der a misapprehension as to the time when 
 the apportionment would be made if this 
 amendment were adopted. They suppose 
 it would be ten years after 1855. This 
 is not the fact. The first census is to be 
 made in 1847 and the second in 1855. 
 The apportionment is to be made by the 
 legislature at the session after the census 
 is taken; that is, after that of 1847, in 1848, 
 and again in 1856, after the census of 
 1855. 
 
 The question was then put on the amend- 
 ment of Mr. Downs, and the yeas and 
 nays being asked for, resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Cade, Carriere, Claiborne, Co- 
 villion, Downs, Garrett, Humble, King, 
 McCallop, McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, 
 Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Ratliff, 
 Read, Roman, St. Amand, Scott of Baton 
 Roug®, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of 
 
 St. Landry, Waddill, W ederstrandt, Wikoff 
 and Winchester— -36 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Cenas, Chinn, Conrad of 
 New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, Labauve, Ledoux, Lew- 
 is, Mazureau, Preston, Pugh, Saunders, 
 Sellers, Splane, Trist, Wadsworth and 
 Winder voted in the negative ; so the mo- 
 tion prevaile'cl. 
 
 Mr. Mayo then insisted on his motion 
 being in order — which was to insert the 
 word " white" before the word population, 
 and immediately thereafter three-fifths pi 
 the slaves. 
 
 Mr. Chinn opposes it, because it shuts 
 out all chance of justice to the large par- 
 ishes for at least ten or eleven years. He 
 has asked in vain of this Convention to put 
 his districts on an equality with the others, 
 and unless they give one senator more to 
 Plaquemines and St. Bernard; one senator 
 to Jefferson, and one to West Baton Rouge 
 and Iberville, more than they have, he 
 shall feel bound to vote against the resolu- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Beatty remarked that he was anx- 
 ious on yesterday to have stopped this de- 
 bate, and had for that purpose moved the 
 previous question. 
 
 From the result of the yeas and nays on 
 the motion to adjourn, he was satisfied, that 
 the house was then prepared to sustain 
 him. Some delay, however, unfortunately 
 occurred in commencing the call of the 
 yeas and nays on the previous question' 
 the motion for adjournment was again re- 
 newed and prevailed by a large vote, and 
 to-day, only eleven yeas have been found 
 in a house of sixty, in favor of the previous 
 question. 
 
 And what is the object of this refusal 
 of the house to sustain to-day the previous 
 question? Is it to postpone the new ap- 
 portionment till 1855? Why, Mr. Presi- 
 dent, the very statement of the proposition 
 suffices to show its utter injustice. We 
 have already provided for taking, a census 
 in 1847, and then it is desired that the 
 senate shall not be apportioned by that 
 census, but that the present apportionment 
 shall continue till 1855. Is not this an 
 open confession that the present apportion- 
 ment is unjust and unequal, and that this 
 house is asked to perpetuate this injustice,, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 567 
 
 till a period at which a certain portion of 
 the State believes she will have increased 
 sufficiently in population to be able to re- 
 tain the power which, up to that period, 
 she will have unjustly usurped 1 
 
 From the vote of this house, which has 
 just been taken, he supposes that it is pre- 
 pared to sustain this act of injustice. So 
 let it be: but for my part, Mr. President, 
 it shall never receive the sanction of my 
 vote. I prefer that even a great injustice 
 should be forced upon me, than to enter in- 
 to a compromise by which I give my con- 
 sent to an act of injustice, still though it be 
 of less moment than that which it is sought 
 to inflict on me bv force. So long, then, 
 
 whilst discussing the question of represen- 
 tation in the lower house, but with much 
 more truth. ''This is a solecism in 
 government;" u this is a new spectacle, 
 not hitherto to be found in the history of 
 our country; 5 ' this is really " a deed with- 
 out a name." The idea of basing repre- 
 sentation on a kind of population that has 
 hitherto had no political rights guaranted 
 to them, has at -least the virtue of being a 
 novelty. Now, sir, I would askgentlemen 
 who are in favor of giving this political in- 
 fluence to a favored part of the State, upon 
 what principle do they desire to have their 
 slaves represented, as persons, or as pro- 
 perty? If as properly only, why ask re- 
 
 as this postponement of the new appor- presentation for this particular species of 
 tionment shall be continued in the section, 
 he v for one, should vote against it — even 
 
 if 
 
 the present unequal apportionment should 
 be so modified as to make it less objection- 
 al to him than it now is. 
 
 Mr. Porter cannot consent that the ! 
 vote on this subject should be taken with- ; 
 out emphatically protesting against its poli- 
 cy and injustice. The gentleman that had 
 just taken his seat (Mr. Beatty) had in- j 
 dulged freely in abusing the apportionment 
 in the senate, as established by this house; 
 he has denounced it as monstrous, as un- 
 just, and as odious. And what are the 
 principles which that gentleman and those 
 acting with him are now advocating? Sir, 
 it is representation according to the total 
 population, including slaves and free ne- 
 groes, giving to each negro the same po- 
 litical power, and placing him on the same 
 footing with a white man, as far as the ba- 
 sis of representation is concerned. Now, 
 sir, could there be a more odious proposi- 
 tion? could any man conceive a more odi- 
 ous principle? And yet, sir, this principle 
 is attempted to be thrust into our constitu- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. President — Where are the reasons 
 
 offered in favor of this measi 
 
 property: is not other taxable property 
 equally entitled to representation? or is it 
 because more pf this species of property is 
 1 found in a favored region, according to 
 . the white population, than is found in the 
 other parts of the State: or is there more 
 ; taxes paid on slaves than all other property, 
 or are slaves more permanent or less sub- 
 ject to change than the lands of the coun- 
 j try? Sir, from the report of the treasurer, 
 i now before me, which I will refer to, I 
 find that the whole tax of the State is three 
 hundred and forty-four thousand seven 
 ^hundred and thirty-three dollars; and that 
 i the tax on slaves is only one hundred and 
 I sixty-four thousand nine hundred and forty - 
 1 one dollars; on lands, the taxes are one 
 'hundred and thirty-seven thousand and 
 I nine dollars, slaves paying only twenty- 
 eight thousand dollars more than is paid 
 on lands; and according to the same report 
 the following five parishes have not hith- 
 erto paid any land tax, because they were 
 not, according to the laws of the United 
 States, entitled to pay any, that is, the 
 parish of Franklin, the parish of Claiborne, 
 of Bossier, of Caddo, and of De Soto. 
 Now, sir, it cannot be disputed, that when 
 
 Sir, there I those parishes become liable to land tax, 
 
 has been no good reason offered — there is j (and that will be the case at farthest in on 
 no precedent on record in any of the State j or two years,) that the taxes on lands will 
 governments. I hold in my hand the book amount to more than tjiat on negroes. 
 
 of constitutions, and present it ta gentle- 
 men, and 1 state without fear of contradic- 
 tion, that in the twenty-six constitutions 
 contained in it, such a provision is not to 
 be found. No, sir, it is to be found no- 
 where. It is a novelty. I will adopt the 
 language of gentlemen on the other side, 
 
 Now. sir, I repeat, why is it that slaves, 
 as property, should be represented exclu- 
 sively, and all other species of property be 
 left unprotected. 
 
 It will at once be seen that a large 
 amount of tax is raised from other proper- 
 ty beside land and negroes, for those two 
 
568 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 items only amount to about three hundred 
 thousand dollars; but do gentlemen desire 
 these slaves to be represented as persons? 
 One gentleman insists that an amendment 
 should be made, and that negroes be spe- 
 cifically named, for fear there should be 
 some mistake or misunderstanding about 
 the words total population, and that ne- 
 groes might be left out. Now, sir, if this 
 principle has to be forced on us, I would 
 greatly prefer that they should be called 
 by name — say Tbm, Dick and Harry — 
 and be permitted to come up to the polls 
 and vote. It is stated on this floor, that 
 the white population is decreasing in this 
 favored region, and therefore i suppose it 
 is desired to transfer the political power of 
 that region to the slaves. If this has to be 
 done, I wish them to have a choice in se- 
 lecting their representatives, and I imagine 
 there are many of them would be as apt to 
 select some one else as their masters. But, 
 sir, what is this great and crying injustice 
 which has been committed in this appor- 
 tionment of representation in the senate? 
 It has been basest on the size of the dis- 
 tricts, on its population, and on its taxes, 
 all duly considered and combined. And, 
 sir, I believe it is the best basis, except 
 the qualified voters, (which the gentlemen 
 on the other side objected to.) 
 
 One word as to the inconsistency of the 
 city delegation, in their votes on the sub- 
 ject of representation. Whilst this matter 
 was under consideration, apportioning re- 
 presentation in the lower house, a propo- 
 sition was made to base it on federal num- 
 bers. This principle would give to (say) 
 five thousand negroes the political influence 
 of three thousand white men; whilst the 
 total population gives to each negro the 
 same weight as to a white man. Where 
 stood the city delegation, when the vote on 
 federal numbers was taken? Sir, they stood 
 where they ought to have been — voting in 
 solid phalanx against it. It was then "an- 
 ti-democratic, it was anti-republican," and 
 every thing else that was wrong; but, sir, 
 this was before a coalition was formed be- 
 tween the sugar interests on the coast and 
 the city. I say, sir, before a coalition of 
 opinion had been formed between them. 
 Since then, the city delegation has gene- 
 rally voted en masse; with one honorable 
 exception, I believe that gentleman has, on 
 every occasion, voted a democratic vote. 
 
 There has been one green spot on which 
 to rest the eye. Yesterday, that faded 
 from our sight $ that gentleman went over, 
 and voted with the entire delegation of the 
 city, for total population, a much more 
 objectionable principle than federal num- 
 bers. But, sir, I am rejoiced to hear that 
 gentleman (Mr. Preston) give notice to- 
 day, that he will ask a reconsideration of 
 that vote, and that he will vote in favor of 
 the basis being qualified electors. The 
 gentleman shall not vote alone; mine shall 
 stand recorded with him. I am truly glad 
 I that the gentleman has determined to 
 change his vote. I did not wish to see his 
 name on the black list. Sir, it seems 
 strange that in a State, having so many 
 slaves, and them not equally distributed 
 over it, that they should be made the basis 
 of our institutions. Sir, by reference to 
 the tables before me, I see that there is a 
 white population of only one hundred and 
 fifty-three thousand and a fraction ; and 
 that there is of slaves, one hundred and 
 sixty-five thousand, and of people of color, 
 twenty-five thousand; making a large ma- 
 jority of slaves over the white population. 
 Representation established on such a basis, 
 must be unequal and unjust. I would be 
 willing to meet gentlemen by way of com- 
 promise, 011 the principles above stated — 
 territory, population and taxes. I do hope, 
 sir, this new system will not be adopted. 
 
 Mr. M. Taylor said he disliked much 
 to again trouble the house on the subject 
 before it, but as he felt anxious that the 
 substitute offered by him should pass, he 
 wished, if possible, to remove from the 
 minds of members the erroneous impres- 
 sions under which he thought they were 
 laboring. 
 
 What are we now attempting to do? Is 
 it not to provide for the future and periodi- 
 cal apportionment of the senatorial repre- 
 sentation among the different portions of 
 the State, and to establish a rule in accord' 
 ance with which that apportionment shall 
 be made? Certainly it is. The original 
 proposition provided that these apportion- 
 ments should be made in 1848, in 1856, 
 and every ten years thereafter. This pro- 
 position has been amended so that no ap- 
 portionment will be made in 1848; and 
 now because it is so amended, gentlemen 
 who are in favor of providing for future ap- 
 portionments, and establishing a basis on 
 
 \ 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana 
 
 569 
 
 which they shall be made, declare that another one, which shall be more equal, 
 they will vote against the substitute. They If we do that, the objection made by the 
 will do so, they say, because the present friends of the original proposition will be 
 apportionment is unequal and unjust, and : entirely obviated. But however that may 
 they cannot consent that it should remain be, I must (said Mr. T.) remind gentlemen 
 unchanged for ten years, These gentle- that if they are in favor of the principle of 
 men are in error. There is now no ap- ; the substitute, the-^eught notto vote against 
 portionment. The one to which they al- it as amended, on the ground that the ap- 
 lude, and which they condemn so loudly, portionment which we are to make may 
 has been rejected by this house, and is as be unequal. They should now vote for it, 
 though it had never been. The house has and then unite with me to make an equal 
 already decided that no apportionment shall i and fair apportionment. If such an one is 
 be made in 1848, and the question we are not made, they can always vote against 
 about to decide is this : Shall there be an jihe substitute by voting against the whole 
 apportionment of senators in 1856, and section. 
 
 every ten years thereafter, in conformity If we decide that representation in the 
 to an established rule, or shall there be no senate shall be apportioned at stated pe- 
 future apportionment of them at ail? If riods. and adopt a proper rule Tor making 
 the house rejects the substitute as amend- ihe apportionments, we shall not only have 
 ed, (and it will be very likely to do so, if established an important principle, but we 
 gentlemen vote against it, merely because shall get rid of many of tne difficulties 
 the principle involved in it* does not take which embarrass us in making an appor- 
 effect at as early a day as they desire,) tionment at this time. As for myself (said 
 then we shall have no future apportionment Mr. T.) I shall be consistent in my course, 
 of senators at all. For my own part, I I am in favor of the principle involved in 
 think that the organization of the senate the substitute, and shall vote for it as amend* 
 in our present constitution is radically de- ed. Afterwards I shall vote in accordance 
 fective, and that that particular department with the dictates of my judgment, upon the 
 of the government stands more in need of various propositions relative to the present 
 reform than any other. The greatest de- . apportionment of the senate, with the sin- 
 fect in the organization of that body it is gle view T of making it fair and equal. Up- 
 the object of this substitute to remedy. Xo on this subject (said Mr. T.) I must eon- 
 matter how equal the apportionment we fess I feel great anxiety, for I am persuaded 
 now make may be. if the districts be per- that upon the reform effected in the sena- 
 manent, the representation will soon be- torial branch of the legislature, will in a 
 come unequal Situated as we are, with great degree depend the fate of the consti- 
 a great variety of soil and climate, and with tution itself. 
 
 advantages in some sections of country for The delegate from Caddo (Mr. Porter) 
 the establishment of manufactures, and in alluded to the course of the New Orleans 
 others for the growth of trade, this is in- delegation on this subject, and charged 
 evitable. We must apportion the senato- them with inconsistency. I do not (said 
 rial representation of the State. This Mr. T.) agree with that gentleman in opin- 
 cannot be avoided. The inequalities in ion. When the house was engaged in 
 the existing districts are too great. They fixing on a basis for the apportionment, of 
 must be removed. If the apportionment representatives in the house of representa- 
 we agree on is unequal, and vre adopt the tives, they voted against federal numbers 
 substitute, the inequality can be corrected ! and total population, and in favor of the 
 in ten years. If it be equal, it will afford a electoral basis. The house of representa- 
 meansfor removing inequalities which may tives is the popular branch of the legisla- 
 result hereatter from the varying progress ture, and the basis for apportioning repre- 
 ot improvement and population in the dif- sentation in it, ought, beyond all doubt, to 
 ferent parts of the State. be the electors. The senate is a very dif- 
 
 As I said betore, no apportionment is in ferent body. It is of an entirely different 
 existence. The one made was rejected, character, and is created for a very differ- 
 The whole subject is within the power of ent object. It is designed to act as a check 
 the house. S e cam and I trust will, make | upon the lower house, in order to prevent 
 
570 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 hasty and improper legislation, and any 
 basis for the apportionment of representa- 
 tion in that branch, may with propriety be 
 adopted which is calculated to secure the 
 attainment of that object. 
 
 Mr. Eustis of New Orleans, rose and 
 said, 
 
 Mr. President: I have been for nearly 
 two months a silent observer of what has 
 been passing in the Convention, on the 
 subject of the legislative apportionment, 
 and I should not deviate from . the rule 
 which I had prescribed to myself of not 
 interfering in the discussion, except when, 
 the interests of New Orleans were direct- 
 ly to be affected, were it not apparent that 
 we had reached a point beyond which we 
 cannot advance, and from which we must 
 retrograde if the motion of the honorable 
 delegate from West Baton Rouge prevails. 
 I beg of the Convention to look back on 
 what is passed, and to* take a lesson of 
 wisdom from experience. 
 
 There is no one, either in the Conven- 
 tion or out of it, who will give himself the_ 
 trouble to reflect for an instant, who will 
 not be satisfied that no apportionment, at 
 all satisfactory, can be made on the exclu- 
 sively arbitrary plan the Convention has 
 been for the last fortnight pursuing. We 
 have been vacillating from error to error, 
 from confusion to confusion, until finally, 
 the result has been infinitely more un- 
 satisfactory than either of the projets on 
 your table; and in all probability, we should 
 come to a better conclusion if the whole 
 subject were considered as res nova. We 
 are all anxious to advance, but an insur- 
 mountable obstacle is in our way. We 
 have begun wrong. Let us repair the er- 
 ror. It is certain — and every body knows 
 it who has witnessed our hitherto fruitless 
 efforts — that no apportionment at all satis- 
 factory can be made without a basis of re- 
 presentation. If the basis be fixed, the 
 apportionment follows of itself, and can be 
 made in twenty minutes. Can it be pos- 
 sible that in a Convention, composed of 
 seventy-seven men chosen from among 
 the people of this State, for their wisdom 
 and experience, that the suggestions of the 
 venerable delegate from St. Landry (Mr. 
 Lewis) will be unheeded ? 
 
 Mr. Chinn rose, and said that he would 
 remove, the difficulty, by withdrawing his 
 motion. He by no means wished to re- 
 
 tard the business of the Convention, nor 
 did he apprehend, when he made it, that 
 it would have any such # effect ; but as lie 
 perceives it may tend to produce such a re- 
 sult, he withdraws his motion, having every 
 desire to facilitate and accelerate the pub- 
 lic business. 
 
 Mr. Eustis expressed himself much 
 gratified that the honorable delegate from 
 West Baton Rouge had so promptly re- 
 moved the difficulty in the way of our pro- 
 gress, and had but one word to add — one 
 favor to ask — that the sense of the Con- 
 vention be now taken on the vexed ques- 
 tion of the basis. This once fixed, the 
 apportionment can be adjusted in a manner 
 which will be satisfactory to the Conven- 
 tion and tile people. But this day ought 
 not to pass— the Convention ought not to 
 adjourn — without determining on the prin- 
 ciple, without the establishment of which, 
 the Convention cannot advance one step ; 
 all future labor and discussion will only 
 lead to endless and senseless confusion. 
 
 Mr. Wadswosth said that in contending 
 that lower Louisiana was entitled to four 
 more senators, he did hot say they should 
 be taken from the Red River parishes, but 
 that New Orleans was entitled to five more 
 senators than she was allowed; therefore 
 in what she was restricted, the parishes 
 contiguous to her ought to receive the 
 benefit of, and that would only place them 
 on a footing of equality. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne withdrew his motion to 
 reconsider, and moved the previous ques- 
 tion. 
 
 The President then put the question, 
 "shall the main question be adopted," and 
 the yeas and nays being called for, resulted 
 as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Brent, Brumfield, Car- 
 riere, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson* Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, 
 Guion, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, 
 M'Callop, Mazureau, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Sellers, Splane, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist,Voorhies>- 
 "Wadsworth, Winchester and Winder— 44 
 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Burton, Cade, Garrett, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Itewis McRae, Mayo, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 571 
 
 O'Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Ratliff, 
 Read, Scott of Madison, Stephens, Waddfll; 
 Wederstrandt and Wikoff — 22 nays ; so 
 the motion prevailed. 
 
 And then on motion, the question was 
 taken on the substitute offered by Mr. Tay- 
 lor, and amended by the delegate from 
 Ouachita, (Mr. Downs.) and resulted as 
 follows : . . 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Brent, Cade, Camere,Cenas,.Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Culberlson, Derbes, Downs, 
 Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, Kenner, 
 Kinz, Labauve, McCallop, Mazureau, O'- 
 Bryan, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Rose- 
 lius, St. Amand, Scott of Baton Roiige, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, 
 Splane, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Trist, Voorhies, Winchester 
 and Winder — 40 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Conrad of Jefferson, Dunn, Huds- 
 peth, Humble, Legendre, Lewis, McRae, 
 Mayo, Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Ratliff, Read, Saunders, Stephens, Wad- 
 dill, Wads worth, Wederstrandt and Wikoff 
 — 26 nays ; so the substitute as amended, 
 was adopted. 
 
 While the vote was being taken, 
 
 Mr. Chinn remarked that though he 
 voted for the substitute, he should vote 
 against the whole section, as injustice'was 
 done to his parish. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan said he voted in the affir- 
 mative, because he regarded it as a com- 
 promise. 
 
 Mr. Peets could not see that any thing 
 had been conceded, and therefore he should 
 vote, nay. 
 
 Mr. Penn remarked that he could not 
 and would not vote for any clause winch 
 contained such a principle as the one un- 
 der consideration, viz : to take the slave 
 population as a part of the basis of rep- 
 resentation. He should not only vote 
 against it now, but he would vote against 
 any constitution containing that principle 
 in it. 
 
 Mr. Wederstrandt said he could not 
 vote for the proposition — the views ex- 
 pressed by the honorable delegate from 
 St. Tammany, met his approbation, and 
 consequently he would vote against the 
 proposition, Total population was not his 
 
 favorite basis. His favorite basis was that 
 of qualified electors. Principle was his 
 compass, and his determination was to 
 adhere to principle. 
 
 Mr. Brazeale then moved the adoption 
 of the section as amended.' 
 
 Mr. Preston moved to amend the sec- 
 tion by striking out "one."' and inserting 
 "two" senators for the parish of Jefferson. 
 
 Mr. Dunn expressed himself surprised 
 at some of the arguments of the gentleman 
 from New .Orleans, (Mr. Benjamin) al- 
 though he agreed with him in the main. He 
 (Mr. D.) had voted against the apportion- 
 ment, because he conceived it unjust. Why 
 should we wait ten years before making a 
 new apportionment, instead of taking the 
 data we can. get in two? If we do make 
 another apportionment in 1848, it is very 
 clear to his (Mr. D.'s) mind, that the sena- 
 tors to be taken off will be from the north- 
 western parishes instead of the Florida 
 parishes. W^hat sense, then, is there in 
 establishing a rule, and at the same time 
 saying that it shall be postponed for ten 
 years, unless it be an arbitrary one? Is 
 this the work we are to put forth to the 
 world as the result of our deliberations? 
 
 The President called Mr. Dunn to or- 
 der for irrelevancy. 
 
 Mr. Dunn — Pardon me, Mr. President; 
 I am perfectly in order. I am endeavoring 
 to show that we are bound in justice to 
 allow two senators to the parish of Jeffer- 
 son; and the question we are now consid- 
 ering is on the motion to that effect. He 
 (Mr. D.) is satisfied she has not had jus- 
 tice done to her, nor has the second muni- 
 cipality, nor the district composed of West 
 Baton Rouge and Iberville. But the ques- 
 tion raised about taking one senator from 
 the Florida parishes, to make up for the in- 
 justice done to those districts, he is posi- 
 tively opposed to ; because that woidd be 
 adding injustice to injustice ; for those par- 
 ishes have nothing which they are not 
 clearly entitled to. He thinks there is an 
 easier mode to remedy the evil. We have 
 adopted the rule for our basis, and that is 
 total population; now let us determine what 
 shall be the number of senators — say thir- 
 ty-two, thirty-four or thirty-eight? That 
 done, appoint a committee to make a fair 
 apportionment on that basis, and in twenty 
 minutes the work can be accomplished. 
 Any other mode by which we may proceed 
 
572 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 will be arbitrary; it will create dissatisfac- 
 tion, and will operate fatally against the 
 ratification of the constitution itself. He 
 therefore hopes it will be first determined 
 what shall be the number of senators, 
 
 Mr. Wadswokth said, by an increase 
 of four, justice might be done to every par- 
 ish. 
 
 Mr. Read remarked that on examining 
 the tables, he found that Jefferson was not 
 entitled to two senators, taking total popu- 
 lation as the basis. After deducting one 
 hundred and two thousand one hundred and 
 ninety-five, for the city of New Orleans, it 
 leaves a population of two hundred and 
 thirty-eight thousand nine hundred and 
 eighty-one, for the balance of the State. 
 Now, deducting four senatorsfor New Or- 
 leans, it would leave thirty remaining, 
 which would be about seven thousand as 
 the average for each senator. Now, the 
 population of Jefferson is about ten thou- 
 sand, and if she be entitled to two senators, 
 surely West Feliciana with ten thousand 
 nine hundred and ten. East Feliciana with 
 eleven thousand eight hundred and fifty- 
 three, St. John the Baptist and St. Charles 
 with ten thonsand two hundred and seven- 
 ty-six* are equally entitled to two senators. 
 
 Mr. Conrad contended that Mr. Dunn 
 was in error, in saying that no rule had 
 been adhered to in the apportionment; for 
 the rule had been strictly observed in all 
 the river parishes, in the Lafourche and 
 Attakapas districts, and even as far as 
 Point Coupee, and. had not been departed 
 from until we came to the Florida parish- 
 es ; and when we got into the north-west- 
 ern parishes, all rules whatever had been 
 departed from. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved an adjournment, and 
 the Convention adjourned until to-morrow 
 at 10 o'clock. 
 
 [In the yeas and nays, in the report of 
 debates of Tuesday last, April 1 — upon 
 Mr. Lewis' amendment to add to the words 
 'total population" "and territory equally," 
 as the basis of apportionment for the sen- 
 ate — the name of the mover of the amend- 
 ment, Mr. Lewis, was placed, by error, 
 among the nays. It should have been 
 among the yeas.— Kerr, Rep.} 
 
 Thursday, April 3, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment, and its proceedings were opened 
 with prayer, 
 
 The following resolutions of Mr. Beatty 
 which were ordered yesterday to lie on the 
 table, were taken up. 
 
 "Resolved? That all motions to lay on 
 the table subject to call, be decided without 
 debate." 
 
 "Resolved, That when the previous Ques- 
 tion be asked and be maintained by the 
 Convention, the vote shall be taken on all 
 the amendments that may be offered, with- 
 out debate." 
 
 Mr. Beatty said he did not design to 
 make a speech and would merely remark, 
 that experience had fully tested the neces- 
 sity for these rules. It was impossible 
 to make any progress unless they were 
 adopted. " 
 
 Mr. Downs proposed to amend, by in- 
 serting "subject to call." 
 
 Mr. Beatty objected to this amend- 
 ment. It was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Katliff and C. M. Conrad op- 
 posed these rules, on the ground that they 
 were useless, and would not effect the pur- 
 pose designed. They were adopted, 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Sec. 10. Art. 2-.-— Apportionment of the 
 Senate. 
 
 The question pending at the adjourn- 
 ment yesterday, was the motion to allow 
 one senatorJx) the parish of Jefferson. 
 
 Mr. Brent said thai the proposition be- 
 fore the house, was to give an additional 
 senator to the parish of Jefferson. His 
 course in relation to this matter would de- 
 pend materially upon the action taken in 
 relation to the section under debate. He 
 was willing to concede one senator more 
 to lower Louisiana, provided the apportion- 
 ment in the section was not disturbed. Or, 
 he was willing to take one senator from the 
 north-west, at any point the Convention 
 should think just and proper, and not in. 
 crease the number already apportioned- 
 He did not rise so much to debate the in= 
 dividual proposition immediately before the 
 house, as for the purpose of explaining a 
 few facts in relation to the section rejected 
 by this body. We have heard a great deal 
 about the inequity of this apportionment; it 
 has been denounced in unmeasured lan- 
 guage, and we have been told, over and 
 over again, that it is without a redeeming 
 trait— a kind of gun-powder plot concocted 
 in the north-west, designed to devastate the 
 whole of lower Louisiana, and to involve it 
 in one widespread and general ruin. It 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 573 
 
 is easv to make assertions. Gentlemen 
 can assert any thing; it costs nothing. But 
 do they furnish us with proof to substan- 
 tiate these assertions ? Have they shown 
 by substantial proof that this appor- 
 tionment is unjust and iniquitous, as has 
 so freely been charged. I have not (said 
 Mr. Brent) seen any such proofs. The 
 two delegates from New Orleans, who ad- 
 dressed the Convention yesterday, descant- 
 ed upon the flagitious injustice that had 
 been visited upon the devoted head of New 
 Orleans. This was the old theme, the old 
 song, and there was as much foundation 
 for the complaints of the New Orleans del- 
 egation on the present occasion as in past 
 instances. What injustice, I would ask, 
 has been done to the city of New Orleans? 
 Where is the oppression so vehemently 
 complained of]' has any injustice been 
 done to New Orleans in her representation 
 to the lower house ? is there any injustice 
 in the apportionment there ! I understand 
 not! ■ She is admitted to a perlect equality 
 in the popular branch, although the neces- 
 sity and propriety of restricting her was 
 admitted by her own delegates, notwith- 
 standing the explicit admission emanating 
 from one of her delegates. Yet no restric- 
 tion has been placed upon her— she is ad- 
 mitted to a perfect equality with the balance 
 of the State I Is there here any tyranny ? 
 any injustice ? Surely not ? Let us now see 
 how the matter of complaint stands in rela- 
 tion to the apportionment under debate. 
 The section under consideration allows 
 four senators to the city, and distributes 
 them among the three municipalities. Is 
 there any injustice in this ? has she not 
 been awarded all that she was justly enti- 
 tled to? has she not received what, she 
 asked for, and there is no danger that she 
 will- suffer from the want of asking. If she 
 has got all she asked for, can they object 
 that this apportionment has not conceded 
 enough] Where then is the injustice, in 
 distribution? ttfcy, that was made at 
 the instance of one^F her own delegates. 
 If there was any injustice in it, any oppres- 
 sion, it originated with the city/ It was 
 not concocted in the fourth district, but it 
 was at the instance of one of the represen- 
 tatives of the city. 
 
 But we are told that the city has no re- 
 presentation in the house of representa. 
 :ives to represent the whole city, by reason 
 1 73 * 
 
 of its division into districts, and that this 
 principle is applied to the senate. Will 
 not four senators represent the city with 
 more truth and fidelity if taken from the 
 local districts than if elected by general 
 ticket? Will they not reflect more imme- 
 diately the will of the constituent body? 
 At any rate the same objection migjbt have 
 been urged against the division of the 
 county of Attakapas. and some other 
 sections that have been divided into*sev~ 
 eral senatorial districts. The county of 
 Attakapas has been divided into two sena- 
 torial districts — the parishes of St. Mary 
 and St. Martin, entitled to two senators; 
 and the parishes of Lafayette and Vermill- 
 ion entitled to one senator. The same 
 thing may be said of the county of Rapides, 
 and will it be pretended that they have no 
 representation in the senate because they 
 are not represented as an unit. It might 
 as well be said that there is no represen- 
 tation for the whole State of Louisiana! 
 This is the first time that I have heard 
 that because the representatives are chosen 
 by local districts, and not by genera,! ticket 
 throughout the State, they are not to be' 
 considered as speaking the voice of the 
 people of the whole State ! 
 
 But, Mr. President, an allusion has been 
 made to the fact of the removal of the seat 
 of government from the city. It is said that 
 a spirit of proscription is exhibited towards 
 New Orleans. I voted for the removal o 
 the seat of government; but I never con- 
 ceived that such a construction could be. 
 placed upon it= I thought that measure 
 important— that it was called for by the 
 soundest considerations of public policy— I 
 think so still-. The seat of government 
 should not be held amid the huriy burly of 
 a great commercial city : This opinion 
 has been entertained by the greatest states- 
 men. And we find abundant precedent in 
 the example set us by our sister cities. In 
 the State of New York, the seat of gov- 
 ernment is not placed in her large com* 
 mercial metropolis, but in the interior, at 
 Albany. In Pennsylvania, the seat of gov- 
 ernment is not at Philadelphia, but at Har= 
 risburg. The seat of the federal govern^ 
 ment has not been placed in a large eorm 
 mercial city, but in a barren heath where 
 a large commercial city can never exist. 
 It was not to proscribe the city of New 
 Orleans that the seat of government has 
 
574 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 been removed, but because it was deemed 
 more prudent, more wise, to remove it 
 beyond the influence that surround a large 
 city. I cannot conceive how that measure 
 can reasonably give any just cause of um- 
 brage to the citizens of New Orleans. 
 Suppose the Convention were to provide 
 that the seat of government should be lo- 
 cated within the radius of twenty miles of 
 the centre of the State, would that be a 
 slur upon any portion of the State not em- 
 braced within that radius ? I apprehend 
 not ! The clamor that has been raised 
 has no just foundation whatever. 
 
 We were told yesterday that if the sec- 
 tion was adopted, and if the distribution of 
 the four senators were insisted upon, the 
 city of New Orleans would vote en masse 
 against the new constitution. This threat 
 has taken the place of the threat of revo- 
 lution, which at an early stage of our 
 proceedings, was so frequently repeated. 
 Gentlemen have become more peaceable— 
 they only threaten us with the rejection of 
 our labors. As to its being rejected, the 
 wish is farther to the thought. But if it is 
 to be rejected., it will not be upon that 
 ground. If the city is to be placed in a hos- 
 tile attitude upon the question of its appro- 
 val or rejection —if a line of demarkation 
 is to be drawn between the city and coun- 
 try upon that issue, it will be found that the 
 city of New Orleans does not yet occupy 
 the same position that Richelieu held to 
 France. It will be found that New Or- 
 leans is not the State ! The same causes 
 that may induce the city to coalesce will 
 induce the country to coalesce. What will 
 the five thousand voters of the city do 
 againts the twenty thousand voters of the 
 country ? I hope that the gentlemen will 
 forego their threat of rejection of the con- 
 stitution by the city. 
 
 But, Mr. President, let us look at some 
 facts connected with the present appor- 
 tionment. A great outcry has been raised 
 against it. The public press has denoun- 
 ced it as the concentration of all that is in- 
 iquitous. The development of a few facts 
 will show that the political power has been 
 divided with remarkable accuracy, when 
 it is considered that we have proceeded 
 without any fixed basis in making the ap- 
 portionment. The house has since decided 
 upon a basis. They have taken for a ba- 
 sis the total population. Let us take that 
 
 basis and examine and see whether justice 
 has not been done to what is called lower 
 Louisiana. Let us see whether justice has 
 not been meted out in the aggregate. It 
 may be true that some of the parishes may 
 not have received their exact proportion. 
 But it will be found — taking the appor- 
 tionment as a whole upon a reference to 
 the statistics before us' — that almost exact 
 justice has been done to every section of 
 the State — as near an approach to justice 
 as was possible. To the city of New Or- 
 leans four senators have been apportioned. 
 It is conceded all around that the city 
 should not be allowed a full representation 
 under any basis that may be established, 
 No one disputes that point. The city has 
 been allowed her full representation in the 
 popular branch, and by general assent it 
 has been deemed proper to place the res- 
 triction upon her in the senate. The city 
 had, according to the census, a population 
 of ninety-eight thousand three hundred and 
 twenty-four souls, exclusive of that portion 
 of the parish of Orleans on the west bank. 
 If we deduct ninety-eight thousand three 
 hundred and twenty- four from the first and 
 second congressional districts — and I make 
 the deduction from these congressional dis- 
 tricts rather than from the remaining por- 
 tion of the State out of the city, because we 
 have beard so much clamor raised that cer- 
 tain districts were favored over other dis- 
 tricts — we find the remainder to be sixty- 
 thousand two hundred and ninety-three 
 souls. I would remark that if we deduct 
 the population of the city from the to- 
 tal population of the whole State and give 
 the city four senators, and then divide the 
 remaining portion by thirty, to ascertain 
 the representative number to entitle a dis- 
 trict to a senator, it will be seen that eight 
 thousand is the representative number: — 
 After deducting the city of New Orleans 
 from the first and second congressional 
 districts, their population, sixty thousand 
 two hundred and rfhety-three, would 
 entitle them, assuming eight thousand 
 as the divisor, they to seven senators, 
 The apportionment gives them that num- 
 ber. They are entitled to it, and they 
 have it. Let us see how the apportion- 
 ment stands in the third congressional dis- 
 trict. The population of that district is 
 placed at ninety-four thousand five hundred 
 and twenty. They are entitled to eleven 
 
Debates in the Convention ot Louisiana. 
 
 575 
 
 senators, and they have them. Is there 
 any thing unjust in allowing them 
 that representation? It is demonstrated 
 that they are entitled to it upon the basis 
 that has since been adopted. We now 
 come to the fourth congressional district. 
 We find that her population is ninety-one 
 thousand two hundred and forty-one. She 
 is not strictly speaking entitled to eleven 
 senators, but she is entitled to ten, and 
 Qias a fraction remaining of three thousand 
 two hundred and forty-one. This fraction 
 may not be large enough to entitle her to 
 another senator. Well then take it away 
 and there will be as exact a distribution of 
 political power, as far as the State goes, as 
 is possible. Add the senator taken away 
 to lower Louisiana, and a perfect equality 
 in conformity with the basis is reached. 
 This equality might be attained by retain- 
 ing the senator in the fourth district and 
 adding one senator more to the second con- 
 j gressional district. But it would be fairer 
 to take that senator from the fourth district 
 and give him to the second district. That 
 would be the most proper course. 
 
 But it may be said that we should not 
 deduct the population of the city from the 
 first' and second congressional districts. 
 That these districts are entitled to the ex- 
 cess of population after the allotment of 
 the four senators to the city. I object to 
 this. It is an exception from the rule that 
 the city should be restricted in one branch 
 of the legislature that is neither just nor 
 safe. If the excess of population in the 
 city is to be spread over the contiguous 
 parishes, it will have a similar effect — it 
 would be just as well, and infinitely more 
 air — to take off the restriction, and let the 
 :ity have directly the full representation to 
 which she is entitled. If the city can 
 :laim, and the balance of the State con- 
 cede to her the right to have that represen- 
 ation, it would be better to give it to her 
 han that it should enure to the exclusive 
 jenefit of the surrounding country. If the 
 exception is to be carried out and the city 
 ■s not to have her full representation in the 
 •enate, then the excess over and above the 
 ^.presentation allowed her in that branch 
 .f the legislature should not be taken 
 nto consideration at all, but the ap- 
 ortionment in the country should be made 
 pon the principle of perfect equality. It 
 hould be borne in mind that a laro- e m {. 
 
 nority of this body think that the appor- 
 tionment ought to be made upon the basis 
 of qualified electors. If we compare the 
 first and second congressional districts in 
 reference to the basis of qualified electors, 
 we find (taking the vote at the last 
 presidential election as our guide,) that the 
 first and second congressional districts gave 
 ten thousand votes, the third and fourth 
 congressional districts sixteen thousand 
 votes, showing an excess of six thousand 
 votes in favor of the latter districts.-— 
 Whether one consider then population or 
 electors, it is apparent that substantial jus- 
 tice has been meted out. In some par- 
 ticular instances, some parishes may have 
 obtained greater representation than they 
 were entitled to; but others in the same 
 section have obtained less, and therefore 
 impartial justice in reference to the various 
 sections lias been done. It is impossible 
 to obtain a perfect equality in the senatorial 
 representation of the several parishes. But 
 the political power has been divided with 
 remarkable equality — with as much equal- 
 ity as was attainable. I will concur that 
 one senator be taken from the north-west 
 and transferred to lower Louisiana, if by 
 that means the question can be definitely 
 settled. 
 
 Mr*. Benjamin moved to postpone for 
 the present the motion under dfseussion, in 
 order to examine what portion of the State 
 shall be curtailed of a part of their senato- 
 rial representation. Adopted. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to limit the num- 
 ber of senators to thirty-two. 
 
 Mr. Porter proposed thirty-three. If 
 the number were fixed at thirty-two (said 
 Mr. Porter) it would facilitate the settle- 
 ment of this question. The north-western 
 parishes were willing to relinquish one 
 senator for the purpose of effecting a com- 
 promise, and that was all that they ought: 
 to be asked to concede. Thirty-three was 
 one third of the number allotted to the house 
 of representatives. 
 
 Mr. Saunders hoped that the motion to 
 place the number at thirty-three would not - 
 prevail. In expressing this hope he would 
 beff leave to call the attention of the Con- 
 vention to a few facts. After a careful ex- 
 animation of the whole subject, his mind 
 had come to a definite conclusion, based 
 upon data which he would submit, in con- 
 nection with a few remarks, to the consid- 
 
570 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 eration of the house. If the number is fix- 
 ed at thirty-two, there will be no difficulty. 
 The population of the State, excluding the 
 city, was two hundred and fifty thousand. 
 He would not enter into the calculations 
 submitted by the delegate from Rapides, 
 (Mr. Brent) because they were not appli- 
 cable. Taking thirty-two as the number 
 of senators, and deducting four senators for 
 the city, twenty-eight would remain for the 
 country. That would give nine thousand 
 as" the representative number; and assum- 
 ing the whole population as the basis, the 
 dividend nine thousand would give to the 
 country parishes twenty-eight senators. 
 
 I have (said Mr. Saunders) in the next 
 place divided the State into two classes; 
 into the parishes, the representation of 
 which is contested, and the parishes in 
 which there is no contest. Those that 
 are not contested, may he assumed as a 
 fair basis for those that are contested. 
 The Florida district, the Rapides district, 
 the Attakapas district, and the Opelousas 
 district, are not contested. The parishes 
 extending from New Orleans to Iberville, 
 and which have a similarity of interests, 
 have three senators; to wit, St. Charles and 
 St. John Baptist, one senator; St. James 
 and Ascension two senators. St, James 
 and Ascension are deficient, but with the 
 fraction from St. Charles ana St. John 
 •Baptist, they are entitled to two senatois. 
 The Florida parishes have a total popula- 
 tion of forty-three thousand; they are al- 
 lowed a representative for forty-five thou- 
 sand; the difference between that represen- 
 tation and what they are entitled to is 
 quite insignificant. The same results are 
 found in the -Lafourche district, the St. 
 Landry district and the Attakapas district, 
 with the exception in- the latter, that La- 
 fayette and Vermillion are somewhat defi- 
 cient to be entitled to a senator, but the dif- 
 ference is so small as to be immaterial. 
 The district of Avoyelles is deficient, but 
 then the district of Rapides has more than 
 ■the requisite number, and her excess makes 
 up for tke deficiency of Avoyelles. Madi- 
 son and Concordia are entitled to one sen- 
 ator, and have over and above a fraction. 
 It has been allowed them. We now come 
 to the contested districts. The parishes 
 of Plaquemines and St. Bernard, with that 
 portion of the parish of Orleans on the 
 west bank, have a total population of eleven 
 
 thousand nine hundred and eighty -nine; 
 they are entitled to one senator, and have 
 a fraction of two thousand nine hundred 
 and eighty-nine; too small a fraction to 
 entitle them to another senator. It must 
 be borne in mind that the parish of Pla- 
 quemines, with a total population of four 
 thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, 
 has been allowed three representatives in 
 the popular branch, which she is not enti- 
 tled to. That should put to rest all oppo- 
 sition on her part to the apportionment, 
 The parish of Jefferson has a total popula- 
 tion of ten thousand four hundred and sev. 
 enty; that entitles her to one senator, and 
 she has a fraction of one thousand foui 
 hundred and seventy. This is not worth 
 cavilling about. The county of Iberville 
 has a surplus of about four thousand seven 
 hundred over and above the one senator 
 allowed, and if any thing were given, it 
 would seem that that district has the best 
 claims to an increase. The parish of 
 West Baton Rouge has increased greatly 
 in population; a large stream of population 
 has for some time been setting towards .that 
 parish. Hut I am in favor of maintaining 
 the apportionment, even there as it is. We 
 now come to the north-western parishes, 
 to wit; Natchitoches, Ouachita, Sabine, 
 De Soto, Caldwell, Caddo,Claiborne, Bos- 
 sier, Morehouse, Union, Catahoula, Frank- 
 lin and Jackson; thirteen parishes contain- 
 ing thirty-nine thousand two hundred and 
 twenty-nine souls. They are allowed by 
 the apportionment seven senators, when 
 they in fact are entitled to but four, with a 
 fraction of three thousand . two hundred 
 and twenty-nine. Strictly speaking, we 
 would be authorized to withdraw three 
 senators. But we only insist upon with- 
 drawing two; we concede one more sena- 
 tor than they can lay claim to, by the basis 
 of their population when compared with 
 the population of the other parishes of the 
 State. We give nothing to the parish of 
 Jefferson, and nothing to the county of 
 Iberville, although both have an excess of 
 population over and above the one senator 
 allotted to them respectively. Is there 
 any thing unfair in the distribution of the 
 representation to the north-western parish- 
 es, or any thing that can give them proper 
 cause of complaint? But it is urged that 
 they have increased in population since 
 1840, We give them one senator more 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 577 
 
 than they are entitled to, taking the census 
 of 1840 as our guide, and should not that 
 satisfy them? But, if they have increased 
 in population, have not the other parishes 
 of the State likewise increased their popu- 
 lation? Population has been taken as the 
 basis, and assuming the census of 1840 as 
 indicating the population of the several pa- 
 rishes, it is demonstrable that the repre- 
 sentation has been made with remarkable 
 fairness, with the exception of the north- 
 western parishes. They are entitled to 
 four senators; we have given them seven. 
 We do not propose to take away three 
 senators, but to take away two. With 
 that correction, we reduce the number of 
 senators to thirty-two, and the distribution 
 is then as equal as it possibly can be made. 
 
 Mr. Porter had one remark to make: 
 the parishes of De Soto, Caddo, Sabine, 
 Bossier and Claiborne, had increased very 
 largely in population. The census of 1840 
 afforded no criterion of their population. 
 They had just come into existence. The 
 parishes of Caddo and De Soto had doub- 
 led. The first land sales look place in 
 
 1839 and 1840. It was doing these parish- 
 es great injustice to assume the census of 
 
 1840 as (he basis of distribution. He was 
 willing however, in order to settle the con- 
 troversy, to yield a good deal to the spirit 
 of compromise. He would consent to re- 
 linquish one senator. That was meeting 
 the gentleman half way, and he conceived 
 that that ought to be a sufficient conces- 
 sion. 
 
 Mr. Saunders: 1 am willing to meet the 
 gentleman thus far. I am influenced alone 
 by the lights before me, without favor or 
 prejudice to this or that section of the 
 country. I am willing that it be provided 
 \ that a census be taken next year, and upon 
 that census the apportionment shall be 
 made by the legislature.- The house have 
 determined that instead of indivisible dis- 
 tricts, there shall be apportionments at sta- 
 ted periods, and upon these apportion- 
 ments the senatorial representation shall be 
 made. The proposition of the delegate 
 from Lafourche, (Mr. Taylor) provided 
 that the apportionment to fix the senatorial 
 representation should be made at the same 
 time as the apportionment for the house 
 of representatives. The delegate from 
 Ouachita (Mr. Downs) offered an amend- 
 ment that the repartition for the senate, in- 
 
 / 
 
 stead of being made in 1848, should be 
 postponed until 1855. If the north-west- 
 ern parishes received by this apportion- 
 ment two senators more than they were 
 entitled to, it is very evident that it is to 
 their interest to postpone the apportion- 
 ment by the legislature until a remote pe- 
 riod; for in the mean while they will have 
 the additional political power confered 
 upon them by two senators, and will have 
 a further time for the increase of their po- 
 pulations. Should the withdrawal of the 
 two senators produce an inequality, which 
 I do not believe, its effects will be but tem- 
 porary, if the delegate from Ouachita (Mr, 
 Downs) will consent to move a reconside- 
 ration of his motion to postpone the next 
 apportionment until 1855, and will pro- 
 pose to reinstate 1848. 1 will repeat, that 
 1 consider the number of senators allowed 
 to the north-western parishes, is not in 
 relative proportion to the number allowed 
 to the other districts, and if ihe motion of 
 the delegate from INew Orleans (Mr. Ben- 
 jamin) prevails, I will propose that the 
 thirteen parishes that I have enumerated, 
 have five senators instead of seven. If my 
 proposition prevails, I will then suggest to 
 the Convention the propriety of providing 
 that the four senators allowed to the city 
 be elected by general ticket. 
 
 Mr. Chinn considered that the greatest 
 sacrifice fell upon that section of the coun- 
 try which he represented. He would sub- 
 mit to th injustice, provided that an early 
 apportionment should be made by the le- 
 gislature. If that apportionment were fixed 
 for 1848, he would vote for the present 
 temporary distribution. 
 
 Mr. Downs was sorry to see a question 
 which was considered as nearly settled, as 
 being farther from being settled than it 
 was a week ago. When we came here 
 yesterday — at least he could say for him- 
 self, that he was influenced by a sincere 
 desire to do all in his power to effect a 
 compromise; it was to make some conces- 
 sions. He voted for a proposition that 
 under other circumstances he never would 
 have voted for, the basis of total popula- 
 tion, which had been rejected two or three 
 times. He was prepared to make some 
 concession — to reduce the senatorial repre- 
 sentation in the north-western parishes one, 
 or to add one to what was called lower 
 Louisiana. He was sorry to say that in- 
 
578 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 stead of being met by the same spirit of 
 compromise, the arguments that had been 
 adduced, exacted concessions all on one 
 side. If we are to be conquered, all that I 
 ask of the gentlemen who oppose us, is, 
 that we may be placed back where we 
 stood yesterday, where we may fight it out 
 on equal grounds. The delegate from Fe- 
 liciana (Mr. Saunders) should remember 
 that although the reduction may commence 
 with the north-western parishes, it may 
 ■not end with them. Those who are so 
 mneh in favor of restricting the north- 
 west, when they have carried that point, 
 may next turn their attention to Florida. 
 •If the excess of population in the city, af- 
 ter allowing her four senators, is to be 
 transfered to the parishes in her immediate 
 vicinity; if the exclusion of the city of 
 New Orleans from a full representation in 
 the senate is not to innure to the benefit of 
 the whole State, it would be rrrach better to 
 allow the city to retain her undue propor- 
 tion of political power. There is some 
 identity of interest between the country 
 parishes generally, and the city of New 
 Orleans. But between the interior parish- 
 es and the parishes that surround New 
 Orleans, theie is no identity of interest. 
 Asa matter of necessity, as the only alter 
 native, I will say, and perhaps others will 
 say, give to New Orleans her entire repre- 
 sentation if the excess is to be transfered 
 to the neighboring parishes. 
 
 Gentlemen tell us that they are govern- 
 ed by the census of 1840. I considerit 
 no criterion, and to illustrate in a single 
 point how imperfect and deficient it is, 1 
 will call attention to the fact which is 
 clearly shown of the increase of slave po- 
 pulation since 1840, in some parishes, and 
 the decrease of that population in other pa- 
 rishes. In the city of New Orleans, the 
 increase in white population has been 
 great. We find that her slave population 
 •in 1840 was twenty-one thousand seven 
 hundred and forty-three. By the tax roll 
 of 1843 it is but seven thousand four hun- 
 dred and sixty-three. The slave popula- 
 tion of Union in 1840 was five hundred 
 and sixty-three. In 1843, according to the 
 tax roll, it is one thousand one hundred 
 and sixty-eight; more than double. The 
 slave population in Ouachita in 1840, be- 
 fore Morehouse and Jackson were taken 
 off, was two thousand four hundred and 
 
 thirty-eight. In 1843 the population of 
 Ouachita according to the tax list, is two 
 thousand eight hundred and forty-eight. 
 But I may be told that the old parishes 
 have likewise increased. From the same 
 data it is shown there is no increase; many 
 of them have fallen off. I have already 
 show a large increase in two parishes in 
 my district. AVe will see how the rule ap. 
 plies to lower Louisiana. In 1840 the 
 slave population of Ascension was four 
 thousand five hundred and fifty-three. In 
 1843, five thousand three hundred, a small 
 increase. In Assumption, the slave popu- 
 lation in 1840 was two thousand ninehun- 
 dred and eighty-eight; in 1843, three thou- 
 sand two hundred and twenty-eight. In 
 East Baton Rouge, the slave population m 
 1840 was four thousand two hundred and 
 six; in 1843, four thousand five hundred 
 and seventy-seven; an increase of about 
 three hundred. In West Baton Rouge in 
 1840, three thousand one hundred and 
 forty-seven; in 1843, three thousand eight 
 hundred and twenty. six. The increase in 
 slaves had been nearly double in the par- 
 ishes of Ouachita and Union, and it was 
 fair to infer that the white population had 
 increased three fold. The attempt to with- 
 draw two senators from the north-west, 
 and to postpone the apportionment for ten 
 years, was to catch that section of country 
 in a trap, and he could not see how gen- 
 tlemen could hold their countenances 
 while making such a proposition. If these 
 parishes were to be deprived of two sena- 
 tors, he hoped at least that the resolution 
 of yesterday would be rescinded, and that 
 things would be placed in their former 
 state. The population of Ouachita and 
 Caldwell in 1840 was five thousand six 
 hundred and eighty-three; if we add the 
 increase of its slaves and white population, 
 it would have eight thousand eight hun- 
 dred and two. According to the calcula- 
 tion of the delegate from Rapides (Mr. 
 Brent) it has been shown that eight hun- 
 dred is the number for a senatorial lepre- 
 sentation. It is evident that these two 
 parishes are entitled to one senator, and 
 that they have over and above a fraction. 
 That delegate has shown triumphantly, 
 that the apportionment had been made 
 with equality and uniformity in reference 
 to every section of the State, as far as 
 these were attainable. It would be better 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 579 
 
 to let the old apportionment stand, unequal 
 as jit is, until a new census of the State 
 could be taken, rather than to make an ap- 
 portionment which would do greater injus- 
 tice, and which would continue for ten 
 years — that a portion of the State should 
 be disfranchised for ten years. Is this 
 what is called justice? Do gentlemen un- 
 derstand concession to mean that we must 
 give up every thing? 
 
 Another preposterous and'ab surd idea is, 
 the conflict supposed to exist between the 
 northern and southern portions of the State. 
 Certain individuals may imagine that it 
 may promote certain purposes, but I defy 
 any one to point out a single instance 
 where there is any adverse or conflcting 
 interest between tho^e sections. It is not 
 expected that our legislature will iuipose 
 a bounty in favor of the interests of either, 
 but whatever promotes one, necessarily 
 promotes the other. As a cotton planter, I 
 have never been aware of any conflict; I 
 have never felt it. There is no disposition 
 nor feeling adverse to the prosperity of the 
 sugar planters; they consume but a small 
 amount of sugar, but they are well aware 
 that whatever is calculated to lessen the 
 cultivation of cotton is promotive of their 
 interests. There is no adverse interests 
 between those two classes. Every cotton 
 planter feels desirous that the cultivation of 
 sugar should be productive, because it 
 draws away a large amount of capital 
 which would, otherwise be invested in the 
 culthation of cotton. Why should there 
 be any difference or conflict between the 
 producer of cotton, and the producer of su- 
 gar ? Why excite sectional differences 
 unless it be to promote local or party views 
 which ought not to enter into our delibera- 
 tions. They ought not to be alluded to or 
 insisted upon. If it be true, as has been 
 assumed, that there is a line of distinction 
 and contrariety of interest between them, 
 it is constantly changing. The whole 
 State may cultivate sugar. The upper por- 
 tion is as susceptible of that cultivation now 
 as the lower portion was twenty years ago. 
 
 We are all citizens of the same State, 
 interested in the same common cause, 
 having the same kind of property, and 
 navigating the same rivers. Where then 
 is the necessity for these invidious distinc * 
 tions ? If all the wealt^ of the State was 
 centered in the sugar region — if all the 
 
 slaves were there, there might be some 
 cause of apprehension. But this is not 
 so; the largest and wealthiest parishes are 
 engaged in the cultivation of cotton — the 
 largest amount of capital is invested in 
 that culture : for example, the parishes of 
 Rapides and Concordia. I protest against 
 such distinctions — I protest against ar- 
 raying one portion of the country against 
 another. Perhaps this idea may have 
 grown out of the proceedings of another 
 Convention where such feeling prevailed. 
 There was, however, some peculiar rea- 
 sons which engendered them there, that 
 do not exist 1iere. In one portion of the 
 State of Virginia, the slave population al- 
 most exclusively predominate— in another 
 portion, in the mountains, there are com- 
 paratively, but few slaves. Xatural causes, 
 then, promoted these distinctions. But in 
 Louisiana we have nothing of that kind. 
 Slaves are found all over the State. — 
 Why attempt to create divisions between 
 poor and rich ? Why distinguish the oc- 
 cupants upon poor lands from the occupants 
 upon rich lands ? They are all citizens 
 alike, and doubtless feel all equally interest- 
 ed in the prosperity and advancement of 
 the State ! 
 
 I have asserted that there has been a de- 
 crease in the slave population in many of 
 the old parishes. To recur to that part of 
 the -subject: The parish of St. Bernard in 
 1S40. had two thousand one hundred and 
 thirty-seven; in 1843, but one thousand five 
 hundred and twenty- St. Charles had in 
 1S40, three thousand seven hmidred and 
 twenty-two; in- 1843, three thousand seven 
 hundred and forty-five. St. James in 1840 
 had five thousand seven'hundred and eleven; 
 in 1843, five thousand seven hundred and 
 forty-nine. Jefferson in 1840, four thous- 
 and nine hundred and eighty-six; in 1843, 
 three thousand nine hundred and sixty-four 
 — a falling off of one thousand. St. John 
 the Baptist in 1840. three thousand four 
 hundred and forty-four; in 1843, three 
 thousand four hundred and ninety-nine. 
 St. Landry in 1840. seven thousand one 
 hundred and twenty-nine ; in 1843, seven 
 thousand eight hundred and forty-three. 
 St. Martin had in 1840, four thousand six 
 hundred and forty; in 1843 she had five 
 thousand two hundred and forty-two. 
 
 I have already alluded to the remarka- 
 ble decrease of slave population in the city 
 
58D 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 of New Orleans. In West Baton Rouge, 
 notwithstanding all that we have been told 
 about the great increase in population, we 
 find that there has only been an increase 
 in the slave population of six hundred and 
 ninety-nine. 
 
 How can it be expected, that with a rule 
 so erroneous as the census of 1840, that 
 justice can be meted out to the north-west ? 
 If the withdrawal of two senators from that 
 section be considered justice, I am at a loss 
 to know what justice is ! I am willing to 
 concede much in order to settle this contro- 
 versy, and if the motion of the delegate 
 from Caddo prevails, the difficulty can be 
 settled with the assent of all. If that mo- 
 tion should fail, I will then ask for the re- 
 consideration of the vote assuming total 
 population as the basis for senatorial repre- 
 sentation, I will ask it as an act of justice 
 from the majority, to place us back where 
 we were before we made that concession, 
 and that we may take a fair start. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies did not wish to detain the 
 Convention further than to make a few re- 
 marks; to state some reasons why he 
 thought the number of senators ought to 
 be placed at thirty-two. He was always 
 in favor of that number. From all the data 
 we possessed, it appeared that with that 
 number we could arrive at n once to a just 
 and equal apportionment. We were un- 
 der the necessity of assuming, as a basis, 
 the census of 1840. We had no other, and 
 according to that basis, and in reference to 
 the other senatorial districts, he could see 
 no injustice in withdrawing one senator 
 from the old Natchitoches district, and one 
 from the old Ouachita district, 
 
 The delegate from Ouachita (Mr. Downs) 
 complains that great injustice has been 
 done to his district. The proposition of 
 the delegate from Assumption, (Mr. Tay- 
 lor) provided that the next apportionment 
 should be made in 1848, affording an early 
 opportunity for a redress of any wrong that 
 may have been committed in the present 
 repartition. Why did the delegate from 
 Ouachita object to that and propose 1855 ? 
 
 Mr. Downs: It was distinctly under- 
 stood that the apportionment should remain 
 as it was. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies : The gentleman com- 
 plains that there is injustice done to his 
 section of the State, If this be so, there 
 is an effectual mode to prevent this injus- 
 
 tice within a short period. Let the gen- 
 tleman vote for the reconsideration of his 
 own motion, fixing the re-apportionment in 
 1855, and bring it back to 1848. The 
 present apportionment will be but tempora- 
 ry, and cannot produce any injury within 
 two. years. I have made a rough calcula- 
 tion in order to test the uniformity of that 
 apportionment, and assuming eight thous- 
 and five hundred as the representative 
 number, I find that all the various districts 
 are entitled to their representation, with 
 the exception of Ouachita and Natchitoch- 
 es.- I do not vouch for its accuracy, but 
 here are its results. The parishes of Pla- 
 quemines, St. Bernard, and that portion 
 of the parish of Orleans on the right 
 bank have, according to the census of 
 1840, a population of eleven thousand nine 
 hundred and eighty-nine. These parishes 
 are clearly entitled to one senator, and 
 have a fraction of three thousand four hun- 
 dred and eighty-nine. St. Charles and St, 
 John the Baptist have together a popula- 
 tion of ten thousand four hundred and sev- 
 enty-six, and they are entitled to one sen- 
 ator. The parish of Jefferson has a popu- 
 lation of ten thousand four hundred and 
 seventy; it is allowed one senator, and has 
 remaining only a small fraction. I do not 
 consider it entitled to more than one sena- 
 tor, Ascension and St. James have a 
 population of fifteen thousand four hundred 
 and ninety-nine; they are allowed two sen- 
 ators. There is a difficulty, but it is so 
 small as to be scarcely worthy of consider- 
 ation; and besides, it is more than com= 
 pensated by the excess of population in St. 
 Charles and St. John the Baptist, As- 
 sumption, Lafourche Interior and Terre- 
 bonne have a population of eighteen thou= 
 sand eight hundred and sixty-one; they are 
 entitled to their two senators, and have be* 
 sides a fraction of eight hundred and sixty- 
 one. Iberville and West Baton Rouge 
 have a population of ten thousand and thir- 
 ty-three; they are allowed but one senator, 
 and the excess is transferred to the parish 
 of Point Coupee, having a population of 
 seven thousand eight hundred and ninety- 
 eight, which is allowed one senator. The 
 three parishes combined aie entitled to two 
 senators, but they are entitled to no mors ; 
 tney have them. East Feliciana has a 
 population of eleven^ thousand eight hun 
 dred and fifty-three; she has been allowed 
 
Debates in the Convention ot Louisiana, 
 
 581 
 
 one senator, and she has a fraction remain 
 in" - . West Feliciana has a population o 
 ten thousand nine hundred and ten ; she 
 also is allowed one senator, and has over 
 one fraction. East Baton Rouge has a 
 population of eight thousand one hundred 
 and thirty-eight; she has one senator allot- 
 ted to her, and is nearly entitled to it. St. 
 Helena, Washington, St. Tammany and 
 Livingston have not the precise number to 
 entitle them to the representation which 
 they have received, but with the excess 
 from East and West Feliciana, which is 
 in the same section of country, they reach 
 the necessary number, and I am willing to 
 concede it to them. Avoyelles and Ra- 
 pides arc, together, entitled to two senators; 
 the excess of population in the one supply- 
 ing the deficiency of population in the oth- 
 er. St Martin has a population of eight 
 thousand six hundred and seventy -four: she 
 is entitled to one senator, and has a small 
 fraction. St. Mary has a population of 
 eight thousand' nine hundred and fifty; she 
 is entitled to one scnatoiyand has it frac 
 tion of four hundred and fifty. The sur- 
 plus may be transferred to the adjoining 
 parishes of Vermillion and Lafayette, which 
 are allowed one senator. St. Landry and 
 Calcasieu have a population of seventeen 
 thousand two hundred and eighty nine, and 
 are entitled to two senators. Natchitoches 
 and Sabine have a population of fourteen 
 thousand three hundred and fifty, and in 
 references to the parishes that we have 
 examined, they are not entitled to two sen- 
 ators. One should be withdrawn from 
 that district, and one from the Ouachita 
 district, which is also deficient in popula- 
 tion. This is shown by the statistics be- 
 fore us. Why increase the number of sen- 
 ators to thirty-four? Why give two dis- 
 tricts two more senators than they are en- 
 titled to? Singly we are not to scramble 
 after political pov?%r. If there is any in- 
 justice, it will be easy to rectify it by a re- 
 ap;' •rtionment in 1848. The only princi- 
 ple by which I am governed, said Mr. 
 Voorhies, is to do equal and impartial jus- 
 tice to all sections of the State. I have 
 never been in that section of the couatry, 
 and am governed by. the data before me. 
 The apportionment made under it is as 
 correct as the nature of the case will ad- 
 mit, and if there be any wrong done,, it 
 cannot but be temporary. 
 
 Mr. M. Taylor trusted that the house 
 would proceed to the final decision of this 
 question. lie conceived that the point at 
 issue was not whether the number of sena- 
 tors should be thirty-two or thirty-three, 
 but whether two more senators should be 
 allowed to two districts than they appear- 
 ed to be entitled to. If the question was, 
 however, to be decided uaon the motion to 
 reduce the number of senatois to thirty- 
 two, he would vote in favor of that reduc- 
 tion, for he Was in favor of that number; 
 but he apprehended, that upon determining 
 that question in the affirmative, it would 
 only bring us back to the real difficulty, 
 which was the withdrawal of a senator 
 from the Natchitoches district, and one 
 from the Ouachita district. He concurred 
 fully in what was said as to the relative 
 weight of the various 1 sections of the State 
 by the gentleman from Feliciana, (Mr 
 Saunders.) He had listened to the re- 
 marks of the delegate from Rapides (Mr. 
 Brent) with some attention. In reference 
 to the calculations of that delegate, 1 have 
 not (said Mr. Taylor) taken the trouble to 
 examine them; but I have little doubt that 
 they are correct! I think the delegate 
 should not have laid off the State into such 
 large districts. When I proposed to di- 
 vide the State into eight districts, the dele- 
 gate from Rapides protested against it; and 
 how 1 find, that for the purpose of securing 
 a certain number of Senators to a particular 
 portion of the State, he is disposed to go 
 further than I, who went the furthest. 
 He proposes four districts. I did not con- 
 cur with that gentleman as to the small 
 districts that he advocated as his favor- 
 ite system. But I disagree as far from 
 him as to the formation of such large dis- 
 tricts as those which he seems now to fa- 
 vor. Instead of eight districts as I propo- 
 sed, he divides the State into four. The 
 distribution might be very equal into four 
 parts, and yet the distribution between these 
 districts themselves — between the parishes 
 of which each were composed, be quite un- 
 equal. • 
 
 From the statistical detail presented bv 
 the delegate from Feliciana, we should be 
 induced, if the motion prevailed, to reduce 
 the number to thirty-two, to take the two 
 senators from the north-west. Instead of 
 a division into four parts, the delegate from 
 Feliciana took the pains of making sural- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 ler divisions, and following out his plan, we 
 find that if we group together the Attakapas 
 and Opelousas parishes, they contain an 
 aggregate population of from between for_ 
 ty-two thousand to forty-three thousand. 
 Five senators are allowed to these parishes. 
 The parishes of St. Charles, St. John the 
 Baptist, St. James, Ascention, Assump- 
 tion, Lafourche Interior, and Terrebonne, 
 have a population of forty-four thousand 
 eight hundred and forty-five, and have five 
 senators. The Florida parishes have a 
 population of forty-three thousand nine 
 hundred and thirty-eight, including the 
 parish of East Baton Rouge. Here we 
 have three groups, each electing five sena- 
 tors. We now come to the north-western 
 parishes — to the thirteen parishes in the 
 north-west to which, under this apportion- 
 ment, the house have voted seven senators. 
 1 do not pretend to say that the data before 
 us determines with certainty the popula- 
 tion of this particular portion of the State. 
 They contain, according to the same sour- 
 ces of information, thirty eight thousand 
 nine hundred and twenty-nine. Thus we 
 find that one section contains forty-three 
 thousand, the second section forty-five 
 thousand, and the third, forty-four thou- 
 sand; and to these several groups we al- 
 low five senators; while, for the thirteen 
 north-western parishes, with a population 
 of less than forty- thousand, seven senators 
 have been allowed. This distribution must 
 strike one as being in a high degree une- 
 qual. I think it is unequal, and therefore 
 two senators should to be taken away. 
 That will leave five senators for these par- 
 ishes, which will give them an equal re- 
 presentation in the senate with the three 
 groups that have larger populations. But 
 we are met with the declaration, that they 
 have increased in population. Gentlemen 
 should hold in mind that other portions of 
 the State have also increased. According 
 to the data before us, it does not appear- 
 that the northrwestern parishes are entitled 
 to more than five senators. If injustice, 
 however, has* been done them, it will be 
 but temporary; for by fixing the reappor- 
 tionment in 1848, as originally proposed, 
 they will obtain all that they are entitled to, 
 and all inequalities will disappear when 
 a census shrllbe taken for the purpose. 
 
 Mr. Pokter moved to amend Mr. Ben- 
 jamin's motion, by saying thirty-three in- 
 
 stead of thirty-two, and called for the yeas 
 and nays on the adoption of his motion. 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Car- 
 riere, Downs, Garrett, Humble, McCallop, 
 McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Perm, Por- 
 ter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott, of St, 
 Landry, Prudhomme,Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Seott of Madi- 
 son, Sellers, Splane and Wederstrandt — 
 84 yeas; 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Brumfield, Cade, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad, of Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, Guion 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Le- 
 doux, Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazu- 
 reau, Preston, Pugh, Ratliff, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Soule, Stephens, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Winchester and 
 Winder — 43 nays. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to lay Mr. Benjamin's 
 motion on the table subject to call, in or- 
 der that he might move for the reconside- 
 ration of the vote assuming total population 
 as the basis of representation. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff would vote against this 
 motion, because he was desirous of fixing 
 the number of senators. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. Downs' 
 motion, and it was lost: 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Downs, Garrett, Humble, Le- 
 gendre, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, O'Bry- 
 an, Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoy- 
 elles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Prudhomme, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Splane, 
 Stephens, Waddill and Wederstrandt — 2& 
 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Brumfield, Cenas, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eus- 
 tis, Garcia, Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Lewis, 
 Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh, Ratliff, Roman, 
 St. Amand, Saunders, Sellers, Soule, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Trist, Voorhies, Wikoff, Winchester and 
 Winder — 40 nays. 
 
 The question then recurred on Mr. Ben- 
 jamin's motion fixing the number of sena- 
 tors at thirty-two. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 583 
 
 Mr. Downs called for the yeas and 
 nays : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Brumfield, Cade, Car- 
 riere, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Ledoux, Lewis, McCallop, Marigny, Ma- 
 zureau, Preston, Pugh, Ratliff, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Soule, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption," 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, Voorhies, Wad- 
 dill, Wikoff, Winchester and Winder— 46 
 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Downs, 
 Garrett, Humble, Legendre, McRae, Mayo, 
 O'Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Pruci- 
 homme, Read, Scott of Feliciana, Scott 
 of Madison, Sellers, Splane and Weder- 
 strandt — 22 nays. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to substitute the re- 
 port of the majority of the committee di- 
 viding the State into eight districts, for the 
 proposition before the house. 
 
 Mr. M. Taylor said, I believe this is 
 distinctly my project. It»was rejected by 
 a decisive majority, and I am opposed to 
 reviving it at this stage of this proceeding 
 and shall therefore move to lay it indefi- 
 nitely on the table. 
 
 Mr. Downs deemed it proper to explain 
 why he offered this proposition. I am 
 satisfied that it is impossible to apportion 
 the representation with any thinglike equal- 
 ity in the north-western parishes if two 
 senators be withdrawn. There is another 
 reason, these districts cannot be divided 
 without cutting off large minorities. It 
 may be deemed necessary to take Jackson 
 from the district to which it properly belongs 
 and put it with the Red River parishes. It 
 will be difficult to separate the parishes in my 
 district, and to make such a combination of 
 them with other districts as will be satisfac- 
 tory to the people, Caldwell may be pla- 
 ced with Catahoula, which would be a 
 combination not desirable to the citizens of 
 the former, as there is a natural separation 
 between the territories of those parishes. 
 Another effect which I deprecate would 
 be the breaking up of that uniformity which 
 I have invariably advocated.* They ought 
 to be uniform. But if we take the appor- 
 tionment in the section for Which 1 have 
 
 moved, as a substitute, the report of the 
 majority of the committee, we shall have 
 some districts with four senators, some 
 with two, and some with one. Here we 
 find two districts on the Lafourche and the 
 adjoining parishes so combined that they 
 will give senators all of one party; where- 
 as, if they were separated they would be 
 divided in political .sentiment. Gentlemen 
 disclaim party politics; they want no ger- 
 rymandering, and yet they use up two or 
 three democratic parishes on the Missis* 
 sippi, and will not let us have a bite. But 
 when it comes to a large whig parish, 
 they are for combining it in such a way 
 that its strength will tell the most. I was 
 opposed to placing Baton Rouge with the 
 parish of Avoyelles. 1 thought that the 
 report of the majority cajne from the other 
 side, from the gentleman from St. James, 
 (Mr. Winchester;) it originated with the 
 delegate from Lafourche, (Mr. Taylor.) 
 As I consider that the apportionment, as it 
 has been made by the house, is effectually 
 upset, I have made the motion to substL 
 lute the report of the majority of the com= 
 mittee. It contains a provision which is 
 very "acceptable, that the legislature shall 
 divide the State into" senatorial districts; 
 whereas, by our present proceedings re.- 
 lief would be denied to the people for tea 
 years. 
 
 Mr. Porter said it is impossible, Mr, 
 President, for me to vote for the report, of 
 the majority of the committee. By their 
 report, the parish I represent is embraced 
 in a district extending from the mouth of 
 the Arkansas to the Gulf of Mexico. No 
 greater evil would result to the parishes 
 on the Red river from a deprivation of 
 their just representation in the senate, than 
 from such a district. 
 
 Mr. Mayo was unalterably opposed to 
 large districts. 
 
 Mr. Cade was willing, if the delegates 
 from that part of the country desired it, that 
 the sixth district — -he believed it was the 
 sixth district-— he meant the district of Oua= 
 chita— -should be apportioned according to 
 the report of the majority of the committee, 
 But otherwise, he was opposed to that ap= 
 portionment by a distribution into large 
 districts. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. Miles 
 Taylor's motion to lay Mr. Downs' propo- 
 sit iop to substitute the report of the ma- 
 
584 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 jority of the committee indefinitely on the 
 table; and the yeas and nays were called 
 for. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, •Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Gade, 
 Carriere, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- 
 Usrtscn, Derbcs, Dunn, Garcia, Garrett, 
 Qrymes, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, Ledoux, Lewis, McCallop, Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, Mazureau,, Peets, Penn, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 ..St. Landry, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, 
 Read, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Fe- 
 liciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Soule, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Trist, Voorhies, Waddillj 
 Wederstrandt, Wikoff, Winchester and 
 Winder — 57 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Downs, Eus- 
 tis, Humble, Legendre, McRae, O'Bryan, 
 Preston and Splane— 10 nays. 
 
 Mr. Bejamin then moved that one sen- 
 ator be taken from the district of Ouachita, 
 and one from the district of Natchitoches; 
 and that the remaining number of sena- 
 tors to each district be referred to th« del- 
 egates of these districts to make the^.dis-. 
 tribution. 
 
 Mr. Brent called for the division. 
 
 Mr. Garrett suggested that the. par- 
 ishes of Catahoula, and Franklin be em- 
 braced in the parishes among whom the 
 distribution was to be made. That ap- 
 peared to be just, inasmuch as a reduction 
 was to be made. 
 
 Mr. Downs : Why this is« a senatorial 
 district of itself. If it be designed that 
 they should also be victims, be it so, 
 
 Mr. Benjamin modified his motion that 
 the thirteen parishes of the north-west have 
 live senators in place of seven, and that 
 the delegations from these parishes make 
 the distribution and report by to-morrow. 
 
 Mr. Humble proposed that the parishes 
 of Concordia, Madison, Tensas and Car- 
 roll be added to the thirteen parishes enu- 
 merated by the delegate from New Or- 
 leans, (Mr. Benjamin) and that the sena- 
 torial representation be distributed among 
 them. 
 
 Mr. Sellers said that these parishes had 
 nothing to do with the thirteen parishes, 
 which parishes, it was believed, had ob- 
 tained more than their fair proportion of 
 
 representation. Nothing of that kind could 
 be urged against the parishes in his dis- 
 trict. 
 
 Mr. Humble said, it seemed to him that 
 a disposition existed to sacrifice that por- 
 tion of a particular district that was wea- 
 kest on this floor. He was sony that such 
 a disposition was manifested. As far as 
 the parish of Caldwell was concerned, it 
 would be subjecting her citizens to great 
 inconvenience, to place that parish in con- 
 nection with the parish of Catahoula, in 
 forming a senatorial district. The citi- 
 zens of Caldwell had no objections what- 
 ever to a political association with the citi- 
 zens of Catahoula; but from natural causes, 
 these two parishes were separated, and 
 the union between them for political pur- 
 poses, would be attended with great incon- 
 venience. It would almost be as well to 
 attach Caldwell to the parish of Plaque- 
 mines. 
 
 Mr, C. M. Conrad: Tke distribution of 
 the senatorial representation will be refer- 
 red to the delegation from the district, 
 of which delegation the gentleman (Mr. 
 Humble) will be a member, and his views 
 will no doubt ha$e great weight with the 
 committee as to what district his parish 
 ought to be united. 
 
 Mr. Downs sustained the motion to add 
 the parishes of Carroll, Madison, Concordia 
 and Tensas. There was nothing but jus- 
 tice in this proposition. The new combi- 
 nation affected a district of country extend- 
 ing to the Texas border. Several of the 
 parishes embraced in the motion of the de- 
 legate from New Orleans, were taken in 
 part from some of the parishes in the Con- 
 cordia district. Franklin was taken from 
 Madison, and Morehouse from Carroll. It 
 will be difficult to make a satisfactory and 
 just apportionment without bringing in that 
 senatorial district, to whom two senators 
 have been allowed. Carroll had but a 
 small population. He did not pretend to 
 say they were not entitled to the number 
 allotted to them, but he considered they 
 had no more a prescriptive right to that 
 representation than the parishes of the 
 north-west had to the number originally 
 apportioned to them, a part of which had 
 been withdrawn, 
 
 Mr. Sellers -would object to this motion. 
 There was a gulf between his district and 
 that of the gentleman, (Mr. Downs) that 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 585 
 
 separated them. They were as far apart 
 as Dives and Lazarus. There was no 
 connection; they were as much apart as 
 two States. As for the smallness of the 
 population, to which the delegate from 
 Ouachita (Mr. Downs) hactreferred, I will 
 simply remark that the disirict is amply en- 
 titled to its "representation: in fact, more 
 than entitled to its representation, as I can 
 demonstrate by figures. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin sustained the motion of 
 Mr. Sellers, to lay Mr. Downs' motion in- 
 definitely on the table. The parishes of 
 Concordia and Tensas, and Carroll and 
 Madison were clearly entitled to one sena- 
 tor each. There was no contest as to that. 
 It was established upon reference to the 
 census of 1840. He could see no reason 
 for adding these parishes to the thirteen 
 parishes of the north-west, that were defi- 
 cient in population, and for which a less 
 partial apportionment is absolutely neces- 
 sary. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. Benja- 
 min's motion to withdraw two senators 
 from the thirteen parishes emanated on his 
 motion, and to allow them five senators in 
 place of seven. 
 
 Mr. Porter called for the yeas and 
 nays, which were as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, 
 McCallop, Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh, Rat- 
 liff, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, 
 Scott ol Baton Rouge, Scott ot Feliciana, 
 Soule, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Wads- 
 worth, Wikoff, Winchester and Winder-— 
 46 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Cade,Carriere, 
 Downs, Garrett, Humble, McRae, Mayo, 
 O'Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prudhomme, Read, Sellers, 
 
 Splane, Stephens and Wederstrandc 
 
 20 nays. 
 
 Mr. Brazeale would suggest, so far as* 
 the district of Natchitoches was concerned, 
 that it was unnecessary to postpone action 
 upon this question. Since it was deter- 
 mined by the house that the district of 
 Natchitoches must yield a senator, he 
 would state that the following distribution 
 
 was the unanimous report of the delega^ 
 lion, to wit: that one senator be allotted to 
 the parish of Natchitoches; one senator to 
 the parishes of Caddo, De Soto and Sa- 
 bine, and one senator to the parishes of 
 Bossier and Claiborne. 
 
 -On motion the house took a recess for 
 the purpose of allowing the delegation from 
 Ouachita to consult among themselves. 
 
 When the Convention resumed their 
 sitting, 
 
 Mr. Downs stated that the delegation 
 were unable to agree unanimously. Mr. 
 Humble and himself concurred in recom- 
 mending that the five parishes, to wit:— - 
 Union, Ouachita, Caldwell, Morehouse 
 and Jackson form one senatorial district. 
 Mr. Garrett, his other colleague dissented; 
 that delegate proposed to add Jackson to 
 Claiborne and Bossier, and G aid well to 
 Catahoula and Franklin, and to form a sen- 
 atorial disirict of Union, Ouochita and 
 Morehouse. Mr. Downs was opposed to 
 dividing contiguous parishes in a district 
 that had always been united, and transfer- 
 ring some of them to parishes with which 
 they had no identity, and with which they 
 would have to form new associations. He 
 preferred that the district should remain as 
 it was until a new census would enable it 
 to obtain its just weight. There was 
 more fitness in that than in the proposed 
 division. 
 
 Mr. Garrett deemed it proper to offer 
 a few words of explanation. His course 
 course in relation to the formation of the 
 senatorial districts, had not been dictated by 
 political considerations, but by a sincere 
 desire to promote what he conceived to be 
 the wishes of his constituents. In that 
 spirit he had proposed to form one senato% 
 rial district of the parishes of Union, More- 
 house and Jackson, and the other district 
 of the parishes of Ouachita and Caldwell. 
 It was upon his motion that these districts 
 were formed, and their combination was 
 not at all calculated to subserve the inter- 
 ests of the political party to which he be- 
 longed. On the contrary,the result would 
 be to the benefit of the other political party, 
 but that consideration had no weight with 
 him. He consulted only the convenience 
 and wishes of the people. But a new com- 
 bination had become necessary, inasmuch 
 as one senator* had been withdrawn from 
 the district composed of those parishes, and 
 
586 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 consulting again what he conceived was 
 for the greatest convenience of the people 
 residing therein, - the result would be a 
 combination which might have a contrary 
 political tendency from the first. That, 
 however, would not influence him, and 
 .were he not convinced that it was the most 
 proper course to take, in view of all the 
 circumstances, he would concur with his 
 two colleagues ($$essrs. Downs and Hum- 
 ble) in their proposition- He was aware 
 of his peculiar position in relation to this 
 matter. The necessity for making anoth- 
 er distribution than that originally suggest- 
 ed by him, of the parishes on the Ouachita, 
 had been forced upon the delegation from 
 those parishes by the Convention. It so 
 happened, that the best distribution that 
 iCould be made, might be promotive of a 
 line of politics that were his own — that 
 were different from those of his honorable 
 colleagues, and different from those of the 
 majority in this body. He trusted that his 
 motives would not be misconceived, and 
 that the reasons that induced him to come 
 to the conclssion he did, would have their 
 just weight with the Convention. His pro- 
 position was to unite Caldwell with Cata- 
 houla. There appeared to him to be some 
 fitness in placing these parishes in the 
 same district, inasmuch as two-thirds of 
 the territory of the former were taken from 
 the latter. The parish of Caldwell would 
 be only returning to the parental bosom, 
 and there could be no great difficulty in 
 reviving former associations. In relation 
 to the parish of Jackson, it was a new par- 
 ish, and its territory was formed in part 
 from the parish of Claiborne. It would 
 readily unite with the latter, as, as yet it 
 had tormed no political associations. These 
 two parishes transferred, the one to Cata- 
 houla and the other to Claiborne, the old 
 district of Ouachita would be left with its 
 originel elements. The old ties existing 
 betwen its inhabitants would not be sever- 
 ed — the old territory w T ould remain united, 
 and the new territory would be placed in 
 connection with territory from which it 
 had in part derived its existence. There 
 was another reason why this course should 
 be adopted; the district composed of Clai- 
 borne and Bossier was but a small dis- 
 trict — the same remark would apply to the 
 district composed of Catahoula and Frank- 
 lin — and the addition of Caldwell and 
 
 Jackson to these districts, would make 
 them bear a more relative proportion to the 
 other districts; whereas, by placing all the 
 five parishes together in one district, as sug- 
 gested by his colleagues, it would make a 
 district disproportionate in size and in popu- 
 lation with the others. The territories 0 f 
 these districts, if the parishes are distribu- 
 ted as I propose, said Mr. Garrett, will be 
 contiguous and compact, and adapted to the 
 localities of the country. I have sunk on 
 this, as on every other occasion since I 
 have had the honor of a seat in this body, 
 all political considerations. I am advo- 
 cating wh at I consider just and proper. I 
 am sorry to differ from my colleagues up- 
 on this matter; but these are the results of 
 my solemn convictions, and if the politics 
 of the district should not be conformable to 
 theirs, it is the consequence of the neces- 
 sity under which we act — of the distribu- 
 tion which has been forced upon us, and 
 which should be made irrespective of all 
 party purposes. 
 
 Mr. Humble conceived it necessary for 
 him to explain his views in relation to this 
 matter. It was doubtless expected from 
 him by the house, and it was due to those 
 he had the honor of representing on this 
 floor. He represented the parish of Cald- 
 well. The census of 1840 gave no ade- 
 quate idea of the population of that part of 
 the State, that was now about to be sacri- 
 ficed. It afforded no just criterion upon 
 which the Convention could or ought to 
 act. The new parishes have sprung up 
 since 1840; their populations have increas- 
 ed the most within the last two years; they 
 have attracted a continued stream of po- 
 pulation since that period. There are ten 
 or twelve steamboats engaged in the trade 
 with the country upon the Ouachita; the 
 resources of that section of the State are 
 beginning only to be fully developed. 
 Every steamboat comes freighted with 
 crowds of enterprising emigrants, and if a 
 census were now before the house, the 
 glaring injustice of taking the census of 
 1840 as any thing like an indication of the 
 population of parishes that were then in 
 their infancy — in their cradle, would be 
 most apparent. Great injustice has been 
 done by literally confining ourselves to 
 that census — not to the old parishes of the 
 State, because they have increased but lit- 
 tle, but to the new parishes, where the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 58? 
 
 increase has been in a far different ratio. 
 But inasmuch as this has been done, let us 
 not sacrifice the unity of our parishes — let 
 us not divide oilr strength, but keep it to- 
 gether until a fairer apportionment shall 
 do us that justice to which we are enti- 
 tled. 
 
 In reference to Caldwell, he was speak- 
 ing but the will of his constituents, when 
 he said they did not wish to be severed 
 from their past political connections. It 
 was true, as had been stated by the dele- 
 gate (Mr. Garrett) that two-thiids of that 
 parish has been taken from Catahoula. But 
 that has been eight or nine years ago, and 
 new settlements have been formed, so that 
 no connection between the two parishes 
 can be properly said to exist. They are 
 divided by an impassible swamp — the 
 swamp of Catahoula, which is the abode 
 of cranes arfd alligators. 
 
 The only connection between the par- 
 ishes is on one side in the piney woods; 
 there is some connection here wllere the 
 old settlers are found; but in the new and 
 flourishing settlements of the parish of 
 Catahoula there is no connexion, and but 
 little acquaintance. It is from no dislike 
 to the people of that parish, that the inhabi- 
 tants of Caldwell do not desire the connex- 
 ion; but because they have had no asso- 
 ciation, and are cut off from any association 
 by physical causes from the parish of Cata- 
 houla. The citizens of Caldwell desire to 
 be attached to the parish of Ouachita. 
 They have instructed me to that effect. I 
 have not (said Miv Humble) been influ- 
 enced by political considerations in my 
 votes, although I am a locofoeo, and my 
 colleage (Mr. Garrett) is a whig. That, 
 however, has not influenced me. I think, 
 irrespective of party politics, that the wish- 
 es of the people ought to be consulted in 
 forming the districts. The parishes of Cata- 
 houla and Franklin are sufficient to form a 
 district, and are entitled to a senator. Let 
 them have it. And since from the necessity 
 of the case, we must unite the five parishes 
 of Union, Morehouse, Ouachita, Caldwell 
 and Jackson*together, or split them up and 
 transfer them to other territory, I say, by 
 all means, preserve them as they are. The 
 proposition of my colleague (Mr. Garrett) 
 is not satisfactory to me, nor will it be 
 to my constituents. 
 
 Mr. Dowxs said he deemed it not im- 
 
 proper to submit some other considerations 
 to those adduced by his colleague ' (Mr. 
 Humble.) It is true, as alleged, by my 
 other colleague (Mr. Garrett) that Cald- 
 well was taken from the parish of Cata- 
 houla. At first, she voted with Catahoula, 
 but since the new apportionment, she has 
 voted with Ouachita. The parishes of 
 Catahoula and Caldwell are disconnected 
 by the physical conformity of the country. 
 There is an impassable swamp between 
 them. 
 
 As for the parish of Jackson, although* 
 in part her territory is derived from the 
 parish of Claiborne, there would be a want 
 of suitableness in placing her in a district 
 with that and another Red river parish. 
 She is more immediately connected with 
 Ouachita. Monroe is her town, and her 
 business is centered in that town. The 
 wishes of the inhabiants too, should be 
 taken into consideration. Most of the in- 
 habitants of Jackson are settlers of the old 
 district . of Ouachita. As my colleague 
 (Mr. Humble) has said the people of Cald- 
 well are wedded to their former associa- 
 tions; they would^ if consulted, be disposed 
 to be transferred to the territory of Cata- 
 houla. I trust that the old senatorial dis- 
 trict will be maintained. If it be resolved 
 upon to despoil that district of its just 
 weight, be it so, but do not cut it up into 
 fragments — into piece-meal — with a limb 
 amputated, and sent to Red river, and 
 another limb to Black river. Do not cut 
 it up and divide it into minute fragments. I 
 hope that this will not be done. Sufficient 
 injustice is contemplated without that. Let 
 the old Ouachita district remain as it is, 
 even if it is to be shorn of a portion of its 
 political power. 
 
 Mr. Dowzns then gave notice that he 
 would move to reconsider the vote assum- 
 ing total population as the basis of appor- 
 tionment in the senate. 
 
 Whereupon the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Friday, April 4, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The proceedings were opened with 
 prayer by the Rev. Mr. Nichols. 
 
 The journal was read and approved. 
 
 Mr. Garrett then moved to reconsider 
 the vote of yesterday allowing one senator 
 to the parishes of Bossier and Claiborne- 
 
538 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 lie remarked that when the vote was taken 
 he was not present. 
 
 Mr. Peets, in objecting to the reconsi- 
 deration, remarked that the county of Nat- 
 chitoches had been allotted four senators, 
 and the county of Ouachita three senators; 
 after that, the delegates from each district 
 met together, and with a view of meeting 
 the difficulty that presented itself on this 
 question, the county of Natchitoches had 
 agreed to take off one senator. Mr. Peets 
 desires to call the attention of the Con- 
 vention to the fact, that the two districts 
 are separate and distinct: the Natchitoches 
 district from the Ouachita district. 
 
 The population of the county of Nat- 
 chitoches is twenty-five thousand, they 
 pay twenty thousand dollars into the trea- 
 sury. The population of the county of 
 Ouachita is twelve thousand, and they pay 
 into the treasury about twelve thousand 
 dollars. It is now proposed to reconsider 
 the vote of yesterday, to saddle us unjust- 
 ly with a parish that does not properly be- 
 long to us. He (Mr. Peets) objects to it; 
 for it is wrong, and cannot be sustained on 
 any fair or just principle. When yon look 
 at population, it is clearly out of all reason. 
 When you look at taxation, that speaks 
 equally for itself. The two districts are 
 then totally different-— they have no feeling 
 in common. Besides all that, there is a 
 natural division between them — a dividing 
 line. -In the parish of Claiborne the whole 
 business is done on Lake Bisteneau; 
 while that of the parish of Jackson has 
 heretofore and naturally been done on the 
 Ouachita river. 
 
 He desires to"State to this Convention, 
 that if the motion prevail, it will be an act 
 of the grossest injustice to the county of 
 Natchitoches in the first place; and in the 
 second place, it will be equally unjust to- 
 wards the citizens of the parish of Jack- 
 son. There would be a greater injus- 
 tice in it, than meets the eye. Why take 
 a man away from his natural habits and 
 pursuits m attending to his political pri- 
 vileges? Why force a man in attending 
 to those rights to go miles out of the way 
 unnecessarily? That is the question: and 
 to that, so far as it goes, I contend, said 
 Mr. Peets, against the change, for if it 
 be sustained, you force the people of 
 the parish of Jackson to do that which 
 they do not want; and which would be not 
 
 only disagreeable, but inconvenient to them. 
 Besides all that, it is known that farmers 
 usually attend to their private and political 
 business at one and at the*same time; and 
 there is no earthly necessity in forcing 
 them out of their usual habits. Take the 
 map and it will speak for itself. The par- 
 ish of Jackson is totally isolated from Bos- 
 sier and Claiborne. 
 
 These two parishes are increasing very 
 rapidly, particularly the parish of Bossier; 
 and there can be little doubt that in 1850 
 she will be entitled, by her population, la 
 one senator alone. The increase has been 
 greater in that parish than in any other 
 part of the State; even the past year it has 
 increased in population fully two thousand. 
 
 The parish of Jackson is about twenty- 
 four miles square. He does not think it is 
 right to keep her bandied about, but on the 
 contrary, she ought to be kepi where she 
 now is. She is small, it is true, but that is 
 no reason why we should commit an act of 
 injustiR to her; and assuredly it would be- 
 an act of flagrant injustice were we to do its 
 Besides taking into view the local po- 
 sition of the county of Natchitoches, it 
 would not be right to attach any part of the 
 county of Ouachita to it. He (Mr. Peets) 
 ,feels sure that it will give great dissatisfac- 
 tion to his constituents, and he will be 
 blamed if the measure should pass, but 
 not so with the delegate from Ouachita; 
 (Mr. Garrett) for if he gets clear of the 
 parish, he will at the same time get clear 
 of their thunder. 
 
 Mr. Garrett desired to ; explain the 
 reasons which would influence him in pro* 
 posing the annexing the parish of Jackson 
 to the parishes of Claiborne and Bossier, 
 as the delegate from Claiborne has gone 
 into such an elaborate discussion on the 
 subject. The county of Natchitoches ar- 
 ranged the matter among themselves, and 
 doubtless they arranged it to suit them- 
 selves, in the deduction of the senator from 
 their district; but that is no reason why 
 a change should not be made if justice to 
 the neighboring county required it. Now 
 to do that we must add the parish of Jack- 
 son to the district comprising Bossier and 
 Claiborne; for what equality would there be 
 if on the one side we had a district compo- 
 sed of Claiborne and Bossier, and on the 
 other of Catahoula and Franklin, while in 
 the centre, consisting of five parishes, an 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 other district is formed in which there is 1 themselves from the parish of Ouachita 
 
 one. the parish of Ouachita, which has a ; and set up on their own account, 
 greater population than either of those in i Now if we are to he governed by the 
 
 the district surrounding her. ! basis of total population, or territory, or 
 
 He conceives tiiat the fit st object in ap- taxation, either separate or combined, there 
 
 portioning representation, should be to ar- can be no justice in the apportionment if 
 
 rive as nearly as practicable *at the same the plan I propose be not adopted, 
 number of population; any other mode Mr. Brazeale remarked, that if he un= 
 
 would be to gerrymander the districts. In derstood this question, when the proposi- 
 
 proposing therefore to add Jackson to Clsi- tion was made to take two senators from 
 
 borne and Bossier, he would also propose the north-western parishes, a recess was 
 
 toadd the parish of Caldwell to Catahoula had to enable the delegates to confer to* 
 
 and Franklin — then the territory and po- gether and make an equitable distribution, 
 
 pulation of the three districts would be The county of Natchitoches has a popula- 
 
 nearly equal. Let us see how they com- tion of twenty-five thousand eight hundred, 
 
 pare as at present laid off. Catahoula and while that of Ouachita is but a little over 
 
 Franklin have a population of iour thou- twelve thousand. It was then determined 
 
 sand nine hundred and fifteen. Claiborne that the former should be allowed three, 
 
 and dossier, six thousand one hundred and and the latter two, making lye in all, in= 
 
 eighty-five; and Caldwell, Ouachita, Union, stead of seven, as reported by the commit- 
 
 Morehouse, and Jackson, eight thou- tee; ihen they divided the districts out to 
 
 sand four hundred and ninety-seven. The suit themselves. lie cannot see with what 
 last district, it will'be seen, has almost as "justice they now want to tack on another 
 
 large a population as the two first togeth- parish to Natchitoches, to increase the 
 
 er. number of population, already greatly dis- 
 
 Let us then in addition, examine the tax proportioned. He shall most assuredly 
 
 roll. Catahoula and franklin pay three oppose it. 
 
 thousand nine hundred and seventy-seven Me. BexjajIin regards the question 
 dollars; Claiborne and Bossier, three thou- thus : there are five senators to be allotted 
 sand five hundred and sixty-nine dollars; to thirteen parishes, and it was a matter of 
 while the parish of Ouachita alone pays comparative indifference to us how thev 
 four thousand two hundred and forty-two. divided them cut among themselves, so 
 If then the division be made as I propose, "long as they all agreed about it: hut as 
 the taxation as well as the territory and po- there is a difference of opinion among them, 
 puiation, will be about equal as it is; it is he thinks it is the duty of this Convention 
 a crying injustice to leave one senator only to interfere and settle it on fair aadequita- 
 to five parishes. He represents the whole ble principles instead of leaving it to them, 
 district, and he desires that the voice of At one time he thought the matter had ; 
 every parish in it should be heard on this been settled between them, but it tarns 
 floor. The cardinal point for us to attend out otherwise. It was proposed ?o give 
 to first is to act justly — and that can only the parish of Natchitoches one senator, to 
 be done by adding the parish of Jackson to which we agreed; one to Caddo, De Soto 
 the district before mentioned, It is admit- and Sabine, to which we agreed; then one 
 ted on all hands to be a small parish, al- was asked -for Claiborne and Bossier, and 
 though capable from the quality of its soil I suggested tha.t the parish of Jackson, if 
 o? considerable increase in the population, addeq\ would make the district nearer equal; 
 He does not regard the argument which is but to give only two senators to seven par- 
 used about the citizens of Jackson feeling ishes, while we were giving three senators 
 outraged at the separation from the Oua- to six parishes, appeared to his (Mr, Ben= 
 chita district, as worthy of consideration, jamin's) mind an act of glaring inequality. 
 And although it is also urged by the dele- However, when he heard that the matter 
 gate from Claiborne, (Mr. Peets) that the was perfectly understood between them, he 
 citizens are desirous of voting with Oua- withdrew his motion, 
 chita, he must think from what has here- It appears, however, that the difficulty 
 tofore happened, that they are notverv so- has again arisen from seme misunderstand* 
 licitous about it, for they have separated in§ about the apportionment among these- 
 
590 
 
 Berates in the Oon^entloa of Louisiana, 
 
 seven parishes, and he moves a reconside- 
 ration of the vote he refers to, given by him; 
 for if they can't agree, we must endeavor 
 to settle it fairly for them. It is now pro- 
 posed to divide them thus: one to Claiborne 
 and Bossier; one to Union, Morehouse, 
 Jackson, Caldwell and Ouachita. We 
 must endeavor to ascertain if that is a pro- 
 per division prior to the reduction from sev- 
 en senators to five. These parishes were 
 divided by the delegate from Ouachita (Mr. 
 Downs) in his his minority report, thus: 
 Claiborne and Bossier one; Catahoula and 
 Franklin one; Ouachita and Caldwell one; 
 and Union, Morehouse and Jackson one, 
 in all four senators, now to be reduced to 
 three. The proposition is to leave two un- 
 touched and put two into one. He can 
 hardly think that would be right, certainly 
 it is not if the apportionment made by the 
 delegate from Ouachita was correct before. 
 It was then stated that Catahoula and 
 Franklin had one-fourth of the population, 
 and Claiborne and Bossier one-fourth; that 
 would bring then this result, that the four 
 parishes with half the population would 
 have two senators; while the remaining 
 five, with the other half, would only get one; 
 that is certainly not right, on the very face 
 of it; it must strike any one, at the first 
 blush, that one. half gets two-thirds, while 
 the other half only gets one-third. 
 
 There are five senators allotted to thir- 
 teen parishes, of which the county of 
 Ouachita gets, only two,the parishes of Cata- 
 houla and Franklin, forming part of that 
 county. Now four parishes have had two 
 allowed them, and it cannot be possible, if 
 divided in a satisfactory manner before, 
 that it can be equal now, to give those five 
 parishes only one, for which before two 
 were claimed as fairly due, at least unless 
 some conclusive reason can be given for it. 
 It is neither right for the present apportion- 
 ment, nor the future. It will give those 
 two districts too great power, and then, 
 when the next apportionment is made they 
 will contend that they ought not to be taken 
 away, because granted now. He (Mr. B.) 
 is opposed to giving them any plea for 
 claiming two senators then, when they are 
 not entitled to it now; while the other five 
 parishes will have a good right to lay claim 
 to two senators, on the basis we have es- 
 tablished: It is a manner of reaching the 
 point at a later periods to which they can- 
 
 not now justly lay claim. These nine par- 
 ishes should be equally districted, and not 
 four by two senators, and five by one sena- 
 tor, for the parish of Ouachita alone pays 
 more taxes than Claiborne and Bossier to- 
 gether; and what justice can there be in 
 joining her to four other parishes, when 
 those two are alone entitled to one senator? 
 He thinks the delegate from Ouachita (Mr. 
 Garrett) has made out a very strong case 
 to this house, and shown clearly that the 
 object is to get another senator in 1848, 
 which they cannot obtain now. He urges 
 then the reconsideration of the motion 
 adopted heretofore, allowing Claiborne and 
 Bossier one senator. 
 
 Mr. Porter: I had thought that the 
 question, as to the basis, was permanently 
 fixed yesterday to be total population. Now, 
 much as I object to that basis, if it be that 
 by which we are to be governed, Claiborne 
 and Bossier are fully entitled to one senator, 
 for the seven parishes of the county of 
 Ouachita contain a population of eleven 
 thousand five hundred and seventy-five ? or 
 five thousand seven hundred for each sena- 
 tor. Claiborne and Bossier have a larger 
 population, by one thousand, than that 
 I average. The county of Natchitoches has 
 I taken more than her proportion; we have 
 taken eight thousand three hundred as the 
 number for each senator; and he should 
 consider it unjust to interfere with the par- 
 ishes of Claiborne and Bossier. 
 
 Mr. Garrett remarked to Mr. Porier 
 that there must be some error in his cal- 
 culation, for he made the number of popu- 
 lation in Ouachita county thirteen thousand 
 four hundred and twelve. 
 
 Mr. Peets remarked that no one ever 
 dreamt of such an idea as attaching the 
 parish of Jackson to Claiborne and Bossier, 
 until it was broached by the gentleman 
 from Ouachita, (Mr, Garrett.) That pa- 
 rish had been formed out of the parishes of 
 Union and Ouachita, with the exception of 
 a very small part of it, and properly and 
 naturally belonged to that district, 
 
 He could say in reply to the delegate 
 from New Orleans (Mr. Benjamin) that it 
 was not taxation, but total population which 
 was the basis we have adopted, and Clai- 
 borne and Bossier have such an amount 
 of population as to entitle them to one sena- 
 tor, when compared with the other dis- 
 tricts. He does not see why they should 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 591 
 
 be made the victims; for having a popula- 
 tion of nearly seven thousand, they are 
 fully entitled to it, and certainly if the rule 
 is good for one, it is alike good for all. 
 
 Mr. Downs rose to offer his thanks to 
 the delegate from New Orleans, (Mr. Ben- 
 jamin) for the deep interest he had taken 
 in the senatorial apportionment of the 
 county of Ouachita, but while he assured 
 us that he had no manner of interest in the 
 matter, he had some how managed to make 
 one of the closest analytical arguments 
 against the plan proposed by a majority of 
 the delegates of that county, that he had 
 ever delivered in this house. He remind- 
 ed him (Mr. D.) a great deal of the old 
 woman, who, after having worked herself 
 into a terrible passion, asserting at the 
 same time : "You see how cool and calm 
 lam." 
 
 But he hopes that gentleman will permit 
 the delegates from that county to settle 
 their own family differences, although he 
 can well understand the motives that 
 prompted his friendly interference in the 
 matter, and what their tendency. The ar- 
 guments of his (Mr. Downs') co^eague ap- 
 pear to him either as untenable, or intend- 
 ed to operate in favor of the party to whom 
 we are opposed in politics, and we cannot 
 follow his plan without departing from the 
 rule we have heretofore adopted, of not 
 separating any of the parishes from the 
 districts in which they have heretofore vo- 
 ted and properly belong. He proposes to 
 take off Jackson on the one side, and add 
 to Claiborne and Bossier; and Caldwell on 
 the other and add to Catahoula and Frank- 1 
 lin; to take a parish from one senatorial 
 district and add to another; that has never 
 been done, for even in the division of At- ! 
 takapas they placed St. Mary and St. Mar- 
 tin together; Vermillion and Lafayette, and ! 
 St, Landry and Calcasieu — that which 
 you refused to do before, you now do 
 doubly, and you might just as well say that 
 Jackson and Caldwell should remain blank 
 and have no election, for if thus placed 
 among strangers their voice will not be 
 heard. 
 
 There is another reason why he trusts 
 the motion will not prevail, for if it does, j 
 we shall then have to reconsider the vote j 
 postponing the next apportionment 
 
 until 
 
 1855, for that will certainly have to be 
 done if we do, and he (Mr, D.) feels con- 
 
 vinced that the parishes prefer, in that 
 case, remaining as they are until a new 
 apportionment is made in 1S48 on the 
 census of 1847, They would rather sub- 
 mit to the inequality than to have one pa« 
 i rish taken from the district and thrown over 
 j to Red River, and the other to Catahoula 
 and Franklin. He is satisfied that a large 
 i majority would prefer it. 
 
 His colleague is mistaken, if he thinks 
 mat the citizens of Jackson 'desire to 
 have the district changed. It is not so* 
 He has based his argument on a fact cer- 
 tainly that they have formed themselves 
 into a separate parish, but his conclusions 
 are erroneous, and not in accordance with 
 their wishes; for they would avoid any 
 j-such device, and repel it; for they are per= 
 feet strangers to those parishes to which 
 you would attach them. There is not that 
 inequality which is generally supposed be= 
 tween Catahoula and . Franklin and the 
 ! parishes of Ouachita, Union, Morehouse-, 
 : Caldwell and Jackson; for if you take the 
 j census of 1840 for our guide, as it has been 
 done, which I cannot but think is every- 
 way incorrect— -(for in the parishes of Oua= 
 | chita and Union, according to recent inves- 
 tigation, we have double the population 
 reported in 1840)— but as it has been done 
 by others in their arguments, I am of course 
 free to use it myself, and by referring to it 
 what do we find, why that the five parishes 
 have a population of eight thousand four 
 hundred and ninety-six; while Catahoula, 
 alone, has a population of four thousand 
 nine hundred and fifteen, without counting 
 Franklin; and the two together do not vary 
 more than one thousand from the full ratio, 
 But if there were ten-fold greater inequali- 
 ty, they have a perfect right to require, if 
 they will, that they should not be separatedc 
 He hopes that (he motion to reconsider will 
 not prevail. No senatorial district has yet 
 been divided. Then why should curs be 1 
 The delegate from New Orleans thinks 
 ive want an excuse to get another senator. 
 Why, is he not satisfied with cutting us 
 iown two now, and does he wish and ex= 
 pect the proscription to last forever? Let 
 ne (said Mr. Downs) tell him that he 
 need not trouble himself on that score, for 
 they will have another apportionment be- 
 fore long, any how; and now that the line 
 has been drawn, he expects to see the ap- 
 portionment made in the strictest manner. 
 
592 
 
 Debates In the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 He will find himself mistaken if he thinks 
 he can get another on his side of the ques- 
 tion when that is done; he will have much 
 less fun then than now. He (Mr. Downs) 
 represents the whole district, and feels sure 
 that Caldwell does not wish to be sepa- 
 rated; but he relies more on the represen- 
 tations made by the delegate from Cald- 
 well (Mr. Humble) for he comes direct 
 from that parish, and he tells you emphati- 
 cally that 'they do not want to make the 
 change. Why then, should this Conven- 
 tion disregard their wishes? 
 
 Mr. Mayo said he was, perhaps, less 
 interested in this distribution than any 
 member from that section of the country; 
 but the facts have not been stated correct- 
 ly by any member, and he feels it his dutv 
 to lay them before the Convention, when it 
 will be found that the difference is not so 
 great as members suppose. In 18-12 the 
 parish of Franklin was formed out of the 
 parts nes of Ouachita and Catahoula, about 
 eight hundred souls were thus transferred 
 from the parish of Ouachita to the parish o£ 
 Franklin. Now, if you take that -number 
 offof Ouachita and add to Franklin, it will 
 materially alter the tables. What I state 
 are facts. 
 
 If the division is made as proposed, the 
 result would be : that Claiborne and Bossier 
 have a population, according to that, table, 
 of six thousand one hundred and eighiy-nve; 
 the five Ouachita parishes, after deducting 
 eight hundred off of seven thousand six hun- 
 dred and ninety-seven, and Catahoula and 
 Franklin of five thousand seven hundred 
 and fifteen, and if that be correct, as he 
 believes it is, for he thinks the whole of that 
 country has increased in about an equal 
 ratio, it will be seen that the difference is 
 not so great as it would appear at first 
 sight. For his part, he shall be equally 
 contented, whether Caldwell is added to 
 Catahoula and Franklin, or retained in the 
 district, as proposed. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin tat^es the earliest possi- 
 ble moment of acknowledging that the les- 
 son which the honorable delegate from 
 Ouachita has taught him is deeply impres- 
 sed on his mind; and he loses not an in- 
 stant in making the amende honorable, 
 and in saying that he was wrong in inter- 
 fering in the family differences of the Oua- 
 chita delegation. But he trusts that dele- 
 gate will pardon him, when he comes to 
 
 reflect that he (Mr. B.) was only following 
 the example set him by the delegate from 
 Ouachita (Mr. Downs) himself. It must 
 be remembered by that gentleman, and bv 
 every member of the Convention, that 
 while the discussion was going on in the 
 apportionment of the representatives for 
 the city of New Orleans, the gentleman 
 himself took a very active part in the de- 
 bates, and snowed us how much he was 
 attached to our interests. When the pre. 
 sent question came up for discussion, as 
 none of my colleagues (said Mr. B.) seem- 
 ed disposed to repay his kindness and at- 
 tention in settling our family differences, I 
 conceived it my duty from politeness alone, 
 to endeavor to aid him through his troubles. 
 
 He complains of it — -and I admit I was 
 wrong — -the lesson was a good one, and I 
 withdraw from the discussion, but while I 
 do so, I would fain hope that he himself 
 will follow my example, and that when 
 the question comes up on the senatorial 
 representation of, the city, he will be as 
 mute as I shaii hereafter be about the Oua- 
 chita parishes. 
 
 Mr. Garrett: My colleague (Mr* 
 Downs) has told you that the parish of 
 Catahoula has a population of four -thou- 
 sand nine hundred and fifteen alone; but 
 he forgot to tell you what was the popula- 
 tion of Franklin. The delegate from Ca- 
 tahoula (Mr. Mayo) further tells us that 
 the parish of Franklin took eight hundred 
 of the population of Ouachita from that pa- 
 rish; this is clearly all guess work, as 
 there is no means of knowing. 
 
 In 1840 the Catahoula district had a po- 
 pulation of four thousand nine hundred and. 
 fifteen. The Ouachita district eight thou- 
 sand nine hundred and thirty-seven, and 
 Claiborne and Bossier six thousand one 
 hundred and eighty-five. Since that pe- 
 riod there has been a rapid increase 
 throughout that country; and certainly as 
 great in Union, Morehouse and Ouachita, 
 as in any other part, for my colleague says 
 that there have been taken into the parish 
 of Union alone as many slaves since the 
 census of 1840, as there were inhabitants 
 in it when the census was taken. If we 
 are to take the fairest index to show ihe 
 increase, it will be the comparison in the 
 tax roil of 1843- then Catahoula and Frank- 
 lin paid in one thousand eight hundred and 
 ninety-seven dollars and fifty cents; Cald- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 593 
 
 well three thousand nine hundred dollars; 
 Ouachita four thousand two hundred dol- 
 lars, and Claiborne and Bossier three 
 thousand five hundred and sixty-nine doU 
 ' lars. The district then before us, the 
 Ouachita district, paid as much as both 
 the others put together. 
 
 He (Mr. Garrett) thinks also chat no 
 dissatisfaction does or will exist about con- 
 necting the parishes of Claiborne and 
 Bossier with the parish of Jackson. There 
 will be no ill-will about it, for it was form- 
 ed out of the parishes of Claiborne, Union 
 and Ouachita. They are intimately con- 
 nected with each other ; and are united in 
 territory, and have no prejudice against 
 each other, but the reverse; the very best 
 of feelings reign between them; while on 
 the other hand, if he is not very much mis- 
 taken, there will be great indignation if 
 these five parishes are kept together, and 
 oniy entitled to one senator. There is no 
 justice in it, and he (Mr. G.) hopes this 
 Convention will sustain his motion. 
 
 Mr. Mayo desired to call the attention 
 of the Convention to an error, committed 
 no doubt unintentionally, by the honoiabie 
 delegate from Ouachita (Mr. Garrett.) The 
 parishes of Catahouia and franklin togeth- 
 er, paid three thousand two hundred dol- 
 lars taxes in 1843, and not the amount as 
 stated; but he does not think that should 
 be taken into consideration at all in this 
 question; where we can only be governed 
 by total population. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor thought upon look. 
 • ing more particularly over the tables, that 
 ] we ought not to disturb the apportionment 
 for the parishes of Bossier and Claiborne; 
 for on the basis which we have^determin- 
 ed to adopts they have a total population, 
 according to the census of 1840, of six 
 thousand one hundred and eighty-five. 
 The seven remaining parishes can be di- 
 vided so as to leave three, with a popula- 
 tion of six thousand nine hundred and thir- 
 ty-four; and the remaining four with a po- 
 pulation of six thousand four hundred and 
 ! sixty-eight; leaving Caldwell, Catahoula 
 and Franklin with only about seven hun- 
 . dred more, and Jackson, Ouachita, Union 
 \ and Morehouse, with only two hundred 
 and eighiy more than we find in the first 
 named parishes. 
 
 The question was then put on the mo- 
 tion offered by Mr. Garrett — and the yeas 
 
 and nays being called for, resulted as fol- 
 lows: • ' 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudou = 
 squie, Bourg, Brumfiehl, Chinn, Ciai= 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jef- 
 ferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, 
 Garrett, Guion, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Mazureau, Penn, Roman, Rose- 
 lius, St. Amand, Saunders, and Winder— 
 26 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Downs, Eustis, Hudspeth, Hum- 
 ble. Ledoux, Lewis McRae, Marigny, 
 Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Soule, Splane, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Trist,Voorhies, W'addill, Wederstrandt, 
 Wikoff and Winchester — 40 nays ; so the 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Hu:.ible then moved the adoption of 
 the majority report, constituting, 1st, the par- 
 ishes of Jackson, Union, Morehouse, Cald= 
 well and Ouachita, one senatorial district 
 with one senator ; and 2d, the parishes of 
 Catahoula and Franklin one senatorial 
 district, with one senator. 
 
 Mr. Gabrett moved to amend the mo- 
 tion by striking off the word "Caldwell" 
 from the first mentioned district, and add- 
 ing it to the second, to wit: the parishes of 
 Catahoula and Franklin. 
 
 Mr. Humble deeply regretted that this 
 motion had been made, and trusted it would 
 not prevail ; but while he shall endeavor 
 to defeat, it will only be because he knows 
 that his constituents in the parish of Cald- 
 well are not desirous that such a change 
 should be made. He remarked here, on a 
 previous occasion, that there was a natural 
 division between these parishes, but he 
 did not mean for a moment to say that 
 there were any unkind feelings between 
 them; on the contrary, they were friendly 
 and neighborly — the utmost friendship ex- 
 isted between them — and he believes he 
 states that which is literally true, that the 
 delegate from Catahoula, (Mr. Mayo,) is 
 equally as popular in the parish of Caldwell 
 as he is in his own parish. But he is en- 
 deavoring to call the attention of this Con- 
 vention to the fact, that the cit izens of Cald- 
 well do not wish to have their political con- 
 nection with the parish of Ouachita severed. 
 
594 
 
 Debates In the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Before he left home, he heard many cal- 
 culations made on the subject", and there 
 seemed to be but one opinion on the sub- 
 ject. He (Mr. Humble) has been a citi- 
 zen of that parish a long time ; he has 
 many a time rode thirty miles to help the 
 early settlers of the country roll logs. He 
 has been sheriff of the parish, and he pro- 
 fesses to know their feelings and wishes on 
 this sabject; and he hazards nothing in 
 saying that it is their wish to join the par- 
 ishes above in their representation in the 
 senate. For these reasons, much as he 
 esteems his colleague as a bosom friend, 
 he is compelled with great pain, to -move to 
 lay the motion made by him on the table. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said, that whenever the del- 
 egates of any particular district could not 
 agree among themselves, he thought it was 
 the duty of the Convention to interfere, and 
 do that which justice required; for, having 
 laid down the rule on which we base re- 
 presentation in the senate to be total popu- 
 lation, we should ourselves set the example 
 for the legislature to follow. There is no 
 one more desirous than he (Mr. Lewis) is, 
 to accommodate the delegate from Cald- 
 well, (Mr. Humble) if it could be done in 
 accordance with the principle we have es- 
 tablished. But it seems that the five par- 
 ishes united give a total population"of eight 
 thousand four hundred and eighty-seven, 
 while the parishes of Catahoula and Frank- 
 lin have only a population of four thousand 
 nine hundred and fifteen. It cannot there- 
 fore be just, with so great a disproportion 
 in the population; but if Caldwell be united 
 to Catahoula and Franklin, the population 
 will be six thousand nine hundred and 
 thirty-four, which is a much nearer approx- 
 imation to an equal division than the for- 
 mer, and one we ought not to hesitate 
 aboufadopting. It is his wish to comply, 
 in all cases of apportionment, with the 
 « wishes of members from the different dis- 
 tricts, when it can be done without injus- 
 tice ; but when one says it is unequal, and 
 anoLher says it is wanted by him in one 
 particular way, to suit his constituents — ■ 
 when there is, I say, such a difference of 
 opinion, we had better reduce it to figures; 
 for, without you do that, you cannot divide, 
 unless you make the division unequal. He 
 thinks the delegate from Ouachita, (Mr. 
 Garrett) has made out a case that is beyond 
 dispute, and that the districts as moved for 
 
 would be unfair and unjust, and consequent- 
 ly he shall vote for the motion to strike out 
 the parish of Caldwell from the first men- 
 tioned district, and add it to the second. 
 
 Mr. Downs expressed himself as greatly 
 surprised at the turn the debate had taken. 
 He thought it was closed; but it seems to 
 have been revived in a quarter in which 
 he had least expected it. Surely the dele, 
 gate from St. Landry had not forgotten 
 that the Ouachita delegation had not at. 
 tempted to interfere with him, when he 
 proposed to attach the parish of Calcasieu 
 to that of St. Landry, and thereby entitle 
 her to two senators. Why, then, should he 
 complain because the Ouachita district did 
 not wish to be divided in her senatorial 
 representation? He is the last man in this 
 Convention whom he (Mr. Downs) would 
 have expected to have taken that ground; for 
 he had remarked that it was not right to di- 
 vide the representation when the territorial 
 connection was so great as it was in the 
 parishes of St. Landry and Calcasieu. If it 
 were so then, it is no less so in the parish- 
 es that We wish to keep together now. In 
 point of territory, you have only to look at 
 the map, and you will find that the parish- 
 es of Catahoula and F*anklin are the most 
 extensive of any senatorial district in the 
 State, and that together they have larger 
 boundaries than any other. Besides that, 
 they are rapidly filling up. Black river is 
 settling from one end to the other ; and he 
 should not be at all astonished, that there 
 are more slaves taken into that settlement 
 since 1840, than their inhabitants at that 
 time. 
 
 Catahoula and Franklin are justly en- 
 titled to one senator. He (Mr. Downs) is 
 always opposed to dividing any senatorial 
 districts which are so closely allied as the 
 Ouachita parishes, and hopes it will not be 
 done. He feels sure it will not be accepta* 
 ble to a large portion of the people in those 
 parishes, to divide them. 
 
 Mr. Garrett, in reply, remarked that 
 the natural position of the parishes of Cata« 
 houla, Caldwell and Franklin required that 
 they should be kept together, and that he 
 is of opinion they are not so much disposed 
 to reject the alliance as some others tk'wk 
 they are. On the western boundary, Cata= 
 houla extends the whole length of the par- 
 ish of Caldwell ; while on the eastern 
 boundary, the parish of Franklin extends 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 595 
 
 for a considerable distance. Thus, it will I Derbes, Dunn. Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, 
 be seen, she lays, as it were, in the arms ! Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 of her mother. He hopes, therefore, taking ! Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Prudhomme, 
 total population, territorial contiguity and | Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saun- 
 taxation all into consideration, that the I ders, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Taylor of 
 Convention will see the justice of the case, j Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, 
 and adopt the amendment. j Wikoff, Winchester and Winder voted in 
 
 Mr. Brazeale remarked that there was ; the affirmative — 37 yeas: and 
 great diversity of opinion on this subject, j Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 but as he thought it was not right to divide ! Carriere, Downs, Humble, Ledoux, Mc= 
 a district against its own wish, he should j Rae, Marigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, 
 vote to lay the motion of the delegate from ; Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 Ouachita (Mr. Garrett) indefinitely on the j cott of St. Landry, Preston, RatlifT, Read, 
 table. I Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 
 The question was then put, and the yeas j Soule, Splane, Voorhies, Waddill and We- 
 and navs being called for, resulted as fol- j derstrandt voted in the negative — 27 nays; 
 lows: " so the motion prevailed; and Catahoula, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, j Franklin and Caldwell form one district, 
 Carriere, Downs, Humble, Ledoux, Mc- with one senator ; and -Ouachita, Union, 
 Rae, Marigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, ; Morehouse and Jackson, one district, with 
 Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- j one senator. 
 
 cott of St. Landry, Preston, RatlifF, Read, | Mr. Dowxs then moved to reconsider 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, j the question, in reference to apportionment 
 Soule, Splane, Stephens, Voorhies, W r ad- being made after the year 1855 : that no 
 dill and W T ederstrandt voted in the affirma- j parish shall be divided so as to be included 
 t[ve — 28 yeas; and in more than one district; that the number 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, of senators shall not be less than twenty. 
 Brumfield, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of j five r nor mone than thirty-four,- to be allot- 
 New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- tel according to the population of each dis- 
 herison, Derhes, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, | trict; and that no parish shall have more 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, Kingr, Labauve, j than one-eighth of the total population. 
 Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Prudhomme, ; Mr. Downs moved to strike out the 
 Pugh, Roman. Roselius, St. Amand, Saun- ! words " after 1845," and insert instead 
 ders, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Taylor of " in every year in which they shall appor- 
 Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, } tion," &c. 
 
 Wikoff, Winchester and Winder voted in Mr. Culbertsox inquired if the number 
 
 the negative — 36 nays; so the motion to lay j of senators was not to be thirty-two instead 
 
 on the table was lost. . j of thirty-four ? 
 
 Mr. Brazeale then moved to put the \ Mr. Coxrad considered thirty-two a suf- 
 
 whole seven parishes together, and form ; ficient number, and would move to insert 
 
 one single district with two senators. j that as the limit. 
 
 Mr. Humble said that would be more Mr. Ratliff considered that as the 
 
 srtisfactory than the proposed division. ! house had decided upon the number thirty- 
 Mr. Mayo moved to lay the motion in- j two, it would be as well to fix it for the 
 
 definitely on the table. i present at that .number. He thought it 
 
 After some few remarks from Messrs. ■ improper to leave the power of increasing 
 
 Mayo, Downs, Guion, Brazeale, Beatty, the number of senators to the legislature; 
 
 Humble and Garrett, * at the same time, he deemed it necessary 
 
 Mr. Brazeale withdrew his motion. | that they should have the power of equali- 
 The question then recurred on the ' "zing the several senatorial districts, so as 
 
 amendnient offered hy the delegate from j to meet the exigencies that might arise 
 
 Ouachita, (Mr. Garrett,) and the yeas and i hereafter. It was impossible to foresee 
 
 nays being called for, resulted as follows : | the dangerous results that may be the con- 
 Messrs Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, I sequence, if the power of either increasing 
 
 Brumfield, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of : or diminishing the number of the senate 
 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, ' were left in the hands of the legislature- 
 
596 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 The political power of a section of the 
 State might be wrested from it ; he there- 
 fore hoped that the number thirty-two 
 would be permanently fixed, so that no 
 power will be left to the legislature, but 
 that of equalizing districts from time to 
 time, as increase of population and other 
 causes may require. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to amend the clause, 
 by inserting after the words "number of 
 senators" the words " shall be thirty-two;" 
 which was adopted. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan moved to strike out "total 
 population," and insert " electors;" but his 
 motion was out of order, the amendment 
 having been already rejected. He con- 
 tended that, inasmuch as the basis was 
 never before the house, it could not be said 
 to have been rejected. After some re. 
 marks from several gentlemen, the decision 
 of the chair prevailed. 
 
 Mr. M. Taylok called for the adoption 
 of the section. 
 
 Mr. Downs wished to include an ad- 
 ditional provision in the section, in refer- 
 ence to the senatorial apportionment. The 
 secretary having read the project, 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved that it be laid on 
 the table, subject to call, with a view 7 to 
 have it printed and laid before the mem- 
 bers. Carried. 
 
 Mr. Lewis asked, if he was then in or- 
 der, to move a reconsideration of the vote 
 on dividing the city of New Orleans into 
 three districts— having voted in the minor- 
 ity ; or whether he should give notice to 
 that effect ? 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said that Mr. Mazureau 
 had already given notice to lhat effect. 
 
 Mr. Preston said, as there had been no 
 direct vote taken on inserting " qualified 
 electors," as the basis of senatorial appor- 
 tionment, and as, when the question of 
 "total population" had been brought up, 
 he voted for it, in a spirit«and with a view 
 to effect a compromise with gentlemen 
 from other sections of the State; and now, 
 that one of the principles involved had been 
 taken out of the clause, namely : a new 
 apportionment being made in 1848- — he 
 hoped that the house would not object to 
 reconsider the vote upon that question. He 
 had voted against it under a wrong impres- 
 sion, and he was anxious to be set right be- 
 fore his constituents; and the question now, 
 of taking up the vote to reconsider, with a 
 
 view to insert " qualified electors" in, lieu 
 of " total population." would give every 
 delegate an opportunity of declaring him- 
 self as he wished to appear before his con- 
 stituents. 
 
 The rules of the house having been dis- 
 pensed with, on motion of Mr. Taylor, 
 the question for reconsideration was "put, 
 and the yeas and nays were called for ; 
 when 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Burton, Bru infield, 
 Cade, Carriere, Downs, Humble, Le- 
 doux, McRae. Marigny, Mayo, 0%y. 
 an, Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoy. 
 elles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Rati iff, Read, Scott of East Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of East Feliciana, and Wederstrandt 
 voted in the affirmative — 23 yeas; and 
 . Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Brent, Cenas, Chirm, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis Garcia, 
 Hudspeth, King, Legendre, Lewis, Prud. 
 hoiiime, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St.. 
 Amand, Saunders, Sellers, Soule, Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Trist, Vrorhies, Waddill, 
 Wikoff, Winchester and Winder voted in 
 the negative — 37 nays; so the motion was 
 lost. . -<M 
 
 Mr. Taylor then moved the adoption 
 of the clause, and his motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to amend that part of 
 the section dividing New Orleans into four 
 districts, by inserting "that all that portion 
 of New Orleans on the left bank of the 
 Mississippi shall be one senatorial district, 
 and shall return four senators.' 1 He knew 
 this to be a subject which had created a 
 good deal of jealousy and dissatisfaction in 
 the country. The city of New Orleans 
 being a distinct political corporation, had 
 no right to be divided into separate dis° 
 tricts no more than had the country par* 
 ishes, and these have not been divided 
 except where in some few instances it 
 could not be avoided, and where the repie* 
 sent£ives from that section of Country had 
 required or were in favor of it. He felt 
 some degree of surprise indeed, that such 
 a proposition had ever been made at all; 
 had any such proposition been offered to 
 divide a country district, we should have 
 heard a general expression of astonish- 
 ment at it. The country looks on the city 
 with a vast deal of jealousy, because they 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 597 
 
 justly consider that wherever a dense po- 
 pulation is crowded into a small space, 
 they obtain unjust and undue political ad- 
 vantages; thus New Orleans by this means 
 has a preponderance over the balance of 
 tiie State. In the organization of the house 
 of representatives, the city was divided into 
 nine electoral districts; and now an attempt 
 is made to divide her senatorial represen- 
 tation in three'districts. This was in his 
 opinion proceeding in violation of that 
 principle laid down by them at die outset, 
 ''that representation shall be equal and 
 uniform in this State." The allotment of 
 representative power already made in fa- 
 vor of New Orleans appeared to him to 
 admit of a good deal of questioning as to 
 its justice when taken in comparison with 
 other portions of the State. He admitted 
 me jusiice and necessity of restraining 
 commercial communities, but in this in- 
 stance he would say that if New Orleans 
 is to be divided at all. let her be equally 
 divided; let it not be said that one portion 
 within her limits, which has now nearly- 
 reached its acme, shall have double the 
 number of senators that you give another 
 and rapidly growing quarter. He hoped 
 sincerely that if they divided at all, they 
 would do so by placing each section as 
 near upon a footing of equality as possible: 
 as equally as the country parishes were 
 apportioned at least, and not have this glar- 
 ing instance of inconsistency manifest in 
 their proceedings. This was what he 
 wanted to effect, and he trusted that his 
 motion would prevail. 
 
 Mr. Marigzsy desired to offer his thanks 
 to the honorab e delegate who had prece 
 ded him, for the lively interest he appear- 
 ed to feel in the welfare of the city, but at 
 the same time could not agree with the 
 ideas he had advanced as to the necessity 
 of interfering with the apportionment oCthe 
 senate as at present laid off. He is some- 
 times in doubt whether a division of the 
 city has been beneficial, when he looks at 
 the amount of debt which some parts of it 
 are encumbered with. But he then stops, 
 and comes to the conclusion that those 
 who are the most interested in it must be 
 the best judges. That point settled, let us 
 now look at what the population of the 
 three municipalities consists. Accordmo- 
 to the last census, the first municipality had 
 fmy thousand, the secondiwenty-two thou- 
 76 
 
 sand, and the third twenty-eight thousand. 
 Hence I am bound (said Mr. M.) to come 
 to the conclusion that a fair division out of 
 four senators, is two for the first, one for 
 the second, and one for the third. It will 
 be then clearly seen that my views and 
 those of the delegate from St. Landry are 
 at utter variance: and that while he desires 
 to do so much for us, he actually proposes 
 nothing at all, unless he wishes that the 
 ten or fifteen thousand floating population 
 ! from Europe and the northern States, who 
 ; inhabit the second municipality, like so 
 5 many birds of passage, should swell their 
 vote to tire injury of the other two munici- 
 ' palities. He (Mr. Marigny) thinks it bet- 
 ' ter in such a case, and fairer towards all 
 to let each municipality elect their proper 
 proportion of senators, as provided for al- 
 ready in the section, for assuredly if the 
 I principle contended for, of electing the sen- 
 | ators by general ticket prevail, the first and 
 third municipalities will be sacrificed for 
 ; the benefit of the second, and he will op- 
 \ pose any measure calculated to bring about 
 j that result We have never interfered 
 ; with the country districts: why then should 
 they interfere with ours? They separated 
 i the two parishes cf East and West Felici- 
 ana- because they said their interests re- 
 | quired it. We acceded to it. Then why 
 i should they not allow us to do the same 
 \ thing, when we' show them that the inter- 
 | ests of the three municipalities are not on - 
 ! ly not identical, but autagonistical in some 
 ! respects? 
 
 Already have we heard murmurs of dis- 
 satisfaction at some of the provisions of our 
 j new constitution. It is not in the province 
 i of this Convention to sow the seed that will 
 1 increase such murmurs* Let us rather 
 avoid such a course, and carry our work 
 to a successful termination. We cannot do 
 it by increasing the difficulties, and we 
 shall assuredly do so, if we pass any un- 
 just provision as to the rights of any of the 
 municipalities of New Orleans. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Koselixs, the Con- 
 vention adjourned until to-morrow morn- 
 ing at ten o'clock. 
 
 Saturday, April 5, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad 
 | jourument, and the proceedings were open- 
 j ed with prayer. 
 
 Mi. Downs called the attention of the 
 
5 C JS Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 house to the imperfect manner in which I 
 some of" the official reports of the debates 
 were made. The evil had become intol- 
 erable. Neither the language nor the 
 ideas of members were given He refer- 
 red particularly to the debates of the 31st 
 March. li'the public were to take tliese 
 debates as a faithful narration of what took 
 place in this body, they would form a very 
 humiliating idea of its proceedings. They 
 would infer that its members were in a con- 
 stant struggle. Language was put in the 
 mouths of members that never was em- 
 ployed by them— -that gentlemen never 
 used, and which gentlemen could not 
 use. He did not know what to suggest; 
 but it was manifest that some remedy ought 
 to be employed. 
 
 Mr. Saunders said, in the lew remarks 
 made by him on the 31st March, his rea- 
 sons were not such as were assigned to 
 him in the reports of the proceedings of 
 that day. He never said what is there im- 
 puted to him. He never said ".that it was 
 evidently a political combination for politi- 
 cal purposes.*' What he might have said 
 was this, '' that it might bear possibly that 
 appearance." 
 
 Mr. M. Taylor said that these reports 
 went before the people, and some greater 
 reliance was placed upon them from the 
 tact that they were prepared by officers es- 
 pecially appointed by the house, to consign 
 what actually took place — to give, if not 
 the precise words, at least the arguments 
 and opinions-of members as they were de- 
 livered. It was unpleasant to complain, 
 but in the present instance it was impossi- 
 ble for a member to recognize in the print- 
 ed debates of the proceedings, the remarks 
 he may have made. It was impossible, in 
 point of fact, to assign the paternity of these 
 remarks to the individual to whom they 
 were attributed in the report. In the de- 
 bates of the 3 i st March, his (Mr. Taylor's) 
 arguments upon the subject of senatorial 
 apportionment were not such as were re- 
 ported. In the printed report man)' things 
 that he did say were omitted — somethings 
 he did say were perverted — and the lan- 
 guage employed to convey his meaning 
 was unsram-matical. In five lines \ie was 
 made to <nake two assertions that he never 
 made. He never said " he was satisfied 
 with the apportionment' 7 — that " it was the 
 ieirest 'hat could have been made." He 
 
 did not say, with the facts before the house, 
 that it was absolutely unfair, but he cer- 
 tainly did not make the contrary asser- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad was satisfied that it 
 was impossible for any one but a stenog- 
 rapher, to take down the debates with that 
 accuracy which was essential. As soon 
 as he had learned that the gentlemen em- 
 ployed were not stenographers, he was dis- 
 posed to do away with the reporting of the 
 speeches altogether. He had no doubt 
 that the individual complained of, had clone 
 his best; but, it was exceedingly difficult to 
 make correct reports, without a knowledge 
 of stenography. At first, he had been in 
 the habit, occasionally, of , looking, at the 
 speeches made. He was convinced they 
 were as well done by the first reporter as 
 they could be done by any one not a ste- 
 nographer. Of late, he had not looked at 
 the report of the debates, and he knew not 
 how far he had suffered, but presumed he 
 had not shared a better fate than other 
 gentlemen. 
 
 Mr. Roselius: It is unnecessary to dis- 
 cuss this matter. Let us remove the re- 
 porter that has shown his incompetency. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne: The best course is to 
 abolish the office. I think two reporters 
 in English unnecessary, and that the duty 
 would be better performed alone by the 
 gentleman now reporting, who is fully 
 capable, 
 
 Mr. Kenner said he was sorry to join 
 in the out-cry raised against one of the re- 
 porters. But in the debate referred to by 
 the gentleman, he (Mr. Kenner) was made 
 to say what in fact he did not in fact utter, 
 and, he should be sorry that the impression 
 should be taken up that he employed the 
 language attributed to him. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff suggested that it would be 
 better for the reporters to submit the de- 
 bates to the members who may have 
 spoken, in order to be revised by them. 
 This was the course pursued in congress 
 when set speeches were made by the 
 members. It was very difficult to report 
 the remarks of gentlemen that spoke with 
 the fluency and rapidity of the delegate 
 from New Orleans, (Mr. Benjamin.) Some- 
 times too, he (Mr. Ratliff) remarked that 
 some of the best speakers in the Conven- 
 tion, made use of phrases or expressions 
 that were not strictly parliamentary. In 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, »Q® 
 
 reference to himself, he paid no particular ! become remiss, I believe him capable, 
 attention to the manner in which his re- j and hence I do not include him in the mo- 
 marks were reported. But he remembered, ; tion; I trust for the future he will be more 
 on one occasion, upon looking into the re- 1 exact. 
 
 ports, to have seen an anecdote related by j Mr. BsATTrsaidhe considered Mr. Kerr 
 him, so distorted as scarcely to be re cog- \ not much more correct than the other re- 
 nized by himself or those of his constituents porter. He had endeavored at first to have 
 to whom it was familiar. j him removed, but having been unsuccess- 
 
 Mr. Claiborxe remarked that there was ful, he had not troubled himself of late 
 but one French reporter, and that he per- much about the reports. Before the ap- 
 formed as great a labor, and in one sense pointment of Mr. Ilsley, he had in several 
 a greater Labor, than the English reporters, ! instances remarked Mr. Kerr's report of 
 inasmuch as he had to translate what was j his observations, and his meaning, as well 
 said from English into French. He con- as his language were totally perverted. He 
 ceived that the first reporter would perform certainly bore that gentleman no personal 
 the duty of reporting much better alone. ill will. He had no particular acquain- 
 
 Mr. Lewis complained, that for some tanee with him. He did not believe the 
 time past, not a solitary speech delivered < reports were correctly done — that justice 
 by him had been reported as he had spoken j was done to the proceedings of this body, 
 it*. The report of the first of April, made ; For that reason he hoped that both re- 
 by Mr. Kerr, contained the substance of porters would be discharged, not only be - 
 what he might have said, pretty much in cause they wer£ both incompetent, but for 
 the same' style as the letter writers at the purpose of perventing them from being 
 Washington would have employed to have elected in a similar capacity by either of 
 announced the debates upon some question j the legislative bodies. 
 
 that was agitated in congress. His argu- j Mr. Soule said., that if there was a 
 ments weie not given. It was his delibe- member of this body who was authorised 
 rate conviction that the reporters were | to complain before all others, that member 
 too lazy, or were unwilling to perform the I was himself. It was not often that he 
 duty assigned them. If this were so, where ' troubled the Convention with any remarks, 
 was the use of keeping them? The pub- On the only occasion that he had spoken, 
 lication of some of these reports were cal- what he had said was reported by a bad 
 culated to place the members of the Con- ; translation from the French, in which it 
 ventioh in a ridiculous point of view. To was impossible to discover the traces of any 
 make them appear like school boys at the of his ideas. He had consoled himself in 
 hornbook — as uttering the veriest non- the humiliating position in which he was 
 sense — the most trifling puerilities; and all j placed, by the reflection, that the produc- 
 this not only appeared in a public paper, tion bore upon its face what it really was, 
 but likewise was consigned in a book form and therefore he would not be held account^ 
 which would doubtlesss figure largely here- able for its glaring defects. At the same 
 after, as the proceedings of the Louisiana time, he admitted that some excuse might 
 Convention! Truly, we were making be urged for the reporter to whom he allu- 
 ourselves an object of ridicule by these re- ' ded. He believed that it was from no want 
 ports! He would renew the motion of the of zeal, nor from any indisposition on his 
 delegate from Xew Orleans (Mr. Roselius.) ; part to give satisfaction. He. thought that 
 One ot the reporters was utterly incapable j there was a means less harsh to attain the 
 ot performing the duty. He made us say object proposed by gentlemen. Let ns lay 
 the reverse of what we actually «aid, and the resolution on the table, and if by 3V£on- 
 that in a language by no means remarka- day or Tuesday next no remedy suggests 
 ble tor its accuracy. I doubt not, continued itself, it will be time enough for us then to 
 Mr. Lewis, we are laughed at for all this I act. 
 
 jargon and nonsense, as we would deserve j Mr. Wadswouth said that his eye hap 
 to be, it we were indeed guilty of uttering I pened to fall upon some remarks purporting 
 it, it is a tissue of nonsense! Mr. Kerr I to have been made by him on the 31sr' 
 was tolerably correct, and at first I was ' He would read the following extract. Com. 
 satisfied with his reports: but of late he has ment was totally unnecessary, 
 
GOO 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 be well to require 
 revise and correct 
 
 "He (Mr. Wads worth) thinks the dele- 
 gate from Ouachita does not meet the 
 question properly, nor in the proper spirit. 
 He says all those who have two, may be 
 interfered with. Now that is not the way 
 to meet a question like this; we want per^ 
 manency, we want it fixed distinctly and 
 permanently." 
 
 Mr. Soule: I ought to add, that in 
 what I have said, I refer neither to the re- 
 porter in English that was first elected, 
 nor to the reporter in French, whose re- 
 ports have been faithful and exact. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne suggested, that as these 
 reports were to be consigned to posterity, i 
 whether it would not 
 the a?ting reporter to 
 them. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad replied that it was 
 too late to make any corrections. 
 
 Mr. Soule's motion was then adopted, 
 laying Mr. Roselius' motion upon the ta- 
 ble, 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Apportionment of the city into four sen- 
 atorial districts. 
 
 Mr. Roselius said: Mr. President— 
 Haying the misfortune to differ with two of 
 my colleagues in opinion, upon the sub- 
 ject under debate, I deem it proper, in a 
 few brief remarks to state the grounds up- 
 on which I base my views of this matter. 
 I consider, sir. that New Orleans is one 
 city; that the interest of one part is the in- 
 terest of the whole city; that what con- 
 duces to the benefit of one part, necessari- 
 ly conduces to the benefit of the whole. I 
 can safely assert that the greatest curse 
 that has ever fallen upon this city has been 
 its division into separate municipalities. — 
 That division has caused more evil, and 
 has done more to prevent the development 
 of the interests and resources of the city, 
 than any event that has ever taken place. 
 If it were necessary to enter into a minute 
 investigation, it would be no difficult task 
 to show the awful results that have flowed 
 from that unadvised and impolitic measure. 
 A thousand evils have resulted from that 
 circumstance. I do not believe there is a 
 reflecting man, expressing his sincere con- 
 victions, that would not agree with me, 
 that it has done more mischief than any 
 thing else. Can any person reflect seri- 
 ously and say that a city situated like New 
 Orleans ought to be divided in policy, in 
 
 government, and in interest? Can any 
 honorable gentleman refer to any act of 
 generaHegislation in which the interests 
 of the city clash, and in which one part of 
 its interests are adverse to another part? 
 I have reflected in vain to discover any 
 subject of general legislation in which such 
 a conflict may arise. 
 
 If there be no conflict, *no clashing of 
 interest, why destroy further the unity of 
 the city? Why divide it into three senato- . 
 rial districts? What is the object of this 
 division? What is the design of having a 
 senate at all? The design is, that its mem- 
 bers being selected by a larger constitu- 
 ency, and it being composed of men of 
 more matured age, they will not be opera- 
 ted upon by local considerations; that it 
 will take a more enlarged, a more com- 
 prehensive view, and that it will therefore 
 operate as an effectual cheek upon the has- 
 ty legislation of the lower house. That is 
 the reason; that is the principle why the 
 legislature is divided into two branches.. 
 If you then subdivide the city into three 
 senatorial districts, you establish no ma^ 
 terial difference, so far as the city is con- 
 cerned, between the upper and lower house. 
 You make the senate superfluous. Where 
 is the necessity of having the two houses if 
 the constituency are to be identically the 
 same — if both bodies are to represent the 
 same number of persons, and the same lo- 
 cal districts? These are but elementary 
 principles, which lie at the foundation of 
 government itself. My honorable colleague 
 (Mr. Mayo) adduced yesterday, what he 
 supposed to be strong arguments in favor 
 of the division of the city. I think that 
 his arguments favored the converse of the 
 proposition. What did the honorable gen- 
 tleman say? He said that he had opposed 
 with all his might the division of the city 
 into districts, for the election of members 
 to the house of representatives. That he 
 deplored that division as a great evil. That 
 it was a wrong inflicted upon the city, forced 
 upon us J)y the delegates from the country. 
 That it was done under the pretence of 
 dividing the concentrated power of the city. 
 He concedes all this. He concedes that 
 the division was impolitic and inexpedient; 
 that it is an evil. If this division be an 
 evil, and that he admits, how can any man 
 in his senses say that the division of the 
 city for its senatorial representation is not 
 
Debates in the Convention -of Louisiana. 
 
 801 
 
 a like evil/ If you are opposed to one; if 
 you think it prejudicial and pernicious, how 
 can you consistently approve the other, 
 which is still more pernicious and prejudi- 
 cial? The arguments of the gentleman 
 (Mr. Marigny) were strong, but they did not 
 lie in support of his position. They estab- 
 lished the very reverse. Gentlemen from 
 the city very properly opposed the division 
 of the city into nine representative dis- 
 tricts. They raised a clamor, and did so 
 very properly, because that measure was 
 eminently calculated to injure the city; to 
 destroy her proper weight in the councils of 
 the State. How can gentlemen that took 
 that ground, now say that it is promotive of 
 the welfare and well being of the city to 
 divide her into three senatorial districts. 
 They were opposed to dividing the city in- 
 to representative districts, and are yet in 
 favor of dividing her into senatorial dis- 
 tricts. The fallacy of such a proceeding 
 is too palpable to require argument. It 
 lies at the very surface. It is obvious and 
 palpable. It scarcely requires reflection. 
 
 Has any thing been advanced by those 
 of my colleagues with whom I have the 
 misfortune of differing upon this question, 
 showing that it is to the interest of the city 
 to be divided into senatorial districts? They 
 say that one municipality, (meaning the 
 second.) may obtain an undue influence.— 
 The gentleman (Mr. Marigny) uses that 
 argument, but he forgets that his assertion 
 is destroyed by the very figures he 
 employs to sustain it. He tells us truly 
 that the first municipality has a population 
 of fifty-thousand souls; that the second has 
 a population of twenty-two thousand souls, 
 and the third a population of twentv-nine 
 thousand souls. Now, sir, I would ask. 
 does the relative populations of the three ; 
 municipalities afford any [just grounds of 
 apprehension of the overwhelming and 
 absorbing influence of the second munici- 
 pality?^ _ How do the facts stand as to the 
 disposition or the power of that municipal- 
 ity io control the -other two, up to the pre- 1 
 sent time? The city has in this body elev- 
 en delegates, chosen without reference to 
 party politics, and there is not a single del- 
 egate residing in that municipality. And 
 yet we are told that we must guard against 
 the overwhelming influence of the second 
 municipality! Here are. the plain facts, in 
 
 opposition to the theories of gentlemen. 
 They cannot Jbe controverted. 
 
 But the gentleman (Mr, Marigny) has 
 dwelt much upon the progress of the se = 
 cond muninipality. He thinks it will out- 
 strip the others. I do not take that for 
 granted; and if I did take it for granted, is 
 there any thing wrong that the greatest 
 numbers, and largest amount of property, 
 should have the controlling power? Let 
 I -us be consistent. Let us not squabble up- 
 on illusory apprehensions. | do not own 
 : one inch of ground in the second munici- 
 pality; all my interests are centred in the 
 ' first; but 1 should consider myself unwor- 
 thy of a seat in this body were I to permit 
 myself to be governed by sectional con- 
 siderations. if I were to suffer them Ao 
 influence a single vote of mine. I am op- 
 posed, irresistibly opposed, to any further 
 division of the city for any purpose. — 
 And why should it be divided at all? 
 The basis of apportionment fixed for the 
 i senate is total population. For the pur- 
 pose of circumscribing what is considered 
 the undue influence of the city upon the 
 legislature of the State, it is prescribed that 
 she shall not have more than one-eighth of 
 the representation in the senate, when, in 
 point of fact, she is entitled to upwards of 
 one. third. But we do not complain, and 
 we submit so her being curtailed. We 
 have made that concession. We have con- 
 sented to take one-eighth in place of one- 
 third, to which we are entitled. Is no! 
 that enough? Must the four senators al- 
 lowed to the city be divided among the 
 three municipalities? If gentlemen con- 
 sider that justice, their ideas of justice diL 
 fer from mine. The result of such a division 
 will be, that the city, as a city, will no more 
 be represented in the senate, than she will 
 be in the house of representatives. The 
 representation from the nine representa- 
 tive districts of the city will be nothing but 
 a local representation. It will represent 
 only the particular representative district. 
 Where will the city be represented as a 
 whole, as an unit? No where. The city 
 will not have a single representative. You 
 split us up into nine representative dis- 
 tricts for the house of representatives, and 
 then, where at least the city should be re- 
 presented as an unit, in the senate, you go 
 still further, and divide the city into four 
 districts. I ask, and insist upon an an> 
 
Debates hi the Convention of Louisiana 
 
 swer, where is the justice of such a pro- 
 ceeding? Shall this vast city, with all her 
 important interests, be without a represen- 
 tative in either branch of theSegislature? 
 A city which is constantly enlarging, and 
 whose great resources are developed from 
 day to day. This seems, of all the mea- 
 sures yet attempted against the city, the 
 most oppressive, and the most unjust, not 
 even excepting the ban placed upon her by 
 which she is disqualified from ever again 
 becoming die seat of .government. I know 
 of none so utterly opposed to every no- 
 tion of justice that I have formed. 
 
 Another objection (said Mr. Roselius) 
 that I have to the division of the city into 
 several senatorial districts, is that this di- 
 vision of the State into senatorial districts, 
 is no temporary affair. It is to last— -it is 
 to continue, and the increase of population 
 in one district of the city will not entitle it 
 to any augmentation in its senatorial repre- 
 sentation. Will that be just? I doubt 
 much whether any gentleman will pretend 
 to say that such a result is consistent with 
 justice or equity! 
 
 But it is said, or intimated rather, that 
 in the fluctuation of parties, one of the po- 
 litical parties may get in the ascendant, 
 and deprive the other party of all chance 
 of entering the senate. 1 disclaim all con- 
 siderations of this nature. In opposing 
 the division of the city for senatorial dis- 
 tricts, I am not influenced by any party 
 motive. I oppose it because I consider it 
 like all other divisions of the city, fraught 
 with incalculable evils. 
 
 With the view of satisfying all objections, 
 and to obviate the apprehensions of some 
 gentlemen that the result of the general 
 ticket system might be, that all four senators 
 would be chosen in one municipality, I 
 will propose a proviso to the proposition of 
 the member from St. Landry (Mr. Lewis) 
 that one senator shall be taken from each 
 municipality—the whole four to be elected 
 by general ticket, as proposed by that de- 
 legate. 
 
 Mr. Roselius then .offered his amend- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Soule: 1 expressed upon a former 
 occasion what were my views and opinions 
 in relation to the question now before the 
 house. I have since that time seriously 
 reflected upon the measure proposed by the 
 delegate from St. Landry, (Mr. Lewis) and 
 
 which is supported by the gentleman that 
 has just resumed his seat. I have exam- 
 ined the question without reference to po- 
 litical considerations, and 1 may claim 
 without vanity, the merit of never havintr 
 interfered in the political questions that 
 have been discussed in this body. Icouid 
 not bring my mind to that standard of po. 
 litical feeling which would govern my 
 vote upon any question that might arise ia 
 our deliberations. I do not impute politi- 
 cal motives to any; but for myself I may 
 say in truth and sincerity, they do noi 
 weigh with me a feather! 
 
 The first question we should resolve 
 seems to be what is the basis of apportion- 
 ment for the senate. One would naturally 
 conclude from the discussion that has ta- 
 ken place, that what has been done, has 
 been destroyed, and that we have assumed 
 a different basis from the one we adopted, 
 The logical powers of the gentleman (Mr. 
 Roselius) have in vain been employed in 
 favor of any, other, and the attempt to con- 
 nect any other with the question of large 
 districts, cannot have any weight in influ- 
 encing our judgments. Sir, the great 
 question of property— whether mind or 
 matter should be represented, is at an end, 
 It is beyond the discretion of this house. 
 We have adopted the basis of electors for 
 the lower house, and total population for 
 the senate. Here we have a point dede* 
 part. We are to determine according to 
 the personality and not according lo ter- 
 ritorial extent. We are not called on to 
 make an apportionment in reference to ter^ 
 ritory, "but an apportionment in reference 
 to personality. Now, sir, in establishing 
 the divisions in the apportionment to be 
 made, it is a safe and sound rule, to estab- 
 lish them according to the natural divisions 
 which that personality presents. The 
 question then resolves itself into this: Has 
 the personality of New Orleans but one 
 feature, which is so identical in all its parts, 
 as to have but one interest to be repre- 
 sented] If this be the case, then I yield 
 the point! It has been said that New Or- 
 leans is but one city. I shall not wage 
 war with names. It is true that it consti- 
 tutes but one city. But do you know wlia* 
 that is owing to? Its existence under its 
 name of New Orleans, has been constitu- 
 tionally secured. Otherwise that would 
 have been destroved. At one time, the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 603 
 
 city of New Orleans was but a single cor- j 
 poration." At the time to which I would 
 allude, the second municipality, as the 
 faubourg St. Mary, had scarce begun its 
 progress. The old corporation was the 
 richest body that ever existed in the Uni- 
 ted States. Yielding to considerations of 
 the general prosperity, and with unexam- 
 pled liberality, that corporation divided its 
 treasures with the rising faubourg. But 
 how was it recompensed? It was despoil- 
 ed of its treasures. Its immense wealth 
 was swallowed up in the improvements of 
 that limb of the city, and when it was re- 
 duced to a skeleton, to use the language 
 employed by my friend yesterday, and had 
 nothing more to give— when all its means 
 had been exhausted for improvements, it 
 was then suggested by that section which 
 had been so liberally favored, that the city 
 be divided, and at its pressing and assidu- 
 ous solicitations, that measure was effect- 
 ed. I remember (said Mr. S.) that in 
 1S36, when a large portiou of the means 
 of the old corporation had been absorbed 
 in the making of wharves in the second 
 municipality — when many of its streets 
 were paved, there was not a stone in Royal 
 street! I should suppose that the fact that 
 the division of the city was asked for and 
 was determined upon, is conclusive that 
 there was no identity of interests. Or else 
 why was it demanded? By whom was it 
 sought for? By the second municipality, 
 and it was resisted by the city proper as 
 far as resistance could be available! 
 
 It was accomplished, and the very first 
 step was an act of most glaring injustice 
 to the old city. The very lines of its cor- 
 porate limits were changed; jhey extended 
 as far as Common street, but by the act of 
 separation, the boundary was run from the 
 middle of Canal street, from the river to 
 the lake. Ever since that period, all the 
 zeal of the second municipality has been 
 enlisted, and it has struggled with hercu- 
 lean power to draw all the advantages from 
 the old city. Instead of one city, by the 
 act of division, we have three cities. The 
 part of New Orleans has been changed and 
 carried up to the borders of Lafayette. 
 The natural consequence of the division 
 into separate and distinct municipalities, 
 has been to excite a feeling of rivalry, 
 which has reached a point where there is 
 no identity of interest between them, Far 
 
 from me to say or to intimate one word 
 in disparagement of the inhabitants of the 
 second municipality. They have advan- 
 ced with giant strides. I admire their en- 
 ergy and indomitable perseverance, and 
 what I wish is. that the old population 
 which is so fast receding, would only be 
 stimulated by their example! But I can- 
 not consent that the second municipality 
 have absolute sway over the two other mu- 
 nicipalities — that she should absorb and 
 engross to herself their political power, 
 without attempting to avert the calamity. 
 
 Now, sir, I wish the Convention not to 
 lose sight of the fact that this difference of 
 interest is not the only difference between 
 the three municipalities. It has been as- 
 serted on this floor that there is another 
 difference. That the municipalities are 
 not inhabited by identically the same popu- 
 lation, and that is true in some respects. 
 If total population be the basis, how can 
 it be expected that populations said to be 
 so different, can be represented by a gene- 
 ral ticket? It is a fundamental principle, 
 that all interests should be represented in 
 a political community; that all- are entitled 
 to protection. I would rather yield that 
 protection to those most in want of it! 
 When 1 say this, I speak relatively; for 
 one of these municipalities will always be 
 able to take care of herself! When the 
 others may need protection, they must 
 look for it elsewhere! 
 
 I have said before, that in the political 
 contests, three distinct features distinguish 
 the three municipalities. The third muni-, 
 cipality is quiet — without excitement, and 
 with little disposition to intermeddle. The 
 first municipality, as you progress up, step 
 by step, presents features of greater excite- 
 ment, and in the first ward, approaches 
 nearest to the second municipality. In the 
 second municipality, the art of manufac= 
 turing voters is a perfect system : it is re- 
 duced to a rule, and the s avoir fair 'e is 
 w r ell understood. No human art can baf- 
 fle these designs upon the ballot box! 
 
 If it can be shown that the second mu- 
 nicipality is entitled to two senators, let 
 her have them. Let her be represented 
 equally with the first municipality. If 
 this can be established. I shall be up 
 among the very first to sustain her preten- 
 sions? If the first and third municipalities 
 were to have but one senator, that one 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 would, at Leastj represent their interests 
 and be responsible to them? 
 
 Now, sir, what is the object contempla- 
 ted by electing the five senators by general 
 ticket? I will not say that a political ob- 
 ject is sought for. 1 am disposed to place 
 it on a different footing. We have been 
 told that the division of the city is the 
 greatest curse that has ever been inflicted 
 upon the city. I have always been of that 
 opinion. But the thing is accomplished- 
 it is done. It was consonated despite ot 
 the protestations of the city proper, and it 
 defeats all the arguments that -have been 
 adduced by my friend and colleague, (Mr. 
 Roselius.) It overcomes all his logic: for 
 it is a fact, and what lie urges are but theo- 
 ries! How can the election of the four 
 senators by a general ticket restore to the 
 city that unity which was destroyed by its 
 division into municipalities. If I can only 
 be convinced, that it will have that marvel- 
 lous effect, I am ready to yield all my ob- 
 jections! If you cannot show this, your 
 position is lost! It cannot be shown. 
 The interests of the municipalities are dif- 
 ferent, and their populations are perhaps 
 different. 
 
 In less than two years, I predict that if 
 you sanction the general ticket system for 
 the city, the five senators will be elected 
 by the second municipality. 
 
 But, we are told that the evil we appre- 
 hend will be destroyed by the proviso of 
 my colleague, (Mr. Roselius) which ren- 
 ders it imparitive that each of the munici- 
 palities shall.be represented in the sen- 
 ate. How can you constrain the elec- 
 tors to such a condition, and what will be 
 the remedy, should they refuse to obey? 
 Moreover, is it not well known, that the 
 second municipality are not those that re- 
 side within the limits of that municipality. 
 Many of its best friends are found in the 
 first municipality, who have at heart its in- 
 terests as much as its own inhabitants: 
 whose property and whose interests are 
 identified with the second municipality, 
 and who are ready to serve it upon all and 
 every occasion. We are asked to be gen- 
 erous to the second municipality, to com- 
 mit to it for the future, the opportunity of 
 electing all four senators, because that mu- 
 nicipality has no representative upon this 
 floor. I admk that the second municipal i- 
 y has nc representative upon this floor 
 
 that actually resides within her limits. But 
 I deny that this is any disadvantage. In 
 the apportionment to the city, out of nine- 
 teen members allotted to the city, the first 
 municipality, with a population of forty- 
 three thousand five hundred and forty-six., 
 obtained eight representatives; the second, 
 with a population of nineteen thousand two' 
 hundred and thirty-five, obtained seven re- 
 sentatives; and the third, with a population 
 of twenty-six thousand eight hundred and 
 forty. three, obtained four representatives; 
 when by all the calculations, the second 
 municipality was, in point of fact, entitled 
 to but five, and at the utmost six represen- 
 tatives. I was the only one in the delega- 
 tion that voted against allowing her one 
 member more than she was by any calcu- 
 lation entitled to. So that it will be seen 
 she effected more without a direct repre- 
 sentation, than if she had actually had a 
 majority of the delegation from her own 
 border. We should not be generous, but 
 be just. The census had to be made, and 
 if there had been any blunder, any mistake, 
 it would have been time enough to have 
 given her the additional representation 
 when it was shown she was really en- 
 titled to it. 
 
 ■I cannot see why the second municipali- 
 ty should complain of the part allotted to 
 her in the senate. The first municipality 
 is allowed two senators; the second one, 
 the third one. Is that distribution just ? 
 The only data that we have are the state- 
 ments prepared by the delegate from La- 
 fourche (Mr. Beatty.) From this data, and 
 inasmuch as the Convention have assumed 
 total population as the basis for the senate, 
 it is clear that* the first municipality is en- 
 titled to two senators, and if either of the 
 other tw 7 o have a right to complain, it is the 
 third municipality; her total population ex- 
 ceeds by eight thousand that of the second, 
 and exceeds by five thousand, more than 
 one -half the total population of the first. I 
 was the only one in the delegation that 
 contended in favor of giving the third muni- 
 cipality one more representative than she. 
 actually, obtained; But it was decided to 
 give it to the second municipality, notwith- 
 standing all I could urge. The third mu- 
 nicipality is satisfied with one senator- 
 why should not the second be satisfied with 
 one senator? The reason is obvious. She 
 has not before her the same brilliant future - 
 
Debates in the Oonvestioa of Louisiana, 
 
 605 
 
 and the same hopes, I repeat it with con- 
 fidence. We ask nothing that is not just, 
 and for that reason 1 entertain not a doubt 
 but that the members of this body, upon re- 
 flection, will appreciate the justness of our 
 demand. They will the more readily do 
 so, if they bear in mind one consideration, 
 to which I shall briefly advert. The first 
 and third municipalities are occupied by a 
 scattered population; they are the remnants 
 oi those that once alone occupied ail the 
 extensive territories of the State. They 
 have yielded to the* new population that 
 have overflowed the land, and whose ac- 
 tivity and energy have raised the State to 
 so high a degree of prosperity, But in 
 ceding, they are still there, and as Ameri- 
 can citizens, they have a right to be heard 
 and consulted. Will this house turn a re- 
 luctant ear to their demand through me, 
 that they have the privilege conserved to 
 them of being represenled by those they 
 may choose to delegate? 
 
 Mr. Claiborne said he rose not for the 
 
 tion of the population that are aliens, and 
 have not yet been naturalized. Of course, 
 they have no right to vote. The number 
 of electors from these causes, bear a less 
 proportion to the population in the third 
 municipality than in the second municipal- 
 ity, and that was my reason for consenting 
 to give a greater representation to the 
 second municipality. That municipality, 
 upon the basis of electors, was entitled to 
 it. If I had consulted only my affections, 
 I would have been ready to' insist upon 
 more than the third municipality has ob- 
 tained; for it is in that municipality where 
 I reside, where are my children, and from 
 which I had the honor of being chosen a 
 delegate to this Convention. But before 
 all, I considered that I was bound to con- 
 sult the immutable principles of justice, 
 and to be actuated in this, as in every 
 other official or private act, by its dic- 
 tates/ 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad said, it was unpleas- 
 ant for- a delegation representing the same 
 
 purpose of participating in the debate, but j interests, and sharing the same responsi- 
 
 to make an explanation which was ren 
 dered necessary by some remarks of his 
 colleague (Mr. Soule.) I understand that 
 delegate to say that he was the only mem- 
 ber of the Orleans delegation who, when 
 the question of dividing the city into repre- 
 sentative districts, raised his voice, . . . „ 
 
 Mr. Soule: I did not convey my mean-* 
 ing, in all probability. What^pitended to 
 say was, when the distribution of the twenty 
 representatives to the city was referred to 
 the Orleans delegation, I was the only one 
 that claimed an additional representative 
 for the third municipality. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne; It was upon that very 
 point that I desired to set the gentleman 
 right. The basis upon which the distribu- 
 tion was made was the basis of electors, 
 and I was compelled to accede to less than 
 I would otherwise have claimed, had not 
 the figures been decidedly against me. It 
 is well known that the basis of electors is 
 peculiarly unfavorable to the third munici- 
 pality, from the fact that a large proportion 
 of the free persons of color have' taken re- 
 fuge in that municipality, and that the mass 
 of the white population, amon** whom are 
 several old families, and the proprietors of 
 a great number of slaves, whose labor sup. 
 ports them. In addition *to these causes, 
 there is another. There is a large propor- 
 77 
 
 biiities, to differ in opinion in representing 
 those interests, The first impressions he 
 had formed were against the proposed dU 
 vision of the city into four senatorial dis- 
 tricts. His matured reflections had con- 
 firmed those impressions. He thought he 
 might claim some impartiality for his views 
 upon this subject. He had resided all his 
 life in the first municipality. He had re- 
 ceived repeated marks of confidence from 
 every section of the city, and particularly 
 from the third municipality, with which he 
 had been less connected by personal and 
 other associations. And if there were any 
 portion of the city which has particu- 
 | far claims upon him, and to which he felt 
 peculiarly grateful, it was the third muni- 
 cipality. But he felt that he would be un- 
 worthy of a seat in this body, of a place in 
 the city council, or in the humblest collec 
 tion of his fellow-citizens, if he were to 
 allow sectional preferences to sway his 
 judgment. He felt that he was here the 
 representative of the whole city, without 
 reference to arbitrary distinctions for local 
 purposes. The gentleman that has argued 
 this o,ue£tion, in favor of local districts, 
 (Mr. Soule,) has assumed the anomaly 
 that New Orleans is three cities. I must 
 differ with my colleague upon that point 
 New Orleans is not yet three cities, 
 
006 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana; 
 
 although the whole course of proceedings 
 on the part of the Convention have a ten- 
 dency to effect that result; to divide it in 
 interest and in feeling, and to divide it in 
 the policy that it ought to pursue. It ought 
 to be but one city. Would any stranger, 
 in passing from its upper to its lower limits 
 imagine that it was three cities ? Would 
 he, while standing upon its levees and view- 
 ing its magnificient and capacious harbor, 
 teeming with the wealth of the western 
 world, and while gazing at its fleets of ves- 
 sels, with the flags of every nation, consid- 
 er it three cities instead of one?' It is but 
 one city ! united by a common interest, by 
 a common pride, and he hoped that the 
 period was distant, far distant, when it 
 should be divided. He wished that its di- 
 \ vision would never be realized! The sec- 
 tional divisions into municipalities had been 
 perhaps the result of a distinction of races, 
 which was increased by some real, but in 
 most cases, by imaginary differences, 
 and stimulated by party feelings. The in- 
 evitable tendency of the present measure 
 was first to break up the harmony and re- 
 duce the weight of the city. Why was it 
 advanced by the country members, if it 
 were not to weaken the influence of the 
 city? For that purpose gentlemen from 
 the country have attempted to thrust it 
 down our throats, that New Orleans has 
 too much influence. I would ask my col- 
 league, who differs with me, if the effect of 
 this measure will not be to cripple the city 
 in the senate, as she has already been crip- 
 pled in the house of representatives by a 
 similar measure? New Orleans has been 
 curtailed in the senate more than one- half 
 of her strength. She has been allowed 
 four senators, when in point of fact, she 
 was entitled to ten! Is not this sufficient? 
 Must she be further curtailed, and her 
 voice be rendered still more ineffectual] 
 Is she to be stabbed in her heart's core by 
 a division into local senatorial districts? I 
 cannot see the policy of such a measure. 
 But I am told that there are conflicting in- 
 terests in the city. If there be in reality 
 these conflicting interests, will they not be 
 represented in the house of representatives 
 through the petty divisions into which the 
 city is already divided? Must the senato° 
 rial representation from the city share the 
 same fate? I would ask my colleague (Mr. 
 Souie) if the city has no interests, as a city. 
 
 to be represented? May there not be 
 measures introduced into' the legislature 
 prejudicial to the whole city? May it not 
 happen that an attempt may be made to 
 impose an unjust tax? The entire city 
 may suffer. There are a variety of mat- 
 ters in which the city, as a whole city, are 
 involved ; matters of navigation, sanitary 
 regulations, to prevent the spread of malig- 
 nant and contagious diseases. Are not 
 these some of the measures that may be 
 effected by legislation? As for the appro* 
 hension that the local affairs of the city- 
 may be ever sacrificed, it is to be presumed 
 that the local city council Mill take care of 
 them.- Besides, the very law which di- 
 vides the city into three municipalities, or- 
 daining a separate council for each, pre- 
 supposes that there are general interests 
 in the city, to be looked after. Ought there 
 not to be some check in the senate, so far 
 as the city is concerned, to protect her in- 
 terests in that conservative body? There 
 will be conflicts between the strong and 
 the weak, and there should be some bul- 
 wark for the protection of the weak. 
 
 My friend on the right (Mr. Marigny)- 
 would hereafter see cause to deplore the 
 districting of the city for senators, should it 
 be carried. Does that gentleman think it 
 will be more effectual to secure the repre- 
 sentation of the lower municipalities than 
 the system of a general ticket? Only let 
 that gentleman reflect upon what has trans- 
 pjred for the last two years. It is a matter 
 of but little moment where one senator may 
 be temporarily placed. Where the mass 
 of the population are, there will be the in- 
 fluence upon legislation. The new popu- 
 lation is increasing, and the old population 
 is decreasing. The upper portion of the 
 first municipality will entertain sympathies 
 and identities with the stronger portion., 
 In the second municipality is an indomita- 
 ble and active population— an active and 
 vigilant press. These must give to it a 
 decided advantage, if there is to be a sepa- 
 rate and conflicting interest created. What 
 would become of the allotment of one sena- 
 tor to the lower portion in the course of 
 time? One must be blind, not to see that 
 the tendency of population is towards the 
 upper portion of the city. The basis of ap- 
 portionment for the senate is total popula- 
 tion. The apportionment is to be made at 
 stated periods/ Where will the mass of 
 
Debates la the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 607 
 
 .population be in the course of a quarter of 
 a century? The election by general ticket 
 is for the advantage of the whole city. It 
 will combine and concentrate its interests 
 from one municipality to another. The 
 third municipality will concur in the elec- 
 tion of the four senators, and that in point 
 of fact, will give it more influence than 
 were it to elect the fractional representa- 
 tive of one. Let us look at the past to en- 
 lighten us as to the future! Let gent] 
 
 men look at the State senate fo 
 
 of 
 
 years. From what portion 6f the city j 
 came the senator from the parish of Or- j 
 leans] Look at the composition on this 
 noor of the delegation from this city? We 
 find that the third municipality has four out j 
 of the eleven delegates — the balance are j 
 from the first municipality, and not one : 
 from the second municipality. Has the up- j 
 per portion of the city ever sent a senator? ; 
 Mr. Hoa, a distinguished gentleman, j 
 whose loss was so deeply deplored, was 
 elected from the first municipality, and was 
 the senator for a series of years. He con- 
 ciliated friends and supporters in the three 
 municipalities, and was invariably returned. 
 The third municipality would have more i 
 weight by participating as heretofore with 
 the others, than if she were allowed a 
 separate senator for herself. This is not 
 produced by a feeling of liberality. It j 
 cannot be claimed as the result of mere 1 
 magnanimity. It has a more certain and 
 inevitable foundation. It is based upon j 
 what all legislation should be based,, upon 
 human nature. As long as you consult 
 human nature in legislation, you are sure 
 to be right. Majorities will always consult j 
 minorities. They are anxious to get the 
 vote of the minority. * 
 
 I heartily concur with the gentleman 
 (Mr. Soule) that it is right to protect the ; 
 weak in preference to the strong. I think 
 it aught to be done, but we differ material- j 
 jy as to the meaus of doing it. If I were 
 under the influence of sectional feelings: | 
 it I were animated by a preference for up- i 
 town, or a preference for down town — dis- ! 
 unctions that I have always despised and 
 ridiculed; and if I were desirous to see the | 
 second municipality obtain all the political 
 power I would advocate and vote for the 
 division oi the city into senatorial districts, 
 being persuaded that it would not be many 
 years before that municipality would have 
 
 the preponderating control, by the natural 
 increase of her population. 
 
 The energy and activity of the new 
 population — the Anglo-American race- 
 are such, that as Napoleon humorously o.b. 
 served, if the devil had a dollar they would 
 find it out ! That energy would give the 
 second municipality more weight without 
 a representation, than the other two rnuni- 
 palities with a representation. If she were 
 allowed by the present apportionment, but 
 one senator, it would not be long before 
 she would be entitled to two; then to three, 
 and finally to ail. If this course were 
 taken, the second municipality would be- 
 come entirely alienated from the other two* 
 She would have no feeling in common with 
 them, and it would then be too late to expect 
 her sympathies. These attempts to divide 
 the city and to excite sectional jealousies, 
 have no other effect than to widen the 
 breach that was unfortunately opened be- 
 tween the municipalities, and which were, 
 I think, about closing. It is calculated to 
 disturb all the harmony that yet remains 
 among them, and to sow the seeds of dis- 
 cord and jealousy, There is nothing to 
 protect the lower municipalities against the 
 consequences of the overwhelming growth 
 of the second municipality, unless the city 
 be kept together. It has been but one 
 city for the last -thirty years, and has had 
 but a single senator. Have gentlemen 
 had cause to complain that the voice of any 
 section was stifled? That the second mu- 
 nicipality has monopolized the representa- 
 tion. Has any part of the city suffered for 
 want of protection? As far as my personal 
 experience goes, the representatives of the 
 city have felt that as they were elected by 
 the whole city, they were bound by a sense 
 of cu y and of power to sustain the inter- 
 ests of the whole city, and to discard all 
 sectional feelings, They have maintained 
 with equal fidelity the interests of every 
 portion. They have conciliated these in- 
 terests when they were supposed to con- 
 flict, for it has happened, that where the 
 prejudices of the community inferred that 
 there was a conflict, in point of fact, there 
 was no conflict; and if it be well understood, 
 the interest of one portion of the. city will 
 be found to be the interest of the whole 
 city. 
 
 The three gentlemen who have spoken 
 upon the subject, have held one language 
 
608 
 
 Dsbates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 upon the division of the city into three mu- 
 nicipalities. They have pronounced that 
 division to have been a great calamity. 
 Will it be pretended that if the division of 
 the city into three municipalities is to be 
 considered an evil, that the division into 
 senatorial districts would be a benefit? I 
 was not a member of the legislature when 
 the act was passed dividing the city into 
 three municipalities. But I remember 
 some of the motives that were alleged as 
 calling for its passage. The people of the 
 upper portion of the city had complained 
 for some years that the revenues of the city 
 were not distributed with equal justice. 
 That these revenues were divested exclu- 
 sively for the lower portion of the city* J 
 do not pretend to say that these complaints 
 were well founded. But such were the 
 complaints, and such were the motives that 
 led to the division of the city. It met with 
 little or no opposition from the members of 
 the house,nor from the member of the senate. 
 I believe that Mr. Hoa was then the senator. 
 I. am unable to say whether it produced all 
 the mischief which has been attributed to 
 it, in this discussion. I remember that it 
 met with my support and I am sorry if the 
 results have proved detrimental. The 
 motives that influenced me in favoring it. 
 were, that there were collisions of interest 
 and collisions of feeling, that rendered the 
 city council an arena of strife; and that it 
 was better that each section should regu- 
 late its own affairs. If mischief has ac- 
 tually resulted, it proves , what I have as- 
 serted, that the interests of the city may be 
 promoted or destroyed by legislation; and 
 that the ground assumed that the represen- 
 tation in the senate for the city may be di- 
 vided without injury to the city, is repug- 
 nant to reason. 
 
 Some allusion was made in the course of 
 the remarks of the honorable delegate (Mr. 
 Soule) that the second municipality had 
 obtained more than her share in the lower 
 house. I have a few words to say in reply. 
 The Convention, contrary to my views, 
 established the basis of electors for the 
 apportionment iss the house of representa- 
 tives. The only criterion that we had 
 was the returns of the last November elee- 
 tioiie dn account of the allegation of 
 fraud in that election, these returns were 
 looked upon with suspicion and distrust 
 The gentleman (Mr. Soule) has eaid that 
 
 the second municipality is possessed of pe-„ 
 culiar skill in manufacturing voters. I 
 think, unfortunately, that no portion of the 
 city can boast a superiority in that line, 
 We were induced to throw under these re- 
 turns, and to take up another vote. We 
 took up the returns of the senatorial elec- 
 tion which resulted in the election of Mr. 
 SlidelL That vote was least favorable to 
 the second municipality, and most favorable 
 to the third municipality; upon it we appor- 
 tioned the representation of the two munici* 
 palities, and it was admitted by one gentle* 
 man that the third got one more represeu. 
 tative than it was entitled to. m As to the 
 present apportionment, I consider it of no 
 moment. It is temporary in its nature, and 
 the next apportionment will correct its er- 
 rors. To return to the question before the 
 house, I protest against this division, at 
 this or any other period; and if I were to in- 
 dulge in prophecy, which I might from 
 having paid s^me attention to passing 
 events, I would predict the unfortunate 
 consequences which would result from this 
 fatal error, were the Convention to fall in- 
 to it. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said that if the vote was 
 now insisted upon, we would be involved 
 in the same difficulty that attended the pro- 
 ceedings of last Saturday. Instead of ma- 
 king any progress we would be retarding 
 our-proceedings. If the vote was taken at 
 a time when the will of the majority could 
 be ascertained, there would be a willing, 
 ness to abide the decision. He would, 
 therefore move tlje adjournment until Mon- 
 day at the usual hour. 
 
 • Mr. Co M. Conrad gave notice that in 
 the event that the proposition was adopted, 
 dividing the city into four senatorial di§, 
 tricts, he would move for the reconsidera. 
 tion, so that five senators may be allowed., 
 He considered that five senators, parcelled 
 out in the way proposed, would not be. as 
 efficient as four senators selected at large 
 from the whole city. 
 
 • Whereupon, on motion, the Convention 
 
 adjourned. 
 
 Monday, April 7, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment, and its proceedings were open- 
 ed with prayer. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 Motion of Mr, Lewis to strike out vhat 
 
Debates in tlx© Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 600 
 
 portion of the section dividing the city into 
 senatorial districts. 
 
 Mr. Chinn said that he did not know 
 whether the debate would be continued, 
 but he was about to propose a thing that 
 was unpleasant. This question had been 
 twice debated, and he presumed every 
 member was prepared to vote upon it.— - 
 This motion was viewed as an odious 
 one, and sometimes -it is. But a moment's 
 reflection would convince members that 
 we were wasting the time of the Conven- 
 tion uselessly. I have risen to move the 
 previous question. 
 
 Mr. Eustis would request the gent leman 
 to defer his motion for an hour. 
 
 The question was postponed until one 
 o'clock, 
 
 Mr. Splane offered a letter from Mr. 
 Ilsley, explanatory of the causes of cer- 
 tain inaccuracies in the reports of the de- 
 bates. 
 
 • Mr. Claiborne moved that it be read. 
 
 Mr. Splane moved that it be placed up- 
 on the journals, if the remarks made by 
 members preferring complaints against 
 Mr. Ilsley, as the reporter, were published, 
 it was nothing but justice that Mr. Ilsley's 
 communication were placed upon the jour- 
 nals. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad thought this course 
 was hardly necessary. Some five or sis 
 members of the Convention have consider- 
 ed that they were incorrectly reported, — 
 The reporter thinks he has reported them 
 correctly. In a question of this kind, the 
 members are more competent to judge* 
 whether they be correctly reported or not. 
 Whether the facts stated by the reporter 
 are sufficient to exonerate him, is a ques- 
 tion for the Convention to determine, and 
 particularly the gentlemen who have com- 
 plained. 
 
 Mr. Splane said that his reasons for 
 moving that the letter of Mr. Ilsley be 
 spread upon the journals were, that the re- 
 marks made by members referring to the 
 inaccuracies of his reports, would be pub- 
 lished, and it was but just that Mr. Ilsley's 
 vindication should be made a matter of re- 
 cord. He had the proof to shew that Mr. 
 Ilsley had appointed a substitute to act in 
 his stead when the reports complained of 
 were made. He hopes that justice will be 
 done. 
 
 The motion failed. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson then moved to lay Mr. 
 Ilsley's letter upon the table, subject to 
 call. 
 
 Mr. Splane then handed in Mr, Ilsley's 
 resignation; which was accepted. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne then moved to abolish 
 the office of second reporter. 
 
 Mr. Splane moved to lay this motion 
 on the table, subject to call; which mo- 
 tion was lost, 
 
 Mr. Downs opposed the motion to abol- 
 ish the office of second reporter. We had 
 had a great deal of trouble with printers 
 and reporters. The reports were now 
 nearly up to date, and by continuing the 
 same system, and by getting a good repor- 
 ter we would be enabled to have our de- 
 bates published daily. 
 
 Mr. Downs called for the yeas and nays 
 upon Mr. Claiborne's motion to abolish 
 the office of second reporter. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said that the debates 
 were published in French with remarkable 
 accuracy. He was satisfied that the same 
 might be done in English, by one re-* 
 porter. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousqme, 
 Cade, Chinri, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Guion, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, 
 Lewis, Mayo, Mazureau, Preston, Prud- 
 homme, Pugh, Roman, Saunders, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Soule, Stephens, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, and Wikoff— 29 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Car- 
 riere, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Huds- 
 peth, Humble, McRae, Marigny, O 'Bryan, 
 Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 PrescottofSt. Landry, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Splane, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Trist, Wederstrandt and 
 Winder-— 26 nays. 
 
 The Convention then took up the fol- 
 lowing section presented by Mr. Downs: 
 
 " In all future apportionments of the 
 senate the population of New Orleans on 
 the left bank of the river, descending, shall 
 be deducted from the population of the 
 whole State, and the remainder of the 
 population divided by the number twenty, 
 eight, and the quotient or result produced 
 by this division, shall be the poulation en- 
 titling a parish or other senatorial district 
 to a senator. Single or contiguous par- 
 ishes shall be formed into districts hav- 
 ing a population the nearest possible to the 
 
610 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 divisor; and if ft parish or district cannot j 
 be allowed a senator without a fraction of 
 one-third over or under the ratio, then a 
 district may be formed having not more 
 than two senators, but not otherwise. — 
 Whenever the election under a new appor- 
 tionment shall have taken place, the seats 
 of all the senators under the old apportion- 
 ment shall be vacant without regard to the 
 time they had served. All apportionments 
 for senators made not in strict conformity 
 to this section, shall be null and void; and 
 after the census has been taken, and the 
 general assembly convened, it shall not be 
 competent for the legislature to do any busi- 
 ness, except its own organization, until an 
 apportionment is made in strict conformity 
 to this rule, and all acts and proceedings 
 of the then existing legislature, or any sub- 
 sequent one, under an apportionment not 
 in strict conformity to this constitution, 
 shall be null and void. 
 
 Mr. Downs called for the adoption of 
 the foregoing. 
 
 Mr. Marigny: I am opposed, Mr. Pre- 
 sident to this section, and will give my 
 reasons for that opposition. Some strange 
 things take place in this Convention, which 
 would not perhaps occur if its proceedings 
 were not for the most part carried on by 
 fifty. five members, instead of being carried 
 on by seventy-seven, as contemplated by 
 law and desired by the people. There is 
 a remarkable tendency to give power to 
 the people that are the furthest, the remo- 
 test from the city. I may say, to give 
 them a monopoly of the power. This is 
 done under the alleged pretence that i i is 
 necessary to curb the city and to diminish 
 her influence. We have been one month 
 discussing the apportionment in the sen- 
 ate and house of representatives. We had 
 finally reached the number of members of 
 which the senate is to be composed. It 
 was placed at thirty. four, and subsequent, 
 ly has been reduced to thirty-two. It is 
 explicitly declared that no district shall 
 have more than one eighth of the total 
 number of senators. The city is doomed 
 to have but four senators- 1 consider that 
 as most unjust. I have been told that some 
 feeling is exhibited against me in the se- 
 cond municipality because I am opposed 
 to*having but one senatorial district for the 
 city of New Orleans. I have never hunt- 
 ed after popularity, but I have always 
 
 sought to discharge my duties according 
 to my convictions. I think that the two 
 senators should be allowed to the second 
 municipality. The restriction is placed 
 upon the city in reference to her senatori. 
 ai representation as in every thing else.—- 
 But what says the section under debate] 
 It says, or rather it means, that the city of 
 New Orleans is never to have the benefit 
 of her surplus, but that it is to be taken 
 away from her and transferred to other 
 parishes that had not the requisite number 
 to entitle them to a senator. The city of 
 New Orhans is to be made the milch-cow 
 for the whole State. She is not only to 
 fill the public coffers, but she is likewise 
 to fatten up the country parishes, by giv- 
 ing them senators. 
 
 The gentleman from Ouachita (Mr. 
 Downs) uses his weapons when he has an 
 object to attain with a great deal ot dexteri- 
 ty. He brings up the same question a 
 thousand times until he succeeds. Five 
 senators ought to be apportioned to the 
 city, to be distributed among the three mu- 
 nicipalities. The population and wealth 
 of the second municipality ought to be re- 
 presented by two senators. The first mu- 
 nicipality should likewise have two sena- 
 tors. But that will not be done. Reason 
 and justice will fail of their effect. The 
 surplus of the city will be denied to her. 
 It will be transferred to Caddo or Bossier, 
 or some of the other north-western parishes 
 to give them additional senators. Such a 
 course of proceedings are inconceivable; I 
 cannot understand such a peivsrsion of 
 justice. The majority should remember 
 that there is nothing durable but justice. 
 Nothing that is unjust can be permanent; 
 even in monachies themselves, justice must 
 be observed or they will not stand. In 
 France the monarchy of ten centuries was 
 overthrown because justice had been sacri- 
 ficed. In. England the oligarchy were 
 overthrown from the same cause. We are 
 in a republic; the right of suffrage is to 
 be extended, and representation is to be 
 based upon suffrage. The city is destined 
 to have two thirds of the whole population 
 of the State. I cannot better establish the 
 comparative increase between the country 
 and city, than by referring to statistics. In 
 1804 the population of New Orleans was 
 five thousand; the population of the balance 
 of the State was forty thousand. The popu. 
 
Bebates m the Convention os Louisiana. 
 
 811 
 
 lation of the State at present is three hun- j the mind of the legislature. It was unwise 
 dred and fifty thousand, of which the city : to place this restriction upon the discretion 
 contains one hundred and twenty thousand. | of the legislature; as far as he was concem- 
 The progress of the city is much the great- j ed, he was opposed to single districts, but 
 est. In J804 the population of the western j he was not so tenacious of double districts 
 country was quite trifling; it is now swelled ■ as to require the legislature, imperatively, 
 and become very numerous; with the in- j to make no other, for he thought that some 
 crease of the population of the west, will discretion ought to be left to the legislature, 
 increase the population and resources of If they see strong reasons to put two par- 
 the city of New Orleans. She is destined j ishes together, or to form single districts, 
 to contain a population of five hundred from causes that we may not now foresee, 
 thousand souls. And yet, with all this pros- ! they ought to have the power to do so, and 
 pect of the increase of her population she not be bound down to divide populations 
 is to be restricted for ever to four senators. j that have an identity of interest, and which 
 Her surplus is to be carried to the fourth do not desire such division. Some of the 
 district, or Florida. This is the position ! members of the Convention are very much 
 of things in reference to the senate. How ; opposed to single districts; I am among 
 do they stand in reference to the house of that number: others are indisposed against 
 representatives? There too, there is re- the formation of double districts. The le- 
 striction upon the city. It is provided that gislature should not be bound down to 
 the number of representatives shall never : either, but be vested with a discretionary 
 go beyond one hundred, and we have al- ■ power. 
 
 ready apportioned ninety-eight. So that! Mr. C. M. Conrad hoped that the mo- 
 notwithstanding all that we have been told tion made by his colleague (Mr. Benjamin) 
 of the grett concessions made to the city, j would prevail. There was great differen- 
 we find that these concessions amount to ; ces of ppinion upon the double and single 
 nothing. The city is as effectually re- ! district system; some were in favor of double 
 stricted in the house of representatives as ! districts, and others were in favor of single 
 she is in the senate. A ban has been j districts. The Convention have combined 
 placed upon her as the future seat of gov- the two; they have adopted some single and 
 eminent. Restrictions, upon restrictions, j some double districts. This was the com- 
 have been piled upon her. The proposi- ; promise that reconciled our conflicting 
 tion before us is similar to those that have opinions. But one gentleman, who is in 
 preceded it. The only thing, it is more j favor of single districts, has introduced that 
 glaringly unjust and oppressive. Is one ! principle which is hereafter to prevail for 
 portion of the State to be enriched with i all time. I differ from that gentleman; I 
 the spoils taken from New Orleans? gen- j am as much in» favor of double districts as 
 tlemen should not allow their passions to he is of single districts; but I am not so 
 dictate to their judgment. If the constitu- j wedded to my system as to wish to tie up 
 tion be accepted by the majority even, the : the hands of the legislature; I desire to leave 
 contest will not end there. There may be the matter to the wishes of my constiiu- 
 a reaction that may menace the tranquility. I ents. We have formed some double dis- 
 This section is tempestive. It is informal, tricts; according to the section they ought 
 Machevel himself never could have in- 1 not to have been formed. If we adopt it, 
 vented such a principle. If it be not re- we decide that the rule is wrongs on the 
 jected justice is deaf, and it will be impos- ! other hand, we have determined that there 
 sible to obtain from this house what is just j should be some single districts, where, 
 and rational. ^perhaps, double districts ought to have been 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to strike out from ! formed. For example, we have made two 
 the word "single," in the tenth line, down j districts of the parishes of East and West 
 to the word "otherwise," in the eighteenth ! Feliciana, which I cannot help thinking, 
 line. He said he would object to this ! would have been better united in a double 
 clause, because it forced the legislature to district. 
 
 make nothing but single ^districts, except Mr. Downs said the object of the section 
 where gross inequalities should result; he was that no district should send more than 
 thought other causes might operate upon [ two senators. 
 
612 
 
 Debates i& the Convention of -Louisiana. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad: why does the gen- 
 tleman not say so in the section. The 
 language of the gentleman will not convey 
 that idea. I have no objection to incorpo- 
 rate that principle. 1 am not myself in fa- 
 vor of forming any districts with three 
 senators. I hope that the gentleman will 
 not insist upon his section, but will leave 
 it discretionary with the legislature — for 
 "sufficient to the day is the evil thereof." 
 This restriction would limit and embarrass 
 the legislature in making the apportion 
 ments; when they should be left free to 
 determine upon the propriety and justice 
 of making the districts double or single. 
 
 Mr. Downs hoped that the motion of the 
 delegate from New Orleans (Mr. Benja- 
 min) would not be adopted. The majori- 
 ty insisted upon taking one senator (said 
 Mr. Downs) from my district, although 
 1 had every "data to show that it had doub- 
 led in population. 'I his is the only way 
 to recover at the earliest time possible from 
 the great injustice that has been done. I 
 wish the apportionment hereafter to be 
 made in the. strictest manner. An iron rule 
 has been applied to the parishes in my dis- 
 trict, and" it is but fair that the same rule 
 should apply to all the other parishes. 
 The principle in the section under consid- 
 eration does not apply unless a parish or 
 district cannot be allowed a senator without 
 a fraction of one-third over or under the 
 ratio. It is only in that case that parishes 
 may be combined to give one, but not 
 more than two senators. If we leave the 
 power unconfined to give "the number of 
 senators, there is no estimating the frac- 
 tions that may be combined together to 
 give one quarter of the State more power 
 than another quarter of the State. I wish 
 to see nothing of that kind. The better 
 rule would be that no district should send 
 more than one senator. But there is some 
 objection to this, arising from the difficulty 
 of carrying it out. It could not be well 
 done in some particular cases, and from 
 necessity, some two or three parishes 
 would have to be combined to form the dis- 
 trict The number of senators in such 
 cases are by the section limited to two. 
 The system of unequal districts is decided- 
 ly wrong, and very properly rejected by a 
 large vote. Because if some of the dis- 
 tricts be large and some small, the result 
 would be that the small districts would 
 
 j suffer from the combinations and concen- 
 tration of power in the large districts. It 
 would operate most unequally. I have 
 yielded a great deal to certain considera- 
 tions when I have consented that two pa- 
 rishes may be put together in the formation 
 of a district. Is not this the rule adopted 
 by the Convention? We have decided 
 that in some particular cases two parishes 
 may be put together in the formation of a 
 district^ and two ' senators be allowed; but 
 in general the Convention have proceeded 
 upon the single district system, which I 
 greatly prefer. The parishes of St. Mar- 
 tin and St. Mary have been formed into a 
 single district, and allowed two senators, 
 Lafayette and Vermillion have been com- 
 bined and allowed one senator. Calcasieu 
 and St, Landry — here we have one large 
 and one small parish, and the same neces- 
 sity may occur again — placed together, and 
 two senators allowed them. There it may 
 be necessary, because St Landry is a 
 large parish, and after being allowed one 
 senator, has a large fraction remaining. 
 But in reference to St. Mary and St. Mar- 
 tin, the necessity for establishing them into 
 double districts, does not exist. There is 
 no fraction remaining after allowing them 
 one senator respectively. The only ob- 
 ject of the section is to establish a perma- 
 nent rule to govern cases where it may be 
 necessary to form double districts, with 
 the imperative provision that no district 
 shall have more than two senators. Is 
 there any thing wrong in that? Theie are 
 great inequalities in the distribution of the 
 senatorial representation. These inequali- 
 ties have arisen from following imperfectly 
 the census of 1^40, which is by no means 
 a criterion of the present population, par= 
 ticularly in the north-west. Another ap 
 portionment should be made at as eaily 
 period as possible, and in the strictest man 
 ner. I see nothing in the clause that is 
 inconsistent with what we have done in 
 relation to apportionment. We have crea« 
 ■ted no district with more than two seriators, 
 and the clause is within that rule, 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad: I do not pretend to 
 say that there is any thing very wrong in 
 this clausec I only say that we are renew- 
 ing a question that we had got rid of. The 
 present apportionment is but for two years, 
 and the gentleman wis hes his opinions to 
 be the role for ever afterwards, I agree 
 
 4* 
 
Debates in the Convention ot Louisiana, 
 
 613 
 
 that the section was the result of compro- 
 mise; that those that favored large districts 
 consented that small districts in particular 
 cases, should «be formed; and the advocates 
 of small districts have consented that in 
 some instances, large districts should be 
 formed. That has been done at the in- 
 stance of the delegation from the particular 
 parish that wished to forrrf a separate dis- 
 trict, or to be united with another parish to 
 form a double district. Why not allow the 
 legislature the discretionary power to con- 
 trol the subject matter? The Lafourche, 
 Attakapas and Opelousas parishes have 
 been formed into double districts. It is 
 impossible for us to know, with accuracy, 
 whether they are within the principle of 
 the gentleman's clause, and if we made 
 the calculation now, the result might be 
 very different in 1847, the period fixed upon 
 for the next apportionment, and still more 
 different in 1857. This clause will have 
 the effect to prevent contiguous parishes 
 from uniting when their people may desire 
 it, and compel them to separate when they 
 are united. Where is the necessity for this 
 iron rule ? Geographical position should 
 be consulted, as well as population. It was 
 that consideration that induced us, in } art, 
 to form the separate district of Point Coupee. 
 Avoyelles was placed in the same district 
 with East Baton Rouge, but when we re- 
 flected upon the difficulties that presented 
 themselves in their difference of position, 
 the design was abandoned, and each parish 
 was formed into a separate district. There 
 was strong reasons for connecting East 
 and West Feliciana sa heretofore, in one 
 senatorial district. But yielding to the strong- 
 appeals of the delegates from those parish- 
 es, we consented that they should be sepa- 
 rate districts. The discretion ought to be 
 left with the legislature, in order that they 
 may consult the public wishes in the va- 
 rious sections of the country. I am in favor 
 of double districts, and I am in hopes that 
 the legislature will conform to that princi- 
 ple consistently. But what would the gen- 
 tleman (Mr. Downs) say, if we were to re- 
 verse the position of things, and consent 
 that single districts should be established 
 , until the next apportionment, and douhle 
 districts for ever after. That is his pro- 
 position; the compromise is to exist for two 
 years, and ever afterwards; his notions of 
 single districts are to circumscribe the ac- 
 78 
 
 tion of the legislature. I am against any 
 such iron rule, based on population, without 
 reference to natural causes. I hope that 
 the clause would be rejected. 
 
 Mr. Roman considered it his duty to 
 support the motion of the gentleman from 
 New Orleans (Mr. Benjamin.) The qual- 
 ifications for the electors 'for the senate 
 were the same as those for the house of 
 representatives. The only means that re- 
 mained to give efficiency to the senate, 
 and subserve the end for which it was crea- 
 ted, to r:ct as a check upon the popular 
 branch, was that its members should be 
 elected by a larger and more numerous 
 constituency. If one parish is to be deem- 
 ed sufficient, and is erected in a separate 
 district, you destroy every distinction be- 
 tween the senate and the house of repre- 
 sentatives, except the distinction in the du- 
 ration of office, and the difference as to the 
 period of eligibility to the one and to the 
 other. The distinction of age is not suffi - 
 cient, and indeed it is but seldom that it 
 enters into the consideration of the elec- 
 tors; for nothing is more common .to see 
 men more advanced in age in the house of 
 representatives than in the senate. If this 
 system of one parish districts be adopted, 
 the senate will be nothing more than the 
 duplicate, the counterpart of the house of 
 representatives. Both bodies will represent 
 the same interests and' the same leelings. 
 Those that think that such a result is desira- 
 ble, would facilitate its accomplishment, if, 
 instead of providing for the separate elec- 
 tion of the senate, they would provide that 
 the number of persons necessary to form 
 the senate should be drawn from" the house 
 of representatives, and be designated, nick- 
 named the senate. A body thus constitu- 
 ted would carry out their design just as 
 well. 
 
 The consequences of small districts will 
 be to destroy the checks and balances 
 which have been deemed essential to the 
 well-being and permanence of our system 
 of government. The delegate from Oua- 
 chita (Mr. Downs) is mistaken, when He 
 states that the Convention has shown a 
 disposition to favor the creation of small 
 districts. I think they have exhibited a 
 contrary disposition. Out of the thirty-two 
 districts that have been formed, only eight 
 have been established as separate districts; 
 to wit; the parishes of Jefferson, Rapides 
 
614 
 
 Debates in the Oonvention of Louisiana, 
 
 East Baton Rouge, West Feliciana, East 
 Feliciana, Point Coupee, Avoyelles and 
 Natchitoches. We may, therefore, infer 
 that the sense of the Convention is in fa- 
 vor of double districts, and that these eight 
 single districts are .but exceptions to the 
 general rule. Particular considerations, 
 too, militated in favor of their establish- 
 ment; some of them were established as 
 single districts in -the old constitution, and 
 strong local reasons were given why they 
 should be so formed. I trust, said Mr. Ro- 
 man, that it will not be attempted to carry 
 out the exceptions, while the rule itself is 
 overlooked. From the sparseness of our 
 population, it must be obvious that it will 
 be absolutely necessary to unite contigu- 
 ous-territory in the formation of these dis- 
 tricts. The adoption of the section propo- 
 sed by the member from Ouachita (Mr. 
 Downs) can have no other effect than to 
 establish as a rule the exceptions to a gen- 
 eral principle. 
 
 Mr. Downs said he was induced to infer 
 from the remarks of the delegate from St. 
 James (Mr. Roman) that his proposition 
 was not understood by that delegate. It 
 did not contemplate alone the adoption of 
 single districts, but on the contrary, it pro- 
 vided for the formation of double districts. 
 From the very number of senatorial dis- 
 tricts, it was apparent that districts of a 
 single parish could not be universally form- 
 ed; for the number of senatorial districts 
 were thirty-two, and the number of parishes 
 were forty-six. It was clearly indispensa- 
 ble to put two or more parishes together 
 in some cases. 
 
 Mr. Roman: The object of the section 
 is, that each parish shall form a separate 
 district when it is entitled by its population 
 to elect a senator, 
 
 Mr. Downs: The member (Mr. Roman) 
 says that there are only eight single dis- 
 tricts, I have no doubt that, when the 
 next census is taken, the apportionment of 
 the representation among the parishes will 
 be very different from what it now is, The 
 number of parishes whose representation 
 it will be necessary to change, may amount 
 to about one -half. Some of the double 
 districts may be separated. It is true that 
 no express rule has been adopted by the 
 Convention; but wherever double districts 
 have been formed, two senators have been 
 allowed. In New Orleans three single 
 
 districts have been formed, to one of which 
 two senators . has been allowed. Two 
 senators have been given to the Lafourche 
 parishes; two to the Opelousas parishes, 
 and two in the Attakapas parishes. Thus 
 in five districts we have ten senators. 
 Where it is necessary to form these .double 
 districts, I do not object. 
 
 The gentleman from New Orleans (Mr. 
 Conrad) calls my proposition an iron rule, 
 and says that some discretion should be 
 vested in the legislature, to take into con- 
 sideration something besides population. 
 When my district was about to be deprived 
 of its just representation, and the census 
 of 1840 was referred to as authorising the 
 withdrawal of a senator, I implored the 
 Convention to take into consideration some- 
 thing besides population. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad: What I said was 
 this, that the Convention should take into 
 consideration geographical position in form- 
 ing senatorial districts, but not in assign- 
 ing the representation/ 
 
 Mr. Downs: This was my very argument, 
 that the old senatorial district which I re- 
 presented should be taken into considera- 
 tion geographically, as well as population. 
 I cannot see what objection can be made 
 to my proposition. Its object is to prevent 
 the representation from being unequal. . It 
 fixes a permanent rule, and leaves nothing 
 to be done but to make the calculations. I 
 move that the question be divided, and that 
 it be taken upon that part of the section 
 which ends with the word divisor, and that 
 afterwards it be taken upon the remain- 
 ing portion of the gentleman's motion. — 
 Before the question was put, the hour hav- 
 ing arrived for the order of the day, the 
 further consideration of Mr. Downs' sec- 
 tion was suspended, 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved that the question 
 upon the motion of the delegate from St 
 Landry, (Mr. Lewis) that the city of New 
 Orleans form one senatorial district, and 
 the amendment of the delegate from New 
 Orleans, (Mr. Roselius) that one senator 
 should be a resident of each municipality, 
 be divided, and that the question should be 
 first taken upon the amendment 
 
 The President stated that the question 
 would be first upon striking out from the 
 section, the provision districting the city of 
 New Orleans. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 615 
 
 Mr. Marig-N'v called for the yeas and I Mr. Beatty; I presume they will not 
 nays upon striking out: : object, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Ce- , Mr. Claibobne: I shall protest against 
 nas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, I the adoption of the motion of the gentleman, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, : (Mr. Beatty.) That portion of the parish of 
 Dunn, Eustis, Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, ; Orleans on the right bank has never been 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, : connected politically with the city. Its posi= 
 Mazureau, Pugli, Roman, Roselius, Saun- tion in that respect has been an advantage to 
 ders, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of Assump- ; it, for it has obtained a separate representa- 
 tion, Taylor of St. Landry and Yoorhies— ; tive in the popular branch of the legisla= 
 31 yeas; tare, with a smaller number of electors 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, ; than any parish in the State; for at a peri- 
 Carriere, Downs, Garcia. Humble, McRae, ; od of the greatest political excitement it 
 Marigny, O'Bryan. Peets, Penn, Porche, \ only gave one hundred and forty votes. To 
 Porter, Prescottof Avoyelles, Preston, Read, ! place it with the city of Xew Orleans would 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, j be imposing a greater restriction upon the 
 Soule, Trist, Wederstrandt and Wikoff — 26 ; city than was proposed by any of the reports 
 nays. \ of the legislative committee — for it would 
 
 Mr. Roselius' amendment was th,en ; participate in the election ofthe four senators 
 adopted. | allotted to the city. The power of the city 
 
 Mr. Roselius moved for the adoption of j is already sufficiently restricted, without in= 
 the section as amended. ! creasing the number of persons and the ex- 
 
 Mr. Beatty would observe that the j tent of territory by which that power shall 
 Convention had decided that no parish be exercised. From the adoption of the 
 should be divided in forming a senatorial constitution, that portion of the parish of 
 district. I have voted for striking out the Orleans has been united with the parishes 
 provision dividing the city of Xew Orleans ' of Plaquemines and St. Bernard, with 
 into senatorial districts because it is in : which it has formed all its associations, 
 conflict with that decision. I trust that : He hoped it would be rejected. It had 
 the house will be consistent in this matter, ! been sprung upon us suddenly, and at any 
 and I therefore move to strike out from the rate we were not now prepared to sanc= 
 senatorial district of Plaquemines and St. tion it. 
 
 Bernard that portion of the parish of Or- j Mr. C. M. Consad said that the addi= 
 leans on the right bank, in order that it ! tion of this territory to this senatorial dlis- 
 may be restored to the parish of Orleans, ; trict could be of no advantage to it, nor of 
 to which it belongs. any advantage to that portion of the parish 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said it would be neces» of Orleans itself. The city was limited to 
 sary to reconsider the vote constituting the four senators. It was better that the mo- 
 district of Plaquemines. It would not be ; tion of the delegate from Lafourche should 
 regular to do so now. _ , not prevail. 
 
 Mr. Beatty thought the gentleman (Mr. The question was then taken on Mr. 
 Benjamin) was mistaken. The whole sec- Mr. Beatty's motion. 
 
 tion was open to amendment. Mr. Beatty called for the yeas and 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad: The whole section nays: 
 has been adopted, with the exception of Messrs, Beatty, Carriere, Downs, Le- 
 that portion now under consideration. doux, Legendre, McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, 
 
 Mr. Beatty thought the gentleman was Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Read, Scott 
 mistaken. ; of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Sel- 
 
 The President decided that Mr. Beat- ! lers, Taylor of Assumption nid Voorhies 
 tv's motion was in order. j —18 yeas ; 
 
 Mr. Chinn would suggest to the gentle- Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudous= 
 man (Mr. Beatty) that the delegates from I quie, Brazeale, Brent. Burton, Cade, Ce- 
 Plaquemines were not in their seats. They nas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 might think it was treating them cavalierly Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 to act upon the matter in their absence. If Dunn, Eustis, Garcia ? Garrett, 'Grymes; 
 the question is pressed I shall vote against it, Guion ; Hudspeth; Humble, Kenner, King. 
 
GIG 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 T^abauve, Lewis, Marigny, Mazure.au, 
 Penn, Porche, Preston, Pugh, Roman, Ro- 
 selius, Saunders, Scott of Madison, Soule, 
 Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, Weder- 
 §ljrandt, Wikoff and Winder — 42, nays. 
 
 I,Ir. Roselius renewed his motion for 
 the adoption of Mr. Lewis' proposition as 
 amended. 
 
 Mr. Marigny said, he should vote 
 against the proposition as amended, be- 
 cause he was convinced that injustice had 
 been done to the city, and that in place of 
 allotting four senators, five should have 
 been allowed, in the following proportion: 
 two to t]ie first municipality, two to the 
 second municipality, and one to the third 
 municipality. 
 
 Mr. Soule said, that he would vote 
 against the proposition as amended, be- 
 cause it involved a contradiction: that is, 
 the proposition, as introduced by the dele- 
 gate from St. Landry, was inconsistent 
 with the amendment proposed by the dele- 
 gate (Mr. Roselius.) The first prescribed 
 that the senatorial representation for the 
 city shall be chosen by general ticket, and 
 the latter admits that there is a difference 
 of interest (my very argument) which is 
 to be reconciled by providing that each of 
 the three municipalities shall have one 
 senator chosen from within its limits. If 
 the amendment is designed to insure the 
 representation of each municipality, it is 
 not as well calculated to effect that purpose 
 as a direct allotment of the four senators in 
 proportion to their population to the three 
 municipalities. The yeas and nays being 
 called for, resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Garrett, Grymes, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Kemier, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, Lewis, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, Ro- 
 selius, Saunders, Sellers, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative — 30 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beaity, Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 Cade, Carriere, Downs, Eustis, Garcia, 
 Humble, Ledoux, McRae, Marigny, O'- 
 Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porche, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Land- 
 ry, Preston, Read, Scott *of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, 
 
 Soule, Stephens, Trist, Wederstrandt and 
 Wikoff voted in the negative — 31 nays. 
 
 Mr. Porter proposed that each munici- 
 pality elect one senator, and that the fourth 
 senator be elected by the three municipali- 
 ties combined, 
 
 Mr. BENjAMiirfelt called upon to oppose 
 this proposition. If it be adopted, the re- 
 sult will be, that the city of New Orleans 
 will have but one representative in both 
 branches of the legislature. I solemnly 
 declare that I will never consent to so odi- 
 ous a principle. I can never sanction a 
 proposition that would deprive the most 
 populous and wealthy portion of the State 
 of ninety-nine hundredths of the political 
 power that belongs to it. What, sir, one 
 senator for the city of N ew Orleans! The 
 city has been divided in her representation 
 to the lower house; she has been restricted 
 to four senators, when she is in fact enti- 
 tled to ten, and when her constituency 
 shall make known in mass her views and 
 interests, you go still further, and say that 
 she shall have but one voice in the legisla- 
 tion of the State. 
 
 This injustice is revolting. When grave- 
 and important measures are agitated, deep- 
 ly affecting the interests of the whole city, 
 there will be but one member in both 
 branches to assert and to defend those in- 
 terests. In vain will the voice of the city- 
 be invoked to influence the course of the 
 local delegations upon these questions of 
 vital moment to the whole city. They 
 will say that they are not the representa- 
 tives of the whole city, but the representa- 
 tives of the particular wards from which 
 they may come. They will represent 
 ward interests. They will not listen to 
 the people of the whole city, and the only 
 way of instructing them will be by little 
 petty meetings held in the petty districts 
 into which the city has been divided. The 
 voice of one hundred thousand citizens will 
 be heard only through one single repre- 
 sentative; I have said that the city has 
 been divided in the house of representa- 
 tives. Let Jier preserve at least her unity 
 in the senate. Let there be one branch at 
 least of the legislature, through which the 
 general interests of the whole city may he 
 defended and protected. It should be 
 borne in mind that the parish of Orleans Is 
 the largest parish in the State. That she 
 contains one-half of the whole white popu j 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 GIT 
 
 iation of the State. And vet it is seriously 
 proposed, and that too by a delegate from 
 a parish whose interests are identified with 
 those of New Orleans, that she should 
 have but one senator — for, it must be pal- 
 pable that the local representation to which 
 she would be doomed, is no representa- 
 tion of the interests of the whole city. It 
 may be perhaps a representation of local 
 pettv feelings, of sectional jealousies, but 
 it is by no means that representation which 
 the commercial and other interests of the 
 whole city requires! ^1 cannot believe it 
 possible, that those who are in favor of di- 
 viding the city into senatorial districts, will 
 support this novel proposition. There are 
 enough restrictions upon the city already, 
 to arouse the citizens to a sense of the 
 wrongs that have been inflicted upon them. 
 The city has been placed under a ban. 
 She has been declared unworthy to be the 
 seat of government, and for thirty miles 
 round, it has been declared that the atmos- 
 phere is tainted with her pestiferous 
 breath. If this last act of proscription is 
 10 be consummated — if the city, with all 
 her population and all her wealth, is prac- 
 tically to be narrowed down to one repre- 
 sentative in the legislature, then I declare 
 that 1 shall never sign a constitution in 
 which this act of oppression is perpetrated. 
 I protest against it now in the name of my 
 constituents, as an outrage to which they 
 will never submit. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Coxead: I indulged the hope 
 that the amendment proposed by my col- 
 league (Mr. Roselius} would have concili- 
 ated those who were the most strenuously 
 opposed to a united ticket. Those gentle- 
 men admit what they cannot deny, that to 
 divide the city farther in her representation 
 will have the effect of weakening still fur- 
 ther her already too weak influence. It 
 is impossible for gentlemen, as distinguish- 
 ed as they are for penetration and for can- 
 dor, to deny that such inevitably will be 
 the result. What are the grounds for the 
 position they have assumed? They tell us 
 that they fear the overwhelming influence 
 that one portion of the city will exercise 
 over another portion of the city. That the 
 rights of the weaker portion will suffer, I 
 do not entertain these apprehensions. I 
 think they are unfounded, and that the only 
 consequence of what is proposed, as an ef- 
 fectual remedy, will be the very results 
 
 which they so seriously deprecate. Have 
 I not shown, conclusively shown, that'in 
 every election each particular municipality 
 has had its wishes consulted in the selection 
 
 oi can< 
 was gi 1 
 of the 
 noritv. 
 
 and that if any advantage 
 , 7 as in favor of that portion 
 
 >men. 
 sorv. 
 
 M- 
 
 the 
 
 that is known to be in the rni- 
 ve we not this fact established 
 rery eyes ? Out of the eleven 
 >m the city, nearly one-half are 
 *d municipality! I was willing 
 something to the fears of gen- 
 ou^h I believed them to be il- 
 ague (Mr. Roselius) 
 whose property are all 
 municipality, proposed 
 | what I conceived eminently calculated to 
 disoel the fears of the most timid: and I 
 really thought that his proposition would 
 ! have given satisfaction. That gentleman 
 ; would certainly be the last one to propose 
 ] any thing that would be prejudicial to any 
 j portion of the city, and least of all. the very 
 i portion of which he* is a resident. Can 
 ' gentlemen seriously entertain the appre- 
 hensions they profess ? I would ask them 
 I if the participation in the election of four 
 ; senators would not afford more adequate 
 ' protection, and give to each section of the 
 city greater weight in the legislature than 
 the election separately of one senator } 
 Why have not the rights of the first and 
 \ third municipalities been invaded up to the 
 ! present time by -the second municipality, 
 which, it is now assumed, desires to con- 
 trol the other two? Has any disposition 
 been shown by her to monopolize the po- 
 | litical power of the city? 1 have never 
 i heard of such an attempt. What protection 
 j did the old constitution afford, and yet in a 
 ; period of thirty years, no example can be 
 | shown that any one section of the city has 
 sought to oppress the other ! Has any at- 
 tempts been made by the representation to 
 the legislature, taken at large from each of 
 the municipalities, to rule over and oppress 
 any portion of the city? I defy any one to 
 point it out ! I cannot conceive of a more 
 ! effectual mode of representing the interests 
 ! of all, than that all should participate in 
 j the election of the entire representation. 
 ! The city of Xew Orleans has one general 
 mass of interests that cannot be separated. 
 I Her feelings and sympathies as a city are 
 j identical. But if there were sectional in- 
 I teresls in the city that ought properly to be 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 represented in the legislature by represen- 
 tees chosen immediately by those inter- 
 ests, that necessity is amply provided for in 
 the house of representatives. The city has 
 not only been divided into the familiar divi- 
 sion of municipalities, but each municipality 
 has been subdivided into three or more elec- 
 tion districts, for the purpose of distributing 
 the twenty representatives allowed to the 
 whole city. What danger can these petty 
 interests incur ? It is the city that is left 
 defenceless, and if you deprive her of x all 
 representation in the senate save one, as 
 proposed by the delegate from Jefferson 
 (Mr. Preston) she will be helpless indeed! 
 
 The amendment of my friend, (Mr. Ro- 
 selius) so far from conciliating the favor of 
 those opposed to the election of senators for 
 the city by general ticket, (and it went as 
 far as was consistent with the principle of 
 keeping the city united,) has, in one in- 
 stance at least, alienated the vote of a gen- 
 tleman who has heretofore opposed, with 
 the greatest ability, the division of the city 
 into senatorial districts. I deplore the un- 
 locked for termination of that amendment. 
 I should deeply regret if the present propo- 
 sition were to pass, as I conceive it would 
 be attended with the most disastrous re- 
 sults to the best interests of the city; and in 
 the view of those results, I should feel my- 
 self constrained, were the proposition to be 
 embodied in the constitution, to refuse my 
 signature to that instrument. 
 
 Mr. Eustis: I should not have troubled 
 the Convention with any remarks of mine, 
 had not the gentleman who has just resumed 
 his seat alluded to the vote I gave upon the 
 proposition of the delegate from St. Landry, 
 coupled as it was with the amendment of 
 my colleague, (Mr. Roselius.) When the 
 vote was taken, some days ago, upon the 
 proposition to divide the city into three 
 senatorial districts, I was the only member 
 that spoke against that proposition. I then 
 had the honor to state that the senators 
 from the city would be entrusted with im- 
 portant general interests, and not with local 
 interests. That every thing of a local char- 
 acter should be expunged, as it were, and 
 not influence those who represented, in 
 that body, this great constituency. It suited 
 the Convention, for good or for evil, to take 
 a different view of the subject. 
 
 I have been, throughout, opposed to 
 small districts in the formation of the sen- 
 
 ate, because I conceived they were incom- 
 patible with the peculiar attributes of that 
 body. I have voted throughout for large 
 districts; and in reference to this great city, 
 I do think that the ensemble of its interests 
 should be represented in that branch of the 
 legislature, which, from its very composi- 
 tion, was designed to promote and to guard 
 those interests. 
 
 As for the hybrid proposition of the gen- 
 tleman from Jefferson, (Mr. Preston) I shall 
 vote against it. 1 consider it as neither 
 one thing nor the o&er. The amendment 
 or proviso of the gentleman from New Or. 
 leans, (Mr. Roselius) embodied in the pro- 
 position of the delegate from St. Landry, 
 (Mr. Lewis) involved a palpable contradic= 
 tion. The first part declares that the 
 choice of senators for the city shall be by a 
 general ticket; the latter part says that one 
 senator shall be taken from each munici- 
 pality. How can that be? If laws have 
 any sense, the latter clause means that 
 each municipality shall have a senator. I 
 deny that such would be the result. If 
 each municipality is to have its separate 
 senator, that senator must be elected by 
 the constituents whom he represents; other- 
 wise, if elected by the concurrent vote of 
 th^ three municipalities, he will be as 
 much the representative of one municipali- 
 ty as he is the representative of the others. 
 He cannot be chosen by the three and yet 
 be the exclusive representative of but one. 
 The strongest municipality will force the 
 choice of the other two. That will be the 
 result of this proviso. This being the 
 light in which I have viewed the subject, 
 and considering the interests of this great 
 metropolis — its power and its dignity, I am 
 in favor of the election of its senators by a 
 general ticket. But I could not vote for 
 that principle accompanied by an amend- 
 ment in direct conflict with it; neither can 
 I vote for the proposition of the delegate 
 from Jefferson, (Mr, Preston.) If the city 
 is to be one senatorial district, adopt the 
 principle without reservation. If, on the 
 contrary, each municipality is to have its 
 own senator, let each municipality elect 
 that senator, without the participation of 
 the other municipalities, for they can cer« 
 tainly have nothing in common with the 
 mere local representatives of each other. I 
 cannot vote for the two principles com- 
 bined without a violation of both, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Mr. Roselius: 1 did not apprehend that 
 my amendment would have encountered 
 so much opposition. For myself, I care 
 little whether it be incorporated in the con- 
 stitution or not. I consider it of very little 
 importance, and 1 only introduced it with 
 the view of meeting the wishes of certain 
 gentlemen on this floor. Its practical ef- 
 fect will be nothing more than to sanction 
 what has been invariably done in our elec- 
 tions, and which will continue to be done. 
 It is not likely, it is impossible that an 
 attempt will be made to elect all the sena- 
 tors from one quarter of the city: and if it 
 be made, it will not be successful. We 
 have the proof before us that no sectional 
 feelings exist among the municipalities, as 
 to the mere residence of those chosen to 
 represent the city. They have in all the 
 elections been indiscriminately taken all 
 over the city, and personal popularity and 
 political predilections have had no- more 
 weight than any thing else. In the selec- 
 tion of delegates to represent the city in 
 the Convention, party politics were dis- 
 carded, and we find the third municipality, 
 which is supposed to be the weakest, has 
 four representatives on this door. The 
 balance are from the first municipality, and 
 it has so happened; by accident, that not 
 one of the delegates is a resident of the 
 second municipality. This did not hap- 
 pen because there were no candidates resi- 
 ding in the second municipality. There 
 were candidates defeated residing in all the 
 municipalities. This ha? heretofore been 
 the usual result in all our elections, and it 
 frequently happens that a candidate ob- 
 tains more votes in another municipality, 
 than in the one in which he resides. 
 
 As to the proposition of the delegate 
 from J eflerson, it is somewhat of a nonde- 
 script: it seems to me at any rate, to be a 
 novelty. I presume, in his view, that if 
 New Orleans compose but one senatorial 
 district, it cannot constitute three senatorial 
 districts. ^ To divide it into three senatorial 
 districts, in order to make each municipali- 
 ty a senatorial district, and then divide it 
 int d one senatorial district for the election 
 of one member, would, in my humble con- 
 ception, be an absurdity! For such a pro- 
 ceeding I can perceive no reason. One of 
 two things, if the city of New Orleans be 
 constituted one senatorial district then the 
 choice of the senators must be by general 
 
 ticket. If you wish to enfeeble the power 
 of the city, to paralyize her qjjength. you 
 will establish small and insignificant local 
 districts; and in that way you will earn* out 
 the principle— -"divide and conquer." 
 
 Mr. Prestox : I have one or two obser- 
 vations to make. I did not join in the de- 
 ! sire to reduce New Orleans below her pro- 
 ; portion of political power. I was in favor 
 of electors as the basis of apportionment 
 ! for the senate, as well as for the house of 
 i representatives. It was ascertained to be 
 | the sense of the Convention that there 
 j should be an absolute restriction upon the 
 city, it being considered that a concentra- 
 | ted power of nearly one-half of the house 
 i and of the senate, would be attended with 
 ; dangerous results to the balance of the 
 j State. The disposition to curtail the pow- 
 er of New Orleans w*as tested in two or 
 j three different ways, until it was deter- 
 i mined that she should be restricted to one- 
 eighth of the total number of senators, to* 
 | wit: four out of thirty-two. That has been 
 | done; it is past, and cannot be changed. 
 All that we can do is to take the basis of 
 apportionment as it has been adopted. 
 
 The ba?is of electors which 1 proposed, 
 would have been more favorable to the 
 city, but her delegation all voted against it. 
 The total population having been taken as 
 the basis, from the necessity of the case, 
 the distribution among the three munici- 
 palities had to be made in conformity with 
 the census of 1840: according to that cen- 
 sus the allotment of senators was as fol- 
 lows: two to the first municipality; one for 
 the second, and one for the third. The 
 sense of the Convention was favorable to 
 the division of the city, and this division 
 was sanctioned, together with the distribu- 
 tion that was made among the municipali- 
 ties, of the four senators, by a decisive 
 vote. Subsequently the house retraced its 
 steps, and that portion of the section was 
 stricken out. It was then proposed that 
 the senators for the city should be chosen 
 by general ticket. This has been voted 
 down ; and it is necessary we should 
 do something. Hence 1 have proposed 
 this mode of settling the difficulty. I con- 
 fess that I would have been better satisfied 
 had five senators been allowed to the city; 
 and that would have enabled us to have 
 made a fairer distribution among the mu- 
 nicipalities- We could have assigned two 
 
620 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 to the first municipality; two to the second 
 municipalitjjpand the remaining one to 'the 
 third municipality. I think that the popu- 
 lation of the municipalities would have fully 
 justified it* 
 
 I have voted with others that we should 
 not have large senatorial districts. By one 
 of the reports of the committee on the legis- 
 lative department—the report of the ma- 
 jority—the parish of Jefferson was placed 
 in a district with four senators, I was 
 convinced that the parish, nay the very 
 city of Lafayette itself, would have con- 
 trolled the election. But I could not sanc- 
 tion it, because I thought it wrong upon 
 principle. Subsequently, when I saw the 
 scramble for political power, I voted for it, 
 but I must confess individually it went very 
 much against me. I am in favor ot small 
 districts, because they bring the represen- 
 tative and the represented in close con- 
 tact. 
 
 • The delegate from St. James, (Mr. Ro- 
 man) who haT spoken with a great deal of 
 good sense, has attempted to establish a 
 very material difference between the com- 
 position of the senate and the composition 
 of the house of representatives, and he has 
 assumed that unless the difference be main- 
 tained by the constituency of the former 
 being made greater than that of the latter, 
 the objects for which the senate was crea- 
 ted will most signally fail. I conceive 
 that there is nothing that requires this 
 dissimilarity between them. I grant that 
 they have different functions to perform; 
 the senate has executive and judicial pow- 
 ers, as well as legislative powers. The 
 house of representatives can alone origi- 
 nate bills ef revenue. In these respects 
 their powers are different; but in other 
 respects they are the same. So far as 
 they represent the will of the people, and 
 are amenable to the -will of the people, the 
 republican doctrine is, that they both should 
 be under the direct and immediate control 
 of the people; and there should be no more 
 exemption from this responsibility for the 
 one than there is for the other. It is of 
 the very essence of popular government 
 that the representative be brought into 
 close contact with his constituency; and to 
 secure that end the districts should be small. 
 But to this it is objected that it will be im- 
 possible to get a proper man in a small 
 district to represent its interests; that you 
 
 must have large districts to get men of 
 splendid abilities. I repudiate the necessi- 
 ty for these extraordinary abilities. If a 
 man is endowed with good sense, if he 
 have the good of his constituents at heart, 
 that is the desideratum, and not splendid 
 abilities. Take a man from home, V/here 
 he is well known, and where he has been 
 weighed 5 , to represent the interests of the 
 parish, if you wish to see those interests 
 zealously and properly represented. For 
 the third municipality elect a man for the 
 third municipality; for the second' munici- 
 pality elect a man for the second munici- 
 pality; and for the first municipality elect 
 a man for the first municipality. The 
 third municipality has a large territory and 
 a considerable population, but a considera- 
 ble portion of that population are excluded 
 from political rights. The first munici- 
 pality, in 1840, had more than double the 
 population of the second municipality, but 
 the latter is now about equal in population. 
 Another senator would remain to be elect- 
 ed after allotting one to each municipality. 
 It has been determined that the four shall 
 not be elected by a general ticket. It has 
 been determined that the first municipality 
 shall not elect two senators. Let the three 
 municipalities combine then and elect the 
 other. * 
 
 But, oh ! says the gentleman, yoii will 
 destroy the political power of New Orleans. 
 The majority of her citizens aie opposed 
 to districting the city, and if it be done I 
 will not affix my name to the constitution, 
 I am of opinion that the municipalities will 
 prefer to elect one of their own citizens to 
 represent them, responsible to them for his 
 fidelity, than to participate in the election 
 of four senators. They will have a direct 
 voice in the election of that one; and they 
 may not approve of any proceeding calcu- 
 lated to deprive them of that advantage. 
 I do not know what they may do, but I 
 know that they 'have heretofore had but a 
 single senator, one out of seventeen; and 
 that for a series of years their representa- 
 tives opposed the call of a Convention, 
 which was indispensable to equalize the 
 representation in both branches of the le- 
 gislature. At all events their political 
 power in the senate has doubled. 
 
 They will not have, exclaims the gen- 
 tleman, the same political influence ao it 
 they were combined, They will not be a 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 621 
 
 concentrated mass. I agree with the gen- 
 tleman in that. But I would establish a 
 material distinction. When the general 
 interests of the city are involved, they will 
 act in concert, and as an unit, in defence 
 of those interests. When the local inter- 
 ests are alone concerned, they may differ, 
 and when those interests conflict, the coun- 
 try will decide between them. Shall 1 tell 
 the Convention in candor and in good will 
 what is the real difficulty? The politics at 
 Washington unfortunately have too much 
 influence among us. They enter too much 
 into our legislation. Suppose there are 
 thirty-three hundred votes, and one party 
 gets fifteen hundred and the other party 
 eighteen hundred, your representative re- 
 presents but three hundred, the simple ma- 
 jority, and no more. When the views of 
 the fifteen hundred upon general subjects 
 arc opposed to his, he misrepresents them 
 iii reference to those views. But if you 
 go still further, and narrow down the ma- 
 jority to only fifty votes, your senators 
 would represent those fifty votes, but the 
 fifteen hundred would not be represented. 
 This Would be unjust, and that injustice 
 ought not to be rendered possible. If one 
 municipality entertains different feelings 
 or sentiments' let her be in a situation to 
 speak out those sentiments; let her express 
 her local politics. If the majority be whig 
 or democrat, let the municipalities* even 
 upon those subjects, express their respec- 
 tive predilections. When the interests of 
 the city arc only involved,, the representa- 
 ; lives and senators from the municipalities 
 will act in concert — they will unite a Ma- 
 cedonian phalanx; but when their interests 
 are divergent, they will divide, as they 
 ought to vide. If general politics should 
 enter int? he selection of the representa- 
 tives, they will each represent the politics 
 oi the different districts, and the fourth sen- 
 ator, that will be elected by the combined 
 vote of the city, will repjpent the majori- 
 ty of two or three hundred that may be 
 found to exist. That will be justice. The 
 only alternative that we have is to adopt 
 the proposition that I have submitted. 
 
 • r r. MArigny: I will sustain the propo- 
 rtion ofthe delegate from Jefferson. 
 
 Mr. Grymes desired to record his senti- 
 ments and opinions upon the question un- 
 der debate. He would never consent that 
 the senatorial district sfieuld be divided 
 * 79 
 % 
 
 and subdivided. The result of the present 
 proposition would be to prostrate complete- 
 ly the influence of the city in the general 
 assembly. Its influence had already been 
 destroyed in one branch ofthe legisiaiuie. 
 
 It seems to me (continued Mr. Grymes) 
 that the Convention are retracing its steps. 
 This parish, which has been for the last 
 thirty years a senatorial district, is to be 
 cut up, to make three districts, notwith- 
 standing the principle enunciated, that no 
 parish shall be divided in the formation of 
 senatorial districts. To save appearances, 
 one senator is to be elected by the whole 
 district, and three by the independent dis- 
 tricts de faclo. I stand here as the repre- 
 sentative of the senatorial district, and I am 
 representing the will of the great body of 
 my constituents, when 1 say they wish the 
 district to remain as it is. I am in favor of 
 large senatorial districts, and I differ in 
 opinion from the gentleman from Jeffer- 
 son (Mr. Preston.) His doctrines in rela- 
 tion to the senate are without any founda- 
 tion-. The theory of our government is, 
 that the house of representatives immedi- 
 ately represents t:ic people, and the con- 
 stituency are divided in reference to that 
 body in as many smali districts as the 
 most thorough paced democrat could de- 
 sire. I have reflected upon the organiza- 
 tion of popular governments, and I am 
 convinced that it was the design of the fra- 
 mers of our institutions, that the senate 
 should operate as a check upon the more 
 numerous and more popular body. To it 
 are confided all subjects of general policy, 
 and whatever may effect the general inter- 
 ests of the State. What is required from 
 it is greater circumspection — a cooler and 
 more dispassionate judgment, to still the 
 effervescence of the popular branch. But 
 if it is to be constituted upon the same 
 model— if there is to be no dissimilarity 
 in the constituency or in the territory it 
 represents, what becomes of the theory of 
 the government that it is a check to guard 
 against the results of hasty and inconside- 
 rate legislation. It is a perfect farCe, and 
 amounts to no more than this, that thirty- 
 two men coming from the same persons, 
 and representing identically the same local 
 interests, sit in one room as the senate, and 
 seventy-seven persons sit in another room 
 as the house of representatives, One of 
 then* it assuredly superfluous.. The gen 
 
622 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 tleman from Jefferson (Mr. Preston) has 
 pointed out what he conceived to be the 
 immaterial difference in their functions. 
 He skims but on the surface. He says 
 the senate has judicial powers. The fac- 
 ulty of judging between man and man cre- 
 ates no difference in the legislative attri- 
 butes of the members of that body, no 
 more than the investment of the right to 
 hear and determine civil or criminal cases 
 would change the character of other func- 
 tions that might be committed to the same 
 individual. If both bodies of the legisla- 
 ture are to be elected by the same people, 
 the difference will be small indeed. The 
 design of a larger constituency is that the 
 qualifications of candidates may pass 
 through the ordeal of a more general scru- 
 tiny; and that by this means there may be 
 greater wisdom and sagacity in the senate;' 
 superior coolness, greater experience in 
 public affairs, and greater aptitude. The 
 only distinction now remaining, is that 
 they are called from a greater constituen- 
 cy. Destroy that difference, and the the- 
 ory of our government is at an end. Do 
 gentlemen contemplate to drive the gov- 
 ernment into the hands of a bare majori- 
 ty? That would seem to be the argument 
 of the gentleman from Jefferson. If the 
 members of the senate are to be called from 
 a hamlet, from a small circle, the choice 
 will be confided to a few. The character 
 and qualifications of those that may be 
 chosen, will pass without a proper scruti- 
 ny. And if the person chosen have gen- 
 eral interests to represent, it must be ap- 
 parent that he will not understand those in- 
 terests, and will be unable to maintain 
 them. For example, in a large district 
 like New Orleans, a man may be elected 
 from one of the local districts, that repre- 
 sents nothing but an imaginary interest, 
 and that suppositious interest may be con- 
 sidered incompatible with the promotion 
 of some general interest of the whole city. 
 The province of the senate is to revise 
 what has passed through the lower house; 
 to stop the errors it may commit. If this 
 bo not its province, it is useless. As to a 
 similarity in the constituency, that would 
 defeat the object of having a senate to act 
 upon the general interests of all the people, 
 in contradistinction with the partial inter- 
 ests of particular individuals. 
 
 I concur in the remarks that fell from 
 
 my colleague, (Mr. Benjamin) and I repeat 
 his declaration, that with the proposition of 
 the delegate from Jefferson (Mr. Preston) 
 I could never sign the new constitution. It 
 would paralyze the efficacy of the senate, 
 so far as the city of New Orleans was con^ 
 cerned, and if the same principle were car- 
 ried out for the balance of the State, it 
 would merge the senate completely in the 
 house of representatives, and would destroy 
 every vestige of conservative power. 
 
 I am opposed to the proviso of my col- 
 league (Mr. Roselius) requiring that one 
 senator should be taken from each of the 
 municipalities, as a constitutional provision. 
 I think it radically wrong. I voted for it, 
 it is true, But why? Because I wished to 
 get all I could. It was contrary, however, 
 to my deliberate judgment of the well- 
 being and proper representation. I con- 
 ceded for the purpose of securing a com- 
 promise. 
 
 I am surprised that the representative of 
 an adjacent parish, so closely allied to us 
 as the parish of Jefferson, having a similar- 
 ity of interests and profiting by our advance- 
 ment, and the increase of our population, 
 which is spreading to her limits, should 
 have raised his arm against New Orleans 
 to strike a fatal blow upon her prosperity 
 and her political existence. How could 
 that delegate be induced to favor the ampu- 
 tation of the city— the cutting off of her 
 limbs, the reduction of her political weight 
 to a mere cypher? 
 
 Whenever the system of dividing sena- 
 torial representation into infinities, has pre- 
 vailed, governments have lost their force; 
 parties destroy one another, and the social 
 fabric crumbles beneath its own weight. 
 May God deliver us from these petty pas- 
 sions and excitements! The legislation of 
 the country cannot maintain itself without 
 the checks and balances, peculiar to our 
 system, are /preserved. Nothing is, safe 
 without them. fftiY liberties and our pro- 
 perty is exposed to become the mere sport 
 of a temporary majority. The interests o 
 the minority ought to be vigilantly guard- 
 ed. The ancient landmarks of the consti- 
 tution must be preserved; the bulwarks 
 that our ancestors have raised must not be 
 revived; — there is a limit to the power of 
 majorities, and beyond that limit they must 
 not be allowed to pass. The power of the 
 majorities must be restrained to its appro 
 
 # 
 
Debates in the Convention o! Louisiana 
 
 623 
 
 priate orbit. Let them govern, but let 
 them govern according to fundamental 
 principles. ' The new theories that we 
 have heard are dangerous, and if they pre- 
 vail, the strength and the power of the 
 State are gone. The efficacy of our insti- 
 tutions are gone ! We have already, in 
 some measure, gone beyond the essential 
 principles of popular government. We have 
 approached the dead level. Every thing 
 has been cut to suit the motives of the day. 
 There is but one thing left — we are riding 
 with a single anchor If we desire to per- 
 petuate our institutions, let us put the con- 
 servative power of the government in the 
 senate. It is the only place where we can 
 transfer it. 
 
 Mr. Beatty .said he was in favor of 
 large districts. He was in. favor of there 
 being but one district in the parish of Or- 
 leans. The Convention had determined 
 that no parish should be divided in the for- 
 mation of senatorial districts, and yet, when 
 he moved to re-unite that portion of the 
 parish of Orleans to the senatorial district 
 formed of the parish, they refused to carry 
 out the very principle which they had sanc- 
 tioned. Under these circumstances, he was 
 left to the alternative of refusing to vote, 
 or to take that course which his judgment 
 dictated to him as the test. If large dis- 
 tricts are not to be established, then he was 
 willing to take small districts, and being 
 unable to compel the Convention to be 
 consistent, he would vote in favor of the 
 proposition of the gentleman from Jeffer- 
 son. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. Preston's 
 motion, and the yeas and nays were called 
 for. 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 Cade, Carriere, Downs, Garcia, Humble. 
 Ledoux, McRae, Marigny,- Mayo. O'Bryan, 
 Peets, Penn, Porche, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St, Landry, Preston, 
 Read. Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana. Scott of Madison, Soule, Trist and 
 Wederstrandt — 28 yeas. 
 
 Messrs, Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Cenas, Chinn. Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Berbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Grymes, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Ken'ner, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Erudhonime, 
 Pugh, Roman, Roselks, Saunders, Sellers, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of Sf. Lan 
 
 dry, Voorhies, Wikoff and Winder — 35 
 nays. 
 
 Mr. Soule then moved that the Con- 
 vention adjourn. Yeas 23, nays 37. 
 
 Mr. Eustis moved for the reconsidera = 
 tion of the vote upon Mr. Lewis' proposu 
 j tion, that the four senators allowed to the 
 ! city should be elected by general ticket, 
 , as amended by the proviso of Mr. Roselius. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for. 
 ' Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin. Bou- 
 . dousquie, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad 
 ! of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson 
 : Derbes. Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Grymes. 
 j Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 1 Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Rornan, Roselius, Saunders, Scott of 
 : Feliciana, Sellers, Taylor of Assumption, 
 ; Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies and Win 
 I der — 34 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade> 
 Carriere, Downs, Garcia, Humble, Ledoux-, 
 McRae, Marigny. Mayo. O'Bryan, Peets, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Preston, Read, Scolt of Baton 
 Rouge. Scott of Madison, Soule, Tru; 
 Wederstrandt and Wikoff — 25 nays. 
 
 Mr. Roselius stated he would withdraw 
 his amendment, 
 
 Mr. McRae made a call of the house— 
 55 members present. 
 
 A\ hereupon, the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Tuesday, April 8, 1845, 
 The Convention met agreeably to ad^ 
 : journmenf, and its proceedings were open 
 1 ed with praver by the Rev. Mr. Clark, 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 Senatorial representation of the citv of 
 j New Orleans. 
 
 Mr. CuLBEKTsors said, that the recon- 
 ! sideration voted yesterday, embraced the 
 j proposition of the delegate from St. Lan- 
 \ dry. (Mr. Lewis) and the amendment of- 
 , fered thereto by the delegate from New 
 | Orleans (Mr. Roselius.) The secretary 
 j explained". Air. Culbertson slated that he 
 had a distinct recollection of what took 
 place, and he was not the only one that 
 remembered the proceedings that were 
 had after the vote was reconsidered. My 
 colleague (Mr. Roselius) said he would 
 withdraw the amendment, but no action 
 was had upon granting him leave to with- 
 draw, and according to parliamentary rules; 
 when a motion was once entertained by a 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 deliberative body, it could not be with- 
 drawn but with the assent of the majority. 
 
 The President said there was nothing 
 before the house without a motion to cor- 
 rect the journals. 
 
 Mr. CmNN Said that his recollection dif- 
 fered somewhat from that of the gentle- 
 man. He remembered that the delegate 
 from New Orleans (Mr. Roselius) stated 
 that he would withdraw his amendment— 
 that the President asked if there was any 
 objection, and no objection was made. The 
 President said there was nothing before 
 the Convention if no motion were made to 
 amend the journals. 
 
 Mr. Roselius wished the journals to 
 state that he had withdrawn his amend- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson said that his colleague 
 labored under a mistake. He had asked 
 to withdraw his amendment, but no action 
 had been had thereon. 
 
 Mr. Porter had a distinct recollection 
 of the facts stated by Mr. Culbertson. 
 
 Mr. Roselius did not set up his memory 
 as being infallible in relation to this mat- 
 ter. He did not pretend to be certain of 
 what actually took place. He did not 
 pretend to be certain of anything — he was 
 not certain that he was now actually in the 
 Convention. 
 
 Mr. Culbeltson said it was easily ac- 
 counted for why his recollection was the 
 most distinct; he took a greater interest in 
 the amendment. 
 
 Mr. Eustis proposed to take the opin- 
 ion of the President. 
 
 The President stated that when a mo- 
 tion was once entertained, it could not be 
 withdrawn without the consent of the 
 house. 
 
 Mr. Roselius said there was no difficul- 
 ty about the rule. The only difficulty was 
 in relation to the facts. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne said that the state of 
 the question was simply this: the motion 
 made to reconsider by the delegate (Mr. 
 Eustis) for the purpose of striking out the 
 amendment. 'i he reconsideration was 
 carried, and the delegate (Mr. Roselius) 
 stated that he would withdraw his amend- 
 ment. If the question was not actually 
 taken, the tacit consent of the house was at 
 least obtained for the withdrawal of the 
 amendment. 
 
 Mr. Roselius said, that to prevent fur- 
 
 ther debate, he would rrmve to strike out 
 the amendment. His motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin then moved the adoption 
 of Mr. Lewis' proposition. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson: I find it entirely in- 
 compatible with my ideas of justice to 
 vote in favor of the proposition before us. 
 When the subject first came up — -I do not 
 recollect the particular day — I made a mo- 
 tion to apportion the representation accord- 
 ed to the city in the senate, in accordance 
 with the basis of total population, which 
 had been adopted by # the Convention. It 
 will be recollected that in making the ap- 
 portionment for the senate in thtf several 
 districts throughout the State, the census of 
 1840 was taken as the guide in making 
 that apportionment. I had in view the 
 populations in. the three municipalities, as 
 indicated by the census. The population 
 of the first municipality was shown by 
 that data to be forty-eight- thousand one 
 hundred and thirty-one, and it was there- 
 fore entitled to two senators. The popu> 
 lation of the third municipality was twen- 
 ty-six thousand eight hundred and forty- 
 three, and it was entitled to one senator — - 
 and the second municipality having a po- 
 pulation of nineteen thousand two hundred 
 and thirty-five, was entitled to one sena- 
 tor. On that occasion, I do not recollect 
 that any objection was made to my propo- 
 sition, except perhaps on the part of my 
 colleague (Mr. Eustis.) My other coh 
 leagues who were present did not form 
 any opposition. In proposing this distri- 
 bution, I acted without favoi or fear, and 
 with the sincere desire to be impartial. 
 The proposition was adopted. Since its 
 adoption, a great deal of noise has been 
 made — a good deal here and a good deal 
 elsewhere, and the particular course I 
 thought it my duty to follow, has been at- 
 tacked with some degree of asperity. Ex- 
 pressions have been employed, which were 
 not authorized, ^and which were in the 
 highest degree, to say the least, out of 
 place. Without taking any especial credit 
 to myself, I may say, that 1 am as anxious 
 to represent the interests of the city, and 
 to reflect the will of my constituents, as 
 any member upon this floor. I have incur- 
 red some displeasure because I would noi 
 yield my settled convictions of what 1 con- 
 sidered to be just and right in reference to 
 this matter. We have been told that the 
 
/ 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 025 
 
 people of New Orleans would not yield 
 their assent; that they are opposed to 
 that measure! What evidence have we, 
 that they are opposed to it, especially un- 
 der the form presented by my colleague 
 (Mr. Roselius. ) I profess to know some- 
 thing about the views and sentiments of 
 those 1 represent, and 1 do assert that the 
 proposition will be acceptable. Each mu- 
 nicipality will have one senator taken from 
 its limits, that will take care of its local in- 
 terests, while he will unite with his col- 
 leagues in the maintenance of the general 
 interest of the whole city. The fourth 
 senator will be taken, from whichever sec- 
 don that it may please the good will of the 
 people to determine, and if there should 
 be any clashing of interest between the 
 municipalities, he will act as a species of 
 umpire between them. The idea has been 
 put forth in this body that the interests of 
 the municipalities are not adverse. I will 
 not say that such a notion is ridiculous, 
 that it is nonsensical. The amendment is 
 not mine — I am not the father of it — it 
 originated with a gentleman who enter- 
 tains contrary views to my own upon the 
 expediency of establishing each munici- 
 pality into a senatorial district. If the in- 
 terests of the municipalities be diverse, 
 this diversity will not be reconciled by es- 
 tablishing a single- senatorial district, nei- 
 ther will it be aggravated by conceding to 
 each municipality its just proportion of po- 
 litical power. I have thought in view of 
 the separate interests of the municipalities, 
 that there should be some guarantee that 
 each municipality shall be heard, and be- 
 lieving Jthat the amendment would *have 
 that tendency as well as the effect of set- 
 tling the question, I have given to it my 
 sanction. But we are here met by the in- 
 quiry, why divide a city whose interests 
 are identical? I may reply to this, that 
 even in the view of those that are opposed 
 to creating more than a single senatorial 
 district in the city, they have admitted that 
 mese interests are not identical, not only 
 in their arguments, but in the very pro- 
 viso they have offered, And besides, have 
 we not the very division of the city into 
 - three municipalities, to show that their 
 separation was considered promotive of the 
 furtherance of their special interests? 
 
 Should no provision be adopted, the re- 
 sult may be that one municipality will be 
 
 overpowered by another, and will have to 
 complain and groan for some adequate re- 
 lief. If we adopt the principle of the pro- 
 viso, whenever the general interests of the 
 city may be involved, the senators elected 
 for the whole city, but coming from each 
 municipality, will sustain those interests by 
 their united action. Of that there can be 
 no question. I do not believe that the re- 
 sult will be the same without the proviso* 
 It is assumed that it will be so, and that the 
 municipalities will arrange the matter be^ 
 tween themselves. That may happen, or 
 it may not happen. I cannot leave to 
 chance that which ought to be placed 
 beyond the possibility of contingencies, 
 One portion will always be liable to suffer 
 if there be no express stipulation. These 
 are my views hastily expressed. I am 
 sure that the people of two of the munici- 
 palities are generally in favor of assuring 
 to them a senatorial representation. J 
 think it is for the interest of all the muni- 
 cipalities. An effort is made to induce the 
 belief that the people of the second munici- 
 pality are against it in mass. If this be so, 
 I am sorry for it; but at the same time I 
 cannot consent to yield up my convictions 
 and to expose the political rights of any 
 portion of my constituents, to be swallow- 
 ed Up, 
 
 Mr. Roselius: Since this discussion be- 
 gan, I have reflected a great deal upon 
 the questi on of the alledged diversity of in- 
 terest between the different sections of 
 New Orleans. I have endeavored to as= 
 certain in what particular such diversity 
 might arise. Gentlemen assert roundly, 
 that what I have always considered one 
 city, constitutes three cities. In what 
 respect, I would ask them, are the inter- 
 ests of the third municipality opposed to 
 those of the first or second municipalities on 
 subjects of general legislation? For we 
 are not considering the local measures that 
 may apply to the different parts of the city. 
 Our attention is called to general subjects 
 of legislation, which will occupy the coun- 
 cils of the State. What are the all per- 
 vading, the peramount interests of New 
 Orleans? Is not this a great commercial 
 city, and will not the measures promotive 
 of the course of trade by the legislation of 
 the State, apply as well to one municipali- 
 ty as to another? Will not the measures 
 which are essential to develope the resour 
 
626 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 ees of the city operate equally? The city 
 is not actuated by different springs of ac- 
 tion, and whatever contributes to her gen- 
 eral prosperity, is felt as well in one mu- 
 nicipality as in another. Will gentlemen 
 tell me that there is any difference between 
 the different portions of the city in matters 
 of general legislation? After the best re- 
 flection, I consider the city of New Or- 
 leans, in reference to general objects of 
 legislation, as an unity. It is erroneous 
 to suppose that there are any measures of 
 State legislation, which would be detrimen- 
 tal to one and advantageous to the other. 
 It was justly remarked by one of my col- 
 leagues, the other day, that all measures of 
 a general character emanate from her gen- 
 eral council. It is only local measures 
 that are represented in the local councils. 
 The executive power of the city is vested 
 in one chief magistrate. There is but one 
 mayor, and his functions are not circum- 
 scribed within the artificial bounds of the 
 separate municipalities. Is it sound legis- 
 lation — is it sound policy, to subdivide a 
 city situated as New Orleans, the pursuits 
 of whose citizens are the same, and whose 
 commerce, mechanics and navigation can- 
 not be severed: whose interests go hand in 
 hand, and whose extended relations has 
 procured for her the appropriate name of 
 the great emporium of the west? 
 
 And is it seriously proposed to strike a 
 fatal blow at this great city, by splitting 
 her up into petty fractions?. All Jiistory 
 teems with examples of the fatal conse- 
 quences of separating general interests. 
 To divide a city— to divide a community — 
 that should be joined in the boiid of unity 
 -—of brotherhood! Why, what will be the 
 consequence? What was the consequence 
 that immediately flowed from that division? 
 An absurd, a preposterous rival ship be- 
 tween the municipalities. Instead of com- 
 bining the interests of the whole city, these 
 municipalities contended with each other, 
 so as to defeat the very object which they 
 all should have had in view. Instead of 
 pushing forward to the development of the 
 immense resources of this vast city, they 
 were distracted and divided by petty jeal- 
 ousies, fomented and kindled from day to 
 day, and which counteracted the most ben- 
 eficial measures— measures that would 
 have given it the most irresistible impetus, 
 and which would have spread improves 
 
 ments and prosperity over every portion of 
 the city. With this fearful .example before 
 our eyes— with the consequences of this 
 abominable, execrable policy, let us pause 
 before we make the deplorable results of 
 that short-sighted policy perpetual. The 
 evil may as yet be remedied. The same 
 power that divided us may unite us, and it 
 would be an act of the greatest wisdom, if 
 the first legislature convened after the adop- 
 tion of this constitution, should ordain that 
 the city should be restored to its former 
 state of unity, before the passage of the 
 act dividing the three municipalities. That 
 ought to be done. These are my sincere 
 wishes. There is nothing in the way m 
 yet but a legislative act. But if we recog- 
 nize the constitutional division of the city 
 into senatorial districts, we interpose an 
 insuperable barrier. The evil will then 
 be irremediable. The division will be re- 
 cognized in the constitution, and no legis- 
 lative act will be available to unite the city. 
 With a view to prevent this obstacle, the 
 Orleans delegation took care in the division 
 of the city into representative districts, not 
 to allude to the division into municipalities, 
 They divided the city into election districts, 
 but they abstained from saying any thing 
 recognitive of the existence of three mu- 
 nicipalities. Let us beware how we pro- 
 ceed. If we change our former course in 
 reference to the apportionment of the house, 
 and recognize three municipalities, the 
 separation will be perpetual, and no legis- 
 lative act will ever unite the city. There 
 is no measure comprised within the legis- 
 lative functions that I have more at heart 
 than to see the city united in name as 
 well as in nature. The distinctions that 
 may have suggested its division were un- 
 natural; they were artificial, and were not 
 authorised by the pursuits of the citizen? 
 or the permanent prosperity of the city. 
 It was effected by the greediness of eel- 
 tain persons residing within certain limits; 
 Let me not be misunderstood. I refer to 
 the act dividing the city into three niuni<& 
 palities. That is one of the great objec 
 tions — one of the reasons why I am in fa- 
 vor of a general ticket, and against the re- 
 cognition in the constitution of the three 
 municipalities. But it may be said Aft* 
 my acts are inconsistent with my prolu- 
 sions, and I may be charged with int'° 
 during the proviso= That proviso never 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 627 
 
 met my approbation. I consented with my 
 colleagues to introduce it for the purpose of 
 removing the objections of certain gentle- 
 men on this floor. I am not disappointed 
 with the course taken by the house in rela- 
 tion to it. I am rejoiced that it met with 
 an unfavorable reception. It was a mea- 
 sure that I regretted to introduce. It was 
 sacrificing expediency to principle. It is 
 is the first time I have ever done so, and 1 
 hope to God it will be the last. 
 
 Now as to the practical operation of the 
 election of the senators allotted to the city, 
 by general ticket: Is there any necessity 
 — -I would ask my colleagues with whom 1 
 have the misfortune to differ— -is there any 
 necessity for a constitutional provision that 
 
 : the sehators should be taken from differ- 
 ent portions of the city. There is none. 
 We have had the experience of thirty-two 
 years under the old constitution, and I am 
 
 ' not aware that an election has ever taken 
 place that has not been fairly and justly 
 conducted, in reference to the different 
 quarters of the city. It is true, that in 
 limes of great political excitement, the 
 candidates that may have been elected 
 have been taken from particular quarters 
 of the city. But these are exceptions to 
 the almost invariable rule. The sense of 
 the community has been that the persons 
 to be elected should be taken from the dif- 
 ferent quarters of the city. They have 
 done so, and will continue to do so. I re- 
 peat that this supposed diversity of opinion 
 does not exist. It is merely imaginary. 
 It is conjured up by the fervid imaginations 
 of gentlemen. I challenge them to point 
 out any subject of general legislation in 
 which the interests of the municipalities 
 are adverse to each other. If they cannot 
 give a satisfactory reply, it is a fair infer- 
 ence that they are mistaken and that we 
 
 I a re right. 
 Something has been said about the opin- 
 ions of the citizens at large in relation to 
 this question. I am now speaking in the 
 presence of a number of my constituents; 
 [ have conversed with hundreds of them 
 in the first municipality — 1 have convers- 
 ed with some in the second municipality, 
 and some in the third municipality upon 
 the subject, and as far as my personal com- 
 munications with them have gone, their 
 sentiments are the reverse of those attribu- 
 ted by one of my colleagues, who is not in 
 
 favor of the election by general ticket. 
 There may be different opinions upon the 
 expediency of the measure, entertained by 
 the people of New Orleans, but for my 
 part I have not met whh a single one of 
 my constituents who is in favor of it. I 
 do not pretend to be better conversant with 
 their views and feelings than any of my 
 colleagues, but I have taken some little 
 pains to satisfy myself how far public 
 opinion favored the proposition, not in any 
 one particular quarter of the city alone, but 
 all over the city. I represent on this floor 
 the whole city of New Orleans. I am 
 not the representative of a particular sec- 
 tion, although I was upon the point of 
 saying — -and I would have given utter= 
 ance to a bull- — that I had resided all my 
 life in one quarter of the city. I may say 
 that I have resided for a quarter of a cen- 
 tury in the first municipality, and may 
 claim as much identity with that munici- 
 pality as most persons residing there. I 
 have had as fair an opportunity of ascer- 
 taining their wishes and knowing their 
 will as any one. I have met with no op- 
 position to preserving the unity of the city 
 in her representation to the legislature. 
 The only opposition that I have encoun- 
 tered has been in this house. If there had 
 been opposition it could not have escaped 
 my- attention. But should there even be 
 opposition, should there be a majority of 
 my constituents who were in favor of di- 
 viding the city in her senatorial represen- 
 tation, I would not permit them to dictate 
 to me the course I should adopt upon this 
 occasion. I am here to use the best lights 
 of my reflection, and to do that which in 
 my own judgment would be most condii- 
 cive to the interests of the whole city. I 
 do not recognize the right of instruction, 
 and before I would do any thing which 
 my conscience condemned, I would resign. 
 I am persuaded that nothing could be de- 
 vised more detrimental to the city than to 
 split her up and divide her into petty frag- 
 ments. She is already too much divided, 
 and so far from sanctioning further divi- 
 sions, had I the power, I would this mo- 
 ment cause the last traces of those that ex- 
 ist forever to disappear. 
 
 Mr. Soule proposed the following 
 amendment: 
 
 Provided, That the legislature which 
 shall assemble immediately after this con- 
 
628 
 
 Debates in Oio Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 stirutron sliail pass a law abolishing the, 
 division of the city into three municipali- 
 ties; and sliail constitute it- into a single 
 corporation with a single council and a 
 single administration. 
 
 Mr. Makigny: if I ever regretted my 
 want of familiarity with the English lan- 
 guage, it is at the present moment, for I 
 have the settled conviction that if I could 
 make myself understood in that language, 
 which is most generally understood by the 
 members of this Convention, I would tri- 
 umph over all opposition. The argu- 
 ments of my colleague (Mr. Roseiius) are 
 not the arguments of the heart. His mind 
 has created them in the midst of the move- 
 ments and excitements that have occurred 
 within the last forty-eight hours. Let us 
 pass them in review, in order that I may 
 destroy them as the lightning blasts the 
 leaves of the trees that it may strike. I 
 do not (says he) represent a fraction of the 
 city, but the -whole city, and those that are 
 opposed to me are not familiar with public 
 opinion. Their doctrines are irrational, 
 pernicious, and are dangerous to the pub- 
 lic tranquility. This language is far from 
 being complimentary to those who may 
 differ with him in opinion. He tells us 
 that we are extravagant in desiring to car- 
 ry out our opinions, and leaves it to be 
 inferred that all the wisdom of the Orleans 
 delegation is concentrated in his person. 
 I but seldom speak of myself. 1 do not 
 aspire to popularity, still less to those hon- 
 ors, which under a government like ours, a 
 government which I fully comprehend, it 
 would have been easy for me to have at- 
 tained by the assistance of those natural 
 talents that I possess, for the faculty of 
 speech, if not of^elocution. I may there- 
 fore, as every man would, who feels that 
 he is in the right, place myself face to face 
 with an opponent or enemy, in assuming 
 the defence of what I consider just and 
 rational. We- have been told that the di- 
 vision of the city into three municipalities 
 is a misfortune; but we have not been told 
 who provoked that misfortune. This is 
 the second part of the episode, which I 
 shall now relate. I was a member of the 
 legislature when the law was introduced, 
 dividing the city into three municipalities, 
 and among my colleagues was the honora- 
 ble delegate from St. Landry (Mr. Lewis.) 
 Another of the delegates ( Mr c Conrad) was 
 
 not actually a member of the 'legislature at 
 that period, but he was a lobby* member. 
 If I am not much mistaken, he bore a con- 
 spicuous part in drafting the law, and in 
 securing its passage. In examining the 
 grounds assumed at that time by the hon- 
 orable delegate from St. Landry, (Mr. 
 Lewis) and those that particularly co-ope- 
 ruted with him, among whom were most 
 conspicuous, we shall have a pretty accu- 
 rate knowledge of the merits of that ques- 
 tion. The honorable delegate from St, 
 Landry assumed that there was an incom- 
 patibility in the union between the upper 
 and lower portions of the city, and by what 
 arguments do you think he supported that 
 position? He said that in the upper por- 
 tion, English was spoken, and in the lower 
 portion, French. That there was more 
 activity above, and greater insousiance be- 
 low—that the hour of repasts were diffe- 
 rent, and that there was no similarity in 
 the habitudes of making these repasts. 
 That the French police were more severe 
 than the American police, and would not 
 permit those familiar boxing matches with 
 which the new population were familiar in 
 the streets. By these singular arguments 
 he succeeded in establishing to his own 
 satisfaction, and to that of the majority of 
 the house, that there ought to be a division 
 of the city. The most remarkable feature 
 however, was the attempt made by him 
 to incorporate a section in the law by 
 which the whole of the property belonging 
 to the old corporation should be estimated, 
 and the first municipality charged with a 
 debt of two millions towards the second 
 municipality, and five hundred thousand 
 dollars towards the third municipality. 
 Persons of small intelligence inquired in 
 vain how it could be that a mother who 
 had fed and clothed her children out of her 
 own resources, could become their debtor. 
 But notwithstanding, the discussion lasted 
 ten days. 1 opposed the whole measure 
 with as much warmth and energy as 1 
 could : ' command) and the house becoming 
 wearied with hearing me address them in 
 French, 1 was under the necessity of stJs 
 taming my views as well as I could in 
 English. 
 
 I introduced documents which mcont^st- 
 ably proved that the property which was 
 to have been seized upon, belonged to the 
 old corporation in virrae s of donations made 
 
Debates in the Oonvention oi Louisiana. 
 
 629 
 
 by the kings of France and Spain. The 
 three champions of the division of the city 
 and the spoliation of the old corporation, 
 grounded their arms, and that section was 
 rejected. It was however no less apparent, 
 from the debates, that the authors of the 
 scheme designed to extort two millions 
 five hundred thousand dollars from the 
 old corporation, independent of the ter- 
 ritory they took from her to constitute 
 the two other municipalities. And is 
 it now that they will seriously tell us 
 that New Orleans is but one city; that 
 we are but one family; that we have the 
 same habits and the same usages, and that 
 we can very easily combine in making the 
 elections common to the three municipali- 
 ties, as . one integral, city ? I admit that 
 were there any danger to menace the 
 common tranquility, we would act in con- 
 cert in resisting it 6 If a war or an invasion 
 was to occur we would be united, because 
 valor is the natural sentiment of all, and 
 each would feel that - they were fighting 
 more for the country than for a locality, 
 But in times of peace we do not harmonise; 
 we do not appreciate each other's peculiar 
 customs in any thing, not even in religion, 
 for the inhabitants of the first municipality 
 dance and amuse themselves on Sunday, 
 while the inhabitants of the second muni- 
 cipality are making their prayers or sing- 
 ing hymns. 
 
 One of the gentlemen, I believe it was 
 my colleague, (Mr. Conrad) has entertained 
 us with an account of the numerous and 
 splendid steamers that adorn our wharves, 
 and of those rich and vast merchant ves- 
 lels that are wafted to us from every clime, 
 but he has not told us where these vessels 
 moor. That is an important matter which 
 he has forgotten. But of what do you com- 
 plain, asks the advocates of the general 
 ticket system ? Is it of a matter of prefer- 
 ence that may result in the elections? If it 
 be this, say they, you are mistaken, and the 
 proof that you are mistaken is found in the 
 fact that out of the eleven delegates repre- 
 senting the city in this Convention, there 
 is not a single one that is a resident of the 
 second municipality. That is true. It is 
 the result of mere chance; but what shows 
 that the second municipality nevertheless, 
 exercises the influence from which we de- 
 sire to relieve ourselves, is, that upon any 
 question in which she may feel herself in- 
 80 
 
 terested, she commands the services of a 
 majority of the members of the city delega. 
 tion, even when it is apparent that there is 
 so ne conflict between her views and those 
 of the two other municipalities; upon this 
 very question eight of the delegates are for 
 consulting exclusively her wishes. I ad~ 
 I mire the indefatigable zeal which is a cha- 
 racteristic of her citizens — their incessant 
 activity and constant energy. But I cannot 
 admit their right to monopolize and to swaL 
 low up the whole political power of the 
 city. How long has it been since this de- 
 sire has been manifested to conform to her 
 wishes upon this question? Only two days. 
 One of the city delegation, (Mr. Roselius) 
 animated with the desire of conciliating 
 the interests of the two other municipali- 
 ties, presented a proviso. The second 
 municipality will not consent to any con- 
 cession. Mr. Roselius withdraws his pro- 
 viso. What does the second municipality 
 want ? The four senators — nothing more 
 nor nothing less ! And why? because she 
 calculates that with the concurrence of the 
 first ward of the first municipality, which 
 acts in concert with her, she will be able 
 to control the election of all four senators. 
 Let us not be deceived. Here is the true 
 secret of her opposition to the measure of 
 districting the city. 
 
 But to conclude with the development of 
 the tactics of the partisans of the second 
 municipality, I suppose that they desire to 
 realize the project of annexing the city of 
 Lafayette to the second municipality, under 
 the cognomen of Jefferson city. This 
 project has been entertained for the last 
 ten years. Who will prevent this junction 
 when the second municipality, in concur- 
 rence with the first ward, will have the 
 power of electing the four senators? It 
 frequently happens that a candidate leaves 
 the first and third municipalities with a 
 heavy majority, which is completely over- 
 thrown by the votes of the second munici- 
 pality, and in the fir it ward of the first mu» 
 nicipality. Is it to be supposed that this 
 striking difference will decrease? Let us 
 examine the question as we may, I am 
 convinced that to be just, we ought to give 
 one senator, at least, to each municipality; 
 and whoever will examine this question 
 dispassionately — whoever is indifferent to 
 ephemera,! popularity, cannot come to an}' 
 other conclusion. We are, however, ac- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana: 
 
 cused of being unreasonable, and reproach- 
 ed with acting from passion. To this I 
 may reply, that those charges belong to 
 those who impute them to us; and as a test 
 of their sincerity, when they disclaim so 
 much against the division of the city, and 
 express so earnest a desire to see it re- 
 united under one administration, my col- 
 league (Mr. Soule) has introduced a pro- 
 vision having that very object in view. I 
 predict, notwithstanding all their declama- 
 tion, that now, that this question is pre- 
 sented to them, they will not sustain it. 
 •They have told us that the division of the 
 city is one of the greatest calamities that 
 has befallen our community. Well, they 
 have the opportunity of effectually avoiding 
 that calamity. Will they avail themselves 
 of it? I am" convinced they will not, and I 
 defy any one of them to vote in favor of that 
 proposition. 
 
 Mr. Roselius: The gentleman is mis- 
 taken; I will vote for it. 
 
 Mr. Marigny: Do not interrupt me. 
 I have not like you, the talents of the ad- 
 vocate; and I cannot engage, like you, in a 
 contest of joinders and rejoinders. 
 
 Mr. Roselius: You defied me to vote 
 for the proposition. I wish you to know 
 that I -will vote for it. 
 
 Mr. Marigny: So much the better, and 
 if you do vote with us upon this question, I 
 will make you my excuses. But will your 
 vote prevent the second municipality from 
 intriguing and protesting? I repeat it, 
 no one respects more than I do the indom- 
 itable energy of the people of the second 
 municipality, and no one better under- 
 stands their policy and their designs. They 
 will not cede, and if we do not take the 
 weapons out of their hands, they will treat 
 us as already conquered, t know that 
 there are some whose interests are con- 
 centrated in the second municipality, who 
 reside in the first and third municipalities. 
 But when you ask them where they reside, 
 they will tell you that their country resi- 
 dence is in the first or in the third munici- 
 pality; that their places of business are in 
 the second municipality. And, in fact, it 
 is there that all their interests, and all their 
 affections are centred. Look at our lob- 
 bies. They are filled with persons from 
 the second municipality. If you adopt the 
 proposition of the delegate from Opelousas 
 (Mr. Lewis) you will see that they will re- 
 
 tire, filled with pleasure and satisfaction; 
 even although they be convinced that we 
 are right. They will say, well, never 
 mind, Mr. Marigny and Mr. Soule were 
 right in principle, but we have carried our 
 point. And yet I am accused of having 
 acted with passion; I, who have never ask- 
 ed what was not just and reasonable. 
 
 Why, I would ask, do you refuse to ac- 
 cord to New Orleans what has been con- 
 ceded to certain other districts in the coun- 
 try? The former district of Rapides has 
 been divided into two districts; the dis- 
 trict of Feliciana has been divided into 
 two districts; the district of Attakapas has 
 been divided into two districts, and an 
 effort is making to divide it into three dis- 
 tricts. Why then not divide the district of 
 New Orleans? If we are to be denied the 
 privilege of being heard in the senate, the 
 only remaining thing to complete our ser- 
 vitude, will be an order to keep silent, and 
 to allow ourselves to be swallowed up with- 
 out uttering one word of complaint. These 
 gentlemen measure majorities by the yard, 
 and according as they increase their ma- 
 jorities they withdraw their amendments? 
 in the hope of carrying their proposition as 
 it was introduced. This reminds me of 
 the feats performed by a man I met in Paris, 
 who was denominated the king of the lions. 
 He had four ot those animals, with whose 
 merits he alone was familiar, which he 
 produced one after the other, reserving for 
 the close of his exhibition the most for- 
 midable. My colleague (Mr. Roselius) has 
 not the lions caged; they would be too dif- 
 ficult to manage; but he has serpents in his 
 pockets, and he produces them one after 
 the'other. He has already exhibited three, 
 and here he is with the fourth, which is to 
 destroy us, if that can be done; for what 
 is this proposition, but a rampant and ven- 
 omous monster, that has penetrated into 
 our city, to swallow up one part for the 
 benefit of another? I trust that the mem- 
 bers from the country will not allow them- 
 selves to be taken by surprise, by a policy 
 which is so dangerous; but that they will 
 do their duty, by rendering justice to the 
 first and third municipalities, as well as to 
 the second. 
 
 But, says my colleague, (Mr. Roselius,) 
 and I quote his words, " I have met no 
 one in the city who is favorable to this di- 
 vision," I do not desire to controvert the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana 
 
 inference frorn what he says; it may well ' a short time before, have been vehemently 
 enough be. I have too seen a large num. ; denounced, perhaps even hung in effigy, 
 ber of mv constituents, and feei bound as because they would not sacrifice the inter- 
 
 much to believe the inference of my asser. 
 tion, as I am to believe his. I declare 
 solemnly, and every one must know that 
 I am well acquainted with the lower por- 
 tion of the city, that the masses in the first 
 and third municipalities are decidedly in 
 favor of the division of the city into sena- 
 torial districts: and I may add, that it is as 
 natural for them to desire that division, as 
 it is for the people of the second munici- 
 pality to oppose it. The proverb says, 
 that a bird in the hand is worth two in the 
 bush. The certainty of having the privi- 
 lege of electing one senator, at least, is 
 preferable to the hope with which we are 
 amused, of electing four. If the second 
 municipality was sincerely disposed, as we 
 
 ests and the welfare of the other munici- 
 palities. Let her storm as she may — let 
 her make as many outcries as she may, 
 and let her denounce as she may, men who 
 would n(;t yield their convictions at her be- 
 hests! It is not I, certainly, a veteran of 
 the tribune, thai will quiver before such a 
 storm. I would rather lose ail the advan. 
 tages of three months' popularity? and of 
 services rendered, than to hesitate a single 
 instant in mv duty. If I should fall in the 
 contest, so much the worse. But those 
 even, that may triumph, will, sooner or 
 later, appreciate my motives and do them 
 justice. 
 
 It is for you. gentlemen of the country, 
 to decide. L'pon you will devolve the task 
 
 are told, to allow the four senators to be of determining the controversy between the 
 
 : city delegation. Close your ears against 
 the clamors that have assailed you, free 
 yourselves from the influence of intrigues 
 and passions, with which you may have 
 been surrounded. Place your hand upon 
 I your consciences, and judge without fear : 
 j You are told truly that there is this differ* 
 j ence between this section of the constitu* 
 ! tion and an act of the legislature, that one 
 is submitted to the will of the legislature^ 
 and that the other controls the legislature* 
 And it is in view of that difference, that I 
 understand it, as well as the gentleman, 
 (Mr Roselius,) and that I ask you to deter- 
 mine our limits and our rights, so that the 
 day after vour adjournment, these guaran- 
 ties shall not be touched. My arguments, 
 I readily avow, are not so brilliant as thoae 
 of my opponents, but they are the sugges- 
 tions of an old experience; and it is from 
 my heart that I receive that energy which 
 sustains me in the position I have~assumed.- 
 I am attached to the soil upon which I was 
 born, and I do not wish to die with the con= 
 viction, that in a short time there will be 
 left nothing but the ruins of that portion 
 of Louisiana where first began the glory 
 and prosperity of the State. 
 
 Mr. Sauxders moved io lay Mr, Jou- 
 le's amendment on the table, subject to the 
 call of the house. 
 
 Mr. Claieoexe said that he was not op- 
 posed to the principle enunciated in the 
 proviso offered by his colleague (Mr, Sou- 
 le=) He was disposed to accept it with 
 
 taken equally from the three municipalities, 
 she would not have opposed the measure 
 of giving one senator to each municipality 
 with so much violence; and her advocates 
 would have accepted the amendment offer- 
 ed by the delegate from Jefferson, (Mr. 
 Preston.) by which she would have secu- 
 red the election of two out of the four sen- 
 ators, whenever she chose. She was, how- 
 ever aware that she would have the co- 
 operation of the first ward of the first mu- 
 nicipality, and hence her anxiety to have 
 the election by general ticket, knowing 
 full well that she could control the selec- 
 tion of four senators. Here is the true 
 cause for the zeal she has displayed. If 
 the number of electors were in proportion 
 with the population, the first and third mu- 
 nicipalities could maintain the contest, and 
 resist the supremacy of the second munici- 
 pality, But, inasmuch as total population 
 is the basis of the right of representation, 
 the number of electors is the means of re- 
 alizing the proportion of political power; 
 and as the second municipality has the 
 greatest number of electors in proportion 
 with the numerous families and persons of 
 color, with the slave population that are 
 found in the first and third municipalities, 
 it is apparent that the result would be at 
 the control of the second municipali- 
 ty. Hence the zeal of our adversaries. 
 Hence her complaints, her outcries, and 
 her menaces, I say her menaces, because 
 men who had rendered themselves popular 
 
Debates in the .Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 some modification. He thought however, 
 it would be better to introduce the matter 
 into a separate section, and to assign it a 
 place in the general dispositions. Here is 
 a form in which 1 would present the pro- 
 position: 
 
 Provided, that it shall be the duty of the 
 legislature to unite and to constitute by 
 virtue of a la w passed for that purpose, two 
 or more of the municipalities into one cor- 
 poration, upon the application of a majori- 
 ty of their respective councils. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson said that he had al- 
 ways regretted the division of the city, 
 and that he would be glad to see it reuni- 
 ted. 
 
 Mr. Soule called for the yeas and nays 
 upon the motion of Mr. Saunders', to lay 
 his proposition upon the table. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Brumfield, Cenas, Chinn, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Derbes, Duni}, Eustis, Garrett,Guion, 
 Hudspeth, King, Labauve, Legendre, Lew- 
 is, McRae, Mazureau, Penn, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Preston, Pugh, Roman, St Amand, 
 Saunders, Sellers, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Voorhies, WikofF and Winder—- 35 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Braz'eale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Culbertson, Eustis, Garcia, Hum- 
 ble, Ledoux, McCallop, Marigny, Mayo, 
 O s Bryan, Peets, Porche, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Read, Roselius, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Soule, Stephens, Waddill, Wads- 
 worth and Wederstrandt— 25 nays. 
 
 Mr. Lewis: 1 do not rise with a design 
 to discuss this question, but to put the gen- 
 tleman (Mr. Marigny) right upon some 
 matters of history. He has seen fit to re- 
 fer io me, and to two other gentlemen, who 
 were members of the house of representa- 
 tives at the period, and upon the occasion 
 to which he has referred. He has not 
 drawn from his memory, but from his fer- 
 tile and vivid imagination for his facts. I 
 never certainly had the folly to employ 
 the silly arguments that it has pleased him 
 to put in my mouth, He has created a 
 man of straw for no other purpose than the 
 pleasure of showing his dexterity in demol- 
 ishing this imaginary opponent! I cannot 
 permit his remarks to go before the world, 
 without a denial of their accuracy, at least 
 as far as they are intended to apply to mc. 
 The only thing that is true is, that I favor- 
 
 ed the division of the city into three muni- 
 cipalities. The remarks which it pleased 
 him to make upon the proceedings that 
 he assumes took place in the legislature, 
 are entirely out of place, andlshould have 
 taken no notice of them, had he not par^ 
 ticularly alluded to me. I conceive that 
 what we have to do has no relation to the 
 past action of the legislature; and in this 
 particular instance, if the legislature has 
 done wrong in dividing the city, it will be 
 in its power to rectify the error, provided 
 that no constitutional restriction should su- 
 pervene. If it be the desire of gentlemen 
 not to put this matter beyond the power of 
 the legislature, they will be particularly 
 careful as to the action they may take upon 
 the present proposition. If they sanction 
 by a constitutional provision, the division 
 of the city into three municipalities, how 
 can they expect to re-unite the city and to 
 do away with these local divisions? Will 
 it not prevent the very object which they 
 claim to have so much at heart? It will 
 amount to an absurdity that a city divided 
 into parts only large enough to be repre- 
 sented in a municipal body, should have 
 its senatorial representation distributed 
 among these different sections. The 
 member (Mr. Marigny) has charged me 
 and two others with being influenced in 
 our course, because as he says, there were 
 different kinds of population in the city. 
 I never presented such an argument, nor 
 do I remember to have heard it employed. 
 He says, moreover, that the habits of the 
 people residing in certain portions of the 
 city aie different—that in one section on 
 Sundays they dance and sing, and that in 
 another they participate in religious devo- 
 tions to the God that made them. He 
 asserts this to be a fact. I know nothing 
 of it, and I leave him to maintain the asser- 
 tion. I never alluded to any thing of the 
 kind, and if I were to admit it, it would be 
 entirely upon his responsibility. 
 
 The gentleman (Mr. Marigny) appears 
 anxious that the city should be restored to 
 its former state of a single corporation, and 
 in the next breath he tells us that the dif- 
 ferences between the municipalities are ir- 
 reconcilable, and leaves us to infer that if 
 the municipalities were brought together 
 'it would give rise to a great deal of acri- 
 mony and dissatisfaction, and would lead 
 to constant collision. He has said much 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 633 
 
 gtbouta design, .entertained, as he says, by 
 the second municipality to unite herself 
 with the city of Lafayette, and charges 
 that municipality with a sort of moral can- 
 nibalism. I would request the gentleman 
 not to point me out — I would thank bim 
 not, to choose me as the subject of but and 
 ridicule. In the exuberance of his fancy, 
 and with a touch of his ridicule, he has 
 singled me out as an object of attack. 
 Hence I wish to correct him in the same 
 journals upon which his remarks will ap- 
 pear. 
 
 In the views that I have formed upon 
 the question under debate, I am not gov- 
 erned by any local considerations in refe- 
 rence to the first, second or third munici- 
 palities. I do not know what are their 
 financial positions, nor their political pre- 
 i dilections; nor is it necessary that I should 
 I have that knowledge, to the discharge of 
 my duties in this body. Some gentlemen, 
 who are more competent than 1, have treat- 
 j ed upon what constitute the real and essen- 
 | tial differences between the house of re- 
 presentatives and the senate. I concur in 
 the line of their arguments, and in their 
 deduction, that if both bodies are elected 
 by identically the same constituency, both 
 in reference to persons and to territory, 
 one of them becomes superfluous. It is 
 ." an useless expense. It is having double 
 chambers, one of which might well be 
 dispensed with. For these reasons, I am 
 in favor of large districts, and I have heard 
 no good reason why the city of New Or- 
 leans should be an exception to a general 
 rule of policy, deemed beneficial for the 
 whole State. As to whether one or the 
 ether municipality should have the ascend- 
 ency in the elections, that is to me a mat- 
 ter of superlative indifference. I care not 
 whether it be the first or the third munici- 
 pality, or both combined, that have the 
 ascendency. The majority will govern, 
 and that is the theory of our government; 
 as to sectional divisions, they should have 
 no weight with us, especially in the com- 
 position of a body which is designed to 
 represent general interests. The matter 
 before us is one of serious importance to 
 the whole State. The senate should be so 
 constituted as to act with certainty, by its 
 gravity and wisdom, as a check upon the 
 popular branch of the government. It 
 must be essentially different in its organi- 
 
 zation to answer that end, from the more 
 numerous and more fluctuating body; and 
 it should represent a larger and more per- 
 manent constituency. It is for the benefit 
 of the State that I desire to retain the con« 
 servative features of the senate, not only in 
 reference to the country districts, but in 
 refere nee to the city districts. There are 
 permanent interests of the city as well as 
 permanent interests of the State to be pro- 
 tected, and these interests fall appropriate- 
 ly within the peculiar functions of the sen- 
 ate. 
 
 As to the division of the city into muni- 
 cipalities, for which act in a legislative ca- 
 pacity, I have been most singularly ar- 
 raigned by the member from New Orleans, 
 to whom I have referred particularly in the 
 course of my remarks, the reasons that in= 
 duced me to sustain that measure, and 
 which was participated in by the country 
 members, was to create a spirit of emula- 
 tion and rivalship between the great divis- 
 ions of the city; and that object has been 
 fully attained. The people of the country 
 had reason to complain of the inconvenien- 
 ces to which they were subjected in their 
 intercourse with the city, and they felt de- 
 sirous to promote a remedy. The port in 
 front of Canal street was visited only by 
 small sail-vessels. Steamboats and ships 
 were confined to a small space, while there 
 was a large portion of the port unoecupL 
 ed. There was no landing any where bul 
 in that particular and favored portion of 
 the port, situated in the limits now compre- 
 hended as the first municipality. It was 
 in that celebrated municipality, about which 
 so much fuss is made, that the produce of 
 the country had to be landed, and the own- 
 er could not land it where he pleased, but 
 was compelled to go clear there, by some 
 arbitrary ordinance of the city council. 
 The business of the country with the city 
 was cramped down by the petty regular 
 tions of a petty municipality, and the mo- 
 nopoly was snared by a few lords residing 
 in that portion of the city. Many were 
 the evils resulting from the abuses that 
 had grown up with this monopoly. It 
 was a common sight to see horses stalled 
 in the streets, and while business could not 
 command the facilities it required, the grass 
 was growing up in the faubourg St. Ma- 
 ry. The people of that portion of the city 
 complained that their resources were taken 
 
634 
 
 Debates in the Donveiitloii of Louisiana, 
 
 from them, and expended with a lavish 
 hand below, while they were left without 
 any improvements. They declaimed again 
 at that spirit of injustice, which left their 
 portion of the city in a state of nature, and 
 they asked to be entrusted with the man- 
 agement of their own affairs, and the dis- 
 bursement of their own money. These 
 complaints and the disposition to extend 
 every facility to the growing trade of the 
 city, induced me and others to vote for the 
 division, and not the flimsy and ridiculous 
 pretences that have been put in my mouth 
 by the member who has forced me to this 
 reply. It was to relieve the people of the 
 second municipality from the iron yoke by 
 which they were oppressed — -and it was 
 not only on their account, but I considered 
 it a measure called for by the best interests 
 of the whole State.. I do not conceive that 
 because the eity has been divided into 
 municipalities, that it must therefore ne- 
 cessarily be divided into senatorial dis- 
 tricts. On the contrary, I conceive that 
 there are as many and as solid reasons for 
 not sanctioning the latter measure, as there 
 were for sanctioning the former. Wheth- 
 er the eity should be re-united under one 
 corporation, is a question of policy for the 
 legislature hereafter to determine; and I 
 repeat that if the gentleman and his friends 
 are sincere in what they have advanced 
 upon the expediency of that measure, they 
 will do nothing here to interpose an insu- 
 perable obstacle. 
 
 Mr. Marigny: the delegate from St. 
 Landry (Mr. Lewis) has told you that in 
 order to place him in a ridiculous position, 
 I have put in his mouth arguments that he 
 never employed. To this charge I will 
 respond by a simple fact. The discussion 
 upon the subject of dividing the city into 
 municipalities continued for more than fif- 
 teen days. That gentleman declared him- 
 self warmly in favor of that measure, and 
 as the passion, I may say* the fanaticism 
 that animates him in debate, is a mystery 
 to no one, while it will be conceded that if 
 I am not brilliant in my discourses, I never 
 abandon the rules of politeness. I would 
 ask, how i-s it possible in a debate of fifteen 
 days, when he was at issue with his ad- 
 versaries, and was excited with them on 
 that occasion, as he has been to-day, that 
 he could have forgotten his wonderful fa= 
 cility of speech* and given merely a silent 
 
 vote? He was.no more then deaf and 
 dumb than he is now. I can assure vou, 
 gentlemen, that if I were to repeat one- 
 half of what he did say on that memorable 
 occasion, you would have to make your ar- 
 rangements to remain here all night, for I 
 would certainly entertain you until to-mor= 
 row morning. 
 
 Mr. Soule: whatever repugnance I may 
 feel in addressing the Convention again 
 upon this vexed question, and I may add, 
 in a language with which I am not as fa- 
 miliar as I would desire, I feel bound by 
 the duty that I owe to my constituents, to 
 express my views and opinions upon the 
 debate that has been excited by the clause 
 under consideration. It will be remember- 
 ed that from the very commencement of this 
 discussion, at its very outset, I assumed the 
 position that the division of the city was 
 the greatest curse that could have befallen 
 it; that, notwithstanding the general oppo= 
 sition it met with from the entire popula= 
 tion below Canal street, it was neverthe- 
 less carried, and that it was now an ae^ 
 complished fact! The consequences of 
 that act have not been denied. I further 
 had the honor to remark, that if the mea* 
 sure advocated by my colleague from New 
 Orleans (Mr. Roselius) was calculated to 
 do away with the consequences of that di- 
 vision, and to supersede those ill feelings 
 that were unfortunately its concomitants, I 
 was ready to yield to it. Such was my po- 
 sition then, and such is the position of my 
 friend and colleague who has just resumed 
 his seat. We did assert, and we do assert, 
 that if we can be met with any thing like 
 fairness on the ground that the unity of the 
 city would be preserved by the adoption of 
 the clause under consideration, we are 
 ready, in a spirit of reciprocal fairness, to 
 yield to that proposition. But, sir, to bring 
 the question to a proper test, in order not 
 to leave in the minds of any the least room 
 for doubt, what have we done? We have 
 proposed to the Convention a clause by 
 which it is made the duty of the legisla- 
 ture that shall assemble immediately after 
 the adoption of the new constitution, to do 
 away with these local divisions — to pass an 
 act restoring the city to its former scare, 
 with a single council and a single adminis- 
 tration. * When that clause was before the 
 Convention, my friend and colleague as- 
 serted boldly, but truly, as experience has 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 shown, that out of the entire delegation 
 who had spoken so much about the unity 
 of the city and the identity of its interests, 
 there were none, and at all events but one 
 that would sustain that proposition. I ap- 
 plaud the gentleman that gave' his vote in 
 its favor for his firmness and sincerity— it 
 established that he was at least consistent 
 with himself and with what he had ad- 
 vanced in the debate! He was the only 
 exception among those that assumed yes- 
 terday one position, and deserted that posi- 
 tion to-day. The motion to lay my propo- 
 sition upon the table, was an ingenious at- 
 tempt to avoid the painful position of con- 
 troverting one moment after, what had been 
 assumed in debate a moment before. That 
 was the object contemplated: that was the 
 object to be attained. There were not 
 two among the advocates of a general 
 ticket for the election of senators for the 
 city, that were in favor of re-uniting the 
 city under one municipal government. 
 This fact will stand in bold relief in the 
 records of the Convention! Let not gen- 
 tlemen suppose that the people are de- 
 ceived: that the dilemma in which they were 
 placed has been artfully avoided. The 
 fact is well and conclusively established, 
 that after having exhausted the subject — 
 that after pressing upon the Convention the 
 unity of the city, and deprecating the di- 
 vision of the city into municipalities, there 
 are not two in favor of re-uniting the city, 
 although they have told us over and over 
 again that there are no conflicting in- 
 terests, and to suppose that the city has di- 
 vergent interests, is only a stretch of the 
 imagination. These are their arguments 
 on one side, and there stand their votes re- 
 corded on the other; not upon the direct 
 question, it is true, of re-uniting the city, 
 but upon the question to evade that propo- 
 sition when it is directly presented to them 
 as the test of their sincerity? That vote 
 cannot be expunged. It speaks volumes. 
 
 If that be the true position of the case, 
 the question of unity is done away with. 
 We have been beaten, — conqured upon the 
 very ground that they assumed, of the uni- 
 ty of the city; and our efforts, stimulated bv 
 their professions, to attain that object; to 
 restore to the city its former organization: 
 ft) expunge the feature of a division of feel- 
 ing, a division of interest, and a division of 
 sentiment, have proved unavailing^ My 
 
 honorable friend who treated us yesterday 
 with a discussion upon the proper organi- 
 zation of the senate, (Mr. Grymes) gave us 
 some exploded notions as original sugges- 
 tions upon the theory of-governnfent. He 
 placed the question upon the unity of the 
 city, and yet of ail the votes that appeared 
 to favor that argument, there was •but one 
 that came to us this morning. Let gentle- 
 men explain the inconsistency of their 
 votes with fhe arguments that they have 
 assumed. I will now advert to some of 
 the grounds upon which they have placed 
 this question in their debate. We have 
 been told by the gentleman to whom I have 
 just alluded, (Mr. Grymes) that unless we 
 adhere to this last spot — -this last dyke- 
 that unless we preserve territorial repre- 
 sentation, there is an end of all honesty^ 
 and a total revulsion of social order. Gen- 
 tlemen have told us an hour ago, that ter- 
 ritorial divisions are done away with; that 
 we have nothing to do with it. Are we to 
 recur to what has been settled by a, direct 
 vote of the Convention? If we are to dis- 
 cuss the subject upon territorial apportion- 
 ment, let us have it in its proper form. 
 The question before us has nothing to do 
 with considerations of territory. We have 
 determined that total population should be 
 the basis of apportionment in the senate= 
 not territory. This basis was proposed by 
 a gentleman opposed to us on this question 
 in one of the suggestions comprehended in 
 the compromise offered by him. I allude 
 to my colleague. (Mr. Benjamin.) I was 
 opposed, with gentlemen on the other side 
 of the house, to that basis, but it was never- 
 theless carried by the majority; therefore 
 territory, federal population or white popu- 
 lation, has nothing to do with our decision- 
 of this question. We are to be governed 
 by total population alone. 
 
 The arguments of the honorable dele- 
 gate. (Mr. Grymes) if they fall, as they 
 do, within the question of territory, are 
 fanciful — they are in an inverse sense, and 
 are not applicable to the basis that has ac- 
 tually been adopted, But the gentleman 
 may be excused; he has been absent oc= 
 casionally from the debates, and it is quite 
 possible that the decision of the question 
 as to the basis has escaped his apprehen* 
 sion. The question of territory having 
 been altogether superseded, the apportion^ 
 ment should be made in conformity with 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 the principle of uniformity and equality, 
 that we have explicitly consecrated; and it 
 results from that principle, that numbers 
 alone are to he considered in the distribu- 
 tion of political power, so far as the senate 
 is concerned. Equal numbers are to have 
 equal representation. If we speak of uni- 
 formity -in districting representation, it 
 must be understood to apply only as far as 
 uniformity be practicable. The same may 
 be said of equality. 
 
 I have never heard any objection to this, 
 if I except the objection made by the dele- 
 gate from Lafourche, (Mr. Beatty.) That 
 gentleman proposed to preserve the integ- 
 rity of the parochial limits. I thought there 
 was great propriety in maintaining their 
 integral limits as he suggested, and that he 
 was right in principle. 1 apprehended, 
 however, that it would not be carried into 
 practice, and the decision of the Conven- 
 tion fully confirmed me in my anticipations; 
 from hence I inferred that the question 
 was determined in relation tb the district 
 of Orleans Jo the other districts. The 
 principle of apportionment for th^ senate 
 being total population, we have only then a 
 mathematical calculation to make to carry 
 out the representation among the several 
 districts. The to*al population of the State 
 is placed at five hundred and twenty-two 
 thousand two hundred and eighty-five souls 
 —allowing that it is within one hundred 
 thousand of that number, which it actually 
 is— it may be estimated at four hundred and 
 fifty-two thousand two hundred and eighty- 
 five souls. That number divided by thirty- 
 two, the number of senators, will give four- 
 teen thousand one hundred and seventy- 
 three as the representative number, or in 
 other words, the population entitled to a 
 senator. But by reason of the restriction 
 placed upon the city in the senate, there is 
 an inequality in the representative number 
 for the city and for the country; and if we 
 deduct the population of New Orleans from 
 the aggregate population of the State for 
 the purpose of ascertaining the relative 
 number for both, we find that in the coun- 
 try a population of about twelve thousand 
 five hundred and seventy are entitled to 
 one senator, while in the city it would re- 
 quire about twenty-four thousand five hun- 
 dred and eighty. By comparing these re- 
 sults with the results of the basis of elec- 
 tors, chosen for the house of representa- I 
 
 tives, we find that the proportion is about 
 one-third to entitle a population to a repre^ 
 sentative to the lower branch of the legis- 
 lature—that is to say about one-third of 
 fourteen thousand one hundred and seven- 
 ty -three. If this criterion be true, its ap- 
 plication to the three municipalities will 
 not be difficult. We find that the first mu. 
 nicipality, according to the census of 1840, 
 had a population of forty-three thousand 
 five hundred and forty-six, she would be 
 entitled then to two senators; while the 
 second municipality, if the proportion were 
 observed, would not be entitled, with her 
 population of twenty-one thousand and 
 twenty-three, to more than one senator; 
 and the third municipality, with a popula- 
 tion of twenty-nine thousand one hundred 
 and sixty-eight, Would be entitled to one 
 senator. 
 
 The result from these calculations is 
 clear, or figures are not to be relied upon. 
 The proportion, if the city is to be divided 
 into senatorial districts between the rela- 
 tive number of representatives and sena- 
 tors allowed to the municipalities, would be 
 as follows: Nineteen representatives have 
 been allowed to the city of New Orleans, 
 which have been distributed in this propor- 
 tion — eight to the first municipality, seven 
 to the second municipality, and four to the 
 third. By allotting the number of sena* 
 tors contemplated by the report of the mi- 
 nority, in proportion to the number of re. 
 presentatives a constituency entitled to four 
 representatives would be entitled to one 
 senator. How would this proportion stand 
 in relation to the city of New Orleans. If 
 one senator were allowed to the first mu- 
 nicipality, the proportion would be one 
 senator to eight representatives, and if one 
 senator were allowed to the second munici- 
 pality the proportion would be one to seven, 
 and for the third municipality one to four. 
 If we must needs realize the pretended 
 feature of a larger constituency for the 
 senate than for the house, I would ask 
 those who object to the division of the city 
 into senatorial districts if that condition iff 
 not here fully established. The local in° 
 terests of each municipality wHl be repre- 
 sented by several persons in the house of 
 representatives, while they will have but & 
 single representative in the senate. 
 
 I now recur naturally to the true physi* 
 ognomy of the city. It presents three dis- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana 
 
 657 
 
 tinct cities under one common name, with 
 little or no unity, and that by the constant 
 struggle between their relative interests, 
 more especially between the second rnuni- 
 palitv and the other two. From what fell 
 from the gentleman from St. Landry, (Mr. 
 Lewis) it would be supposed that the 
 means of the old corporation were squan- 
 dered for the profit of the city proper, while 
 the grass was allowed to grow in the se- 
 cond municipality — that not one cent was 
 appropriated for the improvement of that 
 municipality. The gentleman must have 
 been very sparing of research not to have 
 enlightened his mind by a reference to facts 
 when that consideration induced him to 
 tote for the division of the city ; and he 
 must be still more sparing of research, to 
 labor still under the same delusion. It is 
 a notorious fact, that the old corporation 
 possessed, at a period anterior to that 
 when the city was divided, several millions 
 of dollars. In 1828 the second municipali- 
 ty had not began to exhibit those wonder- 
 ful signs of improvement which she dis- 
 played in 1834. It was at the latter period 
 that she commenced her giant career which 
 has been attended with such a wonderful 
 prosperity. When the division took place, 
 the wharves in that municipality were al- 
 ready effected out of the resources of the 
 6&jr proper. Had the gentleman from St. 
 Landry (Mr. Lewis) examined the records 
 he would have become convinced, that so 
 far from the fonds of the old corporation 
 beins- employed to ameliorate the city pro- 
 per, they were exclusively devoted to im- 
 provements in the faubourg St. Mary, In 
 IS 30. when I became a member of the 
 city council, sixty thousand dollars had 
 been appropriated to pavins: in the second 
 municipality, and while Royal street, the 
 second street then in importance, was left 
 nnpaved, Xatchez street, a little alley in 
 the second municipality, was already paved. 
 
 The fact is notorious : the city proper 
 was left without any improvements, while 
 ail the resources of the old corporation 
 were diverted and expended to the benefit 
 of the second municipality. The repre- 
 sentatives of the city prope'r in the council, 
 were for the most part of the old school, 
 good, honest, ignorant, if you will, for they 
 did not wish to go farther than their re- 
 sources, and were unwilling to contract 
 Hebt- -vhich thev might be hereafW una- 
 8! 
 
 ble to pay. The second municipality were 
 drawing from the coffers ail the revenues 
 of the city. In 1827 there was a fond 
 created for the paving of the city: two cash 
 accounts were opened,, one for the first 
 municipality, and cne for the second and 
 third. It was intended that each section 
 should hare its relative proportion. When 
 I was elected in 1830, I endeavored to 
 discover the traces whence this money had 
 been expended, I found nothing but one 
 general cash account, and the only means 
 I had of ascertaining how it had been ex- 
 pended, and where, was to walk through 
 the streets of the city : I found that nothing 
 had been done below — all had been done 
 above. When the municipalities were 
 united there were no improvements deser- 
 ving the name, made in the square of the 
 city-, while every thing was going ahead 
 in the second municipality. Now, what 
 is the position of the city proper in rela- 
 tion to the second municipality? From the 
 first to the last of the centre of the square s 
 of the city proper have been paved : her 
 debt has disappeared in the ratio of her 
 improvements ; and the second munici- 
 pality, that has no longer the coffers of the 
 old corporation to drain, have contracted a 
 debt of three millions of dollars. When 
 she found that all the money was exhaus= 
 ted she set up for herself; she has created" 
 excessive taxation, and has been unable 
 even with that taxation, to put a stop to 
 the accumulation of her liabilities. 
 
 So far then from meriting the accusa- 
 tion that the revenues of the second munh 
 cipality under the old corporation were dh 
 verted from that municipality, it is sus- 
 ceptible of proof that she received in ap- 
 propriations for improvements, ten times 
 I as much as she paid. That shows that 
 1 the people of the lower portion of the city 
 were never deficient in generosity. We 
 are told to be on our guard. That the sec- 
 ond municipality is destined to absorb the 
 political power of the city. We are told 
 i that the next census will show the weak« 
 ness of the first and third municipalities? 
 and in the pleasing visions of the prospec- 
 tive we are told that if we will behave our. 
 selves and not insist upon anything, but 
 throw ourselves upon their generosity, it 
 will be better for us. Experience has 
 shown that we have nothing to expect 
 from their generositv. Generositv 7 We 
 
638 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 ask nothing but justice. I care little how 
 what I may have said shall be received in 
 certain quarters. There is no considera- 
 tion under the cap of heaven which would 
 induce me to remain silent when it is pro- 
 posed to despoil a certain portion of the 
 city — perhaps the weakest-— of those privi- 
 leges, and those immutable rights to which 
 it is entitled. If in the course of events, 
 the second municipality should attract the 
 mass of the whole population — if our streets 
 are deserted— let them enjoy to its fullest 
 extent, all their prosperity. Let them have 
 it. I claim it for them as I would claim it 
 for us. If there be no cohesion of inter- 
 est between her' and the other municipali- 
 ties, let her remain separate and distinct. 
 If you have satisfied yourselves that there 
 is this identity of interest, I know not how 
 1 can sufficiently admire the logical manner 
 in which you have voted upon my proposi- 
 tion to re-unite the city. If voting in this 
 Convention be not a miserable manoeuvre, 
 let us have a direct vote upon that ques- 
 tion. My vanity will not be wounded by 
 a defeat, nor shall I exult at a victory. My 
 political life is at an end, and brief as it 
 has been, I may respond to those who ac- 
 cuse naturalized foreigners of an over 
 weening ambition, that I have seduously 
 refused all offices of public trust. That in 
 the present instance, I was constrained to 
 give a reluctant consent, and that no ambi- 
 tious thoughts find a refuge in my breast. 
 I have given up all such desires if I ever 
 entertained them, and if they have entered 
 my heart, it has been but for a short time. 
 Had I the power to retrace my steps, sure- 
 ly, surely 1 would retire from this hail, to 
 which I have been delegated by the partial- 
 ities of my fellow citizens, before this 
 question was put. Let us determine calm- 
 ly—dispassionately, without regard to po- 
 litical considerations, and that justice, jus- 
 tice alone may be done. If there be but 
 one identical interest between the munici- 
 palities, it cannot be impaired by allowing 
 them separately to choose their senatorial 
 representation. If it is true, as has been 
 assumed, and must be assumed, that there 
 is a perfect concord and harmony between 
 the municipalities— that one will not seek 
 to despoil another of the right of being 
 heard in the senate, where is the danger of 
 conceding to each the privilege of electing 
 its senator? If there is to be any collis* 
 
 ion, then the argument is unfounded— it is 
 a sophism that destroys itself. But is 
 there really that identity of interests? I 
 say there is not, and in confiimation of 
 what I advance, I appeal to unerring histo- 
 ry. I appeal to the law itself dividing the 
 city into three municipalities. There it is. 
 The most eloquent speech that could be 
 pronounced to refute the arguments of gen- 
 tleman that the interests of the city are one 
 and identical. It is the ground work of 
 the division, and it must convince the 
 house that there is none of that identy 
 about which we have heard so much. A 
 law is nothing but a translation of the feel- 
 ings, prejudices and passions of those who 
 called it into existence. Every word of 
 this law bears the stamp of prejudice, pas- 
 sion and feeling. Here is the text: 
 
 Be it enacted, Sfc. That the city of New 
 Orleans is hereby divided into three different 
 municipalities, each of which shall be vest- 
 ed with distinct powers. Each of which 
 shall have the exclusive right within its 
 respective limits to regulate its own affairs, 
 and to make such ameliorations and im- 
 provements as it may think proper. 
 
 We are told in the first line that the city 
 shall compose three distinct and separate 
 municipalities. Here is a proof of the di- 
 versity of feeling and interest; secondly, 
 that the power to make ordinances shall be 
 exclusive, and that an ordinance passed m 
 one municipality r shall have no force be- 
 yond that municipality. The division is- 
 perfect and complete. The law speaks in 
 a louder voice than mine. Have we one 
 city? I do not dispute upon words, but 
 the thing itself has ceased to exist. We 
 have three cities. It is true that there is 
 but one general name, but why is it so? li 
 is entirely attributable to the fact that the 
 city of New Orleans was recognized in the 
 old constitution. When the division was 
 proposed, it was suggested by those that 
 exclusively favored the measure— some of 
 the prominent citizens of the second mu* 
 nicipality— that the faubourg St. Mary 
 should be established as a city, and they 
 had already appropriated to it the name of 
 Jefferson. A place was assigned for the 
 court house, and every thing was prepared 
 for the selection of its civic dignitaries; its 
 mayor, as well as its board of council. Ail 
 these arrangements were in part frustrated, 
 i %it the second municipality obtained the 
 
Debates in the Convention oi Louisiana 
 
 thifig without the name. The city was addressed the Convention, and another 
 divided, but its name was retained. , gentleman that preceded him. From ihe 
 
 We have been repeatedly asked in what language spoken by these two orators- 
 respect any conflict between the three mu- ! and it appears to be susceptible of but one 
 nicipalities" can arise? I will reply that j interpretation— it might be understood that 
 upon one subject of great importance — the j I and others of the delegation of the city, 
 appropriation of money. It is natural that j are acting upon this question as the pecu- 
 the senators coming from a particular quar- ; liar advocates of the interest of the second 
 ter of the city, should have its interests municipality. I am at a loss to conceive 
 more peculiarly at heart, and that it will in I what grounds there are for any such sus^ 
 the distribution of public favors, consult picion. I utterly repel ir. I stand upon this 
 that section. But we are told that there is ! floor as the representative of the whole 
 no proof that the second municipality will '. city: I am not the advocate of sectional in- 
 appoint the senators. If we had no proof terests, if there be any, which should claim 
 yesierdav, we have got proof now. If 'the attention of this body; I am not the 
 she did not desire and w r as not aware that i advocate, at any rate, of the interest of one 
 she could control the election of all four j portion of the city, to the detriment of ano- 
 senators. would she not have acceded to j ther portion of the city. The insinuation, 
 the proposition that allowed her two? If j therefore, is gratuitous: and it the gentle- 
 she had shown any such disposition, I j men had reflected, instead of inferring any 
 might have been condemned to silence, ; inconsistency on the part of others, they 
 and in that partial distribution I might have j would have been convinced that they were 
 left my reflections to the recedes of my j inconsistent themselves; for if the proviso 
 mind. The conviction forces itself upon which I introduced was so important, why 
 me that she wishes the appointment of all | did they not vote for it? Both of the gen- 
 four senators. Perhaps if we had behaved tlemen have made it the ground-work of 
 well and not have evinced too much reluc- their arguments, and they both voted 
 tance, she might have consented to make \ against it. Why do they insinuate that we 
 some terms with us. But that hope is fled are led by the second municipality? I pro- 
 forever. We have had the boldness to as^ fess to lead no man, nor am I led by any 
 sen our rights, and to revolt at the injus- j one. I am one of those that do not recog- 
 tice which was about to be done. There ' nize the right of instruction, and if the 
 is one more consideration, and it is one whole city were to instruct me upon a mat= 
 which I shall support to my last breath. It ! ter where my mind had come to a consci- 
 holds no connection with political aspira- encious conclusion, I would rather resign 
 tions, but proceeds from the depth of my than to violate what I conceive to be rights 
 heart. When we cast our eyes about us 1 But I am told that my proviso did not suit 
 we must admit that we are but strangers! the second municipality; from what fact do 
 in this land of Louisiana. In looking the gentlemen draw that inference, who 
 around this Convention, the painful reflect ! voted against the proviso? I declared that 
 tion is forced upon us that out of seventy- j I cared little or nothing for it. Is that a 
 seven members, there are only eighteen . sufficient reason to intimate that I and other 
 coming from that population that once had gentlemen are operated upon by the second 
 property and every thing, that were pos- i municipality? Why, i declared it was of 
 9essors of this vast territory. They have • little importance. I felt assured that no 
 yielded to the iron rule of time, and all j provision was necessary, for the municipal- 
 that they ask of this new and unconquered j ities themselves would see the propriety of 
 population that have covered the land, is to j taking the senators from the different sec^ 
 be heard. They do not ask it as an act of I tions of the city. I do not intend to enlarge 
 generosity, but they ask it as an act of; upon this subject, nor do I wish to occupy 
 justice. Will you listen to their demand ? i the time ot the Convention, But I again 
 That is the question. \ challenge the gentlemen to point out one 
 
 Mr. Roselius had one word or two to ! solitary question of general legislation; 
 say in reply to the insinuations about the I where there is any conflict between the 
 purity of the motives of those who differed j municipalities: I challenge them to adduce 
 in opinion from the gentleman that had just | it- They have attempted it, but it has 
 
640 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 proved abortive. The last eloquent gentle- 
 man has referred to a question of the distri- 
 bution of the public funds. If one section 
 should attempt to obtain an appropriation to 
 the exclusion of another section, would that 
 be a question of general legislation? Does 
 the gentleman pretend that this is answer- 
 ing my question? It is not. This is not a 
 question, I repeat, of general legislation. It 
 is not to be presumed, that if it was an act 
 of glaring injustice to the others, the appro- 
 priation would not be made. I think that 
 the division of the city would inflict a 
 deadly blow upon its interests, and I have 
 heard nothing to induce me to change that 
 opinion. 
 
 The question was then taken on Mr. 
 Lewis' proposition to elect the four sena- 
 tors allotted to the city, by general ticket. 
 Mr. Sotjle called for the yeas and nays, 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Brumfield. Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Grymes, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, King, Labauve, Legendre, Lew- 
 is, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St, 
 Amand, Saunders, Sellers, Stephens, Tay- 
 lor of St. Landry, Voorhies, Wadsworth 
 and Winder — 33 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 Cade, Carriere, Culbertson, Downs, Garcia, 
 Humble, Ledoux, McCallop, McRae, Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, O 'Bryan, Peets, Penn, Por- 
 che. Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott 
 of St, Landry, Preston, Read, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Soule, Trist, Waddill, Weder- 
 strandt and Wikoff — 30 nays. 
 
 Mr, Soule gave notice that he would 
 move for the reconsideration of the fore- 
 going vote. 
 
 Mr. Trist gave notice that he would 
 move for the reconsideration of the vote, 
 upon constituting St. James and Ascension 
 one senatorial district, 
 
 Mr, Splane, in pursuance of previous 
 notice, moved for the reconsideration of the 
 vote constituting" St. Mary and St, Martin 
 one senatorial district. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad: the gentleman has 
 made this motion already, and it failed. 
 
 The President said that the motion 
 was in order, inasmuch as the whole sec- 
 tion was before the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Splane said he had a few remarks 
 to make why lie thought that St Mary 
 should be constituted into a separate sena- 
 
 torial district, I had understood that the 
 senatorial delegate of the county of Attaka- 
 pas would have sustained my proposition, 
 and that it would be sustained by the ma- 
 jority of the delegation. To my utter as- 
 tonishment J have found that there is only 
 one of the delegates, the delegate from La- 
 fayette and Vermillion, that is in favor of it, 
 Why I have been abandoned by the other 
 two, I have never inquired, I am in favor 
 of small districts, and this measure is not 
 only satisfactory to me on account of prin- 
 ciple, but on the score of expediency and 
 the general wishes of my constituents. 
 They do not wish this connexion, and with- 
 out distinction of party they are in favor of 
 its formation into a separate district. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin suggested, that inasmuch 
 as the delegation from Attakapas were not 
 all present, it would be better to postpone 
 the further consideration of the subject un* 
 til to-morrow, at 12 o'clock, 
 
 Mr. Spane acquiesced. 
 
 Whereupon, the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Wednesday, April 9, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment, and its proceedings were opened 
 with prayer from the Rev. Mr. Clark, 
 
 Mr. Garcia moved that the reading of 
 the journals be suspended. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth rose and said : 
 
 Mr. President — It is with deep feelings 
 of regret that I announce to you the de- 
 mise of one of our colleagues, the honora- 
 ble Gilbert Leonard. I have known 
 him for twelve years intimately, as a bro- 
 ther. He was a man of strict honor and 
 integrity. His word was his bond. He 
 never violated his integrity, nor wrongfully 
 injured any man. No one could ever 
 charge him with a mean or dishonorable 
 action. He had his hardships to undergo, 
 but by Ms indomitable perseverance and 
 energy he overcame them. Although al- 
 lied to one of the first families of the State, 
 he had in early life to struggle against the 
 afflictions of poverty, and in the school of 
 adversity he acquired those high and noble 
 qualities— that high and chivalrous devo- 
 tion to his friends—that noble and impul- 
 sive generosity that so much distinguished 
 him, and which endeared him to all who 
 knew him. To his own exertions he was 
 indebted for the high position he attained. 
 He was pure of morals, temperate, exem- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 641 
 
 piary in all the relations of life he was 
 
 estimable. Long and * deeply will his un- 
 timely end be deplored. I feef, Mr. Presi- 
 dent, that I am unable to proceed. I can- 
 not repress the emotions with which I am 
 fdled at this sad and melancholy bereave- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Maeigny said: 
 
 Mr. President— I rise under the influ- 
 ence of the most painful emotions, to add 
 my feeble voice to the tribute rendered to 
 the virtues of our deceased colleague. It 
 is committing to the most profound sorrow, 
 the task of exalting the purest friendship. 
 Gilbert Leonard is no more! His career 
 was at once brave, honorable and gen- 
 erous. 
 
 Scarcely had he attained the age of 
 manhood, when, escaping from the college 
 of Orleans, where he had been placed by 
 some friends of his family, he volunteered 
 his services in the defence of his native 
 State, to drive back the British legions. 
 The contest being gloriously terminated, 
 I he returned with the laurels of valor, but 
 poor, and compelled too seek the means of 
 subsistence. This painful position, instead 
 of disheartening him, raised and exerted 
 his energy. He assiduously applied him- 
 self to labor, and by patient industry sought 
 to create for himself a more brilliant future. 
 It was during this period of trial that he 
 became acquainted with Judge Williams 
 of the parish of Plaquemines. That gen. 
 tleman was so much pleased with him that 
 he employed him in the capacity of clerk 
 of the court, and he was so faithful, and so 
 intelligent, that upon the resignation ot 
 Judge Williams, he was raised to the bench, 
 at an age when most men vainly aspire to 
 such an honor. 
 
 From that period, his position placed 
 him in contact with the citizens of the par- 
 ish, and he succeeded in conciliating the 
 esteem, the respect and confidence of all; 
 and, notwithstanding the clamors of poli- 
 tics, which sometimes leads astray the 
 judgment, all regret and deplore his loss, 
 as a public calamity; and all unite in ren- 
 , dering to him the praise, that he was the 
 friend of the poor, the protector of the 
 widow, and the father of the orphan, for 
 whom he frequently relinquished his salary. 
 
 I have said that courage with him was 
 a natural impulse. When the Seminole 
 war broke out, he raised a force of one 
 
 hundred and fifty men, and offered himself 
 and his command to the service of his 
 country. In every capacity, whether as a 
 citizen, a judge, or a soldier, he proved 
 himself to be a patriot. His elevation to 
 the judicial dignity wasai evidence of his 
 civic worth. His military promotion was 
 due to his valor, his discretion and his 
 judgment. The people honored and ap- 
 preciated his talents. They, too, named 
 him to public employments. He was cho- 
 sen a member of the Baltimore Conven- 
 tion; subsequently an elector of President 
 and Vice President, and but recently a 
 member of this body, whose walls now 
 reverberate with our unavailing regrets 
 for this sad and painful calamity. 
 
 He had reached the fruition of all earth ■ 
 ly expectation and felicity, when an unfor- 
 tunate fatality terminated his career. An 
 affair of honor, in which he exhibited, as 
 well as his adversary, a noble courage, and 
 a ganerous delicacy, opened this period of 
 sorrow. The mutual friends of both par- 
 ties succeeded in effecting an honorable 
 arrangement, so that no one could for a 
 single instant suppose that either merited 
 the slightest blame, the least censure, and 
 just as it was hoped he was restored to 
 that happiness of which he was so deserv- 
 ing, another affair arose, w r hich he might 
 have avoided without compromitting his 
 honor; he conceived that his honor was as^ 
 sailed, and ceding to the impulse of his 
 chivalric spirit, he repaired at the call of 
 honor — and found his grave. He has been 
 taken from among us! This Convention 
 mourns the loss of a member that it es- 
 teemed— -the State deplores a faithful pub- 
 lic servant — society has been deprived of 
 one of its brightest ornaments — his afflict- 
 ed family of a noble heart — and I, Mr. Pre- 
 sident, of a generous and devoted friend, 
 whose loss I shall never cease to deplore* 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth then moved the adop- 
 tion of the following resolutions: 
 
 Resolved, That this Convention has 
 heard with deep regret the news of the de- 
 mise of their colleague, the honorable 
 Gilbert Leonard, in whose death Louisi- 
 ana deplores -the loss of an able and 
 faithful servant, and this Convention one of 
 its most respected members. 
 
 Resolved, That the family of the deceased 
 be requested to deliver over his remains to 
 be buried by the Convention, and a com= 
 
642 
 
 Debates in tlie Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 mittee be appointed to consult with the 
 family to that effect, and make the neces- 
 sary arrangements for the funeral. 
 
 Resolved, That, the members of the 
 Convention wear crape for the space of 
 thirty days, on the left arm, a token of re- 
 spect for the deceased. 
 
 Resolved, That as a mark of respect for 
 the deceased, this Convention do now ad- 
 journ until to-morrow morning at the usual 
 hour, and that a copy of these resolutions 
 be transmitted by the secretary to the 
 family of the deceased. 
 
 The President appointed Messrs. 
 Wads worth, Carriere, Garcia, Saunders 
 and Downs members of the committee of 
 arrangement. 
 
 The Convention then adjourned until to- 
 morrow at 10 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Thursday, April 10, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Clark opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 Whereupon, on motion of Mr. Brent, 
 the Convention adjonrned until to-morrow 
 at 10 o'clock a. m., to allow the necessary 
 arrangements to be made for the funeral 
 obsequies of the honorable Gilbert Leonard. 
 
 Friday, April 11, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met, and its proceed- 
 ings were opened with prayer by the Hon. 
 Mr. Stephens. 
 
 Mr. Humble offered the following: 
 
 Resolved, that from and after the 14th 
 instant, the Convention shall meet at nine 
 o'clock, and the roll shall be called at that 
 hour, and the names of the absentees shall 
 be marked on the journal. 
 
 Mr. Humble said that it was now near 
 1 1 o'clock, and yet the hour of meeting 
 was fixed at 10 o'clock. Mr. Humble 
 complained that the business of the Con- 
 vention was not sufficiently expedited. If 
 we are not more zealous, said he, we shall 
 never get through with the duty assigned 
 us. 
 
 Mr. Labauve stated that the meeting at 
 nine o'clock was fixed by one of the rules of 
 the Convention, 
 
 The President said that the resolution 
 would have to lie over under the rules. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth moved the dispensa- 
 tion of the rules, and his motion prevailedc 
 
 Mr. Benjamin thought it would be ex- 
 tremely inconvenient to meet at nine 
 o'clock, and that it would be impossible to 
 secure a quorum by that hour. He sug- 
 gested to the mover to modify his resolu- 
 tion, so as to provide for evening sessions. 
 
 Mr. Humble said he had but little faith 
 in these evening sessions; the experiment 
 had been made and abandoned once before. 
 He would however, yield to what appear, 
 ed to be the general wish of the Conven- 
 tion. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Benjamin, the above 
 resolution was so amended as to have 
 two sessions, one in the morning at ten 
 o'clock, and the other in the evening at 
 five o'clock; which was agreed to. 
 
 Mr. Chinn offered the following resolu- 
 tion: 
 
 Resolved, that this Convention adjourn 
 on Monday , the fifth day of May next, 
 sine die. 
 
 The above resolution not being second- 
 ed, the Convention passed to the 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Sec. 10. Apportionment of the senate. 
 
 Mr. Splane renewed his motion to sep- 
 arate the parish of St. Mary from the pa* 
 rish of St. Martin, and to establish the 
 former into a senatorial district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 Mr. Roman: I am opposed to the mo- 
 tion of the delegate from St. Mary. I do 
 not rise to discuss the policy or expedient 
 cy of large districts. So much has been 
 said already on that subject, that I will not 
 offer any thing more. But 1 would in- 
 quire, when are we to get through if every 
 question is to be reconsidered, and every 
 step we take is to be retraced? Is all the 
 labor and all the discussion we have had 
 upon this prolific theme, to amount to 
 nothing? I thought that the only question 
 that was open in the apportionment was in 
 relation to New Orleans, and that this ques- 
 tion being settled, the vote would be taken 
 pro firma upon the adoption or rejection 
 of the section. If we are to progress in 
 the way that I see indicated, we shall 
 never come to a conclusion. If the dis- 
 trict composed of St. Martin and St. Mary 
 be divided, the advocates of small districts 
 will not stop there. They will go to La- 
 fourche, and insist that it be divided— to 
 Ascension and St James, and will finally 
 come back to New Orleans— that great 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 648 
 
 bone of contention. After getting through 
 again, the house will in all probability, be 
 in no better mood to settle this matter, and 
 another circuit through it will be made. 
 To put a stop to this course of proceed- 
 iflgf, I shall move to lay the motion of the 
 gentleman (Mr. Splane) indefinitely on the 
 table, to test the sense of the house. 
 
 Mr. Dunn: I shall sustain the motion. I 
 do so because it is my firm convietion that 
 otherwise our labors will be interminable. 
 My district was divided against my wish- 
 es, but I am disposed to acquiesce. If the 
 body of the Convention could be brought 
 together and kept together, there is a de- 
 cided majority in favor of large districts. 
 I am willing to leave my district where it 
 is, because its division has not met the 
 support of the great majority of the dele- 
 gation from the two parishes interested. 
 But I hope that other gentlemen will evince 
 a similar disposition in reference to their 
 districts, and let them remain as they have 
 been decided. I feel confident that if the 
 subject is again opened, there is no know- 
 ing where it will stop. If we open it in 
 one place, we shall have to open it in an- 
 other. If gentlemen persist in their course, 
 I shall move for the reconsideration of the 
 vote dividing the district, although I am 
 very willing to leave that and all other 
 questions in the apportionment as they 
 have been settled. I have no disposition 
 to open the subject, but if it be opened, I 
 shall endeavor to carry out my plan of large 
 districts. 
 
 Mr. Splane: I do not design to argue 
 the question; but it really appears to me 
 that I would not be doing justice to myself 
 or those that sent me here, were I not to 
 express their earnest desire that the parish 
 of St. Mary should be separated from the 
 parish of St. Martin. In the election of 
 senators it has so happened that the parish 
 of St. Mary never had the opportunity of 
 electing one of her own citizens but once, 
 when Mr. Crow was returned to the sen- 
 ate. As far as population was concerned, 
 the parish of St. Mary had the superiority 
 jover St. Martin, and in every other res- 
 pect the claims of the former to a senator 
 were equal to those of the latter. It was 
 the wish of the people of St, Mary, and he 
 would not cease to urge that wish. 
 
 In reference to the separation of St. 
 James and Ascention* that matter is not 
 
 now before the house, but when it does 
 come up, I shall vote in favor of it, upon 
 principle; and in the second place to sus- 
 tain the views I have heretofore expressed. 
 
 Mr. Derbes: The reason why I have 
 voted in favor of constituting the senatorial 
 districts at least of two parishes, is, be- 
 cause I consider that the senate should re- 
 present general interests,- in contradisHnc- 
 tion to locsl interests, which are properly 
 committed to the house of representatives; 
 and therefore the constituency ought to be 
 large. If this distinction is to be superse- 
 ded, then I consider the senate will become 
 useless, for, representing the same con- 
 stituency, it will be nothing more than s 
 counterpart of the lower house. But in 
 this particular case, is there any necessity 
 for the division of St. Mary and St. Martin? 
 I think not. Their population pursue the 
 same kind of agricultural industry, have 
 the same habits, and the same politics. It 
 has been intimated that if the division does 
 not take place, St. Martin will invariably 
 choose the senators.- I acknowledge that, 
 up to the present time, the senators have 
 not been chosen in the parish of St. Mary; 
 but that has been from the circumstance 
 that no candidates offered themselves from- 
 that parish. Had such been the case, the 
 result would have been different. At any 
 rate, what has not occurred heretofore, is- not 
 precluded from occurring hereafter. The 
 district will consist of fewer parishes, 
 Candidates may be selected from St. Ma- 
 ry, as they have been selected from Lafay- 
 ette. I am ready to concede that the del- 
 egate from St. Mary (Mr. Splane) has 
 consulted with some of the more influen- 
 tial and intelligent of his coparishioners, 
 who favor the division. But I have also 
 seen many who are opposed to that divi- 
 sion. At any rate the question is a doubt- 
 ful one, and should not be decided in the 
 absence of any portion of the delegation 
 from the county of Attakapas. If the gen- 
 tleman (Mr. Splane) insists upon taking the 
 question to-day, I shall give notice of my 
 intention to move a re-consideration of the 
 vote in its favor- — for I have no doubt, from 
 the thinness of the house, it may pass to- 
 day. 
 
 Mr. Cade: When this question was 
 first taken up, I voted in favor of uniting 
 the two parishes, because I was given to 
 understand that such was the desire of both. 
 
644 
 
 BeMtes in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 But having since understood that the peo- 
 ple of Si. Mary are in favor of the division, 
 i will vote in favor of it. 
 
 Mr. Briant: If you sanction this divi- 
 sion, what kind of a representation will the 
 parish of St. Martin have in point of equal- 
 ity. The territory of St. Martin is nearly 
 double as large as the territory of St. Ma- 
 ry, and the population is more numerous — 
 the only difference in favor of St. Mary is 
 that she has more slaves, and contributes 
 a little more in tax. But supposing that 
 the difference in the two latter particulars 
 would give to St. Mary the right of a sena- 
 tor, the difference in population in favor of 
 St. Martin, would give to the latter two 
 senators, upon any fair system of equality. 
 
 The territory, too, of St. Martin, is now 
 extensive. I arrived yesterday from that 
 section of the State, and I can assure the 
 Convention Ah?d the parish of St. Martin 
 is making rapid progress, and is fast accu- 
 mulating population. As for the information 
 communicated by the delegate (Mr.Splane) 
 I do not deny, but I am well aware that 
 during my sojourn in Attakapas, I did not 
 hear one word in favor of his proposition. I 
 shall certainly vote against his proposition, 
 if it be not postponed; which I should pre- 
 fer on account of the absence of a portion 
 of the delegation. 
 
 Mr. Splane : I will reply to what has 
 fallen from the gentleman by incontroverti- 
 ble facts. According to the census of 1840, 
 the total population of St. Mary is eight 
 thousand nine hundred and fifty. The total 
 population of St. Martin is eight thousand 
 six hundred and seventy four. Inasmuch, 
 however, as the basis of electors, which 
 has been adopted for the house is most fa- 
 vorable to St 0 Martin, she has three repre- 
 sentatives to the house, and the parish of 
 St, Mary two. But by the basis for the 
 senate, total population, the result is most 
 favorable to St. Mary, and she is better 
 entitled to one senator, by reason of her 
 greater population, than St. Martin. The 
 lands in St. Mary are richer, and she will 
 abound in greater wealth. Every thing 
 considered, their claims are equivalent to 
 one senator each, and that has been allow- 
 ed them. The only question is, whether - 
 they should have the privilege of electing 
 one senator respectively, instead of electing 
 two jointly, If the will of the people is to 
 have its just weight, the house will accede 
 # to my demand. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for on 
 Mr. Roman's motion to lay Mr. Splane's 
 motion on the table. 
 
 Messrs.Benjamin, Bourg, Briant, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Gar- 
 rett, Hudspeth, Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Mazureau, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, 
 Saunders, Sellers and Winchester— 22 
 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Downs, Eustis, 
 Humble, McCallop, Marigny, Mayo, 0'- 
 Bryan, Peets,- Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Ratliff, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Trist, 
 Waddill, Wadsworth, Wederstrandt and 
 Winder — 30 nays. 
 
 Mr. Splane then moved the adoption of 
 his motion to create the parish of St. Mary 
 into one senatorial district. 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Downs, Eustis, 
 Humble, McCallop, Marigny, Mayo, 0*. 
 Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, RatlifF 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Soule, Splane, Trist, 
 Waddill, Wads worth, Wederstrandt and' 
 Winder— 30 yeas, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Briant, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Gar- 
 rett, Hudspeth, Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, Saunders, Sel- 
 lers and Winchester— 21 nays. 
 
 Mr. Winder explained that he had voted 
 in the affirmative, to respond to the wishes 
 of the people of both parishes, especially 
 St. Mary. He understood that they were 
 in favor of the measure, and this was a 
 matter in which the public convenience 
 and the wishes of the people ought to be 
 consulted and respected. 
 
 Mr. Derbes gave notice that he would 
 ask for the reconsideration on Thursday 
 next. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to strike out ihe 
 words "no parish shall be divided in -form- 
 ing a senatorial district." These words 
 were unnecessary, inasmuch as the same 
 principle was embodied elsewhere in the 
 section, 
 
 Mr. Benjamin called for the reading of 
 the two clauses to which Mr, Downs re 
 feired. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 645 
 
 Mr. Benjamin : The gentleman will 
 perceive that the first clause has reference 
 to new parishes alone. The second clause 
 which he would strike out, applies to old 
 parishes. Both ought to be preserved. I 
 should like to know if it is the design of the 
 gentleman to confer upon the legislature 
 the power to divide the old parishes of the 
 State in forming senatorial districts at fu- 
 ture apportionments. If that be the gen- 
 tleman's object, I would be glad he should 
 so state it. If his motion to strike mit pre- 
 vailed, the legislature would have the power 
 to divide the old parishes at will, in making 
 the senatorial districts. That was a power 
 which I expressly understood it to be the 
 sense of the house expressly to inhibit. 
 
 Mr. DoWns: There is no difficulty in un- 
 derstanding my motive. I do not wish the 
 legislature to have the power to divide any 
 district, with the exception of the district of 
 New Orleans. To simplify my motive, I 
 would propose to add the following : "No 
 parish shall be divided in the formation of 
 senatorial districts;" the word New Orleans 
 excepted." If New Orleans be not divided 
 now, she will be divided hereafter, and be 
 made to compose more than one senatorial 
 district. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin : It seems that the clause 
 which the gentleman from Ouachita moved 
 to strike out, was not as useless as his re- 
 marks accompanying that motion would 
 have led one to believe. The real object, 
 when disguise is no longer possible, is an- 
 nounced to be an attack upon the city of 
 New Orleans, I had my misgivings when 
 the gentleman made his motion, and 1 an- 
 ticipated some covert attack, and hence I 
 called for the reading of the two clauses, 
 so as to see whether they were really as 
 stated by Ihe gentleman, but a repetition of 
 each other. I was not deceived! It is 
 my deliberate conviction that the intention 
 is entertained that the Convention shall 
 never adjourn. This must be the secret 
 motive for the proceedings that take place 
 from day to day in this body. A question 
 is taken up — it is debated, and discussion is 
 exhausted upon it— we succeed in getting 
 a vote upon it, which is the deliberate de- 
 termination of the Convention. We might 
 suppose that it was decided ! Not so ! 
 There are members of the Convention con- 
 stantly on the watch to seize the first fa- 
 vorable moment, when the house is corf- 
 82 
 
 posed of a temporary majority in their fa- 
 vor, to move a reconsideration, and thus a 
 rule which was designed to preclude'the in- 
 troduction of any odious principle when the 
 Convention is not full, perverted and pro- 
 duces the mischievous results which it was 
 intended to prevent. In this way, every 
 subject is procrastinated, and we are pro- 
 tracting the period of our session to an ex- 
 tent that is disgusting to the members that 
 are anxious to terminate the labors of this 
 body, and to the' people who desire us to 
 come to some conclusion This question 
 of the division of New' Orleans has been 
 thoroughly examined. We have had a de- 
 liberate vote upon it by a house of seventy 
 out of seventy seven. The delegate from' 
 New Orleans (Mr. Soule) gave notice 
 that he would reconsider that- vote. We 
 are prepared to meet the motion to recon- 
 sider when it shall come up in its proper 
 order. But in the meanwhile, whfle the 
 matter is subject to reconsideration, here 
 comes a fresh fire-brand which is to keep 
 us in a state cf excitement during the whole 
 of next week. I tell the gentleman that it 
 is impossible for him to succeed in dividing 
 the city by these reconsiderations. He 
 may carry his point, and the subject may 
 be reconsidered when there is scarcely 
 more than a quorum in the house, and he 
 may succeed in districting the city. But 
 we, who are opposed to the measure, ana 
 have the clear majority of all the members 
 of the house, to place*the question where it 
 has been determined by that majority. 
 The result may be that this subject may 
 alone occupy the attention of the Conven- 
 tion for three months. If no question is 
 to be considered as determined when voted 
 upon, and. there is to be a perpetual suc- 
 cession of reconsiderations, I tell the gen- 
 tlemen that we will follow out their exam- 
 ple, and they will find their strong holds are 
 as precarious as ours. This is no spirit to 
 actuate the proceedings of this body, ft 
 can lead to no good. We shall make our- 
 selves the laughing stock of the public. 
 Already are the people disgusted with the 
 slow and uncertain character of our de- 
 liberations. The press are teeming with 
 squibs. They say we proceed with a crab- 
 like motion — one move on one side and" 
 one move on the other. The present 
 question which is introduced under a new 
 form, by the delegate from Ouachita,, has 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 alreadv created a great deal of excitement. 
 It was voted upon once, and the vote was 
 taked upon it the second time. It can 
 have no other effect in being brought up 
 now than to create fresh debate and fresh 
 excitement. Its introduction to-day ap- 
 peared intended to delude detection. I 
 thought something more was designed than 
 we were given to understand. Instead of 
 being a mere motion to strike out a useless 
 clause — an useless repetition, it has a to- 
 tally different object. I anticipated that 
 some new attack would be made, and hence 
 I scrutinized this motion, although from 
 the remarks of the gentleman who intro- 
 duced it, any one would have supposed 
 that it was the most harmless thing in the 
 world. I do really trust that the degrading 
 spectacle will not be presented of two par- 
 ties in this body watching each other, and 
 springing up, as accident may favor them, | 
 a series of petty manoeuvres, instead of 
 assuming the broad grounds of meeting 
 every question openly and fairly and sub- 
 mitting to its decision when we are con- 
 scious that it has commanded a clear ma- 
 jority of all the members of the Conven- 
 tion. 
 
 Is all the vengeance of the Convention 
 to fall upon New Orleans ? Is she to be 
 the victim of another act opprobrium ? Is 
 she alone to be excepted and left at the mer- 
 cy of legislative discretion to be gerry- 
 mandered ? I desire no vain parliamenta- 
 ry phraseology to conceal my sentiments. 
 There is nothing else designed than to cut 
 up the city in small districts, to be gerry- 
 mandered at the mere whim and caprice of 
 the legislature. To place the city at the 
 mercy of the country, and we may well 
 anticipate what that mercy will be ! Is it 
 not enough that we have been divided in 
 the lower house without attempting to di- 
 vide us in the senate ? Are senatorial dis- 
 tricts, to be formed in the city, to be left to 
 the operation of party tactics, so as to fa- 
 vor the ascendency of a political party? 
 1 trust that such a design is not seriously 
 entertained, and that the Convention are 
 actuated by better motives. 1 hope that 
 the present proposition be laid on the table, 
 regardless of all party considerations, if 
 such really have any weight in this body. 
 
 It is idle; nay, it is worse than idle and 
 profitless; it is mischievious to excite this 
 discussion. Even those political gentle- 
 
 men who feel the most interested in this 
 question of apportionment, begin to be 
 worried with this incessant ding-dong on 
 the same everlasting theme. If it is never 
 to be settled; if there is to be agitation, and 
 nothing but agitation; if the city is to be 
 constantly assailed in reference to this 
 question, we will profit by the lessons that 
 are taught us. The gentleman from Oua- 
 chita, some days ago, reprimanded me for 
 daring to intermeddle in his Ouachita dis- 
 trict. He said it was a family quarrel ? and 
 yet after the question of the division of the 
 city has been settled, the gentleman comes 
 in and makes a proposition which concen- 
 trates all the feelings of hostility towards 
 the city, and he offers it as a harmless 
 amendment — a mere motion to expunge 
 the repetition of a principle found in the 
 section. Why, it exposes the city ever af- 
 ter to the control of the jealous country 
 members. The gentleman will remember 
 that 1 yielded with due humility, and I ap- 
 peal to the course taken by the gentleman 
 himself. I ask the gentleman to recollect 
 the lessons that he gave me, should th^ 
 city bf New Orleans come again into con- 
 sideration. His opinions were that we 
 should not interfere; that it was a family 
 quarrel. The gentleman preaches one 
 doctrine for others, and another doctrine 
 for himself. He makes fish of one and 
 flesh of the other. He claims for himself 
 what he will deny to others. I hope that 
 the gentleman will yield, now that he is- 
 reminded of his own lesson. I anticipated 
 that it might possibly have an application, 
 and I yielded implicitly to his behest for 
 the purpose of bringing back the admoni- 
 tion Jbr the exclusive benefit of the gentle- 
 man. 
 
 Mr. Downs: the gentleman expresses 
 the apprehension that a great discussion 
 will arise upon a subject which he says he 
 considered as being near settled. He says 
 that it is useless and profitless again and 
 again to go over the same ground. If any 
 gentleman of the highest abilities had cal- 
 culated this morning what would have 
 best answered the purpose of protracting 
 the proceedings of the Convention, in or- 
 der that they might result in nothing, he 
 could not have conceived any thing better 
 fitted for that purpose than the remarks 
 that fell from the delegate (Mr. Benjamin,) 
 He says that we ha,ve thrown a fire-brand 
 
Debater in the Convention o! Louisiana. 
 
 into the Convention, and thrown into com- 
 motion a question that has been calmly 
 settled, and which otherwise would not 
 have been susceptible of debate. The 
 most ingenious mind could have devised 
 nothing to disturb the calm as effectually 
 as the speech of the gentleman. Why, sir, 
 if the proceedings of the Convention are to 
 be protracted; if we are to do nothing, it 
 will be to such efforts as those of the gen- 
 tleman this morning that we will have to 
 attribute that unfortunate result. If the 
 good sense of the Convention is proof 
 against the agitating, I might almost say, 
 personal remarks of the gentleman, it is to 
 that alone that we are to ascribe the want 
 of excitement with which these remarks 
 have been received, and not to the absence 
 of any thing provocative of such excite- 
 ment in the remarks themselves. The 
 gentleman insinuates motives by whicli I 
 have never been governed. He seems to 
 think that an attempt has been made to 
 smuggle a proposition through this house, 
 and appeals to a vote given upon the dis- 
 tricting of the city, as an evidence tha#the 
 subject matter is properly beyond the con- 
 trol of (he Convention, except through the 
 motion made for the reconsideration of that 
 particular measures My proposition is a 
 distinct constitutional proposition. It ap- 
 plies to all future apportionment, and pre- 
 scribes that the city of New Orleans shall 
 be an exception to the general rule, that 
 no parish shall be divided in the formation 
 
 . of a senatorial district. The reason why 
 New Orleans should be the exception is 
 obvious, and it is needless for me to argue 
 it. As for the particular question of dis- 
 tricting the city in our present apportion- 
 ment, that is but a temporary matter, and 
 it is necessary to provide hereafter for 
 other apportionments which shall be made, 
 in which apportionments it is desirable to 
 continue the system of dividing the city 
 into a plurality of senatorial districts. The 
 gentleman speaks of the vote upon the 
 question of districting the city, as decisive 
 
 1 of that question. The gentleman should 
 not have forgotten that the vote was taken 
 in a thin house, and that those three mem- 
 bers absent, by chance, would have re- 
 versed that decision. 
 
 Does the gentleman expect by his vo- 
 ciferation to lock up the judgment of the 
 Convention, He tells us that he will agi- 
 
 tate and talk for three months, unless he is 
 allowed to have his . own way, He inti- 
 mates that there is something sly; some- 
 thing covert in my manner of introducing 
 my proposition. I repel the insinuation. 
 I thought the ground was covered. I drew 
 up the provision, and I was under the im- 
 pression, from a simple recollection of it, 
 that it provided that no parish should be 
 divided to form a senatorial district, with 
 the exception of the parish of Orleans. If 
 I could have been capable of any thing un- 
 derhanded, I should not have counted upon 
 the want of penetration in the honorable 
 member to detect the design- I would 
 ask the gentleman if the principle could 
 have been adopted in its general character 
 had it not escaped the attention of the body 
 of the Convention? The gentleman must 
 be aware that if the city is embraced with- 
 in the principle, it was through mere acci- 
 dent. 
 
 The gentleman appears to think that he 
 has discovered a fine field to declaim upon, 
 as to my interference, as he calls it, in a 
 matter which relates to New Orleans, 
 He congratulates himself upon the presu- 
 med inconsistency between the lesson he 
 
 I says I gave him and my present position. 
 
 I He gives me to understand that his appa- 
 rent frankness was not actually, as I might 
 have supposed, the emanation of a free and 
 open generosity, but was assumed for the 
 purpose of having something in reserve 
 which would impose a check upon me if 
 I should attempt to interfere in what he 
 might consider his peculiar domain. The 
 gentleman need not deceive himself. I 
 was not led astray. There is no compari- 
 son between the present case and the one 
 to which he has alluded. The city of New 
 Orleans is directly involved with the bal- 
 ance of the State; they bear with her im- 
 portant political and commercial relations; 
 and it is no interference for the people of 
 the country to take care that their interests 
 and their safety are amply guaranteed. 
 His design to commit me was labor lost; 
 I understood it as well as he did. I would 
 ask the Convention, if this question were 
 properly and fairly determined, what ex- 
 pectation could we entertain of termina- 
 ting our labors, when we are told by the 
 gentleman that unless he has his own way, 
 unless he shall carry his point, he will 
 wage war for three months! The right 
 
648 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 accorded to move reconsiderations may be 
 abused, its exercise may give rise to un- 
 necessary delays; but on the other hand, 
 it is essential to secure the results of ma- 
 ture reflection, and to preclude questions 
 that have been carried accidentally, and 
 without sufficient research, from being 
 maintained as the deliberate conviction of 
 the house. No great harm can accrue 
 where questions for a reconsideration are 
 submitted to the test of a majority of the 
 whole body. But if the gentleman thinks 
 that he will induce the Convention to main- 
 tain an accidental vote, when there is a ma- 
 jority in this body to revise it, under the 
 plea that the Convention will be perpetual, 
 that it will never adjourn, and unless he 
 can have his own way, he will speak for 
 three months, he is entirely mistaken. 
 
 Suppose in the future action of the legis- 
 lature it becomes necessary, as it no doubt 
 will, to change the districts, are all the 
 other districts to be subjected to changes, 
 with the exception of the districts of Or- 
 leans? If the city districts are not to be 
 left to the discretion of the legislature, 
 then the country districts ought not to be 
 placed within the power of the legislature! 
 The principle is obvious. 
 
 The gentleman appears to think that 
 because he has got an accidental vote in 
 favor of his opinion, it must not be disturbed; 
 it must be kept inviolate. The Conven- 
 tion will not be driven Jfrom what is just 
 and fair by any extraordinary course the 
 gentleman may think proper to pursue. If 
 it be in contemplation to do nothing; to 
 terminate the sessions of this body without 
 forming a constitution, then the attempt to 
 procrastinate and embarrass its proceedings 
 are perfectly natural. But if the intention 
 be ielt to carry out the will of the people 
 in the convocation of this body, then that 
 course will be the last one that will be 
 followed. 
 
 The imputation thrown out by the gentle- 
 man, that I wish to breakup and protract the 
 labors of the Convention, has no founda- 
 tion to rest upon. That such an idea 
 should be entertained of those that have 
 fought against the call of a Convention, 
 and who are opposed to any measures to 
 popularize our institutions and enhance 
 their democratic tendencies, is plausible, 
 it is very likely. But such a design, ap- 
 plied to me, is very ridiculous! 1, who 
 
 have been so active here and elsewhere, 
 to carry out the measures which public 
 opinion have so loudly demanded. This 
 accusation involves too great a stretch of 
 the imagination to deceive any one; and it 
 cannot have much weight; the only effect 
 that it will have will be to create the belief 
 that those who would apply the charge to 
 me, are more likely themselves to be ob- 
 noxious to it; for it is not uncommon to 
 charge upon others what we feel conscious 
 we are guilty of ourselves. That is the 
 most rational inference; and hence I may 
 conclude that the gentleman wishes to di- 
 vert attention from hinv.elf. 
 
 J regret much, Mr. President, to have 
 to repeat again what I have so frequently 
 had occasion to say, that when gentlemen 
 find something done that they do not like, 
 instead of arguing the question upon its 
 merits, they turn round and assail me; they 
 say that I am hostile to New Orleans. 
 
 I deny this pretended hostility to New 
 Orleans, which is so freely and so fre- 
 quently attributed to me. It has no foun- 
 dation. It i§ true I am favorable to dis- 
 tricting the city, for the election of sena- 
 tors. But the assertion of gentlemen that 
 this shows any hostility to New Orleans 
 is disproved by the fact that, as a matter of 
 expediency, her delegation are divided up- 
 on it, and it is quite likely that if the peo- 
 ple were consulted, they would favor it — 
 at least two of the municipalities are un- 
 derstood to be in its favor. Jt would be 
 prudent for the country that it took place, 
 because it would prevent a concentration 
 of the political power of the city in the sen- 
 ate. But neither the wishes of the city, 
 nor of the country, have any thing to do 
 with the violent opposition it has encoun- 
 tered. It is to party politics that we are 
 to assign it. They have a great deal to 
 do with it. Calculations have been made 
 to secure all four senators, and that can be 
 accomplished in no other way than by a 
 general ticket, for the municipalities enter- 
 tain conflicting political opinions. This is 
 no ordinary purpose, and it well accounts 
 for the great zeal Avhich has been exhibi- 
 ted. The senate that will convene imme- 
 diately after the new constitution will go 
 into effect, will be peculiarly a most im- 
 portant body. It will participate with the 
 executive in filling the most important of- 
 fices of the State. The attempt will be 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 849 
 
 made to elect the executive and the legisla- 
 ture of one political party — if that succeeds 
 the whole power will be in the hands 
 of that political party. But it. may so 
 happen that the executive may belong to 
 the other political party. If that should 
 happen, it would be considered a most 
 lucky event to secure a majority in the sen- 
 ate of contrary politics, as that would con- 
 trol the appointments, and check-mate the 
 executive. 
 
 The interests x)f New Orleans in this 
 matter are considered to be practically 
 small; "they are considered to be of little 
 consequence when compared to the politi- 
 cal advantages which would result in se- 
 curing her four votes in the senate, and to 
 accomplish that in favor of a certain light 
 of politics, there is no other way than that 
 the election should take place by general 
 ticket. Hence it is that this question cre- 
 ates so much excitement, and the gentle- 
 man tells us that rather than iose it, he 
 would speak for three months. I have no 
 doubt of it. It will be vigorously disputed, 
 and I have no doubt that the gentlema/i, if 
 he thought he could carry his point, would 
 not only speak three months for his party, 
 but would speak twelve months. 
 
 I did not propose to say one word in favor 
 of dividing the city into senatorial districts. 
 I was willing to leave it to abler hands. I 
 am disposed to favor it for strong reasons. 
 It has happened that during the seven years 
 that I have served in the senate, I have ob- 
 served the peculiar position of the senator 
 from the city, in relation to so large a con- 
 stituency, and one whose interests appear 
 so divergent and conflicting. I was the 
 better enabled to appreciate that position 
 from my intimacy with the two distinguish- 
 ed senators that have represented the city 
 during that period. A similarity of profes- 
 sions and other causes led us to form that 
 intimacy, and I have frequently had an oppor- 
 tunity of judging of the excessive embar- 
 rassment they have felt in being called up- 
 on to advocate measures of an opposite 
 character by the upper and lower portions 
 of the city. The upper portion would de- 
 sire one thing, and the lower portion anoth- 
 er. In place of its being unjust, it is the 
 only way of doing justice. It is reasona- 
 ble, and must be acceptable to the people. 
 I must conclude that the reason why it is 
 
 so vehemently opposed, must be from con- 
 siderations of a political character. 
 
 I must confess that I am dissatisfied and 
 disheartened at the prospect of a protracted 
 session. I am ready to do any thing to 
 expedite business, and will join in whatever 
 is most conducive to that result. I trust 
 that the Convention will proceed dispas- 
 sionately to the accomplishment of its high 
 and important duties. But I must say that 
 we shall never be done, and we shall be 
 kept in a constant state of excitement, if 
 such stimulating appeals as the gentleman 
 has just made be repeated. Why, the gen- 
 tleman has given us fire enough for one 
 week. I hope that the Convention will 
 take a calmer view, and that, notwithstand- 
 ing the unfortunate attempt to arouse pas- 
 sion, they will proceed soberly and get 
 through speedily, and that the gentleman, 
 upon cooler reflection, will see the proprie- 
 ty of abstaining from threatening us that 
 if we do not allow him to have his own 
 way, right or wrong, he will procrastinate 
 the proceedings by speaking for three 
 months upon a single theme. 
 
 Mr. Bexjazhin: No one regrets more 
 than I do this discussion. But it is really 
 amusing to hear the gentleman accusing 
 me, and treating me as its cause. It will 
 be recollected that it was understood that 
 the subject of senatorial apportionment had 
 been disposed of, with the exception of the 
 motion of the gentleman (Mr. Soule) for a 
 reconsideration so far as it affected New 
 Orleans. So far fropi denying that to be 
 the state of the question, I explicitly ad- 
 mitted it, and therefore I could have had 
 no intention, as might be inferred from the 
 remarks of the gentleman, to mislead the 
 Convention, or, to use an expression of the 
 gentleman, to humbug them. The gentle- 
 man attributes to himself great credit in 
 defining motives. He says that he was 
 not deceivdd with the apparent submission 
 with which I received his lesson forbidding 
 me to interfere with his district. That he 
 was aware it was not made in a spirit of 
 candor. I can readily believe this. Men 
 who are less astute than that gentleman, 
 and who have not his superior intelligence, 
 would have arrived atthe same conclusion. 
 1 do not see how that could well have been 
 avoided, when I expressly stated that I 
 hoped the gentleman would not preach one 
 
650 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 doctrine and practice another, and that 
 when New Orleans would be involved I 
 trusted he would remember what he had 
 said. Therefore, his opinions upon his 
 own penetration, as far as that subject is 
 concerned, are gratuitous. I claimed no 
 credit for candor or generosity, but I anti- 
 cipated the opportunity of applying his ob- 
 servations to me to himself. But, says the 
 gentleman, the cases are not parallel; 
 that he has an intimate acquaintance with 
 New Orleans; that 1 have no acquaintance, 
 or but a very limited one, with his districtt 
 Or, in other words, it was perfectly legiti- 
 mate for him to lecture me for interfering 
 with Ouachita, but that I have no right to 
 expect that he will keep his hands off of 
 New Orleans. He thinks that upon the 
 question of the division of New Orleans, 
 that I can be actuated by no other than a 
 party motive. It is beneath the dignity of 
 this body to retort ephitets. If the gentle- 
 man supposed that I intended to charge 
 him with such motives, and designed this 
 as a retort upon myself, he is mistaken. I 
 had no such intention. I think that he is 
 too far above any such considerations for 
 me to have dreamt of imputing them to him. 
 If I had done so it would have beeivuntrue. 
 I believe that he would scorn to be actua- 
 ted by them, and that such an accusation 
 would be improper and unjust. While I 
 am willing to respect his motives, I may 
 well claim from him a similar respect for 
 mine. I trust that I take too enlarged a 
 view of public matters to be influenced by 
 anticipations of the result of the next elec- 
 tion for senators. The duty that I owe to 
 those who sent me here is not limited to 
 so trifling a consideration. I trust I en- 
 tertain higher and nobler purposes, and 
 that 1 have the good of the country and 
 its permanent welfare more at heart. More- 
 over, who can say with certainty what will 
 be the aspect of political feeling three years 
 hence. Cannot the gentleman suppose, 
 in that spirit of charity which is due to the 
 motives of all, that I am governed by su- 
 perior views. Are there no reasons in the 
 identity of New Orleans, and the desire to 
 preserve that identity, which would induce 
 me to assume the position I have, in op- 
 position to her being further split and cut 
 up into fragments. Cannot the gentleman 
 attribute to me viejps which would better 
 comport with a just sense of my duties. I 
 
 trust that I do myself more justice. That 
 I look further than any such temporal and 
 ephemeral results. When the question 
 was under consideration to apportion the 
 representation of the city in the house of 
 representatives, it gave rise to a stormy de- 
 bate. One-fifth of the members of this 
 body were impartial spectators of that con- 
 test. Upon them depended the fate of the 
 measure. They came to the conclusion, 
 in accordance with the sound republican 
 principle, that no matter what basis should 
 be adopted, the city should not be deprived 
 of any of the weight to which she was en- 
 titled in the popular branch. That no re- 
 striction should be imposed upon her there. 
 In consulting the true theory of our gov- 
 ernment, they found that the restriction 
 could, without any deviation from princi- 
 ple, be placed upon her in the senate, which 
 was designed to be a check upon the low- 
 er house. Although they conceded that 
 in conformity with the principles of repub- 
 lican government, the city could not be de- 
 prived of her just representation in the 
 house of representatives, they came to the 
 conclusion, that by the greater concentra- 
 tion of power in the city, she had an un- 
 due advantage over the country, and that 
 therefore, to equalize their relative weight, 
 the city should be divided into representa- 
 tive districts, and that no one of these dis- 
 tricts shall combine a larger representation 
 than the largest country parish. We re- 
 sisted but feebly the design of dividing the 
 city, because resistance f was unavailing, 
 and because there was some justice in the 
 arguments employed to sustain it. The 
 restriction upon the city was then placed 
 in the senate. Instead of rliowing her ten 
 senators, to which she was entitled, four 
 were acceded to her, and that throughout 
 all time. We made no objections to this; 
 we submitted at once to that restriction, 
 because it was placed where all checks, in 
 all constitutions, are placed for the conser- 
 vation of popular institutions — in the senate. 
 The paramount object in constituting that 
 body is, that it should restrain the enthusi- 
 asm and phrenzy of the popular will. We 
 were disposed to concede to the claims of 
 the country every thing that it could ask, 
 and to take much less than the city was 
 entitled to from her wealth, her progress, 
 and the development of her resources. 
 With one-third of the population of the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 651 
 
 State, we concurred without a murmur in ' 
 the allotment of but one-eighth of the re 
 presentation; and while other parishes 
 were possessed of the faculty, by their 
 growth and ^progress. New Orleans was 
 condemned to remain stationary in her re- 
 presentation to the senate. It was the gen- 
 tleman (Mr. Downs) that moved that the ' 
 next apportionment should be made in 
 1855 in place of 1848. and if he was so 
 dissatisfied with the present apportionment, 
 why did he propose to prolong it; The 
 city has been reduced more than one-half 
 of her representation; where is the propri- 
 ety of this attempt to impair and weaken 
 her still farther. A direct restriction has j 
 been placed upon her, and is not that suf- j 
 flcient. 
 
 But oh! says the gentleman, these are 
 different interests. There is an interest ! 
 above, and an interest below, and the re- i 
 presentative may be importuned with con- j 
 flicting petitions. I will admit this, and i 
 yet I defy the gentleman to draw from it ; 
 any conclusion. Are there no conflicts of; 
 local and personal interests in the country? I 
 The members from the country parishes 
 are placed in the same situation. During 
 the two short years that I served as a 
 member to the house of representatives, 
 there was a constant stream of these peti- 
 tions. Some were in favor of a separa- 
 tion of a parish — others were opposed to 
 it. Some were for the removal of the 
 court house, and there were a thousand . 
 questions upon which the constituency of 
 the particular parishes differed. If it be ' 
 deemed essential to insure unanimity that 
 the city be divided, why not divide the 
 country parishes in view of a similar re- 
 sult- But will the division of the city ' 
 into three senatorial parts force unanimity? 
 Will it produce greater conformity of in- 
 terests? If it will have that tendency, we 
 would be more sure of the result if we i 
 were to divide the city into wards, into 
 blocks, into families; and if we are desi- 
 rous to attain still greater unanimity— to 
 realize the beau ideal which gentlemen 
 seem & entertain, we should apportion to 
 each individual a separate representation. 
 But it is said that there are divergent in- 
 terests in the city; that there is an~ upper 
 interest and a lower interest. This is an 
 idle motive upon which to base the propo- 
 sition to divide the city. If it holds good 
 
 for the city, it must hold equally good for 
 the country, and the same grounds exist for 
 dividing the country parishes into wards, 
 as exist for a similar course in the city; 
 for there are differences of interests and 
 differences of political sentiment in the 
 country as there are in the city. There is 
 in this as in every thing else, limits be- 
 yond which reason will not permit us to 
 go. And all that we ask is, that the city 
 should not be an exception to the general 
 rule. 
 
 We have never entertained the design 
 to ask to be exempted from the same con- 
 stitutional rules that are common to the 
 people of the whole State. We have not 
 excepted nor asked to be excepted from all 
 restrictions. We have submitted to a di- 
 rect restriction upon our power in the sen- 
 ate. But what we do ask, what we do in- 
 sist npon, is not to be left to the caprice of 
 the legislature. We ask to be placed be- 
 yond the political influences and sectional 
 petty jealousies which may govern that 
 body, so far as fundamental principles be- 
 involved, and to have the means of defend- 
 ing ourselves in the ordinary legislation of 
 the State, if our peculiar interests be as- 
 sailed. I repeat what I have said time af- 
 ter time, that the minority should be pro- 
 tected from the tyranny of the majority. 
 This principle is so vital, that if we must 
 be divided in our representation to, the sen- 
 ate as in the house of representatives, let 
 that division be made in the constitution; 
 let it be perpetual, and do not expose us, 
 as is proposed by the delegate from Oua- 
 chita (Mr. Downs) to the caprice, to the 
 prejudices, to the political promptings of 
 dominant parries in the legislature. Do 
 not make New Orleans the battle ground 
 for contending factions: for the result will 
 be that if she be districted, and if these 
 districts be left to the control of the legis- 
 lature, they will constantly be liable to be 
 changed as may best subserve the designs 
 of political parties and temporary majori- 
 ties. We wish to be placed beyond th,e 
 power of those jealous and hostile feelings 
 which are unfortunately entertained by the 
 country against the city, and of whish we 
 have had so many fatal proofs in the pro- 
 ceedings of this body. Let the city be re- 
 lieved from that incubus forever! Other- 
 wise we must have excitements—perhaps 
 violence- 1 do not mean physical violence : 
 
G32 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 but violence in debate. You have incor- 
 porated in the constitution that the legisla- 
 ture shall meet but once in two years; you 
 have limited their sessions to sixty days, 
 and prescribed that apportionments shall 
 be made at stated periods, and that unless 
 the legislature shall make tnese apportion- 
 ments in strict conformity with law at the 
 ' periods fixed upon, it shall not be compe- 
 tent for them to pass laws. The political 
 excitement that may result is fearful to 
 contemplate. The whole session may be 
 consumed in a conflict for political: power. 
 The people will revolt — -not witlr sword 
 and musket in hand— at the disorders of 
 the times. They will become dissatisfied 
 with the government. Men that are anx- 
 ious to preserve the public tranquility will 
 give up all hope — the permanence of our 
 institutions will be gone, and we shall be 
 left completely at the mercy of temporary 
 majorities that may govern from year to 
 yeai! 
 
 I repeat I am not influenced by party 
 calculations of party success, nor did I in- 
 tend to mislead the Convention. I will 
 tell the gentleman from Ouachita why I 
 considered the question to be settled. I 
 will state the facts, and if I am in error, or 
 mistaken, I can be set right. When the 
 question came up originally, it was on Sat- 
 urday, and a number of the delegates liv- 
 ing in the adjacent parishes had left the 
 city, with the intention of returning on the 
 following Monday. The minority pres- 
 ent, judging that they were the temporary 
 majority — they were a large and respecta- 
 ble minority, but still a minority — proceed- 
 ed to divide the State, and to make such a 
 distribution as suited themselves. The va- 
 rious propositions were adopted, but they 
 were so glaringly partial that the least sen- 
 sitive stomach revolted at them, and finally 
 at a subsequent day, the entire section was 
 rejected. I was present, but being thor- 
 oughly convinced that all opposition! was 
 perfectly useless — that reason had lost its 
 sway, and that the distribution contempla- 
 ted would be made, abhorrent as it was to 
 every principle of justice, I took my hat 
 and left the hall. At half past three o'clock 
 when there was a bare quorum, and nine- 
 tenths of the members were from the north 
 west, and had arranged the political power 
 so as to obtain more than they were enti- 
 tled to, the proposition to district the city 
 
 was made and carried by a majority of 
 from four to five to one. These facts were 
 related to me by members who were pres- 
 ent. When I left the house it was because 
 1 found myself in a hopeless minority, 
 and I was satisfied that nothing done in the 
 house under such circumstances, would 
 aVert the deliberate sanction of the Con- 
 vention. 
 
 The honorable delegate from Rapides 
 (Mr. Brent) was the originator of the 
 scheme to divide the senatorial represen- 
 tation of the cify, and not my colleague 
 (Mr. Culbertson.y 
 
 Mr. Brent: it was Mr. Sbule that made 
 the proposition that the city should be di- 
 vided." 
 
 Mr. Benjamin : I refer to a period ante- 
 rior to the motion made by Mr. Soule; by 
 referring to the journals it will be found 
 that the suggestion: 5 came from a minority 
 committee; composed of Messrs. Downs 
 and Brent. Here I trace the origin of the 
 scheme, and I am for putting the honor 
 where it fairly belongs. I wish the gen- 
 tleman to have the honor and credit, and 1. 
 have no doubt that with some of their con- 
 stituents it may be so esteemed, of having 
 led the attack against the city, against those 
 lordly nabobs — -those avaricious merchants 
 that the gentleman from Ouachita (Mr. 
 Downs) once took occasion to denounce 
 as being so extortionate and unreasonable/ 
 because they exacted a commission upon 
 the sale of the produce of the country. 
 Those unjust and griping merchant that 
 will not give their warehouses gratuitously 
 for the storage of that produce— that will 
 not hire clerks to accommodate the busi- 
 ness of the country, and who have the out- 
 rageous presumption to attack the people 
 of the country through their pockets. It 
 is proper that the two delegates should 
 have all the distinction to which the sug- 
 gestion entitles them. I know it may be 
 considered a distinction, and I wish : it to 
 remain where it properly belongs. 
 
 The gentleman from Ouachita (Mr. 
 Downs) repudiates all party influence, and 
 yet has made one of the most artful ap- 
 peals to party that I ever listened to. While 
 objecting to an assumed course of proceed., 
 ings on the part of one political party, he 
 has suddenly lopped what might be done 
 by his own political party, and has drawn 
 their attention to the great inducements 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 645 
 
 held out. He tells you that the first sen- 
 ate under the new constitution will be the 
 most important body in the State. That 
 if the governor be of our political party, 
 it will be essential to secure the majority 
 in the senate, in order to carry out his 
 nominations; and that if the senate be of 
 the contrary political party to the govern- 
 or, they may check-mate him. All the 
 offices of the State are to be filled. This 
 is one of the strongest appeals to party 
 spirit that the gentleman could have made. 
 But I do not believe he so intended it. I 
 believe he is free from all party biases, 
 and had he foreseen what might be its con- 
 sequences, he never would have made it. 
 The effect is however the same as if it were 
 made for that purpose, and I am sorry he 
 has made it. 
 
 The delegate from Ouachita (Mr. Downs) 
 attributes to me the fault of bringing on 
 this discussion. I deny the charge; it was 
 forced upon me. He introduced his 
 amendment stating that it was to prevent a 
 repetition of the same clause; but when I 
 discovered that it would affect the city, he 
 he then openly announced his purpose to 
 be to, except the parish of Orleans from 
 the provision; that no parish shall be divi- 
 ded in forming a senatorial district, and fi- 
 nally moved a direct amendment to that 
 end. Is it any thing remarkable that I 
 should animadvert upon such a proceeding? 
 What, sir, after all your restrictions, is the 
 city to be left to the mercy of the legisla- 
 ture in her representation? The gentle- 
 man makes that motion, and then cooly— 
 no not cooly, but warmly — and violently 
 accuses me of being the author of the vio- 
 lence of the debate. 
 
 One word more, and I am done. The 
 gentleman (Mr. Downs) accuses me in 
 terms discourteous, but which I do not pre- 
 sume he designed, of endeavoring to force 
 upon the Convention the conviction that 
 the vote upon districting the city, is a final 
 vote. I distinctly said that the subject was 
 open for reconsideration upon the motion 
 of my colleague. (Mr. Soule), but that I 
 hoped with that reconsideration the matter 
 would be settled; that the conflict should be 
 closed and that the result would then rest 
 in peace. The gentleman (Mr. Downs) 
 speaks of the vote by which the general 
 ticket system was adopted for the city, as 
 a small vote; it stood thirty-two to thirty. 
 82 
 
 The three gentlemen to whom the delegate 
 from Ouachita alludes as being in the city, 
 had paired off; had they been here they 
 would have voted with us. 
 
 Of the absentees, a large proportion are 
 with us, and it is my firm conviction that if 
 all the members were present, we would 
 have a clear majority, unless some members 
 may have changed their minds. Whether 
 the appeal of the gentleman from Ouachita 
 (Mr. Downs) to their prejudices or passions, 
 has had any effect, is a matter best known 
 to themselves. But take the last vote that 
 has been had, and adding to it the num- 
 bers that are known to be irl favor of the 
 proposition, there is a clear majority in its 
 favor; and I hope that when that fact is as- 
 certained the whole subject will be consid- 
 ered as at an end. 
 
 Mr. Downs: The first vote in favor of 
 districting the city was thirty-seven to 
 thirty-two. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin: That is precisely what 
 I stated. Owing to the absence of several 
 members who did not anticipate that the 
 subject would come up; I do not object to 
 bringing up the question, in order that it 
 may be passed upon by a full house; but I* 
 do object to bringing it up in another and 1 
 a worse form, when it is ascertained that 
 there is a temporary majority in a thin 
 house, to carry it. This is a day when 
 the attendance is usually small. The gen- 
 tlemen ought to be admonished by the ex- 
 perience of the past. They may carry 
 their scheme now as they did on another 
 Saturday, but they should remember that 
 there is a day of reckoning. They will 
 find that this is bad policy; that it will pro- 
 tract the sessions of the Convention, not 
 by my spealdng for three months, as sup- 
 posed by the delegate from Ouachita, but 
 by the perpetual motions that will be made 
 for reconsiderations. No vote will be 
 final; we shall be perpetually doing and un- 
 doinj^ and it is not to be expected that 
 any^Rmber will feel satisfied with any 
 vote which does not embrace a clear ma- 
 jority of all the members. The gentle- 
 man from Ouachita should not take all the 
 credit to himself, of being disposed to yield 
 to the will of the majority; other gentlemen 
 are equally as ready to submit when the 
 majority have pronounced; and as for my- 
 self, it is too late for me to be taught that 
 no man can expect to carry all his vie w? 
 
646 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 I would be the last one to raise my voice 
 to revise a question after it had been delibe- 
 rately decided by a clear majority of this 
 body; but the gentleman cannot expect that 
 I can yield my assent to a vote taken under 
 the circumstances that present themselves 
 to-day. He may press the subject if he 
 will, and I have no doubt carry it, but I 
 shall certainly avail myself of the privilege 
 of having a more general expression of the 
 house upon it. 
 
 Mr. Beatty thought that the debate had 
 continued long enough, and would call for 
 the previous question. 
 
 Mr. C. M.* Conrad considered that a 
 discussion of two or three hours were not 
 sufficient to examine the merits of this 
 question. 
 
 Mr. Brent replied that the previous 
 question cut off all debate. 
 
 Mr. CM. Conrad begged the gentle- 
 man to bear in mind that the system of 
 forcing a question, and having it decided 
 by a thin house, had not heretofore proved 
 successful, A question taken under similar 
 circumstances upon apportionment, one 
 day, had been reversed the next. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. Downs' 
 motion to strike out, and it was carried in 
 the affirmative — yeas 28; nays 26. 
 
 The yeas and nays were then ordered 
 on Mr. Downs' amendment — 28 yeas, and 
 26 nays. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin offered the following 
 amendment: " The city of New Orleans 
 shall not be divided by any legislature in 
 making the future apportionment of sena- 
 tors." 
 
 Mr. Prescott of St. Landry, said he 
 would vote in the affirmative, because he 
 was averse to the legislature having the 
 authority to divide the city. He thought 
 the districting of the city should be made 
 permanently by the Convention, and not 
 be left to the caprice of the legislature. 
 
 The yeas and nays were calledj^r — 
 yeas 28; nays 23. The President^jpng 
 in the negative, the proposition was lost. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson remarked that he 
 voted in the affirmative, under the expecta- 
 tion that tlie amendment offered by Mr. 
 Eoselius would come before the Conven- 
 tion again., and not because he was favora- 
 ble to the amendment of Mr. Preston, -as 
 ?t a .ted by the "Ree." 
 
 Mr. Waddill moved the adjournment. 
 He made this motion in order to remove the 
 complaints of some gentlemen who thought 
 there was a disposition to force them to a 
 vote under unfavorable circumstances. 
 
 Mr. Downs said if there was 'any one to 
 blame, it was the members who were not 
 in attendance. He did not wish to aGt dis- 
 courteously, but certainly the public busi- 
 ness' ought not to be arrested from day to 
 day, because gentlemen choose to absent 
 themselves. 
 
 The question was then taken on the ad- 
 journment, and lost by the following vote — - 
 14 yeas; 39 nays. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin regretted to see the 
 course adopted to-day, and gave notice that 
 he would move for the reconsideration of 
 the section on Tuesday next. 
 
 Mr. Downs said that he considered the 
 apportionment unjust towards his district, 
 and that he voted in its favor to avoid em- 
 barrassing the proceedings of the Con- 
 vention. 
 
 Mr. Humble made a similar statement. 
 The question was then put on the adop- 
 tion of the whole section, and adopted by 
 34 yeas, 19 nays. The section reads 
 thus : 
 
 Sec. 10. "The State shall be divided 
 into the following senatorial districts; the 
 senators shall be voted for by persons en- 
 titled to vote for representatives." 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river, shall comprise the first senatorial dis- 
 trict, with four senators. 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines, St. Ber- 
 nard and the remainder of the parish of 
 Orleans on the right side of the Missis- 
 sippi river, shall compose one district, with 
 one senator. 
 
 The parish of Jefferson shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Charles and St. John 
 the Baptist, shall compose one district, with 
 one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. James and Ascen- 
 sion shall compose one district, with two 
 senators. 
 
 The parishes of Assumption, Lafourche 
 Interior and Terrebonne shall compose one 
 district, with two senators. 
 
 The parishes of Iberville and West Ba« 
 | ton Rouge shall compose one district, with 
 [ one senator. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 647 
 
 The parish of East Baton Rouge shall 
 compose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Pointe Coupee shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Avoyelles shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of West Feliciana shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of East Feliciana shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Washington and St. 
 Tammany shall compose one district, with 
 one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Helena and Livings- 
 ton shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of Concordia and Tensas 
 shall compose one district, with one sen- 
 ator. 
 
 The parishes of Union, Morehouse, 
 Ouachita and Jackson, shall compose one 
 district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Caldwell, Franklin and 
 Catahoula, shall compose one district, with 
 one senator. 
 
 The parish of Rapides shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Natchitoches shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Claiborne and Bossier 
 shall compose one district, with one sen- 
 ator. 
 
 The parishes of Sabine, Caddo and De 
 Soto shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. \ 
 
 The parish of St. Martin shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of St. Mary shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Landry and Calca- 
 sieu, shall compose one district, with two 
 senators. 
 
 The parishes ot Lafayette and Vermil- 
 lion shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 And whenever a new parish shall be 
 created, it shall be attached to the senato- 
 rial district from which most of it was ta- 
 ken, or to another contiguous district, at 
 the discretion of the legislature, but shall 
 not be attached to more'tfian one district. 
 
 The legislature, in any year in which 
 they shall apportion representation in the 
 house of representatives, shall divide the 
 State into senatorial districts. No parish 
 shall be divided in the formation of sena- 
 
 torial districts, parish of Orleans excepted. 
 The number of senators shall be thirty-two -, 
 and they shall be apportioned among the 
 senatorial districts according to the total 
 population contained in the senatorial dis- 
 tricts ; provided, that no parish shall be 
 entitled to more than one-eighth of the 
 whole numher of senators. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved that the Convention 
 take up the additional section offered by 
 him. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved for the adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The motion to adjourn was lost, and the 
 Convention took up Mr. Downs' section. 
 
 The question pending when this section 
 was last up, was the motion to strike out 
 the second paragraph. Mr. Downs had 
 moved for the division. 
 
 Mr, C. M. Conrad : The effect of this 
 portion of the section is to give to parishes 
 that have not the population necessary, a 
 senator, and it is designed to favor the 
 north-west. The principle in the second 
 portion of the paragraph is not equal, for it 
 gives to a parish having one-third less than 
 the divisor, the same privilege as to a par= 
 ish having one-third over the divisor. I 
 am aware that perfect equality is not at- 
 tainable, but we should endeavor to reach 
 the standard as near as possible. 
 
 Mr. Downs suggested that perhaps the 
 language was not as clear as might be de- 
 sired, but certainly it was not intended to 
 convey the construction placed upon it by 
 the gentleman. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad: I do not think the 
 language at all ambiguous. It seems to 
 me that the clause is designed to place the 
 parish having one-third exceedent over the 
 divisor, upon the same footing as the parish 
 •having one-third under the divisor. If I 
 were to propose an amendment, it would 
 be to strike out the words " over" and 
 "under." 
 
 M* Marigny moved to reject the sec- 
 tion, but subsequently withdrew his motion 
 
 Mr. Downs could not comprehend how 
 it was that this section excited so much 
 opposition. We have made a temporary 
 apportionment of the senatorial represen- 
 tation, and have fixed a basis; but we have 
 not determined how the apportionment is 
 hereafter to be made. The section has no 
 other object than to prescribe the mode of 
 effecting that apportionment; unless it h% 
 
648 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 designed to leave the legislature .plenary 
 discretion, full power to do just what ever 
 they please, we must necessarily pass this 
 section. If the phraseology be defective, 
 let it be corrected; or if gentlemen can 
 suggest any thing better, I am ready to re- 
 ceive it. I am solicitous for the principles 
 it contains. But under the plea that the 
 language is not as perfect as gentlemen 
 would desire, do not overlook the princi- 
 ples. If they be discarded, it will be ren- 
 dering the injustice done to my district, and 
 to some other districts, perpetual; and will 
 interpose an insurmountable barrier for 
 the future. If you do not adopt the first 
 motion, you are without chart or compass. 
 The legislature has unlimited discretion. 
 The only restriction will be, that the num- 
 ber of senators shall not be carried beyond 
 thirty-two; but the legislature may distrib- 
 ute them as it pleases. As for the second 
 clause, it is evident that no apportionment 
 can be made without leaving fractions; it 
 results that we should combine these frac- 
 tions with the fractions of adjacent par? 
 ishes, where single districts cannot be 
 formed, so as to have as small fractions re- 
 maining as possible. This is all that is 
 proposed. • 
 
 It should also be borne in mind that, as 
 the districts are not permanent, as they 
 were in the old constitution, the whole 
 senate will have to be renewed at each ap- 
 portionment; for otherwise, senators would 
 • remain that would represent districts which 
 had been changed. That is all that is 
 contemplated in the third clause. As for 
 the last clause, it is indispensably neces- 
 sary. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad: I am opposed to 
 the first clause; as for the second clause, I 
 think it a mere matter of form, upon which- 
 it will not be difficult to arrive at a conclu- 
 sion. We have determined that there 
 shall be thirty-two senatorsd ; deucting 
 four for the city, there remains twenty- 
 eight to be distributed in the remaining 
 districts. We have assumed for the basis 
 total population; and we have determined 
 that in making the apportionment that no 
 parish shall be divided. The gentleman 
 from Ouachita (Mr. Downs) thinks it 
 is necessary to establish some rules. What 
 other rules are necessary? I am ready to 
 cede, if the gentleman can show me that 
 there is any necessity for these provisions; 
 
 but if that necessity cannot be shown, I 
 must insist upon my objections; for I hold 
 that in a constitution whatever is not ne- 
 cessary is pernicious. If we give to the 
 adjoining parishes in the north-west the 
 excess of population in Rapides and Nat- 
 chitoches, why not, on the same principle, 
 give to the surrounding parishes in this 
 vicinity the excess of population in the city 
 of New Orleans? 
 
 Mr. Beatty: It may be that the section 
 contains details which are not indispensa- 
 ble; and I am disposed to think that it 
 would be better to withdraw it and repro- 
 duce it in the form of distinct propositions. 
 The first paragraph constitutes a principle 
 for the apportionment in the senate; the 
 second paragraph consecrates an important 
 principle, which is the principle of single 
 districts; the third paragraph relates to va- 
 cancies that may occur in the senate as the 
 result of new apportionments. Whether the 
 whole senate should be renewed, or wheth- 
 er that portion only should go out whose 
 terms had expired, is a matter about which 
 there is some contrariety of opinion. 
 
 It is evident that those paragraphs are 
 distinct and separate propositions. I think 
 it better to present them separately; and I 
 trust that the gentleman (Mr. Downs) will 
 take that course. As to the fourth para- 
 graph, which is to incapaciate the legisla- 
 ture from passing laws in a certain contin- 
 gency, I think it a very grave subject; I am 
 fearful unless it be modified it will lead to 
 a great deal of confusion and' difficulty. 
 We have already much difficulty in the 
 application of our jurisprudence, without 
 accumulating further embarrassments, by 
 exposing every law to the action of the ju- 
 diciary, whether it was passed by a legis- 
 lature that had strictly complied with the 
 regulations requiring an apportionment to 
 be made. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to substitute, in place 
 of the word "divisor," the words "the num- 
 ber entitling a district to a senator." His 
 amendment was adopted. 
 
 The question was then taken on the mo- 
 tion to strike out ths first part of the sec- 
 tion, and it was negatived — 12 yeas, 30 
 nays. 
 
 The question then recurred on striking 
 out the second clause of the section. 
 
 Mr. Roselius asked for some explana- 
 tions in reference to this portion of the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 649 
 
 section. He could not comprehend its 
 meaning*. 
 
 Mr. Downs said that the object of this 
 clause was to give a parish, having a less 
 excedent, the greater excedent of a neigh- 
 boring parish, and thus to reduce the frac- 
 tions. If the two parishes then contained 
 double the amount,, in population, of the di- 
 visor, they would be entitled to two sena- 
 tors. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad: That is precisely 
 the reason why I ask the rejection of the 
 second portion of this paragraph. Is it not 
 apparent that, by this clause, a parish that 
 has but two-thirds of the divisor, will have 
 as much weight as the parish that contains 
 more than one -third over and above the 
 divisor. This is intended to favor the 
 north-western parishes of the State; and to 
 give them a representation which the Con- 
 vention did not think thernentitled to. Gen- 
 tlemen may say what they please, but I 
 insist that such will be the result, if, in 
 fact, it be not its main object, I think 
 that the subject should not be pressed at 
 this moment . in a thin house; and gentle- 
 men should recollect that, although they 
 may succeed to-day, they may fail, as they 
 did on a similar occasion, on the following 
 Tuesday. 
 
 Mr. Downs presented the following 
 rule: 
 
 Be it resolved. That all motions for re- 
 consideration shall be decided without de- 
 bate. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad presented the fol- 
 lowing: 
 
 "That no vote upon any constitutional 
 provision shall be reconsidered, unless the 
 motion for reconsideration shall be made 
 in a house composed of more members 
 than were present when the question was 
 originally adopted." 
 
 Whereupon the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Saturday, April 12, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment, and at the request of the Presi- 
 dent, the Hon. Mr. Stephens opened the 
 proceedings with prayer. 
 
 Air. Downs moved the adoption of the 
 resolution presented by him yesterday, 
 that no debate should be had upon mo- 
 tions to reconsider. 
 
 Mr. C.^M. Conrad suggested that his 
 resolution should be taken up as an amend- 
 
 ment to the resolution presented by Mr. 
 Downs. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to amend Mr. Con- 
 rad's resolution by inserting the words 
 '*if there be present a greater number of 
 members voting in favor of the reconside- 
 ration, than voted originally in favor of the 
 adoption of the proposition." 
 
 Mr. Conrad apprehended that if the 
 house acquiesced in this amendment, it 
 would not effect the purpose he designed 
 — which was to prevent all motions for 
 reconsideration when there were barely 
 more than a quorum of the members pres- 
 ent. 
 
 Mr. Beatty was opposed to Mr. Con- 
 rad's resolution. He could not consent to 
 a measure which would serve particular 
 purposes. It might induce certain mem- 
 bers to stay away in order to prevent a re- 
 consideration. Suppose for example, that 
 a question was carried by a majority of 
 thirty-four votes. That would require a 
 house of at least sixty-seven members. 
 Now. if there were a majority of thirty- 
 nine, the absolute majority of the Conven- 
 tion, and there were -only fifty members 
 present, the majority could not overcome 
 the opposition of the minority. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin offered the following sub- 
 stitute: 
 
 Resolved, that no motion for reconside- 
 ration shall be entertained unless a greater 
 number of votes shall be given in favor of 
 the motion to reconsider, than were given 
 in favor of the proposition moved to be re- 
 considered. 
 
 Mr. Downs: that is precisely what I - 
 proposed. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff saw no utility in multiply- 
 ing the rules, we were only losing our 
 time in doing so; for it was after all, in the 
 power of the majority to do just as they 
 pleased, rules or no rules. And whenever 
 the rule was found to be in their way, 
 they would suspend it, or abolish it. It 
 is perfectly idle to make the attempt when 
 there is scarcely more than a quorum pre- 
 sent, at any rate. Thereis no way to ef- 
 fect anything by rules, and we are only 
 losing our time in discussing them. 
 
 Mr. Ettstis: I will admit that my 
 knowledge and experience in parliamen- 
 tary rules are not great, and I presume I 
 am not the only one in this house who 
 may make a similar avowal. But I have 
 
650 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 not the slightest doubt that if we examine 
 our journals, we shall find that the forty 
 rules we adopted immediately after we 
 had organized, have been the cause of our 
 losing a greater portion of our time than 
 any thing else, by the frequent discussions 
 to which they have given rise. In a. body 
 like this, to my humble conception, a sin- 
 gle rule would be sufficient; at any rate 
 four or five rules. The President would 
 propose the question, we would vote upon 
 it, and we would get on much better and 
 much faster. And is it borne in mind, 
 that subjected to these forty rules, which 
 only a few among us adequately compre- 
 hend, we find ourselves constantly embar- 
 rased and stopped at every step? You 
 may say what you please about their mer- 
 its, but in my opinion for our proceedings, 
 good faith is better than rules. If good 
 faith prevails, they are perfectly useless, 
 and if it does not, they cannot be enforced. 
 
 Mr. Porter participated the views of 
 Mr. Eustis upon this subject. 
 
 Mr. Downs: the resolution I offer as 
 well as the amendment of the gentleman 
 (Mr. Conrad) in place of exciting debate, 
 will have the contrary effect. It will re- 
 press unnecessary debate. Yesterday we 
 were discussing all day amotion for recon- 
 sideration. If it be true that our rules re- 
 ally result in a loss of time, we should 
 amend them, in order that they may facili- 
 tate our proceedings. If we do not pass 
 this resolution and the amendment which 
 accompanies it, we may rely upon it that 
 the very next question which comes up on 
 the question of reconsideration, will occu- 
 py a week in debate. As for the idea that 
 a deliberative body does not stand in need 
 of rules, it is something very novel to me, 
 and I am still more surprised that it should 
 emenate from gentlemen of so much judg- 
 ment and experience. What, no rules! 
 Why, in what way are we to know that 
 we are proceeding regularly? What would 
 keep us from recurring to all that we had 
 done, and doing it over again? It would 
 be as reasonable to attempt to send a steam- 
 boat to Louisville without a rudder, as for 
 us to attempt to proceed without rules. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor: 1 concur with the 
 gentleman from Ouachita (Mr. Downs) 
 that we should devise some means to ex- 
 pedite the proceedings of this body, but I 
 differ with. him as to the adaptation of his 
 
 resolution to that purpose. I can conceive 
 that the resolution of Mr. Benjamin may 
 relieve us from a great many useless pro- 
 positions for reconsideration. But the ! 
 other resolution in my opinion, will occa 
 sion a great deal of difficulty. That gen- 
 tleman says his object is to prevent discus- 
 sion. Well, if that be his object, why is I 
 not the previous question sufficient. It is 
 always in the power of the majority to ar- 
 rest the discussion when they think it use- 
 less. Does the gentleman propose this as 
 an additional remedy? I would remark to 
 him that this remedy is too violent, for it 
 has the tendency to render powerless even 
 the majority. In point of fact, a section 
 may be passed in either house, and all ar- 
 guments to prove the necessity for a recon- 
 sideration would be cut off under this reso- 
 lution. If the proposition of Mr. Benja- ■ 
 min be seperated, I will vote for it, but if it 
 is embodied in the resolution of Mr. Downs, 
 I shall feel constrained to vote against 
 both. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. Downs' 
 resolution — yeas 27, nays 16. 
 
 The question then recurred on the 
 adoption of Mr. Benjamin's resolution- 
 yeas 36, nays 6. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 The Presidsnt pro tern (Mr. Claiborne) 
 informed the Convention that the question 
 pending was Mr. C. M. Conrad's motion 
 to lay indefinitely on the table the first par- 
 agraph of the section introduced by Mr, 
 Downs. 
 
 Mr. Downs asked for a division of the 
 question. 
 
 The President declared that the ques- 
 tion was not susceptible of discussion. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved to strike out the 
 words "on the left bank of the river in de- 
 scending," and to insert the words "the 
 city" between the words population and 
 and New Orleans. He remarked, that 
 without this correction there was some am- 
 biguity. Mr. Ratliff's amendment was 
 accepted. 
 
 Mr. Conrad's motion was then put and 
 lost — yeas 34, nays 10. 
 
 Mr. Downs: is it any fault of mine that 
 the attendance is not larger? Had I 
 power, I would have every member to be 
 in his seat. If gentlemen will stay away* 
 that is no reason why we should fold our 
 arms and do nothing- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 651 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad: I sincerely regret 
 that those to whom allusion has been 
 made, are not here. It is well known 
 that on Saturdays the attendance is always 
 small. What I object to, is that this acci- 
 dent should be employed to bring on a vote 
 when only a certain expression of opinion 
 can be had. I move that this section be 
 laid on the table until there shall be a more 
 general attendance, in order that the ques- 
 tion may be fairly tested. 
 
 Air. Downs: I deny in the most emphatic 
 manner, that I have ever profited by the 
 absence of members on a particular day to 
 pass any provision that I might have favor- 
 ed. This accusation, brought against me 
 by the two gentlemen from Mew Orleans 
 (Messrs. Benjamin and Conrad) is entirely 
 without foundation. No question has to 
 my knowledge been taken up on Saturdays 
 that did not come out of its regular order. 
 :Must we devote Saturdays to what those 
 igentlemen call unimportant matters? I 
 know of nothing in this constitution that 
 is not important, and I do not know what 
 the gentlemen mean. As to the present 
 question, it has been before the Conven- 
 tion for some time — it came up yesterday 
 in its order, and was followed up to-day. 
 The gentlemen must be really deficient in 
 good reasons, to travel out of their way to 
 assail me, and to attempt *to make me re- 
 sponsible for all the consequences. 
 
 I regret that so many members of the 
 Convention are absent, because it inter- 
 feres with the transaction of our business; 
 but it is preposterous to suppose that be- 
 cause they are absent we should do nothing. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad: I accuse no one. 
 I respect the rules, and I conduct myself I 
 believe, courteously to all. But I may nev- 
 ertheless say that the precipitation with 
 which important subjects are pressed, and 
 .hat in a house with a bare quorum, indu- 
 ces the conviction that only a certain ex- 
 pression of opinion is to be had. I may 
 be told that this section has been before 
 the Convention for the last eight days, but 
 it was only taken into consideration, and 
 before it* had scarcely been discussed, the 
 previous question was called for, and that 
 too when a large proportion of the mem- 
 bers were absent. 
 
 Mr. Downs: it was not I that called for 
 the previous question— that is a motion 
 'hat I never make, 
 
 Mr. Beatty: for the information of the 
 gentleman I will state that it was I that mo- 
 ved the call for the previous question. I 
 have had frequent occasion to make that 
 motion. I have generally been on the 
 other side of the house when I have made 
 it, and the gentleman nor his friends never 
 complained. This is the first time that I 
 have called for it in favor of views of gen- 
 tlemen with whom I have almost always 
 differed. As for the absence of members, 
 I must for the credit of those gentlemen 
 say that they are much more punctual 
 in their attendance than those with whom I 
 have been in the habit of acting. 
 
 The President: All this is not in or- 
 der. 
 
 Mr. Beatty: I am well aware of it, 
 Mr. President; but it is necessary to reply 
 to a charge that has no foundation. 
 
 Mr. Sodle proposed the following 
 ' amendment: "And if the apportionment 
 "that shall be made, has over or at least one- 
 third under the number necessary to enti- 
 tle it to a senator," &c. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne: if I understand the 
 question, it is to provide for cases when 
 it will be necessary to form a district with 
 two senators; but why tie up the hands 
 of the legislature? The Convention have 
 decided upon, this matter in the manner 
 they have deemed most fit, and it seems 
 to me that in conferring upon the legisla- 
 ture the power of making the future ap- 
 portionments, they should be vested with 
 a discretion of forming double districts 
 when they should deem it expedient, or 
 when the people should require it. I am 
 aware that if the house decide elsewhere, 
 I must submit. At any rate 1 do not un- 
 derstand why we should insert words that 
 are superfluous, and which can only give 
 rise to doubt and confusion. Whatever 
 may be the object designed by the second 
 portiomof the paragraph, I would move to 
 strike it out and insert the following: "No 
 district shall be formed having a right to 
 more than two senators." 
 
 Mr. Downs: the gentleman's motion is 
 out of order inasmuch as the question up- 
 on striking out has already been taken. 
 
 That being the case, said Mr. Clai- 
 borne, I will move to substitute what I 
 have proposed in the place of the three 
 last lines, which I consider useless. 
 
 Mr, Soule: there can be no doubt as to 
 
652 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 the meaning of the paragraph. The pre- 
 ceding paragraph lays down the princi- 
 ple which the Convention have sanction- 
 ed, that Whenever it can be done without 
 inconvenience, single districts shall be 
 formed with the right to one senator. But 
 as it may happen that in the apportionment 
 a parish or a collection of parishes may 
 have a fraction over or under the divisor, it 
 is deemed necessary that some provision 
 be had to meet such cases; that is the ob- 
 ject of the clause now under considera- 
 tion. I can well conceive that the prin- 
 ciple announced may give rise to opposi- 
 tion, but I cannot well conceive how it can 
 be attacked on the score of its being ob- 
 scure. Certainly nothing can be more 
 explicit than the text taken as a whole, and 
 as for the three last lines appearing to be 
 superfluous to my colleague (MrClaiborne) 
 I would observe that they do not refer to 
 the two senators to be given to a double 
 district, but specify that such district shall 
 not be established but under conditions 
 prescribed. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne: I can well perceive 
 now what is the object of this clause, but I 
 would remark that it is not exact to say 
 that the Convention have established the 
 principle that there should be as many 
 simple districts as possible. They have 
 established some single districts, but that 
 has not been in virtue of any invariable 
 rule. Far from it. As to the section it- 
 self, I will not say that the delegate from 
 Ouachita who seems to have succeeded to- 
 day in all his propositions, has availed 
 himself of the absence of a large number 
 of the members. If there be a fault it is 
 exclusively that of those members them- 
 selves. But their absence is nevertheless 
 an incontestible fact, and hence it would 
 seem that it is not an opportune mo- 
 ment to decide a question. If it be how- 
 ever taken, I shall conceive it to be my 
 duty to move a reconsideration. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff would observe that the 
 text of the paragraph was so conceived that 
 it might give rise to misapprehension in 
 this, that fractions of remote parishes might 
 be combined together and a senatorial dis- 
 trict be thus formed. I am convinced, said 
 Mr. Ratliff, that such was not the intention 
 of the mover. 
 
 Mr. ^Conrad proposed the following 
 amendment. He said he was opposed to 
 
 the section and would vote against it, but 
 nevertheless, to meet the objections of the 
 delegate from Feliciana, (Mr. Ratliff) which 
 he thought were well founded, he would 
 move this amendment. It was to the fol- 
 lowing effect: that when contiguous par- 
 ishes shall have together a sufficient popu- 
 lation to entitle them to two senators, dou- 
 ble districts may be formed; provided, that 
 neither one nor the other have a popula- 
 tion over or under one third of the number 
 necessary to entitle them to a senator. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved that Mr. Conrad's 
 amendment be laid on the table. 
 
 Mr. Conrad moved an adjournment. 
 The yeas and nays were called for — yeas 
 7, nays 30. 
 
 Theve being no quorum, Mr. Downs 
 moved for a call of the house — 38 members 
 present. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved that the names of 
 those that had left the house and broke the 
 quorum, should be entered upon the jour- 
 nals. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne thought that the call ot 
 the house would exhibit who were present 
 and who were absent. 
 
 Mr. Lewis stated that Mr. Hudspeth was 
 confined to his room by indisposition. 
 
 Mr. Cade remarked that those who for- 
 ced the adjournment to-day were the same 
 members that had forced the adjournment 
 at Jackson to New Orleans. 
 
 Mr. Soule moved to adjourn for want of 
 a quorum; which motion prevailed. 
 
 Monday, April 14, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 There being no quorum, Mr. Beatty 
 moved that the Convention adjourn for one 
 hour. 
 
 Mr. Dunn opposed the motion to adjourn 
 for one hour, and raised a question of order. 
 
 It was trifling, said Mr. Dunn, and would 
 not have the effect supposed. 
 
 He was overruled by the President, and 
 called for the yeas and nays. 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Burton* 
 Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, Covillon, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Ledoux, Lewis, McCailop, 
 Mayo, 0'Bryan,Peets,PorterjPrudhomme, 
 Pugh, Read, Scott of Feliciana, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Waddill and We. 
 derstrandt voted in the affirmative — 2& 
 yeas; and 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 653 
 
 .Messrs. Bmmfield, Dunn, Roman and 
 Winder voted in the negative — -1 nays. 
 
 The Convention re-assembled pursuant 
 to their adjournment, and their proceedings i 
 -were opened with prayer from the Rev. 
 Mr. Waeben. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 The additional section offered by Mr. | 
 Downs, upon apportionment. A substitute j 
 had been offered by Mr. C. M. Conrad for 
 a portion of the section, which Mr. Downs j 
 moved should be laid indefinitely on the | 
 table. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, would state for j 
 the information of the delegates who were | 
 not in their seats on Saturday last, that the 
 substitute did not express his sentiments. ! 
 He h~.d moved it to meet the views of the ! 
 delegate from West Feliciana, (Mr. Ratliff.) 
 That gentleman thought that the clause j 
 was susceptible of a different construction , 
 than the mover himself appeared to give it. [ 
 The object of the mover is to establish 
 single districts. To that, - as a matter of! 
 course, I am opposed, unless local or other 
 circumstances should make it imperiously j 
 necessary to establish them. In the north ; 
 west, where there is a vast extent of terri- j 
 tory, I conceive there are peculiar reasons ! 
 militating in favor of the establishment of i 
 single districts, and- 1 am willing that they 
 should be established there. But where j 
 the population is dense, it is expedient to , 
 have double districts, in order to maintain \ 
 the difference in ihe constituency between j 
 the senate and house of representatives. I 
 think that the legislature should have the 
 discretionary power to make double or sin- ' 
 gle districts, as circumstances may require, 
 and as their judgment may dictate. As for 
 the principle of applying the surplus of one 
 parish to another parish, in the formation \ 
 of districts, I have no objection to it, pro- j 
 vided the surplus is carried to a parish that 
 is adjoining in the same section of country, 
 but I have very serious objections that it 
 be transferred to another and remote sec- 1 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Beatty inquired of the chai 
 
 whether the clause 
 
 was open to amend- 
 
 ment, should the amendment of Mr. Conrad 
 be rejected? 
 
 The President responded in the affir- 
 mative. 
 
 Mr. Downs preferred the clause as it 
 was. 
 
 83 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 said motion, resulted as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cham- 
 bliss, Covillion, Downs, Garrett, Humble, 
 Hynson, Ledoux, McCallop, Marigny, 
 Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Prud- 
 homme, Read, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Splane, Stephens, Wajdill and 
 Wederstrandt voted in the affirmative —31 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Culbertson, Dunn, 
 Hudspeth, Lewis, Mazureau, Pugh, Ratl.'ff, 
 Roman, Sellers, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Wikoff and Winchester voted in the nega- 
 tive — 16 nays; consequently said motion 
 was carried. 
 
 Mr. Downs said that to respond to the 
 suggestion of several members, he would 
 consent to strike out, in the last paragraph, 
 all between the words "the legislature 
 shall be incompetent," and the words "all 
 acts, "and insert the following 1 : "to pass any 
 laws until the apportionment shall be made 
 in conformity with these rules." 
 
 Mr. Claiborne would suggest the pro- 
 priety of striking out the third paragraph, 
 for the following reasons. It is, without 
 doubt, necessary and expedient that the 
 senators whose districts may undergo 
 change by reason of the new apportion- 
 ment, should go out; but in reference to 
 those districts that are not changed, for ex- 
 ample, the city, which will be a perma- 
 nent district, that necessity does not exist, 
 and consequently there would be no reason 
 for such a course, and its policy may well 
 be doubted. If you adopt it, then you de- 
 stroy one of the very few distinctions re- 
 maining between the organization of the 
 senate and the organization of the house 
 of representatives — the difference in the 
 duration of the respective offices. I am 
 aware that if the majority of this house are 
 prepared to abandon all the theories of our 
 government, we have no means of pre- 
 venting it, but for one, I shall resist it to 
 the last. For these reasons I move to 
 strike out the paragraph, and insert the 
 following: "At each apportionment the 
 term of office of the senators whose dis- 
 tricts may be changed or reorganized by 
 such apportionment, shall expire so soon" 
 as the elections may be held in their dis= 
 
654 Debates in the Oonvention of Louisiana, 
 
 tricts, without reference to the time such 
 senators may have served under any pre- 
 ceding apportionment." 
 
 Mr. Downs: I desire to state that I have 
 no desire to shorten the term of service of 
 the senators. I know of rio instance, nor 
 do I believe that any exists, where a por- 
 tion of the old senators may hold on to their 
 seats after a new apportionment has been 
 made. Ij||trikes me that the senate should 
 be entirely renewed. The contrary prin- 
 ciple is applicable only to those States 
 where permanence is made the leading 
 feature of the upper branch of the legisla- 
 ture. For example, the senate of the Uni- 
 ted States, it is a permanent body; its dis- 
 tricts — the States — are perpetual. If the 
 rule in our constitution be made to apply 
 only to those districts that may be changed, 
 you make the senators judges in their own 
 cause, and> enlist their feelings against 
 making changes in their districts. If you 
 give them the power to determine which 
 of them shall go out of office, you will 
 give rise to a degrading contest for the 
 preservation of power. On the contrary, 
 prescribe to them strict rules, and place it 
 beyond their power to transgress those 
 rules. It is, therefore, not without reflec- 
 tion that I have proposed the particular 
 clause in the section to which objection is 
 now made. It would seem, continued Mr. 
 Downs, from the manner in which gentle- 
 men propose their amendments, that every 
 thing that comes from me is, or must be 
 bad, and admitting that the honorable dele- 
 gate (Mr. Claiborne) had some grounds 
 for his proposition, I think he might have 
 suggested an amendment to the paragraph 
 instead of proposing its rejection. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff: 1 apprehend that there is 
 more difficulty in this matter than gen- 
 tlemen may at first suppose. If you 
 renew the senate in full every x ten years, 
 it is clear that the term of office being 
 for four years, some senators will not 
 remain longer in office than two years. 
 Is there no means of obviating this in- 
 convenience. It is my opinion, that if 
 we wish to retain the principle that the 
 senate shall be a check upon the lower 
 house, we should apply some principle 
 which would give permanence in the order 
 of the succession of senators. The sena- 
 tors elected two years before the appor- 
 tionment should continue to hold office until 
 
 the expiration of their term, I think that 
 this can be done, and it ought to be done. 
 The effectual means of accomplishing it 
 will be to elect the senators by lot, one 
 half to retain their seats for only two years, 
 and the other half for four. This may be 
 done without any inconvenience. 
 
 It is evident that if the senate be entire- 
 ly renewed, there will be a tendency to 
 postpone the apportionment, and if those 
 senators whose districts shall be changed, 
 are only to go out, it will give rise to par- 
 ty spirit and intrigues which may defeai 
 the object proposed; but it is said that the 
 senate will be forced to act. This is an 
 argument in favor of my proposition, for if 
 those degrading contests should arise for 
 the possession of power, they may not ful- 
 fill the duty imposed upon them, and the 
 mechine of government will be stopped — 
 no laws will be passed having any binding 
 effect, and every thing connected with the 
 government will be at a stand still. No 
 appropriations can be made, although the 
 greatest emergency may arise — for an in- 
 vasion or servile insurrection. We shall 
 be reduced to a state of helplessness and 
 confusion. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said he participated in 
 part the opinion of the delegate; but he 
 thought it necessary that the duration in 
 office should be explicitly expressed, and 
 therefore proposed the following amend- 
 ment: "No apportionment shall have the 
 effect of abridging the term of office of any 
 senator elected before such apportionment 
 shall be made. 
 
 Mr. Claiboene said that he was always 
 disposed to sanction whatever came from 
 others that he conceived was better than 
 what he suggested himself. The delegate 
 from Ouachita labors under a mistake 
 when he thinks that my opposition to the 
 clause proposed by him, arises from the 
 causes he has assigned. I have no such 
 feeling, and if I differ from him on most 
 occasions, it is from no such motives. The 
 object which we have in view, seems to 
 me to be to give greater permanence to 
 the senate than to the house of representa- 
 tives. 1 think his clause destroys that fea- 
 ture, and hence I have proposed what is 
 more in accordance with my views. When 
 the delegate (Mr. Downs) contends that 
 my proposition would have the effect of 
 deterring certain senators from making 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 655 
 
 changes in certain districts, he forgets that 
 the effect of the clause by a parity of rea- 
 soning would be still worse, as it would 
 deter all the members of the senate 
 from making any apportionment at all. 
 His objection applies with greater force 
 to his own position. If the delegate trom 
 West Feliciana (Mr. Ratliff) can satisfy 
 me that his proposition is proper, I shall 
 give it my support. 
 
 Mr. Brent thought the discussion had 
 proceeded sufficiently far, and he would 
 therefore move the previous question. 
 The yeas and nays were called for on his 
 motion and it was lost — 18 yeas and 30 
 nays. 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Downs, Hudspeth, Humble, 
 Hynson, Lewis, McCallop, Porter, Pres. 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Read, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Soule and Waddill voted in the affirm- 
 ative — 18 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Briant, Cade, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Covillion, Culbertson, Dunn,Eustis, 
 Garcia, Garrett, Ledoux, Mayo, Mazureau, 
 •0' Bryan, Peets, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, Roman, Sellers, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Wederstrandt, Wikoff and Winder voted 
 in the negative, — 30 nays- 
 
 Mr. Downs proposed to add to Mr. Ben- 
 jamin's amendment the following : Ex- 
 cept those whose districts shall be changed. 
 The question was taken on Mr. Downs' 
 amendment and it was lost. The ques- 
 tion then recurred on the adoption of Mr. 
 Benjamin's amendment, and the yeas and 
 nays were called for — yeas 36, nays 14. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin then moved for the adop- 
 tion of the substitute, and the yeas and 
 nays baing called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Covillion, Cul- 
 bertson, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, 
 Hudspeth, Ledoux, Lewis, McCallop, 
 Mfyo, Mazureau, Peets, Prescott of Avoy- 
 elles, Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Ratliff, Roman, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Splane, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Wikoff and 
 Winder voted in the affirmative— 36 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs- Brazeale, Brent, Carriere, 
 
 Chambliss, Downs, Humble, Hynson, Ma. 
 rigny, O'Bryan, Porter, Read, Soule, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in the 
 negative — 14 nays. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff thought that by declaring 
 that all laws should be null and void unless 
 the apportionment should be made in strict 
 conformity with the rules that were pre- 
 scribed, would give rise to an infinity of 
 questions upon the constitutionality of the 
 laws that might be passed, and would be 
 transferring from the legislature the power 
 of judging of their own organization and 
 committing it to the judiciary. This 
 would have very unfortunate resuls, and 
 would produce a great deal of confusion 
 and uncertainty. 
 
 Mr. Downs withdrew the first portion 
 of the paragraph. i 
 
 Mr. Eustis : This is not yet enough. 
 The paragraph says that the legislature 
 shall not be competent to pass any law un- 
 til an apportionment shall be made in 
 strict .conformity with the rule. Now 
 suppose that the legislature, nevertheless, 
 should pass laws. What would be the 
 consequence ? What would be the pen- 
 alty ? That the laws so passed would be 
 null and void ! It is then evident that you 
 attach to each law the question of consti- 
 tutionality. Let us consult the lessons of 
 experience, which should be a guide to us, 
 and we shall find that the slightest innova- 
 tion of this kind will be the source of great 
 confusion and doubt, and will give us 
 cause hereafter for much regret. Why is 
 it that there is no law which has eminated 
 from congress, the constitutionality of 
 which is doubtful ? I will tell you why. 
 It is because the federal constitution con- 
 tains nothing but principles. Let us refer 
 to a contrary example. The supreme 
 court of the State of Arkansas has declared 
 one hundred and thirty-six laws of that 
 State to be unconstitutional — and why ? 
 Because the constitution of Arkansas is 
 mixed up with heterogenious matters, and 
 is filled with simple legislation. Let u^ 
 reflect seriously. In attaching the ques- 
 tion of incompetency to the legislature we 
 give to the judiciary the power to decide 
 upon the organization of that body, and 
 we may be well assured that the power 
 will be exercised on every occason. Ev- 
 ery law that will be passed after a new 
 apportionment shall be made, will be ex. 
 
656 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 posed to the question of constitutionality. 
 They will say that your legislature is not 
 organized in strict conformity with the 
 apportionment as prescribed by the con- 
 slitution. The result will be a great deal 
 of doubt and confusion, and perpetual liti- 
 gation. But it is not only the question of 
 apportionment which will be exposed to 
 to the scrutiny of the judiciary; there are 
 other questions having reference to the 
 same subject which may also be involved. 
 For example it is prescribed that contigu- 
 ous parishes shall only be formed into sen- 
 atorial districts. This word contiguous! 
 It happens that there are parishes which 
 are contiguous only at one point, and if a 
 controversy should arise the judiciary 
 would have to determine the question. 
 Are we ready to authorize a principle of 
 encroachment of one of the departments 
 of the government upon another ? Why 
 establish three co-ordinate departments of 
 the government if each one is not to revolve 
 in its appropriate sphere, in the orbii which 
 you have signed it in your constitution ? 
 The moment that your common-practised 
 lawyer can raise the question of constitu- 
 tionality of your laws upon so prolific a 
 source of confusion and doubt, your courts 
 of justice will resound with nothing else. 
 It would be better to submit to a defective 
 apportionment than to leave the judiciary 
 so extensive a power. Hence it is that I 
 hope that the balance of the clause will be 
 struck out. 
 
 Mr. Downs : I am willing to yield in 
 reference to the first clause of the para- 
 graph, because, upon reflection, I am per- 
 suaded that I went too far in providing 
 measures that would assure the execution, 
 and the effect of future apportionments. 
 But I cannot consent to leave the legislature 
 free to make an apportionment or not, as it 
 pleases. Free from all obligation, and 
 free from all responsibility except the mo- 
 ral responsibility which has heretofore 
 proved totally ineffectual. 
 
 Mr. Eustis had no objections to any 
 coercive measure to inforce the making of 
 future apportionments, provided the con- 
 stitutionality of the laws themselves were 
 not put at issue by declaring the incompe- 
 tency of the legislature. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad thought that the ob- 
 ligation of an oath administered to the 
 members of the legislature, together with 
 
 the desire to enhance the political power 
 of the sections of country which they re- 
 presented, would be'sufficient to insure the 
 making of the apportionments. The ses- 
 sion of the legislature was limited to six- 
 ty days, and we have been more than one 
 month in making an apportionment with 
 which no one is satisfied. How much 
 would it require for a legislature, composed 
 of two bodies, and whose combined action 
 would have .to be sanctioned by the execu- 
 tive, to perform a similar task ? When 
 we take into consideration the shortness 
 of the period, the spirit of party, local feel- 
 ings and personal aspirations, it will be 
 seen that the period allotted may interpose 
 an insuperable obstacle. «This attempt to 
 to constrain the action of the legislature 
 reminds one of the practice at Rome for 
 the election of a new pope. The cardi- 
 nals are shut up in their cells until an elec- 
 tion be made. In a similar spirit our le- 
 gislators are to be shut up and to remain 
 without any legislative capacity to make 
 laws, until they have first made the appor- 
 tionment. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff renewed the proposition 
 of Mr. M. Taylor. 
 
 Mr. M. Taylor moved to strike out all 
 between the words "after the census" and 
 "this rule." 
 
 Mr. Downs said that if this portion of 
 the clause was struck out it wouid be left 
 at the discretion of the legislature, and 
 thirty years experience taught us that that 
 was bad policy. 
 
 Mr. M. Taylor participated partly in 
 the views of Mr. Downs, and thought it 
 would suffice to apply the clause to those 
 years in which an apportionment should 
 be made. 
 
 Mr. Porter said as the Convention had 
 fixed a basis, there was nothing to impede 
 the action of the legislature. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff expressed a regret that he 
 was not present when a similar clause was 
 passed for the lower house. We have 
 here the opportunity of judging of the ob- 
 stacles which embarrass the making oran 
 apportionment. What will it be with a 
 house composed of ninety-eight members 
 and a senate composed of thirty-two, which 
 bodies will have to determine the very same 
 question that we have been discussing for 
 the last month? The absence of seventeen 
 of the senators will suffice to suspend the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 657 
 
 action of the legislature, and for the fault 
 of the latter you punish all the citizens of 
 the State, stop the laws, and arrest all ne- 
 cessary appropriations. Is that just? 
 No one among us will pretend to say that 
 it is. Punish the legislature in depriving 
 them of their per diem; but do not punish 
 the people — do not stop the wheels of go- 
 vernment in order to compel the legislature 
 to do its duty. 
 
 Mr. Bexjaxix said that he saw he was 
 wrong in having voted for a similar clause 
 in the apportionment for the house of re- 
 presentatives. The argument of the dele- 
 gate from Feliciana (Mr. Ratliff) had con- 
 vinced him. 
 
 Mr. Beatty said that he would vote for 
 this clause because he was convinced that 
 the other clause was wise and salutary. 
 Tb| question was taken on Mr. Ratlifl* ! s 
 proposition, and it was rejected. 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Burton, Cade, 
 Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Eus. 
 tis, Hudspeth, Ledoux, Lewis, Marigny, 
 Mayo, Mazureau, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, Roman, Sel- 
 lers, Soule and Splane voted in the affirm- 
 ative — 22 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Carriere, Chambiiss, Covillion, Cul- 
 bertson, Downs, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, 
 McCallop, O'Biyan, Peets, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles. Preston, Read. Roselius, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of [Madison, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Waddill, 
 Wedsretrandt, Wikoff and Winder voted 
 in the negative — 28 nays: consequently 
 the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption offered the 
 following substitute: 
 
 " In all future apportionments of the sen- 
 ate, the State shall be divided into sixteen 
 districts. The city of New Orleans shall 
 be divided so as to form two distiicts. The 
 population of the city of New Orleans 
 shall be deducted from the population of 
 the whole State, and the remainder of the 
 population divided by the number four- 
 teen, and the quotient produced by this 
 division shall be the representative number 
 entitling a senatorial district to two sena- 
 tors. Single or contiguous parishes shall 
 be formed into districts, in such manner as 
 to have a population the nearest possible to' 
 the representative number. After the cen- 
 sus has been taken, and the general assem- 
 
 bly convened, the legislature shall not pass 
 any law until an apportionment is made." 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, said that 
 his object in presenting the foregoing sub- 
 stitute, was to test the sense of the house 
 as to uniformity in the system of organiza- 
 tion for the senate. It follows from the 
 section to which I have offered this as a 
 substitute, that the legislature will estab- 
 lish single districts, and my design is to 
 ascertain whether the sense of the house 
 is not in favor of double districts. The 
 Convention will perceive that, by adopting 
 my proposition, they will simplify the pro- 
 cess of apportionment, and make it more 
 equal. For example, take the districts of 
 Iberville and West Baton Rouge on one 
 side, and the district of Point Coupee on 
 the other; it is clear that there is here ine- 
 quality. Inequality will exist as the result 
 of single districts ; whereas, if you adopt the 
 principles of double districts there will be 
 greater uniformity and less equality. Ac- 
 cordingly, by uniting the parishes of Avoy- 
 elles and Rapides in a double district, there 
 will be little or no fraction left, in allowing 
 them two senators. At present, Rapides 
 with an excedent of population, and Avoy- 
 elles with a deficiency of population, are 
 assigned respectively, one senator. There 
 is one striking inequality, and similar ine- 
 qualities will be found in most cases where 
 single districts have been established. A 
 question of order here arose. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff contended that the propo- 
 sition of Mr. Taylor was not in order. 
 
 The President decided that it was in 
 order. 
 
 Mr. Bexjaznifv said he would vote in 
 vavor of this proposition, because be' pre- 
 fered large districts. It was true that, if 
 it prevailed he would be under the neces- 
 sity of consenting to the division* of the city 
 into two districts; and although he was in- 
 vincibly opposed to such a division, as he 
 was to all exceptionable measures towards 
 the city, as if she were the paria of the 
 State; he would vote fortius proposition be- 
 cause at least it was general in its charac- 
 ter. 
 
 Mr. Caiborxe would vote against the 
 proposition, because he considered the di- 
 vision of the city as an injustice, and be- 
 cause that division w 7 ould stimulate an op- 
 position among races which he wished to 
 be buried in oblivion. If the city were to 
 
658 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 be divided it were better it were divided 
 according to its municipal regulations. 
 
 On the motion of Mr. Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, for the adoption of the above substi- 
 tute, the yeas and nays being called for, 
 resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg,Briant, 
 Cenas, Conrad of Orleans, Eustis, Hud- 
 speth, Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Pres 
 cott of St. Landry, Pugh, Roman, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Winchester and Winder voted 
 in the affirmative — 17 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Clai- 
 borne, Covillion, Culbertson, Downs, Gar- 
 rett, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, McCallop, 
 Marigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescottof Avoyelles, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 RatlifF, Read, Roselius, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Soule, Splane, 
 Stephens, Waddill, Wederstrandt and Wi- 
 koff voted in the negative— 36 nays; con- 
 sequently the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to amend by adding 
 after the word "legislature" in the twenty- 
 eighth line, the words "to pass any laws 
 after the first forty days of the session;" 
 which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved for the previous ques- 
 tion. 
 
 The President put the question, " shall 
 the main question be now puu" which 
 motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans, moved to 
 amend by striking out from the third para- 
 graph the words " or to exceed." The 
 yeas and nays being called for, resulted 
 as follows, viz: 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Briant, Ce- 
 nas, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Eus- 
 tis, Hudspeth, Legendre, Mazureau, Pugh, 
 Ratliff, Roman, Roselius, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Winchester and Winder voted in 
 the affirmative— 17 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Covillion, Downs, Garrett, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Ledoux, Lewis, McCallop, Mayo, O'- 
 Brvan, Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Prud- 
 homme, Read, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Soule, Splane, Stephens, 
 Waddill, Wederstrandt and Wikoff voted 
 in the negati ve — 34 nays; consequently the 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to strike out from 
 
 the sixteenth line the word "may," and in- 
 sert in lieu thereof the word " shall." The 
 yeas and nays, being called for, resulted as 
 follows: 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Briant, 
 Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Hud- 
 speth, Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Pugh, 
 Roman, Roselius, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the affir- 
 mative — 17 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Co- 
 villion, Downs, Eustis, Garrett, Humble, 
 Hynson, Ledoux, McCallop, Mayo, 0*. 
 Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescottof Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Prud- 
 homme, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Soule, Splane, 
 Stephens, Waddill, Wederstrandt and Wi- 
 koff voted in the negative — 34 nays; con- 
 sequently the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Brent gave notice that he would> 
 on to-morrow, move a reconsideration of 
 the vote given on Mr. Benjamin's amend- 
 ment, to insert one-fifth instead of one- 
 third. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved for the adoption of 
 the section as amended, viz: 
 
 " In all future apportionments of the sen- 
 ate the population of the city of New Or- 
 leans shall be deducted from the population 
 of the whole State, and the remainder of 
 the population divided by the number twen- 
 ty-eight, and the quotient or result produ- 
 ced by this division shall be the popula- 
 tion entitling a parish to a senator. Sin- 
 gle or contiguous parishes shall be formed 
 into districts having a population the near- 
 est possible to the number entitling a dis- 
 trict to a senator; and if, in the apportion- 
 ment to be made, a parish or district be 
 found to be deficient of or to exceed one- 
 fifth the ratio, then a district may be form- 
 ed having not more than two senators, but 
 not otherwise. No new apportionment 
 shall have the effect of abridging the term 
 of service of any senator already elected at 
 the time of making the apportionment, and 
 after the census has been taken and the 
 general assembly convened, the legislature 
 shall not pass any laws until the apportion- 
 ment be made. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the adoption of the above section as amend- 
 ed, resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 
Debates in the Convention ot Louisiana, 
 
 65$ 
 
 Biumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cham- 
 bliss, Coviilion, Downs, Garrett, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Lewis, McCal- 
 lop, Mayo, O'Biyan, Peets, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles. Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Prudhomme, Pugh, RatlifF, Read, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sel- 
 lers, Souie, Splane, Stephens, Waddill, 
 Wederstrandt, Wikoff and Winchester vo- 
 ted in the affirmative — 39 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin. Briant, Cenas, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Eustis, Legen- 
 dre, Mazureau. Roman. Roselius, Taylor 
 of Assumption and Winder voted in the nega- 
 tive — 12 nays : consequently the motion 
 was carried, and the section as amended 
 was adopted. 
 
 On motion the Convention adjourned till 
 live o'clock this evening. 
 
 Monday Evextxg, April 14, 1345. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 At ten minutes after 5 o'clock, Mr. 
 Brext moved for a call of the house — 36 
 members present. 
 
 After a quarter of an hour had elapsed, 
 Mr. Brext moved for a call of the house — 
 39 members present. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Souxe, the Conven- 
 tion then adjourned for the want of a quo- 
 rum, till to-morrow at 10 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Tuesday, April 15, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment, and its proceedings were open- j 
 ed with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Brext moved that the names of ab- ! 
 sent members at the call of the roll be pub. : 
 iished in the public papers. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff said that these publica- | 
 tions would swell the volume of journals 
 to a great extent; they were already very . 
 voluminous; yesterday the journals were 
 of twenty. one pages of foolscap. Besides 
 he doubted whether any .good would re- 
 sult from this publication of the names of i 
 absentees. It would not lose those gentle- ; 
 men who fail to attend a single vote, I 
 were they candidates before ihe people. 
 In his own instance as a member of the ! 
 house of representatives he had been most ' 
 punctual and assiduous in his attendance, 
 and it happened that his colleagues were 
 not as punctual; and yet he never could 
 discern that it made any difference, ex- 
 
 [eept he was sure to get the blame if any- 
 thing went wrong. 
 
 Mr. Brext differed from the delegate 
 i from West Feliciana in opinion. He 
 thought it at least proper and expedient 
 I that the people should be instructed into 
 the causes which retard this Conveution 
 in the accomplishment of foe duty assigned 
 it. If it did not procure a more punctual 
 attendance, it would at least place the re- 
 sponsibility where it ought to be. 
 
 The question was taken and decided in 
 the affirmative — yeas 39, nays 7. 
 
 Mr. Brext moved to reconsider that 
 portion of the section upon apportionment, 
 which required that a parish having one- 
 third over or under the divisor should be 
 entitled to a senator. The paragraph had 
 j been amended by Mr. Benjamin so as to 
 require one-fourth. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said that the only motion in 
 order, was to reconsider the whole section. 
 
 Mr. Coxrad of Orleans, expressed op- 
 position to the whole section. 
 
 3Ir. Ratliff inquired what would be 
 the effect of this motion to reconsider. 
 Would the house have to go over the same 
 ground? 
 
 3Ir. Brext: I call the gentleman to or- 
 der. The motion to reconsider is not dis- 
 cussable. 
 
 The question was taken on the motion to 
 reconsider and it was lost. 
 
 The Convention then took up the third 
 section of the second article. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to lay said article on 
 the table until the Convention reached the 
 general provisions. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to take it up and fill 
 the blank with 1S45. 
 
 Mr. Dowxs thought it rather premature 
 to act upon it now. It would be better to 
 lay it over until the Convention had reach- 
 ed the general provisions, where it would 
 more appropriately come up. It was laid 
 over. 
 
 Mr. Read moved that the Convention 
 take up sections eleven, twelve and thir- 
 teen of the report of the legislative com- 
 mittee, which motion prevailed. 
 
 Sec 11. At the session of the general 
 assembly after this constitution takes effect, 
 the senators shall be divided by lot, as 
 equally as may be, into two classes; the 
 seats of the senators of the first class shall 
 be vacated at the expiration of the second 
 
660 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 year, of the second class at the expiration 
 of the fourth year; so that one-half shall 
 be chosen every two years, and a rotation 
 thereby kept up perpetually. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, proposed an 
 amendment to the following effect: 
 
 That in case a district should elect two 
 or more senators, the seats of those sena- 
 tors shall be vacated at the expiration of 
 two or four years, and lots shall be drawn 
 for that purpose. 
 
 The amendment was concurred in, and 
 the section as amended was passed. 
 
 Sec. 12. " No person shall be a sena- 
 tor who, at the time of his election, has not 
 been a citizen of the United States ten 
 years, and who hath not attained the age 
 of twenty-seven years, and resided in the 
 State four years next preceding his elec- 
 tion, and one year in the district in which 
 he may be chosen." 
 Mr. Read offered the following substitute: 
 
 "That every qualified voter shall be eli- 
 ble to the senate." 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, moved to lay 
 said substitute on the table, and called for 
 the yeas and nays— 29 yeas and 20 nays. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne called for the adoption 
 of the section. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to- insert "twenty- 
 five" in place of "twenty-seven." 
 
 And Mr. Conrad moved "thirty" in 
 place of "twenty-seven." 
 
 But subsequently they withdrew their 
 propositions. 
 
 The section was then adopted. 
 
 Sec. 13. "The first election for sena- 
 tors shall be general throughout the State, 
 and at the same time that the general elec- 
 tion for representatives is held; and there-, 
 after there shall be a biennial election for 
 senators to fill the places of those whose 
 time of service may have expired." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Read, the house then 
 took up the following section of article 2d. 
 
 Sec. 23. " No person, while he contin- 
 ues to exercise the functions of a clergy- 
 man, priest, or teacher of • any religious 
 persuasion, society, or sect, shall be eligi- 
 ble to the general assembly, or to any 
 office of profit or trust under this State." 
 
 M. Mayo would simply remark that, 
 upon reference to the constituti@ns of other 
 States, it would be seen that in eighteen 
 States there was no such restriction; in 
 Bine States the clergymen were excluded 
 
 from some offices; and there were but three 
 States, including Louisiana, in which there 
 was a total disqualification imposed upon 
 them. He would move to lay the section 
 indefinitely on the table. 
 
 The question was then taken on Mr. 
 Mayo's motion, and it was lost — yeas 22 
 nays 30. 
 
 Mr. Mayo then moved to amend the 
 section. 
 
 Mr. Preston would simply remark that 
 the restriction in the old constitution was 
 certainly going too far. According to it, 
 there could be no chaplain under the. 
 authority of the State in the army. He 
 trusted that, at least, the present section 
 would be modified. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson would vote for the 
 first part of the section, but not for the lat- 
 ter. He moved "or to any office of trust 
 or profit under the authority of the State" 
 be stricken out. 
 
 Mr. Lewis did not wish to argue the 
 subject again. By a clause already adopt- 
 ed, clergymen were excluded from the office 
 of governor; and now by the present sec- 
 tion they are not only to be excluded from 
 the legislature, but from all offices of trust 
 and profit under the State. He considered 
 this exclusion to be odious; although per- 
 sonally he was as little inclined to take a 
 clergyman from his secular duties, and put 
 him into a political office, as any member 
 on this floor; still, there should be no disa- 
 bility in reference to clergymen, nor any 
 restraint upon the will of the people, if they 
 should think proper to elevate them to those 
 offices. 
 
 The amendment was carried; and the 
 section as amended was then adopted. 
 
 M. Taylor of Assumption, moved the 
 additional section, offered by him two 
 months ago, defining the acquisition of and 
 continuance of residence necessary to 
 qualify an elector. 
 
 Mr. Porter would suggest a longer pe- 
 riod of time. He thought the time speci- 
 fied in the section was too short; this was a 
 new country, and it was desirable to en- 
 courage population. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption had no ob- 
 jection to any amendment proposed by the 
 house. The provision was necessary to 
 ascertain who were citizens and who were 
 not citizens; otherwise the commissioners 
 of election would be without an uniform 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 661 
 
 rule, and would differ in their constructions 
 of the fulfilment of the constitutional requi- 
 sition upon residence. I am willing that 
 the section should be so amended as to re- 
 fer to the acquisition of residence; after 
 which it should have no effect. 
 
 Mr. Lewis'^wouM suggest that it be so 
 worded as to say that it should inter- 
 rupt the acquisition of residence." 
 
 Mr. Ratliff: I would move that the 
 word "exclusively" be struck out. It 
 might happen that the house might not be 
 e xclusively occupied hy one family. 
 
 The section was modified so as to de- 
 clare that an absence of sixty days should 
 interrupt the acquisition of residence. 
 
 Mr. Culbertsox was opposed to so 
 short a period as sixty days; it was not 
 time enough. As I understand the section 
 it means this, that after the person has 
 exhibited his intention to become a citizen 
 of Louisiana, and has resided among us for 
 twenty-two months, if he were compelled 
 lo absent himself, and be unable to return 
 before the expiration of sixty days, he would 
 he compelled to recommence, d-e novo, his 
 residence to acquire citizenship: and would 
 have to remain two years consecutively, 
 without reference to his former residence, 
 which would count for nothing. That ap- 
 pears to me to be too hard. I would not 
 object to his losing the benefit of the period 
 for which he might be absent: but after a 
 man may have resided in Louisiana for two 
 summers, to expunge that residence be- 
 cause he has not completed the term of 
 two years, is what I cannot well consent to. 
 I would rather say six months; at any rate 
 four months. I can see no harm that 
 would result from extending the time. We 
 have among us a very valuable class of 
 the community who have no wives nor 
 children, and who are not housekeepers, 
 and who absent themselves during the 
 summer, and go to the north or to Europe. 
 They could not very well return in sixty 
 days, more especially as an epedemic 
 might be prevailing. 
 
 Mr. Mayo would state the reasons why 
 he could not give his sanction to the sec- 
 tion. It appeared to him to be an attempt 
 to change the law of domicil. The civil 
 code determined this matter in an explicit 
 and positive manner, and its provisions can 
 be as well understood by the commission- 
 84 
 
 ers of election, as this section. It would 
 have no other effect than to confuse those 
 officers, and unsettle the uniformity of their 
 decisions. At any rate, he conceived it 
 did not properly come up in this place, 
 and if it were to be inserted any 
 where, it ought to be inserted in the 
 general provisions. The delegate from 
 Attakapas (Mr. Voorhies) had introduced 
 a similar provision, w T hich had been laid 
 upon the table until the general provisions 
 came up, both that provision and the pres- 
 ent one might be discussed in connection. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taulor would not discuss 
 the merits of the proposition. But would 
 simply remark that the delegate from Cata- 
 houla (Mr. Mayo) labored under a serious 
 misapprehension as to there being any con- 
 flict between the section and the disposi- 
 tions of the civil code on the subject of do- 
 micil. The dispositions of the code as to 
 domicil, referred to a civil right, and were 
 intended to define what particular judicial 
 process was applicable to particular cases 
 The present section referred to a differen, 
 matter. It denned a political right, whic/i 
 related to the qualification of electors. 
 What connection could there be between 
 a matter affecting the elective franchise 
 and the civil right of domicil, I cannot, said 
 Mr. Taylor, discover. As to this particu- 
 lar portion of the constitution not being the 
 proper place for the section, 1 differ from 
 the gentleman. I think there is a neces- 
 sary connection between it and the dispo- 
 sitions preceding it. If the house are dis- 
 posed to adopt it, it is proper they should 
 do so now, and if they are disposed to re- 
 ject it, they might as well reject it now 
 as at any other time. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. Mayo's 
 motion to lay on the table, and it was lost. 
 
 The question recurring on Mr. Culbert- 
 son's motion to extend the period to four 
 months, 
 
 Mr. Gulbertsox said he had conversed 
 with gentlemen who were better judges 
 than he considered himself to be, and at 
 their suggestion he was willing to modify 
 his motion, and to make the period ninety 
 days. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans, renewed 
 the proposition for four months. He 
 thought the provision unnecessarily rigor- 
 ous; if the absence were not in the cdhP 
 
662 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 putation, he would have no objection. But 
 he had serious objections to so short a pe- 
 riod as ninety days. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. C. M. 
 Conrad's motion, and it was lost; yeas 23, 
 nays 24. 
 
 Mr. Lewis then proposed ninety days. 
 His motion prevailed, and the question be- 
 ing on the final adoption of the section, 
 
 Mr. Preston said he had had great 
 hopes that the amendment would have 
 been rejected. It appeared to him that 
 there were sufficient restrictions upon the 
 acquisition of citizenship already in Lou- 
 isiana; we had certainly guarded our doors 
 with a great many precautions. This ad- 
 ditional restriction was calculated to do a 
 great deal of injustice. He presumed such 
 was not the design of the Convention; and 
 had they anticipated that injustice would 
 have resulted in a single instance, they 
 would not have done it. This provision 
 was particularly objectionable, because it 
 would operate harshly upon a large and 
 valued class of the community. It would 
 disqualify the carpenters and engineers that 
 were employed upon plantations — they 
 were not house-keepers, but lived with 
 their employers — they would therefore fall 
 under the restriction. There were other 
 mechanics too that lived with their em- 
 ployers, and they would share the same 
 fate. In the hot season, the mechanic 
 might think fit to recreate himself by going 
 from Concordia, from Carroll, to the up- 
 lands of Mississippi. Was he to be de- 
 prived of his right to become a citizen 
 by a tempory sojourn of sixty or ninety 
 days out of the State? There were school- 
 masters too in Ouachita, in Natchitoches 
 and elsewhere, that in the usual vacation 
 would wish to visit the springs of Arkan- 
 sas to recruit their" health from the effect 
 of their sedentary employment. Should 
 they be debarred that privilege under 
 the penalty of loosing the benefit of their 
 residence? It seemed to him, to make use 
 of a vulgar expression, to be taking a snap 
 judgment upon these individuals. There 
 was not a State in the Union where simi- 
 lar restrictions could be found upon the ac- 
 quisition of residence. There were hun- 
 dreds of persons who for six or eight 
 months of the year, toiled and struggled 
 for the benefit of the State, and for the de- 
 velopment of its resources, who had no 
 
 families, and who lived in the numerous 
 private boarding houses conducted by wid- 
 ows in this city, because they found it more 
 convenient; who, after the hurly-burly of 
 the business'season was over, took a trip to 
 the north, to Europe, to Beloxi, to Pass 
 Christian, or to Pascagoula. Are we not 
 about to perpetrate an act of injustice to 
 limit the absence of these persons to sixty 
 or ninety days? There were laborers too 
 that toiled in their useful occupations, ten 
 months in the year, that were employed in 
 gardening, in mechanical establishments, 
 in our foundries— and I trust that these use- 
 ful establishments will continue to increase- 
 who get moderate board at fifteen dollars 
 per month, and who may desire to sus- 
 pend their labors — they may ascend the 
 Mississippi — they may go to Texas — to 
 Arkansas, <to any place they may choose, 
 but is it right to say that a penalty of civil 
 disability shall be pronounced against 
 them? I would ask gentlemen, if it is 
 right to attach such a penalty, if an over- 
 seer, who is unwell, should go over from 
 the parishes of Calcasieu and Sabine into 
 Texas, for the recovery of his health? For 
 God sake, let us be done with these re- 
 strictions. They emenate only from an 
 unworthy spirit of jealousy, that should 
 find no place in our bosoms. They can do 
 no good. Let us leave the matter of resi- 
 dence to be fixed and determined by the 
 legislature, to whom it properly belongs. 
 I trust the section will be rejected. 
 
 Mr. Mayo would suggest to the delegate 
 from Jefferson (Mr. Preston) that the mo- 
 tion to reject was an equivalent question. 
 If it failed, the section would be adopted. 
 
 Mr. Preston: I will then move to lay 
 the section indefinitely on the table. 
 
 Mr. Beatty would offer a substitute, 
 that the legislature be vested with the pow. 
 er of passing laws defining the mode oi 
 acquiring the residence required by the 
 constitution. It miget be inferred that the 
 legislature had the power without a spe- 
 cific clause to that effect; but in order to 
 prevent any doubt it was better perhaps, 
 to provide such a clause. 
 
 Mr. Humble renewed the motion to lay 
 the section indefinitely on the table. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for; yeas: 
 20, nays 34. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne said he had voted 
 against laying on the table, not because he 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 603 
 
 was disposed to sanction ninety days, but 
 with the view, if possible, of amending 
 the section so as to extend the period to 
 four months. He thought ninety days too 
 short. On the one hand, he did not wish 
 to restrict the right of suffrage, and on the 
 other hand, he did not wish to encourage 
 absenteeism, which was an evil that had 
 become too prevalent. The State wanted 
 all her good citizens. He wished to re- 
 press this tendency to absenteeism, but at 
 the same time, he did not wish to impose 
 a rigorous provision. It so happened that 
 he had been called to the chair when the 
 question was taken upon the amendment 
 substituting ninety days, and he did not 
 vote upon the question. He would have 
 voted against the amendment, and that 
 would have made a tie vo:e. He would 
 trrerefore request some member who had 
 voted in the majority, to move the recon- 
 sideration, in order that he might propose 
 to substitute four months for ninety days. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad hoped that the mo- 
 tion for reconsideiation would be made, 
 and that the further consideration of the 
 subject would be postponed until to-mor- 
 row. 
 
 Mr. Beatty offered the following sub- 
 stitute: 
 
 That the legislature shall have the pow- 
 er to pass laws, defining how citizenship 
 may be acquired and lost. 
 
 Mr. M. Taylor would not argue the 
 question. He would remark merely, that 
 to his judgment the constitution ought to 
 define every thing essential to the exercise 
 of suffrage: if the legislature were to be en- 
 trusted with a discretionary power, that 
 power might be exercised materially to af- 
 fect the right of suffrage and to abridge it. 
 
 Mr. Beatty argued, that if there was a 
 constitutional provision upon this matter, 
 it might operate badly, and if that was the 
 result, there would be no immediate means 
 available to change that provision. But if 
 it wore left with the legislature they would 
 provide such remedies against fraud and for 
 the protection of the ballot box as experi- 
 ence might suggest, and if there was any 
 defect m the legislation that might be ap- 
 plied, they could change that legislation. 
 Moreover, a constitutional provision upon 
 the subject might be interpreted differently 
 by different officers, and lead to a oreat 
 deal of confusion and difficulty. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin was of opinion that the 
 section involved a qustion of domicil, that 
 ought not to be decided in the constitution. 
 It was a question peculiarly complicated — 
 there were a thousand circumstances con- 
 nected with it, that would have more or 
 less weight in its proper decision. The 
 fact, whether a man had a family or not. 
 was material in determining whether he 
 had his domicil or not in the State. A 
 man might have all his interests at the 
 north — have his family residing there — and 
 be, as is familiarly termed, ?* a bird of pas- 
 sage;*' if the question were asked, no one 
 would determine him to be a citizen of 
 Louisiana. Another man, who was un- 
 married, and had become identified by resi- 
 dence with our southern institutions, would 
 be considered a citizen of Louisiana. The 
 point at issue would turn upon some fact, 
 some particular circumstance, that would 
 induce a judge or a jury to determine 
 whether a man was a citizen of Louisiana 
 or not. This question of domicil was con- 
 sidered to be a very intricate matter by 
 law writers. The C. Code, the Napoleon 
 Code, and the Conflict of Laws, all testi- 
 fied to the same fact. Many circumstan- 
 ces had to be taken into view before deter- 
 mining: it. It was impossible to make a 
 
 constitution 
 
 ig every particular 
 
 shade of difference. It belonged to the 
 judiciary ^to determine these questions. 
 He was in favor of the substitute offered 
 by the delegate from Lafourche, (Mr. 
 Beatty.) He thought the legislature ought 
 to have charge of this matter, and that 
 they ought to be trusted. The constitu- 
 tion prescribes the general principle that 
 there shall be a residence of two years — 
 leave it to the legislature to carry out the 
 details. If you can't trust your legislature, 
 (continued Mr. Benjamin) whom can you 
 trust? The legislature were more fit to 
 have the control. If they make any omis- 
 sions, or any bad consequences should 
 flow from what they may do, it will be in 
 their powerto remedy their own acts. The 
 legislature were the proper body — let us 
 delegate to them the authority. He would 
 say no more, as this subject had already 
 been spun out to a great length, but would 
 only remark, that if we continued to take 
 up our time with ordinary questions of le- 
 ! gislation, there w r ould be no end to the la* 
 bors of this body. 
 
604 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Mr. M. Taylor regretted 1 to differ with 
 the delegate that had just spoken, upon a 
 question of so much importance. I confess 
 (said Mr. T.) that I cannot agree with him 
 in the slightest respect. Every considera- 
 tion that appears to operate upon him, is 
 an additional reason with me to favor the 
 adoption of the section I think that the 
 course suggested by the gentleman is the 
 most objectionable that the house could 
 take : that the Convention by a solemn 
 vote should expressly delegate to the legis- 
 lature the power of determining what con* 
 stitutes political residence. The gentle- 
 man says that this is an ordinary matter 
 of legislation. I beg leave to differ from 
 him. In my opinion it does not properly 
 appertain to the legislature. He says that 
 the question of domic il is the most difficult 
 question to be resolved in the whole range 
 of our jurisprudence. Admitting such to 
 be the fact, I deny that the question of 
 domicil, as it is legally understood, has any 
 bearing upon the present subject. Domi- 
 cil, as treated of in our statute books, has 
 reference to the particular civil process to 
 which members of the Qommunity shall be 
 subjected — -it involves a question of juris- 
 diction, and defines what particular facts 
 shall invest a man with the ordinary rights 
 and the ordinary burthens of citizenship. 
 There is a material distinction between 
 the rights conferred by civil residence and 
 those conferred by political residence, By 
 civil residence one is entitled to hold pro- 
 perty, to dispose of the same by sale or 
 by other contract, and to transmit it bf wil 
 or by operation of law; it determines who 
 are members of the civil community, amen- 
 able to the courts, subject to the laws, and 
 as subject to these laws, before what pecu- 
 liar, courts they are to be sued^or to bring 
 their actions — at what particular places 
 they are to perform certain contracts. Or- 
 dinary legislation goes no further than that 
 and if in some instances there are some 
 statuiary provisions affecting * political 
 rights, I hold it is a departure from political 
 principle. My views are that any system 
 that permits the legislature to exercise any 
 influence over suffrage is the most vicious 
 that we could adopt. I am decidedly averse 
 that the rights of those claiming the elective 
 franchise should be exposed to the changes 
 of legislation— that the legislature should 
 have the power to extend or limit the right 
 
 of suffrage, or to interfere with it in any 
 manner. I consider that such a power, if 
 conferred either expressly or inferentially, 
 would be most pernicious in its consequen- 
 ces; and that it would convert the legisla- 
 ture into an arena in which the right of 
 suffrage would be subjected to the untoward 
 contiol of political parties. If one par- 
 ticular provision operated to exclude 
 a certain class of persons from voting whose 
 votes might be secured to favor a certain 
 expression of political opinion, the party 
 that expected to be benefitted would labor 
 to obtain the ascendancy in order to sub- 
 serve that design. The evils that would 
 follow from legislative control, should be 
 guarded against by placing the right of suf- 
 frage beyond ordinary legislation. Had 
 the power been conferred by the old con- 
 stitution, the highest considerations of sound 
 policy would have dictated the necessity of 
 withdrawing that power. 
 
 The gentleman (M. Benjamin) has said 
 that the section involves a great many proij 
 positions. I discover but one, and that is 
 that the absence for a particular period 
 shall interrupt residence. This is a dis- 
 tinct proposition, and unless the gentleman 
 takes the exceptions which are the neces* 
 sary consequences of the principle itself, 
 there is no iT^ultiplicity of propositions. It 
 results as a matter of course, that the ques- 
 tion of absence involves some essential facts, 
 such'as whether the individual has been en= 
 gaged in business, whether the premises 
 occupied by him are still retained, whether 
 he leaves behind him his family, or a mem- 
 ber of his family, or a servant in possession 
 of them. In any case, there are but two 
 propositions — -first, as to the fact of absence;; 
 and secondly, whether that absence is ac- 
 companied by some facts that show it to he 
 but temporary, and that the residence in 
 the State is constructively retained, to be 
 actual!}' and personally continued. I caii" 
 not perceive in this any thing vague or un- 
 certain. The section succeeds the requi^ 
 sition that two years' residence shall be in- 
 dispensable to acquire citizenship, and ex- 
 plains how this residence of two years 
 is to be acquired. It is an attempt to make 
 clear and evident, what was before doubt- 
 ful. Without it the question would well 
 arise, what constituted residence ? For a 
 civil residence, the acquisition of domicil, 
 i a constructive residence is only necessary, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 665 
 
 But for a political residence, the residence 
 which confers political rights, an actual 
 residence is required. The distinction be- 
 tween these two kinds of residence are of 
 a great deal of consequence. The legisla- 
 ture have nothing to do, and ought to have 
 nothing to do, with defining political resi- 
 dence. That properly belongs to the con- 
 stitution, as one of the principal conditions 
 of suffrage. The choice of mere domicil 
 depends simply upon the declaration of the 
 person: it is not necessary for him to reside 
 in the parish which he has declared to be 
 his domicil, but persons having contracts 
 to enforce against him are under the neces- 
 sity of proceeding against him at his domi- 
 cil, although he never sets foot there. Our 
 legislature admits of the fact of a man 
 having two domicils — certainly it will not 
 be pretended that he may exercise his po- 
 litical rights in either or in both! If he fail 
 to declare his domicil, and if he resides oc- 
 casionally in two parishes both are consid- 
 ered his domicil, and the courts will allow 
 actions to be brought against him in either. 
 This illustrates the difference between 
 domicil and residence connected with po- 
 litical rights, and shows that there are 
 great objections to entrusting the latter to 
 ordinary legislation. Our system of domi- 
 cil for the exercise of civil rights, are ex- 
 ceedingly vicious. 
 
 Mr. Bexja:>iix would read to the Con- 
 vention the existing laws prescribing how 
 residence was acquired. The law of 1813. 
 Qtr. B. here read the law referred to.) 
 
 Now, Mr. President, (said Mr. Benja- 
 min) under the provision of the existing 
 constitution, to be entitled to the right of 
 suffrage, it required one year's residence 
 and the payment of a State tax. The con- 
 stitution prescribed the term of residence 
 and the tax, but did not point out the mode 
 in which residence should be acquired. 
 The legislature immediately after the adop- 
 tion of the constitution, provided by law 
 for carrying out this provision, and enacted 
 the law which I have just read. Has any 
 difficulty or confusion ever arisen upon the 
 subject ? I know of none ! The delegate 
 from Assumption (Mr. Taylor) has spoken 
 of a distinction between civil residence and 
 political residence. This distinction is 
 unknown to our laws, and the legislature 
 have provided indiscriminately for both 
 under the constitution. The law prescribes 
 
 how residence is acquired and lost. It is 
 true that during elections, during periods of 
 high political excitement, some contests 
 have arisen upon the requisition of one 
 year's residence. Whether it should be a 
 consecutive residence for the whole year, 
 without quitting the State for a moment, or 
 whether a temporary absence on business 
 or pleasure could effect the actual resi- 
 dence. The question has arisen at elec- 
 tions, whether a person going for recrea- 
 tion to Pass Christian, had lost his resi= 
 dence, and whether by crossing from Yi- 
 dalia to Natchez, residence could be lost, 
 Different interpretations on such occasions, 
 have been given to the law. The supreme 
 court have decided that it was sufficient to 
 continue residence, if the person absenting 
 himself had left any indication of his inten- 
 tion to return. The subject is open to a 
 thousand exceptions, and there is no way of 
 providing for them by any general consti- 
 tutional rule. Suppose a man was to buy 
 a house and have all his interests in the 
 city, and yet periodically, every summer, 
 should choose to absent himself with his 
 family and go to the Virginia Springs, and 
 instead of leaving a servant in charge of his 
 house, should lock it up and carry the key 
 with him. Would it be said that he had 
 forfeited his residence? that he was d^u 
 qualified from political privileges? We 
 cannot foresee all the exceptions that may 
 arise. It is, therefore, better to commit the 
 subject to the discretion of the legislature. 
 It has been exercised by the legislature for 
 thirty years, and no detriment has been the 
 result. Residence has never been a polit- 
 ical question, except at the ballot box, 
 where it has been raised to exclude the 
 votes of individuals supposed to be favora- 
 ble to the one or the other of the political 
 parties. But constitutional provisions, 
 however minute they were, and they 
 would have to be minute to embrace the 
 whole subject, would be exposed to differ- 
 ent construction under similar circum- 
 stances ; and the only difference in fact 
 would be, that the evils found to exist 
 would in the one case be readily obviated, 
 while in the other they would be perma- 
 nent. It was better the question remained 
 where it properly belonged, to the repre- 
 sentatives of the people, fresh from the 
 people, and reflecting the will of the 
 people ! 
 
666 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Mr. Downs called for the previous ques- 
 tion, and it was sustained. Yeas 45 
 nays 10. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor, at the request of 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, moved for the re- 
 consideration of that part of the section 
 limiting the period of absence to ninety 
 days. 
 
 Mr. Conrad': I consider the provisions 
 of this section as another yellow fever 
 qualification ! 
 
 The question was taken on the recon- 
 sideration, and it was decided in the nega- 
 tive; yeas 25, nays 32. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad: I am opposed to the 
 section, but inasmuch as the majority are 
 in its favor, I would suggest to them the pro- 
 priety of making it as clear and as unam- 
 biguous in language as possible. I would 
 therefore suggest, that the word "consecu- 
 tive" be placed before the word "ninety 
 days." 
 
 The house assented to this correction. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad then moved to strike 
 out the words "or mechanical pursuit," 
 which correction was also concurred in. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad moved to strike out 
 the words "by him in such business." 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth saw no necessity for 
 this verbal correction, inasmuch as a per- 
 s<m employed was as much employed in 
 the business of his employer as if he under- 
 stood the business. A carpenter might 
 employ a clerk to represent him in his 
 business while he was absent, although 
 the clerk understood nothing of tongueing 
 and grooving; and it would not be impro- 
 per to say, employed by him in his busi- 
 ness. The clerk was incidentally em- 
 ployed in the business of his employer. 
 However, it was a matter of moonshine, 
 one way or the other, and he did not care 
 about it, but certainly if the carpenter em- 
 ployed a person in his shop, that person 
 had something to do with the shop. 
 
 Mr. Conrad said that one might be em- 
 ployed to take care of an establishment; to 
 protect the residence of the proprietor, 
 without being employed in his business. 
 
 Mr. Lewis called for the previous ques- 
 tion. 
 
 The words "in such business," were 
 struck out. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne said he would have pre- 
 ferred four months to ninety days. But 
 inasmuch as the section only had reference 
 
 to the acquisition of residence, he would 
 vote for it. 
 
 The question was taken, and the yeas 
 and nays called for— yeas 34, nays 31. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, gave notice 
 that he would call up his proposition upon 
 suffrage, on Thursday next. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, the Conven- 
 tion proceeded to the consideration of the 
 formation of the judiciary department. 
 
 REPORT OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COM- 
 MITTEE. 
 
 Sec. 1. The judicial power shall be 
 vested in a supreme court, in district 
 courts to be established throughout the 
 State, in justices of the peace, and such 
 other courts in the city of New Orleans as 
 the legislature may from time to time di- 
 rect. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff proposed to substitute ar- 
 ticle one of the report of the minority com- 
 mittee, which is in the following terms: 
 
 Sec. 1. The judiciary power of the 
 State shall be vested in one supreme court, 
 in district courts, and in such inferior 
 courts as may be established by law. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff: It will be seen by the re- 
 port of the majority, that the transition from 
 district courts is to justices of the peace. 
 The city, however, has been excluded 
 from the operations of the provision, and it 
 only is to apply to the country. I think 
 that this transition is not expedient, and I 
 cannot concur in adopting a rule for the 
 benefit of the city, which is not extended 
 to the country. I think that sound consid- 
 erations of policy dictate that the legisla- 
 ture should be vested with a discretionary 
 power in the establishment of courts 
 which the exigencies of the country may 
 require, and to modify the system that may 
 be adopted, as experience shall suggest. I 
 would prefer to hold on to the old consii- 
 tution, because it gives to the legislature a 
 control over the matter, and does not bind 
 us to a system that may prove detrimentai 
 to the best interests of the country. We 
 should consider that what might answer 
 to-day, may not answer hereafter. The 
 country is in a state of progress, and cir- 
 cumstances may arise which may render 
 legislative interposition necessary. If you 
 tie up the hands of the legislature, you 
 make them impotent, and you may entail 
 upon the country a system which you may 
 hereafter have cause to regret. We have 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 667 
 
 some experience; we have a system which, j of the government shall- be vested in the 
 although it may not be free from abuses, is governor. The legislature cannot transfer 
 open to amendment. Let us prune away from the executive department any of its 
 the excrescences, wherever we rind them, power, and vest it elsewhere. You 
 but do not let us cut away the system to have decided in what bodies the legislative 
 which we are accustomed, and build up department shall be vested: they are inde- 
 one, which after all may be good, but the pendent of the executive, and he cannot di- 
 benencial results are only conjectural, minish trie power of one branch to increase 
 That the supreme courts should be estab- the power of the other. You have said 
 lished constitutionally is proper enough, that the power to make laws shall be • ex- 
 but for the inferior tribunals, it seems to elusively vested in the senate and house of 
 me that it would be the part of wisdom to representatives, and shall be exercised only 
 place their establishment to the best judg- by them. Hence it is clear that no part of 
 ment and discretion of the legislature. We the legislative power can be transferred to 
 shall not have fulfilled our duties, if instead any other. It is fixed: it is irrevocable as 
 of improving the present* system, we shall long as the constitution endures. With re- 
 inflict upon the people another, of which gard to the class of officers by whom the 
 thev mav complain, and from the thraldom legislative power is to be exercised, they 
 of which it will be impossible for them to are enumerated in the constitution. Why 
 obtain immediate relief. '■ not the same principle for the other depart- 
 
 9fr.Rossi.Tns: As I perceive that the ment of the government — the judiciary de- 
 chairman of the committee (Mr. Grymes) partment? It will scarcely be assumed, I 
 is not in his seat, I deem it my duty, as ' hope, that the judiciary department is not as 
 one of the committee that concurred in the important as the other two. In my humble 
 report; to state the vievf% that actuated the opinion it is the most important. It will 
 majority in presenting their report to the ■ not be contended, I presume, that it is sub- 
 Convention, recommending a scheme or j ordinate, that it is not a co-ordinate depart- 
 project for the judiciary department of the • ment, its power as necessary to the ad- 
 government. They were actuated by ministration of the government as either of 
 what they conceived were correct princi- the others. Therefore I am at a loss to 
 pies, to be embodied in the constitution, conceive what objection can exist to desisr- 
 They assumed for their guidance that there 1 nating the officers in the constitution by 
 were three distinct departments of the gov- : whom that important power of the govem- 
 ernment: three great powers which are in- : ment is to be exercised: powers inhnitely 
 dependent of each other — the executive of more importance than the powers of the 
 department, the legislative department, and other two departments. But gentlemen 
 the judiciary department; that is to say, I may say that we should not divest the le- 
 three powers which should move in their gislature of the power to change the courts 
 proper spheres — in their appropriate or- and establish others. Will it not strike the 
 bits. They should move harmoniously — apprehension of gentlemen, that if the pow- 
 without clashing with each other, and , er be given to the legislature £d change 
 without interfering with each other. If the coims. that it will be perverted to legis- 
 this theory be correct: if it be a sound late judicial officers out of office. This 
 principle of political organization, the con- has, unfortunately, been done on more than 
 sequence is. that in adopting the judiciary ' one occasion, in violation of the constitu- 
 department of the government, we must tion. 
 
 adopt such a department as is independent Under the constitution of the State, or 
 of the executive and of the legislative de- ' the constitution of the United States, the 
 partments. — as independent as those two legislature nor congress have no right to 
 are independent of the judiciary depart- legislate a judge out of office by abolishing 
 ment. And, sir, how is, this to be done, the office. It is an outrageous violation of 
 unless the judicial power be invested in the constitution. If the power be given to 
 certain officers exclusively, whose attri- 1 the legislature to institute one class of ju- 
 butes, and whose duties shall be enumera- dicfal iimctionaries, you make the judges 
 ted in the fundamental law? j dependent upon the legislature: you reduce 
 
 iou have said that the executive power | the judiciary riom is position as a co-ordi* 
 
 4* 
 
668 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 nate branch of the government, into a sub- 
 ordinate, a subservient branch of the go- 
 vernment. It is to prevent this abuse of 
 power that the majority of the committee 
 have suhmitted a system that will lead 
 practically in establishing in the great po- 
 litical, the great fundamental law, the prin- 
 ciple of putting the judiciary beyond the 
 control of the legislative department. The 
 functions of the judiciary are of such a 
 character as to make it necessary that they 
 should protect the constitutional rights of 
 the citizens, when the legislature may have 
 transcended their powers. They have un- 
 pleasent duties to perform. To remove a 
 judge by abolishing a court, what can you 
 expect will be the result? The incumbent 
 will be subjected to the control of the le- 
 gislature, and if he be called to decide 
 whether the legislature have oversteped its 
 legitimate powers and contravened the 
 constitution, will he feel that independence 
 that he ought to feel? The judiciary sys- 
 tem, instead of being a blessing, will be 
 the greatest curse. Any thing but an in- 
 dependent and honest judiciary is the 
 greatest curse which the people can suffer. 
 How can any plan or system be suggested 
 by which its independence may be pre- 
 served, without designating its high func- 
 tionaries? If any such plan or system I 
 will listen to it with defference. The plan 
 of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rat- 
 lifF) will not attain the object. It falls 
 short of any amelioration. It is no im- 
 provement upon the old constitution in any 
 particular, in relation to this subject. The 
 legislature, under the old constitution, have 
 usurped a power which does not belong td 
 them; they have violated the constitution by 
 legislating judges out of office. I need not 
 refer to the particular instances, They 
 have exercised it, and no constitutional 
 lawyer will disagree with me when I as- 
 sert that it was a violation of the constitu- 
 tion. The evil is to be guarded against 
 b}^ providing that there shall be one su- 
 preme court, and district courts under the 
 constitution. That places the judiciary 
 upon the same level; it secures to it the 
 same independence which is guaranteed to 
 the legislature and to the governor. The 
 section offered as a substitute from the re- 
 port of the minority of the committee, pro- 
 poses to leave the control, with the excep- 
 tions of the supreme court, entirely sub= 
 
 ject to the discretion of the legislature, it 
 proposes that the judiciary power of the 
 State shall be vested in one supreme court, 
 in district courts, and in such inferior courts 
 as may be established by law. It i s true 
 that the power is vested in a supreme 
 court, and in district courts not established 
 but which are to be established from time 
 to time by the legislature. But be that as 
 it may, it is conferring a very uncertain 
 power, and infringes a great principle, 
 without which it is impossible that this 
 Convention, or ar>y other similar body, can 
 frame a republican system of government, 
 and that is, there must be three great de- 
 partments of the government independent 
 of each other. If we do not do our duty 
 and give to the judiciary sufficient indepen- 
 dence and efficiency, the people will com- 
 plain. If the judiciary be guilty of dere- 
 lictions, let us point out specifically the 
 manner in which they may be made an- 
 swerable for these derelictions. But do 
 not let me be told that the legislature shall 
 control the judiciary. If you do this, the 
 sooner you give up the idea of framing a 
 constitution for the benefit of your constitu- 
 ents, the better. 
 
 Mr. Read proposed to insert in the first 
 section of the report of the minority, the 
 words "in as many district courts" instead 
 of "district courts." The section would 
 then correspond with the principle conse- 
 craled in the constitutions of the other 
 States. As far as he had examined,' he 
 had not seen a single constitution which 
 sanctioned the principle enunciated in the 
 first section of the report of the majority of 
 the committee. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff had had but little consul- 
 tation in making the proposition which he 
 had the honor to submit. His object was 
 to make the section acceptable to all par- 
 ties. He had no objection to the establish- 
 ment of the supreme court in the constitu- 
 tion. It was a tribunal for the whole 
 State. The gentleman (Mr. Roselius) in 
 speaking of the judicial power, had said 
 that it ought to be placed beyond the con- 
 trol of the legislature. In desiring, said 
 Mr. Ratliff, that the legislature should have 
 the power to create such courts as the pub- 
 lic exigencies may require, I had certainly 
 no intention that these courts once estab- 
 lished should be under the control of the 
 legislature. I wished that the ji%e* 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 669 
 
 should be independent of all such control, 
 and should only be reached by impeach- 
 ments, if they vrere guilty of any malfeis- 
 ance in office. The city has been taken 
 care of; and for her it has been provided 
 that the legislature shall be competent to 
 establish such courts as they think tit. If 
 this provision be necessary tor the city, 
 why is it not necessary for the country 7 
 In a political point ofvjew, the country 
 has been admonished to take care less she 
 be swallowed up, and to keep her hands out 
 of the lion's mouth. I do not apprehend 
 any collision here: but as the same neces- 
 sity may exist for the country that is assu- 
 med to exist for the city, I move that the 
 words in the fourth line, "in the city of 
 New Orleans," be stricken out. 
 
 Mr. Eustis: Success in organizing the 
 judicial department of the government can 
 onlv be insured by moderation, matured 
 consideration and reflection. If the coun- 
 try and city feeling be let loose, we shall 
 have no judiciary worthy of the name — all 
 is lost. I shall offer at the outset some ob- 
 s-rvations for the consideration of the Con- 
 vention. The report of the majority, which 
 may be defective in some particulars, has 
 been elaborately prepared; it has received 
 great reflection, and will receive great re- 
 flection. I would era ve % members who may 
 design to prepare amendments to the sys- 
 tem it suggests, which I do not say is good 
 or bad, to bear in mind tteit it has been 
 submitted after mature, reflection by men 
 who are conversant with the matters in- 
 volved. This is a subject which must be 
 approached with great diffidence, even by 
 those whose professional pursuits and great 
 experience have given them the best oppor- 
 tunities of comprehending it in all its magn 
 
 tud 
 
 e. The gentleman (Mr. RatiifT seems 
 
 to think that there is some favoritism to- 
 wards the city, in excepting her from the 
 provision expressly appointing the courts 
 for the State. I would inform the gentle- 
 man that this proposition came from the 
 country, and I trust that this fact will be 
 sufficient to remove any such impression 
 from his mind. Perhaps the matters of in- 
 formation which I may communicate may 
 be of some service to the Convention in 
 enabling them to appreciate the labors of 
 the committee, I do not propose to debate 
 the subject, I consider it above debate, 
 *e demanding the hignest order of intellect 
 S5 
 
 the highest impartiality and moderation. 
 The gentlemen composing the judiciary 
 committee were actuated by the desire to 
 establish a system for the country at large. 
 This proposition was suggested by two dis- 
 tinguished delegates. The delegate from 
 Ouachita and the delegate from St. Lan- 
 dry. It did not originate with the city. 
 The delegation from the city on the commit- 
 tee acquiesced in it. For God's sake do not 
 throw the city into the matter, and repre- 
 sent the plan as emanating from the city. 
 I crave gentlemen to consider that this 
 pkn may be bad, it may be defective, but 
 do not visit upon it the sin of being of city 
 origin. I should not h*ave offered one word, 
 and would have suffered this preliminary 
 question to be taken, had I not apprehend- 
 ed that the error under which the delegate 
 from Feliciana, labored was participated in 
 by some other members, and I found this a 
 suitable occasion for making a few brief 
 explanations. This plan establishes two 
 distinct courts, a supreme court and dis- 
 ; trict courts throughout th-e State. In rela- 
 tion to the district courts, the reason for 
 their establishment in the constitution is 
 this, that there is a most material differ- 
 ence in the duration of the term of office of 
 the judges. Although in other constitu- 
 tions, and in the constitution of the United 
 States, it is provided that the judicial pow- 
 er shall be invested in one supreme court 
 and such inferior courts as the congress 
 may establish, yet it must be borne in mind 
 that the judges hold their offices for life; 
 whereas the committee have proposed that 
 the judges should hold their offices for a 
 short term of years. It became a matter 
 of necessity that there should be some cer- 
 tainty, some permanence in the svstem, 
 and that it should not be abandoned to the 
 inconsiderate action of the legislature., con* 
 trolled by some temporary majority. That 
 was the reason, and the only reason. Tha 
 gentlemen from the country thought it ex- 
 pedient and proper, and l am but their or- 
 gan in expressing that opinion. They 
 thought that these courts were sufficient to 
 transact all the public business, and that 
 the judicial and ministerial functions should 
 hereafter be entirely distinct and separate. 
 As the judges were to hold their offices but 
 for a term of years, it was but reasonable 
 they should have some guarantees for their 
 continuance in office and fbruieir indeoen 
 
670 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 penclence. With these explanations I 
 submit the question to the judgment of the 
 Convention. 
 
 Mr. Soule moved to lay the section, for 
 the present, on the table; which motion 
 prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Soule then moved to reconsider the 
 vote by which the city of New Orleans 
 Vas constituted one senatorial district. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said he had also made 
 some motions for reconsideration, but as 
 the hour was advanced, he would move an 
 adjourn went. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved that the Covention ad- 
 journ until to-morrow at 10 o'clock. 
 
 The President decided that under the 
 rule this motion was not in order, as 5 
 o'clock, every evening, was appointed for 
 the meeting of the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Lewis considered that the Conven- 
 tion had the right, and that the majority 
 could not be bound down and trammelled 
 by such a rule. It was in the power of 
 the Convention to determine whether they 
 should meet this afternoon, or to-morrow 
 morning. He would appeal from the deci- 
 sion of the chair. 
 
 Mr, Downs: 1 would ask the delegate 
 what are rules made for, if they are not to 
 be observed. 
 
 The question was taken upon the appeal 
 from the decision of the chair, and the de- 
 cision was maintained. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved for the dispensation of 
 the rules, in order to move for the revision 
 of the resolution establishing afternoon 
 sessions. Leave was refused ; yeas 23, 
 nays 31. 
 
 Mr. M. Taylor gave notice that he 
 would move for the revision of the resolu- 
 tion to-morrow. 
 
 Mr. Soule renewed his proposition to 
 take up the reconsideration of the vote es- 
 tablishing one senatorial district, in the city 
 of New Orleans. 
 
 The question was taken and decided 
 affirmatively; yeas 30, nays 26, 
 
 Mr. Winchester moved for the adjourn- 
 ment. Lost. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin then moved a call of the 
 house. Fifty-five members present. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved that the vote upon 
 the senatorial district for the city, be taken 
 de novo- on Friday next, at 12 o'clock, M, 
 
 Mr. Gakrett would inquire if under the 
 
 rules, it did not require a larger vote to 
 carry the reconsideration of a question than 
 originally voted in favor of that question? 
 If this were so, then the question for recon- 
 sideration, just taken, had been lost. 
 
 Mr. CM. Conrad considered that the 
 question for reconsideration had failed. 
 
 Mr. Soule said he would ask for the 
 vote upon the reconsideration on Friday. 
 
 M. C. M Conrad: That can't be done. 
 The quesLion has been taken and it is lost. 
 
 Mr. Soule: That would be strange, in- 
 deed ! When the question was first taken 
 on my proposition, there were thirty-seven 
 votes in favor of it. If there be no impro- 
 priety in alluding to the dead, I would re- 
 mark that there are now seventy-six mem. 
 bers. Three or four members are absent, 
 exclusive of those that voted ior it— -for the 
 proposition ; that would make forty-two 
 members, an absolute majority, exclusive 
 of the president. It surely will not be pre- 
 tended that thirty-three members are to 
 control forty-two members ! 
 
 Mr. Splane: The rule does not apply to 
 this case, because the motion for reconsid- 
 eration was moved before the rule was 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. M ario ny sustained a similar opinion. 
 Whereupon the ^Convention adjourned 
 until this evening,, at 5 o'clock. 
 
 Tuesday Evening, April 15, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 They took up the report of the majority 
 of the committee on the legislative depart- 
 ment. The question pending was on the 
 motion of Mr. RatlifF, to strike out the 
 words "in the city of New Orleans," in 
 the first section. 
 
 Mr. Preston moved to lay this section 
 on the table, and to take up sections five, 
 six, nine, ten, eleven and twelve, which 
 were concurred in by the minority of the 
 committee, and about which there would 
 be little or no debate. The morning ses- 
 sions could be devoted to those sections 
 which would ellicit debate, and the after- 
 noon sessions to those sections which 
 would excite little or no discussion. 
 
 Mr. Preston then moved for the adop- 
 tion of section rive: 
 
 Sec. 5. The supreme court, and each 
 of the judges thereof, shall have po wer to 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 671 
 
 issue writs of habeas corpus at the instance 
 of all persons in actual custody under civil 
 process. 
 
 Mr. Preston said that if the house 
 should hereafter rgree that the supreme 
 court shall issue writs of habeas corpus in 
 criminal cases, it would be very easy to 
 supply the words, in the last line, ''and 
 criminal" before the words "civil pro- 
 cess.'' 
 
 Section five was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Read then moved the adoption of 
 section sixth: 
 
 Sec. 6. The appellate jurisdiction of the 
 supreme court shall extend to all cases in 
 which the constitutionality or legality of 
 any tax, toll, or impost of any kind or na- 
 ture soever shall be in contestation, what- 
 ever may be the amount thereof: and, 
 likewise, to all fines, forfeitures, and pen- 
 alties, imposed by municipal corporations. 
 
 Section six was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Soule moved the adoption of the 
 seventh section, and his motion prevailed. 
 
 Sec. 7. The supreme court shall have 
 appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases, 
 on questions of law alone, in all cases in 
 which the punishment of death or hard la- 
 bor may be inflicted, or a fine exceeding 
 three hundred dollars is actually imposed. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved the adoption of sec- 
 iion nine, which motion prevailed. 
 
 Sec. 9. The judges, by virtue of their 
 office, shall be conservators of the psace 
 throughout the State. The style of all 
 process shall be, '-The State of Louisia- 
 na." All prosecutions shall be carried on 
 in the name and by the authority of the 
 State of Louisiana, and conclude, against 
 the peace and dignity of the same. 
 
 Mr. Preston then moved to amend the 
 fifth section ; to insert the words, "and 
 criminal," before the word '-process" in 
 the last line. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin would inquire whether it 
 was contemplated that the supreme court 
 should issue writs of habeas corpus in all 
 cases. There was scarcely a day that 
 there were not some of these writs ob- 
 tained from the inferior courts. 
 
 Mr. Preston replied that it was only 
 in matters connected with the jurisdiction 
 of that court. 
 
 Mr. Brent proposed to amend by adding 
 the words "ib all cases in which the su- 
 preme court "have appellate jurisdiction," 
 
 Mr. Garrett was of opinion that the 
 supreme court in all cases should be com- 
 petent to issue writs of habeas corpus. It 
 should not be limited to the question of 
 mere jurisdiction. He thought it better to 
 postpone this section until there was a 
 full house. The supreme court should 
 not only have appellate jurisdiction upon 
 writs of habeas corpus, but should have 
 original jurisdiction in issuing them. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff said he did not pretend to 
 have much legal learning, and if he differ- 
 ed from the distinguished lawyers that had 
 taken a position on this subject, it was 
 with great diffidence. There were cor^ 
 tain difficulties in this matter that suggest- 
 ed themselves to his judgment. Section 
 seven declares that the supreme court shall 
 have appellate jurisdiction in criminal ca. 
 ses in which the punishment of death or 
 hard labor may be inflicted, or a fine of 
 three hundred dollars be actually impos = 
 ed. There appeared to be no connection 
 between the fifth section and the seventh 
 section. At what time will the supreme 
 court exercise the superior control provi- 
 ded for in the seventh section? It must be 
 after the sentence is pronounced, for upon 
 the sentence depends whether that court 
 shall have jurisdiction or not. Now, ac- 
 cording to the fifth section, a writ of habe- 
 | as corpus will be immediately from the su- 
 ; preme court; it will be attended with seri- 
 j ous inconvenience. That court may ex- 
 amine a case, upon which it may find on 
 I investigation, it has no jurisdiction, A 
 I man is accused of a crime in a distant pa- 
 i rish, and is lodged in jail to answer the 
 1 charge, what will be the consequence 5 
 | Will he be brought before the supreme 
 court? Why not leave his case to the 
 judge of the first instance, and if the judges 
 commit an error, that error can be correct- 
 ed upon appeal to the supreme court. If 
 it decides that the man should be restored 
 to liberty, it is' done without delay, and 
 with comparatively little trouble and ex- 
 pense. 
 
 Mr. Preston said that the delegate from 
 Feliciana had taken a common-sense view 
 of the subject. The majority of the com- 
 mittee were opposed to granting the writ 
 of habeas corpus in criminal matters, alle- 
 ging that it would interfere too much with 
 j the business ot the court, and would be too 
 i serious a burthen. The minority of th 
 
672 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana- 
 
 committee were in favor of conferring that 
 power in some particular cases that might 
 arise. It would not be proper to extend 
 it so far that its exercise might be abused. 
 In criminal cases, a father of a family 
 might be imprisoned on a charge of mur- 
 der. The law says that bail shall not be 
 allowed except where the proof is evident, 
 and the presumption great. There might 
 be prejudices against him, and it might be 
 necessary in order to ensure him a fair 
 hearing, that he should go before the su- 
 preme court. Why should be not have 
 the privilege of the habeas corpus, and 
 be brought immediately before the su- 
 preme court? Such cases would happen 
 but seldom, but when they did happen, a 
 ready and effectual remedy ought to be 
 provided, if the party were actually enti- 
 tled to relief. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad saw insuperable ob- 
 jections to giving original jurisdiction to 
 the supreme court upon writs of habeas 
 corpus in criminal cases. How was that 
 court to ascertain that it had appellate ju- 
 risdiction over the case until the writ was 
 returned? The body would have to go 
 befjre it before it could determine the 
 question of jurisdiction, and that would in 
 effect be giving it original jurisdiction. If 
 it be invested with power to issue the writ 
 of habeas corpus, it ought to be restricted 
 to such cases where the inferior court had 
 refused to issue it, 
 
 Mr. Ratliff would observe that where 
 the inferior court refused the writ, it would 
 only be necessary to bring the records up, 
 for the supreme court to determine the 
 question. This would be an efficacious 
 mode, it would be prompt and economical, 
 and would afford adequate protection. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said that as soon as the 
 house were decided upon the point that 
 the supreme court should exercise appel- 
 late jurisdiction only, and be dispensed 
 from trifling cases, we would be enabled 
 to accommodate the present difficulty by 
 providing that she should exercise the 
 power involved, in all cases that depended 
 upon her jurisdiction of appeal. 
 
 Mr. Soule was apprehensive that the 
 Convention might not agree. The object 
 of the committee was palpably to give a 
 safe-guard to the citizen. Inasmuch as no 
 man can be arrested and kept in confine- 
 ment without a specfic charge against him? 
 
 every court should have the power oi 
 opening his prison doors and relieving him 
 from an illegal imprisonment. If there 
 existed any cause which would make it 
 doubtful whether the inferior court would 
 grant redress, the right to apply at once to 
 the supreme court, ought to be vouchsafed 
 — for that court might reasonably be pre- 
 sumed to be free from the hasty passions 
 of the moment. This is not in the nature 
 of an obligation imposed, but of a power 
 conferred for the ends of justice, and 
 which may or may not be exercised. 
 
 Mr. Preston said that it would fol- 
 low from the same power, that the 
 supreme court might force the criminal 
 court, for example, to render a judg- 
 ment in cases where the judgment of 
 that court had been delayed beyond 
 a reasonable period, and it would have the 
 faculty of interposing its authority in a 
 case where a man was unjustly condemned 
 and about to be hung. The supreme court 
 would issue a writ of mandamus, of proce- 
 dendum, or prohibition, as the case might 
 require. The habeas corpus is an origi- 
 nal writ of right. There is no such thing 
 as an appeal. 
 
 Mr. Roselius: No where but here! 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, was not dis- 
 posed to dispute that the writ of habeas 
 corpus was an original writ, but he was 
 not disposed to give to the supreirie court 
 original jurisdiction in all cases where par- 
 ties agrieved might require it. He had an 
 objection that the supreme court should 
 exercise a supervisory control. 
 
 Mr. Roselius moved to lay the subject 
 on the table, subject to call. 
 
 Mr. Saunders moved to lay it inden- 
 nitely on (he table. 
 
 Mr. Winchester moved for the recon- 
 sideration of the fifth section; which mo- 
 tion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Saunders was opposed to giving 
 the supreme court an original jurisdiction 
 in cases of habeas corpus. He did not 
 think that, as an appellate court, it could 
 exercise any other than appellate jurisdic- 
 tion over those cases. 
 
 Mr. Brent differed in opinion from the 
 delegate from Feliciana, who had just re- 
 sumed his seat. He thought that gentle- 
 man misapprehended the question. The 
 simple question was this, shall we invest 
 the supreme court with jurisdiction to pro- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 673 
 
 lect the liberty and lives of our fellow citi- 
 zens? The writ of habeas corpus was an 
 original writ. He had never heard of an 
 appeal upon a writ of habeas corpus. As 
 for the expense, it was exaggerated, and as 
 for inconvenience there would be none. A 
 man confined in prison, in the country pa- 
 rishes, desiring the interposition of the su- j 
 preme court in his case, would wait until 
 the court came into his district. 
 
 Mr. Winchester said that the Conven- 
 tion were losing its time in attempting to 
 find a remedy before they found the evil to 
 which that remedy was to be applied. He 
 objected to the whole section, because it 
 was calculated to produce a collision of 
 jurisdiction. No difficulty has ever arisen 
 in the country in relation to these courts, 
 to his knowledge. It was adding a great 
 deal of business to the supreme court, 
 without any obvious utility. 
 
 Mr. Marigny was in favor of the rejec- 
 tion of the section. 
 
 Mr. Eustis said that the business of the 
 supreme court was very extensive. Its 
 jurisdiction extended in civil matters where 
 the amount in dispute exceeded three hun- 
 dred dollars. It had therefore a labor to 
 ^perform as extensive as it was complica- j 
 ted, and for that reason he was indisposed I 
 to extend its jurisdiction to criminal mat- j 
 ters. I thought it was inexpedient to do 
 so; and I was strengthened in that opinion ' 
 by the fact that there never has been fla- 
 grant injustice done in the court of the first 
 instance, with the exception of a solitary 
 case. But nevertheless, as the community 
 were in favor of a court of errors in crimi- 
 nal matters, it was conceived to be proper 
 to give the supreme court appellate juris- 
 diction, and to review questions of law ex- 
 clusive of questions of fact. The supreme 
 court was then invested with the power of 
 reviewing questions of law which might 
 arise, and as a consequence it was not in- 
 vested with the power of issuing writs of 
 habeas corpus in criminal cases. It was 
 presumed that the district courts would be 
 amply sufficient for that purpose, and that 
 no great hardship could arise. I have the 
 highest, deference for the opinion of the attor- 
 ney general, whose experience must enti- 
 tle them to great weight; but I would ask 
 him what he means when he says that this 
 original jurisdiction should extend only to 
 cases of great importance? Does he mean 
 
 where the accusers are men of an elevated 
 position in society, and where figure the 
 most eminent members of the bar? But 
 these cases are rare, and they have the 
 means, as in ordinary cases, to obtain im- 
 mediate relief from the district courts. I 
 think that these writs should be confined 
 to civil process, and if you impose the bur= 
 then which would grow out of the- jurisdic- 
 tion proposed to be extended to the supreme 
 court, you will be imposing upon that tru 
 bunal greater labor than it will be able to 
 prosecute satisfactorily. 
 
 Mr. Porter moved that the section be 
 laid upon the table, subject to call; which 
 motion prevailed. 
 
 The Convention then took up section 
 tenth: 
 
 Sec. 10. The judges of all courts shall, 
 in all cases, give in writing their reasons 
 on which their judgment is founded. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin offered as a substitute 
 for the said section, the 12th section of the 
 constitution of 1812, and the same was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec 12, of 1812. The judges of ail 
 courts within this State shall, as often as 
 it may be possible so to do, in every de- 
 finitive judgment, refer to the particular 
 law in virtue of which such judgment may 
 have been rendered, and in all cases ad- 
 duce the reasons on which their judgment 
 is founded. 
 
 On motion, section eleven was taken up. 
 
 Sec. 11. Xo court, or judge of any courts 
 appointed under this constitution, shall ex- 
 ercise any jurisdiction, or perform any func- 
 tions, but such as are purely judicial; and 
 no other duties or functions shall ever be 
 attached, by law, to the office of a judge, 
 but such as are judicial. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to lay said section 
 on the table subject to call. 
 
 Mr. Saunders moved that the Conven- 
 tion adjourn till to-morrow at 10 o'clock, 
 a. m.; the motion was lost, the vote being 
 equal, the President voted in the negative, 
 
 Mr. Beatty then renewed his motion 
 to lay the said section on the table, sub- 
 ject to call, and the same was carried. 
 
 On motion, section twelve was taken 
 up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 12. Xo court, or judge of any court , 
 shall ever have the power, by any order 
 or judgment, in any suit, process, or other 
 proceeding before them f or pending in 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 such court, to order or adjudge any money 
 to be paid by the parties to such suits or 
 proceedings, or make any allowance out 
 of any money or property that may be in 
 actual custody of said court or officers 
 thereof, except for the payment of the legal 
 fees of the ministerial officers of the said 
 court, as allowed and established by law. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Saunders, said sec- 
 tion was laid on the table, subject to call. 
 
 On motion section thirteen was taken 
 up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 13. The judges of all courts shall 
 be liable to impeachment; but for any rea- 
 sonable cause, which shall not be sufficient 
 ground for impeachment, the governor 
 shall remove any of them on the address 
 of three-fourths of each house of the gene- 
 ral assembly. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to reject this sec- 
 tion. He said that as the judges were to 
 hold their offices under the new constitu- 
 tion but tor six or eight years, and were sub- 
 jected to impeachment, it was not necessa- 
 ry to provide for their removal by address. 
 The first part of the section was already 
 provided for, and it was superfluous. 
 
 Mr. Preston suggested the fifteenth sec- 
 tion of the minority report as a substitute, 
 as follows*. 
 
 Sec. 15. For reasonable and stated 
 cause, which shall not be sufficient ground 
 for impeachment, the governor shall re- 
 move any of the said judges, the attorney 
 general and State attorneys, on the sepa- 
 rate address of each house of the general 
 assembly. 
 
 Mr. Saunders said, that the very idea 
 of such a proceeding filled him with hor- 
 ror. It was preposterous. We are ask- 
 ed gravely to bind the judiciary, hand and 
 foot, and to deliver them over to a faction 
 that may obtain a temporary control in the 
 legislature. The thing was utterly unrea- 
 sonable. The judiciary was in a fair way 
 to be abundantly trammelled, without go- 
 ing to so unreasonable an extent. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff said, that radical as he 
 was he could not swallow — he could not 
 go for this. He could not consent that a 
 bare majority of the legislature should ex- 
 ercise so dangerous a power. He pre- 
 sumed that the mode of addressing judges 
 out of office was intended to operate in ca- 
 ses where they were not amenable to im- 
 peachment— where they were incapacita- 
 
 ted by moral or physical causes. They 
 might in such cases be removed without 
 being subjected to odium. He would 
 concur that the governor should exercise 
 the power of removal without the concur- 
 rence of three-fourths of both houses of the 
 general assembly. With the gentleman 
 from Feliciana, (Mr. Saunders) he thought 
 the proposition of the delegate from Jef- 
 ferson (Mr. Preston) was one of the worst 
 features that could be embodied in the 
 constitution. 
 
 Mr. Read moved to amend said section, 
 by striking out the following words: "But 
 for any reasonable cause, which shall not 
 be sufficient cause for impeachment, the 
 Governor shall remove any of them, on the 
 address of three-fourths of each house of the 
 general assembly," and insert in lieu there- 
 of the following words of the section 
 
 of the constitution of 1812. " But for any 
 reasonable cause, which shall not be suffi- 
 cient cause for impeachment, the governor 
 shall remove any of them, on the address 
 of three -fourths of each house of the gene- 
 ral assembly; provided, however, that the 
 cause or causes for which such removal 
 may be required, shall be stated at length 
 in the address, and inserted on the journal ' 
 of each house." 
 
 On motion, said section was adopted as 
 amended, viz: 
 
 Sec. 13. The judges of all courts shall 
 be liable to impeachment; but for any rea- 
 sonable cause, which shall not be sufficient 
 cause for impeachment, the governor shall 
 remove any of them, on the address of three- 
 fourths of each house of the general assem- 
 bly; provided, however, that the cause or 
 causes for which such removal may be re- 
 quired, shall be stated at length in their 
 address, and inserted on the journal of each 
 house. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow, at ten o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Wednesday, April 16, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 In the absence of a minister of the gos. 
 pel, the Hon. Mr. Stephens, at the request 
 of the president, opened the proceedings 
 with prayer. 
 
 On motion, leave of absence was grant- 
 ed to Mr. Cade. 
 
 On motion of Mr, Ledoux, the vote 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 675 
 
 adopting the 13th section of the majority 
 report of the committee on the judiciary, 
 adopted on yesterday, was reconsidered. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ledoux, said section 
 was called up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 13. "The judges of all courts 
 shall be liable to impeachment; but for 
 any reasonable cause which shall^not be 
 sufficient ground for impeachment, the go- 
 vernor shall remove any of them, on the 
 address of three-fourths of each house of 
 the general assembly: Provided, however, 
 that the cause or causes, for which such 
 removal may be required, shall be stated j 
 at length in the address, and inserted on 
 the journal of each house." 
 
 Mr. Ledoux moved to amend said sec- j 
 tion^by inserting after the words "three- j 
 fourths," the words "of the members pres- 
 ent." 
 
 Mr. Lewis said he had very serious ob- j 
 jections to this amendment. If it prevail- I 
 ed, the result might be that you would | 
 have a man removed by the minority of | 
 the members of the legislature. The ob- | 
 jections were palpable to his mind. If the j 
 house of representatives be composed of 
 one hundred members, fifty-one would 
 form the quorum, and if the senate be 
 composed of thirty-two members, seven- 
 teen would form the quorum. The three- 
 fourths of the former would be thirty-seven, 
 and the three-fourths of the latter would be 
 thirteen; that is, about fifty members of 
 both houses; and the singular position 
 would be presented, of an actual minority 
 having the power to remove any officer 
 except the governor, and it was not likely 
 that he would remove himself if he were 
 addressed to that effect. This position 
 was too radical.- He granted that hereto- 
 fore, it was too hard to remove a judicial 
 officer. But desirable as it was to get rid 
 of a bad officer, it was expedient to retain 
 a good one. One swallow did not make 
 the summer, so one abuse did not justify 
 another. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor said that among the 
 number of reasons submitted by the dele- 
 gate from St. Landry, (Mr. Lewis) was 
 one which claims some attention. It is 
 this: that it might happen that a minority 
 might remove a judicial functionary. I 
 admit that this is possible, but it is barely 
 possible, and even should it be likely to oc- 
 cur, I hold that it is not of so serious a 
 
 character as to prevent the adoption of the 
 section. It declares that there shall be a 
 concurrence of three-fourths of the general 
 assembly, and it would seem to be its 
 plain intent and meaning, to refer to those 
 upon the floor. And there are members 
 on this floor, gentlemen of large experi- 
 ence, who give it that construction, and 
 think that' the amendment proposed is su- 
 perfluous. But in order to prevent mis- 
 construction, it has been deemed proper so 
 to express it in the section. If the house 
 be composed of ninety-eight members, to 
 obtain the dismission of a judge, seventy- 
 five members of the house would be ne- 
 cessarjr, if we adopt the rule that we are to 
 estimate three-fourths of the total body. In 
 the senate, composed of thirty-two mem*, 
 hers, it would require twenty-four, making 
 a united vote of ninety-eight members. 
 Now if we have reference to the sessions 
 of the legislature, and of this body, we 
 shall find that for nine-tenths of the time, 
 from the beginning to the termination of 
 the session, one-fourth of the members are 
 absent. Now it might happen that each 
 individual member of the legislature were 
 in favor of the destitution of a particular 
 individual, and that there were strong rea- 
 sons for immediate action, and yet because 
 one-fourth of the members were absent, 
 both houses would be powerless. I think 
 that any principle which can entail such 
 consequences must be improper. Al- 
 though on the other hand, it may happen 
 that a minority may act in the destitution 
 of a judge, it is only possible ; and is so 
 barely possible that, it may be considered 
 improbable. If it should really happen 
 that a bare minority should be disposed to 
 act in that manner, is there not every rea- 
 son to believe that one-fourth of those 
 that were present, would refuse to concur? 
 The difficulties to which I allude, may ex- 
 ist, and would lead to consequences la- 
 mentable indeed. It is surely the part of 
 wisdom to suggest some means to prevent 
 an unworthy public functionary from inju- 
 ring the people. 
 
 Mr Ratliff said he listened always with 
 pleasure and instruction to what fell from 
 the delegate from Assumption. It was as 
 plain as language could make it. What 
 constitutes a house? That appears to be 
 the question to be resolved. If the house 
 of representatives, composed of one hun* 
 
670 Debates in the Coir 
 
 tired members were to assemble, and on 
 the first day of that session there should 
 be but forty-eight members present, there 
 would not be a quorum, and the house 
 would adjourn until the next day. If the 
 senate on the first day of the session were 
 to meet, and but fifteen of the thirty-two 
 members of that body were to answer to 
 their names, they would also adjourn over 
 for a similar cause. If they were to meet 
 on the next day, and the house was to 
 consist of forty-nine members, there would 
 still be no quorum of either body. But 
 if on the following Wednesday, the house 
 upon meeting and calling the roll should 
 find fifty-one members, and the senate 
 seventeen, both bodies would organize; 
 they would then become a house. They 
 would elect their officers, and they would 
 be constituted into the general assembly of 
 the State. The three-fourths would be 
 readily construed to mean after the organi- 
 zation. It might result in great injury to 
 make the amendment proposed. The right 
 of addressing in such cases was intended 
 to apply where the functionary might be 
 physically or morally incapable. 
 
 Mr. Ledoux called for the previous 
 question, which was ordered. 
 
 Mr. Guion called for the yeas and nays 
 upon the motion for the adoption of the 
 amendment. 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Boudousquie, Bourg, 
 Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Car- 
 riere, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Kenner, Ledoux, McCallop, 
 McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Prescott 
 of Avoyelles, Prescott of St Landry, Pres- 
 ton, Prudhomme, Pugh, St. Amand, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Splane, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Waddill 
 and Wederstrandt voted in the affirmative 
 —-33 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Culbertson, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, 
 Porter, Ratliff, Read, Sellers, WikofT, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the neg- 
 ative — 17 nays; consequently said motion 
 was carried, and the amendment adopted. 
 
 On motion, the 13th section as amended 
 was adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 13. "The judges ot all courts shall 
 be liable to impeachment; but for any rea- 
 sonable cause which shall not be sufficient 
 ground for impeachment, the governor 
 
 ention of Louisiana. 
 
 shall remove any of them, on the ad- 
 dress of three-fourths of the members pres- 
 ent of each house of the general assembly; 
 Provided, however, that the cause or cau- 
 ses for which such removal may be requi- 
 red, shall be stated at length in the address, 
 and inserted on the journal of each house." 
 -ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 The Convention resumed the considera- 
 tion of the first section of the fourth article, 
 of the report of the majority of the com-" 
 mittee upon the judiciary department. 
 
 The question pending being the motion, 
 of Mr. Ratliff to strike out the words, "in 
 the city of New Orleans." 
 
 Mr. Benjamin was opposed to striking 
 out. Fie said he conceived this to bo a 
 proper occasion to express his individual 
 views, and to state the reasons which he 
 thought should influence the Convention 
 in establishing a proper judiciary system 
 for the State. The subject was one of 
 great interest and magnitude to those 
 having any thing to do with the adminis- 
 tration of the laws. The first thing that 
 struck the student in commencing the 
 study of the law, was the question of ju- 
 risdiction; the first thing that attracted the 
 profound consideration of the practitioner, 
 was jurisdiction. It was a vexed, a most 
 idle and useless source of perplexity. Cer- 
 tain individuals were vested with the pow- 
 er to decide the rights to property and to 
 liberty, in virtue of a commission from the 
 governor, with the approbation of the sen- 
 ate; to decide between man and man s and 
 between society at large and one man. 
 One would suppose that all these contro- 
 versies would be subjected to the simplest 
 principles; but what is the course? Differ- 
 ent individuals are appointed to administer 
 the laws of the country , and to these indi- 
 viduals different names were given. Nay, 
 sir, two names were given to the same 
 individual, and it depended whether you 
 addressed him under his proper title, as it 
 is called, or not; whether your suit was 
 brought or not. For example, you sue 
 before the officer called the parish judge, 
 and you present your petition, but it de* 
 pends whether you have addressed him 
 properly, to prosecute your action and to 
 obtain the^redress you seek. If you havs 
 addressed him as judge of the parish court, 
 when you should address him as judge of 
 the probate court, you are turned out of 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 677 
 
 court and are mulcted irr the costs; and, I those occasions, and they were pahieipa- 
 yet, your petition is directed in point of ted by several delegates whose experience 
 fact to one and the same functionary 7 If had led them into a similar train of thoughts, 
 this jn dare is to determine all controversies that we should have but one set of infer: • 
 whv should he have two distinct names to .' courts and a supreme court, The ad van - 
 govern two distinct jurisdictions? It must tages which would result, 1 considered to 
 be a constant'themeof ridicule, as well as a be the uniformity and simplicity of such a 
 source of great difficulty and confusion, plan. I care not what particular name 
 When we are told that the Chancellor of you may appropriate to these inferior 
 England cannot give the same remedies in j courts; you may invent any name you 
 chancery as he* can at common law. we please; all that I am solicitous about is that 
 laugh at this artificial distinction: we are there should be but one set of courts, of 
 amused at the idea that if you address him original jurisdiction. That any man desi- 
 in chancery he can grant you relief, but if ring to obtain legal remedies may go to one 
 you address him at common law he can- judge; and that you cut away all the mass 
 not. and vice versa: and yet he is one and of litigated cases growing out of vexed 
 the same person, and appointed for one and intricate questions of jurisdiction The 
 and identically the same purpose. We attempt to unravel them never promoted 
 are at loss to conceive why this difference. ; the investigation of great principles of ju- 
 Are we not doing the same thing? This risprudence; and why they were invented 
 question of jurisdiction meets us at every 1 do not know. Let it be established that f 
 step, not only in reference to the parish there shall be but one place for all species 
 and probate courts, which are filled by one of litigation, and for one general and uni- 
 and the same person out of the city, but versal jurisdiction. Let us have one ap- 
 between the district courts and the courts peilate supreme court. The simplicity of 
 of probates. You bring a suit before one such a system recommends itself to the 
 of your judges, the plea of jurisdiction is comprehension of a child. I anticipate 
 raised, it is enrolled by the court, and you that it will excite objections, but these ob- 
 go on and obtain judgmen*. An appeal is jections will be made by men who live by 
 taken, and the supreme court decides that and are interested in the continuance of the 
 the court below had no jurisdiction. Here former state of things; the people will not 
 you are saddled with all the costs, and have participate in them. 
 
 to begin the proceedings* de novo. We j Ifwe refer to the sixteen volumes last pub - 
 have forty-six parish courts, and, as if that iished. of the decisions of the supreme court, 
 was not sufficient, we have ten district we shall find a large portion occupied witl 
 courSftesides, and a host of inferior judges decisions upon questions of jurisdiction; to 
 with their taxes and costs. They can deciding whether in a particular case, the 
 have no other result than to benefit lawyers, judge has been properly addressed as parish- 
 sheriffs, clerks, &c, &c, 1 defy any man judge, or judge cfr the court of probates, 
 to prove to me that all the legal business After long and tedious investigation and 
 could not be done by one. half of these ' great research, they have determined whe- 
 courts. The cause of all the difficulty is ther he should be called parish judge, in 
 their accumulation, their different names reference to a particular matter, or probate 
 and their conflicting jurisdictions. | judge ! It is no uncommon case, and if 
 
 I had not the honor, said .Mr. Benjamin, any gentleman doubts it, I can point it out 
 to be a member of the judiciary committee, 1 in these authorities, for the supreme court 
 but white the Convention were at Jackson to pronounce in favor of a certain jurisdic 
 the organization of that department was a i tion, and afterwards pronounce against it- 
 theme of constant conversation among us. ■ A practitioner at the bar examines the de^ 
 It was our usual afternoon topic, while re- ■ cistons for the purpose of enlightening him. 
 posing upon the green turf, under the self upon the subject of jurisdiction — he 
 shade of the trees that surrounded the col- j finds that in a certain suit, which is parallel 
 lege building.™ And 1 really believe we did j to one that he intends instituting, Ac is 
 more by these consultations than we have ' pronounced to be judge of the probate 
 accomplished in two months' sessions. | court, and it is decided that it was a fatal 
 My views were freely expressed upon . error to style him judge of the parish court 
 
678 Debates in the Oonvention of Louisiana, 
 
 Being fortified by this decision, he institutes 
 proceedings, and styles the judge according, 
 ly. An appeal is taken, and it is deter- 
 mined upon that appeal that these proceed- 
 ings are wrong ; that A. is not probate 
 judge, but parish judge ! Before a decision 
 is finally had the party against whom the 
 proceedings have been had, is dead and 
 his estate is insolvent. And thus for the 
 mere satisfaction of settling the point, 
 whether you should address the judge as 
 parish judge or as probate judge, you have 
 to incur vast expenses and trouble, and to 
 find at last that y6u have lost all recourse. 
 These are evils which loudly call for a 
 remedy. I repeat that I am indifferent as 
 to the title you may confer upon your 
 courts; you may call them what you please, 
 provided you institute them with one broad 
 common and general jurisdiction; provided 
 that the fundamental rule shall be, that 
 their jurisdiction is universal and unlimited. 
 Why, 1 would ask, should there be appeals 
 to the district court, and from the district 
 court, in the same matter, to the supreme 
 court? Why not take the appeal directly, 
 and at once, to the supreme court? Is it 
 not a strange contradiction that a judge in 
 his quality of parish judge, should not have 
 jurisdiction beyond three hundred dollars, 
 when the very same individual as judge of 
 the court of probates, may exercise an un- 
 limited jurisdiction, and pronounce upon a 
 case involving three hundred thousand 
 dollars or more; ancf when you enter in 
 our supreme court you find five men seated 
 upon the bench, whose age and experience 
 have blanched their hair, seriously occu- 
 pied in unravelling the*thread of conflict- 
 ing jurisdiction to determine whether you 
 were right or wrong in styling the individ- 
 ual you addressed, in one judicial capacity 
 or another, and resolving whether your 
 suit was well brought or not, accordingly 
 as you style the probate judge or parish 
 judge. Again, there are questions as to 
 the amount of jurisdiction. It is declared, 
 that the parish court shall not entertain ju- 
 risdiction beyond or below a specified 
 amount, and here comes the question, are 
 costs and interest to be included in the 
 amount specified? I hold that these ques- 
 tions have no other practical result than to 
 enable clerks and lawyers to make money. 
 Is such a system, so prolific in its abuses, 
 to be perpetuated— and it must be perpet- 
 
 uated, unless you establish courts with but 
 one kind of universal jurisdiction. The 
 gentleman from Feliciana (Mr. Ratliff) ob- 
 jects that there should be an exception in 
 favor of the city of New Orleans. If it can 
 be construed into a favor I do not desire it, 
 as far as my humble capacity extends, I 
 do not consider it a favor. If it were such, 
 I would be ready to relinquish the boon on 
 the spot. But there is an exception which 
 arises from the exigencies of the commerce, 
 and which renders it indispensable that 
 there should be courts established in the 
 city that should pronounce instantly upon 
 questions that maybe brought before them. 
 A -vessel may be sequestered, and in order 
 that she should not be unnecessarily de- 
 tained and her value be swallowed up in 
 expenses, it is necessary and requisite that 
 some court should be vested with the power 
 of deciding summarily upon the case. 
 There must be a tribunal ready to give 
 prompt and immediate attention to com- 
 mercial matters, but whether you call that 
 tribunal a commercial court, or by what- 
 ever name you please, is immaterial. This 
 exception is indispensable, on account of 
 the wants of a great commercial city. But 
 whether you have a special tribunal under 
 a particular name, as the commercial 
 court, or appropriate a district court to 
 such business, amounts, after all, to the 
 same result, so* that you provide for this 
 immense amount of litigation in a satisfac- 
 tory manner. Establish two or tbme dis- 
 trict courts in the city, and let the bltmess 
 of the city be distributed among them. You 
 have provided for the establishment of 
 eighteen district courts throughout the 
 State. New Orleans contains one-third of 
 the population. She should have more 
 than one district court. Give her two or 
 three, and let a preference be given to the 
 trial of commercial cases. We are now 
 surrounded by courts and subjected not 
 only to conflicting jurisdictions, but to great 
 inconvenience in the transaction oY public 
 business. We have a district court, a 
 parish court, a commercial court, and the 
 presiding city court. The ancient records 
 ought to be kept in one place, where they 
 would not be mislaid, and where they would 
 be of easy access. We ou^it to establish 
 the judiciary upon sound and proper prin- 
 ciples. There should be an unity and a 
 simplicity in all its parts. There should 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 he but one original Jurisdiction, and but one 
 appellate court. Whether you call this a 
 parish court, or a district court, is to me a 
 matter of no moment. Let its jurisdiction 
 be limited by territorial extent, and let it 
 have jurisdiction in all matters of legal 
 controversy. Such a system will redound 
 to the credit of the State, and will free her 
 from those enormous costs which have j 
 been a disgrace upon her jurisprudence. 
 
 Mr. Dunn would vote in favor of striking 
 out. He concurred in all that fell from the 
 gentleman from New Orleans, (Mr. Benja- 
 min) which favored the adoption of all 
 means essential to the furtherance of jus- 
 tice and the adoption of the judicial system 
 to the public exigencies. He would vote 
 to strike out; not because he conceived 
 that there was any favoritism towards the 
 city designed, but for this simple reason- 
 that he was not aware that public opinion 
 required any particular courts differing from 
 those which have heretofore been in ex- 
 istence. He apprehended that the present 
 system might be simplified and improved, 
 and if that could be done he was averse to 
 making so radical and thorough a change. 
 He thought it better to leave the organiza- 
 tion of the courts to the action of the legis- 
 lature, and was not advised that the public 
 interests required an exclusive and irrevo- 
 cable system. In the parish in which he 
 lived no inconvenience was felt, and no 
 complaints were made. There were none 
 of those difficulties experienced in the 
 practice which had been alluded to by the 
 delegate from New Orleans, (Mr. Benja- 
 min) therefore he was unable to say 
 whether the people desired any change. 
 He admitted that the system was suscepti- 
 ble of improvement, but it would be better 
 to leave the power with the legislature. 
 He was not prepared to say whether one 
 court would suffice for the wants of the 
 people. If there be but one court, and that 
 be the- district court, it would be necessary 
 to give it jurisdiction in cases of succes- 
 sions. It would be, perhaps, more advisa- 
 ble to leave the question open, for he took 
 it for granted that the legislature would 
 not establish a probate court unless it were 
 called for. If it were called for by the 
 people, it ought to be established. He 
 saw nothing that would justify him in be- 
 lieving that his constituents were disposed 
 to favor the present scheme. If the legis- 
 
 lature were to institute a system of courts 
 and they were found not to answer the 
 purposes designed, a remedy could be ap- 
 plied. The present scheme may not work 
 well, and if the experiment should prove 
 unsuccessful, the people should be allowed 
 to establish different courts. He would 
 therefore move to strike out, so as to leave 
 the question open at the discretion of the 
 legislature. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor moved that the 
 subject under consideration be laifljiempo- 
 rarily on the table, in order to priced to 
 take up his motion rescinding the rule and 
 appointing afternoon sessions. 
 
 Mr. Beatty hoped that this motion 
 would not prevail. We had adopted this 
 rule but three days ago, and we were now 
 asked to repeal it. 
 
 Mr. Downs was opposed to rescinding 
 the rule; we had met yesterday afternoon 
 and accomplished much valuable work, 
 The beginning was propitious, and if we 
 were really anxious to expedite business 
 we ought to adhere to the rule. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for on 
 Mr. Taylor's motion, and it was lost— 16 
 yeas, 3 i nays. 
 
 Mr. Makigny could see no good reason 
 for striking out New Orleans. Its extended 
 business required to be facilitated by the 
 establishment of a greater number of tri- 
 bunals than those that were necessary for 
 the country. He hoped the motion to strike 
 out would not prevail. 
 
 Mr. Wedersteandt said that he did not 
 rise to make a speech, but to state that he 
 would vote against striking out. He con- 
 ceived that the ends of justice would be 
 better assured by dispensing with the pa- 
 rish courts. He did not believe that the 
 system embraced the wishes of the people, 
 more particularly the people of West Fell- 
 ciana. He felt fully instructed, and he 
 hoped that so odious a system would be ex- 
 punged. 
 
 Mr. Dunn said that it appeared to be 
 the design to preclude the establishment 
 hereafter of courts of probates. If he had 
 entertained any doubts upon the subject, 
 they would have been dispelled by what he 
 had heard. The question was introduced 
 at the threshold to abolish the parish judge 
 system, and to deprive the legislature of 
 any discretionary power in the creation of 
 loyal tribunals- The gentleman from New 
 
m® Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Orleans, (Mr. Benjamin) whose eloquent 
 voice was always heard with pleasure, had 
 dwelt upon the abuses of the system. He 
 had uttered a tirade for the purpose of 
 showing that there were many cases which 
 substantiated the defects of the present 
 system. He would ask the gentleman 
 why it was, if these* evils were so great 
 and glaring, that he did not propose some 
 remedy when he was a member of the le- 
 gislature; as for the difficulties growing 
 out of convicting jurisdiction, that could 
 have belli settled by a single dash of the 
 pen. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff said, it is apparent, Mr. 
 President, that the section as reported by 
 the majority of the committee on the judi- 
 ciary, is designed to overthrow the parish 
 court system, and that, without providing 
 any thing adequate to take its place. The 
 delegate from New Orleans (Mr. Benja- 
 min) has endeavored to show that the 
 present system has a great many defects, 
 and that it gives rise to a great deal of con- 
 fusion and difficulty, on account of its con- 
 conflicting jurisdiction. I do not pretend 
 to urge that the system is not obnoxious 
 to some censure, and that it does not need 
 some reform. 1 readily admit the fact that it 
 might be meliorated. But what I contend 
 for is this, that the legislature should be 
 vested with discretionary power to organ- 
 ize the courts as experience and the wants 
 of the people may suggest. Why not fol- 
 low this course? It is recommended to us 
 by an experience of thirty-two years. It 
 is said that we must fix the establishment 
 of the several courts by name, in the con- 
 stitution itself. Why do this? because it is 
 urged that the legislature have established 
 a bad system, and it is inferred that they 
 will not change it. This seems to me to 
 be a strange argument. Why should the 
 legislature continue a bad system? That 
 body has embraced some of the most emi- 
 nent men in the State, and many of those 
 who so vehemently denounce the parish 
 court system on this floor. Why did not 
 the legislature take some action on the sub- 
 ject? It was surely within their compe- 
 tency to do so. The ready answer to this 
 is, that the system was upon the whole con- 
 formable to the wishes of the people. I 
 think that we should act with a great deal 
 of caution upon this matter. I cannot say 
 that I am partial to the parish court system 
 
 as it is established. I am certainly not 
 in favor of the abuses of the system. I 
 would have them eradicated, and even'the 
 system itself abolished, if it could not" be 
 freed from the abuses which are so freely 
 attributad to it. 
 
 What I am specially solicitous to pre- 
 serve, is our admirable system of civil 
 laws; the best system in the world, and 
 such has been the opinion of all those who 
 have had occasion to examine it; I remem- 
 ber hearing one of the most eloquent and 
 distinguished men in the United States, a 
 resident of a sister State which has adopt- 
 ed the common law, in an argument ad- 
 dressed to the supreme court, bear his un- 
 qualified testimony in favor of that system. 
 He said, alluding to the protection it afford- 
 ed to women and minors, that it was the 
 best system in the world, and that he wish- 
 ed not only that it was adopted throughout 
 the States but throughout the universe! 
 Before we discard a system with which we 
 have become intimately familiar — before 
 we thrust it out, we should reflect that it is 
 closely connected with our system of laws; 
 we should beware of a sudden transition! 
 It is true that we have eulogisms bestowed 
 upon the scheme which is presented to us 
 to be irrevocably decreed in the constitu- 
 tion. It has been recommended to us on 
 the score of simplicity. We are told that 
 two courts will be all that is necessary. I 
 concede that the scheme is beautiful on pa- 
 per! It is something like old Foley's 
 iand^-beautiful in the imagination, but to 
 be found no where else! It is very fine in 
 theory ; but how will it operate? The 
 gentlemen say not one word about the ex- 
 pense. Who are to make invenfaries, pe- 
 titions, and other duties now assigned 10 
 the probate courts? They do not tell us, 
 Suppose a working man claims butsventy* 
 dollars; how is he to obtain redress? He 
 will have to go twice a year to the district 
 court, and his claim may be postponed by 
 the adroitness of some lawyer; he may 
 come when the court is emersed in busi- 
 ness, when the docket is full and he will 
 be debarred a hearing- Is there any pro- 
 vision to meet a case of this kind? A suc- 
 cession ma}^ open in West Feliciana, and 
 before the judge of the district court can be 
 in attendence to give the necessary orders, 
 it may go to dilapidation and ruin. Sup- 
 pose a stranger died in Louisiana, posses- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana 
 
 681 
 
 *ed of ten thousand dollars in money, in a 
 hotel or tavern : before any conservatory 
 steps can be taken it may be placed beyond 
 the power of the court. I cannot see how 
 any economy can result by the proposed 
 change; and I am not convinced that it will 
 answer the end proposed. The expenses 
 of settling successions have been frequent- 
 ly alluded to. In some particulars the ex- I 
 penses in other States are greater then La 
 Louisiana; for example, in Kentucky the 
 commission to executors, administrators, j 
 &c, &c, are five per cent. If we make i 
 the parish judges elective, and have their | 
 perquisites rixed by law, we shall do a great 
 deal to remove the complaints that are 
 made, it' a parish judge exacts more than 
 his regular fee. what will be the conse- 
 quence! That his receipts will be taken 
 and published in the public papers. He 
 will be turned out. But we are told that 
 the parish court system is the creature of 
 the legislature: that it is an odious feature, 
 and must be expunged by the constitution. 
 Is it to be believed that republicans. I will 
 not say democrats, will keep up a bad sys- 
 tem against the wishes and desires of the 
 whole community who will rise up against 
 it? I think that this is an unjust argument; 
 that it is unjust to the discrimination of the 
 people, who wril choose unfaithful servants 
 to represent them; and to the representa- 
 tives of the people who will violate their 
 solemn duty. 
 
 If the distinguished gentleman who has 
 dilated with so much energy against the 
 system, had have given himself the trouble 
 of addressing the same argument to the 
 house of representatives when he was a 
 member of that body, I feel confident that 
 he could have meliorated materially the 
 system, or have caused it to have been en- 
 tirely abolished. How is it that with so 
 many abuses, the gentleman (Mr. Benja- 
 min) could have suffered the occasion to 
 pass by. of denouncing these abuses and 
 seeking a remedy for them? 
 
 I am not. Mr. President, solicitous of 
 public honors. I was elected to the Con- 
 vention by the free choice of my constitu- ! 
 em>. without any exertions on my part. I 
 do not know that I will ever go to the le- j 
 gislature again, but if these abuses existed 
 that have been charged against the parish 
 courts, and the discretion were still vested 
 with the leg^lature. I would study, dav 
 
 and night, to master the subject. I would 
 go to the legislature, if the people reposed 
 confidence in me, and I would* raise my 
 voice against the system: I would persevere 
 from year to year until it was expunged 
 from our statute books. 
 
 Let gentlemen beware: they may change 
 the name and yet retain all the abuses of 
 the present system. The same duties as- 
 signed to parish judges v^ill have to be per- 
 formed. You may transfer these duties 
 from one class of officers to another class 
 of officers. The expenses of wl|ich you 
 complain so much, will continue to be ex- 
 acted unless you restrict them, and that 
 you might as well do under one system as 
 the other. The pockets of minors will still 
 sufTer, and instead of one officer you will 
 create twenty. I am not to be deceived 
 by a change of names! The incumbent 
 of an office remains the same, call his of- 
 fice by what name you please. It is not 
 the name, but the thing, for which I am 
 solicitous. 
 
 It has been deemed essential to give the 
 legislature discretion to create courts in the 
 city. Why should the legislature not have 
 the same discretion for the country? If the 
 legislature will not abuse the power in the 
 one case, why should they abuse it in the 
 other? Physical and moral changes may 
 take place. The State is comparatively 
 still in her infancy. Other cities may 
 arise besides New Orleans. The Missis- 
 sippi may change its course, and a magnifi- 
 cent city may be formed at the mouth of 
 the Atchafalaya. 
 
 I have known instances where offices 
 have been sought to be created for the pur- 
 pose of filling them. I recollect one ex- 
 ample where a man attempted to create a 
 new parish out of portions of West Felici- 
 ana, Point Coupee and Concordia. He 
 got up some plausible pretext, and con- 
 tinued to urge the matter upon the legisla= 
 ture, from time to time, up to the period of 
 his death, when we heard no more of that 
 scheme. I repeat, if there be errors in the 
 system as we now have it. let them be 
 corrected, not by legislating in the constitu- 
 tion, for I am averse to that, but by laying 
 down wise and salutary principles, and 
 leaving it to the vigilance of the people, 
 and to the integrity of their representatives 
 to carry out those principles in their integ- 
 rity. I am not afraid to trust the people, 
 
682 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 nor to trust those whom they may delegate 
 to represent them. The attention of the 
 country has been aroused, and if the exist- 
 ing system be as obnoxious to censure as 
 has be'en charged, we may rely upon it that 
 it will be subjected to a rigid scrutiny, both 
 in the legislature, if they be vested with 
 any discretionary power, and among the 
 people, if they have the opportunity of ex- 
 pressing their views. 
 
 Mr. Grymes said he had but little to say 
 because he thought it was necessary to say 
 but little. If the people were satisfied 
 with the parish judge system, he had no 
 objection. lie rose to concur in the re- 
 marks of the delegate from Rapides, (Mr. 
 Brent.) The gentleman from Feliciana 
 was in error when he supposed that alter- 
 ing the name and form of the courts affec- 
 ted the jurisprudence of the country. It had 
 no more effect upon the system of laws 
 themselves, than if the legislature were to 
 abolish the parish courts and substitute 
 some other couits in their places. The 
 laws were the same, and their application 
 were the same. The parish judge system 
 was conceded upon all hands to be most 
 onerous. It was, he confessed, with re- 
 luctance that he voted in favor of the ex- 
 ception for the city of New Orleans in the 
 section. He was apprehensive that the 
 power vested in the legislature might be 
 abused, and if he voted for it, it was only 
 from the necessity of the case. There 
 was a tendency in the legislature to create 
 offices merely to provide for certain indi- 
 viduals who wished to be biiletted upon 
 the public expense, especially when it did 
 not appear that the treasury was to be 
 taxed. These things were introduced and 
 went through as a matter of course. There 
 was an accumulation of useless public offi- 
 ces, the only design of which appeared to 
 be to afford fees to the incumbents. There 
 was the office alienation; it was a cloy, a 
 tax upon the people to the amount of ten 
 thousand dollars annually, and yet there 
 was no necessity for such an office. The 
 fees were levied out of the purchasers. 
 There was no question as to that. The 
 creation of useless offices had been the 
 practice for the last thirty years. Hence 
 it was that we had so many offices that 
 were in fact superfluous. He was reluc- 
 tant to confide this power to create courts 
 in the city of New Orleans to the legisla- 
 
 ture, and would infinitely have preferred 
 to have inhibited its exercise; but being 
 sensible of the great commercial wants of 
 the city, he was impressed with the inju- 
 ry that might result if her legal business 
 was brought to a stand by being left to one 
 district court. lie was averse to entering 
 into details in a constitution, but if gentle* 
 men wished to except any of their parishes 
 he would not object to that course. I do 
 not, however, think it is necessary, if the 
 judges be restricted to functions strictly 
 judicial. The ministerial officers of the 
 courts can do all the preparatory or con- 
 servatory business. In the cases of sue 
 cessions, they may order their seals to be 
 affixed; the seals to be raised; the invento- 
 ries to be taken; the necessary publications 
 to be made, and in a word, take -all the 
 initiatory steps that may be necessary. 
 There is nothing to prevent the legislature 
 from endowing certain offices with the at- 
 tributes of a surrogate, or they may estab- 
 lish a register of wills. The object con- 
 templated by the committee is to separate 
 functions purely judicial from those that 
 are ministerial. This object was accom- 
 plished by the sections eleven and twelve. 
 These sections he considered important for 
 the welfare of the people. It was of little 
 moment how you christened your courts; 
 but the important matter was to take away 
 the money patronage and make judicial of- 
 fices purely judicial. He would willingly 
 vote in favor of the proposition to strike 
 out New Orleans, but he was admonished 
 by the necessity that one tribunal was in- 
 sufficient to do the business of this great 
 commercial emporium. That was his only 
 reason for making New Orleans an excep- 
 tion from what he considered a most salu- 
 tary principle. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad had a few remark? 
 to make. They were made more with a 
 view to explain his vote than to influence 
 the votes of other gentlemen. The dis- 
 cussion had taken so wide a range and 
 embraced so many topics as to dispense 
 him from saying much. What he would 
 say was upon points that had not be%n 
 touched upon by the gentleman that had 
 preceded him in the discussion. The 
 gentleman from West Feliciana (Mr. Eat- 
 liff) had argued the question as if a change 
 in the organization of the courts involved 
 a change of the laws of the land, Thi^ 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 683 
 
 was erroneous. The same gentleman had 
 alluded to an elogium pronounced upon 
 the body of civil laws which prevailed in 
 Louisiana, by a very distinguished and 
 eminent statesman. That euiogium was 
 intended to apply to the system of laws 
 themselves, and not certainly to the body 
 of magistrates who administered them. 
 But does the proposed system for the re- 
 organization of the judfciary interfere with 
 those laws- Unquestionably not. The 
 gentleman seems to infer that some .prefe- 
 rence is designed for Xew Orleans. If the 
 system were good, the city would gain 
 nothing by being exempted from its opera- 
 tion: and if it be bad, there is no reason 
 to envy her the exclusion. But there is no 
 force in this argument. What is the es- 
 sence of this clause, what change does it 
 propose? It proposes that the jurisdiction 
 of the probate courts should be vested in 
 the district courts. There are many pow- 
 ers exercised by parish judges that are not 
 judicial. The parish judge is a Caleb Quo- 
 tem. He is judge, notary, auctioneer, po- 
 lice juryman, dec. 6zc. He is the Caleb 
 Quotem of his parish. Is a petition to be 
 presented for the opening of a succession, 
 to whom is it presented- To John Stiles. 
 Is theie an order to be entered upon that 
 petition? Who enters that order- John 
 Stiles. Who makes out the papers as 
 clerk- John Stiles. Is a family meeting 
 deemed necessary for the interest of the 
 minoi? Well, before whom is it held? 
 John Stiles. Are the proceedings to be 
 homologated? Who homologates them? 
 John Stiles. Who gives the order for -the 
 sale of the properly? John Stiles. Who 
 sells it as auctioneer? John Stiles. "Who 
 makes out the bill of sale? John Stiles. 
 He hrst orders and then does. He per- 
 forms multiform and - incongruous duties. 
 He has not alone judicial functions and 
 ministerial functions, but he has ocular 
 functions. He acts occasionally as a vil- 
 lage priest, and ties the nuptial knot. But 
 who is this eternal John Stiles? John 
 Stiles is the parish judge. We want no- 
 thing but a judge, and that he should be 
 conrined strictly to his judicial functions. 
 This section and section eleven are de- 
 signed to accomplish that purpose. The 
 language of the latter section is perhaps a 
 little lpose. and may require some amend- 
 
 finent: but the principle meets my hearty 
 I concurrence. 
 
 If that principle be adopted, the judge 
 ! will have no other functions than those 
 | that are purely judicial, and that will ob- 
 via:e the necessity of having more than 
 ; one judge for three or four parishes. One 
 judge, relieved of the ministerial functions, 
 | will do more than four judges saddled with 
 I them, and will do it better. I do not wish 
 to impute any blame to the parish judges. 
 , 1 am aware that there are among them ma- 
 ny intelligent and upright citizens, who 
 I would adorn any station to which the par- 
 : tiaiities of their fellow-citizens might ele- 
 vate them. But on the other hand, it ean- 
 ; not be denied that the ignorance of some of 
 those judges is the cause of great confu- 
 | sion and difficulty, and it may be said that 
 j two-fifths of the litigation of the country 
 proceeds from that prolific source. They 
 exercise the most important functions; 
 ; within the circle of a quarter of a century. 
 • all the property of the State has passed 
 through their hands. If they be deficient 
 in intelligence or integrity, who suffers bv 
 . it? Those that are interested in the pro- 
 : per administration of property belonging 
 to deceased persons. If there be corrup- 
 tion, if there be ignorance, if there be im- 
 becility, it is the community who suffer. 
 
 The delegate from West Feliciana seems 
 to think that the functions heretofore as- 
 signed to parish judges, ought not to be 
 committed to judges of the district courts. 
 ' As far as ministerial duties are concerned, 
 ; 1 concur in opinion with him. These du- 
 i ties ought to be assigned to no judge: be 
 he parish judge or district judge. There 
 | is another advantage resulting from confi- 
 i ding those functions to ministerial officers. 
 It will conduce to greater economy, for 
 '. these services being no longer performed 
 \ by a judge, less will be asked, and less 
 will be expected to be paid. The prac- 
 ! tice of allowing judges of drawing their 
 salaries from fees has had a most unfortu- 
 j nate result. It has placed temptations be- 
 j fore them, and has given rise to public sus- 
 i picion. There are I readily admit, some 
 | that have held on their integrity, and were 
 prepared to meet the most rigid scrutiny. 
 But others, whether truly or not I do not 
 pretend to determine, have been accused 
 of extortion and pillage.- Here is another 
 
684 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 reason why we should make a thorough 
 reform. As for the objection taken against 
 the exception made in favor of the city, I 
 have but one single remark to make. It 
 must be obvious that in a large commer- 
 cial city, a city that has immense relations 
 both at home and abroad, which attracts a 
 large share of foreign litigation, must have 
 adequate means provided for the adminis- 
 tration of justice. As for the separation 
 of the judicial from the ministerial func- 
 tions, I may say that it is accomplished in 
 New Orleans. The clerks take all the 
 initiatory steps, and the judges confine 
 themselves to pronouncing upon the law. 
 
 Mr. Brent said that he concurred in 
 the re mares of the delegate from New Or- 
 leans (Mr. Benjamin) and that lie dissent- 
 ed altogether from the ideas and opinions 
 expressed by the delegate from West Feli* 
 ciana, (Mr. Ratliff.) He could never con- 
 sent to leave the organization of the courts 
 of justice to the mercy of the legislature. 
 We have organized the legislative and ex- 
 ecutive departments, and it is our duty to 
 establish the main features of the judiciary 
 department — -the details may be left to the 
 legislature. The delegate from West Fe- 
 liciana confounds our jurisprudence with 
 the organization of the judiciary. He 
 seems to think that without the parish courts 
 it will be impossible to protect the rights 
 of married women and minors. It is not 
 to be presumed that we are to abolish one 
 system without supplying another that will 
 answer the same purpose, and protect the 
 same interests. The gentleman asks how 
 we are to supply that deficiency] What 
 functionary is to perform the duties hereto- 
 fore discharged by the parish judges? The 
 duties of a probate judge are either minis- 
 terial or judicial. The project of the ma- 
 jority of the committee, and which was 
 unanimously concurred in as far as this 
 point was involved, as well by the minori- 
 ty as by the majority, recommended that 
 the ministerial offices should be separated 
 from the judicial offices, and that those du- 
 ties purely judicial should be confided to 
 the judiciary. It was not intended to de- 
 range the system of our laws in that res- 
 pect. The desire was that the parish 
 judge system should be abolished. What 
 were the parish judges in fact, under our 
 present system? They were perfect facto- 
 turns. Officers who might perform the cer= 
 
 emony of marriage for your children, pro- 
 test your promissory notes, make your last 
 will and testament, and cry your horse or 
 sell your household furniture at public ven- 
 due; The design was to divide the multi- 
 farious -functions appertaining to that single 
 officer. It was deemed the best course to 
 establish judges whose- functions should be 
 restricted "to- judicial duties alone. The 
 district judge could exercise probate juris- 
 diction as far as matters were involved that 
 "were purely judicial. All other duties that 
 were ministerial, could be assigned to some 
 officer appoin ed for that purpose^ — for in- 
 stance, a surrogate or register of wills. 
 This would not only result in a saving of 
 the public money, but the puritp of the ju- 
 dicial ermine would be better sustained. 
 The delegate from West Feliciana has 
 told us that the parish judge system has 
 worked well, and that we should not abol- 
 ish it until we are satisfied that we can 
 provide a better system. I take issue 
 with the gentleman an the question of fact. 
 I deny that it has worked well. He has 
 spoken'of an eulogium pronounced upon it 
 by a distinguished individual. Has that 
 individual resided among us and felt the 
 appression and extortion of the system? 
 Had he seen its practical workings — that 
 it levied annually from widows and or- 
 phans a tax of some one huddred thousand 
 or one hundred and fifty thousand dollars—- 
 that it pillaged and fleeced and plundered 
 the weak and the helpless, instead of eulo* 
 gizing it, he would have poured out his 
 bitterest and most unsparing denunciations 
 against. We have been told to leave the 
 discretion with the legislature to continue 
 or abolish the system as they please. Why 
 it is already the offspring of the legislature 
 and if we permit the discretion to be legah 
 ized in that body, we may rest assured that 
 it will be fastened upon us throughout all 
 time to come. It will be perpetuated as 
 surely as the sun will rise to-morrow. The 
 gentleman spoke ef expenses. He, is ac» 
 cording to his own account a great lover 
 of harmony. He calls himself the guar- 
 dian of the public treasury: 
 
 Mr. Ratliff: I would set the gentleman 
 right. It is others that have called me 
 the guardian of the public treasury. 
 
 Mr. Brent: The gentleman is a great 
 lover of economy, a great stickler for^con- 
 omy; he has frequently called himself the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 6S5 
 
 guardian of the public treasury. Let us 
 examine a few frets, and let us see what 
 would be the difference in expense be- 
 tween his favorite parish judge system and 
 the" system which it is now proposed to or- 
 ganize. We have ^now forty-five parish 
 judges, and placing them at an average 
 salary of three thousand dollars a piece, 
 which is below the estimate, we find that 
 the total amount paid to these judges is 
 one hundred and thirty-five thousand dol- 
 lars. This is a mederate calculation, and 
 I think it far below the mark. We have 
 then ten district judges, to whom we pay 
 twenty-five thousand dollars annually. We 
 may then say that we pay for the inferior 
 judges one hundred and sixty-thousand dol- 
 lars. I will venture to say that there is 
 no State in the Union that pays as large an 
 amount of money for her judiciary. There 
 is no State that pays more than from eigh- 
 ty thoesand to ninety thousand dollars, in- 
 cluding all expenses. Here we pay one 
 hundred and sixty thousand dollars to our 
 inferior judges alone. How much would 
 we have to pay vnder the proposed system? 
 We would have but one set of judges and 
 those salaried officers, not more than eigh- 
 teen, for I think that with that number we 
 could have the whole judicial busmes of 
 the State well attended to. They would 
 be competent to transact all the public bus- 
 iness. Allowing four thousand five huii-^ 
 dred dollars for the salaries of these eigh- 
 teen judges, and deducting that amount 
 from what we now pay the parish and dis- 
 i trict judges, and we have remaining one 
 hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars. 
 This would be saved to the people, and 
 since the gentleman is so great a lover of 
 economy. But there are other important 
 advantages to be derived from the system 
 proposed, which were dilated upon this 
 morning by the delegate from New Or- 
 leans, (Mr. Benjamin.) I think with that 
 delegate that grert confusion is the result 
 of the conflicting jurisclictipn which" now 
 prevails. There should be but one court 
 to apply the laws where individuals would 
 be certain to obtain redress— where tech- 
 nicalities would be. disregarded, and suits 
 may be decided upon their merits. This 
 is with me a most important consideration. 
 I shall vote against striking out, because 
 1 am willing that the legislature should 
 have the power to establish such courts as 
 87 
 
 the peculiar wants of the city may hereaf- 
 ter require. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, said that 
 this was one of the most important subjects 
 that had yet engaged the attention of $iis 
 body. Gentlemen have said that it was 
 circumscribed to narrow limits, I do not 
 agree with them; I consider that it embra- 
 ces the wisest scope. Before entering in- 
 . to the discussion, and attempting to show 
 the fallacy of the whole proposition; I will 
 beg the indulgence of the Convention, to 
 refer to some of the arguments that fell 
 from the delegate from New Orleans (Mr. 
 Conrad). What is the object of the propo- 
 sition? We are told that it is to effect a re- 
 form; a reform in what? A reform in the 
 administration of successions. I am as 
 anxious as any individual on this floor, that 
 such a reform should be effected. But I 
 must acknowlege that I am more solicitous 
 about things than names. The minds of 
 gentlemen have been filled with phantoms 
 by the fear of reform, which has suddenly 
 attacked them; and they now confound the 
 name of parish judge, with the abuses 
 growing out of our laws. 
 
 They tell us we should adopt their pro- 
 posed system, as a cure for existing evils/ 
 It will, says they, rid us of them, because 
 it will rid us of parish judges. According- 
 to one of the delegates (Mr. Conrad) howev- 
 er, this very system is now and has been for 
 years, established in this city. Has it re- 
 moved abuses here? No, sir. We are 
 told by therri that they still exist; and I be- 
 lieve there is no portion of the State where 
 they are more numerous and flagrant. 
 These abuses have continued to exist for 
 years under the operation of the proposed 
 system; and though this fact is notorious, 
 nd admitted, yet gentlemen, in a phrenzy 
 of indignation, still cry out abolish parish 
 judges. Why, sir, if they are abolished, 
 will that effect a reform in the city of New 
 Orleans? Not at all. There is no parish 
 judge there. It is true there is a judge 
 who is known as the judge of the parish 
 court; but he is entrusted with no functions 
 similar to those discharged by country 
 parish judges. To effect a reform, we 
 must first know the cause of abuse. Noth- 
 ing is more certain than that the abuses 
 complained of in the city, do not depend on 
 the existence of what is called the parish 
 judge system. To what then, we are com* 
 
680 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 pelled to enquire, are they to be attributed? 
 The answer is obvious to all who have ex- 
 amined the subject with any care. They 
 are the result of vices in our legislation. It 
 is not because the city of New Orleans has 
 a probate court, for I defy any one to point 
 out any country in the civilized world, 
 where an officer having similar functions, 
 is not to be found; the thing exists, al- 
 though the name may differ. 
 
 The delegate from Rapides (Mr. Brent) 
 has alluded to an officer known to the 
 common law as the surrogate. Now, 
 what are the functions of the surrogate] I 
 have been familiar from childhood with the 
 action of that officer, and I can with confi- 
 dence assert that the surrogate is nothing 
 more nor less than a judge of a court of pro- 
 bates. If the crying abuses do exist, about 
 which we have heard so much, it is not 
 because we have a judicial system varying 
 so much from that of the other States, so 
 far as probate business is concerned, but 
 because a portion of our laws violate cor- 
 rect principles. The chairman of the ju- 
 diciary committee (Mr. Grymes) in the re- 
 marks he made, observed that there was 
 another section which was necessary to 
 put a stop to the existing abuses. It seems 
 then, that it is not the change of system 
 which is to arrest them, but a provision 
 depriving the judges of the money patron- 
 age! The delegate referred to section 
 twelve, which prohibits judges from making 
 allowances to any other than ministerial 
 officers of their courts. If this provis- 
 ion be adopted, it will go far towards 
 ameding the evils in question. We have 
 been told that there is an organized sys- 
 tem of plunder carried on in our courts, un- 
 der cover of the judicial authoritp; and that 
 the property of minors and of absent per- 
 sons is preyed on, and consumed in the 
 course of legal proceedings had in our 
 courts. I have heard that this occurs too 
 often in the city, and in some of the par- 
 ishes in other portions of the State; in low- 
 er Louisiana such a perversion of justice 
 has never come under my knowledge. 
 
 I have had some experience in the pro- 
 fession of the law; I am, it is true, no lon- 
 ger a practitioner, but when I was at the 
 bar I had ample means of obtaining infor- 
 mation on the subject; I enjoyed as large 
 a practice, and one extending through as 
 many parishes, as any member of the pro- 
 
 fession; and 1 can assert before God, that I 
 never knew a case in which a minor or an 
 absent person was plundered by a parish 
 judge. ^ If they have been guilty of the 
 enormities charged on them in other quar- 
 ters of the State; if the estates of minors 
 and absent persons have been swallowed 
 up by them and their creatures, it is be- 
 cause society has neglected its most im- 
 portant duty. The voice of the community 
 has been silent; public sentiment has been 
 dead. And when that is the case, no- mat- 
 ter what may be the organization of our 
 courts, abuses will accumulate, and the 
 most monstrous wrongs will be perpetrated 
 with the most perfect impunity. 
 
 I have always been an advocate for re- 
 form in the administration of successions, 
 and of the estates of absent persons; and I 
 would willingly join in the adoption of 
 measures which would put a stop to this 
 species of legal robbery. I have already 
 alluded to a most fruitful source of their 
 abusus, I refer to the power possessed by 
 judges, of making allowances to all the 
 persons concerned in the management of 
 estates under judicial administration. The 
 allowances for attornies to represent ab- 
 sent heirs; the charges for attornies of cu- 
 rators and executors; and their represent- 
 ing absent creditors, &c, are in many in- 
 stances entirely disproportion^ to the ser- 
 vices rendered by them. Executors, ad- 
 ministrators, curators and syndics, &e„, 
 have no interest in contesting these claims, 
 and when they are not contested they are 
 allowed of course. This is a radical de- 
 fect; judges are authorized to make them 
 allowances, an in too many instances it 
 happens that estates are swallowed up by 
 them. It is possiale that some times 
 judges assent to exorbitant charges for 
 the gratification of favorites; but it is of in- 
 finitely more frequent occurrence that the 
 allowance of them is the result of collusion 
 between those intrusted by law with the 
 management of estates and the various per- 
 sons employed by them. 
 
 The power to make these allowances is 
 the principal source of the mischief, It is 
 that which fritters away the inheritance of 
 the successors of the dead, and the funds 
 which should be sacred to the creditors of 
 the estate. If this can happen when the 
 heirs and creditors are present, it must hap- 
 pen to a greater extent when they are ab~ 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 687 
 
 sent. Are we to change the names of 
 things, and under a new name to be sub- 
 jected to the same -abuses? Are we to 
 abolish the parish courts for no other pur- 
 pose than to transfer their jurisdiction to 
 the districts courts? The chairman of the 
 committee (Mr. Grymes) has told us that 
 we could do that by a single line. But is 
 the destruction of one court to obviate the 
 evils which are equally as incident to the 
 action of another? Will not the district 
 judges be exposed to the same temptations, 
 and be subject to the same influences? Will 
 they not be as likely to abuse their money 
 patronage as the proscribed judges? Will 
 they not gratify favorites, and make allow- 
 ances out of money under their control? If 
 it be a fact, that this vaunted system is in 
 operation in New Orleans, in the name of 
 God, with what propriety can we be called 
 upon to extend it to the country? To destroy 
 one set of courts, and to establish another 
 set of courts liable to the very same abuses! 
 We are told that these evils are of a most 
 outrageous character, and this* is the reme- 
 dy which is proposed! 
 
 "The judicial power shall be vested in a 
 supreme court, in district courts to be es- 
 tablished throughout the State,in justices of 
 the peace, and such other courts in the city 
 of New Orleans as the legislature may 
 from time to time direct." 
 
 Now, gentlemen say they will vote 
 against striking out the words "the city of 
 New Orleans," because, forsooth, the sys- 
 tem in the country will be identical with 
 the system in the city; and yet the legisla- 
 ture is to be vested, so far as the city is 
 concerned, with the very same power 
 which they so much deprecate for the i 
 country. They have "voluntarily declared j 
 against the abuse of power by the legisla- 1 
 ture, should it be permitted to create courts, 
 and with a strange inconsistency they 
 abandon the principle in favor of the city! 
 We may always gather wisdom from ex- 
 perience. This power has hitherto been 
 vested in the legislature, and when has it 
 been abused? We have had the same 
 courts which now exist in the country for 
 thirty-two years, without any change, un- 
 less the creation of two or three district 
 courts in the north-western portion of the 
 State, when they became necessary in con- 
 sequence of the rapid increase in popula- 
 tion. No new courts have been establish- 
 
 ed in the country, and the power vested in 
 the legislature, if it has been abused at all, 
 has only been abused within the limits of 
 the city. Some fifteen or twenty years 
 ago, I have been told, a judicial office was 
 created for the mere purpose of giving a 
 place to a person "well known at that time 
 and since in the political history of Louisi- 
 ana. Subsequently, the parish judge in 
 the city was divested of his probate juris- 
 diction, and another court created, in which 
 it was vested. Since then, we have had 
 the commercial court created. The city 
 then is the only spot where the power has 
 been exercised and abused, and yet gentle- 
 men desire to have that power perpetuated 
 for the city! The city is to be an excep- 
 tion. The legislature is to have no power 
 to establish courts in the country, no mat- 
 ter what may be the exigency, but they 
 may continue to exercise that power for the 
 city, although there alone it has, as yet, 
 been abused. 
 
 If the words in question are struck out, 
 will the city be deprived of the means of 
 having her courts re-organized, or their 
 number increased by the legislature, when 
 experience shall demonstrate the necessity 
 for some modifications or changes? Not at 
 all ! She will stand in precisely the same 
 situation that she did before. The legisla- 
 ture are competent to act in her behalf, 
 and will continue to be so. The power will 
 be unlimited, to create as many courts for 
 the city as may be deemed expedient. It 
 is only in reference to the country, that it 
 will produce any effect. If the words be 
 struck out, the same power will then exist 
 for the country; and if not, no matter what 
 changes may take place, she will be re- 
 stricted to the same courts throughout all 
 time. 
 
 If it be impolitic to vest the- power in the 
 legislature to create courts in the country, 
 it cannot, be politic to have the power to 
 create them in the city. If the conse- 
 quences of the exercise of that power are 
 detrimental, it ought certainly to be with- 
 drawn altogether. But if the power is to 
 be retained by the legislature, to provide 
 for future exigencies in the city, the same 
 arguments that establish the propriety of 
 that course in relation to the city, ought to 
 be conclusive with respect to the country. 
 We are not a stationary people. We are 
 making rapid advances. We may have 
 
Debates in the onvention of Louisiana. 
 
 cities in the interior. We may have a 
 manufacturing population. Where the God 
 of heaven has scattered minerals with a 
 prodigal hand, there will man be found to 
 employ those resources. There are im- 
 mense beds of coal in Louisiana; they must 
 be put to some use, and no doubt one day 
 they will be made. as available to industry 
 as the coal mines of Pennsylvania. What 
 right have we to deprive the country of 
 such facilities in the administration of jus- 
 tic®, as may hereafter become indispensa- 
 ble ? I mean, what right have we to do 
 this, in principle? 
 
 But to pass to another point. Let us 
 look at the details. Gentlemen tell us that 
 w T e shall get rid of an enormous expense 
 in the administration of successions. 1 am 
 amazecl at this declaration. Elave we not 
 the city of New Orleans before our eyes? 
 How are we to get rid of these expenses by 
 abolishing the parish judge system? What 
 sir, because you destroy the name, are you 
 to get rid of the abuses ? Every delegate 
 except one (Mr. Benjamin) who has spoken 
 upon this subject, has been staggered by 
 the argument that the duties now perform- 
 ed by judges of the courts of probate, would 
 have to be transferred to other oncers. 
 To whom are they to be transferred? This 
 is a question of great difficulty to those that 
 are for overthrowing the system. To what 
 other functionaries will you transfer those 
 duties ? To the surrogate, says one. That 
 functionary has no existence in our system. 
 To the clerks of the courts, says another. 
 If you do, will you get rid of the expense ? 
 Why, the same fees will be exacted; the 
 same duties will be performed; the petition 
 will have to be filed, and the same fee will 
 be charged for filing it; the order will have 
 to be given, and if a sale be made it will be 
 by qji auctioneer, and he will be entitled 
 to his commission. .Where is the economy 
 ' of which we have heard so much ? where 
 is the .prodigious, saying made? The gen- 
 tleman from New Orleans (Mr. Conrad) 
 amused himself by describing the multi- 
 formed duties of the parish judge, by assim- 
 ilating him to that legal personage, John 
 Stiles. He said that if an inventory had 
 to be taken, it had to be done by John 
 Stiles. If a family meeting were ordered 
 it was before John Stiles; and if a sale 
 were made, it was again John Stiles who 
 officiated, These various duties may not 
 
 be performed by one John Stiles, but what 
 is the difference, as to the expense, whe- 
 ther that individual- officiate, or several 
 others. It comes to the same thing in the 
 end. If you transfer all the duties to cl erks 
 of courts, which are now performed by the 
 parish judge, ex-qflicio, does it not amount 
 to the same thing? Is it not still John 
 Stiles the clerk, who acts, instead of John 
 Stiles, the parish judge? It is confounding 
 the name with the thing, to pretend that 
 there is any reform in this. 
 
 "A rose by any other name would smell 
 as sweet?," says the delegate from Orleans, 
 (Mr. Conrad.) The quotation was not very 
 appropriate in his argument. You may 
 change the names, but I imagine the thing 
 will still be the same, though he seems of 
 a different opinion, his quotation to the 
 contrary notwithstanding. 
 
 The delegate from Rapides (Mr. Brent) 
 advocates the change because he says it 
 will result in a great saving of money to 
 the State; and he figured it up in his own 
 way, to show that there will be a sav- 
 ing of one hundred thousand dollars, if we 
 adopt his system. I have also taken the 
 trouble to prepare some memoranda, which 
 I will submit as showing a different result, 
 But let us see how the gentleman has ar- 
 rived at his conclusions. He estimates 
 three thousand dollars per annum for each 
 judge, and I imagine that this estimate is 
 not far wrong. There are forty-five par- 
 ishes in the State, and to avoid an over- 
 estimate, instead of the sum of one hun- 
 dred and thirty-five thousand, he assumed 
 one hundred thousand dollars as the amount 
 they annually receive, and then asserts 
 that by striking out the name of parish 
 judge from the list of judicial functionaries, 
 this sum of one hundred thousand dollars 
 will be saved to the people. But is this 
 so? Will the mere erasure of the name of 
 parish judge from our statute hooks put an 
 end to the payment of fees in legal pro- 
 ceedings in relation to successions? Will 
 there be no more successions opened — no 
 wills admitted to probate — no executors, 
 curators, trustees or administrators appoint- 
 ed? Will there be no more inventories 
 made— no more property belonging to suc- 
 cessions sold — no more partitions effected, 
 accounts rendered and tableaus of distribu* 
 tion made? Why sir, these things, and 
 many others relative to the administration 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 •and settlement of successions, must be I 
 Jone. They have heretofore been done in 
 the country, under the authority of the 
 parish judge, and certain specined fees al- 
 lowed by them. You get rid of the name 
 of the officer, but not of his functions. The ; 
 functions may be divided; they may be 
 given to clerks of courts, or divided be- 
 tween notaries, auctioneers, clerks and 
 registers of wills or surrogates, but the 
 fees must be paid. There will be some 
 officer to do the same acts, and of course 
 authorised to charge the same fees. And 
 then this famous reform will have destroy- 
 ed a name without in any manner touch- 
 ing existing abuses. And in consequence 
 of this wonderful change, we are to have 
 eight additional district judges with what 
 gentlemen term liberal salaries. Will not 
 the State then be burdened with these ad- 
 ditional salaries? It will, sir: and this is 
 the grand result of this great reform, this . 
 boasted economy. But this is not ail. If 
 the legislature parcels out the duties of our 
 present parish judges among different offi- 
 cers: and this may happen if it is as much 
 shocked at the idea of accumulating vari- 
 ous duties in one office as some members 
 of this body. We shall have several offi- 
 cers in place of one: and what then will be 
 the result? Why, they must all live. One 
 who serves the altar must live by the altar: 
 and, as in many of our parishes the busi. 
 ness is inconsiderable, the starving officers 
 would, by their hungry clamor, be contin- 
 ually stimulating your legislatures to aug- 
 ment their fees. And. sir. in the end they 
 would succeed, for good fees would be giv- 
 en with a view to secure good officers. 
 
 But there is another reason which ope- 
 rates on my mind, and if no other existed 
 it would be sufficient to deter me from aid- 
 ing to effect this sweeping change. If we 
 destroy an entire class of officers, whose 
 duties were now so multiplied and impor- 
 tant as those of the parish judges., our ju- 
 risprudence must be changed before the : 
 new system goes into effect, or we shall 
 be involved in inextricable confusion. : 
 Why. sir, without it. a stop would not on- .' 
 ly be put to the administration of succes- 
 sions, but there will be no persons author- 
 ized to do acts absolutely essential to the 
 motion of the machinery of government 
 They preside at elections at some polls, 
 and appoint the commissioners who pre- 
 
 side at others — they make the returns of 
 the result of our elections. If they are 
 struck out of existence without legislative 
 preparation, it is impossible to foretell the 
 difficulties that may grow out of it. But 
 gentlemen say it will be very easy for the 
 legislature to make the necessary changes. 
 That may be. But common prudence and 
 common sense require that this Should be 
 done before the new system goes into ef- 
 fect. Why, sir, the article reported con- 
 tains another section, which makes it im- 
 perative on the governor to organize the 
 new judiciary as soon as the new constitu- 
 tion goes into effect. Gentlemen have de- 
 termined to tear down and leave toothers to 
 buildup. They distrust the legislature so 
 much that they will not permit them to de- 
 termine when the change of system shall 
 take place: and yet they leave them to 
 make those changes in our laws which 
 are absolutely essential to make the change 
 operative. Why, sir, from the language 
 of gentlemen one would suppose that the 
 legislature was a body at war with the peo- 
 ple, and entirely independent of them. and 
 that this house was the only place in which 
 the people could be represented. And yet, 
 previous legislatures have been, and suc- 
 ceeding ones will still be elected bv the 
 same citizens who have sent us here. I 
 must say, that for one. 1 do not share in • 
 this distrust of that body. They will al- 
 ways represent the people; and in my opin- 
 ion, to them, and them only, should the 
 establishment of all courts of original ju- 
 risdiction be entirely left. If this be not 
 done what will be our situation if the sys- 
 tem adopted should work badly? Why, it 
 cannot be changed, although the whole 
 people should demand it. until after the 
 lapse of years, for there must first be an 
 amendment of the constitution, "Here Mr. 
 Taylor particularized many difficulties and 
 inconveniences which would inevitably 
 foilow the adoption of the proposed sys. 
 tern, and then continued nearly as fol- 
 lows :~ 
 
 1 am opposed to takirg the step contem- 
 plated with such rare complacency by ma- 
 ny delegates, for another and very suffi- 
 cient reason. It is not expected by the 
 people. Sir. the question was not agitated 
 by them. There were but two questions 
 connected with the judiciary that were at 
 all discussed before the people. One relst? 
 
690 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 ted to the mode of appointing judges, and 
 the other to the tenure of their offices. 
 The most important of them by far, in my 
 view, is that relative to the tenure of office. 
 The contest was between those who wish- 
 ed to make the office of judge as it now is, 
 permanent, and such as were disposed to 
 limit it to a term of years. I have for a 
 long time thought that limiting the judi- 
 cial office to a short term of years, would 
 put an end at once and forever to all the 
 abuses which have heretofore grown out 
 of the negligence or misconduct of our 
 judges. As it is now, they are in fact, 
 independent of all control, and it may hap- 
 pen that their interest may turn them 
 aside from the path of duty, or indolence 
 prevent their pursuing it. If the term, on 
 the other hand be short, they are respon- 
 sible directly to the people through their 
 agents. If they fail to discharge their du- 
 ties through indolence, the failure will be 
 marked; and if they violate them through 
 the love of gain or the spirit of favorite- 
 ism, the violations will be chronicled in the 
 memories of the people and arrayed against 
 them in the day of reckoning. If we 
 adopt this principle, we shall have the 
 highest assurance that can be afforded by 
 men for the faithful discharge of the trusts 
 confided to them. Their tenure of office 
 • will depend on their conduct, and the 
 feelings of interest will strengthen the 
 sense of duty. If this be done, we shall 
 have done nearly all that we can do to ele- 
 vate the bench, and preserve the purity of 
 the judicial ermine. But this is not all that 
 is to be done to cleanse the stream of jus- 
 tice. I repeat it, sir, the abuses which 
 have been the subject of so much vehe- 
 ment declamation, are not the consequence 
 of the organization of our courts. I do not 
 mean to say that the judges are all blame- 
 Jess s and that none have prostituted their 
 power for the gratification of favoritism, 
 or the promotion of their own interests; 
 but I do deliberately say this: such derelic- 
 tions of duty are rare indeed compared 
 with the infinite number of instances in 
 which persons acting in a representative 
 capacity have under color of law, devour- 
 ed the substance of the stranger and the 
 orphan. To effect a reform there must be 
 legislation — wise — efficient legislation; and 
 this cannot be expected of this body. You 
 may abolish the office of parish judge if 
 
 you will, but the abuses will remain, until 
 the cause of them is removed by changes 
 in your statute book, not in your constitu- 
 tion. 
 
 In conclusion, I will only say that I pro- 
 test against the wholesale destruction now 
 proposed to be made of a system, before 
 it is known what is to succeed it; and that 
 for one I will not join in taking a step 
 which is clearly unnecessary at this time, 
 and which if wrong, cannot be retraced. 
 
 Whereupon the Convention adjourned 
 until five o'clock, p. m. 
 
 Wednesday Evening, April 16. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Marigny gave notice that he would 
 move, on Friday morning, for the reconsid- 
 eration of the rule which requires as many 
 votes in favor of re-consideration as voted 
 in favor of the original proposition. 
 
 The Convention resumed the considera* 
 tion of section one of the report of the 
 majority of the judiciary committee. 
 
 Mr. Lewis: I did not think Jhat the 
 simple motion under consideration would 
 have brought up the whole subject of the i 
 judiciary for discussion. I had supposed 
 that this debate would have arisen upon an- 
 other section of the report, to which it 
 more properly belongs. But as several 
 gentlemen have already spoken upon the 
 subject, and have gOne very fully into the 
 various matters involved in it, I trust I 
 may be permitted, without trespassing too 
 much upon the indulgence of ihe Conven- 
 tion, to offer my views upon it. 
 
 We have entered upon the discussion of 
 what is familiarly known as the parish 
 judge system. One of the designs attribu- 
 ted to its opponents is that of uprooting, 
 abolishing, the whole system; and I con- 
 fess that, for one, I am in favor of its entire 
 abolition. (1 do not mean northern aboli- 
 tion.) 
 
 I am aware that there is one principle 
 that has always exercised great influence 
 upon mankind. We look with distrust 
 and suspicion upon innovation, and are dis- 
 posed to submit to evils, merely because 
 they have been transmitted to us by our 
 forefathers. We are apt to be wedded to 
 fallacies because they are sanctified by an- 
 tiquity. 
 
 There is nothing like the parish judge 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 601 
 
 system to be found in any other State in ] involving no more than six bits. He is 
 the Union. The only system to which it j ex officio judge of the court of probates, 
 may be assimilated is that of the Spanish ! with unlimited jurisdiction as to amounts: 
 alcaldes or commandants, that formerly • a notary public, an auctioneer; in most of 
 governed in this country, in the name of the parishes, recorder of mortgages, recor- 
 his most catholic majesty. Those com- i der of conveyances, and besides all these 
 mandants were the political Caleb Quo- lie is a sort of a priest, for he issues licen- 
 tems of their day. Their will was prac- j ces and celebrates marriages. He is in- 
 tically the only' law of the land. The vested with almost all the powers of gov- 
 usual custom of those times was to apply ernment in his parish, and combines them 
 to the alcalde of the ' ; arondissement," who ; in his own persons His mental and phys- 
 redressed the wrongs complained of. or, \ ical powers are taxed in every way, and 
 too frequently, inflicted greater, according he lias need of the fabled powers of an Atlas 
 to the influence of the parties who came ; to sustain their weight. Besides all these 
 before him. Where the matter of dispute duties, he is ex officio guardian of minors, 
 was too great for the action of the alcalde, bound to see that they are suitably provid- 
 the commandant administered justice in ! ed with tutors, guardian of the rights of 
 his own way. \ insane persons, and others incapable of 
 
 When our present system of jurispru- taking care of themselves, and their es- 
 dence was first adopted, American princi- , tates. Amass of duties too much for any 
 pies had just been called into being, and j one man, and which no one man is physi- 
 were not then well understood by our pub- i cally capable of performing well, 
 lie men. Many of the functions of the These are some of the duties which 
 commandant were retained and engrafted were assigned to the Spanish commandants, 
 upon our institutions, and the anomaly of and which have been transferred to our 
 the parish judge system was the natural j parish judges, as. in some sort, their suc- 
 result. cessors. 
 
 What are the functions of the parish Such a system might answer the purpo 
 judges? I do not argue this question with j ses intended by it. in a country with but 
 prejudice or passion, but shall urge con- few inhabitants, where men lived in an al- 
 siderations that are the results of my own : most primitive state of society, and where 
 experience, and of a comparison of the one reverend gentleman could take upon 
 systems of other countries with our own. 1 himself, in reference to the rest of the com- 
 
 The parish judge unites in his own per- j munity, the patriarchal or domestic duty of 
 son more functions than are attributed to ! governing them as a ,; good father of a fam- 
 any four different omcers in any other of ily * and hence we find so frequently re. 
 the States. He is ex officio almost every : earring in our civil code, the expression 
 thing. Some of his multifarious attributes '. " a good father of a family." 
 have, it is true, been withdrawn, in some i This state of things seems to be based 
 of the parishes: but in others, 1 believe. : uporLthe patriarchal government that ex- 
 they remain the same to the present time, isted before the flood; and which, however 
 ! The eyils and inconveniences of this sys- well it may have suited the antediluvians, 
 tern have been so great, that relief has been j does not seem to me to be suitable to the 
 sought for in partial legislation: hence we i present enlightened age of the world. It 
 rind that there are parishes separated only | is said that we live in an age of progres- 
 by a small rivulet, having institutions and I sion — and it seems to me that we have 
 local ordinances, differing as much from made sufficient advancement to be able to 
 each other, as do the laws and institutions j discover what effect the present system has 
 of the petty principalities of Germany, i had upon the community, and to form a 
 In some parishes, the parish judge is ex j tolerable estimate of the probable effects of 
 officio president of the police jury; in oth- j that which we propose as a substitute for 
 ers he is not. In nearly all he is vested ' it. We are not to be alarmed by the bug- 
 with criminal jurisdiction, and presides ! bear of innovation; nor by the argument of 
 over the trial of offences committed by j the gentleman from Lafourche. (Mr. Tay- 
 slaves. He is conservator of the peace, . lor) that we are pulling down a venerable 
 and as a justice of the peace may try a suit j institution. It is venerable, if you will, by 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 its age, but whence did it have its origin? 
 In despotism. It is a remnant of the old 
 Spanish system. Our object is to provide 
 against abuses that we think liable to re- 
 sult from this system, and to secure the 
 benefit of a liberal and enlightened judi- 
 ciary. 
 
 The gentleman (Mr. Taylor) says that 
 we talk of abuses, but offer no remedy — 
 that we are only changing the name, but 
 not the thing. His argument, to my mind, 
 was more specious that sound; it was very 
 ingenious, and from the known candor of 
 that gentleman, I doubt not it emanated 
 from his convictions, and was satisfactory 
 to his judgment ; but it failed to convince 
 me. I am far from concurring with him 
 in that opinion. - 
 
 I agree with him that legislation will 
 necessarily carry out the details of the 
 new system, proposed for our adoption; but 
 this may be said of e very radical change in 
 our organic law; and unless we strike a 
 blow at the root of the old system, and 
 eradicate it by constitutional provisions, I 
 fear the reform will never be effected. It 
 requires legislative action to give force 
 and efficacy to most of the provisions of the 
 constitution, and to set the wheels of go- 
 vernment in motion. 
 
 The establishing other courts besides 
 a supreme court, in the constitution of a 
 State, is no novelty; and I see no good rea- 
 son why district courts should not be as 
 well created by the constitution, as a su- 
 preme court. 
 
 in the course of my professional career, 
 I have aided in the settlement of more than 
 fifty successions, some large and some 
 small in amount. In the city of New Or- 
 leans I had personal knowledge of the 
 charges upon the settlement of but one es- 
 tate, and I looked into that because it was 
 the estate of one of my uncles, who died in 
 this city, of the yellow fever. 
 
 He returned to this city from Mexico (on 
 his way to Missouri, where he resided,) 
 and died, leaving deposited in one of the 
 city banks about three thousand dollars, in 
 gold and silver. For the settlement of this 
 estate about eleven hundred dollars were 
 consumed in law charges and expenses; or 
 one -third of the amount. I went to the of- 
 fice to look at these papers, accompanied 
 by the honorable delegate from Jefferson, 
 now attorney general of the State, who 
 
 showed them to me, and to .whom I now 
 appeal to correct me if I am wrong in my 
 statement. But I may be told that these 
 extravagant expenses form no part of the 
 system. To this I reply, that any system 
 that leads to such extravagant expenses in 
 the settlement of estates must be wrong; 
 There is no system which, in my opinion, 
 is susceptible of greater abuses than the 
 one under consideration. 
 
 When a person dies, the seals must be 
 affixed to his effects. These seals may 
 not be removed without the authority of the 
 parish judge, and he very generally goes 
 himself to perfom that duty; and so he goes 
 on, taking all the steps required, until the 
 final settlement of the estate, for each of 
 which heavy fees are allowed by law. 
 
 The gentleman from New Orleans (Mr. 
 Conrad) has indulged in some merriment 
 in describing the attributes of the parish 
 judge under the simile of that legal facto- 
 tum, John Stiles. These attributes are 
 melancholy facts. There is no system 
 with which I am acquainted, that is half so 
 expensive as our probate system^ except 
 the English court of chancery. 
 
 It is, unfortunately, made by our laws, 
 the interest of the parish judge to create as 
 much expense as possible in the settle- 
 ment of successions. The system tempts 
 them to do wrong at almost every step; and 
 though I can, and do bear testimony to the 
 fact, that, so far as my experience goes, 
 our parish judges have successfully resisted ' 
 this temptation; have been honest in spite 
 of the system and maintained their integ- 
 rity; still I consider no system good which 
 offers temptation to the violation of duty. 
 
 A succession is opened and a contest 
 arises amongst the heirs as to whether it 
 shall be divided in kind or by a sale at auc- 
 tion. The judge must decide this contest, 
 and as the division by a sale at auction will 
 be more profitable to the judge (who as 
 auctioneer makes the sale,) than any other 
 mode, is he not tempted to incline to his 
 own interest and so decide? Again, do 
 the heirs disagree amongst themselves as 
 to the mode of partition, and ask the judge's 
 advice, will he not find reasons "thick as 
 blackberries" in favor of a sale? Such is 
 the natural tendencies of the principle and 
 the temptation offered in our present sys- 
 tem; and with the purest intentions and 
 most upright designs, it is possible to im- 
 
Debates in # the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 693 
 
 agine we are all more or less influenced 
 by our interest in the conclusions to which 
 our most enlightened judgments can ar- 
 rive. In the language of an old poet — 
 
 M Mankind are unco weak, 
 
 And little to be trusted ; 
 If self the wavering balance shake, 
 
 It's rarely right adjusted." 
 
 Entertaining these views, I feel bound 
 to afford my aid in pulling down the pre- 
 sent system, and substituting in its place 
 one that I believe will not offer the temp- 
 tations to Wrong that I find or think I find, 
 in the former. 
 
 Mr. Marigny: It Would seem from what 
 we have heard in this discussion that the 
 Convention have assembled for the pur- 
 pose of impeaching all the parish judges, 
 and yet there is* nothing that is more dissirrr- 
 ilaijtothe mission we have received from the 
 people, and I may dare add, with the prom- 
 ises we have made when we were upon 
 the hustings. I am induced to believe that 
 the honorable delegate from St. Landry 
 participated in making these promises. 
 How can we imagine that after having en- 
 gaged to make rio other changes in the 
 constitution than those which the people 
 desired, and which they indicated in pre- 
 cise terms through the legislature; how, I 
 would ask, can we now assume the un- 
 limited power of dictators. How can we 
 imagine that we combine the concentrated 
 wisdom of the whole State— that we are 
 1 the Areopagus, and that we are elevated 
 above all future deliberative bodies that 
 may ever meet? The constitution of 1812 
 places the judiciary power of the State in 
 from three to five judges of the supreme 
 court, and in such inferior tribunals 
 as the legislature might think proper to es- 
 tablish. This portion of the old constitu- 
 tion ought to have been left intact, inas- 
 much as the people have never complain- 
 ed, and it was not embraced in that essen- 
 tial reforms which were contemplated by 
 the law, in virtue of which we are here con- 
 vened. How does rt happen that upon 
 your own responsibility you are about to 
 overthrow the existing system and to cre- 
 ate, all through the State, with the excep- 
 tion of the city, district courts, and to abol- 
 ish parish courts. I do not contend that 
 
 is proper to accumulate so many labors 
 
 in the hands of the judge of the parish 
 courts. All that I assume is this, that if 
 the reforms in the judiciary system be ne- 
 cessary, about which we have heard so 
 much, the legislature is better adapted to 
 effect such changes as may be desired than 
 we are. The action of this body is coun- 
 terbalanced by no other power. It is gen- 
 erally composed of from sixty to fifty wills, 
 whereas the action of the legislature, 'be- 
 sides being a body more numerous, is 
 checked by the action of the senate, and 
 by the action of the executive branch, that 
 has a negative upon i's proceedings. We 
 must be animated, I repeat again by a 
 strong spirit of presumption, to imagine 
 that we are more skilled, and that we shall 
 succeed better, than an assembly which 
 will be composed of men our equals in ev. 
 ery respect, and which will count among 
 its number, citizens highly accomplished 
 in political matters, and which we are led 
 to expect from the rapid progress made by 
 the young men of the present day. Let 
 us not deceive ourselves/ It does not be- 
 come a constituent body like this to inter- 
 fere in matters of pure legislation. If that 
 was the design this body ought to be com- 
 posed of two branches, in order that one 
 branch might operate as a salutary check 
 upon tho other. If the national conven- 
 tion of France had been composed of two 
 branches, one acting as a counterpoise to 
 the other, Louis XVI would not have had* 
 his head brought to the block. Again, had 
 the cortes in Spain been composed of Jwo 
 bodies, the civil war that has distracted' 
 and divided that conn try would have been 
 averted. There never has been a dictator 
 but where the will of one man has reigned 
 supreme. But what are the arguments 
 adduced by the honorable delegate from 
 St. Landry, (Mr. Lewis) to inspire us with 
 the fell spirit of destruction to eradicate in- 
 stitutions with which our people have be- 
 come familiar. We have been told that 
 there is no such thing as a court of pro- 
 bates, possessing the same powers as oi r 
 court of probate to be found in the union. 
 And what does that prove? That in the 
 State of Louisiana we regulate the rights 
 of minors, and those claiming inheritances, 
 with greater certainty and precision than 
 elsewhere. In the other States the father 
 has absolute control over his children, be- 
 cause 'he is the absolute master of his for- 
 
694 Debates in the Convention of Jiouisiana, J 
 
 tune, of which he may deprive them at 
 pleasure. But in Louisiana we have forc- 
 ed heirs. Suppose this peculiarity did 
 not exist, and that a father might donate 
 his property to whom he pleased, who 
 would be the losers by that disposition in 
 our system? A considerable number of 
 lawyers, not even excepting the honorable 
 delegate from St. Landry, (Mr. Lewis) 
 draw a very profitable income from that 
 accident in our legislation. I have no 
 doubt that if it f was contemplated to des- 
 troy a system which was adverse to the in- 
 terest of the gentlemen of the bar, their or- 
 gan would be found on the side of the" op- 
 position, for he himself has confessed that 
 the most honest heart and the purest in- 
 telligence cannot resist the necessity of 
 defending their interest. 
 
 What amused me in the argument of the 
 gentleman (Mr. Lewis), was his attempt 
 to establish the identity of the parish judges 
 with the Spanish commandantes. He 
 judges, if I may use a familiar expression, 
 of a book by looking at the preface, and 
 runs on with his remarkable volubility, from 
 criticism to criticism, as if there were no 
 government where the writ of habeas cor- 
 pus was not to be found. If he had have 
 given himself the trouble to examine the 
 mode of governing of those commandantes 
 who appear to have fallen so much under 
 his displeasure, he would have seen that 
 two among them, Michael Cantrelle and 
 Manuel Andry, at the transfer of the go- 
 vernment of Louisiana, in delivering over 
 the archives of their respective offices to 
 governor Claiborne, made the following 
 striking declaration: — " It is now thirty 
 years since we have been the comman- 
 dantes of our respective districts, and we 
 have never had a single case to decide." 
 
 I woukTask the honorable delegate from 
 St. Landry, if he can point to any place in 
 the United States where as much could be 
 said? He appears to think that he has 
 discovered a most scandalous example, 
 when he cites to us as a fact: that the par- 
 ish judge of St. Landry was in the receipt 
 for a number of years of a salary of twelve 
 thousand dollars per annum. But what 
 does that prove? It proves that there is a 
 greater amount of legal business in that 
 parish than there is in some others, and 
 that if the fees which contributed this 
 amount had not been solely received by the 
 
 judge, they would have been distributed, 
 and paid by the parties to a clerk of the 
 court, to a notary and to an auctioneer. 
 It is not, then, in the interest of the public 
 that these salaries are paraded before 
 us, but evidently in the interest of other 
 offices, other than the parish judges. 
 Where is the difference to the public 
 whether the fees of office for probate busi- 
 ness, is paid to the parish judges or to a 
 half a dozen other officers? It is a matter 
 of supreme indifference. I think I can 
 discover what is the true cause of attack 
 upon the parish court system. The parish 
 judge gives advice gratis, and that does not 
 answer so well for the gentlemen of the 
 bar. He causes petitions to be written by 
 his clerk, and estates are settled without 
 the intervention of a lawyer, and that is to 
 them a very objectionable feature of the 
 system. They infer, with their usual sa- 
 gacity, that that now w 7 ill cost three hun- 
 dred dollars in the settlement of succes- 
 sions, will, if the scheme advocated by the 
 delegate from St. Landry prevail, will cost 
 six hundred dollars, and as they expect to 
 get a good slice, they find the system to be 
 most admirable; and is it to effect such a : 
 change as this that one hundred thousand 
 dollars have been drawn from the public 
 treasury, to maintain this body? Let gen- 
 tlemen beware; the sentiments of the peo- 
 ple have undergone a revulsion. The city 
 of New Orleans has been reprobated as a ! 
 place of political pestilence, which could 
 not be approached within sixty miles by 
 the inhabitants of the other portion of the 
 State, without exercising a deleterious in- 
 fluence upon them. It is not unlikely that 
 this unjust reproach will cause three-four'hs 
 of the people of the city to vote against the 
 constitution; and if you now destroy the 
 judiciary system, which has been endeared 
 to the people of lower Louisiana, and with 
 which they are familiar, you may induce 
 them to vote 'in mass against the adoption 
 of the new constitution. Is it to defeat the 
 object for wdiich we have been assembled? 
 or to carry it out with fidelity that we have 
 assumed the responsibility of representing 
 the wishes of our fellow citizens? 
 
 If you are resolved to destroy your own 
 work, you may begin by destroying the pa- 
 rish courts. But if you are sincerely de- 
 sirous to make a constitution which will be 
 acceptable to the people, respect their cus- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 695 
 
 toms and their habits, for there is in these 
 nothing that is wrong or reprehensible: 
 and it does not become you to interfere 
 with any of their privileges: as far as I am 
 concerned. I feel that I have discharged 
 my duty. Jt is not my fault if a disposition 
 has been manifested to abandon the true 
 principles of democracy, with the view of 
 satisfying the insatiable desire of obtaining 
 political power. In attempting to establish 
 a system instead of laying a basis, we have 
 encroached upon the rights of the legisla- 
 ture; we have attempted to deprive them of 
 the means of responding to the wishes of 
 the people, and we have consecrated a des- 
 potism in the empire of liberty. You are 
 about to fail in carrying out the wishes of 
 the people in the presence of four hundred 
 thousand of your fellow citizens. Again I 
 repeat, beware! That formidable mass 
 may annihilate you by their weight, and 
 may reduce you and your work to the ut- 
 most insignificance. 
 
 But we are told that the people are dis- 
 gusted with the parish court system. This 
 is a mistake. The people are not dissatis- 
 fied with the system itself; it is their repre- 
 sentatives who are moved by the restless 
 spirit of innovation. How are you to 
 supply the place of those officers who have 
 resided in the midst of their several pa- 
 rishes and have obtained the public confi- 
 dence! ! — who are the depositories of the 
 transactions of the people, and of the for- 
 tunes which have been accumulated — who 
 have in their hands a large amount of the 
 inheritance of minors? By a district judge 
 — an itenerant magistrate who may be un- 
 der the influence of indifference or preju- 
 dice? To convince you that I have neither i 
 the subtle science of the lawyer nor the 
 elocution of an accomplished orator, but I \ 
 have a profound sentiment of my duty, I 
 submit to you my views with the modesty 
 which becomes a man whose experience ! 
 has demonstrated to him that it is impossi- 
 ble to control the will of the people. You 
 may carry your point here. You may j 
 abuse your your power if you choose, but 
 remember that the people will do me the 
 justice ©f believing that I have not the vani- I 
 ty of imagining myself more capable than 
 others in whom they may hereafter confide 
 their authority, and that I have not at- 
 tempted to impose upon them a system of 
 legislation in the constitution. Methinks 
 
 I see those parishes against whom you are 
 about to pass the sentence of death, gather 
 ing their strength to overwhelm you! Their 
 voice alone will reduce you to silence, and 
 banished by the popular will from the coun- 
 cils of the State, you will have nothing to 
 do but to read your bibles and repent! 
 
 Mr. Soule desired to say a few words 
 before the proposition of the gentleman 
 from \^ est Feliciana (Mr. Ratliff) was put 
 to vote. He Ijad examined the question in 
 all its bearings, and there was not a prin- 
 ciple that had been enunciated since the 
 opening of this debate in which he did not 
 concur, so far as it was designed to intro- 
 duce in the judiciary a system of uniformi- 
 ty, and to reform those abuses which had 
 become excressences upon the present sys- 
 tem. Names are with me but matters of 
 little consideration, it is the results which 
 claim my attention; and I would inquire, 
 how are we to obtain the object which is so 
 generally desired? The response to this 
 question depends upon an impartial exami- 
 nation of all the facts. I have care full v 
 pondered the subject, and it strikes me 
 that the conclusion which has been urged 
 in the course of this discussion is true: that 
 to secure uniformity and simplicity, the ju- 
 
 ! diciary should embrace but two tribunals 
 
 one of original and the other of appellate 
 j jurisdiction, to-wit: a supreme court and an 
 ; interior court, to which may be given m- 
 | differently the name of district court or pa- 
 rish court. If the majority of the judiciary 
 committee could only convince me that the 
 administration of justice would be as effi. 
 cient and as convenient by the establish- 
 ment of district courts, embracing several 
 parishes, instead of the appoinment of a 
 separate court in each parish, I would at 
 once accede to their plan. But I am ap- 
 prehensive that it will not attain that re- 
 sult, unless perhaps the clerks of the courts 
 are invested with other than purely minis- 
 terial powers. 
 
 I think that the parish court system, with 
 proper modifications, would be preferable. 
 It has besides, the advantage of being iden- 
 tified with the habits of the people. It has 
 been in operation ever since the organiza- 
 tion of our government, and it will be found 
 difficult to destroy the predelictions which 
 it has inspired. It would, therefore, be 
 more expedient to retain the parish courts, 
 givfn's' to them the jurisdiction which is 
 
693 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 proposed to be given to the district courts, 
 and depriving them of those ministerial 
 functions which do not accord with the dig- 
 nity of the judicial office, )md which places 
 the judge in the singular attitude of decid- 
 ing upon his own acts. Heretofore the 
 functions of parish judges have by a 
 strange contradiction, presented the ano- 
 maly of restriction on the one hand, and of 
 unlimited power on the other. In the one 
 instance their jurisdiction extended without 
 limit, and that in a matter deeply affecting 
 the inierest of individuals and families. On 
 the other hand, they are limited, in ordi- 
 nary cases, to a jurisdiction of three hun- 
 dred dollars. Let us preserve the probate 
 jurisdiction; and in reference to the ordi- 
 nary jurisdiction, let it be as unlimited as 
 the jurisdiction proposed to be given to the 
 district court. With this simple change, 
 we shall assure to each parish a court, 
 where all matters in litigation can be de- 
 cided promptly and conveniently. I have 
 experienced, as wetl as my colleagues who 
 have spoken in favor of the adoption of the 
 report of the majority ,of the committee, the 
 expediency of uniformity and simplicity in 
 the organization of our judiciary; and I 
 think with the committee, that the best 
 means of effecting that object is to estab- 
 lish but two courts; the one of original, and 
 the other of appellate jurisdiction. I prefer 
 the conservation of the parish courts with 
 some suitable changes and modifications, 
 better to adapt them to the end for which 
 they were created. •' Moreover, it must be 
 borne in mind, that the people are familiar 
 with that system, and that its destruction 
 may cause great inconvenience, and ano- 
 ther advantage will result from retaining 
 the old system. It will necessitate fewer 
 changes; whereas, if we adopt the present 
 scheme, we shall have to make great and 
 numerous changes in the civil code and 
 code of practice. If we adopt the former, 
 it will be scarcely necessary to make any 
 changes in the laws themselves, and v/e 
 shall have an administration which is fa- 
 miliar to the people. -I will conclude by 
 observing, that I did not expect to engage 
 in the discussion this evening. These are 
 my views, briefly expressed, and I shall 
 take occasion to present the amendment 
 which I shall now read, for the information 
 of the house. 
 
 [Mr. Souie here read the amendment 
 referred to.] 
 
 Mr. Benjamin: It seems to be the 
 sense of the house that there shall be but 
 one set of inferior courts, whose jurisdic- 
 tions shall be concurrent and universal, so 
 that conflicting questions of jurisdiction will 
 be settled forever. This coincidence of 
 opinion convinces me that the defects in 
 the present system are well understood. 
 The subject has for some considerable 
 time engaged my attention, and I proposed 
 at one time to submit a plan for the reor- 
 ganization of our judiciary system, embrac- 
 ing similar reforms. When I was a mem- 
 ber of the legislature, I was precluded from 
 doing this, from the precarious state of my 
 health, having been unable to attend the 
 sessions of the legislature until the close of 
 the session. I attach but little importance 
 to names, and it is with me a matter of 
 no moment how you baptize your courts, 
 provided that you organize them on just 
 and proper principles. You may call them 
 district courts, or parish courts, I care not! 
 But I would suggest that there will be great 
 difficulty in establishing these courts, so 
 that one court may be allowed to each 
 parish, exclusively. The salaries of the 
 judges of the parish courts accrue princi- 
 pally from the fees they receive in the ex- 
 ercise of those functions, which are de- 
 nominated ministerial. It is the parties 
 interested in the settlement of successions, 
 that contribute, for the most part, to the 
 payment of the salaries of those officers. 
 Now, if you take away from the judges, 
 as is proposed, all ministerial functions, it 
 becomes necessary for the State to allow 
 them a fixed salary . It is proposed in the 
 report of the majority of the judiciary 
 committee, to establish eighteen judicial 
 districts, and to allot to each, one judge. 
 If we adopt the suggestion of my colleague 
 (Mr. Soule) we shall have forty-six judges 
 in place of eighteen, besides those which 
 may hereafter be appointed for the special 
 courts that will be created for the city. 
 These forty-eight judges v/ill have to be 
 compensated by a fixed salary, and the 
 question arises, what will be a proper sala- 
 ry to each one of them? Shall it be uni- 
 form, or shall it* be in proportion to the 
 services rendered? If we say that the saU 
 aries shall be uniform, then we allow to the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 69? 
 
 judge who has little to do, as much as to 
 the judge whose duties are arduous, and 
 whose time is constantly engaged by the 
 greater amount of litigation in the parish 
 for which he may be appointed; and as 
 three thousand dollars would be as little 
 as we could allow to the latter, we -would 
 be imposing upon the State an annual debt 
 of one hundred and forty-four thousand 
 dollars. If we say that it shall be in 
 proportion to the services rendered, it is 
 true we reduce the expense, but we create 
 heart-burnings and jealousies, and ifc may 
 be considered that, by this system of gra- 
 dation, a humiliating distinction is made 
 between the relative pretensions of these 
 officers; all this may create a great deal of 
 dissatisfaction and difficulty, and it may be 
 inferred that less solicitude is shown for the 
 interest of small parishes than for laige 
 parishes. Such an attempt, it strikes me, 
 would be highly inexpedient. 
 
 Wherever the effort has been made to 
 obtain judges at small and inefficient sala- 
 ries, it has most signally failed. The ex- 
 periment was made in Massachusetts, and 
 was attended with unfortunate results. The 
 able and accomplished jurists on the 
 bench at that time, gave in their resigna- 
 tions, and as lawyers above mediocrity 
 could not be induced to accept the appoint- 
 ments, persons far below it had to be cho- 
 sen. The consequence was great confu- 
 sion and great detriment to the administra- 
 tion of justice; and the legislature of that 
 State were compelled to retrace their steps. 
 A similar attempt in Louisiana will be 
 followed by like results, and it will be 
 found impossible to place on the bench 
 without a fair and reasonable compensa- 
 tion, men of commanding talents and strict 
 integrity. Such a mistaken notion of eco- 
 nomy will in the end cost the State more 
 than the very highest salaries that could 
 be allowed. It will destroy the confidence 
 of the people in their judges. Divide the 
 districts as far as it can be done equally, 
 but do not destroy the independence of the 
 judiciary by making it subservient to the 
 economical calculations of the legislature. 
 
 There are but two points upon which 
 there is a difference of opinion, and that 
 is simply to determine upon the name to 
 be given to the inferior courts, and whether 
 each parish shall have one judge exclusive- 
 ly. As for the first point, I conceive it to 
 
 be a matter of no moment; names signify 
 nothing. As for the second, as I have had 
 the honor to state, I think there are insu- 
 perable objections to it. It would entail a 
 very heavy expense upon the State, and it 
 would be difficult to fix the salaries upon 
 a principle ©f equality which would be 
 satisfactory. A provision, it is true, 
 might be introduced that the parish 
 should be charged with- the salary of the 
 judge, and this might obviate the latter in- 
 convenience; but I do not believe that such 
 a proposition would meet with favor from 
 the majority of this body. 
 
 Whereupon, on motion, the Convention 
 adjourned until to-morrow at 10 o'clock. 
 
 Thursday, April 17, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 I ment. 
 
 The honorable Mr. Stephens, .at the 
 request of the President, opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 Mr. DgNN gave notice that he would 
 move for the reconsideration of the section 
 relative to the lieutenant governor, in or- 
 der to attach to the office the duty of su- 
 perintendant of public schools. • 
 
 The Convention then resumed the con- 
 sideration of the 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 Section one of the report of the majority 
 of the committee upon the judiciary. 
 
 Mr. Preston said that the motion to^ 
 strike out three words in the first section, 
 hardly presented the question before the 
 house. The discussion would more pro- 
 perly have come up in another place, but 
 as gentlemen had taken the occasion to go 
 into an exposition of their views, he would 
 beg leave to make a few remarks which 
 would be as brief as possible. The first 
 section proposes to abolish the parish 
 court system and to substitute district 
 courts. The motion of the delegate from 
 West Feliciana (Mr. Ratliff ) was design- 
 ed to counteract that object. The old 
 constitution prescribed that there should 
 be one supreme court, and directed the le- 
 gislature to create such other inferior 
 courts as they might deem proper for the 
 dispatch of the public business. Experi- 
 ence has rendered it necessary to be more 
 explicit. The delegate from New Orleans 
 (Mr. Benjamin) has expressed what, in my 
 opinion, is necessary to give simplicity and 
 
098 
 
 Debates in ttie Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 vigor to the judiciary, with, this exception, 
 that I think it better to engraft the parish 
 court system by remoddleing the judiciary, 
 than to establish district courts. I concur 
 with the gentleman from New Orleans, 
 (Mr. Benjamin) that there should be but 
 two couits. I do not include justices of the 
 peace, because they are hardly to be called 
 courts. A court of appeals and a court of 
 original jurisdiction to establish the facts 
 and the law. I am averse to having three 
 or four courts; they will give rise to inter- 
 minable questions of jurisdiction, which 
 will produce great confusion and be ruin- 
 ous to parties involved in litigation, and 
 will only enure to the benefit of those who 
 live upon the laws of the country. It is 
 absurd to have so many" courts; they are 
 called for by no necessity. We have but 
 one set of laws, and they are few and defi- 
 nite. By an act of the legislature the C. 
 Code, and the Code of Practice, and the 
 statutes of the State, are declared to be the 
 only laws adopted for the administration of 
 justice throughout the State.. These laws are 
 few and simple; the decisions ofthe supreme 
 court are not laws themselves, but only inter- 
 pretations of laws. The idea that the 
 same man should, as judge, be competent 
 to grant you relief because you addressed 
 him as chancellor, which he could not 
 have granted you as a common law judge; 
 involved an absurdity. It was what I nev- 
 er could comprehend; and I concur with 
 the delegate from New Orleans (Mr. Ben- 
 jamin) that such unmeaning and mischiev- 
 ous distinctions, should be swept away from 
 our judicial proceedings. 
 
 I consider that one of the great measures 
 of reform, which will have a most salutary 
 effect, is the limitation of the term of fede- 
 ral office to short terms ; as long as the 
 term of office was for life, reforms in the 
 system could only be partial and inadequate. 
 The superintendence exercised by judges 
 upon sheriffs, clerks and others, subser- 
 vient to them in authority, was most pow- 
 erful; and the combination of these officers 
 might prevent the election of any one to 
 the legislature, who was disposed to cut 
 down their fees, and make other essential 
 reforms in the public interest. There is 
 another system which I freely broached 
 when I was a candidate for the Conven- 
 tion, in an adjoining city and parish, a par- 
 ish which is supposed to be aristocratic, 
 
 and to be wedded to old systems; I declared 
 my unqualified and unequivocal preference 
 for the election of judges by the people; 
 and as I expressed that preference publicly 
 and frequently during the canvass, I am 
 bound to conclude that a majority were in 
 favor of that mode of reform. There are 
 two or three incidental matters of reform 
 which have been recommended in the re- 
 port of the majority, that ought to be adopt- 
 ed; and which, in my humble opinion, if 
 abopted would obviate most of the objec- 
 tions <to the parish judge system. One of 
 these, and the principal, is that the judges 
 should exercise no purely ministerial func- 
 tions. The gentleman from New Orleans 
 (Mr. Conrad) has alluded in an amusing 
 manner to the multifarious duties of the 
 parish judge. He might, in enumerating 
 the various stations held by that officer, 
 have gone farther, and have told us that in 
 some instances to his thirteen other em- 
 ployments were added the presidency of a 
 bank. But it is not in the multifarious 
 functions of the parish judges that we are 
 to seek for the evils which ezist in the sys-* 
 tern. The true policy would be to pay that 
 officer a fixed salary, sufficient to remune- 
 rate him for his services and to give him a 
 decent living, and to prescribe that he 
 should perform all the duties properly be- 
 longing to the station, and which the pub- 
 lic convenience might require. The great 
 mode of reform, to my mind, is to take 
 away the money patronage from the office, 
 and to provide that the judge should no 
 longer exact fees, so thatJhe should not be 
 exposed to the reproach of deciding his own 
 case, what his own compensation should 
 be, and to what extent he should accumu- 
 late the proceedings. This wrong has, 
 together with the money patronage, thrown 
 great discredit upon the system, and excited 
 the general distrust in the public mind 
 which prevails. 
 
 The gentleman from St. James (Mr. 
 Lewis) had alluded to a particular case, 
 which had almost slipped my memory, 
 where eleven hundred dollars were paid in 
 law charges, out of an amount of three 
 thousand dollars. This is by no means an 
 extraordinary case ; there are far more 
 cases in which more than one-third are 
 paid out in law charges, than there are un- 
 der that amount. It is this which throws 
 discredit on the administration of justice, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 699 
 
 and degrades the high character of its 
 functions. But the evil, great as it is, is 
 not restricted to persons and property, but 
 it exercises a. baneful influence upon the 
 prosperity of the State; it prevents the tide 
 of population from setting towards Louisi- 
 ana, and diverts it to Texas, and to other 
 places, As the gentleman from Ouachita 
 (Mr. Downs) told us on another occasion, 
 that while people were pouring in as thick 
 as locusts above the line of Louisiana, on 
 the Arkansaw side, below that line they 
 were few and far between. A man comes 
 to Louisiana and by great industry ac- 
 quires a fortune, but by the reputation 
 which the administration of justice, in the 
 mode of sucbessions, has obtained, he be- 
 comes alarmed and fearful that, instead of 
 his property descending to his heirs, it will 
 be squandered and diverted in law charges. 
 These apprehensions induce many persons 
 to remoqe their property out of the S)ate 
 which they have accumulated it in; and 
 thus, instead of remaining to enrich the 
 State, ann to swell her retources, to pay 
 the taxes and to contribute to the general 
 improvement, it is taken away, and the 
 State is deprived of so much capital. 
 
 1 have been accused of being a violent 
 denouncer of courts. I confess that" when 
 I came here thirty years ago, a boy, hav- 
 ing read Blackstone and other elementary 
 writers, who have eulogized the purity of 
 the judicial ermine, I was as great a be- 
 liever that that ermine was as spotless as 
 snow, as any one could possibly be. I 
 was as great a s^ckler for the inviolability 
 of the judicial functions, and was as ready 
 to contend for the independence of the judi- 
 cial tenure as any lawyer at the bar. I 
 will refer, in illustration of what my feel- 
 ings were about that period, to a circum- 
 stance that I have never before mentioned. 
 I was clerk to a notary who could not in- 
 dite an act. He was called upon to make 
 the will of the lamented Governor Clai- 
 borne, whose name I mention with the 
 greatest reverence, and for whom I have 
 always entertained the highest respect, as 
 a patriot and as a man. I went to his bed 
 side and told him that I was the clerk of 
 the notary, and had come as the substitute 
 of the notary. At first he demurred to my 
 replacing that officer, but when the cir- 
 cumstances were explained to him, he 
 finally consented, and I attended upon him 
 
 for two or three days, an hour each day, un- 
 til the will was completed. He expressed 
 his great aversion to the court of probates; 
 and that thirty years ago! So strong, how- 
 ever, so high was my admiration for every 
 thing savoring of the judiciary, that I actu- 
 ally modified his language, as far as I could r 
 although it was equally as strong as the 
 will of the late chief justice Mathews. I 
 direct, said governor Claiborne, in his last 
 will, that my executors shall take posses- 
 sion of my estate extrajudicially, and I ex- 
 pressly direct that it shall in no manner be 
 under the control of the court of probates; 
 nor shall that court have any thing to do 
 with the government of my children. That 
 was thirty y«ars agol The delegate from 
 St. Landry (Mr. Lewis) has alluded to the 
 strong expressions of Judge Matthews, a 
 judge of the supreme court, and familiar 
 with the practice of the court of probates. 
 He reprehended the interference of that 
 court in the settlement of his estate. But 
 these two cases are not the only instances 
 in which similar feelings have been mani- 
 fested. Several prudent citizens have en- 
 tertained the same misgivings — some of 
 them have removed their property out of 
 the State, while others, in their last wills, 
 have solemnly abjured the jurisdiction of 
 the court of probates. Amongst others, I 
 will mention the name of the late Colonel 
 Shamburg, an old citizen of Louisiana. 
 Instead of looking to the court of probates 
 for protection to their property, and for the 
 maintenance of the rights of their children, 
 they have looked with horror and dismay 
 upon those tribunals; and have given vent 
 to their feelings when they were about to 
 depart for another and, I trust, a better 
 world. 
 
 The gentleman from West Feliciana 
 (Mr. Ratliff) has spoken of legislative in- 
 terference. Why, these evils have been 
 felt for forty years. Other men have felt 
 the same decided repugnance to the abuses 
 of the system, as Governor Claiborne and 
 Judge Matthews, but has any thing been 
 done? Experience teaches us that the le- 
 gislature are impotent to cure the evils, for 
 if it could have been effected, it certainly 
 would have been done during the last forty 
 years. I have no faith in that remedy. 
 We see the results before our eyes — we 
 know whence they proceed, and we should 
 lay the axe to the root of the evil. I do 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 not for one moment imagine that any of 
 the judges are susceptible of corruption. I 
 do not charge any such thing upon any of 
 them. I believe them above it. But I 
 do contend that this money patronage, 
 which is peculiar to the State of Louisiana,, 
 exercises a most deleterious influence, and 
 that the judges, without being aware of it, 
 and perhaps without suspecting even the 
 extent of the evil, unwittingly are made to 
 contribute to a state.of things which is truly 
 a public calamity! 
 
 I recollect an instance some eight or ten 
 years ago, of a drayman, who had acquired 
 a large fortune, some one hundred thou- 
 sand dollars, ^which he devised upon a con- 
 dition, which was never accomplshed and 
 which could never be accomplished. This 
 was considered too good a bone to be left 
 unpicked. His will was annulled ; and 
 upon what ground do you suppose? There 
 were other grounds, but seriously the only 
 essential ground by which the charity asy- 
 lum were deprived of this liberal donation, 
 was this, that the seal was parched by his 
 thumb, instead of being parched with his 
 watch seal ! The supreme court confirmed 
 this decision, but as a matter of course 
 they could not let their decision stand upon 
 so ridiculous a pretence, they assumed 
 some other; but the only substantial case, 
 was that which I have related. I repeat, 
 I do not charge upon the judiciary a cor- 
 ruption of money, but a corruption of influ- 
 ence. The will of the late Stephen Hen- 
 derson was annulled on the pretence, that 
 it was abstruse, incomprehensible and im- 
 practicable ! And yet, who could believe 
 this, who knew Stephen Henderson ; a 
 practical man, of good, sound common 
 sense. I should not be surprised that the 
 immense estate of Mr. Mylne should ulti- 
 mately be bankrupt. The estate of Nich- 
 las Girod will be kept in the court of pro- 
 bates, until a large slice is taken from it! 
 
 But these things are not peculiar to this 
 country; they occur in England, in boasted 
 England, whose jurisprudence is deemed 
 by many to be the quintesence of equity. 
 
 I have a boy now in my eye to whose 
 father a legacy was left in 1797. The 
 will was written in language as plain as 
 that of Stephen Henderson. The father 
 died without recovering it, and the son has 
 not been more fortunate. I sent him to. 
 England; but the voyage was without any 
 
 satisfactory result. A lawyer informed 
 him that if he would pay him a fee he 
 would undertake his case; and thus it is, 
 that to obtain the prospect of redresss, ex- 
 pense must be incurred, which may in the 
 end serve but to increase the loss; and the 
 property may stay for ever in the court of 
 chancery, locked up with two hundred 
 millions 5 upon the interest of which the 
 greedy officials of the court are pampered. 
 What is the cause of this? It is because 
 the judiciary are too independent. They 
 have grown up too strong. The great oh* 
 ject is to retain such a controlling power as 
 will constrain the judiciary to do the pub- 
 lic business speedily and equitably. That 
 can be done by one or two lines most ef- 
 fectually. Limit the judicial tenure and 
 subject the judges to the action of the peo- 
 ple once in four years. Judges are but the 
 servants of the people. The government 
 is distributed among three departments — 
 the legislative, the executive, and the judi- 
 ciary. The legislative is to express the 
 will of the people, the executive is to exe- 
 cute it, and the judiciary to interpret it. 
 
 Long after my brilliant notions of the 
 perfect ability of the judiciary began to 
 waver, I conceived that impeachment was 
 a scare crow, bu| I have since become sat- 
 isfied that it is not even a scare crow. 
 And that it would not induce a judge 
 to remain one moment longer upon 
 his seat, or to take one cent less, were he 
 confident that he might thereby e shape 
 impeachment. The only remedy is to 
 make judges responsible to^ the people. 
 
 The parish court system has been in 
 operation ever since 1805, about the time 
 when the State passed from a despotic to 
 a territorial government. Our system of 
 laws are engrafted, in many respects, upon 
 those courts. Take for example succes- 
 sions; the judge orders the execution of a 
 will, appoints administrators, orders the 
 inventory, orders the homologation of the 
 proceedings, orders the family meeting, 
 orders the sale, and superintends the sale, 
 and makes all other orders and decrees 
 that- may be necessary to the settlement of 
 successions. The whole system refers to 
 the existence of these courts. After forty 
 years practice, to supercede these tribunals 
 which have become identified with the 
 habits of the people, and to adopt a differ- 
 ent system, would be too great a shock 
 
Debates in the Convention oi Louisiana, 
 
 701 
 
 upon public opinion, and might produce 
 the rejection of the constitution. I repeat 
 again, that were the question to be submit- 
 ted to the people to-morrow, whether the 
 parish court system should be abolished, 
 the vote would be in the negative. When 
 the Convention have adjourned, and each 
 one of us has returned to give an account 
 to his constituents, it may not be found sat- 
 isfactory when we tell them, I have abol- 
 ished your court, but I have obtained for 
 you a justice of the peace. I have secured 
 that. There is a district court that will 
 come in the parish occasionally. I am 
 sure that if I were to tell my constituents 
 that, they would not thank me. 
 
 Well then, let us take the next district: 
 Ascension and St. James. The people of 
 Donaldsonvilie would not thank us when 
 they were told that their court was abol- 
 ished; that if there was a curator to be ap- 
 pointed, or an administrator, or any other 
 similar business to be transacted, they 
 would have to go out of the parish, and 
 seek the district judge in the parish of St. 
 james. Then, as to the next district: 
 Iberville and Point Coupee. The district 
 judge might be on the Amite or on the 
 Atchafalaya, and certain emergencies 
 might arise in the administration of justice, 
 requiring his presence at a certain point; 
 your property might be sequestered, your 
 son might be imprisoned, and where would 
 be the relief? But, oh, say the gentle- 
 men, the court would be located at a cer- 
 tain point in th e parish, and the clerk 
 would be competent to act, he could" issue 
 writs of sequestration, and attachements, 
 and such other conservatory process as 
 might be required. But could he dissolve 
 them? The issuing of those writs, in some 
 cases, might be very oppressive and inju- 
 rious, and yet the party aggrieved would 
 have to submit until the periodical return 
 of the judge, unless the clerk was vested 
 with the judicial power of determining 
 rhese cases. 
 
 Inasmuch as the parish court system has 
 grown up among us, and as it is a local tri- 
 bunal of great convenience, it strikes me 
 as being inexpedient to abolish it. We 
 should lop off the abuses and-excressences 
 which have been produced by certain de- 
 fects in its organization. We are called 
 upon to remedy these abuses, but not to 
 abolish the system. What reason has 
 89 
 
 been urged for abolishing it? I think I 
 have demonstrated that the public interest 
 would be consulted by retaining it, with 
 proper modifications and restrictions. Why 
 we are told that it costs too much; thai it 
 would' entail an expense lor forty-eight 
 judges, including the judges for the city of 
 New Orleans. To that objection I would 
 reply, that the expense would not be sub- 
 stantially greater than it now is. The su- 
 preme court for sitting some two or three 
 weeks in Rapides and Opelousas, and 
 some eight months in the city of Xew Or- 
 leans, is kept up at an annual expense of 
 twenty- five thousand dollars. There are, 
 besides, five courts in the city of New Or- 
 leans, exclusive of the associate judges, 
 and if their salaries be added, we have an 
 annual expense of sixty thousand dollars for 
 the administration of justice in the city of 
 New Orleans. The whole expense of the 
 judiciary of the United States does not 
 amount to that. To these expenses must 
 be added the compensation paid to sheriffs, 
 marshals, clerks, &c, whose name, to use 
 the language of the delegate from St. Lan- 
 dry (Mr. Lewis), are legion. 
 
 I think that every man should be paid in 
 proportion to his services. If he have but 
 little to do, he should be paid but little. I 
 do not apprehend the difficulty which is 
 apprehended by the delegate from New 
 Orleans, (Mr. Benjamin) as to the compen- 
 sation to be allowed to the judges of the. 
 parish courts, were the proposition that 1 
 advocate to prevail; their compensation 
 could be graduated according to the duties 
 they had to perform, It would be no diffi- 
 cult matter to do that, for a provision might 
 be made by the legislature that the State 
 should contribute one-half and the parish the • 
 other half; the parish to regulate the salary. 
 I have no idea of extravagance, and yet I 
 would not have men starved who were in the 
 publicservice; any number of reputable men 
 fully capable of filling the office of parish 
 judge, could be found for a reasonable com- 
 pensation. We do not want men of splen- 
 did talents, who are versed in black letter, 
 and who are familiar with foreign langua- 
 ges. We want men of good ordinary- 
 sound sense, who have implanted in their 
 bosoms principles of rectitude. I am not 
 among those who think it difficult to obtain 
 the necessary abilities in the ordinary 
 walks of life, I have seen a great deal 
 
702 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 that convinces mc no such difficulty exists. 
 I have seen men called from their business 
 without any preparation, and with very in- 
 adequate book knowledge, to serve on ju- 
 ries, and to pronounce upon life and death. 
 They have, I may say, jn variably decided 
 right, and have exhibited great judgment 
 and penetration, and yet their functions 
 were the most important; they decided upon 
 life, liberty and character. There will be 
 no difficulty in obtaining men of sufficient 
 abilities, without being compelled to impov- 
 erish the State by exhorbitant salaries. In 
 the country, planters, who have wealth and 
 leisure, will consent to dispense justice 
 between man and man, without expecting 
 to realize in the office a fortune in a few 
 years. They will not be governed by such 
 sordid considerations. There are, too, 
 gentlemen of the bar, who have retired 
 from practice, such as the distinguished 
 delegate from Assumption, who would hon- 
 or the station, and who would, I am con- 
 vinced, if they accepted it, be indifferent to 
 the amount of salary. 
 
 Who is considered the greatest judge? 
 and who is most admired for his talents and 
 learning? Judge Story. Well, that emi- 
 nent man wrote seventy pages of manu- 
 script which was produced on a certain 
 trial, to the knowlege of one of my col- 
 leagues, (Mr. Soule) — not by him, but by 
 another party interested in the proceedings, 
 to prove that a man could not have a sec- 
 ond trial in a capital case, because it was 
 in violation of the constitution; and thus, the 
 man might be hung, in order that his life 
 should not be twice put in jeopardy by a 
 judicial process. Any one who reads 
 Robertson's digest can very well understand 
 the legal definition of murder, and that 
 murder is meliorated into manslaughter, 
 excusable homicide, justifiable homicide, 
 according to the circumstances; so with 
 the definitions of burglary, larceny, &c, &c. 
 
 There is not a parish in the State where 
 a capable man is not to be had who will 
 not decide correctly — as correctly as some 
 of those men of splendid talents. Chief 
 justice Taney, who in my opinion, is vast- 
 ly superior in common sense to his dis- 
 tinguished colleague on the bench, to whom 
 1 have just referred, has not one-tenth of 
 his lore. 
 
 I think a great deal is to be gained by 
 the administration of justice on the spot 
 
 We have had some experience of the diffi- 
 culties and blunders which attend the trans- 
 fer of cases out of the State to the supreme 
 court of the United States, where they ne- 
 vertheless have the inestimable advantage 
 in the opinion of some,' of being submitted 
 to the decision of men of splendid talents. 
 
 Having deeply pondered the whole sub- 
 ject, I am in favor of retaining the parish 
 court system with some necessary amelio- 
 rations. I think that the people'will pre- 
 fer a court in their own locality to one out 
 of it, or at least to one which is only peri- 
 odically in it. I think that in cases where 
 life, liberty or character are involved, and 
 in matters of successions it would be a 
 great improvement to provide that two or 
 three magistrates should sit with the parish 
 judge. The judge should be allowed a 
 salary and no fees, and it should be provi- 
 ded that his salary should be paid one- 
 half by the paiish, and one-half by the 
 State. I think that with these modifica- 
 tions to the system, and some others that 1 
 might suggest, we would secure a cheap 
 judicature, and at the same time an effi- 
 cient one. One that would answer all the 
 just expectations of the people. 
 
 To illustrate some of the views that I 
 have expressed, I would beg the indul- 
 gence of the Convention to read a page 
 from a pamphlet prepared by me in rela- 
 tion to a certain case which has been trans- 
 ferred to the supreme court at Washing- 
 ton. 
 
 (Mr. Preston here read the extract refer- 
 red to.) 
 
 If the suggestions which I have thrown 
 out should be taken* up by the Convention, 
 and they should be induced to retain the 
 parish court system with proper modiii- 
 cations, the reforms that we all desire can 
 be readily accomplished. We can get 
 through with this part of the subject in two 
 days. But if we begin to engraft novel- 
 ties and make so radical a change by the 
 substitution of a new system for one which 
 has been in existence for so long a time, 
 there is no telling where we shall stop. 'It 
 is better to bear the ills we have, than fly 
 to others that we know not of.' 
 
 Mr. Downs- said that the question was 
 so important, that although it was exhaust- 
 ed to a great degree, he would offer a few 
 remarks. He concurred in the general 
 principle that one great object was to les= 
 
Debates in the Contention of Louisiana, 
 
 T03 
 
 sen the number of courts, and" he scarcely 
 doubted that this was the opinion of a 
 large majority of the house. 
 
 One of the honorable delegates (Mr. 
 RallifF) had supposed that the abrogation of 
 the parish court system would effect seri- 
 ously the operation of our code of laws. 
 That objection was so conclusively answer- 
 ed by one of the gentlemen that preceded 
 me, that I deem it unnecessary to say any 
 thing further upon that point. The dele- 
 gate from Assumption (Mr. Taylor) whose 
 remarks did not go to the same extent, 
 had contended that if the change of system 
 did not materially clash with the code of 
 practice and the civil code, it would affect 
 several articles in those codes. I under- 
 stood the distinguished gentleman from 
 New Orleans (Mr. Soule) to concur in that 
 opinion. I have no doubt that the repeal 
 of the parish court system will render 
 some articles in the civil code and code of 
 practice inoperative, which are based upon 
 and refer to the existence of that court. All 
 questions of conflicting jurisdiction will 
 be brought to a close with the suspension 
 of these articles, and that will be a most 
 desirable result. 
 
 We have been told that the report of the 
 majority of the committee recommends a j 
 new system, and that inasmuch as it is a 
 new system, and we are habituated to the 
 old system of parish courts, we ought not 
 to make a change. If this argument pos- 
 sesses any weight, we might as well have 
 dispensed with steamboats, and not have 
 superseded the clumsy barges which once 
 supplied their places. The introduction of 
 steamboats was a new system — it was a 
 novelty, and yet it has proved far prefera- 
 ble to the inconvenient barges that plied 
 upon the Mississippi, and performed a voy- 
 age to Louisville once in four months! 
 
 Rut it is urged that if we adopt the plan 
 suggested by the majority of the commit- 
 tee, legislative action will be necessary to 
 carry out the details. I have no doubt 
 but that such will be the result. This, 
 however, is not a peculiarity applying only 
 to this portion of the constitution/ It is not 
 the province of a constitution to go into de- 
 tails upon any subject. It only settles what 
 are the fundamental principles upon which 
 the government shall be administered. 
 The details are. properly assigned to the le- 
 gislature: it is the legislature that carries 
 
 I into effect and gives vigor to those details 
 | which are drawn from, and most conform 
 to the principles embodied in the constitu- 
 tion. Some changes will necessarily 
 have to be made in reference to the reor- 
 ganization of the judiciary by the legisla- 
 ture, but they will be fewer than are sup- 
 posed. The functionaries who discharge 
 the same duties as appertain to the parish 
 judges ex-officio will be continued; and there 
 will be no difficulty in complying with 
 those requirements of the codes which di- 
 rect family meetings to be held and other 
 proceedings to be had, which are now had 
 indifferently before parish judges as ex-ojji- 
 cio notaries public, or ordinary notaries 
 public; and public sales can be made by 
 auctioneers as is the course pursued at 
 present, on some occasions. An act of a 
 few sections will be all that is necessary 
 to accommodate and reconcile this portion 
 of our jurisprudence with the fundamental 
 law. 
 
 Where it may be necessary the legisla- 
 ture may vest in clerks of courts the pow- 
 er to issue all interolcutory orders. In 
 many States the clerk of the court is the 
 chief recording officer and the keeper of 
 the archieves. He enregisters mortgages 
 ! and conveyances. Where from the nature 
 of the duties of * clerk this can be done, it 
 may be well to pursue the same course; 
 but at any rate, there should be one gener- 
 al office where all these duties arc transac- 
 ted, and where the people may attend to 
 do all their business, although it be neces- 
 sary in some parishes to have separate of- 
 ficers to perform these duties. 
 
 Why should there be so great a differ- 
 ence of opinion as to the expediency of 
 abolishing the parish court system? I am 
 hot surprised; in fact 1 expected that the* 
 ancient population who have derived the 
 system from the Spanish government, and 
 have become completely identified with it, 
 should be reluctant to relinquish it. Their 
 feelings and habits are more assimilated to 
 the system, and it has operated differently 
 among them from what it has among the 
 American population. There is something 
 in unison between their mildness and the 
 system. It is better suited to their patri- 
 archal habits. They look up for assistance 
 and advice to the parish judge — they con- 
 sider him as a friend, and make him the 
 depository of their their property to di 3 
 
704 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 tribute it among their children after their 
 death. I can very well conceive these 
 feelings, and if I lived in such a communi- 
 ty I would be, perhaps, as strong an advo- 
 cate for the system as any Creole. How- 
 ever amiable this feeling may be, it is nev- 
 ertheless evident that the new population 
 do not entertain these peculiar ideas and 
 habits. They must gradually give way to 
 the large influx of population, who, so far 
 from having a partiality for it, entertain 
 against it a deep-rooted dislike. 
 
 Such has been the change in some par- 
 ishes, that the functions of the parish judge 
 have been considerably modified, and al- 
 though the office retains the same name it 
 is a different thing. Although I readily 
 admit that among the new as well as the 
 old population, there are" parish judges who 
 have endeared themselves to their parish- 
 ioners, and secured the public confidence, 
 still candor compels me to admit that there 
 are some of those officers in these times of 
 speculation, who so far from consulting the 
 interests of the public, are now intent upon 
 their own, and in making the most money 
 they can in the shortest possible space of 
 time. 
 
 There is only another point, and I shall 
 refer to it. Some distinguished delegates 
 who are in favor of securing the benefits 
 of uniformity, by having but one set of 
 judges between the supreme judges and 
 justices of the peace, think that these 
 judges should" be parish judges. I conceive 
 there are insuperable objections to this 
 plan. In the first place, the expenses 
 would be augmented to a great extent; and 
 .in the second place, there would be great 
 difficulty in graduating the relative salaries. 
 In some parishes, the duties of parish judge 
 are exceedingly onerous; in oiher parishes 
 these duties are trifling. To fix the scale 
 of prices would be a source of perpetual 
 contest in tjie legislature. Another objec- 
 tion that suggests itself, would be the diffi- 
 culty of getting persons to accept the office 
 who were competent in remote parishes. 
 Forty -vsix of these judges would have to be 
 appointed, and as they would sit upon 
 cases where life and death were at issue, 
 their functions would be much more impor- 
 tant than those at present assigned to parish 
 judges. 
 
 The great evil which resulted from the 
 former system, was, that too little impor- 
 
 tance was given to the decisions of the su- 
 perior courts, and the judges were left 
 with too little to do. Some judges have 
 admitted the fact, that they were not as 
 good lawyers, after having been for several 
 years on the bench, as they were when 
 they received their appointments. Appeals 
 were taken from their decisions, as a mat- 
 ter of course, and very little solicitude was 
 manifested as to their decisions; they were 
 converted into mere commissioners to take 
 the testimony, and send it up to the appel- 
 late court. It was natural they should be. 
 come in many instances, careless and in- 
 different as to the character of their 
 decisions. 
 
 Public opinion is decidedly adverse to 
 the system; that is a fact which cannot be 
 controverted. The report of the majority 
 of the judiciary committee has given great- 
 er satisfaction than any other report. It 
 was prepared by men of sound experience, 
 who jwere intimately conversant with the 
 whole subject, and whose suggestions 
 were the result of their own practical ex- 
 perience. The apprehensions that have 
 been expressed that the change would not 
 operate beneficially, are illusory. There 
 is nothing that can militate against the 
 plan, if it be but fairly tested. It will se- 
 cure a prompt and economical administra- 
 tion of justice, and if we accomplish these 
 results, we shall do much towards satisfying 
 the wishes of our common constiutents as 
 relates to that most important branch of 
 the public service. 
 
 Mr. Eustis: I did not intend to present 
 any views of mine on a subject which has 
 been so fully developed by gentlemen on 
 this floor. But, inasmuch as some doubt 
 has been attempted to be thrown upon the 
 system proposed, I deem it not out of place 
 to make a few suggestions, in order that 
 each member, be he lawyer or be he lay- 
 man, may vote understanding^ upon the 
 subject. I have no particular predilection 
 for the proposition now before the house? 
 further than that I believe that the objec- 
 tions raised to it are much less serious than 
 gentlemen who have urged them appear to 
 think — -and that upon the whole, the work 
 of the committee has been performed in as 
 satisfactory a manner as was possible, and 
 its adoption would be for the interest of the 
 State. 
 
 What is the point at issue? A judicial 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 officer has heretofore been invested with 
 nine different employments. This multi- 
 plicity of duties in the hands of one man, is 
 a vestige of colonial servitude. It is the 
 Spanish commandante without the sword 
 and the cocked hat — for there is every 
 thing else. This mode of investiture of 
 officers may have answered, but it does 
 not answer now. 
 
 Experience has demonstrated that no- 
 thing is to be expected from the legislature 
 in reference to the abrogation of the par- 
 ish court system. So far from any such 
 design, a disposition has been shown to 
 create new parishesin order to increase the 
 number of these judges. It is only from the 
 Convention that the people can expect that 
 salutary reform, and I think their just ex- 
 pectations ought not to be disappointed. 
 But how is the great work to be accom- 
 plished? The report of the majority of the 
 committee suggests the remedy and the 
 means. What do the committee propose? 
 They propose to establish but one court 
 inferior to the supreme court, which shall 
 be presided over by a judge who shall ex- 
 ercise no other functions than those that 
 are purely judicial, and that he shall be 
 disinterested— not dependent upon fees, 
 and therefore interested in litigation, but 
 above any suspicion of improper motives, 
 by receiving a fixed salary, suitable to the 
 position he holds and to the services he 
 renders — and sufficient to enable him to 
 live in good repute among his fellow citi- 
 zens. 
 
 This proposition appears to me to be 
 wise. The members of the committee 
 have reflected maturely upon it, and it is 
 the result of the combined wisdom of gen- 
 tlemen who stood high in their profes- 
 sion, and who had considerable experi- 
 ence in that profession. The commu- 
 nity have had time to examine the 
 question in all its aspects, they have 
 pondered it well, and I believe there is a 
 general concurrence of opinion. The 
 members of the bar, who are presumed to 
 understand the matter best, are generally 
 in favor of such a change. 
 
 The delegate from Lafourche (Mr. Tay. 
 lor) assumes that there will be but a change 
 of names, if the proposition be carried, and 
 that the old system will still prevail under 
 a new form. This is a fallacy. We pro- 
 pose to supersede the parish judges, but 
 
 we do not propose to transfer their mani- 
 fold functions to the magistrates who may 
 succeed them. If wc were to do this there 
 would be no reform in point of fact; it would 
 only be a change of names, and if the dis- 
 trict judge could accumulate litigation, it 
 would be worse than the existing system. 
 
 We go further. We strike at the root 
 of the evil, by placing the judge beyond 
 temptation, and beyond suspicion, and in 
 this consists the excellence of the princi- 
 ple. But we are told that there are courts 
 established in all the other States which 
 are analagous to our probate courts. I 
 grant that there are courts whose jurisdic- 
 tion extends to the settlement of the estates 
 of deceased persons elsewhere, but I deny 
 that their powers and their attributes are 
 the same with our courts of probate. There 
 is a material difference. Our courts of 
 probate exercise exclusive jurisdiction over 
 matters of successions, and all suits against 
 estates must be brought before them. 
 Elsewhere the exclusive functions of these 
 courts, by whatever name they may be de- 
 signated, extend to the probating of the 
 last will and testament, the appointment 
 and the confirmation of administrators, and 
 the regulation of the assets. This is the 
 system in England. In other States a sim- 
 ilar practice prevails, and other courts may- 
 take cognizance of suits brought against 
 successions. It was so here until 1825, 
 but in that year the exclusive jurisdiction 
 of the court of probates was consummated. 
 In Virginia, Kentucky and Massachusetts, 
 a suit, may be instituted against an estate 
 in any court. But here the decree is im- 
 perative — you must go to the court of pro- 
 bates! This exclusive jurisdiction is one 
 of the prolific sources of the evil to which 
 we are exposed, and which calls so loudly 
 for reform. The other courts, in other 
 States operate as a check upon the court 
 of probates. The system thus works well. 
 There is a responsibility and a remedy. 
 Where the estates are insolvent, they are 
 taken out of the probate courts, and placed 
 in the hands of commissioners. But here 
 they are thrown before the judge. 
 
 I do not pretend to say that the new 
 system will be accompanied at first by all 
 those benefits which we have a right to ex- 
 pect, but I consider the principle to be a 
 good one, and if the details be wisely car- 
 ried out by the legislature, I entertain no 
 
700 
 
 Debates in the onvention of Louisiana. 
 
 doubt but that it will fully realize our wish- 
 es. It will simplify our system. Our 
 jtidges will he judges! They will not be 
 notary publics, auctioneers, clerks of their 
 own courts, recorders of mortgages and re- 
 corders of conveyances! These multifa- 
 rious functions will be restored to the pro- 
 per ministerial officers. What shall we 
 have gained? W e shall substitute a sound 
 principle for one that is falling to pieces. 
 
 An objection has been made to the ex- 
 pense. By having a judge who is enlighten- 
 ed, you have a man not interested in. crea- 
 ting expense; besides the expenses will be 
 reduced by the change of system, and the 
 community will get rid of the enormous ex- 
 penses that are now paid in shape of fees. 
 These fees will not be accumulated, but 
 the judge will be placed in the position of 
 a disinterested party, by having no interest 
 in them. The clerk will perform the ordi- 
 nary routine of ministerial duties, and they 
 will no longer devolve upon the judge. 
 That functionary will no longer order a 
 family meeting in one capacity, and hold a 
 family meeting by an order addressed to 
 himself, in another capacity; he will no 
 longer take an inventory, as a notary, and 
 homologate it, as a judge; order a sale, as 
 a judge, and then cry off the property, as an 
 auctioneer. If there was nothing else, 
 this accumulation of employments in the 
 hands of one person, should make it unpop- 
 ular. 
 
 If, as the delegate from Jefferson antici- 
 pates, the third and last class of magistracy . 
 established by this constitution, justices of 
 the peace, should be elected by the people, 
 I trus,t they will elect none who are not 
 fully impressed with the duties imposed 
 upon them by law. One of the most pow- 
 erful causes which contributes to the moral 
 force of the State of Virginia, is that the 
 persons who fill the office of justice of the 
 peace, are men of standing, and that they 
 are invested with probate business. 
 
 By adopting the system which is propo- 
 sed I think you will apply an efficacious 
 remedy to. existing abuses; the machinery 
 is simple; and it will insure an administra- 
 tion essentially democratic. 
 
 In reference to the proposition 1o create 
 forty-eight judges, instead of eighteen, as 
 recommended in the report, and upon a 
 basis germain to this princiale, I think, 
 throwing aside the question of greater ex- 
 
 pense, that it is not as good nor as pract ical 
 as the plan proposed by the committee. I 
 have deemed these few remarks necessarv; 
 and they pre-suppose that reforms in the 
 judiciary are generally conceded. I think 
 there is too much officialism about the par- 
 ish court system, even in the modified form 
 under which it is proposed to retain it. 
 There is too much of the cocked hat and 
 sword. We want a system which will 
 facilitate parties in arranging their difficul- 
 ties out of couit. The evils that have re- 
 sulted are the necessary consequences of 
 the defects in the former system; and it is 
 a matter of astonishment that it has not 
 even produced greater evils. The gentle- 
 man from Lafourche (Mr. Taylor) says 
 that the system has worked well in his 
 parish. This is high praise to the officers 
 who have officiated. But we must look at 
 the system as it has worked generally, and 
 not to an exception, which, after all, is only 
 in favor of the respectable constituency re- 
 presented by that delegate. : 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor said that he was 
 unwilling to trespass upon the attention of 
 the house, but he considered the subject of 
 such vast consequence that he would sub- 
 mit a few remarks. He had listened with 
 much pleasure to the gentleman who had 
 assumed grounds in favor of the section 
 as reported by the committee. It was 
 conceded on all hands that although th$P 
 parish court system was not named, it 
 was intended to abrogate it. This was 
 the design of that section. It was evident 
 that the proposition before the house invol- 
 ved the total abrogation of that system. It 
 sweeps away every thing connected with 
 the former administration of justice, and 
 supplies no substitute. We are at a loss 
 to conceive what is to take the place of the 
 system which is deemed to be so obnox- 
 ious. Gentlemen may attempt to manage 
 it as they will, but the system must exist. 
 The property of minors interdicted, and 
 absent persons must be subjected to the 
 supervision of some appropriate officer. 
 We have been told that this portion of the 
 judicial duty should be committed to the 
 clerks of court, by one of the delegates 
 that has advocated the report. Another 
 delegate (Mr. Eustis) tells us with such 
 confidence as would induce us to believe 
 that he had arrived at a solution of the dif- 
 ficulty, you must entrust this charge to 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana/ 
 
 justices of the peace; and why? Because, 
 says the gentleman, such is the practice in 
 Virginia. To this I would reply, that it 
 is not to justices of the peace, but to the 
 county court, composed of several justices 
 of the peace, to whom jurisdiction is given 
 in these matters; and that even if we were 
 disposed to go further than the State of 
 Virginia has gone, and to confide to a sin- 
 gle person in each parish, the same au- 
 thority which is confided to a plurality of 
 justices of the peace as a county court, our 
 legislature, even if so disposed, would not 
 under the section be competent to establish 
 a similar system. This results as a co- 
 rollery of the arguments which I shall pro- 
 ceed to state. But before entering into the 
 merits of the question, I will take the oc- 
 casion to set that delegate right upon one 
 point. He says that the reform is necessa- 
 ry, but at the same time he admonishes us 
 not to trust the legislature for the purpose 
 of effecting it. This is as much as to say j 
 that the legislature are not likely to sub- [ 
 serve the interests of the people, and to re- 
 spond to their wants. ■ He says that the 
 people desire this reform, and they expect 
 it from the Convention. Where, I would 
 ask the delegate, and in what manner have 
 they manifested such an opinion — have j 
 they given instructions to their agents in 
 this Convention? We have been told that 
 the system of parish judges is odious to \ 
 the people; that they have suffered under \ 
 it, and have waited in vain for legislative 
 interposition. The legislature by a single I 
 breath could have annihilated it and have I 
 relieved the people, and yet they have re- 
 fused to do so. Two of the distinguished 
 delegates who have contended with so 
 much zeal for the destruction of the whole 
 system, were members of the legislature 
 for several years. How is it that they ne- 
 ver dreampt of suggesting this reform, and 
 of testing the sense of the legislature upon 
 it. The delegate from New Orleans (Mr. 
 Benjamin) was a member of the house of 
 representatives, and the delegate from 
 Ouachita (Mr. Downs) was a member of 
 the senate, both possessing the public con- 
 fidence and the commanding influence 
 which their talents gave them, and vet 
 neither of them thought proper to enlight- 
 en their colleagues upon the defects and 
 abuses of the system. How is it that these 
 gentlemen could have remained silent. en= 
 
 tertaining the convictions which they now 
 possess. If this were so, they have con- 
 demned themselves, for "they were aware 
 of the evil, and they not only neglected to 
 seek a remedy, bin they neglected even to 
 make it known; and if 1 speak so plainly 
 it is less with a view of constituting myself 
 as a censer, than for the purpose of show- 
 ing that there is on inconsistency between 
 the course pursued by gentlemen .and the 
 arguments which they have here advan- 
 ced. Gentlemen are deceived. There is 
 not that general feeling of dissatisfaction 
 against "tire existing system which they 
 would have us to believe, and the accumu- 
 lation of abuses to which they have so of- 
 ten referred, is to be found only in their 
 imaginations. If there be abuses, I re- 
 peat, it is not to the system itself that these 
 abuses are to be attributed. It was in the 
 power of the legislature at any moment to* 
 have arrested them: and if this was not 
 done, those who were aware of their exis- 
 tence, are to blame for not taking- the pro- 
 per steps to put an end to them. In the 
 section of the State where I reside, the 
 system under a proper administration, has 
 been found amply sufficient to guard and 
 protect the widow and the orphan. 
 
 But, says the delegate from New Or- 
 leans (Mr. Eustis) We want a judge, and 
 not a man who fills nine different employ- 
 ments. In all other countries, says the 
 gentleman, the administration- of succes- 
 sions are subjected to the jurisdiction of 
 other courts, besides the court of probate, 
 and so it was here until 1825, when the 
 legislature invested the courts of probates 
 with an exclusive jurisdiction, that we are 
 to look for much of the evils "that pervade 
 the system. In assuming this as a fact, 
 he then admits that the abuses are the re- 
 sults of legislation, and not the result of 
 mal-administration. He admits that the 
 evil would cease if the existing legislation 
 were changed. But upon whom does that 
 depend? It depends upon the authority 
 which created the system. The evils are 
 within the competency of the legislature, 
 and therefore there is no necessity for our 
 intervention'. But oh! say the gentleman, 
 the parish judge is paid by fees, and inter- 
 est leads his judgment astray. The argu- 
 ment is the more specious, because as we 
 are told, it is sustained by some deplorable 
 facts. Admitting that this is another pro- 
 
708 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 jific source of evil, why is it that the judge 
 is made dependant upon his fees? Why 
 are they not taken from him. The legis- 
 lature have had the power, and if they have 
 not done so, surely it is not the fault of the 
 system itself. Change your legislation and 
 withdraw these fees, and you will find that 
 the system will- no longer be obnoxious to 
 your blighting censures and withering re- 
 proaches. I am free to admit that these 
 different functions do not become the dig- 
 nity of the parish judge, but I cannot con- 
 ceive how it can be expected that great 
 economy will result from their distribution 
 into other hands. But have the committee 
 found the means of abolishing these fees? 
 It would seem not. They say that the 
 ministerial duties for which the parish 
 judges have heretofore been paid, should 
 be transferred to clerks of courts, who, 
 performing these duties, will exact similar, 
 fees. This is not all. And it is not so 
 much in this, as in the palpable contradic- 
 tions in the report in which we see the 
 glimpses of the errors and improvidence of 
 the system. It is prescribed that the judges 
 shall exercise no other functions but those 
 which are purely judicial. The judges 
 are restricted to their judicial duties. But 
 the clerks are not only to exercise minis- 
 terial functions, but likewise certain judicial 
 functions. They are to issue all orders, 
 and to perform such other acts as may be 
 necessary to the administration of justice. 
 The theory of this plan is novel enough. 
 The clerks are, in some measure, to be the 
 successors of the parish judges, and are to 
 be favored to a greater extent than the 
 district judges, as they are not to be re- 
 stricted to a separate line of duty. When 
 I say that the scheme is novel, I mean that 
 it is so not only in relation to those to 
 whom it has just been unfolded, but novel 
 to those by whom it has been connected. 
 
 In examining some documents, I acci- 
 dentally fell upon a report, made by the 
 honorable delegate from Ouachita (Mr. 
 Downs) when a member of the senate in 
 1841, as chairman of the select committee, 
 to whom had been referred the bill to take 
 the sense of the people as to the propriety 
 and expediency of calling a convention to 
 re-model the constitution. I will read an 
 extract from the report in reference to 
 clerks of courts, for the purpose of showing 
 
 that the delegate (Mr. Downs) was not 
 disposed then to place much confidence in 
 these functionaries. 
 
 "Not only judges, but clerks, under our 
 constitution hold their offices for life. This 
 is one of the most lucrative offices under 
 the government, and it is not only held for 
 life and entirely independent of the people, 
 or the legislature, or executive branches of 
 the governmont, but has become in a great 
 degree hereditary or transmissable by ihe 
 will of the holder to others. The holder 
 keeps it as long as he pleases, and then 
 waits his opportunity until he can obtain a 
 pledge from the judge who makes the ap- 
 pointment for his son, brother or other heir, 
 who in turn transmits it as before. It is 
 believed that many instances exist where 
 this office has existed in the same indi- 
 vidual, or in the same family since the or- 
 ganization of the State government, and 
 where it will continue to so exist to an in- 
 definite period, if the present constitution 
 be not amended. 
 
 "This is creating a privileged order. 
 This is giving a portion of the power of the 
 government, as a property, to individuals 
 and their heirs; and that, too, without the 
 false plea of necessity, which is urged in 
 favor of the life tenure of judges. So far is 
 this principle from producing well qualified 
 officers, it is notorious that, to the great an- 
 noyance of the lawyers and judges, no offi- 
 ces in the State are so incompetently filled. 
 He had himself, within the last year, seen 
 numerous cases in the supreme court de- 
 layed, lost, dismissed or imperfectly under- 
 stood by the lawyers and judges, in conse- 
 quence of the incompetency of clerks. In 
 some cases the subpoenas to witnesses be- 
 ing sent up in the record, and the pleadings 
 left out, and in some cases certified to be 
 lost. He has seen a clerk officiating, who 
 could noli swear a witness correctly, or 
 make the simple entry on the minutes, 
 without the direction of the judge or the 
 lawyers ; and another whose habits and 
 incapacity was such that the court could 
 not possibly proceed, and was adjourned 
 without doing any business, to the great 
 detriment of many suitors. And what 
 makes the evil in this case still more intol- 
 erable, is, that not even the judge, who 
 has appointed such incompetent clerk, can 
 remove him or appoint a successor. Nor 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 709 
 
 can the legislature apply a remedy, be- 
 cause he holds his office under the con- 
 stitution." 
 
 These are the officers which the gentle- 
 man (Mr. Downs) would now substitute in 
 place of the parish judges. One of two 
 things, either the clauses of the report ren- 
 der one another nugatory, and in that case 
 your system is without foundation, and 
 you destroy a principle which is at least as 
 good as the one you proposed — or the ju- 
 dicial functions are to be in part confided 
 to the clerks of courts; and if you assume 
 this hypothesis, you admit that it would 
 have been as well to have left those func- 
 tions in the hands of the parish judges, 
 and not to have destroyed for the mere 
 pleasure of destroying, and of introducing 
 an Utopia in the constitution. The dele- 
 gate from Ouachita (Mr. Downs) stated 
 his concurrence in what fell from the dele- 
 gate from New Orleans (Mr. Benjamin) 
 upon the subject of conflicting jurisdic- 
 tion. The latter delegate spoke with so 
 much warmth upon the perplexities of 
 these conflicting jurisdictions, that one 
 would have thought that his mind was pre- 
 occupied by the all-absorbing thought of 
 conflicting jurisdiction, and that wherever 
 lie turned his eyes, he saw those ominous 
 words, "conflicting jurisdiction." But how 
 stand the facts? I find that they do not 
 bear the gentleman out in his brilliant de- 
 clamation, and in order that he should not 
 attempt to correct me, I will submit the 
 proof for what I here assert. I will refer 
 to an authority which will have no doubt 
 great weight with the gentleman. It is 
 Benjamin SliddiU's Digest. It contains 
 three thousand eight hundred abstracts of 
 decisions of the supreme court, and em- 
 bracing a period from 1,813 to 1828.— 
 Well, how many decisions do you sup- 
 pose theie are upon this vexed and all- 
 pervading subject of jurisdiction, to para- 
 phrase the language of the delegate (Mr. 
 Benjamin)? There are one hundred and 
 five, if I have counted them aright, and I find 
 from the four last volumes of the decisions 
 themselves, embracing a period from the 
 early part of the year 1841 to late in the 
 year 1843, but one case reported, and that 
 arose in the city of New Orleans, which 
 it is proposed to exempt from this remark- 
 able change! Are we prepared to destroy 
 a system because the fertile and inflamed 
 90 
 
 imaginations of gentlemen have discovered 
 greater difficulties than actually exist? 
 
 To pass on to another matter. Allu- 
 sions have been had to the opinions of dis- 
 tinguished individuals to overwhelm the 
 system with greater reproach. I have lit- 
 tle regard for such authority. We should 
 act for the welfare of the country, and use 
 the power that God has given us to arrive 
 at correct and proper conclusions. The 
 delegate from Ouachita took me to task for 
 differing from James Madison. These re- 
 proaches are useless; they are worse than 
 useless; they are wrong, and inculcate a 
 blind submission which is not authorized 
 by the progress of the human mind. The 
 gentleman from St. Landry (Mr. Lewis) 
 has alluded to an expression of opinion of 
 a citizen whose memory is justly revered. 
 A man who was an honor to the State, and 
 an ornament to the judiciary. He says 
 that that individual left a solemn condemn 
 nation of the system. I do not draw the 
 same conclusions from the fact to which he 
 refers. It was not because the system was 
 considered monstrous by one occupying so 
 exalted a position, and that the judges of 
 the courts of probates should not be en- 
 trusted •with die duty of protecting the or- 
 phan, but it was because the legislation 
 applied to these courts was vicious . and 
 defective. The horror which he felt at 
 the interference of the court in his estate, 
 was not the result of a want of confidence 
 in the magistrate, but a want of confi- 
 dence in the laws themselves, which were 
 designed to guarantee the most sacred of 
 rights; the right of property, and the right 
 of inheritance. The delegate from St. 
 Landry has confounded the cause with 
 the instrument, and has attempted to throw 
 upon the officer the vices of the system. 
 We have been told that the functions of the 
 parish judge are so multiplied that he cele- 
 brates marriages. There is nothing re- 
 markable in confiding to him this power as 
 a magistrate. Marriage is held to be a 
 civil contract, and in all the States of the 
 Union the ceremony may be and is per. 
 formed by judicial functionaries. 
 
 I shall not recur to what has been said 
 upon the various powers exercised by the 
 parish judge, further than to remark that if 
 it be wrong to accumulate so many employ 
 ments in the hands of one person, and i 
 am, for my part, averse to any thing of the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 kind, it is very easy to apply a remedy. 
 The legislature can apply an effectual 
 remedy. But I can see no wisdom in 
 withdrawing these functions from the par- 
 ish judge, and transferring them to the 
 clerk of the district court. I do not com- 
 prehend how the public are to be relieved 
 from the payment of the fees, about which 
 so much complaint has been made, by this 
 substitution; or how such a change can 
 conduce to the public interest or conve- 
 nience. It strikes me as a very singular 
 mode of reform. 
 
 As I understand the object of a constitu- 
 tion, it is to settle principles, and not to 
 provide legislation. If, however, this body 
 take a different view of their mission, and 
 create the details of an irrevocable system, 
 which, in my opinion, they ought not to do, 
 but leave the discretionary power with the 
 legislature; I would entreat gentlemen, be- 
 fore they take this course to reflect serious- 
 ly upon the confusion and disorder which 
 will result, if the system be found totally 
 inadequate to accomplish the purposes de- 
 signed. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 until this evening at 5 o'clock. 
 
 Thursday Evening, April 17. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Soule moved that the reporters, du- 
 ring the continuance of the evening ses- 
 sions, be dispensed from reporting more 
 than an abstract oi the proceedings. 
 
 Mr. Lewis opposed this motion. He 
 had no idea of leaving such a discretion 
 with the reporters, to report what they 
 choose, and to leave out what they choose. 
 It would give rise to a great many doubts 
 as to what were the real opinions of mem- 
 bers, and their sentiments would be mis- 
 understood; for it was much more difficult 
 to make a faithful abstract, than to report 
 an entire speech. 
 
 Mr. Roselius was in favor of dispensing 
 with the reports of the evening sessions 
 altogether. 
 
 *? Mr. Mayo said he was convinced that 
 it was physically impossible for the repor- 
 ters to get through with the labor assigned 
 them. He was very willing to dispense 
 them with a certain portion of that labor. 
 
 Mr. Soule said he presumed that no 
 more would be exacted from the reporters 
 
 than they were capable of performing, and 
 therefore, that his motion would prevail. 
 From the manner in which these reports 
 have heretofore been prepared, we may 
 safely infer that this analysis will be satis- 
 factory, as an outline of our proceedings. 
 
 Mr. Downs thought that the best course 
 would be to elect another reporter in 
 English. The session was drawing to a 
 close, and the additional expense would 
 be but trifling. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne said that if this motion 
 prevailed he would move to appoint an ad- 
 ditional reporter into French, for there was 
 as much necessity in the one cas£ as 
 in the other. 
 
 Mr. Waddill, for similar reasons, would 
 ask the appointment of an additional min- 
 ute clerk.' • 
 
 Mr. McRae moved that the secretary be 
 empowered to appoint such additional re- 
 porters, for the time being, as might be 
 necessary. 
 
 These various propositions were put to 
 vote, and lost. 
 
 The question then recurred on the adop- 
 tion of Mr. Soule 's motion, and it was car- 
 ried — yeas 39, nays 22. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said he could not consent to 
 such a measure; he would, therefore, move 
 that the office of reporter be abolished. 
 
 Whereupon the Convention adjourned 
 until to-morrow at 10 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Friday, April 18, lfi45. 
 The Convention met agreeably to ad- 
 journment, and the proceedings were open- 
 ed with prayer from the Hon. Mr. Ste- 
 phens. 
 
 Mr. Humble offered the following reso- 
 lution: 
 
 Be it Resolved, That from Monday, the 
 21st of April, the Convention shall meet at 
 nine o'clock in the morning, and shall ad- 
 journ at three o'clock p. m. each day, Sun- 
 days excepted. 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Dunn and Conrad ex- 
 pressed themselves in favor of holding eve- 
 ning sessions. 
 
 Mr. Dunn said it was out of the ques- 
 tion to rescind the rule, holding evening 
 sessions; it should be remembered that we 
 had been in session four or five months s 
 and we were not more than two-thirds 
 through, and it was now nearly May. 
 Could any member complain of sitting 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 eight hours out of twenty-four? Certainly 
 not; and he would ask members to deter- 
 mine if it was not as convenient to sit here 
 id the afternoon and listen to the debates as 
 to sit in their rooms, or promenade the 
 streets; True, it was laborious on the 
 secretary, clerk and reporters — but if they 
 could not perform their respective duties, 
 employ assistants. — any thing that would 
 facilitate the progress of the Convention. 
 He admits, the Convention last evening 
 was interrupted by motions, and no head- 
 way was effected, but a recurrence of this 
 can be obviated by making a rule that no 
 motion shall be entertained except in the 
 mornings. 
 
 Messrs. Splane, Mayo, Lewis and Clai- 
 borne argued, that from the experiment 
 that had been tried, it was clear that eve. 
 ning sessions would not be productive of 
 any benencial result. It was better to 
 meet an hour or two earlier in the morning 
 and to adjourn at an hour or two later in 
 the afternoon. Business would be facilita- 
 
 ted much more by this plan. 
 
 Mr. Splane offered an amendment re- 
 pealing the rule for the afternoon sessions, 
 but subsequently withdrew it. 
 
 Mr. Lewis renewed it. 
 
 Mr. Downs proposed that the question 
 be taken on the second part of the resolu- 
 tion. If it were adopted he would vote 
 for the second portion, although it would 
 be with some reluctance. 
 
 The question was taken on the hrst part 
 of the resolution prescribing that the Con- 
 vention meet at nine o'clock in the morn- 
 ing. And the yeas and nays were called 
 for; yeas 47, nays 19. 
 
 The question then recurred on the 
 adoption of the second portion of the reso- 
 lution rescinding the rule for afternoon 
 sessions, and the yeas and nays were call- 
 ed for; yeas 47, nays 19. 
 
 Mr. Lewis stated that he had given no- 
 tice of a motion to abolish the office of re. 
 porter. He had done so because he was 
 opposed to allowing the reporters to make 
 sketches of the debates which they were 
 authorized to do by the concurrence of the 
 house during the continuance of the eve- 
 ning sessions. Inasmuch as the evening 
 sessions were abrogated, and the dispensa- 
 tion to the reporters consequently was at 
 an end, he would withdraw his motion. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Makigny, the Con- 
 
 I vention took up Mr. Marigny's resolution 
 
 rescinding the rule requiring a greater 
 I number to vote upon a motion for recon. 
 | sideration than voted for the proposition, 
 | proposed to be reconsidered. And the 
 yeas and nays were called for; yeas 19, 
 navs 45. 
 
 Mr. Soule would inquire whether it 
 | was considered that his motion to recon- 
 [ sider the clause by which the city of New 
 I Orleans was constituted into one senatorial 
 | district, made anterior to the rule which 
 | his colleague (Mr. Marigny) had just 
 sought to rescind, could be effected by that 
 rule. He would address this interrogato- 
 | ry to his colleague (Mr. Benjamin) who on 
 | a recent occasion, as he had understood, 
 | had conceded that inasmuch as this motion 
 : to reconsider had been made previous to 
 ; the adoption of the rule, it did not apply 
 I to it. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin called for the reading of 
 I the rule. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said he concluded that 
 the motion of his colleague (Mr. Soule) 
 was subjected to the rule just read, for al- 
 though it was true that the delegate (Mr. 
 Soule) had notified the house of his inten- 
 tion to move for the reconsideration of the 
 vote in question before the rule was adopt- 
 ed, it was no less indubitable that the gen- 
 tleman had not made his motion to recon= 
 sider until after the adoption of the rule. 
 
 Mr. Soule said that he was indifferent as 
 to the matter, for he was convinced that if 
 a full house were obtained, there was a 
 clear majority opposed to constituting the . 
 city of New Orleans into a single senato- 
 rial district, he thought it however some- 
 what singular that after establishing bis 
 right by an explicit admission, his col- 
 league (Mr. Benjamin) should now contest 
 that right'. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin replied, that his col- 
 league labored under a misapprehension, 
 He was not aware of ever having made the 
 admission attributed to him. 
 
 Mr. Soule said that he was not present 
 when that admission was made, but he had 
 understood from some members that it was 
 made, and it appeared that such was the 
 case from the official reports of the de = 
 bates. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin suggested that it would 
 be better to take the voie upon the motion 
 to reconsider de novo-. 
 
712 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Mr. Soule assented, and the subject was 
 then passed over to come up in its regular 
 order. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Section first, article fourth of the report 
 of the majority of the committee on the 
 judiciary department. 
 
 The question pending being upon Mr. 
 RatlhT's motion to strike out the words "in 
 the city of New Orleans." 
 
 Mr. Downs called for the previous ques- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Read said he would merely ex- 
 plain his vote, inasmuch as he was cut 
 off from making any remarks; he believed 
 that in voting for the section as it had been 
 reporied, and consequently against the pa- 
 rish judge system, he was voting in ac- 
 cordance with the wishes of his constitu- 
 ents, and not only of his constituents, but 
 of nine-tenths of the people of the whole 
 State, The people were in favor of those 
 measures that would most effectually de 
 stroy that system, and which would sub- 
 stitute in its place a system more congeni- 
 al with the feelings of the people, one 
 more economical and less liable to abuse. 
 Thousands of widows and orphans had 
 suffered from the establishment of those 
 courts. Successions had been dilapidated 
 and wasted. We wanted a system based 
 upon humanity and* religion, and which 
 would secure the rights of the helpless and 
 unprotected. 
 
 Mr. Porter remarked that he was not 
 favorable to the parish judge system, as a 
 ■ system. But he thought there ought to 
 be some local court which would be of ea- 
 sy and ready access to the people of each 
 parish. There was parish business that 
 required such a tribunal. He was opposed 
 to putting down the system before propo- 
 sing one adequate to take its place. His 
 ground for voting against the section was 
 simply because no remedy had been sug- 
 gested; or could be provided hereafter, 
 even, by the legislature, for they are pro- 
 hibited from establishing probate courts in 
 each parish. This was unprecedented; 
 there was no constitution in the United 
 States that \\9& such a provision, and there 
 was no county or parish in any State but 
 had a probate or orphans' court in it. He 
 repeated, he was opposed to the present 
 parish judge system, but he desired that 
 the legislature should have the power of 
 
 establishing such probate courts as are tc. 
 be found in the other States, and that each 
 parish should have the liberty of burying 
 their own dead, and administering on their 
 own estates at home. He said he had in- 
 tended to discuss this question, but had 
 been cut off by the previous question. 
 
 The question was taken upon Mr. Rat- 
 liff's motion, and the yeas and nays were 
 called for; yeas 24, nays 37. 
 
 Mr. Downs called for the adoption of the 
 section. 
 
 Mr. Soule moved to lay the section on 
 the table subject to call. He made this mo- 
 tion in order to take up the section provi- 
 ding for the appointment of the judges. 
 This course would do away with a great 
 deal of debate. 
 
 Mr. Downs was opposed to this motion. 
 The subject had been fully discussed for 
 the last two or three days, and it was bet- 
 ter to dispose of the section. 
 
 Mr. Lewis raised a question of order, 
 whether the house would entertain Mr. 
 Soule's motion after the call for the previ. 
 ous question. 
 
 The chair decided that Mr. Soule's mo- 
 tion was not in order, inasmuch as Mr. 
 Downs had moved previously for the 
 adoption of the section. 
 
 Mr. Porter offered the following sub- 
 stitute for the section: 
 
 The judicial power shall be vested in 
 a supreme court, in district courts, and in 
 justices of the peace. The legislature 
 shall have the power to establish through- 
 out the State courts of probates, the judges 
 of which courts shall be chosen by the 
 qualified electors in each parish, and the 
 legislature shall have further authority xo 
 establish from time to time such courts in 
 the city of New Orleans as may be neces- 
 sary. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to strike out the 
 words "the judges of which courts shall be 
 elected by the duly qualified electors." 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for on 
 Mr. Beatty's motion; yeas 30, nays 32. 
 
 Mr. Waddill then proposed to strike 
 out the words "in the city of New Or- 
 leans," and to substitute the words "in in- 
 corporated towns." This motion was lost 
 
 The question then recurred on the 
 adoption of Mr. Porter's substitute; and 
 the . ye/is and nays were called for; yeas 
 16, nays 49-. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Mr. Saunders moved to insert in the 
 section the words "and in parish courts 
 with probate jurisdiction:" and the yeas 
 and nays were called for; yeas 20, nays 
 40; consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Porter said he was in favor of pro- 
 bate courts. They were recognized and 
 established in every State of the Union: 
 but there had been so many abuses in the 
 parish court that he could not vote for it; 
 yeas 20, nays 40. 
 
 Mr. SorLE moved to take up his mo- 
 tion to reconsider the vote in relation to 
 the senatorial districts of New Orleans. 
 
 Mr. Lewis would remind the gentle- 
 man that his motion had passed its order. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor moved to insert the 
 following words after the words "district 
 courts," "in probate courts." 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for upon 
 his motion. Yeas 27, nays 35. 
 
 Mr. Waddill called for the division, so 
 that the question might be taken on the 
 several courts to be established. 
 
 Mr. Roselius considered that the ques- 
 tion could not be divided. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor entertained the con- 
 trary opinion. 
 
 Messrs. Gry:mes and Wadsworth con- 
 sidered the question indivisable. 
 
 Mr. CrLBERTsors appealed from the de- 
 cision of the chair. 
 
 The decision of the chair was sustained. 
 
 Mr. F. B. Coxrad moved to add after 
 the words "New thieans," in the section, 
 the words "in the city of Lafayette:" 
 which motion prevailed. 
 
 The question was on the adoption of the 
 section, and the yeas and nays were called 
 for: yeas 51, nays 16. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Soele, the Convention 
 took up his motion for reconsideration; the 
 yeas and nays were called for upon said 
 motion — yeas 32, nays 34. 
 
 The Convention then took up section 
 two of the judiciary report. 
 
 Sec 2. The supreme court shall have 
 appellate jurisdiction only except in cases 
 hereinafter provided, which jurisdiction 
 shall extend in all cases where the matter 
 shall exceed five hundred dollars. 
 
 Air. Ratlief moved to strike out five 
 hundred dollars, and substitute three hun- 
 dred dollars. He said that he could see no 
 reason why a poor man should not have 
 access to the supreme court, as well as a 
 
 rich man. He hoped his motion would 
 prevail. He could see no reason for 
 changing the old constitution in that re- 
 spect. 
 
 Mr. Grymes said, that the reason which 
 induced the committee to fix the minimum 
 of jurisdiction at three hundred dollars, was 
 because a great deal of business had been 
 imposed upon the supreme court. That 
 court is hereafter to be charged with juris- 
 diction upon appeal in criminal matters, 
 with cases in which the constitutionality 
 or legality of any tax, toll or impost shall 
 be in contestation, whatever may be the 
 amount: and likewise with cases of fines, 
 forfeitures and penalties imposed by muni- 
 cipal corporations. In addition to these 
 duties, which will claim a great deal of its 
 time, it is charged xvith issuing writs of 
 habeas corpus at the instance of all persons 
 in actual custody, under civil process. It 
 seemed to him that the rights of the poor 
 were much better guaranteed by these 
 provisions, than by placing the amount for 
 appeal at three hundred dollars. If the 
 matter be examined, it will be seen that 
 it is decidedly in favor of the poor, and that 
 it guarantees to them some of the most im- 
 portant rights and privileges. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff said that it was with great 
 diffidence that he entered the lists against 
 the honorable delete from Xew Orleans 
 (Mr. Grymes) to controvert the arguments 
 he has assumed. The gentleman is so 
 much occupied with suits of the highest 
 magnitude, and holds so high a position at 
 the bar, that he does not give that conside- 
 ration to small matters which I do. My pro- 
 fessional experience proves to me the neces- 
 sity for keeping the supreme court opened 
 to the poor suitor, as much as to the rich 
 suitor. I had a case not long ago, in which 
 this was strikingly exhibited. A widow- 
 lady had a case involving fifty head of 
 cattle. She lost her case in the court in 
 the first instance, and I took the appeal, 
 and upon the appeal I gained the suit. Xow 
 if this provision had existed, she would 
 have had no relief, and would have been 
 compelled to submit to the judgment of the 
 first court, unless I could have shown that 
 the cattle were worth more than five hun- 
 dred dollars. 
 
 If as the gentleman (Mr. Grymes) would 
 intimate, that there are but few cases under 
 five hundred dollars, that would be brought 
 
714 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 up to the supreme court, it strikes me that 
 this is an argument in favor of my amend- 
 ment, for it demonstrates that the supreme 
 court will not be overburdened with this 
 kind of business. Would it not be mani- 
 festly unjust to allow a stranger upon his 
 arrival in our port to seek relief from the 
 imposition of a tax upon him by going be- 
 fore the supreme court, when we deny to 
 a citizen the right of an appeal where the 
 amount involved was four hundred and 
 ninety-nine dollars. 
 
 Mr. Grymes said he had briefly exposed 
 his views upon the subject, and would not 
 debate it further, but would leave it to the 
 sense of the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Eustis said that he concurred in the 
 views expressed by his colleague (Mr. 
 Grymes.) There was a great accumula- 
 tion of business in the supreme court at 
 present, and the docket was behind-hand. 
 It has been some years since the end of 
 the docket has been seen. The disposi- 
 tions in the new constitution imposed upon 
 them additional duties. He thought there 
 was more protection to the poor by the 
 provisions which had been made in the re- 
 port than would be derived by reducing the 
 amount subject to appeal from five hundred 
 to three hundred dollars. 1 would merely 
 observe to those gentlemen who are not 
 members of the bar, affid who may not be 
 familiar with this matter, that the commit- 
 tee composed of gentlemen of the legal 
 profession, who have been for their whole 
 lives in the courts, were unanimously of 
 opinion that it was impossible, physically 
 impossible for the judges to get through, 
 if so much labor was thrown upon them, 
 and that therefore it was expedient to re- 
 lieve them in that particular. Now as to 
 the considerations of poor and rich which 
 have been introduced by the delegate from 
 "West Feliciana (Mr. Ratliff) he would 
 merely remark that the members of the 
 committee were in the category of poor 
 men. There were no rich men among 
 them. If the additional duties proposed 
 be assigned to the judges of the supreme 
 court, it is necessary to relieve them from 
 appeals under five hundred dollars. Or 
 otherwise you will have to withdraw the 
 provision requiring them to intervene in all 
 cases of taxes and in cases of imprison- 
 ment under civil process, which to my 
 mind are infinitely of more importance 
 
 than the matter of an appeal for two hun- 
 dred dollars less. 
 
 Mr. M. Taylor had a few words to 
 say: the gentlemen who were upon the 
 judiciary committee he readily conceded, 
 were eminent in their profession. It was 
 designed, he presumed, to organize the 
 system for the dispatch of business. One 
 of the highest objects of government was 
 the dispensation of justice. He did not 
 look at the different classes in the commu- 
 nity — whether they were rich or poor. 
 They were members of one community, 
 equally well entitled to all the privileges 
 and immunities of American citizens. 
 They were equally well entitled to justice, 
 whether the amount involved were large 
 or small. A poor man was as much in- 
 terested in a suit for a few dollars, as a 
 rich man was in a suit for thousands of 
 dollars. The rich man was personally in- 
 terested, whether he should be a few thou- 
 sand dollars richer or not by the termina- 
 tion of a suit in which he was interested. 
 But with the poor man, it was a question 
 perhaps of his daily bread. 1 admit that 
 there are difficulties in adjusting this por- 
 tion of the system. Our supreme court 
 will be over-burdened with business, but I 
 cannot admit that the proper remedy for 
 this lies in cutting off appeals in which 
 men of small means may be involved. We 
 should adopt a different remedy, for justice 
 is sacred, and ought to be meted out to all 
 men. There should be* no constitutional 
 limitation, and the highest court in which 
 the most confidence was reposed, should 
 be as accessible of redress to the poor as 
 to the rich. This is the system adopted 
 in some countries, and it is proper because 
 it places all men upon an equality in re- 
 ference to remedies at law. In some oth- 
 er points it also has advantages. It fre- 
 quently happens that a suit for a few dol- 
 lars involves principles of more conse- 
 quence than a suit for a much larger 
 amount. This is exhibited upon reference 
 to the judicature of other countries. Look 
 at the cases in England, examined by men 
 combining the highest order of intellect, 
 where the amount in dispute does not ex- 
 ceed forty shillings, and which settle some 
 of the most important principles of law. 
 In some of our sister States a similar prac- 
 tice prevails, and any suitor, be the amount 
 large or small, may have the judgment qf 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 the inferior courts revised; he may claim 
 justice and have justice done him. 1 ad- 
 mit that such a system cannot be adopted 
 here without great difficulty. The su- 
 preme court are not only authority in mat- 
 ters of law, but are authority in matters of 
 fact. It is this supervision of facts that in- 
 cumbers the court with records, and which 
 arrest its proceedings. If that were chan- 
 ged, there would be no difficulty in giving 
 the supreme court not only jurisdiction for 
 an amount as low as three hundred dol- 
 lars, but for a sum infinitely less. How- 
 ever that may be, I am for an equal dis- 
 tribution of justice without reference to the 
 matters in controversy. I shall vote in 
 favor of the motion of the delegate from 
 West Feliciana (Mr. Ratliff) for the sim- 
 ple reason that equal justice ought to be 
 extended to all classes. 
 
 Mr. Dunn called for the previous ques- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin hoped that the call for 
 the previous question would not prevail. 
 The whole question of jurisdiction was in- 
 volved. He thought that the call for the 
 previous question was premature. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad trusted that the call 
 for the previous question would not be in- 
 sisted upon. 
 
 Mr. Dunn withdrew the call for the pre- 
 vious question, and Mr. Scott of Felici- 
 ana renewed it. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad called for the yeas 
 and nays; yeas 24; nays 30. 
 
 Mr Benjamin was sorry to have any 
 thing to say when there was so large a 
 minority who were for closing the discus- 
 sion. He would suggest that it would be 
 better to lay the section and the amend- 
 ment upon the table until the question was 
 decided whether the supreme court should 
 decide on questions of law alone. If ap- 
 peals to the supreme court were restricted 
 to questions of law only, he could see no 
 objection to giving the supreme court un- 
 limited jurisdiction. The solution of the 
 question whether appeals should be grant- 
 ed where the amount was under five hun- 
 dred dollars, depended upon the action of 
 the Convention in relation to the former 
 i point. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved to lay the section 
 and his amendment on the table, subject to 
 call. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to strike out all after 
 
 the word "jurisdiction," and to insert the 
 fourth section of the report of the minori- 
 ty of the committee as follows: 
 
 Sec. 4. The supreme court shall have 
 jurisdiction of errors of law in all civil and 
 probate cases, where the amount in con- 
 troversy before it exceeds three hundred 
 dollars, and in all criminal cases when the 
 accused is sentenced to a greater punish- 
 ment than an imprisonment, or to the pay- 
 ment of a sum of money exceeding three 
 hundred dollars. The legislature may give 
 to the supreme court appellate jurisdiction 
 as to matters of fact in such cases as they 
 may deem expedient. 
 
 Mr. Dunn moved to lay the sections 
 and the amendment on the table subject to 
 call, and to take up the third section; 
 which motion prevailed. 
 
 Sec. 3* The supreme court shall be 
 composed of one chief justice and of three 
 associate justices, a majority of whom 
 shall constitute a quorum; each of said 
 judges shall receive a salary of thou- 
 sand dollars annually. The said court 
 shall appoint its own clerks. The said 
 judges shall be appointed by the governor, 
 by and with the advice and consent of the 
 senate, for the term of ten years. 
 
 Mr. Dunn moved to strike out the word 
 "three" and substitute the word "five." 
 The reason that actuated him in making 
 this motion was, that if there were but four 
 judges on the bench, and they differed in 
 opinion equally, the law would not be set- 
 tled. Five were necessary to settle the 
 question upon appeal, and by having that 
 number the administration of justice wouM 
 be greatly facilitated, and there would be 
 greater weight and certainty attached to 
 the divisions. Experience had demonstra- 
 ted the expediency of increasing the num- 
 ber of judges in the supreme court from 
 three to five. It one judge of the district 
 court were to give a judgment one way, and 
 another district judge were to give a judg- 
 ment on the same question the opposite 
 way, and the supreme" court were equally 
 divided, it would result that both judges 
 would be affirmed. The bare mention of 
 this inconvenience would, he presumed, be 
 sufficient to induce the house to increase 
 the number to five, by which it would be 
 obviated. 
 
 Mr. Lewis was sorry to differ in opinion 
 from the delegate from East Feliciana (Mr. 
 
716 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Dunn) but he thought that the section 
 should remain without the amendment for 
 this simple reason, that each case would 
 be decided by a majority of three. If two 
 of the judges of the supreme court were 
 for affirming the judgment, it would be af- 
 firmed for in that case, there would be the 
 district judge and the two judges of the 
 supreme court for affirming the judgment, 
 and that would be the deliberate opinions 
 of three men against two. The mere fact 
 of being a judge of the supreme court, 
 did not make any material difference, for 
 it was presumable that men of equal capa- 
 city would be appointed district judges, 
 and if the judgment of the district judge 
 was concurred in, it would be a safe infer- 
 ence that the judgment was a proper one; 
 at any rate it was as likely to be so, as if it 
 was pronounced by three of the supreme 
 judges, and dissented to by the remaining 
 judge of the supreme court and the judge 
 of the district court. In either case there 
 would be a concurrence of the majority of 
 the whole number, and it would be as 
 well secured one way as the other. There 
 would be however a most decided advant- 
 age in adopting the mode prescribed in the 
 section. Heretofore a great evil had grown 
 up from the fact that the judges of the dis- 
 trict court considered themselves, and 
 were considered by lawyers only, as com- 
 missioners to take testimony for the ulti- 
 mate action of the supreme court; and 
 were therefore in many instances, indiffer- 
 ent whether their decisions went one way 
 or the other, as very little weight were at- 
 tached to them. The tendency of this 
 was to induce neglect in their studies, and 
 some of them have freely acknowledged 
 that they became worse and worse law- 
 yers the longer they remained on the 
 bench. They might give hasty decisions, 
 because very little responsibility devolved 
 upon them. If however, they are to learn 
 that their decisions are of great moment 
 and may settle the law, they will be more 
 careful and will study their cases with 
 greater assiduity when they know that they 
 have to bear a large share of the respon- 
 sibility, it will stimulate them to greater 
 exertion, and as it is to be hoped that those 
 best qualified both by their talents and 
 integrity will be chosen to fill the office, 
 their judgments will be as maturely con- 
 sidered as if they were final, which they 
 
 will be in the event of an equal division of 
 opinion between the judges of the supreme 
 court. These are some few of the con- 
 siderations which induced me to hope that 
 the amendment will not prevail. 
 
 Mr. Garcia called for the yeas and nays 
 upon striking out the word "four." He 
 was in favor of three judges for the su- 
 preme court. 
 
 Mr. Brent was in favor of having but 
 three judges of the supreme court, but he 
 would vote against the motion to strike out 
 because he was apprehensive that five 
 would be substituted for four. 
 
 Mr. Humble for the same reasons would 
 vote against striking out. 
 
 Mr. C. M, Conrad thought there was a 
 great deal of force in the objection of the 
 delegate from East Feliciana (Mr. Dunn) 
 to the mode provided in the section for af- 
 firming judgments; which might result in 
 decisions of a contrary character, both 
 standing affirmed. There was, moreover, 
 a great accumulation of business in the su- 
 preme court, and this business would be 
 very materially increased by the provis- ; 
 ions reported by the committee. 
 
 Mr. Porter would vote to strike out, 
 with the view of inserting two. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff would vote in the same 
 way for a similar reason. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for; 
 yeas 12, nays 43. 
 
 Mr. Read moved to strike out the fol- 
 lowing words, "each of said judges shall 
 receive a salary of thousand dollars 
 annually.' * 
 
 Mr. Read said he had examined in vain 
 the constitutions of these States, to find the 
 shadow of a precedent for the liberty taken 
 by the Convention of 1812, in fixing the 
 salaries of supreme judges. He had in- 
 quired in vain the reason of this singular 
 provision, sought to be re-established and 
 consecrated by the new constitution. Per- 
 haps he would be told that it was necessary 
 for the independence of the judiciary. If 
 the independence of the judiciary be jeop- 
 ardized by legislstion in dollars and cents, 
 by the mere matter of law determining 
 from time to time, suitable and adequate 
 salaries, which shall not be diminished 
 during the term of office, then indeed must 
 the temples of justice in other States be the 
 very fountains of iniquity. It is hardly 
 conceivable that high-minded, honorable 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 717 
 
 men, such as judicial functionaries ought 
 to be, would be bribed, influenced, or cor- 
 rupted by the simple fact of their salaries 
 being ascertained by law, instead of the 
 constitution. Indeed, there is no possibili- 
 ty of danger from such source, when the 
 legislature is prohibited, as is the case in 
 the minority report, from diminishing the 
 compensation during the continuance of the 
 term of office. The framers of our federal 
 compact had no such apprehensions, when 
 they in' their wisdom declared, that the 
 judges of the supreme and inferior courts 
 "shall, at stated times, receive for their 
 services, a compensation which shall not 
 be diminished during their continuance 
 in office," thus leaving the subject to the 
 justice of congress. 
 
 In order to have as many safeguards as 
 possible, Mr. Read would prefer a total 
 prohibition upon the legislsture from any 
 control whatever, either in diminishing or 
 increasing the compensation during the 
 official tenure. But after all, if there be 
 
 i no higher or nobler motives for virtuous 
 action, constitutional provisions of this kind 
 would be of little avail. 
 
 Economy, good policy and business-like 
 views are strikingly opposed to a perma- 
 nence of salaries beyond all reach. De- 
 pression of the financial condition of the 
 State, and general inability on the part of 
 the people to restore the wonted prosperity, 
 might imperiously demand a reduction of 
 expenditures. Shall every officer but the 
 favored judge, yield to the necessity? Such 
 is not the doctrine of republicanism, nor of 
 equal and exact justice to all men. On 
 the other hand, it might so happen (though 
 there is little danger to be apprehended on 
 that score) that the salaries fixed by the 
 constitution might be too small, in which 
 event an injustice would be caused to those 
 upon whom should fall the dignified honors 
 of a judgeship. The judicial laborer is 
 worthy of his hire, but he should be remu- 
 nerated proportionally to the compensation 
 of those engaged in other departments of 
 government, and in a like manner, neither 
 
 ' granting to him a constitutional' favor and 
 security of which others are deprived, nor 
 
 ' restricting him within limits not imposed 
 upon all officers. It was formerly contend- 
 ed that large salaries were necessary to 
 command the first talents of the country, 
 bttt this has been found to be a gross mis- 
 91 
 
 take. Men seek not office for money alone, 
 but principally for the immortality of name; 
 they rise above the dust of earth, for the 
 purpose of inscribing their histories upon 
 the tablet of the skies. In order, however, 
 to prevent the ermine from being prostitu- 
 ted to purposes of speculation, it should be 
 removed as far as possible from every 
 pecuniary motive, which might follow any 
 action of this Convention in the premises, 
 for in the establishment of salaries the 
 highest standard would have to be selected 
 for all times and seasons, lest in assuming 
 a lower, the compensation would not be 
 sufficient for the ordinary expenditures of 
 life. Let us then leave this subject to the 
 legislature, whose peculiar province it is 
 to provide for the fair and just remunera- 
 tion of all officers of government. He 
 hoped his motion to strike out would pre* 
 vail. 
 
 Mr. Maeigny said that although the 
 new constitution might not be approved by 
 the people, he would nevertheless feel a 
 secret pleasure in having been a member 
 of this convention ; for he must acknow- 
 ledge, that during a life of sixty years, he 
 had never seen such extraordinary scenes 
 as were enacted in this hall from day to* 
 day. Occasionally the sagacity and wisdom 
 of the legislature are elevated to the skies, 
 and again the legislature on the other hand 
 is represented as a body in whom we 
 should not repose the slightest confidence. 
 Accordingly, when it was proposed to leave 
 to it the discretion of establishing the seat 
 of government where it was conceived to 
 be most convenient, to modify the parish 
 court system, we were told" to beware of 
 the legislature. The legislature will con- 
 sult nothing but a spirit of cabal, intrigue 
 and corruption. But now, when it is 
 sought to establish by a fixed rule the sala- 
 ry of judges in the constitution, we are 
 told that it is best to confide in the legisla- 
 ture; it is they that ought to r?e trusted with 
 this matter, and they are worthy of implicit 
 confidence. 
 
 From whence comes this contradiction? 
 Where is the policy of making our judges 
 entirely dependent and subservient to the 
 will of the legislature? Is there in this any 
 justice or good sense? No where in the 
 constitution do we find a guarantee for pro- 
 perty; >and we were told that when we 
 came to the judiciary that it would there 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 find ample protection. How is this pro- 
 mise to be fulfilled? Is this last asylum lor 
 property to be abandoned] It would be as 
 well to re-establish in Louisiana the usages 
 of the Choctaws and the Cherokees, and 
 create at once the agrarian law. It can- 
 not be that this convention cannot under- 
 stand that the safety of the judiciary de- 
 pends upon its independence from any con- 
 trol, such as would be possessed by the le J - 
 gislature, if the proposition of the delegate 
 from East Baton Rouge were to prevail. 
 
 If you reduce to ten years, the term of 
 service for the judges of the Supreme Court, 
 how can you expect lawyers of eminence 
 to accept the appointment, unless you 
 allow them a sufficient compensation to 
 support them and their families, and to 
 enable them to retire without being re- 
 duced to absolute penury. The executive 
 has frequently found it extremely difficult 
 heretofore, when the office has been for 
 life, to obtain suitable persons to accept of 
 the appointment. How much more diffi- 
 cult will it be to find suitable persons to 
 accept the office after your democratic con- 
 stitution, or I might rather say your consti- 
 tution which is distinguished for its dema- 
 gogueism, shall be proclaimed as the fun- 
 damental law of the land. Inasmuch as 
 you do not want but four judges upon that 
 tribunal, take the 825,000 which has been 
 heretofore allowed, and divide it between 
 the four judges, so as to give $8,000 to the 
 chief justice, and the balance to be equally 
 distributed among the other three. If you 
 do this, you will obtain lawyers of acknow- 
 ledged abilities, who may be willing to re- 
 linguish their brilliant career at the bar for 
 the honor of a seat on the bench, provided 
 they have the guarantee of a decent living. 
 If you leave it to the legislature in their 
 caprice to fix the salaries, you will create 
 uncertainty in the judiciary, and no one 
 who is capable will accept the office. If 
 you adopt suck a provision in your consti- 
 tution, the result may be its rejection, for 
 the only security for property is to be found 
 in the constitution. Men of industry, who 
 have acquired large fortunes, are indiffer- 
 ent to who may be elected a representa- 
 tive or a senator, in comparison with the 
 deep and abiding interest which they feel 
 in securing an upright judiciary. I trust 
 that the convention will reflect seriously 
 upon this point, and not put our liberties 
 
 and our property at issue by the establish- 
 ment of an irresponsible judiciary. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. Read's 
 motion to strike out, and it was lost; ayes 
 14, nays 41. 
 
 Whereupon the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Saturday April, 19, 1845. 
 
 The convention met pursuant to adjourn* 
 ment, and its proceedings were opened 
 with prayer from the Hon. Mr. Stephens. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff, on behalf of the com- 
 mittee on contingent expenses, submitted 
 the accounts for the funeral expenses of 
 the late Hon. Gilbert Leonard, which, on 
 motion, were allowed. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 Section third — Article fourth. 
 
 Salaries of the judges of the supreme 
 court,being under consideration yesterday, 
 when the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Mr. Saunders moved that the paragraph 
 referring to the salary be laid on the table, 
 until the duration of office be first deter- 
 mined, which motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to strike out the 
 word "ten." 
 
 The question was taken and the ayes 
 and nays were called for, ayes 29 nays 22. 
 
 Mr. Splane moved to fill the blank with 
 the word "twelve." 
 
 Mr. Conrad stated that he had voted to 
 retain ten years as a matter of compromise. 
 It was very desirable in the zeal which 
 gentlemen evinced to shorten the duration 
 of office, that they should take heed not to 
 make the period so short as to introduce 
 instability into the administration of public 
 affairs, particularly in reference to the judi- 
 ciary. If it be borne in mind that with a 
 life tenure, that in the space of thirty-two 
 years we have had fourteen judges of the 
 supreme court, making an average of but 
 seven years and a half to each, it must be 
 obvious that if these changes were so fre- 
 quent with such a system, they will be 
 much more frequent with a limitation of 
 office to ten or twelve years; and we shall 
 be exposed to changes enough in all con. 
 science without shortening the term any 
 further. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. Splane's 
 motion, and it was lost, 18 yeas 39 nays. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to fill the blank with 
 eight years, and the yeas and nays were 
 called for; 47 ayes 7 nays. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 T19 
 
 Mr. Waddill moved that the question 
 be first taken on the amount of salary to be 
 allowed to the chief justice. Carried 
 
 On the motion of Mr. Ledoux to fix the 
 salary of the chief justice at $7,000. 
 
 Mr. Preston said, 1 shall oppose the 
 motion* as proposing an unnecessary and 
 exorbitant sum for the salary qf the 
 chief justice, undoubtedly to be followed 
 up with equal extravagance in fixing the 
 salaries of his associates. 
 
 The salary of the chief justice of the 
 State was fixed at five thousand dollars by 
 the old constitution. Under that constitu- 
 tion we had the good fortune to have selec- 
 ted as chief justice the late George Ma- 
 thews and he has been succeeded by the 
 present chief justice. These gentlemen 
 have filled that exalted station for upwards 
 of thirty years with eminent ability and dis- 
 tinction. They have not only given gene- 
 ral satisfaction, but the Stale has been boas- 
 ted of their administration of her justice 
 and proudly compared them with the head 
 of the judiciary in the other States of the 
 union. They have been satisfied with this 
 less compensation for their distinguished 
 services. With if they did not impair, but 
 increased their fortunes from independence 
 to great wealth. 
 
 During a part of the periods they served, 
 money was of little value being, greatly 
 depreciated by a bloated currency, which 
 I hope will never occur again. The wise 
 political economist regards money as a 
 yard stick or pound weight; when it is 
 made abundant by extravagant paper issues 
 the yard stick is short, or the pound weight 
 light and will measure or weigh but little of 
 the necessaries of life. But now the cir- 
 culating medium is scarce, there is but lit- 
 tle paper money, and therefore money is 
 valuable. It is to be hoped this state of 
 things, most favorable to economy and in- 
 dustry, will be perpetuated. And if so, five 
 thousand dollars will continue to be a lar- 
 ger salary than during the bloated years 
 of the growth and multiplication of banks 
 until iheir crash. Lest it may hereafter 
 be otherwise, I voted for the proposi- 
 tion of the delegate from Baton Rouge to 
 leave the establishment and regulation of all 
 salaries to the general assembly, believing 
 it moreover their appropriate duty,and that 
 it does not belong to the Convention. The 
 Convention have decided otherwise, And 
 
 now we are to consider that money is 
 scarce and valuable now; to hope it will 
 continue so, so far as that scarcity results 
 from a restricted issue of bank paper, and 
 as we have heretofore secured the services 
 of the best chief justices with a salary of 
 five thousand dollars, to take it for granted 
 that we will continue to do so hereafter. 
 • The great argument in favor of these 
 enormous salaries for judges is, that the 
 public are entitled to the services of the 
 most distinguished lawyers on the supreme 
 bench; that those in the city of New Or- 
 leans make seven thousand dollars, and will 
 not theretore accept of seats on the su- 
 preme bench if a smaller sum as fixed for 
 their compensation. There is a great fal- 
 lacy in this argument. It is not the most 
 distinguished advocates, nor those who 
 make the largest income from the profes- 
 sion, wdio would make the best judges. 
 There are three classes of lawyers who 
 realize large profits from their practice. 
 
 First, the brilliant advocate who, by the 
 fascination of his eloquence, makes the 
 worst appear the better cause; who can 
 ensure the triumph of innocence over per- 
 secution, and even snr.tch from the hands 
 of justice the wealthy criminal, who oug. t 
 therefore to abandon to him half of his for- 
 tune. The sonorous voice, the elegant 
 gesticulation, the intense passions, the ner- 
 vous system of the orator, bear down in his 
 course the feeble barriers of law and evi- 
 dence, and he reaps for himself and clients 
 the richest harvests. Such an advocate i 
 see before me, at the very head here, and 
 rivalling the most brilliant advocate of any 
 other country. But such an advocate is 
 entirely unsuited to be a judge. Those 
 strong passions, great excitability and ea- 
 ger impatience that makes the advocate, 
 disqualifies the judge. May w r e ever be 
 delivered from the eloquent judge, or the 
 storm of passion or impatience on the 
 bench. 
 
 There is another class of money making 
 lawyers, who are most profound in regu- 
 lating and systematizing the accounts of 
 administrators of successions, of syndics or 
 assignees of insolvents, the partitions of 
 partners or heirs, and in the distribution 
 take care to distribute a large portion to 
 themselves. Their talents are mathemati- 
 cal entirely. It is the talent which piles 
 one brick on another, until a mausoleum 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 is erected. As dull a man as I ever knew 
 was the greatest mathematician; not a ray 
 of genius ever illumined his perecranium. 
 The principles of law and equity are fo- 
 reign to their conceptions. Such lawyers 
 may compass fortunes, but are unfit for 
 judges. 
 
 There is still a third class of lawyers, 
 who make large sums of money by invests 
 gating old titles, discovering defects in 
 them, and embarking for the claimants for 
 a contingent compensation generally, a half 
 or at least a third of what is recovered. 
 This class of lawyers make great profits, 
 but by long practice in that description of 
 suits, acquire a love and respect, for forms 
 and technicalities for rigorous law, as to 
 loose all sense of equity and regard for 
 moral right. From them the judges of the 
 supreme court should not be selected. 
 
 What lawyers should be placed upon 
 the highest tribunals of the State ? Law- 
 yers of good education, but who have stu- 
 died the book of man as much as the books 
 of authors written in their closets; men of 
 clear undoubted minds, of but little imagi- 
 nation or excitability; great equanimity, pa- 
 tience and indulgence to human frailties. 
 Lawyers habitually laborious and methodi- 
 cal in their profession, and especially in 
 investigating the merits of the very case 
 before them. They should be men of sim- 
 ple lives, of frugal habits, of great economy 
 in their families, indifferent to the splen- 
 dors of society and extravagant indigen- 
 cies, not only to afford an example in them- 
 selves and families to the community, but 
 to abstract themselves from temptations and 
 corruptions, inconsistent with their appro- 
 priate duties. Even if called from the 
 country to this extravagant city, show no 
 hesitation in saying they would obtain 
 more respect, esteem and confidence, by 
 being found at the neat, quiet and excel- 
 lent but moderate boarding houses of the 
 hundreds of widows who follow that occu- 
 pation in this city, than at the splendid and 
 extravagant St. Charles and St. Louis Ho- 
 tels; and that such retirement would be far 
 better adapted to the faithful and satisfacto- 
 ry discharge of their duties. 
 
 I would select the lawyer who, with a 
 clear head and honest heart, had sought 
 as far as possible the right side of all cau- 
 ses, and pursued them to a fair result and 
 no farther, for a moderated compensation; 
 
 whose soul swelled with equity, and whose 
 mind anxiously sought for the rule of deci- 
 sion of the transactions and disputes of his 
 fellow citizens, in the simple legislation of 
 the State and decisions of its courts; the 
 civil code of practice and statute, and our 
 plain criminal law and reports of the deci- 
 sions # of our own courts; and where these 
 failed, would look mainly to his own just 
 heart for the solution of difficulties. The 
 laws of God are few and simple; the laws 
 of our State are likewise few and simple, 
 and I trust in God will be kept so, so that 
 all, as they are required to do, may under- 
 stand them, and the plain lawyer I have 
 described may easily interpret them. 
 
 Who was such a lawyer 1 The venera- 
 ble, the lamented Judge Mathews, who 
 could scarcely have made an economical 
 living by the practice of the profession. 
 The present chief justice of the State, a 
 man of great learning, of deep methodical 
 thought, of the most fearless independence 
 and irreproachable integrity, but who 
 could have made nothing by the practice of 
 his profession. 
 
 But they had as their associate an advo- 
 cate drstxinguished by brilliant talents, per- 
 suasive eloquence,and a fascinating imagi- 
 nation. By these advantages, united to 
 great industry, he commanded a most lucra- 
 tive practice, and made a great sacrifice by 
 accepting a seat on the supreme bench. 
 And now I say, without the slightest dis- 
 respect to his memory, which I revere, for 
 I esteemed him to the day of his death, 
 and know that he esteemed me, that he 
 was not a good judge ; that he yielded too 
 much in his judicial career to those quali- 
 ties which had distinguished himself, that 
 having gained no doubt many, many bad 
 causes, he did not distinguish sufficiently 
 between what was right and wrong; what 
 could be proved legally right secured his 
 judgment in any case. He yielded entirely 
 too much to technicality, and often sacri- 
 ficed substantial justice to mere form. 
 Commencing with the decision in the case 
 
 of Guyiso against : — , he reared 
 
 a system of technical jurisprudence by pur- 
 chasers in good faith, for full consideration 
 were evicted for mere defect of form, that 
 was bringing total insecurity aid ruin on 
 the State, and was insupportable when he 
 resigned. And I do believe he resigned, 
 not from anxiety to embark in political life, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 but because he saw the course of his de- 
 cisions becoming insupportable, and which 
 he remedied as far as possible by the mo- 
 nition law. which I am told he proposed, 
 and had friends to carry through the legis- 
 lature. 
 
 From these considerations, I am persua- 
 ded a salary of five thousand dollars will 
 always command the services of the most 
 suitable men to be placed on the bench of 
 the supreme court: and therefore that a 
 
 ■ 
 
 d be 
 
 unneces- 
 
 greater compensation 
 sary and extravagant. 
 
 I am led to the same conclusion, by what 
 I see throughout the United States. With- 
 out adverting to the moderate salaries of 
 the supreme judges of our sister States, 
 the chief justice of the United States re- 
 ceives but five thousand dollars, and his 
 associates but four thousand : and yet, in 
 addition to their sessions at the expensive ! 
 city of Washington, they are required to 
 travel over expensive circuits, and hold , 
 courts at the capitals of the different States, 
 and yet congress, with all the resources of 
 the United States, regard their salaries as 
 adequate. The secretary of state of the 
 Uni'.ed States, who has to engage in un- 
 ceasing diplomatic correspondence with 
 the talented ministers of all countries, and i 
 direct our ministers and agents all over the ' 
 world, to study and regulate all our foreign | 
 intercourse and much of our domestic ad- 
 ministration, and entertain social relations 
 with all the agents in these departments, 
 at the expensive city of Washington, re- 
 ceives but six thousand dollars. And the 
 secretary of the treasury, charged with the 
 collection and disbursement of the whole 
 revenue of the United States, and the de- 
 velopment of all her resources, — and the 
 post-master general, with labors more her- 
 culean in the superintendence of almost an 
 army of agents in diffusing knowledge and 
 intelligeuce all over the United Slates, 
 have each, with all the other great officers 
 of government, but six thousand dollars 
 compensation a year. 
 
 Mr. Ledovx : \[ r . President. I owe. 
 perhaps, an apology to the house in taking 
 the floor after the" distinguished delegate 
 from Jefferson. (Mr. Preston) who has 
 just resumed his seat, but as I made the 
 proposition which meets so strenuously his 
 opposition, I may be pardoned to state the 
 reasons that induced me to make it. It is 
 
 a great f :ult, in my judgment, that both in 
 the general and State governments the 
 public servants of the people are not suffi- 
 ciently compensated for their services: and 
 for that reason, having served their country 
 all their lives, at immense sacrifices, four- 
 fifths of them die in the utmost poverty. 
 Look at the history of our country, and you 
 will rind that to be a sad fact. I will not 
 say, sir, that the compensation now allow- 
 ed to a judge of the supreme court is inade- 
 quate to the responsible and arduous duties 
 which he has to perform, though I admit 
 that to be true; but I will say that it is in- 
 sufficient to procure for him and his family 
 even the necessaries of life: it is insufficient 
 to permit him to live in the manner ki 
 which a judge of the supreme court of the 
 State of Louisiana ought to live. Gentle- 
 men must be aware that it is impossible 
 for a family to live -well in the city of Xew 
 Orleans with less than three thousand 
 dollars; but the judge has to hold court also 
 in Alexandria, and in such other places as 
 the legislature may by law determine; he 
 has to take his family to the country during 
 the summer months, and bring them back 
 to the city in the fall of the year; and I risk 
 nothing in saying that this necessary trav- 
 elling consumes the balance of his total 
 salary. Where then is he to rind the 
 means wherewith to educate his children, 
 to render them in time capable of serving 
 their country? Where are his hopes to 
 leave them a fortune when he will be no 
 more? I have been told, sir, by one of the 
 judges of the supreme court, now sitting 
 on that bench, whose family is not a very 
 large one. that the actual salary, of five 
 thousand dollars, far from being sufficeint 
 to pay his annual expenses, that he has to 
 take two thousand dollars from his income 
 in order to meet thes£ expenses; and I can 
 assure gentlemen of the Convention that if 
 the epithet of extravagant can be applied 
 to any man, it will not be to him. 
 
 We were informed here, no later than 
 yesterday, by the honorable delegate from 
 Xew Orleans, on my right, (Mr. Marigny) 
 that several of the judges of the supreme 
 court have been compelled to resign their 
 seats on that bench: and many eminent 
 lawyers have refused to accept, because 
 the salary is too small. I am not at all 
 astonished at that, sir; and I will be less as- 
 tonished to see it happen oftener in the fu- 
 
 • 
 
722 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 ture. There are in the Convention many- 
 very distinguished lawyers, whose practice 
 I am informed, does not fall short of ten 
 thousand dollars; is it to be presumed that 
 any of them will abandon that practice for 
 the mere honor of a seat on the supreme 
 bench, especially when the tenure of that 
 office is limited to eight years, as we have 
 decided but a moment ago? Surely gen- 
 tlemen do not believe that. I know myself, 
 sir, some very distinguished and talented 
 gentlemen, worthy in every respect to fill 
 that responsible and important station, who 
 would not consent to do it, on account of 
 the salary. If it were offered to them, they 
 would say, with Dr. Goldsmith, who being 
 appointed professor of ancient history in 
 one of the universities of England, an of- 
 fice to which great honor was attached, but 
 no salary, declined, answering, " honors, 
 for a man in my situation, are like ruffles 
 for him who wants a shirt." Mr. Presi- 
 dent, ihere are many Goldsmiths in our 
 country — men who are poor in what con- 
 cerns the precious metal, but who are rich 
 in intrinsical worth; men to whom the 
 country looks with mingled pride and admi- 
 ration, and in whom the people would 
 place their love and confidence. These 
 are the men who can serve their country 
 well; these are the men who ought to be 
 compensated well. 
 
 I hope, sir, that we will not prove by 
 our actions that republics are ungrateful. 
 I hope we will not show to the world by 
 our conduct, that the sublime principles for 
 which Washington drew his sword; for 
 which Patrick Henry spoke, and Franklin 
 wrote, and for which a host of the worthiest 
 patriots that the world has ever seen, 
 have fought and bled. I hope, I say, that we 
 will not show by our conduct, that those 
 principles are founded in error; and that 
 our government, which results from them, 
 is ungrateful. This would be a manifest 
 contradiction. It would be to say that vir- 
 tue, morality and justice itself is unjust; 
 for these are the basis of our government. 
 I hope gentlemen will consider this as a 
 common-sense question, and not as one 
 which ought to rest on precedence; for, if 
 in other States, public officers are permit- 
 ted to starve, it is no reason that it should 
 be the case here. I hope that they will 
 not be guided by motives of misplaced 
 economy, but on the contrary, will do what 
 
 in their consciences and their judgments 
 they think is right and just. 
 
 I hope, sir, that my motion to fill the 
 blank with "seven thousand dollars" will 
 prevail. 
 
 Mr. Grymes said that he looked upon 
 this matter as of great importance — per- 
 haps the most important in its consequen- 
 ces that we could discuss. His adherance 
 to the motion to fix the salary of the judges 
 of the supreme court at seven thousand dol- 
 lars, was the result of a few plain, practical 
 principles. He did not seek to discover in 
 which particular class of lawyers, as they 
 had been classified by the delegate from 
 Jefferson, (Mr. Preston,) we should make 
 the selection ofjuclges. The question as to 
 what amount of reputation this or that 
 member of the bar may acquire in his prac- 
 tice, what is the amount of his fees, what 
 particular quality might distinguish his head 
 or his heart, and how far incompetency 
 might result from erudition and experience, 
 were matters with which we have nothing 
 to do. The object he apprehended was to 
 secure suitable persons to fill the responsi- 
 ble office of judge; persons in whom the 
 public confidence could be reposed, and 
 who were worthy of that confidence. The 
 delegate from Jefferson (Mr. Preston) has 
 imagined a system which is truly remark- 
 able for novelty. He thinks that we ought 
 to take our judges from those unpretending 
 members of the bar, who are unable to 
 make their living at the profession. Here 
 is a new principle in political economy; 
 and I would ask what is to become of the 
 incumbent, who, after eight years of ser- 
 vice on the bench of the highest tribunal 
 of the country, is under the necessity of re- 
 turning to his profession to make his daily 
 bread, and to sustain himself and his fami- 
 ly. His practice, such as it was, will bo 
 gone, and he will be without the means of 
 acquiring an honest livelihood. 
 
 I consider property as the representative 
 of labor. The man who works with his 
 hands, as well as he whose mental powers 
 are taxed, have a common object. It is to 
 secure to themselves a reasonable amount 
 of property, for that period of life when their 
 physical powers and mental energies re- 
 quire tranquility and repose. The acqui- 
 sition of property is the chief incentive to 
 human exertion, and he who has labored 
 to obtain it, clings to it with all the tenaci* 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 723 
 
 ty of which his nature is susceptible, and 
 resists to the last every attempt to deprive 
 him of its possession. The labor of all, as 
 I have said, have a common centre; it is 
 to secure property, labor is the great busi- 
 ness of the world, and, in God's name, the 
 fruits of labor ought to be adequately pro- 
 tected and guaranteed, and be placed 
 beyond the power of injustice and oppres- 
 sion. This is the end and aim of the es- 
 tablishment of the judicial power. It has 
 no other mission than to protect the rights 
 of persons, and the rights of property. If 
 these be desirable objects of human gov- 
 ernment, its ministers should be placed 
 beyond the remotest possibility of suspi- 
 cion; they should be adequately remunera- 
 ted, and such inducements held out as to 
 secure the services of men of superior tal- 
 ents and of great integrity, to administer 
 its decrees. There is not a single tax 
 payer who is not willing to contribute a 
 few dollars more to secure an honest and 
 impartial judiciary, for he knows that upon 
 such a judiciary depends the possession 
 and the enjoyment of his property. 
 
 The advocate is master of his own time. 
 He may attend to his profession or not, as 
 he chooses; he may devote his time to that 
 particular business which he prefers; he 
 may mix his professional pursuits with other 
 pursuits; he may cultivate cotton or sugar, 
 while following his profession; but the 
 judge of the supreme court is bound to give 
 all his time, all his energy, all his industry, 
 to the public. All these are due to the 
 public, and he must labor without stint and 
 with scarcely any relaxation, in the dis- 
 charge of the arduous duties he has under- 
 taken. I would ask candid and reasonable 
 men, whether seven thousand dollars is 
 too much for such services? Experience 
 has demonstrated that five thousand dollars 
 is an indaequate compensation, for it has 
 been with the greatest difficulty that the 
 appointments have been made of suitable 
 persons to hold the office. The judges are 
 obliged to travel over the State, and have 
 to incur the expense out of their salaries. 
 I think that seven thousand dollars is as lit- 
 tle as can be accorded to the chief justice, 
 and six thousand five hundred to the asso- 
 ciate justices. 1 cannot vote for less. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. Le- 
 doux's motion, to fix the salary of the chief 
 justice of the supreme court at seven thou- 
 
 sand dollars, and the ayes and nays were 
 called for, ayes 22 — nays 35. 
 
 Mr. Brent then moved to fill the blank 
 with five thousand dollars. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad said he had never 
 heard it suggested at the bar, where he 
 had practiced for a number of years, nor 
 in the legislature, in which body he had 
 had the honor of a seat on more than one 
 occasion, that five thousand dollars was an 
 exhorbitant salary for the Judges of the su- 
 preme court. On the contrary, he had fre- 
 quently heard the opinion expressed that it 
 was insufficient; and yet the tenure of the ju- 
 dicial office was for fife. It seemed to him 
 to be an irresistable conclusion, that if 
 five thousand dollars were considered noth- 
 ing more than reasonable when the office 
 was for life, the compensation ought to be 
 augmented now that the tenure is reduced 
 to eight years. 
 
 The delegate from Jefferson (Mr. Pres- 
 ton) has made a long harrangue as to the 
 particular class of lawyers who, in his es- 
 timation, should be placed upon the bench; 
 and if we follow him in his remarks, it 
 would seem that he delights in diminishing 
 the objects that present themselves to his 
 vision, and to look at them through the 
 small end of the spy glass — so small and 
 so contracted do the views which he pre- 
 sents appear. 
 
 Give us, says that delegate, a man of 
 ordinary comprehension, but who has a 
 mountain of equity in his bosom — for such 
 a man a small compensation will suffice, 
 inasmuch as he may board at one of the 
 economical establishments kept by widow 
 ladies. It seems to me (said Mr. Conrad) 
 that a judge of the supreme court ought to 
 be the father of a family, and not under the 
 necessity for a matter of economy to board 
 either in a private family or large hotel. 
 He should reside in his own house, away 
 from bustle and distraction, and in quiet re- 
 tirement. Are five thousand dollars suffi- 
 cient to providefor his wants and those of 
 his family in a manner and style befitting 
 his station in life? 1 would ask if the 
 delegate himself, who as the attorney gen- 
 eral, receives a salary of three thousand 
 dollars, and has besides the opportunity of 
 attending to a large practice, and who is al- 
 lowed by law a district attoreny to assist 
 him, and who does the drudgery of the of- 
 fice, whether he thinks five thousand dollars 
 
721 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 unreasonable. Has the delegate ever found 
 his own salary of three thousand dallars 
 too much, since he is enabled to procure 
 the economical board with widow ladies, 
 which he recommends to judicial patron- 
 age? I have no doubt that he thinks his 
 compensation small enough, and that he 
 would be the last to relinquish, willingly, 
 one dollar of it, so long as he holds the of- 
 fice. 
 
 The duties of the judges of the supreme 
 court are made more onerous than those of 
 the attorney general. They are under the 
 necessity of setting daily from ten until 
 three o'clock, and have no relaxation — for 
 when they arc not in the city, they are 
 holding court at Alexandria or Opelousas; 
 whereas, the attorney general has a vaca- 
 tion of three months, and has the district 
 attorney to represent the State, when he 
 does not choose, or it is inconvenient for 
 him to do so. He is therefore master of 
 his own time, and yet he does not think 
 three thousand dollars for himself, with per- 
 fect freedom to follow a lucrative practice, 
 too much ! But five thousand dollars, 
 where a judge is concerned, is a most ex- 
 cessive salary, and ought to be cut down to 
 a more modest standard. So says the at- 
 torney general. 
 
 What is the most remarkable in the gen- 
 tleman's peculiar notions, is, that men of 
 high intelligence are unfit to hold a seat 
 upon the judicial bench. He thinks they 
 ought to be excluded t» make way for ordi- 
 nary and common understandings. The 
 more ignorant the man is, the better .quai- 
 fied he is to discharge the functions of a 
 judge of the supreme court. This is the 
 logic of the delegate, and the gist of his 
 argument is to exalt ignorance over talents. 
 A man of superior abilities he pronounces 
 unfit for the office ! He w T ants a cheap 
 judge — an ignorant man he prefers, pro- 
 vided he has a mountain of equity to swell 
 his bosom. This superabundance of equity 
 would be x)f very little avail to one who 
 did not know how to apply it properly, and 
 whose ignorance would be displayed on 
 every occasion. For such a magistrate, 
 five thousand dollars would be too much! 
 But for a man of ripe judgment, an accom- 
 plished and able jurist — a man who has 
 some reputation as a lawyer, five thousand 
 dollars are not adequate. They are insuf- 
 ficient, and not in keeping with the nature 
 
 and the character of the duties to be per- 
 formed. The community want security; 
 they want judges upon whom they can rely, 
 and will never begrudge a suitable com- 
 pensation to place such men upon the 
 bench. I hope that the motion will not 
 prevail, and that a more adequate compen- 
 sation will be allowed. 
 
 Mr. Roselius said he was sorry to see 
 a disposition manifested to adopt a system 
 of economy, and to apply it to a branch of 
 the government where it would be ex- 
 tremely mischievous to the State. The 
 office of Judge of the supreme court re- 
 quired qualifications that it was difficult 
 to meet with, and^ it ought to be remem- 
 bered that it not only involved the duty of 
 expounding the laws, and applying them 
 to the matters submitted for their decision, 
 but likewise, in-a great measure, the mak- 
 ing of laws; because in every State which 
 exists, or may exist hereafter, the laws are 
 divided into written and unwritten. The 
 statutory law is the written law. The 
 legislature lays down rules, and the judi- 
 cial power developes them; and it is this 
 which forms the jurisprudence of the 
 country. The unwritten, or customary 
 law, therefore, is more comprehensive than 
 the written, or statutory law. If you ask 
 a lawyer any given question, he will not 
 only refer to the technical provisions of the 
 law, but he will fortify his construction by 
 a reference to the decisions of the tribunals 
 of the country. Hence, the body of the 
 law is not only confined to the civil code 
 and the code of practice, but embraces, in 
 this, as in other States, the decisions and 
 expositions of the courts, upon all ques- 
 tions upon which may arise these statutory 
 provisions. The rules invoked not only 
 govern the particular cases, but all subse- 
 quent cases involving similar points, which 
 may arise. It is folly to suppose that a 
 man not conversant with the science of the 
 law, is fit to be appointed to expound the 
 law. He may fill the seat corporeally np- 
 on the bench, but for all useful purposes, 
 you might as well substitute a man of straw. 
 Law is not a science that is to be acquired 
 by intuition. It requires a particular ap- 
 titude, great and continued study, and a 
 profound and extended range of knowledge: 
 and if you place a man upon the bench 
 who has not the knowledge, who has not 
 the skill to develope and apply the comply 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 725 
 
 cated and difficult principles of jurispru- 
 dence to the particular cases that raay 
 
 arise, justice will not be comprehenc 
 administered in a satisfactory and priper 
 manner. 
 
 The doctrines which I have heard emit- 
 ted this morning, appear to me to be so 
 contrary to the principles upon which so- 
 cial order reposes, that I do not hesitate to 
 assert that in ten years, if they were to pre- 
 vail, the most complete anarchy and con- 
 fusion would result in our judiciary, and 
 we would be justly obnoxious to the an- 
 athemas of our constituents and of poster- 
 ity. It is an error — a fatal and flagrant 
 error — to suppose that a mere rectitude of 
 purpose, if it can be obtained without in- 
 telligence and learning, will suffice to ex- 
 pound the laws, and to maintain them in 
 their vigor and purity. It is essential 
 that the judge should possess great in- 
 tegrity; but it is equally essential that he 
 should possess a thorough knowledge of 
 men and tilings — that he should be versed 
 in the most difficult and abstruse of human 
 sciences — for without a knowledge of 
 Jaw, how is he to comprehend and define 
 the laws which he is called upon to inter- 
 pret, and to apply, with a rare sagacity, the 
 principles of the science, to doubtful and j 
 particular cases? Under the regis of the 
 law, life, liberty, property and reputation 
 find protection; and how are these to be 
 protected, if you commit your judiciary to 
 incompetent and unworthy hands? Is it 
 proposed to return to the ancient system 
 which prevailed when Louisiana was un- 
 der colonial vassalage to - Spain? When 
 the most shameful traffic attended the ad- j 
 ministration of the laws? Wherever ig- : 
 norance predominates, venality and co,r- 
 ruption are almost sure to be found. 
 
 When the constitution was formed in 
 1812, five thousand dollars was not deemed ; 
 an immoderate compensation X0he judges 
 of the supreme court; and yet five thou- j 
 sand dollors at that period, may be consid- j 
 ered the equivalent to ten thousand dollars 
 now. If we consider the difference of la. 
 bor imposed, the compensation in 1812 
 bears a most striking disparity to what is 
 now proposed to be allowed. In 1813 
 there were but twenty-five cases to be de- ; 
 cided in the eastern district. In in 1831 j 
 there were but ninety-eight cases on the j 
 docket; and this was considered to be a 
 92 
 
 ' great increase by judge Porter; of whom 
 •' I will take this opportunity to say, that a 
 : man of sounder, or a more comprehensive 
 and grasping mind — one more enlightened 
 or more upright as a magistrate, never gra. 
 : ced the bench of this or any other State. 
 He has shed more lustre upon our juris- 
 prudence than any other man, with the 
 exception of the present venerable chief 
 justice, and his memory is embalmed in 
 the best affections of his country. So 
 : great has been the accumulation of busi- 
 ness since 1831, that during the last seven 
 ' months, upwards of four hundred cases 
 have been decided. And is it seriously 
 proposed, that now that the labor is so 
 much increased — that you have reduced 
 the number of judges, and have attributed 
 other important and difficult functions to 
 them, and with the certainty that from 
 year to year their duties will become more 
 and more excessive, they are to have no 
 greater salary than was allowed in 1812, 
 and with the change of tenure in the office 
 from life to eight years. 
 
 I am no admirer of monarchical institu- 
 tions, and yet I am constrained to admit 
 that there is no country in the world whose 
 system of laws are better administered 
 than those of England. Is it because her 
 system of laws are better? Xo, our system 
 is infiinitely better! How does it happen? 
 Because the judges are selected from the 
 ablest and most distinguished advocates; 
 and in addition to the honor of a seat upon 
 the bench, they receive liberal salaries. 
 It is thus that the bench of England hag 
 been graced with such men as 5laiisfield, 
 Ellenborough, Tittenden. and others of like 
 distinction. Why, the chief justice of the 
 Queen's Bench gets a salary often thousand 
 pounds, equivalent to a salary of fifty 
 thousand dollars of our currency. I do 
 not refer to this for the purpose of advo- 
 cating extraordinary salaries; but to show 
 how labor is compensated elsewhere, and 
 how desirable it is considered to obtain 
 men of the most exalted talents for the 
 bench, by the most liberal allowance of sal- 
 ary, .yv. 
 
 The arguments that 1 have heard this 
 morning, induces me to believe, that one 
 of the delegates was in earnest when he 
 observed at Jackson, that in allowing large 
 salaries to the judges of the supreme court, 
 we were limiting the choice to those mem- 
 
726 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 bers of the bar that stood in the foremost 
 rank, and were excluding all the balance, 
 which was adopting an exclusive principle 
 towards the more numerous class. It is 
 true, that by allowing liberal salaries, we 
 offer an inducement to men of talent and 
 experience to accept the appointment, and 
 we avoid the necessity of taking individ- 
 uals totally unqualified for the station, 
 which would invariably be the conse- 
 quence of cheap and inadequate salaries. 
 But we shall Jbe the gainers by the restric- 
 tion, if it may be so called, with monopoly 
 in favor of talent. Economy in reference 
 1o the judiciary is totally misplaced, you 
 may economize in every thing else, if you 
 will, but for God's sake, do not impair this 
 for a few thousand dollars, the efficiency' 
 of a system upon which depends millions, 
 and not only properly, but life and reputa- 
 tion. I hope the house will pause before 
 they take an irretrievable step, from which 
 the most pernicious consequences will 
 flow. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff on behalf of the commit- 
 tee on contingent expenses, asked leave 
 to audit an account of Messrs. Besangon, 
 Ferguson ■& Co., printers to the Conven- 
 tion, for $200 ; which was accorded. 
 
 Whereupon the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Monday, April 21, 1845-. 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment, and the proceedings were open- 
 ed with prayer from the Hon. Mr. Ste- 
 phens. 
 
 Mr. Downs asked to be excused from 
 serving on the committee to whom was 
 referred the resolution of Mr. Chinn on 
 duelling, on account of other duties. He 
 was excused, and Mr. Lewis was appoin- 
 ted by the president in his stead. 
 
 The Convention resumed the considera- 
 tion of the paragraph fixing the salaries of 
 the chief justice and associate justices of 
 the supreme court. 
 
 Mr. Brent said, I was in favor of leav- 
 ing to the legislature the power to fix the 
 salaries of judges. I thought it right and 
 proper that that portion of the govern- 
 ment which imposed taxation should con- 
 trol the public expenditures. It ought to 
 be left in the hands of the legislature, where 
 it is left in every constitution. I find in 
 the constitution of the United States the 
 following provision: 
 
 "Art. 3. Sec. 1. The judges both of 
 the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold 
 their offices during good behavior; and 
 shall at stated times receive a compensa- 
 tion, which shall not be diminished during 
 their continuance in office." 
 
 Now, ^ : favor of incorporating 
 
 a similar provision in this constitution; 
 and I conceived that, had it been done, the 
 judiciary would have been as independent 
 of the legislative department, as it would 
 have been, if the salary were fixed in the 
 constitution. One strong reason which 
 should induce us to leave it to the legisla- 
 ture is, that money fluctuates in value. \ 
 Five thousand dollars may be an adequate 
 compensation at present, and become ex- 
 horbitant hereafter. That, it seemed to me, 
 would have been the wisest courso; but 
 the convention has decided otherwise, and 
 now we are to say what shall be the sala- 
 ries of our supreme judges, throughout alL 
 time to come. Three delegates from New 
 Orleans have adduced arguments in favor 
 of high salaries, and in the progress ' of 
 their remarks, some curious facts have been 
 elicted in relation to the practice of law in 
 this city. They have furnished us with 
 occasional glimpses of the ledgers, and 
 cash accounts of the practising attorneys; 
 and I must confess that it has disclosed a 
 most prosperous and flourishing condition 
 of the profession in this city. These gen- 
 tlemen speak as familiarly of fees of six 
 thousand' dollars and often thousand dollars 
 "as maids of thirteen do of puppy dogs."' 
 One gentleman on the opposite side of the 
 house, (M-r. Roselius) speaks of having 
 just received a fee of six thousand dollars; 
 another gentleman, within my hearing, 
 sa^ys that he has just been retained counsel 
 in a certain suit, with a fee of four thou- 
 sand dollars. Another delegate who spoke 
 yesterday, has received, for one solitary 
 fee, the ei^mous sum of sixty thousand 
 dollars, as ] have understood. Now, if the 
 salaries of judges are to be graduated upon 
 the scale of these exhorbitant fees; and if 
 gentlemen are to be transferred from the 
 bar to the bench, Math such a practice as 
 they seem to indicate, without losing any- 
 thing by the operation, then it is evident 
 that this State is doomed to hopeless and 
 inevitable bankruptcy and ruin. While 
 gentlemen were descanting upon the great 
 wealth which attends the practice of the 
 
Debates in the Convention cf Louisiana, 
 
 "27 
 
 law in this city — of the vast sums which 
 it produced, and which flowed not in small 
 streams, but which rushed into their pock- 
 ets in a torrent, I could not but reflect, that 
 no gentlemen in the community were so- 
 illv qualified to make an estimate of the 
 salaries which ought to be paid to our 
 judges. These gentlemen live in a fairy' 
 land. They are treading upon carpets of 
 gold and silver tissue, and their minds are 
 constantly haunted by visions of splendor. 
 But they have no thoughts of the baie 
 walls, the rugged floors, and the scan fly 
 furnished apartments, which constitute the 
 habitations of the industrious laborers of 
 the soil— the very men upon wl^e labor 
 this fabric of prosperity and splendor has 
 been built. They seem to consider our 
 people as in. a flourishing and prosperous 
 condition. The very reverse is the truth. 
 We are not a wealthy people. We are 
 groaning under a superincumbent pressure 
 of debt, which sits upon our energies like 
 an incubus. Our commercial and agricul- 
 tural resources have been crippled and 
 paralyzed, and we are but just recovering 
 from the evils of an irresponsible banking 
 system. 
 
 It will not be pretended that other states 
 do not secure the best talents for their 
 bench. It cannot be presumed, I say sir, 
 that talents elsewhere placed upon the 
 bench are inadequate. Some gentlemen 
 appear to entertain the opinion that we 
 ought to pay judges large salaries in order 
 to enable them to make large fortunes. I 
 object to that principle. It is not right and 
 proper that they should accumulate large 
 fortunes while in office. 
 
 But, admitting that the salary should he 
 large enough to enable them to secure for- 
 tunes, then I contend that five thousand 
 dollars is ample for that purnosg. What 
 has been our expei leneel We have been 
 giving five thousand dollars to .each of the 
 judges of the supreme court.' Have not 
 some of them accumulated large fortunes ] 
 Is it not well known that there are three or 
 four of them, who are immensely wealthy. 
 One of them, it is said, has a fortune "of 
 half a million of dollars. Two others of 
 them have made immense fortunes. With 
 these facts before us* it is impossible to 
 come to any other conclusion, than that 
 live thousand dollars is amply adequate for 
 every purpose for which a salary should be 
 
 I required. It is true, that if the judges live 
 ; in magnificent style and with extraordinary 
 | splendor, five thousand dollars is inadequate, 
 i But do we desire this extravagance, for 
 1 which the people are to be sorely taxed ? 
 Would we not rather see our judges prac- 
 tice €fconomy and frugality, and set a good 
 example to the rising generation of the 
 country? We should not wish to furnish 
 them with salaries to enable them to act 
 otherwise. 
 
 One of the delegates last Saturday, allu- 
 ded to a fact which exhibited that great 
 reforms were needed fof the judiciary. He 
 said that there was a feeling of apprehen- 
 sion, of growing alarm, in relation to the 
 judiciary; that the public confidence was 
 unsettled in it. But, he seemed to think 
 that this originated from the circumstance 
 that the judiciary had not been sufficiently 
 remunerated. If with a salary of five 
 thousand dollars the judges have been 
 enabled to make fortunes, I cannot see how 
 it can be urged that the salary is insuf- 
 ficient. I cannot conceive that the salary 
 has any thing to do with the fact to which 
 that delegate alluded. I only refer to what 
 | he said, as settling the mooted question, 
 whether reforms be necessary in the judi- 
 ciary, or not. The delegate was right. 
 There is a feeling of distrust and a want of 
 confidence in the judiciary, but he is wrong 
 in tracing it to its source. It can be traced, 
 and it will be traced, to another and a dif- 
 ferent source. The cause lies deeper, and 
 the remedy is to be found in a different di- 
 rection than in an increase of the salaries 
 of judges, and in allowing them an extra- 
 vagant remuneration for their services. 
 
 The North American sun does not shine 
 upon a people who are taxed more heavily 
 than the people of Louisiana. Upon an 
 average, each citizen pays a tax of two 
 dollars^ while in some States the average 
 is fourteen cents a head. To hear gentle- 
 men talk, one would suppose that our trea- 
 sury was overflowing with the riches of the 
 world; that money grew upon the trees, 
 that we were the possessors of the mines 
 of Peru, and the quicksilver mines of 
 Mexico. Gentlemen have a very incorrect 
 notion of the true position of the people of 
 Louisiana. What are we to gain by allow- 
 ing exorbitant salaries? They seem to 
 think that all you have to do, is to place a 
 man upon the bench, and fill his pockets 
 
728 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 with money, and instantly he is endowed 
 with the virtues of Jacob and the wisdom 
 of Solomon. It is a great error to suppose 
 that we must pay high salaries, or else we 
 must do without good judges. These 
 high salaries are unsuited to the condition 
 of the country. Can we expect, or* is it 
 necessary, to get better talents than are se- 
 cured in our sister States ? Where do 
 gentlemen carry us, to show that we ought 
 to pay exorbitant salaries ? To England. 
 We have been told, that in England the 
 lord high chancellor gets ten thousand 
 pounds sterling — aoout fifty thousand dol- 
 lars — per annum. Are we to go to England 
 for examples? Why not go to the confed- 
 erated States of the Union? Why go to 
 England? I object to it. No man has a 
 greater respect for the people of England 
 than I have, but I draw a material distinc- 
 tion between the people and the govern- 
 ment of that country. Every thing con- 
 nected with her government depends upon 
 show and pageantry. It seems necessary 
 that there should be pomp and glitter to 
 dazzle the eyes of the people, and to make 
 the incumbents of office respected. 1 ob- 
 ject to following in the footsteps of Eng- 
 land, but I will appeal to the governments 
 of this couniry, and ask if there is a single 
 judicial functionary in any of the States of 
 the Union, receiving the exorbitant salaries 
 advocated on this floor. Let us look at the 
 fact: In Maine, the judges of the supreme 
 court receive one thousand eight hundred 
 dollars per annum; in New Hampshire, 
 one thousand four hundred dollars; in Ver- 
 mont, one thousand three hundred and 
 seventy-five dollars ; in Massachusetts, 
 three thousand dollars; in Rhode Island, 
 six hundred and fifty dollars; in Connecti- 
 cut, one thousand one hundred dollars; 
 in New York, three thousand dollars ; in 
 New Jersey, one thousand five hundred 
 dollars ; in Pennsylvania, two thousand 
 four hundred dollars ; in Maryland, two 
 thousand two hundred dollars; in Virginia, 
 two thousand five hundred dollars ; in 
 South Carolina, three thousand dollars; in 
 Georgia, two thousand one hundred dollars; 
 in Alabama, two thousand, two hundred 
 and fifty dollars ; in Mississippi, three 
 thousand dollars; in Arkansas, one thou- 
 sand eight hundred dollars; in Kentucky, 
 one thousand five hundred dollars; in Ohio 
 one thousand five hundred dollars; in Mich- 
 
 igan, one thousand six hundred dollars; in 
 Missouri, one thousand one hundred 
 dollars. 
 
 New York is one of the few States 
 where the salary allowed to the judges 
 of the supreme court, is three thou- 
 sand dollars. There are on the bench 
 6f that State three judges; making only 
 nine thousand dollars for the expense of 
 that tribunal. New York has a population 
 as large as that of the thirteen confedera- 
 ted States during the revolutionary war. 
 She has immense wealth and resources and 
 yet she pays but three thousand dollars to 
 each of the judges of her supreme court, 
 while w%are called upon to allow seven 
 thousand dollars and to appoint four judges, 
 making a total of twenty-eight thousand 
 dollars for what costs in the State of New 
 York but nine thousand dollars. And yet 
 Louisiana is but a small and [[insignificant 
 State in point of wealth and population as 
 compared with the great empire State of 
 New York and her resources are infinitely 
 less. But this is not all. The judges of 
 the supreme court of the United States 
 receive a salary of but four thousand five 
 hundred dollars, the chief Justice receives 
 five thousand dollars. Will it -be preten- 
 ded that it is inadequate, when it has secu- 
 red the services of such men as Marshall, 
 Taney and Story? Will it be pretended 
 that it is inadequate in Louisiana, and tha) 
 the services of any judges that we can get 
 in Louisiada, are worth more than the ser- 
 vices of those distinguished men? Gen- 
 tleman have nothing to proceed upon. 
 Their apprehensions are illusory and there, 
 is nothing to justify such extravagance. 
 
 A delegate from New Orleans (Mr. Con- 
 rad,) has said that there are no complaints 
 against allowing judges the high salaries 
 claimed for them on this floor, he says, 
 that he has never seen a man, who has 
 seen a man, that complained of these sala- 
 ries. I do not know how it may be in New 
 Orleans. I can very well supppose from 
 the inflated ideas that I have heard of the 
 value of professional services in the city, 
 that there are no complaints, and I am rea- 
 dy to take the statement of the delegate, 
 as applying to the city. In reference to 
 the country 1 know that there are general 
 complaints. The people of the country 
 expect a reduction of salaries indispensable 
 to a reduction of the burthens of taxation, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 729 
 
 and if retrenchment begins, they expect it 
 to beg-in with the judiciary. We have 
 been sent here to correct abuses, not to add 
 to them. The people expect us to begin 
 the work of retrenchment and economy. 
 They expect a new order of things; that 
 profligacy and extravagance in the public 
 expenditures should be arrested. They 
 can see no good reason why our judges 
 and other officers- should receive higher 
 salaries than are allowed to similar officers, 
 in our sister States. We are not a wealthy 
 people, and yet gentlemen are not satisfied 
 that we pay more than double, upon the 
 average, than is paid by any State in the 
 Union, be her population and resources 
 what they may. They insist upon our in- 
 creasing the public expenditure. If the 
 salaries allowed by the Convention of 
 1812 have given great dissatisfaction, how 
 
 1 can gentlemen expect that the people will 
 submit to further exactions. It does not 
 become the simplicity and economy of a 
 republican government to pay exorbitant 
 
 j salaries to its public officers. It may suit 
 the splendid government of England, but 
 not a simple and unpretending government 
 like this. It is not in keeping with repub- 
 lican institutions. 
 
 I shall vote to give the chief justice of 
 our supreme court five thousand dollars 
 and the associate jndgesTour thousand five 
 hundred dollars. This is precisely what 
 
 'is allowed to the judges of the supreme 
 court of the United States, and is more 
 than is allowed by any State in the Union. 
 I think it quite sufficient to give efficiency 
 to the system, and no body can accuse of 
 us of being niggardly and penurious, in the 
 payment of salaries like these. 
 
 Mr. Soule had a few observations to 
 make. He had not intended to have raised 
 his voice, from motives which would no 
 doubt be appreciated. But he -was relieved 
 from any delicacy he may have felt by the 
 anathema, or he might rather call it the 
 denunciation of incapacity which had been 
 pronounced against him by his friend from 
 Jefferson, (Mr. Preston). He was there* 
 
 , fore disinterested, taking it for granted that 
 he would ever be unfit to be a judge, and 
 was disconnected with any salary that may 
 be connected with the office. 
 
 He had been among the most fervent 
 opponents of the life -tenure to the judicial 
 office. He had recorded his vote to fix the 
 
 term of service of the judges of the highest 
 tribunal at eight year's. In so doing, his 
 object was to submit the judiciary to the 
 control of the people — that as servants 
 of the people they should be responsible to 
 the people for their continuance in office. 
 We have obtained in this a great point, 
 and he conceived that the constituency 
 would be satisfied. We have made the 
 judiciary effective, and we have preserved 
 its independence and dignity. It would be 
 but poor economy, for a few thousand dol- 
 lars, to deprive the State of an unrestricted 
 choice. He was willing to concede to the 
 delegate from Jefferson, (Mr. Preston) that 
 men of the most brilliant talents were not 
 perhaps the best qualified to fill the office 
 of judge; it might be as that delegate had 
 assumed, and he was ready to admit that 
 in men of less brilliant endowments, as 
 sound judgments might be found as in those 
 of greater brilliancy. But be that as it 
 may, humble as may be the pretensions of 
 the individual selected to be judge, and 
 which after all was a question devolving 
 upon executive responsibility, the incum- 
 bent, whoever he may be, ought to have 
 his existence secured beyond the reach of 
 want. He ought to be enabled to look 
 forward for the support of his family when 
 his term of office shall expire. He should 
 be placed in a position to meet the contin- 
 gency of a removal. His re-appointment, 
 it is true, is possible, but it depends upon 
 the will, if not upon the caprice of the gov- 
 ernor and the senate. If you place the 
 salary at six thousand dollars, and compute 
 the necessary expenses of the judge with 
 the utmost economy, little will remain at 
 the end of the year to be put aside. Not 
 that he should live like a nabob, but that 
 he should Jive like a gentleman and be 
 considered such. 
 
 1 agree 3 said Mr. Soule, with the dele- 
 gate from Rapides, (Mr. Brent) that in 
 other States, the salaries of judges are 
 inferior to those allowed in this State. If 
 the judges in Louisiana could be placed in 
 the same position w r ith reference to the 
 relative value of their salaries as the 
 judges elsewhere, I would join my friend 
 and colleague from Rapides, in allowing 
 them the same amount of salary. I would 
 ask it of the candor of the gentleman, 
 whether, with six thousand dollars, a judge 
 in Louisiana can better provide for his 
 
730 
 
 Debates in the Convention cf Louisiana. 
 
 wants, who is under the necessity of re- 
 siding eight months in the year in the city 
 of New Orleans, than a judge who receives 
 three thousand dollars in New York for his 
 services? My own opinion is in the negative. 
 There is not a State nor a city in the 
 Union as expensive for living as Louisiana 
 and New Orleans. It is known that a 
 man with a family living in decent style, 
 cannot expend less than four thousand dol- 
 lars per annum. If you add to these ne-. 
 cessary expenses for a limited family, the 
 expenses for making a circuit, live hun- 
 dred dollars, the amount will be four thou- 
 sand five hundred dollars; and assuming 
 this to be but a reasonable estimate, there 
 would be but five hundred dollars econo- 
 mised during the year. Can you expect 
 men of talents, of a high judicial station for 
 so small an amount as that. I do not wish 
 the office to be accepted on account of the 
 high salary attached to it. That is not 
 the question. If you are bound to compen- 
 sate your judges, give them a reasonable 
 and just compensation. 
 
 The gentleman from Rapides (Mr. 
 Brent) has asserted that two of the judges 
 of the supreme court have made a consid- 
 erable fortune. One of them, and I pre- 
 sume he refers to Chief Justice Martin, has 
 amassed, he says, a fortune of half a million 
 of dollars, without inquiring how he be- 
 came possessed of this amount; but ail who 
 know the man will admit that it was by all 
 honorable means, we may ask the ques- 
 tion, how is it possible that he could have 
 realized so large a fortune? He has been 
 judge for thirty or thirty-two years, and the 
 total amount of his salary for that period 
 would be one hundred and sixty thousand 
 dollars. 
 
 Mr. Bee nt: what becomes ^3 f the com- 
 pound interest. 
 
 Mr. Soule: I will come to that present- 
 ly. The gentleman alluded to is not a sha- 
 ver. In the hardest times he has been a 
 generous lender, and has invariably re- 
 fused to take usurious interest. But a,d- 
 mitting that he had placed his money at 
 compound interest, it would be difficult for 
 him to have thus placed all his salary, for 
 he must have expended some of it for his 
 support, and he must ha\;e incurred some 
 losses; so that at the rate of ten per cent, 
 it never could amount to half a million of 
 dollars. How many judges are there who 
 
 hold their offices for thirty-two years? We 
 may conclude that the surmise is idle and 
 the hypothesis not presumable, that a judge 
 with six or eight thousand dollars* salary 
 will acquire a fortune with the tenure of 
 office limited to eight years. To enable 
 us to make the choice of capable men, who 
 will accept of the arduous duties of judge, 
 we must attach an appropriate salary to 
 the office. As to the fees derived by mem- 
 bers of the bar, whose services are in de- 
 mand, that has nothing to do with the sa'a- 
 ry to be allowed the judges. I may, how- 
 ever, remark that a salary of six thousand 
 dollars will not prove a great temptation to 
 the bar of New Orleans; few will accept 
 the office with that salary in the city, and 
 the bar of the city will not be in the way 
 of the distinguished lawyers of the country. 
 We have made the experiment in the last 
 four or live years, ?„nd have found but few 
 persons willing to accept the office. Of 
 those who accepted, two withdrew and 
 could not be prevailed upon to return. Of 
 the five thousand dollars paid to each of the 
 judges, the city of New Orleans and the 
 surrounding parishes pay one-half. The 
 salary has never been considered excessive 
 in this part of the country. On the con« 
 trary, it has been considered too little. 
 Elsewhere there may have been com- 
 plaints, and I have no doubt of the fact, the 
 moment I heard it from so respectable a 
 source as the gentleman from Rapides.* 
 Suppose we do economise some three 
 thousand dollars, and to do this we run the 
 risk of getting incompetent persons, what 
 is that amount when distributed all over ; 
 the State. To the tax payers it will be of I 
 little consequence. A moment's rerleciion 
 will show that it is of but little import to 
 the people in reference to their taxation, 
 while it is of the highest importance tothe 1 
 administration of justice throughout the 
 State. I think, therefore, that the most 
 rigid economist should be satisfied with re- 
 stricting the salary of the chief justice to 
 six thousand dollars, and each of the asso- 
 ciate judges to five thousand five hundred 
 dollars. 
 
 Mr. Marigny: the honorable gentleman 
 from Rapides (Mr. Brent) has taken the 
 trouble to make a comparative statement, 
 showing what is paid by the several States 
 of the Union to their supreme judges, and 
 he attaches great weight to the fact that in 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 731 
 
 NewYork,but thirty-five hi 
 allowed to the judges of th 
 But the gentleman ough 
 the causes of this difFerenc 
 haps he would ha 
 deductions. There 
 he has named, m 
 state of Louisian; 
 lawver in those 
 
 dollars are 'hand, and on the other refuse to give them 
 f the supreme court. ! a suitable compensation. It is composed, 
 jght to have ^old us, in a great measure, of delegates whose con- 
 ence, and then, per- ! stituents pay three-fourths of the amount 
 en less ready in his ; which is .annually contributed to the trea- 
 in the States which sury of the State, and it is to be presumed 
 that the majority will consent less from 
 courtesy than from a desire to fulfil a sa- 
 cred obligation, to protect the rights of 
 
 lawyers than in the 
 
 md the practice of a 
 
 tates is worth less. 
 i 
 
 Scarcely the most eminent counsel make property in our courts of justice. Where 
 an income of more thaafrom three to four | shall we, in fact, place the guarantees for 
 
 property, if after establishing the executive 
 and the legislative departments upon the 
 unqualified rights of suffrage, we do not 
 consecrate a place of refuge for property 
 in the temple of justice. 
 
 The Convention in 1812, prepared a 
 
 K?r annum, and there is 
 e in their accepting the 
 
 thousand dollars 
 nothing remarkal 
 office of judge for life, with a salary of 
 three thousand five hundred dollars. Mr. 
 Webster was satisfied with a fee of five 
 hundred dollars, when counsel in the State 
 
 obtained one hundred constitution, of which ours has neither the 
 
 lor tne same cause, 
 
 and thirty thousand dollars. Inasmuch as merit nor the wisdom which prescribed 
 lawyers obtained higher. fees in Louisiana ; that the judiciary should be in possession 
 I than elsewhere, and inasmuch as the ex- ! of entire independence; and as. one of the 
 
 penses of living are much greater, it is 
 plain that the salaries of judicial officers 
 must bear a relative proportion with the 
 value of services at the bar. 
 
 The gentleman from Jefferson (Mr. 
 
 means to effect that purpose, it provided 
 that each of the judges of the supreme 
 court should receive a salary of five thou- 
 sand dollars per annum; a sum which is 
 equal to ten thousand dollars at the present"^ 
 
 Presion) really astonishes me by the frights day. -The consequence has been That Ave 
 of his imagination. I really believe that 
 if he had his way he would create the 
 government in the regions of the clouds, 
 lie has favored us with a criticism upon 
 ■talent, and thinks that the most competent 
 person to be appointed judge is he who is evident that unless you allow a reasonable 
 the most obscure, and has the smallest compensation, no man of any standing will 
 
 have had one of the most distinguished 
 tribunals throughout the country. But it 
 may be told that it is not the salary that 
 makes the merit of the man who may fill 
 the seat. That i readily grant, b-ut it is 
 
 ishare of abilities for the profession of th< 
 law. The man who was starving at his 
 profession, would make, according to his 
 logic, the best judge. 
 
 accept the appointment. I caution the 
 majority of the Convention to beware. If 
 property holders find that there is no pro- 
 tection for the stable interest of the country, 
 
 How is it that he cannot discover the di- you "may rely upon it they will vote for 
 
 lemma in which be is placed by his mania the rejection of your constitution, and in 
 
 for economy, and for placing the offices of so doing, they will treat it as it deserves, 
 the country at the disposition of the lowest Mr. Dowxs said he did not intend to 
 
 bidder; either the attorney of whom he make a speech, but to give briefly the rea 
 
 speaks, is an honest man, o: is not an 
 honest man. If he be an honest man, he 
 (will 
 
 news he is 
 
 sons which would actuate his course upon 
 this occasion. He would acknowledge at 
 not accept an office for which he first, that he intended to have voted for al- 
 incompetent; and if he is not lowing the same salary that is now accord^ 
 an honest man, how can his presumption ed to the judges of the supreme court, by 
 ijusfify the theory of the guitleman from the constitution of 1812. After very ma- 
 Jefferson. 1' sincerely hope that sound tured deliberation, he had concluded, that 
 reason will prevail over propositions which inasmuch as the life tenure was reduced to 
 have no other effect than to compromit the eight years, six thousand dollars was not 
 dignity of the judiciary, and the interest j too much compensation. It should also be 
 of the public. The Convention cannot I borne in mind, that a system of rotation will 
 double, nay triple, the business of the ! necessarily have to be established; the term 
 judges of the supreme court, on the one | of the judges first appointed will serve but to 
 
732 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 four, six and eight years. I have not heard 
 it stated that there has been general com- 
 plaints throughout the State, against the 
 salaries allowed to ihe judges of the su- 
 preme court, nor do I believe such to be 
 the case. There has been a great feeling 
 manifested in the public mind that the ju- 
 diciary should be submitted to reform, and 
 one of the objects deemed the most essen- 
 tial to reform, was to do away with the 
 life-tenure of the judges, which precluded 
 responsibility ; and by restricting their 
 terms of service to short periods, make 
 them directly amenable to the public con- 
 trol. I do not think that the people will 
 begrudge them a fair salary, and it is 
 quite evident that six thousand dollars, 
 where the office is limited to eight years, 
 is in fact less than a salary of five thousand 
 dollars for life. We have had, in addition 
 to the supreme court, another court of ap- 
 pellate jurisdiction for criminal matters, at 
 an expense of fifteen hundred dollars per 
 annum. By the attribution of duties under 
 the new constitution to the supreme court, 
 the court of errors in criminal matters will 
 be superseded, and these fifteen hundred 
 dollars may well enough be added to the 
 salaries of the supreme judges by the re- 
 duction of the number of the judges to four 
 of that court, and allowing them the small 
 increase which is asked, there will be still 
 an economy for the State. We should 
 also take into consideration the saving 
 which will result in the expenses for the 
 criminal jurisdiction; we shall find that we 
 are considerable gainers by the change. 
 The expenses for the criminal proceedings 
 of the country have been very excessive. 
 I recollect, when I was on a committee of 
 the legislature, that the amount incurred 
 for this branch of the public service, was 
 sixty thousand dollars. I have no doubt 
 that the average would range as high as one 
 hundred thousand dollars. This amount 
 could be reduced to one-half by an active 
 and efficient administration, which is one 
 of the principal results that we anticipate 
 from the new system. The business will 
 be rapidly and speedily done. 
 
 But what, after all, is the matter of con- 
 troversy, at best. My friend from Rapides 
 is willing to leave the salaries of the judges 
 of the supreme court as it is fixed in the 
 constitution of 18 12; the amount involved 
 is about two thousand five hundred dollars 
 
 per annum, which, if distributed among all 
 the people of the State, would require an 
 additional contribution of about one cent a 
 head — less than one cent. Well, in an 
 object so desirable as to obtain competent 
 and efficient judges, in whom the public 
 confidence may be reposed, is that a matter 
 of moment? But I may be told that in my 
 calculation, poor persons, who do not con- 
 tribute to the taxes of the country, are to 
 be excluded. Making a liberal deduction 
 for that class, I will put the estimate at ten 
 cents a head, and I would ask if each tax. 
 payer would not prefer to make the sacri. 
 lice of so small an amount, to have an. 
 earnest that the judiciary would be elevated 
 above want and above suspicion. What 
 is ten cents? we give it for a glass of lem- 
 onade, or a glass of ice cream, and we 
 think nothing of it. 
 
 It has always seemed to me that we do 
 not fully appreciate "the power of the su- 
 preme court: it is the most vast and uncon- 
 trollable branch of the judiciary. To it 
 are submitted questions of law and fact,and 
 its' decisions are final. They are absolute. 
 Even in England there is an appeal from 
 the court of King's bench. So great is 
 the power of our supreme court that at an 
 early period of our political existence, one 
 of the most distinguished legists, Mr. Liv- 
 ingston, having had cause to complain or the 
 great injustice done to him in one of the 
 decisions of that court, asked the interven- 
 tion of the legislature,. but they replied, and 
 very properly, that the power resided in the 
 judiciary, and that they had nojight to in- 
 terfere with that branch of the government. 
 We may say what we please. Public opin- 
 ion are in favor of the decrees of the court, 
 and, conceived to be whatever is done by 
 the judges is properly done; and therefore if 
 a man be ruined by some inconsiderate judg- 
 ment, the judges are no less placid nof less 
 esteemed because they may have inflicted 
 the grossest injustice. It is a mistake to sup- 
 pose that it is only those who are involved 
 in litigation that are interested in having an 
 upright and efficient judiciary. Those who 
 never have a suit,and are averse to litigation 
 have a deep and abiding stake in the char- 
 acter and standing of the judiciary. Circum- 
 stances may arise which may involve them 
 inlaw suits, and they will then feel the 
 importance of having judges in whom they 
 can repose their confidence; at any rate, it 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 733 
 
 is plain that the property-holders are those j Mr. Benjamin here read the extract re- 
 most deeply interested in the existence of|ferredto. He would propose five thousand 
 
 an efficient judiciary, and inasmuch as they 
 are disposed to tax themselves a little more 
 in order to give such salaries as they think 
 will conduce to the independence of the 
 judges, those who contribute but little and 
 have but little or no property involved, 
 should not interfere. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Baton Rouge said that he 
 rose merely to make a few observations. 
 He did not concur with those who had 
 argued that to get competent persons to 
 fill the office of judge, it was essential 
 to allow exorbitant salaries ; salaries, 
 ^which were d is proportioned to the re- 
 wources of the State, and to the means 
 of the people. The fact was that the 
 State paid higher salaries to her public 
 officers, and her citizens contributed a lar- 
 ger share of taxation for the support of 
 their local government, than any State 
 in the Union. Gentlemen argued upon 
 the assumption that Louisiana was a rich 
 State, that her resources were without 
 limitation. This is not the case; our State 
 is poor, very poor, but if that even were 
 not so, surely a higher compensation ought 
 not to be asked than is accorded to the 
 judges of the) federal courts; to the judges 
 of the supreme court. He concurred fully 
 in the arguments of the delegate from Ra- 
 pides (Mr. Brent.) If economy and re- 
 trenchment are to be observed, we should 
 make no exceptions; begin as well with the 
 judiciary as the other departments of the 
 government. He could not vote for more 
 than five thousand dollars. 
 
 The question was taken upon six thou- 
 sand five hundred dollars for the chief jus- 
 tice, and the yeas and nays were called 
 for; ayes 23 nays 32. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said that inasmuch as 
 there was so much difference of opinion, 
 he would not insist, nor did he expect to 
 carry his own views. But he would be 
 willing to meet gentlemen who entertained 
 contrary opinions to his own upon a com- 
 promise. The reasons which operated 
 upon his mind, had on another occasion 
 been expressed by the delegate from Jeffer- 
 son, (Mr. Preston) which he would be ff 
 leave to read to the Convention. The ar- 
 guments of that delegate were so conclu- 
 sive as to dispense with the necessity of 
 saying anything further on the subiect. 
 
 93 * 
 
 to the chief justice^ and six thousand five 
 hunderd dollars to the associate justices. 
 
 Mr. Bent could see no necessity for 
 allowing a larger salary to the judges of the 
 supreme court, than were allowed to the 
 judges of the supreme court of the United 
 States. It would not surely be pretended 
 that the State of Louisiana was richer than 
 the United States. 
 
 Mr. Roselius could not but express 
 surprise that any comparison should be 
 made between the salaries allowed to our 
 judges and to those allowed to the judges 
 of the supreme court of the United Slates. 
 The chief justice of the United States was 
 not bound" to resids in any particular place, 
 nor was he bound to remain upon the 
 bench from one end of the year to the oth- 
 er. He was only required to sit once a 
 year for a period of three or four months. 
 The expenses for living were much less in 
 Baltimore and in its vicinity than in New 
 Orleans. But he did not propose to enter 
 into the argument, because it appeared that 
 the minds of the majority were not to be 
 effected by arguments, however strong they 
 maybe. I will simply remark in confor- 
 mation of what fell from the delegate from 
 Ouachita, (Mr. Downs,) that persons of 
 wealth of large property, are disposed to 
 contribute liberally in order to have ah ef- 
 fective and irreproachable judiciary. I had 
 a conversation upon this very subject with 
 the wealthiest man in Louisiana. The man 
 who pays the greatest amount of taxes to 
 the treasuiy, and who is one of the most 
 prudent of men; I allude to JohnMcDon- 
 ough whose immense fortune has been ac- 
 quired by his thrift and industry. He 
 pa)'s ten thousand dollars of taxes into the 
 treasury per annum. He took me by the 
 hand and implored me for God's sake to do 
 all I could to secure an effective judiciary. 
 He considered that our lives, our property, 
 and honor depended upon the judiciary. 
 He thought that seven thousand dollars 
 per annum, were not enough, and that we 
 \Vould not be able to find a capable judge, 
 possessing all the necessary guarantees, 
 under ten thousand dollars. Here is a man 
 of immense wealth, ready to contribute 
 his portion of the taxationf which is im- 
 mense, to allow the judge ten thousand 
 dollars. This opinion- of Mr, McDonough 
 
734 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 is concurred in by every man of property. 
 Let me be permitted to make one solitary 
 observation. The gentleman from Jeffer- 
 son has argued upon the different classes 
 of lawyers. He has placed in one of his 
 categories of those unfit for the station of 
 judge, men of powerful eloquence, and he 
 took the liberty to designate my excellent 
 friend and colleague (Mr. Soule,) as otae of 
 these. In the other class, which he thinks 
 the best qualified to be members of the ju- 
 diciary, are persons of the least experience 
 in the legal profession. Now let us call 
 experience to our aid in resolving this mat- 
 ter: suppose any gentleman was involved 
 in a serious charge, effecting his life or 
 his honor, to whom would he apply for as- 
 sistance and counsel. Would he apply to 
 the cheap class of lawyers, those of no ex- 
 perience, and such as form the beau-ideal of 
 my friend from Jefferson, (Mr. Preston) 
 who would charge a fee of fifty dollars, 
 or would he apply to the other class of 
 lawyers, who for the identical same ser- 
 vices charge him one thousand dollars. 
 To whom would he go? Would he go to 
 a lawyer who would charge him the same 
 ratio as a tailor or a shoemaker for the 
 manual labor performed. Or would he go 
 to the lawyer whose eminent talents enti- 
 tled him to a larger fee? A practice of 
 seventeen years at the bar, authorizes me 
 to say that in criminal as well as civil mat- 
 ter, suiters will apply to the most skilful 
 lawyers, conceiving them the most able. If 
 this be the general rule, and if individuals 
 are disposed to pay liberally for talent,why 
 should not the same thing exist in refer- 
 ence to the officers to be employed by the 
 State. It is a bad argument to say that we 
 must pufup with mediocrity, and even less 
 than mediocrity, for fear of impoverishing 
 the treasury of the State. 
 
 Mr. Chinn said he was one of the old- 
 est immigrants of the State. He was here 
 before the promulgation of the constitution, 
 and thought he was as familiar with public 
 sentiments as any one. He could consci- 
 entiously declare, that he had never met 
 with any one, either rich or poor, who 
 considered the compensation now allowed 
 exhorbitant. Moreover, any one who will 
 reflect upon the subject calmly, must come 
 to the conclusion, that we shall in the end 
 be losers, by fixing the salaries of judges at 
 an insufficient amount; for the inevitable 
 
 consequence will be to place incompetent 
 persons upon the bench, and bring the judi- 
 ciary into disrepute. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Cons ad whould make a few 
 remarks.- When the other departments of 
 the government were under consideration, 
 and when property was deprived of all 
 guaranties, we were told by members who 
 favored that course of proceeding, that we 
 should find ample protection in the judicia- 
 ry. But it seems that the changes in this 
 department are not less radical than in the 
 others. I may say they are more radical. 
 We have reduced the life tenure of the 
 judges of the highest tribunal to but eight 
 years, and have subjected to periodica^ 
 change, the whole judicial deparimentSB 
 Is not this going as far as we should be ex- 
 pected to go? Ought there not to be some 
 assurance, some guaranty, for the indepen- 
 dence of the judiciary, and the judges be 
 placed, not only beyond want, but beyond 
 the suspicion of want? Those who con- 
 tribute to the taxes of the country; those 
 who have property at stake, know full well 
 the value of an independent judiciary, and 
 they are anxious to make sacrifices to ob- 
 tain it; because it is essential to the posses- 
 sion and enjoyment of their property. 
 The supreme court of the State pronoun- 
 ces upon a greater amount of property 
 than all the other courts in the States of 
 Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia. 
 The accumulation of legal business in that 
 tribunal is immense. A great portion of 
 the legal business of the other States, up- 
 on attachments, finds its way into that 
 court, and has to be settled there. We 
 have been referred to the salary of the 
 judges of the supreme court' for a prece. 
 dent. There is no analogy. The office 
 of chief justice of the supreme court of 
 the United States is one of the highest. 
 It may be said to be next to that of the 
 President, and it is sought for in reference 
 to the distinction. The salary was fixed 
 at the inception of our government, and it 
 has remained as a m'atter of course, ever 
 since. But it has been deemed to be totally 
 disproportioned with the importance and the 
 dignity of the office. We have increased 
 the labors of our supreme court, and I 
 really consider that six thousand dollars ir> 
 less salary for eight years, than five thou- 
 sand dollars under the old constitution. 
 
 The question was then taken upon Mr. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 735 
 
 Benjamin's motion, and it was carried — 
 ayes 29, nays 27. 
 
 The question recurring on the salary of 
 the associate judges, 
 
 Mr. Dunn said he could not see why 
 there should be any distinction between the 
 salaries. The duties of the associate judges 
 are the same as those of the chief justice. 
 He moved to allow them the same compen- 
 sation. 
 
 Mr. Humble said he was opposed to 
 making any distinction between thejudges; 
 but he thought six thousand dollars was 
 too much. 
 
 The ayes and nays were called for upon 
 Mr. Dunn's motion — ayes 24, nays 30. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne moved to fix the salaries 
 of the sasociate judges at five thousand 
 five hundred dollars. With that view he 
 had voted with the majority on the last 
 question. 
 
 Mr. Rosalius said he would vote in the 
 affirmative; but he considered that amount 
 by no means an adequate compensation for 
 good judges. 
 
 The ayes and nays were called for on 
 Mr. Conrad's motion — ayes 29, nays 27. 
 
 Mr. 13rent gave notice that he would 
 move for the reconsideration of this vote. 
 It would cause a great deal of dissatisfac- 
 tion among the people. 
 
 Mr. Barigny gave notice that he would 
 move for a reconsideration of the vote al- 
 lowing seven thousand dollars to the chief 
 justice of the supreme court, as he was 
 convinced that a majority of the people, 
 and of the convention, were in favor of a 
 proper remuneration for the members of 
 the judiciary. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan moved to strike out the 
 words "nominated by the governor," and 
 to substitute the words "elected by the 
 people." 
 
 Mr. Conrad moved to lay this motion 
 on the table, subject to call. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor said he was opposed 
 to the election of thejudges, especially of 
 the supreme court. ^Fhis was ihe first 
 time that the proposition to elect the judg- 
 es had been made, and he was reluctant 
 to stifle discussion; he would therefore 
 vote against the motion to lay on the table, 
 inasmuch as it would effectually cu^ off 
 debate. 
 
 Mr. Saunders would vote no, for the 
 same reason, 
 
 The ayes and nays were called for — 
 36 ayes, 20 nays. 
 
 Mr. Soule moved, as a substitute for 
 the balance of the section, to come in be- 
 fore the words "the said judges," the fol- 
 lowing: 
 
 The power of nomination, so far as re- 
 lates to judges, shall be exercised by the 
 governor, in the following manner: The 
 governor shall designate, and present to the 
 senate, three capable persons, versed in the 
 laws, and who shall have practiced at least 
 five years in the courts of the State, for all 
 judicial offices; and the senate shall pro- 
 ceed to select one from the three persons 
 thus designated and presented, and shall 
 vote upon said selection viva voce, and 
 with open doors, provided, that no nomi- 
 nation shall be approved without the con- 
 currence of a majority of all the members 
 composing the senate; and provided, more- 
 over, that the judge whose term of office 
 may expire, shall be one of the three per- 
 sons presented by the governor for the 
 choice of the senate. After three unsuc- 
 cessful ballottings to make a choice, it shall 
 be the duty of the governor to designate 
 and present three other persons, and suc- 
 cessively to present the same number, un- 
 til a choice may have been effected. 
 
 Mr. Soule said that the igggon would 
 be on the striking out. 
 
 Mr. Guion thought it was not necessary 
 to strike out. We could adopt the section, 
 and the discussion upon the proposition 
 would come up more appropriately in an- 
 other place. 
 
 Mr. Soule: 1 yield very willingly. 
 Mr. Peets moved that the judges be 
 elected by the two houses of the legisla- 
 ture, on joint ballot. 
 
 Mr. Preston moved to amend that por- 
 tion of the original section, relative to 
 clerks, by prescribing that they should not 
 be related by blood or marriage, to either of 
 thejudges. 
 
 Mr: Beatty thought that if this amend- 
 ment were to prevail, it ought to be restric- 
 ted some reasonable degree. 
 
 Mr. Hoselius said that he objected to so 
 sweeping a clause. Moreover, he was a 
 firm believer in the Bible; and as we were 
 all descended from Adam, we were there- 
 all relations. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad said that some re- 
 striction, at any rate, was necessary, upon 
 
736 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 this provision, in a country where we 
 weie so much interfixed by marriages. 
 
 Mr. Beatty suggested the fourth de- 
 gree. 
 
 Mr. Chinn proposed an amendment. 
 He was averse to the provision; thinking it- 
 worse than useless, if not ridiculous. But 
 to give it a more determinate character, he 
 would propose that the exclusion should 
 only apply to the son, brother, and son-in- 
 law of either of the judges. 
 
 Mr. Eustis would submit one or two 
 observations. In a country where rela- 
 tions of families were so extended, it was 
 almost impossible that some one of the 
 judges should not be related, in some way, 
 to a person who might be very competent 
 to fill the office of clerk. Consequently the 
 proposition of the delegate from Jefferson 
 (Mr. Preston) would operate as an exclu- 
 sion of the residents of the country, and 
 in favor of strangers. Moreover, it was 
 casting a stigma upon the honor and disin- 
 terestedness of the judges, to restrict them 
 in that way. If you can't trust your judg- 
 es, to whom you confide the most impor- 
 tant of your interests, to appoint a clerk, 
 why, take away the power, and place it 
 some where else. If that be the sense of 
 the convention, I say let it be done. It is 
 infinitely belter trfanihis proposition. 
 
 Mr. Brewt was in fa vox of the adoption 
 of the proposition. He thought thejudges 
 might abuse the discretionary power. In 
 one district, to his knowledge, a clerk was 
 imported from another district and appoint- 
 ed, because he was the brother-in-law of 
 one of the judges, and the son-in-law of 
 another. There were men in the district 
 more competent to fill the office. He was 
 in favor of incorporating this provision in 
 the constitution, because he thought the 
 judges would abuse the power. It was not 
 necessary to fix the degree of relationship; 
 if it could be traced, the individual ought 
 to be excluded from receiving the appoint- 
 ment. The code of practice made it a 
 good ground to excuse the judge, if he was 
 related to either of the parties. He could 
 see no good reason why the proposition 
 should not prevail. 
 
 Mr. Roselius responded that he could 
 see nothing wrong in a judge appointing 
 one of his relations, provided he had the 
 necessary capacities, and was worthy of 
 the public confidence. We have two strik- 
 
 ing examples that such appointments have 
 given universal satisfaction. Judo-e Lewis 
 appointed one of his sons clerk of the dis- 
 trict court, and he has proved a most effi- 
 cient officer, and has won the esteem of 
 the entire community. Judge Pitot did the 
 same thing in relation to the parish court, 
 and the same remark will apply to that 
 gentleman. He lias also proved a most ex- 
 cellent officer. As for the abuse of the pow- 
 er, none such has ever yet come under my 
 observation. On the contrary, I am aware 
 that at the death of Mr. Cuvillier, clerk of 
 the supreme court, his deputy .was appoint- 
 ed, unanimously, by the judges, although 
 there were among the candidates, several 
 relations of the judges. At any rate, this 
 clause may be regarded as unconstitutional, 
 since it excludes a portion of the commu- 
 nitytfrom holding an office, upon no other 
 ground than because they happen to be 
 related to one of the judges; no matter 
 how remote the relationship may be. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad thought this was 
 discussing upon a very small matter. We 
 did not think fit to place a similar restric- 
 tion upon the executive power. Why 
 should we place it upon the judicial pow- 
 ei? What harm, or evil is there in the gov- 
 ernor, or in the judge, appointing one of his 
 relations to office, provided he be capable 
 and honest. Even the great Washington, 
 himself, the father of his country, appoint, 
 ed his nephew a judge of the supreme 
 court of the United States. This was one 
 of the best appointments that was ever 
 made; for Bushrod Washington was one 
 of the very ablest judges thzX have graced 
 that bench. The oniy question in which 
 the community are interested, is as to the 
 capacity of the clerk. It is a matter of no 
 moment to them, if he be capable, and effi- 
 cient, whether he be related to one of the 
 judges or not. As it is not presumable 
 that any person who may become an appli- 
 cant for clerk, will be related to ail the judg- 
 es s or even a majority of them., it is not 
 likely that anj< T one will be appointed sole- 
 ly with reference to the accident of con- 
 sanguinity; For the convention to attempt 
 to legislate upon such a subject, appeared 
 to himtc be idle; he was almost going to 
 say, ridiculous. 
 
 Mr. Preston said that this might ap- 
 pear to be a very small matter, and I should 
 not ha.ve proposed it had I anticipated so 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 737 
 
 much debate. Nevertheless I think it ex- 
 pedient, and I shall press it upon the con- 
 sideration of the Convention, because I am 
 convinced that if it depends upon the le- 
 gislature, and I draw uiy inference from 
 the past, nothing will be done. The fact 
 related by the delegate from Rapides (Mr. 
 Brent) is entitled to some weight in con- 
 sideration of this matter. I admit that the 
 two appointments mentioned by the dele- 
 gate from New Orleans were most excel- 
 lent; but this proves nothing, and the re- 
 verse might just as well have been the re- 
 sult. I think that the interest of the whole 
 community demand that there should not 
 be a concentration of offices in one and 
 the same family. Is it not enough that 
 one of the family should be appointed to 
 the office of judge, without leaving it op- 
 tional with him to fill all the subordinate 
 I stations with his sons, nephews and 
 brothers? Suppose for a moment, that a 
 clerk neglects his duties, and that he is the 
 son of the judge; how is an attorney to 
 bring the dereliction to the notice of the 
 judge, and how is the latter to judge im- 
 partially in the case, or to take the neces- 
 sary measures to have his son removed if 
 lit be necessary? It is altogether out of the 
 question. I should feel great reluctance 
 to bring such a matter before the attention 
 of the judge. In such cases it is better to 
 follow the Lord's prayer, "lead us not into 
 temptation but deliver us from evil." 
 
 Mr. Sellers called for the previous 
 question, which was ordered, and the ques- 
 tion recurring on the adoption of Mr. 
 Preston's proposition, it was lost — yeas 13, 
 nays 40. 
 
 Mr. Brent then moved that the section 
 -be laid upon the table, together with the 
 amendment offered by Mr. Peets for the 
 election of judges by the legislature on 
 |oint ballot; and the proposition of Mr. 
 P'Bryan that they be elected by the legal- 
 ly qualiiied voters, stating that it was his 
 intention to address the Convention in fa- 
 jvor of the latter proposition. 
 
 _ Mr. Beatty proposed the following ad- 
 ditional section, viz: 
 
 At the first appointment of judges of the 
 pupreme court under this constitution, the 
 ahief justice shall be appointed for eight 
 years, .me of the associate judges shall be 
 appointed for six years, one for four years, 
 ind one for two years; and in case of the 
 
 death, resignation or removal of any one 
 of said judges, his successor shall be ap- 
 pointed only to fill out the remainder of 
 the term, so that the time of service of 
 none of said judges shall expire at the 
 same time. 
 
 Mr. Marigny was averse to appointing 
 said judges for two, four and six years. He 
 thought they should be appointed for eight 
 years, to give stability to the decisions, 
 and to settle, at least for eight years at a 
 time, what would be the law. Another 
 inconvenience would result, and that 
 would be, that no man of talents- and stand- 
 ing would accept of the office for so limi- 
 ted a period. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin explained to his col- 
 league that it was indispensable to estab- 
 lish this system of rotation, and that the 
 probabilities w j're in favor of the re-ap- 
 pointment of the incumbents. If they 
 were all to go out at the expiration of eight 
 years, the change would be too great and 
 sudden, and the jurisprudence of the coun- 
 try would be subjected to violent innova- 
 tions. 
 
 Mr. Marigny responded that he fully 
 understood the question, and he thought 
 his objection a valid one. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. Beatty's 
 proposition, and the yeas and nays were 
 called lor — yeas 45, nays 9. 
 
 The Convention then took up section 
 fourth, as follows: 
 
 Sec. 4. The supreme court shall hold its 
 sessions in the city of New Orleans, from 
 the month of November to the month of 
 June inclusive. The legislature shall have 
 power to fix the sessions elsewhere, du- 
 ring the rest of the year. Until otherwise 
 provided, the sessions shall be held in 
 New Orleans. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to amend by striking 
 out the words "in New Orleans," and sub- 
 stituting "as heretofore." 
 
 Mr. Roselius stated that it was the de- 
 sire of several members of the judiciary 
 committee, that the sessions of the supreme 
 court shall be held entirely in the city of 
 New Orleans, A great deal of time was 
 lost to the court in travelling from parish 
 to parish, and it was very difficult for the 
 judges to obtain access to the necessary 
 books which they needed in the examina- 
 tion of cases, out of the city. In several 
 of the States, the supreme court was per- 
 
739 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 manently located at the seat of govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Garrett said that the arrangement 
 heretofore had was excessively inconve- 
 nient. The court was held at Alexan- 
 dria, at a sickly season of the year, and 
 there was greater inconvenience in go- 
 ing to that place, than coming to the 
 city of New Orleans. For persons resi- 
 ding in his section of the country, this was 
 especially the case; they had to ride a con- 
 siderable distance, and were illy prepared 
 to carry along the hooks to which they in- 
 tended to refer. He thought it best to leave 
 the discretion with the legislature, to hold 
 the sessions of the court elsewhere than in 
 New Orleans, as they should think most 
 expedient hereafter. 
 
 Mr. Brent was opposed to any thing of 
 the kind. He had no objections to the 
 people of the Ouachita district bringing 
 their appeals to the city if they thought 
 proper; but he wished for the convenience 
 of his constituents that the sessions of the 
 •supreme court should be held at Alexan- 
 dria, as heretofore. He would therefore 
 sustain the motion of the delegate from St. 
 Landry, (Mr. Lewis). The yellow fever 
 prevailed at New Orleans at the period 
 when the supreme court held its sessions 
 at Alexandria and Opelousas; and if the 
 court did not avail itself of that period to 
 visit the country, these four months would 
 be lost. 
 
 Mr. Downs said that it was excessively 
 inconvenient for persons residing in his 
 section of the country, to attend the ses- 
 sions of the supreme court at Alexandria. 
 It was preferable that their appeals should 
 be brought to the city of New Orleans. 
 He remembered that when he was a resi- 
 dent of the Florida parishes, he was very 
 anxious, with many others, to obtain an 
 annual session of the, supreme court there. 
 The attempt succeeded, and the court was 
 required by law to meet in the town of 
 Baton Rouge. It was found upon experi- 
 ence not to answer, and ever since the ap- 
 peals from Florida have been brought to 
 the city. It was much better to hold the 
 sessions in the city, and that fact was evi- 
 denced by greater weight being attached 
 to the city decisions than were attached to 
 the country decisions. The latter usually 
 were made in great haste and with little 
 
 research, and under the utmost anxiety of ! 
 body and of mind. 
 
 Mr. Sellers confirmed the remarks of 
 Mr. Downs. Legal men in his section of 
 the country were in favor of bringing the 
 appeals to the city, on the score of greater ! 
 convenience. 
 
 Mr. Porter thought that the supreme 
 court should hold its sessions at the seat of || 
 government; and inasmuch as the sense of 
 the people had pronounced against the city 
 of New Orleans for the seat of govern- 
 ment, wherever that seat of government 
 were permanently located, that would be 
 the proper place for the sittings of the su- 
 preme court. He would propose a provi- 
 sion to that effect. 
 
 Mr. Roselius referred to the remarks of 
 the delegate from Ouachita, (Mr. Downs) 
 to overthrow the novel proposition of the 
 delegate from Caddo. Where, I would 
 ask the delegate, is the seat of government 
 as yet established? The Convention have 
 determined that it shall not be located with- 
 in sixty miles of the city. But let it be lo- 
 cated where it may, the city of New Or- 
 leans will nevertheless remain, &s hereto- 
 fore, the heart and centre of the State, it 
 is within her limits that the business of 
 the State must be done; and it is through 
 her that the agriculture of the State must 
 be converted into capital. Four-fifths of 
 the suits before the supreme court are 
 from the'city. It is here where the most 
 direct and ready conveyance to every por- 
 tion oi the State is to be had ; where al- 1 
 most every public enterprise has its origin. 
 It is out of the question to think of carry- 
 ing the supreme court from the greater 
 portion of the very business which it was 
 established to prosecute. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, could not be. 
 lieve that the gentleman from Caddo was 
 in earnest; his proposition must certainly be 
 intended for a jest. 
 
 Mr. Porter said that the gentleman 
 (Mr. Conrad) would find out that he was 
 serious. When the question of the sala- 
 ries of the judges was under consideration, 
 it was assumed by that gentleman, and 
 by some of the city delegation, that a large 
 salary was necessary, in order to enable 
 the judges to reside in the city, and 
 that a great deal was spent in their trav- 
 elling in the country parishes. Now it 
 
 : 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 730 
 
 is proposed to locate the court in the city I 
 of New Orleans, in opposition to the 
 above arguments. Thus theState is ex- 
 Dected to lose four months, for it is noto- 
 rious that for four months in the year the 
 epedemic prevails in the city, and the court 
 must stand adjourned. But we are told 
 that there are no libraries in the country. 
 This is identically the same language that 
 we heard at Jackson, when it was deemed 
 expedient to transport the Convention to 
 this city. We were to come here for 
 books and maps. In my turn, I woujjjj 
 ask the gentleman if he is serious? So far 
 from thinking that we have gained any 
 thing by the change from Jackson to the 
 city of New Orleans, I really believe that 
 we would have made a better constitution 
 there than we have made here, at any rate 
 we would have completed our task before 
 [this time; and the constitution, ere this, 
 would have been before the people. 
 
 Mr. Porter said if the courts were held I 
 four months in the year in the country as i 
 formerly, in Opelousas and Alexandria, it 
 would be more convenient to his section of; 
 country, and he would not press the matter 
 farther, otherwise he would insist on it. 
 
 Mr. Conkab said that at first he thought 
 he delegate from Caddo was jesting; but 
 he gravity of his countenance since, had 
 ;onvinced him that such was not the case, 
 md that the delegate was serious in the 
 lesign of transporting the supreme court to 
 Baton Rouge or Donaldsonville. Four- 
 ifths of the whole business of the State, 
 irising in the city of New Orleans, is to 
 3e carried, if that delegate has his way, 
 ;ome one or two hundred miles from the 
 :ity; and the members of the bar of the 
 :ity are to be exposed to the necessity of 
 oaking a voyage from day to day to attend 
 o the^ir cases ? 
 
 The gentleman has accused me of in- 
 consistency in speaking of the travelling 
 expenses of the judges. Nov/, if the gen- 
 ie man had examined the position I took, 
 le would have seen that there was no in- 
 consistency in it. I supported the motion 
 )f the delegate from St. Landry (Mr. Lew- 
 s), that the supreme, court should continue 
 o hold its sessions at Alexandria and 
 Opelousas; because I considered that ne- 
 cessarily there would be a vacation of four 
 nonlhs in the city, and that it would be im- 
 >ossible to get through with all the busi- 
 
 ness unless these four months were made 
 available to the country. I am not now a 
 practising lawyer, but I remember when I 
 was at the bar, the appeal cases from 
 Florida interfered for two or three weeks 
 with the business of the city, and monopo- 
 lized the court exclusively. 
 
 Mr. Eustis said that this section had 
 been adopted by the committee after a full 
 consultation. It was suggested by mem- 
 bers of thenar from the country, who were 
 the best informed; and after all it was a 
 matter resting chiefly on the convenience 
 of members of the bar. For thirty-two 
 years the constitution had fixed the dura- 
 tion of the sessions of the supreme court 
 in the city of New Orleans. This was in- 
 dispensable; now as to the question of hold- 
 ing sessions of the supreme court in the 
 country, that was a question for the legis- 
 lature to resolve. He would call for the 
 previous question. 
 
 Mr. Mayo proposed the following amend- 
 ment: 
 
 That appeals from the parishes of Jack- 
 son, Union, Morehouse, Caldwell, Ouachi- 
 ta, Catahoula, Franklin, Carroll, Madison, 
 Tensas and Concordia, should, until other- 
 wise directed, be carried to the city of New 
 Orleans. 
 
 Mr. Eustis : This is legislation, and 
 should find no place in the constitution. 
 
 Mr. Prestox moved that the amend- 
 ments and the section be laid upon the ta- 
 ble until to-morrow. He had a proposition 
 to submit upon the subject. 
 
 Whereupon the Convention adiourned. 
 
 Tuesday, April 22, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad. 
 journment, and its proceedings were 
 opened with prayer from the honorable 
 Mr. Stephens. 
 
 Mr. Humble gave notice that he would 
 move a reconsideration of the vote depriv- 
 ing members of their mileage. Also, that 
 he would move to reconsider the vote upon 
 establishing the seat of government, with a 
 view of moving that it be located perma- 
 nently in the constitution. 
 
 Mr. Waddill said that this was a day 
 fixed for taking into consideration the reso- 
 lution presented by him. He would move 
 to modify it, by accepting such offices 
 filled by the election of the people, so that 
 it would read—no member of this Oonven- 
 
740 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 tion shall be eligible to any office created j 
 by this constitution, until two years shall | 
 have elapsed from the date of its approval | 
 by the people, unless it be to such offices | 
 as are elective by the people. 
 
 Mr. Lewis thought this resolution was 
 treating the good people of the State very 
 cavalierly. They were the best judges of 
 those best calculated to serve them. At 
 any rate, it was not in order. 
 
 Mr. Wad-dill- said that resolutions which 
 had no direct relation to the order of the 
 day, had been presented from time to time. 
 He instanced the proposition of Messrs. 
 Chinn and Marigny on the subject of duel- 
 ling. On various occasions, other impor- 
 tant propositions had been submitted, and 
 he found it somewhat strange that the del- 
 egate from St. Landry should make that 
 objection to his proposition. I think (added 
 Mr. Waddill) that the Convention should 
 place themselves beyond suspicion ; that 
 they should show by their acts, that they 
 are not struggling for the loaves and fishes. 
 He hoped that the provision would be 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Sellers moved that it be laid in- 
 definitely on the table, and Mr. Waddill 
 called for the yeas and nays ; yeas 32, 
 nays 15. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 The Convention resumed the considera- 
 tion of the clause relative to the sessions of 
 the supreme court, under consideration at 
 the adjournment, yesterday. 
 
 The question pending was on Mr. 
 Lewis' motion to strike out " in New Or- 
 leans," and insert "as heretofore." 
 
 Mr. Splane asked permission to make 
 a few explanations. 
 
 The Chair said that under the rule, it 
 could not be permitted. The previous 
 question cut off all debate. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for. 
 
 Mr, Lewis said it was not usual for him 
 to assign reasons for his vote, but on this 
 ocsasion, he would do so. He voted yes, 
 because it would be depriving the section 
 of country which he represented, from the 
 advantages resulting from the establish- 
 ment of that court, and it would be an act 
 of manifest injustice to do so. 
 
 The question was decided in the affirma- 
 tive — yeas 28, nays 23. 
 
 Mr. Splane gave notice that he would 
 ask for a re-consideration on Thursday 
 
 next. He hoped that he would have the 
 opportunity of expressing his opinions upon 
 the subject. 
 
 Mr. Brent: I will willingly give the 
 gentleman the opportunity he desires. 
 
 The question then recurred on the adop- 
 tion of Mr. Mayo's provision. 
 
 Messrs. Briant and Splane severally 
 moved to add to the foregoing parishes the 
 parishes of St. Martin and St. Mary, but 
 subsequently withdrew their propositions. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved for the adoption,which 
 motion prevailed, 
 
 Mr. Mayo then moved to amend the 
 section further, by striking out "June," and 
 substituting "July;" which motion pre- 
 vailed. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to strike out in the 
 second line, the word "month," and insert 
 "first Monday of;" which was concurred 
 in. 
 
 Mr. Preston then submitted the follow- 
 ing as a substitute, viz : 
 
 "The State shall be divided into four dis- 
 tricts, and for each district a judge of the 
 supreme court shall appointed. The 
 said judge shall hold a court twice a year 
 in each of the parishes comprised in his dis- 
 trict, and he shall then decide upon all ap- 
 peals that maybe brought before him from 
 the inferior courts. If he affirm the deci- 
 sion of the first court, the judgment shall 
 be final. If he disagree with the first 
 judge, the case shall be immediately trans- 
 ferred to the supreme court in the city of 
 New Orleans, composed of all the said 
 judges of said court. It shall begin its 
 sessions on the first Monday of January, 
 and shall sit until it has disposed of all the 
 appeals pending before it. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for — 
 yeas 37, nays 12. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan moved to strike out the 
 words "during che rest of the year." The 
 motion was lost — yeas 22, nays 29. The 
 section was then adopted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Brent, the Conven- 
 tion resumed the consideration of section 
 three. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to amend said section 
 by substituting the following: 
 
 " The State shall be divided into four 
 districts, each of which shall be designated 
 by its respective number, and the duly 
 qualified electors of each district shall 
 choose one of said judges; the choice oi 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 741 
 
 chief justice shall be made by the electors 
 of the first district." 
 
 Mr. Read said: I rise, Mr. President, for 
 the purpose of putting the elective ball in 
 motion, hoping that others will keep it 
 rolling, until all opposition shall be over- 
 come. 
 
 It seems to me that our judiciary system 
 needs a thorough revision, and that a fear 
 of diverging from the beaten track, along 
 which public opinion has heretofore erect- 
 ; ed its guide-boards, with stationary fingers, 
 pointing continually to the same spot and 
 to the same end, should not deter us from 
 being pioneers in the great cause of im- 
 provement, the very object of our assem- 
 blage, and not merely to drag ourselves 
 from post to post, to reach the goal which 
 others have. Innovation of established 
 usages and customs, remoddelling with a 
 bold hand the laws of a country, or depar- 
 ture from the nursery of maxims, sancti- 
 fied by Lime and association, induces no 
 pernicious consequences when the actua- 
 ting motive is the zeal of philanthrophy 
 and the love of country. 
 
 An elective judiciary is "nothing new 
 under the sun," though it strikes many 
 with amazement and horror. There is a 
 kind of unaccountable sanctity enveloping 
 the judicial ermine, as moss covers the 
 time beaten temples of antiquity; but when 
 stript of superstitious veneration, it stands 
 out as the rude creation of man — the 
 workmanship of a noble, yet fallible crea- 
 ture. 
 
 It is no sacrilege to approach this subject 
 in a republican and an independent spirit, 
 which, God grant, may continue in our de- 
 liberations. Nay, on the contrary, my 
 colleagues and myself have been instructed 
 by a voice that will admit of no excuse, to 
 snter the great judicial tabernacle and make 
 it accessible to the people. They want to 
 <now their priest — they want a voice in 
 his promotion. 
 
 I am actuated by no spirit if reckless in- 
 novation in advocating the election of judges 
 oy the people, but by a desire to secure 
 he greatest good to the greatest number; 
 jy a desire commensurate with the wel- 
 fare of the whole people. In a republican 
 rovernment, vox populi vox dei, so far at 
 east as the selection of officers is concern- 
 id. I am aware that there are those who 
 vorship idols because their fathers did be- 
 94 
 
 fore them; and who, if they knew the right, 
 the wrong would pursue, in order to smoth- 
 er the irrepressible disposition to freedom 
 which exists in the hearts of the people. 
 There are those who have the boldness 
 and temerity to a;vow that the legislature 
 is superior to the people; that the creature 
 is greater than the creator; and the records 
 of this Convention will show that there are 
 some such in our midst, even: in this age 
 of sense and progressive improvement. 
 To men of such distorted vision, it is not 
 strange that an elective judiciary is a hide- 
 ous monster, without shape or comeliness. 
 But I trust that all here are sincerely desi- 
 rous of becoming benefactors, and that they 
 will examine cooly and dispassionately all 
 questions connected with the governmental 
 policy of the State. 
 
 I asseit without fear of successful contra- 
 diction, that our judiciary has become one 
 of the most corrupt and irresponsible bo- 
 dies of civil organization, and it is high 
 time to cleanse the Augean stables, by 
 turning another Alpheus through the filthy 
 apartments, to restrain their untoward ca- 
 reer, by letting the voice of the people de- 
 clare, "thus far* shalt thou go, but no far- 
 ther." 
 
 To those who dare maintain the inca- 
 pacity of the people to elect their officers, 
 all their officers, I say, in the utmost chari- 
 ty and good feeling, go home to your in- 
 sulted constituents, and they will settle ac- 
 counts with you. And to those who doubt 
 the honesty of the people, I say, beware of 
 the just reproach and condemnation which 
 awaits your avowal of such flagrant injus- 
 tice. 
 
 I look around and see in this body learn- 
 ing, talent and honesty, and who was it 
 that had the ability to make such a selec- 
 tion — -a selection of men to whom the 
 weightiest matters of State are confided, 
 and upon whose decision hangs the weal 
 or woe of thousands now existing, and 
 yet unborn? The people, that people 
 who are the scoff, but dread; of tyrants. 
 
 I daily see men, Wise in legislation, dis- 
 pensing the blessings of peace and harmo- 
 ny, the lights of science, and the benefac- 
 tions of wholesome laws ; who selected 
 these from the great mass 1 The people ! 
 the people! I see the humble citizen make 
 choice of his lawyer, his physician, his 
 architect, his mechanic, his overseer, his 
 
742 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 agent for the transaction of all kinds of 
 business, and yet I am gravely told that he is 
 incompetent to deposit his vote for a judge. 
 I see the culprit at the bar of justice; his 
 life is jeopardized; all depends on the skill 
 and adroitness of counsel; he chooses his 
 attorney, and chooses well; and shall I be 
 told that this individual, degraded as he 
 may be, is not and never was capable of 
 naming a judge to try the rights of proper- 
 ty. It is an absurdity, involving ability 
 where life is at stake, but inability where 
 a paltry sum of money is concerned. 
 
 As men become enlightened they are 
 driven to the truth. The ancients ima- 
 gined the sun revolved around this little 
 globe, but science taught another lesson. 
 The moderns have advocated as great an 
 error in principle, by elevating certain offi- 
 cers beyond the voice or control of the 
 people, when these very officers are really 
 the creatures and servants of the people, 
 and properly amenable to them for all mis- 
 feasances, non-feasances and mal-feasan- 
 ces. Abandon republicanism, or burst 
 the fetters which bear the rust of ages and 
 the smell of despotism. The doctrine of a j 
 non-elective judiciary well suits kings, 
 thrones and potentates, but it cannot con- 
 sistently be urged or sustained in a land of 
 liberty; a land where the foot-prints of 
 aristocracy should never be seen. 
 
 Listen to the sage of Monticello on this 
 interesting and important subject; he says: 
 " It has been thought that people are not 
 competent electors of judges learned in 
 the law; but I do not know that this is true, 
 and if doubtful, we should follow principle. 
 In this, as in many other elections, they 
 would be guided by reputation, which 
 would not err oftener, perhaps, than the 
 present mode of appointment." Such was 
 the opinion of that great and good man, at 
 a time when his bitterest enemy could not 
 charge upon him any political or party de- 
 sign. It ought to have more than ordinary 
 weight in the determination of this vital 
 question. Justice Sharkey, of Mississippi, 
 who is a man of high character and an 
 able jurist, says: "much of the opposition 
 to an elective judiciary arises from the 
 prevalence of prejudice to whatever is 
 new. * % * ^0 people have acted 
 with a good deal of discretion, and seem 
 generally to divest themselves of party con- 
 siderations, As a general rule? the selec- 
 
 tions have met the approbation of the bar; 
 who are surely the best qualified to judge." 
 
 But I will not stop here; I beg leave to 
 refer the Convention to the opinion oi 
 Chancellor Buckner, of the same Strte, in 
 reply to an invitation to become a candidate, 
 for re-election, he makes use of the follow- 
 ing language, which certainly speaks well 
 for an elective judiciary: 
 
 "It has been intimated to me that there, 
 were grounds for fearing that the future 
 elections for members of the judiciary, 
 would be controlled by party politics. This 
 suggestion has had no possible influence in 
 shaping my determination to decline a re- 
 election, because the past history of the 
 country has furnished me with nothing to 
 warrant such a suspicion, and I yet have 
 full confidence in the honest, unbiassed 
 judgment of the people on this subject. I 
 am satisfied that they will be guided in 
 their choice, by the moral and legal quali- 
 fications of the candidate, without regard to 
 his political predilections. They are deep- 
 ly interested in having the laws of the 
 country faithfully and impartially adminis- 
 tered, and they well understand that to at- 
 tain this important end, they must guard 
 with watchful jealousy the purity, firmness, 
 independence and impartiality of the bench. 
 It may be that there is a small class of 
 small politicians, in either party, who 
 would pollute even the temple of justice 
 with the narrow and proscriptive prejudices 
 of their political sect, but they are too few 
 in number, and too inconsiderable in char- 
 acter to make any impression upon the 
 good sense of the country at large. No 
 good citizen of any party can desire to see 
 our courts of justice converted into parti- 
 san machines, and made the mere regis- 
 ters of partisan's behests. Such a state of 
 things would not only overthrow our con- 
 stitution, but would be a practical subver- 
 sion of our favorite theory of the capacity 
 of the people for self-government. But, is 
 was not my purpose, in touching this sub- 
 ject to go further than to repel the idea that 
 there is any party in this State who would 
 disgrace and destroy its judiciary, by infu- 
 sing into its members the violence and sel- 
 fishness of partisan prejudices." 
 
 The following extract from a communi- 
 cation, published in the Jeffersonian of this 
 city, is full of good sense, and true to the 
 letter : 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 743 
 
 " But the necessity of electing judges be- 
 comes absolutely imperative, in our minds, 
 -when we approach the consideration of the 
 functions they fulfil. Judges not only de- 
 cide controversies between individuals, but 
 they interpret and construe the constitution 
 and the laws, which is nothing less than 
 the equivalent of making constitutions and 
 laws. The same constitution, when looked 
 upon by a democratic and an aristocratic 
 eye, presents very different appearances. 
 The decision of a court to-day is its prece- 
 dent on the morrow, and grows to be the 
 law of the land on the third, though it may 
 be such a law as the people or their repre- 
 sentatives-would have negatived, if brought 
 before them. That such a power as this 
 should be placed beyond the controlling in- 
 fluence of public opinion, which is public 
 knowledge and public virtue, is clearly in- 
 compatible with free government " 
 
 Now sir, upon the admission that the 
 people are competent electors of judges 
 learned in the law, can it be possible that 
 there are those who doubt their honesty ? 
 As strange as it may seem, it is even so; 
 but i am one of those who place great reli- 
 ance in the virtue of the mass. I believe 
 that the possibility or probability of cor- 
 ruption is removed much farther by leaving 
 the people as sole arbiters in such matters, 
 than by entrusting an ambitious few with 
 our destinies. Is it not preposterous to 
 suppose that it is as easy to deceive and 
 taint a whole body, as a single member 1 
 The people are not to be bought and sold 
 as cattle in a market, though there are in- 
 dividuals who go for a price. 
 
 Divest the executive of such vast patron- 
 age, the very curse of republicanism, and 
 you will soon discover a favorable change. 
 The people's honesty and ability will lend 
 freshness and vigor to all departments. 
 The people will never unite upon a candi- 
 date merely because of his learning, his 
 talents, or his family influence ; but the 
 question will be, "is he honest, is he capa- 
 ble;" will he dispense equal and exact jus- 
 tice to all men, regardless of personal pro- 
 motion and family distinction ? Will he 
 stand as the sturdy oak, in the storm of 
 passion, and the rage of party, sacrificing 
 self to his country' s good ? 
 
 The very fact of making all officers elec- 
 tive, would have a tendency to enlighten 
 as well as to improve in morals. The peo- 
 
 ple would then feel and appreciate the 
 necessity of inquiring into the duties of 
 officers, and of ascertaining their capacity 
 and fitness for public trusts. A great 
 school would thus be formed, whose ten- 
 dency would be the direct elevation and 
 enlightenment of men. The day is not far 
 distant when all the States of this glorious 
 confederacy will follow the noble example 
 of our sister Mississippi, on this subject; 
 and since we cannot be the first in tearing 
 the veil of superstition from around the 
 judiciary, let us at least, be in the front 
 ranks, where we can win the admiration 
 and receive the homage of those who are 
 to follow. 
 
 Some argue that even if the people are 
 honest and capable, the system would not 
 work, because men could not be induced 
 to abandon lucrative professions for the 
 short-lived honors of judicial stations, de- 
 pendant on the popular voice. No fear of 
 that — such offices would never go begging 
 for tenants; the possibility of a like con- 
 tingency would imply a deplorable want of 
 honorable emulation. If the recipients of 
 public favor act well their parts, they have 
 as fair an opportunity of being continued 
 as if the bounty fell from executive hands; 
 nay, a better, for the people will reward 
 services, when individual preference or 
 private hate would sacrifice on the altar of 
 self-interest or self-gratification. 
 
 Sir, we should not be deterred from 
 doing our duty, merely because we have 
 been accustomed to view the judiciary as 
 independent of the people. On the con- 
 trary, let us leave the beaten track, and 
 exhibit to the world a fallacy as absurd as 
 the one that man is incapable of self govern- 
 ment. We now have the opportunity of 
 producing a system, which shall win the 
 admiration of mankind; let us improve the 
 occasion. Reduce every thing to a re« 
 publican standard; let not a single cog in 
 the great wheel be too small, or too large, 
 or inappropriate, for it might forever de. 
 stroy all symmetry and harmony of action. 
 In the language of the great apostle of 
 liberty, " follow principle, and the knot 
 unties itself." 
 
 Mr. Brent said, the amendment before 
 us, embraces an important measure of re- 
 formation, and it should be examined with 
 calmness and deliberation, and a fixed de- 
 termination on our part to be guided by 
 
744 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 truth and principle, High and important 
 interests have been confided to our charge, 
 and our decision upon this matter 3 as upon 
 all other matters, should be made with 
 strict reference to the good of our common 
 country, the advancement of public morals 
 and the security of public and private 
 righs. 
 
 I admit, Mr. President, (said he,) that 
 changes should not be made in the organic 
 law for light and transient causes, yet I 
 cannot but recognize the truth, promulgated 
 in the Declaration of Independence, that 
 all experience has shown, that men are 
 disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, 
 rather than abolish the forms to which they 
 have been accustomed, Man has been de- 
 fined by an English philosopher to be u a 
 bundle of habits," and in nothing is the 
 force of habit so conspicuously shown, as 
 in the blind attachment, which too frequent- 
 ly binds him, to that particular system of 
 laws under which he has lived, < I could 
 refer to many curious and singular instances 
 to illustrate this position, but will content 
 irryself with alluding to one, familiar to those 
 conversant with the history of the day. It 
 is well known, that the people of Rhode Is- 
 land continued to live under a royal char- 
 ter, granted by the second Charles, until 
 within a very few years past, they were 
 compelled by the action of public sentiment 
 out of the State, to abolish that charter and 
 establish a government, more suited to the 
 intelligence of the country, and the free 
 and liberal spirit of the age. This in- 
 stance, of itself, is sufficient to show the 
 power and tyranny of habit over the mind 
 of man. If then we have not already 
 reached the acme of political wisdom, if 
 there is any thing left for us to do, in ame- 
 liorating the organic law of the country, 
 such improvement must be looked for, in 
 the new, and not in the old States of the- 
 Confederacy. The older members of the 
 Union never will be the pioneers in the 
 march of improvement. From habit they 
 cling to the particular forms to which they 
 have been accustomed, not because they 
 are good, but becouse they are indifferent 
 — not because they are excellent, but be- 
 cause they are tolerable. 
 
 Any government, to answer the wise pur- 
 poses for which ail governments were es- 
 tablished, must have its foundations laid 
 deep in the respect and affections of the 
 
 people. And this is particularly true as 
 relates to a government, which, like ours, 
 reposes on the broad foundation of the 
 popular sovereignty. A popular govern- 
 ment can never be energetic and efficient, 
 unless it is sustained by the stout hearts 
 and strong arms of the People. Upon 
 what other power <jan that government rely, 
 but the power of the people ! Laws may 
 be framed—whole volumes of statutes may 
 be enacted, but they cannot be executed 
 and enforced, if passed in defiance of the 
 public will. The popular feature is the 
 strongest feature in our constitution. When 
 President Jackson encountered nine hund- 
 red banks of paper money, what was it that 
 sustained his administration against the 
 colossal strength of these institutions, but 
 the fact that he was the great tribune of 
 the people? If, instead of being elected 
 by the popular suffrage, he had held his of- 
 fice from the vote of the Senate or the na- 
 tional Legislature, powerful as he was, he 
 would have been crushed and overborne by 
 the Irj-dra brood that hissed around him, 
 and nothing sustained him, but the fact, 
 that he was upheld and supported by the 
 strong and mighty arm of the American 
 yeomanry that elected him. The greater 
 participation the people have in the govern- 
 ment, the more they are taught to believe 
 that it is their goverment, the greater will 
 be its energy and efficiency, and the better 
 will it answer the wise purposes for which 
 all laws were framed, and all governments 
 established. 
 
 I may be mistaken, but I believe that the 
 adoption of no measure which has yet en- 
 gaged the attention of this Convention, or 
 which will engage its attention, w r ould dif- 
 fuse so much joy into the hearts of the peo- 
 ple, as the adoption of the measure now 
 under debate. When I speak of the peo- 
 ple, I do not speak of those who occupy 
 distinguished stations upon the bench and 
 at the bar, nor do I speak of those who 
 have reached the elevated theatre of politi- 
 cal life and public distinction ; and still less 
 do I speak, of those butterflies, who sport 
 in the circles and in the saloons of fashion, 
 but I speak of the plain practical yeomen 
 of the country, the bone and sinew of the 
 land, upon whose virtue, whose firmness 
 and integrity, this government has always 
 relied, and must always continue to rely, for 
 its peace, its security and its permanence. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 745 
 
 I know — I do not pretend to conceal the 
 fact, or to deny its existence — I know 
 that the more wealthy and aristocratic 
 classes of society, with a few honorable 
 exceptions, are opposed to the adoption of 
 this measure. They cling to the feature of 
 an Executive appointment of the judiciary, 
 as the drowning mariner clings to the last 
 plank that floats upon the waves, to keep 
 him from going down into the unfathomed 
 depths beneath. The tenacity of the grasp 
 is the same, though the motives and circum- 
 stances are widely different. In the one 
 case, it is to save from certain and inevi- 
 table destruction, in the other, from a fan- 
 cied and imaginary peril. 
 
 There have always been two parties 
 that have divided the people of this coun- 
 try — one ot them has been in favor of popu- 
 lar government from principle, and hence, 
 as the intelligence of the country advanced, 
 and as experience demonstrated the feasi- 
 bility and security of the plan, they have 
 advocated, invariably, an extension of the 
 range ot popular power. The other party, 
 equally opposed to popular government on 
 principle, have steadily and uniformly re- 
 sisted every attempt to widen and enlarge 
 the circle of popular rights. Nothing dis- 
 composes the nerves of these gentlemen to 
 such an extent, as a proposition to extend 
 the power of the people. It comes upon 
 them like the shock of a Galvanic battery. 
 They can see nothing but death and ruin 
 and disaster, in every departure from old- 
 and established usages, and so deep-rooted 
 and deep-seated is their antipathy to popu- 
 lar government, that I doubt not there are 
 individuals among them who had rather 
 
 I see our judges nominated by the Bashaw 
 of Tunis, or the Autocrat of all the Rus- 
 sias, than to see them elected by the di- 
 rect votes of the people. Between these 
 gentlemen and myself, there is no commu- 
 nity of feeling or of thought. We stand as 
 far asunder as the poles. There is a 
 chasm between us as wide as that which 
 separates paradise from purgatory. 
 
 The first point which naturally suggests 
 iitself to the mind in the investigation of 
 this subject, is that which relates to the 
 political right of the people to elect their 
 judges. Will honorable gentlemen op- 
 posed to us, concede that the people have 
 the political right of electing their judges? 
 If so, we shall be grateful for small favors. 
 
 Should the admission be made, it then fol- 
 lows that I am arguing in favor of nothing 
 that is wrong. I am merely contending 
 for the exercise of a right which is con- 
 conceded ; but perhaps they may deem it 
 advisable not to permit us to make such a 
 strong lodgement on the field of argument 
 as would be at once secured, by the con- 
 cession of the right. If the right be on our 
 side, we are entrenched at once behind a 
 position, that can be carried neither by 
 siege nor by storm. From under the cover 
 of this redoubt, we could pour upon them 
 the hottest thunderbolts of fight, while re- 
 posing ourselves in perfect security from 
 their assaults. Hence the neceesity be- 
 came urgent to dislodge us from this strong 
 hold, and to bring the question, at once, 
 to an issue by a denial of the right of the 
 people to elect their judges. 
 
 To deny the right of the people, is to deny 
 at once, that truth asserted in the Declara- 
 tion of Independence, that " all govern- 
 ments are instituted for the benefit of the 
 people," and that other truth, asserted in the 
 Bill of Rights, that " all power is inherent 
 in the people." This denial assails the first 
 principles of a popular government, and 
 prostrates in ruins, the Republic which 
 was reared by the hands, and cemented by 
 the blood of our fathers. No man can arise 
 upon this floor, in the face of the assem- 
 bled representatives of the people, and deny 
 that the people, from whom he holds his 
 trust, are not in full possession of all the 
 rights and powers inherent in the sove- 
 reignty of the State. That question, then, 
 I shall regard as settled, and I will here- 
 after hold the right of the people to elect 
 their judges as indisputable and undisputed. 
 
 At this stage of the argument, we may 
 be told that while the right of election by 
 the people is granted, that the expediency 
 of exercising that right is utterly denied. 
 The concession, or the establishment of the 
 right, is sufficient of itself to refute the ar- 
 gument based upon inexpediency. No man 
 can be deprived of a political right, under 
 the pretext that it is inexpedient for him 
 to exercise it. The right once granted or 
 Droved, the free exercise of it follows, else 
 the term "right" is an unmeaning and 
 senseless word, having neither force, nor 
 body, nor shape. Of what avail will it be, 
 to possess a right in theory, if it is to be 
 possessed in theory alone ? For instance, 
 
74G 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 I have been invested by the laws and con- 
 stitution with the political right of suffrage, 
 yet I may abuse that right. Nevertheless, 
 could you deprive me of its exercise upon 
 the pretence that I might abuse it. Again, 
 I have the unquestioned right to manage 
 and control my own private affairs and pro- 
 perty as I please, yet it might well happen, 
 that I would abuse that right — that I would 
 squander my means— dissipate my proper- 
 ty, and reduce myself to bankruptcy and 
 ruin — still would the Legislature be au- 
 thorized to withdraw my property from my 
 control, and place it in the hands of a trus- 
 tee, under the pretext that I might abuse 
 that right. 
 
 But what, after all, is this denial of the 
 expediency of the exercise of popular 
 rights, but the old and exploded argument 
 of the monarchist? There is no monarch- 
 ist on earth, but what will tell you that all 
 governments are instituted for the benefit 
 of the people; yet he will gravely argue, 
 that it is for their benefit that the powers of 
 the government should not be exercised 
 by the people. This is the soothing ar- 
 gument which is to comfort the sorrows, 
 and bind up the wounds of the crushed 
 and down-trodden masses of the world ! 
 Behold the condition of the people of 
 England ! There, the very bread is taxed, 
 'ere it approaches the starving laborer's 
 lips — every thing is taxed that man touch- 
 es, or wears — the light of heaven, itself, 
 is a source of governmental revenue, and 
 the very habitations of men are darkened 
 by taxation. Yet the people of that coun- 
 try are consoled by the information, that 
 it is much better for them that the powers 
 of the government should be wrested from 
 their hands, where they properly belong, 
 and placed in the hands of their tyrants — 
 a pampered and bloated aristocracy, and a 
 man who wears a crown upon his head, 
 and holds a sceptre in his hands. And 
 now, sir, the very argument which is em- 
 ployed to defend the most odious and 
 grinding despotism on earth, is the very 
 argument which is used by the opponents 
 of an elective judiciary. They tell the 
 people that it is much better for them that 
 they should not exercise the powers which 
 belong to them, of electing their judges; 
 that as the king in England can manage 
 the government much better than the peo- 
 ple can, so can the governor in this coun- 
 
 try attend much better to the appointment of 
 the judiciary. Whether the starving masses 
 of England believe in the principle "which 
 dooms them to perpetual slavery, is a pro- 
 blem most easy of solution. Remove for 
 a single day, the military power of that 
 government, and the setting sun would 
 shine upon the ruins of that colossal tyran. 
 ny, which strides above the fortunes and 
 liberties of her people. 
 
 Sir, can the free citizens of our country 
 be deceived by the subtle and deceptive 
 arguments, with which the opponents of 
 an elective judiciary seek to wheedle and 
 cajole them out of the exercise of their un- 
 doubted rights? Can they believe that it 
 is for their interest that the most important 
 functionaries of the State, who are callled 
 upon daily to decide upon questions in- 
 volving their lives, their liberty, and their 
 property, should hold their appointment 
 from, and be amenable to, some other au- 
 thority in the State than that of the people 
 themselves? Human credulity is great; 
 but when the monstrous proposition stands 
 revealed in its naked deformity, the heart 
 of man recoils from it with instinctive 
 loathing and disgust. 
 
 Many individuals entertain the opinion 
 that the judiciary system of England is 
 perfect; and that we should so organize 
 that department, as to preserve the leading 
 and important features established by that 
 government. English authority has no 
 weight with me; but if I can show that 
 according to the true principles of the Bri- 
 tish government, the appointment of judges 
 should flow in this country from the people, 
 it is altogether probable that some votes 
 might be secured in behalf of an elective 
 judiciary, that could be obtained by no ar- 
 gument based upon the true principles of 
 a republican government. In England, 
 the judges are appointed by the crown. 
 The crown is the sovereignty of the State. 
 Now, where is the sovereign power of our 
 government lodged, if it be not lodged in 
 the hands of the people? The people are 
 with us the sovereignty of the State, and 
 an adherence to the British precedent 
 would require that the judges should be 
 elected by the people. 
 
 But a reference is frequently made to 
 the British system, for the purpose of pro- 
 ving the importance of having an indepen- 
 dent judiciary. The signification of this 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 747 
 
 term ''independent" in England, is differ- 
 ent from any meaning that can be attached 
 to it in this country. It means an inde. 
 pendence of the crown, and not an inde- 
 pendence of the people. Formerly, the 
 judges in England held their offices at the 
 pleasure of the sovereign; but this evil was 
 remedied, and the revolution of 1688 re- 
 sulted in establishing the principle that the 
 judiciary should be appointed for life, 
 and should not be removable at the will of 
 the crown. This rendered that depart- 
 ment independent of the sovereign, and it 
 was a great stride in securing against the 
 encroachments of the throne, the public and 
 private rights of the citizen. It was the 
 first decided advance in popular govern- 
 ment, and by making the judiciary inde- 
 pendent of the executive, it held oui to the 
 subject the hope that he would find in one 
 branch of the government, defence and se- 
 curity from the exactions and oppressions 
 of the other. No wonder that under these 
 circumstances, the independence of the ju- 
 diciary is regarded as the sheet anchor of 
 the rights of the Briton. 
 
 The independence of the judiciary how- 
 ever in England, as every where else, does 
 not result from the particular mode which 
 is pursued in appointing the judges. It 
 is the life tenure of the judiciary, which 
 renders them independent, and they would 
 be equally independent, if they were elec- 
 ted by the people, instead of being appoin- 
 fed by the crown. The independence of 
 the judiciary then, is only to be found in 
 their tenure of office, and does not flow 
 from the particular manner in which they 
 are appointed. A judge elected for life by 
 the people, is just as independent .as a 
 judge appointed for life by the crown. In 
 either case he is beyond the reach of re- 
 sponsibility, and the particular mode in 
 which the appointment is conferred, does 
 not abate a one jot or tittle of his indepen- 
 dence. If you abolish life tenure, and fix 
 a term for which the judges are to be ap. 
 pointed and elected, you destroy this inde- 
 pendence, and make the judiciary at once 
 responsible to the power that appoints 
 them. If appointed for a short term, they 
 are subject to constant responsibility; if for 
 a long term, that responsibility is propor- 
 tionally diminished. But in neither case 
 do you add to, or diminish their responsi- 
 bility, by adopting any particular mode of 
 
 appointment. A judge appointed by the 
 crown or the governor, for a' term of years, 
 is just as independent (and no more) as a 
 judge elected for a term of years by the 
 people. 
 
 It has been generally conceded thatin this 
 country there does not exist the same ne- 
 cessity for an independent judiciary that 
 is to be found in England. In fact, there 
 is not the slightest analogy between the 
 situation of the people of England, con- 
 stantly warring against the aggressions of 
 the throne, and the people of this country, 
 where the very name of a monarch is un- 
 known. According to the theory of our 
 government, there is no power in the State 
 antagonistical to that of the people. It is 
 true, you may build up such a power; you 
 may array one of the departments of the 
 government in opposition to the people; 
 but if you do, you violate the principles of 
 republicanism, and by your own act, you 
 will create a necessity for an irresponsible 
 judiciary, which otherwise would not ex- 
 ist. Now^howdo we stand, in reference 
 to this question? We have already deci- 
 ded, and decided very correctly, to abolish 
 life tenure, and the sense of the Conven- 
 tion is unanimous against a judiciary con- 
 stituted, as it is in England, above all re- 
 sponsibility whatever. Life offices, hered- 
 | itary titles, and entailed estates, do not 
 comport with the republican feelings and 
 ' principles of the day. Our supreme court 
 ; judges are now to hold their offices for the 
 term of eight years. They are no longer 
 to be irresponsible despots, wielding un- 
 controlled influence over the liberties and 
 property of our people. That question 
 is settled — their responsibility is fixed — 
 and in the investigation of this subject, I 
 would warn gentlemen not to be led into 
 bogs and morasses, by the ignis fatuus of 
 an independent judiciary. Upon this ques- 
 tion the Convention has moved with a bold 
 and strong hand., and every vestige of an 
 irresponsible judiciary, such as is found 
 in England, has been swept by the board. 
 
 This point being gained, and the respon- 
 sibility of the judiciary being established, 
 another important question presents itself 
 for our decision. The judges are to be 
 held to accountability, and to whom shall 
 we confide the delicate duty of holding 
 them to that accountability? To the gov- 
 ernor, the legislature, or the people? The 
 
748 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 choice is to be made between these three 
 powers in the State, and between them, 
 who can hesitate? 
 
 Every motive of sound policy and ex- 
 pediency requires that the judiciary should 
 be independent of the executive and the 
 legislature. Any other organization of 
 the three departments, would lead to the 
 most deplorable results. Our only safety 
 consists in keeping each of the depart- 
 ments separate from, and independent of 
 the others; and the true and proper inde- 
 pendence of the judiciary is to be found 
 in elevating it above the control, and pla- 
 cing it beyond the reach of the co-ordinate 
 branches of the government. The Judi- 
 ciary is the balance wheel of our political 
 system. As the balance wheel in the ma- 
 chinery of a steamboat, regulates the stroke' 
 of the piston, the movement of the valves, 
 and the harmonious action of the engine, 
 even so is it the office of the judiciary, to 
 steady the movements and working of our 
 system, by giving force and proper direc- 
 tion to the other powers of the govern- 
 ment. In a pure despotism, all power cen- 
 tres in the monarch. He is at once legis- 
 lator, judge, and executive. Just in pro- 
 portion as you divide and separate these 
 powers, you advance from monarchy to 
 republicanism. 
 
 The first article of the constitution we- 
 have adopted, provides that the powers of 
 the government shall be divided into three 
 parts, and each of them confided to a sep- 
 arate and distinct body of magistracy. As 
 the centralization of power constitutes 
 despotism, its separation and division con- 
 stitutes the vital principle of a republic. — 
 To make the judiciajy dependent upon 
 the legislature, or the executive, would de- 
 stroy this principle, and would render that 
 department potent for purposes of evil, but 
 utterly powerless for purposes of good. 
 The constitution assigns to each of the de- 
 partments, its respective duties: and it says, 
 "thus far shaft thou go, and no farther." 
 The judiciary is relied upon, not only to 
 decide disputes among citizens, but to keep 
 the other departments from shooting madly 
 from the spheres allotted to them. It is 
 its duty to decide whether the laws enact- 
 ed by the legislature, and approved by the 
 governor, are constitutional, or not. If 
 constitutional, to enforce them; if not, to 
 avoid them and set them at nought. But 
 
 if the judiciary be appointed by the legis- 
 ture, or the governor, and at the end of a 
 stated term of years, be condemned to pass 
 under the censorship of these departments 
 what guaranty have we for the protection 
 and integrity of our constitution? Look 
 for a moment at the evils which might re- 
 sult from the dependence of the judiciary 
 upon the legislature, or the executive. 
 
 The constitution declares that no ex post 
 factolaw, nor law impairing the obligation 
 of contracts, shall be passed; and that the 
 writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspen- 
 ded, except in case of war, or actual inva- 
 sion of the country. Suppose the legis- 
 lature has declared that the writ of habeas 
 corpus shall be suspended in a time of pro- 
 found peace. A citizen, being deprived 
 illegally.of his liberty, applies to the judge 
 for a writ of habeas corpus. The issuance 
 of the writ is resisted, upon the ground 
 that the legislature has ordered that writ to 
 be suspended. The constitutionality of 
 that act is denied, and a judge who is a 
 candidate for re-election before that same 
 legislature, is called upon to decide wheth- 
 er the constitution has been violated, or 
 not. Do you think that the liberty of a 
 citizen would be safe, before a tribunal 
 thus constituted? Is this the kind of inde- j 
 pendent judiciary, to which you wish to 
 surrender the lives, the liberties, and for- 
 tunes of our people? 
 
 But gentlemen tell us that the great and 
 paramount object is, to have the judiciary j 
 independent of popular clamor. Sir, these 
 gentlemen can see danger ahead, but -in 
 one direction. They seem to have no 
 fear or dread, except of the power of the 
 people. If they can obtain a judiciary in- 
 dependent of the people, no matter how 
 servile it may be to the legislature, or the; || 
 executive, they have reaped the fruition of 
 their hopes. Independent of popular cla- 
 mor! yet they say nothing of legislative 
 clamor, venality and corruption! Nothing 
 of executive power, tyranny and usurpa- 
 tion! As for myself, I had rather the ju- 
 diciary should be a thermometer, to indi- 
 cate the rise and fall of popular excitement, 
 or that it should be a weathercock, to de- 
 signate which way the winds of popular 
 feeling blow, than that it should be consti- 
 tuted into a court of record, to register the 
 edicts of the executive mansion, or the 
 mandates of legislative usurpation. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 741> 
 
 With a judiciary appointed for a term of 
 years and fully responsible to the power 
 that appoints them, we are now called 
 upon to say, whether that judiciary shall be 
 subordinate to the legislature, or the execu- 
 tive, or whether it shall be responsible di- 
 rectly to the people. The election of the 
 judges by the Legislature is the most ob- 
 jectionable mode that could possibly be di- 
 vised. An adoption of this system, would 
 lead to-the most disastrous consequences. 
 It would pollute the streams of our legisla- 
 tion at their fountain head. Corruption and 
 venality would sit enthroned in the council 
 chambers of State, and our legislative hall 
 would be made an arena, in which hungry 
 office-seekers would be pitted against each 
 other. Besides it is a blending of powers 
 utterly incongruous and irreconcilable. 
 Nomination to office is an executive func- 
 tion. It is the duty of the legislature to 
 pass laws and not elect judges. The in- 
 troduction of this system would inevitably 
 lead to log-rolling, barter of votes, frauds, 
 venality and corruption without end, and in 
 no point of view, is it such a system, as 
 ought to meet with the approbation of this 
 Convention. As however there are but few 
 advocates of it upon this floor, I will 
 pass on without a further examination of 
 its defects. 
 
 The executive appointment of the judi- 
 ciary, is the most earnestly pressed upon 
 our consideration. To this mode of ap- 
 pointment, I have the most decided and in- 
 vincible repugnance. To the chief magis- 
 trate 1 can never consent to surrender the 
 judiciary, bound hand and foot. As exec- 
 utive and as a constituent branch of the 
 •legislature, his acts are to be brought by the 
 judiciary to the test of the constitution. 
 By holding in his hands, the power of re- 
 appointment, you give him absolute domin- 
 ion over the judges, and if disposed to do 
 a violent thing, he would soon till the 
 bench with fitting instruments to sanction 
 and sanctify the deed. Give him this pow- 
 er and he will unite in his own person all 
 the powers of the government. With leg- 
 islative and executive functions, and a ser- 
 vile and obedient judiciary, he will possess 
 ts much power as the crowned monarch 
 on his throne. 
 
 I object to it also, because it is the ''one 
 man power." It is a shoot from the doc- 
 trine of the divine right of kings. It is 
 95 
 
 an exotic transplanted from the gardens of 
 London tower. The patronage of the ex- 
 ecutive is a remnant of the monarchial 
 principle, and it is the fountain from whence 
 have issued copious streams of demorali- 
 zation, that have flowed over the land. No- 
 thing can be more disgraceful and degra- 
 ding to the character of the American Re- 
 public, than the humiliating spectacle, 
 which is presented upon the accession of 
 each new executive, to the chair of State. 
 That spectacle is not only witnessed in 
 Louisiana, but upon the more elevated the- 
 atre of the national government. Swarms 
 and myriads of office-hunters flock to the 
 seat of government, as cormorants and vul- 
 tures gather around a new slain carcass. 
 .Theybesige and beset every avenue which 
 leads to the executive palace, > and it is 
 said that one president lost his life by the 
 harrassments and importunities of these 
 hungry claimants, that would take no de- 
 nial. It is a lamentable truth, yet it can- 
 not be denied, that there are hosts of indi- 
 viduals, who follow in the wake of the 
 two great political parties, as sharks follow 
 in the wake of a ship for the offal that is 
 thrown overboard, or as "thieves and ban- 
 ditti follow after the caravans of the east 
 for the hope of the plunder they may pick 
 up in the rear." It is time, that this evil 
 should be remedied, 1 desire to dry up 
 this fountain of bitter waters at its very 
 source. The executive ought to be shorn 
 of the whole of his patronage. The power 
 of appointment should be taken from him 
 altogether, and placed where it pioperly 
 belongs, in the hands of the people. Sir, 
 that convention which shall accomplish 
 this important work of reformation, will 
 have earned for itself, a lasting title to the 
 gratitude of posterity. 
 
 But we are told that by this system we 
 have a guaranty for a good appointment, 
 in the responsibility of the executive. The 
 responsibility of the executive ! A more 
 unmeaning jingle of words never smote up- 
 on the human ear. The responsibility of 
 the executive ! What is it? Where is it? 
 How is it ascertained, and how is it en- 
 forced? The executive is elected for four 
 years, and is ineligible for a second term. 
 In what then does his responsibility consist? 
 In moonshine — nothing but moonshine. 
 Suppose he makes a bad. appointment, if 
 he be responsible, there must be some mod*- 
 
75a 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 of enforcing that responsibility. Will hon- 
 orable gentlemen inform us, in what man- 
 ner the executive is to be reached? Bad 
 appointments have been made by the score 
 and the hundred, yet I have never heard of 
 a single instance in which the executive 
 has suffered from his responsibility. I 
 have known the governor to take a man 
 from New Orleans and send him up the 
 coast as parish judge, when there were 
 many persons more competent than he, re- 
 siding in the parish to which he was sent. 
 I have known him to take an individual 
 who was not a lawyer, from the parish of 
 Rapides and make him parish judge of 
 Avoyelles, when there were able and effi- 
 cient lawyers residing in the latter parish, 
 fully competent to discharge the duties of. 
 that station. The same thing has been 
 practised in other quarters cf the State — 
 Men notoriously incompetent have been 
 appointed to the important office of probate 
 judge, and ignorant of the first rudiments 
 of law, have been Called upon to decide the 
 most complex and difficult questions that 
 could possibly arise in the administration 
 of justice. Yet 1 have never heard that 
 the governor has suffered from his respon- 
 sibility. The distant wail of sorrow and 
 suffering does not penetrate into the per- 
 fumed and carpeted chambers of power. 
 No matter how much private wrong and 
 injury may be inflicted, the serenity of the 
 executive is undisturbed, and his pillow is 
 not haunted by visions of remorse. No 
 matter how much the public indignation 
 may be excited in distant and remote re- 
 gions, he wraps himself up in the gum-elas- 
 tic cloak of his official dignity, and tells the 
 storm to beat, and the rain to pour, and as 
 for the people, " he whistles them down 
 the wind to pray on fortune." Sir, this 
 responsibility is like the airy dagger of Mac- 
 beth. It has no actual corporeal existence; 
 you might as well attempt to gather in a 
 basket the fog that hovers over the bed of 
 the Mississippi, as to attempt to locate this 
 floating and undiscoverable responsibility 
 of the executive. 
 
 Again, sir, how does the governor act 
 in distributing the patronage of office? In 
 nine'eases out of ten he knows nothing of 
 the individual he appoints. He is forced 
 to depend upon the representations of oth- 
 ers. He gropes in the dark for such in- 
 formation as can be gathered from the ve- 
 
 nal crew that flock around the executive 
 mansion. Formerly, under some of the 
 dynasties that are extinct, a few individu- 
 als residing in the different sections of the 
 State, were known to control the nomina- 
 tions of the executive. When we ascer- 
 tained who these gentlemen were in favor 
 of, we had but little curiosity to know who 
 the governor would appoint. The gover- 
 nor being ignorant, from, the very nature of 
 things, of most of the candidates for office., 
 a similar practice will always, to a greater 
 or less extent, continue to prevail. The 
 question then resolves itself in this — shall 
 we permit our nominations to be made by 
 an irresponsible cable of unknown intriguers 
 or rather, shall we not confide a matter of 
 such general concernment, to the decision 
 of the great body of the people? 
 
 We likewise know that the governor fre- 
 quently confers the appointment upon that 
 individual who has been most industrious in 
 getting signatures to his petition. Every 
 one knows the" facility with which persons 
 affix their signatures to those documents, 
 now so common through the land. Any 
 one will sign a petition. A few years 
 since a very incompetent person was near 
 being appointed parish judge of Rapides, 
 owing to his great industry in obtaining 
 signatures to his petition, and .he would in- 
 evitably have been appointed, if that same 
 junto of intriguers, to whom I have before 
 referred, had not decided otherwise. In 
 further illustration of this, I once heard an 
 anecdote of a man, who made a wager that 
 he would obtain, in the course of one (fey, 
 five hundred signatures to a petition, the 
 object of which was to have the most popu- 
 lar clergyman in the city of Albany hung. 
 The tale is soon told- — the wager was won, 
 and the five hundred signatures were ob- 
 tained before breakfast in the morning. 
 
 Having now shown a few of the objec- 
 tions to either a legislative election or an 
 executive appointment of the judiciary, I 
 will proceed to explain some of the reasons 
 why the judges should be elected by the di- 
 rect votes of the people. In the first place, 
 it will render the judiciary, what it ought 
 to be, independent of the other branches of 
 the government. The people now elect 
 the governor and the legislature. Lei 
 them elect the judiciary, and all three of 
 the departments are at once placed upon a 
 footing of perfect equality. They will all 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 751 
 
 then spring from the same common source, 
 and be responsible to the same common 
 tribunal. The whole government will 
 hang then directly on the people, and ours 
 will be a popular government, not in name 
 merely, but in truth and in substance. The 
 reasons why the judiciary should stand up- 
 on an independent footing, as regards the 
 legislature and executive, are numerous 
 and obvious. No principle hostile to our 
 republican institutions, can ever creep into 
 the government, unless it is through a de- 
 partment, that does not connect directly 
 with the people. If a monarchical or aris- 
 tocratic principle- is to find a lodgment any 
 where, it will be in that branch of the gov- 
 ernment that is not responsible to the popu- 
 lar authority. Engraft the judiciary upon 
 the legislature or the executive, and it will 
 produce a fruit different from what it would 
 have produced, if left upon the parent stem. 
 It is as true in politics as it is in physic, 
 that the engrafted tree bears net the fruit 
 of the original trunk. Let the judiciary 
 repose upon either of the other departments 
 — let it draw its vitality from them, and 
 true to the instincts of nature — true to the 
 warm impulses implanted in the bosom of 
 the offspring, in behalf of the parent,.it will 
 defend and protect and uphold that parent; 
 against the world beside. 
 
 But there are other and more conclusive 
 reasons in favor of this proposition. In- 
 terest has been said to be, the main spring 
 of human action. If you wish to hrt>e 
 your business well done, you do it your- 
 self; if you are indifferent about it, you em- 
 ploy an agent. That which a man has 
 an interest to do well, will in nine cases J 
 out of ten, be well 'done. Now who has j 
 such a deep and abiding interest in the ap- j 
 pointment of a good judge as the people j 
 among whom the judge is to act? If a bad 
 judge be selected, who suffers from his dis- j 
 honesty, his incompetency and his reckless 
 disregard of justice, but' the people who 
 live under his jurisdiction? If rights are j 
 trampled under foot, if the power of the ' 
 judge be prostituted to purposes of op- 
 pression, who are the victims but the 
 people who are immolated by his power? 
 Now you desire to take away from these 
 people, whose rights, and "liberty and 
 property are at stake, the power of electing 
 their judge, to vest it in a man, who has no 
 immediate personal interest in the selec- 
 
 tion of a good officer. And can you be- 
 lieve that the end proposed, will be ob- 
 tained by such a strange and unnatural 
 proceedings? Except so far as the imme- 
 diate locality where the governor resides 
 is concerned, it is a matter of indifference 
 to him what kind of an officer be appointed. 
 If he can gratify his ambition, his hate, his 
 friendship, or any other feeling of the hu- 
 man heart, he will do in it the appointment 
 of a judge, though the streams of justice 
 should run black with the waters of corrup- 
 tion. I am not dealing in fancy; the his- 
 tory of the past will fully justify what! say. 
 Again, sir, while the people have the 
 deepest interest in the selection of a good 
 judge; they are decidedly the most compe- 
 tent to make that selection. The governor, 
 as I have before remarked, is generally 
 forced to depend upon the representations 
 of others. The people have a personal 
 and direct knowledge of the qualifications 
 of the candidate. There is nothing so 
 purely local as the reputation of a lawyer, 
 unless he possesses high and striking- 
 qualities, which are not always the best 
 qualities for a judge. There are good 
 lawyers in this city, every way qualified 
 for a judicial station, who have no general 
 reputation throughout the State. There 
 are excellent lawyers in the country, who 
 would make the best of judges, who are 
 not known even by name to men practising 
 the same profession in this city. Now. you 
 desire to take from the people of each lo- 
 cality, who have a perfect knowledge of 
 the capacity and qualifications of the can-* 
 didates; the power of electing their judges; 
 to vest it in a man who has no knowledge " 
 whatever upon the subject, and who, if he 
 has any desire to do right, can only guess 
 as to the selection of a goood officer. In 
 doing this you violate the plainest dictates 
 of common sense, and you do not display 
 even that ordinary prudence, which regu- 
 lates the conduct of men in the every day 
 transactions of life. You are for taking 
 from the people, who have the deepest in- 
 terest and the best knowledge on the sub- 
 ject, the power of selecting their judge, to 
 give it to an individual without personal 
 interest in the matter, and wholly devoid 
 of the knowledge required for the proper 
 discharge of that duty. With such a sys- 
 tem as this in operation, who can wonder 
 that bad appointments have been made— 
 
752 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 and that the public confidence has been un- 
 settled in the administration of our laws? 
 
 When hard pressed upon this point, hon- 
 orable gentlemen have been forced to ad- 
 mit that the chances are decidedly the 
 greatest for the selection of a good judge, 
 when elected by the people. But they 
 say that the desire for re-election on the 
 part of the judge, will throw temptations 
 in his path, that cannot possibly be resisted. 
 They urge that if a case arises between a 
 popular individual and one of less note, that 
 the judge will 50 shape his decision as to 
 secure the greatest number of votes at the 
 approaching election; or that if a case origi- 
 nates between one who promoted his elec- 
 tion and one who opposed it, that he will be 
 strongly tempted, to decide in favor of his 
 friend and against his enemy, This is 
 the argument most relied upon, by those 
 who cannot look in the eye, the true princi- 
 ple of a popular government, and yet en- 
 deavor to skulk behind some subterfuge, 
 that will excuse them for with-holding from 
 the people; the exercise of the rights which 
 justly belong to them. Sir, of all the ar- 
 guments urged against an elective judicia- 
 ry, this is the most shallow; and the most 
 easily exposed. Suppose that the judge 
 does desire a re-election, do gentlemen 
 mean to say that dishonesty is a passport 
 to popular applause? The great body of 
 the people are under the control of no one 
 individual; and that judge miscalculates the 
 force of public sentiment, who can expect' 
 to stand up against it ? by the aid of any in- 
 dividual, no matter how popular, or how 
 influential. But what, after all, is this ob- 
 jection, but to charge moral corruption 
 upon the judge who is elected by the peo- 
 ple? If it be admitted, that the people will 
 select the best judge, the great probability 
 is that he will be best able to resist the 
 temptations that beset his path. If the 
 election by the people will give you a bet- 
 ter man, than the appointment by the exec- 
 utive, you have a better guarantee for the 
 faithful snd honest discharge of the judicial 
 functions. The particular mode in which 
 a man is elected or appointed, does not 
 alter his nature. If the judge desires re- 
 election, he would desire re-appointment; 
 and according to the same logic, if a case 
 should originate between an obscure indi- 
 vidual, and one who had the ear . of the 
 executive, he would so decide as to secure 
 
 his re-appointment. Again, if the judge 
 is inclined to decide in favor of his friends 
 and against his enemies, why cannot he 
 gratify his inclinations, as well when ap- 
 pointed by the executive, as when elected 
 by the people? Is there any peculiar vir- 
 tue in holding office from the hands of the 
 governor? Does an executive appointment 
 freeze the nature of man to stone, or strike 
 with torpor and paralysis the affections 
 and passions of the human heart? The 
 great object is to obtain capable and hon* 
 est judges. That system is best which 
 will secure the best men upon the bench. 
 Let gentlemen prove to me that the people 
 will not elect the best judges, and I will 
 cheerfully acknowledge my error. And 
 now, sir, I would here ask, whether any 
 objection can be urged against an election 
 by the people, that cannot be made to ap- 
 ply with ten-fold force lo an appointmenby 
 the executive? Again, I say, that gentle- 
 men can see dangeiv but in one direction; 
 their vision is keen to detect any objection 
 that may be urged against a popular elec- 
 tion, but they can see no objection to an 
 executive appointment, though it stood full 
 in their sight, as high as Atlas, and as in- 
 surmountable as the Appenines. 
 
 But have gentlemen never heard of the 
 leaning of these executive judges in behalf 
 of the more wealthy and influential classes 
 of society? There being something aris- 
 tocratic in a judiciary thus constituted, its 
 tendency has always been aristocratic, 
 When a man of wealth has shot down his 
 neighbor in cold blood, in broad day-light 
 and in the open street, have you never 
 heard it remarked, as if such a thing was a 
 matter of course, "that man is too rich to 
 be hung?" And is not this the case, not 
 only here, but generally throughout the 
 Union? When Commander McKenzie or. 
 dered one midshipman and two seamen to 
 be executed at the yard-arm of the brig 
 Somers, for mutiny, one of the reasons 
 given by him for inflicting such summary 
 punishment was, that the chief criminal 
 being the member of a wealthy and influ- 
 ential family, it would be impossible for 
 him to be convicted and punished, if 
 brought to this country, to be dealt with 
 according to law. It is lamentable, but it 
 is nevertheless true, that in this country, 
 wealth procures immunity from punishment 
 for crime. It has always been the case 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 75a 
 
 nere, as well as in England, where the ju- 
 diciary hold their offices from the execu- 
 tive and from the throne. Even Shakspeare 
 tells us 
 
 '•'The usurer hangs the cozener, 
 Through tattered clothes small vices do appear, - 
 Robes and furred gowns hide all. Plate sin with 
 gold, 
 
 And "the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks: ^ 
 Ami it with rags — a pigmy's straw doth pierce it!" 
 
 This same remark applies equally 
 throughout all the gradations of crime. 
 The rogue who embezzles his thousands 
 and hundreds of thousands, escapes the 
 felon's doom, while the poor wretch who 
 steals a loaf of bread to feed his famishing 
 children, is certain to feel the heaviest ven- 
 geance of the law. How happens it that 
 these great and crying abuses exist in our 
 midst? Is this a free and equal govern- 
 ment, where poverty alone is to be made 
 the target for the shafts of justice? Is 
 wealth to be permitted to hurl defiance at 
 the civil power of the State, and to burst 
 asunder, like cob-webs, the meshes of the 
 law? But I may be told that the fault princi- 
 pally lies with the juries of the country, and 
 should not be entirely attributed to the judge. 
 I admit that juries are frequently to blame, 
 vet most of the evils can be traced directly 
 to the judge. In the first place, the judge 
 is to decide whether the accused is to be 
 admitted to bail or not, and if admitted to 
 bail, to fix upon the amount required. 
 Here a vast latitude is given to the judge. 
 The constitution says that excessive bail 
 shall not be required, yet the judge is to 
 decide whether the bail be excessive or 
 not. A man worth a hundred thousand 
 dollars is frequently held to bail for a 
 heavy crime, in the sum of five or ten 
 thousand dollars. It amounts to nothing at 
 all. A poor man, not worth a dime^ will 
 perhaps be held to bail, for the same of- 
 fence, in the sum of one or two thousand 
 dollars. It is more than he can possibly 
 iurnish, and hence he must go to jail; while 
 the rich man goes at large, forfeits his 
 bond, or stands the chances of his trial, or 
 has the indictment quashed, or in some other 
 mode makes his escape from the penalties 
 of the law. When the case goes to trial, 
 the judge stands between the evidence and 
 the accused; and he decides what evidence 
 shall be rejected, and what evidence shall 
 be received and read to the jury. He is 
 then given by law the power to charge the 
 
 jury, and who does not know the vast ia- 
 fluence which is thus exercised by the 
 
 Judge over the minds of the jury? After 
 all, when the trial is concluded and the 
 
 ! verdict rendered, he possesses the power 
 to set the verdict aside, to order a new 
 trial, and give another chance to the pris- 
 oner to place himself in a better position 
 before the next jury that is to decide upon 
 
 : his case. There are a thousand ways in 
 
 I which the power of the judge can be em- 
 ployed to defeat the ends of justice, or to 
 
 i save any individual whom he desires to 
 
 i save, Now, sir, if these evils 'are to be 
 remedied — if the tendency of the judiciary 
 be to favor the wealthy and to sacrifice the 
 poor — the aristocratic feature of an execu- 
 tive appointment of the judiciary must be 
 abolished. The judges must spring direct 
 from the people, or else justice will never 
 be administered, by the same common stan- 
 dard, to the rich and the poor, the high 
 and the low. 
 
 There is another point, to which I have 
 already indirectly alluded, but which is 
 worthy of a more pointed examination. By 
 limiting the tenure of our judiciary, we 
 have made them responsible officers. The 
 purity of the administration of justice de- 
 pends upon the manner in which that re- 
 sponsibility is enforced. If a bad judge be 
 re-appointed, or if a good judge be not re- 
 appointed, their responsibility ceases to be 
 a good and becomes a curse. There will 
 then -be no inducement for an upright and 
 fearless discharge of duty. Every thing 
 depends upon the intelligence and impar- 
 tial action of the power that is vested with 
 the appointment. Now it is impossible for 
 the governor to know, whether the judges 
 
 | in distant quarters of the State have dis- 
 charged with industry and fidelity the im- 
 
 ! portant trust committed to their hands. A 
 judge is an important character, and the 
 governor would hardly venture to displace 
 him, except in cases of gross and glaring 
 outrage. Tkese considerations render it 
 of vital importance that the task of holding 
 the judiciary to responsibility should be 
 reposed in the hands of the people. 
 
 I have examined this question in even- 
 point of view in which it could be con- 
 sidered, and I unhesitatingly declare it to 
 be my deliberate judgment, that no objec- 
 tion can be taken against the system but 
 such as is founded upon a distrust of the 
 
7S4 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 capacity and intelligence of the people. 
 Every argument urged againt it, when 
 stripped and disrobed of that which is ex- 
 traneous, assumes necessarily this com- 
 plexion. The same arguments can be 
 urged against popular government itself 
 that are urged against an elective judiciary. 
 If the people are competent and capable 
 and have the right to elect their judges, 
 upon what pretence can they be deprived 
 of the exercise of that right? Those who 
 deny the right of the people — their compe- 
 tency and capacity — assume the only true 
 and manly ground upon which this claim 
 can be resisted. The monarchist and the 
 aristocrat, who believe that it is for the 
 benefit of the people, that they should be 
 scourged into subjection, can hardly be ex- 
 pected to give it their countenance and 
 support. The judiciary as now constituted, 
 is the only aristocratic feature in our con- 
 stitution. The antagonist principle to re- 
 publicanism has here taken up its abode, 
 and has retreated to this, the last citadel 
 of its power. Line after line, entrenchment 
 after entrenchment, have been carried by 
 the victorious democracy, and when their 
 banner shall be planted upon these battle- 
 ments, the glorious triumph will have been 
 complete. 
 
 Mr. President, an experience of thirty- 
 two years ought to satisfy us that there is 
 something radically defective in the system 
 of permitting the executive to appoint the 
 judiciary. That system has worked bad- 
 ly. The public mind has been deeply 
 agitated on the subject we are now discus- 
 sing, A distinguished gentleman from 
 New Orleans (Mr. Grymes) told us, the 
 other day, ihat a feverish excitement pre- 
 vailed among the people. That harrassing 
 doubts and anxieties perplexed the public 
 heart; and that there was a growing feel- 
 ing of insecurity and alarm arising from deep 
 seated and well founded distrust of the ju- 
 diciary. The picture which he drew is 
 faithful to nature. The feeliiTg of insecu- 
 rity exists, and it will continue to increase, 
 until some efficient measure of reformation 
 shall be adopted. When a system has 
 worked badly, I know of no better way 
 than to abolish it, and try some other sys- 
 tem, which offers a better prospeet of suc- 
 cess. The election of judges by the di- 
 rect votes of the people, is that system, • 
 
 and I can see no reason why it should not 
 be adopted. 
 
 Some gentlemen have said, that we are 
 anxious to reduce this government to the 
 government of a mob, and they object to 
 our proposition, because, they say, the ju- 
 dicial ermine will be soiled, if brought in 
 contact with the people. Will any repre- 
 sentative upon this floor stigmatize the 
 •people that elected him as a mob? The 
 serfs and minions of monarchy employ 
 language like this, to bring in disrepute 
 and opprobrium* the free government, un- 
 der which we live; but that American who 
 adopts it as his own, degrades his parent, 
 age, shames his nature, and is guilty of 
 wilful and wanton self-abasement. So far 
 from the judiciary being contaminated, by 
 reposing upon the votes of the people, new 
 elements of vigor and strength and purity 
 will be infused into it; and instead of being 
 watched, As it now is, by jealous and dis- 
 trustful eyes, it will be looked up to, with 
 love and veneration, and regarded as the 
 palladium of our public and private rights. 
 W r hat is it that makes the office of Presi- 
 dent of the United States a prize so highly 
 esteemed, and so eagerly sought after, but 
 the fact that he is elevated to that distin- 
 guished office by the suffrages of twenty 
 millions of freemen? Any office becomes 
 elevated and dignified, when conferred by 
 the voluntary suffrages of a free people; 
 and who is there that had not rather hold 
 office awarded by the confidence of his 
 countrymen, than if awarded by the proud- 
 est monarch that wears a diadem! 
 
 Another fallacy exists upon this subject, 
 which is frequently urged against the sys- 
 tem. We are told that all experience is 
 against it. Sir, the very reverse of the 
 proposition is true. All experience is in 
 its favor. The failure of other States 
 to make the experiment, cannot be quoted 
 as their experience against it. You might 
 as well contend that, because the people 
 of Europe have not established republics, 
 their experience is against republicanism. 
 
 A partial experiment of this system was 
 made, many years ago, in Connecticut, 
 and we have the authority of Mr. Jeffer- 
 son, that it was eminently successful. But 
 the expedience upon which 1 chiefly rely, 
 is that of our sister state of Mississippi. 
 The testimony of the success of this svs- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana; 
 
 teui in that State, is too strong and unani- ] spirit and political prejudices would geu- 
 mous for the existence of the fact to be erally determine the selection, and that the 
 denied. I know that gentlemen will sneer judges would carry these predjudices with 
 at any allusion to repudiating Mississippi, them upon the bench, and a train of other 
 and that they will hold up their hands in evils. These, and other objections, were 
 holv horror, at the bare idea of attempting urged in the Mississippi convention, with 
 to engraft the democracy of Mississippi j great ability. The system was. however, 
 upon the constitution of Louisiana. Admit, ; adopted, and of course, its operation has 
 for argument's sake, that upon this ques- j been watched with deep interest and severe 
 tion, she is wrong, and that her legislature criticism. 
 
 ought to tax her people, to redeem hei The experience and observation of near- 
 bonds, that were hawked through the j ly thirteen years, have convinced me, and 
 streets of London, and shaved by the Brit- i many others who opposed the experiment, 
 ish brokers, in defiance of her eonstitution: that our apprehensions were not well 
 still, can any argument be drawn from that j founded. So far, the system has worked 
 against the ability, the independence, and j well in our State. We have witnessed no 
 the honesty of her judiciary? Her judges evils attending it which are not incident to 
 are to be judged by their acts, and not by ! any other mode of selection, and on the 
 the acts of her legislature. I have said that ' contrary, the development of some advan- 
 the testimony from Mississippi, in favor of tages over other modes of appointment, 
 that svstem, is strong and conclusive. I Our judicial stations have been filled with 
 will prove tt. In addition to the evidence as much, if not more ability, learning and 
 of the delegate from Baton Kouge 'Mr. , weight of character, than formerly. So 
 Head) I hold in my hand a letter from a far, the people of our State have appeared 
 gentleman well known, by reputation, in to perform this delicate duty with as much 
 this State; a lawyer of distinguished abili- intelligence and discernment, and I con- 
 ties, whose testimony upon this point is i ceive, with more integrity of purpose, than 
 entitled :o peculiar weight. The letter is . any other appointing power. We have 
 addressed to myself, and reads as follows: seen the electors of districts, in the midst 
 New Orleans. March 22d, 1S45. of political parry excitement, elect judges 
 Dear Sir: differing from them on political questions; 
 
 I have received your letter of the nine- and 1 believe no instance has yet occurred 
 teenth inst., requesting my views upon the of the election of a judge, in our State, up- 
 operation in the State of Mississippi, of on mere party questions, 
 the svstem adopted there of electing judges Upon the whole, after a careful observa- 
 by the direct votes of the people, and ask- : tion of the operation of our system. I give 
 ing my attention, particular^, to the objee- it as my decided opinion, that the experi- 
 tiou urged agaiust the system, that such ment of electing judges by the direct votes 
 elections would generally, if not always, of the people, has proved eminently soc- 
 turn upon party, or political questions. — cessful in our State. 
 Having no objections to the public avowal ; I am very respectfully, 
 
 of my former opinions, or present views, ! . your ob't servant, 
 
 upon this interesting subject, I cheerfully j J. A. QUITMAN, 
 
 comply with your request. We have seen from this letter of Gen. 
 
 At the time of the adoption of the re- i Quitman, that during the space of thirteen 
 vised constitution in Mississippi, in 1832, years, this system has been in active ope- 
 1 was, with a majority of the bar of that ration in Mississippi, and that it has fully 
 State, opposed to the system of electing ' realized the expectations of its friends. We 
 the judges by the direct votes of the peo- find that under its workings, politics have 
 | je. W e regarded it as a new and hazard- been driven from the bench, and the judi- 
 ous experiment, beautiful in theory, but cial stations of the State have been filled 
 .dangerous in practice. Many of as did with ability, learning and weight of charac- 
 not doubt the capacity or intelligence of ter. Can as much be said for the opera- 
 the people to make the best selections, but 1 tion of our system in this State ? So far 
 we ieared that popular excitements would I from politics being driven from the bench, 
 find their way upon the bench, that party I with us. we have seen noisy and brawling 
 
750 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 politicians yet smoking with the dust of the 
 political battle-field, with all the exacerba- 
 tions of political strife yet clinging around 
 their hearts, elevated to the important trust 
 of deciding upon the lives, the liberties and 
 property of our people. . The practical 
 working of our system has been the very 
 reverse of that of Mississippi. There can 
 be no comparison instituted between the 
 two. But as I have before observed, the 
 testimony of this gentleman is entitled to 
 peculiar weight. He was a member of the 
 Convention of Mississippi that adopted the 
 revised constitution of 1832. In that Con- 
 vention he was the leader of the opposition 
 to this principle. His pride of opinion, his 
 prejudices have all been arrayed against 
 it; yet, as he informed me, the observation 
 of thirteen years had forced him gradually 
 and reluctantly, to abandon his first posi- 
 tion, and at this moment he regards it as 
 the best possible system that could be de- 
 vised. Should this Convention think pro- 
 per to adopt the amendment now under 
 debate, thirteen years hence, I have no 
 doubt, that the gentlemen who are now 
 loudest in their opposition, if called upon 
 for their testimony, would write a letter 
 similar to the one I have just perused. I 
 cannot, however, dismiss this branch of 
 the subject, without expressing my deep 
 and heartfelt admiration of the sagacity, 
 the moral courage and independence of 
 the statesmen and people of Mississippi. 
 Trusting to truth and principle, they fear- 
 lessly launched the bark of State upon 
 what may have been considered, (notwith- 
 standing the partial experience of Connec- 
 ticut) as the ocean of an untried experi- 
 ment; just as the mariner stretches out 
 boldly and fearlessly upon the wide and 
 trackless sea, relying upon those known 
 and fixed laws of nature, which regulate the 
 action of the compass, to guide him through 
 storms and tempests, through darkness and 
 through danger into that haven, where all 
 the winds are still and nature sleeps in 
 smiles. 
 
 But, sir, I have other and higher au- 
 thority than that of Mississippi. We invoke 
 in our behalf the authority of a great name, 
 around which, in time past, the democracy 
 of this country rallied, as around a tower of 
 impregnable strength — it is the name of 
 Thomas Jefferson. His opinions have 
 already been alluded to by the delegate 
 
 who preceded me, (Mr. Read) but there 
 are other portions of the same letter 
 quoted by him, to which I wish to call your 
 attention. I read from his letter addressed 
 to Samuel Kerchival, dated the 12th of 
 July, 1816; Mr. Jefferson said, after speak- 
 ing of the defects of the first constitutions 
 adopted by the States : 
 
 "Where then is our republicanism to be 
 found ? Not in our constitution, certainly, 
 but merely in the spirit of our people. That 
 would oblige even a despot to govern us 
 republicanly. Owing to this spirit, and tc 
 nothing in the form of our constitution, all 
 things have gone well. But this fact, sc 
 triumphantly misquoted by the enemies of 
 reformation, is not the fruit of our consti- 
 tution, but has prevailed in spite of it. But 
 it will be said, it is easier to find faults 
 than to amend them. I do not think their 
 amendment is so difficult as is pretended. 
 Only lay down the true principles, and ad- 
 here inflexibly to them. Do not be fright- 
 ened into their surrender^ by the alarms of 
 the timid and the croakings of wealth, 
 against the ascendancy of the people. If 
 experience be called for, appeal to that of 
 our fifteen or twenty governments for forty 
 years, and show me where the people haver 
 done half the mischief in these forty years, 
 that a single despot would have done iii 
 a single year. The true foundation of re- 
 publican government, is the equal right of 
 every citizen in his person and property, 
 and in their management. Try by this, 
 as a tally, every provision of our constitu- 
 tion, and see if it hangs directly on the' 
 will of the people. Reduce your legislature 
 to a convenient number, for full and orderly 
 discussion. Let every man who fights or 
 pays, exercise his just and equal right in 
 their election. Let the executive be chosen 
 in the same way,- and for the same period. 
 It is thought that the people are not compe- 
 tent electors of judges learned in the law. 
 But I do not know that this is true, and if 
 doubtful, we should follow principle. In 
 this, as in many other elections, they would 
 be guided by reputation, which would not 
 err oftener, perhaps, than the present 
 mode of appointment. In one State of the 
 Union, at least, it has been long tried, and 
 with the most satisfactory success. The 
 judges of Connecticut have been chosen 
 by the people, every six months, for nearly 
 two centuries, and I believe there has 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 757 
 
 hardly ever been an instance of change, 1 establishing correct principles of govern- 
 so powerful is the curb of incessant respon- meat, have endeared him to the hearts of 
 sibility. If prejudice, however, derived the American people,, and have wreathed 
 from a monarchical institution, is still to unfading laurels around his brow, 
 prevail against the vital elective principle ; The fact, that this'principle is not to be 
 of our own, and the existing example among found in any of the ancient constitutions of 
 ourselves of periodical election of judges ! the confederacy, is no argument against its 
 by the people be mistrusted, let us at least adoption now. As Mr. Jefferson remark- 
 not adopt the evil and reject the good of i ed in the same letter, « { the abuses of mon- 
 the English precedent. Let us retain j archy, at the period of their establishment 
 amoveability on the concurrence of the ex- had so much filled the space of political 
 ecutive and legislative branches, and nom- contemplation that they imagined every 
 ination by the executive alone. To give it to ! thing to be republican which was not mon- 
 the legislature, as we do, is a violation of the archy." The capacity of man for self- 
 principle of the separation of powers." government was then an unsolved problem. 
 
 Thus spoke the sage of Monticello. — The republican principle was then in its 
 The words of wisdom hang upon his lips, infancy. It has since grown and expand- 
 '•only lay down true principles and adhere ■ ed into the full vigor of maturity, and it is 
 to them inflexibly. Do not be frightened now in the strong and lusty prime of its 
 into their surrender by the alarms of the ; golden manhood. The American people 
 timid, or the croakings of wealth against are capable of self-government in its widest 
 the ascendency of the people." Let this and most extended sign ideation. If the 
 admonition sink deep into our hearts, and experience of sixty years Were not suffi- 
 a way will be opened up to us for escape cient to satisfy the most credulous; the 
 
 j from all the evils that now impend above us. ' events which have taken place in the last > 
 Who that peruses the strong and nervous 1 twelve months, would furnish the proof, 
 language, the short and pithy sentences of. No man can as yet have forgotten the in- 
 this statesman and philosopher, as his bold , tense excitement of the last presidential 
 mind travelled over this subject, and explor- election; an excitement which leaving the 
 ed the true principles of a free government > thronged avenues and crowded thorough- 
 but what feels his pride kindled in the reflec- J fares of our great cities, penetrated into the 
 
 ' tion that "he too is an American!" With remotest regions, the most quiet and se- 
 that intuitive sagacity which ever distin- qtrestered haunts of men; an excitement 
 guished him, he discovered that in a popu- ' which was all absorbing, and all pervading; 
 
 : lar government, principle required that all where all the fierce passions of our nature 
 officers should be elected by the people, and were called into action. Avarice, the gree- 
 
 j with that boldness and independence wor- diness for office, the lust for place and 
 thy of his mighty and unshrinking nature, power, and that demon of the mind, rest- 
 
 \ he declared himself in favor of adhering to less and unsleeping ambition. In fine the 
 principle, and trusting the consequences to thousand strings of the human heart had 
 that great Providence, who overseeth and | been smote upon, and every cord was tin- 
 over ruieth all things. Sir, the authority 1 gling at the touch. In the midst of all this 
 of this great name cannot but have its excitement, while the waters of the politi- 
 weight with the posterity of that people, to cal sea were boiling and bubbling around, 
 whom he rendered so many and such im- t the day for the election came: the ballots 
 
 ; portant services. He was the peiisman of were deposited; and instantly, as if the 
 the great charter of our liberty, and he was voice of him who spake as never man 
 foremost in unfurling the standard of resis- j spake, had bid the raging elements, be still, 
 tance to British tyranny and oppression, at ! a peace, a quiet, a hush, as profound as 
 a time when that flag floated friendless in ! that of the grave, settled and brooded over 
 the breeze, yet his fame does not depend up- ! the land in all its length and breadth, 
 on brilliant and successful warlike achiev- I Where the wide earth over! where in all 
 ' ments. The light of military glory does I the annals of human history, can a specta- 
 not linger around his tomb, but the civil ser- 1 cle be found, equal to this for moral gran- 
 viees, which he^ rendered to his country | deur and sublimity! The spectacle of a 
 alter the close of the war, in defining and j vast and mighty people, swayed by all 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 the commingled passions of our nature, 
 instantly relapsing from excitement to re- 
 pose, yielding ready obedience to the 
 majesty of the law, and doing voluntary 
 homage to that principle, which they them- 
 selves had established, that the majority 
 should prevail. 
 
 I have been told by honorable gentle- 
 men opposed to me, 4hat they entertained 
 not a doubt but that this system of an elec- 
 tive judiciary would ultimately be adopted; 
 but they stated, we were not prepared for 
 it now. The state of our preparation can 
 have nothing to do with the question. Tf 
 it be right, we are prepared for it now. If 
 it be wrong, we shall never be prepared 
 for it. But why do they suppose that this 
 system will ultimately be adopted? If it 
 be error, why can it not be detected, ex- 
 posed, resisted and defeated? But it is 
 because gentlemen feel and know that it 
 is truth and not error, and that truth is 
 mighty and must prevail. Error can be 
 attacked, uprooted and destroyed, but truth 
 mocks at your efforts and defies your 
 power. No matter what changes and vi- 
 cissitudes may take place in human affairs 
 or on the face of the habitable globe, truth 
 will still flourish in immortal youth. Rev- 
 olutions may sweep over the earth— war 
 may kindle and extinguish its battle fires 
 around the globe — new empires may rise 
 and sink like bubbles on the water, and 
 nature herself may be dissolved in elemen- 
 tal fire — yet truth -—truth — will live unhurt 
 amid these changes, and will, walk un- 
 scathed and unharmed through the confla- 
 gration. 
 
 'Mr. President, whatever may be the 
 action of this Conven-fcon, at all events my 
 duty has been discharged, and I leave the 
 consequences to those whose province it is. 
 to determine; and to him who holds in his 
 right hand, the destinies of men and na- 
 tions. Should this Convention decide to 
 abandon truth and principle, for the preju- 
 dices of habit and early education, there is 
 a tribunal to which we can. appeal with a 
 confidence almost amounting to certainty. 
 There is a power behind us greater than 
 we, that will sit in j udgment over our work; 
 and to the people, themselves, we must 
 look for this great and salutary measure 
 of reformation. 1 stand here one of a fee- 
 ble and powerless minority, yet few and 
 
 weak as we are, we have a weight and 
 moral influence that can only be derived 
 
 from truth and a good and honest cause 
 
 not from any abilities we possess, for we 
 are the weakest of the weak, the humblest 
 of the humble. Yet, sir, we are the cham- 
 pions of the people — the advocates of 
 popular rights — the defenders of truth and 
 justice. The great masses of the country 
 are with us, and it is their voice which 
 urges us on to the conflict, and which 
 cheers and animates us in the approaching 
 hour of defeat and disaster. 
 
 If honorable gentlemen expect that the 
 agitation of this question will cease with 
 the decision of this body, they are most 
 wofully mistaken. The agitation has but 
 commenced. They have but heard the 
 first mutte rings of the storm. When the 
 public mind shall grapple with this subject; 
 when the public attention shall be fixed 
 upon it, we will then see which way the 
 popular current sweeps, and woe be to him 
 who shall lift up his puny arm to stem the 
 current of Niagara. 
 
 I have no despair, sir. I can look from 
 under the gloom of the present, to the rain- 
 bow Hope, which spans the heavens in the 
 distant future. I am no prophet, and no 
 son of a prophet; yet I can see traced in 
 letters of light, upon the broad and ample 
 page of our country's future history, the 
 ultimate triumph and ascendancy of the 
 great principles for which I am now con- 
 tending. I may not live to see it — my 
 heart may e'er then have ceased its anxious 
 beatings — its hopes and its fears may 
 alike be extinguished in the grave — yet 
 there are those living, older than I, who 
 who will hail Its consummation. 
 
 Truth, crushed to earth, will rise again; 
 - The eternal years of God are hers; 
 But Error, wounded, writhes in pain, 
 And dies amid her worshippers. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for on 
 Mr. Brent's substitute. 
 
 Mr. Porter would explain that he pre- 
 ferred the appointment by the legislature. 
 But he conceived the people the source of 
 all power, and he certainly preferred the 
 election by the people, than the appoint- 
 ment by the governor. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for; 
 yeas 20, nays 40. 
 
 Mr. Peets then moved to lay his propo 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 759 
 
 sition on the table, subject to call, to be 
 taken up in connection with the mode of 
 appointment of district judges. 
 
 The yeas and nays were then called for 
 on the adoption of the original section; 
 yeas 35, nays 23. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Benjamin, the Con- 
 vention took up the fifth section as amend- 
 ed, and adopted the same. 
 
 The eighth section was then adopted. 
 
 The Convention then proceeded to sec- 
 tion eleventh. 
 
 Sec. 11. No court, or judge of any court, 
 appointed under this constitution, shall ex- 
 ercise any jurisdiction, or perform any 
 functions, but such as are purely judicial ; 
 and no other duties or. functions shall ever 
 be attached, by law, to the office of a 
 judge, but such as are judicial. 
 
 Mr. Mayo hoped that the committee 
 would explain what was meant by the 
 words purely judicial ; would it embrace 
 writs of seizure, and sale and orders of 
 sequestration ? 
 
 Mr. Lewis thought that these were em- 
 braced in the judicial functions. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to strike out "no 
 court, or judge of any court," and to sub- 
 stitute " no judge of the district or supreme 
 court." 
 
 Mr. Beatty said that he preferred the 
 substitute to the amendment, but he was 
 opposed to both. 
 
 Mr. Downs proposed to make a slight 
 amendment to the substitute offered by the 
 delegate from Catahoula, (Mr. Mayo) by 
 inserting the words " shall perform any 
 function not properly appertaining to a 
 judge." 
 
 Mr. Eustis said that his only objection 
 to this, was, that it would open the" whole 
 question. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad : It will leave the 
 courts to determine. 
 
 Mr. Eustis: That is what the constitu- 
 tion should avoid. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for on 
 the substitute ; yeas 23, nays 27. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Gonrad proposed the re- 
 commitment. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to strike out the word 
 " purely," there were many mixed ques- 
 tions. 
 
 Mr. Eustis objected. 
 
 Mr. M. Taylor moved to insert the 
 words " nor receive fees of office." 
 
 Mr. Lewis did not wish to argue the 
 question; he was in favor of taking away 
 from the judges all functions not judicial. 
 In relation to justices of the peace it might 
 be necessary to introduce some amend- 
 ment, showing that they were not em- 
 braced in the clause. For that class of 
 magistrates he would acknowledge he was 
 in favor of the popular election. 
 
 Mr. Saunders moved to add the word 
 "gratuitous" after the word "judicial." 
 
 Mr. Guion moved to substitute, for all 
 the amendments, the following : the legis- 
 lature shall not assign other duties but 
 those that are purely judicial. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said that the gentleman's 
 object appeared to make parish judges out 
 of justices of the peace; he was wedded to 
 that system, and that was his object. 
 
 Mr. Guion : I did not intend to raise 
 the ghost of the dead parish-court system. 
 My friend from St. Landry is mistaken; the 
 question was taken on Mr. Guion's substi- 
 tute, and it was lost. 
 
 Mr. Garrett thought that the section 
 was sufficient; he would therefore move to 
 lay all the amendments on the table indefi- 
 nitely. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin hoped that the section 
 would be adopted; he saw no necessity for 
 the amendments. What was to prevent 
 the legislature to permit the same abuses 
 to grow up that have heretofore prevailed, 
 and for accumulating in the judicial office 
 again the functions of auctioneer, notary, 
 &c. He thought the language of the sec- 
 tion sufficiently explicit. It was to restrict 
 the judges from exercising any other func- 
 tions but those that were purely judicial. 
 He was placed upon the bench to admin- 
 ister justice between man and man, and 
 not to make contracts. These were not 
 within his appropriate functions. There 
 were stronger reasons for restricting the 
 judges to functions purely judicial, because 
 one judge was appointed for several par- 
 ishes. Let us break up every thing like 
 partial legislation. If you amend this 
 section, and gjve the discretionary power 
 to the legislature, the result will be con- 
 tinual exceptions in favor of particular 
 judicial districts. It will be found desira- 
 ble in some parishes, that the judge of the 
 district court would make a good president 
 of a police jury, and an act will be asked 
 for to confer on him the duties of that office 
 
760 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 We shall thus insensibly be laid back to 
 the old system. If the people chose to 
 confer any duties upon the judge, not incon- 
 sistent with his judicial functions, let them 
 do so. But let us maintain the present 
 system in all its integrity. 
 
 Mr. Dunn said that it was very easy to 
 destroy, to pull down — but it was difficult 
 to build up. You destroy one system with- 
 out giving us to understand what system 
 should take its place. The Convention 
 ought to know this, to vote understanding- 
 ly, and with a due sense of public wants 
 and public interest. I would ask gentle- 
 men, where are the interests of orphans to 
 be guarded? Who are to make inventories? 
 Who are to take care of the estates of the 
 helpless. There is nothing that reveals, 
 nothing that sheds any light upon this very 
 important point. Before I vote for the de- 
 tails of your system, I should like to know 
 what officer is to look over these interests. 
 I hope that the section will be laid on the 
 table, until some functionaries are provided 
 to take the place of probate judges, until 
 you -have established a tribunal to preserve 
 the interests of successions. So far as the 
 judges of the parish courts arid the district 
 courts are concerned, there is no great dif- 
 ference. But in reference to the probate 
 court, there is evidently something required. 
 There should be no speculation upon this 
 subject. There should be some officer 
 appointed to protect the interests of those 
 avIio are unable to protect themselves; and 
 I should prefer it if one of these officers 
 were appointed for each parish. I move 
 that this section be laid upon the table, until 
 some provision be made upon this matter, 
 and until you have determined the jurisdic- 
 tion of such court as is necessary to take 
 cognizance of the cases to which I have 
 referred. 
 
 Mr. Garrett- said that the gentleman 
 was about to propose the revival of the 
 parish court system. 
 
 Mr. Dunn said that he did not wish to 
 frighten gentlemen with the ghost of the 
 parish court system. He only proposed to 
 lay the section upon the, table until some 
 provision was made for the indispensable 
 business growing out of successions ; he 
 was anxious to know what was to take the 
 place of the probate court. In his parish, 
 alone, it would require all the time of a 
 judge to transact all the legal business that 
 
 arose. He hoped that nothing would be 
 done until some disposition was made of 
 this matter. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. Dunn's 
 motion, and it was lost. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad proposed the follow- 
 ing amendment: no judge shall hold any 
 other office but that of a judge, and if other 
 duties be assigned to him by the legisla- 
 ture, they shall be performed gratuitously. 
 
 Mr. Conrad said that his object was to 
 prevent the multiplication of office in the 
 hands of the judge. It was admitted on all 
 hands, that the accumulation of these 
 offices was a great evil ; he wished *to 
 remedy that evil, but he was apprehensive 
 that the clause in the section was too 
 sweeping. The question might well arise, 
 what were judicial functions ? Was the 
 appointment of an administrator, a dative 
 testamentary executor, a proceeding pure- 
 ly judicial ? The examination of young 
 men for admission to the bar; was that a 
 judicial function? Again, was the certify- 
 ing of a record, a judicial function? He 
 could see no use in tieing up the hands of 
 the legislature. He thought that the clause 
 was too sweeping. 
 
 .Mr. Mayo moved to insert after the 
 words "no judge," in Mr. Conrad's sub- 
 stitute, the following, "of the supreme court 
 or of the district courts. 
 
 Mr. Lewis proposed to insert the words 
 "or exercise." He wished the prohibition 
 to be in explicit terms. 
 
 Mr. Downs proposed the following: "no 
 judge shall perform or exercise the func- 
 tions appertaining to a notary or an auc- 
 tioneer, or any other duties which do not 
 belong to the office of judge." 
 
 Mr. Soule was apprehensive that these 
 numerous attempts to amend the section 
 would be attended with no good result. 
 He could not understand how the words 
 purely judicial could interfere with those 
 functions which necessarily arose from 
 their office, and in the exercise of which 
 it is not intended they should be restricted. 
 In point of fact, it was not as judges that 
 the parish judges exercise the functions of 
 notaries public and auctioneers, but it was 
 ex-omcio, in virtue of a special law, Jf 
 the judges be inhibited the exercise of 
 certain functions, it is clear that they are 
 still permitted to exercise those functions 
 that do not come within that category. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 761 
 
 The question was severally taken upon the 
 propositions of Messrs. Conrad and Downs, 
 and they were rejected. 
 
 Mr. Downs then moved to insert after 
 the words "purely judicial." the following, 
 "and which do not properly belong to the 
 functioas of judge," and to strike out the 
 words "any jurisdiction." 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for 
 on Mr. Downs' amendment ; yeas 23, 
 nays 32. 
 
 Mr, Mayo then moved to strike out the 
 word "purely;" which motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor moved to add the 
 following. " and they shall receive no fees 
 of office." 
 
 Whereupon, on motion, the Convention I 
 adjourned. 
 
 Wednesday, April 23, T845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 -The proceedings were opened with pray- j 
 er by the Rev. Mr. High. 
 
 Mr. Marigny said he had been long 
 enough in this Convention for each one of] 
 its members to be persuaded that he was j 
 sincerely devoted to his country, and that 
 he would propose nothing which was not ! 
 for its present and future welfare. If any 
 one should feel surprised at the proposition j 
 I am now about to introduce, and which I 
 desire, may be placed in our social compact, 
 I will respond that no one is worthy of 
 holding the station of a legislator in a re- 
 public, who is fearful of assuming respon- 
 sibility when a question is involved, in 
 which all the citizens, of whatever station, 
 must feel an interest, and which will indu- 
 bitably be discussed in an inverse sense. 
 He had reflected for a long time, as well 
 upon the motives which determined him to 
 submit this clause to the examination of 
 the Convention, as well as upon the effects j 
 which it would produce if it were sanction- 
 ed. It does not belong to the matter now 
 under discussion, but will properly come 
 up in the general provisions. I shall then I 
 take that occasion to show that it is expe- ! 
 dient, and I trust that my arguments will 
 be understood. Inasmuch as the proposi- 
 tion is one of some consequence, I have 
 thought it not out of place to present it now, 
 in order that it may be taken into conside- 
 ration by the members of the Convention, 
 and that after due reflection, they may be 
 
 prepared to vote upon it. My colleague 
 (Mr. Eustis) will at my request make a 
 translation of the proposition — it is as fol- 
 lows: "The legislature shall have the 
 power to confer the rights and privileges 
 of citizenship upon those descendants of 
 persons of color, upon whom, for motives 
 of public policy, it may deem expedient; 
 provided, that said descendants be born in 
 I the State." 
 
 Mr. Marigny then proposed that the 
 foregoing resolution be laid on the table 
 subject to call. 
 
 The Convention then took up the 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 Section eleventh of the majority report, 
 as amended, viz: 
 
 Sec. 11. No court, or judge of any court, 
 appointed under this constitution, shall ex- 
 ercise any jurisdiction, or perform any func- 
 tions, but such as are judicial: and no other 
 duties or functions shall ever be attached 
 by law, to the office of a judge, but such as 
 are judicial. 
 
 The question under consideration at the 
 adjournment, was the motion of Mr. Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, to amend by adding 
 after the word "judicial," in the fourth 
 line, the words "or receive any fees of of- 
 fice." 
 
 On motion, said amendment was adopted. 
 Mr. Mayo moved to amend said section, 
 by inserting after the word "functions," in 
 the third line, the words "arise directly from 
 the exercise of judicial functions." 
 
 The Chair (Mr. Taylor of Assumption - 
 in the chair) decided the amendment to be 
 out of order. 
 
 Mr. Mayo appealed from the decision 
 of the chair. 
 
 On the question being put, the decision 
 was sustained. 
 
 Mr. Lewis then moved the adoption of 
 the section as amended, viz: 
 
 Sec. 11. No court, or judge of any court, 
 appointed under this constitution, shall ex- 
 ercise any jurisdiction, or perform any func- 
 tions but such as are judicial; or receive 
 any fees of office; and no other duties or 
 functions shall -ever be attached by law to 
 the office of a judge, but such as are judi- 
 cial. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the adoption of said section, * 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, 
 
762 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Chirm, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, King, 
 Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Mazureau, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Preston, Read, Saunders, Scott of Ba- 
 ton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, 
 Soule, Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Wederstrandt, Wikoff and Winchester vo- 
 ted in the affirmative — 41 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Guion, Labauve, Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, Roman, Trist and Waddill 
 voted in the negative — 8 nays; consequent- 
 ly said motion was carried, and the section 
 was adopted. 
 
 On motion, the twelfth section was taken 
 up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 12. No court, or judge ol any 
 court, shall ever have the power, by any 
 order or judgment, in any suit, process or 
 other proceeding before them, or pending 
 in such court, to order or adjudge any 
 money to be paid by the parties to such 
 suits or proceedings, or make any allow- 
 ance out of any money or property that 
 may be in actual custody of said court, or 
 officers thereof, except for the payment of 
 legal fees of the ministerial officers of the 
 said court, as allowed and established by 
 law. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin offered the following as 
 a substitute for said section, viz: 
 
 "No court, or judge of any court, shall 
 ever have the power to order the payment 
 or allowance of any fee or compensation, 
 to any attorney, curator ad hoc, or other 
 similar officer, appointed to represent any 
 minor, absent heir, creditor or other party 
 interested in any causo or proceeding, be- 
 fore such court or judge." 
 
 Mr. Guion moved to amend said substi- 
 tute by inserting after the word "compensa- 
 tion," the words "except such as are allow- 
 ed by law." 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said that he desired to 
 state a few considerations which rendered 
 the adoption of his proposition, or some 
 thing equivalent to it, of indispensable ne- 
 cessity. The abuses which have grown up 
 were without a parallel in the civilzed world. 
 Large sums of money were allowed by or- 
 der of the courts to persons who were ap- 
 pointed to represent absent heirs and ab- 
 sent creditors, without reference to the 
 value or the necessity of these 'services. 
 An attempt to put a stop to the evil had 
 
 been made in the legislature but it had 
 failed. There was a law limiting the 
 amount in insolvent cases and prescribing 
 that it should be paid out of the amounts 
 collected, but in ninety-nine cases it was 
 never carried into effect. He had known 
 of cases where the fees of the attorney to 
 represent the absent creditors exceeded the 
 dividend. In cases of successions an at- 
 torney was appointed to represent the ab- 
 sent heirs, and his duty was confined to 
 writing a simple letter to inform the parties 
 that were presumed to be interested, that 
 a succession was opened; and for this tri- 
 fling service four or five hundred dollars 
 and some times more were allowed by the 
 court, or for the attorney of the absent heirs 
 affixing his name to the inventory. This 
 course of proceeding was calculated to bring 
 great discredit upon the administration of 
 our laws. It was in fact a system of legal 
 plunder, of pillage, in which the property 
 of absentees were most unmercifully fleeced. 
 But these were not the only evils. It con- 
 ferred a great deal of patronage in the dis- 
 position of the judge, and enabled the 
 courts to sustain favorites at the bar. It 
 appeared to him to be one of the most fla- 
 grant abuses. The profession of the law 
 was as well remunerated as any of the lib- 
 eral professions. Its members ought to be 
 satisfied, and should be bound to represent 
 the absent parties until a correspondence 
 could be had between the parties. When 
 the judge would find it necessary to appoint 
 an attorney to comply with the formalities of 
 law, that attorney ought to tender his ser- 
 vice gratis; it was due by him to his pro- 
 fession; in the same way that a mefmber of 
 the bar would attend to a criminal case if 
 requested to do so by the judge, without 
 any compensation. He (Mr. Benjamin) 
 would willingly contribute his quota of ser- 
 vice, in order to put a stop to what might be 
 appropriately designated a legal plunder. 
 The members of the bar ought to be bound 
 to accept for the time being this amount of 
 tax upon their labor. It would be but little. 
 It was at present accumulated in the hands 
 of two or three, but if it were no longer a 
 source of emolument, it w r ould be distribu- 
 ted among the whole profession. He re- 
 peated that it was a service due to the pro- 
 fession, and it would preserve the judiciary 
 pure. It would do away with the money 
 patronage of the judges; they would not 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 763 
 
 have a score of protegies in their pay, and 
 unable to appropriate the money of ab- 
 sent persons without check or control. Eve- 
 ry thing like legislative control have prov- 
 ed inoperative. He hoped his proposition 
 would prevail. The members of the bar 
 would no doubt readily perform this duty. 
 It should be regarded as a part of the tax 
 for obtaining their diplomas, and they 
 would discharge it with the same alacrity 
 as if called upon to volunteer in a criminal 
 prosecution. 
 
 Mr. Mayo said he was anxious to stop 
 the sources of all possible abuses, but it was 
 indispensable that the absent creditors and 
 absent parties should be adequately repre- 
 sented. To insure this, there should be a 
 fee attached for the rendition of the ser- 
 vices, or otherwise the interest of parties 
 would be either totally neglected or ineffi- 
 ciently attended to. The best counsel, whose 
 time were valuable, would not engage in 
 these matters without being paid; nor did 
 he know that it ought to be expected that 
 these services ought to be rendered gratui- 
 tously, inasmuch as the parties interested 
 were in a situation to pay for the services 
 rendered. 
 
 Mr. Guion: 1 agree with the gentleman 
 from New Orleans, (Mr. Benjamin,) that 
 the allowances to attorneys to represent ab- 
 sent parties are frequently disproportionate 
 with the services rendered. His proposi- 
 tion however is more beautiful in theory 
 than in practice. I have no doubt that in 
 the generosity of his nature he would very 
 willingly contribute his services, but it 
 would not be so throughout the State. To 
 do away with the patronage of the judges 
 as he desires, it would be necessary to 
 change our whole system. The only reme- 
 dy that can be applied under existing cir- 
 cumstances, is to establish fixed fees in 
 such cases. 
 
 Mr. Beatty was opposed both to the 
 proposition of the gentleman from New 
 Orleans, (Mr. Benjamin,) and to the amend- 
 ment offered by his colleague from La- 
 , tourche (Mr. Guion,) although he consid- 
 ered the latter less exceptionable. He con- 
 sidered that every individual was entitled 
 to be paid for his services whether he were 
 ' an attorney at law or not. In his opinion 
 the proposition was a matter for legislation, 
 and should not be introdced into the con- 
 stitution. He conceded that serious abuses 
 
 may have arisen in New Orleans and some 
 other parishes. But in the section of coun- 
 try in which he lived there were no abuses 
 either in reference to this matter, or in re- 
 ference to others, which it seemed had else- 
 where brought the probate court system 
 into so much disfavor. As nothing is bet- 
 ter calculated to establish facts than actual 
 occurrences, he would state a case in 
 point. 
 
 In 1840 a widow married without ob- 
 taining the consent of a family meeting to 
 retain the tutorship of her minor children. 
 She was consequently by the effect of the 
 law deprived of it, and has sought in vain 
 to be reinstated. The amount of property 
 is large, and the security required by the 
 judge is consequently large. The minors 
 have no relations, or at least they have none 
 who are able to become tutors or tutrixes. 
 Strangers are unwilling to accept the charge, 
 and the minors remained without a tutor. 
 The property amounts to -twenty thousand 
 dollars; a number of suits had been institu- 
 ted against the father, but no judgment has 
 been obtained against the succession. Four 
 or five years ago 1 was appointed by the 
 court tutor ad hoc } to represent the*minors 
 and to defend them in several suits for va- 
 rious sums from four to five hundred dol- 
 lars, and one suit is for as mnch as twelve 
 thousand dollars. Now I would ask, in sim- 
 ilar cases is it reasonable to expect an at. 
 torney to give his services for a series of 
 years without compensation; and yet this 
 as well as many other cases would fall 
 under the gentleman's proposition where 
 the parties are able to pay. If abuses are 
 the result of the present system it ought to 
 be left to the legislature to provide the pros- 
 per remedies. It is not to be presumed 
 that the legislature will continue to neglect 
 their duties, nor that the judges appointed 
 for a limited term will neglect and violate 
 the intendment of the law for the purpose 
 of gratifying a few favorites at the bar. The 
 courts should be restrained in the exercise 
 of the faculty of making allowances with- 
 out putting it entirely out of their power to 
 make a reasonable allowance. 
 
 Mr. Lewis hoped that the amendment of 
 the delegate from Lafourche, (Mr. Guion,) 
 would not prevail. He did not know that 
 any great abuses existed in his section of 
 the country in relation to the administra- 
 tion of property which belonged to absent 
 
761 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 persons. He conceived it wrong in prin- 
 ciple to dispose of the property of such 
 persons without their knowledge or con- 
 sent. As he understood the proposition of 
 the delegate from New Orleans, (Mr. Ben- 
 jamin,) it did not interfere with a proper 
 allowance in proportion to the amount of 
 services rendered. It was simply intended 
 to restrain the judges as judges, and the 
 courts as courts. It was to take away what 
 was called their patronage, and which might 
 be distributed with a lavish hand among 
 their favorites. It was to leave the patrons 
 without the means to fill the pockets of 
 their favorites. He thought it a necessary 
 principle and that it ought to be incorpora- 
 ted in the organic law. He did not believe 
 that any judge was so corrupt as to have 
 any personal interest in the distribution of 
 these amounts, for the services that were 
 rendered, and which were^in striking dis- 
 proportion to those services. He did not 
 believe that, to use a common expression 
 the judge went snacks, but it is possible 
 that corruption and venality may find its 
 way into high places. Even the distinguish- 
 ed philosopher and jurist, Francis Lord 
 Bacon *vas seduced from the paths of rec- 
 titude. We should guard and protect the 
 judiciary, and if possible place it beyond 
 the reach of suspicion. 1 apprehend there 
 will be uo difficulty in carrying out the 
 proposition of the delegate Mr. Benjamin. 
 Whoever heard that when the services of a 
 lawyer were required that he did not free- 
 ly volunteer them, although he Was con- 
 scious that they would be rendered without 
 compensation. I have never heard of a 
 respectable attorney who has refused to 
 defend a criminal because that criminal had 
 not thejneans of paying him. In an ex- 
 perience of twenty years at the bar, I have 
 never heard of any thing of the kind. It 
 is considered a point of honor among the 
 profession, and these services are dischar- 
 ged with as much alacrity and as much 
 zeal as if they were secured by a large fee. 
 The amendment of the delegate from La- 
 fourche I consider unnecessary. I hope 
 the proposition will be adopted without the 
 amendment. 
 
 Mr. Brent said, I agree in principle, 
 but I differ in the construction placed upon 
 Ihe proposition by the delegate from St, 
 Landry, (Mr. Lewis.) The language I 
 understood to be similar to that reported by 
 
 the committee. I consider that the legis* 
 lature would not have the power to impose 
 upon the courts under the restriction, the 
 appointment of attorneys to represent ab- 
 sent parties, and to allow them a compen- 
 sation. Some provision ought to be made 
 for allowing a reasonable compensation in 
 such cases, but I am opposed to the courts 
 fixing that compensation. I think that it 
 ought to be fixed by the legislature ; it 
 ought to be established by law, and I think 
 that the original section, with a slight alter- 
 ation, would accomplish that result. 
 
 Mr. Dunn thought it better to postpone 
 the consideration of this subject. There 
 was no doubt of the fact that many abuses 
 were the result of allowing the judges to 
 appoint the attorneys, and then allowing 
 them their fees. But he thought that if no 
 provision was made, the interests of absent 
 persons would suffer. Unless the attorney 
 appointed was paid for his services, the in- 
 terests of the parties would not be properly 
 represented. At any rate, this was a mat- 
 ter within the competency of the legisla- 
 ture. A provision even might be intro- 
 duced to make it obligatory upon the legis- 
 lature to prescribe suitable legislation. It 
 might h'-ppen that a man living in Missis- 
 sippi might have large interests in this 
 State to be protested, and under the propo- 
 sition of the delegate from New Orleans 
 (Mr. Benjamin) he would command the 
 services of a member of the bar for no- 
 thing. On the other hand, it might prove 
 injurious to the party represented, for alter 
 all there was nothing like interest, and 
 lawyers were not an exception from the 
 general rule. I do not say so, but it is a 
 prevalent opinion. The legislature could 
 take all such.,measures as were necessary. 
 
 Mr. Preston was opposed to laying the 
 section upon the table. It had been post- 
 poned once before. He thought the Con- 
 vention should go through with it. To his 
 mind it was one of the wisest provisions, 
 and to show how necessary it was consid- 
 ered, he would state the fact, that it had 
 met with the unanimous sanction of both 
 the majority and minority of the committee. 
 He preferred the original section to the 
 substitute of the delegate from New Or- 
 leans (ftfr. Benjamin.) The only objection 
 to the original section was, that there was 
 some little obscurity in the middle of it. It 
 might be construed that the judge could not 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 765 
 
 order the payment of money. But. the 
 phraseology could be changed. It could 
 be pat into proper form by the revising 
 committee ; but we are met by the objec- 
 tion that these abuses could be cured by 
 legislative intervention. To this he would 
 reply, that they had existed for thirty or 
 forty years,- and no attempt had been made 
 to remedy them. They had grown up, and 
 were piled like Ossa upon Pelion. It was 
 safe to infer from their overwhelming in- 
 fluence, that they would predominate here- 
 after, and as the legislature had never pro- 
 vided a remedy, it was to be presumed 
 they could not, since they had not. It was 
 fallacious to argue from special cases. But 
 take the strong case put by the delegate 
 from Lafourche (Mr. Beatty) where the 
 minors were able to pay, and could have 
 paid. The judge might have appointed a 
 planter or a merchant, as the tutor ad hoc, 
 and the tutor could have employed the law- 
 yer, and have stipulated for his fees. This 
 would have been the course, had it not 
 been competent for the judge to make the 
 selection of an attorney. He (Mr. Preston) 
 objected to the money patronage of the 
 jud^e. It produced crying evils in this 
 community, thoughout the State. Persons 
 had begun to regard it as so much busi- 
 ness, to which they were legitimately en- 
 titled, and it had so far blunted their feel- 
 ings that they were glad to hear of a fail- 
 ure or a death. The result was that the 
 interests of a few favorites were exclusive- 
 ly consulted, and with moderate talents 
 they obtained a great ascendancy over the 
 judge. It went so far, that parties saw it, 
 and they would go and employ the judge's 
 favorite, to gain their case. He had no 
 idea that there was any corruption of mo- 
 ney, but there was a corruption of influ- 
 ence. This power of allowing money out 
 of the estates of absent persons, or of per- 
 sons incapable of representing themselves, 
 ought to be repudiated. It resulted in the 
 dilapidation of estates, and rendered them 
 in many instances insolvent. There were 
 but few exceptions, and these were in 
 large estates. There was more paid to 
 protect estates, frequently, than was left 
 to be divided among the heirs, or distributed 
 among the creditors. The. legislature had 
 fixed a fee of two hundred and fifty dollars 
 for the attorney to represent absent credit- 
 ors, in insolvent cases, to which each of 
 97 
 
 the creditors were to contribute proportion- 
 ably. But a great deal more than that 
 amount was allowed in spite of the law. 
 The consequences of the practice was to 
 encourage enormous fees, and the attorneys 
 for absent heirs were allowed large sums 
 of money when it was not possible that the 
 heirs themselves should ever get one cent. 
 The features were the same in insolvent 
 estates. The favorite attorney was paid, 
 even though the creditors should not get 
 one cent. The practice had become ha- 
 bitual, and the parties interested did not 
 think they were doing wrong. An attorney 
 who was a witness to these proceedings, 
 could not reprobate them, because it would 
 deprive him of his standing in the courts, 
 li ou cannot reprobate the judges. It can- 
 not be dene, and will not be done. The 
 Convention have the opportunity of render- 
 ing the judiciary pure, and not only pure, 
 but like Caesar's wife, beyond suspicion. 
 | The judges will applaud you to the skies. 
 If you deprive them of this money patron- 
 age, by which they will be relieved from 
 | the swarm of parasites that hover about 
 | them with their mouths open, to devour in- 
 i solvent estates and successions. There is 
 ' no other State in the Union where this 
 I money patronage is to be found. The course 
 pursued elsewhere, where absent persons 
 : are interested, is to make publications in 
 the public papers. In most cases of at- 
 | tachment or seizure, the garnishee is the 
 agent of the defendant, and would properly 
 represent his interests. As relates to mi- 
 nors, I have answered the case submitted 
 by the gentleman from Lafourche (.Mr. 
 Beatty.) In the case of estates of deceased 
 persons, the executor can represent the 
 interest of the absent heirs as well as an 
 attorney specially appointed for that pur- 
 pose. The same thing can be said of the 
 curator. The executor had the confidence 
 of the testator, as is shown by the will, and 
 that should be conclusive. The curator 
 has the confidence of the court. It is a 
 humbug got up to pretend that the interest 
 of absent persons are to be taken care of 
 by the courts through the intervention of 
 favorite attorneys, who are to be rewarded 
 by extravagant fees, and in fact to the great 
 detriment of the interests of those whom 
 they are to represent. If the interests of 
 these parties are likely to suffer, it might 
 be made the duty of district attorneys, 
 
766 
 
 Debates in the onvention of Louisiana, 
 
 throughout the State, to intervene in all 
 such cases to protect their interests, until 
 they made themselves known, or caused 
 themselves to be duly represented. This 
 would be infinitely better. In the city of 
 New Orleans, and for the parish of Jeffer- 
 son, it would be, perhaps, necessary to in- 
 crease the salary of the district attorney, 
 by reason of the great accumulation of 
 labor that would result, and this could be 
 done by increasing the tax upon foreign 
 successions, which has been established. 
 He believed the parties that were so much 
 benefitted by the existing system, were not 
 aware that there was any thing wrong in 
 it, and they were led to believe that they 
 could get property without adequate labor. 
 One of the first objects is to. render your 
 courts pure and unsullied. This was a 
 reform most loudly called for. 
 
 Mr. Chinn said he could not consent by 
 his vote to admit this matter into the con- 
 stitution. It was a subject of pure legisla- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Soule deemed it to be his duty, un- 
 der a sense of impartiality, to correct some 
 errors into which the gentleman had fallen 
 in treating the subject. That there has 
 been abuses in the administration of suc- 
 cessions, and in the administration of the 
 estates of insolvents admitted of no doubt. 
 But he must confess he felt surprised that 
 two members of the New Orleans bar 
 should attribute these abuses in any way 
 to the judge. They have grown out of de- 
 fective legislation. To hear the gentle- 
 man from Jefferson (Mr. Preston), one 
 would suppose that the judges were at fault. 
 It had always been in the power of the le- 
 gislature to apply a remedy for any abuses 
 that might be found to exist in the system. 
 In regard to the amounts allowed to attor- 
 neys to represent absent heirs, the judge 
 of the court of probates in the city, never 
 took it upon himself to fix the fees in such 
 cases. That is not the practice. The 
 course was to present the account and have 
 it discussed before the judge contradictori- 
 ly, as in common cases, and the proof had 
 to be administered to the judge in the 
 presence of the parties that might choose to 
 contest the claim. He did not speak from 
 his own experience, for he had never been 
 appointed to represent absent parties and 
 never should be ; but he spoke from what 
 he had seen in cases in which he was in- 
 
 terested in a practice of fifteen years. 
 Mow is it then assumed by the gentlemen 
 who are familiar with the practice, as a 
 fact unsusceptible of contradiction, that the 
 judges assess the fees of those whom they 
 may choose to appoint to render these ser- 
 vices. I never have known any judge to 
 assume such a power. It is for the cura= 
 tor, administrator or executor to put down 
 any exhorbitant claim. It is simply pre- 
 sented among other claims to be homolo- 
 gated, and public notice is given in the 
 newspapers f to the end that any one who 
 may feel interested, may contest the claim. 
 It is throwing a responsibility by asserting 
 that the judge takes upon himself any pow- 
 er to make the allowance arbitrarily; it is 
 never assumed, and never can be assumed 
 by the judge under your law. After eras- 
 ing from the statute books, the parish judge 
 and probate court system, although it has 
 been intimated that New Orleans is the 
 place of the greatest abuses in relation to 
 these matters, I dare assert, that the judge 
 of the probate court never takes it upon 
 himself to allow any claim unless the proofs 
 be exhibited in the presence of the parties 
 interested. 
 
 I desired, said Mr. Soule, to correct the 
 gentleman, because an impression might 
 have been created which was not author- 
 ized by the facts. It is but an act of sim- 
 ple justice to the gentleman who presides 
 over the court of probates in the city to 
 make these explanations. Now, in refer- 
 ence to the merit of the question, I will ob- 
 serve that it is a mere matter of legisla- 
 tion, and it ought not to be interpolated in 
 the constitution. If you cannot trust your 
 legislature, you might as well abolish it. 
 But it strikes me that this want of confi- 
 dence in the legislature is tantamount to 
 denying the right of the people to govern 
 themselves. If you cannot trust your legis- 
 lature in the unimportant matter of regula- 
 ting the fees of attornies for absent parties, 
 you might as well, and better, refuse them 
 the powers with which they have been so 
 largely vested in the constitution. He 
 would vote against taking this matter out of 
 its appropriate sphere. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said that his colleague 
 (Mr. Soule) labored under a misapprehen- 
 sion, or he would not certainly have volun- 
 teered a defence where no attack had been 
 made. I have not heard a syllable attack- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 767 
 
 ing the judge of the court of probates, or 
 any other judicial functionary, and I am 
 surprised that the gentleman should have 
 so construed any thing that might have 
 been sdkl. Nothing that I said could bear 
 such a construction. I spoke generally 
 and cited the proceedings in insolvent ca- 
 ses, and it is not the court of probates that 
 has any thing to do with these bankrupt- 
 cies. I stated that there was a law regu- 
 lating these charges. That law has been 
 passed about twenty-eight years. It pro- 
 vides that the fees shall be paid by the 
 mass of the 'creditors from the amount re- 
 covered, at "the rate of five per cent. Why 
 did I cite the law? It was to show that 
 the legislature had acted, but that their en- 
 actment was totally inefficient. It was the 
 daily practice, where not one cent was col- 
 lected, to exact exhorhitant fees in direct 
 contradiction with the law. Did I say that 
 the judges were responsible? It is the 
 fault of the system itself, which admits of 
 the abuse. It is in this way that the transac- 
 tion is consummated : A. is the attorney 
 of the sjTidic of the estate; B. has been ap- 
 pointed by the court, attorney to represent 
 the absent creditors. When it becomes 
 necessary for A. to file his tableau into 
 court, he meets B. and asks him for his ac- 
 count. B. makes out the account accord- 
 ing to how much he can get out of the es- 
 tate, and not according to the amount of 
 actual services rendered. A. is a friend to 
 B. 5 and he says this is not my business, the 
 amount is large, but there are gross abuses 
 in these matters, and he puts down B. for 
 the full amount of his fee. The tableau is 
 presented to the court, and the usual notice 
 is given preparatory to its homologation. 
 B. figures upon it for two, three or five hun- 
 dred dollars, when in point of fact his ser- 
 vices were not worth twenty dollars. Af- 
 ter the expiration often days the tableau is 
 homologated as a matter of course, there 
 being no opposition. It happens that there^ 
 are a large number- of creditors, and the 
 dividend to each is small; and the increase 
 would not be sufficient to induce them to 
 contest B.'s claim. B. pockets the money, 
 to which he has no right. This is unjust, 
 and it is to this abuse I wish to see applied 
 an efficacious remedy. 
 
 In the case of successions, the practice 
 is but little varied, and the result is the same. 
 A. is the attorney of a succession. B. has 
 
 been appointed by the court to represent 
 the absent heirs. The executor has no 
 interest in the matter. His duty is limited 
 to administering the estate in conformity 
 with law. The tableau is about to be pla- 
 ced in court, and B. hands in his account, 
 which, as a matter of course is placed upon 
 it. No opposition is made, and the judge 
 presumes that it is right. Thus it is that 
 the man who is appointed to protect the in- 
 terest of the absent party, finds himself in 
 the singular position of being interested to 
 plunder h#n. The abuse exists, and it is 
 manifest that the legislature has failed to 
 apply a remedy. It must be borne in mind 
 too that there are strong motives for uphold- 
 ing these abuses. They are the sources 
 of immense, profits. They ought to be up- 
 rooted in the constitution, and I think no 
 matter too small which tends directly to 
 uphold the purity of the judiciary. 1 at- 
 tack no man, and it. is gratuitous to sup- 
 pose any thing of the kind. I repeat again 
 that it is the fault of the system, and not the 
 fault of individuals. One of the principal 
 causes that -promoted the call of the Con- 
 vention, was to reform the "abuses in the 
 judiciary. They have caused more com- 
 plaint than any thing else. I can see no 
 objections to impose so slight a tax upon 
 lawyers. They are at any rate a privi- 
 leged class. They have to undergo a pre- 
 liminary examination, and if admitted they 
 are privileged to pursue the profession, ex- 
 clusive of ail others who are not admitted. 
 This, is an advantage. It is not so with 
 manual employments. The apprentice to 
 the brick-layer or carpenter, may set him- 
 self up as a journeyman, and get the same 
 wages. It is clearly within the competen* 
 cy of the authorities, as the price of the li- 
 cense, to impose upon the lawyer the duty 
 of attending to ail cases where the parties 
 are absent, gratuitously, as is now done in 
 relation to criminal cases, when the accus- 
 ed has not the means of employing counsel. 
 It would be a light tax, and it is one to 
 which they ought to be subjected. I know 
 of no other way to cure the evil. The au- 
 thority to dispose of another man's money 
 without his consent, or without his know- 
 ledge is in violation of every principle of 
 right an^ justice. The system? has led to 
 crying abuses, and it ought to be put a stop 
 to forever. 
 
 Mr, Preston said that he attacked no 
 
768 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 one in the remarks which he had submit 
 ted to the Convention. He certainly did 
 not intend to say one word against the in- 
 dividual to whom reference had been had. 
 He entertained for him the highest respect 
 and kindest feelings. 
 
 Mr. Soule: The remarks of the gentle- 
 men amount to this, that they have not at- 
 tacked any one. Where have these abu- 
 ses originated?, They admit that the evils 
 that exist have grown ouf of legislation. 
 Because our legislation has been ineffi- 
 cient should we frame a body of laws? It 
 has been stated that no allusion was made 
 to the judges. I thought there was an un- 
 just allusion made to them, but I did not 
 intend to charge that such allusion was 
 made by my colleague, (Mr. Benjamin.) 
 Frequent allusions have been" had during 
 this debate to the parish judge and probate 
 judge of New Orleans. From what has 
 been said, it might be inferred that they 
 were the supreme rulers of the fees allow- 
 ed to attorneys appointed to represent ab- 
 sent parties. This^is not the fact. There 
 is not a bar in the world where good offi- 
 ces are rendered with more generosity 
 than by the bar of New Orleans. I never 
 heard that any citizen whose honor, life, 
 and reputation were at stake, however 
 humble or poor he might be, that wanted 
 the assistance of the best defence of which 
 his case was susceptible.* As far as their 
 1 iberality were taxed they were willing to 
 accent the trust. But I do not think that 
 it would be proper to impose an obligation 
 upon them in the constitution, which, after 
 all involved a question of generosity, and 
 not of duty. We were not here to consti- 
 tute laws, but to form a constitution. For 
 these reasons, he should vote against the 
 proposition. 
 
 Mr. Eustis begged permission to submit 
 one or two remarks. He thought it wise 
 and salutary to deprive the judges of every 
 species of patronage. It was considered 
 by the committee that the work assigned 
 to them was not complete without some 
 such guard as they proposed in the section. 
 In a sister State, where similar abuses had 
 grown up, a similar remedy had been ap- 
 plied. He would take the liberty of read- 
 ing from the constitution of New Hamp- 
 shire. [lVfv. E. here read the clause refer- 
 red to.] No where else did the system ex- 
 ist of making allowances out of the money 
 
 of absent persons. It was regarded as sa- 
 cred, and held inviolate. He could see no 
 good reason why a contrary practice should 
 prevail here. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to lay the^ section, 
 the substitute and amendment on the table 
 indefinitely. The yeas and nays being cal- 
 led for, (Mr. Taylor of Assumption in the 
 chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Briant, Carriere, Chinn, 
 Labauve, Soule and Trist voted in the af- 
 firmative — 7 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra. 
 zeale, Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, 
 Chambliss, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Dunn, Eus- 
 tis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, 
 Hynson, Kenner, King, Legendre, Lewis, 
 McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazu- 
 reau, Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Prudhom- 
 me, Read, Roman, St. Amand, Saunders, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Waddill, 
 Wederstrandt, Wikoff and Winchester vo- 
 ted in the negative — 50 nays; consequently 
 said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad thought some such 
 amendment was necessary as was propos- 
 ed by the delegate from Lafourche, (Mr. _ 
 Guion.) Cases will arise, as have arisen, 
 where the rights of those not competent to 
 represent themselves would have to be re- 
 presented. He was disposed to give as 
 much credit to the members of the bar of 
 New Orleans for liberality, as to the mem- 
 bers of any other profession, and they would 
 have to be as ready to perform any service 
 gratuitously as the members of any other 
 profession. But why declare 'that they 
 shall render important services for ever 
 gratuitously. If they were willing to ren- 
 der these services in particular cases, of 
 the exigency of which they were the 
 best judges, \vrfy let them do so. Let them 
 have the privilege of selecting the proper 
 object for their liberality. He could see 
 no reason in subjecting them by an irrevo- 
 cable rule to render services to a rich heir 
 in France or in England. Such cases would 
 not be proper subjects for charity. It had 
 been stated that experience had proved that 
 laws were inefficient to correct the evil 
 complained of. Why the judge was as 
 much bound to conform to the law as 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 769 
 
 he was to the constitution. Both were 1 
 obligatory, and if the law was render- { 
 ed inoperative by the neglect of the 
 judge, the constitutional provision might in 
 the same way remain inoperative. H He 
 concurred in opinion that there ought to be 
 a curb put to judicial patronage, to arrest 
 the abuses that resulted from it. Eut he 
 thought this was a proper subject for legis- 
 lation. 
 
 With leave of the house, Mr. Benjamin 
 withdrew the substitute offered by him. 
 
 Mr. Lewis then offered the following 
 substitute, viz: 
 
 No court or judge shall make any allow- 
 ance by way of fee or compensation in 
 any suit or proceeding, except for the pay- 
 ment of such fees to ministerial officers as 
 may be established by law. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved the adoption of said 
 substitute. 
 
 Mr. Conrad said that this amendment 
 did not meet precisely his views, nor his 
 argument. He would move to strike out 
 the words "ministerial officers." 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said that these words 
 were placed in the substitute at his request; 
 without them we should accomplish noth- 
 ! ing. 
 
 Mr. Beatty would call the particular 
 attention of the Convention to what they 
 were about incorporating in the constitu- 
 tion. He considered it absurd to declare 
 in that instrument that the members of the 
 bar should render services gratuitously for 
 strangers which were not even pretended 
 to be claimed for our own citizens; to ren- 
 der services to every foreigner upon the 
 surface of the globe. If the question was 
 understood, it could not, nor would not re- 
 ceive the sanction of the Convention. I 
 can very well understand, and I conceive 
 it to be proper, when the law has compell- 
 ed the foreign heir to present himself, or 
 to be duly represented by a power of at- 
 torney, that the right of action of the coun- 
 sel appointed by the court to represent 
 him, to a reasonable compensation, should 
 ; be postponed until he is present, or repre- 
 sented by his own orders; but until this 
 , be done, it is nothing more than just that 
 ! the attorney appointed for the protection 
 ! of his rights should be compensated for 
 his services out of the property which is 
 protected. Now, as to the amount of that 
 allowance, it should not be unreasonable 
 
 I nor disproportionate to the services ren- 
 I dered. In almost every country attach- 
 ment suits are brought against the proper- 
 ty of non-residents. There surely is some 
 way of getting at the property, whether 
 they appoint an attorney to defend the in- 
 terests of the absent person, as in Louisi- 
 ana, or not. I am but little familiar with 
 the common law practice; but 1 presume 
 there must be some mode of enforcing 
 payment, and of proceeding against the 
 party. There are many of our citizens 
 who have to be represented in our sister 
 States, in matters of pecuniary interest. 
 It may become necessary that I should be 
 represented in the State of ^Kentucky. If 
 legal services were rendered in that State 
 m my behalf, whether I were compelled 
 to pay for them or not by law, I should 
 feel nevertheless bound to do so. 1 am 
 not willing to leave this a matter of gen- 
 erosity. In equity, I conceive that the 
 party represented is bound to pay for the 
 services rendered. There should be some 
 legal means then of enforcing payment. 
 But this proposition debars you. It de- 
 bars you even if the party appear, and af- 
 though you may have represented him in 
 matters of immense value, and would be 
 entitled to recover your claim before any 
 judge or any jury, you are debarred from 
 suing him. The court has no power of 
 allowing you one cent, nor can you seek 
 payment by any other means. As for the 
 amendment of my colleague fromLafourche, 
 (Mr. Guion) I consider it impracticable. 
 It is impossible to fix the fee to be receiv- 
 ed by-a legislative act. The amount allow- 
 ed may be insufficient, or it may be exhor- 
 bitant, according to the particular service 
 rendered. The only remedy which injny 
 opinion can be applied, would be ,to re- 
 quire that no allowance should be made by 
 the court, to the attorney appointed, but 
 that he should have his recourse against 
 the individual for whom he appeared, or 
 his duly qualified agent. That remedy 
 would meet the difficulty, and I should be 
 satisfied with it. 
 
 Mr. Chinn called for the previous ques- 
 tion. 
 
 The yeas and' nays were called for on 
 Mr. Conrad's motion to strike out the 
 words "to ministerial officers," (Mr. Taylor 
 of Assumption it the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Carriere, Con- 
 
770 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Dunn, 
 Garrett, Ouion, King, Labauve, Ledoux, 
 Porter, Scott of Feliciana, Splane and Trist 
 voted in the affirmative* — 15 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Chambliss, ( 'o- 
 villion, Chinn, Eustis, Hudspeth, Humble, 
 Bynson, Kenner, Legendre, Lewis, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazu- 
 reau, Peets, Prescott of Avoyelies, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Read, Roman, St. Amand, Saunders, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Waddill, 
 Wederstrandt, WikofT and Winchester vo- 
 ted in the negative— 39 nays; consequent- 
 ly said motipn was lost. 
 
 Mr. Dunn offered the following amend- 
 ment, to be inserted after the word "com- 
 pensation," viz: 
 
 "Unless such compensation be allowed 
 by a judgment rendered contradictorily 
 with the parties interested." 
 • Mr. Dunn moved for the adoption of 
 said amendment; which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved for the adoption of 
 the substitute; the yeas and nays being 
 called for, (Mr. Taylor of Assumption in 
 the diair,) 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale Brent, Brumfield, .Burton, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Chinn, Covillion, Eustis, Huds- 
 peth, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, Legendre, 
 Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Peets, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Preston, Prudhomme, Read, St. 
 Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Waddill, Wederstrandt, WikofT and 
 Winchester voted in the affirmative — 36 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Downs, Garrett, Guion, 
 King, Labauve, Ledoux, Mayo, Mazureau, 
 Porter, Roman, Saunders, Scott of Felici- 
 ana, Sellers, Splane, Trist and Wadsworth 
 voted in the negative — 19 nays ; conse- 
 quently said motion was carried, and the 
 substitute adopted. 
 
 On motion, the fourteenth section was 
 taken up, viz.: 
 
 Sec. 14. There shall be an attorney, 
 general for the State, and as many other 
 prosecuting attorneys for the State as may 
 be hereafter found necessary. The said 
 attorneys shall be appointed by the gover- 
 
 nor, with the advice and approbation of the 
 senate. Their duties shall be determined 
 by law. . 
 
 Mr. McRae moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by striking out the words, " the said 
 attorneys shall be appointed by the gover- 
 nor, by and with the advice and approbation 
 of the senate," and insert in lieu thereof 
 the following amendment, viz : 
 
 "The attorney general shall be elected 
 by the qualified electors of the State at 
 large, and the prosecuting attorneys, by 
 the qualified electors of the several dis- 
 tricts." 
 
 Mr. Read moved for a division, that is, 
 the Convention first proceed to sirike out 
 the words "the said attorneys shall be ap- 
 pointed," &c; which motion prevailed. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the motion to strike out, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Car- 
 riere, Chambliss, Covillion, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Ledoux, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles;, Pres- 
 ton, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Stephens, Trist, W T addill and 
 Wederstrandt voted in the affirmative — 28 
 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Chinn, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad 
 of Jefferson, Dunn, Eustis, Guion, Gar- 
 rett, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Ro- 
 man, St. Anfand, Saunders, Sellers, Splane, j 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Lan- ' 
 dry, Wadsworth, WikofT and Winchester 
 voted in the negative — 31 nays ; conse- 
 quently the motion was lost. 
 
 On motion, the said fourteenth section 
 was adopted. 
 
 On motion, the fifteenth section was 
 taken up, viz : 
 
 Sec. 15. The State shall be divided into 
 the following judicial districts, in each of 
 which one judge, learned in the law, shall 
 be appointed. Said districts shall remain 
 unchanged until the first day of January, 
 eighteen hundred and fifty one. 
 
 The first district shall be composed of 
 the parishes oi Plaquemines, St. Bernard 
 and Orleans. 
 
 Second district, of St. Charles and 
 Jefferson. 
 
 Third district, of Ascension, St. James 
 and St. John the Baptist. 
 
Debates in the Convention ol Louisiana. 
 
 771 
 
 Fourth district, of Assumption, La- 
 fourche Interior and Terrebonne. 
 
 Fifth district, of Iberville, West Baton 
 Rouge and Point Coupee. 
 
 Sixth district, of East Feliciana and 
 West Feliciana. 
 
 Seventh district, of St. Helena, Wash- 
 ington and St. Tammany. 
 
 Eighth district, of East Baton Rouge 
 and Livingston. 
 
 Ninth district, of Natchitoches and Clai- 
 borne. 
 
 Tenth district, of Caddo, De Soto and 
 Bossier. 
 
 Eleventh district, of Rapides and Avoy- 
 elles. 
 
 Twelfth district, of Sabine and Cal- 
 casieu. 
 
 Thirteenth district, of St. Landry and 
 Lafayette. 
 
 Fourteenth district, of St. Mary, St. 
 Martin and Vermillion. 
 
 Fifteenth district, of Union, Morehouse 
 and Ouachita. 
 
 Sixteenth district, of Caldwell, Franklin 
 and Catahoula. 
 
 Seventeenth district, of Carroll and 
 Madison. 
 
 Eighteenth district, Tensas and Con- 
 cordia. 
 
 Mr. Porter moved to amend the first 
 paragraph of said section , by striking out 
 the word "appointed" and insert in lieu 
 :hereof, the words "elected by joint ballot 
 of both houses of the general Assembly/' 
 
 Mr. Porter said he did not intend to dis- 
 :uss this question at length, but he would 
 briefly give his views ; he conceived that 
 :he question was pre-determined, and that 
 aothing he could urge would change the 
 determination of this house. We were 
 :old on this floor that, the legislature was 
 f iot to be trusted, and this, too, by gentle- 
 nen that had served in that body. If he 
 ;ad have made such a statement about 
 gentlemen who are now occupying seats 
 m this floor, and were formerly members 
 of the legislsture, (and there is a large pro- 
 portion of the members of this body that 
 Have been members of the legislature) he 
 vvould have expected to have been called 
 )ut, and perhaps his life have been the 
 brfeit; but gentlemen were the best judges 
 )f their own honesty. Sir, no gentleman 
 jan believe that this charge is made se- 
 •iously, or with any other view than to sac- 
 
 rifice the legislature to the executive power. 
 The first thing done by this body was to 
 establish a legislature, consisting of a sen- 
 ate and house of representatives; now, sir, 
 if they are not to be trusted, let us abolish 
 them, and appoint a governor general and 
 council, and save the expense of legislation. 
 But, sir, I would ask, does not the legisla- 
 ture emanate more directly from the people, 
 and is it not more directly responsible to 
 them than any other department of the 
 government] To mistrust it is to mistrust 
 the people, for it is essentially the organ of 
 
 the people. 
 
 But what is the executive? A 
 
 single individual, removed much farther 
 from the people, consequently much less 
 acquainted with their local wants and in- 
 terests, is more likely to be deceived and 
 to make improper appointments than the 
 legislature would be, the members of which 
 are acquainted with all the applicants from 
 the different parts of . the State, therefore 
 the accumulation of power in the hands of 
 the executive ought to be avoided. We 
 have already confered on the governor the 
 right of appointing the supreme judges; let 
 the legislature by joint ballot elect the dis- 
 trict judges; this would be a* wholesome 
 check on the executive, whose powers and 
 patronage is now too great, and is exerting 
 baneful influence over the country. All 
 the arguments that have been urged against 
 the appointing power being plaxed in the 
 hands of the legislature, to-wit: log-rolling, 
 favoritism, corruption, bribe] y, &c, will 
 apply with ten-fold force to the governor; 
 in the latter instance there is but one man 
 to tamper with or corrupt; in the other you 
 would have to tamper with or corrupt many; 
 at the same moment is not the legislature 
 acting under the solemnities of. an oath, as 
 well as the governor or the judges? Has 
 not our' governors and judges been mem- 
 bers of the legislature? and are they now 
 honester than they were then? Would 
 they not be as easily tampered with now as 
 then? Why, then, this abuse of the legis- 
 lature? 
 
 We were, the other day, much amused 
 by the gentleman from New Orleans (Mr. 
 Conrad) in the. description he gave of the 
 multiplicity cf the powers and functions 
 confered on the parish judges. He told us 
 that John Stiles (as he supposed. the parish 
 judge's name to' be) was parish judge, 
 that John Stiles was probate judge, that he 
 
772 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 was notary public, that he was auctioneer, 
 &c, &c, giving him I think nine different 
 offices or functions; now, sir, I do mpst 
 heartily concur with the gentleman in be- 
 lieving that there is nothing more odious 
 than giving so many different offices or 
 functions to any one individual or officer; 
 and as the Convention has killed off little 
 John Stiles for that crime, I hope we will 
 kill of old John Stiles, the governor, the 
 father of all the Stiles'. But let us com- 
 pare the power and patronage of little John 
 Stiles with old John Stiles the governor; 
 little John had nine functions — old John 
 has the appointment of the supreme court, 
 and I suppose all the district courts, of fifty 
 sheriffs, of fifty coroners, of three hundred 
 notaries, five hundred justices of the peace, 
 and a thousand others too tedious to men- 
 tion. Now, sir, I hope this house will kill 
 off all the family of Stiles', and leave all 
 the appointments to the legislature and the 
 people. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said that he would explain 
 his vote; he was not in favor of the election 
 of the judges by the people, but he was in 
 favor of* their election by the legislature. 
 With the view of carrying that principle 
 into effect he would say yes. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Brum- 
 field, Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, Gar- 
 rett, Humble, Hynson, Lewis, McCallop, 
 McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Stephens, 
 Trist, Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in 
 the affirmative — 23 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Briant, Chinn, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad 
 of Jefferson, Dunn, Eustis, Guion, Huds- 
 peth, ' Kenner, King, Labauve, Ledoux, 
 Legendre, Marigny, Mazureau, Prescott 
 of St. Landry, Roman, St. Amand Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Splane, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Wadsworth and Wikoff voted in the nega- 
 tive — 30 nays; consequently said motion 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved to amend said 
 paragraph by striking out the words "said 
 districts shall remain unchanged until the 
 first day of January, eighteen hundred and 
 fifty-one," and insert in lieu thereof the 
 words "said districts may be changed by 
 the legislature"— which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Beatty then offered the following 
 as a substitute for the whole section, viz: 
 
 The first legislature assembled under 
 this constitution, shall divide the State into 
 not less than fifteen judicial districts, nor 
 more than twenty-four, which shall remain 
 unchanged for six years thereafter, and be 
 subject to re-organization once in every 
 six years only — for each of which district 
 one judge, learned in the law, shall be 
 appointed. 
 
 Mr, Beatty moved the adoption of the 
 above substitute. 
 
 Mr. So'ule moved for the previous ques- 
 tion, which motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved to amend said sub- 
 stitute by striking out the word "ten" and 
 insert the word "six" in lieu thereof, which 
 motion prevailed. 
 
 On the motion of Mr. Beatty for the 
 adoption of the substitute, the yeas and 
 nays nays being called for resulted as fol- 
 lows — : yeas 26, nays 32. 
 
 Mr. Porter then moved to amend said 
 first paragraph as follows, viz: 
 
 The State shall be divided into ten judi- 
 cial districts. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the adoption of said amendment, resulted as 
 follows — yeas 7, nays 51. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved the adoption of the 
 first paragraph as reported, which motion 
 prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Lewis then moved the adoption of 
 the remainder of said section. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption moved for a 
 division, that is, to adopt the remainder of 
 said section by districts — which motion 
 prevailed. 
 
 Mr. W adsworth said that he hoped his 
 amendment would prevail. The parishes 
 of St. Bernard and Plaquemines ought to 
 form a separate judicial district. If it were 
 embraced in the New Orleans district, it 
 would be inconvenient to the inhabitants; 
 and they would have to come to the city to 
 attend to any legal business they might 
 have. In the settlement of successions, 
 this would be very troublesome, and the 
 business of those parishes would be ex- 
 posed to neglect, from the great press of 
 business in the city. 
 
 Mr. Brent said he would remind the 
 gentleman, that the previous question had 
 been called, and debate was not in order. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth: The gentleman has 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 773 
 
 occupied more than one-tenth of the time 
 of the house. 
 
 Mr. Guion moved to reconsider the vote 
 adopting the previous question ; the yeas 
 and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Briant, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hynson, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, Mc- 
 Rae, Maiigny, .Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, 
 Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Prudhomme, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Sellers, 
 Soule, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Wads- 
 worth and Winchester voted in the affir- 
 mative — 35 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Briant, Brumneld, 
 Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 Dunn, Hudspeth, Humble, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, McCallop, O'Bryan, Prescott of 
 Avovelles, Read, Scott of Feliciana 
 Splane, Taylor of St. Landry, Waddill, 
 Wederstrandt and Wikoff voted in the 
 negative — 23 nays; consequently said mo- 
 tion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth said he had only five 
 words to say, when the attempt was made 
 to apply to him the gag, and that by gentle- 
 men who occupied one-tenth of the whole 
 time of the house ! If he had been suffered 
 to proceed, the time of the house would 
 have been economised, for he was not in 
 *he habit of speaking merely for the pur- 
 pose of speaking, and had only designed to 
 make a few observations, showing the ne- 
 cessity for his amendment. The judicial 
 -district, if it embraced the city and the 
 parishes of St. Bernard and Plaquemines, 
 was too large. The proposition he made 
 did not interfere with the city of New Or- 
 leans. The city could have as many 
 judges as it pleased. All that he asked 
 was that the two parishes of Plaquemines 
 and St. Bernard should have a separate 
 judge, to reside and to hold his court at a 
 certain point in either of those parishes, 
 and to relieve the inhabitants from the in- 
 convenience and trouble of being dragged 
 to the city. He thought the request a rea- 
 sonable one, and he hoped it would be 
 granted. 
 
 Mr. Lewis: I would suggest that that 
 portion of the parish of Orleans on the 
 right bank of the river, be included with 
 the parishes of St. Bernard and Plaque- 
 mines, in forming the district. 
 93 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth: I have no objection, 
 j Mr. Eustis explained that the only rea- 
 I son why those two parishes were placed 
 : with the parish of Orleans, in the formation 
 | of a judicial district, arose from- the fact 
 '• that there was not enough business in them 
 j to occupy the time of a separate judge. 
 
 Mr. Marigxy thought that these parishes 
 i were entitled to form a separate judicial 
 district. They comprehended a vast ex- 
 tent of territory, and embraced a sufficient 
 population. 
 
 Mr. Roselius opposed the amendment, 
 because, from his own knowledge, there 
 was not sufficient business to occupy a 
 | separate judge, nor there would not be, in 
 ' all probability, for some years to come. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth thought it a high com- 
 pliment to the * quiet disposition of the 
 people of these parishes, that they were 
 not o-iven to litigation. It showed that thev 
 were a moral people and did not violate 
 the laws, but that was no argument why 
 they should be deprived of the facility of 
 ! having their few disputes settled among 
 \ themselves, and not be compelled to come 
 up to the city, and there be exposed to en- 
 counter great delays, and be put to unne- 
 cessary expense and trouble. 
 
 Mr. "Wadsworth moved for the adoption 
 of the amendment, and called for the yeas 
 j and nays, (Mr. Claiborne in the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Briant, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Dunn, Kenner, Legendre. Marigny, Scott 
 of Feliciana. Soule, Stephens, Wadsworth 
 and Wederstrandt voted in the affirmative 
 —-11 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 j Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Eustis, 
 I Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, King, 
 , Labauve, Ledoux, Lewis, McCallop, Mc 
 j Rae, Mayo, 3Iazureau, O'Bryan, Peets, 
 | Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 I St. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, Pugh, 
 i Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders. 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Sellers, Splane, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Trist, Waddill, Wikoff and Winches- 
 j ter voted in the negative — 45 nays; conse- 
 ! quently said amendment was lost. 
 
 On motion, said first district was adopt- 
 ed as reported, viz : 
 
 The first district shall be composed of 
 the parishes of Plaquemines, St. Bernard 
 and Orleans. 
 
774 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow, at nine o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Thursday, April 24, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment and their proceedings were opened 
 with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Lewis rose and said, 
 
 In the French report of my remarks de- 
 livered on the evening of the 16th inst., on 
 the report of the judiciary committee, as 
 published in the Courier of the 19th, seve- 
 ral passages occur wherein what I said 
 has been entirely misunderstood by the re- 
 porter who translated them ; for I cannot 
 for a moment imagine that he intentionally 
 misrepresented me. And inasmuch as I 
 understand that some very worthy persons 
 feel aggrieved by my observations, as pub- 
 lislied) I deem it to be due/ both to them 
 and to myself, to correct any false impres- 
 sions that have been created by the mis- 
 translation of those passages. 
 
 I am made to say in speaking of the 
 parish judges, "il est vrai de dire que dans 
 sa sphere il fait a peu pres ce quil veut ; 
 tellement que lorsqu'on passe d'une pa- 
 roisse a 1'autre, on trouve presqu'autant 
 de difference qu'il y en a d'un petit Etat a 
 l'autre dans la confederation germanique." 
 
 Now I used no such langage as this; but 
 I did say, in substance, that the partial le- 
 gislation of this State had made as great a 
 difference between the laws governing the 
 different parishes of the State, as existed 
 between the petty States of the confedera- 
 tion of Germany. 
 
 Again I am made to say, "Et certes on 
 ne rencontrera personne qui ne se fasse 
 une conscience de reconnaitre que les 
 abus les plus outrageants aecompagnent le 
 systeme actuel." This language is so 
 strong in its terms, and so denunciatory 
 in its character, that I must confess I am 
 at a loss for words in which to trans- 
 late it into English; but these strong ex- 
 pressions are given as a translation of a 
 simple statement that the parish judge sys- 
 tem (as it is called) naturally led to abuses 
 and extravagance , which I then maintain- 
 ed and still maintain. 
 
 Again, speaking of these abuses, I am 
 represented as asking, "Mais qu'est-ce 
 done qui fait ainsi de la justice un moyen 
 d'interets pour le juge, et comment peut-on 
 
 croire que celui-ci ne profile ra pas de tout 
 ce qui peut le servir ?" And as if to set 
 off and render more striking this implied 
 denunciation of actual corruption in our 
 parish judges, it figures immediately be- 
 fore a statement that there are some of 
 them who, despite the temptation, have re- 
 mained honest. Now, sir, I was arguing 
 against a system which, by its provisions, 
 made it directly the interest of the judge to 
 decide certain questions in a certain way, 
 and instanced the ease of the partition of an 
 estate where it is the interest of the judge 
 to order it to be effected by a sale, be- 
 cause in such case, as auctioneer, he would 
 receive greater fees for a sale than, as no- 
 tary, he could for making a partition in 
 kind. And I did further say that I had no 
 recollection of a contest as to the mode of 
 making such a partition that did not result 
 in a decree for a sale, I also agreed that 
 it was wrong to subject any man to the 
 temptation to do wrong by making it by 
 law his interest to do so; but I never 
 charged our judges with making a traffic of 
 justice. 
 
 One portion of my remarks, also reported 
 in French, has induced a gentleman con- 
 nected with the probate court of New Or- 
 leans to furnish me with the facts connec- 
 ted with the estate to which I referred as 
 having been heavily taxed in its passage 
 through the court of probates. I spoke of 
 that matter entirely from memory, and ami 
 free to admit that my picture was an ex- 
 aggeration, though unintentional, of the 
 original from which it was drawn. But 
 still, for all useful purposes the real facts 
 will sustain my argument as well as the 
 case I put; though the blame, if any be due, 
 must fall rather on others than the law of- 
 ficers. 
 
 The facts, as I am now responsibly hr- 
 formed, are these : John Hardiman, a citi- 
 zen of Missouri, arrived in New Orleans 
 during the prevalence of the yellow fever 
 in 1829, and died. He bad deposited in 
 bank before his death, in cash, gold, bul- 
 lion and dust and silver bars amounting 
 to $23,314 92. 
 
 His wearing apparel sold for 20 47 
 
 Making a total of $23,335 29 
 
 Now it was made to appear 
 some time afterwards, that of 
 this money, &c. there belong- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 ed to Gen. Smith, his partner 
 in Missouri a sum of 
 
 813.589 27 
 
 To Agapito Alba, 
 
 on deposit, 1,890 00 
 
 To Fran. Valver- 
 
 de, on deposit, 3,066 60 
 
 818,555 87 
 
 Leaving as belonging to the 
 
 deceased, 4,779 52 
 
 Eexclusive of the expenses of 
 the last illness and burial of 
 the deceased, the law char- 
 ges paid out of this sum a- 
 mounted to 1,229 OS 
 
 Of this sum there was allow- 
 ed to the attorney of the cu- 
 rator, 8350 00 
 To do. of the absent 
 
 heirs, 200 00 
 
 To the curator, 2£ 
 per cent, on the 
 whole sum of$23,- 
 385 39, 583 76 
 
 Appraisers, weigh- 
 ers, <fec. 12 00 
 Court charges, 83 32 
 
 - — ■ 81,229 08 
 
 These are all the facts necessary to be 
 stated to correct the error I had fallen into 
 in the case referred to. If the estate be 
 considered, as I think it ought to be, as 
 consisting of only 84,779 72, then 81,229 
 €8 for law charges, will not very material- 
 ly vary the proportion stated by me in 
 round numbers at a third of the estate. 
 But if taken as the court seems to have un- 
 derstood it, (as I think erroneously,) at the 
 sum of 823,335 39, these expenses still 
 exceed five per cent taken out of actual 
 cash deposited in bank, which needed but 
 very little administration. And admitting 
 as I cheerfully do, the most perfect purity 
 in the judge and other officials of the court, 
 this case, I think, furnishes a strong argu- 
 ment in favor of the change in our judicial 
 system, that we have adopted. 
 ^ I will only add that I never intended to 
 charge corruption upon any of our public 
 officers, but only intended to argue that 
 the system I opposed in its nature" had a 
 tendency to that result. 
 To the Hon. James Pitot, Judge of the 
 Court ofPrvbatesin arid for the Parish 
 of Orleans: 
 
 I The answer of Josias E. Kerr, curator 
 1 of the estate of the late John Hardiman, to 
 ' the petition of the heirs of said deceased. 
 This respondent answers unto the said 
 petition, by herewith presenting an ac- 
 count of his administration on the said es- 
 tate. 
 
 Wherefore this defendant prays, that up . 
 on the powers forwarded by the said heirs 
 constituting Isaac T. Preston, of this city, 
 their attorney in fact, being acknowledged 
 as genuine, his said account may be ap- 
 proved, and that this defendant be dis- 
 charged from his trust and his bond as cu- 
 rator, cancelled and annulled upon his pay- 
 ing over to the sad attorney of the heirs of 
 the late John Hardiman the balance due 
 to them by this defendant in his said capa- 
 city. 
 
 (Signed,) A. MORPHY, 
 
 for Cur. 
 
 Account rendered by Josias E. Kerr, of 
 his administration on the estate of the 
 late John Hardeman, deceased. 
 The Curator has received. — - 
 
 By cash found in bank of the 
 'United States, 813,300 00 
 
 By gold, bullion and dust in 
 
 same bank, 2,828 00 
 
 Proceeds of the sale of wear- 
 ing apparel, 20 47 
 
 Balance arising from a ship- 
 ment of silver bars made to 
 the mint of Philadelphia, 
 through the U. S. Branch » 
 Bank, as per agreement, 2,136 92 
 
 ! Total amount received, 823,335 39 
 
 The curatior has paid by or- 
 ! der and authorization of the 
 j court Of probates: 
 i To Wm. K. Knight 
 ! for lodging, nurs- 
 ; ing, &c, No. 1. 865 00 
 Washing and dres- 
 sing dee'd, No. 2, 3 00 
 Medical attendance 
 
 in last illness, No. 3, 75 00 
 Tomb and ground in 
 
 cemetery, No. 4, 141 00 
 Coffin and hearse, 
 No. 5, 24 00 
 
 Attorney for the cu- 
 rator, (Judge A. 
 Morphy,) No. 6, 850 00 
 Attornev for absent 
 
776 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 heirs, (A. Pitot,) 
 
 No. 7, 200 00 
 
 Appraisers of cloth- 
 
 ing and weighers 
 
 of gold, No. 8, 12 00 
 
 Court charges, No.9, 37 45 
 To Smith, by 
 
 judgment, No. 10, 13,589 27 
 To Agapito Alba, by 
 
 do. No. 11, 1,890 00 
 
 To Fran: Valverde, 
 
 by do. No. 12, 3,066 60 
 Curator commission 
 
 on $23,335 39 at 
 
 2f per ct. No. 13, 583 76 
 Court charges, No. 
 
 14, 45 87 
 
 087 95 
 
 Balance in favor of said estate, $3,247 44 
 
 I+Qt the petition of Josias E. Kerr be dis- 
 charged from his trust as curator of the es- 
 tate of the late John Hardiman and let the 
 bond by him entered into jointly with Man- 
 uel Audry as his security be cancelled and 
 annulled, on his paying over to the heirs 
 ©f said deceased, or their attorney in fact, 
 the balance of the account by him render- 
 ed in his capacity, to wit : the sum of three 
 thousand two hundred and forty-seven dol- 
 lars and forty-four cents. 
 
 New Orleans, June 5, 1830. 
 
 (Signed,) J. PITOT, Judge. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Humble, the vote 
 adopting the fourteenth section was recon- 
 sidered. 
 
 Mr. Humble then moved to amend said 
 section by adding after the word "senate," 
 in the fifth line, the words "for the term of 
 two years." Which amendment was 
 adopted. 
 
 On motion, the section as amended was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 There shall be an attorney general for 
 the State, and as many other prosecuting 
 attorneys for the State as may hereafter be 
 found necessary. 
 
 The said attorneys shall be appointed 
 by the governor, with the advice^and ap- 
 probation of the senate, for the term of two 
 years. 
 
 Their duties shall be determined by 
 law. 
 
 This being the day fixed for the taking 
 in consideration the reports of the commit- 
 tee of revision, on motion, the report of said 
 
 committee on the executive department, 
 was taken up, viz: 
 
 ARTICLE THIRD. 
 
 The first section, as reported, was adopt- 
 ed, viz: 
 
 Sec. 1. The supreme executive power 
 ;of this State shall be vested in a chief ma- 
 gistrate, who shall be styled the governor 
 of the State of Louisiana. He shall hold 
 his office during the term of four years, and 
 together with the lieutenant governor, cho- 
 sen for the same term, be elected as fol- 
 lows. 
 
 The second section was taken up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 2. The citizens entitled to vote for 
 representatives, shall vote for a governor 
 and lieutenant governor, at the same time 
 and place of voting for representatives; the 
 returns of every election shall be sealed 
 up and transmitted by the proper returning 
 officer created by law, to the secretary of 
 state, who shall deliver them to the speaker 
 of the house of representatives, on the 
 second day of the session of .the general 
 assembly then next to be holden. The 
 members of the general assembly shall 
 meet in the house of representatives, to ex- 
 amine and count the votes. The person 
 having the greatest number of votes for 
 governor shall be declared duly elected; 
 but if two or more persons shall be equal 
 and highest in the number of votes polled 
 for governor, one of them shall be immedi- 
 ately chosen governor by joint vote of the 
 members of the general assembly. The 
 person having the greatest number of votes 
 for lieutenant governor, shall be lieutenant 
 governor; but if two or more persons shall 
 j be equal and highest in the number of votes 
 polled for lieutenant governor, one of them 
 shall be immediately chosen lieutenant 
 governor by the joint vote of the members 
 of the general assembly. 
 
 The committee recommend the following 
 correction, viz: 
 
 Strike out in the seventh line, the words 
 " created by law;" and the same was 
 adopted. 
 
 The section as corrected was adopted, 
 viz: 
 
 Sec. 2. The citizens entitled to vote for 
 representatives shall vote for a governor 
 and lieutenant governor, at the same time 
 and place of voting for representatives; the 
 returns of every election shall be sealed up 
 and transmitted by the proper returning of- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 ficer to the secretary- of state, who shall de- ble for the succeeding four years after the 
 liver them to the speaker of the house of i expiration of the time for which he shall 
 representatives, on the second day of the have been elected. 
 
 sessions of the general assembly then next Section sixth was taken up and adopted, 
 to be holden: the members of the general , viz: 
 
 assembly shall meet in the house of repre- ! Sec. 6. Xo member of Congress, or 
 sentatives to examine and count the votes; persons holding office under the United 
 the person having the greatest number of. Sates, or minister of any religious society 
 votes for governor shall be declared duly ; shall be eligible to the office of governor 
 elected: but if two or more persons shall be ; or lieutenant governor, 
 equal and highest in the number of v&tes I The seventh section was taken up and 
 polled for governor, one of them shall be adopted, viz: 
 
 immediately chosen governor by joint vote Sec 7. In case of the impeachment of 
 of the members of the general assembly. ' the governor, his removal from office, 
 The person having the greatest number of j death, refusal or inability to qualify, resig- 
 votes for lieutenant governor, shall be lieu- nation or absence from the State, the pow- 
 tenant governor; but if two or more per- er and duties of his office shall devolve 
 sons shall be equal and highest in the mini- j upon the lieutenant governor for the resi- 
 ber of votes polled for lieutenant governor, due of the term, or until the governor ab- 
 one of them shall be immediately chosen sent or impeached, shall return or be ac- 
 lieutenant governor by the joint vote of the ; quitted. The legislature may provide by 
 members of the general assembly. ! law for the case of removal, impeachment, 
 
 The third section was taken up and pas- death, resignation, disability or refusal to 
 ■zed without corrections, viz: ; qualify, of both the governor and lieuten- 
 
 Sec 3. No person shall be eligible to ant governor, declaring what officer shall 
 the office of governor or lieutenant gover- act as governor; and such officer shall act 
 ernor, who shall not have attained the age accordingly, until the disability be removed, 
 of thirty-rive years, and hasnotbeen fifteen or for the residue of the term, 
 years a free white male citizen of the Uni- ! Section eighth was taken up and adop- 
 ted States, and of this State next preceding ■ ted, viz: 
 
 his election. Sec 8. The lieutenant governor, or 
 
 The fourth section was taken up. viz: other officer discharging the duties of gov- 
 Sec. 4. The governor shall enter in the ernor, shall, during his administration, re- 
 discharge of his duties on the fourth Mon- ceive the same compensation to which the 
 day of the January next ensuing his elec- governor would have been entitled, had he 
 tion. and shall continue in office until the contined in office. 
 
 Monday next succeeding the day that his The ninth section was taken up and 
 successor shall have been declared duly adopted, viz: 
 
 elected, and his successor shall have taken \ Sec. 9. The lieutenant governor shall 
 the oath or affirmation prescribed by this by virtue of his office, be president of the* 
 constitution. senate, but shall have only a casting vote 
 
 On motion of Mr. Beatty, the words therein. Whenever he shall administer 
 "his successor," in the seventh line, was j the government, or shall be unable to at- 
 struck out; and the section, as corrected, tend as president of the senate, the sena- 
 wasadoptod, viz: : tors shall elect one of their own members 
 
 Sec 4. The governer shall enter in as president of the senate for the time being, 
 the discharge of his duties on the fourth The tenth section was taken up and 
 Monday of the January next ensuing his ' adopted, viz: 
 
 election, and shall continue in office until \ Sec 10. While he acts as president of 
 the Monday next succeeding the day that the senate, the lieutenant governor shall 
 his successor shall have been declared duly receive for his services the same compem 
 elected, and shall have taken the oath or sation which shall for the same period be 
 affirmation prescribed by this constitution. ! allowed to the speaker of the house of 
 
 The fifth section was taken up and adop- I respresentatives, and no more, 
 ted. viz: ^ Tj ie e i ev enth section was taken up and 
 
 Sec 5, The governor shall be ineligi- | adopted, viz: 
 
778 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Sec. 11. The governor shall have power 
 to grant reprieves for all offences against 
 the State, and except in cases of impeach- 
 ment, shall, with the consent of the sen- 
 ate, have power to grant pardons and remit 
 fines and forfeitures after conviction. In 
 cases of treason he may grant reprieves 
 until the end of the next session of the 
 general assembly, in which the power of 
 pardoning shall be vested. 
 
 The twelfth section was taken up and 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 12. The governor shall, at stated 
 times, receive for his services a compensa- 
 tion, which shall neither be increased nor 
 diminished during the term for which he 
 shall have been elected. 
 
 The thirteenth section was taken up and 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 13. He shall be commander in 
 chief of the army and navy of this State, 
 and of the militia thereof, except when 
 they shall be called into the service of the 
 United States. 
 
 The fourteenth section was taken up and 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 14. He shall nominate and appoint 
 with the advice and consent of the senate, 
 all officers whose offices are established 
 by this constitution, and whose appoint, 
 ments are not herein otherwise provided 
 for; Provided, however, that the legisla- 
 ture shall have a right to prescribe the mode 
 of appointment to all other offices to be 
 established by law. 
 
 The fifteenth section was taken up and 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 15. The governor shall have pow- 
 er to fill up vacancies that may happen du- 
 ring the recess of the senate, by granting 
 commissions which shall expire at the end 
 of the next session, unless otherwise pro- 
 vided for by this constitution. 
 
 The committee of revision recommend 
 the following correction, viz: to strike out 
 from the second line, the word "up, "which 
 correction was adopted, and the section as 
 corrected, was adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 15. The governor shall have pow- 
 er to fill vacancies that may happen during 
 the recess of the senate, by granting com- 
 missions which shall expire at the end of 
 the next session, unless otherwise provided 
 for in this constitution. 
 
 The sixteenth section was taken up and 
 adopted, viz:- 
 
 Sec. 16. He may require information 
 in writing from the officers in the executive 
 department, upon any subject relating to 
 the duties of their respective offices. 
 
 The seventeenth section was taken up 
 and adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 17. He shall, from time to time 
 give to the general assembly information 
 respecting the situation of the State, and 
 recommend to their consideration such 
 measures as he may deem expedient. 
 
 The eighteenth section was taken up, 
 viz: 
 
 Sec. 18. He may, on extraordinary oc- 
 casions, convene the general assembly at 
 the seat of government, or at a different 
 place, if that should have become danger- 
 ous from an enemy or from contagious dis- 
 orders; and in case of a disagreement be- 
 tween the two houses with respect to the 
 time of adjournment, he may adjourrMhem 
 to such time as he may think proper, not 
 exceeding four months. 
 
 Mr. Read moved to correct said section 
 by striking out in the seventh line, the 
 words "with respect" and insert the word 
 "as," which correction was adopted, and 
 the section as corrected was adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 18. He may on extraordinary oc 
 casions, convene the general assembly at 
 the seat of government, or at a different 
 place, if that should have become danger- 
 ous from an enemy or from contagious dis- 
 orders; and in case of disagreement be- 
 tween the two houses as to the time of ad- 
 journment, he may adjourn them to such 
 time as he may think proper, not exceed- 
 ing four months. 
 
 The nineteenth section was taken up 
 and adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 19. He shall take care that the 
 laws be faithfully executed. 
 
 The twentieth section was taken up, 
 viz: 
 
 Sec. 20. Every bill which shall have 
 passed both houses shall be presented to 
 the governor; if he approve he shall sign 
 it, if not, he shall return it with his objec- 
 tions to the house in which it shall have 
 originated, who shall enter the objections 
 at large upon their journal, and proceed to 
 reconsider it; if after such reconsideration, 
 two-thirds of all the members elected to 
 that house shall agree to pass the bill, M 
 shall be sent, with the objections, to the 
 other house, by which it shall likewise bo 
 
Debates in the Convention ci Louisiana. 
 
 779 
 
 reconsidered, and if approved by two- Sec. 21. Every order, resolution or vote 
 thirds of all the members elected to that to which the concurrence of both houses 
 house, it shall be a law; but in such cases may be necessary, except on a question of 
 the vote of both houses shall be determin- adjournment, shall be presented to the gov- 
 ed by yeas and nays, and the names of the i ernor, and before it shall take effect be ap. 
 members voting for and against the bill. ; proved by him, or being disapproved, 
 shall be entered on the journal of each 1 shall be repassed by two-thirds of both 
 house, respectively. If any bill shall not , houses. 
 
 be returned by the governor within ten \ The twenty-second section was taken 
 days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have up. viz: 
 
 been sent to him, it shall be a law in like ■ Sec. 22. A secretary of state shall be 
 manner as if he had signed it. unless the nominated and appointed by the governor, 
 general assembly, by their adjournment, with the advice and consent of tjie senate, 
 prevent its return, in which case it shall and commissioned to hold his office during 
 be a law, unless sent back within three the term for which the governor shall have 
 davs after their next meeting, been elected. The records of the State 
 
 Mr. moved to correct said sec- shall be kept and preserved in the office of 
 
 tion by striking out in the fifth and sixth the secretary. He shall keep a fair regis- 
 lines the- words ''shall have," which mo- ter or* the official aets and proceedings of 
 tion prevailed. . \ the governor, and when necessary, shall 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to strike out in attest them. He shall, when required, lay 
 the sixth line the word "who" and insert the said register and all papers, minutes 
 in lieu thereof the word "which," and in and vouchers relative to his office, before 
 the seventh line to strike out the word either house of the general assembly, and 
 ••their" and insert the word "its," which shall perform such other duties as may be 
 motion prevailed, and the section, as cor- enjoined on him by law. 
 rected, was adopted, viz* The committee of revision recommend 
 
 Sec. 20. Every bill which shall have the correction of the first paragraph of said 
 passed both houses, shall be presented to section as follows, viz: 
 the governor; if he approve, he shall sign "There shall be a secretary of State, 
 it, if not, he shall return it with his objec- who shall hold his office during the- time 
 tions, to the house in which it originated, for which the governor shall have been 
 which shall enter the objections at large elected," which correction was adopted, 
 upon its journal, and proceed to reconsider and the section, as corrected, was adopted, 
 it; if, after such reconsideration, two-thirds viz: 
 
 Df all the members elected to that house Sec. 22. There shall be a secretary of 
 shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent State, who shall hold his office during the 
 with the objections, to the other house, by time for which the governor shall have 
 which it shall likewise be reconsidered, been elected. The records of the State 
 and if approved by two-thirds of all the shall be kept and preserved in the office of 
 .Tiembers elected to that house, it shall be the secretary. He shall keep a fair reo-is- 
 i law; but in such cases the vote of both ter of the official acts and proceedings of 
 mouses shall be determined by yeas and the governor, and when necessary, shall 
 lays, and the names of members voting attest them. He shall, when required, lay 
 "or ind against the bill shall be entered on said register, and all papers, minutes and 
 .he journal of each house respectively. If vouchers relative to his office, before either 
 any bill shall not be returned by the gov- house of the general assembly, and shall 
 =rnor within ten days (Sundays excepted) ' perform such other duties as may be en- 
 after it shall have been sent to him, it shall j joined on him by law. 
 be a law, in like manner as if he had sign- j Section twenty-third was taken up and 
 ed it, unless the general assembly, by ad- 1 adopted, viz: 
 
 journment, prevent its return; in which I Sec. 23. All commissions shall be in 
 case it shall be a law, unless sent back ; the name, and by the authority of the 
 within three days after their next meeting, j State of Louisiana, and shall be sealed 
 Section twenty.first was taken up and j with the State seal, and signed by the gov, 
 adopted, viz: ernor> 
 
780 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Section twenty -fourth was taken up and 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 24. The mililia of the State shall 
 be organized in such manner as may be 
 hereafter deemed most expedient by the 
 legislature. 
 
 Section twenty-fifth was taken up and 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 25. The free white men of the 
 State shall be armed and disciplined for its 
 defence; but those who belong to religious 
 societies whose tenets forbid them to car- 
 ry arms, shall not be compelled so to do, 
 but shall pay an equivalent for personal 
 services. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Mayo, the 21st sec- 
 tion was reconsidered, viz: 
 
 Sec. 21. Every order, resolution, or 
 vote, to which the concurrence of both 
 houses may be necessary, except on a 
 question of adjournment, shall be present- 
 ed to the governor, and before it shall take 
 effect, be approved by him, or being disap- 
 proved, shall be repassed by two-thirds of 
 both houses. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to amend said section 
 by inserting after the word "of," in the 8th 
 line, the words "the members elected of;" 
 which motion prevailed, and the section as 
 amended, was adopted, viz: 
 
 Seg. 21. Every order, resolution, or 
 vote, to which the concurrence of both 
 houses may be necessary, except on a 
 question of adjournment, shall be present- 
 ed to the governor, and before it shall take 
 effect, be approved by him, or being disap- 
 proved, shall be repassed by two-thirds of 
 the members elected of both houses. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Peets, the vote re- 
 jecting the substitute offered by Mr. Beat- 
 ty, was reconsidered, and the substitute ta- 
 ken up, viz: 
 
 The first legislature assembled under 
 this constitution shall divide the State into 
 not less than fifteen judicial districts, nor 
 more than twenty-four, which shall remain 
 unchanged for six years thereafter, and be 
 subject to reorganization once in every six 
 years only; for each of which districts 
 one judge, learned in the law, shall be ap- 
 pointed. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved to strike out the 
 word fifteen and insert twelve. There 
 would be two of the districts that certainly 
 would not be sinecures. He referred to 
 the district composed of East and West 
 
 Feliciana, and to this district, perhaps, the 
 district of Rapides might also be included 
 in the same remark. He was told that the 
 other districts would be sinecures at pre- 
 sent. It was better to leave it discretion- 
 ary with the legislature, to make any in- 
 crease over twelve that was necessary, and 
 restrict the maximum number to which 
 they should go at eighteen. 
 
 Mr. Dcnn said that the object was not 
 to render justice economically, but to ren- 
 der it efficiently and properly. It was to 
 bring justice home to the door of every 
 one. Not that A. and B. in particular 
 should be favored, but that every one should 
 receive justice. A. asked for the curator- 
 ship of an estate, B. ppposed him. What 
 is to be the practice? Are the parties to 
 be sent for, or are they to go and seek the 
 judge? In the mean time, what becomes 
 of the effects of the deceased. If they do 
 not go in search of the judge, they must 
 wait until he comes in their neighborhood. 
 It is not surely in reference to the number 
 of saits, that we should establish the courts, 
 but it is in order that every parish should 
 have the means of a ready and prompt ad- 
 ministration of justice. If there be but one 
 individual in a parish who is wronged and 
 oppressed, he has a right to be heard and 
 protected. If large districts be established 
 you embarrass the administration of justice 
 and expose the inhabitants to great incon- 
 venience, when they seek redress through 
 the laws of the country. It is no argu- 
 ment to urge, that because the people of a 
 parish are not litigous they are to be debar 
 red the facilities of courts in their immedi 
 ate vicinity. If there be but one case in 
 parish, it is entitled to an immediate and 
 speedy trial. The object in instituting 
 courts is to render justice immediately. A 
 parish with a few suits is as much entitled 
 to have them promptly decided as a parish 
 with five hundred suits. 
 
 There should be as many courts as were 
 necessary to meet the wants of the inhab- 
 itants of each parish, without subjecting 
 them to the inconvenience of waiting for 
 the return of the judge, and to the delays 
 that would result from imposing upon him 
 the duty of attending to a large extent of 
 country. In East and West Feliciana 
 two judges are indispensable, the accumu- 
 lation of business is very great. He 
 trusted that his colleague from West FelL 
 
Debates in the Convention ct Louisiana. 
 
 781 
 
 ciana (Air. RatlifTe) would reconsider the 
 motion lie had made, for it was unjust to 
 make the districts so large as to deprive the 
 people of a parish of the facility of being 
 heard without unnecessary delays, and hav- 
 ing their contests promptly settled. 
 
 The question was taken upon the mo- 
 tion of Mr. Ratliff. to strike out the word 
 fifteen and insert the word twelve, and the 
 veas and nays being called for. (Mr. Saun- 
 ders in the chair.) 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Chinn, Eus- 
 tis, Kenner, King. Labauve, Legendre, 
 McCallop, McRae, Mayo. Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Prudhomme, RathuT, Read. Roman, 
 St Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Feliciana. Stephens, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Trist, Waddill and Winchester voted 
 in the affirmative — 27 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Bourg, Brumfield, Bur- 
 ton, Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, Clai- 
 borne, Covillion, Dunn Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux. Lew- 
 is, Marigny, O'Bryan, Pugh, Sellers, Tay- 
 lor of St. Landry, Wederstrandt and i- 
 koff voted in the negative — 24 nays: con- 
 sequently said motion was carried. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ratliff, the blank 
 was filled with the word "twelve." 
 
 Mr. Labauve moved to amend said sub- 
 stitute by fixing the maximum of the dis- 
 tricts at twenty: he therefore moved to 
 strike out after the w T ord twenty, the word 
 four. The yeas and nays being called for, 
 (Mr. Saunders in the chair.) 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Car- 
 riere, Chambliss, Chinn, Eustis, Guion, 
 Hynson, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, McCallop, Marigny, Peets, Porter, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Fe- 
 liciana, Soule. Stephens, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Trist, Waddill and Winchester voted 
 in the affirmative — 34 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Covillion, Dunn, Garrett, Hud- 
 speth, Humble, Ledoux, Lewis, McRae, 
 Mayo, O'Bryan, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Read, Sel- 
 lers, Taylor of St. Landry, Wederstrandt, 
 and W ikorfvoted in the negative — 18 nays : 
 consequently said motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan moved to amend said sub- 
 stitute by striking out the word "twenty;" 
 which motion was lost. 
 99 
 
 1 Mr. Beatty moved for the adoption of 
 I the substitute as amended, viz: 
 
 The first legislature assembled under 
 this constitution shall divide the State into 
 judicial districts, which shall remain un- 
 changed for six years, and be subject to 
 reorganization every sixth year thereafter. 
 The number of districts shall not be less 
 than twelve nor more than twenty. For 
 each district one judge learned in the law 
 shall be appointed. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the adoption of the above substitute, (Mr. 
 Saunders in the chair.) 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bri- 
 ant, Brumfield, Burton, Carriere, Cenas, 
 1 Chambliss, Chinn, Covillion, Eustis, Gar- 
 | rett, Guion, Hudspeth, Hynson, Kenner, 
 ; King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, 
 McCallop, McRae, Marigny. Mayo, Peets, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prudhomme, Pugh, 
 : Ratliff, Read, Roman, St. Amand, Scott of 
 ; Baton Rouge Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, 
 ■ Soule, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 ! Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, Wadsworth, 
 j Wederstrandt, Wikoff and Winchester vo- 
 ; ted in the affirmative — 45 yeas: and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Dunn, Humble. O'- 
 Bryan, Porter, Preston, Saunders and Wad- 
 dill voted in the negative — S nays; conse- 
 quently said motion was carried, and the 
 substitute was adopted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Mayo, the sixteenth 
 section was taken up, and laid on the tablo 
 indefinitely, viz: 
 
 Sec. 16. After the first of January eigh- 
 teen hundred and fifty-one, the legislature 
 may reorganize the said district: which 
 shall remain unchanged for ten years there- 
 after, and be subject to reorganization once 
 in every ten years; provided the number of 
 districts shall never be less than eighteen 
 nor more than twenty-four. 
 
 On motion the seventeenth section was 
 taken up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 17. Whenever a new parish shall 
 be formed out of two or more parishes be- 
 longing to different districts, the said new 
 parish shall be attached to one of them. 
 
 Mr. Chixx moved that the said section 
 be laid on the table indefinitely; which 
 motion was lost. 
 
 On motion the said seventeenth section 
 was adopted. 
 
 On motion the eighteenth section was 
 taken up, viz; 
 
783 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana., 
 
 Sec. 18. Each of said judges shall re- 
 ceive a salary of not less than twenty-five 
 hundred dollars annually. He must be a 
 citizen of the United States, over the age 
 of thirty years, and have resided in the 
 State for six years next preceding his ap- 
 pointment, and have practised law therein 
 for the space of five years. 
 
 Mr. Porter observed that in his dis- 
 trict the residence and the age required in 
 this section would operate injuriously. It 
 would exclude men of talents who had 
 come there since 18&0; and it would be dif- 
 ficult to make the appointments within the 
 districts. Therefore it would be better to 
 insert a clause that the rule should not ap- 
 ply in relation to the first appointments to 
 be made in that section of country. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth was opposed to any 
 exceptions. The rule ought to be general. 
 The best mode at arriving at the object of 
 the delegate would be to propose to reduce 
 the time. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by striking out in the fourth line the 
 word "thirty" and insert in lieu thereof the 
 word "twenty-six;" which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Read submitted the following as a 
 substitute for the first paragraph, viz: 
 
 The legislature shall provide an adequate 
 compensation for each of said district judg- 
 es, which shall not be increased or dimin- 
 ished during his term of office. 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved to lay the above 
 substitute on the table indefinitely; the yeas 
 and nays being called for, (Mr. Saunders 
 in the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, B ri- 
 ant, Brumfield, Carriere, Cenas, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Le- 
 doux, Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. 
 Amand, Sellers, Soule, Stephens, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Trist, Wadsworth and Win- 
 chester voted in the affirmative — 36 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Burton, Charnbliss, 
 Covillion, Humble, Hynson, Mc Gallop, 
 McRae, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott 
 of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Pres- 
 ton, Ratliff, Read, Saunders, Scott of Ba- 
 ton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Taylor of 
 Assumption. WaddilL Wederstrandt and 
 
 Wikoff voted in the negative — 23 nays; 
 consequently the motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Porter submitted the following 
 amendment, to be inserted at the end of 
 the section, viz: 
 
 Except 'in such judicial districts as the 
 major part of the parishes of which have 
 been organized since the year 1840, and 
 that the exception only extends to the first 
 apportionment of judges. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Winchester said 
 amendment was laid on the table indefi- 
 nitely. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff said that in the anxiety to 
 expedite the proceedings of the Conven- 
 tion, he was apprehensive that the house 
 would sanction a provision which would 
 convert the legislative halls into an arena 
 for electioneering. If we give the facility 
 to the legislature to increase the compen- 
 sation, we shall find some members of the 
 judiciary taking such steps as will ensure 
 them an increase of salary. They will 
 endeavor to elect such persons to the legis- 
 lature as are favorable to their design, and 
 that body will be so importuned that they 
 may lend a willing ear to the applications 
 that will be made to them from time to 
 time. He would suggest the following 
 modification, " that the salary shall not he 
 increased nor diminished during the period 
 for which said judges were appointed." 
 . Mr. Wadsworth said it was indispen- 
 sable to place confidence somewhere, and 
 if we have no confidence in the legislature, 
 we cannot have confidence any where to 
 carry out the fundamental principles of the 
 government. It was a strange notion to 
 believe that twenty or thirty men could 
 dictate to the legislature their salaries, and 
 get what they pleased. If we fix the com- 
 pensation in the constitution, it may be too 
 much or too little, and that is a serious ob- 
 jection. We must, from the nature of 
 things, leave it to the legislature, with the 
 restriction in the section to a minimum 
 amount, so that it may not be in the power 
 of temporary majorities in the legislature 
 to starve the judges out. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor would suggest a 
 substitute, -and would explain his views in 
 a very few words. The object designed 
 was to take away the temptation of seeking 
 an increase of salary, and to place the com- 
 pensation beyond the immediate power of 
 
Debates in the Contention of Louisiana. 
 
 ¥83 
 
 the legislature, a power which they might 
 possibly exercise to the injury of the incum- 
 bent, and with the sole view of driving him 
 from his station. It seemed to be the sense 
 of the house that the salary should be per- 
 manent during the term of service of the 
 judge. Some inconvenience might result 
 if this were not provided for. I do not say 
 that such inconvenience will result; but in 
 the view of any possible inconvenience, 
 and it will at least preclude the personal 
 solicitations of the judges, I am induced to 
 offer the following as a substitute. The 
 amendment of the delegate from West Fe- 
 liciana (Mr. RatlifF) that the salary should 
 not be increased nor diminished during the 
 term of service of the actual incumbent, 
 might be construed that it could be dimin- 
 ished afterwards, and thus defeat one of 
 the objects contemplated in the preparation 
 of the original section. In my substitute 
 I have retained it: 
 
 "Each of said judges shall receive a 
 salary to be fixed by law, which shall not 
 be increased or diminished during his term 
 of office, which salary shall never be less 
 than two thousand five hundred dollars, 
 annually." 
 
 On motion, the section, as amended was 
 adopted, viz: . 
 
 Sec. 18. Each of said judges shall re- 
 ceive a salary to be fixed by law, which 
 shall not be increased or diminished during 
 his term of office, which salary shall never 
 be less than twenty-five hundred dollars. 
 He must be a citizen of the United States, 
 ■ over the age of thirty years, and have re- 
 sided in the State for six years next pre- 
 ceding his appointment, and have practised 
 law therein for the space of five years. 
 
 On motion, the nineteenth section was 
 taken up, viz : 
 
 Sec. 19. The judges of said district 
 courts, and of the courts to be established 
 in the cities of New Orleans and Lafayette, 
 shall hold their offices for the term of six 
 years, and shall be appointed by the gov- 
 ernor, by and with the advice and consent 
 of the senate; provided, that when the first 
 appointments made under this constitution, 
 are made, six of said district judges shall 
 be appointed for the term of two vears, six 
 for the term of four years, and six for the 
 term of six years. < 
 
 Mr. Benjamin offered the following as 
 a substitute for all the words comino- in at 
 
 the seventh line, to the end of the section, 
 viz : 
 
 " The judges shall be divided by lot into 
 three classes, as nearly equal as may be, 
 and the term of office of the judges of the 
 first class shall expire at the end of two 
 years, of the second class at the end of four 
 years, and of the third class at the end of 
 six years." 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to amend by insert- 
 ing "four years" instead of "six years," in 
 the third line. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved for a division, that 
 is, -strike out first the word "six," which 
 motion prevailed. 
 
 The question recurring on Mr, Brent's 
 motion to reduce the term of office to four 
 years, 
 
 Mr. Preston said that he hoped that this 
 amendment would prevail. He had con- 
 sidered it a great evil to make the tenure 
 to judicial office for life. The State was 
 about to abandon that unfortunate and mis- 
 chievous principle, and he trusted we should 
 not fall into a similar error of making the 
 appointments for too long a period. Four 
 years were abundantly long. The highest 
 offices of the country, the chief executive 
 office of the United States, was held but 
 for four years. There was no reason that 
 these judges should be appointed for a 
 longer time than the highest officers of the 
 country. There was an appeal from their 
 decisions, both as to the law and to the facts, 
 and the supreme court were appointed for 
 eight years, which would give all the uni- 
 formity to the decisions that could be de- 
 sired. In this country, six years was al- 
 most a life estate. It would subject us to 
 many of the evils of a life appointment; it 
 would have a tendency to promote listless- 
 ness and indifference on the part of the in- 
 ferior judges, and an exception from that 
 personal responsibility which was so de- 
 sirable. It would give occasion to neglect 
 and to procrastination. Men's disputes 
 would not be settled with promptitude, but, 
 would be put off upon frivolous pretences, 
 
 But, say gentlemen, and this is all the ob- 
 jection they have to urge; the judiciary will 
 not be sufficiently independent, and no one 
 will accept the appointment. That was a 
 mistake. The office would be accepted, and 
 readily accepted; and as for independence, 
 the incumbent would be as independent 
 with a limited term as with a permanent 
 
784 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 term, so far as a proper discharge of their 
 duties were involved. Those who fulfilled 
 their duties with fidelity would be sure to 
 be re-appointed. This had been demon- 
 strated when the experiment was tested in 
 Connecticut. It had met, in that State, 
 with complete success. The judges were 
 elected from term to term, that is to say 
 every six months, and yet were even re- 
 tained when they became superannuated. 
 Preserve the feature of responsibility to the 
 people, and you will have an efficient ju- 
 diciary. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved for the previous 
 question on the whole section, which mo- 
 tion prevailed. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the motion ol Mr. Brent, to strike out 
 "six," (Mr. Saunders in the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 Humble, Hynson, McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres. 
 Gott of St. Landry, Preston, RatlifT, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Soule, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Trist, Waddill and WikofF voted in the 
 affirmative— 27 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Auberi, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Comad of Jefferson, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, Ledoux Legendre, Lewis, Mc- 
 Callop, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Rose- 
 lius, St. Amand, Saunders, Sellers, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Wederstrandt and Win- 
 chester voted in the negative — 31 nays; 
 consequently the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to amend by striking 
 out in the fourth line the word "governor," 
 and insert in lieu thereof "qualified electors 
 of each district." 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to reconsider the 
 vote ordering the previous question. 
 
 Mr. M. Taylor: I did not vote for the 
 previous question, when it was moved and 
 carried, and I can see no more occasion to 
 stop debate now than then. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for (Mr. 
 Saunders in the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Car- 
 riere, Chambliss, Covillion, Eustis, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Ledoux, McRae, Mayo, O'- 
 Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Ratliff, 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Sellers, Soule, 
 
 Stephens, Trist, Waddill and Wederstrandt 
 voted in the affirmative — 27 veas;»and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin,Bourg, 
 Brazeale, Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, C onrad 
 of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Dunn. 
 Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, -McCallop, Ma- 
 ngny, Mazureau, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ro- 
 man, Roselius, St. Amand, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of Sr. 
 Landry, Wikoff and Winchester voted in 
 the negative— 32 nays ; consequently said 
 motion was lost. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the motion of Mr. Brent, to strike out the 
 word "governor," (Mr. Saunders in the 
 chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Car- 
 riere, Chambliss, Covillion, Humble, Hyn- i 
 son, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 ton, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Stephens, Trist, Waddill and Wederstrandt 
 voted in the affirmative — 23 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Brazeale, Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, 
 King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Marigny, Mazureau, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, 
 St. Amand, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, 
 Soule, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Wikoff and Winchester voted in 
 the negative — 37 nays; consequently said 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Ledoux said that in voting for the i 
 appointment by the governor of the judges 
 of the supreme court, he was but carrying 
 out the views of a large majority of his 
 constituents, who preferred that mode of 
 appointment. He felt bound to express 
 their will in the vote he gave, but he wish- 
 ed it to be understood that he was in 
 favor, and even would be in favor of an 
 elective judiciary, deeming it the best, the 
 wisest and safest mode of appointment, 
 and the one most in accordance with the 
 true principles of our institutions. 
 
 On motion, Mr. Benjamin's amendment 
 was adopted, and 
 
 On motion, the nineteenth section,, as 
 amended, was adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 19. The judges of said district courts, 
 and of the courts to be established in the 
 cities of New Orleans and Lafayette, shall 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 hold their offices for the term of six years, 
 and shall be appointed by the governor, by 
 and with the advice and consent of the 
 senate; provided, that when the first ap- 
 pointments made under this constitution, 
 the judges shall be divided by lot into three 
 classes, as nearly equal as may be, and 
 the the term of office of the judges of the 
 first class shall expire at the end of two 
 years, of the second class at the end of four 
 years, and of the third class at the end of 
 six years. 
 
 The Convention then took up Mr. Soule's 
 section, to come in between sections nine- 
 teen and twenty. 
 
 The appointing power with respect to 
 judges shall be exercised by the governor, 
 in the manner following to wit: He shall 
 name and present three competent persons, 
 leared in the law, and having practised at 
 least five years in the courts of the State, 
 for every office to be filled in the judiciary 
 department ; and the senate shall make 
 their selection from the three persons thus 
 named and presented, and shall vote viva 
 voce and with open doors; provided, no ap- 
 pointment shall be effected unless it meets 
 the concurrence of a majority of all the 
 members composing the senate, and pro- 
 vided the judge, die expiration of whose 
 time shall give occasion to an appointment, 
 be one of the three first presented by the 
 governor to the choice of the senate. After 
 three unsuccessful attempts to make a se- 
 lection, it shall be the duty of the governor 
 to name and present three other persons, 
 and so on, until a choice be effected. 
 
 Mr. Soule said that his object in pre- 
 senting this additional section, was to place 
 the executive power in such a position that 
 it would be impossible for the executive 
 to listen to his predilections in the choice 
 of persons to be ratified by the senate. The 
 measure he proposed was a due medium 
 between the election of the judges by the 
 people, and their appointment by the gov- 
 ernor. The members of the senate being 
 elected for four years, would imbibe the 
 popular feelings, and their choice would be 
 the choice of the people; whereas, if the 
 governor were to appoint, he might be in- 
 fluenced by whim or caprice, and make an 
 appointment that would not give general 
 satisfaction. The favor and personal par- 
 tialty of the governor would not in all pro- 
 bability, extend to all three of the candi- 
 
 dates he might send in, and the senate 
 would have ample opportunity to make a 
 proper selection. ^It may, however, be 
 urged, that the plan is defective in this, in- 
 asmuch as the governor might send in the 
 name of his favorite with the names of two 
 others, that were clearly incompetent, and 
 thus force the senate to a choice. But 
 upon examination of the section, it will be 
 seen that this objection has no force. It 
 provides an efficacious remedy, for it is 
 the duty of the governor, should the senate 
 fail to make a choice, to name and present 
 three other persons, and so on, until a 
 choice shall be effected. I presume that 
 it will not be pretended that the governor 
 will be at any loss to find three competent 
 persons to recommend to the senate. I 
 think the plan is clearly feasible. Now, 
 as to the benefit to be derived from it, it 
 will destroy the patronage of the governor, 
 so far as the judiciary are concerned, and 
 will guarantee to the people a direct 
 agency in the selection of their judges 
 through the senate. It will be observed, 
 also, that provision is made that the gov- 
 ernor shall not remove the actual incum- 
 bent without the assent of the senate, for 
 the section requires that among the three 
 names first presented by the governor, shall 
 be the judge, the expiration of whose time 
 shall give occasion to the appointment. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff said there were some good * 
 dispositions in the section, and yet without 
 some modification, he feared it would be 
 impracticable. The mode of selection was 
 not without inconvenience. The governor, 
 if he were animated by a sentiment of duty, 
 would present three of the most competent 
 persons he could find willing to accept the 
 office. Now it might happen that their 
 claims were nearly equal, and having each 
 their friends in the senate, it would be dif- 
 ficult, if not impossible, to make a choice. 
 It would be impossible to make a choice 
 if the friends of each candidate were to 
 hold out, and that might well enough hap- 
 pen. I think that this objeciion ought to 
 be obviated, and I would suggest it to the 
 author, so that he may modify the section. 
 
 Mr. Roselitjs said that if there w r ere no 
 other objection, there was one that was con- 
 clusive, the plan was impracticable. The 
 governor was to begin by sending in the 
 names of three persons, and continue to 
 send in successively the names of three 
 
736 
 
 Debates in the Oonvention of Louisiana, 
 
 persons, until it pleased the senate to make 
 a choice. It went on the presumption that 
 competent persons wer^ as plenty as black- 
 berries. It is now found difficult to se- 
 lect one individual in a district, that united 
 all the necessary qualifications. And by 
 this proposition, the governor is to find 
 three, and as many more threes as may be 
 necessary to effect a choice. Suppose 
 there was but one in the district that was 
 competent, and the people of the district, 
 through pride or jealousy, were averse to a 
 selection out of the district, how would the 
 governor get three competent persons, and 
 three more, if the first three were rejected! 
 In any case, three competent persons 
 would scarcely consent to be dragged be- 
 fore the senate, when it was positively cer- 
 tain that two of them would be rejected. 
 He did not know how other gentlemen 
 would feel, but for himself, lie certainly 
 would feel mortified if he were nominated 
 to be rejected, and he presumed it would 
 be the same with most men. If three 
 were nominated, in any case, is it not clear 
 as the sun at noon-day, that two of them 
 would be rejected. It amounted to an ab- 
 solute certainty. His colleague (Mr.Soule) 
 had said that this was a middle course; in 
 effect it was taking away from the execu- 
 tive any participation but a nominal one in 
 the appointment, and transferring it to the 
 "* senate. It vested the appointing power in 
 fact, in the senate, and instead of being the 
 best, it was the very worst mode of making 
 the appointment, There was only one thing 
 in the section that met his concurrence. 
 It was this, that it should be the duty of 
 the governor to present the name of the 
 actual incumbent to the senate. If this 
 disposition were detached, he would vote 
 for it. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad said that in addition 
 to what fell from his colleague, (Mr, Ro- 
 selius) that there were manifold inconve- 
 niences which would result from such a 
 mode of appointment. There were a 
 number of district judges to be appointed, 
 and for each appointment the governor 
 would have to send in three names, and 
 from the rejections that would necessarily 
 take place in so large a number, it was not 
 unreasonable to infer that some one hun- 
 dred and eighty names to two hundred 
 names would have to be sent in for the 
 district courts alone. For the supreme 
 
 court, alone, twelve names would have to 
 be sent in, and so on in proportion until 
 the four judges were appointed. It has, 
 heretofore, been very difficult to fill the va- 
 cancies on the bench of the supreme court, 
 with the certainty that the nomination 
 would be confirmed. It would be very 
 difficult to find three persons who would 
 be willing to allow their names to be pre- 
 sented, with the conviction that two of 
 them were foredoomed. They would not 
 like to have their names put in juxtaposi- 
 tion and to undergo the humiliation of a 
 rejection. 
 
 There was one feature which met with 
 his concurrence. It was a happy idea to 
 give permanency and stability to our judi- 
 ciary, under its new organization. It pla- 
 ced the judge beyond the mercy and caprice 
 of the executive. If he had discharged 
 his duties faithfully, and to the satisfaction 
 of the community, it gave the opportunity 
 to the senate to retain him, and made him 
 independent of the executive will. He 
 would like to see that feature consecrated 
 in the constitution. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne said that although he 
 was opposed to the section, because he not 
 only conceived it inexpedient, but imprac- 
 ticable; yet he concurred in opinion with 
 his colleagues that had preceded him, that 
 there was a very admirable feature that 
 ought to be retained and preserved in the 
 new constitution. He alluded to that pro- 
 vision which made it incumbent on the ex- 
 ecutive to present the name of the actual 
 incumbent for re-appointment. It gave to 
 the senate the opportunity to determine J 
 whether the incumbent had properly and 
 efficiently discharged his duties, and if he 
 had, to retain him; and in that way it 
 held out an inducement to a strict and 
 faithful discharge of duty. It was to the 
 interest of the community to retain a good 
 officer, especially a judge; for immutability 
 in the administration of justice was no less 
 essential than equity. With the view of 
 embodying the principle, he would beg 
 leave to offer a substitute for the section. 
 It would deprive the governor of the op- 
 portunity of presenting his friends, or a 
 partisan, to the exclusion of the actual in- 
 cumbent, who may have given general 
 satisfaction. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne then presented his sub- 
 stitute, which was as follows : 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Whenever the term of service oflrality of citizens capable of holding any 
 
 judicial officers shall expire, the governor 
 shall nominate to the senate for the suc- 
 ceeding term tjie actual incumbent, and he 
 shall continue to do so at the expiration of 
 each term, unless the incumbent shall sig- 
 nify in writing, his desire not to be re- 
 appointed." 
 
 Mr. Soule considered that this substi- 
 tute would have the effect of creating a ju- 
 diciary for life. It would completely nullify 
 that disposition in the new constitution 
 which limited the tenure of their offices to 
 a limited period. It might happen (he said) 
 that his proposition was erroneous, but it 
 was at least consciencious. He thought it 
 expedient in the dipositions provided in bis 
 section that the senate should have the 
 means of reviewing the official conduct of 
 the incumbent, and if he were worthy, to 
 continue him in the public service. Ano- 
 ther object which he had hoped to secure, 
 was to place the selection of the judiciary 
 beyond the personal feelings and inclination 
 of the executive, and beyond the influences 
 that might control that officer. He thought 
 ihat by placing the power of confirming the 
 selection from those that the governor would 
 present, it would secure an appointment 
 that would be more satisfactory to the peo- 
 ple. His proposition was but a modifica- 
 tion' of the existing system. Instead of re- 
 stricting the senate to one nominee, as at 
 present, it presented three, one of whom 
 they were to approve, if deemed satisfac- 
 tory. 
 
 Was there any real difficulty in the plan 
 he proposed, as to the inability of the gov- 
 ernor to find the number of persons neces- 
 sary to be sent before the senate, for final 
 selection. To hear his two colleagues 
 (Messrs. Roselius and Conrad) one would 
 suppose it presented an insuperable obsta- 
 cle. So far from there being any dearth 
 of candidates, the reverse would be the 
 case. There would be a multiplicity of 
 them, anxious to submit their claims to the 
 final action of the senate. When it is as- 
 serted that it would be difficult to find one 
 man in some of the districts, who was com- 
 petent, I cannot but think it casting an un- 
 worthy reproach upon the intelligence of 
 our citizens. I have a higher and a juster 
 
 office in the State. 
 
 But we are told that if there is but one 
 person who is capable in the district, what 
 is the governor to do ? This supposes an 
 extreme case; but admitting that it did oc- 
 cur, the governor could select two other 
 persons from an adjacent district, and the 
 senate would determine, under the peculiar 
 circumstances) between the candidates. 
 The object which he designed was to place 
 that deparment of government in whose 
 hands were placed the life, liberty, reputa- 
 tion and property of the citizens beyond all 
 political influences; and by requiring the 
 governor to present three persons to the 
 senate, a more enlarged choice would be 
 given to that body, in confirming the ap- 
 pointments made. By requiring that one 
 of the three persons sent in should be the 
 actual incumbent, the governor would be 
 deprived of the opportunity of removing a 
 good officer, in order to gratify personal or 
 political motives. But it is said that this 
 plan would result in forcing the senate to 
 make a choice in accordance with the 
 
 governor s will, 
 send in one per 
 
 That the executive would 
 a that was capable and 
 two that were incapable. This objection 
 has no valid existence. It would not be 
 in the power of the executive to force the 
 senate to a choice, for their action would 
 be as unlimited as it is under the existing 
 system of nominating one person, and they 
 could continue to reject, until a suitable 
 appointment, in their* opinion, was made. 
 Until, said Mr. Soule, I hear some good 
 and valid objection, I must incline to the 
 opinion that this section ought to be incor- 
 porated into the constitution. 
 
 Mr. Dunn said that to obviate the ob- 
 jections that had been raised, it might be 
 provided in the section that the governor 
 should nominate no person without his con- 
 sent, and that after sending in three names 
 without a choice being effected, he should 
 then nominate but a single person. 
 
 Mr. E&nneb said that he would move, 
 as a test, that the amendmentb be laid on the 
 table indefinitely. But before doing so, 
 he would beg leave to make one or two 
 remarks. The tendency of the section 
 
 was to place the appointing power in the 
 idea of their merits. So far from there senate, in place of vesting it in the two 
 being but one, I do believe there are few, branches of the legislature on joint ballot, 
 if any districts, where there are not a plu- as had been proposed bv the delegate from 
 
?88 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Caddo (Mr. Porter). The object was to 
 take the appointing power out of the hands 
 of the executive. It would, however, be 
 in the power of the governor to control the 
 appointment, for he could send' one person 
 that was competent and two others that 
 were incompetent. In this way he would 
 fulfil the letter but not the spirit of the pro- 
 vision. It would lead to great inconve- 
 nience and to much abuse ; and if I were 
 restricted to this mode of appointment, and 
 to a direct choice by the people, I would 
 prefer the latter. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne begged permission to 
 make a few explanations. He had not, as 
 was inferred by his colleague (Mr. Soule), 
 the remotest intention of presenting any 
 thing, to revive a judiciary for life. He 
 ban opposed the section offered by his 
 colleague, (Mr. Soule) benause he thought 
 it impracticable. There was one feature 
 in the section which he conceived to be 
 judicious, and he had retained it in the 
 substitute which he had had the honor of 
 presenting. It placed the judicial incum- 
 bent beyond the mere will and caprice of 
 the executive. He thought it a wise and 
 salutare principle. But inasmuch as the 
 delegate from Ascension (Mr. Kenner), 
 manifested the intention of moving to lay 
 the original section indefinitely on the ta- 
 » ble, he would beg leave to withdraw it. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved to lay on the table, 
 indefinitely, the additional section of Mr. 
 Soule, which motion was carried. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow at 9 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Friday, April 25, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Nicholson opened the 
 proceedings with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff, chairman of the commit- 
 tee on contingent expenses, submitted the 
 following resolution, and the same was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Resolved, That the committee on contin- 
 gent expenses be authorised to issue a war- 
 rant in the usual form for the sum of forty - 
 four dollars and twenty-nine cents in favor 
 of James Carpenter, sergeant-at-arms, in 
 remuneration for that sum expended by him 
 for the use of the Convention. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Benjamin, the vote 
 adopting the substitute of Mr. Beatty was 
 
 reconsidered, and the same taken up, viz: 
 The first legislature ^assembled under 
 this constitution shall divide the State into 
 judicial districts, which shall remain un- 
 changed for six years, and \>e subject to 
 reorganization every sixth year thereafter; 
 the number of districts shall not be less 
 than twelve nor more than twenty. For 
 each district one judge, learned in the law, 
 shall be appointed. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to amend said 
 substitute by adding at the end of the same 
 the following amendment, viz: 
 
 " Except in the districts in which the 
 cities of New Orleans and Lafayette are 
 situated, the legislature may establish as 
 many district courts as the public interest 
 may require;" which amendment was 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin's amendment was adopt- 
 ed, and the section as amended was then 
 re-adopted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Exjstis, the vote 
 adopting the first section of article fourth 
 was reconsidered, and the same was taken 
 up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 1. The judicial power shall be 
 vested in a supreme court, in district courts 
 to be established throughout the State, in 
 justices of the peace, and such other courts 
 in the cities of New Orleans and Lafayette 
 as the legislature may from time to time 
 direct. 
 
 Mr. Eustis moved to amend said section 
 by striking out the words "and such other 
 courts in the cities of New Orleans and 
 Lafayette as the legislature may from time 
 to time direct;" which amendment was 
 adopted. 
 
 On motion, the section as amended was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 1. The judicial power shall be 
 vested in a supreme courC in district conns 
 to be established throughout the State, and 
 in justices of the peace. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 The question under consideration at the 
 adjournment, was the following section, 
 submitted by Mr. Mayo, viz:- 
 
 The senate, in acting upon the nomina- 
 tion of the judges made by the governor, 
 shall vote viva voce, with open doors, and 
 the votes of at least seventeen senators 
 shall be necessary to confirm a nomination. 
 
 To which section Mr. Taylor offered 
 the following substitute, viz: 
 
Debates in the Convention ot Louisiana. 
 
 789 
 
 A majority of all the members elected to 
 the senate shall be required for the confir- 
 mation or rejection of officers appointed by 
 the governor, with the advice and consent 
 of the senate, and the senate, in deciding 
 thereon, shall vote by yeas and nays, and 
 the names of the senators voting for and 
 against the appointments, respectively, 
 shall be entered on a journal, to be kept 
 for that purpose, and be made public at the 
 end of each session, or before. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved to amend said sub- 
 stitute by striking out the words "and made 
 public at the end of each session, or be- 
 fore," and insert the following words, 
 "and to be published at the discretion of 
 the senate." 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, said he 
 hoped that this amendment would not be 
 adopted; it would defeat the object designed, 
 and would continue a state of things which 
 had given rise to a great deal of complaint. 
 The phraseology of his (Mr. Taylor's) sub- 
 stitute, was similar to that adopted in the 
 constitutions of other States of the Union. 
 The usage has grown up in this State to 
 enshroud all the proceedings of the senate, 
 hi relation to executive appointments, in an 
 impenetrable veil of mystery. In all the 
 other States there is an executive journal 
 published. It has been considered of the 
 utmost importance to show how the agents 
 of the people have discharged the trust re- 
 posed in them; but here, the utmost secrecy 
 is observed; there is no such thing as an 
 executive journal kept, and the members of 
 the senate can be held to no greater re- 
 sponsibility than were the Venitian coun- 
 cil. This mode of proceeding has out- 
 raged the public sentiment of the State, 
 and it is for the purpose of insuring pub- 
 licity to the proceedings, and to enable the 
 public eye to scrutinize them, that it is 
 deemed necessary to introduce a positive 
 provision into the constitution, requiring 
 these proceedings to be made public, to 
 show in what manner the seators have 
 performed the delicate and important func- 
 tions devolving upon them in executive 
 session. That they should no longer have 
 the power to act as a secret conclave, and 
 avoid the responsibility which should de- 
 volve upon them when acting upon execu- 
 tive nominations. If it be left discretiona- 
 ry with the senate to publish or with-hold 
 their proceedings, it will, in effect, defeat 
 
 the object of attaining publicity, and there 
 will be no means of ascertaining whether 
 the constitutional requisition that a majority 
 of the members should vote for the appro- 
 val or rejection of the nomination, has been 
 complied with. 
 
 Mr. Kenner said that the delegate from 
 Assumption (Mr. Taylor) mis-apprehended 
 the object he had in view, and had mis-ap- 
 prehended the system. Whether the evil 
 complained of by that delegate, originated 
 in the constitution, or had grown up from 
 usage, he was unable to say; but the course 
 of proceedings upon executive nominations 
 were this: A box was placed before the 
 members and they deposited into it a white 
 or black ball, accordingly as they were fa- 
 vorable or unfavorable to the nomination. 
 It was impossible to know who deposited a 
 particular ball, unless the members chose 
 to reveal it; and it was thus optional with 
 the member to avoid all responsibility. 
 He was far from approving of any such a 
 system, for it enabled a member to indulge 
 in personal and political feelings, which, 
 before the people, or in an open senate, ho 
 would not dare to do, and that with perfect 
 impunity. The calling of the yeas and 
 nays upon nominations would preclude that 
 evil. But there might be particular cases, 
 where the senate, in the exercise of a 
 sound discretion, should have the power 
 to with-hold particular proceedings, for a 
 time, from publicity. These proceedings, 
 and the votes of each member, would be 
 known to the body themselves, but it might 
 be found expedient not to promulgate them 
 at once. This was obviously the case in 
 relation to pardons. If you trust your sen- 
 ate with the power of participating in ap- 
 pointments, and in granting pardons, surely 
 they are worthy of some discretion in the 
 matter of giving publicity to particular ex- 
 ecutive proceedings. With the amend- 
 ment he proposed, he heartily concurred in 
 the measure, as one every way proper and 
 expedient. 
 
 Mr. Beatty said that the discussion 
 upon this question would come up more ap- 
 propriately in the general provisions, and 
 therefore suggested that it lay upon the ta- 
 ble subject to call. 
 
 The President of the Convention said 
 that his experience for a number of years, 
 as a member of the senate, had convinced 
 him that a reform was indispensably ne- 
 
790 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 cessary, as regarded the secret nature of 
 proceedings upon executive nominations. 
 In point of practical results it was a mere 
 farce. I know of no case where the sen- 
 ate have acted upon an executive nomina- 
 tion, to which the least interest was attach- 
 ed, that the whole matter was not in the 
 possession of the public. I have been told 
 immediately after leaving the senate, how 
 each member voted, and that, notwithstand- 
 ing the greatest discretion which I myself 
 invariably observed upon these matters. 
 
 For myself, my political opinions are so 
 well known, and I act with so little con- 
 cealment, that I am indifferent as to wheth- 
 er my votes and opinions transpire on such 
 occasins; but inasmuch as the assumed se- 
 crecy of the proceeding of the senate is no 
 more than a mere farce, it may happen 
 that certain persons may throw their re- 
 sponsibility upon others, and I really think 
 that the Convention ought to put a stop to 
 this objectionable mode of acting upon ap- 
 pointments. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to lay the substitute 
 and amendment on the table subject to call, 
 which motion was lost. 
 
 The question recurring on Mr. Kenner's 
 amendment, 
 
 Mr. LEwis said that he was opposed to 
 it, because it allowed a majority of the 
 body to conceal proceedings which ought 
 to be known to the community. It was of- 
 ten the case that censure was cast upon a 
 citizen, nominated to a responsible office, 
 with the sole view of defeating his nomina- 
 tion. It was but proper that the resposi- 
 bility should be assumed, and that the peo- 
 ple should know who took the responsibili- 
 ty, or rather who was afraid to let that re- 
 sponsibility be known. He could not con- 
 ceive of any case which authorized these 
 proceedings to be wrapped up in impene- 
 trable darkness- As for the objection of 
 the delegate from Ascension, (Mr. Kenner) 
 that the proceedings had upon recommen- 
 dations to pardon from the governor, should 
 be secret, that had nothing to do with the 
 matter under consideration. It was known 
 who the governor nominated, and why 
 should not the action of the senate upon 
 the nomination be known? In relation to 
 the secrecy observed by the United States 
 senate, the case was widely different. 
 The senate of the United States was a por- 
 tion of the treaty making power, and in 
 
 reference to some of its proceedings, it was 
 necessary that secrecy should be observed. 
 But here there were no .good reasons for 
 mystifying the proceedings had upon nomi- 
 nations. It was known when the individ- 
 ual was rejected, and it was due to him, as 
 well as to the community, that the rea- 
 sons for this rejection should be made 
 known. He hoped the proposition would 
 be adopted, that the amendment, which in 
 part defeated the object intended, would 
 be rejected. 
 
 Mr. Eustis would merely state that if 
 the proposition of the delegate from La- 
 fourche (Mr. Taylor) prevailed, it would 
 make an entire change in the system of 
 nominations. If it be the sense of the 
 Convention to adopt it, I have nothing to 
 say. But I will avail myself of this occa- 
 sion to state the principles upon which I 
 conceive the system to rest. It may be 
 said that there is a choice of difficulties,, 
 and gentlemen have a right to complain of 
 the results of the present system in some 
 instances. There are, however, no gen- 
 eral measures where justice will not occa- 
 sionally suffer. It is true that by the exis- 
 ting mode that there is no responsibility, 
 that there is a freedom from restraint, and 
 that the nomination is in a word submitted 
 to the unlimitted will of the senate. This 
 independence would, with a conscientious 
 man, insure a good choice, but with a bad 
 man, one actuated with improper motives, 
 it would influence him to act solely with re- 
 gard to his personal views, and without 
 considering the public interests. The 
 president has told us that he had been cal- 
 led to account why he voted so and so. 
 That man had enough nerve, but all men 
 have not that command over themselves, to 
 do their duty, regardless of the responsibil- 
 ities they may incur. I have no doubt that 
 there are men ^that do not care whether 
 their votes on such occasions are known or 
 not; but there are others who, from a natu 
 ral timidity as well as from a disinclination 
 to incur personal responsibility, that would 
 prefer to avoid that responsibility. They 
 would hesitate even in the discharge of 
 what they conceived a paramount duty, by 
 defeating a nomination, to incur the ven- 
 geance and ill-will of the individual who 
 was rejected. After calculating the ad- 
 vantages and disadvantages of the system, 
 I come to the conclusion that upon the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 791 
 
 who^e it is better to retain it. If the Con- 
 vention however, think differently, so be it. 
 The only wish that I have is, fnatthat their 
 votes should be given understanding^ upon 
 the matter. I am apprehensive that, if the 
 substitute be adopted, we shall entail in- 
 finitely more evils than can flow from the 
 present system. 
 
 Mr. Marigny: It is an error to suppose 
 that moral courage, like physical courage, 
 is within the volition of a man. If you 
 adopt the substitute which has been pro- 
 posed, you will create a senate which, in- 
 stead of being independent, will become 
 the mere slave, or, at best, the mere crea- 
 ture of applicants for office. As far as 
 the judgment of a senator finds a defence 
 in his entire exemption from personal dis- 
 satisfaction, so far will he dread the effects 
 of publicity; and you will find that through 
 the fear of creating personal enemies, he 
 will sacrifice the public interest, and that 
 in spite of the best intentions. I had the 
 honor for more than seven years of hold- 
 ing a seat in the State senate, and I am 
 perfectly familiar with this subject of ex- 
 ecutive nominations. The most courage- 
 ous and the boldest debator would, in re- 
 ality, be the most timid if the doors were 
 opened when the questiou was to be taken 
 upon the approval or rejection of the nomi- 
 nation made by the governor. We have 
 been referred to those that know their du- 
 ty alone, and would fulfill it in spite of all 
 opposition. I know that there are men of 
 that character that^iave filled seats in the 
 senate and some of the members of that 
 body will recollect that I invariably voted 
 in the most open and unconcealed manner; 
 Und that I was regardless of what might 
 be the consequences of my official conduct. 
 But the exception does not form the rule, 
 and we should be careful how we base le- 
 gislation upon the exception instead of the 
 rule itself, I hope that the section will not 
 be adopted. 
 
 Mr. Walker asked the indulgence of 
 the Convention to make a few remarks in 
 reply. The great experience of the gen- 
 tleman (Mr. Marigny) entitled his opinions 
 to great weight, and it was with diffidence 
 he differed in opinion from that gentleman. 
 For some years past, at any rate, this as- 
 sumed secrecy of proceedings in the senate 
 upon appointments has amounted to a mere 
 farce. There was no good result to be 
 
 obtained from this mode of proceeding, and 
 it facilitated intrigues and attempts to in- 
 fluence the final action of the senators; 
 whereas, if the proceedings were public, 
 this result would be counteracted by pub- 
 lic opinion, and each senator in the vote he 
 would give Would assume his own person- 
 al responsibility. For myself, (said Mr. 
 Walker,) I have invariably voted openly. 
 I voted upon such lights as I possessed, 
 and with a single eye to the public service. 
 I know, however, that as to any secrecy, 
 in point of fact, it was out of the question. 
 For upon leaving the senate, I have had 
 related to me, with singular accuracy, all 
 that had transpired in secret session. I 
 never could account for this otherwise than 
 by supposing that, from the position of the 
 room, the debates, which were carried on 
 in a very animated manner upon some oc- 
 casions, were heard by persons in the vi- 
 cinity of the room, and thus the course and 
 particular objections of senators were as- 
 certained. I think, in a government like 
 ours, even if secrecy could be had, it ought 
 to be avoided. The people have a right 
 to scrutinize the acts of their agents, and 
 these acts ought to be open and above 
 board. These are my opinions, and! have 
 no hesitation in expressing them. I trust 
 that the section of the delegate from As- 
 sumption (Mr. Taylor) will be adopted; it 
 meets with my most cordial approval. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for on 
 Mr. Kenner's amendment " to insert at 
 the discretion of the senate," (Mr. Saunders 
 in the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bri- 
 ant, Carriere, Chambliss, Chinn, Clai- 
 borne, Eustis, Guion, Kenner, King, La- 
 bauve, Legendre, McCallop, Marigny, Ma- 
 zureau, Pugh, Roman, Trist, Wadsworth, 
 and Winchester voted in the affirmative — 
 21 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Cenas, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 Dunn, Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hyn 
 son, Ledoux, Lewis, McRae, Mayo, Por= 
 ter, Pres'cott of Avoyelles, Preston, Prud- 
 homme, Ratliff, Read, St. Amand, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Waddill, Wederstrandt and Wikoff voted 
 in the negative — -33 nays; consequently 
 said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption moved for 
 
792 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 the adoption of the substitute, and the yeas 
 and nays being called for, (Mr. Saunders 
 in the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 Culbertson, Dunn, Garrett, Guion, Huds- 
 peth, Humble, Hynson, Keriner, Ledoux, 
 Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 ton, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Ro- 
 man, St. Amand, Scott of Feliciana, Sel- 
 lers, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Taylor of Assumption, Trist and Wed- 
 erstrandt voted in the affirmative — 40 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Briant, Bur- 
 ton, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Jefforson, Eustis, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, Marigny, Mazureau, Wadsworth, 
 Waddill, WikofF and Winchester voted in 
 the negative — 18 nays; consequently said 
 motion was carried, and the substitute was 
 adopted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Benjamin, the above 
 substitute was referred to the committee of 
 revision to be classed in the legislative ar- 
 ticle. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne said that he had yester- 
 day offered a section embracing one of the 
 features of the section offered by his col- 
 league (Mr- Soule) and had withdrawn it, 
 when the motion was made by the dele- 
 gate from Ascension, (Mr. Itenncr) to lay 
 the original section upon the table 9 He 
 would beg leave to introduce it under a 
 somewhat modified form, and one which he 
 hoped would be acceptable to the house. 
 So far from yielding the principle, he had 
 been more and more convinced that the 
 judicial power ought to be made as inde- 
 pendent of the executive power as pos^ 
 sible. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne submitted the follow- 
 ing additional section, viz: 
 
 On the expiration of the term of any 
 judicial officer, whenever the governor 
 shall not have .nominated to the senate for 
 the succeeding term, the incumbent in of- 
 fice, any senator may nominate said in- 
 cumbent, and in such case the senate shall 
 have power to select between the incum- 
 bent in office and the person nominated by 
 the governor, or to reject both. 
 
 Mr. Beatty expressed himself in favor 
 of this proposition. He thought it posses- 
 sed all the advantages of the section offer- 
 
 ed by the delegate from New Orleans, (Mr. 
 Soule) and was infinitely more simple and 
 practicable. He hoped it would be adopted. 
 
 Mr. Eustis said: I think that the Con- 
 vention should well consider the question 
 in all its bearings. It would be well that 
 the claims and qualifications of the actual 
 incumbent should be taken into considera- 
 tion in making the apportionment, but at 
 the same time it would be awkward to 
 constrain the governor to send in the name 
 of a person whose appointment he did not 
 approve. I do not know of any other 
 way of avoiding that difficulty than by 
 adopting a substitute to the section, which 
 I have prepared, and to which 1 would in- 
 vite the attention of the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Eustis submitted as a substitute for 
 the above the following, viz: 
 
 "On nominations for judicial officers, af- 
 ter the first appointments under this con- 
 stitution, if a majority of the members 
 elected to the senate shall advise the re-ap- 
 pointment of the incumbent, he shall be 
 re-appointed." 
 
 Mr. Claiborne said that he was solici- 
 tous as to the principle, but indifferent as 
 to the words in which it may be couched. 
 He thought his section nevertheless the 
 best, inasmuch as it placed the incumbe/if 
 and the person appointed by the # governor 
 immediately before the senate for their ac- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Porter said that the practical ope- 
 ration of this mode of proceeding would be 
 to give the senate th% power of electing 
 the judges, The result would be a regu- 
 lar system of electioneering and log-rolling 
 in and out of the senate. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, said that $t 
 first he was inclined to view the proposi- 
 tion with favor, but subsequent reflection 
 had convinced him that it was of doubtful 
 propriety and expediency. He would 
 therefore move to lay it indefinitely on the 
 table. 4 4 jj 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, (Mr. 
 Saunders in the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Humble, Hynson, 
 Kenner, Ledoux, Legendre, McCallop, 
 McRae, O'Bryan, Porter, Prescott of A- 
 voyelles, Preston, Prudhomme, Ratlin*, 
 Read, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Waddill and Wederstrandt 
 voted in the affirmative — 25 yeas; and 
 
Debates In the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 793 
 
 Messrs. Aiibert, Beatty, Bourg, Benja- 
 min, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 King, Labauve, Lewis, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Pugh, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Scott of Feliciana, Taylor of St. j 
 Landry, Wikofr and Winchester voted in j 
 the negative — 29 nays; consequently said 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Kennee moved to insert the words 
 "house of representatives" after the word 
 "senate," so that the clause would read 
 '•and the senate and house of representa- 
 tives shall make their selection from the 
 three persons thus named and presented." 
 Mr. Kenner stated, that in presenting his 
 amendment, to include the house of repre- 
 sentatives with the senate, he did so, not 
 that he is in favor of electing the judiciary 
 by the legislature, but that he would prefer 
 to have them elected by joint ballot, than 
 by one branch alone. If the amendment 
 is passed he will vote against the entire 
 section. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans said he hoped 
 the gentleman did not intend to insist on 
 this amendment. It was not designed to 
 take the appointing power out of the hands 
 of the executive. This was only an ex- 
 ception to the general rule. It was an ex- 
 ceptional case, and it appeared to him to 
 be called for by sound considerations o 
 public policy. In ordinary cases the ap- 
 pointments would go under the general 
 rule, but when there was a judge in office 
 who had given general satisfaction, it 
 would be in the power of the senate, in 
 the exercise of a proper discretion to re- 
 tain him. The executive, from personal 
 pique or political motives, might supersede 
 an excellent judicial officer, unless some 
 power were lodged in the senate in acting 
 upon the governor's nomination, to retain 
 the incumbent, if it were for the public in- 
 terest to do so. It was essential too to 
 insure stability to the judiciary,, to retain 
 such judges on the bench as were compe- 
 tent and efficient. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff said that he disliked to ob- 
 trude any thing he had to say upon the 
 house, but he thought the proposition, if 
 adopted, would be attended with unfortu- 
 nate results. It would connect the judici- 
 ary and the senate into so many intrigues. 
 The future judges would endeavor to ap- 
 point the senators, and the senators would 
 
 appoint them, He did not approve of 
 giving the executive the appointing powe 
 with one hand and then depriving him o 
 it with the other. It was best to leave 
 things as they were, in the mode of ap« 
 pointment, if the people were to be de- 
 prived of electing their judges, which, in 
 his opinion was the best system, and liable 
 to the least objections. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne called for the adoption 
 of the substitute. He was willing to take 
 the substitute in place of the original sec- 
 tion, if such was the sense of the house. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved for the previous 
 question, which motion prevailed. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the adoption of the amendment of Mr. 
 Kenner, to insert the words "and house of 
 representatives," (Mr. Saunders in the 
 chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Chambliss, 
 Carriere, Humble, Kenner, McCallop, 
 McRae, Mayo, Porter, Prudhomme, Rat- 
 liff, Read, Taylor of Assumption, Trist 
 and Waddill voted in the affirmative — 16 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty r , Bourg, Benja- 
 min, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Co- 
 villion, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Hynson, King, Labauve, Le- 
 doux, Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazu- 
 reau, Peets, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Preston, Pugh, Ro- 
 man, St. Amand, Scott of Feliciana, Sel- 
 lers, Soule, Stephens, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, Wikoff 
 and Winchester voted in the negative — 41 
 nays ; consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Kenner then offered the following 
 amendment, viz: 
 
 t; It shall be competent for a majority of 
 the members elected to the senate to re- 
 elect the incumbent;" and stated that this 
 being the positive meaning of the section, 
 though couched in different language, he 
 wished it to be expressed in such language 
 as that it might be known what would be 
 the effect of the section as presented. He 
 is opposed to the section, but wishes the 
 language to conform to the real meaning 
 and object in view. Which amendment 
 was rejected. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the adoption of the substitute of Mr. Eus- 
 tis, (Mr. Saunders in the chair,) 
 
794 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Brumfield, 
 Briant, Burton, Cenas, Dunn, Eustis, Gar- 
 rett, Guion, Hudspeth, King, Lewis, 
 Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Taylor of St. Landry, WikofF and 
 Winchester voted in the affirmative — 21 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Car- 
 riere, Chambliss, Chinn, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Covillion, Humble, Hyn 
 son, Kenner, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, 
 McCallop, McRae, Mayo Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Preston, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Soule, Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, 
 Waddill, Wadsworth and Wederstrandt 
 voted in the negative — 36 nays; conse- 
 quently said motion was lost. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the adoption of the section of Mr. Clai- 
 borne, (Mr. Saunders in the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bri- 
 ant, Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Dunn, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, King, Lewis, Marigny, Mazu- 
 reau, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Taylor of St. Landry, Wads- 
 worth and Winchester voted in the affir- 
 mative — 24 yeas: and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Chambliss, 
 Carriere, Chinn, Covillion, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Kenner, Labauve, Ledoux, Legen- 
 dre, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Por- 
 ter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, Ratliff, 
 Read, Sellers, Soule, Splane, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Waddill, 
 Wederstrandt and Wikoff voted in the neg- 
 ative — 32 nays; consequently the motion 
 was lost. 
 
 On motion section twentieth was taken 
 np, viz: 
 
 Sec. 20. The said district courts shall 
 have general original jurisdiction in all civil 
 cases when the amount in dispute exceeds 
 fifty dollars. In all criminal cases, and in 
 all matters connected with- successions 
 their jurisdiction shall be unlimited. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to amend said 
 section by inserting after the word "dollars" 
 in the third line, the words "exclusive of 
 interest;" and the same was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff suggested that it would be 
 well to ascertain whether this jurisdiction 
 of the district courts comprehended a ju- 
 
 risdiction of the offences committed by 
 slaves, and whether it was exclusive of 
 other jurisdiction. 
 
 Mr. Chinn proposed an amendment, but 
 subsequently withdrew it, upon the assu- 
 rance of Messrs. Benjamin, Miles Taylor, 
 and Eustis that it was unnecessary J and 
 that it was competent for the legislature to 
 confer all necessary authority upon justi- 
 ces of the peace; and that moreover the 
 proceedings against slaves were no part of 
 our criminal law, but of our police regula- 
 tions. 
 
 Section twentieth was then adopted. 
 The twenty-first section was taken up, 
 viz : 
 
 Sec. 21. The legislature shall have 
 power to vest in clerks of courts authority 
 to grant such orders and do such acts as 
 may be deemed necessary for the further. 1 
 ance of the administration of justice; and 
 in all cases the powers thus granted shall 
 be specified and determined. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by striking out in the third line, the 
 words "and do such acts." 
 
 Mr. Ratliff said that he apprehended under 
 this clause it was intended to revive tha 
 chameleon character, the parish judge, un 
 der a new name. If the gentlemen were 
 really serious in wishing to deprive the 
 clerks of the courts, of the manifold duties 
 of auctioneers, notaries public, registers of 
 mortgages, conveyances, &c. &c. about 
 which they disclaimed so much, they would 
 concur in the amendment he had proposed. !| 
 If they , acted otherwise, it was because 
 they wished to secure the mantle of Eli- 
 jah, now that the office of parish judge was 1 
 to be abolished. The words "and do such 
 acts as may be deemed necessary for the 
 furtherance of the administration of justice," 
 meant a great deal. It meant almost every 
 thing. They were not confined to minis- 
 terial duties, but were invested with judi- 
 cial functions at the mere will of the legis- 
 lature. If he were right, and the words 
 inserted were sufficient, to authorize an 
 unlimited construction, they ought to be 
 stricken out. He could not conceive what 
 possible benefit could result in abolishing 
 the office of parish judge, and then creating 
 clerks of courts with the very same func- 
 tions. The gentlemen have said a great 
 deal about the impropriety of entrusting so 
 many duties to a single person. If they 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 795 
 
 are sincere in their denunciation of the 
 parisn judge system on that account, they 
 will not revive that system through clerks 
 of the courts. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said that the gentleman 
 misapprehended the objections that had 
 been urged against the parish court system. 
 It was true that objection was made to ac- 
 cumulating ministerial functions in the 
 hands of the judge. But so far as these 
 ministerial functions were attributed to an 
 officer, who was not a judge, he had nev- 
 er understood that it was intended to de- 
 prive such officer of such other duties as 
 the public convenience might demand. It 
 might be found necessary to invest that of- 
 ficer with the duty of issuing writs of ar- 
 rest, writs of sequestration, and to perform 
 such conservatory acts as were not purely 
 judicial. It will be found convenient to 
 have the several offices connected with 
 the administration of justice kept in the 
 same place, and where the extent of the 
 duties permit it, the same individual may 
 be the clerk of the court and keep the re- 
 cords cf conveyances and the records of 
 mortgages. Where it may be necessary, 
 these different duties will necesserily be 
 confided to separate and distinct officers; 
 but still there should be but one place for 
 the transaction of all such business. It 
 must be borne in mind that these officers 
 are supported out of the substance of the 
 people, and the public interest requre that 
 there should be as few of them as are es- 
 sential to an efficient administration. In 
 assigning these duties to the hands of one 
 man, there is nothing which is incongru- 
 ous or inconsistent. But it is a most 
 shocking incongruity in our system, that 
 a judge should descend from the bench to 
 hold a family meeting, and then reascend 
 the bench in order to homologate the pro- 
 ceedings. That he should make a will 
 and then decide whether it was defective 
 in form. There was in this something 
 revolting to common sense. There is no- 
 thing that is objectionable in attributing va- 
 rious duties of an initiatory character to 
 the clerks of courts, and in sparsely settled 
 districts, all the necessary functions not 
 necessarily attached to the judicial office 
 may be discharged by one person. It 
 will be an economy as well as a matter of 
 great convenience. This was the reason 
 why the committee reported the section 
 
 in its present form. The object is one 
 which I heartily approve. It was not that 
 I conceived that the parish judge had too 
 much to do, but it was because I believed 
 the duties assigned to him were incongru- 
 ous, and that he was called upon in one 
 capacity to decide upon the very matters 
 which he had performed in another. 
 
 Mr. M. Taylor had a few remarks to 
 make in reply to the delegate who had just 
 resumed his seat. It would be remember- 
 ed that when the first section was under 
 discussion, he (Mr. Taylor) had contended 
 against the adoption of the section on the 
 ground that it would not remedy the evil 
 which it was designed to correct. The 
 delegate from New Orleans (Mr. Benja- 
 min) now tells us that it was not because 
 too many offices were accumulated in the 
 hands of the parish judge that he opposed 
 the system, but it was because he deemed 
 those duties to be incongruous; and yet 
 the gentleman is willing to attribute judi- 
 cial functions to the clerks of the courts. 
 This is the system that has been lauded so 
 much. The object, I conceive has not 
 been attained. It is true that the parish 
 judge system is abolished; but what shall 
 we have in place of it? Nothing more 
 than a mere transfer of the functions of 
 the officer called parish judge to the officer 
 called clerk of a court. A reference to 
 the first section and to subsequent sections 
 will show that the delegate from West Fe- 
 liciana (Mr. Ratliff) and myself were cor- 
 rect in the position we assumed. The 
 first section of the report of the judiciary 
 committee which has been adopted, pro- 
 vides that the judicial power shall be vest- 
 ed in a supreme court, in district courts, 
 and injustices of the peace. The eleventh 
 section prescribes that no other functions 
 shall be attributed to the judge but such as 
 are purely judicial. The section under 
 consideration makes an exception in favor 
 of clerks. It gives to the legislature the 
 power to make parish judges out of the 
 clerks of courts. It reads as follows: 
 
 The legislature shall have power to vest 
 in clerks authority to grant "such orders," 
 &c. 
 
 Now are there any orders that are not 
 judicial? But the next clause goes still 
 further. They are "to do such acts as may 
 be deemed necessary for the f urtherance o f 
 [the administration of justice ." Does net 
 
796 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 this remove every limitation? They are 
 not only to grant orders, and orders of all 
 descriptions, but they are to do such acts 
 as may be deemed necessary for the fur- 
 therance ofjustice! Language could scarce, 
 ly be made use of that would more effect- 
 ually authorise the legislature to establish 
 parish judges undeiyinother name. There 
 is but a changing of names. The section 
 confers upon the legislature full authority; 
 there are no words of prohibition, and in 
 my view, if it be adopted, it will defeat 
 the objeet that has been aimed at; and I 
 hazard the prediction that clerks of courts 
 under it will be authorised to exercise all 
 the powers, and discharge all the functions 
 of parish judges, with the exception of that 
 of deciding contested cases, which all think 
 they ought to be deprived of. 
 
 Mr. Etjstis said that if the Convention 
 desired to undo their work and revive the 
 system, which it was presumed they had 
 consigned to oblivion, all they would have 
 to do would be to reject the present sec- 
 tion. If they wished to restore this nine- 
 office power; this powej; of holding nine 
 offices in the person of one man, called a 
 judge, let them so determine it. As for 
 those powers not judicial, they ought to be 
 attributed to ministerial officers. Three- 
 fourths of the duties now performed by 
 the parish judges were ministerial: such 
 as the affixing of seals, taking of invento- 
 ries, #c. &c. All the duties that did not 
 require the fiat of the judge were properly 
 within the competency of ministerial offi- 
 cers, and should be assigned to them. If 
 the gentleman from West Feliciana (Mr. 
 Ratliff) would look at the last clause of 
 the section, he would observe that every 
 guaranty was provided in the discretion 
 placed in the legislature. As to attempt- 
 ing to define what were judicial functions, 
 and what were ministerial functions, it was 
 taking up unnecessarily the time of the 
 Convention. He hoped the section would 
 be adopted. It had been prepared with 
 a great deal of care, and was well design- 
 ed to obviate the defects of the former 
 system. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff said that notwithstanding 
 the efforts made to conceal the practical 
 operation of the system, it is nevertheless 
 evident that clerks of courts will be inves- 
 ted with judicial functions. And when 
 we ask why are not ministerial officers 
 
 limited to functions purely ministerial, in- 
 asmuch as judges are limited to functions 
 purely judicial, we are told that the system 
 has been prepared by accomplished and 
 eminent members of the bar, and we must 
 conclude that it is faultless, and admirably 
 designed to meet the public wants and pub. 
 lie wishes. This is a peculiar mode of 
 getting rid of objections. 1 may admit, as 
 I readily do, the talents of the gentlemen 
 composing the committee on the judiciary 
 and their distinguished capacities for the 
 duties assigned them; but they are liable 
 to err, and with the best intentions, they 
 may be deceived and led astray by theo- 
 ries, as well as men of humbler preten- 
 sions. I maintain that this section invests 
 the ministerial officers of the courts with 
 judicial powers, at the discretion of the 
 legislature. It is perfectly competent for 
 the legislature to prescribe to them judi- 
 cial duties under that section, and that it 
 will be done 1 have no the remotest doubt. 
 A great deal has been said about the multi- 
 plicity of offices confided to the parish 
 judges; that was doubtless a matter of se- 
 rious objection; but have you got rid of 
 that feature in your judicial system] It is 
 true you have abolished the parish court 
 system — the multiplicity of offices is de- 
 stroyed in reference to parish judges; but 
 have you not created another factotum; an- 
 other officer with a plurality 'of functions'? 
 The material difference will be but slight 
 as far as the principle is involved; for the 
 clerks of courts will be invested with ju- 
 dicial functions, whereas parish judges 
 were invested with- ministerial functions. 
 Gentlemen are deceived if they think the 
 name makes the difference in the thing it- 
 self. 
 
 The same objections exist against in- 
 vesting the clerks of courts with distinct 
 and different functions, that existed against 
 a similar investure in tire parish judges, 
 and the objections are perhaps still more 
 valid. But this is not all. There will be 
 an almost utter impossibility for clerks to 
 perform these duties. In some instan- 
 ces they may have to ride fifty miles 
 to affix the seals, and fifty miles again to 
 renew them, and to take the inventory. It 
 may work well enough in the city; but 
 how will it work in the country? It will 
 be attended with a great deal of inconve- 
 nience and trouble, and however well geiv 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 797 
 
 tlemen may find their theory to be, in the 
 practice of their system they will be wo- 
 fully mistaken. 
 
 Mr. Kenxer called for the previous 
 question; which w T as ordered. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved to strike out the 
 words "and perform such other duties," 
 and called for the yeas and nays, (Mr. 
 Saunders in the chair.) 
 
 Messrs. Carriere, Covillion, Porter, Rat- 
 liff, Scott of Feliciana and Taylor of As- 
 sumption voted in the affirmative — 6 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bia- 
 zeale, Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, 
 Chambliss, China, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Humble, Hynson, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, 
 McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Ma- 
 zureau, Peets, Prescoit of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Read, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, 
 Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Trist, Waddill, Wederstrandt, 
 Wikoff and Winchester voted in the neg 
 ative— 45 nays; consequently said motion 
 was lost. 
 
 On motion said section was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Garrett submitted the following 
 additional section, viz: 
 
 The clerks of the district courts shall be 
 leected by the qualified electors in each 
 parish, for the term of four years. 
 
 Mr. Mayo offered the following substi- 
 tute, viz: 
 
 There shall be elected in each parish 
 of the State, by the qualified electors there- 
 
 ; of, at the time of the general election for 
 members of the general assembly, a sher- 
 iff, coroner, surveyor and clerk of the dis- 
 trict court, and a competent number of no- 
 taries public, justices of the peace, and con- 
 stables, who shall hold their offices for the 
 term of two years, and until their succes- 
 
 . sors are qrfalified^ 
 
 On motion the additional section and 
 substitute were la# on the table, subject 
 to call. 
 
 Section twenty-second was taken up, viz : 
 Sec. 22. .The clerks of the several 
 courts shall be removeable for breach of 
 good behavior, by the judges thereof, sub- 
 ject in all cases to an appeal to the su- 
 preme court. 
 
 On motion said section was laid on the 
 table subject to call. 
 
 101 
 
 Section twenty-third was taken up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 23. The jurisdiction of the justices 
 of the peace shall never exceed, in civil 
 cases the sum of fifty dollars. They shall 
 be elected by the qualified voters of each 
 parish for the term of — years. 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved to fill up the blank 
 in said section with the word "two;" which 
 motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Beext moved to amend said section 
 by striking out in the second line' the word 
 "fifty," and insert the words "one hun- 
 dred." The 3/eas and nays being called 
 ►for, (Mr. Saunders in the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Bru in- 
 field, Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Covillion, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Labauve, McCallop, McRae, 
 Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Prud- 
 homme, Ratliff, Read, Roman, Roselius, 
 | St. Amand, Splane, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in the af- 
 firmative — 31 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Cenas, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garrett, Guion, Kenner, King, Legendre, 
 Lewis, Mazureau, Pugh, Scott of Felici- 
 ana, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Trist, WifcofF and Winchester voted 
 in the negative-— 19 nays; consequently 
 said motion was carried. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Labauve, said section 
 was amended by inserting after the word 
 "dollars," in the third line, the words "ex- 
 clusive of interest." 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved to amend, by in- 
 serting in the third line, after the words 
 " exclusive of interest," the following 
 amendment, viz : 
 
 " Subject to an appeal to the district 
 court, in all cases wherein the matter in 
 dispute exceeds twenty-five dollars;" which 
 amendment was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Splaxe moved to amend by striking 
 out the words "they shall be elected by 
 the qualified voters of each parish." The 
 yeas and nays being called for, (Mr. Saun- 
 ders in the chair.) 
 
 Messrs. Bryant, Cenas, Claiborne, Con. 
 rad of Orleans, Eustis, Labauve, Legendre, 
 Marigny, Mazureau, Roman, Roselius, St. 
 Amand, Splane, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 and Winchester voted in the affirmative — 
 15 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Biumfield, Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 
79* 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Covillion, Dunn,Garrett,Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, King, Lewis, McCallop, 
 McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, RatlifF, Read, Saun- 
 ders, Seott of Feliciana, Sellers, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Waddill, Weder- 
 strandtand Wikoff voted in the negative 
 — 37 nays; consequently said motion was 
 lost. 
 
 On motion the section as amended was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 23, The jurisdiction of justices of 
 the peace shall never exceed, in civil ca-< 
 ses the sum of one hundred dollars, exclu- 
 sive of interest, subject to an appeal to. the 
 district court in all cases wherein the mat- 
 ter in dispute exceeds twenty-five dollars. 
 They shall be elected by the qualified 
 voters of each parish for the term of two 
 years. 
 
 Section twenty-fourth was taken up, viz: 
 Sec. 24. The judges of the supreme 
 court and district courts, provided for in 
 this constitution, shall be appointed and 
 commissioned as soon as possible after this 
 constitution shall go into effect; and the 
 legislature shall provide for the removal of 
 all causes now pending in the supreme and 
 other courts of the State under the present 
 constitution, to the supreme and district 
 courts created by this constitution, and to 
 the other courts that may be created by 
 the legislature for the city of New Or- 
 leans. 
 
 Mr. Garsett moved to amend by stri- 
 king out the words "and to the other courts 
 that may be created by the legislature for 
 the city of New Orleans;" which motion 
 prevailed. 
 
 On motion the section as amended was 
 adopted, viz : 
 
 Sec. 24. The judges of the supreme 
 court and district courts, provided for in 
 this constitution shall be appointed and 
 commissioned as soon as possible after this 
 constitution shall go into effect; and the 
 legislature shall provide for the removal of 
 all causes now pending in the supreme or 
 other courts of the State under the present 
 constitution, to the supreme and district 
 courts created by this constitution. 
 
 On motion, the second section was taken 
 up, viz : 
 
 Sec, 2. The supreme court shall have 
 appellate jurisdiction only,, except in cases 
 
 hereinafter provided, which jurisdiction 
 shall extend to all cases where the mat- 
 ter in dispute shall exceed five hundred 
 dollars. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to amend said section 
 by inserting in the second line after the 
 word "jurisdiction" the words "on ques- 
 tions of law." 
 
 Mr. Lewis intimating the desire of addres- 
 sing the house on this amendment, on his 
 motion the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Remarks of Mr. Read, upon the adop- 
 tion of the first section of the report of the 
 committee upon the judiciary. 
 
 Mr. Read said: Having been cut off by 
 the previous question from the opportuni- 
 ty of submitting the remarks he had de- 
 signed making, he would beg the indul- 
 gence of the Convention while he explain- 
 ed his opinions. By his vote upon this 
 question, he thought he would not only 
 give utterance to the sentiments of his im- 
 mediate constituents, but of nine-tenths of 
 the people of Louisiana. He was deter- 
 mined to pursue a course that would most 
 effectually destroy the parish judge sys- 
 tem as at present organized, and which 
 would give full jurisdiction to district courts 
 in all matters of probate. He was oppos. 
 ed to any system which made the judge 
 first, last and best heir to every estate in 
 the country, and thought such an one could 
 be supported by but few, save the univer- 
 sal heirs themselves. Thousands of wid- 
 ows and orphans have suffered from the 
 miserable system which has cursed the 
 country for years, while certain life-time 
 dignitaries have revelled in luxury and ill- 
 begotten wealth. Justice calls loudiy for 
 our interference in this matter, and there 
 seems to be but one remedy, viz: the total 
 annihilation of these worse than Spanish 
 inquisitions, and the complete transfer of 
 all probate business to the district courts, 
 
 Let us then confer probate jurisdiction 
 upon district courts, where successions can 
 be settled in temples of justice, and not, in 
 sinks of iniquity; settled upon principles of 
 benevolence and humanity, and not upon 
 principles of plunder; settled by right and 
 religion, and not by the depraved craving* 
 of a callous heart. He said that he desir- 
 ed each and every parish judge in the State 
 to be enabled to exclaim, "farewell! along 
 farewell to all my greatness." 
 
Debates in the Convention oi Louisiana, 
 
 799 
 
 Saturday, April 26, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment, and its proceedings were opened 
 with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Humble stated that yesterday the 
 house adopted a clause allowing an appeal 
 from decisions of justices of the peace, 
 when the amount involved was of^twenty- 
 nve dollars. He stated that at present, ap- 
 peals were granted when the amount was 
 of ten dollars. He thought the matter 
 ought to be left to the discretion of the le- 
 gislature. Even as it was, great hardship 
 was experienced; he thought appeals should 
 be for a smaller amount than twenty-five 
 dollars; and would state further, that in 
 some cases the appointments of justices of 
 the peace, in some sections of the State, 
 were not made from the first class of 
 citizens. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff thought this a small mat- 
 ter, and it would be, perhaps, better to 
 leave the clause as it was. He was averse 
 to encouraging litigation. He hoped the 
 motion to reconsider would not prevail. 
 
 The question was taken upon the motion 
 io reconsider. 
 
 Mr. Lewis inquirem whether as many 
 voted in favor of the re-consideration as vo- 
 ted in favor of the original proposition. He 
 had voted in favor of the re-consideration, 
 but he wished the rules to be observed. 
 
 The secretary stated that the yeas and 
 nays were not called for yesterday. 
 
 Mr. Mayo observed that the chair had 
 decided that when the yeas and nays were 
 not called for, the presumption was that 
 the re-consideration was carried, if a sim- 
 ple majority voted for the re-consideration. 
 
 The Chair (Mr. M. Taylor) stated that 
 it had so decided the question. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to leave the section as 
 it originally stood. 
 
 Mr. Garrett said that the argument of 
 the delegate from West Feliciana (Mr. 
 Ratliff) had convinced him that it was ex- 
 pedient to insert the clause in the constitu- 
 tion, and before taking the question he 
 would bog the Convention to take into con- 
 sideration the remarks of that delegate. 
 
 Mr. Preston had a proposition to make 
 : which he thought would be satisfactory, 
 , and would move that the tenth section of 
 the minority report be substituted, as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 Sec. 10, A suitable number of magis- 
 
 trates shall be chosen in every parish, by 
 the qualified electors thereof, for the term 
 of two years, who shall have jurisdiction 
 of all cases when the amount in contro- 
 versy, or penalty to be inflicted, does not 
 exceed one hundred dollars, subject to ap- 
 peal, to be determined by law, and shall 
 perform such other duties as may be pro- 
 vided by law. 
 
 Mr. Ga*rrett moved that the substitute 
 be laio! on the table indefintely; the yeas 
 and nays being called for, (Mr. Taylor of 
 Assumption in the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Bourg, Brazeale, Brum- 
 field, Chambliss, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Hyn- 
 son, King, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, 
 Peets, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Roman, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Wederstrandt and Wikoff voted 
 in the affirmative — 26 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Briant, Burton, Carriere, 
 Covillion, Humble, McCallop, McRae, 
 Mayo, Porter, Preston, Ratliff, Saunders, 
 Scott of Feliciana and Taylor of Assump- 
 tion voted in the negative — 15 nays; con- 
 sequently said motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to amend said section 
 by striking out the words " in all cases 
 wherein the matter in dispute shall exceed 
 twenty-five dollars," and insert in lieu 
 thereof the following words, "in such cases 
 as shall be provided for by law;" which 
 amendment was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to amend said section 
 by adding at the end of the same the fol- 
 lowing amendment, viz: "And shall have 
 such criminal jurisdiction as shall be pro- 
 vided for by law;" which amendment was 
 adopted. 
 
 On motion, the section as amended, was 
 adopted, viz : 
 
 Sec. 23. The jurisdiction of justices of 
 the peace shall never exceed, in civil 
 cases, the sum of one hundred dollars, ex- 
 clusive of interest, subject to an appeal to 
 the district court, in such cases as shall be 
 provided for by law. They shall be elect- 
 ed by the qualified voters of each parish 
 for the term of two years, and shall have 
 such criminal jurisdiction as shall be pro- 
 vided for by law. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne gave notice that he 
 would on a future day move to reconsider 
 the vote adopting after reconsideration, the 
 amendment to the seventh section, because 
 
800 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 he believed the reconsideration to be out 
 of order. 
 
 (Mr. Taylor of Assumption in the 
 chair.) The question of order raised is a 
 very important one, and the chair thinks it 
 proper to express its opinion on it, although 
 it is not now necessary to decide it for- 
 mally. 
 
 The chair does not concur in the opin- 
 ion expressed by the delegate from New 
 Orleans, that the rules were made for the 
 protection of absent members, and that 
 they cannot be dispensed with without pre- 
 vious notice. 
 
 Rules are made for the government of 
 the house, and that is composed of the 
 members present forming a quorum. 
 
 In the opinion of the chair it does not 
 admit of a doubt, that four- fifths of the mem- 
 bers present can at any time and without 
 any previous notice, suspend any rule; and 
 that the proceedings had in pursuance of 
 such suspension of a rule, are in all re- 
 spects regular, and that they cannot at any 
 future time be called in question on that 
 ground. Any thing done with the unani- 
 mous assent of the house, as in the instance 
 referred to, necessarily involves a suspen- 
 sion of the rules, and the chair would in 
 consequence decide that there had been in 
 that instance no violation of the rules 
 adopted for its government. 
 
 Mr. Sellers gave notice that he would, 
 on Thursday next, move to reconsider the 
 vote adopting the eighth section of the le- 
 gislative article. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Section second of the majority report. 
 
 Sec. 2. The supreme court shall have 
 appellate jurisdiction only, except in cases 
 hereinafter provided, which jurisdiction 
 shall extend to all cases when the matter 
 in dispute shall exceed five hundred dollars. 
 
 The question under consideration at the 
 adjournment, was the motion of Mr. Lewis 
 to amend said section by inserting after the 
 word "jurisdiction," in the second line, the 
 words "on questions of law." 
 
 Mr. Lewis said, the change which I 
 propose in the jurisdiction of the supreme 
 court, is one which all will admit to be of 
 considerable importance. Both systems — 
 the one which I proposed to confine the 
 appeals to questions of law alone, and the 
 system to embrace both the law and the 
 facts, which has heretofore prevailed in the 
 
 State — have been tried. Complaints have 
 been made that appeals are now allowed 
 on matters ot fact as well as of law, and 
 our experience of this system has not given 
 as much satisfaction as is desirable. In other 
 States, where appeals have been confined to 
 questions of law alone, the result has proved 
 the wisdom of that provision. I know that 
 the exercise, in this State, of the power to 
 review the facts in the supreme court, has 
 given rise to much dissatisfaction. I do 
 not wish to be understood as casting the 
 slightest censure upon the judges of that 
 court. It would be as unnecessary as un- 
 called for. But I believe that it is physi- 
 cally and morally impossible for them to 
 give that attention to every case which is 
 essential to a proper decision, if they are 
 under the necessity of reviewing the facts 
 as well as the law. It is out of the question 
 for them to do so with the mass of business 
 annually carried before them. By our 
 system the finding of a jury upon the facts, 
 is subjected to the revision of the appellate 
 court, and therefo/e all the testimony must 
 be taken down in writing, to be sent up 
 with the papers in^ie case. To become 
 properly acquainteeRvith the testimony, it 
 is necessary that the judges should examine 
 it with great attention; they should weigh 
 every word; they should study it, to have it 
 imprinted upon their memory, so that when 
 they come to a decision, it should be as 
 strong upon their minds as as it was upon 
 the mind of the judge or of the jury, who 
 listened to it from the lips of the witnesses 
 that were introduced befefre thenu 
 
 Every one who has the least experience 
 in the practice of our courts, know how 
 difficult it is to reduce to writing, correctly, 
 testimony as it falls from the mouth of a 
 witness; and from this fact I draw an argu- 
 ment to show the great difficulty, nay, the 
 impracticability of a proper exercise of 
 this jurisdiction by the appellate courts. 
 As far as my experience goes, that tribunal 
 is more liable to err in determing upon the 
 facts than the courts of original jurisdic- 
 tion, and is more liable to misconceive the 
 weight of testimony than the judge or the 
 jury before whom the testimony is taken. 
 It is my deliberate conviction that the ap- 
 pellate court has more frequently erred in 
 this matter, than thejndge or the jury he- 
 fore whom the case was originally tried. 
 To place the' difficulties attending the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 601 
 
 exercise of this power, to review the 
 facts, in their proper light, let us take a 
 glance at the practice in the district courts 
 and m the supreme court in the decision 
 of cases. The witnesses are brought he- 
 fore the court of the first instance, exam- 
 ined, and their testimony is delivered be- 
 fore the court and jury. The weight of 
 this testimony is affected by the manner in 
 which it is delivered, and by circumstan- 
 ces oeeuring in the course of the trial, 
 which cannot be transferred to the written 
 evidence. A great deal, too, depends upon 
 the credibility attached to the testimony of 
 witnesses; and although you might not 
 find any one to swear to a disbelief in the 
 testimony of one witness, or that one wit- 
 ness was entitled to greater belief, if such 
 were permitted, than another; yet every 
 j one knows that the testimony of A, from 
 : his standing in the community, may be 
 i worth, before a jury, a great deal more 
 than the testimony of B. There are a va- 
 riety of circumstances which give greater 
 weight to the testimony of one man than 
 to that of another; and to appreciate and 
 comprehend the various shades of differ- 
 ence in the testimony of witnesses, it is 
 necessary to hear the testimony from their 
 own lips — to watch their gestures and their 
 countenances. These indications of cred- 
 ibility or incredibility are denied to the 
 court of appeal. The testimony of A is 
 taken down as well as the testimony of B, 
 and goes before them, and may have equal 
 weight with them; and yet, had A and B 
 been examined rTefore them, they would 
 have attached greater weight to the testi- 
 mony of one of these witnesses than to the 
 other. 
 
 I remember, said Mr. Lewis, in my pro- 
 fessional experience, a case which occurred 
 in the parish of Avoyelles, that illustrates 
 the fact to which I have just referred. 
 Six witnesses were examined — three of 
 whom testified one way, and three the re- 
 verse. Here was an equal division of tes- 
 timony, and it happened on one side there 
 were two men of the highest respectability, 
 and that nothing could bo shown in favor 
 of or against the three witnesses on the 
 other side. No testimony can be adduced 
 to show that A is a respectable man and 
 worthy of belief, and that B is comparative- 
 ly a disreputable man, and unworthy of the 
 same belief; and consequently if it could 
 
 have been shown in this particular *case, it 
 would not have been permitted. It looked 
 like a case where a just decision upon the 
 evidence was impossible, and it would have 
 been impossible to have come to a satis- 
 factory decision had it not been that two of 
 the witnesses that testified on one side 
 were well known to the court and jury, 
 and were well known to be incapable of 
 prevarication. Now, suppose such a case 
 to arise before the supreme court on the 
 written evidence sent before that court, 
 How would they have decided it? They 
 would have been as likely to have inclined 
 to the opposite side, and have given their 
 decision accordingly. At any rate they 
 would have acted upon the principle of a 
 preponderance of testimony, and had four 
 witnesses testified one way, and two the 
 other, they would in all probability have 
 decided in favor of the testimony of the 
 four, the parties testifying being unknown 
 to them; and yet, had the witnesses been 
 examined before them, they might have 
 become convinced that the testimony of the 
 two witnesses was sufficient to outbalance 
 the testimony of the four. I know, contin- 
 ued Mr. L., of several instances where 
 judgments have been reversed, on the 
 ground of the preponderance of testimony. 
 A jury might base their verdict on the tes- 
 timony of a particular witness, who was 
 known to them by his probity, and discredit 
 the testimony of some seven or eight wit- 
 nesses, whom they knew or believed to be 
 unworthy of credence. And yet the su- 
 preme court, on the ground of the prepon- 
 derance of testimony, would reverse the 
 verdict. I recollect another case, which 
 illustrates still more strikingly the impossi- 
 bility for the supreme court to arrive at a 
 correct solution of the facts in many in- 
 stances. The record of an appeal, pending 
 in the supreme court of Alexandria, con- 
 taining some three hundred closely written 
 pages, was put into my hands, as counsel 
 for the plaintiffs. Having but one other 
 case in that court, and which was set for 
 argument two or three weeks ahead, I could, 
 and did, give the case my undivided atten- 
 tion, and was closely occupied during a 
 whole week in reading the testimony, be- 
 fore I could ascertain the facts of t^e case 
 with sufficient precision to understand them 
 and to make an argument upon them. If 
 it took me one week, with no other 
 
802 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 business, to be able to make an argument 
 only, how long, in the ordinary nature of 
 things, would it have taken tthe judges to 
 become indoctrinated into the character of 
 the testimony, to come to a decision upon 
 the facts involved, after hearing the con- 
 flicting contradictions of the counsel? There 
 was not one question of law involved in the 
 case. It was one of pure facts, at least 
 the law was so well settled that its applica- 
 tion to the facts was a matter of no dispute. 
 The difference between the parties, and 
 which induced the appeal, was confined to 
 the doubt as to what had been proved. 
 There was a good deal of conflicting testi- 
 mony upon the facts in controversy, and it 
 became indispensable that the whole body 
 of the evidence should be familiar to the 
 judges, who were to determine in the last 
 resort. To understand the arguments of 
 the counsel, it would have been indispen- 
 sable for the judges to have read it over 
 several times, to have reflected upon it, and 
 to have studied it. Upon any possible hy- 
 pothesis they could not have accomplished 
 this labor under one week. Now, if we 
 assume that there is one case in ten of this 
 voluminous description, how is it possible 
 that the court in one month can run 
 through three hundred cases, examine all 
 the records, and patiently and carefully 
 thread their way through all the mazes of 
 a closely contested suit, where the evi- 
 dence is voluminous and conflicting, and 
 where the facts to be resolved depends 
 upon close and nice discriminations! No, 
 sir, it is not possible for them to examine 
 the facts critically, as they are examined 
 before the court of the first instance, and 
 they have not the benefit of the presence of 
 the witnesses, and of resolving the testi- 
 mony as it transpires. And what is the 
 consequence? That they have to rely, two- 
 thirds of the time, upon what is called "a 
 statement of facts," frequently an imper- 
 fect, I shall not call it a garbled, statement 
 of the testimony; necessarily imperfect from 
 the fact that it is made out in a hurry, and 
 is but an abridgment, a sketch of the testi- 
 mony. The uncertainty in which the 
 judges often find themselves, induce them 
 to remand cases for new trials, which, if 
 they could possibly get through the testi- 
 money, they would determine. Here is 
 the ground work of the uncertainty that 
 marks our decisions, and, if I may be per- 
 
 mitted to say it, the confusion which pre- 
 vails in them. 
 
 But it is said out of doors, and may be 
 repeated here, that it is impossible to get 
 intelligent juries to determine the facts. I 
 am not one of those who think there is so 
 great a want of intelligence amongst the 
 people of the State. Moreover no extra- 
 ordinary intelligence is necessary. Does 
 it require an extraordinary education or 
 abilities to determine upon the mere facts 
 involved in a controversy between neigh- 
 bors? It requires good common sense 
 and honesty of purpose. Few upon this 
 floor will be willing to deny the posses* 
 sion of these to the mass of their constitu. 
 ents. An experience of twenty years has 
 convinced me that this difficulty is but im- 
 aginary. But admitting as some persons 
 are disposed to presume, that in the section 
 of country which I represent, this obstacle 
 actually exists — I admit no such proposi- 
 tion in point of fact, but for the sake of the 
 argument — yet, even there, lean safely as- 
 sert, from my own knowledge, that in 
 nineteen cases out of ^twenty, the verdicts 
 of juries are correct. In criminal cases it 
 may well be that the judgments of juries 
 are often warped by prejudice or feeling', 
 1 believe that this latterly has been a theme 
 of just complaint; but in civil matters, as 
 the law is expounded from the bench, their 
 decisions are as correct in the main, as the 
 decisions of the courts. I admit that there 
 are occasional blunders, but new trials 
 have been found amply sufficient to insure 
 justice in those few ifistances. In the 
 fifth judicial district I have known but a 
 single case in twenty years, where juries 
 have refused to do justice. This case is 
 familiar to members of the bar. The 
 wrong done in that case was flagitious. 
 There was not a particle of evidence to 
 authorize the verdict, and the supreme 
 court very properly afforded relief. But 
 why should not the district judge be as ca- 
 pable of determining upon matters of fact 
 as the judges of the supreme court? He 
 has a decided advantage in having the wit- 
 nesses examined before him, and of watch- 
 ing the testimony from its inception to its 
 termination. 1 suppose that a preference 
 is given to the decision of the supreme 
 court upon the principle "that there is 
 safety in a multitude of councillors." In 
 most cases the ordinary intelligence of ju- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 803 
 
 ries, and the promptings of their sense of 
 right and wrong, are all that is neces- 
 sary to secure a just decision. If errors 
 have occasionally been committed by 
 juries, there are on the k other hand stri- 
 king examples of their independence and 
 impartiality. One case presents itself to 
 my mind, where a jury recently rendered 
 a verdict sending in heavy damages to the 
 full extent of the sum claimed, in favor of 
 a captain of a steam boat, a perfect stran- 
 ger, and against a number of influential cit- 
 izens of the parish. It is my decided con- 
 viction that the country is sufficiently en- 
 lightened to make juries a valuable auxilia- 
 ry in the administration of justice, and with 
 the power of granting new trials in the courts 
 below. I think the facts might safely be 
 committed to them and to the judges of the 
 first instance. As to the questions of law, 
 they ought to be definitely settled by the 
 superior tribunal, and they would be better 
 settled if the attention of that court were 
 exclusively called to them, without the ne- 
 cessity of entering into the tedious and 
 prolix investigation of the facts de novo. 
 It would be a great relief to the court to 
 take away this mass of business; and if we 
 consider the augmentation of the duties of 
 the appellate court, it is apparent that this 
 ought to be done in order to enable it to 
 progress promptly and efficiently. Other- 
 wise its proceedings will be remarkable 
 for tediousness and procrastination. Its 
 iuties will, by the new constitution, be 
 increased at least one-third. Appeals will 
 .->e taken for no other purpose than to ob- 
 ;ain indefinite postponement, and the party 
 interested in the confirmation of a judgment 
 will sicken and die with "hope deferred." 
 It is true that there may be means to ac- 
 :elerate the action of the court, but if you 
 Dvercharge it with business, and then com- 
 •)Ci it to get through with that business, 
 u slice must suffer; and the reputation of 
 the court must suffer. The only object 
 will be dispatch, and every thing else will 
 be sacrificed to that consideration. 
 
 These are briefly my views in favor of 
 the motion 1 have made, and unless I am 
 convinced that I am wrong, I shall insist 
 upon it. I think that the result will be 
 greater uniformity iu our decisions, upon 
 rjuestions of law, and that the ends of jus- 
 tice will* be greatly facilitated by confining 
 the supreme court to those questions ex- 
 
 clusively. This is not an untried experi- 
 ment. It has been tested elsewhere, and 
 it has proved eminently successful, and I 
 can see no reason why it may not be 
 adapted to our system of jurisprudence 
 with advantage. 
 
 Wherenpon, onnnotion, the Convention 
 adjourned. 
 
 Monday, April 28, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 In the absence of a minister of the gos- 
 pel the Hon. Mr. Stephens, at the request 
 of the president, opened the proceedings 
 with prayer. 
 
 On motion, Messrs. Soule, Sellers, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles and Taylor of Assumption 
 were excused for non-attendance on ac- 
 count of illness. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Section second of the majority report on 
 the judiciary. 
 
 The question pending was on the motion 
 of Mr. Lewis, to amend the section as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 "The legislature may limit the jurisdic- 
 tion of the supreme court to questions of 
 law only, in such cases as shall be deter- 
 mined by law." 
 
 Mr. Mayo said: Mr. President, when 
 the Convention adjourned on Saturday, it 
 was understood that the delegate from New 
 Orleans (Judge Eustis) would address the 
 Convention to-day, in reply to the delegate 
 from St. Landry (Mr. Lewis) upon the 
 subject which is now the order of the day. 
 on which I am anxious to hear his views; 
 but, as he is not now in his seat, I will 
 avail myself of the opportunity of making 
 some remarks upon it. I have, Mr. Presi- 
 dent, been much perplexed with this ques- 
 tion, and acknowledge frankly that until 
 the discussion upon it arose on Saturday 
 last, I had not given it much attention. It 
 is a subject I am satisfied which is not well 
 understood, even by many of the members 
 of the bar. I do not profess to understand 
 it fully. The means to enable me to do so 
 have not been within my reach since the 
 subjeet was taken up, nor have I had time 
 to examine authorities, if I had been in 
 possession of them. It w r ould require a 
 good deal of careful research and investi- 
 gation to understand the subject fully, and 
 to be enabled to determine in a manner 
 
804 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 satisfactory to himself how the system of 
 a court of appeals for the trial of errors of 
 law only, has worked in other States tin- 
 der their various systems of jurisprudence, 
 or what would be its operation and effect 
 when applied to our peculiar jurisprudence, 
 which is entirely different from that of 
 any other State. Since the delegate from 
 St. Landry addressed the Convention on 
 Saturday last, I have given the subject con- 
 siderable attention, with a view to forming 
 a correct opinion, and have determined to 
 oppose it for the reasons that it would be a 
 dangerous innovation upon the rights of 
 the citizen, and peculiarly dangerous to be 
 incorporated into the constitution; where, 
 if it be found impracticable, it will be ex- 
 tremely difficult to remedy the evil. 
 
 The peculiar character of our laws and 
 of our judiciary system, as already formed 
 by the Convention, will render the opera- 
 tion of a provision giving the supreme court 
 jurisdiction of appeals on questions of law 
 only, entirely different from the operation 
 of a similar provision relative to appeals in 
 other States. In most and probably all the 
 other States of the Union, there are courts 
 of chancery, as well as of law. In the 
 courts of chancery, as such, no juries are 
 allowed, but when important questions of 
 fact are to be tried in a court of chancery, 
 a jury is empannelled from the law side of 
 the court to try them, and parties have in 
 this way the advantage of the verdict of a 
 jury to decide questions of fact in those 
 courts, and appellate tribunals exists for 
 the correction of errors from the courts of 
 chancery as well as from the courts of law, 
 which is a privilege of which this State 
 would be deprived under the proposed plan* 
 of appeals in a very large proportion of 
 cases, as I shall attempt to show. 
 
 The delegate presented us with the 
 strongest and best reasons, I presume, that 
 a careful examination of the subject ena- 
 bled him to present. One of the cases to 
 which he referred us, was one in which 
 three witnesses on one side testified to 
 what was totally irreconcilable with the 
 testimony of three other witnesses on the 
 other side. That two of the three witness- 
 ses on one side were men, in favor of 
 whom much could be proven, That all 
 the witnesses on the other side were men, 
 of whom nothing could be proven. That 
 the testimony of the three in relation to 
 
 whose characters for veracity nothing could 
 be proven, would, when spread upon paper 
 and sent to the supreme court,- have as 
 much weight as the evidence of the other 
 three. That in spreading the evidence 
 upon paper much of what was actually a 
 part of the evidence, the peculiar manner 
 of the witnesses, the evident indications of 
 either from their manner of testifying, to 
 serve one of the parties at the expense of 
 truth and of the other party, could not be 
 made to appear in a transcript of evidence; 
 and the influence of such indications evi- 
 denced only by their peculiar manner of 
 testifying, could have no effect with the 
 supreme court. The district court and 
 jury only could appreciate it, and it was 
 before that court only, that these circum- 
 stances could have any influence. 
 
 The case furnishes strong evidence of 
 the misfortune of being inflicted with false 
 witnesses, when it is impossible to prove 
 them such. A misfortune which all would 
 be glad to see remedied, if it could bo done 
 without producing greater evil than exists 
 without the remedy. The evil, however, 
 has been to a very great extent remedied 
 already, by a long course of decisions of 
 the supreme court, which now make part 
 of the jurisprudence of the State, in which 
 the court has stated as a settled rule 
 which they will be guided in cases where 
 judgments are founded upon the verdict of 
 juries, that they will not disturb the verdict 
 unless manifest injustice has been done by 
 it. This will generally afford a remedy 
 for the evil produced by the inability of the 
 parties to get the peculiar appearance of 
 witnesses, and their apparent credibility or 
 incredibility, before tbe supreme court. 
 The jury first find a verdict from the law 
 and evidence, as they estimate it; if by 
 such verdict manifest injustice be done, tfee 
 supreme court will reverse the judgment or 
 remand the case for trial by another jury, 
 but not without; and of this course, parties 
 as a general rule, have no reason to com- 
 plain. 
 
 The other case instanced by the delegate 
 from St. Landry (Mr. Lewis) was one in 
 which he was employed at Alexandria, in 
 which there was a transcript of three IjBjH- 
 dred pages; the facts of which it took him 
 a week with constant application to under- 
 stand, and in which there was n<5 single 
 law question involved. That if it took the 
 
Debates in the Convention ot Louisiana. 
 
 605 
 
 court but one-sixth part of the time that it 
 took him, it would be more time in propor- 
 tion than could be given to other cases at 
 that court, during the short time they have 
 to remain there. This, as well as the 
 other case instanced, was a case well cal- 
 culated to illustrate the difficulties of the 
 present system of appeals ; but it only 
 shows an evil beyond our reach, at least 
 one which would not be reached by the 
 proposition offered. For the delegate told 
 us that there was not a single law question 
 in it, and if there was not, it is very evi- 
 dent that no appeal coald have been taken 
 in it, under his amendment, for it provides 
 that appeals to try errors of law only, shall 
 be allowed. In cases in the supreme 
 court where the record is volumnious, 
 counsel are in the habit of preparing a 
 brief by which the particular portions of 
 i the record containing the facts to which 
 either party des-ires to call the attention of 
 the court, is pointed out. The lawyer can- 
 not do his duty to-his client unless he does 
 this, and if he does, the time that would 
 otherwise be required of the court is very 
 much abridged. So that what would re- 
 quire a lawyer a week to examine, could, 
 by the aid of his brief, be examined in half 
 a day by the court. Now, I appeal to the 
 candor of the gentleman to say, whether 
 parties would be likely to be satisfied if 
 prevented from taking cases of that magni- 
 tude to the supreme court, when they sup- 
 posed injustice had been done them in the 
 first instance. I think not, Sir. If experi- 
 ments of that kind are attempted, let it be 
 done by the legislature, where, if an error 
 be committed, it can be easily corrected. 
 
 The delegate (Mr. Lewis) told us that it 
 took him a week to examine the record to 
 which he called our attention. If it took 
 him a week to learn the facts from the re- 
 cord, how long would it have taken a jury 
 to have understood them from the wit- 
 nesses ? It would take them a month, Sir. 
 Would the citizen be satisfied to rely finally 
 upon the verdict of a jury under circum- 
 stances of this kind, where the jury must 
 necessarily be fatigued and worn out, with 
 hearing the evidence and confused by the 
 arguments of counsel, and to risk their all 
 upon the verdict without any power of re- 
 visal by a superior tribunal ? They will 
 not be, Sir. A jury under such circum- 
 
 stances, are always very liable to overlook 
 some of the important facts, facts which 
 they may think unimportant, but on which 
 the case ought to turn, and if their verdict 
 must be final for want of a law question 
 being involved in it, there can of course bo 
 no reviewal by the supreme court. It is 
 well known that intelligent juries, as well 
 as judges, sometimes overlook important 
 facts, and if there be a tribunal more likely 
 to give general satisfaction to parties dis- 
 satisfied with the decisions of courts ren- 
 dered upon verdicts, the citizen should not 
 be debarred from the privilege of resorting 
 to it. The delegate stated, that for ar- 
 gument sake merely, he would admit that 
 juries in the parish he represented, were 
 as ignorant as in any other part of the 
 State, and that being so, he would much 
 rather leave the decision of questions of 
 fact merely, to them, than to the supreme 
 court, to be determined by them in the 
 hurried manner in which they have to act. 
 I am, on the contrary, willing to admit, and 
 which I believe to be the fact, that in the 
 parish which I represent, the juries are as 
 intelligent as they are in any other part of 
 the State, — and being so, are liable to com- 
 mit errors, either from omitting to consider 
 all the circumstances detailed in evidence, 
 or from giving undue weight to the charge 
 of a partial judge, or a judge acting uncon- 
 sciously under the influence of bias or pre- 
 judice. And I am satisfied that suitors 
 would not be satisfied, if deprived of a right 
 to have the facts reviewed by a tribunal 
 composed of men well acquainted with the 
 law, and who from their situation are in 
 the constant habit of calm and considerate 
 consultation, to determine and weigh the 
 facts and make an application of the law 
 to them. I will now, Sir, inquire more 
 fully into the probable effect of this propo- 
 sition. As we have arranged the judiciary 
 system, giving probate jurisdiction to the 
 district courts, I suppose it is understood 
 that the legislature will provide for four or 
 six sessions of the district court in each 
 parish annually, and that there will be but 
 two terms of the court at which juries will 
 be called, that the two or four other terms 
 will be held for the trial of probate and 
 other cases, in which no juries will be re- 
 quired nor permitted. That at the two 
 terms at which juries will be required, 
 
8J6 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 cases in which no juries will be permitted 
 will be tried, as well as those in which 
 juries will be permitted. 
 
 I do not suppose that it is contemplated 
 by any of the members of the Convention 
 to call out the juries oftener than twice a 
 year. To do so, would be imposing too 
 great a burden upon the citizens, and one 
 which they will not be likely to expect. 
 The legislature in this respect, will proba- 
 bly conform to their wishes. If the system 
 be put into operation, as I have supposed, 
 the advantage of having facts submitted to 
 a jury, and found by them to form the basis 
 of law questions to be submitted to the su- 
 preme court, will be lost in all the cases to 
 be tried at the two or four terms of court 
 at which there will be no juries, and in a 
 very large portion of the cases tried at the 
 jury terms, as juries are not allowed in all 
 cases tried in the district courts, under our 
 present laws. 
 
 It will be recollected that by a late sta- 
 tute of the State, parties defendant in suits 
 on bills, notes and drafts, are not allowed 
 juries unless they first show by affidavit 
 that the instrument sued on is forged, has 
 been paid, or that it was given without 
 consideration. It is not likely that the le- 
 gislature will think proper to repeal that 
 law, and if not parties in that class of ca- 
 ses cannot have the benefit of submitting 
 questions of fact to the jury, to be deter- 
 mined by them. I think, sir, that the clas- 
 ses of cases to which I have alluded, will 
 amount to three fourths of the whole. In 
 that part of these, as well as in all cases 
 in which no juries will be allowed, in which 
 the judge may think there are no law ques- 
 tions, the judge, a single individual, 
 must be relied on solely; first, to decide 
 what the facts are, then to decide whether 
 there are law questions involved in the 
 case to which the facts are to be applied, 
 and if so, to prepare the law questions and 
 certify them to the supreme court. 
 
 Judges are like other men, afflicted like 
 other men with the infirmities common to 
 human nature, and like other men liable to 
 biases, prejudices, likes and dislikes of 
 parties to suits, and their counsel who man- 
 age them, and often act under feelings and 
 i nfluences of this kind, without being aware 
 of it themselves. Men cannot be expect- 
 ed to be satisfied when compelled to abide 
 the decision of a single judge under such 
 
 circumstances, and such circumstances al- 
 ways have existed and always will exist. 
 I hold it to be a principle of justice which 
 all good government requires should be en- 
 forced, that men who have the misfortune 
 to become involved in litigation, should be 
 gratified with an opportunity of having as 
 well the facts as the law of their cases ful- 
 ly reviewed before they are made final, by 
 a tribunal in which they can reasonably be 
 supposed to impose the greatest confidence. 
 I hold this to be undeniable, both in piin. 
 ciple and practice. And if it be, it ap- 
 pears to me equally undeniable that where 
 the facts are to be decided upon finally by 
 a single judge, and the questions of law to 
 be prepared and certified by him to the su- 
 preme court, that the meanj of having a 
 fair hearing, before a tribunal in which it 
 is reasonable to suppose the citizen will 
 have the most confidence, will be placed 
 entirely beyond his reach.- 
 
 All law questions depend entirely for 
 their character upon the peculiar state of 
 facts that exist in the case, and to decide 
 what the facts are, and what the law ques- 
 tions, is virtually in most cases to decide 
 the case. The single judge then, not- 
 withstanding an appeal to the supreme 
 court, will in all cases in which no juries 
 will be allowed by law, have the first de- 
 cision of the rights of the parties. Will 
 not the judges be likely so to shape the 
 law questions, if they can with any sem- 
 blance of consistency, as to have their 
 judgments sustained. Infirmities will in- 
 duce this. Men have a natural pride in 
 being sustained by their superiors. Sup- 
 pose a judge to have decided a case during 
 the term, and that before he prepares his 
 certificate for the appeal, becomes dissatis- 
 fied with his own judgment, but not so 
 much so as to induce him to mention the 
 fact to the counsel of the parties, nor to 
 grant a new trial ex officio. Will not his 
 weakness, or his pride, or self-esteem in- 
 cline him so to shape his law questions 
 for the supreme court as to induce them to 
 sustain his judgment, notwithstanding he 
 thinks it erroneous himself? No cases 
 can be decided by the supreme court un- 
 der the proposed amendment but law cases, 
 and no cases can be of that character pare- 
 ly, under the peculiar character of our ju- 
 risprudence, but such as arise under the 
 provisions of the civil code, code of prac- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 so? 
 
 tice, or the statutes of the State. In these 
 are to be found all the civil laws, strictly 
 speaking, that we have. Those cases that 
 will have to be decided by general legal 
 principles, and not under the provisions of 
 oui statutes, or of the codse, cannot pre- 
 sent strictly law questions, and consequent- 
 ly cannot be entertained by the supreme 
 court on appeal. By a provision of the 
 civil code, article twenty-first, it is provi- 
 ded as follows: "In civil matters, where 
 there is no express law, the judge is bound 
 to proceed and decide according to equity. 
 To decide equitably, an appeal is to be 
 made to natural law and reason, or receiv- 
 ed usages where positive law is silent. 5 '" 
 Those familiar with the practice ol the law 
 will readily perceive that this provides for 
 a very large class of cases, in which the 
 citizens seek their rights, and in which, 
 strictly speaking, no law question can 
 arise. If there be no express law by 
 which a case can be decided, reference 
 must be had to the laws of other States 
 and countries, as found in the works of 
 elementary writers, and in reports of de- 
 cisions of the supreme courts of this* and 
 oilier States and countries. 
 
 These constitute a very large class of 
 cases which are instituted with as much 
 confidence of their being conducted and 
 decided on general legal principles as any 
 other class of cases. Still, under the 
 amendment none of this class of cases can 
 be taken to the supreme court, because in 
 strictness of law there can be no law ques- 
 tions involved in them. Nearly all suits 
 that will be instituted upon bills, notes and 
 drafts, will be in a similar situation. We 
 have but two or three statutory provisions 
 relating to them, and the object of those 
 statutes is principally to provide for the 
 manner of giving notice of protest, rnd the 
 interest and damages on protested bills; and 
 there are also a few very general provis- 
 ions in the civil code that apply to bills 
 and notes, though not intended for that 
 purpose, being applicable to contracts gen- 
 erally. In all cases of this kind the works 
 of elementary writers on commercial law; 
 Chitty and Baylis on bills and Benee's 
 Lex Mercatori, and the decisions of our 
 own and other courts are referred to, to 
 determine what is generally understood to 
 be, but what is not'in strictness, the law of 
 the cases, though these works and the de- 
 
 cisions of the courts contain the general 
 law marked^out for all commercial cases. 
 
 Our codes and statutes being silent, any 
 necessary reference to general principles 
 of jurisprudence settled in other countries, 
 or even by the decisions of the supreme 
 court of this State, by a reference to gene- 
 ral principles of law, and not involving 
 questions under our codes and statutes, can- 
 not make a question such a question of law 
 as to bring it within the provision of the 
 amendment, and enable the party to take 
 an appeal. I am satisfied that the cases 
 involving questions of law, in which the 
 parties are not allowed juries at present, 
 and those in which no law questions will be 
 involved, owing to the peculiar character 
 of our jurisprudence, will amount to nine- 
 tenths of all that will be brought before 
 the courts, wmich is a much greater num- 
 ber than good policy will justify us in ex- 
 cluding. In addition to this it must be re- 
 collected that lawyers as well as judges 
 will have to learn the practice under the 
 operation of the provision, and until that is 
 well understood, cases must constantly be 
 remanded because the questions have not 
 been properly certified, or the appeal not 
 properly taken. The supreme court will 
 discover law questions where the district 
 court saw none, and will think other 
 questions of fact which the district court 
 supposed were law questions; delays will 
 be increased by sending the case back to 
 perfect the appeal or certificate, and em; 
 barrassmepts will, I am afraid, be found in 
 the working of the machinery that will 
 make us regret the adoption of such a pro- 
 vision. It would be better to resort to 
 the old mode of requiring the judge, in 
 case the counsel of the parties could not 
 agree, to prepare a statement of facts. It 
 appears to me that the number of appeals 
 are likely to be diminished under the new 
 organization of the judiciary, from the fact 
 that suitors will have more confidence in 
 the district court than they have in the pres- 
 ent probate and parish court. Whether 
 this be so or not, I should prefer to see 
 I the docket of the supreme court choked up, 
 than to see this untried and unknown sys- 
 ! tern of appeals engrafted into the constitu- 
 j tion. I fear we are not progressing with 
 ! sufficient caution in relation to our organi- 
 i zation of the courts. I am apprehensive 
 ! that we have restricted the powers of the 
 
80S 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 judiciary within too narrow limits. The 
 first and second sections, if condensed into 
 one, would read thus: " all the judicial and 
 no other powers shall be vested in a su- 
 preme court, district court and justices of 
 the peace." Is it not doubtful whether ad- 
 ministering an oath is a judicial act, and if 
 it is not, can a clerk of a court administer 
 an oath? None but the judges and justi- 
 ces of the rjreace can perform judicial acts, 
 and the judges can perform no act that is 
 not judicial. Is the granting an attach- 
 ment, arrest, provisional seizure, or the 
 like a judicial act. 1 think they are, and 
 if they are, can the legislature ever em- 
 power the clerks to issue them? It really 
 appears to me that they cannot. Is wai- 
 ting down evidence a judicial act? I think 
 not, and if not a justice of the peace can- 
 not do it, because he can do no acts but 
 such as are judicial. It is said that the 
 first section granting all judicial power to 
 the courts is not intended to recognize jus- 
 tices of the peace as courts, but I think dif- 
 ferently. First, the article names the su- 
 preme and district courts, next justices of 
 the peace as a third court, in the three of 
 which the judicial power shall be vested. 
 The eleventh and twelfth sections were 
 passed when we were tied down by the 
 previous question, when members could not 
 express their objections to them. I should 
 not have alluded to them now if I had had 
 an opportunity of doing so then, but had 
 not. I hope the Convention will appreci- 
 ate the necessity of proceeding in these 
 provisions with great caution, ; and adopt 
 nothing the operation of which cannot be 
 clearly understood, and known to be prac- 
 ticable. 
 
 Mr. Eustis said, I have a few remarks 
 to add to those made by the gentleman 
 from Catahoula. The view that he has 
 taken of the subject under consideration is 
 correct. In relation to what he has said 
 concerning other sections of the article un- 
 der consideration, I will merely add that 
 they have been so fully debated and con- 
 sidered by the Convention, that I do not 
 feel myself at liberty to enter into a dis- 
 cussion about them, notwithstanding my 
 great respect for every thing that falls from 
 the gentleman, on a matter with which he 
 has shown so thorough an acquaintance. 
 
 The amendment proposed by the learn- 
 ed gentleman from St. Landry is so very 
 
 important in its consequeuces, and the 
 views of the gentlemen of the bar having 
 been somewhat discordant, in relation to 
 its operation, I deem it necessary to put 
 the Convention thoroughly in possession 
 of the state of the law on the subject of 
 the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme 
 court, under its present organization. Let 
 us first ascertain what the history of the 
 appellate powers of the supreme court is 0 
 in order that we may judge whether any I 
 change be necessary. The committee 
 propose the adoption of the words of the 
 constitution of 1812; they are of opinion 
 that no change ought to made in them. 
 They have been long since settled by ju. 
 dicial and legislative interpretation, and 
 when the Convention shall understand their 
 extent and import, they will, in all proba- 
 bility, come to a correct conclusion as to 
 the propriety of changing the constitution 
 on the subject. 
 
 By the constitution, the appellate juris- 
 diction of the supreme court extended to 
 all civil cases in which the matter in dis- J 
 pute exceeded three hundred dollars. It 
 is proposed to confine this jurisdiction to 
 questions of law; to take from the court j 
 all supervision and power over questions 
 of fact, which are to be determined by the 
 verdicts of juries, and judgments of the 
 judges in the first instance. This throws be. 
 fore juries all questions of fact in all cases; 
 and the first objection to this system is its 
 utter impracticability, which will be evi- 
 dent, on reflection, to the most superficial 
 observer. 
 
 Is there precedent for such a. system as i 
 that proposed by the gentleman from St. 
 Landry? Are not all precedents against 
 it? Throughout all Christendom, is there 
 a single example of such power being giv- 
 ,en t^ juries? 
 
 In France there is no trial jury in civil 
 cases. In England there is a trial by jury 
 in certain cases, but by no means in all 
 cases. In the courts of common law civil 
 cases being brought in certain artificial 
 forms of actions are tried by juries, but 
 only these cases. The rest of the whole 
 mass of litigation and judicial proceedings 
 is determined without juries. All cases in 
 equity, cases of admiralty, and maratime 
 jurisdiction, cases of separation, and those 
 cognizable in the ecclesiastical courts, are 
 terminated without the intervention of a 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 809 
 
 jury. A chancellor may direct an issee to 
 be tried by a jury: but it rests solely to 
 his discretion. The same system prevails 
 in the different States, and the possibility 
 of submiting all these cases^o juries has 
 never, it is thought, been believed in. 
 
 It is only in particular cases that a trial 
 by jury can be had in England. These 
 are familiar to lawyers: but to enable those 
 of the Convention who are not lawyers to 
 jud^e of them, I will 5tate a case by way 
 of illustration. A planter sells a hundred 
 bales of cotton, and gets a merchant's bill 
 for it. The bill is accepted, and we will sup- 
 pose is endorsed in blank. He loses his 
 bill. The parties to the bill owe the mon- 
 ey, and no question is made as to their lia- 
 bil'ty. What now is the remedy of the 
 holder? If he had the bill, he would have 
 his case tried by a jury: but having lost it. 
 matters are entirely changed. He must go 
 into a court of chancery, and the chancellor 
 will fix the indemnity the parties are enti- 
 tled to have, before they are obliged to pay. 
 
 To place before juries, in defiance of 
 all experience, all cases, without distinc- 
 tion would be an experiment which ought 
 to make the boldest innovator hesitate. — 
 There is a class of cases in which the pow- 
 er of supervision may be taken from the 
 supreme court; but what that class is, we 
 are by no means prepared to determine. 
 It is a delicaie matter — full of difficulty, 
 and requiring much reflection. The con- 
 stitution of IS 12 left this power to the 
 legislature: and the manner in which this 
 power has been from time to time exercised, 
 shows the extreme danger of adopting; the 
 innovation proposed. 
 
 The law of 1513, organizing the su- 
 preme court, provided that there should 
 be no reversal for any error in fact, except 
 on a special verdict, or a statement of % facts 
 agreed on by counsel, or made by the 
 judge. No provision was made for redu- 
 cing the testimony of witnesses to writing, 
 and there could be no revision of a ques- 
 tion of fact, except in the form here pre- 
 scribed. 
 
 In IS IT another law was passed, by 
 which the finding of juries on certain facts 
 submitted to them, was conclusive, but the 
 evidence on a general verdict could be ex- 
 amined in the supreme court, and provis- 
 ion was made for reducing the testimony to 
 writing in the court of the first instance. 
 
 By this statute the conizance of facts was 
 taken from the supreme court, at the in- 
 stance of either of the parties. 
 
 The proposition of the honorable delegate 
 from St. Landry takes all cognisance of 
 questions of fact from the supreme court in 
 all cases. Now, let us see the operation of 
 
 < a statute, which took from that court cogni- 
 zance of matters of fact, in cases provided 
 by it. My brethren of the bar. who can 
 
 | here bear witness to its operation, will. I 
 am sure, unite with me in assuring the 
 
 I Convention that it arswered in no one par- 
 ticular the object it was intended to effect. 
 It often produced the greatest confusion, 
 and some times the most flagrant injustice. 
 Neither the bar, nor the bench, nor the 
 public, were prepared for it. With well 
 trained and skillful practitioners on each 
 side of a case, and an able judge on the 
 bench, a system like that of the law of 
 IS 17 would work well. But it was found 
 
 i that although an experienced and able 
 
 [ lawyer mig 
 tact* of his 
 questions o; 
 
 ht present all the questions of 
 case, and separate them from 
 flaw, yet his less skillful adver- 
 sary could but ill defend his cause, and the 
 | better lawyer had always an undue advan- 
 tage. The statute, by almost general con- 
 j sent, was repealed by the code of practice 
 i which went in effect into 1525, which pro- 
 I vides for reducing the testimony of witnes- 
 ses to writing, to enable the court above to 
 i determine questions of fact, if necessary. 
 
 Thus we see the legislature under the pro- 
 j visions of the constitution wirich we propose 
 ■ to re-adopt, has full power to take from the 
 I supreme court cognizance of any class of 
 j questions of fact. The attempt made in 
 1517 was not fortunate: perhaps at some 
 j future time the bench and the bar will be en- 
 abled to give proper and full effect to a 
 similar project, but is it wise or prudent for 
 us* to take a step which is irrevocable, and 
 deprive the court of jurisdiction, which in 
 most cases it is, in the opinion of the' most 
 experienced members of the bar, absolutely 
 necessary for the ends of justice? Such a 
 1 measure would be the extreme of impru- 
 ; dence. Common prudence requires that 
 in a matter so important we should not 
 ! venture upon a mere experiment, which 
 ! could only result in contusion and irrepa- 
 | rable injury to the sound admisistrator of 
 ; justice. We are at present not prepared 
 I for the change, and its disastrous results 
 
810 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 are as certain as cause and effect can 
 make them. 
 
 The section, as it stands, gives sufficient 
 power to the legislature to make any 
 change in the apellate power of the court: 
 let us leave this power where it is, with 
 the prospect of its being judiciously and 
 opportunely exercised. 
 
 But is it not obvious to the Convention 
 that the provision of the gentleman from St. 
 Landry, transfers this immense power of 
 controlling verdicts to the district judges? 
 A single judge will then have the power 
 now exercised by the supreme court. Is 
 the Convention prepared for this immense 
 investiture of judicial power in a single 
 judge, without supervision and without ap- 
 peal? 
 
 It. is clear that such a power would not 
 be vested in our present district judges; and 
 those who are to be oppointed under the 
 new constitution, are they to be better 
 than those who have preceded them? The 
 result can only determine this matter, and 
 while we hope for the best, we may be 
 disappointed. The State is divided into 
 two political parties, each struggling for 
 the ascendancy. I hope that our party 
 feelings will never reach the judiciary; that 
 appointments to that department will be 
 dictated by a single and sincere view to 
 the public interest; but it may be other- 
 wise, judges may be appointed, whom it 
 would be madness to invest with such pow- 
 ers; and before we undertake to give this 
 power to district judges, let us wait and see 
 who they are. Leave the matter as it 
 stands, and let the legislature act as the 
 circumstances of the country may require, 
 and the composition of the judiciary may 
 authorize. Let the Convention not un- 
 dervalue the power of the judge in granting 
 or refusing new trials. It is immense; it 
 gives him control of the fortunes of this 
 citizen, and the interest of property re- 
 quires- that it should not be committed 
 without control to inexperienced or in- 
 competent hands. With the exercise of 
 the power by the present court, (and I am 
 not the apologist of that court) I have heard 
 some fault found. In my own practice I 
 have no reason to complain of it. It is a 
 mistake to suppose that in order to enable 
 a court to determine a case, it is necessary 
 to read every part of a voluminous record. 
 This would be physically impossible in 
 
 mair^cases. Well prepared statements, 
 indexes, the admissions and argument of 
 intelligent counsel, abridge the labor of 
 the judge, and facilitate the investigation of 
 contested makers. Even in the case of 
 the voluminous record, referred to by the 
 learned delegate from St. Landry, it is not 
 pretended that injustice had been done to 
 his client. The reversal of verdicts is not 
 the main cause of the complaints against 
 the supreme court, and I think that it will 
 be generally admitted that much injustice 
 has been prevented by the exercise of this 
 power by the court. 
 
 Having no wish, other than that of sub- 
 mitting the results of my experience to the 
 Convention, and none whatever to control 
 their opinion, I hope that matters will be 
 left as they stand, and that we shall not 
 incur the hazards of what I consider a 
 dangerous experiment. 
 
 Mr. Preston said, that if the gentleman 
 who took so active and influential a part in 
 the preparation of the report of the ma- 
 jority of the committee upon the judiciary, 
 (Mr. Lewis) would accept the fourth sec- 
 tion of the minority report of the same 
 committee, the vote in favor of the propo- 
 sition would, he believed, be almost unani- 
 mous. But, if that delegate leaves it dis- 
 cretionary, it is not unlikely that his objecV 
 will be defeated. The supreme court from 
 1813 to 1845, have invariably assumed the 
 ground, that they have jurisdiction as well 
 over the facts as over the law in all contro- 
 versies, when the amount in dispute ex- 
 ceeds three hundred dollars. They so 
 construe the constitutional provision, and 
 will continue so to construe it, unless it be 
 made specific. 
 
 1 admit (said Mr. Preston) that in En- 
 gland, and in most of the States of the 
 Union, it has been deemed proper to con- 
 fine cases of a conflicting character spe. 
 cially to courts, without the intervention of 
 juries. The parliament of Great Britain 
 has so ordered it. In cases, for example, 
 of admiralty and marine jurisdiction; in 
 ecclesiastical cases, and in cases of equity. 
 But in these cases, it is prescribed that the 
 evidence should be taken down in writing', 
 and be spread at large, for the revision of 
 the supreme tribunal. This is all we con- 
 lend for. Let the legislature adopt the 
 same system as prevails in England, and 
 in the other States. Let special officers be 
 
Debates- in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 appointed to take down the evidence in 
 such cases, without the presence of the 
 judgfe. In cases of successions, the deci- 
 sion of the court is based upon the record, 
 and it can be sent up to ihe supreme court 
 in case of an appeal, Give us that mode 
 of proceeding, and confine it to such cases, 
 and I am agreed. But in cases where the 
 facts' nave been ascertained by the finding 
 of a jury, as in criminal cases, and in 
 others, do not place it in the power of the 
 
 supreme 
 
 to decide upon the very 
 same facts. The slightest reflection will 
 show that this is an important course, and 
 experience has demonstrated that there are 
 but few cases where the judgment of the 
 supreme court upon the facts has been 
 accurate. On the other hand, we know 
 from positive experience, that the finding 
 of twelve men, selected in the vicinity, 
 initiated and familiarized into the merits of 
 a controversy, from their knowledge of the 
 parties and of the witnesses, is but seldom 
 erroneous. In most instances, and in most 
 cases, we find that a jury of the vicinage 
 will decide more accurately and more satis- 
 faciorily upon the facts, from their ac- 
 quaintance with the parties, and from the 
 advantage of hearing the testimony from 
 the lips of the witnesses, than judges who 
 glance over the written testimony, or have 
 it abbreviated in a statement of facts. It is 
 superogatory to suppose, that they can 
 read and study the enormous -piles of tes- 
 timony which is taken down for their 
 guidance. They themselves have admitted 
 the fact, by laying it down wisely as a rule, 
 that they will not interfere with the finding 
 of a jury, unless it be clearly contrary to 
 evidence; and in thirty-two years in cast- 
 ing our eyes over their decisions, we find 
 that there are bnt few cases where they 
 have reveised the verdict of a jury. One 
 dangerous feature of the existing system, 
 is. that it tends to indifference on the part 
 of the members of the bar, the judge and 
 the juries, and it affords opportunities for 
 trickery and bad faith. The fact that the 
 trial is in no respect final before the infe- 
 rior court, that it may be reviewed both 
 in reference to the facts as well as the 
 law, before the supreme court, which will 
 finally decide it, tranquilizes the conscience 
 of the judge; he feels no great responsi- 
 bility for his judgment, inasmuch as he 
 may consider it a mere matter of form- 
 
 The jury anticipate that their verdict may 
 be revised upon the appeal, and if the 
 counsel for one of the parties is disposed 
 to avail himself of this general listlessness, 
 and adroitly manages the taking down of 
 the testimony, while the judge, the jury 
 and the opposite counsel are paying but 
 little attention to the tedious proceedings, 
 it may give him the decided advantage 
 upon the appeal. If, on the other hand, 
 the jury were aware of the fact that their 
 verdict was final, if the judge in the first 
 instance knew that there was great respon- 
 sibility attached to his decision, he would 
 be more solicifous about that decision: the 
 attornies would feel the importance of pre- 
 senting their cases in the strongest shape, 
 and would not trust to an appeal for the 
 preper decision of the matter in dispute. 
 The jury would examine and would form 
 their decisions with greater care, and would 
 pay greater attention to all the proceedings 
 had before them. Cases would then be 
 determined with greater order, and with 
 infinitely greater discernment. The only 
 matter of controversy would be upon the 
 interpetations of the law, and that would 
 finally and properly be settled by the 
 supreme court, with more order and more 
 system. 
 
 1 might well dilate upon the immense 
 loss of time, and the great expense which 
 attends the system. The docket accumu- 
 lates, business is procrastinated, piles of 
 testimony are taken down while the judge, 
 the jury and the attornies are in a state 
 bordering on somnolency, fatigued by the 
 tediousness of the proceedings in taking 
 down the testimony; cases are put off, 
 parties litigant are kept waiting, and jus- 
 tice, if not denied, comes so slowly that 
 frequently it does not accomplish its pur- 
 pose. I have within my mind at this 
 moment, a case in which two merchants of 
 this city were involved. The jury, after 
 considerable delay in taking down the tes- 
 timony, rendered a verdict of twenty thou- 
 sand dollars in favor of the plaintiff. The 
 record in the case formed one of the largest 
 volumes. The supreme court certainly did 
 not go through it, nor was it anticipated. 
 But, there was delay, and perhaps that was 
 ail that was desired. Months passed away, 
 when finally the supreme court came to a 
 decision; they did not pretend to decide 
 the case, but sent it back to be tried by 
 
'612 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 another jury! They had never read the 
 testimony. It was too great a task to im- 
 pose upon them. The same proceedings 
 had again to be had; another jury was em. 
 pannelled, another huge volume of testi- 
 mony was written out, and the same ver- 
 dict was again rendered. The case was 
 again taken up on appeal, and was about 
 being argued, when the defendant stopped 
 the proceediegs by giving a check upon a 
 city bank for the amount of the judgment 
 and costs, and thus the matter was termi- 
 nated, which, as far as legal proceedings 
 were concerned, was as remote, perhaps, 
 from being settled at the tinie, as when it 
 stood originally in the same position be- 
 fore the appellate court! 
 
 Whatever view we take of the subject, 
 we must come to the conclusion, that 
 there are manifold evils in the existing 
 system. Nothing tends so much to enfee- 
 ble the efficacy of trial by jury, as the 
 withdrawal from it of a just responsibility, 
 by subjecting its verdicts to revisal on the 
 part of a superior tribunal. Upon ques- 
 tions of fact, a jury is much better adapted 
 to decide than the courts; and if the deci- 
 sions of juries were made final, subject to 
 the remedy of a new trial, where they 
 may have committed errors, it would be 
 found that their decisions would give 
 greater satisfaction, and be more in accord, 
 ance with the immutable principles of jus- 
 tice. The supreme court would be relieved 
 from a great press of business, to which it 
 can give but partial attention, and having 
 its attention exclusively directed towards 
 questions of law, those questions would be 
 better and more consistently determined. 
 
 Mr. Grymes said that he had listened 
 with scrupulous attention to what fell from 
 the honorable delegate from Jefferson (Mr. 
 Preston ) I admit (said Mr. Grymes) that 
 there are some inconveniences in the pre- 
 sent system; but on the other hand, I am 
 persuaded that much greater difficulties will 
 flow from the system advocated by that 
 delegate (Mr. Preston) and the honorable 
 delegate from St. Landry (Mr. Lewis.) 
 There is in this nothing astonishing. Man 
 is an imperfect being, and every thing 
 which is fashioned by him, partakes of his 
 imperfect.- nature. I may be told that he 
 should endeavor to commit the fewest 
 errors possible. I admit it, and yet I am 
 forced to the conclusion that if we are so 
 
 often led into error, it is because we at- 
 tempt to reach a speculative perfectability, 
 and do not give sufficient consideration to 
 the actual state of society and to its habits, 
 which, defective as it maybe, forms public 
 opinion, and which ought invariably to be 
 consulted. 
 
 1 am decidedly of opinion, if we adopt 
 the proposition of the delegate from Jeffer- 
 son (Mr. Preston,) we shall be opening 
 the way for numberless abuses, and for 
 the greatest confusion. And why? Be- 
 cause our community are not prepared 10 
 be governed by the proposed system! An 
 experience of forty years authorises me to 
 say that few men will be able to discrimi- 
 nate, in our practice, between questions of 
 law and questions of fact; and if we should 
 heedlessly make this experiment, in despite 
 of experience and the unpropitiousness of 
 the times, I would seriously recommend 
 that the hands of the legislature be not 
 tied; but that the action of that body be 
 left free to undo what may be found upon 
 actual experience to be detrimental. It is 
 to the legislature that should be confided 
 the discretion of making such changes as 
 future exigencies may demand. The com- 
 munity will become but gradually prepared 
 for radical changes such as that proposed; 
 and if you make the change at once, \k 
 consequence will be, the jurisprudence o£ 
 the country will fall into most deplorable 
 disorder, and the people will feel nothing 
 but disgust for this new mode of adminis- 
 tering justice. I am convinced that it is 
 better to leave the practice as it is, and 
 commit any reforms which may be neces- 
 sary to the progress of experience. 
 
 in recurring to the question at issue, 
 leaving out the practical results of the pro- 
 posed system, 1 would ask, what are the 
 errors of law to fye resolved? They can 
 be no other than those derived from 
 the application of the law to the fact in dis- 
 pute. And it must necessarily be an im- 
 perfect system that requires the court to de- 
 termine upon the law, while it inhibits any 
 investigation into the facts. How is the 
 judge to apply the law, if he does not know 
 the facts; if he does not inquire into their 
 validity, as a preparatory step; if he does 
 not study and examine the depositions of 
 the witnesses? This question is constant- 
 ly recurring at every step in the practice 
 of the common law; the inconveniences 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 813 
 
 of such a practice are palpable. Suppose 
 a doubt should arise as to an alleged fact, 
 and that by an erroneous application of the 
 law, the proceedings should be defective; 
 and in that state they should be carried be- 
 fore the supreme court; how is that court 
 to decide, without reference to the facts, 
 that the judgment of the court below is 
 proper or improper? It is obvious that 
 this mode of procedure would entail the 
 very worst results, and that it would seri- 
 ously compromit the end and aim oi jus- 
 tice. The supreme court cannot decide 
 without a knowledge of the facts, unless 
 we assume the hypothesis that a question of 
 iaw may exist independentof the question 
 of fact to which the law is to be applied. 
 This would be a 
 dence. 
 
 The facts in a judicial controversy, what- 
 
 tremely difficult for it to apply the law 
 properly and understandingly. 
 
 But the delegate from Jefferson (Mr. 
 Preston) blows hot and cold in his zeal for 
 innovation. In one breath he tells us that 
 such has been the respect shown by the 
 i supreme court for the rinding of ver.dicts 
 ! by juries, that in a space of thirty-two 
 | years it has scarcely happened that they 
 i have reversed, a verdict. Does not the 
 ! gentleman perceive that he unconsciously 
 | pays the very highest tribute to the system 
 j he would destroy? and that he answers-his 
 | own objection by asserting this fact?— 
 Where is the necessity for any change, 
 
 when you admit that the supreme court 
 shows a decided reluctance to interfere 
 solicism in jurispru- [ with the finding of a jury, unless it be 
 clearly repugnant to the facts? 
 
 I shall not take upon myself to reply 
 
 ever may be said to the contrary, are the i to the numerous assertions made by that 
 
 foundation of the action, and it would be 
 affirming a grave proposition to assert 
 that these facts are truly resolved, because 
 twelve men, selected at hazard, determine 
 them one way or another. The district 
 courts hold their sessions in the country 
 twice during the year. The judges, the 
 
 honorable delegate. As to the partic- 
 ular case to which he alludes, and in 
 which I happened to be one oi" the 
 counsel, I will merely say one or two 
 words. He says that the supreme court 
 never read the record; that they could not 
 have read it for the want of time; that 
 
 0 — j - _ j - 0 - . — — — , 
 
 lawyers, the parties are all anxious to get they committed greater errors than juries, 
 through with their business; and am I to j when facts were involved, and that juries 
 be told that the facts under such circum- j were a thousand times more competent to 
 stances have been properly determined he- decide upon questions offset. I would 
 cause a jury may have pronounced upon i merely observe that these* assertions prove 
 them. It may happen, and does happen I nothing more than this: that the honora- 
 that the verdict of a jury is a proper ver- j ble delegate from Jefferson does not fancy 
 diet; but it may happen, and does happen j the judgments of the supreme court! I 
 •that it is grossly erroneous, and flagrantly | may be told that this is unfortunate. Be 
 wrong. What is to become of such cases 
 as these? Is there to be no remedy? it 
 is certainly giving too much power to the 
 inferior courts, and to juries, to say that 
 their rinding of facts, and their construc- 
 tion of testimony shall be irrevocable. Do 
 the people desire it? The delegates from 
 Jefferson and St. Landry (Messrs. Preston 
 and Lewis) may think this change a salu- 
 tary one; but I differ from them most wide- 
 ly in opinion. I do not think it would be 
 safe. It would endanger the. stability of 
 property, and would t create a want of con- 
 fidence in the judiciary. It is indispensi- I the errors t>f that organization, by limitin 0 
 ble to a proper administration that there j the tenure of office, and in creating a re- 
 should be a court of the last resort; and j sponsibility to the people, yon %ieet the 
 that court necessarily must have cogni- j public wishes, and apply the axe to the root 
 
 it so! But we are not here to consult the 
 opinions of the delegate upon questions of 
 law, but to consult the wants and wishes 
 of our constituents, in framing for them 
 a constitution under which they may live 
 in peace and quiet. 
 
 Of what do the people complain I 
 Whence is that feeling of uneasiness 
 which prevails all over the State? Does 
 it proceed from the administration of jus- 
 tice 1 Not at all. It arises from a want of 
 confidence occasioned by the defective or- 
 ganization of the judiciary. In correcting 
 
 zance of the facts, or otherwise I hold i 
 to be impossible, at any rate, it \vili be ex 
 103 
 
 of existing eviJs. 
 
 As to the clause proposed by the dele = 
 
814 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 gate from St. Landry (Mr. Lewis) it is 1 
 equivalent to the nisi prius system of the 
 common law. Are the community, the 
 bar, the bench, prepared for such a sys- 
 tem? I answer unhesitatingly, they are 
 not. By this change, there will no longer 
 be a necessity for taking down testimony 
 in Writing, there will not be a vestige of 
 proof to guide the supreme court in their 
 decision, but all will be clone by a single 
 bill of exceptions. A moment's reflection 
 upon the results of such a practice, will at 
 once convince any man, of unprejudiced 
 judgment, of the insurmountable difficulties 
 which will ensue, if we trust ourselves to 
 such a dangerous experiment. Where is the 
 attorney that feels himself qualified to con- 
 duct a case according to this system? For 
 myself I will candidly aver, that although 
 I was admitted to practice in a State where 
 the common law prevails, and have endea- 
 vored by great study to qualify myself to 
 practice in the circuit court of the United 
 States, since its extension to this State, it 
 is with great diffidence I undertake busi- 
 ness in that court, because the practice dif- 
 fers so widely from that with which I have 
 been familiar for the last forty years; arid 
 I would certainly be very reluctant, and in- 
 deed quite at a loss, to conduct a suit under 
 the system proposed by the delegate from 
 St. Landry, (Mr. Lewis.) I would be in 
 constant fear, that some important point 
 would escape me, and that I would endan- 
 ger the rights of citizens who placed their 
 confidence in me. Property is too sacred 
 a thing to be exposed to an experiment. 
 
 It may very well happen that among the 
 members of our bar, there are some gentle- 
 men capable at once of adapting themselves 
 to this new system. But if there are any, 
 there are but few, and I can safely assert 
 that in ninety cases out of a hundred, they 
 w r ould not encounter an antagonist who 
 could match "them. There would be no 
 kind of equality, and they would necessa- 
 rily have the decided advantage. 
 
 Moreover, this system has once before 
 been attempted. Twenty years ago, a 
 similar experiment was made. Certain 
 theorists, who believed as others now do, 
 in the infallibility of a verdict by juries, 
 importun^R the legislature and finally sue- 
 ceeded in getting their experiment tested. 
 The system was established, but after a few 
 years endurance of its inconveniences, it 
 
 was repealed. The very clause proposed 
 by the delegate from St. Landry (Mr. 
 Lewis) is to be found in the tenth section 
 of the law of 1817. The members of the 
 bar attempted to conform to the practice., 
 They prepared their statements with a 
 great deal of care, but when theycame to 
 trial, a thousand facts arose about which 
 they never dreamt. What w r as to be done, 
 when the discovery was made that their 
 statements were imperfect? Such a system 
 did not answer then — it will not answer 
 now. It was repealed after a trial of three 
 or four years, which resulted in a most 
 signal and complete failure. 
 
 Why should we be called upon to abol- 
 ish a system, about which there is little or 
 no complaint and to which we are habitu- 
 ated? It is infinitely better to leave it dis- 
 cretionary with the legislature to modify 
 the present system as the public wants and 
 conveniences may require, than to adopt 
 a system, which has already failed of suc- 
 cess, and which is nnsuited at any rate to 
 our present habits. If hereafter, undsr 
 other circumstances, such a change may 
 become expedient or necessary, it will 
 be full time to apply it; and that can be 
 done by the legislature in the same man- 
 ner as in 1817. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said he did not intend to re- 
 ply to the gentleman who had just spoken. 
 What he designed when he made his pro- 
 position, was to elicit discussion. He had 
 thought much upon the- subject, and con- 
 sidered it not devoid of inconvenience 
 either way. The arguments of those op- 
 posed to his proposition, had satisfied him 
 that it ought not to be sustained, and he 
 would withdraw it. But he thought the 
 gentleman had not taken a sufficiently ex- 
 tended view of the question. Some of his 
 objections had not been answered. With 
 the view, that the hands of the legisla- 
 ture should not be tied up, he would pro- 
 pose to add to the section the following 
 words : 
 
 "The legislature may limit the jurisdic- 
 tion of the supreme court to questions of 
 law only, in such cases as shall be deter- 
 mined by law." 
 
 Mr. Grymes thought the section perfect- 
 ly clear, without the amendment. The 
 legislature inevitably possessed the power, 
 and have exercised it. He was opposed 
 to any thing superfluous in the constitution. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 815 
 
 He was afraid of too much discrimination 
 and too much explanation. 
 
 Mr. Lewis replied that if the legislature 
 possessed the power by implication, what 
 harm would it do to make the section ex- 
 plicit. The construction of the delegate 
 (Mr. Grymes) may be true; he would not 
 gainsay it, but if the construction can be 
 rendered more clear by a single sentence, 
 why not add it? He could not for his soul 
 see that it would lead to any inconve- 
 nience; that it could do any harm. It may 
 be found beneficial that the courts of origi- 
 nal jurisdiction should, in some cases, ex- 
 ercise an independent jurisdiction. He 
 doubted not that in a great many instances, 
 their decisions would be as satisfactory as 
 those of the supreme tribunals; and as to 
 the policy of relieving that' court as far as 
 was practicable, inasmuch as considerable 
 additional labor was imposed upon it, there 
 could not exist a doubt. The legislature 
 would be governed by a sound discretion, 
 and by the public wants and exigencies. 
 
 Mr. Eustis said that in making a consti- 
 tution, care should be taken to introduce 
 nothing that was superfluous. The legis- 
 lature under the section, possessed the 
 power, and therefore the amendment was 
 unnecessary. They had exercised it under 
 a clause precisely similar in the. old consti- 
 tution. They had passed a law in 1813, 
 immediately after the adoption of the con- 
 stitution, and again in 1817, upon this very 
 matter. If the learned gentleman indulged 
 any doubts as to the constitutional power, 
 those doubts would be dispelled upon refer- 
 ence to the case of Herman versus Liv- 
 ingston- 
 Mr. Poetee said that inasmuch as there 
 was a difference of opinion as to the con- 
 struction, between legal gentlemen, it 
 would be better to put this matter to rest, 
 and he would therefore propose to substi- 
 ; tute the phraseology of a section, having 
 reference to this same matter, in the con- 
 stitution of Tennessee. Lost. 
 
 The question then recurred on the adop- 
 tion of Mr. Lewis' amendment. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Car- 
 riere, Chamliss, Conrad ofOrleans, Covil- 
 lion, Guion, Humble, Hynson, Lewis, Mc- 
 Rae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Pugh, Scott of I 
 Feliciana and Taylor of St. Landry voted 
 in the affirmative — 18 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Brurnneld, Cenas, Claiborne, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Grymes, King, Legendre, 
 McCallop, Marigny, Mazureau, Prudhoin- 
 me, RatlifT, Roman, Roselius, St. Ainand, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Splane, Stephens, 
 Wederstrandt, Wikoft and Winder voted in 
 the negative — 27 nays; consequently said 
 motion was lost, and the amendment was 
 rejected. 
 
 Mr. Lewis then offered, on behalf of Mr. 
 Taylor of Assumption, the following as a 
 substitute to said section, viz : 
 
 "The supreme court shall have civil and 
 criminal jurisdiction on appeals or writs of 
 error in such cases as the legislature may 
 direct, which shall be exercised in tire 
 manner prescribed by law;" which substi- 
 tute was rejected. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to amend said section 
 by striking out in the last line the word 
 "five," and insert in lieu thereof the word 
 "three." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 Dunn, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, McCal- 
 lop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prud- 
 homme, Pugh, Ratliff, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Splane, Stephens, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Wederstrandt, Wikoffand 
 Winder voted in the affirmative — 27 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Eustis, Grymes, Guion, King, Le- 
 gendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, Ro- 
 man, Roselius and St. Amand voted in 
 the negative — 18 nays; consequently said 
 motion was carried. 
 
 On motion, the section as amended was 
 adopted, viz : 
 
 Sec. 1. The legislative power of the 
 State shall be vested in two distinct 
 branches, the one to be styled the House 
 of Representatives, the other the Senate, 
 and both "the' General Assembly of the 
 State of Louisiana." 
 
 Section twenty-second was taken up and 
 adopted, viz : 
 
 Sec. 22. The clerks of the several 
 courts shall be immoveable for breach of 
 good behavior, by the judges thereof, sub- 
 ject in all cases, to an appeal to the su- 
 preme court. 
 
 Mr. Conrad ofOrleans gave notice that 
 
816 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 he would on Wednesday, move to recon- 1 
 sider the vote rejecting the substitute offer- 
 ed by Mr. Claiborne, 'providing that the 
 executive shall send to the senate the 
 names of all judges whose term of service 
 shall have expired. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne gave notice that he 
 would on Wednesday next, move to recon- 
 sider the vote adopting the first section of 
 article fourth. 
 
 Mr. Mayo gave notice that he would on 
 Wednesday next, move to reconsider the 
 vote adopting the eleventh and twelfth 
 sections of article fourth. 
 
 Mr. Porter submitted the following 
 additional sections, viz : 
 
 Sec. - — . Clerks in the district courts in 
 this State, shall be elected by the qualified 
 electors in each parish, for the term of 
 
 years, and should a vacancy occur 
 
 subsequent to an election, it shall be filled 
 by the judge of the court in which such 
 vacancy exists, and the person so appoint- 
 ed shall hold his office until the next gene- 
 ral election. 
 
 Sec. — . A sheriff shall be elected in 
 each parish by the qualified voters thereof, 
 who shall; hold his office for the term of 
 two years, unless sooner removed ; and 
 who shall not be eligible to serve either as 
 principal or deputy for the two succeeding 
 years. Should a vacancy occur subse- 
 quent to an election, it shall be filled by 
 the governor, and the person so appointed 
 shall continue in office until the next 
 general election. 
 
 Sec. — . All other parish officers shall 
 be elected by the qualified electors of the 
 different parishes, in such manner as shall 
 be prescribed by lav/. 
 
 Mr. Conrad moved that the above sec- 
 tions be laid on the table, and made the 
 special order of the day for Wednesday 
 next, and that they be printed. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved for a division, that is 
 to take up each section separately; which 
 motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Conrad then moved that the first 
 section be laid on the table, and made the 
 special order of the day for Wednesday 
 next, and that the same be printed; which 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Humble moved to fill the blank in 
 the first section with the word "two." 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved to fill the blank in 
 said section with the word "four." 
 
 Mr. Cenas moved to fill the blank with 
 the word " six." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Eustis, Guion, Legendre, Mazureau, Pugh, 
 Roman, Roselius Splane, Taylor of St. 
 Landry and Wads worth voted in the affir- 
 mative— -16 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Brurn^ 
 field, Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, Covil- 
 lion, Dunn, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Kin 3, 
 Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, Peels, 
 Porter, Prudhomme, Ratliff, St. Amand, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Stephens, Wederstrandt, Wikoff 
 and Winder voted in the negative— 29 nays; 
 consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Garrett then moved to fiil the 
 blank with "four." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, King, 
 Lewis, Peets, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, 
 Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, Splane, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Wadsworth, Wikoff 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative — 25 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, Bur- 
 ton, Carriere', Chambliss, Covillion, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Legendre, McCallop, McRae, 
 Mayo, Mazureau, Porter, Ratliff, Scott w 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Stephens 
 and Wederstrandt voted in the negative — 
 20 nays ; consequently said motion was 
 carried, and the blank filled with the word 
 " four." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, on 
 the motion to adopt the first section as 
 amended, viz : 
 
 Sec. — . Clerks of the district courts in 
 this State, shall be elected by the qualified 
 electors in each parish for the term of four 
 years} and should a vacancy occur subse- 
 quent to an election, it shall be filled by 
 the judge of the court in which such va- 
 cancy exists, and the person so appointed 
 shall hold his office until the next general 
 election, — resulted as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 Dunn, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, McCai 
 lop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prud- 
 homme, Ratliff, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Stephens, Weo 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana 
 
 317 
 
 erstrandt and WikofF voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 24 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans^ Conrad of Jefferson, Eustis, Guion, 
 King, Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Pugh, 
 Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Splane, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Wads worth and 
 Winder voted in the negative — 22 nays. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth then gave notice that 
 he would on Wednesday next'move to re- 
 
 con 
 
 sider the vote adopting sal 
 
 section; 
 
 occur subse- 
 shall be filled by 
 
 Mr. G\rrett submitted the following 
 additional section, and the same was re- 
 jected, viz: 
 
 " Clerks of courts- shall be required to 
 give bond and security in the manner to 
 be determined by law, before entering up- 
 on the discharge' of their official duties." 
 
 The second additional section, offered 
 bv Mr. Porter was taken up, viz: 
 
 g EC . A sheriff shall be elected in 
 each parish by the qualified voters thereof 
 who shall hold his office for the term of 
 two years, unless sooner removed; and 
 who shall not be eligible to serve either as 
 principle or deputy -for the two succeeding 
 years. Should a vacancy 
 quent to an election 
 the governor, and the person so appointed 
 shall continue in office until the next gen- 
 eral election. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to amend said section 
 by striking out the words " and who shall 
 not be eligible to serve either as principal 
 or deputy for the two succeeding years." 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Aubert, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Chambliss, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Covillion, Dunn, Eus- 
 tis, Guion, Humble, Hynson, King, Le- 
 gendre, Lewis, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Peets, Porter, Prudhomme, Rati iff, Roman, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Wederstrandt, Wikoff and Winder voted 
 in the affirmative — 34 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Cenas, 
 ( 'ontad of Jefferson, Garrett, McCallop, 
 1 Mazureau, Pugh, Roselius, Saunders and 
 Wadsworth voted in the negative — 11 
 nays. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne ' observed that if the 
 range of popular election was extended to 
 embrace all officers, as appeared to be de- 
 signed, the people would have little else 
 
 to do than to attend the polls. It would 
 keep them constantly in a state of excite- 
 ment and perturbation. In referance to 
 a sheriff, it seemed to him to be a proper 
 precaution to determine who should be the 
 judges of the security for the faithful per- 
 formence of his duties. Should it be the 
 people: they were the appointing power? 
 
 Mr. Eustis thought this mattter ought 
 not to be hastily and inconsiderately pass- 
 ed upon. It would be better to postpone 
 the section for the present. 
 
 Mr. Cone ad of New Orleans moved to 
 amend said section, by adding to the same 
 the following proviso, viz: 
 
 Provided, that if any sheriff should 
 fail to pay over any moneys of the State, 
 collected by him, the parish for which he 
 was elected shall be responsible for the 
 deficiency. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad said that the sheriff 
 was an officer who might be regarded as 
 appertaining to the whole State, rather than 
 to the particular parish in which he might 
 perform his functions. He was the col- 
 lector of the State taxes: and in the dis- 
 charge of that duty the parish alone was 
 not only interested, but the whole State, 
 Some guaranty ought to be given for his 
 fidelity; and inasmuch as his appointment 
 was confided to the people of the parish, 
 they ought to be made responsible for his 
 fidelity in collecting and paying over the 
 revenues of the State. Hence he had pro- 
 posed his amendment. 
 
 Mr. Brent had a word or two to say in 
 reply to the delegate from New Orleans. 
 (Mr. Conrad.) He could not see that any 
 inconvenience would result by making the 
 office of sheriff elective. No inconven- 
 ience could result in exacting from that 
 officer proper security for the faithful 
 discharge of his duties, in the s.ame man- 
 ner as if the appointment continued to be 
 made by the governor. The plan of elect- 
 ing sheriffs was not a novel or untried ex- 
 periment. It had been fully tested in sev- 
 eral States; and had been found to answer 
 public expectation. A disposition pre- 
 vailed in a ceitain quarter of this house to 
 provide for the appointment of public of- 
 ficers in every conceivable way, but in the 
 republican mode of electing them by the 
 people. This appeared to be the most 
 distasteful of all propositions. But we 
 have been told that the sheriff is a State 
 
818 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 officer, because he collects the revenues of 
 the State. Now, if that be a serious ob- 
 jection to his election by the people of his 
 parish, why, it is easily obviated. Let the 
 legislature appoint a special officer a tax 
 collector, if they are afraid to trust a sheriff 
 elected by the people of the locality. They 
 have the power to do so. As for the sure- 
 ty to be given by the sheriff, the legislature 
 have the same power of regulating it, 
 whether the sheriff be appointed by the 
 people or be appointed by the governor. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad said that the gentle- 
 man (Mr. Brent) seemed to admit that 
 there was some impropriety in this mode 
 of appointment. He says that the legis- 
 lature may constitute another officer and 
 impose on him the duty of collecting the 
 revenue of the State; that they may create 
 the office of tax collector. This is true; but 
 the gentleman should bear in mind that 
 these officers must be compensated; and 
 that it would be creating a new swarm of 
 office holders to eat up the substance of 
 the people. It is unlikely the legislature 
 will do any such thing. The duty of col- 
 lecting the revenues of the State has been 
 imposed. upon the sheriffs because it ap- 
 propriately comes within the sphere of 
 their duties. It is an easy mode of ma- 
 king these collections; and the question 
 recurs, is it right that the State should be 
 deprived of any control over these ap- 
 pointments? That their appointment should 
 be taken from an officer representing the 
 whole people of the State and given to a 
 small fraction? It must be borne in mind, 
 too, that the sheriff has other important 
 functions to perform, besides collecting the 
 public revenues. He is, moreover, the 
 custodian of criminals; and large sums of 
 money pass through his hands for the ad- 
 ministration of the criminal laws of the 
 country. He is under the necessity of 
 acting against his parishioners, and in fa- 
 vor of strangers who may have recourse 
 to the criminal law. Is it not to be appre- 
 hended that in his desire to make himself 
 popular, and to avoid the clamor of his 
 neighbors, he may be indifferent or neg- 
 lectful in the discharge of these duties? — 
 We have had some examples of the evils 
 of electing sheriffs in the neighboring 
 State of Mississippi. For several years 
 in that Stale, there was a total suspension 
 of legal proceedings. The sheriffs elect- 
 
 ed by the people refused to execute writs 
 of seizure and sale. This immediately 
 will be the consequence, wherever a dis- 
 charge of duty is made to depend upon 
 mere personal interest. The sheriff who 
 will harrass the poor and uninfluential 
 man, will hesitate to do any thing that will 
 incur the displeasure of the rich and pow- 
 erful. But this_ is not yet all. Political 
 considerations will enter into the contest 
 for election, and the tendency will be to 
 make the sheriff nothing less than a party 
 instrument. 
 
 What is to be gained by this extreme 
 system of elections? Do the people de- 
 sire it? The people are indifferent; they 
 do not desire it! It is sought for only by 
 a few persons, who see in it the means of 
 personal aggrandizement and political tin- 
 moil The pretext assumed is, that it will 
 extend the principles of democracy; but 
 its true result will be to produce corrup- 
 tion and immorality, and to destroy repub- 
 lican institutions. It can have no other 
 result; and as for its being in unison with 
 republicanism, it was never dreamed of by 
 the fathers of our republican government. 
 They would have considered it a heresy 
 upon the true republican faith. 
 
 On motion the Convention adjourned 
 
 Tuesday, April 29, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Warren opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 This being* the day fixed to. reconsider 
 the vote laying on the table subject to call, 
 the resolution allowing mileage to mem- 
 bers, 
 
 Mr. Humble moved for the reconsidera- 
 tion; the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Chambliss, Chinn, Covillion, 
 Cuibertson, Dunn, Humble, Hynson, Mc- 
 Gallop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Penn, Porter. 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Ratliff, Read, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, 
 Wederstrandt and Wikoff voted in the 
 affirmative — 29 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Boudousquie, Bourg, 
 Carriere, Eustis, Guion, Kenner, King? 
 Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Roman, Saunders, Winchester and 
 Winder voted in the negative — 17 nays ; 
 
Debates in the Convention ot Louisiana. 
 
 819 
 
 consequently the motion was carried, and 
 the resolution was taken up, viz : 
 
 Resolved, That the committee on con- 
 tingent expenses be instructed to inquire 
 into and ascertain the amount of mileage 
 due to each member of this body, for his 
 travelling to and returning home from the 
 Convention in New Orleans, and direct 
 the payment of the same. 
 
 To which resolution Mr. Beatty had 
 3 tiered the following amendment, viz: 
 
 "And that the committee report to the 
 Convention." 
 
 Mr. Guion moved the adoption of the 
 amendment, which was lost. 
 
 Mr. Kenner then offered the following 
 amendment, viz : 
 
 Provided, That when the member lives 
 farther from New Orleans than from the 
 town of Jackson, but when the member 
 lives. nearer to New Orleans than to Jack- 
 ison, no additional mileage shall be al- 
 lowed. 
 
 Mr. Guion moved to lay the whole sub- 
 ject on the table indefinitely; and the yeas 
 and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Boudousquie, Brazeale, 
 Brent, B riant, Carriere, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Eustis, Guion, Kenner, King, La- 
 jauve, Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Penn, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Wadsworth, 
 WikofT, Winchester and Winder voted in 
 :he affirmative — 23 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, Cham- 
 dKss, Chinn, Claiborne, Covillion, Culbert- 
 son, Dunn, Humble, Hynson, McCallop, 
 McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Ratliff, Read, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Fe- 
 liciana, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill and Wed- 
 srstrandt voted in the negative — 30 nays; 
 consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved to lay the proviso 
 offered by Mr. Kenner, on the table 
 indefinitely, and the yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Chinn, 
 Chambliss, Covillion. Culbertson, Dunn, 
 Humble, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, 
 Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, 
 Ratliff, Read, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Splane, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, Voor- 
 hies, Waddill, Wederstrandt and ^WikofT 
 voted in the affirmative— 29 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Boudousquie, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Carriere, Cenas, Claiborne, Eustis, 
 Guion, Hynson, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Penn, Pugh, 
 Roman, Wadsworth, Winchester and Win- 
 der voted in the negative — 22 nays. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff then moved for the adop- 
 tion of the resolution. The yeas and nays 
 being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brumfield, Burton, Chambliss, 
 Cenas, Chinn, Covillion, Culbertson, Dunn, 
 Humb e, McCallop, McRae, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Ratliff, Read, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Voorhies, Waddill and Weder- 
 strandt voted in the affirmative — 25 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Carriere, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Eustis, Gar- 
 rett, Guion, Hynson, Kenner, King, La- 
 bauve, Legendre, Lewis, Mayo, Mazureau, 
 Penn, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Trist, 
 Wadsworth, WikofT, Winchester and* Win- 
 der voted in the negative — 29 nays. 
 
 Mr. Mayo offered the following reso- 
 lution, viz : 
 
 Resolved, that mileage be paid to mem- 
 bers who reside further from New Orleans- 
 than Jackson, for the additional distance to 
 and from their residence, to New Orleans; 
 and for those who live nearer New Orleans 
 than Jackson, such sum shall be paid them 
 as mileage in addition to what has already 
 been paid to them, as will make the whole 
 mileage to such members, equal to full 
 mileage for going and returning from Jack- 
 son to New Orleans. 
 
 Mr. Waddill moved to lay said resolug 
 tion on the table; which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved for the adoption of the 
 resolution; and the yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Ce- 
 nas, Chambliss, Chinn, Covillion, Culbert- 
 son, Dunn, Humble, Garrett, Hynson, 
 Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Rat- 
 liff, Read, Saunders, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Trist, Voorhies, Wederstrandt and WikofT 
 voted in the affirmative — 31 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Brazeale, Carriere, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Eustis, Guion, 
 
820 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, Mazu- 
 reau, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Scott cf 
 Baton Rouge, Waddill, Wadsworth and 
 Winder voted in the negative — 22 nays. 
 
 Mr. Makigny submitted the following 
 proposition, to be embodied in the general 
 provisions: 
 
 " The secretary of the senate and the 
 clerk of the house of representatives shall 
 possess the French and English languages?; 
 and in the senate, asuvell as in the house 
 of representatives, the members shall be 
 free to speak in the French or English 
 language;" 
 
 And, on his motion, it was laid on the 
 table, to be taken up- when- the general pro- 
 visions should be under consideration. 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 The following section,, offered by Mr. 
 Porter, viz: 
 
 Sec. 2. A sheriff shall be elected in 
 each parish, by the qualified voters there- 
 of, who shall hold his office for the term 
 of two years, unless sooner removed. — 
 Should a vacancy occur subsequent to an 
 election, it shall be filled by the governor; 
 and the person so appointed shall continue 
 in office until his successor be elected and 
 qualified. 
 
 To which section , Mr. Conrad of Or- 
 leans had offered the following proviso, 
 viz: 
 
 "Provided, that if any sheriff should 
 fail to pay over any moneys of the State, 
 collected by him, the parish for which he 
 was elected shall be responsible for the de- 
 ficiency." 
 
 . Mr. Porter would beg leave to make a 
 few remarks in reply to the observations 
 that fell from the delegate from New Or. 
 leans, (Mr. Conrad) yesterday. He was 
 suffering from a violent head ache, and 
 would beg the indulgence of the house, if 
 he treated the subject rather cursorily. 
 The gentleman from New Orleans (Mr. 
 Conrad) had attempted to show that a 
 sheriff was not the officer of a parish, but 
 an officer of the State; and therefore, he 
 reasoned that it was not right that the ap- 
 pointment should be confided to a fraction 
 of the whole population. The delegate 
 from New Orleans (Mr. Conrad) cannot 
 be serious in such an argument as that; for 
 he cannot be ignorant of what is known 
 to the simplest countryman. With the 
 exception of the collection of the State 
 
 taxes, which may in fact be attributed to 
 another officer, the sheriff is essentially a 
 parochial officer. His duties are essen- 
 tially in the parish, even in the collection 
 of revenue; and in every other respect he 
 is a parish officer. If the official relations 
 of the sheriff are to be taken into consid- 
 eration, as is argued by the delegate from 
 New Orleans, (Mr. Conrad) then the ap- 
 pointment would of right, belong to the 
 judge; for the sheriff has functions almost 
 entirely appertaining to the court. The 
 object, in fact, appears to be to divide pa- 
 tronage between the judges and the gover- 
 nor; as for the people, they are apparently 
 deemed by the delegate to be the worst 
 medium of appointment! 
 
 The true question involved is this: "'who 
 are the most capable of selecting a sheriff .' 
 Is it the governor, who is called on to 
 make the appointment, particularly for a 
 remote parish, or is it the people of the 
 parish themselves? How can the gover- 
 nor be personally cognizant of the merits 
 of the person soliciting the appointment? 
 He must rely upon the representations of 
 others; and the value of these represent- 
 ations, as a guide, is too well known, in s 
 majority of cases, to need comment. If 
 the governor were unlimited in his choice, 
 and could at will transport a sheriff from 
 one part of the State to another, as has 
 been done, he might make a good seleC' 
 tion; but if he be restricted to the parish, 
 is he more competent — aye, is he as com- 
 petent to make the selection, as the people 
 of the parish themselves? 
 
 But the gentleman says that- if you eon- 
 fide the appointment to the people, instead 
 of the governor — to the creators, instead 
 of the creature, they ought to be made re- 
 sponsible for any delinquency, should such 
 occur, on the part of the sheriff. Noiv 
 sir, it strikes me as a bad rule that will 
 not work both ways-. The governor is. 
 under the old constitution, the appointing 
 power. Is the governor responsible for 
 the fidelity of the sheriff she may appoint! 
 I imagine not. The executive power 
 would be very loth to assume such a charge; 
 and yet upon the same principle, it would 
 be as reasonable to propose that the gov- 
 ernor should be responsible for any defi- 
 ciency that might occur in the accounts ot 
 the sheriffs appointed by him! The gen 
 tlcman must perceive the extreme ridicule 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 821 
 
 of such an argument. I hardly think he j at public vendue, and have it knocked 
 can be in earnest in employing it. He \ down to the- lowest bidder. Some gentle- 
 mu=t be jesting", as he once said I was, on i men are disposed to go very far to favor the 
 another occasion. j judiciary. They are in the first place to 
 
 But the- gentleman from New Orleans j be the recipients of extraordinary salaries. 
 (Mr. Conrad) is not yet satisfied. He j They talk of eight or ten thousand dollars 
 wishes the clerks of courts to be appointed. \ as a salary for a judge, as a mere trifle, 
 as well as the sheriffs. But by whom? j basing their calculations on exorbitant 
 By the judge! and thus it is. that the pat- ; fees paid to attornies in the city. They 
 ronage of office when taken from the gov- ' do not know the wants and exigencies of 
 eminent, is to revert to the judiciary! This j the people of the country. That the pro- 
 seems to be the gentleman's favorite mode, j ducers of the soil have to labor with their 
 The people are incapable of making judi- ' hands, and do not coin money in that way, 
 cious appointments, and if they are allow- | But high salaries are not alone sufficient, 
 ed to make any appointments, they must The judges must have patronage. They 
 be charged with the fidelity of the offices ; must appoint and control the clerks, and 
 they neglect. This is the gentleman's j be unlimited in their sway oyer the for- 
 doctrine. He says that there has never tunes of their fellow citizens. There is to 
 been any complaints in the city about con- be no check any where. The advocates- 
 tiding to* judges the power of choosing their of such a system have indeed singular 
 own clerks. That may very well be the j notions of the principles of republican 
 case in the city. But the gentleman government. 
 
 should remember that in the country the ; There would be great inconvenience for 
 district will embrace three or four parishes. ; the judge of a district in the country, em- 
 Admitting then, that the plan may be sat- bracing several parishes, to make the se- 
 islactory in the city, does it follow it will lection of a clerk, and his appointment 
 be satisfactory in the country? Or does it might very well not be such an one as 
 follow because the judges in the city may would give satisfaction to the majority of 
 have made good appointments of clerks, the people in the district. Certainly t,he 
 that the people are incapable of electing people of the whole district should partici- 
 good clerks? The principle involved is the pate in the selection. But this is not all. 
 same in the election of one set of officers, It would have a corrupting and baneful 
 as another set of officers. If the people influence. The people have seen tire in- 
 can elect a good representative, a good jurious effects of the overgrown patronage 
 senator, or a good governor, why not a of the governor, but bad and pernicious as 
 good clerk of a court? Is there any thing that influence may become, it is by no 
 >so peculiar in the functions of a clerk, that means comparable to what would follow 
 the must be placed beyond the power of similar patronage on the part of the judicial 
 the people, and invested with his office for power. 
 
 life? The office of clerk under the new In the re-organization of the judiciary 
 systemj will be one of the most important department, the people have got little or 
 offices. But the gentleman says, that the nothing. J3oth the proposition to elect the 
 udge should have the same power of ap- judges by the people, as well as the propo- 
 >oiuting his clerk as a commission mer- i sition to elect them by the legislature, 
 phant? It seems to me that there is no were voted down, and the patronage of ju- 
 snmlarky between a public duty and a dicial appointments is continued in the 
 nan s personal business. The merchant ; executive. The people will only, exercise 
 may get a cheap clerk; is the judge to ! a remote influence upon these appoint- 
 ollow the same plan and to pocket the ments, and that only by a single reform, 
 >alance of the fees. This would follow, : the abbreviation of the tenure of the judi- 
 i the gentleman's argument is to be con- j cial office. We are disposed to yield to 
 udercd valid. The judge could make the \ the will of the majority of this house, ob- 
 jest bargain, and may retain the balance jectionable as may be some of the features 
 or his own benefit, regardless whether j embodied in the system. All we ask is 
 he public interest suffered or not. He 1 the poor boon, in the name of the people, 
 fould pi*, up the office of clerk of the court I of electing their parish officers. If this be 
 
b22 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 refused, it will raise a cry of indignation 
 that will follow those who would deny it to 
 the people, to their graves, from one end 
 of the State to the other. I would beseech 
 gentlemen to beware. The governor and 
 the judges are but servants o*f the people, 
 and the people are as capable of appoint- 
 ing their other servants as they are of ap- 
 pointing the governor. They will not fold 
 their arms, and see political power taken 
 from them, and transferred to their agents, 
 without a struggle. 
 
 Mr. Kenner called for the previous 
 question, which was sustained. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, moved for the 
 adoption of the proviso; the yeas and nays- 
 being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Bourg, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Legendre, Ma- 
 zureqji, Pugh, Voorhies and Wads worth 
 voted in the affirmative — 9 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Carriere, Ce- 
 nas, Chambliss, Chinn, Covillion, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, 
 King, Labauve, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, 
 Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Trist, Waddill, Wederstrandt, Wi- 
 koff and Winder voted in the negative — 41 
 nays; consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Porter then moved for the adop- 
 tion of the section. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Carriere, Cham- 
 bliss, Covillion, Dunn, Garrett, Guion, 
 Humble, Hynson, Kenner, Lewis, McCal- 
 lop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Penn, 
 Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhom- 
 me, Ratliff, Read, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Stephens, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt, Wikoff 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative — 37 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Eustis, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Mazureau,Pugh, Roman, Splane, 
 Taylor of St. Landry and Wadsworth voted 
 in the negative— 18 nays-; consequently 
 said motion was carried. 
 
 Section third, offered by Mr. Porter, 
 was taken up, viz : 
 
 Sec. 3. All parish officers not otherwise 
 provided for by this constitution, shall be 
 elected by the qualified electors of the dif- 
 ferent parishes, in such manner as shall be 
 prescribed by law. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to amend said section 
 by striking out the words "elected by the 
 qualified electors of the different parishes," 
 and insert in lieu thereof the word "ap- 
 pointed;" which amendment was lost. 
 
 Mr. Cenas moved to lay the section 
 and amendment on the table, subject to 
 call; which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Porter then moved for the adoption 
 of the section; and the yeas and nays 
 being called for, 
 
 Measrs. Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, Covil- 
 lion, Dunn, Garrett, Guion, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, McCallop, McRae, Marigny,- Mayo, 
 Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Saunders, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Ste- 
 phens, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Weder- 
 strandt and Wikoff voted in the affirmative 
 —31 yeas; and 
 
 .Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Eustis, 
 Guion, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, 
 Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman> 
 Splane, Taylor of St. Landry, Wadsworth, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the nega- 
 tive — 25 nays; consequently said motion 
 was carried, and the section was adopted. 
 
 On motion, the Convention took up arti- 
 cle sixth. 
 
 ARTICLE six GENERAL provisions. 
 
 Sec. 1. Members of the general assem- 
 bly, and all officers, executive and judicial, 
 before they enter upon the execution of 
 their respective offices, shall take the fol- 
 lowing oath or affirmation: "I, (A. B.) do 
 solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faith- 
 fully and impartially discharge and perform 
 
 all the duties incumbent on me as , 
 
 according to the best of my abilities and 
 understanding, agreeably to the rules and 
 regulations of the constitution and laws of 
 this State. So help me God !" 
 
 On motion of Mr. Lewis, said article 
 was laid on the table, subject to call. 
 
 Section second was taken up and adopt- 
 ed, viz : 
 
 Sec. 2. Treason against the State shall 
 consist only in levying war against it, or 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 in adhering to its enemies, giving them aid j 
 and comfort. No person shall be convict- 
 ed of treason, unless on the testimony of 
 two witnesses to the same overt act, or 
 his oyp. confession in open court. 
 
 Section third was taken up and adopted, j 
 viz : 
 
 Sec. 3. Every person shall be forever 
 disqualified from serving as governor, sen- 
 ator or representative, and from holding \ 
 any other office of trust or profit in this | 
 State, who shall have been convicted of 
 having given, or offered any bribe to pro- j 
 •cure his election or appointment. 
 
 Section fourth was taken up and adopt- 
 ed, viz : 
 
 Sec. 4. Laws shall be made to exclude 
 from office and from the right of suffrage, 
 those who shall hereafter be convicted of 
 bribery, perjury, forgery, or other high 
 crimes or misdemeanors. The privilege 
 of free suffrage shall be supported by laws 
 regulating elections, and prohibiting un- 
 der adequate penalties all undue influence 
 thereon from power, bribery, tumult or 
 other improper practices. 
 
 Section fifth was taken up and adopted, 
 viz : 
 
 Sec 5. Xo money shall be drawn 
 from the treasury but in pursuance of 
 specific appropriations made by law, nor 
 shall any appropriation of money for the 
 support of an army be made for a longer 
 term than one year. A regular statement 
 and account of the receipts and expendi- 
 tures of all public money shall be published 
 annually, in such manner as shall be 
 prescribed by law. 
 
 Section sixth was then taken up and 
 adopted, viz : 
 
 Sec 6. It shall be the duty of the 
 general assembly to pass such laws as 
 may be necessary and proper to decide 
 differences by arbitrators, to be appointed 
 by the parties who may choose that sum- 
 mary mode of adjustment. 
 
 Section seventh was taken up, viz : 
 Sec 7. All civil officers for the State 
 at large shall reside within the State, and 
 all district or parish officers within their j 
 respective districts or parishes, and shall 
 keep tljeir respective offices at such places | 
 therein as may be required by law. And 
 no person shall be elected or'appointed to j 
 any district or parish office, who shall not 
 have resided in such district or parish j 
 
 long enough before such election, or ap- 
 pointment, to have acquired the right of 
 voting for representatives to the general 
 assembly in such district or parish. 
 
 Mr. Eustis moved to amend said sec- 
 tion, by striking out all of the last para- 
 graph, commencing at the word "and" in 
 the fifth line. 
 
 Mr. Eustis said: the results which would 
 follow this provision were more serious 
 than were anticipated. Xow, sir, f can 
 well understand that it may meet the views 
 of persons who may hope to be appointed 
 to office; and that it may gratify the petty 
 ambition of some village lawyers, but I 
 nevertheless hold that it is contrary to the 
 public interest, and for this reason: that it 
 restricts the executive choice to a circle in 
 which it may be difficult to find any thing 
 but mediocrity and incapacity. Why, in 
 the face of experience and sound judgment, 
 attempt to limit in this way the power of 
 your executive? It seems to me that dis- 
 cussion is less necessary than reflection! 
 There are a class of persons who imagine 
 that all established authority, all existing 
 forms of government, are, from the mere 
 fact of their existence, defective and vicious. 
 Nothing which has stood the test of time 
 suits them, and they can see nothing but 
 error and delusion in the opinions of those 
 who differ with them. It is sufficient to 
 differ with them to be wrong. 
 
 If we consult the experience of the past 
 we find that in about fifty conventions that 
 have been held in the twenty. six States of 
 our Republic, there is not a single consti- 
 tution in which a similar experiment has 
 been made. Is it to be considered all suffi- 
 cient for one to say, "I am a resident of 
 this particular parish," and does that enun- 
 ciation carry with it the higher recommen- 
 dation of fitting qualifications to hold a re- 
 sponsible public office? To admit such 
 an argument would be to travel from one 
 extreme to another; it would be placing 
 ourselves at the mercy cf incapacity and 
 ignorance. It would be to withdraw from 
 the appointing power the circle of the whole 
 State, from which to make his appoint- 
 ments, and trust our institutions to a mere 
 novelty, to the pleasure" of making a dan- 
 gerous experiment! Who ever heard in 
 England, or in our sister 3ta*tes, that a 
 judge must necessarily be taken from a par- 
 ticular county, from this or that particular 
 
824 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 section of the State? Why such an idea 1 
 never entered the minds of the fathers of 
 our republican institutions. Where is the 
 necessity ior these local restrictions? where 
 is there use? A judge is chosen to pro- 
 tect the life, the reputation and the pro- 
 perty of the citizen, all that is dear and 
 precious to him, and yet you would impose 
 a mandate in your constitution that this judge 
 must be taken from a certain locality, 
 without reference to the fact whether a 
 person fully competent can be found to ac- 
 cept. Intelligence and capacity become 
 of no moment, and the only indispensable 
 condition is locality. How are we to 
 gratify such a condition otherwise than as 
 a piece of insufferable folly? 
 
 Without doubt there are to be found in 
 most of the judicial districts, into which 
 the State has been divided, men highly 
 capable and every way worthy of the ap- 
 pointment of judges, but it may happen 
 that they will not be disposed to accept, 
 and hence the necessity may arise of being 
 obliged to seek elsewhere for competent 
 persons. How is it that gentlemen, who 
 have during the protracted and animated 
 bebates that have attended our proceedings, 
 resisted and combatted the spirit of restric- 
 tion; how, I would ask, can they advocate 
 a principle which is calculated to do more 
 harm than all other restrictions put to- 
 gether? 
 
 I have said that all history is against 
 such a restriction. The nation that pos- 
 sesses the best laws, but whose laws are' 
 the worst administered, and which once 
 held sway over our territory, has in the Par- 
 tidas, which is a monument to the memory 
 of Alonzo the wise, consecrated the very re- 
 verse of the principle you seek to establish. 
 No man, according to those laws, could be 
 eligible to the office of a judge, who was 
 born in the place in which he was to ex- 
 ercise his functions. This principle was 
 founded on a thorough knowledge of the 
 human heart. It was designed to place 
 the magistrate beyond the influence of lo- 
 cal feelings and resentments. Man is so 
 constituted that if he has a favor to dispense 
 he seldom looses sight of his relations, his 
 partizans and his friends. It would be un- 
 wise to say that the choice of a magistrate 
 should be restricted to a particular locality, 
 instead of leaving the whole State open for 
 the judgment of the executive, in which to 
 
 J make a fitting appointment. What is it 
 whether a man be appointed judge from 
 this side or that side of line dividing con- 
 tiguous and neighboring parishes and whose 
 populations are identical in feelings^nter- 
 ests and habits? I would ask the learned 
 delegate from Caddo whether he would 
 not be satisfied with a good judge, even 
 although he should be selected from the 
 Ouachita district? 
 
 Mr. Porter said he would prefer a good 
 judge, selected in his own district* 
 
 Mr. Eustis: Feelings of petty localities 
 are not favorable to the public weal, espe- 
 cially, it may be said, in reference to judi- 
 cial appointments. Sentiments, attach- 
 ments and affection burn very strongly in 
 the bosom of our population, and it may 
 be a matter of very questionable policy 
 how far it is expedient to stimulate those 
 feelings in the extremely delicate functions 
 of a judge, by appointing only those to ad- 
 minister justice who are residents of a pa- 
 rish where a large portion of the population 
 are their relatives, and where it may be 
 presumed they may have imbibed strong 
 personal predilections, and personal ani- 
 mosities. These are subjects for executive 
 forethought, and the utmost lasitude of 
 choice should be afforded the governor, to 
 make a judicious selection, irrespective of 
 mere parish lines. 
 
 Those noble and generous impulses 
 which attaches a man to his family, and 
 which may induce him to give a prefer- 
 ence to his family and to his friends, may 
 have a dangerous tendency in the exercise 
 of the judicial office; and even if a magis- 
 trate have sufficient firmness to withstand 
 such an influence in his , official capacity, 
 it nevertheless may expose him to censure 
 and to suspicion. It may be inferred that 
 the inviolability of justice has been sacri- 
 ficed to subserve the claims of kindred; 
 and in this way public confidence may be 
 wholly withdrawn. What a degrading 
 situation for a judge; and what a degrading 
 situation for the character of our laws! 
 
 Here then, we find two imminent perils 
 to be encountered. On one side ignorance 
 and degradation, on the other the presumed 
 influence of family feelings and friendship. 
 This is the alternative. Why, then, limit 
 the power of the governor to appoint ? why 
 circumscribe him to particular bounds, in- 
 stead of giving him the whole State from 
 
Debates in the Convention 01 Louisiana. 
 
 825 
 
 which to make a selection, relying upon 
 his discretion, that if it be proper to ap- 
 point from the particular parish, he will 
 do so, and if it be improper,- he ought not] 
 The influence of prejudice is ahead, suffi- 
 ciently strong to make the tendency in 
 favor of these local selections. Why pro- 
 nounce a solemn mandate, and decree that \ 
 the executive shall not go beyond the pre- I 
 cincts of a parish? At best, what is it but 
 an experiment? An experiment that no 
 other State has tried, and which is repug- 
 nant alike to sound reason, to justice, and 
 to experience. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said that the grounds assumed 
 by the honorable member (Mr. Eustis) had 
 created in his mind great surprise. He 
 was astonished at the warmth displayed by 
 that delegate, Although I do not assent, 
 said Mr. Lewis, to all the propositions that 
 I had reported, as chairman of the commit- 
 tee upon general provisions, with the un- 
 derstanding that I would urge my objec- 
 tions when they came before the Conven- 
 tion, this particular proposition is not 
 among those to which I dissented. It met 
 the hearty and unanimous assent of the 
 committee, and notwithstanding the ap- 
 peals of the delegate to history, 1 maintain 
 that the provision is loudly called for, and 
 will be acceptable to the great mass of the 
 people. 
 
 There is ho subject of more general 
 complaint than the arbitrary exercise of 
 the executive power, in appointing officers 
 from one section of the State for another 
 section. Upon one occasion I remember 
 that the attempt was made by an executive 
 to force upon a district a judge from anoth- 
 er portion of the State, and it was alone j 
 unsuccessful from the firmness and deter- 
 mination displayed by the senate to resist it. 
 
 The gentleman tell us that the Partidas 
 embraces the best system of laws extant, 
 but the worst administered. He says that 
 by a provision, which he considers very j 
 salutary, natives of the particular locality | 
 where they are enforced are excluded from j 
 the appointment of judges. This argument 
 is suicidal, it detsroys itself, since the gen- \ 
 tleman safs the laws are good, but the ad- 
 ministration is bad. The fault then lies 
 with the persons administering them, and 
 this destroys the principle which he ap- 
 pears to consider so beneficial. 
 
 But what is most extraordinary is that 
 
 the delegate would have us believe that 
 the section will operate peculiarly to the 
 benefit of village pettifoggers, whose 
 chances of judicial promotion will be there- 
 by greatly increased; which is as much as 
 to say, that in the districts generally, men 
 of standing at the profession of the law, are 
 not to be had to fill those appointments, 
 and that therefore, out of the necessity of 
 the case, the governor should be permitted 
 to go beyond the district in making the 
 nominations. If this argument hold good 
 in relation to the selection of judges, it will 
 hold equally good in the selection of all lo- 
 cal officers. It will be necessary to grant 
 to the electors of a parish the privilege of 
 the whole State to make a suitable appoint- 
 ment of a representative to the legislature, 
 of a senator, of .a sheriff, or of the clerk of 
 a court. There may be some disparity in 
 the amount of talent in different sections 
 of the State — the city, for example, may 
 possess more talent than the country, but 
 if the executive appoints from the best ma- 
 terials before him, no complaints will be 
 made, and the citizens will be better satis- 
 fied with their own citizens to administer 
 their laws, than with citizens hyported 
 from more favored sections of the State, 
 even though they should possess a greater 
 degree of abilities in the opinion of the 
 gouernor. In the selection of the judges 
 of the supreme court, the latitude of the 
 whole State is given to the executive. 
 This is proper, because the functions of 
 those officers appertain to the whole State 
 indiscriminately. But for district courts it 
 is equally obvious that the appointments 
 should be made from the districts, and not 
 from the State at large. There is a pecu- 
 liar fitness that the judge should be taken 
 from the district in which he is to preside, 
 and when it is borne in mind that the dis- 
 tricts are composed of several parishes, 
 the facilities of choice are abundantly 
 great to make suitable appointments. It 
 is unfortunate that in some districts but six 
 or eight suitable persons may be found, 
 perhaps when there are hundreds in the 
 city of New Orleans, but from this limited 
 numher a good appointment may be .made, 
 at any rate a more satisfactory one to the 
 people, than- if recourse was had else- 
 where. The detailing of citizens from 
 one section of the State to hold offices in 
 other sections, has produced great com- 
 
826 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 plaints. In some instances, where the 
 nominees have been taken from the city., 
 loud and vehement complaints have follow- 
 ed. If all power emanates from the 
 people, the people have a right to govern; 
 and their feelings, and even- their preju- 
 dices, (if it be a prejudice for them to pre- 
 fer those domiciliated among them, to 
 strangers) should be taken into some- ac- 
 count. Every delegate on this floor Is 
 aware of the general dislike to the import- 
 ed appointments, that prevails all over the 
 State, and that they are submitted to with 
 great reluctance. 
 
 It is well known, that I am lar from being 
 radical in my views, but I do respect the 
 will of a large number, and I do think 
 that public opinion ought to be consulted. 
 Public opinion has settled clearly in favor 
 of appointments being made from the parish 
 or the district where the officer is to exer- 
 cise his functions, and I think the principle 
 is a good one. As for the alledged incon- 
 veniences that may result, I think they are 
 greatly exaggerated. I do not believe there 
 is a district in the State, in which a proper 
 selection may not be made. And on the 
 other ^tnd, great evils would be the conse- 
 quence, if the executive were left unre- 
 strained, to impose upon the people of a dis- 
 trict, persons from another district, with 
 whom they were not identfied, and it might 
 well happen, as has happened, that persons 
 of real merit in the district would be over- 
 looked, to give the appointments to favor- 
 ites elsewhere. If the truth is to be told this 
 has happened very much to the detriment 
 of the public service, and very much against 
 the wishes of the people, whose preferences 
 have been disregarded. I hope the section 
 will be adopted : it will be wise and salu- 
 tary in its operation, I have not a doubt. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad said, that it might 
 have happened in certain instances, that 
 the executive power may have misconcei- 
 ved the claims of persons residing in a par- 
 ish or in a district, by appointing citizens 
 residing in other portions of the State. But 
 in general, he believed, the practice of the 
 executive was never to proceed to those 
 nomiaations without consulting the wishes 
 of the prominent and leading persons resi- 
 ding in the particular locality. An error, 
 or an exception does not make the rule, 
 and I am apprehensive, (said Mr. Conrad) 
 that to avoid one difficulty we shall fall into 
 
 another and a greater difficulty. What extent 
 of territory will form a judicial district un- 
 der the new constitution ? A vast extent of 
 territory, an immense circle in which will 
 be found parishes, where there will ba 
 no want of proper talent for the judi- 
 cial station ? I apprehend not ! The aboli- 
 tion of the parish court system, will infalli- 
 bly result in a diminution of the actual size 
 ofthe districts to less than one half of what 
 they now are. This will be the result soon- 
 er or later, and to make it obligatory upon 
 the governor to make his appointments 
 strictly within the limits of each district, is 
 in effect to confine his choice to one or two 
 lawyers that may be found residents with- 
 in the district, and both of whom maj be 
 incompetent. When I say one. or two law- 
 yers, I do not indulge in exaggerated lan- 
 guage, for it is notorious that in some sec- 
 tions of the State where litigation is not 
 prolific, and where the inhabitants are in- 
 disposed to hazard their little all in suits, 
 there are few if any, members of the pro- 
 fession. It would be as well, inasmuch as 
 the effect would be the same, to say at once 
 that the governor should choose from three 
 or four individuals, and that his choice 
 should not be extended beyond them. 
 There might be on the opposite side of the 
 parish line, a legist of accomplised abilities, 
 and although the people would prefer his 
 nomination to that of either of those indivi- 
 duals, the governor would be restricted by 
 this unfortunate section. He would be com- 
 pelled to choose an unworthy person, al- 
 though convinced of his mi worthiness. 
 Where is the wisdom of such a restriction ? 
 Where its necessity 1 
 
 But the pernicious consequences do not 
 stop here of this arbitrary provision. I 
 would ask the honorable delegate (Mr. Lew- 
 is,) if there are not others interested in the 
 administration of justice, save those who 
 are the immediate residents of the district ? 
 Has not the judge to perform duties which 
 affect others than those residing the district? 
 Suppose I institute a suit againgt a resi- 
 dent of the parish of St. James, or a resil 
 dent of the parish of Livingston, would I 
 not be as much interested in the matter ot 
 who was judge, whether he was a capable, 
 upright man, as if I were a resident of those 
 parishes instead ofthe parish of Orleans 1 It 
 is a mistaken notion to imagine that no 
 other citizen in the State should be eligible 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 52^ 
 
 to an office but the resident of the particu- 
 lar locality, where its duties are fulfilled, 
 where from the nature of the office, it ope- 
 rates upon and may effect the interest of a 
 citizen of one portion of the State as well 
 as another. 
 
 •The delegate from St. Landry, (Mr. 
 Lewis.) has told us that judges were im- 
 ported from the city for the country. I have 
 no recollection of any such occurrence. 
 
 (Mr. Lewis : Among others I referred 
 to the appointment of Judge Curry.) 
 
 Mr. Consad : I did not think of that 
 particular appointment, but I have no doubt 
 it was satisfactory to a majority of people 
 in the district or it would not have been 
 made. But admitting that abuses may grow 
 out of the discretionary power of the gov- 
 ernor to appoint out of the district, if he 
 thinks it expedient, is not the senate con- 
 stituted as a check upon the governor, and 
 will not the feeling in favor of local ap- 
 pointments be sufficiently strong, to re- 
 strain the governor and preclude the possi- 
 bility of an arbitrary exercise of the pow- 
 er? If you restrict the executive to local 
 appointments, you may change the appoint- 
 ments for the office, but will the change be 
 for the better ? This is the true question to 
 be resolved! It is one you will vainly seek to 
 avoid. A Judge should be capable, free from 
 reproach or suspicion, assiduous, just, and 
 above all impartial. Are you sure that with- 
 in the prescribed circle of a petty district, | 
 you will rind a person uniting all these | 
 qualifications, willing to accept the appoint- 
 ment, and that whenever there be a va- 
 cnncy ? And if it should so happen that j 
 your expectations are disappointed, in 
 what an unfortunate predicament you 
 place the appointment. I am fearful you are ! 
 about to introduce a principle in your con- 
 stitution, which will germinate mischie- . 
 v ous results. I would appeal to the honor- 
 able gentleman (Mr. Lewis,) for an exam- 
 pie ofthe fatality of such proscription. He 
 5s a resident of the county of Opelousas, 
 but is equally as well known and apprecia- 
 ted in the county of Attakapas. Suppose 
 he were nominated Judge of a district 
 embraciug the county of Attakapas alone, i 
 would the people object to his appoin;- j 
 ment on the ground that he was not a 
 resident within their district. They would 
 hail it with great satisfaction, with as much 
 satisfaction as if he were an actual resident. ! 
 
 ! for they would have confidence in his in= 
 tegrity and abilities, and as for the matter 
 ; of mere residence, they would consider it 
 ! beneath their liberality and discernment. 
 • The same remark will apply to a thousand 
 I individuals in the State, who are as well 
 i known by public opinion in one locality as 
 ! in another; and yet if the people of the dis- 
 trict themselves should desire the appoint- 
 ! ment of a particular person without refer- 
 
 to his re 
 
 ■iA, 
 
 ice, they would not 
 
 j gratified and would be compelled to receive 
 ' an incompetent person because he hap- 
 I pened to be a resident. 
 
 If the section is to be adopted, it strikes 
 \ me that it ought to be modified, so as to 
 embrace a congressional district or at least 
 two or more counties in one judicial dis- 
 ! trict. I would suggest to strike out in the 
 ! sixth line, the words "district or;" the sec- 
 tion would be then less exceptionable. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth said, that if he had 
 entertained any hope of success, he would 
 when the legislative article was under con- 
 sideration, have moved to strike out the re- 
 i striction requiring the representatives and 
 senators to be residents of the parishes and 
 ! of the district which they represented, be- 
 : cause he thought that the people had a right 
 ' to elect whomsoever they pleased, and be- 
 cause the fact of a man's being a resident 
 of one particular place as disqualifying him 
 from representing another, was a matter 
 for the poople themselves to determine. If 
 they saw fit to elect a person not domicilia- 
 ted in their parish, they should have the fa- 
 culty of doing so. As for the particular 
 section under consideration, I think, (said 
 Mr, W.) lean cite an example that will 
 show its utter absurdity. It so happens that 
 in the district formed of the parishes of 
 Plaquemines, St. Bernard and the right 
 bank of the parish of Orleans, I am the 
 only member of the legal profession to be 
 found. If this section passes, the gover- 
 nor will be under the necessity of making 
 me a district judge, if I choose to accept it, 
 and if I do not, there will be no judge, and 
 then he will have to make me district attor- 
 ney : so I will argue on the one hand and 
 decide on the other. But suppose I 
 do not accept, or that I resign, who can the 
 governor appoint ? This mere fact shows 
 
 the absurdity of s 
 fectly ridiculous. 
 
 Mr. Penis said that ti 
 
 h a principle. It is per' 
 honorable dele- 
 
 \ 
 
 * 
 
828 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 gate, (Mr. Wads worth,) was laboring un- 
 der a misapprehension. It did not happen 
 that such a contingency as the one upon 
 which that delegate relied, existed. To my 
 knowledge, (said Mr. Perm,) there are 
 other lawyers in that district. There is Mr. 
 Ducros, formerly a member of the senate, 
 arid .fudge Rousseau. But even admitting 
 that the delegate, (Mr. Wadsworth) was 
 right in his conjecture, that does not author- 
 ise a departure from principle; and are other 
 portions of the State to suffer because the 
 parishes o( Plaquemines and St. Bernard, 
 are not provided with lawyers. Having 
 set the delegate right as to this point, I will 
 now proceed to examine the principle. 
 
 There is nothing, perhaps, that has 
 produced greater exasperation and feeling 
 among the people than the attempt to force 
 upon them magistrates with whom they 
 have no acquaintance, and no idendity of 
 association and feeling. What are the 
 powers of the people under the new con- 
 stitution? They are to have the privilege 
 of electing their sheriffs and other parish 
 officers. But should the sheriff or clerk 
 of the court resign, or die, the appoinment 
 for the remainder of the term devolves up- 
 on the governor. Suppose this section be 
 rejected, what will be the result in refer- 
 ence to these appointments? A person 
 from another quarter of the State may be 
 appointed, if the governor should think fit 
 to prefer him to a resident of the locality. 
 He may consult his own feelings, at the 
 expense of those of the people of the par- 
 ish. He may appoint a friend, apartizan, 
 and transfer him from one remote portion 
 of the State to another. Is such a power 
 as this to be confided to the executive; and 
 particularly in reference to judicial appoint- 
 ments? Is it designed that an utter stran- 
 ger should be sent to a district to decide 
 upon the reputation, the property and the 
 lives of the citizens? One in whom no 
 confidence is reposed, and who is totally 
 unknown to the mass of the people. Ex- 
 perience, and the loud complaints which 
 have resounded from one section of the 
 State to another, should induce us to pause 
 in such a purpose. 
 
 The honorable delegate from New Or- 
 leans, (Mr. Eustis) has appealed to histo- 
 ry as opposed to the section. I am some- 
 what astonished that a gentleman so well 
 versed in the annals of the State, should 
 
 have forgotten an appointment made by 
 governor Robertson, in defiance of the 
 wishes of the people. He appointed in 
 the Florida district, a man who had been 
 but recently in the State, and of whom the 
 people knew nothing, to be judge. That 
 indiviadual may have been, and doubtless 
 was a man of education, but he was total, 
 ly ignorant of the people, among whom 
 he was about to dispense justice; he was 
 ignorant of our legislation and of our pe- 
 culiar system of laws; and yet the gover- 
 nor insisted upon his appointment. At the 
 death of this gentleman, his place was fill- 
 ed by another, not more acceptable to the 
 people; one whose decissions were more 
 frequently reversed than any other judge 
 in Florida, and who was immensely .un- 
 popular. Under the administration of gov- 
 ernor White, notwithstanding the wishes 
 of the people and the sense of the senate, 
 an unsatisfactory nomination was made, 
 and persisted in, and it was only after a 
 great deal of difficulty, that judge Jones 
 was finally appointed, a gentleman, al- 
 though I desire not to pronounce his, or 
 any ones eulogium, who is not inferior, 
 in point of ability and integrity to any man 
 in the State. I think the section contains 
 a principle highly salutary, and that the 
 reverse of that principle is subversive of 
 democratic institutions. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth said that he was aware 
 that Mr. Ducros was a lawyer by profes- 
 sion; but he was not a practicing lawyer. 
 He did not think that Mr. Ducros would 
 enter the lists. The contest would there- 
 forefore be between him and judge Reaus- 
 seau, and that would be no contest; for, if 
 judge Reausseau took the judgeship, then 
 the district attorneyship would have to be 
 conferred on him. The result would be 
 about the same. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 Mr. Conrad's amendment, to strike out in 
 the sixth line, the words, "district or," 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudous- 
 quie, Cenas, Chinn,, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Conrad, of Jefferson, Dunn, Eus- 
 tis, Guion, Kenner, King, Legendre, Ma- 
 rigny, Mazureau, Roman, Saunders, Win- 
 chester and Wadsworth voted in the affir- 
 mative— 29 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Covillion, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, La- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 829 
 
 bauve, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Mayo* 
 Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescoit of St. Lan- 
 dry, Prudhomme, Pugh, RatlifF, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt, 
 Wikoff and Winder voted in the negative 
 > — 36 nays; consequently said motion was 
 lost. 
 
 Mr. Keener moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by inserting after the word "district," 
 in the seventh line, the words "next ad- 
 joining or contiguous." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudous- 
 quie, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Dif#n, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Kenner, 
 King, Labauve, Legendre, Marigny, Ma- 
 zureau, Pugh, Roman, Saunders, Wads- 
 worth and Winchester voted in the affirm- 
 ative — 24 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, 
 Brumrield, Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Covillion, Humble, Hynson. Lewis, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Penn, Por- 
 ter, Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, 
 RatlifF, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, 
 Wederstrandt, Wikoff and Winder voted 
 in the negative — 33 nays; consequently 
 said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Lewis then moved for the adoption 
 of the section. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Covillion, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, La- 
 bauve, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, 
 Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Prudhomme, Pugh, RatlifF, Read, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Weder- 
 strandt, Wikoff and Winder voted in the 
 affirmative — 37 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boddous- 
 quie, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, I 
 Dunn, Eustis, Guion, Kenner, King, Le- 1 
 gendre, Marigny, Mezureau, Roman, Win- 1 
 Chester and Wadsworth voted in the neg- 1 
 ative — 20 nays; consequently said motion j 
 was. carried, and the section was adopted, 
 as follows, viz: 
 
 105 
 
 Sec. 7. All civil officers for the State 
 at large, shall reside within the State, and 
 all district or parish officers within their 
 I respective districts or parishes, and shall 
 keep their respective offices at such places 
 j therein as may be required by law; and' no 
 person shall be elected or appointed to any 
 district or parish office, who shall not have 
 resided in such district or parish long 
 enough before such election or appoint- 
 ment, to have acquired the right of voting 
 for representatives to the general assembly 
 in such district or parish. 
 
 Section eighth was taken up, viz: 
 Sec. 8. The legislature shall determine 
 j the duration of the several public offices, 
 ' when such duration shall not have been 
 1 fixed by this constitution; Provided, that 
 | such time shall never exceed four years; 
 | except notaries public, whose time of of. 
 j rice may be extended to seven years; and 
 | all civil officers, except the governor and 
 judges of the superior and inferior courts, 
 < shall be removable by an address of a ma- 
 jority of the members of both houses, ex- 
 j cept those the removal of whom has been 
 ! otherwise provided for by this constitution. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth thought the whole 
 provision useless. It would create confu- 
 ! sion, It would be much better to leave the 
 \ whole matter discretionary with the legis- 
 lature. 
 
 Mr. Eustis said he was one of those 
 ; that thought that public officers were, and 
 ! ought to be, responsible to the people for 
 j the power delegated to them. But there 
 were officers whose functions required 
 qualifications so difficult to be met with, 
 I that prudence necessitated that they should 
 ; be exceptions to what ought to be consid- 
 ; ered the general rule. Among this class 
 of exceptions, he would place notaries 
 public. A good notary is more difficult to 
 be found than a good lawyer. A dozen 
 may be appointed, you may fill the office, 
 you may appoint a notary, but you cannot 
 make a notary. The notary is necessarily 
 the architect of his own fortunes. His 
 business depends upon his skill and his 
 reputation. It is to his hands that are con- 
 fided the most important papers and the 
 most important matters appertaining to so- 
 ciety. From him are expected fidelity, 
 order, discretion, punctuality and an inti- 
 mate knowledge of the titles the coun- 
 try; and can Ave reasonably hope to meet 
 
830 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 with all these qualifications whenever we 
 please? It may be that you can get a 
 raady copyist; but is a ready copyist alone 
 suited to the delicate and important func- 
 tions of a notary? Will a good "hand wri- 
 ting and ordinary business habits be suffi- 
 cient? How much harm can be done by 
 an unskilful person, who is charged with 
 the functions of a notary, if he be entrus- 
 ed with the public business. The func- 
 tions of the notary is directly connected 
 with the safety of property and the prop- 
 er fulfilment of contracts. I would ap- 
 peal to the honorable and learned delegate, 
 (Mr. Lewis) whether it would not be most 
 unfortunate to expose property and the in- 
 terests of families to constant peril, by im- 
 pairing and destroying all the guaranties 
 of having proper persons to fill the office 
 of notary, and by making the tenure of the 
 office uncertain, to create constant fluctua- 
 tions in it, which would doubtless, be at- 
 tended with pernicious consequnences. 
 
 The question was called for on the first 
 part of the section. 
 
 Mr. Mayo proposed to add to it the fol-. 
 lowing: 
 
 "Until his successor shall have been du- 
 ly elected and qualified." 
 
 Mr. Lewis considered the amendment 
 unnecessary, inasmuch as the legislature 
 were vested with the necessary power un- 
 der the section. 
 
 Mr. Mayo's amendment was lost, and 
 the first part of the section was then adop- 
 ted. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said that the delegate from 
 New Orleans (Mr. Eustis) had appealed 
 to him whether the exception in favor of 
 notaries public should not be maintained 
 as proposed by the section as it originally 
 stood. 
 
 To this appeal I would (said Mr. Lewis) 
 reply that 1 coincide in opinion with him 
 that a notary should possess the qualifica- 
 tions he has enumerated* But notwith- 
 standing, I do not consider that a notary 
 should be an exception to the general prin- 
 ciple established in relation to all other of- 
 ficers. If a notary be faithful and compe- 
 tent, it is to be presumed he will be reap- 
 pointed. I can see no good reason why 
 greater importance should be attached to 
 the tenure of office of a notary than of a 
 judge. We»have limited the tenure of ju- 
 dicial office to six years, and if the argu- 
 
 ment held good in relation to notaries, thai 
 they should be appointed indefinitely, the 
 same argument would hold good, and in a 
 greater degree, in relation to the tenure of 
 office of judges. But the argument is un- 
 sound in either case; for the responsibility 
 which will result from a limited tenure 
 will produce more good than all the bene- 
 fits which have been supposed to follow 
 independence from popular control, on the 
 part of public officers, and a permanent 
 tenure. There are other offices no les c i 
 important than notaries, that have* been 
 limited; and yet experience has demon- 
 strated no inconvenience from the limita- 
 tion. The highest dignitaries of the Re- 
 public, the president holds his office but for 
 four years. Moreover, it is to be hojfed 
 that none other but capable persons will 
 be appointed notaries; just in the same 
 way that we expect that none but capable 
 persons will be appointed judges. 
 
 Mr. Humble called for the previous ques- 
 tion, which was sustained. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. Lewis* 
 motion to strike out the words ''except no- 
 taries public, whose term of office may be 
 extended to seven years." 
 
 The question then recurred on Mr. 
 Wadsworth's motion to strike out the 
 whole of the proviso, and it was carried 
 — yeas 29; nays 25. 
 
 Mr. Lewis then moved for the rejection 
 of the section. He said that by striking 
 out the proviso full power was conferred 
 upon the legislature to continue offices 
 for life; the section became useless, if not 
 dangerous, and for that reason he hoped it 
 would be rejected. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for oft 
 the motion to adopt the section — yeas 27; 
 nays 26; the president having voted in the' 
 negative, the motion to adopt was lost. 
 
 Whereupon, on motion, the Convention 
 adjourned. 
 
 Wednesday, April 30, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 At the request of the president, the Hon. 
 Mr. Stephens opened the proceedings 
 with prayer. 
 
 On motion, leave of absence was grant- 
 ed to Messrs. Scott of Feliciana and Penn. 
 
 Mr. Brent having voted in the majori- 
 ty, moved to reconsider the vote respect- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 h\2 the eighth section of the article upon 
 the general provisions, which motion pre- 
 vailed, and said section was taken up, as 
 follows : * 
 
 Sec. 8. The legislature shall determine 
 the duration of the several public offices, 
 when such duration shall not have been 
 fixed by this constitution : provided that 
 such time shall never exceed four years 
 except notaries public, whose time of of- 
 fice may be extended to seven years: and 
 all civil officers, except the governor and 
 judges of the supreme and district courts, 
 shall be removeable by an address of a 
 majority of the members of both houses, 
 except those the removal of whom has 
 been otherwise provided for by this con- 
 stitution. 
 
 Mr. Wads worth moved to amend said 
 section by striking out in -the fourth line, 
 the words 4i provided that such duration 
 shall never exceed four years." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Eustis, Guion, Kenner. King, La- 
 bauve T Legendre, Marigny, Mazureau. 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand. 
 Wads worth, Winchester and Winder voted 
 in the affirmative — 22 yeas: and 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Brumneld, Burton, Car- 
 riere, Chambliss, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 Dunn. Humble, Hrnson, Lewis, McCal- 
 lop, McRae, .Mayo, Peets. Porter. Prescott 
 of St. Landry, Preston, Ratiiff Read, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge. Stephens, Taylor of St. 
 Landry. Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Weder- 
 strandt and Wikoff voted ia the negative — 
 .28 nays. 
 
 Mr. Mayo then moved to amend said 
 section, by strking out in the fifth and 
 sixth lines the words H except notaries 
 public, whose time of office maybe extend- 
 ed to seven years:'*' which was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Mayo then moved for the adoption 
 of the section as amended, viz : 
 
 8bc. 8. The legislature shall determine 
 the duration of the several public officers, 
 when such duration shall not have been 
 fixed by this constitution; provided that 
 such time shall never exceed four years; 
 and all the civil officers, except the 
 governor and judges of the supreme and 
 district courts, shall be removeable by an 
 address of a majority of the members of 
 both heroes, except those the removal of 
 
 whom has been otherwise provided for by 
 this constitution. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Bourg. Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Chambliss, Claiborne. Covil- 
 lion, Culbertson. Dunn, Guion, Humble, 
 Hynson, Kenner, Labauve, Lewis. McRae. 
 Mc Gallop, Mayo, Peets, Porter. Prescott 
 of St. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, Pugh, 
 Ratliffi Read, Scott of Baton Rouge. S:e- 
 phens, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, Voor- 
 hies, Waddill, Wederstrandt, Wikoff and 
 Winder voted in the affirmative — 36 yea.*?, 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin. Boudousquie. 
 Briant, Conrad of Orleans. Eustis. King. 
 Legendre, Marigny, Mazureau. Roman, 
 St. Amand and Winchester voted in the 
 ' negative — 13 nays. 
 
 Mr. Marigxy submitted the following, 
 which was ordered to be spread upon the 
 journals : 
 
 Communication of Mr* JIarigny. 
 
 A few days ago I laid upon the desk a 
 section to be inserted under the head of 
 general provisions. The object of the 
 section was to empower the legislature to 
 extend the right of citizenship to persons 
 of colored origin, whenever required by 
 the public interest. 
 
 But public opinion being against the 
 measure, and many of the members of the 
 Convention who seemed to approve of r, 
 having since expressed thern^lves against 
 it, I am now satisfied that it would be 
 rejected. 
 
 I believe it is my duty to withdraw it. I 
 . trust that the members of the Convention 
 : of the State at large will do me the justice 
 to believe that my motives were pure; I 
 thought that it was proper to grant to the 
 legislature a power that it was not likely 
 ! would be abused, and the exercise of which 
 ' might, under certain circumstances, redound 
 i to the benefit of the State. 
 The house then took uo the 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 GENERAL PROVISIONS. 
 
 Sec. 9. Absence on the business of this 
 State or of the United States, shall not for- 
 feit a residence once obtained, so as to de- 
 prive any one of the right of suffrage, or 
 of being elected or appointed to any office 
 under this State, under the exceptions 
 contained in this constitution. 
 
 Mr. Guion considered this section unne- 
 
832 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 cessary, and it might operate to the preju- 1 
 dice of some of our citizens. It was use- 
 less to say that absence on the business of 
 the State or of the United States should 
 not forfeit citizenship, because, as a mat- 
 ter of course, a citizen representing the 
 State abroad was not presumed to be di- 
 vested of his right of citizenship by such 
 service; and it might be understood that 
 the reservation in favor of citizens abroad 
 in the service of the State or of the United 
 States divested such other citizens as were 
 absent on pleasure or business of the right 
 of citizenship. A native of the State might 
 be disfranchised under the section, who 
 happened to be abroad, tf it was intended 
 as a protection to those citizens who went 
 abroad on public business, it was useless, 
 and it could have no other tendency than 
 to operate harshly towards other persons 
 by the inference which might be drawn 
 from it. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad concurred in opin- 
 ion, that it was unnecessary. By another 
 section which has been adopted, it is pre- 
 scribed that an absence of ninety days 
 shall interrupt the acquisition of residence. 
 The general law was against the present 
 section. It was copied in the old consti- 
 tution from the constitution of Kentucky, 
 and had been retained by the committee 
 probably becaure it was in the old consti- 
 tution. It was useless, and he would 
 rather see itJeft out. 
 
 Mr. Guion called for its rejection, and 
 asked for the ayes and nays, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Guion, King, Legendre, Trist 
 and Voorhies voted in the affirmative — 8 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Brent, Bra- 
 zeale, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Culbertson, Dunn, 
 Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, La- 
 bauve, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Marig- 
 ny, Mayo, Peets, Porter, PrescOtt of St. 
 JLandry, Preston, Prudhomme, Pugh, Rat- 
 liff, Read, Roman, St. Amand, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Stephens, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, W add ill, Wederstrandt, WikofF, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the nega- 
 tive — 40 nays; consequently said motion 
 was lost, and the section was adopted. 
 
 Section tenth was taken up and adopted, 
 viz : 
 
 Sec. 10. It shall be the duty of the gen- 
 
 eral assembly to regulate by law, in what 
 cases, and what deduction from the salaries 
 of public officers shall be made for ne- 
 glect of duty in their official capacity. 
 
 Section eleventh was taken up and 
 adopted, viz : 
 
 Sec. 11. Returns of all elections for 
 members of the general assembly shall be 
 made to the secretary of state, for the time 
 being. 
 
 Section twelfth was taken up, viz : 
 
 Sec. 12. The legislature shall point owt 
 the manner in which a person coming into 
 the country shall declare his residence. 
 
 Mr. Brazeale thought this section use- 
 less. He moved to strike it out. 
 
 Mr. Brent expressed opposition to the 
 section, on the ground that it conferred the 
 power of making a registry law. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad denied that it had 
 such a tendency. - Its only effect would be 
 to prevent perjury. The inference of the 
 delegate (Mr. Brent) was not authorised. 
 
 Mr. Brent repeated that it evidently 
 was designed to favor a registry law. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said it was literally copied 
 from the constitution of 1812, and in pur- 
 suance of it, the legislature passed an act 
 in 1813. He had never heard any com- 
 plaint about the operation of that law. As 
 to whether it favored a registry law or not, 
 that he conceived was not a matter of se- 
 rious consideration. The question may 
 well be left to the legislature. If the peo- 
 pie desired to have a registry law, they 
 should be left free to have it ordained, and 
 if they were opposed to such a law, it was 
 not to be presumed the legislature would 
 pass it, and if it were passed by one legis- 
 lature in opposition to the wishes of the 
 people, it would be repealed by the next 
 legislature. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne moved an amendment 
 that the residence begin from the date of 
 the declaration. The legislature may 
 never pass a law, and persons may under 
 color of the section, declare their residence 
 a few days before the election for the pur- 
 pose of voting. He considered the section 
 useless without the amendment. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said he hoped the amend- 
 ment would not prevail. It was out of place, 
 and the section was better without it. 
 
 Mr. Preston advocated the rejection of 
 the section. It was imperative, and re- 
 quired a declaration as a sine que non, be* 
 
Debates in the Convention ot Louisiana, , 
 
 333 
 
 fore residence could be acquired. The 
 legislature were bound under the solemni- 
 ties of an oath, to observe the requirements 
 of the constitution. Now, taking it for 
 granted that the legislature will pass a law 
 in conformity with the section, I contend 
 that it will be imposing an unnecessary 
 restriction. In no other State is such a con- 
 dition demanded. People coming among 
 us were used to nothing of the kind, and 
 because they failed to observe this formali- 
 ty, they were to be denied the privilege of 
 citizenship. It was true the section was 
 found in the old constitution, and that the 
 legislature had passed a law in obedience 
 to its requirement. But its practice was 
 considered so onerous, so repugnant to the 
 spirit of liberty, that by common consent 
 it has fallen into desuetude. Since the 
 adoption of the old constitution, one-half of 
 those that has come to the State and be- 
 come citizens, had failed to observe this 
 senseless formality. Not one half of the 
 citizens had ever made this declaration. If 
 the records of the parish court were ex- 
 amined, it would be found that in this 
 populous city, not one thousand, not five 
 hundred persons have made this declara- 
 tion. Look at the north-western parishes, 
 which are rilling up so rapidly with popu- 
 lation; you will not find one dozen persons 
 who have made any declaration preparatory 
 to becoming citizens. It may be consid- 
 ered then, as an obsolete form. 1 say 
 nothing of the impolicy of such a restric- 
 tion. But let us be as generous as our 
 sister States, who require no such a condi- 
 tion from our citizens. Let us place no 
 obstacles in the way of population. We 
 want population for the development of 
 our great resources; no man who by his 
 industry contributes to the wealth of the 
 State, should be compelled to hunt among 
 musty records to show that he has made a 
 declaration to become a citizen. Let us 
 repudiate such a narrow-minded policy. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne said he did not concur 
 in opinion with the delegate from St. Lan- 
 dry (Mr. Lewis) as to his amendment 
 being out of place; but, nevertheless, as it 
 was manifest it would not be adopted, he 
 would withdraw it, not to take up the time 
 of the house, and inasmuch as a motion 
 had been made to reject the section. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved for the rejection of 
 said section. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Brum- 
 field, Carriere, Humble, . Hynspn, King, 
 McRae, Mayo. Porter, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Preston, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Stephens, Trist, Waddill and Wederstrandt 
 voted in the affirmative — 18 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Cenas, Chambliss, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Covillion, Cul- 
 bertson, Dunn, Garrett, Guion, Kenner, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, McCallop, 
 Marigny, Mazureau, Prudhomme, Pugh, 
 Rati iff, Roman, St. Amand, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Wads worth, Wikoff, Winchester 
 and Winder voted in the negative — 31 nays; 
 consequently said motion was lost, and the 
 section was adopted. 
 
 Section thirteenth was then taken up, 
 viz : 
 
 Sec 13. In all elections by the peo- 
 ple, the vote shall be by ballot, and in all 
 elections by the senate and house of repre- 
 sentatives, jointly or separately, the vote 
 shall be given viva voce. 
 
 Mr. Preston moved to amend said sec- 
 tion, by striking out in the second line, the 
 words '-by ballot," and inserting the words 
 "viva voce." 
 
 Mr. Preston said that his reason for 
 making this motion was that the viva voce 
 system was more conformable to republi- 
 can government than the system of voting 
 by ballot. The former system has ^been 
 adopted in Virginia, the mother of States, 
 and he doubted not it would work as well 
 here as it had worked in Virginia. The 
 only argument which he had ever heard 
 against it was that it would expose the ex- 
 ercise of suffrage to a controlling influ- 
 ence. He thought this argument was a 
 reproach to the people. There was not, 
 in his opinion, a man who was ashamed 
 of his vote. The people would be delight- 
 ed at this open and independent mode of 
 expressing their individual preferences and 
 political predilections. In fact, as it is, 
 the way a man votes is no secret. It is 
 known to his friends and acquaintances, 
 and is boldly declared. He did not think 
 there was a man in Louisiana who could 
 be subjected to any influence by voting 
 openly. He had heard it said that a man 
 might vote as he pleased, either by ballot 5 
 or viva voce, if it so suited him. The par- 
 ish judges did not so construe it. He 
 
834- 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 kmw instances where they refused to re- 
 ceive a viva voce vote and insisted upon a 
 ballot. 
 
 The tendency of viva voce voting would 
 be to make the people independent. But 
 that would nof be the only advantage, — 
 There was another consideration. !n con- 
 tested elections it was impossible to iden- 
 tify the illegal ballots, and this difficulty 
 rendered these contests almost useless, 
 when the difference was only a few votes, 
 for it was held by the courts that the way 
 persons voted could not be inquired into. 
 The consequence was that the contest had 
 frequently to be referred to the people, and 
 that occasioned great delay and great ex- 
 pense. If frauds were committed under 
 the viva voce system, they could be detect- 
 ed, and the individuals guilty of them 
 would be held up to popular reproach. 
 The ballot box would be purified. He 
 conceived his amendment was called for 
 by sound considerations of public policy; 
 it was in accordance with democratic insti- 
 tutions, and he hoped it would prevail. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth said he designed to 
 answer but one or two things which fell 
 from the gentleman, (Mr. Preston) and hp- 
 believed that was all that was necessary, 
 to show that the grounds assumed by the 
 delegate were fallacious. It was a pretty 
 theory to say that man was independent 
 of all influences; to pretend that the great 
 mass were beyond the influence of wealth 
 and beyond the power of wealth; but prac- 
 tically, it was ridiculous. It was essen- 
 tial to secure the independence of the mass 
 of the voters, men who depended for their 
 livelihood upon the employment they ob- 
 tained from the rich, that they should have 
 the privilege of voting, if they chose, by 
 ballot. It was a wise and salutry provis- 
 ion. The great power of wealth is seen 
 and felt every day; and if a loboring man 
 cannot be allowed to put in his ballot ac- 
 cording to the dictates of his conscience, 
 without exposure to punishment, the result 
 must be pernicous to the purity of our 
 elections. If the gentleman from Jeffer- 
 son (Mr, Preston) thinks it democratic 
 that a man should be compelled to vote 
 viva voce, his construction of democracy 
 and mine are dissimilar. Democracy, 1 
 take it, is intended to put down the power 
 of concentrated wealth; and hence its re- 
 pugnance to banking, and other institutions 
 
 which combine political influence. If a 
 man is to get a loan from a bank, on ac- 
 count of a political vote he may give, or 
 be removed from an employment, because 
 he votes against his employer, or the party 
 to which his employer belongs, you sub- 
 ject his independence to a doubtful ordeal. 
 There is a struggle at once between his 
 interests and his duty, and the calls of 
 the former may stifle the voice of the lat- 
 ter. 
 
 But the gentleman says that the peopm 
 will be proud to record their votes openly, 
 There is nothing in the existing system 
 that prevents a man from voting an open 
 ticket, and if it be any pleasure, or if a 
 man feels indifferent whether his vote be 
 known or not, he may gratify his humor. 
 It may be safely inferred that when a man 
 votes with a folded ticket, he has his rea- 
 sons for doing so, and these reasons are 
 properly matters for his own reflection. 
 It is sufficient he has voted, and the pre- 
 sumption is he has done his duty accord- 
 ing to the dictates of his judgement. 
 
 Mr.. Benjamin said he had made a cal- 
 culation, by which it appeared that one 
 hundred and thirty-eight officers had to be 
 elected in the city alone. It was utterly 
 impossible to get through with the elec- 
 tions in the city, by the viva voce system; 
 and if he had no other objection, he should 
 vote against it on the ground of its utter 
 impracticability. 
 
 Mr. Porter said he was in favor of the 
 viva voce system, but the remarks of the 
 gentleman from New Orleans (Mr. Benja- 
 min) had convinced him that the system 
 would be difficult to practice, on account of 
 the great number of officers to be elected, 
 especially in the city. 
 The question was taken on Mr. Preston's 
 proposition. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Garrett, Humble, McRae, P*# 
 cott of St. Landry, Preston, Ratliff, Read, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Wederstrandt, "Wik- 
 off and Winchester voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 11 yeas; 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Brumneld, 
 Burton, Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, Clai- 
 borne, Chinn, Conrad of Orleans, Covil- 
 lion, Culbertson, Dunn, Guion, Hynson, 
 Kenner, King; Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, 
 McCallop, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Porter, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, Stephens, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wadsworth and Win- 
 chester voted in the negative — 40 nays; 
 
 Mr. Boudousquie moved to strike out 
 the words ** by the senate and house of 
 representatives." 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth objected to this amend- 
 ment. He thought the members of the 
 legislature should assume the responsibility 
 of their votes. 
 
 The amendment was not put. 
 
 Mr. Chinn moved for the previous ques- 
 tion, which motion prevailed. 
 
 On motion, the thiiteenth section was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sed. 13. In all elections by the people 
 the vote shall be by ballot; and in all elec- 
 tions by the senate and house of represen- 
 tatives, jointly or separately, the vote shall 
 be given viva voce. 
 
 Section fourteenth was taken up and 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 14. No member of congress, nor 
 person holding or exercising any office of 
 trust or profit under the United States, or 
 cither of them, or any foreign power, shall 
 be eligible as a member of the general as- 
 sembly of this State, or hold or exercise 
 any office of trust or profit under the same. 
 
 Section fifteenth was taken up and adop- 
 ted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 15. All laws that may be passed 
 by the legislature, and the public records 
 of this State, and the judicial and legisla- 
 tive written proceedings of the same, shall 
 be promulgated, preserved and conducted 
 in the language in which the constitution 
 of the United States is written. 
 
 Section sixteenth was taken up and adop- 
 ted, viz: 
 
 Sec- 16. The general assembly shall 
 direct by law, how persons who are now, 
 or may hereafter become securities for 
 public officers, may be relieved or dischar- 
 ged on account of such securityship. 
 
 Section seventeenth was taken up and 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 17. No power of suspending the 
 laws of this State shall be exorcised, un- 
 less by the legislature or its authority. 
 
 Mr. Marigny called up the additional 
 section submitted by him, viz: 
 
 Sec. 18. The secretary of the senate, 
 and the clerk of the house of representa- 
 tives, shall possess the French and Eng- 
 - 
 
 lish languages; and any member of the 
 general assembly may address either house 
 in the French or English language. 
 
 Mr. Marigny said that in a few yeays, 
 it was reasonable to infer, that the French 
 language would scarcely be heard in ike 
 halls of our legislature. Out of respect 
 for the ancient population, he hoped the 
 principle consecrated in the section would 
 be adopted. It might happen, as in his 
 own case, in this body, that some persons 
 might be elected to the legislature who 
 were not as familiar with the English as 
 with the French, and they ought to have 
 the privilege granted them of speaking in 
 the language most' familiar to them. It 
 was but an act of courtesy, and an act of 
 justice. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth considered the section- 
 unnecessary, and that was his motive for 
 opposing it. As to the right of a member 
 to speak in any language he pleased, it 
 was beyond all doubt. A member of the 
 legislature might address the chair in Choc- 
 taw, but whether it would be available or 
 not was another question. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said that in 1812, when the 
 constitution was adopted, the English lan- 
 guage was but little spoken. The large 
 preponderance of the population were 
 French, or of French origin, and if any 
 thing of the kind had been necessary, it 
 would have then struck the framers of the 
 constitution. But what would be the prac- 
 tical effect of this sction? It was to pre- 
 clude the legislature forever, and without 
 reference whether the circumstances made 
 it necessary or not, from employing a clerk 
 or secretary who did not understand the 
 French language. As to the right of a 
 member to be heard in whatever language 
 was most familiar to him, there could not 
 be a doubt. It was useless to assert that 
 righf in the constitution. A member might 
 speak, if he chose, in German, but if the 
 object of speech was to communicate one's 
 thoughts, it was not to be presumed a man 
 would speak in a language that was not 
 understood. About one half of the mem- 
 bers of this house speak the two languages. 
 It was immaterial to him in what partic- 
 ular language a gentleman uttered his 
 sentiments, whether in French or in Eng- 
 lish; His opposition to the section did 
 not grow out of any repugnance to the 
 French language; on the contrary he hoped 
 
830 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 and trusted that the French language would 
 be preserved. He confessed that the 
 French language was not as much spoken 
 in this body as the English; but this re- 
 sulted from the fact that a large portion of 
 the members did not understand the French 
 — and those whose maternal tongue was 
 French, spoke English so fluently as to in- 
 duce them to express themselves in that 
 language, as well to dispense with the te- 
 diousness of a translation, as because it 
 was most generally understood. 
 
 He conceived the section, then, to be 
 altogether, in the first place, unnecessary, 
 and in the second place, he was averse to 
 it, as trammelling the choice of the legis- 
 lature, and coercing them in the matter of 
 the election of their officers, of the quali- 
 fications of whom they were the proper 
 judges. Thirty years experience has de- 
 monstrated that there is no disposition in 
 the legislature to elect officers who are not 
 familiar with the French as well as the 
 English languages, and without doubt they 
 will continue to act upon the same princi- 
 ple; at any rate, as long as the slightest 
 necessity exists for it, and that was as long 
 as they ought to act upon it, and as long 
 as it would be acted upon, whether you 
 cumber the constitution with this section 
 or not. 
 
 M. Brazeale participated in the opin- 
 ion that the section was unnecessary. 
 
 Mr. Chinn said that as distinct proposi- 
 tions were embraced in the section, with 
 one of which he did not concur, he was 
 under the necessity of voting against the 
 section. 
 
 Mr. Marigny moved for^ the adoption 
 of said section. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Carriere, Conrad of Orleans 
 Covillion, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, McCailop, Marigny, Mazureau, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ro- 
 man, Scott of Baton Rouge, Trist, Voor- 
 hies, Waddill Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, 
 and Winchester voted in the affirmative — 
 26 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, Bur- 
 ton, Chambliss, Chinn, Dunn, Garrett, 
 Guion, Humble, Hynson, Lewis, McRae, 
 Mayo, Porter, Preston, Ratliff^ Read, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of St. Landry and Wikoff 
 voted in the negative— 2 1 nays. 
 
 Mr. Guion said he had voted nay be- 
 cause he was opposed to the first part of 
 the section. He had no objection to the 
 latter part. He did not think it proper to 
 trammel the legislature in the choice of its 
 officers by defining their qualifications. 
 
 Mr. Porter said he did not think the 
 evil would ever occur, which the gentle- 
 man from New Orleans (Mr. Marigny) 
 wished to preclude, and therefore he had 
 voted no. 
 
 Section nineteenth was taken up, viz: 
 Sec. 19. In all criminal prosecutions, 
 the accused shall have the right of being 
 heard by himself or counsel; of demanding 
 the nature and cause of the accusation 
 against him; of meeting the witnesses face 
 to face; of having compulsory process for 
 obtaining witnesses in his favor throughout 
 the State, and prosecution by indictment 
 or information; a speedy public trial, by 
 an impartial jury of the vicinage; nor shall 
 he be compelled to give evidence against 
 himself. 
 
 Mr. Preston said that if this section 
 were not modified, it would be followed 
 by the most pernicious results. It would 
 entail enormous expense upon the State, 
 and criminals would avail themselves of 
 the pretext of prolonging their trials, by 
 averring that they had material witnesses 
 in remote portions of the State and abroad. 
 There was no wrong done in the present 
 practice to persons who were accused; they 
 were allowed the facility of getting the 
 written depositions of witnesses who were 
 not present. It would ruin and bankrupt 
 the State, and besides, interfere, seriously, 
 with the prompt execution of the criminal 
 laws. 
 
 He would, therefore, propose to amend 
 the section, by striking out, in the sixth 
 line, the words " throughout the State." 
 
 Mr. Lewis said that the words which 
 the delegate from Jefferson (Mr. Prestonj 
 had moved to strike out, had been added to 
 the section as it was found in the old con- 
 stitution. The expediency of adding these 
 words had been discussed in the committee, 
 and after mature reflection, it was deter- 
 mined that they were proper and essentia) 
 to a just administration of the criminal 
 laws. If the motion to strike them out pre- 
 vailed, the inconveniences now felt will con- 
 tinue to be exhibited. It was of the utmost 
 importance that this right should be secured. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 S37 
 
 The liberty of the citizen was one of the 
 most important objects of legislation, and 
 any thing so essential to an impartial trial 
 should not be denied. But it is objected 
 that it will occasion considerable expense. 
 This is to be deplored yet it is not an argu- 
 ment that will outweigh the considerations 
 growing out of the reputation and liberty 
 of the citizen. I cannot see that the rem- 
 edy proposed by the delegate from Jeffer- 
 son would be efficacious; I think jt would 
 be worse than the disease itself. To say 
 that a person accused of crime shall not 
 have the benefit of meeting the witnesses 
 face to face, because it will entail expense, 
 is one of the weakest arguments that could 
 be adduced. As to the ground as sumed, that 
 the judge may order depositions to be taken 
 abroad, and that it is the practice to refuse 
 to let the prosecuting attorney go to trial 
 without allowing the accused the benefit of 
 such depositions, it is not entitled to any 
 weight* 
 
 It is true, it is within the sound discretion 
 of the judge to continue the trial in order 
 to afford the prisoner the benefit of taking 
 testimony, but if the prosecuting attorney 
 has any spite or ill will against the priso- 
 ner, this authority in the judge affords no 
 protection after all, for the accused may be 
 kept in prison at the will of the prosecuting 
 attorney for an indefinite period. The priso- 
 ner may be unable to give bail and this pow- 
 er to continue his trial; so far from affording 
 relief, may be so abused as to be a ready- 
 means of oppression. To the honor of 
 our prosecuting attornies it can be said that 
 these things haverarely or never happened; 
 but worse things have happened, and it be- 
 hoves us to throw round the citizen, where 
 his honor, his life or his reputation is in- 
 volved, every possible protection. Prac- 
 tically, it will not be a matter of as much 
 trouble and expense as has been anticipa- 
 ted. Rut in few instances, the whnesses 
 will be found not to reside in and about the 
 vicinity, where the offence is perpetrated. 
 It may happen that a sojourner, a stranger 
 passing through a place may be a witness 
 to a crime, and the facility of procuring his 
 presence ought to be given both to the 
 State and to the party. It is true the right 
 may be abused, that it may be employed 
 to get delay, -and when guilt exists and the 
 punishment is great, the inducement to 
 commit perjury may have a fatal tendency, 
 
 yet it may happen on the other hand that 
 an innocent man may find it indispensable 
 to have the witnesses confronted with hiirr, 
 and that the affidavit may be honestly made 
 to bring the witness within the jurisdiction 
 of the court. In such a case should he be 
 debarred the privilege, because it may 
 be abused by a desperate culprit ? It is 
 better to submit to the inconvenience of al- 
 lowing the guilty to avail themselves of the 
 privilege,* than that it should be denied to 
 the innocent. These considerations brought 
 my mind and a majority of the committee 
 to the opinion that the proposition was ju- 
 dicious, and I trust a majority of this body 
 will cotne to the same conclusion. 
 
 Mr. Garrett considered the clause un- 
 necessary, inasmuch as it was a matter of 
 pure legislation; he was therefore in favor 
 of the motion to strike out. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for on 
 Mr. Prestox's motion, and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brent, Briant, Bru infield, 
 Cenas, Chirm, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad 
 of Jefferson, Covillion, Garrett, Humble, 
 Hynson, Kenner, King, I^abauve, Legen- 
 dre, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, RatlifFRead, Roman, Scottof Baton 
 Rouge, Stephens, Taylor of St. Landrv, 
 Trist, Voorhies, WaddiL 1 , Wadsworth, 
 Wederstrandt, Wikoff, Winchester and 
 Winder voted in the affirmative — 33 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Brazeale, 
 Burton, Chambliss, Dunn, Guion, Lewis, 
 McCallop, MeRae, Marigny and Splane vo- 
 ted in the negative —12 nays . 
 
 On motion, the section as amended was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 In all criminal prosecutions, the accused 
 shall have the right of being heard by him- 
 self or counsel; of demanding the nature 
 and cause of the accusation against him ; 
 of meeting the witnesses face to face; of 
 having compulsory process for obtaining wit 
 nesses in his favor, and prosecution by in- 
 dictment or information; a speedy and pub- 
 lic trial by an impartial jury of the vicin- 
 age; nor shall he be compelled to give evi- 
 dence against himself. 
 
 Section twentieth was taken up and adop- 
 ted, viz : 
 
 Sec. 20. All prisoners shall be bailable 
 by sufficient securities, unless for capital 
 offences, when the proof is evident or pre- 
 
838 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana^ 
 
 sumption great ; and the privilege of the 
 writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspend- 
 ed, unless when in case of rebellion or in- 
 vasion, the public safety may require it. 
 
 Section twenty-first was then taken up, 
 viz : 
 
 Sec. 21. No ex-post facto law, nor any 
 law impairing the obligation of contracts, 
 shall be passed. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans, moved to 
 amend said section, by inserting the words 
 "or vested rights be divested." 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to amend the 
 amendment, by adding the words "unless 
 for purposes of public utility, and for ade- 
 quate compensation previously made 
 which amendment was accepted by Mr. 
 Conrad, and the amendment as amended, 
 was adopted. 
 
 On motion the section as amended, was 
 adopted, viz : 
 
 No ex-post facto law, nor any law im- 
 pairing the obligation of contracts, shall be 
 passed, nor vested rights be divested, un- 
 less for purposes of public utility and for 
 adequate compensation previously made. 
 
 Section twenty-second was taken up and 
 adopted, viz : 
 
 Sec. 22. Printing presses shall be free 
 to every person who may undrtake to ex- 
 amine the proceedings of the legisla- 
 ture, or any branch of the government, and 
 no law shall ever be made to restrain the 
 right thereof. The free communication of 
 thoughts and opinions is one of the invalu- 
 ble rights of man, and every citizen may 
 freely write, speak or print on any subject, 
 being resposible for the abuse of that lib- 
 erty. 
 
 Section twenty-third was taken up 
 and adopted, viz : 
 
 Sec. 23. Emigration from the State shall 
 not be prohibited. 
 
 Section twenty-fourth was taken up, viz : 
 
 Sec. 24. The first general assembly to 
 be elected under this constitution, shall de- 
 termine upon the place where the seat of 
 government shall be permanently located, 
 from and after the first day of January, id 
 the year one thousand eight hundred ann 
 fifty-one. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne hoped that this section 
 would be adopted in place of the one that 
 had been substituted for it. It contained 
 Ihe cool expression of the opinion of the 
 Convention, while at. Jackson, when they 
 
 were free from that effervescence which 
 had taken hold so unaccountably, of the 
 minds of many in relation to the city. 
 
 Mr. Marigny moved for the adoption of 
 the section. The yeas and nays being cal- 
 led for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Briant, 
 Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Guion, King, Legendie, 
 Marigny, Mazureau, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Roman, St. Amand, Soule, Splane, Voor- 
 hies, Wadsworth and Winchester voted in 
 the affirmative— 21 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Chinn, Coviilion, Dunn, Garrett, Humble, 
 Kenner, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Pugh, 
 RatlifT, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, Wad- 
 dill, Wederstrandt, Wikoff and Winder vo- 
 ted in the negative — 32 nays; consequently 
 said motion was lost and the section was 
 rejected. 
 
 Mr. Marigny gave notice that he would 
 on Friday next, move to reconsider the 
 vote rejecting the above section, and also 
 the vote adopting the section removing the 
 seat of government from the city of New 
 Orleans. 
 
 On motion the twenty-fifth section was 
 taken up, viz : 
 
 Sec. 25. The legislature shall not have 
 power or authority to pledge the faith of 
 the State as security for the payment of 
 any bonds, bills, or other contracts or obli- 
 gations whatever, nor to borrow money for 
 any purpose whatever, except for defray- 
 ing the expenses of war, or for the purpose 
 of repelling an invasion of the State by an 
 armed force, or for suppressing an insur- 
 rection. 
 
 Mr. Cenas moved to amend said section 
 by adding to the same the following provi- 
 so, and the same was adopted, viz : 
 
 Provided, that the State shall have the 
 right to issue new bonds in payment of its 
 now outstanding obligations or liabilites, 
 whether due or not; the said bonds, how- 
 ever, to bear upon their face, either in prin- 
 cipal or interest, an amount less than the 
 original obligations they are intended to re- 
 place. 
 
 Mr. Cenas said that this provision was 
 so obviously to the interest of the State as 
 to require no explanation. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 639 
 
 Mr. Roman remarked, in relation to the 
 section, that while it was judicious to put a 
 stop to the mania which had prevailed in 
 the legislature, to accumulate debts upon 
 debts, it would be unwise to fall into the 
 opposite extreme. This section interdicts 
 all loans which are not designed for the 
 exigencies which it has so explicitly de- 
 fined. It would follow, as a matter of 
 course, that if the State had not the funds 
 necessary to meet a just debt, she would 
 be estopped from making any arrangements 
 by which these funds might be obtained. 
 He did not believe that it was intended to 
 stop the- wheels of government, or to em- 
 barrass the State in meeting her just obli- 
 gations. To avoid such a contingency, he 
 would propose to add the following words 
 to the section, "for a sum not exceeding 
 two hundred and fifty thousand dollars in 
 any one year;" that would be about one- 
 half of the revenue of the State. 
 
 Mr. Lewis objected to this amendment. 
 He said it would put us back where we 
 were before. It would deprive us of the 
 benefits designed by the section. If the 
 legislature have this power they may bor- 
 row every year. Let our administration be a 
 prudent one, and our expenditures will 
 never exceed our receipts. The legislature 
 will be unable to involve the State to an in- 
 definite amount, when the power to borrow 
 money is restricted to certain specified pur- 
 poses. The object of the section is to 
 prevent the legislature from getting the 
 State in debt. There is no good reason 
 why the State should be involved, unless 
 it be for one of the contingencies provided 
 for in the section. It will put an effectual 
 check to such wild schemes- as the Nash- 
 ville rail road, and similar undertakings. If 
 you open the floodgates, we shall be again 
 submerged by extravagant and profligate 
 appropriations of money. After the revul- 
 sion through which we have passed, it is 
 not to be supposed that similar legislation 
 will occur for some years to come, but if 
 we wish to be placed beyond the possi- 
 bility of its recurrence, we must apply a 
 stringent restraint. 
 
 Mr. Roman said that the delegate from 
 St. Landry (Mr. Lewis) had defended his 
 position with a good deal of ability, but he 
 did not think the gentleman had met the 
 point involved. Are the wheels of govern- 
 
 | ment to be stopped, in order that we may 
 avoid a state of things which we all de- 
 plore? It may be an effectual mode of 
 purchasing their recurrence, but will not 
 the remedy be as bad as the disease? 
 I do not object to the section: but I wish 
 it to be so expressed as not to impose 
 an impracticable condition. Contingen- 
 cies may happen that may make it in- 
 dispensable that the State should have the 
 power to raise money to meet her current 
 expenses, So long as the collection of 
 the revenue is made with fidelity, the ac- 
 counts may be squared: but suppose that 
 some half dozen sheriffs become defaulters, 
 is the State to be precluded from borrow- 
 ing; money to meet the deficit? It is evi- 
 dent that you place the State in an em- 
 barrassing and humiliating position, if you 
 deny to her the power of anticipating her 
 revenues in other cases of emergency than 
 those enumerated in the section. 
 
 Mr. Gfion said he conceived that some 
 other emergencies might arise, rendering 
 it necessary that the State should have the 
 power of borrowing money. If it be re- 
 stricted to meeting the ordinary expenses 
 of the government, he conceived it would 
 obviate all objection. 
 
 Mr. Peeston was opposed to granting • 
 the power to borrow money on ordinary 
 occasions, because he considered it would 
 be pernicious. The revenues of the State 
 wisely administered should suffice to meet 
 her current expenses. There were only 
 extraordinary occasions when it would be 
 necessary to raise an additional amount 
 over the ordinary revenue, and when those 
 occasions arose, the people would not be 
 backward in sustaining the government. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff was opposed to the amend- 
 ment. It appeared to him that it went 
 further than the mover designed. The 
 power of the legislature ought to be ex- 
 plicitly restrained in this matter of borrow- 
 ing, or otherwise we shall be constantly 
 exposed to lavish expenditures. The true 
 principle ought to be, to pay as we go. The 
 suggestion of the delegate frofh Jefferson 
 (Mr. Preston) was a good' one; that if 
 there was any extraordinary occasion for 
 money, over the revenues, that additional 
 taxation be imposed to raise it. The peo- 
 ple would be the judges of the necessity, 
 and would hold their servants to a' strict 
 
840 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 accountability. There would i>e no way 
 of shirking the responsibility and avoiding 
 it when the elections came on. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. Gufon's 
 amendment to insert after the word ^insur- 
 rection," in the seventh line, the words 
 $ { ot for the payment of the ordinary expen- 
 ses of the government, when there may be 
 a deficiency in the annual revenue." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the adoption of said amendment, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 B riant, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Dunn, Garrett, 
 Guion, King,- Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Tay- 
 lor of St. Landry and Winchester voted in 
 the affirmative-— 21 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, Covillidn, 
 Garcia, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, 
 Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Prudhomme, RatlifF, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt, Wikoffj 
 and Winder voted in the negative — 32 
 nays. 
 
 On motion, the section as amended, was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 25. The legislature shall not have 
 power or authority to pledge the faith of 
 the State as security for the payment of 
 any bonds, bills, other contracts or obliga- 
 tions whatever, nor to borrow money for 
 any purpose whatever, except for defray- 
 ing the expenses of war, or for the pur- 
 pose of repelling an invasion of the State 
 by an armed force, or of suppressing an. 
 insurrection. 
 
 Provided, That the State shall have the 
 right to issue new bonds in payment of its 
 now outstanding obligations or liabilities, 
 whether due or not; the said new bonds, 
 however, to bear upon their face, either in 
 principal or interest, an amount less than 
 the original obligations they are intended 
 to replace. 
 
 Section twenty-sixth was taken up and 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 26. The legislature shall provide 
 by law for a change of venue in civil and 
 criminal cases. 
 
 Section twenty-seventh was taken up 
 and adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 27. No lottery shall be authorized 
 
 by this State, and the buying and selling 
 of lottery tickets within the State shall be 
 prohibited by law. 
 
 Section twenty-eighth was taken up and 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 28. No divorce shall be granted 
 by the legislature of this State. 
 
 Section twenty-ninth was taken up, via: 
 
 Sec, 29. Every law enacted by the 
 legislature, shall embrace but one object, 
 and that shall be expressed in the title. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad said that while he 
 admitted it was excessively inconvenient 
 to lawyers to refer to particular laws, on 
 account of their being accumulated under 
 general titles, yet he conceived there were 
 cases whe're laws under one title necessa- 
 rily had to embrace several objects. The 
 section, in his opinion, went too far, and 
 would occasion much greater inconveni- 
 ence than that which it was intended to 
 remedy. It was very objectionable. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said that the object of the 
 section was to remedy a very serious in- 
 convenience. The titles of our laws ware 
 generally of a very indifferent character; 
 and the words appended, "and for other 
 purposes," were intended to cover a mass 
 of heterogeneous propositions. It was im- 
 possible to find a particular statutory pro- 
 vision without wading through a long list 
 of sections, the titles to which gave at best 
 a most imrierfect idea of what followed. 
 It was the business of a whole life to pene- 
 trate and find out our laws. There was a 
 total absence of order and system in their 
 classification, and the evil was becoming 
 greater and greater every year. Disposi- 
 tions upon one subject were found append- 
 ed to. dispositions upon another subject, and 
 where one would suppose it was the last, 
 place where they were to be found. A 
 remedy, it was clear, ought to be provided, 
 and the committee could suggest nothing 
 better than this section. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 tile motion to adopt said section, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Boubousquie, Bourg, 
 Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Car- 
 riere, Cenas, Clambliss, Claiborne, Co- 
 villion, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Guion, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Legendry, Lewis, McRae, 
 Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Poller, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Prudhom- 
 me, Pugh, Read, St. Amand, Scott of Ba- 
 ton Rouge, Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry 
 
Debates in the Convention cf Louisiana, 
 
 841 
 
 Trist, Voorhies. WaddiH, Wadsworfb, 
 Wederstrandt and Wikoff voted in the af- 
 firmative — 41 yeas: and 
 
 .Messrs. Benjamin. Briant. Conrad of 
 Orleans. Conrad of Jefferson. Garrett. Ken- 
 ner, Kino-. Labauve, McCaliop. Ratliff. 
 Roman, Roselius, Soule and Winchester 
 voted in the negative — 14 nays. 
 
 Mr. Soule offered the following addi- 
 tional section: 
 
 Xo law shall be passed to raise money 
 for any other purpose than to defray the 
 expenses of the State, or for the payment 
 of debts incurred for the maintenance of 
 the government. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth suggested to add the 
 following words, "or for promoting public 
 education." 
 
 Mr. Soule accepted the amendment. 
 
 Mr. Roselius observed that the section 
 did not provide for the existing debts of the 
 State. He was certain that this omission 
 did not arise from any intention on the part 
 of his honorable friend to prove repudia- 
 tion. He was sure that was not the object. 
 The State was ultimately bound to pay in' 
 default of payment of the banks. If the 
 section were to be adopted, he would pro- 
 pose to add the following -words, ' ; and to 
 provide for the payment of the debts of the 
 State." 
 
 Mr. Guion would ask the honorable 
 mover for some explanations as to the de- 
 sign of the section. If it was intended to 
 restrict the State from incurring further 
 liabilities for the future, that has been pro- 
 vided for already. 
 
 Mr. Soule said. I consider the power to 
 levy taxes for any other object than to meet 
 the expenses of the government, as existing 
 no where. The question in my opinion has 
 nothing to do with what are the actual 
 debts of the State, and how they were con- 
 tracted; and if I were to enter into the en- 
 quiry, I would nevertheless ask whether 
 the legislature have the right to impose 
 taxes for other purposes than to pay the 
 legitimate debts of the State, and whether 
 in the event of the legislature having con- 
 tracted debts for which it had no authority, 
 it could give validity to those obligations, 
 and tax the people 'to pay them. I think 
 (said Mr. Soule) my views have been 
 enunciated so as to be understood in this 
 matter. I should certainly regret very 
 much to see the State refuse to pay her 
 
 [just debt.?, but I can never consent that ad- 
 | ditional taxation be imposed to pay any 
 i other. 
 
 Mr. Guion would inquire of the gentle- 
 man whether m the event of the State be- 
 I coming liable for the bonds issued for the 
 property banks, or any portion of them, he 
 would consider that the legislature had do 
 right to raise the means to meet those ob- 
 ligations by taxation, if the ordinary means 
 of the State were insufficient? 
 
 Mr. Soule replied that he had made no 
 such intimation. 
 
 Mr. Guion said that in that case, the 
 section had no object, for the legislature 
 has for the future been inhibited from con- 
 tracting future liabilities, except in certain 
 specified emergencies. 
 
 Mr. Soule observed that it might be the 
 opinion of the delegate (Mr! Guion) that 
 the section was useless. I think differently. 
 As for the past indebtedness of the State, 
 we have no power over it. It is not our 
 province to inquire whether it be valid or 
 invalid. Our mission is limited to pre- 
 scribing wholesome checks for the future, 
 and profit by past experience: and among 
 the most important objects is to preclude 
 the possibility of our ever again being in* 
 volved beyond what is necessary for the 
 support of the government, which ought 
 not to exceed our revenues, unless in the 
 event of sudden calamities, it be necessary 
 to make loans. 
 
 I have nothing in this matter concealed. 
 My object is plain and straight -forward, and 
 I willingly accept the amendment of my 
 colleague (Mr. Roselius) 'since he thinks 
 it necessary. The design I have is this, 
 to put it beyond the power of the legislature 
 to impose upon the industry of the people 
 onerous, and heavy burthens, the result of 
 extravagant appropriations, and an impro- 
 per use of the public credit. I would be 
 the last one to destroy the guarantees of the 
 State towards those to whom the State was 
 justly liable. But, at the same time, I am 
 equally reluctant that the legislature should 
 have the power oi imposing other taxes 
 than are necessary to carry on the govern- 
 ment and to pay its just debts. 
 
 Mr. Roselius said that the State had is- 
 sued her bonds in favor of the property 
 banks. It is' beneath the dignity of the 
 State to raise the question, whether, under 
 the existing constitution the legislature had 
 
842 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 the right to authorize the emission of these 
 bonds. This is not a question to be agi- 
 tated, to be. debated here. It is too late to 
 raise such a question. The bonds have 
 been issued and negotiated. The people 
 have sanctioned their issue through their 
 representatives and constituted authorities, 
 and have acquiesced in it. To attempt to 
 evade our indebtedness in any way, should 
 it so happen that the State be called upon 
 to meet these obligations, amounts to no- 
 thing less than repudiation, and if you take 
 away and deny to the legislature the power 
 to impose taxes for that purpose, you effec- 
 tually repudiate. How can the State pay, 
 if you say she shall not raise the means 
 through taxation? If the legislature cannot 
 call upon the citizens to contribute, it is 
 an absurdity to say that you have no idea 
 to deny the validity of the debt. You effec- 
 tually make it impossible that it should be 
 paid, and what is the difference between 
 that, and saying 'at once, that the debt is 
 invalid and that you will not pay it? Let 
 us see if the section will bear the construc- 
 tion placed upon it. 
 
 [Mr. Roselius called upon the secretary 
 to read the section.] 
 
 "To pay the debts incurred or to meet 
 the current expenses of the government." 
 
 Does that confer the power to impose a 
 tax to pay the existing debts of the State? 
 But it is unnecessary io expatiate further 
 to induce the house to reject the section. 
 It can have no other bearing than to inti- 
 mate that the State is not bound to take up 
 her bonds, in the event of a failure to take 
 them up on the 'part of those institutions in 
 whose behalf they were issued. And this 
 is a doctrine which I do not believe the 
 gentleman himself, or any member of this 
 house, can sanction. 
 
 Mr. Eustis remarked that this was a 
 very important subject, and that it was 
 better to postpone its consideration until 
 another day, when the subject would pro- 
 perly come up in another portion of the 
 constitution, and be then calmly decided. 
 
 Mr. Soule said it was clear to his mind 
 that the design of his section had been to- 
 tally misconceived. It was not intended, 
 nor could not be intended to apply to what 
 was past. It was designed only for the 
 future. It was very clear that nothing we 
 did here could effect any thing done under 
 the old constitution. We had nothing to 
 
 (Jb with past legislation under that instru- 
 ment, nor could we effect it. I certainly 
 never had the remotest design to favor any 
 thing which has been so strangely imputed 
 to this section; and I am astoni-shed that a 
 gentleman of the high legal abilities of my 
 respected colleague, could have put such a 
 construction upon the section. Lhave de- 
 clared the only object I had in view, the) 
 only object I could have in view, was to [| 
 provide against the recurrence of evils 
 which have been pointed out to us by sad 
 experience. Assuredly, the section went 
 no further. From what I have heard, to 
 my utter astonishment, it seems that it is 
 tof give rise to a still further discussion, and | 
 as I have no idea of consuming the time of 
 this body any longer with this matter, I 
 will entreat gentlemen to repress their 
 trepidation, and by withdrawing the section 
 the alarming phantom that has conjured up 
 the horrors of repudiation will disappear, 
 and gentlemen's minds will be reliever] 
 from a most whimsical apprehension. 
 
 Section thirty was taken up and adopted 
 as follows: 
 
 " Every law of a general nature 
 shall be equally applicable to all parts of j 
 the State." 
 
 Mr. Ratliff gave notice that he would 
 move to-morrow, to reconsider the vote 
 adopting the twenty-fourth section. 
 
 Whereupon, the Convention adjourned 
 until to-morrow, at 9 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Thursday, May i, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Preston opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 The Hon. Mr. Dv Botjchel, senatorial 
 delegate from the county of Plaquemines, 
 appeared and took his seat; and on motion 
 the certificate of his election was referred 
 to the committee on elections. 
 
 The President appointed Mr. Labauve 
 a member of the committee on elections, to 
 fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of 
 Mr. Leonard. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to reconsider the vote 
 adopting the 29th section. The yeas and 
 nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Bnim- 
 field, Burton, Cade, Chambliss, Chinn, 
 Culbertson, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Kenner, King, Labauve, Le- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 S4& 
 
 loux, Lewis, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Por- 
 cr, Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, 
 'ugh, Ratliff, Read, Roman, Scott of Ba- 
 on°Rouge, Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 rrist,Voorhies, Waddill, Wadsworth, Wed- 
 srstrandt, Wikoff and Winder voted in the 
 ifirmative— 39 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Bourg, Carriere, Clai- 
 lorne, Covillion, Legendre and Mazureau 
 oted in the negative — 7 nays. Said mo- 
 ion was carried, and the section was taken 
 ip, viz : 
 
 Sec. 29. Every law of a general nature 
 hall be equally applicable to all parts of 
 he State. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Mayo, said section 
 ^as laid on the table subject to call. 
 
 This being the day fixed for the taking 
 uto consideration the reports of the com- 
 i jaittee of revision, the report of said com- 
 foittee on the seventh article was taken 
 ip, viz : 
 
 The committee of revision report the fol- 
 owing : 
 
 (Signed,) G. EUSTIS, 
 
 Chairman. 
 
 April 14, 1845. 
 
 TITLE VIII. 
 
 MODE OF REVISING THE CONSTITUTION. 
 
 Any amendment or amendments to this 
 onstitution may be proposed in the 
 enate or house of representatives, and if 
 he same shall be agreed to by three- 
 ifths of the members elected to each house 
 nd approved by the governor, such pro- 
 )Osed amendment or amendments, shall 
 >e entered on their journals, with the yeas 
 nd nays taken thereon, and the secretary 
 Estate shall cause the same to be pub- 
 ished three months before the next gen- 
 ial election, in at least one newspaper in 
 <rench and English, in every parish in 
 he State in which a newspaper shall be 
 mblished; and if, in the legislature next 
 fterwards chosen, such proposed amend- 
 nent or amendments shall be agreed to by 
 i majority of the members elected to each 
 muse, the secretary of state shall cause 
 he same to be again published in the man- 
 ler aforesaid, at least three months pre- 
 
 ious to the next general election for re- 
 presentatives to the State legislature, and 
 such proposed amendment or amendments 
 shall be submitted to the people at said 
 election; and if the people shall approve 
 md ratify such amendment or amendments 
 
 by a majority of the qualified voters of the 
 State, such amendment or amendments 
 shall become a part of the constitution* 
 Provided, that if more than one amendment 
 be submitted at a time, they shall be sub- 
 mitted in such manner and form that the 
 people may vote for or against each amend- 
 ment, separately. 
 
 On motion, said article was adopted as 
 reported by the committee. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff, agreeably to notice pre- 
 viously given,, moved to reconsider the vote 
 adopting, said article seventh. The yeas 
 and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Chinn, Covillion, Culbertson, DuBouchel, 
 Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Ratliff, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Splane, Stephens, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Waddill and Wederstrandt voted 
 in the affirmative — 31 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Boudousquie, Bourg, 
 Cenas, Claiborne, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Guion, Kenner, King, Legendre, 
 Lewis, Marigny, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ro- 
 man, St. Amand, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Wikoff and Winder voted in the negative 
 — 22 nays. 
 
 Mr. Guion raised a question of order, 
 whether the motion for reconsideration 
 could be considered as carried, as the 
 number voting for the reconsideration was 
 not greater than the number that voted for 
 the section when it was carried, in con- 
 formity with the rule. 
 
 The President inquired of the secretary 
 the date of the notice for reconsideration 
 given by Mr. Ratliff. 
 
 By reference to the journal, it was found 
 that the notice was given on the 18th of 
 February. 
 
 The President decided that the rule re- 
 lied upon by Mr. Guion was adopted on the 
 12th of April, and could not affect a notice 
 given before its adoption. 
 
 Mr. Guion appealed from the decision 
 of the Chair. 
 
 On the question, "shall the President's 
 decision be maintained," the yeas and nays 
 were called for, and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfleld, Bur- 
 ton, Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, Claiborne, 
 Covillion, DuBouchel, Dunn, Eustis, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Ledoux, McCallop, McRae, 
 
81 i Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, RatlifF, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Stephens, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, 
 Wederstrandt and Winder — voted in the 
 affirmative — 31 yeas, and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Boudousquie, Bourg, 
 Briant, Chinn, Culbertson, Derbes, Garcia. 
 Garrett, Guion, Kenner, King, Legendre, 
 Lewis, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Taylor of St. Landry, Wadsworth, 
 Wikoff and Winchester voted in the nega- 
 tive— 22 nays ; consequently the decision 
 of .the chair was sustained. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff then moved to amend said 
 article by inserting in the fourth and fifth 
 lines the words "a majority" instead pf 
 "three-fifths," and to insert in the eighteenth 
 line "three-fifths," instead of "a majority." 
 
 Mr. Lewis said he wished the constitu- 
 tion to be so placed that it would be within 
 the power of the people to amend it, when 
 experience should point out the necessity 
 for any change. He thought that to trans- 
 pose the words of the article as proposed 
 by the delegate from West Feliciana (Mr. 
 Rati iff) would make amendments to the 
 constitution much more difficult. One 
 man might defeat them. If three-fifths of 
 each house should not concur after the 
 amendments were suggested, they would 
 be defeated. There ought to be in the first 
 place, a decided majority of the legislature 
 to propose the amendments, otherwise if a 
 bare majority be only required, they will 
 be proposed for the mere purpose of agita- 
 tion. There should be a decided expres- 
 sion, not an uncertain and doubtful expres- 
 sion for change, and when such an expres- 
 sion is given, it should not be in the power 
 of a minority of the people to defeat the 
 wishes of the majority of the people. The 
 article he conceived to be infinitely prefer- 
 able as it was, and he hoped the amend- 
 ment would not prevail. 
 
 Mr. Marigny considered this amend- 
 ment as most important, as changing very 
 materially the whole character and bearing 
 of the section. If it prevailed, the result 
 would be constant turmoil and excitement. 
 Every succeeding legislature would propose 
 amendments to the people, it would give an 
 opportunity for ambition to display itself, 
 and certain individuals would not lose the 
 opportunity of manufacturing political cap- 
 ital. Already have we heard in this body, 
 that this constitution, is not yet sufficient- 
 
 ly democratic. There are already the seeds 
 of enough excitement, and perturbation in it. 
 We have an election for almost every thing, 
 from a sheriff down to an inspector of pork! 
 It would be exceedingly injudicious to 
 adopt this amendment. Let us have some- 
 thing like consistency snd stability, and let 
 us avoid giving occasion to perpetual chan- 
 ges and innovations. We have had the ex- 
 posure of the difficulties of making a con- 
 stitution. Let us beware of new projects 
 which are not wisely examined and deeply 
 pondered. Let us profit by the example of 
 Madison, Jefferson and Monroe, and not 
 imagine that this body concentrates greater 
 talents than has been found in other con. 
 ventions. He hoped the amendment would 
 be rejected. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff said he hoped his amend- 
 ment would be adopted. He considered 
 the objections that were urged as without 
 force. If a majority of the members of 
 both houses were to propose amendments 
 to the constitution, it would be only a sug. 
 gestion to the people, but it would give the 
 people the control of the question. They 
 would decide whether these amendments 
 were proper or not, and if deemed expe. 
 dient, they would make their elections in 
 reference thereto. It would be the pop- 
 ular will that would determine the question, 
 but if you leave the section as it is, it will 
 be in the power of a few persons to pre- 
 clude the possibility that the people should 
 be consulted, andjwithout their being con- 
 sulted, provisions in the constitution, ob- 
 jectionabie to the mass of the people, will 
 remain in full force. Certainly, the ma- 
 jority of the people should not be placed in 
 that position, as to be debarred from amen- 
 ding the constitution, when experience 
 should convince them that amendments 
 were necessary. We know with what ex- 
 treme difficulty amendments to the exist- 
 ing constitution have been effected, how 
 often the will and expectations of the people 
 have been disappointed, and yet for years, 
 had the people been consulted, they would 
 have resolved the question in favor of amen- 
 ding the constitution. The people are omni- 
 potent and should have control of this ques- 
 tion. If a majority of their representatives, 
 reflecting their will, consider it expedient 
 that amendments should be made, give 
 them the facility of consulting the people, 
 but do not require for this initiatory pro- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 845 
 
 needing, a difficult, if not an impossible 
 majority. 
 
 Mr. Brent said that he could not con- 
 ceive on what just principle this amend- 
 ment could be resisted. It cannot be the 
 intention of the gentlemen to assert that the 
 constitution of the State is to be placed be- 
 yond the will of the majority. If the amend- 
 ment prevails surely there are yet sufficient 
 checks against any haste or improvident 
 action. It will require two votes of the le- 
 gislature and one of the people before 
 amendments can be embodied in the 
 constitution. What more would gentle- 
 men have ? Do they wish to put it effec- 
 tually out of the power of the people to 
 amend the constitution, no matter what 
 may be the necessities and exigencies for 
 amending it? Do they wish to place the 
 ; constitution beyond the control of the peo- 
 pie 1 Are the people forever to be distrus- 
 : ted, and to be regarded with fear and sus- 
 picion ? It does seem that tyranny and 
 despotism are still favorite doctines even 
 in this republican government. On what 
 grounds can this amendment be opposed ? 
 It can only be from a distrust of the people; 
 I must confess I entertain no such distrust. 
 
 Mr. Wadswosth said he had no dispo- 
 sition to flatter the people. He had as high 
 a conception of their integrity and intelli- 
 gence, and as great a respect for their rights 
 and privileges as the delegate from Ra- 
 pides (Mr. Brent,) or any member upon 
 this floor. He did not think it argued any 
 want of confidence in the people, to en- 
 'sure some degree of stability and consis- 
 tency to the established institutions of the 
 country. This was a matter that would 
 meet the concurrence of cool and dispas- 
 sionate judgment. It was not the people 
 he feared, but it was demagogues, who 
 were never satisfied without popular ex- 
 citement* 
 
 The gentleman has asked me, continued 
 Mr. Wadsworth, to give him a reason, 
 why the constitution should not be placed 
 at the whim and caprice of a temporary 
 majority ? I will tell him why. It is be'- 
 cause the constitution is not made alone 
 for the majority, it is ma de to protect the 
 minority, the majority can very well take 
 care of themselves. But the minority must 
 be protected— they must be guaranteed 
 against the ebulitions and outbreaks of ma- 
 jorities. There must be a limit to the will 
 
 of the majority. They may go so far but 
 no farther. The doctrine that majorities 
 can do no wrong, and that they may sub- 
 stitute at their will and pleasure their say. 
 so as the irrevocable law of the land, with, 
 out consulting the minority, is one of the 
 most aristocratic notions that can be con- 
 ceived. The gentleman has asked for a 
 reason, and 1 have given it ! 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved for a division of the 
 question, first to proceed to strike out. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the motion to strike out, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Rriant, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Chambliss, Covillion, Du- 
 Bouchel, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Mc- 
 Callop, McPvae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, RatlifF, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Stephens, Trist, Waddili 
 and Wederstandt voted in the affirmative — 
 24 yeas; and 
 
 •* Messrs. Aubert, Boudousquie, Bourg, 
 Carriere, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia," 
 Guioiij Kenner, King, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Marigny, Prudhomme, Roman, St. Amand, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Wadsworth, Wikoff 
 and Winchester voted in the negative — 25 
 nays; consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved for the previous 
 question, which motion prevailed. 
 
 On motion, the seventh article was re- 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Lewis, on behalf of the committee 
 on elections, reported that Mr. Victor Du- 
 Bouchel was duly elected senatorial dele- 
 gate for the county of Plaquemines* 
 
 Mr. Roman having voted in the majori- 
 ty, moved to reconsider the vote adopting 
 the eighteenth section, which motion pre- 
 vailed, and the said section was taken up, 
 viz : 
 
 Sec. 18. In all criminal prosecutions 
 the accused shall have the right of being 
 heard by himself or counsel, of demanding 
 the nature and cause of the accusation 
 against him, of meeting the witnesses face 
 to face, of having compulsory process for 
 obtaining witnesses in his favor, and pros- 
 ecution by indictment or information; a. 
 speedy public trial by an impartial jury of 
 the vicinage, nor shall he be compelled to 
 give evidence against himself. 
 
 Mr. Eustis moved to amend said section 
 by inserting after the words "against him," 
 in the fourth line, the words "and unless 
 
846 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 he shall have fled from justice." Which 
 amendment was adopted. 
 
 On motion, the section as amended was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 18. In all criminal prosecutions 
 the accused shall have the right of being 
 heard by himself or counsel, of demanding 
 the nature and cause of the accusation 
 against him, and, unless he shall have fled 
 from justice, of meeting the witnesses face 
 to face, of having compulsory process for 
 obtaining witnesses in his favor, and pros- 
 ecution by indictment or information ; a 
 speedy public trial by an impartial jury of 
 the vicinage, nor shall he be compelled to 
 give evidence against himself. 
 
 Mr. Roman submitted the following ad- 
 ditional section, and the same was laid on 
 the table subject to call, viz: 
 
 The legislature shall not in any manner 
 create any debt or debts, liability or liabili- 
 ties, which shall singly or in the aggregates 
 with any previous debts or liabilities, ex- 
 ceed the sum of one hundred thousand dol- 
 lars, (except in cases of war, to repel inva- 
 sion and supress insurrection,) unless the 
 • same be authorized by some law, for some 
 single object or work, to be distinctly spe- 
 cified therein, which law shall provide 
 ways and means by taxation for the pay- 
 ment of running interest during the whole 
 time for which said debt shall be contract- 
 ed, and for the full and punctual discharge 
 at maturity of the capital borrowed; and 
 said law shall not be repealable until the 
 principal and interest thereon shall be paid 
 and fully discharged, and shall not be put 
 into execution until after its re-enactment 
 by the first legislature returned by a gene- 
 ral election after its passage. 
 
 Mr. Chinn offered the following addi- 
 tional sections, which were laid on the ta- 
 ble subject to call, viz: 
 
 Sec. • Any person who shall, after 
 
 the adoption of this constitution, fight a 
 duel with deadly weapons, or send or re- 
 ceive a challenge to fight a duel with dead- 
 ly weapons, either within the State or out 
 of it, or who shall act as a second, or aid 
 and assist in any manner those thus offend- 
 ing, shall be deprived of holding aiiy office 
 of trust or profit under this constitution. 
 
 Sec. — . "J, (A. B.) do solemnly swear 
 (or affirm) that I will faithfully and imparti- 
 ally discharge and perform all the duties in- 
 cumbent on me as , according to 
 
 the best of my abilities and understanding, 
 agreeably to the rules and regulations of 
 the constitution and laws of this State: 
 and I do furthersolemnly swear (or affirm) 
 that since the adoption of this constitution 
 I have not fought a duel with deadly wea- 
 dons ? within this State nor out of it, nor 
 have I sent a challenge to fight a duel with 
 deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second 
 in carrying a challenge, or aided, advised, 
 or assisted any person thus offending — So 
 help me God. 
 
 Section thirtieth was taken up, viz : 
 Sec 30. No law shall be revised or 
 amended by reference to its title; but in 
 such case the act revised or section amend- 
 ed shall be re-enacted and published at 
 length. 
 
 Mr. Humble moved for the adoption of 
 this section. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff had a few words to say. 
 He would suggest to the house the great 
 difficulty which would attend an adherence 
 to this section. He would give an exam- 
 ple: There was the militia law, which 
 contained one hundred and sixteen sections* 
 Now, if it were necessary to amend one 
 single section, it would be necessary to 
 re-enact the whole law, of one hun- 
 dred and sixteen sections, as if it were 
 a new law. This would be the result 
 whenever a clause in the lav/ would be 
 amended, and thus this single law, besides 
 consuming the time of the house, would in 
 a short time, of itself, make a volume. It 
 would lead to great inconvenience to adopt 
 the section. 
 
 Mr. Mayo said if the section were 
 adopted, it would extend further than was 
 contemplated by gentlemen who favored 
 it. If any article of the civil code or code 
 of practice were amended, all the articles 
 under the title to which it belonged, would 
 have to be re-enacted and published. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said that the object of this 
 section was to cure a state of utter confu- 
 sion in our laws. The matter had been 
 well weighed be the committee, and they 
 were convinced that something should be 
 done to remedy the inconvenience that was 
 felt, and which, if not arrested, would be 
 a source of the greatest doubt and perplex- 
 ity. As prosecuting attorney, at one time, 
 he had more partiularly felt the great in- 
 convenience. It was a task of" great diffi- 
 culty to find particular provisions. They 
 
 V 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 were so mixed up, and were found embo- j 
 died under so many different and imperfect 
 titles, it was a matter of great annoy- 1 
 ance, of great trouble, and of extreme doubt j 
 to find out the actual state of our laws, as | 
 modified by the numerous amendments j 
 made to them from time to time, and which j 
 were introduced under the most indefinite I 
 form, and placed along with dispositions of 
 dissimilar character. 
 
 Mr. C. M. CoroiAD said he understood 
 the gentleman's object, but he thought it 
 one of no great magnitude. It was a mat- 
 ter involving the convenience of lawyers, 
 and he did not think that this consideration 
 should be sufficient to induce us to entail 
 very heavy expense and a great deal of 
 trouble upon the legislature. The great 
 multiplicity of amendments shows that this 
 plan would swell the volume containing 
 our statutes to an enormous size. The 
 section says "the act revised, or section 
 amended shall be re-enacted and republish- 
 ed." Which is it, the section amended 
 or the entire act, that is to be re-enacted 
 and republished? There is here some 
 ambiguity. The same inconvenience at- 
 tends the publication of the laws of con- 
 gress. If the detached section be alone 
 published, that will give but an indefinite 
 idea of the character of the whole act; and I 
 if the whole act is to be republished, the 
 enormous expense will be a most serious 
 objection. It is better to leave things as ] 
 they are. When our community gets older ; 
 and more settled, our laws will become j 
 fewer, and a remedy will readily be pro- 
 vided for the inconvenience now felt. 
 
 Mr. Eustis said that the reform propo- 
 sed by the section was imperiously called j 
 i for, as well by the confused state in which 
 our statutues were, as by public opinion. 
 There would would be nothing more vicious 
 than to amend laws by an indefinite re- 
 ference to their titles. It gave a great 
 deal of trouble, and it was a matter of much 
 perplexity to find out what were the changes 
 and modifications made to our existing 
 statutes. The greater part were written 
 in a language which was neither French 
 nor English. The references were in 
 many instances totally unintelligible. The 
 design was that laws should be intelligible, 
 and that they should be of ready reference! 
 People were liable to prosecution for vio- 
 lating them. Such a subject was surely 
 
 not trivial, or unworthy of our attention. 
 On the contrary; said Mr. E. I think it a 
 matter of great importance. 
 
 The gentleman who has just taken his 
 seat, cites the acts of congress as obnox- 
 ious to the same objection. It is no reason 
 why we should not seek for greater order 
 and system because there is none in the laws 
 of congress. It is very true that there is a 
 great want of order and much confusion in 
 those laws, but that is to be deplored. 
 We have a precedent for our guide, in the 
 Xapoleon code. Some of our sister States 
 are introducing regularity and order in ar- 
 ranging their statutes. The legislature of 
 Massachusetts have been engaged a whole 
 session to place their statutes in a form 
 similar to the body of our civil laws. In 
 France the laws are admirably arranged. 
 If we wish to preserve our statutes from a 
 total chaos, we must adopt something in 
 the nature of the section before us. 
 
 Mr. Co^ead of Orleans, moved that 
 j said section be laid on the table indefi- 
 ! nitely. • 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to amend said section 
 by inserting after the word "section. * ; in 
 the third line, the words "or article, 5 ' and 
 by inserting in the first and second lines 
 the word "revived" instead of the word 
 "revised;" which amendments were adopt- 
 ed. 
 
 Mr. Coxead of Orleans, moved that said 
 section and amendment be laid on the ta*- 
 ble indefinitely. The yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Chinn, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Covillion and Ratliff voted in the 
 affirmative — 5 yeas: and 
 
 3Iessrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Brent, Bra- 
 zeale, Briant, Bumfield, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 DuBouchel, Dunn. Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, 
 Guion, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, Ledoux, 
 Legendre, Rewis, McCallop. McRae, Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Pugh, 
 Read, Roman, St. Amand, Scort of Baton 
 Rouge, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Trist. Voorhies, Waddill, Wads- 
 worth, Wederstrandt, Wikoff, Winchester 
 and Winder voted in the negative — 51 
 nays; consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Oft motion, the section a= amended was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
848 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Sec. 30. No law shall be revised or 
 amended by reference to its title; but in 
 such case the act revised, or section or ar- 
 ticle amended, shall be re-enacted and pub- 
 lished at length. 
 
 Section thirty- first was taken up and 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 31. The State shall not become 
 subscriber to the stock of any corporation 
 or joint stock company. 
 
 Section thirty-two was then taken up, as 
 follows: 
 
 Sec. 32. No person shall hold or exer- 
 cise, at the same time, more than one civil 
 office in this State, except one of such offi- 
 ces be that of a justice of the peace. 
 
 Mr. Eustis moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by inserting after the words " civil 
 office," in the second line, the words " of 
 emolument," which amendment was adopt- 
 ed. 
 
 Ou motion, the section as amended was 
 adopted. 
 
 Section thirty-third was taken up, viz: 
 Sec. 33. No corporate body»shall be 
 hereafter created, renewed or extended 
 with banking or discounting privileges, 
 without six months previous public notice 
 of the intended application for the same, in 
 such manner as shall be prescribed bylaw; 
 nor shall any charter for the purposes 
 aforesaid be granted for a longer period 
 than twenty years, and every such charter 
 shall contain a clause reserving to the le- 
 gislature the power to alter, revoke or an- 
 nul the same whenever, in their opinion, 
 it may be expedient so to do; and every 
 charter so granted shall be upon the ex- 
 press condition that the share holders or 
 members of such corporations, shall be 
 bound severally and in solida, for all the 
 liabilities and acts of such corporation, 
 and for the consequences resulting there- 
 from. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved that said section be 
 acted upon paragraph by paragraph, which 
 motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to amend said section 
 by striking out from the word "privileges," 
 in the third line, the balance of the section, 
 viz: 
 
 Without six months' previous public no- 
 tice of the intended application for the same, 
 in such manner as shall be prescribed by 
 law; nor shall any charter, for the purpo- 
 ses aforesaid, be granted for a longer pe- 
 
 riod than twenty years; and every such 
 charter shall contain a clause reserving to 
 the legislature the power to alter, revoke 
 or annul the same, whenever, in their 
 opinion, it may be expedient so to do; and 
 every charter so granted shall be upon the 
 express condition that the share holders or 
 members of such corporation, shall be 
 bound personally and in solido, for all the 
 liabilities and acts of such corporation, 
 and for the consequences resulting there- 
 from. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said he had moved to strike 
 out this portion of the section in the com- 
 mittee, but was overruled. He hoped the 
 motion would prevail here. It met his 
 hearty concurrence. He was in toto an 
 anti-bank man. 
 
 Mr. Conrad begged leave to assign the 
 reasons of his vote. He had never been 
 an advocate of the State-bank system. He 
 had never voted for a bank charter, and 
 doubted much whether he could, under any 
 circumstances, be induced to vote for one. 
 He had always thought there < should be 
 but one bank in the country, and that was 
 a bank of the United States; but he did no f , 
 believe that it was competent for any one 
 State to bring about this salutary reform. 
 What would it avail the State of Louisiana 
 to prohibit the incorporation of banks with- 
 in her limits, if the other States, particularly 
 the adjoining States, should not imitate her 
 example? Was not all experience shown 
 that where a people are habituated to a 
 paper currency, if they cannot have one of 
 their own they will use that of other coun- 
 tries? The consequence is, that if we pro^ 
 hibit the establishment of banks, our State 
 will be flooded with the paper of the banks 
 of other States, over which we can exer- 
 cise no control, and thus we will be made 
 to share their losses without being able to 
 participate in their profits. 
 
 We would go as far as any one in re- 
 stricting the legislature in the power to 
 incorporate banks, and to prevent the de- 
 plorable mischiefs which have resulted 
 from the abuse of that power, but to de- 
 prive them of it entirely was farther than 
 he was prepared to go. 
 
 Mr. Winder said he was in favor of re- 
 stricting the legislature in the exercise of 
 the power, but he doubted the policy of 
 taking it away altogether. 
 I The yeas and nays being called for, on 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 849 
 
 the motion of Mr. Brent to strike out, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Brazeale, 
 , Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, DuBouchel, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Garrett, Humble, Kenner, Ledoux, 
 ! Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Mauzreau, Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Prudhomme, RatlifF, Read, St. 
 Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, 
 Waddill, Wederstrandt and Wikoff voted in 
 ! the affirmative — 38 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Boudousquie, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Guion, Hynson, King, Legendre, Pugh, 
 Roman, Trist, Winchester and Winder 
 voted in the negative — 19 nays. 
 
 Mr. Kenner then moved to fill the blank 
 with the following amendment, viz : 
 
 " And should any person circulate, or 
 cause to be circulated, any paper money 
 issued by any corporation or person exist- 
 ing in any other State or county, he shall 
 be considered guilty of a misdemeanor, 
 and for such offence shall be amenable to 
 such penalties as the legislature may de- 
 termine." 
 
 Mr. Kenner said, in good faith and in 
 sincerity, he had voted in favor of denying 
 to the legislature the power to establish 
 banking corporations. But this was not 
 sufficient. It was an act of folly, and it 
 might be considered an act of insincerity, 
 to prohibit our legislature from creating 
 banks, if we were to take no measures to 
 preclude our being flooded by the paper of 
 irresponsible banks elsewhere. It was a 
 ji very easy matter for an association to be 
 formed in this city, and to have their bank 
 notes struck off in Natchez and sent here 
 for circulation. This would be much 
 
 I worse than the evil of local banking cor- 
 porations amenable to our laws, and it 
 would inevitably result, unless we provided 
 an effectual remedy. If we are to put dowu 
 banking, let us put it down effectually, and 
 let us return to the good old system of hard 
 money. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies moved to lay Mr. Ken- 
 ( ner's proposition on the table. 
 
 Mr. Kenner called for the yeas and 
 | nays on Mr. Voorhies' motion, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale, Brent, Bur- 
 ton, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 
 Jefferson, Covillion, Eustis, Humble, Le- 
 doux, Lewis, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Rat- 
 liff, Read, Roman, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Voorhies and Wederstrandt voted in the 
 affirmative — 31 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Bourg, Brumfield, Chinn, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Du Bouchel, Dunn, 
 Garcia, Garrett, Guion, Hynson, Kenner, 
 King, Legendre, McCallop, Marigny, Ma- 
 zureau, Pugh, St. Amand, Trist, Waddill, 
 WikofF, Winchester and Winder voted in 
 the negative — 25 nays. 
 
 Mr. Kenner would enquire from those 
 that were better informed, if an association 
 could not be got up in this city, assuming 
 to act as the bank of Kentucky, under a 
 charter of the State of Kentucky, and cir- 
 culate the notes of such an institution, re- 
 ceive them on. deposit and pay them out? 
 It this were not possible, he should say 
 nothing more. But if it were, he would 
 again submit it to gentlemen whether they 
 should not protect the State from the evils 
 of banking in other States, as well as from 
 the evils of local banks. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved for the adoption of the 
 section as amended, viz : 
 
 Sec. 33. No corporate bodjf shall be 
 hereafter created, renewed or extended, 
 with discounting privileges. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Chinn, Covillion, DuBouchel, 
 Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, Humble, Kenner, 
 Ledoux, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Marig- 
 ny, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott of St, 
 Landry, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Splane, 'Stephens, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Voorhies, Waddill, Wed- 
 erstrandt and Wikoff voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 37 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Cenas, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Guion, Hynson, Legendre, 
 Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, Trist, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the nega- 
 tive — 18 nays. 
 
 Section thirty-fourth was taken up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 34. All charters hereafter granted 
 by the legislature, shall terminate en the 
 first day of January, in the year one thou- 
 sand eight hundred and ninety, where no 
 certain limit has been fixed in the act of 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 incorporation; and no corporate privileges 
 hereafter to be created, shall ever endure 
 for a longer term than twenty-five years; 
 provided that this section shall not apply to 
 political or municipal corporations. 
 
 Mr. Marigny moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by striking out the words ' 'and no cor- 
 porate privileges, hereafter to be enacted, 
 shall ever endure for a longer term than 
 twenty-five years." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Cenas, said section 
 and amendment were laid on the table 
 subject to call. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne submitted the following 
 additional section, and the same was laid 
 on datable subject to call, viz : 
 
 "It shall be the duty of the legislature to 
 define and limit in the charters of all mu- 
 nicipal or city corporations, the power of 
 levying taxes on property, and of creating 
 debts by such corporations, and to confine 
 such power, as nearly as possible, to pur- 
 poses of municipal administration and 
 police." 
 
 Section thirty-fifth was taken up, viz : 
 Sec. 35. The general assembly shall 
 never grant any exclusive privilege or mo- 
 nopoly, in such form as to prevent any sub- 
 sequent legislature from granting similar 
 privileges to other individuals or corpora- 
 tions. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to amend the sec- 
 tion by so modifying it as to empower the 
 legislature to grant a monopoly for a term 
 of years. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said that it was frequently 
 necessary, in order to induce persons to 
 engage in new enterprise of great public 
 utility, to endow them with exclusive pri- 
 vileges for a certain number of years. 
 Without such an inducement, capital would 
 not be invested in such enterprises. Mr. 
 B. distanced the water works, the gas 
 works, and similar undertakings. He was 
 opposed to monopolies, except they were 
 of this description, and called for the public 
 interest and convenience. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to amend said section 
 by inserting after the word "monopoly," in 
 the second line, the words " fpr a longer 
 period than fifteen years," and to strike 
 out the remainder of the section. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to amend the 
 amendment of Mr. Brent, by inserting 
 "twenty" instead of "fifteen," which 
 amendment was adopted. 
 
 On motion, the section as amended was 
 adopted, viz : 
 
 Sec. 35. The general assembly shall 
 never grant any exclusive privilege or mo- 
 nopoly for a longer period than twenty 
 years. 
 
 I Mr. Ratliff submitted the following 
 additional section, and the same was 
 adopted, viz : 
 
 "The legislature shall direct by law in 
 what manner, and in what courts, suits 
 may be brought against the State." 
 
 Mr. Eustis, of the committee on educa- 
 tion, submitted the following, viz : 
 
 An university shall be established in the 
 city of New Orleans. It shall be composed 
 of four faculties, to wit: one of law, one of 
 medicine, one of the natural sciences, and 
 one of letters. 
 
 It shall be called the University of Lou- 
 isiana; and the medical college of Louisi- 
 ana as at present organized, shall constitute 
 the faculty of medicine. 
 
 The legislature shall provide by law for 
 its further organization and government. 
 
 Section thirty-sixth was taken up, viz : 
 
 Sec. 36. Slaves shall be forever held 
 and considered as immovable, and shall be 
 regulated by the same laws as other im- 
 movable property. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Benjamin, said sec- 
 tion was laid on the table indefinitely. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff submitted the following 
 additional section, viz : 
 
 The relation of master and slave in this 
 State shall not be abolished, unless a bill 
 so to abolish the same shall be passed by 
 a unanimous vote of the members of each 
 branch of the general assembly, and shall 
 be published at least three months before 
 a new election of members to the general 
 assembly, and shall be confirmed by a 
 unanimous vote of the members of each 
 branch of the general assembly at the next 
 regular constitutional session after such 
 new election; nor then, without full com- 
 pensation to the master for the property of 
 which he has been thereby deprived. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved for the previous 
 question, which motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Guion moved to lay said section on 
 the table indefinitely, and called for the 
 yeas and nays, which resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cham- 
 bliss, Chinn, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 
Debates in the Convention of Lcui&iana, 
 
 851 
 
 Jefferson, Culbertson, Dunn, Derbes, Eus- 
 tis, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, Humble, Ken- 
 ner, King, Ledoux, Lewis, Legendre, Me- 
 Callop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Pugh, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Splane, Stephens, Trist, Waddill 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative— 38 
 yeas; and 
 
 Measrs. Boudousqule, Brazeale, Covil- 
 lion, Claiborne, DuBouchel, Hynson, Por- 
 ter, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Voorhies, Wederstrandt and Win 
 Chester voted in the negative — 15 nays; 
 consequently said motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Lewis submitted the following ad- 
 ditional section, viz : 
 
 All officers of this State appointed by 
 the governor and senate, or elected by the 
 people, shall be required to understand the 
 French and English languages, so as to 
 transact the business of their offices in 
 either language. 
 
 Mr. Marigny moved that said section 
 be laid on the table indefinitely. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Brazeale, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cham- 
 bliss, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans? Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, DuBouchel, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Garrett, Guion, Humble, Hynson, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre. 
 McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, 
 Porter, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, 
 Roman, St. Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge. 
 Stephens, Trist, Wederstrandt, Winchester 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative — 46 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brent, Brumfleld, Lewis, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Splane, Voorhies 
 and Waddill voted in the negative — 8 
 nays. 
 
 Mr. Lewis gave notice that he would 
 move to reconsider the vote adopting the 
 section which requires that the clerk of the 
 house and secretary of the senate shall be 
 possessed of the French as well as the 
 English language. 
 
 Mr. Sellers introduced a section rela- 
 tive to the imposition of a poll tax as a 
 qualification for suffrage, which 
 
 On motion of Mr. Bexja:,iin, was laid 
 on the table subject to call. 
 
 Mr. Eustis observed that the twenty- 
 third section of the general provisions in 
 
 the old constitution, had been omitted in the 
 report of the committee. He would sub- 
 mit it to the Convention and ask for its 
 adoption. 
 
 Sec. 23. The citizens of the town of 
 New Orleans shall have the right of ap- 
 i pointing the several public officers neces- 
 I sary for the administration and the police 
 i of the said city, pursuant to the mode of 
 I election which shall be prescribed by the 
 1 legislature; provided that the mayor and 
 : recorder be inelioible to a seat in the 
 I general assembly. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said he should like to hear 
 some good leason why the city should not 
 be placed upon a perfect equality, in rela- 
 tion to these matters, with the country. 
 He would ask the honorable mover to ex- 
 hibit some necessity for the adoption of 
 this section. 
 
 Mr. Eustis said he could only say in 
 reply, that the necessities of the case were 
 so pressing, and the propriety of the prop- 
 osition so plain, that it admitted of no dis- 
 pute. Thirty years ago it was deemed 
 essential that the citizens of New Orleans 
 should be possessed of this power, and the 
 necessity now for its existence was ten 
 fold greater than at that time. The same 
 investure of power, in criminal matters, is 
 only granted to the mayor and recorders 
 that are attributed to justices of the peace. 
 It is indispensible that they should possess 
 these powers for the prevention and re- 
 pression of crime. In a densely popula- 
 ted city, there was a large class who arose 
 in the morning without knowing where 
 they were to sleep at night, or how they 
 were to satisfy the cravings of hunger, 
 The tendency of this class were to fall in- 
 to crimes, into pauperism, and into vaga- 
 bondism. It was absolutely necessary 
 that the city authorities should have the 
 power of imposing such temporary pun- 
 ishments as the interests of society de- 
 manded. If the honorable delegate can 
 suggest any thing better to facilitate the 
 police of the city, and to preserve its order 
 and quiet, I should be pleased to hear it. I 
 cannot conceive that any thing like sec- 
 tional feeling can enter into this question. 
 
 Mr, Lewis said he had no objection to 
 the adoption of the section. 
 The section was adopted. 
 Mr. Ratliff moved to reconsider the 
 
652 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 vote adopting the twenty-fourth section, 
 which motion prevailed, and the said sec- 
 tion was taken up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 24. The legislature shall not have 
 power or authority to pledge the faith of 
 the State, as security for the payment of 
 any bonds, bills, or other contracts or obli- 
 gations whatever; nor to borrow money for 
 any purposes whatever, except for defray- 
 ing the expenses of war, or for the purpose 
 of repelling an invasion of the State by an 
 armed force, or of suppressing an insurrec- 
 tion; provided, that the State shall have 
 the right to issue new bonds in payment 
 of any of its now outstanding obligations 
 or liabilities, whether due or not; the said 
 new bonds, however, to bear upon their 
 face, either in principal or interest, an 
 amount less than the original obligation 
 they are intended to replace. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Eusns said section 
 was laid on the table subject to call. 
 
 Section thirty-seventh was taken up and 
 adopted, as follows: 
 
 Sec. 37. All commissions shall be in 
 the name and by the authority of the State 
 of Louisiana, sealed with the State seal 
 and signed by the governor. 
 
 Mr. Garrett offered the following ad- 
 ditional section, and the same was adopted : 
 
 " The legislature may provide by law 
 in what cases officers sfhall continue to per- 
 form the duties of their offices until their 
 successors shall be inducted into office." 
 
 Mr. Garrett submitted the following 
 as an additional section: 
 
 "All property subject to taxation in this 
 State shall be taxed in proportion to its 
 value, to be ascertained by law. No spe- 
 cies of property from which a tax may be 
 collected, shall be taxed higher than anoth- 
 er species of property of equal value, and 
 subject to taxation." 
 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans submitted 
 the following: 
 
 " Taxation shall be equal and uniform 
 throughout the State." 
 
 On motion, the proposition of Mr. Gar- 
 rett and the proposition of Mr. Conrad 
 were laid on the table, subject to call. 
 
 Section thirty-eighth was taken up and 
 adopted : 
 
 Sec. 38. The constitution and laws of 
 this State shall be published in the French 
 as well as the English language. 
 
 Whereupon' the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Friday, May 2, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Hon. Mr. Stephens opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 The Convention took action for the en- 
 roling of the new constitution. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies called up the following 
 resolution: 
 
 "Persons of unsound mind, paupers, 
 non-commissioned officers, soldiers, ma- 
 rines in the service of the United States^ 
 and all persons convicted of any crime 
 deemed at law to be felony, shall not ex- 
 ercise the right of suffrage." 
 
 Mr. Voorhies observed that if the sec. 
 tion were adopted, it could be referred to 
 the committee on revision, to put it in pro- 
 per form and assign it its proper place. 
 It was important, he conceived, to embody 
 it in the constitution, in order that the restic* 
 tions to suffrage be clearly defined. As to 
 the utility of this provision, it was appar- 
 ent on its face. No one would contend 
 that these classes of persons were entitled 
 to suffrage. It was manifest that they 
 ought to be excluded from that right. The 
 right of suffrage should be limited to ac 
 tive citizens. In reference to soldiers and 
 sailors in the service of the United States, 
 they could not be considered permanent 
 citizens, and as having any real interest in 
 the affairs of the State. The section was 
 taken from the constitution of Virginia, 
 and was to be found embodied in the con- 
 stitutions of several other States. He 
 would call for its adoption. 
 
 Mr. Eustis thought the expression "un- 
 sound mind" too general. In times of 
 high excitement, the voters of political 
 parties would accuse each other reciprocal, 
 ly of unsound mind. Who was to decide? 
 The commissioners of election? The}' 
 would be influenced by like political feel- 
 ings, and an election might be arrested, 
 and great disorders prevail, arising out of 
 this question of sanity. A man may deem 
 another that differs with him in opinion 
 insane. The only legal test of insanity 
 is interdiction. It would be a dangerous 
 prerogative to authorize a commissioner of 
 election to disfranchize a voter on the plea 
 of insanity. As to the use of the word 
 "pauper," intended to designate a class to 
 be excluded, I would merely observe (said 
 Mr. E.) that there is no such class of per- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 853 
 
 sons known to our laws, and that, there- to them the full control. Oar action was 
 lore, it can have no application. irrevocable, and we might do something 
 
 Mr. Yoorhies replied that the expres- that might hereafter be a source of great 
 sion k 'of unsound mind'" was a technical inconvenience. It might happen that the 
 expression, and to be met with in the civil i soldier or marine disqualified from suffrage 
 code. It was embodied in our jurispru- \ was a native born citizen of the State, 
 dence. But in addition to that, the very Would it be right to say that he should not 
 same expression was used in a similar sec. j vote because he was in the service of his 
 tion in the constitution of Virginia. The ; country? An inflexible rule might work 
 Cramers of the constitution of Virginia great detriment, and no immediate remedy 
 found no difficulty in construing the mean- j would be at hand. 
 
 ing of the term, and they were certainly Mr. Chinn proposed to amend by sink- 
 as intellegent as the members of this body, ing out "of unsound mind." and substitu- 
 It was very plain to understand it it ob- j tuting "persons under interdiction,-' and to 
 viouslv meant a person bereft of reason. : strike out all after the word "interdiction-.'' 
 Now, as to limiting the restriction to per- ; Mr. Yoorhies objected to the amend- 
 sons under interdiction, that would not at- ment offered by the delegate from West 
 tain the object. Those only were placed un- Baton Rouge (Mr. Chinn) upon the grounds 
 der interdiction who had property to man- he had before assumed, that it would have 
 age* other insane persons were not. be- only a partial application. As for the ob- 
 cause there was no motive why a decree j-ection of the . gentleman from Catahoula, 
 of insanity should be pronounced against (Mr. Mayo) that it might happen that the 
 them. It was very evident that if the j soldier or marine excluced. was a native of 
 term insane persons under interdiction ; the State, I will observe that if it were so 
 were used, it would apply to a very limited ; to happen, it would not affect the principle: 
 number of those who were bereft of rea- j for a native of Louisian enroling as a sol- 
 son. As to the other objection of the gen- ! dier, and subject to be sent from one part 
 tie man (Mr. Eustis) he would simply re- ' of the country to the other, and to be un- 
 mark that the term "pauper" was well un- 1 der the orders of his officers, ought just as 
 derstood and defined. If there were no much to loose the privilege of suffrage as 
 paupers in the State at present, it would ( any other citizen. The motive for exclu- 
 have no immediate application: but doubt- sion would be the same. 1 am, at any 
 less it would become highly essential here- rate, much amazed that this objection 
 after that the exclusion should be found to i should come from that gentleman, inas- 
 exist. much as on another occasion he offered a 
 
 Mr. Claiborne considered the section section containing precisely the same ex- 
 highly judicious, and hoped it would not elusion, aoplied to the very same persons, 
 be rejected. It was proper that the Con- Mr. Claiborne begged to submit as a 
 vention should exclude the elass of per- substitute, the gentleman's (Mr. Mavo's) 
 sons referred to from suffrage. If there own proposition. It was identically the 
 were no paupers in Louisiana, in the sense same thing m meaning. It was found in a 
 in which the word was understood in Eng- report drawn up by that gentleman and 
 land, at present, there was too much rea- signed by several others, with a strong re- 
 son to apprehend that hereafter we should commendation. 
 
 noi enjoy the exception. The right of Mr. Taylor of Assumption suggested 
 suffrage was too important to be vested in that it would be but carrying out the prin- 
 persons who were devoid of the most es- ciple to embrace commissioned officers as 
 sential qualifications to its exercise. . well as non-commissioned officers and pri- 
 
 Mr. Mayo said that the power conferred vates. The principle was the same, and 
 m the tourth section of the general provis- should be applied equally. It may be said 
 ions was amply sufficient, and rendered that a soldier is subject to the orders of his 
 this section superrogary. It was better to officers, and is dependent upon their wilh 
 leave such matters to the discretion of the that he has contracted for his services, 
 legislature. They would prescribe such But the same thing may be said of the of- 
 provisions as were necessary for the exer- ficer. He, too, is subject to the orders of 
 'Jise of suffrage, and it was "better to leuve his superior officer. Thc-r? should" be no 
 
854 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 discrimination between the officer and the 
 soldier; for the principle of excluding one 
 applies equally to the exclusion of the oth- 
 er. If the Convention think the principle 
 right, it should carry it out. Why should 
 there be an exception in favor of the one? 
 One, it is true, has a distinguished title, 
 and instead of eight dollars a month, re- 
 ceives a higher salary. But both are sub- 
 ject to the orders of the general govern- 
 ment, and the same disability attaches to 
 boih — the incapaity to acquire a legal resi- 
 dence. 
 
 Mr. Humble hoped that the section 
 would be divided, and that the exclusion 
 to soldiers and marines would be placed 
 by itself. He did not like to see them in 
 the same section, coupled with paupers 
 and criminals. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad said that the most 
 sensitive officer would not take exceptions 
 to the section because the various causes 
 of exclusion were embodied together. It 
 certainly did not carry the idea of any as- 
 sociation between the persons excluded. 
 
 Mr. Guion said he had serious objec- 
 tions to the suggestions of the delegate 
 from Assumption (Mr. Taylor). The rea- 
 son that 1 have to urge (said Mr. G.) for 
 the exclusion of soldiers does not apply 
 to officers. The one is under the entire 
 control of the government; they are not 
 free agents. This objection does not ap- 
 ply to the other. The restraint imposed 
 upon the soldier is of a character to de- 
 prive him of that freedom which is essen- 
 tial to the exercise of suffrage. I know 
 of no constitution that excludes officers of 
 the army or navy from the right of suf- 
 frage. Such exclusion would be unparal- 
 lelled. It would be an invidous distinc- 
 tion — not called for by any public neces- 
 sity, or sanctioned by any just principle. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor said he had a few 
 observations to make in reply to the gen- 
 tleman from Lafourche. The gentleman 
 has said that if officers be excluded from 
 suffrage, it will be the first time that such 
 an exclusion has been known in the limits 
 of the United States. Because it may be the 
 first time that such an exclusion has been 
 made, o!oes that alone prove the impolicy 
 of making it? If the principle be right, 
 and the delegate (Mr. Guion) admits that 
 it is right, when applied to soldiers, why 
 
 should it not apply to officers? I cannot 
 see that there ought to be a distinction. 
 It is true that the soldier is exposed to the 
 brutality of unfeeling officers. But is it 
 any the less true that the soldier forms a 
 part of the military class as well as his of- 
 ficer. And is not the officer subjected to 
 punishment and control? There is not the 
 power to inflict the same punishment 
 which is sometimes inflicted upon the poor 
 soldier; but there is the power to inflict a 
 punishment upon the spirit, to humble H 
 and render it subservient. I know there 
 are debased soldiers; but they are not de- 
 based because they are soldiers; it does 
 not arise or belong to their station, which 
 in itself is honorable. There are, howev- 
 er, soldiers as meritorious as any class of 
 the community. A distinction ought not 
 to be made based upon a mere difference 
 of grade; for the distinction between offi- 
 cer and soldier, in point of fact, is only 
 one of rank. It should be recollected that 
 the president is commander-in-chief, and 
 that every officer, however brilliant may 
 be his equipage and distinguished his rank, 
 is under the orders of the president, and 
 the heads of the military department, and 
 that it is in the power of the superior au- 
 thority to improve or render uncomfortable, 
 to advance or retard his prospects. But it 
 is not on the ground of dependence that I 
 think the exclusion should rest. It should 
 be placed on the broad ground, that per- 
 sons in the military service of the United 
 States neither have, nor can have a proper 
 civil residence; and this applies as well to 
 officer as to soldier. I care not for dignity 
 when a principle is involved, which is as 
 applicable to one set of persons as to an- 
 other. If the principle is right, it should 
 be general. I have no disposition to detract 
 from the high claims of officers in every 
 respect; but I think they should be exclu- 
 ded from suffrage; because, from the na- 
 ture of their duties, they are liable to the 
 same objection as soldiers, that they can- 
 not acquire the necessary residence. 
 
 Mr. Chinn said he would protest against 
 any such exclusion of the officers in the 
 service of the general government. They 
 were among the most gallant portion of our 
 countrymen. Several of these officers 
 were stationed in Louisiana and were as 
 much identified in its prosperity and in 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 the prosperity of our common country, as ! to the 24th of last August there were com 
 any portion of our fellow citizens. H | mitted by that magistrate, for petty larce- 
 never would consent to this exclusion. ! nies and other minor offences, 2067 per- 
 Mr. G. M. Conrad said that one great sons. The statement of the recorder of 
 objection against allowing suffrage to sol- the second municipality showed a similar 
 diers was not applicable to officers. No number. He was not aware of the num- 
 possible danger could arise from admitting ber committed in the third municipality, 
 an inconsiderable body of men to vote, but he presumed it was in proportion, 
 while great danger might result from gran- The persons who would come under this 
 ting the same privilege to a numerous class ■ clause were well known to the police, and 
 of armed persons. The number of officers could be readily detected. They were 
 was quite insignificant; the number of sol- ready to do any thing but labor, and he 
 diers were much more numerous and might feared that if the materials for carrying 
 hereafter become still more numerous, elections were so convenient, purchasers 
 They might be marched to the polls, in a would be found during the excitement of a 
 solid body to vote one way or the other, and high political contest, to buy up their votes, 
 control the result. The body of officers Mr. Mayo asked whether it was de- 
 were composed of some of the best citi- ; signed by the delegate from Xew Orleans, 
 zens of the country. There were among '; (Mr. Conrad) to constitute the commis- 
 them natives of this State — one of them a sioners of elections, judges of a criminal 
 distinguished commander in the Xaval ser- court. 
 
 vice, and others who were fast ascending Mr. Eustis doubted much the propriety 
 the ladder of fame. It would be unjust to of a provision whicf# might be employed 
 exclude them from suffrage. They were by the commissioners of election as a pre- 
 es^entially, in every respect, citizens of the f text for turning away voters. If the judges 
 State. i choose to say that a man was a notorious 
 
 3Ir. Claiborne called for the previous vagrant, he could not vote, and his right to 
 question, which was sustained. | vote would depend solely upon the infer- 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. Miles ; ence which they choose to draw. This was 
 Taylor's amendment to add the word "ohi- , going too far. 
 
 ■cers," and the yeas and nays were called : Mr. Mayo said the absurdity of the 
 for — ayes 10 — nays 46. thing defeated itself. The gentleman has 
 
 Mr. VoopvIiies moved to add to Mr. told us there are several thousand vagrants 
 Claiborne's substitute, (the proposition of in the city, and before an election can be 
 Mr. Mayo,) the word "paupers,"' in order ■ concluded, he would convert the commis- 
 that this description of persons should be I sioners of election into a court to try several 
 excluded from suffrage. \ thousand perons accused of vagrancy. 
 
 Mr. M. Taylor doubted the propriety! Mr. Taylor of Assumption, said that 
 of making use of this expression. Xo one the laws of the State recognised what was 
 would come under the definition in Louis- 1 vagrancy. The persons falling under that 
 iana, as there were no poor laws. It would offence were subjected to the jurisdiction 
 be better to use the word "mendicant." J of the police and were known to the po- 
 
 Mr. Claieorxe repeated that if there lice. There was a fitness in excluding 
 were no class yet in Louisiana, to whom them from suffrage, but there was no such 
 the term "paupers" could strictly apply, class as "paupers," and that exclusion could 
 there would be hereafter. j have no application. 
 
 Mr. \oorhies' amendment prevailed.! The ayes and nays were called for on 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad proposed to add the Mr. C. M. Conrad's amendment to add the 
 following after the word "paupers," ; 'no- j wotds "notorious vagrants." Ayes 20 — 
 torious vagrants." There were a large i nays .30. 
 
 number (said Mr. C.) of this description of ; Mr. Humble suggested that it would be 
 persons in the city and it behooved us to j more becoming to divide the section so as 
 place the ballot-box beyond their reach. ; to place the clause excluding soldiers and 
 From a statement he had received from afe ! seamen by itself. He objected to the as- 
 worthy recorder of the first municipality, | sociation of this meritorious class of per- 
 il appeared from the 23d of Sepsember I sons, with those found guilty of crimes. 
 
856 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Mr. Humble's suggestion was referred 
 to the committee upon revision. 
 
 Mr. Chinn submitted a project relative 
 to the measures to be adopted for taking 
 the sense of the people upon the new con- 
 stitution, and for submitting it for their ap- 
 proval, and asked that they be referred to 
 a special committee. 
 
 It was referred to a committee of five. 
 The President appointed Messrs. Chinn, 
 Brent, Eustis, Guion and Soule mem- 
 hers of said committee. 
 
 Mr. Lewis then moved that the Conven- 
 tion take up the thirty-fourth section of the 
 general provisions. 
 
 Mr. Eustis proposed to strike out all af- 
 ter the word "privilges" and insert the fol- 
 lowing: "No corporation shall be created 
 in the State in virtue of special laws, un- 
 less for political or municipal purposes ; 
 but the legislature shall provide, by gene- 
 ral laws for the organization of all other 
 corporations, except ttiose for discounting 
 and banking purposes, the creation of 
 which are prohibited." 
 
 Mr. Eustis observed, that a great deal of 
 time was lost in the legislature by passing 
 various acts of incorporation, which were 
 granted as a matter of course. Such for ex- 
 ample as incorporations of societies for 
 charitable purposes, incorporations of acad- 
 emies, literary institutions, churches, &c, 
 &c. These acts were similar in form, and 
 individuals could as well unite under the 
 provisions of a general law before a notary; 
 the legislature would be relieved of a great 
 burthen and our statute books would be 
 free from the senseless jargon and useless 
 repetitions which we find in them. There 
 is no necessity why the legislature should 
 have its attention taken up with these 
 things. It would be infinitely better to 
 make one general law under which such 
 associations or companies may be formed. 
 This was the object he aimed at, and it was 
 one, he presumed, that would meet with 
 general acquiescence. 
 
 Mr. Lewis suggested that it was expe- 
 dient to limit such acts of incorporation to 
 twenty -five years. It might be understood 
 that the corporators under a general law 
 would have the right of perpetual succes- 
 sion. He would propose the following as 
 a proviso: "provided no privilege of incor- 
 poration shall be granted to extend beyond 
 twenty-rive years." 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad would call the atten- 
 tion of the house • to the fact that by the 
 section, all acts of incorporation granted by 
 the State were to expire in 1890, if an ear- 
 lier period were not fixed in their charters. 
 He conceived that this clause would give 
 rise to great confusion and disorder; it 
 would be the year of general breaking 
 down — he could see no possible good that 
 could arise from this provision. There were 
 a number of incorporations to literary in. 
 stitutions, colleges, churches, and for cha- 
 ritable purposes. What possible good can 
 result from bringing them all to a close? 
 There is certainly no necessity why they 
 should all terminate in the same year., 
 Would it not be better to authorise the le- 
 gislature to renew such charters as may 
 expire ? If they all expire in 1890, how 
 is the legislature that meets that year, if in 
 fact it do meet that year, to renew them in 
 a space of sixty days only ? 
 
 Mr. Lewis said he had one or two words 
 to say in reply. It was true the year 1890 
 was assigned as the period when all cor- 
 porations should cease, when there was 
 not an earlier period fixed in their charters. 
 But he did not see that any inconvenience 
 would result as anticipated by the delegate 
 from New Orleans, (Mr Conrad). Where 
 it was deemed proper it could be prescri- 
 bed by the legislature that charters should 
 be renewed, and this would be done in re- 
 ference to the institutions referred to by 
 the gentleman, which were for scientific, 
 religious or benevolent purposes. There 
 would be ample time and opportunity for 
 renewing all such charters. The great ob. 
 ject with him was that no corporation should 
 hereafter exist with an unlimited charter, 
 It was an anomaly in our institutions. They 
 were subject to change and to revision, and 
 it was just and proper that corporations 
 should be submitted to the ordeal of the 
 public will. No man has a higher respect 
 than 1 for charitable institutions ; no man 
 would go further in promoting their bene- 
 ficient purposes; but yet I would not give 
 them a perpetual charter, for fear that in 
 the nature of things, they might pervert 
 and abuse their privileges. I am a mem- 
 ber of a religious sect, and would be glad 
 to see it protected, but no further than is 
 compatible with the public interests, i 
 would have all other sects, and all institu- 
 tions for the melioration of man protected, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 857 
 
 but I would never consent to endow even I Mr. Benjamin said that the proposition 
 them with a perpetual charter, and invest met his reflections on the subject, and he 
 
 them with extraordinary privileges, which 
 may be a charge not only upon ourselves, 
 but upon posterity. 
 
 Air. Conrad of New Orleans, proposed 
 the following amendment: 
 
 "From and after the mouth of January, 
 1890, the legislature shall have power to 
 revoke the charters of all corporations 
 
 though his colleague (Mr. Conrad) had 
 misconceived it. Any one that had any 
 familiarity with the proceedings of our le- 
 gislature, will bear testimony to the fact 
 that a great portion of its time is taken up 
 in passing and amending charters, incorpo- 
 rating individuals who wish to combine a 
 capital under the privileges of a charter. 
 
 whose charters shall not expire at that \ The question then before us resolves itself 
 
 time.' 
 
 into this: Shall we put a stop to thh 
 
 He proposed this amendment to the \ less consumption of time, and waste of 
 clause in the section because it would ob- , money in the legislature? As far as my 
 viate the inconveniences he had suggested; ' experience authorises an opinion. I think 
 and it would be much better than to have ; we should not hesitate in deciding this 
 the charters of all public institutions knock- ; question affirmatively. But, says my col- 
 ed in the head by a general and sweeping | league (Mr. Conrad), you are divesting 
 clause in the constitution. | the legislature of a power that clearly ap- 
 
 Mr. Eustis suggested that Mr. Conrad's pertains to it, to place it elsewhere. I 
 
 think he is wrong in drawing this conclu- 
 sion: for the power, instead of being divest- 
 Mr. Lewis proposed to add to Mr. Con- j ed, remains where it belongs, in the legis- 
 rad's amendment the following: "except , lature; and is more efficacious, inasmuch 
 
 amendment rendered the proviso unneces- 
 sary. 
 
 political and municipal corporations." 
 
 The amendment and sub-amendment 
 were adopted; and the question recurred 
 on the adoption of Mr. Eustis' proposition 
 as a separate section. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, said he was 
 sorry the honorable member (Mr. Eustis) 
 
 as it is less dispersed. The legislature 
 has still the control over the subject. They 
 may pass laws authorizing, in the public 
 interests, the formation of public compan- 
 ies. Under the general laws, individuals 
 may associate and combine their capital, 
 provided they conform to the stipulations of 
 
 had not favored the house with fuller ex- those laws. This mode of legislation is 
 planations as to the utility of his proposi- < not a novelty. We have now general pro- 
 
 tion. I am apprehensive, said Mr. Con- 
 rad, that it confers a dangerous power. 
 The right of creating corporations is one 
 of the privileges of sovereignty; the pro- 
 position divests the legislature of the pow- 
 er, but does not say what othor department 
 of the government shall be vested with it. It 
 often happens that in acts of incorporations 
 
 visions of law 7 which apply to all corpora- 
 tions, and which govern them in the ab- 
 sence of express provisions in their char- 
 ters. But perhaps the operation of the 
 proposition will be more apparent by an 
 illustration. 
 
 Suppose some twenty or thirty citizens 
 desire to undertake the construction of a 
 
 clauses are introduced, apparently harm- rail road, all they would have to do. under 
 less, which are dangerous to the public in- ; a general law, would be to go before a 
 
 terests. Who are so competent to weigh 
 and to consider the privileges conceded as 
 the legislature? We have already taken 
 away the power from the legislature to 
 create certain kinds of corporations, and 
 
 notary and have an act prepared in con- 
 formity to this law. Their company will 
 go into operation^ soon as the act be pass- 
 ed, with ail the privileges and liabilities 
 affixed to a charter. And, should it hap- 
 
 it is proposed to withdraw the power : pen that a piece of land over which the 
 of establishing other corporations from that j road is to traverse, is the property of some 
 body, and to vest it in an authority which j citizen who does not choose to sell it; what 
 is not defined. Unless the gentleman will will be the proper mode to obviate this diffi- 
 culty? They will apply to the legislature, 
 who in their judgment will refuse or decree 
 
 favor me with some better reasons than I 
 have heard him as yet adduce, I shall 'feel 
 
 myself under the necessity of voting against I their special privileges, the expropriation of 
 
 his proposition. 
 
 I the land for purposes of public utility 
 
658 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 the legislature refuses, the corporation will 
 dissolve itself; if not, it will prosecute its 
 undertaking. But in either case the pow- 
 er resides in the legislature. This simpli- 
 fies the process of forming corporations; if 
 special privileges, or exclusive privileges 
 are asked for, the legislature will act upon 
 the demand, while, for general purposes, 
 individuals will have the facility of incor- 
 porating themselves by public act. 
 
 As to the question of utility, in relation 
 to general legislation upon such matters, it 
 cannot be put in doubt. It will relieve the 
 legislature from a great deal of useles la- 
 bor; the routine of specifying the powers 
 and liabilities of a corporation, occupies a 
 great portion of the most precious time of 
 the legislature, and diverts its attention 
 from subjects which peculiarly appertain 
 to it, and which cannot be transferred. 
 We have an example of the waste of time 
 attendant upon the granting of charters 
 by special acts of the legislature. One 
 branch alone ol that body passed six weeks 
 of the last session in discussing the pro- 
 visions of a charter for a mutual insurance 
 company! What a waste of time and 
 money! But I will go still further, and in- 
 sist that general legislation for corporations, 
 is better than special legislation; for it fre- 
 quently happens that in the conflict of de- 
 bate, provisions escape observation, which 
 would not be suffered to pass if the oppor- 
 tunity were given for a dispassionate ex- 
 amination and contrast of the charter in 
 all its parts; but it is hurried through, or it 
 is] procrastinated so long that attention 
 wearies, and many bad provisions go 
 through, under the impression that they are 
 matters of general detail. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, said that these 
 explanations were far from satisfying his 
 mind*. My colleague (Mr. Benjamin) lays 
 it down as a principle that the object of 
 the section is to facilitate the formation of 
 corporations by individuals, subjecting 
 them to the provisions of general laws. It 
 seems to me that the right to incorporate, 
 is a high and important privilege, inasmuch 
 as it confers the power to contract without 
 being individually responsible for the ob- 
 servance of the contract. Far from me, is 
 the design to oppose the creation of corpo- 
 rations under proper restrictions, and with 
 proper guarantees. I contend that the 
 existence of a corporation pre-supposed the 
 
 investment of greater or less privileges, 
 and hence I concluded that it was not ex- 
 pedient to divest the legislature of the right 
 to examine and prescribe the extent and 
 powers of corporations, by separate and 
 distinct legislation, applicable to particular 
 cases. The legislature should determine 
 upon the powers and liabilities of 
 each incorporation. I do not think the 
 gentleman has succeeded in invalidating 
 this position. Of what consequence is it 
 that there are some special privileges be- 
 yond the general law, if there be others 
 that follow it as a matter of course. At 
 best, according to the gentleman's argu- 
 ment, only a portion of the difficulty is re- 
 solved. 
 
 As f©r the consumption of time in the 
 legislature, I do not think that a valid ob- 
 jection, it is not upon mere matters of form 
 in a charter, that discussion is elicited in 
 the legislature; and I have no doubt that in 
 the particular instance referred to by the 
 gentleman, if the legislature were six 
 weeks in discussing some matters connect- 
 ed with the act of incorporation of a mu- 
 tual insurance company, it was not on a 
 matter of form, but rather in reference to 
 privileges which met the disapprobation of 
 a portion of that body, as being too great, 
 or as being suceptible of abuses. Why 
 should the legislature be deprived of the 
 power of examining the provisions of each 
 charter? The more I reflect on the sub- 
 ject, the more am I convinced that the 
 section is not only useless, but dangerous; 
 for I cannot suppose that an association of 
 individuals would take the trouble, and go 
 to the expense of incorporating themselves 
 under a generalj law, without first ob- 
 taining the special privileges which would 
 induce the formation of their company, and 
 without which a charter would be value- 
 less. I am apprehensive, on the other 
 hand, that a great number of irresponsible 
 companies will spring up under a general 
 power to make charters, and which will 
 enjoy the privileges incident thereto, which 
 may be detrimental to the public interests. 
 I would go so far as not even to allow cor- 
 poration privileges to a church, unless 
 through the intervention of the legislature, 
 when it was demonstrated that the privil- 
 eges asked for were necessary, and not re- 
 pugnant to general interests. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 80S 
 
 The previous question was called for 
 and sustained. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. Eustis' 
 proposition, and it prevailed— yeas 38, 
 nays 13. 
 
 Mr. Eustis submitted the following sec- 
 tion: 
 
 "After the year 1847 no corporation in 
 this State shall issue notes or bills, in any 
 form whatever, of a less denomination than 
 ten dollars: after 1848, of a less denomina- 
 tion than twenty dollars ; and after 1849, 
 of a less denomination than fifty dollars. 
 
 *Nb action shall be maintained, after the 
 year 1849, in any court in this State, on 
 any note or bill of exchange payable to 
 bearer, or endorsed in blank, of a less de- 
 nomination than fifty dollars; and it shall 
 be the duty of the legislature to enforce 
 the execution of the preceding provisions, 
 by such penal enactments as may be found 
 necessary. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of. Orleans, suggested 
 doubts as to whether the provisions were 
 constitutional. 
 
 Mr. Eustis said that those who knew 
 him, knew that he should not have intro- 
 duced the section had he not been per- 
 suaded that its provisions were perfectly con- 
 stitutional. It is within the power of the 
 State to legislate upon all matters that are 
 for the interests of society, and which are 
 favorable or repugnant to public morals. 
 What may at one time and one place be 
 permitted without detriment to society, 
 may, at another time and another place, 
 become highly dangerous; and I contend 
 .hat the power which is in the people to 
 change their legislation, according to the 
 exigencies of the times and of different lo- 
 calities, belongs to the legislature which 
 •epresents them and acts through their au- 
 hority. Take, for example, lotteries; there 
 is nothing in itself which is more harmless 
 ihan the simple act of drawing a lottery; 
 churches even have availed themselves of 
 the privilege of lotteries, and have em- 
 ployed it to their profit; and yet for sound 
 reasons of public policy, the legislature 
 passed a law against lotteries in general, 
 which our courts of law applied to a par- 
 ticular case, that appered to be beyond the 
 general law. The circumstances of that 
 mse are these: A speculator bought the 
 mvilege accorded to a religious society in 
 Natchitoches, of drawing lotteries. He 
 
 established himself in the city, and in & 
 short time the corners of the street were 
 placarded with glittering Rills announcing 
 splendid fortunes to be obtained for a very 
 inconsiderable sum, whicli was an irresis- 
 table inducement to- servants and persons 
 without reflection. 
 
 The attorney general having become 
 cognizant of the fact, instituted proceedings 
 against the proprietor of the lottery, to en- 
 force the penalties of the law. That indi- 
 vidual declared that he was guilty of no of- 
 fence, that he had violated no law, and that 
 he had only availed himself of a privilege- 
 granted by the legislature itself; having 
 acquired it for a valuable consideration 
 from a religious corporation in Natchito- 
 ches, to whom it had been granted. He 
 considered himself beyond the power of a 
 prosecution. He came to me and asked 
 my opinion. I delayed giving it to him 
 for a few days. In the meanwhile he in- 
 formed me that he had obtained the opin- 
 ions of several distinguished jurists, among 
 others the opinion of chancellor Kent, that 
 the legislature had no power to inhibit the 
 exercise, by a penal statute, of a privilege 
 which they had granted. I told him that 
 I thought differently. His case came on 
 before the criminal court, and he secured 
 the services of gentlemen holding a promi- 
 nent rank at the bar to defend him, Messrs 
 Grymes and Mazureau were his counsel* 
 The attorney general, at that time, Mr. 
 Roselius, conducted the prosecution.- The 
 case was managed with a great deal of 
 skill on both sides, with all the eloquence 
 and power for which those gentlemen are 
 so conspicuous. What was the decision? 
 That in no ease was the State divested of 
 the penal power — the power to repress 
 whatever it considered noxious or perni- 
 cious to society. I regret, said Mr. Eustis, 
 to have- had occasion to refer to a matter 
 in which I had the remotest participation, 
 but I could not better fortify the views I 
 entertain that by adducing it i n illustration 
 ol my position. I have nothing further to 
 add than that the decision in this case met 
 the general acquiesence of the bar, as it 
 was founded upon just reasons of public 
 policy. 
 
 Mr. Chinn said that the agitation of this 
 subject at this particular moment, just as 
 the Convention were at the end of their 
 labors was a fire-brand thrown at random » 
 
soo 
 
 Bsbates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Why were these sections not proposed be- 
 fore? This sudden and unexpected way of 
 introducing questions of the gravest im- 
 port, at the close of a protracted session 
 was, he might say, inexcusable. He would 
 move for the purpose of testing the sense 
 of this convention, that the section lay on 
 the table indefinitely. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad said he considered 
 the section unconstitutional. He entertain- 
 ed a very high respect for the legal opin- 
 ion of his colleague, but upon this question 
 he differed with him entirely. As for the 
 decision referred to by his colleague, it 
 possessed no great weight. It came from 
 a court more familiar with criminal cases 
 than with civil cases. Suppose a bank 
 were to resist the penal laws interfering 
 with its chartered privileges, would it relin- 
 quish its vested rights without an appeal to 
 the highest tribunal. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said that notwithstanding his 
 aversion to paper money, he thought the 
 section went beyond the necessity. It went 
 too far. It is true that the legislature, 
 strictly speaking may possess the power to 
 impose penalties, yet the exercise of that 
 power would be of doubtful propriety unless 
 the abuse and its effect upon public morals 
 were impending. With due deference for 
 the opinion of the delegate from New Or- 
 leans, (Mr. Eustis,) I can see no necessity 
 for this section, nor do I think that it can 
 possibly do any good. 
 
 Mr.. Ciiinn, said he did not wish what 
 he had said to be misunderstood. He had 
 every respect for the gentleman that had 
 introduced the section, while he heartily 
 disapproved its introduction. As for any 
 partiality towards banks, he could not be 
 accused of it. He had never while a mem- 
 ber of the legislature, voted for a single 
 bank charter. But, nevertheless, he con- 
 sidered that the banks were entitled to the 
 privileges of their charters and could not 
 legally be deprived of them. 
 
 Mr. Eustis observed that to restrict the 
 issue of small circulation was of benefit to 
 the banks themselves, and in conformation 
 of this opinion, he read from the minutes 
 of one of the banks resolutions to that effect. 
 So far from this measure being of the alarm- 
 ing character, which gentlemen in this 
 body supposed, the best conducted bank 
 in this city, in February 1843, attempted to 
 carry it through. He referred to the Me- 
 
 chanics and Traders bank, which, although, 
 in 1837, was in a critical position, subse* 
 quently by proper management has been 
 placed upon the firmest foundation. That 
 bank resolved to issue no notes under fifty 
 dollars. The resolutions were sent to the 
 other banks for their concurrence and they 
 were rejected. Let us examine this ques- 
 tion without prejudice and without passion. 
 If the measure be constitutional,- we should 
 not hesitate to sanction it, for it must be 
 apparent, that in a large commercial city, 
 the city of an empire, w T hich concentrates 
 all the business of the great valley of the 
 Mississippi, and which is destined to con- 
 centrate the trade and wealth of the im- 
 mense region known as Texas, paper mo- 
 ney as a currency will not do. Why do 
 we not consult the experience of other na- 
 tions. In England, there are no notes issu- 
 ed of a less amount than twenty-five pounds. 
 In France no notes are issued under five 
 hundred francs. This is the only means of 
 giving stability to business, of avoiding re- 
 vulsions, and resisting the shock of specu- 
 lations, Which are the natural consequences 
 of a paper currency. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Co Nil ad said, that his opin- 
 ions upon this subject were well known. 
 It was desirable that the circulation of bank 
 notes should be raised. This was the 
 opinion he entertained, and he conceived 
 that when the banks forfeited their char- 
 ters, it was the proper time to make it one 
 of the conditions of their revival. The op- 
 portunity had passed by unimproved, not- 
 withstanding the measure w&s submitted 
 and urged upon the legislature. As chair- 
 man of a committee of the house of repre- 
 sentatives, I recommended it. The legis- 
 lature then had a right to impose this 
 restriction. But they did not do it, and the 
 circumstances are changed. The banks 
 are fulfilling the conditions of their charters, 
 and they have a right to all the privileges 
 which those charters confer. The legisla- 
 ture cannot impair the obligations of the 
 contract. My colleague (Mr. Eustis) how- 
 ever, avoids this difficulty, by drawing a 
 distinction between' civil privileges and 
 penal statutes. His argument amounts to 
 this : The banks under their charters have 
 the right to issue notes of five dollars. ¥ou 
 cannot withdraw the right, but you may 
 prevent its exercise. The banks may if 
 they dare, issue those notes, but if they do, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 661 
 
 you will punish their presidents, cashiers 
 and directors by a penal statute. You will 
 hang them or send them to the peni- 
 tentiary. I do not know how such a 
 doctrine can be sustained by the consti- 
 tution. This is the first time I have ever 
 heard that an obligation may be violated 
 with impunity by. a penal statute* If 
 those that sustain this doctrine be right, 
 then it reminds one of the jugdment pro- 
 nounced in favor of Shylockc He is told 
 that he is entitled under his contract to his 
 pound of flesh, but if he sheds, in taking it, 
 one drop of christian blood, his life must 
 pay the forfeit. So in the present instance, 
 the banks are told that they have a right 
 to issue small notes, but if you do it, the 
 penalty is death. If this be not a violation 
 of the constitution of the United States, it 
 is a violation of good faith, which is much 
 more imperative. We have said, that no 
 banking institution shall for the future be 
 chartered. The charters of those banks 
 that are in existence are drawing to a 
 j close, and the number of banks has been 
 considerably diminished. If the section 
 be constitutional, which I very much ques- 
 tion, I put it to the sober sense of the Con- 
 vention, whether it be not clearly indefen- 
 sible in principle ? 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said he had voted to de- 
 prive the legislature of the power to grant 
 special charters, unless for political or mu- 
 nicipal purposes, which evidently showed 
 that the lessons of the past had not been 
 lost upon him. But, much as he felt dis- 
 posed to coincide with the majority in 
 putting a stop to the creation of banking 
 corporations by the legislature, he could 
 not sustain the* proposition offered by his 
 colleague (Mr. Eustis.) In the first place, 
 he doubted much whether the measure was 
 constitutional, notwithstanding the opinion 
 of his colleague: for admitting that the le- 
 gislature could not be deprived of the power 
 to inflict penalties, and to inhibit the en- 
 i'.yment of a privilege conceded by the 
 legislature itself, but which had degene- 
 rated into an abuse pernicious and demor- 
 alizing to society. Still, it would remain 
 to be shown, that there was any thing 
 criminal in issuing notes of five dollars in 
 place of those of twenty or fifty dollars. 
 The argument proved too much, if it proved 
 any thing. 
 
 But, difficult as it might be to determine 
 109 
 
 the question satisfactorily in the abstract, 
 it is of easy solution in reference to the 
 point at issue. Among other dispositions" 
 of the laws of 1843, which was to regulate 
 the position of the banks towards the State, 
 there was one prohibiting the emission of 
 small notes. The banks did not conform 
 to that disposition, and their refusal en- 
 tailed a heavy loss to the State. One of 
 the conditions upon which these charters 
 were revived, were violated, and it would 
 have been in the power of the succeeding 
 legislature to have passed a prohibitory 
 clause, similar to the one now proposed to' 
 be incorporated into the constitution. The 
 legislature did not, however, deem it expe- 
 dient. The banks declared that this pro- 
 hibition would be most burdensome, and 
 that it would be impossible for them to ful- 
 fill the other conditions if this one were 
 insisted upon. The legislature considered 
 their objections to be valid, and authorized 
 the emission of small notes. The banks" 
 have since only availed themselves of the 
 prviilege to facilitate the transaction of their 
 business, and the State cannot violate her 
 engagements towards them without releas- 
 ing them from their obligations; for it is 
 an immutable principle of jurisprudence, 
 that no faith is due to him who violates his 
 faith. 
 
 Moreover, what is the present position 
 of the banks. There are five banks only 
 that have survived the revulsion of 1337. 
 The charters of two of these expire in twc~ 
 or three years, and none of the remaining 
 charters extend to a period, I believe, be- 
 yond twenty years. Would it then be 
 proper, it it were indeed constitutional, to 
 ordain so rigorous a measure, which can 
 at best have but a partial and exclusive 
 operation? The house will not fail to per- 
 ceive that it is exceedingly unjust and in- 
 opportune; it has an appearance even of 
 bad faith, and we may well pause and re- 
 flect whether it would be becoming in so 
 august a body as this, representing the 
 sovereignty and justice of the State, to ex^ 
 ceed its legitimate powers and to annul a 
 solemn contract entered into on the part of 
 the State with those institutions ? 
 
 Mr. Kexxer said there was not a mem* 
 ber upon this floor more disposed to con- 
 fine the banks within their proper sphere, 
 and to preclude the recurrence of those 
 calamities from which the community have 
 
802 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 so severely suffered, (the result of their 
 mismanagement) than he, but he doubted 
 much whether the Convention were au- 
 thorized .to introduce such a clause in the 
 constitution. He disclaimed any thing like 
 a design to consult the wishes of the banks. 
 He was one of the last men to let their 
 wishes have any weight, where the public 
 interests were concerned; he would disre- 
 gard even the opinion of the "ablest board 
 of directors and the ablest bank president," 
 to employ the panegyric of the honorable 
 delegate from New Orleans (Mr. Eustis) 
 in such matters. He had no intention him- 
 self to controvert the position of the dele- 
 gate, backed as it was by such overwhelm- 
 ing authority. But, he would bring this 
 distinguished financier and his " ablest 
 board of bank directors," to contradict it 
 themselves. He disliked to allude to him- 
 self, but he had the same apology to offer 
 as the honorable delegate. It was neces- 
 sary to illustrate his position. The hon- 
 orable delegate had contended that it was 
 for the interests of the banks themselves 
 that their small circulation should be with- 
 drawn, and had attempted to sustain his 
 position by reference to the proceedings 
 had by the Mechanics and Traders bank. 
 Now let us see what this authority is 
 worth! During the last session of the le- 
 gislature an act was introduced conceding 
 certain privileges to the banks, under cer- 
 tain conditions, deemed to be advantages 
 to th& State. I thought this a favorable 
 moment (said Mr. Kenner) to bring about, 
 what I considered, a- very desirable reform. 
 The State was about to make a contract 
 with the banks, which was to be binding 
 upon their acceptance of it, and I accord- 
 ingly introduced a clause in the act similar 
 to the one now before the Convention. I 
 succeeded in passing it after some discus- 
 sion. It was to have been presumed, that 
 at least, it would have met the approbation 
 of the very bank that had approbated as a 
 matter of policy, the withdrawal of the small 
 note circulation, and that she would not 
 have made it an objection to accepting the 
 conditions of the act, which in other re- 
 spects was favorable to her. This reasona- 
 ble expectation, however, was not realized. 
 The cashier of this very institution, Mr. 
 Samuel C. Bell, who has the advantage of 
 being associated in its management, "with 
 the ablest bank president and ablest board 
 
 of directors," waited upon me and attempt- 
 ed to convince me that it was indispensable 
 that this bank should have the facility of 
 issuing a small circulation, and that if the 
 clause I had introduced were insisted upon 
 it would militate against the acceptance of 
 the act by the bank. I leave it now to the 
 Convention to decide, what the authority 
 of "the ablest bank president and ablest 
 board of directors" upon this matter, is 
 worth ? But independent of that, is it not 
 evident that if the banks, who are not slow 
 to understand their own interests, conceived 
 it to be to their interest to draw in their 
 small notes, they would do so. There is 
 nothing to prevent it but their own will. 
 As to the expediency of the prohibition for 
 the public interest, 1 am in favor of it, pro- 
 vided it can be done in a proper manner, 
 as I proposed in the act to which I have 
 had reference and which was to have be- 
 come binding only upon its acceptance by 
 the banks. But, I cannot give my assent 
 to any proposition which violates in the 
 constitution, either directly or indirectly, 
 the inviolability of contracts. Besides, we 
 have decreed that there shall be no more 
 bank charters, and the day is not far dis- 
 tant when we shall be relieved from those 
 institutions altogether. There is therefore 
 not even the plea of necessity for violating 
 a contract, to cure at best but a partial 
 evil, and assuming to ourselves, at any 
 rate, very doubtful powers. 
 The previous question was called for and 
 sustained. 
 
 The question recurred on Mr. Chinn's 
 motion to lay Mr. Eustis' proposition in- 
 definitely on the table, and the yeas and 
 nays were called for — 37 yeas; 15 nays. 
 
 Mr. Roman called up the following ad- 
 ditional section: 
 
 " The legislature shall not in any man- 
 ner create any debt or debts, liability or 
 liabilities, which shall singly, or in the ag- 
 gregate with any previous debts or liabili- 
 ties, exceed the sum of one hundred thou- 
 sand dollars, (except in cases of war, to 
 repel invasion and suppress insurrection,) 
 unless the same be authorized by a law, for 
 some single object or work, to be distinctly 
 specified therein, which law shall provide 
 ways and means, by taxation, for the pay- 
 ment of running interest during the whole 
 time for which said debt shall be contract- 
 ed, and for the full and punctual discharge 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 at maturity of the capital borrowed; and 
 said law shall not be repealable until the 
 principal and interests thereon shall be 
 paid and full)- discharged, and shall not be 
 put into execution until after its re-enact- 
 ment by the first legislature returned by a 
 general election after its passage." 
 
 Mr. Brext moved that the section be 
 laid indefinitely on the table. 
 
 Mr. Roman said that it was true the leg- 
 islature had abused the power of borrow- 
 ing, and had involved the State. But be- 
 cause the legislature had forgotten its duty 
 so far, is that a reason why we should go 
 to the other extreme? Is it not quite pos- 
 sible that notwithstanding every disposi- 
 tion on the part of the legislature to avoid 
 contracting debts, they may find themseves 
 under the necessity of borrowing to meet 
 contingencies which may arise; and what 
 will be -the position of the State, if you 
 deprive the legislature in the most absolute 
 manner of any power to fulfill the solemn 
 engagements of the State? There is some- 
 thing more than mere improvidence in de- 
 priving a government of any power to 
 meet the exigencies of the people, or the 
 necessities of the State, occasioned by un- 
 expected calamities. Restrain the power 
 — that may be an act of prudence; but do 
 not suppress it! — that would be an act of 
 folly! Ordain that no debt shall be con- 
 tracted, unless the means for its payment 
 be first provided by taxation. You will 
 then impose a responsibility upon the leg- 
 islature and arouse the attention of the j 
 people, which will be a salutary and effi- 
 cient check against prodigality and extrav- 
 agance. It will be recollected by some in 
 this hall, that I frequently recommended 
 to the legislature to follow this plan in 
 practice, and it is quite natural that, being 
 persuaded from my own experience of its 
 necessity, I should desire to see it settled 
 as a fundamental principle in the constitu- 
 tion. Whoever will read attentively the 
 section I have had the honor to present, 
 will see that no loan can be effected unless 
 the law authorizing it shall be re-enacted 
 by the first legislature returned bv a gener- 
 al election after its passage. With such a 
 restriction, all possible danger is preclu- 
 ded. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. Brent's 
 motion and it was lost— yeas 24; navs 26. 
 Mr. Waddtll then moved that the sec- 
 
 tion be printed, and that it be made the or- 
 der of the day for Monday next; which 
 motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Chixx then moved that the Conven- 
 tion take up the following sections offered 
 by him, and his motion prevailed : 
 
 Sec. — . Any person who shall, after 
 the adoption of this constitution, fight a 
 duel with deadly weapons, or send or re- 
 ceive a challenge to fight a duel with deadly 
 weapons, either within the State or out of 
 it, or who shall act as a second, or aid and 
 assist in any manner those thus offending, 
 shall be deprived of holding any office of 
 trust or profit under this constitution. 
 
 Sec. — . "I, (A. B.) do solemnly swear 
 (or affirm) that I will faithfully and imparti- 
 ally discharge and perform all the duties in- 
 
 currfbent on me as =, according to 
 
 the best of my abilities and understanding, 
 agreeably to the rules and regulations of 
 the constitution and laws of this State; 
 and I do furthersolemnly swear (or affirm) 
 that since the adoption of this constitution 
 I have not fought a duel with deadly wea- 
 pons, within this State nor out of it, nor 
 have I sent a challenge to fight a duel with 
 deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second 
 in carrying a challenge, or aided, advised, 
 or assisted any person thus offending — So 
 help me God. 
 
 Mr. McRae moved to amend the first 
 section by adding after the word, "consti- 
 tution," in the last line, the following: 
 
 "And shall be debarred of the privilege 
 of suffrage." This would make the penalty 
 more general; for there, were many men 
 who, from their reckless habits, never ex- 
 pected to hold office; but who would not 
 like to be deprived of the privilege of suf- 
 frage, and this latter penalty would apply 
 to them. 
 
 Mr. McRae's amendment was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said he was afraid the Con- 
 vention was going too far. He was ready 
 to do every thing that could be properlv 
 done to put down the pernicious practice 
 of duelling. He was fearful, however, 
 that this clause would in effect be imprac- 
 ticable. It might create a great deal of 
 wrangling and disputation at the polls- 
 some charging others with the offence of 
 duelling, and others denying it. He hoped 
 that the section would be reconsidered. It 
 had passed apparently by default. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for on 
 
804 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 the motion to reconsider — 21 yeas — 29 
 nays. 
 
 Mr. Lewis then called for the adoption 
 of the section. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said he was fearful the 
 Convention were acting upon this matter 
 with too much precipitancy. The exist- 
 ence of duelling has invariably excited the 
 profound attention of civilized society, by 
 whom it is acknowledged as an evil, and 
 various attempts have been made to eradi- 
 cate it. Nothing is more desirable than 
 legislation which can effect that purpose 
 but the great difficulty is to apply suitable 
 legislation; and it is evident from our own 
 experience that if it be pushed to an ex- 
 tremity, and be not tempered with moder- 
 ation and with the prejudices of society, 
 it will prove utterly impotent and ineffec- 
 tual. It is better to commit this difficult 
 subject to the legislature, to be under their 
 control, and to be disposed of according to 
 the feelings and exigencies of the times, 
 and not for us to attempt to eradicate it by 
 an irrevocable provision, which cannot, af- 
 ter all, have any effect without the force of 
 public opinion. 
 
 He would propose the following as a 
 substitute: 
 
 " The legislature shall have power to 
 pass laws for the suppression of duelling." 
 
 Mr. Chinn said there certainly was no 
 haste or precipitation exhibited in relation 
 to this subject. lie had brought it to the 
 attention of the Convention more than two 
 months ago, and a full and free investiga- 
 had been had. As for the substitute, it 
 amounted to nothing. It would not be ef- 
 fectual. He hoped the question would be 
 taken upon the adoption of his section, and 
 to arrest useless debate, hp would call for 
 the previous question. 
 
 The call for the previous question was 
 sustained, and the question was put on Mr. 
 Benjamin's substitute. 
 Mr. Guion proposed to amend the substi- 
 tute by making it imperitive upon the leg- 
 islature to pass laws for the suppression of 
 duelling. 
 
 The sub-amendment was rejected, and 
 the question recurring on Mr. Benjamin's 
 amendment, it was lost — yeas 13; nays 35. 
 
 Mr. C. M, Conead said that he pre- 
 sumed it was not designed to apply the 
 penalties to persons who had fought duels 
 in other States, since the adoption of the 
 
 constitution, but who may subsequently 
 remove into Louisiana. He would there- 
 fore, to prevent that construction, propose 
 the following amendment: 
 
 To strike out the words "any person," 
 and substitute "any citizen of the State." 
 The amendment prevailed. 
 Mr. Labauve moved to insert before 
 the words "aid and assist," the word 
 "knowingly." He explained that the ab- 
 sence of this word might give rise to a 
 great deal of trouble to individuals. One 
 may "assist and aid" by lending a horse 
 or a pair of pistols to a friend, without be. 
 ing aware of the uses to which these things 
 may be put. 
 
 His amendment was adopted. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad moved to qualify 
 the clause still further, so that it would 
 read "aid and assist by his presence.". 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for on 
 Mr. Conrad's amendment — yeas 10 — ■ 
 nays 37. 
 
 Mr. Porter then moved to strike out 
 the words "or out of the State.'' 
 His motion was lost. 
 The question was finally taken on the 
 adoption of the section as amended. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for — 
 yeas 35; nays 12. 
 
 Whereupon the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Saturday, May^3, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Clarke opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies begged leave to make a 
 few observations in relation to matter pe 
 sonal to himself. The reporter of t 1 
 Jeffersonian Republican had represent 
 him, in his report of the proceedings 
 as being opposed to the exercise of suffrage 
 on the part of the officers of the navy and 
 army of the United States. This was not 
 so, as was well known to every member of 
 this body, and would appear from the official 
 reports of the proceedings. He called at- 
 tention to the occurrence with the view 
 of correcting the misrepresentation, and re- 
 quested the reporters of the Convention to 
 notice this explanation in their reports. 
 
 Mr. Lewis called up his motion for the 
 reconsideration of the section presented by 
 Mr. Marigny, requiring the secretary oi 
 the senate, and clerk of the house of repre= 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 865 
 
 sentatives to be possessed of the French as 
 well as the English languages. 
 
 The motion for reconsideration being be- 
 fore the convention, 
 
 Mr. Lewis said that he was not anima- 
 ted by anything like a wish to circumscribe 
 the use of the French language. It was in- 
 different to him whether the English or 
 French language was spoken in debate. 
 He could understand both and speak both. 
 What he objected to was the unconditional 
 and imperative requirement upon the legis- 
 lature that they must elect no one to be 
 their clerk or secretary who was not famil- 
 liar with both languages. He doubted not 
 the legislature would do it without the re- 
 quirement. It was indispensable that these 
 officers should possess both languages, and 
 as long as the necessity existed, the very 
 necessity was the best guarantee that it 
 would be done. But this is a matter where 
 
 the leg 
 
 slature should have a discretionarv 
 
 power. They should not be trammelled, 
 and irrevocably bound to conform to a pro- 
 vision which depended upon a necessity, 
 that may not hereafter exist. He was not 
 
 disposed to flatter this or that particular and 
 
 were unknown. He trusted his motives 
 would not be misunderstood. It was un- 
 necessary for us to attempt to legislate upon 
 accidents. If we attempt this, we might 
 as well establish ourselves into a perpetual 
 legislature. These w r ere his grounds of 
 objection to the first clause. In reference 
 to the second clause, all he had to say was 
 this, that it was superfluous. A person had 
 the right to address the body of which he 
 was a member, in the language with which 
 he was most familiar, but he might encoun- 
 ter the risk of not being understood, if the 
 language was not one in general vogue. 
 That, however, was an inconvenience 
 which no legislature could prevent. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for on 
 Mr. Lewis' motion to reconsider* 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, B riant, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Chinn, Dunn, Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, 
 Lewis, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Ratliff, Read, Scott of 
 Madison, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Waddill, Wadsworth and Wed- 
 erstrandt voted in the affirmative — 28 yeas; 
 
 population. He considered that there was 
 a perfect equality between our populations 
 whether their mother tongue was French or 
 English, and they were entitled to equal 
 privileges. He had been matured among 
 the ancient population— no man respected 
 or esteemed that population more than he, 
 nor no one would be more ready to defend 
 their rights were they assailed. But he did 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Claiborne, Culbertson,Co- 
 villion, Du Bouchel, Derbes, Eustis, King, 
 Ledoux, Legendre, Marigny, Mazureau, 
 Pugh, Roman, Scott of Baton Rouge, Voor- 
 hies, Winchester and Winder voted in the 
 negative — 20 nays. 
 
 Mr. Marigny said he had not the inten- 
 tion, as was intimated rather indecorously 
 the other day, to propose any measure re- 
 
 not think such a provision an asseveration of pugnant to good sense; on the contrary, he 
 their rights, or that it could force the French ; had never offered a suggestion or made a 
 language to be employed, if in the nature single remark in this body that was not to 
 
 things, it was destined to fall into disuse 
 which for one he would deplore. Neither 
 did he think there was danger of such a 
 result as apprehended by the mover of the 
 section, (Mr. Marigny.) Whether there 
 was real danger, however, or not, one thing 
 was very certain that this section could ac- 
 complish nothing, while it was unsuscepti- 
 ble of defence upon principle. His admi- 
 ration for the population that spake the 
 French as their mother tongue, was based 
 upon an intimate knowledge of their char- 
 acter. He remembered the time in Lou- 
 isiana of the ancient virtue, when a man's 
 word was his bond, and good faith needed 
 not the spur of the law to be preserved 
 nviolable, when bills, bonds and notes 
 
 sustain useful and proper principles. A spir- 
 it of irritation has been got up agairi(pthe 
 
 clause I had the honor of introducing and 
 which was adopted by this Convention, and 
 a determination to have it expunged from 
 the constitution by one means or another. 
 I am therefore reluctantly forced into this 
 contest. I accept the perilous task of de- 
 fending the rights of that population whose 
 privileges it is sought covertly to invade 
 and destroy at the moment they are ad- 
 dressed in terms of flattering adulation. 
 
 We have been asked with a great degree 
 of satisfaction as if it were unanswerable, 
 why it is that no such provision is found 
 in the constitution of 1812 ? I answer rea- 
 dily, for a simple and obvious reason: The 
 
866 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Florida parishes were not at that time a 
 part of the State; and three fourths of the 
 then population of Louisiana proper, were 
 French naturalized citizens, or descendents 
 of French; and there was no occasion, no 
 necessity for any provision to ensure the 
 retention of the French language in our 
 deliberative bodies. But things have 
 materially changed since. Within the last 
 thirty-three years that have followed the 
 adoption of the old constitution, the Anglo- 
 Saxon race have invaded every thing. They 
 have the supremacy in both houses of the 
 legislature, as they have in this body; 
 where out of seventy. seven members there 
 are but twenty-one of french origin. It is 
 under these circumstances that a persever- 
 ing effort has been made (as has been 
 shown by the zeal of the delegate from St. 
 Landry, Mr. Lewis) to deny this simple 
 act of justice and to abolish the language 
 of the ancient population to favor the lan- 
 guage of the Briton. Let none be decei- 
 ved by the covert character of the attack. 
 This hostility to the French language is 
 stimulated by the design to abrogate our 
 civil system of law. And is it to be expec- 
 ted, that I, one of the representatives of that 
 population which has now become the wea- 
 kest, will not call up all my energies to de- 
 fend and to protect their rights from im- 
 pending ruin. 
 
 But we are told with apparently a great 
 deal of magnanimity, of what consequence 
 is it, whether one language or another be 
 spoken in the legislature. This is a mere 
 subterfuge. There never has been in Lou- 
 isiana but two political languages, the 
 English language and the French language. 
 Your laws, your codes, your legislative 
 recites, your ordinances all establish the 
 facU Look at the 39th article of the gen- 
 eral provisions which has passed this body. 
 It prescribes that the laws shall be pro- 
 mulgated in French as well as in English. 
 How, under this article, can the secretary 
 of the senate and the clerk of the house of 
 representatives ascertain whether the law 
 is duly fulfilled, unless they understand 
 both languages ? I know that the An- 
 glo-Saxon race are the most numerous, and 
 therefore the strongest. We are yet to 
 learn whether they .will abuse the posses- 
 sion of numerical force to overwhelm the 
 Franco - American population. Whether 
 they will deny them equal privileges. 
 
 Count the relative strength of both popula- ' 
 tions in this Convention. One has fifty- 
 six votes, the other but twenty-one. Why 
 is this so? Because the ancient population 
 has not been influenced by considerations 
 of origin. But can you abuse the confi- 
 dence they have reposed in your sense of 
 justice? Ah! if the descendants of that 
 ancient stock of Creoles had have been 
 animated by the energy which I feel, we 
 would not now be in a situation to appre- 
 hend the result of a vote, upon which de- 
 pends the maintenance of our language. 
 We would not be here supplicating that 
 as a favor which belongs to us as a right, 
 of which you cannot deprive us without a 
 violation of the most sacred principles of 
 justice. We could have become Ameri- 
 cans without you, for we have the moral 
 and political virtues that characterize the 
 true republican, and it depended alone upon 
 ourselves to restrain you from any superi- 
 ority. Beware of abusing the power which 
 we have supinely suffered to pass from our 
 hands into yours. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth said he had voted for 
 the proposition of the delegate from New 
 Orleans (Mr. Marigny) because he thought 
 it a matter of no consequence at the mo- 
 ment, but upon further reflection he would 
 suggest whether it was not totally unneces- 
 sary, and whether it ought to be found in 
 the constitution? Why lay this restriction 
 upon the legislature? They are the proper 
 judges of the qualifications of their officers. 
 And if we go on to prescribe and say that 
 these officers shall be versed in French as 
 well as in English, w 7 hy not say that they 
 shall understand Spanish? It is true that 
 Louisiana was formerly a French colony, 
 but it has been likewise a Spanish colony. 
 The Spanish language was once the legal 
 language, just as much as the French lan* 
 guage. There are remnants of that popu* 
 lation and of their descendants still in the 
 State, and the Spanish language may be 
 most familiar to them. They may likewise 
 be elected to the legislature, as well as 
 those whose maternal tongue is French, 
 and if you prescribe as an irrevocable 
 qualification that the secretary of the 
 senate and clerk of the house shall under* 
 stand French, why not say they shall be 
 conversant in the Spanish ? I have cer- 
 tainly no design to do any thing calculated 
 to drive the French language out of use, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 S6T 
 
 nut we have a national language, and that 
 language must necessarily predominate. It 
 will be the language of the rising genera- 
 tion of French descent. The gentleman 
 from New Orleans (Mr. Marigny) speaks 
 as if he were the representative of a dis- 
 tinct class. JVhat does he mean 1 Does 
 he mean to intimate that there is a distinct 
 population in Louisiana, represented in 
 this Convention, who are not Americans 1 
 I know of no such distinctions; I admit of 
 none, nor do I admit any superiority based 
 upon a distinction of what he calls the An- 
 glo-Saxon race and the Franco-American 
 race. We are all Americans, we all be- 
 long to the same country, whether we have 
 a greater infusion of one kind of European 
 blood than another. I have no greater re- 
 spect for Anglo-Saxons than for other 
 European races. In fact, I doubt much 
 the accuracy of this term applied Lo any 
 population in this country. My idea is 
 that the ancestors of that population which 
 ;are called Anglo-Saxons, were Normans; 
 that they came from Normandy, and that 
 the true Anglo-Saxons disappeared among 
 their conquerors. The Anglo-Saxons, at 
 any rate, were a defeated people. I may 
 have Anglo-Saxon blood, and I may have 
 Norman blood, but if I have any of the for- 
 mer I should not boast of it ! The Saxons 
 were whipped, and I should not be proud 
 of being descended from them. We are 
 so mixed up that it would be difficult to as- 
 certain what particular kind of blood pre- 
 dominates. All these illusions to particu- 
 lar races is a matter of mere humbug. 
 
 As to the adoption of the section, I 
 would suggest that it can have no useful 
 result. The legislature will be guided in 
 this matter by the existing necessity. If 
 it be necessary, why they would adopt the 
 principle of the section, and it would be 
 superogatory. If, on the other hand, it 
 should become unnecessary, why require 
 it? I do not understand it as essential for 
 the protection of any portion of our popula- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Chins said he was in favor of that 
 portion of the section which gave to each 
 member the right of addressing the legis- 
 lature in French, if he judged proper, for 
 he considered it a vested right by the ac- 
 quisition of Louisiana, a right of which we 
 cannot deprive the ancient population. 
 Bat as regards the clause in reference to 
 
 the secretary of the senate and clerk of the 
 house of representatives, he felt bound to 
 say that he could not vote for a restriction 
 in the constitution, which incapacitates the 
 legislature from electing any but those 
 versed in the French language to those 
 offices, and he would base his objections to 
 I it upon the very urguments of the honorable 
 ! mover, intended to show us that this clause 
 is necessary. That delegate has told us 
 that at the adoption of the old constitution 
 I three-fourths of the citizens of Louisiana 
 were of French origin, but that since 
 things have so far changed, that in this 
 body, out of seventy-seven delegates, twen- 
 ty-one alone are of French origin. 
 
 If this diminution should continue in 
 the same proportion, it is evident that the 
 day is not very distant when the only 
 language spoken will be the language in 
 which the constitution of the United States 
 is written. The only thing that can be 
 desired is that so long as the necessity 
 may exist for it, the officers of both houses 
 should be conversant with both languages. 
 The best guarantee to ensure the obser- 
 vance of this will be the necessity itself, 
 and past experience has fully demonstrated 
 that no disposition exists to embarrass the 
 transaction of pbblic business, by choosing 
 officers who do not understand the French 
 language. 
 
 Mr. Brent called for the division of the 
 question. 
 
 Mr. Eustis said there were two popu- 
 lations represented in the Convention, to- 
 w r it: the anglo-American population and the 
 descendants of the French, who were the 
 first settlers of Louisiana. The former, 
 by their enterprise, activity and intelligence, 
 were destined to have ascendency over the 
 latter. It is in vain to deny it. It is as 
 certain that that the American population 
 will have the ascendency as that the earth 
 is illuminated by the rays of the sun. The 
 other population are already in a small mi- 
 nority; one of their representatives has told 
 you what] He hasjappealed to your magna- 
 nimity. He has asked that the secretary 
 of your senate and the clerk of your house 
 of representatives shall understand the 
 French language, because he conceives it 
 to be a right guaranteed to the ancient 
 population. He tells you that he knows 
 that the population he represents are to be 
 overrun; you have the power numerically. 
 
868 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 but are king numbers to prevail? I do not 
 believe, no one believes, that numbers go- 
 vern the world. It is intellect that governs 
 the world. Give the sons of that popula- 
 tion the necessary stimulant, let the neces- 
 sity once exist for them to exert their facul- 
 ties, establish an university, where the 
 lawyer, the architect, the man of science 
 may be found, and my life upon it that race 
 will maintain itself. Its blood has already 
 told in the annals of your country. It has 
 produced your Bayards, your Pettygrews, 
 your Guions, your Legares, and many of 
 the most accomplished and distinguished 
 statesmen of theage. The same causes ope- 
 rating, will produce men equally as remark- 
 able. All that this population ask of you, 
 through their delegation is some public guar- 
 antee; something in the constitution merely- 
 directory that they be heard in the councils 
 of your State. But, gentlemen say: this 
 is unnecessary to secure them that right. 
 If it were unnecessary, they would not ask 
 it. It is but a small boon. Give them 
 only an equal opportunity with the anglo- 
 American race, and you will find that their 
 French blood will tell. I merely wish to 
 submit these views, why the motion of the 
 gentleman from St. Landry (Mr. Lewis) 
 ought not to prevail. If the Convention 
 think that the section should be erased, 
 so be it; I shall vote against it. We should 
 do nothing to which objection will be made, 
 for the constitution will require all its force 
 to be adopted, and I should regret to see 
 even prejudices enlisted against it. 
 
 Mr. Wadswosth said that no attack 
 had been made on the French population, 
 nothing had been said against that popula- 
 tion, and no necessity existed for a labored 
 defence. The idea that the right to speak 
 French had been put in controversy, was 
 preposterous. Who denied that right? 
 The only reason why we find the English 
 spoken in preference in the legislature and 
 in this body, is because it is more gener- 
 ally understood, and it is presumed that 
 what is said in English will have greater 
 effect, because it is more generally under- 
 stood. No one ever objected in the legis- 
 lature to a gentleman speaking in French, 
 although English may be his maternal 
 tongue. One of the delegates from New 
 Orleans (Mr. Soule) invariably addresses 
 this body in English, he does so because 
 he is sufficiently familiar with the English I 
 
 to speak fluently, and because a majority 
 of this body do not understand French.' 
 Why should we make this a question of 
 races? I cannot so consider it. I am sent 
 here by a constituency, the majority of 
 whom are descended from the French, and 
 I certainly would be the last one to de- 
 prive them of any right or privilege of 
 which they have heretofore been in the 
 enjoyment. I make no distinction. It is 
 immaterial to me whether the ancestors of 
 a man were Normans or Anglo-Saxons; it 
 may answer well enough to get up a dis- 
 cussion for home consumption; a talk for 
 bunkum, but surely, in the present instance, 
 there are no grounds to build the assump- 
 tion that it is designed to deprive a portion 
 of our common constituents of any of their 
 rights and privileges. As for talking of a 
 boon, a favor to the creole population, from 
 what has been denominated the Anglo- 
 American part of this house, I repudiate 
 and deny that such is the fact. The creole 
 population have too much pride to ask for 
 boons and favors. They know their rights 
 and *Vvill maintain them, without this un- 
 necessary and useless provision. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said he had no objection to 
 the latter clause of the section. He would 
 move to lay the first part of the section in* 
 definitely on the table. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, said he 
 hoped this motion would prevail. He re- 
 presented a constituency among whom 
 there were a smaller number speakings 
 English than perhaps in any other parish. 
 Few spoke any other language than 
 French, and among those a large propor- 
 tion spoke Spanish. He would be one of 
 the last to restrict his constituents in the 
 exercise of any of their rights and privil- 
 eges; but he considered the section as en- 
 tirely useless. It was only prescribing that 
 which existed as a natural right, and which 
 was above the necessity of a constitutional 
 provision. The right was inherent. It 
 was not strengthened by any such decla- 
 ration. He was unwilling to apply a 
 strong term, but he could not refrain from 
 designating as a perfect absurdity, the 
 clause which declared that each member 
 of the legislature should have the right of 
 addressing that body in French. Our sys- 
 tem of government would be a mere farce 
 if our legislative bodies are to put in doubt 
 l the inalienable privileges of the citizens, 
 
Debates in the Gonvention of Louisiana. 
 
 669 
 
 for the purpose of decreeing them. For 
 one, I am unwilling that this section should 
 appear in the constitution. 
 
 Mr. Brent said he would vote in favor | 
 of tne second clause, but he was averse to 
 the first. 
 
 Mr. Waddill was opposed to the sec- 
 tion because he considered it altogether 
 unnecessary: A representative to the le- 
 gislature had a right to speak in any living 
 language — -it was an inherent right, 
 
 Mr. Marigny said he admired the tac- 
 tics of the gentlemen who were so solici- 
 tous to effect their purpose, of abolishing 
 the French language. They professed to 
 be perfectly indifferent as to languages. 
 I would appeal to the honorable delegate 
 from Opelousas, Mr. Thomas H. Lewis, 
 who has placed himself at the head of this 
 new crusade against the ancient population, 
 does he believe that it has ever entered into 
 the imagination of any one to speak 
 Choctaw or Dutch in our legislative as- 
 semblies? And does he not krfbw thai the 
 French is the only language spoken, except 
 the English? 
 
 It is impossible for these gentlemen to 
 conceal their true designs. If you have 
 resolved to overthrow the last remnant of 
 Creole nationality, have at least the cour- 
 age explicitly to avow it.. Your evasions 
 expose you; for I would ask you, of what 
 is the naked privilege of speaking the 
 French, if the secretary be unable to 
 translate what has been said, for the infor- 
 mation of such members as understand the 
 English language only? You 'are strong, 
 because I am alone to struggle against you; 
 but if there were twenty delegates in this 
 body like myself, you would not have un- 
 dertaken this task, and you would have 
 learned in a louder voice that any encroach- 
 ments upon the privileges of a large and 
 respectable portion of the population of 
 this State, would not be tolerated. 
 
 Mr. Winder said there was a great deal 
 of discussion, as he conceived to very little 
 purpose. There were but two languages 
 spoken in our deliberative assemblies, the 
 English and the French. The section goes 
 no farther than to say that the secretary of 
 the senate and clerk of the house of re- 
 presentatives shall understand both lan- 
 guages, and that a member may speak in 
 cither. It is admitted by those opposed to 
 the section that this will exist independent 
 110 
 
 | of the section — that it is an inherent right, 
 j Where then is the use of so much discus- 
 es ion, and wmere is the impropriety of en- 
 j bodying the principle in the constitution. 
 If it be an inherent right, it is nothing ex- 
 traordinary to find it in the constitution. 
 It will not be the only inherent right enun- 
 ciated in that instrument. He hoped the 
 section would be adopted. 
 
 The question was then taken on Mr. 
 Lewis' motion, to lay the section indefinite- 
 ly on the table, and the ayes and nays were 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs; Brazeale, Brumfieid, Burton 3 ' 
 Chambliss, Chinn, Dunn, Guion, Hynson, 
 Ledoux, Lewis, McR.ae, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of St. Landiy, Preston, Ratlin, 
 Read, Scott of xMadison, Splane, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Wadsworth, and 
 Wederstrand — 23 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Brent; 
 Briant, Cade, Carriere, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of Orleans, Covillion, Culbertson, Dtf 
 Bouchel, Derbes, Eustis, Garrett, Hud- 
 speth, Humble, King, Legendre, Marigny, 
 Mayo, Mazureau, Pugh, r\oman, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Voorhies, Waddill, Win- 
 chester and Winder — 20 nays. 
 
 Mr. Waddill moved to add the follow- 
 ing words to the last clause, "or in any 
 living language." 
 
 Mr. Derbes moved that this amendment 
 be laid indefinitely on the table. 
 
 Mr. Waddill: if the amendment be 
 rejected I shall then feel bound to vote 
 against the section. • 
 Mr. Waddill called for the ayes and 
 nays upon the motion to lay his amendment 
 indefinitely on the table. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Brumfieid, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, DuBouchel, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, King, Le- 
 doux, Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Mazureau, Peets, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Madison, Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Voorhies, 
 Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, Winchester 
 and Winder — 48 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. McRae, Ratliff, Read and Wad- 
 dill — 4 nays. 
 
 Mr. Marigny called for the adoption of 
 the section. 
 
e?o Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Mr. Guion said he looked upon the pro- 
 position as useless, and worse than use- 
 less. It would lead to evil consequences. 
 We were not forming a constitution for 
 the moment, for the present day, but to 
 govern for ages to come. The population 
 of Louisiana, it is said, are composed of 
 French origin, and of Anglo-Saxon origin; 
 but the greater portion of those of French 
 origin, speak the English language, and 
 the day is not distant when every citizen 
 will speak that language. If we look at 
 results we must be persuaded that the Eng- 
 lish will be essentially the prevailing lan- 
 guage. I am, certainly, above suspicion 
 of hostility to persons of French origin. 
 The delegate from New Orleans (Mr. Ma- 
 rig ny) belongs to the past. The present 
 generation of Louisianians belong to young 
 Louisiana. I am descended, like the gen- 
 tlemen, from French ancestors, but I think, 
 nevertheless, that we should place our- 
 selves in a position that the English lan- 
 guage should become the prevailing lan- 
 guage of tho State, as it is of the great con- 
 federacy of the States, of which Louisiana 
 forms an integral part. I am, therefore, ir- 
 revocably opposed to the passage *of this 
 section. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne said that whatever may 
 be the result of the vote about to be taken, 
 it was incontestible that a member of the 
 legislature could have the right of addres- 
 sing that body in the French language. 
 If the right was incontestible, and it was 
 sb conceded, it was ridiculous to recognize 
 it, without at the same time guaranteeing 
 that a translator should be provided. It 
 was, therefore, essential to adopt or reject 
 the section as a whole. As for myself, 
 said Mr. C, I shall vote in the affirmative, 
 if there were no other reason, because a 
 respectable portion of the community de- 
 sire this guarantee. 
 
 On motion -of Mr. Lewis, the question 
 was divided, and it was taken upon the 
 lirst. clause, that the secretary of the sen- 
 ate and clerk of the house of representa- 
 tives should understand the French lan- 
 guage. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs, Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bur- 
 ton, Cade, Carriere, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of Orleans, Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 DuBouchel, Eustis, King, Ledoux, Legen- 
 dre, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, 
 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Pugh, Roman, 
 Roselius, Scott of Baton Jtouge, Splane, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Vqorhies, Waddill, 
 Winchester and Winder— 32 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Chambliss, Chinn, Garrett, Guion, Hud- 
 speth, Humble, Hynson, X«ewis, Porter, 
 Preston, RatlifF, Read, Scott of Madison, 
 Stephens, Wadsworth and Wederstrandt — 
 19 nays. 
 
 The question was then taken on the sec- 
 sond clause, and the yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, 
 Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Covillion, 
 Culbertson, DuBouchel, Derbes, Eustis, 
 Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, King, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Marigny,- Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Por- 
 ter, Prescott of St. Landry, Pugh, Read, 
 Roman, Roselius, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Madison, Splane, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Voorhies, Waddill, Wadsworth, 
 Wederstrandt, Winchester and Winder 
 voted in the affirmative — 40 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Preston, Ratliff and Read voted 
 in the negative — 3 nays. 
 
 Mr. Marigny gave notice that on Tues. 
 day next he would ask for the reconsider . 
 ation of the vote upon the proposition of 
 Mr. Eustis, inhibiting the banks from is- 
 suing small notes under a penalty. 
 
 M. Preston proposed the following 
 section: 
 
 " The legislature shall establish a rea. 
 sonable compensation in salaries or fees, 
 for justices of the peace." 
 
 Mr. Culbertson expressed the wish that 
 the section should be. so modified as to 
 restrict justices of the peace to a salary. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for on 
 the adoption of Mr. Preston's motion, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Briant, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Ce- 
 nas, Chambliss, Chinn, Claiborne, Covil- 
 lion, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, DuBou- 
 chel, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, 
 Legendre, Lewis, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Mazureau, Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Preston, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Sect* 
 of Baton Rouge, Splane, Stephens, Voor- 
 hies, Waddill, and Wederstrandt voted in 
 the affirmative — 40 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Conrad of Orleans, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 871 
 
 Eustis, Guion, King Roman, Roselius, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Winchester and 
 . Winder voted in the negative— 10 nays. 
 
 Mr, Miles Taylor proposed the ' fol- 
 lowing section : 
 
 "All judicial proceedings shall be con- 
 ducted in French against all citizens of the 
 State whose maternal language is French, 
 and who do not understand nor write the 
 English language." 
 
 The utility of this section, (said Mr. 
 Taylor,) is quite evident. If it be indeed 
 necessary that a provision should be adop- 
 ted in the constitution that any member of 
 the legislature may address that body in 
 French, it is still more important to those 
 citizens who understand the French lan- 
 guage alone, that all proceedings in court 
 to which they may be parties, shall be con- 
 ducted in the language with which they 
 are most familiar. 1 may be told that our 
 legislature has already provided for this 
 matter; but to this I would reply, that at 
 i best, it is in relation to civil and not to 
 criminal proceedings. 
 
 Mr. Roselius said that if this proposi- 
 tion were to be seriously taken up, he 
 would have to insist upon a like privilege 
 for those American citizens whose mater- 
 nal language was German. 
 
 Mr. Porter claimed a like privilege for 
 his constituents, whose maternal language 
 was Spanish. 
 
 Mr. Chinn moved that the proposition 
 and amendments be laid indefinitely on the 
 table. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor said that gentlemen 
 had conceived it of great importance that 
 the right should be constitutionally secured 
 to speak French in the legislature. They 
 had considered it important that the two 
 houses should be imperatively ordered to 
 elect no secretary and clerk that did not 
 understand the -French language. This 
 has been the deliberate sense of this body, 
 after mature reflection. What objection 
 can arise to this provision? It proposes a 
 principle recognized in our civil proceed- 
 ings, and is surely a privilege of greater 
 value than the election of two officers un- 
 derstanding French. It is true, in relation 
 to civil matters, there is legislation at pre- 
 sent upon the subject; but that legislation 
 may be repealed. It is certainly of mate- 
 rial import that the right of a person should 
 ; be recognized in the constitution to have the 
 
 proceedings in which he is involved, and 
 upon which may depend his life, liberty, 
 reputation and property, conducted in a 
 language with which he is familiar, than 
 that the representative in whose election 
 he may participate, should be authorized 
 in the constitution to speak French in the 
 legislature! 
 
 Mr. Marigny said he was quite aston- 
 ished that the delegate from Lafourche, 
 (Mr. Taylor) who voted against the clause 
 relative to the secretary of the senate and 
 clerk of the house of representatives, should 
 now come forward with so much generos- 
 ity and propose that the proceedings in 
 courts be conducted in French as well as 
 in English. But who does not see the 
 difference between the two cases; between 
 a representative and an attorney? A suitor 
 may choose an attorney, and does ordina- 
 rily choose a lawyer to represent him; but 
 the representative has not the privilege of 
 delegating his charge to another. He must 
 represent them personally, and express his 
 sentiments in proper person. 
 
 Mr. Brazeale called for the previous 
 question, which was sustained. 
 
 The question was taken On Mr. Chinn's 
 motion to lay the section and amendments 
 indefinitely on the table. 
 
 Mr. M. Taylor called for the yeas and 
 nays. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Brazeale, Brent, Bur- 
 ton, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Du- 
 Bouchel, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, King, Legendre, Lew- 
 is, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Pugh, 
 Ratliff, Read, Roman, Scott of Madison, 
 Scott of Raton Rouge, Splane, Waddill, 
 Widerstrandt, Winchester and Winder vo- 
 ted in the affirmative — 40 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Briant, Coviilion, Der- 
 bes, puion, Ledoux, Roselius, Soule and 
 Taylor of Assumption voted in the nega- 
 tive — 9 nays. 
 
 Mr. Mayo proposed the following addi- 
 tional section, to be embodied in the arti- 
 cle treating of the executive depralment: 
 
 " The governor shall have the_ power to 
 issue writs of election to nil vacancies oc- 
 curring in either house of the general as- 
 sembly." 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 The Convention took up the second sec. 
 
672 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 lion presented by Mr. Chinn on the subject 
 of duelling. 
 
 Mr. Briant moved that a clause be 
 adopted to prevent any one engaged in a 
 duel from testifying as a witness. 
 
 The law (said Mr. B.) against duelling 
 has never been enforced, because there is 
 no motive for inducing vigilance in its exe- 
 cution; that is, there is no inducement for 
 bringing the offender to punishment. The 
 best and most effectual mode of enforcing 
 penal enactments against duelling would 
 be to interest the community in the denun- 
 ciation of those who may incur the penal- 
 ties of such enactments. You have deter- 
 mined that whoever engages in a duel shall 
 not be eligible to office; that they shall for- 
 feit the civic right of suffrage. Go a little 
 further, and interdict the duellist from the 
 privilege of giving testimony, and that 
 will awake public attention; for there are 
 always those engaged in litigation who 
 would desire to exclude a witness, as^well 
 as those who are anxious to obtain his 
 testimony. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad moved to amend the 
 section by striking out the words u to the 
 rules and regulations of the constitution 
 and laws of this Slate/' and insert the fol- 
 lowing: "to the constitution and laws of 
 ijhe United States and of this State. 5 ' 
 
 This amendment was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Conrad further moved, to insert af- 
 ter the word "senf," the word "accepted," 
 which motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff said that if there were any 
 reasonable prospect that the end proposed 
 by this section would be accomplished, he 
 would cheerfully vote in favor of it. But 
 he was apprehensive that instead of being 
 relieved from the evil, it would appear in 
 a mucli worfQ and more dangerous form. 
 It will give rise to street fights, to coffee- 
 house brawls, to assassinations upon the 
 public highway. It is useless for us to at- 
 tempt to legislate in the face of public 
 opinion. Let us examine what we are 
 about irrevocably to do. Under the pro- 
 visions which we are called upon to place 
 in the constitution, if 1 meet my adversary 
 in fair combat and give him an equal chance 
 for his life, you proscribe me; but if to 
 avenge myself for any real or imaginary 
 insult, I should meet him in the streets 
 and murder him at noonday, I suffer no 
 civil disqualification. I may represent my 
 
 fellow citizens in the legislature, and I am 
 not deprived of my privilege to vote. Is 
 there in this any thing like justice? Is , 
 duelling a worse offence than assassina- 
 tion, that it should be visited with a heavi- 
 er penalty? We have seen the whole city 
 in mourning when an honorable and distin- 
 guished member of the senate, the lamented 
 Waggaman, fell in a duel. The judges of 
 the supreme court, and the highest digni- 
 taries of the State attended his funeral; 
 and do you think public opinion will con- 
 firm your proscription against an honorable 
 citizen, because he has chosen to give his 
 adversary a fair chance, rather than steal 
 up in a dastardly way and take life una- 
 •wares? It is acting upon a very superfi. 
 cial knowledge of the human heart to sup- 
 pose any thing of the kind S But, more- 
 over, is it not perceptible that by your oath 
 you punish the honorable man, while you 
 hold out an inducement to perjury to the 
 man who has no moral perceptions? The 
 former will not take the oath, and is exclu- 
 ded; the latter may take the oath and profit 
 by his perjury. This is a singular kind of 
 legislation! 
 
 I shall say nothing of the chivalric feel- 
 ings of the population of Louisiana, for 
 whose habits so little attention and respect 
 is shown in the provision. You expose 
 them to the insults of strangers, and deprive 
 them of all means of redress under the se- 
 verest penalties, the loss of the privileges 
 of citizenship. It has been said that our 
 citizens are hot-headed and ready to get 
 into disputes. From my own knowledge, I 
 can deny this assertion most positively. I 
 have spent several winters in the city; I 
 have been out at all hours without arms, 
 and without apprehension, for I have never 
 been once molested. After all, people 
 fight duels for the purpose of avenging 
 their honor, and if it be wrong, (and I am 
 very tar from upholding the practice, for I 
 have never had a duel, and I trust jn Gfc-d 
 I never shall,) it is not this constitutional 
 disability that will put a stop to homicide, 
 for in place of duels you will have assassi- 
 nations, which will become so common as 
 to excite little or no surprise ! 
 
 Mr. Chinn said he did not purpose, at 
 this late hour ? to argue the matter, but 
 would confine what he had to say to a few 
 well authenticated facts. It is notorious 
 that in Virginia duels were quite as common 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 879 
 
 is they are in Louisiana, A provision was I 
 adopted similar to the section which has J 
 passed this body. It had no effect. At 
 length it was resolved to apply the test of 
 an oath. This was done, but the constitu- 
 tional question \vas raised as to whether 
 this could be done. The courts decided 
 the question in the affirmative, and duelling 
 from that moment ceased. I have no doubt 
 that similar results in Louisiana will follow 
 the adoption of similar measures. 
 
 Mr. Guion proposed the following 
 amendment. To strike out all after and 
 including the words, "and I moreover so- 
 lemnly swear or affirm that since the adop- 
 tion of this constitution, I have not fought 
 a duel with deadly weapons," to the end of 
 the section. 
 
 Mr. Guion said it was unnecessary, im- 
 politic, to call upon a citizen to disfranchise 
 himself by an oath. He was ready to take 
 all proper measures for the suppression of 
 duelling, but he could not consent to a pro- 
 vision which constrained a man to exclude 
 himself. It might happen that in the hey 
 day of youth, when the passions were so 
 easily excited, that a young man might be 
 drawn into a duel. He might afterwards 
 regret it, and determine to abjure the prac- 
 tice. In twenty years he might be chosen 
 to fill a high and important office; would it 
 be right to exclude him because in his 
 youth he may have fought a duel, and call 
 upon him to exclude himself, when the oc- 
 currence may have passed away from the 
 recollections of his fellow citizens, and he 
 may more than have redeemed by the use- 
 fulness of his subsequent life, that one act 
 of youthful indiscretion ? 
 
 Mr. Lewis said, he rose to express his 
 surprise at the motion of his friend from 
 Lafourche (Mr. Guion.) If that gentleman 
 desires the measure to be effectual, to be 
 available, how can he reconcile it to him- 
 self to oppose this portion of the section. 
 The section would be in vain, it would be 
 worse than vain without that provision. A 
 popular man elected to an office would 
 never be questioned as to whether he had 
 fought a duel or not, and he would take the 
 ordinary oath and fill the office, although 
 he may have fought fifty duels. What we 
 hear dignified by the name of chivalry, 
 when applied to duelling, is nothing but a, 
 remnant of barbarism, against which it be- 
 hooves us to guard our youth. In fact, it 
 
 does not so often happen that the man 
 whose passions have become subdued by 
 age and experience, yields to those sudden 
 bursts of feeling and resentment which are 
 so peculiar to youth. We should discoun- 
 tenance attacks of violence and passion on 
 the part of our young men. We should 
 inculcate in them a love of good order, and 
 let them know that there is a holier object 
 than the gratification of feelings of resent- 
 ment. We should train them up to govern 
 themselves within the bounds of reason and 
 moderation, and not lead them to believe 
 that their wishes may be carried by brute 
 force. We should say to them, here is the 
 irrevocable condition of your political pre- 
 ferment. You may aspire to the highest 
 honors of your country, but if you violate 
 that condition, all your hopes will be cut 
 off. It is only in this way that we can 
 expect to put down the vicious and demor- 
 alizing practice of duelling. But if you 
 adopt the gentleman's argument, and tell 
 young men they may fight as much as they 
 please while in the hej day of youth, pro- 
 vided they abandon it when they get age 
 and experience and their passions are sub- 
 dued, you will fail of accomplishing any 
 thing. The only efficacious mode is the 
 administration of an oath, and if you aban- 
 don that, you had as well abandon the 
 whole design. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, on 
 Mr. Guion's motion to strike out, 
 
 Messrs. Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Guion, 
 Legendre, Marigny, Porter, Raliff, Roman, 
 Soule, Splane, Wederstrandt and Winder 
 voted in the affirmative — 13 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Chinn, Covil- 
 lion, Culbertson, DuBouchel, Dunn, Eus- 
 tis, Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, 
 Ledoux, Lewis, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Preston, Pugh, Read, 
 Roselius, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Madison, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Voorhies and Waddill voted in the negative 
 — 33 nays. 
 
 Mr. Chinn called for the adoption of the 
 section, andgthe yeas and nays were or- 
 dered. 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cham- 
 bliss, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, Du- 
 Bouchel, Dunn, Eustis, Hudspeth, Humble 
 
874 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Hynson, Ledoux, Lewis, McRae, Mayo, 
 yo, Peets, Preston, Pugh, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Madison, Stephens, 
 Voorhies and Waddill — 36 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Cenas, Legendre, Marigny, 
 Porter, Ratliff, Roman, Soule, Splane and 
 Wederstrandt — 9 nays. 
 
 On motion, the first and second section 
 were ordered to be incorporated in the gen- 
 eral provisions. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Lewis, the twenty- 
 ninth section was taken up. 
 
 Every law of a general nature shall be 
 equally applicable to every part of the 
 State. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved that it be laid indefi- 
 nitely on the table. He thought this pro- 
 vision impracticable. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said that this provision would 
 cure some of the evils, but not all. He 
 had sought in vain so to word it as to make 
 it meet all the purposes designed. He 
 found no language that would better con- 
 vey the design. The evil that existed for 
 a want of conformity in our legislation was 
 a subject of general complaint. There are 
 one set of laws for one parish and another 
 set ot laws for another parish, and it is to 
 avoid this, that the committee sought a 
 remedy, and have reported this as the re- 
 sult of their labors. It does not realize all 
 I could wish, but I am yet disposed to take 
 it for the want of something better. 
 
 Mr. Eustis said that he thought some- 
 thing in the spirit of this section was 
 necessary. Our legislation in reference to 
 the different parishes was in a great meas- 
 ure unintelligible. A distinguished mem- 
 ber of this body, one of the judges of our 
 district courts, informed me that the evil 
 had become so great that it was impossi- 
 ble for him to ascertain what were -the laws 
 applicable to police juries, in the parishes 
 within his district. The idea to have all 
 these local laws to conform to a general 
 and uniform system, is a most excellent 
 idea, and one which we should not disdain. 
 The confusion which exists is becoming 
 greater and greater, and if we can apply a 
 remedy, the earlier it is appled the better. 
 All those special acts of legislation passed 
 for individual cases, sometimes to allow a 
 wife to despoil herself in favor of her hus- 
 band whose affairs are embarrassed, at other 
 times to allow a dishonest tutor to make 
 way with the property of a minor, although 
 
 designed by the legislature for far different i 
 purposes, have a deleterious tendency. 
 Let us look at France, where the science I 
 of legislation has been so perfected : all 
 laws there are general in their opera- 
 tion. Exceptional legislation as it exists i 
 in this State, is unknown. What is to ! 
 prevent us from attaining similar perfec- 
 tion? Are we to be told of the necessity 
 of certain local legislation ? Why those 
 laws form a particular class and they may 
 be an exception, without entailing upon us 
 the necessity of abandoning the principle 
 of general legislation. I trust, in view of the 
 importance of the matter, that the section 
 will be laid upon the table until Monday, 
 in order that we may meditate upon it so 
 as better to adopt it to the attainment of the 
 object proposed. 
 
 The section was laid over until Monday. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Baton Rouge, offered the 
 following section on behalf of Mr. Mc. 
 Callop: 
 
 "All contested elections for seats in the 
 senate or house of representatives and for 
 parish officers, shall be determined by the 
 district court in the parish in which such 
 contest may arise." 
 
 Whereupon the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Monday, May 5, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment, and its proceedings were opened 
 with prayer by the Hon. Mr. Stephens. 
 
 Mr. Read presented the following sec- 
 tion : 
 
 " Capital punishment shall not be in- 
 flicted in this State." 
 
 Mr. Brent, on behalf of the majority of 
 the committee to whom had been referred 
 the subject of the submission of the consti- 
 tution to the people for their ratification, 
 presented an ordinance for that purpose. 
 
 Mr. Chinn, on behalf of the minority of 
 the committee, presented a counter report. 
 
 The report and counter report were laid 
 on the table, and ordered to be printed, 
 
 The Convention then took up section 
 twenty-four of the general provisions, to- 
 gether with the following additional section 
 offered by Mr. Roman. 
 
 The legislature shall not in any manner 
 create any debt or debts, liability or liabili- 
 ties, which shall singly or in the aggregate 
 with any previous debts or liabilities, ex- 
 ceed the sum of one hundred thousand dpi- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 375 1 
 
 irs, (except in cases of war, to repel inva- 
 ion and suppress insurrection,) unless the 
 ame be authorized by some law, for some 
 ingle object or work, to be distinctly spe- 
 ified therein, which law shall provide 
 vays and means by taxation for the pay- 
 ment of running interest during the whole 
 ime for which said debt shall be contract- 
 d, and for the full and punctual discharge 
 t maturity of the capital borrowed; and 
 aid law shall be irrepealable until the 
 rincipal and interest thereon shall be paid 
 ,nd fully discharged, and shall not be put 
 nto execution until after its re-enactment 
 »y the first legislature returned by a gene- 
 al election after its passage. 
 
 Mr. Lewis proposed the following sub- 
 stitute for the twenty-fourth section : 
 
 Sec. 24. The legislature shall not have 
 30wer or authority to pledge the faith of 
 he State as security for the payment of 
 iny bonds, bills, or other contracts or ob- 
 ligations, for the benefit of any person, cor- 
 poration or body politic whatever, provided 
 that the State shall have the right of issu- 
 ing bonds in renewal of existing obligations, 
 whether matured or not, but the new bonds 
 shall not be issued for a greater amount 
 nor at a higher rate of interest than the 
 obligations which they are intended to re- 
 place. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said that the object was to 
 leave the legislature free to make any ar- 
 rangement beneficial for the interests of the 
 State, but at the same time to place it out 
 of the power of that body to increase the 
 indebtedness of the State either in interest 
 or in principal. No one would wish to see 
 the State placed in a position not to meet 
 those debts for which she was actually 
 liable, at home or abroad. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor said that the princi- 
 ple enunciated was correct. But he thought 
 it better to detach the second part of the 
 section, and if it be adopted, to place it on 
 the schedule as a transitory provision. 
 
 Mr. Roman considered it better not to 
 separate the section. 
 ^ Mr. C. M. Conrad proposed a verbal 
 alteration. In place of the word "securi- 
 ty" to substitute the word "surety." The 
 former expression was equivocal. ' 
 
 Mr. Eustis said he wished to make a 
 proposition. He was opposed to the pro- 
 vision authorizing the issue of new bonds. 
 If the property banks were properly admin- 
 
 istered, the State would never be called 
 upon for one sous. The State is only 
 eventually liable, and that liability can only 
 enure in the event of bad management or 
 some unforeseen calamity perhaps, such as 
 war. He was apprehensive of the power 
 of issuing new bonds, it might be employed 
 to perpetuate a state of things which we 
 all deplore, 
 
 [Mr. Eustis here referred to data, exhi- 
 biting the position of the property banks, in 
 corroboration of the remarks that the State 
 could only be made liable through a bad 
 administration of those institutions.] 
 
 It will (said Mr. E.) be indispensable 
 that the administration be an efficient one, 
 that the banks be made sensible that they 
 must rely upon their own resources, in 
 order that they may take proper measures 
 for the collection of their debts. Other- 
 wise, if recourse can be had to the State 
 for postponing payment by the emission of 
 new bonds, the consequences may be detri- 
 mental to the interests of the State, and to- 
 a salutary administration of the affairs of 
 the banks. The assets of the banks are 
 amply sufficient to pay every dollar they 
 owe, and all that is necessary is proper ad- 
 ministration. There was a time when it 
 was impossible for them to call in their 
 debts. Agriculture languished and confi- 
 dence was gone. But the aspect of things 
 has brightened. Agriculture begins to pros- 
 per and confidence begins to be restored. 
 What more is necessary for them gradually 
 to call in their debts and meet their obliga- 
 tions as they mature? No motive of inter- 
 est actuates me in this matter, and I should 
 be very sorry to advise any thing contrary 
 to the public weal. But it strikes me as 
 the true policy for the stockholders as well 
 as for the State, to pursue such a course as 
 will tend to the liquidation of the indebted- 
 ness of those institutions, and to the pay- 
 ment of interest as it may become due. 
 The issue of new bonds in place of old 
 ones accomplishes nothing; It only facili- 
 tates delay, and may be considered by 
 some persons as savoring of repudiation; 
 at any rate, it is a denial of payment for 
 the time being. If the State be bound to 
 redeem the bonds issued by her in favor of 
 the banks, in default of their payment by 
 the banks, and I do not permit myself to 
 doubt that if the State is so bound, it will 
 be necessary for her to raise the necessary 
 
876 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 moans. Others may think differently upon 
 (his subject. I do not question their con- 
 victions, I merely express my own. What 
 is the course pursued by other governments 
 under similar circumstances? They fund 
 their public debts. They make stock of it. 
 Why do we not adopt a similar policy? In 
 France the debt is inscribed on the Grande 
 Livre, and certificates of it are issued 
 The bond holders of Europe would rather 
 have stock than renewed bonds. The 
 credit of the State would be placed upon 
 respectable- ground, if we adopted that plan. 
 If these suggestions meet the sanction of 
 the Convention, they can be put in a pro- 
 per form. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad said that if the sec- 
 tion were adopted without the proviso, it 
 Would be tantamount to inhibiting the legis- 
 lature from renewing the bonds issued by 
 the State. It would be prohibiting the 
 State from prolonging her credit. It was 
 equivalent to saying that the State must be 
 prepared to pay when these bonds fall due, 
 in default of payment by the banks. Let 
 us look at the circumstances. The gentle- 
 man tells us that the banks have sufficient 
 assets, if they are properly administered, to 
 meet every dollar they may owe. If they 
 are not properly administered, the gentle- 
 man admits that the State must pay. But 
 if the State can't pay, what is to be done? 
 You inhibit her from making terms with 
 the public, evidently the issue of new 
 bonds. No; she is not to have that privi- 
 lege, lest it may occasion bad management 
 in the banks — a too great reliance upon 
 the State ! But what is she to do? 
 
 Mr. Eustis: Why, fund it ! 
 
 Mr. Conrad : Well, what is that but a 
 postponement of the debt? She may in- 
 scribe it on the Grande Livre and issue 
 certificates for it ; but is not this equiva- 
 lent to a bond ? It amounts to the same 
 thing, whether you call it a bond, a certifi- 
 cate or an inscription upon the Grande 
 Livre. It is nothing more than a prolon- 
 gation of the debt. If you place it out of 
 the power of the legislature to renew the 
 bonds, you shackle the legislature. I con- 
 cur with my colleague that the assets of 
 the banks should be strictly and faithfully 
 applied to the payment of their debts, but 
 he must at once conceive, that if the State 
 be placed in the position that she must 
 immediately pay, in default of the banks, 
 
 the bonds that mature, the State will be 
 under the necessity of forcing the banks to 
 sell their property at no matter what sac- 
 rifice, and the result will be very detri- 
 mental to the interests of the State and to 
 the interests of the people. The legisla- 
 ture must have the power to protect the 
 State in case of necessity. My opinions, 
 I may say, are not less disinterested than 
 those of my colleague upon this matter. I 
 never owned twelve shares of bank stock 
 in my life, and I never borrowed five thou- 
 sand dollars of a bank. Thank God I nev- 
 er knew any thing of the property banks 
 except as a member of the legislature. 
 Emergencies may happen to place it out of 
 the power of the banks to meet their obli- 
 gations; wars may ensue, the staples of 
 our country may become valueless; the" 
 seasons may be unpropitious; many things 
 may happen which may make it necessary 
 that the legislature should be left in a po- 
 sition to meet future contingencies. 
 
 Mr. Roman said he was sorry to differ 
 with the delegate (Mr. Eustis,) but he 
 must say he differed with him totally. The 
 proviso, 1 conceive to be necessary, but if 
 we were to refuse to adopt it, the legisla- 
 ture would have the right to issue new 
 bonds to replace old ones, for the section 
 cannot have a retroactive effect. It applies 
 to the issue of bonds creating a new debt — 
 not to the renewal of bonds for an old debt 
 I would ask the gentleman, if we are not 
 in a situation to pay what we actually owe, 
 is not the legislature bound to provide fu- 
 ture means for the liquidation of her in- 
 debtedness, and if We are unable to pay at 
 the moment without sacrificing ourselves, 
 may she not renew the debt to a more fa- 
 vorable period ? But it is said we cannot 
 continue as the surety for corporations or 
 individuals. But so long as the bonds are 
 outstanding they bear the pledge of the 
 State, and the State is surety whether we 
 consent to be so considered or not. The 
 idea of funding the t public debt, as has been 
 well remarked by the gentleman who last 
 spoke, (Mr. Conrad) is but changing the 
 form of the debt. It is nothing more. 
 But it is not only as surety that the State 
 is bound; she is liable on her own account 
 likewise. Is it designed that she should 
 remain under protest, her credit dishonored 
 until the necessary funds shall come into 
 the treasury, to enable her to meet her 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 877 
 
 debts ? I cannot believe that any one in 
 Louisiana would tolerate it. It would be 
 a species of indirect repudiation. The peo- 
 ple of Louisiana would scorn that doctrine. 
 They would as soon think of putting their 
 fingers in their neighbor's pockets, as to 
 deny the payment of their legitimate debts! 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor said he was unwil- 
 ling to remain silent, lest his opinions 
 upon this matter should be misapprehended. 
 He concurred in many of the views of the 
 gentleman who had just resumed his seat, 
 (Mr. Roman.) In his general views, he 
 certainly did concur. As to the course he 
 recommends to be pursued, (said Mr. T.) 
 I do not concur. Neither do I apprehend 
 that to question the policy of that course 
 would authorize the inference that one was 
 favorable to repudiation. There are but 
 few individuals in Louisiana who favor that 
 doctrine. 
 
 I agree likewise in many respects with 
 the delegate from New Orleans, (Mr. 
 Eustis) but I differ with him as to the ex- 
 pediency of his remedy. With the remarks 
 of the delegate that preceded him (Mr. 
 Conrad) I differ altogether. Let us exam- 
 ine the section. Let us see whether the 
 position of that delegate is sustained by the 
 section itself. The gentleman argued upon 
 the assumption, that if the first part of the 
 section were adopted without the second, 
 the legislature would be tranmelled, that 
 it would be unable if it thought proper, to 
 issue new bonds in substitution of the bonds 
 already issued. I do not agree with the 
 gentleman in his construction, and I think 
 it is clear he misconceives the purport of 
 the section. [Mr. Taylor here read the 
 section.] 
 
 It is manifest that the restriction upon 
 the legislature applies to the future. There 
 is not a word capable of being tortured to 
 mean that the legislature shall be inhibited 
 from acting for the* benefit of the State in 
 the matter of these bonds, nor from taking 
 necessary measures to facilitate their pay- 
 ment. As was well said by the delegate 
 from St. James (Mr. Roman) the restriction 
 can have no retroactive effect. But that 
 gentleman appears to think that unless we 
 prescribe that the legislature may issue 
 new bonds in place of those already issued, 
 we shall lay ourselves open to the charge 
 of repudiation. There are no grounds for 
 such an apprehension. I do not think we 
 111 
 
 can by a constitutional provision, effect the 
 position of these banks; we certainly ought 
 not to attempt in any manner, to interfere 
 with them. The engagement exists in 
 virtue of past legislation, and the legislature 
 have full control over it. All that we have 
 proposed to do applies to the future. The 
 legislature is expressly prohibited from un- 
 dertaking similar engagements hereafter. 
 But what has been done is done, and is 
 beyond our control. The legislature may 
 issue new bonds in substitution of outstand- 
 ing bonds, without the proviso ; it has 
 clearly the power, and therefore the pro- 
 viso is unnecessary. 
 
 Mr. Eustis moved to strike out the pro- 
 viso. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad moved to strike out 
 the following words: "as security," so that 
 the section would read, 
 
 " The legislature shall not have power 
 or authority to pledge the faith of the State 
 for the payment of any bonds," &c. &e. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for on 
 Mr. Conrad's motion. 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumrield, Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Covillion, Cul- 
 bertson, DuBouchel, Eustis, Garrett, Cui- 
 on, Humble, King, Ledoux, Mayo^ Mazu- 
 reau, Peets, Preston, Pugh, Read, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Voorhies, Waddill, Wadsworth, 
 Wederstrandt and Winder voted in the af- 
 firmative — 33 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Briant, Burton, 
 Chinn, Downs, Dunn, Hudspeth, Hynson, 
 Legendre, Lewis, McRae, Porter, Prescott 
 of St. Landry, Roman, St. Amand, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge and Winchester voted in 
 the negative — 18 nays. 
 
 Mr. Eustis then renewed his motion to 
 strike out the proviso, and called for the 
 yeas and nays. 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Cade, Cham- 
 bliss, Covillion, Eustis, Humble, Hynson, 
 Ledoux, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Preston, 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Madison, Stephens, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Voorhies, Waddill and Wederstrandt 
 voted in the affirmative-— 21 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Bourg, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, Chinn, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jef- 
 ferson, Culbertson, Derbes, DuBouchel, 
 Downs, Dunn, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth; 
 
678 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 King, Legendre, Lewis, McRae, Mazu- 
 reau, Prcscott of St. Landry, Pugh, Ro- 
 man, St. Amand, Sellers, Wadsworth, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the nega- 
 tive — 31 nays. 
 
 Mr. Marigny proposed the following 
 as a preamble to the section: 
 
 41 Whereas the Constitution of the Uni- 
 ted States prohibits the several States from 
 coining money, from emitting bills of cred- 
 it, and from making any thing but gold and 
 silver a legal tender for the payment of 
 debts." 
 
 Mr. Culbertson moved to lay the 
 preamble indefinitely on the table, and his 
 motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption moved that 
 the question be divided, and that the sec- 
 lion be voted upon paragrph by paragraph, 
 which motion prevailed. 
 
 The first paragraph was put to vote and 
 the yeas and nays were called for. 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Boudousquie, Bourg, 
 Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Brum field, Bur- 
 ton, Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jef- 
 ferson, Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, Du- 
 Bouchel, Downs, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, King, Le- 
 doux, Legendre, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Peets, Sorter, Prescott, of St. Landry, 
 Pugh, Read, Roman, 'St. Amand, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Madison, Sellers, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Voorhies, Waddill, Wads- 
 worth, Wederstrandt, Winchester and Win- 
 der voted in the affirmative — 53 yeas. 
 
 No votes in the negative. 
 
 The second paragraph was put to vote, 
 arid the yeas and nays were called for. 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Bourg, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbert- 
 son, Derbes, Downs, DuBouchel, Dunn, 
 Garrett, Guion, Hudspeih, King, Legen- 
 dre, Lewis, McRae, Marigny, Pugh, Ro- 
 man, St. Amand, Sellers, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Waddill, Wadsworth, Winches- 
 ter and Winder voted in the affirmative-— 
 31 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs, Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Cham- 
 bliss, Covillion, Eustis, Humble, Hynson, 
 Ledoux, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Read, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott of ?*Iadison, Ste~ 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Voorhies 
 
 and Wederstrandt voted in the negative— 
 19 nays. 
 
 On motion, the whole section was 
 adopted. 
 
 The additional section offered by Mr. 
 Roman was taken up. 
 
 Mr. Lewis proposed to make amend- 
 ments in two slight particulars. To strike 
 out the word "any," in the fourth line and 
 substitute the word "all," and in the sev- 
 enth line to strike out the word "and" and 
 substitute the word "or." 
 
 These corrections were adopted. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said he would submit one or 
 two remarks. The object was to limit the 
 legislature in spending the public money. 
 It was to impose proper checks, without 
 hampering the legislature to attempt the 
 accomplishment of great public works. 
 That power was not withheld. Of all 
 powers, the taxing power was least liable 
 to abuse; it was the safest, because the 
 representatives of the people would con- 
 sider well before incurring the responsibil- 
 ity of odious and burthensome taxation, 
 if the pockets of the people had to be di- 
 rectly appealed to, before any money could 
 be expended, the result would be greater 
 circumspection in making expenditures. 
 The necessity would have to be apparent 
 and great, before the representative would 
 dare to impose additional taxation, and be- 
 fore the people would submit to it. With 
 the restrictions in this section, the evils 
 of extravagance and prodigality in the ad- 
 ministration of public affairs were preclu- 
 ded; for it is provided that the object for 
 which the taxis imposed shall be specified, 
 and that the law shall not go into effect 
 until it is ratified by a succeeding legisla- 
 ture, returned at a general election. 
 
 Mr. Read moved to strike out all after 
 the third line, with the exception of the 
 parenthesis, and the section would then 
 read: » 
 
 " The legislature shall not in any man- 
 ner create any debt or debts, liability or li- 
 abilities, except in case of war, to repel 
 invasion and suppress insurrection. " 
 
 He called for the yeas and nays on his 
 amendment. 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Cade, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 DuBouchel, Eustis, Humble, Hynson, 
 Ledoux, McRae, Marigny, Peets, Porter, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Scott of Raton Rouge, Scott of Madison, 
 Sellers, Soule, Stephens. Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Waddill and Wederstrandt voted 
 in the affirmative — 26 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Burton. Cenas, 
 Chiiin, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, King, 
 Legendre, Lewis, Mayo, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Voorhies, Wadsworth, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the neg- 
 ative — 27 nays. 
 
 Mr. Miles Tayloh proposed the follow, 
 ing as a substitute: 
 
 ** The State shall not be authorized to 
 borrow money, unless to meet the indis- 
 pensable wants of the government, without 
 the consent of the people first had and ob- 
 tained at a general election. 
 
 Mr. Taylor remarked that this substi- 
 tute covered the whole ground. It applied 
 to invasion or insurrection, to the ordinary 
 current expenses of the government, and 
 precluded the legislature from embarking 
 in extraordinary and perhaps useless pub- 
 lic works, without consulting the people, 
 who were to pay for them. 
 
 Mr. Beatty said he was decidedly op- 
 posed to throwing upon future generations 
 the folly and extravagance of present gen- 
 erations. There were only two contin- 
 gencies in which he admitted the State was 
 authorised to bor ro vs '. They were in the 
 event of war and insurrection. He was 
 opposed to all attempts to raise money, no 
 matter how commendable the design, ex- 
 cept for the purpose of self-defence. For 
 all purposes of internal improvement, the 
 people should be first consulted. The tax 
 should be first proposed to be laid. 
 
 Mr. Rohan said he apprehended that 
 the desire to limit the power of the legis- 
 lature was about to be pushed to a danger- 
 ous extreme. That power, I readily con- 
 cede, should not be unlimited; and even if 
 it be true that the legislature has not on 
 all occasions shown that moderation and 
 frugality in the public expenditures which 
 were deemed expedient; yet it would be 
 extremely unwise to take away the power 
 altogether, to prevent its being abused. I 
 think prudence dictates a middle course 
 between the two extremes. This is the 
 spirit of the section which is before the 
 house. Those delegates that -are fearful 
 
 of the power of the legislature, and who 
 do not wish to place the slightest confi- 
 dence in the discretion of that body, deny 
 practically, the feasibility of a republican 
 form of government: and it would be as 
 well to withdraw the power altogether as 
 to say that the legislature shall not impose 
 taxation. I do not say without the con- 
 sent of the people, but with the consent of 
 the people, to effect objects of public util- 
 ity. The delegate from Assumption (Mr. 
 Taylor) insists, as a preliminary step, that 
 the people shall first be consulted, be- 
 fore any debt be contracted, no matter of 
 whatever nature. This is precisely what 
 the section prescribes. Unless the people 
 are to be mistrusted as well as the legisla- 
 ture, and in order the better to protect 
 them, it be designed to place it out of their 
 power to ordain a tax, the section. must be 
 adopted; for it affords every possible guar- 
 anty, by making the people themselves 
 the judges of the necessity of the debt. 
 
 Mr. Dowxs observed, that although the 
 section contained the same provisions that 
 did not meet his concurrence, it neverthe- 
 less embraced a principle, the necessity 
 and expediency of which were obvious. 
 I cannot sustain the substitute of the del- 
 egate from Assumption, (Mr. Taylor) be- 
 cause it seems to me obscure; and in such 
 a matter, we cannot be too explicit. It 
 must be borne in mind, too, that the liabil- 
 ities of the State have arisen chiefly from 
 her binding herself as guarantee for cor- 
 porations, and not on her Own account. 
 The possibility of the recurrence of a sim- 
 ilar state of things is precluded by a di- 
 rect, and positive inhibition. Now, if we 
 go one step further, and prescribe that she 
 shall not contract any debts on her own 
 account, without the consent of the peo- 
 ple, who must pay these debts, we provide 
 all that is expedient. I think the section a 
 proper one, and with some modifications, 
 it ought to be adopted. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Coxrad proposed to add the 
 following to Mr. Taylor's substitute: 
 
 "Or unless the law authorizing a loan 
 shall have been passed by two succeding 
 legislatures, and decree a tax, or establish 
 a suitable sinking fund to meet the interest 
 upon the loan as it may fall due, and The 
 principal, at the expiration of the period 
 fixed for its redemption; and in such cases 
 the law fixing the tax or establishing" the 
 
880 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 sinking fund shall not be repealed until the 
 interest and capital shall be fully paid." 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to lay the substitute, 
 and the amendment to the substitute indefi- 
 nitely on the table, and called for the yeas 
 and nays. 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Brazeale, Briant, Brumfield, Cade, 
 Chambliss, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, DuBouchel, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, King, Ledoux, Legen- 
 dre, Lewis, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Pugh, Read, Ro- 
 man, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Stephens, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, Waddill, 
 Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, Winchester 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative— 47 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Cenas, Marigny, Scott of Ba- 
 ton Rouge, Soule and Taylor of Assump- 
 tion voted in the negative — 5 nays. 
 
 Mr. Roman moved to strike out the 
 three first lines and to substitute the fol- 
 lowing: 
 
 " The aggregate amount of debts here- 
 after contracted by the legislature shall 
 never exceed one hundred thousand dol- 
 larsv" 
 
 This amendment was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Peets moved to amend the section 
 by striking out the words "during the 
 whole term," &c. &c, in the thirteenth 
 line, and substituting the following: "for a 
 period not exceeding ten years." 
 
 Mr. Benjamin was opposed to this lim- 
 itation, because it might preclude the legis- 
 lature from making good terms. There 
 were serious considerations why there 
 should be no such limitation. 
 
 Mr. Peets thought that if the debt were 
 not to come on the present generation, 
 there would be much less solicitude fell. 
 It would be a matter of indifference, since 
 it would fall upon posterity. 
 
 Mr. Roman replied that the interest 
 would have to be paid, and that would be 
 a guaranty that the expense would not be 
 heedlessly incurred. 
 
 Mr. Peets' amendment was lost. 
 
 Mr. Roman called for the. adoption of the 
 section. 
 
 The yeas and nays were ordered. 
 , Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Bourg, 
 Briant, Burton, Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, 
 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Garrett, Gui- 
 on, Hudspeth, King, Legendre, Lewis, 
 McRae, Mayo, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, 
 Wederstrandt, Winchester and Winder 
 voted in the affirmative — 32 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Cade, Covillion, DuBouchel, Eustis, 
 Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Marigny, Peets, 
 Porter, Preston, Read, Sellers, Soule, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption and Waddill voted in the nega. 
 live — 22 nays. 
 
 The following is the section as adopted: 
 "The aggregate amount of debts here- 
 after contracted by the legislature, shall 
 never exceed one hundred thousand dol- 
 lars, (except in case of war, to repel inva- 
 sion, or to suppress insurrection,) unless 
 the same be authorised by some law, for 
 some single object or work, to be distinctly 
 specified therein; which law shall provide 
 means, by taxation, for the payment of 
 running interest during the whole time for 
 which said debt shall be contracted, and 
 for the full and punctual discharge at ma- 
 turity of the capital borrowed; and said 
 law shall be irrepealable until the principal 
 and interestthereon shall be paid and fully 
 discharged, and shall not be put into exe- 
 cution until after its re-enactment by the 
 first legislature returned by a general elec- 
 tion, after its passage." 
 
 Mr. Bead called up the additional sec- 
 tion offered by him, to wit : 
 
 "Capital punishment shall never be in- 
 flicted in this State." 
 
 Mr. Lewis declared himself opposed tq 
 this section. If, however, it were proper, 
 the legislature were competent to act upon 
 the subject. 
 
 Mr. Chinn moved to lay said section 
 indefinitely on the table, and called for the 
 yeas and nays. 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Cade, Cenas, Chinn, Conrad 
 of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, Dunn, Eus- 
 tis, Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, 
 King, Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mayo f 
 Peets, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, Sellers, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Voorhies, Winchester and 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 88i 
 
 Winder voted in the affirmative — 37 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Briant, Burton, 
 Chambliss, DuBouchel, Garcia, Ledoux, 
 McRae, Porter, Read, Scott of Madison, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Soule, Waddill and 
 Wederstrandt voted in the negative — 16 
 nays. 
 
 Agreeably to previous notice, Mr. Gar- 
 rett moved to reconsider the vote adopt- 
 ing the seventh section of the general pro- 
 visions. 
 
 His motion prevailed, and said section 
 was taken up, as follows: 
 
 Sec. 7. All civil officers for the State 
 at large, shall reside within the State, and 
 all district or parish officers, within their 
 several districts or parishes, and shall keep 
 their respective offices at such places there- 
 in as may be required by law; and no per- 
 son shall be elected or appointed to any 
 district or parish office, who shall not have 
 resided in such district or parish long 
 enough before such election or appoint- 
 ment to have acquired the right of voting 
 for representative to the general assembly 
 in such district or parish. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to amend said section 
 by striking out in the sixth seventh and 
 tenth lines, the words "district or." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 Mr. Lewis' amendment, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Cenas, Chinn, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 DuBouchel, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Gar- 
 rett, Guion, Hudspeth, King, Ledoux, Le- 
 gendre, Lewis, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Roman, St.Amand, Soule, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, 
 Wederstrandt, Winchester and Winder- — 
 34 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, .Brumfield, 
 Burton, Cade, Chambliss, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Stephens and Waddill— 
 17 nays. 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved to amend the sec- 
 tion further, by inserting the following at 
 the end of the same; 
 
 "And no person shall be appointed or 
 elected to any district office, who shall not 
 have resided in said district, or in an ad- 
 joining district, long enough before such 
 appointment or election to have acquired 
 
 the right of voting for representatives to 
 the general assembly." Which motion 
 prevailed. 
 
 Section twenty-ninth was taken up, viz; 
 
 Sec. 29. Every law of a general nature 
 shall be equally applicable to all parts of 
 the State. 
 
 Mr. Lewis offered as a substitute for 
 said section the following, viz: 
 
 "No law shall be passed enabling par- 
 ticular individuals to make contracts which, 
 by the general laws they were not permit- 
 ted to make; or removing, in favor of indi- 
 viduals, any incapacity or disability im- 
 posed by general laws." 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said that the various at- 
 tempts that were made, proved conclusive- 
 ly that it was impossible to attain the ob- 
 ject desired, with sufficient precision. 
 
 Mr. Dunn offered as a substitute for the 
 substitute of Mr. Lewis, the following, viz: 
 
 The general assembly shall not pass any 
 private law, unless it shall be made to ap- 
 pear that thirty days' notice of application 
 ,to pass such a law shall have been given, 
 under such directions and in such manner 
 as shall be provided by law." 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved for the adoption of the 
 substitute offered by him. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Brent, Cade, 
 Derbes, DuBouchel, Eustis, Garrett, Hyn- 
 son, Hudspeth, King, Lewis, McRae, Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Ste- 
 phens, Soule, Taylor of Assumption, Tay- 
 lor of St. Landry, Voorhies and Weder- 
 strandt voted in the affirmative — 25 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, 
 Chambliss, Chinn, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Covillion, Downs, Dunn, Guion, Humble, 
 Legendre, Roman, St. Amand, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Waddill, Wadsworth, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the nega- 
 tive — 25 nays; the vote being equal, the 
 president voted in the negative; conse- 
 quently said motion was lost, and the sub- 
 stitute was rejected. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved for the adoption of the 
 tw r enty-ninth section. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brumfield, Hudspeth, Hynson, 
 Lewis, McRae, Porter, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Sellers, 
 
832 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, Waddill 
 and Wederstrandt voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 14 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Burton, 
 Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Covillion, Derbes, DuBouchel, 
 Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Garcia, 
 Guion, Humble* King, Legendre, Marigny, 
 Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Roman, Scott of 
 Madison, St. Amand, Soule, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Voorhies, Wads worth, Winder 
 and Winchester voted in the negative— 38 
 nays. 
 
 Mr. Chinn said he considered it to be 
 his duty to present the following section. 
 He believed it impossible for the new judi- 
 ciary system to work as it is, and in case 
 of its failure, or that the public necessities 
 should require it, the legislature ought to 
 have the power to provide such legislation as 
 may be thought expedient. In offering it, 
 he did his duty, and he left it to others to 
 do theirs. His conscience would, at any 
 rate be free from reproach. , 
 Sec. — . The legislature shall have 
 power, whenever the interests of the State 
 may require it, to create courts of probates 
 in each parish, or such other tribunals as 
 may be calculated to insure a faithful pro- 
 tection and administration of estates. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to amend said section' 
 by adding to the end of the same the fol- 
 lowing, viz: 
 
 " The judges of said courts shall be 
 elected by the qualified voters in each par- 
 ish." 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved that the section 
 and amendment be laid on the table in- 
 definitely. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Bra- 
 zeale, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Cenas, Downs, Eustis, Garrett, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, Lewis, Mc- 
 Rae, Peets, Prescott of St. Landry, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Madison, 
 Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wadsworth and We- 
 derstrandt voted in the affirmative— 28 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brent, Briant, 
 Chambliss, Chinn, Covillion, Derbes, Du- 
 Buchel, Dunn, Garcia, Guion, King, Le- 
 doux, Legendre, Marigny, Mayo, Mazu- 
 reau, Porter, Pugh, Roman, Soule, Taylor 
 
 of Assumption, Winchester and Winder- 
 voted in the negative^ — 25 nays: conse- | 
 quently said motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Boudousquie gave notice that he 
 would to-morrow move to reconsider the 
 laying on the table indefinitely the above 
 section. 
 
 The following additional section, offered 
 by Mr. Conrad of New Orleans, was ta- 
 ken up: 
 
 "Taxation shall be equal and uniform 
 throughout the State." 
 
 With the following amendment, offered 
 by Mr. Garrett: 
 
 "All property subject to taxation in this 
 State, shall be taxed in proportion to its 
 value, to be ascertained by law. No one 
 species of property, from which a tax may 
 be collected, shall be taxed any higher 
 than another species of property of equal 
 value, subject to taxation." 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved further to amend 
 said section, by adding the following pro- 
 viso: 
 
 " Provided, That the legislature shall 
 have power to tax merchants, hawkers, 
 pedlers, privileges or incomes, in such 
 manner as may from time to time be pre- 
 scribed by law." 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to lay these propo- 
 sitions indefinitely on the table. He did 
 not like a general provision, tying up the. 
 hands of the legislature in this matter, and 
 making the slightest deviation from the 
 rule laid down, fatal. If the legislature 
 came as near as possible to equality and 
 uniformity in taxation, it was all that could 
 be reasonably expected. He could not 
 vote for these propositions — it was unne- 
 cessary and inexpedient. 
 
 Mr. Garrett said he could not concur 
 with his colleague, (Mr. Downs) that the 
 proposition he had the honor to submit was 
 unnecessary, or that it was inexpedient. 
 It had been copied literally from other con- 
 stitutions. He had never heard that there 
 had been any difficulty encountered in car- 
 rying it into effect. Its object, certainly: 
 was unobjectionable. It was to ensure an 
 equal distribution of the burdens of taxa- 
 tion. There was no reason why one spe- 
 cies of property of equivalent value, should 
 pay a higher tax than another species of 
 property. The first principle in taxation 
 was equality. The section was not un- 
 necessary, for it was not to be inferred 
 
 € 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 868 
 
 that the legislature would do any thing. It 
 was quite likely they would continue to 
 pursue the old system. This is not an un- 
 tried experiment — it has been tested in 
 other States with success, and there is no 
 good reason why we should not adopt it 
 here. 
 
 Mr. Coxrad of Orleans, said that if 
 there were good reasons for disposing, in 
 the summary manner proposed, of the 
 amendments offered, these reasons did not 
 apply to his proposition. His proposition 
 was nothing more than the enunciation 
 of the principle, that taxation should be 
 equal and uniform. It was the recogni 
 tion of this principle. He presumed that i 
 the motion of his colleague, (Mr. Soule) to 
 lay on the table, did not apply to the j 
 enunciation of the principle. 
 
 Mr. Soule: I beg the gentleman's par- 
 jclon. My motion comprehended all. I 
 consider it all unnecessary. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said he differed with the 
 'gentlemen who took that view of the sub- 
 ject. .So far from its being unnecessary, 
 past experience has clearly shown it to be 
 very necessary. There is not a State in 
 the Union where a more partial system of 
 taxation exists than in Louisiana. Horned | 
 cattle, for example, are taxed one cent per 
 head, provided there are twenty-five. The j 
 tax upon one hundred head is one dollar. 
 The tax upon a decripid, worn out slave is 
 one dollar. And yet the one hundred cat- 
 tie are worth infinitely more than the slave; j 
 he may be perfectly valueless, but the 
 owner is, nevertheless, taxed one dollar. 
 Whether his slave is old or young, useful 
 or useless, the tax is still the same. The 
 tax on land is arbitrary. The legislature 
 say that it shall be so much for this parish 
 and so much for that. The only just prin- 
 ciple in taxation, is the principle of ad vo- 
 hrem. But as it is, that principle is not 
 observed. In the parish of St. Landry the 
 laud tax is double what it is in some par- 
 ishes of a similar extent of territory, and 
 agricultural wealth. An old worn out car- 
 riage, not worth fifty dollars, ascending to 
 the same unequal system, is made to pay a 
 tax of five dollars, while a new carriage, 
 worth five hundred dollars, pays but five 
 dollars. Is there, in this, any thing like 
 equality. It is the reverse of any thing 
 like justice. The present proposition 
 lends to limit the imposition of taxes ac- 
 
 cording to the value of the property taxed. 
 That is the true principle, and the result 
 will be, that a property, worth ten thousand 
 dollars, will pay just ten times as much 
 taxes as a property worth one thousand 
 dollars; whereas the reverse is often the 
 case, under the existing system. 
 
 Mr. Soule: The principle of equality in 
 taxation need not be asserted; it is just as 
 clear as that two and two makes four. It is 
 unnecessary to discuss the principle. It is 
 true that abuses have grown up under the 
 existing system, but are they not inherent 
 to the infirmities of human nature, rather 
 than to the system that has prevailed? 
 These abuses will exist, do what we may, 
 and whether we assert the fundamental 
 principles of taxation or not, it will make 
 no material difference. Hence it is, I in- 
 sist upon my motion to lay the section and 
 amendments on the table. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, said that 
 the principle involved was of great impor- 
 tance. As was truly remarked by the 
 delegate from St. Landry, (Mr. Lewis) the 
 practical operation of our system of taxa- 
 tion, was without example in any State of 
 the Union. Certain species of property 
 were exorbitantly taxed, and other species, 
 of equal or greater value, were slightly 
 taxed, or not tazed at all. One species of 
 property pays nothing, and contributes 
 nothing, while some others contribute but 
 trivially. Look at the land tax. It has 
 from time immemorial been fixed at forty- 
 seven thousand dollars. What an insig- 
 nificant amount from that source, in com- 
 parison to what is realized from slaves. 
 They are made to contribute about five 
 times as much. Moveable property, again, 
 is never brought into account; it pays noth- 
 ing. Then there is capital in money, 
 which is employed under the protection of 
 our laws, that pays nothing. And yet if 
 the very same capital be invested in 
 slaves and in agricultural pursuits, it is 
 taxed very heavily. W^hile I agree, said 
 Mr. Ta}dor, in the remarks of the delegate 
 from St. Landry, (Mr. Lewis) I do not 
 think that the proposition submitted by the 
 delegate from Ouachita (Mr. Garrett) 
 meets the difficulty. I object to it because 
 it confers on the legislature the power to 
 discriminate, and to determine what kind 
 of property shall be taxed. It may impose 
 taxation on one species Qf property and not 
 
881 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 on another. What it requires is only 
 equality in apportioning taxation upon the 
 property that the legislature may think 
 proper to tax. I am opposed to that fea- 
 ture, and will offer the following as a sub- 
 stitute: 
 
 "The revenue of the State, derived from 
 taxation, shall be assessed equally upon all 
 the property of the State, according to its 
 value, to be ascertained in such manner as 
 the legislature shall direct, so that the same 
 shall be equal and uniform throughout the 
 State. No one species of property shall 
 be taxed higher than any other species of 
 property of equal value." 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad said, that one very 
 serious objection to the substitute would be 
 the difficulty of coming at all the property 
 of the State. Would the assessors have to 
 go to theba.n-yard, to ascertain how many 
 chickens there were, and how many ducks. 
 How were promisory notes and bills of ex- 
 change to be got at for the purpose of 
 taxing them. It was apparent that a large 
 portion of the property of the State could 
 not be got at. The gentleman's proposi- 
 tion resembled rather a plan of taxation 
 than a principle of taxation. He doubted 
 very much its practicability. 
 
 Whereupon the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Tuesday, May 6, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Warren opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Porter gave notice that he would 
 on to-morrow move to reconsider the vote 
 adopting the section offered by Mr. Taylor 
 of Assumption, in relation to the acquisi- 
 tion of residence. 
 
 Mr. Winder submitted the following 
 resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That from and after three 
 o'clock this day, no new provision shall be 
 offered, except by way of amendment, un- 
 less the Convention shall give its consent 
 thereto by a vote of two-thirds of the mem- 
 bers present." 
 
 Mr. Scott of Baton Rouge, moved to 
 amend said resolution by adding the follow- 
 ing: 
 
 "And that the Convention shall adjourn 
 sine die, on Saturday next at three o'clock, 
 p. m." 
 
 Mr. Winder accepted the amendment. 
 
 Mr. Winder then moved for the adop- ; 
 tion of the section as amended. 
 
 Mr. Porter appealed to the patriotism 
 of gentlemen not to hurry over the impor- 
 tant business of the Convention, for a delay 
 of two or three days at most. For himself 
 he was anxious that the Convention should 
 adjourn at the very earliest moment, when 
 it should complete its task with all due 
 dilligence and dispatch. He had been 
 among those that had never been absent 
 for a single hour from his seat. He hop^d 
 that the Convention would not dispatch its 
 business after the same fashion that it 
 was dispatched in the legislature at the 
 close of a session. We should remember 
 that there is an essential difference; if the 
 legislature, through impatience, at the close 
 of its session does wrong, there is a reme- 
 dy at the next session; but the acts of this 
 body are, in a great measure, irrevocable. 
 
 Mr. Dunn called for the previous ques- 
 tion, which prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Dunn then moved for a division of 
 the question, to take the vote upon the 
 first proposition, which motion prevailed. 
 
 "Resolved, That from and after three 
 o'clock this day, no new provision shall 
 be offered, except by way of an amend* 
 ment." 
 
 Said proposition was adopted. 
 The second proposition was then adopt- 
 ed. 
 
 The third proposition was then taken up, 
 that the Convention adjourn on Saturday 
 next; and the yeas and nays were called. 
 For the adjournment, 24, against it, 27. 
 
 Mr. Guion submitted the following reso- 
 lution: 
 
 "Resolved, That after the constitution 
 has passed though its second reading, it 
 shall be taken section by section, for a 
 third reading; at which time no amend- 
 ment which may be offered shall be adopt- 
 ed, unless by a majority of the members 
 elected to the Convention, or by a greater 
 number of votes than were given for the 
 section at the first reading. No debates 
 shall take place, and no remarks shall be 
 permitted, but such as may be strictly 
 necessary to explain the object of the 
 the amendment; and after all the sections 
 have been acted on, the question shall be 
 put on the final passage of the constitution. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Cade, the rules were 
 dispensed with, in order to lake up the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 SSo 
 
 above resolution; and the same being taken 
 up, was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumtion, offered the 
 following section, viz: 
 
 The legislature shall devise and estab- 
 lish a system of common schools for the 
 education of all the children of the citizens 
 of the State, and shall provide at least 
 three-fourths of the funds necessary for the 
 support thereof, by a tax on property. 
 
 Mr. Trist said, I now rise, Mr. Presi- 
 dent, to move the reconsideration of the 
 vote making one senatorial district of the 
 parishes of Ascension and St. James, in 
 order that two districts may be made, one 
 of each parish, with one senator to each 
 district. I am induced to move for this 
 division because I know it to be in accor- 
 dance with the wishes of those who sent 
 me here; at the same time, that it disturbs 
 no cast iron rule, no inflexible rule of ap- 
 portionment; since none such has been 
 established by this body. The two parish- 
 es are about equal in wealth and popula- 
 tion. It will also go some little way to- 
 wards correcting a wrong done to a min- 
 ority. I have heard, Mr. President, a good 
 deal said in this body about protection of 
 minorities. Now, sir, in the part of the 
 country where I live I know of no minority 
 requiring protection except a party minori- 
 ty : in all other matters we are a homo- 
 genious mass, without any jarring or dis- 
 cordant elements. Now, sir, what regard 
 has been paid to the rights and feelings of 
 the minority in that part of the eountry? 
 Why.it is excluded from all chance of par- 
 ticipation in the senatorial representation. 
 I do not say that this exclusion is the effect 
 of design : it is more respectful to vie w it 
 as the result of the application of a particu- 
 lar system— that of large districts—in favor 
 of which there is, no doubt, much to be 
 said, but which I consider objectionable 
 in the present state of the public mind, 
 inasmuch as party minorities are sacrificed 
 in its application; and we all know how 
 acutely sensitive the public feeling is to 
 such considerations; more so perhaps than 
 to those of any other description whatever 
 they may be. 
 
 As for myself, personally, I care not a 
 copper about the result of the motion. I 
 am not an aspirant after senatorial honors; 
 and if I know myself I would not stretch 
 112 
 
 J out my hand to clutch them were they with- 
 in its reach. I am actuated solely by a 
 sense of duty, and I call upon the gallant 
 protectors of minorities to eome to the pro- 
 tection of a minority in distress, confident 
 that their chivalrous feelings will move 
 them to respond to the call. 
 
 Mr. Roman suggested that the house was 
 thin, and requested the delegate from As- 
 cention, (Mr, Trist,) to defer his motion 
 until twelve o'clock, m. 
 
 Mr. Trist assented. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, submitted 
 the following section, viz; 
 
 At the general election, in the year 5 
 
 and every--— year thereafter, a poll shall 
 be opened and taken in every election dis- 
 trict in the State, as to the expediency of 
 calling a Convention; and in the event a 
 majority of all the qualified electors in the 
 State shall vote in calling a Convention, 
 the general assembly shall, at their next 
 session, call a Convnntion, to consist of as 
 many members as there shall be represen- 
 tatives in the house of representatives, to 
 be chosen in the same manner and propor- 
 tion as the said representative?, at the gen- 
 eral election next thereafter ensuing, and 
 to meet within six months after their elec- 
 tion, for the purpose of re-adopting, amend- 
 ing or changing this constitution. 
 
 A question of order being raised, viz: 
 
 Whether the above section was not in 
 direct conflict with the section adopted in 
 the article providing for the mode of revis- 
 ing the constitution, and consequently out 
 of order. 
 
 Mr. Labauve in the chair, decided that 
 the section was not in order. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, appealed 
 from the decision of the chair. 
 
 The decision of the chair was not main- 
 tained. 
 
 Mr. Guiois T moved to lay said section on 
 the table indefinitely. It was useless, said 
 Mr. G. The people had a right, indepen* 
 dent of any constitutional provision, to call 
 a convention, when the}' pleased. 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of OrUans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Derbes, Dunn,DuBouchel, 
 Eustis, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, 
 Legendre, Lewis, McCallop, Marigny, Ma° 
 
fc8<3 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 zueau, Roman, Sellers, Stephens,Voorhies, 
 Wadsworth, Winchester and Winder voted 
 in the affirmative — 32 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Cham- 
 bliss, Covillion, Culbertson, Downs, Gar- 
 rett, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, McRae, 
 Mayo, Peets, Porter, Preston, Read, Saund- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison, Soule, Splane, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Waddill and 
 Wederstrandt voted in the negative —27 
 nays ; 
 
 Mr. Waddill submitted the following 
 section: 
 
 No person shall be imprisoned for debt 
 in any action, or on any judgment founded 
 upon contract, unless in case of fraud; nor 
 shall any person be imprisoned for a mili- 
 tary fine in time of peace. 
 
 Said section was laid on the table, sub- 
 ject to call. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ledoux, the fifth sec- 
 tion of the general provisions was recon- 
 stdered. 
 
 Sec. 5. No money shall be drawn from 
 the treasury but in pursuance of specific 
 appropriations made by law, nor shall any 
 appropriation of money for the support of 
 an army be made for a longer time than 
 one year. A regular statement and ac- 
 count of the receipts and expenditures of 
 the public monies shall be published annu- 
 ally,in such manner as shall be provided by 
 law. 
 
 Mr. Ledoux moved to amend the fore- 
 going section by striking out in the third 
 line the words "for the support of an army," 
 and in the fifth line he proposed to strike 
 out "one," and substitute "two," as the le- 
 gislature met biennially. 
 
 Agreeably to previous notice, Mr. Sel- 
 lers moved to reconsider the vote adopt- 
 ing the eighth section of the legislative arti- 
 cle, for the purpose of proposing an amend- 
 ment, that the payment of a poll tax be 
 essential to the exercise of the right of 
 suffrage. The said poll tax to be appro- 
 priated to public education. 
 
 Mr. Chinn opposed the reconsideration. 
 It was contrary he considered to the wish- 
 es of the people to impose any such restric- 
 tion upon the right of suffrage. 
 
 The motion to reconsider was lost. 
 It being twelve o'clock, Mr. Trist, moved 
 to reconsider the vote forming one senato- 
 rial district of St. James and Ascention. 
 
 The ayes and nays were called for, 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Cade, Carrier©, Chambliss, 
 Covillion, DuBouchel,Downs, Eustis, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Ledoux, McCallop, McRae,, 
 Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Poiter, Preston, 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison, Soule, Splane, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Voorhies, 
 Waddill, Wederstrandt and Winder voted 
 in the affirmative — 34 yeas; 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Bourg, 
 Briant, Chinn, Claiborne, Culbertson, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Der- 
 bes, Dunn, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Ken- 
 ner, King, Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, Saun- 
 ders, Sellers and Winchester voted in the 
 negative-— 26 nays. 
 
 Whereupon Mr. Trist moved to amend 
 the clause as follows : 
 
 The parish of St. James shall constitute 
 one district, with one senator; and the par- 
 ish of Ascension one senatorial district, with 
 one senator. 
 
 Said amendment was adopted, and the 
 section was then re-adopted. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved for the reconsideration 
 of the third section of the article upon the 
 judiciary, fixing the salary of the judges of 
 the supreme court. He stated that his ob- 
 ject was to move to reduce the salary to 
 five thousand dollars for the chief justice, 
 and four thousand five hundred for the as- 
 sociate judges. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for upon 
 the vote to reconsider: 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Covillion, Dunn, Hudspeth, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Mayo,Peets, 
 Porter, Preston, Read, Saunders, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Stephens and Waddill 
 voted in the affirmative — 28 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Briant, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Downs, DuBouchel, Eustis, Gar- 
 rett, Guion, Kenner, King, Labauve, Le- 
 doux, Legendre, Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh, 
 Roman, St. Amand, Soule, Splane, Taylor 
 . of Assumption, Trist, Voorhies, Weder- 
 strandt Winchester and Winder voted in 
 the negative — 33 nays. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne moved to reconsider the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 887 
 
 vote adopting the section offered by Mr. 
 Porter, making all parish officers not 
 provided for in the'constitution, elective. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne observed that it was 
 not his design to discuss the merits of the 
 question in relation to the country parishes; 
 but he deemed it not out of place to state 
 that the people of New Orleans and their 
 delegation in this body, with a single ex- 
 ception, and the gentleman alluded to only 
 partially differs with his colleagues are op- 
 posed to a popular election of parish offi- 
 cers as far as they are concerned. They 
 are thoroughly persuaded that however 
 well it may answer in the country, it would 
 be extremely inconvenient and troublesome 
 in the city. 
 
 Mr. Kenner said that if an exception 
 were to be made in favor of New Orleans, 
 he would ask that the same privilege be 
 accorded to the parishes of Ascension and 
 St. James. He was averse to these excep- 
 tions, and would infinitely prefer that the 
 section should be rejected. 
 
 Mr. Boudousquie moved a like excep- 
 tion for the county of the German Coast. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin remarked that nothing 
 was intended to be proposed by the Or- 
 leans delegation in relation to this matter, 
 as far as it affected the country parishes, 
 because from the decisive majority by which 
 the section was passed, it was apparent that 
 any effort towards that object, would be in- 
 effectual. The people of the city desired to 
 be excepted from the operation of the prin- 
 ciple. They were clamorous for that excep- 
 tion because they were convinced, that how- 
 ever well it might operate in the country, 
 it was totally unsuited to the city. He was 
 not disposed to controvert the opinions of 
 gentlemen from the csuntry parishes, in fa- 
 vor of the measure, it might suit very well, 
 where the people were known to each other 
 and where the population was sparse, but 
 in the city where there were so large a 
 number of local officers to be appointed, it 
 was out of the question. The objections 
 to its application to the city were over- 
 whelming. When the proposition came 
 up (continued Mr. Benjumin) for the elec- 
 tion of public officers by the people, viva 
 voce, I opposed it, because I considered it 
 physically impossible to apply the princi- 
 ple to the city. I have since thrown to- 
 gether with little consideration the various 
 offices in the city for the purpose of form- 
 
 ing an estimate, and I find there are one 
 hundred and fifty-six offices, that is to say 
 there would have to be one hundred and 
 fifty-six persons voted for in the city. 
 There is the governor and lieutenant gov- 
 ernor, four senators, twenty representa- 
 tives, one sheriff, six or eight justices of 
 the peace, a score of notaries, and a num- 
 ber of other offices that would have to be 
 filled by popular elections. It would keep 
 the people in constant occupation. There 
 would not be a lucrative office for which 
 there would not be several candidates; these 
 candidates would have severally their 
 friends and partizans,; there would be intri- 
 guing and electioneering for months before 
 the canvass opened, the city would become 
 a mass of confusion and would be conver- 
 ted into a grand battle-ground for conten- 
 ding factions. But this would not yet be 
 all; there are other objections. There are 
 forty-three notaries in the city. The ap- 
 pointment of a notary is no better than 
 the diploma of a lawyer; to have a lucra- 
 tive practice in either one must establish a 
 reputation. The business of a notary de- 
 pends upon his skill and the confidence he 
 may inspire in that skill. In the country 
 parishes, where there are but one or two 
 notaries, the community have little choice; 
 but in the city where there is a great many, 
 the case is different. It so happens that in 
 the city, five or six notaries do the mass 
 of the business, because they are in the en- 
 joyment of the public confidence, and be. 
 cause the ancient titles of property are to 
 be found in their offices. Even with the 
 existing system some inconvenience is felt, 
 in hunting up titles. The titles of a nota- 
 rial are retained by the individual succeed- 
 ing to j,the appointment. This is the rule, 
 and yet it is not free from inconvenience. 
 What will it be when the office is to be re- 
 newed every four or five years ? Where 
 are the titles to property to be found ? Who 
 is to take the books of this or that notary : 
 the books of A. B. and C. ? Are the suc- 
 cessful candidates to draw lots ? But if to 
 avoid this, the electors shall designate on 
 their tickets, who is to be the successor of 
 each particular notary, and there are twen- 
 ty notaries to be elected, it will require a 
 quire of paper to write down the various 
 designations, and two weeks to count the 
 votes. Full nine-tenths of the people of 
 New Orleans are convinced of the absurdi^ 
 
888 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 by of the principle when applied to the city. 
 1 hope, therefore, that the reconsideration 
 will be ordered, and that the city will be 
 exempted. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson said he was in favor of 
 the election of some of the parish officers 
 by the people, but not of all. He would 
 readily vote to exclude from the popular 
 election the offices of notaries, and per- 
 haps one or two other offices, but with 
 that reservation, he was in favor of the 
 principle of popular elections in the city 
 as well as in the country; for if it was good 
 for the one. it was reasonable to conclude 
 it was good for the other; and if bad, it was 
 certainly bad for both. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said he was distinctly oppos- 
 ed to the sweeping clause, that all parish 
 officers should be elected. He thought 
 there were some parish officers that would 
 be advantageously elected by the people, 
 and those he would have expressly named. 
 But he was averse to the principle of one 
 rule for the city and another for the coun- 
 try. He would vote for the reconsidera- 
 tion, if it were understood that the section 
 was to be modified and be made general in 
 its operations. 
 
 Mr. Read said he had designed voting 
 for the reconsideration; but upon reflection 
 he thought it would open the floodgates for 
 other exceptions, >and he would therefore 
 vote no. 
 
 The yeas and nays were asked for upon 
 the reconsideration. 
 
 Messrs. BeaU} r , Benjamin, Bourg, Bou- 
 dousquie, Brazeale, Briant, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, DuBouchel, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Humble, Hynson, 
 Kenner, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Mc- 
 Callop, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, 
 Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Roman, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Madison, 
 Sellers, Soule, Splane, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Trist, Voorhies, Wederstrandt, Win- 
 chester and Winder — voted in the affirma- 
 tive ; 46 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brent, Brumfield, Covil- 
 lon, Dunn, Hudspeth, Lewis, McRae, Pres- 
 on, Read, St. .Amand, Scott of 'Feliciana, 
 Stephens and Waddili, voted in the nega- 
 tive; 14 nays. 
 
 The section was then taken up, as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 All parish officers not otherwise provided 
 for by this constitution shall be elected by 
 the qualified electors of the different parish- 
 es, in such manner as shall be prescribed 
 by law. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne moved to amend said 
 section by adding at the end of the same 
 the following proviso, viz: 
 
 Provided, that the mode of appointment 
 and the tenure of office of all officers in the 
 parish of Orleans shall remain as hereto, 
 fore, unless otherwise provided by the legis* 
 lature. 
 
 Mr. Boudousquie moved to amend said 
 proviso by inserting after the word "Or- 
 leans," the words "German Coast." 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Briant, Chinn, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Garcia, Hudspeth, Kenner, Legen^ 
 dre, Lewis, Roman, St. Amand, Sellers, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Wads worth and 
 Winchester voted in the affirmative- — 18 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cade,Clai- 
 borne, Cenas, Chambliss, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Covillion, Downs, DuBouchel, Eus- 
 tis, Garrett, Guion, Humble, Hynson, La- 
 bauve, Ledoux, McCallop, McRae, Mar- 
 igny, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Preston, Read, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison, Soule, Splane, 
 Stephens, Trist, Voorhies, Waddili, Wed. 
 erstrandt and Winder voted in the nega- 
 tive — 44 nays. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved to amend said pro? 
 viso by adding at the end of the same the 
 following amendment, viz: 
 
 And that the register of conveyances, 
 register of mortgages, and notaries public 
 for the State at large, shall be appointed as 
 the legislature may direct. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Beatty, Boudousquie, Bourg, 
 Briant, Chinn, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Garcia, Guion, Kenner, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, Pugh, Roman, 
 St. Amand, Saunders, Splane, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Trist, Wadsworth, Winchester 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative — 24 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Cenas, Cham- 
 bliss, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Co- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 889 
 
 villidn, Dawns, DuBouchel, Dunn, Eustis. 
 Garrett, Grymes, Hudspeth, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Ledoux, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, 
 Mayo, Mazureau, Peets,' Porter, Prescott 
 of St. Landry, Preston, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Soule, Stephens, Voorhies, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in the 
 negative — 40 nays. 
 
 Mr. F. B. Conrad moved to include the 
 the parish of Jefferson. He said his con- 
 stituents were as much opposed to the sys- 
 tem of electing all their parish officers as 
 were the people of the city of New Or- 
 leans. He considered himself instructed 
 upon that point by the known wishes of his 
 constituents. 
 
 The previous question was called and 
 sustained on Mr. Conrad's motion to ex- 
 clude the parish of Jefferson. 
 
 The yeas- and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Briant, Chirm, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson^ Derbes, 
 Dunn, Garcia, Kenner, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Wads worth and Winchester vo- 
 ted in the affirmative — 17 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Cenas, 
 Chambliss, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Covillion, Downs, DuBouchel, Eustis, Gar- 
 rett, Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, 
 Hynson, Labauve, Ledoux, McCallop, 
 McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, 
 Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Read, ^Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sel- 
 lers, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Voorhies, 
 Waddill Wederstrandt and Winder voted 
 \ in the negative — 45 nays. 
 
 When Mr. Preston's name was reached, 
 that delegate said that he voted no, because 
 he differed from the opinion expressed by 
 his colleague (Mr. Conrad,) that the peo- 
 ple of Jefferson were averse to the election 
 of all their public officers. His colleague 
 had said, he felt iastruced by the known 
 wishes of the people. I think, said Mr. 
 Preston, that my colleague has misunder- 
 stood the popular sentiment of our com- 
 mon constituents upon his point. I avow- 
 ed my feelings and views upon this very 
 topic at public meetings, in private con- 
 versations, and on every occasion to my 
 fellow-citizens. I declared I was in favor 
 
 of the election of all parish officers by 
 the people even including the parish judge; 
 and I received, notwithstanding these avow- 
 als, a few more votes than were ever giv- 
 en to any candidate in that parish. I 
 therefore am forced to the conclusion that 
 my colleague is in error when he asserts 
 that the people of Jefferson are in favor of 
 his amendment. As to the difficulties 
 growing out of the election of notaries pub- 
 lic, spoken of by the delegate from New 
 Orleans, (Mr. Benjamin) I consider it a 
 perfect bug-bear. Notaries could just as 
 well be licensed as lawyers or as physi- 
 cians. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne moved for the adoption 
 of his proviso. 
 
 Mr. M. Taylor said he was in favor of 
 the election of several parish officers. He 
 was in favor of the election of sheriffs and 
 certain special officers. But, he was ap- 
 prehensive that the session was too far 
 advanced to act calmly and understanding- 
 ly upon this matter. He was fearful the 
 Convention would act with too much haste. 
 It would therefore, to his judgment, be 
 much better to reject the section altogeth- 
 er, and leave the subject to the judgment 
 and wisdom of the legislature. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne moved for the adoption 
 of the proviso. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, 
 Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Derbes, Downs, Du- 
 Bouchel, Eustis, Grymes, Guion, Humble, 
 Hynson, Ledoux, Legendre, McCallop, 
 Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Pugh, Read, Roman, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Soule, Splane, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Voorhies, Wadsworth, Wed- 
 erstrandt, Winchester and Winder voted 
 in the affirmative — 46 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, 
 Culbertson, Dunn, Garcia, Hudspeth, 
 King, Labauve, Lewis, McRae, Preston, 
 St. Amand, Scott of Feliciana, Stephens 
 and Waddill voted in the negative — 15 
 nays. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson stated in giving his 
 vote that he was willing to exclude from 
 the operation of the section, notaries, the 
 recorder of mortgages and the clerks of 
 
890 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 courts, but as the proviso embraced all 
 parish officers, he felt compelled to vote 
 against it. 
 
 Mr. Garcia said he voted- against the 
 proviso, because if the principle in the sec- 
 tion were a good one, the city ought to 
 have the- benefit of it. And if it were bad, 
 it ought not to be applied to the country 
 any more than to the city. 
 
 Mr. Lewis would state briefly the rea- 
 sons why he recorded his vote in the nega- 
 tive. He was in favor only of certain 
 parish officers being excepted from the 
 principle. If that could have been done 
 generally, in regard to the whole State, it 
 would have met his approbation. But he 
 could not think of countenancing local ex- 
 ceptions in the constitution. It was bad 
 enough in our legislation, but still worse in 
 the constitution. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth said he should have 
 liked to have seen the city of Lafayette in- 
 cluded, because similar reasons existed for 
 her exclusion, and these reasons were 
 valid. But it was no motive .with him, be- 
 cause the city of Lafayette was not inclu- 
 ded, that the city of New Orleans should 
 lose the benefit of the proviso. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne asked for the adoption 
 of the section, and the yeas and nays were 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Cenas, Cham- 
 bliss, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Downs, DuBouchel, Eustis, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Ledoux, Legendre, McCallop, 
 McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Por- 
 ter, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Pugb, 
 Read, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sel- 
 lers, Soule, Stephens, Trist, Yoorhies, 
 Wederstrandt and Winchester voted in the 
 affirmative — 39 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Boudousquie, Bourg, 
 Briant, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Lewis, 
 Roman, St. Amand, Splane, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Waddill, Wadsworth and Win- 
 der voted in the negative— 23 nays. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin declared he was opposed 
 to the principle contained in the section. 
 He thought it wrong. It did not meet his 
 concurrence, and the only reason why he 
 voted for it, was because it appeared to be 
 understood that if the section were recon- 
 
 sidered, he was to vote for its re-adoption. 
 Nothing he had said could give rise to that 
 impression, but inasmuch as it prevailed, 
 to avoid the remotest suspicion of bad f.iith 
 he voted in the affirmative. - 
 
 Mr. Claiborne expressed a similar re- 
 pugnance to the principle. But when he 
 introduced his proviso, he declared it was 
 not his intention to interfere with the sec- 
 tion further than to make an exception in 
 favor of the city. The section had beo,n 
 reconsidered by the votes of those favora- 
 ble to the principle, the exception had 
 been made, and now he voted to put the 
 section where it was before the reconsid- 
 eration. If the question had come up in 
 its original form, he would have voted 
 against the section, as on a previous oc- 
 casion. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad said he was opposed 
 to the principle, and thought it good neither 
 for city nor country. But he voted yea, 
 because he wished to place the section in 
 statu quo ante-helium. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson said he voted in the 
 negative on account of the proviso. 
 
 Mr. Dunn voted against the section, be- 
 cause dispositions in the constitution ought 
 to be general. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Feliciana said he voted 
 against the amendment, but he voted in 
 favor of the section with the amendment, 
 rather than that the section should be lost 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor said he voted in the 
 negative chiefly on account of the excep- 
 tion. He had voted for the amendment 
 through inadvertance. 
 
 Mr. Winchester voted yea, to move the 
 reconsideration to-morrow. 
 
 Mr. Prescott of St. Landry said he 
 voted for the section with the exception, 
 because he considered that the city of New 
 Orleans, from certain peculiarities, belong- 
 ing to a large and populous city, ought to 
 be excepted from the principle. 
 
 Mr. Boudousq,uie voted nay, because the 
 section did not meet his concurrence, and 
 because there was no greater reason to 
 except the city of New Orleans than other 
 parishes, for which their representatives 
 had asked an exception. 
 
 Mr. Marigny asked for the reconsider- 
 ation of the section, excluding the city of 
 New Orleans from being the seat of gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 Mr. Garcia enquired what was the vote 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Mil 
 
 when the proposition was originally car- 
 ried. The secretary replied that there 
 were 39 yeas and 28 nays. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. Marig- 
 ny's motion, and the yeas and nays were 
 called for; 26 yeas, 36 nays. 
 
 Mr. Waddill called up the following 
 section, offered by him : 
 
 "No person shall be imprisoned for debt 
 in any action, or any judgment founded 
 upon contract, unless in case of fraud; nor 
 shall any person be imprisoned for a militia 
 fine in time of peace." 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved to lay said section 
 on the table indefinitely. 
 
 Mr. Downs said he would vote in favor 
 of the motion to lay the section indefinitely 
 on the table, because a law existed for the 
 abolition of imprisonment for debt. It was 
 better to leave the subject under the con- 
 trol of the legislature, inasmuch as they 
 disposed of it. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor said this was one of 
 the few matters that he desired to see 
 placed beyond legislative control. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said he was opposed to 
 laying the section on the table. It was a 
 matter affecting the liberty of the citizen, 
 and was therefore well worthy of the con- 
 sideration of this body. He was decidedly 
 against imprisonment for debt, except 
 where fraud could be shown, and thought 
 the exemption should be recognized in the 
 constitution as a personal right, except in 
 cases of fraud. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad thought there was 
 no necessity for a constitutional provision. 
 There was no imprisonment for debt in 
 this State, except for fraud. 
 
 Mr. Lewis w T ould state the reason why 
 he was opposed to the section. When a 
 member of the legislature he had advocated 
 and voted for the law abolishing imprison- 
 ment for debt. Subsequent experience 
 had convinced him that it was one of the 
 greatest sources of fraud. 
 
 Mr. Garrett said he had moved to lay 
 the section on the table, because he 
 thought it unnecessary, inasmuch as the 
 legislature have disposed of the subject. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for on 
 Mr. Garrett's motion to lay the section in- 
 definitely on the table: 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Boudousquie, Brazeale, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Cenas, Cham- 
 bliss, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 
 son, Covillion, Downs, Garrett, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, 
 McCallop, Mayo, Peets, Pugh, Roman, 
 Saunders, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in ther affir- 
 mative — 33 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Brent, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Culbertson, Derbes, DuBou- 
 chel, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Hynson, 
 McRae, Marigny, Porter, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Madison, Soule, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Trist, Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in 
 the negative — 24 nays. 
 
 The Convention then took up the subject 
 of taxation. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad had offered the fol- 
 lowing provision: 
 
 "Taxation shall be equal and uniform 
 throughout the State." 
 
 To which Mr. Garrett offered the 
 following amendment, viz : 
 
 "All property subject to taxation in this 
 State, shall be taxed in proportion to its 
 value, to be ascertained by law. No one 
 species of property from which a tax may 
 be collected, shall be taxed higher than 
 another species of property of equal value 
 and subject to taxation." 
 
 Provided, The legislature shall have 
 power to tax merchants, haw 7 kers, pedlers, 
 privileges or incomes, in such manner as 
 may from time to time be prescribed by 
 law. 
 
 The question under consideration at the 
 adjournment, was the following substitute, 
 offered by Mr. Taylor of Assumption, viz: 
 
 "The revenue of the State derived from 
 taxation shall be assessed equally upon all 
 the property of the State, according te^ its 
 value, ascertained in such manner as the 
 legislature shall direct, so that the same 
 shall be equal and uniform throughout the 
 State. No one species of property shall be 
 taxed higher than another species of pro- 
 perty of equal value. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said that when the substitute 
 was first read, he thought it more concise 
 than the proposition of his friend from 
 Ouachita (Mr. Garrett). But upon exami- 
 nation, he apprehended that it carried the 
 taxing power too far. It requires every 
 species of property to be taxed. That is 
 going too far. Some property may be 
 taxed, while it will be extremely inconve- 
 
b92 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 iiient to lax-other property. As the dele- 
 gate from New Orleans (Mr. Conrad) had 
 observed, it would not only be inconvenient 
 but impracticable to carry out the plan. 
 It was better to leave the legislature to de- 
 termine from what sources the revenue 
 should be raised, and only to provide that 
 the taxation imposed should be equal, that 
 it should be in the ratio of the value of the 
 property subject to taxation. But to pre- 
 scribe that all property should be taxed 
 would require an inquisitorial inspection 
 of a man's personal property, of the ward- 
 robe of his family, of his bed and beding, 
 and even an insight ito the barn-yard, to 
 count the ducks and chickens. This was 
 certainly goin too far. It was going far 
 enought to declare that taxation should be 
 equal, leaving it to the legislature to de- 
 termine the species of property which 
 should bear the burdens of taxation. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, replied that 
 he never dreamed that in practice it would 
 result that the assessors would have to rate 
 the poultry in a barn-yard, or to inspect a 
 man's dwelling to ascertain the number of 
 his sheets. He believed the principle 
 embraced in his substitute to be correct. 
 The original proposition did not touch and 
 could not remedy the evil. It provides 
 only that such property as may be taxed, 
 in proportion to its value; it clearly leaves 
 the legislature with a discretionary power 
 to discriminate, to select one species of pro- 
 perty and not another. This is the actual 
 system which has been in practice ever 
 since the organization of the government; 
 and what has been the result of that sys- 
 tem? That, a small amount of taxation has 
 been laid upon one kind of property of 
 greater value, while a heavier amount of 
 taxation has been laid upon another kind 
 of property of less value. This has par- 
 ticularly been the case in relation to slaves. 
 In the second place, a revenue is derived 
 from some particular trades and profes- 
 sions, while others are not taxed at all, 
 or but trivially taxed. 
 
 Again, moveable property, money loaned 
 and stock in trade, are not taxed at all. 
 The inequality and partiality of the present 
 system cannot be justified. I defy any one, 
 said Mr. T., to tell me why the capital of a 
 planter should be subject to heavy burdens 
 of taxation, while an equal amount of capi- 
 tal, if employed in Joans or in trade, is not | 
 
 subject to be taxed at all? If a man have 
 one hundred thousand dollars invested in 
 slaves, an arbitrary tax, not based in pro- | 
 portion to their value in reference to other I 
 property, is laid, but the capitalist is free 
 to invest the same amount, and to realize 
 from it a much heavier interest, without 
 contributing one cent to the public burdens. 
 
 The proposition of the delegate from 
 Ouachita (Mr. Garrett) will only compel 
 the legislature to pay some respect to the 
 relative value of land and slaves in thei^. 
 position of taxes; but the legislature may 
 confine the revenue to these two sources. 
 What is to prevent it? What has expe- 
 rience shown us? A few years ago there 
 was a deficit in the treasury; what did the 
 finance committee do? Did they propose 
 the imposition of a tax upon moveables? 
 No, sir, they increased the taxes. The 
 same course will continue to be followed. 
 The only correct system is to impose a tax 
 upon all kinds of property; make it all con- 
 tribute in proportion to its value. The bur- 
 dens of taxation will then fall equally. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, objected to a 
 system of taxation in the constitution 
 which would be immutable. No constitu- 
 tion sliould attempt any thing of the kind. 
 It might become onerous. The matter of 
 taxation must be regulated by the variable 
 changes in society. If you attempt a sys- 
 tern, and make that system perpetual, you 
 may bear with peculiar hardship upon the 
 poorer classes. The expression," 'all the ; 
 property of the State," was equivocal. He 
 presumed the mover meant all the property 
 in the State. That would include not only 
 poultry in the barn-yard, but every thing 
 else of any value. The planter would not 
 only have his slaves and his land taxed; 
 but his tools, and even the very crop after 
 it was gathered, for it was property, just as 
 much as his negro or his horse. The soil 
 and labor would not only be taxed, but the 
 product of the soil. There is no stop nor 
 limit to the principle. It would require a 
 swarm of tax collectors, and the system 
 would even be still more burdensome than 
 that pursued in England. 
 
 At the first blush he had been disposed 
 to consider the proposition of the delegate 
 from Ouachita (Mr. Garrett) a good one, 
 without the proviso. As to the proviso, it 
 was useless. The legislature necessarily 
 should have a discretionary power as to 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 803 
 
 the property to be taxed. The general 
 principle that taxation should be equal and 
 uniform, was a good one. In asserting 
 that principle, the constitution went suffi- 
 ciently far. In other respects the legisla- 1 
 ture should have full power. 
 
 Mr. Wadswqkth said that the delegate f 
 from New Orleans (Mr. Conrad) appear- : 
 ed to be frighened at shadows. There 
 was no ground for the construction that the 
 product of the property, as well as the 
 property itself, were subject to taxation 
 under the substitute. Taxation, as he un- 
 derstood it, would be imposed upon the 
 property in proportion with its productive- 
 ness, that is to say. in reference to the 
 revenue derived from it. And if a tax 
 were imposed upon chickens-, which the 
 gentleman apprehended as one of the re- 
 suits, the tax would be graduated upon the 
 revenue derived from them. He did not 
 understand the substitute in any other way. 
 As to the propriety of taxing actual capital 
 in money, it was as proper a subject of 
 taxation as slaves or lands; and it should! 
 be subject to taxation just as much as if it 
 were converted into those sources of re- 
 venae. 
 
 Mr, Eustis said he approached this i 
 subject with a great deal of deference for | 
 the opinions of gentlemen who had spoken 
 upon it, It was one of the most dim* cult i 
 and abstruse subjects of legislation, and , 
 had engaged the attention of the ablest 
 minds, the penetrating judgments of men of 
 the keenest intelligence, for years. The i 
 income tax in England was a matter of 
 great perplexity to her statesmen. He 
 was sorry that we had neither the time j 
 nor the means of reaching this question ; 
 understandingly. It was better to take the , 
 sense of the house upon the principle that 
 "taxation should be equal and uniform.'"' ; 
 That was as far as we could go. He j 
 would move to lay the other propositions 
 indefinitely on the table. 
 
 Mr. Mayo called for the previous ques- 
 tion; which was sustained, 
 
 Mr. Porter was in favor of laying Mr. 
 Taylor's substitute on the table, but not the 
 proposition presented by Mr. Garrett. *He, ! 
 therefore, moved for a division of the ques- 
 tion, that is, to take the vote on the substi- ! 
 ■ '■He: which motion prevailed. 
 
 The yeas and navs being called for, to 
 113 ' 
 
 lay the substitute on the table indefinitely, 
 resulted as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Chambliss, Claiborne. Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cc- 
 vtUion, Cuibertson, Derbes, Downs, Di> 
 Bouchel, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, Kenner. Legendre, 
 Lewis, Me C aiio p, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Peets, Porter. Prescott of St. Landry. Read, 
 Roman. Scott of Feliciana. Scott of Madi- 
 son. Sellers. Stephens. Voorhies, Weder- 
 strandt and Winder voted in the afirma- 
 tive — 39 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, B riant. Cade, Garcia, 
 King, Mazureau, Preston. Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of 
 St. Laiidry, Trist, Waddill, Wadsworth 
 and Winchester voted in the negative— ^14 
 nays. 
 
 Mr. Winder presented the following re- 
 solution: 
 
 "Resolved, That for the balance of the 
 session the Convention shall h cd evening 
 sessions; and that the secretary be empow- 
 ered to employ as many clerks as he may 
 deem necessary to keep up the proceed- 
 ings." 
 
 Whereupon the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Wednesday, May 7, I $45. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The proceedings were opened with 
 prayer from the Ref. Mr. Clark. 
 
 Mr. Winder stated that having voted 
 with the majority upon the question to es- 
 tablish the parish of Orleans into a single 
 senatorial district, and having upon mature 
 reflection- come to the conclusion that it 
 would be better to divide the parish into a 
 plurality of senatorial districts, he would 
 move for the reconsideration of that vote, 
 and that the reconsideration be had when 
 the city delegation shall be in :ull attend- 
 ance. 
 
 The President appointed Mr. Boudous- 
 quie a member of the committee on enrol- 
 ment, in place of Mr. Roman, who asked 
 to be excused from serving on that commit- 
 tee, as his time was monopolized as a mem 1 
 ber of the committee on revision. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 GENERAL PROVISION'S. 
 
 Additional section, offered by Mr-. (_' M 
 Conrad; 
 
/ 
 
 894 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 "Taxation shall be equal and uniform 
 throughout the State." 
 
 Mr. Garrett's amendment to the above 
 was taken up in connection: 
 
 "All property subject to taxation in this 
 State, shall be taxed in proportion to its 
 value, to be ascertained by law. No one 
 species of property, from which a tax may 
 be collected, shall be taxed any higher 
 than another species of property of equal 
 value, and subject to taxation. 
 
 "Provided, That the legislature shall 
 have power to tax merchants, hawkers, 
 pedlers, privileges or incomes, in such 
 manner as may from time to time be pre- 
 scribed by law." 
 
 Mr. Eustis said he would propose to 
 lay the proposition of the gentleman from 
 Ouachita (Mr. Garrett) indeffnitely on the 
 table. He conceived that the house were 
 not prepared to act upon so difficult a ques- 
 tion, and he was averse to details in a con- 
 stitution. When you say that all property 
 shall be taxed, it is clear you comprehend 
 moveable property as well as immoveable 
 property. But what means have you of 
 reaching mooveable property? The un- 
 scrupulous man will evade the tax, while 
 the burden will fall upon the fair-dealing 
 man, who will frankly avow all that he 
 possesses. Your section will hold out in- 
 ducements to perjury, for implicit reliance 
 will, from the necessity of tho case, have to 
 be placed in the oath of the party. I say 
 this, continued Mr. Eustis, without the 
 slightest disrespect. This subject is one 
 of the most difficult in legislation; it is cer- 
 tainly not a proper time at the close of our 
 labors to pass upon it. In no constitution 
 is a similar clause to be fund. It will be 
 attended with inconvenience, embarrass- 
 ment, and other unfortunate results. The 
 only principle we can act upon and embo- 
 dy in the constitution, is that offered by 
 my colleague (Mr. Conrad), that taxation 
 shall be equal and uniform. That provi- 
 sion is sufficient. We cannot go beyond 
 it with safety, and if we go no further we 
 shall act wisely and discreetly. These 
 are my convictions, briefly expressed. I 
 do not propose to discuss the principle, I 
 think it no time even to discuss it, much 
 less to give it a place in the constitution. 
 
 Mr. Garrett said that had the gentle- 
 man from New Orleans (Mr. Eustis) have 
 examined this question with his usual pene- 
 
 tration^ he would have seen that it was not 
 subject to his objections. It was to pro- 
 vide against the very evils which the dele- 
 gate had himself suggested. It does not 
 require that the legislature shall impose a 
 tax upon every species of property, as the 
 proposition of the delegate from Assump- 
 tion (Mr. Taylor). It only requires 
 equality in taxation upon the property 
 which the legislature may, in their wis- 
 dom, designate as sources of revenue. It 
 requires only that taxation should be im- 
 posed strictly upon- the ad valorem' princi- 
 ple. As to the proposition of the delegate 
 from New Orleans, (Mr. Conrad) it is good 
 as far as it goes, but it does not go suffi- 
 ciently far, 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, said he 
 deemed it proper to say something, in 
 consequence of what fell from the gentle- 
 man from Ouachita (Mr. Garrett), in re- 
 lation to the proposition which had been 
 laid indefinitely on the table yesterday. 
 That provision, said Mr. T., laid down an 
 imperative rule. It compelled the legisla- 
 ture to pursue what I considered a proper 
 policy. I preferred it to the present propo- 
 sition, because it is more explicit. 
 
 It strikes me, continued Mr. Taylor, 
 from what fell from the delegate from New 
 Orleans (Mr. Eustis) this morning, and 
 what fell from his colleague (Mr. Conrad) 
 yesterday, that it is a part of a system, that 
 whatever is regarded with great favor, by 
 the majority of the house, is considered an 
 enormity by the city delegation, when ap- 
 plied to New Orleans. They are willing 
 enough to lay the burdens of taxation upon 
 land and slaves, because it falls principally 
 upon the people of the country. But when 
 it is proposed to tax moveable property, 
 they raise an outcry against it. They re- 
 gard such a tax with particular aversion 
 It is thus with every thing else. Delegates 
 from the city have no objection that the 
 country should bear the burdens of the 
 most onerous taxation, provided the city be 
 excepted. They will unite to rule us, ii 
 forsooth, we consent to except the city. 
 The moment we speak of a tax upon per- 
 sonal property we are told, it will not do. 
 Thus, capital embarked in trade, and other- 
 wise, is to be left untouched, because the 
 tax would fall principally upon the city, 
 as the tax upon land and slaves falls chief- 
 ly upon the country. We are told that it 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 895 
 
 is inquisitorial, and that the people will 
 not submit to taxation on personal proper- 
 ly. There is no country in the world 
 where moveable property is not subject to 
 taxation. It may be difficult to reach 
 some species of personal property subject 
 to taxation; but there are other species that 
 is as tangible, as open to the sight, as im- 
 moveable property. As to capital, and 
 things which may escape apprehension, as 
 money, the conscience of the party may be 
 probed by an oath. I cannot see any ob- 
 jections to that. The gentlemen have 
 failed to convince me why taxation should 
 be derived from immoveable property alone, 
 while personal property should be exempt- 
 ed altogether. I can see no reason for it, 
 unless it be intended to favor the city at 
 the expense of the country. 
 
 The question under consideration at the 
 adjournment was the motion of Mr. Eus- 
 tis to lay the several propositions, with 
 the exception of Mr. Conrad's, indefinite- 
 ly on the table. Mr. Porter had called for 
 a division. The question pending was to 
 lay Mr. Garrett's proposition on the table 
 indefinitely. 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved for a division, in 
 putting the question, so that each clause 
 mi^ht be acted upon separately, which mo- 
 tion prevailed. 
 
 The question was taken on the proviso, 
 and the house refused to lay it on the 
 table. 
 
 The question then recurred on laying 
 the following portion of the proposition 
 upon the table, and was lost: 
 
 4i AU property subject to taxation in this 
 State, shall be taxed in proportion to its 
 value, to be ascertained by law. No one 
 species of property from which a tax may 
 be collected, shall be taxed higher than an- 
 other species of property of equal value, 
 and subject to taxation." 
 
 Mr. Mayo said, when this proposition 
 was first presented, he was disposed to 
 view it favorably, and thought he should 
 vote for it; but the remarks of members 
 that had been made upon the subject, had j 
 inclined him to doubt the propriety of do- 
 ing so. It was a subject of great impor- ' 
 tance, and contained a principle which he 
 believed correct; but he feared it might be 
 found impossible for the legislature to car- 
 ry it into prctical operation. 
 
 The section, as it now stands, provides | 
 
 that '-all property subject to taxation shall 
 be taxed according to its value." This 
 would certainly include all property on 
 which the legislature lias a right to impose 
 a tax — all the property, of every descrip- 
 tion, in'the State. This may be remedied 
 by striking out the words "subject to taxa- 
 tion,' ; and inserting the woids ,! oir which 
 a tax may be levied.'' If these words be 
 substituted, so as to make the provision? 
 least objectionable, there will still exist 
 insuperable objections. I apprehend; and 
 it is this apprehension that induces me 
 to oppose it. How can this valuation 
 be made? It must. I think, be made, 
 either by the assessor swearing the own- 
 er of the property, or by appraisers ap- 
 pointed for that purpose. Suppose the 
 first mode should be determined on by the 
 legislature. The assessor asks me on oath, 
 what my twenty slaves and one thousand 
 acres of land are worth. I answer a cer- 
 tain sum, according to my notions of its 
 value. I form my ideas of its value, from 
 notions peculiar to myself. I do not want 
 to sell, but to keep ray property, and will 
 probably, put a low estimate upon it. My 
 neighbor is asked what his twenty slaves 
 and thousand acres of land are worth. His 
 notions of its value are formed from pecu- 
 liar circumstances which are applicable to 
 him and not to me. He wishes to sell 
 his property, and is asking a high price 
 for it, and he in giving a valuation of it. 
 honestly and conscienciously estimates it 
 to double the amount at which I have esti- 
 mated mine, which is of equal value. 
 This will necessarily make the taxes, as 
 between myself and my neighbor, very 
 unequal. But suppose the appraisement 
 to be made by appraisers appointed for 
 that purpose. It will certainly be very 
 expensive to pay appraisers to go through 
 every parish, and see all the land,, slaves, 
 and other property that is to be taxed, in 
 order to appraise it; and if they do not. 
 they cannot make correct appraisements. 
 But suppose they do go through the par- 
 ish and make their appraisement, and that 
 they, intending to make a correct appraise- 
 ment, make one that is palpably incorrect. 
 We have provided by another section that 
 all questions relating to taxes may b#ta- 
 ken, by appeal, to the supreme court 
 Now, suppose that either myself or my 
 neighbor can prove that the appraisement 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 is unequal; that the property which has 
 been assessed and taxed as being worth a 
 given sum, is worth but half that sum, or . 
 that it is worth double the sum, and should 
 prove it, which is. not an improbable case. 
 It appears to me that he could make a very 
 plausible constitutional case of it, and if 
 aggrieved, could get relief. This is the 
 very object of the. constitutional provision; 
 and if this be true, it does appear to me 
 that it presents a difficulty that would ren- 
 der it impracticable to carry this provision, 
 if made a constitutional one, into effect. 
 
 I must repeat, sir, that I am in favor of 
 the principle contained in the provision; 
 but 1 fear that it may be found impractica- 
 ble to carry it into Operation, and for that 
 reason alone, I feel myself constrained to 
 vote against it; and especially as the legis- 
 lature will have the subject fully in their 
 power, if we make no provision. 
 
 Mr. Roman said that the subject was 
 very important, and if we made a false 
 step, the consequences would be irretriev- 
 able. He would therefore, propose to 
 refer the whole matter to a special. com- 
 mittee. 
 
 Mr. Porter said that the delegate from 
 New Orleans (Mr. Eustis) was mistaken 
 in the opinion that a similar clause to the 
 one now before the house was not to be 
 found in any constitution. The principle 
 of an ctd vciloj'u?7i tax was to be found in 
 most constitutions. Something had been 
 said about the difficulty of getting at the 
 value of personal property. He could see 
 nothing valid in this objection: The as- 
 sessors could place the parties under oath. 
 That was done at present. The present 
 system has manifestly operated partially. 
 It is clearly unjust to make a man with 
 five thousand dollars worth of property 
 contribute as much as a man who has ten 
 thousand dollars worth. That is an evil 
 that ought to be remeded, and unless we 
 pass the section, we have no hopes of any 
 salutary reform in the system of taxation. 
 It was similar in its phraseology to clauses 
 on the same subject in other constitutions. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. Roman's 
 motion to refer, and it was lost. 
 
 Mr. Chikn said he thought it was too 
 late in the session to dispose of this sub- 
 ject as it ought to be disposed of. More- 
 over, he did not think it necessary. The 
 legislature have ample power. I will move 
 
 yon, Mr. President, that it lay indefinitely 
 on the table. 
 
 The President said this motion was 
 not in order. It had already been put and 
 lost. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to add the words "all 
 other moveables." 
 
 Mr. Eustis said that in conceding to the 
 views exposed by the delegate from West 
 Baton Rouge, (Mr, Chinn) his assent, he 
 would ask whetheir the legislature had the 
 power to tax privileges?. If they have ? 
 they may extinguish privileges by taxa- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Waddill moved to amend Mr. 
 Conrad's section by adding after the word 
 "State," the words "on all moveable and 
 immovable property." 
 
 His amendment was lost. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to amend Mr. Gar- 
 ret's proposition by striking out in the first 
 line the words "subject to taxation" and 
 insert in their stead, the words "on which 
 taxes shall be levied," and in the last line, 
 to strike out the words "subject to taxa- 
 tion," and insert the words "on which tax* 
 es shall be levied.'' 
 
 These amendments were adodted. 
 Mr. Labauve moved as a further amend- 
 ment, to insert in the third line, after the 
 word "ascertained," the words "as direct- 
 ed," which motion also prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Lewis called for the question upon 
 the proposition down to the word "provi- 
 ded.* ? 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said fhat if the proposi- 
 tion were not modified, it would bring the 
 government to a stand still. Why, if you 
 ordain that all property shall be taxed, it is 
 evident that taxation upon any particular 
 property is unconstitutional, the very mo 7 
 ment it can be shown that the principle 
 has not been applied generally, that some 
 particular property has been excepted from 
 the general and imperitive rule. To obvi- 
 ate that result, he would propose the fol- 
 lowing substitute: 
 
 "All property on which taxes shall be 
 levied in this State, shall be taxed in pro- 
 portion to its value, to be ascertained as 
 directed by law. No one species of prop- 
 erty from which a tax may be collected shaU 
 be taxed higher than another |species oi 
 property of equal value, on which taxes 
 shall be levied." 
 
 Mr. Winchester suggested whether it 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 39T7 
 
 was not absolutely necessary to delay the j 
 operation of the principle until the year j 
 1S48. It might be understood as applying ' 
 to the present mode of collecting the reve- 
 iiue of the State, and give rise to serious 
 difficulties. 
 
 Mr. Pugh considered it to be unneces- 
 sary to prescribe the period for the opera- j 
 tion of the principle; it could not be ope- 
 rative, until piovided for by law. 
 
 Mr. Porter said this matter would be I 
 regulated by the first legislature convened 
 under the new constitution. It should be ; 
 left to the legislature to apply the principle 
 at as early a period as practicable. 
 
 Mr. Winchester would make one ob- 
 servation. The question had been discus- 
 sed in the legislature, in relation to this 
 very matter, of equality in taxation. It was 
 proposed by the finance committee to ap- 
 point assessors to assess the property in 
 all the parishes. It was discovered that 
 this plan would cost more than the advan- 
 tages it would confer were worth. Those 
 parishes that would act strictly would pay 
 more than those that would pursue an op- 
 posite course. On that "account, it was 
 abandoned. It was clear that some time 
 would have to elapse before the legislature 
 would be enabled to establish, and in the 
 mean while the present mode of collect- 
 ing the taxes would be unconstitutional. 
 Hence it was that he proposed that the 
 principle should not take effect until 1848. 
 That was as early a period as could be as- 
 signed. 
 
 Mr. Mayo said that this was a strange ar- 
 gument against the adoption of the whole 
 section. 
 
 Mr. Winchester moved to amend said 
 substitute by adding at the commencement 
 of the same, the words ''after the year 
 1848," which amendment was accepted by 
 Mr. Benjamin and adopted. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved for the adoption 
 of the substitute as amended, to-wit : 
 
 ••After the year 1848 all property on 
 which taxes shall be levied in this State, 
 shall be taxed in proportion to -its value, to 
 be ascertained as directed by law. No 
 one species of property from which a tax 
 may be collected shall be taxed higher 
 than any other species of property of equal 
 value on which a tax shall be levied/' 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale. Brent. Briant. Brum- 
 
 field. Cade, Carriere. Chambliss. Coviilion, 
 Culbertson, DuBouchel, Dunn. Garrett, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Ilynson, Renner. 
 King. Lewis, McRae, Peers, Porter. Pres- 
 cott, of St. Landry, Preston, ' Prudhomme, 
 Read, Roselius, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scot: of Feliciana, Stephens, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry. Trist, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstran'dt, and 
 WikofT voted in the affirmative — 36 yeas: 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Burton,* Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne. 
 Derbes, Downs, Eustis, Guion. Labauve, 
 Legendre, Marigny, Mayo, Pugh, Roman. 
 St. Amand, Setters, Wadsworth, Winches- 
 ter and Winder voted in the negative — 24 
 nays. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin offered as a substitute te 
 the proviso, the followiug: 
 
 "The legislature shall have power to 
 levy an income tax, and to tax all persons 
 pursuing any occupation, trade or profes- 
 sion." 
 
 Mr. Lewis was in favor of striking out 
 the proviso altogether. 
 
 Mr. Beatty considered that the legisla- 
 ture had the power to impose such a tax 
 without the proviso. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin wished the tax on trades 
 and professions to be general, not to be ap- 
 plied to one clause, and not to another. 
 Said substitute was adopted. 
 Mr. Garrett moved for the adoption 
 ; of the section as amended. 
 
 Mr. Downs said that the section con- 
 ! tained a most extraordinary provision. Ac- 
 1 cording to it. there must be a precise equal- 
 ity : the tax must be identical, otherwise 
 its imposition will be unconstitutional. He 
 looked upon it as attended with great in- 
 convenience and difficulty, in fact, he might 
 say it was totally impracticable. It was 
 inexpedient to make such an experiment, 
 to say the least, for it would give rise to 
 constant litigation, and the absence of equal- 
 ] ity in any one instance, would leave the 
 I treasury without resources. He was aware 
 that the present system of taxation was lia- 
 1 ble to great objections, particularly in ref- 
 ! erence to slaves: but the remedy proposed, 
 exacted what he conceived to be an utter 
 impossibility. A precise equality in the 
 : imposition of taxes. Ail that ought to be 
 : reasonably expected, was as near an ap- 
 | proach to equality, as was practicable. 
 
893 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 What innumerable difficulties will present 
 themselves in the assessments of property 
 under the section! The best system of taxa- 
 tion is that based upon income, but the 
 great difficulty is to ascertain what is the 
 real income. The objection to that system 
 is, that it is impracticable. 
 
 *The legislature in 1842 endeavored, in 
 laying the land tax, to proceed upon the 
 principle of equality. They tried to ar- 
 rive at an equality, and finally attempted to 
 classify the lands into improved land, un- 
 improved land, alluvial land, &c.,but the} r 
 found the whole matter attended with so 
 much difficulty that they were compelled 
 to abandon the design. As to appraise- 
 ments, that is out of the question, as a 
 means of producing equality. No two set 
 of appraisers will act Upon the same prin- 
 ciple in every parish. 
 
 Mr. Brent said he felt some astonish- 
 ment at the opposition made by the dele- 
 gate from Ouachita (Mr. Downs) to a pro- 
 position so plain and simple, so just and 
 equal. He considered that no w 7 ell found- 
 ed objections could be urged against it. 
 The delegate from Ouachita labored under 
 a misapprehension. The section did not 
 require that taxation should be imposed on 
 all kinds of property; it simply provides, 
 that upon all the property upon which a 
 tax may be levied, taxation shall be equal 
 and uniform. Is there any thing imprac- 
 ticable in this? Is there any thing imprac- 
 ticable through sworn assessors to assess 
 an equal ad valorem tax? But he tells us 
 that the assessors will place different valu- 
 ations. Admitting, for argument sake, that 
 they do, and that there will be still ine- 
 qualities, these inequalities will be insig- 
 nificant when compared with the gross in- 
 justice which now 7 prevails, and which is 
 the result of a total disregard of the value 
 of property. The evil will be slight, and 
 will bear no comparison with the excessive 
 difference in taxation that now exists be- 
 tween one parish and another. The pow- 
 er assumed by the legislature, to lay spe- 
 cial taxes without reference to the value of 
 the property taxed, has led to great and 
 crying abuses. 
 
 A similar provision to the present one 
 is to be found in most of the constitutions. 
 In Tennessee taxation is imposed upon 
 the identical same principle. Now, sir, 
 how does it happen that it is practicable 
 
 in Tennessee, and impracticable here? Is 
 not the treasury of Tennessee as well sup- 
 plied as our treasury? 
 
 The delegate from Ouachita (Mr. 
 Downs) gravely admits that the principle 
 is just and fair, but he says it cannot be 
 carried into effect. Now it really strikes 
 me, said Mr. Brent, that this objection has 
 not the slightest weight. The gentleman 
 has adduced the land tax of 1842 for the 
 purpose of showing the great difficulty en- 
 countered in laying an ad valorem tax upon 
 land. What was done, in reference to 
 that tax, by the legislature? Instead of 
 acting upon a just principle, they decided 
 arbitrarily that Layfayette should pay two 
 thousand dollars land tax, St. Landry five 
 thousand dollars, Rapides six thousand dol- 
 lars, without the slightest reference to 
 value. Had they adopted the principle of 
 arriving at the value of the property taxed, 
 there would have been no difficulty. In 
 the State of Alabama there is a recognition 
 of the same principle of taxation based upon 
 land upon the value of property, and yet we 
 have never heard that the government of 
 that State has been brought to a stand stiil. 
 The objections that have been urged to the 
 section, have not the semblance of plausi- 
 bility. 
 
 Mr. Dunn replied that under the sec- 
 tion, if a tax was imposed upon a slave 
 and it could be shown that the tax was 
 greater than upon some other source of re- 
 venue of equal value, the tax would be 
 null, it could not be collected, and the courts 
 would so decide it. 
 
 Mr. Preston said that the principle was 
 a just one. No court would declare that 
 a tax was null if the principle w r as observed 
 as far as possible. He could not see any 
 weight in that objection. It would be in- 
 finitely easier to collect the revenue than 
 by the present system. The property- in 
 the several parishes would be estimated, 
 and according to the exigencies of the 
 treasury, for the current expenses of the 
 government, would a tax be laid of a cer- 
 tain per centum. As for the notion that 
 taxation ought to be in proportion to in- 
 come, that would not operate properly in 
 some instances; for a rich man may have 
 a great deal of unimproved property, which 
 is increasing in value, which would es 
 cape taxation, while the labor of the poor 
 man would be taxed. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 899 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for upon 
 the adoption of the section: 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 Du Bouchel, Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, 
 Hynson, Kenner, King, Lewis, McRae, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Pres- 
 ton, Prudhomme, Read, Roselius, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Madison, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, Voorhies, 
 Waddill, Wederstrandt and Wikoff voted 
 in the affirmative — 40 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Ce- 
 nas, Chinn, Claiborne, Derbes, Downs, 
 Eustis, Grymes, Guion, Labauve, Ledoux, 
 Legendre, Mayo, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, 
 St. Amand, Sellers, Wadsworth, Winches- 
 ter and Winder voted in the negative — 23 
 nays ; and the section as amended was 
 adopted. 
 
 "Taxation shall be equal and uniform 
 throughout the State. After the year 1848 
 all property on which taxes shall be levied 
 in" this State, shall be taxed in proportion 
 to its value, to* be ascertained as directed 
 by law. No one species of property from 
 which a tax may be collected, shall be 
 taxed higher than another species of pro- 
 perty of equal value, on which taxes shall 
 be levied. Provided, that the legislature 
 shall have power to levy an income tax, 
 and to tax all persons pursuing any occu- 
 pation, trade or profession. 
 
 It being the hour of twelve o'clock, Mr. 
 Winchester moved to reconsider the vote 
 adopting the section making all parish 
 officers elective. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Briant, 
 Carriere, Chinn, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- 
 i bertson, Derbes, Dunn, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Preston, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, Saun- 
 ders, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Waddill, Wikoff, Winchester and 
 Winder voted in the affirmative— 28 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale, Brumfield, 
 Brent, Burton, Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, 
 Claiborne, Covillion, DuBouchel, Eustis, 
 Grymes, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Prud- 
 homme, Read, Roselius, Scott of Baton 
 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, 
 Sellers, Stephens, Trist, Voorhies and Wed- 
 erstrandt voted in the negative — 35 nays. 
 
 This being the hour fixed, Mr. Taylor 
 of Assumption moved to reconsider the 
 vote adopting the proviso which excepts 
 New Orleans from the provisions of the 
 section making all parish officers elective. 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Briant, Chinn, Conrad 
 of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, McRae, Pres- 
 ton, Pugh, Saunders, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Waddill, Wikoff, Winchester and Winder 
 voted in the affirmative — 26 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Carriere, 
 Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, Claiborne, Du- 
 Bouchel, Downs, Eustis, Grymes, Humble, 
 Hynson, Ledoux, McCallop, Mayo, Marig- 
 ny, Mazureau, Peets, Porter, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Prudhomme, Read, Roman, 
 Roselius, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Stephens, Trist, Voor- 
 hies and Wederstrandt voted in the nega- 
 tive — 37 nays. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ledoux, the following 
 section was taken up, viz : 
 
 "There shall be appointed by the gov- 
 ernor, with the advice and consent of the 
 senate, an auditor , whose duty it 
 
 shall be to examine and approve all ac- 
 counts before they are paid by the treasu- 
 rer. He shall assist the legislature in ex- 
 amining the accounts of the treasurer, and 
 perform all other duties which may be re- 
 quired of him by law." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Benjamin, said sec- 
 tion was laid on the table indefinitely. 
 
 Agreeably to notice, Mr. Selleks moved 
 to reconsider the sixth section of the legis- 
 lative article. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Briant, Brumfield, Chambliss, Downs, 
 Dunn, Guion, Hynson, Kenner, King, 
 McCallop, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Pugh, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sel- 
 lers, Taylor of St. Landry, Waddill, W 7 ikofT 
 and Winchester voted in the affirmative — 
 25 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Burton, Cade, Car- 
 riere, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 
900 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana:, 
 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, 
 Culbfertson, Derbes, DuBouchel, Eustis, 
 Garrett, Grymes, Hudspeth, Humble, La- 
 bauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, McRae, 
 Mayo, Marigny, Mazureau, Peets, Preston, 
 Prudhomme, Roman, Roselius, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption Voorhies, Wadsworth and Wed- 
 erstrandt voted in the negative — 37 nays. 
 
 The rules being dispensed with, Mr. 
 Taylor of Assumption, moved to recon- 
 sider the twenty-third section of the legis- 
 lative article. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Briant, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Downs, Guion, McRae, Porter, 
 Preston, Roman, Taylor of Assumption, 
 W add-ill, WadsVorth, and Winchester vo- 
 ted in the affirmative — l&yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Brazeale, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Cham- 
 bliss, Conrad of Orleans, DuBouchel, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Grymes, Hudspeth, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Kenner, King, Labauve, Le- 
 doux, Legendie, Lewis, McCallop, Marig- 
 ny, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Prudhomme, Read, Roselius, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sel- 
 lers, Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Voorhies, Wederstrandt, Wikoffand Win- 
 der voted in the negative — 45 nays. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans, said that 
 he considered the house of representatives, 
 under the new constitution, a most unwield- 
 ly body. It was composed of too many 
 members. That was one of the defects he 
 noticed in the constitution. He proposed 
 to obviate the objection by reducing the 
 number from ninety-eight to seventy-eight. 
 In this reduction he has preserved the 
 relative weight of the various sections of 
 the State. He would beg leave to submit 
 his proposition : 
 
 First congressional district : 
 From the parish of Plaquemines, 
 
 take one member, 1 
 From the third municipality of New 
 
 Orleans, 1 
 From the first municipality of New 
 
 Orleans, I — 3 
 
 Second congressional district : 
 From the second municipality of New 
 
 Orleans, take 2 
 From the parish of Jefferson, 1 
 
 From the parish of Assumption, 1 
 
 " " Lafourche Interior, 1—5 
 Third congressional district : 
 
 From the parish of Iberville, take 1 
 " " East Baton Rouge, 1 
 
 " " East Feliciana, ' 1 
 
 " " West Feliciana, 1—4 
 Fourth congressional district : 
 
 From the parish of St. Martin, take 1 
 
 " St. Mary, 1 
 
 " " Lafayette, 1 
 
 " St. Landry, 1 
 
 " 64 Avoyelles, 1 
 
 " " Rapides, 1 
 
 " " Natchitoches, 1 
 
 66 " Catahoula and ) j__g 
 
 Claiborne, y 
 
 Total, 20 
 
 From 98 deduct 20—78 members of the 
 house of 'representatives, 
 
 Mr. Conrad moved for the adoption; 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Downs, Dunn, Preston, Saunders, 
 Sellers, Waddill and Winchester voted in 
 the affirmative — 13 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bomg, 
 Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, 
 Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Chinn, Covil- 
 lion, DuBouchel, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Mayo, Marigny, Mazureau, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Prud- 
 homme, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott oi Feliciana, Scott 
 of Madison, Stephens, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, Voorhies, 
 Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, Wikoff and 
 Winder voted in the negative — 52 nays. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Dunn; the report pf 
 the committee on the bill of rights, was 
 taken up. 
 
 Mr. Porter said that the sections repor- 
 ted under the title of a bill of rights, atid 
 which were now before the Convention, 
 were not the production of his mind. 
 They emanated from a source beyond his 
 humble pretensions; from" the most emi- 
 nent of our public statesmen — the fathers 
 of Our republican institutions. Some gen- 
 tlemen may be disposed to treat this sub- 
 juct with levity and indifference. He 
 thought they were wrong. These princi- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 901 
 
 pies, it may be said, were well established, j Mr. Beatty moved that they be laid in- 
 and therefore, it may be argued that it is definitely on the table, and called for the 
 unnecessary to consecrate them in a con- previous question. 
 
 stitution. This objection was not valid. The call for the previous question was 
 They weie fundamental principles, upon sustained — 41 yeas; 20 nays, 
 which rested the superstructure of demo- The yeas and nays were then called on 
 cratic institutions. They were so regard- Mr. Beatty's motion to lay said report 
 
 ; ed by the people of our sister States, and on the table indefinitely, 
 were to be found embodied in almost every ! Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Burton, 
 modern constitution. It was necessary Cairiere, Chambliss, Conrad of Orleans, 
 that these principles should be enunciated Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, Downs, 
 — that the rising generation may consult Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, 
 them, and that the public servants of the Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Le- 
 people may from time to time refresh their doux, Legendre, Lewis, Mayo, Pugh, Ro- 
 memories as to the rights and immunities man, St. Amand, Scott of Feliciana, Scott 
 of the people. '. of Madison, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of 
 
 To say that they were reserved rights. Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Vobr- 
 clearly understood, was not yet sufficient, hies, Wikoff, Winchester and Winder vo- 
 These rights may be misunderstood; they 1 ted in the affirmative — 35 yeas; and 
 
 i may be impaired; they may be invaded, Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Cade, Cenas, 
 unless the public mind is constantly in a Claiborne, Covillion, Culbertson, DuBou- 
 
 : position to apply the fundamental princi- chel, Dunn, Humble, Hynson, McCallop, 
 pies of republican government as a test to McRae, Marigny, Porter, Prescoit, of St. 
 the administration of public affairs, and to [ Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, Read, Ro- 
 the uninterrupted exercise of civil and re- selius. Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 ligious libeity. Trisi and Waddill voted in the negative — 
 
 If any good reason can be adduced why 24 nays, 
 these principles should not be enunciated On motion, the preamble to the constitu- 
 in a republican constitution, I should be tion was taken up: 
 
 glad (said Mr. Porter,) to hear them. But " We, the people of the State of Louis- 
 I I apprehend none such can be given. Are iana, by our representatives in Convention 
 we better instructed, or more fully indoc- assembled, in order to secure to the citi- 
 trinated into the rights and privileges of zens thereof the enjoyment of the rights 
 free government than our sister States? Do of life, liberty and property, and of pur- 
 we understand our rights better, or are they ; suing happiness, do order and establish 
 better guarded? The immortal Jefferson : the following constitution and civil form of 
 did not think this a matter beneath his dig- ! government," 
 
 nity, or unworthy of his solicitude. The , Mr. Eustis moved to lay the preamble 
 
 reputation of Louisiana yields to that, I on the table indefinitely, and to substitute 
 
 am proud to say, of no other State in the the words '-constitution of the State of 
 
 Union. I should be sorry that she should Louisiana." 
 
 set the example of a feeling of disregard i His motion was lost. 
 
 towards the fundamental principles of dem- 1 Mr. Taylor of Assumption offered as 
 
 ocratic government so far as to refuse to a substitute the following: 
 
 place their enunciation in her constitution, j "We, the people of the State of Louis- 
 
 I hope that her representees will not suf- j iana, do ordain and establish the following 
 
 fer their patriotism to fail them on this oc- j constitution for the government of ourselves 
 
 casion. j and our posterity." 
 
 I cannot anticipate any reasonable ob- ! Mr. Beatty moved to amend said sub- 
 jections, and I shall not attempt to set up j stitute, by striking out the words "and our 
 pins for the purpose of knocking them ! posterity," which motion prevailed, 
 down. These are abstract principles, and On motion of Mr. Porter, said substi- 
 I have but little talent to discuss them; but tute was laid on the table indefinitely, 
 it any thing can be urged against them, I Mr. Downs offered tlie following substi= 
 will attempt, to reply, or abandon them to j tute, and the same was adopted, viz: 
 their fate. 
 
 114 
 
902 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 PREAMBLE. 
 
 " We, the people of the State of Louis- 
 iana, do ordain and establish the following 
 Constitution." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Dunn, the report of 
 the committee on education was taken up, 
 viz : 
 
 Sec. 1. The governor shall nominate, 
 and by and with the advice and consent of 
 the senate, appoint a superintendent of edu- 
 cation, who shall hold his office for two 
 years; whose duties shall be prescribed by 
 law, and who shall receive such compen- 
 sation as the legislature may direct. 
 
 Sec. 2. The legislature shall encourage 
 the institution of common schools through, 
 out the State, for the promotion of literal 
 ture and the arts and sciences, and shall 
 provide means for that purpose and for 
 their support. 
 
 Sec. 3. The proceeds of all lands that 
 have been or hereafter may be granted by 
 the United States to this State, for the use 
 or support of schools, and of all lands that 
 have been or may hereafter be granted by 
 the United States, or by any person or 
 persons, body politic or corporate, to this 
 State, and not granted expressly for any 
 other purpose, which shall hereafter be 
 sold or disposed of, and all estates of de- 
 ceased persons to which the State may be 
 or hereafter become entitled by law, shall 
 be held by the State as a loan; and shall 
 be and remain a perpetual fund, on which 
 the State shall pay an annual interest of 
 per cent. ; which interest, 
 
 together with all the rents of the unsold 
 lands, shall be inviolably appropriated to 
 the support of such schools and institutions 
 of learning throughout the State, until the 
 rents or interest, or both together, shall 
 amount to the sum of per annum; 
 
 after which the annual excess of such rents 
 and interest may be applied by the legis- 
 lature to other objects. 
 
 Sec. 4. The fund arising from the rents 
 or sales which may hereafter be made, of 
 the lands heretofore granted by the United 
 States to this State, for the use of a semi- 
 nary oi learning, and of any land that may 
 hereafter be granted for that purpose, and 
 any interest that may accrue upon such 
 funds, shall be inviolably applied to the 
 use specified, or that may be specified in 
 the grant. 
 
 And your committe recommend the 
 adoption of the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That our representatives and 
 senators in congress be requested to use 
 their best efforts to procure the passage of 
 a law granting to this State the unsold, 
 land within this State, belonging to the 
 United States, or as large a portion thereof 
 as possible, for the purpose of education; 
 and to co-operate, if necessary, to effect 
 that object, with the representatives and 
 senators in congress from other States. 
 
 Mr. Eustis, of the committee on educa- 
 tion, submitted the following, viz: 
 
 An university shall be established in the 
 city of New Orleans. It shall be compo- 
 sed of four faculties, to-wit: One of law, 
 one of medicine, one of the natural scien- 
 ces, and one of letters. 
 
 It shall be called the University of Louis- 
 iana; and the Medical College of Louisi- 
 ana, as at present organized, shall consti. 
 tute the faculty of medicine. 
 
 The legislature shall provide by law for 
 its further organization and government. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said that this was a matter 
 within the ordinary competency of the le- 
 gislature, and ought not to be put in the 
 constitution. 
 
 Mr. Kenner offered as a substitute for 
 the second section the following, viz : 
 
 "The legislature shall establish through- 
 out the State a system of free schools, for 
 the education of all the cihildren of the 
 people of the State, and shall provide the 
 means for that purpose, and for their sup- 
 port." 
 
 Mr. Lewis offered as a substitute for the 
 whole, the following, viz : 
 
 "Sec. — . The legislature shall establish 
 free schools throughout the State, and shall 
 provide means for their support. The pro- 
 ceeds of all lands that have been, or here- 
 after may be granted by the United States 
 to this State for the use or support of 
 schools, and of all lands that may hereafter 
 be granted by the United States, or by any 
 person or persons, body politic or corporate, 
 to this State, and not granted expressly for 
 any other purpose, which shall hereafter 
 be sold or disposed of, and all estates of 
 deceased persons to which the State may 
 be or hereafter become entitled by Jaw, 
 shall be held by the State as a loan: and 
 shall be and remain a perpetual fund, on 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 which the State shall pay an annual inter- 
 est of per cent ; which interest, 
 together with all the rents of the unsold 
 lands, shall be inviolably appropriated to 
 the support of such schools." 
 
 "Sec. — . The fund arising from the rents 
 or sales which have been, or may hereafter 
 be made, of any lands heretofore granted 
 by the United States to this State, for the 
 use of a seminary of learning, and of any 
 land that may hereafter be granted for that 
 purpose, and any interest that may accrue 
 upon such funds shall be inviolably applied 
 to the use specified, or that may be speci- 
 fied in the grant." 
 
 Ml*. Kenner moved to amend said sub- 
 stitute by inserting in the second line after 
 "free" the word "public;" which amend- 
 ment was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Roselius said it seemed to be con- 
 cluded on all hands that a system of public 
 education ought to be establised, and that 
 such a system ought to operate uniformly 
 throughout the State. The first thing then 
 to be considered is how are we to base that 
 system upon a sure and permanent foun- 
 dation. That can only be done by provi- 
 ding a permanent fund for the support of 
 education. We have already the means to 
 a certain extent, under the act of congress, 
 donating certain portions of public territo- 
 ry to the purposes of education. The six- 
 teenth section of every township is express- 
 ly reserved for the use of common schools. 
 That cannot be diverted from its legitimate 
 purpose. There is another appropriation 
 of two townships of land for a seminary of 
 learning. The legislature in 1843, laid 
 their sacrilegious hands upon this donation, 
 they ordered it to be sold, and the proceeds 
 to be applied to the payment of the ordina- 
 ry debts of the State. They diverted it 
 from the purpose for which it was granted. 
 The act consummating this outrage, (said 
 Mr. Roselius) will remain a perpetual blot 
 upon our statute books ! I cannot find 
 words to express my utter abhorrence and 
 detestation of that act. We should take 
 warning for the future and place it beyond 
 the power of the legislature to abstract the 
 means exclusively belonging to education 
 to any other purpose. 
 
 The report of the committee on educa- 
 tion, now before us may possibly need 
 amendment, but as a whole 1 consider it as 
 the corner stone upon which may be rear- 
 
 ed a magnificent system. I consider it to 
 be essential. This, however, I do not con- 
 sider the proper time to enter into the mer- 
 its of the plan. 
 
 I have no doubt that the delegate from As- 
 cension (Mr. Kenner,) is persuaded that his 
 substitute will effect the same purpose thro' 
 legislative interposition. But I would beg 
 that delegate to reflect upon the experience 
 of the past. What has been done by the 
 legislature ? The same results will follow 
 future legislation, that has followed pre- 
 ceding legislation, unless a permanent 
 system be recognized and consecrated in 
 the constitution. The State has squander- 
 ed millions of dollars for the purpose of 
 public education, and to what purpose ? 
 Little or no good has been done. The bles- 
 sings of public education have not been 
 disseminated throughout the State. Some- 
 thing' has been effected in the city. But, 
 how far would the small pittance contribu- 
 ted by the State, have gone towards rear- 
 ing those glorious institutions of which 
 New Orleans may feel so proud? While 
 the State has only contributed seven thou- 
 sand dollars, the city of New Orleans has 
 contibuted one hundred thousand dollars 
 to the support of these schools. 
 
 But what has become of the millions of 
 dollars appropriated by the State ? It has 
 been thrown away. In one of the richest 
 parishes of the State adjacent to the city, 
 1 knew of an instance, where one of the 
 public teachers, at the head of the school, 
 did not actually know how to spell. How 
 was it that he happened to be employed or 
 retained? Because there was no superin- 
 tendent of public education; there was no 
 one to inspect and overlook the persons 
 employed to teach. The system of public 
 education has undergone occasional modifi- 
 cations, but this most important feature un- 
 til now has been entirely overlooked, and 
 no system of universal education has been 
 adopted. 
 
 In the endowment of a higher institution, 
 a college, we have likewise been guilty of 
 a capital mistake. We have frittered away 
 the resources of the State upon several in- 
 stitutions, when those resources ought to 
 have been confined to a single institution. 
 Of the three colleges established, all have 
 failed with the exception of the college of 
 Jefferson, and that is in a lingering state. 
 With the population of Louisiana, and 
 
904 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 the States immediately adjoining, one 
 institution is amply sufficent to provide for 
 our own wants as well as the wants of the 
 co-adjacent States. 
 
 Mr. Kenner said he agreed fully with 
 the gentleman who had just resumed his 
 seat, that the proceeds of the public lands, 
 donated for the purposes of education, 
 should be religiously appropriated to that 
 object. I can not, said Mr. K., yield 
 my sanction to the second section of this 
 report, because I consider that the expres- 
 sion that the legislature ''shall encourage 
 the institution of common schools," as to- 
 tally insufficient. To "encourage" is not 
 the proper word. I would go further; I 
 would make the requisition imperative. 
 Not that the legislature shall "encourage" 
 the institution of common schools, but that 
 the legislature shall establish throughout 
 the Slate a system of free schools, for the 
 education of all the children of the people 
 of the State. To accomplish this desirable 
 result, I would make it imperative upon the 
 legislature to raise the means for the main- 
 tenance and support of free shools. As to 
 the establshment of a college or university, 
 although I look upon such an institution with 
 favor, I am not solicitous in the same degree 
 for any thing so elevated. Let those who 
 feel the want of a more complete education 
 for their children, take the necessary steps 
 to provide such an institution.' But I hold 
 it as our first duty, to establish the system 
 of free schools, accessible to all, to the rich 
 and to the poor indiscriminately, and to 
 provide adequate means to keep up that 
 system, and to maintain its usefulness. 
 
 Mr. Mayo stated that the committee de- 
 signed suggesting certain amendments to 
 their report. From what had been done 
 by the legislature, the Convention would 
 see the expediency of placing it out of the 
 power of- that body, to dispose of the pub- 
 lic domain, appropriated to education, for 
 any other purpose than that designed in its 
 appropriation. The legislature had order- 
 ed the sale of the seminary lands, and had 
 applied the proceeds to the payment of its 
 public debt. What was to prevent them 
 from disposing of the sixteenth section and 
 diverting the proceeds to a similar purpose? 
 
 Mr. Preston moved to lay the report of 
 the committee indefinitely on the table. 
 He was as great a friend to public educa- 
 tion as any one, particularly to universal 
 
 education. He had felt the benefits of such 
 a system, and he desired to extend it to all 
 his fellow citizens. But he thought it bet- 
 ter to leave this matter with the legislature. 
 They came from the people, and would 
 take care that the wishes of the people, in 
 this respect, were carried out. They had 
 always shown great solicitude upon the 
 subject, and surely there was no want of 
 liberality in their appropriations. That 
 the system adopted nad not met better sue- 
 cess was a misfortune, but experience wis 
 as likely to have as beneficial an influence 
 upon that body, in making salutary chan- 
 ges, as upon this. 
 
 In reference to what fell from the dele- 
 gate from New Orleans (Mr. Roselius) as 
 to the act which in his opinion deserv.es so 
 much execration, for the sale of the semi- 
 nary lands, I will merely reply that a 
 great portion of this very indebtedness of 
 the State, which he thought ought not to 
 have been paid, arose from appropriations 
 made for public education. The legisla- 
 ture and the executive thought themselves 
 justified in using these means temporarily, 
 for the purpose of discharging these debts, 
 I see nothing hjenous in that measure. I 
 consider it perfectly right. We are bound 
 to pay our honest debts, even if we have 
 to sell the vevy clothes off our backs. 
 
 Mr. Roselius said that he agreed with 
 the delegate from Jefferson, (Mr. Preston) 
 that we were bound to pay the debts of 
 the State. But he could not agree that a 
 sacred deposite should be directed from its 
 purpose and applied to the payment of 
 these debts. The act in question for the 
 sale of these lands, was a breach of good 
 faith. There was nothing to justify it. 
 But, says that delegate, this money was 
 taken to pay off debts, occasioned by ap- 
 propriations .for public education. That 
 may very well be. From the year 1813 
 to the present time, the legislature has 
 squandered millions for the purpose of pro- 
 moting public education, but to little or no 
 good purpose. To attempt to sustain the 
 ground, that because the legislature has, 
 through improvidence, involved herself for 
 public education, she is authorized to use the 
 per cent of property committed to her charge 
 by the general government, for a purpose 
 eqpressly specified, would be equivalent to 
 sustaining that because one individual had 
 been liberal to another at one time, and 
 
 \ 
 
Debates in the Convention sf Louisiana, 
 
 oi 5 
 
 had involved himself on his account, he I 
 would be afterwards justified in robbing 
 him. I repeat, it was an abominable 
 breach of good faith. A man who robs 
 another upon the pretence of necessity, is 
 just as justifiable as the legislature were 
 in diverting the proceeds of the semina- 
 ry lands to the payment of State debts. A 
 poor devil, for stealing a loaf of bread, or a 
 shirt to cover his nakedness, is sent to the 
 penitentiary, while a flagrant violation of 
 sood faith, on the part of the State, is justi- 
 fied. 
 
 But I will not dwell any longer on so 
 melancholy and painful a subject. I sin- 
 cerely wish that the act of 1843 could be 
 expunged from our statute books. But 
 there it stands, in bold relief, an evidence 
 of the wisdom or folly of its authors! 
 
 As for the idea that public schools are | 
 intended for the poor, it is fallacious, j 
 There should be no difference between the 
 poor and the rich, in these institutions; the 
 children of both poor and rich should re- 
 ceive the benefits of public education in- 
 discriminately. It would defeat the very 
 object which prompts their establishment. 
 The feeling of exclusion would be hateful. 
 Th 1 re is a sentiment of independence in 
 the breast of the poorest man, which would 
 prevent him from sending his children to 
 school, if the school were exclusively de- 
 signed for the education of poor children. 
 But why speak of poverty in- Louisiana] 
 A State, whose soil is so fertile, and whose 
 resources are so abundant. Why speak of 
 the education of the poor? Education 
 should be for all. It should be a State in- 
 stitution. The State owes it to her citi- 
 zens. Knowledge is an aliment that she 
 should not deny them. Let us establish 
 the glorious fabric of free public educa- 
 tion upon a solid and permanent founda- 
 tion! I hope that the Convention will 
 pause, and act with that calmness which be- 
 fits a subject of such momentous conse- 
 quences to the future well being of the 
 State. 
 
 Mr. Garcia gave notice that he would 
 on Friday next move to reconsider the vote 
 adopting the section on duelling. 
 
 Mr. Prestox then moved tolay the re- 
 port on education* and all the amendments, 
 on the table indefinitely. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 . Messrs. Aubert," Brazeale, Brumfield, 
 
 Burton, Guion, Hudspeth, Lewis, McCallop, 
 Preston, Pugh and Waddill voted in the 
 affirmative — 11 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Ken- 
 ner, King, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Read, Roman, 
 Roselius, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 
 Feliciana, Scott ot 
 Taylor of Assumption 
 dry. Wederstrandt, 
 
 and Winder 
 nays. 
 
 On motion 
 
 voted 
 
 Mi 
 
 "viadison, Stephens, 
 Taylor of St. Lan- 
 Wikoff, Winchester 
 in the negative — 32' 
 
 Kexxer, the first 
 section of said report was laid on the table 
 indefinitely, viz: 
 
 Sec. 1. The governor shall nominate, 
 and by and with the advice and consent of 
 the senate, appoint a spuerintendent of edu- 
 cation, who shall hold his office for two 
 years, whose duties shall be prescribed by 
 law, and who shall receive such compen- 
 sation as the legislature may direct. 
 
 Mr. Duxxgave notice that he will move 
 to reconsider the vote laying said section 
 on the table indefinitely. 
 
 Mr. Kexxee accepted the substitute of 
 
 Mr. Le 1 
 
 Wrier 
 
 moved its adoption, 
 
 ie Convention adjourned. 
 
 Thursday, May 8, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 i journment. 
 
 ; The Rev. Mr. Goodrich opened the 
 j proceedings with prayer. 
 
 The President submitted a letter of in- 
 I vitation from the president of the executive 
 j conr nittee of the agricultural and mechanic 
 ' association of the State, to attend the annual 
 ; fair cf the association, at the town of Baton 
 Rouge. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Dttzntn, said invitation 
 ! was accepted. 
 
 Mr. Eestis, chairman of the committee 
 ' on revision, submitted the following report, 
 viz: 
 
 "The committee of revision report to 
 the Convention that they consider it advi- 
 sable to defer a further revision of the ar- 
 ticles of the constitution until the unfinish- 
 ed business be transacted, and all the arti- 
 cles of the constitution be adopted at the 
 first reading. 
 
 (Signed,) GEO. EUSTIS, 
 
 Chairman," 
 
906 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Chinn, said report 
 was laid on the table, subject to call. 
 
 Mr. Winder withdrew the notice he 
 had given to move for the reconsideration 
 of the vote forming one senatorial district 
 of the city of New Orleans. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, the rules were dispensed with, for the 
 purpose of acting upon all motions for re- 
 consideration. 
 
 Mr. Waddill offered the following re- 
 solution, and the same was adopted, viz: 
 No new motion for reconsideration 
 shall be allowed after twelve o'clock, m., 
 this day, unless by a concurrence of three- 
 fourths of all the members of this Conven- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Humble gave notice that he would 
 move to reconsider the vote adopting the 
 section removing the seat of government, 
 from the city of New Orleans.' 
 
 Mr. Porter moved that the rules be 
 dispensed with, in order to call up the 27th 
 section of the bill of rights. He said that he 
 presumed the 27th section was lost for no 
 other reason than because it was deemed 
 to be in bad company. It was, however, 
 a most important provision as regarded 
 the future boundaries of the State and the 
 contiguous territory of Texas. 
 
 The motion to dispense with the rules 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Porter then gave notice he would 
 move for the reconsideration. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 The Convention resumed the considera- 
 tion of the subject of public education. 
 
 xMr. Mayo moved that the word "free" 
 be struck out in the substitute offered by 
 Mr. Lewis, so that the section would read, 
 "the legislature shall establish public 
 schools," &c., &c. 
 
 Mr. Kenner considered that in the 
 word "free" lay the whole gist of the mat- 
 ter. His object was to oblige the legisla- 
 ture to establish the system of free public 
 schools. If the proceeds of the public 
 lands were insufficient to establish and 
 maintain them, he was fully willing that a 
 tax. of half a million should be raised to sus- 
 tain them. He trusted the word "free" 
 would not be struck out. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said that he considered 
 the only safety for this State and for the 
 United States, was the establishment of 
 public schools, to diffuse the blessings of 
 
 universal education among the people. 
 We were fast diverging into the extremes 
 of democracy. Unless means were taken 
 to enlighten the masses, in order that they 
 may be enabled to exercise political rights 
 with the extreme opinions which now pre- 
 vail, it requires no great foresight to pre- 
 dict that we shall soon reach a state of 
 complete anarchy. If you qualify the peo- 
 ple for the extension of powers, if you fit 
 them for the exercise of these extended 
 powers, and public education is indispen- 
 sable to that end, you may go to the fullest 
 extent. With public education you may 
 extend democratic principles without dan. 
 ger and without apprehension. But with 
 universal suffrage there must not be popu- 
 lar ignorance. You must enlighten the 
 public mind, and place before it ample 
 means for the acquisition of knowledge. 
 In a government in which all the citizens 
 participate, where elective franchise is un- 
 limited, I consider the first object of solici- 
 tude is public education; and if the Con- 
 vention shall have accomplished that, they 
 will secure our institutions from the mani- 
 fold dangers with which they are threaten- 
 ed; they will elevate the character of the 
 State, and our institutions will be property 
 appreciated and faithfully administered. 
 
 It is idle to speak of schools, where peo- 
 ple may. Who wants them? There are 
 an abundance of such schools, and those 
 who can afford to pay are never at a loss. 
 But we want public schools, for those 
 wdio cannot afford to pay, as well as for 
 those who can afford to pay. The only 
 safety for our liberties, I repeat, is public 
 education. Imbue the minors of the rising 
 generation with knowledge, and they will 
 understand the acts of scheming dema- 
 gogues. Spread the rudiments of educa- 
 tion far and wide. Plant the seed of 
 knowledge, and those who desire more 
 than the rudiments of education may per- 
 fect themselves, they may reap the harvest! 
 
 Mr. Dunn said that the word "free" was 
 the best word in the whole provision. 
 
 Mr. Mayo withdrew his amendment. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, proposed an 
 amendment to test the sense of the house. 
 It was to insert after the wor.ds "the legis- 
 lature shall establish free public schools 
 throughout the State, and provide for their 
 support," the words "by taxation or other- 
 wise." 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 907 
 
 The amendment was unanimously adopt- 
 ed, and the section was then adopted. 
 
 The second section was taken up. 
 
 Mr. Downs suggested that there might 
 be some conflict in reference to disposition 
 upon the sixteenth section, under the acts 
 of congress making that appropriation. It 
 would be better, therefore, to leave that 
 matter to the legislature. There was an- 
 other difficulty. By some it was contended 
 that this appropriation was exclusive to 
 j;he several townships, by others it was 
 understood to be a common stock. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, thought that 
 ;t was better not to go too much into de- 
 ails. He considered that the Convention 
 aad done all that it was necessary to do. 
 He concurred fully in what fell from the 
 lelegate from Ouachita (Mr. Downs). 
 The proceeds of the sales of the public 
 :ands for the support of schools and for a 
 seminary of learning, .had to be invested, 
 ind it could not be better invested than by 
 making the State debtor to that fund, and 
 xacting from her a certain rate of interest. 
 When we say in the constitution imperi- 
 lively that these schools shall be establish- 
 ed, and point out the means for their sup- 
 )ort, we do all that is requisite to ensure a 
 vise and proper administration. 
 
 Mr. Beatty thought the section was of 
 ;reat use. It was necessary to constrain 
 he legislature to fulfil its duty, and even if 
 here should be a conflict between the act 
 >f congress and the dispositions of the sec- 
 ion, in reference to the school lands, con- 
 gress would not hesitate in confirming 
 measures calculated to carry into effect the 
 lesign for which that appropriation was 
 nade. It so happens, continued Mr. 
 Beatty, that in some parishes the sixteenth 
 iection is covered by private claims, ex- 
 sting when the session of Louisiana was 
 :onsummated; in other parishes, it is of little 
 >r no value. It seems but just that the 
 imd derived should be constituted into a 
 ommon stock for the benefit of the people 
 jf the whole State. It should be religiously 
 .ipplied to the purpose of education. I do 
 \ot wish to be understood as participating 
 , nthe opinion expressed by an honorable 
 jielegate, (Mr. Roselius) that the liberality 
 pi the State has been thrown away to no 
 purpose. I do not think so. In my sec- 
 tion of the State public education has 
 nade some progress, which is attributable 
 
 to the appropriations made by the State, 
 and some good has been effected, although 
 the system has been defective. If the ap- 
 propriations made have even served to the 
 education of one dozen children, I do not 
 consider the money thrown away. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans, said that 
 if on one hand there was a disposition to 
 do nothing in reference to public education, 
 on the part of some members, on the other 
 there was a disposition on the part of the 
 committe to go too far; to do too much. I 
 think that the State is religiously bound to 
 apply the proceeds of the public lands for 
 the purpose to which they were appropri- 
 ated. But I do not take upon myself lo 
 say, as one of my colleagues (Mr. Rose- 
 lius) has said, that the legislature were not 
 justifiable in employing the proceeds of 
 some of these lands to relieve the present 
 embarrassments of the State. These em- 
 barrassments were very pressing.* At any 
 rate there can be no doubt but that the 
 State is bound to restore the amount reali- 
 zed. 
 
 I think the section ought to be amended 
 as follows, by striking out the words "and 
 not granted expressly for any other pur- 
 pose, which shall hereafter be sold or dis- 
 posed of; and all estates of deceased per- 
 sons, to which the State may be or here- 
 after become entitled by law." 
 
 If the policy of Mr. Calhoun and that of 
 a large party of which he is the head, pre- 
 vail in relation to the public lands, the 
 body of these lands remaining unsold will 
 be relinquished by the general government 
 to the State governments. The value of 
 public lands in Louisiana are immense, 
 and under this section, if it be not modified 
 as I propose, the whole of these lands in 
 the event to which I have alluded, will pass 
 to the sole use of education. The fund de- 
 rived would be altogether too large and 
 disproportionate to the wants of education. 
 But, I may be told that this relinquishment 
 is quite improbable. It may not be very 
 probable, but at any rate it is quite possi- 
 ble, and it is the part of wisdom to antici- 
 pate the possibility of such a contingency. 
 In reference to the vacant estates of de- 
 ceased persons, the amount realized may 
 be trifling, but it may be very large. 
 
 Mr. Chinn called for the previous ques- 
 tion, and it prevailed, 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved to lay Mr. Conrad's 
 
903 
 
 Debates In the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 amendment on the table indefinitely, and 
 called for the yeas . and nays upon his 
 motion. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bra- 
 zeale, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Chambliss, 
 Chinn, Covillion, Derbes, DuBouchel, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, 
 Lewis, McCaliop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Mazureau, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Read, Roman, Roselius, Saunders, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Splane, Stephens Taylor 
 of Assumption, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, 
 Wederstrandt, Winchester and Winder 
 voted in the affirmative — 48 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- 
 bertson, Downs, Guion, Pugh, St. Amand, 
 Sellers and Wikoff voted in the negative — 
 12 nays. 
 
 Mr. M^yyo moved to fill the blank in the 
 clause fixing the amount of interest to be 
 paid to the State at eight per cent. This 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Downs then moved to fill the blank 
 with seven per cent, and called for the 
 yeas and nays upon that motion. 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Cade, Cenas, Cham- 
 bliss, Claiborne, D©wns, Dunn, Humble, 
 Hynson, King, Mayo^ Porter, PFescott of 
 St. Landry, Roman, Saunders, Splane, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Waddill, Wed- 
 erstrandt and Winchester voted in the 
 affirmative — 21 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Be ally Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Chinn, Conrad 
 of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbert- 
 son, Derbes, DuBouchel, Eustis, Garrett, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, Labauve, Le- 
 gendre, Lewis, McCallop, Marigny, Mc- 
 Rae, Peets, Preston, Pugh, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Voorhies, W^adsworth, Wikoff and 
 Winchester voted in the negative — 38 nays. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to fill the blank with 
 six per cent, which motion prevailed. 
 * Mr. Claiborne said that the fact had 
 already been alluded to, that in some sec- 
 tions of the State the sixteenth section was 
 valueless* It was but just that the proceeds 
 arising from the appropriation for common 
 schools, should be constituted a common 
 fund for the benefit of education throughout 
 the State, He would therefore propose to i 
 
 embody the following in the section, "and 
 for the equal advantage of the people of the 
 State, provided the assent of congress be 
 attained." This amendment was lost. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved for the adoption of 
 t\iQ section. The yeas and nays were 
 called for. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Ce- 
 nas, Chambliss, Chinn, Claiborne, Covil- 
 iion, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, DuBou- 
 chel, Eustis, Garrett, Hudspeth, Hum'ole, 
 Hynson, Kenner, Legendre, Lewis, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Pugh, 
 Read, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Felici- 
 ana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Wed- 
 erstrandt, Winchester and Winder voted in 
 the affirmative — 53 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Briant, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Downs, Guion, King, La- 
 bauve, Preston and Wikoff voted in the 
 negative — 9 nays. 
 
 The following section was then taken 
 up, viz : 
 
 "The fund arising from the rents or sales 
 which hereafter may be made, of any lands 
 heretofore granted by the United States to 
 this State, for the use of a seminary of 
 learning, and of any land that may hereaf- 
 ter be granted for that purpose, any inter* 
 est that may accrue upon such funds, shal 
 be inviolably applied to the use specified oi 
 that may be specified in the grant." 
 
 Mr. Mayo offered as a substitute to the 
 foregoing, the following : 
 
 "All moneys arising from the sales which 
 have been or may hereafter be made of any 
 lands heretofore granted by the United 
 States to this State for a seminary of learn- 
 ing, and from any kind of donation that 
 may hereafter be made for that purpose, 
 shall be and remain a perpetual fund: the 
 interest of which, at six per cent per an- 
 num, shall be inviolably appropriated to the 
 support of a seminary of learning for the 
 promotion of literature, and the arts and 
 sciences, and no law shall ever be made 
 authorizing said fund to be diverted to any 
 other use than to the establishment and 
 improvement of said seminary of learning. 
 
 The substitute was adopted. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 909 
 
 Mr. Eustis called up the section he had 
 offered, viz : 
 
 "An university shall be established in 
 the cifef of New Orleans. It shall be com- 
 posed of four faculties, to wit : one of law, 
 one of medicine, one of the natural sciences, 
 and one of letters. 
 
 It shall be called the University of Lou- 
 isiana; and the medical college of Louisi- 
 ana, as at present organized, shall consti- 
 tute the faculty of medicine. 
 
 The legislature shall provide by law for 
 its further organization and government." 
 
 Mr. Ch-htx moved to lay the foregoing 
 proposition indefinitely on the table. Mr. 
 C. said he considered it unnecessaiy, as 
 the legislature were fully competent to act 
 upon this matter. 
 
 Mr. Eustis said he certainly did not 
 wish to intrude any measure against the 
 obvious sense of the house- It was with 
 regret that he saw a disposition manifested 
 to dispose of by far the most important sub- 
 ject that had come under the consideration 
 of the Convention, in a summary manner. 
 He was sorry that it should be deemed ex? 
 pedient to do so. Under the indulgence of 
 the house, he would state what were the 
 views that had influenced him in introdu- 
 cing this proposition. It was considered 
 that in adopting universal suffrage, we took 
 necessarily the consequences that would 
 flow from it were any portion of the people 
 ignorant and debased. As has been well 
 said by a delegate (Mr. Benjamin) it was 
 of the highest importance that with the ex- 
 tension <g suffrage, knowledge should be 
 extended. Without you enlighten the 
 sources of political power, we shall have 
 no government. The tyranny of numbers 
 will rule instead of the tyranny of one man. 
 You have adopted the principle of univer- 
 sal suffrage, but the basis is public educa- 
 tion. You should not build until you have 
 laid the foundation, the eorner stone, until 
 then, you have done nothing. 
 
 I am aware that you do not wish to hear 
 a speech, and I would be the last to make 
 one. You say that you have established 
 common schools in order to develope the 
 intelligence, ard to enlighten the masses 
 who will wield the political destinies of the 
 State, This is without doubt doing much. 
 But, will your common schools suffice for 
 the training of lawyers, for the education 
 of men of intelligence ? I? there any pro- 
 115 
 
 vision for the education of the men who 
 are to administer your government? There 
 is little or nothing accomplished towards 
 that object by the creation and endowment 
 of common schools. I may be told that 
 there are self-ed-ucated men. I admit there- 
 are men who will learn every thing, and 
 make themselves distinguished. There 
 are many on this floor. But, how many 
 ; have come out of the mass after thirty 
 years, and after expending a million and a 
 | half of dollars for the- purpose of education 
 : in this State 1 Are we to rely upon that 
 i source alone for men to whom we may 
 j with safety commit the destinies of the 
 State I Where are we to get our judges, 
 and legislators ? Unless particular indi- 
 | viduals are endowed with the highest order 
 j of intellect,- we cannot expect that a mere 
 •common school education • will suffice, 
 j There are those w T ho will shine conspicu- 
 : ous despite of circumstances. These are 
 | exceptions. But, for the mass of mankind, 
 you must provide adequate means of ac- 
 | quiring knowledge. 
 
 | What is our position at present— we - 
 I have no means of educating; a lawyer or 
 | architect? Well, you permit the money of 
 the State to be sent abroad for the educa- 
 tion of your children ? How much money? 
 ! >>o less a sum than two hundred thousand 
 dollars per annum ! But that is not all — 
 j you exile your children. Y r cu may have 
 i strangers to administer your laws, if not in 
 | birth perhaps in feeling. Intellect is power. 
 I Men of intelligence come from where they 
 may most govern. Let us put a stop to the 
 crying evils which most result from the 
 want of adequate means to confer a home 
 education. Let us at least plant the tree 
 of knowledge. We ask you for nothing 
 more than to protect it from the ruthless 
 hand of violence. Unless you sanction 
 some such plan*as is suggested in the sec 
 tion before you, every system you may de- 
 vise will be but a mockery. We ask you 
 for no money—for no lands — we only ask 
 you the means of establishing a proper 
 system of education. We ask you for an 
 institution where the lawyer, the physician 
 and the architect may be perfected. New 
 Orleans is the centre of an empire. Go to 
 our public lectures-, and you will find them 
 thronged. I have been repeatedly called 
 upon by the young men of the city to de- 
 liver lectures. The coffee houses are 
 
910 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 ceasing to be the haunts of dissipation and 
 ennui. All this avidity for knowledge has 
 been excited without the fostering hand of 
 the government. One word more, and I 
 am done. Look at the institutions that 
 have stood the test of time — Harward and 
 Yale ! Both these institutions are recog- 
 nized in the constitutions of their respective 
 States. This is a worthy example for the 
 wisdom of Louisiana. Let us imitate it, 
 and the fruits will be many. 
 
 Mr. Chinn would make a remark in ex- 
 planation. He was not averse to the pro- 
 position. No man would go further than 
 he would in promoting the purpose design- 
 ed. But he feared, at this late period of 
 the session, it was impracticable. The 
 location ot a proper site for such an insti- 
 tution, would give more trouble than any 
 thing else. He was not opposed to the 
 institution. He was decidedly favorable to 
 it. He thought, however, it was better to 
 leave it with the legislature; at any rate, 
 it was better to do so than for the Conven- 
 tion to act upon it hastily at the moment of 
 adjournment. As he believed, every mo 
 ment spent upon the discussion of this sub- 
 ject was uselessly spent, he would move 
 the previous question. 
 
 The call for the previous question was 
 sustained. The question then recurred on 
 Mr. Chirm's motion to lay the proposition 
 indefinitely on the table; and the ayes and 
 nays were called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Chinn, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Covillion, Downs, Hudspeth, Hyn- 
 son, Kenner, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, 
 Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Read, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Stephens, 
 WikofT and Winder voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 20 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, B riant, Brumfield, Burton, 
 Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Du- 
 Bouchel, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, 
 Humble, King, Labauve, Legendre, Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Pugh, Ro- 
 man, Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Soule, Splane, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, 
 Voorhies, W addill, Wederstrandt and Win- 
 chester voted in the negative— 43 nays. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad said he had voted 
 yea, because, although he concurred cor- 
 
 dially in the proposition, still he thought the 
 constitution was not a proper place for it. 
 
 Mr. Downs voted yes, because he 
 thought there was a conflict between this 
 section and the section relative to seminary 
 lands. 
 
 Mr. Kenner considered that the super- 
 structure for universal suffrage, was free 
 common schools. In establishing them, 
 we had done what was indispensable. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved, in the first section, 
 to substitute " the State of Louisiana" for 
 the words " city of New Orleans." He 
 said he offered this amendment simply to 
 leave the location to the legislature, 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said that one moment's 
 reflection would convince the delegate from 
 St. Landry (Mr. Lewis) that an university 
 of the character contemplated could be es- 
 tablished no where out of the city of New 
 Orleans. Nothing more was asked than a 
 perpetual charter. It was contemplated 
 that the institution should be composed of 
 four faculties— a faculty of medicine, of 
 law, of arts, and of letters. It would be ne- 
 cessary to begin on a small scale, for the 
 funds that may be raised otherwise would 
 not suffice. Eminent men in the several 
 professious in the city, would be invited in 
 their spare hours, to deliver lectures. It 
 would be impossible to provide the neces- 
 sary professors out of the city, without a 
 very heavy expense, which the immediate 
 resources of the institution could not afford. 
 Lectures would be delivered by men of 
 science, members of the bar and physi- 
 cians, who would take a spare§ moment 
 from their professional pursuits; and as the 
 city combined the greatest facilities to ob- 
 tain the services of such persons, it was 
 manifest, that to say that the institution 
 should not be established in the city, was 
 equivalent to saying that it should not be es- 
 tablished at all; for there were no adequate 
 means at hand to establish it, and it could 
 not be established in any other way than 
 by the plan proposed. The State was yet 
 too young to endow such an institution. At 
 the north, these institutions were. promoted 
 by the legacies of wealthy men. We have 
 not the same resources, and would have to 
 rely upon useful and valuable members of 
 the different professions, to contribute their 
 energies and the faculties with which God 
 has endowed them in furtherance of the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 911 
 
 undertaking. Men who are eminent as 
 physicians and lawyers, and as votaries of 
 science. He hoped no sectional jealousy 
 would be excited upon this subject. If it 
 be desired to establish this institution in the 
 city, it is chiefly because it is impracticable 
 to locate it in the country without immense 
 resources, such resources as neither the 
 State nor individuals can hope to contribute 
 at the present time. 
 
 Mr. Chinn said he concurred in what 
 fell from the delegate from New Orleans, 
 (Mr. Benjamin) and would give his assent 
 to the proposition, provided the institution 
 was located four or five miles out of the 
 city. 
 
 Mr. Roselius: That is out of the ques- 
 tion. Gentlemen practising the learned 
 professions would not have the leisure to 
 go four or five miles daily out of the city, 
 to deliver lectures. And where is there 
 ; any necessity for this ? 
 
 Mr. Soule said he trusted that the pro- 
 position of kis honorable friend (Mr. Eustis) 
 would prevail, by a large majority. Its ob- 
 ject is to secure for the institution which it 
 proposes to create, a healthy and vigorous ! 
 existence: to place it upon a durable foun- 
 dation. If there be a measure which is 
 imperiously called for by the wants of so- 
 ciety, and which ought to be recognized in 
 the constitution, it is the one that is now 
 before you. It is essential to the present 
 and to future generations. Let the unan- 
 imity with which the Convention shall pro- 
 nounce in its favor, be an augury of its 
 complete success. We have the example 
 ! of two States which have, in a similar 
 manner, established institutions, worthy of 
 themselves and of the cause of science. I 
 refer to Harvard and to Yale colleges. Let 
 us follow that example, and assign a rank 
 no less distinguished to the University of 
 Louisiana ! 
 
 Mr. Mayo offered the following addi- 
 tional proviso, and the same was accepted 
 by Mr. Eustis, viz : 
 
 "Provided, That the legislature shall be 
 under no obligation to contribute to the es- 
 tablishment or support of said University, 
 by appropriations." 
 
 Mr. Winder moved to amend said pro- 
 viso, by striking out the words " be under 
 no obligation," and insert in lieu thereof 
 the words "not have power." 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Brumfield, Carriere, 
 Hudspeth, Hynson, Lewis, McCallop,Read, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Stephens, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Taylor ~ of St Landry, 
 Wikoff and Winder voted in the affirmative 
 —15 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Brent, 
 Briant, Burton, Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Du- 
 Bouche], Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, 
 Humble, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Pres- 
 ton, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Soule, Spl'ane, Trist, Voorhies, Wad- 
 dill, Wadsworth, Wederstrandt and Win- 
 chester voted in the negative — 46 nays; 
 consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved for the adoption of the 
 project as amended, viz : 
 
 An university shall be established in the 
 city of New Orleans. It shall be compo- 
 sed of four faculties, to-wit: One of law, 
 one of medicine, one of the natural scien- 
 ces, and one of letters. 
 
 It shall be called the University of Louis- 
 iana; and the Medical College of Louisi- 
 ana, as at present organized, shall consti- 
 tute the faculty of medicine. 
 
 The legislature shall provide by law for 
 its further organization and government. 
 
 Provided, That the legislature shall be 
 under no obligation to contribute to the es- 
 tablishment or support of said University, 
 by appropriations. 
 
 Which motion prevailed. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Dunn, the vote re- 
 jecting the first section of the report of the 
 committee on education, was re -consider- 
 ed, and the same was taken up, viz : 
 
 Sec. 1. The governor shall nominate, 
 and by and with the advice and consent of 
 the senat e, appoint a superintendent of edu- 
 cation, who shall hold his office for two 
 years, whose duties shall be prescribed by 
 law, and who shall receive such compen- 
 sation as the legislature may direct. 
 
 Mr. Dunn moved for the adoption of 
 said section. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brent, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Carriere, Cenas, Cham- 
 bliss, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Or* 
 leans, Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, Du= 
 
912 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Bouchel, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, King, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Porter, Prescott 
 of St. Landry, Pugh, Read, Roman, Rose- 
 lius, St. Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, 
 Splane, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, 
 Wads worth, Wederstrandt, Winchester and 
 Winder voted in the affirmative-— 47 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Cade, Conrad 
 of Jefferson, Guion, Kenner, Labauve, Mc- 
 Callop, Peets, Preston, Soule, Stephens, 
 Trist, Waddill and Wikoff voted in the 
 negative — -15 nays. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Splane, the vote 
 adopting the fifth section of the judiciary, 
 was reconsidered, and the same was taken 
 up, viz : 
 
 Sec. 5. The supreme court shall hold its 
 sessions in the city of New Orleans, from 
 the first Monday of the month of Novem- 
 ber, to the end of the month of June, inclu- 
 sive. The legislature shall have the power 
 to fix the sessions elsewhere during the 
 rest of the year. Until otherwise provided 
 for, the sessions shall be held as heretofore. 
 
 Appeals from the parishes of Jackson, 
 Union, Morehouse, Caldwell, Ouachita, 
 Franklin, Carroll, Madison, Tensas and 
 Concordia shall, until otherwise provided, 
 be returnable to New Orleans. 
 
 Mr. Splane moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by inserting at the end of the proviso, 
 the words "and the parish of St. Mary." 
 
 Mr. Splane remarked, that the supreme 
 court held its sessions in the month of Sep- 
 tember at the town of Opelousas. This 
 was the sickliest season of the year in the 
 country. It was excessively inconvenient 
 to those residing in St, Mary's, who had 
 business in the supreme court, to attend the 
 sessions at Opelousas. They were obliged 
 to ride a very long distance, and were ex- 
 posed to the burning rays of the sun and to 
 the inclemency of the season. The court 
 itself having to proceed to Alexandria, hur- 
 ried its sessions, despatched its business 
 with such hot haste, that the administration 
 of justice had to suffer. These were his 
 motives for submitting his amendment. 
 
 Mr. Beatty thought it better to restore 
 the section as it originally stood, that the ses- 
 sions of the supreme court should be held 
 at New Orleans until otherwise provided 
 by law. There were only three or four 
 
 other parishes that desired a counU' ses- 
 sion of the supreme court, and it would be 
 better to establish a general provision sub- 
 ject to the control of the legislature. To 
 put a stop to useless discussion on this point, 
 he would move the previous question. 
 
 The call for the previous question was 
 sustained. 
 
 Mr. Cade moved to amend said section, 
 by striking out the words "New Orleans,'' 
 and insert in lieu thereof the words "seat 
 of government;" which motion w 7 as lost. 
 
 The question then recurred on Mr. 
 Beatty's motion, that the sessions of the 
 supreme court shall be held in the city of 
 New Orleans alone, until otherwise provi- 
 ded by law. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for, - 
 
 Messrs Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Carrie re, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Guion, Hud- 
 speth, Humble, Kenner, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Marigny, Mazureau, ^Preston, ^Pugh, Ro- 
 man, Roselius, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Sellers, Soule, Splane, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, Wi- 
 koff, Winchester and Winder voted in the 
 affirmative — 41 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Chambliss, Conrad of Orleans, Covillion, 
 Du Bou*.hel, Garrett, King, Labauve, Mc- 
 Gallop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Read, St. Amand, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Stephens j 
 and Waddill voted in the negative — 24 nays. 
 
 Mr. Brent offered the following amend- 
 ment, viz: 
 
 "Until otherwise provided for, the ap- 
 peals from the parishes of Rapides, Avoy- 
 elles, Natchitoches, Sabine, DeSeto, Bos- 
 sier, Caddo and Claiborne, shall be return- 
 able as heretofore " 
 
 On a question of order, 
 
 The Chair (Mr. Taylor of Assumption, 
 in the chair) decided the amendment to be 
 out of order. 
 
 Mr. Brent appealed from the decision 
 of the chair; and the question being put, 
 "shall the decision of the chair be sustain* 
 ed?" and the yeas and nays being called 
 for, (Mr. Taylor of Assumption, in the 
 chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Benja- 
 min, Briant, Carriere, Chambliss, Chinn, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 913 
 
 ;iaiborne, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbert- 
 on, Derbes, Downs, DuBouchel, Dunn, 
 Zustis, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 [enner, King, Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, 
 IcCallop, Marigny, Mazureau, Preston, 
 'ugh, Read, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, 
 aimders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 ladison, Sellers, Soule, Splane, Taylor of 
 •t. Landry, Trist, Voorhies, Wederstrandt, 
 Vadsworih, Wikoff, Winchester and Win- 
 er voted in the affirmative — 48 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 "onrad of Orleans, Covillion, Humble, 
 lynson, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, 
 Vescott of St. Landry, Scott of 'Feliciana, 
 Stephens and W^addill voted in the nega- 
 ive — 17 nays. 
 
 Mr. Brent, having voted in the majori- 
 y, moved to reconsider the vote reconsid- 
 ;ring the fifth section, under the motion of 
 Hr. Splane. 
 
 On a question of order, 
 
 The Chair (Mr. Taylor of Assumption, 
 a the chair) decided the motion to be in 
 order. 
 
 Mr. Beatty appealed from the decision 
 )f the chair; and the question being put, 
 •'shall the decision of the chair be sustain- 
 3d?" the same was sustained. 
 
 Mr. Walker said he hoped the parish 
 >f Rapides, and surrounding parishes, 
 .vhould not be deprived of the presence of 
 he supreme court at Alexandria. It was 
 .he desire of the people, and of the members 
 oers of the bar, that the sessions of that court 
 shouid be heldthere in the fall, as heretofore. 
 He had no objections to urge against appeals 
 being brought to the city from those parishes 
 that desired it, but he thought the wishes 
 of other sections of the State, that desired 
 their appeals to be decided in their vicinity, 
 ought to be, and he doubted not would be 
 respected by this body. 
 
 The yeas and nays were then called for 
 on the motion of Mr. Brent tcrreconsider, 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale, Brent, B ri- 
 ant, Burton, Cade, Chambliss, Chinn, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Covillion, Culbertson, Du- 
 Bouchel, Downs, Garrett, Hudspeth, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Kenner, King, Labauve, Lew- 
 is. McCallop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Trist, Waddill, Wederstrandt and 
 
 Wikoff voted in the affirmative — 39 yeas; 
 and 
 
 ' Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Brumfield, Clai^ 
 borne, Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Garcia, Guion, Legendre, Marigny, Pugh, 
 Roman, Roselius, Saunders, Splane, Voor- 
 hies, Wadsworth, Winchester and Winder 
 voted in the negative — 20 nays. 
 
 This result placed the section in the 
 same situation in which it was before Mr. 
 Splane's motion for reconsideration. 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved for the reconside- 
 ration of the vote adopting the eleventh 
 section of the article upon the judiciary, 
 with the view of adding the following: 
 
 "Provided, That the dispositions in this 
 section be not understood as applying to 
 justices of the peace." 
 
 Mr. Lewis inquired if the gentleman in- 
 tended to make parish judges out of justices 
 of the peace? 
 
 Mr. Garrett: I think not. The juris- 
 diction of justices of the peace are limited 
 to one hundred dollars. I can see no 
 danger of their becoming parish judges by 
 the amendment I propose. I wish to add 
 this to the section, and nothing else. 
 
 His motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne moved for the reconsid- 
 eratian of the first section of the judiciary 
 article. He made this motion, he said, 
 for the purpose of restoring the clause, 
 "and in such other courts in the city of 
 New Orleans as the legislature may pre- 
 scribe," which had been stricken out. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for upon 
 his motion, and 
 
 Messrs. Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Marigny, Porier, Pugh, 
 Roselius, Saunders, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Taylor of Assumption Voorhies and 
 W T adsworth voted in the affirmative — 16 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs Aubert,Benjamin, Brazeale,Brent, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Chamblis, Chinn, 
 Downs, DuBouchel, Dunn, Enstis, Garrett, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, Ken- 
 ner, King, Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, 
 McCallop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Prescott 
 of St. Landry, Preston, Read, Roman, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Madison, 
 Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Trist, Waddill, W T ederstrandt s 
 Wikoff and Winchester voted in the nega- 
 tive — 42 nays. 
 
911 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Mr. Humble moved for the reconsidera- 
 tion of the section prescribing that the 
 seat of government should not be estab- 
 lished within a radius of sixty miles of the 
 city of New Orleans. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for on 
 Mr. Humble's motion, and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Cenas, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Derbes, Downs, DuBouchel, Eustis, 
 Garrett, Humble, Legendie, Marigny, 
 Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott of St.Xandry, 
 Preston, Roman, Roselius, Splane, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Voorhies and Wadsworth 
 voted in the affirmative — 25 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade,Chambliss, Chinn, 
 Dunn, Guion, Hudspeth, Hynson, Ke li- 
 ner, King, Labauve, Lewis, McCallop, 
 McRae, Pugh, Read, Saunders, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Trist, Waddill, Wederstrandt, 
 Wikoff, Winchester and Winder voted in 
 the negative — 34 nays. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans, moved for 
 the reconsideration of the vote by which 
 the section was lost, presented by Mr. 
 Eustis, prescribing that in the nomination 
 of judges, after the first appointment under 
 this constitution, the incumbent shall be 
 considered ipso facto before the senate for 
 re-appointment. 
 
 The yeas and nays were then called for 
 upon said motion, and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Briant, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, King, 
 Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, 
 Roselius, Saunders, Taylor of St, Landry, 
 Voorhies, Wadsworth, Wikoff, Winches- 
 ter and Winder voted in the affirmative— 
 29 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Cade, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 Downs, DuBouchel, Humble, Hynson, 
 Kenner, Labauve, Legendre, McCallop, 
 McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Preston, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Trist, Waddill and Weder- 
 strandt voted in the negative — 33 nays. 
 
 Mr. Garcia moved for the reconsidera- 
 tion of the vote by which one representa- 
 
 tive only was allowed to the parish of Si 
 John the Baptist, with a view of movinr 
 that two representatives be allowed tha i 
 parish. 
 
 On motion, the rules were dispense* 
 with, in order to permit Mr. Garcia to ad ! 
 dress the Convention on the subject. 
 
 Mr. Garcia said that the parish of St 
 John the Baptist was one of the fhos 
 thickly settled parishes on the banks of the! 
 Mississippi. The delegates from St. Jame/ 
 and from St. Charles, as well as the dele 
 gates from Jefferson, can corroborate this 
 statement. Considerable settlements arc 
 progressing towards the lakes. Upon 
 Lake Ponchartrain and German Lake 
 there are already many settlers, and the} 
 are augmenting daily. The list of taxe.< 
 prepared by the assessor is not, unfortu- 
 nately, an unerring guide. The compen- 
 sation allowed the assessors is not suffi. 
 cient to enable them to traverse the more 
 distant and inaccessible portions of the 
 parish. I am myself aware of a number 
 of inhabitants, owning property, whose 
 names are not to be found on the tax list. 
 There are others again, who exercise the 
 right of suffrage upon property which is, 
 taxed in the name of their parents. 
 
 If implicit reliance were placed upon 
 the tax list, it would be presumed that there 
 were not more than from four to 'five hun- 
 dred electors, at most, in the parish. Bu< 
 if a census were taken and the amount o 
 population accurately ascertained, it woulcj; 
 be found from the population, and reason 
 able to infer that there w T ere many more, 
 If the list of tax payers could be accurately 
 had, it would be seen that the allotment 
 of but one representative to St. John is not 
 a fair proportion of the representation, in 
 reference to other parishes. When uni- 
 versal suffrage shall be extended, it will be 
 made evident that the number of electors 
 fairly entitle this parish to greater weight 
 than is assigned her. The delegates from 
 the adjoining parishes are well aware* of 
 the large and increasing population of 
 St. John the Baptist. It is as densely 
 settled as the parish of St. James, to which 
 two representatives are asssigned. The 
 only cause why there is an apparant dis- 
 parity, arises from the fact that the assess- 
 ment roll has been more fully prepared in 
 the parish of St. James. St. James is 
 composed of a wealthier population, and 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 915 
 
 ie settlements are more compact. Ought 
 fee people of the parish of St. John to suf- 
 jr merely from omissions In the tax list? 
 hen it can be demonstrated that she is 
 ititled to an additional member, and 
 hen you have accorded three members 
 
 the parish of Plaquemines? Equality 
 fid justice, it seems to me, requires that 
 ie representation of St. John be placed at 
 vo members, in place of but one, which 
 ie would be allowed if she had no popu- 
 lation at all ! 
 The yeas and nays were called for on 
 [r. Garcia's motion to reconsider the vote 
 [lotting one member to the parish of St. 
 ohn the Baptist; and 
 
 Messrs. Briant, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 •rleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, 
 >unn, Garcia, Kenner, Legeridre, Marigny, 
 lazureau, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, Saun- 
 ers, Wads worth and Winchester voted in 
 ie affirmative — 17 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 eld, Burton, Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, 
 Jhinn, Covillion, Downs, DuBouchel, 
 Aistis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, 
 Ivnson, King, Labauve, Lewis, McCallop, 
 IcRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott of 
 it. Landry, Preston, Read, Scott of Baton 
 louge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madi- 
 3n, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. Land- 
 er, Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt, Wi- 
 off and Winchester voted in the negative — 
 1 nays. 
 
 Mr. Mayo would inquire if it would be 
 k order, under the rule, to require that all 
 notions for reconsideration should be now 
 aken up and determined? 
 j The Chair decided that it would; those 
 notions for reconsideration, already made, 
 vhich were not taken up to day, would 
 ome up to-morrow in the order of the 
 lay. 
 
 i Mr. Brent said that under this con- 
 traction of the chair, he would move that 
 he reconsideration asked for by the dele- 
 gate from the German Coast (Mr. Garcia), 
 upon the section relative to duelling, be 
 now taken up and disposed of. 
 
 Mr. Beatty sustained the motion to 
 dispose of the subject; and contended it was 
 within the competency of the house to do 
 so, notwithstanding the wishes of the mover 
 for the reconsideration. 
 
 Mr. Garcia said he knew his rights as 
 a member of this body, and no one could 
 
 deprive him of them. He was familiar 
 with parliamentary rules, as familiar, and 
 perhaps more familiar than was the dele- 
 gate from Lafourche, (Mr. Beatty.) The 
 question for reconsideration involves the 
 section adopted for the suppression of du- 
 elling, and as this is a matter which I con- 
 cieve of some importance and susceptible 
 of results which may be deplored when it 
 will be too late, 1 think at any rate that 
 this impatient haste is not compatible with 
 the gravity which should mark our delibe- 
 rations. I shall insist that my motion be 
 determined in a full house, and not be ta- 
 ken up at a moment and under circumstan- 
 ces which are decisive of its rejection. 
 When I make a motion for reconsideration, 
 it is with a view of carrying it. Whoever 
 knows me must be aware that I would not 
 voluntarily have interfered with a question 
 which I conceive, has been rendered disgus. 
 ting by the manner in which it has been 
 treated and determined. But the evil has 
 been done, and in asking solemnly a re- 
 tracal of the steps, by which it is accom- 
 plished, 1 will observe that 1 am not, thank 
 God, of the number of those hypocrites 
 that conceal their cowardice under the 
 guise of religion, and who pass their hana 
 over their impassible countenances when 
 they are denounced publicly as worthless 
 and dishonest ! Worthy men have a per- 
 fect abhorrence of such contemptible base- 
 ness, and I should deeply regret to see it 
 consecrated, ennobled in the constitution 
 of Louisiana. 
 
 Why not proscribe gambling and the 
 gambler, that are certainly a greater pest 
 to society than duelling and the duellist ? 
 How many men leave the gaming table 
 where they have ruined their families and 
 dishonored their own reputation. How . 
 many men in the indulgence of this selfish 
 vice, that have sought oblivion of the past,, 
 of the wrongs they have inflicted upon their 
 helpless wives and children, of the viola- 
 tion? of the most sacred engagements, in 
 death ? And yet no provision has been in- 
 serted in your constitution excluding the 
 gambler from office ? No test or oath has 
 been prescribed to establish by his own 
 testimony his guilt ! But you disqualify 
 the man who neither offers insults nor sub- 
 mits to them. You place beneath the mer- 
 cy of the cowardly and the insolent, who 
 may with impunity indulge their propfensi- 
 
916 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 ties to offer insults and indignities. You tell 
 him that if he dares to resent an insult, he 
 shall be proscribed, ostracised, banished 
 from office and disqualified from the right 
 of suffrage! What is the penalty for mur- 
 der? The accused is tried and if he is ac. 
 quitted he returns to the bosom of society 
 with all his privileges ! He may have 
 been a cowardly assassin and have struck 
 his blow, so as to avoid the vigilance of 
 the law. He is not disqualified to hold 
 office nor to cast his suffrage. But an hon- 
 orable man who meets his antagonist face 
 to face fairly, is punished with the loss of 
 the most important privileges, even al- 
 though no wound be inflicted, and the mat- 
 ter be amicably settled. 
 
 It seems to me that there is a conspiracy 
 against the ehivalric portion of our popula- 
 tion. 1 am apprehensive that without 
 knowing it, you are the dupes of some am- 
 bitious persons, whose craven spirits shrink 
 from any responsibility, and who are anx- 
 ious to exclude from a civil and political 
 career, honorable men, whom they fear to 
 meet on equal grounds, They will insult 
 them, they will calumniate them, they will 
 persecute them at their leisure in the pub- 
 lit papers, and will force them to crouch 
 beneath these insults, or otherwise lose 
 their privileges of citizenship. And 1 
 would ask you, if you think that the youth 
 of the country are to be restrained by a 
 provision, which places the murderer, the 
 assassin above the brave and honorable 
 man ? 
 
 (Mr. Lewis : I am sorry to interrupt 
 the gentleman, but I do not think this mat- 
 ter properly under discussion.) 
 
 The Chair, (Mr. Miles Taylor) said 
 that the gentleman was not out of order. 
 
 Mr. Garcia said he had but one word 
 to reply to the delegate from St. Landry, 
 (Mr. Lewis.) He had a right to express 
 his motives for asking a reconsideration, 
 and no one could deprive him of that right. 
 
 The Chair (Mr. M. Taylor,) said that 
 strictly speaking according to the rule, the 
 house had a right to. insist upon the ques- 
 tion being put, but inasmuch as it might 
 operate as a surprise, he was induced to 
 hope that the house would not take that 
 course. 
 
 Whereupon, the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Friday, May 9, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Nicholson opened the 
 proceedings with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Porter moved for the reconsidera- 
 tion of the twenty-seventh section of the 
 article upon the bill of rights. 
 
 Mr. Beatty opposed the motion to re- 
 consider. 
 
 The question was taken and decided in 
 the affirmative. The section was taken 
 up, as follows : 
 
 Sec. — . The legislature shall have 
 power to extend this constitution and the 
 jurisdiction of the State, over all the terri- 
 tory which may hereafter be ascertained to 
 be within her limits, or over any territory 
 acquired by compact with any State, or 
 with the United States, the same being 
 done with the consent of the United 
 States. 
 
 Mr. Porter moved for its adoption; the 
 yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chinn, Chambliss, 
 Covillion, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Huds- 
 peth, Humble, Hynson, Labauve, Lewis, 
 McCallop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Pugh, Read, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Fell 
 ciana, Scott of Madison, Splane, Stephens 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, Voorhies 
 Waddill, Wederstrandt, Wikoff and Win 
 der voted in the affirmative — 38 nays; anf 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Briant, Derbes, 
 Kenner, Legendre, Mazureau, Roman, 
 Sellers and Taylor of Assumption voted 
 in the negative— 10 nays. 
 
 Mr. Porter moved to reconsider the 
 vote adopting the section offered by Mr. 
 Taylor of Assumption, relative to the ac- 
 quisition of residence. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brent, Culbertscn, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Guion, Humble, 
 Porter, Prescott, of St. Landry, Read, 
 Splane, Waddill and Wederstrandt voted 
 in the affirmative — 14 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Bra 
 zeale, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Carriere, 
 Cade, Chambliss, Chinn, Covillion, Garrett, 
 Hudspeth, Hynson, Kenner, Labauve, Le- 
 gendre,' Lewis, McCallop, Mayo, Mazu- 
 reau, Peets, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 917 
 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Trist, Voorhies, WikofT and 
 and Winder voted in the negative — 38 
 nays. 
 
 Mr. Ckiira moved that the reconsidera- 
 tion on the vote adopting the section rela- 
 tive to duelling, asked for by the delegate 
 from the German Coast, (Mr. Garcia) be 
 had. . 
 
 Mr. Garcia said he wished it to be dis- 
 tinctly understood that he was opposed to 
 this mischievous section, in every form and 
 shape in which it might be presented. He 
 had voted for the amendment offered by 
 Mr. McRae, disfranchising the voter, be- 
 cause he wished the section to be as odious 
 as it well could be, in order that it might 
 fall by its own deformity. Let us for one 
 moment examine the section. It strikes 
 the citizen and incapacitates him from 
 holding office and from exercising suffrage, 
 while it permits the stranger to insult the 
 citizen with impunity; it places it out of 
 the power of the one to defend himself, 
 while it confers upon the other the power 
 and faculty of being insolent. We shall 
 be a prey to the prejudices, to the criti- 
 cisms and to the censures of mere sojourn- 
 ers, persons who visit our city for tempo- 
 rary purposes. 
 
 But why, would 1 ask you, should you 
 prescribe the penalty of disqualification to 
 hold public offices, and the exercise of the 
 right of suffrage? There are professions 
 that are more lucrative than public offices. 
 Why do you not go further, and exclude 
 the man who is so unfortunate as to be en- 
 gaged in a duel, not only irom political 
 offices, from the right of suffrage, but from 
 the practice of the law, for it is in that pro- 
 fession that the license under your section 
 is likely to be most abusive ? I repeat I 
 am invincibly opposed to the section, be- 
 cause I think it no matter for a constitution; 
 but, since it needs must pasSj let the ma- 
 jority be consistent, and carry out this prin- 
 ciple of monstrous legislation in all its 
 frightful and revolting details. Several 
 delegates who entertain similar views to 
 my own, and among others the delegate 
 from Feliciana (Mr. RatlifT) are absent, 
 and I therefore move that the question be 
 postponed until 12 o'clock, m. If the ma- 
 jority will carry this measure, let them 
 116 
 
 give at least to the minority an opportunity 
 of recording their votes and their senti- 
 ments against it. 
 
 Mr. Garcia's motion for the postpone- 
 ment of the question prevailed. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Dunn, the schedule 
 was taken up, viz : 
 
 That no inconvenience may arise from 
 the alterations and amendments made in 
 the constitution of this State, and in order 
 to carry the same into complete operation 
 and effect,- it is hereby declared and or- 
 dained : 
 
 That ail laws of the State in force at the 
 time 'of making the said alterations and 
 amendments, and not inconsistent there* 
 with, and all rights, actions, prosecutions, 
 claims and contracts, as well of individuals 
 as of bodies corporate, shall continue, as if 
 the said alterations and amendments had 
 not been made. 
 
 The governor, secretary of state, judges 
 and all other officers, both civil and mili- 
 tary, shall continue in th-e exercise of the 
 duties of their respective departments, un- 
 til superseded and their successors duly 
 inducted into office, pursuant to the provi- 
 sions contained in the foregoing alterations 
 and amendments. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Benjamin, the fore- 
 going report was laid on the table subject 
 to call. 
 
 It being 12 o'olock, m., Mr. Chinn 
 asked that the vote be taken on Mr. Gar- 
 cia's motion to reconsider the section upon 
 duelling. 
 
 Mr. Gaticia said that in moving for the 
 reconsideration, it was his design if his 
 motion proved successful, to offer an 
 amendment extending the disqualification 
 in the section, to the practice of all of the 
 learned professions. He did this . . . . . . 
 
 Mr. Lewis said that it was not in order 
 to address the house upon a motion for re= 
 consideration. 
 
 Mr. Garcia replied that the president 
 had decided that he could expose his rea- 
 sons for the motion he had made. 
 
 Mr. Marigny signified that he would 
 address the house. 
 
 Objection was made. 
 
 Mr. Garcia said the right of the dele- 
 gate to be heard as a member of this body, 
 was guaranteed by the constitution now in 
 force. It was a right above any arbitrary 
 rule of this body. 
 
91k 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Mr. Marigny said that he felt persuaded 
 that his efforts upon this occasion would be 
 useless. That the majority under the pre- 
 text of applying a remedy to serious abuses, 
 were determined to introduce a very ques- 
 tionable provision into the constitution, the 
 consequences of which would be more de- 
 plorable than the evils it was designed to 
 obviate. No one deplored duelling more 
 than he did, in the manner in which it was 
 now conducted. It is not, in his apprehen- 
 sion, a combat between men of honor with 
 men of honor, but a butchery, in which the 
 insulted party was the victim and the ag- 
 gressor the public executioner ! It was in 
 the power of the latter to chose his wea- 
 pons, and in this way the contest was ren- 
 dered far from equal. The suppression of 
 a custom which admits of such an abuse, 
 is among the most ardent of my wishes. 
 But at the same time, I would beg gentle- 
 men to reflect, that there is no man, al- 
 though he maybe penetrated with the most 
 moral feelings, and although you may hold 
 over him the penalty of the penitentiary or 
 of the gallows, who will tamely submit to 
 an insult without asking reparation; and I 
 would suggest that at any rate, under such 
 circumstances, the-offended party should be 
 entitled to some indulgence, when he solicits 
 the redintegration of his privileges. If you do 
 not consent to some such modification, you 
 give a preference by the operation of your 
 constitutional provision to the murderer, 
 the cowardly assassin, the burglar, and to 
 those convicted of other infamous crimes, 
 for with the pardon of the governor, they 
 are restored to their social and political 
 rights; but the honorable man, who may 
 have been forced into a duel, is disfran- 
 chished for ever! You expose the most 
 chivalric portion of the community to daily 
 insults, you take away from them the 
 means of protecting themselves against 
 personal detraction and violence ; in a 
 word, you authorize murder and assassina- 
 tion in broad day-light. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies said this was no time to 
 discuss this question, nor did he propose 
 doing so. But to all that has been urged 
 with so much vehemence against the sec- 
 tion, he would reply by a brief question? 
 Are the people of Virginia less chivalric 
 than the people of Louisiana, and if the 
 adoption of a similar provision there has 
 not been attended with any of those awful 
 
 consequences that we have heard predict- 
 ed, why should it be attended with these 
 consequences in Louisiana? 
 
 Mr. Garcia was about replying, when 
 the Chair (Mr. M. Taylor) reminded hirr, 
 that under the rules, discussion could not 
 proceed. 
 
 Mr. Garcia said that if the Chair would 
 refer to the actual constitution, which was 
 not Jet extinct, whatever it may be hereaf- 
 ter, the chair would find that his right of 
 speech as a member of this body, was a 
 constitutional right, and did not depend 
 upon an arbitrary rule, arbitrarily enforced. 
 The twenty-fourth section of the constitu- 
 tion of 1812, provides, "that no bill shall 
 have the force of a law until on three seve- 
 ral days it be read over in each house of 
 the general assembly, and free discussion 
 allowed thereon." 
 
 Mr. Garcia said that the gentleman from 
 Attakapas (Mr. Voorhies) had asked a 
 question, and he presumed it was intended 
 that the question should be answered, if it 
 could be answered. Now I am ready, 
 (said Mr. G.) to answer that question. I 
 will tell the gentleman, to begin with, that 
 I have as high an estimation of the Virgi- 
 nians as any one, but it never entered into 
 my head to institute a comparison between, 
 their chivalry and that of the people of 
 Louisiana, to ascertain whether they pos- 
 sessed more chivalry or less chivalry. As 
 to the question itself, I will cite a very im- 
 portant fact, showing what is the operation 
 of this similar principle in Virginia, and in 
 some of the other States. It is incontro* 
 vertible that there are more murders and 
 assassinations committed in those States, 
 respectively, than have ever been known 
 in Louisiana; and there are more instances 
 where the perpetration of these crimes 
 have remained concealed, and the authors 
 have never been discovered. If you take 
 up the public papers, you will find the mys- 
 terious disappearance of some particular 
 person announced, and that some other in* 
 dividual was found murdered, but that there 
 is as yet no clue to discover the author of 
 the deed. Is this the substitute for duelling 
 in Louisiana, which the delegate from 
 Attakapas, (Mr. Voorhies) would inflict 
 upon us ? 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for, on 
 Mr. Garcia's motion to reconsider. 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg,B riant. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 919 
 
 Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Du- 
 Bouchel, Garcia, Kenner, Labauve, Le- 
 gendre, Marigny, Mazureau, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Splane, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Trist, Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, 
 Wikoff and Winchester voted in the affir- 
 mative — 30 yeas: and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Chinn, Downs, 
 Dunn, Eustis. Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth. 
 Humble, Hynson, Lewis, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, J\'layo, Peets, Preston, Pugh, Read. 
 Roselius, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of St. Landry, Yoorhies, 
 Waddill and Winder voted in the nega- 
 tive — 34 nays. 
 
 Mr. Humble said he had voted in the 
 negative, because if the section could be 
 ameliorated by being amended, he was de- 
 sirous of affording an opportunity to do so. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson stated that he had vo- 
 ted no, with a view of obviating some ob- 
 jections to the section, which he considered 
 were well founded. 
 
 Mr. Porter was not in favor of duel- 
 ling; but he voted for the reconsideration, 
 because he thought the latter clause of the 
 section ought to be struck out. 
 
 Mr. Waddill moved that the commit- 
 tee on revision be instructed to correct the 
 phraseology so that fne section should in- 
 clude all persons. 
 
 Mr. Garcia observed that the committee 
 on revision had no such power. He was 
 really humiliated at the result of the vote 
 which had been just announced. You 
 have granted a permit of insolence to the 
 stranger, to the calumniator, and to the 
 members of the legal profession, which 
 latter need more restraint in the license to 
 the tongue than any other class of the com- 
 munity. It is carrying very far the power 
 of, by a bare majority of one or two, to 
 pass such a section, affecting the natural 
 right of the citizen to protect himself* and 
 let it not be understood that I am influenced 
 by any apprehensions for myself. Men of 
 my age are not to be effected by the sec- 
 tion. But it is in the name of that popula- 
 tion against whom it is evidently directed, 
 and who it is designed to exclude from all 
 public offices, that I have spoken. Let it 
 be remembered, the solemn warning that 
 
 I have this day pronounced ! When those 
 you have proscribed will feel the weight of 
 this perpetual proscription, and will have 
 no other portion than blank despair, they 
 will seek your children and ask of them an 
 account of this transaction. They will seek 
 revenge for the ignomy and disgrace that 
 you have heaped upon them. Have you 
 reflected and weighed the consequences ? 
 If you have reflected, I would entreat you 
 to retrace your steps before it is too late. 
 If you doom3*our children to be the victims 
 of the injustice you have inflicted, you 
 trample under foot the sentiments of pater- 
 nity. If you tremble at the consequences 
 of this injudicious act, in your own minds 
 you must reprobate the vote you have just 
 given ! 
 
 The Convention then proceeded to the 
 consideration of several reports of the com- 
 mittee upon revision. 
 
 The twenty-sixth section of the iegisia- 
 • five article was taken up. 
 
 Sec. 26. All parish officers not other- 
 | wise provided for by this constitution, shall 
 ! be elected by the qualified electors of the 
 : different parishes, in such manner as shall 
 | be prescribed by law. Provided, that the 
 j mode of appointment and tenure of office of 
 i all officers in the parish of Orleans shall 
 j remain as heretofore, unless otherwise prc- 
 \ vided for by the legislature. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to amend the twen- 
 ty-sixth section, by inserting in the pro- 
 viso before the word " officers," the word 
 li such." 
 
 The Chair decided the amendment to 
 be out of order. 
 
 Mr. Prescott of St. Landry appealed 
 from the decision of the chain and the 
 question being put, shall the decision of the 
 chair be maintained; the yeas and nays 
 being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Briant, Carriere, Ce- 
 nas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, Downs, Du- 
 Bouchel, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Kenner, La- 
 bauve, Legendre, Lewis, McRae, Marigny, 
 Mazureau, Peets, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, 
 St. Amand, Saunders, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Waddill, Wadsworth, Wed- 
 erstrandt, Wikoff, Winchester and Winder 
 voted in the affirmative — 42 yeas; and 
 Messrs. Beattv, Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Cade, Chambliss, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 Hynson, McCaliop, Porter, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Preston, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Splane, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Trist and Voorhies voted in the negative 
 . — 19 nays. . 
 
 The Convention then resumed the con- 
 sideration of the reports of the committee 
 upon revision, and after sanctioning seve- 
 ral modifications in the phraseology, and 
 rejecting others, on motion they adjourned. 
 
 Saturday, May 10, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 At the request of the president, the Hon. 
 Mr. Stephens opened the proceedings 
 with prayer. 
 
 The President submitted a letter from 
 Mr. J. Bay on, in relation to his -compensa- 
 tion as printer of the debates of the Con- 
 vention in French. Referred to the com- 
 mi tea on contingent expenses. 
 
 Mr. Read, one of the committee on con- 
 tingent expenses, submitted the following 
 resolution, and the same was adopted: 
 
 Resolved, That the sum of two hundred 
 and sixty-two dollars and fifteen cents be 
 allowed B. M. Norman, bookseller and 
 stationer, and that the committee on con- 
 tingent expenses be authorized to issue a 
 warrant for the same. 
 
 Mr. Brent submitted the following re- 
 solution, which was adopted: 
 
 Resolved, Thnt the committee of revision 
 shaii have the power to recommend for cor- 
 rection any inaccuracies which may be 
 discovered in the constitution, after the 
 second reading. 
 
 Mr. Mayo gave notice that when the 
 judiciary article came up on its third read- 
 ing, he would move to determine and fix 
 in a more specific manner the qualifications 
 of the judges of the supreme court. 
 
 On motion, the report of the committee 
 of revision, on the article impeachment, 
 was taken up and adopted as reported. 
 
 On motion, the article schedule, was 
 taken up. 
 
 Mr. Saunders submitted the following 
 as a substitute for said article, and it was 
 adopted: 
 
 ''The constitution adopted in convention, 
 January 2d, 1812, is declared to be super- 
 seded by the alterations and amendments 
 herein adopted; and in order to carry the 
 
 same into operation and effect, it is hereby 
 declared and ordained 
 
 u That all laws of this State, in force at 
 the time of the adoption of this constitution, 
 and not inconsistent therewith, and ali 
 rights, actions and prosecutions, claims 
 and contracts, as well of individuals as of 
 bodies corporate, shall continue as if the 
 said alterations and amendments had not 
 been made. 
 
 "Tie governor, S3cretaiy of state, 
 judges, and all other officers, civil and mil- 
 itary, shall continue in the exercise of the 
 duties of their respective departments, until 
 superseded under the authority of this con- 
 stitution. 
 
 "Provided, That nominations and ap. 
 pointments to office, under this constitution, 
 shall be made by the governor, to be elec- 
 ted under its authority." # 
 
 Mr. Saunders offered the following ad- 
 ditional section; the same was adopted, 
 and ordered to be transferred to the general 
 provisions, viz: 
 
 "A treasurer of the State shall be elect- 
 ed biennially, by the joint ballot of the 
 two houses of the general assembly." 
 
 ' Mr. Kenner moved to take up the ma. 
 jority report, on submitting the constitution 
 to the people. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Briant, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Cade, .Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Cul- 
 bertson, Dunn, Garcia, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legen^ 
 dre, Lewis, McCaliop, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhom- 
 me, Read, Roman, Saunders, Scott of Ba* 
 ton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor 
 St. Landry, Trist, Voorhies, Winchester 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative— 43 
 yeas; arfd 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Covillion, Du- 
 Bouchel, Eustis, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, 
 I Peets, Splane, Waddill and Wederstrandt 
 I voted in the negative — -1 1 nays. 
 | The majority report was then taken up, 
 ! as follows, viz: 
 
 Ordered, That immediately after the ad- 
 journment of this Convention, the governor 
 shalll issue his proclamalion, directing the 
 several officers of this State, authorized by 
 law to hold elections for members of the 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 general assembly, to open and hold an 
 election in every parish of the State, at the 
 olaces designated by law, upon the first 
 Monday of November next, for the purpose 
 Df taking the sense of the good people of 
 :his State in regard to the adoption or re- 
 ection of this amended constitution. And 
 it shall be the duty of the said officers to 
 receive the votes of all persons entitled to 
 rote under the old constitution, and under 
 :his amended constitution. Each voter 
 shall express his opinion by depositing in 
 :he ballot box a ticket whereon shall be 
 written "the constitution accepted," or 
 "the constitution rejected," or some such 
 words as will distinctly gonvey the inten- 
 tion of the voter. At the conclusion of the 
 said election, which shall be conducted in- 
 every respect as the general State election 
 is now conducted, the commissioners desig- 
 nated to preside over the sa:ne, shall care- 
 fully examine and count each ballot so de- 
 posited, and shall forthwith make due re- 
 turns thereof to the secretary of state, in 
 conformity to the provisions of the existing 
 law, upon the subject of elections. 
 
 Ordered, That upon the receipt of the 
 said returns, it shall be the duty of the go- 
 vernor, the secretary of state, the attorney 
 general and the state treasurer, in the pres- 
 ence of all such persons as may choose 
 to attend, to compare the votes given in 
 said election for the ratification and rejec- 
 tion of this amended constitution; and if it 
 shall appear from said returns that a ma- 
 jority of all the votes given in said election 
 is for ratifying the amended constitution, 
 then it shall be the duty of the governor to 
 make proclamation of that fact, and thence- 
 forth this amended constitution shall be or- 
 dained and established as the constitution 
 of Louisiana. But whether the amended 
 constitution be accepted or rejected, it 
 shall be the duty of the governor to cause 
 to be published in the State paper the re- 
 salt of the said election, showing the num- 
 ber of votes cast for and against the said 
 1 constitution. 
 
 Ordered. That should this amended con- 
 stitution be accepted by the people, it shall 
 I ais0 be the duty of the governor forthwith 
 to issue his proclamation, declaring the 
 present legislature, elected under the old 
 constitution, to be dissolved, and directing 
 the several officers of the State, authorized 
 bylaw to hold elections for members of the 
 
 general assembly, to hold an election at 
 the places designated by law, upon the 
 third Monday in January next, (1846) for 
 governor, lieutenant governor, members of 
 the general assembly, and all other officers 
 whose election is provided for pursuant to 
 the provisions of this amended constitution. 
 And the said election shall be conducted; 
 and the returns thereof made in conformity 
 with the existing laws upon the subject of 
 State elections. 
 
 Ordered, That the general assembly, 
 elected under this amended constitution, 
 shall convene at the State house, in the 
 city of New Orleans, upon the second Mon- 
 day of February next, after the election, 
 (1846); and that the governor and lieuten- 
 ant governor, elected at the same time, 
 shall be duly installed in office during the 
 first week of their session, and before it 
 shall be competent for the said general as- 
 sembly to proceed with the transaction of 
 business. 
 
 The minority report was then taken up, 
 as follows, viz: 
 
 The undersigned, a minority of the com- 
 mittee appointed to divise a plan by which 
 the amended constitution shall be carried 
 into effect, having differed from the major- 
 ity as to the time and manner of submitting 
 it to the people for their approval or rejec- 
 tion, have deemed it incumbent on them 
 to make the following counter report, for 
 which they respectfully solicit the conside- 
 ration of the Convention: 
 
 They are of opinion that there should 
 be no greater delay in calling the people 
 together in their several election districts, 
 to decide upon the organic law which this 
 Convention has framed for them, than is 
 necessary for it to be published in all parts 
 of the State, and to become generally 
 known to the inhabitants; and as it is pro- 
 bable that this body will adjourn on or 
 about the 10th instant, the undersigned pro- 
 proposed that the second Monday of July 
 next should be fixed upon for its submis- 
 sion to the electors. This would give tfce 
 people two months' time to examine and 
 discuss it, and to compare its provisions 
 with those of the old constitution, a period 
 quite sufficient to the apprehension of the 
 undersigned, for it to be maturely consider- 
 ed and fully understood. At the present 
 time the attention of the people is called to 
 the proceedings of this Convention, and a 
 
922 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 lively interest is felt in the result of its la- 
 bors. The sooner the work is submitted 
 to them the greater is the probability of 
 obtaining for it a full, fair and unprejudiced 
 expression of the public sentiment. It is 
 to be feared that the long delay proposed 
 by the majority of the committee will have 
 a tendency to stifle enquiry on the subject, 
 and cause an apathy to be felt which will 
 defeat the object which the Convention 
 has in view, to-wit: to procure the decision 
 of a majority of the qualified electors ap- 
 proving or rejecting the amended constitu- 
 tion. 
 
 The undersigned are also fully persuaded 
 that it is contrary to good policy and sound 
 principle to allow any class of persons 
 other than those who were heretofore en- 
 titled to the elective franchise, to vote for 
 or against the new constitution. It was 
 they who voted for the assembling of this 
 Convention; they alone are the constituents 
 of its members, and they only have the 
 right to say whether the mandate given by 
 them, has been executed in such a manner 
 as to meet their approbation. TSie propo- 
 sition of the majority of the committee to 
 allow, in addition to those who already pos- 
 sess the qualifications of voters, all who 
 may have been constituted electors under 
 the new constitution, to vote at the assem- 
 bling of the people to decide upon that in- 
 strument, is viewed by the undersigned 
 as amounting, in effect, to a fraud upon 
 the rights of the constituency of this Con- 
 vention. It is hazarding nothing to de- 
 clare that had such a proceeding been an- 
 ticipated, before the people decided to call 
 a Convention, a very large portion of those 
 who voted for it would have refused to 
 delegate a power which could be exercised 
 so as to defeat their wishes, whilst they are 
 mocked with a show of accountability on 
 the part of their representatives. The 
 undersigned cannot perceive how it can be 
 pretended that persons who are not enti- 
 tled to vote under the existing constitution, 
 should be permitted to exercise this inesti- 
 mable privilege, upon an occasion like 
 that in question. Those persons had no 
 agency in electing the members of this 
 Convention, and could not in consequence 
 instruct them as to their acts. They have, 
 therefore, no right to decide upon that 
 which has been done by those who are not 
 their agents; and this Convention has no 
 
 rightful power to diminish the constitution, 
 al privileges of the electors of this State, 
 by extending the elective franchise, with- 
 out their consent, to persons who are by 
 that means enabled to nullify their wishes. 
 
 The undersigned do not deem it neces- 
 sary to say any thing further in support of 
 the views they have taken of the matter 
 under consideration; they submit it to the 
 wisdom and sound discretion of the Con- 
 vention. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 THOS. W. CHINN, 
 GEORGE S. GUION. 
 May 5th, 1845. 
 
 Mr. Guion moved to amend the first sec- 
 tion of the majority report, by striking out 
 in the fifteenth line, the word "November,'' 
 and inserting in lieu thereof the word 
 "July." 
 
 Mr. Garrett called for the previous 
 question. Lost. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies hoped that the motion to 
 substitue July for November, would not 
 prevail. The reports and journals of this 
 Convention would scarcely be before the 
 people before July. The people should 
 have sufficient time to consider well, and 
 weigh the provisions in the new constitu- 
 tion, before being called to vote upon it. 
 November was quite early enough. Be- 
 fore that time nine-tenths of the people 
 would not be thoroughly informed of the 
 character of thg constitution. 
 
 Mr. Brent said that these considerations 
 had induced the majority of the committee 
 to report in favor of November. It was 
 early enough to submit the constitution for 
 the decision of the people. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for on 
 Mr. Garcia's motion, and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Briant, Chinn, 
 Dunn, Guion, Hudspeth, King, Legends. 
 Lewis, Read, Sellers, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Taylor of St.Landry and Winder vo- 
 ted in the affirmative — 15 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Cham- 
 bliss, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Covillion, 
 D@wns, DuBouchel, Eustis, Garcia, Gar- 
 rett, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, Labauve, 
 Ledoux, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, 
 Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescottof St. Land- 
 ry, Prudhomme, Roman, Saunders, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Splane, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 923 
 
 JtephenSj Voorhies, Waddiil, Wederstrandt 
 ,nd Winchester voted in the negative — 41 
 lays. 
 
 Mr. Guion then moved to amend the 
 same section, by striking out in the fif- 
 eenth line the words "and under this 
 tmended constitution," so that the right to 
 ■ote for the adoption or rejection of the 
 onstitution, be confme*d to actual voters 
 nder the constitution of 1812. 
 
 Mr. Brent said he would make a few 
 ibservations; he did not propose to make 
 .n argument. It was apparent to his 
 uind that it was our duty to submit the 
 uestion of the adoption or rejection of the 
 onstitution to all who were entitled to 
 ote under it. There are but two ques- 
 ions for us to resolve. The first is, have 
 ve the powes to do so? The second is, 
 f we have the power, ought we to exercise 
 t? Have we the power to put the consti- 
 urion in force without submitting it to the 
 icople at all? If we assumed that power, 
 ve would only be following the precedent 
 et us by nine out of ten of the several 
 •onventions held in tl^e different States of 
 he Union, for the purpose of forming their 
 constitutions. If we have the power to 
 ecree at once that the constitution is in 
 >rce, then upon every question those enti- 
 led to suffrage under it would have the 
 ight to vote. The possession of the great - 
 r power necessanly involves the posses- 
 ion of the lesser power. There can be 
 .o dispute that we have the power, and 
 tie next question is, ought we to exercise 
 U The conclusion is, that the constitution 
 mbodies the popular will; whether this 
 onclusion be right or wrong, in reference 
 3 its general provisions, it, nevertheless, is 
 ■eyond all possible doubt that the pro vis - 
 jn extending the right of suffrage, is emi- 
 lently the deliberate expression of that will. 
 That every free white male who has at- 
 ained the age of twenty-one years, and 
 esided two years in the State, and has the 
 jthcr qualifications prescribed by the con- 
 stitution, ought to exercise the right of suf- 
 frage. That is an inherent right. 
 
 If we are satisfied that we have the 
 power, and that in its exercise we but car- 
 ry out the popular will, then we are bound 
 to carry out that will, and if we fail to do 
 so, we commit a great error. In regard to 
 precedents, suppose this constitution had 
 been the first constitution adopted in 
 
 j Louisiana, and that it were in like man- 
 ner submitted to the ratification of the 
 people, would not all these entitled to suf- 
 frage under it be entitled to vote upon the 
 question whether it should be accepted or 
 rejected? But, for the purpose of remove, 
 ing every vestige of doubt, 1 will refer to 
 the constitutions of some of our sister 
 States that have decided, the question. 
 
 (Mr. Brent read a similar proposition 
 in the constitution of Alabama and in the 
 constitution of Tennessee.) 
 
 Is there any thing (asked Mr. B.) novel 
 or unusual in this proceeding? Did the 
 people not vote for a convention with the 
 understanding that the result of its labors 
 should be submitted to them for ratification? 
 Was that a part of the compact? There 
 might have been some portion of the peo- 
 ple that voted with that understanding. 
 But the great body of the people expected 
 that we would follow the example set by 
 the conventions in our sister States, and 
 by our own convention in 1812. 
 
 Mr. Eustis said that before taking a step 
 which he considered a very important one, 
 he would submit to the convention the 
 reasons that governed his vote. He did 
 not expect to influence the minds of oth- 
 ers. The subject may appear at first to 
 be a very difficult one. The time allowed 
 did not admit of discussion, and it was not 
 the sense of the Convention that there 
 should be further debate. He had exam- 
 ined the subject with a great deal of care, 
 for he never gave a vote without patient 
 examination, and the best consideration of 
 which his judgment was susceptible. The 
 question involved is this: whether the con. 
 stitution shall be submitted to the constit. 
 uency under the old constitution, or to the 
 constituency that are to live under the new 
 constitution. To arrive at a correct solu- 
 tion of this question, he had sought for the 
 best lights, intending to be governed by 
 them without passion and without preju- 
 dice. His investigation had convinced 
 him that the position of the delegate from 
 Rapides (Mr. Brent) was correct; that the 
 constitution ought to be submitted to those 
 who were to live under it. What had ten- 
 ded considerably to strengthen this con- 
 viction, was what he had heard upon this 
 floor in reference to the frauds that have 
 been committed upon the ballot box.* For 
 myself (said Mr. Eustis) I have never 
 
924 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 made a voter, directly or indirectly* I am j 
 innocent of any thing of that kind. 
 
 I would ask gentlemen what do they 
 expect to gain by restricting suffrage 
 upon the question of the adoption of 
 the constitution? It is admitted on all 
 hands that our recent elections have been 
 degraded by innumerable frauds. If any 
 doubt exist as to the assertion having 
 been repeated over and over again by gen- 
 tlemen of this body, all that we have to do 
 is to refer to the debates that have taken 
 place since the commencement of the ses- 
 sion at Jackson. These fraudulent votes 
 have been cast upon the question of calling 
 a convention; they have been cast in the 
 election of delegates to this body, and 
 they will be cast again upon the question 
 of the adoption or rejection of this consti- 
 tution, although the same restriction be ap- 
 plied. They will be cast to the exclusion 
 of those to whom the new constitution 
 gives the right of suffrage; but the result 
 upon the question of adoption or rejection 
 will not vary one straw. The conscien- 
 tious man, who does not pay a State tax, 
 and is not eligible to suffrage under the old 
 constitution, will not attempt to vote; but 
 the man who is regardless of the restric- 
 tion and intent upon voting, will vote. The 
 property qualification has been evaded be- 
 fore and can be evaded again. You give 
 then to the unscrupulous the facility of 
 voting while you exclude their betters, 
 who will not have recourse to indirect 
 means. I think this view of the case ought 
 to be decisive of the question. 
 
 But, I humbly conceive that we ought to 
 attach great weight to precedent. The 
 constitution of the State of Tennessee puts 
 the matter beyond all doubt. The respec- 
 table body that framed that constitution 
 have decided it. Independent of that con- 
 sideration, if we examine the point at is- 
 sue, we shall find it unattended with any 
 great embarrassment. In the first place, 
 it is the sense of the constituency under 
 the constitution of 1812, that suffrage 
 should be extended by abolishing the pro- 
 perty qualification. This is the deliberate 
 opinion of the freeholders. The call for 
 the Convention was preceded by two elec- 
 tions, in which the sense of the people 
 was taken as to the expediency of the 
 measure. You then had the freeholders 
 at the polls in the election of delegates, 
 
 whose representatives we are. It is be- 
 yond doubt that in this matter of suffrage 
 we have their consent; that is to sav, it is 
 their will, that every free white male, who 
 has attained the age of twenty -one years, 
 a citizen of the United States, who has 
 resided two years in the State, should have 
 the right to vote. This is one of the clauses 
 that were brought "under the particular at- 
 tention of the voters, and it is in virtue of 
 their decesion of that question affirmative, 
 ly, that this Convention now sits. It is a 
 foregone conclusion. As was well obser. 
 ved by the delegate from Rapides. (Mr, 
 Brent) the act calling this Convention is 
 final as to the express will of the people, 
 that suffrage shall be extended; and it is 
 but carrying out that will to declare that 
 the question for the adoption of the con- 
 stitution shall be submitted as well to the 
 voters under the new constitution as to 
 those under the old constitution; both clas- 
 ses of citizens are equally interested. 
 
 I would ask gentlemen if it would not 
 be perfectly competent for this body to de- 
 cree the constitution at onee, without sub- 
 mining it to the peo*ple? 
 
 But why consume the valuable time of 
 the Convention by arguing the question 
 further? It has been resolved — solemnly 
 resolved — by a body distinguished by the 
 wisest statesmen of the age. Mr. Ran- 
 dolph, in the Virginia convention, propo* 
 sed to submit the new constitution to the 
 old electors only. He scouted at the idea 
 that it should be submitted to the electors 
 under the new constitution. The question 
 was put upon his proposition and the yeas 
 and nays were called for. Only twenty- 
 eight voted in favor of it; sixty-six voted 
 against it, among whom are the names of 
 Marshall and of Barbour. They deter- 
 mined the very question now before us, 
 that the constitution ought to be submitted 
 to those that were to be affected by it! That 
 was the decision of that enligned body of 
 men; and that decision is enough to satis- 
 fy my mind if I entertained any doubts. 
 
 Mr. Guion said that he rose for the pur- 
 pose of very briefly replying to the dele 
 gate from Rapides, (Mr. Brent) and the 
 delegate from New Orleans (Mr. Eustis). 
 Both these gentlemen had assumed the 
 ground thai the Convention were fully 
 competent to decree the constitution with- 
 out submitting it to the people. He con- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 925 
 
 ceded thai power, but he maintained that 
 the Convention were morally bound, if 
 they submitted the constitution, to submit 
 t-he whole and not a part, for the ratifica- 
 tion of the people. The new constitution 
 provides for the extension of suffrage. It 
 proposes many other changes from the 
 old constitution. All these changes are to 
 be submitted to the people, with a single 
 reservation: the provision to extend suf- 
 frage. That is to he decreed and it is to 
 giinto operation in anticipation of all the 
 other provisions of the constitution. If 
 not probable, it is at least possible that the 
 new constitution may be rejected. If our 
 work be destroyed, what becomes of our 
 power? I think that argument conclusive, 
 and I shall say nothing further on that 
 head. 
 
 The people have, in rny opinion, declar- 
 ed their wish that our work should be sub- 
 mitted for their approval. The gentleman 
 from Rapides (Mr. Brent) has said that the 
 people diJ not expect i' would be submit- 
 ted. It may be so with the gentleman's 
 constituents, but with my constituents the 
 reverse is the case. The people in my 
 section of the State expect it to be submit, 
 led to them for their approval or rejection. 
 But to whom is it to be submitted? To 
 those that elected us. and by whose power 
 we are here? or is it to be submitted as 
 well to those who have not as yet, and can- 
 lot have, until the constitution 1 be put in 
 force, any portion of the political power 
 of the State? We might as well submit 
 the new constitution to the people of Mis- 
 sissippi, or to the people of Virginia! We 
 ^re the mandatories, the agents only of 
 those that elected us. We have assembled 
 and have prosecuted our labors, m obedi- 
 ence, and under the authority of their will, 
 ind it is they and they alone, who are 
 competent to determine whether our work 
 shall be accepted or rejected. 
 
 Mr. Chins called for the previous ques- 
 tion. His motion was lost by the casting 
 vote of the, president. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad said he had but a 
 few remarks to make. He conceived the 
 question to be an important one; not that 
 it would have any material bearing upon 
 the adoption or rejection of the constitu- 
 tion, but because it involved an important 
 principle. It is important that the Conven- 
 tion should act correctlv uo-m it. Ho 
 11? 
 
 would not undertake to examine what were 
 the civil functions of society, and how far 
 it was competent to impose limits upon 
 political power; it was to his mind per* 
 fectty clear that society had a right to de- 
 termine who should exercise political pow- 
 er. The delegate from Rapides (Mr. Brent) 
 had discussed the question as if we were 
 about to deprive a portion of the people of 
 the right to vote. Ilow can it be said that 
 we deprive them of the right to vote? 
 They must have had that right for us to 
 deprive them of it It is impossible we 
 should deprive them of that which they 
 never possessed. Until the Constitution, 
 shall be ratified by the electors under the 
 old constitution, those to whom suffrage is 
 extended cannot be said to form part and 
 parcel of the political power of the State. 
 
 The delegate from Lafourche, (said Mr. 
 C.) conceded more than I would be wih 
 ling to concede. He conceded that the 
 Convention had the power to decree 
 the substitute for the old constitution :-o be 
 in force, without submitting it to the peo- 
 ple. I have serious doubts whether the 
 Convention have any such power. We 
 were assembled uuder an act specifying 
 the amendments to be made, with the as- 
 sent of the people, to the old constitution. 
 Had we confined ourselves io these amend, 
 ments, and respected the other dispositions 
 of the oki constitution which it was never 
 proposed to amend, there might be some 
 force in the argument that the constitution 
 would have been in force without the ne- 
 cessity of submitting it to the people. Rut 
 instead of limiting itself to the amendments 
 specified in the acts by which the sense of 
 the people were consulted, the Convention 
 have proposed to revolutionize the State. 
 They have proceeded to effect a thorough 
 revolution, a bloodless revolution it is true, 
 but still a revolution. They have made 
 amendments which the people never 
 dreamed of. A large portion of the people 
 were under the conviction that the old con- 
 stitution would remain untouched, except 
 in the particular amendments to which re. 
 ference was had in the act calling the Con* 
 vention. Let me say that many of my 
 constituents, a great number of respectable 
 persons, acted under a thorough persuasion 
 that the proceedings of this body would be 
 confined to the law by which U was con* 
 vened. Bad thev anticipated what has 
 
926 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 transpired, I am confident they would ne- 
 ver have voted for thi3 Convention. Seve- 
 ral other delegates can make a similar re- 
 mark in reference to a respectable number 
 of their constituents. 
 
 It being clear that we are bound to sub- 
 mit the constitution we have prepared, and 
 which annuls if adopted the old constitu- 
 tion as a whole, the next question is to 
 determine, to whom are we to submit it ? 
 Shall we submit it exclusively to those 
 citizens from whom we have derived our 
 powers, or shall it be equally submitted 
 to those to whom the right of suffrage has 
 been extended ? It can scarcely be con- 
 tended that the latter are to be comprehen- 
 ded in the submission, unless it be assum- 
 ed that the Convention may submit one 
 portion of the constitution and decree ano- 
 ther. But whose agents are we? Whose 
 mandatories are we ? Are we the repre- 
 sentatives in part of those that have no 
 present share in the political power of the 
 .State, and can have no share in the political 
 power until the old constitution issuperse- 
 ded by the new? Until the new constitution 
 be ratified by our constituents, the political 
 power resides in them only; they are posses- 
 sed of it in virtue of the constitution of 
 1812. No other class of voters are known. 
 The old constitution has pointed out what 
 the qualifications of an elector shall be. 
 That clause of the old constitution, like 
 every other clause in that instrument, is 
 binding until the new constitution shall be 
 adopted. But who can decree the substi. 
 tution of the new constitution for the old 
 one ? Only those that are entitled to suf- 
 frage under the old constitution. And if 
 the new constitution be rejected, it will not 
 surely be contended, and yet it may well 
 be contended by a parity of reasoning, 
 that the clause extending the right of suf- 
 frage has never been rejected by the peo- 
 ple, because it was never submitted to them, 
 and that having been decreed by the Con- 
 vention, it is therefore binding ; notwith- 
 standing all the other provisions were 
 rejected. If we. are here the represen- 
 tatives of the population en masse, 
 we are the representatives of women and 
 children, of persons of color and of negroes, 
 as well as of those persons who have not 
 yet acquired the right of suffrage, and if 
 we are to submit the constitution to the 
 latter for approval, on the principle enun- 
 
 ciated by my colleague (Mr. Euslis,) that 
 they are to be effected by it, then on the 
 same principle, we should submit it to wo- 
 men and children, free persons of color 
 and negroes. 
 
 The delegate from Rapides (Mr. Brent) has 
 attempted to sustain his proposition by pre- 
 cedents. Let us see what these precedents 
 are worth. Upon reference to the clause 
 to which he referred in the constitution of 
 Tennessee, it will be seen that so far from 
 extending the right of suffrage to other than 
 original electors, the intent of the clause is 
 to limit suffrage, and to exclude some per. 
 sons that were before entitled to it. Bv 
 comparing the clause with the schedule it 
 appears that formerly persons of color hatl 
 the privilege of suffrage conferred upon 
 them in that State, and it was deemed ex- 
 pedient to withdraw from them that privi- 
 lege. I shall say nothing as to the fact it. 
 self, but I would ask gentlemen a simple 
 question. Suppose the proposition of an 
 honorable delegate had been pressed, and 
 that proposition was not peculiar to that 
 gentleman, that free persons of color in 
 Louisiana should have the right of suffrage; 
 and suppose it had been embodied in the 
 constitution, would gentiemen pretandtnat 
 this class of persons had a right to vote 
 upon the adoption of this constitution 1 . 
 Their argument would tend to that resuU. 
 It may hereafter be considered expedient 
 that this should be done. It may be de- 
 creed by some future Convention, and in 
 the action of this body on the present oc- 
 casion, they will find a precedent. Many 
 persons entertain the idea that free persons 
 of color should be interested in the govern- 
 ment; that it would be expedient to inter- 
 est them. These are not my opinions, 
 but they are entertained, and may hereaf- 
 ter under the multifarious changes to wfoch 
 the State is subjected, be acted upon in 
 some future Convention. They may de- 
 cree the principle in some future constitu- 
 tion. Would it be proper that in submitting 
 it to the people for ratification, it should be 
 ecreedd that all the voters under the new 
 constitution should vote upon the question of 
 its adoption orjrejection. And yet if we pass 
 a similar clause here, we shall establish a 
 precedent for all future time. But further, 
 a Convention might abolish slavery, and 
 according to the same principle they would 
 be called upon to participate in the decis- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 927 
 
 ion of that question, if it were submitted to 
 the people, because they were "to be ef- 
 fected by it." I trust that the Convention 
 will sustain the motion of the delegate 
 from Lafourche, (Mr. Guion,) and reject a 
 principle which is radically wrong and ex- 
 tremely dangerous. 
 
 The' previous question was called for 
 and sustained. 
 
 The question was then taken on the 
 idoption of Mr. Guion's amendment; and 
 the yeas and nays were called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Cade, Cenas, Chinn, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jef- 
 ferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, 
 Pugh, Roman, Roselius, Sellers, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Wadsworth and Winder voted 
 in the affirmative — 31 yeas; and 
 
 "Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, . Covillion, 
 Downs, DuBouchel r Eustis, Garrett, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson-, Ledoux, McCallop, McRae, 
 Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Preston, Read, Saunders, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Voorhies, 
 Waddill, Wederstrandt and Winchester 
 roted in the negative— 32 nays; consequent- 
 ly said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to amend said sec- 
 ion by inserting after the word "commis- 
 lioaers," in the twenty-fifth line, the words 
 ; and parish judges;" which motion pre- 
 vailed. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved that said report be 
 laid on the table indefinitely. 
 
 Mr. Downs said that in making this mo- 
 ion he had little expectation that it would 
 prevail. He made it, not because he had 
 my particular objeciio.i to the section, not 
 that he distrusted the enlightened judgments 
 of the people in this or any other master, 
 but because he considered it essential for 
 the repose and tranquility of the State, that 
 this vexed and exciting question of consti- 
 tutional reform should be definitively set- 
 tled. The people were anxious to be re- 
 lieved from the solicitude which they had 
 felt for a series of years, and at the earliest 
 moment to enjoy the advantages of a more 
 perfect and better system of government- 
 one more adapted to their wants and feel- 
 
 ings, than that provided by the constitution 
 of 1812. 
 
 The question has been mooted, whether 
 this body were bound to submit the result 
 of their labors to the anticipation of the 
 people. As far as precedent goes, it seems 
 clearly established that there is no obliga- 
 tion to do so, and on most occasions the 
 formality has been dispensed with. But 
 whatever may, under ordinary circumstan- 
 ces, be alledged in favor of the practice, 
 and however much it may comport with 
 the respect which, as public servants, we 
 should exhibit for the will of the people, 
 yet in the present instance, if the prece^% 
 dent were established in favor of a refer- 
 ence to the source of power for its fiat for 
 or against our work, there are weighty 
 reasons why it should not be followed, un- 
 der the peculiar circumstances which pre- 
 sent themselves, and which I shall briefly 
 unfold. 
 
 I again repeat that it is not from any 
 want of confidence in the people, nor from 
 the apprehension that there will be any 
 great contrariety of opinion as to the merits 
 of the constitution. I am actuated by no 
 such feeling. But it must not be overlook- 
 ed, that large interests are effected, and 
 that these interests will be arrayed in di- 
 rect opposition to the adoption of the con- 
 stitution. I feel satisfied that, although it 
 is not all I could have wished, yet upon 
 the whole it deserves and will obtain a 
 large preponderence of the votes in the 
 Convention, and a large preponderance of 
 the popular vote, if false issues, and insid- 
 uous attempts be not made to defeat it in 
 detail. It is a decided improvement, to 
 say the least, upon the old constitution. 1 
 have reflected maturely upon the subject, 
 and lam persuaded that it would be better 
 to carry it into effect at once. The peo- 
 ple have been harrassed for years with this 
 question. As one of its earliest and most 
 ardent friends, it may well be presumed 
 how anxious I am now that it is consum- 
 mated, that we should derive the benefits 
 which we have a right to expect from it, 
 and not expose the possession of them to 
 the remotest accident. The very possibili- 
 ty that it might be rejected by improper 
 and indirect means, and without a full ex- 
 pression of the voic e of the people, througU 
 any mischance, ought to admonish us to 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 avoid even that risk, as remote as it may 
 be. If it were rejected, what would be 
 the unfortunate position of the friends of 
 reform? They would be thrown back to 
 1837, and the people would be dispirited, 
 worn out and disheartened. Is not that 
 risking too much? And should that be 
 the result, would we not lay ourselves 
 open to the just censure of our constitu- 
 ents? 
 
 So far as the people are concerned, they 
 never expexted that we should submit the 
 constitution for their action. We were 
 elected to represent their wishes, and if 
 We received no positive instructions, our 
 intercourse with them pretty plainly indi- 
 cated what were the reforms they expected 
 at our hands. In the act calling the Con- 
 vention, there is not one word indicating 
 the necessity for a reference. But our le- 
 gislative history is not without an example 
 that it was not expected, nor was it deemed 
 desirable that we should make this sub- 
 mission. In 1843 a similar proposition 
 was offered in the house, to the one before 
 us, and rejected. We have, therefore, not 
 only precedent in the constitution of 1812, 
 authority in the laws f r convening the 
 Convention, but the distinct and explicit 
 action of the popular branch of the le- 
 gislature, rejecting a proposition for sub- 
 mitting the constitution to the people 
 when it should be finally prepared. There 
 is one fact to which some attention ought 
 to be paid. Although a number of 
 friends to the new constitution, here and 
 elsewhere, are in favor of its submission 
 to the people, there is not a single one of 
 its bitterest opponents who does not favor 
 that course. They are as anxious for this 
 reference as they were averse to the slight- 
 est innovation upon the old constitution. 
 I would beg the friends of reform to pause, 
 and seriously reflect. What would their 
 constituents say, if by this reference this 
 great measure of popular reform were lost? 
 
 What would theirconstituents do, if they 
 were here in person? Would they expose 
 this important work to the remotest possi- 
 bility of defeat; to the machinations and 
 secret plottings of its enemies? They 
 would say that this was a crisis when their 
 representatives should have thrown them- 
 selves into the breach and have saved the 
 constitution at no matter what personal 
 risk. What the people would do, if they 
 
 were here en masse, their representatives 
 were bound to do. 
 
 I am aware that in making this motion 
 and advocating it, I may lay myself open 
 to attack, but I would consider myself un- 
 worthy of a seat upon this floor, if personal 
 considerations weighed with me a feather 
 in the balance against what I consider is 
 for the interest and welfare of the people. 
 I know it may be said in a certain quarter, 
 that I am afraid of referring the constitution 
 to the people — that I am afraid of the peo- 
 ple. I am not afraid of the people. But 
 I will tell gentlemen of whom I am afraid. 
 1 am afraid of the office holders; I am 
 afraid of the men whose income depends 
 upon the rejection of this constitution. I 
 do not pretend to say that other men in 
 similar circumstances, would act different, 
 ly. There too, may be men among them 
 who are above all considerations of self. 
 But it must not be forgotten that they have 
 the means of wielding some power. There 
 are forty-six parish judges; twelve or fif- 
 teen judges of a higher grade, five judges 
 of the supreme court, clerks of court in 
 every parish, whose life tenure to office h 
 to be swept away. Look at the enormous 
 salaries that are to be effected. The inde- 
 pendence of these functionaries from any 
 restraint, save their own will and pleasure. 
 Why they have privileges that are better 
 than titles to nobility. There are among 
 them men of great abilities, and the influ- 
 ence of these men, personal and official, 
 run through all the ramifications of society. 
 It is wish this serried body of office hold- 
 ers that the struggle is to he had ; that 
 the private citizen is to contend, to wrencb 
 from them their extraordinary privileges, 
 and to establish a more equal state of 
 things through a reformed constitution* J 
 do not wish to be understood as attributi/ig 
 bad motives to them. Some may be found 
 among them who are exceptions to the 
 general rule. It is their combination that 
 I fear, in referring the constitution. If ft 
 were possible, no office holder should be> 
 allowed to vote upon a question in which 
 he is directly interested. I wish to save 
 the people from a contest in so unfair an 
 arena. I do not wish to hazard the verdict 
 of the people already pronounced, that the 
 old system of official abuses in this S^ate 
 should be abolished. In three days we can 
 make the constitution the supreme law of 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 929 
 
 the land. Every interest and every section 
 of the State is* fairly represented, and the 
 constitution has been fully discussed. If 
 the matter be kept in agitation, it may pos- 
 sibly be lost; at any rate, it will be ex- 
 posed to the herculean resistance of its 
 enemies, if not openly, it will be done cov- 
 ertly and in the dark. With due deference 
 for those political friends who are like my- 
 self, steadfast in the cause of reform, I 
 :hrow out these suggestions: I have lately 
 returned from the country and I found the 
 people anxious that we should adopt the 
 constitution, and put it immediately in 
 vigor. 1 have no doubt that this is the de- 
 tire of the great body of the people. The 
 duration of this body has been extended 
 much longer than it was anticipated, it has 
 adjourned from one place to another, and 
 there has been a feverish anxiety that its 
 labors should be consummated and placed 
 beyond all possible contingencies. What- 
 ever may be the result, I am satisfied I 
 have done my duty. 
 
 Mr. Kennee said, when the delegate 
 from Ouachita (Mr. Downs) first announced 
 his intention to make the motion he did, I 
 intended to have followed it by a very un- 
 popular motion, the call for the previous 
 question. The gentleman will excuse me 
 when I say, that it struck a plain man like 
 myself, with some surprise, that such a 
 proposition should have come from him. It 
 seemed to me a strange situation in man's 
 ingenious work, that one who has stood in 
 the foremost- ranks could have by any leg- 
 erdemain so suddenly have changed his 
 position. Had the report of the majority 
 of the committee been rejected, then I 
 might have very well have, conceived some 
 reason for the gentleman's motion. But 
 that report prevailed. The delegate (Mr. 
 Downs) in all that he has been pleased to 
 cell us, gives us but a single reason why 
 the constitution should not be submitted to 
 the people. And that is, that he fears it 
 will be rejected. Now I would ask the 
 delegate from Ouachita, for whom are we 
 making a constitution? Is it for the Con- 
 vention, or is it for the people] If we are 
 making the constitution for the people, then 
 I consider it our duty to lay it before them. 
 We ought not to lose sight of the responsi- 
 bility we owe to the people, nor attempt to 
 hedge ourselves behind the doctrine that it 
 is unsafe to commit the result of our labors 
 
 to the judgment of the people. If the con- 
 stitution we have made is not in accordance 
 with the wishes of the people, they will 
 reject it. And they ought to reject it under 
 such circumstances. For myself, I shall 
 vote for the constitution here, and I shall 
 vote for it at the ballot box. If the people 
 should dislike it, and prefer the constitution 
 of 1312, so be it. I shall most certainly 
 submit to their better judgment. 
 
 rut sir, the gentleman says that it is 
 not of the people he is §o afraid, but of the 
 band of office holders, of judges, sheriffs, 
 intriguers — 
 
 [Mr. Downs: I did not say intriguers.] 
 
 Mr. Kenner : I am glad to find that I 
 am mistaken. But how does the gentle- 
 man's fears comport with the fact, that the 
 people have the choice in their own hands. 
 How can the band of office holders expect 
 to control the people? I do not think it is 
 at all likely they will attempt it. In fact, 
 I have a better opinion of their discretion, 
 and their disinterestedness. It is fallacious 
 to believe any thing of the kind. If the 
 people reject the constitution, it will be 
 because they do not like it, and not from 
 any influence to be exercised, over them. 
 It may be the gentleman's doctrine to dis- 
 trust them, but although I do not cry out 
 the people, the people, on every occasion, 
 it is not my doctrine. I do not know 
 whether I shall call for the previous ques- 
 tion or not ? 
 
 Mr. Downs said: 1 am sorry to be under 
 the necessity of saying another word. I 
 do not understand what the delegate from 
 Ascension (Mr. Kenner) means, by leger- 
 demain and changes. That gentleman 
 ought to know that I have never changed. 
 If legerdemain be incidental to changes, 
 then I would say that chanse is not so novel 
 
 With UU: 
 
 MrHvEXXER said that the burden of the 
 song of some gentlemen in this house had 
 been, the people, the people, the people, so 
 much so, that a bystander, wou'.d natually 
 conclude that we were apart from the peo- 
 ple. At the very head and front and the ablest 
 advocate of the well beloved people, stood 
 the delegate from Ouachita, (Mr. Downs.) 
 I expressed some surprise and enquired by 
 what legerdemain it was, that the gentle- 
 man should have shuffled out of his front 
 position and have distrusted himself the 
 dear people. I did not say the gentleman 
 
930 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 \ 
 
 had changed, I am not sufficiently acquain- 
 ted with his sentiments to make such an 
 assertion. 
 
 Mr. Wadswobth would remark, that 
 he had heard the delegate from Ouachita, 
 (Mr. Downs,) on several occasions ques- 
 tion the necessity of submitting the consti- 
 tution. 
 
 Messsrs. Chinn and Culbertson made 
 a similar statement. 
 
 Mr. Humble stated, he was convinced 
 that his constiuents were in favor of the 
 adoption of this constitution without sub- 
 mitting it. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for on 
 Mr. Downs' motion. 
 
 Messrs. Downs, Humble and Waddill 
 voted in the affirmative — 3 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Benja- 
 min, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Covillion, Conrad of Orleans, Cul- 
 bertson, Claiborne, Derbes, Dunn, Du 
 Bouchel, Eustis, Garcia, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Hynson, Kenner, Labauve, Ledoux, Le- 
 gendre, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, 
 Marigny, Mazureau, Peets, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Preston, Pugh, Read, 
 Roman, Roselius, Saunders, Scott of Ba- 
 ton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, 
 Soule, Splane, Stephens, Taylor ol As- 
 sumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, 
 Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, Winchester 
 and Winder voted in the negative — 59 
 nays ; consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved that the word "amen- 
 ded" be stricken out wherever it precedes 
 the word "constitution;" which motion 
 prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Preston moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by striking out the words "by depositing 
 in the ballot-box a ticket whereon shall be 
 written, the constitution accepted^: the 
 constitution rejected," and insert 9 lieu 
 thereof "orally for or against the constitu- 
 tion." 
 
 Mr. Preston advocated this mode as 
 being the best and safest. It could do no 
 harm and might be productive of infinite 
 good. 
 
 Mr. Roselius was indifferent which 
 system prevailed. It was immaterial. 
 But one or the other system ought to be 
 exclusively adopted. 
 
 Mr. Portee said tapon the abstract prin- 
 ciple, he was in favor of voting viva voce. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor said he hoped the 
 amendment would not be adopted. The 
 ballot system was the true system for 
 elections by the people. Let each one 
 vote as his judgment may prompt him and 
 let his vote, if he chooses, be between him 
 and his maker. 
 
 Mr. Preston's amendment was lost- 
 yeas 24 ; nays 35. 
 
 The first order was then adopted unan- 
 imously, 57 members present. 
 
 The second order was then taken up, 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans moved to amend 
 said order by inserting after the word 
 "cast," in the twentieth line, the words 
 "in each parish," which motion prevailed. 
 
 On motion the third order was taken up. 
 
 Mr. Ledoux moved to amend said or- 
 der by striking out "the third Monday of 
 January," and substituting "first Monday 
 of March." Mr. Ledoux thought this de- 
 lay expedient. He had come to that con- 
 clusion by the experience he had acquired 
 in the office of the governor, as to the de. 
 lays attending the transmission of the re- 
 turns of election. 
 
 Mr. Lewis opposed this amendment, 
 He thought that by postponing the elec- 
 tion to so distant a period, it would inter- 
 fere with the session of the legislature, im- 
 mediately ensuing. That session would 
 continue for at least three months and it 
 would force the legislature to remain in 
 the city during the sickly season. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Cenas, Claiborne,- Covillton, 
 Downs, Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, Humble. 
 Labauve, Ledoux, Marigny, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Scott of Baton Rouge, Soule, 
 Taylor of Assumption and Voorhies voted 
 in the affirmative — 16 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Chambfe 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Guion, Huds- 
 peth, Hynson, Kenner, Legendre, Lewis, 
 McCallop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, 
 Preston, Pugh, Read Roman, Roselius, Sel- 
 lers, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, 
 Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, Waddill, 
 Wederstrandt, Winchester and Winder 
 voted in the negative —40 nays ; conse- 
 quently said motion was lost and the or- 
 der as reported was adopted. 
 
 The fourth order was then taken up and 
 adopted without debate : 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 931 
 
 Mr. Read, on behalf of the committee 
 on contingent expenses, submitted the fol- 
 lowing report, viz :< ( 
 
 The committee on contingent expenses 
 have carefully examined the claims pre- 
 sented by Jerome Bayon; and by Messrs. 
 Besangon, Ferguson & Co., and have 
 come to the conclusion that the sum of 
 three thousand dollars should be allowed 
 to Mr. Jerome Bayon, in full payment for 
 all printing (including subscription for the 
 paper) already done and remaining to be 
 done ; and that the sum of three thousand 
 three hundred and sixty dollars should be 
 allowed to Messrs. Besangon, Ferguson 
 & Co., in full payment for all printing 
 (including subscription for paper) already 
 done and remaining to be done; and the 
 committee recommend that said sums be 
 paid to the printers, deducting therefrom 
 the sum of five hundred dollars paid to Mr. 
 , Bayon, and the sum of twelve hundred and 
 fifty dollars paid to Messrs. Besangon, Fer- 
 guson & Co., and that the said commit- 
 tee be authorised to issue a warrant in fa- 
 vor of Mr. Jerome Bayon, for the sum of 
 two thousand five hundred dollars, and a 
 warrant in favor of Messrs. Besangon, Fer- 
 guson and Co., for the sum of two thou- 
 sand one hundred and ten dollars — these 
 being a the amounts allowed after making 
 the above deductions. 
 
 (Signed) A. READ, 
 
 J. P. BENJAMIN, 
 L. SAUNDERS, 
 C, ROSELIUS. 
 
 Mr. Beatty offered the following res. 
 olution, and the same was adopted, viz : 
 
 Resolved, That the printers be furnished 
 with copies of all the articles of the consti- 
 tution, to be printed for the use of the Con- 
 vention, by Monday next. 
 
 On motion the Convention adjourned 
 till 9 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Monday, May 12, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Hon. Mr. Stephens opened the 
 proceedings with prayer. 
 
 The committee upon revision presented 
 their reports upon the articles general pro- 
 visions and public education, which were 
 taken up and concurred in, 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans offered the fol- 
 ; lowing section, which was adopted, and 
 
 the same transferred to the executive de- 
 partment, viz: 
 
 "The governor shall have power to fill 
 vacancies that may happen during ihe re- 
 cess of the senate, by granting commis- 
 sions which shall expire at the end of the 
 next session, unless otherwise provided for 
 by this constitution; but no person who 
 has been nominated for office, and re- 
 jected by the senate, shall be appointed to 
 the same office during the recess of the 
 senate." 
 
 Mr. Claiborne offered the following 
 additional section: 
 
 He said it met with the unanimous con- 
 currence of the Orleans delegation. It 
 was essential in order to prevent an abuse 
 of the taxing power by municipal corpo- 
 rations. 
 
 "The legislature may delegate to politi- 
 cal corporations the power to pass local 
 ordinances; provided, that such corpora- 
 tions shall not have power lo borrow mo- 
 ney or issue their bonds or obligations, 
 except for purposes strictly relative to the 
 administration of municipal affairs." 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth move^ to amend the 
 said section, by adding at the end of the 
 same the words "and for purposes of pub- 
 lic education," which motion prevailed, 
 and the amendment was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to lay on the table 
 indefinitely the section as amended; which 
 motion was lost — yeas 21; nays 31. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by striking out the words "except for 
 purposes strictly relative to the administra- 
 tion of their municipal affairs, and for pur- 
 poses of public education;" which motion 
 was lost — yeas 26; nays 36. 
 
 Mr Mayo then offered to amend said 
 section by adding to the same the follow- 
 ing proviso, viz: 
 
 "Provided, that no authority shall ever 
 be granted by the legislature to any corpo- 
 rations to exercise any banking or discoun- 
 ting privileges, nor to issue notes, bills, or 
 obligations of any kind, to be used as cur- 
 rency, and that no corporation shall ever 
 be permitted to exercise any such pow- 
 ers." 
 
 Mr. Brent offered as a substitute for 
 the provision offered by Mr. Mayo, the fol- 
 lowing, viz: 
 
 " Provided further, that no political cor- 
 poration shall ever be authorized to issue 
 
 i 
 
032 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 any notes, or bills or other obligations, 
 payable to bearer or endorsed in blank." 
 
 Mr. Brent moved for the adoption of 
 the same. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cham- 
 bliss, Covillion, Downs, Garrett, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, Lewis, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Penn. Porter, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana. 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Soule, Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor ol Assumption, Voorhies, 
 Waddill, Wadsworth and Wederstrandt vo- x 
 ted in the affirmative — 40 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Briant, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of Orleans, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Guion, Kenner, Legendre, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Taylor of S. Landry 
 and Winchester voted in the negative — 19 
 nays; consequently said motion was car- 
 ried and the substitute was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by striking out the words "the legis- 
 lature may delegate to political corpora- 
 tions the power to pass local ordinances, 
 provided that such, 5 ' and insert at the com- 
 mencement of said section the word "mu- 
 nicipal;" which amendment was agreed to 
 —yeas 38; nays 18* 
 
 The yeas and mays being called for on 
 the adoption of the section as amended, 
 
 ** Municipal corporations shall never be 
 authorized to borrow, or issue their bonds 
 or obligations, except for purposes strictly 
 relative to the administration of ther mu- 
 nicipal offices, and for purposes of public 
 education. Provided further, that no po- 
 litical corporation shall ever be authorized 
 to issue any notes or bills or obligations, 
 payable to order or endorsed in blank." 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Carriere, Mc- 
 Callop and Voorhies voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 5 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale, Brent, Bri- 
 ant, Burton, Cade, Cenas, Chinn, Cham- 
 bliss, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Co- 
 villion, Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, Dunn, 
 Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Kenner, Legendre, Lewis, Mayo, 
 Porter, Peets, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Read, 
 Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Soule, Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Waddill, Wadsworth, Wed. 
 derstrandt, Winchester and Winder voted 
 in the negative — 50 nays; consequently 
 said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Soule submitted the following res- 
 olution, and the same was adopted, viz: 
 
 Resolved, that the constitution be enroll, 
 ed so as to substitute the division by 'titles 
 to that of articles, and that the sections be 
 amended under the name of articles, in 
 a continuing run of figures, from the first 
 to the last. 
 
 On motion the preamble was taken op 
 for its third reading and adopted. 
 
 The article on the division of powers 
 was then taken up and read for the third 
 time and adopted. 
 
 The judiciary article was then taken up. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Conrad moved that the first 
 section be so amended as to restore the 
 words "and in such courts in the city of 
 New Orleans as the legislature may lrom 
 time to time diiect." 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved a sub-amendment, 
 to strike out of the principal amendment 
 the words " in the city of New Orleans." 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to lay the amend- 
 ments on the table indefinitely. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Benja- 
 min, Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade y Car- 
 riere, Chambliss, Chinn, Eustis, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, Le- 
 doux, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, 
 Peets, Penn, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott, of St. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Read, Roman, Roselius, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, Waddill, 
 Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, Winchester 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative— 43 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Briant, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Downs, Legendre, Marigny, Porter, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Scott of Feliciana, Sou- 
 le and Taylor of Assumption voted in the 
 negative — 15 nays. 
 
 Mr. Penn moved to strike out that por- 
 tion of the third section fixing the salary 
 of the judges of the supieme court, and 
 to substitute in lieu thereof the following: 
 
 " The said judges shali-receive suclj sal- 
 ary as may be fixed by the legislature." 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Mr. P. stated that he was not present 
 when this clause was passed, and insisted 
 upon his right to record his vote against it. 
 
 He would move for the yeas and nays 
 upon his proposition for that purpose. 
 
 Objection being made, and Mr. Pexx 
 insisting upon his motion, 
 Mr. Miles Taylor offered the following 
 resolution: 
 
 Resolved, that permission be granted to 
 Mr. PfiifN, senatorial delegate from the 
 parishes of Washington. Livingston and 
 St. Helena to record his vote to the nega- 
 tive upt>n the clause hxing the salaries in 
 the constitution of the judges ef the su- 
 preme court. 
 
 Said resolution was adopted. 
 
 Whereupon, Mr. Pbnn withdrew his 
 motion. 
 
 Mr. Roselius moved to amend the eighth 
 section of the judiciary article by adding 
 the following: 
 
 "And in all cases when the judges shall 
 concurr in opinion that the judgment should 
 be reversed, but differ in the judgment to 
 be rendered, the opinion of the chief jus- 
 tice shall prevail.!' 
 
 Said motion was lost. 
 
 The executive article was then taken 
 up, and read for the third time. 
 
 Whereupon, on motion, the Convention 
 adjourned until 5 o'clock, p. m. 
 
 Monday Eyexixg, May 12, 1845, 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Read, the Convention 
 took up the report of the committee on 
 contingent expenses, upon the claims of 
 the printers to the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Sauxders moved for the adoption 
 of the report. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to amend the report 
 by adding the following: 
 
 **And that the warrants shall not be de- 
 livered to the printers until they have com- 
 pleted the publication of the journal and 
 debates and delivered them over to the 
 secretary." 
 
 The report as amended^ was then 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Brext %hen offered the following 
 resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That an additional compensa- 
 tion of five hundred dollars be allowed ot 
 US 
 
 Messrs. Besaneon, Ferguson & Co., print- 
 ers to the Convention of the debates and 
 journals in English. 
 
 Mr. Chixx opposed the additional ap- 
 propriation. 
 
 Mr. Beatty asked, what wa? the 
 amount allowed to the printer of the de* 
 bates and journals in French? 
 
 Mr. Bexjaxeix said that the committee 
 on contingent expenses were guided in 
 fixing the amount due to the printers tor 
 the English debates, by the amount asked 
 by the printer of the debates in French. 
 Mr. Bayon, of the Courier, had stated that 
 he expected no gratuity from the Conven- 
 tion; that the work had cost him two thou- 
 sand six hundred dollars, and that he asked 
 three thousand dollars, I thought that 
 amount reasonable. 
 
 The printers of the English debates had 
 presented a much heavier bill, both in re- 
 ference to the printing of the debates and 
 journals and the job work. The English 
 debates were more voluminous than the 
 debates in French, but I consider, said Mr. 
 Benjamin, that in allowing the accounts of 
 the English printer, for extra work, more 
 than compensated the difference in the ex- 
 pense they incurred, over and above for 
 the printing of the debates in English. 
 
 Mr. RosELirs. who has been a practice:! 
 printer, participated. I believe, in the same 
 opinion. 
 
 Mr. Downs hoped the additional com- 
 pensation would be allowed, as an act of 
 sheer justice. The work done in English 
 ' was much greater than in French, as all 
 the proceedings of this body were almost 
 exclusively conducted in English. 
 
 Mr. Brext said that it should be borne 
 in mind that when the present printers 
 were elected, the debates and journals 
 were two weeks behind. He thought 
 they were fairly entitled to the additional 
 compensation asked for. 
 
 Mr. Chixx moved to lay the amend- 
 ment on the table. He desired information. 
 If the printers were entitled to this addi- 
 tional sum. he had no objection. But he 
 wished first to satisfy his mind. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for on 
 Mr. Chimrs motion, and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Chinn, Covillion, Dunn, Garcia? 
 Garrett, Labauve. McCallop, Penn, Scott 
 | of Baton Rouge, Sellers, Stephens, Taylos 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 of Assumption and Winchester voted in the 
 affirmative — 17 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, Covil- 
 lion, Downs, Eustis, Guion, Humble, 
 Hynson, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, Mc- 
 Rae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Prudhomme, Pugh, Read, Roman, 
 Saunders, Scott of Madison, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Waddill, Wederstrandt and Win- 
 der voted in the negative — 35 nays. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved for the adoption of 
 the section. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for on 
 Mr. Brent's motion, and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Cenas, 
 Chamblis, Coviliion, Downs, Eustis, Gar- 
 rett, Humble, Hynson, Labauve, Ledoux, 
 McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Preston, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Madison, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Waddill and Wederstrandt vo- 
 ted in the affirmative — 28 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Brum field, 
 Burton, Cade 3 Carriere, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Dunn, Garcia, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Legendre, Lewis, Penn, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Roman, Saunders, Sellers, Stephens, 
 Taylor of St. Landry and Winchester 
 voted in the negative- — 23 nays. 
 
 Mr. Mayo then offered a resolution that 
 the treasurer should reserve in his hands a 
 sufficient amount to pay the printers, upon 
 the completion of this work. 
 
 Said resolution was adopted. 
 
 Whereupon, the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Tuesday, May 13, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev, Mr. Clark opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 The Convention took up the report of 
 committee on revision, on the schedule, and 
 adopted the same with amendments. 
 
 They then took up the title, legislative 
 department. When the fifteenth article 
 [section] was read, 
 
 Mr. Claiborne rose and said, that he 
 considered it to be his duty to ask for the 
 rejection of the clause which divided the 
 city in her representation into petty dis- 
 tricts. Such a clause was unworthy of the 
 constitution, which ought not to contain 
 
 any other than fundamental principles. If, 
 however, the city had to be divided, as a 
 compromise, he would ask that it be divi- 
 ded into its more- natural divisions, munici- 
 palities, and not into petty divisions, which 
 were at present dependent upon the names 
 attached to streets. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for upon 
 Mr. Claiborne's motion— yeas 24, nays 3.1. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to reject section ten, 
 providing for the acquisition of residence. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for— 
 yeas, 25, nays 31. 
 
 Mr. Winder offered a resolution fixing 
 to-morrow at twelve o'clock, for taking the 
 final vote upon the passage of tbe constitu- 
 tion, and prescribing that if it be adopted, 
 it shall be signed by the president, secre- 
 tary, and the members of the Convention, 
 
 Mr. Porter objected to the latter part 
 of the resolution. It was a privilege for a 
 member to sign or not, just as he pleased. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, said it ought 
 to be signed by all or none. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth observed that the 
 matter of signing was not an evidence of 
 approval. 
 
 The second part of the resolution was 
 j amended, so as to leave it to the members 
 ! to sign or not, as they pleased. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to add to the resolu- 
 tion "and shall vote upon the question with- 
 out debate." 
 
 Messrs. Conrad of Orleans, and Clai- 
 borne objected. They did not believe 
 that debate would take place, but yet they 
 thought it indecorous to declare it should 
 not take place. Members unquestionably 
 had the right to assign their reasons. 
 
 Mr. Downs disclaimed the intention to 
 prevent members from assigning the rea- 
 sons for their vote. The object of 'die 
 amendment was to preclude a repitition of 
 the debates that had taken place upon the 
 constitution in detail. 
 
 The amendment was concurred in* 
 
 Whereupon the Convention adjourned 
 until 5 o'clock, p. m. 
 
 Tuesday Evening, May 13, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Taylor moved to amend the clause 
 in the section relative to duelling, by ^ in- 
 serting the following words, "with a citizen 
 of Louisiana." 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 935 
 
 Mr. Lewis thought this would defeat, in 
 a great measure,"the object of the provision. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, said that 
 this amendment was necessary, in order 
 to place citizens upon equal terms with 
 transient persons. 
 
 The amendment was lost according to 
 the rule — yeas 35, nays 19. 
 
 Mr. Garcia then moved that the. sub- 
 ject be postponed for the present. 
 
 His motion prevailed. 
 
 Several other articles of the general 
 provisions were then taken up and concur- 
 red in with amendments. ' 
 
 Mr. Voorhies then moved to strike out 
 the clause prescribing that the seat of go- 
 vernment shall not be within sixty miles of 
 the city of New Orleans. 
 
 Mr. Kenner said if this motion prevail- 
 ed, it would be equivalent to keeping the 
 seat of government in the*city. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies moved that his motion 
 lay on the table subject to call. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for — 
 yeas 32, nays 28. 
 
 The Convention finally rejected section 
 thirty-nine, authorizing suits to be institu- 
 tued against the State — yeas 42, nays 19. 
 
 They then resumed the consideration of 
 the cluase upon duelling. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, renewed 
 his motion to amend, by adding the words 
 "with a citizen of the State." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousqiue, Brent, Briant, Cenas, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, 
 Culberson, Derbes, Downs, DuBouchel, 
 Garcia, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Ken- 
 ner, Ledoux, Legendre, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Mazureau, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Ro- 
 man, St. Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sel- 
 lers, Soule, Splane, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, Voorhies, 
 Waddiil, Wederstrandt, Winchester and 
 Winder voted in the affirmative — 45 yeas; 
 and 
 
 ^ Messrs. Brazeale, Burton, Chambliss, 
 Chinn, Eustis, Garrett, Hynson, Lewis, 
 McCallop, McRae, Peets, Preston, Pugh, 
 Read, Roselius and Stephens voted in the 
 negative — 16 nays. 
 
 The section was them adopted as amend- 
 ed— y^as 38. nays 25, as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, Bur- 
 ton, Chambliss, Chinn, Derbes, Downs, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Lewis, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Pugh, Read, Roselius, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, W'ad- 
 diil Winchester and Winder voted in the 
 affirmative — 38 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Briant, Cenas, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, ' Covillion, 
 Cuibertson, DuBouchel, Garcia, Kenner, 
 Legendre, Marigny, Mazureau, Porter, 
 Prudhomme, Roman, St. Amand, Soule, 
 Splane, Trist, Wads worth and Weder- 
 strandt, voted in the negative — 25 nays. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved that the section re- 
 lative to the seat of government, be taken 
 up; which motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved that the seat of go- 
 vernment be permanently fixed at the town 
 of Baton Rouge, after the year 1848. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved to amend the amend- 
 ment, by striking out Baton Rouge and in- 
 serting Donaldsonville. ^ 
 
 The amendment was lost. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to strike out the 
 words "Baton Rouge." 
 
 His motion w T as lost — yeas 31, nays 32. 
 
 The question recurred on the adoption 
 of Mr. Brent's proposition. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Chambliss, Chinn, Dunn, 
 Garrett, Humble, Hynson, McCallop, 
 McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Pugh, 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Stephens, 
 Splane, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Voor- 
 hies, Waddiil and Wederstrandt voted in 
 the affirmative — 31 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie* 
 Briant, Cenas, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad 
 of Jefferson, Covillion, Cuibertson, Derbes, 
 Downs, DuBouchel, Eustis, Garcia, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, Ledoux, Legendre, 
 Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, Preston, Prud- 
 homme, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, 
 Soule, Taylor of St. Landry, Wadsworth, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the nega- 
 tive — 32 nays. 
 
936 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Mr. Voorhies then moved to strike out 
 the clause excluding the city of New Or- 
 leans. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Hubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Brent, Briant, Cenas, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Culbert- 
 son, Derbes, Downs, DuBouchel, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Garrett, Guion, Humble, Ledoux, 
 Legendre, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Por- 
 ter, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Prud- 
 homme, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, 
 Soule, Splane, Trist, Voorhies, Wadsworth 
 and VV inchester voted in the affirmative- — 
 36 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brumneld, 
 Burton, Chambliss, Chinn, Dunn, Huds- 
 peth, Hynson, Kenner, Lewis, McCallop, 
 McRae, Peets, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Pugh, Read, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Taylor of St. Landry, Waddill, We- 
 derstrandt and Winder voted in the nega- 
 tive — 27nays. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth gave notice that he 
 would move for the reconsideratien to-mor- 
 row. 
 
 Mr. Beatty asked for the reconsidera- 
 tion at once. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for upon 
 the motion to reconsider; and it was lost. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth then gave notice that 
 he would move, to-morrow, for the recon- 
 sideration of the vote just taken. 
 
 Whereupon the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Wednesday, May 14, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Clark opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Read, on behalf of the contingent 
 expenses committee, presented several ac- 
 counts, which were ordered to be paid; 
 also an account of sales of the furniture 
 used by the Convention during its sitting 
 in the St. Louis Ball Room. 
 
 Mr. Saunders presented an ordinance 
 for the promulgation of the constitution 
 through the Bee, Jeffersonian, Bulletin 
 and Courier newspapers, and in the seve- 
 ral country papers. 
 
 Said ordinance was adopted. 
 
 The Convention then took up the title 
 
 impeachment, at its third reading, and 
 adopted the several articles. 
 
 They next took up the title public edu- 
 cation, upon its third reading. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor moved to amend 
 the first section, so that the superintendent 
 for public education shall be elected by the 
 duly qualified voters, in lieu of being ap> 
 pointed by the governor. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for, on 
 said motion. 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Ciiam. 
 bliss, Covillion, Hudspeth, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Ledoux, Lewis, McCallop, McRae. 
 Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Prescott of Avoyelles, Preston, Prud- 
 homme, Pugh, Read, Saunders, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Madison, Sellers, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Waddill and Wederstrandt vo- 
 ted in the affirmatie — 35 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Briant, Ce- 
 nas, Chinn, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eus- 
 tis, Garcia, Garrett, Grymes, Guion, La- 
 bauve, Legendre, Marigny, Mazureau, Re- 
 man, Roselius, St. Amand, Voorhies, Win* 
 Chester and Winder voted in the negative— 
 25 nays. 
 
 The motion was lost under the rule, 
 there not being a majority of the whole 
 Convention. 
 
 The several articles under the foregoing 
 title, was then adopted. 
 
 The Convention then took title VIII, 
 upon the revision of the constitution. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor moved to amend the 
 first article of said title, by striking eut 
 "three fifths," and inserting "a majority of 
 the legislature." 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for, 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, BrumfieiU 
 Cade, Chambliss, Covillion, DuBouchel, 
 Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Penn, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Preston, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Madison, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Voorhies, Waddill and Weder- 
 strandt voted in the affirmative — 28 yeas, 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Burton, Carriere, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Coir 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 937 
 
 rad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes. Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner. Labauve, Legendre, Lewi's^ Ma- 
 rig ny. Mazureau, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ro- 
 man', Roselius, St. Araand, Sellers, Soule, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Wadsworth, Win- 
 chester and Winder voted in the negative 
 — 38 nays. 
 
 The several articles were then adopted. 
 
 The Convention took up title IX, sche- 
 dule, on its third reading, and adopted the 
 same. 
 
 They then took up title X, ordinances. 
 
 Mr. Winchester moved to amend the 
 first ordinance by striking out the words 
 "and under the present constitution." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Briant, Cade, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Gar- 
 cia, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, 
 Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saun- 
 ders, Sellers, Taylor of St, Landry, Wads- 
 wortk, Winchester and Winder voted in 
 the affirmative — 33 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield. Bur- 
 ton, Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, 
 DuBouchel, Eustis, Garrett, Humble, Hyu- 
 son, Ledoux, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, 
 Peets, Peon, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry. Prudhomme, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Madison, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Trist, Voorhies, Waddill and Wederstrandt 
 voted in the negative — 34 nays. 
 
 The several articles of title X were then 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth then moved to take up 
 his motion to reconsider the article relative 
 to the seat of government. 
 
 Mr. Pbnn said that he was in favor of 
 the removal of the seat of government out 
 of the city. He was ready to fix it at Ba- 
 ton Rouge at once, or leave the location to 
 the legislature, but he could not consent 
 to vote for so odious a clause as the one 
 embodied in the constitution. In effect, it 
 w&a not only affixing an approbrium upon 
 the city, pronouncing an anathema upon 
 her, but it likewise embraced a radius of 
 sixty miles around the city. He could not 
 vote for such an act of proscription. It 
 not only excluded New Orleans, but it like- 
 wise excluded the section of country which 
 
 he had the honor of representing upon this 
 Moor, from ever becoming the seat of go> 
 vernment. Such an exclusion in a consti- 
 tution was repugnant to his sense of jus- 
 tice. He should regret to see it placed 
 there. 
 
 Mr. Extstts said he had a proposition to 
 make on behalf of two or three members of 
 the Orleans delegation. This interdict is 
 to be found in no other constitution. It 
 ought not to be found in this. If it be the 
 settled conviction of a majority of this body, 
 that the seat of government ought to be re- 
 moved, be it so. The only question which 
 presents to my mind any serious difficulty, 
 is the period for holding the sessions of the 
 legislature. If you place the seat of gov- 
 ernment out of the city, and fix the sessions 
 of the legislature in January, you effectual- 
 ly disfranchise the city; for it will be im- 
 possible for her to be adequately represent- 
 ed at that season of the year. But what I 
 would propose is this, and I speak in be- 
 half of myself and two or three members 
 of the city delegation only, to fix the ses- 
 sions of the legislature in the month of 
 June. If you do this, the necessity for the 
 restriction of the city ceases. Fix at once 
 the seat of government and establish it per- 
 manently, where you will. The people of 
 the city of Xew Orleans cannot but regard 
 the exclusion with sore discontent. They 
 feel it as an act of great injustice, and thai 
 feeling ought to be dispelled at once for the 
 mutual good will and understanding that 
 ought to prevail between the city and the 
 other sections of the State. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor said that for one he 
 could not consent to the compromise offer- 
 ed at this late hour. The question of the 
 removal of the seat of government had 
 been for months before the Convention, 
 and every opportunity had been presented 
 for a settlement of that question, as it is 
 now proposed, if such had been the desire 
 of the city delegation. The direct propo- 
 sition was even made last evening, to fix 
 the seat of government at Baton Rouge, 
 and what was the result? Why sir, every 
 member ot the city delegation voted against 
 it. Not one syllable was heard then about 
 a willingness to compromise the matter, by 
 rlxing the seat of government in the con. 
 stitution. Delegates from the city had 
 complained of what they were pleased to 
 consider " the proscription of the city," 
 
938 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Their objection, they told us, was not so 
 much to the removal of the seat of govern- 
 ment, but to the manner in which it was 
 proposed to be brought about. If they 
 were dissatisfied with the exclusion of the 
 city and the country within sixty miles of 
 it, it would have been crazy to have obvi- 
 ated that cause of discontent, by voting for 
 the proposition to fix the seat of government 
 at once. It depended upon themselves to 
 have carried it, and to have expunged by 
 their vote the "odious clause" to which 
 they have taken so much exception. Why 
 did they not do it? He (Mr. T.) had voted 
 to establish it in Baton Rouge, though he 
 preferred that the choice of the place in the 
 country should have been left to the legis- 
 lature. But he had so voted to obviate the 
 objection of the city delegation, k large 
 number of the country delegation, regard- 
 less of individual preferences and actuated, 
 he believed, by the same feelings which 
 influenced him, had voted in favor of that 
 proposition, and had an inconsiderable por- 
 tion of the city delegation united with them, 
 the question would have been settled, and 
 this clause, about which we have heard so 
 much complaint, would have been struck 
 out of the constitution. It was too late 
 now to speak of compromises. The hour 
 had arrived for taking the final vote upon 
 the constitution, and if the removal of the 
 seat of government were to be defeated 
 now, he wished to see the names of those 
 that were determined to effect it, distinctly 
 recorded. For one, he was disposed to 
 stand or fall by the section as it was. If 
 it were so very objectionable to the city 
 delegation, they alone were to blame. The 
 seat of government would have been fixed 
 at Baton Rouge had they willed it, and the 
 exclusion would have become general with 
 regard to the remainder of the State as 
 well as the city. If thirty-nine delegates 
 can be found opposed to the removal of the 
 seat of government from the city, at this 
 late hour, so be it ! My name will not be 
 found among the number. 
 
 Mr. Grymes contended that if this clause 
 were maintained it would militate very 
 much against the adoption of the constitu- 
 tion. It would irritate, and with just rea- 
 son, the people of the city of New Orleans 
 and the surrounding country. It was not 
 the removal of the seat of government it- 
 self, which would provoke displeasure, but 
 
 it was the manner in which it was propo- 
 sed to be removed. For himself he thought 
 it of no advantage to the city; in fact, he 
 freely conceded that it would be better to 
 remove it from the city, but let it be lo- 
 cated at once. Place it at Baton Rou^e, I 
 Donaldsonville, or where you will, but & do 
 not insist upon this unfortunate clause. 
 There were several excellent provisions I 
 in the constitution, and upon the whole he 
 would vote for it, but he was sorry to see 
 its good features marred by such a blem- 
 ish. It was not too late for the Convention 
 to retrace their steps. Let them expunge 
 this odious restriction from the constitution, 
 and fix the seat of government where they 
 will. It was of the highest importance 
 that the constitution should be adopted. 
 We had reached a crisis which rendered it 
 indispensable to the public welfare and to 
 the public quiet. 
 
 The only favor that the city of New Or- 
 leans asks at your hands in this matter of 
 the seat of government, is to fix the ses- 
 sions of the legislature at a period of the 
 year when it will not be inconvenient for 
 her citizens to represent her. If this be 
 done I am ready to unite 'in fixing the seat 
 of government at any place the majority of 
 this body may desire. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin said that he desired not 
 to be misunderstood, and therefore felt it 
 necessary to state his dissent from a part 
 of what had fallen from his colleague (Mr. 
 Grymes.) He did not agree that the seat 
 of government ought to be removed from 
 New Orleans. This would be pernicious 
 to the interests of the State, and particular- 
 ly of the city. 
 
 When the Convention was called, no- 
 thing was said about removing the seat of 
 government; a large vote for a Convention 
 was given in New Orleans; this would not 
 have been the case, if the citizens supposed 
 such a clause would be inserted in the 
 constitution. 
 
 Tne Convention had no right to say to 
 the people that they should not choose their 
 seat of government. This was a right of the 
 people who had not delegated to the Con- 
 vention the power to restrict that right. 
 
 That if this clause were now stricken 
 out, there would be an almost unanimous 
 vote for the constitution, which would be a 
 great point gained, and would insure the 
 confidence of the people. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 939 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, said: 1 con- 
 sider it to be proper to make a few re- 
 marks, in reply to what fell from the dele- 
 gate from New Orleans, (Mr. Grymes), 
 before the question is taken. That dele- 
 gate has, with great frankness, admitted 
 'hat it would be beneficial to the whole 
 State, to remove the seat of government 
 rom the city of New Orleans. His ob- 
 ection is not to the removal, for he admits 
 t ouo-ht to be removed, but the manner in 
 which it is proposed to be effected. He | 
 jays it will endanger the adoption of the 
 constitution. Now, I will venture to pre- 
 lict that the city delegation, with the ex- 
 ception of that gentleman himself, and one 
 )r perhaps two others, will vote against 
 he adoption of the constitution, and will 
 jxert themselves to obtain its rejection by 
 he people. Their deep rooted aversion to 
 t is known; and are we to be induced to 
 ibandon a measure which will promote 
 :he public good, because we are told it 
 will endanger the adoption of the constitu- 
 tion, by persons who desire to defeat it? 
 The large majority of the Orleans delega- 
 tion are against the removal of the seat of 
 government at all, and nothing less than a 
 otal abandonment of that design, would be 
 satisfactory to them. 
 
 But we are told by a delegate from the 
 country, (Mr. Penn) that he is in favor of 
 establishing the seat of government at a 
 )articular place; that he would readily vote 
 or fixing it at Baton Rouge, but that he 
 cannot vote for proscribing the city of New 
 Drleans, and the section of country in 
 which he resides. If that delegate had 
 been in his seat, it might have happened 
 hat the seat of government would have 
 been fixed at Baton Rouge, and the neces- 
 sity for this section would have been avoid- 
 ed. The vote was taken last evening upon 
 the proposition to fix it there. Thirty-five 
 votes were cast in favor of that proposition. 
 The president did not vote, but would have 
 voted in favor of the proposition had his 
 vote been necessary to a decision of the 
 question. The delegate from Lafayette 
 was not in his seat, but his presence could 
 have been obtained; his vote would have 
 made thirty-six votes, and the vote of the 
 delegate from St. Tammany (Mr. Penn), 
 and that of his fellow delegate, would have 
 made thirty-eight votes, and the vote of 
 the president, thirty-nine. This would 
 
 have made a majority of the whole house, 
 and the number required under the rule. 
 And now, when one of the delegates that 
 voted in favor of the proposition, (Mr. Scott 
 of East Feliciana) has been stricken by 
 sickness, and has been compelled to with- 
 draw from the Convention, the delegate 
 from St. Tammany (Mr. Peen) tells us he 
 is in favor of Baton Rouge, but against 
 the section, because it is proscriptive! 
 
 I have as much right as any member on 
 this floor to assert that I have no prejudices 
 against the city of New Orleans. When 
 a question oi vital importance to her inter- 
 ests — one which involved her dearest 
 rights, was before the Convention — I refer 
 to the proposition to deprive her of equal 
 representation in the popular branch of 
 the legislature, I raised my voice against 
 it; and when her own delegates fainted in 
 the contest, and were diisposed to abandon 
 it in dispair, I still stood by her, and yield- 
 ed not one inch of ground. And now am 
 I to be told that I am proscribing the city, 
 and putting her to the ban, because I am 
 of opinion that a populous city ought not 
 to be the seat of government? I think it 
 injurious to the public interest that it 
 should be there; and I am persuaded that 
 the correctness of that opinion is establish- 
 ed by all experience. 
 
 There are many causes at work in a 
 great commercial capital, which must in- 
 evitably disturb legislation. The attrac- 
 tions of pleasure and the calls of business, 
 withdraw members of the legislature too 
 frequently from their seats; and it happens 
 again and again flit large numbers of both 
 representatives and senators are absent 
 when the most important votes are taken. 
 There are corrupting influences too, which 
 tend to divert them from the path of duty; 
 | which are more easily brought to bear upon 
 j them when they are mingled up, and al- 
 j most lost in crowds, influenced by interest 
 I and the hope of gain, than when they are 
 | at a distance from the seats of extravagant 
 | speculation and excited enterprise. 
 
 The city is as much interested in the re- 
 j moval of the seat of government as the 
 I country. Its population must have the 
 same object — that of securing good legis- 
 lation. And if her citizens will examine 
 the facts, they must be convinced. The 
 j session of this body will furnish many ill- 
 I lustrations of the correctness of this posi- 
 
940 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 tion. I will only mention one. In pro- 
 portion to their numbers, the city delegates 
 were more frequently absent from their 
 seats than those coming from the country. 
 When the details of the senatorial appor- 
 tionment were under consideration, a great 
 proportion of them were absent. By dint of 
 exertion the presence of the most of them 
 were procured at the final vote on its 
 adoption as a whole, and it was rejected 
 by a small majority. It then took the 
 house a week or ten days to modify it in 
 such a manner as to ensure its adoption. 
 It is hardly necessary to add that if they 
 had attended before, this would not have 
 taken place. 
 
 The real question to be decided is this . 
 Shall the seat of government continue in 
 New Orleans or shall it be permanently 
 fixed in the country. The time has pas- 
 sed when this question can be avoided by 
 getting up a contest between particular pla- 
 ces in the country, It must be decided on 
 the section as it is. No country member 
 who votes against it because of its form, can 
 shield himself from responsibility. He is 
 not in favor of the removal of the seat of 
 government from the city. I venture the 
 assertion that if the section be not adop- 
 ted, the seat of government cannot be re- 
 moved, whilst New Orleans is not ex- 
 cluded from the candidacy, she can and 
 will defeat it. It is well ascertained that 
 a large majority of the delegates in this 
 body are in favor of the removal of the 
 seat of government, into the interior of the 
 State, and yet they could not locate it, be- 
 cause the city delegatio^by throwing its 
 weight against every specified place, can 
 prevent its being fixed on. The members 
 to the legislature, as well as the members 
 of this body, have their local preferences, 
 and the representation from the city have 
 thrown their weight in the legislature as 
 well as in this Covention, so as to prevent 
 its being permanently established in the 
 country. It is therefore certain, that' un- 
 less this section, as it is, be embodied in 
 the constitution, the permanent removal 
 of the seat of government from the city is 
 impossible. 
 
 The delegate from New Orleans, (Mr. 
 Grymes,) whilst he admitted that the seat 
 of government ought to be removed, for 
 which acknowledgement I thank him, ob- 
 jects to the section, because, he says, that 
 
 if adopted, we shall have a floating capital, 
 an ambulatory seat of government, and he 
 refers to our pastexperience, for proof of the 
 fact- He says the seat of government was 
 carried to Donaldsonville and then brought 
 back to the city, and that such will again be 
 the result if the section referred to be adop- 
 ted. It is true, he adds, that they will not 
 bring it to the city, but they will take it from 
 one country village to another. 1 think that 
 our past experience will justify no such 
 conclusion. There is no analogy between 
 the provision proposed, and the old one on 
 the same subject. This declares that the 
 seat of government shall not be removed af- 
 ter it is fixed by the legislature, without 
 the consent of four-fifths of the members 
 of both houses of the legislature. How 
 was it before ? Why Sir, it was in the 
 power of a bare majority to change it 
 when they saw fit. 
 
 The seat of government was once re- 
 moved and then brought back, and we are 
 now told that this shews it cannot be kepi 
 out of the city. And how did it happen 
 that it was brought back ? Why Sir, ap. 
 propriations were not made to prepare sui- 
 table buildings for the accommodation of 
 the servants of the people, and every thing' 
 was done indirectly to restore the seat of 
 government to the city, by making it in- 
 convenient or impossible for them to re- 
 main where they were. It was an open 
 question, and the city delegation ant! 
 those who preferred the city for the 
 seat of government, absented themsel- 
 ves from the legislature, and then com- 
 plained that there was no quorum to 
 do the public business; that the public 
 business could not be done in the country, 
 and by preventing appropriations to com- 
 plete the public buildings, and uttering 
 continual complaints, they carried their 
 point, and the legislature returned to the 
 city. This would again be the result were 
 it to remain an open question. This will 
 be effectually prevented were we to adopt 
 the section proposed ; and the seat of go- 
 vernment will be finally established, as the 
 good of the whole State requires it to be. 
 at a distance from our great commercial 
 capital. 
 
 The Chair (Mr, Saunders) decided 
 that the motion for reconsideration was not 
 in order. 
 
 His decision was maintained. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 941 
 
 The hour having arrived for taking the 
 final vote upon the adoption of the consti- 
 tution, Mr. Voorhies called for the yeas 
 and nays on that question. 
 
 The President (Mr. Walker) put the 
 question "shall this constitution be adopt- 
 ed?" 
 
 Messrs. Joseph Walker, president, Beat, i 
 ty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Brum:: eld, 
 Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cham-bliss, Chinn, i 
 Covillion,Culhertson, Downs, Eustis, Ga*r- j 
 rett, Guion, Hudspeth, Hmble, Hvnson, j 
 Kenner, Labauve, Ledoux, Lewis, McCal- 
 lop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Fenn, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, Pugh, 
 "Read, Roselius, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Soule, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, Voorhies, 
 Waddill, Wadsworth,' Wederstrandt and 
 Winder voted in the affirmative — 55 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bouuousquie, 
 Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, Gar- 
 cia, Legendre, Mazureau, Roman, St. 
 .-Vmand and Winchester voted in the nega- : 
 tive — 15 nays. 
 
 Absent members: Messrs. Grym-es, j 
 King, O' Brian, Porche, Ratliff, Scott of 
 Feliciana and Wikoff. 
 
 Mr. Bexjamix said he vo-ed nobecausehe | 
 did not think his constituents would accept! 
 a constitution prescribing their territory j 
 and sixty miles around it as unworthy of 
 being the seat of government. Had such j 
 a provision as that been submitted to them | 
 in the act providing that the sense of the 
 people be taken as to the propriety of call- 
 ing a convention, they would have voted 
 against the call. 
 
 Mr. Cenas said, 
 
 Air. President: — The position in which 
 I find myself is peculiarly embarrassing 
 and perplexing. With much that is admi- 
 rable in the new constitution, and which | 
 meets with my most hearty concurrence, I 
 am, nevertheless, constrained to withhold 
 my assent to its final adoption. The arti- 
 cle relative to the seat of government in- 
 volves a principle so utterly at war with 
 the spirit of our institutions, and so anti- 
 democratic in its operation and tendencies, 
 that, as a representative upon this floor of 
 the constituency principally brought under 
 119 
 
 its prescriptive ban, I cannot, conscien- 
 tiously, give my sanction to an instrument 
 whose whole character is, in my humble 
 opinion, marred by this obnoxious and 
 hideous feature. For this reason, there- 
 fore, Mr. Presdent, 1 am compelled to re- 
 quest that my vote be recorded in the ne- 
 gative. 
 
 Mr. Chinn said, 
 
 Mr. President: — It will be recollected 
 by this Convention, that when it first met 
 I entertained opinions as to the powers of 
 the Convention, different from those enter- 
 tained by a large majority. I believed then 
 and I still believe, that the Convention had 
 no power to go beyond the specifications 
 of the legislature. Entertaining that opin- 
 ion, it might have been reasonably expect- 
 ed that on this occasion my answer would 
 have been no. But, as 1 desire to afford 
 the people an opportunity of passing upon 
 our labors, I vote yes; reserving to myself 
 the right at another time and place, of giv- 
 ing my final opinion on this important sub* 
 ject. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Coxrad said that he had hes* 
 itated for some time how he should vote 
 upon the final question of the adopiion of 
 the constitution; but when the clause was 
 adopted providing that the result of the la- 
 bors of this body should be submitted to 
 others than those that had' called it into ex- 
 istence, his doubts vanished. He was not 
 at Jackson when the direct question was 
 put whether the Convention could go be- 
 yond the specifications in the act calling it 
 into existence, and upon which specifica- 
 tions the sense of the people had alone 
 been taken, and had, therefore, been una. 
 ble to give expression to his opinion upon 
 that point. lie thought the Convention 
 had not the power to go beyond the speci- 
 fications, and this opinion was participated 
 in by a large number of his constituents. 
 Had they have dreamed that plenary pow- 
 ers would have been assumed, they would 
 never have voted for the calling or the Con- 
 vention. Be that, however, as it may, the 
 question is decided; the evil is done, and 
 the only resource left, is that the people 
 have the opportunity of confirming this 
 assumption of power, or of refusing to ac- 
 cept its fruits. If the decision were left 
 to those that voted for the calling of the 
 Convention, the violation of the power 
 would be less obnoxious: the elector? would 
 
H% Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 decide the question; but as it is, one vio- 
 lation has been followed by another. 
 
 I cannot yield my assent to an instru- 
 ment which has been brought forth under 
 such circumstances. I would consider 
 myself derelict in duty were I to do so. 
 Moreover, I consider the clause prescri- 
 bing the city of New Orleans a detestable 
 proscription, and in its results it will be 
 attended with pernicious consequences to 
 the State. The absurd predjudice which 
 dictated it, once before perverted the bet- 
 ter judgment of the legislature and induced 
 them to make the experiment. The seat 
 of government was removed; but what 
 was the result? The very persons that voted 
 to take it away, voted to bring it back. 
 The lessons of experience were not lost up- 
 on them, however unavailing those lessons 
 may have been with a majority in this 
 body. The city is the only place where 
 the legislature of the State will be exposed 
 to the broad glare of light. Where its acts 
 will be laid bare to the rigid scrutiny of an 
 active and vigilant press; and where con- 
 cealment and obscurity cannot serve as 
 shields from responsibility. At any rate, 
 it cannot be expected that I should counte- 
 nance such a stigma upon the constituency 
 that I have the honor of representing that 
 the.meeting of the legislature in the city, 
 if not prohibited, would contaminate the 
 purity of that body. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne said: As I am about to 
 cast my humble vote against this constitu- 
 tion, I desire, Mr. President, in the deli- 
 cate and painful position in which I find 
 myself placed, in regard to so important a 
 matter, briefly to explain my motives and 
 sentiments. I am animated? sir, by no 
 captious opposition to the will of the ma- 
 jority; against that will, far greater abili- 
 ties than mine, have struggled in vain upon 
 this floor. And if it be subsequently rati- 
 fied by the people, I shall of course yield 
 to it with the submission and good grace, 
 I hope, that are due by every citizen to the 
 doctrine of our institutions, that the majori- 
 ty must govern. Not, sir, as has been 
 truly said, because the majority is always 
 right, or that its rule be always gentle, 
 but because it being necessary that the one 
 or the other should govern; it would be far 
 more unjust to yield to the will of the mi- 
 nority than to that of the majority. Still, 
 sir, I contend that in such an important 
 
 and delicate matter as the framing of the 
 social contract under which all are to live 
 and to be governed, the feelings, the convic- 
 tions, and even the prejudices of any re- 
 spectable minority, should be treated with 
 some regard, and some spirit of mutual con- 
 cession, For, sir, where is the best guar- 
 antee of that stability which is so essential 
 an element in the fundamental law of the 
 land, of that respect which it should com- 
 mand, and of the prosperity which a peo- 
 ple should enjoy under it? Is it not, sir 
 in the attachment to it of the great mass of 
 that people, in the willing acquiescence of 
 the remainder, and in the general content 
 ment and security which it should afford 
 to all sections of country, as well as to ail 
 essential interests in society? In these 
 permanent requisites of a constitution, I 
 fear, sir, that this Convention has failed, and 
 that it will leave deep traces of discontent 
 behind. When Solon made a system of 
 laws for his country, he admitted that he 
 had not made the best possible laws, but 
 those that were the best suited to the Athe- 
 nian people; but I doubt, sir, whether we 
 can claim for our work even the latter of 
 these qualities, of which the ancient lafy. j 
 giver had boasted. That our constitution | 
 is a masterpiece of wisdom, none, I pug. I! 
 sume, will assert; nor is it, in my humble 
 opinion, the best adapted to the people, of 
 Louisiana. We have gone far beyond the 
 objects of that people, when they called fd] 
 a Convention; they called for reform, anr 
 not, as I believe, for experiments, amount- 
 ing almost to a violation. We have un- 
 necessarily attacked too many local feelings 
 and interests; shocked too many customs 
 and habits. 
 
 In our formation of the judiciary depart- 
 ment, I see a change in the organization of 
 that power, leaving scarcely a remnant be- 
 hind. I see many men who are doomed 
 to be superseded in office, and room to be 
 made for others; but still I should be hap- 
 py if I could as clearly perceive that the 
 great object of reform will be effectually 
 attained. I am convinced, on the other 
 hand, that in regard to the great city, j 
 which I represent in part, the system 
 adopted will be far from answering its 
 wants, its habits, and its various business 
 and interests; whilst I perceive, mtire and 
 more, that it is decidedly obnoxious to a very 
 large and respectable portion of the coim- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana- 
 
 943 
 
 try. it would seem to me that we might 
 equally have attained the end proposed, 
 and respected the habits and desires of so 
 large a portion of the population, by confi- 
 ning the parish judges to their judicial 
 functions, and stripping them of those va- 
 rious other functions and attributes, against 
 which the outcry of complaint had justly 
 arisen. 
 
 In the legislative department I humbly 
 concieve that we have made the house of 
 representatives too numerous, according to 
 our mode of conducting legislative proceed- 
 ing, for order and promptitude in business, 
 as well as for economy. Whilst the senate 
 is scarcely more than an epitome of the 
 other house, with no essential difference in 
 the mode of election or qualifications for 
 office, and not answering sufficiently its 
 object in the theory of our government, as 
 a check upon the precipitate action, or the 
 passions that may temporarily prevail in 
 the other house. There should have been 
 in the senate, I conceive, (and I should 
 have been perfectly satisfied with it in that 
 branch of the government alone,) some 
 acknowledged protection of the principle 
 of property — the great stimulus to industry, 
 without which civilized society could not 
 exist, and mankind would fall into barbar- 
 ism; but, sir, the word property, if not yet 
 the principle, appears to have been repudi- 
 ated in this constitution, for if it be found 
 in it at all, it is, I believe, by accident. 
 
 In avowing these sentiments, I repel 
 and contume the charge that has so often 
 been directed against them, of restriction 
 and exclusion, of invidious distinctions be- 
 tween the rich and the poor. The acqui- 
 sition of property is often to the competition 
 of all, and the honest and industrious poor 
 who labor to obtain it, are as much inter- 
 ested in its protection, as those who al- 
 ready enjoy it. I am, sir, for a constitution 
 that would secure to itself the attachment 
 of the rich as well as that of the poor, by- 
 giving to each his proper share of protec- 
 tion. I am for a constitution under which, 
 whilst the poor man would be contentedly 
 at work below, or resting after his toil, the 
 rich man, who would have leisure to do so, 
 would be on the watch tower above to 
 warn him of the dangers that might threat- 
 en their common interests, their common 
 liberties, and their common country. 
 T will not allow myself to comment upon 
 
 the unparalleled provision that has made 
 a constitutional proscription of nearly one 
 half of the State, in the choice of the seat 
 of government to be made by the legisla- 
 ture; that section speaks for itself to every 
 mind that is not obscured by prejudice or 
 passion. These, sir, and other defects 
 and oddities, that have been pointed out in 
 debate, and which will be now left to pub- 
 lic discussion, form my objections to this 
 instrument. It contains, I know, many 
 valuable provisions which I should regret 
 to loose, but most of them may be equally 
 attained by the proper action of the legis- 
 lature; and others will be but delayed even 
 if this constitution should be rejected by 
 the people. As I cannot here separate 
 the good that is in it from what I consider 
 to be the overweighing rubbish, I feel my- 
 self painfully compelled to vote against the 
 whole. If it be a crime, I have, therefore, 
 avowed myself to be strongly conservative 
 in my principles, and am prepared to suffer 
 the penalty; but I have at least the conso- 
 lation and the consciousness in my own 
 heart of meaning and understanding by 
 such principles, those that are the best cal- 
 culated to secure and to preserve for our- 
 selves and our posterity, the blessings of 
 good government and of rational liberty. 
 As the opposite doctrines of radicalism, as 
 they are called, are marching with rapid 
 strides over the land, God grant, if they 
 should finally prevail, that we may be 
 wrong, and that our adversaries may be 
 right in the attainment of the great objects 
 which both profess to have in view — the 
 happiness of the people and the prosperity 
 of our institutions. 
 
 Mr. Oulbertson said that the clause in 
 relation to the city of New Orleans, he 
 would avow, would have deterred him from 
 voting in favor of the constitution, if the vote 
 in this body was to by final. But, inas- 
 much as the question of its final adoption 
 is submitted to the people., I shall vote aye. 
 
 Mr. Downs said that nothing had aston- 
 ished him more than the reasons that he had 
 had assigned for voting against the consti- 
 tution. *The constitution certainly con- 
 tained some clauses that did not meet his 
 approbation; some of them operated to the 
 prejudice of the section of the State which 
 he represented, but the idea because they 
 are there, and that the constitution is not 
 perfect, that therefore it ought to be reject- 
 
y44 
 
 Batatas in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 ed, is .one of the most novel he had ever 
 heard. It was not to be expected that 
 every provision would meet unanimous ap- 
 probation. The only thing that -has go- 
 verned my vote, said Mr. Downs, is the 
 tout ensemble of the instrument that meets 
 my approbation, and that is as much as 
 any individual member ought to expect, 
 unless he made the constitution to suit him- 
 self, and embodied in it all his own no- 
 tions. 
 
 As for the clause in relation to the seat 
 of government, which it is said proscribes 
 the city of New Orleans, I have invariably 
 on every occasion when it has come up, 
 voted against it. But there is, after all, 
 nothing of that odious character in it which 
 has been assumed. If the seat of govern- 
 ment were fixed in the constitution 
 out of the ^city of New Orleans, the city 
 would in the same manner be proscribed. 
 It is not intended as an odious exclusion of 
 the city, but is conceived to be the only 
 means of placing the legislature of the 
 State where it will be conducted more 
 calmly and more quietly. I do not think 
 the clause necessary to effect the object, 
 and would therefore have dispensed with 
 it. But, at the same time, I cannot under- 
 stand why it should interfere with the 
 adoption of the constitution, whose provi- 
 sions otherwise are admitted to be good in 
 the main. 
 
 If it be expected, by this singular mode 
 of attack, that the people are to be preju- 
 diced beforehand with the constitution, and 
 in that way they will be induced to reject 
 it, such an expectation is doomed, I predict, 
 to a most woful disappointment. This 
 early beating to arms, instead of bringing 
 the people to the curb of the opposition, 
 will decide them to assume the defence of 
 the constitution. So far, then, from re- 
 gretting this premature indication of hos- 
 tility, I am very glad the demonstration 
 has been made, in order that the people 
 may be prepared to meet it. 
 
 Mr. Labauve said that he had endeavor- 
 ed fully to carry out the will of his constitu- 
 ents, and to represent their wishes. He 
 had freely blamed what he thought injudi- 
 cious in the constitution; but after all, he 
 was aware that, as a member of this body, 
 he was finally bound to submit to the will 
 of the majority. This constitution had 
 been the result of the joint labors and ex- 
 
 perience of all, and whatever maybe its 
 imperfections, he conceived it hisduty to 
 submit it to that will. He would vote in 
 the affirmative. 
 
 Mr. Lewis said: I vote in the affirma- 
 tive because, upon the whole, I consider 
 the constitution a good one, and notwith- 
 standing its defects, defects which I antici- 
 pated, I think it will be acceptable to the 
 mass of my constiuents. 
 
 Mr. Marigny voted aye for this reason 
 alone, that the approval or rejection of the 
 constitution was with the people, 
 
 Mr. Kenner: Mr. President, I air-, 
 sir, to assign the reasons for my vote on 
 the final adoption of this constitution, with 
 the less embarrassment, as the example 
 has been set me by several whose names 
 precede mine on the roll. Had, sir, a 
 stranger entered this hall this morning, fur 
 the first time to witness our proceedings, he 
 might have been easily led to believe that 
 the only object of the calling of this Con- 
 vention had been to locate the seat of gov- 
 ernment, or at least, that that was about 
 ail we had succeeded in accomplishing. 
 For, sir, the sum and substance of every 
 objection to this constitution, of every 
 member who has as yet addressed the 
 house, has been that the seat of govern- 
 ment cannot, after the year 1848, be lo- 
 cated within a circumference of sixty miles 
 of the city of New Orleans — and that, con- 
 sequently, they are constrained to vote 
 against the constitution, as they think that 
 thus great injustice has been done their 
 constituents living within this " pestiferous 
 circle," as it has been called. 
 
 Now, sir, I ask the members to pause 
 and reflect, before casting their votes. I 
 I ask, sir, was our miesion here alone to 
 locate the seat of government, and ha^ 
 we, sir, accomplished nothing else, after a 
 long and arduous session of four months? 
 Let us recur, for a few moments, to what 
 we have done since assembling. What 
 then have we done ? 
 
 First, we have removed an odious re- 
 striction on the right of suffrage— the pro- 
 perly qualification — the mors odious that 
 it prevented many an honest and worthy 
 citizen to cast his vote, when those whose 
 consciences were less tender, marched 
 boldly to the polls, frequently under the 
 mere semblance of having paid a tax, and 
 thus fulfilling the mere letter of the law. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana 
 
 945 
 
 Sir, this restriction we have removed, and 1 
 have established a principle more in ac- 
 cordance with human rights and the spirit 
 of the age, that of universal suffrage. 
 
 Again, sir, we have equalized and ex- 1 
 tended representation, more particularly 
 in the senate. We have given New Or- 
 leans something nearer her just right in 
 the upper branch of the legislature. 
 
 Again, sir, we have by establishing the 
 system of biennial legislation and confining 
 the term to sixty days, removed one of the 
 greatest curses ever inflicted on our coun- 
 try. I mean, sir, exess of legislation; the 
 enacting laws one year to be repealed the 
 next ; to say nothing of this, the great 
 saving to the public treasury. 
 
 Again, sir, we have diminished the pa- 
 tronage of the executive, by placing in the 
 handfs of the people themselves the appoint- i 
 ment of most of their parochial officers. 
 
 Again, sir, we have effected great j 
 changes, and I hope great reforms in the 
 judiciary — perhaps the most important of | 
 all the departments in our State govern- 
 ment — reforms which we have been told, 
 by the many distinguished occupants of the 
 bench and members of the legal profession 
 who hold seats on this floor, were much 
 needed, and for which the people have 
 been long crying aloud. 
 
 Again, sir, we have forbidden the legis- J 
 lature to pledge the faith of the State to 
 enable private corporations to borrow mo- 
 ney for the" purposes of banking, internal 
 improvements, or other wild and visionary 
 schemes, or to borrow money for the State 
 itself except in case of war or domestic in- 
 surrection. Xow, sir, are these great 
 changes nothing? Are they, sir, to be | 
 placed in the scale and weighed as a 
 feather against the question of the location 
 of the seat of government ? I sincerely 
 : trust not. 
 
 Again, sir, we have ordered that the 
 legislature shall establish a system of free 
 public schools, to be supported by the pro- 
 ceeds of the public lands or by taxation, 
 where the child of every man in the State 
 shall be taught the rudiments of an educa- 
 tion. And, sir, let me here remark, that 
 should the legislature carry out our inten- 
 tion, as I hope to God they may, we shall 
 have conferred a greater bene'rit on the 
 rising generation of this "proscribed" sixty 
 miles, than if every legislature of even- 
 
 State in the Union should hold not only 
 yearly but monthly sessions, within the 
 walls of this city. One word, sir, with 
 regard to the words "proscribed" and '"pro- 
 scription." Gentlemen tell us. that be- 
 cause we have determined that the seat of 
 government shall not be located within 
 sixty miles of New Orleans, that it is an 
 "odious proscription''' of this city and their 
 constituents. Sir, is this a fact 1 Had we 
 have located the seat of government in New 
 Orleans, would net that by a parity of rea- 
 soning, have been a virtual proscription of 
 the rest of the State? Had we have located 
 it in Donaldsonville, as I last night pro- 
 posed, would the good sense of this Con- 
 vention have sustained the member from 
 Catahoula or Ouachita, had he have risen 
 in his seat and objected to it, that it was 
 an odious proscription of his parish? Sir, 
 he would have been laughed at. The seat 
 of government must be located some where, 
 and it is, I had almost said, ridiculous, that 
 the location of it in any one spot is an 
 " odious proscription" of the re^t of the 
 State. 
 
 Away then, sir, with these pitiful local 
 feelings and prejudices. Away, then, with 
 this dog-in-the-manger feeling that because 
 "New Orleans cannot have the seat of gov- 
 ernment, no one else shall; and let us vote 
 for this constitution on the higher and no- 
 bler ground of its extending and securing 
 greater civil and political rights to the great 
 body of our citizens. 
 
 I vote aye, because we have established 
 universal suffrage. 
 
 I vote aye, because we have extended 
 and equalized representation. 
 
 I vote aye, because we have set a limit 
 to legislation, and diminished executive 
 patronage. 
 
 I vote aye, because we have reformed 
 the judiciary. 
 
 I vote aye, because we have ordered the 
 legislature to establish a glorious system of 
 free public schools. 
 
 I vote aye, because we have removed 
 the seat of government from the city of 
 Xew Orleans. 
 
 Mr. Porter said, although I am not in 
 favor of all the provisions in this constitu- 
 tion, yet I will vote for it, because I believe 
 it incomparably better than the old one : 
 
 First, because the governor is elected ■ 
 without the intervention of the legislature; 
 
946 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 and secondly, because the right of suffrage 
 is extended, and no property qualification 
 required in the electors or elected; thirdly, 
 because some of the appointing power is 
 taken from the governor; fourthly, because 
 the people are to eject all their most impor- 
 tant parish officers ; fifthly, because the 
 tenure of judical office is limited; sixthly, 
 because an ad valorem system of taxation 
 is established; seventhly, because the le- 
 gislature is limited to biennial sessions, 
 and restricted to sixty days; eighthly, be- 
 cause the legislature is prohibited from 
 pledging the faith of the State, or granting 
 banking privileges; and ninthly, because 
 a system of common schools has been 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Preston thought the constitution 
 did not yet attain the popular wishes : it 
 was not yet sufficiently radical, to make 
 use of the common expression for reform. 
 But, he voted for it under the firm hope, 
 that it would be the prelude to a further ex- 
 tension of the popular franchise. 
 
 Mr. Roman assigned the following as 
 his reasons : 
 
 1st. I vote against the adoption of this 
 constitution, because the Convention that 
 framed it, would never have been convened 
 if the majority of the people had foreseen, 
 that the constitution of 1812 would have 
 been entirely abrogated to substitute in its 
 place, a constitution, in which conserva- 
 tive principles are almost all trodden under 
 foot. 
 
 2d. Because; in extending the right of 
 suffrage, the majority in the Convention 
 have not sufficiently penetrated the neces- 
 sity of confiding that right to those only 
 that are identified with the State, and be- 
 cause the functionaries who may be called 
 on to preside over elections, will have 
 no guide to enable them to determine who 
 have, or who have not, the right of suf- 
 frage. 
 
 3d. Because the composition of fehe 
 senate*is such, that it cannot serve as a 
 check upon the popular branch of the le- 
 gislature, and because the latter body be- 
 ing too numerous, it will be too costly and 
 unwieldy in conducting the public busi- 
 ness. 
 
 4th. Because the casual and uncertain 
 tenure of office for the judges of the su- 
 preme court and district courts, will unfor- 
 tunately have the effect of placing those res- 
 
 ponsible offices .in a state of dependence 
 upon the political parties of the day; and 
 further, that the election by the people of 
 justices of the peace, clerks of courts and 
 sheriffs will make the impartial adminis- 
 tration of justice still more difficult. 
 
 For these reasons, and because a por. 
 tion of this constitution is put into opera- 
 tion before its submission to the people, 
 I vote in the negative. 
 
 Mr. Read voted aye because he believed 
 it was the best constitutton in the world. 
 
 Mr. Roselius said he had serious ob- 
 jections to raise to the constitution, and if 
 the final vote had depended upon this body, 
 his name would have been found in the 
 negative. He must say too that serious 
 doubts had arisen in his mind in relation 
 to that clause in the ordinance conferring 
 the right of suffrage upon the question of 
 the adoption of the new constitution, to 
 persons not recognized as voters under the | 
 existing constitution. He did not mean 
 doubts as to the power of the Convention 
 to pass this cluase, for he had specially de- 
 nied that power in the Convention, anddid 
 not believe that the commissioners of elec- 
 tions conscientiously could carry it into ef- 
 fect; but doubts as to the expediency of 
 placing it there in view of the difficulties 
 to which it might give rise. He trusted 
 the officers who were sworn to support 
 the present constitution until it was super- 
 seded, would not so far forget the obliga- 
 tions of an oath, as to pay to k the slight- 
 est attention. He considered it an usur- 
 pation of power, a perfect nullity, and in 
 that view only (as the question is referred 
 to our constituents for decision,) I vote yes, 
 
 Mr. Sellers voted aye because he 
 thought the new constitution an improve- 
 ment upon the old. There were some ob- 
 jectionable features in his mind, but among 
 these was not the removal of the seat of 
 government. 
 
 I vote in favor of this constitution be- 
 cause it effects many of the changes de- 
 manded by the constituency which has 
 sent us to this Convention, and above all 
 because it places nearer the people, the 
 means of providing hereafter for such im- 
 provements in the social compact as their 
 experience may point out and their wants 
 rentier necessary. 
 
 Mr. S plane: I vete yes, although there 
 are some clauses in the constitution which 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 947 
 
 do not meet my concurrence. At the same 
 time, I cannot refrain from expressing my 
 surprise that some of the Orleans delegates 
 ' should vote against it upon so feeble a pre- 
 text as the removal of the seat of govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Resolutions were then introduced rela- 
 tive to the per diem to be allowed to the 
 secretary, minute clerk, reporters, &c, 
 for bringing up the arrear work of the 
 Convention. 
 
 Mr. Kenner then submitted the folo vy- 
 ing resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, that the Convention do hereby 
 express their acknowedgements to the 
 Hon. Joseph Walker, President of the 
 Convention, for the impartial, faithful and 
 able manner with which he has presided 
 over the deliberations of this body, during 
 : its protracted session. 
 
 Whereupon, Mr. Walker addressed 
 the Convention as follows: 
 
 Gentlemen of the Convention: 
 
 The resolution you have just passed, so 
 complimentary to my conduct as presiding 
 officer of this assembly, after a protracted 
 session of more than four months duration, 
 is a flattering proof of your favorable opin- 
 ion, whieh I shall ever remember and ap- 
 preciate as one of the most pleasing events 
 of my life, and in return for which I have 
 nothing to offer you but my heartfelt grati- 
 tude and most profound acknowledgements. 
 That 1 may have erred in the discharge of 
 !the complex duties of my station, I shall 
 not pretend to deny. But I beg to assure 
 you gentlemen, that whatever e/rors 1 may 
 have committed have been unintentional. 
 
 To have been honored by my constitu- 
 ents with a seat in this assembly, was a 
 mark of distinction sufficient to gratify my 
 highest aspirations; but to be selected by 
 this assembly, composed of gentlemen of 
 so much intelligence and respectability, to 
 preside over their deliberations, was much 
 more than any merits I possess entitled me 
 to expect. 
 
 Taking into view the many difficult and 
 important questions which the Convention 
 has been called upon to decide, the gener- 
 al course of our proceedings has been 
 characterized by a spirit of moderation and 
 forbearance called for by the dignity and 
 importance of the occasion. 
 
 The deep interest which members from 
 different portions of the State have felt to 
 
 secure to the constituency by which they 
 were severally elected, a just proportion 
 of power in the legislative department of 
 the State, has occasionally given rise to 
 debate that has characterized a portion of 
 our proceedings upon that subject, with a 
 feeling which, under the circumstances, it 
 was not unreasonable to expect, but which 
 could not have been desired. I cherish a 
 hope, however, that by the mutual conces- 
 sion and compromise by which this diffi- 
 cult subject has been adjusted, a result has 
 been produced to which the people for 
 whom we have acted will yield their as- 
 sent and approbation. 
 
 If in the course of animated discussion 
 and momentary excitement, expressions 
 have escaped members calculated to irritate, 
 I am persuaded that a feeling of perfect 
 harmony has since been restored, and that 
 we shall now separate with mutual feelings 
 of kindness and good will towards each 
 other. 
 
 We have been long and arduously en- 
 gaged in the responsible duties assigned to 
 us by our constituents, of amending and 
 changing the organic law of the State, and 
 the constitution which has been framed is 
 about to be submitted to the people for 
 their ratification or rejection. 
 
 That it will meet the entire approbation 
 of our constituency is not to be expected. 
 I think, however, that we may indulge a 
 reasonable hope that it will be received by 
 the people as a great improvement upon 
 the constitution of 1812, and as the best 
 that the discordant opinions of members 
 has enabled us to make. 
 
 W r e may be permitted to say that, though 
 we have not done all, we have done much; 
 we have provided for the election of the 
 executive, without the intervention of the 
 legislature, except upon extraordinary oc- 
 casions. We have extended the right of 
 suffrage, equalized represention in both 
 houses of the general assembly, remoddled 
 the judiciary system of the 'State, fixed a 
 limit to the tenure of office of the judges, 
 provided that the absurdity in a republic 
 of offices for life shall no longer be exhib- 
 ited in this State, prohibited the incorpo- 
 ration of banks and the creation of State 
 debts, except in extraordinary contingen- 
 cies and to a limited extent, and have, by 
 salutary provisions, laid a permanent foun- 
 dation for a system of free schools, 
 
918 
 
 Debates in the .Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Keeping in view, therefore, gentlemen, 
 these improvements, let us, I pray you, re- 
 turn to our constituents resolved to east 
 oil upon the troublad waters, as far as in 
 our power lies. He who shall contribute 
 most to so desirable an end will deserve 
 well of his country, and will most assured- 
 ly receive that appellation — the highest re- 
 ward a public servant can receive. 
 
 We are now, gentlemen, about to separ- 
 ate, many of us, in all probability, never 
 to meet again; may you return safely into 
 the bosom of your families and friends — 
 may health and happiness attend you 
 through life, and may you long live to see 
 our beloved Louisiana prosperous at home 
 and respected by her sister States. 
 
 Mr. Cade offered the following resolu- 
 tion, which was adopted unanimously: 
 
 "Resolved,, That-the thanks of the Con- 
 vention be tendered to Horatio Davis, 
 Esq., secretary of the Convention, for the 
 assiduity and ability with which he has 
 discharged the difficult and important du- 
 ties of secretary." 
 
 Mr. Sellers offered the following reso- 
 lution: 
 
 "Resolved, That the thanks of the Con- 
 vention be tendered to the clergy of the 
 city of New Orleans, for opening the pro- 
 ceedings daily with prayer. 
 
 Whereupon the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Thursday, May 15, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Hon. Mr. Stephens opened the 
 proceedings with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Miles Taylor offered the following 
 resolutions : 
 
 Resolved, That when this Convention 
 adjourns, it adjourn to meet to-morrow, at 
 12 o'clock, m. 
 
 Be it further resolved, That the Presi- 
 dent of the Convention be authorized to 
 adjourn this body to-morrow, the 16th in- 
 stant, sine die. 
 
 The foregoing resolutions were adopted. 
 
 Mr. Soule then offered a resolution for 
 the pay of the reporters, to enable them to 
 bring up the arrear debates, which was 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Cenas offertd the following reso- 
 lution : 
 
 Resolved, That the thanks of the Con- 
 vention be and are hereby tendered to 
 
 W t illiam De Buys, Esq , state treasurer, 
 for having kept the accounts of the Con- 
 vention, and paying the warrants of the 
 members and officers. 
 
 Mr. Cenas explained that this was no 
 portion of Mr. De Buys' duty, and that he 
 had kindly undertaken it for the benefit of 
 the Convention. 
 
 The resolution was unanimously adopted. 
 
 Whereupon the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Friday, May 16, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad. 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Clark opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 Resolutions were offered and adopted, 
 allowing extra compensation to the repor- 
 ters, clerks, and translators 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved that the delegates be 
 called in the order of the parishes, to sign 
 the constitution. It was finally decided 
 they should be called in the order of sena- 
 torial districts. 
 
 The committee of enrollment reported 
 that the constitution was not yet ready for 
 signature. 
 
 Whereupon, the Convention adjourned 
 until 5 o'clock, p. m. 
 
 Evening Session, > 
 Friday, May 16th, 1845. \ 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Soule, on behalf of the committee 
 on enrollment, reported that the constitution 
 was ready to be submitted to the Conven - 
 tion. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Lewis, the secretary 
 called the names of the members by sena- 
 torial districts. The following gentlemen 
 affixed their names to the constitution, to 
 wit : 
 
 Mr. Joseph Walker, President, of the Con- 
 vention, and senatorial delegate from the 
 county of Rapides. 
 Isaac T. Preston, Robert C. Hynson, 
 F. B. Conrad, Thos. B. Scott, 
 
 Felix Garcia, G. Mayo, 
 
 Vr. Du Bouchel, Pierre Covillion, 
 T. M. Wadsworth, W. B. Prescott, 
 J. P. Benjamin, Phanor Prudhomme, 
 H. Be Cenas, ' Thos. C. Porter, 
 C. M. Conrad, Geo. W. Peets, 
 John Culbertson, Wm. D. Stephens, 
 George Eustis, Isaiah Garrett, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 949 
 
 Bernard Marigny, S. W. Downs, of the 
 Christian Roselius, senatorial district 
 P. Soule, of Ouachita. 
 
 James McCallop, Jacob Humble, 
 Zenon Labauve, Pierre Porche, 
 Wm. Bernard Scott, Zenon Ledoux, Jr., 
 Amaza Read. Wathal Burton, 
 
 A^WaddiU, A. H. Mcfeae, 
 
 A. R. Splane, A. M. Dunn, of East j 
 
 P. Briant, Feliciana; 
 J. Bie Derbes, R. Cade, of Lafay- j 
 Thos. H. Lewis, of ette; 
 
 the senatorial dis- C. Voorhies, of At- 
 
 trictofOpelousas: takapas; — 
 Green Hudspeth, Thos. W. Chinn, of 
 Jno. 15. Wederstrandt, West Baton Rouge; 
 W. Prescott, L. Saunders, of East 
 
 Stephens, Feliciana; 
 W. Wikoff, Miles Taylor, of As- 
 
 T. Taylor, sumption. 
 J. Fen wick Brent, 
 
 Mr. Marigny said in signing the con- 
 stitution, it was the second time he had 
 performed the same ceremony. May God 
 ordain it should be the last. 
 
 Mr. Garcia said he had voted against j 
 the constitution, because there were seve- | 
 ral articles in it which he could not sane- \ 
 tion. He was persuaded, moreover, that 
 a majority of his constituents were opposed 
 to it, but nevertheless, he considered his 
 signature as nothing more than an authen- I 
 tication of the document. 
 
 Mr. Boudousqtjie said, that as it might 
 hereafter appear inconsistent were he to ' 
 sign a constitution against which he had ! 
 voted. He would decline signing it, and 
 he would avail himself of the occasion to | 
 declare, that he 4 had voted against it, and 
 f20 
 
 1 now refused to sign it, because it contained 
 
 certain dispositions the objects and the re- 
 ! suits of which he never could approve, 
 i The majority differed" with him, and he 
 j trusted it would secure the happiness of the 
 State. He however owed it to himself, 
 and to the position he held, to declare that 
 he would not sign it. 
 
 Mr. Dehbes said that he had voted 
 against the constitution, but yet he would 
 sign it, because he presumed his signature 
 could not be understood as conflicting with 
 his vote, and with his well known and ex- 
 pressed' opinions. If the vote were to be 
 taken de novo, he would vote again against 
 the constitution, because it did not meet his 
 expectations. 
 
 A resolution was then adopted, allowing 
 absent members until January next, to sign 
 the constitution. 
 
 The Convention then made provision to 
 pay for the enrollment of the constitution, 
 and for some other incidental expenses. 
 
 Mr. Garcia presented the following re- 
 solution, which was adopted. 
 
 Resolved, That the thanks of the Con- 
 vention be and they are hereby tendered 
 to Mr. James Foulhcuse, reporter of the 
 debates in French, and to Mr. Robert J.. 
 Ker, reporter of the debates in English, for 
 the care and exactitude with which they 
 have performed the difficult and delicate 
 duties imposed on them. 
 
 Whereupon, the honorable Joseph 
 Walker announced that the Convention 
 had adjourned sine die. 
 
 ROBERT J. KER, 
 Official Reporer to the Convention, 
 
CONSTITUTION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 STATE OF LOUISIANA- 
 
 ADOPTED IN CONVENTION, MAY 14, 1845. 
 
 PREAMBLE. 
 
 We the people of the State of Louisiana do 
 ordain, and establish this Constitution. 
 
 TITLE I. 
 
 DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS. 
 
 Art. 1. The powers of the Government of the 
 State of Louisiana shall be divided into three 
 distinct departments, and each of them be 
 confided to a separate body of magistracy, to 
 wit: those which are legislative to one; those 
 which are executive to another and those which 
 are judicial to another. 
 
 Art. 2. No one of these departments nor 
 any person holding office in one of them shall 
 exercise power properly belonging to either of 
 the others, except in the instances hereinafter 
 expressly directed or permitted. 
 
 TITLE II. 
 LEGISLATIVE DEPART3IENT. 
 
 Art. 3. The Legislative power of the State 
 shall be vested in two distinct branches, the 
 one to be styled the House of Representatives, 
 the other the' Senate, and both "the General As- 
 sembly of the State of Louisiana." 
 
 Art. 4. The members of the House of "Rep- 
 resentatives shall continue in service for the term 
 of two years from the day of the closing of the 
 general elections. 
 
 Art. 5. Representatives shall be chosen on 
 , [ sl ^ on( ^ a y hi November, every two years; 
 and the election shall be completed "in one day. 
 1 be General Assembly shall meet every second 
 rear on the third Monday in January next ensu- 
 ing the election, unless a different day be ap- 
 pointed by law, and their sessions shall be held 
 at the seat of Government. 
 
 Art. 6. No person shall be a Representative, 
 who, at the time of his election is not a free 
 white mate, arid has not been forOiree years a 
 
 t citizen of the United States, and has not attained 
 
 ; the age of twenty-one years, and resided in the 
 State for the three years next preceeding the 
 
 ; election, and the last year thereof, in the parish 
 
 ; for which he may be chosen. 
 
 Art. 7. Elections for Representatives for the 
 several parishes or Representative districts shall 
 be held at the several election precincts estab- 
 
 : lished by law. The Legislature may delegate 
 
 ' the power of establishing election precincts to 
 the parochial or municipal authorities. 
 
 Art. 8 Representation in the House of Re- 
 
 , presentatives, shall be equal and uniform, and 
 shall be regulated and ascertained by the number 
 
 I of qualified electors. Each parish shall have 
 at least one Representative : No new parish 
 
 < shall be created with a territory less than six hun- 
 dred and twenty-five square miles, nor with a 
 number of electors less than the full number enti • 
 tling it to are presentative, nor when the creation 
 of such new parish would leave any other parish 
 without the said extent of territory and number of 
 electors. 
 
 The first enumeration to be made by the Stata 
 authorities under this Constitution shall be made 
 in the year 1847, the second in the year 1S55; 
 and the subsequent enumerations shall be made 
 every tenth year thereafter, in suth manner as 
 shall be prescribed by law for the purpose of 
 ascertaining the total population and the number 
 of qualified electors in each parish and election 
 district. 
 
 At the first regular session of the Legislature 
 after the making of each enumeration, the Legis- 
 lature shall apportion the representation amongst 
 the several parishes and election districts on the 
 i^isis of qualified electors as aforesaid. A repre- 
 sentative number shall be fixed, and each parish 
 and election district shall have as many repre- 
 sentatives as the aggregate number of its electors 
 will entitle it to, and an additional Representa- 
 tive for any fraction exceeding one half the 
 representative number. The number of Repre- 
 sentatives shall not be more than one hundred 
 nor less than seventy. 
 
 That part of the parish of Orleans situated on 
 the left bank of the Mississippi shall be divide 
 
952 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 into nine representative distriets'as lollows, viz: 
 
 1st. First district to extend from the line of 
 the parish of Jefferson to the middle of Benjamin, 
 Estelle and Thalia streets. \ 
 
 2d. Second district to extend from the last 
 mentioned limits to the middle of Julia street, 
 until it strikes the New Orleans canal, thence 
 down said canal to the lake. 
 
 3d. Third district to comprise the residue of 
 the Second Municipality. 
 
 4th. Fourth district to extend from the middle 
 of ("anal street to the middle of St. Louis street, 
 -until it reaches the Metairie road, thence along 
 said road to the New Orleans canal. 
 
 5th. Fifth district to extend from the last men- 
 tioned limits to the middle of St. Phillip«street, 
 thence down said street until its intersection 
 with the bayou St. .lohn, thence along the mid- 
 dle of said bayou until it intersects the Metairie 
 road, thence along said road until it reaches St. 
 Louis street. 
 
 6th. Sixth district to be composed of the res'- 
 dueof the First Municipality. 
 
 7th. Seventh district from the middle of Es- 
 planade street to the middle of Champs Elysees 
 street. 
 
 8th. Eighth district from the middle of Champs 
 Elys6es street to the middle of Enghein street 
 and Lafayette Avenue. 
 
 9th. Ninth district from the middle of Engb-in 
 street and Lafa} r ette A venue to the lower limits 
 he parish. 
 
 Art. 9. The House of Representatives shall 
 choose its speaker and other officers. 
 
 Art. 10. In all elections by the people every 
 free white male w-ho has been two years a citizen 
 of the United states who has attained the age of 
 twenty-one years, and resided in the State two 
 consecutive years next preeeeding the election, 
 and the last year thereof in the parish in which 
 he offers to vote, shall have the right of voting: 
 Provided, that no person shall be deprived of the 
 right of voting who at the time of the adoption of 
 .this constitution was entitled to that right un- 
 der the constitution of 1812. Electors shall in 
 all cases except treason, felony, breach or surety 
 of the peace, be privileged from arrest during 
 their attendance at, going to, or returning from 
 elections. 
 
 Art. 11. Absence from the State for more than 
 ninety consecutive days, shall interrupt the ac- 
 quisition of the residence required in the prece- 
 ding section, unless the person absenting himself 
 shall be a house-keeper, or shall occupy a tene- 
 ment for carrying on business, and his d welling 
 house or tenement for carrying on business shall 
 be actually occupied during his absence, by his 
 family or servants, or some portion thereof, or 
 by someone employed by him. 
 
 Art. 12. No soldier, seaman or marine in the 
 army or navy of the United States, no pauper, 
 no person under interdiction, nor under convic 
 tion of any crime punishable with hard labor, 
 shall be entitled to vote at any election in this 
 State. 
 
 Art. 13. No person shall be entitled to vote at 
 any election held in this State, except in the 
 parish of his residence, and in cities and towns 
 divided into election precincts, in the election 
 precinct in which he resides. 
 
 Art. 14. The members of the Senate shall be 
 chosen for the term of four years. The Senate 
 when assembled, shall have the power to choose 
 its officers every two years. 
 
 Art. 1 5. The Legislature in every year in which 
 ihey shall apportion representation in. the house of 
 representatives shall divide the Stale into sen- 
 
 atorial districts. No parish shall be divided tn 
 the formation of a senatorial district, the parish 
 of Orleans excepted. And whenevera new par- 
 ish shall be created, it shall be attached to the 
 senatorial district from which most of its territo- 
 ry was taken, or to another contiguous district, 
 at thediscretion of the Legislature; but shall not 
 be attached to more than one district. The 
 number of senators shall be thirty-two, and they 
 shall be apportioned among the senatorial dis- 
 tricts according to the total population contained 
 in the several districts: Provided, that no parish 
 shall be entitled to more than one-eighth of the 
 whole number of senators. 
 
 Art. 16. In all apportionments of the senate, 
 the population of the city of New Orleans shall 
 be deducted from the population of the whole 
 State, and the remainder of the population divi- 
 ded by the number twenty-eight, and the result 
 produced by this division shall be the senatorial 
 ratio entitling a senatorial district to a senator. 
 Single or contiguous parishes shall be formed into 
 districts having a population the nearest possi- 
 ble to the number entitling a district to a senator, 
 and if in the apportionment to be made, a parish 
 or district fall short of or exceed the ratio, one- 
 fifth, then a district may be formed having not 
 more than two senators, but not otherwise. 
 
 No new apportionment shall have the effect: 
 of abridging the term of service of any senator 
 already elected at the time of making the appor- 
 tionment. 
 
 After an enumeration has been made as direct- 
 ed in the (eighth) article, the Legislature shall 
 not pass any law until an apportionment of 
 representation in both Houses of the General As- 
 sembly be made. 
 
 Art. 17. At the first session of the General 
 Assembly, after this Consiitution takes effect the 
 senators shall be equally divided by lot into two 
 classes; the seats of the senators of the first 
 class shall be vacated at the expiration of the 
 second year, of the second class at the expira- 
 tion of the fourth year; so that ore half shall be 
 chosen every two years, and a rotation thereby 
 kept up perpetually. In case any district sbali 
 have elected two or more senators, said senators 
 shall vacate their seats respectively at the end 
 of two and four years, and lots ohall be drawn 
 between them. 
 
 Art. 18 No person shall be a senator who at 
 the time of his election, has not been a citizen of 
 the United States ten years, and who has not 
 attained the age of twenty -seven years, and re- 
 sided in the State four years next preceeding his 
 election, and the last year thereof in the district 
 in which he may be chosen. 
 
 Art. 19. The first election for senators shai/ 
 be general throughout the Sate, and at the same 
 time that the general election for representatives 
 is held; and thereafter there shall be biennial 
 elections to fill the place of those whose time of 
 service may have expired. 
 
 Art. 20. Not less than a majority of the 
 members of each house of the General Assem- 
 bly shall form a quorum to do business; but a 
 smaller number m»y adjourn from day today, 
 and shall be authorized by law to compel the 
 attendance of absent members. 
 
 Art. 21. Each house of the General As- 
 sembly shall judge of the qualification, election 
 and reiums of its members; but a contest'-d 
 election shall be determined in such manner as 
 shall be directed by law. 
 
 Art. 22. Each house of the General Assem 
 bly may determine 'be rules of its proceeding*. 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 9 
 
 punish a member for disorderly behavior, and 
 with the concurrence of two-ihirds, expel a 
 member, but not a second time for the same of- 
 fence. 
 
 Art. 23. Each house of the General Assem- 
 bly shall keep and publish weekly a journal of its 
 proceedings; and ibeyea9 and m-.ys of the mem- 
 bers on any question shall, al the desire of any 
 two of them, he entered on the journal. 
 
 Art. 24. Each house may punish by impris- 
 onment any person not a member, for disre- 
 spectful and disorderly behavior in its presence, 
 or for obstructing any of its proceedings. — 
 Such imprisonment shall not exceed ten days 
 for any one offence. 
 
 Art. 25. Neither house, during the session 
 of the General Assembly, shall without the con- 
 sent of the oilier, adjourn for more than three 
 days, nor to any other place than that in which 
 they may be sitting. 
 
 Aht. 26. The members of the General 
 Assembly shall receive from the public 
 treaty a compensation for their services, which 
 shall be four dollars per day during their attend- 
 ance, going to and returning from the session of 
 their respective houses. The compensation 
 may be increased or diminished by law; but no 
 alteration shall take effect during the period of 
 service of the members of the House of Re- 
 presentatives bv whom such alteration shall 
 have been made. No sesMon sh-li extend 
 to a period beyond sixty days, to date from 
 its commencement, and any legislative action 
 iiad afier the exp iation of the said sixty davs, 
 shall be null ami void. This provision shall 
 not ap ly to the first Legislature winch is to 
 convene af'er the adoption of this Constitution 
 
 Art. 27- The members of the General As- 
 sembly shall, in all cases except treason, felony . 
 breach or surety of the peace, be privileged 
 from arrest during their aitendance at the ses 
 sions of their respective Houses, and going to 
 or returning from thesame, and for any speech 
 or debate in either House, they shall not be 
 questioned in anv other place. 
 
 Art. 28. No Senator or Representative shall 
 during the term for which he was elected, 
 nor for one year thereafter, be appointed or 
 elected to any civil office of profit under this 
 State, which shall have been created, or the 
 emoluments of which shall have been increased 
 during the time such Senator or Representative 
 was in office, except to such offices or appoin'- 
 menta as may be filled byline elections of the 
 people. 
 
 Art. 29. >Jo person, while he continues to 
 exercise the functions of a clergyman, priest, or ) 
 teacher of any religious persuasion, society or 
 sect, shall be eligible to the General Assembly. 
 
 Art- 30. Xo person who at any time may 
 hive been a collector of taxes, or who may have 
 been otherwise entrusted with public money, 
 shaM be eligible to the General Assembly, ot- 
 to any office of profit or trust under the State 
 Government, until he shall have obtained a dis- 
 chsr g« '"r the amount of such collections, and 
 • or all public moneys with which he may have 
 been entrusted. 
 
 Art. 81. No bWl shall have the force of a law 
 until on three several davs, it be read over in 
 each House of the General Assembly, and free 
 discussion allowed Hereon, unless'in case of 
 urgency, four-fifths of the House where the bill 
 shall be pending, may deem it expedient to dis- 
 pense with thisrulf . 
 
 Art. 32. All bills for raising revenue shall 
 originate in the House of Representatives, but 
 the Seriate may propose amendments as in other 
 bills; provided they shall not introduce any new 
 mailer under color of an amendment, which 
 does not relate to raising revenue. 
 
 Art. 33. The General Assembly shall pfegu • 
 late by law, by whom, and in what maimer writs 
 of election shall be issued to fill the vacancies 
 which may happen in either branch thereof. 
 
 Art- 34. A majority of all the members elec- 
 ted to the Senate, shall be required for the con- 
 firmation or rejection of officers to be appointed 
 by the Governor, with the advice and consent 
 of the Senate; and the Senate in deciding there- 
 on, shall vote by yeas and nays, and the names 
 of the Senators voting for and against the ap- 
 pointments respectively, shall be entered on a 
 journal to be kept for that purpose, and made 
 public at ihe end of each session, or bafore. 
 
 Art. 35 Returns of all elections lor mem- 
 bers of the General Assembly shall be made 
 to the Secretary of State. 
 
 Art. 30. A Treasurer of the State shall be 
 elected biennially, by joint ballot of the two 
 Houses of the General Assembly. The Gov- 
 ernor shall have power to fill any vacancy that 
 may happen in that office during the recess of 
 the Legislature- 
 
 Art. 37 In the year in which a regular elec- 
 tion of a Senator of the United Stales is to take 
 place, the members of the General Assembly 
 shall meet in the Hall of the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, on the Monday follow ing the meet- 
 ing of the Legislature, and proceed to the said 
 election. 
 
 TITLE III. 
 EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Art. 38. The Supreme Executive power of 
 this State shall be vested in a Chief Magistrate, 
 who shall be styled the Governor of the State of 
 Louisiana. He shall hold his office during the 
 term of four years, and together with the 
 Lieutenant Governor chosen for the same 
 term, be elected as follows: — The qualified 
 electors for Representatives shall vote for a 
 Governor and Lieutenant Governor, at the 
 time and place of voting for Representa- 
 tives; the returns of every election shall be 
 sealed up and transmitted by the proper return- 
 ing officer to the Secretary of State, who 
 shall deliver them to the Speaker of the House 
 ) of Representatives, on the second day of the 
 session of the General Assembly, then next 
 to be holden. The members of the General 
 Assembly shall meet in the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, to examine and count the votes. 
 The person having the greatest number Gf 
 votes for Governor, shall be declared duly 
 elected, but if two or more persons shall be 
 equal, and highest in the number of votes 
 polled for Governor, one of them shall imme- 
 diately be chosen Governor, by joint vote of 
 the members of the General Assembly. The 
 person having the greatest number of votes for 
 Lieutenant Governor shall be. I ieutenant Go- 
 vernor; but if two or more persons shall be 
 equal and highest in the number of votes poll- 
 ed for Lieutenant Governor, one of them shall 
 be immediately chosen Lieutenant Covernor 
 by joint vote of the members of the General As- 
 sembly-, 
 
<)54 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana 
 
 Art. 39. No person shall be eligible to the 
 office of Governor or Lieutenant Governor, 
 who shall not have attained the age of thirty- 
 five years, been fifteen years a citizen of the 
 United States, and a resident within the State 
 for the same space of time next preceding his 
 election. 
 
 Art. 40. The Governor shall enter on the 
 discharge of his duties on the fourth Monday 
 of January next ensuing his election, and 
 shall continue in office until the Monday next 
 succeeding the day that his successor shall have 
 been declared duly elected, and shall have 
 taken the oath or affirmation prescribed by this 
 Constitution. 
 
 Art. 41. The Governor shall be ineligible for 
 the succeeding four years after the expiration 
 of the time for which he shall have been elected. 
 
 Art. 42. No member of Congress or person 
 holding any office under the United States, or 
 Minister of any religious society, shall be eligi- 
 ble to the office of Governor or Lieutenant 
 Governor. 
 
 Art. 43. Incase of the impeachment of the 
 Governor, his removal from office, death, re- 
 fusal or inability to qualify, resignation or ab- 
 sence from the State, the powers and duties of 
 the office shall devolve upon the Lieutenant 
 Governor foj the residue of the term, or until 
 the Governor, absent or impeached, shall re- 
 turn or be acquitted. The Legislature may 
 provide by law for the case of removal, im- 
 peachment, death, resignation, disability, or 
 refusal to qualify, of both the Governor and 
 Lieutenant Governor, declaring what officer 
 shall act as Governor; and such officer shall 
 act accordingly, until the disability be removed, 
 or for the residue of the term. 
 
 Art. 44. The Lieutenant Governor, or other 
 officer discharging the duties of Governor, 
 shall, during his administration, receive the 
 same compensation to which the Governor 
 would have been entitled, had he continued in 
 office. 
 
 Art- 45. The Lieutenant Governor shall, by 
 virtue of his office, be President of the Senate, 
 but shall have only a casting vote therein. 
 Whenever he shall administer the Govern- 
 ment, or shall be unable to attend as President of 
 the Senate, the Senators shall elect one of 
 their own members as President of the Senate 
 for the time being. 
 
 Art. 46. While he acts as President of the 
 Senate, the Lieutenant Governor shall receive 
 for his services the same compensation which 
 shall for the same period be allowed to the 
 Speaker of the House of Representatives, and 
 no more. 
 
 Art. 47. The Governor shall have power to 
 grant reprieves for all offences against the State, 
 and except in cases of impeachment, shall, 
 with the consent of the Senate, have power to 
 grant pardons and remit fines and forfeitures, 
 after conviction. In cases of treason he may 
 grant reprieves, until the end of the next ses- 
 sion of the General Assembly, in which the j 
 power of pardoning shall be vested. 
 
 Art. 48. The Governor shall at stated times j 
 receive for his services a compensation, which I 
 shall neither be increased nor diminished during 
 the term for which he shall have been elected. I 
 
 Art. 49. He shall be Commander in Chief 
 of the Army and Navy of this State and of the 
 Militia thereof, except when they shall be called 
 into the service of the United States. 
 
 Art. 50. He shall nominate and by and with 
 the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint 
 all officers whose offices are establshed by this 
 Constitution, and whose appointment is not 
 therein otherwise provided for : Provided how- 
 ever, that the Legislature shall have a right to 
 prescribe the mode of appointment to all other 
 offices established by law. 
 
 Art. 51. The Governor shall have power to 
 fill vacancies that may happen during the recess 
 of the Senate, by granting commissions which 
 shall expire at the end of the next session, unless 
 otherwise provided for in this Constitution; but 
 no person who has been nominated for office, 
 and rejected by the Senate, shall be appointed 
 to the same office during the recess of the 
 Senate. 
 
 Art. 52. He may require information inwri< 
 ting from the officers in the Executive Depart- 
 ment, upon any subject relating to the duties of 
 their respective offices. 
 
 Art. 53. He shall, from time to time, give 
 to the General Assembly information respect- 
 ing the situation of the State, and recommend 
 to their consideration such measures as he may 
 deem expedient. 
 
 Art. 54. He may on extraordinary occasions 
 convene the General Assembly at the seat of 
 Government, or at a different place if that 
 should have become dangerous from an enemy 
 or from epidemic ; and in case of dis- 
 agreement between the two houses as to the 
 time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to 
 such time as he may think proper, not exceed- 
 ing four months. 
 
 Art. 55. He shall take care that the laws 
 be faithfully executed. 
 
 Art- 56. Every bill which shall have passed 
 both Houses shall be presented to the Govern- 
 or; if he approve he shall sign it, if not, he 
 shall return it with his objections to the House 
 in which it originated, which shall enter the 
 objections at large upon its journal, and proceed 
 to reconsider it ; if after such reconsideration two 
 thirds of all the members elected to that house 
 shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, with 
 the objections, to the other House, by which it 
 shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved 
 by two-thirds of all the members elected to 
 that House, it shall be a law; but in such cases 
 the vote of both Houses shall be determined 
 by yeas and nays, and the names of the mem- 
 bers voting for and against the bill, shall b^ 
 entered on the journal of each House re- 
 spectively. If any bill shall not be returned 
 by the Governor within ten days (Sundays ex- 
 cepted) after it shall have been presented to him. 
 it shall be a law in like manner as if he had 
 signed it, unless the Generai Assembly, by 
 adjournment, prevent its return; in which case 
 it shall be a law, unless sent back within thres 
 days after their next, meeting. 
 
 Art. 57. Every order, resolution or vote, to 
 which the concurrence of both Houses may oe 
 necessary, except on a question of adjournment, 
 shall be presented to the Governor, and before 
 it shall take effect, be approved by him, or 
 being disapproved, shall be repassed by two- 
 thirds of the members elected to each House 
 of the General Assembly. 
 
 Art. 58. There.shall be a Secretary of State 
 who shall hold his office during the time for 
 which the Governor shall have been elected. 
 The records of the Slate shall be kept and preser- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 055 
 
 ved in the office of the Secretary; he shall keep a 
 fair register of the official acts and proceedings ot 
 the Governor, and when necessary shall attest 
 them. He shall when required, lay the said 
 register, and all papers, minutes and vouchers 
 refative to his office, before either House of the 
 General Assembly, and shall perform such 
 other duties as may be enjoinedon him by law. 
 
 Art. 59. All commissions shall be in the 
 name and by the authority of the State ot Loui- 
 siana, and shall be sealed with the State seal 
 and signed by the Governor. 
 
 Art. 60. The free white wen of the State 
 shall be armed and disciplined for its defence; 
 but those who belong to religious societies 
 whose tenets forbid them to carry arms, shall 
 not be compelled so to do, but shall pay an 
 equivalent for personal services. 
 
 Art. 61. The Militia of the State shall be 
 organized in 3uch manner as may be hereafter 
 deemed most expedient by the Legislature. 
 
 TITLE IV. 
 
 JUDICIARY DEPARTMENT 
 
 Art. 62. The judicial power shall be vested 
 in a supreme court , in district courts, and in justi- 
 ces of the peace. 
 
 Art. 63. The supreme court, except in cases 
 hereinafter provided, shall have appellate 
 jurisdiction only, which jurisdiction shall 
 extend to all cases when the* matter in dispute 
 shall exceed three hundred dollars, and to all 
 cases in which the constitutionality or legality 
 of any tax, roll or impost of any kind or nature 
 soe^r, shall be in contestation, whatever may 
 be the amount thereof ; and likewise to all fines, 
 forfeiture, and penalties imposed by municipal 
 corporations, and in criminal cases on questions 
 of law alone, whenever the punishment of death 
 or hard labor may be inflicted, or when a fine ex- 
 ceeding three hundred dollars is actually im- 
 posed. 
 
 Art. 64. The supreme court shall be com- 
 posed of one chief justice, and of three associate 
 justices, a majority of whom shall constitute a 
 quorum.- The chief justice shall receive a salary 
 of six thousand dollars, and each of the asso- 
 ciate judges a salary of five thousand five hun 
 dred dollars annually. The court shall appoint 
 its own clerks. The judges shall be appointed 
 for the term of eight years. 
 
 Art. 65. When the first appointments are 
 made under this Constitution, the chief justice 
 shall be appointed for eight years, one of the 
 associate judges for six years, one for four years, 
 and one for two years; and in the event of the 
 death, resignation, or removal of any of said 
 judges before the expiration of the period for 
 which he was appointed, his successor shall be 
 appointed only for the remainder of this term; 
 so that the term of service of no two of said 
 judges shall expire at the same time. 
 
 Art. 66. The supreme court shall hold its 
 sessions in New Orleans from the first Monday 
 of the month of November, to the end of the 
 .month of June inclusive. The legislature shall 
 nave power to fix the sessions elsewhere during 
 the rest of the year; until otherwise provided, 
 the sessions shall be held as heretofore. 
 
 Art. 67. The supreme court and each of the 
 ,udps thereof, shall have power to issue writs 
 el haheas corpus, at the instance of all persons 
 in actual custody under process in all cases in 
 which they may have appellate jurisdiction. 
 
 Art. 68. In all cases in which the judges shall 
 be equally divided in opinion, the judgment ap- 
 pealed from shall stand affirmed ; in which case 
 each of the judges shall give his separate opinions 
 in writing. 
 
 Art. 69. All judges by virtue of their office 
 shall be conservators of the peace throughout the 
 State. The style of all process shall be "The 
 State of Louisiana." All prosecutions shall be 
 carried on in the name, and by the authority of 
 the State of Louisiana, and conclude against the 
 peace and dignity of the same. 
 
 Art. 70. The judges of all courts within this 
 State shall as often as it may be possible so to do, 
 in every definitive judgment, refer to the parti- 
 cular law in virtue of which such judgment may 
 be rendered, and in all cases adduce the reasons 
 on which their judgment is founded. 
 
 Art. 71. No court or judge shall make any al- 
 lowance by way of fee or compensation in any 
 suit or proceedings except for the payment of 
 such fees to ministerial officers as may be estab- 
 lished by law. 
 
 Art. 72. No duties or functions shall ever be 
 attached by law to the supreme or district courts, 
 or to the several judges thereof, but such as are 
 judicial; and the said judges are prohibited from 
 receiving any fees of office or other compensatien 
 than their salaries for any civil duties performed 
 by them. 
 
 Art. 75. The judges of all courts shall be li- 
 able to impeachment; but for any reasonable 
 cause, which shall not be sufficient ground for 
 impeachment, the governor shall remove any of 
 them, on the address of three fourths of the 
 members present of each house of the general 
 assembly. In every such case, the cause or 
 causes for which such removal may be required, 
 i shall be stated at length in the address, and in- 
 serted in the journal of each house. 
 
 Art. 74. There shall be an attorney general 
 for k the State, and as many district attornies as 
 may be hereafter found necessary. They shall 
 hold their offices for two years; their duties 
 shall be determined by law. 
 
 Art 75. The first legislature assembled un- 
 der this constitution, shall divide the State into 
 judicial districts, which shall remain unchanged 
 for six years, aud be subject to reorganization 
 every sixth year thereafter. 
 
 The number of districts shall not be less than 
 twelve, nor more than twenty. 
 
 For each district, one judge, learned in the 
 law, shall be appointed, except in the districts in 
 which the cities of New Orleans and Lafayette 
 are situated, in which the legislature may estab- 
 lish as many district courts as the public inter- 
 est may require. 
 
 Art 76. Each of the said judges shall re- 
 ceive a salary to be fixed by law*, which shall 
 not be increased or diminished during his term 
 of office, and shall never be less than two thou- 
 sand five hundred dollars annually. He must 
 be a citizen of the United States, over the age 
 of thirty years, and have resided in the 1 State for 
 six years next preceding his appointment, and 
 have practiced law therein for the space of five 
 years. 
 
 Art. 77. The judges of the district courts 
 shall hold their offices for the term of six years,. 
 The judges first appointed shall be divided by 
 lot into three classes, as nearly equal as can be, 
 and the term of office of the judges of the first 
 ' class shall expire at the end of two years, of the 
 | second class at the end of four years, and of the 
 I third class at (he end of six years, 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Art. 78. The district courts shall have ori- 
 ginal jurisdiction in all civil cases, when (he 
 amount in dispute exceeds fifty dollars, exclu- 
 sive of interest. In all criminal cases, and in 
 all matters connected with succession, their 
 jurisdiction shall be unlimited. 
 
 Art. 79. The legislature shall have power 
 So vest in clerks of courts authority to grant such 
 orders, and do such a^ts as may be deemed 
 necessary for the furtherance of the administra- 
 tion of justice, and in all cases the powers thus 
 granted shall be specified and determined. 
 
 Art. 80. The clerks of the several courts 
 shall be removable for breach of good behavior 
 by the judges thereof; subject in all cas«s to an 
 appeal lo the supreme court. 
 
 Art. 81. The jurisdiction of justices of the 
 peace shall never exceed, in civil cases, the sum 
 of one hundred, dollars, exclusive of interest, 
 subject So *;.peal to the district court in such 
 cases as sfrai.l be provided for by law. They 
 shall be elected by the qualified voters of each 
 parish, for the term of two years, and shall have 
 such criminal jurisdiction as shall be provided 
 for by law. 
 
 Art. 82. Clerks of the district courts in 
 this State shall be elected by the qualified elec- 
 tors in each parish, for the term of four yeais, 
 and should a vacancy occur subsequent to an 
 election, it shall be filled by the judge of the, 
 court in which such vacancy exists, and the per- 
 son so appoinfeu shall hold his office until the 
 next general election. 
 
 Art. 83. A sheriff and a coronor shall be 
 elected in each parish, by the qualified voters 
 thereof, who shall hold their offices for the term 
 of two years, unless sooner removed. 
 
 Should a vacancy occur in either of these offi- 
 ces subsequent to an election, it shall be filled 
 by the governor; and the person so apppointed 
 shall continue in office until his successor shall 
 t>e elected and qualified. 
 
 TITLE V. 
 
 IMPEACHMENT. 
 
 Art, 84. The power of impeachment shall 
 be vested in the House of Representatives. 
 
 Art. 85. Impeachments of the Governor, 
 Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Sec- 
 retary of State, State Treasurer, and of the 
 Judgeg of the District Courts, shall be tried 
 by the Senate; the Chief Justice of the Su- 
 preme Court, or the senior Judge thereof shall 
 preside during the trial ot such impeachment 
 Impeachments of the Judges of the Supreme 
 Court, shall be tried by the Senate. When 
 sitting as a Court of Impeachment, the Sena- 
 tors shall be upon oath or affirmation, and no 
 person shall be convicted without the concur, 
 fence of two-thirds of the Senators present. 
 
 Art. 86. Judgments in cases of impeach- 
 ment shall extend only to removal from office 
 and disqualification from holding any office of 
 honor, trust or profit under this State, but the 
 parties convicted shall, nevertheless, be subject 
 to indictment, trial and punishment according 
 so law. 
 
 Art. 87. All officers against whom articles 
 of impeachment may be preferred shall be sus- 
 pended from the exercise of their functions dur» 
 mg the pendency of such impeachment; The 
 appointing powsr may make a provisional ap ! 
 
 pointment to replace any suspended officer un- 
 til the decision on the impeachment. 
 
 Art. 88. The Legislature shall provide by 
 law for the trial, punishment and removal from 
 office, of all other officers of the State, by in- 
 dictment or otherwise. 
 
 TITLE VI. 
 GENERAL PROVISIONS. 
 
 Art. 89. Members of the General Assembly, 
 and all officer?, before they enter upon the duties 
 of their offices shall take the following oath or 
 affirmation: 
 
 "I (A. B.,) do solemnly swear (or affirm.) thai 
 I will faithfully and impartially discharge and 
 
 perform all the duties incumbent on me as — s 
 
 according to the best of my abilities and under- 
 standing, agreeably to the Constitution and laW* 
 of the United States, and of this State; and I do, 
 further, solemnly swear (or affirm) that, since the 
 adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a 
 citizen of this State,have not fought a duel with 
 deadly weapons within this State^ nor out of it, 
 wirh a citizen of this State, nor have I sent or 
 accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly 
 weapons with a citizen of this State, nor have I 
 acted as second in carrying a challenge, or aided, 
 advised, or assisted any person thus offending, so 
 help me God." 
 
 Art. 90. Treason against the State shall consis 
 only in levying war against it, or in adhering to 
 its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Nu 
 person shall be convicted of treason, unless on 
 the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt 
 act, or his own confession in open court. 
 
 Art. 91. Every person shall be disqual- 
 ified from holding any office of trust or profit in 
 this State, who shall have been convicted of 
 having given, or offered, a bribe to procure his 
 election or appointment. 
 
 Art. 92. Laws shall be made to exclude from, 
 office and from the right of suffrage, those who 
 shall hereafter be convicted of bribery, perjury, 
 forgery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors 
 The privilege of free suffrage shall be supported 
 by laws regulating elections,and prohibiting under 
 adequate penalties all undue influence thereon, 
 from power, bribery, tumult or other improper 
 practice. 
 
 Art. 93. No money shall be drawn from the 
 treasury but in pursuance of specific appropria- 
 tions made by law, nor shall any appropriation of 
 money be made for a longer term than two years, 
 A regular statement and account of the receipts 
 and expenditures of all public money shall be 
 published annually, in such manner as shall bo 
 prescribed by law. 
 
 Art. 94. It shall be the duty of the General 
 Assembly to pass such laws as may be necessary 
 and proper to decide differences by arbitration. 
 
 Art. 95. All civil officers for the State at large 
 shall reside within the State, and all district or 
 parish officers within their districts or par- 
 ishes, and shall keep their offices at such pla- 
 ces therein as may be required by law. And 
 no person shall be elected or appointed to any par- 
 ish office who shall not have resided in such par- 
 ish long enough before such/election, or appoint 
 ment,to have acquired the right of voting in such 
 parish; and no person shall be elected or appoin- 
 ted to any district office, who shall not have resi- 
 ded in such district, or an adjoining district, long 
 enough before such appointment, or election, to 
 have acquired the right of voting for the same- 
 
 Art, 96, The duration of all offices not fixed 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 95? : 
 
 by this Constitution shall never exceed four 
 years. 
 
 Art. 97. All civil officers, except the Gover- 
 nor and Judges of the Supreme and District 
 Courts, shall be removable by an address of a 
 majority of the members of both houses, except 
 those the removal of whom has been otherwise 
 provided for by this Constitution. 
 
 Art. 98. Absence on the business of this State 
 or of the United States, shall not forfeit a resi- 
 dence once obtained, so as to deprive any one of 
 the right of suffrage, or of being elected or ap- 
 pointed to any office under the exceptions con- 
 tained in this Constitution. 
 
 Art, 99. It shall be the duty of the Legisla- 
 ture to provide by law for deductions from the 
 salaries of public officers who may be guilty of 
 a neglect of duty. 
 
 Art. 100. The Legislature shall point out 
 the manner in which a person coming into the 
 State shall declare his residence. 
 
 Art. 101. In all elections by the people the vote 
 shall be by ballot, and in all elections by the 
 Senate and House of Representatives, jointly or 
 separately, the vote shall be given viva voce. 
 
 Art. 102. No member of Congress, nor person 
 holding or exercising any office of trust or profit 
 under the United States, or either of them, or 
 under any foreign power, shall be eligible as a 
 member of the General Assembly or hold or ex- 
 ercise any office of trustor profit under the State. 
 
 Art. 103. The laws, public records and the ju- 
 dicial and legislative written proceedings of the 
 State, shall be promulgated, preserved and con- 
 ducted in the language in which the consti- 
 tution of the United States is written. 
 
 Art. 104. The Secretary of th ; Senate, and 
 Clerk of the House of Represent tives, shall 
 be conversant with the French and English lan- 
 guages: and members may address either House 
 fti the French or English language. 
 
 Art. 105. The General Assembly shall direct 
 by law how persons who are now or. may hereaf- 
 ter become sureties for public officers may be 
 discharged from such suretyship. 
 
 Art. 106. No power of suspending the laws of 
 this State shall be exercised, unless by the legis- 
 lature or its authority. 
 
 Art. 107. Prosecutions shall be by indict- 
 ment, or information. The accused shall have 
 a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the 
 vicinage: he shall not be compelled 10 give evi- 
 dence against himself; he shall have the right of 
 being heard by himself or counsel; he shall have 
 the right, unless he shall have fled from justice, 
 of meeting the witnesses face to face, and shall 
 have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses 
 in his favor. 
 
 Art. 108. All prisoners shall be bailable by 
 sufficient sureties, unless for capital offences, 
 where the proof is evident, or presumption great; 
 a K d u lhe P rivile £ e of- the writ of habeas corpus 
 8 k iv 0t * )e sus P end ed, unless when in case of 
 rebellion or invasion the public safety may re- 
 quire it. 
 
 Art. 109. l4o ex post facto law, nor any law im- 
 pairing t he obligation oi contracts, shall be passed; 
 nor vested rights be divested, unless for purposes 
 ot public utility, and for adequate compensation 
 previously made. 
 
 Art. 110 The press shall be free. Every 
 citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his 
 eenuAtats on all subjects; being responsible for 
 an abuse of this liberty. 
 
 An t. 11 1 Emigration from the State shall not 
 '■e prohibited. 
 
 Art. m. The General -Assembly which shall 
 121 
 
 meet after the first election of Representatives 
 under this Constitution, shall, within the fir3t 
 month after the commencement of the session, 
 designate and fix the seat of government, at some 
 place not less than sixty miles from the city of New 
 Orleans, by the nearest travelling route; and if 
 on the Mississippi river, by the meanders of the 
 same: and when so fixed, it shall not be removed 
 without the consent of four-fifths of the mem- 
 bers of both houses of the' General Assembly, 
 The sessions shall be held in New Orleans until 
 the end of the .year 1848. 
 
 Art. 113. The Legislature shall not pledge 
 the faith of the State for the payment of any 
 bonds, bills, or other contracts or obligations for 
 the benefit or use of any person or persons, cor- 
 poration or body politic whatever. But the 
 State shall have the right to issue new bonds in 
 payment, of its outstanding obligations or liabil- 
 ities, whether due or not; the said new bonds, 
 however, are not to be issued for a larger amount, 
 or at a higher rate of interest, than the original 
 obligations they are intended to replace. 
 
 Art. 1 14. The aggregate amount of debts here 
 after contracted by the Legislature, shall never 
 exceed the si:m of one hundred thousand dollars, 
 except in case of war, to repel invasions or sup- 
 press insurections, unless the same be authorised 
 by some law, for some single object or work, to 
 be distinctly specified therein; which iaw shall 
 provide ways and means, by taxation, for the 
 payment of running interest during the whole 
 time for which said debt shall be. contracted, and 
 for the full and punctual discharge at maturity 
 of the capital borrowed; and said law shall be 
 irrepealable until principal and interest are fully 
 paid and discharged, and shall not be put into ex 
 ecution until after its enactment by the first Le- 
 gislature returned by a general election after 
 its passage. 
 
 Art. 115. The Legislature shall provide by law 
 for a change of venue in civil and criminal 
 cases. „ ' „ - . \ <■<■ ■. . . ' , 
 
 Art. 1 16. No lottery shall be authorised by this 
 State, and the buying or selling of lottery tick- 
 ets within the State, is prohibited. 
 
 Art. 117. No divorce shall be granted by the 
 Legislature. 
 
 Art. 118. Every law enacted by the Legisla-. 
 ture shall embrace but one object, and that shali 
 be expressed in the title. 
 
 Art. 119. No law shall be revised or amended 
 by reference to its title; but in such case, the act 
 revised, or section amended, shall be re-enacted 
 and published at length. 
 
 Art. 120. The Legislature shall never adopt 
 any system or code of laws by general reference 
 to such system or code of laws, but in all cases 
 shall specify the several provisions of the laws 
 it may enact. 
 
 Art. 121. The State shall not become subscriber 
 to the stock of any corporation or joint stock 
 company. 
 
 Art. 122. No corporate body shall be hereafter 
 created, renewed or extended, with banking or 
 discounting privileges. 
 
 Art. 123. Corporations shall not be created in 
 this State by special laws, except for political or 
 municipal purposes; but the Legislature shall 
 provide, by general laws, for the organization 
 of all other corporat ions, except corporations with 
 banking or discounting privileges, the creation 
 of which is prohibited. 
 
 Art. 124. From and after the month of Jan- 
 uary, 1890, the Legislature thall have the power 
 to revoke the charters of all corporations whose 
 charters shall not have expired previous to thar 
 
958 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 lime, and no corporations hereafter to be created 
 shall ever endure for a longer term than twenty- 
 five years, except those which are political or 
 municipal. 
 
 Art. 125. The General Assembly shall never 
 grant any exclusive privilege or monopoly, for 
 a longer period than twenty years. 
 
 Art- 126. No person shall ho|d or exercise, at 
 the same time, more than one civil office (;>j" 
 emolument, except that of Justice of the 
 Peace. 
 
 Aht. 127. Taxation shall be equal and uni- 
 form throughout the State. After the year 
 1848 all property, on which taxes may be lev- 
 ied, in this State, shal.l be taxed in proportion to 
 its value, to be ascertained as directed by law. 
 No one species of property, shall be taxed high- 
 er than another species of property of equal val- 
 ue, on which taxes shall he levied; the Legisla- 
 ture shall have power to levy an income tax, and 
 to tax all persons pursuing any occupation, trade 
 or profession. 
 
 Aht. 128. The 'citizens of the city of New Or- 
 eans shall have the right of appointing the several 
 public officers necessary for the ad ministration of 
 fhe police of the said city, pursuant to the mode of 
 elections which shall be prescribed by the Legis 
 lature; provided, that the Mayor and Recorder; 
 shall be ineligible to a seat in the General As- 
 sembly ; and the Mayor, Recorders, and 
 Aldermen shall be commissioned by the Govern- 
 or as Justices of the Peace, and the Legislature 
 may vest in them such criminal jurisdiction as 
 may be necessary for the punishment of minor 
 crimes and offences, and as the police and good 
 order of said citv may require. 
 
 Art. 129. The Legislature may provide by law 
 in what case officers shall continue to perform 
 the duties of their offices until their successors 
 shall have been inducted into office. 
 
 Art. 130. Any citizen of this State who shall 
 after the adoption of this Constitution, fight a 
 duel with deadly weapons .with a citizen of this 
 State, or send or accept a challenge to fight a duel 
 with deadly weapons, either within the State or 
 out of it with a citizen of this State, or who shall 
 act as second, or knowingly aid and assist in any 
 manner, those thus offending, shall be deprived 
 of holding any office of trust or profit, and of en- 
 joying the right of suffrage under this Constitu- 
 tion. 
 
 Art. 131. The Legislature shall have power 
 to extend this Constitution, and the jurisdiction 
 of this State over any territory acquired by com- 
 pact with any State, or with the United States, 
 the same being done by the consent of the Uni- 
 ted States. 
 
 Art. 132. The Constitution and Laws of this 
 State, shall be promulgated in the English and 
 French languages. 
 
 TITLE VII. 
 PUBLIC EDUCATION. 
 
 Art- 133. There .^hall be appointed a Su- 
 perintendent of Public Education, who shall 
 hold his office for two years His duties shall 
 be prescribed bv law. He shall receive such 
 eompensation as the Legislature may direct. 
 
 Art. 134. The Legislature shallestablish free 
 Public Schools throughout the State, and shall 
 provide means for their support by taxation on 
 property or otherwise. 
 
 Art. 135 The proceeds of all lands heretofore 
 
 granted by the United States to this State for 
 the use or support of schools, and 0 f ail lands 
 which may hereafter be granted or bequeathed 
 to the State, and not expressly granted or be- 
 queathed for any other purpose, which hereafter 
 may be disposed of by the State, and the pro- 
 ceeds of the estates of deceased persons to which 
 the State may become entitled by law, shall 
 b@ held by the State as a loan, and shall be and 
 remain a perpetual fund, on which the State 
 shall pay an annual interest of six percent; 
 which interest together with all the rents ot 
 the unsold lands, shall be appropriated to the 
 support of such schools, and this appropriation 
 shall remain inviolable. 
 
 Art 136. All moneys arising from the salea 
 which have been or may hereafter be made ol 
 any lands heretofore granted by the United 
 Stales to this State, for the use of a seminary 
 of learning, and from any kind of donation that 
 may hereafter be made for that purpose, shall 
 be and remain a perpetual fund, the interest oi 
 which at six per cent per annum, shall be ap- 
 propriated to the support of a seminary of 
 learning for the promotion of literature and tho 
 arts and sciences, and no law shall ever be 
 made diverting said fund to any other use than 
 to the establishment and improvement of said 
 seminary of learning. 
 
 Art. 137. An University shall be established 
 in the city of New Orleans. It shall be com- 
 posed of four faculties, to wit: one of law, one 
 of medicine, one of the natural sciences, and 
 one of letters. 
 
 Art. 138. It shall be called the "University of 
 Louisiana," and the Medical College of Louisi- 
 ana, as at present organized, shall constitute 
 the faculty of medicine. 
 
 Art. 139. The Legislature shall provide by 
 law, for its further organization and govern- 
 ment ; but shall be under no obligation to 
 contribute to the establishment or support of 
 said University by appropriations. 
 
 TITLE VIII. 
 
 I$ODE OF REVISING THE CONSTITJJ 
 TION. 
 
 Art. 140. Any amendment or amendment 
 to this Constitution may be proposed in the Se- 
 nate or House of Representatives, and if the 
 same shall be agreed to by three-fifths of the 
 members elected to each House, and approved 
 by the Governor, such proposed amendment or 
 amendments shall be entered on their Jourflak. 
 with the yeas and nays taken thereon, and the 
 Secretary of State shall cause the same to be 
 published, three months before the next gene- 
 ral election, in at least one newspaper in 
 French and English, in every parish in the 
 State in which a newspaper shall be published; 
 and if, in the Legislature next afterwards 
 chosen, such proposed amendment or amend- 
 ments shall be agreed to by a majority of -he 
 members elected to each House, the Secretary 
 of State shall cause the same again to be pub- 
 lished in fhe manner aforesaid, at least three 
 months previous to the next general election 
 for Representatives to the State Legislature, 
 and such proposed amendment or amendments 
 shall be submitted to the people at said elec- 
 tion; and if a majority of the qualified electors 
 shall approve and ratify such amendment or 
 
♦ 
 
 Debates in the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 amendments, the same shall become a pari of 
 .he Constitution: If more than one amendment 
 be submitted at a time, they shall be submitted 
 in such manner and form that the people may 
 vote foi or against each amendment, separately. 
 
 TITLE IX. 
 
 SCHEDULE. 
 
 Art. 141. The Constitution adopted in 1312 
 is declared to be superseded by this Constitution, 
 and in order to carry the same into effect it is 
 hereby declared and ordained as follows : 
 
 Art. 142. All rights, actions, prosecutions, 
 claims and contracts, as well of individuals as 
 of bodies corporate, and all laws in force at the 
 time of the adoption of this Constitution, and 
 not inconsistent therewith, shall continue as if 
 the same had not been adopted. 
 
 Art. 143. Until the first enumeration shall be 
 made as directed in Art. eighth of this Constitu- 
 tion, the parisb of Orleans shall hrfve twenty 
 Representatives, to be elected as follows, viz : 
 
 Eight by the First Municipality, seven by the 
 Second Municipality, and four by the Third 
 Municipality, to be distributed among the nine 
 Representative districts as follows, by allotting 
 to the 
 
 First district. two 
 Second " two 
 Third " three 
 Fourth " three 
 Fifth " three 
 Sixth " two 
 Seventh " two 
 Eighth " one 
 Ninth " one 
 And to that part of the parish on the right bank 
 of the Mississippi, one 
 The Parish of Plaquemines shall have three 
 " St. Bernard, one 
 
 " Jefferson, three 
 
 "St. Charles, one 
 « St John the Baptist, one 
 St. James, two 
 <; Ascension, two 
 
 " Assumption, three 
 Lafourche Interior, three 
 Terrebonne, two 
 Iberville, two 
 West Baton Rouge, one 
 East do three 
 West Feliciana, two 
 East do three 
 St. Helena, one 
 " Washington, one 
 Livingston, one 
 St. Tammany, one 
 Point Coupee, one 
 Concordia, one 
 Tensas. one 
 Madison, one 
 Carroll, one 
 Franklin, one 
 St. Mary, two 
 St Martin, three 
 Vermillion, one 
 Lafayette, two 
 St Landry, five 
 Calcasieu, one 
 Avoyelles, two 
 Rapides, three 
 Natchitoches, three 
 Sabine, two 
 Caddo, one 
 De Soto, one 
 
 Ouachita- 
 
 one 
 
 Morehouse. 
 
 ene 
 
 Union, 
 
 one 
 
 Jackson. 
 
 one 
 
 Caldwell, 
 
 one 
 
 Catahoula, 
 
 two 
 
 Claiborne, 
 
 two 
 
 Bossier, 
 
 one 
 
 Total, ninety eight. 
 
 
 And the State shall be divided into the follow 
 ing Senatorial Districts : 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans lying 
 on the east side of the Mississippi river, shall com- 
 pose one senatorial district, and shall elect four 
 senators ; 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines, St. Bernard, and 
 that part of the parish of Orleans on the right 
 bank of the river, shall compose one district with 
 one senator; 
 
 The parish of Jefferson shall compose one dis- 
 trict with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of St. Charles and St. John 
 the Baptist shall compose one district, with one 
 senator; 
 
 The parish of St. James shall compose one dis- 
 trict, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of Ascension shall compose one 
 district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Assumption, Lafourche Inte- 
 rior and Terrebonne shall compose one district, 
 with two senators; 
 
 The parishes pf Iberville and West Baton 
 Rouge shall compose one district, with one sen- 
 ator; 
 
 The parish of East Baton Rouge shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of Point Coupee shall compose one 
 district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of Avoyelles shall compose one 
 district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of St. 3Iary shall compose one dis- 
 trict, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of Sr. Martin shall compose one 
 district, with one senator: 
 
 The parishes of Lafayette and Vermillion shall 
 compose one district with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of St. Landry and 'Calcasieu 
 shall compose one district, with "two senators; 
 
 The parish of West Feliciana shall compose 
 one district with one senator: 
 
 The parish of East Feliciana shall compose 
 one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of St. Helena and Livingston 
 shall compose one district- with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Washington and St. Tamma- 
 ny shall compose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Concordia and Tensas shall 
 compose one district with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Carroll and Madison shaH 
 compose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Jackson, Union, Morehouse 
 and Ouachita shall compose one district, with 
 one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Caldwell, Franklin and Cat- 
 ahoula shall compose one district, with one sen- 
 ator; 
 
 The parish of Rapides shall compose one dis- 
 trict, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Bossier and Claiborne shall 
 compose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of Natchitoches shall compose one 
 district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Sabine, De Soto and Caddo, 
 shall compose one district, with one senator; 
 
 Art. 144. In order that no inconvenience 
 may result to the public service from the taking 
 f*ffect of this Constitution, no office shall he su- 
 
Debates in the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 perceded thereby, bul the laws of the State rela- 
 tive to the duties of the several officers, Execu- 
 tive, Judicial, and Military, shall remain in full 
 force, though the same be contrary to this Con- 
 stitution, and the several duties shall be perform- 
 ed by the respective officers of the State, accord- 
 ing to the existing laws, until the organization 
 of the Government under this Constitution, and 
 the entering into office of the new officers, to 
 be appointed under said Government, and no 
 longer. 
 
 Art. 145. Appointments to office by the Ex- 
 ecutive under this Constitution, shall be made 
 by the Governor to be elected under its authority. 
 
 Art. 146. The provisions of article 28, con- 
 cerning the inability of members of the Legisla- 
 ture to hold certain offices therein mentioned, 
 shall not be held to apply to the members of the 
 first Legislature elected under this Constitution. 
 
 Art. 147. The time of service of all officers 
 chosen by the people, at the first election under 
 this Constitution, shall terminate as though the 
 election had been holden on the first Monday of 
 November, 1845, and they had entered on the 
 discharge of their duties at the time designated 
 therein. 
 
 Art. 148. The Legislature shall provide for 
 the removal of all causes now pending in the 
 Supreme or other Courts of the State under the 
 Constitution of 1812, to Courts created by this 
 Constitution. 
 
 Art. 149, Appeals to the Supreme Court from 
 the parishes of Jackson, Union, Morehouse, Ca- 
 tahoula, Caldwell, Ouachita, Franklin, Carroll, 
 Madison, Tensas, and Concordia shall, until 
 otherwise provided for, be returnable to New 
 Orleans. 
 
 TITLE X. 
 
 ORDINANCE. 
 
 Art. 150. Immediately after the adjournment, 
 of the Convention, the Governor shall issue his 
 Proclamation, directing the several officers of 
 this State, authorized by law to hold elections for 
 members of the General Assembly, to open and 
 hold a poll in every parish of the State, at the 
 places designated by law, upon the first Monday 
 of November next, for the purpose of taking the 
 sense of the good people of this State in regard 
 to the adoption or rejection of this Constitution; 
 and it shall be the duty of the said officers to 
 receive .the votes of all persons entitled to vote 
 under the old Constitution, and under this Con- 
 stitution. Each voter shall express his opinion 
 by depositing in the ballot box a ticket whereon 
 shall be written "the Constitution accepted," or 
 "the Constitution rejected," or some such words 
 as will distinctly convey the intention of the 
 voter. At the conclusion of the said election, 
 which shall be conducted in every respect as the 
 
 general State election is now conduced the 
 parish judges and commissioners designated to 
 preside over the same, shall carefully examine 
 and count each hallot so deposited, and shall 
 forthwith make due returns thereof to the Secre- 
 tary of State, in conformity to the provisions of 
 the existing law upon the subject of elections. 
 
 Art. 151. Upon the receipt of the said returns, 
 or on the first Monday of" December, if the 
 returns be not sooner received, it shaR be the 
 duty of the Governor, the Secretary of State, the 
 Attorney General, and the State Treasurer, in 
 the presence of all such persons as may choose- 
 to attend, to compare the votes given at the said 
 poll, for the ratification and rejection of- this 
 Constitution, and if it shall appear from said re- 
 turns that a majority of all the votes given is foi 
 ratifying this Constitution, then it shall be the 
 duty of the Governor to make proclamation of 
 that fact, and thenceforth this Constitution shall 
 be ordained and established as the Constitution, 
 of the State of Louisiana. But whether this 
 Constitution be accepted or rejected, it shall be 
 the duty of the Governor to cause to be published 
 in the State paper the result of the polls, show- 
 ing the number of votes cast in eadh parish for 
 and against the said Constitution. 
 
 Art. 152. Should this Constitution be accepted 
 by the people, it shall also be the duty of the 
 Governor forthwith to issue his proclamation, 
 declaring the present Legislature, elected under 
 the old Constitution, to be dissolved, and direct- 
 ing-the several officers of the State, authorized 
 by law, to hold electrons for members of the 
 General Assembly, to hold an election at the 
 places designated by law, upon the third Monday 
 in January next, (1846) for Governor, Lieutenant 
 Governor, Members of the General Assembly, 
 and all other officers whose election is provided 
 for pursuant to the provisions of this Constitu- 
 tion. And the said election shall be conducted, 
 and the returns thereof made in conformity with 
 existing laws upon the subject of State elections. 
 
 Art. 153. The General Asacmbly plp.nted un- 
 der this Constitution shall convene at the State 
 House, in the city of New Orleans, upon the 2d 
 Monday of February next, (1846) after the elec- 
 tions; and that the Governor and Lieutenant 
 Governor, elected at the same time, shall be duly 
 installed in office during the first week of their 
 session, and before it shall be competent for the 
 said General Assembly to proceed witfrthe tran- 
 saction of business. 
 
 Adopted in Convention on the 14th day of 
 May, 1845, in the city of New Orleans, lo 
 witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed 
 our names. 
 
 JOSEPH WALKER, 
 
 President of the Convention, 
 and Senatorial Delegateof the county of Rapides. 
 
 Attest: HORATIO DAVIS, 
 
 Secretary of the Contention, 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Adjournment, sine die, 642,884 
 Adoption, vote on, 941 
 Aliens, 61, 84, 122, 128, 165, 205, 210 
 Amendment to the Constitution, 405,885 
 Apportionment of Representatives, 129, 
 147, 305, 320,380,420, 
 423, 441,445, 900 
 * of Senators, 139, 377,379, 
 
 489,519,537,548,572, 
 595, 609, 644, 646, 647, 
 650, 657, 659, 670 
 u Committee of 165 
 
 Article First, (old Constitution,) 17 
 " Second, «« 19, 305 
 
 " Third, " 197 
 
 Auditor, 305,899 
 Bossier and Claiborne, Senatorial Dis- 
 trict of , 5S7 
 Bonds, or Faith of the State. 838, 846, 
 
 848, 862, 875 
 
 Banes, 848, 849, 859 
 
 Bill of Rights, 900 
 Caldwell, Ouachita, Union, &c, Sena- 
 torial District, 532, 577, 593 
 Clerks, 793,797,815,816 
 Criminal Prosecutions, 836, 845, 878 
 Constitution, New, submitted to the 
 
 people, 856 
 Corporations, 856, 859, 931 
 
 Duelling, 274, 846, 863, 872, 914, 935 
 Death of Member, 640 
 Elections, General, time of holding, 
 
 19, 83, 660, 832, 833 
 Electors, Qualification of 61, 84, 95, 99, 
 103, 121,660,763,852 
 Registry of 127, 77 
 
 Place of voting, 191 
 Executive, 197, 199, 201, 302,775, 852 
 Education, 316, 319; 850, 902, 906 
 
 Superintendent of 905,911 
 
 General Assemely^ 840, S46, 850, 852- 
 Quorum, &c, 163 
 Qualifications Judges of, 163, 660 
 Rules, expulsion, &c, 163 
 Powers, adjournment, dec, 164, -194 
 Compensation of members, 164, 192 
 Duration of session, 165, 193 
 
 French and English in, 835, 86? 
 
 Governor, election of 197, 199, 203 
 " Qualification of, 205-257, 
 259, 375, 378 
 " Powers of. 277,299.301.302,931 
 
 General Provisions, 
 
 822,831, 
 
 Impeachment, 483, 4S6, 674, 675 
 
 Judicial Department. 666. 670, 676, 712 
 713,759, 761,762,776, 788. 
 
 7S9, 794, 797, 798 
 ' Parish Judges, 680, 685, 690, 702, 
 706, 708, 712.713, 882 
 District Courts, 770, 780, 781, 782, 
 784, 788, 794, 797 
 Judges election or appointment of, 
 " 712, 735, 740, 771, 784, 785, 792 
 Supreme Collet, 713, 715, 737, 740, 
 
 798, 800, 814 
 Compensation of Judges, 716,719 
 726, 733, 735, 782,' 783 
 Duration of ofnee, 718, 727 
 
 Justices of the Peace, 797, 798 
 
 Lieutenant Governor, 197, 277, 288 
 Meeting of the Convention, 3 
 Ministers of the Gospel, 259. 269 
 
 Militia, 303 
 New Orleans, Representatives of 382, 
 420, 442, 431, 465 
 Division of 429. 431, 435, 934 
 
 Districting, 439, 471, 478 
 
 Senators of, 545. 596, 600, 609, 615. 
 
 623, 628, 640, 644, 448, 670, 711 
 Courts of, 913, 932 
 
iNgDEX* 
 
 Ouachita, Senatorial district of, 532, 
 585, 588, 593, 612 
 Office, Eligibility to of members of 
 
 Convention, 739 
 " Duration of 829, 831 
 
 Officeks, Election of, 822, 835, 887, 
 
 919, 931 
 
 Residence of, 823, 829, 881 
 Ordinance, 921 
 Place of Voting, 191 
 Preamble, 902 
 Representatives, Qualifications of 52, 
 61,84, 94, 194, 660,195 
 Registry of Electors, 127, 177 
 
 Reporter, 597 
 Rules, 18, 649, 711, 884 
 
 Sessions of the Legislature, 48 
 Duration of, 165, 193 
 
 Secretary of State, 289, 296 
 
 Seat of Government, 388, 394, 397, 
 
 838, 906 
 
 Senatorial Districts, 377, 379, 489,518, 
 537, 548, 555, 588, 593, 914, 935, 937 
 Senators, number of, 575, 595 
 
 Qualifications, 610 
 St, Mary and St. Martin, Senatorial 
 
 district, 642 
 Sheriffs, 816,817,820 
 Schools, Common, 902 
 School Fund, 902 
 Schedule, 920 
 Suits against the State, 935. 
 Taxes, ^ 852,882,891,894 
 Title First, 17 
 Second, 19, 305 
 
 Title Third, 
 Fourth, 
 
 197 
 666 
 483 
 822 
 843 
 405 
 920 
 920 
 902, 908 
 302 
 
 44 Fifth, 
 " Sixth, 
 " Seventh, 
 " Eighth, 
 " Ninth, 
 
 44 Tenth, r 
 Universitx of Louisiana, 
 Veto, 
 
 Yeas and Nays, 15, 18,35, 36,43, 45,46, 
 » 52, 60, 70, 75, 83, 94, 9$, 127, 157, 
 176, 189, 190, 192, 195, 196, 197, 200, 
 202, 204, 225, 257, 263, 264, 265, 266, 
 273, 274, 275, 285, 287, 288, 294, 295, 
 298, 300, 361, 364, 375, 376, 378, 388, 
 391, 393, 397, 399, 400, 401, 402, 415, 
 418, 420, 421, 426, 428, 443, 445, 447', 
 448, 449, 452, 453, 462, 464, 478, 480, 
 482,486, 499, 502, 503, 510, 513, 515, 
 518, 522, 525, 527, 531 , 532, 534, 543, 
 544, 547, 549, 550, 551, 557, 562, 563, 
 566, 570, 571, 582, 583, 584, 585, 593. 
 595, 596, 609, 615, 616,623, 632, 640, 
 644, 646, 653, 655, 657, 658, 676, 761, 
 768,-769, 770,772, 773, 781,482,784, 
 791,792, 793, 794,797,799,815,816, 
 817, 818, 81 9, 822, 828, 830, 831, 833,, 
 834, 837, 838, 840, 841, 842, 843, 847, 
 849, 851, 865, 869, 870, 871, 873, 877, 
 878, 880, 881, 882, 885, 888, 890,891, 
 893, 897, 899, 900, 901, 905, 908, 910, 
 911, 912, 913, 914, 915,916, 919,920, 
 922, 927, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 941, 
 
JOURNAL 
 
 OF THE 
 
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONVENTION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 STATE OF LOUISIANA, 
 
 BEGUN AND HELD 
 
 IN THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, 
 
 On the 14th day of January, 1845. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY. 
 
 NEW ORLEANS : 
 
 BESANCON, FERGUSON & CO. 
 
 PRINTERS TO THE CONVENTION; 
 
 1845, 
 
1 1 
 
JOURNAL, 
 
 Tuesday, January, 14, 1845. 
 
 Pursuant to adjournment the Convention 
 of the State of Louisiana, elected for the 
 purpose of amending, altering and chang- 
 ing the Constitution of the State of Lou- 
 isina, met at the St. Louis Hall, in the city 
 of New Orleans. 
 
 The President, the Hon. J. E. Walker, 
 called the Convention to order. 
 
 The roll being called, it appeared that 
 Messrs. Brumfield, Boudousquie, Briant, 
 Derbes, Hynson, Labauve, M'Rae, O'Bry- 
 an. Porter, Soule, Scott of Madison, Splane, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Wikoff, were absent. 
 
 The President submitted to the Conven- 
 tion that a resolution had been adopted at 
 Jackson, on the 8th of August, 1844, last 
 past, authorising the president to invite the 
 clergymen in and about Jackson, to open 
 in turn the sittings of the Convention, and 
 inquire whether it was the will of the Con- 
 vention that the resolution should apply to 
 New Orleans. 
 
 Whereupon, Mr. Lewis offered the fol- 
 lowing resolution, which was unanimously 
 adopted : 
 
 "Resolved, That the president be au- 
 " thorized to invite each of the divines in 
 u and about the city of Xew Orleans, to 
 45 daily open in turn the deliberations of 
 " this Convention." 
 
 Mr. Maeigxy, chairman of the commit- 
 tee, appointed by the Convention, sitting 
 at Jackson, for the purpose of making the 
 necessary arrangements for the meeting of 
 the Convention in the city of New Orleans, 
 submitted the following report: 
 
 1 our committee first applied to the hon- 
 orable the house of representatives for the 
 purpose of procuring the hall of their sit- 
 tings, for the use of the Convention: the 
 house having refused to grant it, your 
 committee were then under the necessity 
 of seeking some other suitable place, and 
 
 i to provide the necessary furniture to enable 
 the Convention to resume their labors. 
 The account for the furniture will be pre- 
 ! sented to you in a few days, and will 
 j amount to about one thousand dollars. 
 
 Your committee applied to Mrs. Hawley, 
 the lessee of the St. Louis ball room, with 
 whom they made the following arrange- 
 ments, subject to your approval; Mrs, 
 \ Hawley furnishes the ball room and five 
 I rooms, destined for the use of the commit- 
 tees and clerks of the Convention. The 
 principal room to be used by the Convention 
 I during its sittings, unless after the adjourn - 
 ■ ment of the legislature the Convention 
 [should prefer the hall of the house of repre- 
 i sentatives. 
 
 Your committee have agreed to allow 
 | Mrs. Hawley fifteen dollars per day for the 
 1 use of the said hall and rooms. 
 I Your committee are under the impression 
 that this room in every respect is suitable 
 for the meetings of the Convention. They 
 : would observe that Mrs. Hawley reserves 
 i to herself tne privilege of retaining the 
 ! room on the 17th, 24th and 31st of January, 
 ; and on the 4th of February, for the purpose 
 | of giving Society Balls, and will require it 
 i on those days at 4 o ? clock, P. M. 
 
 Your committee deem it likewise proper 
 i to state for your information, that the City 
 j Council, of the First Municipality, design to 
 i place chains across the corners of Royal, 
 ; Chartres and St. Louis streets, during the 
 ! sittings of the Convention, so that their de- 
 i liberations may riot be disturbed by the run- 
 I ning of carriages and other vehicles. 
 
 (Signed). "B. MARIGNY, Chairman. 
 C. ROSELIUS, 
 G. LEONARD. 
 Mr. Winchester offered the following 
 resolution: 
 
 " Resolved, That this report be referred 
 "to a special committee of five members, 
 "with instruction to take this report into 
 
4 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 " consideration and report thereon, and with 
 " the further authority to inquire whether 
 "another and more appropriate room for 
 " the sittings of the Convention, cannot be 
 " obtained in the city." 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved that the whole be 
 laid on the table, subject to the call of the 
 Convention on Thursday next — which mo- 
 tion was lost. 
 
 The question was then put on the adop- 
 tion of the resolution, to refer the report of 
 the committee to a special committee. 
 
 The question was lost. 
 
 The question was then put on the adop- 
 tion of the report; which was carried. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Garcia, leave of ab- 
 sence was granted Mr. Soule, who was ab- 
 sent on account of illness. 
 
 Mr Leonard moved that seats be prepa- 
 red for the honorable the members of the 
 legislature, and for other persons invited 
 by the president, to .attend the deliberations 
 of the Convention— -said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved that the newly elected 
 members of New Orleans take their seats, 
 and their credentials be referred to the 
 committee on elections — and the same was" 
 ^adopted, 
 
 Mr. Conrad, of New Orleans, submitted 
 the following resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That the secretary be direc- 
 " ted to cause the various reports and coun- 
 " ter reports made by the committees of the 
 " Convention to be printed in such form as 
 " will admit of amendments to be printed 
 "therein," 
 
 Mr. Downs offered the following amend' 
 ment to the above resolution, and the same 
 was adopted: 
 
 " And that the Secretary be directed to 
 " cause the same to be printed without de- 
 " lay, by the Printer of the Convention, and 
 " in default of his ability to do so imme- 
 " diately, the Secretary shall employ another 
 "printer to do the same." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Grywes, it was ordered 
 that the Convention proceed to the conside- 
 ration of the first article of the Constitution, 
 as reported by the committee appointed on 
 that article. 
 
 The Convention formed itself into a com- 
 mittee of the whole, on the first article of 
 the Constitution. 
 
 Mr. Leonard in the chair. 
 
 The first section of the first article of 
 £he Constitution, as reported by the com- 
 
 mittee, was read; after some time, the com- 
 mittee rose and Mr. Leonard, the chairman 
 reported progress. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 to to-morrow at 11 o'clock, A. M. 
 
 Wednesday, January 15, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Scott opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff, chairman of the committee 
 on contingent expenses, offered the follow- 
 ing resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That the committee on con- 
 " tingent expenses be instructed to inquire 
 44 into and ascertain the amount of mileage 
 " due to each member of this body for his 
 " travelling to, and returning home from 
 "the Convention in New Orleans, and 
 " direct the payment of the same." 
 
 Mr. Beatty offered to the above reso- 
 lution, the following amendment: 
 
 "And that the committee report to the 
 Convention." 
 
 Mr. Guion moved that the whole be laid 
 on the table, and the yeas and nays were 
 called for, and 
 
 Messrs. Jlubert, Beatty, Bourg, Brent, 
 Burton, Benjamin, Brumfield, Cade, 
 Carrier e, Cenas, Chambliss, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of N. Orleans, Couvillon, Downs, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Grymes, Guion, Huds- 
 peth, Humble, Kenner, King, Ledoux, 
 Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mayo, Maza- 
 reau, Peets, Penn, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St.Landry, Prudhomme,Pugk, 
 Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, 
 Sellers, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill and 
 Winder, voted in the affirmative, — 44yeas. 
 
 And Messrs. Chinn, Dunn, Leonard, 
 Mc Gallop, Preston, Ratliff, Reid, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Stephens and Wederstrandt, voted in the 
 negative, — 11 nays. 
 
 Consequently the motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Winder asked leave of absence for 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, on account of 
 severe domestic afflictions in his family; 
 the same was granted. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved that a committee ot 
 five be appointed to revise and draft rules 
 for the government of the Convention, and 
 the same was adopted. 
 
 The president appointed on said com- 
 mittee, Messrs. Roman, Eustis, Mayo, 
 Lewis and Reid, 
 
Journal of the Coin 
 
 ention of Louisiana. 
 
 The president announced to the Con- 
 vention the resignation of Mr. L. Exnicois, 
 as door-keeper to the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Grymes moved that the president 
 be authorised to appoint the door-keeper, 
 which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved for the re-considera- 
 tion of the report of the committee ap- 
 pointed by the Convention, at Jackson, for 
 the purpose of making the necessary ar- 
 rangements for the meeting of the Conven- 
 tion at New Orleans, adopted yesterday, 
 which motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Downs then moved that the report 
 of the said committee be laid on the table, 
 subject to the call of the Convention, 
 which motion was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved that the Convention 
 proceed to the election of a door-keeper, 
 and the same was carried. 
 
 Mr. Ratlief nominated Mr. Eugene 
 Remondet. 
 
 Mr. Culbertsox nominated Mr. G. W. 
 Reinecke. 
 
 Mr. Pexx nominated Mr. J. K. Miles. 
 
 Mr. Boudousquie nominated Mr. Faure. 
 
 Mr. Garcia nominated Mr. Jos. Cheva- 
 lier. 
 
 The Convention then preceeded to the 
 election of door-keeper, sixtry-three mem- 
 bers present. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Wederstraxdt to ap- 
 point tellers, the president appointed Messrs. 
 Dunn and Ciilbertson. 
 
 On counting the votes it appeared that 
 Mr. E. Remondet obtained 34 votes. 
 " G. W. Reinecke, " 6 " 
 " J. K, Miles, « 4 " 
 
 " Faure, " 8 " 
 
 " Hickey, " 1 « 
 
 " Blank* " 2 " 
 
 63 votes. 
 
 Mr. Rexoxdet having obtained thirty- 
 four votes, the president proclaimed him 
 duly elected door-keeper to the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved that the reporters of 
 the newspapers of the city of Xew Or- 
 leans be admitted in the Hall of the Con- 
 vention during its sttings, which motion was 
 adopted. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 The Convention then proceeded to the 
 order of the day, viz : The report of the 
 committee on the first article of the Con- 
 stitution. 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF LOUISIANA. 
 Article 1st. 
 
 " Sectiox 1. That the powers of the 
 "government of the State of Louisiana 
 "shall be divided into three distinct depart - 
 "meiits. and each of them to be confined to 
 "a separate body of magistracy, to wit : 
 "those which are Legislative to one, those 
 "which are Executive to another, and those 
 "which are Judiciary to another." 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to strike out after the 
 words distinct departments, the word and. 
 
 Mr. Prestox moved that the first article 
 of the Constitution of 1812, be substituted 
 for the one reported by the committee. 
 
 Mr. Dowxs moved for a division, that is, 
 that the sections composing said article be 
 divided, and said motion prevailed. 
 
 Sectiox 1st. The powers of the govern- 
 ment of the State of Louisiana shall be 
 divided into three distinct departments, and 
 each of them be confined to a separate 
 body of magistracy, viz: Those wmich are 
 Legislative to one, those which are Execu- 
 tive to another, and those which are Judi- 
 ciary to another. 
 
 Mr. Prestox moved for the adoption of 
 the first section of article first, of the Con- 
 stitution of 1812. Which motion was car- 
 ried. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to adopt the second 
 section of article first, as reported by the 
 committee, viz : 
 
 " Sec. 2. No person or collection of per- 
 sons holding office under one of those de- 
 apartments shall exercise any power pro- 
 "perly belonging to either of the others; 
 "except in instances hereafter expressly 
 "directed or permitted." 
 
 Mr. Gnox offered to the same the fol- 
 lowing amendment: "No person or persons 
 "being one of those departments, or hold- 
 "ing office under one of them, shall exer- 
 cise any powers properly," and Mr. 
 Down? called for the yeas and nays, which 
 resulted as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin. Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Brumfield. Burton. Chinn, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Cidbertson, Dunn, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King. Legendre, Lewis, 
 JIazureau, Porcrie, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Pugli, Roman, St. Amand, Saunders, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Stephens, Trist, Yoorhies, 
 ^Yinc]lester and Winder, voted in the af- 
 firmative — 34 yeas. 
 
6 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Cade, Carriere, 
 Cenas, Claiborne, Couvillon, Downs, Eus- 
 tis, Humble, Ledoux, Leonard, McCallop, 
 Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Penn, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Ratliff, 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Sellers, Wad- 
 dill, and Wederstrandt, voted in the nega- 
 tive — 25 nays ; consequently the motion 
 was carried. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to insert the word 
 hereinafter instead of hereafter, and the 
 same was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Preston moved that the committee 
 appointed to revise and draft rules for the 
 Convention, be requested to report to-mor- 
 row morning. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned to 
 to-morrow, at 11 o'clock, A. M. 
 
 Thursday, January 16, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 1 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Clapp opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer. 
 
 Mr. Roman of the committee to whom 
 had been referred the revising and drafting 
 rules for the government of the Conven- 
 tion, reported that the committee recom- 
 mended to the Convention the adoption of 
 the forty-two first rules that had been tem- 
 porarily adopted by the Convention at 
 Jackson, and submitted to the considera- 
 tion of the Convention some additional 
 rules. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, it was order- 
 ed that the forty-two rules temporarily 
 adopted, be read, and that the Convention 
 act on each of them separately. 
 
 The rules which were as follows, were 
 read: 
 
 Touching the duty of the President. 
 
 1. He shall take the chair every day 
 at the hour to which the Convention shall 
 have adjourned on the preceding day: shall 
 immediately call the members to order; and 
 on the appearance of a quorum, shall cause 
 the journal of the preceding day to be 
 read. 
 
 2. He shall preserve order and decorum; 
 may speak to points of order in preference 
 to the members, rising from his seat for 
 the purpose; and shall decide questions of 
 order, subject to an appeal to the Conven- 
 tion, by any two members, on which ap- 
 peal no member shall speak more than 
 once unless by leave of the Convention. 
 
 3. He shall rise to put a question, but 
 may state it sitting. 
 
 4. Questions shall be distinctly put in 
 this form, to wit: "As many of you as 
 are of opinion that," (as the question may 
 be,) 'say aye,' and after the affirmative voice 
 is expressed, — "as many of you as are of 
 a contrary opinion, say no." If the pre- 
 sident doubts, or if a division be called for, 
 the Convention shall divide; those in the 
 affirmative of the question shall rise from 
 their seats, and afterwards those in the ne. 
 gative. The president shall then rise and 
 state the decision of the Convention. 
 
 5. All committees shall be appointed by 
 the president, unless otherwise specially 
 directed by the Convention; in which case 
 they shall be appointed by a viva voce vote 
 of the Convention, and if upon such vote 
 the number required shall not be elected 
 by a majority of the vote given, the Con- 
 vention shall proceed to vote until a majo- 
 rity be obtained. 
 
 6. The president shall have the right to 
 examine and correct the journal before it 
 is read. He shall have a general direction 
 of the Hall. He shall have the right to 
 name any member to perform the duties of 
 the chair, but such substitution shall not 
 extend beyond an adjournment. 
 
 7. In all cases of ballot or viva voce vote, 
 by the Convention, the president shall vote; 
 in other cases he shall not vote, unless the 
 Convention be equally divided, or unless 
 his vote, if given to the minority, will 
 make a division equal; and in case of such 
 equal division, the question shall be lost. 
 
 8. In case of any disturbance or dis- 
 orderly conduct in the gallery or lobby, the 
 president, (or chairman of the committee 
 of the whole Convention,) shall have the 
 power to order the same to be cleared. 
 
 9. No person shall be admitted within 
 the bar but the members of the Conven- 
 tion, officers of the General or State Go- 
 vernment, and such other persons as the 
 president may think proper to invite to a 
 seat in the Convention. 
 
 Of Decorum and Debate. 
 
 10. When any member is about to speak 
 in debate, or deliver any matter to the Con- 
 vention, he shall rise from his seat, and 
 respectfully address himself to the pre- 
 sident. 
 
 11- If any member in speaking or other- 
 wise, transgress the rules of the Conven- 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 7 
 
 tion, the president shall, or any member 
 may, call to order; in which case the mem- 
 ber so called to order shall immediately sit 
 down, unless permitted to explain; and the 
 Convention shall, if appealed to, decide on 
 the case, but without debate; if there be 
 no appeal, the decision of the chair shall 
 be submitted to; if the decision be in favor 
 of the member called to order, he shall be 
 at liberty to proceed; if otherwise, and the 
 ease require it, he shall be liable to the 
 censure of the Convention. 
 
 12. When two or more members hap- 
 pen to rtee at once, the president shall name 
 the person who is first to speak. 
 
 13. No member shall speak more than 
 twice on the same question, without leave 
 of the Convention, nor more than once, 
 until every member choosing to speak, 
 shall have spoken. 
 
 14. Whilst the president is putting any 
 question, or addressing the Convention, 
 none shall walk out of or across the hall; 
 nor, in such case, or when a member is 
 speaking, shall entertain private discourse, 
 nor whilst a member is speaking, shall pass 
 between him and the chair. 
 
 1 5. No member shall vote on any ques- 
 tion, in the event of which he is imme- 
 diately and particularly interested; or in 
 any other case, when he is not present when 
 the question was put, without leave of the 
 Convention. 
 
 16. Upon a division and count of the 
 Convention on any question, no member 
 without the bar shall be counted. 
 
 17. Every member who shall be in the 
 Convention when a question is put, shall 
 give his vote, unless the Convention, for 
 special reasons, shall excuse him. 
 
 18. When a motion is made and second- 
 ed, it shall be stated by the president, or, 
 being in writing, it shall be handed to the 
 chair, and read aloud by the secretary, 
 before debated. 
 
 19. Every motion shall be reduced to 
 writing, if the president or any member 
 desire it. 
 
 20. After a motion is stated by the pre- 
 sident, or read by the secretary, it shall be 
 deemed to be in possession of the Conven- 
 tion, but may be withdrawn at any time 
 before a decision or amendment. 
 
 21. When a question is under debate, 
 no motion shall be received, but to adjourn; 
 to lay on the table; for the previous ques- 
 
 tion; to postpone to a day certain; to com- 
 mit or amend; to postpone indefinitely; 
 which several motions shall have prece- 
 dence in the order in which they are ar- 
 ranged; and no motion to postpone to a 
 day certain, to commit or postpone indefi- 
 nitely, being decided, shall be again al- 
 lowed on the same day, and at the same 
 stage of the proposition. 
 
 22. A motion to adjourn shall always 
 be in order; that and the motion to 
 lay on the table, shall be decided without 
 debate. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to amend it by strik 
 ing out the words "that and the motion to 
 lay on the table. 11 His motion was car- 
 ried by the casting vote of the president. 
 
 The rule as amended, viz: "A motion 
 "to adjourn shall always be in order, and 
 " shall be decided without debate," was 
 adopted. 
 
 23. All questions except those enume- 
 rated in rule 21st, shall be put in the order 
 they are moved, except that in filling up 
 blanks, the largest sum and the largest time 
 shall be first put. 
 
 24. The previous question shall be in 
 this form: "Shall the main question be now 
 put?" It shall only be admitted when de- 
 manded by a majority of the members pres- 
 ent, and until it is decided, shall preclude 
 all amendments and further debate of the 
 main question, and must be decided without 
 debate. 
 
 25. When the Convention adjourns, 
 every member shall keep his seat, until the 
 president passes the last seat on his way 
 out of the Convention. 
 
 26. Any member may call for the divi- 
 sion of the question, when the sense will 
 admit of it. 
 
 27. A motion for commitment, till it is 
 decided, shall preclude all amendment of 
 the main question. 
 
 28. Motions and reports may be commit- 
 ted at the pleasure of the Convention. 
 
 29. No new motion or proposition on a 
 subject, different from that under conside- 
 ration, shall be admitted under color of 
 amendment, or as a substitute for the motion 
 or proposition under debate. 
 
 30. When a motion has once been made, 
 or carried in the affirmative or negative, it 
 shall be in order for any member of the 
 majority to move for the reconsideration 
 thereof ; Provided, it is made on the same 
 
8 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 day or the next sitting day, before the order 
 of the day is taken up. 
 
 31. When the reading of a paper is 
 called for, and the same is objected to by 
 any member, it shall be determined by a 
 vote of the Convention. 
 
 32. The unfinished business in which 
 the Convention was engaged, at the time 
 of the last adjournment, shall have the pre- 
 ference in the orders of the day; and no 
 motion, or any other business, shall be re- 
 ceived without special leave of the Conven- 
 tion, until the former is disposed of. 
 
 33. In all other cases of ballot a majority 
 of the votes given shall be necessary to an 
 election, and where there shall not be such 
 a majority on the first ballot, the ballot shall 
 be repeated until a majority be obtained. 
 
 34. In all cases when others than mem- 
 bers of the Convention may be eligible, 
 there shall be a previous nomination. 
 
 35. Any five members, including the 
 president, shall be authorized to compel the 
 attendance of absent members. 
 
 36. Upon calls of the Convention, or in 
 taking the yeas and nays in any question, 
 the names of the members shall be called 
 alphabetically. 
 
 37. Any member may excuse himself 
 from serving on any committee at the time 
 of his appointment, if he is then a member 
 of other committees. 
 
 Rule 38. "No member shall absent him- 
 "self from the service of the Convention, 
 " unless he have leave, or be sick and un- 
 " able to attend." 
 
 Mr. Leonard moved to amend this rule 
 by striking out the words he have leave; the 
 amendment was lost, and the rule adopted. 
 
 38. No member shall absent himself 
 from the service of the Convention, unless 
 he have leave, or be sick and unable to 
 attend. 
 
 39. In order to insure the punctual at- 
 tendance of the members, a call shall take 
 place at the commencement of every day's 
 sitting, by the secretary, who shall note 
 the absentees; but shall remove the notes 
 from the names of such members as appear 
 in the course of that day's sitting; the 
 names of those who do not attend, shall be 
 entered on the Journal, and they shall re- 
 ceive no salary for that day, unless excused 
 by the Convention. 
 
 40. A sergeaiit-at-arms shall be ap- 
 pointed to hold his office during the pleasure 
 
 of the Convention, whose duty it shall be to 
 attend the Convention during its sittings; to 
 execute the commands of the Convention 
 from time to time, together with all such 
 process issued by authority thereof as shaiJ 
 be directed to him by the president. 
 
 41. There shall be a committee of elec- 
 tions, whose duty it shall be to examine 
 and report upon the certificate of election 
 or other credentials of the members re- 
 turned to serve in this Convention, and to 
 take into consideration ail such petitions 
 and other matters touching elections and 
 returns, as shall or may be presented or 
 come in question, and be referred to them 
 by the Convention, and on any other mat- 
 ter in relation to the manner, times and 
 places of holding elections; 
 
 42. No committee shall sit during the 
 sitting of the Convention, without special 
 leave. 
 
 43. No standing rule or order of the 
 Convention shall be recinded without one 
 day's notice being given of the motion 
 thereof. 
 
 44. The secretary of the Convention 
 shall take an oath for the true and faithful 
 discharge of the duties of his office, to the 
 best of his knowledge and abilities; and 
 shall be deemed to continue in office until 
 another be appointed. He shall enter in 
 the journals all motions on which a vote of 
 the Convention shall have been.taken. 
 
 45. The secretary shall not suffer any 
 records or papers to be taken from the 
 table, or out of his custody, by any mem- 
 ber, or other person. 
 
 46. No standing rule or order of the 
 Convention shall in any case be suspend- 
 ed or dispensed with, without the concur- 
 rence of four-fifths of the members present. 
 
 Rule 50. "It shall be a standing order, 
 " that the Convention shall every day re- 
 " solve itself into a committee of the whole, 
 " to consider the existing Constitution, ana 
 " such propositions for the amendment or 
 "alteration thereof, as shall be referred io 
 " or made in said committee." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ratliff, the said rule 
 was rejected, 
 
 Mr. Conrad moved for the re-considera- 
 tion of the 30th rule, and his motion pre- 
 vailed; 
 
 Rule 30. "When a motion has once been 
 made, or carried in the affirmative or ne- 
 gative, it shall be in order for any member 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 of the majority to move for the re-consi- 
 deration thereof, provided it is made on the 
 same day, or the next sitting day before 
 the order of the day is taken up." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Conrad, this rule 
 was amended by the addition of the fol- 
 lowing proviso, viz: "provided further, that 
 this rule do not apply to the provision of 
 the Constitution which may have been 
 adopted, and which shall always be sub- 
 ject to re-consideration, after two days' 
 notice being given thereof," which motion 
 was granted, and the rule adopted as 
 amended. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ratliff, the Con- 
 vention re-considered the 35th rule and re- 
 jected it. 
 
 Rule 51. "In forming the committee of 
 the whole, the president shall leave the 
 chair, and a chairman to preside in 
 committee shall be appointed by the pre- 
 sident;" which rule was rejected. 
 
 Rule 52. "Iu the committee of the whole 
 Convention, the ayes and nays shall not 
 be called." This rule was rejected. 
 
 Rule 47. "Every member in address- 
 ing the Convention, shall confine himself 
 strictly to the subject matter under debate, 
 and the address of no member to the Con- 
 vention shall exceed one hour, unless by 
 special permission of the Convention." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Lewis, the rule was 
 amended by striking out the words "and 
 the address of no member to the Conven- 
 tion shall exceed one hour, $*c.;" and the 
 rule as amended, viz: 
 
 "Every member in addressing the Con- 
 vention, shall confine himself strictly to 
 the subject matter under debate ;" was 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Roman's additional article, viz: 
 Rule 48. "There shall be appointed a 
 standing committee of five, whose duty it 
 shall be to revise, in English and French, 
 every article of the Constitution, after it is 
 adopted by the Convention, and report 
 the same to the Convention on the next 
 day, or as soon thereafter as practicable 
 for its second reading, — was read and 
 adopted. 
 
 Rule 49. "In all cases to which the 
 above rules will not apply, the Jefferson's 
 manual shall govern the Convention." 
 The same was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved that the rules be 
 printed in pamphlet form, in the French 
 2 1 
 
 and English languages, and that one hun- 
 dred copies be printed in each of the langu- 
 ages, which motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to incorporate among 
 the rules the following, viz: "The docu- 
 ments ordered to be printed by the Con- 
 vention and the debates of the Convention, 
 in pamphlet forms, shall be printed on 
 paper of the same size of the printed jour- 
 nals of this Convention, and a copy sheet 
 be bound with each journal, to be furnish- 
 ed to the members of the Convention, at 
 the end of the session, and it shall be the 
 duty of the printer of the Convention, to 
 print one hundred additional copies order- 
 ed to be printed for the above purpose." 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to lay the same on 
 the table subject to the call of the Conven- 
 tion; his motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Sellers moved, that the statistical 
 information called for by the* Convention, 
 and furnished by the reports of the State 
 Treasurer, be printed as speedily as pos- 
 sible. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth moved that a commit- 
 tee be appointed to examine the reports, 
 containing this statistical information be- 
 fore printing; which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Sellers' motion was then adopted. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 ARTICLE I. 
 
 Section 2. "No person or persons being 
 "one of these departments or holding office 
 "under one of them, shall exercise any 
 "powers properly belonging to either of the 
 "others; except in the cases hereinafter ex- 
 pressly directed or permitted," was read 
 and adopted. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to take up the second 
 article of the Constitution, and that the sec- 
 tions of the Constitutions of 1812 be first 
 read, and then the sections as reported by 
 the committee. 
 Article II. of the Constitution of 
 1812. 
 
 Section 1. "The Legislative power of 
 "this State shall be vested in two distinct 
 "branches, the one to be styled the House 
 "of Representatives, the other the Senate, 
 "and both together the General Assembly 
 "of the State of Louisiana," was read. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved the re-adoption of 
 this section of the Constitution of 1812, and 
 his motion prevailed: 
 
[0 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Article II. as reported by the 
 
 COMMITTEE. 
 
 Section 1. "The Legislative power of 
 "this State shall be vested in two distinct 
 "branches, the one to be styled the House 
 "of Representatives, the other the Senate; 
 "and both together, the General Assembly 
 "of the State of Louisiana," was read. 
 Article II. or the Constitution of 
 1812. 
 
 Section 2. "The members of the House 
 "of Representatives shall continue in ser- 
 "vice for the term of two years from the day 
 "of the commencement of the general elec- 
 tion," was read. 
 
 Article II. as reported by the 
 committee. 
 
 Section 2. "The members of the House 
 "of Representatives shall continue in ser- 
 "vice for the term of two y ears from the day 
 "of the closing of the general elections," 
 was read and adopted. 
 
 Article II. or the Constitution 
 of 1812. 
 
 Section 3. "Representatives shall be 
 "chosen on the first Monday in July, every 
 "two years, and the General Assembly shall 
 "convene on the first Monday in January in 
 "every year, unless a different day be ap- 
 pointed by law, and their sessions shall 
 "be held at the seat of government," was 
 read. 
 
 Article II. as reported by the 
 committee. 
 
 Section 3. "Representatives shall be 
 "chosen on the first Monday, one day only, 
 "in September every two years, and the 
 "General Assembly shall convene on the 
 "third Monday in January in every second 
 "year, unless a different day be appointed 
 "by law, and their different sessions shall be 
 "held at the seat of government." 
 
 "The first election under this Constitu- 
 tion shall take place in the year ," 
 
 was read. 
 
 Mr. Winder moved to strike out the 
 word "September," and insert in lieu there- 
 of the word "June." 
 
 Mr. Sellers moved to amend the amend- 
 ment by striking out the name of the month 
 and leaving it blank. 
 
 While this motion was under debate, the 
 Convention adjourned to to-morrow, at 11 
 o'clock, A.M. 
 
 Friday, January 17, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Nicholson opened the 
 proceedings by prayer. 
 
 The President submitted the following 
 letter from the Right Rev. Blanc, Bishop 
 of New Orleans : 
 
 New Orleans, January 15, 1845. 
 Bishopric of New Orleans : 
 
 Sir — I have the honor to acknowledge 
 the reception of your note of this date. 
 
 In answer, I beg leave to state that as 
 soon as I was informed that the Convention 
 of our State had assembled in the town of 
 Jackson, I instructed the clergy and laity 
 under my charge to offer up public prayers, 
 that the Almighty might in his goodlier 
 vouchsafe to direct the deliberations of the 
 Convention, so that their decisions might 
 be profitable to the people in whose behalf 
 they were assembled, and that these prayers 
 should be continued daily during the entire 
 session of the Convention. 
 
 In relation to the daily opening prayer, I 
 would beg leave, respectfully, to request in 
 the name of my clergy, that we be dispen- 
 sed from attending to it. Any arrange- 
 ments which the divines, who may have be- 
 gun, will make between themselves, will 
 be agreeable to us. I have the honor to be, 
 very respectfully, your obedient servant. 
 
 Ant. Bp. of New Orleans. 
 To the Hon. Jo. E. Walker, President of 
 
 the State Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff, chairman of the committee 
 on contingent expenses, moved that the sum 
 of $100 be allowed Mr. Kelly, printer to 
 the Con vention, for the printing of one hun- 
 dred pamphlets, and $50 for printing blank 
 warrants for the Convention, and the same 
 was allowed. 
 
 Mr. Downs offered the following resolu- 
 tion, viz : 
 
 "Resolved, That the sergeant-at-arms, 
 under the direction of the president of the 
 Convention, be directed to provide seats in 
 the lobby, for the use of such persons as 
 may attend the procedings of the Conven- 
 tion, and suitable seats and tables for the 
 reporters of the several newspapers of the 
 city." The same was adopted. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 article second, as reported by the 
 committee. 
 
 Sec. 3. "Representatives shall be chosen 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* H 
 
 on the first Monday, one day only, in Sep- 
 tember, every two years, and the General 
 Assembly shall convene on the third Mon- 
 day in January, in every second year, un- 
 less a different day be appointed by law, and 
 their different sessions shall be held at the 
 seat of government." 
 
 On the adjournment, yesterday, the Con- 
 vention had under consideration the motion 
 to strike out the word September, 
 
 Mr. Taylor, of Assumption,, moved to 
 lay on the table, subject to call, the motion 
 to strike out. 
 
 His motion was lost. 
 Mr. Ratliff called for the j-eas and 
 nays, on the motion to strike out, and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Brent, Briant, Burton, Cenas, Chambliss, 
 Chirm, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Downs, Dunn,Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, Mayo, Mazureau, 
 Penn, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Preston, Pugh, Ratliff, Roman, 
 Roselius St. Amand, Saunders, Sellers, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Trist, Wadsworth, Winchester, and Winder, 
 voted in the affirmative — 48 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brum- 
 Jield, Cade, Carriere, Covillion, Leonard, 
 McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Peet, P or die, 
 Prudhomme, Read, Scott, of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott, of Feliciana, Voorhies, Waddill, and 
 Waderstrand, voted in the negative — 20 
 nays; consequently the motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Winder moved to fill the blank with 
 the word June, and the yeas and nays 
 being called for, resulted as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Chirm, Claiborne, Conrad, 
 of New Orleans, Conrad, of Jefferson, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Guion,Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, 
 Lewis, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, 
 Si. Amant, Saunders, Winchester, and 
 Winder, voted in the affirmative — 28 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Cham- 
 bliss, Couvillon, Downs, Eustis, Garcia, 
 Garrett, Huble, Leonard,McCallop, McRae, 
 Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Penn, Porche, Pres- 
 cott, of Avoyelles, Prescott, of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Scott, 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott, of Feliciana, Sellers, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor, of Assumption, 
 
 Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Wadsworth, and 
 Wederstrand, voted in the negative — 40 
 nays ; consequently the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. McRae moved to fill the blank with 
 the word October ; and the yeas and nays 
 being called for, resulted as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 Downs, Humble, Leonard,Mc Callop,McRae, 
 Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Penn, Porche, Pres- 
 cott, of Avoyelles, Prescott, of St. Landry, 
 Prudhomme, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Voorhies and Weder- 
 strand, voted in the affirmative — 26 nays. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Burton, Cenas, Chinn, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes,Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, 
 King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Mazareau, Preston, Pugh, Ratliff, Roman, 
 Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, Sellers, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Trist, Waddill, Wadsworth, Winchester 
 and Winder, voted in the negative-42 nays; 
 the motion was lost. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Burton to fill up the 
 blank with the word November, the yeas 
 and nays being called, resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Carrierre, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, 
 Garrett, Humble, Leonard, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rea, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Penn, Porche, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Prudhomme, Pugh, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Voorhies, 
 Waddill, Wederstrand and Winder, voted 
 in the affirmative — 33 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Cidbertson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, 
 Lewis, Mazareau, Ratliff, Roman, Roselius, 
 St. Amand, Splane, Trist, Wadsworth and 
 Winchester, voted in the negative — 34 
 nays; the motion was therefore lost. 
 
 Mr. McRea moved that the Convention 
 adjourn till to-morrow at 11 o'clock A. M., 
 and the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Brum- 
 field, Carriere, Covillion, Chambliss, Downs, 
 Dunn, Hudspeth, Humble, King, Labauve, 
 Leonard, McRae, Marigny, Mayo % Peets, 
 
12 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Porche, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. j 
 Landry, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Stephens and Waddill, voted for 
 the motion — 25 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatiy, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Burton, Cade, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, Grymes, Guion, 
 Kenner, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, Mc Gal- 
 lop Mazareau, Penn, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Roman, Roselius, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Sellers, Splane, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Trist, Wadsworth Weder- 
 strand, Winchester and Winder, voting 
 against the motion, 43 nays; the same was 
 lost. 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved to fill up the blank 
 with the words the fourth Monday of 
 November. 
 
 The President decided this motion to be 
 out of order, because the blank was to be 
 filled by the name of the month only, the 
 section containing already the particular 
 Monday of the month — and Mr. Garrett 
 proposed to appeal from the decision of the 
 chair. 
 
 Mr. Eustis moved to fill up the blank 
 with the word July, and before putting the 
 question, on motion of Mr. Chinn, the Con- 
 vention adjourned till to-morrow at 11 
 o'clock, A. M. 
 
 Note. — Members absent, Messrs. Hyn- 
 son, O'Bryan, Porter, Scott of Madison, 
 Soule on leave, Taylor of St. Landry, and 
 WikofF. 
 
 Saturday, January 18, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Watkins opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer. 
 
 Mr. Splane, having voted in the majori- 
 ty, moved the re-consideration of the vote 
 given on yesterday, to fill the blank in sec- 
 tion 3d, article 2d, with the word "Novem- 
 ber," his motion was adopted. 
 
 The President appointed on the com- 
 mittee of re visa], Messrs. Eustis, Roman, 
 Miles Taylor, Brent and Mazareau. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 article second, as roported by the 
 committee. 
 
 Sec 3d. Representatives shall be chosen 
 
 on the first Monday, one day only, in 
 
 every two years; and the General Assem- 
 
 bly shall convene on the third Monday of 
 | January, in every second year, unless a 
 different day be appointed by law, and then 
 | different sessions shall be held at the seai 
 of government. 
 
 The first election under this constitution 
 
 shall take place in the year . 
 
 Mr. Penn moved that the Convention 
 take up, as first in order, the question to fij] 
 up the blank in the 3d section, article sec- 
 ond, with the month "November." 
 
 The President decided that the Carry- 
 ing the motion to re -consider the vote given 
 yesterday, to fill the blank in the 3d section 
 of article 2d, with the month of "November" 
 did not disturb the right of precedence of 
 the motion of Mr. Eustis, to fill the blank 
 with the month of "July." That motion 
 being under consideration at the preceding 
 adjournment. 
 
 Mr. Mayo appealed from the decision of 
 the president; the Convention sustained the 
 decision of the chair. 
 
 Mr. Grymes gave notice that he will, 
 on some future day, offer an amendment to 
 section 3d and article 2d, of the Constitu- 
 tion, as reported by the committee. 
 
 On the motion of Mr. Eustis, to fill up 
 the blank with "July," the yeas and- nays 
 being called for, resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Boudousquie, Bourg, 
 Briant, Brumfield, Cenas, Claiborne, 
 Derbes, Grymes, Hudspeth, Humble, King, 
 Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Mazareau, Prudhomme, 
 Read, Romain, Roselius, Saunders, Scotf 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Trist 
 and Wadsworth, voted in the affirmative — 
 28 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Auburt, Benjamin. Brazeale, 
 Brent, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Chinn, Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad ot 
 Jefferson, Covillion, Culbertson, Downs, 
 Dunn, Garrett, Guion, Hynson, Kenner, 
 Leonard, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Penn, 
 Porter, Porsche, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Preston, Pugh, Ratliff, 
 Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrand 
 and Winder, voted in the negative — 39 
 nays; consequently the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Guion moved that the blank be filled 
 with the word "May," and the yeas and 
 nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert. Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 
Journal of the Conv 
 
 ention of Louisiana. 
 
 13 
 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Guion, 
 Hudspeth Kenner, King, Labauve, Le- 
 gendre, Lewis, Mazareau, Pugh, Ratliff, 
 Romain, Roselius, Saunders, Sellers and 
 Trist, voted for the motion — 28 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brian- 
 field, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Covi!lio?i, Downs, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, 
 Ledoux, Leonard, Mc Gallop, McRae, Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, Peets, Penn, Porche, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Prudhomme, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Splane, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Voorhies, WaddiU, 
 Wadsworth and Wederstrand, voted against 
 he motion— 37 nays; which motion was 
 ost. - 
 
 Mr. Splane moved to fill the blank with 
 he word "Xovember,''' and the yeas and 
 lays having been called for, resulted as fol- 
 ows: 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, 
 "Jenas, Chambliss, Chinn, Claiborne, Co- 
 rillion, Culbertson, Downs, Dunn, Garrett, 
 tumble, Hynson, Ledoux, Leonard, Lewis, 
 \IcCallop, McRae, Ma rigny, Mayo, Peets, 
 >enn, Porche, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 y rescott of St. Landry, Preston, Prud- 
 ommme, Pugh, Read, Roselius, Scott of 
 laton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, 
 plane, Stephens, Taylor, of Assumption, 
 r oorhies, WaddiU, Wadsworth, Weder- 
 rand and Winder, voted in the affirmative 
 -48 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Boudousquie, Bourg, 
 'riant, Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad 
 "Jefferson, Derbes, Guion, Hudspeth, Ken- 
 er, King, Labauve, Legendre, Mazareau, 
 '■atliff, Roman, Saunders and Trist, voted 
 i the negative — 18 nays, consequently the 
 iction was carried. 
 
 Mr. Kexxek moved to strike out the 
 •st Monday and insert the fourth Monday, 
 id the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 <ourg, Briant, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 'onrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 >n, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Grymes, 
 hirrett, Guion, Hudspeth, King, Kenner, 
 abauve, Legendre, Lewis, Mazareau, Pres- 
 n, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, Sanders, Sel- 
 ■rs, Splane, Taylor of Assumption, and 
 \inder, voted in favor of the motion— 32 
 sas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Burton Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Covillion, Downs, Humble, Hynson, Le' 
 doux, Leonard, McCallop, McRae, Marigny 
 Mayo, Peets, Penn, Porche, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Stephens, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wadsworth and Weder- 
 strandsoimg against the motion — 35 nays, 
 the same was lost. 
 
 Mr. Coxrad of New Orleans, moved to 
 fill the blank in the 3d section, article 2d, 
 with the words "third monday of Novem- 
 ber." 
 
 Mr. Waddill moved for a division, that 
 is, that the Convention shall first proceed 
 to strike out the "first monday," his motion 
 was adopted. 
 
 The yeas and nays were then called for 
 on the motion to strike out the "first monday," 
 and resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Grymes, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Mazareau, Roman, Roselius, 
 Saunders, Sellers, Splane, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, and Trist, voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 28 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Covillion, Downs, Eustis, Garrett, Humble, 
 Hynson, Ledoux, Leonord, Lewis, McCal- 
 lop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Penn, 
 Porche, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Stephens, Voorhies, Wad- 
 dill, Wederstrand and Winder, voted in the 
 negative — 30 nays, consequently the motion 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Culbertsox gave notice that he 
 would move the re -consideration of the vote 
 given to fill the blank, in the 3d section of 
 article 2d, with the month of "November." 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to fill the blank in the 
 last paragraph of section 3d, article 2d, with 
 "1845." 
 
 Mr. Duxx gave notice that he would 
 move the re-consideration of the vote given 
 to fill the blank in the 3d section, article 2d, 
 with the month of "July." 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to lay the motion, to 
 fill the blank in last paragraph in the 3d 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 section, article 2d, with "1845," on the 
 table, subject to call — the same was adop- 
 ted. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned till 
 monday next at 11 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent, Messrs. Gar- 
 cia, O'Bryan, St. Amant, Scott of Madison, 
 Soule on leave, Taylor of St. Landry, Wi- 
 kofF and Winchester. 
 
 Monday, January 20th, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Preston opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies submitted to the Conven- 
 tion a memorial from Mr. John D. Wil- 
 kins of the county of Attakapas, suggest- 
 ing his views on the amendments, altera- 
 tions, or changes to be made to the Con- 
 stitution of the State of Louisiana; and 
 pending the reading, 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption moved that 
 the said memorial be laid on the table in- 
 definitely, and the ayes and nays being 
 called for, resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs, Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Biiant, Brumfield, Burton, Downs, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Xiynson,. Kenner, La- 
 bauve, Legendre, Lewis, M'Rae, Marigny, 
 Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Porche, Prud- 
 homme, Pugh, Read, Roman, Roselius, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Trist and Winder voted in the 
 affirmative, —40 yeas, and 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Cade, Carriere, Censas, 
 Chambliss, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, King, Leonard, O'- 
 Bryan, Penn, Porter,PrescottofSt. Landry, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Preston, Ratliff, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Splane, Voorhies, Wad- 
 dill and Wederstrandt voted in the nega- 
 tive, — 23 nays, the motion was therefore 
 adopted. 
 
 The President submitted the following 
 letter from J. A. Kelly, printer to the Con- 
 vention, which was read: 
 
 January 20th, 1845. 
 To Hon. Joseph Walker, President of the 
 Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Dear Sir: — To facilitate the printer to 
 the Convention in the punctual discharge 
 of his duties, he respectfully asks that a 
 draft be drawn on the State Treasurer in 
 
 hjs favor on account of printing already 
 done for the sum of three hundred and fifty 
 dollars; you will please call the attention 
 of the Convention to this subject and 
 greatly oblige Your ob't serv't. 
 
 (Signed) J. A. KELLY. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Garrett, said letter 
 was referred to the committee on contin- 
 gent expenses. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved the re-consideration 
 of the vote given on Saturday to fill the 
 blank in the last paragraph of section third 
 and article second with 1845, and laid on 
 the table subject to the call of the Coriv ra- 
 tion, which motion was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved that the same be 
 laid on the table subject to the call of the 
 Convention, and called for ayes and nays, 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin,Brent, 
 Bourg. Briant, Carriere, Censas, Cham- 
 bliss, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Guion 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Le 
 gendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, Peets 
 Penn, Preston, Prudhomme, Pugh, Read 
 Roman, Roselius, Saunders, Scott of Ba 
 ton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott o 
 Madison, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Tay 
 lor of Assumption, Trist, Voorhies, Wadsi 
 worth and Winder voted in the affirmative 
 — 47 ayes, and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brumfield, Burton 
 Cade, Covillion, Garrett, Humble, Hyn 
 son, Leonard, McRae, Mayo, Porche, Poi 
 ter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of Si 
 Landry, Ratliff, Soule, Waddill and We 
 derstrandt voted in the negative, — 19 nays 
 consequently the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson withdrew the notic 
 he gave to re-consider the vote given to 
 the blank in the third section, .article st 
 cond with the month of "November." 
 
 Mr. Dunn, agreeably to notice, moved tb 
 re-consideration of the vote given to fill & 
 blank in the third section, article secon 
 with the month of "July." 
 
 Mr. Culbertson moved to lay said m< 
 tion on the table subject to the call of tl 
 Convention, and his motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Dunn then renewed his motion f< 
 re-consideration, and the same was lost- 
 some of the delegates declared that th< 
 had misunderstood the question. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth gave notice that 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 15 
 
 would, on Thursday next, move the re- 
 consideration of the vote given to fill the 
 blank in the third section, article second, 
 with the month of "November." 
 
 Mr. Benjamin gave notice that he would 
 move the re-consideration of the vote given 
 to fill the blank in the third section, article 
 second with "July." 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 ARTICLE SECOND. 
 
 Sec. 3d. "Representatives shall be cho- 
 *en on the first Monday, one day only, in 
 November every two years, and the gene- 
 •al assembly shall convene on the third 
 Vlonday in January next ensuing the elec- 
 ion in every second year, unless a different 
 lay be appointed by law, and their diffe- 
 ent sessions shall be held at the seat of 
 rovernment." 
 
 The, first election under this Constitution 
 shall take place in the year ; 
 
 Mr. Read moved to adopt the first para- 
 graph of section third, article second of 
 he Constitution as amended. 
 
 Mr, Preston moved to strike out after 
 he words "In January in every," the word 
 'second" from the said first paragraph of 
 ection third, article second; and the yeas 
 nd nays being called for, resulted as fol- 
 ows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Guion, Preston, Pugh, 
 kephens, Taylor of Assumption and Win- 
 hester voted in favor of the motion,— 7 
 'eas, and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Jourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Brumfield, 
 Jurton, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, Con- 
 ad of Jefferson, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 )erbes, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, 
 JarrettJHudspeth, Humble, Hynson, Ken- 
 ier, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, 
 ^eonard, Lewis, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, 
 fozureau, O'Bryan, Peets, Porche, Por- 
 er, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. 
 .andry, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Ro- 
 nan, Roselius, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 iouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madi- 
 ;on, Sellers, Splane, Trist, Voorhies, Wad- 
 iill, Wederstrandt and Winder voted against 
 he motion, — 60 nays, which motion was 
 herefore lost. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to amend said 3d 
 section of article 2d by inserting in the 
 first paragraph, after the word 
 
 the words "next ensuing the election," and 
 his motion was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson moved to strike out 
 from the first paragraph of the 3d section, 
 article 2d, the words "unless a different 
 day be appointed by law" and his motion 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Read moved for the adoption of the 
 first paragraph of the 3d section, article 2d, 
 and called for the yeas and nays, and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou^ 
 dousquie, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, 
 Chambliss, Claiborne, Conrad of New 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, Dunn, Gar- 
 cia, Garret, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, 
 King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Leon- 
 ard, Lewis, McRae, Marginy, Mayo, Mazu- 
 reau, O'Bryan, Peets, Porche, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Ro- 
 man, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Soule, 
 Splane, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Voor- 
 hies, Waddill and Wederstrandt, votedinthe 
 affirmative — 60 yeas, and 
 
 Messers Grymes, Guion, Kenner, Pugh, 
 Roselius, Saunders, Stephens and Win- 
 chester voted in the negative — 8 nays: the 
 motion was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved that the Convention 
 take under consideration the 4th section 
 article 2d of the Cons*titution as reported 
 by the committee — >viz : 
 
 Article II. 
 "Section 4. No person shall be a repre- 
 sentative who, at the time of his election, 
 is not a free white male citizen Of the United 
 States and hath not attained the age of 
 twenty-one years, and resided in the State 
 two years next preceding his election, and 
 the last year thereof in the parish for which 
 he may be chosen." 
 
 Mr. Sellers moved to reject the said 
 4th section of article 2d. 
 
 Mr. Read offered the following substi- 
 tute, viz : 
 
 "Every qualified elector, under this Con- 
 stitution shall be eligible to a seat in the 
 house of representatives" — in lieu of the 
 4th section of article 2d, and called for the 
 yeas and nays — and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Chambliss, Le- 
 doux, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porche, Pres- 
 ton, Read, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 
16 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 Madison, Stephens, Trist and Waddill 
 voted for the substitute — 15 yeas, and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Burton 
 Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Co- 
 villion, Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, Dunn, 
 Garcia, Grymes, Garrett, Guion, Huds- 
 peth, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Ledoux, Leonard, 
 Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, O'Bryan, Por- 
 ter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, Ro- 
 man, Roselius Scott of Baton Rouge, Sel- 
 lers, Soule, Splane, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Voorhies, Wederstrandt, Winchester and 
 Winder voted against the substitute — 52 
 nays, consequently the same was rejected. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Gdion, Mr. Sellers' 
 motion to reject the 4th section of article 2d, 
 was laid on the table indefinitely. 
 
 Mr. Kenner, moved to strike out of the 
 4th section, article 2d after the words, " and 
 resided in the State" the word "two, " 
 and called for the yeas and nays, which 
 resulted as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Bur- 
 ton, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Garcia, Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Mazureau, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, 
 Roselius, Saunders,* Sellers, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Trist Voorhies, Wadsworth, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the affir- 
 mative — 36 yeas, and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeaie, Brent, Cade, Carriere, 
 Cenas, Chambliss, Culbertson, Downs, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, 
 Leonard, McRae, Marginy, Mayo, Peets, 
 Porche, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott, of St. Landry, Preston, Ratliff, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Soule, Splane, Stephens, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in the 
 negative — 33 nays, the motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved an adjournment till 
 to-morrow at 11 o'clock A, M., and the 
 yeas and nays being called 
 
 Messrs. Briant, Cenas, Conrad of New 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Downs, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Kenner, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Leonard, Mazureau, Preston, 
 Ratliff, Roselius, Scott of Feliciana, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Trist, Voorhies, Wads- 
 
 worth, Wederstrandt and Winchester voted 
 for the adjournment — 23 yeas, and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie Bourg, Brazeaie, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss. 
 Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, Grymes. 
 Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble,*Hynl 
 son, King, Ledoux, Lewis, McRae, Mar- 
 igny, Mayo, Peets, Porche, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Read, Roman, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Sellers, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Wad- 
 dill and Winder voted against the adjourn- 
 ment — 45 nays, and ttie same was noi 
 adopted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Lewis, the Conven- 
 tion adjourned till to-morrow at 10 o'clock. 
 A. M. 
 
 Note. — Members absent, Messrs Chinn, 
 McCallop St. Amand, Taylor of St.Lan 
 dry, and Wikoff. 
 
 Tuesday, January 21st, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Woodbridge opened the 
 proceedings by prayer. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 ARTICLE SECOND AS REPORTED BY THE 
 COMMITTEE. 
 
 Sec. 4. No person shall be a represen* 
 tative who, at the time of his election, is 
 not a free white male citizen of the United 
 States, and has not attained the age oi 
 twenty-one years, and resided in the State 
 years next preceding his election, 
 and the last year thereof in the parish for 
 which he may be chosen. 
 
 Mr. Dunn moved to fill the blank in the 
 above section fourth, article second, with 
 the word "five," and called for the y&» 
 and nays, which resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg,' Briant, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, Claiborne, Con- 
 i ad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Covillion, Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Le- 
 gendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Roman, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Voorhies, Wadsworth, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the affir- 
 mative, — 32 yeas, and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeaie, Brent, 
 Cade, Carriere, Culbertson, Downs, Gar- 
 rett, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, McRae : 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 17 
 
 Marigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porche, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescort of 
 St. Landry, Preston, Ratliff, Read, Saun- 
 ders, Scct't of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison, Soule, Splane, 
 Trist, Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in 
 the negative, — 32 nays, and the president 
 giving his casting vote against the amend- 
 ment; the same was lost. After the ad- 
 journment, Mr. Chambliss called at the 
 desk, examined the ayes aud nays and not 
 finding his vote recorded, directed it to be 
 inserted, as he had voted against the amend- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Lewis then moved to fill the blank 
 in the said fourth section, article second 
 with the word "four," and called for the 
 yeas and nays, and 
 
 * Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Briant, Brumheld, Burton, Cenas, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Couvillon, Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, 
 Guion, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre. 
 Lewis, Mazureau, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ro- 
 man, Saunders, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Voorhies, Wadsworth, 
 Winchester and Winder voted m the affir- 
 mative, — 34 yeas, and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Cade, Car- 
 riere, Chambliss, Culbertson, Downs, Gar- 
 rett, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, McRae, 
 Marigny, Mayo. O'Bryan, Peets, Porche, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Preston, Ratliff, Reid, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Soule, Splane, Trist, Waddill 
 and Wederstrandt voted against the amend- 
 ment; — 31 nays; the same was adopted, 
 
 Mr. Voorhies offered to the said fourth 
 section of article second the following pro- 
 viso, viz: 
 
 "Provided, that in case he be a natura- 
 lized citizen, the time of his residence in 
 the State, shall be computed from the time 
 of his naturalization," and the yeas and 
 nays being called for, resulted as fol- 
 lows, vi z: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Boa- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Briant, Brumrield, Bur- 
 ton, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of New 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Couvillon, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Grymes, Gar- 
 rett, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, La- 
 bauve, Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Prud- 
 homme., Pugh, Roman, Roselius, Saunders, 
 Sellers, Stephen^. Taylor of Assumption, 
 
 Trist, Voorhies, Wadsworth, Winchester 
 and Winder voted in favor of the amend- 
 ment, — 39 yeas, and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Cade, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Downs, Eustis, Garcia, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Ledoux, Leonard, McRae, 
 Marigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Penn, 
 Porche, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 
 , Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Ratliff, 
 Reid, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison. Soule, Splane, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt voted against 
 the amendment, — 32 nays: consequently 
 
 ' the same was carried. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow at 10 o'clock A. M. 
 
 Note. — Members absent: Messrs. Chinn, 
 McCallop, St. Amand, Taylor of St. 
 Landrv and Wikoff. 
 
 Wednesday, January, 22, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 i ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Nicholson opened the 
 - proceedings by prayer. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff, chairman of the com- 
 , mittee on contingent expenses, offered the 
 1 following resolution which was read and 
 adopted : 
 
 "Resolved, That J. A. Kelly, printer to 
 the convention be allowed the sum of three 
 hundred and fifty dollars, on account of 
 printing done and to be done by the said 
 Kelly under a resolution of the convention." 
 
 Mr. Carriere, offered the following 
 I resolution : 
 
 "Resolved, That the committee on con- 
 j tingent expenses be authorized to allow to 
 the clerks attached to the Convention their 
 i mileage from Jackson to New Orleans " 
 
 Mr. Carriere moved that said resoiu- 
 I tion be referred to the committee on con- 
 , tingent expenses — which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved the rejection of the 
 \ above resolution, and called for the yeas and 
 nays — which resulted as follows — viz : 
 
 Messrs. Beatty. Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 \ Tteatet, Brent, Briant, Buaton, Chambliss, 
 ! Eustis. Garcia, Garrett, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, Ledoux. Legendre. Lewis, Mayo, 
 Mazureau, Peets, Prudhomme, Push, Rat- 
 1 liff* Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Satin- 
 I ders, Sellers, Stephens. Taylor, of St. Lan- 
 j dry, Trist, and Waddill, voted for the re- 
 ! jection — 32 yeas, and 
 J Messrs. Aubert, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, 
 
18 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Covillidn, Dunn, Guion, Hudspeth, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, 
 O Bryan, Porter, Penn, Prescott of Avoyel- 
 les, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Voorhies, and Wederstrandi, voted in the 
 negative — 26 nays ; the resolution was con- 
 sequently rejected. 
 
 Mr. Downs enquired why it was that 
 reports of the debates of the sittings of the 
 Convention at New Orleans had not yet been 
 published by the printer to the Convention. 
 
 The secretary in answer stated, that both 
 reporters declared that the reports of the 
 debates were up to time— that the reports 
 up to Friday had been delivered to the prin- 
 ter of the Convention, and the others had 
 not been delivered to him, because he had 
 not as yet published those in hand. 
 
 Mr. Humble moved that Mr. Porche be 
 excused from attending in the Convention 
 owing to illness; his motion was granted, 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 ARTICLE SECOND, AS REPQTRED BY THE 
 COMMITTEE. 
 
 " Section 4. No person shall be a re- 
 presentative who, at the time of his election, 
 is not a free white male citizen of the 
 United States, and hath not attained the 
 age of twenty-one years, and resided in 
 in the State four years, next preceding 
 his election, and the last year thereof in 
 the Parish for which he may be chosen, 
 provided that in case he be a naturalized 
 citizen, the time of his residence in the 
 State, shall be computed from the time of 
 his naturalization. " 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved the adoption of the 
 above section 4th, article 2d, as amended. 
 
 Mr. Marigny moved the rejection of 
 said section 4th, article 2d, as amended. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson having voted in the ma- 
 jority gave notice that he would on Satur- 
 day next move the reconsideration of the 
 vote on the proviso of Mr. Voorhies to said 
 4th section, article 2d. 
 
 On motion, of Mr. Ledoux the "^Conven- 
 tion adjourned till to-morrow, at 11 o'clock, 
 A. M. 
 
 Note. — Members absent Messrs. Porche 
 on leave on account of illness, and Wikoff. 
 
 Thursday, January 23, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment, and the proceedings were opened 
 
 with prayer from the Kev. Mr. Hinton. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth, in compliance with 
 notice, moved the re -consideration of the 
 vote given to fill the blank in section 3d and 
 article 2d, with the month of "November," 
 and called for the yeas and nays, which re- 
 sulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Briant, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of New 
 Orleans, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Gaion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Le- 
 gendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, Roman, 
 Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Trist, and Wadsworth voted in 
 the affirmative — 27 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brent, Brumjield, Bur- 
 ton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 Downs, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, 
 Leonard, McCallop, McRea, Mayo, O' Bry- 
 an, Peels, Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoy- 
 elles, Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, 
 Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Feliciana, S cott of Madi s on ,Sellers,Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Voorhies, 
 Waddill, Wederstrandi and Winder, voted 
 in the negative — 37 nays; the motion was 
 therefore lost. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth moved that a commit- 
 tee of five be appointed to enquire of the 
 printer to the Convention, why it is that the 
 reports of the debates of the Convention 
 have not been printed according to contract, 
 which motion having been adopted — 
 
 The President appointed Messrs. Wads- 
 worth, Lewis, Claiborne and O'Bryan, mem- 
 bers of that committee. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 ARTICLE SECOND, AS REPORTED BY THE 
 COMMITTEE. 
 
 Sec. 4. "No person shall be a represen- 
 tative who, at the time of his election is not 
 a free white male citizen of the United 
 States, and hath not attained the age of 
 twenty one years, and resided in the State 
 four years next preceding his election, aw! 
 the last year thereof in the parish for which 
 he may be chosen. Provided; that in case 
 he be a naturalized citizen, the time ot his 
 residence in the State, shall be computed 
 from the time of his naturalization." 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved the adoption of the 
 above section fourth, article second, as 
 amended, and called for the yeas and nays. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, moved that 
 the adoption of the said section fourth,article 
 second, as amended, be postponed until the 
 Convention shall havefdetermined the quali- 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 19 
 
 fications of electors, and called for the 
 yeas and nays; and 
 
 Messrs. Anbert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bri- 
 ant, Chinn, Conrad of New Orleans, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Garrett, Kenner, Roman, 
 Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Voorhies, Wadsworth, and 
 Winchester voted in the affirmative; 18 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Boudousquie, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, 
 Cenas, Chambliss, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Covillion, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, 
 Hynson, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, 
 Leonard, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Marig- 
 ny, Mayo, Mazureau, O'Bryan, Peets, 
 Penn," Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, P res- 
 colt, of St. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, 
 Soule, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Trist, Waddill, Wederstrand, 
 and Winder, voted against the motion — 55 
 nays; consequently the same was lost. 
 
 Mr. Lewis then renewed his motion for 
 the adoption, and the yeas and nays resulted 
 as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aiibert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, 
 Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of New 
 Orleans, Conrad, of Jefferson, Covillion, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Grymes, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Le- 
 gendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Prudhomme, 
 Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, 
 Sellers, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, 
 Wadsworth, Winchester, and Winder, voted 
 for the adoption — 37 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Cade, Carriere, 
 C/iambliss, Culbertson, Downs, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Leon- 
 ard, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Cf Bryan Peets, Penn, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Trist, Waddill, and Weder- 
 slrandt, voted against the adoption — 36 
 , nays; and the president voting with the mi- 
 nority, made the division equal, conse- 
 quently the motion was not adopted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Grymes for the ad- 
 journment of the Convention till to-morrow 
 at 11 o'clock A. M., the yeas and nays 
 ! being called. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, 
 Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Cvlhertson, 
 Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, 
 Kenner, Labauve, Leonard, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Prescott 
 of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Ratliff, 
 Read, Roman, Roselius St. Amand, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott of Madison, Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Voorhies, 
 Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, and Winchester, 
 voted in favor of the adjournment — 43 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Car- 
 riere, Chambliss, Chinn, Derbes, Garrett,. 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, King, 
 Legendre, .I^ewis, O 1 Bryan, Peets, Penn, 
 Porter, Preston, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, Waddill, and 
 Winder, voting against the adjournment 
 — 26 nays; consequently the motion pre- 
 vailed, and the Convention adjourned till 
 to-morrow at 11 o'clock a, m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent, Messrs. Wi- 
 koff, andPorche on leave. 
 
 Friday, 24th January, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn* 
 ment, and its proceedings were opened 
 by prayer, from the Rev. Mr. Warren. 
 
 Mr. Dunn moved that the claim of Mr, 
 Robert Perry, for furnishing awnings to the 
 Convention while at Jackson, and for the 
 transportation of furniture from Jackson to 
 New Orleans, be referred to the committee 
 on contingent expenses; his motion was 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Wederstrandt offered the following 
 resolution, which was read and adopted: 
 
 ^Resolved, That the serjeant at arms be 
 directed to remove the bar in the rear of 
 the hall, so that members may have space 
 to pass around from one to the other side 
 of the hall." 
 
 Mr. Splane moved that a committee of 
 three be appointed, to contract, with two 
 newspapers of the city, to give a synopsis 
 of the debates, questions, their decisions, 
 and the yeas and nays thereon, of the Con- 
 vention. 
 
 Mr. Guion moved to lay the same on 
 the table, subject to call, and his motion 
 prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Guion gave notice that he would 
 introduce a rule to permit any member of 
 
20 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 the Convention to move for the re-conside- 
 ration of a question on which a division 
 was equal. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 ARTICLE SECOND OF THE CONSTITUTION 
 OF 1812. 
 
 Sec. 5. Elections for representatives 
 for the several counties entitled to repre- 
 sentation, shall be held at the places of 
 holding their respective courts, or in the 
 several election precincts, into which the 
 legislature may think proper, from time to 
 time, to divide any or all of those counties* 
 
 ARTICLE SECOND, AS REPORTED BY THE 
 COMMITTEE. 
 
 Sec. 5. Election for representatives for 
 the several parishes, or representative dis- 
 tricts, entitled to representation, shall be 
 held at the several election precincts estab- 
 lished by law, and which the legislature, 
 having in view the convenience of the vo- 
 ters, may from time to time establish; pro- 
 vided, that the legislature may delegate the 
 power of establishing election precincts to 
 the parochial or municipal authorities. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, the fifth sec- 
 tion of article second, as reported by the 
 committee, was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to lay on the table, 
 subject to call, the sixth and seventh sec- 
 tions of article second, as reported by the 
 committee, and that the Convention pro- 
 ceed to the consideration of the eighth sec- 
 tion of said article; his motion prevailed. 
 
 ARTICLE SECOND, AS REPORTED. 
 
 Sec, 8. In all elections for represen- 
 tatives, every free white male citizen of 
 the United States who, at the time being, 
 hath attained the age of twenty-one years, 
 and resided in the State two years next 
 preceding the election, and the last year 
 thereof in the parish in which he offers to 
 vote, shall have the right of voting. Elec- 
 tors shall in all cases, except treason, felo- 
 ny, breach or surety of the peace, be privi- 
 leged from arrest during their attendance 
 at, or going to, or returning from elections. 
 
 Mr. Mayo offered, F as a substitute to the 
 above section, the eighth section of the 
 same article, as reported by the minority, 
 with an additional proviso, viz: 
 
 ARTICLE SECOND, AS REPORTED BY THE 
 MINORITY. 
 
 Sec. 8. Every free white male citizen 
 of the United States, of the age of twenty- 
 one years, or upwards, who shall have re- 
 
 sided in this State one year next preceding 
 the election, and the last six months there- 
 of in the parish or district in which he of- 
 fers to vote, shall be deemed a qualified 
 elector, and be entitled to vote in the parish 
 or district where he actually resides, for 
 each and every officer made elective by the 
 people, under this State or the United 
 States. Provided, that no person in the 
 military, naval or marine service of the 
 United States shall be considered a resi- 
 dent in this State, by being stationed in any 
 garrison, barracks, or military or naval 
 place or station within the State; and no 
 person under interdiction, or person con- 
 victed for any crime punishable by impris- 
 onment in the penitentiary, unless pardoned 
 or restored by law, to the rights of suffrage, 
 shall enjoy the right of an elector. Elec- 
 tors shall in all cases, except treason, felo- 
 ny, breach or surety of the peace, be privi- 
 leged from arrest during their attendance 
 at, and returning from the polls. 
 
 Mr. Grymes moved to amend the sub- 
 stitute by striking out the proviso; his mo- 
 tion was lost. 
 
 Mr. BouDOUsQuiE then moved to lay 
 the substitute indefinately on the table, and 
 called for the yeas and nays; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Cenas, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Covillion, Culberlson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Grymes, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, King, Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, Rose- 
 lius, St. Amand, Saunders, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, Wads- 
 worth, Wederstrandt, Winchester and Win- 
 der, voted in favor of the motion- — 40 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, CoM* 
 Chambliss, Downs, Eustis, Humble, Hyn 
 son, Ledoux, Leonard, McCallop, Mcllc&i 
 Mayo, 0' Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porter, Pres* 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Scott 
 of Madison, Soule, Splane and WaddUl, 
 voted against the motion — 28 nays; conse- 
 quently the same was carried. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies moved to amend the said 
 eighth section, article second, by inserting 
 the word "consecutive" after the words "re- 
 sided in the State two," which amendment 
 was. adopted. 
 
journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 21 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved to strike out from 
 said section eighth, article second, the 
 words. "State two year? next preceding 
 the election, and the last year thereof in 
 the parish in which he offers to vote," and 
 insert, in lieu thereof, the words, "parish 
 in which he offers to vote, one year next 
 preceding the election." 
 
 Mr. Grymes moved for a division, that 
 is,the Convention shall first proceed to strike 
 out, and called for the yeas and nays. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ratliff, to adjourn 
 the Convention, till Monday nest at 11 
 o'clock, a. m., the yeas and nays being 
 called, resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Auburt, Cenas, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson. Culbertson, Dunn, Grymes, 
 King. Labauve. Marigny. Mazureau. Rat- 
 lin. Read, Roman. Roselius. St. Amand. 
 Sc tit of Baton Rouge, and Winchester vo- 
 ted in the affirmative — IS yeas: and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin. Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Braze ah. Brent.Brianf. Brumfeld. 
 Burton. Cade. Carriere, Chamhliss, Chinn, 
 Covillion, Derbes, Downs, Emtis, Garrett, 
 Guion. Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson. Le- 
 doux, Legend re, Leonard, Lewis, Mc Gallop. 
 McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peels. Perm. 
 Porter. Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 St Landry. Prudhomme, Pugh, Saunders, 
 Scott of Feliciana. Scott of Madison. Sel- 
 lers. Soule, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of 
 Assumption. Taylor of St. Landry, Yoor- 
 hies, Waddill, Wadsworth, Wederstrandi 
 and Winder, voted in the negative — 51 
 nays: the motion was consequently lost. 
 
 On motion the Convention adjourned, 
 till to-morrow at 11 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent, Messrs. Ken- 
 ner, Porche on leave, and Wikoff. 
 
 The examination of the primary depart- 
 ments will take place on Monday. 27th in- 
 stant, commencing at 9 A. M. 
 
 The intermediate departments and "High 
 
 on Tuesdav and Wednesdav. 28th 
 
 Saturday. January 25. 1*45. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Clark opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 The President submitted to the Con- 
 vention, the following letter from Messrs. 
 J. M. W. Picton. L. Mathews, and Charles 
 Harrod. members of the Committee on Pub- 
 lic Schools of Municipality No. 2. viz: 
 Public Schools of Municipality Xo. 2. 
 New Orleans. 24th January, 1545. 
 
 Gentlemen: You are respectfully invited 
 to attend the annual examination of the 
 public school? of Municipality Xo, 2. 
 
 : and 29th instant, commencing at 9 A, M. 
 
 On the above mentioned days the exami- 
 | nation will take place in the respective 
 school rooms, and on Thursday the 30th. 
 the pupils of the schools will be assembled 
 in the chinch on Lafayette square, at half 
 past 10 A. M.. to engage in the exercise of 
 declamation, composition, and vocal music: 
 By order of the Board: 
 
 Signed J. M. W. Pictox. } 
 
 L. Mathews. v Com. 
 Charles Harrod. ) 
 In compliance with notice. Mr. Gno>- 
 submitted for the consideration of the Con- 
 vention the following rule, and the same 
 I was adopted : 
 
 " On giving two days' notice of the time 
 ! for the reconsideration of a decision on a 
 1 provision of the constitution whether the 
 decision shall have been by a majority or 
 by an equal division, any member of the 
 Convention shall have the right to move 
 for the reconsideration, no matter on 
 which side his vote may have been cast," 
 
 Mr. MS ads worth, chairman of the com- 
 mittee to whom was referred the question 
 relative to the reporter and printer of the 
 Convention, submitted the fofloYving reso- 
 \ lution, viz: 
 
 The committee to whom was referred the 
 question relative to the reporter and printer 
 of the Convention, submit the following re- 
 solution: 
 
 Resolved. That an additional reporter, 
 " in English, be appointed, and a city pa- 
 u per be contracted with, under the superin- 
 . " 4 tendance of a committee appointed by the 
 M president'of the Convention, to furnish five 
 " copies of its paper to each member of the 
 " Convention, containing the debates and 
 M proceedings of this body." 
 
 Mr. Bre>"t ofTerred to the above the fol- 
 lowing substitute, viz: 
 
 Whereas, it is evident, that from some 
 cause or other, the printer who has been 
 elected by this Convention is unable to dis- 
 charge properly the duties incumbent on 
 him, and whereas, he has so far entirely 
 failed to furnish us with three numbers of 
 ■ his paper per week according to agreement. 
 Therefore be it 
 
22 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Resolved, That J. A. Kelly be discharged 
 from his office of printer to this Convention, 
 and that he be paid for such services as he 
 has performed, and that the committee on 
 contingent expenses be instructed to audit 
 and settle his accounts, and make report 
 thereof to the Convention. 
 
 Resolved, That we proceed to the elec- 
 tion of a printer, whose compensation shall 
 be the same as were awarded to Mr. Kelly. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, moved to 
 recommit the report to the special com- 
 mittee, with instructions to report what 
 contract or contracts have been entered 
 into with the printer to the Convention, and 
 in what manner he has performed his con- 
 tract or contracts, and called for the ayes 
 and nays, which resulted as follows; 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Boudousquie, Bourg, 
 Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, Chinn, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Culbertson, Derbes, Grymes, Garrett, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, King, Legendre, Lewis, 
 McCallop, Mazureau, O'Bryan, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratiiff, Ro- 
 man, Roselius, Saunders, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Waddill, Wadsworth, 
 Wederstrandt,Wikoff, Winchester and Win- 
 der voted in the affirmative — forty yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Cade, Carriere, 
 Covillion, Downs, Humble, Hynson, Le- 
 doux, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Penn, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, and Voorhies 
 voted in the negative—seventeen nays; the 
 motion was therefore carried. 
 
 Mr. Peets offered the following resolu- 
 tion which was read and adopted: 
 
 " Resolved, That the door keeper be in- 
 " structed to prepare suitable seats on the 
 " right hand side of the bar, for the special 
 " accommodation of the ladies, who may 
 " wish to attend the deliberations of the 
 " Convention." 
 
 Mr. Peets offered the following resolu- 
 tion, which was read and adopted: 
 
 " Resolved, That the special committee 
 " appointed to examine into the causes of 
 "the printer of this Convention having fail- 
 " ed to comply with his contract, be instruc- 
 " ted to report on Monday next." 
 
 On motion, leave of absence was granted 
 to Messrs. Aubert, Dunn, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Labauve, and Read. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned till 
 Monday next, at 11 o'clock A. M. 
 
 Note. — Members absent, Messrs. Au- 
 bert on leave — Dunn on leave, on account 
 of affliction in his family — Kenner, Leon- 
 ard, Labauve, on leave — Porche on leave 
 — Read on leave — St. Amand, Scott of Ba- 
 ton Rouge, on leave — Scott of Madison, 
 Soule and Trist. 
 
 Monday, January 27, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn, 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Twitchard opened the 
 proceedings by prayer. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth, chairman of the com- 
 mittee to whom was referred the resolution 
 in relation to the printer and reporter of the 
 Convention, made the following report, viz., 
 and moved the adoption: 
 
 The committee to whom was referred 
 the resolution in relation to the printer and 
 reporter of the Convention, and who were 
 charged to enquire into the contract made 
 with said printer, and whether he had com- 
 plied with the same,respectfuily report — 
 
 That the only contract made with said 
 printer is to be found in a resolution adopt- 
 ed by the Convention on the 10th of Au- 
 gust, 1844, and the bond executed by said 
 printer on the 14th of August, 1844; a copy 
 of said resolution and said bond are here- 
 to annexed as part of this report. 
 
 Your committee further report that James 
 A. Kelly, printer of the Convention, has 
 failed to comply with the terms of his con- 
 tract, in this, that he has not furnished the 
 members of the Convention with ten copies 
 each of his paper, called the Louisiana Re- 
 porter, three times a week — and further, 
 that he has not printed and published the 
 reports of the debates of the Convention of 
 Saturday 18th, and Monday 20th instant, 
 though they were furnished to him (with 
 the exception of a small portion of Mon- 
 day's debates,) on Monday, the 20th inst. 
 " Your committee therefore recommend 
 the adoption of the following resolutions* 
 
 Resolved, That James A. Kelly be dis- 
 missed from the appointment of printer to 
 the Convention, and that the Convention do 
 proceed forthwith to the election of another 
 printer to the Convention, whose compen- 
 sation shall be at the same rate as those 
 heretofore awarded to said J. A. Kelly. 
 
 Resolved, That the committee on contin- 
 gent expenses be instructed to adjust the 
 accounts of said James A. Kelly for print- 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 23 
 
 ing done by him, and to report the same to 
 the Convention. 
 
 State of Louisiana, ) /t> j \ 
 Parish of Feliciana. ) ^ 
 
 Know all men by these presents, that I, 
 
 James A. Kelly, as principal, and 
 
 as security, do acknowledge ourselves to be 
 jointly and severally indebted unto A. Mou- 
 ton, governor of the State of Louisiana, or 
 his successors in office, in the sum of one 
 thousand dollars, lawful money of the United 
 States, the payment whereof, well and truly 
 to be made unto the said governor, or his 
 successors in office, we, and each of us, 
 bind ourselves firmly, jointly and severally 
 by these presents, dated this 14th day of 
 August, 1844. 
 
 The condition of the above bond is such 
 that whereas, the Convention now sitting 
 in the town of Jackson, to revise, alter, or 
 amend the constitution of Louisiana, did on 
 the 10th inst., by resolution, order the sub- 
 scription to seven hundred and seventy-sev- 
 en copies to the Louisiana Reporter, at the 
 aggregate price of fifteen hundred dollars 
 — to be furnished to the members of said 
 Convention until the whole proceedings and 
 debates thereof shall be published — and 
 whereas the said Convention, by a resolu- 
 tion adopted on the 12th inst., ordered that 
 the sum of one thousand dollars be advanced 
 to the said J. A. Kelly, (being the proprie- 
 tor of said paper) on account of said sub- 
 scription, on condition that he should give 
 bond and security to the satisfaction of the 
 president of the Convention for the faithful 
 performance of his duties. 
 
 Now, therefore, if the above bound J. A. 
 Kelly shall well and truly perform his du- 
 ties, and fulfil the engagements to publish 
 in French and English, the journal and de- 
 bates of the Convention, three times per 
 week, and furnish each member thereof 
 with ten copies of each number of said pa- 
 per, in French and English, at the rate of 
 three times per week, according to the true 
 intent and meaning of said resolution, or in 
 default thereof pay all such damages and 
 costs as may be sustained by reason of said 
 failure, and return unto the treasury of the 
 State of Louisiana, the said sum of one 
 thousand dollars.— Then this obligation to 
 be null and void, or else remain in full force 
 and virtue in law. 
 
 (Signed) J. A. Kelly, 
 
 Geo. Henderson, 
 
 Witnesses. 
 
 Horatio Davis, 
 Jas. Carpenter, 
 Bond approved, Jackson, La., August 14, 
 1844. (Signed) 
 
 Joseph Walker, 
 President of the Convention of the 
 
 State of Louisiana. 
 
 [Resolution adopted Aug. 10, 1844.] 
 
 Resolved, That the journal and debates 
 of the Convention be printed by the printer 
 of the Convention in the form directed by 
 the rules, in English and French, separate- 
 ly, at least three times a week, and oftener 
 if it be necessary to keep up with the pro- 
 ceedings of the Convention, and that each 
 member of the Convention be furnished 
 with ten copies of the journals and debates 
 for distribution among his constituents, each 
 member to select copies in either language 
 be amended by saying "ten copies of the 
 paper," instead of "the journals;" said 
 amendment was adopted, and the resolution 
 was adopted as amended. 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved that the adoption 
 of the report and resolutions be postponed 
 until Thursday next, and called for the ayes 
 and nays; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Bur- 
 ton, Chinn, Claiborne, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Lewis, Pugh, f,atliff, Ro- 
 man, St. Amand, Saunders, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Sellers, Taylor of St. Landry, W^addill 
 and Wederstrandt voted in the affirmative, 
 twenty-six ayes; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Cade, Carriere, 
 Cenas, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Legendre, Leonard, McCal- 
 lop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, 
 O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoy- 
 elles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Prud- 
 homme, Read, Roselius, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Soule, Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, 
 Voorhies and Wikoff voted in the negative, 
 thirty-seven nays; consequently the motion 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved for a division, that is, 
 the Convention first proceed to the adoption 
 of report; his motion prevailed. He then 
 called for the yeas and nays on the adoption 
 of the report, and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, Covil- 
 lion, Culbertson, Downs, Garcia, Humble, 
 Hynson, Kenner, Legendre, Leonard, Lew- 
 
21 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 is, McCallop, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, 
 O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoy- 
 elles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Prud- 
 horame, Pugh, Read, Roman, Roselius, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Soule, Splane, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wadsworth and WikofF 
 voted for the adoption — forty-three yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Chinn, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 King, Ratliff, St. Amand, Saunders, Scott 
 of Madison, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of 
 St. Landry,and Wederstrandt voted against 
 the adoption — eighteen nays; consequently 
 the same was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to amend the first res- 
 olution by inserting "two" printers, one to 
 print in English and one to print in French. 
 
 Mr. Beatty offered the following provi- 
 so to the first resolution: 
 
 " Provided, That each of said gazettes so 
 chosen, shall receive five hundred dollars 
 only for ten copies of their paper, to be 
 furnished to each member of the Conven- 
 tion three times a week at least, during the 
 sittings of the Convention. 
 
 And the yeas and nays being called for 
 on the amendment and proviso, resulted as 
 follows: 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Carriere,Chambliss, Covillion,Downs, 
 Eustis, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Leonard, 
 McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, O'Bry- 
 an, Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Soule, 
 Splane, Trist, Waddill, Wederstrandt and 
 Wikoff voted in the affirmative — thirty- eight 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Burton, Cade, 
 Cenas, Chinn, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, Garrett, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Legendre, 
 Lewis, Mazureau, Pugh, Ratliff, Roman, 
 St. Amand, Saunders, Stephens, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies 
 and Wadsworth voted in the negative — 
 twenty-nine nays; the motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved that the whole mat- 
 ter under consideration be laid on the table 
 subject to call, and called for the yeas and 
 nays; and 
 
 Messrs. Barton, Chinn, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Garrett, 
 
 Guion, King, Pugh, Ratliff, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Saunders. Scott of Madison, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, and Wederstrandt voted in 
 favor of the motion — eighteen yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Briant, Brumfield, Cade, Carriere, 
 Cenas, Chambliss, Conrad of Orleans, Co- 
 villion, Downs, Eustis, Grymes, Humble, 
 Hynson, Ledoux, Legendre, Leonard, Lew- 
 is, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Ma- 
 zureau, O'Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Prudhomme, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Soule, Splane. 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wadsworth and Wikoff 
 voted against the motion — forty-seven nays; 
 the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved for the adoption of the 
 first resolution as amended. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved for a division, that 
 is, the Convention first proceed on the first 
 part of the resolution dismissing the prin- 
 ter, his motion prevailed; he then called for 
 the yeas and nays on the adoption of the 
 first part of the first resolution, dismissing 
 the printer, which resulted as follows: 
 
 [Previous to the question being taken, 
 Mr. King, with leave, read a certificate 
 signed by six of the hands employed by Mr. 
 Kelly, in the office of the Louisiana Re- 
 porter.] 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Covillion, Downs, 
 Eustis, Garcia, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, 
 Legendre, Leonard, Lewis, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Marigny, Mazureau, Mayo, O' 'Bryan, 
 Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Read, Roselius, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scoit 
 of Feliciana, Sellers, Soule, Splane, Taylor, 
 of Assumption, Voorhies, Waddill, Wads* 
 worth and Wikoff, voted in the affirmative— 
 45 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Chinn, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Grymes, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Pugh, Ratliff, Roman, St, 
 Amand, Saunders, Scott of Madison, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Wederstrandt and Winches- 
 ter, voted in the negative — 23 nays; the 
 motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff offered the following resolu- 
 tion: 
 
 Resolved, That a committee of five be. 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 25 
 
 appointed by the president, whose duty it 
 shall be to enquire and ascertain of the va- 
 rious printing presses of this city, what will 
 be the cost to furnish ten copies of their 
 daily paper, containing the proceedings of 
 the Convention, as fast as furnished them 
 by the reporter, and that said committee be 
 instructed to obtain the cost of printing, in 
 book-form, well bound, the whole of the 
 proceedings of this Convention, and all 
 such other facts in relation to the printing 
 of this Convention as to them may be 
 deemed necessary, and report the result of 
 their labors as early as practicable. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved for the previous 
 question, and called for the yeas and nays. 
 The president put the question, shall the 
 previous question be put? And 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Briant, Brumfield, Cade, Carriere, Cham- 
 bliss, Cenas, Conrad of New Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Covillion, Downs, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Grymes, Humble,Hymon,Legendre, 
 Leonard, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, Mazu- 
 reau, &Bryan,Peets,Penn,Portei\ Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Prudhomme, Read, Roman, Saunders, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, 
 Soule, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Wadsworth 
 and Wileoff, voted in the affirmative — 49 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Burton, Chinn, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Lewis, Pugh, Railiff, Rose- 
 lius, St. Amand, Scott of Madison, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Wederstrandt and Winches- 
 ter voted in the negative — 19 nays; conse- 
 quently the motion was carried. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, the latter part 
 of the first resolution, as amended, was 
 adopted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Lewis, the second 
 resolution was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved that the Convention 
 proceed to the election of French Printer. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson moved to amend the 
 above resolution, "that the Convention 
 proceed to the election of both of the prin- 
 ters, the French and English, at the same 
 time, which motion was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved for a division, that is, 
 that the Convention proceed to the elec- 
 tion of each printer separately, and his mo- 
 tion prevailed, 
 
 4 
 
 The Convention then proceeded to the 
 election of the French printer. 
 
 Seventy members present. 
 
 Mr. Cenas nominated Jerome Bayon. 
 
 Mr. Chinn nominated Mr. Magne. 
 On motion, the president appointed 
 Messrs. Culbertson and Downs tellers. 
 
 On counting the votes, it appeared that 
 Jerome Bayon. obtained 40 votes, 
 
 Messrs. Magne & Weise, 29 
 Blank, 1 
 
 70 votes. 
 
 Mr. Jerome Bayon having obtained 40 
 votes, was proclaimed by the president 
 duly elected printer in French to the Con- 
 vention. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Guion, the Convention 
 proceeded to the election of the printer in 
 English, and nominated Mr. McCardle. 
 
 Mr. Read nominated BesanQon, Fergu- 
 son & Co. 
 
 Seventy members present. 
 
 The President appointed the same tel- 
 lers. 
 
 On counting the votes, it appeared that 
 Messrs. Besangon, Fergu- 
 
 son & Co. obtained, 36 votes. 
 
 M'Cardle, 31 
 Magne, 1 
 Blank, 2 
 
 70 votes. 
 
 Messrs. Besangon, Ferguson - Co., 
 having obtained 36 votes, were proclaimed 
 by the president duly elected printers in 
 English to the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Downs offered the following resolu- 
 tion, and the yeas and nays were called for: 
 
 Resolved, That the Convention now pro- 
 ceed to elect an additional reporter in Eng- 
 lish, to act with the present reporter, so as 
 to ensure an easy publication of the pro- 
 ceedings. 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brent, Cenas, Downs, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Humble, Ledoux, Lewis, Mc 
 Callop, McRae, Mayo, Penn, Roselius, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Splane, 
 Taylor of Assumption and Voorhies voted 
 in the affirmative — 18 yeas; 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Burton Cade, Carriere, Cham- 
 bliss, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of New 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Garcia, Garrett^ 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Hynson, Kenner, King-, 
 
26 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Legendre, Leonard, Marigny, Mazureau, 
 O'Bryan, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Preston, Prudliomme, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, 
 Roman, St. Amand, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Stephens, Tay- 
 lor of St. Landry, Trist, Waddill, Wed- 
 erstrandt and Winchester, voting in the 
 negative — 46 nays, the motion was lost. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Guion* leave of ab- 
 sence was granted to Mr. Winder. 
 
 The president submitted to the Conven- 
 tion a letter from Mr. J. A. Kelly, asking 
 for a copy of the proceedings of the Con- 
 vention, relating to him, and the same was 
 read. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned till 
 to-morrow at 11 o'clock a. m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent, Messrs. Au- 
 bert on leave, Boudousquie, Labauve on 
 leave, and Porche on leave. 
 
 Tuesday, January 28, 1845, 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Beadle opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer, 
 
 Mr. Ratliff, chairman of the committee 
 on contingent expenses, presented the fol- 
 lowing resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That the sum of seventy-six 
 dollars and thirty-three cents be allowed 
 Robert Perry, in full, for the transporting 
 of the furniture of the Convention, at Jack- 
 son, to the Mississippi river, after the ad- 
 journment at that place, and for the bal- 
 lance of his account for furnishing an awn- 
 ing for the use of the Convention at Jack- 
 son." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Saunders, the said 
 resolution was adopted. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 article second, as reported by the 
 committee. 
 
 Sec. 8 "In all elections for represen- 
 tatives, every free white male citizen of the 
 United States who, at the time being, hath 
 attained the age of twenty-one years, and 
 resided in the State two consecutive years 
 next preceding the election, and the last 
 year thereof in the parish in which he offers 
 to vote, shall have the right of voting; elec- 
 tors shall mall cases except treason, felony, 
 breach or surety of the peace, be privileged 
 from arrest during their attendance at, or 
 going to or returning from elections. 3 ' 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved to "strike" out from 
 
 said eighth section,article second,the words 
 "State two years next preceding the election, 
 and the last year thereof in the Parish in 
 which he offers to vote," and insert in lieu 
 thereof the words "parish in which he offers 
 to vote, one year next preceding the election." 
 
 Mr. Guion moved a division, that is, the 
 Convention first proceed to "strike out;" 
 his motion prevailed for the division, and 
 pending the discussion the Convention ad- 
 journed till to-morrow at 11 o'clock, a.m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent, Messrs. An- 
 bert on leave, Labauve on leave, Porche 
 on leave, and Winder on leave. 
 
 Wednesday, January 29, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Beatty opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer. 
 
 On motion, leave of absence was granted 
 to Messrs. Penn and Saunders . 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 article second, as reported by the 
 committee. 
 
 Sec. 8. "In all elections for represen- 
 tatives, every free white male citizen of the 
 United States who, at the time being, hath 
 attained the age of twenty-one years, and 
 resided in the State two consecutive years, 
 next preceeding the election, and the last 
 year thereof in the parish in which he offers 
 to vote, shall have the right of voting; elec- 
 tors shall in all cases exceept treason, felony, 
 breach or surety of the peace, be privileged 
 from arrest during their attendance at, or 
 going to or returning from elections." 
 
 The Convention resumed the debate on 
 the question to "strike out" from said eighth 
 section, article second, the words "State 
 two years next preceding the election, and 
 the last year thereof in the Parish in which 
 he offers to vote" 
 
 And pending the discussion the Conven- 
 tion adjourned till to-morrow at 11 o'clock, 
 a. m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent, Messrs. Au- 
 bert, Penn, Porche, Saunders and Winder, 
 ail absent on leave. 
 
 Thursday, January 30, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Nicholson opened the 
 
 proceedings by prayer. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Scott of Bator? 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 Rouge, leave of absence was granted to Mr. 
 McCaxlop. 
 
 The President submitted to the Con- 
 vention a letter of invitation from Mr. M. 
 M. Cohen, president of the People's Ly- 
 ceum, and the same, after being read, was 
 accepted. 
 
 Mr. Dvmi moved that the invitation of 
 the committee of the Public Schools of -Mu- 
 nicipality No. 2, be accepted: his motion 
 prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Roselius moved that the Conven- 
 tion attend, in a body, the examination of 
 the said Public Schools, and the yeas and 
 nays being called for, lesulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, B riant. Bur- 
 ton, Cenas, Chinn. Claiborne. Culbertson. 
 Dunn. Hynson, Kenner, King. Labauve, 
 Leonard. Marigny, Mayo. Mazureau, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St Landry. 
 Preston. Rati iff, Roselius, Splane, Trist. 
 WaddiU and Wederstrandi voted in the 
 affirmative — "27 ayes: and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, BrazeaJe. Brent, Brian- 
 field, Cade, Carriere. Chambliss. Covillion, 
 Derbes, Eustis, Grymes. Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth. Humble. Lewis. McRae. O'Bry- 
 an, Porter, Prudhomme, Pugh, Read, Ro- 
 man, St. Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Seott of Feliciana, Scoit of Madison. Sellers, 
 Stephens. Taylor of Assumption. Taylor of 
 St. Landry. Yoorhies, Wikoff and \Vinder 
 voted in the negative — 34 nays: conse- 
 quently the motion was lost. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 ARTICLE SECOND, AS REPORTED BY THE 
 COMMITTEE. 
 
 Sec, 8. In all elections for represen- 
 tatives, every free white male citizen of 
 the United States who, at the time being, 
 hath attained the age of twenty-one years, 
 and resided in the State two years next 
 preceding the election, and the last year 
 thereof in the parish in which he offers to 
 vote, shall have the right of voting. Elec- 
 tors shall in all cases, except treason, felo- 
 ny, breach or surety of the peace, be privi- 
 leged from arrest during their attendance 
 at, or going to, orreiuming from elections. 
 
 The question under consideration was 
 the motion to strike out the words '-State 
 two years, and the last year thereof in the 
 parish in which he offers to vote." 
 
 And pending: the discussion, 
 
 Mr, B lrtox offered the following" sub= 
 stitute. viz: 
 
 "In all elections for representatives, ev e- 
 ry free white male citizen of the United 
 States, who, at the time being hath attained 
 the age of twenty-one years, and resided in 
 the parish or district in which he offers to 
 vote, the last year next preceding the elec- 
 tion, shall have the right of an elector. — 
 Electors shall in all cases, except treason, 
 felony, breach or surety of peace, be privi- 
 leged' from arrest during their attendance 
 at, going to. or returning from elections." 
 
 Mr. Kexxer moved for the previous 
 question. 
 
 The President then put the question, 
 shall the main question be now put; the 
 yeas and nays being called for. resulted as 
 follows; 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudoiisquie, Bourg, 
 Brazeale. Carriere, Cenas. Chinn. Claiborne, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Covillion. Culbertson. Derbes, Dunn. 
 Garcia, Grymes, Guion. Hudspeth. Kenner. 
 Kins. Labauve, Legendre. Lewis. Marigny, 
 Ma bureau, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Pugh. Rati iff, Roman. Roselius, 
 St. Amand, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers. 
 Soule\ Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Taylor of St. Landry. " Trist, Wikof, Wi?i- 
 chester and Winder voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 42 yeas: and 
 
 | Messrs. Beatty. Brent, Brumfield, Bur- 
 j ton, Cade, Chambliss, Downs, Eustis, Gar- 
 I rett, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Leonard, 
 I McRae, Mayo, O' Bryan, Peets, Porter, 
 : Preston, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 \ Splane, WaddiU and Wederstrcndt voted 
 ; against the motion — '24 nays: the motion 
 i was carried. 
 
 On the motion to strike out the words 
 i "State two years, and the last year thereof 
 i in the parish in which he offers to voie." 
 | the yeas and nays being called, resulted as 
 follows : 
 
 Messrs, Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Chambliss, Downs, Eustis, Garrett, Humble, 
 Hynson, Ledoux, Leonard, McRae, Mayo, 
 0' Bryan, Peets, Porter, Preston. Read, 
 Sellers, Splane, WaddiU and Wederstrandt 
 voted in favor of the motion — 23 yeas: and 
 
 Messrs, Beatty. Benjamin. Boudoiisquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Carriere, Ce- 
 nas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of New 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson. Covillion. 
 Culbertson, Derbes. Dunn, Garcia, Grymes. 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner. Kins. Labauve, 
 Lesendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, 
 
2P> 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 Prescoll of Avoyelles, Preseott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Pugh, Ratliff, Roman, Roselius, St. 
 Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Fe- 
 liciana, Soule, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, Wi- 
 koff, Winchester and Winder voted against 
 the motion — 44 nays; the same was lost. 
 
 Mr. Kenner offered the following pro- 
 viso to the said 8th section, of article 2d : 
 
 Provided, that no person shall be per- 
 mitted to vote who is of unsound mind, or 
 who has been convicted of any felony or of 
 any infamous crime ; and provided, also, 
 that each citizen shall vote only in the 
 parish in which he resides, and if he lives 
 in the cities of New-Orleans and Lafay- 
 ette, he shall vote only in the ward in 
 which he resides. 
 
 On motion the Convention adjourned, 
 till to-morrow at 11 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent, Messrs. Au- 
 bert, McCallop 5 Penn, Porche and Saun- 
 ders ; all absent on leave. 
 
 Friday, January 31, 1845. 
 .The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Ranney opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer. 
 
 On motion of Mr. WEDERSTRANDT,leave 
 of absence was granted Mr. Ratliff. 
 
 Mr. Sellers obtained leave to change 
 his vote given on yesterday on the previous 
 question. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 ARTICLE SECOND. 
 
 Sec. 8. In all elections for representa- 
 tives, every free white male citizen of the 
 United States who, at the time being, hath 
 attained the age of twenty-one years, and 
 resided in the State two consecutive years 
 next preceding the election, and the last 
 year thereof in the parish in which he of- 
 fers to vote, shall have the right of voting. 
 Electors shall in all cases, except treason, 
 felony, breach or surety of peace, be privi- 
 leged from arrest during their attendance 
 at, or going to, or returning from elections. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, the above 8th 
 section of article 2d was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Roman offered the following addi- 
 tional section, viz: 
 
 " It shall be the duty of the general as- 
 sembly to provide by law for the registra- 
 tion, at least three months before every 
 general election., of all the qualified voters 
 
 of the State, in the several parishes in which 
 they actually reside. No person shall be 
 entitled to vote except in the parish of his 
 residence, and if the parish is divided into 
 election precincts or wards, in the election 
 precinct or ward where he resides, and ex- 
 cept his name shall have been recorded in 
 the last registry made previous to the elec- 
 tion." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, said section 
 was ordered to be printed and made the or- 
 der of the day for Wednesday next. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne offered the following as 
 the 9th section, viz: 
 
 Sec. 9. In all cases where persons of- 
 fering to vote shall be naturalized citizens, 
 the residence of two years in the State, re- 
 quired by the preceding section, shall com- 
 mence from or after the date of their na- 
 turalization. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Guion said section 
 was ordered to be printed and made the or- 
 der of the day for Wednesday next. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, submitted th 
 following section, viz: 
 
 " Absence from the State shall interrupt 
 the residence in the preceding section, un- 
 less the person absenting himself shall be 
 a house keeper, and his dwelling house 
 shall be actively and exclusively occupied 
 during his absence by his family, or some 
 portion thereof." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Taylor of Assumption, 
 the same was ordered to be printed and 
 laid on the table subject to call. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Benjamin the 4th sec- 
 tion of article 2d, as reported by the com- 
 mittee, was called up. 
 
 ARTICLE second. 
 
 Sec. 4. No person shall be a represen- 
 tative who, at the time of his election, k 
 not a free white male citizen of the United 
 States, and hath not attained the age of 
 twenty-one years, and resided in the State 
 two years next preceding his election, and 
 the last year thereof in the parish for which 
 he may be chosen. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 said 4th section of article 2d was laid on 
 table, subject to call. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne moved to add "until th& 
 right of suffrage be disposed of," and his 
 motion prevailed. 
 
 On motion of Mr, Scott of Feliciana, 
 the 7th section of article 2d, as reported by 
 the committee, was called up. 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 29 
 
 ARTICLE SECOND, AS REPORTED BY THE 
 COMMITTEE. 
 
 Sec. 7. The house of representatives 
 shall choose its speaker and other officers. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Scott of Feliciana, 
 said 7th section was adopted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Lewis the Convention 
 took up the 6th section of article 2d, as 
 reported by the committee. 
 
 article second. 
 
 Sec. 6. Representations shall be equal 
 and uniform in this State; each parish shall 
 have at least one representative, and be- 
 yond that, if entitled to any more, in propor- 
 tion to the population of each, ascertained 
 and calculated according to the principle of 
 representation adopted in the constitution of 
 the United States. The first representa- 
 tion under this constitution shall continue 
 until after the next United States census in 
 1850, and shall be as follows: 
 The parish of Plaquemines 
 
 shall have one member, 
 The parish of St. Bernard, 
 " Orleans — 
 
 First Municipality 
 Second do 
 Third do 3 ) 
 That part of the parish of Orleans on 
 
 the east bank of the river Missis- 
 
 Members. 
 1 
 
 12 
 
 sippi, 
 
 The parish of Jefferson, 
 
 " St. Charles, 
 
 St. John the Baptist, 
 
 St. James, 
 
 Ascension, 
 
 Assumption, 
 
 Lafourche Interior, 
 
 Terrebonne, 
 
 Iberville, 
 
 West Baton Rouge, 
 
 East " " 
 
 West Feliciana, 
 
 East " 
 
 St. Helena, 
 
 Livingston, 
 
 Washington, 
 
 St. Tammany, 
 
 Pointe Coupee, 
 
 Concordia, 
 
 Tensas, 
 
 Madison, 
 
 Carroll, 
 
 Franklin, 
 
 St. Mary, 
 
 St. Martin, 
 
 The parish of St. Landry, 
 
 " Vermillion, 
 
 " Lafayette, 
 
 " Calcassieu, 
 
 " Avoyelles, 
 
 " Rapides, 
 
 " Natchitoches, 
 
 Sabine, 
 
 " Caddo, 
 
 " De Soto, 
 
 " Ouachita, 
 
 " Morehouse, 
 
 " Union, 
 
 " Caldwell, 
 
 " Catahoula, 
 
 " Claiborne, 
 
 " Bossier, 
 
 Total, 72 
 As soon as may be after the United 
 States census of 1850 shall have been ta- 
 ken and promulgated, and every ten years 
 thereafter, the number of representatives 
 shall be fixed and apportioned according to 
 the principles of this section, so as not to 
 be less than seventy nor more than one 
 hundred, and whenever a new parish shall 
 be created, a seperate representation shall 
 at the same time be provided for it, which 
 shall continue until the next decimal appor- 
 tionment. 
 
 Mr. Marigny moved to strike out and 
 including the words, "the first representa- 
 tion under this constitution^ to the end -of 
 the section. Pending the discussion on this 
 motion, 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to refer the said 
 section 6th of article 2d, to a committee of 
 twelve, composed of three members from 
 each congressional district; and pending the 
 discussion, 
 
 Mr. Dunn moved that the Convention 
 adjourn till Monday next at 1 1 o'clock A. 
 M., and the yeas and nays being called for, 
 resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Chinn, Downs, Dunn, 
 Grymes, Garrett, Guion, Leonard, Mayo, 
 Pugh, Read, St. Amand, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Voor- 
 hies and Waddill voted in favor of the ad- 
 journment— -17 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Briant, Burton, Cade, Carri- 
 ere, Cenas, Chambliss, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of Jefferson, Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Eustis, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, King, 
 
30 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Labauve, Ledoux, r Legendre, Lewis, Mc- 
 Rae, Marigny, Mazureau, O'Bryan, Peets, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, Roman, Ro- 
 selius, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, 
 Sellers, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, 
 Wikoff, Winchester and Winder voted 
 against the adjournment — 48 nays; the 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Downs then moved that the Conven- 
 tion adjourn till to-morrow at 11 o'clock A. 
 M., and the yeas and nays being called 
 for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Brent, Bur- 
 ton, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 Downs, Dunn, Garrett, Guion, Humble, 
 Legendre, Leonard, McRae, Marigny, 
 Mayo, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott ofSt.Landry,Preston,Prudhomme,Pugh, 
 Read, St. Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, 
 Soule, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Wadsworth, We- 
 derstrandt, Wikoff and Winder voted in the 
 affirmative — 42 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Brazeale, Briant, 
 Derbes, Hudspeth, Hynson, King, Labauve, 
 Lewis, Marigny, Peets, Roman, Splane, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, and Winchester voted 
 in the negative — 15 nays; consequently 
 the motion was carried. 
 
 Note. — Members absent, Messrs. Au- 
 bert, McCallop, Penn, Porche, Ratliff and 
 Saunders, all absent on leave. 
 
 Saturday, February 1, 1845. 
 
 Mr. Downs called the Convention to or- 
 der at the hour appointed for the meeting 
 at the last adjournment ; he informed the 
 Convention that the president, Mr. Walk- 
 er, was very ill, and unable to attend. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Baton Rouge, moved that 
 Mr. Chinn be calleed to the chair, and 
 that he preside throughout the day. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Nicholson opened the 
 proceedings by prayer. 
 
 On motion, leave of absence was grant- 
 ed to Messrs. Bourg, Waddill, Pugh and 
 Guion. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Dunn the chairman 
 pro tempore was authorised to sign the 
 warrants on the treasury of State for the 
 pay of the members, &c. 
 
 } 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 article second, as reported by the 
 committee. 
 
 Sec 6. "Representation shall be equal 
 and uniform in this State; each parish shall 
 have at least one representative, and beyond 
 that, if entitled to any more, in proportion 
 to the population of each, ascertained and 
 calculated according to the principle of re- 
 presentation adopted in the constitution of 
 the United States. 
 
 The first representation under this con- 
 stitution, shall continue until after the next 
 United States census, in 1850, and shall 
 be as follows: 
 
 The parish of Plaquemines shall have 
 one member, 1 
 The parish St. Bernard, 1 
 " Orleans, 
 
 First Municipality 5 
 Second " 4 V 
 
 Third m 3 
 The Parish of Orleans, on the east 
 
 bank of the river Mississippi, 1 
 The parish of Jefferson, 2 
 " St. Charles, 1 
 " St. John the Baptist, 1 
 " St. James, 2 
 " Ascension, 1 
 " Assumption, 2 
 " Lafourche Interior, 3 
 " Terrebonne, 1 
 Iberville, 1 
 " West Baton Rouge, 1 
 " East " 2 
 
 West Feliciana, 2 
 " East " * 1 
 
 " St. Helena, 1 
 The parish of Livingston, 1 
 " Washington, 1 
 " St. Tammany, 1 
 " Point Coupee, 1 
 " Concordia, 1 
 " Tensas, 1 
 " Madison, 1 
 " Carroll, 1 
 " Franklin, I 
 " St, Mary, 1 
 " St. Martin, 2 
 " Vermillion, I 
 " Layfayette, 
 " St. Landry, 
 " Caleassieu, 
 " Avoyelles, 
 
 Rapides, 2 
 Natchitoches, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 31 
 
 Parish of 
 
 Sabine, 
 
 1 
 
 
 Caddo, 
 
 l 
 
 
 De boto, 
 
 i 
 l 
 
 
 Ouachita, 
 
 1 
 
 
 Morehouse, 
 
 JL 
 
 u 
 
 Union, 
 
 1 
 
 «c 
 
 Caldwell, 
 
 1 
 
 tt 
 
 Catahoula, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Claiborne, 
 
 1 
 
 *« 
 
 Bossier, 
 
 1 
 
 Total, 
 
 
 72 
 
 As soon as may be after the United States 
 census of 1850 shall have been taken and 
 promulgated, and every ten years thereaf- 
 ter, the number of representatives shall be 
 fixed and apportioned according to the prin- 
 ciples of this section, so as not to be less 
 than seventy, nor more than one hundred; 
 and whenever anew parish shall be created 
 a separate representation shall at the same 
 time be provided for it, which shall con- 
 tinue until the next decimal opportunity." 
 
 And pending the discussion on the mo- 
 tion of Mr. Benjamin, to refer the said sec- 
 tion to a special committee of twelve, com- 
 posed of the members from each of the 
 congressional districts, the Convention ad- 
 journ till Monday next, at 11 o'clock a. m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent, Messrs. Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg on leave, Kenner, Mc- 
 Callop on leave, Penn on leave, Porche 
 on leave, Pugh on leave, RatlirT on leave, 
 Roman, St Amand, Saunders on leave, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Waddill on 
 leave, and Winchester. 
 
 Monday, February 3, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment; Mr. Chinn in the chair. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Preston opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer. 
 
 On motion'of Mr. Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Mr. Chinn was continued in the chair du- 
 ring the illness of the president of the Con- 
 vention. 
 
 Mr. Brent offered the following resolu- 
 tion: 
 
 "Resolved, That when the Convention 
 adjourns to-day at the usual horn' for dinner, 
 that it shall adjourn to meet again at 7 
 o'clock p. m.; and that until further action 
 be had, it shall continue to meet at that 
 hour every evening, except those evenings 
 when the use of the hall has been reserved 
 by the proprietor, according to the contract 
 with the Convention." 
 
 I The yeas and nays being called for, re- 
 
 ! suited as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Bur- 
 ton, Cade, Carrier e, Chambliss, Conrad of 
 New Orleans, CoviUion, Doicns, Garcia,, 
 Humble, McRae,.Marigny, Mayo, O' Bryan, 
 Beets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prud- 
 homme, Preston, Read, Saunders, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Trist, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt, voted in the af- 
 firmative — 32 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Brumfield,Ce- 
 nas,Claiborne,Conradof Jef., Derbes,Dunn, 
 Garrett, Hudspeth, Hynson, Kenner, King, 
 Legendre, Leonard, Lewis, McCallop, Ma- 
 zureau, Porche, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Roman, Roselins, St. Amand, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies 
 and Winder voted in the negative — 27 
 nays ; consequently the resolution was 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Read offered the following resolu- 
 tion : 
 
 "Resolved, That an additional reporter 
 be appointed to aid in reporting the pro- 
 ceedings of the Convention in the English 
 language." 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to amend the above 
 resolution, by adding that an "additional re- 
 porter in French should be appointed." 
 
 Mr. Claiborne moved that the resolu- 
 tion and amendment be laid on the table 
 indefinitely, and called for the yeas and 
 nays; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Cade, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, CoviUion, Culbertson, Derbes, Gar- 
 rett, Hudspeth, Hynson, Kenner, King, La- 
 bauve, Legendre, Leonard, Lewis, Marigny, 
 Mazureau, Porche, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prudhomme, Roman, St. Amand, Sellers, 
 Soule, Taylor of St. Landry and Trist, 
 voted in favor of the motion — 30 ye^s ; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale, Brent, Bur- 
 ton, Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, Doicns, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Humble, McCallop, 
 McRea, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Preston, Read, Roselius, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Felici- 
 ana, Scott of Madison, Splane, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Voorhies, Waddill, 
 Wederstrandt and Winder voted in the ne^ 
 gative — 32 nays; the motion was lost. 
 
 Then the yeas and nays being called for 
 on. the amendment of Mr; Beatty to "appoint 
 
32 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 an additional reporter in French," resulted 
 as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Cade, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Garcia, Hudspeth, Kenner, 
 King, Labauve, Lqdoux, Legendre, Mazu- 
 reau, Prescott of St. Landry, Roman, Ro- 
 selius, St. Amand, Soule and Winchester 
 voted in favor of the amendment ; 26 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Carriere, Cenas, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Grymes, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Leo- 
 nard, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, 
 Mayo, Beets, Porche, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Preston, Prudhomme, Read, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Wads- 
 worth, Wederstrandt and Winder, voted 
 against the amendment — 41 nays ; the same 
 was lost. 
 
 Then the yeas and nays were called for 
 on the resolution of Mr. Read, to appoint 
 an additional reporter in English, and re- 
 sulted as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale, Brent, Bur- 
 ton, Cenas, Chambliss, Downs, Dunn, Eus- 
 tis, Humble, Ledoux, McCallop, McRae, 
 Mayo, Peets, Porter, Preston, Read, Rose- 
 lius, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Soule, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Trist, Waddill, Wadsworth and Weder- 
 strandt, voted in the affirmative — 31 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Brumfield, Cade, 
 Carriere, Claiborne, Conrad of New Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Garcia, Grymes, Garrett, 
 Hudspeth, Hynson, Kenner, King, La- 
 bauve, legendre, Leonard, Lewis, Marigny, 
 Mazureau, & Bryan, Porche, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Prud 
 homme, Roman, St. Amand, Sellers, Tay- 
 lor of St. Landry, Voorhies, Winchester and 
 Winder voted in the negative — 36 nays ; 
 the resolution was lost. 
 
 Mr. Kenner offered the following reso- 
 lution : 
 
 Resolved, "That the office of reporter 
 of the debates of this Convention be 
 abolished." 
 
 Mr. Covillion moved that said resoku 
 
 tion be laid on the table, indefinitely, and 
 called for yeas arid nays, which resulted as 
 follows : 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brent, Brumfield, Cenas, 
 Chambliss, Claiborne, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Covillion, Downs, Dunn, Garcia, Garrett, 
 Humble, Hynson, Labauve, Ledoux, Leon- 
 ard, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, 
 Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Read, Roselius, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Tay. 
 lor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Trist, Wederstrandt and Winchester voted 
 in the affirmative — 40 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Brazeale, 
 Burton, Cade, Carriere, Conrad of New Or- 
 leans, Culbertson, Derbes, Kenner, King, 
 Legendre, Mazureau, Porche, Prudhomme, 
 Roman, St. Amand, Saunders, Scott of 
 Madison, Voorhies, Waddill, and Winder 
 voted in the negative— 22 nays; consequent- 
 ly the motion was carried. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 ARTICLE SECOND, AS REPORTED BY THE 
 COMMITTEE. 
 
 Sec 6. Representation shall be equal 
 and uniform in this State; each parish shall 
 have at least one representative, and be- 
 yond that, if entitled to any more, in pro- 
 portion to the population of each, ascertain- 
 ed and calculated according to the principle 
 of representation, adopted in the constitu- 
 tion of the United States'. 
 
 The first representation under this con- 
 stitution shall continue until after the next 
 United States census in 1850, and shall be 
 as follows : 
 
 The parish of Plaquemines 
 
 shall have one member, 1 
 The parish of St. Bernard, 1 
 " Orleans, — 
 
 First Municipality, 5 } 
 Second do, 4 > 12 
 
 Third do, 3 ) 
 
 That part of the parish of Orleans on I 
 the east bank of the river Missis- 
 sippi, 1 
 The parish of Jefferson, 
 
 " St. Charles 1 
 
 " St. John the Baptiste, * 
 
 " St. James, 
 
 " Ascension, 
 
 " Assumption, 
 
 " Lafourche Interior, 
 
 66 Terrebonne, 1 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 33 
 
 The parish of Iberville, 
 
 " West Baton Rouge, 
 East do do 
 West Feliciana, 
 East do, 
 St. Helena, 
 Livingston, 
 W ashington, 
 St. Tammany, 
 Point Coupee, 
 Concordia, 
 Tensas, 
 Madison, 
 Carroll, 
 Franklin, 
 St. Mary, 
 St. Martin, 
 Vermillion, 
 Lafayette, 
 St. Landry, 
 Calcassieu, 
 Avoyelles, 
 Rapides, 
 Natchitoches, 
 Sabine, 
 Caddo, 
 De Soto, 
 Ouachita, 
 Morehouse, 
 Union, 
 Caldwell, 
 Catahoula, 
 Claiborne, 
 Bossier, 
 
 Total, 72 
 As soon as may be after the United States 
 census of 1850 shall have been taken and 
 promulgated, and every ten years thereaf- 
 ter, the number of representatives shall be 
 fixed and apportioned according to the prin- 
 ciples of this section, so as not to be less 
 than seventy, nor more than one hundred ; 
 and whenever a new parish shall be cre- 
 ated, a separate representation shall at the 
 time be provided for it, which shall contin- 
 ue until the next decimal apportionment. 
 
 And pending the discussion on the mo- 
 tion of Mr. Benjamin, to refer said sec- 
 tion to a special committee, Mr. Beatty 
 offered the following substitute, viz : 
 
 Representation shall be equal and uni= 
 form in this State ; each parish shall be en= 
 titled to representation in proportion to her 
 population, ascertained and calculated ac- 
 coring to the principle of representation 
 5 
 
 adopted in the Constitution of the United 
 States. 
 
 At the first regular session of the legis- 
 tature after the reception of the United 
 States census for 1850, and every ten years 
 thereafter, the legislature shall choose some 
 number as a representative number. The 
 number so chosen shall be taken as a divi- 
 sor, and each parish shall be entitled to 
 one representative for every time this divi- 
 sor shall be found in the dividend formed of 
 its representative population, and to one ad- 
 ditional member for every fraction exceed- 
 ing the one-half of the divisor. 
 
 The house of representatives shall never 
 be composed of less than seventy nor more 
 than one hundred members. 
 
 The first representation under this Con- 
 stitution (ascertained as near as may be in 
 accordance with the above principles) shall 
 continue until ^after the next United States 
 census, and shall be as follows : 
 
 Plaquemine 1 ; St. Bernard 1 ; Orleans, 
 First Municipality 9 ; Second do. 7 ; Third 
 do. 6 ; Right Bank 1 ; Jefferson 2 ; St 
 Charles 1 ; St. John the Baptiste 1 ; Si. 
 James 2 ; Ascension 2 ; Assumption 2 ; La- 
 fourche Interior 2 ; Terrebonne 1 ; Iber- 
 ville 2 ; West Baton Rouge I ; East Baton 
 Rouge 2 ; West Feliciana 2; East Feliciana 
 2 ; St. Helena 1 ; Livingston 1 ; Washing- 
 ton 1 ; St. Tammany 1 ; Point Coupee 1 ; 
 Concordia 1 ; Tensas 1 ; Madison 1 ; Car- 
 roll 1 ; Franklin 1 ; St. Mary 2 ; St. Martin 
 
 2 ; Vermillion 1 ; Lafayette 2 ; St. Landry 
 
 3 ; Calcassieu 1 ; Avoyelles 2 ; Rapides 3 ; 
 Natchitoches 3 ; Sabine 1 ; Caddo 1 ; De 
 Soto 1 ; Ouachita 1 ; Morehouse 1 ; Union 
 1 ; Caldwell 1 ; Catahoula 1 ; Claiborne 1 ; 
 Bossier 1. 
 
 And pending the discussion on said sub- 
 stitute, the Convention adjourned 'till 7 o'- 
 clock p. m. 
 
 Note — Members absent, Messrs- Jos. 
 Walker absent on account of illness, Bourg 
 on leave, Boudousquie, Guion on leave, 
 Penn on leave, Pugh on leave, and Ratliff 
 on leave. 
 
 Monday, February 3d, 1845, ) 
 7 o'clock, P. M. \ 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment, 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth was called to the Chair„ 
 Mr* Benjamin moved to rescind the 
 rule adopted this morning, fixing the eve= 
 
34 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 niiig sessions at 7 o'clock, P. M., and the 
 yeas and nays being called, resulted as 
 follows : 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Cenas, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Garrett, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Ledoux, 
 Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Roman, Roselius, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Voorhies, Winchester and Winder 
 voted in the affirmative — 22 ayes; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Boudousquie, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Covillion, Downs, 
 Eustis, Humble, Labauve, McRae, Marig- 
 ny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott 
 of Avoyelles, Preston, Prudhomme, Read, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Soule, 
 Splane, Stephens, Trist, Waddiil, and Wed- 
 erstrandt voted in the negative — 35 nays; 
 consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies moved that the Conven- 
 tion adjourn till to-morrow at 10 o'clock, A. 
 M.; the ayes and nays being called, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Briant, 
 Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Garrett, Hudspeth, Kenner, 
 King, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Roman, Roselius, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, Winches- 
 ter, and Winder voted in favor of the ad- 
 journment — 23 ayes; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Conrad ofNew 
 Orleans, Covillion, Downs, Eustis, Hum- 
 ble, Labauve, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, 
 O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoy- 
 elles, Preston, Prudhomme, Read, Saunders, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Soule, Splane, 
 Stephens, Trist, Waddiil, Wederstrandt, 
 and Wikoff voted against the motion for 
 adjournment — 35 nays ; said motion was 
 lost. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved that the Convention 
 adjourn till to-morrow at 9 o'clock, A. M., 
 and yeas and nays being called, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Briant, 
 Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Garrett, Hudspeth, Kenner, 
 Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Roman, Rose- 
 lius, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, Win- 
 chester, and Winder voted in favor of the 
 motion— -20 ayes ; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 
 Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Conrad of New 
 Orleans, Covillion, Downs, Eustis, Humble, 
 King, Labauve, Ledoux, McRae, Marigny, 
 Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott oi 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston,, 
 Prudhomme, Read, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, 
 Sellers, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Trist, 
 Waddiil, Wederstrandt and Wikoff, voted 
 against the motion — 38 nays; which motion 
 was lost. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 ARTICLE SECOND, AS REPORTED BY THE 
 COMMITTEE. 
 
 Sec. 6. Representation shall be equal 
 and uniform in this State; each parish shall 
 have at least one representative, and be- 
 yond that, if entitled to any more, in propor- 
 tion to the population of each, ascertained 
 and calculated according to the principle of 
 representation adopted in the constitution 
 of the United States. 
 
 The first representation under this con- 
 stitution shall continue until after the next 
 United States census in 1850, and shall be 
 as follows : 
 
 The parish of Plaquemines 
 
 shall have one member, 1 
 The parish of St. Bernard, 1 
 " Orleans, — 
 
 First municipality, 5 } 
 Second do, 4 > 12 
 
 Third do, 3 ) 
 
 That part of the parish of Orleans on 
 > the east bank of the river Missis- 
 sippi, # 
 The parish of Jefferson, 
 
 St. Charles, 
 
 St. John the Baptist, 
 
 St. James, 
 
 Ascension, 
 
 Assumption, 
 
 Lafourche Interior, 
 
 Terrebonne, 
 
 Iberville, 
 
 West Baton Rouge, 
 East " " 
 West Feliciana, 
 East " 
 St. Helena, 
 Livingston, 
 Washington, 
 St. Tammany, 
 Point Coupee, 
 Concordia, 
 
 1 
 2 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 I 
 I 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 I 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 35 
 
 The parish of Tensas, 
 " Madison, 
 
 Carroll, 
 
 Franklin, 
 
 St. Mary, 
 
 St. Martin, 
 
 Vermillion, 
 
 Lafayette, 
 
 St. Landry, 
 
 Calcassien, 
 
 Avoyelles, 
 
 Rapides, 
 
 Natchitoches, 
 
 Sabine, 
 
 Caddo, 
 
 De Soto, 
 
 Ouachita, 
 
 Morehouse, 
 
 Union, 
 
 Caldwell, 
 
 Catahoula, 
 
 Claiborne, 
 
 Bossier, 
 
 Total, 72 
 
 As soon as may be, after the United 
 States census of 1850 shall have been 
 taken and promulgated, and every ten years 
 thereafter, the number of representatives 
 shall be fixed and apportioned according to 
 the principles of this section, so as not to 
 be less than seventy nor more than one 
 hundred, and whenever a new parish shall 
 be created, a separate representation shall 
 at the same time be provided for it, which 
 shall continue until the next decimal ap- 
 portionment. 
 
 The question under consideration was 
 the motion of Mr. Benjamin, to refer the 
 section to a special committee; and pending- 
 its discussion, 
 
 Mr. Beatty offered the following sub- 
 stitute, viz: Representation shall be equal 
 and uniform in this State, each parish shall 
 be entitled to representation in proportion 
 to her population, ascertained and calcula- 
 ted according to the principle of represen- 
 tation adopted in the constitution of the 
 United States. 
 
 At the first regular session of the Legis- 
 lature after the reception of the United 
 States census for 1850, and every ten 
 years thereafter, the legislature shall choose 
 some number as a representative number. 
 
 The number so chosen shall be taken as 
 
 a divisor, and each parish shall be entitled 
 to one representative for every time this 
 divisor shall be found in the dividend 
 formed of its representative population, and 
 to one additional member for every fraction 
 exceeding the one-half of the divisor. 
 
 The house of representatives shall never 
 be composed of less than seventy, nor 
 more than one hundred members. 
 
 The first representation under this con- 
 stitution, (ascertained as near as may be in 
 accordance with the above principles) shall 
 continue until after the next U. S. census, 
 and shall be as follows:— Plaquemine, 1; 
 St. Bernard, 1; Orleans— First Municipali- 
 ty, 9; 2d, 7; 3d, 6; Jefferson, 2; Right bank, 
 1, St. Charles, 1; St. John Baptist, 1; St. 
 James, 2; Ascension, 2; Assumption, 2; 
 Lafourche Interior, 2; Terrebonne, 1; Iber- 
 ville, 2; West Baton Rouge, 1; East Baton 
 Rouge, 2; West Feliciana, 2; East Felici- 
 ana, 2; St. Helena, 1; Livingston, 1; Wash- 
 ington, 1; St. Tammany, 1; Point Coupee, 
 1; Concordia, 1; Tensas, 1; Madison, 1; 
 Carroll, 1; Franklin, 1; St. Mary, 2; St. 
 Martin, 2; Vermillion, 1; Lafayette, 2; St. 
 Landry, 3; Calcassieu, 1; Avovelles, 2; 
 Rapides, 3; Natchitoches., 3; Sabine, 1; 
 Caddo, 1; De Soto, 1; Ouachita, 1; More- 
 house, 1; Union, 1 ; Caldwell, 1; Cata- 
 houla, 1; Claiborne, 1; Bossier, 1. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs said substi- 
 tute was ordered to be printed. 
 
 On motion the Convention adjourned till 
 to-morrow at 11 o'clock, A. M. 
 
 Note. — Members absent: Messrs. Au- 
 bert, Bourg, en leave; Brumfield, Chinn, 
 Culbertson, Garcia, Grymes, Guion, on 
 leave; Hynson, Leonard, M'Callop, Penn, 
 on leave; Porche, Pugh, Ratliff, on leave; 
 St. Amand, Taylor of Assumption. 
 
 Tuesday, February 4, 1845 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment; Mr. Chixx in the chair. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 ARTICLE SECOXD, AS REPORTED BY THE 
 COMMITTEE. 
 
 Sec. 6. Representation shall be equal 
 and uniform in this State; each parish shall 
 have at least one representative, and be- 
 yond that, if entitled to any more, in propor- 
 tion to the population of each, ascertained 
 
Journal of ike Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 and calculated according to the principle of 
 representation adopted in the constitution of 
 the United States. The first representa- 
 tion under this constitution shall continue 
 until after the next United States census in 
 1850, and shall be as follows: 
 
 The parish of Plaquemines Members. 
 
 shall have one member, 1 
 The parish of St. Bernard, 1 
 " Orleans — 
 
 First Municipality, 5 I 
 Second do 4 > 12 
 Third do 3 ) 
 That part of the parish of Orleans on 
 the east bank of the river Missis- 
 
 sippi, 1 
 
 The parish of Jefferson, 1 
 
 St. Charles, 1 
 " St. John the Baptist, 1 
 
 " St. James, 2 
 
 Ascension, 1 
 
 " Assumption, 2 
 " Lafourche Interior, 3 
 
 *' Terrebonne, 1 
 
 Iberville, 1 
 
 West Baton Rouge ? 1 
 
 " East " " 2 
 
 " West Feliciana, 2 
 
 " East " 2 
 
 " St. Helena, 1 
 
 " Livingston, 1 
 
 " Washington, 1 
 
 " St. Tammany, 1 
 
 " Pointe Coupee, 1 
 
 " Concordia, 1 
 
 *• Tensas, 1 
 
 " Madison, i 1 
 
 " Carroll, 1 
 
 " Franklin, 1 
 
 " St. Mary, 1 
 
 " St. Martin, 2 
 
 " Vermillion, 1 
 
 " Lafayette, 1 
 
 " St. Landry, 4 
 
 " Calcassieu, 1 
 
 " Avoyelles, 2 
 
 ** Rapides, 2 
 
 " Natchitoches, 2 
 
 ** Sabine, 1 
 
 *' Caddo, 1 
 
 " De Soto, 1 
 
 Ouachita, 1 
 
 Morehousej 1 
 
 Union, 1 
 
 Caldwell, 1 
 
 Catahoula, 1 
 
 The Parish of Claiborne, 1 
 " Bossier, 1 
 
 Total, 72 
 As soon as may be after the United 
 States census of 1 850 shall have been ta- 
 ken and promulgated, and every ten years 
 thereafter, the number of representatives 
 shall be fixed and apportioned according to 
 the principles of this section, so as not to 
 be less than seventy nor more than one 
 hundred, and whenever a new parish shall 
 be created, a separate representation shall 
 at the same time be provided for it, which 
 shall continue until the next decimal appor- 
 tionment. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, on 
 motion of Mr. Benjamin to refer said sec- 
 tion to a committee of twelve, composed of 
 three members from each Congressional 
 district, resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Briant,Brumfield, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbert- 
 son, Derbes, Garcia, Grymes, Hudspeth, 
 King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Marig- 
 ny, Mazureau, Roman,Roselius, St. Amand, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Wads worth and Win- 
 chester voted in favor of the motion— 26 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 Cade, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Dunn, 
 Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Leonard, Mc» 
 Callop, McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, 
 Porche, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Preston,Prudhomme, Rat- 
 lifF, Read, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt, 
 Wikoff and Winder voted against the mo- 
 tion— 39 nays; consequently the same was 
 lost. 
 
 The question then under consideration, 
 was the substitute of Mr. Beatty to said 
 section, viz: 
 
 Representation shall be equal and uni- 
 form in this State; each parish shall be en* 
 titled to representation in proportion to her 
 population, ascertained and calculated ac- 
 cording to the principle of representation 
 adopted in the constitution of the Uniteo 
 States. 
 
 At the first regular session of the legisla- 
 ture after the reception of the United States 
 census for 1850, and every ten years there- 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 37 
 
 after, the legislature shall choose some 
 number as a representative number. 
 
 The number so chosen shall be taken as 
 a divisor, and each parish shall be entitled 
 to one representative for every time this di- 
 visor shall be found in the dividend formed 
 of its representative population, and to one 
 additional member for every fraction ex- 
 ceeding the one-half of the divisor. 
 
 The house of representatives shall never 
 be composed of less than seventy nor more 
 than one hundred members. 
 
 The first representation under this con- 
 stitution, (ascertained as near as may be in 
 accordance with the above principle) shall 
 continue until after the next United States 
 census, and shall be as follows: 
 
 Plaquemine, 1; St. Bernard, 1; Orleans, 
 first municipality, 9; second, 7; third, 6; 
 right bank, 1; Jefferson, 2; St. Charles, 1; 
 1 St. JohnBaptist, 1; St. James, 2; Ascen- 
 sion, 2; Assumption, 2; Lafourche Interor,2; 
 : Terrebonne, 1; Iberville, 2; West Baton 
 1 Rouge, 1; East Baton Rouge, 2; West Fe- 
 liciana, 2; East Feliciana, 2; St. Helena, 1; 
 Livingston, 1; Washington, 1; St. Tamma- 
 ny, 1; Pointe Coupee, 1; Concordia, 1; 
 Tensas, 1; Madison, 1; Carroll, 1; Frank- 
 lin, 1; St. Mary, 2; St. Martin, 2; Vermil- 
 lion, 1; Lafayette, 2; St. Landry, 3; Calcas- 
 sieu, 1; Avoyelles, 2; Rapides, 3; Natchi- 
 toches, 3; Sabine, 1; Caddo, 1; De Soto, 1; 
 Ouachita, 1; Morehouse, 1; Union, 1; Cald- 
 Well, 1; Catahoula, 1; Bossier, 1. 
 
 Mr. Sellers moved that the same be 
 laid on the table, to make way for the origi- 
 nal section as reported by the committee, 
 and his motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Preston then offered the following 
 substitute to the first paragraph of said sec- 
 tion, viz: 
 
 Representation in the house of represen- 
 tatives shall be equal and uniform in this 
 State, and shall be forever regulated and 
 ascertained by the number of qualified elec- 
 tors therein. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved that the same be laid 
 | on the table to make way for the original 
 section, and called for the yeas and nays; 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Brazeale, Brent, Cade, Carriere, Cham- 
 i bliss, Covillion, Downs, Dunn, Garcia, 
 Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, ten- 
 ner Labauve, Legendre, Leonard, Lewis, 
 McCallop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porche, 
 j Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St 
 
 Landry, Prudhomme, Read, Roman, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison,Sellers, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wadsworth, Weder- 
 strandt, Wikoff, Winchester and Winder 
 voted in the affirmative-— 47 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Briant, Brumfield, Bur- 
 ton, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of New Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Der- 
 bes, Eustis, King, Ledoux, Marigny, Mazu- 
 reau, O 'Bryan, Preston, Ratliff, Roselius, 
 St. Amand and Stephens voted in the nega- 
 tive — 21 nays; the motion was consequent- 
 ly carried. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin then moved to strike out 
 the words, u each parish shall have at least 
 one representative" and called for the yeas 
 and nays. 
 
 Previous to the question being put, Mr. 
 Porter offered the following resolution, viz: 
 
 But no new parish shall be created until 
 it has population enough to entitle it to a 
 representative according to the ratio exist- 
 ing at the time, or with a territory less than 
 four hundred square miles. 
 
 And pending the discussion, the Conven- 
 tion adjourned till to-morrow at 11 o'clock, 
 A. M. 
 
 Note. — Members absent, Messrs. Jo- 
 seph Walker, president, absent on account 
 of illness — Bourg, Guion, Penn and Pugh, 
 all absent on leave. 
 
 Wednesday, February 5, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment, Mr. Chinn in the chair. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Beatty opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 ARTICLE SECOND, AS REPORTED BY THE 
 COMMITTEE. 
 
 Sec. 6. "Representation shall be equal 
 and uniform in this State; each parish shall 
 have at least one representative, and beyond 
 that, if entitled to any more, in proportion 
 to the population of each, ascertained and 
 calculated according to the principle of re- 
 presentation adopted in the constitution of 
 the United States. 
 
 The first representation under this con- 
 stitution shall continue until after the next 
 United States census, in 1850, and shall 
 be as follows: 
 
 The parish of Plaquemines shall have 
 one member, 1 
 
38 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 } 
 
 12 
 
 The parish St. Bernard, 
 " Orleans, 
 
 First Municipality o 
 
 Second " 4 
 
 Third " 3 
 The Parish of Orleans, on the east 
 
 bank of the river Mississippi, 1 
 
 The parish of Jefferson, 2 
 
 « St. Charles, 1 
 " St. John the Baptist, 1 
 
 « St. James, 2 
 
 44 Ascension, 1 
 
 44 Assumption, 2 
 
 44 Lafourche Interior, 3 
 
 " Terrebonne, 1 
 
 44 Iberville, I 
 
 " West Baton Rouge, 1 
 
 East " 2 
 
 West Feliciana, 2 
 
 East " 2' 
 
 44 St. Helena, 1 
 
 44 Livingston, 1 
 
 44 Washington, 1 
 
 " St. Tammany, 1 
 
 4 Point Coupee, 1 
 
 44 Concordia, 1 
 
 « Tensas, 1 
 
 " Madison, 1 
 
 " Carroll, 1 
 
 44 Franklin, 1 
 
 44 St, Mary, 1 
 
 44 St. Martin, 2 
 
 44 Vermillion, 1 
 
 44 Layfayette, 1 
 
 44 St. Landry, 4 
 
 44 Calcassieu. 1 
 
 44 Avoyelles, 2 
 
 44 Rapides, 2 
 
 44 Natchitoches, 2 
 
 44 Sabine, 1 
 
 Caddo, 1 
 
 44 De Soto, 1 
 
 44 Ouachita, 1 
 
 44 Morehouse, 1 
 
 " Union, 1 
 
 Caldwell, 1 
 
 44 Catahoula, 1 
 
 " Claiborne, 1 
 
 44 Bossier, 1 
 
 Total, 72 
 As soon as may be after the United States 
 census of 1850 shall have been taken and 
 promulgated, and every ten years thereaf- 
 ter, the number of representatives shall be 
 fixed and apportioned according to the prin- 
 
 ciples of this section, so as not to be less 
 than seventy, nor more than one hundred; 
 and whenever a new parish shall be created 
 a separate representation shall at the same 
 time be provided for it, which shall con- 
 tinue until the next decimal opportionment 
 On motion of Mr. O' Bryan the addition; 
 al sections that were made the order of the 
 day, for to day, after the reading of the 
 journal were laid on the table, subject to 
 call. 
 
 Mr. Guion moved that a committee of 
 three members from each congressional dis- 
 trict be appointed, with instructions to re- 
 port wether it would not be just and proper 
 to take, as a basis of representation, the en- 
 tire property of the State, both real and per- 
 sonal, subject to taxation, together with all 
 the white population thereof, who may be 
 entitled to the elective franchise; the yeas 
 and nays being called for resulted as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 Messrs. Auburt, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Briant, Brumfield, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Garcia, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, 
 Labauve, Ledoux, Legend?^, Marigny, Ma- 
 zureau, Preston, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Wikqff, Winchester 
 and Winder, voted in favor of the motion — 
 27 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty,Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, Clai- 
 borne, Covillion, Downs, Eustis, Garrett, 
 Humble, Hynson, King, Leonard, Lewis, 
 McCallop, McRae, Mayo, O' Bryan, Peets, 
 Porche, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Rat- 
 liff, Read, Roselius, Saunders, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Soule, Splane, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Voorhies, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt voted against 
 the motion— 44fnays; the same was lost. 
 
 The Convention then took under con- 
 sideration the motion of Mr. Benjamin to 
 strike out the words u each parish shall have 
 at least one representative," from the said 
 sixth section; and the yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie,Briant,Brumfield, Carriere, Cenas, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad 
 of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Grymes, Guion, Kenner, King, La- 
 bauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Mazureau, Preston, Pugh, Ratliff, Roman, \ 
 Roselius St. Amand, Saunders, SouU, \ 
 Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Voorhies, 
 Wadsworth, Wikoff, Winchester and Win- 
 der voted in the affirmative^-40 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. BrazeaJe, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Garcia, Gar- 
 rett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, McCaTlop, 
 McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porche, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Prudhomme, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Waddill, and Wederstrandt 
 voted in the negative — 32 nays; conse- 
 quently the motion was carried. 
 
 Mr.* Salts ders offered the following 
 amendment, viz: 
 
 "After the year 1846 the members of 
 the house of representatives shall be elec- 
 ted decimally, as follows: 
 
 "Every parish containing 250 qualified 
 voters may elect one representative, and in 
 the same proportion for a number of quali- 
 fied voters greater than 250. Provided, 
 that no parish shall ever elect more than 
 one sixth of the whole number of repre- 
 sentatives. 
 
 Parishes containing less than 250 quali- 
 fied voters shall be united when they adjoin 
 each other two or more together when neces- 
 sary to complete the number of 250 quali- 
 fied voters, and when so united shall be 
 considered as one parish in all things re- 
 specting the election of representatives ; 
 and any such parish not adjoining one of 
 the same class, shall be united to the ad- 
 joining parish having the largest fraction 
 over 2 50 qualified voters; and any two par 
 ishes, so united, shall be considered as one 
 parish in all things respecting the election 
 of representatives." 
 
 Mr. Sattxders then moved that the said 
 amendment, together with section sixth, be 
 referred to a special committee, composed of 
 three members from each congressional dis- 
 trict; and the yeas and nays being called 
 for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Briant, Briunfield, Carriere, Cenas, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Ewstis, 
 Garcia, Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, 
 King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Marigny, Mazureau,Preston, Pugh, Roman, 
 Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, Stephens, 
 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, Wadsworth, 
 Wikoff and Winchester voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 38 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, BrazeaJe, Brent, Burton, 
 Cade, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Gar- 
 rett, Humble, Hynson, Mc Call op, McRae, 
 Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porche, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott, of St. Lan- 
 dry, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Scott, of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Soule, Splane, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Voorhies, Waddill, Weder- 
 strandt, and Winder, voted in the nega- 
 tive — 34 nays ; consequently the motion 
 was carried. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff then moved that the Con- 
 vention adjourn till this evening at 7 o'clock 
 P. M.; which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Read then offered the following 
 amendment to the section sixth, to be sub- 
 mitted to the special committee, viz: 
 
 "Each parish containing one hundred 
 qualified electors shall be entitled to one 
 representative; five hundred qualified elec- 
 tors, two representatives ; one thousand 
 qualified electors, three representatives ; 
 two thousand qualified electors, four rep- 
 resentatives; four thousand qualified elec- 
 tors, five representatives; eight thousand 
 qualified electors, six representatives; six- 
 teen thousand qualified electors, seven re- 
 presentatives; thirty-two thousand qualified 
 electors, eight representatives; and so on 
 in regular progression, except in relation to 
 the parish of Orleans, which shall be enti- 
 tled to double the number it would have un- 
 der the regular progression applicable to 
 other parishes. 
 
 In- the year 1850, and every ten years 
 thereafter, an apportionment of representa- 
 tion shall be made as herein prescribed. 
 
 The following shall be the representa- 
 tion until the year 1850, viz: 
 
 The paris 
 
 h of Plaquemines 
 
 2 
 
 The parish of St. Bernard, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Orleans, 
 
 10 
 
 a 
 
 Jefferson, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 St. Charles 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 St. John the Baptiste, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 St. James, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 Ascension, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 Assumption, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 Lafourche Interior, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 Terrebonne, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Iberbille, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 West Baton Rouge, 
 
 I 
 
40 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 The Parish of East Baton Rouge, 2 
 
 " East Feliciana, 2 
 
 " West Feliciana, 2 
 
 St. Helena, 1 
 
 44 Livingston, 1 
 
 44 Washington, 1 
 
 4 « St. Tammany, 1 
 
 44 Point Coupee, 1 
 
 44 Concordia, 1 
 
 44 Tensas, 1 
 
 44 Madison, 1 
 
 Carroll, 1 
 
 44 Franklin, 1 
 
 St. Mary, 1 
 
 " St. Martin, 2 
 
 " Vermillion, 1 
 
 " Lafayette, 2 
 
 St. Landry, 3 
 
 " Calcassieu, 1 
 
 " Avoyelles, 2 
 
 " Rapides, 3 
 
 " Natchitoches, 3 
 
 Sabine, 2 
 
 Caddo, 1 
 
 De Soto, 1 
 
 " Ouachita, 1 
 
 " Morehouse, 1 
 
 44 Union, 1 
 
 44 Catahoula, 2 
 
 44 Claiborne, 2 
 
 44 Bossier, 1 
 
 Total, 75 
 
 No parish hereafter to be created shall 
 contain less than five hundred and twenty- 
 five square miles; nor shall any two or 
 more parishes now existing, or which may 
 hereafter exist, ever be consolidated so as 
 include within the limits ef the intended 
 parish more than five hundred and twenty- 
 five square miles, and then only with the 
 consent of the people interested therein." 
 
 Mr. Guion moved that the instructions 
 offered by him, be also submitted to the 
 special committee. 
 
 On motion of Mr, Beatty it was order- 
 ed that the committee take into considera- 
 tion all the projects that had been offered; 
 and 
 
 On motion the Convention adjourned till 
 this evening at 7 o'clock, P. M. 
 
 Note. — Members absent, Messrs. Jos. 
 Walker, president, on account of illness, 
 Bourg and Penn absent on leave. 
 
 Wednesday Evening, > 
 February 5, 1845. \ 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Marigny was called to the Chair. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Conrad of New Or- 
 leans, the additional sections offered by 
 Messrs. Roman, Claiborne, and Taylor of 
 Assumption, and laid on the table subject 
 to call, were made the special order of the 
 day for to-morrow. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Preston the Conven- 
 tion took under consideration the 14th sec- 
 tion of article 2d, as reported by the com- 
 mittee, viz : 
 
 Sec. 14. "Not less than a majority of the 
 members of each house of the general as- 
 sembly shall form a quorum to do business; 
 but a smaller number may adjourn from 
 day to day, and shall be authorized by law 
 to compel the attendance of absent mem- 
 bers, in such manner and under such pen. 
 alties as may be prescribed thereby;" and 
 
 On motion, said section was adopted. 
 
 On motion, the Convention then took up 
 the 15th section, of article 2d, viz : 
 
 Sec. 15. "Each house of the general as- 
 sembly shall judge of the qualifications, 
 elections and returns of its members; but a 
 contested election shall be determined in 
 such manner as shall be directed by law." 
 
 And, on motion, the same was adopted. 
 
 Then the Convention proceeded to the 
 to the 16th section of article 2d, viz : 
 
 Sec. 16. "Each house of the general as- 
 sembly may determine the rules of its pro- 
 ceedings, punish a member for disorderly 
 behavior, and, with the concurrence of two. 
 thirds, expel a member, but not the second 
 time for the same offence." 
 
 On motion, the said session was adopted 
 
 The Convention then took up section 17,- 
 of article 2d, viz : . 
 
 Sec. 17. "Each house of the general as- 
 sembly shall keep and publish weekly a 
 journal of its proceedings, and the yeas and 
 nays of the members on any question shall 
 at the desire of any two of them, be enter- 
 ed on the journal." 
 
 On motion, said section was adopted. 
 
 The Convention then took up the section 
 18th, of article 2d, viz : 
 
 Sec. 18. "Each house may punish by im- 
 prisonment, during the session, any person 
 not a member, for disrespectful and disor- 
 derly behavior in its presence, or for oh- 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 41 
 
 structing any of its proceedings: provided, 
 such imprisonment shall not at any one time 
 exceed ten days." 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to strike out the words 
 "during the session" from said section; his 
 motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to strike out the 
 words "at any one time" and insert the 
 words "for any one offence" His motion 
 prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved for the rejection of 
 the section as amended, and called for the 
 yeas and nays, which resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Carriere, Kenner, Ratliff, Soule, 
 Splane, Trist, and Wederstrandt, voted in 
 the affirmative — 7 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Briant, Burton, Cade, Cenas, 
 Chambliss, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, 
 Guion, Humble, Hynson, King, Ledoux, 
 Legendre, Lewis, McRae, Mayo, Mazu- 
 reau, O'Bryan, Peets, Porche, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Read, Roman, Roselius, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Voorhies, 
 Waddill, Wadsworth, Winchester and Win- 
 der voted in the negative — 54 nays; con- 
 sequently the motion was lost. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, said section 
 18th, was adopted as amended. 
 
 The Convention then took up the 1 9th 
 section of article 2d, viz : 
 
 Sec. 19. "Neither house during the ses- 
 sion of the general assembly shall, without 
 the consent of the other, adjourn for more 
 than three days, nor to any other place than 
 that in which they may be sitting." 
 
 And, on motion, the same was adopted. 
 
 The Convention then took up the 20th 
 section of article 2d, viz: 
 
 Sec. 20. "The members of the general 
 assembly shall severally receive from the 
 public treasury a compensation for their 
 services, which shall be four dollars per 
 day during their attendance on, going to, 
 and returning from the sessions of their re- 
 spective houses, provided that the same 
 may be increased or diminished by law; but 
 no alteration shall take effect during the 
 period of service of the members of the 
 house of representatives by whom such al- 
 teration shall have been made: And pro- 
 
 vided, also, that this compensation shall 
 exist for the period of sixty days only, but if 
 the general assembly shall at any time ex- 
 tend the session beyond sixty days, they 
 shall not receive any compensation for any 
 period beyond the said sixty days." 
 
 Ptlr. Beatty moved to amend the proviso, 
 by inserting the word "the" instead of 
 "this" and insert after the word compen- 
 sation " for attendance ." His motion pre- 
 vailed. 
 
 Mr. McRae moved to strike out the pro- 
 viso, and called for ayes and nays. 
 
 And previous to the question being put, 
 Mr. Read offered the following substitute, 
 viz : 
 
 "And provided also, that this compensa- 
 tion shall exist for the period of sixty days, 
 only, but if the general assembly shall at 
 any time extend the session beyond sixty 
 days, they shall receive but one half the 
 foregoing compensation for any period be- 
 yond the said sixty days. 
 
 And pending the discussion the Con- 
 vention adjourned until tomorrow, at 11 
 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent — 'Messrs. Jo- 
 seph Walker, President, absent on account 
 of sickness; Boudousquie, Bourg, on leave; 
 Garcia, Grymes, Leonard, McCallop, Penn, 
 on leave; St. Amand and Wikoff. 
 
 Thursday, February, 6, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Woolridge opened the 
 proceedings with prayer. 
 
 The President appointed Messrs. Saun- 
 ders, Wm. B. Scott, and Ratliff' from third 
 district, Downs, Porter, Lewis from fourth, 
 Wadsworth, Benjamin, Grymes from first; 
 and Preston, Roman and Beaty from the 
 second, members of the committee to whom 
 was referred the 6th section of article 
 2nd. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Sec. 9. In all cases where persons of- 
 fering to vote shall be naturalized citizens 
 the residence of two years in the State, re- 
 quired by the preceding section, shall com- 
 mence from or after the date of their na- 
 turalization. 
 
 Mr. Guion offered the following as a 
 substitute' to the 9th section; 
 
 "No person shall have the right of voting 
 
42 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 in this State, until he shall have been two 
 years a citizen of the United States." 
 
 Mr. Downs offered the following proviso 
 to the substitute, viz: "Provided that this 
 section shall not be construed so as to dis- 
 franchise any person already entitled to 
 vote." 
 
 And on the adoption of the substitute, as 
 amended by the proviso, the yeas and nays 
 being called for resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatiy, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, 
 Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Grymes, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 d-re, Lewis, Mazureau , Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Sellers, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, 
 Yoorhies, Wadsworth, Wikoff, Winchester 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative — 42 
 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Cade, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Downs, Eustis, Garcia, Humble, 
 Ilynson, Lcdoux, Leonard, McCallop, Mc 
 Rae, Marigny, Mayo, O" 'Bryan, Peets, Por- 
 che, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Preston, 
 Raliiff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Soule, 
 Splane, Stephens, Waddill and Weder- 
 strandt voted in the negative — 32 nays ; 
 consequently the motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Yoorhies moved to rescind the rule 
 fixing the evening sessions at 7 o'clock, and 
 the yeas and nays being called for, resulted 
 as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudoiisquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad 
 of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Grymes, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Ilynson, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, 
 Leonard, McCallop, Mazureau, P or die, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Ratliff, 
 Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Soule, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Yoorhies, Wedersirandt, Win- 
 chester and Winder voted in favor of the 
 motion — 42 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. BeaUy, Brazeale, Brent, Cade, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, 
 Eustis, Humble, Lewis, Mc Rae, Marigny, 
 Mayo, (y Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Preston, Pugh, Read, Saunders, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Splane, Trist, 
 Waddill, Wadsworth and Wikoff voted 
 against the motion — 31 nays; the same was 
 carried. 
 
 On motion the Convention adjourned till 
 to-morrow at 11 o'clock a. m. 
 
 ,-Note. — Members absent, Messrs. Jos. 
 Walker, president, absent on account of 
 illness, and Penn on leave. 
 
 Friday, February 7th, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Warren opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Saunders, chairman 
 of the committee to whom was referred the 
 6th section of article 2d, it was ordered 
 that the said committee be authorised to 
 have printed all documents in relation to 
 said section 6th, and which may facilitate 
 them in the discharge of their duties. 
 
 Leave was granted Mr. Penn to have his 
 vote recorded in the negative on the vote 
 given yesterday on the adoption of the 9th 
 section as amended. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ratliff, chairman of 
 the committee on contingent expenses, the 
 following resolution was adopted, viz: 
 
 "Resolved, that the committee on con- 
 tingent expenses be authorized to pay to J. 
 Bayon, editor of the Courier, and to Be- 
 sangon, Ferguson & Co., editors of the 
 Jeffersonian Republican, each the sum of 
 five hundred dollars, being in advance for 
 ten copies of their respective papers to be 
 furnished the Convention during its session, 
 as per resolution of this Convention adopt- 
 ed on the 27th .January, 1845." 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Sec. 10. It shall be the duty of the gen- 
 eral assembly to provide by law for the re- 
 gistration, at Isast three months before 
 every general election, of all the qualified 
 voters of the State, in the several parishes 
 in which they actually reside. No person 
 shall be entitled to vote except in the par- 
 ish of his residence, and if the parish is di- 
 vided into election precincts or wards, in 
 the election precinct or ward where he re- 
 sides; and except his name shall have been 
 recorded in the last registry made previous 
 to the election. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to strike out from said 
 section the words, «« It .shall be the duty of 
 the general assembly to provide by law for 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 43 
 
 the registration, at least three months before 
 every general election, of all the qualified 
 voters of the State, in the several parishes 
 in which they actually reside," 
 
 Mr. Coisrad of New Orleans, offered 
 the following amendment, viz: 
 
 "It shall be the duty of the general as- 
 sembly to provide by law for the registra- 
 tion, at least three months before the gen- 
 eral election, of all the qualified voters re- 
 siding in the several cities and incorporated 
 towns having a white population exceeding 
 one thousand persons." 
 
 Mr. Sellers offered the following amend- 
 ment, viz: 
 
 "Residence in a parish, city or town en- 
 titled to representation, can only be acqui- 
 red by personal residence during the time 
 specified, to commence by a declaration 
 filed by the person wishing to acquire it. 
 in the office of the clerk of some court of 
 record for such parish, and the commence- 
 ment of such residence shall only date from 
 such declaration; nor shall any proof other 
 than such record of declaration be received, 
 )o prove the commencement of such resi- 
 dence." 
 
 Mr. Brext then moved for the previous 
 question. 
 
 Mr. Ratltff moved that the Convention 
 adjourn till Monday next, at 11 o'clock, a, 
 m.» and the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bow 
 dousquie, Briant, Brumfield, Cenas, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Jefferson, Chdbertson, 
 Dunn, Garcia, Guion. Kenner, Labauve, 
 Ledoux. Legendre, Marigny, Mdzureau, 
 Ratlijf, Read, Roman, Roselius, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Trist, Wadsworlh and Win- 
 chester voted in favor of the motion — 27 
 Veas; and 
 
 tMessrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Bur- 
 ton, Cade, Carriere. Chambliss, Conrad 
 of New Orleans, CoviUion, Derbes, Downs, 
 Eiistis, Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, King, Leonard, Lewis. M'Callop, Mc- 
 Rae, Mayo, 0'Bryan,Peets,Penn, Porche, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St- 
 Landry, Preston. Prudhomme. Pugh, St. 
 Amand, Scott of Feliciana, Scott o? Madi- 
 son, Sellers, Soule, Splane. Stephens. Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Voothies, Waddill, We- 
 derstrandt and Wikoff, voted against the mo- 
 tion — 44 nays; the same was lost. 
 
 Mr. Coxrad of Jefferson, then moved 
 that the Convention adjourn till to-morrow 
 
 ] at 11 o'clock, a. m., and the yeas and 
 . nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Brumfield, Burton, Cenasi 
 i Claiborne, Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, 
 I Dunn, Garcia, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, 
 [King, Labauve, Legendre, Leonard, Lewis, 
 Marigny, Mdzureau, Pugh, Roman, Rose- 
 ■ litis, St. Amand, Trist, Yoorhies, Wads- 
 i worth, Wikojf and Winchester voted in the 
 affirmative — 32 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Cade, 
 : Carriere. Chambliss, Conrad of Xew Or- 
 leans, Covillon, Culbertson, Downs, Eustis, 
 ', Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, McCal- 
 ; lop, McRae, Mayo, O' Bryan, Feeis, Penn, 
 Porche, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 \cott of St. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 \ Ratlijf, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 : of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, 
 Soule, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Waddill and Wederstrandt vo- 
 ; ted in the negative — 39 nays; consequent- 
 ly the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Brext then renewed his motion for 
 the previous question. The president then 
 put the question. '"Shall the main question 
 be now put?" and the yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin. Boudousquie. 
 Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, 
 Conrad .of Jefferson. CoviUion, Culbert- 
 son, Derbes, Downs, Eustis, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Ledoux, Leonard, Lewis, McCallop, 
 McRae. Marigny. Mayo, Mazu.rcau. O' Bry- 
 an, Peets, Penn, Porche, Porter, Prescott 
 of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Pres- 
 ton, Prudhomme, Read, Roman, St. Amant, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge. Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Soule, Splane, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Waddill, 
 Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, TVil'off. and 
 Winchester voted in the affirmative— 54 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Conrad of Xew Orleans, Clai- 
 borne, Dunn, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Le- 
 gendre, Pugh, Ratlijf, Roselius, Sellers, 
 and Yoorhies. votedin the negative; 17navs 
 — the motion was carried. 
 
 On the motion of Mr. Voorhies to ad- 
 journ till to-morrow at 11 o'clock, a. m., 
 the yeas and nays being called for, resulted 
 as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin. Bourg, Bri- 
 
44 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 ant, Burton, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Covil- 
 lion, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, 
 Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Leonard, Lewis, Marigny, Mazu- 
 reau, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, 
 Voorhies, Wadsworth, Wikoff, and Win- 
 chester voted in favor of the motion — 32 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, BrumJield,Cade, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Downs, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Ledoux, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, 
 
 Bryan, Peets,Penn, Porche, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry; 
 Preston, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott 
 of Madison, Sellers, Soule, Splane, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Waddill, 
 and Wedersirandt voted against the motion 
 — 35 nays; the motion was therefore lost. 
 
 On the call being made upon the presi- 
 dent as to what question was the main 
 question, the president decided that there 
 having been no motion made to adopt or re- 
 ject the section under debate, and the first 
 motion made being to strike out a portion 
 of the section, that that motion was the pre- 
 vious or main question. 
 
 Mr. Lewis appealed from the decision 
 of the chair, and called for the yeas and 
 nays, and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Cade, Qarriere, Cenas, Chambliss, Clai- 
 borne, Covillion, Culbertson, Downs, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Ledoux, Leonard, McCallop, 
 McRae, Marigny, Mayo, CBryan, Peeis, 
 Perm, Porche, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Prudhom- 
 me, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Soule, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, and Wederstrandt voted 
 to sustain the decision of the chair— 40 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert,Beatty, Benjamin,Bourg, 
 Briant, Burton, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, Dunn, Gar- 
 cia, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, King, La- 
 bauve, Legendre, Lewis, Maztireau, Pugh, 
 Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Sellers, 
 Wadsworth, Wikoff, and Winchester voted 
 against the decision of the chair — 27 nays; 
 consequently the decision was sustained. 
 
 The yeas and nays being then called on 
 Mr. Downs' motion to strike out the words 
 "It shall be the duty of the general assem- 
 
 bly to provide by law for the registration, 
 at least three months before every general 
 election, of all the qualified voters of the 
 State, in the several parishes in which 
 they actually reside," resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent- 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Downs, Eustis, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, 
 Ledoux, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, 
 
 Bryan, Peets, Penn,Porche, Porter, Pres. 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Prudhomme, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scoit of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, 
 Sellers, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Voorhies, Waddill and We- 
 derstrandt, voted in the affirmative — 44 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Briant, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Garcia, Guion, Hudspeth, King, Labauve, 
 Leonard, Lewis, Mazureau, Pugh, Ratliff, 
 Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Wadsworth, 
 Wikoff, and Winchester, voted in the nega- 
 tive— 21 nays; so the motion was carried. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow at 11 o'clock, a.m. 
 
 Saturday, February 8, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Clark opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Dunn, the chairman 
 of the Convention, (Mr. Saunders) was au- 
 thorized to sign warrants on the treasury of 
 the State. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ratliff, the secretary 
 was directed to give to the printers to the 
 Convention a certified copy of the resolution 
 adopted yesterday, allowing to each the 
 sum of 8500. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff, chairman of the committee 
 on contingent expenses, submitted the fol- 
 lowing report and resolution, viz : 
 
 " The committee on contingent expenses, 
 to whom was referred the business of set- 
 tling and adjusting the account of Jame s A, 
 Kelly, late printer to the Convention, beg 
 leave to report, that they have had the ac- 
 counts of Mr. Kelly under consideration, 
 and after deducting several items in said 
 accounts, marked C. D. A. B. E. F. G* 
 and H,, amounting to $874, find a balance 
 due to said James A. Kelly, of $1474, (four- 
 teen hundred and seventy-four dollars,) — all 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 45 
 
 of which is respectfully submitted wfth the 
 following resolution, viz : 
 
 (Signed) CYRUS RATLIFF, 
 
 Chairman.' 3 
 
 "Resolved. That the sum of 81474. (four- 
 teen hundred and seventy. ibur dollar-. ) be 
 allowed James A. Kelly, late printer to the 
 Convention, in mil tor all extra printing for 
 the Convention, and also for all other ex- 
 penses attendant upon his removal from 
 Jackson to New Orleans.' 3 
 
 Mr. Brext moved that the report and 
 resolution be laid on the table subject to 
 call, which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Ratlitf then moved for the adoption 
 of the report and resolution. The yeas and 
 nays being called tor — 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty. Benjamin. 
 Bourg. Briant. Brumfield, Burton. Cade. 
 Cenas, Chambliss, Claiborne. Conrad of 
 Xew Orleans. Conrad of Jefferson. Cuibert- 
 son, Derbes, Downs. Dunn, Eustis. Garrett, 
 Guion, Hudspeth.. Humble, King, Ledoux, 
 Legendre. Leonard. Lewis. McCallop. 
 McRea, Marigny. Mayo, Mazureau, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles. Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Preston, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratlitf. 
 Read, Roman. Roselius, Scoti of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers. Soule. Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. La:i- 
 dry. Voorhies. Waddill, Wederstrandt, Wi- 
 koff and Winder voted in the affirmative — 
 54 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent. Carriere. Covil- 
 lion, Hynson, Peets, Penn and Porche 
 voted in the negative — 9 nays: consequent- 
 ly the motion was carried. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Dowxs, leave of ab- 
 sence was granted Messrs. Chi mi. and 
 Scott of Baton Rouge. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. , 
 
 Sect. 10. 2So person shall be entitled 
 to vote except in the parish of his residence, 
 and if the parish is divided into election pre- 
 cincts or wards, in the precinct or ward 
 where he resides, and except his name shall 
 have been recorded in the last registry 
 made previous to the election. 
 
 Mr. Cade moved to strike out after the 
 words u of his residence,'*' the balance of 
 the section. 
 
 Mr. Roman moved to amend said section 
 by inserting arter the word "vote" the words 
 " at any- elections held in this State," and 
 his motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Be>"ja:ii:n moved for a division of 
 
 the motion to strike out, that is the Conven- 
 tion first proceed to strike out from the 
 words, "and if the parish is divided." to 
 the words " ward where he resides." His 
 motion prevailed. 
 
 The ayes and nays being called for on 
 the motion to strike out. resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Bourg. Brazeale. Brent. Brum- 
 fied, Burton. Cade. Carriere. Cenas. Cham- 
 bliss. Covillion, Downs, Dunn. Garrett, 
 Humble, Hynson. McCallop. 31cRae. Ma- 
 rigny. Mayo. O'Bryan, Peets. Penn. Porche. 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 St. Landry. Preston. Prudhomme, Ratliff, 
 Read, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, 
 Splane, Stephens, Waddill and Wederstrandt 
 voted in favor of the motion — 36 ayes; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Briant, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Xew Orleans, Conrad 
 of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Eustis, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, King, Labauve, Leonard, 
 Lewis. Mazureau, Pugh, Roman. Sellers, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Voorhies, Wikoff and Winder voted 
 against the motion — 2d nays: consequently 
 the same was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Lewis then moved to strike out the 
 balance of said section, that is from the 
 words u and except " to the last word 
 "election." His motion was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Xew Orleans, then moved 
 the additional amendment to the section as 
 amended, viz : '-and in cities or towns *di- 
 vided into two election precincts, by the 
 election precinct where he resides," and the 
 yeas and nays being called for, resulted as 
 follows : 
 
 Jlessrs. Aubert, Beatty. Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Cade, Cenas, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 King. Legendre. Leonard. Lewis, Marigny, 
 Mazureau, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Ro- 
 selius, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Voor- 
 hies, Wikoff and Winder voted in favor of 
 the amendment — 36 ayes; and 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Downs, Humble, Hynson, Le- 
 doux, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, 
 Peets, Penn, Porche, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Ratiiff, Read, Scott of Madison, Splane, 
 tephens, Waddill and Wederstrandt voted 
 
46 
 
 journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 against the amendment — 27 nays; conse- 
 quently the same was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Lewis then moved the adoption of 
 the section as amended, viz : 
 
 "Sect. 10. No person shall be entitled 
 to vote at any election in this State, except 
 in the parish of his residence, and in cities 
 or towns divided into election precincts, in 
 the election precinct in which he resides;" 
 and the yeas and nays being called for — 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Cade, Carriere, 
 Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, King, Legendre, Leonard, Lewis, 
 Mazureau, Penn, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Voor- 
 hies, WikofF and Winder voted in the af- 
 firmative — 37 ayes ; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cham- 
 bliss, Downs, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, 
 McCallop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porche, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, RatlifF, 
 Read, Scott of Madison, Splane, Waddill 
 and Wederstrandt voted in the negative—- 
 24 nays ; consequently the motion was 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Sellers renewed the resolution of- 
 fered by him on yesterday, and moved that 
 the same be printed and laid on the table, 
 subject to call, which motion prevailed — 
 which is as follows, viz : 
 
 "Residence in a parish, city or town, en- 
 titled to representation, can only be ac- 
 quired by personal residence during the 
 time specified, to commence by a declara- 
 tion filed by the person wishing to acquire 
 it, in the office of the clerk of some court of 
 record for such parish, and the commence- 
 ment of such residence shall only date from 
 such declaration; nor shall any proof other 
 than such record of declaration be received, 
 to prove the commencement of such resi- 
 dence. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ratliff, the secretary 
 was directed to give to Mr. J. A. Kelly, late 
 printer to the Convention, a certified copy 
 of the resolution adopted to-day, allowing to 
 said Kelly the sum of fourteen hundred and 
 seventy-four dollars, ($1474.) 
 
 On motion the Convention adjourned till 
 Monday next, at 11 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent—- Messrs. Jo- 
 
 seph Walker, President, absent on account 
 of illness; Messrs. Boudousquie, Garcia, 
 Grymes, Kenner, St. Amand, Trist, Win- 
 chester; and Messrs. Chinn, and Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, absent on leave. 
 
 Monday, February 10, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. The Hon. Joseph Walter, presi- 
 dent, in the chair. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Wooleidge opened the 
 proceedings by prayer. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Splane the following 
 resolution was adopted: 
 
 " Resolved, That a committee of three be 
 appointed, whose duty it shall be to report 
 to this Convention the causes which ope- 
 rate' against the daily report of the debates 
 of this body; and further, to report upon the 
 necessity of appointing one or more ad- 
 ditional reporters." 
 
 The president appointed Messrs. Splane, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, and Scott of Madi- 
 son, members of said committee. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 ARTICLE second, as reported by the 
 
 COMMITTEE. 
 
 Sec. 20. The members of the general 
 assembly shall severallyreceive from the pub- 
 lic treasury a compensation for their servi- 
 ces, which shall be four dollars per day 
 during their attendance on, going to, and 
 returning from the sessions of their respec- 
 tive houses, provided that the same may be 
 increased or diminished by law; but no al- 
 teration shall take effect during the period 
 of service of the members of the house of 
 representatives by whom such alterations 
 shall have been made: and provided also, 
 that this compensation shall exist for the 
 period of sixty days only, but if the general 
 assembly shall at any time extend the ses- 
 sion beyond sixty days, they shall not re- 
 ceive any compensation for any period be- 
 yond the said sixty days. 
 
 Mr. Read, with leave, withdrew the pro- 
 viso offered by him on Wednesday evening 
 last, and submitted the following substitute, 
 viz: 
 
 "Provided also, that no session shall ex- 
 tend to a period beyond sixty days, to date 
 from its commencement." 
 
 Mr. Brent offered the following amend- 
 ment, which was accepted by Mr. Read: 
 
 "Except the session of the first legisla* 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 47 
 
 tare which is to convene after the adoption 
 of this constitution.''' 
 
 Mr. Downs offered to amend said substi- 
 tute by adding the words, "and unless, also, 
 the session be protracted on a request 
 by the governor, or by a vote of two-thirds 
 of the members of the legislature." 
 
 Mr. Scott of Baton Rouge, moved to 
 strike out the latter part of the amendment, 
 the words "or by a vote of two-thirds of the 
 members of the legislature." 
 
 His motion was adopted. 
 
 And the yeas and nays being called for 
 on the adoption of the amendment of Mn 
 Downs, as amended, resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Burton, Cade. Covillion, Downs. 
 Humble, Mayo, Preston, Pugh. Scott of Fe- 
 liciana, Taylor of St. Landry, and Wikqff 
 voted in the affirmative — 11 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Carriere, Cham- 
 bliss, Chinn, Conrad of New Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson,Culbertson,Derbes, Grymes, 
 Hudspeth, Hynson, Kenner, King, La- 
 bauve, Legendre, Leonard, Lewis, McCal- 
 lop, McRae, Marigny, Mazureau, Peets, 
 Penn, Porche, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles. 
 Prescott of St. Landry? Prudhormne, Read, 
 Roman, Roselius, St. Amand. Saunders, 
 Scott of Raton Rouge, Scott of Madison, ! 
 Sellers, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of: 
 Assumption, Trist, Vocrhies, Waddill, We 
 derstrandt and Winder voted in the nega 
 tive — 51 nays; the motion was consequent 
 ly lost. 
 
 Mr. Read moved to adopt the proviso as 
 amended, and called for the yeas and nays. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved for a division, that 
 the Convention first proceed to adopt the 
 first paragraph of said proviso, and his mo- 
 tion prevailed. 
 
 The yeas and nays being then called for 
 on the adoption of the first paragraph, re- 
 sulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Conrad 
 of New Orleans. Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Downs, Eustis, Grymes, 
 Garrett,Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, 
 Kenner. Labauve, Legendre, Leonard. 
 Lewis, McCallop, Marignv, Mazureau, 
 Peets. Penn. Porche, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme/Read, 
 Roman. Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana. 
 Scott of Madison, Soule, Splane, Taylor of 
 
 Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, 
 \ oorhies, Wederstrandt, Winchester and 
 V\ mder voted in the affirmative — 50 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty. Bourg. Briant, Burton, 
 Chinn, Covillion, Dunn, King, McRae, 
 Mayo. Porter, Preston, Pugh, Ratliff, Sel- 
 lers. Stephens. Waddill and Wikoff voted in 
 the negative — IS nays: the motion was 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Beatty then offered to amend the 
 said proviso by adding after the word "com- 
 mencement/" the words "and that any le- 
 gislative action had after the expiration of 
 the said sixty days, shall be null and void." 
 
 Mr. Covillion moved to lay the amend- 
 ment on the table indefinitely, and called 
 for the yeas and nays: and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Briant, Burton, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Conrad of New Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson. Covillion, Gar- 
 cia, Humble, Hynson Mayo. Penn, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Pugh, Ratliff, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Waddill, Wederstrandt and Winches- 
 ter voted in favor of the motion — 2-1 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert. Beatty, Benjamin, Bri- 
 ant, Cade. Cenas, Chinn, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Grymes, 
 Garrett, Guion. Hudspeth, Kenner King, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Leonard. Lewis. Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Marignv. Mazureau. Peets, 
 Porche, Porter, Prudhomme, Read, Roman, 
 Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders. Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott ot Feliciana. Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers. Soule. Splane. Stephens, 
 Taylor of St. Landry. Trist, Voorhies, Wi- 
 koff and Winder voted in the negative — 47 
 nays; the motion was lost. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Beatty the amend- 
 ment was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Marig>w offered the following reso- 
 lution, viz: 
 
 Resolved, That the mileage of the mem- 
 bers of both houses of the general assem- 
 bly shall be so calculated as mever to ex- 
 ceed forty dollars for going to, and return- 
 ing from the seat of government. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Beatty the said 
 amendment was laid on the table inde- 
 finitely. 
 
 .Mr. Mayo moved to strike out from said 
 section, in the 5th line, the words "going to 
 and returning from," and insert in the 6th 
 line, after the word "house the words 
 
48 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 "and ten cents per mile for travelling to, 
 and returning from the place where the 
 sessions of the legislature may be held." 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved that said amend- 
 ment be laid on the table indefinitely, and 
 the yeas and nays being called for, resulted 
 as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, 
 Briant,Chambliss,Chinn,Conrad of Orleans, 
 Downs, Dunn, Garcia, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Lewis, McCal- 
 lop, McRae, Peets, Penn, Porter, Preston, 
 Prudhomme, Read, Roman, Roselius, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Sellers, Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Wikoff, Winchester and Win- 
 der voted in the affirmative — 37 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Burton, Cade, Cenas, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Eustis, Garrett, Kenner, Labauve, 
 Leonard, Marigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Porche, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Pugh, Ratliff, St. Amand, Scott of Fe- 
 liciana, Soule, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill and 
 Wederstrandt voted in the negative — 28 
 nays; the motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Beatty then moved the adoption of 
 the section as amended, viz: 
 
 Sec. 20. The members of the general 
 assembly shall severally receive from the 
 public treasury a compensation for their 
 services, which shall be four dollars per 
 day, during attendance on, going to and re- 
 turning from the sessions of their respec- 
 tive houses, provided that the same shall be 
 increased or diminished by law; but no al- 
 teration shall take effect during the period 
 of service of the members of the house of 
 representatives- by whom such alteration 
 shall have been made: and provided, 
 also, that no session shall extend to a pe- 
 riod of beyond sixty days, to date from its 
 commencement; and that any legislative ac- 
 tion had after the expiration of the said six- 
 ty days, shall be null and void, except the 
 session of the first legislature which is to 
 convene after the adoption of this constitu- 
 tion. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, re- 
 sulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Briant, Brumfield, Cade, Chambliss, 
 Chinn, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, 
 Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Kenner, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Le- 
 
 gendre, Leonard, Lewis, McCallop, Marig- 
 ny, Peets Penn, Porche, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Prud- 
 homme, Pugh, Read, Roman, Roselius, St, 
 Amand, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge,, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Soule, Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Trist, Voorhies, Wederstrandt, 
 Wikoff, Winchester and Winder voted in 
 the affirmative — 58 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Burton, Covillion, McRae, Mayo. 
 O'Bryan, Preston, Ratliff and Waddill voted 
 against the motion — 8 nays; and conse- 
 quently the same was carried. 
 
 On motion the Convention took under 
 consideration section 21st, viz: 
 
 Sec. 21. The members of the general as- 
 sembly shall, in all cases except treason,felo- 
 ny, breach or surety of the peace, be privi- 
 leged from arrest during their attendance 
 at the sessions of their respective houses, 
 and going to and returning from the same; 
 and for any speech or debate in either 
 house, they shall not be questioned in any 
 other place. 
 
 The same was adopted. 
 
 Then the Convention proceeded to sec- 
 tion 22d, viz: 
 
 Sec 22. No senator or representative 
 shall, during the term for which he was 
 elected, nor for one year thereafter, be ap- 
 pointed or elected to any civil office of 
 profit under this State, whicli shall have 
 been created, or the emoluments of which 
 shall have been increased during the time 
 such senator or representative was in office, 
 except to such offices or appointments as 
 may be filled by the elections of the people. 
 
 The same was adopted. 
 
 The Convention next took up the 23d 
 section, viz: 
 
 Sec. 23. No person while he continues 
 to exercise the functions of a clergyman, 
 priest, or teacher of any religious persua- 
 sion, society or sect, shall be eligible to the 
 general assembly, or to any office of profit 
 or trust, under this State. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Lewis said section 
 was laid on the table, subject to call. 
 
 The Convention then took up the 24th 
 section, viz; 
 
 Sec. 24. No person who at any ti«* e 
 may have been a collector of taxes, or who 
 may have been otherwise entrusted with 
 public money, shall be eligible to the gen- 
 eral assembly, or to any other office of 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 49 
 
 profit or trust under the State government, 
 until he shall have obtained a quietus for 
 the amount of such collection, and for all 
 public moneys with which he may have 
 been entrusted. 
 
 The said section was adopted. 
 
 The Convention then took up the 25th 
 section, viz: 
 
 Sec. 25. Xo bill shall have the force of a 
 law until, on three several days, it be read 
 over in each house of the general assem- 
 bly, and free discussion allowed thereon, 
 unless in case of urgency, four-fifths of the 
 house where the bill shall be depending 
 may deem it expedient to dispense with 
 this rule. 
 
 The section was adopted. 
 
 The Convention proceeded to the con- 
 sideration of the 26th section, viz: 
 
 Sec. 26. All bills for raising revenue 
 shall originate in the house of representa- 
 tives, but the senate may propose amend- 
 ments as in other bills; provided, that they 
 shall not introduce any new matter under 
 the color of an amendment which may not 
 relate to raising a revenue. 
 
 The section was adopted. 
 
 Then the Convention took up the 27th 
 section, viz: 
 
 Sec. 27. The general assembly shall 
 regulate by law, by whom and in what 
 manner writs of election shall be issued to 
 fill vacancies which may happen in either 
 branch thereof. 
 
 On motion, said section was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Xew Orleans, gave no- 
 tice that he would move the re-considera- 
 tion of the vote given on the 8th section, for 
 the purpose of offering the following amend- 
 ment, viz: 
 
 "And shall, dming said year, have paid, 
 or become liable to pay a state tax to the 
 amount of one dollar; or who, or whose 
 father or mother shall during said year have 
 been a housekeeper or head of a family, or 
 paid rent to the amoimt of dollars." 
 
 Mr. Coxrad then moved that the same 
 be printed; which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Garrett offered the following re- 
 solution, viz: 
 
 "Resolved, that the committee of revision 
 be instructed to add a proviso to the 8th 
 section of the 2d article, to the effect that 
 the provision in the 8th section of this ar- 
 ticle, requiring a residence of two years in 
 this state before any person shall be a qual- 
 
 ified elector* shall not be so construed as to 
 deprive any person of the right of voting 
 who is entitled to that right under the con- 
 stitution of 1812, at the time of the adop- 
 tion of this constitution." 
 
 On motion, the same was referred to the 
 committee of revision. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, called up 
 the 11th section; viz: 
 
 Sec. 11. Absence from the State shall 
 interrupt the residence required in the pre- 
 ceding section, unless the person absenting 
 himself shall be a housekeeper, and his 
 dwelling shall be actually and exclusively 
 occupied during his absence by his f mily 
 or some portion thereof. * 
 
 To which he offered the following sub- 
 stitute, viz: 
 
 "Absence from the State for more than 
 sixty days shall interrupt the residence ac- 
 quired in the preceding section, unless the 
 person absenting himself shall be a house- 
 keeper, or shall occupy a tenement for car- 
 rying on some business or mechanical 
 pursuit, and his dwelling house or the ten- 
 ement for carrying on his business, or me- 
 chanical pursuit, shall be actually and ex- 
 clusively occupied during his absence by 
 his family or servants, or some portion 
 thereof, or by some one employed by him 
 in business or mechanical pursuit." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Coxrad of Xew Or- 
 leans, the said substitute was laid on the 
 table subject to call, and ordered to be 
 printed. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Feliciana, moved that the 
 Convention take under consideration the 
 9th section of article 2d. 
 
 And previous to the reading of the same, 
 the Convention adjourned till to-morrow at 
 11 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Xote — Members absent, Messrs. Bou- 
 dousquie and Wadsworth. 
 
 Tuesday, February 11, 1845. 
 The convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Scott opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer^ 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Article 2d, as reported by the commit- 
 tee. 
 
 Sec. 9. "The members of the Senate 
 shall be chosen for the term of four years, 
 and when assembled, shall have the power 
 to choose its officers every two years." 
 
50 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Scott of Feliciana, 
 said section was adopted. 
 
 The 10th section was then called up, of 
 article 2d, and pending the reading of the 
 same, Mr. Taylor, of Assumption, moved 
 that it be laid on the table, subject to call, 
 and his motion prevailed. 
 
 The Convention took under consideration 
 section 11th. Pending the reading of it, 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans, moved that 
 the said section and all others in relation to 
 the same subject, be laid on the table, sub- 
 ject to call; his motion was adopted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Benjamin, the con- 
 vention then took under consideration the 
 4th section of article 2d, as reported by the 
 committee, viz : 
 
 Sec. 4. No person shall be a represent- 
 ative who, at the time of his election, is not 
 a free white male citizen of the United 
 States, and hath not attained the age of 
 twenty-one years, and resided in the State 
 two years next preceding his election, and 
 the last year thereof in the parish for which 
 he may be chosen. 
 
 To which Mr. Chinn offered the follow- 
 ing amendment, viz: "And shall hold and 
 possess in his own name, landed property 
 to the value of at least five hundred dol- 
 lars." 
 
 Mr. Voorhies moved to reject said 
 amendment, and the yeas and nays being 
 called for, resulted as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Barton, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Cham- 
 bliss, Claiborne, Conrad of Jefferson, Cou- 
 villton, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Grymes, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, Ken- 
 ner, King, LaBauve, McCallop, McRae, 
 Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, O' Bryan, 
 Peets, Porche, Porter, Prescott of Avoy- 
 elles, Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, 
 RatlifF, Read, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt, Wikoff, 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative^— 52 
 ayes. 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Briant, Chinn, Conrad of New Or- 
 leans, Culbertson, Derbes, Legendre, Lew- 
 is, Pugh, Roman, and St. Amand voted in 
 the negative — nays 13. The motion was 
 carried. 
 
 A call being made upon the President 
 
 to declare whether the section reported by 
 the committee, or that section as amended 
 at previous sittings, was the section under 
 consideration. 
 
 The President decided that the section as 
 amended was before the convention. 
 
 Mr. Downs appealed from the decision 
 of the chair, and the yeas and nays being 
 called for, resulted as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Brazeale, Briant, Brumfield, 
 Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Couvillion, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Garrett, Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, Hyn- 
 son, Kenner, King, LaBauve, Legendre, 
 Lewis, Mazureau, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, 
 Saunders, Sellers, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, Wads- 
 worth, Wikoff and Winder, voted in favor 
 of the decision of the chair — 41 ayes. 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Burton, Cade, Car- 
 riere, Downs, Eustis, Humble, Le- 
 doux, Leonard, McCallop, McRae, Marig- 
 ny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porche, 
 Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Soule, 
 Splane, Stephens, Trist, Waddill, and 
 Wederstrandt voted against the decision of 
 the chair — 31 nays, consequently the de- 
 cision was sustained. 
 
 Mr. Guion moved to strike out the word 
 "fooir," and insert in lieu thereof, the word 
 "three." 
 
 Mr. Downs moved for a division, thatis, 
 the convention first proceed to strike out, 
 which motion was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Prescott of St. Landry, offered 
 the following substitute, viz : 
 
 Section 4. "All persons enjoying the 
 right of suffrage under this constitution, 
 shall be eligible to a seat in the House of 
 Representatives." 
 
 The President decided the substitute was 
 inadmissible, because the division of a 
 question was then pending before the con- 
 vention, and could be received only after 
 the decision of the two branches of the 
 question by the convention. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to lay on the table, 
 indefinitely, the motion to strike out, which 
 motion was lost. 
 
 The yeas and nays being then called 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. ol 
 
 for, on the motion of Mr. Guion, to strike 
 out the word "four" resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Cade, Carriere. 
 Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Downs, Eustis, . Garrett, Guion, 
 Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Leonard, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, 
 Peets, Penn, Porche, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, 
 Soule, Splane, Stephens, Trist, Waddill, 
 and Wederstrandt voted in the affirmative — 
 44 ayes. 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brumfield, Burton, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Jefferson, Cou- 
 villion, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, 
 Grymes, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, La- 
 Bauve, Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Prud- 
 homme, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, Saun- 
 ders, Taylor of Assumption. Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Voorhies, Wads worth, Wikoff, 
 and Winder voted in the negative — 29 
 nays. The motion was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Gnox then moved that the blank 
 be filled with the word "//zree," and the 
 ayes and nays being, called for, resulted as 
 follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert. Beatty, Benjamin. 
 Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Ce- 
 nas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of New Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Couvillion. 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Garcia ; Grymes, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, LaBauve, 
 Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh. Roman, St. A.mand, Saunders, Sel- 
 lers, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Voorhies, Wads worth, WikofT, 
 and Winder voted in favor of the motion— 
 38 ayes. 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent. Cade, Car- 
 riere, Chambliss, Downs, Eustis, Gar- 
 rett, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Leonard, 
 McCallop, McRae, 3iarigny, Mayo, O'Bry- 
 an, Peets, Penn, Porche, Porter, Prescott 
 of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Pres- 
 ton, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sou- 
 le, Splane, Stephens, Trist, Waddill, and 
 Wederstrandt voted against the motion— 
 35nays, consequently the same was adop- 
 
 Mr. Prescott of St. Landry, then re- 
 newed the substitute offered by him and 
 decided by the chair to be out of order. 
 
 viz : Sec. 4. "All persons enjoying the 
 right of suffrage under this constitution, 
 shall be eligible to a seat in the House of 
 Representatives." 
 
 Mr. Coxrad of N-ew Orleans, moved 
 that the same be laid on the table indefinite- 
 ly, and called for the yeas and nays: 
 
 Yeas— Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benja- 
 min, Boudousquie, Bourg, Briant, Brum- 
 field, Barton, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Couvillion.Culbertsun, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Garcia, Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, Ken- 
 ner, King, LaBauve, Legendre, Lewis, Ma- 
 zureau, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Sellers, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Voorhies, Wadsworfh, Wikoff, 
 and Winchester voted in the affirmative- 
 38 ayes. 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Cade, Car- 
 riere, Chambliss, Downs, Eustis, Gar- 
 rett, Humtjjk Hynson, Ledoux, Leonard, 
 McCallop, jieRae, Marigny, Mayo, O'Bry- 
 an, Peets, Penn, Porche, Porter, Prescott 
 of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Pres- 
 ton, Ratlin\ Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sou- 
 le, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Trist, Waddill, and Wederstrandt vo- 
 ted in the negative— 36 nays. The motion 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Brext moved to strike out all of the 
 4th section of article 2d, as amended, and 
 the yeas and nays being called for: 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Cade, Car- 
 riere, Chambliss, Downs, Eustis, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Ledoux, Leonard, McCallop, 
 McRae, Marigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, 
 Penn, Porche, Porter, Prescott of Avoyel- 
 les, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Rat- 
 liff. Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Sou- 
 le, Splane, Stephens. Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Trist, Waddill, and Wederstrandt vo- 
 ted in the affirmative— 36 ayes. 
 
 Me.;srs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Boudousquie, Bourg, Briant, Brumfieldj 
 Burton, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of New Orleans. Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Couvillion, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Garcia, Garrett. Grymes, Guion. Hud- 
 speth, Kenner, Kiug, LaBauve, Legen- 
 dre, Lewis, Mazureau, Prudhomme, Pugh, 
 Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saun- 
 ders, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, 
 Wadsworth, Wikoff, Winchester, and 
 
52 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Winder voted against the motion — 40 nays, 
 consequently the same was lost. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne offered the following 
 substitute, viz: "No person shall be a rep- 
 resentative who, at the time of his election, 
 has not been for three years a free white 
 male citizen of the United States, and hath 
 not attained the age of twenty one years, 
 and resided in the State for the three years 
 next preceding the election, and the last 
 year theieof in the parish for which he may 
 be chosen." 
 
 And the ayes and nays being called for: 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Boudousquie, Bourg, Briant, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jef- 
 ferson, Couviilion, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Garrett, Giymes, Guion, Hduspeth, Ken- 
 ner, King, LaBauve, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Mazureau, Piudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Ro- 
 selius, St. Amand, Saunders, %ott of Fe- 
 liciana, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, 
 Wads worth, Wikoff, and Winchester voted 
 in favor of the adoption — 38 ayes. 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Cade, Car- 
 riere, Chambliss, Downs, Garcia, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Ledoux, Leonard, McCallop, 
 McRae, Marigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, 
 Penn, Porche, Porter, Prescott of Avoyel- 
 les, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Rat- 
 liff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Madison, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Trist, Waddill, Weder- 
 strandt, and Winder voted in the negative — 
 35 nays, consequently the substitute was 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved that the conven- 
 tion take under consideration the 1st sec- 
 tion of article 3d, as reported by the ma- 
 jority, viz: 
 
 Article 3d as reported by the majority. 
 Section 1st: "The supreme executive pow- 
 er of this State, shall be vested in a chief 
 magistrate, who shall be styled the govern-' 
 or of the state of Louisiana. He. shall hold 
 his office during the term of tour years, and 
 together with the lieutenant governor, cho- 
 sen for the same term, be elected as fol- 
 lows." 
 
 On motion said section was adopted. 
 
 The convention then proceeded to the 
 consideration of section 2d of said article 
 3d, viz: 
 
 Section 2d. "The citizens entitled to 
 vote for representatives, shall vote for a 
 
 governor and lieutenant governor, at the 
 time and place of voting for representatives; 
 their votes shall be returned by the officers 
 presiding over the election, to the seat of 
 government, addressed to the speaker of the 
 House of Representatives, and on the sec. 
 ond day of the session of the general as- 
 sembly then next to be holden, the members 
 of the general assembly shall meet in the 
 house of representatives, to examine and 
 count the votes. The person having the 
 greatest number of votes for governor, shall 
 be declared duly elected, if such number be 
 a majority of all the votes given, but if no 
 person have such a majority, then from the 
 two persons having the highest numbers 
 on the list of those voted for as governor, 
 the general assembly shall choose imme- 
 diately by ballot the governor. The per-, 
 son having a majority of the votes given for 
 lieutenant governor, shall be the lieuten- 
 ant governor, and if no person have a ma- 
 jority, then from the two persons having 
 the highest numbers on the list, the general 
 assembly shall in the same manner, choose 
 the lieutenant governor. 
 
 Mr. Ledoux moved as a substitute to the 
 foregoing section, the 2d section of the mi- 
 nority, report, viz, by Mr. LED0ux^|jg 
 
 Section 2d. The governor shall be elec- 
 ted by the qualified electors of the State, 
 at the same time and place where they shall 
 respectively vote for representatives and 
 senators. The returns of every election 
 shall be sealed up, and transmitted to the 
 Secretary of State, who shall deliver them 
 to the speaker of the house of representa- 
 tives, who shall open and publish them in 
 the presence of both houses of the general 
 assembly; the person having the highest 
 number of votes shall be governor; but if 
 two or more shall be equal and highest in 
 votes, one of them shall be chosen governor 
 by the joint vote of the members of the 
 general assembly. Contested elections 
 for governor shall be determined by both 
 houses of the legislature, in such manner 
 as shall be prescribed by law. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to strike out from the 
 section reported by the majority, from the 
 words "elected" in the 19th line, to the 
 word "governor" in the 24th line. 
 
 Mr. Soule proposed to amend the sec- 
 tion reported by Mr. Ledoux, of the mi- 
 nority, by adding the words "and lieuten- 
 
Journal? of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 53 
 
 ant governor," after the word "governor" 
 in the first line. 
 
 And pending the discussion, the Con- 
 vention adjourned till to-morrow at 11 
 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Wednesday, February 12, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Hinton opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ratliff, leave of ab- 
 sence was granted Mr. Scott of Feliciana. 
 
 Mr. Splane, chairman of the committee 
 appointed to inquire into the causes why 
 the official proceedings of the Convention 
 were not regularly published in the papers, 
 submitted the following report and resolu- 
 tion, viz: 
 
 "The committee appointed to inquire 
 into the causes why the official proceedings 
 of the Convention were not regularly pub- 
 lished in the papers, beg leave to report, 
 that they have fully investigated the facts 
 in relation to the delay in said publications, 
 and find that our Reporter in English is 
 not sufficient to complete the work daily 
 allotted to him. Therefore, be it Resolved, 
 that this Convention do now proceed to the 
 election of one additional reporter in Eng- 
 
 Mr. S plane moved the adoption of the 
 report and resolution, and the ayes and nays 
 being called for, resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Br azeale, Brent, Bwr- 
 ton, Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, Dozens, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Humble, Ledonx, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Mayo, Peets, Porche, Porter, Prescott 
 of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Pres- 
 ton, Read, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Madison, Soule, Splane, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor ofSt. Landry, 
 Trist, Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in 
 the affirmative — 33 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. — Auburt, Beatty, Briant, Brum- 
 field, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of New Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Cul~ 
 bertson, Derbes, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Hynson, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, 
 Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, O' Bryan, Penn, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, -Ratliff, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Sellers, Voorhies, Wikoff and 
 Winder voted in the negative — 32 nays; 
 
 And Mr. Labauve in the chair voted in 
 the minority., made the division equal, con- 
 sequently the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies having voted with the 
 majority, moved the reconsideration of his 
 vote; which motion was allowed. 
 
 Mr. Beatty then moved that the report 
 and resolution be laid on the table and made 
 the special order of the day, for to-day at 
 two o'clock; which motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Eustis, chairman of the committee 
 of revision, submitted the following report, 
 viz: 
 
 "The committee of revision report the 
 first and second sections of the first 
 article of the constitution of Louisiana." 
 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans, offered 
 the following resolution, viz: 
 
 "Resolved, That the committee on re- 
 vision be instructed to report the constitu- 
 tion article by article, and that the same be 
 printed under the direction of the commit- 
 tee, in such manner as to exhibit clearly the 
 alterations and corrections made by them." 
 
 On motion, said resolution was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans, submitted 
 the following resolution, and the same was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 "Resolved, that Thursday of each week, 
 after the report of the committee of revision 
 has been made and printed, be set aside for 
 the examination of said report." 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved to strike out the 
 word "Thursday," and insert in lieu there- 
 of, the word "Saturday;" which motion 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Beatty gave notice that he would 
 on Friday next move the reconsideration of 
 the 5th section of article 2d. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 ARTICLE THIRD AS REPORTED BY THE 
 MAJORITY. 
 
 Sec. 2d. The citizens entitled to vote 
 for representatives shall vote for a governor 
 and lieutenant governor, at the time and 
 place of voting for representatives. Their 
 votes shall be returned by the officers pre- 
 siding over the election to the seat of gov- 
 ernment, addressed to the speaker of the 
 house of representatives, and on the second 
 day of the session of the general assembly 
 then next to be holden. The members of 
 the general assembly shall meet in the house 
 of representatives to examine and count the 
 votes. The person having the greatest 
 number of votes for governor, shall be de- 
 clared duly elected, if such number be a 
 majority of all the votes given; but if no 
 person have such a majority, then from the 
 
54 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 two persons having the highest numbers on 
 the list of those voted for as governor, the 
 o-eneral assembly shall choose immediately 
 by ballot the governor. The person hav- 
 ing a majority of the votes given for lieute- 
 nant governor, shall be the lieutenant gov- 
 ernor; and if no person have a majority, 
 then from the two persons having the high- 
 est numbers on the list, "the general assem- 
 bly shall, in the same manner, choose the 
 lieutenant governor. 
 
 Mr. Ledoux offered as a substitute for 
 said section, the 2d section of article 3d of 
 the report of the minority, reported by Mr. 
 Ledoux, viz: 
 
 Sec. 2d. The governor shall be elected 
 by the qualified electors of the State, at the 
 same time and place where they shall re- 
 spectively vote for representatives and sena- 
 tors. The returns of every election shall 
 be sealed up, and transmitted to the secre- 
 tary of state, who shall deliver them to the 
 speaker of the house of representatives, 
 who shall open and publish them in pre- 
 sence of both houses of the general assem- 
 bly. The person having the highest num- 
 ber of votes shall be governor; but if 
 two or more shall be equal and highest in 
 votes, one of them shall be chosen gover- 
 nor by the joint vote of the members of 
 the general assembly. 
 
 Contested elections for governor shall be 
 determined by both houses of the legisla- 
 ture in such manner as shall be prescribed 
 by law. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to amend the 2d sec- 
 tion of the report of the majority by strik- 
 ing out in the 19th line, the words "if such 
 number be a majority of all the the votes 
 given; but if no person have such a majori- 
 ty, then from the two persons having the 
 highest numbers on the list of tho?e voted 
 for as governor, the general assembly shall 
 choose immediately by ballot, the gover- 
 nor." 
 
 Mr. Mayo offered the following amend- 
 ment to the 2d section of the report of the 
 minority, as reported by Mr. Ledoux, viz: 
 
 Sec. 2d. 'I he citizens entitled to vote 
 for representatives shall vote for a governor 
 and lieutenant governor, at the time and 
 place of voting for representatives. The 
 returns of every election shall be sealed up 
 and transmitted to the secretary of state, 
 who shall deliver them to the speaker of 
 the house of representatives, and during 
 
 the first week of the session of the general 
 assembly then next to be holden, the mem- 
 bers of the general assembly shall meet in 
 the house of representatives to examine the 
 returns of the election. The person hav- 
 ing the highest number of votes for gover- 
 nor, shall be governor; but if two or more 
 shall. be equal and highest in votes for gov- 
 ernor, one of them shall be chosen gover- 
 nor by the joint vote of the members of the 
 general assembly. 
 
 The person having the highest number 
 of votes for lieutenant governor, shall be 
 lieutenant governor; but if two or more 
 persons shall be equal and highest in votes 
 for lieutenant governor, one of them shall 
 be chosen lieutenant governor by the joint 
 vote of the members of the general assem- 
 bly. ( 
 
 Mr, Chinn moved that the* substitutes 
 and amendments be laid on the table, and 
 called for the ayes and nays; which result- 
 ed as follows, viz: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Boudousquie, Bourg, Briant, Brum- 
 field. Cade, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Le- 
 gendre, Leonard, Lewis, McCallop, Prescott 
 of St. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, Pugh, 
 Ratlijf, Roman, St. Amand, Saunders, Sel- 
 lers, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. Land- 
 ry, Trist, Voorhies, Winchester and Win- 
 der voted in the affirmative — 43 yeas ; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, 
 Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, McRae, Marig- 
 ny, Mayo, O' Bryan, Peets, Porche, Por- 
 ter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Madison, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Waddill and Wederstrandt 
 voted in the negative — 24 nays ; conse- 
 quently the motion was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Mayo, then offered the following 
 amendment, to be inserted after the last word 
 "representatives," in the first paragraph. 
 "The returns of every election shall be 
 sealed up and transmitted to the secretary 
 of state, who shall deliver them to the 
 speaker of the house of representatives; and 
 during the first week of the session of the 
 general assembly, then next to be holden, 
 the members of the general assembly shall 
 meet in the house of representatives to ex- 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 55 
 
 amine the returns of the election. The per- 
 son having the highest number of votes for 
 governor, shall be governor: but if two or 
 more shall be equal and highest in votes 
 for governor, one of them shall be chosen 
 governor by the joint vote of the members 
 of the general assembly. 
 
 '•The person having the highest number 
 of votes for lieutenant governor shall be 
 lieutenant governor; but if two or more per- 
 sons shall be equal and highest in votes ibr 
 lieutenant governor, one of them shall be 
 m lieutenant governor by the joint' 
 vote of the members of the rreneral assem- 
 bly/' 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to strike out from the 
 nineteenth line the words, "if such number 
 be a majority of all the votes given; but if 
 no person have such a majority.then from the 
 two persons having the highest numbers on 
 the list of those voted for as governor, the 
 general Assembly shall choose immediately 
 by ballot, the governor," and insert in lieu 
 thereof the words, "but if two or more persons 
 sons shall be equal and highest in the num. 
 of votes polled for governor, one of them 
 shall be immediately chosen governor by 
 joint vote of the members of the general 
 assembly." 
 
 Mr. Downs moved for a division, that is 
 that the Convention first proceed to "strike ! 
 out," to which Mr. Lewis accorded, and 
 pending the discussion, Mr. Beatty called 
 the attention of the Convention to the order 
 of the day. itjbeing the hour appointed tor it. 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 The committee appointed to enquire into ! 
 the causes why the official proceedings of 
 the Convention are not regularly published 
 in the paper, beg leave to report that they 
 have fully investigated the facts in relation 
 to the delay in said publications, and find 
 that one reporter in English is not sufficient 
 to complete work daily allotted to him; 
 therefore, be it resolved, that the Conven- 
 tion do now proceed to the election of one 
 additional reporter in English. 
 
 And the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 -Messrs. Brazeale, Brent. Burton. Cade. 
 CkambUss, Downs, Dunn, Humble, Hynson. 
 LedoiLc. Leonard, McCallop, McRae. Ma- 
 rigny. Mayo, Peets, Penn, Porche, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Land- 
 ry*, Preston, Readi Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Madison, Splane, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. 
 
 Landry, Trist, Yoorhies, Waddiii r and We.- 
 derstrandt voted in the affirmative — 34 
 yeas: and 
 
 Messrs. Auberi, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie. Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Car- 
 riere } Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Xew 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson. Covillion 
 Culbertson. Dcrbes. Garcia. Garret, Guion, 
 Hudspeth. Kenner, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, Leu-is, Mazureau. O'Bryo.n, Prud- 
 homme, Pugh. Ratlif, Roman, St.Amand, 
 Selleis, Winchester and Winder voted in 
 the negative — 34 nays; the vole being 
 equally divided, the president voted in the 
 I affirmative: the report and resolution was 
 ! consequenty adopted. 
 
 Mr, Yoorhies offered the following reso- 
 lution, viz: 
 
 "Resolved, That this Convention shall 
 i meet every day, the 22d of February and 
 Sundays excepted, at 11 o'clock a. m., and 
 i at 6 o'clock p. m., for the disposal of busi- 
 ness, and any member who shall fail to at- 
 tend at a morning or evening session shall 
 i be considered an absentee for that day, and 
 I not entitled to his per diem." 
 
 And the question being called for on the 
 ; adoption of the above resolution, resulted as 
 j follows: 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Cade. Carriere, 
 Covillum, Downs. Humble. JTcRae, 3farig~ 
 . ny, O'Bryan, Peets. Penn, Porter, Preston, 
 Prudhomme. Read, Scott of Madison, Yoor- 
 ' hies and WaddiU voted in the affirmative — 
 j 19 yeas: and 
 
 j Messrs Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin. Bon- 
 douisquie. Bourg, Briant. Brurntield. Burton, 
 , Charnbliss, Chinn. Conrad of Xew Orleans, 
 ; Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth^ 
 Hynson. Kenner. Labauve. Ledoux, Legen- 
 dre. Leonard, Lewis, JIc Call op, Mayo, 
 Mazureau, Porche, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 • Prescott of St. Landry, Pugh, Ratlif, Ro. 
 man, St. Amand, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, 
 Wadsworth. Wederstrandt, Winchester and 
 . Winder voted in the negative — 19 nays: 
 ■ the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Yoorhies then offered the follow, 
 j ing resolution, viz: 
 
 "Resolved, That this Convention shall 
 meet every day, the 22d February and Sun- 
 days excepted, at 10 o'clock a. m., for the 
 disposal of business." 
 
56 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to reject said resolu- 
 tion, and called for the yeas and nays, and 
 
 Messrs, Boudousquie, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Keriner, Labauve, Legendre,Leonard,Mayo, 
 Mazureau, O* Bryan, PorcJie, Prudhomme, 
 Ratliff, Scott of Baton Rouge, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Wadsworth and 
 Winchester voted in the affirmative — 18 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Brum field, 
 Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, Covil- 
 lion, Downs, Dunn, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, King, Ledoux, 
 Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Peeis, 
 Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St Landry, Preston, Pugh, Ready 
 Roman, St. Amand, Saunders, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Splane, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Weder- 
 strandt and Winder voted in the? negative — 
 50 nays; and the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Dunn then moved that the Conven- 
 tion proceed to the election of an additional 
 English reporter. 
 
 Sixty-nine members present. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth nominated Mr. Cor- 
 coran. 
 
 Mr. Splane nominated Mr. Ilsley. 
 
 The jPke side jx t appointed Messrs. Wads- 
 worth and Culbertson tellers. 
 
 And on counting the votes it appeared 
 that Mr. Corcoran had obtained 30 votes. 
 Mr. Ilsley, 37 " 
 
 Blank, 2 « 
 
 Total, 69 
 Mr. Ilsley having obtained thirty-seven 
 
 votes, was proclaimed by the president as 
 
 being duly elected reporter in English to 
 
 the Convention. 
 
 On motion the Convention adjourned till 
 
 to-morrow at 1 0 o'clock A. M. 
 
 Note. — Members absent, Mr. Scott of 
 
 Feliciana, on leave. 
 
 Thursday, February 13, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 In the absence of a minister of the gos- 
 pel, the President called upon the Hon. del- 
 egate from Sabine, (Mr. Stephens) who 
 opened the proceedings by a most fervent 
 prayer. 
 
 On motion, leave of absence was grant- 
 
 ed to ^Messrs. Sellers and Winder, on 
 account of illness. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies submitted the following 
 resolution, viz: 
 
 "Resolved, that the members of this Con- 
 vention who shall fail to attend or answer 
 to their names when called by the secreta- 
 ry, at 10 o'clock, a. m., pursuant to the re- 
 solution heretofore adopted, shall be con- 
 sidered as absentees^nd as such forfeit 
 their per diem." 
 
 Which motion was lost. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 article third, as reported by the m 
 
 JORITY. 
 
 Sec. "The citizens entitled to vote fo 
 representatives, shall vote for a governor 
 and lieutenant governor, at the time and 
 place of voting for representatives; their 
 votes shall be returned by the officers pre- 
 siding over the election, to the seat of gov- 
 ernment, addressed to the speaker of the 
 house of representatives, and on the second 
 day of the session of the general assembly 
 then next to be holden, the members of the 
 general assembly shall meet in the house 
 of representatives, to examine and count 
 the vetes. The person having the greatest 
 number of votes for governor shall be de- 
 clared duly elected, if such number be a 
 majority of all the votes given; but if no 
 person have such a majority, then from the 
 two persons having the highest numbers 
 on the list of those voted for as governor, 
 the general assembly shall choose imme- 
 diately, by ballot, tho governor. The per- 
 son having a majority of the votes given 
 for lieutenant governor, shall be the lieu- 
 tenant governor; and if no person have a 
 majority, then from the two persons having 
 the highest numbers on the list, the general 
 assembly shall, in the same manner, chooser 
 the lieutenant governor." 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to amend said section 
 by striking out, commencing in the 19thj 
 line, the words: "If such number be a ma- 
 jority of all the votes given; but if no per- 
 son have such a majority, then from the 
 two persons having the highest numbers on 
 the list of those voted for as governor, the 
 general assembly shall choose immediate- 
 ly, by ballot, the governor," and insert in 
 lieu thereof the words " but if two or more 
 persons shall be equal and highest in the 
 number of votes polled for governor, one of ! 
 them shall be immediately chosen governor,. 
 
I. ■ i,ir .Sf„i t m>:>> i. il„ w ,7,„„ ,,/ ,/„ 
 
 „,.„»„ /o „/,„,,, mi rtftrn* He Olh KtfyH oj nrlid' -Itl, <o rrporltd tiy the majoril 
 
 STATE1MENT7BY SUB-COMMTTEf, 
 
 Sll<mi\(i THK ItKI'KKSKNTVriON HI Till: SKA KRAI. PARISHES, ON THE V Utlot S I'ltlNl II'I.ES SI BMl'ITED TO THEM. 
 
 The Sub-Committee, in explanation of the foregoing Statement, show :— that 
 n all their calculations, whi ther upon population of whiles, lota 1 population, federal 
 lumbers, or voters, instead of fixing an arbitrary limit lo the minder of the house, and 
 lien ascertaining how this number of representatives should be apportioned among the 
 evcral parishes, 
 
 They adopted the double of the smallest parish as the representative number, and 
 isccrtuinJB of how mam members the house would be composed, ui allowing one inein- 
 
 nr to every |iarish having ai least the half of this n her, and one to every other parish 
 
 or each time this divisor was contained in its population or voteft, and one add ial 
 
 nembcr for every fraction exceeding tin- half of this divisor. I 
 
 Your Committee have made two calculations on voters, one b' considering ail the 
 
 Vhilo inhabitants ovn- •.Ml the census of IN id, as vote rs, and til „(hor on The vole s 
 
 polled at the presidential election of 1811. Though neither of time data exhibit with 
 
 eviel'iess tin- nuuiber of voters in the several parishes, they are he nearest appr h 
 
 to it *iilun their power to obtain. 
 
 Tl* Sub-Cununitlee deem tl his statement w ill explain itself ufticiciiUy, by simply 
 
 tcnjarWng, that (— ) when placed before a number in the various alumna of representa- 
 
 tives, signifies that this number is a fraction exceeding the half of the representative 
 number, for which an additional member has been allowed the parish on the same line 
 with-it, and that ( X) place d before a number, signifies that this is a fraction under one 
 " which the parisl 
 
 half of the representative milliner, ami tor w nicn me pai isn is no. i T[a >» 
 
 That, to the parishes of Bossier, Do Soto. Franklin, Morehead, Sal. me, Tensas, and 
 
 and for 
 
 rish is not represented. 
 
 Vern 
 
 upula 
 
 the 1 
 
 lo. 1'iai 
 allowed 
 
 L-presentativeeach has bu n allowe d on tin- supposition 
 lo entitle them to one representative, though they had no means oi ascer- 
 taining tin- tact. Tin \ further show, that bv reducing the representation of Orleans to one- 
 fifth, as resolved on by the commiltee, and' -inking oil ■ member each Irom Lalayctto 
 
 and NaK hilochcs, which have both been divided since the census on who h their calculations 
 are principally based, the basis of while population, taken from the census of 1810, would 
 give a bouse of 77 members; on federal numbers, of M; on voters, of 7:t; on total popula- 
 tion, of 87, on voles at presidential eleclioii of 1844, of 98; and on federal numbers formed 
 from tax roll of 1813, of 77 members. 
 
 All of which is respectfully submitted, 
 
 J. V. HKATTV, Chairman of 
 
/ 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 57 
 
 by joint vote of the members of the general 
 assembly." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, to strike out, 
 the yeas and nays being called for, result- 
 ed as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, 
 Cenas, Chambliss, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 Downs, Eustis, Garrett, Guion^ Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, Kenner, Leonard, Lew- 
 is, McCallop, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, 
 Peets, Penn, Porche, Porter, Preston, Prud- 
 homme, Pugh, RatlifF, Read, St. Amand, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Madison, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill 
 and Wederstrandt voted in the affirmative 
 —48 ayes; and , 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Briant, Chinn, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Claiborne, Derbes, 
 Dunn, King, Labauve, Legendre, O'Bryan, 
 Roman, Taylor of St. Landry and Wikoff 
 voted in the negative — 14 nays; the mo- 
 tion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Lewis then moved to fill the blank 
 with the words "but if two or more per- 
 sons shall be equal and highest in the num- 
 ber of votes polled for governor, one of 
 them shall be immediately chosen gover- 
 nor by joint vote of the members of the 
 general assembly." 
 
 Mr. Preston moved to reject said amend- 
 ment, which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Preston then moved to strike out 
 from the 26th line, the words "and if no 
 person have a majority," &c, to the end of 
 the section, and insert in lieu thereof the 
 words "but if two or more persons shall 
 be equal and highest in the number of votes 
 polled for lieutenant governor, one of them 
 shall be immediately chosen lieutenant gov- 
 ernor, by joint vote of the members of the 
 general assembly," which motion was 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Roman moved to strike out, in the 
 24th line, the word "majority," and insert 
 ; 'the greatest number," which motion pre- 
 vailed. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to strike; out, from the 
 .Oth line, the words "their votes shall be 
 eturned by the officers presiding over the 
 •lections, to the seat of government, Jad- 
 Iressed to the speaker of the house of re- 
 ►resentatives," and insert in lieu thereof 
 lie words "the returns of every election 
 hall be sealed up and transmitted by the 
 
 proper returning officer created by kw, to 
 the secretary of state, who shall deliver 
 them to the speaker of the house of repre* 
 sentatives," which motion w T as adopted, 
 
 Mr. Lewis then moved the adoption of 
 the section as amended, vizi 
 
 The citizens entitled to vote for repre- 
 sentatives shall vote for a governor and 
 lieutenant governor, at the time and place 
 of voting for representatives. The returns 
 of every election shall be sealed up and 
 transmitted, by the proper returning officer 
 created by law, to the secretary of state, 
 who shall deliver them to the speaker of 
 the house of representatives, and on the 
 second day of the session of the general 
 assembly then next to be holden, the mem- 
 bers of the general assembly shall meet in 
 the house of representatives, to examine 
 'and count the votes. The person having 
 the greatest number of votes for governor 
 shall be declared duly elected; but if two or 
 more persons shall be equal and highest in 
 the number of votes polled for governor, 
 one of them shall be immediately chosen 
 governor by joint vote of the members of 
 the general assembly. The person having 
 the greatest number of the votes for lieu- 
 tenant governor shall be lieutenant gover- 
 nor; but if two or more persons shall be 
 equal and highest in the number of votes 
 polled for lieutenant governor, one of them 
 shall be immediately chosen lieutenant gov- 
 ernor, by joint vote of the members of the 
 general assembly; which motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Saunders, chairman of the commit- 
 tee to whom was referred the 6th section of 
 article 2d, as reported by the majority, with 
 leave, submitted the following report and 
 accompanying documents* 
 
 Sections reported by the committee of 
 apportionment: 
 
 Sec. 8. Each parish shall be entitled to 
 representation in proportion to its popula- 
 tion, ascertained and calculated according 
 to the principle of representation adopted in 
 the constitution of the United States; provi- 
 ded, that no parish or city shall ever be en- 
 titled to more than one-fifth of the whole 
 number of representatives. 
 
 Sec. 9. No new parish shall be created 
 with an extent of territory less than four 
 hundred square miles, not with a population 
 less than the full representative number re- 
 quired at the time of its creation, to entitle 
 it to a representative— nor shall any parish 
 
58 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 be so divided as to leave it with a smaller 
 area or population than is above expressed. 
 
 Sec. 10. In the year 1846, and every 
 tenth , year thereafter, a census shall be 
 made of the population of this State, in such 
 manner as shall be prescribed by law, tor 
 the purpose of ascertaining the number of 
 the federal population in each parish. 
 
 Sec 11. At the first regular session of 
 the legislature, af:er the making of each 
 census, the legislature shall apportion the 
 representation amongst the several parishes, 
 on the basis of the federal population as 
 aforesaid, and in the manner following, to- 
 wit: some number shall be chosen as a re- 
 presentative number, which, when applied 
 in making the apportionment, shall give a 
 number of representatives not less than 
 seventy nor more than one hundred; the 
 number so chosen shall be taken as a divi- 
 sor, and each parishshall be entitledto one 
 representative for every time this divisor 
 shall be found in the dividend formed of its 
 representative population, and to one addi- 
 tional member for every fraction exceeding 
 the one-half of the divisor— and any parish 
 having a federal population less than the 
 whole divisor, but exceeding one-half of it, 
 shall be entitled to one representative, and 
 the legislature shall be incompetent to act 
 on any other subject matter, until the ap- 
 portionment directed by this article shall 
 have been made. 
 
 Sec. 12. The first representation under 
 this constitution (ascertained as near 
 may be, in accordance with the above 
 principles,) shall continue until the first 
 apportionment be made by the legisla- 
 ture, and shall be as follows, viz:. 
 The parish of Plaquemines, 1 
 
 u 
 
 St. Bernard, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Orleans, 
 
 
 
 First Municipality 6" 
 
 
 
 Second " 4 
 
 h 
 
 
 Third " 4 
 
 
 a 
 
 Right Bank, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Jefferson, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 St. Charles, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 St. John the Baptist,. 
 
 1 
 
 <( 
 
 St. James, 
 
 2 
 
 (i 
 
 Ascension, 
 
 2 
 
 u 
 
 Assumption, 
 
 2 
 
 it 
 
 Lafourche Interior, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 Terrebonne, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Iberville, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 West Baton Rouge, 
 
 1 
 
 The Parish of East Baton Rouge, 2 
 
 West Feliciana, 2 
 " East " 
 
 " St, Helena, i. 
 
 Livingston, l 
 
 " Washington, ]. 
 
 " St. Tammany, 1 
 
 " Point Coupee, 1 
 
 " Concordia, 1 
 
 " Tensas, 1 
 
 " Madison, 1 
 
 " Carroll, 1 
 
 " Franklin, 1 
 
 " St. Mary, 2 
 
 " St. Martin, 2 
 
 " Vermillion, 1 
 
 45 Layfayette,- 1 
 
 " St. Landry, 4 
 
 Calcassieu. 1 
 
 " Avoyelles, 1 
 
 <! Rapides, 3 
 
 - " Natchitoches, 2 
 
 " Sabine, 1 
 
 " Caddo, 1 
 
 " De Soto, I 
 
 " Ouachita, 1 
 
 *' Morehouse, 1 
 
 " Union, 1 
 
 " Caldwell, 1 
 
 " Catahoula, 1 
 
 " Claiborne, 1 
 
 *•* Bossies, l 
 
 Total, 76 
 On motion of Mr. Saunders the said 
 report was laid on the table and made the 
 order of the day for Monday next. 
 
 The Convention then resumed the order 
 of the day, viz: 
 
 SECTION THIRD OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 
 
 1812. 
 
 "The governor shall be ineligible for 
 the succeeding four years after the expira- 
 tion of the time for which he shall have 
 been elected." 
 
 On motion said section was adopted. 
 
 Constitution of 1812. Sec. 7. "The gov- 
 ernor shall, at stated times, receive for his 
 services a compensation, which shall 
 neither be increased nor diminished during 
 the term for which ha shall have been 
 elected." 
 
 On motion said section was adopted. 
 
 Constitution of 1812. Sec. 8. "He shall 
 be commander in chief of the army and 
 navy of this State, and of the militia thereof 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 59 
 
 except when they shall be called into the 
 service of the United States, but he shall 
 not command personally in the field, unless 
 he shall be advised so to do by a resolution of 
 the general rssembly." 
 
 Mr. Grymes moved to strke out the 
 words " but he shall not command person- 
 ally in the field, unless he shall be advised 
 so to do by a resolution of the general as- 
 sembly." Which motion prevailed, and 
 the section was adopted as amended. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, the Conven- 
 tion took up the sections as reported by the 
 majority, and the first in order being, viz : 
 
 Sect. . "No person shall be eligible to 
 the office of governor or lieutenant govern©!?, 
 ^except a native citizen of the United States, 
 or an inhabitant at the time of the cession 
 ■thereof to the United States of that portion 
 of territory included in the present limits of 
 the State of Louisiana. Nor shall any 
 person be eligible to either of the said 
 offices who shaffnot hold, in his own right, 
 landed property situated in said State, of the 
 value of five thousand dollars, agreeably to 
 the tax list, and who shall not have attained 
 the age of thirty-five years, and have been 
 ten years next preceding his election a 
 resident within the State." 
 
 Mr. Be att y moved to strike out all the 
 words in the 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th lines, 
 •viz : "except a native citizen of the United 
 States, or an inhabitant at the time of the 
 cession thereof to the United States of that 
 portion of territory included in the present 
 limits of the State of Louisiana." 
 
 And pending the discussion, Mr. Brent 
 moved that the Convention adjourn till to- 
 morrow, at 10 o'clock, a. m.; the yeas and 
 nays being called for, (Mr. Claiborne in 
 the chair,) resulted as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, 
 Chambliss, Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad 
 of Jefferson, Covillion, Culbertson, Downs, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, Kenner, Ledoux, Leon- 
 ard, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, 
 Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Penn, Porche, 
 Porter, Prescott of St. Landrv, Preston, 
 Prudhomme,Pugh, Ratliff, Read, St.Amand, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Madison, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Trist, Waddili and Weder- 
 strandt voted in favor of the adjournment— 
 52 ayes; and 
 
 Messrs. Chinn, Derbes, Garcia, King, 
 Labauve, Legendre, O'Bryan, Roman, 
 Roselius. Taylor of St. Landry, Yoorhies 
 and Wikoff voted against the adjournment 
 -—12 nays ; consequently the same was 
 carried. 
 
 Note. — Members absent — Messf s. Scott 
 of Feliciana, absent on leave; and Messrs. 
 Sellers and Winder, absent on account of 
 illness, 
 
 Friday, February 14, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Warren opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer. 
 
 On motion leave of absence was granted 
 to Mr. Chambliss. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff, chairman of the committee 
 on contingent expenses, submitted the fol- 
 lowing resolution, viz: 
 
 "Resolved, That the sum of thirty dollars 
 be allowed James Carpenter, sergeant at 
 arms, it being fora months' hire of the yel- 
 low man Leon, up to this date, February 14, 
 1845." 
 
 W^hich resolution was adopted. 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 article third, as [reported by the 
 
 MAJORITY. 
 
 Sec. "No person shall be eligible to 
 the office of governor or lieutenant gover- 
 nor except a native citizen of the United 
 States, or an inhabitant at the time of the 
 cession thereof to the United States of 
 that portion of territory included in the 
 present limits of the State of Louisiana; nor 
 shall any person be eligible to either of the 
 said offices, who shall not hold, in his own 
 right, landed property, situated in said State, 
 of the value of five thousand dollars, agreea- 
 bly to the tax list; and who shall not have 
 attainedthe age of thirty-five years, and shall 
 have been ten years next preceding his elec- 
 tion, a resident within the State." 
 
 The debate at the adjournment was on 
 the motion of Mr. Beatty to strike out 
 from said section the words "except a na- 
 tive citizen of the United States, or an 
 inhabitant, at the time of the cession thereof 
 to the United States, of that portion of the 
 territory included in the present limits of 
 Louisiana." 
 
 And pending the discussion, Mr. McRae 
 moved that the Convention adjourn till to- 
 morrow at 10 o'clock a. m. 
 
60 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Mr, Voorhies called for the yeas and 
 nays. 
 
 Messrs, Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie\ Bourg, Brazeale, Briant, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Downs, Dunn, JEustis, Garcia, Garrett, 
 Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, La- 
 bauve, Ledoux, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, 
 Marigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Penn, Porche, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Land- 
 ry, Preston, Prudhomme, Fugh, RatlifF, 
 Read, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Soule, Stepliens,.Taylor of Assumption, 
 Trist, Waddill, Wads worth, Wederstrandt, 
 WikofF and Winchester voted for the ad- 
 journment— 55 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriers, Humble, Legendre, J\|azureau, 
 Porter, Splane, Taylor of St. Landry and 
 Voorhies voted against the adjournment — 
 12 nays; consequently the same was car- 
 ried. 
 
 Note .^-Members absent, Messrs. Scott 
 of Feliciana, Sellers, Chambliss and Win- 
 der, all absent on leave. 
 
 Saturday, February 15, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Nicholson opened the 
 proceedings by prayer. 
 
 On motion, leave of absence was granted 
 to Messrs. Scott of Baton Rouge, Read, 
 McCallop and RatlifF. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin, member of the committee 
 on contingent expenses, submitted the fol*- 
 lowing resolution, viz: 
 
 "Resolved, That an appropriation of five 
 hundred dollars be placed at the disposal 
 of the committee on contingent expenses, 
 to be applied so far as it may be necessary 
 to the payment of the costs of extra print- 
 ing ordered by authority of the Conven- 
 tion. 
 
 On motion, the said resolution was 
 adopted. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 ARTICLE THIRD, AS REPORTED BY THE 
 MAJORITY. 
 
 Sec. -. No person shall be eligible to 
 the office of governor, or lientenant gov- 
 ernor, except a native citizen of the Uni- 
 ted States, or an inhabitant at the time 
 of cession thereof to the United States, 
 
 of that portion of territory included in the 
 present limits of the State of Louisi- 
 ana. Nor shall any person be eligible to 
 either of said offices, who shall not hold, 
 in his own right, landed properted situated 
 in said State, of the value of five thousand 
 dollars, agreeable to the tax list; and who 
 shall not have attained the age of thirty -five 
 years, and have been ten years next pre- 
 ceding his election, a resident within the 
 State. 
 
 From which section Mr. Beatty moved 
 to strike out the words of * 'except a native 
 citizen of the United States, or an inhabi- 
 tant at the time of the cession thereof to 
 the United States, of that portion of terri- 
 tory included in the presen limits of the 
 State of Louisiana." 
 
 And pending the discussion on said mo- 
 tion, the Convention adjourned till Monday 
 next, at 10 o'clock, a. m. , 
 
 Note. — Members absent — Messrs. Mc- 
 Callop, Chambliss, RatlifF, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers* 
 absent on leave; and St. Amand. 
 
 Monday, February 17, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Woolridge opened the 
 proceedings by prayer. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Saunders the report 
 of the committee to whom was referred the, 
 6th section of article 3d, and made the or- 
 der of the day for to-day, was postponed 
 until the section under discussion be dis- 
 posed of, 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 ARTICLE THIRD, AS REPORTED BY THE 
 MAJORITY. 
 
 Sec. No person shall be eligible to the 
 office of governor or lieutenant governor, 
 except a native citizen of the United States, 
 or an inhabitant at the time of cession 
 thereof to the United States, of that portion 
 of territory included in the present limits of 
 the State of Louisiana. Nor shall any per- 
 son be eligible to either of the said offices, 
 who shall not hold, in his own right, landed 
 property situated in said State, of the value 
 of five thousand dollars, agreeably to the 
 tax list; and who shall not have attained 
 the age of thirty-five years, and have been 
 ten years, next preceeding his election, a 
 resident within the State. 
 
 To which Mr. Beatty moved to strike 
 
Journal of the Contention of Louisiana. 
 
 0 * * * 
 
 61 
 
 out the words "except a native citizen of the 
 United States, or an inhabitant at the time 
 of the cession thereof to the United States, 
 of that portion of territory included in the 
 present limits of the State of Louisiana." 
 
 Mr. Guiox moved that the motion to 
 strike out be laid on the table; and then 
 submitted the following amendment to the 
 said section; 
 
 Strike out from the 3d line the words "an 
 inhabitant," and insert "a citizen," and 
 strike out from the 4th, 5th and '6th lines 
 the words "the cession thereof to the Uni- 
 ted States, of that portion of territory in- 
 cluded in the present limits," and insert 
 "the adoption of this constitution." 
 
 So that the section as amended would 
 read as follows, viz: 
 
 No person shall be eligible to the office 
 of governor, or lieutenant governor, except 
 a native citizen of the United States, or a 
 citizen of the State of Louisiana at the 
 time of the adoption of this constitution. 
 
 The president submitted to trfe Conven- 
 tion a letter of invitation from the secretary 
 of the public schools of municipality num- 
 ber one. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow at 10 o'clock a. m. 
 
 XoTE.-rMembers absent, Messrs. Cham- 
 bliss, Scott of Feliciana, and Sellers, all 
 absent on leave; and Messrs. Ledoux and 
 Porche. 
 
 Tuesday, February 18, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Twitchard opened the 
 proceedings by prayer. 
 
 On motion, leave of absence was grant- 
 ed to Messrs. Scott of Madison, and Burton. 
 
 Mr. Labauve was excused for being ab- 
 sent on yesterday, on account of illness. 
 - On motion of Mr. Taylor of Assumption, 
 the vote given on the rule, fixing 10 o'clock, 
 a. m. for the meeting of the Convention, 
 was reconsidered. 
 
 On motion, the said rule was rescinded, 
 and the hour of 11 o'clock, a. m., was fixed 
 for the meeting of the Convention. 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 ARTICLE THIRD, AS REPORTED BY THE 
 MAJORITY. 
 
 Sect. 3. No person shall be eligible to 
 the office of governor or lieutenant gov- 
 ernor, except .a native citizen of the United 
 
 States, or an inhabitant at the time of the 
 cession thereof to the United States of that 
 portion of territory included in the present 
 limits of the State of Louisiana. Nor shall 
 any person be eligible to either of the said 
 offices, who shall not hold in his own right, 
 landed property situated in said State of the 
 value of five thousand dollars, agreeably to 
 the tax lis*; and who shall not have attained 
 the age of thirty-five years, and have been 
 ten years next preceding his election a 
 resident within the State. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to amend said section 
 by striking out the words " except a native 
 citizen of the United States, or an inhabi- 
 tant at the time of the cession thereof to the 
 United States, of that portion of territory 
 included in the present limits of the State 
 of Louisiana." 
 
 Mr. Guiox moved to lay said amendment 
 on the table, and called for the yeas and 
 nays. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth moved to postpone the 
 vote upon said motion, until 1 o'clock, p. 
 eq.j which motion prevailed. 
 - The next in order came the report of the 
 committee to whom was referred the 6th 
 section of article 2d, and on motion of Mr. 
 Saunders, the same was laid on the table, 
 subject to call. 
 
 Mr. Coxrad of New Orleans, then called 
 up the 4th section of article 3d, as reported 
 by the majority, viz : 
 
 Sect. 4. The governor shall enter on 
 the discharge of his duties on the second 
 Monday of January, in the year , and 
 shall continue in office until the Monday 
 next preceding the day that his successor 
 shall have been declared duly elected, or 
 until his successor shall have taken the oajh 
 or affirmation prescribed by this Consul 
 tution. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Peets, the .word 
 " second" was stricken out, and the word 
 "fourth" inserted in lieu thereof. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to strike out the word 
 "or," and insert in lieu thereof the word 
 "and;" which motion prevailed. 
 
 On motion of Mr; Chixx, the blank in 
 said section was filled with " 1846." 
 
 Mr. Bexjamix moved to strike out the 
 words, "or until his successor shall have 
 taken the oath or affirmation prescribed by 
 this Constitution;" which motion was lost. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ratliff, the vote to 
 fill the blank with "1846," was re-con- 
 sidered. 
 
(32 Journal of the Convention ef Louisiana. 
 
 Mr. Ratlifp then moved to strike out 
 "1846;" which motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans, moved to 
 strike out the words, " in the year,'" and 
 insert in lieu thereof the words " next 
 ensuing his election," which motion was 
 adopted. 
 
 On motion, the section as amended, was 
 adapted, viz : , 
 
 Sect. 4. The governor shall enter on 
 the discharge of his duties on the fourth 
 Monday f>f the January next ensuing his 
 election, and shall continue in office until 
 the Monday next succeeding the day that 
 his successor shall have been declared duly 
 elected, and his successor shall have taken 
 the oath or affirmation prescribed by this 
 Constitution. 
 
 Then the section 5th, of said article, 
 was called up, viz : 
 
 Sect. 5. No member of congress or 
 person holding any office under the United 
 States, or minister of any religious society, 
 shall be eligible to the office of governor 
 or lieutenant governor. 
 
 Mr. Chinn offered the following substi- 
 tute, viz : 
 
 "No member of congress or person hold- 
 ing any office under this State, or the United 
 States, or minister of any religious society, 
 shall be elected to the office of governor." 
 
 It being 1 o'clock, the hour fixed to vote 
 on the motion of Mr. Guion to lay on the 
 table the motion ol Mr. Beatty to strike out, 
 the yeas and nays being called for, re- 
 sulted as follows, viz : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Brumfield, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, CulberU 
 son, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Keiiner, 
 jKing, Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, Mazu- 
 reau, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Sellers, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Wadsworth, Winchester and 
 Winder voted in the affirmative— 28 ayes; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Br azeale, Brent, Briant, 
 Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Derbes, Downs, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, Humble, 
 Hynson, Leonard, McCallop, McRae,Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, O' Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Preston, Ratlif, Read, Roselius, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Soule, Splane, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Voorhies, 
 Waddill, Wederstrandt and Wikoff voted 
 
 in the negative- — 40 nays; consequently the 
 motion was lost* 
 
 The ayes and nays were then called for 
 on the motion of Mr. Beatty, to strike out 
 the words, "except a native born citizen of 
 the United States, or an inhabitant at the 
 time of the cession thereof to the United 
 States, of*that portion of territory included 
 in the present limits of the State of Louisi- 
 ana," resulted as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bf azeale, Brent, Briant, 
 Cade, Oarriere, Cenas, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Humble, 
 Hynson, Labauve, Leonard, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Marigny, Mayo, O' Bryan,Peets,Penn, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Preston, Ratlif, Bead, Roselius, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Soide, Splane, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Voor- 
 flies, Waddill Wederstrandt and Wikoff 
 voted in favor of the motion to strike out— 
 41 ayes; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourgr, Brum- 
 field, Chflin, Claiborne, Conrad of New 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Garrett, 
 Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, 
 Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, Saunders, 
 Sellers, Taylor of St. Landry, Wadsworth, 
 Winchester and Winder voted against said 
 motion to strike out — 27 nays; conse, 
 quently the same was carried. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to strike out from 
 said section 3d, and article 3d, the words 
 "nor shall any person be eligible to either 
 of the said offices who shall not hold, in his 
 own right landed property situated in said 
 State, of the value of five thousand dollars, 
 agreeably to the tax list-; and." 
 
 Mr. Dunn then offered the following- 
 substitute, viz : "No person shall be eligible 
 to the Office of governor or lieutenant gov- 
 ernor, who shall not have attained the age 
 of thirty-five years, and have been sixteen 
 years a citizen of the United States, and 
 ten years a citizen of the State next prece- 
 ding his election. 
 
 Mr. Brent submitted the following as a 
 substitute to the substitute of Mr. Dunn, 
 viz : 
 
 " Every qualified elector of this State 
 shall be eligible to the office of governor % 
 lieutenant governor." 
 
 The President was appealed to, and 
 asked whether the substitute offered by Mi\ 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 63 
 
 Brent to the substitute offered by Mr. Dunn, 
 was in order. 
 
 Mr. Labauve in the chair, decided that 
 Mr. Brent's substitute was in order, and 
 had the preference. 
 
 Mr. Dunn appealed from the decision of 
 the chair. 
 
 On the question being put, "shall the de- 
 cision of the chair be sustained]" the Con- 
 vention decided that it should not. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Beatty, the substitute 
 offered by Mr. Dunn, was laid on the table, 
 subject to call. 
 
 Then the yeas and nays being called for, 
 on the motion of Mr. Beatty, to strike out 
 the words, "nor shall any person be eligible 
 to either of the said offices, who shall not 
 hold in his own right, landed property situ- 
 ated in said State of the value* of five thou- 
 sand dollars, agreeably to the tax list; 
 and," — resulted as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Downs, Dunn, Gar- 
 rett, Humble, Hynson, Leonard, McCallop, 
 McRae,Mayo, O' Bryan, Peets, Penn,Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Sellers, Soule, Splane, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Voor- 
 hies, Waddill Wederstrandt, Wikoff and 
 
 Winder voted in the affirmative 38 
 
 ayes ; and 
 
 Messrs.Aubei't,Be7ijamin, Briant, Brum- 
 field, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of New 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Garcia, .Chymes, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Legendre, Labauve, Lewis, 
 Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh, Roselius, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 and Winchester voted in the negative — 28 
 nays; consequently the motion was car- 
 ried. 
 
 Mr. Winder moved to amend by striking 
 out from said section the words, "and have 
 been ten years next preceding his election 
 a resident within the State," and insert in 
 lieu thereof the words " and has not been 
 fifteen years a citizen of the United States 
 and of this State." 
 
 Mr. Dunn moved for a division, that is 
 that the Convention first proceed to strike 
 out. 
 
 Mr. Read submitted the following sub- 
 stitute, "who shall not have attained the 
 age of twenty-one years, and have been 
 two years next preceding his election a 
 
 resident within the State and a citizen of 
 the United States." 
 
 Mr. Voorhies moved that said substitute' 
 be laid on the table indefinitely, and called 
 for the ayes and nays, and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bang, Briant, Brunifield, Cade, 
 Carriere, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of New Orleans, Conradj of Jefferson, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Downs, Dunn, Garcia, 
 Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Hynson, Kenner, 
 King, Labauve, Legendre, Leonard, Lewis, 
 Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Penn, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saun- 
 ders, Sellers, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Trist, Voorhies, Wikoff, Winchester and 
 
 Winder voted in the affirmative 52 
 
 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Humble, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, O 'Bryan, Porter, Preston, 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Waddill and 
 Wederstrandt voted m the negative — 12 
 nays; consequently the motion was carried. 
 
 Mr, Brent renewed the motion of Mr. 
 Dunn, for a division, that is the Convention 
 first proceed to strike out the word "ten," 
 and called for the yeas and nays. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Carriere, Cenas, Chinn, Conrad 
 of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Gar- 
 cia, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, La- 
 bauve, Legendre , Lewis, Mazureau,(y Bryan, 
 Peets, Penn, Preston, Pugh, Roman, Rose- 
 lius, St. Amand, Saunders, Splane, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Wad- 
 dill, Wikoff, Winchester and Winder voted 
 in the affirmative — 40 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Cade, Claiborne, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Downs, Dunn, Garrett, Humble, 
 Hynson, Leonard, MeCallop, McRae, Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Sellers, Soule, Stephens, Trist, 
 Voorhies and Wederstrandt voted in the 
 negative-— 24 nays; the motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. King moved to fill the blank with 
 the words "twenty- one." 
 
 Pending the discussion, the Convention 
 adjourned till to-morrow at 11 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent: Messrs. Bur- 
 ton, Chambliss, Scott of Feliciana, and 
 Scott of Madison, absent on leave ; and 
 Messrs. Covillion, Ledoux, and Porche. 
 
64 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Wednesday, February 19, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 In the absence of a minister of the gos- 
 pel, the president called on the honorable 
 delegate from Sabine, Mr. Stephens, who 
 opened the proceedings by prayer. 
 
 On motion, leave of absence was granted 
 to Messrs. Aubert, Brazeale, Guion and 
 Hynson. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 ARTICLE third, as reported by the 
 
 COMMITTEE. 
 
 Sec. 3. "No person shall be eligible to 
 the office of governor or lieutenant govern- 
 or, who shall not have attained the age of 
 
 thirty-five years, and have been years 
 
 next preceding his election a resident in 
 the State." 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan renewed his motion to fill 
 the blank with the word "five." 
 
 Mr. Winder moved to fill the blank in 
 said section with the word "fifteen," and 
 the yeas and nays be^ng called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Cenas, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Garcia, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre,Lewis,Mazureau,Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Saunders, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Wadsworth, Wikoff, Winchester and Win- 
 der voted in the affirmative— 29 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Cade, Carriere, Clai- 
 borne, Downs, Dunn, Garrett, Humble, 
 Leonard, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, 
 Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Preston, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Waddill and Wederstrandt voted 
 in the negative — 27 nays; consequently 
 the motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Porter . gave notice that he would, 
 on a future day, move the reconsideration 
 of the vote to fill the blank with the word 
 "fifteen." 
 
 Mr. Winder then moved to amend the 
 said section by striking out the words "a 
 resident within the State," and insert, after 
 the word "years" the words "and has not 
 been fifteen years a free white male citizen 
 of the United States, and of this State next 
 preceding his election;" and the yeas and 
 nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Cade, Cenas, 
 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad Culbertson, . 
 Derbes, Dunn, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Mazureau, Prescott of St. Landry, Prud- 
 homme, Pugh, Roman, Saunders, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Voor- 
 hies, Wadsworth, Wikoff, Winchester and 
 Winder voted in the affirmative — 35 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Carriere, Downs, Garcia, 
 Humble, Leonard, McCallop, McRae, Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Preston, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, 
 Trist, Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in 
 the negative- — 23 nays; the motion was 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Lewis then moved the adoption of 
 the section as* amended. 
 
 Mr. Dunn submitted the following sub- 
 stitute, viz: 
 
 "No person shall be eligible to the office 
 of governor or lieutenant governor, who 
 shall not have attained the age of thirty- five 
 years, and have been sixteen years a citi- 
 zen of the United States, and ten years a 
 citizen of the State next preceding his elec- 
 tion." 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth moved that the substi- 
 tute be laid on the table indefinitely, and 
 called for the yeas and nays, which resulted 
 as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Cenas, Chinn, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Culbertson, Derbes, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Mazureau, Porter, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ro- 
 man, Saunders, Taylor of Assumption, Tay- 
 lor of St. Landry, Wadsworth, Wikoff, 
 Winchester and Winder voted m favor of 
 said motion — 31 ayes ; and 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Cade^ Carriere, Clai- 
 borne, Downs, Dunn, Garcia, Garrett, 
 Humble, Leonard, McCallop, McRae, 
 Marigny, Mayo, 0*Bryan, Peets, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry* 
 Preston, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Sel- 
 lers, Splane, Stephens, Trist, Voorhies, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt voted against the 
 motion— 28 nays ; the same was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies, having voted in the ma- 
 jority, moved to reconsider the vote given to 
 fill the blank with the word "fifteen." 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved for the previous 
 question. 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 65 
 
 The President then put the question, . Mr. Conrad of New Orleans, called up 
 4 'shall the main question now be put?" and the I the 5th section of article 3d. it being the 
 yeas and nays being called for, resulted as j next in order, viz: 
 
 fellows: ! Sec. 5. "Xo member of congress, or 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, \ person holding any office under the United 
 Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Cenas, Chinn, I States, or minister of any religious society, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, ! shall be eligible to the office of governor or 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Guion, Hudspeth, Ken- j lieutenant governor." 
 
 ner, King,j Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, i Mr. Lewis moved that said section be 
 Mazureau, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, \ laid on the table until the Co^;ention shall 
 Saunders, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of have under consideration the general pro- 
 St. Landry, Wadsworth, Wikoff, Winches- \ visions; the yeas and nays being called for, 
 ter and Winder voted in the affirmative— j Messrs. Brent, Cenas, Culbertson, Der- 
 30 ayes; and I tfes, Guion, Humble, Kenner, King, Leon- 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Cade, Carriere, Downs, ! ard, Lewis, McR.ea, Mayo, Mazureau, 
 Dunn, Garcia, Garrett, Humble, Leonard, j O'Bryan, Peets,Penn, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, O'Bry- j Preston, RatlhT, Read, Roselius, Saunders, 
 an, Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles. Sellers, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Read, Scott ', St. Landry, Trist and Waddill voted in the 
 of Baton Rouge, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, affirmative — 29 yeas; and 
 Trist, Voorhies, Waddill and Wederstrandt j Messrs. Beatty, Boudousquie, Bourg, 
 voted in the negative — 28 nays; the motion Briant, Brumfield, Cade, Carriere, Chinn, 
 was adopted. Claiborne, Conrad of Xew Orleans, Con- 
 
 Mr. Lewis then moved the adoption ofirad of Jefferson, Downs, Dunn, Garrett, 
 the section as amended, viz: Hudspeth, Labauve, Legendre, McCallop, 
 
 Sec. 3. "No person shall be eligible to ' Marigny, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 the office of governor or lieutenant govern- j Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, 
 or, who shall not have attained the age of* j Scott of Baton Rouge, Taylor of Assumption, 
 thirty-five years, and has not been fifteen I Wederstrandt, Winchester and Winder 
 years a free white male citizen of the L T ni- voted in the negative- — 30 nays: consequent- 
 ted States, and of this State next preceding ! ly the motion was lost, 
 his election." Mr. Marigxy then moved the adoption 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for of the section as reported. 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, Mr. McRae moved to amend bv insert- 
 Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Cade, Cenas, I ing after the word "society" the words "or 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, = any attorney or counsellor at law." 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, j Mr. Beatty moved for the previous 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, ! question. 
 
 Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Prescott of The President then put the question, 
 St. Landry, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, ; "shall the main question be now put?" and 
 Saunders, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of the yeas and nays being called for, resulted 
 St. Landry, Voorhies, Wadsworth, Wikoff, as follows: 
 
 Winchester and Winder voted in favor of i Messrs. Beatty, Boudousquie, Bounr, 
 the adoption — 33 yeas; and Biiant, Brumfield, Cade, Claiborne, Con- 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Carriere, Downs, Dunn, rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbert- 
 Garcia, Garrett, Humble, Leonard, McCal- son, Derbes, Downs, Dunn, Garcia, Garrett, 
 lop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, j Hudspeth, Humble, King, Labauve, Le- 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 1 gendre, Lewis, McCallop, Marigny, Ma- 
 ton, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Sellers, ; zureau, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Splane, Stephens, Trist and Waddill voted | Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St 
 against the adoption — 25 nays; the section 1 Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, Sellers, Tay- 
 was adopted. j l or 0 f Assumption, Taylor~of St. Landry, 
 
 Mr. Mayo gave notice that he would, on I Winchester and Winder voted in the affir- 
 Tuesday next, move the reconsideration of mative— 37 yeas; and 
 the vote given on the adoption of said Messrs. Brent, Carriere, Cenas, Kenner, 
 section, McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Penn, Pres- 
 
 cott of St, Landry, Preston, Ratliff, Read, 
 
60 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana * 
 
 Soule, Splane, Stephens, Trist, Waddill 
 and Wederstrandt voted in the negative— 
 19 nays; the motion was consequently car- 
 ried. 
 
 The yeas and nays were then called for 
 on the motion to adopt the section as re- 
 ported by the committee, and resulted as 
 follows: 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie,. Bourg, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Culbertson, Downs, Dunn, Gar- 
 cia, Garrett, Humble, Labauve, Legendre, 
 McCallop, Marigny, Maz-ureau, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Land- 
 ry, Pruclhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Ro- 
 man, Roselius, St. Amand, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Sellers, Splane, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Wederstrandt and Winder voted in favor 
 of the adoption — 37 ayes; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brent, Derbes, Huds- 
 peth, Kenner,King, Lewis, McRae, Mayo-, 
 O'Bryan, Peets, Penn, Preston," Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, 
 Waddill and Winchester voted against the 
 adoption— 19 nays; consequently the same 
 was adopted, 
 
 Mr. Scott of Baton Rouge, submitted 
 the following resolution, viz: 
 
 "Whereas, the business of the Conven- 
 tion is from clay to day transacted by a bare 
 majority, in consequence of the absence of 
 members, and, whereas, experience has 
 taught the absolute impossibility of securing 
 a proper revision of the constitution in 
 New Orleans, 
 
 ."Therefore be it Resolved, That this 
 
 Convention will adjourn on the day of 
 
 February, to meet again in the town of 
 Jackson on the day of March next." 
 
 On motion the Convention adjourned till 
 to-morrow at 11 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent, Messrs. Au- 
 bert, Burton, Chambliss, Brazeale, Hynson, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, ab- 
 sent on leave, and Messrs. Covillion, 
 Eustis, Grymes, Ledoux and Porche. 
 
 Thursday, February 20, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Preston opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer. 
 
 The president submitted two letters of 
 invitation, one from Major General Lewis, 
 of the first division of the Louisiana militia; 
 
 and the other from Judge McCaleb, chair- 
 man of the committee of arrangements of 
 the public schools of municipality number 
 two, inviting the Convention to attend the 
 celebration of the anniversary of the birth 
 day of the immortal Washington. 
 
 On motion, said invitations were ac- 
 cepted. 
 
 Mr. Ciiinn submitted the following no- 
 tice, viz: 
 
 Notice i£ given, that under the head of 
 general provisions I shall offer a section to 
 the following effect:-, that from and after the 
 adoption of this constitution, any person or 
 persons being citizens of this State, who 
 shall right a duel with deadly weapons in 
 the State, or who shall go out of the State 
 for that purpose, or who shall send or re- 
 ceive a challenge to fight a duel with dead- 
 ly weapons, or who shall act as second to 
 those thus acting, shall be forever disquali- 
 fied from holding or exercising any office 
 of trust or profit, under this constitution. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan offered the following reso- 
 lutions, viz: 
 
 Resolved, That when the Convention ad- 
 journs on Friday the 21st, that it adjourns 
 to meet again in the hall of the house of 
 representatives, on Tuesday the 11th day of 
 March next, at 12 o'clock m. 
 
 Resolved, That all per diem of members 
 and officers of this Convention, shall be 
 suspended during said adjournment. 
 
 Resolved, That on Friday the 21st inst., 
 the Convention return this room, and those 
 accompanying it, to the charge of Mrs. 
 Hawley. 
 
 Mr. Dunn moved that the above resolu- 
 tions be laid on the table indefinitely, and 
 the yeas and nays being called for, resulted 
 as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Brent, 
 Briant, Bmmfield, Carriere, Chinn, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Gar- 
 retty Humble, Kenner, King, Labauve, Le- 
 gendre, Leonard, Lewis, McCallop, Marig- 
 ny, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Porche, Pres- 
 ton, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Ro- 
 man, St. Amand, Saunders, Sellers, Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt and Wi- 
 koff voted in the affirmative— 45 yeas: and 
 
 Messrs. Cade, Hudspeth, McRae, O'Bry- 
 an, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of SL 
 Landry, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Fe 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 67 
 
 kciana, and Taylor of St. Landry, voted in 
 the negative — 9 nays; the motion was car- 
 ried. 
 
 Mr. Duxn submitted the following reso- 
 lution, viz: 
 
 Resolved, That the Convention meet eve- 
 ry day (holidays and Sundays excepted) at 
 10 o'clock a. m., and adjourn at 3 o'clock 
 p. m., and that no motion to adjourn to any 
 other time shall be adopted unless upon the 
 vote of two-thirds of the members present; 
 provided it shall be in order to adjourn the 
 Convention to some place out of the city of 
 New Orleans, by a majority of votes, on 
 three days previous notice being given. 
 
 Mr.' Bbext offered the following substi- 
 tute, viz: 
 
 Resolved,, That from and after this date, 
 no leave of absence shall be granted to any 
 member, except on account of sickness; and 
 in no case shall any absentee be allowed 
 his per diem, unless he shall have previous- 
 ly obtained leave of absence in accordance 
 with this resolution. 
 
 Mr. Kexxer moved to lay the resolution 
 and substitute on the table indefinitely, and 
 the yeas and nays being called for, resulted 
 as follows: % 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Cade^ Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Downs, Garcia, Garrett, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Kenner,King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Leonard, Lewis, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Marigny, O 'Bryan, Porche, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Roman, 
 St. Amand, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Stephens, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt, Wikoft 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative — 49 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Carriere, Dunn, Mayo, 
 Peets, Perm and Porter voted in the nega- 
 tive — 7 nays; consequently the motion was 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Baton Rouge, called up the 
 resolution submitted by him on yesterday, 
 i viz: 
 
 "Whereas the business of the Conven- 
 tion is from day to day transacted by a bare 
 majority, 'in consequence of the absence of 
 members; and whereas experience has 
 taught the absolute impossibility of securing 
 a proper revision of the constitution in New 
 Orleans. Therefore be it 
 
 "Resolved, That this Convention will ad- 
 journ on the day of February to meet again 
 in the town of Jackson on the day of 
 March next," and moved that it be laid on 
 the table subject to call. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies moved that the said reso- 
 lution be laid on the table indefinitely, and 
 called for the yeas and nays; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Bri- 
 ant, Brumfield, Cade, Carriere, Chinn, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, Gar- 
 cia, Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Kenner, 
 King, Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, Mayo, 
 Mazureau, Penn, Porche, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Ro- 
 man, St. Amand, Saunders, Sellers, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Trist, Voorhies, Wederstrandt, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the affir- 
 mative — 45 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Dunn, Leonard, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Marigny, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Waddill and 
 Wikoff voted against the motion — 14 nays; 
 the same was carried. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, submitted 
 thev following additional rule, viz: 
 
 "The yeas and nays shall not be taken 
 on any question, unless ten members rise 
 to support the call for them." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ratliff, chairman of 
 the committee on contingent expenses, Mr. 
 Roselius was appointed an additional mem- 
 ber to the said committee. 
 
 This being the day fixed for the consid- 
 eration of the report of the committee of re- 
 vision, Mr. Lewis called up the section 1 st 
 of article 1st, as reported by the committee 
 of revision, viz: 
 
 article first, as reported by the 
 commtitee of revision. 
 Sec. 1. The powers of the government 
 of the State of Louisiana shall be divided 
 into three distinct departments, and each of 
 them to be confided to a separate body of 
 magistracy, to-wit: those which are legis- 
 lative to one, those which are executive to 
 another, and those which are judicial to an- 
 other. 
 
 On motion, said section was adopted. 
 Sec 2. No person holding office in one 
 of these departments, shall exercise any 
 powers properly belonging to either of the 
 , others, except in the instances hereinafter 
 e xpressly directed or permitted. 
 
68 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 On motion of Mr. Benjamin the said 
 section was re-committed to the committee 
 of revision. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 ARTICLE THIRD, AS REPORTED BY THE 
 MAJORITY. 
 
 Sec. 6. The governor shall have power 
 to grant reprieves for all offences against 
 the State, and except in cases of impeach- 
 ment, shall, with the consent of the senate, 
 have power to grant pardons and remit 
 fines and forfeitures, after conviction. In 
 cases of treason he may grant reprieves 
 until the end of the next session of Ihe gen- 
 eral assembly, in which the power of par- 
 doning shall be vested. 
 
 On motion, said section was adopted. 
 
 Sec. 7. All commissions shall be in the 
 name and by the authority of the State of 
 Louisiana, and shall be sealed with the 
 State seal and signed by the governor. 
 
 On motion, said section was adopted. 
 
 Sec. 8. In case of the impeachment of 
 the governor; his removal from office, death, 
 refusal to qualify, resignation or absence 
 from the State, the powers and duties of the 
 office shall devolve upon the lieutenant gov- 
 ernor for the .residue of the term, or until 
 the governor absent or impeached, shall 
 return or be acquitted. The legislature 
 may provide by law for the case of removal, 
 death, resignation or inability, both of the 
 governor and lieutenant governor, declaring 
 what officer shall act as governor; and such 
 officer shall act accordingly, until the disa- 
 bility be removed or a 'governor shall be 
 elected. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Cenas the words "and 
 duly qualified," were added at the end of 
 the section. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Mayo the word "of" 
 inserted after the word "both," was inserted 
 before said word. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Conrad of New Or- 
 leans, the words "or inability," were in- 
 serted after the word "refusal." 
 
 Mr. Saunders moved to add at the end 
 of the section, the words "at the time ap- 
 pointed by the legislature for the residue of 
 the term," which motion was adopted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs the words "or 
 a governor shall be elected" were stricken 
 out, and the words "or for the residue of the 
 term" were inserted in lieu thereof. 
 
 On motion, the section was adopted as 
 q mended, viz: 
 
 Sec. 8. In case of the impeachment of 
 the governor, his removal from office, 
 death, refusal or inability to qualify, resig- 
 nation or absence from the State, the pow- 
 er and duties of the office shall devolve upon 
 the lieutenant governor for the residue of 
 the term, or until the governor absent or 
 impeached, shall return or be acquitted. 
 The legislature may provide by law for the 
 case of removal, the impeachment, death, 
 resignation, disability or refusal to qualify, 
 of both the governor and lieutenant gov- 
 ernor, declaring what officer shall act as 
 governor; and such officer shall act accord- 
 ingly, until the disability be removed or for 
 the residue of the term. 
 
 Sec. 9. The lieutenant governor or oth- 
 er officer discharging the duties of governor, 
 shall, during his administration, receive the 
 same compensation to which* the governor 
 would have been entitled, had he continued 
 in office. 
 
 On motion, said section was adopted. 
 
 Sec. 10. The lieutenant governor shall 
 by virtue of his office, be president of the 
 senate, but shall have only a casting vote 
 therein. Whenever he shall administer 
 the government, or shall be, unable to at- 
 tend as president of the senate, the senators 
 shall elect one of their own members as 
 president of the senate, for that occasion. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, moved to 
 amend said section by striking out the 
 words "but shall have only a casting vote 
 therein," and insert in lieu thereof the 
 words "have a right when in committee of 
 the whole, to debate and^ote on all sub - 
 jectSj and when the senate are equally di- 
 vided to give the casting vote." 
 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans* moved to 
 amend by inserting the words "shall have 
 the right of participation in the debates." 
 
 Mr. Boudousquie moved that both 
 amendments be laid on the table indefinite- 
 ly, which motion prevailed, 
 
 Mr. Read moved to amend by striking 
 out at the end of the section, the words "the 
 occasion," and insert in lieu therof, the 
 words "the time being," which motion pre- 
 vailed. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to amend said section 
 by inserting after the words "by virtue of 
 his office," the words "secretary of state.'' 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to lay the said 
 amendment on the table indefinitely, and 
 the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 69 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Brent, 
 Briant, Cade, Cenas, Chinn,Derbes, Dunn, 
 Garrett, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Leonard, Lewis, McRae, Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, Mazureau, O 'Bryan, Peets, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Roman, Roselius, St. 
 Amand, Sellers, Soule, Splane, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Trist, Voorhies, Wadsworth, 
 Wederstrandt, Winchester and Winder vo- 
 ted in favor of the motion — 38 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Claiborne, Conrad of New Or- 
 leans, Downs, Humble, McCallop, Porter, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, RatlifT, Read, Saun- 
 ders,. Scott of Raton Rouge, Scott of Fe- 
 liciana, Taylor of Assumption, and Waddill 
 voted against the motion — 15 nays; the 
 same was carried. 
 
 Mr. Makigny moved the adoption of the 
 section as amended, viz: 
 
 Sec. 10. The lieutenant governor shall 
 by virtue of his office, be president of the 
 senate, but shall have only a casting vote 
 therein. Whenever he shall administer 
 the government, or shall be unable to at- 
 tend as president of the senate, the senators 
 shall elect one of their own members as 
 president of the senate, for the time being. 
 
 Which motion prevailed. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned till 
 to-morrow at 11 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note.— Members absent, Messrs. Au- 
 bert, Brazeale, Burton, Chambliss, Guion, 
 Hynson ajid Scott of Madison, absent on 
 leave; and Messrs. Covillion, Ledoux and 
 Eustis. 
 
 Friday, February 21, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 In the absence of a minister of the gos- 
 pel, at the request of the president, the Hon. 
 delegate from Sabine (Mr. Stephens) open- 
 ed the proceedings by prayer. 
 
 Mr. Roselius moved that the Convention 
 accept the invitation and attend in a body 
 the Examination of the Public Schools in 
 Municipality No. 1, which motion pre- 
 vailed. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption called up 
 the rule offered by him on yesterday, and 
 moved the adoption of the same, viz: 
 
 "The yeas and nays shall not be taken 
 on any question, unless ten members rise 
 to support the call for them." 
 
 Mr. Scott of Baton Rouge moved that 
 the same be laid on the table subject to 
 call, which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved that the Convention 
 adjourn till Monday next at 11 o'clock, a.m., 
 which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved that said rule be 
 laid on the table and made the special or- 
 der of the day for Monday next, immediate- 
 ly after the reading of the journal, which 
 motion prevailed. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till Monday next at 11 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note — Members absent: Messrs. Au- 
 bert, Brazeale, Burton, Chambliss, Guion, 
 Hynson and Scott of Madison, absent on 
 leave ; Messrs. Boudousquie, Culbertson, 
 Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, La- 
 bauve,- Ledoux, Porche, Preston, Prudhom- 
 me, St. Amand, Wadsworth, Wikoff and 
 Winchester. 
 
 Monday, February 24, 1845. 
 The convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Clark opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer. 
 
 On motion Messrs. Garcia, Soule and 
 Briant were excused from attendance on 
 account of sickness; and leave of absence 
 was granted to Messrs. Splane, Pugh, 
 Cade, McRae and Lewis. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, moved that 
 the Convention adjourn till to-morrow at 11 
 o'clock a. m. for w T ant of a quorum, which 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan submitted the following 
 resolution, viz: 
 
 "Resolved, That from and after the 15th 
 day of March next, the Convention will 
 grant no leave of absence to any member, 
 unless in case of sickness of the member 
 or some one of his family." 
 
 Mr. Winder moved to lay the resolution 
 on the table indefinitely, and the yeas and 
 nays being called for, resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brumjield, Ce. 
 nas,Dunn, Hudspeth, King,Legendre, Leon- 
 ard, McCallop, Mazureau, Porche, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Ro- 
 man, St. Amand, Saunders, Stephens, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative — 22 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Carriere, Covillion, Der- 
 bes, Downs, Garret, Hynson, Marigny, 
 Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Trist, Voorhies, 
 Waddill, Wederstrandt and Wileoff voted in 
 
70 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 the negative— 22 nays; the vote being 
 equally divided, the president voted in the 
 negative, the motion was consequenty lost. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to amend by striking 
 out the "15th of March," and insert in lieu 
 thereof the words "the 24th day of Feb- 
 ruary." 
 
 Mr. Dunn moved that the resolution and 
 amendment be laid on the table till to-mor- 
 row, which motion was lost. 
 
 On the question of order, the president 
 decided that this resolution was out of order, 
 inasmuch as the rule offered Friday, by 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, was made the 
 special order of the day for to-day, immedi- 
 ately after the reading of the journal. 
 
 Mr, Taylor of Assumption, called up 
 the rule offered by him, and made the 
 special order of the day for to-day, viz: 
 
 "The yeas and nays shall not be taken 
 on any question, unless ten members rise 
 to support the call for them." 
 
 Mi\ Marigny moved for the adoption of 
 the rule, and called for the yeas and nays: 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Brum- 
 field, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of New 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, 
 Culbertson,Derbes, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Marigny, Mazureau, Porche, 
 Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Voorhies and 
 Winder voted in the affirmative— 26 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Carriere, Downs, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, 
 Leonard, McCallop, Mayo, O' Bryan, Beets, 
 Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 colt of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Ratliff, 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Fe- 
 liciana, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Waddilj, Wederstrandt and Wihojf 
 voted in the negative— 29 nays; consequent- 
 ly the motion was lost. 
 
 OUDEIi OF THE DAY. 
 article third as reported by the 
 majority. 
 
 Sec. 11. " While he acts as president 
 of the senate, the lieutenant governor shall 
 receive for his services the same compen- 
 sation which shall for the same period be 
 allowed to the speaker of the house of re- 
 presentatives, and no more." 
 
 . Mr. Marigny moved to amend by stri- 
 king all the words of the first line, more- 
 over the words, "the same compensation 
 which shall for the same period be allowed 
 
 to the speaker of the house of representa- 
 tives, and no more,'' and insert in lieu 
 thereof the words "a compensation shall 
 be fixed by the legislature." 
 
 Which motion was lost. 
 
 On motion, the said 11 th section, as re- 
 ported, was adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 11. "While he acts as president of 
 the senate, the lieutenant governor shall 
 receive for his services the same compen- 
 sation which shall for the same period be 
 allowed to the speaker of the house of re- 
 presentatives, and no more." 
 
 The 12th section was then called up, 
 viz: 
 
 Sec. 12. "A secretary of state shall be 
 appointed and commissioned, to hold his 
 office during the pleasure of the governor. 
 The records of the State shall be kept and 
 preserved in the office of the secretary. 
 He shall keep a fair register of the official 
 acts and proceedings of the governor, and 
 when necessary shall attest them. He 
 shall, when required, lay the said register 
 and all papers, minutes and vouchers rela- 
 tive to his office, before either house of the 
 general assembly, and shall perform such 
 other duties as may be enjoined on him by 
 law." 
 
 Mr. Claiborne moved to strike out the 
 words "during the pleasure of the govern- 
 or," and insert in lieu thereof the words 
 "during the term for which the. governor 
 shall have been elected, if he shall so long 
 behave himself well." 
 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans, moved to 
 amend the amendment, fry striking out the 
 words " if he shall so long behave himself 
 ivell;" which amendment was accepted by 
 Mr. Claiborne. 
 
 And on motion, the amendment as 
 amended, was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Peets offered the following substi* 
 tute, viz : "a secretary of state shall be 
 elected by the qualified electors of the State 
 at large, at the same time of the election 
 for governor, and shall hold his office during 
 the term for which the governor shall have 
 been elected. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, moved that 
 the said substitute be postponed until the 
 Convention take up the judiciary depart- 
 ment; which motion was lost. 
 
 And the yeas and nays being called for, 
 on the adoption of the substitute, resulted as 
 follows : 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 n 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Brumfield, Carriere, Co- 
 villion, Downs, Garrett, Humble, McCallop, 
 Mayo, O' Bryan, Peeis,Penn,Porche,Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prudhomme, Ratliff, 
 Read, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge,Scott 
 of Feliciana, Stephens, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Trist, Waddill and Wederstrandt 
 voted in the affirmative — 26 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousqiiie, Bourg, 
 Cenas, Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Grymes, Hudspeth, Hynson, King, La- 
 bauve, Legendre, Leonard, Marigny, Mazu- 
 reau, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Ro- 
 man, Roselius, St. Amand, Sellers, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Voorhies, Wadsworth, Wi- 
 koff and Winchester voted in the negative — 
 30 nays ; consequently the substitute was 
 lost. 
 
 Mr. Porter then submitted the following 
 substitute, for the whole section, viz : 
 
 "A secretary of State shall be appointed 
 by joint vote of the general assembly, and 
 commissioned during the term of four years; 
 he shall keep a register of all the official 
 acts and proceedings of the governor, and 
 shall when required lay the same and pa- 
 pers, minutes and official vouchers relative 
 thereto, before the general assembly, and 
 shall perform such other duties as shall be 
 enjoined by law. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the adoption of said substitute, resulted as 
 follows : 
 
 Messrs, " Cidberlson, McCallop, Peets, 
 Porter, Ratliff and Waddill voted in favor 
 of said substitute ; and 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Bourg, Brent,Briant, 
 Brumfield, Carriere, Cenas, Conrad of New 
 Orleans, Covillion, Derbes, Dozens, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Grymes, Hudspeth, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, King, Labauve, Legendre, 
 Leonard, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, O'- 
 Bryan, Penn,Porche, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St Landry, Preston, Prud- 
 homme, Read, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana,. Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, Wi- 
 boff and Winchester voted against the adop- 
 tion of said substitute — 47 nays; the same 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Roman moved to amend said section 
 by inserting after the word "shall" the 
 words, "foe nominated and appointed by the 
 
 governor with the advice and consent of the 
 senate," which amendment was adopted. 
 
 On motion, the section as amended, was 
 adopted, viz : 
 
 Sect. 12. A secretary of state shall be 
 nominated and appointed by the governor, 
 with the advice and consent of the senate, 
 and commissioned to hold his office during 
 the term for which the governor shall have 
 been elected. The records of the State 
 shall be kept and preserved in the office of 
 the secretary. He shall keep a fair register 
 of the official acts and proceedings of the 
 governor, and when necessary shall attest 
 them. He shall, when required, lay the 
 said register and all papers, minutes and 
 vouchers relative to his'office, before either 
 house of the general assembly, and shall 
 perform such other duties as may be en- 
 joined on him by law. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned, 
 till to-morrow, at 11 o'clock,- a. m. 
 
 Note.' — Members absent : Messrs. Au- 
 bert, Brazeale, Briant, Burton, Cade, 
 Chambliss, Garcia, Guion, Lewis, McRae, 
 Pugh, Scott of Madison, Soule, andSplane, 
 all absent on leave; and Messrs. Chinn 
 and Ledoux. 
 
 Tuesday, February 25, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Stanton opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer. 
 
 Mr. Saunders gave notice that he would 
 on a future day, move the re -consideration 
 of the vote given on yesterday, making the 
 secretary of state elective. 
 
 This being the day fixed for the recon- 
 sideration of the vote given on the adoption 
 of the 3d section of the executive depart- 
 ment, on motion of Mr. Mayo, the reconsid- 
 eration was postponed until Tuesday next, 
 the 4th day of March. 
 
 Mr. Eustis, chairman of the committee 
 of revisal, submitted the following report, 
 viz : 
 
 article first, as reported by the 
 committee of revisal. 
 
 Sect. 2. No one of these departments 
 nor any person holding office in one of them, 
 shall exercise power properly belonging to 
 either of the others, except in the instances 
 hereinafter expressly directed or permitted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, said report 
 was ordered to be printed. 
 
72 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 The next in order came the following 
 resolution, offered on yesterday by Mr. 
 O'Bryan, viz: 
 
 " Resolved, That from and after the 15th 
 day of March next, the Convention will 
 grant no leave of absence to any member, 
 unless in case of sickness of the member or 
 some one of his family. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Beatty, the words 
 "15th of March" were stricken out, and the 
 words u 25th of February" were inserted in 
 lieu thereof. 
 
 The ayes and nays were then called for 
 on the motion to adopt said resolution as 
 amended, and resulted as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Carriere, Chambliss, Claiborne, Downs, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, 
 Legendre, Marigny, Mazureau, O'Bryan, 
 Beets, Porche, Porter, Prudhomme, Roman, 
 Roselius, Saunders, Sellers, Trist, Voorhies 
 and Wederstrandt voted in the affirmative 
 — 28 ayes; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Briant, Burton, Conrad 
 of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Co- 
 villion, Cidbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Huds- 
 peth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Leonard, 
 McCallop, McRae, Mayo, Penn, Prescott 
 of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Ratliff, 
 Read, St. Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Taylor of St, Landry, Waddill, 
 Wikoff, and Winder voted in the negative — 
 31 nays; consequently said resolution was 
 rejected. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 ARTICLE THIRD, AS REPORTED BY THE 
 MAJORITY. 
 
 Constitution of 1812. Section 9. "He 
 shall nominate and appoint, with the advice 
 and consent of the senate, judges, sheriffs, 
 and all other officers whose offices are es- 
 tablished by this constitution, and whose 
 appointments are not herein otherwise pro- 
 vided for: Provided, however, that the le- 
 gislature shall have a right to prescribe the 
 mode of appointment to all offices to be 
 establishad by law. 
 
 Mr. Humble moved to amend said sec- 
 tion, by striking out the words ' fr judges, 
 sheriffs, and other." 
 
 Mr. Dunn moved for a division; that is, 
 the Convention first proceed to strike out 
 the word "judges;" which motion prevailed. 
 
 The yeas and nays were then called for 
 on the motion to strike out the word 
 "judges," and 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Car* 
 Here, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Humble, 
 Hynson, Ledoux, Leonard, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porche, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Ratliff, Read, Saunders, Scoli of 
 Baton Rouge Stephens, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Trist, Waddill and Wederstrandt vo- 
 ted in favor of said motion — 30 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad ofJeffei- 
 son, Cidbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garrett, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre. Marigny, Mazureau,Prudhomme, 
 Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Scott of Fe- 
 liciana, Sellers, Taylor of St. Landry, Voor- 
 hies, Wikoff and Winder voted against said 
 motion — 28 nays ; consequently the same 
 was carried. 
 
 The ayes and nays were then called on 
 the motion to strike out the word "sheriffs," 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brent, Briant, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, Conrad of 
 New Orleans, Covillion, CuTbertson,Derbes, 
 Downs, Dunn, Garrett, Humble, Hynson,, 
 Kenner, Ledoux,Leonard,McCallop,MRae 7 
 May 0,0' Bryan, Peets, Penn,P or che, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt, Wikoff 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative — 43 
 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Cenas, Claibome,Conrad of Jef- 
 ferson, Eustis, Hudspeth, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Marigny, Mazureau, Roman t 
 Roselius, St. Amand and Taylor of St. 
 Landry voted in the negative — 14 nays; the 
 motion was adopted. 
 
 Mr, Taylor, of Assumption, moved to 
 amend by striking out the words "Provi- 
 ded however, that," and insert at the end 
 of the section the words "Provided they 
 shall not be elected by the general assem- 
 bly, or by either of the two houses. " 
 
 Mr. Porter moved to lay the amend- 
 ment and proviso on the table, which mo- 
 tion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Taylor, of Assumption, then moved 
 the adoption ofthe amendment and provi- 
 so, which motion was lost. 
 
 On motion, the section was adopted as 
 amended, viz : 
 
 Sec 9. Const. 1812. "He shall nom- 
 inate and appoint, with the advice and con- 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 73 
 
 sent of the senate, all officers, whose offi- 
 ces are established by this constitution, and 
 whose appointments are not herein other- 
 wise provided for : Provided, however, the 
 legislature shall have the right to prescribe 
 the mode of appointment to all other offi- 
 ces to be established by law." 
 
 The convention then called up section 
 10, "of the constitution of 1812" viz: 
 
 Sec. 10. The governor shall have pow- 
 er to fill up vacancies that may happen du- 
 ring the recess of the legislature, by grant- 
 ing commissions which shall expire at the 
 end of the next session." 
 
 On motion the same was adopted. 
 
 Section 12, of the constitution of 1812, 
 viz: 
 
 Sec. 12. He may require information 
 in writing from the officers in the execu- 
 tive department, upon any subject relating 
 to the duties of their respective offices. 
 
 On motion said section was adopted. 
 
 Secuon 13, of the constitution of 1812. 
 
 Sec. 13. He shall from time to time 
 give to the general assembly information 
 respecting the situation of the State, and 
 recommend to their consideration such 
 measures as he may deem expedient, 
 
 On motion said section was adopted. 
 
 Section 14 of the constitution of 1812. 
 
 Sec 14. He may on extraordinary oc- 
 casions,, convene the general assembly at 
 the seat of government, or at a different 
 place if that should have become danger- 
 ous from an enemy,, or from contagious dis- 
 orders; and in case Of disagreement be- 
 tween the two houses with respect to the 
 time of adjournment, he may adjourn them 
 to such time as he may think proper, not 
 exceeding four months. 
 
 Mr. Poeter moved to amend by insert- 
 ing after the word "assembly," in the se- 
 cond line, the words "or continue their ses- 
 sion for a period not exceeding thirty days," 
 which motion was lost. 
 
 On motion, the section 14 of the consti- 
 tution of 1812, was then adopted as reported, 
 ivizL: 
 
 Sect, 14. He may on extraordinary oc- 
 casions, convene the general assembly at 
 ;the seat of government, or at ' a different 
 place, if that should have become danger- 
 ous jfom an enemy, or from contagious 
 disorders; and in case of disagreement be- 
 tween the two houses, with respect to the 
 time of adjournment, he may adjourn them 
 10 
 
 to such a time as he may think proper, not 
 exceeding four months. 
 
 Section 15th of the constitution of 1812, 
 viz : 
 
 Sect. 15. " He shall take care that the 
 laws be faithfully executed." 
 
 (Jfcmotion, said section was adopted. 
 
 Section 20th of the constitution of 1812, 
 viz : 
 
 Sect. 20. " Every bill which shall have 
 passed both houses, shall be presented to 
 the governor; if he approve he shall sign it, 
 if not, he shall return it 5 with his objections, 
 to the house in which it shall have origi- 
 nated, who shall enter the objections at 
 large upon their journal, and proceed to re- 
 reconsider it; if after such reconsideration 
 two-thirds of all the members elected to 
 that house shall agree to pass the bill, it 
 shall be sent with the objections, to the 
 other house, by which it shall likewise be 
 reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds 
 of all the members elected to that house, it 
 shall be a law; but in such cases, the votes 
 of both houses shall be determined by yeas 
 and nays, and the names of the members 
 voting for or against the bill shall Jse enter- 
 ed on the journal of each house respective- 
 ly. If any bill shall not be returned by 
 the governor within ten days, (Sundays 
 excepted) after it shall have been presented 
 to him, it shall be a law in like manner as 
 if he had signed it, unless the general as- 
 sembly by their adjournment, prevent its 
 return — in which case it shall become a 
 law, unless sent back within three days 
 after their next meeting. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to amend said section « 
 by inserting ^three-fifths" instead of two- 
 thirds, of the members elected. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Conrad of New Or- 
 leans; said amendment was laid on the 
 table indefinitely. 
 
 Mr. Mayo then moved to amend said 
 section by striking out the words "unless 
 sent back within three days after their next 
 meeting," and insert in lieu thereof the 
 words "in which case it shall not be a 
 law;" Which motion was lost. 
 
 On motion the section was adopted, viz: 
 
 Constitution of 1812. Sec. 20. "Every 
 bill which shall have passed both houses * 
 shall be presented to the governor; if he 
 approve, he shall sign it, if not, he shall 
 return it, with his objections, to the house 
 in which it shall have originated, who -shall* 
 
74 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 enter the objections at large upon their 
 journal, and proceed to re-consider it; if, 
 after such re-consideration, two-thirds of 
 all the members elected to that house shall 
 agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, with 
 the objections, to the other house by which 
 it shall be likewise re-considered, and if 
 approved by two-thirds of all the members 
 elected to that house, it shall be a law; but 
 in such cases the votes of both houses shall 
 be determined by yeas and nays, and the 
 names of the members voting for and 
 againnst the bill shall be entered on the 
 journal of each house respectively. If 
 any bill shall be returned by the govern- 
 or within ten days, (Sundays excepted,) 
 after it shall have been presented to him, 
 it shall be a law in like manner as if he 
 had signed it, unless the general assembly 
 by their adjournment prevent its return, in 
 which case it shall be a law unless sent 
 back within three days after their next 
 meeting." 
 
 Section 21st of the constitution of 1812, 
 viz: 
 
 Sec. 21. "Every order, resolution or 
 vote to which the concurrence of both 
 houses maV be necessary, except on a ques- 
 tion of adjournment, shall be presented to 
 the governor, and before it shall take effect, 
 be approved by him, or being disapproved, 
 shall be re-passed by two-thirds of both 
 houses." 
 
 On motion, said section was adopted. 
 Section 22d, of the constitution of 1812, 
 viz: 
 
 Sec. 22. "The free white men of this 
 State shall be armed and disciplined for its 
 defence; but those who belong to religious 
 societies whose tenets forbid them to carry 
 arms, shall not be compelled so to do, but 
 shall pay an equivalent 'for personal ser- 
 vices. " 
 
 On motion said section was adopted. 
 Section 23d of the constitution of 1812, 
 viz: 
 
 Sec. 23. "The militia of this State shall 
 be organized in such manner as may be 
 hereafter deemed most expedient by the 
 legislature." 
 
 On motion, said section was adopted. 
 ^ On motion of Mr. Conrad of New Or- 
 leans, the vote on the adoption of the 10th 
 section of the constitution of 1812 was re- 
 considered, and said section amended as 
 follows: to insert in lieu of the word "legis- 
 
 lature," the word "Senate;" and on motion 
 of Mr. Downs, were added at the end o f 
 the section the words "unless otherwise 
 provided for in this constitution." ' 
 
 On motion, said section was adopted as 
 amended, viz: 
 
 Constitution of 1812. Sec. 10. "The 
 governor shall have power to fill up vacan- 
 cies that may happen during the recess of 
 the senate, by granting commissions, which 
 shall expire at the end of the next session, 
 unless otherwise provided for in this con- 
 stitution." 
 
 Mr. Ledoux submitted an additional 
 section, the 21st section of the minority 
 report made by Mr. Ledoux, viz: 
 
 Sec. 21. "There shall be appointed by 
 the governor, with the advice and consent 
 of the senate, an auditorof state, whose duty 
 it shall be to examine and approve all ac- 
 counts before they are paid by the treasurer, 
 He shall assist the legislature in examining 
 the accounts of the treasurer; and perform 
 all other duties which may be required of 
 him by law." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Conrad of New Or- 
 leans, said section was laid on the table 
 subject to call. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to take up the report 
 of the legislative committee, which motion 
 prevailed. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow at 11 o'clock, a., m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent, Messrs. Gar- 
 cia and Soule absent on account of illness; 
 Messrs. Aubert, Brazeale, Cade, Guion, 
 Pugh, Scott of Madison and Splane absent 
 on leave; Messrs. Chinn, Boudousquie, 
 Grymes and Preston were not in their seats. 
 
 Wednesday, February 26, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Clark opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer. 
 
 On motion, Mr. Covillion was excused 
 from attendance on account of illness. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 article second of the majority report 
 as amended. 
 
 Sect. 6. Representation shall be equal 
 and uniform in this State, and beyond that, 
 if entitled to any more, in proportion to the 
 population of each, ascertained and calcu- 
 lated according to the principle of repre- 
 sentation adopted in the Constitution of the 
 United States. 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 75 
 
 The first representation under this con- 
 stitution shall continue until after the next 
 United States census in 1850, and shall 
 be as follows: 
 
 The parish of Plaquemines shall have 1 
 " St. Bernard, 1 
 
 " Orleans, 
 
 First Municipality, 5 } 
 Second " 4 V 12 
 
 Third " 3 ) 
 
 That part of the parish of Orleans 
 on the East bank of the Missis- 
 
 sippi, 
 
 
 1 
 
 The paris 
 
 h of Jefferson, 
 
 2 
 
 44 
 
 St Charles, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 St. John the Baptist, 
 
 1 
 
 44 
 
 St. James, 
 
 2 
 
 << 
 
 Ascension, 
 
 1 
 
 
 Assumption, 
 
 2 
 
 « 
 
 Lafourche Interior, 
 
 3 
 
 u 
 
 Terrebonne, 
 
 1 
 
 u 
 
 Iberville, 
 
 1 
 
 
 West Baton Rouge, 
 
 1 
 
 (4 
 
 East " " 
 
 2 
 
 44 
 
 West Feliciana, 
 
 2 
 
 44 
 
 East 
 
 2 
 
 it 
 
 St. Helena, 
 
 1 
 
 ■44 
 
 Livingston, 
 
 1 
 
 -44 
 
 Washington, 
 St. Tammany, 
 
 1 
 
 &*W; -■ ••*.< 
 
 1 
 
 44 
 
 Pointe Coupee, 
 
 1 
 
 -4-4 
 
 Concordia, 
 
 1 
 
 -ii 
 
 Tensas, 
 
 1 
 
 
 Madison, 
 
 1 
 
 v '■ ; '. • « - 
 
 Carroll, 
 
 
 ii 
 
 Franklin, 
 
 1 
 
 
 St. Mary, 
 
 1 
 
 44 
 
 St. Martin, 
 
 2 
 
 u 
 
 Vermillion, 
 
 1 
 
 .4 
 
 Lafayette, 
 
 1 * 
 
 44 
 
 St. Landry, 
 
 4 
 
 44 
 
 Calcasieu, 
 
 1 
 
 ^ • « 
 
 Avoyelles, 
 
 2 
 
 
 Rapides, 
 
 2 
 
 44 
 
 Natchitoches, 
 
 2 
 
 44 
 
 Sabine, 
 
 1 
 
 (« 
 
 Caddo, 
 
 1 
 
 U 
 
 De Soto, 
 
 1 
 
 44 
 
 Ouachita, 
 
 1 
 
 (4 
 
 Morehouse, 
 
 1 
 
 • " 
 
 Union, 
 
 1 
 
 44 
 
 Caldwell, 
 
 1 
 
 44 
 
 Catahoula, 
 
 1 
 
 44 
 
 Claiborne, 
 
 1 
 
 (4 
 
 Bossier, 
 
 1 
 
 Total, 72 
 
 As soon as may be, after the United 
 States census of 1850 shall have been taken 
 and promulgated, and every ten years 
 thereafter, the number of representatives 
 shall be fixed and apportioned, according to 
 the principles of this section, so as not to 
 be less than seventy nor more than one hun- 
 dredf and whenever a new parish shall be 
 created, a separate representation shall at 
 the same time be provided for it, which 
 shall continue imtil the next decimal ap- 
 portionment. 
 
 Mr. Saunders, chairman of the commit- 
 tee to whom was referred the said section, 
 .submitted the following report, as a substi- 
 tute for the same, viz: 
 
 Sec. 6. Each parish shall be entitled 
 to representation in proportion to its popu- 
 lation, ascertained and calculated according 
 to the principle of representation adopted 
 in the constitution of the United States; 
 Provided, that no parish or city shall ever 
 be en entitled to more than one -fifth of the 
 whole number of representatives. 
 
 Sec. 7. No new parish shall be created 
 with an extent of territory less than 400 
 square miles, nor with a population less 
 than the full representative number required 
 at the time of its creation, to entitle it to a 
 representative; nor shall any parish be so 
 divided as to leave it with a smaller area 
 or population than is above expressed. 
 
 Sec. 8. In the year 1846, and every 
 tenth year thereafter, a census shall - be 
 made of the population ol this State, in such 
 a manner as shall be prescribed by law, 
 for the purpose of ascertaining the number 
 of the federal population in each parish. 
 
 Sec. 9. At the first regular session of 
 the legislature . after the making of each 
 census, the legislature shall apportion the 
 representation amongst the several parish- 
 es on the basis of the federal population, as 
 aforesaid, and. in the manner following, to 
 wit: some number shall be chosen as a re- 
 presentative number, which, when applied 
 in making the apportionment, shall give a 
 number of representatives not less than 
 seventy nor more than one hundred; the 
 number so chosen shall be taken as a divi- 
 sor, and each parish shall be entitled to one 
 representative for every time this divisor, 
 shall be found in the dividend formed of its 
 representative population, and to one addi- 
 tional member for every fraction exceeding 
 the one-half of the divisor : and any parish 
 
76 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 having a federal population less than the | 
 whole divisor, but exceeding one-half of it, J 
 shall be entitled to one representative; and 
 the legislature shall be incompetent to act 
 on any other subject matter, until the ap- 
 portionment directed by this article shall 
 have been made. 
 
 Sec. 10. The first representation under 
 this constitution (ascertained as near as 
 may be, in accordance with the above 
 principles,) shall continue until the first 
 apportionment be made by the legisla- 
 ture, and shall be as follows, viz: 
 The parish of Plaquemines, 1 
 " St. Bernard, 1 
 " Orleans, 
 
 First Municipality 6 
 Second 44 4 
 Third 44 4 
 44 Right Bank, " 1 
 
 44 Jefferson, 2 
 44 St. Charles, 1 
 44 St. John the Baptist, 1 
 ' 4 St. James, " 2 
 
 44 Ascension, 2 
 44 Assumption, 2 
 44 Lafourche Interior, 2 
 44 Terrebonne, 1 
 44 Iberville, 2 
 44 West Baton Rouge, 1 
 " East Baton Rouge, 2 
 '• West Feliciana, 2 
 ' 4 East 44 2 
 44 St. Helena, 1 
 Livingston, I 
 44 Washington, 1 
 44 St. Tammany, 1 
 44 Point Coupee, 1 
 44 Concordia, 1 
 44 Tensas, 1 
 44 Madison, 1 
 44 Carroll, 1 
 44 Franklin, 1 
 14 St. Mary', 2 
 44 St. Martin, 1 2 
 44 Vermillion, 1 
 44 Layfayette, 1 
 44 St. Landry, 4 
 44 Calcasieu. 1 
 44 Avoyelles, 1 
 44 Rapides, 3 
 44 Natchitoches, 2 
 C1 Sabine, 1 
 Caddo, . 1 
 
 De Soto, 1 
 Ouachita, 1 
 
 Morehouse, 
 
 Union, 
 
 Caldwell, 
 
 Catahoula, 
 
 Claiborne, 
 
 Bossier, 
 
 Total, 76 
 
 Mr. Marigny moved that the whole mat. 
 ter be laid on the table, and made the spe- 
 cial order of the day for to-morrow at 12, 
 m., which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan submitted the following 
 as a substitute to the first section of the re- 
 port, viz: 
 
 "Each parish shall have one representa- 
 tive, and beyond that if entitled to any more, 
 in proportion to the number of voters in 
 each; Provided, that no parish or city shall 
 ever have more than one -sixth of the whole 
 number of representatives." 
 
 On a question of order, the president de- 
 cided said substitute to be out of order. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan then moved to amend said 
 section by striking out the words 44 its popu- 
 lation ascertained and calculated according 
 to [the principle of representation adopted 
 in the constitution of the United States." 
 
 And, pending the discussion on said mo- 
 tion, the Convention adjourned till to-mor- 
 row at 11 o'clock, a. m ? 
 
 Note — Members absent: Messrs. Co* 
 villion, Garcia and Soule, absent on ac- 
 count of illness ; Messrs. Aubert, Brazeale, 
 Cade, Guion, Lewis, Pugh, Scott of Madi- 
 son and Splane, absent on leave. 
 
 Thursday, February 27, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad' 
 ^ournment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Coodrich opened the 
 proceedings by prayer. 
 
 On motion, Mr. Chinn was excused for 
 non-attendance, on account of illness. 
 
 Mr. Mayo, chairman of the committee 
 on education, submitted the following re- 
 port and resolutions, viz: 
 
 4 'As it is through the medium of educa- 
 tion that the intellectual faculties of man 
 are cultivated, and his physical and mental 
 powers regulated and perfected, the subject 
 would appear to justify as much attention 
 and care as any other that can engage the 
 attention of the legislator. 
 
 4 'This State has for many years acted 
 with a degree of liberality, in making ap* 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 77 
 
 propriations for the errection and support 
 of colleges and academies, and for the edu- 
 cation of indigent children. 
 
 "By the report of the State treasurer, da- 
 ted 11th January, 1844, it appears that the 
 sum of $1,710,559 40-100, from the year 
 1812 to the 31st December, 1844, has been 
 expended by the State for the support of 
 public schools, colleges, academies, semi- 
 naries and asylums; and by the same re- 
 port it appears that $463,791 71-100, 
 which is more than one-fourth of the whole 
 sum, has been expended for the building 
 and support of the colleges of Louisiana 
 and Jefferson. The first of which is. not 
 now in operation; and owing to the want of 
 a regular system of education, has not pro- 
 duced results that ought to have been ex- 
 pected from so large an amount of expen- 
 diture. 
 
 "The college of Jefferson is in operation, 
 and has seventy or eighty students, as ap- 
 pears from the report of the committee of 
 of the house of representatives on the sub- 
 ject of education, lately made to that body. 
 
 "The annual appropriation for that insti- 
 tution being 810,000, the annual expendi- 
 ture for each student, supposing the number 
 to be eighty, is $125, paid by the State, 
 in addition to all the expenses of tuition, 
 board, &c, which is paid by individuals. 
 
 ''These facts are stated for no other pur- 
 pose than to bring to view the dispropor- 
 tion in the expenditure, and actual waste of 
 public money for want of a well regulated 
 system of education. 
 
 "A large portion of the State is in a situa- 
 tion, in relation to schools, which is truly 
 to be lamented; produced by various causes, 
 some of which are peculiar to local situa- 
 tions where the population is extremely 
 sparce, rendering it impracticable to sup- 
 port schools in the nighborhood, for want 
 of a sufficient number of children to attend 
 them without sending them from home to 
 board, which many persons of large fami- 
 lies either have not the means to do, or if 
 they have, are not disposed to appropriate 
 ihem for that purpose, in other neighbor- 
 hoods where schools could be supported if 
 the people desired. No interest or zeal ap- 
 pears to be felt on the subject, and children 
 are permitted to grow up in ignorance, for 
 want of a disposition on the part of the pa- 
 rent to educate , them. The money that 
 has been expended for the support of schools 
 
 4 
 
 has in many, if not a majority of the par- 
 ishes, failed to produce the beneficial re- 
 sults which were intended. Incompetent 
 men have been -employed as teachers, 
 whose object has been to get the public 
 money, more than 'to improve the children 
 under their care; and when the public 
 money, to which a school has been entitled, 
 has been exhausted, the schools in many 
 instances have been broken up, and no 
 more taught in the neighborhood until 
 another supply of money has been expect- 
 ed from the State to pay the teacher. 
 
 "Owing to facts like these, the children 
 that have occasionally attended the schools 
 have received, in many places, but little 
 benefit from them. One of the causes of 
 the failure in the expenditure of the funds 
 of the State, distributed to the parishes 
 generally, has been that indigent children 
 only have been entitled to the benefits of 
 the public funds. Men of the high senti- 
 ments and noble feelings that characterize 
 the citizens of this State feel a repugnance 
 at the thought of educating their children 
 by the use of a fund that none but the poor 
 and needy can be partakers of. Hence it 
 is believed that many persons, unable to 
 educate their children at their own expense, 
 have too much pride and feel that it would 
 be humiliating to themselves and their chil- 
 dren to partake of a bounty thus offered. 
 When the fact of partaking furnishes of 
 itself evidence of their poverty and indi- 
 gence; and though this may to some extent 
 arise from false pride, still the fact exists, 
 and the effect is the same as though the 
 objection were a good one. Another cause 
 of the failure has been that large expendi- 
 tures have been made for building colleges 
 and academies for the promotion of the 
 higher branches of literature, before provi- 
 ding the means for teaching the first rudi- 
 ments of a common education. 
 
 "The necessary steps ought first to be 
 taken to place within the reach of the mass " 
 .of the children throughout the State, such 
 an education as will fit them for the higher 
 branches, and in such a manner as to place 
 all on an equal footing in the enjoyment of 
 the benefits to be derived from the funds 
 of the State. This would create a lauda- 
 ble ambition between those whose progress 
 and advancement would fit them for the 
 higher schools; and thus the higher as well 
 as the lower would be supported. The 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 progress of the child in the acquisition of 
 a substantial education, would emulate the 
 parent; parents would encourage each other; 
 and when the spirit of education could be 
 fairly put into operation, it is believed that 
 it would here, as it has done in many of 
 the States of the United States, and in 
 Prussia and Germany, carry with it public 
 opinion, which in this country is all that 
 is necessary to sustain any measure that 
 promises to be permanently useful. 
 
 "The people must see and feel the impor- 
 tance of the subject, the necessity of action. 
 The subject must receive their approbation ; 
 excite their interest and zeal; they must 
 aet together with their influence and money 
 to carry it into operation. The public 
 mind in this State has never been sufficient- 
 ly aroused to the importance of educating 
 the youth. Any system that may be or- 
 ganised, not calculated to inlist the feelings 
 and receive the cordial approbation and 
 support of a majority of the citizens, cannot 
 be relied upon to effect the object desired, 
 viz: that of furnishing to the greatest num- 
 ber of the rising generation, upon equal 
 terms, the best education that the resources 
 of the State', and of its citizens generally, 
 will justify. 
 
 "To overcome these difficulties would re- 
 quire a system more in detail, that it would 
 be proper to incorporate into the constitu- 
 tion, and which would often have to be 
 changed and improved, as circumstances 
 and observation might require. 
 
 "Provision ought to be made by the 
 State for as large a fund for immediate use 
 as its financial condition will permit, and 
 also for a permanent fund for future use, 
 large enough if possible to afford the means 
 to all the children in the State of obtaining 
 a knowledge of reading, writing and arith- 
 metic; branches which are indispensably 
 necessary to every citizen in his intercourse 
 with his fellow man and with the world. 
 
 "Your committee have, by a provision 
 Avhich they report herewith, endeavored to- 
 lay the foundation for a permanent fund, 
 w T hich will have the power of increase 
 within itself; to meet the increase of chil- 
 dren and of expenditure that improvements 
 may require, as will be seen by the provi- 
 sions reported. 
 
 "A provision is also contained in the re- 
 port providing for the appointment of a su- 
 perintendent of education; the object of 
 
 which is to secure an efficient officer whose 
 sole business shall be to attend to the duties 
 of that office, and who shall constitute the 
 head of an organized school department of 
 the State. By another section it is made 
 the duty of the legislature to encourage the 
 institution of common schools throughout 
 the State, for the promotion of literature 
 and the arts and sciences, and to provide 
 means for their support. By enjoining the 
 encouragement and support of education 
 upon the legislature, it will be part of the 
 duty which every member of that body will 
 be sworn to perform, to give it attention. 
 
 "The cultivation of the mental faculties 
 for the promotion of wisdom, morality and 
 virtue, is amongst the first duties of a State. 
 The chief object of constitutions and laws 
 being to render its citizens secure in their 
 lives, liberty and property, the importance 
 of a good education to each individuhl, to 
 every community, and to the State, cannot 
 be too highly valued. It is certainly of too 
 great value to be estimated by any pecunia- 
 ry consideration. 
 
 "From the genius, nature and spirit of 
 republican government, it is and must be 
 based upon public opinion; which to be salu- 
 tary in its operation must be Virtuous and 
 enlightened. 
 
 " The permanence of our institutions 
 ever have, and must continue to depend 
 upon the genius of our constitution and 
 laws, sustained by that spirit of freedom , 
 which actuates every man who is truly an 
 American. 
 
 "Upon education we may safely confide 
 as the conservative power of the State, that 
 will watch over our liberties and guard 
 them against fraud, corruption, and decay. 
 
 "Without morality, virtue and intelli- 
 gence to regulate the genius a spirit of re- 
 publicanism, the latter one constantly ex- 
 posed to be swept away by the iron rule of 
 ignorance and vice, when wielded by dema- 
 gogues, to destroy our liberties. 
 
 "Morality and virtue may exist without 
 the peculiar culture of schools; but a man 
 can hardly be said to be intelligent without 
 knowing how to read, and without that kind 
 of knowledge that generally has its source 
 in an education acquired at school. With- 
 out intelligence virtue and morality would 
 cease to perform their legitimate functions, 
 and to have that influence upon the body 
 politic which it is necessary they should 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 79 
 
 exert. Without these necessary ingre- 
 dients to sustain the purity and harmony of 
 our constitution and laws, unless the peo- 
 ple know and appreciate tjieir rights, and 
 know how to maintain and protect them, 
 the vicious and disorderly will protect and 
 screen each other from.the operation of the 
 laws; the restraining influence of the social 
 and political compact will be annihilated, 
 and dissolution and ruin will be the inevi- 
 table result. 
 
 "There can be no security, the true spirit 
 of liberty cannot exist where vice, ignorance 
 and immorality predominate. 
 
 "Where a right direction is given to the 
 young and tender mind, correct principles 
 inculcated and impulses given, morality, 
 virtue and reason commence their reign, 
 and with the necessary culture fit their pos- 
 sessors to be useful to themselves, orna- 
 ments to society, and safe -guards to the 
 State. The strength of the State and the 
 happiness of its people increase with the 
 increase of useful knowledge. Without 
 knowing their rights and duties men be- 
 come dangerous to the State, nuisances to 
 the community, and burdensome to them- 
 selves. By laying the foundation of a sys- 
 tem susceptible of being carried into practi- 
 cal operation, and which will secure to the 
 rising generation the means by which they 
 may be educated. 
 
 "The greatest degree of social and indi- 
 vidual prosperity will be secured to our 
 posterity, and a strong guarantee of protec- 
 tion to our constitution and laws. 
 
 "Louisiana should possess the means of 
 educating her youths at home. Southern 
 men should have southern heads and hearts, 
 with sentiments untarnished by doctrines at 
 war with our rights and 'liberties. It is 
 of the first importance that correct impres- 
 sions be made upon the minds of children, 
 for it is difficult to unlearn what has been 
 learned amiss. 
 
 "When our children return from the 
 north, after having received an education 
 there, they have to be re-acclimated, and 
 not unfrequently fall victims to the effects 
 of the change. Many of the most promis- 
 ing youths of the State have been swept 
 away within a very short period after their 
 return with an accomplished education, 
 from the effects of a change of climate. 
 Youths. who were the fondest hopes of their 
 parents, and promised to be ornaments, not 
 
 only to them, but to the State, and whose 
 toss to both is irreparable. 
 
 "All this can be remedied by entering 
 upon the work ourselves, with a determi- 
 nation to accomplish it. A good education 
 furnished to the rising generation, will af- 
 ford us a better guarantee of protection 
 than fleets and armies. Shall we not then 
 be inexcusable for neglect to make the 
 trial? 
 
 "It is said that a man will give all he 
 has for his life. If so, ought he not with 
 equal readiness give the same price, if 
 necessary, to secure his life, liberty and 
 happiness, and the prospect of conferring 
 upon his posterity the same blessings, en- 
 riched and enobled by the highest degree 
 of intellectual attainments? 
 
 "All of which is respectfully submitted, 
 •together with the accompanying provisions 
 and resolutions. 
 
 (Signed.) "G. MAYO, 
 
 w "Chairman." 
 
 Report of the committee on the subject of 
 education: 
 
 Sec. 1. "The governor shall nominate, 
 and by and with the advice aud consent of 
 the senate, appoint a superintendent of 
 education, who shall hold his office for two 
 years; whose duties shall be prescribed by 
 law; and who shall receive such compen- 
 sation as the legislature may direct." 
 
 Sec. 2. "The legislature shall encourage 
 the institution of common schools through- 
 out the State, for the promotion of literature 
 and the arts and sciences, and shall provide 
 means for that purpose and for their sup- 
 port." 
 
 Sec. 3. "The proceeds of all lands that 
 have been or hereafter may be granted by 
 the United States to this State, for the use 
 and support of schools, and of all land that 
 may have been or may hereafter be granted 
 by the United States, or by any person or 
 persons, body politic or corporate, td§this 
 State, and not granted expressly for any 
 other purpose, which shall hereafter be 
 sold or disposed of, and all estates of de- 
 ceased persons to which the State may 
 be or hereafter become entitled by law, 
 shall be held by the State as a loan, and 
 shall be and remain a perpetual fluid, on 
 which the State shall pay an annual interest 
 of — per cent, which interest together with all 
 the rents of the unsold lands, shall be inviola- 
 bly appropriated to the support of schools and 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 institutions of learning throughout the Statej 
 until the rents or interest, or both together, 
 shall amount to the sum of per 
 annum, After which the 
 
 annual excesss of such rents and interest 
 may be applied by the legislature to other 
 objects." 
 
 Sec. 4. "The funds arising from the 
 rents or sales- which may hereafter be made 
 of any lands heretofore granted by the Uni- 
 ted States to this State, for the use of a 
 seminary of learning, and of any land that 
 may hereafter be granted for that purpose, 
 and any interest that may accrue upon 
 such funds, shall be invoilably applied to 
 the use specified, or that may be specified 
 in the grant." 
 
 "And your committee recommend the 
 adoption of the following resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That our representatives and 
 senators in congress be requested to use 
 their best efforts to proem e the passage of 
 a law, granting to this State the, unsold 
 lands within this State, belonging to the 
 United States, or as large a portion thereof 
 as possible, for the purpose of edu- 
 cation; and to co-operate, if necessary to 
 effect that object, with the representatives 
 and senators in congress from other States." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Mayo, said report and 
 resolutions were laid on the table subject 
 to call, and ordered to be printed. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Benjamin, the vote on 
 the printing of the report was re-consider- 
 ed, and only the printing of the resolution 
 was ordered; 
 
 This being the day fixed, the report of 
 the committee of revision was called up, 
 viz: 
 
 Section 2d of article 1st, as reported by 
 the committee of revision. 
 
 "No one of these departments, nor any 
 person holding office in one of them, shall 
 exercise pow er properly belonging to either 
 of, tJte other?, except in the instances here- 
 inafter expressly directed or permitted." 
 
 On motion, said section was adopted. 
 
 The President submitted a letter of in- 
 vitation from the Fire Department, and on 
 motion of Mr. Roselius, the same was ac- 
 cepted. 
 
 Mr. Penn submitted the following reso- 
 lution, viz: 
 
 "Resolved, That Wednesday, the 5th of 
 March, at 1 o'clock, be, and the same is 
 hereby fixed^ for taking the vote on the ap- 
 portionment." 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Section 6th of the report of the special 
 committee, composed of three members 
 from each congressional district, viz: 
 
 "Each parish shall be entitled to repre- 
 sentation in portion to its population, ascer- 
 tained and calculated according to the prin- 
 ciple of representation adopted in the con- 
 stitution of the United States. Provided, 
 that no parish or city shall ever be entitled 
 to more than one-fifth of the whole number 
 of representatives." 
 
 The Convention at the last adjournment 
 had under consideration the motion of Mr, 
 O'Bryan to amend said section by striking 
 out the words "its population ascertained 
 and calculated according to the principle of 
 representation adopted in the constitution 
 of the United States." 
 
 And pending the discussion on said mo- 
 tion, the Convention adjourned till to-mor- 
 row at 11 o'clock a. m. 
 
 Note. — -Members absent, Messrs. Co- 
 villion, Garcia and Soule, absent on account 
 of illness, and Messrs. Cade, Guion, Lewis, 
 Scott of Madison and Splane, absent on 
 leave. 
 
 Friday, February 28, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Hon. delegate from Sabine, (Mr. 
 Stephens) at the request of the president, 
 opened the proceedings by prayer. 
 
 On motion, Messrs. Burton and Garrett 
 were excused for non-attendance on account 
 of illness. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Section 6th, as reported by the commit- 
 tee composed of three members from each 
 congressional district, viz: 
 
 "Each parish shall be entitled to repre- 
 sentation according to its population, ascer- 
 tained and calculated according to the prin- 
 ciple of repsesentation adopted in the con- 
 stitution of the United States; Provided, 
 that no parish or city shall ever be entitled 
 to more than one -fifth of the whole number 
 of representatives." 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by striking out the words u its popula- 
 tion ascertained and calculated according 
 to the principle of representation adopted 
 in the constitution of the United States." 
 
 Pending the discussion on said motion, 
 Mr. Voorhies called up the resolution of- 
 fered on yesterday, by Mr. Penn, viz: 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 81 
 
 Resolved, That Wednesday, the 5th of 
 March, at 1 o'clock, be and the same is 
 hereby fixed for taking the vote on the ap- 
 portionment. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Porter, said resolu- 
 tion was laid on the table , indefinitely. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Dowxs, 2| o'clock 
 this day was fixed for the taking of the vote 
 on the apportionment. 
 
 The 7th. section, as reported by said com- 
 mittee of 12, was then called up, viz: 
 
 "No new parish shall be created with an 
 extent of territory less than four hundred 
 square miles, nor with a popiuation'less 
 than the full representative number required 
 at the time of its creation, to entitle it to a 
 representative; nor shall any parish be so 
 divided as to leave it with a smaller area 
 or population than is above expressed. " 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan offered the following as a 
 substitute for said section, viz: 
 
 "Each parish shall have one representa- 
 tive, and beyond that, if entitled to any 
 more, in proportion the number of voters 
 in each; Provided, that no parish or city 
 shall ever have more than one -sixth of the 
 whole number of representatives." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Gryxes, the section 
 and substitute were laid on the table sub- 
 ject to call. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Porter, the rule fix- 
 ing half-past 2 o'clock to-day, for taking the 
 vote on the apportionment, was rescinded. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, moved that 
 the Convention adjourn till Monday next, 
 at 11 o'clock, a. m., which motion was lost. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ratliff, the Conven- 
 tion adjourned till to-morrow at 11 o'clock, 
 a. m. 
 
 Note— Members absent: Messrs. Bur- 
 ton, Covillion and Garrett, absent on ac- 
 count of illness; and Messrs. Cade, Guion, 
 Lewis, Scott of Madison, and Splane absent 
 on leave. 
 
 Saturday, March 1, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Watkins opened the pro-" 
 jceedings by prayer. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 Section. 6th, as reported by the special 
 committee, to whom the same was re- 
 ferred, viz : 
 
 "Each parish shall be entitled to repre- 
 sentation in proportion to its population, 
 
 ascertained and calculated according to the 
 principle of representation adopted in the 
 constitution of the United States: Provided, 
 that no parish or city shall ever be entitled 
 to more than one-fifth of the whole number 
 of representatives." 
 
 On the motion of Mr. O'Brya?,- to amend 
 said section, by striking out the words "its 
 population ascertained and calculated ac- 
 cording to the principle of representation 
 adopted in the constitution of the United 
 States," the yeas and nays being called 
 for, resulted as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, B razealCj Brumfield, 
 Burton, Carriere, Cenas, Claiborne, Cid- 
 bertson, Eiisiis, Grymes, Humble, King, 
 Ledoux, Legendre, McRae, Marigny, Ma- 
 znreau, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Preston, 
 PrudliGmme, Ratliff, Read, Solde, Stephens, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in the 
 affirmative-— 28 ayes; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Brent, JB riant, Cham- 
 Miss, Chinn, Bcrbes,Doicns, Garrett, Huds- 
 petit, Hynson, Mayo, Porclie, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Pugh, 
 Roman, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Sellers,- Taylor of St. 
 Landry, and Wadsworth voted in the nega- 
 tive— 22 nays ; consequently said motion 
 was carried. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan then moved to fill the 
 blank with the words "the number of elec- 
 tors in it." 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned, 
 till Monday next, at 1 1 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note. — -Members absent : Messrs. Co- 
 villion and Garcia, absent on account of 
 illness; Messrs. Cade, Guion, Lewis, Scott 
 of Madison, and Splane, absent on leaver 
 and Messrs. Boudousquie, Dunn, Kenner, 
 Labauve, Penn, Roselius, St. Amand, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Trist and Winchester, 
 were absent from their seats. 
 
 Monday, March 3, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Beatty opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer. 
 
 On motion, Mr. Prescott of Avoyelles 
 was excused for non-attendance on account 
 of illness. 
 
 On motion, leave of absence was granted 
 Messrs. Ratliff, Hudspeth, King and Tay 
 lor of St. Landry. 
 
82 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana' 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. , 
 
 ARTICLE SECOND, SECTION SIXTH, OF THE 
 EE PORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE, AS 
 AMENDED. 
 
 Each parish shall be entitled to repre- 
 sentation in proportion to ; Provided, 
 
 that no parish or city shall ever be entitled 
 "to more than one-fifth of the whole number 
 of representatives. 
 
 Mr. O 'Bryan moved to fill the blank in 
 said section with the words "the number 
 of qualified voters in it." 
 
 Mr. Downs submitted the following sub- 
 stitute, viz; 
 
 " Representation shall be equal and uni- 
 form in this State, and shall for ever be 
 regulated and ascertained by the number of 
 qualified electors therein; Provided, that no 
 portion of the State now constituting one 
 parish or city shall ever be entitled to more 
 than twenty representatives, and that each 
 parish shall have at least one representa- 
 tive; and, Provided further, that no new 
 parish shall be created with a territory less 
 than four hundred square miles, nor with a 
 number of electors less than the ratio at the 
 time, nor when the creation of such new 
 parish would leave any other parish without 
 the said extent of territory and number of 
 electors." 
 
 In the year , and every four years 
 
 thereafter, an enumeration of all the elec- 
 tors shall be made in such manner as shall 
 be directed by law. The number of repre- 
 sentatives shall, in the several years of 
 making these enumerations, or during the 
 next succeeding, session of the general as- 
 sembly, be so fixed, according to the prin- 
 ciple of this section, as not to be less than 
 eighty, nor more than one hundred; Pro- 
 vided, that the general assembly shall be 
 incompetent to pass any law after the enu- 
 meration until the apportionment shall be 
 made. 
 
 Until the first enumeration shall be made, 
 as directed in this section, the parish of Or- 
 leans shall be entitled to twenty representa- 
 tives, to be elected as follows: eight by the 
 1st municipality, eight by the 2d munici- 
 pality, three by the 3d municipality, and one 
 for that part of the parish on the right bank 
 
 of the Mississippi: 20 
 
 The parish of Plaquemines, 2 
 
 " St. Bernard, 1 
 
 Jefferson, 3 
 
 St. Charles, 1 
 
 Parish of St. John the Baptist, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 St. James, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 Ascension, 
 
 2 
 
 tt 
 
 Assumption, 
 
 2 
 
 it 
 
 Lafourche Interior, 
 
 2 
 
 u 
 
 Terrebonne, 
 
 2 
 
 it 
 
 Iberville, 
 
 2 
 
 u 
 
 West Baton Rouge, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 East " " 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 West Feliciana, 
 
 2 
 
 t. 
 
 East " 
 
 3 
 
 u 
 
 St. Helena, 
 
 1 
 
 tt 
 
 Livingston, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Washington, 
 St. Tammany, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 1 
 
 n 
 
 Pointe Coupee, 
 
 1 
 
 tt 
 
 Concordia, 
 
 1 
 
 n 
 
 Tensas, 
 
 1 
 
 u 
 
 Madison, 
 
 1 
 
 n 
 
 Carroll, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Franklin, 
 . St. Mary, 
 
 1 
 
 tt 
 
 2 
 
 tt 
 
 St. Martin, 
 
 3 
 
 u 
 
 Vermillion, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Lafayette, 
 St. Landry, 
 
 2 
 
 It 
 
 5 
 
 H 
 
 Calcasieu, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Avoyelles, 
 
 2 
 
 it 
 
 Rapides, 
 
 4 
 
 it 
 
 Natchitoches, 
 
 4 
 
 it 
 
 Sabine, 
 
 2 
 
 U 
 
 Caddo, 
 
 1 
 
 tt 
 
 De Soto, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Ouachita, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Morehouse, 
 
 
 it 
 
 Union, 
 
 
 u 
 
 Jackson, 
 
 
 (( 
 
 Caldwell, 
 
 
 u 
 
 Claiborne, 
 
 
 tt 
 
 Bossier, 
 
 
 Total, 97 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, the printing 
 of the above substitute was ordered, and 
 the consideration of the same postponed 
 until printed. 
 
 Mr. Guion moved to fill the blank in 
 said section with the words "according to 
 the qualified electors, together with the tax- 
 able property which it may contain." 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth moved to lay the 
 amendments on the table, which motion 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth gave notice that he 
 would, on Wednesday next, move the re- 
 consideration of the vote given on the fed- 
 eral basis, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 83 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the amendment of Mr. GinoN, resulted as 
 follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Bourg, Chinn, Guion, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Mazureau, Pugh, Ro- 
 man, Roselius, St.Amand, Saunders, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Sellers and Winder voted 
 in the affirmative — 15 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Brazeale, 
 Brent, B riant, Brumjield, Burton, Car- 
 riere, Cenas, Chambliss, Claiborne, Covil- 
 lion, Cidbertson, Derbes, Downs* Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, 
 Leonard. McRae) Mar igny, Mayo. O' Bryan, 
 Peets, Porche, Porter, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry,Preston, Read, Scott of Feliciana, Scott 
 of Madison. Soule, Stephens, Voorhies, 
 Wdddill, TFadsu-orlh, Wederstrandt and 
 WUcojf voted in the negative — 41 nays: con- 
 sequently the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Sellers offered the following sub- 
 stitute, to fill the blank with the words 
 "whole population." The yeas and nays 
 being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Chinn, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Guion, Kenner, Labauve, 
 Pugh. Roman, Saunders, Scott of Felicia- 
 na, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Wadswdrth 
 a.ndWinder voted in favor of the substitute — 
 17 yeas : and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale, Brent, Bri- 
 ant, Brumjield, Burton, Car riere, Cenas, 
 Chambliss, Claiborne, Conrad of Xew Or- 
 leans, Covillion, Cidbertson, Downs, Eustis, 
 Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Legendre, Leon- 
 ard, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, 
 O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Porche, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Preston, Prudhornme, Read, Ro- 
 selius, St. Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Soule, Stephens, Voorhies, WaddiU, Weder- 
 strandt and Wtkoffi voted against the sub- 
 stitute — -11 nays: consequently the same 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Chinn moved that the first part of 
 said section, fixing the basis of representa- 
 tion, be laid on the table subject to call: 
 which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryax then called for the yeas 
 and nays on the motion offered by him on 
 Saturday last, to till the blank with the 
 words "the number of qualified electors in 
 it," which resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale, Brent. 
 Brumjield, Burton, Carriere, Cenas, Cham- 
 bliss, Claiborne, Conrad of Xew Orleans, 
 Covillion, Culbertson, Downs, Eustis, Gar- 
 
 rett, Humble, Hynson, Legendre, Leonard, 
 McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, O' Bry- 
 an, Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Prudhornme, Read, St. _•!//■• n . 
 Saunders, Soule, Stephens, Voorhies. Wad- 
 dill, Wederstrandt and Wilvjf voted in the 
 affirmative — 33 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Brian!, 
 Chinn, Derbes, Dunn, Guion, Kenner, La- 
 bauve, Porche, Pugh, Roman, Scott of Ba- 
 ton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Ma- 
 dison, Sellers and Winder voted in the nega- 
 tive — IS nays; consequently the motion was 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Downs then moved that the matter 
 under consideration be postponed till to- 
 morrow: which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Downs then called up the substitute 
 submitted by him this morning, and ordered 
 to be printed, and offered the same as a 
 substitute for said section, viz: 
 
 ARTICLE SECOND. 
 
 Sec 6. Representation shall be equal 
 and uniform in this State, and shall forever 
 be regulated and ascertained by the num- 
 ber of qualified electors therein; Provided, 
 that no portion of the State now constituting 
 one parish or city, shall ever be entitled to 
 more than twenty representatives, and tl i 
 each parish shall have at least one repre- 
 sentative; and provided fur the r, that nojiew 
 parish shall be created with a territory 
 than four hundred square miles, nor with a 
 number of electors less than the ratio at 
 the time, nor when the creation of such 
 new parish would leave any other parish 
 without the said extent of territory and num- 
 ber of electors. In the year , and ev- 
 ery four years thereafter, an enumeration 
 of all the electors shall be made, in such 
 manner as shall be directed by law. The 
 number of representatives shall, in the sev- 
 eral years of making these enumerations, 
 or during the next succeeding session of the 
 general assembly, be so fixed, according 
 to the principles of this section, as not to 
 be less than eighty, nor more than one 
 hundred; Provided, that the general assem- 
 bly shall be incompetent to pass any laws 
 after the enumeration, until the apportion- 
 j ment shall be made. Until the first enu- 
 meration shall be made, as directed in this 
 section, the parish of Orleans shall be en- 
 titled to twenty representatives, to be elec- 
 ted as follows: eight by the First Munici- 
 pality ; eight by the Second Municipality : 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 iln;e.e by the Third Municipality, and one 
 by that part of the parish on the right bank 
 
 of the Mississippi: 20 
 
 The parish of Plaquemines, 2 
 
 " St. Bernard, 1 
 
 " Jefferson, 3 
 
 " St. Charles, 1 
 
 " St. John the Baptist, 1 
 
 « 6 St. James, % 
 
 44 Ascension, 2 
 
 44 Assumption, 2 
 
 44 Lafourche Interior, 2 
 
 " Terrebonne, 2 
 
 " . Iberville, 2 
 
 " West Baton Rouge, 1 
 
 " East " " 3 
 
 " West Feliciana, 2 
 
 " East " 3 
 
 St. Helena, I 
 
 i4 Livingston, 1 
 
 u Washington, 1 
 
 44 St. Tammany, 1 
 
 44 Pointe Coupee, 1 
 
 44 Concordia, 1 
 
 44 Tensas, 1 
 
 44 Madison, 1 
 
 44 Carroll, 1 
 
 4£ Franklin, 1 
 
 44 St. Mary,' 2 
 
 St. Martin, 3 
 
 44 Vermillion, * 1 
 
 44 Lafayette, 2 
 
 44 St. Landry, 5 
 
 44 Calcasieu, 1 
 
 44 Avoyelles, 2 
 
 44 Rapides, 4 
 
 44 Natchitoches, 4 
 
 44 Sabine, 2 
 
 - Caddo, 1 
 
 44 De Soto, 1 
 
 44 Ouachita, - 1 
 
 44 Morehouse, 1 
 
 44 Union, 1 
 
 44 Jackson, 1 
 
 Caldwell, 1 
 
 ^ 4 Catahoula, 2 
 
 44 Claiborne, 2 
 
 44 Bossier , 1 
 
 Total, 97 
 
 On motion of Mr. Beatty, said substi- 
 tute was laid on the table. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to amend said section 
 by striking out the word "fifth," and insert 
 in lieu thereof the word 44 sixth." 
 
 Mr. Maeigny moved that said motion to 
 
 strike out be postponed till Thursday next. 
 On a question of order, the president (Mr. 
 Labauve in the chair) decided the motion 
 to be out of order. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to amend by 
 striking out the proviso in said section. 
 
 And pending the discussion on- said mo- 
 tion, the .Convention adjourned till to-mor- 
 row at 11 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note.— Members absent, Messrs. Gar. 
 cia and Prescott of Avoyelles, absent on 
 account of illness; Messrs. Cade, "Hudspeth, 
 King, Lewis, Ratliff, Splane and Taylor of 
 St. Landry, absent on leave; and Messrs. 
 Boudousquie and Penn were not in their 
 seats. 
 
 Tuesday, March 4, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Preston opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer. 
 
 This being the day fixed for the re-con- 
 sideration of the vote given on the adoption 
 of section 3d of article 3d; on the motion of 
 Mr. Mayo, said section was called up, 
 
 Sec. 3. 44 No person shall be eligible to 
 the office of governor or lieutenant govern- 
 or who shall not have attained' the age of 
 thirty-five years, and has not been fifteen 
 years a free white male citizen of the Uni r 
 ted States, and of this State next preceding 
 his election." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Mayo, said section was 
 laid on the table, subject to call. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Section 6th of the report of the commit- 
 tee to whom the same was referred, and as 
 amended, viz: 
 
 4 'Each parish shall be entitled to repre- 
 sentation in proportion to the number of 
 qualified electors in it; provided that no par- 
 ish or city shall ever be entitled to more 
 than one -fifth of the whole number of re- 
 presentatives." 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to amend said 
 section by striking out entirely the proviso. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Saunders the follow- j 
 ing project, submitted by him, was taken 
 under consideration, together with said sec- 
 tion, viz: 
 
 "Until the first election after the month (j 
 of January 1855, the members of the house 
 of representatives shall be elected in the 
 following manner: 
 
 "Every parish may elect one member, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 85 
 
 and 7000 inhabitants, (including slaves,) 
 shall be the mean increasing number 
 which shall entitle a parish to an additional 
 representative, 
 
 "And to prevent the house of representa- 
 tives becoming too numerous, the mean in- 
 creasing number shall be proportionally 
 increased in the year of our Lord one thou- 
 sand eight hundred and fifty-five, and every 
 tenth year piterwards; so that the house of 
 representatives shall never consist of more 
 than one hundred members. 
 
 "Every parish which shall hereafter be 
 established, shall be entitled to elect one 
 representative, when it shall contain 7000 
 inhabitants, and not before; and until the 
 year 1855 the representation shall be as 
 follows, viz: 
 
 parish of Ascension, 
 
 2 
 
 « 
 
 Assumption, 
 
 2 
 
 it 
 
 Avoyelles, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 Baton Rouge, East, 
 
 2 
 
 u 
 
 do West, 
 
 1 
 
 U 
 
 Bernard, St., 
 
 1 
 
 ti 
 
 Bossieur, 
 
 1 
 
 (1 
 
 Caddo, 
 
 1 
 
 (t 
 
 Calcassieu, 
 
 1 
 
 U 
 
 C aldwell, 
 
 1 
 
 ft 
 
 Carroll, 
 
 1 
 
 (1 
 
 Catahoula, 
 
 1 
 
 u 
 
 Charles, St., 
 
 1 
 
 J it 
 
 Claiborne, 
 
 1 
 
 ft 
 
 Concordia, 
 
 2 
 
 it 
 
 Desoto, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Feliciana, East, 
 
 2 
 
 M 
 
 do West, 
 
 2 
 
 (1 
 
 Franklin, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Helena, St,, 
 
 1 
 
 (i 
 
 Iberville, 
 
 2 
 
 M 
 
 James, St,, 
 
 2 
 
 it 
 
 Jefferson, 
 
 2 
 
 u 
 
 John Baptist, St., 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 L«afourehe Interior, 
 
 2 
 
 f * 
 
 Lafayette, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Landry, St., 
 
 3 
 
 it 
 
 Livingston, 
 
 1 
 
 u 
 
 Madison, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Martin, St. 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 Mary, St., 
 Morehouse, 
 
 2 
 
 it 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Natchitoches, 
 
 2 
 
 it 
 
 Orleans, 
 
 15 
 
 tt 
 
 Ouachita 
 
 1 
 
 tt 
 
 Plaquemines, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Point Coupee, 
 
 2 
 
 tt 
 
 Rapides, 
 
 3 
 
 The Parish of Sabine, 
 
 " Tammany, St. 
 
 " Tensas, 
 
 " Terrebonne, 
 
 " Union, 
 
 " Vermillion, 
 
 " Washington, 
 
 " Jackson, 
 
 • Total, 79 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, said project 
 was ordered to be printed. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Dunn, the section un- 
 der consideration and project were laid on 
 the table, and made the special order of the 
 day for to-morrow at 12 o'clock, m. 
 
 Mr. Mayo then moved the re-considera- 
 tion of the vote on the adoption of section 
 3d of article 3d, viz: 
 
 "No person shall be eligible to the office 
 of governor or lieutenant governor who 
 shall not have attained the age of thirty-five 
 years, and has not been fifteen years a free 
 white male citizen of the United States, 
 and of this State next preceding his elec- 
 tion." 
 
 Mr. Guion called for the yeas and nays 
 on the motion to re-consider, which result- 
 ed as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Dunn, Gar- 
 rett, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Leonard, 
 McRae, McCallop, Marigny, Mayo, O'Bry- 
 an, Peets, Porche, Porter, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Read, Scott of Raton Rouge, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Soule, Ste- 
 phens, Trist, Waddill and Wederstrandt 
 voted in the affirmative — 30 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Guion, Kenner, Legendre, Mazureau, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, 
 Saunders, Sellers, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Voorhies, Wikoff and Winder voted in the 
 negative — 28 nays; consequently said mo- 
 tion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Marigny obtained leave to change 
 his vote. 
 
 Mr. McCallop having voted in the ne- 
 gative through mistake, moved that he be 
 permitted to change his vote, and the yeas 
 and nays being called, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Carriere, Cham- 
 bliss, Chinn, Claiborne, Covillion, Downs, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, 
 Kenner, Ledoux, Leonard, McRae, Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porche, Por- 
 ter, Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh,Read,Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, 
 Soule,Stephens,Taylor of Assumption,Trist, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt and Wi- 
 koffvoted in the affirmative — 40 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bo#g, 
 Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, Conrad 
 of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Guion, Legendre, Mazu- 
 reau, Roman, St. Amand and Winder voted 
 in the negative — 18 nays; consequently 
 the same was granted. 
 
 Mr. Mayo then moved to amend said 
 section 3d by striking out the word "fif- 
 teen," and insert in lieu thereof the word 
 "ten." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Sauners; the taking 
 of the vote on the motion to strike out the 
 word "fifteen," and insert in lieu thereof 
 the word "ten," was postponed until two 
 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin informed the Convention 
 that he would, before the adjournment this 
 day, submit a project of compromise 
 on the question of apportionment, taking 
 the whole population, including slaves, for 
 the basis; which he moved might be print- 
 ed, and taken up to-morrow with the pro- 
 ject offered by Mr Saunders. On the ques- 
 tion to receive the project and print the 
 same, the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Briant, Brumfield, Garriere, 
 Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Grymes, 
 Humble, Hynson, Labauve, Ledoux, Le- 
 gendre, Leonard, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, 
 Mazureau, Porche, Porter, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, Saunders, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Soule, Voorhies, Wikoft, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the affirma- 
 tive*— 52 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Burton, Marigny, O'Bryan, Peets, 
 Preston, Read, Roselius, Waddill and We- 
 derstrandt voted in the negative — 9 nays; 
 consequently the said project was received 
 and ordered to be printed. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Dunn, the Convention 
 then took under consideration the 10th sec- 
 
 tion of article 2d, as reported by the majori- 
 ty, viz: 
 
 "The State shall be divided into eight 
 senatorial districts, each of which shall 
 elect four senators, to be voted for by the 
 persons entitled to vote for representatives, 
 as follows: 
 
 "Ail that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river, shall comprise the first district. 
 
 "The parishes of Plaquemines, St. Ber- 
 nard and the remainder of the parish of 
 Orleans, parish of Jefferson, St. Charles 
 and St. John the Baptist, shall compose 
 the second district. 
 
 "The parishes of St. James, Ascension, 
 Assumption, Lafourche Interior and Terre- 
 bonne, shall compose the third district. 
 
 "The parishes of Iberville, West Baton 
 Rouge, East Baton Rogue, Point Coupee 
 and Avoyelles, shall compose the fourth 
 district. 
 
 "The parishes of West Feliciana, East 
 Feliciana, Washington, St. Tammany, St. 
 Helena and Livingston shall compose the 
 fifth district. 
 
 "The parishes of Concordia, Carroll, 
 Madison, Ouachita, Union, Franklin, Ten- 
 sas, Morehouse, Catahoula and Caldwell, 
 shall compose the sixth district. 
 
 "The parishes of Rapides, Natchi- 
 toches, Caddo, Calcassieu,j| Claiborne, Sa- 
 bine, Bossieur and De Soto, shall compose 
 the seventh district. 
 
 "The parishes of St. Mary, St. Martin, 
 St. Landry, Lafayette and Vermillion, shall 
 compose the eighth district. 
 
 "Provided, That the Legislature shall 
 have the power, in any year in which they 
 shall apportion representation in the house 
 of representatives, to divide any one or 
 more of said senatorial districts, each to be 
 entitled to elect two senators." 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to strike out said sec- 
 tion 10th from the report of the majority. 
 
 And pending the discussion on said mo- 
 tion, the hour of two having arrived, Mr. 
 Mayo moved that the vote be taken on his 
 motion to strike out from the 3d section of 
 article 3d, the words "fifteen," and insert 
 in lieu thereof the words "ten," and the 
 yeas and nays being called for, resulted as 
 follows : 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Dunn, Gar- 
 rett, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, McCallop, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 87 
 
 McRae, Marigny, Mayo, O'Biyan, Peets, 
 Porche, Porter, Preston, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Soule, Stephens, Trist, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in the 
 affirmative— 30 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, 
 Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of New 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Garcia, Grymes, ,Guion, Kenner, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Mazureau,Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saun- 
 ders, Taylor of Assumption, Voorhies, 
 Wads worth, Wikoff, Winchester and Win- 
 der voted in the negative — 34 nays; conse- 
 quently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Mavo then moved the re-adoption of 
 the said section 3d, viz : 
 
 Sec. 3. "No person shall be eligible to 
 the office of governor or lieutenant govern- 
 or, who shall not have attained the age of 
 thirty-five years, and has not been fifteen 
 years a free white male citizen of the Uni- 
 ted States, and of this State next preceding 
 his election." 
 
 Which motion prevailed. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned, 
 till to-morrow, at 11 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent : Mr. Prescott 
 of Avoyelles, absent on account of illness; 
 Messrs. Cade, Hudspeth, King, Lewis, 
 Ratliff, Splane, and Taylor of St. Landry, 
 absent on leave; and Mr. Penn was not in 
 his seat. 
 
 Wednesday, March 5, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 In the absence of a minister of the gos- 
 pel, the Hon. Mr. Stephens, at the request 
 of the president, opened the proceedings 
 by prayer. 
 
 Agreeably to notice given by Mr. Wads- 
 worth, on Monday last, this day was fixed 
 for the re-consideration of the vote on the 
 federal basis. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Claiborne, the said 
 motion was laid on the table subject to call. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption moved for 
 the reconsideration of the -vote laying on 
 the table subject to call; which motion was 
 lost. 
 
 Next in order came the section 10th of 
 the majority report on the legislative de- 
 partment, viz: 
 
 Sec. 10. The State shall be divided into 
 eight senatorial districts, each of which 
 shall elect four senators, to be voted for by 
 persons entitled to vote for representatives, 
 as follows : 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the East side of the riverMissis- 
 sippi, shall comprise the first district. 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines, St. Ber- 
 nard, and the remainder ot the parish of Or- 
 leans, parish of Jefferson, St. Charles, and 
 St. John the Baptist, shall compose the sec- 
 ond district. 
 
 The parishes of St. James, Ascension, 
 Assumption, Lafourche Interior and Terre : 
 bonne, shall compose the third district. 
 . The parishes of Iberville, West Baton 
 Rouge, East Baton Rouge, Pointe Coupee 
 and Avoyelles, shall compose the fourth 
 district. 
 
 The parishes of West Feliciana, East 
 Feliciana, Washington, St. Tammany, St. 
 Helena and Livingston, shall compose the 
 fifth district. 
 
 The parishes of Concordia, Carroll, 
 Madison, Ouachita, Union, Franklin, Ten- 
 sas, Morehouse, Catahoula and Caldwell, 
 shall compose the sixth district. 
 
 The parishes of Rapides, Natchitoches, 
 Caddo, Calcasieu, Claiborne, Sabine, Bos- 
 sier and De Soto, shall compose the sev- 
 enth district. 
 
 The parishes of St. Mary, St. Martin, 
 St. Landry, Lafayette and Vermillion shall 
 compose the eighth district. 
 
 Provided, that the legislature shall have 
 the power, 'in any year in which they shall 
 apportion representation in the house of 
 representatives, to divide any one or more 
 of said senatorial districts, each to be en- 
 titled to elect two senators. 
 
 And pending the discussion on said sec- 
 tion, the hour of 12 o'clock, m., having ar- 
 rived, the'special order of the day was then 
 called up, viz: 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Section 6th of the report of the special 
 committee as amended, viz: 
 
 "Each parish shall be entitled to repre- 
 sentation in proportion to the number of 
 qualified electors in it; Provided, that no 
 parish or city shall ever be entitled to more 
 than one-fifth of the whole number of repre= 
 sentatives." 
 
 At the adjournment yesterday, the ques- 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 tion under debate was the motion of Mr. 
 Benjamin, to strike out the proviso. 
 
 Agreeably to the order taken by the Con- 
 vention, the projects offered by Messrs. 
 Downs, Saunders and Benjamin were di- 
 rected to be read, after the reading of the 
 6th section as reported by the special com- 
 mittee. 
 
 Project submitted by Mr. Downs, viz : 
 
 ARTICLE SECOND. 
 
 Sec. 6. Representation shall be equal 
 and uniform in this State, and shall forever 
 be regulated and ascertained by the number 
 of qualified electors therein; Provided, that 
 no portion of the State now constituting one 
 parish or city shall ever be entitled to more 
 than twenty representatives, and that each 
 parish shall have at least one representa- 
 tive; and provided further, that no new 
 parish shall be created with a territory less 
 than four hundred square miles, nor with a 
 number of electors less than the ratio at the 
 time, nor when the creation of such new 
 parish would leave any other parish with- 
 out the said extent of territory and number 
 of electors. In the year — — , and every 
 four years thereafter, an enumeration of all 
 the electors shall be made in such manner 
 as shall be directed by law. -The number 
 of representatives shall, in the several 
 years of making these enumerations, or 
 during the next succeeding session of the 
 general assembly, be so fixed, according to 
 the principles of this section, as not to be 
 less than eighty, nor more than one hun* 
 dred; Provided, that the general assembly 
 shall be incompetent to pass any laws after 
 the enumeration until the apportionment 
 shall be made. Until the first enumeration 
 shall be made, as directed in this section, 
 the parish of Orleans shall be entitled to 
 twenty representatives, to be elected as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 Eight by the First Municipality; eight by 
 the Second Municipality; three by the Third 
 Municipality, ' and one by that part of the 
 parish on the right bank of the Missis- 
 
 sippi : 
 
 
 20 
 
 The parish of Plaquemines, 
 
 2 
 
 << 
 
 St. Bernard, 
 
 1 
 
 n 
 
 Jefferson, 
 
 3 
 
 ii 
 
 St Charles, 
 
 * 
 
 ii 
 
 St. John the Baptist, 
 
 1 
 
 (t 
 
 St. James^ 
 
 2 
 
 «i 
 
 Ascension, 
 
 2 
 
 it 
 
 Assumption? 
 
 2 
 
 The Parish of Lafourche Interior, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 Terrebonne, 
 
 2 
 
 tt 
 
 Iberville, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 West Baton Rouge, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 East " " 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 West Feliciana, 
 
 2 
 
 
 East " 
 
 3 
 
 H 
 
 St. Helena, 
 
 1 
 
 it • 
 
 Livingston, 
 
 1 
 
 tt 
 
 Washington, 
 St. Tammany, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Pointe Coupee, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Concordia, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Tensas, 
 
 1 
 
 n 
 
 Madison, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Carroll, 
 
 1 
 
 it- 
 
 Franklin, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 St. Mary, 
 
 2 
 
 n 
 
 St. Martin, 
 
 3 
 
 u 
 
 Vermillion, 
 
 I 
 
 *t 
 
 Lafayette, 
 St. Landry, 
 
 2 
 
 u 
 
 5 
 
 it 
 
 Calcasieu, 
 
 1 
 
 u 
 
 Avoyelles, 
 
 2 
 
 
 Rapides, 
 
 4 
 
 u 
 
 Natchitoches, 
 
 4 
 
 ti- 
 
 Sabine, 
 
 2 
 
 lt 
 
 Caddo, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 De Soto, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Ouachita, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Morehouse, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Union, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Jacks on j 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Caldwell, 
 
 I 
 
 tt 
 
 Catahoula, 
 
 2 
 
 tt 
 
 Claiborne, 
 
 2 
 
 u 
 
 Bossier, 
 
 1 
 
 Total, 97 
 
 Project submitted by Mr. Saunders, viz: 
 Until the first election after the month of 
 January, 1855, the members of the house 
 of representatives shall be elected in the 
 following manner: 
 
 Every parish may elect one member, and 
 7000 inhabitants (including slaves) shall be 
 the mean increasing number which shall 
 entitle a parish to an additional representa- 
 tive. And to prevent the house of repre- 
 sentatives becoming too numerous, the 
 mean increasing number which shall enti- 
 tle a parish to elect more than one member, 
 shall be proportionably increased in the 
 year of our Lord one thousand eight hun- 
 dred and fifty-five, and every tenth year af- 
 terwards, so that the house of representa.. 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 tives shall never consist of more than one 
 hundred members. 
 
 Every parish which shall hereafter be 
 established, shall be entitled to elect one 
 representative, when it shall contain 7000 
 inhabitants, and not before; and until the 
 
 year 1855,fthe representation shall 
 
 be 
 
 follows, 
 
 viz: 
 
 
 The parish of Ascension, 
 
 2 
 
 it 
 
 Assumption, 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 Avoyelles, 
 
 CI 
 
 A 
 
 a 
 
 Baton Rouge, East, 
 
 z 
 
 a 
 
 " " West, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 St. Bernard, 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 ii 
 
 Bossier, 
 
 1 
 
 ii 
 
 Caddo? 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Calcasieu, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Caldwell, 
 
 1 
 
 ii 
 
 Carroll, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Catahoula, 
 
 1 
 
 ii 
 
 St. Charles, 
 
 •1 
 
 a 
 
 Claiborne, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Concordia, 
 
 2 
 
 ii 
 
 Desoto, 
 
 1 
 
 ii 
 
 Feliciana', East, 
 
 2 
 
 ii 
 
 West, 
 
 2 
 
 ii 
 
 Franklin, ' 
 
 1 
 
 ii 
 
 St. Helena, 
 
 1 
 
 n 
 
 Iberville, 
 
 2 
 
 ii 
 
 St. James, 
 
 2 
 
 ii 
 
 Jackson, 
 
 1 
 
 
 Jefferson, 
 
 2 
 
 ii 
 
 St. John the Baptist, 
 
 1 
 
 ii 
 
 Lafourche Interior, 
 
 2 
 
 <t 
 
 Lafayette, 
 
 I 
 
 it 
 
 St. Landry, 
 
 o 
 O 
 
 4i 
 
 Livingston, 
 
 1 
 
 ii 
 
 Madison, 
 
 1 
 
 ii 
 
 St. Martin, 
 
 2 
 
 ii 
 
 St. Mary, 
 
 2 
 
 ii 
 
 Morehouse, 
 
 1 
 
 
 Natchitoches, 
 
 2 
 
 Si 
 
 Orleans, 
 
 15 
 
 ii 
 
 Ouachita 
 
 1 
 
 M 
 
 Plaquemines, 
 
 1 
 
 ii 
 
 Point Coupee, 
 
 2 
 
 ii 
 
 Rapides, 
 
 3 
 
 ii 
 
 Sabine, 
 
 1 
 
 ii 
 
 St. Tammany, 
 
 1 
 
 ii 
 
 Tensas, 
 
 1 
 
 ii 
 
 Terrebonne, 
 
 1 
 
 ii 
 
 Union, 
 
 1 
 
 g it 
 
 Vermillion, 
 
 1 
 
 
 Washington, 
 
 1 
 
 
 Total, 
 
 79 
 
 89 
 
 Project submitted by Mr. Benjamin, viz:, 
 
 Sec. 1. Representation shall be equal 
 and uniform in this State, and each parish 
 shall be entitled to representation accord- 
 ing to the total number of its population. 
 
 Sec. 2. In the year 1846, and every tenth 
 year thereafter, a census shall be made of the 
 population of this State, in siich a manner 
 as shall be prescribed by law, for the pur- 
 pose of ascertaining the number of the fed- 
 eral population in each parish. 
 
 Sec. 8. At the first regular session of the 
 legislature after the making of each eensus, 
 the legislature shall apportion the represen- 
 tation amongst the several parishes on the 
 basis of the federal population, in the man- 
 ner following, viz : Some number shall be 
 chosen as a representative number, which, 
 when applied in making the apportionment, 
 shall give a number of representatives not 
 less than seventy, nor more than one hun- 
 dred; the number so chosen shall be taken 
 as a divisor, and each parish shall be en. 
 titled to one representative for every time 
 that the divisor shall be contained in the 
 dividend formed of its total population, and 
 to one additional number from every frac- 
 tion exceeding the one-half of the divisor; 
 and any parish having a total population 
 less than the whole divisor, but exceeding 
 one-half of it, shall be entitled to one re- 
 presentative; and the legislature shall be in- 
 competent to act on any other subject mat- 
 ter till the apportionment directed by this 
 article shall have been made. 
 
 Sec 4. The first representation under 
 this constitution (ascertained as near as 
 may be in accordance with the above prin- 
 ciple, by assuming 4500 as a representa- 
 tive number) shall continue until the first 
 apportionment shall be made by the legis- 
 lature, and shall be as follows: 
 
 First Municipality, 
 
 9 
 
 Second Municipality, 
 
 8 
 
 Third Municipality, 
 
 5 
 
 West Bank, 
 
 1 
 
 The parish of Plaquemines, 
 
 1 
 
 ii . 
 
 St. Bernard, 
 
 1 
 
 ii 
 
 Jefferson, 
 
 2 
 
 i't, 
 
 St. Charles, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 St. John the Baptist, 
 
 1 
 
 ii 
 
 St. James, 
 
 2 
 
 a- 
 
 Ascension, 
 
 2 
 
 li 
 
 Assumption, 
 
 2 
 
 ii 
 
 Lafourche Interior, 
 
 2 
 
 
 Terrebonne, 
 
 2 
 
90 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 The Parish of Iberville, 2 
 
 44 West Baton Rouge, 1 
 
 44 East Baton Rouge, 2 
 
 «? "West Feliciana, 2 
 
 44 East " 2 
 
 M St. Helena r I 
 
 Livingston, 1 
 
 44 Washington, I 
 
 " St. Tammany, 1 
 
 44 Point Coupee,. 1 
 
 44 Concordia, 1 
 
 44 Tensas, 1 
 
 «• Madison, 1 
 
 44 Carroll, I 
 
 44 Franklin, 1 
 
 44 St. Mary, 2 
 
 St. Martin, 2 
 
 44 Vermillion, 1 
 
 14 Lafayette, 1 
 
 44 St. Landry, 4 
 
 44 Calcasieu. 1 
 
 44 Avoyelles, 1 
 
 44 Rapides, 3 
 
 4 4 Natchitoches,- 3 
 
 44 Sabine, 1 
 
 44 Caddo, 1 
 
 De Soto, 1 
 
 44 Ouachita, 1 
 
 14 Morehouse, 1 
 
 44 Jackson, 1 
 
 44 Union, * 1 
 
 44 Caldwell, 1 
 
 44 Catahoula, 1 
 
 48 Claiborne, 1 
 
 44 Bossier, I 
 
 Total, 88 
 
 On motion of Mr. Mayo, the project of- 
 fered by Mr. Benjamin was first taken in 
 consideration, viz: 
 
 Sec. 1. Representation shall be equal 
 and uniform in this State, and each parish 
 shall be entitled to representation, according 
 to the total number of its population. 
 
 Sec. 2. In the year 1846, and every 
 tenth year thereafter, a census shall be 
 made of the total population of the State, 
 in such manner as shall be prescribed by 
 law; 
 
 Sec. 3. At the first regular session of 
 the legislature, after the making of each 
 census, the legislature shall apportion the 
 representation amongst the several parish- 
 es on the basis of the whole population, in 
 the manner following, viz : Some number 
 shall be chosen as a representative num- 
 
 ber, which, when applied in making the 
 
 apportionment, shall give a number of repre- 
 sentatives .not less than seventy, nor more 
 than one hundred; the number so chosen 
 shall be taken as a divisor, and each par- 
 ish shall be entitled to one representative 
 for every time that the divisor shall be con- 
 tained in the dividend formed of its total 
 population, and to one additional number 
 from every fraction exceeding the one-half 
 of the divisor; and any parish having a total 
 population less than the whole divisor, but 
 exceeding one-half of it, shall be entitled 
 to one representative ; and the legislature 
 shall be incompetent to act on any other 
 subject matter till the apportionment here- 
 in directed shall have been made. 
 
 Sec. 4. The first representation under 
 this constitution (ascertained as near as 
 may be in accordance with the above prin- 
 ciple by assuming 4500 as a representative 
 number) shall continue until the first ap- 
 portionment shall be made by the legisla- 
 ture, and shall be as follows : 
 
 First Municipality, 
 
 9 
 
 Second 
 
 a 
 
 8 
 
 Third 
 
 a 
 
 5 
 
 West Bank, 
 
 I 
 
 The Parish of 
 
 Plaquemines, 
 
 1 
 
 ii 
 
 St. Bernard, 
 
 1 
 
 ii 
 
 JefTerson, 
 St. Charles, 
 
 2 
 
 it 
 
 1 
 
 ii 
 
 St. John the Baptist, 
 
 1 
 
 ii 
 
 St. James, 
 
 2 
 
 ilk 
 
 Ascension, 
 
 2 
 
 ii 
 
 Assumption, 
 
 2 
 
 il 
 
 Lafourche Interior, 
 
 2 
 
 K. ' T a 
 
 Terrebonne, 
 
 2. 
 
 a 
 
 Iberville, 
 
 2 
 
 i V ii . 
 
 West Baton Rouge, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 East " " 
 
 2 
 
 ii 
 
 West Feliciana, 
 
 2 
 
 ii 
 
 East 44 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 St. Helena, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Livingston, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Washington, 
 St. Tammany, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 1 
 
 .*<.< 
 
 Pointe Coupee, 
 
 1 
 
 ii 
 
 Concordia, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Madison, 
 
 I 
 
 a 
 
 Carroll, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Franklin, 
 St. Mary, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 St. Martin, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 Vermillion, 
 
 1 
 
 
 Lafayette, 
 
 1 
 
Journal of the Contention of Louisiana. 
 
 91 
 
 The Parish of St. Landrv, 
 
 4 
 
 It 
 
 Calcasieu. 
 
 2 
 
 u 
 
 Avoyelles, 
 
 3 
 
 <t 
 
 Rapides. 
 
 3 
 
 M 
 
 Natchitoches, 
 
 2 
 
 M 
 
 Sabine. 
 
 1 
 
 II 
 
 Caddo.' 
 
 1 
 
 u 
 
 De Soto, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Ouachita. 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Morehouse, 
 
 1 
 
 u 
 
 Union, 
 
 1 
 
 At 
 
 Jackson, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Caldwell, 
 
 1 
 
 ti 
 
 Catahoula, 
 
 1 
 
 il 
 
 Claiborne. 
 
 1 
 
 tt 
 
 Bossier, 
 
 1 
 
 Total, 86 
 
 Mr, O'Bryax then moved that the pro- 
 ject be laid on the table indefinitely. 
 
 And pending the discussion on said mo- 
 tion, the Convention adjourned till to-mor- 
 row at 11 o'clock, a, m. 
 
 Xote — ?vlembers absent: Messrs. Pres- 
 ent of Avoyelles and Trist, absent on ac- 
 count of illness: and Messrs. Cade. Hud- 
 speth, King, Lewis, RatlhT, Splane and 
 Taylor of St. Landrv. absent on leave, and 
 Mr. Peun was not in his seat. 
 
 Thursday. March 6, 1S45 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to 'ad^ 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Prestox opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer. 
 
 On motion. Mr. Guion was excused, on 
 account of severe illness in his family. 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. * 
 
 The project submitted by Mr. Benjames 
 on the Apportionment, viz : 
 
 Sec. 1. Representation shall be equal 
 and uniform in this State, and each parish 
 shall be entitled to representation according 
 to the total number of its population. 
 
 Sec. 2, In the year 1S46. and every 
 tenth year thereafter, a census shall be 
 made of the total population of the State. | 
 in such manner as shall be prescribed by 
 law. 
 
 Sec 3. At the first regular session of 
 the legislature, after the making of each 
 census, the legislature shall apportion the 1 
 
 representation amongst the several parishes 
 ►on the basis of the whole population, in the 
 manner following, viz : Some number shall 
 be chosen as a representative number, 
 
 which, when applied in making the appor- 
 tionment, shall give a number of represen- 
 tees not less than seventy, nor more than 
 one hundred: the number so chosen shall 
 be taken as a divisor, and each parish shall 
 be entitled to one representative for every 
 time that the divisor shall be contained in 
 the dividend formed of its total population, 
 and to one additional number from every 
 fraction exceeding the one-half of the di- 
 visor; and any parish having a total popu- 
 lation less than the whole divisor, but ex- 
 ceeding one half of it. shall be entitled to 
 one representative; and the legislature shall 
 be incompetent to act on any other subject 
 matter till the apportionment herein di- 
 rected shall have been made. 
 
 Sec. 4. The first representation under 
 this constitution, (ascertained as near as 
 may be in accordance with the above prin- 
 ciple by assuming 4500 as a representative 
 number.) shall continue until the first ap- 
 portionment shall be made by the legisla-. 
 ture, and shall be as follows : 
 
 First Municipality, 9 
 Second do, 8 
 Third do, 5 
 West bank, 1 
 The parish of Plaquemines, 1 
 " St. Bernard, 1 
 
 " Jefferson, 2 
 
 u St. Charles, 1 
 
 u St. John the Baptist, 1 
 
 " Sf. James, 2 
 
 " Ascension. 2 
 
 u Assumption, 2 
 
 " Lafourche Interior, 2 
 
 " Terrebonne, *2 
 
 " Iberville, 2 
 
 " West Baton Rouge, 1 
 
 " East M " 2 
 
 " West Feliciana, 2 
 
 East « 2 
 " St. Helena, 
 
 " Livingston, 
 " Washington, 
 u St. Tammany, 
 
 Pointe Coupee. 
 " Concordia. 
 " Madison. 
 " Carroll, 
 " Franklin-, 
 St. Man-, 
 u St. Martin, 
 
 44 Vermillion, 
 " Lafayette, 
 
92 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Parish of St. Landry, 
 
 A 
 
 l l 
 
 
 Calcasieu, 
 
 I 
 
 
 Avoyelles, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Rapides, 
 
 3 
 cr 
 
 ii 
 
 Natchitoches^ 
 
 Q 
 O 
 
 a 
 
 Sabine, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Caddo, 
 
 % 
 J. 
 
 
 ue ooto, 
 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 a 
 
 Ouachita, 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Morehouse, 
 
 I 
 
 ii 
 
 Union, 
 
 1 
 
 u 
 
 Jackson, 
 
 1 
 
 a. 
 
 Caldwell, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Catahoula, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Claiborne, 
 
 1 
 
 tt 
 
 Bossier, 
 
 1 
 
 , Total, 86 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan moved that the said pro- 
 ject be laid on the table indefinitely. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, moved that 
 the taking of the vote on the motion 
 of Mr. O' Bryan to lay indefinitely on the 
 table the project of Mr. Benjamin, be post- 
 poned until to-morrow at 2 o'clock, p. m.; 
 and the yeas and nays being called for, re- 
 sulted as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Brent, Briant, Carrier e, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson 
 Berbesi Dunn,Garrek, Grymes, Hynson, Le- 
 gend)' e, Leonard, 31c Gallop, McRae, Ma* 
 rigny, Mazureau, Prescoit of St. Landry, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratlijf, Mead, Roman, 
 Roselius, St. Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Soule, Stephens. 
 Taylor of Assumption,' Wederstrandt, and 
 Wikoff—dS yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Burton, Chambliss, 
 Cotillion, -Humble, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peers, 
 Porclie, Porter, Scott of Madison, Waddill, 
 and Wadsmonh — 13 nays. Consequently 
 said motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, then called 
 up the following section, submitted by Mr. 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, viz : 
 
 Sec. t— The seat of government shall 
 from and after the year be per- 
 
 manently located out of the city of New 
 Orleans, and not within a distance of 
 miles from the said city. 
 
 Mr. Humble moved to postpone said 
 section until the Convention take under 
 consideration the general provisions, which 
 •notion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Chinn then offered the following 
 substitute, viz : 
 
 At the first session of the legislature after 
 the adoption of this constitution, a law 
 shall be passed locating the seat of govern- 
 ment at the town of Baton Rouge, in the 
 parish of East Baton Rouge. 
 
 Mr. Winder submitted the following 
 substitute, viz: 
 
 Resolved, That the first general assem- 
 bly to be elected under this constitution, 
 shall determine upon the place where the 
 seat of government of this State shall be 
 permanently located from and after the first 
 day of January, 1850; provided, that it 
 be not fixed in the city of New Orleans, 
 nor less than sixty miles from the same, 
 by the usual route of travelling: 
 
 Mr. Voorhies submitted the following 
 substitute, viz: 
 
 At the first session of the legislature un- 
 der this constitution, a law shall be passed 
 to fix a suitable location for the seat of gov- 
 ernment of this State, whieh shall take 
 effect in the year 1850; and shall not be 
 subject to any change before the year 
 1870, and every twenty years thereafter, 
 if deemed proper and expedient. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved for the previous 
 question; the president then put the ques- 
 tion— "Shall the main question be now 
 Aput ]" which motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies then moved to lay indefi- 
 nitely on the table the said section, and 
 the yeas and nays being called for r 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Car- 
 riere, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of New 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, Bus- 
 lis, Garcia, Ledoucc, Legendre, Marigny, 
 Mazureau, Porclie, Preston, Roman, Ro- 
 selius, St. Amand, Soule, Voorhies, Wads- 
 worth, and Winchester-^-Z3 yeas.; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, 
 Brent, B riant, Brumfield, Burton, Cham- 
 bliss, Chinn,Covillion, Downs, Dunn, Gar- 
 rett, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, Leonard, 
 McCallop, McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, 
 Porter, Prescott St. Landry, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Railiff, Read, Saunders, Scott of Ba- 
 ton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Waddill, Wederstrandt, Wikoff, 
 and Winder-?- 40 nays. The motion vas 
 therefore lost. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to fill the blank with 
 "1849;" and the yeas and nays being called. 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 93 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin.Bourg, 
 Brumjield, Burton, Carriers, CoviUion, 
 Garrett, Hynson, Kenner, Labauve, Leon- 
 ard, McRae, Mayo, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Pugh, Read, Scott ^ of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Soule, Stephens, 
 Waddill and Wikoff voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 25 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Briant, Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Derbes, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Humble,Ledoux, Legendre, McCal- 
 lop, Marigny, Mazureau, O 'Bryan, Peets, 
 Porche, Porter, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Ro- 
 man, Roselius, St. Amand, Scott of Mad- 
 ison, Sellers, Voorhies, Wadsworih, Weder- 
 strandt Winchester and Winder voted in the 
 negative — 37 nays: consequently the mo- 
 tion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Wederstraxdt then moved to fill 
 the blank with "1848;" the yeas and nays 
 being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumjield, Burton, Chambliss, Chinn, Co- 
 mmon, Downs, Dunn, Garrett, Humble, 
 Hynson, Kenner, Labauve, Leonard, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Mayo, C? Bryan, Peets, 
 Porter, Prescott. of St.Landry, Preston,Pugh, 
 Rati iff, Read, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Waddill, Wederstrandi, Wikoff and 
 Winder voted in the affirmative — 39 yeas; 
 
 . Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Briant, Carriere, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad 
 if New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Der- 
 pes, Eustis, Garcia, Ledoux, Legendre, Ma- 
 'igny, Mazureau, Porche, Prudhomme, Ro- 
 nan, Roselius, St. Amand, Soide, Voorhies, 
 Wadsworth, and Winchester voted in the 
 negative — 25 nays; said motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Marigny moved that the Con- 
 -'ention adjourn till to-morrow at 11 oclock 
 u m., and the yeas and nays being called 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Briant, 
 Brumjield, Cenas, Chambliss, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Derbes, Dunn, Ezistis, Garcia, Ken- 
 <cr, Ledoux, Legendre, Leonard, McCallop, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Burton, Carriere, Chinn, CoviUion, 
 Downs, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Labauve, 
 Mayo, Peets, Pugh, Read, Saunders, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Sel- 
 lers, Taylor of Assumption, Voorhies, 
 Waddill, Weder strand and Winder voted 
 against the adjournment— 27 nays; conse- 
 quently the same was carried. 
 
 Note. — Members absent, Messrs. Guion, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles and Trist, absent on 
 account of illness, Messrs. Cade, Hudspeth, 
 King, Lewis, Splane and Taylor of St. 
 Landry, absent on leave; and Messrs. Cul- 
 bertson and Penn were not in their seats. 
 
 McRae, Marigny, Mazur 
 
 eau, & Bryan, 
 
 rj orche, Porter, Prescott of St. Landrv 
 D reston, Ratliff, Roman, Roselius, St. 
 imand, Scott of Madison, Soule, Stephens, 
 Vadsworth,Wikoff 'and Manchester voted for 
 ae adjournment — 30 }ea§: and 
 
 Friday, March 7, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Nicholson opened the 
 proceedings by prayer. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff, chairman of the committee 
 on contingent expenses, submitted the fol- 
 lowing resolution, and she same was adopt- 
 ed, viz: 
 
 Resolved, That the sum of one hundred 
 and forty-seven dollars be allowed D. O. 
 Nadaud as a remuneration for that amount 
 paid by him to an assistant to enable him 
 to keep his records up with the proceedings 
 of the Convention, and that the committee 
 on contingent expenses be authorized to 
 pay the same. 
 
 Mr. Waddill offered the following reso- 
 lution, viz: 
 
 • Resolved, That in commemoration of 
 the annexation of Texas, w T hereby the 
 peace, safety and glory of the Union are 
 preserved, this Convention will now ad- 
 journ to meet on Tuesday, the 11th inst. 
 at 11 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Mr. Duxx moved that said resolution be 
 laid on the table, and called for the yeas 
 and nays, which resulted as follows, viz: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Briant, Brumjield, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Chinn, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, CoviUion, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Garrett, Hynson, Legendre, Lewis, 
 McCallop, Mayo, Mazureau, Preston, Prud- 
 I homme, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St Amand, 
 i Saunders, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Voorhies, 
 Wederstrandi and Winder — 37 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs, Brent, Cenas, Claiborne, Hum- 
 ble, Leonard, McRae, Peets, Porter, Pres- 
 
D4 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 colt of St. Landry, Railiff, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scolt of Feliciana, Soule, 
 Waddill, and Wikoff — 16 nays; conse- 
 quently said motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Baton Rouge, moved that 
 when the Convention adjourns to-day, it 
 will adjourn to meet on Tuesday next, the 
 11th inst. at 11 o'clock, a. m. The yeas 
 and nays being called for, (Mr. Claiborne 
 in the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Briant, Cenas, Humble, 
 McCallop, McRae, Porter, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Read, Roman, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, and Soule — 13 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Auhert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Chinn, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Gar- 
 rett, Hynson, Legendre, Leonard, Lewis, 
 Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Preston, Prud- 
 homme, Pugh, Ratliff, Roselius, St. Amand, 
 Saunders, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Voorhies, 
 Waddill, Wederstrandt, Wikoff and Winder 
 — 39 nays; consequently the motion was 
 lost 
 
 At the adjournment on yesterday, the 
 Convention had under discussion the fol- 
 lowing resolution, submitted by Mr. Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, viz: 
 
 The seat of government shall, from and 
 after the year 1848, be permanently loca- 
 ted out of the city of New Orleans, and 
 
 not within a distance of miles from 
 
 the said city. * 
 
 Mr. Chinn then moved for the recon- 
 sideration of the vote given on yesterday 
 on the previous question, which motion 
 prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies then called up the substi- 
 tute offered by him on yesterday, viz: 
 
 At the first session of the legislature 
 under this constitution, a law shall be pass- 
 ed to fix a suitable location for the seat of 
 government for this State, which shall take 
 effect in the year 1850, and shall not be 
 subject to any change before the year 1870, 
 and every twenty years thereafter, if deem- 
 ed proper and expedient. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved that said substitute be 
 laid on the table indefinitely, and the yeas 
 and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg,Brazeale, 
 Brent, Burton, Cade, Chambliss, Chinn, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Derbes, Dunn, 
 
 Garret, Humble, Hynson, Lewis, McCallop, 
 Mayo, O' Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott 
 of St. Landry, Preston, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor 0 f As- 
 sumption, Trist, Waddill, Wederstrandt and 
 Wikoff — 36 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs, Benjamin, Briant, Carriere, 
 Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Culbertson, Eastis, Grymes, Legendre, 
 Leonard, Mazurea, Roman, Roselius, St. 
 Amand, Soule, Voorhies, Wadsworth and 
 Winchester, voted in the negative — 19 
 nays, consequently the motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Saunders then submitted the fol- 
 lowing substitute, viz : 
 
 The general assembly which shall sit 
 after the first election of representatives 
 under the new constitution, shall within the 
 first month after the commencement of the 
 session designate and fix the seat of gov- 
 eminent at some place not less than sixty 
 miles from the city of New Orleans, by th( 
 nearest travelling route, and if on the Mi 
 sissippi river, by the meanders of the sam 
 and when so fixed, it shall not be remov 
 except by the consent of four-fifths of the 
 members of both houses of the general as. 
 sembly. 
 
 The sessions of the general assembh 
 shall be held in New Orleans until the enc 
 of the year 1848. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies moved to amend said sub 
 stitute by striking out the words "at somt 
 place not less than sixty miles from th< 
 city of New Orleans by the nearest travel 
 ling route, and if on the Mississippi river h 
 the meanders of the same." The yeas anr 
 nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Carriere 
 Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson; Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Grymes, Legendre, Mazu- 
 reau, Porche, Porter, Preston, Prudhom 
 me, Roman Roselius, St. Amand, Soule, 
 Stephens, Trist, Voorhies, Wadsworth anc 
 Winchester, voted in the affirmative — 2* 
 yeas, and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, BrazeaU 
 Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Chambliss 
 Chinn, Covillion, Garrett, Humble Myn 
 son, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Mayo 
 O'Bryan, Peets, Prescott of St. Landry 
 Pugh, Railiff, Read, Saunders, Scolt c 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott c 
 Madison, Sellers, Taylor of Assumptior 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 95 
 
 Waddill, Weder strandt, Wikoff and Win 1 
 der, voted in the negative — 34 nays; con- 
 sequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne moved to amend said 
 substitute by striking out the. words ''four- 
 fifths" and insert in lieu thereof the words 
 "two-thirds." 
 
 Mr. Saunders moved for the previous 
 question. 
 
 The President then put the question, 
 "shall the main question be now put?" the 
 yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Brumjield, Burton, Cade, Chambliss, 
 Chinn, Dunn, Garrett, Hynson, McCallop, 
 McRea, Mayo, O' Bryan, Peets, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Pugh, Read, Saunders, Seott 
 3f Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Waddill, Wederstrandt, Wikqff, and Win- 
 ler voted. in the affirmative — 31 yeas : and 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Carriere, Ce- 
 xas, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Zonrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Culbertscn, 
 Oerbes, Eustis, Grymes, Humble, Legendre, 
 Lewis, Mazureau, Porche, Porter, Preston, 
 Vrudhomme, Ratliff, Roman, Roselius, St. 
 Imand, Soule, Stephens, Trist, Yoorliies, 
 Yadsworth and Winchester voted in the 
 egative — 30 nays. The President being 
 ailed upon to vote, voted in the negative 
 "hich made the vote equal, consequently 
 aid motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Woder moved for a division, that 
 i, that the Convention first proceed to 
 ,rike out, which motion prevailed. 
 The yeas and nays were then called, on 
 le motion of Mr. Claiborne, to strike out 
 ie words "four-fifths," and 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Carriere, Ce- 
 :is, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 onrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 >erbes, Eustis, Grymes, Kenner, Ledoiux, 
 ewis, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Porter, 
 reston, Prudhomme, Roman, Roselius, St. 
 mand^, Soule, Trist, Yoorliies, Wadsworth 
 id Winchester voted in favor of the mo- 
 3ii — 29 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, 
 bent, Burton, Cade, Chambliss, Chinn, 
 unth Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Labauve, 
 'cCallop, McRae, O' Bryan, Peets ^Prescott. 
 St. Landry, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Saun- 
 rs, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ma, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Stephens, 
 tylor of Assumption, Waddill, Weder. 
 
 strandt, Wikoff and Wiiuler voted against 
 the motion-- 53 nays ; consequently the 
 same was lost. 
 
 Mr. Dunn then moved to amend said 
 substitute by inserting one hundred and 
 twenty miles, instead of sixty miles, 
 
 Mrs Beatty moved for the previous ques- 
 tion. 
 
 The President then put the question, 
 shall the main question be now put : and 
 the yeas and nays being called for 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Burton, Chambliss, Chinn, Garrett, 
 Humble, Hynson, Labauve, McCaUopi Mc- 
 Rea, Mayo, Peets, Pugh, Read, Saunders, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott 
 of Madison, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Waddill, Weder strandt, Wi- 
 \ koff and Winder voted in the affirmative — 
 29 yeas ; aad 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Cade, Car- 
 riere, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of New 
 Orleans,* Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Guion, Grymes, Kenner, Legendre- 
 Leicis, Marigny, Mazureau, 0 , Bryan, Por- 
 ter, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Prud, 
 homme, Ratliff, Roman, Roselius, St. 
 Amand, Soule, Trist, Yoorliies, Wadsworth 
 and Winchester voted in the negative — 35 
 nays. 
 
 Consequently the motion was lost. 
 
 The hour of 2 o'clock having arrived, 
 the special order of the day' was called up ; 
 it being the following project submitted by 
 Mr. Benjamin, viz: 
 
 Sec, 1. Representation shall be equal 
 and uniform in this State, and each parish 
 shall be entitled to representation, accor- 
 ding to the total number of its population. 
 
 Sec. 2. In the year 1546, and every 
 tenth year thereafter, a census shall be 
 made of the total population of the State, 
 in such manner as shall be prescribed by 
 law. 
 
 Sec. 3. At the first regular session of 
 the legislature, after the making of each 
 census, the legislature shall apportion the 
 representation amongst the several parishes 
 on the basis of the whole population, in the 
 manner folloAving, viz : Some number shall 
 be chosen as a representative number, 
 which when applied in making the appor- 
 tionment, shall give a number of represen- 
 tatives not less than seventy, nor more than 
 one hundred : the number so chosen shall 
 
9(5 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 be taken as a divisor, and each parish shall 
 be entitled to one representative for every 
 time that the divisor shall be contained in 
 the dividend formed of its total population, 
 and to one additional number from every 
 fraction exceeding the one half of the divi- 
 sor ; and any parish having a total popula- 
 tion less than the whole divisor, but ex- 
 ceeding one half of it, shall be entitled to 
 one representative ; and the legislature 
 shall be incompetent to act on any other 
 subject matter till the apportionment here- 
 indireeted shall have been made. 
 
 Sec. 4. The first representation under 
 this constitution, (ascertained as near as 
 may be, in accordance with the above 
 principle, by assuming 4500 as a represen- 
 tative number,)shall continue until the first 
 apportionment shall be made by the legis- 
 lature, and shall be as follows: 
 
 First Municipality, 9 
 Second 44 8 
 Third . < 4 5 
 West Bank, 1 
 The parish of Plaquemines, 1 
 " St. Bernard, 1 
 44 Jefferson, 2 
 St. Charles, 1 
 w St. John the Baptist, 1 
 " St. James, 2 
 " Ascension, 2 
 " Assumption, 2 
 14 Lafourche Interior, 2 
 " Terrebonne, 2 
 " Iberville, 2 
 44 West Baton Rouge, 1 
 " East, do 2 
 " West Feliciana, 2 
 " East, do 2 
 St. Helena, 1 
 44 Livingston, 1 
 44 Washington, 1 
 44 St. Tammany, 1 
 44 Point Coupee, 1 
 44 Concordia, 1 
 44 Madison, 1 
 44 Carroll, 1 
 44 Franklin, 1 
 44 St. Mary, 2 
 44 St. Martin, 2 
 44 Vermillion, 1 
 44 Lafayette, 1 
 44 St. Landry, 4 
 " Calcassieu, 1 
 Avoyelles, 1 
 kf Rapides, 3 
 
 The Parish of Natchitoches, 
 Sabine, 
 Caddo, 
 De Soto,- 
 Ouachita, , 
 Morehouse, 
 Union, 
 Jackson, 
 Caldwell, 
 Catahoula, 
 Claiborne, 
 Bossier, 
 
 Total, 86 
 
 Mr. O 'Bryan moved that said project be 
 laid on the table indefinitely. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Saunders, the special 
 order of the day was postponed until the 
 matter under discussion was disposed of. 
 
 Mr. Labauve then moved for a division 
 of the motion of Mr. Dunn, that is, that the 
 Convention first proceed to strike out; 
 which motion prevailed. 
 
 The yeas and nays were then called for 
 on the motion to strike out the word "sixty," 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Carriere, 
 Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Culbert- 
 son, Derbes, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, 
 Grymes? Legendre, Leonard, Lewis, Mazu- 
 reau, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Pres- 
 ton, Prudhomme, Roman, Roselius, St. 
 Amand, \Soule, Stephens, Voorhies, Wads- 
 worth and Winchester voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 31 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Chambliss, 
 Chinn, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, 
 Labauve, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, 
 Mayo, O' Bryan, Peets, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott d 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Trist, Waddill, Wedf- 
 strandt, Wtkoff and Winder voted in the 
 negative — 35 nays; consequently said mo- 
 tion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans moved to 
 amend, by inserting after the words "four- 
 fifths" the words "the members present of 
 each house of the general assembly;" which 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Saunders then moved for the adop- 
 tion of the substitute, and the yeas and 
 nays being called for, resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 97 
 
 Mr. Saunders then moved for the adop- 
 tion of the substitute, and the yeas and 
 nays being called for, resulted as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Chambliss, 
 Chirm, Cotillion, Dunn, Garrett, Humble, 
 Hymon, Kenner, Labauve, Lewis, Mc Col- 
 lop, McRae, Mayo, (? Bryan, Peets, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Wad- 
 dill, Wederstrandt, Wikoff and Winder 
 voted in the affirmative — 39 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, B riant, Carriere, Ce- 
 nas, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad 
 of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, 
 Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, Legendre, Leon- 
 ard, Marigny, Mazureau, Porclie, Porter, 
 Preston, Prudhomme, Roman, Roselius, 
 St. Amand, Soule, Voorhies, Wadsworth 
 and Winchester voted in the negative — 28 
 nays; consequently the motion was car- 
 ried, 
 
 Mr. Benjamin then moved that the Con- 
 vention adjourn until Tuesday next at 11 
 o'clock a. m., and the yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Brent, 
 Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Jef- 
 ferson, Culbertson, Downs, Dunn, Eustijs, 
 Garcia, Grymes, Humble, Kenner, La- 
 bauve, Lewis, Mazureau, Porche, Porter, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Read, Roman, Ro- 
 selius, St. Amand, Saunders, Scott of Ba- 
 ton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Soule, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Wads- 
 worth and Winchester, voted in favor of 
 adjournment — yeas 35; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Brazeale, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss.Chinn, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Covillion, Derbes, 
 Garrett, Hynson, Legendre, Leonard,, JIc- 
 Callop, Marigny, Mayo, O' Bryan, Peets, 
 Peston, Prudhomme, Ratliff', Scott of Ma- 
 dison, Sellers, Voorhies, Waddill, Weder- 
 strandt and Winder, voted against the ad- 
 journment—nays 29; the same was car- 
 ried. 
 
 Note. — Members absent-Messrs. Gui- 
 on, and Prescott of Avoyelles, absent on 
 account of illness. — Messrs. Hudspeth, 
 King, Splane, and Taylor of St. Landry, 
 absent on leave. — Messrs. Boudousquie. 
 Ledoux and Penn, were not in their seats. 
 13 
 
 Tuesday, March 11, 1S45, 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Warren opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer. 
 
 On motion, leave of absence was granted 
 Messrs. Brent, Wikoff, O'Bryan, and Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry. Mr. Trist was excused 
 attending on account of indisposition. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth submitted the follow- 
 ing resolution, viz: 
 
 Resolved, that a committee of three be 
 appointed to make suitable arrangements to 
 accommodate the members of the Conven- 
 tion at the hall of the house of representa- 
 tives of the State Legislature. 
 
 Mr. Marigxy moved to amend said re- 
 solution by instructing the said committee 
 to report if the hall of the house of repre- 
 sentatives be sufficiently large to accommo- 
 date the members. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies moved that the resolution 
 and amendment be laid on the table, which 
 motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Downs offered the following reso- 
 lution, viz: 
 
 Resolved, that when the Convention ad- 
 journ, it adjourn to meet in the hall of the 
 house of representatives, and that the of- 
 ficers of the Convention make the neces- 
 sary arrangements with the sergeant-at- 
 arms of the house of representatives for the 
 reception of the members; which resolution 
 was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Cenas offered the following resolu- 
 tion, and the same was adopted, viz: 
 
 Resolved, that the committee on contin- 
 gent expenses be authorized to dispose of 
 so much of the furniture of the Convention 
 as may no longer be requisite for the use of 
 the same, upon such terms as to said com- . 
 mittee may seem most advantageous. 
 
 Mr. Cade offered the following resolu- 
 tion, and the same was adopted,- viz: 
 
 Resolved, that the committee on contin- 
 gent expenses be directed to settle with the 
 proprietress of the hall for the rent thereof, 
 and deliver up the same to her agreeably 
 to contract. 
 
 Mr. Soule then moved that the Conven- 
 tion adjourn till to-morrow at 11 o'clock 
 a. m., to meet in the hall of the house of 
 representatives, and the yeas and nays be- 
 ing called for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Cenas, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbert^ 
 
98 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 son, Garcia, Legendre, Leonard, Mazureau, 
 Prudhomme, Roman, Roselius, Su Amand, 
 and Soule, voted in the affirmative — 15 
 yeas, and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty,Brazeale, Briant, Brum, 
 field, Burton, Cade, Carrier e, Chambliss, 
 Chinn, Covillion, Derbes, Downs> Dunn, 
 Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Labauve, McCal- 
 lop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Penn,\Porche, 
 Preston, Pugh, Ratlif, Read, Scott of Ba- 
 ton Rouge, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Yoorliies, 
 Waddill and Wadsworth, voted in the ne- 
 gative — 36 nays, consequently said motion 
 was lost. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Project offered by Mr. Benjamin viz : 
 
 Sec. 1. Representation shall be equal 
 and uniform in this State, and each parish 
 shall be entitled to representation according 
 to the total number of its population. 
 
 Sec. 2. In the year 1846, and every 
 tenth year thereafter, a census shall be 
 made of the total population of the State, 
 in such manner as shall be prescribed by 
 law. 
 
 Sec. 3. At the first regular session of 
 the legislature, after the making of each 
 census, the legislature shall apportion the 
 representation amongst the several parish- 
 es on the basis of the whole population, in 
 the manner following, viz: Some number 
 shall be chosen as a representative num- 
 ber, which, when applied in making the 
 apportionment, shall give a number of re- 
 presentatives not less than seventy, nor 
 more than oug hundred; the number so 
 chosen shall be taken as a divisor, and 
 each parish shall be entitled to one repre- 
 sentative for every time that the divisor 
 •shall be contained in the dividend formed 
 of its total population, and to one addition- 
 al number from every fraction exceeding 
 the one-half of the divisor; and any parish 
 having a total population less than the 
 whole divisor, but exceeding one half of it, 
 shall be entitled to one representative; and 
 the legislature shall be incompetent to act 
 on any subject matter till the apportionment 
 herein directed shall have been made. 
 
 Sec. 4. The first representation under 
 this constitution, (ascertained as near as 
 may be in accordance with the above prin- 
 ciple, by assuming 4500 as a representative 
 number,) shall continue until the first ap- 
 
 portionment shall be made by the legisla- 
 ture, and shall be as follows, viz: 
 
 First Municipality, 9 
 Second " @ 
 Third " 5 
 West Bank, \ 
 The parish of Plaquemines, 1 
 St. Bernard, 1 
 Jefferson, 2 
 St. Charles, 1 
 St. John the Baptist, 1 
 St. James, % 
 Ascension, 2 
 Assumption, 2 
 Lafourche Interior, 2 
 Terrebonne, 2 
 Iberville, 2 
 West Baton Rouge, 1 
 East, do 2 
 West Feliciana, 2 
 East, do 
 St. Helena, 
 Livingston, 
 Washington, 
 St. Tammany, 
 Point Coupee, 
 Concordia, 
 Tensas, 
 Madison, 
 Carroll, 
 Franklin, 
 St, Mary, 
 St. Martin, 
 Vermillion, 
 Lafayette, 
 " St. Landry, 
 " Calcasieu, 
 " Avoyelles, 
 '* Rapides, 
 " Natchitoches, 
 " Sabine, 
 " Caddo, 
 " De Soto, 
 " Ouachita, 
 " Morehouse, 
 " Union, 
 " Jackson, 
 " Caldwell, 
 " Catahoula, 
 " Claiborne, 
 44 Bossier, 
 
 Total, 86 
 The question was on the motion of Mr 
 O'Beyan that said project be laid on the 
 table indefinitely. 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 99 
 
 Mr. Benjamin offered the following 
 resolution, viz: 
 
 Resolved, That the debate upon the sub- 
 ject matter now the order of the day, shall 
 be closed on Thursday next at 2 o'clock, 
 p. m. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, the following 
 amendment was adopted, viz: "And on 
 every amendment or question arising there- 
 from;" and the resolution as amended was 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Wadswortk moved that the Con- 
 vention adjourn till to-morrow at 1 1 o'clock 
 a. m.; the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, CuTbertson, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Legendre, McCallop, Maziireau, 
 Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Roman, Rose- 
 lius, St. Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Waddill and Wads- 
 worth, voted in favor of the adjournment — 
 25 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Briimfield, Burton, 
 Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Chinn, Con- 
 rad of New Orleans, Covillion, Derbes, 
 Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Kenner,Labauve, 
 Leonard, Lewis, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Peets, Penn, Porter, Preston, Pugh, Scott 
 of Madison, Sellers^ Soule, Stephens and 
 Voorhies voted against the motion — 30 
 nays; consequently the same was lost. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned till 
 to-morrow at 11 o'clock a. m,, to meet in 
 the hall of the house of representatives. 
 
 Wednesday, March 12, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Clark opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer. 
 
 Mr. Downs offered the following resolu- 
 tion, viz : 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary of the Con- 
 vention be authorized to subscribe for one 
 3opy of the Bulletin newspaper, for the use 
 of each member of the Convention, during 
 die remainder of the session. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved to amend the above 
 re solution by adding the words, " and that 
 jhe Convention discontinue the subscrip- 
 tion to the Republican." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Beatty, the resolu- 
 ion and amendment were laid on the table. 
 
 Mr. Beatty then submitted the follow- 
 ig resolution, viz : 
 
 Resolved, That a committee of three 
 members be appointed to inquire, whether 
 it be the fault of the reporters or of the pub- 
 lishers that the debates in English have not 
 been published to date, with instructions to 
 report a resolution removing the delinquents 
 from office. 
 
 Which resolution was adopted. 
 
 The President appointed Messrs. Beatty, 
 RatclhT and Downs, members of said com- 
 mittee. 
 
 On motion, leave of absence was grant- 
 ed Mr. Brumfield. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Project of Mr. Benjamin on the appor- 
 tionment, viz : 
 
 Sec. 1. Representation shall be fair and 
 uniform in this State, and each parish shall 
 be entitled to representation according to 
 the total number of its population. 
 
 Sec. 2. In the year 1846, and every 
 tenth year thereafter, a census shall be 
 made of the total population of the State, 
 in such manner as shall be prescribed by 
 law. 
 
 Sec. 3. At the first regular session of the 
 Legislature, after the making of each cen- 
 sus, the Legislature shall apportion the re- 
 presentation among the several parishes on 
 the basis of the whole population, in the 
 manner following, viz : Some number 
 shall be chosen as a representative num- 
 ber, which, when applied in making the 
 apportionment, shall give a number of re- 
 presentatives not less than seventy, nor 
 more than one hundred ; the number so 
 chosen shall be taken as a divisor, and 
 each parish shall be entitled to one repre- 
 sentative for every time that the devisor 
 shall be contained in the dividend formed of 
 its total population, and to one additional 
 number from every fraction exceeding the 
 one half of the divisor; and any parish hav- 
 ing a total population less than the whole 
 divisor, but exceeding one half of it, shall 
 be entitled to one representative ; and the 
 Legislature shall be incompetent to act on 
 any other subject matter till the apportion- 
 ment herein directed shall have been made. 
 
 Sec 4. The first representation under 
 this constitution, (ascertained as near as 
 may be in accordance with the above 
 principle, by assuming four thousand five 
 hundred as a representative number,) shall 
 continue until the first apportionment shall 
 
100 
 
 Journal of the Conve?itio?i of Louisiana* 
 
 be made by the Legislature, and shall be as 
 follows : 
 
 First Municipality, 
 
 9 
 
 Second 
 
 do, 
 
 8 
 
 Third 
 
 do, 
 
 5 
 
 West Bank, 
 
 1 
 
 The parish of Plaquemines, 
 
 1 
 
 u 
 
 St. Bernard, 
 
 1 
 
 a • 
 
 Jefferson, 
 
 2 
 
 it 
 
 St. Charles, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 St. John the Baptist^ 
 
 1 
 
 n 
 
 St. James, 
 
 2 
 
 tt 
 
 Ascension, 
 
 2 
 
 ti 
 
 Assumption, 
 
 2 
 
 It 
 
 T if! foiivf 1 hp Tntp,rior„ 
 
 2 
 
 tt 
 
 r T 1 f> y ¥• oK /-)]-( y» a 
 
 2 
 
 ti 
 
 ThfiTvillp 
 
 2 
 
 i.t 
 
 Wost Raton TUoncp 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 East " " 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 tt COL X CJ-lvlO/ilctj 
 
 2 
 
 i. 
 
 East " 
 
 2 
 
 tt 
 
 St. Helena. 
 
 1 
 
 tt 
 
 Livingston , 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Wn c]i i 51 rrtoil 
 
 I 
 
 a 
 
 St. Tamroanv 
 
 I 
 
 t% 
 
 jroinie toupee, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 V-'UIlOOxUld, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 J-TiduloOIl, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Carroll 
 
 (XL 1 Oil, 
 
 i 
 
 a 
 
 n rn nlr 1 1 n 
 
 X 1 cjHiiVJLiii , 
 
 i 
 
 tt 
 
 St Ma rv 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 St Martin 
 Vermillion, 
 
 2 
 
 it 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Lafayette, 
 
 1 
 
 i. 
 
 St Landrv 
 
 4 
 
 it 
 
 Calpa <?ipii 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Avoyelles, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Rapides, 
 
 8 
 
 it 
 
 Natchitoches, 
 
 3 
 
 it 
 
 Sabine, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Caddo, 
 
 1 
 
 U 
 
 De Soto, 
 
 1 
 
 ti 
 
 Ouachita, 
 
 I 
 
 a 
 
 Morehouse, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Union, 
 
 1 
 
 n 
 
 Jackson, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Caldwell, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Catahoula, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Claiborne, 
 
 1 
 
 tt 
 
 Bossier, 
 
 1 
 
 Total, 86 
 
 The question under consideration was 
 the motion of Mr. O'Bryaw to lay the above 
 on the table indefinitely. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ratcliff said project 
 was laid on the table, subject to call. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ratcliff, the Con- 
 vention then took under consideration the 
 7th article of the constitution, which pro- 
 vides for the revising of the same, viz : 
 
 " Any amendment or amendments to this 
 constitution may be proposed in the Senate 
 or House of Representatives, and if the 
 same shall be agreed to by a majority of 
 the members elected to each house, such 
 proposed amendment or amendments shall 
 be entered on their journals, with the yeaa 
 and nays taken thereon, and the Secretary 
 of State shall cause the same to be publish- 
 ed three months before the next general 
 election, in at least one newspaper in eve- 
 ry parish of the State in which newspapers 
 shall be published, and if in the Legisla- 
 ture next afterwards chosen, such proposed 
 amendment or amendments shall be agreed 
 toby a majority of the members elected to 
 each house, the Secretary of State shall 
 cause the same to be published in manner 
 aforesaid, at least three months prior to the 
 next general election for representatives to 
 the State Legislature, and such proposed 
 amendment or amendments shall be sub- 
 mitted to the people at said election; 
 and if the people shall approve and rati 
 such amendment or amendments by a ma 
 jority of all the qualified voters of this State 
 voting thereon, such amendment or amend 
 ments shall become a part of the constitu- 
 tion : Provided, that if more than one 
 amendment be submitted at a time, they 
 shall be submitted in such manner and form 
 that the people may vote for or against 
 each amendment separately and distinctly. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to amend said article 
 by inserting after the word election, the 
 words "For representatives to the next 
 Legislature,"— which amendment was lost. 
 
 Mr. Boudousquie moved to amend said 
 article by inserting after the word "publish- 
 ed" the words, "in French and English," 
 which motion was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne moved to amend by in- 
 serting after the words "shall be agreed to" 
 the words, "by two-thirds." 
 
 Mr. Soule moved to amend the amend- 
 ment by inserting "three-fifths," instead of 
 "two-thirds," which amendment was ac- 
 cepted by Mr. Claiborne; and the yeas and 
 nays being called for on the adoption of the 
 amendment, resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs.#ea%, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Briant, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Claiborne, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 101 
 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, Kenner, La- 
 bauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Mazureau, Prud- 
 homme, Pugh, Roman, Roselins, St. Amand, 
 Sellers, Soule, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Voorhies, Wadsworth and Winder voted 
 in the affirmative — 29 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Burton, Chambliss, 
 Chinn, Covillion, Culbertson, Downs, Gar- 
 rett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, King, 
 Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Peets, Penn, Porclie, Porter, Preston, Rat- 
 liff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Madison, Stephens, Waddill and Weder- 
 strandtlvoted in the negative — 29nays; the 
 vote being equally divided, the president 
 voted in the negative, consequently the mo- 
 tion was lost. 
 
 . Mr.. Botjdousquie gave notice that he 
 would, on a future day, move the re-con- 
 sideration of said vote. 
 
 Mr. Conrad moved to amend by insert- 
 ing after the words "members elected to 
 each house" the words "and approved by 
 the governor; " which amendment was 
 
 adopted. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow at 1 1 o'clock a. m. 
 • Note. — Members absent, Messrs. Brent, 
 Brumfield, Guion, O'Bryan, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Splane, Taylor of St. Landry and 
 Wikoff, absent on leave; Messrs. Prescott 
 of Avoyelles and Trist absent on account 
 of illness; and Messrs. Aubert, Bourg, 
 Grymes, Saunders and Winchester did not 
 appear in their seats. 
 
 Thursday, February 13, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Woolridge opened the 
 proceedings by prayer. 
 
 Mr. Peets submitted the following reso- 
 lution, viz: 
 
 Resolved, that the standing order of the 
 Convention to meet at the hour of 11 
 o'clock a. nr., be rescinded, and that the 
 Convention shall hereafter meet at 10 
 o'clock a. m. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Peets, the dispensation 
 of the rule was granted, and the resolution 
 adopted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Chinn, the vote given 
 on yesterday on the inserting the words 
 "three-fifths," in the 7th article of the con- 
 stitution, was reconsidered; and the vote to 
 
 be taken on said amendment laid on the 
 table subject to call. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 ARTICLE SEVENTH MODE OF REVISING THE 
 
 CONSTITUTION, VIZ! 
 
 Any amendment or amendments to this 
 constitution, may be proposed in the senate 
 or house of representatives; and if the same 
 shall be agreed to by a majority of the 
 members elected to each house, and ap- 
 proved by the governor, such proposed 
 amendment or amendments shall be enter- 
 ed on their journals, with the yeas and nays 
 taken thereon, and the secretary of state 
 shall cause the same to be published three 
 months before the next general election, in 
 at least one newspaper in French and Eng- 
 lish, in every parish in the State in which 
 newspapers shall be published; and if in 
 the legislature next afterwards chosen, such 
 proposed amendment or amendments shall 
 be agreed to by a majority of the members 
 elected to each house, the secretary of 
 state shall cause'the same again to be pub- 
 lished in the manner aforesaid, at least 
 three months prior to the next general elec- 
 tion for representatives to the State legisla- 
 ture, and such proposed amendment or 
 amendments shall be submitted to the peo- 
 ple at said election; and if the people shall 
 approve and ratify such amendment or 
 amendments by a majority of all the quali- 
 fied voters of this State voting thereon, 
 such amendment or amendments shall be- 
 come a part of th% constitution. Provided: 
 that if more than one amendment be sub- 
 mitted at a time, they shall be submitted in 
 such manner and form, that the people may- 
 vote for or against each amendment sepa- 
 rately and distinctly. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to amend said article 
 by striking out the words "voting thereon;" 
 and the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Brazeale, Briant, Carriere, Chinn, Clai- 
 borne, Covillion,Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, 
 Dunn, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Ledoux, Legendre, Leonard, Lewis, McCal- 
 lop, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, 
 Porche, Porter, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, 
 Read, Ho?nan, St, Amand, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Voorhies, Wadsworth Weder- 
 strandt and Winder, voted in the affirmative 
 — 46yeas; and 
 
102 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Messrs. Burton, Cade, Chambliss, Con- 
 rad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 McRae, Penn, Preston, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, and Waddill, voted in 
 the negative — 11 nays; consequently said 
 motion was carried. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Benjamin, the taking 
 of the vote on the amendment of Mr. Soule 
 to insert three-fifths, was called up, and the 
 yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty*, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Briant, Carrier e, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Cidbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Grymes, Guion, Kenner, Labauve, 
 Legendre,Marigny,Mazureau, Prudliomme, 
 Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand,Sellers, 
 Soule, Taylor of Assumption, Wadsworth, 
 and Winder, voted in favor of the amend- 
 ment; 32 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Burton, Cade, Cham- 
 bliss, Covillion, Downs, Garrett, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, King, Leonard, Lewis, 
 McCallop, McRae, Mayo, Peels, Penn, 
 Porche, Porter, Preston, Ratliff, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Stephens, Voorhies, Wad- 
 dill and Wederstrandt, voted against the 
 amendment — 30 nays; the same was car- 
 ried. 
 
 On the motion to adopt the article as 
 amended, viz: 
 
 Any amendment or amendments to this 
 constitution, may be proposed in the senate 
 or house of representative^; and if the same 
 shall be agreed to by three-fifths of the 
 members elected to each house, and ap- 
 proved by the governor, such proposed 
 amendment or amendments shall be entered 
 on their journals with the yeas and nays 
 taken thereon, and the secretary of state 
 shall cause the same to be published three 
 months before the next general election, in 
 at least one newspaper in French and Eng- 
 lish, in every parish in the State in which 
 newspapers shall be published; and if in the 
 legislature next afterwards chosen, such 
 proposed amendment or amendments shall 
 be agreed to by a majority of the members 
 elected to each house, the secretary of state 
 shall cause the same again to be published 
 in the manner afoiesaid, at least three 
 months prior to the next general election for 
 representatives to thje State legislature, and 
 such proposed amendment or amendments 
 shall be submitted to the people at said 
 
 election; and if the people shall approve 
 and ratify such amendment or amendments 
 by a majority of all the qualified voters of 
 this State, such amendment or amendments 
 shall become a part of the constitution. 
 Provided, that if more than one amend- 
 ment be submitted at a time, they shall be 
 submitted in such manner and form, that 
 the people may vote for or against each 
 amendment, seperately and distinctly. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, re- 
 sulted as follows, viz: 
 
 Messrs. Beatiy, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Briant, Carriere, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jef- 
 ferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Gannett, Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, 
 Leonard, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau,Prud- 
 homme, Pugh, Ratliff, Roman, Roselius, St u 
 Amand, Sellers, Soide, Stephens, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Wadsworth and Winder — 
 40 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale Burton, Cade, Cham- 
 bliss, Covillion, Downs, Humble, Hynson, 
 McCallop, McRae, Mayo, Peels, Penn, 
 Porche, Porter, Preston, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Voorhies, Waddill, and Weder- 
 strandt — 23 nays; consequently the same 
 was adopted. 
 
 Previous to the hour of two o'clock p. m., 
 on motion of Mr. Downs, the order of the 
 day was called up, viz: 
 
 Mr. Ratliff gave notice that he would 
 on a future day move the reconsideration 
 of the vote given to insert the three-fifths in 
 the above 7th article just adopted. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Project of Mr. Benjamin on the appor- 
 tionment: 
 
 Sec. 1. Representation shall be equal 
 and uniform in this State, and each parish 
 shall be entitled to representation, accord- 
 ing to the total number of its population. 
 
 Sec. 2. In the year 1846, and every 
 tenth year thereafter, a census shall be 
 made of the total population of the State, 
 in such manner as shall be prescribed by 
 law. 
 
 Sec. 3. At the first regular session of 
 the legislature, after the making of each 
 census, the legislature shall apportion the 
 representation amongst the several parishes 
 on the basis of the whole population, in 
 the manner following, viz; Some number 
 
Journal of the Contention of Louisiana. 
 
 103 
 
 shall be chosen as a representative number, 
 which, when applied in making the appor- 
 ment, shall give a number of representa- 
 tives not less than seventy, nor more than 
 one hundred; the number so chosen shall 
 be taken as a devisor, and each parish shall 
 be entitled to one representative for every 
 time that the devisor shall be contained in 
 the dividend formed of its total population, 
 and to one additional number from every 
 fraction exceeding the one half of the divi- 
 sor; and any parish having a total popula- 
 tion less than the whole divisor, but exceed- 
 ing one half of it, shall be entitled to one 
 representative; and the legislature shall be 
 incompetent to act on any other subject 
 matter till the apportionment herein direct- 
 ed shall have been made. 
 
 Sec. 4. The first representation under 
 this constitution, (ascertained as near as 
 may be in accordance with the above prin- 
 ciple by assuming 4500 as a lepresentative 
 number,) shall continue until the first ap- 
 portionment shall be made by the legisla- 
 ture, and shall be as follows: 
 
 First Municipality, 9 
 Second Mmiicipality, 8 
 Third Mimicipality, 5 
 West Bank, 1 
 The parish of Plaquemines, 1 
 St. Bernard, 1 
 Jefferson, 2 
 St. Charles, 1 
 St. John the Baptist, 1 
 St. James, 2 
 Ascension, 2 
 Assumption, 2 
 Lafourche Interior, 2 
 Terrebonne, 2 
 Iberville, 2 
 West Baton Rouge, 1 
 East Baton Rouge, 2 
 «• West Feliciana, 2 
 East " 2 
 St. Helena, 
 Livingston, 
 Washington, 
 St. Tammany, 
 Point Coupee, 
 Concordia, 
 Madison, 
 Carroll, 
 Franklin, 
 
 St. Mary, 2 
 St. Martin, 2 
 Vermillion, 1 
 
 f Lafayette, 
 
 1 
 
 St. Landry, 
 
 4 
 
 Calcasieu . 
 
 1 
 
 Avoy elles, 
 
 1 
 
 Rapides, 
 
 3 
 
 Natchitoches, 
 
 3 
 
 Sabine, 
 
 1 
 
 Caddo, 
 
 1 
 
 De Soto, 
 
 1 
 
 Ouachita, 
 
 1 
 
 Morehouse, 
 
 1 
 
 Union, 
 
 1 
 
 Jackson, 
 
 1 
 
 Caldwell, 
 Catahoula, 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Claiborne, 
 
 1 
 
 Bossier, 
 
 1 
 
 
 86 
 
 Total, 
 
 The question under consideration was 
 the motion of Mr. O'Bryan to lay on the 
 table indefinitely the above project, and the 
 yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Burton, Cade. Cham- 
 bliss, CoviUion, Downs, Garrett, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, Leonard, Lewis, McCal- 
 lop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Penn, Porche, 
 Porter, Preston, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Stephens, Voorhies, Wad- 
 dill znd'Wederstrandt, voved in the affirma- 
 tive — 30 yeas: arid 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Briant, Carriere, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 CuTbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, 
 Grymes, Chum, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Ledoux, Legendre, Marigny, Mazureau, 
 Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Sellers, 
 Soule, Taylor of Assumption, Wadsworth 
 and Viinder, voted in the negative — 33 
 nays* consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Dowxs moved to amend by striking 
 out from the first section in the second line 
 from the word ' ; State," all the words and 
 sections in said project, and insert in lieu 
 thereof, the following, viz: 
 
 AURICLE SECOXD. 
 
 Sec. 6. And shall forever be regulated 
 and ascertained by the number of qualified 
 electors therein: provided that at every fu- 
 ture apportionment, the full representation 
 of New Orleans, with its present limits, 
 shall be reduced one-fifth, and that each 
 parish shall have at least one representa- 
 tive; and provided, further , that no new parish 
 
104 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 shall be created with a territory less than 
 four hundred square miles, nor with a num. 
 ber of electors less than the ratio at the 
 time, nor when the creation of such new 
 parish would leave any other parish with- 
 out the said extent of territory and number 
 of electors. In the year , and every 
 
 four years thereafter, an enumeration of all 
 the electors shall be made, in such manner 
 as shall be directed by law. The number 
 of representatives shall in the several years 
 of making these enumerations, or during 
 the next succeeding session of the general 
 assembly, be so fixed, according . to the 
 principles of this section, as not to be less 
 than eighty, nor more than one hundred; 
 provided, that the general assembly shall 
 be incompetent to pass any laws after the 
 enumeration until the apportionment shall 
 be made. Until the first enumeration shall 
 be made, as directed in this section, the 
 parish of Orleans shall be entitled to twen- 
 ty representatives, to be elected as follows: 
 
 First Mmiicipality, 
 
 8 
 
 Second 
 
 It 
 
 8 
 
 Third 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 Right Bank of the Mississippi, 
 
 1 
 
 The Parish of Plaquemines, 
 
 2 
 
 tt 
 
 St. Bernard, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 J efFerson, 
 
 St. Charles, 
 
 St. John the Baptist, 
 
 3 
 
 ti 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 1 
 
 (i 
 
 St. James, 
 
 2 
 
 it 
 
 Ascension, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 Assumption, 
 
 2 
 
 tt 
 
 Lafourche Interior, 
 
 2 
 
 it 
 
 Terrebonne, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 Iberville, 
 
 2 
 
 tt 
 
 West, Baton Rouge, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 East " 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 West Feliciana, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 East " 
 
 3 
 
 it 
 
 St. Helena, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Livingston, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Washington, 
 St. Tammany, 
 
 1 
 
 tt 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Point Coupee, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Concordia, 
 
 1 
 
 n 
 
 Tensas, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Madison, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Carroll, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Franklin, 
 
 1 
 
 ti 
 
 St. Mary, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 St. Martin, 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 Vermillion, 
 
 1 
 
 ti 
 
 Lafayette, 
 
 2 
 
 The Parish of St. Landry, 
 
 5 
 
 a 
 
 Calcasieu, 
 
 1 
 
 n 
 
 Avoyelles, 
 
 2 
 
 n 
 
 Rapides, 
 
 4 
 
 it 
 
 Natchitoches, 
 
 4 
 
 
 Sabine, 
 
 2 
 
 tt 
 
 Caddo, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 De Sokv 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Ouachita 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Morehouse, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Union, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Jackson, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Caldwell, 
 
 1 
 
 tt 
 
 Catahoula, 
 
 2 
 
 tt 
 
 Claiborne, 
 
 2 
 
 
 Bossier, 
 
 1 
 
 Total, 97 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption moved to 
 amend said amendment by striking out 
 from the first section the words "provided, 
 that at every future apportionment the full 
 representation of New Orleans, with its 
 present limits, shall be reduced one-fifth." 
 And pending the discussion oh said motion 
 the Convention adjourned till to-morrow at 
 11 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent: Messrs. Brent, 
 Brumfield, Prescott of St. Landry, Splane, 
 Taylor of St. Landry and WikofF, absent ' 
 on leave. Messrs. Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 and Trist, absent on account of illness,- and j 
 Messrs. Aubert, Bourg and Winchester did 
 not appear in their seats. 
 
 Friday, March 14, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 In the absence of a minister of the gos- 
 pel, the Hon. Mr. Stephens, at the request 
 of the President, opened the proceedings by 
 prayer. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff, chairman of the commit- 
 tee on contingent expenses, submitted the 
 following resolution, which was adopted, viz: 
 
 Resolved, That the committee on con- 
 tingent expenses be authorized to pay Mrs. 
 Hawley nine hundred and twenty-six dol- 
 lars for the rent of the St. Louis ball room 
 for the sitting of the Convention from the 
 13th of January until the 11th of March, 
 and other expenses, gas, water, &c. while 
 there. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 Project of Mr. Benjamin on the appor= 
 tionment : 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 105 
 
 Sec. 1. Representation shall be fair and 
 uniform in this State, and each parish shall 
 be entitled to representation according to 
 the total number of its population. 
 
 Sec. 2. In the year 1846, and every 
 tenth year thereafter, a census shall be 
 made of the total population of the State, 
 in such manner as shall be prescribed by 
 law. 
 
 Sec. 3. At the first regular session of the 
 Legislature, after the making of each cen- 
 sus, the Legislature shall apportion the re- 
 presentation among the several parishes on 
 the basis of the whole population, in the 
 manner following, viz : Some number 
 shall be chosen as a representative num- 
 ber, which, when applied in making the 
 apportionment, shall give a number of re- 
 presentatives not less than seventy, nor 
 more than one hundred ; the number so 
 chosen shall be taken as a divisor, and 
 each parish shall be entitled to one repre- 
 sentative for every time that the devisor 
 shall be contained in the dividend formed of 
 its total population, and to one additional 
 number from every fraction exceeding the 
 one half of the divisor; and any parish hav- 
 ing a total population less than the whole 
 divisor, but exceeding one half of it, shall 
 be entitled to one representative ; and the 
 Legislature shall be incompetent to act on 
 any other subject matter till the apportion- 
 ment herem directed shall have been made. 
 
 Sec. 4. The first representation under 
 this constitution, (ascertained as near as 
 may be in accordance with the above 
 principle, by assuming four thousand five 
 hundred as a representative number,) shall 
 continue until the first apportionment shall 
 be made by the Legislature, and shall be as 
 
 follows : 
 
 First Municipality, 9 
 
 Second do, 8 
 
 Third do, 5 
 
 West Bank, 1 
 
 The parish of Plaquemmes, 1 
 
 St. Bernard, 1 
 
 Jefferson, 2 
 
 St. Charles, 1 
 
 St. John the Baptist, 1 
 
 44 St. James, 2 
 
 41 Ascension, 2 
 
 44 x^s sumption, 2 
 Lafourche Interior, 2 
 
 Terrebonne, 2 
 
 14 Iberville, % 
 14 
 
 The Parish of West Baton Rouge, 1 
 
 " East 44 44 2 
 
 44 West Feliciana, 2 
 
 - East 44 2 
 
 St, Helena, 1 
 
 " Livingston, 1 
 
 44 Washington, 1 
 
 " St. Tammany, 1 
 
 4 * Pointe Coupee, 1 
 
 44 Concordia, 1 
 
 Madison, ] 
 
 " Carroll, ] 
 
 Franklin, 1 
 
 St. Mary, 2 
 
 44 St. Martin, 2 
 
 44 Vermillion, 1 
 
 44 Lafayette, 1 
 
 4s St. Landry,- 4 
 
 " Calcasieu, 1 
 
 44 Avoyelles, 1 
 
 Rapides, 3 
 
 41 Natchitoches, 3 
 
 44 Sabine, 1 
 
 Caddo-, 1 
 
 De Soto, 1 
 
 44 Ouachita, 1 
 
 44 Morehouse, 1 
 
 44 Union, 1 
 
 44 Jackson, 1 
 
 44 Caldwell, . 1 
 
 44 Catahoula, 1 
 
 44 Claiborne, l 
 
 44 Bossier, 1 
 
 Total, 86 
 
 Which project Mr. Downs moved to 
 amend by striking out all the words and 
 sections after the word 44 State," and insert 
 the following, viz : 
 
 ARTICLE SECOND. 
 
 44 And shall forever be regulated and as- 
 certained by the number of qualified elec- 
 tors therein ; Provided, that at any future 
 apportionment, the full representation of 
 New Orleans, with its present limits, shall 
 be reduced one fifth, and that each parish 
 shall have at least one representative ; and 
 provided further, that no new parish shall 
 be created with a territory less than four 
 hundred square miles, nor with # a number 
 of electors less than the ratio at the time, 
 nor when the creation of such new parish 
 would leave any other parish without the 
 said extent of territory and number of elec- 
 tors. In the year -, and every four 
 
 years thereafter, an enumeration of all the 
 electors shall be made, in such manner as 
 
106 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 shall be directed by law. The number of 
 
 representatives shall, in the several years 
 of making these enumerations, or during 
 the next succeeding session of the general 
 assembly, be so fixed, according to the prin- 
 ciples of this section, as not to be less than 
 eighty, nor more than one hundred ; Pro- 
 vided, that the general assembly shall be 
 incompetent to pass any laws after the enu- 
 meration until the apportionment shall be 
 made. Until the first enumeration shall 
 be made, as directed in this section, the 
 parish of Orleans shall be entitled to twen- 
 ty representatives, to be elected as follows: 
 eight by the First Municipality ; eight by 
 the Second Municipality ; three by the 
 Third Municipality, and one by that part of 
 the parish on the right bank of the Mis- 
 
 sissippi. 
 
 
 
 The Parish of 
 
 Plaquemines, 
 
 a 
 
 t« 
 
 St. Bernard, 
 
 1 
 
 u 
 
 Jefferson, 
 
 3 
 
 i% 
 
 St, Charles, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 St. John the Baptist, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 St. James, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 Ascension, 
 
 2 
 
 si 
 
 Assumption, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 Lafourche Interior, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 Terrebonne, 
 
 2 
 
 ti 
 
 Iberville, 
 
 2 
 
 it 
 
 West Baton Rouge, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 East do do 
 
 3 
 
 tt 
 
 West Feliciana, 
 
 2 
 
 tt 
 
 East do 
 
 3 
 
 tt 
 
 St. Helena, 
 
 1 
 
 tt 
 
 Livingston, 
 Washington, 
 St. Tammany, 
 
 1 
 
 tt 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Point Coupee, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Concordia, 
 
 1 
 
 tt 
 
 Tensas* 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Madison, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Carroll, 
 
 1 
 
 M 
 
 Franklin, 
 St. Mary, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 2 
 
 it 
 
 St. -Martin, 
 
 3 
 
 it 
 
 Vermillion, 
 
 1 
 
 ti 
 
 Lafayette, 
 St. Landry, 
 
 2 
 
 ti 
 
 5 
 
 it ' 
 
 Calcassieu, 
 Avoyelles, 
 
 1 
 
 ti 
 
 2 
 
 ti 
 
 Rapides, 
 
 4 
 
 a 
 
 Natchitoches, 
 
 4 
 
 a 
 
 Sabine, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 Caddo, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 De Soto, 
 
 1 
 
 Parish of Ouachita, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Morehouse 
 
 1 
 
 ft 
 
 Union, 
 
 I 
 
 >' 
 
 Jackson, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Caldwell, 
 
 . 1 
 
 tt 
 
 Catahoula, 
 
 2 
 
 n 
 
 Claiborne, 
 
 2 
 
 ti 
 
 Bossier,. 
 
 1 
 
 Total, 
 
 
 97 
 
 The question under consideration, being- 
 he motion of Mr. Taylor of Assumption, 
 to strike out the following proviso i» the 
 tfirst section of the amendment of Mr. 
 Downs, the yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Briant, 
 Carrier e^Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, 
 Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, 
 Ledoux, Legendre, Leonard, Lewis, Marig- 
 ny, Mazureau, Preston, Ratliff, Roman, 
 Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, Sellers, 
 Soule, Taylor of Assumption, and Wads- 
 worth — 35 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Burton, Cade, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, 
 Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Labauve, Mc- 
 Callop, McRea, Mayo, Peets, Penn, Porche, 
 Porter, Prudhomme, Pugh, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Splane, Stepliens,Voorhies, Wad- 
 dill, Wederstrandt, and Winder — 32 nays; 
 consequently said motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, then offered 
 the following proviso, viz: 
 
 Provided, that at each apportionment 
 hereafter to be made of the representation 
 in the house of representatives, that part of 
 the parish of Orleans lying on the east side 
 of the Mississippi river, shall be divided 
 into election districts in such a manner 
 that no one district shall elect more than 
 two representatives. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved io lay indefinitely 
 on the table, the amendment and proviso, 
 and the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Carriere, Cenas Cliinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Garcia, Grymes, Guion, Kenner, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh. Ro- 
 man, St. Amand, Saunders, and Sellers— 
 27 yeas; and 
 
 I Messrs, Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 107 
 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Eustis, Gar- 
 i reft, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, King, 
 Ledoux, Leonard, Lewis, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Mayo, Peets, Penn, Porche, Porter, 
 Preston, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Ro- 
 selius, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison, Splane, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Voorhies, Waddill, 
 Wads worth and Wederstrandt — 39 nays. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved the reconsideration 
 of the vote given, to strike out the proviso 
 in the amendment of Mr. Downs, and the 
 yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Dunn, Gar- 
 rett, Humble, Hynson, McCallop, McRae, 
 Mayo, Peets Penn, Porche, Porter, Prud- 
 homme, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Ba- 
 ton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Ma- 
 . dison, Splane, Stephens, Voorhies, Weder- 
 I strandt and Winder voted in the affirma- 
 »j tive — 31 yeas, and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Bri- 
 ant, Carriere, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of JefFer- 
 soiij Culbertson, Derbes, Eustis, Garcia, 
 Gryraes,, Guion, Hudspeth Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Leonard, 
 Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, Preston, Ro- 
 man, Roselius, St. Amand, Sellers, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption and Wadsworth voted in 
 the negative — 33 nays; consequently the 
 motion was lost 
 
 Mr. Claiborxe moved to lay on the ta- 
 ble indefinitely the proviso of Mr. Taylor 
 of Assumption, and called for the yeas and 
 nays; which resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Burton, Cenas, Chinn, Con- 
 rad "of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Guion, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Marigny, Mazureau, 
 Penn, Prudhomme, Pugh, Rornan, Saun- 
 ders and Sellers voted in favor of the mo- 
 tion — 26 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Cade Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Garrett, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, Kenner, King, Leonard, 
 > \Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, 
 Porche, Porter, Preston, Ratliff, Read, 
 \Roselius, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Scoit of Madison, Splane, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Voorhies, 
 Waddill, Wadsworth, Wederstrandt and 
 Winder voted in the negative — 36 nays ; 
 consequently the motion was lost. 
 
 On motion the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow at 11 oclock, a. m. 
 
 Note. — -Members absent — Messrs. 
 Brumfield, O'Bryan, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, and Taylor of St. Landry, absent on 
 leave ; Messrs. Prescott of Avoyelles and 
 Trist, absent on account of illness, and 
 Messrs. Aubert, WikofF and Winchester 
 did not appear in their seats. 
 
 Saturday, March 15, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Nicholsox opened the 
 proceedings with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Beatty, chairman of the committee 
 appointed to enquire into* the cause of the 
 delay in printing the English reports of the 
 proceedings of the Convention, submitted 
 the following report and resolution, viz: 
 
 The committee appointed to enquire into 
 the cause of the delay in printing the Eng- 
 lish reports of the proceedings of the Con- 
 vention, respectfully submit, 
 
 That upon enquiry they have ascertained 
 that the delay in printing has originated in 
 the inability of Mr. Robert J. Kerr to fur- 
 nish the necessary amount of copy to the 
 printers. That he has constantly been 
 many days behind hand with his copy, and 
 was, on March 10th, only ready to furnish 
 the copy of the proceedings of the 24th 
 February. That according to his state- 
 ment furnished the Convention, he is now 
 ready to furnish eopy of proceedings and 
 debates up to date. They therefore recom- 
 mend the adoption of the following resolu- 
 tion, all of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 (Signed) J. C. BEATTY, Chairman 
 
 of the committee. 
 
 Resolved, That the reporters in English 
 be required, on the evening of the day suc- 
 ceeding any debates or proceedings .of the 
 house to furnish copy of those proceedings 
 to the printers, obtain their receipt for the 
 same, and file it with the secretary; and that 
 on their failure so to do, the secretary shall 
 report the fact to the Convention, and the 
 delinquent be instantly removed from his 
 post. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Dunn, said resolution 
 was amended by striking out the words 
 "and the delinquent be instantly removed 
 from his post." 
 
 On motion, said resolution was a,dopted 
 as amended, viz: 
 
108 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana , 
 
 Resolved, That the reporters in English 
 be required, on the evening of the day suc- 
 ceeding any debate or proceedings of the 
 house, to furnish copy of those proceedings 
 to the printers, obtain their receipt for the 
 same, and^file it with the secretary; and that 
 on their failure so to do, the scretary shall 
 report the fact to the Convention. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Project of Mr. Benjamin on the legisla- 
 tive department. 
 
 Sec. 1. Representation shall be equal 
 and uniform in this State, and each parish 
 shall be entitled to representation, accord- 
 ing to the total number of its population. 
 
 Sec. 2. In the year 1846, and every 
 tenth year thereafter, a census shall be 
 made of the total population of the State, 
 in such manner as shall be prescribed by 
 law. 
 
 Sec. 3. At the first regular session of 
 the legislature, after the making of each 
 census, the legislature shall apportion the 
 representation amongst the several parishes 
 on the basis of the whole population, in 
 the manner following, viz : Some number 
 shall be chosen as a representative num- 
 ber, which, when applied in making the 
 apportionment, shall give a number of re- 
 presentatives not less than seventy, nor 
 more than one hundred; the number so 
 chosen shall be taken as a divisor, and each 
 parish shall be entitled to one representa- 
 tive for every time that the divisor shall be 
 contained in the dividend formed of its total 
 population, and to one additional number 
 from every fraction exceeding the one half 
 of the divisor; and any parish having a total 
 population less than the whole divisor, but 
 exceeding one half of it, shall be entitled to 
 one representative ; and the legislature shall 
 be incompetent to act on any other subject 
 matter till the apportionment herein direct- 
 ed shall have been made. 
 
 Sec 4. The first representation under 
 this constitution, (ascertained as near as 
 may be in accordance with the above prin- 
 ciple, by assuming four thousand five hun- 
 dred as a representative number,) shall 
 continue until the first apportionment shall 
 be made by the legislature, and shall be as ; 
 follows : 
 
 First Municipality, 9 
 Second Municipality, 8 
 Third Municipality, 5 
 West Bank, 1 
 
 The Parish of Plaquemines, 1 
 
 " St. Bernard, i 
 
 44 Jefferson, 2 
 
 u St. Charles, i 
 
 " St. John the Baptist, l 
 
 " St. James, % 
 
 44 Ascension, 2 
 
 " Assumption, 2 
 
 44 Lafourche Jnterior, 2 
 
 " Terrebonne, 2 
 
 " Iberville, 2 
 
 44 West Baton Rouge, 1 
 
 " East " " 2 
 
 " West Feliciana, 2 
 
 " East Feliciana, 2 
 
 " Livingston, 1 
 
 44 St. Helena, 1 
 
 44 Washington, 1 
 
 " St. Tammany, I 
 
 44 Point Coupee, 1 
 
 44 Concordia, 1 
 
 44 Madison, ' 1 
 
 Carroll, 1 
 
 44 Franklin, 1 
 
 St. Mary, 2 
 
 44 St. Martin, 2 
 
 44 Vermillion, 1 
 
 44 Lafayette, 1 
 
 4t St. Landry, 4 
 
 44 Calcasieu, 1 
 
 . 44 Avoyelles, 1 
 
 44 Rapides, 3 
 
 44 Natchitoches , 3 
 
 44 Sabine, x 
 
 ' 44 Caddo, x 
 
 44 . De Soto, x 
 
 44 Ouachita, 1 
 
 44 Morehouse, 1 
 
 44 Union, 1 
 
 44 Jackson, 1 
 
 44 Caldwell, 1 
 
 44 Catahoula, 1 
 
 44 Claiborne, 1 
 
 44 Bossier, 1 
 
 Total, 86 
 Which Mr Downs moved to amend by 
 striking out after the word "State," the bal- 
 ance of said project, and insert in lieu 
 thereof the following amendment, viz : 
 
 ARTICLE SECOND. 
 
 Sec. 6. Representation shall forever be 
 equal and uniform in this State, and shall 
 forever be regulated and ascertained by 
 the number of qualified voters therein ; 
 Provided, that each apportionment here- 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 109 
 
 eafter to be made of the representation 
 in the house of representatives, that part 
 of the parish of Orleans lying on the 
 east side of the Mississippi river, shall 
 be divided into election districts, in such a 
 manner that no one district shall elect more 
 than two representatives, and that each 
 parish shall have at least one representa- 
 tive ; and provided further, that no new 
 parish shalhbe created with a territory less 
 than four hundred square miles, nor with a 
 number of electors less than the ratio at 
 the time, nor when the creation of such 
 new parish would leave any other parish 
 without the said extent of territory and 
 number of electors. In the year, and 
 every four years thereafter, an enumeration 
 of all the electors shall be made, in such 
 manner as shall be directed by law. The 
 number of representatives shall, in the 
 several years of making these enumerations, 
 or during the next succeeding session of 
 the general assembly, be so fixed, accor- 
 ding to the principles of this section, as not 
 to be less than eighty, nor more than one 
 hundred ; Provided, that the general as- 
 sembly shall be incompetent to pass any 
 laws after the enumeration until the appor- 
 tionment shall be made. Until the first 
 enumeration shall be made, as directed in 
 this section, the parish of Orleans shall be 
 entitled to twenty representatives, to be 
 elected as follows : eight by the first muni- 
 cipality ; eight by the second municipality ; 
 three by the third Municipality, and one 
 by that part of the parish on the right bank 
 of the Mississippi. 
 
 The Parish of Plaquemines, 2 
 " St. Bernard, 1 
 
 " Jefferson, 3 
 
 " ' St. Charles 1 
 " St. John the Baptist, 1 
 
 " St. James, 2 
 
 <s Ascension, 2 
 
 Assumption, 2 
 " Lafourche Interior, 2 
 
 . " Terrebonne, 2 
 
 Iberville, ' 2 
 
 West Baton Rouge, 1 
 " East " " 3 
 
 West Feliciana, 2 
 " East « 3 
 
 St. Helena, 1 
 " Livingston, 1 
 
 " Washington, 1 
 
 St, Tammany, 1 
 
 The Parish of Pointe Coupee, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Concordia, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Tensas, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Madison, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Carroll, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Franklin, 
 
 1 
 
 a * 
 
 St. Mary, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 St. Martin, 
 
 3 
 
 it 
 
 Vermillion, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Lafayette, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 St. Landry, 
 
 5 
 
 a 
 
 Calcasieu, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Avoyelles, 
 
 2 
 
 it 
 
 Rapides, 
 Natchitoches, 
 
 4 
 
 a 
 
 4 
 
 a 
 
 Sabine, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 Caddo, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 De Soto, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Ouachita, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Morehouse, 
 
 1 
 
 tt 
 
 Union, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Jackson, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Caldwell, 
 
 1 
 
 ii 
 
 Catahoula, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 Claiborne, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 Bossier, 
 
 1 
 
 Total, 97 
 
 On motion of Mr. Benjamin the motion 
 under consideration was laid on the table, 
 subject to call. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved that the Convention 
 take up the question just laid on the table 
 subject to call, and called for the yeas and 
 nays. 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Cade, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Garrett, 
 Humble, Hynson, Mc Gallop, McRae, 
 Mayo, Peets, Penn, Porche, Porter, RatlifF, 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison, Splane, Stephens, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wadsworth and Weder- 
 strandt voted in the affirmative — 28 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Burton, Cenas, Chinn, Clai- 
 borne, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King,Legendre, 
 Leonard, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman and Winder vo- 
 ted in the negative — 26 nays ; consequently 
 said motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin then submitted the fol- 
 lowing substitute, viz: Provided, that each 
 of the three municipalitie s of Negr Orleans 
 
110 
 
 Journal of t?w Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 be divided into two separate representative 
 districts to # be constituted as follows, viz : 
 
 All that'portion of the first municipality 
 situated above St. Peter street, and inclu- 
 ding the upper side of said street, shall form 
 the first representative district of the first 
 municipality, and the remainder of said 
 first municipality shall form the second 
 representative district of the first munici- 
 pality. All that portion of the second mu- 
 nicipality, situated above Delord street, 
 Cour des Tritons street and the New Or- 
 leans canal, including the upper sides of 
 said streets, shall form the first representa- 
 tive district of the second municipality, and 
 the remainder of said municipality shall 
 form the second representative district of 
 the second municipality. All that portion 
 of the third municipality, situated above 
 Champs Elysees street, and including the 
 upper side of said street, shall form the 
 first representative district of the third 
 municipality; and the remainder of said 
 municipality shall form the second repre- 
 sentative district of the third municipality. 
 
 Mr. Downs offered the following resolu- 
 tion, viz: 
 
 Resolved, That the substitute of Mr. 
 Taylor of Assumption be referred to a 
 committee composed of the delegates from 
 the city of New Orleans, with instructions 
 to report it back on Monday next, dividing 
 New Orleans, on the left bank of the river, 
 into ten representative districts. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies moved to amend said reso- 
 lution by inserting the following words, to- 
 wit: 
 
 "First municipality into three election 
 districts; second municipality into three 
 election districts; third municipality, two 
 election districts. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved for a division, that 
 is, the Convention first proceed to strike 
 out the word "ten;" which motion prevail- 
 ed, and the said word "ten" was then 
 stricken out. 
 
 The yeas and nays were then called for 
 on the amendment of Mr. Voorhies, which 
 resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Briant, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, 
 Garrett, Humble, Hynson, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Penn, Porche, 
 Porter, Pjftston, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, 
 Roselius, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Splane, Ste- 
 phens, Voorhies, Waddill and Weder- 
 strandt, voted in the affirmative — 36 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg,Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Lewis, 
 Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, Saunders, Sel- 
 lers, Wads worth and Winder, voted in the 
 negative — 23 nays; consequently said mo- 
 tion was carried.* 
 
 On motion of Mr. Voorhies, the reso- 
 lution, as amended, was adopted; and the 
 President appointed Mr. Marigny chair- 
 man of the said committee. 
 
 Mr. Sellers then moved that the Con- 
 vention adjourn till Monday next at 10 
 o'clock a. m.; and the yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Bouudosquie, Briant, Conrad of 
 New Orleans, Garcia, Kenner, Marigny, 
 Mazureau, Roman and Sellers voted for 
 the adjournment — 9 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Chinn, Conrad of Jefferson, Co- 
 villion, Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, King, Ledoux, Leonard, Lew- 
 is, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Penn, 
 Porter, Preston, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, 
 Read, Roselius, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, 
 Splane, Stephens, Voorhies, Waddill, 
 Wederstrandt and Winder voted against 
 the adjournment — 48 nays; consequently 
 the same was lost. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to amend the amend- 
 ment of Mr. Downs by striking out the 
 
 words " in the year , and every four 
 
 years thereafter, an enumeration of all the 
 electors shall be made, in such manner as 
 shall be directed by law. The number of 
 representatives shall, in the several years 
 of making these enumerations, or during 
 the next succeeding session of the general 
 assembly, be so fixed according to the prin- 
 ciples of this section, as not to be less than 
 eighty, nor more than one hundred ; Pro- 
 vided, that the general assembly shall be 
 incompetent to pass any laws after the enu- 
 meration until the apportionment shall be 
 made," and insert in lieu thereof — 
 
 Sec. — . In the year , and every 
 
 tenth year thereafter, a census shall be 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Ill 
 
 made of the population of this State, in such 
 manner as shall be prescribed by law, for 
 the purpose of ascertaining 4he number of 
 the qualified electors in each parish. 
 
 Sec. — . At the first regular session of 
 the legislature after the making of each 
 census, the legislature shall apportion the 
 representation amongst the several parishes 
 on the basis of the qualified electors as 
 aforesaid, and in the manner following, to 
 wit : some number shall be chosen as a re- 
 presentative number, which, when applied 
 in making the apportionment, shall give a 
 number of representatives not less than 
 seventy, nor more than one hundred ; the 
 number so chosen shall be taken as a divi- 
 sor, and each parish shall be entitled to 
 one representative for every time this divi- 
 sor shall be found in the dividend formed of 
 its representative population, and to one 
 additional member for every fraction ex- 
 ceeding the one half of the divisor — and 
 any parish having a number of qualified 
 electors less than the whole divisor, but ex- 
 ceeding one half of it, shall be entitled "to 
 one representative, and the legislature shall 
 be incompetent to act on any other subject 
 matter until the apportionment directed by 
 this article shall have been made. 
 
 Which amendment was adopted. 
 
 On motion of Mr, Lewis the amendment 
 of Mr. Downs was amended by striking 
 out four hundred mi'.o.-., and inserting in lieu 
 thereof six hundred and twenty-five. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to amend by strik- 
 ing out the words " that each parish shall 
 have at least one representative." The 
 yeas and nays being called for — 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Lewis, 
 Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, Rose- 
 lius, Saunders, Soule, WadsWorth and Win- 
 der voted in the affirmative — 24 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 Downs, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, 
 Leonard, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, 
 ; Porche, Porter, Prudhomme, Read, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Voor- 
 hies, Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in 
 the negative — 31 nays ; consequently said 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to refer to a com- 
 
 mittee composed ot one member from each 
 congressional district, the latter part of the 
 amendment of Mr. Downs, fixing the num- 
 ber of representatives to each parish, and, 
 pending the discussion on said motion, 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved that the Convention 
 adjourn till Monday next, at 10 o'clock, A.- 
 M. The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Chambliss, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Dunn, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Leonard, Lewis, 
 McCallop, Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh, Ro- 
 man, Roselius, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Madison, Waddill, Wadsworth, and 
 Winder voted in favor of the adjournment 
 — 30 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Downs, Humble, Hynson, Mc- 
 Rae, Mayo, Peets, Porche, Porter, Prud- 
 homme, Read, Saunders, Scott of Felici- 
 ana, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Voorhies, 
 and Wederstrandt voted against the adjourn- 
 ment — 22 nays; consequently the same was 
 carried. 
 
 Note — Members absent, Messrs. Brum- 
 field, O'Bryan, Prescott of St. Landry, and 
 Taylor of St. Landry, absent on leave — - 
 Messrs. Trist, and Prescott of Avoyelles 
 absent on account of illness. Aubert, La- 
 bauve, St. Amand, Taylor of Assumption, 
 and Winchester, did not appear in their 
 seats. 
 
 Monday, March 17, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Clare opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer. 
 
 On motion leave o£ absence was granted 
 to Mr. Penn, on account of illness in his 
 family. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Splane, it is ordered 
 that arrangements be made for the recep- 
 tion of ladies. 
 
 The Secretary reported that Mr. Ker, 
 the reporter of the debates in English had 
 furnished the printers' receipt for the re- 
 ports of the 28th February? 4th, 6th and 
 11th of March. 
 
 Mr. Cenas, a member of the committee 
 to whom was referred the division of the 
 city of New Orleans into eight represent 
 tative districts j^ibmitted the following re- 
 port, viz : . 
 
112 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 The committee composed of the delega- 
 tion of New Orleans, to whom was referred 
 the project of the division of the city of New 
 Orleans fctf the choice of representatives 
 to the house of representatives, into eight 
 districts, report — 
 
 That the division of the three municipal- 
 ities into eight districts is inconvenient and 
 difficult to be carried into effect, so as to 
 secure a just and equal representation, and 
 it is therefore recommended that the num- 
 ber of districts be reduced to six, each mu- 
 nicipality being divided into two election 
 districts. # 
 
 The following division, although far 
 from being satisfactory to the committee, is 
 the only one, dividing the city into eight 
 districts, upon which they have been able 
 to agree, viz : 
 
 1st. First district — To extend from the 
 line of the parish of Jefferson to the mid- 
 dle of Benjamin, Estelle and Thalia streets. 
 
 2d. Second district — To extend from the 
 last mentioned limits to the middle of Julia 
 street, until it strikes the New Orleans ca- 
 nal, and thence down said canal to the 
 lake. 
 
 3d. Third district— -To comprise the res- 
 idue of the second municipality. 
 
 4th. Fourth district — To extend from the 
 middle of Canal street to the middle of St. 
 Louis street, until it shall reach the Metai- 
 rie road, thence along said road to the 
 New Orleans canal. 
 
 5th. Fifth district — To extend from the 
 last mentioned limits to the middle of St. 
 Philip street, thence down said street un- 
 til its intersection with the Bayou St. John, 
 thence along the middle of said Bayou un- 
 til it intersects the Metairie road, thence 
 along said road until.it reaches St. Louis 
 street. 
 
 6th. Sixth district — To be composed of 
 the residue of the first municipality. 
 
 7th. Seventh district — To be composed 
 of all that portion of the third municipality 
 above the Ponchartrain rail road. 
 
 8th. Eighth district-^To be composed of 
 all that part of the third municipality below 
 the Ponchartraili rail road. 
 
 Mr. Cenas moved that the report be laid 
 on the table, subject to call ; which mo.tion 
 was lost.- 
 
 Mr. Voorhies moved that the report be 
 taken into consideration the section 
 relative thereto ; which motion was adopted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Brent, that part o. 
 the report dividing the city intof eight repre 
 sentative distficts was adopted — and the 
 balance of said report laid on the table in- 
 definitely. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 The substitute offered by Mr. Downs to 
 the project of Mr. Benjamin, and amended 
 by Mr. Beatty, viz : 
 
 Representation shall be equal and uni- 
 form in this State, and shall forever be re- 
 gulated and ascertained by the number of 
 qualified electors therein : and that etch 
 parish shall have at least one representa- 
 tive; and provided further, that no new parish 
 shall be created with a territory less than 
 six hundred and twenty-five square miles, 
 nor with a number of electors less than the 
 ratio at the time, nor when the creation of 
 such parish would leave any other parish 
 without the said extent of territory and 
 number of electors. 
 
 In the year — — , and every tenth year 
 thereafter, a census shall be made of the 
 population of the State, in such manner 
 as shall be prescribed by law, for the pur- 
 pose of ascertaining the number of qualified 
 voters in each parish. 
 
 At the first regular session of the legis- 
 lature, after the making of each census, 
 the legislature shall apportion the repre- 
 sentation among the several parishes on the 
 basis of the qualified voters as aforesaid, and 
 in the manner following, viz; Some number 
 shall be chosen as a representative number, 
 which, when applied in making the appor- 
 ment, shall give a number of representa- 
 tives not less than seventy, nor more than 
 one hundred; the number so chosen sh: 
 be taken as a devisor, and each parish sha" 
 be entitled to one representative for every 
 time this devisor shall be found in the 
 dividend formed of its representative popula- 
 tion, and to one additional member for eve- 
 ry fraction exceeding the one half of the divi- 
 sor; and any parish having a number of 
 qualified voters less than the whole divisor, 
 but exceeding one half of it, shall be enti- 
 tled to one representative; and the legisla- 
 ture shall be incompetent to act on any 
 subject matter till the apportionment direct- 
 ed by this article shall have been made. 
 
 That part of the parish of Orleans situa- 
 ted on the left bank of the Mississippi river, 
 shall be divided into eight districts, as fol- 
 lows, viz : 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 113 
 
 1st. First district— To extend from the 
 line of the parish of Jefferson to the mid- 
 die of Benjamin. Estelle and Thalia streets. 
 
 2d. Second district — To extend from the 
 last mentioned limits to the_ middle of Julia 
 street, until it strikes the New Orleans ca- 
 nal, thence down said canal to the lake. 
 
 3d. Third district- — To comprise the re- 
 sidue of the second municipality. 
 
 4th. Fourth district — To extend from the 
 middle of Canal -street -to the middle of St. 
 Louis street, until it shall reach the Metairie 
 road, thence along said road to the New 
 Orleans canal. 
 
 - 5th. Filth district — To extend from the 
 last mentioned limits to the middle of Sr. 
 Philip street, thence down said street until 
 its intersection with the Bayou St. John, 
 thence along the middle of said Bayou St. 
 John until it intersects the Metairie road, 
 thence along said road until it reaches St. 
 Louis street. 
 
 6th. Sixth district— To be composed of 
 the residue of the first municipality. 
 
 7th. Seventh district— To be composed 
 of all that portion of the third municipality 
 above the Ponchartrain rail road. 
 
 8th. Eighth district — To be composed of 
 all that part of the third municipality below 
 the Ponchartrain rail road. 
 
 Until the first enumeration shall be made, 
 as directed in this section, the parish of Or- 
 leans shall be entitled to twenty represen- 
 tatives, to be elected as follows : Eight by 
 the first municipality ; eight by the second 
 municipality ; three by the third municipal- 
 ity, and one by that part of the parish on 
 the right bank of the Mississippi. 
 The Parish of Plaquemines, 2 
 " St. Bernard, 1 
 " Jefferson. 3 
 St. Charles, 1 
 " St. John the Baptist, 1 
 * " - St. James, 2 
 " -Ascension, 2 
 u Assumption, 2 
 " Lafourche Interior, 2 
 " Terrebonne. 2 
 Iberville, 2 
 " - West, Baton Rouge. 1 
 " East I* 3 
 
 " West Feliciana. 2 
 " East " 3 
 " St. Helena, 1 
 " ~ Livingston, 1 
 " Washington, 1 
 13 
 
 "St. Tammany, 
 
 1 
 
 Point Coupee, 
 
 1 
 
 Concordia. 
 
 
 Tensas, 
 
 1 
 
 Madrson, 
 
 1 
 
 Carroll, 
 
 1 
 
 Franklin, 
 
 1 
 
 St. Mary, 
 
 ■ 2 
 
 St. Martin; 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 Vermillion, 
 
 1 
 
 Lafayette, 
 
 2 
 
 St. Landrf, 
 
 5 
 
 Calcasieu, 
 
 1 
 
 Avoyelles, 
 
 2 
 
 Rapides, 
 
 i 
 
 Natchitoches, 
 
 4 
 
 Sabine, 
 
 2 
 
 Caddo, 
 
 1 
 
 De Soto, 
 
 1 
 
 Ouachita 
 
 1 
 
 Morehouse, 
 
 1 
 
 LTnion, 
 
 1 
 
 Jackson, 
 
 1 
 
 Caldwell; 
 
 1 
 
 Catahoula, 
 
 2 
 
 Claiborne, 
 
 2 
 
 Eossier, 
 
 1 
 
 - Total, 97 
 Mr. Mayo moved to reconsider the vote 
 given on the adoption of the following 
 amendment offered byTMEr. Beatty, viz: 
 
 Sec. 10. In the year , and every 
 
 tenth year thereafter, a census shall be 
 made of the population' of this State, in such 
 manner as shall be prescribed by law, for 
 the purpose of ascertaining the number of 
 qualified electors in each parish. 
 
 Sec. 11. At the first regular session of 
 the legislature, after the making of each 
 census, the legislature shall apportion the 
 representation amongst the several parish- 
 es on the basis of the qualified electors as 
 aforesaid, and in the manner following, to 
 | wit : some number shall be chosen as a 
 representative number, which, when appli- 
 ed in making the apportionment, shall give 
 a number of representatives not less than 
 seventy nor more than one hundred : the 
 number so chosen shall be taken as a di- 
 visor, and each parish shall be entitled to 
 one representative for every time this divi- 
 sor shall be found in the dividend formed 
 of its representative population, and to one 
 additional niember for every fraction ex- 
 ceeding the one half of the divisor — and 
 
114 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 any parish having a number of qualified 
 voters less than the whole divisor, but ex- 
 ceeding one half of it, shall be entitled to 
 one representative, and the legislature shall 
 be incompetent to act on any other subject 
 matter until the apportionment directed by 
 this article shall have been made. 
 The yeas and nays being asked for — 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriers, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, 
 Humble, Hynson, 31c Gallop, McRae, Mayo, 
 Peets, Porche, Porter, Prudhomme, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Splane, Voorhies, Wad- 
 dill, Wadswortli, and Wederstrandt, voted 
 in the affirmative — 26 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Auhert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- 
 berison, Derbes, Dunn, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, King, Ledoux, Lewis, Marigny, 
 Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, Saunders, Sel- 
 lers, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Win- 
 chester, and Winder, voted in the negative 
 — 28 nays ; consequently the motion was 
 lost. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to refer to a special 
 committee composed of one member from 
 each congressional district, that part of the 
 section fixing the number of representa- 
 tives to each parish, and the y.eas and nays 
 being called for- — 
 
 Messrs. Auberi, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Briant, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Legendre, Lewis, Ma- 
 rigny, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, 
 St. Amand, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, 
 Wadsworth, Winchester, and Winder, vo- 
 ted in the affirmative — 25 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, 
 Dunn, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, King, 
 Ledoux, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, 
 Porche, Porter, Prudhomme, Read, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Fe- 
 liciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Splane, 
 Voorhies, Waddill and Wederstrandt, voted 
 in the negative — 30 nays ; the motion was 
 lost. 
 
 The apportionment of the city of New 
 Orleans was suspended for the considera- 
 tion of the Orleans delegation. 
 
 Mr. Brent then moved for the adoption 
 of that part of the section fixing 'the repre- 
 sentation of each parish. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved fox a division, 
 that is,* the Convention acton the represen- 
 tation of each parish separately - which mo- 
 tion prevailed. 
 
 The Convention then called the parishes i 
 as follows, viz: 
 
 The Parish of Plaque mine shall be en- 
 titled to two representatives, adopted, 
 The Parish of St. Bernard, one, " 1 
 " Jefferson, three, " 3 
 " St. Charles, one, " 1 
 " St John Baptist one," 1 
 " St. James, two, " 2 
 " Ascension, two, " 2 
 " Assumption, two, " 2 
 
 The parish of Lafourche Interior shall 
 be entitled to two representatives. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to amend by insert- 
 ing " three," instead of "two ;" and called 
 for the yeas and nays. 
 
 Messrs. Auhert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Briant, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, , 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 King, Legendre, Lewis, McCallop, Marig- 
 ny, Mazuraeu, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, Si. 
 Amand, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Wadsworth, 
 Winchester, and Winder voted in the affir- \ 
 motive — 32 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, 
 Humble, Hynson, Ledeaux, McRae, Mayo, 
 Peets, Porslie, Porter, Prudhomme, Read, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sel- 
 lers, Splane, Stephens, Voorhies, Waddill, 
 and Wederstrandt, voted in the negative 
 — 26 nays ; the motion was carried. 
 
 The section as amended was adopted, 
 viz : "the parish of Lafourche interior shall 
 be entitled to three representatives." 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth moved for the re-con- 
 sideration of the vote given on the adoption 
 of the representation of the Parish of Pla- 
 quemines, and called for the yeas and nays, 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Briant, 
 Carriere, Claiborne, Conrad of New Or- 
 leans, Cidbertson, Derbes, Eustis, Guion, 
 Ledoux, Legendre, Leonard, Marigny, 
 Porche, Pugh, St. Amand, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Trist, Waddill, Wadsworth and 
 Winchester voted in the affirmative— 23 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale, Brent, Bur - 
 ton, Cade, Chambliss,, Conrad of Jefferson. 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 115 
 
 CovUlion, Downs,Dunn, Garrett. Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, King, Lewis, McCallop, 
 McRae, Mayo, Mazureau, Peels, Porter, 
 Prudhomme, Read. Roman, Roselius, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Splane, 
 Stephens, Voorhies, and Wederstrandt vo- 
 ted in the negative — 38 nays; said motion 
 was therefore lost. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption moved for the 
 re-consideration of the vote giving two re- 
 presentatives to the parish of Assumption. 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Guion, Ledoux, Legendre, Leonard, 
 Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Trist, Wadsworth, Winchester and Winder 
 voted in the affirmative — 27 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, CovUlion, Downs, 
 Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, King. 
 Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, 
 Porche, Porter, Prudhomme, Read, Rose- 
 lius, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Stephens, 
 Voorhies, WaddHj^Liid Wederstrandt voted 
 n the negative — 31 nays; consequently 
 ;aid motion was lost. 
 
 On motion, the representation of the 
 tarish of Terrebonne was fixed at two 
 epresentatives; the parish of Iberville fixed 
 t two representatives; and the parish of 
 Vest Baton Rouge fixed at one represen- 
 itive. 
 
 On the motion to fix the representation 
 f the Parish of East Baton Rouge at three 
 ^preventatives, 
 
 Mr. Winchester moved to insert "two" 
 istead of "three" representatives. The 
 eas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Legendre, Leonard, Mazureau, Roman, 
 't. Amand, Sellers and Winchester voted 
 i the affirmative — 9 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bra- 
 ealc, Brent, Briant, Burton, Cade, Car- 
 iere, Cenas, Chambliss, Claiborne, Con- 
 \d of New Orleans, Covillian, Culbertson, 
 hrbes, Downs, Dunn, Garrett, Guion, 
 Tumble, Hynson, King, Ledoux, Lewis, 
 TcCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, 
 'orche, Porter. Prudhomme, Pugh, Read, 
 ioseliusy Saunders, Sroft of Baton Rouge, 
 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, 
 
 \ Splane, Stephens, Taylor of . Assumption, 
 I Trist,Voorhies.Waddill, Wadsworth, Wed- 
 erstrandt and Winder voted in the nega- 
 tive— 49 nays ; consequently the motion 
 was lost, and the representation of said par- 
 ish of East Baton Rouge was fixed at three 
 representatives. 
 
 On motion the representation of the par- 
 ish of West Feliciana was fixed at two 
 representatives. 
 
 On motion the representation of the par- 
 ish of East Feliciana was fixed at three re- 
 presentatives. 
 
 On motion the representation of the par- 
 ish of St. Helena was fixed at one repre- 
 sentative. 
 
 The parish of Livingston to be entitled 
 to one representative. 
 
 Mr. McRae moved to amend ^he repre- 
 sentation of the Parish of Livingston, by 
 inserting "two" instead of "one" represen- 
 tative. The veas and navs being called 
 for, 
 
 Messrs. Dunn, Garrett, Hudspeth-, Mc- 
 Rae, Porche and Saunders voted in the af- 
 firmative— 6 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, 
 Guion, Humble, Hynson, King, Ledoux, 
 Legendre, Leonard, Lewis McCallop, Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Poi'ter 
 Prudhomme. Pugh.Read, Roman, Roselius, 
 St. Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wadsworth, Wedlr- 
 strandt, Winchester and Winder voted in 
 the negative — 53 nays; consequently the* 
 motion was lost, and the representation of 
 the parish of Livingston, was fixed at one- 
 representative. 0 
 
 On motion the representation of the pa- 
 rish of Washington was fixed at one repre- 
 sentative. 
 
 On motion the representation of the pa- 
 rish of St. Tammany was fixed at one re- 
 ' presentative. 
 
 The representation of the parish of Point 
 i Coapee, fixing the same at one representa- 
 tive. 
 
 Mr. Ledoux moved to amend the same 
 I by inserting "two," instead of "one" rfepfe- 
 
116 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 sentative. The yeas-' and nays being called 
 for, 
 
 Messrs. Dunn, Giiion, Ledoux, Legendre, 
 Marigny, Porche, Pugh, Saunders, Taylor 
 of Assumption, and Wederstrandt voted in 
 favor of said motion — 10 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubcrt, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, 
 Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson,King, 
 Leonard, Lewis, McCaUop, McRae, Mayo, 
 Mazureaii, Peets, Prudhomme, Read, Ro- 
 man, Roselius, St. Amand, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, 
 Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Trist, Vaorhie9, 
 Waddill, Winchester and Wind&r voted 
 against the motion — 47 nays; consequently 
 the same was lost, and the representation of 
 the said parish of Point Coupee was fixed 
 at one representative. 
 
 On motion, the representation of the pa- 
 rish of Concordia was fixed at one repre- 
 sentative. 
 
 On motion, the representation of the pa- 
 rish of Tensas was fixed at- one representa- 
 tive. 
 
 On motion, the representation of the pa- 
 rish of Madison was fixed at one represen- 
 tative. 
 
 On motion, the representation of the pa- 
 rish of Carroll was fixed at one representa- 
 tive. 
 
 On motion, the representation of the pa- 
 rish of Franklin was fixed at one represen- 
 tative. 
 
 On motion, the representation of the pa- 
 rish of St. Mary was fixed at two repre- 
 sentatives. 
 
 On motion, the representation of the pa- 
 rish of St. Martin was fixed at three repre- 
 sentatives. 
 
 On motion, the representation of the pa- 
 rish of Yermillipn was fixed at one repre- 
 sentative. 
 
 On motion, the representation of the pa- 
 rish of Lafayette was fixed at two repre- 
 sentatives. 
 
 On motion, the representation of the pa- 
 rish of St. Landry was fixed at five repre- 
 sentatives. 
 
 On motion, the representation of the pa- 
 rish of Calcasieu was fixed at one represen- 
 tative. 
 
 On motion, the representation of the pa- 
 
 rish of Avoyelles was fixed at two repre- 
 sentatives. 
 
 The representation of the parish of Ra- 
 pides, fixing it at four representatives, being 
 taken up, 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, moved to 
 amend the same by inserting "three," in- 
 stead of "four" representatives. The yeas 
 and nays being called for, . 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Briant, Carriere, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Dunn, Garrett, Guion^ 
 Hudspeth, King, Ledoux, Legendre, Leon- 
 ard, Lewis, McCallopi Marigny, Mazureau, 
 Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saun- 
 ders, Sellers, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, 
 Wadsworth, Winchester and Winder voted 
 in the affirmative-<*-35 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porche, Porter, 
 Prudhomme, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Splane, 
 Stephens,, Voorhies, Waddill and Weder- 
 slrandt voted in the negative — 24 nays; the 
 motion was carried, and tlie representation 
 of said parish of Rapides was fixed at three 
 representatives. 0 
 
 The representation of the parish of 
 Natchitoches, fixing it at four representa- 
 tives", being taken up, 
 
 Mr. Guion moved to amend the same by 
 inserting "three, "instead of "four" represen- 
 tatives. The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin,Bourg, 
 Briant, Carriere, Cenas, Claiborne, Com ad 
 of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Garrett, Gui 
 Hudspeth, King, Ledoux, Legendre, Leo' 
 ard, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh, 
 Roman,* Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, 
 Sellers, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Win- 
 chester ' and Winder voted in the. affirma- 
 tive— -23 yeas; and \ 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent j Burton, Cade, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Humble,Hyn- 
 son, Mayo, McCallop, McRae, Peets, P or die, 
 Porter, Prudhomme, Redd, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, 
 Splane, Stephens, Voorhies, Waddill,Wads- 
 worth and Wederstrandt voted in the nega- 
 tive — 28 nays; consequently the motion 
 was carried, and the representation of the 
 aforesaid parish of Natchitoches was fixed 
 at three representatives. 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 11? 
 
 Mr. Brent gave notice that he would on 
 to-morrow, move to re-consider the vote 
 given on the adoption of the representation 
 of the parish of St. Landry, 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned till 
 to-morrow at 10 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note, -^Members absent: Messrs. Brum- 
 field, O 'Bryan, Prescott of St. Landry, Tay- 
 lor of St. Landry, and Wikoff, absent on 
 leave. Messrs. Penn and Prescott of Avoy- 
 elles, absent on account of illness; and 
 Messrs. Boudousquie,Chinn, Garcia, Grymes, 
 Kenner, Labauve, Preston, and Soule did 
 not appear in their seats. 
 
 Tuesday, Mar,ch 18, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Beatty opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 The secretary reported the receipt of the 
 printers from Mr. Kerr, for the debates of 
 the Convention, to the 13th instant. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies submitted the following 
 resolution, viz : 
 
 Resolved, The right of suffrage shall not 
 be exercised by any person of unsound 
 mind, or who shall be a pauper, or a non- 
 commissioned officer, soldier, seaman or 
 marine in the service of the United States, 
 or by any person convicted of a crime 
 deemed by law felony; which resolution 
 was ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. Read submitted the following reso- 
 lutions, viz : 
 
 Resolved, That the printers of the Eng- 
 lish reports of the proceedings of the Con- 
 vention be directed to publish said proceed- 
 ings in the Jeffersonian Republican daily, 
 or otherwise, as shall best enable them to 
 bring up the debates, and continue their 
 publication the days succeeding those in 
 which the reports are furnished them. 
 
 Resolved*, That the committee on con- 
 tingent expenses be instructed to allow said 
 printers such sums as in their estimation 
 will cover the additional expense incurred. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved for a division — that 
 is-, the Convention act on each resolution 
 separately; which motion prevailed. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the adoption of the first resolution, resulted 
 as follows, (Mr. Saundersvin the chair:) 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale, Brent, Car- 
 riere, Cenas, Domns, Dunn, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Ledoux, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, 
 
 Mayo, Peeis, Porter, Prudhomme, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Splane, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Waddill and Wedersirandt voted 
 in the affirmative — 25 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Briant, 
 Burton, Chambliss, Cade, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Co- 
 villion, Culbertson,Derbes, Garrett, Grymes, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Porche, Pugh, 
 Roman, St. Amand, Sellers, Stephens, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Wadsworth and Winchester voted 
 in the .negative — 33 nays; the motion was 
 therefore lost. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Keener, the second 
 resolution was rejected. 
 
 Mr. Garrett submitted the following 
 resolution, viz : 
 
 Resolved, That permission be given Mr. 
 Hardinge to deliver lectures in this hall, on 
 to-morrow evening. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Wadsworth, said 
 resolution was laid on the table indefi- 
 nitelv. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 Mr. Downs' substitute to the project of 
 Mr. Benjamin, and amended by Mr." Beat- 
 ty, viz : 
 
 Representation shall be equal and uni- 
 form in this State, and shall forever be re- 
 gulated and ascertained by the number of 
 qualified electors therein : and that each 
 parish shall have at least one representa- 
 tive; ^Xid provided further, that no new parish 
 shall be created with a territory less than 
 six hundred and twenty -five square miles, 
 nor with a number of electors less than the 
 ratio at the time, nor when the creation of 
 such parish would leave any other parish 
 without the said extent of territory and 
 number of electors. 
 
 In the year , and every tenth year 
 
 thereafter, a census shall be made of the 
 population of this State, in such manner 
 as shall be prescribed by law, for the pur- 
 pose of ascertaining the number of qualified 
 voters in each parish. 
 
 At the first regular session of the legis- 
 lature, after the making of each census, 
 the legislature shall apportion the represen- 
 tation amongst the several parishes on the 
 basis of the qualified voters as aforesaid, and 
 in the manner following, viz; Some number 
 shall be chosen as a representative number, 
 which, when applied in making the appor- 
 
118 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 tionment, shall give a number of represen- 
 tatives not less than seventy, nor more than 
 one hundred; the number so chosen shall 
 be taken as a divisor, and each parish shall 
 be entitled to one representative for every 
 time this divisor shall be found in the 
 dividend formed of its representative popula- 
 tion, and to one additional member for eve- 
 ry fraction exceeding the one-half of the divi- 
 sor; and any parish having a number of 
 qualified voters less than the whole divisor, 
 but exceeding one-half of it, shall be enti- 
 tled to .'one representative; and the legisla- 
 ture shall be incompetent to act on any 
 other subject matter till the apportionment 
 directed by this article shall have been 
 made. 
 
 That part of the parish of Orleans situa- 
 ted on the left bank of the Mississippi river, 
 shall be divided into eight representative 
 districts, as follows, viz : 
 
 1st. First district — To extend from the 
 line of the parish of Jefferson to the mid- 
 dle of Benjamin, Estelle and Thalia streets. 
 
 2d. Second district — To extend from the 
 last mentioned limits to the middle of Julia 
 street, until it strikes the New Orleans ca- 
 nal, and thence down said canal to the lake. 
 
 3d. Third district To comprise the 
 
 residue of the second municipality. 
 
 4th. Fourth district — -To extend from the 
 middle of Canal street to the middle of St. 
 Louis street, until it shall reach the Metai- 
 rie road, thence along said road to the 
 New Orleans canal. 
 
 5th. Fifth district — To extend from the 
 last mentioned limits to the middle of St. 
 Philip street, thence down said street un- 
 til its intersection with the Bayou St. John, 
 thence along the middle of said Bayou un- 
 til it intersects the Metairie road, thence 
 along said road until it reaches St. Louis 
 street. 
 
 6th. Sixth district — To be composed of 
 the residue of the first municipality. 
 
 7th. Seventh district — To be composed 
 of all that portion of the third municipality 
 above the Pontchartrain rail road. 
 
 8th. Eighth district — To be composed of 
 all that part of the third municipality below 
 the Pontchartrain rail road. 
 
 Until the first enumeration shall be made 
 as directed in this section, the parish of 
 Orleans shall be entitled to twenty repre- 
 sentatives, to be elected as follows: eight 
 by the first municipality, eight by the se- 
 
 cond municipality, three by the third muni- 
 pality, and one by that part of the parish on 
 the right bank of the Mississippi. 
 
 The parish of Plaquemines, 2 
 
 
 St. Bernard, l 
 
 a 
 
 Jefferson, 3 
 
 
 St. John the Baptist, i 
 
 ti 
 
 St. James, 2 
 
 i 4 
 
 Ascension, 2 
 
 it 
 
 Assumption, 2 
 
 a 
 
 Lafourche Interior, 3 
 
 
 ierre bonne, 2 
 
 
 ti 'li „ a 
 
 Iberville, 2 
 
 it 
 
 West Baton Rouge, 1 
 
 tt 
 
 East, do 8 
 West Feliciana, 2 
 
 it 
 
 ti 
 
 East, do 3 
 
 a 
 
 St. Helena, 1 
 
 
 Livingston, 1 
 
 a 
 
 Washington, 1 
 
 ti 
 
 St. Tammany, 1 
 
 it 
 
 Point Coupee, 1 
 
 ti 
 
 Concordia, 1 
 
 it 
 
 Tensas, 1 
 
 it 
 
 Madison, 1 
 
 it 
 
 Carroll, 1 
 
 It 
 
 Franklin, 1 
 
 a 
 
 St. Mary, 2 
 
 a 
 
 St. Martin, 3 
 
 it 
 
 Vermillion, 1 
 
 tt 
 
 Lafayette, 2 
 
 a 
 
 St. Landry, 5 
 
 ti 
 
 Calcasieu, 1 
 
 it 
 
 Avoyelles, 2 
 
 it 
 
 Rapides, 3 
 
 ti 
 
 Natchitoches, 3 
 
 it 
 
 Sabine, 2 
 
 a 
 
 Caddo, 1 
 
 u 
 
 De Soto, . 1 
 
 a 
 
 Ouachita, 1 
 
 a 
 
 Morehouse, 1 
 
 a 
 
 Union, 1 
 
 it 
 
 Jackson, 1 
 
 a 
 
 Caldwell, 1 
 
 u 
 
 Catahoula, 2 
 
 a 
 
 Claiborne, 2 
 
 a 
 
 Bossier, 1 
 
 Total, 97 
 The Convention, at .the adjournment on 
 yesterday, had under consideration the ap- 
 portionment of representation of the follow- 
 ing parishes as follows, viz: 
 The parish of Sabine, 2 
 " Caddo, 1 
 De Soto, 1 
 
Journal of the Contention of Louisiana. 
 
 119 
 
 Parish of Ouachita, 
 " Morehouse, 
 " Union, 
 " Jackson, 
 Caldwell, 
 Catahoula, 
 Claiborne, 
 " Bossier. 
 
 On motion, the representation of the pa- 
 rish of Sabine was fixed at two representa- 
 tives. 
 
 On motion, the representation of the pa- 
 rish of Caddo was fixed at one representa- 
 tive. 
 
 On motion, the representation of the pa- 
 rish of De Soto was fixed at one represen- 
 tative. 
 
 On motion, the. representation of the pa- 
 rish of Ouachita was fixed at one represen- 
 tative. 
 
 On motion, the representation of the pa- 
 rish of Morehouse was fixed at one repre- 
 sentative. 
 
 On the motion to fix the representation of 
 the parish of Union at one representative, 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved to amend the same 
 by inserting "two" instead of "one," and 
 called for the yeas and nays. (Mr. Saun- 
 ders in the chair.) 
 
 Messrs. Downs, Garrett, Humble and , 
 McCalhp, voted in the affirmative — 4 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin,Bourg, 
 Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Burton, Cade, 
 'Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Cotillion, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Garcia, Guion, Hudspeth, Hynson, Kenner, 
 King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, 
 McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, 
 Porche, Porter, Prudhomme, Pugh, Read, 
 Roman, St. Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sel- 
 ] ers, Splane, Stephen^, Taylor of As sump - 
 :ion, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Wadsworth, 
 Wederstrandt and Winchester voted in the 
 legative — 54 nays: consequently the mo- 
 ion was lost, and the representation of the 
 ?aid parish of Union was fixed at one re- 
 ire sentative. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Voorhies the vote giv- 
 m on yesterday on the reconsideration of 
 he representation of the parish of Plaque- 
 nines was reconsidered. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies then moved to amend said 
 •epresentation by inserting "three" instead 
 
 of "two" representatives, and the yeas and 
 nays being called for, (Mr. Saunders in the 
 chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Burton, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Doicns, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Leonard, 
 Me Gallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, 
 Porche, Porter, Prudhomme, Pugh, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Splane, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Wads, 
 vtsorth and Wederstrandt voted in the affir- 
 mative — 33 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin,Bourg, 
 Cade, Cenas Claiborne, Conrad of New 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Dunn,Garcia, 
 Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Leicis, Mazureau, Ro- 
 man* St. Amand, Sellers, Stephens and Win- 
 chester voted in the negative— 25 nays; 
 the said motion was adopted, and the repre- 
 sentation of the parish of Plaquemines was 
 fixed at three representatives. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to reconsider the vote 
 given on yesterday on the representation 
 of the parishes of Rapides, Natchitoches 
 and Assumption. 
 
 Mr. Keisner moved for a division — that 
 is, the reconsideration of each parish be 
 acted on separately, which motion pre- 
 vailed. 
 
 Mr. Brazeale then moved for the re- 
 consideration of the parish of Natchitoches, 
 and the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Cotillion, Downs, 
 Humble, Hynson, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, 
 Peets, Porche, Porter, Prudhomme, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Splane, Stephens, Voor- 
 hies, Waddill, Wadsworth and Weder- 
 strandt voted in the affirmative — 27 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty,Benjamin,Bourg, 
 Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of New 
 Orleans, Conrad *of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, Leicis, Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh, Ro- 
 man-. St. Amand, Saunders, Sellers, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Winchester and Winder 
 voted in the negative — 31 nays ; conse- 
 quently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to reconsider the vote 
 on the representation of Rapides, and cal- 
 led for the yeas and nays. 
 
120 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, 
 Humble, Hynson, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, 
 Peets, Porche, Porter, Prudhomme, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Splane, Stephens, Voor- 
 hies, Waddill, Wadsworth and Weder- 
 strandt, voted in the affirmative — 27 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Briant, Genas, Claiborne, Conrad of New 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jeflerson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, Lewis, Mafigny, Mazureau, Pugh, Ro- 
 man, St. Amand, Saunders, Sellers, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Winchester and Winder 
 voted in the negative — 31 nays; consequent- 
 ly the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, then moved 
 to reconsider the vote on the representation 
 of the parish of Assumption, and the yeas 
 and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Briant, Carriere, Cenas, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of New Orleans, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Garcia, Guion, Kenner, Labauve*, 
 Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, McCallop, Ma- 
 rigny, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Splane, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the affir- 
 mative — 32 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, -Burton, Cade, 
 Chambliss, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, 
 Downs, Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, King, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porche, 
 Porter, Prudhomme, Read, Saunders, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Ste- 
 phens, Voorhies, and Waddill, voted in the 
 negative — 27 nays; consequently the mo- 
 tion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, moved to 
 amend by inserting "three" instead of 
 " two," and the yeas and nays being called 
 for, 
 
 Messrs.Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of New 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, Guion, Kenner, La- 
 bauve, Ledeaux, Legendre, Lewis, McCal- 
 lop, Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman Ro- 
 selius, St. Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge- 
 Taylor of Assumption, Wadsworth, Win, 
 Chester and Winder voted in the affirmative 
 —31 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, 
 Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, King, 
 McRae, Mayo, . Peets, Porche, Porter, 
 Prudhomme, Read, Saunders, Scott of Fe- 
 liciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Splane, 
 Stephens, Voorhies, Waddill and Weder- 
 strandt voted in the negative — 28 nays; 
 consequently said motion was carried, and 
 the representation of the parish of Assump- 
 tion was fixed at three representatives. 
 
 Mr. Humble moved to reconsider the 
 vote given on the adoption of the represen- 
 tation of the parish of St. Landry, and the 
 yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cham- 
 bliss, Covillion, Downs, Humble, Hynson, 
 McCallop, McRae, Mayo, Porche, Porter, 
 Prudhomme, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Madison, and Splane voted in the affirma- 
 tive— 17 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs* Aubert, Beattj^ Benjamin, Bri- 
 ant, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazu- 
 reau, Peets, Pugh, Read, Roman, Roselius, 1 
 St. Amand, Saunders, Scott of Feliciana, J 
 Sellers, •Stephens, Taylor of Assumption,'; 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wadsworth, Winches- 
 ter and Wederstrandt voted in the negative 
 —42 nays ; consequently said motion was 
 lost. 
 
 That part of the section in relation to 
 the apportionment of the representation oi 
 the parish of Orleans, having been sus- 
 pended on yesterday, was called up, viz : 
 
 The parish of Orleans shall be entitled 
 to twenty representatives, to be elected a ? 
 follows: Eight by the first municipality; 
 eight by the second municipality ; three by 
 the third municipality, and one by that part 
 of the parish on the^ight bank of the Mis- 
 sissippi. 
 
 Mr. Brunt moved to amend the same 
 by inserting " sixteen" instead of " twen- 
 ty" representatives. 
 
 And pending the discussion on said mo- 
 tion, 
 
 Mr. Downs ! moved that the Conventioi 
 adjourn till to-morrow, at 10 o'clock, a.m. 
 the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Briant, Covillion, Cul 
 bertson, Downs, Eustis, Garcia, Humble 
 Hynson, King, Lewis,^McCallop 3 McRae 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 121 
 
 Marigny, Pects, Porche, Porter, Prud- of ascertaining the number of qualified 
 homme, Read, Roselius, Saunders, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, 
 Splane, Stephens, Waddill, Wadsworth, 
 Wederstrandt and Winder voted in the 
 affirmative — 30 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert,Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Brazeale, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Derbes, Dunn, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, Legendre, Mayo, Mazu- 
 reau, Preston, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Voorhies, and Win- 
 chester voted in the negative — 28 nays ; 
 consequently the motion was carried, and 
 the Covention adjourned till to-morrow, at 
 10 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note — Members absent, Messrs. Brum- 
 ficld, O'Bryan, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, and Wikoff, absent 
 on leave — Messrs. Prescott of Avoyelles 
 and Penn, absent on account of illness — 
 and Messrs. Boudousquie, Chinn, Ratliff, 
 and Soule, did not appear in their seats. 
 
 vo- 
 
 Wednesday, March 19, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Hinton opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Soule was excused for non-atten- 
 dance on account of illness. 
 
 Mr. Ilsley, one of the- reporters in English, 
 [was excused on account of illness, and Mr. 
 [Henderson permitted to act in his stead. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY, 
 ' The substitute of Mr. Downs to the pro- 
 ject of Mr. Benjamin, and amended by Mr. 
 Beatty, viz : 
 
 Representation shall be equal and uni- 
 form in this State, and shall forever be re- 
 gulated and ascertained by the number of 
 qualified voters thereby and that each par- 
 ish shall have at least one representative ; 
 ind provided further i that no new parish 
 shall be created with a territory less than 
 >ix hundred and twenty-five square miles, 
 lor with a number of electors less than the 
 
 ters in each parish. 
 
 At the first regular session of the legis- 
 lature after the making of each census, the 
 legislature shall apportion the representa- 
 tion amongst the several parishes on the 
 basis of the qualified voters as aforesaid, 
 and in the manner following, viz : some 
 number shall be chosen as a representa- 
 tive number, which, when applied in mak- 
 ing the apportionment, shall give a number 
 of representatives not less than seventy 
 nor more than one hundred ; the number so 
 chosen shall be taken as a divisor, and each 
 parish shall be entitled to one representative 
 for every time this divisor shall be found in 
 the dividend formed of its representative 
 population, and to one additional member for 
 every fraction exceeding the one half of 
 the divisor ; and any parish having a num- 
 ber of qualified voters less than the whole 
 divisor but exceeding ^pne half of it, shall 
 be entitled to one representative, and the' 
 legislature shall be incompetent to act on 
 any other subject matter until the appor- 
 tionment directed by this article shall have 
 been made. 
 
 That part of the parish of Orleans situ- 
 ated on the left bank of the Mississippi, 
 shall be divided into eight representative 
 districts, as follows, viz ? 
 
 1st. First district — To extend from the 
 line of the parish of Jefferson to the mid- 
 dle of Benjamin, Estelle and Thalia streets. 
 
 2d. Second district — To extend from the 
 last mentioned limits to the middle of Julia 
 street, until it strikes the New Orleans 
 canal, thence down said canal to the lake. 
 
 3d. Third district — To comprise the resi- 
 due of the second municipality. 
 
 4th. Fourth district — To extend from the 
 middle of Canal street to the middle of St. 
 Louis street, until it shall reach the Metai- 
 rie road, thence along said road to the New 
 Orleans canal. 
 
 5th. Fifth district — To extend from the 
 last mentionted limits to the middle of St. 
 Philip street, thence down said street until 
 
 •atio at the time, nor when the creation of! its intersection with they Bayou St. John, 
 ;uch new parish would leave any other thence along the middle of said Bayou un 
 
 parish without the said extent of territory 
 md number of electors. 
 
 In the year , and every tenth year 
 
 hereafter, a census shall be made of the 
 copulation of this State, in such manner as 
 hall be prescribed by law, for the purpose 
 16 
 
 til it intersects the. Metairie road, thence 
 along said road until it reaches St. Louis 
 street. 
 
 6th. Sixtfi district — To be composed of 
 the residue of the first municipality. 
 . 7th, Seventh district-=To be composed 
 
122 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 of all that portion of the third municipality 
 above the Pontchartrain rail road. 
 
 8th. Eighth district — To be composed of 
 all that part of the third municipality below 
 the Pontchartrain rail road. 
 
 Until the first enumeration shall be 
 made, as directed in this section, the par- 
 ish of Orleans shall be entitled to twenty 
 representatives, to be elected as follows : 
 Eight by the first municipality ; eight by 
 the second municipality ; three by the third 
 municipality, and one by that part of the 
 parish on the right bank of the Mississippi. 
 
 The Parish of Plaquemines, 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 oi. oerndiu, 
 
 1 
 
 ct 
 
 «j unci son, 
 
 3 
 
 u 
 
 oi. onariefa, 
 
 oi, jonn me ijapusi, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 
 2 
 
 *' 
 
 
 2 
 
 a 4 
 
 Assumption, 
 
 3 
 
 ii 
 
 j-ifiiourciie iiiiLiior, 
 
 3 
 
 ii 
 
 JL oil CUUlil.lv>, 
 
 2 
 
 it 
 
 Iberville, 
 
 2 
 
 tt 
 
 West Baton Rouge, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 lltaol U.U 
 
 3 
 
 (.-< 
 
 West Feliciana, 
 
 2 
 
 ii 
 
 xjasi uo 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 ot. Helena, 
 
 i 
 
 JL 
 
 tt. : 
 
 Livingston, 
 
 1 
 
 JL 
 
 a 
 
 Washington, 
 St. Tammany, 
 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 t i 
 
 1 
 
 X 
 
 a 
 
 Point Coupee, 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 Concordia, 
 
 
 i i 
 
 Tensas, 
 
 1 
 
 i i 
 
 Madison, 
 
 1 
 X 
 
 ii 
 
 ( Jnvroll ~ 
 
 1 
 
 JL 
 
 ( I 
 
 Franklin, 
 
 1 
 
 u 
 
 St. Mary, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 St. Martin, 
 
 3 
 
 ii 
 
 Vermillion, 
 
 1 
 
 fr< 
 
 Lafayatte, 
 
 2 
 
 tt 
 
 St. Landry, 
 
 5 
 
 a 
 
 Calcasieu, 
 Avoyelles, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 2 
 
 it 
 
 Rapides, 
 Natchitoches, 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 Sabine, 
 
 2 
 
 U 
 
 Caddo, 
 
 
 a 
 
 De Soto, 
 
 
 a 
 
 Ouachita, 
 
 
 a 
 
 Morehouse 
 
 
 ii 
 
 Union, 
 
 
 a 
 
 Jackson, 
 
 
 a 
 
 Caldwell, 
 
 
 a 
 
 Catahoula^ 
 
 2 
 
 The parish of Claiborne, 
 
 " Bossier, 1 
 
 Total, 98 
 The question under consideration at the 
 adjournment was the motion of Mr. Brent, 
 to reduce the representation of the city of 
 New Orleans from twenty to sixteen mem- 
 bers. 
 
 Mr. Brazeale moved to amend said 
 motion as follows, viz : The first munici- 
 pality shall be entitled to seven represen- 
 tatives ; the second municipality shall be 
 entitled to five representatives; the third' 
 municipality shall be entitled to three re- 
 presentatives, and that part of the parish on 
 the right bank of the Mississippi shall be 
 entitled to one representative ; which 
 amendment was accepted by Mr. Brent. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to lay both amend- 
 ments on the table indefinitely, and called; 
 for the yeas and nays, which resulted as 
 follows, viz : 
 
 Messrs. Auberi, Beatty, Benjamin, Bon- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Briant, Carriere, Cenas, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad 
 of Jefferson, Gulbertson, Devbes, Bunn r 
 Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legen- 
 dre, Leonard, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau^ 
 Preston, Pugli, Roman, Roselius, 
 Amand, Saunders, Soule, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Trisi, Wadsworth, Winchester 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative— 40 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Bwton, Cade, 
 Chambliss,Covillion, Downs, Garrett, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, 
 Peets, P or die, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, Wadditt, 
 Wederstrandjt and Wikoff voted in the nega 
 tive— 31 nays ; consequently said motion 
 was carried. 
 
 Mr. Brent Jmoved thatjbefore reference, 
 the committee be instructed to district the 
 representation of the parish of Orleans as 
 follows, viz : eight representatives to the 
 first municipality ; five to the second mu- 
 nicipality ; three to the third municipality, 
 and one to the right bank. 
 
 Mr. Grymes moved for the previous 
 question. 
 
 The President then put the question—- 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 123 
 
 "hall the main question be now put ? the 
 yeas and nays being called for, resulted as 
 follows : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Briant, Oarriere, Cenas, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, Con 
 rad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legen- 
 dre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, Preston, 
 Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saun- 
 ders, Sellers, Soule, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Trist,s, JVadsworth, Winchester and TVin- 
 ■der voted in the affirmative — 40 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Garrett, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, 
 Peets, Porter, Porche, Prescoit of Avoyelles, 
 Prescoit of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Splane, Stephens, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Voorhies, TVaddill, TVeder- 
 strandt, and Wikoff voted in the negative 
 — 30 nays ; consequently said motion was 
 carried. 
 
 Mr. Gyrmes then moved for the adop- 
 tion of the apportionment of the parish of 
 Orleans, fixing -the representation of the 
 same at twenty representatives. The yeas 
 and nays being called for, resulted as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Boudousquie, Bourg, Briant, Carriere, 
 iCenas, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve* Le- 
 ttbux, Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazu- 
 reau, Preston, Pugh, Roman, Roseliws, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Soule, Taylor of As- 
 umption, Trist, Wadsworth, Winchester, 
 :iid Winde r 'voted in the affirmative — 39 
 "eas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Garrett, 
 Tumble, Hynson, McCallop, McRae, Mayo.~ 
 - °eeis, Porche, Porter, Prescoit of Avoyel- 
 f 3s, Prescoit of St. Landry, Prudhomme, 
 ] fead. Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 |ana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Splane, 
 Uephens, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, 
 Vaddill, Wederstrandt and Wikoff, voted 
 i the negative — 31 nays; consequently 
 aid motion was carried, and the repre- 
 entation of the parish of Orleans fixed at 
 venty representatives. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Beattv, the appor- 
 tionment of the representation of the pa- 
 rish of Orleans, among the eight represen- 
 tative districts, was referred to the city de- 
 legation. 
 
 The President appointed Mr. Maiigny 
 chairman of said committee. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow at 10 o'clock, a, m. 
 
 Note— Members absent: Messrs, Brum= 
 field and O'Bryan, absent on leave; Mr. 
 Penn, absent on account of illness in his 
 family, and Messrs. Chinn and Rati iff did 
 not appear in their seats. 
 
 Thursday, March 20, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad. 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Clark opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer, 
 
 The secretary reported the receipt of 
 the printers to the Convention, to Mr. Robt. 
 L. Kerr, the reporter in English, for the 
 reports of the debates to the 15th inst, 
 
 Mr. Cenas, a member of the committee 
 composed of the delegation of New Or- 
 leans, to whom was referred the apportion- 
 ment among the three municipalities of 
 he representatives allotted to the same, 
 reported as follows, viz: 
 
 The committee composed of the dele- 
 gation of New Orleans, to whom was re- 
 ferred the apportionment among the three 
 municipalities of the representatives allot- 
 ted to the same, report, viz: that they have 
 apportioned the said representation among 
 the said municipalities as follows, by allot- 
 ting to the 
 
 First Municipality, eight representatives.. 
 
 Second do. seven do. 
 
 Third do. four do. 
 
 Which they have distributed among the 
 eight representative or election districts, 
 into which the three municipalities have 
 been subdivided as follows, by allotting to 
 the 
 
 1st district, two representatives. 
 
 2d " two " 
 
 3d " three . " 
 
 4th three " 
 
 5th " three " 
 
 6th " . two " 
 
 7th " two " 
 
 8th " two " 
 
 Mr ; Winchester moved to lay said re- 
 
124 
 
 Journal of the Com\ 
 
 '■en Hon of Louisiana. 
 
 port on the table, subject to call, which 
 motion was lost. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Brent, said report 
 was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff, chairman of the commit- 
 tee on contingent expenses, offered the 
 following resolution, and the same was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Resolved, that the committee on con- 
 tingent expenses, be authorized to pay- 
 James Carpenter, sergeant at arms, the 
 sum of thirty-four dollars, in compensa- 
 tion for the hire of Leon, f. m. c. thirty- 
 four days, to assist in cleaning the Con- 
 vention hall, and waiting upon the Conven- 
 tion, &c. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Substitute of Mr. Downs to the project 
 of Mr. Benjamin, and amended by Mr. 
 Beatty. 
 
 Sec. 6. Representation shall be equal 
 and uniform in this State, and shall forever 
 be regulated and ascertained by the num- 
 ber of qualified electors therein : Provided, 
 that each parish shall have at least one 
 representative; and provided further, that 
 no parish shall be created with a territory 
 less than six hundred and twenty-five 
 square miles, nor with a number of elec- 
 tors less than the ratio at the time, nor 
 when the creation of such parish would 
 leave any other parish without the said 
 extent of territory and number of elec- 
 tors. 
 
 In the year and every tenth year 
 
 thereafter, a census shall be made of the 
 population of this State, in such manner 
 as shall be prescribed by law, for the pur- 
 pose of ascertaining the number of qualifi- 
 ed electors in each parish. 
 
 At the first regular session of the legis- 
 lature after the making of each census, 
 the legislature shall apportion the repre- 
 sentation amongst the several parishes, on 
 the basis of the qualified electors as afore- 
 said, and in the manner following, viz: 
 some number shall be chosen as a repre- 
 sentative number, which, when applied in 
 making the apportionment, shall give a 
 number of representatives not less than 
 seventy, nor more than one hundred; the 
 number so chosen shall be taken as a divi- 
 sor, and each parish shall be entitled to 
 one representative for every time this di- 
 visor shall be found in the dividend form- 
 ed of its representative population, and to 
 
 one additional member for every fraction 
 exceeding the one half of the divisor, and 
 any parish having a number of qualified 
 electors less than the whole divisor, but 
 exceeding one half of it, shall be entitled 
 to one representative, and the legislature 
 shall be incompetent to act on any other 
 subject matter until the apportionment di- 
 rected by this article shall have been 
 made. 
 
 That part of the parish of Orleans, situ- 
 ated on the left bank of the Mississippi, 
 shall be divided into eight representative 
 districts, as follows, viz: 
 
 1st. First district — To extend from the 
 line of the parish of Jefferson, to the mid- 
 dle of Benjamin, Estelle, and Thalia 
 streets. 
 
 2d. Second district — To extend from 
 the last mentioned limits to the middle of 
 Julia street, until it strikes the New Or- 
 leans canal, thence down said canal to the 
 lake. 
 
 3d. Third district — To comprise the re- 
 sidue of the second municipality. 
 
 4th. Fourth district — To extend from 
 the middle of Canal street to the middle^of 
 St. Louis street, until it shall re^ch the Me- 
 tairie road, thence along said road to the 
 New Orleans canal. 
 
 5th. Fifth district — To extend from the 
 last mentioned limits to the middle of St. 
 Philip street, thence down said street until 
 its intersection with the bayou St. John, 
 thence along the middle of said bayou, 
 until it intersects the Metairie road, thence 
 along said road until it reaches St. Louis 
 street. 
 
 6th. Sixth district — To be composed of 
 the residue of the first municipality. 
 
 7th. Seventh district — To be composed 
 of all that portion of the third municipality, 
 above the Pontchartrain rail road. 
 
 8th. Eighth district — To be composed 
 of all that part of the third municipality, 
 below the Pontchartrain rail road. 
 
 Until the first enumeration shall be 
 made, as directed in this section, the pa- 
 rish of Orleans shall be entitled to twenty 
 representatives, to be elected as follows: 
 
 Eight by the first municipality, seven by 
 the second municipality, four by the third 
 municipality; to be divided among the 
 eight representative or election districts, • 
 into which the three municipalities have , 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 125 
 
 1st district, 
 2d 
 3d 
 4th 
 5th 
 6 th 
 7th 
 8 th 
 
 been subdivided, as follows, by allott 
 the 
 
 two representatives, 
 two " 
 three " 
 three " 
 three " 
 two " 
 two " 
 two " 
 And one by that part of the pari 
 the right bank of the Mississippi. 
 The Parish of Plaquemines, 
 " St. Bernard, 
 " Jefferson, 
 » St. Charles, 
 " St. John the Baptist, 
 " St. James, 
 " Ascension, 
 " Assumption, 
 " Lafourche Interior. 
 " Terrebonne, 
 " Iberville, 
 " West, Baton Rouge, 
 " East " 
 " West Feliciana, 
 " East " 
 St. Helena, 
 " Livingston, 
 " . Washington, 
 " St. Tammany, 
 P " Point Coupee, 
 Concordia, 
 Tensas, 
 Madison, 
 Carroll, 
 Franklin, 
 St. Mary, 
 St. Martin, 
 Vermillion, 
 Lafayette, 
 St. Landry, 
 Calcasieu, 
 Avoyelles, 
 Rapides, 
 Natchitoches, 
 Sabine, 
 Caddo, 
 De Soto, 
 Ouachita 
 Morehouse, 
 ' Union, 
 Jackson, . 
 Caldwell, 
 Catahoula. 
 Claiborne. 
 
 nsf to 
 
 sh on 
 
 3 
 1 
 3 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 3 
 2 
 2 
 1 
 3 
 2 
 3 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 i 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 1 
 2 
 5 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 3 
 2 
 
 The parish of Bossier, 1 
 
 Total, 98 
 
 On motion of Mr. Claiboh?;e, the vote 
 on the adoption of the sub-division of the 
 city of New Orleans into eight represen- 
 tative districts, was re-considered, and the 
 same divided into nine election or repre- 
 sentative districts. 
 
 Mr. Claiborxe then offered the follow- 
 ing amendment, which was adopted, viz: 
 
 " Seventh district, from the middle of 
 Esplanade street to the middle of Champs 
 Elysees street. 
 
 " Eighth district, from the middle of 
 Champs Elysies street to the middle of 
 Enghein street and Lafayette avenue. 
 
 " Ninth district, from the middle of Eng- 
 heim street and Lafayette avenue, to the 
 lower limits of the parish." 
 
 Mr. YooEniEs moved to fill the blank in 
 said section with the year "1851," which 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to fill the blank with 
 "1850," which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Benjaioin moved to insert, in lieu 
 of the blank, the following words, viz: "the 
 first census to be taken by the State author- 
 ities under this constitution, shall be taken 
 in the year 1847; the second in the year 
 1855: and the subsequent enumerations 
 shall be made every tenth ■ year thereaf- 
 ter." Which motion was adopted. 
 
 Mr. DtfNN offered the following proviso, 
 viz: 
 
 "Provided* That at all future apportion- 
 ments to be made by the legislature, under 
 this constitution, every parish having a 
 population of five thousand inhabitants (in- 
 cluding slaves) shall always be entitled to 
 two representatives; and a population of 
 ten thousand inhabitants, three represen- 
 tatives." 
 
 Mr. Vooehies moved that said proviso 
 be laid on the table indefinitely; and the 
 yeas and nays being called for, resulted as 
 follows: 
 
 Messrs. Beaity, Benjamin, Boiidousquie, 
 Bourg, Brazealo, Brent, JSriant, Burton, 
 Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Cliambliss, Clai- 
 borne, Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, Downs. 
 Grymes, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Leonard, Lewis, j&c- 
 Callop, McRae, Mayo, Mazureau,0' Bryan, 
 Peeis, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Bailiff, Read, Roman, 
 
126 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 .Roselius, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Madison, SouU, Splane, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt and 
 Wikoff voted in the affirmative — 51 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Auhert, Dunn, Hudspeth, Por- 
 che, Plight St. Amand, Sellers and'Wm- 
 chester voted in the negative— 8 nays; con- 
 sequently said motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Sellers gave notice that he would, 
 on a future day, move to reconsider the vote 
 rejecting the proviso, fixing the maximum 
 of any city or parish at twenty representa- 
 tives. 
 
 Mr. Brazeale gave notice that he 
 would, on a future day, move to reconsider 
 the vote fixing the representation of Nat- 
 chitoches at three representatives. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan moved for a dispensation 
 of the rule; which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Dunn gave notice that he will move 
 the reconsideration of the vote fixing the 
 representation of the parish of Plaquemines 
 at three representatives. 
 
 Mr. Garcia gave notice that he will 
 move to reconsider the vote fixing the ap- 
 portionment of the parish of St, John the 
 Baptist. 
 
 Mr. Mario ny gave notice that he will 
 move the reconsideration of the vote fixing 
 the apportionment of the parish of Point 
 Coupee. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies then moved for the adop- 
 tion of the section as amended, viz: 
 article second — legislative depart- 
 ment. 
 
 Sec. 6. Representation shall be equal 
 and uniform in this State, and shall forever 
 be regulated and ascertained by the umber 
 of qualified electors therein; provided, that 
 each parish shall have at least one repre- 
 sentative; and provided further, that no 
 new parish shall be created with a territory 
 less than six hundred and twenty- five square 
 miles, nor with a number of electors less 
 than the ratio at the time, nor when the 
 creation of such new parish would leave 
 any other parish*without tlie said extent of 
 territory and number of electors. 
 
 The first census to be taken by the 
 State authorities under this constitution 
 shall be taken in the year 1847, the sec- 
 ond in the year 1855, and the subsequent 
 enumerations shall be made every tenth 
 
 year thereafter, in such manner as shall 
 be prescribed by law, for the purpose of 
 ascertaining the number of qualified elec- 
 tors in each parish. 
 
 At the first regular session of the legis- 
 lature after the making of each census, the 
 legislature shall apportion the representa- 
 tion amongst the several parishes, on the 
 basis of qualified electors as aforesaid, and 
 in the manner following, viz: 
 
 "Some number shall be chosen as a 
 representative number, which, when ap- 
 plied in making the apportionment, shall 
 give a number of representatives not less 
 than seventy, nor more than one hundred; 
 the number so chosen shall be taken as a 
 divisor, and each parish shall be entitled to 
 one representative for every time this di- 
 visor shall be found in the dividend formed 
 of its representative population, and to one 
 additional member for every fraction ex- 
 ceeding the one-half of the divisor; and 
 any parish having a number of qualified 
 electors less than the whole divisor shall 
 be entitled to one representative; and the 
 legislature shall be incompetent to act on 
 any other subject matter until the appor- 
 tionment, directed by this article, shall 
 have been made. 
 
 That part of the parish of Orleans situa" 
 ted on the left bank of the Mississippi shall 
 be divided into nine representative distrcts, 
 as follows, viz: 
 
 1st. First district— To extend from the 
 line of the parish of Jefferson to the middle 
 of Benjamin, Estelle and Thalia streets. 
 
 2d. Second district — To extend from the 
 last mentioned limits to the middle of Julia 
 street, until it strikes the New Orleans 
 canal, thence down said canal to the lake. 
 
 3d. Third district— To comprise the resi- 
 due of the second municipality. 
 
 4th. Fourth district — To extend from 
 the middle of Canal street to the middle of 
 St. Louis street, until it shall reach the Me- 
 tairie road, thence along said road to the 
 New Orleans canal. 
 
 5th. Fifth district — To. extend from the 
 last mentioned limits to the middle of St. 
 Philip street, thence down said street until 
 its intersection with the bayou St. John, 
 thence along the middle of said bayou until 
 it intersects the Metairie road, thence along- 
 said road until it reaches St. Louis street. 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 127 
 
 6th, Sixth district — To be composed of 
 the residue of the first municipality. 
 
 7th. Seventh district — From the middle 
 of Esplanade street to the middle oi 
 Champs Elysees street. 
 
 8th. Eighth district — From the middle 
 of Champs Elysees street to the middle 
 of Engheim street and Lafayette avenue. 
 
 9th. Ninth district — From the middle of 
 Enghein street and Lafayette avenue 
 to the lower limits of the parish. 
 
 Until the first enumeration shall Be 
 made, as directed in this section, the pa- 
 rish of Orleans shall be entitled to twenty 
 representatives, to be elected as follows, 
 viz: 
 
 Eight by the first municipality; seven 
 by the second municipality; and four by the 
 third municipality; to be distributed among 
 the nine representative districts as follows: 
 By allotting to the 
 
 First district, two representatives. 
 
 Second district, two representatives. 
 
 Third district, three representatives. 
 
 Fourth district, three representatives. 
 
 Fifth district, three representatives* 
 
 Sixth district, two representatives. 
 
 Seventh district, two representatives. 
 
 Eighth district, one representative. 
 
 Ninth district, one representative. 
 
 And one by that part of the parish on the 
 
 ight bank of the Mississippi. 
 
 The parish of Plaquemines, 3 
 
 " St. Bernard, 1 
 
 " Jefferson, 3 
 
 " St. Charles, 1 
 
 " St. John the Baptist, 1 
 
 44 • St. James, 2 
 
 44 Ascension, 2 
 
 ' 44 Assumption, 3 
 
 " Lafourche Interior, 3 
 
 44 Terrebonne, 2 
 
 " Iberville, 2 
 
 " West Baton Rouge, 1 
 
 44 East Baton Rouge, 3 
 
 West Feliciana, 2 , 
 
 East " 3 
 
 St. Helena, 1 
 
 Washington, 1 
 
 Livingston, 1 
 
 St. Tammany, 1 
 
 Point Coupee, 1 
 
 Concordia, 1 
 
 Tensas, l 
 
 Madison, l 
 
 Carroll, i 
 
 The parish of Franklin, 1 
 
 " St. Mary, 2 
 
 " St. Martin, 3 
 
 " Vermillion, 1 
 
 " Lafayette, 2 
 
 St. Landry, 5 
 
 ** Calcasieu. $ 
 
 44 Avoyelles, 2 
 
 £< Rapides, 3 
 
 44 Natchitoches,- 3 
 
 '* Sabine, 2 
 
 44 Caddo,- 1 
 
 . 54 De Soto, I 
 
 44 Ouachita, I 
 
 " Morehouse, I- 
 
 44 Union, 1 
 
 u Jackson, 1 
 
 44 Caldwell, 1 
 
 " Catahoula, 2 
 
 44 Claiborne, 2 
 
 44 Bossier, 1 
 
 Total, 98 
 
 On motion to adopt the above section 
 as amended, the yeas and nays being called 
 for, re suited as follews : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beaity, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Burton, 
 Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Covillion, Cidbertson, Derbes, Downs, 
 Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Lewis, Mc- 
 Callop, McRojc, Mayo, Mazureau, O* Bry- 
 an, Peets, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott 
 of St. Landry, Preston, Prudliomme, Pugh, 
 Ratliff, Read, Roselius, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Voorhies, Waddill, TVeder- 
 strandt and Winder, voted in the affirma- 
 tive' — 50 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie T .Claiborne, Dunn, 
 Kenner, Legendre, Marigny, Porter, Ro- 
 man, Saunders, Sellers, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, and Wikoff, voted in the negative 
 —12 nays, consequently the same was 
 adopted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, the Conven- 
 tion took up the 10th section of the report 
 of the majority on the legislative depart- 
 ment, and the report of the minority offered 
 by Mr. Downs as a substitute to the said 
 10th section, both of which had been laid 
 on the table, subject to call, viz : 
 
 Section 10th of the majority report. 
 
 The State shall be divided into eight sen= 
 
128 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 atorial districts, each of which shall elect 
 four senators, to be voted for by persons 
 entitled to vote for representatives, as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river shall compose the first district. 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines, St. Ber- 
 nard and the remainder of the parish of 
 Orleans, parish of Jefferson, St Charles 
 and St. John the Raptist, shall compose 
 the second district. 
 
 The parishes of St. James, Ascension, 
 Assumption, Lafourche Interior and Ter- 
 rebonne, shall compose the third district. 
 
 The parishes of Iberville, West Baton 
 Rouge, East Baton Rouge, Point Coupee 
 and Avoyelles, shall compose the fourth 
 district. 
 
 The parishes of West Feliciana, East 
 Feliciana, Washington, St. Tammany, St. 
 Helena and Livingston, shall compose the 
 fifth district. 
 
 The parishes of Concordia, Carroll, 
 Madson, Ouachita, Union, Franklin, Ten- 
 sas, Morehouse, Catahula and Caldwell, 
 shall compose the sixth district. 
 
 The parishes of Rapides, Natchitoches, 
 Caddo, Calcasieu, Claiborne, Sabine, Bos- 
 sier and De Soto, shall compose the sev- 
 enth district. 
 
 The parishes of St. Mary, St. Martin, 
 St. Landry, Lafayette] and Vermillion, 
 shall compose the eighth district. 
 
 Provided, that the legislature shall have 
 the power in any year in which they shall 
 apportion representation in the house of 
 representatives, to divide any one or more 
 of said senatorial districts, each to-be en- 
 titled to elect two senators. 
 
 Report of the minority offered by Mr. 
 Downs as a substitute for the foregoing 
 1 Oth section, viz : 
 
 "The senate shall consist of thirty-two 
 members, to be elected for four years, by 
 the voters qualified to vote for represen- 
 tatives, and at the same; one half ev- 
 ery two years, and the apportionment of 
 senators shall be made as follows : 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines and St. 
 Bernard, and that portion of the parish of 
 Orleans on the right bank of the Mississip- 
 pi river shall have one senator. 1 
 The parish of Orleans — 
 
 For first municipality, 2 
 Second do, 1 
 
 Third municipality, 
 The parish of Jefferson, 
 " St. John the 
 
 Baptist 
 and St. Charles, 
 St. James, 
 Ascension and 
 Assumption, 
 Lafourche and 
 Terrebonne, 
 Iberville and 
 West Baton Rouge, 
 East " " 
 West Feliciana, 
 East Feliciana, 
 St. Helena and 
 
 Livingston, 
 Washington and 
 St. Tammany, 
 Point Coupee, 
 Concordia^ and 
 
 Tensas, 
 Carroll and 
 Madison, 
 Catahoula and' 
 
 Franklin, 
 St. Mary and 
 St. Martin, 
 Lafayette and 
 Vermillion, 
 St. Landry, 
 Sabine and 
 
 Calcasieu, 
 Avoyelles, 
 Rapides, 
 Natchitoches, 
 Caddo and 
 De Soto, 
 Claiborne and 
 
 Bossier, 
 Ouachita and 
 
 Caldwell, 
 Union, Morehouse 
 and Jackson, 
 
 Total 32 
 
 • And whenever a new parish shall be 
 created, it shall be attached to the senatorial 
 district from whiclr most of it was taken, 
 or to another contiguous district, at the 
 discretion of the legislature, but shall not 
 be attached to more than one district. 
 
 Mr. Guion submitted the following sub- 
 stitute, viz : 
 
 The senate shall consist of thirt-two 
 members, to be elected for four years, by 
 persons qualified to vote for representatives, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 129 
 
 and the apportionment of senators shall be 
 as follows, viz : 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines, St. Bernard 
 and Jefferson, together with that portion 
 of the parish of Orleans, on the right hank 
 of the Mississippi river, shall constitute 
 • the 1st district, with three senators. 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans, 
 lying on the left side of the river, shall 
 constitute the 2d district, with four senators. 
 
 The parishes of St. Charles and St. 
 John the Baptist, shall constitute the 3d 
 district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. James and Ascen- 
 sion, shall constitute the 4th district, with 
 two senators. 
 
 The parishes of Assumption, Lafourche 
 Interior and Terrebonne, shall constitute 
 the 5th district, with two senators. 
 
 The parishes of Iberville, West Baton 
 Rouge and Point Coupee, shall constitute 
 the 6th district, with two senators. 
 
 The parishes of West Feliciana and 
 East Feliciana, shall constitute the 7th dis- 
 trict, with two senators. 
 
 The parish of East Baton Rouge shall 
 constitute the 8th district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Washington, St. Tam- 
 many, St. Helena and Livingston, shall 
 constitute the 9 th district, with two sena- 
 tors. 
 
 The parishes of Concordia and Ten- 
 sas, shall constitute the 10th district, with 
 ;one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Madison and Carroll, 
 shall constitute the 11th district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of Avoyelles and Rapides, 
 shall constitute the 12th district, with two 
 senators. 
 
 The parishes of Catahoula, Caldwell 
 and Franklin, shall constitute the 1 3th dis- 
 trict, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Ouachita, Union, More- 
 house and Jackson, shall constitute the 
 1 4th district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Natchitoches, Caddo, 
 Sabine, De Soto and Claiborne, shall con- 
 stitute the 15th district, with three sena- 
 ors. 
 
 The parishes of St. Landry and Calca- 
 sieu, shall constitute the sixteenth district, 
 .vith two senators. 
 
 The parishes of St. Martin, St. Mary, 
 Lafayette and Vermillion, shall constitute 
 he seventeenth district, with two sectors. 
 17 
 
 On motion of Mr. Guign, the above sub- 
 stitute was ordered to be printed, and the 
 matter under consideration was postponed 
 until the said substitute be printed. 
 
 Mr.. Downs moved to reconsider the 
 vote given to postpone the subject under 
 consideration, which was lost. 
 
 On motion of Mr.* Benjamin, the Con- 
 vention then took up the report of the com- 
 mittee on the fifth article, concerning im- 
 peachment, viz : 
 
 Sec. 1. The power of impeachment 
 shall be invested in the house of represen- 
 tatives alone. 
 
 Sec. 2, All impeachments shall be tried 
 by the senate and chief justice of the su- 
 supreme court, unless* he is interested, in 
 which case, the senior associate judge of 
 said court shall preside. When sitting for 
 that purpose, the senators shall be upon 
 oath or affirmation, and no person shall be 
 convicted without the concurrence of two- 
 thirds of the senators present. 
 
 Sec. 3. The governor and all the civil 
 officers shall be liable to impeachment for 
 any misdemeanor in office; but judgment 
 in such cases shall not extend farther than 
 to removal from office, and disqualification 
 from holding any office of honor, trust, or 
 profit under this State; but the parties con- 
 victed shall, nevertheless, be liable and 
 subject to indictment, trial and punishment, 
 according to law. 
 
 Mr. Mayo offered the following amend- 
 ment, viz • 
 
 Trie power of impeachment for* all offi- 
 cers except clerks of courts, justices of the 
 peace, sheriffs, coroners, and all other par- 
 ish officers, shall be vested in the House 
 of Representatives alone. 
 
 Mr. Conrad, of New Orleans, submit- 
 ted the following substitute, and the same 
 was ordered to be printed, viz: 
 
 Impeachments of the governor, lien- 
 tenant governor or secretary of stale, shall 
 be tried by the senate and the c*nief jus- 
 tice of the supreme court, who, in such 
 cases, shall preside. 
 
 Impeachments of the judges of the su- 
 preme court shall be tried by the senate. 
 
 Impeachments of all inferior judges and 
 clerks of courts shall be tried by the su- 
 preme court. 
 
 All other impeachments shall be tried by 
 a committee of not less than mem- 
 bers of the senate, presided by the presi- 
 
130 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 ding judge- of the supreme court for the, 
 time being. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved that the Conven- 
 tion adjourn till Monday next, at ten 
 o'clock A. M. The yeas and nays* being 
 called for— 
 
 Messrs. Auberi, Bvatty, Boudousquie, 
 Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Jef-- 
 ersoi), Culberlsoi^Derbes, Downs, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Guion, Kenner, Legendre, Marig- 
 ny, Mazuteau, Read, Roman, lloselius, 
 St. Amandf Scott, of Baton ~Rouge,Slephens, 
 Wederstrandl, Winchester and Winder vo- 
 ted in favor of the adjournment — 27 yeas; 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Chambliss, Conrad of Orleans, Covillion, 
 Dunn, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, King, 
 Lewis, Mayo ,0' 'Bryan, Peels, Porter, Pres- 
 cqtt of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Railiff, Scott of Feliciana, Sel- 
 lers, Taylor of Assumption, Voorhies, 
 Wadditt and Wikqf voted in the negative 
 —27 nays 
 
 The vote-oemg equally divided, -the pre- 
 sident voted in the affirmative, consequent- 
 ly -the motion was carried, and the Con- 
 vention adjourned until Monday next at 
 ten o'clock a. m. 
 
 INFote.- — Members absent ; Mr. Brum- 
 held on leave; Mr. Penn on account of ill- 
 ness in his family; and Messrs, Chinn, 
 Trist and t Wads worth did not appear in 
 their seats, 
 
 Monday, March 24, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 In the absence of a minister of the gos- 
 pel, the Hon. Mr. Stephens opened the 
 proceedings with prayer. 
 
 On motion, leave of absence was grant- 
 ed Messrs. Carricre, "Wederstrandt, and 
 Porch e. 
 
 On motion, Messrs. Leonard and Trist 
 were excused for non-attendance^ on ac- 
 count of illness. 
 
 Mr. Ilsley, one of the reporters in Eng- 
 lish, having been summoned to appear be- 
 fore the criminal court as a witness, was 
 excused, and Mr. Henderson permitted to 
 act in his stead. 
 
 Messrs. Ilsley and Kerr submitted to the 
 secretary the receipts of the printers to the 
 Convention, for the reports of the debates 
 of the Convention of the 18th, 19th and 
 20th instant. 
 
 Mr. Beatty gave notice that he would 
 on Thursday next, move to reconsider the, 
 vote given on that part of the sixth section 
 of the legislative department, fixing the basis 
 of apportionment. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth submitted an applica- 
 tion from the printers of the English re- 
 ports of the Convention; the same was • 
 referred to the committee on contingent 
 expenses. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Article 5th of the Constitution, concern- 
 ing impeachment, being under considera- 
 tion at the last adjournment, was called 
 up, viz : 
 
 Sec. 1. The pow T er of impeachment shall 
 be vested in the house of representatives 
 alone. 
 
 Sec. 2. All impeachments shall be tried 
 by the senate and the chief justice of the 
 supreme court, unless he is interested, in 
 which case the senior associate judge of 
 said court shall preside. When sitting for 
 that purpose, the senators shall be upon 
 oath or affirmation, and no person shall be 
 convicted without the concurrence of two- 
 thirds of the senators present. 
 
 Sec. 3. The governor and all the civil 
 officers shall be liable to impeachment for 
 any misdemeanor in office, but judgment in 
 such cases shall not extend further than to 
 removal from office, and disqualification to 
 hold any office of honor, trust or profit, un- 
 der this State, but the parties convicted 
 shall nevertheless be liable and subject to 
 indictment, trial and punishment, according 
 to law. 
 
 At the last adjournment, the Convention 
 had under discussion the amendment of-, 
 fered to the first section by Mr. Mayo, viz: 
 
 ' 4 The power of impeachment for ail 
 officers, except clerks of courts, justices of 
 the peace, sheriffs, coroners, and all other 
 parish officers, shall be vested in the house 
 of representatives alone." 
 
 Mr. Downs moved that the motion under 
 consideration be postponed, and that the 
 Convention take up the legislative depart- 
 ment, dividing the State into senatorial 
 districts. The yeas and nays being called 
 for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Cenas, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Huds- 
 peth, Humble, Hynson, Lewis, 0 'Brian, 
 Peels, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Read, Scott 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 131 
 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Splane, Stephens, Voorhies, Wad- 
 dill and Wikoff voted in the -affirmative — 
 27 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Sou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Jefferson^ Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Garrett, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Ledoux, Legendre, McCallop, Marigny, 
 Mazureau, Roman, Sellers, Soule, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry and 
 Watfsicorth voted in the negative — 26 nays. 
 
 The President having been called upon 
 to vote, said, that as the subject was impor- 
 tant and the house thin, he would vote in 
 the negative, which making the vote equal, 
 consequently the motion was lost. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Soule, the amendment 
 of Mr. Mayo was laid on the table, subject 
 to call. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies moved to amend the first 
 section, by adding at the end of the same 
 the following words, viz: "Subject to modi- 
 fications hereinafter made;" which motion 
 was lost. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, the first sec- 
 tion, as reported, was adopted, viz: 
 
 "The power of impeachment shall be 
 vested in the house of representatives 
 alone." 
 
 Mr. Benjamin then offered as a substi- 
 tute to the first paragraph of the second 
 section, the substitute offered by Mr. Con- 
 rad of New Orleans, at the last adjourn- 
 ment, viz : 
 
 Impeachments of the governor, lieu- 
 tenant governor and secretary of State, 
 shall be tried by the senate and the chief 
 justice of the supreme court, who, in such 
 cases, shall preside. 
 
 Impeachments of the judges of the su- 
 preme court, shall be tried by the senate. 
 
 Impeachments of all inferior judges, and 
 clerks of courts, shall be tried by the su- 
 preme court. 
 
 All other impeachments shall be tried 
 jby a committee of not less than 
 'members of the senate, presided by the 
 'presiding judge cf the supreme court for 
 the time being. 9 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to amend said sub*- 
 istitute by inserting after the word "State," 
 jin the second line, the words " attorney 
 general, state treasurer, judges of the criui- 
 liual court, and judges next in jurisdiction 
 
 to the supreme court;" which amendment 
 was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to amend said sub- 
 stitute by inserting after the word "court," 
 in the fourth line, the words £6 or the se- 
 nior associate judge of said court," which 
 amendment was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Beatty then moved to strike out 
 the remainder of the said substitute, com- 
 mencing at the ninth line, and insert in 
 lieu thereof the following, viz : 
 
 " The legislature shall provide by law 
 for the trial and removal from office of all 
 other officers of this State, by indictment, 
 or otherwise." 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to amend said amend- 
 ment by inserting after the word " trial," 
 the word " punishment;" which amend- 
 ment was accepted b)^ Mr. Beatty. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, the words "for 
 that purpose," in the first line of the sec- 
 ond paragraph, were stricken out, and the 
 words " as a court of impeachment" in- 
 serted in lieu thereof. 
 
 On motion, the second section was 
 adopted as amended, viz: ' 
 
 Sec. 2. Impeachment of the governor, 
 lieutenant governor, attorney general, sec- 
 retary of state, state treasurer, judges of the 
 criminal court, and judges next in jurisdic- 
 tion to the supreme court, shall be tried by 
 the senate and the chief justice of the su- 
 preme court, or the senior associate judge 
 of said court who shall preside in such ca- 
 ses. 
 
 Impeachments of the judges of the su- 
 preme court shall" be tried by the senate. 
 
 The legislature shall provide by law for 
 the trial, punishment, and removal from of- 
 fice of all other officers of the State, by in- 
 dictment, or otherwise. 
 
 When sitting as a court of impeachment, 
 the senators shall be upon oath or affirma- 
 tion, and no person shall be convicted with- 
 out the concurrence of two-thirds of the se- 
 nators present. 
 
 Mr. Downs then moved to amend ihe 
 third section, by striking out the words, 
 " the governor and all civil officers shall be" 
 liable to impeachment for any misdemean- 
 or in office, but," and insert after the word 
 "judgment," the words "incases of im- 
 peachment;" which amendment was adopt- 
 ed. 
 
 Mr. Cenas offered the following amend 4 
 ment, viz ; 
 
132 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 All officers against whom articles of im- 
 peachment may be preferred shall be sus- 
 pended from the exercise of their func- 
 tions during the pendency and trial of such 
 impeachment. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to amend said 
 amendment, by adding the following pro- 
 viso, viz'": 
 
 " Provided that the appointing power 
 may make a provisional appointment of 
 an officer to replace the suspended officer 
 until the decision shall be made on the im- 
 peachment; which proviso was accepted 
 by Mr. Cenas, and the amendment as 
 amended by the proviso was adopted. 
 
 On motion, the said third section as 
 amended was adopted, viz : 
 
 Sec. 3. Judgments in cases of impeach- 
 ment shall not extend further than to remo- 
 val from office and disqualification to hold- 
 ing any office of honor, trust or profit un- 
 der this State; but the parties convicted 
 shall nevertheless be liable and subject to 
 indictment, trial and punishment, according 
 to law. 
 
 All officers against whom articles of im- 
 peachment may be preferred, shall be sus- 
 pended from the exercise of their functions 
 during the pendency and trial of such im- 
 peachment : Provided, that the appointing 
 power may make a provisional appoint- 
 ment of an officer to replace the suspended 
 officer, until the decision shall be made on 
 the i nip each me nt." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, the article 5th, 
 as amended, was adopted, viz : * 
 
 Sec. 1. The power of impeachment 
 shall be vested in the house of representa- 
 tives alone. 
 
 Sec. 2. Impeachment of the governor, 
 lieutenant governor, attorney general, sec- 
 retary of state, state treasurer, judge of the 
 criminal court, and judges next in jurisdic- 
 tion to the supreme court, shall be tried by 
 the senate and the chief justice of the su- 
 preme court, or the senior associate judge 
 of %aid court, who shall preside in such ca- 
 -ses. s 
 
 Impeachment of the judges of the su- 
 preme court shall be tried by the senate. 
 
 The legislature shall provide by law for 
 the* trial punishment and removal from of- 
 fice of all other officers of the State, by in- 
 dictment, or otherwise. 
 
 When sitting as a court of impeachment 
 the senators shall be upon oath or affirma- 
 
 tion, and no person shall be convicted with- 
 out the concurrence of two-thirds of the se- 
 nators present. 
 
 Sec. 3. Judgments in cases of impeach- 
 ment shall not extend further than to re- 
 moval from office and disqualification to 
 holding any office of honor, trust or profit 
 under this State; but the parties convicted 
 shall, nevertheless be liable to indictment, 
 (rial and punishment, according to law. 
 
 All officers against whom articles of im- 
 peachment may be preferred, shall be* sus- 
 pended from the exercise of their func- 
 tions during the pendency and trial of such 
 impeachment; Provided, that the appoint- 
 ing power' may make a provisional appoint- 
 ment of an officer to replace the suspended 
 officer until the decision shall be made on 
 the impeachment. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, the Conven- 
 tion then took up the 10th section of the re- 
 port of the majority 'on the legislative de- 
 partment, together with the two substitutes 
 offered to the same by Messrs. Downs and 
 Guion, all of which had been postponed 
 to make room for the 5th article, concern- 
 ing impeachment. 
 
 Section tenth of the report of the ma- 
 jority, viz : 
 
 The State shall be divided into eight 
 senatorial districts, each of which shall 
 elect four senators, to be voted for by per- 
 sons entitled to vote for representatives, as 
 follows : 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans, 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river, shall comprise the first district. 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines, St.Bernard 
 and the remainder of the parish of Orleans, 
 parish of Jefferson, St. Charles and St. 
 John the Baptist, shall compose the second 
 district. 
 
 The parishes of St. James, Ascension; 
 Assumption, Lafourche Interior and Terre- 
 bonne, shall compose the third district. 
 
 The parishes of Iberville, West Baton 
 Rouge, East Baton Rouge, Point Coupee 
 and Avoyelles, shall compose the fourth 
 district. 
 
 The parishes of West Feliciana, East 
 Feliciana, Washington, St. Tammany, St, 
 Helena and Livingston, shall compose the 
 fifth district. 
 
 The parishes of Concordia, Carroll, 
 Madison. Ouachita, Union, Franklin, Ten- 
 
Jour mil of the Convention of Louisiana. 133 
 
 sas, Morehouse, Catahoula and Caldwell, 
 shall compose the sixth district. 
 
 The parishes of Rapides, Natchitoches, 
 Caddo, Calcasieu, Claiborne, Sabine, Bos- 
 sier and De Soto, shall compose the seventh 
 district. 
 
 The parishes of St. Mary, St. Martin, 
 St. Landry, Lafayette and Vermillion, shall 
 compose the eighth district. 
 
 Provided, That the legislature shall 
 have the power, in any year in which they 
 shall apportion representation in the house 
 of representatives, to divide any one or 
 more of said senatorial districts, each to be 
 entitled to elect two senators. 
 
 Report of the minority, and offered by 
 Mr. Downs, as a substitute for the forego- 
 ing tenth section, viz : 
 
 The Senate shall consist of thirty-two 
 members, to be elected for four years, by 
 jthe voters qualified to vote for representa- 
 tives; and at the same time, one -half every 
 two years; and the apportionment of sena- 
 tors shall be made as follows : 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines, St. Ber- 
 nard, and that portion of the parish of Or- 
 leans on the right bank of the river, shall 
 be one senator — I 
 The parish of Orleans — 
 First municipality, 
 Second do, 
 Third do, 
 The parish of Jefferson, 
 
 » .St. John the Baptist \ 
 
 and St. Charles, y 
 «• St. James, 
 
 " Ascension and 
 
 Assumption, 
 l# Lafourche Interior 
 
 and Terrebonne 
 " Iberville and 
 
 West Baton Rouge 
 " East Baton Rouge, 
 
 " West Feliciana, 
 
 " East Feliciana, 
 
 St. Helena and 
 
 Livingston, 
 Washington and 
 St. Tammany- 
 Pointe Coupee, 
 • Concordia and 
 Tensas, 
 Carroll and 
 Madison, 
 Cagjhoula and 
 
 The Parish of St, Mary and 
 
 St. Martin, 
 " Lafayette and 
 
 Vermillion, 
 *' St. Landry? 
 
 " Sabine and 
 
 Calcasieu, 
 11 Avoyelles-, 
 Rapides, • 
 " Natchitoches, 
 " Caddo and De Soto, 
 
 " * Claiborne and 
 
 Bossier, 
 Ouachita and 
 
 Caldwell, 
 " Union; Morehouse 
 
 and Jackson, 
 
 32 
 
 parish shall be 
 
 ranklin. 
 
 Total. 
 
 And whenever a new' 
 created, it shall be attached to the sena- 
 torial district from which most of it was 
 taken, or to another contiguous district, at 
 the discretion of the legislature, but shall 
 not be attached to more than one districts 
 
 Mr. Gyiors offered the following substi- 
 tute, to wit : 
 
 The senate shall consist of thirty-two 
 members, to be elected for four years, by- 
 persons qualified to vote for representatives, 
 and the apportionment of senators shall be 
 as follows, to wit : 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines, St. Ber- 
 nard and Jefferson, together with that por- 
 tion of the parish of Orleans on the right 
 bank of the river Mississippi, shall consti- 
 tute the first district, with three senators. 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the left side of the river, shall 
 constitute the second district, with four 
 senators. 
 
 The parishes of St. Charles and St. John 
 the Baptist, shall constitute the third dis- 
 trict, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. James and Ascension, 
 shall constitute the fourth district with two 
 senators. 
 
 The parishes of Assumption, Lafourche 
 Interior and Terrebonne, shall constitute 
 the fifth district, with two senators. 
 
 The parishes of Iberville, West Baton 
 Rouge and Point Coupee, shall constitute 
 the sixth district, with two senators. 
 
 The parishes of West Feliciana 
 
 ana 
 
 East Feliciana, shall constitute the seventh* 
 district, with two senators. 
 
134 
 
 Journal of tlye Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 The parish of East Baton Rouge shall 
 constitute the eighth district, with one 
 senato r. 
 
 The parishes, of Washington, St. Tam- 
 many, St. Helena and Livingston, shall 
 constitute the 9th district, with two sena- 
 tors. 
 
 The parishes of Concordia and Ten- 
 sas, shall constitute the 10th district, with 
 one senator. 
 
 The paTishes of Madison and Carroll, 
 shall constitute the 11th district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of Avoyelles and Rapides, 
 shall constitute the 12th district, with two 
 s enators. 
 
 The Parishes, of Catahoula, Caldwell 
 .and Franklin, shall constitute the 13th dis. 
 trict, with one senator. 
 
 The Parishes of Ouachita, Union, More- 
 house and Jackson, shall constitute the 14th 
 district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Natchitoches, Caddo, 
 Sabine, De Soto and Claiborne, shall con- 
 stitute the 15th district, with three sena- 
 tors. 
 
 The parishes of St. Landry "and Cal- 
 casieu, shall constitute the 16th district, 
 with two senators. 
 
 The parishes of St. Martin, St. Mary, 
 Lafayette and Vermillion, shall constitute 
 the 17th district, with two senators. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to strike out from 
 the majority report, the word " eight." 
 
 . Mr. Conrad of New Orleans, moved 
 that the Convention adjourn till to-morrow, 
 at 10 o'clock, a. m,, and the yeas and nays 
 being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie,Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Garcia, Kenner, Legendre, 
 Ledoux, Lewis,Marigny,Mazureau,Roman, 
 Roselius, Taylor of As sumption, and Taylor 
 of St. Landry voted in the affirmative — 22 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Cade, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, 
 Bimn, Garrett, Hudspeth, Hwnble,Hynson, 
 King, McCallop O' Bryan, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Preston, Prudhomme, Rattiff, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, 
 Voorhies, Waddill and Wikoff voted in the 
 
 negative — 34 nays; consequently said mo- 
 tion was lost. 
 
 And pending the d^cussion on the motion 
 of Mr. Beatty, to strike out the word eio-ht. 
 the Convention adjourned till to-morrow, 
 at 10 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent: Messrs. Car- 
 riere, Mayo, Porche, Wederstrandt, absent 
 on leave; and Messrs. Leonard, Penn and 
 Trist, absent on account of illness; and 
 Messrs. Chinn, Grymes, Guion, P'ugh, 
 Saunders, Winchester* and Winder, did not 
 appear in their seats. 
 
 Tuesday, March 25, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn, 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Marshall opened the 
 proceedings with prayer. 
 
 On motion, Mr. Chinn was excused for 
 non-attendance on account of illness. 
 
 On motion, leave of absence was gran- 
 ted to Mr. McRae. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Section 10th of article 2cl of the legisla- 
 tive*department, as reported by the majors 
 ty, viz: 
 
 The State shall be divided into eight 
 senatorial districts, each of which shall 
 elect four senators, to be voted for by per- 
 sons entitled to vote for representatives, as 
 follows: 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river, shall comprise the first district. 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines, St. Ber- 
 nard and the remainder of the parish of 
 Orleans, parish of Jefferson, St. Charles 
 and St. John the Baptist, shall compose 
 the second district. 
 
 The parishes of St. James, Ascension, 
 Assumption, Lafourche Interior and Terre- 
 bonne, shall compose the third district. 
 
 The parishes of Iberville, West Baton 
 Rouge, East Baton Rouge, Point Coupee- 
 and Avoyelles, shall compose the fourth 
 district. 
 
 The parishes of West Feliciana, East 
 Feliciana, Washington, St. Tammany, St 
 Helena and Livingston, shall compose the 
 fifth district. 
 
 The parishes of Conconlia, •CarroJl? 
 Madison, Ouachita, Union, Franklin, Ten- 
 sas, Morehouse, Catahoula and Caldwell, 
 shall compose the sixth district. 
 
 The parishes of Raj^ps, Natchitoches 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 135 
 
 Caddo, Calcasieu. Claiborne, Sabine, Bos- 1 
 sier and Do Soto, shall compose the sev- j 
 enth district. 
 
 The parishes of St. Mary, St. Martin, j 
 St. Landry, Lafayette and Vermillion, 
 shall compose the eighth district. 
 
 Provided, That the legislature shall 
 have the power, in any year in which they 
 shall apportion representation in the house 
 of representatives, to divide any one or j 
 more of said senatorial districts, each to be 1 
 entitled to elect two senators. 
 
 Report of the minority, offered by Mr. 
 Downs as a substitute to the foregoing 
 10th section, viz: 
 
 The senate shall consist of thirty-two 
 members, to be elected for four years, by 
 the voters qualified to vote for representa- 
 tives, and at the same time; one half every 
 two years; and the apportionment of sena- 
 tors shall be as follows: . 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines and St. 
 Bernard, and that portion of the parish of 
 Orleans on the right bank of the river, 
 
 >hall have one senator, 
 
 The Parish of Orleans — 
 
 First Municipality, 
 Second 44 
 Third 
 
 The Parish of Jefferson, 
 
 44 St. John the Baptist 
 and St. Charles, 
 " St. James, 
 
 Ascension and 
 Assumption, 
 44 Lafourche and 
 
 Terrebonne, 
 " Iberville and 
 
 West Baton Rouge 
 44 East Baton Rouge, 
 u -West Feliciana, 
 4; East Feliciana, 
 St. Helena and 
 Livingston, 
 44 Washington and 
 St. Tammany, 
 Point Coupee, 
 Concordia and 
 Tensas, 
 " Carroll and 
 
 Madison, 
 M Catahoula and 
 Franklin, 
 St. Mary and 
 St. Martin, 
 
 The Parish of Lafayatte and 
 Vermillion, 
 " St. Landiy, 
 " Sabine and 
 
 Calcasieu, 
 " # Avoyelles, 
 " Rapides, 
 " Xatchitoches, 
 " Caddo and 
 
 De Soto, 
 Si Claiborne and 
 
 Bossier, 
 " Ouachita and 
 
 Caldwell, 
 " Union, Morehou; 
 
 and Jackson, 
 
 Total, 32 
 And whenever a new parish shall be 
 created, it shall be attached to the senato- 
 rial district from which most of it was ta- 
 ken, or to another contiguous district, at 
 the discretion of the legislature; but shall 
 not be attached to more than one district. 
 Substitute offered by Mr. Gnox, viz: 
 The senate shall consist of thirty-two 
 members, to be elected for four years, by 
 persons qualified to vote for representa- 
 tives, and the apportionment of senators 
 shall be as follows, to .wit : 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines. St. Ber- 
 nard, and Jefferson, together with that 
 portion of the parish of Orleans on the 
 right bank of the^iver Mississippi, shall 
 constitute the first district, with three sena- 
 tors. 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the left side of the river, shall 
 constitute the second district, with four 
 senators. 
 
 The parishes of St. Charles and St. John 
 the Baptist, shall constitute the third dis- 
 trict, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. James and Ascen- 
 sion, shall constitute the fourth district, 
 with two senators. 
 
 The parishes of Assumption, Lafourche 
 Interior and Terre Bonne, shall constitute 
 the fifth district; with two senators. 
 
 The parishes of Iberville, West Baton 
 Rouge and Point Coupee, shall constitute 
 the sixth district, with two senators. 
 
 The parishes of West Feliciana and 
 East Feliciana, shall constitute the seventh 
 district, with two, senators. 
 
 The parish of East Baton Rouge, shall 
 
136 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 constitute the eighth district, with one sen- 
 ator. 
 
 The parishes of Washington, St. Tam- 
 many, St. Helena and Livingston, shall 
 "constitute the ninth district, with two sena- 
 tors. # 
 
 The parishes of Concordia and Tensas, 
 shall constitute the tenth district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of Madison and Carroll, 
 shall constitute the eleventh district, with 
 one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Avoyelles and Rapides, 
 shall constitute the twelfth district, with 
 two senators. 
 
 The parishes of Catahoula, Caldwell 
 and Franklin, shall constitute the thirteenth 
 district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Ouachita, Union, More 
 house and Jackson, shall constitute the 
 fourteenth district, with one senator, 
 
 The parishes of Natchitoches, Caddo, 
 Sabine, De Soto and Claiborne, shall con- 
 stitute the fifteenth district, with three sen- 
 ators. 
 
 The parishes of St. Landry and Calca- 
 sieu, shall constitute the sixteenth district, 
 with two senators. 
 
 •The parishes of St. Martin, St. Mary, 
 Lafayette and Vermillion, shall constitute 
 the seventeenth district, with two Senators. 
 
 The motion of Mi-.Beatty to strike out 
 from the majority report the word "eight" 
 being under consideration, the yeas and 
 nays being called for # 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Brazeale, Brent s Brumfield, Bur- 
 ton, Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Covillion, Culbertson,Derbes, Downs, 
 Dunn, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, King, Labauve, Ledeax, 
 Lewis, McCallop, Mazureau, O'Bryan, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Pugh, 
 Ratliff, Read, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Voorhies, Waddill, Wads- 
 worth, Wederstrandt, WikofF and Winder 
 voted in the affirmative. — 54 yeas, and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Kenner, Ma- 
 rigny, Roman, Taylor of Assumption and 
 Winchester voted in the negative. * — 7 nays, 
 consequently said motion was caried. 
 
 Mr. Brent then mover! to fill the blank 
 
 with the Words "thirty*two " and the yeas 
 and nays being called for 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, Bur- 
 ton, Cade, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, 
 Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Labauve, Le- 
 deaux,Legendre,McCallop, O'Bryan, Peets 5 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prudhomme, 
 Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, 
 Splane, Stephens, Voorhies, Waddill and 
 Wederstrant voted in the affirmative — 31 
 yeas, and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Boudousque, Bourg, Briant, Cenas, Cigi- 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jef- 
 ferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, 
 Lewis, .Marigny, Mazureau, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Pugh, Roman, Saunders, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Laydry, 
 Wads worth, WikofF, Winchester and 
 Winder voted in the negative — 32 nays, 
 consequently the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved to lay on the table 
 subject to call, the clause fixing the num- 
 ber of senatorial districts, and that the Con- 
 vention proceed in the apportionment ; the 
 yeas and nays being called for 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbert- 
 son, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Gar 
 rett, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, La 
 bauve, Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazu- 
 reau, Pugh, Roman, Saunders, Sellers 
 Taylor of Assumption, Winchester and 
 Winder voted in the affirmative — 31 yeas 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Bru 
 field, Burton, .Cade, Chambliss, Covillio 
 Downs, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, M 
 Gallop, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Pru 
 homme, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt and 
 WikofF voted in the negative — 31 nays; 
 the vote being equally divided the Presi- 
 dent voted in the negative, consequently 
 the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan then moved to fill the 
 blank with the word "thirty," and the yeas 
 and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Burton,Cade, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs. 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 13? 
 
 Garrett, Humble, Hyrison, Latfauve, Le- 
 doux, McCallop, O'Bryan, Peets, Poller, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prudhomme, Ratliff. 
 Read, Scott ol Baton Rouge, Scott ot Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Splane, 
 Stephens, Voorhies, Waddill and Weder- 
 strandt voted in the affirmative — 30 yeas ; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Cidbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eusiis, Gar- 
 cia, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Le- 
 gendre, Lewis, Marigny, ISLazureau, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Pugh, Roman, Saunders, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Wikoff, Winchester and Winder voted 
 in the negative — 32 nays; consequently, 
 the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Guion then moved to fill the blank 
 with the word " seventeen." The yeas* 
 and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad, 
 of Orleans, Culberison , Derbes, Dunn, Eus- 
 tis, Garcia, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, 
 King, Labauve, Lewis, «Marigny, Jlazu- 
 reau, Pugh, Roman, Saunders, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Win- 
 chester and Winder voted in favor of said 
 motion— 28 ayes; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 jield, Burton, Cade, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Covitlion, Downs, Garrett, Humble, Hyn- 
 so?i, Ledoux, Legendre, O'Bryan, Peets, 
 Porter, McCallop, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Pmdhom- 
 me, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, 
 ' Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Voorhies, Wad- 
 'dill, Wederstrandt and Wikoff voted in 
 the negative — 35 nays; consequently the 
 j motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved to adjourn till to- 
 morrow at ten o'clock a. m. The yeas 
 and nays being called for, yeas 31— -nays 
 31. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Beu- 
 ■dousquie, Boug, Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, 
 \Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- 
 \bertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eusiis, Garcia, Gui- 
 don, Hudspeth, Kenner, Labanve, Legendre, 
 Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, Ro- 
 selius, Saunders, Sellers, Stephens, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Winchester and Wind- 
 er voted in the affirmative— 31 ayes: and 
 18 
 
 Messrs, Brazeale, Brent, Bromfield, Bur 
 ton, Cade, Chambliss, Covillio?i, Downs, 
 Garrett, Humble, Hynson, King, Ledoux, 
 McCallop, O' Bryan, Peets, Porte?', Pres- 
 cott, of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 | Jladison, Splane, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Waddill, Wederstrandt and Wikoff voted in 
 the negative — 31 nays. The vote being 
 equal, the President voted in the negative; 
 consequently, the motion was lost. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Kenner, the clause, 
 in the majority report fixing the number of 
 senatorial districts, was laid on the table, 
 subject to call. 
 
 Mr. Brent than moved to take up the 
 substitute offered by Mr. Downs, which - 
 motion was lost. 
 
 The President being asked what project 
 was before the house, answered, that the 
 majority report was the one upon which 
 the Convention had been acting. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow at 10 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent : Messrs. 
 Chinn, Leonard, Penn and Trist, absent 
 on account of illness; Messrs. Carriere, 
 Mayo, McRae and Porche absent on leave, 
 Messrs. Grymes and Soule did not appear 
 in their seats. 
 
 Wednesday, March 26, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Clark opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 * Mr. Ilsley, one of the reporters jn Eng- 
 lish, furnished the secretary with the re- 
 ceipt of the printers to the Convention for 
 the report of the debates to the 24th instant. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff chairman of the committee 
 on contingent expenses, offered the follow- 
 ing resolution, which was adopted, viz: 
 
 " Resolved, That the committee on con- 
 tingent expenses be instructed to pay James 
 Carpenter, sergeant- at-arms, the sum of 
 twenty-seven dollars and,fourteen cents, in 
 remuneration for moneys paid out by him 
 for the use of the Convention*" 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Section 10th of article 5th, as reported 
 by the majority. 
 
 " The State shall be divided into eigrr 
 senatorial districts, each of which shall 
 elect four senators, to be voted for by per=" 
 
138 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 sons.entitled to vote for representatives, as 
 follows: 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river, shall comprise the first district. 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines, St. Ber- 
 nard, and the remainder of the parish of 
 Orleans, parishes of Jefferson, St. Charles 
 and St. John the Baptist, shall compose the 
 second district. 
 
 The parishes of St. 'James, Ascension, 
 Assumption, Lafourche Interior and Ter- 
 rebonne shall compose the third district. 
 
 The parishes of Iberville, West Baton 
 Rouge, East Baton Rouge, Point Conpee 
 and Avoyelles shall compose the fourth 
 district. 
 
 The parishes of West Feliciana, East 
 Feliciana, Washington, St. Tammany, St. 
 Helena and Livingston shall compose the 
 fifth district. 
 
 The parishes of Concordia, Carroll, Ma- 
 dison, Ouachita, Franklin, Union, Tensas, 
 Morehouse, Catahoula and Caldwell shall 
 compose the sixth district. 
 
 The parishes of Rapides, Natchitoches, 
 Caddo, Calcasieu, Claiborne, Sabine, Bos- 
 sier and De Soto shall compose the seventh 
 district. 
 
 The parishes of St. Mary, St.* Martin, 
 St. Landry, Lafayette and Vermillion shall 
 compos'e the eighth district. 
 
 Provided, That the legislature shall have 
 the power in any year in which they shall 
 apportion representation in the house of 
 representatives, to divide anyone or more 
 of said senatorial districts, each to be enti- | 
 tied to elect two senators." 
 
 Report of the minority offered by Mr. 
 Downs as a substitute to the foregoing 10th 
 section, viz : 
 
 44 The senate shall consist of thirty-two 
 members, to be elected for four years by 
 the voters qualified to vote for representa- 
 tives, and at the same time, one-half every 
 two years, and the apportionment of sena- 
 tors shall be as follows : 
 
 The parishes o£ Plaquemines, St. Ber- 
 nard, and that portion of the parish of # Or- 
 leans on the right bank of the river shall 
 have one senator. 1 
 The Parish of Orleans- 
 First Municipality, 2 
 Second 44 1 
 Third li 1 
 The Parish of Jefferson, 1 
 
 tist ) 
 
 The Parish of St. John the Baptist 
 
 and St. Charles 
 " St. James, 
 " Ascension and 
 
 Assumption, 
 44 Lafourche and 
 
 Terrebonne, 
 " Iberville and > 
 West Baton Rouge,. $ 
 44 East Baton Rouge, 
 " West Feliciana, 
 46 East Feliciana, 
 44 St. Helena and ^ 
 
 Livingston, 5 
 44 Washington and \ 
 
 St. Tammany, $ 
 44 Point Coupee, 
 44 Concordia and ? 
 
 Tensas, 5 
 • 44 Carroll and 
 
 Madison, 
 44 Catahoula and 
 
 Franklin, 
 44 St. Mary and 
 
 St. Martin, 
 44 Lafayatte and 
 
 Vermillion, 
 44 St. Landry, 
 44 • Sabine and 
 
 Calcasieu, 
 44 Avoyelles, 
 44 Rapides, 
 44 Natchitoches, 
 4 .' Caddo and 
 De Soto, 
 44 Claiborne and 
 
 Bossier, 
 44 Ouachita and 
 
 Caldwell, 
 44 Union, Morehouse 
 and Jackson, 
 
 Total, 32 
 And whenever a new parish shall be ere- 
 ated, it shall be attached to the senatorial 
 district from which most of it was taken, 
 or to another contiguous district, at the dis- 
 cretion of the legislature; but. shall not be 
 attached to more than one district." 
 
 Mr. Guion offered the following substi- 
 tute, viz : 
 
 The senate shall consist of thirty-two 
 members, to be elected for four years, by 
 persons qualified to vote for representa- 
 tives, and the apportionment of the sena- 
 tors shall be as follows, viz : 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 139 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines, St. Ber- I 
 nard and Jefferson, together with that por- 
 tion of the parish of Orleans on the right j 
 bank of the river Mississippi, shall consti- j 
 tute the first district, with three senators. ' 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the left side of the river shall con- 
 stitute the second district, with four sena- 
 tors. 
 
 The parishes of St. Charles and St. John 
 the Baptist shall constitute the third district, 
 with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. James and Ascen- 
 sion shall constitute the fourth district, with 
 two senators. 
 
 The parishes of Assumption, Lafourche 
 Interior and Terrebonne shall constitute 
 the fifth district, with two senators: 
 
 The parishes of Iberville, West Baton 
 Rouge and Point Coupee shall constitute 
 the sixth district, with two senators. 
 
 The parishes of West Feliciana and 
 East Feliciana shall constitute the seventh 
 district, with two senators. 
 
 The parish of East Baton Rouge shall 
 constitute the eighth district, with one se- 
 nator. 
 
 The parishes of Washington, St. Tam- 
 many, St. Helena and Livingston shall 
 constitute the ninth district, with two 
 senators. 
 
 The parishes of Concordia and Tensas, 
 shall constitute the tenth district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of Madison and Carroll,- 
 shall constitute the eleventh district, with 
 one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Avoyelles and Rapides, 
 shall constitute the twelfth district, with two 
 senators. 
 
 The parishes of Catahoula, Caldwell and 
 Franklin, shall constitute the thirteenth 
 district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Ouachita, Union, More- 
 house and Jackson, shall constitute the 
 fourteenth district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Natchitoches, Caddo, 
 Sabine, De Soto and Claiborne, shall con- 
 stitute the fifteenth district, with three 
 senators. 
 
 The parishes of St. Landrf and Calca- 
 sieu, shall constitute the sixteenth district, 
 with two senators. 
 
 The parishes of St. Martin, St. Mary, 
 Lafayette and Vermillion, shall constitute 
 the seventeenth district, with two senators. 
 
 On motion, the Convention took up the 
 first district of the majority report, viz : 
 
 "All th?t portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying • on the east side of the Mississippi, 
 shall compose the first district." 
 
 Mr. Downs offered .the following sub- 
 stitute, viz : 
 
 "The parish of Orleans shall have — for 
 the first municipality, two senators; for the 
 second municipality, one senator; for the 
 third municipalhy, one senator." 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, moved to lay on 
 the table, subject to call, the order of the 
 day, in order to make way for the following 
 resolution, viz : 
 
 "Whereas, representation in the lower 
 house of the general assembly has been 
 based solely on members — - 
 
 " Resolved, That in apportioning repe- 
 sentation in the senate, property or taxation 
 should be taken into the estimate." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Boudousquie, Briant, 
 Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Conrad' of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Guion, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, Saun- 
 ders, Taylor of St. Landry, Wadsworth, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the af- 
 firmative — 23 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Brumfield,Burton, Cade, Chambliss, 
 Covillion, Downs, Garrett* 'Hudspeth, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, 
 O Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Prud- 
 homme, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Splane, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Voorhies, 
 Waddill, and Wederstrandt voted' in the 
 negative — 36 nays; consequently the mo- 
 tion w r as lost. # 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, moved to 
 lay on the table subject, to call, the first 
 district of the majority report, together with 
 the substitute offered by Mr. Downs, in 
 consequence of the absence of four of the 
 city delegates. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, re- 
 sulted as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Cenas, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad, of Jef- 
 ferson, Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, Garrett, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, 
 
140 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Pugh, Roman, Saunders, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Wadsworth, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the af- 
 firmative — 31 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Culbertson, Downs, 
 Humble, Hynson, McCallop, McRae, O'- 
 Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles* Prescott of St. Landry, Prud- 
 homme, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, 
 Waddill, Wederstrandt and Wikoff voted 
 in the negative — 29 nays ; consequently 
 the motion was carried. 
 
 On motion, the second district of the ma- 
 jority report was taken up, viz : 
 
 "The parishes of Plaquemines, St. Ber- 
 nard, and the remainder of the parish of 
 Orleans, parish of Jefferson, St. Charles 
 and St. John the Baptist, shall compose 
 the second district." 
 
 Mr. Downs offered the following amend- 
 ment, to wit : 
 
 The parish of Plaquemines and. St. Ber- 
 nard, and that portion of the parish of Or- 
 leans on the right bank of the river, shall 
 have one senator. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth moved to amend the 
 amendment of Mr. Downs, by inserting 
 "two" instead of "one" senator. The 
 yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie,Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Garcia, 
 Hudspeth, King, Labauvc, Legendre, Lew- 
 is, Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, Ro- 
 selius, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Wadsworth, Wikoff and Winches- 
 ter, voted in the affirmative- — 28yeas ; and 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfieid, 
 Burion,Cade, Chambliss, Conrad of New 
 Orleans, Covillion, Downs, Dunn, Guion, 
 Humble, Hynson, Kenner, McCallop, Mc- 1 
 Rae, C Bryan, Penn, Porter, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Prud.homme, Ratliff, Read, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Splane, 
 Stephens, Voorhies, Waddill and Weder- 
 strandt voted in the negative — 33 nays ; 
 the motion was lost. 
 
 On motion the amendment of Mr. Downs 
 was adopted, viz: 
 
 " The parishes of Placquemines and St. 
 Bernard, and that portion of the parish of 
 Orleans on the right bank of the river Mis- 
 sissippi, shall have one senator." 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to strike out from 
 said district that part of the parish of Or- 
 leans on the right bank ; which motion was 
 lost. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin then moved that the par- 
 ishes of Jefferson, St. Charles and St. John 
 the Baptist, be entitled to three senators. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to amend Mr. Benja- 
 min's motion, by giving to the parish of 
 Jefferson one senator. • 
 
 Mr. Benjamin then moved for a division, 
 that the Convention first proceed to divide 
 the parish of Jefferson from the parishes of 
 St. Charles and St. John the Baptist. The 
 yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Cade, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 Downs, Garcia, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, 
 McCallop, McRae, Marigny, & Bryan, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, 
 Splane, Stephens, Voorhies, Waddill and 
 Wederstrandt voted in the affirmative — 34 
 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert,Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Briant, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, 
 Pugh, Roman, Roselius, Saunders, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Taylor of 'St. Landry, Wads- 
 worth, Wikoff, and Winchester voted in the 
 negative — 27 nays ; consequently said mo- 
 tion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Jefferson, moved to 
 amend the amendment of Mr. Brent, by 
 inserting "two" instead of "one" senator. 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudo- 
 quie, Briant, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 1 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culberts 
 Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Guion, Kc 
 ner, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Marigny, 
 Mazureau, Preston, Pugh, Roman, Rose- 
 lius, Sanders, Soule, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Wadsworth, Winchester and Winder 
 voted in the affirmative — 25 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. JBeatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 fieid, Burton, Cade Chambliss, Covillion, 
 Downs, Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Lewis, McCallop, McRea, O' Bryan, 
 Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Rat- 
 liff, Reads Scott of Baton Rouge, Scoff of 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 141 
 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, *Se//e/\?, Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, Yocrhies, 
 Waddill? Wederstrandt, and Wikoff voted j 
 in the negative — 36 nays ; consequently ' 
 the motion was lost. 
 
 The motion of Mr. Brent, giving the 
 parish of Jefferson one senator, was then 
 adopted. 
 
 On motion, the apportionment of the par- j 
 ishes of St. Charles and St. John the Bap- j 
 tist was fixed at one Senator. 
 
 On motion, the Convention took up the | 
 third district of the majority report, viz : 
 
 The parishes of St. James, Ascension, \ 
 Assumption, Lafourche Interior, and Ter- 
 rebonne, shall compose the third district. 
 
 Mr. Ke^er moved for a division, that ' 
 is, that the parish of St. James and As- 
 [cession shall compose one district ; which 
 motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Kexxer then moved to allot said 
 district two senators. 
 
 And, pending the discussion of said mo- j 
 tion the Convention adjourned till to-mor- 
 row at ten o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note — Members absent, Messrs. Car- 
 rfere, Mayo, and Porche, absent on leave ; ! 
 Messrs. Leonard and Trist, absent on ac- 
 count of illness : and Messrs. Chinn, 
 Grymes and St. Amand did not appear in j 
 their seats. 
 
 m 
 
 Thursday, March 27, 1545. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ent. 
 
 In the absence of a minister of the gos- 
 pel, at the request of the president, the 
 Hon. Mr. Stephens opened the proceed- 
 ings with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Robert Kerr, one of the reporters in 
 English, furnished the secretary with the 
 receipt of the printers to the Convention, 
 for the report of the debates in English of 
 the 25th ult. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Sec 10. The State shall be divided into 
 
 senatorial districts, each of which shall 
 
 elect four senators, to be voted for by per- 
 sons entitled to vote for representatives, as 
 follows: 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river, shall comprise the first district. 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines, St. Ber- 
 nard and that portion of the parish of Or- 
 
 leans on the right bank of the river, shall 
 compose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Jefferson shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Charles and St. 
 John the Baptist, shall compose one dis* 
 trict, with one senator. * 
 
 The parishes of St. James and Ascension, 
 
 i shall compose one district, with sena- 
 
 ! tors. 
 
 The parishes of Assumption, Lafourche 
 ' Interior and Terrebonne, shall compose 
 
 ', district, wiih senator. 
 
 The •parishes of Iberville, West Baton 
 Rou^e, East Baton Rouge, Point Coupee 
 and Avoyelles, shall compose the fourth 
 ' district. 
 
 The parishes of West Feliciana, East 
 Feliciana, Washington, St. Tammany, St. 
 Helena and Livingston, shall compose the 
 ; fifth district. 
 
 The parishes of Concordia, Carrol, 
 Madison, Ouachita, Union, Franklin, Ten- 
 | sas, Morehouse, Catahoula and Caldwell, 
 ' shall compose the sixth district. 4 
 The parishes of Rapides, Xatchitoches, 
 Caddo, Calcasieu, Claiborne, Sabine, Bos- 
 | sier and De Soto, shall compose the sev- 
 ; enth district. 
 
 The parishes of St. Mary, St'. Martin, 
 ! St. Landry, Lafayette and Vermillion, shall 
 i compose the eighth district. 
 | Provided, That the legislature shall have 
 i the power, in any year in which they shall 
 | apportion representation in the house of 
 representatives, to divide any one or more 
 of said senatorial districts, each to be enti- 
 tled to elect two senators. 
 
 The question under consideration at the 
 adjournment, was the motion of Mr. Ken- 
 ner to allow to the senatorial district, com- 
 posed of the parishes of St. James and As- 
 cension, two senators. 
 
 Mr. Bre^t moved that the order of the 
 day, that is, the motion offered by Mr. Ken- 
 ner giving two senators to the comity of 
 Acadia, be laid on the table subject to sail: 
 and the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Cade, 
 Chambliss, .Covillion, Downs, Humble, 
 Hynson, Lewis, McCallop, JIcRae, O' Bry- 
 an, Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoy- 
 elles, Prescott of St. Landry, Ratlif, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madisoti, Splane, Stephens, Voor- 
 
142 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 hies, Waddill, Wederstrandt and Winder 
 voted in the affirmative — 29 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Culberson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, 
 King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Marig- 
 ny, Mazureau, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, 
 Saunders, Sellers, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Wadsworth, Wikoff 
 and Winchester voted in the negative— 38 
 nays; consequently the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Kenner then called for tjie yeas 
 and nays on the motion giving two sena- 
 tors to the parishes of St. James and» As- 
 cension, which resulted as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Burton Cade, Chinn, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, 
 King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Marigny, Mazureau, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Prudhomme, Pugh, Railiff, Roman, 
 * Saunders, Sellers, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, Wadsworth 
 and Winchester voted in the affirmative — 
 39 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Humble, 
 Hynson, Mc Gallop, McRae,0'Bryan,Peets, 
 Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Read,, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Splane, Stephens, Wad- 
 dill, Wederstrandt and Winder voted in the 
 negative>— 25 nays; consequently said mo- 
 tion was carried. 
 
 On motion, the senatorial district com- 
 posed of the parishes of St. James and 
 Ascension, with two senators, was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff gave notice that he would, 
 on a future day, move to reconsider the 
 vote making one senatorial district of the 
 parishes of St. James and Ascension. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, moved that 
 the parishes of Assumption, Lafourche In- 
 terior and Terrebonne shall compose one 
 district, with two senators. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved for a division, that is, 
 the Convention first proceed to establish 
 the district; and the yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Jlubert, Benjamin,Boudousquie, 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Cham- 
 Bourg, Briant, Burton, Brumfield, Chinn,- 
 
 Cade, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con 
 rad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth. 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Marigny, Ma zureau, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Pugh, Roman, Saunders, Sellers, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Voorhies, Wadsworth, Winchester and 
 Winder voted in the affirmative — 38 yeas; 
 and, 
 
 bliss, Covillion, Downs, Humble, Hynson, 
 Ledoux, McCallop, McRae, O' 'Bryan, Peets, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prudhomme, 
 Railiff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Splane, 
 Stephens, Waddill and Wederstrandt voted 
 in the negative— -25 nays ; consequently 
 the motion was carried. 
 
 On motion, the district composed of the 
 parishes of Assumption, Lafourche Interior 
 and Terrebonne with two senators, was 
 adopted. 
 
 The Convention then took up the fourth 
 district of the majority report, viz : 
 
 "The parishes of Iberville, West Bator 
 Rouge, East Baton Rouge, Point Coupee 
 and Avoyelles shall compose the fourtV 
 district." 
 
 Mr. Chinn moved to amend, as follows 
 viz : "The parishes of Iberville and Wes 
 Baton Rouge shall compose one district;' 
 which amendment was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Chinn then moved that two senator; 
 be allotted to the said district formed o 
 the parishes of Iberville and West Batoi 
 Rouge; the yeas and nays being called for 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Briant 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes 
 Dunn, Kenner, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre. 
 McCallop, Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh 
 Roman, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Waddill and Winchester voted in the affir- 
 mative — 23 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg,Brazeah 
 Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Cenas. 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Garrett 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, King- 
 Lewis, McRae, CBryan, Peets, Penn 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott o 
 St.Landry, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Scot 
 of Feliciana, Sellers, Stephens, Splane: 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry 
 Voorhies, Wederstrandt and Winder votec 
 in the negative — 38 nays; consequently the 
 motion was lost. 
 
Journal of the Con vention of Louisiana. 
 
 143 
 
 On motion, the district composed of the 
 parishes of Iberville and West Baton Rouge, 
 with one senator, was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Read moved that the parish of East 
 Baton Rouge shall compose one district, 
 mth one senator; which motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Ledoux moved that the parish of 
 ^oint Coupee shall compose one district, 
 vith one senator ; which motion was 
 idopted. 
 
 1 Mr. Covillion moved that the parish 
 [F Avoyelles shall compose one district, 
 vith one senator; the yeas and nays being 
 balled for, 
 
 I Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 \ \3rumjield, Burton, Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, 
 jtovUlion, Culbertson, Downs, Garrett, 
 vludspeth, Humble, Hynso'n, King, Ledoux, 
 Vbewis, McCallop, McRae, O' Bryan, Peets, 
 • [ ?enn, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 wott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Ratliff, 
 Head, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 
 iiana, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of 
 .ssumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Voor- 
 ies, WaddiU, Wederstrandt and Winder 
 oted in the 'affirmative — —41 yeas; and 
 Messrs. Aubert, Boudousquie, Briant, 
 'hinn, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 'onrad of Jefferson, Derbes, Dunn, Guion, 
 i tenner 9 Labauve, Legendre, Mazureau, 
 ugh, Roman, Saunders, Wadsworth and 
 
 j Winchester voted in the negative 19 
 
 I ays; consequently the motion was carried, 
 Ijid the district composed of the parish of 
 voyelles with one senator, was adopted, 
 j: On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 I] to-morrow, at 10 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 II Ndte. — xMembers absent: Messrs. Car- 
 fere, Mayo and Porche absent on leave; 
 Liessrs. Leonard and Trist absent on ac- 
 nunt of illness ; and Messrs. Grymes, 
 i.i-eston. Roselius, St. Amand and Soule 
 i'li not appear in their seats. 
 
 Friday, March 28, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ent. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Nicholson opened the 
 j'oceedings with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Ilsley, one of the reporters in 
 jnglish, furnished the secretary with the 
 
 ceipt of the printers to the Convention for 
 |e report of the debates in English, of the 
 •5th inst. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 | Sec. 10. The" State shall be divided in- 
 
 to senatorial districts, each of which 
 
 shall elect four senators, to be voted for by 
 persons entitled to vote for representatives 
 as follows : 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 ying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river shall comprise the first district. 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines, St. Ber- 
 nard, and that portion of the parish of Or- 
 leans on the right bank of the river shall 
 composse one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Jefferson shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The phrishes of St. Charles and St. John 
 the Baptist, shall compose one district, 
 with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. James and Ascen- 
 sion shall compose one district, with two 
 senators. 
 
 The parishes of Assumption, Lafourche 
 Interior, and Terrebonne, shall compose 
 one district, with two senators. 
 
 The parishes of Iberville and West Ba- 
 ton Rouge shall compose one district, with 
 one senator. 
 
 The parish of East Baton Rouge shall 
 compose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Pointe Coupee shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Avoyelles shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of West Feliciana, East 
 Feliciana, Washington, St. Tammany, St. 
 Helena and Livingston, shall compose the 
 fifth district. • 
 
 The parishes of Concordia, Carrol, Madi- 
 son, Ouachita, Union, Franklin, Tensas, 
 Morehouse, Catahoula, and Caldwell shall 
 compose the sixth district. 
 
 The parishes of Rapides, Natchitoches, 
 Caddo, Calcasieu, Claiborne, Sabine, Bos- 
 sier and De Soto, shall compose the sev- 
 enth district. 
 
 The parishes of St. Mary, St. Martiiu 
 St. Landry, Lafayette and Vermillion, shall 
 compose the eighth district. 
 
 Provided, that the legislature shall have 
 the power in any year in which they shall 
 apportion representation in the house of 
 representatives, to divide any one or more 
 of said senatorial districts, each to be enti- 
 tled to elect two senators. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Lewis, the Conven- 
 tion took up the eighth district of the ma- 
 jority report, viz ; 
 
 The parishes of St. Mary, St. Martin, 
 
U4 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 St. Landry, Lafayette and Vermillion shall 
 compose the eighth district. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption moved to 
 amend the same by making a district of 
 the parishes of St. Mary and St. Martin. 
 
 Mr. Splane moved for a division, that 
 is that each parish shall constitute a sepa- 
 rate district, and the yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs, Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, 
 Humble, McCallop, McRae, O'Bryan, 
 Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 . Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Splane, Ste- 
 phens, Waddill, Wederstrandt, and Wi- 
 lt off voted in the affirmative— 25 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Cade, Cenas, Chinn, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jef- 
 ferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Hynson, Ke li- 
 ner, King, Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Marigny, Mazureau, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Pugh, Roman, Saunders, Sellers, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Voorhies, Winchester and Winder voted 
 in the negative— 36 nays; consequently 
 the motion was lost. 
 
 On motion the amendment of Mr. Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, forming one district with 
 the parishes of St. Mary and St. Martin, 
 was adopted. 
 
 Then Mr. Taylor of Assumption moved 
 that two senators be allotted to the district 
 composed of the parishes of St. Mary and 
 St. Martin ; the yeas and nays being cal- 
 led for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Cade, 
 Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Co- 
 villion, Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Hum- 
 ble, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, 
 Lewis, McCallop, Marigny, Mazureau, O'- 
 Bryan, Peets, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Pugh, 
 Roman, Scott of Baton Rouge, Sellers, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, Wikoff, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the af- 
 firmative — 49 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Burton, Hynson, McRae, Penn, 
 Porter, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in the 
 
 negative — 10 nays ; consequently the mo- 
 tion was carried. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Taylor of Assumption, 
 the district composed of the parishes of St. 
 Mary and St. Martin, with two senators, 
 was adopted. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan moved that the parishes of 
 Lafayette and Vermillion shall compose 
 one district, with one senator, which mo- 
 tion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved that the parishes of 
 St. Landry and Calcasieu shall form one 
 district, with two senators ; the yeas and 
 nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra« 
 zeale, Brent, Burton, Brumfield, Briant, 
 Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, Clai 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jef- 
 ferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre 
 Lewis, McCallop, Marigny, Mazureau, 0 
 Bryan, Peets, Penn, # Porter, Prescott oi 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Prud 
 homme, Ratliff, Read, Roman, Saunders 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Felician 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Splane, Ste 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor 
 St. Landry, Voorhies, Wederstrandt, W 
 koff, Winchester and Winder voted in th 
 affirmative — 57 yeas ; and 
 
 Mr. Abel Waddill voted in the negative 
 — -1 nay; consequently the motion was 
 carried, and the district composed of the 
 parishes of St. Landry and Calcasieu, with 
 two senators, was adopted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ratliff, the Conven- 
 tion took up the fifth district of the majority 
 report, viz : 
 
 The parishes of West Feliciana, East 
 Feliciana, Washington, St. Tammany, St. 
 Helena, and Livingston, shall compose the 
 fifth district. 
 
 Mr. Wederstrandt moved that the 
 parish of West Feliciana, shall compose 
 one district, with one sena-tor, the yeas and | 
 nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Cade, Chambliss, Chinn, Covil- 
 lion, Culbertson, Downs, Garrett, Humble, 
 Hynson, McCallop, McRae,0'Bryan, Peets, 
 Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Ratliff, 
 Read, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sel- 
 lers, Splane, Stephens, Waddill, Weder 
 
journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 145 
 
 strandt and Wikoff— voted in the affirma- 
 tive; 34 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bri- 
 ant, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Guion, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh, Ro- 
 man, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Wadsworth, Winchester and Win- 
 der — 26 nays ; consequently said motion 
 was carried, and the parish of West Feli- 
 ciana constitutes one senatorial district, 
 and is entitled to one Senator. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Scott of Feliciana, 
 the parish of East Feliciana was constitu- 
 ted in one district, with one senator. 
 
 Mr. McRae moved that the Parishes of 
 St. Helena and Livingston shall form one 
 district. 
 
 Mr. Labauve moved to amend the mo- j 
 tion of Mr. McRae, by adding to said dis- j 
 trict the parishes of Washington and St. j 
 Tammany: the veas and nays being called 
 tbr, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, B riant, Chirm, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Eustis, Garcia, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, Lewis, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, Sel- 
 lers, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Voorhies, Wadsworth, Winchester 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative — 30 i 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumf eld, Bur- 
 ton, Cade, Chambliss, Couillion, Downs, l 
 Dunn, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, 
 McCallop, McRae, (? Bryan, Peets, Penn, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, j 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Splane, Ste- 
 phens, TVaddill, and Weder strandt voted 
 in the negative — 32 nays ; consequently 
 the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Penn then moved that the parishes 
 of St. Helena and Livingston shall form 
 one district, with one senator, the yeas and 
 nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Briimfeld, 
 Burton, Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, Covillion, \ 
 Downs, Dunn, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, \ 
 Ledoux, McCallop, McRae, O y Bryan, I 
 Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Prud- 
 \ homme, Ratliff, Read. Saunders. Scott of 
 19 
 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Splane, Waddill, and Weder- 
 strandt voted in the affirmative — 33 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Briant, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Eustis, Garcia, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, Sellevs, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Wads- 
 icorth, Winchester and Winder voted in the 
 negative — 28 nays; consequently the mo- 
 tion was carried, and the district composed 
 of the parishes of St. Helena and Livings- 
 ton,- with one senator*was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Pexx moved that the parishes of 
 Washington and St. Tammany shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator, and 
 the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, Bur- 
 ton, Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Humble, 
 Hynson, Ledoux, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, 
 O' Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Prestsh, 
 Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Saunders, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott 
 of Madison, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Waddill and Weder strandt vo- 
 ted in the affirmative — 37 yeas; and, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Briant, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, 
 Garcia, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, Sel- 
 lers, Taylor ofAssumption, Winchester and 
 Winder voted in the negative — 23 nays; the 
 motion was carried, and the district com- 
 posed of the parishes of Washington and St, 
 Tammany, with one senator, was adopted, 
 
 On motion of Mr. Sellers, the parishes 
 of Tensas and Concordia shall compose 
 one district, with one senator, was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Sellers moved that the parishes of 
 Carroll and Madison shall form one dis- 
 trict, with one senator; which motion pre- 
 vailed. 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved that the parisheb 
 of Morehead, Union and Jackson, shall 
 compose one district, with one senator. 
 
 On a motion that the Convention adjourn 
 till to-morrow at 10 o'clock a. m., the yeas 
 and nays being called for, 
 
 ?vle55rs, Aubert, Benjamin, Briant, Ce- 
 nas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of New Oi- 
 
Journal oj the Convention oj Louisiana* 
 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, Garcia, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Leicis, McCallop, 
 Mazureau, Sa unders, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Winch-ester and Win- 
 der voted in favor of the adjournment — 22 
 yeas ; and , 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Cade, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 Downs, Dunn, Eustis, GarreU, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, JJyiison, Ledoux, McRae, O^Bry* 
 an, Peels, Penn, Porter, Prescolt of Avoy- 
 elles, Prescolt of St. Landry, Preston, Prud- 
 homme, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Roman, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott 
 of Madison, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt voted against 
 the adjournment — 37 nays; the motion was 
 lost. ' 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to amend the mo*- 
 lion of Mr. Garrett by adding the parish 
 of Ouachita to said district. 
 
 Mr.. Aubert moved that the Conven- 
 tion adjourn till to-morrow at 10 o'clock, a. 
 m., the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, B catty, ~ Bourg, Briant, 
 Cenes, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Conrad of J efferson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, La- 
 bauve, Legendre, Lewis, McCallop, Mazu- 
 reau, Pugh, Roman, Sellers, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Voorhies, Winchester and Winder voted in 
 the affirmative — 29 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Garrett, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Ledoux, McRae, CP Bryan, 
 Peels, Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 PrescoU of St. Landry, Preston, Prud- 
 homme, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Splane, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in the 
 negative — 29 nays; the vote being equally 
 divided, the President voted in the negative, 
 consequently the motion was lost. 
 
 After some discussion on the motion of 
 Mr. Benjamin, Mr. Kenner moved that the 
 Convention adjourn till to-morrow, at i 0 
 o'clock, a. m.; the yeas and na}^s being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Bourg, Briant, Brum- 
 held, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad ofJefferson, Derbes, Garcia, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Labwe* Lev/is, McCallop, 
 •Pugh, Roman, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Taylor of ( St, Landry, Voor. 
 
 hies, Winchester and Winder voted in the 
 affirmative — 23 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Downs,. Garreti, 
 Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, McRae, O'Bry- 
 an, Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoy- 
 elles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Prud- 
 homrae, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Mad- 
 ison, Splane, Waddill, and ' Wederstrandt 
 voted in the negative-— 28 nays; conse- 
 quently the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. McRae then moved a call of the 
 house, and the following delegates answer 
 ed to their names, viz: 
 
 Messrs. Walker, President; Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, 
 Cade, Qhambliss, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Covillion, Derbes, Downs, Gar- 
 cia, Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, 
 Kenner, King, Ledoux, Lewis, McCallop, 
 McRae, O 'Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Preston, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, 
 Roman, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers,Splane, 
 Taylor of Assumption. Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Waddill and Wederstrandt — 45. 
 
 On motion the Convention adjourned till 
 to-morrow, at 10 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note — Members absent, Messrs. Car- 
 riere, Mayo and Porche, absent on leave; 
 Messrs. Leonard and Trist, absent on ac- 
 count of illness; and Messrs. Grymes, Ro- 
 selius, St. Amand and Soule, did not ap- 
 pear in their seats. m 
 
 Saturday, March 29, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Watkins opened the 
 proceedings with prayer. 
 
 The President submitted a letter of in- 
 vitation from major Gaily, of the Orleans 
 Battalion, to attend a target shooting, 
 which invitation was accepted. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff, chairman of the commit- 
 tee on contingent expenses, to whom was 
 referred the application of the printers of 
 the reports of the English debates of the 
 Convention, submitted the following re- 
 port, viz: 
 
 The committee on contingent expenses., 
 to whom was referred the application of 
 the printers of the English reports of the 
 I Convention, for an increased compensa 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 147 
 
 tion to be allowed them for their services, 
 have the honor to report, that by a reso- 
 lution of the Convention, adopted on the 
 27th day of January, the printers of the 
 English reports of the journal and debates 
 of the Convention, as well as the printers 
 of the French, were to receive each five 
 hundred dollars during the session of the 
 Convention, for ten copies of their paper, 
 containing the entire proceedings of the 
 Convention, to be furnished each member 
 three times a week, or oftener if necessary, 
 to keep up with the proceedings of the 
 Convention; and by a former resolution, 
 adopted the 10th of August last, they were 
 to have two dollars per page for the print- 
 ing, binding and- delivering in book form 
 one thousand copies of the journals and 
 debates of the Convention in English, and 
 the same for a like number of. copies in 
 French. Nothing was said in either of 
 those resolutions about extra printing or- 
 dered by the Convention. In view of the 
 above resolutions, the committee have felt 
 themselves fully authorized to credit the 
 accounts of the printers for any extra print- 
 ing they were required to do for the Con- 
 vention, and to allow them a fair compen- 
 sation for the work so done. The present 
 application of the printers of the English 
 reports for the Convention, is mainly, it is 
 believed, to obtain an extra compensation 
 for furnishing the number of copies of the 
 paper to the members, required under the 
 resolution above referred to. Their ap- 
 plication is in these words: They say they 
 are allowed five hundred dollars for furn- 
 ishing each member of the Convention, 
 with ten copies of the paper each day; the 
 papers to contain the proceedings of the 
 Convention, during the sitting of that body; 
 a compensation less than twenty dollars 
 per day for seven hundred and seventy 
 copies of the paper. This would involve 
 them in an absolute loss at the rate of ten 
 dollars for three hundred and twelve pa- 
 mpers; this number would be worth twen- 
 :ty-six dollars and seventy -five cents; thus, 
 ( should the Convention sit three months, 
 Ithey would receive one thousand eight 
 hundred dollars worth of papers, and ac- 
 'cording to the present arrangement, we 
 should be mulcted in a loss of one thou- 
 sand three hundred dollars on this item 
 jalone of the contract. The committee 
 have thought proper to state the substance 
 
 of their application, in order to possess the 
 house fully of the value of their applica- 
 tion; the committee would su gfijte> that the 
 election of the present printers took place 
 pn the same day the resolution above refer- 
 ed to was adopted, and almost immediately 
 after its adoption. The question of the 
 removal of the former printer, had occu- 
 pied the attention of the Convention for 
 several days previous to his removal; soon 
 after the election of the present printers, 
 the committee paid them the five hundred 
 dollars, allowed them by said resolution, 
 j in compensation for the subscription of the 
 Convention to their paper, and since then 
 the printers of the English journals and 
 debates have received for extra printing, a 
 further sum of five hundred dollars. It is 
 proper to say, that, according to "their ac- 
 count for extra printing, now in the hands 
 of the committee, they have done extra 
 i printing to more than sufficient to cover 
 | that sum, and which the committee will 
 I report upon as soon as they can avail 
 : themselves of the necessary information 
 ! in relation to the value of the work. 
 
 The committee, feel fully assured, that 
 the printers of the Convention became 
 candidates for the ofn.ce of printers with a 
 full knowledge of the compensation to be 
 allowed them, both for their paper, and 
 their journal and debates, to be printed in 
 book form; and nothing was left in doubt 
 or uncertainty, in entering into the con- 
 tract, but the extra printing: which the 
 committee will, unless otherwise instruct- 
 ed, always pay for at a fair compensation 
 as fast as the work is done. The com- 
 mittee feel satisfied, that the Convention 
 has paid to the printers of the English de- 
 partment, as much money -as has been au- 
 thorized under the contract; and they are 
 of opinion, that no further compensation 
 aside from the contract, be allowed them. 
 
 Mr. Splane moved to lay tire above re- 
 port on the table, subject to call, which 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Downs offered the following reso- 
 lution, viz: 
 
 Resolved. That the report made by the 
 committee on contingent expenses, be re- 
 ferred back to the same committee, with 
 instructions to inquire what amount of 
 compensation ought with justice to be 
 given to the printers of the reports of the 
 debates of the Convention, for furnishing 
 
148 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 to each member of the Convention ten 
 copies of the newspaper, containing the re- 
 ports. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved for the adoption of 
 this resolution; the yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Cade, Chambliss, Claiborne, 
 Covillion, Culbertson, Downs, Garrett, 
 Humble, Hynson, Lewis, McCallop, Mc- 
 Jlae, Marigny, Mayo, O 'Bryan, Peets, 
 Penny Porter, Prescoii of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorkies, 
 Waddill, Wederstrandt, Wihoff and Win- 
 der voted in the affirmative— 36 yeas ; 
 and, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatiy, Bourg, Chinn, 
 Conrad of Olreans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Derbes, Hudspeth, King, Legendre, Mazu- 
 reau, Prudhomme, Pugh Railiff, Roman, 
 • Saunders, Sellers, and Winchester voted in 
 the negative— 18 nays; consequently the 
 resolution was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Splane gave notice that he would 
 on Wednesday next, move to reconsider 
 the vote making one senatorial district of 
 the parishes of St. Mary and St. Martin. 
 
 Mr. Chinn gave notice that he would on 
 Wednesday next, move to reconsider the 
 vote allotting to the senatorial district 
 formed of the parishes of Iberville and 
 West Baton Rouge, one senator. 
 
 Mr. Pugh gave notice that he would on 
 a future day, introduce a section to the 
 effect, that each parish shall pay the ex- 
 penses of its representation in the general 
 assemblv. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Sec. 10. The- State shall be divided into 
 
 senatorial districts, each of which 
 
 shall elect four senators, to be voted for by 
 persons entitled to vote for representatives, 
 as follows : 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river, shall comprise the first district. 
 
 The parish of Plaquemines, St. Bernard 
 and that portion of the parish of Orleans on 
 the right bank of the river, shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Jefferson shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Charles and St. 
 
 John the Baptist, shall compose one dis- 
 trict, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. James and Ascension, 
 shall compose one district, with two sena- 
 tors. 
 
 The parishes of Assumption, Lafourche 
 Interior and Terrebonne, shall compose 
 one district, with two senators. 
 
 The parishes of Iberville, and West 
 Baton Rouge shall compose one district, 
 with one senator. 
 
 The parish of East Baton Rouge shall 
 compose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Point Coupee shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Avoyelles shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 • The parishes of -St. Mary and St. Mar- 
 tin shall compose one district, with two 
 senators. . 
 
 The parishes of Lafayette and Vermil- 
 lion shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Landry and Calca- 
 sieu shall compose one district, with twc 
 senators. 
 
 The parish of West Feliciana shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of East Eeiiciana shall com- 
 pose one district with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Helena and Livings- 
 ton, shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of Washington and St. 
 Tammany, shall compose one district, with 
 one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Concordia and Tensas 
 shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of Carroll and Madison 
 shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of Ouachita, Union, Frank- 
 lin, Morehouse, Catahoula and Caldwell 
 shall compose the sixth district. 
 
 The parishes of Rapides, Natchitoches, 
 Caddo, Claiborne, Sabine, Bossier and De 
 Soto shall compose the seventh district. 
 
 Provided, That the legislature shall have 
 the power in any year in which they shall 
 apportion representation in the house of 
 representatives, to divide any one or more 
 of said senatorial districts, each to be en- 
 titled to elect two senators. 
 
 The question under consideration at the 
 adjournment, was the motion of Mr. Ber 
 
Journal of the Conve 
 
 jarain to amend the motion of Mr. Garrett, 
 by adding the parish of Ouachita to the 
 senatoriafdistrict composed of the parishes 
 of Morehouse, Union and Jackson. The 
 yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs, Aubert, Ohinn, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson. Garcia, 
 Hudspeth, King, Legendre, Pugh, Roman, 
 Roselius, Saunders, Sellers, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Wadsworth and Winder voted in 
 the affirmative — 18 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Chambliss, Co- 
 villion, Culbertson, Downs, Eustis, Garrett, 
 Humble,Hynson, Ledoux, Lewis, McCallop, 
 McRae, Marigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, 
 Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 bf Feliciana, Scott of Jladison, Soule, 
 Splane, Stephens, Voorhies, Waddill, Wed- 
 erstrandt and Wikoff voted in the negative 
 '—41 nays ; consequently the motion was 
 lost. 
 
 Mr. Garrett then moved for the adop- 
 tion of the senatorial district composed of 
 the parishes of Morehouse, Union and 
 lackson, with one senator. The yeas and 
 lays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Bri- 
 int, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Chambliss, 
 Covillion, Downs, Eustis, Garrett, Hum- 
 le, Hvnson, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, 
 Mayo, O' Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porter, 
 °rescott of Avoyelles, Prescott St. Landry, 
 °rudhomme, Ratlif, Read, Scott of Baton 
 louge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, 
 Soule, Splane, Stephens, Voorhies, Wad- 
 Id], Wedersirandt and WiJcoff voted in the 
 ifirmative — yeas 38; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Chinn, Claiborne, Con- 
 ad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, 
 xarcia, Hudspeth, King, Legendre, Lewis. 
 Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, Saun- 
 ters, Sellers, and Taylor of St. Landry 
 oted in the negative — 18 ayes; conse- 
 quently the motion was carried, and the 
 listrict composed of the parishes of More- 
 louse, Union and Jackson, with one sena- 
 or was adopted. 
 
 i On motion of Mr. Mayo, the district 
 omposed of the parishes of Franklin and 
 
 Catahoula, with one senator, was adopted* 
 On motion of Mr. Brest, the district 
 omposed of the parish of Rapides, with 
 
 l>ne senator, was adopted, 
 
 mtwn of Louisiana, 1*49 
 
 On motion of Mr. Peets, the district 
 composed of the parishes of Bossier and 
 Claiborne, with one senator, was adopted. ■ 
 
 On motion of Mr. Brazeale, the district 
 composed of the parishes of Natchitoches 
 and Sabine, with two senators, was adopt- 
 ed. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Porter, the district 
 composed of the parishes of Caddo and De 
 Soto, with one senator, was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Dowxs moved for the adoption of 
 the district composed of the- parishes of 
 Ouachita and Caldwell, with one senator; 
 the yeas and nays being called for, resulted 
 as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Cade, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 Culbertson, Downs, Eustis, Garrett, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, 
 Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Soule, Splane, Stephens, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt and Wi- 
 koff voted in the affirmative — 39 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Auburt, Chinn, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, 
 Hudspeth, King, Lev/is, Mazureau, Roman, 
 Roselius, Saunders, Sellers, and Taylor of 
 St. Landry voted in the negative — 16 nays; 
 consequently said motion was carried, and 
 the senatorial district composed of the 
 parishes of Ouachita and Caldwell, with 
 one senator, was adopted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Marigxy, the Con- 
 vention took up the first district of the ma- 
 jority report, which had been laid on the 
 table, subject to call, viz: 
 
 "All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river, shall comprise the flrst'district. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Soule four senators 
 were allotted to said district. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved that the Convention 
 adjourn till Monday next, at 10 o'clock a. 
 m.; the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Briant, Brumfield, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Culbertson, Derbes, Garcia, Gar- 
 rett, Hudspeth, Lewis, Marigny, Mazu- 
 reau, Pugh,' Ratliff, Roman, Roselius, 
 Saunders, and Taylor of St. Landry, voted 
 in the affirmative — and 
 
 Messrs, Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Dunn, Eiuffe 
 tis, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, McCallo^^ 
 
150 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Perm, Por- 
 ter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. 
 ■ Landry, Preston, Prutlhomme, Read, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott 
 of Madison, Sellers, Sonle, Splane, Ste- 
 phens, Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt 
 and Wikoff voted in the negative— -35 nays; 
 consequently the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson the moved that the 
 said first district be divided into three sen- 
 atorial districts, and the four senators be 
 allotted to them as follows, viz: 
 
 The first municipality shall compose one 
 district, with two senators., 
 
 The second municipality shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The third municipality shall compose 
 one district, with one senator, 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the adoption of the motion of Mr. Culbert- 
 son, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, B riant, B rum- 
 field, Burton, Cade, Chambliss, Coviilion, 
 Culbertson, Downs, Garcia, Garrett, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Ledoux, McCallop, McRae, 
 Marigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Penn, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Ratiiff, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, 
 Sellers, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Waddill, 
 Wederstrandt and Wikoff voted in the af- 
 firmative — 37 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Cenas, Derbes, Dunn, . Eustis, 
 Hudspeth, Lewis, Mazureau, Roman, Ro- 
 selius and Taylor of St. Landry voted in 
 the negative — 10 nays ; consequently the 
 motion was carried, and the said districts 
 adopted, as follows, viz: 
 
 The first municipality shall compose 
 one district, with two senators. 
 
 The second municipality shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The third municipality shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 Mr. Mazureau gave notice that he will 
 on Wednesday next, at 12 o'clock, m., 
 move to reconsider the vote dividing the 
 city of New Orleans into three senatorial 
 districts. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till Monday next, at 10 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note — Members absent, Messrs. Car- 
 riere and Porche, absent on leave; Messrs. 
 Leonard and Trist, absent on account of 
 ^JjUness; and Messrs. Boudousquie, Grym.es, 
 ^Penner, Labauve, St. Amand, and Taylor 
 
 of Assumption, did not appear in thei 
 
 seats. 
 
 in opened the py 0 . 
 
 Monday, March 31, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Warkj 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Ilsley, one of the reporters in 
 English furnished the secretary with the 
 receipt of the printers for the report of the 
 debates of the 28th instant; and further, the 
 secretary reports that the receipt for the 
 report of the debates of the 27th instant 
 have not yet been furnished him. 
 
 On motion, leave of absence was grant- 
 ed Messrs. Scott of Baton Rouge, Hyson 
 and Briant. 
 
 On motion Mr. Guion was excused for 
 non-attendance', on account of illness. 
 
 On motion, le*ave of absence was grant- 
 ed Mr. A. Duplantion, on his furnishing 
 the secretary with a substitute to act in his 
 stead during his absence. 
 
 Mr. Kenner offered the following reso 
 lution, and the same was adopted, viz: 
 
 Resolved, That the committee on con 
 tingent expenses be instructed to report tc 
 the Convention what amount of money has 
 been paid to the different printers, for al 
 printing done up to date, and to when' 
 paid. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Sec. 10. The State shali'be divided in 
 to — — senatorial districts, each of whicli 
 shall elect four senators, to be voted for by 
 persons entitled to vote for representatives, 
 as follows, viz: 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river shall be divided as follows, viz: 
 
 The first municipality shall compose one 
 district, with two senators. 
 
 The second municipality shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The third municipality shall compose one 
 district, with one senator, 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines, St. Ber- 
 nard, and that part of the parish ofOrleaiv 
 on the right bank of the river, shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Jefferson shall compose 
 gne district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Charles and St. John 
 the Baptist shall compose one district, with 
 one senator. 
 
Journal of the Contention of Louisiana. 
 
 151 
 
 The parishes of St. James and Ascen- 
 lon shall compose one district, with two 
 senators-. 
 
 The parishes of Assumption, Lafourche 
 Interior and Terrebonne shall compose one 
 district, with two senators. 
 
 The parishes of Iberville and West Ba- 
 on Rouge shall compose one district, with 
 me senator. 
 
 | The parish of East Baton Rouge shall 
 ;ompose one district, with one senator. 
 1 The parish of Pointe Coupee shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 ; The parish of Avoyelles shall compose 
 me district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Mary and St. Mar- 
 gin shall compose one district, *wilrr two 
 enators. 
 
 j The parishes of Lafayette and Vermil- 
 ion shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Landry and Calca- 
 ieu shall compose one district, with two 
 enators. 
 
 The parish of West Feliciana shall com- 
 •ose one district with one senator. 
 
 The parish of East Feliciana shall coni- 
 ose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Helena and Livings- 
 m, shall compose one district, with one 
 enator. 
 
 ! The parishes of Washington and St. 
 j'ammany shall compose one district, with 
 . |ne senator. 
 
 The parishes of Concordia and Tensas 
 jhall compose one district, with one sen- 
 tor. 
 
 i The parishes of Carroll and Madison 
 "thall compose one district, with one sen- 
 tor. 
 
 ', The parishes of Morehouse, Union and 
 ackson shall compose one district, with 
 tie senator, 
 
 I The parishes of Ouachita and Caldwell 
 lall compose "one district, with one sen- 
 tor. 
 
 I The parishes of Franklin and Catahoula 
 ball compose -one district, with one sen- 
 tor. • ^ 
 
 The parish of Rapides shall compose 
 ne district, with one senator, 
 j The parishes of Bossier and Claiborne 
 hall compose one district, with one sen- 
 tor. 
 
 The parishes of Natchitoches and Sa- 
 
 bine shall compose one district with two 
 senators. 
 
 The parishes of Caddo and De Soto 
 shall compose one district, with pile sen- 
 ator. 
 
 Provided, that the legislature shall have 
 the power, in any year, in which they shall 
 apportion representation in the house of 
 representatives, to divide any one or more 
 of said senatorial districts, each to be enti- 
 tled to elect two senators. 
 
 Mr, Dowxs moved to amend the proviso, 
 by striking out the words, "each to be en- 
 titled to elect two senators," and to insert 
 in lieu thereof the words, " having more 
 than one senator." 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption offered the 
 following as a substitute for the proviso and 
 amendment, viz : 
 
 "The legislature in any year in which 
 they shall apportion representation in the 
 house of representatives, shall have the 
 power to divide the State into senatorial 
 districts. No parish shall be divided in the 
 formation of a senatorial district. The 
 number of senators shall not be less than 
 twenty-five, nor more than thirty-four, and 
 .they shall be apportioned among the sena- 
 torial districts according to the total popula- 
 tion contained in the senatorial districts; 
 Provided, that no parish shall be entitled 
 to more than one-eighth of the whole num- 
 ber of senators." 
 
 Mr. Braze ale moved that said substi- 
 tute be laid on the table indefinitely; the 
 yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Walker, president ; Brazeale, 
 Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Car- 
 riere, Chambliss, Downs, Humble, Mc- 
 Ccdlop, Mayo, O' 'Bryan, Peels, Porche, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Prudhomme, Pailiff, Read, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Soule, 
 Splane, Stephens, Waddill, Wadsworth, 
 Wederslrandt ana* Wikoff voted in the af- 
 firmative — 30 yeas ; and 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of New 
 Orleans, Cidbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Huds- 
 peth, Kenner, King, Legendre, Lewis, Mc- 
 Rae, Marigny, Mazureau,Pugh, St.Amand, 
 Saunders, Sellers, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, Voorhies^Wiiu 
 Chester and Winder voted in the negative— 
 29 nays ; consequently -said motion was 
 carried. 
 
152 
 
 Journal of tlw Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 prlr. Kenner then moved to lay on the 
 table indefinitely, the proviso and amend- 
 ment offered by Mr. Downs; the yeas and 
 nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg,Cena,s, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Cul- 
 bertson, Dcrbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Marigny, Mazureau, 0 J Bryan, Pugh, Rat- 
 lijfe St. Amand, Saunders, Sellers, Splane, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Trist, Wadsworth, Wikoff, Winchester 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative — 37 
 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, Bur- 
 ton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Downs, 
 Humble „Ledoux, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, 
 Peets, Penn, Porche, Porter, Prescoit of 
 Avoyelles, Prescoit of St. Landry, Prud- 
 liomme, Read,, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madisoa, Soule, Stephens, Voorhies, Wad- 
 dill and Wederstrandt voted in the nega- 
 tive — 28 nays ; consequently the motion 
 was carried. 
 
 Mr. Downs then offered the following 
 substitute, which was adopted, viz : 
 
 "And whenever a new parish shall be 
 created, it shall be attached to the sena-. 
 torial district from which most of it was 
 taken, or to another contiguous district, at 
 the discretion of the legislature, but shall 
 not be attached to more than one district." 
 
 Mr. Downs offered the following as a 
 substitute for the first paragraph of said 
 section, viz : 
 
 "The State shall be divided into the fol- 
 lowing senatorial districts, and the senators 
 to be elected shall be voted for by persons 
 entitled to vote for representatives;" which 
 substitute was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, offered the fol- 
 lowing amendment to the substitute of Mr. 
 Downs, viz : 
 
 "Who, during the last six months, shall 
 have paid, or at the time of election shall 
 be liable to pay a State tax of one dollar." 
 
 Mr. Brent moved that said amendment 
 be laid on the table indefinitely; and the 
 yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Me s sr s . Brazeale , Brent, Brumfield, Bur • 
 ton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Chinn, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Kenner, King, 
 hedoux, Lewis, McCallop, McRea, Marig- 
 ny, Mayo, 0' Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porche, 
 Porter, Prescoit of Avoyelles, Prescoit of 
 
 St. Landry, Preston, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, 
 Saunders, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Sellers, Soide, Splane, Stephens, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Trist, Voorhies, Wad- 
 dill, Wederstrandt, Wikoff and Winder 
 voted in the affirmative— 49 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjami^Bourg., 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Legendre, 
 Mazureau, St. Amand, Taylor of St. Lai), 
 dry, Wadsworth and Winchester voted in 
 the negative — 12 nays ; consequently saic 
 motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth gave notice that he 
 would on Thursday next, move to reconsidei 
 the vote giving to the senatorial district 
 composed of the parishes of Plaquemines 
 St. Bernard and right bank of the river 
 one senator. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved for the adoption o 
 the section as amended, to wit : 
 
 Sec. 10. The State shall be divided hit 
 the following -senatorial districts, and thi 
 senators to be elected shall be voted fo 
 by persons entitled to vote for representa : 
 tives. 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Oriean 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river, shall be divided into three senatorial 
 districts, as follows : 
 
 The first municipality shall compose on 
 district, with two senators, 
 
 The second municipality shall compos 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The third municipality shall compos 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines, St. Bej 
 nard, and that part of the parish of Oriean 
 on the right bank of the river, shall con 
 pose one district, with one senator*. 
 
 The parish of Jefferson shall compos 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Charles and St. Joh 
 the Baptist, shall compose one district 
 with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. James and Ascen 
 sion shall compose one district, with tw 
 senators. 
 
 The parishes of Assumption, Lafourch 
 Interior and Terrebonne shall compos 
 one district, with two senators. 
 
 The parishes of Iberville and We* 
 Baton Rouge, shall compose one distric 
 with one senator. 
 
 The parish of East Baton Rouge sha 
 compose one district, with one senator. 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 153 
 
 The parish of Point Coupee shall com- 
 pose one district; with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Avoyelles shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Mary and St. Martin 
 shall compose one district, with two sena- 
 tors. 
 
 The parishes of Lafayette and Vermil- 
 ion shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Landry and Calca- 
 sieu shall compose one district, with two 
 senators. 
 
 The parish of West Feliciana shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of East Eeliciana shall com- 
 >ose one district with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Helena and Living- 
 ton, shall compose one district, wiih one 
 enator. 
 
 The paiishes of Washington and St. 
 Tammany, shall compose one district, with 
 ne senator. 
 
 The parishes of Concordia and Tensas 
 hall compose one district, with one 
 enator. 
 
 The parishes of Carroll and Madison 
 lall compose one district, with one 
 ;nator. 
 
 The parishes of Morehouse, Union and 
 tckson, shall compose one district with 
 le senator. 
 
 The parishes of Ouachita and Caldwell 
 : all compose one district with one sena- 
 r. 
 
 The parishes of Franklin and Catahoula 
 (all compose one district, with one sena- 
 fr. 
 
 j The parish of Rapides shall compose 
 ( e district, with one senator. 
 The parishes of Bossier and Claiborne 
 - taU compose one district, with one 
 thator. 
 
 The parishes of Natchitoches and Sa- 
 he shall compose one district, with two 
 siators. 
 
 ( The parishes of Caddo and DeSoto shall 
 9 cmpose one district, with one senator, 
 cs And whenever a new parish shall be 
 cfeated, it shall be attached to the sena- 
 i tjial district from which most of it was 
 t Len, or to another contiguous district, at 
 t j discretion of the legislature, but shall 
 
 * nt be attached to more than one district. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 
 * ti said adoption, 
 
 20 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, Bur- 
 ion, Cade, Carrier x, -Chambliss, Downs, 
 Garrett, Humble, Ledoux, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Mayo, O Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porclic, 
 Porter, Prescott, of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of ^ladison, Sjrfane, 
 Stephens, Waddill, Wederstrandt and Wi- 
 Jcoff voted in the affirmative— 31 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beaity, Benjamin.Bourg, 
 Cenas, Chinrtj Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, 
 Mazureau, Preston, Pngh, St. Amand, 
 Saunders, Sellers, Soule, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Taylor of St. Landry, TrisU 
 Yoorhies, Wadsworth, Winchester and 
 JVinder voted in the negative~34 nays; 
 consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 On motion the Convention adjourned till 
 to-morrow, at 10 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note — Members absent, Messrs. Briant, 
 Covillion, Hynson, and Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, absent on leave; Messrs". Guion 
 and Leonard absent on account of illness; 
 and Messrs. Boudousquie, Gryrnes, La- 
 bauve, Roman and Roselius, did not appear 
 in their seats. 
 
 Tuesday, April 1. 184o. - 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Scott opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Kerr, one of the English reporters, 
 furnished the printers' receipt for the re- * 
 ports of the debates of the 27th March. 
 
 Mr. Chixzs', who had voted in the major- 
 ity against the adoption of section 10th, 
 article 2d, dividing the State into senato- 
 rial districts, gave notice that he would 
 move for the reconsideration of the sec- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff, of the committee of com 
 tingent expenses, made the following re- 
 port.: 
 
 The committee on contingent expenses, 
 to whom was referred the resolution of the 
 Convention of the 31st March, instructing 
 them to report to the Convention how 
 much money has been paid to the printers 
 of the Convention, and the amount pa*id 
 to each, submit the following report: 
 
 By application to the treasury depart- 
 ment, we find that the sum of five thousand 
 
154 
 
 Jurna! of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 and seventy-four dollars have been paid 
 for printing since the Convention com- 
 menced its sitting in Jackson, including 
 $100 paid to Jerome Bayon for 500 copies 
 of the Journals of the Convention of 1811 
 and '12; to wit: Three thousand four hun- 
 dred and seventy-four dollars to James 
 Kelly; to Besangon & Ferguson, one thou- 
 sand dollars; to Jerome Bayon, nVe hun- 
 dred dollars. One half of one thousand 
 dollars paid to Besangon <& Ferguson is 
 on 'account of extra printing. There has 
 been nothing paid to Jerome Bayon, as 
 yet, for extra printing; he not having pre- 
 sented any account to the committee. 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 CYRUS RATLTFF, 
 Chairman Committee. . 
 
 EXPENSES OF THE STATE CONVENTION FOR 
 PRINTING, AND FOR COPIES OF JOUR- 
 NALS, &C» 
 
 Paid J. A. Kelly, printer, on ac- 
 count of services, as per reso- 
 lution of 12th August, 1844, $1000 00 
 
 Paid Jerome Bayon, for 500 co- 
 pies of Journal of 1811-12, 100 00 
 
 Paid J. A, Kelly, printer, on ac- 
 count of services, as per reso- 
 lution of 24th August, 1 844, 500 00 
 
 Paid J. A. Kelly, printer, 2 2d 
 
 January, 1845* 350 00 
 
 Paid J. A. Kelly, printer, for co- 
 pies of Journal. 22d Januarv, 
 1845, * 150 00 
 
 Paid Besangon, Ferguson & Co., 
 for copies of Jeffersonian, 27th 
 January, 1845, 500 00 
 
 Paid Jerome Bayon, for copies 
 
 of Courier, 27th Jan., 1R45, 500 00 
 
 Paid J. A. Kelly, late printer, 
 balance for services, 8th Feb- 
 ruary, 1845, 1474 00 
 
 Paid Besangon, Ferguson & Co., 
 warrant favor J. P. Benjamin, 
 for printing, 15th February, 
 1845, 500 00 
 
 $5074 00 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth gave notice that on 
 the reconsideration of section 10th being 
 granted, he would move to refer the same 
 to a committee of five, with instructions. 
 
 With a view of furnishing the members 
 an opportunity of conferring together on 
 the subject of the 10th section, Mr, Tay- 
 
 lor of Assumption moved for a recess of 
 a half hour. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans moved to 
 amend the motion, and extend the recess 
 to one hour; the amendment was lost. 
 
 The Convention went into recess for one 
 half hour. 
 
 The half hour having expired, the Pre- 
 sident called the Convention to order. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies moved to reconsider the 
 10th section, 2d article. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans inquired of the 
 President what would be the effect of the 
 reconsideration, if granted, 
 
 The President replied that it would 
 bring before the house the whole section, 
 liable to modification and amendment, as 
 it was when the question for adoption was 
 put and lost. 
 
 The question of reconsideration was 
 put and carried. 
 
 Sec. 10. The State shall be dividec 
 into the following senatorial districts, anc 
 the senators to be elected shall be votec 
 for by persons entitled to vote for repre 
 sentatives. 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river, shall be divided into three senatorial) 
 districts, as follows: 
 
 The first municipality shall compos!: 
 one district, with two senators. 
 
 The second municipality shall compos* 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The thirtl municipality shall compo 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines, St. Ber 
 nard, and that part of the parish of Or 
 leans on the right bank of the river, shal 
 compose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Jefferson shall compos 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Charles and St. Johi 
 the Baptist shall compose one district, wit! 
 one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. James and Ascen 
 sion shall compose one district with tw< 
 senators. 
 
 The parishes of Assumption, Lafourch 
 Interior and Terrebonne shall compose on 
 district, with two senators. 
 
 The parishes of Iberville and West Be 
 ton Rouge shall compose one district, wit 
 one senator. 
 
 The parish of East Baton Rouge sha 
 compose one district? with one senator. 
 
 : 
 
Journal of the Cotm 
 
 The parish of Point Coupee shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Avoyelles shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St Mary and St. Mar- 
 tin shall compose one district, with two 
 senators. 
 
 The parishes of Lafayette and Vermil- 
 lion shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of St, Landry and Calca- 
 sieu shall compose one district, with two 
 senators. 
 
 The parish of West Feliciana shall # 
 compose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of East Feliciana shall com- 
 50se one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Si. Helena and Living- 
 iton shall compose one district, with one 
 enator. 
 
 The parishes of Washington and St* 
 Tammany shall compose one district, with 
 ne senator. 
 
 The parishes of Concordia and Tensas 
 hall compose one district, with one sena- -! 
 or. 
 
 The parishes of Carroll and Madison 
 hall compose one district with one. sena- 
 >r. 
 
 The parishes of Morehouse, Union and 
 ickson shall compose one district, with 
 :ie senator. 
 
 The parishes of Ouachita and Caldwell 
 lall compose one district, with one sen- 
 :or. • 
 
 The parishes of Franklin and Catahoula 
 lall compose one district, with one sen- 
 or. 
 
 ! The parish of Rapides shall compose 
 le district, with one senator. 
 The parishes ol Bossier and Claiborne 
 all compose one district, with one sen- 
 or. 
 
 The parishes of Natchitoches and Sa- 
 ne shall compose one district with two 
 nators. 
 
 The parishes of Caddo and De Soto 
 i all compose one district, with one sen- 
 
 ■■?*. 
 
 And whenever a new parish shall be 
 < sated, it shall be attached to the senate 
 ill district from which most of it was ta- 
 lin, or to another contiguous •district, at 
 fe discretion of the legislature, but shall 
 lit be attached to more than one district. 
 
 Mr. Braze ale, who had voted in the 
 
 end on of Ilouisiana* 155 
 
 majority to lay indefinitely on ihe- table the 
 amendment offered by Mr. Taylor of As- 
 sumption, establishing a basis of appor- 
 tionment and empowering the legislature 
 to divide the State into senatorial districts, 
 moved for the reconsideration of the amend- 
 ment. The motion prevailed. 
 
 The legislature in any year in which 
 they shall apportion representation in the 
 house of representatives, shall have the 
 power to divide the State into senatorial 
 districts. No parish shall be divided in 
 the formation of a senatorial district. The 
 number of senators shall not. be less than 
 twenty-five nor more than thirty-four, and 
 they shall be apportioned among the sena- 
 torial districts according to the total popu- 
 lation contained in the several districts : 
 Provided, that no parish shall be entitled 
 to more than one-eighth of the whole num- 
 ber of senators. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to strike out the 
 words " have the power to." His motion 
 prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to strike out the words 
 "total population.'' The yeas and nays 
 being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Bre}it,Bru?nfield i Bur- 
 ton, Carriere, Downs, Garrett, Hudspeth^ 
 Humble, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Mayo^ 
 0' Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Prud* 
 homme, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Stephens*, TVaddill, 
 Wederstrandt and Wikoff voted in the af- 
 firmative — 28 ye.as; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, • £enjamin, 
 Boudousquie, Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Kenner, Labauve, Legendre, 
 Mazureau, Preston, Pugh, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Scott of Madison, Sel* 
 lers, Splane, Taylor of Assumption, Tay- 
 lor of St. Landry, Voorhies, Wadsworth, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the nega= 
 live — 34 nays ; consequently the motion 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to add after the words 
 " total population," the words ki territory 
 equally." 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to amend Mr. Lewis' 
 amendment by adding after the words "ter- 
 ritory equally," the words 4 'sea marshes, 
 | marshes, uninhabitable swamps, and sand 
 I banks excepted;" and on the adoption of 
 
JoumalS)f the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 his amendment, the yeas and nays being- 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumjield, 
 Carriers, Chambliss, Downs, Humble, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prudhomme, Bailiff, Read, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Taylor of 
 Assumption, and Wederstrandt voted in the 
 affirmative— 23 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs, Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Boudousquie, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garrett, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, O'- 
 Bryan, Penn, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston,Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, Sellers, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Voorhies, Wadsworth, Waddill, Wilwff, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the nega- 
 tive — 39 nays; consequently said amend- 
 ment was lost. 
 
 On the motion for the adoption of Mr P 
 Lewis' amendment, the yeas and nays 
 were called for, and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumjield, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Downs,Garreit,Huds- 
 peih, Humble, King, Lewis, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Mayo, O' Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Prudkomme, Railiff, Rtead, Scott of Ba- 
 ton Rouge, Scott of Madison, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Si, Landry, Wederstrandt, Wi- 
 kojf and Winder voted in the affirmative — 
 30 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs*. Aubert, Beatty', Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousque, Burton, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Kenner, Labauve, Ledoux, Mazureau? Pres- 
 ton, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, Saunders, 
 •Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Splane, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Voorhies, Waddill, Wads- 
 worth and Winchester voted in the negative 
 —32 nays; consequently said amendment 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Penn moved that the Convention 
 adjourn till to-morrow at 10 o'clock, a. m. 
 On the adoption of his motion the yeas 
 and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brumjield, Carriere, 
 Downs, Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Lewis, 
 McCallop, McRae, Mayo, O' Bryan, Peets, 
 Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Prudhomme-, Railiff, 
 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Fe- 
 liciana, Scott of Madison, Stephens, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Wad- 
 dill, Wadsworth, Wederstrandt and Wikoff 
 voted in the affirmative — 30 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Beatty, Bou- 
 dousquie, Burton,Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eus- 
 tis, Kenner 3 King, Labauve, Ledoux, Le. 
 gendre, Mazureau, Preston, Pugh, Roman, 
 St. Amand, . Saunders, Sellers, Splane, 
 Voorhies, Winchester and Winder voted in 
 the negative-— 31 nays ; consequently the 
 niotion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to amend Mr. Taylor's 
 amendment, by inserting before the word 
 "population" the word " white," and after 
 the word population" to insert the words 
 and " three-fifths of the slaves." 
 % Mr. Beatty then moved for the previ- 
 ous question. 
 
 Before putting this question, 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned till 
 to-morrow, at 10 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Wednesday, April 2, 1845. j 
 
 The. Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Hinton opened the pro- j 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Isley, one of the English reporters, 
 furnished the printers' receipt for the re- 
 port of the debates of the 31sf March. 
 
 M r. Beatty submitted the following re- 
 solution, amendatory of the rules. 
 
 Resolved, that all motions to lay on 
 the table, shall be decided without debate." 
 
 "Resolved, That when the demand oi 
 the previous question is sustained by the 
 house, it shall proceed immediately to vote 
 on all the amendments that may be offered, 
 and then on the main question without de- 
 bate." 
 
 And moved that the rules be dispensed 
 with, and that the committee take up the 
 said resolution. His motion did not. pre- 
 vail. 
 
 On motion, leave of absence w r as grant- 
 ed to Mr. Chambliss for a few days. 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Art. II. Sec. 10. The State shall be 
 divided into the following senatorial dis- 
 tricts, and the senators to be elected, shall 
 be voted for by persons entitled to vote 
 for representatives. 
 
 * 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 157 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the east side of* the Mississippi 
 river, shall be divided into three senatorial 
 districts, as follows : 
 
 The first municipality shall compose one 
 district, with two senators.. 
 
 The second municipality shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The third municipality shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The' parish of Plaquemines, St. Bernard 
 and that portion of the parish of Orleans on 
 the right bank of the river, shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The # parish of Jefferson shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Charles and St. 
 John the Baptist, shall compose one dis- 
 trict, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. James and Ascension, 
 shall compose one district, with two sena- 
 tors. 
 
 The parishes of Assumption, Lafourche 
 Interior and Terrebonne, shall compose 
 one district, with two senators. 
 . The parishes of Iberville, and West 
 Baton Rouge shall compose one district, 
 with one senator. 
 
 The parish of East Baton Rouge shall 
 compose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Point Coupee shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Avoyelles shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Mary and St. Mar- 
 tin shall compose one district, with two 
 senators. 
 
 The parishes of Lafayette and Vermil- 
 lion shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Landry and Calca- 
 sieu shall compose one district, with two 
 senators. 
 
 The parish of West Feliciana shall com- 
 pose one district with one senator. 
 
 The parish of East Feliciana shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St, Helena and Livings- 
 ten shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of Washington and St. 
 Tammany shall compose one district, with 
 one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Concordia and Tensas 
 shall compose one district, with one sena- 
 tor. 
 
 The parishes of Carroll and Madison 
 shall compose one district, with one sena- 
 tor. 
 
 The parishes of Morehouse, Union and 
 Jackson shall compose one district, with 
 one sen^fer. 
 
 The parishes of Ouachita and Caldwell 
 shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of Franklin and Cata- 
 houla shall compose one district, with one 
 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of Rapides shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Bossier and Claiborne 
 shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of Natchitoches and Sa- 
 bine shall compose one district, with 
 two senators. 
 
 The parishes of Caddo and De Soto 
 shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 And whenever a new parish shall be 
 created* it shall be attached to the sena- 
 torial district from which most of it was 
 taken, or to another contiguous district, at 
 the discretion of the legislature, but shall 
 not be attached to more than one district. 
 
 Amendment offered by Mr. Taylor of 
 Assumption, and under debate at the ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The legislature, in any year in which 
 they shall apportion representation in the 
 house of representatives, shall have the 
 power to divide the State into senatorial 
 districts. No parish shall be divided, in 
 the formation of a senatorial district. The 
 number of senators shall not be less than 
 twenty-five, nor more than thirty-four; 
 and they shall be apportioned among the 
 senatorial districts according to the total 
 population contained in the several dis- 
 tricts. Provided, that no parish shall be 
 entitled to more than one-eighth of the 
 whole number of senators. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to add before the 
 words "the legislature," the words "after 
 the year 1855." 
 
 Mr. Beatty called for the previous 
 question." 
 
 On the question, " shall the previous 
 question be now put?" the yeas and nays 
 were called for. Mr. Saunders in the 
 chair. 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Chinn, Conrad of JerTer* 
 
158 
 
 Journal of the (Jonvention of Louisiana, 
 
 son, Dunn, Kemier, Labauve, Legendre, | 
 Mazureau, Preston, Pugh and St. Amand, 
 voted in the affirmative — II yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Boudousquie, Bourg, 
 Brazedle, Brent, Brum field, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Cenas, Claiborne, &mbertson, 
 Derbes, Downs, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Ledoux, Lewis, Mc~ 
 Callop, McRae, Mayo, Bryan, Peets, 
 Penn, Porter, Prescoil of Avoyelles, Pvud- 
 homme, Ratliff, Read, Roman, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Trist, Voorhi.es, Waddill, 
 Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, Wikoff, Win- 
 chester and Winder voted in the negative 
 — 48 nays; consequently said motion was 
 lost. 
 
 On the adoption of. Mr. Downs' amend- 
 ment, the yeas and nays were called for. 
 Mr. Saunders in the chair. 
 
 Messrs. Brazedle, Brent, Brumfield, Bur- 
 ton, Cade, Carriere, Claiborne, Downs, 
 Garrett, Humble, King, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Mayo, O' Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott St. Landry, 
 Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Fe- 
 liciana, Scott of Madison, Stephens, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Wad- 
 dill, Wederstrandt, Wikoff and Winchester 
 voted in the affirmative — 35 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Bealty, Ben] am in, Bourg, 
 Cenas, Chinn, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad 
 of Jefferson, Culberlson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Guion, Hudspeth, Kemier, Labauve, 
 Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Pres- 
 ton, Pugh, Sellers, Stephens, Trist, Wads- 
 worth and Winder voted in the negative — 
 27 nays ; consequently said motion was 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to amend Mr. Taylor's 
 amendment by adding before the word 
 "population," the word "white," and after 
 the word "population" the words "three- 
 fifths of the slaves." 
 
 Mr. Claibokne called for the previous 
 question. 
 
 On the question, "shall the previous 
 question be now put?" the yeas and nays 
 were called for. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Bcatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Brent, Brumfield, Carri- 
 ere, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Gar- 
 
 cia, Guion, Kenner, King, Labauve, Le- 
 gendre, McCallop, Mazureau, Preston, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St~ 
 Amand, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Splane, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Wadsworth, Winchester and 
 Winder voted in the affirmative — 44 yeas ; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Brazedle, Burton, Cade, Garrett, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Lewis, McRae,' Mayo, 
 O' Bryan Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Ratliff, 
 Read, Scott of Madison, Stephens, Waddill, 
 Wederstrandt and Wikoff voted jn the 
 negative — 22 nays; consequently said mo- 
 tion prevailed, on the adoption of Mr. Tay. 
 lor's amendment as amended, viz : 
 
 After the year 1845, the legislature, in 
 any jesLY in .which they shall apportion re- 
 presentation in the house of representatives, 
 shall divide the State into senatorial dis- 
 tricts. No parish shall be divided in the 
 formation of a senatorial district. The 
 number of senators shall not be less than 
 twenty-five nor more than Jhirty-fouiy and 
 they shall be apportioned among the sena- 
 torial districts according to the total popu- 
 lation contained in the several districts: 
 Provided, that no parish shall be entitled 
 to more thairone-eighth of the whole num. 
 ber of senators. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Brent, Cade, Carriere, Qenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Dozens, Eustis, Garcia, 
 Garrett, Guion, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 McCallop, Mazureau, O' 'Bryan, Prud- 
 homme, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Splane, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Winchester and Winder voted in 
 the affirmative — 40 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Conrad of Jefferson, Dunn, Huds' 
 peth, Humble, Legendre, Lewis, McRae, 
 Mayo, Peets, Pernio Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston* 
 Ratliff, Read, Samiders, Stephens, Wad- 
 dill, Wadsworth and Wederstrandt voted in 
 the negative — 26 nays; consequently said 
 amendment was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Preston moved to amend the tenth 
 section, second article, by giving to the 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 159 
 
 parish of Jefferson "two" members in- , 
 stead of "one." 
 
 Pending the discussion, on motion, the 
 Convention adjourned till to-morrow at 10 
 o'clock, a, m. 
 
 Note.— Members absent, Messrs. Cham- 
 bliss, Covillion, Briant and Hynson, ab- 
 sent on leave. Mr. Leonard, absent on 
 account of illness; and Messrs. Grymes, 
 Marigny, Porche and Soule, did not appear 
 in their seats. 
 
 Thursday, April 3, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Hinto>: opened the pro- 
 ceedings by prayer. 
 
 Mr. KeRj one of the English reporters, 
 furnished the printers' receipts for the re- 
 ports of the debates of the 29th March and 
 of the 1st of April. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, of the com- 
 mittee of revision, presented the following 
 report : 
 
 •The committee of levision, to whom 
 the third article of the amended constitu- 
 tion was referred, have had the same un- 
 der consideration^ and now beg leave to 
 report : 
 
 That they recommend that the words 
 " created by law," in the seventh line of 
 the second section should be struck out. 
 
 That section third be. changed so as to 
 iread as follows : 
 
 4< No person shall be eligible to the of- 
 fice of Governor, or Lieutenant Governor, 
 who shall not have attained the age of thir- 
 ty-five years, been fifteen years a citizen 
 of the United States, and a resident with- 
 in this State for the same space of time 
 next preceding his election." 
 
 That the section numbered as section 
 ten of the constitution of 1812, shall be 
 changed by striking out the word " up" in 
 the second line. 
 
 That the section now numbered as sec- 
 tion twelve, be changed by adding before 
 the first word, the words "there shall be," 
 and striking out in the second, third, fourth, 
 land fifth lines, the words "shall be nomi- 
 nated and appointed by the Governor, with 
 the advice and consent of the senate, and 
 commissioned." So that the section will 
 then read, 
 
 " There shall be a Secretary of State to 
 hold his office during the time for which 
 
 the Governor shall have been elected.*' 
 And the remainder of it as in the section 
 already adopted. 
 
 Your committee further recommend that 
 the sections of the third article b» number- 
 ed in the order in which they are now. ar- 
 ranged. 
 
 REVISED SECTIONS. 
 
 Sec. 2. The citizens entitled to vote for 
 representatives, shall vote for a Governor 
 and Lieutenant Governor, at the time and 
 place of voting for representatives ; the re- 
 turns of every election shall be sealed up 
 and transmitted by the proper returning 
 officer, to the Secretary of State, who shall 
 deliver them to the speaker of the house of 
 representatives, on the second day of the 
 session of the general assembly then next 
 to be holden. The members of the gene- 
 ral ass'embly shall meet in the house of 
 representatives, to examine and count the 
 votes. The person having the greatest 
 number of votes for Governor shall be de- 
 clared duly elected, but if two or more 
 persons shall be equal and highest in the 
 number of votes polled for Governor, one 
 of them shall be immediately chosen Gov- 
 ernor by joint vote of the general assem- 
 bly. '1 he person having the greatest num- 
 ber of votes for Lieutenant Governor shall 
 be Lieutenant Governor; but if two or more 
 persons shall be equal and highest in the 
 number of votes polled for Lieutenant 
 Governor, one of them shall be immedi- 
 ately chosen Lieutenant Governor, by joint 
 vote of the members of the generally as- 
 sembly. 
 
 Sec. 3. No perstjn shall be eligible to 
 the office of Governor or Lieutenant Gov- 
 ernor who shall not have attained the age 
 of thirty-five years, been "fifteen years a 
 citizen of the United States, and a resi- 
 dent within this State for the same space 
 of time next preceding his election, 
 
 Sec. 14. The Governor shall have pow= 
 er to fill vacancies that may happen during 
 the- recess of the Senate, by granting com- 
 missions which shall expire at the end of 
 the next session, unless otherwise pro- 
 vided for in this constitution. 
 
 Sec. 21.* There shall be a Secretary of 
 State, to hold his office during the time 
 for wlrieh the Governor shall have been 
 elected. The records of the State shall 
 be kept and preserved in the office of the 
 secretary. He* shall keep a fair register of 
 
160 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 the official acts and proceedings of the Gov- 
 ernor, and when necessary shall attest 
 them. He shall, when required, lay the 
 said register and all papers, minutes and 
 vouchers 'relative to his office, before either 
 house of the general assembly, and shall 
 perform such other duties as may be en- 
 joined on him by law. 
 
 ARTICLE THIRD. 
 
 Sec. 1st. The supreme executive pow- 
 er of this State shall be vested in a chief 
 magistrate, who shall be styled the Gov- 
 ernor of the State of Louisiana. He shall 
 hold his office during the term of four 
 vears, and together with the Lieutenant 
 Governor, chosen for the same term, be 
 elected as follows: 
 
 Sec. 2. The citizens entitled to vote for 
 representatives, shall vote for Governor 
 and Lieutenant Governor, at the time and 
 place of voting for representatives. The 
 returns of every election shall be sealed up 
 and transmitted by the proper returning 
 officer created by law, to the secretary of 
 State, who shall deliver them to the speak- 
 er of the house of representatives, and on 
 the second day of the session of the Gen- 
 eral Assembly then next to be holden, the 
 members 'of the General Assembly shall 
 meet in the house of representatives to ex- 
 amine and count the votes. The person 
 having the greatest number of votes for 
 Governor shall be declared duly elected. 
 But if two or more persons shall be equal 
 and highest in the number of votes polled 
 for Governor, one of them shall be imme- 
 diately chosen Governor by joint vote of 
 the members of the General Assembly. 
 The person having the greatest number of 
 votes for Lieutenant Governor, shall be 
 Lieutenant Governor, but if two or more 
 persons shall be equal and highest in the 
 number of votes polled for Lieutenant 
 Governor, one of them shall be immedi- 
 diately chosen Lieutenant Governor, by 
 joint vote of the members of the General 
 Assembly. 
 
 Sec. 3. No person shall be eligible to 
 the office of Governor or Lieutenant Gov- 
 ernor, who shall not4iave attained the age 
 of thirty-five years, and has not been fif- 
 teen years a free white male citizen of the 
 United States, and of this" State nexi pro- 
 ceeding his election. 
 
 Sec, 4. The Governor shall enter into 
 the discharge of his duties on the fourth 
 
 Monday of the January next ensuing his 
 election, and shall continue in office until 
 the Monday next succeeding the day that 
 his successor shall have been declared duly 
 elected, and his successor shall have taken 
 the oath of affirmation prescribed by this 
 constitution. 
 
 Sec. 5. No member of Congress or per- 
 son holding any office under the United 
 States, or minister of any religious socie- 
 ty, shall be eligible to the office of Gov- 
 ernor or Lieutenant Governor. 
 
 Sec. 6. The Governor shall have pow. 
 erto grant reprieves for all offences against 
 the State, and except in cases of impeach- 
 ment, shall, with the consent of the sen- 
 ate, have power to grant pardons and re- 
 mit fines and forfeitures, after conviction. 
 In cases of treason, he may grant reprieves 
 until the end of the next session of the 
 General Assembly, in which the power of 
 pardoning shall be vested. 
 
 Sec. % The Governor shall at stated 
 times, receive for his services a compen- 
 sation, which shall neither be increased nor 
 diminished during the term for which he 
 shall have been elected. 
 
 Sec. 8. He shall be commander in chief 
 of the army and navy of this State, and of 
 the militia thereof, except when they shall 
 be called into the service of the United 
 States. 
 
 Sec. 9. In case of the impeachment of 
 the governor, his removal from office, 
 death, refusal or inability to qualify, resig- 
 nation or absence from the State, the pow- 
 er and duties shall devolve upon the lieu- 
 tenant governor for the residue of the 
 term, or until the governor, absent or im- 
 peached, shall return or be acquitted. The 
 legislature may provide by law for the case 
 of removal, the impeachment, death, re- 
 signation, disability or refusal to qualify, 
 of both the governor and lieutenant gov- 
 ernor, declaring what officer shall act as 
 governor, and such officer shall act accor- 
 dingly, until the disability be removed, or 
 for the residue of the term. 
 
 Sec. 10. The lieutenant governor, or 
 other officer discharging the duties of gov- 
 ernor, shall, during his administration, re- 
 ceive the same compensation to which the 
 governor would have been entitled, had he 
 continued in office. 
 
 Sec. 11. The lieutenant governor shall, 
 by virtue of his office, be president of the 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. J 61 
 
 senate, but shall have only a casting vote 
 therein. Whenever he shall administer 
 the government, or shall be unable to at- 
 tend as president of the senate, the sena- 
 tors shall elect one of their own members as 
 president of the senate for the time being. 
 
 Sec. 12. While he acts as president of 
 the senate, the lieutenant governor shall 
 receive for his services the same compen- 
 sation which shall for the same period be 
 allowed to the speaker of the house of re- 
 presentatives, and no more. 
 
 Sec. 1 3. Hf^shall nominate and appoint, 
 with the advice and consent of the seriate, 
 all officers whose offices are established 
 by this constitution, and whose appoint- 
 ments are not otherwise provided for; pro* 
 vided however, that the legislature shall 
 have a right to prescribe the mode of ap- 
 pointment to all other offices to be establish- 
 ed by law. 
 
 Sec. 14. The governor shall have pow- 
 er to fill up vacancies that may happen 
 during the recess of the senate, by grant- 
 ing commissions which shall expire at the 
 end of the next session, unless otherwise 
 provided for in this constitution. 
 
 Sec". 15. He may require information 
 in writing from the officers in the execu- 
 tive department, upon any subject relating 
 to the duties of their respective offices. 
 
 Sec 16. He shall, from time to time, 
 give to the general assembly information 
 respecting the situation of the State, and 
 recommend to their consideration such 
 measures as he may deem expedient. 
 
 Sec 17. He may, on extraordinary oc- 
 casions, convene the general assembly at 
 the seat of government, or at a different 
 place if that should have become danger- 
 ous from an enemy or from contagious dis- 
 orders; and in case of disagreement be- 
 tween the two houses, with respect to the 
 time of adjournment, he may adjourn them 
 to such a time as he may think proper, not 
 exceeding four months. 
 
 Sec 18. He shall take care that the 
 laws be faithfully executed. 
 
 Sec 19. Every bill which shall have 
 passed both houses shall be presented to 
 the governor; if he approve, he shall sign 
 it; if not, he shall return it, with his ob- 
 jections, to the house in which it shall have 
 originated, who shall enter the objections 
 at large upon their journal, and proceed to 
 
 reconsider it. If, after such reconsidera- 
 tion, two-thirds of all the members elected 
 to that house shall agree to pass the bill, 
 it shall be sent, with the objections, to the 
 other house, by which it shall likewise be 
 reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds 
 of all the members elected to that house, 
 it shall be a law; but in such case's, the 
 votes of both houses shall be determined 
 by yeas and nays, and the names of the 
 members voting for and against the bill 
 shall be entered on the journal of each 
 house respectively. If any bill shall not 
 be returned by the governor within ten 
 days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have 
 been presented to him, it shall be a law, in 
 like manner as if he had signed it, unless 
 the general assembly by their adjournment 
 .prevent its return; in which case it shall 
 be a law, unless sent back within three 
 days after their next meeting* 
 
 Sec 20. Every order, resolution or vote, 
 to which the concurrence of both houses 
 may be necessary, except on a question of 
 adjournment, shall be presented to the gov- 
 ernor, and before it shall take effect, be 
 approved by him; or being disapproved, 
 shall be re-passed by two-thirds of both 
 houses. 
 
 Ssc 21. A Secretary of State shall be 
 nominated and appointed by the governor, 
 by and with the advice and consent of the 
 senate, and commissioned to hold his office 
 during the term" for which the governor 
 shall have been elected. Tbe records of 
 the State shall be kept and preserved in 
 the office of secretary of State. He shall 
 keep a fair register of the official acts and 
 proceedings of the governor, and when 
 necessary shall attest them. He shall, 
 when required, lay the said register and all 
 papers, minutes and vouchers, relative to 
 his office, before either house of the gen- 
 eral assembly, and shall perform such oth- 
 er duties as may be enjoined on him by 
 law. 
 
 Sec 22. All commissions shall be. in 
 the name and by the authority of the State 
 of Louisiana, and shall be sealed with the 
 State seal, and signed by the governor. 
 
 Sec 23. The free white men of this 
 State shall be armed and disciplined for its 
 defence; but those who belong to religious 
 societies whose tenets forbid I hem to carry 
 arms, shall not be compelled so to do, buf 
 
162 
 
 journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 shall pay an equivalent for personal ser- j 
 vices. 
 
 Sec. 24. The militia of this State shall 
 be organized in such manner as may be 
 hereafter deemed most expedient by the 
 legislature. 
 
 On motion of Mr. B batty, said report 
 was laid on the table, until printed. 
 
 Mr. Beatty called up the resolution 
 amendatory to the rules, to wit : 
 
 1. "Resolved, That all motions to lay on 
 the table, shall be decided without debate." 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to amend by insert- 
 ing after the words "lay on the table," the 
 words " subject to call;" the amendment 
 was adopted, and the resolution as amend- 
 ed was adopted. 
 
 2. "Resolved, That when the demand 
 of the previous question is sustained by 
 the house, it shall proceed immediately to 
 vote on all the amendments that may be 
 offered, and then on the main question, 
 without debate." Adopted. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Art. II. Sec. 10. The State shall be 
 divided # into the following senatorial dis- 
 tricts, and the senators to be elected shall 
 be voted for by persons entitled to vote for 
 representatives. 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river, shall be divided into three senatorial 
 districts, as follows, viz : 
 
 The first municipality shall compose one 
 district, with two senators. 
 
 The second municipality shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The third municipality shall compose one 
 district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines, Ber- 
 nard, and that part of the parish of Orleans 
 on the right bank of the river, shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Jefferson shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Charles and St. John 
 the Baptist shall compose one district, with 
 one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. James and Ascen- 
 sion shall compose one district, with two 
 senators. 
 
 The parishes of Assumption, Lafourche 
 Interior and Terrebonne shall compose one 
 district, with two senators. 
 
 The parishes of Iberville and West Ba- 
 
 ton Rouge shall compose one district, with 
 one senator. 
 
 The parish of East Baton Rouge shall 
 compose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Pointe Coupee shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Avoyelles shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Mary and St. Mar- 
 tin shall compose one district, with two 
 senators, 
 
 The parishes of Lafayette and Vermil- 
 lion shall compose one distftct, with one 
 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Landry and Calca- 
 sieu shall compose one district, with two 
 senators. 
 
 The parish of West Feliciana shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 •The parish of East Feliciana shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Helena and Livings- 
 ton, shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of Washington and St. 
 Tammany shall compose one district, with 
 one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Concordia and Tensas 
 shall compose one district, with one sen- 
 ator. 
 
 The parishes of Carroll and Madison 
 shall compose one district, with one sen- 
 ator. 
 
 The parishes of Morehouse, Union and 
 Jackson shall compose one district, with 
 one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Ouachita and Caldwell 
 shall compose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Franklin and Catahoula 
 shall compose one district, with one sen- 
 ator. 
 
 The parish of Rapides shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Bossier and Claiborne 
 shall compose one district, with one sen- 
 ator. 
 
 The parishes of Natchitoches ..and Sa- 
 bine shall compose one district, with two 
 senators. 
 
 The parishes of Caddo and De Soto 
 shall compose one district, with one sen- 
 ator. 
 
 And whenever a new parish shall be 
 created, it shall be attached to the sena- 
 torial district from which most o^ it was 
 
* 
 
 Journal of the Con vention of Louisiana* 
 
 163 
 
 taken, or to another contiguous district, at 
 the discretion of the legislature, but shall 
 not be attached to more than one district. 
 
 "After the year 1855, the legislature in 
 any year in which they shall apportion 
 representation in the house of representa- 
 tives, shall divide the State into senatorial 
 districts. Xo parish shall be divided in the 
 formation of a senatorial district. The 
 number of senators shall not be less than 
 twenty-five, nor more than thirty-four, and 
 they shall be apportioned among the sena- 
 torial districts according to the total popula- 
 tion contained in the senatorial districts; 
 Provided, that no parish shall be entitled 
 to more than one-eighth of the whole num- 
 ber of senators." 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to lay on the table 
 subject to call, Mr. Preston's motion to 
 allow "two senators" to Jefferson. His 
 motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Bexjamix moved that the number 
 of senators be fixed at thirty-two. 
 • Mr. Porter moved to amend Mr. Ben- 
 jamin's motion by saying "thirty-three," in- 
 stead of "thirty-two." On the adoption of 
 his motion, the yeas and nays were called 
 for. 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Car- 
 rier e, Downs, Garrett. Humble, McCallop, 
 McRea, Mayo, O' Bryan, Peets, Penn, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Prudhomme, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, S plane and TVedersirandl 
 voted in the affirmative — 24 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bcnjamin.Bourg, 
 Boudousquie, Brumjield, Cade, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans. 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve. Le- 
 doux, Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazu- 
 reaii, Preston, Pugh, Rati iff] Roman, 
 St. Amand, Saunders, Soule, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Winches- 
 ter and Winder voted in the negative — 43 
 nays * consequently said amendment was 
 lost. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to lay on the table 
 Mr. Bexjamix's amendment to limit the 
 number of senators to thirty-two. 
 
 On the adoption of Mr. Downs' motion, j 
 the yeas and nays were called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 
 j Carriere, Downs, Garrett, Humble, Legen* 
 \dre, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, O* Bryan, 
 ; Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 ! Prescott of St.Landry, P)*esion,Prud1iomme , 
 ' Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 i ciana, Scott of MadisoR, Splane, Stephens, 
 , Waddill and Weder strand t voted in the 
 '• affirmative — 28 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Hubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou^ 
 ! dousquie, Bourg, Brumfield, Cenas, Chinn. 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eus- 
 tis, Garcia, Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Lewis, 
 Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh, Ratlif, Roman, 
 St. Amand, Saunders, Sellers, Soule, .Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Trist, Yoorhies, TVihoff, Winchester and 
 Winder voted in the negative — 40 nays - 
 consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 On the adoption of Mr. Benjamin's 
 amendment, the yeas and nays were called 
 for, 
 
 .Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Boio 
 dousquie, Bourg, Brumjield, Cade, Car- 
 riere, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Ledoux, Lewis, McCallop, Marigny, 2>Iazv 
 reau, Preston, Pugh, Ratliff. Roman, St, 
 Amand, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Soule, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Taylor of St.Landry, Trist, Yoorhies,Wad* 
 dill. TT ikof, Winchester and Winder voted 
 in the affirmative — 46 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Downs, 
 Garrett, Humble, Legendre, McRae, Mayo, 
 O' Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott oi 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Prud- 
 liomme, Read, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Splane and Wederstrandl 
 voted in the negative — 22 nays; conse= 
 quently said amendment was adopted, and 
 the number of senators was limited to 
 thirty-two. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved as a substitute for 
 the whole of section ten now before the 
 Convention, the section numbered ten in 
 the report of* the majority of the legisla- 
 tive committee. 
 
 Sec. 10. The State shall be divided in- 
 to eight senatorial districts, each of which 
 shall elect four senators, to be voted*" for by 
 persons entitled to vote for representatives, 
 as follows : 
 
1(>4 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river shall compose the first district. 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines and St. 
 Bernard, and the remainder of the parish 
 of Orleans, parish of Jefferson, St. 
 Charles and St. John the Baptist shall 
 compose the second district. 
 
 The parishes of St. James, Ascension, 
 Assumption, Lafourche Interior and Ter- 
 rebonne, shall compose the third district. 
 
 The parishes of Iberville, West Baton 
 Rouge, East Baton Rouge, Pointe Coupee 
 and Avoyelles shall compose the fourth 
 district. 
 
 The parishes of West Feliciana, East 
 Feliciana, Washington, St. Tammany, St. 
 Helena and Livingston shall compose the 
 fifth district. 
 
 The parishes of Concordia, Carroll, 
 Madison, Ouachita, Union, Franklin, Ten- 
 sas, Morehouse, Catahoula, and Caldwell 
 shall compose the sixth district. 
 
 The parishes of Rapides, Natchitoches, 
 Caddo, Calcasieu, Claiborne, Sabine, Bos- 
 sier and De Soto, shall compose the sev- 
 enth district. 
 
 The parishes of St. Mary, St. Martin, 
 St. Landry, Lafayette and Vermillion, 
 shall compose the eighth district. 
 
 Provided, That the legislature shall have 
 the power in any year in which they shall 
 apportion representation in the house of 
 representatives, to divide any one or more 
 of said senatorial districts, each to be en- 
 titled to elect two senators. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption moved to 
 lay indefinitely on the table the said sub- 
 stitute. 
 
 On the adoption of his motion the" yeas 
 and nays were called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Cenas, Chirm,. Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, Garrett, 
 Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, Ledoux, Lewis, McGallop, Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Penn, Por- 
 ter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, 
 Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Soule, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Trigt, Voorhies, Waddill, 
 
 Wederstrandt, WikofT, Winchester and 
 Winder voted in the affirmative — 57 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Downs, Eus- 
 tis, Humble, Legendre, McRae, Q'Bryan, 
 Preston and Splane, voted in the negative 
 — 10 nays; consequently the motion pre- 
 vailed. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin offered the following re- 
 solution, and moved its adoption. 
 
 Resolved, that the thirteen parishes of 
 Natchitoches, Sabine, De Soto, Caddo, 
 Claiborne, Bossier, Jackson, Union, More- 
 house, Ouachita, Caldwell, Franklin and 
 Catahoula, shall have but five senators. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called for ana 1 
 gave the following result: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Gulbertson, Derbes^ 
 Dunn, Eustis, Qarcia, Grymes, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legen- 
 dre, Lewis, McCallop, Marigny, Mazureau? 
 Pugh, Ratliff, Roman, Roselius, St, Amand, 
 Saimders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scoit of 
 Feliciana, Soule, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, Voorhies, Wad- 
 dill, Wadsworth, Wikoff, Winchester and 
 Winder, voted in the affirmative— 46 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Cade, Car- 
 riere, Downs, Garrett, Humble, McRae, 
 Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Penn, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prudhomme, Read, 
 Sellers, Splane, Stephens, and Weder- 
 strandt, voted in the negative— 20 nays ; 
 consequently said resolution was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Brazeale stated to the Conven- 
 tion that the delegates from the parishes 
 of Natchitoches, Sabine, DeSoto, . Caddo, 
 Claiborne and Bossier, had agreed to the 
 following distribution of senators for these 
 parishes, viz: 
 
 Parish of Natchitoches, one senator; 
 Sabine, DeSoto and Caddo, one senator; 
 Claiborne and Bossier, one senator. 
 
 The Convention adopted this distribu- 
 tion. • 
 
 Mr. Downs stated to the Convention 
 that the delegates from the parishes of 
 Jackson, Union, Morehouse, Ouachita, 
 Caldwell, Franklin and Catahoula had 
 met, and had agreed but with one dissent- 
 ing voice to the following distribution 
 among these parishes, viz: 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 165 
 
 Parishes of Jackson, Union, Morehouse, 
 Ouachita and Caldwell, one senator; Frank- 
 1 in and Catahoula, one senator. 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved to add the parish 
 of Caldwell to the parishes of Franklin 
 and Catahoula. 
 
 The debate was suspended, and Mr. 
 Downs moved for the reconsideration of 
 the amendment offered by Mr. Taylor of 
 Assumption, empowering the legislature 
 to reapportion the senators, on the basis 
 of total population; the reconsideration to 
 be taken up to-morrow. 
 
 On motion the Convention adjourned till 
 to-morrow at 10 o'clook, a. m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent, Messrs. B ri- 
 ant, Chambliss, Covillion and Hynson, 
 absent on leave; Mr. Leonard absent on 
 account of illness, and Mr. Porche did not 
 appear in his seat. 
 
 Friday, April 4, 1 845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Nicholson opened the 
 proceedings with prayer. 
 
 The reporters did not furnish the prin- 
 ters' receipt for the report of the debates. 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved to reconsider the 
 rote given yesterday, allowing to the par- 
 shes of Claiborne and Bossier one senator. 
 
 On the adoption of this motion the yeas 
 and nays were called for : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Brumfield, Chinn, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- 
 verts on, Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, Garrett, 
 Guion, fcenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, 
 Waziireau, Penn, Roman, Roselius, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, and Winder voted in 
 he affirmative — 26 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Downs, Eustis, Hudspeth, Hum- 
 Vie, Ledoux, Lewis, McRae, JIarigny, 
 Mayo, O' Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Prudhoimne, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Soule, Splane, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 ky, Prist, Voorhies, Waddill, Weder- 
 itrandt, Wikoff and Winchester voted in 
 he negative— 40 nays ; consequently said 
 motion was lost. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 Sec. 10. The State, shall be divided 
 into the following senatorial districts, and 
 the senators to be elected shall be voted 
 for by persons entitled to vote for repre- 
 sentatives. 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 i lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river, shall be divided into three senatorial 
 districts, as follows : 
 
 The first municipality shall compose one 
 district, with two senators. 
 
 The second municipality shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The third municipality shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Plaquemines, St. Bernard 
 and that portion of the parish of Orleans on 
 the right bank of the river, shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Jefferson shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Charles and St. 
 John the Baptist, shall compose one dis- 
 trict, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. James and Ascension, 
 shall compose one district, with two sena- 
 tors. 
 
 The parishes of Assumption, Lafourche 
 Interior and Terrebonne, shall compose 
 one district, with two senators. 
 
 The parishes of Iberville, and West 
 Baton Rouge shall compose one district, 
 with one senator. 
 
 The parish of East Baton Rouge shall 
 compose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Point Coupee shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Avoyelles shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Mary and St. Mar- 
 tin shall , compose one district, with two 
 senators. 
 
 The parishes of Lafayette and Vermil- 
 lion shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Landry and Calca- 
 sieu shall compose one district, with two 
 . senators. 
 
 The parish of West Feliciana shall com- 
 pose one district with one senator. 
 
 The parish of East Feliciana shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Helena and Livings-? 
 
166 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 ton shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of Washington and St. 
 Tammany shall compose one district, with 
 one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Concordia and Tensas 
 shall compose one district, with one sena- 
 tor. 
 
 The parishes of Carroll and Madison 
 shall compose one district, with one sena- 
 tor. 
 
 The parishes of Morehouse, Union and 
 Jackson shall compose one district, with 
 one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Ouachita and Caldwell 
 shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of Franklin and Cata- 
 houla shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of Rapides shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Bossier and Claiborne 
 shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of Natchitoches and Sa- 
 bine shall compose one district, with 
 two senators. 
 
 The parishes of Sabine Caddo and De 
 Soto shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 And whenever a new parish shall be 
 created, it shall be attached to the sena- 
 torial district from which most of it was 
 taken, or to another contiguous district, at 
 the discretion of the legislature, but shall 
 not be attached to more than one district. 
 
 After the year 1855, the legislature in 
 every year in which they shall apportion 
 representation in the house of representa- 
 tives, shall divide the State into senatorial 
 districts. No parish shall be divided in 
 the formation of a senatorial district. The 
 number of senators shall be thirty-two, and 
 they shall be apportioned among the sena- 
 torial districts according to the total popu- 
 lation contained in the several districts : 
 Provided, that no parish shall be entitled 
 to more than one-eighth of the whole num- 
 ber of senators. 
 
 Mr. Humble's motion to form into one 
 district the parishes of Jackson, Union, 
 Morehouse, Ouachita and Caldwell, with 
 one senator, and Mr. Downs' motion to 
 reconsider Mr. Taylor's amendment em- 
 powering the legislature to apportion the 
 
 senate, and fixing the basis of apportion 
 ment on u total population." 
 
 The Convention took up Mr. Humble' 
 amendment, viz: 
 
 The parishes of Jackson, Union, More 
 house, Ouachita and Caldwell shall com 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 Mr. Garrett offered the following sub 
 stitute, viz: 
 
 The parishes of Jackson, Union, More 
 house and Ouachita shall form one district 
 with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Caldwell, Franklin ant 
 Catahoula, one district, with one senator. 
 
 Mr. Humble moved to lay on the tabic 
 indefinitely Mr. Garrett's substitute. 
 
 On the adoption of his motion the yea; 
 and nays were called for: 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Ca 
 Carriere, Downs, Humble, Ledoux, 3 
 Rae, Marigny, Mayo, O * Bryan Peets, Penn 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescoit o 
 St. Landry, Preston, Ratliff, Read, Scott o 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Soule 
 Splane, Stephens, Voorhies, Waddill an< 
 Wederstrandt voted in the affirmative— 
 28 yeas; and 
 
 . Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin,Bourg 
 Brumfield, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad o 
 New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul 
 bertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve 
 Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Pradhomme 
 Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Taylor ol 
 Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, 
 Wikoff, Winchester and Winder voted in 
 the negative — 36 nays; consequently the 
 motion was lost. 
 
 On the adoption of Mr. Garrett's substi- 
 tute the yeas and nays were called: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin,Bourg, 
 Brumfield, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, GarretU 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Prudhomnie, 
 Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saun^ 
 ders, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, 
 Wikoff, Winchester and Winder voted in 
 the affirmative— -37 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Downs, Humble, Ledoux, Mc- 
 Rae, Marigny, Mayo, O' Bryan, Peets, 
 Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, PrtS' 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 16? 
 
 7tt of St. Landry, Preston, JRatliff, Read, 
 kott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 'oule, Splane, Voorhies, Waddill and 
 Vederstrandt voted in the negative— 27 
 ays; consequently said substitute was 
 Jopted. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to reconsider Mr. 
 'aylor's amendment fixing the basis of 
 total population" for senatorial..represen- 
 ttion. 
 
 His motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr, Downs then moved to strike out the 
 ords "after the year 1855;" his motion 
 •e vailed. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan moved to strike out the 
 ords " total population" and insert the 
 ords "basis of electors." 
 
 The President decided his* motion to 
 3 out of order, because the question had 
 ready been decided. 
 
 Mr. Downs offered the following amend- 
 ent, to be incorporated with the fourth 
 jiction. 
 
 "In all future apportionments of the 
 nate, the population of New Orleans on 
 e left bank of the river descending shall 
 3 deducted from the pOpukti?. n . ?f 
 hole State, and the remainder of the 
 )pulation divided by the number twenty- 
 ght, and the quotient or result produced 
 t this division shall be the population en- 
 ling a parish or other senatorial district 
 a senator. Single or contiguous par- 
 lies .shall be formed into districts having 
 population the nearest possible to the eli- 
 sor, and if a parish or district cannot be 
 lowed a senator without a fraction of one 
 Urd over or under the ratio, then a dis- 
 ct may be formed having not more than 
 'o senators, but not otherwise. When- 
 er the election under a new apportion- 
 ent shall have taken place, the seats of 
 I the senators under the old apportion- 
 ed shall become vacant, without regard 
 the time they had served. All apportion- 
 ents for senators made not in strict con- 
 rmity to this section, shall be null and void, 
 id after the census has been taken, and the 
 ineral assembly convened, it shall not be 
 Impotent for the legislature to do any 
 isiness, except its own organization, un- 
 ' an apportionment is made in strict con- 
 rmity to this rule, and all acts and pro- 
 edings of the then existing legislature, or 
 y subsequent one, under an apportion- 
 3nt not in strict conformity to this con= 
 tution shall be null and void. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Benjamin, said amend- 
 ment was laid on the table subject to call, 
 and was ordered to be primed. 
 
 Mr. Preston moved to reconsider the 
 vote given on that part of Mr. Taylor's 
 amendment, fixing the "total population" 
 as the basis of the senatorial apportion- 
 ment, with a view of inserting in lieu 
 thereof "the electors" as the basis. 
 
 On motion of Mr, Taylor of Assumption, 
 the rules were dispensed with, and the 
 Convention proceeded to vote by yeas and 
 nays on the reconsideration. 
 
 Messrs, Brazeale, Brumfield, Burton, 
 Cade, Carrier e, Downs, Humble, Ledoux, 
 McRae, Marigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, 
 Penn, Porter, Prescott, of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Preston, Ratliff, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Stephens, Waddill 
 and Wederstrandt voted in the affirmative 
 24 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin,Bourg, 
 Brent, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia,Guion,Huds ■ 
 peth, King, Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau^ 
 rruanomme, jrugn, sxvmuit,, maun- 
 ders, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, $oule\ 
 Splane,Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Trist, Voorhies, Wikoff, Winchester 
 and Winder voted in the negative — 37 
 nays; consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to strike out the fol= 
 lowing, to-wit: 
 
 "All that portion of the parish of Or- 
 leans lying on the east side of the Missis- 
 sippi river, shall be divided into three sen- 
 atorial districts, as follows: 
 
 The first municipality shall compose one 
 district, with one senator. 
 
 The second municipality shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The third municipality shall compose 
 one district, with one senator;" and to sub- 
 stitute all that portion of the parish of Or- 
 leans, lying on the east side of the Missis- 
 sippi river, shall compose one senatorial 
 district, and shall elect four senators. 
 
 Pending the discussion, on motion, the 
 Convention adjourned till to-morrow at 
 11 o'clock a. m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent: Messrs. Bri- 
 ant, Chambliss, Covillion and Hynson, 
 absent on leave. Mr. Leonard, absent on 
 account of illness; and Messrs. Gr vines. 
 McCallop and Porche, did not appear ins 
 their seats, 
 
168 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Saturday, April 5, 1845. 
 The Convention, met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Nicholson opened the 
 proceedings with prayer. 
 
 The reporters of the debates in English, 
 did not furnish the printers' receipts. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved that the Convention 
 remove Mr. Ilsley, one of the English re- 
 porters, from office. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Soule, said motion 
 was laid on the table subject to call. 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Sec. 10. The State shall be divided into 
 the following senatorial districts, and the 
 senators to be elected shall be voted for 
 by persons entitled to vote for representa- 
 tives. 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river, shall be divided into three senatorial 
 dietricts, as follows: 
 
 The first municipality shall compose one 
 district with two senators. 
 
 The second municipality shall compose 
 one district with one senator. 
 
 The third municipality shall compose 
 one district with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Plaquemines, St. Bernard 
 and that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 on the right bank of the river, shall com- 
 pose one district with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Jefferson shall compose 
 one district with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Charles and St. John 
 the Baptist, shall compose one district,with 
 one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. James and Ascen- 
 sion shall compose one district, with two 
 senators. 
 
 The parishes of Assumption, Lafourche 
 Interior and Terrebonne, shall compose one 
 district, with two senators. 
 
 The parishes of Iberville and West Ba- 
 ton Rouge, shall compose one district,with 
 one senator. 
 
 The parish of East Baton Rouge shall 
 compose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Point Coupee shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Avoyelles shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Mary and St. Mar- 
 tin shall compose one district, with two 
 senators. 
 
 The parishes of Lafayette and Vermil- 
 
 lion shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Landry and Calca- 
 sieu shall compose one district, with two 
 
 senators. 
 
 The parish of West Feliciana shall 
 compose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of East Feliciana shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Helena and Living- 
 ston shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of Washington and St. 
 Tammany sha^l compose one district, with 
 one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Concordia and Tensas 
 shall compose one district, with one sena= 
 tor. • 
 
 The parishes of Carroll and Madison 
 shall compose one district, with one sena 
 tor. 
 
 The parishes of Jackson, Union, More 
 house and Ouachita, shall compose one dis 
 trict, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Caldwell, Franklin anc 
 Catahoula, shall compose one district, with 
 one senator. 
 
 The parish of Rapides shall composi 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Bossier and Claiborne 
 shall compose one district, with one sena 
 tor. 
 
 The parish of Natchitoches shall com 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Sabine, De Soto anc 
 Caddo, shall compose one district, witl 
 one senator. 
 
 And whenever a new parish shall bt 
 created, it shall be attached to the senato 
 rial district from which most of it was ta 
 ken, or to another contiguous district, ai 
 the discretion of the legislature, but shall 
 not be attached to more than one district. 
 
 The legislature in every year in whicl 
 they shall apportion, representation in the 
 house of representatives, shall divide the 
 State into senatorial districts. No parisl 
 shall be divided in the formation of a sen 
 atorial district. 
 
 The number of senators shall be thirty 
 two, and they shall be apportioned amon< 
 the senatorial districts according to the to 
 tal population contained in the several dis 
 tricts: Provided, that no parish shall be en 
 titled to more than one-eighth of the who! 
 number of senators. 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 169 
 
 Mr. Lewis' motion to strike out the fol- 
 lowing words, 7iz: 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans, 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river, shall be divided into three senatorial 
 districts, as follows: 
 
 The first municipality shall compose one 
 district, with two senators. 
 
 The second municipality shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The third municipality shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 And to substitute 
 
 "All that portion of the parish of Orleans j 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river, shall compose one senatorial dis- 
 trict, and shall elect four senators." — ' 
 Whieh was under discussion at the ad- 
 journment, was taken up. 
 
 Mr. Roselius offered the following \ 
 amendment to Mr. Lewis' substitute: 
 
 Provided, however, that there shall al- 
 ways be in the senate, at least one mem- : 
 oer residing in each municipality. 
 
 •Mr. Benjamin moved for a call of the 
 muse, when it appeared that the following ! 
 members were present: 
 
 Messrs. Joseph Walker, President,JBen- ! 
 amin. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, j 
 >arriere, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- j 
 eans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 )erbes, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, \ 
 3arrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, King, ; 
 jabauve, Ledoux, Lewis, Legendre, Mc- 
 lae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, O'Bryan, 
 ^eets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 5 reston, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Roman, Ro- 
 elius, St. Amand, Scott of Feliciana, Sou- 
 - e 5 Splane, Taylor of Assumption, Voor- 
 : lies, W add ill, Wederstrandt, Winchester 
 nd Winder. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved that the Conven> 
 on adjourn till Monday at ten o'clock, a. 
 ■ i. In the adoption of his motion, the 
 eas and nays were called for: 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Cenas, Clai- 
 orne, Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad of 
 efferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eus- 
 "s,Garcia, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, King, 
 jabauve, Ledoux, Lewis, Marigny, Mazii~ 
 zau, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Reman, Rose- 
 jus, St. Amand, Soule, Splane, and Win- 
 hester, voted in the affirmative — 31 yeas; 
 nd 
 
 Messrs, Brazeale, Burton, Cade, Carrier^ 
 ' towns, Humble]Mayo}& 9 Bryan, Peets, Pre* 
 22 
 
 scott of Avoyelles, Preston, Saunders", Scott 
 of Feliciana, Taylor of Assumption, Voor- 
 hies, Waddill, Wederstrandt and Winder, 
 voted in the negative — 18 nays; conse- 
 quently said motion was carried, and the 
 Convention adjourned till Monday at ten 
 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note — Members absent: Messrs. Bri= 
 ant, Chambliss, Covillion and Hynson, ab- 
 sent on leave; Mr. Leonard absent on ac= 
 count of illness ; and Messrs, Bourg, 
 Grymes, McCallop and Porche, did not 
 appear in their seats. 
 
 Monday, April 7, IS 45. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjcurn= 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr^ Wooldridge opened the 
 proceedings with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Kerr furnished the printers' receipt 
 for the debates of the 3d of April. 
 
 On motion, leave of absence for a few 
 days was granted to Messrs. Bourg, Ratliff 
 and Waddill. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Section 10, article 2d, continued. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to strike out the fol- 
 lowing words, viz: 
 
 "All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river, shall de divided into three senatorial 
 districts, as follows : 
 
 "The first municipality shall compose 
 one district, with two senators. 
 
 The second municipality shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 "The third municipality shall compose 
 one district, with one senator.' 5 
 
 And to substitute: 
 
 "All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river, shall compose one senatorial district, 
 and shall elect four senators." 
 
 And Mr. Roselius' amendment tc Mr- 
 Lewis', viz; 
 
 . "Provided, however, that there shall 
 always be in the senate at least one menv 
 ber residing in each municipality," 
 
 On motion of Mr. Chinn, one ©'clock 
 was fixed for taking the vote on Mr. 
 Lewis' motion to strike out and insert. 
 
 Mr. Splane handed a letter from Mr. 
 Ilsly, one of the reporters of the debates in 
 English, which was read, and he moved 
 that said letter be iprea'd on the journal: 
 His motion was lost- 
 
1 70 Journal of the Con vention of Louisiana. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Culeertson, Mr. 
 Ilsley's letter was laid on the table, subject 
 to call. 
 
 Mr. Splane handed in Mr. Ilsley's 
 
 written resignation as one of the reporters 
 
 of the debates in English. 
 
 Said resignation was accepted, 
 
 Mr. Claiborne moved to abolish the 
 
 office of second reporter of the debates in 
 
 English. 
 
 On the adoption of his motion, the yeas 
 and nays were called for, and resulted as 
 follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquic, 
 Cade, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbcrtson, 
 Guion, Kenner, King, Labauve, Ledoux, 
 Legendre, Lewis, Mayo, Mazureau, Pres- 
 ton, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Saunders, 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Soule, Stephens, 
 Taylor of St. Landry and WikofF voted in 
 the affirmative— 29 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Car- 
 riere, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Hud- 
 speth, Humble, McRae, Marigny, O'Bryan, 
 Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Splane, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Wederstrandt 
 and Winder voted in the negative — -26 
 nays; consequently said motion prevailed. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, the Conven- 
 tion took up the following additional sec- 
 tion, offered by him, to wit: 
 
 s( In all future apportionments of the 
 senate the population of New Orleans, on 
 the left bank of the river, descending, shall 
 be deducted from the population of the 
 whole State, and the remainder of the 
 population divided by the number twenty, 
 eight, and the quotient or result produced 
 by this division shall be the population 
 entitling a parish or other senatorial dis- 
 trict to a senator. Single or contiguous 
 parishes shall be formed into districts hav- 
 ing a population the nearest possible to the 
 divisor; and if a parish or district cannot 
 be" allowed a senator without a fraction of 
 one-third over- or under the ratio, then a 
 district may be formed having not more 
 than two senators, but not otherwise. 
 Whenever the election, under a new ap- 
 portionment shall have taken place, the 
 seats of all the senators under the old ap- 
 portionments shall be vacant, without re- 
 gard to the time they had served All ap 
 
 portionments for senators, made not in 
 strict conformity to this section, shall be 
 null and void; and after the census has 
 been taken, and the general assembly con- 
 vened, it shall not be competent for the 
 legislature to do any business, except its 
 own organization, until an apportionment 
 is made in strict conformity to this rule; 
 and all acts and proceedings of the then 
 existing legislature, or any subsequent one, 
 under an apportionment not in strict coiu 
 formity to this constitution, shall be null 
 a nd void." 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to strike out the 
 following words: 
 
 "Single or contiguous parishes shall be 
 formed into districts having a population 
 the nearest possible to the divisor, and ii 
 a parish or district cannot be allowed a sen- 
 ator without a fraction of one-third over or 
 under the ratio, then a district may be 
 formed having not more than two senators* 
 but not otherwise." 
 
 It being now 1 o'clock, the hour fixed 
 for taking the vote on Mr. Lewis' motion 
 to strike out the following words : 
 
 "All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river, shall be divided into three senatorial 
 districts, as follows : 
 
 The first municipality shall compose one 
 district, with two senators. 
 
 The second municipality shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The third municipality shall compose 
 one district, with one senator." 
 
 And to substitute the following words , 
 
 "All that portion of the Parish of Orleans 
 lying on the east side of the Mississipp 
 river shall compose one senatorial district 
 and shall elect four senators." 
 
 Mr. Marigny moved to divide the qucs 
 tion — that is, that the question be first put 
 upon the striking out. The division wat 
 granted. 
 
 On the adoption of Mr. Lewis' motion 
 to strike out, the yeas and nays were called 
 for. 
 
 Messrs. Auburt, Beatty, jBenjamin, Bou 
 dousquie, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Con 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul 
 bertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Grymes 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve 
 Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Pugh, Ro 
 man, Roseiius, Saunders, Sellers, Stephens 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St= Lan 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 171 
 
 dry and Voorhies voted in the affirmative 
 . — 31 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs, Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Downs, Garcia, Humble, Mc- 
 Rae, Marigny, Hayo, O'Bryon, Peets, 
 Penn, Porche, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Preston, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Soule, Trist, 
 Wederstrandt and Wikoff voted in the 
 negative— 26 nays; consequently said mo- 
 tion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to amend Mr. Lew- 
 is' amendment by adding "that part of the 
 parish of Orleans situated on the right 
 bank of the Mississippi river to the sena- 
 torial district of New Orleans." 
 
 On the adoption of his amendment the 
 yeas and nays were called for. 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Carriere, Downs, Le= 
 doux, Legendre, McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Sellers, Taylor of Assumption, Trist and 
 Voorhies voted in the affirmative — 18 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Brazeale, Brent, Burton Cade, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, Grymes, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve,, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, 
 Penn, Porche, Preston, Pugh, Roman, Ro- 
 sclius, Saunders, Scott of Madison, Soule, 
 Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, Weder- 
 strandt, Wikoff and Winder voted in the 
 negative — 42 nays; consequently said 
 amendment was lost. 
 
 On the adoption of Mr. Lewis' amend- 
 ment as amended by Mr. Roselius, the 
 yeas and nays were called for. 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Carrett, Grymes, Guion, 
 Hudspeth,' Kenner, King, Labauve, Le- 
 gendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, 
 Roselius, Saunders, Sellers, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative — 30 
 iyeas; and 
 
 Messrs, Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 Cade, Carriere, Downs, Eustis, Garcia, 
 Mumble, Ledoux, McRae, Marigny , Mayo, 
 TBiyan Peets, Penn, Porche, Porter, Pxes- 
 >ott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St= Landry, 
 
 Preston, Read, Scott of Baton R©uge 3 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Soule, 
 Stephens, Trist, Wederstrandt and Wikoff 
 voted in the negative, — 31 nays; conse* 
 quently said amendment was lost. 
 
 Mr. Marigny obtained leave to spread 
 upon the journal, that he voted against 
 the adoption of the clause as amended, 
 because New Orleans is entitled to more 
 than four senators; five should have been 
 given to it — -two for the first municipality 
 — two for the second municipality and one 
 for the third municipality. 
 
 Mr. Preston moved to amend the 10th 
 section, second article, by filling the blank 
 with the words 
 
 ''That each municipality of the city oi 
 New Orleans shall elect one senator with 
 in its limits, and a senator shall be elected 
 by the vote of the whole city of New Or= 
 leans." 
 
 On the adoption of his amendment the 
 yeas and nays were called for. 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 Cade, Carriere, Downs, Garcia, Humble, 
 Ledoux, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, 
 Peets, Penn, Porche, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St, Landry, Preston 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Fe 
 liciana, Scott of Madison, Soule, Trist and 
 Wederstrandt voted in the affirmative- — 28 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie. 
 Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Or 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson. 
 Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Grymes 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Lewis, Mazaureau, Prudhomnje, 
 Pugh, Roman, Roselius, Saunders, Sellers 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Lan 
 dry, Voorhies, WikofFand Winder voted in 
 the negative — 33 nays; consequently said 
 amendment was lost. . 
 
 Mr. Soule moved that the Convention 
 adjourn till to-morrow at ten o'clock, a% m.; 
 on the adoption of his motion the yeas and 
 nays were called for, which was, 23 yeas 
 and 37 nays; consequently said motion 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Eustis, who bad voted in the ma= 
 jority, moved to reconsider Mr. Lewis, 
 amendment. 
 
 On the adoption of his motion the yeas, 
 and mays were called fof ; . « 
 
 Messrs Aubert. Beatty Benjamin- Bon 
 doiisquie, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Con- 
 
172 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, 
 Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, Lefendre, Lewis, Mazureau, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, 
 Saunders, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Taylor of St Landry, 
 Voorhies and Winder voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 34 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Downs, Garcia Humble, Ledoux, 
 McRae, Marigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Preston, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Madison, Soule, Trist, 
 Wederstrandt and WikofF voted in the neg- 
 ative — 25 nays. 
 
 Mr. McRae moved for for a call of the 
 house, when it appeared that the follow- 
 ing members were present: 
 
 Messrs. Joseph Walker, President; Au- 
 bert, Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Burton, Carriere, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad, of New Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Cidbertson, Heroes, 
 Downs, **Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Gar?°ett, 
 Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Ken- 
 ner, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, 
 Lewis, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazu- 
 reau, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott, 
 of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Pres- 
 ton, Prudhomme, Pugh, Read, Roman, Ro- 
 selius, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sel- 
 lers, Soule, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Trist, Voorhies, Weder- 
 strandt and Winder — 58 members. 
 
 On motion the Convention adjourned till 
 to-morrow, at ten o'clock. 
 
 Note—- Members absent, Messrs. Bourg, 
 Briant, Chambliss, Covillion, Hynson, 
 Ratliff, and Waddill, absent on leave; Mr. 
 Leonard, absent on account of illness; and 
 Messrs. Brurnfield, McCallop, St. Amand, 
 Wadsworth and Winchester. 
 
 Tuesday, April 8, 1845, 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment, 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Beatty opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 Mr. R. J. Kerr furnished the secretary 
 with the receipt of the printers to the Con- 
 vention, for the reports in English of the 
 debates of the Convention oi the third in- 
 stant. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river, shall compose one senatorial district, 
 and shall elect four senators. 
 
 To which Mr. Roselius offered the fol- 
 lowing proviso: 
 
 Provided, however, that there shall ah 
 ways be in the senate at least one mem- 
 ber residing in each municipality. 
 
 'On motion of Mr. Boudousquie the pro- 
 viso offered by Mr.. Roselius was stricken 
 out, viz: 
 
 Provided, however, that there shall al- 
 ways be in the senate at least one mem- 
 ber residing in each municipality. 
 
 Mr. Soule offered the following amend- 
 ment, viz: 
 
 Provided, the legislature which shall as- 
 semble immediately after the adoption of 
 this constitution shall pass a law abolish- 
 ing the division of the city into three mu- 
 nicipalities, and constituting it again as a 
 single corporation, with a single council 
 and a single administration. 
 
 Mr. Saunders moved that the, said 
 amendment be laid on the table, subject to 
 call, and the yeas and nays being called 
 for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Boudousquie, Brurnfield, Cenas, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, Conrad 
 of Jefferson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, Lewis, McRae, Mazureau, Penn, Pres- 
 cott of St, Landry, Preston, Pugh, Roman, 
 St. Amand, Saunders, Sellers, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Trist, Voorhies, Wikoff and Win- 
 der voted in the affirmative — 35 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Culbertson, Garcia, Humble, 
 Ledoux, McCallop, Marigny, Mayo, O'Bry-^ 
 an, Peets, Porche, Porter, Prescott ofj 
 Avoyelles, Read, Roselius, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Soule, Stephens, Waddill, Wads- 
 worth and Wederstrandt voted in the nega- 
 tive — 25 nays ; consequently the motion 
 was carried. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin then moved for the adop- 
 tion of the senatorial district composed of 
 "all that portion of the parish of Or- 
 leans lying on the east side of the Missis- 
 sippi river, with four senators." The yeas 
 and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Brurnfield, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Con^ 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 173 
 
 rod of 'Sew Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson,, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Grymes, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, Lewis, Mazureau, Pugh Roman, Ro- 
 selius, St. Amand, Saunders, Sellers, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, 
 Wadsworth and Winder voted in the affir- 
 mative — 32 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Bur- 
 ton, Cade, Carriere, Culbertson, Downs, 
 Garcia, Humble, Ledoux, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Marigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, 
 Penn, Porche, Porter, Prescott of Avoy- 
 elles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Read, Scott of Feliciana, Soule, Trist, 
 Waddill, Wadsworth, Wederstrandt and' 
 Wikoff voted in the negative — 30 nays ; 
 consequently the motion was carried, and 
 the senatorial district composed of all that 
 portion of the parish of Orleans lying on 
 the east side of the Mississippi river, with 
 four senators, was adopted.^ 
 
 Mr. Soule then gave notice that he 
 would, on a future day, move to reconsider 
 the vote adopting the above senatorial dis- 
 trict. 
 
 Mr. Roselius moved the adoption of the 
 tenth section, as amended, viz: 
 
 Art. II. Sec. 10. The State shall be 
 divided into the following senatorial dis- 
 tricts, and the senators to be elected shall 
 be voted for by persons entitled to vote for 
 representatives. 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 ying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river, shall compose one senatorial district, 
 : with four senators. 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines, St. Bernard 
 and that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 on the right bank of the river, shall com- 
 . pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Jefferson shall compose 
 one district with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Charles and St. John 
 the Baptist, shall compose one district, with 
 one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. James and Ascen 
 sion shall compose one district, with two 
 i senators. 
 
 Here Mr. Trist gave notice that he 
 \ would, on a future day, move to reconsider 
 the vote forming one senatorial district, 
 with two senators, of the parishes of St. 
 James and Ascension. 
 
 The parishes of Assumption, Lafourche 
 
 Interior and Teriebonne, shall compose one 
 district, with two senators. 
 
 The parishes of Iberville and West Ba= 
 ton Rouge, shall compose one district,with 
 one senator. 
 
 The parish of East Baton Rouge shall 
 compose one district, with one senator, 
 
 The parish of Point Coupee shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Avoyelles shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Mary and St. Mar- 
 tin shall compose .one district, with two 
 senators. 
 
 Mr, Splane moved to amend the said 
 senatorial district by dividing it into two 
 separate districts, with one senator to 
 each. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Benjamin the taking 
 of the vote on the motion of Mr". Splano, 
 was postponed until to-morrow, at one 
 o'clock, p. m. 
 
 And pending the discussion on said mo- 
 tion the Convention adjourned till to-mor= 
 row, at 10 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note — Members absent, Messrs. Bourg^ 
 Briant, Chambliss, Covillion and Ratliff^ 
 absent on leave; Messrs. Leonard and 
 Porche, absent on account of illness; and 
 Messrs. Kenner and Winchester did not 
 appear in their seats. 
 
 Wednesday, April 9, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Clark opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Garcia, the reading 
 of the minutes of the preceding day was 
 dispensed with. The honorable delegate 
 then anounced to the Convention the lamen- 
 table news of the death of one of its mem- 
 bers, Mr. Gilbert Leonard, the senatorial 
 delegate from the parish of Plaquemines. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth then offered the fol- 
 lowing resolutions, and the same were 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Resolved, That this Convention has 
 heard with deep regret the news of the de= 
 mise of their colleague, the honorable 
 Gilbert Leonard, in whose death Louisi- 
 ana deplores the loss- of an able and 
 faithful servant, and this Convention one of 
 its most respected members. 
 
 Resolved, That the family of the deceased 
 
174 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 be requested to deliver over his remains to 
 be buried by the Convention, and a com- 
 mittee be appointed to consult with the 
 family to that effect, and make the neces- 
 sary arrangements for the funeral. 
 
 Resolved, Tli at the members of the 
 Convention wear crape for the space of 
 thirty days, on the left arm, a token of re- 
 spect for the deceased. 
 
 Resolved, That as a mark of respect for 
 the deceased, this Convention do now ad- 
 journ until to-morrow morning at the usual 
 hour, and that a copy of these resolutions 
 be transmitted by the secretary to the 
 family of the deceased. , 
 
 The President appointed Messrs. 
 Wadsworth, Carriere, Garcia, Saunders 
 and Downs members of the committee of 
 arrangement. 
 
 The Convention then adjourned until to- 
 morrow at 10 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Thursday, April 10, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Clark addressed the 
 Throne of Grace. 
 
 In consequence of the preparations for 
 the burial of the Hon. Gilbert Leonard, 
 deceased, 
 
 The Convention adjourned till to-morrow 
 at 10 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Friday, April 11, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 In the absence of a minister of the gos- 
 pel, the honorable Mr. Stephens, at the 
 request of the President, opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Wikoff was excused for non-at- 
 tendance on account of illness. 
 
 On motion leave of absence was granted 
 to Messrs. Aubcrt, Guion, Penn, Read, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies and Mc- 
 Rae. 
 
 Mr. Humble submitted the following 
 resolution: 
 
 Resolved, that from and after Monday, 
 the 14th inst. the Convetion shall meet at 
 nine o'clock, and at that time a call of the 
 house shall be made, and the absentees 
 marked. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to amend said 
 resolution by inserting the words " five 
 ocloc'k p= m," instead of the words "nine 
 
 o'clock;" which amendment was accepted 
 by Mr. Humble, and the resolution as 
 amended was adopted, viz: 
 
 Resolved, that from and after Monday, 
 the 14th inst. the Convention shall meet at 
 five o'clock p. m., and at the hours of meet, 
 ing in the morning and evening, a call of 
 the house shall take place, and the absen- 
 tees be marked. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Sec. 10, continued. The parishes of 
 St. Mary and St. Martin shall compose one 
 senatorial district with two senators. 
 
 The question under discussion was the 
 motion of Mr. Splane to amend, by dividing 
 the said district into two separate districts, 
 with one senator to each. 
 
 Mr. Roman moved that the amendment 
 of Mr. Splane be laid on the table indefi- 
 nitely, and called for the yeas and nays, 
 which resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Briant,Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, CuTbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Gar- 
 rett, Hudspeth, Labauve, Legendrc, Lewis, 
 •Mazureau, Prudhomme, Puglr, Roman , 
 Saunders, Sellers and Winchester voted in 
 the affirmative — 22 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beaity, Brazeale, Brent, Bur- 
 ton, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Downs, Eustis, 
 Humble, McCallop, Marigny, Mayo, 0 % - 
 Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoy 
 elles, Prescott of St. Landry, Ratliff, \ 
 Scott of Raton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Soule, Splane, Stephens. 
 Trist, Waddill, Wadsivorth, Wederstrandl 
 and Winder voted in the negative — -30 
 nays ; consequently the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Splane then moved for the adop- 
 tion of the amendment, and the yeas and 
 nays being called for, resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs, Beatiy, Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Downs, Eustis, 
 Humble, McCallop, Marigny, Mayo,. 0'- 
 Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott, of Avoy- 
 elles, Prescott of St. Landry, Prudho?nme, 
 Ratliff, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Fe* 
 liciana, Scott of Madison, Ssnde, Splane, 
 Trist, Waddill, Wadsworth, Wederstrandl 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative — 30 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Briant, Chmn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad oi 
 Jefferson, Culberlson, Derbes, Dunn, Oar 
 ret I, Hudspeth, Labauve, Legendre, Lew 
 is, Mazuremii Pugh } ~Roman, Saunders, Sci 
 
Journal of the Conv 
 
 x niton of Louisiana. 
 
 17a 
 
 lers and Winchester voted injhc negative — 
 21 nays; consequently the amendment was 
 carried, and the district composed of the 
 parish of St. Mary, with one senator, and 
 the district composed of the parish of St. 
 Martin. \vith c one senator, were adopted. 
 
 The parishes of Lafayette and Vermil- 
 lion shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Landry and Calca- 
 sieu shall compose one district, with two 
 senators. 
 
 The parish of West Feliciana shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of East Feliciana shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Helena and Livings- 
 ton, shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of Washington and St. 
 Tammany shall compose one district, with 
 i one ^enatoi;. 
 
 The parishes of Concordia and Tensas 
 . hall compose one district, with one sen- 
 ator. 
 
 The parishes of Carroll and Madison 
 shall compose one district, with one sen- 
 ator. 
 
 The parishes of Jackson Morehouse, 
 Union and Ouachita shall compose one 
 district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Franklin, Caldwell and 
 Catahoula shall compose one district, with 
 one senator. 
 
 The parish of Rapides shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. s 
 
 The parishes of Bossier and Claiborne 
 hall compose one district, with one sen- 
 ator. 
 
 The parish of Natchitoches shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Sabine, De Soto and 
 tJaddo shall compose one district, with 
 Dne senator. 
 
 And whenever a new 7 parish shall be 
 reated, it shall be attached to the sena- 
 orial district from which most of it was 
 aken, or to another contiguous district, at 
 he discretion of the legislature, but shall 
 lot be attached to more than one district. 
 
 The legislature in every year in which 
 hey shall apportion representation in the 
 louse of representatives, shall divide the 
 Mate into senatorial districts. No parish 
 shall be divided in the formation of asena- 
 °iial district The number of senators 
 
 shall be thirty- two, and they shall be ap- 
 portioned among the senatorial districts 
 according to the total population contained 
 in the several districts: provided, that no 
 parish shall be entitled to more than one- 
 eighth of the whole number of senators. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to amend, by adding 
 after the words "no parish shall be divided 
 in the formation of a senatorial district,'* 
 the words " except the parish of Orleans/' 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved for the previous 
 question. 
 
 The President then put the question, 
 " shall the main question be now put?" and 
 the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, BrazcaJe, Brent, Bur 
 ton, Cade, Carriere, Downs, Garcia. Hum, 
 hie, LcdoiLi', Levis, McCaflop, Marigny, 
 Mayo, O Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Bailiff, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Soule. 
 Splane, Stephens, Trist,Waddill and Wed* 
 erstrandt voted in the affirmative — 2S yeas ; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Briant, Ce- 
 nas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad jpf Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Cidbcrtson, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Hudspeth, Lauauve, he- 
 gendre, Mazureau, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Prudhommc, Pugh. Roman, Rosclius. -Saun- 
 ders, Sellers, TFadsworth, Winchester and 
 Winder voted in the negative — 26 nays: 
 consequently the motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Dowers then moved for the adoption 
 of the amendment, and the yeas and nays 
 being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Burton A 
 Cade, Carriere, Downs, Garcia, Humble - 
 Ledoux, McCallop. Marigny, Mayo, O'- 
 Bryan, Peet?, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Ratliff, Scott "of Ba- 
 ton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott ofMad- 
 ison, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Trist, Wad- 
 dill and We^lerstrandt voted in the affir- 
 mative — 28 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Briant, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Cuibertson, Dcrbes, Dunn 
 Eustis, Garrett, Hudspeth, Labauve, Le- 
 gendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Roman, Roselius, Saunders, Sellers, 
 Wadsworth, Winchester and Winder voted 
 in the negative — 27 nays; consequently 
 said amendment w T as adopted. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin offered the following 
 amendment, viz; 
 
176 
 
 Journal of the Con vention of ILoiiisiqna. 
 
 The city of New Orleans shall not be 
 divided by any legislative act, in the ap- 
 portionment of senators. 
 
 On the motion to adopt said amendment, 
 the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Briant, Ce- 
 nas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Berbes, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Hudspeth, La- 
 bauve, Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ro- 
 man, Roselius, Saunders, Sellers, Wads- 
 worth, Winchester and Winder voted in 
 the affirmative— -28 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Downs, Garcia, Humble, Le- 
 doux, McCallop, Marigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Ratliff, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Soule, Splane, Stephens, 
 Trist, Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in 
 the negative — 27 nays; the President voted 
 in the minority, which made the vote equal, 
 consequently the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin gave notice that he would 
 on Tuesday next, move to reconsider all 
 the votes given on that day. 
 
 Mr. Downs then moved for the adoption 
 of the section as amended, viz: 
 
 ARTICLE II. 
 
 Section 10. The State shall be divided 
 into the following senatorial districts, and 
 the senators to be elected shall be voted 
 for by persons entitled to vote for represen- 
 tatives. 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river, shall compose one senatorial district, 
 and shall elect four senators. 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines, St, Ber- 
 nard, and that part of the parish of Orleans 
 on the right bank of the river, shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Jefferson shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Charles and St. John 
 the Baptist shall compose one district, with 
 one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St, James and Aseen* 
 sion shall compose one district, with two 
 senators, 
 
 The parishes of Assumption, Lafourche 
 Interior and Terrebonne shall compose one 
 district, with two senators. 
 
 The parishes of Iberville and West Ba^ 
 ton Rouge shall compose one district, with 
 one senator, 
 
 The parish of East Baton Rouge shall 
 compose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Pointe Coupee shall com* 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of Avoyelles shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of St. Mary shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of St. Martin shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes ot Lafayette and Vermil- 
 lion shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. . 
 
 The parishes of St. Landry and Calca- 
 sieu, shall compose one district, with two 
 senators. 
 
 The parish of West Feliciana shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parish of East Feliciana shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of St. Helena and Livings* 
 ton shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 The parishes of Washington and St, 
 Tammany shall compose one district, with 
 one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Concordia and Tensas 
 shall compose one district, with one sen- 
 ator. 
 
 The parishes of Carroll and Madison 
 shall compose one district, with one sen- 
 ator. 
 
 The parishes of Jackson, Morehouse, 
 Union and Ouachita shall compose one 
 district, with one senator. 
 
 Thp parishes of Caldwell, Franklin and 
 Catahoula, shall compose one district,* with 
 one senator. 
 
 The parish of Rapides shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 The parishes of Bossier and Claiborne 
 shall compose one district, with one sen- 
 ator. 
 
 The parish of Natchitoches shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator. 
 \ The parishes of Sabine, De Soto and 
 Caddo shall compose one district, with one 
 senator. 
 
 And whenever a new parish shall be 
 created, it shall be attached to- the senate* 
 rial district from which njpst of it was ta- 
 ken, or to another contiguous district, at 
 the discretion of the legislature, but shall 
 not be attached to more than one district. 
 
 The legislature, in every year in which 
 they shall apportion representat'on in the 
 house of representatives, shall divide the 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 177 
 
 State into senatorial districts. No parish 
 shall be divided in the formation of a sena- 
 torial district, the parish of Orleans except, 
 ed. The number of senators shall be thir- 
 ty-two, and they shall be apportioned among 
 the senatorial districts according to the to- 
 tal population contained in the several dis- 
 tricts; provided that no parish shall be en- 
 titled to more than one-eighth of the whole 
 number of senators* 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to adjourn till to- 
 morrow at 11 o'clock, a. m.; the yeas and 
 nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Cenas, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jef- 
 ferson, Eustis, Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, 
 Roselus, Trist, Waddill and Wadsworth 
 voted in the affirmative — 14 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brejit, 
 Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chinn, CuJbert- 
 son, Derbes, Downs, Dunn, Garcia, Gar- 
 get, Hudspeth, Humble, Ledoux, Mc Gallop, 
 Marigny, Mayo, (X Bryan, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, Roman, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Soide, 
 Stephens, Wederstandt, Winchester and 
 Winder voted in -the negative — 39 nays ; 
 consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 On the motion to adopt the section as 
 amended, the yeas and nays being called 
 for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 Cade, Carriere, Downs, Garcia, Garrett, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Labauve, Ledoux, 
 Lewis, McCallop, Marigny, Mayo, O'- 
 Bryan, Peets, Porter,Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Rat- 
 iff, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Soule, 
 Splane, Stephens, Waddill, Wederstrandt 
 md Winder voted in the affirmative— 34 
 T eas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Briant, Cenas, 
 Thinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Cul- 
 >ertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Legendre, 
 tfazureau, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, Saun- 
 ters, Wadsworth and Winchester voted in 
 he negative — 19 nays; consequently said 
 ection as amended, was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans moved to adjourn 
 ill to-morrow at 10 o'clock, a. m.; the 
 eas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs^ Benjamin, Bourg, Cenas, Clai- 
 23 
 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Derbes, Garcia, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Mazureau, Roman, 
 Roselius, Stephens and Wadsworth voted 
 in the affirmative — 14 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, 
 Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chinn, Downs, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Humble, Ledoux, 
 Lewis, McCallop, Marigny, Mayo, O'Bry- 
 an, Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Pugh, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Spott of Madison, Seller^, Soule, 
 Splane, Waddill, Wederstrandt, Winches- 
 ter and Winder voted in the negative — 36 
 nays: consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, the Conven- 
 tion took up the following additional sec- 
 tion, offered by him, to wit: 
 
 "In all future apportionments of the 
 senate the population of New Orleans, on 
 the left bank of the river, descending, shall 
 be deducted from the population of the 
 whole State, and the remainder of the 
 population divided by the number twenty- 
 eight, and the quotient or result produced 
 by this division shall be the population 
 entitling a parish or other senatorial dis- 
 trict to a senator. Single or contiguous 
 parishes shall be formed into districts hav~ 
 ing a population tire nearest possible to the 
 divisor; and if a parish or district cannot 
 be allowed a senator without a fraction of 
 one-third over or under the ratio, then a 
 district may be formed having not more 
 than two senators, but riot otherwise 
 Whenever the election, under a new ap. 
 portion ment shall have taken place, the 
 seats of all the senators under the old ap- 
 portionments shall be vacant, without re- 
 gard to the time they had served. All ap- 
 portionments for senators, made not in 
 strict conformity to this section, shall be 
 null and void; and after the census has 
 been taken, and the general assembly con- 
 vened, it shall not be competent for the 
 legislature to do any business, except its 
 own organization, until an apportionment 
 is made in strict conformity to this rule; 
 and all acts and proceedings of the then 
 existing legislature, or any subsequent one, 
 under an apportionment not in strict con- 
 formity to this constitution, shall be null 
 and void." 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to strike out the 
 following words: 
 
178 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 "Single or contiguous parishes shall be 
 formed into .districts having a population 
 the nearest possible to the divisor, and if 
 a parish or district cannot be allowed a sen- 
 ator without a fraction of one-third over or 
 under the ratio, then a district may be 
 formed having not more than two senators, 
 but not otherwise," 
 
 Mr. Downs moved for a division, that is, 
 that the Convention first proceed to strike 
 out the words " single or contiguous par- 
 ishes, sIhslIL be formed into districts having 
 a population nearest the divisor." 
 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans, moved to 
 lay on the table indefinitely, the following 
 paragraph of said section, viz: 
 
 4i In all future apportionments of the sen- 
 ate the population of New Orleans, on the 
 left bank of the river, descending, shall be 
 deducted from the population of the whole 
 State ; and the remainder of the population 
 divided by the number twenty-eight, and 
 the quotient or result produced by this di- 
 vision shall be the population entitling a 
 parish or other senatorial district to a sena- 
 tor. Single or contiguous parishes shall 
 be formed into districts having a population 
 the nearest possible to the divisor ; and if 
 a parish or district cannot be allowed a 
 senator, without a fraction of one-third 
 over or under the ratio, then a district may 
 be formed having not more than two sena- 
 tors, but not otherwise. " 
 
 Mr. Downs submitted the following reso- 
 lution, viz: 
 
 " Resolved, That all motions for recon- 
 sideration shall be decided without debate." 
 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans, submitted 
 the following amendment, viz: 
 
 " Resolved, That no vote on the constitu- 
 tion shall be reconsidered, unless there be 
 a greater number of members present when 
 the vote for a reconsideration is taken, 
 than when the original vote was taken, " 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow at 10' o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note. — ^-Members absent : Messrs. 
 Porche, Taylor of Assumption and Wikoff, 
 absent on account of illness ; Messrs. Au- 
 bert, Chambliss, Covillion, Guion, Penn, 
 Read, Taylor- of St. Landry and Voorhies, 
 absent on leave ; and Messrs. Boudousquie, 
 Brumfield, Grymes, Kenner, King, McRae 
 and St. Amand did not appear in their 
 seats. 
 
 Saturday, April 12, 1845. 
 • The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 In the absence of a minister of the gos- 
 pel, the Hon. Mr. Stephens, at the request 
 of the President, opened the*proceedmg3 
 with prayer. 
 
 The secretary reported the receipt of 
 the printers for the reports of the debates 
 in English, of the 8th inst. 
 
 On motion, leave of absence was grant- 
 ed to Messrs. Chinn, Derbes, Scott of Ba- 
 ton Rouge, and Saunders. 
 
 On motion, Mr. Hudspeth was excused 
 for non-attendance, on account of illness. 
 
 The Convention then took up the follow- 
 ing resolution, offered by Mr. Downs on 
 yesterday, viz: 
 
 Resolved, that all motions for reconside- 
 ration be decided without debate. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved for the adoption of 
 said resolution; the yeas and nays being 
 called for, (Mr. Claiborne in the chair) re- 
 sulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs ^Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Burton , 
 Cade, Car Here, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 Downs, Dunn, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, 
 Lewis, McCallop, Marigny, Mayo, O' Bry- 
 an, Peets, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott 
 of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Splane, Stephens, Waddill and 
 Wederstrandt voted in the affirmative — 27 
 yeas ; and j 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Briant, Ce- 
 naSi Conrad of Orleans, Eustis, Mazn- 
 reau, Porter, Pugh, Ratlijf, Roman, Ro- 
 selius, Sellers, Taylor of Assumption, Win- 
 chester and Winder voted in the negative 
 — 17 nays ; consequently said motion was 
 carried, and the resolution adopted. 
 
 The Convention then took up the foh 
 lowing resolution, offered on yesterday by 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, viz: 
 
 Resolved that no vote on the constitu- 
 tion shall be reconsidered, unless ^here be 
 a greater number of members present when 
 the vote for a reconsideration is taken, than 
 when the original vote was taken. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin .offered the following as a 
 substitute for the said resolution, and the 
 same was accepted by Mr. Conrad, viz: 
 
 Resolved, that no vote on the constitu- 
 tion shall be reconsidered, unless a greater 
 number of members vote for the reconside- 
 ration than voted in favor of the motion 
 , which it is proposed to reconsider. 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 179 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the adoption of the above substitute, (Mr. 
 Claiborne in the chair) resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Brian!, Burton, Cade, Car- 
 riere, Cenas, Conrad of Orleans, Covillion, 
 Culbertson, Dozens, Dunn, Garrett, Hyn- 
 son, Mc Call op, Mayo, Mdzureau, Beets, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Prudhomme, Pitgh, Roman, RoseUus, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Splane, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Waddill, 
 Wederstrandt, Winchester and Winder, 
 voted in the affirmative — 36 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Eustis, Humble, Marigny, O'- 
 Bryan, Porter and Ratliff voted in the neg- 
 ative— 6 nays; consequently the motion 
 was carried, and the substitute adopted. 
 
 The Convention then proceeded to the 
 ORDER OF THE DAY, 
 it being the additional section offered by 
 Mr. Downs, viz: 
 
 In all future apportionments of the sen- 
 ate, the population of the city of New Or- 
 leans shall be deducted from the population 
 of the whole State, and the remainder of 
 the population divided by the number twen- 
 ty-eight, and the quotient or result produ- 
 ced by this division, shall be the popula- 
 tion entitling a parish or other senatorial 
 district to a senator. Single or contiguous 
 parishes shall be formed into districts hav- 
 ing a population the nearest possible to the 
 divisor, and if a parish or district cannot 
 be allowed a senator without a fraction of 
 one-third over or under the ratio, then a dis- 
 trict may be formed having not more than 
 two senators, but not otherwise, When- 
 ever the election under a new apportion- 
 ment shall have taken place, the seats of all 
 the senators under old apportionments 
 shall be vacant, without regard to the 
 time they had served. All apportionments 
 for senators, made not in strict conformity 
 :o this section, shall be null and void, and 
 ifter the census has been taken and the 
 reneral assembly convened, it shall not be 
 competent for the legislature to do any 
 nisiness except its own organization, un- 
 lil an apportionment is made in strict con- 
 brmity to this rule, and all acts and pro- 
 ceedings of the then existing legislature 
 >r any subsequent one, under anapportion- 
 nent not in strict conformity to this con- 
 titution, shall be null and void. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to correct the phra- 
 
 seology by striking out the word "divisor" 
 in the thirteenth line, and insert in lieu 
 thereof, the words "number entitling a 
 district to a senator;" which motion pre- 
 vailed. 
 
 Mr. Soule moved to correct the phra- 
 seology by striking out the words "and if 
 a parish or district cannot be allowed a 
 senator with a fraction of one-third over or 
 under the ratio," and insert in lieu thereof, 
 the words "and if in the apportionment to 
 be made, a parish or district be {bund to 
 be deficient of or to exceed by one-third 
 the ratio:" which motion prevailed. 
 
 The question under consideration at the 
 adjournment on yesterday, was the motion 
 of Mr. Conrad of Orleans, to lay indefi- 
 nitely on the table the following paragraphs 
 of said section, viz: 
 
 In all future apportionments of the sen. 
 ate, the population of the city of New Or- 
 leans shall be deducted from the popula- 
 tion of the whole State, and the remainder 
 of the population divided by the number 
 twenty-eight, and the quotient or result 
 produced by this" division, shall be the 
 population entitling a«parish or other sena- 
 torial district to a senator. Single or con- 
 tiguous parishes shall be formed into*dis- 
 tricts having a population the nearest pos- 
 sible to the divisor, and if a parish or dis- 
 trict cannot be allowed a senator without 
 a fraction of one-third over or under the 
 ratio, then a district may be formed hav-> 
 ing not more than two senators, but not 
 otherwise. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved for a division, thai 
 is, the Convention first proceed to act from 
 the first to the tenth line, then from the 
 tenth line to the thirteenth line, and then 
 from the thirteenth line to the eighteenth 
 line to the word "otherwise;" which motion 
 prevailed. 
 
 The yeas and, nays being called for to 
 lay on the table indefinitely all the words 
 from the first to the tenth line, (Mr. Clai- 
 borne in the chair) resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Briant, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Culbertson, Dunn, Marigny, Mazurcau, 
 Roman and Roselius voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 11 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum" 
 field, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Covil- 
 lion, Downs, Garrett, Humble, Hynson 9 
 Lewis, McCallop, Mayo, O' Bryan. Peels* 
 
180 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sel- 
 lers, Soule, Splcine, Stephens, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Waddill, Wederstrandt, Win- 
 chester and Winder voted in the negative 
 —32 na^s; consequently said motion was 
 lost. 
 
 r l he yeas and iftys were then called for 
 on the motion to lay on the table indefi- 
 nitely all the words from the tenth line to 
 the thirteenth line, resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Briant, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 New Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Eustis, 
 Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, Roman, Rose- 
 lius, Sellers and Winchester voted in the 
 affirmative — 12 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Covil- 
 lion, Culbertson, Downs, Garrett, Humble, 
 Hynson, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peels, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Pugh, Ratlifi Scott of Feliciana, Scott 
 of Madison, Soule, Splane, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Waddill, Wederstrandt and Win- 
 der voted in the negative — 30 nays ; con- 
 sequently said rnotiofi was lost. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, offered as a 
 substitute to the third paragraph, the fol- 
 lowing, viz: 
 
 And whenever contiguous parishes shall 
 in the aggregate have a population suffi- 
 cient to entitle them to two senators, they 
 may be formed into two separate districts, 
 provided that neither district shall have a 
 population of more than one-third over or 
 under the ratio. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to lay on the table 
 indefinitely the substitute offered by Mr. 
 Conrad. 
 
 At ten minutes after one o'clock, there 
 being barely a quorum, Mr. Claiborne 
 moved that the Convention adjourn till 
 Monday next at ten o'clock, a. m. ; and the 
 yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Briant, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Lewis, Pugh, Roman, Roselius 
 and Winchester voted in the affirmative — 
 8 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Co- 
 villion, Downs, Eustis, Garrett, Humble, 
 Hynson, Ledoux, Mayo, O 'Bryan, Peets, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Ratliff, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, 
 Soule\ Stephens^ Taylor of Assumption, 
 
 Wadsworth and Wederstrandt voted in the 
 negative — 30 nays; consequently said mo- 
 tion was lost. 
 
 At sixteen minutes after 1 o'clock, Mr. 
 Brent moved for a call of the house, and 
 the following members answered to their 
 names, viz : 
 
 Messrs. Joseph Walker, president ; 
 Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of N«ew Orleans, Covillion, 
 Downs, Eustis, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, 
 Ledoux, Ljewis, Marigny, Mayo, O' Bryan, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pugh, 
 Ratliff, Roman, . Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Soide, Stephens, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Waddill, Wadsworth and 
 Wederstrandt — being in all, 37. 
 
 Mr. Soule then moved that for the want 
 of a quorum, the Convention adjourn till 
 Monday next at ten o'clock, a. m.; which 
 motion prevailed. 
 
 Note — Members absent: Messrs. Hud- 
 speth, Porche and Wikoff, absent on ac- 
 count of illness; Messrs. Aubert, Cham, 
 bliss, Chinn, Derbes, Guion, King, Mc- 
 Rae, Penn, Read, Saunders, Scott of Ba- 
 ton Rouge, Taylor of St. Landry, and 
 Voorhies, absent on leave; and Messrs. 
 Boudousquie, Garcia, Grymes, tenner, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Preston, St. Amand 
 and Trist did not appear in their seats. 
 
 Monday, April 14, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment, at 10 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved that for the want 
 of a quorum, only twenty-eight members 
 having answered to their names at t|ie call 
 of the roll, the Convention adjourn for one 
 hour. The yeas and nays being called 
 for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, Covillion, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Ledoux, Lewis, McCallop, 
 Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prudhom- 
 me, Pugh, Read, Scott of Feliciana, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Waddill and 
 Wederstrandt voted in the affirmative — 25 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brumfield, Dunn, Roman and 
 Winder voted in the negative — 4 nays ; 
 consequently the motion was carried, and 
 the Convention adjourned for an hour for 
 want of a quorum. 
 
 Note— Members absent at the call of 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 181 
 
 the roli : Messrs. Aubert, Chirm, Derbes, 
 Guion, King, McRae, Perm, Saunders, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 s dry and Voorhies absent on leave; Messrs. 
 Hudspeth and Porche on account of illness; 
 and Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Bourg, 
 Briant, Brumfield, Carriere, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Culberstson, Downs, Eustis, Garcia, Gar- 
 rett, Grymes, Kenner, Labauve, Legendre, 
 McCallop, Marigny, Mazureau, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 RatlifF, Roselius, St.Amand, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Sellers, Soule, Splane, Trist, Wads- 
 worth and Winchester did not answer to 
 their names at the call of the roll. 
 
 At the appointed hour, the President 
 called the Convention to order, and on the 
 roli being called, forty- six members an- 
 swered to their names. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Warren opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 The secretary reported the receipt of the 
 printers for the reports of the debates in 
 English of the 1 1th instant. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Second paragraph of the section offered 
 by Mr. Downs, viz : 
 
 "Single or contiguous parishes shall be 
 formed into districts having a population 
 the nearest possible to the number entitling 
 a district to a senator, and if in the appor- 
 tionment to be made a parish or district be 
 found to be deficient of or to exceed by one- 
 third the ratio, then a district may be form- 
 ed having not more than two senators, but 
 not otherwise." 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans offered at the 
 last adjournment as a substitute for said 
 paragraph, the following, viz : 
 
 "Whenever contiguous parishes shall 
 have in the aggregate a population suffi- 
 cient to entitle them to two senators, they 
 may be formed into two separate districts; 
 provided, that neither district shall have a 
 population of more than one-third over or 
 under the ratio." 
 
 The question under consideration at the 
 last adjournment, was the motion of Mr. 
 Downs, to lay on the table indefinitely the 
 above substitute. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 said motion, resulted as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cham- 
 bliss, Covillion, Downs, Garrett, Humble, 
 
 Hynson, Ledoux,McCallop, Marigny,Mayo> 
 0'Br\an,Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyel- 
 les, Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, 
 Read, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, 
 Splane, Stephens, Waddill and Weder- 
 strandt voted in the affirmative— »31 yeasf 
 and 
 
 Messrs". Benjamin, Briant, Claiborne. 
 Conrad of Orleans, Culbertson, Dunn, 
 Hudspeth, Lewis, Mazureau, Pugh, Ratliff, 
 Roman, Sellers, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Wikoff and Winchester voted in the nega- 
 tive — 16 nays; consequently said motion 
 was carried. 
 
 Mr*. Claiborne" moved to strike out all 
 the words from the eighteenth line to the 
 twenty-third line, and insert in lieu thereof 
 the following substitute, viz : 
 
 " Whenever a new apportionment shall 
 be made the term of service of all the sen- 
 ators whose districts may be thereby altered 
 or reorganized, shall expire so soon as the 
 election shall take place in the new dis- 
 tricts, without regard to the time such sena- 
 tors shall have served Under the old appor- 
 tionment." 
 
 Mr. Benjamin offered as a substitute to 
 the substitute of Mr. Claiborne, the follow- 
 ing, viz : 
 
 "No new apportionment shall have the 
 effect of abridging the term of service of 
 any senator already elected at the time of 
 making the apportionment." 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to amend the above 
 substitute, by adding the words "except 
 those whose districts are changed." Which 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved for the previous ques- 
 tion, and the president (Mr. Winchester in 
 the chair) put the question, "shall the main- 
 question be now put?" The yeas and nays 
 being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Downs, Hudspeth, Humble, 
 Hynson, Lewis, McCallop, Porter, Prescott 
 of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Read, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Soule 
 and Waddill voted in the affirmative — 18 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg,Briant, 
 Cade, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, CoviL 
 lion* Culbertson, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, 
 Garrett, Ledoux, Mayo, Mazureau, O'- 
 Bryan, Peets, Prescott of St. Landry, Prud- 
 homme, Pugh, Ratliff, Roman, Sellers* 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption* 
 
 i 
 
182 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Wederstrandt, Wikoff and Winder voted in 
 the negative — 30 nays; consequently said 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin then moved for the adop- 
 tion of the substitute, and the yeas and 
 nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Covillion, Culbertson,Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, Hudspeth, Ledoux, 
 Lewis, McCallop, Mayo, Mazureau, Feets, 
 Prescott, of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, Roman, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, 
 Splane, Stephens* Taylor of Assumption, 
 Wikoff and Winder voted in the affirmative 
 36 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Carrier e, 
 Chambliss, Downs, Humble, Hynson, Ma- 
 rigny, O 'Bryan, Porter, • Read, Soule, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in the 
 negative — 14 nays; consequently said mo- 
 tion was carried, and the substitute 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Eustis moved to strike out the 
 words from the twenty-third line to the 
 thirty- first line.'' 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved for a division, to 
 strike out first the words from the twenty, 
 third line to the twenty-fifth line; his mo- 
 tion prevailed, and the words were strick- 
 en out. 
 
 On the motion to strike out the words 
 from the twenty-nth line to the thirty-first 
 line, the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Burton, 
 Cade, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of New 
 Orleans, Eustis, Hudspeth, Ledoux, Leivis, 
 Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Prescott of St. 
 Landry,' Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, Ro- 
 man, Sellers, Soule and Splane voted in 
 the affirmative — 22 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, Cul- 
 bertson, Downs, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, 
 McCallop, O 'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Preston, Read, Roselius, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Waddill, 
 Wederstrandt, Wikoff and Winder voted in 
 the negative — 28 nays; consequently the 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption offered as a 
 substitute for the whole section the follow- 
 ing, viz: 
 
 "In all future apportionments of the sen- 
 
 ate the State shall be divided into sixteen 
 districts. The city of New Orleans shall 
 be divided so as to form two districts. The 
 population of the city of New Orleans 
 shall be deducted from the population of 
 the whole State, and the remainder of the 
 population divided by the number four- 
 teen, and the quotient produced by this 
 division shall be the representative number 
 entitling a senatorial district to two sena- 
 tors. Single or contiguous parishes shall 
 be formed into districts, in such manner as 
 to have a population the nearest possible to 
 the representative number. After the cen- 
 sus has been taken, and the general assem- 
 bly convened, the legislature shall not pass 
 any law. until an apportionment is made." 
 
 On the motion of Mr. Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, for the adoption of the above substi- 
 tute/the yeas and nays being called for, 
 resulted as follows: . 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Bri- 
 ant, Cenas, Conrad of New Orleans, Eus- 
 tis, Hudspeth, Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Pugh, Roman, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Winchester] and 
 Winder voted in the affirmative — 17 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, Bur- 
 ton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Claiborne, 
 Covillion, Culbertson, Downs, Garrett, 
 Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, McCallop, Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, O 'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Ratliff, Read, Roselius, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Soule, Splane, 
 Stephens, Waddill, Wederstrandt and Wi- 
 koff voted in the negative — 36 nays ; con- 
 sequently the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to amend by adding 
 after the word "legislature" in the twenty- 
 eighth line, the words " to pass any laws 
 after the first forty days of the session;" 
 which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved for the previous ques. 
 tion. 
 
 The President put the question, " shall 
 the main question bfe now put;" which 
 motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans, moved to 
 amend by striking out from the third para- 
 graph the words " or to exceed." The 
 yeas and riays being called for, resulted 
 as follows, viz: 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Briant, Ce- 
 nas, Claiborne, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 183 
 
 Eustis, Hudspeth, Legendre, Mazurcau, 
 Pugh, Ratliff, Roman, Roselius, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Winchester and Wnder voted 
 in the affirmative — 17 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazgale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Covillion, Downs, Garrett, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Ledoux, Lewis, McCallop, Mayo, 
 0' Bryan, Beets, Porter, Prescott, of Avoy- 
 elles," Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Prud- 
 homme, Read, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Soule, Splane, Stephens, 
 Waddill, Wederstrandt and Wikoff voted 
 in the negative — 34 nays; consequently 
 the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to strike out from 
 the sixteenth line the word "may," and in- 
 sert in lieu thereof the word " shall." The 
 yeas and nays being called for, resulted as 
 follows: 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Bri- 
 ant, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of New Or- 
 leans, Hudspeth, Legendre, Lewis, JSlazu- 
 reau, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, 2 ay lor of 
 Assumption, Winchester and Winder voted 
 in the affirmative — 17 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, Bur- 
 ton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 Downs, Eustis, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, 
 Ledoux, McCallop, Mayo, O 'Bryan, Peets, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, Ratliff, 
 Read, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, 
 Sellers, Soide, Splane, Stephens, Waddill, 
 Wederstrandt and Wikoff voted in the 
 negative — 34 nays; consequently the mo- 
 tion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Brent gave notice that he would, 
 on to-morrow, move a reconsideration of 
 the vote given on Mr. Benjamin's amend- 
 ment, to insert one-fifth instead of one- 
 third. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved for the adoption of 
 the section as amended, viz: 
 
 " In all future apportionments of the sen- 
 ate the population of the city of New Or- 
 leans shall be deducted from the population 
 of the whole State, and the remainder of 
 the population divided by the number twen- 
 ty-eight, and the quotient or result produ- 
 ced by this division shall be the popula- 
 tion entitling a parish to a senator. Sin- 
 gle or contiguous parishes shall be formed 
 into districts having a population the near- 
 est possible to the number entitling a dis- 
 trict to a senator; and if, in the apportion- 
 
 ment to be made, a parish or district be 
 found to be deficient of or to exceed one- 
 fifth the ratio, then a district may be form- 
 ed having not more than two senators, but 
 not otherwise. No new apportionment 
 shall have the cffect.of abridging the term 
 of service of any senator already elected at 
 the time of making the apportionment, and 
 after the census has been taken and the 
 general assembly convened, the legislature 
 shall not pass any laws until the apportion- 
 ment be made. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the adoption of the above section as amend- 
 ed, resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cham- 
 bliss, Covillion, Downs, Garrett, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Lewis, McCal- 
 lop, Mayo, CBryan, Peets, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott, of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sel- 
 lers Soule, Splane, Stephens, Waddill, 
 Wederstran dt, Wikoff and Winchester vo* 
 ted in the affirmative*— 39 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Cenas, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Eustis, Legendre, 
 Mazureau, Roman, Roselius, Taylor of 
 Assumption and Winder voted in the nega- 
 tive — 12 nays ; consequently the motion 
 was carried, and the section as amended 
 was adopted. 
 
 Note — Members absent at the call of the 
 roll, Messrs. Aubert, Guion, King, Mc- 
 Rae, Penn, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, and Voorhies, absent 
 on leave; Mr. Porche, absent on account 
 of illness; and Messrs. Boudousquie, Bri- 
 ant, Cenas, Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, 
 Downs, Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, Kenner, 
 Labauve, Marigny, Preston, Ratliff, Rose- 
 lius, St. Amand, Soule, Trist, and Win- 
 chester did not answer to their names at 
 the call of the roll. 
 
 On motion the Convention adjourned till 
 five o'clock* this evening. 
 
 Monday Evening, April 14, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The President called the Convention 
 to order, and on the call of the roll, the fol- 
 lowing members answered to their names, 
 viz: 
 
 Messrs, Joseph Walker, President, 
 
184 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 Cenas, Downs, Eustis, Hudspeth, Humble, 
 McCallop, Marigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Prudhomme, Pugh, Read, Ro- 
 man, Scott of Feliciana, Scott' of Madison, 
 Sellers, Soule, Splane, Waddill, Weder- 
 strandt and Winder — total, 31. 
 
 Members absent at the call of the roll. — 
 Messrs. Aubert, Chinn, Guion, Derbes, 
 McRae, Penn, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Taylor of St. Landry and Voorhies 
 absent on leave; Messrs. Brumfield and 
 Porche absent on account of illness; and 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Briant, 
 Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Covillion, Culbertson, Dunn, Garcia, Gar- 
 rett, Grymes, Hynson, Kenner, Labauve, 
 Ledoux,- Legendre, Lewis, Mazaureau, 
 Preston, RatlifT, Roselius, St, Amand, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, 
 Wadsworth, Wikoff and and Winchester 
 did not answer to their names at the call 
 of the roll. 
 
 At ten minutes after 5 o'clock, Mr. 
 Brent moved for a call of the house, and 
 the following members answered to their 
 names, viz: 
 
 Messrs. Joseph Walker, President, 
 Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Burton, Cade, Cenas Conrad of Orleans, 
 Downs, Eustis, Hudspeth, Humble, Mc- 
 Callop, Marigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, 
 Porter, Prescott ot Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Pugh, Read, Roman, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Soule, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Waddill, Wederstrandt, Winchester and 
 Winder— total, 36. 
 
 Members absent at the call of the house: 
 Messrs. Aubert, Chinn, Derbes, Guion, 
 King, McRae, Penn, Saunders, Scott o£ 
 Baton Rouge, Taylor of St. Landry and 
 Voorhies absent on leave; Messrs. Porche 
 and Brumfield absent on account of illness; 
 and Messrs. Boudousquie, Briant, Car- 
 riere, Chambliss, Claiborne, Conrad of Jef- 
 ferson, Covillion, Culbertson, Dunn,Garcia, 
 Garrett, Grymes, Hynson, Kenner, La- 
 bauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, Mazu- 
 reau, Preston, RatlifT, Roselius, St. Amand, 
 Trist, Wadsworth and Wikoff did not an- 
 swer to their names at the call of the 
 house. 
 
 After a quarter of an hour had elapsed, 
 
 Mr. Brent moved for a call of the house, 
 and the following members answered to 
 their names, viz: 
 
 Messrs. Joseph Walker, President, 
 Beatty, Benjamin, JBourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Burton, Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, Conrad 
 of Orleans, Downs, Eustis, Garrett, Hud- 
 speth, Humble, McCallop, Marigny, Mayo, 
 O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoy- 
 elles, Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme ? 
 Pugh, Read, Roman, Scott of Feliciana., 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Soule, Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Waddill, 
 Wederstrandt, Winchester and Winder- 
 total, 39. 
 
 Members absent at the call of the house: 
 Messrs. Aubert, Chinn, Derbes, Gnion, 
 King, McRae, Penn, Saunders, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Taylor of St. Landry and 
 Voorhies absent on leave; and Messrs. 
 Porche and Brumfield absent on account 
 of illness; and Messrs. Boudousquie, Briant, 
 Carriere, Claiborne, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Covillion, Culbertson, Dunn, Garcia, 
 Grymes, Hynson, Kenner, Labauve, Le- 
 doux, Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Pres- 
 ton, RatlifT, Roselius, St. Amand, Trist, 
 Wadsworth and Wikoff did not answer to 
 their names at the call of the house. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Soule, the Conven- 
 tion then adjourned for the want of a quo- 
 rum, till to-morrow at 10 o'clock^ a. m. 
 
 Tuesday, April 15, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Twitchard opened the 
 proceeding with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved that the secretary be 
 ordered to furnish the printers with a sepa- 
 rate list, containing the names of the ab- 
 sentees at the calls of the house. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for: 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, BriamX, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cham- 
 bliss, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Covillon, Downs, Garrett, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, Lewis, McCallop, Mayo, 
 O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoy- 
 elles, Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomrae, 
 Pugh, Read, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Waddill, Wadsworth, Wed- 
 erstrandt, Wikoff and Winder voted in the 
 affirmative"—39 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Cenas, Dunn, Mazureau, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 185 
 
 Eatliff, Roman and Winchester voted in 
 the negative — 7 nays; consequently the 
 motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Brext moved to reconsider the 
 vote given on yesterday, on the adoption 
 of the section "offered by Mr. Downs, as 
 amended; which motion was lost. 
 
 On motion, the 3d section of article 2d. 
 which had been laid on the table subject to 
 Call, was called up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 3. ;< Representatives shall be cho- j 
 sen on the first Monday, one day only, in 
 November, every two years; and the gener- j 
 al assembly shall convene on the third 
 Monday in January next ensuing the elec- j 
 tion, in even second year, unless a differ- 
 ent day be appointed by law; and their dif- j 
 ferent sessions, shall be held at the seat of I 
 government. 
 
 " The first election under this constitu- 
 tion shall take place in the year ." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Dowzvs, the last para- j 
 graph of said section was stricken out, viz: 
 
 " The first election under this constitu- ! 
 tion shall take place in the year — — . " i 
 
 On motion, the section as amended wa's ] 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec 3. « Representatives shall be cho- | 
 sen on the first Monday, one day only, in 
 November every two years; and the gener- 
 al assembly shall convene on the third 
 Monday in January next ensuing the elec- 
 tion, in every second year, unless a differ- \ 
 ent day be appointed by law: and their 1 
 different sessions shall be held at the seat \ 
 of government. " 
 
 On motion, the 11th section of article 
 3d was called up. viz: 
 
 Sec. 1 1 . M At the session of the general \ 
 assembly, after this constitution takes ef- 
 fect, the senators shall be divided by lot as ! 
 equally as may be into two classes: the 
 seats of the senators of the first class shall 
 be vacated at the expiration of the second : 
 year; of the second class at the expiration 
 of the fourth year; so that one-half shall be : 
 chosed every two years, and a rotation j 
 thereby kept up perpetually. " 
 
 Mr. Coxrap of New Orleans, offered ; 
 the following amendment/ and the same I 
 was adopted, viz: 
 
 " In case any district shall have elected 
 two or more senators, said senators shall 
 vacate their seats respectively at the end | 
 of two and four years, and the lots shall be j 
 drawn between them. " 
 
 24 
 
 On motion, the section as amended was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 11. "At the session of the general 
 assembly after this constitution takes effect, 
 the senators shall be divided by lots as 
 equally as may be into two classes; the 
 seats of the senators' of the first class shall 
 be vacated at the expiration of the second 
 year; of the second class at the expiration 
 of the fourth year; so that one-half shall be 
 chosen every two years, and a rotation 
 thereby kept up perpetually. 
 
 "In case any district shall have elected' 
 two or more senators, said senators shall 
 vacate their seats respectively at the end 
 of two and four years, and the lots shall be 
 drawn between them. 
 
 Oh motion j the 12th section was called 
 up, viz: 
 
 Sec 12. " No person shall be a sena- 
 tor who, at the time of his election, has not 
 been a citizen of the United States ten 
 years, and who has not attained the age of 
 twenty-seven years, and resided in the 
 State four years next preceding hi-s elec- 
 tion, and one year in the district in which 
 he may be chosen. " 
 
 M"i\ Reap offered the following as a 
 substitute for said section, viz: 
 
 Sec. 12. * ; Every qualified elector shall 
 be eligible to a seat in the State senate. " 
 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans, moved to 
 lay said substitute on the table indefinately; 
 the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin. Bourg, Burton, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Culbertson, Downs, Dunn, Gar- 
 rett, Hudspeth, Lewis, Marigny, 3Iazureau, 
 Peets. Prescoit of St. Landry, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Roman, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Wadsworth, Wikoff, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the afhV 
 mative — 29 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Bfutafield, Car-' 
 riere, Chambliss, Covillion. Humble, Hyn- 
 son, McCallop. Mayo, O'Bryan, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Preston, Ratliff, 
 Read. Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in the 
 negative — 20 nays; consequently said mo- 
 tion was carried. 
 
 On motion, the 1 2th section was then 
 adopted. 
 
 On motion, the 13th section was called' 
 up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 13. i£ The first election far sens 
 
186 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 tors shall be general throughout the State, 
 and at the same time that the general elec- 
 tion for representatives is held; and thereaf- 
 ter there shall be a biennial election of sena- 
 tors, to fill the. place of those whose time 
 of service may have expired. " 
 
 On motion, said section was adopted. 
 
 On motion, the 23d section was called 
 up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 23. " No person, while he contin- 
 ues to exercise the functions of a clergy- 
 man, priest, or teacher of any religious 
 persuasion, society, or sect, shall be eligi- 
 ble to the general assembly, or to any 
 office of profit or trust under this State. " 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to lay said section on 
 the table indefinately: and the yeas and 
 nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Brent, 
 Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Clai- 
 borne, Downs, Hudspeth, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Lewis, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Pugh, 
 Scott of Madison, Stephens, Waddill and 
 Winchester voted in the affirmative — 22 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Briant, Brumfield, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Covillion, Culbertson, Dunn, Garrett, Le- 
 doux, McCallop, Marigny, Mazureau, Por- 
 ter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, 
 Roman, St. Amand, Scott, of Feliciana, 
 Sellers, Splane, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Wads worth, Wederstrandt,Wikotf and Win- 
 der voted in the negative — 30 nays; conse- 
 quently the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to strike out from said 
 section the following words, viz: 
 
 " Or to any office of profit or trust under 
 this State." Which motion prevailed. 
 
 On motion, the section was adopted as 
 amended, viz: 
 
 Sec 23. "No person, while he contin- 
 ues to exercise the functions of a clergy- 
 man, priest, or teacher of any religious 
 persuasion, society, or sect, shall be eligi- 
 ble to the general assembly. " 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, called up 
 the following section, which had been laid 
 on the table subject to call, viz: 
 
 " Absence from the State for more than 
 sixty days shall interrupt the residence re- 
 quired in the preceding section, unless the 
 person absenting himself, shall be a house- 
 keeper, or shall occupy a tenement for car- 
 rying on some business, and his dwelling 
 
 house, or the tenement for carrying on his 
 business, shall be actually occupied during, 
 his absence, by his family or servants or 
 some portion thereof, or by some person 
 employed by him. " 
 
 On motion of Mr. Porter, said section 
 was amended by adding afterthe word "in- 
 terrupt," the words "acquisition of." 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, moved to 
 amend, by striking out the words "sixty 
 days," and insert in lieu thereof the word3 
 "four months." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 (Mr. Claiborne, in the chair): 
 
 Messrs. Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Cenas, 
 Chambliss, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Culbertson, Downs, Dunn, Gar- 
 rett, McCallop, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, 
 Peets, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Pugh, Scott of Madison, Sellers, ' Waddill 
 and Winchester voted in the affirmative — 
 23 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Briant,Carriere r 
 Covillion, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, Le- 
 doux, Lewis, O'Bryan, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, 
 Roman, St. Amand, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Wederstrandt and WikofT voted in the ne- 
 gative — 24 nays; consequently the motion 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson moved to strike out the 
 word "sixty" and insert in lieu thereof the 
 word "ninety;" which motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to lay the section and 
 amendments on the table, subject to call, 
 which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans gave notice 
 that he would on a future day move to re- 
 consider the vote given on the adoption of 
 " ninety days" instead of " sixty days." 
 
 Mr. Humble moved to lay the section 
 as amended on the table indefinitely; the 
 yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Brent, Bur- 
 ton, Chambliss, Downs, Dunn, Garrett, 
 Humble, Ledoux, McCallop, Mayo, Peets, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Preston, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Splane, Waddill and 
 Wederstrandt voted in the affirmative — 20 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Briant, Cade, 
 Carriere, Ceiias, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, 
 Culbertson, Garcia, Hudspeth, Hynson, 
 Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 187 
 
 O'Bryan, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Roman, 
 St. Amand, Scott of Feliciana, Soule, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Wikoff, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the nega- 
 tive — 34 nays; consequently said motion 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Beatty offered the following as a 
 substitute for the whole section, viz : 
 
 " The legislature shall pass laws defin- 
 ing the manner in which a residence re- 
 quired for voters by this constitution may 
 be acquired or lost." g 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption moved to 
 lay the substitute on the table indefinitely; 
 the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, B riant, 
 Brumfield, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Cham- 
 bliss, Claiborne. Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 Downs, Garcia, Hudspeth, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, McCallop, 
 Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, O'Bryan, 
 Peets, Porche, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Pugh, 
 Ratliff, Read, Roman, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Soule, Stephens, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Wadsworth, W^lerstrandt 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative — 45 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Burton, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Preston, Sellers, S plane 
 and W r addill voted in the negative — 10 
 nays; consequently the motion was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption moved to 
 reconsider the vote adopting " ninety" in- 
 stead of " sixty" days, in order to give Mr. 
 Claiborne, who was in the Chair, an op- 
 portunity to vote. The yeas and nays be- 
 ing called for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Burton, Ce- 
 nas, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Downs, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Legendre, Marigny, Peets, 
 Preston, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, Sel- 
 lers, Splane, Waddill, Wadsworth, Weder- 
 strandt and Winchester voted in the affir- 
 mative — 25 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Cade, Carrie re, Chambliss, Co- 
 villion, Garcia, Hudspeth, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Ledoux, Lewis, McCallop, Mayo, 
 Mazureau, O'Bryan, Porche, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison, Soule, Stephens, 
 
 Taylor of Assumption and Winder voted in 
 the negative — 32 nays; consequently said 
 motion w T as lost. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption then moved 
 the adoption of the section as amezided, 
 viz : 
 
 Absence from the State for more than 
 ninety consecutive days, shall interrupt the 
 acquisition of the residence required in the 
 preceding section, unless the person ab- 
 senting himself shall be a " house-keeper, 
 or shall occupy a tenement for carrying on 
 business, and his dwelling house or tene- 
 ment for carrying on his business, shall be 
 actually occupied during his absence by 
 his family or servants, or some portion 
 thereof, or by some one employed by him, 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the adoption of said section: 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Briant, Brum^ 
 field, Cade, Cenas, Claiborne, Covillion, 
 Culbertson, Garcia, Hudspeth, Hynson, 
 Legendre, Lewis, McCallop, Marigny, 
 Mazureau, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott 
 of Avoyelles, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, 
 Read, Roman, St. Amand, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison, Stephens, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Wadsworth, Winches- 
 ter and Winder, voted in the affirmative— - 
 34 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Brent, Bur- 
 ton, Carriere, Chambliss, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Downs, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Humble, Mayo, Porche, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Roselius, 
 Sellers, Splane and Wedertrandt, voted 
 in the negative-— -21 nays; consequently the 
 motion was carried, and the section w r as 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, gave notice 
 that he would on Thursday next call up a 
 section offered by him and laid on the ta- 
 ble, defining the qualifications of electors, 
 
 Mr. Eustis, chairman of the committee 
 of revision, reported the seventh article of 
 the constitution. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Downs, the report of 
 the majority on the judiciary was called 
 up, viz: 
 
 Sec 1. The judicial powder shall be 
 vested in a supreme court, in district courts 
 to be established throughout the State, in 
 justices of the peace, and such other courts 
 in the city of New Orleans as the legis- 
 lature may, from time to time direct. 
 
 Mr, Lewis moved that the Convention 
 
188 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 adjourn till to-morrow at ten o'clock, a. m. 
 
 The President decided the motion to 
 adjourn till to-morrow to be out of order. 
 The Convention having adopted a rule by 
 which they were to meet every evening at 
 Jive o'clock, p. m. and unless said rule was 
 rescinded, such motions cannot be allowed. 
 
 Mr. Lewis appealed from the decision 
 of the chair. 
 
 The President then put the question, 
 shall the decision of the chair be sustained? 
 
 The appeal was rejected, and the decis- 
 ion of the chair was sustained. 
 
 Mr. Lewis then moved for a dispensa- 
 tion of the rules, to rescind the resolution 
 fixing the evening sessions; the yeas and 
 nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Brent, 
 Briant, Brumfield, Cenas, Conrad of Jef- 
 ferson, Hudspeth, Hynson, Ledoux, Lew- 
 Is, Mazureau, Porche, Porter, Ratlin*, 
 Read, Roman, Roselius, Splane, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, WikofT and Win- 
 chester, voted in the affirmative — 23 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Bur- 
 ton, Carriere, Chambiiss, Chinn, Covil- 
 lion, Downs, Dunn, Garrett-, Guion, Hum- 
 ble, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, 
 O'Bryan, Peets, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Pugh, St. 
 Amand, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Sellers, Soule, Waddill, Wederstrandt 
 and Winder, voted in the negative— 31 
 nays; consequently the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, gave notice 
 that he would on to-morrow move to recon- 
 sider the vote adopting the rule fixing the 
 evening sessions. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved that the Conven- 
 tion adjourn till 5 o'clock, p. m., which 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Soule agreeably to notice previous- 
 ly given, moved to reconsider the vote 
 adopting the senatorial apportionment of 
 New Orleans: the yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Cham- 
 bliss, Covillion, Downs, Humble, Hynson, 
 Ledoux, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, 
 O'Bryan, Pe*ets, Porche, Porter, Prescott 
 of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Pres- 
 ton, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Feliciana, Scott 
 of Madison, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Wad- 
 dill, Wederstrandt and Wikoff voted in the 
 affirmative— 30 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Bourg, 
 Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Lewis, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, 
 Roselius, St. Amand, Sellers, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Winchester and Winder voted 
 in the negative — 26 nays; consequently 
 said motion was carried. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Soule, the considera- 
 tion of the subject was made the order of 
 the day for Friday next, at 12 o'clock, m. 
 
 Mr. Garrett objected to the question 
 of reconsiderati&i being carried, on the 
 ground that it was not carried by the ma- 
 jority required by the rule, i. e., that the 
 number voting for the reconsideration was 
 less than the number who voted for the 
 motion proposed to be reconsidered. 
 
 Mr. Soule then said that if it should be 
 decided that his motion to reconsider had 
 not prevailed, that he would now give no- 
 tice that he would move for the reconside- 
 ation on Friday next, at 12 o'clock, m. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved for a call of the house,, 
 and fifty-two members answered to their 
 names, and the following members were 
 absent, viz^Messrs. Aubert, Derbes, King, 
 Penn, Sco^Plf Baton Rouge, Taylor of St, 
 Landry and Voprhies absent on leave; 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Brumfield, Grymes, 
 Kenner, Legendre, Mazureau, Prudhomme, 
 Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, Trist and 
 Wadsworth did not answer to their names 
 at the call of the house. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till this evening, at 5 o'clock, p. m. 
 
 Tuesday Evening, April 15, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 article fourth — judiciary power— re- 
 port OF THE COMMITTEE. 
 
 The judiciary committee report to the 
 Convention the following sections of arti- 
 cle fourth of the constitution concerning the 
 judiciary department. 
 
 John R. Grymes, Chairman. 
 
 Sec. 1. The judicial power shall be 
 vested in a supreme court, in district courts 
 to be established throughout the State, in 
 justices of the peace, and such other courts 
 in the city of New Orleans as the legisla- 
 ture may from time to time direct. 
 
 Sec. 2. The supreme court shall have 
 
Journal of the Contention of Louisiana, 
 
 189 
 
 appellate jurisdiction only except in cases 
 hereinafter provided, which jurisdiction 
 shall extend to all cases when the matter 
 in dispute shall exceed five hundred dol- 
 lars. 
 
 Sec. 3. The supreme court shall be 
 composed of one chief justice and of three 
 associate justices, a majority of whom shall 
 constitute a quorum; each of said judges 
 shall receive a salary of thousand dol- 
 lars annually. The said court shall ap- 
 point its own clerks. The said judges 
 shall be appointed by the governor, by and 
 with the advice and consent of the senate, 
 for the term of ten years. 
 
 Sec. 4. The supreme court shall hold 
 its sessions in the city of Xew Orleans 
 rom the month of November to the month 
 J June inclusive. The legislature shall 
 lave power to fix the sessions elsewhere 
 luring the rest of the year. Until other- 
 .vise provided, the sessions shall be held 
 n Xew Orleans. 
 
 Sec. 5. The supreme court and each 
 )f the judges thereof, shall have power to 
 ssue writs of habeas corpus at the m- 
 itance of all persons in actual custody un- 
 ler civil process. 
 
 On motion of Mr, Preston the 1st, 2d, 
 id and 4th sections of said report were 
 aid on the table subject to call. 
 On motion, section 5th was adopted, viz: 
 Sec 5. The supreme court, and each 
 >f the judges thereof, shall have powei\.to 
 ssue writs of habeas corpus, at the ins- 
 tance of all persons in actual custody un- 
 ler civil process. 
 On motion section 6th was adopted, viz: 
 Sec. 6. The appellate jurisdiction of the 
 upreme court shall extend to all cases in 
 vhich the constitutionality or legality of 
 ny tax, toll, or impost of any kind or na- 
 me soever shall be in contestation, what- 
 rer may be the amount thereof; and, like- 
 vise, to all fines, forfeitures and penalties 
 mposed by municipal corporations. 
 On motion section 7th was adopted, viz: 
 Sec 7. The supreme court shall have 
 ppellate jurisdiction in criniinal cases, on 
 uestions of law alone, in all cases in 
 vhich the punishment of death or hard la- 
 >or may be inflicted, or a fine exceeding 
 hree hundred dollars is actually imposed. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Winchester the vote 
 dopting the 5th section was reconsidered. 
 Mr. Brent then moved to amend said 
 
 section by adding, after the last word, the 
 words, "in all cases in which they may 
 have appellate jurisdiction," and striking 
 out the word "civil." 
 
 Mr. Saunders moved to lay said section 
 5th on the table indefinitely, which motion 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, moved that the 
 same be laid on the table subject to call- 
 which motion prevailed. 
 
 Air. Roselius moved that the Conven- 
 tion adjourn till to-morrow at' 10 o'clock, 
 a. m., which motion was lost. 
 
 On motion section 9th was adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 9. The judges, by virtue of their 
 office, shall be conservators of the peace 
 throughout the State. The style of all pro- 
 cess shall be, ''The State of Louisiana?" 
 
 All prosecutions shall be carried on in 
 the name and by the authority of the State 
 of Louisiana, and conclude, against the 
 peace and dignity of the same. 
 
 On motion, the 10th section was taken 
 up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 10. The judges of all courts shall, 
 in all cases, give in writing, their reasons 
 on which their judgment is founded. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin offered as a substitute 
 for the said section, the 12th section of the 
 constitution of 1812, and the same was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 12, of 1812. The judges of all 
 ; courts within this State shall, as often as 
 j it may be possible so to do, in every de- 
 j finitive judgment, refer to the particular 
 law in virtue of which such judgment may 
 have been rendered, and in all cases ad- 
 duce the reasons on which their judgment 
 is founded. 
 
 On motion, section eleven was taken up, 
 
 Sec. 11. No court, or judge of any court, 
 appointed under this constitution, shall ex- 
 ercise any jurisdiction, or perform any func- 
 tions, but such as are purely judicial; and 
 no other duties or functions shall ever be 
 attached, by law, to the office of a judge, 
 but such as are judicial. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to lay said section 
 on the table subject to call. 
 
 Mr. Saunders moved that the Conven- 
 tion adjourn till to-morrow at 10 o'clock, 
 a. m.; the motion was lost, the vote being 
 equal, the President voted in the negative, 
 
 Mr. Beatty then renewed his motion 
 to lay the said section on the table, sub- 
 ject to call, and the same was carried. 
 
190 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 On motion? section twelve was taken 
 up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 12. No court, or judge of any court, 
 shall ever have the power, by any order 
 or judgment, in any suit, process, or other 
 proceeding before them, or pending in 
 such court, to order or adjudge any money 
 to be paid by the parties to such suits or 
 proceedings, or make any allowance out 
 of any money or property that may be in 
 actual custody of said court or officers 
 thereof, except for the payment of the legal 
 fees of the ministerial officers of the said 
 court, as allowed and established by law. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Saunders, said sec- 
 tion was laid on the table, subject to call. 
 
 X)u motion section thirteen was taken 
 up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 13. The judges of all courts shall 
 be liable to impeachment; but for any rea- 
 sonable cause, which shall not be sufficient 
 ground for impeachment, the Governor 
 shall remove any of them on the address 
 of three-fourths of each house of the gene- 
 ral assembly. 
 
 Mr. Read moved to amend said section, 
 by striking out the fallowing words: " But 
 for any reasonable cause, which shall not 
 be sufficient cause for impeachment, the 
 Governor shall remove any of them, on the 
 address of three-fourths of each house of the 
 general assembly," and insert in lieu there- 
 of the following words of the section 
 
 of the constitution of 1812. " But for any 
 reasonable cause, which shall not be suffi- 
 cient cause for impeachment, the Governor 
 shall remove any of them, on the address 
 of three-fourths of each house of the gene- 
 ral assembly; provided, however, that the 
 cause or causes for which such removal 
 may be required, shall be stated at length 
 in the address, and inserted on the journal 
 of each house." 
 
 On motion, said section was adopted as 
 amended, viz: 
 
 Sec. 13. The judges of all courts shall 
 be liable to impeachment; but for any rea- 
 sonable cause, which shall not be sufficient 
 cause 4br impeachment, the governor shall 
 remove any of them, on the address of three- 
 fourths of each house of the general assem- 
 bly; provided, however, that the cause or 
 causes for which such removal may be re- 
 quired, shall be stated at length in their 
 address, and inserted on the journal of each 
 house. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow, at ten o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note — Members absent at the call of 
 the roll, Messrs. Aubert, King, Penn, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Taylor of St. Landry and 
 Voorhies, absent on leave; Mr. Porche, 
 absent on account of illness; Messrs. Ben- 
 jamin, Briant, Cade, Carriere, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbert- 
 son, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, Ken- 
 ner, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Porter, Roman, Roselius, Saunders, Soule, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Wadsworlh, 
 and Wikoff did not answer at the call of 
 the rolL 
 
 Wednesday, April 16, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 In the absence of a minister of the gos- 
 pel, the Hon. Mr. Stephens, at the re. 
 quest of the president, opened the proceed^ 
 ings with prayer. 
 
 On motion, leave of absence was grant 
 ed to Mr. Cade. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ledoux, the vote 
 adopting the 13th section of the majority 
 report of the committee on the judiciary, 
 adopted on yesterday, was reconsidered, 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ledoux, said section 
 was called up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 13. " The judges of all courts shall ; 
 be liable to impeachment; but for an) 
 reasonable cause which shall not be suffix 
 cient ground for impeachment, the govern- 
 or shall remove any of them, on the address i 
 of three-fourths of each house of the gener- J 
 al assembly; provided, however, that the 
 cause or causes, for which such re noval 
 may be required, shall be stated at length 
 in the address, and inserted on the journal 
 of each house. " 
 
 Mr. Ledoux moved to amend said sec 
 tion, by inserting after the words "three 
 fourths," the words "of the members pres- 
 ent." 
 
 And the yeas and nays being called for 
 on the adoption of the amendment, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Boudousquie, Bourgs 
 Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Car 
 riere, Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Kenner, Ledoux, McCallop 
 McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Prescott o; 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, St. Amand, Scott o, 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Splane, Sre 
 
Journal of the Convention of Loaisitina, 
 
 191 
 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Waddill and 
 Wederstrandt voted in the affirmative — 33 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Culbertson, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, 
 Porter, Ratliff, Read, Sellers, Wikoff, Win- 
 chester and Winder voted in the negative — 
 17 nays ; consequently said motion was 
 carried, and the amendment adopted. 
 
 On motion, the 13th section as amended 
 was adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 13. " The judges of all courts 
 shall be liable to impeachment: but for any 
 •easonable cause which shall not be suffi- 
 ;ient ground for impeachment, the govern- 
 )r shall remove any of them, on the address 
 :>f three-fourths of the members present of 
 ;ach house of the general assembly; prow- 
 led, however, that the cause or causes 
 or which such removal may be required, 
 hall be stated at length in the address 
 md inserted on the journal of each Louse." 
 
 Agreeably to notice given yesterday, Mr. 
 Taylor of Assumption, moved to recon- 
 ider the vote adopting the rule fixing the 
 vening sessions; and the yeas and nays 
 >eing called for, 
 
 Messrs. Briant, Brumfield, Cenas, Con- 
 ad of Jefferson, Eustis, Garcia, Legendre, 
 ,ewis, McCallop,Porter, Ratliff, St. Amand, 
 loule, Splane, Taylor of Assumption and 
 Winchester voted in the affirmative — 16 
 eas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Brazeale, 
 Irent, Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, Chinn, 
 Jovillion, Culbertson, Downs, Dunn, Gar- 
 2tt, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, 
 IcRae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazueau, O'- 
 iryan, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 t. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, Pugh, 
 Lead, Saunders, Scott of Feliciana. Scott 
 f Madison, Sellers, Waddill, Wadsworth, 
 Vederstrandt and Winder voted in the ne- 
 ative — 36 nays; consequently said- motion 
 ? as lost. 
 
 On motion, the first section of the ma- 
 irity report of the committee on the judi- 
 iary, and laid on the table subject to call, 
 -as taken up, viz: 
 
 Sec 1. " The. judicial power shall be 
 3sted in a supreme court, in district courts 
 i be established throughout the State; in 
 istices of the peace; and in such other 
 )urts in the city of New Orleans as the 
 
 gislature may from time to time direct, " 
 
 The question under discussion was the 
 motion of Mr. Ratliff to amend said section 
 by striking out the words "in the city of 
 New Orleans." 
 
 And pending the discussion on said mo- 
 tion, the Convention adjourned till this 
 evening at 5 o'clock, p. m. 
 
 Note — Members absent; Messrs. Au- 
 bert, Cade, Derbes, King, Penn, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Taylor of St. Landry and 
 Voorhies absent on leave ; Mr. Porche 
 absent on account of illness; and Messrs. 
 Benjamin, Claiborne, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Culberstson, Downs, Eustis, Garcia, 
 Grymes, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, 
 Preston, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, 
 Sellers, Soule, Trist, Winchester and 
 Winder did not answer to their names at 
 the call of the roll. 
 
 Wednesday E vexing, April 16, 1845, 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Marigny gave notice that he will 
 on Friday nexj;, move to reconsider the vote 
 adopting the rule requiring a larger vote 
 on a motion to reconsider, than voted at 
 the adoption of the motion it is intended to 
 reconsider. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Section 1st of the majority report on the 
 judiciary. 
 
 Sec. 1. The judicial power shall be 
 vested in a supreme court, in district courts 
 to be established throughout the State, in- 
 justices of the peace, and such other courts 
 in the city of New Orleans as the legisla- 
 ture may from time to time direct. 
 
 The question under consideration at the 
 adjournment, was the motion of Mr. Ratliff 
 to amend said section by striking out the 
 words "in the city of New Orleans." 
 
 After some discussion on the above 
 amendment, Mr. Porter moved for a call of 
 the house, and fifty-three members an* 
 swered to their names; and the following 
 members were absent at the call, viz: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Cade,Derbes,King,Penn, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, and Voorhies, absent on leave. Mr* 
 Porche, absent on account of sickness; and 
 Messrs. Garcia, Grymes, Hudspeth, La- 
 bauve, Legendre, Lew is, Rom an, St. Amand, 
 Trist, Wadsworth, Wik off and Winchester 
 did not answer at the call of the house. 
 
 Mt. Chinn then moved that the Con- 
 
192 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 vention adjourn till to-morrow at 10 oclock, 
 a. in.; the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Briant, Burton, 
 Carriere, Chinn, Covillion, Guion, Ken- 
 ner, Marigny, Porter, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Ratliff, Roselius, Saunders, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Sellers, Soule, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Waddill and Winder voted in the 
 affirmative—* 22 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeal, Brent, Brumfield, Cenas, Chambliss, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, 
 Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Mayo, Marigny, O'Bryan, Peets, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Read, Scott ot Madison, Splane, Ste- 
 phens, Wederstrandt and Winchester vo- 
 ted in the negative— 32 nays; consequent- 
 ly said motion was lost. 
 
 And pending the discussion on the mo- 
 tion of Mr. Ratliff to strike out, the Con- 
 vention adjourned till to-morrow at 10 
 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent -at the call of 
 the roll, Messrs. Aubert, Cade, Derbes, 
 King, Penn, Scott of Baton Rouge, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, and Voorhies, absent on 
 leave. Mr. Porche, absent on account of 
 sickness, and Messrs. Carriere, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbert- 
 son, Downs, GarciaPRrymes, Guion, Ken- 
 ner, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Porter, 
 Preston, Prudhomme, Roman, Roselius, 
 St. Amand, Saunders, Trist, Wads worth, 
 Wikoff and Winchester did not answer at 
 the call of the roll. 
 
 Thursday, April 17, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 In the absence of a minister of the gos- 
 pel, the Hon. Mr. Stephens, at the request 
 of the president, opened the proceedings 
 with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Dunn gave notice that he would on 
 to-morrow, move to reconsider the vote 
 adopting the rule requiring the secretary to 
 furnish the printers with the names of the 
 members absent at call of the roll, or when 
 a call of the house is made, to publish in 
 the morning and evening papers. 
 
 The secretary reported the receipt of the 
 printers for the reports of the debates of the 
 12th instant. 
 
 This being the day fixed for the taking i 
 
 into consideration the reports of the com. 
 mittee of revision, the report of said com- 
 mittee on the executive department beincr 
 first in order, was submitted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Taylor of Assumption, 
 said report was laid on the table, subject 
 to call. 
 
 Mr. Dunn gave notice that he would on 
 a future day, introduce a section providing 
 that the lieutenant-governor shall be super- 
 intendent of education. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 First section of the majority report on the 
 judiciary. 
 
 Sec. I. The judicial power shall be 
 vested in a supreme court, in district courts, 
 in justices of the peace, and such other 
 courts in the city of New Orleans, as the 
 legislature may from time to time direct. 
 
 The question under consideration at the 
 adjournment, was the motion of Mr. Ratliff 
 to strike out the words "in the city of New 
 Orleans." 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan moved that the debate on 
 the subject under consideration, cease this 
 evening at If o'clock, p. m. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till 5 o'clock, p. m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent : Messrs. Au- 
 bert, Cade, Derbes, Penn, Taylor of St. 
 Landry and Voorhies absent on leave; 
 Messrs. Porche and Trist absent on ac- 
 count of sickness; and Messrs. Conrad of 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, 
 Guion, Labauve, Marigny, Ratliff, Roman, 
 Roselius, St. Amand, Soule, Splane, Wads- 
 worth, Wikoff and Winchester did not an- 
 swer to their names at the call of the roll. 
 
 Thursday Evening, April 17, 1 845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Soule submitted the following reso- 
 lution, viz: 
 
 Resolved, that during the continuance of 
 morning and evening sittings, the repor- 
 ters be required to furnish only the out- 
 lines of the debates. 
 
 Mr. Roselius moved to amend the above 
 resolution as follows v viz:- " that, hereafter 
 the report of the debates of the evening 
 sittings be dispensed with. 
 
 Mr. Downs offered the following substi- 
 stitute, viz: 
 
 Resolved, that an additional reporter in- 
 English be appointed; 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 193 
 
 Mr. Claiborne moved to amend said 
 substitute by adding " also, an additional 
 reporter in French." 
 
 Mr. Mazureau moved that the Conven- 
 tion adjourn till to-morrow morning at 10 
 o'clock a. m. The yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Bri- 
 ant, Brumfield, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Garrett, Hudspeth, Kenner, Lewis, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Marigny, Mazureau, Por- 
 ter, Prescott o£ St. Landry, Pugh, Roselius, 
 St. Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, Soule, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Waddill, Wads worth and 
 Winchester voted in the affirmative — 28 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Burton, Carrier e, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Guion, Prescott, of 
 Avoyelles, Preston, Prudhomme, Read, 
 Saunders, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Mad- 
 ison, Sellers, Splane, Wederstrandt, W r i- 
 koff and Winder voted in the negative — 
 30 nays; consequently the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved the previous ques- 
 tion, the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, 
 Covillion, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, 
 Guion, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, Ledoux, 
 McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Pres. 
 : coil of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Pugh, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Soule, Splane, 
 Wadsworth, Wikoff and Winchester voted 
 in the affirmative — 35 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Bourg, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Claiborne, Hudspeth, 
 King, Lewis, Mazureau, Peets, Porter, 
 Prudhomme, Roselius, St. Amand, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Madison, Stephens, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Waddill, 
 Wederstrandt and Winchester voted in the 
 negative — 23 nays; consequently the mo- 
 tion was carried. 
 
 Mr. McRae submitted the following as 
 a substitute for the whole, viz : 
 
 Resolved, That the secretary be directed 
 to appoint additional reporters in English 
 and French; which substitute was lost. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne moved for the adoption 
 of the amendment offered by him to the 
 , substitute of Mr. Downs, providing for an 
 additional French reporter; which motion 
 was lost, 
 
 25" 
 
 Mr. Downs moved for the adoption of the 
 substitute offered by him to Mr. Soule's 
 resolution, and the yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Carriere, Cham- 
 bliss, Chinn, Dozens, Dunn,Garrett, Humble, 
 McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Porter, Prescott 
 of Avoyelles, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Splane, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Wadsworth and Winder voted in 
 the affirmative — 21 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs, Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, 
 Culbertson, Eustis, Guion, Hudspeth, Hyn- 
 son, Kenner, King, Ledoux, Lewis, McCal- 
 lop, Mazureau, Peets, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Preston, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roselius, 
 St. Amand, Saunders, Scott of Madison, 
 Sellers, Soule, Stephens, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Waddill, Wederstrandt, Wikoff 
 and Winchester voted in the negative — 39 ' 
 nays; consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Soule moved for the adoption of the 
 resolution offered by him; the yeas and 
 nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Brazeale, Briant, Brumfield, Car- 
 riere, Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Hynson, Kenner T 
 King, Ledoux, McCallop, Marigny, Mayo; 
 Mazureau, Prescott of Avoyelles, Preston, 
 Pugh, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, 
 Soule, Waddill, Wadsworth, Winchester 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative — 39 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Burton, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Lewis, McRae, Peets, 
 Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhom- 
 me, Ratliff, Read, Roselius, St. Amand, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Wederstandt and 
 Wikoff voted in the negative — 22 nays ; 
 consequently said motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Lewis gave notice that he would on 
 to-morrow introduce a resolution to abolish 
 the office of reporter. 
 
 Mr. Marigny moved that the Conven- 
 tion adjourn till to-morrow, at 10 o'clock, 
 a. m.; the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Briant, 
 Carriere, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of Jefferson, Culbertson, Eustis, Guion* 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, Lewis, McCallop, Mc- 
 
194 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Rae, Marigny, Mazureau, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Ratliff, Roselius, 
 St, Amand, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Sellers, Soule, Stephens, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Taylor of 'St. Landry, Waddill, 
 Wadsworth and Winchester voted in the 
 affirmative — 34 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs.I?e«%, Bourg, Brazeale, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 Downs, Dunn, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, 
 King, Labauve, Ledoux, Mayo, 0' Bryan, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Preston, Prudhom- 
 me, Pugh, Read, Scott of Feliciana, Scott 
 of Madison, Splane, Wederstrandt, Wikqff 
 and Winder voted in the negative — -29 
 nays; consequently said motion was car- 
 ried, and the Convention adjourned till to- 
 morrow, at 10 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent : Messrs. Au- 
 bert, Cade, Derbes, Penn and Voorhies, 
 absent on leave; Messrs., Porche andTrist 
 absent on account of illness, and Messrs. 
 Benjamin, Boudousquie, Brumfield, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Culbertson, Garcia, Grymes, 
 Hudspeth, Labauve, Legendre, Marigny, 
 O'Bryan, Peets, Pugh, Ratliff, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Wadsworth, Wikoff and 
 Winchester did not answer to their names 
 at the call of the roll. 
 
 • Friday, April 18, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 In the absence of a minister of the gos- 
 pel, the Hon. Mr. Stephens, at the re- 
 quest of the president, opened the proceed- 
 ings with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Humble submitted the following 
 resolution, viz: 
 
 Resolved, that from and after Monday, 
 the 21st inst., the Convention shall meet 
 at 9 o'clock in the morning, and adjourn at 
 ten minutes before 3 o'clock in the even- 
 ing. 
 
 Mr. Humble moved for a dispensation 
 of the rules; which motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to amend the resolu- 
 tion by striking out the words " and ad- 
 journ at ten minutes before 3 o'clock in the 
 evening," and insert in lieu thereof the 
 following amendment, viz: t6 and that hence- 
 forward the evening sittings be discontinu- 
 ed." 
 
 Mr, Sellers moved that the resolution 
 
 and amendment be laid on the table indefi- 
 nitely; which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans, moved 
 for a division, that is, to take the vote first 
 on meeting at 9 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved for the previous ques» 
 tion; which motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved for the adoption of his 
 amendment, and the yeas and nays being 
 called for, resulted as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, Chinn, Clai- 
 borne, Culbertson, Downs, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, Labauve, he. 
 doux, Legendre, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, 
 Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Ratliff, Read, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Wad- 
 dill, Wederstrandt, Wikqff and Winchester 
 voted in the affirmative — 40 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Covillion, Dunn, Kenner, King, O'Bryan, 
 Peets, Prudhomme, Pugh, Scott of Felici- 
 ana, Scott of Madison, Sellers and Wads- 
 worth voted in the negative — 19 nays; con- 
 sequently the motion was carried, and the 
 amendment adopted. 
 
 Mr. Humble moved for the adoption of 
 the resolution as amended, viz : 
 
 Resolved, that from and after Monday, 
 the 21st inst. the Convention shall meet at 
 nine o'clock in the morning, and that hence- 
 forward the evening sessions be discon- 
 tinued. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Briant 
 Brumfield, Burton, Carriere, Cenas, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Culbertson, Downs, Garrett, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, La- 
 bauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, McCal- 
 lop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, 
 Peets, Porche, Porter, Prescott of Avoy^ 
 elles, Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, 
 Ratliff, Read, St. Amand, Saunders, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Soule, Splane, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Wederstrandt, Wikoff and Winchester 
 voted in the affirmative — 45 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Chambliss, Conrad of New Orleans, Covil- 
 lion, Dunn, King, O'Bryan, Pugh, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers and 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 195 
 
 Wadsworth voted in the negative— 15 1 Saunders. Sfiife of Feliciantf, Soule. Tay- 
 uays : consequently the motion was carri- lor of Assumption, Winchester and Winder 
 ed and the rule adopted. voted in the affirmative — 24 yeas; and 
 
 This being the day lixed to reconsider Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale, Brent, 
 the vote adopting the rule requiring a great- Brian field. Burton. Carriere, Cehas, 
 er number of members to vote for the re- Chambliss. Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 consideration than voted in favor of the Downs. Eustis. Garrett. Hudspeth. Hum- 
 motion which it proposed to reconsider. ble\ Hynson, King. Ledoux, Lewis. MtCal- 
 
 On the motion of Mr. Mariot the same lop, McRae. Mayo. 0' Bryan. Peets. Porche. 
 was taken up, and the yeas and nays being Prescott of Avoyelles. Prescott oflSt. Lan- 
 called for on the motion to reconsider, re- dry. Prudhomme. Read, Scott of Baton 
 suited as follows : Rouge. Scott of Madison, Sellers, Splane, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Carriere, Claiborne, Stephens. Taylor of St. Landry, Weder- 
 Covillion. Humble, Ledoux, McRae. Ma- strandt and Wikoff voted in the negative 
 rigny, Mayo. Peeis, Porche, Porter, P res- 37 nays; consequently the motion was 
 cott of Avoyelles, Ratliff, Read, Soule, lost. 
 
 Waddill, Wadsicorth and Wederstrandt Mr. Porter offered the following amend- 
 voted in the affirmative — 19 yeas: and ment, viz: 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin". Boudousquie, The judicial power shall be vested in a 
 Bourg, Brent, BrianU Brumfield. Burton, supftme court, in district courts and in 
 Cenas, Chambliss. Chinn, Conrad of New justices of the peace. The legislature 
 Orleans, Culbertson, Downs, Dana, Gar- shall have the power reestablish probate 
 rett. Guion, Hudspeth. Hynson, Meaner, courts throughout the State, the judges 
 King. Labauve. Legendre, Lewh. McCal- thereof to be elected by the qualified 
 lop, Mazureau, O' 'Bryan, Prescott of St. voters of the different parishes — and 
 Landry. Prudhomme, Pugh, St. Amand. the legislature shall establish such othei 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton" Rouge, Scott of courts in the city of New Orleans, as 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Splane, from time to time may be deemed neces 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Lan- sary. 
 
 dry. Wikoff, Winchester and Winder voted Mr. Beatty moved to amend the amend- 
 in the negative — 43 nays : consequently ment of Mr. Porter by striking out the 
 the motion was lost. words "the judges thereof to be elected 
 
 Mr. Soule gave notice that at o'clock by the qualified voters of the different pa- 
 in, he will move to reconsider the vote fix- rishes;" and the yeas and nays being call- 
 ing the senatorial apportionment of New ed for, 
 
 Orleans. Messrs. Beatty. Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. Bourg. Briant. Cenas, Chinn, Conrad of 
 
 Section first of the majority report on Jefferson. Culbertson, Eustis. Garcia, 
 the judiciary: Guion, Hudspeth. Kenner, Kins. La- 
 
 Sec. 1. The judicial power shall be bauve, Ijewis, Marigny, Mazureau. Prud- 
 vested in a supreme court, in district homme, Pugh, St. Amand, Soule, Splane, 
 courts to be established throughout the Taylor of Assumption. Taylor of St. 
 State, in justices of the peace, and such Landry, TVadsworth, Winchester and Win- 
 other courts in the city of New Orleans, der voted in the affirmative — 30 yeas , 
 as the legislature may from time to time and 
 
 direct. Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumtield, Bur 
 
 The question under consideration at the ton, Carriere, Chambliss, Covillon, Downs, 
 last adjournment was the motion of Mr. Dunn, Garrett. Humble. Hynson, Ledoux, 
 Ratliff to strike out the words "in the city McCallop. McRae, Mayo. O' Bryan, Peets, 
 of New Orleans." < Porche, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on Prescott of St Landry. Rati iff] Read* Saun- 
 said motion to strike out: I ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Fe- 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Boudousquie, Bourg, liciana. Scott of Madison, Sellers, Wad- 
 Briant, Chinn, Covillion, Culbertson, Dunn, dill, Wederstrandt and Wihojf voted in the 
 Guion, Kenner, Labauve, Legendre, Mar- negative — 32 nays; consequently said mo 
 igny, Porter, Pugh, Ratliff, St. Amand, tion was lost. 
 
196 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Ifouisiana. 
 
 Mr. Porter then moved for the adop- 1 
 tion of his amendment; the yeas and nays 
 being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Chambliss, Chinn, Covillion, 
 Culbertson, Dunn, McCallop, Porter, Pugh, 
 Railiff, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Soule, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Waddill and Winder voted in 
 the affirmative — 16 yeas; and 
 
 Messrf. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Brumjield, 
 Burton, Carriere, Cenas, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Downs, Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, Mc- 
 Rae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, O' Bry- 
 an, Peets, Porche, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Read, 
 Roselius, St. Amand, Scott of Madison, 
 Sellers, Splane,Taylor of St Landry, Wads- 
 worth, Wederstrandt, Wikqff and Wi?iches- 
 ter voted in the negative — 49 nays ; conse- 
 quently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Saunders moved to amend said 
 section by inserting after the words "dis- 
 trict courts" the words "parish courts with 
 probate jurisdiction." 
 
 And the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Briant, Chinn, Covil- 
 lion, Culbertson, Dunn, Garcia, Guion, 
 King, Legendre, McCallop, Marigny, 
 Pugh, RatlifF, Saunders, Scott of Felici- 
 ana, Soule, Taylor of Assumption, Win- 
 chester and Winder voted in the affirmative; 
 20 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale," Brumneld, 
 Brent, Burton, Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Jefferson, Downs, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Labauve, Ledoux, Lewis, McRae, 
 Mayo, Mazureau, O'Bryan, Peets, Porche, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott 
 of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Read, Roselius, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Madison, 
 Sellers, Splane, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Waddill, Wadsworth, Wederstrandt and 
 WikorT voted in the negative— 40 nays; 
 consequently said amendment was lost. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, moved to 
 amend, by inserting after the words "dis- 
 trict courts," the words "courts of probate." 
 
 And the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Briant, Carriere, Cham- 
 bliss, Chinn, Covillion, Culbertson, Dunn, 
 Garcia, Guion, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 
 Ledoux, Legendre, Mc.Callop, Marigny, 
 Mazureau, Porter, Pugh, RatlifF, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Soule, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the affir- 
 mative — 27 yeas ; and 
 
 'Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Brumfi.eld, Burton, Cenas, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Downs, Eustis, Gar- 
 rett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, Lewis, 
 McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porche, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Prudhomme, Read, Roselius, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott of Madison, Sel- 
 lers, Splane, Taylor of St. Landry, Wad- 
 dill, Wadsworth, Wederstrandt and Wi- 
 koff voted in the negative — 35 nays; con- 
 sequently the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Waddill moved for a division, that 
 is, each paragraph of said section be adopt- 
 ed separately. 
 
 The question of order being raised, 
 
 The President decided the motion to 
 be out of order. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson appealed from the deci- 
 sion of the chair, which appeal was rejec- 
 ted, and the decision sustained. 
 
 On motion ta adopt the section, the yeas 
 and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Carriere, Cenas, 
 Chambliss, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Downs, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Ledoux, Legendre, Lew r is, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, O'Bryan, 
 Peets, Porche, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres* 
 cott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Read, Ro- 
 selius, St. Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Splane, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, 
 Wikoff, Winchester and Winder voted in 
 the affirmative — 51 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Briant, Chinn, Covil- 
 lion, Dunn, Garcia, Porter, Pugh, RatlifF, 
 Saunders, Scott of Feliciana, Soule, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption and Waddill voted in 
 the negative— 14 nays; consequently said 
 motion was adopted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Soule, the senatorial 
 apportionment of the city of New Orleans 
 was taken up, and the yeas and nays being 
 called for on the motion to reconsider 
 said apportionment, resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Car- 
 riere, Chambliss, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 197 
 
 Downs, Gaicia, Humble, Hynson,Ledoux, 
 VlcCallop, McRae, Marigny* Mayo, 0'- 
 3ryan, Peets, Porche, Porter, Prescott of 
 Ivoyelles. Prescotr of St. Landry, Ratliff, 
 fcead, Scott of Baton Rouge. Scott of Fe- 
 iciana, Sec:; sf Madison, So'ile* Splane, 
 vVaddill, Wedertrandt and Wikoff voted 
 n the affirmative — 32 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bocdousquie, Bourg, 
 5 riant, Brumfield, Burton, Cenas. Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 efferson, Dunn. Eustis, Garrett, Grymes. 
 xuion, Hudspeth, Kenner. King. Labauve. 
 jeg-endre, Lewis, Mazureau, Prudhomme, 
 'ugh, Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, 
 tellers, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of 
 >t. Landry, Wadsworth, Winchester and 
 -Vinder voted in the negative — 34 nays; 
 onseqnently the motion was lost. 
 
 On motion, the 2d section was taken up, 
 iz: 
 
 Sec. 2. The supreme court shall have 
 ppellate jurisdiction only except in cases 
 lereinafter provided, which jurisdiction 
 hall extend to all cases when the matter 
 n dispute shall exceed five hundred dol- 
 lars. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved to amend said sec- 
 ion by striking out "five hundred dollars" 
 nd inserting "three hundred'' in lieu 
 hereof. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Feliciana, moved for the 
 revious question. 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Car- 
 iere, Chambliss, Chinn, Downs, Eustis, 
 lumble, Hynson, Kenner. McCallop, 
 rlcRae, Marigny, O'Bryan, Peets, Porche, 
 'orter, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Scott of Baton I 
 louge, Scott of Feliciana, Soule and Win- 1 
 hester voted in the affirmative — 24 yeas: | 
 .nd 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin. Boudousquie, 
 burton, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jef- 
 erson, Covillion, Dunn, Garcia, Guion, 
 jrymes, Hudspeth, King, Labauve, Le- 
 loux, Legendre, Mayo, Prescott of Avoy- 
 ■lies, Prescott of St". Landry, Read, Ro- 
 elius, St. Amand, Saunders^ Splane, Sel- 
 ers, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. 
 .andry, Waddill and Wederstrandt voted 
 n the negative — 30 nays; consequently 
 aid motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Bre>t moved to amend the amend- 
 nent by striking out all the words after 
 jurisdiction," viz: " shall extend to all 
 
 cases where the matter in dispute shall ex- 
 ceed rive hundred dollars," with a view of 
 incorporating the principle contained in 
 the 4th section of the minority report. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Duxx, the section 
 and amendments were laid on the table, 
 subject to call. 
 
 On motion, the 3d section was taken up, 
 viz: 
 
 Sec. 3. The supreme court shall be 
 composed of one chief justice and of three 
 associate justices, a majority of whom shall 
 constitute a quorum: each of said judges 
 shall receive § salary of thousand dol- 
 lars annually. The said court shall ap- 
 point its own clerks. The said judges 
 shall be appointed by the governor, by and 
 with the advice and consent of the senate, 
 for the term of ten years. 
 
 Mr. Duxx moved to amend said section 
 by striking out the word "three, " and in- 
 sert in lieu thereof the word " four. " 
 
 Mr. Porter moved for a division, that 
 is, the Convention first proceed to strike 
 out: the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Briant, Chinn, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Dunn, Garcia, 
 Ledoux, Marigny, Porter, Ratliff, Scott of 
 Feliciana and Wadsworth voted in the 
 affirmative — 12 yeas: and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty. Benjamin. Boudousquie, 
 Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cham- 
 bliss, Claiborne, Covillion, Downs, Eustis, 
 Garrett,Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, 
 Kenner, King, Legendre, Lewis, McCal- 
 lop, McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Read, Roselius, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Sellers, Splane, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Waddill, Weder- 
 strandt, Winchester and Winder voted in 
 the negative — 43 nays; consequently the 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Read moved to strike out the words 
 "each of said judges shall receive a salary 
 of — thousand dollars annually;" the yeas 
 and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Burton, Carriere, Hyn- 
 son, McCallop, McRae, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana and Waddill voted in the affirmative 
 — 14 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Brazeale, Briant, Brumfield, Chambliss, 
 
198 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Covillion, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, 
 Kenner, King, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, 
 M-arigny, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Prud- 
 horame, Pugh, Ratliff, Roselius, Saunders, 
 Sellers, Soule, Splane, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Taylor of St. Landry, Wederstrandt 
 Wikoff and Winchester voted in the nega- 
 tive — 41 nays ; consequently the motion 
 was lost. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned till 
 to-morrow, at 10 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent, Messrs. Au- 
 bert, Cade, Derbes, Penn and Voorhies, 
 absent on leave; Messrs. Porche and Trist, 
 absent on account of sickness; and Ben- 
 jamin, Chinn, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad 
 of Jefferson, Culbertson, Eustis, Garcia, 
 Grymes, Hudspeth, Labauve, Preston, 
 Ratliff, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saun- 
 ders, Wadsworth and Winchester did not 
 answer to their names at the call of the 
 roll. 
 
 Saturday, April 19, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 In the absence of a minister of the Gos- 
 pel, the Hon. Mr. Stephens, at the re- 
 quest of the president, opened the proceed- 
 ings with prayer. 
 
 i The secretary reported the receipt of 
 the printers for the report of the debates of 
 the 14 th instant. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff, chairman of the commit- 
 tee on contingent expenses, submitted a re- 
 port in relation to the funeral expenses of 
 the lamented Hon. Gilbert Leonard — 
 and the same was unanimously adopted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Marigny, the project 
 of Mr. Chinn concerning duelling, and to 
 be incorporated in the general provisions, 
 was referred to a committee of five mem- 
 bers. 
 
 The President appointed Messrs. Ma- 
 rigny, St. Amand, Porche, Downs and 
 Garcia members of said committee. 
 
 Mr. Waddill submitted the following 
 resolution, to be made the order of the day 
 for Tuesday next, viz: 
 
 No m amber of this Convention shall be 
 eligible to any office created by this con- 
 stitution, until the expiration of two years 
 after its adoption; the office of governor 
 excepted. 
 
 On motion, leave of absence was granted 
 to Messrs. Scott of Madison, and Winder 
 ORDER THE OF DAY. 
 
 Section third of the majority report on 
 the judiciary. 
 
 Sec. 3. The supreme court shall be 
 composed of one chief justice and three As- 
 sociate justices, a majority of whom shall 
 constitute a quorum; each of said judges 
 shall receive a salary of thousand 
 dollars annually. The said court shall 
 appoint its own clerks. The said judges 
 shall be appointed by the governor, by 
 and with the advice and consent of the 
 senate, for the term of ten years. 
 
 Mr. Dunn moved to fill the blank with 
 the words "five thousand." 
 
 Mr. Ledoux moved to fill the blank with 
 the words "seven thousand." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Saundrs, the para- 
 graph in relation to the salary of the judges 
 was laid on the table, subject to call. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to amend said sec 
 tion by striking out the word "ten" and in 
 sert "eight" in lieu thereof. 
 
 Mr. Splane moved for a division, that 
 is, first proceed to strike out the word 
 "ten," and the yeas and nays being called 
 for, 
 
 Messrs. 'Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- ; 
 field, Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, Covil- 
 lion, Downs, Humble, Ledoux, McRae, 
 Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porche, Porter, 
 Prescott ot Avoyelles, Piescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of* Feliciana, Sellers, 
 Stephens, Waddill and Wederstrandt voted 
 in the affirmative — 29 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Chymes, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, Saunders 
 and Splane voted in the negative — 22 nays; 
 consequently the motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Splane moved to fill the blank with 
 the word "twelve;" and the yeas and nays 
 being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Or. 
 leans, Eustis, Grymes, Guion, King, La- 
 bauve, Legendre, Marignv, Mazureau, 
 Splane, Taylor of St. Landry and Wads 
 worth voted in the affirmative — 18 yeas ; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent ? Brians 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 199 
 
 Brumrield, Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, [ 
 Covillion, Downs, Dunn, Garrett, Huds- ! 
 peth, Humbl,e Hynson, Ledoux, Lewis, 
 McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porche, | 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of | 
 St. Landry, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Stephens, Waddill and Weder- 
 strandt voted in the negative — 34 nays; con- 
 sequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to fill the blank with 
 the word "eight;" and the yeas and nays 
 being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Boudousquie, Bourg, 
 Brazeale,'Brent, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, 
 Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, Covil- 
 lion, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Grymes, Gar- 
 rett, Guion, Hudspeth, Hynson, King, 
 Labauve, Ledoux, Lewis, McRae, Mayo, 
 Marigny, Mazureau, Peets, Porche, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Saunders, 
 Scott of Baton .Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Sellers, Soule, Taylor of St. Landry, Wad- 
 dill, Wadsworth and Wederstrandt voted 
 in the affirmative — 47 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Humble, Legendre, O'Bryan, Splane and 
 Stephens voted in the negative — 7 nays; 
 consequently said motion was carried. 
 
 On motion the paragraph in relation to 
 the salary of the judges and laid on the ta- 
 ble subject to call, was taken up. 
 
 Mr, Ledoux moved to fill the blank in 
 said paragraph with the word " seven." 
 
 Mr. Waddill moved to amend said sec- 
 tion as follows, viz: The chief justice shall 
 
 receive a salary of thousand dollars 
 
 annually; and each of the associate judges 
 shall receive a salary of thousand dol- 
 lars annually; which amendment was ad- 
 opted. 
 
 Mr. Ledoux then moved to fill the first 
 blank with the word " seven." The yeas 
 and nays being called for, 
 
 •Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Cenas, Chinn, Conrad of Orleans, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Grymes, Guion, King, Labauve, 
 Ledoux, Legendre, Marigny, Mazureau, 
 Roselius, Soule, Splane, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Wadsworth and Wederstrandt voted in 
 the affirmative — 22 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Chambliss, Claiborne, 
 Covillion, Downs, Dunn, Garrett, Hud- 
 zpeth, Humble, Hynson, Lewis, McRae, 
 
 Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porche, Porter., 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Preston, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Sellers, Stephens, Waddill and 
 Wikojf voted in the negative — 35 nays; 
 consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Marigny then moved to fill the 
 blank with the word "six." 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans moved to fill 
 the blank with " six thousand five him- 
 dred." 
 
 Mr. Ratliff, chairman of the commit- 
 tee on contingent expenses, submitted the 
 following resolution, and the same was 
 adopted, viz : 
 
 Resolved, that the committee on contin- 
 gent expenses be authorized to issue a war- 
 rant in favor of Besaneon, Ferguson & Co. 
 editors of the Jeffersonian, for two hundred 
 and fifty dollars on account of printing done 
 and to be done for the Convention. 
 
 On motion the Convention adjourned till 
 Monday, at 9 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note — Members absent, Messrs. Au~ 
 bert, Cade, Derbes, Penn, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Voorhies, and Winder absent on leave; 
 Porche and Trist, absent on account of ill- 
 ness; Benjamin, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Culbertson, Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, Gui- 
 on, Kenner. McCallop, Preston, Pugh, 
 Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Soule, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption and Winchester did not 
 answer to their names at the call of tho 
 roll. 
 
 Monday, April 21, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 In the absence of a minister of the gos. 
 pel, the Hon. Mr. Stephens, at the re- 
 quest of the president, opened the proceed- 
 ings with prayer. 
 
 The secretary reported the receipt of the 
 printers for the report of the debates of the 
 15th inst. 
 
 On motion, Mr. Downs was excused 
 from serving on the committee, to whom 
 was referred the notice of Mr. Chinn on 
 duelling — and the president appointed Mr. 
 Lewis in his place. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Section third of the report of the ma- 
 jority on the judiciary. 
 
 Sec. 3. The supreme court shall be 
 composed of one chief justice, and of three 
 
£00 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 associate justices, a majority of whom shall 
 constitute a quorum; the chief justice shall 
 receive a salary of thousand dollars 
 
 annually; the associate judges shall receive 
 each a salary of thousand dollars 
 
 annually. The said court shall appoint its 
 own clerks. The said judges shall be 
 appointed by the governor, by and with 
 the advice and consent of the senate, for 
 the term of eight years. 
 
 The question under consideration at the 
 adjournment, was the motion of Mr. Con- 
 rad of Orleans, to fill the first blank with 
 six thousand five hundred dollars; the 
 yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Chinn, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Culbertson, Downs, Eus- 
 tis, Guion, King, Lahauve, Ledoux, Le- 
 gendre, Marigny, Mazureau, Roman, Ro- 
 selius, St. Amand, Soule, Splane, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Wed- 
 erstrandt and Winchester voted in the af- 
 firmative — 23 yeas; snd 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Bri- 
 ant, Brumjield, Burton, Carriere, Cham- 
 bliss, Claiborne, Covillion, Dunn, Garrett, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, Lewis, Mc- 
 Rae, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St Landry, 
 Preston, Prudhomme, Read, Saunders, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Sellers, Stephens and Waddill voted in the 
 negative — 32 nays; consequently said mo- 
 tion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Marigny then moved to fill the 
 blank with six thousand dollars; the yeas 
 and nays being called for, (Mr. Labauve in 
 the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Bri- 
 ant, Carriere, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Culbertson, Downs, Eustis, Gar- 
 cia, Garrett, Guion, King, Labauve, Le- 
 doux, Legendre, Marigny, Mazureau, Ro- 
 man, Roselius, St. Amand, Soule, Splane, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Wederstrandt and Winchester vo- 
 ted in the affirmative — 29 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cham- 
 bliss, Covillion, Dunn, Hudspeth, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Lewis, McRae, Mayo, O'- 
 Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoy- 
 elles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Prudhomme, Read, Saunders, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, 
 Stephens and Waddill voted in the nega- 
 
 tive — 27 nays; consequently the motion 
 was carried. 
 
 Mr. Dunn moved to fill the second 
 blank with six thousand dollars; the yeas 
 and nays being called, (Mr. Labauve in the 
 chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Chinn, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Culbertson, Downs, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garcia, Guion, King, Labauve, Le- 
 doux, Legendre, Marigny, Mazureau, P v o- j 
 man, Roselius, St. Amand, Soule, Splane, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Wederstrandt and 
 Winchester voted in the affirmative — 24 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Claiborne, Covillion, Garrett, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, Lewis, McRae, Mayo, 
 O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoy- 
 elles, Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, 
 Preston, Read, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Ste. 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption and Waddill 
 voted in the negative — 32 nays; conse- 
 quently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne moved to fill the blank 
 with five thousand five hundred dollars; 
 the yeas and nays being called for, (Mr. 
 Labauve in the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Briant, Car- 
 riere, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Culbertson, Downs, Eustis, Gar- 
 cia, Garrett, Guion, King, Labauve, Le- 
 doux, Legendre, Marigny, Mazureau, 
 Prudhomme, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, 
 Soule, Splane, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Wederstrandt and 
 Winchester voted in the affirmative — 29 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Chambliss, Covillion, Dunn, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, Lewis, Mc- 
 Rae, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Pres. I 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan* 
 dry, Preston, Read, Saunders, Scott of Ba- 
 ton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers* 
 Stephens and Waddill voted in the nega- 
 tive — 27 nays; consequently the motion 
 was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Brent gave notice that he will on a 
 future day, move to reconsider the above 
 vote, allotting the salary of the chief jus- j! 
 tice and associate judges of the supreme 
 court. 
 
 Mr. Marigny gave notice that he will, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 201 
 
 on a future day, move to reconsider the 
 vote rejecting the allotting seven thousand 
 dollars to the chief justice, 
 
 Mr. O'Bryaix moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by striking out the words, "the said 
 judges shall be appointed by the governor, 
 by and with the advice and consent 01 the 
 senate," and insert in. lieu thereof the 
 words, "shall be elected by the qualified 
 electors of the State." 
 
 Mr. ConkJd of Orleans, moved to lay 
 the amendment on the table subject to call. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 (Mr. Labauve in the chair), ' 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Briant, Carriere, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Cuibertson, Downs, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Le- 
 gendre, Lewis ; . Marigny, Mazureau, Prss- 
 .cott of St. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Scott of Fe- 
 liciana, Sellers, Soule, Splane, Taylor of 
 St. Landry and Winchester voted in the 
 affirmative — 36 yeas: and 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cham- 
 bliss, Covillion, Humble, Hynson, McRae, 
 Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott of I 
 Avoyelles, Read, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in the 
 negative — 20 nays; consequently said mo- ' 
 tion was carried. 
 
 Mr, Peets offered the folliowing amend- \ 
 ment, viz: 
 
 "yhe said judges shall' be elected by; 
 joint ballot of both houses of the general 
 1 assembly." 
 
 Mr. Prestoin* offered the following 
 amendment to be inserted after the words, 
 '-'the said court shall appoint its own clerks," j 
 viz: 
 
 " Provided, They be not related by I 
 blood or marriage to either of the judges." 
 
 Mr. Ettstis moved to lay Mr. Freston's 
 amendment on the table indefinitely. 
 
 The yea^ and nays being called for, j 
 (Mr. J^abauve in the chair), 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Bur- 
 ton, Carriere, Chambliss 3 Chinn, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jef- 
 ferson, Covillion, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, 
 Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, King, Labauve, 
 Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, xMa- 
 zureau, O'Bryan, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Prudhomme, Roman, Roselius, St, Amand, 
 27 
 
 I Saunders, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Soule, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 ; Wederstrandt, Wikoff and Winchester 
 ' voted in the affirmative — 40 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Cuibertson, Humble, 
 . Hynson, Mayo; Peets, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Preston, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Taylor of Assumpton and Waddill 
 voted in the negative — 13 nays: conse- 
 quently said motion was carried. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Brext, the 3d section, 
 together with the amendment of Mr. Peets, 
 were laid on the table subject to call. 
 
 Mr* Soule submitted an additional sec- 
 : tion, which was laid on the table subject 
 to call, and ordered to be printed,' 
 
 Mr. Beatty submitted the following ad- 
 ditional section, nz: 
 
 Sec. 4. "When the first appointments 
 ! are made under this constitution, the chief 
 'justice shall be appointed for eight years; 
 one of the associate judges for six years; 
 one for four years; and one for two years; 
 and that on the even!; of the death, resigna- 
 | tron or removal of any of said judges before 
 1 the expiration of the period for which he 
 ; was appointed, his successor shall only be 
 appointed for the remainder of his" term, so 
 that the term of sen-ice of no two of said 
 judges shall expire at the same time,"' 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved for the r.duption of 
 said section ; the yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Brent, 
 Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, Chinn, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Covillion. Cuibertson, 
 Downs, Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, King. La- 
 bauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, McRae, 
 Mayo, Mazureau, O'Bryan, Peets, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Read, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott o£, Feliciana, Sellers, Soule, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Waddill, Weder- 
 strandt and Wikoff voted in the affirmitive 
 — 45 yeas : and 
 
 Messrs. Briant, Conrad of Orleans. Ma- 
 rigny, Porter, Prudhomme, Roman, Rose- 
 lius, Sti Amand and Winchester voted in 
 the negative — 9 nays; consequently said' 
 motion was carried, and the section adopted. 
 
 On motion, the fourth section was taken 
 up, viz : 
 
 Seo. 4. "The supreme court shall hold" 
 its sessions in .the city of New Orleans 
 
202 
 
 Journal of the Convention of £stmisiana* 
 
 from the mowth of November to the month 
 of June, inclusive. The legislature shall 
 have the power to fix the sessions else- 
 where during the rest of the year. Until 
 otherwise, provided, the sessions shall be 
 held in New Orleans." 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to amend said section 
 by striking out the words "in New Or- 
 leans," and insert in lieu thereof the words 
 " as heretofore." 
 
 Mr. Eustis moved for the previous ques- 
 tion; the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Brent, Briant, 
 Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Covillion, Downs, Eustis, Garcia, Gdrrett, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, King, Labauve, 
 Ledoux, Legendre, Marigny, Mayo, Mazu- 
 reau, O* Bryan, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prudhomme, Roman, Roselius, St. Amaind, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Sellers, Soule, Splane Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of 'St. Landry, 
 Wederslrandt, Wikojf and Winchester vo- 
 ted in the aflirmative — 43 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Hynson, Lewis, Mc, 
 Rae, Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Read and Waddill voted in the 
 
 negative 10 nays ; consequently said 
 
 motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Preston submitted the following 
 substitute, viz : 
 
 "That the State shall be divided into 
 four distrtcts. That a judge of the supreme 
 court shall be appointed for and reside in 
 each- district. The judge of each district 
 shall, twice a year, hold court in every 
 parish of the district, and try upon the ori- 
 ginal record, all appeals brought before 
 him from the inferior courts. 
 
 If he concurs with the inferior court, the 
 judgment shall be final. If he does not 
 concur in opinion with the inferior court, 
 the case shall be immediately transferred 
 to a session of all the judges of the supreme 
 court, which shall be holden in the city of 
 New Orleans, the first week in January of 
 each year, and shall be continued until all 
 the appeals brought before the court shall 
 be disposed of." 
 
 Mr. Porter moved that the Convention 
 adjourn till to-morrow, at 9 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 On a question of order, the President 
 decided the motion to adjourn, in order. 
 
 Mr Beatty appealed from the decision 
 
 of the chair, and called for the yeas and 
 nays, which resulted as follows : 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Briant, Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Covillion, Downs, Eus- 
 tis, Garcia-, Garrett* Hudspeth, Humble, 
 Hynson, Lebauve, Ledoux, Lewis, McRae, 
 Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, O'Bryan, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres. 
 colt of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Preston, 
 Read, St. Amand, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Soule, Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Waddill, Wederstrandi 
 and Wikojf voted in the affirmative — 43 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Guion, King, Legendre, Roman, Sellers 
 and Winchester voted in the negative — S 
 nays; consequently the decision ofthe chair 
 was sustained. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow, at 9 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note.-- Members absent: Messrs. Au- 
 bert, Cade, Derbes, Peim, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Voorhies and Winder absent on leave; 
 Messrs. Porche and Trist absent on ac- 
 count of illness; Mr. Cenas excused for 
 non-attendance on account of death in his 
 family; Messrs. Benjamin,, Boudousquie, 
 Carriere, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Downs, Eustis, Gar- 
 cia, Grymes, Guion, Kenner, King, La- 
 bauve, Ledoux, McCallop, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Preston, Pugh, Ratliff, Roselius, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Sellers, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Wadsworth,Wikoff, Winchester 
 and Winder did not answer to their names 
 at the first call of the roll. 
 
 Note. — Members absent at the second 
 call: Messrs. Aubert, Cade, Derbes, Penn, 
 Scott of Madison, Voorhies and Winder, 
 absent on leave; Messrs. Porche and Trist 
 absent on account of illness ; Mr. Cenas 
 excused for non-attendance on account of 
 death in his family; Messrs. Benjamin, 
 Boudousquie, Carriere, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Oulbertson, Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, McCallop, 1 Ma- 
 rigny, Pugh, Ratliff* Roman, Roselius, St. 
 Amand, Taylor of Assumption, Wadsworth 
 and Wikoff did not answer to their names 
 at the second call of the roll.. 
 
Journal of the Contention of Louisiana, 
 
 203 
 
 Tuesday, April 22, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 In the absence of a minister of the gos- 
 pel, the Hon. Mr. Stephens, at the re- 
 quest of the president, opened the proceed- 
 ings with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Hoible gave notice that he would 
 on Tuesday next, move to reconsider the 
 resolution depriving the members of the 
 Convention of their mileage. 
 
 Mr. Humble gave notice that he would 
 when the general provisions are taken up, 
 move to reconsider the vote removing the 
 seat of government from the city of New 
 Orleans, for the purpose of locating it 
 permanently. 
 
 The resolution offered by Mr. Waddill, 
 on the 19th inst., being made the special 
 order of the day for to-day, was called up, 
 viz : 
 
 ' ; No member of this Convention shall be 
 eligible to any office created by this con- 
 stitution, until the expiration of two years 
 after its adoption ; the office of governor 
 excepted." 
 
 Mr. Waddill moved to amend said re- 
 solution by striking out the* words 41 the 
 office of governor excepted," and insert in 
 lieu thereof the following amendment, viz : 
 " except to such offices as may be tilled 
 by elections by the people." 
 
 Mr. Sellers moved that the amendment 
 and resolution be laid on the table indefi- 
 nitely, and the yeas and nays" being called 
 for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Brum- 
 rield, Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, Chinn, 
 Dunn, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, King, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, Mayo, Mazu- 
 reau, Peets, Prudhomme, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, 
 Wikoff and Winchester voted in the affir- 
 mative — 32 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Covil- 
 lion, Garrett, Hynson, McRae, O'Bryan, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Read, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Rouse and Waddill voted in the negative — 
 15 nays : consequently the motion was 
 carried. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Section fourth of the majority report on 
 the judiciary. 
 
 Sec. 4. "The supreme court shall hold 
 its sessions in the city of New Orleans, 
 from the month of November to the month 
 of June inclusive. The legislature shall 
 have power to lix the sessions elsewhere 
 during the rest of the year; until otherwise 
 | provided, the sessions shall be held in New 
 Orleans." 
 
 The question under consideration at the 
 adjournment, was the motion of Mr. Lewis 
 to strike out the words "in New Orleans," 
 , and insert in lieu thereof the words " as 
 j heretofore." The yeas and nays being 
 called for on . the adoption of said amend- 
 ment, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent/ Burton, Cham- 
 bliss, Chinn, Covillion, Dunn, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, King, Labauve, Lewis, 
 McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Prudhomme, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Stephens, Tay- 
 lor of St. Landry. Wederstrandt and Wi- 
 kiff voted in the affirmative — 2S yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Briant, Brumneld, Carriere, Downs, Eus- 
 tis, Garrett, Guion, Legendre, Mazureau, 
 Preston, Roman, St. Amand, Saunders, 
 Sellers, Splane, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Waddill, Wadsworth and Winchester vo- 
 ted in the negative- — 23 nays; consequent- 
 ly the motion was carried, and the amend- 
 ment adopted. 
 
 Mr. Splane gave notice that he would 
 on Thursday next, at 1 o'clock, move to 
 reconsider the above vote. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved for the adoption of the 
 following amendment, to be inserted at the 
 end of the section, viz : 
 
 "Appeals from the parishes of Jackson, 
 Union, Morehouse, Caldwell, Ouachita, 
 | Catahoula, Franklin, Carroll, Madison, 
 ! Tensas and Concordia shall, until cther- 
 j wise provided, be returnable to New Or- 
 leans;" and the same was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to amend said section 
 by striking out the word 4i June," and in- 
 sert in lieu thereof the word "July:" which 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Bexjamix moved to amend said 
 section by inserting after the words "in 
 tho city of New Orleans from the," in the 
 second line, the words "first Monday of," 
 and the third line after the words "to the," 
 to insert the words "end of the;" which 
 amendments were adopted. 
 
204 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Mr. Preston moved for the adoption of 
 the substitute offered by him, viz : 
 
 "That the State shall be divided into four 
 districts. That a judge of the supreme 
 court shall be appointed and reside in each 
 district. The judge of each district shall, 
 twice a year, hold court in every parish of 
 the district, and try upon the original re- 
 cord, all appeals brought before him from 
 the inferior courts, 
 
 If he concur with the inferior court, 
 the judgment shall be final. If he do not 
 concur in opinion with the inferior court, 
 the case shall be immediately transferred 
 to a session of all the judges of the supreme 
 court, which shall be holden in the city of 
 New Orleans the first week in January of 
 each year, and shall be continued until all 
 the appeals brought before the court shall 
 be disposed of." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, on 
 the adoption of the above substitute, 
 
 Messrs. Chambliss, Downs, Humble, 
 McRae, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Preston, 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Sellers and 
 Waddill voted in the affirmative — -12 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Brent, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Carriere, 
 Cenas, Chinn, Covillion, Dunn, Garrett, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Hynson, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Lewis, Mayo, Mazureau, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Pnjdhoinme, Roman, St. Aroand, Saunders, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Splane, Stephens, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Wederstrandt, Wikoff and Winchester vo- 
 ted in the negative — 37 nays; consequently 
 said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by striking out in the fifth line the 
 words " during the rest of the year." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 said amendment, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Chambliss, Covillion, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, Lewis, McRae, Mayo, 
 O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoy- 
 elles, Preston, Prudhomme, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Taylor of St. Landry and 
 Waddill voted in the affirmative — 22 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Benja- 
 min, Briant, Carriere, Cenas, Chinn, 
 Downs, Dunn, Garrett, Guion, King, La- 
 bauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Mazureau, Pres- 
 
 cott of St. Landry, Roman, St. Amand, 
 Saunders, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Wederstrandt, Wikoff and Winchester 
 voted in the negative — 29 nays; conse- 
 quently said motion was lost. 
 
 Qn motion, the section as amended was 
 adopted? vi^ j 
 
 Sec. 4. The supreme court shall hold 
 its sessions in the city of New Orleans from 
 the first Monday of the month of Novem- 
 ber to ihe end of the month of June, inclu- 
 sive. The legislature shall have the pow- 
 er to fix the sessions elsewhere during the 
 rest of the year. Until otherwise provi- 
 ded, the sessions shall be held as here- 
 tofore. 
 
 Appeals from the parishes of Jackson. 
 Morehouse, Caldwell, Catahoula, Frank- 
 lin, Carroll, Madison, Tensas and Concor- 
 dia shall, until otherwise provided, be re- 
 turnable to New Orleans. 
 
 On motion, the 3d section was taken up, 
 viz: 
 
 Sec. 3. The supreme court shall be 
 composed of one chief justice and of three 
 associate justices, a majority of whom shall 
 constitute a •quorum. The chief justice 
 shall receive a salary of six thousand dol- 
 lars annually; and the associate justices 
 shall receive each a salary of five thousand 
 five hundred dollars annually. The said 
 court shall appoint its own clerks. The 
 said judges shall be appointed by the go- 
 vernor, by and with the advice and consent 
 j of the senate, for the term of eight years. 
 
 Mr. Brent submitted the following sub- 
 stitute, viz: 
 
 " The State shall be divided by the legis- 
 lature into four districts, numbering them. 
 A judge shall be voted for in each district, 
 by the qualified electors thereof. 
 " "The chief justice shall be elected by 
 the first district." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the adoption of the amendment of Mr. 
 Brent, 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Co- 
 villion, Chambliss. Humble, Hynson, Mc- 
 Callapi McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Preston, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Stephens, Trisi 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in the 
 affirmative — 20 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bri- 
 ant, Bourg, Brazeale, Carriere, CenaSi> 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louis'uUiCi. 20.3 
 
 China, Claiborne, Culbertson, Downs. ! of persons in actual custody under process, 
 Dunn, Eustb, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, in all cases in which they may have ap- 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King. Labauve, Le- peltate jurisdiction.'' 
 
 doux, Legrendre. Lewis. Marigny, Mazu- On motion, the 8th seciion was taken 
 reau. Peets, Prescott of St. Landry, Prud- j up aud adopted, viz: 
 
 homme, Roman, Saunders. Scott of Feii- Sec. S. i( In all eases in which the 
 ciana, Sellers, Splane, Taylor of Assump- judges shall be equally divided in opinion, 
 lion, Tavlor of St. Landry, Wads worth. . the judgment appealed from shall stand 
 Wikoff and Winchester voted in the nega- affirmed; in which case each of the judges 
 live — 10 nays: consequently said amend- shall give his separate opinion in writing. " 
 ment was lost. On motion, the 11th section was taken 
 
 On motion of Mr. Peets, the following up and adopted, viz: 
 amendment, offered by him, was laid on Sec. 11. ,; Xo court, or judge of any 
 the table, subject to call, viz: 1 court, appointed under this constitution. 
 
 The said judges shall be elected by shall exercise any jurisdiction or perform 
 joint ballot of both houses of the general any functions but such as are purely judi- 
 assembly." j cial^and no other duties or functions shall 
 
 On the motion to adopt the 3d section ever be attached by law to the office of a 
 as amended, viz: judge, but suah as are. judicial." 
 
 Sec. 3. The supreme court shall be On motion of Mr. Keener, the vote 
 composed of one chief justice and three as- adopting said section, was reconsidered, 
 sociate justices, a majority of whom shall) Mr. Conrad of Orleans, submitted the 
 constitute a quorum. The chief justice following as a substitute for said section, 
 shall receive a salary of six thousand dol- j viz: . 
 
 lars annually: and the associate justices j ' ; Xo judge in this State shall hold any 
 shall receive each a salary of rive thousand other office, or exercise the functions of 
 hve hundred dollars annually. The said any other office, than that of judge: or re- 
 court shall appoint its own clerks. The ceive any fees or compensation other than 
 said judges shall be appointed by the his salary, for any duties that may be as- 
 governor, by and with the advice and signed to him by law." 
 consent of the senate. Mr. Gno.\ offered the following substi- 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for. ' tute, viz: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert. Realty, Bourg, Benja- 1 i; The legislature shall not have power 
 min, Briant, Carriere, Cenas. Chinn. Clai- to assign any duties to the judges oflhesu- 
 borne, Culbertson, Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, preme or district courts of this State, ex- 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, Ring, Labauve, cep: those that are purely judicial,"' 
 Ledoux. Legendre. Lewis. Marigny, Ma- On motion of Mr. Lewis, the substitute 
 zurea, Prudhomme, Roman, St. Amand, of Mr. Guion was hid on the table indefi- 
 .Saunders, Scott of Feliciana, Soule, Splane, nitely. 
 
 Taylor of Assumption. Taylor of Sr. Lan- Mr. Downs then offered the following 
 dry, Wederstrandt, Wikoff and Winches- amendment, viz: 
 
 ter voted in the affirmative — 35 yeas ; and j i; X"o court, or any judge of any court, 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cham- appointed under this constitution, shall 
 bliss. Covillion, Dunn, Humble, Hynson, ' perform any functions not properlv apper- 
 McCallop, McKae, Mayo. O'Bryan, Peets, taining to the duties of judge." 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- The yeas and nays being: called for on 
 dry, Preston, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, the adoption of said amendment. 
 Sellers, Stephens, Trist and Waddill voted Messrs. Beatty. Brent, Carriere, Cham? 
 in the negative — 23 nays: consequently bliss, Conrad of Orleans, Covillion, Dunn, 
 said motion was carried, and the s.ection Downs, Garcia, Garrett, Humble, King, 
 was adopted. j Labauve, McCallop, Mayo, O'Bryan. Pres- 
 
 On motion, the 5th section was taken up cott of Avoyelles, Prudhomme, Roman, 
 and adopted, viz: Saunders, Scott of Feliciana and Taylor 
 
 Sec. 5. li The supreme court, and each • of Assumption voted in the affirmative — 
 of the judges thereof, shall hrve power to 23 yeas: and 
 
 issue writs of habeas corpus at the instance; Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin. Bourg-, Bri- 
 
206 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 ant, Bru infield, Burton, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 son, Eustis, Guion, Hudspeth, Hynson, 
 Kenner, Legendre, Lewis, McRae, Marig- 
 ny, Mazureau, Peets, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Preston, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Sellers, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Trist, Waddill, Wederstrandt 
 and WikofF voted in the negative — 32 nays; 
 consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, then moved the 
 adoption of the substitute offerred by him; 
 which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to amend said section 
 by striking out the word " party; " which 
 motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, moved to 
 amend' said section by adding after, the 
 word "jurisdiction," in the third line, the 
 words 4i or receive any fees of office." 
 
 Pending the discussion on said motion; 
 the Convention adjourned till to-morrow at 
 9 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent, Messrs. Cade, 
 Derbes, Penn, Scott of Madison, Voorhies 
 and Winder absent on leave; Messrs. Por- 
 che and Trist absent on account of illness; 
 Mr. Cenas excused for non-attendance on 
 account of death in his family; Messrs. 
 Benjamin, Boudousquie, Carriere, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbert- 
 son, Downs, Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, Guion, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, Mc- 
 Callop, Marigny, Mazureau, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Prudhomme, Pugh, Rati iff, Roman, 
 Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, Soule, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Waddill, Wikoff and 
 Winchester did not answer to their names 
 at the first call of the house. 
 
 Note. — Members absent at the second 
 call, Messrs. Cade, Derbes, Penn, Scott of 
 Madison, Voorhies and Winder absent on 
 leave; Messrs. Porche and Trist absent on 
 account of sickness; Messrs. Benjamin; 
 Boudousquie, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbert- 
 son, Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, Guion, Ken- 
 ner, McCallop, Marigny, Pugh, Ratliff, 
 Roman, Roselius and Winchester did not 
 answer to their names at the second call of 
 the house. 
 
 Wednesday, April 23, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. High opened the . pro- 
 ceedings by prayer. 
 
 The secretary reported the receipt of the 
 printers for the report of the debates of the 
 16th inst. 
 
 On motion, leave of absence was grant- 
 ed to Mr. Downs. 
 
 Mr. Marigny gave notice that he will, 
 when the general provisions will be under 
 consideration, introduce a section, provid- 
 ing,- that the legislature shall have power 
 to extend the rights and privilege of citizens 
 of the State, to such descendants of persons 
 of color born in this State, as the public 
 interest may require, 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Section eleventh of the majority report, 
 as amended, viz : 
 
 Sec. 11. No court, or judge of any cqurt, 
 appointed under this constitution, shall ex- 
 ercise anyjurisdiction, or perform any func- 
 tions, but such as are judicial; and no 
 other duties or functions shall ever be at- 
 tached by law, to the office of a judge, but 
 such as are judicial. 
 
 The question under consideration at the 
 adjournment, was the motion of Mr. Taylor 
 of Assumption, to amend by adding after 
 the word "judicial," in the fourth line, the 
 words " or receive any fees of office." 
 
 On motion, said amendment was 
 adopted. • • 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to amend said section, 
 by inserting after the word "functions," in 
 the third line, the words "arise directly 
 from the exercise of judicial functions." 
 
 The Chair (Mr. Taylor of Assumption 
 in the chair) decided the amendment to be 
 out of order. 
 
 Mr. Mayo appealed from the decision of 
 the chair. 
 
 On the question being put, the decision 
 was sustained. 
 
 Mr. Lewis then moved the adoption of 
 the section as amended, viz : 
 
 Sec. 11. No court, or judge of any court, 
 appointed under this constitution, shall ex- 
 ercise any jurisdiction, or perform any func- 
 tions but such as are judicial, or receive 
 any fees of office; and no other duties or 
 functions shall ever be attached by law to 
 the office of a judge, but such as are ju 
 dicial. 
 
 The yeas any nays being called for on 
 the adoption of said section, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Briant, Brumfleld, Burton, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Chinn, Dunn ? Eustis, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 207 
 
 iarrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, King, 
 ^edoux, Legendre, Lewis, McCallop, Mc- 
 tae, Mazureau, O'Bryan, Peets, Porter, 
 'rescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 ry, Preston, Read, Saunders, Scott of 
 Jaton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, 
 loule Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry ,Wed- 
 rstrandt, Wikoff and Winchester voted in 
 re affirmative — 41 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Guion, Labauve, Marig- 
 y, Mayo, Roman, Trist and Waddill vo- 
 id the negative — 8 nays ; consequently 
 aid motion was carried, and the section 
 -as adopted. 
 
 On motion, the twelfth section was 
 iken up, viz : 
 
 Sec. 12. No court, or judge of any court, 
 liall ever have the power, by any order or 
 idgment, in any suit, process or other pro- 
 seding before them, or pending in such 
 ourt, to order or adjudge any money to be 
 aid by the parties to such suits or pro- 
 eedings, or make any allowance out of 
 ny money or property that may be in ac- 
 lal custody of said court or officers there- 
 ~, except for the payment of the legal fees 
 f the ministerial officers of the said court, 
 5 allowed and established by law." 
 
 Mr. Be:nja:\iin offered the following as 
 
 substitute for said section, viz : 
 
 " No court, or judge of any court, shall 
 v'er have the power to order the payment 
 : allowance of any fee or compensation, 
 > any attorney, curator ad hoc, or other 
 milar officer, appointed to rej^sent any 
 linor, absent heir, creditor or^Ser party 
 iterestcd in any cause or proceeding, be- 
 ,re such court or judge." 
 
 Mr. Guion moved to amend said substi- 
 ite by inserting after the word " compen- 
 ttion," the words "except such as are 
 
 lowed by law." 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to lay the section, 
 ie substitute and amendment on the table 
 idefinitely. The yeas and nays being 
 died for, (Mr. Taylor of Assumption in 
 ie chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Briant, Carriere, Chinn, 
 abauve, Soule and Trist voted in the af- 
 native — 7 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 3ale, Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, 
 hambliss, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 'onrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Dunn, 
 lustis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, 
 fynson, Kenner, King, Legendre, Lewis, 
 
 I McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Maya, Mazu- 
 reau, Peets, Porter, Prescott ot Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Prudhom- 
 me, Read, Roman, St. Amand, Saunders, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Waddill, 
 Wederstrandt, Wikoff and Winchester vo- 
 ted in the negative — 50 nays; consequently 
 said motion was lost. 
 
 With leave of the house, Mr. Benjamin 
 withdrew the substitute offered by him. 
 
 Mr. Lewis then offered the following: 
 substitute, viz : 
 
 "No court, or judge, shall make any al- 
 lowance by way of fee or compensation in 
 any suit or proceeding, except for the pay- 
 ment of such fees, to ministerial officers, 
 as may be established by law," 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved the adoption of said 
 substitute. 
 
 Mr. Chinn moved for the previous ques- 
 tion ; which motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Coxkad of Orleans, moved to 
 amend said substitute, by striking out the 
 words "to ministerial officers." The yeas 
 and nays being called for, (Mr. Taylor of 
 Assumption iif the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Carriere, Conrad 
 of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Dunn, 
 Garrett, Guion, King, Labauve, Ledoux, 
 Porter, Scott of Feliciana, Splane and 
 Trist votedinthe affirmative — 15 yeas; and 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Chambliss, Co- 
 villion, Chinn, Eustis, Hudspeth, Hunfble, 
 Hynson, Kenner, Legendre, Lewis, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau-, 
 Peets, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, Read, 
 Roman, St. Amand, Saunders, Scott of Ba- 
 ton Rouge, Stephens, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Taylor of St. Landry, Waddill, Wed- 
 erstrarrdt, Wikoff and Winchester voted in 
 the negative — 39 nays; consequently said 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Dunn offered the following amend- 
 ment, to be inserted after the word "com- 
 pensation," viz : 
 
 "Unless such compensation be allowed 
 by a judgment rendered contradictorily 
 with the parties interested." 
 
 Mr. Dunn moved for the adoption of 
 said amendment; which motion was lost- 
 Mr. Lewis moved for the adoption of 
 the substitute; the yeas and nays being 
 
208 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 called for, (Mr, Taylor of Assumption, in 
 the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra. 
 zeale, Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Chinn, Covillion, Eustis, Huds- 
 peth, Humble, Hynson, Kenner. Legendre, 
 Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Peets, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Preston, Prudhomme, Read, St. 
 Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Waddill, Wederstrandt, Wikoff and 
 Winchester voted in the affirmative — 3© 
 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Downs, Garrett, Guion, 
 King, Labauve, Ledoux, Mayo, Mazureau, 
 Porter, Roman, Saunders s Scott of Feliciana, 
 Sellers, Splane, Trist and Wadsworth voted 
 in the negative-*-19 nays ; consequently 
 said motion was carried, and the substitute 
 adopted. 
 
 On motion, the fourteenth section was 
 taken up, viz : 
 
 Sec. 14. There shall be an attorney 
 general for the State, and as many other 
 prosecuting attorneys for the State as may 
 be hereafter found necessary. The said 
 attorneys shall be appointed by the gover- 
 nor, with the advice and approbation of the 
 senate. Their duties shall be determined 
 by law. 
 
 Mr. McRae moved to amend said section 
 by striking out the words, "the said attor- 
 neys shall be appointed by the governor, by 
 andVith the advice and approbation of the 
 senate," and insert in lieu thereof the fol- 
 following amendment, viz : 
 
 " The attorney general shall be elected 
 by the qualified electors of the State at 
 large, and the prosecuting attorneys, by the 
 qualified? electors of the several districts." 
 
 Mr. Read moved for a division, that is, 
 the Convention first proceed to strike out 
 the words "the said attorneys shall be ap- 
 pointed" &c. which motion prevailed. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the motion to strike out: 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Car- 
 rier e r Chambliss, Covillion, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Ledoux , McCallop, McRae, Mayo, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 ton, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Stephens, Trist, Waddill and 
 Wederstrandt voted in the affirmative — 23 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Chinn, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad 
 of Jefferson, Dunn, Ettstis, Garrett, Gui- 
 on, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, 
 Roman, St. Amand, Saunders, Sellers, 
 Splane, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Wadsworth, Wikoff and Win- 
 chester voted in the negative— 31 nays; 
 consequently the motion was lost. 
 
 On motion, the said 14th section was 
 adopted; 
 
 On motion, the 13th section Was taken 
 up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 15. The State shall be divided into 
 the following judicial districts, in each of 
 which one judge, k arned in the law, shall 
 be appointed. Said districts shall remain 
 unchanged until the first day of January, 
 eighteen hundred and fifty-one: 
 
 The first district shall be composed of 
 the parishes of Plaquemines, St. Bernard 
 and Orleans. 
 
 Second district, of the parishes of St„ 
 Charles and Jefferson. 
 
 Third district, of the parishes of As- 
 cension, St. James and St. John the Bap- 
 tiste. 
 
 Fourth district, of Assumption, La- 
 fourche Interior and Terrebonne. 
 
 Fifth district, of Iberville, West Baton 
 Rouge and Point Coupee. 
 
 Sixth district, of East Feliciana and 
 West Feliciana. 
 
 Seventh district, of St. Helena, Wash- 
 ington and St. Tammany. 
 
 Eighth district, of East Baton Rouge 
 and Livingston. 
 
 Ninth district, of Natchitoches and Clai- 
 borne. 
 
 Tenth district, of Caddo, De Soto and 
 Bossier. 
 
 Eleventh district, of Rapides and Avoy- 
 elles. 
 
 Twelfth district, of Sabine and Calcasieu. 
 Thirteenth district, of St. Landry and 
 
 Lafayette- 
 Fourteenth district; of St. Mary, St. 
 
 Martin and Vermillion. 
 
 Fifteenth district, of Union, Morehouse 
 
 and Ouachita. 
 
 Sixteenth district, of Caldwell, Franklin 
 
 and Catahoula. 
 
 Seventeenth district, of Carroll and --Mad- 
 
 isom 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 209 
 
 Eighteenth district, of Tensas and Con- 
 cordia. 
 
 3Ir. Porter moved to amend the first 
 paragraph of said section by striking out 
 the word "appointed" and insert in lieu 
 thereof, the words "elected by joint ballot 
 of both houses of the general assembly." 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Brum- 
 field, Carriere, Ckambliss, Covillon, Gar- 
 rett, Humble,* Hynson, Lewis, McCallop, 
 McRae, Mayo, O' Bryan, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Preston^ Prudliomme, 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Stephens, 
 Trist, Waddill and Wederstrandt voted 
 in the affirmative-^23 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Briant, Chinn, Conrad of New Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Dunn, Eustis, Guion, 
 HudspetluKenner, King, Labauve, Ledoux, 
 Legendre, Marigny, Mazurcau, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Roman, St. Amand, Saunders, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Splane, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Wadsworth and Wiheff voted in the nega- 
 tive — 30 nays; consequently said motion 
 was lost. 
 
 "Mr. Garrett moved to amend said 
 paragraph by striking out the words "said 
 districts shall remain unchanged until the 
 first day of January, eighteen hundred and 
 fifty- one," and insert in lieu thereof the 
 words "said districts may be changed by 
 the legislature" — which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Beatty then offered the following 
 as a substitute for the whole section, viz': 
 
 The first legislature assembled under 
 this constitution, shall divide the State 
 into not less than fifteen judicial districts, 
 nor more than twenty-four, which shall re- 
 main unchanged for six years thereafter, 
 and be subject to reorganization once in 
 every six years only — for each of which 
 district, one judge learned in the law shall 
 be appointed. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved the adoption of the 
 above substitute. 
 
 Mr. Sottle moved for the previous ques- 
 tion, which motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved to amend said 
 substitute by striking out the word "ten'.' 
 and insert the word "six" in lieu thereof, 
 which motion prevailed. 
 
 On the motion of Mr. Beatty for the 
 ndoption of the substitute, the yeas and 1 
 27 
 
 nays being called for, resulted as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Brent, 
 Briant, Burton, Carriere, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Gar- 
 rett, Hudspeth, Hynson, Kenner, McCal- 
 lop, Preston, Prudliomme, Read, Saunders, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Waddill, 
 Wadsworth and Winchester voted in the 
 affirmative — 26 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs, Aubert, Brazeale, Brumfield, 
 Ckambliss, Covillion, Dunn, Eustls,Guion, 
 Humble, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Lew- 
 is, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, 
 CBryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoy- 
 elles, Prescott, of St Landry, Roman, Ro- 
 selias, St. Amand, Soulc, Splane, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of St.Landry, Wederstrandt 
 and Wikoff voted in the negative — 32' 
 nays; consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Porter then moved to amend said- 
 first paragraph as follows, viz: 
 
 The State shall be divided into ten judi- 
 cial districts. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the adoption of said amendment: 
 
 Messrs. Brumfield, Kenner, McCallop, 
 Porter, Stephens^ Taylor of Assumption and 
 Trist voted in the affirmative — 7 yeas: 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Burton, Carriere,- 
 Chambliss, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Dunn, Eus' 
 lis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, 
 Hynson, Kin?, Labauve, Ledoux, Legen- 
 dre, Lewis, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Ma- 
 zureau, O Bryan, Peets, Prescott of Avoy- 
 elles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Prudliomme, Read, Roman, Roselins, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Soulc, Splane, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Waddill, Wadsworth, Wed- 
 erstrandt, Wikoff and Winchester voted 
 in the negative — 51 nays; consequently 
 said amendment was lost. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved the adoption of the 
 first paragraph as reported, viz: 
 
 Sec 15. The State shall be divided into 
 the following judicial districts, in each of 
 which one judge learned in the law. shall 
 be appointed; said districts shall remain, 
 unchanged until the first day of January, 
 eighteen hundred and fifty-one 
 
210 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the adoption of said pai-agraph : 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Brazeale, Briant, Brumfield, Cham- 
 bliss, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Covillion, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, La- 
 bauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, Mc C al- 
 io]), McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, 
 Peels, Prudhomme, Roman, Roselius, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Soule, Splane, 
 Stephens, Waddill, Wadsworth, Weder- 
 strandt, Wikojf and Winchester voted in 
 the affirmative — 44 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Burton, Carriere, Gar- 
 rett, Kenner, King, CP Bryan, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescoit of St. 
 Landry, Preston, Read, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Taylor of St. Landry, and Trist 
 voted in the negative — 15 nays; conse- 
 quently said paragraph was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Lewis then moved the adoption of 
 the remainder of said section. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption moved for 
 a division, that is, to adopt the remainder 
 of said section by districts — -which motion 
 prevailed. 
 
 The first district was then taken up, 
 viz: 
 
 The first district shall be composed of 
 the parishes of Plaquemines, St. Bernard 
 and Orleans. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth moved to amend said 
 district by striking out the word "Or- 
 leans" and insert in lieu thereof, the words 
 4, that part of the parish of Orleans on the 
 right bank of the river." 
 
 Mr. Guion moved to reconsider the vote 
 adopting the previous question; the yeas 
 and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, • Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Briant, Claiborne, Conrad Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Eustis, Gar- 
 rett, Guion, Hynson, Ledoux, Legendre, 
 Lewis, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, 
 Peels, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Prudhomme, Roman, Roselius, 
 St. Amand, Saunders, Scott of. Baton 
 Rouge, Sellers, Soule, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Trist, Wadsworth and Winchester 
 voted in the affirmative— 35- yeas; and 
 - Messrs. Brazeale, Briant, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 Dunn, Hudspeth, Humble, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, McCallop, O' Bryan, Prescott of 
 
 Avoyelles, Read, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Splane, Taylor of St. Landry, Waddill, 
 Wederslrandl and Wikojf voted in the neg- 
 ative — 23 nays; consequently said motion 
 was carried. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth moved for the adop- 
 tion of the amendment, and called for the 
 yeas and nays (Mr.ClaibOrne in the chair:) 
 
 Messrs. Briant, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Dunn, Kenner, Legendre, Marigny, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Soule, Stephens, Wadsworth 
 and Wederstrandt voted in the affirmative 
 — 11 ye^as; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Br em', 
 Brumfield, Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Eustis, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, King,- 
 Labauve, Ledoux, Lewis, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Mayo, Mazureau, O' Bryan, Peets, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott 
 of St. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, Pugh, 
 Read, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Sellers, 
 Splane, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Trist, Waddill, Wikoff and 
 Winchester voted in the negative — 45 
 nays; consequently said amendment was 
 lost. 
 
 On motion, said first district was adopt- 
 ed as reported, viz: 
 
 The first district shall be composed of 
 the parishes of Plaquemines, St. Bernard 
 and Orleans. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow at nine o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note — Members absent — Messrs. Cade, 
 Derbes, Downs, Penn, Scott of Madison, 
 Voorhies and Winder absent on leave; 
 Messrs. Porche and Trist absent on ac- 
 count of sickness; Messrs. Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, 
 Chinn, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jef- 
 ferson, Culbertson, Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, 
 Guion, Marigny, Mazureau, Preston, 
 Pugh, Ratliff, Roman, Roselius, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Soule, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Wads- 
 worth, Wikoff and Winchester did not an- 
 swer to their names at the first call of the 
 house. 
 
 .Note — Members absent at the second 
 call of the house — Messrs. Benjamin, 
 Boudousquie, Carriere, Cenas, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, Guion, Ledoux, 
 Preston, Pugh, Ratliff, Roselius, St Amand, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 211 
 
 Taylor of Assumption, Wadsworth and 
 Winchester. 
 
 Thursday, April 24, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 In the absence of a minister of the gos- 
 pel, the Hon. Mr. Stephens, at the re- 
 quest of the President, opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Garrett gave notice that he will, 
 during the day, move to reconsider the 
 ; vote adopting the eleventh section. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Humble, the vote 
 adopting the fourteenth section, was recon- 
 sidered. 
 
 $Tr. Humble then moved to amend said 
 section by adding after the word "senate," 
 in the fifth line, the words "for the term of 
 two years. " Which amendment was 
 adopted. 
 
 On motion, the section as amended was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 There shall^ be an attorney general for 
 the State, and as many other prosecuting 
 attorneys for the State as may hereafter be 
 found necessary. 
 
 The said attorneys shall be appointed 
 by the governor, with the advice and ap- 
 probation of the senate, for the term of 
 two years. 
 
 Their duties shall be determined by 
 law. 
 
 This being he day fixed for the taking 
 in consideration the reports of the commit- 
 i tee of revision, on motion, the report of said 
 committee, on the executive department, 
 was taken up, viz: 
 
 ARTICLE THIRD. 
 
 The first section, as reported, was adopt- 
 ed, viz: 
 
 Sec. 1. "The supreme executive power 
 of this State shall be vested in a chief 
 magistrate, who shall be styled the govern- 
 or of the State of Louisiana. He shall 
 hold his office during the term of four 
 years, and together with the lieutenant 
 governor, chosen for the same term, be 
 elected as follows. 
 
 The second section was taken up, viz: 
 Sec. 2. The citizens entitled to vote 
 for representatives, shall vote for a govern- 
 or and lieutenant governor, at the same 
 time and place of voting for representatives; 
 the returns of every election shall be sealed 
 up and transmitted by the proper returning 
 
 ! officer created by law, to the secretary of 
 State, who shall deliver them to the speak- 
 er of the house of representatives, on the 
 second day of the session of the general 
 assembly then next to be holden. The 
 members of the general assembly shall 
 meet in the house of representatives, to ex- 
 amine and count • the votes. The person 
 having the greatest number of votes for 
 governor, shall be declared duly elected: 
 but if two or more persons shall be equal 
 and highest in the number of votes polled 
 for governor, one of them shall be imme- 
 diately chosen governor by joint vote of 
 the members of the general assembly. 
 The person having the greatest number of 
 votes for lieutenant governor, shall be 
 lieutenant governor ; but if two or more 
 persons shall be equal and highest in the 
 number of votes polled for lieutenant 
 governor, one of them shall be immediately 
 chosen lieutenant governor by the joint 
 vote of the members of the general assem- 
 bly. 
 
 The committee recommend the follow- 
 ing correction, viz: 
 
 Strike out, in the seventh line, the words 
 " created by law and the same was 
 adopted. 
 
 The section, as corrected, was adopted, 
 viz : 
 
 Sec. 2. The citizens entitled to vote 
 for representatives, shall vote for a gover- 
 nor and lieutenant governor, at the same 
 time and place of voting for representatives; 
 the returns of every election shall be seal- 
 ed up and transmitted by the proper re- 
 turning officer to the secretary of State, 
 who shall deliver them to the speaker of 
 the house of representatives, on the second 
 day of the sessions of the general assembly 
 then next to b eholden: the members of the 
 general assembly shall meet in the house of 
 representatives to examine and count the 
 votes; the person having the greatest number 
 of votes for'governor, shall be declared duly 
 elected, but if two or more persons shall be 
 equal and highest in the number of votes 
 polled for governor, one of them shall be 
 immediately chosen governor by joint vote 
 of the members of the general assem- 
 bly. The person having the greatest num- 
 ber of votes for lieutenant governor, shall 
 be lieutenant governor: but if two or more 
 persons shall be equal and highest in the 
 number of votes polled for lieutenant go. 
 
212 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 vernor, one of them shall be immediately 
 chosen lieutenant governor by the joint 
 vote of the members of the general assem- 
 bly. 
 
 The third section was taken up and pas- 
 sed without corrections, viz: 
 , Sec. 3. No person shall be eligible 
 to the office of governor or lieutenant go- 
 vernor, who shall not have attained the age 
 of thirty-five years, and has not been fifteen 
 years a free white male citizen of the 
 United States, and ot this State next pre- 
 ceding his election. 
 
 The fourth section was taken'up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 4. The governor shall enter in 
 the discharge of his duties on the fourth 
 fylonday of the January next ensuing his 
 election, and shall continue in office until 
 the Monday next succeeding the day that 
 his successor shall have been declared duly 
 elected, and his successor shall have taken 
 the oath or affirmation prescribed by this 
 constitution. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Beatty, the words 
 "his successor," in the seventh line, was 
 struck out; and the section, as corrected, 
 was adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 4. The governor shall enter in 
 the discharge of his duties on the fourth 
 Monday of the January next ensuing his 
 election, and shall continue in office until 
 the Monday next succeeding the day that 
 his successor shall have been declared 
 duly elected, and shall have taken the oath 
 or affirmation prescribed by this constitu- 
 tion. 
 
 The fifth section was taken up and adop- 
 ted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 5. The governor shall be ineligi- 
 ble for the succeeding four years after the 
 expiration of the time for which he shall 
 have been elected. 
 
 Section sixth was taken up and adopted, 
 viz: 
 
 Sec. 6. No member of Congress or 
 persons holding any office under the United 
 States, or rnmipter of any religious society 
 shall be eligible to the office of governor or 
 lieutenant governor. 
 
 Section seventh was taken up and adop- 
 ted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 7. In case of the impeachment of 
 the governor, his removal from office, 
 death, refusal or inability to qualify, resig- 
 nation or absence from the State,the power 
 and duties of the office shall devolve upon 
 
 the lieutenant governor for the residue of 
 the term, or until the governor absent or 
 impeached, shall return or be acquitted. 
 The legislature may provide by law for the 
 case of removal, impeachment, death, re- 
 signation, disability, or refusal to qualify, of 
 both the governor and lieutenant governor, 
 declaring what officer shall act as "gover- 
 nor; and such officer shall act accordingly, 
 until the disability be removed, or for the 
 residue of the term. 
 
 Section eighth was taken up and adop- 
 ted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 8. The lieutenant governor, or 
 other officer discharging the duties of gov- 
 ernor, shall, during his administration, re- 
 ceive the same compensation to which 'the 
 governor would have been entitled, had he 
 continued in office. 
 
 The nineth section was taken up and 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 9. The lieutenant governor shall, 
 by virtue of his office, be president of the 
 senate, but shall have only a casting vote 
 therein. Whenever he shall administer 
 the government, or shall be unable to at- 
 tend as president of the senate, the sena- 
 tors shall elect one of their own members as 
 president of the senate for the time being. 
 
 The tenth section was taken up and 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec 10. While he acts as president of 
 the senate, the lieutenant governor shall 
 receive for his services the same compen- 
 sation which shall for the same period be 
 atlowed to the speaker of the house of re- 
 presentatives, and no more. 
 
 The eleventh sectioivwas taken up and 
 adopted, viz : 
 
 Sec. 11. The governor shall have power 
 to grant reprieves for all offences against 
 the State, and except in cases of impeach- 
 ment, shall, with the consent of the senate, 
 have power to grant pardons and remit 
 fines and forfeitures, after conviction. In 
 cases of treason he may grant reprieves, 
 until the end of the next session of the 
 general assembly, in which the power of 
 pardoning shall be vested. 
 
 The twelfth section was taken up and 
 adopted, viz : 
 
 Sec. 12. The governor shall, at stated 
 times, receive for his services a compensa- 
 tion, which shall neither be increased nor 
 diminished during the term for which he 
 shall have been elected. 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 The thirteenth section was taken up 
 and adopted, viz : 
 
 Sec. 13. He shall be commander in 
 zhiaf of the army and navy of this State 
 ind of the militia thereof, except when they 
 shall be called into the service of the 
 United States. » 
 
 The fourteenth section was taken up 
 ind adopted, viz : 
 
 Sec. 14. He shall nominate and appoint, 
 vith the advice and consent of the senate, 
 til officers whose offices are established 
 jy this constitution, and whose appoint- 
 nents are not herein otherwise provided 
 or : Provided, however, that the legisla- 
 ure shall have a right to prescribe the 
 node of appointment to all other offices 
 o be established by law. 
 
 The fifteenth section was taken up and 
 tdopted, viz : 
 
 Sec 15. The governor shall have pow- 
 r to fill up vacancies that may happen 
 luring -the recess of the senate, by grant- 
 ng commissions which shall expire at the 
 ind of the next session, unless otherwise 
 ■rovided for in this constitution. 
 
 The committee of revision recommend 
 he following correction, viz : to strike out 
 rom the second line the word "up," which 
 orrection was adopted, and the section as 
 •.orrected, was adopted, viz : 
 
 Sec. 15. The governor shall have pow- 
 r to fill vacancies that may happen during 
 he recess of the senate, by granting com- 
 nissions which shall expire at the end of 
 he next session, unless otherwise pro- 
 •ided for in this constitution. 
 
 The sixteenth section was taken up and 
 idopted, viz : 
 
 Sec, 16. He may require information in 
 rating from the officers in the executive 
 lepartment, upon any subject relating to 
 he duties of their respective offices. 
 
 The seventeenth section was taken up, 
 ind adopted, viz : 
 
 ■■ Sec. 17. He shall, from time to time, 
 ^ive to the general assembly information 
 especting the situation of the State, and 
 ■ecommend to their consideration such 
 neasures as he may deem expedient. 
 
 The eighteenth section was taken up, 
 *iz : • 
 
 Sec. 18. He may, on extraordinary oc- 
 iasions, convene the general assembly at 
 he seat of government, or at a different 
 nace, if that should have become danger- 
 
 ous from an enemy or from contagious dis- 
 orders; and in case of disagreement be- 
 tween the two houses with respect to the 
 time of adjournment, he may adjourn them 
 to such a time as he may think proper, not 
 exceeding four months, 
 
 Mr. Read moved to correct said section, 
 by striking out in the seventh line the 
 words "with respect." and insert the word 
 "as," which correction was adopted, and 
 the section as corrected, was adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 18. He may, on extraordinary oc- 
 casions,convene the general assembly at the 
 seat of government, or at a different place 
 if that should have become dangerous from 
 an enemy or from contagious disorders; 
 and in case of disagreement between the 
 two houses as to the time of adjournment, 
 he may adjourn them to such time as he 
 may think proper, not exceeding four 
 months. 
 
 The nineteenth section was taken up 
 and adopted, viz : 
 
 Sec 19. He shall take care that the 
 laws be faithfully executed. 
 
 The twentieth section was taken up, 
 viz : 
 
 Sec 20. Every bill which shall have 
 passed both houses shall be presented to 
 the governor; if he approve he shall sign 
 it, if not, he shall return it with his objec- 
 tions, to the house in which it shall have 
 originated, who shall enter the objections 
 at large upon their journal, and proceed to 
 reconsider 'it; if, after such reconsidera- 
 tion, two-thirds of all the members elected 
 to that house shall agree to pass the bill, 
 it shall be sent^ with the objections, to the 
 other house, by which it shall likewise be 
 reconsidered, and if approved by two- 
 thirds of all the members elected to that 
 house, it shall be a law; but in such cases 
 the vote of both houses shall be determined 
 by yeas and nays, and the names of the 
 members voting for and against the bill, 
 shall be entered on the journal of each 
 house respectively. If any bill shall not 
 be returned by the governor within ten 
 days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have 
 been sent to him, it shall be a law in like 
 manner as if he had signed it, unless the 
 general assembly, by their adjournment, 
 prevent its return ; in which case it shall 
 be a law, unless sent back within three 
 
 Idays after their next meeting. 
 Mr. moved to correct said sec- 
 
14 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 tion by striking out in the fifth and sixth 
 lines the words "shall have," which mo- 
 tion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Benjanin moved to strike out in 
 the sixth line the word " who^" and insert 
 in lieu thereof the word " which," and in 
 the seventh line to strike out the word 
 44 their" and insert the word "its," which 
 motion prevailed, and the section as cor- 
 rected was adopted, viz : 
 
 Sec. 20. Every bill which shall have 
 passed both houses shall be presented to 
 the governor; if he approve he shall sign 
 it, if not he shall return it with his objec- 
 tions, to the house in which it originated, 
 which shall enter the objections at large 
 upon its journal, and proceed to reconsider 
 it; if, after such reconsideration, two-thirds 
 of all the members elected to that house 
 shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, 
 with the objections, to the other house, by 
 which it shall likewise be reconsidered, 
 and if approved by two-thirds ^of all the 
 members elected to that house, it shall be 
 a law; but in such cases the vote of both 
 houses shall be determined by yeas and 
 nays, and the names of the members voting 
 for and against the bill, shall be entered on 
 the journal of each house respectively. If 
 any bill shall not be returned by the gov- 
 ernor within ten days (Sundays excepted) 
 after it shall have been sent to him,;it shall 
 be a law in like manner as if he had signed 
 it, unless the general assemhly, by ad- 
 journment prevent its return; in which case 
 it shall be a law, unless sent back within 
 three days after their next meeting. 
 
 Section twenty-first was taken up and 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 21. Every order, resolution or vote 
 to which the concurrence of both houses 
 may be necessary, except on a question of 
 adjournment, shall be presented to the gov- 
 ernor, and before it shall take effect be ap- 
 proved by him, or being disapproved, shall 
 be repassed by two thirds of both houses. 
 
 The twenty-second section was taken 
 up, viz : 
 
 Sec. 22. A secretary of state shall be 
 nominated and appointed by the Governor, 
 with the advice and consent of the senate, 
 and commissioned to hold his office during 
 the term for which the governor shall have 
 been elected. The records of the State 
 shall be kept and preserved in the office of 
 the secretary. He shall keep a fair regis- 
 
 ter of the official acts and proceedings o 
 the governor, and, when necessary, shal 
 attest them. He shall, when required, laj 
 the said register and all papers, minutes 
 and vouchers relative to his office, befor< 
 either house of the general assembly, anc < 
 shall perform such other duties as may b(i 
 enjoined on him by law. 
 
 The committee of revision recommem 
 the correction of the first paragraph of sau 
 section as follows, viz : 
 
 " There shall be a secretary of state, wh( 
 shall hold his office during the time fo 
 which the governor shall have been elect 
 ed," which correction was adopted, am ' 
 the section as corrected was adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 22. There shall be a secretary o 
 state, who shall hold his office during the 
 time for which the governor shall have beei 
 elected. The records of the State shall b< 
 kept and preserved in the office of the secre 
 tary. He shall keep a fair register of the offi 
 cial acts and proceedings of the governor 
 and when necessary, shall attest them. Hej 
 shall, when required, lay the said register 
 and all papers, minutes and vouchers relativi'j 
 to his office, before either house of the gen 
 ral assembly, and shall perform such othe 
 duties as may be enjoined on him by law. 
 
 Section twenty-third was taken up ahi 
 adopted, viz. 
 
 Sec. 23. All commissions shall be ir 
 the name and by the authority of the 
 State of Louisiana, and shall be sealeii 
 with the State seal and signed by the gov- 
 ernor. 
 
 Section twenty-fourth was taken up and 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 24. The militia of this State shall 
 be organized in such mannar as may be 
 hereafter deemed most ^expedient by the 
 legislature. 
 
 Section twenty-fifth was taken up and 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 25. The free white men of the 
 State shall be armed and disciplined for 
 its defence; but those who belong to reli- 
 gious societies whose tenets forbid them to 
 carry arms, shall not be compelled so to do, 
 but shall pay an equivalent for personal 
 services. 
 
 Article 4th — Judiciary Department.! 
 
 On motion of Mr. Mayo the 21st sec 
 tion was reconsidered, viz: 
 
 Sec. 21. Every order, resolution, or 
 vote, to which the concurrence of both 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 215 
 
 ouses may be necessary, except on a 
 uestion of adjournment, shall be present- 
 1 to the governor, and before it shaU take 
 tTect be approved by him, or being dis- 
 pproved, shall be repassed by two-thirds 
 f both houses. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to amend said section 
 7 inserting after the word "of" in the 8th 
 le the words "the members elected of"; 
 hich motion prevailed, and the section as 
 nended, was adopted, viz: 
 Sec. 21. Every order, resolution, or 
 >te, to which the concurrence of both 
 )uses may be necessary, except on a 
 lestion of adjournment, shall be present- 
 -1 to the governor, and before it shall take 
 feet be approved by him, or being dis- 
 proved, shall be repassed by two-thirds 
 ] the members elected, of both houses. 
 On motion of Mr. Peets, the vote re- 
 nting the substitute offered by Mr. Beat- 
 1, was reconsidered, and the substitute ta- 
 in up, viz: 
 
 The first legislature assembled under 
 lis constitution shall divide the State into 
 t less than fifteen judicial districts, nor 
 nre than twenty-four, which shall remain 
 changed for six years thereafter, and be 
 sbject to reorganization once in every six 
 ars only; for each of which districts one 
 Ige learned in the law shall be appoint- 
 1 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved to strike out the 
 \>rd "fifteen" and insert "twelve;" the 
 }as and nays being called for, (Mr. Saun- 
 irs in the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin,Chinn, Eustis, 
 hnner, King, Labauve, Legendre, McCal- 
 h, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Pres. 
 dt of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 itudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Roman, St. 
 Mand, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Fe- 
 liana, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 
 -ist, Waddill and Winchester voted in 
 i3 affirmative — 27 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Bourg, Brumfield, Bur- 
 t>i, Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, Clai- 
 Irne, Covillion, Dunn, Garrett, Guion, 
 utdspeth, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Lew- 
 i Marigny, O' Bryan, Pugli, Sellers,Tay- 
 t • of St. Landry, Wederstrandt and Wi- 
 lf voted in the negative — 24 nays; con- 
 nuently said motion was carried. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ratliff, the blank 
 ks filled with the word "twelve." 
 
 Mr, Labauve moved to amend said sub- 
 
 stitute by fixing the maximum of the dis- 
 tricts at twenty; he therefore moved td 
 strike out after the word twenty, the word 
 four. The yeas and nays being called for, 
 (Mr. Saunders in the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Car- 
 riere, Chambliss, Chinn, Eustis, Guion, 
 Hynson, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, McCallop, Marigny, Peets, Porter, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff", Roman, St. 
 Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Soule, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Trist, Waddill and Winches- 
 ter voted in the affirmative — 34 yeas ; and 
 . Messrs. Covillion, Dunn, Garrett, Huds- 
 peth, Humble, Ledoux, Lewis, McRae, 
 Mayo, O' Bryan, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Read, 
 Sellers, Taylor of St. Landry, Weder- 
 trandt and Wikoff voted in the negative — 
 18 nays; consequently said motion was 
 carried. 
 
 Mr. O'Bryan moved to amend said sub- 
 stitute by striking out the word "twenty;" 
 which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved for the adoption of 
 the substitute as amended, viz: 
 
 The first legislature assembled under 
 this constitution shall divide the State into 
 judicial districts, which shall remain un- 
 changed for six years, and be subject to 
 reorganization every sixth year thereafter; 
 The number of districts shall not be less 
 than twelve, nor more than twenty. For 
 each district, one judge learned in the law 
 shall be appointed. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the adoption of the above substitute, (Mr. 
 Saunders in the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bri- 
 ant i Brumfield, Burton, Carriere, Cenas., 
 Chambliss, Chinn, Covillion, Eustis, Gar- 
 rett, Guion, Hudspeth, Hynson, Kenner, 
 King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, 
 McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prudhomme, Pugh, 
 Ratliff, Read, Roman, St. Jlmand, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, 
 Soule, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, Wadsworih, 
 Wederstrandt, Wikoff and Winchester 
 voted in the affirmative — 46 yeas:, and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Dunn, Humble, O'- 
 Bryan, Porter,, Preston, Saunders and 
 Waddill voted in the negative — 8 nays; 
 
216 
 
 Journal of the Convention of JLouisia?ia, 
 
 consequently said motion was carried, and 
 the substitute was adopted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Mayo, the sixteenth 
 section was taken up, and laid on the table 
 indefinitely, viz: 
 
 Sec. 16. After the first of January 
 eighteen hundred and fifty-one, the legisla- 
 ture may reorganize the said districts; 
 which shall remain unchanged for ten 
 years thereafter, and be subject to reorgan- 
 ization once in every ten years, provided 
 the number of districts shall never be less 
 than eighteen, nor more than twenty-four. 
 
 On motion, the seventeenth section was 
 taken up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 17. Whenever a new parish shall 
 be formed out of two or more parishes be- 
 longing to different districts, the said new 
 parish shall be attached to one of them. 
 
 Mr. Chinn moved that the said section 
 be laid on the table indefinitely; which 
 motion was lost. 
 
 On motion, the said seventeenth section 
 was adopted. 
 
 On motion, the eighteenth section was 
 taken up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 18. Each of said judges shall re- 
 ceive a salary of not less than twenty-five 
 hundred dollars annually. He must be a 
 citizen of the United States, over the age 
 of thirty years, and have resided in the 
 State for six years next preceding his ap- 
 pointment, and have practiced law therein 
 for the space of five years. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by striking out in the fourth line the 
 word "thirty," and insert in lieu thereof 
 the word " twenty-six," which motion was 
 lost. 
 
 Mr. Read submitted the following as a 
 substitute for the first paragraph, viz: 
 
 " The legislature shall provide an ade- 
 quate compensation for each of said dis- 
 trict judges, which shall not be increased 
 or diminished during his term of office." 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved to lay the above 
 substitute on the table indefinitely; the yeas 
 and nays being called for, (Mr. Saunders 
 in the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bri- 
 ant, Brumfield, Carriere, Cenas, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Dunn, Euslis, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Ledoux, 
 Legendre, Lewis, Marigny,Mayo, Prud* 
 homme, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, 
 
 Sellers, Soide, Stephens, Taylor of St. Lan. 
 dry, Trist, Wadsworth and Winchester vo- 
 ted in the affirmative^ — 36 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Burton, ChambUss, 
 Covillion, Humble, Hynson, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, (? Bryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston 
 Ratliff, Read, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Ruge, Scott of Feliciana, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Waddill, Wederstrandt and W%< 
 Tcoff voted in the negative - — 23 nays; con- 
 sequently the motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Porter submitted the following 
 amendment, to be inserted at the end of the 
 section, viz: 
 
 " Except in such judicial districts as the 
 major part of the parishes of which have 
 been organized since the year 1840, and 
 that the exception only extends to the first 
 apportionment of judges." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Winchester said 
 amendment was laid on the table indefi- 
 nitely. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, offered the 
 following as a substitute for the first para- 
 graph of said section, and the same was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 " Each of said judges shall receive a 
 salary to be fixed by law, which shall not 
 be increased or diminished during his term 
 of office, which salary shall never be less 
 than two thousand five hundred dollars an- 
 nually. 
 
 On motion the section as amended was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec 18. Each of said judges shall re- 
 ceive a salary to be fixed by law, which 
 shall not be increased or diminished during 
 his term of office, which salary shall never 
 be less than twenty-five hundred dollars, 
 He must be a citizen of the United States, 
 over the age of thirty years, and have re. 
 sided in the State for six years next pre- 
 ceding his appointment, and have practised 
 law therein for the space of five years. 
 
 On motion the nineteenth section was 
 taken up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 19. The judges of said district 
 courts, and of the courts to be established 
 in the cities of New Orleans and Lafayette, 
 shall hold their offices for the term of six 
 years, and shall be appointed by the gov- 
 ernor, by and with the adviee and consent 
 of the senate; provided, that when the first 
 appointments, made under this constitution, 
 are made, six of said district judges shall 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 be appointed for the term of two years, six 
 for the term of four years, and six for the 
 term of six years. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to amend by insert- 
 ing four years instead of six years, in the 
 third line. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved for a division, that 
 is, strike out first the word "six," which 
 motion pievailed. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin offered the following as 
 a substitute for all the words coming in the 
 seventh line to the end of the section, viz: 
 
 " The judges shall be divided by lot in- 
 to three classes, as nearly equal as may 
 be, and the term of office of the judges of 
 the first class shall expire at the end of two 
 years, of the second class at the end of 
 four years, and of the third class at the end 
 of six years." 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved for the previous 
 question on the whole section, which mo- j 
 tion pievail°d. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the motion of Mr. Brent, to strike out 
 i"six," (Mr. Saunders in the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent,Brumjield, Bur- 
 Won, Carrier e, Chambliss, Covillion, Hum- 
 \ ble, Hynson, McRae, Mayo, O' Bryan, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Preston, Ratliff, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Sc-ott of Feliciana, 
 Soule, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Trist, Waddill and Wikoff voted in the 
 affirmative — 27 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, B riant, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Dunn, 
 \Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, 
 King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, 
 McGallop, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Ro- 
 wlius, St. Amand, Saunders, Sellers, Taylor 
 pf St. Landry, Wederstraudt, and Win- 
 chester voted in the negative — 31 nays ; 
 consequently the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to amend by striking 
 )ut in the fourth line the word ' ; gover- 
 lor," and insert in lieu thereof " qualified 
 electors of each district." 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to reconsider the 
 /ote adopting the previous question. The 
 ,-eas and nays being called for, (Mr. Saun- 
 lers in the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Car- 
 •iere, Chambliss, Covillion, Eustis, Hum- 
 )le, Hynson, Ledoux, McRae, Mayo, O'- 
 Jryan, Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoy- 
 28 
 
 elles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Rat- 
 liff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Sellers, 
 Soule, Stephens, Trist, Waddill and Wed- 
 erstrandt voted in the affirmative — 27 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Brazeale, Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Dunn, 
 Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner. King, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, McCallop, Ma- 
 rigny, Mazureau. Prudhomme. Pugh, Ro- 
 man, Roselius, St. Amand, Scott of Felici- 
 ana, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Wikoff and Winchester voted in 
 the negative — 32 nays ^consequently said 
 motion was lost. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the motion of Mr. Brent to strike out the 
 word "governor," (Mr. Saunders in the 
 chair.) 
 
 j Messrs. Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Car- 
 riere, Chambliss, Covillion, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, O'Bryan, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 ton, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Stephens, Trist, Waddill and Wederstraudt 
 voted in the affimative — 23 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg. 
 Brazeale, Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, 
 King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Marigny, Mazureau, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, 
 St. Amand, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, 
 Soule, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Wikoff and Winchester voted 
 in the negative — 37 nays; consequently 
 said motion was lost. 
 
 Os motion, Mr. Benjamin's amendment 
 was adopted, viz : 
 
 On motion, the nineteenth section, as 
 amended was adopted, viz : 
 
 Sec. 19. The judges of said district 
 courts, and of the courts to be established 
 in the cities of Orleans and Lafayette, shall 
 hold their offices for the term of six years, 
 and shall be appointed by the governor by 
 and with the advice and consent of the 
 senate ; provided, that when the first ap- 
 pointments made under this constitution, 
 the judges shall be divided by lot into 
 three classes, as nearly equal as may be, 
 and the term of office of the judges of the 
 first class shall expire at the end of two 
 years, of the second class at the end of four 
 
2 18 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 years, and of the third class at the end of 
 six years. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Soule, the additional 
 section, submitted by him, was taken up, 
 viz : 
 
 The appointing power with respect to 
 judges shall be exercised by the governor, 
 in the manner following, to wit : He shall 
 name and present three competent persons, 
 learned in the law, and having practised at 
 least five years in the courts of the State, 
 for every office to be filled in the judiciary 
 department; and the senate shall make 
 their selection from the three persons thus 
 named and presented, and shall vote viva 
 voce and with open doors ; Provided^ no 
 appointment shall be effected unless it 
 meets the concurrence of a majority of all 
 the members composing the senate; and 
 provided the judge at the expiration of 
 whose time shall give occasion to an ap- 
 pointment, be one of the three first pre- 
 sented by the governor to the choice of the 
 senate. After three unsuccessful attempts 
 to make a selection, it shall be the duty of 
 the governor to name and present three 
 other persons, and so on, until a choice be 
 effected. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved to lay on the table, 
 indefinitely the additional section of Mr. 
 Soule. The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Cenas, Chambliss, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Eustis, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson Ken- 
 ner, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, 
 Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, O'Bryan, 
 Peets, Preston, Prudhomme,Uead, Roman, 
 Roselius; St. Amand, Saunders, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Stephens, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Taylor of St. Landry and Winchester 
 voted in the affirmative — 41 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Carriere, Covillion, Dunn, Gar- 
 rett, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Pugh, Ratliff, Sellers, Soule, Trist, 
 Waddill, Wederstrandt and Wikoff voted 
 in the negative — 18 nays ; consequently 
 said motion was carried. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow, at 9 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note — Members absent: Messrs. Cade, 
 Derbes, Downs, Penn, Scott of Madison, 
 Voorhies and Winder absent on leave; 
 Mr. Porche on account of sickness; Messrs. 
 
 Benjamin, Boudousquie, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Culbertson, Eustis, Garcia, Grymes,Guion, 
 Hynson, King, Marigny, Mazureau, Prud- 
 homme, Pugh, Ratliff, Roman, Roselius, 
 St. Amand, Soule, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Wadsworth and Winchester did not answer 
 to their names at the call of the house. 
 
 Friday, ApriF25, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Nicholson opened the 
 proceedings with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff, chairman of the commit- 
 tee on contingent expenses, submitted the 
 following resolution, and the same was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Resolved, that the committee on contin- 
 gent expenses be authorised to issue a war- 
 rant in the usual form for the sum of forty- 
 four dollars and twenty-nine cents in favor 
 of James Carpenter, sergeant-at-arms, in 
 remuneration for that sum expended by 
 him for the use of the Convention. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Benjamin the vote 
 adopting the substitute of Mr. Beatty was 
 reconsidered, and the same taken up, viz: 
 
 The first legislature assembled under thi 
 constitution shall divide the State into judi 
 cial districts,which shall remain unchange 
 for six years, and be subject to reorgani 
 zation every sixth year thereafter; the num 
 ber of districts shall not be less than twelve 
 nor more than twenty. For each district 
 one judge, learned in the law, shall be ap 
 pointed. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to amend said 
 substitute by adding at the end of the same 
 the following amendment, viz: 
 
 " Except in the districts in which the 
 cities of New Orleans and Lafayette are 
 situated, the legislature may establish as 
 many district courts as the public interest 
 may require;" which amendment was 
 adopted. 
 
 On motion the- substitute as amended 
 was adopted, viz: 
 
 The first legislature assembled under 
 this constitution shall divide the State into 
 judicial districts, which shall remain un- 
 changed for six years, and be subject to 
 reorganization every sixth year thereafter; 
 the number of districts shall not be less 
 than twelve nor more than twenty. For 
 each district one judge, learned in the lav/, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 219 
 
 shall be appointed; except In the districts 
 in which the cities of New Orleans and 
 Lafayette are situated, the legislature may 
 establish as many district courts as the pub- 
 lic interest may require. 
 
 On motion of Mr Eustis the vote adopt- 
 ing the first section of article fourth was re- 
 considered and the same taken up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 1. The judicial power shall be vest- 
 ed in a supreme court, -in district courts to 
 1)e established throughout the State, in jus- 
 tices of the peace, and such other courts 
 in the cities of New Orleans and Lafayette 
 as the legislature may from time to time 
 direct. 
 
 Mr. Eustis moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by striking out the words i4 and such 
 other courts in the cities of New Orleans 
 and Lafayette as the legislature may from 
 time to time direct;" which amendment 
 was adopted. 
 
 On motion the section as amended was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 1. The judicial power shall be 
 vested in a supreme court, in district courts 
 to be established throughout the State, and 
 in justices of the peace. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 The question under consideration at the 
 adjournment was the following section 
 submitted by Mr. Mayo, viz.- 
 
 The senate, in acting upon the nomina- 
 tion of the judges made by the governor 
 mall vote viva voce, with open doors, and 
 he votes of at least seventeen senators 
 diall be necessary to confirm a nomina- 
 ion. 
 
 To which section Mr. Taylor offered 
 he following substitute, viz: 
 
 A majority of all the members elected to 
 he senate, shall be required for the confir- 
 nation or rejection of officers appointed by 
 he governor, with the advice and consent 
 •f the senate, and the senate in deciding 
 hereon shall vote by yeas and nays, and 
 ie names of the senators voting for and 
 gainst the appointments respectively shall 
 e entered on a journal to be kept for that 
 urpose, and made public at the end of 
 ach session, or before. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved to amend said sub- 
 titute by striking out the words "and made 
 ublic at the end of each session, or be- 
 >re," and insert the following words: 
 
 and to be published at the discretion of 
 ie senate," 
 
 Mr. Beattt moved to lay the substi- 
 tute and amendment on the table, subject 
 to call. The yeas and nays being called 
 for, (Mr. Saunders in the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty,Benjamin,Bourg, 
 Briant, Cenas. Chinn. Eustis, Garrett, 
 Guion, Kenner. King, Labauve, Legendre, 
 McCaliop. Mazureau, Pugh, Roman and 
 Splane voted in the affirmative — 19 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brum field, 
 Burton, Carriere. Chambliss, Claiborne, 
 Covillion, Culbertson, Dunn, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Lewis, McRae, 
 Marigny. Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Preston, Prudhomme, Rati iff, 
 Read, St. Amand, Saunders, Scott of Fe- 
 liciana, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, 
 Waddill, Wederstrandt, WikofT and Win- 
 chester voted in the negative — 37 nays; 
 consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the amendment of Mr. Kenner to insert 
 "at the discretion of the senate," (Mr. 
 Saunders in the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin. Bri- 
 ant, Carriere, Chambliss. Chinn. Olai- 
 borne, Eustis, Guion, Kenner, King, La. 
 bauve. Legendre, McCaliop, Marigny, Ma- 
 zureau, Pugh, Roman. Trist. Wadsworth 
 and Winchester voted in the affirmative— 
 21 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale. Brent, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Cenas, Covillion, Culbert- 
 son, Dunn, Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, 
 Hynson, Ledoux, Lewis, McRae. Mayo, 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Preston, 
 Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, St. Amand, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Splane, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Waddill, "Wederstrandt and 
 Wikoff voted in the negative — 33 nays- 
 consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Tavlor of Assumption moved for 
 the adoption of the substitute, and the 
 yeas and nays being called for, (Mr. Saun- 
 ders in the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 Culbertson, Dunn, Garrett, Guion, Huds- 
 peth. Humble, Hynson, Kenner, Ledoux, 
 Lewis, McCaliop, McRae, Mayo, O'Bry- 
 an, Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Preston, Prudhomme, Pugh 7 Ratliff, Read, 
 Roman, St. Amand, Scott of Feliciana, 
 
220 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of jSt. [ 
 Landry, Taylor of Assumption, Trist and 
 Wederstrandt voted in the affirmative — 40 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Briant, Bur- 
 ton, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Eustis, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, Marigny, Mazureau, .Wadsworth, 
 Waddill, Wikoff and Winchester voted in 
 the negative — 18 nays; consequently said 
 motion was carried, and the substitute was 
 adopted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Benjamin, the above 
 substitute was referred to the committee 
 of revision, to be classed in the legisla- 
 tive article. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne submitted the following 
 additional section, viz: 
 
 On the expiration of the term of any 
 judicial officer, whenever the governor 
 shall not have nominated to the senate for 
 the succeeding term, the incumbent in of- 
 fice, any senator may nominate said incum- 
 bent, and in such case the senate shall 
 have power to select between the incum- 
 bent in office and the person nominated by 
 the governor, or to reject both. 
 
 Mr. Eustis submitted as a substitute 
 for the above, the following, viz: 
 
 On nominations for judicial officers, af- 
 ter the first appointments under this con- 
 stitution, if a majority of the members 
 elected to the senate shall advise the re-ap- 
 pointment of the incumbent, he shall be 
 re-appointed. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption moved to 
 lay the substitute on the table indefinitely; 
 the yeas and nays being called for, (Mr. 
 Saunders in the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Humble, Hynson, 
 Kenner, Ledoux, Legendre, McCallop, 
 McRae, O' Bryan, Porter, Prescott of A- 
 voyelles, Preston, Prudhomme, Ratliff, 
 Read, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Waddill and Wederstrandt 
 voted in the affirmative — 25 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Dnnn : Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 King, Labauve, Lewis, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Pugh, Roman, 
 St. Amand, Scott of Feliciana, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Wikoff and Winchester voted 
 
 in the negative — 29 nays; consequently 
 said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved to amend said sub- 
 stitute by inserting after the word "sen- 
 ate" the words "and house of representa- 
 tives." 
 
 Mr. Beatty. m®ved for the previous 
 question, which motion prevailed. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the adoption of the amendment of Mr. 
 Kenner, to insert th*e words "and house of 
 representatives," (Mr. Saunders in the 
 chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Humble, Kenner, McCallop, 
 McRae, Mayo, Porter, Prudhomme, Rat- 
 liff, Read, Taylor of Assumption, Trist 
 and Waddill voted in the affirmative— 16 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Co- 
 villion, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Hynson, King, Labauve, Le- 
 doux, Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazu- 
 reau, Peets, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott 
 of St. Landry, Preston, Pugh, Roman, S 
 Amand, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Sou 
 le, Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, Wads 
 worth, Wederstrandt, Wikoff and Wir 
 Chester voted in the negative — 41 nays; 
 consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Kenner then offered the following 
 amendment, viz: 
 
 "It shall be competent for a majority of 
 the members elected to the senate ^to re- 
 elect the incumbent," Which amendment 
 was rejected. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the adoption of the substitute of Mr. Eustis, 
 (Mr. Saunders in the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Briant, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Cenas, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, King, Lewis, Marigny, 
 Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, Tay- 
 lor of St. Landry, W T ikoff and Winchester 
 voted in the affirmative — 21 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Car- 
 riere, Chambliss, Chinn, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Covillion, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Kenner, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre. 
 McCallop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter. 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Preston, Prudhomme, Ratliff, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Soule, Splane, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 221 
 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption. Trist, 
 Waddill, Wadsworth and Wederstrandt 
 voted in the negative — 36 nays: conse- 
 quently said motion was lost. 
 
 The veas and nays being called for on 
 the adoption of the section of Mr. Clai- 
 borne, (Mr. Saunders in the chair.) 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bri- 
 ant, Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Dunn, Garrett, Guion. 
 Hudspeth. King. Lewis, Marigny. Mazu- 
 rea#i Pugh. Roman, St. Amand, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Taylor of St. Landry, Wads- 
 worth and Winchester voted in the affirm- 
 ative —24 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Carriere, Cham- 
 bliss, Chinn, Covillion, Humble. Hynson, 
 Kenner. Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Pres- 1 
 cott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Prudhomme. Ratliff, Read. Sel- 1 
 lers, Soule, Splane, Stephens. Taylor cfj 
 Assumption, Trist, Waddill, Wederstrandt 
 and Wikoff voted in the negative — 32 nays: 
 consequently the motion was lost. 
 
 On motion, section twentieth was taken 
 up, viz: 
 
 Sec 20. The said district courts shall : 
 have general original jurisdiction in all civ- 
 il cases when the amount in dispute ex- 
 :eed= fifty dollars. In all criminal cases, j 
 and in all matters connected with succes- 1 
 sions, their jurisdiction shall be unlimited. I 
 
 Mr. Benjajon moved to amend said 
 section by inserting after the word ''dollars'' 
 u the third line, the words "exclusive of 
 interest:" and the same was adopted. 
 
 On motion, the section as amended was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 20. The said district courts shall 
 have general original jurisdistion in all 
 :ivil cases when the amount in dispute ex- 
 ceeds fifty dollars exclusive of interest. In 
 ill criminal cases, and in all matters con- 
 nected with successions, their jurisdiction 
 ; hall be unlimited. 
 
 The twenty-first section was taken up, 
 viz : 
 
 Sec. 21. The legislature shall have 
 power to vest in clerks of court authority 
 :o grant such orders and do such acts as 
 may be deemed necessary for the further- 
 ance of the administration of justice; and 
 in all cases the powers thus granted shall 
 be specified and determined. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved to amend said sec- 
 
 lioii by striking out. in the third line, 
 the words "and do such acts." 
 
 Mr. Render moved for the previous 
 question; which motion prevailed. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the motion of Mr. Ratliff to strike out the 
 words "and do such acts," (Mr. Saun- 
 ders in the chair.) 
 
 Messrs. Carriere, Covillion, Porter. Rat- 
 liff, Scott of Feliciana and Taylor of As- 
 sumption voted in the affirmative — 6 yeas ; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin. Bourg. Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Brumfield, Burton. Cenas, 
 Chambliss, Chinn, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Humble, Hynson, 
 Kenner, King. Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, 
 McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Ma- 
 zureau. Peets, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Read. Roman. Roselius, St. Amand, 
 Sellers, Splane, Stephens Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Trist. Waddill, Wederstrandt, 
 Wikoff and Winchester voted in the nega- 
 tive — ±5 nays ; consequently said motion 
 was lost. 
 
 On motion, said section was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Gaerett submitted the following 
 additional section, viz : 
 
 '•The clerks of the district court shall be 
 elected by the qualified electors in each 
 parish, for the term of four years. " 
 
 Mr. Mayo offered the following; substi- 
 tute, viz : 
 
 ''There shall be elected in each parish 
 of the State, by the qualified electors there- 
 of, at the time of the general election for 
 members of the general assembly, a sher- 
 iff, coroner, surveyor, and clerk of the dis- 
 trict court, and a competent number of no- 
 taries public, justices of the peace, and 
 constables, who shall hold their offices for 
 the term of two years, and until their suc- 
 cessors are qualified." 
 
 On motion, the additional section and 
 substitute were laid on the table, subject 
 to call. 
 
 Section twenty-second was taken up, 
 viz: 
 
 Sec. 22. The clerks of the several 
 courts shall be removable for breach of 
 good behavior, by the judges thereof, sub- 
 ject in all cases, to an appeal to the su- 
 preme court. 
 
 On motion, said section was laid on the 
 tabic, subject to call. 
 
222 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Section twenty-third was taken up, viz : 
 
 Sec. 23. The jurisdiction of the justices 
 of the peace shall never exceed, in civil 
 cases, the sum of fifty dollars. They shall 
 be elected by the qualified voters of each 
 parish, for the term of years. 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved to fill up the blank 
 in said section, with the word "two," 
 which motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to amend said section 
 by striking out in the second line, the word 
 ' fifty," and insert the words " one hun- 
 dred." The yeas and nays being called 
 for, (Mr. Saunders in the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Carriere, CJiambliss, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Covillion, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Labauve, McCallop, McRae, 
 Mayo, Beets, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Prudhom- 
 me, Ralliff] Read, Roman, Roselius, St. 
 Amand, Splane, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in the 
 affirmative — 31 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Cenas, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garrett, Guion, Kenner, King, Legendre, 
 Lewis, Mazureau, Pugh, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Trist, Wikqf and Winchester voted in the 
 negative — 19 nays; consequently said mo- 
 tion was carried. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Labauve, said section 
 was arnended by inserting after the word 
 "dollars," in the third line, the words "ex- 
 clusive of interest."' 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved to amend, by in- 
 serting in the third line after the words 
 " exclusive of interest," the following 
 amendment, viz : 
 
 "Subject to an appeal to the district 
 court in all cases wherein the matter in 
 dispute exceeds twenty-five dollars;" which 
 amendment was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Splane moved to amend by striking 
 out the words, "they shall be elected by 
 the qualified voters of each parish." The 
 yeas and nays being called for, (Mr. Saun- 
 ders in the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Eustis, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, Marigny, Mazureau, Roman, Roselius, 
 St. Amand, Splane, Taylor of St. Landry 
 and Winchester voted in the affirmative — 
 15 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brwnfield, Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 
 Covillion, Dunn, Garrett, Guion, Hudspelfy 
 Humble, Hynson, King, Lewis, McCallop, 
 McRae, Mayo, Peels, Porter, Prescott oi 
 Avoyelles, Prescott, of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Waddill, Weder- 
 strandt and Wikqff voted in the negative — 
 37 nays ; consequently said motion was 
 lost. 
 
 On motion, the section as amended^was 
 adopted, viz : 
 
 Sec. 23. The jurisdiction of justices of 
 the peace shall never exceed, in civil 
 cases, the sum of one hundred dollars, ex- 
 clusive of interest, subject to an appeal to 
 the district court in all cases wherein the 
 matter in dispute exceeds twenty-five dol- 
 lars. They shall be elected by the quali- 
 fied voters of each parish for the term of 
 two years. 
 
 Section twenty-four was taken upi viz : 
 
 Sec. 24. The judges of the supreme 
 court and district courts, provided for in 
 this constitution, shall be appointed and 
 commissioned as soon as possible after this 
 constitution shall go into effect; and the 
 legislature shall provide for the removal of 
 all cases now pending in the supreme and 
 other courts of the State under the present 
 constitution, to the supreme and district 
 courts, created by this constitution, and to 
 the other courts that may be created by 
 the legislature for the city of New Orleans. 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved to amend by stri- 
 king out the words "and to the other courts 
 that may be created by the legislature for 
 the city of New Orleans;" which motion 
 prevailed. 
 
 On motion, the section as amended, was 
 adopted, viz : 
 
 Sec. 24. The judges of the supreme 
 court and district courts, provided for in 
 this constitution, shall be appointed and 
 commissioned as soon as possible after this 
 constitution shall go into effect; and the 
 legislature shall provide for the removal of 
 all causes now pending in the supreme or 
 other courts of the State under the present 
 constitution, to the supreme and district 
 courts, created by this constitution. 
 
 On motion, the second section was taken 
 up, viz : 
 
 Sec. 2. The supreme court shall have 
 appellate jurisdiction only, except in cases 
 hereinafter provided,\vhich j urisdiction shall 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 ~23 
 
 extend to all cases where the matter in 
 dispute shall exceed five hundred dollars. 
 
 Mr. Lewis mover) to amend said section 
 by inserting in the . second line after the 
 word ' 4 jurisdiction,'' the words "on ques- 
 ions of law. '' 
 
 And pending the discussion on said mo- 
 ion the Convention adjourned till to-mor- 
 ow, at 9 o'clock, a. r». 
 
 Note — Members absent, Messrs. Cade, 
 lerbes, Downs, Penn, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 icott of Madison, Voorhies, and Winder 
 .bsent on leave; Mr. Porche absent on ac- 
 ount of sickness; and Messrs. Boudous- 
 uie, Brent, Briant, Carrier c, Dunn, Ens- 
 is, Garcia, Grymes, Guion, Hynson, Pres- 
 \ott of Avo)"elles, Prudhomme, Ratliff, 
 loman, Roselius and Soule did not answer 
 3 their names at the first call of the house. 
 
 Note — Members absent at second call 
 f the house : Messrs. Benjamin, Boudons- 
 uie, (iarriere, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad 
 f Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Eustis, 
 rarcia, C rymes, Guion, Prudhomme, Pugh, 
 latliff, Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, 
 Joule, Taylor of Assumption, Wadsworth 
 nd Winchester. 
 
 Saturday, April 26, 18-45. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 lent. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Wiley opened the pro- 
 sedings with prayer. 
 
 On motion leave of absence was granted 
 » Messrs. Read, O'Biyan, Beatty, Huds- 
 eth, Chinn and Waddill. 
 
 The secretary reported the receipt of the 
 rinters for the report of the debates of the 
 6th inst. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Humble, the vote 
 lopting the 23d section was reconsidered, 
 id said section was taken up — viz : 
 
 Sec. 23. The jurisdiction of justices of 
 ,e peace shall never exceed in civil cases 
 .e sum of one hundred dollars exclusive 
 
 interest, subject to an appeal to the 
 strict court in all cases wherein the mat- 
 r in dispute shall exceed twenty. five dol- 
 rs. They shall be elected by the quali- 
 3d votes of each parish for the term of 
 vo years. 
 
 Mr. Preston offered as a substitute for 
 e above section, the 10th section of the 
 inority report, viz : 
 
 Sec. 10. A suilable number of magis. 
 ates shall be chosen in every parish, by 
 
 the qualified electors thereof, for the term 
 of two years, who shall have jurisdiction 
 of all cases when the amount in contro- 
 versy, or penalty to be inflicted, does not 
 
 j exceed one hundred dollars, subject to ap- 
 
 ; peal, to be determined by law, and shall 
 perform such other duties as may be pro- 
 vided by law. 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved that the substitute 
 
 , be laid on the table indefinitely; the yeas 
 and nays being called for (Mr. Taylor of 
 
 i Assumption in the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Bourg, Brazeale, Bru?n- 
 field, Chambliss, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 
 ; leans, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Hyn- 
 son, King, Lewist Marigny, Mazareau, 
 Peels* Prescott of Avoyelles, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Roman, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Wederstrandt, and Wikoff 
 voted in the affirmative — -26 yeas: and 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Briant, Burton, Carri- 
 ere, Covillion, Humble, McCallcp, McRae, 
 Mayo, Porter, Preston, Ratliff, Saunders, 
 Scott of Feliciana, and Taylor of Assump- 
 tion votedin the negative — 15 nays; con- 
 sequently said motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to amend said section 
 by striking out the words, ''in all cases 
 wherein the matter in dispute shall exceed 
 twenty-five dollars," and insert in lien 
 thereof the following words, "in such cases 
 as shall be provided for by law;" which 
 amendment was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to amend said section 
 by adding at the end of the same the fol- 
 lowing amendment, viz. "And shall have 
 
 ! such criminal jurisdiction as shall be pro- 
 vided for by law:" which amendment was 
 
 I adopted. 
 
 On motion the section as amended was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 23. The jurisdiction of justices of 
 the peace shall never exceed, in civil cases, 
 the sum of one hundred dollars, exclusive of 
 interest, subject to an appeal to the district 
 court, in such cases as shall be provided for 
 by law. They shall be elected by the 
 qualified voters of each parish for the term 
 of two years, and shall have such criminal 
 jurisdiction as shall be providedfor bylaw.* 
 
 Mr. Claiborne gave notice that he 
 will on a future day more to reconsider the 
 vote adopting after reconsideration the 
 amendment of the seventh section, because 
 he believed the reconsideration to be out 
 of order, 
 
224 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 (Mr. Taylor of Assumption in the 
 chair.) The question of order raised is a 
 very important one, and the chair thinks it 
 proper to express its opinion on it, although 
 it is not now necessary to decide it for- 
 mally. 
 
 The chair does not concur in the opin- 
 ion expressed by the delegate from New 
 Orleans, that the rules were made for the 
 protection of absent members, and that 
 they cannot be dispensed with without pre- 
 vious notice. 
 
 Rules are made for the government of 
 the house, and that is composed of the mem- 
 bers present forming a quorum. 
 
 In the opinion of the chair it does not admit 
 of a doubt, that four-fifths of the members 
 present can at any time and without any 
 previous notice, suspend any rule; and that 
 the proceedings had in pursuance of such 
 suspension of a rule, are in all respects 
 regular, and that they cannot at any future 
 time be called in question on that ground. 
 Any thing done with the unanimous assent 
 of the house, as in the instance referred to, 
 necessarily involves a suspension of the 
 rules, and the chair would in consequence 
 decide that there had been in that instance 
 no violation of the rules adopted for its 
 government. 
 
 Mr. Sellers gave notice that he would, 
 on Thursday next, move to reconsider the 
 vote adopting the eighth section of the legis- 
 lative article. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Section second of the majority report. 
 
 Sec. 2. The supreme court shall have 
 appellate jurisdiction only, except in cases 
 hereinafter provided, which jurisdiction 
 shall extend to all cases when the matter 
 in dispute shall exceed five hundred dollars. 
 
 The question under consideration at the 
 adjournment was the motion of Mr. Lewis 
 to amend said section by inserting after 
 the word " jurisdiction," in the second line, 
 the words "on questions of law." 
 
 On motion the order of the day was laid 
 on the table, subject to call. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff, chairman of the commit- 
 fee on contingent expenses, submitted the 
 following resolution, and the same was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Resolved, that the committee on contin- 
 gent expenses be authorized to issue war- 
 rants in favor of, viz : 
 
 J. Demornell for the sum of two hundred 
 and fifty dollars; 
 
 One in favor of Major Galley, command- 
 ing New Orleans battalioa of artillery, for 
 the sum of one hundred and six dollars and 
 eighty cents; 
 
 One in favor of Conrey & Co. for the 
 sum of sixty-seven dollars and fifty cents; 
 
 One in favor of Rufus Fernandez, jr. for 
 the sum of four hundred and ninety-six dol- 
 lars and thirty-seven cents; 
 
 One in favor of the wardens of the church 
 of St. Louis, of the city of New Orleans; 
 for the sum of ninety dollars* 
 
 One in favor of P. H. Mousseau for the 
 sum of eighty dollars; 
 
 One in favor of A. Formes, for the sum 
 twenty-two dollars. 
 
 One in favor of Besangon, Ferguson & 
 Co., editors of the Jeffersonian, for the sum 
 of eight dollars. 
 
 Mr. Eustis moved that the Convention 
 adjourn till Monday next at 9 o'clock, a 
 m. The yeas and nays being called for 
 (Mr. Taylor of Assumption, in the cair 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Carriere 
 Cenas, Claiborne, Cnlbertson, Eustis, Gar- 
 rett, Guion, Humble, King, Lewis, Mart 
 ny, Prescott of Avoyelles, Ratliff, Roma 
 Soule, Stephens, Taylor of Assumptio 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Wederstrandt an 
 Wikoff voted in the affirmative — 22 yeas 
 and 
 
 Messrs, Aubert, Bourg, Brent, Burton, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Dunn, Hynson, Mc 
 Callop, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott 
 St. Landry, Preston, Pugh, Scott of Feli 
 ciana and Sellers voted in the negative— 
 17 nays; consequently said motion was 
 carried, end the Convention adjourned till 
 Monday at 9 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note. — Members abent at the first call 
 of the house: Messrs. Cade, Chinn, Der- 
 bes, Downs, O'Bryan, Penn, Read, Scott 
 of Baton Ruge, Scott of Madison, Voorhies, 
 Waddill and Winder absent on leave; Mr. 
 Porclie absent on account of illness; and 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, Guion, Labauve, 
 Ledoux, Legendre, Matigny, Mazureau, 
 Preston, Roman, Roselius, St. Amqhd, 
 Saunders, Splane, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Trist, Wikoff and Winchester did not an- 
 swer to their harries. 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 225 
 
 Note, — Absent at the second call: Messrs'. 
 Benjamin, Boudousquie, Claiborne, Con- 
 •ad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Grymes, Guion, Kenner, Labauve, 
 LeiJottx, Legendre, Marigny, Preston, Ro- 
 ;elius, St, Amand, Splane, Trist, Wikoff 
 md Winchester. 
 Note. — Absent at the third call: Messrs. 
 anjamin, Boudousquie, Cenas, Claiborne, 
 Jourad of New Orleans- Conrad of Jeffer- 
 on, Garcia, Grymes, Kenner, Labauve, 
 ^edoux, Legendre, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 toseliuSj St. Amand, Soule, Splane, Trist, 
 Vadsworth, Wikoff and Winchester. 
 
 Monday, April 28, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 ournment. 
 
 In the absence of a minister of the gos- 
 pel, the Hon. Mr. Stepiiexs, at the re- 
 [uest of the president, opened the pro- 
 eedings with prayer, 
 
 The secretary reported the receipt of the 
 ■rinters for the report of the debates of the 
 6th and 17th instant. 
 
 On motion, Messrs. Soule, Sellers, Pres- 
 'ott of Avoyolles and Taylor of Assumption 
 were excused for non-attendance on ac- 
 ount of illness. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Section second of the majority report 
 n the judiciary. 
 
 Sec 2. The supreme court shall have 
 ippellate jurisdiction only, except in cases 
 ereinafter provided, which jurisdiction 
 hall extend to all cases when the matter 
 l dispute shall exceed five hundred dollars. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to amend said section 
 >y adding at the end of the same the fol- 
 3 wing amendment, viz : 
 
 "The legislature may limit the jurisdic- 
 on of the supreme court to questions of 
 iw only, in such cases as shall be deter- 
 lined by law." 
 
 The yeas and^ nays being called for, on 
 fe adoption of said amendment, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Car- 
 iere, Chambliss, Conrad, CovUlion, Guion, 
 fumble, Hynson, Lewis, McRae, Mayo, 
 'ects, Porter, Pugh, Seott of Feliciana 
 nd Taylor of St. Landry voted in the affir- 
 lative — IS yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie\ 
 iourg, Brumfield, Cenas, Claiborne, Dunn, 
 <ustis, Garrett, Grymes, King, Legendre, 
 kCallop, Marigny, Mazureau. Prudhom- 
 29 
 
 me, Ratliff, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Splane, Stephens, 
 Wederirandt Wikoff and Winder voted in 
 the negative — 27 nays; consequently said 
 motion was lost, and the amendment was 
 rejecled. 
 
 Mr. Lewis then offered on behalf of Mr. 
 Taylor of Assumption, the following as 
 substitute to said section, viz : 
 
 '"The supreme court shall have eivil and 
 criminal jurisdiction on appeals or writs of 
 error in such cases as the legislature may 
 direct, which shall be exercised in the 
 manner prescribed by law;" which substi- 
 tute was rejected." 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to amend said section 
 by striking out in the last line the word 
 "five," and insert in lieu thereof the word 
 "three." The yeas and nays being called 
 for, 
 
 .Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, Bur- 
 ton, Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, Dunn, 
 Garrett, Humble, Hynson, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh. Ratljff, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scot I 
 of Feliciana, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Wederstrandt, Wikoff and 
 Winder voted in the affirmative- — -27 
 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Eustis, Grymes, Guion, King, Le- 
 gendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, Ro- 
 man, Roselius and St. Amand voted in the 
 negative — 18 nays; consequently said mo- 
 tion was carried. 
 
 On motion, the section as amended was 
 adopted, viz : 
 
 Sec. 2. The supreme court shall have 
 appellate jurisdiction only except in cases 
 hereinafter provided, which jurisdiction 
 shall extend to all cases where the matter 
 in dispute shall exceed three hundred 
 dollars". 
 
 Section twenty-second was taken up and 
 adopted, viz : 
 
 Sec. 22. The clerks of the several 
 courts shall be removable for breach of 
 good behavior, by the judges thereof, sub- 
 ject in all cases, to an appeal to the su- 
 preme court. 
 
 Mr. Coxkad of* Orleans gave notice that 
 he will on Wednesday, move to recon- 
 sider the vote rejecting the substitute offer- 
 ed by Mr. Claiborne, providing that the 
 executive shall send to the senate the 
 
226 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 names of all judges whose term of service 
 shall have expired. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne gave notice that he 
 will on Wednesday next, move to recon- 
 sider the vote adopting the first section of 
 article fourth. 
 
 Mr. Mayo gave notice that he will on 
 Wednesday next, move to reconsider the 
 vote adopting the eleventh and twelfth 
 sections of article fourth. 
 
 Mr. Porter submitted the following ad- 
 ditional sections, viz : 
 
 Sec. — . Clerks in the district courts in 
 this State, shall be elected by the qualified 
 electors in each parish, for the term of 
 years, and should a vacancy occur 
 subsequent to an election, it shall be filled 
 by the judge of the court in which such 
 vacancy exists, and the person so appoint- 
 ed shall hold his office until the next gene- 
 ral election. 
 
 Sec. — . A sheriff shall be elected in 
 each parish by the qualified voters thereof, 
 who shall hold his office for the term of 
 two years, unless sooner removed ; and 
 who shall not be eligible to serve either as 
 principle or deputy for the two succeeding 
 years. Should a vacancy occur subse- 
 quent to an election, it shall be filled by the 
 governor, and the person so appointed 
 shall continue in office until the next 
 general election. 
 
 Sec — . All other parish officers shall 
 be elected by the qualified electors of the 
 different parishes, in such manner as shall 
 be prescribed by law. 
 
 Mr. Conrad moved that the above sec- 
 tions be laid on the table, and made the 
 special order of the day for Wednesday 
 next, and that they be printed. . 
 
 Mr. Brent moved for a division, that is, 
 to take up each section separately, which 
 motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Conrad then moved that the first 
 section be laid on the table, and made the 
 special order of the day for Wednesday 
 next, and that the same be printed^ which 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Humble moved to fill the blank in 
 the first section with the word "two." 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved to fill the blank 
 in said section with the word "four." 
 
 Mr. Cenas moved to fill the blank with 
 the word "six." The yeas and nays be- 
 ing called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 
 Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Eustis, Guion, Legendre, Mazureau, Pugh, 
 Roman, Roselius, Splane, Taylor of St. 
 Landry and Wadsworth voted in the af- 
 firmative- — 16 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, Covil- 
 lion, Dunn, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, 
 King, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, 
 Peets, Porter, Prudhomme, RatlifF, St. 
 Amantd, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Stephens, Wederstrandt, 
 Wikoffand Winder voted in the negative — 
 29 nays; consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mi\*Garrett then moved to fill the 
 blank with "four." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudous- 
 quie, Bourg, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, 
 King, Lewis, Peets, Prudhomme, Pugh. 
 Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, 
 Splane, Taylor of St. Landry, Wadsworth, 
 Wikoff and Winder voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 25 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brnmfield, 
 Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion. 
 Humble, Hynson, Legendre, McCallop, 
 McRae, Mayo, Mazureau, Porter, Ratliffj 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Stephens and Wederstrandt voted in the 
 negative — 20 nays ; consequently said mo- 
 tion was carried, and the blank filled with 
 the word "four." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the motion to adopt the first section as 
 amended, viz: 
 
 Sec. — . Clerks of the district courts in 
 this State, shall be elected by the qualified 
 electors in each parish for the term of four 
 years; and should a vacancy occur subse- 
 quent to an election, it shall be filled by 
 the judge of the court in which such vacan- 
 cy exists, and the person so appointed shall 
 hold his office until the next general elec- 
 tion — resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Bra%eale, Brent, Brumfidd, 
 Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, Covillon, 
 Dunn, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, McCal- 
 lop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prud* 
 homme, Ratliff, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Stephens, Wed- 
 erstrandt and Wikoff voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 24 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 
Journal of the Contention of Louisiana. 227 
 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Eustis, Guion, 
 King, Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Pugh, 
 Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Splane, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, PPiadsworth and Win- 
 der voted in the negative — 22 nays; con- 
 sequently said motion was carried, and the 
 section as amended was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth then gave notice that 
 he will, on Wednesday next, move to re- 
 consider the vote adopting said section. 
 
 Mr. Garrett submitted the following 
 ldditional section, and the same was rejec- 
 :ed, viz: 
 
 "Clerks of courts shall be required to 
 jive bond and security in the manner to be 
 letermined by law, before entering upon 
 he discharge of their official duties." 
 
 The second additional section offered 
 >y Mr. Porter was taken up, viz: 
 
 Sec. A sheriff shall be elected in each 
 >arish by the qualified voters thereof, who 
 hail hold his office for the term of two 
 r ears, unless sooner removed; and who 
 hall not be eligible to serve either as prin- 
 ipal or deputy, for the two succeeding 
 r ears. Should a vacancy occur subse- 
 ts en t to an election, it shall be filled by 
 he governor, and the person so appointed 
 hall continue in office until the next gen- 
 ral election. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to amend said section 
 y striking out the words "and who shall 
 ot be eligible to serve either as principal 
 r deputy for the two succeeding years." 
 ?he yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Bourg, Brazedle. Brent, 
 Irumfield, Burton, ChambUss, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Covillion, Dunn, Eus- 
 's, Guion, Humble, Hynson, King, Le~ 
 endre, Lewis, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, 
 D cets, Porter, PrudJiomme, Ratliff, Ro- 
 utn, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Fe- 
 Iciana, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. 
 iandry, WederstranJt,Wikoff and Winder 
 oted in the affirmative — 34 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Cenas, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Garrett, McCallop, 
 lazureau, Pugh, Roselius, Saunders and 
 Vadsworth voted in the negative — 11 
 ays; consequently said motion was car- 
 ied. 
 
 31 r. Eustis moved to lay on the table 
 abject to call, the said section; which mo- 
 on was lost. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans moved to 
 
 amend said section, by adding to the same 
 the following proviso, viz: 
 
 Provided, That if any sheriff should 
 fail to pay over any moneys of the State 
 collected by him, the parish for which he 
 was elected, shall be responsible for the de- 
 ficiency. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved that said proviso be 
 laid on the table indefinitely. 
 
 And pending the discussion on said mo- 
 tion, the Convention adjourned until to- 
 morrow, at nine o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note — Members absent at the first call 
 of the house — Messrs. Beatty,Cade,Chinn, 
 Derbes, Downs, Hudspeth, O'Bryan, 
 Penn, Read, Scott of Madison, Voorhies, 
 Waddill and Winder absent on leave — 
 Messrs. Porche, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Soule, Sellers and Taylor of Assumption, 
 absent on account of illness — and Messrs. 
 Benjamin, Brumfield, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Eustis, Garcia, 
 Grymes, Guion, Kenner, Labauve, Le- 
 doux, Marigny, Preston, Roselius, St. 
 Amand, Splane, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Trist, Wadsworth, Wikoff and Winchester 
 did not answer to their names. 
 
 Note — Members absent at the second 
 call of the house — Messrs. Benjamin.Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Eus- 
 tis, Garcia, Grymes, Guion, Kenner, La- 
 bauve, Ledoux, Preston, Roselius, St. 
 Amand, Splane, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Trist, Wadsworth, Wikoff and Winches, 
 ter did not answer to their names at the 
 second call. 
 
 Tuesday, April 29, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Warren opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 The secretary reported the receipt of 
 the printers for the report of the jdebates 
 of the 17th inst. 
 
 This being the day fixed to reconsider 
 the vote laying on the table subject to call, 
 the resolution allowing mileage to mem- 
 bers, 
 
 Mr. Humble moved for the reconsidera- 
 tion; the yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Bruin, 
 field, Burton, Chambliss, Chinn, Covillion, 
 Culbertson, Dunn, Humble, Hynson, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Mayo, Peels, Penn, Porter, 
 
228 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 PrescoU of St. Landry, Ratliff, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Voorhies, Wederslrandt, and Wikoff voted 
 in the affirmative — 29 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Boudousquie, Bourg, 
 Carriere, Eustis, Guion, Kenner, King, 
 Legendre, Lewis, Maznreau, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Roman, Saunders, Winchester and 
 Winder votedHn thnegative— -17 nays; con- 
 sequently the motion was carried, and the 
 resolution was taken up, viz : 
 
 ''-Resolved, That the committee on con- 
 gent expenses be instructed to inquire into 
 and ascertain the amount of mileage due to 
 each member of this body, for his travel- 
 ing to and returning home from the Con- 
 vention in New Orleans, and direct the 
 payment of the same." 
 
 To which resolution Mr, BEATT-y had 
 offered the following amendment, viz: 
 
 "And that the committee report to the 
 Convention." 
 
 Mr. Guion moved the adoption of the 
 amendment, which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Kenner then offered the following 
 amendment, viz : 
 
 "Provided that when the member lives 
 farther from New Orleans than from the 
 town of Jackson, but when the member 
 lives nearer to New Orleans than to Jack- 
 son no additional mileage shall be allow-_ 
 ed." 
 
 Mr. Guion moved to lay the whole sub- 
 ject on the table indefinitely; and the yeas 
 and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Boudousquie, Brazeale, 
 Brent, B riant, Carriere, Conrad of New 
 Orleans, Eustis, Guion, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, 
 Penn, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Wads- 
 worth, Wikoff, Winchester and Winder 
 voted in the affirmative — 23 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, Cham- 
 bliss, Chinn, Claiborne, Couvillon, Cul- 
 bertson,Dunn, Humble, Hynson, McCallop, 
 McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Porter, 
 PrescoU of St. Landry, Ratliff, Read, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Splanc, Stephens, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill and Weder- 
 strandt voted in the negative — 30 nays; 
 consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved to lay the proviso 
 offered by Mr Kenner on the table indefi- 
 nitely, the yeas and nays being called for 
 
 Messrs. Briant, Brumfield, Burton, 
 Chambliss, Chvnn, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 Dunn, Humble, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry 
 Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Saunders, Scoti 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Splane,] 
 Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, Trisi, 
 Voorhies, Waddill Wederslrandt and Wi- 
 koff voted in the affirmative— -29 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs Aubert, Boudousquie, Brazeale^ 
 Brent, Carriere, Cenas, Claiborne, Eustis, 
 Guion, Hynson, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Lewis, Mazureau, Penn, Pugh, 
 Roman, Wadsworth, Winchester and Win- 
 der voted in the negative — 22 nays; conse- 
 quently the motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff then moved for the adop- 
 tion of the resolution; the yeas and nays 
 being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, Cham- 
 bliss, Chinn, Covillion, Culbertson, Dunn, 
 Humble, McCallop, McRae, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescoit of St. Landry, Ratliff, Read,$aun~ 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Felici- 
 ana, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Voorhies, Waddill and Wederstrandt, 
 voted in the affirmative — 25 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs, Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Carriere, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Eustis, Gar- 
 rett, Guion, Hynson, Kenner, King, La- 
 bauve, Legendre^ Lewis, Mayo, Mazareau, 
 Penn, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Trist, 
 Wadsworth, Wikoff, Winchester and Win- 
 der voted in the negative — 29 nays conse. 
 quently the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Mayo offered the following resolu- 
 tion, viz : 
 
 Resolved, That mileage be paid to mem- 
 bers who reside further from New Orleans 
 than Jackson, for the additional distance to 
 and from their residence, to New Orleans; 
 and for those who live nearer New Orleans 
 than Jackson, such sum shall be paid them 
 as mileage in addition to what has already 
 been paid to them, as will make the whole 
 mileage to such members, equal to full 
 mileage for going and returning from Jack- 
 son to New Orleans. 
 
 Mr. Waddill moved to lay said resolu- 
 tion on the table, which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved for the adoption of the 
 resolution, and the yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Ce- 
 nas, Chambliss, Chinn, Covillion, CidberU 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 229 
 
 Son, Dunn, Humble, Garrett, Hynson,Lewis, 
 McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, 
 Porter, Prescott of St.Landry, Rail iff, Read. 
 Saunders, Scott of Feliciana, Splane, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, Voor- 
 hies, Wederstrandt and Wikoff voted in 
 the affirmative — 31 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Brazeale, Carriere, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jeffer$on,Eustis,Gicion, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, Mazu- 
 reau, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Waddill, Wadsworth and 
 Winder voted in the negative — 22 nays ; 
 consequently said motion was carried, and 
 the resolution was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Marigny gave notice that he will 
 incorporate in the general provisions, an 
 additional section, providing that the sec- 
 retary of the senate and the clerk of the 
 house of representatives shall speak the 
 French and English languages. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 The following section, offered by Mr. 
 Porter, viz : 
 
 Sec. 2. A sheriff shall be elected in 
 each parish, by the qualified voters there- 
 j of, who shall hold his office for the term of 
 two years, unless sooner removed; should 
 ■ a vacancy occur subsequent to an election, 
 it shall be filled by the governor, and the 
 person so appointed shall continue in office 
 until his successor be elected and qualified. 
 
 To which section, Mr. Coxrad of Or- 
 leans had offered the following proviso, 
 viz : 
 
 " Provided, That if any sheriff should 
 fail to pay over any moneys of the State 
 collected by him, the parish for which he 
 was elected shall be responsible fbr the 
 deficiency." 
 
 Mr. Coxrad of Orleans, moved for the 
 adoption of the proviso; the yeas and nays 
 being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Bourg, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Legendre, Mazu- 
 rcau, Pugh, Yoorhies and Wadsicorth voted 
 in the affirmative — 9 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Briant, Brumjield, Burton, Carriere, 
 C?nas, Chambliss, Chinn, Covillion, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, 
 King, Labauve, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, 
 Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 
 Feliciana, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Trist, Waddill, Wederstrandt, 
 Wikoff and Winder voted in the negative 
 — -41 nays ; consequently said motion 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Porter then moved for the adoption 
 of the section ; the yeas and nays being- 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Briant, Brumfield, Barton, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Dunn, Garreit.Guion, 
 Humble, Hynson, Kenner, Lewis, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, 
 Penn, Porter, Prescott of St Landry, Prud- 
 homme, Ratliff, Read, Saunders, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Stephens, 
 Trist, Yoorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt, 
 Wiloff and Winder voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 37 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Eustis, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Mazureau, Pugh,Roman. Splane, 
 Taylor of St. Landry and Wadsworth 
 voted in the negative — 18 nays ; conse- 
 quently said motion was carried. 
 
 Section third, offered by Mr. Porter, 
 was taken up, viz : 
 
 Sec. 3. All parish officers not otherwise 
 provided for by this constitution, shall be 
 elected by the qualified electors of the dif- 
 ferent parishes, in such manner as shall be 
 prescribed by law. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to amend said section 
 by striking out the words " elected by the 
 qualified electors of the different parishes," 
 and insert in lieu thereof the word "ap- 
 pointed;" which amendment was lost. 
 
 Mr. Cexas moved to lay the section and 
 amendment on the table, subject to call; 
 which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Porter then moved for the adoption 
 of the section; and the yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Brum- 
 jield, Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, Covil- 
 lion, Dunn, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Penn, Por- 
 ter, Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, 
 Ratliff, Read, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Stephens, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt and Wi- 
 koff voted the affirmative — 31 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Eu*' : *\ 
 
230 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Guion, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, 
 Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, 
 Splane, Taylor of St. Landry, Wadsworth, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the nega- 
 tive — 25 nays; consequently said motion 
 was carried, and the section was adopted. 
 
 On motion, the Convention took up arti- 
 cle sixth. 
 
 ARTICLE SIX GENERAL PROVISIONS. 
 
 Sec. 1. Members of the general assem- 
 bly, and all officers, executive and judicial, 
 before they enter upon the execution of 
 their respective offices, shall take the fol- 
 lowing oath or affirmation; "I, (A. B.) do 
 solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faith- 
 fully and impartially discharge and perform 
 all the duties incumbent on me as — — , 
 according to the best of my abilities and 
 understanding, agreeably to the rules and 
 regulations of the constitution and laws of 
 this State. So help me God!" 
 
 On motion of Mr. Lewis, said article 
 was laid on the table subject to call. 
 
 Section second was taken up and adopt- 
 ed, viz : 
 
 Sec. 2. Treason against the State shall 
 consist only in levying war against it, or 
 in adhering to its enemies, giving them aid 
 and comfort. No person shall be convict- 
 ed of treason, unless on the testimony of 
 two witnesses to the same overt act, or his 
 own confession in open court. 
 
 Section third was taken up and adopted, 
 viz : 
 
 Sec. 3. Every person shall be forever 
 disqualified from serving as governor, sen- 
 ator or representative, and from holding 
 any other office of trust or profit in this 
 State, who shall have been convicted of 
 having given, or offered any bribe to pro- 
 cure his election or appointment. 
 
 Section fourth was taken up and adopt- 
 ed, viz: 
 
 Sec. 4. Laws shall be made to exclude 
 from office and from the right of suffrage, 
 those who shall hereafter be convicted of 
 bribery, perjury, forgery, or other high 
 crimes : or misdemeanors. The privilege 
 of free suffrage shall pe supported bylaws 
 regulating elections, and prohibiting under 
 adequate penalties, all undue influence 
 thereon, from power, bribery, tumult or 
 other improper practices. 
 
 Section fifth was taken up and adopted, 
 viz : 
 
 Sec, 5. No money shall be drawn from 
 
 the Treasury but in pursuance of specific 
 appropriations made by law; nor shall any 
 appropriation of money for the support of 
 an army be made for a longer term than 
 one year. A regular statement and account 
 of the receipts and expenditures of all pub- 
 lic money shall be published annually, in 
 such manner as shall be|prescribed by law. 
 
 Section sixth was then taken up and 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 6. It shall be the duty of the Gen- 
 eral Assembly to pass such laws as may 
 be necessary and proper to decide differ- 
 ences by arbitrators, to be appointed by 
 the parties who may choose that summary 
 mode of adjustment. 
 
 Section seventh was taken up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 7. All civil officers for the State at 
 large shall reside within the State, and all 
 district or parish officers within their re- 
 spective districts or parishes, and shall 
 keep their respective offices at such places 
 therein as may be required by law. And 
 no person shall be elected or appointed to 
 any district or parish office who shall not 
 have resided in such district or parish long 
 enough before such election, or appoint- 
 ment, to have acquired the right of voting 
 for representatives to the general assembly, 
 in such district or parish. 
 
 Mr. Eustis moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by striking out all of the last para- 
 graph commencing at the word "and" in 
 the fifth line. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans moved to amend 
 said amendment by striking out in the 
 sixth line the words "district or." The 
 yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Guion, Kenner, King, Legendre, Marigny, 
 Mazureau, Roman, Saunders, Wadsworth 
 and Winchester voted in the affirmative— 
 20 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Covillion, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, La- 
 bauve, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, 
 Peets, Penn,Porter, Prescottof St. Landry, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, Trtet, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt, WikotT 
 and Winder, voted in the negative — 36 
 nays; consequently said ^motion was lost. 
 
Journal of the Con ven tion of Louisiana. 231 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by inserting after the word ** district" 
 in the seventh line, the words " next 
 adjoining or contiguous." The yeas and 
 nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Kenner, 
 King, Labauve, Legendre, Marigny, Mazu- 
 reau, Pugh, Roman, Saunders, Wadsworth 
 and Winchester voted in the affirmative — 
 24 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Covillion, Humble, Hynson; Lewis, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Penn, Porter, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Rat- 
 liff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott„of 
 Feliciana, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Weder- 
 strandt, Wikoff and Winder voted in the 
 negative — 33 nays ; consequently said mo- 
 tion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Lewis then moved for the adoption 
 of the section. The yeas and nays being 
 ailed for, 
 
 Messrs. Bourg,. Brazeale, Brent, Briant> 
 Brumfield, Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Covillion, Garfett, Humble, Hynson, La- 
 bauve, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, 
 Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Weder- 
 strandt, Wikoff and Winder voted in the 
 affirmative — 37 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Guion, Kenner, King, Le- 
 gendre, Marigny, Mazureau, Roman,Wads- 
 worth and Winchester voted in the nega- 
 tive — 20 nays; consequently said motion 
 was carried, and the section was adopted, 
 as follows, viz: 
 
 Sec. 7. All civil officers for the State 
 at large shall reside within the State, and 
 all district or parish officers within their 
 respective districts or parishes, and shall 
 keep their respective offices at such places 
 therein as may be required by law; and no 
 personshall be elected or appointed to any 
 district or parish office, who shall not have 
 resided in such district or parish long 
 
 enough before such election or appoint- 
 ment, to have acquired the right of voting 
 for representatives to the general assem- 
 bly in such district or parish. 
 
 Section eighth was taken up, viz : 
 Sec. 8. The legislature shall determine 
 the duration of the several public offices, 
 when such duration shall not have been 
 fixed by this constitution; Provided, that 
 such time shall never exceed four years, 
 except notaries public, whose time of of- 
 fice may be extended to seven years; and 
 all civil officers, except the governor and 
 judges of the superior and inferior courts, 
 shall be removable by an address of a ma- 
 jority of the members of both houses, ex- 
 cept those the removal of whom has been 
 otherwise provided for by this constitution.. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to amend said section 
 by striking out the words "except notaries 
 public, whose time of office may be ex- 
 tended to seven years;" which motion pre- 
 vailed. 
 
 On motion the first paragraph of said 
 section was adopted, viz: 
 
 The legislature shall determine the du- 
 ration of the several public offices, where 
 such duration shall have been fixed by this 
 constitution. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth moved to amend the 
 second paragraph by striking out the words 
 "provided that such time shall never ex- 
 ceed four years." The yeas and nays be- 
 ing called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie,, 
 Bourg, Briant, Cenas, Chambliss, Conrad 
 cf Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Claiborne, 
 Culbertson, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Kenner, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Marigny, Mayo, Ma- 
 zureau, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Saun- 
 ders, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, Wads- 
 worth, Wikoff, Winchester and Winder 
 voted in the affirmative — 29 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Carriere, Covillion, Dunn, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, King, Lewis, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Splane, Stephens, Voorhies, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in the 
 negative — 25 nays; consequently said mo- 
 tion was carried. 
 
 On the motion to adopt the section as 
 amended, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Boudousquie, Bourg. 
 Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 
232 Journal of tha Conv 
 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Eustis, Garrett, 
 Guion, Kenner, King, Labaove, Legen- 
 dre, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Prudhom- 
 me, Roman, Saunders, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Trist, Wadsworth, Winchester, Win- 
 der voted in the affirmative — 26 yeas; and 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 Dunn, Humble, Hynson, Lewis, McCal- 
 iop, McRae, Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Ba- 
 ton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Splane, Ste- 
 phens, Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt 
 and Wikoff voted in the negative — 27 nays. 
 The president being called upon to vote, 
 voted in the negative; consequently said 
 motion was lost, and the section as 
 amended was rejected. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow at 9 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note. — Members abent at the first call: 
 Messrs. Beatty, Cade, Derbes, Downs, 
 Hudspeth, O'Bryan, Penn, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Read, Scott of Madison, Ab- 
 sent on leave. Messrs. Porche, Soule, 
 Sellers and Taylor of Assumption, absent 
 on account of illness. Messrs. Benjamin, 
 Brumfield, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborng, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Eus- 
 tis, Garcia, Grymes, Guion, Kenner, La- 
 bauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Mazureau, Porter, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Ratliff, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, 
 Saunders, Splane, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Trist, Wadsworth, Wikoff and Winchester 
 did not answer to their names. 
 
 Note. — Members absent at second call 
 of the house : Messrs. Benjamin, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Eustis, Garcia, 
 Grymes, Guion, Kenner, Labauve, Le- 
 doux, Legendre, Marigny, Mazureau, Pres- 
 ton, Roselius, St. Amand and Trist. 
 
 Monday, ApriF30, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 In the absence of a minister of the gos- 
 pel, the honorable Mr. Stephens, opened 
 the proceedings with prayer. 
 
 On motion leave of absence was granted 
 to Messrs. Scott of Feliciana and Penn. 
 
 Mr. Brent having voted in the majority 
 moved to reconsider the vote rejecting the 
 eighth section, which motion prevailed, 
 and said section was taken up, viz; 
 
 y ention of Louisiana* 
 
 Sec. 8. The legislature shall determine 
 the duration of the several public offices, 
 when such duration shall not have been fix- 
 ed by this Constitution; Provided that such 
 time shall never exceed four years except 
 notaries public, whose time of office may 
 be extended to seven years; and all civil 
 officers, except the governor and judges of 
 the supreme and district courts, shall be re- 
 movable by an address of a majority of 
 the members of both houses, except those, 
 the removal of whom, has been otherwise 
 provided for by this Constitution. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth moved to amend said 
 section by striking out in the fourth line, 
 the words, "provided that such duration 
 shall never exceed four years." The yeas 
 and nays being called for 
 
 JMessrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourgj Briant, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Eustis, Guion, Kenner, King, La- 
 bauve, Legendre, Marigny, Mazureau, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, 
 Wadsworth, Winchester and Winder voted 
 in the affirmative — 22 yeas, and 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Car- 
 riere, Chambliss, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 Dunn, Humble, Hynson, Lewis, McCah 
 lop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott 
 of St. Landry, Preston, Ratliff, Read, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Stephens, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Weder- 
 strandt and Wikoff voted in the negative— 
 28 nays; consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Mayo then moved to amend said 
 section, by striking out, in the fifth and 
 sixth lines the words, " except notaries 
 public, whose time of office may be extend- 
 ed to seven years." The yeas and nays 
 being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 Dunn, Guion, Humble, Hynson,King, Lew- 
 is, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Ratliff, 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Stephens, Tay- 
 lor of St. Landry, Yoorhies, Waddill, Wed- 
 estrandt, Wikoff and Winder voted in the 
 affirmative— 30 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Culbertson, Eustis, Kenner, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Marigny, Mazureau, Prudhom- 
 me, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, Trist and 
 Winchester voted in the negative — 20 nays, 
 consequently said motion was carried. 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 233 
 
 Mr. Mayo then moved for the adoption 
 of the section as amended, viz : 
 
 Sec. 8. The legislature shall determine 
 the duration of the several public officeis, 
 when such duration shall not have been 
 fixed bv this constitution : provided that 
 such time shall never exceed four years, 
 and all the civil officers except the gover- 
 nor and judges of the supreme and district 
 courts, shall be removable by an address of 
 the members of both houses, except those 
 the removal of whom has been otherwise 
 ; provided for by this Convention. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Chambliss, Claiborne, Cov- 
 illion. Culberfson. Dunn, Guion. Humble, 
 Hynson, Kenner, Labauve, Lewis, Mc Gal- 
 lop, McRae. Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott 
 of St. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, Pvgli. 
 Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, Veor- 
 hies, WaddUl Wederstrandt, "Wikoff, and 
 TVmder voted in the affirmative — 36 yeas : 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Briant, Conrad of Orleans, Eustis, King. 
 Legendre, Marigny, Mauzreau. Roman, St. 
 Amand and \ttnchester voted in the nega- 
 tive — 13 nays* consequently said motion 
 was carried and the section was adopted. 
 
 This being the day fixed for the recon- 
 sideration of the vote adopting the first 
 section of the article on the judiciary de- 
 partment, on motion the same was laid 
 on the table subject to call. 
 
 This being the day fixed to reconsider 
 the vote adopting the 11th and 12th sec- 
 tions on the judiciary, the same was laid 
 on the table subject to call. 
 
 This being the day fixed to reconsider 
 the vote rejecting the substitute offered bv 
 Mr. Eustis to Mr. Claiborne, the same was 
 laid on the table subj ect to call. 
 
 This being the day fixed to reconsider 
 die k vote adopting the additional section 
 offered by Air. Porter, relative to clerks 
 of courts, the same was laid on the table 
 subject to call. 
 
 Communication of Mr. Marigny. 
 
 A few days ago I laid apon the desk a 
 section to be inserted under the head of 
 general pro visions. The object of the sec- 
 tion was to empower the legislature to ex- 
 tend the right of citizenship to persons of 
 . 30 
 
 1 colored origin, whenever required by the 
 Ipublic interest.. 
 
 But public opion being against the meas- 
 | ure, and many of the members ofthe Con- 
 i vention who seemed to approve of it, hav- 
 ; ing since expressed themselves against it. 
 I am now satisfied that it would be rejected. 
 I I believe it is my duty to withdraw it. 
 ' I trust that the members of the Con- 
 vention of the State at larffe will do me 
 the justice to believe that my motives 
 : were pure. I thought that it was proper to 
 i grant to the legislature a power that it was 
 I not likely would be abused, and the exer- 
 cise of which might, undei certain circnm- 
 ; stances, redound to the benefit of the State. 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 GENERAL PROVISIONS. 
 
 Sec 9. Absence on the business of this " 
 State, or of the L nited States, shall not for- 
 feit a residence once obtained, so as to de- 
 prive any one of the right of suifrage. or 
 of being elected or appointed to any office 
 under this State, under the exceptions con- 
 tained in this constitution. 
 
 Mr. Griox moved for the rejection oi 
 said section; the yeas and nays being cal- 
 led for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans. Guion, King, Legendre, Trist and 
 Voorhies voted in the arfirmative — 8 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs* Benjamin, Bourg, Brent, Bra- 
 zeale, Briant, Brumfield, Burton. Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Culbenson. Dunn, 
 Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, Labauve, 
 Lewis. McCailop, McRae. Marigny. Mayo, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Pre-s- 
 ro/2, Prudhomme. Pugh, Ratlijf, Read, Ro- 
 man, St. Amand, Scott of Baton Rouse, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of St. Landry, Tf'addill, 
 Wedestrandt. Wikof Winchester and IVin- 
 der voted in the negative — 40 nays: conse- 
 quently said motion was lost, and the sec- 
 tion was adopted. 
 
 Section tenth was taken up and adopted, 
 viz : 
 
 Sec. 10. It shall be the duty of the 
 cfeneral assembly to regulate, by law, in 
 what cases, and what deduction from the 
 salaries of public officers shall be made 
 for neglect of duty in their official capacitv. 
 
 Section eleventh was taken up and adopt- 
 ed, viz: 
 
 Sec. 11, Return? of all elections for mern 
 
234 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 bers of the general assembly shall be made 
 to the secretary of State, for the time being. 
 Section twelfth was taken up, viz : 
 Sec. 12. The legislature shall point out 
 the manner in which a person coming into 
 the country shall declare his residence. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved for the rejection of 
 said section; the yeas and nays being cal- 
 led for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Brum- 
 field, Carriere, Humble, Hynson, King, Me- 
 Rae, Mayo, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Ste- 
 phens, Trist, Waddill and Wederstrandt 
 voted in the affirmative — 18 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Cenas, Chambliss, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Covillion, Cul- 
 bertson, Dunn, Garrett, Guion, Kenner, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, Me Gallop, Mar- 
 igny Mazureau, Prudliomme, Pugh, Rat- 
 liff, Roman, St. Amand, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Wadsworth, Wikoff, Winchester and 
 Winder voted in the negative— —31 nays," 
 consequently said motion was lost, and the 
 section was adopted. 
 
 Section thirteenth was then taken up, 
 viz: 
 
 Sec. 13. In all elections by the people, 
 the vote shall be by ballot; and in all elec- 
 tions by the senate and house of represen- 
 tatives, jointly or separately, the vote shall 
 be given viva voce. 
 
 Mr. Preston moved to amend said sec- 
 tion, by striking out in the second line, the 
 words "by ballot," and inserting the words 
 "viva voce." The yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Garrett, Humble, McRae, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Preston, RatlifT, Read, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Wederstrandt, Wik- 
 off and Winchester voted in the affirmative 
 11 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Bryant, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Covillion, 
 Culbertson, Dunn, Guion, Hynson, Ken- 
 ner, King, LaBuave, Legendre, Lewis, 
 McCallop, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, 
 Porter, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, Stephens, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wadsworth, and Win- 
 der, voted in the negative— 40 nays; con* 
 sequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Chinn moved for the previous ques* 
 tion, which motion prevailed. 
 
 On motion, the thirteenth section was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 13. In all elections by the people, 
 the vole shall be by ballot; and in all elec- 
 tions by the senate and house of represen- 
 tatives, jointly or separately, the vote shall 
 be given viva voce. 
 
 Section fourteenth was taken up and 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec* 14. No member of congress, nor 
 person holding or exercising any office of 
 trust or profit under the United States, or 
 either of them, or any foreign power, shall 
 be eligible as a member of the general as- 
 sembly of this State, or hold or exercise 
 any office of trust or profit under the same. 
 
 Section fifteenth was taken up and adopt- 
 ed, viz: 
 
 Sec. 15. All laws that may be passed 
 by the legislature, and the public records 
 of this State, and the judicial and legisla- 
 tive written proceedings of the same, shall 
 be promulgated, preserved, and conducted 
 in the language in which the constitution 
 of the United States is written. 
 
 Section sixteenth was taken up and adopt- 
 ed, viz: 
 
 Sec. 16. The general assembly shall 
 direct by law, how persons who are now, 
 or may hereafter become securities for 
 public officers, may be relieved or dis- 
 charged on account of such securityship. 
 
 Section seventeenth was taken up and 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 17. No power of suspending the 
 laws of this State shall be exercised, unless 
 by the legislature or its authority. 
 
 Mr. Marigny called up the additional 
 section submitted by him, viz: 
 
 Sec. 18. The secretary of the senate, 
 and the clerk of the house of representa- 
 tives, shall possess the French and English 
 languages; and any member of the general 
 assembly may address either house in the 
 French or English language. 
 
 Mr. Marigny moved for the adoption of 
 said section. The yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin,Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Briant, Carriere, Conrad of Orleans 
 Covillion, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, McCallop, Marigny, Mazureau, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Pugh s Ro- 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 235 
 
 man, Scott of Baton Rouge, Trist, Voorhies, 
 Waddill, Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, and 
 Winchester voted the affirmative— 2 6 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, Bur- 
 ton, Chambliss, Chinn, Dunn, Garrett 
 
 < Guion, Humble, Hynson, Lewis, McRae, 
 Mayo, Porter, Preston, Ratliff, Read, Ste- 
 
 i phens, Taylor of St. Landry, and Wikoff 
 voted in the negative; 21 nays, consequent- 
 
 i lysaid motion was carried and the section 
 was adopted. 
 
 Section nineteenth was taken up, viz: 
 Sec. 19. In all criminal prosecutions, 
 
 f the accused shall have the right of being 
 heard by himself or counsel, of demanding 
 the nature and cause of the accusation 
 against him, of meeting the witnesses face 
 to face, of having compulsory process for 
 obtaining witnesses in his favor throughout 
 the State, and prosecution by indictment 
 or information; a speedy public trial, by 
 an impartial jury of the vicinage, nor shall 
 he be compelled to give evidence against 
 himself. 
 
 Mr. Pkeston moved to amend said sec- 
 \ tion, by striking out in the sixth line the 
 j words { throughout the State." The yeas 
 | and nays were called for, 
 
 Messrs, Bourg, Brent, Briant, Brum- 
 field, Cenas, Chinn, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Conrad, of Jefferson, Covillion, Garrett, 
 Humble, Hynson, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Prudhom- 
 me, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Roman, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Stephens, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 ; dry, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Wadsworth, 
 Wederstrandt, Wikoff, Winchester, and 
 Winder voted in the affirmative — 38 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Brazeale, 
 Burton, Chambliss, Dunn, Guion, Lewis, ] 
 McCallop, McRae, Marigny and Splane | 
 voted in the negative — 12 nays; conse- J 
 quently said motion was carried. 
 
 On motion, the section as amended was I 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 In all criminal prosecutions, the accused I 
 shall have the right of being heard, by 
 himself or counsel; of demanding the na- 
 ture and cause of the accusation against | 
 him; of meeting the witnesses face to face; 
 of having compulsory process for obtain- 
 ing witnesses in his favor, and prosecution 
 by indictment or information; a speedy 
 
 and public trial by an impartial jury of the 
 vicinage, nor shall he be compelled to give 
 evidence against himself. 
 
 Section twentieth was taken up and adopt- 
 ed, viz: 
 
 Sec. 20. All prisoners shall be bailable 
 by sufficient securities, unless for capital 
 offences, when the proof is evident, or pre- 
 sumption great; and the privilege of the 
 writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspen- 
 ded, unless when in case of rebellion or 
 invasion, the public safety may require it. 
 
 Section twenty-first was then taken up, 
 viz: 
 
 Sec. 21. No ex post facto law, nor 
 any law impairing the obligations of con- 
 tracts, shall be passed. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans, moved to 
 amend said section, by inserting the words 
 "or vested rights be divested." 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to amend the 
 amendment, by adding the words *j unless 
 for purposes of public utility, and for ade- 
 quate compensation previously made"— 
 which amendment was accepted by Mr. 
 Conrad, and the amendment, as amended, 
 was adopted. 
 
 On motion the section as amended was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 No ex post facto law, nor any law im- 
 pairing the obligations of contracts, shall 
 be passed, nor vested rights be divested, 
 unless for purposes of public utility, and 
 for adequate compensation, previously 
 made. 
 
 Section twenty-second was taken up and 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 22. Printing presses shall be free 
 to every person who may undertake to ex- 
 amine the proceedings of the legislature, 
 or any branch of the government, and no 
 law shall ever be made to restrain the right 
 thereof. The free communication of thouhts 
 and opinions is one of the invaluable rights 
 of man, and every citizen may freely speak, 
 write and print on any subject, being re- 
 sponsible for the abuse of that liberty. 
 
 Section twenty-third was taken up and 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 23. Emigration from the State 
 shall not be prohibited. 
 
 Section twenty-fourth was taken up, 
 viz: 
 
 Sec 24. The first general assemby to 
 be elected under this constitution, shall de- 
 termine upon the place where the seat of 
 
236 
 
 Journal of the Conve\ 
 
 mtion of Louisiana. 
 
 government of the State shall be pemanent- 
 ]y located, from and after the first day of 
 January, in the year one thousand eight 
 hundred and fifty-one. 
 
 Mr. 'Marigny moved for the adoption of 
 said section ; the yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Briant, 
 Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Guion, King, Legendre, 
 Marigny, Mazureau, Preston. Prudhomme, 
 Roman, St. Amand, Soule, Splans, Voor- 
 hies, Wadsworth and Winchester voted in 
 the affirmative — 21 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert,^Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Buiton, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Chirm, Covillion, Dunn, Garrett, Humble, 
 Kenner, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Pugh, 
 Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, Wad- 
 dill, Wederstrandt, WikofT and Winder 
 voted in the negative — -33 nays ; conse- 
 quently said motion was lost, and the sec- 
 tion was rejected. 
 
 Mr. Marigny gave notice that he will 
 on Friday, move to reconsider the vote re- 
 jecting the above section, and also the vote 
 adopting the section removing the seat of 
 government from the city of New Orleans. 
 
 On motion, the twenty-fifth section was 
 taken up, viz : 
 
 Sec. 25. The legislature shall not have 
 power or authority to pledge the faith of 
 the State as security for the payment of 
 any bonds, bills, or other contracts or obli- 
 gations*whatever, nor toborrow money for 
 any purpose whatever, except for defray- 
 ing the expenses of war, or for the purpose 
 of repelling an invasion of the State by an 
 armed force, or for suppressing an insur- 
 rection. 
 
 Mr. Cenas moved to amend said section 
 by adding to the same the following pro- 
 viso, rnd the same was adopted, viz : 
 
 Provided, that the State shall have the 
 right to. issue new bonds in payment of its 
 now outstanding obligations or liabilities, 
 whether due or not; the said bonds, how- 
 ever, to bear upon their face, either in prin- 
 ciple or interest, an amount less than the 
 original obligations they are intended to 
 replace. 
 
 On motion, the section as amended, was 
 adopted, viz : 
 
 Sec. 25. The legislature shall not have 
 
 power or authority to pledge the faith ot 
 the State as security for the payment of 
 any bonds, bills, other contracts or obli- 
 gations whatever, nor to borrow hioney for 
 any purpose whatever, except for defray- 
 ing the expenses of war, or for the pur- 
 pose of repelling an invasion of the State 
 by an armed force, or of suppressing an 
 insurrection. 
 
 Provided, that the State shall have the 
 right to issue new bonds in payment of its 
 now outstanding obligations or liabilities, 
 whether due or not; the said new bonds, 
 however, to bear upon their face, either in 
 principle or interest, an amount less than 
 the original obligations they are intended 
 to replace. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Roman, the vote 
 adopting said section, was reconsidered. 
 
 Mr. Guion then moved to amend said 
 section, by inserting after the word "insur- 
 rection," in the seventh line, the words 
 " or for the payment of the ordinary ex- 
 penses of the government, when there may 
 be a deficiency in the annual revenue." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the adoption of said amendment, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Dunn, Garrett, 
 Guion, King, Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Tay- 
 lor of St. Landry and Winchester voted in 
 the affirmative— 21 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 Garcia, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, 
 Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt, .Wikoff 
 and Winder voted in the negative— 32 
 nays; consequently said motion was lost. I 
 
 On motion-, the section was re-adopted. 
 
 Section twenty-sixth was taken up and 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 26. The legislature shall provide 
 by law for a change of venue in civil and 
 criminal cases. 
 
 Section twenty-seventh was taken up and 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 27. No lottery shell be authorized 
 by this State, and the buying and selling 
 of lottery tickets within the State shall be 
 j prohibited by law, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 23? 
 
 Section twenty-eighth was taken up and 
 tdopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 28. No divorce shall be granted 
 >y the legislature of this State. 
 * Section twenty-ninth was taken up. viz: 
 
 Sec. 29. Every law enacted by the le- 
 ;is!ature, shall embrace but one object, 
 nd that shall be expressed in the title. 
 ; The veas and Days being called for on 
 he motion to adopt said section, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Boudousquie, Bourg. 
 brazeale, Brent, Brumneld, Burton, Car- 
 jiere. Cenas, Chambliss, Claiborne, Co- 
 illion. Dunn, Eustis. Garcia. Guion. Hum- 
 le, Hynson, Legendre, Lewis. McRae, 
 klarigny. Mayo. Mazureau. Peers, Barter. 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, ^rrud- 
 iomme. Pugh, Read, St. Amand, Scott of 
 3aton Rouge, Stephens. Taylor of St. Lan- 
 ry. Trist, Voorhies. Waddill, Wadsworth, 
 Yederstrandt and Wikoff voted in the af- 
 urmative — il yeas: and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant. Conrad of 
 )rleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Garrett, 
 venner, King, Labauve, McCallop, Rat- 
 ify Roman, Roselius, Soule and Winches- 
 ,?r voted in the negative — 14 nays; conse- 
 quently said motion was carried and the 
 ection was adopted. 
 
 Section thirtieth was taken up and adop- 
 ed, viz : - 
 
 Sec 30. Every law of a general nature 
 hall be equally applicable to all parts of 
 ie State. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff save notice that he will 
 m. to-morrow move to reconsider the vote 
 kloffting the twenty-fourth section. 
 
 Mr. Bexjamix moved that the Conven- 
 Lon adjourn till to-morrow at 9 o'clock, a. 
 p. The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert. Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 ♦riant, Brumneld, Conrad of Orleans, 
 onrad of Jefferson, Eustis, Garcia, Guion, 
 tenner. Labauve, Legendre, .McCallop, 
 larigny, Mazureau. O'Bryan. Porter, 
 'rescott of St. Landry. Pugh. Ratliff, Ro- 
 ian, Roselius, Scott of Baton .Rouge, 
 loule, Stephens, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill. 
 jVadsworth, Wederstrandt and Winches- 
 ?r voted in the affirmative — 32 yeas: and 
 
 Messrs, Bourg. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 phambliss. Covillion, Dunn, Garrett. Hum. 
 le. Hynson, King. Lewis. McRae. Mayo, 
 Preston, Prudhomme, Read, Taylor of St. 
 .andry, and Wikoff voted in the negative 
 -19 nays; consequently said motion was 
 
 carried, and the Convention adjourned till 
 to-morrow at 9 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Xote. — Members absent at the first call 
 of the house: Messrs. Beatty. Cade.Derbes, 
 Downs, Hudspeth. O'Bryan. Penn. Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles, Scott of Madison, absent 
 on leave. Messrs. Porche. Sellers. Soule 
 and Taylor of Assumption, absent on ac- 
 count of illness; and Messrs. Benjamin. 
 Bourg. Carriere. Cenas. Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Culbertson, Eustis. Garcia, Grymes. Guion, 
 King. Labauve. Ledoux, Mariguy. Mazu- 
 reau, Preston, Pugh. Ratliff, Roselius. St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Splane. Taylor 6f St. 
 Landry, Voorhies. Wadsworth, Wikoff, 
 Winchester and Winder did not answer to 
 their names. 
 
 'Note. — Members absent at the second 
 call: Messrs. Benjamin, Cenas, Chinn, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, Guion, Ledoux, 
 Marigny. Mazureau. Preston, Ratliff, Ro- 
 selius^ St. Amand. Wadsworth, Winches- 
 ter and Winder did not answer to their 
 names. 
 
 Thursday. May 1, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 j ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Prestox opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 The president submitted the credentials 
 of William Dubouchel, the member elect 
 from the first senatorial district, to fill the 
 vacancy occasioned by the "death of the late 
 Hon. Gilbert Leonard. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Wadsworth Mr. Du- 
 bouchel took his seat. 
 
 The secretary reported the receipt of the 
 printers for the report of the debates of the 
 : 18th ult. v 
 
 On motion, leave of absence was grant- 
 j ed to Mr. Saunders. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to reconsider the vote 
 ] adopting the 29th section. The yeas and 
 ; nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale. Brent. Briant, Brum, 
 j field. Burton, Cade, Chambliss. Chinn, 
 I Culbertson. Dunn. Eustis, Garrett, Hum- 
 ble. Hynson. Kenner. King. Labuave. Le. 
 ; d9ux. Lewis. Mariguy, Mayo. Peets, Porter, 
 i Prescott of St. Landry. Prudhomme. Pugh, 
 ! Ratlin; Read. Roman. Scott of Baton 
 j Rouge, Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 I Trist. Voorhies. Waddill, Wadsworth, 
 
238 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Wederstrandt, Wikoff and Winder voted 
 in the affirmative— 39 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Bourg, Carriere, Clai- 
 borne, Covillion, Legendre and Mazureau 
 voted in the negative— 7 nays; consequent- 
 ly said motion was carried, and the section 
 was taken up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 29. Every law of a general na- 
 ture shall be equally applicable to all parts 
 of the State. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Mayo said section 
 was laid on the table subject to call. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff moved to reconsider the 
 vote adopting the twenty-fourth section, 
 which motion prevailed, and the said sec- 
 tion was taken up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 24. The legislature shall not have 
 power or authority to pledge the faith of 
 the State, as security for the payment of 
 any bonds, bills or other contracts or obli- 
 gations whatever; nor to borrow money for 
 any purposes whatever, except for defray- 
 ing the expenses of war, or for the purpose 
 of repelling an invasion of the State by an 
 armed force, or of suppressing an insurrec- 
 tion; provided, that the State shall have the 
 right to issue new bonds in payment of any 
 of its now outstanding obligations or liabili- 
 ties whether due or not, the said new bonds 
 however, to bear upon their face, either in 
 principal or interest, an amount less than 
 the original obligation they are intended to 
 replace. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Eustts said section 
 was laid on the table subject to call. 
 
 This being the day fixed for the taking 
 into consideration the reports of the com- 
 mittee of revision, the report of said com- 
 mittee on the seventh article was taken up, 
 viz : 
 
 The committee of revision report the fol- 
 lowing: 
 
 (Signed,) G. EUSTIS, 
 
 Chairman. 
 
 April 14, 1845. 
 
 ARTICLE VII. 
 
 MODE OF REVISING' THE CONSTITUTION. 
 
 Any amendment of amendments to this 
 constitution may be proposed in the senate 
 or house of representatives, and if the same 
 shall be agreed to by three-fifths' of the ; 
 members elected to each house, and ap- 
 proved by the governor, such proposed 
 amendment or amendments shall be enter- 
 ed on their journals, with the yeas and 
 nays taken thereon, and the secretary of 
 
 state shall cause the same to be published 
 three months before the next general elec 
 tion, in at least one newspaper, in FrencI 
 and English, in every parish in the Stati 
 in which a newspaper shall be published 
 and if, in the legislature next afterward 
 chosen, such proposed amendment q 
 amendments shall be agreed to by a ma 
 jority of the members elected to each house 
 the secretary of state shall cause the same 
 again to be published in the manner afore 
 said, at least three months previous to tht 
 next general election for representatives t( 
 the State legislature, and such proposes 
 amendment or amendments shall be sub 
 mitted to the people at said election; an* 
 if the people shall approve and ratify sucl 
 amendment or amendments, by a majority 
 of all the qualified voters of the State, sue! 
 amendment or amendments shall become i 
 part of the constitution: Provided, that i 
 more than one amendment be submitted a 
 a time, they shall be submitted in such man 
 ner and form that the people may vote foi 
 or against each amendment, separately. 
 
 On motion said article was adopted ai 
 reported by the committee. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff agreeably to notice previ 
 ously given, moved to reconsider the votj 
 adopting said article seventh. The yea 
 and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Brum 
 field, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss 
 Chinn, Covillion, Culbertson, Dubouchel 
 Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Mc- 
 Gallop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Ratliff, Read, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Splane, Stephens, Trist s 
 Voorhies, Waddill and Wederstrandt voted 
 in the affirmative— 31 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Boudousquie, Bourg 
 Cenas, Claiborne, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Guion, Kenner, King, Legendre, 
 Lewis, Marigny, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ro- 
 man, St. Amand, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Wikqf and Winder voted in the negative— 
 22 nays; consequently said motion was car- 
 ried and the article was taken up. 
 ARTICLE VII. 
 
 MODE OF'reVISING THE CONSTITUTION. 
 
 Any amendment or amendments to this 
 constitution may be proposed in the senate 
 or house of representatives, and if the same 
 shall be agreed to by three-fifths of the 
 members elected to each house, and appro- 
 ved by the governor, such proposed amend 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 239 
 
 ent or amendments . shall be entered on 
 eir journals, with the yeas and nays taken 
 .ereon, and the secretary of state shall 
 luse the same to be published, three 
 onths before the next general election, 
 
 at least one newspaper, in French and 
 nglish, in every parish in the State in 
 jhich a newspaper shall be published; and 
 
 in the legislature next afterwards cho- 
 n, such proposed amendment or amend- 
 ents shall be agreed to by a majority of 
 e members elected to each house, the 
 cretary of state shall cause the same 
 rain to be published in the manner afore- 
 iiid, at least three months previous to the 
 txt general election for representatives to 
 e State legislature, and such proposed 
 nendment or amendments shall be sub- 
 itted to the people at said election; and if 
 e people shall approve and ratify such 
 nendment or amendments, by a majority 
 "all the qualified voters of the State, such 
 nendment or amendments shall become a 
 irt of the constitution : Provided, that if 
 tore than one amendment be submitted at 
 time,- they shall be submitted in such 
 tanner and form that the people may vote 
 t or against each amendment separately, 
 i Mr. Guion raised a question of order, 
 nd objected to the motion of reconsidera- 
 on having been carried, because the num- 
 3r voting for the reconsideration, was not, 
 3 required by the rule, greater than the 
 umber who voted for the question moved 
 [) be reconsidered. 
 
 The President inquired of the secretary 
 le date of the notice for reconsideration 
 iven by Mr. Ratliff. 
 
 By reference to the journal it was found 
 mt the notice was given on the 18th of 
 ebruary. 
 
 The President decided that the rule re- 
 ed upon by Mr. Guion was adopted on the 
 2th of April, and could not affect a notice 
 iven before its adoption. 
 
 Mr. Guion appealed from the decision 
 jfthe Chair. 
 
 On the question, " shall the President's 
 ecision be maintained," the yeas and nays 
 >f ere called for, and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, Bur- 
 W, Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, Claiborne, 
 yovillion, Dubouchel, Dunn, Eustis, Hum- 
 |?e, Hynson, Ledoux, McCallop, Mcllae, 
 Iarigny, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott of 
 it. Landry, Bailiff, Read, Scott of Baton 
 
 Rouge, Stephens, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, 
 Wederstrandt and Winder voted in the 
 affimiative — 31 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Boudousquie, Bourg, 
 Briant, Chinn, Culbertson, Derbes, Garcia, 
 Garrett, Guion, Kenner, King, Legendre, 
 Lewis, Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, St- 
 Amand, Taylor of St. Landry, Wadsworth, 
 Wikoff and Winchester voted in the nega- 
 tive — 22 nays ; consequently the decision 
 of the Chair was sustained. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff then moved to amend said 
 article by- inserting in the fourth and fifth 
 lines the words " a majority" instead of 
 " three-fifths," and to insert in the 18th line 
 ""three-fifths" instead of "a majority." 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved for a division of the 
 question, first to proceed to strike out. The 
 yeas and nays being called on the motion 
 to strike out, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Chambliss, Covillion, Du- 
 bouchel, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of St, Landry, Ratliff, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Stephens, Trist, Waddill 
 and Wedertrandt voted in the affirmative — 
 24 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Boudousquie, Bourg, 
 Carrier e, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, 
 Guion, Kenner, King, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Marigny, Prudhomme, Roman, St. Amand, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Wadswvrth, Wikoff 
 Winchester voted in the negative — 25 nays; 
 consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Chinn moved for the previous ques- 
 tion, which motion prevailed. 
 
 On motion the seventh article was re- 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Roman having voted in the majori- 
 ty, moved to reconsider the vote adopting 
 the eighteenth section, which motion pre- 
 vailed, and the said section was taken up, 
 viz : 
 
 Sec. 18. In all criminal prosecutions, 
 the accused shall have the right of being 
 heard by himself or counsel, of demanding 
 the nature and cause of the accusation 
 against him, of meeting the witnesses face 
 to face, of having compulsory process for 
 obtaining witnesses in his favor, and pros- 
 ecution by indictment or information; a 
 speedy public trial by an impartial jury of 
 the vicinage, nor shall he be compelled to 
 give evidence against himself, 
 
240 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Mr. Eustis moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by inserting after the words " against 
 him," in the fourth line, the words "and 
 unless he shall have fled from justice," 
 which amendment was adopted. 
 
 On motion the section as amended was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 18. In all criminal prosecutions, 
 the accused shall have the right of being 
 heard by himself or counsel, of demanding 
 the nature and cause of the accusation 
 against him, and unless he shall have fled 
 from justice, of meeting the witnesses face 
 to face, of having compulsory process for 
 obtaining witnesses in his favor, and pros- 
 ecution by indictment or information; a 
 speedy public trial by an impartial jury of 
 the vicinage, nor shall he be compelled to 
 give evidence against himself. 
 
 Mr. Roman submitted the following ad- 
 ditional section, and the same was laid on 
 the table subject to call, viz : 
 
 The legislature shall not in any manner 
 create any debt or debts, liability or liabili- 
 ties, which shall singly or in the aggregate, 
 with any previous debts or liabilities, exceed 
 the sum of one hundred thousand dollars,(ex- 
 cept in cases of war, to repel invasion, and 
 suppress insurrection,) unless the same be 
 authorized by some law, for some single ob- 
 ject or work, to be distinctly specified there- 
 in, which law shall provide ways and means 
 by taxation for the payment of running in- 
 terest during the whole time for which said 
 debt shall be contracted, and for the full 
 and punctual discharge at maturity of the 
 capital borrowed; and said law shall not be 
 repealable until the principal and interests 
 thereon shall be paid and fully discharged, 
 and shall not be put into execution untij. af- 
 ter its re-enactment by the first legislature 
 returned by a general election after its 
 passage . 
 
 Mr. Chinn offered the following addi- 
 tional sections, which were laid on the ta- 
 ble subject to call, viz : , 
 
 Sec. — - Any person who shall, after 
 the adoption of this constitution, fight a duel 
 with deadly weapons, or send or receive a 
 challenge to fight a duel with deadly wea- 
 pons, either within the State or out of it, 
 or who shall act as a second, or aid and 
 assist in any manner those thus offending, 
 shall be deprived of holding any office of 
 trust or profit under this constitution. 
 
 Sec. ■ — , I, (A. B.) do solemnly swear 
 
 (or affirm) that I will faithfully and im 
 partially discharge and perform all the du- 
 ties incumbent on me as , according 
 
 to the best of my abilities and understand, 
 ing, agreeably to the rules and regulations 
 of the constitution and laws of the State; 
 and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) 
 that since the adoption of this constitution 
 I have not fought a duel with deadly wea- 
 pons, within this State nor out of it, nor 
 have I sent a challenge to fight a duel with 
 deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second 
 in carrying a challenge, or aided, advised 
 or assisted any person thus offending — So 
 help me God. 
 
 Section thirtieth was taken up, viz : 
 Sec. 30. No law shall be revised or 
 amended by reference to its 'title; but in 
 such case the act revised, or section amend- 
 ed, shall be re-enacted and published at 
 length. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, moved that said 
 section be laid on the table indefinitely. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to amend said section 
 by inserting after the word "section" in the 
 third line, the words "or article," and by 
 inserting in the first and second lines the 
 word "revived" instead of the word "revi- 
 sed;" which amendments were adopted. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans moved that said 
 section and amendment be laid on the ta- 
 ble indefinitely. The yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Chinn, , Conrad of 
 Orleans, Covillion, andRatliff voted in the 
 affirmative — 5 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Brent, Bra- 
 zeale, Briant, Brumjield, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Dubouchel, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, 
 Guion, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, Ledoux, 
 Legendre, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Beets, Porter, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Pugh, 
 Read, Roman, St. Amand, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Wads- 
 worth, Wederstrandt, Wikoff, Winchester 
 and Winder voted in the negative — 51 
 nays; consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 On motion the. section as amended was 
 adopted, viz : 
 
 Sec 30. No law shall be revised or 
 amended by reference to its title; but in 
 such case, the act revised, or section or ar^ 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 241 
 
 tide amended, shall be re-enacted and pub- 
 lished at length. 
 
 Section thirty-first was taken up and 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 31. The State shall not become 
 subscriber to the stock of any corporation 
 or joint stock company. 
 
 Section thirty-second was taken up and 
 adopted, viz : 
 
 Sec, 32. No person shall hold or exer- 
 cise, at the same time, more than one civil 
 office in this State, except one of such offi- 
 ces be that of a justice of the peace. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Eustis, the vote adopt- 
 ing the above section was reconsidered, 
 and the same was taken up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 32. No person shall hold or exer- 
 cise, at the same time, more than one civil 
 office in this State* except one of such offi- 
 ces be that of a justice of the peace. 
 
 Mr. Eustis moved to amend said section 
 by inserting after the words "civil office," 
 in the second line, the words "of emolu- 
 ment," which amendment was adopted. 
 
 On motion, the section as amended was 
 adopted, viz : 
 
 . Sec. 32. No person shall hold or exer- 
 ; cise, at the same time, more than one civil 
 office of emolument in this State, except 
 one of such offices be that of a justice of 
 the peace. 
 
 Section thirty-third was taken up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 33. No corporate body shall be 
 hereafter created, renewed or extended 
 with banking or discounting privileges, 
 without six months previous public notice 
 of the intended application for the same, in 
 such manner as shall be prescribed by law; 
 nor shall any charter for the purposes 
 aforesaid be granted for a longer period 
 than twenty years, and every such charter 
 shall contain a clause reserving to the le- 
 gislature the power to alter, revoke or 
 annul the same whenever, in their opinion, 
 it may be expedient so to do ; and every 
 charter so granted shall be upon the ex- 
 press condition that the share holders or 
 members of such corporations, shall be 
 bound severally and in solido, for all the 
 liabilities and acts of such corporation, and 
 for the consequences resulting therefrom. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved that said section be 
 jacted upon, paragraph by paragraph, which 
 motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to amend said section 
 by striking*out from the word "privileges, " 
 31 
 
 [ in the third line, the balance of the sec- 
 I tion, viz : 
 
 Without six months' previous public no- 
 j tice of the intended application for the 
 same, in such manner as shall be pre- 
 1 scribed by law; nor shall any charter, for 
 j the purposes- aforesaid, be granted for a 
 i longer period than twenty years; and every 
 j such charter shall contain a clause re- 
 serving to the legislature the power to al- 
 ter, revoke or annul the same, whenever, 
 ! in their opinion, it may be expedient so to 
 do; and every charter so granted shall be 
 I upon the express condition that the share 
 | holders or members of such corporation, 
 shall be bound personally and in solido, for 
 all the liabilities and acts of such corpora- 
 tion, and for the consequences resulting 
 therefrom. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for On- 
 the motion of Mr. Brent to strike out, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Brumfjeld, Burton, Cade, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Dubouchel, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Garrett, Humble, Kenner, Ledoux, 
 Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Mazureau, Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, St. 
 Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, Yoorhies, 
 Waddill, Wederstrandt and Wikoff voted 
 in the affirmative — 38 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Boudousquie, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Guion, Hynson, King, Legendre, Pugh, 
 Roman, Trist, Winchester and Winder vo- 
 ted in the negative — 19 nays; consequently 
 said motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Kenner then moved to fill the blank 
 with the following amendment, viz: 
 
 And should any person circulate, or cause 
 to be circulated, any paper money issued 
 by any corporation or person existing in 
 any other State or country, he shall be 
 considered guilty of a misdemeanor, and 
 for such offence shall be amenable to such 
 penalties as the legislature may determine. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies moved that said amend- 
 ment be laid on the table indefinitely. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale, Brent, Bur- 
 ton, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Covillion, Eustis, Humble, Le- 
 doux, Lewis, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, 
 
242 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Rat- 
 liff, Read, -Roman, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Voorhies and Wederstrandt voted in the 
 affirmative — 31 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Bourg,Brumfield,Chinn, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Duboychel, Dunn, 
 Garcia, Garrett, Guion, Hynson, Kenner, 
 King, Legendre, McCallop, Marigny, Ma- 
 zureau, Pugh, St.* Amand, Trist, Waddill, 
 Wikoff Winchester and Winder voted in 
 the negative — 25 nays; consequently said 
 motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved for the adoption of the 
 section as amended, viz : 
 
 Sec. 33. No corporate body shall be 
 hereafter created, renewed or extended, 
 with discounting privileges. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Brumiield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Chinn, Coviilion, Dubouchel,. 
 Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, Humble, Kenner* 
 Ledoux, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Prudhomme, Rati iff, Read, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Splane, Stephens, Tay- 
 lor of St. Landry, Voorhies, Waddill, We- 
 derstrandt and Wikoff voted in the affirma- 
 tive— -37 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Cenas, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Guion, Hynson, King, Le- 
 gendre, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Trist, Winchester and Winder vo- 
 ted in the negative — 18 nays; consequently 
 said motion was adopted. 
 
 Section thirty-fourth was taken up, viz : 
 
 Sec. 34, Ali charters hereafter granted 
 by the legislature, shall terminate on the 
 first day of January, in the year one thou- 
 sand eight hundred and ninety, where no 
 certain limit has been fixed in the act of in- 
 corporation; and no corporate privileges, 
 hereafter to be created, shall ever endure 
 for a longer term than twenty-five years ; 
 provided that this section shall not apply to 
 political or municipal corporations. 
 
 Mr. Marigny moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by striking out the words "and no cor- 
 porate privileges, hereafter to be enacted, 
 shall ever endure for a longer term than 
 twenty-five years." » 
 
 On motion of Mr. Cenas said section 
 and amendment were laid on the table sub- 
 ject to call 
 
 Mr. Claiborne submitted the following 
 additional section, and the same was laid 
 on the table subject to call, viz : 
 
 It shall be the duty of the legislature to 
 define and limit in the chartes of all mu- 
 nicipal or city corporations, the power of 
 levying taxes on property, and of creating 
 debts by such corporations, and to confine 
 such power, as nearly as possible, to pur- 
 poses of .municipal administration and po- 
 lice. 
 
 Section thirty-fifth was taken up, viz : 
 Sec. 35. The general assembly shall 
 never grant any exclusive privilege or mo- 
 nopoly, in such form as to prevent any sub- 
 sequent legislature from granting similar 
 privileges to other individuals or corpora- 
 tions. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to amend the sec- 
 tion by so modifying it as to empower the 
 legislature to grant a monopoly for a term 
 of years. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to amend said section 
 by inserting after the word "monopoly," in 
 the second line* the words "for a longer pe- 
 riod than fifteen years," and to strike out 
 the remainder of the section. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to amend the 
 amendment of Mr. Brent by inserting I 
 "twenty" instead of "fifteen," which amend- 
 ment was adopted. 
 
 On motiSn, the section as amended was 
 adopted, viz : 
 
 Sec. 35. The general assembly shall 
 never grant any exclusive privilege or mo- 
 nopoly for a longer period than twenty years* 
 
 Mr. Ratliff submitted the following ad- 
 ditional section 5 and the same was adopted,, 
 viz : 
 
 The legislature shall direct by law in 
 what manner, and in what courts, suit/ 
 may be brought against the State. 
 
 Mr. Eustis, of the committee on educa- 
 tion, submitted the following, viz : 
 
 An university shall be established in the 
 city of New Orleans. It shall be composed^ 
 of four faculties, to-wit: one of law, one oi 
 medicine, one of the natural sciences, and 
 one of letters. 
 
 It shall be called the University of Lou- 
 isiana; and the Medical College of Louisi- 
 ana, as at present organized, shall consti- 
 tute the faculty of medicine. 
 
 The legislature shall provide by law for 
 its further organization and government. 
 
 Section thirty-sixth was taken*up, viz : 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 243 
 
 Sec. 36. Slaves shall be forever held 
 and considered as immovable, and shall be 
 regulated by the same laws as other im- 
 movable property. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Benjamin said section 
 was laid on the table indefinitely. 
 
 Mr. Ratliff submitted the following 
 additional section, viz: 
 
 The relation of master and slave in this 
 State shall not be abolished, unless a bill so 
 to abolish the same shall be passed by a 
 .unanimous vote of the members of each 
 branch of the general assembly, and shall 
 be published at least three months before 
 a new election of members to the general 
 assembly, and shall be confirmed by a 
 unanimous vote of the members of each 
 branch of the general assembly at the next 
 regular constitutional session after such 
 new election; nor then, without full com- 
 pensation to the master for the property of 
 which he has been thereby deprived. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved for the previous 
 question, which motion prevailed, 
 
 Mr. Guion moved to lay said section on 
 the table indefinitely, and called for the 
 yeas and nays which resulted as follows : 
 
 M essrs. Axiberl, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriers, 
 Cham bliss , Ch in n , Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Dunn, Der- 
 bes, Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, Hum- 
 ble, Kenner, King, Ledoux, Lews, Legen- 
 dre, BlcCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Peets, Prescoii of St- Landry, Pugh, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Splane, Stephens, 
 Trist, Waddill and Winder voted in the 
 affirmative — 38 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Brazeale, Clai- 
 borne, Covillion, Dubouchel, Hynson, Por- 
 ter,, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Read, Roman, 
 St. Amand, Voorhies, Wederstrandt' and 
 Winchester voted in the negative — 15 nays; 
 consequently said motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Lewis submitted the following ad- 
 ditional section, viz: 
 
 AH officers of this State appointed by 
 the governor and senate, or elected by the 
 people, shall be required to understand the 
 French and English languages, so as to 
 transact the business of their offices in 
 either language. 
 
 Mr. Marigny moved that said section 
 belaid on the table indefinitely. The yeas 
 and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Anbert, Benjamin, Boudons- 
 
 [ quie, Brazeale, Burton, Cade, Carriere, 
 ; Chambliss, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Dubouchel, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garcia, Garret, Guion, Humble, 
 Hynson, Kenner, King, Labauve, Ledoux, 
 Legendre, McCallor, McRae, Marigny, 
 Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prudhomme, Pugh, 
 Ratliff, Read, Roman, St. Amand, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Stephens, Trist, Weder- 
 strandt, Winchester and Winder voted in 
 the affirmative — 46 yeas: and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brent, Brumfield, Lewis, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Splane, Voorhies 
 and Waddill voted in the negative — 8 nays; 
 consequetly said motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Lewis .gave notice that he will on 
 Saturday next move to reconsider the vote 
 adopting the section offered by Mr. Marig- 
 ny, requiring that the secretary of the sen- 
 ate and clerk of the house of representa- 
 tives should possess the French and Eng- 
 lish languages, 
 
 Mr. Eustis submitted the following ad- 
 ditional section, and the same was adopted, 
 viz: 
 
 Sec. — The citizens of the city of New 
 Orleans shall have the right of appointing 
 the several public officers necessary for the 
 administration and police of the said city, 
 pursuant .to the mode of election which 
 shall be prescribed by the legislature; pro- 
 vided, that the mayor and recorders shall 
 be ineligible to a seat in the general assem- 
 bly; and the mayor and recorders and al- 
 dermen shall be commissioned by the gov- 
 ernor as justices of the peace, and the leg- 
 islature may vest in them such criminal 
 jurisdiction as may be necessary for, the 
 punishment of minor crimes and offences, 
 and as the police and good order of said 
 city may require. 
 
 Section thirty-seventh was taken up and 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 37. All commissions shall be in 
 the name and by the authority of the State 
 of Louisiana, sealed with the State seal, 
 and signed by the governor. 
 
 Mr. Garrett offered the following ad- 
 ditional section^ and the same was adopt- 
 ed, viz: 
 
 'fifee legislature may provide by law in 
 iwhat case officers shall continue to per- 
 form the duties of their offices, until their 
 successors shall have been inducted into 
 office. 
 
244 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louimmz. 
 
 Mr. Garrett submitted the following 
 additional section, and the same was laid 
 on the table, subject to cal], viz: 
 
 All property subject to taxation in this 
 State shall be taxed in proportion to its 
 value, to be ascertained by law. No spe- 
 cies of property from which a tax may be 
 collected, shall be taxed higher than anoth- 
 er species of property of equal value, and 
 subject to taxation. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans submitted the 
 following additional section, and the same 
 was laid on the table, subject to call, viz: 
 
 Taxation shall be equal and uniform 
 throughout the State. 
 
 Section thirty-eighth was taken up and 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec 38. the constitution and laws of 
 this State shall be published in the French 
 as well as in the English language, as here- 
 tofore. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow at nine o'clock a. m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent at the call of 
 the roll: Messrs. Beatty, Cade, Derbes, 
 Downs, Hudspeth, O'Bryan, Penn, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Feliciana and Scott of Mad- 
 ison, absent on leave; Messrs. Porche, 
 Sellers, Soule and Taylor of Assumption, 
 absent on account of illness; and Messrs. 
 Benjamin, Briant, Cenas,Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Culbertson, Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, Gui- 
 on, Marigny, Mazureau, Preston, Prud- 
 homrae, Roselius, St. Amand, Stephens, 
 Trist, Wadsworth, Winchester and Win- 
 der, absent at call. 
 
 Friday, May 2, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 In the absence of a minister of the gos- 
 pel the Hon. Mr. Stephens, at the request 
 of the president, opened the proceedings 
 by prayer. 
 
 The secretary reported the receipt of the 
 printers for the report of the debates of the 
 19 th ult. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Mr. Wikoff was excused, for nonatteu- 
 dance on account of illness. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Voorhies the addi- 
 tional section offered by him, defining the 
 right of suffrage in certain cases, was taken 
 up, viz : 
 
 The right of suffrage shall not be ex- 
 
 ercised by any person of unsound mind, 
 or who shall be a paupei\or a non-commis- 
 sioned officer, soldier, seaman, or marine 
 in the service of the United States, or by 
 any person convicted of a crime decreed by 
 law felony. 
 
 Mr. Chinn moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by inserting after the words "of unsound 
 mind" the words "under interdiction." 
 
 Mr. Claiborne submitted all a substi. 
 tute for the above section, the following, 
 viz : 
 
 No soldier, seaman or marine in the 
 army or navy of the United States, or per- 
 son under interdiction, nor under convic- 
 tion of any crime punished with hard labor,, 
 shall be entitled to vote at any elections in 
 this State. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, moved to 
 amend said substitute by inserting after 
 the word " no" in the first line the word 
 " officer." The yeas and nays being cal- 
 led for, 
 
 Messrs. Derhes, Humble, King, Mazu- 
 reau, Ratliff, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, 
 Wederslrandt, Wikoff and Winchester vo- 
 ted in the affirmative — 10 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Boudousquie, Bourg 
 Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Brumfield, Bur- 
 ton, Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Covillion, Cul- 
 bertson, Duboucliel, Dunn, Eusiis, Garrett, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Hynson, Kenner, La- 
 bauve, Legendre, Lewis, Mc Gallop, McRae, 
 Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Prudhomme, Pugh, Read, Ro- 
 man, St. Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Madison, Splane, Voorhies, Wad- 
 dill, Wadsworth and Winder voted in the 
 negative — 46 nays; consequently said mo- 
 tion was lost. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Voorhies, the word 
 "pauper" was inserted after the word "Uni- 
 ted States." 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans moved to amend 
 said substitute by inserting after the word 
 " pauper" the words "notorious vagrant." 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. \Boudousquie., Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Guion, Hudspeth, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Mazureau,Prudhomme, Roman, St. Amand, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Voorhies, Wads- 
 wvrth, Wedertrandt and Winchester voted 
 in the affirmative — 20 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs, Aubert, Brazeale, Brent, Bur- 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 245 
 
 toil, Cade* Cenas, Chambliss, Covillion. 
 Dubouchel, Eustis, Humble, Hynson, Ken- 
 ner, King, Labauve, Mc Gallop, McRae, 
 Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Pugh, Ratliff, Read, Scott of 
 Baton .Rouge, Seoit of Madison, Splane, 
 Stephens, Waddill, Wikqff and Winder 
 ,-oted in the negative — 32 nays: consequent 
 y said motion was lost. 
 
 On motion the section as amended was 
 idopted, viz : 
 
 No soldier, seaman or marine in the 
 irmv or navy of the United States, no pau- 
 per, no person under interdiction nor un- 
 ler conviction of any crime punishable 
 vith hard labor, shall be entitled to vote at 
 ,ny elections in this State, 
 
 On motion said section was referred to 
 he committee of revision to be classed in 
 he legislative department. 
 
 Mr. Cmxx submitted the following re- 
 olutions, and the same were referred to a 
 pecial committee of five, viz : 
 
 Resolved, that immediately after the ad- 
 Durnment of this Convention, the governor 
 hall issue his proclamation directing the 
 roper officers to hold elections on the . 
 
 ti every parish in the State at which all 
 le qualified voters under the old constitu- 
 on shall decide whether they receive or 
 eject the new constitution as submitted to 
 lem, which opinion shall be expressed by 
 ach qualified voter by depositing a ticket 
 p the ballot box, upon which shall be writ- 
 Mi "the constitution accepted." or ''the 
 onstitution rejected;" and. at the conclu- 
 ion of the voting, which shall be held and 
 pnducted in every respect as is the case 
 1 general elections, the commissioners 
 olding said elections, after having careful- 
 
 fi 
 
 - examined every ballot deposited, shall 
 lake due return thereof, forthwith, to the 
 overnor, who shall, in the presence of the 
 3cretary of state, attorney general, trea- 
 rrer, and all persons who attend, open the 
 lid returns, with a view of ascertaining 
 L hether the new constitution has been re- 
 sived or rejected by the qualified voters, 
 'he result of which examination the gov- 
 ernor shall cause to be published in the 
 Itate paper, showing the number of per- 
 diis who voted in favor of receiving the 
 tew constitution, and also those who voted 
 ) reject it. 
 
 Resolved, that if a majority of all the vo- 
 i rs of the State voted in favor of the new 
 
 constitution, the governor shall by procla- 
 mation, declare the same to be the funda- 
 mental law of the land, and with a view of 
 carrying the same into operation, the gov- 
 ernor shall issue his order to all the parish 
 judges, directing them to hold, on the third 
 Monday in January, 1846, elections for the 
 election of a governor of the State, a lieu- 
 tenant governor of the State, members of 
 the legislature, and all other officers pro- 
 vided under this constitution. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Sec. 34. All charters heretofore grant- 
 ed by the legislature shall terminate on the 
 first of January, in the year one thousand 
 eight hundred and ninety, where no earlier 
 limit has been fixed in the act of incorpo- 
 ration, and no corporate privileges hereaf- 
 ter to be created, shall ever endure for a 
 longer term than twenty-five years : provi- 
 ded, that this section shall not apply to po- 
 litical andlnunicipal corporations. 
 
 Mr. Coxrad of Orleans, moved to amend 
 said section by striking out the following 
 words, viz: "All charters heretofore grant- 
 ed by the legislature, snail terminate on 
 the first day of January, in the year one 
 thousand eight hundred and ninetp, where 
 no earlier limit has been fixed in the act of 
 incorporation," and insert in lieu thereof 
 the following amendment, viz : 
 
 " From and after the month of January, 
 1890. the legislature shall have the power 
 to revoke the charter of all corporations 
 whose charters shall not have expired pre- 
 viously to that time." Which amendment 
 was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by inserting in the fifth line, after the 
 words ''corporate privileges," the words 
 "except to political and municipal corpo- 
 rations," which amendment was adopted. 
 
 On motion the section as amended was 
 adopted, viz : 
 
 From "and after the month of January, 
 1890, the legislature shall have the power 
 to revoke the charters of all corporations 
 whose charters shall not have expired pre- 
 viously to that time: and no corporate privi- 
 leges, except to political and municipal cor- 
 porations hereafter to be created, shall ever 
 endure "for a longer term than twenty-five 
 years. 
 
 Mr. Eustis submitted the following .ad- 
 ditional section, viz : 
 
 " Corporations shall not be created in 
 
246 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 this State by special laws by the legisla- 
 ture, except for political or municipal pur- 
 poses, but the legislature shall provide by 
 general laws for the organization of all 
 other corporations, except corporations with 
 banking or discounting privileges, the cre- 
 ation of which is prohibited." 
 
 Mr. Eustis moved for the adoption of 
 said section. The yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, 
 Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, C onrad of Jef- 
 ferson, East's, Dubouchel, Garrett, Huds- 
 peth, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, King, 
 Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Pugh, Read, St. Amand, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Stephens, Voorhies, Waddill, 
 Wederstrandl and Winder voted in the 
 affirmative— 38 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Carriere, Conrad o"f Orleans, 
 Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Gar- 
 cia, Guion, Labauve, Porter, Railiff, Ro- 
 man and Winchester voted in the negative 
 — 13 nays ; consequently said motion was 
 carried and the section adopted. - 
 
 Mr. Eustis submitted the following ad- 
 ditional section, viz : 
 
 After the year 1847, no corporatkn in 
 this State shall issue notes or bills in any 
 form whatever of a less denomination than 
 ten dollars, after 1848 of a less denomina- 
 tion than twenty dollars, and after 1849 of 
 a less denomination than fifty dollars. 
 
 No action shall be maintained after the 
 year 1849 in any court in this State on 
 any note or bill of exchange payable to 
 bearer or indorsed in blank of a less deno- 
 mination than fifty dollars; and it shall be 
 the duty of the legislature to enforce the 
 execution of the preceding provisions by 
 such penal enactments as maybe found ne- 
 cessary. 
 
 Mr. Chinn moved that the above sec- 
 tions be laid on the table indefinitely. The 
 yeas and nays being called for, (Mr. Clai- 
 borne in the Chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Brazeale, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Car- 
 riere, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Hynson, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, Lewis, McRae, Porter, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Pugh, Ratliff Roman, Splane, Ste- 
 
 phens, Voorhies, Wederstrandt, Winchester 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative-— 37 
 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Cade, Chambliss, Du- 
 bouchel, Eustis, Garcia, Humble, Marigny,} 
 Mayo, Peets, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Madison, Waddill and Wadsivorthl 
 voted in the negative — 15 nays; conse- 
 quently said motion was carried. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Roman the section of. 
 fered by him on yesterday, was taken up, 
 viz : 
 
 The legislature shall not in any manner 
 create any debt or debts, liability or liabili- 
 ties, which shall singly or in the aggregate, 
 with any previous debts or liabilities, exceed 
 the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, (ex. 
 cept in case of war, to repel invasion, and 
 suppress insurrection,) unless the same be 
 authorized by some law, for some single oh-; 
 ject or work, to be distinctly specified there- 
 in, which law shall provide ways and means 
 by taxation for the payment of running in- 
 terest during the whole time for which said; 
 debt shall be contracted, and for the full 
 and punctual discharge at maturity of the 
 capital borrowed; and said law shall be ir- 
 repealable until the principal and interest 
 thereon shall be paid and fully discharged, 
 and shall not be put into execution until af- 
 ter its re-enactment by the first legislature 
 returned by a general election after its 
 passage. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to lay said section on f 
 the table 'indefinitely. The yeas and nays 
 being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, Du- 
 bouchel, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, Le- 
 doux, Lewis, McRae, Marigny, Peets, Por- 
 ter, Prescott of St. Landry, Read, ScoU of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Madison, Splme, 
 Stephens and Voorhies voted in the affirm- 
 ative — 24 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousqvi?- 
 Briant, Burton, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Garrett, Guion, Kenner, King, M- 
 bauve, Legendre, Mayo, Pugh, Ratlif, Ro- 
 man, 'Trist, Waddill, Wads-worth, Weder- 
 strandt and Winchester voted in the nega- 
 tive — 26 nays; consequently said motion 
 was lost. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Waddill, said section 
 was laid on the table, to be printed, ordered 
 and made the special order of the day for 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 247 
 
 Monday next — to be taken up together 
 with section twenty-four. 
 
 Mr? Ghinn called up the sections offer- 
 3d by him, in relation to duelling, viz : 
 
 Sec. — . Any citizen of this State, who 
 shall, after the adoption of this constitution, 
 ight a duel with deadly weapons, or send 
 >r accept a challenge to fight a duel with 
 leadly weapons, either within the State or 
 >ut of it, or who shall act as a second, or 
 iid and assist in any manner those thus 
 tffending, shall be deprived of holding any 
 'ffice of trust or profit under this con- 
 stitution. 
 
 Sec. — . I, (A. B..) do solemnly swear 
 or affirm) that I will faithfully and im- 
 artially discharge and perform all the du- 
 ies incumbent on me as , according 
 
 0 the best of my abilities and understand, 
 tig, agreeably to the rules and regulations 
 f the constitution and laws of the State; 
 nd I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) 
 lat since the adoption of this constitution 
 
 have not fought a duel with deadly wea- 
 ons, within this State nor out of it, nor 
 'ave I sent a challenge to fight a duel with 
 eadly weapons, nor have I acted as second 
 
 1 carrying a challenge, or aided, advised 
 r assisted any person thus offending — So 
 elp me God. 
 
 Mr. McRae moved to amend said see- 
 on, by inserting after the word "profit," 
 i the last line, the words "and enjoying 
 ;ie right of suffrage;" "vfliich amendment 
 
 as adopted, 
 
 \ Mr. Lewis moved to reconsider the vote 
 dopting the above amendment. The yeas 
 hd nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Brumjield, Chinn, Co- 
 ■llion, Dubouchel, Dunn, Garrett, Gulon, 
 ludspeth, Humble, Kenner, Ledoux, Lewis, 
 'eets, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Pugh, 
 '.ead, Scott of Baton Rouge, Stephens and 
 Vinder voted in the affirmative — 21 yeas. 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Bra- 
 lale, Brent, Briant, Burton, Cade, Car- 
 ere, Chambliss, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 cleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, 
 arcia, Hynson, Labauve, Legendre, Mc- 
 'ae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Ratliff, 
 ioman, Scott of Madison, Splane, Voorhies, 
 Vaddill, Wederstrandt and Winchester 
 )ted in the negative — 29 nays ; conse- 
 lently the motion was lost. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Labauve, said section 
 as amended, by inserting in the sixth 
 
 line, after the word " second," the word 
 " knowingly." 
 
 Mr. Benjamin offered the following 
 amendment, to be inserted at the com- 
 mencement of said section, viz : 
 
 "The legislature shall have the power to 
 pass laws, providing that." # 
 
 Mr. Guion moved to amend the amend- 
 ment of Mr. Benjamin, by striking out the 
 words "have the power;" which amend- 
 ment was lost. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved for the adoption 
 
 the amendment offered by him. The 
 yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 M-sssrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Brumjield, Conrad of Orleans, Covillion, 
 Dubouchel, Guion, Kenner, Mazureau, Ro- 
 man, Winchester and Winder voted in 
 favor of said amendment — 13 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Burton, 
 Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Chinn, Conrad 
 of Jefferson, Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, Gar- 
 rett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Lewis, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Pugh, 
 Ratliff, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Madison, Splane, Stephens, Voorhies, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in the 
 negative — 35 nays ; consequently said 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans moved to amend 
 by inserting in die 6th line after the word 
 "knowingly the words "be present, aiding 
 and assenting." The yeas and nays being 
 called for, (Mr. Garcia in the chair,) 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Boudousquie, Brumjield 
 Conrad of Orleans, Porter, Pugh, Ratliff, 
 Roman, Splane and Winchester voted in 
 the affirmative — 10 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Burton, 
 Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes r Dubouchel, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, Kenner, Labauve, Le- 
 gendre, Lewis, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Mazureau, Peets, Prescott of St.. Landry, 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Mad- 
 ison, Stephens, Voorhies, Waddill, Wed- 
 erstrandt and Winder voted in the nega* 
 tive — 37 nays; consequently said amend- 
 was rejected. 
 
 Mr. Porter moved to amend, by strik- 
 ing out in the fift:i line, the words, "out 
 of it," which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Chinn moved for the adoption of 
 the section as amended, viz: 
 
248 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Any citizen of this State who shall after 
 the adoption of this constitution, fight a 
 duel with deadly weapons, or send or accept 
 a challenge to fight a duel with deadly 
 weapons, either within this State or out of 
 it,. or who shall act as a second or know- 
 ingly aid and assist in any manner, those 
 thus offending, shall be deprived of holding 
 any office of trust or profit, and of enjoy- 
 ing the right of suffrage under this Consti- 
 tution. The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Brazeale, Brent, Brianl, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Code, Carrier e, Chain* 
 bliss, Chinn, Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, 
 Dubouchel, Dunn, Garrett, Guion, Huds- 
 peth, Humble, Hynson, Labauve, Lewis, 
 McRae, Mayo, Peets, Prescott, of St. Lan- 
 dry, Preston, Pugh, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Madison, Stephens, Voor- 
 hies, Waddill, Winchester and Winder vo- 
 ted in the affirmative — 35 yeas; and, 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Cenas, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Eustis, Kenner, Legendre, Mazu- 
 reau, Porter, Ratliff, Roman, Splane and 
 Wederstrandt voted in the negative- — 12 
 nays; consequently said motion was carried, 
 and the section was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Bkent gave notice that he will on 
 Monday next, move to reconsider the vote 
 fixing the salary of the judges of the su- 
 preme court. 
 
 Mr. Garrett gave notice that he will 
 on Monday next, move to reconsider the 
 vote adopting the 7th section in the general 
 provisions. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow, at 9 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent at the first 
 call of the house : Messrs. Beatty, Der- 
 bes, Downs, O'Bryan, Penn, Saunders and 
 Scott ofFeliciana,absent on leave. Messrs. 
 Porche, Sellers, Soule and Taylor of As- 
 sumption, absent on account of illness^ and 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Dubouchel, 
 Dunn, • Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, Guion, 
 King, Ledoux, Marigny, Mazureau, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Preston, Pugh, Ratliff, 
 Roselius, St. Amand, Splane, Wadsworth, 
 Winchester and Winderabsent at call. 
 
 Note. — Members absent at the second 
 call of the roll : Messrs. Beatty, Derbes, 
 Downs, O'Bryan, Penn, Saunders 7 and 
 Scott of Feliciana,absent on leave. Messrs. 
 Porche, Sellers, Soule, Taylor of Assump- 
 
 tion absent on account of illness ; and, 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jef. 
 erson, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, Le- 
 doux, Marigny, O'Bryan, Pugh, Ratliff, 
 Roselius, St. Amand, Splane, Trist, Wads- 
 worth, and Winchester did not answer to 
 their names. 
 
 Saturday, May 8, 1 845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Clark opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 On motion, leave of absence was grant- 
 ed to Mr. Prudhomme. 
 
 This being the day fixed, Mr. Lewis 
 moved to reconsider the vote adopting the 
 section requiring that the secretary of the 
 senate and the clerk of the house of repre- 
 sentatives, should possess the French and 
 English languages, and that any member 
 of the general assembly may address either 
 house in the French or English language. 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Br urn- 
 field, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Chinn, Dunn, Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, 
 Lewis, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, PresM 
 cott of St. Landry, Ratliff, Read, Scott of 
 Madison, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Waddill, Wadsworth and Wed- 
 erstrandt voted in the affirmative 28 
 
 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Claiborne, Covillion, 
 Culbertson, Dubouchel, Derbes, Eustis, 
 King, Ledoux, Legendre, Marigny, Mazu- 
 reau, Pugh, Roman, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Voorhies, Winchester and Winder voted in 
 the negative — 20 nays; consequently said 
 motion was carried, and the section taker, 
 up, viz : 
 
 " The secretary of the senate and t 
 clerk of the house of representalives, sh 
 possess the French and English languages, 
 and any member of the general assembly 
 may address either house in the French 
 or English language." 
 
 Mr. Brent moved for a division of the 
 question, that is, to act on the section» 
 paragraph by paragraph. 
 
 Mr. Chinn moved for the previous ques- 
 tion, which motion prevailed. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Guion, the previous 
 question was reconsidered. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, moved to 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 249 
 
 lay the section on the table indefinitely. 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brumfield, Burton, 
 Chambliss, Chinn, Dunn, Guion, Hynsbn, 
 Led aire, Lewis, McRae, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Rati if, 
 Read, Scott of Madison, Splane, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Wadsworth and 
 Wederstrandt voted in the affirmative — 
 23 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Brent, Briant, Cade, Carriere, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Covillion, Culherison, 
 Dubouchel, Derbes, Eustis, Garrett, Huds- 
 peth, Humble, King, Legendre, Marigny, 
 jlauo, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Yoorhies, TVaddill, Winches- 
 ter and Winder voted in the negative — 29 
 nays; consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Waddill moved to amend said 
 section by adding at the end of the same, 
 |he words " or in any of the living lan- 
 guages." 
 
 Mr. Derbes moved to lay the amend- 
 nent on the table indefinitely. The yeas 
 fend nays being called for, 
 i Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 meale, Brent, Briant, BrumfieJd, Burton, 
 Jpade, Carriere, Chambliss, Chinn, Clai- 
 Vorne, Conrad of Orleans. Covillion, CuL- 
 hertson, Derbes, Dubouchel, Eustis, Gar- 
 \:ett, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, 
 jKing, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, Marigriyt 
 \\Iayo, Mazureau, Peets, Prescott of St. 
 wandry, Preston, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, 
 \?cott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Madison, 
 \?plane, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 mfoorhies, Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, TVin- 
 Vhester and finder voted in the affirma- 
 . ,ve — 48 veas; and 
 
 I Messrs." McRae, Bailiff, Read and Wad- 
 Will voted in the negative — 4 nays; con- 
 lequendy said motion was carried. 
 I -Mr. Lewis moved for a division of the 
 uestion, that is, to act on the section, 
 paragraph by paragraph, which motion 
 ire vailed. 
 
 ■ On the motion to adopt the first para- 
 [iraph, requiring "the secretary of the 
 Ipnate and the clerk of the house of repre- 
 sentatives to possess the French and En- 
 
 ish languages,'*' the yeas and nays being 
 
 ailed for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Burton, 
 s ade, Carriere, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 lans, Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, Du- 
 32 
 
 bouchel, Eustis, King, Ledou.v, Legendre, 
 Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets. Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Splane, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Yoorhies, Waddill, IVinchester and 
 
 Winder voted in the affirmative 32 
 
 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Chambliss, Chinn, Garrett. Guion, Huds- 
 peth, Humble, Hynson, Lewis, Porter, Pres- 
 ton, Rail iff, Read, Scott of Madison, Ste- 
 phens, Wadsworth and Wederstrandt voted 
 in the negative— 19 nays : consequently 
 said motion was carried, and the first para- 
 graph was adopted. 
 
 On the motion to adopt the second para- 
 graph, requiring that " any member of the 
 general assembly may address either house 
 in the French or English language," the 
 yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert. Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, 
 Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Covillion, 
 i Culbertson, Derbes, Dubouchel, Eustis, 
 Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Hyn- 
 I son, King, Ledovx, Legendre, Lewis, Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Pugh, Roman, 
 Roselius, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Madison, Splane, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Yoorhies, TVaddill, Vi'adsworth, Weder- 
 strandt,' Winchester and Winder voted in 
 the affirmative — 49 yeas : and 
 
 Messrs. Preston, Rail iff and Read voted 
 in the negative — 3 nays; consequently said 
 motion was carried, and the second para- 
 graph was adopted; and the whole section 
 was adopted as follows, viz : 
 
 The secretary of the senate and the clerk 
 of the house of representatives, shall pos- 
 sess the French and English languages, 
 and any member of the general assembly 
 may Address either house in the French or 
 English language. 
 
 Mr. Marigxy gave notice that he will 
 on Tuesday next, move to reconsider the 
 laying upon the table indefinitely the sec- 
 tion offered by Mr. Eustis, in relation to 
 the issuing of small notes by the banks. 
 
 Mr. Prestox submitted the following 
 additional section, viz : 
 
 "The general assembly may establish 
 by law T an adequate compensation in fees 
 or salaries for the justices of the peace of 
 the State." 
 
250 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Mr. Preston moved for ihe adoption of 
 the above section. The yeas and nays 
 being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Brent, Bra- 
 zeale, Briant, Burton, Cade, Carriere, 
 Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, Claiborne, Covil- 
 lion, Culbertson, Derbes, Dubouchel, Dunn, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Le- 
 gendre, Leivis, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Mazureau, Peets, Porter, PrescoU of St. 
 Landry, Preston, Pugh, Railiff, Read, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Splane, Stephens, Voorhies, 
 Waddill and Wederslrandt voted in the 
 affirmative — 40 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Conrad of Orleans, Eus- 
 iis, Guion, King, Roman, Roselius, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Winchester and Winder 
 voted in the negative — 10 nays ; conse- 
 quently said motion was carried, and the 
 section was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption submitted 
 the following additional section, viz : 
 
 "All judicial proceedings shall be con- 
 ducted in the French language, against the 
 citizens of the State whose mother tongue, 
 is French, and who do not understand and 
 speak the English language." 
 
 Mr. Roselius moved to amend said sec- 
 lion, by inserting after the word "French" 
 the words "or German." 
 
 Mr. Chinn moved to lay the section 
 and amendment on the table indefinitely. 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 Cade, Carriere, Cenas, 'Chamhliss-, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Dunn, Du- 
 bouchel, Eustis, Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, 
 Hynson, King, Legendre, Leivis, McRae, 
 Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott of 
 St.Landry, Preston, Pugh,Ratlif,RcadMo- 
 man, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Splane, Waddill, Wederslrandt, Win- 
 chester and Winder voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 40 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Briant, Covillion, Derbes, 
 Guion, Ledoux, Roselius, Soule and Taylor 
 of Assumption voted in the negative — 9 
 nays ; consequently said motion was car- 
 ried. 
 
 Mr. Mayo offered the following addi- 
 tional section, and the same was adopted: 
 
 "The governor shall have power to is- 
 sue writs of election, to supply vacancies 
 that may happen in either house of the 
 general assembly," 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Second additional section offered by Mr. 
 Chinn, viz : 
 
 Sec. — . I, (A. B.) do solemnly swear 
 (or affirm) that I will faithfully and im- 
 partially discharge and perform all the du- 
 ties incumbent on me as , according 
 
 to the best of my abilities and understand- 
 ing, agreeably to the rules and regulations 
 of the constitution and the laws of the State; 
 and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) 
 that since the adoption of this constitu- 
 tion I have not fought with deadly wea- 
 pons, within this State nor out of it, nor 
 have I sent a challenge to fight a duel with 
 deadly weapons, nor have I acted as secon^ 
 in carrying a challenge, or aided, advised 
 or assisted any person thus offending — So 
 help me God. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, moved to amend 
 said section by striking out the words 
 "rules and regulations of the constitution 
 and laws of the State," and insert in lieu 
 thereof the following words "constitution 
 and laws of the United States and of this 
 State;" which amendment was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, moved to amend 
 by inserting after the words "1 sent a chal- 
 lenge," the words "or accepted a chah 
 lenge," which amendment was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Guion moved to amend said section 
 by striking out the following words, viz: 
 
 And I do further solemnly swear (or af- 
 firm) that since the adoption of the present 
 constitution, I have not fought a duel with 
 deadly weapons, within this "State nor out 
 of it, nor have I sent a challenge or accep- 
 ted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly 
 weapons, nor have I acte4 as second in 
 carrying a challenge, or aided, advised or 
 assisted any person thus offending. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the motion of Mr. Guion to strike out, 
 
 Messrs. Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Gui- 
 on, Legendre, Marigny, Porter, Ratliff, Ro- 
 man, Soule, Splane, Wederslrandt and 
 Winder voted in the affirmative — 13 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 Cade, Carriere, Chambliss. Chinn, Covil- 
 lion, Culbertson, DuBouchel, Dunn, Eus- 
 tis, Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hyuson, 
 Ledoux,. Lewis, McRae, Mayo, Peets, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Pug n > 
 Read, Roselius, Scott of Baton Rouge 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 251 
 
 Scott of Madison. Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Voorhies and Waddill voted in 
 the- negative — 33 nays; consequently said 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Chinn then moved for the adoption 
 of the section as amended, viz : 
 
 I, (A B) do solemnly swear (or affirm) 
 that I will faithfully and impartially dis- 
 charge and perform all the duties incum- 
 bent on me as , according to the 
 
 best of my abilities and understanding 
 agreeably to the constitution and laws of 
 
 j the United States and of this State : and I 
 do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that 
 
 ; since the adoption of the present constitu- 
 
 , tion, I have not fought a duel with deadly 
 weapons, within this State nor out of it, nor 
 have I sent a challenge or accepted a chal- 
 lenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, 
 nor have I acted as second in carrying a 
 challenge, or aided, advised or assisted any 
 person thus offending — So help me God. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the motion to adopt the section as amended, 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, , 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cham- 
 
 ! bliss, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Jeffer- 
 
 ( son, Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, Du- 
 Bouchel, Dunn Eustis, Hudspeth, Humble, 
 Hynson, Ledoux, Lewis, McRae, Mayo, 
 Peets, Preston, Pugh, Read, Roseiius, ! 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Madison, j 
 
 , Stephens, Voorhies and Waddill voted in 
 
 I the affirmative — 36 yeas: and 
 
 Messrs. Cenas, Legendre, Marigny, 
 Porter, Ratliff, Roman, Soule, Splane and 
 Wederstrandt voted in the negative — 9 
 
 1 nays; consequently said motion was car- 
 ried, and the section as amended was 
 adopted. 
 
 On motion the firstteection of the gen- 
 eral provisions was taken up, viz : 
 
 Sec. 1. Members of the general assem- 
 bly and all officers, executive and judicial, 
 before they enter upon the execution of 
 their respective offices, shall take the fol- 
 lowing oath or affirmation : I, (A B.) do 
 solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faith- 
 fully and impartially discharge and perform 
 
 all the duties incumbent on me a? . 
 
 j according to the best of my abilities and 
 understanding, agreeably to the rules and 
 ! regulations of the constitution and laws of 
 this State — So help me Gol. 
 
 Mr. Chixx moved to amend said section 
 by striking out the words "I, (A B) do sol- 
 
 emnly swear (or affirm) that I will faith- 
 fully and impartially discharge and per- 
 form all the duties incumbent on me as 
 , according to the best of my abili- 
 ties and understanding, agreeably to the 
 rules and regulations of the constitution 
 and laws of this State — so help me God," 
 and insert in lieu thereof the following 
 words, viz : 
 
 I, (A B) do solemnly swear (or affirm) 
 that I will faithfully and impartially dis- 
 charge and perform all the duties incum- 
 bent on me as — according to the 
 
 best of my abilities and understanding, 
 agreeably to the constitution and laws of 
 the United States and of this State. 
 
 And I do further solemnly swear (or af- 
 firm) that since the adoption of the present 
 ' constitution, I have not fought a duel with 
 j deadly weapons, within this State nor cut 
 j of it, nor have I sent a challenge or accep- 
 | ted a challenge to fight with deadly wea- 
 j pons, nor have I acted as secoud in carry- 
 ! ing a challenge, or aided, advised or as- 
 ' sisted any person thus offending — So help 
 me God. 
 
 On motion 5 said section as amended wa3 
 adopted. 
 
 Section twenty -ninth was taken up, viz: 
 Sec. 29. Every law of a general na- 
 ture shall be equaally applicable to all 
 parts of the State. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to lay said section on 
 the table indefinitely. 
 
 Mr. Ersxis moved to amend said mc 
 tion by laying said section on the table 
 subject to call, which motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Baton Rouge, submitted, 
 on behalf of Mi McCallop, the following 
 additional section, viz : 
 
 All contested elections for members of 
 the senate and house of representatives 
 and all other parish officers, shall be de- 
 eided by the district court of the parish in 
 which the contest shall have originated. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till Monday next, at 2 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent at the first 
 call of the house : Messrs. Beatty, Downs, 
 O'Bryan, Penn, Prescctt of Avoyelles, 
 Prudliomme, Saunders and Scott of Felici- 
 ana, absent on leave. Messrs. Porche. Sel- 
 lers and "Wikoff absent on account of ill- 
 ness: and Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Carriere, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson , 
 
252 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Eustis,Guion,Grymes, 
 Garcia, Hynson, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 Ledoux, Legendre, Marigny, Mayo, Mazu- 
 reau, Preston, Pugh, Ratliff, Roselius, St. 
 Amand, Soule, Taylor of St. Landry, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Trist, Voorhies and 
 Winchester did not answer to their names 
 at the first call of the house. 
 
 Note. — Members absent at the second 
 call of the roll : Messrs. Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Cenas, Chinn, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Grymes, Guion, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, McCallop, Marigny, Preston, 
 Roselius, St. Amand, Soule, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Trist and Wadsworth. 
 
 Monday, May 5, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 In the absence of a minister of the gos- 
 pel the Hon. Mr. Stephens, at the request 
 of the president, opened the proceedings 
 with prayer. 
 
 The secretary reported the receipt of the 
 printers for the report of the debates of the 
 19th, 21st and 22d of April. 
 
 Mr. Carriers was excused for nonatten- 
 dance on account of illness. 
 
 Mr. Read submitted the following addi- 
 tional report, viz: 
 
 Capital punishment shall never be inflict- 
 ed in this State. 
 
 Which was laid on the table subject to 
 call. 
 
 Mr. Brent submitted the following re- 
 port, viz: 
 
 Ordered, That immediately after the ad- 
 journment of this Convention the governor 
 shall issue hi. proclamation, directing the 
 several officers of this State, auhtorized by 
 law to hold elections for members of the 
 general assembly, to open and hold an 
 election tn every parish of the State, at the 
 places designated by law, upon the first 
 Monday of November next, for the purpose 
 of taking the sense of the good people of 
 this State in regard to the adoption or re- 
 jection of this amended cons titn lion. And 
 it shall be the duty of the said officers to 
 receive the votes of all persons entitled to 
 vote under the old constitution, and under 
 this amended constitution. Each voter 
 shall express his opinion by depositing in 
 the ballot box a ticket, whereon shall be 
 written " the constitution accepted," or 
 
 " the constitution rejected," or some such 
 words as will distinctly convey the inten- 
 tion of the voter. At the conclusion of 
 said election, which shall be conducted in 
 every respect as the general State election 
 is now conducted, the commissioners design 
 nated to preside over the same, shall care- 
 fully examine and count each ballot so de- 
 posited, and shall forthwith make due re- 
 turns thereof to the secretary of State, in 
 conformity to the provisions of the exist- 
 ing law upon the subject of elections. 
 
 Ordered, That upon the receipt of the 
 said returns, it shall be the duty of the go- 
 vernor, the secretary of State, the attorney 
 general and the State treasurer, in the pres- 
 ence of all such persons as may choose to 
 attend, to compare the votes given in said 
 election for the ratification and rejection of 
 this amended constitution; and if it shall 
 appear from said returns that a majority of 
 all the votes given in said election is for 
 ratifying the amended constitution, then 
 it shall be the duty of the governor to make 
 proclamation of that fact, and thenceforth 
 this amended constitution shall be ordained 
 and established as the constitution of Lou- 
 isiana. But whether the amended consti- 
 tution be accepted or rejected, it shall be 
 the duty of the governor to cause to be pub- 
 lished in the State paper the result of the 
 said election, showing the number of votes 
 cast for and against the said constitution. 
 
 Ordered, That should this amended con- 
 stitution be accepted by the people, it shall 
 also be the duty of the governor forthwith 
 to issue his proclamation, declaring the 
 present legislature, elected under the old 
 constitution, to be dissolved, and directing 
 the several officers of the State, authorised 
 by law, to hold elections for members of the 
 general assembly; to hold an election at the 
 places designated by lav/, upon the third 
 Monday in January next (1846), for go- 
 vernor, lieutenant governor, members of 
 the general assembly and all other officers 
 whose election is provided for pursuant to 
 the provisions of this amended constitution. 
 And the said election shall be conducted, 
 and the returns thereof made in conformity 
 with the existing laws upon the subject of 
 State elections. 
 
 Ordered, That the general assembly, 
 elected under this amended, constitution, 
 shall convene at the state house in the city 
 of New Orleans, upon the second Monday 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 253 
 
 of February next, after the election (1846); 
 and that the gevernor and lieutenant govern- 
 or, elected at the same time, shall be duly 
 installed in office during the first week of 
 their session, and before it shall be compe- 
 tent for the said general assembly to proceed 
 With the transaction of business. 
 
 The minority of the committee then 
 offered the following counter report, viz: 
 The undersigned, a minority of com- 
 nittee appointed to devise a plan b}Mvhich 
 he amended constitution shall be carried 
 nto effect, have differed from the majority 
 is^o the time and manner of submitting it 
 o the people for their approval or rejection, 
 Jiave deemed it incumbent on them to make 
 he following counter report, for which 
 •hen respectfully solicit the consideration 
 )f the Convention: 
 
 They are of opinion that there should 
 )e no greater delay in calling the people 
 ogether in their several election districts, 
 o decide upon the organic law which this 
 Convention has framed for them, than is 
 lecessary for it to be published in all parts 
 )f the State, and to become generally 
 fnown to the inhabitants; and as it is pro- 
 vable that this body will adjourn on or 
 .bout the 10th instant, the undersigned 
 >ropose that the second Monday of July 
 text should be fixed upon for its submis-- 
 ion to the electors. This would give the 
 teople two months' time to examine and 
 iscuss it, and to compare its provisions 
 vith those of the old constitution, a period 
 uite sufficient, to the apprehension of the 
 ndersigned. for it to be maturely consid- 
 red and fully understood. At the present 
 aae the attention of the people is called 
 3 the proceedings of this Convention, and 
 . lively interest is felt m the result of its 
 abors. The sooner the work is submitted 
 b them the. greater is the probability of 
 btaining for it a full, fair and unprejudiced 
 xpression of the public sentiment. It is 
 -) be feared that the long delay proposed 
 y the majority of the committee will have 
 ; tendency to stifle enquiry on the subject, 
 nd cause an apathy to be felt, which will 
 jefeat the object which the Convention 
 ias in view, to-wit: to procure the decision 
 ,f a majority of the qualified electors, ap- 
 roving or rejecting the amended consti- 
 jtion. 
 
 The undersigned are also fully persuaded 
 lat it is contrary to good policy and sound 
 
 ' principle to allow any class of persons, 
 other than those who were heretofore en- 
 titled to the elective franchise, to vote for or 
 against the new constitution. It was they 
 who voted for the assembling of this Con- 
 vention; they alone are the? constituents of 
 its members, and they only have the right 
 to say whether the mandate given by them 
 has been executed in such a manner as to 
 meet their approbation. The proposition 
 of the majority of the committee to allow, 
 in addition to those who already possess 
 the qualifications of voters, all who may 
 have been constituted electors under the 
 new constitution, to vote at the assembling 
 of the people to decide upon that instru- 
 ment, is viewed by the undersigned as 
 amounting in effect, to a fraud upon the 
 rights of the constituency of this Conven- 
 tion. It is hazarding nothing to declare 
 that had such a proceeding been anticipa- 
 ted, before the people decided to call a 
 Convention, a very large portion of those 
 who voted for it would have refused to 
 delegate a power which could be exercised 
 so as to defeat their wishes, whilst they are 
 mocked with a show of accountability, on 
 the part of their representatives. The un- 
 dersigned cannot perceive how it can be 
 pretended that persons who are not entitled 
 to vote under the existing constitution, 
 should be permitted to exercise this ines- 
 timable privilege upon an occasion like 
 that in question. Those persons had no 
 agency in electing the members of this 
 Convention, and could not in consequence, 
 instruct them as to their acts. They have 
 therefore no right to decide upon that 
 which has been done by those who are 
 not their agents; and this Convention has 
 no righful power to diminish the constitu- 
 tional privileges of the electors of this 
 State, by extending the elective franchise, 
 without their consent, to persons who are 
 by that means enabled to nullify their 
 wishes. 
 
 "The undersigned do not deem it neces- 
 sary to say any thing further in support of 
 the views they have taken of the matter 
 under consideration; tney submit it to the 
 wisdom and sound discretion of the Con- 
 vention. Respectfully, 
 
 THOS. W. CH1NN, 
 GEORGE S. GUION. 
 Mr. Eustis, chairman of the committee 
 of revision, reported the legislative article. 
 
254 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 GENERAL PROVISIONS. 
 
 Sec. 24. The legislature shall not have 
 power or authority to pledge the faith of 
 the State, as security for the payment of 
 any bonds, bills, or other contracts or obli- 
 gations whatever, nor to borrow money for 
 any purpose whatever, except for de- 
 fraying the expense of war, or for the 
 purpose of repelling an invasion of the 
 State by an armed force, or of suppres- 
 sing an insurrection. 
 
 Provided, That the State shall have the 
 right to issue new bonds in payment of its 
 now outstanding obligations or liabilities, 
 whether due or not, tiie said new bonds, 
 however, to bear upon their face, either in 
 principal or interest, an amount less than 
 the original obligations they are intended 
 to replace. 
 
 The following additional section, offered 
 by Mr. Roman, was taken up, viz: 
 
 The legislature shall not in any manner 
 create any debt or debts, liability or lia- 
 bilities, wljich shall singly or in the aggre- 
 gate, with all previous debts or liabilities, 
 exceed the sum of one hundred thousand 
 dollars, (except in case of war, to repel in- 
 vasion or suppress insurrection) unless the 
 same be authorized by some law, for some 
 single object or work, to be distinctly spe- 
 cified therein, which law shall provide 
 ways and means, by taxation, for the pay- 
 ment of running interests during the whole 
 time for which said debt shall be contracted 
 and for the full and punctual discharge at 
 maturity, of the capital borrowed; and said 
 law shall be irrepeaiable until the princi- 
 pal and interest thereon shall be paid and 
 fully discharged, and shall not be put into 
 execution until after its re-enactment by 
 the first legislature returned by a general 
 election after its passage. 
 
 Mr. Lewis offered the following as a 
 substitute for the twenty-fourth section, viz: 
 
 Sec. 24. The legislature shall not have 
 power or authority to pledge the faith of 
 the Stata, as surety for the payment of any 
 bonds, bills, or other contracts or obliga- 
 tions, for the benefit or use of any person 
 or persons, corporation or body politic 
 whatever; provided, that the State shall have 
 the right to issue new bonds in payment of 
 its now outstanding obligations or liabili- 
 ties, whether due or not; the said bonds, 
 however, not to be issued for a larger 
 
 amount, or at a higher rate of interest, than 
 the obligations they are intended to replace. 
 
 Mr. Eustis moved to amend said sub- 
 stitute by striking out the following provi. 
 so, viz: 
 
 Provided, That the State shall have the 
 right to issue new bonds in payment of its 
 novv outstanding obligations or liabilities 
 whether due or not; the said now bonds, 
 however, not to be issued for a large] 
 amount or at a higher rate of interest thai] 
 the original obligations they are intended tc 
 replace. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, moved toamenc 
 said substitute by striking out in secont 
 line the words "as surety." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Brazeale, Brent 
 Brumfieid, Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, Clai 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Covillion, Cul 
 bertson, Debouchel, Eustis, Garrett 
 Guion, Humble, King, Ledoux, Mayo 
 Mazureau, Peets, Preston, Pugh, Read 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Stephens, Tay 
 lor of Assumption, Voorhies, Waddill 
 Wads worth, Wederstrandt and Windei 
 voted in the affirmative — 33 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Briant, Burton 
 Chinn, Downs, Dunn, Hudspeth, Hynso 
 Legendre, Lewis, McRae, Porter, Presc 
 of St. Landry, Roman, St. Amand, Scott 
 Baton Rouge and Winchester voted in t 
 negative — 18 nays; consequently said mo 
 tion was carried, and the words "as surety 
 were stricken out. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the motion of Mr. Eustis to strike out the 
 proviso, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Cade, Cham- 
 bliss, Covillion, Eustis, Humble, Hynson, 
 Ledoux, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Preston, 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Voor- 
 hies, Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in 
 the affirmative — 21 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Bourg, Briant, 
 Brumfieid, Burton, Cenas, Chinn, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jef- 
 ferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dubouche), 
 Downs, Dunn, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 King, Legendre, Lewis, McRae, Mazureau. 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Pugh, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Sellers, Wadsworth, Winchester 
 and Winder voted in the negative — 31 nays; 
 consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Marigny moved to amend said see- 
 
journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 255 
 
 tion bv inserting at its commencement the h Messrs. Beatty. Braze ale. Brent. Cham- 
 
 following words, viz: bliss, Cotillion, Eustis, Humble, Hynson, 
 
 "As the constitution of the United States Ledoux, Mayo, Peels, Porter, Read, Scott 
 
 prohibits the States from coining money or of Baton Rouge, Scott of Madison, Ste- 
 
 issuing bills of credit." phens, Taylor of Assumption, Yoorhies and 
 
 On motion of Mr. Wadswosth. said fVederetrandt voted in the negative — 19 
 
 amendment was laid on the table inden- nays; consequently said motion was car- 
 
 niteiv. ried, and the second paragraph was 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, moved for adopted, 
 a division of the question, that is, to act on On motion, the section as amended, 
 
 the section paragraph by paragraph: which was adopted, viz : 
 
 motion prevailed. Sec. 24. The legislature shall not have 
 
 The veas and nays being called for on ' power or authority to pledge the faith of 
 
 ttbe motion to adopt the first paragraph, viz: the State for the payment of any bonds, 
 
 ••The legislature shall not have power or bills, or other contracts or obligations, for 
 
 lauthorityJo pledge the faith of the State for the benefit or use of any person or per- 
 
 the pavment of any bonds, bills, or other sons, corporation or body politic whatever, 
 contracts or obligations, for the benefit or Provided, That the State shall have the 
 
 use of any person or persons, corporation or right to issue new bonds in payment of its 
 
 body politic watever;" resulted as follows: now outstanding obligations or liabilities, 
 
 Messrs. BeaUy, Boudousquie, Bourg, whether due or not; the said new bonds, 
 
 Brazeale. Brent. B riant. Brumfield. Binton. however, not to be issued for a larger 
 
 Cade, Cenas. Chambliss, Chinn, Claiborne, amount, or at a higher rate of interest, 
 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, than the original obligations they are in- 
 
 Covillion. Culbertson. Derbes, Downs, Du- tended to replace. 
 
 bouchel, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, The following additional section offered 
 
 Hudspeth. Humble, Hynson. King, Ledoux, by Mr. Roman, was taken up. 
 ULegendre, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, The legislature shall not in any manner 
 
 Porter. Prescott of St. Landry, Pugh. Read, create any debt ofdebts, liability o*r liabili- 
 
 Roman. St. Am and, Scott of Baton Rouge, ties, which shall singly or in the aggregate 
 
 Scott of Madison. Sellers Stephens, Taylor with all previous debts or liabilities, exceed 
 
 iof Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Toor- the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, 
 
 fries. Waddill, Wads worth, TVederstrandt, (except in case of war, to repel invasion or 
 
 [Winchester and Winder voted in the af- suppress insurrection,) unless the same be 
 
 firmative — 53 yeas: the vote being unani- authorized by some law, for some single 
 
 mous, the said motion^as carried, and the object or work, to be distinctly specified 
 
 [first paragraph was adopted. therein, which law shall provide ways and 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on means, by taxation, for the payment of run- 
 
 the adoption of the second paragraph, viz: ning interests during the whole time for 
 
 Provided. That the State shall have the which said debt shall be contracted,, and 
 right to issue new bonds in payment of its for the full and punctual discharge at ma- 
 no w outstanding obligations or liabilities, turity, of the capital borrowed; and said 
 whether due or not: the said new bonds, law shall be irrepealable until the princi- 
 however, not to be issued for a larger pal and interest thereon shall be paid and 
 amount, or at a higher rate of interest, than fully discharged, and shall not be put into 
 the original obligations they are intended to execution until after its re-enactment by 
 replace, — resulted as follows, ; the first legislature returned by a general 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie. Boars-. Brinnfield, election after its passage. 
 Burton. Cenas. Chinn. Claiborne. Conrad Mr. Read moved to amend said section 
 
 of Orleans. Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson. by striking out from the third line the 
 
 Derbes. Downs. DuifoucheL Dunn. Garrett, words, "which shall singly or in the ag- 
 
 Guion. Hudspeth. King, Legend re. Lewis, gregate, with any previous debts or liabili- 
 
 McRae. Marigny. Pugh. Roman, St. Amancl, biliries, exceed the sum of one hundred 
 
 Sellers, Taylor^i St. Landry. Waddill, thousand dollars.*' and to strike out from the 
 
 V\ adsworih, TT inchesier and Winder voted eigth line, the remainder of said section, * 
 
 in the affirmative — 31 yeas: and viz: "unless the same be authorized by 
 
256 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 some law, for some single object or work,' 
 to be distinctly specified therein, which 
 Jaw shall provide ways and means, by tax- 
 ation, for the payment of running interests 
 during the whole time for which said debt 
 shall be contracted, and for the full and 
 punctual discharge at maturity, of the capi- 
 tal borrowed; and said law shall be irre- 
 pealable until the" principal and interest 
 thereon shall be paid and folly discharged, 
 and shall not be put into execution until 
 after its re-enactment by the first legisla- 
 ture returned by a general election after its 
 passage. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 said motion to strike out the above words, 
 
 Messrs, Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumjield, Cade, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 Dubouchel, Eustis, Humble, Hynson Le- 
 doux, McRae, Marigny, Peeis,Pbrtcr,Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Madison, 
 Sellers, Soule, Stephens, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in 
 the affirmative — 26 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs, Boudousquie, Burton, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jeffers t on,lCidbertson,Derbes,Downs, 
 Dunn, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, King, Le- 
 gendre, Lewis, Mayo, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Voorhies, Wadsworlh, Win- 
 chester and Winder voted in the negative 
 — 27 nays; consequently said motion was 
 lost. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, offered as 
 a substitute to said section the following, 
 viz : 
 
 4 'No money shall be borrowed by the 
 State unless for ordinary administrative 
 purposes, without the assent of the people 
 given at a general election." 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, offered the fol- 
 lowing amendment, to be inserted at the 
 end of said substitute, viz : 
 
 "Or unless the law authorizing the loan 
 shall be passed by two successive legisla- 
 tures, and by the same law a tax shall be 
 imposed or a sinking fund established suf- 
 ficient to pay the interest on the loan as it 
 shall accrue, and the principal thereof at 
 maturity; and in such case the law impos- 
 ing the tax or creating the sinking fund, 
 shall be irrepealable until the principal 
 and interest of the debt shall , be dis- 
 charged." 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to lay the substitute 
 
 and amendment on the table indefinitely 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie 
 Bourg, Brazeale, Briant, Brumfield, Cade 
 Chambliss, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad o 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, Dubouchel 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth 
 Humble, Hynson, King, Ledoux, Legendre 
 Lewis, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Pres 
 colt of St. Landry, Pugh, Read, Roman 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Stephens, Taylm 
 of St. Landry, Voorhies, Waddill, Wads- 
 worth, Wederstrandt, Winchester anc 
 
 Winder voted in the affirmative 4"< 
 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Cenas, Blarigny, Scott of Bator 
 Rouge, Soule and Taylor of Assumption 
 voted in the negative— 5 nays; conse 
 quently said motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Roman moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by striking out the following words 
 " the legislature shall not in any mannei 
 create any debt or debts, liability or lia- 
 bilities, which shall singly or in the aggre- 
 gate, with any previous debts or liabilities 
 exceed the sum of one hundred thousanc 
 dollars," and insert in lieu thereof the fol- 
 lowing amendment, viz : 
 
 "The aggregate amount of debts here* 
 after contracted -by the legislature, shall 
 never exceed one hundred thousand doL 
 lars;" which amendment was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Peets moved to amend said section 
 by inserting after the word "time," in the 
 thirteenth line, th^ words "which term 
 shall not exceed ten years;" which amcnd- 
 s ment was lost, 
 
 Mr. Roman moved for the adoption of 
 the section as amended; the yeas and 
 nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Bourg, 
 Briant, Burton, Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, Dunn, GarreUr 
 Guion, Hudspeth, King, Legendre, Lewis, 
 McRae, Mayo, Prescott of St.Landry,P?/gA, 
 Roman, St. Amand, Scott of Madison, Tay- 
 lor of St, Landry, Voorhies, WederstranJt, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the affir- 
 mative— 32 yeas: and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Cade, Covillion, Dubouchel, Eustis, 
 Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Marigny, Peets, 
 Porter, Preston, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Sellers, Soule, Stephens, Taylor of 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 257 
 
 Assumption and Waddill voted in the 
 negative — 22 nays; consequently said mo- 
 tion was carried, and the section as amend- 
 ed, was adopted, viz: 
 
 The aggregate amount of debts hereafter 
 contracted by the legislature, shall never 
 exceed one hundred thousand dollars, (ex- 
 cept in case of war, to repel invasion or 
 suppress insurrection,) unless the same be 
 authorized by some law, for some single 
 object or work, to be distinctly specified 
 therein, which law shall provide ways and 
 i means, by taxation, for the payment of run- 
 ding interests during the whole time for j 
 which said debt shall be contracted, and 
 for the full and punctual discharge at matu- 
 rity, of the capital borrowed; and- said law j 
 shall be irrepealable until the principal 
 and interest thereon shall be paid and fully 
 discharged, and shall not be put into exe- j 
 cution until after its re-enactment by the 
 first legislature, returned by a general ' 
 election after its passage. 
 
 Mr. Read called up the additional sec- 
 ;,tion offered by him, viz: 
 
 "Capital punishment shall never be in- 
 flicted in this State." 
 
 Mr. Crt^>~ moved to lay said section on 
 the table indefinitely. The yeas and nays 
 being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Cade, Cenas, China, Conrad 
 of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson. Cotillion, 
 : Culbertson, Berbes, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, 1 
 Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, j 
 King, Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, JIayo, • 
 ■ Peets, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, \ 
 ' Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, Sellers, Ste- j 
 phens, Terror of Assumption, Taylor of St. 
 [Landry, Yoorhies, Winchester and Winder \ 
 voted in the affirmative — 37 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatiy, Bourg, Briant, Burton, j 
 Chambli-ss, Dubouchel, Garcia, Ledoux, 
 McRae, Porter, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Madison, Soule, Waddill 
 and Wederstrandt voted in the negative — 
 16 nays; consequently said motion was 
 carried. 
 
 Agreeably to notice previously given, 
 Mr. Garrett moved to reconsider the vote 
 adopting the seventh section of the gener- 
 al provisions, which motion prevailed, and 
 said section was taken up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 7. All civil officers for the State at 
 large shall reside within the State, and all 
 district or parish officers within their sev- 
 33 
 
 eral districts or parishes, and shall keep 
 their respective offices at such places 
 theiein as may be required by law; and no 
 person shall be elected or appointed to any 
 district or parish office, who shall not have 
 resided in sueh district or parish long 
 enough before such election or appointment 
 to have acquired the right of voting for 
 representatives to the general assembly in 
 such district or parish. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to amend said section 
 by striking out in the sixth, seventh and 
 tenth lines, the words "district or," The 
 yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Broudousquie, 
 Bourg, Brvant, Cenas, Chinn, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 DuBouchel, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Gar- 
 rett, Guion, Hudspeth, Iving. Legendre, 
 Ledoux, Lewis, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Roman, St. Amand, Soule. Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Taylor of St. Landry. Voorhies, 
 Wederstandt, Winchester and Winder vo- 
 ted in the affirmative — 34 yeas: and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Bnrton, Cade, Chambliss, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Mad i son, Sellers. Stephens and Woddill 
 voted in the negative — 17 nays: conse- 
 quently said motion was carried, and the 
 words were stricken out. 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by inserting at the end of the same 
 the following amendment, viz: 
 
 "And no person shall be appointed or 
 elected to any district office who shall not 
 have resided in said district, or an adjoin- 
 ing district, long enough before such ap- 
 pointment or election, to have acquired 
 the right of voting for representatives to 
 the general assembly for the same; which 
 amendment was adopted." 
 
 On motion, the seventh section, as amen- 
 ded, was adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 7. All civil officers for the State 
 at large, shall reside within the State, and 
 all district or parish officers within their 
 respective districts or parishes, and shall 
 keep their respective offices at such places 
 therein as may be required by law; and 
 no person shall be elected or appointed to 
 any parish office who shall not have resi- 
 ded in such parish long enough before such 
 election or appointment to have acquired 
 the right of voting for representatives to 
 
258 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 the general assembly in such parish; and 
 no person shall be appointed or elected to 
 any district office, who shall not have re- 
 sided in such district or an adjoining dis- 
 trict, long enough before such appointment 
 or election to have acquired the right of 
 voting for representatives to the general 
 assembly for the same. 
 
 Section twenty-ninth was taken up, viz: 
 Sec. 29. Every law of a general nature 
 shall be equally applicable to all parts of 
 the State. 
 
 Mr. Lewis offered as a substitute for 
 said section the following, viz: 
 
 "No law shall be passed enabling partic- 
 ular individuals to make contracts which 
 by the general laws they were not permit- 
 ted to make, or removing in favor of indi- 
 viduals, any incapacity or disability im- 
 posed by general laws." 
 
 Mr. Dunn offered as a substitute for the 
 substitute of Mr, Lewis, the following, 
 viz : 
 
 "The general assembly shall not pass any 
 private law, unless it shall be made to ap- 
 pear that thirty days notice of application 
 to pass such law shall have been given, 
 under such directions and in such manner 
 as shall be provided by law." 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved for the adoption of 
 the substitute offered by him. The yeas 
 and nays being called for, 
 
 • Messrs. Broudousquie, Brent, Cade, 
 Derbes, DuBouchel, Eustis, Garrett, Hyn- 
 son, Hudspeth, King, Lewis, McRae, Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescoit of St. 
 Landry, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Ste- 
 phens, Soule, Taylor of Assumption, Tay- 
 lor of St. Landry, Voorhies and Weder- 
 strandt voted in the affirmative— 25 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Bia- 
 zeale, Bryant, Brumfield, Burton, Cenas, 
 Chambliss, Chinn, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Covillion, Downs, Dunn, Guion, Humble, 
 Legendre, Roman, St. Amand, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers. Waddill, Wadsworth, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the neg 
 ative- — 25 nays; the vote being equal, the 
 president voted in the negative; conse- 
 quently said motion was lost, and the sub- 
 stitute was rejected. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved for the adoption of 
 the 29th section. The yeas and nays be- 
 ing called for 
 
 Messrs.. Brumfield, Hudspeth, Hynson, 
 
 Lewis, McRae, Porter, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Sel- 
 lers, Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in the af- 
 firmative — 14 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Broudous- 
 quie, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Bur- 
 ton, Cade, Genas, Chambliss, Chinn, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Covillion, Derbes, DuBou- 
 chel, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Garcia, 
 Guion, Humble, King, Legendre, Marigny, 
 Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Roman, Scott of 
 Madison H St. Amand, Soule, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Voorhies, Wadsworth, Winder 
 and Winchester voted in the negative — 38 
 nays; consequently said motion was lost, 
 and the section rejected. 
 
 Mr. Chinn offered the following addi- 
 tional section, viz: 
 
 Sec. . The legislature shall have 
 
 power, whenever the interest of the State 
 may require it, to create courts of probates 
 in each parish, or such other tribunals as 
 may be calculated to insure a faithful pro- 
 tection and administration of estates. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by adding to the end of the same the 
 following, viz: 
 
 "The judges of said courts shall be elect- 
 ed by the qualified voters in each parish." 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved that the section 
 and amendment be laid on the table indefi- 
 nitely. The yeas and nays being called 
 for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Broudousquie, Bra. 
 zeale, Brumfield f Burton, Cade, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Cenas, Downs, Dustis, Garrett, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, Lewis., Mc- 
 Rae, Peets, Prescott of St. Landry, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of MadisoH, 
 Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wadsworth and Wed- 
 erstrandt voted in the affirmative— -28 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Rrent, Bryant, 
 Chambliss, Chinn, Covillion, Derbes, Du- 
 Bouchel, Dunn, Garcia, Guion, King, Le- 
 doux, Legendre, Marigny, Mayo, Mazu- 
 reau, Porter, Pugh, Roman, Soule, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Winchester and Winder 
 voted in the negative; 25 nays; consequent- 
 ly said motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Broudousquie gave notice that Is* 
 will on to-morrow move to reconsider the 
 vote laying on the table indefinitely the 
 above section. 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 On motion, the following additional sec- 
 tion, offered by Mr. Conrad of Orleans, 
 was taken up, viz: 
 
 "Taxation shall he equal and uniform 
 throughout the State." 
 
 On motion, the following section, offer- 
 ed by Garrett, and which had been laid on 
 the table subject to call, and to be taken 
 up together with the above section, was 
 taken up. viz: 
 
 "All property subject to taxation in this 
 State shall be taxed in proportion to its 
 value, to be ascertained by law. No one 
 species of property from which a tax may 
 be collected, shall be taxed any higher 
 than another species of property of equal 
 value, subject to taxation." 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by adding at the end of the same the 
 following proviso, viz: 
 
 Provided, that the legislature shall have 
 power to tax merchants, hawkers, pedlers. 
 privileges or incomers in such a manner as 
 may from time to time be prescribed by- 
 law. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption offered as 
 la substitute for the whole, the following, 
 viz: 
 
 I "The revenue of the State, derived from 
 taxation, shall be assessed equally upon 
 all the property of the State, according to 
 its value, to be ascertained in such manner 
 
 I as the legislature shall direct, so that the 
 same shall be equal and uniform through- 
 out the State. No one species of proper- 
 
 jty shall be taxed higher than any other 
 species of property of equal value." 
 Pending the discussion on said substitute 
 
 (the Convention adjourned till to-morrow 
 at 9 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note. -—Members absent: Messrs. Beat- 
 ty, O'Bryan. Penn. Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prudhomme, Saunders, Scott of Feliciana, 
 absent on leave: Messrs. Carriere, Porche 
 and Wikoff absent on account of illness; 
 and Messrs. Benjamin, Bru infield Cenas. 
 Ghinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertscn, Derbes, 
 Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve. McCallop, Marigny, Mazureau-, 
 Ratliff, Roselius, St. Amand, Splaue rule, 
 Trist, Wadsworth and Winchester did not 
 answer to their names at the call of the 
 House. 
 
 Tuesday. May, 6, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 I journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Waeeex opened the pro- 
 1 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 The Secretary reported the receipt of 
 I the printers for the report of the debales of 
 ! the 22d and 23d April. 
 
 Mr. Porter gave notice that he will, on 
 | to-morrow, move to reconsider the vote 
 adopting the section offered by Mr. Taylor 
 of Assumption, in relation to the acquisi- 
 i tion of residence in this State. 
 
 Mr. Winder submitted the following 
 • resolution, viz: 
 
 Resolved, That from and after three 
 | o'clock this day no new provision shall be 
 j offered, except by way of amendment, un- 
 less the Convention shall give its consent 
 I thereto by a vote of two-thirds of the mem- 
 bers present. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Baton Rouge, moved to 
 amend said resolution by adding at the end 
 of the same the following, viz: 
 
 And that the Convention shall adjourn 
 ■sine die. on Saturday next at three^'clock 
 p. 03. Which amendment was accepted 
 by Mr*. Winder. 
 
 Mr. Winder moved for the adoption of 
 the resolution as amended. 
 
 Mr. Dunn moved for a division of the 
 question, that is, to take the vote on the 
 first proposition, viz: 
 
 Resolved, That from and after three o'- 
 clock this day, no new provision shall be 
 offered, except byway of amendment. 
 
 On motion, the first proposition was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 L nless the Convention shall give its con- 
 sent thereto, by a vote of two-thirds of the 
 members present. 
 
 On the motion to adopt the third propo- 
 sition, viz: 
 
 And that the Convention shall adjourn, 
 sine die, on Saturday next, at three o'clock, 
 p. m. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg. Brazeale, Briant, 
 Burton. Cade, Chambliss, Chinn, Dunn, 
 Guion, Hynson, King, Lewis, McRae, 
 Mayo. Pugh, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Madison, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Voorhies. Waddill, Winches- 
 J ter and Winder voted in the affirmative — 
 24 veas: and 
 
260 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Carriere, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Culbertson, Derbes, Dubouchel, 
 Downs, Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, Le- 
 doux, Legendre, Mazureau, Peets, Porter, 
 Preston, Read, Roman, Saunders, Sellers, 
 Splane, Stephens and Wederstrandt voted 
 in the negative — 27 nays; consequently 
 said motion was lost, and the latter clause 
 was rejected. 
 
 On motion, the section as amended was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Resolved, That from and after three 
 o'clock this day, no new provision shall 
 be offered, except by way of amendment, 
 unless the Convention shall give its con- 
 sent thereto, by a vote of two-thirds of the 
 members present. 
 
 Mr. Gui6n submitted the following reso- 
 lution: 
 
 Resolved, That after the constitution has 
 passed through its second reading, it shall 
 be taken, section by section, for a third 
 reading; at which time no amendment 
 which may be offered shall be adopted, un- 
 less by % majority of the members elected 
 to the Convention, or by a greater number 
 of votes than were given for the section at 
 the first reading. No debates shall take 
 place, and no remarks shall be permitted, 
 but such as may be strictly necessary to 
 explain the object of the amendment; and 
 after all the sections shall have been acted 
 on, the question shall be put on the final 
 passage of the constitution. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Cade, the rules were 
 dispensed with, in order to take up the 
 above resolution; and the same being taken 
 up, was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, offered the 
 following section, viz: 
 
 The legislature shall devise and estab- 
 lish a system of common schools for the 
 education of all the children of the citizens 
 of the State, and shall provide at least three- 
 fourths of the funds necessary for the sup<- 
 port thereof, by a tax on property. 
 
 Mr. Trist gave notice that he would at 
 twelve o'clock to-day, move to reconsider 
 the vote forming one senatorial district of 
 the parishes of St. James and Ascension, 
 with two senators. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne gave notice that he will 
 to-day at one o'clock, move to reconsider 
 the vote adopting the section offered by 
 
 Mr. Porter, making all parish officers elec- 
 tive. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, submitted 
 the following section, viz: 
 
 At the general election, in the year — , 
 and every — - year thereafter, a poll shall 
 be opened and taken in every election dis- 
 trict in the State, as to the expediency of 
 calling a Convention; and in the event a 
 majority of all the qualified electors in the 
 State shall vote in calling a Convention, 
 the general assembly shall, at their next 
 session, call a Convention, to consist of as 
 many members as there shall be represen- 
 tatives in the house of representatives, to 
 be chosen in the same manner and propor- 
 tion as the said representatives, at the gen- 
 al election next thereafter ensuing, and to 
 meet within six months after their election, 
 for the purpose of re-adopting, amending or 
 changing this constitution. 
 
 A question of order being raised, viz: 
 
 Whether the above section was not in 
 direct conflict with the section adodopted 
 in the article providing, for the mode of re- 
 vising the constitution, and consequently 
 out of order. 
 
 Mr. Labauve in the chair, decided that 
 the section was in order. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, appealed 
 from the decision of the chair. 
 
 Which decision was sustained. 
 
 Mr. Guion moved to lay said section on 
 the table indefinitely. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Biumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jeffe*rson, Derbes, Dubouchel, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, 
 King, Legendre, Lewis, McCallop, Ma- 
 rigny, Mazureau, Roman, Sellers, Stephens, 
 Voorhies, Wadsworth, Winchester and 
 Winder voted in the affirmative* — 32 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Cham- 
 bliss, Covillion Culbertson, Downs, Gar- 
 rett, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, McRae, 
 Mayo, Peets, Porter, Preston, Read, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison, Soule, Splane, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Waddill and 
 Wederstrandt voted in the negative— -27 
 nays; consequently said motion was car- 
 ried. 
 
Journal of t the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 261 
 
 Mr. Waddill submitted the following 
 section, and the same was laid on the table 
 subject to call, viz: 
 
 No person shall be imprisoned for debt, 
 in any action, or on any judgment founded 
 upon contract, unless in cases of fraud; nor 
 shall any person be imprisoned for a mili- 
 tia fine in time of peace. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ledofx, the fifth sec- 
 section of the general provisions was re- 
 jonsidered; and the same was taken up, 
 viz: 
 
 i Sec. 5. No money shall be drawn from 
 the treasury but in pursuance of specific 
 appropriations made by law: nor shall any 
 appropriation of money for the support of 
 an army, be made for a longer term than 
 one year. A regular statement and ac- 
 count of the receipts and expenditures of 
 all public money shall be published annu- 
 ally, in such manner as shall be provided 
 by law. 
 
 -Mr. Ledotx moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by striking out, commencing in the 
 third line, the words "for the support of 
 an army," and insert in the fifth line the 
 word "two," instead of "one," which mo- 
 tion prevailed. 
 
 On motion, the section as amended was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 5. Xo money shall be drawn from 
 the treasury but in pursuance of specific 
 appropriations made by law; nor shall any 
 appropriation of money be made for a 
 i longer term than two years. A regular 
 i statement and accounttbf the receipts and 
 i expenditures of ail public money shall be 
 jpublished annually, in such manner as shall 
 tbe prescribed by law. 
 
 Agreeably to notice, Mr. Sellers mored 
 to reconsider the vote adopting the eighth 
 .section of the legislative article, which mo- 
 tion was lost. 
 
 It being twelve o'clock, Mr. Trist 
 moved to reconsider the vote forming one 
 ; one senatorial district of the parishes of St. 
 James and Ascension, with two senators. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Rrent. Brum- 
 neld. Buiton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 i Covillion, Dubouchel, Downs, Eustis, 
 Humble. Hynson, Ledoux, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Pres. 
 ton, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Soule, Splane, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Voorhies, 
 
 Waddill, Wederstrandt and Winder voted 
 in the affirmative — 34 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin. Boudousquie, Bourg, 
 Briant, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Dunn. Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre. Lewis, 
 Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, 
 Saunders Sellers and Winchester voted in 
 the negative — 26 nays ; consequently said 
 motion was carried, and the senatorial dis- 
 trict composed of the parishes of St. James 
 and Ascension, with one senator, was tei- 
 ken up. 
 
 Mr. Trijt moved to amend said district 
 as follows, viz: 
 
 "The parish of St. James shall compose 
 one district, with one senator. 
 
 "The parish of Ascension shall compose 
 one district, with one senator." 
 
 Which amendment was adopted, and 
 the section as amended was re -adopted. 
 
 Agreeably to notice, Mr- Brext moved 
 to reconsider the vote adopting the third 
 section of the judiciary. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Coviliion, Dunn, Hudspeth, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Lewis, 3IcCaliop, McRae, Mayo, 
 Peets, Porter, Preston, Read, Saunders, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 ^cott of ?»Iadison, Sellers, Splane, Ste- 
 phens and Waddill voted in the affirmative 
 — 28 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty. Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Briant, Chinn. Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Downs, Dubouchel, Eustis, Gar- 
 rett, Guion, Kenner, King, Labauve, Le- 
 doux, Legendre, Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh, 
 Roman, St. Amand, Soule, Splane, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Trist, Voorhies, Weder- 
 strandt, Winchester and Winder voted in 
 the negative — 33 nays; consequently said 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Claiborxe moved to reconsider 
 the vote adopting the section offered by 
 Mr. Porter, making all parish officers not 
 provided for in this constitution, elective. 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Brazeale, Briant, Burton, Cade, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Downs, Dubouchel, Eustis, Gar- 
 
262 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 rett, Guion, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, 
 Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, McCallop, 
 Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Roman, Saunders, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Madison, 
 Sellers, Soule, Splane, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Trist, Voorhies, Wederstrandt Win- 
 chester and Winder voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 46 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brent, Brumfield, Covil- 
 lion, Dunn, Hudspeth, Lewis, McRae, 
 Preston, Read, St. Amand, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Stephens, and Waddill voted in the 
 negative — 14 nays ; consequently said mo- 
 tion was carried and the section taken up, viz: 
 
 All parish officers not otherwise provi- 
 ded for by this constitution, shall be elect- 
 ed by the qualified electors of the different 
 parishes, in such manner as shall be pre- 
 scribed by l iw. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne moved to amend said 
 section by adding at the end of the same 
 the following proviso, viz: 
 
 Provided, that the mode of appointment 
 and the tenure of office of all officers in the 
 parish of Orleans shall remain as hereto- 
 fore, unless otherwise provided by the 
 legislature. 
 
 Mr. Boudousquie moved to amend said 
 proviso by inserting after the word "Or- 
 leans" the words "German coast." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Briant, Chinn, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Garcia, Hudspeth, Kenner, Legen- 
 dre, Lewis, Roman, St. Amand, Sellers, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Wadsworth and 
 Winchester voted in the affirmative — 18 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, 
 Cenas, Chambliss, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Covillion, Downs, Dubouchel, 
 Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Humble, Hynson, 
 Labauve, Ledoux, McCallop, McRae, Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Read, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of I 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Soule Splane, 
 Stephens, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Wed- 
 erstrandt and Winder voted in the negative 
 — 4-4 nays; consequently said motion was 
 lost. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved to amend said pro- 
 viso by adding at the end of the same, the 
 following amendment, viz: 
 
 And that the register of conveyances 
 register of mortgages, and notaries public 
 for the State at large, shall be appointed a, 1 
 the legislature may direct. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Boudousquie, Bourg 
 Briant, Chinn, Conrad of Jefferson, Qui- 
 bertson, Derbes, Garcia, Guion, Kenner, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, Pugh, Roman 
 St. Amand, Saunders, Splane, Taylor ol 
 Assumption, Trist, Wadsworth, Winches- 
 ter and Winder voted in the affirmative— 
 24 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Cenes, Cham, 
 bliss, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Co- 
 villion, Downs, Dubouchel, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garrett, Grymes, Hudspeth, Humble, 
 Hynson, Ledoux, McCallop, McRae, Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Soule, Stephens, 
 Voorhies, Waddill and Wederstrandt, vo- 
 ted in the negative — 40 nays; consequent- 
 ly said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Jefferson, moved to 
 amend said proviso, by inserting after the 
 word "Orleans 5 ' the words "and parish of 
 Jefferson.". The yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Boudousquie, Briant, Chinn, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Garcia, Kenner, Legendre, Lewis, 
 Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Wadsworth and Winchester vo- 
 ted in the affirmative — 17 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Br 
 zeale, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Cen 
 Chambliss, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Covillion, Downs, Dubouchel, Eustis, Gar- 
 rett, Grymes, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, 
 Hynson, Labauve, Ledoux, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Por- 
 ter, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Read, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge,' Scott of 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Soule, 
 Splane, Stephens, Voorhies, Waddill, Wed- 
 erstrandt and Winder voted in the negative 
 — 45 nays ; consequently said motion was 
 lost. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne moved for the adoption 
 of the proviso. The yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 263 
 
 ?ade, Cenas. Chambliss, Chinn. Claiborne. 
 Vonrad of Orleans, Derbes, Downs. Du- 
 <ouchel, Eustis,. Grymes, Guion. Humble, 
 lynson. Ledoux, Legendre, McCallop, 
 darignv. Mayo. Mazureau, Porter. Pres- 
 ott of St. Landry, Pugh, Read, Roman, 
 Sunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 ■ladison. Sellers, Soule. Splane, Taylor of 
 assumption. Voorhies, Wadsworth, Wed- 
 rsrraiiGC. Winchester and Winder voted 
 i the affirmative — 46 yeas: and 
 
 Messrs. Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, 
 'ulbertson, Dunn. Garcia, Hudspeth. King. 
 ,abauve, Lewis, McRae, Preston, St. 
 ymand, Scott of Feliciana, Stephens and 
 Vaddill voted in the negative — 15 nays: 
 onsequently said motion was carried, and 
 ie proviso adopted. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne moved for the adoption 
 f the section as amended, to wit: 
 
 All parish officers not otherwise provi- 
 ed for by this constitution, shall be elect- 
 d by the qualified electors of the differ- 
 nt parishes in such manner as shall be 
 described by law; provided, that the mode 
 f appointment and tenure of office of all 
 ne officers in the parish of Orleans shall 
 emain as heretofore, unless otherwise pro- 
 ided by the legislature. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale. Brent. 
 Srurnfield. Burton. Cade. Cenas, Cham- 
 Jiss, Chinn. Claiborne. Conrad of Or- 
 gans, Downs. Dubuchel, Eustis, Humble. 
 Lynson, Ledoux, Legendre, McCallop* 
 UcRae. Marigny, Mayo. Mazureau, Bor- 
 er, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston. Pugh, 
 pead, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 fcott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, 
 ioule, Stephens, Trist, Voorhies, Weder- 
 trandt and Winchester voted in the affir- 
 mative — 39 yeas, and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Boudousquie, Bourg, Bri- 
 nt, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Culbert- 
 on, Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, Guion. Hud- 
 peth, Kenner. King. Labauve. Lewis. Ro- 
 lan, St. Amand. ~Splane, Taylor of As- 
 umption. Wadddl, Wadsicorth, and Win- 
 ler voted in the negative — 23 nays;, conse- 
 uently said motion was carried and the 
 ection was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Winchester gave notice that he 
 viU on to-morrow move to reconsider the 
 'ote adopting the above section. 
 
 Agreeably to notice Mr. Marigny mo v. 
 d to reconsider the vote removing the seat 
 
 of government from the city of Xew Or- 
 leans. The yeas and nays being called 
 for, 
 
 Messrs, Benjamin, Brent, B riant, Ce- 
 j nas, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad 
 j of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, 
 
 Dubouchel, Eustis, Garrett, Humble, King, 
 
 Legendre, Marigny, Mayo. Mazureau, 
 \ Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 
 Roman, Scott of Madison, Soldi and Yoor- 
 I hies voted in the affirmative — 26 veas ; 
 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Boudousquie, Bourg, 
 Brazeale, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Cham- 
 bliss, Chinn, Covillion, Dunn, Garcia, Gui- 
 l on, Hudspeth, Hynson. Kenner, Labauve, 
 '< Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Peets, Pugh, 
 \ Read, St. Amand, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana," Sellers, Stephens, 
 i Taylor of Assumption, Taytor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Trist, Waddill, Wederstrandt, Win. 
 '. chester and Winder voted in the negative 
 — 36 navs: consequentlv said motion was 
 
 lost • 
 
 Mr. \\ addill called up the section ot- 
 tered by him, viz: 
 
 No person shall be imprisoned for debt, 
 in any action, or any judgment founded 
 j upon contract, unless in cases of fraud: nor 
 i shall any person be imprisoned for a mi-- 
 ; litia fine in time of peace. 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved to lay said sec- 
 1 tion on the table indefinitely. The yeas 
 ' and nays being failed for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Boudousquie, Brazeale, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, 
 : Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 | Covillion, Downs, Garrett. Hudspeth, Hum- 
 ble, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, 
 ; Lewis, McCallop, Mayo, Peels. Pugh. Ro- 
 man, Sauuders, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, 
 Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the affir- 
 mative — 33 yeas: and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Brent. Chinn, 
 j Claiborne, Culbertson, Derbes, Dubouchel, 
 I Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Hynson, McRae, 
 Marisny, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Read. Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Soule, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, 
 IVaddill and Wederstrandt voted in the 
 ; negative — 24 nays : consequently said 
 ! motion was carried. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 Additional section of Mr. Conrad of 
 Xew Orleans, viz : 
 
264 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 "Taxation shall be equal and uniform 
 throughout the State." 
 
 To which Mr. Garrett offered the fol- 
 lowing amendment, viz : 
 ., "All property subject to taxation in this 
 State shall be taxed in proportion to its 
 value, to be ascertained by law. No one 
 species of property from which a tax may 
 be collected, shall be taxed higher than 
 another species of property of equal value 
 and subject to taxation." 
 
 Provided, the legislature shall have 
 power to tax merchants, hawkers, pedlers, 
 privleges or incomes, in such manner as 
 may from time to time be prescribed by 
 law. 
 
 The question under consideration at the 
 adjournment, was the following substitute, 
 offered by Mr. Taylor of Assumption, viz: 
 
 The revenue of the State derived from 
 taxation shall be assessed equally upon 
 all the property of the State, according to 
 its value, ascertained in such manner as 
 the legislature shall direct, so that the same 
 shall be equal and uniform throughout the 
 State. No one species of property shall 
 be taxed higher than another species of 
 property of equal value. 
 
 Mr. Eustis moved to lay the amend- 
 ment and substitute on the table indefi- 
 nitely. 
 
 Mr. Porter moved for a division of the 
 question, that is, to take the vote on the 
 substitute; which motion prevailed. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the motion of Mr. Eustis, to lay the substi- 
 tute on the table indefinitely, resulted as 
 follows : 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Chambliss, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Covil- 
 lion, Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, Dubou- 
 chel, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, Kenner, Legendre, 
 Lewis, McCallep, McRae, Marigny,Mayo, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Head, 
 Roman, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madi- 
 son, Sellers, Stephens, Voorhies, Weder- 
 strandt and Winder voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 39 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Briant, Cade, Garcia, 
 King, Mazureau, Preston, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Trist, Waddill, Wadsworth and 
 Winchester voted in the negative — 14 nays; 
 consequently said motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Winder submitted the following 
 resolution, viz : 
 
 Resolved, That this Convention shal 
 hold evening sessions during the remaindei 
 of the session, and that the secretary have 
 power to employ such additional clerk oi 
 clerks as he may deem necessary for keep, 
 ing up the proceedings. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow, at 9 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note. — r-Members absent : Messrs. 
 Downs, Penn, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prud- 
 homme and Scott of Feliciana absent on 
 leave; Messrs. Porche, Carriere and Wi. 
 koff absent on account oi illness ; and 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Cenas, Conrad 
 of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Garcia, Grymes, Guion, Kenner. 
 King, Labauve, Ledoux 7 McCallop, Marig- 
 ny, Ratliff, Saunders, Roselius, Soule, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Trist and Wadsworth 
 did not answer to their names at the cgj] 
 of the roll. 
 
 Note.— -Members absent at the call ot 
 the house: Messrs. Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Grymes, Ledoux, Peets, Ratliff, Roselius 
 and Wadsworth did not answer to their 
 names, 
 
 Wednesday, May 7', 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Clark opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Winder having voted in the ma- 
 jority, gave notice, that he will on to-mor- 
 row move to re-consider the vote forming- 
 one senatorial district of the city of New 
 Orleans. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies was excused for non- 
 attendance on account of illness in his 
 family. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Winchester the tak- 
 ing of the vote on the motion to reconsider 
 the vote adopting the * section making all 
 parish officers not otherwise provided for 
 by this constitution, elective, was postpon- 
 ed until 12 o'clock this day. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Taylor of Assump- 
 tion the taking of the vote on the motion to 
 reconsider the vote adopting the proviso 
 excepting New Orleans from the section 
 making all parish officers elective, was 
 postponed until 12 o'clock this day. 
 
 Mr. Roman was excused from serving 
 on the committee of enrollment, and the 
 
Journal of the Contention of Louisiana. 
 
 265 
 
 President appointed Mr. Boudousquie in 
 lis stead. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 GENERAL PROVISIONS. 
 
 1 Additional section of Mr. Conrad of Or- 
 gans, viz: 
 
 » Taxation shall be equal and uniform 
 hroughout the State. 
 
 Mr. Garrett's amendment to the above, 
 iz: 
 
 <; A11 property subject to taxation in this 
 kale shall be taxed in proportion to its 
 alue, to be ascertained by law. No one 
 pecies of property from which a tax may 
 »e collected, shall be taxed higher than 
 nother species of property of equal value 
 nd subject to taxation: Provided, that the 
 3gislature shall have the power to tax mer- 
 hants, hawkers, pedlers, privileges or in- 
 omes in such manner as may from time 
 p time be prescribed by law." 
 * The question under consideration at the 
 djournment, was the motion of Mr. Eustis 
 3 lay the amendments on the table indefi- 
 nitely. 
 
 j Mr. Garrett moved tor a division of 
 jlie question, that is, to act on each amend- 
 ment separately. 
 
 | Mr. Eustis then moved that the proviso 
 e laid on the table indefinitely, viz: 
 
 Provided, the legislature shall have 
 ower to tax merchants, hawkers, pedlers, 
 rivleges or incomes, in such manner as 
 bay from time to time, be prescribed by 
 aw. Which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Eustis then moved that the amend- | 
 nent be laid on the table indefinitely, viz: \ 
 
 "All property subject to taxation in this 
 5tate shall be taxed in proportion to its 
 alue, to be ascertained by law. No one 
 pecies of property, from which a tax may 
 ►e collected, shall be taxed higher than an- 
 ther species of property of equal value 
 nd subject to taxation." Which motion 
 s*as lost. 
 
 . Mr. Lewis moved to amend the amend- 
 ment by striking out in the first line the 
 vords "subject to taxation," and insert in 
 heir stead the words "on which taxes shall 
 •e levied," and in the last line strike out 
 he words "subject to taxation" and insert 
 he words "on which taxes shall be levied." 
 ■Vhich amendments were adopted. 
 , Mr. Labauve moved to amend said 
 .mendment by inserting in the third line 
 iter the word "ascertained" the words "as 
 34 
 
 directed:" which amendment was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Waddill moved to amend Mr. 
 Conrad's section by adding after the word 
 "State" the words "on all moveable and 
 immoveable property;" which amendment 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin offered as a substitute 
 for the amendment of Mr. -Garrett, the fol- 
 lowing, viz: 
 
 "All property on which taxes shall be 
 levied in this State, shall be taxed in pro- 
 portion to its value, to be ascertained as 
 directed by law. No one species of pro- 
 perty from which a tax may be collected 
 shall be taxed higher than another species 
 of property of equal value on which taxes 
 shall be levied." 
 
 Mr. Winchester moved to amend said 
 substitute by adding at the commencement 
 of the same the words "after the year 1 848;" 
 which amendment was accepted by Mr. 
 Benjamin and adopted. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved for the adoption of 
 the substitute as amended, viz: 
 
 "After the year 1848, all property on 
 which taxes shall be levied in this State, 
 shall be taxed in proportion to its value, to 
 be ascertained as directed by law. No 
 one species of property from which a tax 
 may be collected, shall be taxed higher 
 than any other species of property of equal 
 value on which taxes shall be levied." 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Brum- 
 rield, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, CovilHon, 
 : Culbertson, Du Bouchel, Dunn, Garrett, 
 | Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, 
 ' King, Lewis, McRae, Peets, Porter, Pres- 
 cottofSt. Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, 
 Read, Roselius, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt and Wi- 
 koif voted in the affirmative — 36 yeas; and 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Benja- 
 min, Burton, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Derbes, Downs, Eustis, Guion, Labauve, 
 Legendre, Marigny. Mayo, Pugh, Roman, 
 St. Amand, Sellers, Wadsworth, Winches- 
 ter and Winder voted in the negative — 24 
 nays ; consequently said motion was car- 
 ried. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin offered as a substitute to 
 the proviso, the following, viz: 
 
 ''^Provided, that the legislature shall 
 have power to levy an income tax, and to 
 
266 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Lonisia?ia* 
 
 tax all persons pursuing any occupation, 
 trade or profession." 
 
 On motion said substitute was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Garrett moved for the adoption 
 
 the section as amended. The yeas and 
 nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 13 rum- 
 field, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Culbert- 
 son, DuBouchel, Garrett, Hudspeth, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Kenner, King, Lewis, Mc- 
 Rae, Peets, Porler, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Prudhomme, Read, Roselius, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Madison, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Stephens, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt and Wi- 
 koff, voted in the affirmative; 40 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Ce- 
 nas, Chinn, Claiborne, Derbes, Downs, 
 Eustis, Crymes, Guion, Labauve, Ledoux, 
 Legendre, Mayo, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, 
 St. Amand, Sellers, Wadsworth, Winches, 
 ter and Winder voted in the negative — 23 
 nays; consequently said motion was car- 
 ried, and the section as amended was adop- 
 ted, viz: 
 
 " Taxation shall be equal and uniform 
 throughout the State. After the year 1848 
 all property on which taxes shall be lev- 
 ied in this State, shall be taxed in propor- 
 tion to its value, to be ascertained as direc- 
 ted by law. No one species of property 
 from which a tax may be collected, shall 
 be taxed higher than another species of 
 property of equal value, on which taxes 
 shall be levied. Prbvidid, that the legis- 
 lature shall have power to levy an income 
 tax, and to tax all persons pursuing any 
 occupation, trade or profession." 
 
 It being the hour of twelve o'clock, Mr. 
 Winchester moved to reconsider the vote 
 adopting the section making all parish of- 
 ficers elective. The yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Briant, 
 Carriere, Chinn, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Dann Guion, Huds- 
 peth, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, 
 Lewis, Preston, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, 
 Saunders, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Waddill, Wikoff, Winches- 
 ter and Winder voted in the affirmative — 
 28 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale, Brumfield, 
 Brent, Burton, Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, 
 
 Claiborne, Covillion, DuBouchel, Eustis, 
 Grymes, Hurrfole, Hynson, Ledoux, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo,Mazureau, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Prudhomme, Read, Roselius, Scott of lia- 
 ton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott, of 
 Madison, Sellers, Stepens, Trist, Voorhies 
 and Wederstrandt voted in the negative—- 
 35 nays; consequently said motion was 
 lost. 
 
 This being the hour fixed, Mr. Taylor 
 of Assumption moved to reconsider the 
 vote adopting the proviso which excepts 
 New Orleans from the provisions of the 
 section making all parish officers elective. 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert Briant, Chinn, Conrad 
 of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, Legendre, Lewis, McRae, Pres. 
 ton, Pugh, Saunders, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Waddill, Wikoff, Winchester and 
 Winder voted in the affirmative — 26 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra. 
 zeale, Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Carriere, 
 Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, Claiborne, Du- 
 Bouchel, Downs, Eustis, Grymes, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Ledoux, McCallop, Maiig- 
 ny, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Porter, Pres. 
 cott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Read, 
 Roman, Roselius, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Stephens, Trist. 
 Voorhies and Wederstrandt voted in the 
 negative — 37 nays; consequently said mo- 
 tion was lost. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ledoux the following 
 section was taken up, viz: 
 
 " There shall be appointed by the gov* 
 ernor, with the advice and consent of the 
 senate, an auditor , whose duty 
 
 it shall be to examine and approve all ac- 
 counts before they are paid by the treasu- 
 rer. He shall assist the legislature in ex- 
 amining the accounts of the treasurer, and 
 perform all other duties which may be re- 
 quired of him by law." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Benjamin, said sec- 
 tion was laid on the table indefinitely. 
 
 Agreeably to notice, Mr. Sellers moved 
 to reconsider the sixth section of the legis- 
 lative article. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Briant, Brumfield, Chambliss, Downs, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 267 
 
 Dunn, Guion, Hynson, Kenner, King, 
 McCallop, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Pugh, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sel- 
 lers'Taylor of St. Landry, Waddill, Wikoff 
 and Winchester voted in the affirmative — 
 !25 yeas; and , 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Burton, Cade, Car- 
 riere, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, DuBouchel, Eustis, 
 Garrett, Grymes, Hudspeth, Humble, La- 
 jauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, McRae, 
 Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Preston, 
 Prudhomme, Roman, Roselius, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Stephens, Taylor of Assump- 
 ion, Voorhies, Wadsworth and Weder- 
 strandt voted in the negative — 37 nays ; 
 consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 The rules being dispensed with, Mr. 
 Taylor of Assumption moved to reconsid- 
 er the twenty-third section of the legisla- 
 te article. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brent, Briant, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Donrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Downs, Guion, McRae, Porter, 
 .^reston, Roman, Taylor of Assumption, 
 >Vaddill, Wadsworth and Winchester voted 
 |n the affirmative — 18 yeas ; and 
 ! Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Brazeale, Is rum - 
 ield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cenas 5 Cham- 
 )liss, Conrad of Orleans, DuBouchel. Dunn, 
 Sustis, Garrett, Grymes, Hudspeth, Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Kenner, King, Labauve, Le- 
 loux, Legendre, Lewis, McCallop, Marig- 
 ry, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Prudhomme, Read, Roselius, St. 
 \mand, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, 
 Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, 
 Wederstrandt, Wikoff and Winder voted in 
 he negative — 45 nays; consequently said 
 notion was lost. 
 
 First congressional district : 
 From the parish of Plaquemines, 
 
 take one member, 1 
 From the third municipality of New 
 
 Orleans, 1 
 From the first municipality of New 
 
 Orleans, 1 — 3 
 
 Second congressional district : 
 From the second municipality of 
 
 New Orleans, take 2 
 From the parish of Jefferson, 1 
 " " Assumption, 1 
 
 From the parish of Lafourche Interior, 1 — 5 
 
 Third congressional district : 
 From the parish of Iberville, take 1 
 " " East Baton Rouge, 1 
 " " East Feliciana, 1 A 
 " " West Feliciana, 1— -4 
 Fourth congressional district : 
 From the parish of St. Martin, take 1 
 St. Mary, 1 
 " " LafayetteJ 1 
 " " St. Landry, 1 
 " " Avoyelles, 1 
 Rapides, 1 
 " " Natchitoches, ^ 1 
 " " Catahoula and ) 
 Claiborne, $ 
 
 Total, 20 
 
 From 98 deduct 20 — 78 members of the 
 house of representatives. 
 
 Mr. Cozsrad moved for the adoption. 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Downs, Dunn, Preston, Saunders, 
 Sellers, Waddill and Winchester voted in 
 the affirmative — 13 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin,Bourg, 
 Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, 
 Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Chinn, Covil- 
 lion, DuBouchel, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, King, 
 Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Stephens, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, Voor- 
 hies, Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, Wikoff and 
 Winder voted in the negative — 52 nays; 
 consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Dun?*, the report of 
 the committee on the bill of rights, was 
 taken up, viz : 
 
 The committee appointed to report a bill 
 of rights, beg leave to represent, that they 
 have had the same under consideration, and 
 believing as they do, that in all republican 
 governments, and especially in the organic 
 laws thereof, that a frequent recurrence to 
 first principles is both necessary and pro- 
 per, we therefore respectfully recommend 
 and submit to your consideration, the fol- 
 lowing bill of rights, to wit : 
 
 That the great and essential principles 
 
268 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 of liberty and free government may be re- 
 cognized and unalterably established, we, 
 the representatives of the people of the 
 State of Louisiana, declare — 
 •.. Sec. 1. That all freemen, when they 
 form a social compact, are equal, and have 
 certain inherent and indefeasible rights, 
 among .which are those of enjoying and 
 defending life and liberty, of acquiring, 
 possessing and protecting property and 
 reputation, and of pursuing and obtaining 
 safety and happiness. 
 
 Sec. 2. All political power is inherent 
 in the people; all free governments are 
 founded on their authority, and instituted 
 for their peace, safety and happiness, pub- 
 lic officers are their trustees and servants, 
 and at all times amenable to them; of all 
 forms of government that is best which is 
 capable of producing the greatest degree of 
 happiness and safety to the greatest num- 
 ber of persons, and is most effectually se- 
 cured against the dangers of mal-adminis- 
 tration, and when any form of government 
 shall be found inadequate, or contrary to 
 those purposes, a majority of the commu- 
 nity have an unalienable and indefeasible 
 right to reform, alter or abolish their form 
 of government in such manner as they 
 may think most conducive to the public 
 weal. 
 
 Sec. 3. That all men have a natural 
 and indefeasible right to worship Almighty 
 God according to the dictates of their own 
 conscience; that no man can of right be 
 compelled to attend, erect or support any 
 place of worship, or to maintain any min- 
 ister or priest, against his consent; that no 
 human authority can, in any case whatever, 
 control or interfere with the rights of con- 
 science; and that no preference shall ever 
 be given, by law, to any religious estab- 
 lishment, or mode of worship. 
 
 Sec. 4. That no religious test shall ever 
 be required as a qualification to any office 
 or public trust under this State. 
 
 Sec, 5. That elections shall be free and 
 equal. 
 
 Sec. 6. That the right of trial by jury 
 shall remain inviolate. 
 
 Sec. 7. That the people shall be secure 
 in their persons, houses, papers and pos- 
 sessions from unreasonable searches and 
 seizures, and that general warrants where- 
 by an officer may be commanded to search 
 suspected places without evidence of the 
 
 fault committed, or to seize any person or 
 persons not named, whose offences are not 
 particularly described and supported by 
 evidence, are dangerous to liberty, and 
 ought not to be granted. 
 
 Sec. 8. That no free man shall be taken 
 or imprisoned, or deseized of his freehold, 
 liberties or privileges, or outlawed or ex. 
 iled, or in any manner destroyed or de- 
 prived of his life, liberty or property, but 
 in pursuance of the judgment of his peers, 
 or the lav/ of the land. 
 
 Sec. 9. That no person shall, for the 
 same offence, be twice put in jeopardy of 
 life or liberty. 
 
 Sec. 10. That excessive bail shall not 
 be required, nor excessive fines imposed, 
 no cruel and unusual punishments in- 
 flicted. 
 
 Sec. 11. That all courts shall be open; 
 and every man for an injury done him, in 
 his lands, goods, person or reputation, 
 shall have remedy by due course ofhw, 
 and right and justice administered without 
 sale, denial or delay. ^Suits may be brought 
 against the State in such manner and in 
 such courts as the legislature may by law 
 direct. 
 
 Sec. 12. That the person of a debto 
 when there is not strong presumption 
 fraud, shall not be confined in prison after 
 the delivery up of his estate for the benefit 
 of his creditor or creditors, in such manner 
 as shall be prescribed by law. 
 
 Sec 13. That the printing press shall 
 be free to every person who undertakes to 
 examine the proceedings of the legislature, 
 or of any branch or officers of the govern- 
 ment; and no law shall ever be made te 
 restrain the right thereof. The free com- 
 munication of thoughts and. opinions is 
 one of the invaluable rights of man, and 
 every citizen may freely speak and write 
 and print on any subject, being responsible 
 for the abuse of that liberty. But in prose- 
 cuting for the publication of papers inves- 
 tigating the official conduct of officers or 
 men in public capacity, the truth thereof 
 may be given in evidence; and in all in- 
 dictments or prosecutions for libels, the 
 jury shall have a right to determine the 
 law and the facts under the direction of the 
 court, as in other criminal cases. 
 
 Sec. 14. That no retrospective law, or 
 law impairing the obligation of contracts, 
 shall be made. 
 
journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 269 
 
 Sec. 15. That no man's particular 
 vices shall he demanded, or property taken 
 or applied to public use, without the con- 
 sent of his representative, or without just 
 compensation being made therefor. 
 
 Sec. 16. That perpetuities and monopo^ 
 lies are contrary to the genius of a free 
 State, and shall not be allowed. 
 
 Sec. 17. That the citizens have a right 
 in a peaceable manner to assemble together 
 for the common good, to instruct their re- 
 presentatives, and to apply to those invested 
 with the. powers of government Tor redress 
 of grievances or other proper purposes, by 
 address or remonstrance. 
 
 Sec. 18. That the sure and certain de- 
 fence of a free people is a well regulated 
 militia, and as standing armies in time of 
 peace are dangerous to freedom, they 
 ought to be avoided as far as the circum- 
 stances and safety of the community will 
 admit; and that in all cases, the military 
 shall be kept in strict subordination to the 
 civil authority. 
 
 Sec. 19. That the free white men of this 
 State have a right to keep and bear arms 
 in defence of themselves and the State. 
 
 Sec. 20. That an equal participation of 
 the navigation of the Mississippi river is 
 jone of the inherent rights of the citizens 
 of this State; it cannot therefore be con- 
 i ceded to any prince, potentate, power, 
 person or persons whatever. 
 
 Sec. 21. That no hereditary emolu- 
 ments, privileges or honors shall ever be 
 granted or conferred in this State. 
 
 Sec. 22. That the legislature shall have 
 power lo extend this constitution, and the 
 jurisdiction of this State over all territory 
 claimed at this time by the State of Lou- 
 isiana, or which may hereafter be ascer- 
 tained to be within her limits, or over any 
 territory acquired by compact with any 
 State, or with the United States, the 
 same being done by consent of the United 
 ! States. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved that said report be 
 laid on the table indefinitely. 
 
 Mr. Beatw moved for the previous 
 question; the yeas and nays being called 
 for, shall the main question be now put, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Covillion, Derbes, Downs, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Humble, Hynson, Kenner, King, 
 
 Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, Mc~ 
 Callop, Mayo, Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, 
 St. Amand, Scott cf Feliciana, Scott of 
 ! Madison, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of St. 
 | Landry, Trist, Voorhies, Wikoff, Winches- 
 ter and Winder voted in the affirmative— 
 41 yeas; and- 
 
 Messrs, Brumfield, Cenas, Claiborne, 
 Culbertson, DuBouchel, Dunn, Garcia, Mc- 
 Rae, Marigny, Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, Read, Rose- 
 lius, Saunders, Scott -of Baton Rouge, 
 Taylor of Assumption and Waddill voted 
 in the negative — 20 nays ; consequently 
 said motion was carried. 
 
 The yeas" and nays being called for, on 
 the motion to lay said report on the table 
 indefinitely, resulted as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Burton, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes JDovins, Eustis, 
 Garcia, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, 
 King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legendre, Letcis, 
 Mayo, Pugh, Roman, St. Amand, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor o£ Si. 
 Landry, Voorhies, Wikojf, Winchester and 
 
 Winder voted in the affirmative 35 
 
 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Cade, Cenas, 
 Claiborne, Covillion, Culbertson, DuBou- 
 chel, Dunn, Humble, Hynson, Mc Callop, 
 McRae, Marigny, Porter, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, Read, Rose- 
 lius, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Trist 
 and Waddill voted in the negative — 24 
 nays ; consequently said motion was car- 
 ried. 
 
 On motion, the preamble of the consti- 
 tution was taken up, viz : 
 
 "We, the people of the State of Louisi- 
 ana, by our representatives in Convention 
 assembled, in order to secure to the citi- 
 zens thereof the enjoyments of the rights of 
 life, liberty and property, and of pursuing 
 happiness, do order and establish the fol- 
 lowing constitution and civil form of gov- 
 ernment." 
 
 Mr. Eustis moved to lay the same on 
 the table indefinitely, which motion was 
 lost. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption offered as a 
 substitute for the preamble, the following, 
 viz : 
 
 "We, the people of the State of Louisi- 
 ana, do ordain and establish the following 
 
270 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 constitution, for the government of our- 
 selves and our posterity." 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to amend said sub- 
 stitute, by striking out the words "and our 
 posterity;" which motion prevailed. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Porter, said substi- 
 tute was laid on the table indefinitely. 
 
 Mr. Downs offered the following substi- 
 tute, and the same was adopted, viz : 
 PREAMBLE. 
 
 " We, the people of the State of Louisi- 
 ana, do ordain and establish the following 
 Constitution." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Dunn, the report of 
 the committee on education was taken up, 
 viz : 
 
 Sec. 1. The governor shall nominate, 
 and by and with the advice and consent of 
 the senate, appoint a superintendent of edu- 
 cation, who shall hold his office for two 
 years; whose duties shall be prescribed 
 by law, and who shall receive such com- 
 pensation as the legislature may direct. 
 
 Sec 2. The legislature shall encourage 
 the institution of common schools through- 
 out the State, for the promotion of litera- 
 ture and the arts and sciences, and shall 
 provide means for that purpose and for their 
 support. 
 
 Sec. 3. The proceeds of all lands that 
 have been or hereafter may be granted by 
 the United States to this State for the use 
 or support of schools, and of all lands that 
 have been or may hereafter be granted by 
 the United States, or by any person or 
 persons, body politic or corporate, to this 
 State, and not granted expressly for any 
 other purpose, which shall Hereafter be 
 sold or disposed of, and all estates of de- 
 ceased persons to which the State may be 
 or hereafter become entitled by law, shall 
 be held by the State as a loan; and shall 
 be and remain a perpetual fund, on which 
 the State shall pay an annual interest of 
 per cent. ; which interest 
 
 together with all the rents of the unsold 
 lands, shall be inviolably appropriated to 
 the supoort of such schools and institutions 
 of learning throughout the State, until the 
 rents or interest, or both together, shall 
 amount to the sum of per annum; 
 
 after which, the annual excess of such 
 rents and interest may be applied by the 
 legislature to other objects. 
 
 Sec 4. The fund arising from the rents 
 or sales which may hereafter be made, of 
 
 any lands heretofore granted by the United 
 States to this State, for the use of a semi- 
 nary of learning, and of any land that may 
 hereafter be granted for that purpose, and 
 any interest that may accrue upon such 
 funds, shall be inviolably applied to the 
 use specified, or that may be specified in 
 the grant. 
 
 And your committee recommend the 
 adoption of the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That our representatives and 
 senators in congress be requested to use 
 their best efforts to procure the passage of 
 a law granting to this State, the unsold 
 lands within this State belonging to the 
 United States, or as large a portion thereof 
 as possible, for the purpose of education; 
 and to co-operate, if necessary, to effect 
 that object with the representatives and 
 senators in congress from other States. 
 
 Mr. Eustis, of the committee on educa- 
 tion, submitted the following, viz: 
 
 An university shall be established in the 
 city of New Orleans. It shall be compo- 
 sed of four faculties, to wit: One of law, 
 one of medicine, one of the natural sci- 
 ences, and one of letters. 
 
 It shall be called the University of Louis- 
 iana; and the Medical College of Louisi- 
 ana, as at present organized, shall consti- 
 tute the faculty of medicine. 
 
 The legislature shall provide by law 
 for its further organization and govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Kenner offered as a substitute for 
 the second section the following, viz: 
 
 *' The legislature shall establish through, 
 out the State a system of free schools, for 
 the education of all the children of the 
 people of the State, and shall provide the 
 means for that purpose, and for their sup- 
 port." 
 
 Mr. Lewis offered as a substitute for the 
 whole, the following, viz: 
 
 " Sec. — The legislature shall establish 
 free schools throughout the State, and shall 
 provide means for their support. The 
 proceeds of all lands that have been, or 
 hereafter may be granted by the United 
 States to this State for the use or support 
 of schools, and of all lands that may here- 
 after be granted by the United States, or 
 by any person or persons, body politic 
 or corporate, to this State, and not granted 
 expressly for any other purpose, which 
 shall hereafter be sold or disposed of, and 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 2/1 
 
 all estates of deceased persons to which 
 the State may be or hereafter become en- 
 titled by law, shall be held by the State as 
 a loan; and shall be and remain a perpet- 
 ual fund, on which the State shall pay an 
 annual interest of percent. ; which 
 interest, together with all the rents of the 
 unsold lands, shall be inviolably appropri- 
 ated to the support of such schools. 
 
 Sec. — The fund arising from the rents 
 or sales which have been, or may hereafter 
 be made, of any lands heretofore granted 
 iby the United States to this State, for the 
 luse of a seminary of learning, and of any 
 land that may hereafter be granted for that 
 purpose, and any interest that may accrue 
 upon such funds, shall be inviolably appli- 
 ed, to the use specified, or that may be 
 specified in the grant. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved to amend said sub- 
 stitute by inserting in the second line after 
 "free," the word "public," which amend- 
 ment was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Garcia gave notice that he will on 
 Friday next move to reconsider the vote 
 adopting the section on duelling in this 
 Stafe. 
 
 Mr. Preston then moved to lay the re- 
 port on education and all the amendments 
 on the table indefinitely. The yeas and 
 nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Brazeale, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Guion, Hudspeth, Lewis, McCal- 
 llop, Preston, Pugh and Waddill voted in 
 the affirmative — 11 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, Dunn, Eus- 
 tis, Garcia, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, 
 Kenner, King, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Por- 
 ter, Prescott of St.Landry, Read, Roman, 
 Roselius, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Wederstrandt, Wikoff, Winchester 
 and Winder voted in the* negative — 32 
 nays, consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Kenner the first 
 section of said report was laid on the table 
 indefinitely, viz: 
 
 Sec. 1. The governor shall nominate, 
 and by and with the advice and consent 
 of the senate, appoint a superintendent of 
 education, who shall hold his office for 
 two years, whose duties shah be prescribed 
 by law, and who shall receive such com- 
 pensation as the legislature may direct. 
 
 Mr. Dunn gave notice that he will move 
 to reconsider the vote laying said section 
 on the table indefinitely. 
 
 Mr. Kenner accepted the substitute of 
 Mr. Lewis, and moved its adoption. • 
 
 Pending the discussion on said motion, 
 the Convention adjourned until to-mono w 
 at nine o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note. Members absent: Messrs. O'- 
 Bryan, Penn, Prescott of St. Landry and 
 Prudhomme absent on leave; Mr. Porche 
 absent on account of illness, and Messrs. 
 Benjamin. Broudousquie, Cade, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Downs, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, Guion, King, La- 
 bauve, Ledoux, Marigny, Mazureau, Pres- 
 ton, Pugh, Ratliff, Roselius, St. Amand, 
 Soule, Splane, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Trist, Wadsworth, WikofT and Winches- 
 ter did not answer to their names at the 
 call of the House. 
 
 Thursday, May 8, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Goodrich opened the 
 proceedings with prayer. 
 
 The President submitted a letter of in- 
 vitation from the president of the executive 
 committee of the agricultural and mechan- 
 ic association of the State of Louisiana, 
 to attend at the annual fair which is to take 
 place at the town of Baton Rouge, on the 
 12th inst. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Dunn said invitation 
 was accepted. 
 
 Mr. Eustis, chairman of the committee 
 of revision, submitted the following report, 
 viz: 
 
 " The committee of revision report to 
 the Convention that they consider it advi- 
 sable to defer a further revision of the ar- 
 ticles of the constitution until the unfinish- 
 ed business be transacted, and all the arti- 
 cles of the constitution be adopted at the 
 first reading." 
 (Signed) 
 
 GEO. EUSTIS, Chairman. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Chinn said report 
 was laid on the table, subject to call. 
 
 • Mr. Winder withdrew the notice he 
 had given to move for the reconsideration 
 of the vote forming one senatorial district 
 of the city of New Orleans. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Taylor of Assirmp* 
 
272 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 lion the rules were dispensed with, in or- 
 der that all motions for reconsideration be 
 taken up tp-day at twelve o'clock, m. 
 
 Mr. Waddill offered the following reso- 
 lution, and the rules being dispensed with, 
 the same was adopted — viz: 
 
 " No new motion for reconsideration 
 shall be allowed after twelve o'clock, m. 
 this day, unless by a concurrence of three- 
 fourths of all the members of this Conven- 
 tion." 
 
 Mr. Humble gave notice that he will 
 move to reconsider the vote adopting the 
 section removing the seat of government 
 from the city of New Orleans. 
 
 Mr. Poster moved that the rules be 
 dispensed with in order to call up the 27 ih 
 section of the bill of rights; which motion 
 was lost. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 Substitute of Mr. Lewis on education; 
 viz: 
 
 Sec. 1. The legislature shall establish 
 free public schools throughout the State, 
 and shall provide means for their support. 
 
 Sec. 2. The proceeds of all lands that 
 have been or hereafter may be granted by 
 the United States to this State for the use 
 or support of schools, and of all lands that 
 may hereafter be granted by the United 
 States, or by any person or persons, body 
 politic or corporate, to this State, and not 
 granted expressly for any other purpose, 
 which shall hereafter be sold or disposed 
 of, and all estates of deceased persons to 
 which the State may be or hereafter be- 
 come entitled by law, shall be held by the 
 State as a loan; and shall be and remain a 
 perpetual fund, on which the State shall 
 pay an annual interest of per cent. ; 
 which interest, together with all the rents 
 of the unsold lands, shall be inviolably 
 appropriated to the support of such schools. 
 
 Sec. 3. The fund arising from the rents 
 or sales which may hereafter be made, of 
 any lands heretofore granted by the United 
 States to this State, for the use of a semi- 
 nary of learning, and of any land.that may 
 hereafter be granted for that purpose, and 
 any interest that may accrue upon such 
 funds, shall be inviolably applied to the 
 use specified, or that may be specified in 
 the grant. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption moved to 
 amend the first section, by adding at the 
 end of the same the words "by taxation 
 
 on property, or otherwise;" which amend- 
 ment was adopted. 
 
 On motion the first section, as amended, 
 was adopted, viz: 
 
 Sec. 1. The legislature shall establish 
 free public schools throughout the State, 
 and shall provide means for their support, 
 by taxation on property or otherwise. 
 
 On motion the second section was taken 
 up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 2. The proceeds of all lands that 
 have been or hereafter may be granted by 
 the United States to this State, for the use 
 or support of schools, and of all lands that 
 may hereafter be granted by the United 
 States, or by any person or persons, body 
 politic or corporate, to this State, and not 
 granted expressly for any other purpose, 
 which shall hereafter be sold or disposed 
 of, and all estates of deceased persons to 
 which the State may be or hereafter be- 
 come entitled by law, shall be held by the 
 State as a loan; and shall be and remain 
 a perpetual fund, on which the State shall 
 pay an annual interest of per cent. ; 
 which interest, together with all the rents 
 of the unsold lands, shall be inviolably 
 appropriated to the support of such schools. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved to fill the blank in said 
 section with "eight," which motion was 
 lost. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to fill the blank with 
 "seven," and the yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Cade, Cenas* Cham- 
 bliss, Claiborne, Downs, Dunn, Humble, 
 Hynson, King, Mayo, Porter, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Roman, Saunders, Splane, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Trist, Waddill, Wederstrandt 
 and Winchester voted in the affirmative— 
 21 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, * Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, Chion, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Culbertson, De*rbes, DuBouchel, Eustis- 
 Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, La- 
 bauve, Legendre, Lewis, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Marigny, Peets, Preston, Pugh, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Voorhies, Wadsworth, Wi- 
 koff and Winchester voted in the negative 
 — 38 nays; consequently said motion was 
 
 lQSt. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Mayo, the blank was 
 filled with "six." 
 
Journal of the Con vention of Louisiana. 
 
 273 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans moved to amend 
 said section by striking out the following 
 words, viz: "and not granted expressly for 
 any other purpose which shall hereafter be 
 sold or disposed of, and all estates of de- 
 ceased persons to which the State may be 
 or hereafter become entitled bylaw." 
 Mr. Kexxer moved to lay said amend- 
 
 , ment on the table indefinitely. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 .Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bra- 
 zeale, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Chambliss, 
 Chinn, Covillion, Derbes, Dunn, DuBou- 
 
 j chel, Eustis, Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, 
 Hynson, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 
 I dre, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, 
 Mayo, Mazureau, Porter, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Preston, Read, Roman, Roselius, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Splane, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Trist, Yoorhies, YVaddill, Weder- 
 strandt. Winchester and Winder voted in 
 the affirmative — 48 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- 
 bertson, Downs, Guion, Pugh, St. Amand. 
 Sellers and Wikoff voted in the negative — 
 12 nays; consequently said motion was 
 carried. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved for the adoption of 
 the section as amended. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Brumfield, Burton, Cade, 
 Cenas, Chambliss, Chinn, Claiborne, Co- 
 vil'ion, Culbertson, Derbes, DuBouchel, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Hudspeth, Humble, 
 Hynson, Kenner, Legendre, Lewis, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Pugh, 
 Read, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Felici- 
 ana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Trist, Yoorhies, Waddill, 
 Wederstrandt, Winchester and Winder 
 voted in the affirmative — 53 yeas; and 
 Messrs. Briant, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 i radof Jefferson, Downs, Guion, King, La- 
 ' bauve, Preston and Wikoff voted in the 
 negative — 9 nays; consequently said mo- 
 tion was carried,, and the "section as 
 amended was adopted. 
 
 Section — was taken up, viz : 
 Sec. 4. The fund arising from the rents 
 35 
 
 'or sales which may hereafter be made, of 
 any lands heretofore granted by the United 
 
 : States to this State, for the use of a semi- 
 nary of learning, and of any land that may 
 hereafter be granted for that purpose, and 
 any interest that may accrue upon such 
 funds, shall be inviolably applied to the 
 use specified, or that may be specified in 
 the grant. 
 
 Mr. Mayo offered as a substitute for 
 said section, the following, and the same 
 was adopted. 
 
 " All moneys arising from the sales 
 which have been cr may hereafter be 
 made, of any lands heretofore granted by 
 the United States to this State for the use 
 of a seminary of learning, and from any 
 kind of donation that may hereafter be 
 made for that purpose, shall be and remain 
 a perpetual fund; the interest of which at 
 six per cent, per annum, shall be inviola- 
 bly appropriated to the support of a semi- 
 nary of learning for the promotion of lite- 
 rature, and the arts and sciences; and no 
 law shall ever be made authorizing said 
 fund to be divested to any other use frian 
 to the establishment and improvement of 
 said seminary of learning." 
 
 Mr. Eustis called up the project offered 
 by him, viz : 
 
 An university shall be established in the 
 city of Xew Orleans. It shall be compo- 
 sed of four faculties, to wit: One of law, 
 one of medicine, one of the natural sci- 
 ences, and one of letters. 
 
 It shall be called the University of Louis- 
 iana; and the Medical College of Louisi- 
 
 ! ana, as at present organized, shall consti- 
 
 i tute the faculty of medicine. 
 
 The legislature shall provide by law 
 
 : for its further organization and govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Chixx moved to lay the above on 
 the table indefinitely. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Chinn, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Covillion, Downs, Hudspeth, Hyn- 
 son, Kenner, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, 
 Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Bead, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Stephens, 
 Wikoff and Winder v@ted in the affirmative 
 — 20 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Brent, Briant, Brumfield, Burton, 
 Cade, Cenas, Cha?nbliss, Claiborne, Con= 
 rad of -Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Du^ 
 
274 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 Bouchel, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, 
 Humble, King, Labauve, Legendre, Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, Pugh, Ro- 
 man, Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Soide, Splane, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, W zderstrandt and Win- 
 chester voted in the negative — 43 nays ; 
 consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Mayo offered the following addi- 
 tional proviso, and the same was accepted 
 by Mr. Eustis, viz : 
 
 "Provided, that the legislature shall be 
 under no obligation to contribute to the 
 establishment or support of said Univer- 
 sity, by appropriations." 
 
 Mr. Winder moved to amend said pro- 
 viso, by striking out the words "be under 
 no obligation," and insert in lieu thereof 
 the words "not have power." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Brumfield, Carriere, 
 Hudspeth, Hynson, Lewis, McCallop,Read, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, Stephens, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Viikoff and Winder voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 15 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, Brent, 
 Briani, Burton, Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Du- 
 Bouchel, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, 
 Humble, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, 
 McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, 
 Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Madison, 
 Soule, Splane, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, 
 Wadsworth, Wederslrandt and Winchester 
 voted in the negative — 46 nays; conse- 
 quently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Mayo moved for the adoption of the 
 project as amended, viz : 
 
 An university shall be established in the 
 city of New Orleans; it sha.l be composed 
 of four faculties, to wit: one of law, one of 
 medicine, one of the natural sciences, and 
 one of letters. 
 
 It shall be called the University of 
 Louisiana; and the Medical College of 
 Louisiana as at present organized, shall 
 constitute the faculty of medicine. 
 
 The legislature shall provide by law, for 
 its further organization and government. 
 
 Provided] That the legislature shall be 
 under no obligation to contribute to the 
 
 establishment or support of said Univer- 
 sity, by appropriations. 
 
 Which motion prevailed. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Dunn, the vote re- 
 jecting the first section of the report of the 
 committee on education, was re-consider- 
 ed, and the same was taken up, viz : 
 
 Sec. 1. The governor shall nominate, 
 and by and with the advice and consent of 
 the senate, appoint a superintendent of edu- 
 cation, who shall hold his office for two 
 years; whose duties shall be prescribed 
 by law, and who shall receive such com- 
 pensation as the legislature may direct. 
 
 Mr. Dunn moved for the adoption of 
 said section. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brent, BrianU 
 Brumfield, Burton, Carrier e,Cenas, Cham- 
 bliss, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, DuBouchel, 
 Dunn, Eustis., Garrett^ Hudspeth, Humble, 
 Hynson, King, Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, 
 Mayo, Mazureau, Porter, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Pugh, Read, Roman, Roselius, St'. 
 Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Sploru-, 
 Taytor of St. Landry, Voorhies, Wadsworth, 
 Wederslrandt, Winchester and Winder vo- 
 ted in the affirmative — 47 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs, Aubert, Benjamin, Cade, Conrad 
 of Jefferson, Guion, Kenner, Labauve, Xffc* 
 Callop, Peets, Preston, Soide, Stephens, 
 Trist, Waddill and Wikqff voted in the 
 negative — 15 nays; consequently said mo- 
 tion was carried, and the section was 
 adopted. 
 
 On motion of- Mr. Splane, the vote 
 adopting the fifth section of the judiciary, 
 was re-considered, and the same was 
 taken up, viz : 
 
 Sec. 5. The supreme court shall hold 
 its sessions in the city of New Orleans, 
 from the first Monday of the month of No- 
 vember, to the end of the month of June, 
 inclusive. The legislature shall have the 
 power to fix the sessions elsewhere during, 
 the rest of the year. Until otherwise pro- 
 vided for, the sessions shall be held as 
 heretofore. 
 
 Appeals from the parishes of Jackson, 
 Union, Morehouse, Caldwell, Ouachita* 
 Franklin, Carroll, Madison, Tensas and 
 Concordia shall, until otherwise provided, 
 be returnable to New Orleans. 
 
 Mr, Splane moved to amend said sec- 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 tion by inserting at the end of the proviso, 
 the words '-and the parish of St. Mary:" 
 which amendment was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Cade moved to amend said section, 
 •by striking out the words -Xew Orleans,'' 
 and insert in lieu thereof the words '-'seat 
 of ofovernment:" which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to amend said sec- 
 tion, bv strkinsf out the proviso, so that 
 the section may read as originally present- 
 ed by the committee, viz : 
 
 Sec. 1. The judicial power shall be 
 vested in a supreme court, in district 
 courts to be established throughout the 
 State, injustices of the peace, and in such 
 other courts in the city of New Orleans as 
 the legislature may, from time to time, 
 direct. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg,Briant. 
 Brum field, Carriere, Chinn, Claiborne, Con - 
 rad of Jefferson, C'wZ&erfeo/*, Derbes, Downs, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Kenner, Legendre, Leicis, Marig- 
 ny, Mazureau, Preston, Pugh, Roman, Ro- 
 selius, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Sellers, Soule, Splane, Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, Taylor of St. Landry, Trist Vo&rMes, 
 Wadsworth, Wedersirandt, Wikoff, Win- 
 chester and Winder voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 41 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Chambliss, Conrad of Orleans, Covillion, 
 DuBouchel, Garrett, King, Labauve. Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Pres- 
 cott of St. Landry, Read, St. Amand, Scot! 
 of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Stephens 
 and Waddill voted in the negative — 24 
 navs : consequently said motion was 
 carried. 
 
 Mr. Bre^t offered the following amend- 
 ment, viz: 
 
 "Until otherwise provided for, the ap- 
 peals from the parishes of Rapides, Avoy- 
 elles, Natchitoches. Sabine, DeSoto, Bos- 
 sier, Caddo and Claiborne shall be return- 
 able as heretofore/' 
 
 On a questian of order, 
 The Chair, (Mr. Taylor of Assumption 
 in the chair) decided the amendment to be 
 out of order. 
 
 Mr. Brent appealed from the decision 
 of the chair; and the question being put, 
 " shall the decision of the chair be sustain- 
 ed.' ' ; and the yeas and nays b*ein£ called 
 for, (Mr. Miles Taylor in the chair.) 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg. Benja- 
 min, Briant, Carriere, Chambliss, Chinn. 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Jefferson. Culbert- 
 son, Derbes, Downs. DuBouchel, Dvnn, 
 Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Legendre, Leicis, 
 McCallop, Marigny, Mazureau, Preston, 
 Pugh, Read, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge. Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Soule, Splane, Taylor 
 of St. Landry, Trist, Yoorhies, W< 
 strandi, Wadsworth, Wihoff, Winchester 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative — 48 
 yeas: and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Covillion, Humble, 
 Hynson, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Stephens and Waddill voted in the nega- 
 tive — 17 nays; consequently the decision 
 of the chair was maintained. 
 
 Mr. Brext, having voted in the major- 
 ity, moved to reconsider the vote recon- 
 sidering the fifth section, under the mo- 
 tion of Mr. Splane. 
 
 On a question of order, the Chair. (3Ir. 
 Taylor of Assumption in the chair) deci- 
 ded the motion to be in order. 
 
 Mr. Beatty appealed from the decision 
 of the chair; and the question being put, 
 "shall the decision of the chair be sustain- 
 ed? ? ' the same was sustained. 
 
 The yeas and nays were then called for 
 on the motion of Mr. Brent to reconsider, 
 ! and 
 
 Messrs. Beiijamin, Brazeale, Brent, Bri- 
 ant. Burton, Cade, Chambliss, Chinn. Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Covillion, Culbertson, Du- 
 Bouchel, Downs, Garrett, Hudsprh.. Hum- 
 ble, Hynson, Kenner, King, Labzuve, Lew- 
 is. McCallop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Per. 
 ter, Prescott of St. Landry, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of St. 
 Landry, Trist, Waddill, Wederst randt and 
 Wil:of voted in the affirmative — 39 yea;: 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beaity, Brumiield, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Garcia, Guion. Legendre, Marigny, Push, 
 Roman, Roselius, Saunders, Splane, Toor- 
 hies. Wadsworth, Winchester and Winder 
 voted in the negative — 20 nays; conse- 
 quently said motion was carried. 
 
 Air. Garrett moved for the reconsider- 
 ation of the vote adopting the eleventh 
 
276 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 section of the judiciary; which motion 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne moved to reconsider the 
 first section of the judiciary. The yeas 
 and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Cul- 
 bertson, Derbes, Marigny, Porter, Pugh, 
 Roselius, Saunders, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Voorhies and Wads- 
 worth voted in the affirmative — 16 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Brazeale, 
 Brent, Brumfield,, Burton, Cade, Cham- 
 bliss-, Chinn, Downs, DuBouchel, Dunn, 
 Eustis, Garrett Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, 
 Hynson, Kenner, King, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, 
 Peets, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Read, Roman, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Madison, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Tay- 
 lor of St. Landry, Trist, Waddill, Weder- 
 strandt TVikoff and Winchester voted in 
 the negative — 42 nays ; consequently said 
 motion was lost. 
 
 S4r. Humble moved to reconsider the 
 .vote adopting the section removing the 
 seat of government from the city of New 
 Orleans. The yeas and nays being called 
 for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Cenas, Clai- 
 borne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jef- 
 ferson, Derbes, Downs, DuBouchel, Eustis, 
 Garrett, Humble, Legendre, Mayo, Ma- 
 rigny, Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Preston, Roman, Roselius, Splane, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies and Wads- 
 worth voted in the affirmative — 25 yeas ; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, B catty, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Chinn, Cham- 
 bliss, Dunn, Guion, Hudspeth, Hynson, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Lewis, McCal- 
 lop, McRae, Pugh, Read, Saunders, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott of Madison, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Trist, Waddill Wederstrandt, 
 WikofT, Winchester and Winder voted in 
 the negative— -34 nays ; consequently said 
 motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans moved to re- 
 consider the vote rejecting the additional 
 section offered by Mr. Eustis, providing 
 that on nominations fo? judicial officers, 
 after the first appointment under this con- 
 stitution, if the senate shall advise the re- 
 
 appointment of the incumbent, he shall be 
 reappointed. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamin, Briant, Ce- 
 nas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, Dunn, Eus- 
 tis, Garcia, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 King, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, Pugh, 
 Roman, Roselius, Saunders, Taylor of St, 
 Landry, Voorhies, Wadsworth, WikofT, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the affirm- 
 ative — 29 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Brazeale, Brent, Brian 
 Brumfield, Cade, Chambliss, Covillio 
 Downs, DuBouchel, Humble, Hynson, 
 Kenner, Labauve, Legendre, McCallop, 
 McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Preston, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scoit of Feliciana, Scott of Mad- 
 ison, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Trist, W r addill and Weder- 
 strand, voted in the negative — 33 nays,* 
 consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Garcia moved to reconsider the 
 vote fixing the apportionment of the par- 
 ish of St. John the Baptisrt. The yeas 
 and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Briant, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Dunn, Der- 
 bes, Garcia, Kenner, Legendre, Marigny, 
 Mazureau, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, Saun- 
 ders, Wadsworth and Winchester voted 
 in the affirmative —17 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, 
 Chinn, Covillion, Downs, DuBouchel Eus. 
 tis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, 
 Hynson, King, Labauve, Lewis, MeCallo 
 McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott 
 St. Landry, Preston, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana," Scott of Madi« 
 son, Splane, Stephens^ Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Weder- 
 strandt, WikofT and Winder voted in the 
 negative— -41 nays; consequently said mo- 
 tion was lost. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow at nine o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Friday, May 9, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Nicholson opened the 
 proceedings with prayer. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Porter the vote re- 
 jecting the twenty-seventh section of the 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 277 
 
 rill of rights was reconsidered, and said, 
 section was taken up, viz : 
 
 Sec. 27. The legislature shall have 
 >ower to extend this Constitution, and the 
 urisdiction of this State over all the ter- 
 •itorv which may hereafter be ascertain- 
 ed to be within her limits, or over any terr- 
 itory acquired by compact with any State, 
 )r with the United States, the same being 
 lone by consent of the United States." 
 
 Mr. Porter moved for the adoption of 
 :aid section; the yeas and nays being cal- 
 led for, 
 
 ! Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brwnfield, Bur- 
 ion, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Chinn, Co- 
 ■illion, Dunn, Eustis, Garret, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, Labauve, Lewis, McCal- 
 ■op, McRae, Mayo, Beets, Borter, Prescott 
 )f St. Landry, Bugh, Read, Saunders, Scott 
 >f Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott 
 )f Madison, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill,Wed- 
 irstrandt, Wikoff and Winder voted in the 
 Lfnrmative — 38 yeas, and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Briant, Derbes, 
 Kenner, Legendre, Mazureau.Roman, Sel- 
 lers and Taylor of Assumption voted in the 
 legative — 10 nays; consequently said sec- 
 ion was adopted, and the same was trans- 
 erred to the general provisions. 
 
 Mr. Porter agreeably to notice moved 
 to reconsider the vote adopting the sec- 
 tion offered by Mr. Taylor of Assumption, 
 relative to the acquiring of residence in this 
 Slate. The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brent, Culberlson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Eustis,Guion, Humble, Por- 
 keh Prescott of St. Landry, Read, Splane, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt voted in the 
 affirmative — 14yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Bourg, Bra- 
 zeale, Briant, Brumjield, Burton, Cade, 
 Carriere, Chambliss, Chinn, Covillion, 
 Garrett, Hudspeth, Hynson, Kenncr, La- 
 bauve, Legendre, Lewis, 3Ic( 'all 'op, Mayo, 
 Mazureau, Beets, Prudhomme, Pugh, Ro- 
 man, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sel- 
 lers, Stephens Taylor of Assumption, Tay- 
 lor of St. Landry, Trist, Voorhies, Wikoff 
 land Winder voted in the negative — 38 
 nays; consequently the said motion was lost* 
 
 On motion of Mr. Garcia the recon- 
 sideration of the section on duelling was 
 postponed until twelve o'clock m., this day. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Dunn the schedule 
 was taken up, viz; 
 
 That no inconvenience may arise from 
 the alterations and amendments made in 
 the Constitution of this State and in order 
 to carry the same into complete operation 
 and effect it is hereby declared and or- 
 dained : 
 
 That all laws of the State in force at the 
 time of making the said alterations and 
 amendments, and not inconsistent there- 
 with, and ail rights, actions, prosecutions, 
 claims and contracts, as well of individuals, 
 as of bodies corporate, shall continue, as if 
 the said alterations and amendments had 
 not been made. 
 
 The governor, secretary of State, judges 
 and all other officers, both civil and mili- 
 tary, shall continue in the exercise of the 
 duties of their respective departments, until 
 superceded and their successors duly in- 
 ducted into office, pursuant to the provi- 
 sions contained in the foregoing alterations 
 and amendments. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Bexjamix, the above 
 report was laid on the table subject to call. 
 
 It being twelve o'clock m., Mr. Garcia 
 moved for the reconsideration of the vote 
 adopting the section on duelling. The 
 yeas and nays being called for 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Bourg, Briant, 
 Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson Culbertson, Derbes, Du- 
 Buochel, Garcia, Kenner, Labauve, Legen- 
 dre, Marigny, Mazureau, Porter, Prescott 
 of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Splane, Taylor of As- 
 sumption, Trist, Wadswortli, Wederstrandt 
 Wikoff and Winchester voted in the affir- 
 mative 30 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Burton, 
 Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Chinn, Downs, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, Lewis, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Mayo, Peeis, Preston, Pugh, Read, 
 Roselius, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellej-s, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of St. Landry, Voorhies, 
 Waddill and Winder voted in the nega- 
 tive — 34 nays ; consequently said motion 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Eustis was excused from serving 
 on the committee of enrolment, and the 
 president appointed Mr Cexas in his stead. 
 
 On motion the report of the committee 
 
78 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 of revision on the judiciary article was 
 taken up, viz: 
 
 Sec. 1, The judicial power shall be 
 vested in a supreme court, in district 
 courts and in justices of the peace. 
 
 Sec. 2. The supreme court shall have 
 appellate- jurisdiction only except in cases 
 hereinafter provided, which jurisdiction 
 shall extend to all cases where the matter 
 in dispute shall exceed three hundred 
 dollars. 
 
 Sec. 3. The supreme court shall be 
 composed of one chief justice, and of three 
 associate justices, a majority of whom 
 shall constitute a quorum. The chief jus- 
 tice shall receive a salary of six thousand 
 dollars annually, and each of the associate 
 judges shall receive a salary of five thou- 
 sand five hundred dollars annually. The 
 said court shall appoint its own clerks. 
 The said judges shall be appointed by the 
 governor, by and with the advice and con- 
 sent of the senate, for the term of eight 
 years. 
 
 Sec. 4. When the first appointments 
 are made under this constitution, the chief 
 justice shall be appointed for eight years, 
 one of the associate judges for six years, 
 one for four years, and one for two years, 
 and in the event of the death, resignation 
 or removal of any of the said judges before 
 the expiration of the period for which 
 he was appointed, his successor shall be 
 appointed only for the remainder of this 
 term, so that the term of service of no 
 two of said judges shall expire at the same 
 time. 
 
 Sec. 5. The supreme court shall hold its 
 sessions in New Orleans, from the first 
 Monday of the month of November to the, 
 end of the month of June, inclusive. The 
 legislature shall have power to fix the ses- 
 sions elsewhere during the rest of the year; 
 until otherwise provided, the sessions shall 
 be held as heretofore. 
 
 Sec. 6. The supreme court and each of 
 the judges thereof shall have power to issue 
 writs of habeas corpus, at the instance of 
 all persons in actual custody under process 
 in all cases in which they may have ap- 
 pellate jurisdiction. 
 
 Sec. 7. The appellate jurisdiction of the 
 supreme court shall extend to all cases in 
 which the constitutionality or legality of 
 any tax, toll, or impost of any kind or na- 
 ture soever shall be in contestation, what- 
 
 •ever may be the amount thereof; and like- 
 wise to all fines, forfeitures and penalties) 
 imposed by municipal corporations. 
 
 Sec. 8. The supreme court shall have 
 appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases on 
 questions of law alone, in all cases in 
 which the punishment of death or hard! 
 labor may be inflicted, or a fine exceeding | 
 three hundred dollars is actually imposed. 
 
 Sec. 9. In all cases in which the judges 
 shall be equally divided in opinion, the ! 
 judgment appealed from shall stand af- 
 firmed; in which case each of the judges 
 shall give his separate opinion in writing. 
 
 Sec. 10. The judges by virtue of their 
 office shall be conservators of the peace ' 
 throughout the State. The style of all 
 process shall be "the State of Louisiana.' : 
 All prosecutions shall be carried on in the 
 name and by the authority of the State ol 
 Louisiana, and conclude against the peace 
 and dignity of the same. 
 
 Sec. 11. The judges of all courts within 
 this State shall as often as it may be possible 
 so to do, in every definitive judgment, refer : 
 to the particular law in virtue of which such 
 judgment may be rendered, and in all cases 
 adduce the reasons on which their judg- 
 ment is founded. 
 
 Sec. 12. No court or judge shall make 
 any allowance by way of fee or compensa- 
 tion in any suit or pioceedings except for 
 the payment for such fees to ministerial 
 officers as may be established by law. 
 
 Sec. 13. The supreme court and district 
 court, and the several judges thereof, are 
 prohibited from exercising any jurisdiction 
 or performing any duties but such as are 
 judicial, and from receiving any fees of 
 office, and no other functions or duties 
 shall ever be attached by law to the office 
 of judge but such as are judicial. 
 
 Sec. 14. The judges of all courts shall 
 be liabe to impeachment, but for any rea- 
 sonable cause, which shall not be sufficient 
 ground for impeachment, the governor 
 shall remove any of them, on the address 
 of three-fourths of the members present of 
 each house of the general assembly. In 
 every such case, the cause or causes for 
 which such removal may be required, 
 shall be stated at length in the address, 
 and inserted in the journal of each house. 
 
 Sec. 15. There shall be an attorney 
 general for the State, and as many other 
 prosecuting attornies for this State as may 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 279 
 
 be hereafter found necessary. The said 
 attornies shall be appointed by the govern- 
 or, with the advice and approbation of the 
 senate, for the term of two years. Their 
 duties shall be determined by law. 
 
 Sec, 16. The first legislature assembled 
 under this constitution, shall divide the 
 State into judicial districts, which shall re- 
 xiain unchanged for six years, and be sub- 
 ect to re-crganization every sixth year 
 hereafter. 
 
 The number of districts shall not be less 
 han twelve, nor more than twenty. 
 
 For each district, one judge, learned in 
 he law, shall be appointed, except in the 
 listricts in which the cities of New Or- 
 eans and Lafayette are situated, in which 
 he legislature may establish as many dis- 
 rict courts as the public interest may 
 equire. 
 
 Sec. 17. Each of the said judges shall 
 eceive a salary to be fixed by law, which 
 hall not be increased or diminished during 
 is term of office, which salary shall never 
 e less than two thousand five hundred 
 ollars annually. He must be a citizen of 
 ie United States, over the age of thirty 
 ears, and have resided in the State six 
 ;ears next preceding his appointment, and 
 ave practised law therein for the space of 
 ; ve years. 
 
 Sec. 18. The judges of said district 
 s hurts shall hold their offices for the term 
 f six years, and shall be appointed by the 
 overnor, by and with the advice and con- 
 Biit of the senate. The judges first ap- 
 ointed shall be divided by lot into three 
 .asses, as nearly equal as may be, and 
 ie term of office of the judges of the first 
 ass shall expire at the end of two years; 
 I the second class at the end of four 
 ears, and of the third class at the end of 
 x years. 
 
 Sec. 19. The said district courts shall 
 ave general original jurisdiction in all 
 vil cases, when the amount in dispute 
 ;cceeds fifty dollars, exclusive of interest, 
 l all criminal cases, and in all matters 
 mnected with succession, their jurisdic- 
 Dn shall be unlimited. 
 
 Sec. 20. The legislature shall have 
 )wer to vest in clerks of courts authority 
 grant such orders, and do such acts as 
 ay be deemed necessary for the further- 
 vce of the administration of justice, and 
 
 in all cases the powers thus granted shall 
 be specified and determined. 
 
 Sec. 21. The clerks of the several 
 courts shall be removeable for breach of 
 good behavior, by the judges thereof, sub- 
 ject in ail cases, to an appeal to the su- 
 preme court. 
 
 Sec. 22. The jurisdiction of justices of 
 the peace shall never exceed, in civil cases, 
 the sum of one hundred dollars, exclusive 
 of interest, subject to an appeal to the dis- 
 trict court in such cases as shall be pro- 
 vided for by law. They shall be elected 
 by the qualified voters of each parish, for 
 the term of two years, and shall have such 
 criminal jurisdiction as shall be provided 
 for by law. 
 
 Sec. 23. The judges of the supreme 
 court and district courts, provided for in 
 this constitution, shall be appointed and 
 commissioned as soon as possible after this 
 constitution shall take effect, and the legis- 
 lature shall provide for the removal of all 
 causes now pending in the supreme or 
 other courts of this State, under the con- 
 stitution of 1812, to the supreme and dis- 
 trict courts created by this constitution, 
 
 Sec. 24. Clerks in the district courts in 
 this State, shall be elected by the qualified 
 electors in each parish, for the term of. 
 fonr years, and should' a vacancy occur 
 subsequent to an election, it shall be filled 
 by the judge of the court in which such 
 vacancy exists, and the person so appoint- 
 ed shall hold his office until the next gene- 
 ral election. v 
 
 Sec. 25. A sheriff shall be elected in 
 each parish by the qualified voters thereof, 
 who shall hold his office for the term 
 of two years, unless sooner removed. 
 Should a vacancy occur, subsequent to 
 an election, it shall be filled by the gov- 
 rnor; and the person so appointed shall 
 continue in office until his successor shall 
 be elected and qualified. 
 
 Sec. 26. All parish officers, not other- 
 wise provided for by this constitution, 
 shall be elected by the qualified electors of 
 the different parishes, in such manner as 
 shall be prescribed by law. Provided, 
 that the mode of appointment and tenure 
 of office of all officers in the parish of Or- 
 leans shall remain as heretofore, unless 
 otherwise provided for by the legislature. 
 
 Mr. Brent, moved to amend the twen- 
 
280 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 ty-sixth section by inserting in the pro- 
 viso before the word "officers," the word 
 "such." 
 
 The Chair decided the amendment to 
 be out of order. 
 
 Mr. Prescott of St. Landry appealed 
 from the decision of the chair, and the 
 question being pufshall the decision of the 
 chair be maintained; the yeas and nays 
 being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Briant, Carriere, Ce- 
 nas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, Downs, Du- 
 Bouchel, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Kenner, La- 
 bauve, Legendre, Lewis, McRae, Marigny, 
 Mazureau, Peels, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, 
 St. Amand, Saunders, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Stephens, Tay- 
 lor of St. Landry, Waddill, Wadsworth, 
 Wederstrandt, Wikoff, Winchester and 
 Winder voted in the affirmative — 42 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Bur. 
 ion, Cade, Chambliss, Covillion, Culbert- 
 son, Hynson, McCallop, Porter, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Preston, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Splane f Taylor of Assumption 
 Trist and Voorhies voted in the negative 
 ' — 19 nays ; consequently said motion was 
 lost. 
 
 On motion the report of the committee 
 of revision on the legislative departments, 
 was taken up, viz : 
 
 Sec. 1. The legislative power of the 
 State shall be vested in two distinct 
 branches, the one to be styled the House 
 of Representatives, the other the Senate, 
 and both "the General Assembly of the 
 State of Louisiana." 
 
 Sec. The members of the house of 
 representatives shall continue in service 
 for the term of two years from the day of 
 the closing of the general elections. 
 
 Sec. 3. Representatives shall be cho- 
 sen on the first Monday in November, eve- 
 ry two years; and the general assembly 
 shall meet on the third Monday in Janu- 
 ary next ensuing the election in every 
 second year, unless a different day be ap- 
 pointed bylaw, and their sessions shall be 
 held at the seat of government. The elec- 
 tion shall be completed in one day. 
 
 Sec. 4. No person shall be a represen- 
 tative who, at the time of his election, is 
 not a free white male, and has not been for 
 
 three years a citizen of the United States; 
 and has not attained the age of twenty-one 
 years and resided in the State for the three 
 years next preceding the election, and the 
 last year thereof in the parish for which he 
 may be chosen. 
 
 Sec. 5. Elections for representatives foi 
 the several parishes or representative dis 
 tricts shall be held at the several electior 
 precincts established by law, and whicl 
 the legislature having in view the conve 
 nience of the voters, may from time to time 
 establish: Provided, that the Legislature 
 may delegate the power of establishing 
 election precincts to the parochial or muni 
 cipal authorities. 
 
 Sec. 6. Representation shall be equal 
 I and uniform in this State, and shall forevei 
 be regulated and ascertained by the num 
 ber of qualified electors therein; Provided, 
 that each parish shall have at least one re 
 | presentative: and provided further, that n( 
 new parish shall be created with a territorj 
 less than six hundred and twenty-five 
 square miles, nor with a number of electors 
 less than the ratio at the time,nor when the 
 creation of such new parish would leave 
 any other parish without the said exten 
 of territory and number of electors. 
 
 The first census to be taken by the Stat* 
 authorities under this Constitution shall b< 
 taken in the year 1847, the second in the 
 year 1855: and the subsequent enumera- 
 tions shall be made every tenth year there- 
 after, in such manner as sHall be prescribee 
 by law, for the purpose of ascertaining the 
 number of qualified electors in each parish, 
 At the first regular session of the legisla- 
 ture after the making of each census, the le- 
 gislature shall apportion the representation 
 amongst the several parishes on the basis 
 of qualified electors as aforesaid. A repre- 
 sentative number being fixed, each parish 
 shall have as many representatives as the 
 aggregate number of electors will entitle it 
 to, and an additional representative for any 
 fraction exceeding by one-half the repre- 
 sentative number. 
 
 That part of the parish of Orleans situa- 
 ted on the left bank of the Missisippi shall 
 be divided into nine representative dis- 
 tricts as follows, viz: 
 
 1st. First district to extend from the 
 line of the parish of Jefferson, to the mid- 
 dle of Benjamin, Estelle and Thalia streets. 
 2d. Second district to extend from the 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 281 
 
 last mentioned limits to the middle of Julia I 
 street, until it strikes the New Orleans 
 canal, thence down said canal to the lake. 
 
 3d. Third district to comprise the resi- 
 due of the Second Municipality. 
 
 4th. Fourth district to extend from the 
 middle of Canal street to the middle of 
 St. Louis street, until it reaches the Me- 
 tairie road, thence along said road to the 
 New Orleans canal. 
 
 5th. Fifth district to extend from the last 
 mentioned limits to the middle of St. Philip 
 street, thence down said street until its in- 
 terseetion with the bayou St. John, thence 
 along the middle of said bayou until it in- 
 tersects the Metairie road thence along said 
 road until it reaches St. Louis street. 
 
 6th. Sixth district to be composed of the 
 residue of the First Municipality. 
 
 7th. Seventh district, from the middle 
 Esplanade street to the middle of Champs 
 Elysees street. 
 
 8th. Eighth district, from the middle of | 
 Champs Elysees street to the middle of 
 Enghein street and Lafayette Avenue. 
 
 9th. Ninth district, from the middle of 
 Enghein street and Lafayette Avenue to 
 the lower limits of the parish. 
 
 Until the first enumeration shall be made 
 as directed in this section, the parish pf 
 Orleans shall be entitled to twenty repre- 
 sentatives, to be elected as follows, viz: 
 
 Eight by the First Municipality, seven 
 by the Second Municipality, and four by 
 the Third Municipality, to be distributed 
 among the nine representative districts as 
 
 follows^y Plotting to the 
 
 First district, 2 
 
 Second " 2 • 
 
 Third " 3 
 
 Fourth t; 3 
 
 Fifth " 3 
 
 Sixth " 2 
 
 Seventh " 2 
 
 Eighth " 1 
 
 Ninth " 1 
 And one by that part of the paiish ori the 
 right bank of the Mississippi. 
 
 The parish of Plaquemines, 3 
 
 ' s St. Bernard, 1 
 
 '* Jefferson, 3 
 
 " Sf. Charles, 1 
 
 ' St. John the Baptist, 1 
 
 St. James, 2 
 
 " Ascension, 2 
 
 Assumption, 0 
 • 36 
 
 The parish of Lafourche Interior, 
 
 3 
 
 
 Terrebone, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 Iberville, 
 
 2 
 
 14 
 
 West Baton Rouge, 
 
 1 
 
 
 East do. 
 
 3 
 
 l i 
 
 West Feliciana, 
 
 z 
 
 1 1 
 
 East do 
 
 3 
 
 it 
 
 St. Helena, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Washington, 
 
 1 
 
 
 Livingston, 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 St. Tammany, 
 
 1 
 
 
 Point Coupee ; 
 
 1 
 
 
 Concordia, 
 
 1 
 
 
 I ensas, 
 
 "1 * 
 
 
 Madison, 
 
 ri'- 
 1 
 
 
 Carroll, 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 i t 
 
 r ranklm, 
 
 1 
 
 
 bt. 3iary, 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 St. Martin, 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 Vermillion, 
 
 1 
 
 it 
 
 Lafayette, 
 
 2 
 
 ii 
 
 St. Landry, 
 
 5 
 
 it 
 
 Calcasieu, 
 
 1 
 
 li 
 
 Avoyelles, 
 
 2 
 
 ii 
 
 Rapides, 
 
 3 
 
 ii 
 
 Natchitoches; 
 
 3 
 
 if 
 
 Sabine, 
 
 o 
 
 ii 
 
 Caddo, 
 
 * 1 
 
 ii 
 
 De Soto, 
 
 I 
 
 ii 
 
 Ouachita, 
 
 1 
 
 *i 
 
 Morehouse, 
 
 1 
 
 
 Union, 
 
 i 
 
 it 
 
 Jackson^ 
 
 
 tt 
 
 Caldwell, 
 
 . i 
 
 it 
 
 - Catahoula, 
 
 2 
 
 tt 
 
 Claiborne, 
 
 2 
 
 ii 
 
 Bossier, 
 
 1 
 
 
 Total, 
 
 98 
 
 Sec. 7. The house of representatives 
 shall choose its speaker and other officers. 
 
 Sec. 8. In all elections for representa- 
 tives, every free white male citizen of the 
 United States who has attained the age of 
 twenty-one years, and resided in the State 
 two consecutive years next preceding the 
 election, and the last year thereof in the 
 parish in which he offers to vote, shall 
 have the right of voting. Electors shall 
 in all cases, except treason, felony, breach 
 or surety of the peace, be privileged from 
 arrest during their attendance at, going to, 
 or returning from elections. 
 
 Sec. 9, Absence from the State for more 
 ; than ninety consecutive, days, shall inter, 
 i rupt the acquisition of the residence renuu 
 
282 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 red in the preceding section, unless the 
 person absenting himself shall be a house- 
 keeper, or shall occupy a tenement for car- 
 rying on business, and his dwelling house 
 or tenement for carrytng on business shall 
 be actually occupied during his absence, by 
 his family or servants, or some portion 
 thereof, or by someone employed by him. 
 
 Sec. 10. No person shall have the right 
 of voting in this State until he has been 
 two years a citizen of the United States: 
 Provided, that this section shall not be con- 
 strued so as to deprive any person of the 
 ri§kht of voting who is entitled to that right 
 under the constitution of 1812, at the time 
 of the adoption of this constitution. 
 
 Sec. 11. No person shall be entitled to 
 vote at any election held in this State, ex- 
 cept in the parish of his residence, and in 
 cities and towns divided into election pre- 
 cincts in which he resides. 
 
 Sec. 12. The members of the Senate 
 shall be chosen for the term of four years, 
 and when assembled shall have the power 
 to chose its officers every two years. 
 
 Sec. 13. The State shall be divided into 
 the following senatorial districts, and the 
 senators to be elected shall be voted for by 
 persons entitled to vote for representatives. 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river shall compose one senatorial district, 
 and shall elect four senators; 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines, St. Ber- 
 nard, and that part of the parish of Or- 
 leans lying on the right bank of the river, 
 shall compose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of Jefferson shall compose 
 one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of , St. Charles and St. 
 John the Baptist shall compose one dis- 
 trict, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of St. James shall compose 
 one district,, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of Ascension shall compose 
 one district with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Assumption, Lafourche 
 Interior and Terrebonne shall compose 
 one district, with two senators; 
 
 The parishes of Iberville and West 
 Baton Rouge shall compose one district, 
 with one senator; 
 
 The parish of East Baton Rouge shall 
 compose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of Point Goupee shall com = 
 pose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of Avoyelles shall compose 
 one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of St. Mary shall compose 
 0 ne distrtct, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of St. Martin shall compose 
 one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Lafayette and Vermil- 
 lion shall compose one district, with one 
 senator; 
 
 The parishes of St. Landry and Calca- 
 sieu, shall compose one district, with two 
 senators; 
 
 The parish of West Feliciana shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of East Feliciarfa shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of St. Helena and Livings- 
 ton shall compose one district, with one 
 senator; 
 
 The parishes of Washington and St. 
 Tammany, shall compose one district, with 
 one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Concordia and Tensas 
 shall compose one district with one sen- 
 ator; 
 
 The parishes of Carroll and Madison 
 shall compose one district, with one sen- 
 ator; 
 
 The parishes of Jackson, Union, More- 
 house and Ouachita shall compose one dis- 
 trict, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Caldwell, Franklin and 
 Catahoula shall compose one district, with 
 one senator; 
 
 The parish of Rapides shall compose 
 one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Bossier and Claiborne 
 shall compose one district, with one sen- 
 &tor; 
 
 The parish of Natchitoches shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Sabine, De Soto and 
 Caddo shall compose one district, with|one 
 
 senator; 
 
 And whenever a new parish shall be crea- 
 ted, it shall be attached to the senatorial dis- 
 trict from which most of its territory was 
 taken or to another contiguous district at 
 thediscretion of the legislature, but shall not 
 be attached to more than one district. 
 
 The legislature in every year in which 
 they shall apportion representation in the 
 house of representatives shall divide the 
 State into senatorial districts. No parish 
 shall be divided in the formation of a sena- 
 torial district, the parish of Orleans ex- 
 
 \ 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 283 
 
 cepled. The number of senators shall be 
 thirty-two, and they shall be apportioned 
 among the senatorial districts according to 
 the total population contained in the seve- 
 ral districts: Provided, that no parish shall 
 be entitled to more than one-eighth of the 
 whole number of senators. 
 
 Sec. 14. In all apportionments of the 
 senate, the population of the city of New 
 Orleans shall be deducted from the popu- 
 lation of the whole State, and the remain- 
 der of the poplation divided by the number 
 twenty eight, and the result produced by 
 this division ^hall be the senatorial ratio 
 entitling a senatorial district to a senator. 
 [Single or contiguous parishes shall be 
 formed into districts ha vino- a population 
 nearest possible to the number entitling a 
 district to a senator; and if in the appor- 
 tionment to be made, a parish or district 
 may be found to, be deficient of, or to ex- 
 ceed by one-fifth, the ratio, then a district 
 may be formed having not more than two 
 senators, but not otherwise.]* 
 
 No new apportionment shall have the 
 effect of abridging the term of service of 
 any senator already elected at the time of 
 making the apportionment. 
 
 After the census has been taken, and the 
 general assembly convened, the legislature 
 shall not pass any laws until an apportion- 
 ment is made. 
 
 Sec. 15 At the session of the general 
 assembly, after this constitution takes ef- 
 fect, ihe senators shall be divided by lot as 
 equally as can be, into two classes; the seats 
 of the senators of the first class shall be va- 
 cated at the expiration of the second year, 
 of the second class at the expii ation of the 
 fourth year; so that one-half shall be chosen 
 every two years and a rotation thereby kept 
 up perpetually. In case any district shall 
 have elected two or more senators, said 
 senators shall vacate their seats respective- 
 
 *Project as a substitute f:>r the para- 
 graph in brackets. 
 
 [When the population of a single parish 
 or of contiguous parishes, exceeds by more 
 than one-fifth, or is not less than one- 
 fifth of the senatorial ratio entitling the 
 said parish or contiguous parishes, to two 
 senators, then the said parish or contiguous 
 parishes shall (may) be formed into one 
 district, with not more than two senators.] 
 
 ly at the end of two and four years, and 
 the lots shall be drawn between them. 
 
 Sec. 16. No person shall be a senator, 
 who at the time of his election,, has not 
 been a citizen of the United States ten 
 years, and who has not attained the age of 
 twenty-seven years, and resided in the State 
 four years next preceding his election, 
 and one year in the district in which he 
 may be chosen. 
 
 Sec. 17. The first election for senators 
 shall be general throughout the State, and 
 at the same time that the general election 
 for representatives is held; and thereafter 
 there shall be biennial elections to fill the 
 place of those whose time of service may 
 have expired. 
 
 Sec. 18. Not less than a majority of the 
 members of each house of the general as- 
 sembly shall form a quorum to do business; 
 but a smaller number may adjourn from 
 day to day, and shall be authorised by law 
 to compel the attendance of absent mem- 
 bers, in such manner and under such pen- 
 alties as may be prescribed thereby. 
 
 Sec. J 9. Each house of the general 
 assembly shall judge of the qualification, 
 election and returns of its members; but a 
 contested election shall be determined in 
 such manner as shall be directed by law, 
 
 Sec. 20. Each house of the General 
 Assembly may determine the rules of its 
 proceedings, punish a member for disor- 
 derly behavior, and with the concurrence 
 of two-thirds expel a member, but not a 
 second time for the same offence. 
 
 Sec. 21. -Each house of the general as- 
 sembly shall keep and publish weekly a 
 journal of its proceedings; and the yeas 
 and nays of the members on any question 
 shall, at the desire of two of them, be en- 
 tered on the journal. 
 
 Sec. 22. Each house may punish by im- 
 prisonment any person not a member, for 
 disrespectful and disorderly behavior, in 
 its presence or for obstructing any of its 
 proceedings; provided, such imprisonment 
 shall not exceed ten days for any one of- 
 fence. 
 
 Sec. 23. Neither house, during the ses- 
 sion of the general assembly, shall without 
 the consent of the other, adjourn for more 
 than three days, nor to any other place 
 than that in which they may be sitting. 
 
 Sec. 24. The members of the general 
 
284 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 assembly shall receive from the public 
 treasury a compensation for their services, 
 which shall be four dollars per day during 
 their attendance, going to and returning 
 from the session of their respective houses; 
 provided, that the same may be increased 
 or diminished by law; but no alteration 
 shall take effect during the period qf ser- 
 vice of the members of the house of repre- 
 sentatives by whom such alterations shall 
 have been made; and provided also, that 
 no session shall extend to a period beyond 
 sixty days to the date from its commence- 
 ment, and that any legislative action had 
 after the expiration of the said sixty days, 
 shall be null and void, except the session 
 of the first legislature which is to convene 
 after the adoption of this constitution. 
 
 Sec. 25. The members of the general 
 assembly shall, in all cases except treason, 
 felony, breach or surety of the peace, be 
 privileged from arrest during their attend- 
 ance at . the sessions of their respective 
 houses; and going to or returning from the 
 same, and for any speech or debate in 
 eitiier house, they shall not be questioned 
 in any other place. 
 
 Sec. 26. No senator or representative 
 shall, during the term for which he was 
 elected, nor for one year thereafter, be ap- 
 pointed or elected to any civil office of 
 profit under this State, which shall have 
 been created or the emoluments of which 
 shall have been increased during the time 
 such senator or representative was in 
 office, except to such offices or appoint- 
 ments as may be filled by the elections of 
 the people. 
 
 Sec. 27. No person, while he continues 
 to exercise the functions of a clergyman, 
 priest or teacher of any religious persua- 
 sion, society or sect, shall be eligible to 
 the general assembly. 
 
 Sec. 28. No person who at any time 
 may have been a collector of taxes, or who 
 may have been otherwise entrusted with 
 public money, shall be eligible to the 
 general assembly, or to any other office of 
 profit or trust under the State government, 
 until he shall have obtained a discharge 
 for the amount of such collections, and for 
 all public moneys with which he may 
 have been entrusted. 
 
 Sec. 29. No bill shall have the force of 
 a law until on three severad days, it be read 
 over in each house of the general assem- 
 
 bly, and free discussion allowed thereon, 
 unless in case of urgency, four-fifths of the 
 house, when the bill shall be pending, may 
 deem it expedient to dispense with this 
 rule. 
 
 Sec. 30. All bills for raising revenue 
 shall originate in the house of representa- 
 tives, but the senate may propose amend- 
 ments as in other bills; provided, that they 
 shall not introduce any new matter under 
 the color of an amendment which does not 
 relate to raising a revenue. 
 
 Sec- 31. The general assembly shall 
 regulate by law, by whom, and in what 
 manner, writs of election shall be issue 
 to fill the vacancies which may happen i 
 either branch thereof. 
 
 Sec. 32. A 'majority of all the membe 
 elected to the senate, shall be required fc 
 the confirmation or rejection of officers I 
 be appointed by the governor, with the ad- 
 vice and consent of the senate; and the 
 senate in deciding thereon, shall vote by 
 yeas and nays, and the names of the sena- 
 j tors voting for and against the appoint- 
 ments respectively, shall be entered on a 
 journal to be kept for that purpose, and 
 made public at the end of each session, or 
 before. 
 
 Sec. 32. No soldier, seaman or marine 
 in the army of the United States, no 
 pauper, no person under interdiction, nor 
 under conviction of any crime punishable 
 with hard labor, shall be entitled to vote 
 at any election in this State. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow, at 9 o'clock. 
 
 Note. — Members absent at the call of 
 the roll: Messrs. O'Bryan, Penn and Pre 
 cott of Avoyelles , absent on leave; M 
 Porche absent on account of illness; a 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Carriere, 
 Cenas, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jef- 
 ferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, Du- 
 Bouchel, Eustis, .Garcia, Grymes, Guion, 
 King, Ledoux, Marigny, Prescott of St- 
 Landry, Preston, Prudhomme, Ratliff, Ro- 
 selius, St. Amand, Soule, Wikoff and Win- 
 der did not answer to their names' at the 
 call of the roll. 
 
 of 
 
 Saturday, May 10, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 In the absence of a minister of the gos- 
 pel, the Hon. Mr. Stevens,, at the request 
 
Journal of the Con vention of Louisiana. 
 
 285 
 
 of the President, opened the proceedings 
 with prayer. 
 
 The President submitted a letter from 
 Mr. Bayon, in relation to his compensation 
 as printer to the Convention, and the same 
 was referred to the committee on contin- 
 gent expenses. 
 
 Mr. Read, one of the committee on 
 contingent expenses, submitted the follow- 
 ing resolution, and the same was adopted, 
 viz: 
 
 "Resolved, that the sum of two hun- 
 dred and sixty-two dollars and fifteen cents 
 |be allowed B. M. Norman, bookseller and 
 stationer, and that the committe on contin- 
 gent expenses be authorised to issue a w ar- 
 rant for the same." 
 
 Mr. Beext submitted the following res- 
 olution, and the same was adopted, viz : 
 
 " That the committee of revision shall 
 have the power to recommend for correc- 
 tion any inaccuracies that might be dis- 
 covered in the constitution after the sec- 
 ond reading." • 
 
 i Mr. Mayo gave notice that he will, when 
 the judiciary article be taken up for its 
 third reading, move to determine and fix 
 
 .the qualifications of the judges of the su- 
 
 ipreme court. 
 
 On motion, the report of the committee 
 of revision on the article of impeachment 
 
 I was taken up, and the same was adopted, 
 as reported, viz: 
 
 ARTICLE FIFTH. 
 
 IMPEACHMENT. 
 
 Sec. 1. The power of impeachment 
 shall be vested in the house of representa. 
 tires. 
 
 Sec. 2. Impeachments of the governor, 
 lieutenant governor, attorney general, sec- 
 retary of State, State treasurer, and the 
 judges of the district courts, shall be tried 
 by the senate; the chief justice of the su- 
 preme court, or the senior judge of said 
 court, presiding. 
 
 Impeachments of the judges of the su- 
 preme court shall be tried by the senate. 
 
 The legislature shall provide by law for 
 the trial, punishment and removal from 
 office of all other officers of the State, by 
 indictment or otherwise. 
 
 When sitting as a court of impeachment, 
 the senators shall be upon oaih or affirma- 
 tion, and no person shall be convicted with- 
 out the concurrence of two-thirds of the 
 senators present, 
 
 i Sec. 3. Judgments in cases of impeach- 
 j merit shall not extend further than to re- 
 I moval from office and disqualification from 
 holding any officr of honor, trust or profit 
 | under this Slate; but the parties convicted 
 j shall, nevertheless, be subject to indictment, 
 trial and punishment according to law. 
 
 AH officers against whom articles of im- 
 peachment may be preferred, shall be sus- 
 pended from the exercise of their functions 
 during the pendency and trial of such im- 
 peachment; Provided, that the appointing 
 i power may make a provisional appoint- 
 I ment of an officer to replace the suspended 
 1 officer until the decision shall be made on 
 the impeachment. 1 
 
 On motion the scedule was taken up, 
 viz: 
 
 SCHEDULE. 
 1 That no inconvenience may arise 
 from the alterations and amendments made 
 ! in the constitution of this State, and in or- 
 | der to carry the same into complete oper- 
 ation and effect, it is hereby- declared and 
 ordained: 
 
 2, That all law;s of this State, in force 
 at the time of making the said alterations 
 and amendments, and not inconsistent 
 therewith, and all rights, actions, prosecu- 
 tions, claims and contracts, as well of in- 
 dividuals as of bodies corporate, shall con- 
 tinue as if the said alterations and amend- 
 ments had not -been made. 
 
 3. The governor, secretary of State, 
 judges, and all other officers, both civil and 
 military, shall continue in the exercise of 
 the duties of their respective departments 
 until superceded, and their successors duly 
 inducted into office, pursuant to the provis- 
 ions contained in the foregoing alterations 
 and amendments. 
 
 Mr. Saunders submitted as a substitute 
 for the above, the following, and the same 
 was adopted, viz: 
 
 "The constitution adopted in conven- 
 tion, January second, 1812 ; is declared to 
 | be superceded by the alterations and 
 j amendments herein adopted; and in order 
 to carry the same into operation and effect, 
 it is hereby declared and ordained • 
 
 That all laws of this State in force at 
 the time of the adoption of this constitu- 
 tion, and not inconsistent therewith, and 
 all rights, actions and prosecutions, claims 
 and contracts, as well of individuals as of 
 bodies corporate, shall continue as if the 
 
286 
 
 Journal of the Convention of JLoaisiana* 
 
 said alterations and amendments had not 
 been made. 
 
 The governor, secretary of State, judges, 
 and all other officers, civil and, military, 
 shall continue in the exercise of the duties 
 of their respective departments until su- 
 perceded under the authority of this con- 
 stitution. 
 
 Provided, that nominations and appoint- 
 ments to office, under this constitution, 
 shall be made by the governor to be elect- 
 ed under its authority." 
 
 Mr. Saunders offered the following ad- 
 ditional section; the same was adopted, 
 and ordered to be transferred to the gener- 
 al provisions, viz: 
 
 "A treasurer of the State shall be elect- 
 ed biennially, by the j oint ballot of the 
 two houses of the general assembly." 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved to take up the ma- 
 jority report, on submitting the constitution 
 to the people. The yeas and nays being 
 called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Briant, B rum- 
 field, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Cul- 
 bertson, Dunn, Garcia, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Kenner, King, Labauve, Ledoux, Legen- 
 dre, Lewis, MeCallop, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhom- 
 rae, Read, Roman, Saunders, Scott of Ba- 
 ton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Sellers, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor 
 of St. Lmdry, Trist, Voorhies, Winches- 
 ter and Winder voted in the affirmative— 
 43 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Covillion, Du- 
 Bouchel, Eustis, Garrett, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Peets, Splane, Waddill and Weder- 
 strandt voted in the negative — 11 nays; 
 consequently said motion was carried, and 
 the report was taken up, viz: 
 REPORT. 
 
 Ordered, that immediately after the ad- 
 journment of this Convention, the govern- 
 or shall issue his proclamation, directing 
 the several officers of this State authorized 
 by law to hold elections for members of the 
 general assembiy, to open and hold an 
 election in every parish in the State, at the 
 places designated by law, upon the first 
 Monday of November next, for the pur* 
 pose of taking the sense of the good peo- 
 ple of this State in regard to the adoption 
 or rejection of this amended Constitution, 
 
 And it shall be the duty of the said officer! 
 to receive the votes of all persons entitlec 
 to vote under the old constitution, and un 
 derthis amended constitution. Each votei 
 shall express his opinion by depositing hi the 
 ballot box a ticket, whereon shall be writ- 
 ten " the constitution accepted," or "the 
 constitution rejected," or some such words 
 as will distinctly convey the intention oi 
 the voter. At the conclusion of the sain 
 election, which shall be conducted in every 
 respect as the general State election is now 
 conducted, the commissioners designa- 
 ted to preside over the same, shall careful, 
 ly examine and count each ballot - so de- 
 posited, and shall forthwith make due re- 
 turns thereof to the secretary of State, in 
 conformity to the provisions of the exist- 
 ing law upon the subject of elections. 
 
 Ordered, that upon the receipt of the 
 said returns, it shall be the duty of the go 
 vernor, the secretary of State, the attorney 
 general and the State treasurer, in the fie 
 sence of all such persons as may choose 
 to attend, to compare the votes given in 
 said election, for the ratification or rejec 
 tion of this amended constitution; and if 
 shall appear from said returns, that a m 
 jority of all the votes given in said ele 
 tion is for ratifying the amended constitu 
 tion, then it shall be the duty of the gover 
 nor to make proclamation of that fact, and 
 thenceforth this amended constitution shall 
 be ordained and established as the consti- 
 tuion of Louisiana. But whether the 
 amended constitution be accepted or reject- 
 ed, it shall be the dury of the governor to 
 cause to be published in the State paper 
 the result of the said election, showing the 
 number of votes cast for and against the 
 said constitution. 
 
 Ordered, that should this amended con- 
 stitution be accepted by the people, it shall 
 also be the duty of the gevernor forthwith 
 to issue his proclamation, declaring the 
 present legislature elected under the old 
 constitution to be dissolved, and directing 
 the several officers of the State, authorised 
 by law to hold elections for members of the 
 general assembly, to hold an election at 
 the places designated by law, upon the 
 third Monday in January next, (1846) for 
 governor, lieutenant governor, members of 
 the general assembly, and all other officers 
 whose election is provided for, pursuant to 
 the provisions of this amended constitu- 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 237 
 
 ion. And the said election shall be con- 
 lucted, and the returns thereof made, in 
 :onformity with the existing laws upon the 
 ubject of State elections. 
 
 Ordered, that the general assembly elect- 
 id under this amended constitution, shall 
 onvene at the State house, in the city of 
 S T e\v Orleans, upon the second Monday 
 f February next, after the election, (1846) 
 nd that the governor and lieutenant gov- 
 rnor, elected at the same time, shall be 
 uly installed in office during the first 
 feek. of their session, and before it shall 
 e competent for the said general assem- 
 ly to proceed with the transaction of busi- 
 ess. 
 
 Mr. Guion moved to amend the first sec- 
 ion of said report by striking out in the 
 fteenth line the word "November," and 
 isert in lieu thereof the word "July." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Briant, Chinn, 
 hinn, Guion, Hudspeth, King, Legendre, 
 ,ewis, Read, Sellers, Taylor of Assump- 
 on, Taylor of St. Landry and Winder 
 oted in the affirmative — 15 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs*. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, Bur- 
 ,3n, Cade, Carriere* Cenas, Ohambliss, 
 paiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Covillion, Culbertson, Downs, 
 )uBouchel. Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, Hum- 
 le, Hynson, Kenner, Labauve, Ledoux, 
 IcCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Pee ts, 
 ,'orter, Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhom- 
 sjie, Roman, Saunders, Scott of Baton 
 iouge, Scott of Feliciana, Splane, Ste- 
 hens^ Voorhies, Waddill, Wederstrandt 
 nd Winchester voted in the negative — 41 
 ays: consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr, Guion then moved to amend said 
 jection by striking out, commencing in the 
 'fteenth line, the words "and under this 
 mended constitution." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Broudousquie, 
 iourg, Briant, Cade, Cenas, Chinn, Clai- 
 orne, Conrad of Orleans, Conjad of Jef- 
 irson, Culbertson* Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, 
 ruion, Hudspeth, Kenner, King, Labauve, 
 iegendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, 
 'ugh, Roman, Roselius, Sellers, Taylor 
 f St. Landry, Wadsworth and Winder 
 ote.d in the affirmative —3 Hyeas, and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 huton, Oarriere, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 )owns, DuBouchel, Eustis, Garrett, Hum- 
 
 ble, Hynson, Ledoux, McCallap, McRae, 
 Mayo, Peets, Porter; Prescott of St.Lan- 
 dry, Preston, Read, Saunders, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Voorhies, 
 Waddill, Wederstrandt, and Winchester 
 voted in the negative — 32 nays; conse- 
 quently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved- to amend said sec- 
 tion by inserting after the word "commis- 
 sioners," in the 25th line, the words "and 
 parish judges;" which motion prevriled. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved that said report be 
 laid on the table indefinitely. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called'for, 
 
 Messrs. Downs, Humble and Waddill 
 voted in the affirmative — 3 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, 
 Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Cenas, Chinn, Covillion, Conrad of iNew 
 Orleans, Claiborne, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Dunn, DuBouchel, Eustis, Garcia, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Hynson, Kenner, Labauve, 
 Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Peets, 
 Porter, Prescott' of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Pugh, Read, Roman, -Roselius, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 liciana, Sellers, Soule, Splane, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Voorhies, Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the nega- 
 tive — 59 nays ; consequently said motion 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved that the word 
 " amended " be stricken out wherever itf 
 precedes the word "constitution;" which 
 motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Preston moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by striking out the words "by de- 
 positing in the ballot box a ticket whereon 
 shall be written, the constitution accepted 
 or the constitution rejected," and insert in 
 lieu thereof "orally for or against the 
 constitution." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, 
 Downs, Eustis, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, 
 Ledoux, McRae, Mayo, Porter, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Preston, Read, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Taylor of St. Landry, Wadsworth 
 and Wederstrandt voted in the affirmative 
 — 24 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 
288 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Bourg, Bria-nt, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad 
 of Orleans, Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes., 
 Dunn, Garcia, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, 
 Labauve, Legendrs^ Lewis, Marigny, Ma- 
 zureau, Peets, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Sellers, 
 Soule, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Winchester and Winder 
 voted in the negative 35 nays ; conse- 
 quently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved for the adoption of 
 the first order. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Aubert,Bcnjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Briant, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Covillion, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, Dunn, Eustis, 
 Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Hvn- 
 son, Kenner, Labauve, Legendre, Ledoux, 
 Lewis, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, 
 Peets, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Preston, Pugh, Read, Roman, Roselius, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Feliciana, Sellers Soule, Stephens, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Voor- 
 hies, Waddill, Wederstrandt, Winchester 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative — 57 
 yeas; the vote being unanimous, conse- 
 quently the first order was adopted, as 
 follows, viz : 
 
 Ordered, That immediately after the ad- 
 journment, of this Convention, the governor 
 shall issue his proclamation, directing the 
 several officers of this State, authorized by 
 law to hold elections for members of the 
 general assembly, to open and hold an 
 election in every parish of the State, at the 
 places designated by law, upon the first 
 Monday of November next, for the purpose 
 of taking the sense of the good people of 
 this State in regard to the adoption or re- 
 jection of this constitution. And it shall 
 l>e the duty of the said officers to receive 
 the votes of all persons entitled to vote un- 
 der the old constitution, and under this 
 constitution. Each voter shall express his 
 opinion by depositing in the ballot box a 
 ticket whereon shall be written "the con- 
 stitution accepted" or "the constitution re- 
 jected," or some such words as will dis- 
 tinctly convey the intention of the voter. 
 At the conclusion of the said election, 
 which shall be conducted in every respect 
 is the general State election is now con- 
 ducted, the parish judges and commission 
 
 ers designated to preside over the same 
 shall carefully examine and count eacl 
 ballot so deposited, and shall forth witl I 
 make due returns thereof to the secretary! 
 of State, in conformity to the provisions o f 
 the existing law upon the subject of eleeJ 
 tions. 
 
 On motion, the second order was t?kei 
 up, viz : 
 
 Ordered, That upon the receipt of the 
 said returns, it shall be the duty of the go 
 vernor, the secretary of State, the attorney 
 general and the state treasurer, in the pre 
 sence of all such persons as may choose ti 
 attend, to compare the votes given in sail 
 election for the ratification and rejection o 
 this constitution \ and if it shall appea 
 from said returns that a majority of all thi 
 votes given in said election is for ratify in. 
 the constitution, then it shall be the dut; 
 of the governor to make proclamation c 
 that fact, and thenceforth this constitutio 
 shall be ordained and established as th 
 constitution of Louisiana. But whethe 
 the constitution be accepted or rejected, i 
 shall be the duty of the governor to caus: 
 to be published in the State paper the re 
 suit of the said election, showing the nun? 
 ber of votes cast for and against the sals 
 constitution. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans moved to ament 
 said order by inserting after the won 
 "cast*" in the twentieth line, the word 
 "in each parish," which motion prevailed 
 and the order as amended was adopted, viz 
 
 Ordered, That upon the receipt of thi 
 said returns, it shall be the duty of tjae go 
 vernor, the secretary of State, the attorne 
 general and the state treasurer, in the pre 
 sence of all such persons as may choos 
 to attend, to compare the votes given is 
 said election for the ratification and rejec 
 tion of this constitution; and if it shall ap 
 pear from said returns that a majority o 
 all the votes given in said election is fo 
 ratifying the constitution, then it shall bi 
 the duty of the governor to make proclaim 
 tion of that fact, and thencefoith this con 
 stitution shall be ordained and establish^ 
 as the constitution of Louisiana. Bi. 
 whether the constitution bo accepted o; 
 rejected, it shall be the duty of the governoi 
 to cause to be published in the State paper 
 the result of the said election, showing the 
 number of votes cast in each parish m 
 and against the said constitution, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. c 2^9 
 
 On motion, the third order was taken 
 jp, viz : 
 
 Ordered, That should this constitution 
 oe accepted by the people, it shall also be 
 he duty of the governor, forthwith to issue 
 lis proclamation, declaring the present le- 
 gislature, elected under the old constitution, 
 o be dissolved, and directing the several 
 )fficers of the State, authorized by law, to 
 lold elections for memjiers of the general 
 issembly, to hold an election at the places 
 iesignated by law, upon the third Monday 
 .n January next, (1846) for governor, lieu- 
 tenant governor, members of the general 
 issenibly, and ail other officers whose 
 Election is provided for pursuant to the 
 provisions of this constitution. And the 
 aid election shall be conducted, and the 
 turns thereof made in conformity with 
 he existing laws upon the subject of State 
 lections. 
 
 Mr. LEDorx moved to amend said order 
 striking out the word " January." 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Cenas, Claiborne, Coviilion, 
 Downs, Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, Humble, 
 Labauve, Ledoux, Marigny, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Scott Baton of Rouge, Soule, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption and Voorhies voted in 
 :he affirmative — 16 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty.Bou.r2". Brazeaie, 
 Brent, Brumtield, Burton. Cade,Chambliss, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Pulbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Guion, Huds- 
 peth, Hynson, Kenner, Legendre, Lewis, 
 McCallop. McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, 
 Preston. Pugh. Read, Roman. Roselius, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sel- 
 lers, Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, Wad- 
 pill, Wederstrandt, Winchester and Winder 
 oted in the negative— 40 nays; consequent- 
 ly said motion was lost, and the order as 
 reported was adopted. 
 
 On motion, the fourth order was taken 
 up and adopted, viz : 
 
 Ordered, That the general assembly, 
 (elected under this constitution, shall con- 
 vene at the state house, in the city of New 
 Orleans, upon the second Monday of Feb- 
 ruary next, after the election, (1846); and 
 that the governor and lieutenant governor, 
 elected at the same time, shall be duly in- 
 stalled in office during the first week of 
 their session, and before it shall be compe- 
 tent for the said general assembly to pro- 
 ceed with the transaction of business, 
 3? 
 
 Oil motion, the report as amended was 
 adopted, to wit: 
 
 Ordered, That immediately after the 
 adjournment of this Convention, the go- 
 vernor shall issue his proclamation, di- 
 recting the several officers of this State,- 
 authorized by law to hold elections tor 
 members of the v-enei 
 
 istate, at the places de; 
 the first Mondav of 
 
 I assembly, to open 
 every parish of the 
 gnated bylaw, upon 
 Sovember next, for 
 the purpose of taking the sense of the good 
 people of this State in regard to the adop- 
 tion or rejection of this constitution, And 
 it shall be the duty of the said officers to 
 receive the votes of all persons entitled to 
 vote under the old constitution, and under 
 this constitution. Each voter shall ex- 
 press his opinion by depositing in the ballot 
 box a ticket whereon shall be written "the 
 constitution accepted" or "the constitution 
 rejected," or some such words as will dis- 
 tinctly convey the intention of the voter. 
 At the conclusion of the said election which 
 shall be conducted in every respect as the 
 ! general State election is now conducted, 
 ' the commissioners and parish judges des- 
 ignated to preside over the same, shall 
 carefully examine and count each ballot so 
 . deposited, and shall forthwith make due 
 j returns thereof to the secretary of State, in 
 j conformity to the provisions of the existing 
 ! law upon the subject of elections. 
 
 Ordered, That upon the receipt of the 
 said returns, it shall be the duty of the go- 
 vernof, the secretary of state, the attorney 
 general and the state treasurer, in the pre- 
 ' sence of all such persons as maj- choose 
 to attend, to compare the votes given in 
 said election for the ratification and rejec- 
 tion of this constittrtionr and if it shall^ap- 
 pear from said returns that a majority of 
 all the votes given in said election is' for 
 ratifying the constitution, then it shall be 
 the duty of the governor to make procla- 
 mation of that fact, and thenceforth this 
 constitution shall be ordained and estab- 
 lished as the constitution of Louisiana; 
 But whether the constitution be accepted 
 or rejected, it shall be the duty of the 
 governor to cause to be published in the 
 State paper the result of the said election, 
 showing the number of votes cast in each 
 parish for or against the said constitution. 
 
 Ordered* That should this constitution 
 be accepted by the people, it shall also be 
 
290 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 the duty of the governor forthwith to issue 
 his proclamation, declaring the present 
 legislature, elected under the old constitu- 
 tion to be dissolved, and directing the seve- 
 ral officers of the State, authorised by law, 
 to hold elections for members of the gene- 
 ral assembly, to hold an election at the 
 places designated^ by law, upon the third 
 Monday in January next, (1848,) for gov- 
 ernor, lieutenant governor, members of the 
 general assembly, and all other officers 
 whose election is provided for pursuant to 
 the provisions of this constitution. And 
 the said election shall be conducted, and 
 the returns thereof made in conformity 
 with the existing laws upon the subject of 
 State elections. 
 
 Ordered, That the general assembly 
 elected under this constitution, s*hali con- 
 vene at the state house, in the city of New 
 Orleans, upon the second Monday of Feb- 
 ruary next, after the election, (1846); and 
 that the governor and lieutenant governor, 
 elected at the same time, shall be duly in- 
 stalled iii office during the first week of 
 their session, and before it shall be com- 
 petent for the said general assembly to 
 proceed with the transaction of business. 
 
 Mr. Read, on behalf of the committee 
 on contingent expenses, submitted the fol- 
 lowing report, viz : 
 
 The committee on contingent expenses 
 have carefully examined the claims pre/ 
 sented by Jerome Bayon, and by Messrs. 
 Besangon, Ferguson and Co., and have 
 come to the conclusion that the sum of 
 three thousand dollars should be allowed 
 to Mr. Jerome Bayon, in full payment for 
 all printing (including subscription for the 
 paper) already done and remaining to be 
 done; and that the sum of three thousand 
 three hundred and sixty dollars should 
 be allowed Messrs. Besangon, Ferguson 
 & Co., in full payment for all printing 
 (including subscription for paper) already 
 done and remaining to be done; and the 
 committee recommend that said sums be 
 paid to the printers, deducting therefrom 
 the sum of five hundred dollars.paid to Mr. 
 Bayon, arid the sum of twelve hundred and 
 fifty dollars paid to Messrs. Besangon, Fer- 
 guson &l Co., and that the said committee be 
 authorised to issue a warrant in favor of Mr. 
 Jerome Bayon, for the sum of two thou- 
 sand five hundred dollars, and a warrant 
 in favor of Messrs, Besangon, Ferguson & 
 
 Co., for the sum of two thousand om 
 hundred and ten dollars, — these being tin 
 amounts allowed after making the abov< 
 deductions. 
 
 (Signed,) A. READ, 
 
 J. P. BENJAMIN, 
 L. SAUNDERS, 
 C. ROSELIUS. 
 
 Mr. Beatty offered the following reso- 
 lution, and the same was adopted, viz : 
 
 Resolved, That the printers be furnished 
 with copies of all the articles of the con- 
 stitution, to be printed for the use of the 
 Convention, by Monday next. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjournec 
 till 9 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Note. — Members absent at the call o! 
 the roll: Messrs. O'Bryan, Penn and Pres- 
 cott of Avoyelles absent on leave ; Mr, 
 Porche absent on account of sickness, anc 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, Eustis, Gar- 
 cia, Grymes, Guion ; King, Labauve, Le- 
 doux, Marigny, Ratliff, Roselius, St. Amand, 
 Trist, Wikoff and Winchester did not an- 
 swer to their names at the call of the roll. 
 
 Monday, May 12, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 In the absence of a minister of the gos- 
 pel the Hon. Mr. Stephens, at the request 
 of the president, opened the proceedings 
 with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Eustis, chairman of the committee 
 of revision, reported the preamble, and the 
 same was adopted as reported, viz : 
 
 "We, the people of the State of Lou- 
 isiana, do ordain and establish this con- 
 stitution." 
 
 The committee of revision reported the 
 general provisions, for a second reading; 
 the same was read, and adopted as re- 
 ported, viz : 
 
 TITLE IV. 
 
 GENERAL PROVISIONS. 
 
 Art. 89. Members of the general as- 
 sembly, and all officers, before they enter 
 upon the duties of their offices shall take 
 the following oath or affirmation: 
 
 I (A. B.) do solemnly swear (or affirm) 
 that I will faithfully and impartially dis- 
 charge and perform all the duties incum- 
 bent on me as — , according to the 
 
 best of my abilities and understandings 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 291 
 
 agreeably to the constitution and laws of 
 the United States, and of this State; and I 
 do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that 
 since the adoption of the present constitu- 
 tion, I, being a citizen of this State, have 
 not fought a duel with deadly weapons 
 within this State, nor out of it, nor have I 
 sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel 
 with deadly weapons, nor have acted as 
 second in carrying a challenge, or aided, 
 idvised, or assisted any person thus of- 
 fending, so help me God." 
 ' Art. 90. Treason against the State 
 shall consist only in levying war against, 
 jr in adhering to its enemies, giving them 
 lid and comfort. No person shall be con- 
 rioted of treason, unless on the testimony 
 }f two witnesses to the same overt act, or 
 his own confession in open court. 
 
 Art. 91. Every person shall be dis- 
 qualified from holding any office of trust 
 3r profit in this State, who shall have been 
 convicted of having given, or offered a 
 mbe to procure his election or appoint- 
 ment. 
 
 Art. 92. Laws shall be made to exclude 
 rom office and from the right of suffrage, 
 hose who shall, hereafter be convicted of 
 }ribery, perjury, forgery, or other high 
 :rimes or misdemeanors. The privilege 
 if free suffrage shall be supported by laws 
 egulating elections, and prohibiting un- 
 ler adequate penalties all undue influence 
 hereon from power, bribery, tumult, or 
 )ther improper practice, 
 i Art. 93. No money shall be drawn 
 rom the treasury but in pursuance of spe- 
 cific appropriations made by law, nor shall 
 my appropriation of money be made for a 
 onger term than two years. A regular 
 tatement and account of the receipts and 
 expenditures of all public money shall be 
 published annually, in such manner as 
 ;hall be prescribed by law. 
 
 Art. 94. It shall be the duty of the 
 general assembly to pass such laws as 
 nay be necessary and proper to decide 
 Ufferences by arbitration. 
 ) Art. 95. All civil officers for the State 
 it large shall reside within the State, and , 
 ill district or parish officers within their 
 listricts or parishes, and shall keep their 
 )fnces at such places therein as may be 
 ■equired by law. No person shall be ; 
 ilected or appointed to any parish office \ 
 
 '[who shall not have resided in such parish 
 long enough before such election, or ap- 
 pointment, to have acquired the right of 
 voting in such parish; and no person shall 
 be elected or appointed to any district 
 office, who shall not have resided in such 
 district, or an adjoining district, long 
 enough before such appointment or elec- 
 tion, to have acquird the right of voting in 
 the same. 
 
 Art. 96. The duration of all offices not 
 fixed by this constitution shall never exceed 
 four years. 
 
 Art. 97. AH civil officers, except the 
 governor, and judges of the supreme and 
 district courts, shall be removeable by an 
 address of a majority of the members of 
 both houses, except those the removal of 
 whom has been otherwise provided for by 
 this constitution. 
 
 Art. 98. Absence on business of this 
 State or of the United States, shall not for- 
 feit a residence once obtained, so as to de- 
 prive any one of the right of suffrage, or 
 of being elected or appointed to any office 
 under the exceptions contained in this 
 constitution. 
 
 Art. 99. It shall be the duty of the 
 legislature to provide by law for deductions 
 from the salaries of public officers who 
 may be guilty of a neglect of duty. 
 
 Art. 100. The legislature shall point out 
 the manner in which a person coming into 
 the State shall declare his residence. 
 
 Art. 101. In all elections by the peo- 
 ple the vote shall be by ballot, and in all 
 elections by the senate and house of repre- 
 sentatives, jointly or separately, the vote 
 shall be given viva voce. 
 
 Art. 102. No member of congress, nor 
 person holding or exercising any office of 
 trust or profit under the United States, or 
 either of them, or under any foreign power, 
 shall be eligible as a member of the gene- 
 ral assembly, or hold or exercise any office 
 of trust or profit under the State. 
 
 Art. 103. The laws, the public records 
 and the judicial and legislative written 
 proceedings of the State shall be promul- 
 gated, preserved and conducted in the lan- 
 guage in which the constitution of the 
 United States is written. 
 
 Art. 104. The secretary of the senate 
 and clerk of the house of representatives 
 shall be conversant with the French and 
 
292 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 English languages; and members may ad- 
 dress either house in the French or English 
 language. 
 
 Art. 105. The general assembly shall 
 direct by law how persons who are now or 
 may hereafter become sureties for public 
 officers may be discharged from' such 
 suretyship. 
 
 Art. 106. No power of suspending the 
 laws of this State shall be exercised, unless 
 by the legislature or its authority. 
 
 Art. 107. Prosecutions shall be by in- 
 dictment, or information. The accused 
 snail have a speedy public trial by an im- 
 partial* jury of the vicinage; he shall not 
 be compelled to give evidence against him- 
 self; he shall have the right of being heard 
 by himself or counsel; he shall have the 
 right, unless he shall have fled from justice, 
 of meeting the witnesses face to face, and 
 shall have compulsory process for obtain- 
 ing witneses in his favor. 
 
 Aht. 108. Ail prisoners shall be baila- 
 ble by sufficient sureties, unless for capital 
 offences, where the proof is evident, or pre- 
 sumption great; and the privilege of the 
 writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspend- 
 ed, unless when in case of rebellion or in- 
 vasion the public safety may require it. 
 
 Art. 109. No ex -post facto law, nor any 
 law impairing the obligation of contracts, 
 shall be passed; nor vested rights be di- 
 vested, unless for purposes- of public utility.* 
 and for adequate compensation previously 
 made. 
 
 Art. 110. The press shall be free. 
 Every citizen may freely speak, write, and 
 publish his sentiments on all subjects; being 
 responsible for an abuse of this liberty. 
 
 Art. 111. Emigration from the State 
 shall not be prohibited. 
 
 Art. 112. The general assembly which 
 shall meet after the first election of repre- 
 sentatives under this constitution, shall, 
 within the first month after the commence- 
 ment of the session, designate and fix the 
 seat of government, at some place not less 
 than sixty miles from the city of New Or- 
 leans, by the nearest travelling route; and 
 it on the Mississippi river, by the mean- 
 ders of the same; and when so fixed, it 
 shall not be removed without the consent 
 of four-fifths of the members of both houses 
 of the general assembly. The sessions 
 shall be held in New Orleans until the end 
 of the year 1848. 
 
 Art. 113. The legislature shall not 
 pledge the faith of the State for the payment 
 of any bonds, bills or other contracts or 
 obligations for the benefit or use of any 
 person or persons, corporation or body 
 politic whatever. But the State shall have 
 the right to issue new bonds in payment of 
 its outstanding obligations or liabilities, 
 whether due or not; the said new bonds, 
 however, are not to be issued for a larger 
 amount or at a higher rate of interest, than 
 the original obligations they are intended 
 to replace. 
 
 Art. 114. The aggregate amount of 
 debts hereafter contracted by the legisla. 
 ture, shall never exceed the sum of one 
 hundred thousand dollars, except in case 
 of war to repel ; invasions or suppress in- 
 surrections, unless the same be authorised 
 by some law, for some single object or 
 work, to be distinctly specified therein ; 
 which laws shall provide ways and means, 
 by taxation, for the payment of running in- 
 terest during the whole time for which sa id 
 debt shall be contracted, and for the full 
 1 and punctual discharge at maturity of the 
 capital borrowed, and said law shall be h 
 repealable until principle and interest are 
 fully paid and discharged, and shall not ft 
 put into' execution until after its enactment 
 by the first legislature returned by a gene- 
 ral 'election after its passage. 
 
 Art. 115. The legislature shall provide 
 by law for a change of venue in civil and 
 criminal cases. 
 
 Art. 116. No lottery shall be authorized 
 by this State, and the buying or selling of lot- 
 liery tickets within this State is prohibited, 
 j Art 117. No divorce shall be granted 
 I by the legislature. 
 
 Art. 118. Every law enacted by the 
 legislature shall embrace but one object, 
 and that shall be expressed in the title. 
 
 Art. 119. 'No law shall be revived or 
 amended by reference to its title; but in 
 such case, the act revived, or section 
 amended, shall be re-enacted and pubish- 
 ed at length. 
 
 Art. 120. The legislature shall never 
 adopt any system or code of laws by gen- 
 eral reference to such system or code oi 
 laws; but in all cases shall specify the sev- 
 eral provisions of the laws it may enact.- 
 
 Art. 121. The State shall not become 
 subscriber to the stock of any corporation 
 or joint stock company. 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 293 
 
 Art. 122= Xo corporate body shall be 
 hereafter created, renewed or extended, 
 with banking or discounting privileges.* 
 
 Art. 123. Corporations shall not be 
 created in this State by special laws except 
 for political or municipal purposes ; but the 
 Legislature shall provide by general laws, 
 for the organization of all other corpora- j 
 :ion^, except corporations with banking or 
 liscounting privileges, the creation of which 
 s "prohibited. 
 
 Art. 124. From and after the month of 
 January 1890, the Legislature shall have 
 the power to revoke the charters of all cor- 
 porations w^hose charters shall not have 
 expired previous to that time, and no cor- 
 porations hereafter to be created shall ev- 
 er endure for a longer term than twenty- 
 five years, except those which are political 
 of municipal. 
 
 Art. 125. The General Assembly shall | 
 never grant any exclusive privilege or mo- 
 nopoly, for a longer period than twenty 
 years. 
 
 Art. 126. No person shall hold cr exer- 
 cise, at the same time, more than one civil 
 office of emolument, except that of justice 
 of the peace. 
 
 Art. 1 27. Taxation shall be equal and j 
 uniform throughout the State. After the 
 year 1848 all property, on which taxes | 
 may be levied in this State, shall be taxed 
 in proportion to its value, to be ascertained 
 as directed by law. Xo one species of 
 property shall be taxed higher than another 
 species of property of equal value, on which 
 taxes shall be levied: the legislature shall 
 have power to levy an income tax, and to 
 tax all persons pursuing any occupation, 
 trade or profession. 
 
 Art. 128. The citizens of the city of 
 New Orleans shall have the right of ap- 
 pointing the several public officers neces- 
 sary for the administration of the police of 
 the said city, pursuant to the mode of elec- 
 tions wdiich shall be prescribed by the le- 
 gislature : provided, that the mayor and 
 recorders shall be ineligible to a seat in the 
 general assembly; and the mayor, record- 
 ers and aldermen shall be commissioned 
 by the governor as justices of the peace, 
 and the legislature may vest in them such 
 criminal jurisdiction as may be necessary 
 for the punishment of minor crimes and of- 
 fences, and as the police and good order of 
 said city may require, 
 
 Art. 129. The legislature- may provide 
 by law in what case officers shall continue 
 to perform the duties of their offices until 
 their successors shall have been inducted 
 into office. 
 
 Art. 130. Any citizen of this State who 
 shall, after the adoption of this constitution, 
 fight a duel -with deadly weapons, or send or 
 accept a challenge to fight a duel with deadly 
 w-eapons, either w 7 ithin the State or out of 
 it, or who shall act as second, or knowing- 
 ly aid and as.-ist in any manner those thus 
 offending, shall be deprived of holding any 
 office of trust or profit, and of enjoying the 
 right of suffrage under this constitution. 
 
 Art. 131. The legislature shall have 
 power to extend this constitution, and the 
 jurisdiction of this State over any territory 
 acquired by compact with any State, or 
 with the United States, the same being 
 done by the consent of the United Stares. 
 
 Art. 132. The constitution and laws of 
 this State, shall be promulgated in the En- 
 glish and French languages. * 
 
 The report of the committee of revision 
 on public education was submitted by Mr. 
 Roman, and the same was adopted, viz : 
 
 TITLE VII. 
 
 PUBLIC EDUCATIOX. 
 
 Art. 133. There shall be appointed a 
 superintendent of public education, who 
 shall hold his office for two years. His 
 duties shall be prescribed by law. He 
 shall receive compensation as the legisla- 
 ture may direct. 
 
 Art. 134. The legislature shall establish 
 free public schools throughout the State, 
 and shall provide means for their support 
 by taxation on property or otherwise. 
 
 Art. 135. The proceeds of all lands 
 heretofore granted by the United States to 
 this State for the use or support of schools, 
 and of all lands which may hereafter be 
 granted or bequeathed to the State, and not 
 expressly granted or bequeathed for any 
 other purpose, which hereafter may be 
 disposed of by the State, and the proceeds 
 of the estates of deceased persons to which 
 the State may become entitled by law, 
 shall be held by the State as a loan, and 
 shall be and remain a perpetual fund, on 
 which the State shall pay an annual inter- 
 est of six per cent: which interest together 
 with all the rents of the unsold lands, shall 
 be appropriated to the support of such 
 
294 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 schools, and this appropriation shall remain 
 inviolable. 
 
 Art. 136. All moneys arising from the 
 sale which have been or may hereafter be 
 made of any lands heretofore granted by the 
 United States to this State, for the use of a 
 seminar)' of learning, and from any kind of 
 donation that may hereafter be made for 
 that purpose, shall be and remain a perpet- 
 ual fund, the interest of which at six per 
 cent per annum, shall be appropriated to 
 the support of a seminary of learning for 
 the promotion of literature and the arts and 
 sciences, and no law shall ever be made 
 diverting said fund to any other use than to 
 the establishment and improvement of said 
 seminary of learning. 
 
 Art. 137. An university shall be estab- 
 lished in the city of New Orleans. It shall 
 be composed of four faculties, to wit: one 
 of law, one of medicine, one of the natural 
 sciences, and one of letters. 
 
 Art. 138. It shall be called " the Uni- 
 versity of Louisiana," and the Medical Col- 
 lege of Louisian as at present organized, 
 shall constitute the faculty of medicine. 
 
 Art. 139. The legislature shall provide 
 by law, for its further organization and go- 
 vernment; but shall be under no obligation 
 to contribute to the establishment or sup- 
 port of said university by appropriations. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans, offered the fol- 
 lowing section, which was adopted, and 
 the same transferred to the executive de- 
 partment, viz : 
 
 "The governor shall have power to fill 
 vacancies that may happen during the re- 
 cess of the senate, by granting commis- 
 sions which shall expire at the end of the 
 next session, unless otherwise provided for 
 by this constitution; but no person who 
 has been nominated for office, and re- 
 jected by the senate, shall be appointed to 
 the same office during the recess of the 
 senate." 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans then offered the 
 following addititional section, viz : 
 
 "The legislature may delegate to politi- 
 cal corporations the power to pass local 
 ordinances; 'provided, that such corpora- 
 tions shall not have power to borrow mo- 
 ney or issue their bonds or obligations 
 except for purposes strictly relative to the 
 administration of municipal affairs." 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth moved to amend the 
 said section, by adding at the end of the 
 
 same the w T ords "and for purposes of public 
 education;" which motion prevailed, and 
 the amendment adopted. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to lay on the table, 
 indefinitely, the section as amended. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg 1 Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumjield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cham, 
 bliss, Humble, McCallop, McRae, Penn, 
 Porter, Read, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott 
 of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, 
 Taylor of St. Landry and Waddill voted 
 in the affirmative — 21 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Boudousquie, Briant, 
 Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Covillion,Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eusiis, 
 Garcia, Kenner, Legendre, Lewis, Marig- 
 ny, Mayo, Peets, Prescott of St.Landry, Ro- 
 man, St. Amand, Saunders, Soule, Splane, 
 Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Voorhies, 
 Wadsworth, Wederstrandt and Winchester 
 voted in the negative — 31 nays; conse- 
 quently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by striking out the words "except for 
 purposes strictly relative to the administra- 
 tion of their municipal affairs, and for pur- 
 poses of public education." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumjield, 
 Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Legendre, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Penn, Porter, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Prudhomme, Read, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, Wad- 
 dill and Wederstrandt voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 26 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Briant, Burton, Cenas, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Garcia, Guion, Kenner, La- 
 bauve, Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Roman, St. Amand, Saunders, Soule, Tay- 
 lor of Assumption, Voorhies, Wadsworth, 
 Winchester and Winder voted inthe nega- 
 tive — 36 nays"; consequently said motion 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Mayo then sffered to amend said 
 section by adding to the same, the follow- 
 ing proviso, viz : 
 
 "Provided, that no authority shall ever 
 be granted by the legislature to any cor- 
 porations to exercise any banking or dis- 
 counting privileges, nor to issue notes, 
 bills or obligations of any kind to be used 
 
Journal of tlie Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 295 
 
 as currency, and that no corporation shall 
 ever be permitted to exercise any such 
 powers." 
 
 Mr. Brent offered as a substitute for the 
 provision offered by Mr. Mayo, the follow- 
 ing, viz : 
 
 "Provided further, that no political cor- 
 poration shall ever be authorized to issue { 
 any notes, or bills or other obligations, i 
 payable to bearer or endorsed in blank." 
 
 Mr. Brent moved for the adoption j 
 of the same. 
 
 The yea# and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumjield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cham- 
 bliss, Covillion, Downs, Garrett, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, Lewis, McCallop,McRae, 
 Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Penn, Porter, Pres- , 
 colt of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Read, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of j 
 Madison, Sellers, Soule, Splane, Stephens, j 
 Taylor of Assumption, Voorhies, Waddill, j 
 Wadsworth and Wederstrandt voted in* the 
 affirmative — 40 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, j 
 Briant, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad j 
 of Orleans, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, 
 Guion, Kenner, Legendre, Roman, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Taylor of St. Landry j 
 and Winchester voted in the negative — 19 
 nays; consequently said motion was car- 
 ried and the substitute was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to amend said sec- 
 tion by striking out the words, "the legis- 
 lature may delegate to political corpora- 
 tions the power to pass local ordinances, ! 
 provided that such," and insert at the com- j 
 mencement of said section the word "mu- j 
 nicipal." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, . j 
 Burton, Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, \ 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Covillion, Culbertson, \ 
 Derbes, Downs, Humble, Hynson, McCal- 
 'op« Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Prudhomme, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, 
 Sellers, Soule, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Voor- 
 hies, Waddill, Wederstrandt and Winder 
 /oted in the affirmative — 38 yeas; and 
 ! Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Briant, Con- 
 -ad of Orleans, Dunn, Garrett, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner, Legendre, Lewis,Mayo, 
 Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, 
 Wadsworth and Winchester voted in the 
 
 negative — 18 nays; consequently said mo- 
 tion was canied. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for on 
 the adoption of the section as amended, 
 viz: 
 
 " Municipal corporations shall never be 
 authorized to borrow, or issue their bonds 
 or obligations; except for purposes strictly 
 relative to the administration of their mu- 
 nicipal offices, and for purposes of public 
 education. Provided further, that no po* 
 litical corporation shall ever be authorized 
 to issue any notes or bills or obligations, 
 payable to order, or endorsed in blank," 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Carriere, Mc- 
 Callop and Voorhies voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 5 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale, Briant, 
 Brent, Burton, Cade, Cenas, Chambliss, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Co- 
 villion, Culbertson, Derbes, Downs, Dunn, 
 Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Kenner, Legendre, Lewis, Mayo, Por- 
 ter, Peets, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott 
 of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Read, Romarr, 
 Roselius, St. Amand, Saunders, Scott of 
 Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Soule, Splane, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Waddill, Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, 
 Winchester and Windervoted in the nega- 
 tive — 50 nays; consequently said motion 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Soule submitted the following res- 
 olution, and the same was adopted, viz: 
 
 "Resolved, That the constitution be en- 
 rolled so as to substitute the division by 
 titles to that of articles, and that the sec- 
 tions be amended under the name of arti- 
 cles, in a continuing run of figures, from 
 the first to the last. 
 
 On motion the preamble was taken up 
 for its third reading and adopted, viz: 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE 
 OF LOUISIANA. 
 
 PREAMBLE. 
 " We, the people of the State of Louis- 
 iana, do ordain and establish this Constitu- 
 tion." 
 
 On motion, the distribution of powers 
 was taken up for the third reading, and 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 TITLE I. 
 
 DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS. 
 
 Art, 1. The powers of the goveiment ' 
 
295 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 of the State of Louisiana shall be divided 
 into three distinct departments, and each 
 of them confided to a separate body of 
 magistracy, to wit: those which are legis- 
 lative to one, those which are executive to 
 another, and those which are judicial to 
 another. 
 
 Art. 2. No one of these departments, 
 nor any person holding office in one of 
 them, shall exercise power properly be- 
 longing to either of the others, except in 
 the instances hereinafter expressly directed 
 or permitted. 
 
 On motion, the report of the committee 
 of revision on the judiciary department 
 was taken up for its third reading, viz: 
 TITLE IV. 
 
 JUDICIARY DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Art* 62. The Judicial power shall be 
 vested in a supreme court, in district courts 
 and injustices of the peace. 
 
 Art. 63. The supreme court, except 
 in cases hereinafter provided, shall have 
 appellate jurisdiction only, which jurisdic- 
 tion shall extend to all cases when the mat- 
 ten in dispute shall exceed three hundred 
 dollars, to all cases in which ihe constitu- 
 tionality or legality of any tax, toll or im- 
 post of any kind or nature soever, shall 
 be in contestation, whatever may be the 
 amount thereof; and likewise to all tines, 
 forfeitures and penalties imposed by mu- 
 nicipal corporations, and in criminal cases 
 on questions of law alone, whenever the 
 punishment of death, or hard labor may 
 be inflicted, or when a fine exceeding three 
 hundred dollars is actually imposed. 
 
 Art. 64. The supreme court shall be 
 composed of one chief justice, and of three 
 associate judges, a majority of whom shall 
 constitute a quorum. The chief justice 
 shall receive a salary of six thousand dol- 
 lars, and each of the associate judges a 
 salary of five thousand five hundred dol- 
 lars annually. The said court shall ap- 
 point its own clerks. The said judges 
 shall be appointed for the term of eight 
 years. 
 
 Art. 65. When the first appointments 
 are made under this constitution, the chief 
 justice shall be appointed for eight years, 
 one of the associate judges for six years, 
 one for four years and one for two years; 
 and in the event of the death, resignation 
 or removal of any of said judges, before 
 the expiration of the period for which he 
 
 was appointed, his successor shall be ap- 
 pointed only for the remainder of his term: 
 so that the term of service of no two 
 judges shall expire at the same time. 
 
 Art. 66. The supreme court shall hold 
 its sessions in New Orleans from the first 
 Monday of the month of November to the 
 end of the month of June, inclusive. The 
 Legislature shall have power to fix the 
 sessions elsewhere during the rest of the 
 year; until otherwise provided, the sessions 
 shall be held as heretofore. 
 
 Art. 67. The supreme court, and each 
 of the judges thereof shall have power to I 
 issue writs of habeas corpus, at the instance 
 of all persons in actual custody under pro- 
 cess, in all cases in which they may have 
 appellate jurisdiction. 
 
 Art. 68. In all cases in which the judges 
 shall be equally divided in opinion, the 
 judgment appealed from shall stand affirm, 
 ed; in which case each of the judges shall 
 give his separate opinion in writing. 
 
 Art. 69. All judges by virtue of their 
 office shall be conservators of the peace 
 throughout the State. The style of all 
 process shall be " The State of Louisiana." 
 All prosecutions shall be carried on "inflj 
 the name, and by the authority of the* 
 State of Louisiana," and conclude "against 
 the peace and dignity of the same." 
 
 Art. 70. The judges of all the courts 
 within this State shall, as often as it may 
 be possible so to do, in every definitive 
 judgment, refer to the particular law in vir- 
 tue of which such judgement may be ren- 
 dered, and in all cases adduce the reasons 
 on which their judgment is founded. 
 
 Art. 71. No court or judge shall make 
 any allowance by way of fee or compen- 
 sation in any suit or proceedings, except 
 for the payment of such fees to ministe- 
 rial officers as may be established by law. 
 
 Art. 72. No duties or functions shall 
 ever be attached by law to the supreme or 
 district courts, or to the several judges 
 thereof, but such as are judicial; and the 
 said judges are prohibited from receiving 
 any fees of office, or other compensation 
 than their salaries for any civil duties per- 
 formed by them. 
 
 Art. 73. The judges of all courts shall 
 be liable to impeachment; but for any rea- 
 sonable cause, which shall not be sufficient 
 ground for impeachment, the governor 
 shall remove any of them, on the address 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 297 
 
 of three-fourths of the members present 
 of each house of the general assembly. 
 In every such case, the cause or causes for 
 which such removal may be required shall 
 be stated at length in the address, ancfin- 
 serted in the journal of each house. # 
 
 Art. 74. There shaL be an attorney 
 general for the State, and as many district 
 attorneys as may be hereafter found neces- 
 sary. They shall hold their offices for 
 two years; their duties shall be determined 
 by law. 
 
 Art. 75. The first legislature assem- 
 bled under this constitution shall divide 
 the State into judicial districts, which shall 
 remain unchanged for six years, and be 
 subject to reorganization every sixth year 
 thereafter. 
 
 The number of districts shall not be less 
 than twelve, nor more than twenty. 
 
 For each district one judge, learned in 
 the law, shall be appointed, except in the 
 districts in which the cities of New Or. 
 leans and Lafayette are situated, in which 
 the legislature may establish as many dis- 
 trict courts as the public interest may re- 
 quire. 
 
 Art. 76. Each of the said judges shall 
 receive a salary to be fixed by law; which 
 shall not be increased or diminished during 
 his term of office, and shall never be less I 
 than two thousand five hundred dollars an- 
 nually. He must be a citizen of the Uni- 1 
 ted States, over the age of thirty years, 
 and have resided in the State six years 
 next preceding his appointment, and have 
 practiced law therein for the space of five j 
 years. 
 
 Art. 77. The judges of the district; 
 courts shall hold their offices for the term j 
 of six years. The judges first appointed ! 
 shall be divided by lot into three classes, j 
 as nearly equal as can be, and the term of 
 office of the judges of the first class shall 
 expire at the end of two years, of the sec- 
 ond qass at the end of four years, and of 
 the third class at the end of six years. 
 
 Art. 78. The district courts shall have 
 original jurisdiction in all civil cases when 
 the amount in dispute exceeds fifty dol- 
 lars, exclusive of interest. In all crim- 
 inal cases, and in all matters connected 
 with successions, their jurisdiction shall 
 be unlimited, x 
 
 Art. 79. The legislature shall have pow- 
 er to vest in clerks of courts authority to ' 
 38 
 
 grant such orders, and do such acts as may 
 be deemed necessary for the furtherance 
 of the administration of justice, and in all 
 cases the powers thus granted shall be spe- 
 cified and determined. 
 
 Art. 80. The clerks of the several 
 courts shall be removable for breach of 
 good behavior, by the judges thereof; sub- 
 juect, in all cases, to an appeal to the su- 
 preme court. 
 
 Art. 81. The jurisdiction of justices of 
 the peace shall never exceed, in civil cases 
 the sum of one hundred dollars, exclusive 
 of interest, subject to an appeal to the dis- 
 trict court in such cases as shall be provi- 
 ded lor by law. They shall be elected by 
 the qualified voters in each parish, for the 
 term of two years, and shall have such 
 criminal jurisdiction as shall be provided 
 for by law. 
 
 Art. 82. Clerks of the district courts 
 in this State shall be elected by the quali- 
 fied electors in each parish, for the term of 
 four years, and should a vacancy occur sub- 
 sequent to an election, it shall be filled by 
 the judge of the court in which such va- 
 cancy exists, and the person so appointed 
 shall hold his office until the next general 
 election. 
 
 Art. 83. A sheriff and a coroner shall 
 be elected in each parish, by the qualified 
 voters thereof, who shall hold their offices 
 for the term of two years, unless sooner 
 removed. 
 
 Should a vacancy occur in either of these 
 offices, subsequent to an election, it shall 
 be filled by the governor; and the person 
 so appointed shall continue in office uniil 
 his successor shall be elected and qualified. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans moved to amend 
 the first section, by adding after the words 
 "justices of the peace," in the third line, 
 the words " and such other courts, in the 
 city of New Orleans, as the legislature 
 may from time to time direct." 
 
 Mr. Beatty moved to amend the amend- 
 ment by striking out the words " New Or- 
 leans." 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to lay both amend- 
 ments on the table indefinitely. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bourg, 
 Brazeale, Brent, Burton, Cade, Carriere, 
 Chambliss, Chinn, Eustis, Guion, Huds- 
 peth, Humble, Hynson, Kenuer, Ledoux, 
 Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, 
 
298 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 Penn, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Scott of Baton Rouge, Sellers, 
 Splane, Stephens, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Voorhies, Waddill, Wadsworth, Winches- 
 ther and Winder voted in the affirmative 
 — 43 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Briant, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 Downs, Legendre, Marigny, Porter, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Scott of Feliciana, Sou- 
 le and Taylor of Assumption voted in the 
 negative — 15 nays; consequently said mo- 
 tion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption submitted 
 the following resolution, which was adopt- 
 ed, viz: 
 
 Resolved, That Mr. Penn, the senato- 
 rial delegate from the parishes of Wash- 
 ington, Livingston and St. Helena be per- 
 mitted to record his vote in the negative on 
 the salary of the judges of the supreme 
 court, as allowed by the third section of 
 the judiciary power. 
 
 Mr. Roselius moved to amend the 8th 
 section by adding at the end of the same 
 me following, viz: 
 
 " And in case the judges should all be of 
 opinion that the judgment appealed from 
 ought to be reversed, but are equally divi- 
 ded as to the judgment to be rendered, 
 then the opinion of the chief justice shall 
 prevail." 
 
 Which amendment was lost. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, the judiciary article, as read above, 
 was adopted, as follows, viz: 
 TITLE IV. 
 
 JUDICIARY DEPARMENT. 
 
 Art. 62. The judicial power shall be 
 vested in a supreme court, in district courts 
 and in justices of the peace. 
 
 Art. 63. The supreme court, except in 
 cases hereinafter provided, shall have ap- 
 pellate jurisdiction only, which jurisdiction 
 shall extend to all cases when the matter 
 in dispute shall exceed three hundred dol- 
 lars, to all cases in which the constitution- 
 ality of any tax, toll, or impost of any kind 
 or nature soever, shall be in contestation, 
 whatever may be the amount thereof; and 
 likewise to all fines, forfeitures and penal- 
 ^ ties imposed by municipal corporations^ 
 and in criminal eases on questions of law 
 alone, whenever the punishment of death 
 or hard labor may be inflicted, or when a 
 
 fine exceeding three hundred dollars is ac- 
 tually imposed. 
 
 Art. 64. The supreme court shall be 
 composed of one chief justice and of three 
 associate judges, a majority of whom shall 
 constitute a quorum. The chief justice 
 shall receive a salary of six thousand dol- 
 lars, and each of the associate judges a sal- 
 ary of five thousand five hundred dollars, 
 annually. The said court shall appoint 
 its own clerks. The said judges shall be 
 appointed for the term of eight years. 
 
 Art. 65. When the first appointments 
 are made under this constitution, the chief 
 justice shall be appointed for the term of 
 eight years, one of the associate judges for 
 six years, one for four years and one for 
 two years; and in the event of the death, 
 resignation, or removal of any of said 
 judges, before the expiration of the period 
 for which he was appointed, his successor 
 shall be appointed only for the remainder 
 of his term: so that the term of office of 
 no two of said judges shall expire at the 
 same time. 
 
 Art. 66. The supreme court shall hold 
 its sessions in New Orleans from the first 
 Monday of the month of November to the 
 end of the month of June, inclusive. The 
 legislature shall have power to fix the ses- 
 sions elsewhere during the rest of the 
 year; until otherwise provided, the ses- 
 sions shall be held as heretofore. 
 
 Art. 67. The supreme court, and each 
 of the judges thereof, shall have power to 
 issue writs of habeas corpus, at the instance 
 of all persons in actual custody under pro- 
 cess, in all cases in which they may have 
 appellate jurisdiction. 
 
 Art. 68. In all cases in which the judges 
 shall be equally dived in opinion, the judg- 
 ment appealed from shall stand affirmed; 
 in which case each of the judges shall 
 give his separate opinion in writing. • 
 
 Art. 69. All judges, by virtue of their 
 office, shall be conservators of the peace 
 throughout the State. The style of all 
 process shall be " the State of Louisiana." 
 All prosecutions shall be carried on " in 
 the name and by the authority of the State 
 of Louisiana," and conclude "against the 
 peace and dignity of the same." 
 
 Art. 70. The judges of all courts with- 
 in this State shall, as often as it is possible 
 so to do, in every definitive judgment, re- 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 299 
 
 fer to the particular law in virtue of which 
 such judgment may be rendered, and in 
 all cases adduce the reasons on which such 
 judgment is founded. 
 
 Art. 71. No court or judge shall make 
 any allowance by way of fee or compen- 
 sation in any suit or proceedings, except 
 for the payment of such fees to the minis, 
 terial officers as may be established by 
 law. 
 
 Art. 72. No duties or functions shall 
 ever be attached by law to the supreme or 
 district courts, or to the several judges 
 thereof, but such as are judicial; and the 
 said judges are prohibited from receiving 
 any fees of office, Or other compension 
 than their salaries for any civil duties per- 
 formed by them. 
 
 "Art. 73. The judges of all courts shall 
 be liable to impeachment; but for any rea- 
 sonable cause, which shall not be suffi- 
 cient ground for impeachment, the govern- 
 or shall remove any of them, on the ad- 
 dress of three-fourths of the members pre- 
 sent of each house of the general assem- 
 bly. In every such case, the cause or 
 causes for which such removal may be re- 
 quired, shall be stated at length in the ad- 
 dress, and inserted in the journal of each 
 house. 
 
 Art. 74. There shall be an attorney 
 general for the State, and as many district 
 attorneys as may be hereafter found neces- 
 sary. They shall hold their offices for 
 two years; their duties shall be determined 
 by law. 
 
 Art. 75. The first legislature assem- 
 bled under this constitution, shall divide 
 the State into judicial districts, which shall 
 remain unchanged for six years, and be 
 subject to reorganization every sixth year 
 thereafter. 
 
 The number of districts shell not be less 
 than twelve, nor more than twenty. 
 
 For each district one judge, learned in 
 the law shall be appointed, except in the 
 district in which the cities of New Orleans 
 and Lafayette are situated, in which the 
 legislature many establish as many district 
 courts as the public interest may require. 
 
 Art. 76. Each of the said judges shall 
 receive a salary to be fixed by law, which 
 shall not be increased or diminished dur- 
 ing his term of office, and shall never be 
 less than two thousand five hundred dol- 
 lars annually. He must be a citizen of 
 
 | the United States, over the age of thirty 
 years, and have resided in the State for six 
 years next preceding his appointment, and 
 have practiced law therein for the space of 
 five years. 
 
 Art. 77. The judges of the district 
 
 j courts shall hold their offices for the term 
 of six years. The judges first appointed 
 shall be divided by ballot into three class- 
 
 | es, as nearly equal as can be; and the term 
 of office of the judges of the first class 
 
 j shall expire at the end of two years, of 
 the second class at the end of four years, 
 and of the third class at the end of six 
 years. 
 
 Art. 78. The district courts shall have 
 original jurisdiction in all civil cases when 
 the amount in dispute exceeds fifty dollars, 
 exclusive of interest. In ail criminal ca- 
 ses, and in all matters connected with suc- 
 cessions, their jurisdiction shall be unlim- 
 ited. 
 
 Art. 79. The legislature shall have 
 power to vest in clerks of courts authority 
 to grant such orders, and do such acts as 
 may be deemed necessary for the further, 
 ance of the administration of justice; and 
 in all cases the powers thus granted shall 
 be specified and determined. 
 
 Art. 80. The clerks of the several 
 courts snail be removable, for breach of 
 good behavior, by the judges thereof; 
 subject in all cases to an appeal to the su- 
 preme court. 
 
 Art. 81. The jurisdiction of justices of 
 the peace shall never exceed in civil cases 
 the sum of one hundred dollars, exclusive 
 of interest, subject to an appeal to the dis- 
 trict court in such cases as shall be provid- 
 ed for by law. They shall be elected by 
 the qualified voters of each parish, for the 
 term of two years, and shall have such 
 criminal jurisdiction as shall be provided 
 for by law. 
 
 Art. 82. Clerks of the district courts 
 in this State shall be elected: by the quali- 
 fied electors in each parish for the term of 
 four years, and should a vacancy occur sub- 
 sequent to an election, it shall be filled by 
 the judge of the court in which such vacan- 
 cy exists, and the person so appointed shall 
 hold his office until the next general elec- 
 tion. 
 
 Art. 83. A sheriff and a coroner shall 
 be elected in each parish, by the qualified 
 voters thereof, who shall hold their offices 
 
300 
 
 Journal of the Contention of Louisiana. 
 
 for the term of two years, unless sooner 
 removed. 
 
 Should a vacancy occur in either of these 
 offices subsequent to an election, it shall be 
 filled by the governor; and the person so 
 appointed shall continue in office until his 
 successor shall be elected and qualified. 
 
 On motion the report of the committee 
 of revision on the executive department 
 was taken up for third reading and adopted, 
 viz : 
 
 TITLE in. 
 
 EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Art. 38. The supreme executive pow- 
 er of the State shall be vested in a chief 
 magistrate, who shall be styled the gover- 
 nor of the State of Louisiana. He shall 
 hold his office during the term of four years; 
 and together with the lieutenant governor 
 chosen for the same term, be elected as 
 follows: — The qualified electors for repre- 
 sentatives, shall vote for a governor and 
 lieutenant governor, at the time and place 
 of voting for representatives; the returns of 
 every election shall be sealed up and trans- 
 mitted by the proper returning officer to 
 the secretary of state; who shall deliver 
 them to the speaker of the house of repre- 
 sentatives on the second day of the session 
 of the general assembly, then next to be 
 holden. The members of the general as- 
 sembly shall meet in the house of repre- 
 sentatives, to examine and count the votes. 
 The person having the greatest number of 
 votes for governor shall be declared duly 
 elected, but if two or more persons shall be 
 equal and highest in the number of votes 
 polled for governor, one of them shall im- 
 mediately be chosen governor by joint vote 
 of the members of the general assembly. 
 The person having the greatest number of j 
 votes for lieutenant governor shall be lieu- 
 tenant governor, but if two or more per- 
 sons shall be equal and highest in the num- 
 ber of votes polled for lieutenant governor, 
 one of them shall be immediately chosen 
 lieutenant governor by joint vote of the 
 members of the general assembly. 
 
 A.et. 39. No person shall be eligible to 
 the office of governor or lieutenant govern- 
 or, who shall not have attained the age of 
 thirty-five years, been fifteen years a citi- 
 zen of the United States, and a resident 
 within this State for the same space of time 
 next preceding his election. 
 
 Art. 40. The governor shall enter on 
 
 the discharge of his duties on thfe fourth 
 Monday of January next ensuing his elec- 
 tion, and shall continue in office until the 
 Monday next succeeding the day that his 
 successor shall have been declared duly 
 elected, and shall have taken the oath or 
 affirmation prescribed by this Constitution. 
 
 Art. 41. The governor shall be ineligi- ! 
 ble for the succeeding four years after the 
 expiration of the time for which he shall 
 have been elected. 
 
 Art. 42. No member of congress or i 
 person holding any office under the United 
 States, or minister of any religious society, 
 shall be eligible to the office of governor or 
 lieutenant governor. 
 
 Art. 43. In case of the impeachment 
 of the governor, his removal from office, 
 death, refusal or inability to qualify, resig- 
 nation or absence from the State, the pow- 
 ers and duties of the office shall devolve 
 upon the lieutenant governor for the resi- 
 due of the term, or until the governor, ab- 
 sent or impeached, shall return or be ac- 
 quitted. The legislature may provide by 
 law for the case of removals-impeachment, 
 death, resignation, disability; or refusal to 
 qualify, of both the governor and lieutenant 
 governor, declaring what officer shall act/ 
 as governor, and such officer shall act ac- 
 cordingly, until the disability be removed, 
 or for the residue of the term. 
 
 Art. 44. The lieutenant governor, or 
 other officer discharging the duties of gov- 
 ernor, shall, during his administration, re- 
 ceive the same compensation to which the 
 governor would have been entitled, had he 
 continued in office. 
 
 Art. 45. The lieutenant governor shall, 
 by virtue of his office, be president of the 
 j senate, but shall have only a casting vote 
 therein. Whenever he shall administer 
 the government, or shall be unable to at- 
 tend as president of the senate the sena- 
 tors shall elect one of their own members 
 as president of the senate for the time 
 being. 
 
 Art. 46. While he acts as president of 
 the senate, the lieutenant governor shall 
 receive for his services the same compen- 
 sation which shall for the same period he 
 allowed to the speaker of the house of rep- 
 resentatives, and no more. 
 
 Art. 47. The governor shall have pow- 
 er to grant reprieves for all offences against 
 the State, and except in cases of impeach- 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 301 
 
 lent, shall, with the consent of the senate, 
 ave power to grant pardons and remit 
 nes and forfeitures, after conviction. In 
 ases of treason he may grant reprieves, 
 ntil the end of the next session of the gen- 
 ral assembly, in which the power of par- 
 oning shall be vested. 
 Art. 48. The governor shall at stated 
 mes receive for his services a compensa- 
 on, which shall neither be increased or 
 iminished during the term for which he 
 hall have been elected, 
 i Art. 49. He shall be communder-in- 
 hief of the army and navy of this State 
 nd of the militia thereof, except when 
 hey shall be called into the service of the 
 Jnited States. 
 \\ Art. 50. He shall nominate, and by and 
 v T ith the advice and consent of the senate, 
 .ppoint all officers whose offices are es- 
 ablished by this constitution, and whose 
 .ppointment is not therein otherwise pro- 
 'ided for: Provided, however, that the 
 egislature shall have a right to prescribe 
 he mode of appointment to all other offices 
 '.stablished by law. 
 Art. 51. The governor shall have pow- 
 i It to fill vacancies that may happen during 
 t he recess of the senate, by granting com- 
 nissions which shall expire at the end of 
 he next session, unless otherwise provided 
 lor in this constitution; but no person who 
 las^been nominated for office, and rejected 
 )y the senate, shall be appointed to the 
 ;ame office during the recess of the senate 
 Art. 52. He may require information 
 n writing from the officers in the execu- 
 ive department, upon any subject relating 
 o the duties of their respective offices. 
 
 Art. 53. He shall from time to time, 
 bjive to the general assembly information 
 respecting the situation of the State, and 
 Recommend to their consideration such 
 measures as he may deem expedient. 
 | Art. 54. He may on extraordinary oc- 
 casions convene the general assembly at 
 r.he seat of government, or at a different 
 place if that should become dangerous from 
 m enemy or from epidemics; and in case 
 of disagreemet between the two houses as 
 to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn 
 them to such time as he may think proper, 
 not exceeding four months. 
 
 Art. 55. He shall take care that the 
 laws be faithfully executed. 
 
 Art. 56. Every bill which shall have 
 
 passed both houses shall be presented to 
 the governor; if he approve he shall sign 
 it, if not, he shall return it with his . ob- 
 jections to the house in which it origina- 
 ted, which shall enter the objections at 
 large upon its journal, and proceed to re- 
 consider it; if after such reconsideration 
 two-thirds of all the members elected to 
 that house shall agree to pass the bill, it 
 shall be sent with the objections to the 
 other house, by which it shall likewise be 
 reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds 
 of all the members elected to that house, 
 it shall be a law; but in such cases the vote 
 of both houses shall be determined by yeas 
 and nays, and the names of the members 
 voting for and against the bill, shall be en- 
 tered on the journal of each house respec- 
 tively. If any bill shall not be returned 
 by the governor within ten days (Sundays 
 excepted) after it shall have been presented 
 to him, it shall be a law in like manner as 
 if he had signed it, unless the general as- 
 sembly by adjournment, prevent its return; 
 in which case it shall bea law, unless sent 
 back within three days after their next 
 meeting. 
 
 Art. 57. Every order, resolution or vote 
 to which the concurrence of both houses 
 may be necessary, except on a question of 
 adjournment, shall be presented to the gov- 
 ernor, and before it shall take effect, be 
 approved .by him, or being disapproved, 
 shall be repassed by two-thirds of the 
 members elected to each house of the gen- 
 eral assembly. 
 
 Art. 58. There shall be a secretary of 
 state, who shall hold his office during the 
 time for which the governor shall have 
 been elected. The records of the State 
 shall be kept and preserved in the office ot 
 the secretary; he shall keep a fair register 
 of the official acts and proceedings of the 
 governor, and when necessary shall attest 
 them. He shall, when required, lay the 
 said register, and all papers, minutes and 
 vouchers relative to his office, before either 
 house of the general assembly, and shall 
 perform such other duties as may be en- 
 joined on him by law. 
 
 Art. 59. All commissions shall be in 
 the name and by the authority of the State 
 of Louisiana, and shall be sealed with the 
 State seal and signed by the governor. 
 
 Art. 60. The free white men of the 
 State shall -be armed and disciplined for 
 
302 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 its defence; but those who belong to reli- 
 gious societies whose tenets forbid them to 
 carry arms, shall not be compelled so to do, 
 but shall pay an equvalent for personal ser- 
 vices. 
 
 Art. 61. The militia of the State shall 
 be organized in such manner as may be 
 hereafter deemed most expedient by the 
 legislature. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Read, acting chair- 
 mau of the committee on contingent ex- 
 penses, the report offered by him and laid 
 on the table subject to call, was taken up, 
 viz : 
 
 The committee on contingent expenses 
 have carefully examined the claims pre- 
 sented by Jerome Bayon, and by Messrs. 
 Besangon, Ferguson & Co., and have 
 come to the conclusion that the sum of 
 three thousand dollars should be allowed 
 to Mr. Jerome Bayon, in full payment for 
 all printing (including subscription for the 
 paper) already done and remaining to be 
 done; and that the sum of three thousand 
 three hundred and sixty dollars should 
 be allowed Messrs. Besangon, Ferguson 
 & Co., in full payment for all printing 
 (including subscription for paper) already 
 done and remaining to be done; and the 
 committee recommend that said sums be 
 paid to the printers, deducting therefrom 
 the sum of five hundred dollars paid to Mr. 
 Bayon, and the sum of twelve hundred and 
 fifty dollars paid to Messrs. Besangon, Fer- 
 guson & Co., and that the said committee be 
 authorised to issue a warrant in favor of Mr. 
 Jerome Bayon, for the sum of two thou- 
 sand five . hundred dollars, and a warrant 
 in favor of Messrs. Besangon, Ferguson & 
 Co., for the sum of two thousand one 
 hundred and ten dollars, — these being the 
 amounts allowed after making the above 
 deductions. 
 
 (Signed,) A. READ, 
 
 J. P. BENJAMIN, 
 L. SAUNDERS, 
 C.-ROSELIUS. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to amend said report, 
 by adding at the end of the same the words 
 "and that the warrants shall not be deliv- 
 ered to the printers for the debates and 
 journal until they are delivered to the sec- 
 retary," which amendment w^as adopted — 
 and the report as amended was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Brent offered the following resolu- 
 tion, viz : 
 
 Resolved, That an additional compe 
 sation of five hundred dollars be allowi 
 Messrs. Besangon, Ferguson & Co., pri 
 ters in English to the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Chinn moved to lay the above res | 
 lution on the table indefinitely. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Burton, Brui 
 Held, Chinn, Covillion, Dunn, Garcia, Ga 
 rett, Labauve, McCallop, Penn, Scott 
 Baton Rouge, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor 
 Assumption and Winchester voted in tl 
 affirmative — 17 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brer, 
 Cade, Carriere, Cenas, Chambliss, Covi 
 lion, Downs, Eustis, Guion, Humble, Hy, 
 son, Ledoux, Legendre, Lewis, McRa 
 Marigny, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Presto 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Bead, Roman, San, 
 ders, Scott of Madison, Taylor of St. Lai 
 dry, Waddill, Wederstrandt and Windi 
 voted in the negative — 35 nays ; cons* 
 quently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved for the adoption i 
 the resolution. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Ceim 
 Chambliss, Covillion, Downs, Eustis, G&r- 
 retti Humble, Hynson, Labauve, Ledoia 
 McCallop, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, PeeU\ 
 Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott o ! 
 St. Landry, Preston, Read, Scott of Batoi 
 Rouge Scott of Madison, Taylor of Assump 
 tion, Waddill and Wederstrandt voted i; 
 the affirmative — 28 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Bourg, Brumfield 
 Burton, Cade, Carriere, Conrad of Jeffei 
 son, Dunn, Garcia, Guion, Hudspeth, Le 
 gendre, Lewis, Penn, Prudhomme, Pugh 
 Roman, Saunders, Sellers, Stephens, Tay 
 lor of St. Landry and Winchester voted ir 
 the negative — 23 nays; consequently said 
 motion was carried, and the resolution 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Mayo offered the following resolu- 
 tion, and the same was adopted, viz : 
 
 Resolved, That the treasurer be directed 
 to retain from the funds appropriated for 
 the use of the Convention, an amount suf- 
 ficient to pay the printers' claims for the 
 debates and journals of the Convention. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow, at 9 o'clock. 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 303 
 
 Tuesday, May 13, 1845. 
 The Rev. Mr. Clark opened the pro- 
 2edings by prayer. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ent. 
 
 Mr. Read submitted the! ollowing reso- 
 tion, and the same was adopted — viz : 
 
 Resolved, That the committee on contin- 1 
 3nt expenses be authorized to issue war- 
 mts in favor of Auguste Brusle, for the 
 im of ninety-eight dollars and twenty five 
 >nts ; in favor of A. G. Penri, (for post- 
 ire,) for the sum of one hundred and one 
 ,)llars ; in favor of J. L. Vignaud (for wind- 
 i.g and keeping in ordnr the clock,) for the 
 fim of ten dollars ; in favor of B. M. Nor- 
 an, bookseller and stationer, for the sum 
 f nine dollars and forty cents ; in favor of 
 imes Carpenter, for hire of Leon, to at- 
 nd Hall &c, twenty-two dollars up to and 
 Lcluding the 14th inst. in favor of C. Lar- 
 ,en, (for ice,) for fourteen dollars, 
 j On motion the schedule as reported by 
 te committee of revision, was taken up for 
 s second reading and adopted — viz : 
 TITLE IX. 
 
 SCHEDULE. 
 
 ; Art. 141. The Constitution adopted in 
 pl2 is declared to be superseded by this 
 constitution, and in order to carry the same 
 ito offect, it is hereby declared and ordain- 
 d as folllows : 
 
 j Art. 142. All rights, actions, prosecu- 
 ons, claims and contracts, as well of indi- 
 iduals as of bodies corporate, and all laws 
 i force at the time of the adoption of this 
 ■onstitution, and not inconsistent therewith 
 lall continue as if the same had not been 
 dopted. 
 
 Art. 143. Until the first enumeration 
 ball be made as directed in article eighth, 
 f this Constitution, the parish of Orleans 
 rail have twenty representatives, to be 
 .ected as follows, viz: 
 
 Eight by the First Municipality, seven 
 y the Second Municipality, and four by 
 le Third Municipality, to' be distributed 
 mong the nine representative districts as 
 allows, by allotting to the 
 First district, two Rep. 
 
 Second " two 
 Third « three 
 Fourth " three 
 Fifth » three 
 Sixth " two 
 
 Seventh district, two 
 Eighth one 
 Ninth " one 
 And to that part of the parish on the right 
 bank of the Mississippi, one 
 
 The parish of Plaquemines, 
 shall have three 
 " St. Bernard, one 
 " Jefferson, three 
 44 St. Charles, one 
 44 St. John the Baptist, one 
 " St. James, two 
 " Ascension, two 
 " Assumption, three 
 • " Lafourche Interior, three 
 " Terrebone, two 
 
 Iberville. 
 
 two 
 
 44 West Baton Rouge, one 
 " East do. ' three 
 
 " West Feliciana, two 
 
 " East do three 
 
 " St. Helena, one 
 
 " Washington, one 
 
 u Livingston, one 
 
 " St. Tammany, one 
 
 " Point Coupee, one 
 
 f< Concordia, one 
 
 „ Tensas, one 
 
 " Madison, one 
 
 " Carroll, one 
 
 " Franklin, one 
 
 „ St. Mary, • two 
 
 44 St. Martin, three 
 
 44 Vermillion: one 
 
 44 Lafayette, two 
 
 44 St. Landry, five 
 
 44 Calcasieu, one 
 
 44 Avoyelles two 
 
 44 Rapides, three 
 
 44 Natchitoches, three 
 
 44 Sabine, two 
 
 44 Caddo, one 
 
 44 De Soto, one 
 
 44 Ouachita, one 
 
 44 Morehouse, one 
 
 44 Union one 
 
 44 Jackson, one 
 
 Caldwell, one 
 
 44 Catahoula, two 
 
 Claiborne, two 
 
 44 Bossier, one 
 Total, ninety- eight. 
 
 And the State shall be divided into the 
 following senatorial districts : 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 
304 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river shall compose one senatorial district, 
 and shall elect four senators; 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines, St. Ber- 
 nard, and that part of the parish of Or- 
 leans lying on the right bank of the river, 
 shall compose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of Jefferson shall compose 
 one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of St. Charles and St. 
 John the Baptist shall compose one dis- 
 trict, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of St. James shall compose 
 one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of Ascension shall compose 
 one district with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Assumption, Lafourche 
 Interior and Terrebonne shall compose 
 one district, with two senators; 
 
 The parishes of Iberville and West 
 Baton Rouge shall compose one district, 
 with one senator; 
 
 The parish of East Baton Rouge shall 
 compose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of Point Coupee shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of Avoyelles shall compose 
 one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of St. Mary shall compose 
 one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of St. Martin shall compose 
 one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Lafayette and Vermil- 
 lion shall compose one district, with one 
 senator; 
 
 The parishes of St. Landry and Calca- 
 sieu, shall compose one district, with two 
 senators; 
 
 The parish of West Feliciana shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of East Feliciana shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of St. Helena and Livings- 
 ton shall compose one district, with one 
 senator; 
 
 The parishes of Washington and St. 
 Tammany, shall compose one district, with 
 one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Concordia and Tensas 
 shall compose one district with one sen- 
 ator; 
 
 The parishes of Carroll and Madison 
 shall compose one district, with one sen- 
 ator; 
 
 The parishes of Jackson, Union, More- 
 
 house and Ouachita shall compose one dis ! 
 trict, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Caldwell, Franklin and 
 Catahoula shall compose one district, with 
 one senator; 
 
 The parish of Rapides shall compose 
 one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Bossier and Claiborne 
 shall compose one district, with one sen- 
 ator; 
 
 The parish of Natchitoches shall com. 
 pose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Sabine, De Solo anc 
 Caddo shall compose one district, with one 
 
 senator; 
 
 And whenever a new parish shall be crea. 
 ted, it shall be attached to the senatorial dis- 
 trict from which most of its territory was 
 taken or to another contiguous district a 
 thediscretion of the legislature, but shall no 
 be attached to more than one district. 
 
 Art. 144. In order that no inconveni 
 ence may result to the public service fron 
 the taking effect of this Constitution, 111 
 office shall be superseded thereby ; but thi 
 laws of the State relative to the duties o 
 the several officers, executive, judicial anc 
 military, shall remain in full force, thougli 
 the same be contrary to this Constitute, 
 and the several duties shall be performsA 
 by the respective officei s of the State accor 
 ding to the existing laws, until the organi 
 zation of the government under this Con 
 stitution, and the entering into office of th( 
 new officers, to be appointed under saic 
 government, and no longer. 
 
 Art. 145. Appointments to office bj 
 the executive under this Constitution, shal 
 be made by the governor to be elected un- 
 der its authority. 
 
 Art. 146. The provisions of article 28, 
 concerning the inability of members of the 
 legislature to hold certain offices therein 
 mentioned, shall not be held to apply to 
 the members of the first legislature elected 
 unde r this Constitution. 
 
 Art. 147. The time of service of ail of- 
 ficers chosen by the people, at the first 
 election under this Constitution, shall ter- 
 minate as though the election had been hol- 
 der! on the first Monday of November 
 1845, and they had entered on the discharge 
 of their duties at the time designated therein. 
 
 Art. 148. The legislature shall provide 
 for the removal of all causes now pending 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 305 
 
 in the supreme or other courts of the 
 courts under the Constitution of 1812, to 
 State created by this Constitution 
 
 Art. 149. Appeals to the supreme 
 court from the parishes of Jackson, Union, 
 Morehouse, Catahoula, Caldwell, Ouachi- 
 ta, Franklin, Carroll, Madison, Tensas, 
 and Concoreia, shall until otherwise provi- 
 ded for, be returnable to New Orleans. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, the report of the committee of revis- 
 ion on the legislative department was 
 taken up, viz : 
 
 TITLE II. 
 
 LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Art. 3. The legislative powers of the 
 State shall be vested in two distinct branch- 
 es, the one to be styled the "house of rep- 
 resentatives," the other "the senate," arid 
 both "the general assembly of tije State 
 of fitouisiana." 
 
 Art. 4.* The members of the house of 
 representatives shall continue in service 
 for the term of two years from the dayjof 
 the closing of the general elections. 
 
 Art. 5. Representatives shall be chosen 
 < on the first Monday in November, every 
 i two years; and the election shall be com- 
 pleted in one day. The general assembly 
 shall meet every second year, on the third 
 Monday in January next ensuing the elec- 
 tion, unless a different day be appointed 
 by law, and their session shall be held at 
 the seat of government. 
 
 Art. 6. No person shall be a represen- 
 tative, who, at the time of his election, is 
 not a free white male, and has not been for 
 three years a citizen of the United States, 
 and has not attained the age of twenty-one 
 years, and resided in the State for the three 
 years next preceding the election, and the 
 last year thereof in the parish for which 
 he may be chosen. 
 
 Art. 7. Elections for representatives 
 for the several parishes or representative 
 districts shall be held at the several elec- 
 tion precincts established by law. The 
 legislature may delegate the power of es- 
 tablishing election precincts to the paro- 
 chial or municipal authorities. 
 
 Art. 8. Representation in the house of 
 representatives, shall be equal and uniform, 
 and shall be regulated and ascertained by 
 the number of qualified electors. Each 
 parish shall have at least one representa- 
 tive; no new parish shall be created with 
 no 
 
 a territory less than six hundred and twen- 
 ty-five square miles, ner with a number of 
 electors less than the full number entitling 
 it to a representative, nor when the crea- 
 tion of such new parish would leave any 
 other parish without the said extent of ter- 
 ritory and number of electors. 
 
 The first enumeration to be made by the 
 State authorities under this constitution 
 shall 'be made in the year 1847, the second 
 in the year 1855; and the subsequent enu-v 
 merations shall be made every tenth year 
 thereafter, in such manner as shall be pre- 
 scribed by law for the purpose of ascer- 
 taining the total population and the number 
 of qualified electors in each parish and 
 election district. 
 
 At the first regular session of the leg is 
 lature after the making of each enumera- 
 tion, the legislature shall apportion the re- 
 presentation amongst the several parishes 
 and election districts on the basis of quali- 
 fied electors as aforesaid. A representa- 
 tive number shall be fixed, and each parish 
 and election district shall have as many 
 representatives as the aggregate number 
 of its electors will entitle it to, and an 
 additional' representative for any fraction 
 exceeding one half the representative 
 number. The number of representatives 
 shall not be more than one hundred nor 
 less than seventy. 
 
 That part of the parish of Orleans situ- 
 ated on the. left bank of ' the Mississippi, 
 shall be divided into nine representative 
 districts, as follows, viz : 
 
 1st. First district to extend from the line 
 of the parish of Jefferson to the middle of 
 Benjamin, Estelie and Thalia streets. 
 
 2d. Second district to extend from the 
 last mentioned limits to the middle of 
 Julia street, until it strikes the New Or- 
 leans canal, thence down said canal to the 
 lake. 
 
 3d. Third district to comprise the resi- 
 due of the Second Municipality. 
 
 4th. Fourth district to extend from the 
 middle of Canal street to the middle of 
 St. Jjouis street, until it reaches the Me- 
 tairie road, thence along said road to the 
 New Orleans canal. 
 
 5th. Fifth district to extend from the last 
 mentioned limits to the middle of St. Philip 
 street, thence down £aid street until its in. 
 terseetion with the bayou St. John, thence 
 along the middle of said bayou until it in- 
 
306 
 
 Journal of the Conv< 
 
 ention of Louisiana* 
 
 tersecls the Metairie road, thence along said 
 road until it reaches St. Louis street. 
 
 8th. Sixth district to be composed of the 
 residue of the First Municipality, 
 
 7th. Seventh district, from the middle 
 Esplanade street to the middle of Champs 
 Elysees street. 
 
 8th. Eighth district, from the middle of 
 Champs Elysees street to the middle of 
 Snghein street and Lafayette Avenue. 
 
 9th. Ninth district, from the middle of 
 Engheio street and Lafayette Avenue to. 
 the lower limits of the parish. 
 
 Art. 9. The house of representatives 
 shall choose its speaker and other officers. 
 
 Art. 10. In all elections by the people, 
 every free white male who has attained 
 the age of twenty-one. years, and resided 
 in the State two consecutive years next 
 preceding the election, and the last year 
 thereof in the parish in which he offers 
 to vote, shall have the right of voting. 
 Provided, that no person shall be deprived 
 of the right of voting who at the time of 
 the adoption of this constitution was enti- 
 tled to that right under the constitution of 
 1812. Electors shall, in all cases, except 
 treason, felony, breach or surety of the 
 peace, be privileged from arrest during 
 their attendance at, going to, or returning 
 from elections. 
 
 Art. 1 1. Absence from the State for more 
 than ninety consecutive days, shall inter- 
 rupt the acquisition of the residence requi- 
 red in the preceding article, unless the 
 person absenting himself shall be a house- 
 keeper, or shall occupy a tenement for car- 
 rying on business, and his dwelling house 
 or tenement for carrying on business shall 
 be actually occupied during his absence, by 
 his family or servants, or some portion 
 thereof, or by some one employed by him. 
 
 Art. 12. No soldier, seaman or marine 
 in the army or navy of the United States, 
 no pauper, no person under interdiction, nor 
 under conviction of any crime punishable 
 with hard labor, shall be entitled to vote 
 at any election in the State. 
 
 Art. 13. No person shall be entitled to 
 vote at any election held in this State, Ex- 
 cept in the parish of his residence, and in 
 cities and towns divided into election pre- 
 cincts, in the election precinct in which 
 he resides. 
 
 Art. 14. The members of the senate 
 shall be chosen for the term of four years. 
 
 The senate when assembled, shall have 
 the power to choose its officers every two 
 years. 
 
 Art. 1 5. The legislature in every year hi 
 which they shall apportion representation in 
 the house of representatives shall divide the 
 State into senatorial districts. No parish 
 shall be divided in the formation of a sena- 
 torial district, the parish of Orleans ex- 
 cepted. And whenever a new parish shall 
 be created, it shall be attached to the sena. 
 torial district from which most of its ter- 
 ritory was taken, or to another contiguous 
 district, at the discretion of the legislature; 
 but shall not be attached to more than one 
 district. The number of senators shall be 
 thirty-two, and they shall be apportioned 
 among the senatorial districts according to 
 the total population contained in the seve- 
 ral districts: Provided, that no parish shall 
 be entitled to more than one-eighth <# the 
 whole number of senators. 
 
 Art. 16. In all apportionments of the 
 senate, the population of the city of New 
 Orleans shall be deducted from the popu- 
 lation of the whole Stale, and the remain- 
 der of the population divided by the number 
 twenty eight, and the result produced by 
 this division shall be the senatorial rati/ 
 entitling a senatorial district to a senator. 
 Single or contiguous parishes shall be 
 formed into districts having a population 
 the nearest possible to the number entitling 
 a district to a senator; and if in the appor- 
 tionment to be made, a parish or district 
 fall short of or exceed the ratio, one-fifth, 
 then a district may be formed having not 
 more than two senators, but not otherwise. 
 
 No new apportionment shall have the 
 effect of abridging the term of service of 
 any senator already elected at the time- of 
 making the apportionment. 
 
 After an enumeration has been made as 
 directed in the eighth article, the legisla- 
 ture shall not pass any laws until an ap- 
 portionment of the representation in both 
 houses of the general assembly be made. 
 
 Art. 17. At the first session of the 
 general assembly, after this constitution 
 takes effect, the senators shajl be equally 
 divided by lot into two classes ; the seats 
 of the senators of the first class shall be va- 
 cated at the expiration of the second year, 
 of the second class at the expiration of the 
 fourth year; so that one-half shall be chosen 
 every two years, and a rotation thereby kep 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 307 
 
 up perpetually. In case any district shall 
 have elected two or more senators, said 
 senators shall vacate their seats respective- 
 ly at the end of two and four years, and 
 the lots shall be drawn between them. 
 
 Art. 18. No person shall be a senator, 
 who at the time of his election, has not 
 been a citizen of the United States ten 
 years, and who has not attained the age of 
 twenty-seven years, and resided in the State 
 four years next preceding his election, 
 and the last year thereof in the district in 
 which he may be chosen, 
 i Art. 19. The first election for senators 
 shall be general throughout the State^ and 
 at the same time that the general election 
 for representatives is held; and thereafter 
 there shall be biennial elections to fill the 
 place of those whose time of service may 
 have expired. 
 
 Art. 20. Not less than a majority of the 
 members of each house of the general as- 
 sembly shall form a quorum to do business: 
 'put a smaller number may adjourn from 
 {pay to day, and shall be authorised by 
 law to compel the attendance of absent 
 members. 
 
 Art. 21. Each house of the general 
 j Assembly shall judge of the qualification, 
 election and returns of its members; but a 
 contested election shall be determined in 
 I such manner as shall be directed by law. 
 
 Art. 22. Each house of the general 
 i Assembly may determine the rules of its 
 | proceedings, punish a member for disor- 
 derly behavior, and with the concurrence 
 Jpf two-thirds expel a member, but not a 
 second time for the same offence. 
 
 Art. 23. Each house of the general as- 
 sembly shall keep and publish weekly a 
 (journal " of its proceedings; and the yeas 
 I and nays of the members on any question 
 'shall, at the desire of any two of them, be 
 Entered on the journal. 
 ! Art. 24. Each house may punish by im- 
 prisonment any person not a member, for 
 Jpisrespectful and disorderly/behavior, in 
 (Its presence or for obstructing any of its | 
 iproeeedings. Such imprisonment shall not 
 exceed ten days for any one offence. 
 
 Art. 25. Neither house, during theses- 
 jsion of the general assembly, shall without 
 the consent of the other, adjourn for more 
 than three days, nor to any other place 
 than that in which they may be sitting. 
 Art. 26. The members of the general 
 
 assembly shall receive from the public 
 treasury a compensation for their services, 
 which shall be four dollars per day during 
 their attendance, going to and returning 
 from the session of their respective houses. 
 The compensation may be increased or 
 diminished by law; but no alteration shall 
 take effect during the period of service of 
 the members, of the house of representa- 
 tives by whom such alterations shall have 
 been made. No session shall extend to a 
 peiiod beyond sixty days, to date from its 
 commencement, and any legislative action 
 had after the expiration of the said sixty 
 days, shall be null .and void. This pro- 
 vision shall not apply to the first legisla- 
 ture which is to convene after the adoption 
 of this constitution. 
 
 Art. 27. The members of the general 
 assembly shall, in all cases except treason, 
 felony, breach or surety of the peace, be 
 privileged from arrest during their attend- 
 ance at the sessions of their respective 
 houses; and going to or returning from the 
 same, and for any speech or debate in 
 either house, they shall not be questioned 
 in any other place. 
 
 Art. 28. -No senator or representative 
 shall, during the term for which he was 
 elected, nor for one year thereafter, be ap- 
 pointed or elected to any civil office of 
 profit under this State, which shall have 
 been created or the emoluments of which 
 shall have been increased during the time 
 such senator or representative was in 
 office, except to such offices or appoint- 
 ments as may be filled by the elections of 
 the people. 
 
 Art. 29. No person, while he continues 
 to exercise the functions of a clergyman, 
 priest or teacher of-any religious persua- 
 sion, society or sect, shall be eligible to 
 the general assembly. 
 
 Art. 30. No person who at any time 
 may have been a collector of taxes, or who 
 may have been otherwise entrusted with 
 public money, shall be eligible to the 
 general assembly, or to any other office of 
 profit or trust under the State government, 
 until he shall have obtained a discharge 
 for the amount of such collections, and for 
 all public moneys with which he may 
 have been entrusted. 
 
 Art. 31. No bill shall have the force of 
 a law until on three several days,-it be read 
 over in each house of the ge ne 3 assem- 
 
308 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 bly, and free discussion allowed thereon, 
 unless in case of urgency, four-fifths of the 
 house, where the bill shall be pending, may 
 deem it expedient to dispense with this rule. 
 
 Art. 32. All bills for raising revenue 
 shall originate in the house of representa- 
 tives, but the senate may propose amend- 
 ments as in other bills; provided, they 
 shall not introduce any new matter under 
 the color of an amendment which does not 
 relate to raising revenue. 
 
 Art. 33. The general assembly shall 
 regulate by law, by whom, and in what 
 manner, writs of election shall be issued, 
 to till the vacancies which may happen in 
 either branch thereof. 
 
 Art. 34. A majority of all the members 
 elected to the senate, shall be required for 
 the confirmation or rejection of officers to 
 be appointed by the governor, with the ad- 
 vice and consent of the senate; and the 
 senate in deciding thereon, shall vote by 
 yeas and nays, and the names of the sena- 
 tors voting for and against the appoint- 
 ments respectively, shall be entered on a 
 journal to be kept for that purpose, and 
 made public at the end of each session,, or 
 before. 
 
 Art. 35. Returns of all elections for 
 members of the general assembly shall be 
 made to the secretary of state. 
 
 Art. 36, A treasurer of the State shall 
 be elected biennially, b^ joint ballot of the 
 two houses of the general assembly. The 
 governor shall have the power to fill any 
 vacancy that may happen in that office 
 during the recess, of the legislature. 
 
 Art. 37. In the year in which a regular 
 election of a senator of- the United States 
 is to take pluce, the members of the gene- 
 ral assembly shall meet in the hall of the 
 house of representatives, on the Monday 
 following the meeting of the legislature, 
 and proceed to the said election. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne moved to amend the fifth - 
 teenth article by striking out the proviso 
 which authorizes the legislature' to divide 
 the city of New Orleans into different 
 senatorial districts. The yeas and nays 
 being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bri- 
 ant, Cenas,, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Guion, La- 
 bauve, Legendre, Marigny Mazureau, 
 Pugh, Roman, St* Amand, Saunders and 
 
 Winchester voted in the affirmative— 24 
 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Braze ale, Brent, Brumfield, Bur- 
 ton, Cade, Carrieie, Chambliss, DuBou- 
 chel, Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Lewis, 
 McCallop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Read, Scott of Madison, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana,' Scott of Baton Rouge, Sellers, Sou- 
 le, Splane, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Taylor of St Landry, Waddill, Wadsworth 
 and Wederstrandt voted in the negative— 
 32 nays; consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to lay the eleventh 
 article on the table indefinitely. The 
 yeas and nays /being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Cade, Carrier©, 
 .Chamblrss, DuBouchel, Eustis, Garcia, 
 Humble, Hynson, McRae, Marigny, Mayo, 
 Peets, Porter* Prescott of Avoyelles, Read, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Soule, Splane, Stephens, 
 Waddill and Wederstrandt, voted in the af- 
 firmative — 25 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Briant, Burton, Cenas, Chinn, 
 Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Gar- 
 rett, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, Legendrfc, 
 Lewis, McCallop, Mazureau, Prescott of 
 St. Landry, Pugh, Roman, Saunders, Sel- 
 lers, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. 
 Landry and Wadsworth, voted in the nega- 
 tive— 31 nays; consequently said motion 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of New Orleans moved 
 to amend the tenth article, by inserting in 
 the first line , after the word "male," the 
 words 4 'who has been two years a citizen 
 of the United States." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Brent, Briant Brumfield, 
 Burton, Caniere,, Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, 
 Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, Labauve, Le- 
 gendre, Lewis, McCallop, Mayo, Mazu- 
 reau, Peets, PrescoU of Avoyelles, Pres- 
 cott. of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Pugh, 
 Roman, St. Amand, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Sellers, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Voorhies, Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the affir- 
 mative— 45 yeas; and 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 309 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, PuBouchel, Garcia, 
 Humble, McRae, Marigny, Porter, Read, 
 Soule, Splane and Waddill voted in the 
 negative— 11 nays; consequently said mo- 
 tion was carried, and the section was adop- 
 ted, as amended, viz: 
 
 TITLE II. 
 
 LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Art. 3. The legislative power of the 
 State shall be vested in two distinct brach- 
 es. the one to be styled "the house of rep- 
 resentatives," the other "the senate," and 
 both "the general assembly of the State of 
 'Louisiana-" 
 
 Art. 4. The members of the house of 
 representatives ghull continue in service for 
 the term of two years from the day of the 
 closing of the general elections. . 
 
 Art. 5. Representatives shall be cho- 
 ■ sen on the first Monday in November, ev- 
 ery two years. - and the election shall be 
 , completed in one day. The general as- 
 i sembly shall meet every second year, on 
 the third Monday in January next ensuing 
 the election, unless a different day be ap- 
 pointed dy law, and their session shall be 
 held at the seat of government. 
 
 Art. 6. No person shall be a represen- 
 tative who, at the time of his election, is 
 not a free white male, and has not been 
 for three years a citizen of the United 
 I States, and has not attained the age of 
 \ twenty-one years, and resided in the State 
 ! for the three years next preceding the elec- 
 I tion, and the last year thereof in the par- 
 ish for which he may be chosen. 
 
 Art. 7. Elections for representatives 
 ! for the several parishes or representative 
 ; districts shall be held at the several elec- 
 j tion precincts established by law. The 
 legislature may delegate the power of es- 
 tablishing election precincts to the paro- 
 j chial or municipal authorities. 
 
 Art. 8. Representation in the house of 
 representatives, shall be equal and uniform 
 and shall be regulated and ascertained by 
 the number of qualified electors. Each 
 parish shall have at least one representa- 
 tive. No new parish shall be created with 
 a territory less than six hundred ami twen- 
 ty-five square miles, nor with a number of 
 ! electors less than the full number entitling 
 it to a representative, nor when the crea- 
 tion of such new parish would* leave any 
 other parish without the said xtent of ter- 
 ! ritory and number of elector?. 
 
 The first enumeration to be made by the 
 State authorities under this constitution 
 shall be made in the year 184T, the second 
 in the year 1855, and the subsequent enu- 
 meration shall be made every tenth year 
 thereafter, in such manner as shall be pre. 
 scribed by law; for the purpose of ascer- 
 taining the total population and the num- 
 ber of qualified electors in each parish and 
 election district. 
 
 At the first regular session of the legis- 
 lature after the making of each enumera- 
 tion, the legislature shall apportion the rep- 
 resentation amongst the several parishes 
 and election districts on the basis of qual- 
 ified electors, as aforesaid. A representa- 
 tive number shall be fixed, and each parish 
 and election district shall have as many 
 representatives as the aggregate number of 
 its electors will entitle it^to, and an addi- 
 tional representative for any fraction ex- 
 ceeding one half the representative nUm- 
 "ber. The number of representatives shall 
 not be more than one hundred nor less than 
 seventy. 
 
 That part of the parish of Orleans situ- 
 ated on the left bank of the Mississippi 
 shall be divided into nine representative dis- 
 tricts, as follows, viz: 
 
 1st. First district to extend from the 
 line of the parish of Jefferson to the mid- 
 dle of Benjamin, Estelle, and Thalia 
 streets. 
 
 2d* Second district to extend from the 
 last mentioned limits to the middle of Ju- 
 lia street, until it strikes the New Orleans 
 canal, thence down said canal to the lake. 
 
 3d. Third district to comprise the resi- 
 due of the second municipality. 
 
 4th. Fourth district to extend from the 
 middle of canal street to the middle of St. 
 Louis street, until it reaches the Metairie 
 road, thence along said road to the New 
 Orleans canal. 
 
 5th. Fifth district to extend from the 
 *last mentioned limits to the middle of St. 
 Philip street, thence down said street until 
 its intersection with the bayou St. John, 
 thence along the middle of said bayou until 
 it intersects the Metairie road, thence along 
 said road until it reaches St. Louis street. 
 
 6th. Sixth district to be composed of 
 the residue of the first municipality. 
 
 7th. Seventh district from the middle 
 of Esplanade street to the middle of 
 Champs Elysees street. 
 
310 
 
 Journal of the Convention of -Louisiana, 
 
 8th. Eighth district from the middle 
 of Champs Elysees street to the middle 
 of Enghien street and. Lafayette avenue. 
 
 9th. Ninth district from the middle of 
 Enghien street and Layfayette avenue to 
 the lower limits of the parsh. 
 
 Art. 9. The house of representatives 
 shall choose its speaker and other of- 
 ficers. 
 
 Art. 10. In all elections by the people 
 every free white male who has been two 
 years a citizen of the United States, who 
 has attained the age of twenty-one years, 
 and resided in the State two consecutive 
 years next preceding the election, and the 
 last year thereof in the parish in which he 
 offers to vote, shall have the right of vo- 
 ting: Provided, that no person shall be de- 
 prived of the right of voting who at the 
 time of the adoption of this constitution 
 was entitled to that right under the consti- 
 tution of 1812. Electors shall, in all ca- 
 ses except treason, felony, breach or sure-- 
 ty of the peace, be privileged from arrest 
 during their attendance at, going to or re- 
 turning from elections. 
 
 Art. 11. Absence from the State for 
 more than ninety consecutive day a shall 
 interrupt the acquisition of the residence 
 required in the preceding article; unless 
 the person absenting himself shall be a 
 house-keeeper, or shall occupy a tenement 
 for carrying on business, and his dwelling 
 house or tenement for carrying on business 
 shall be actually occupied during his ab- 
 sence, by his family or servants, or some 
 portion theref, or by some one employed 
 by him. 
 
 Art. 12. No soldier, seaman or ma- 
 rine in the army or navy of the United 
 States, uo pauper, nor person under inter- 
 diction, nor under conviction of any crime 
 punishable with hard labor, shall be entitled 
 to vote at any election in this State. 
 
 Art. 13. No person shall be entitled 
 to vote at any election held in this State, 
 except in the parish of his residence, and 
 in cities and towns divided into election 
 precincts, in the election precinct in which 
 he resides. 
 
 Art. 14. The members of the senate 
 shall be chosen for the term of four years. 
 The senate^ when assembled, shall have 
 the power to choose its officers every two 
 years. 
 
 Art. 15. The legislature in every year 
 
 in which they shall apportion represeta- 
 tion in the house of representatives shall 
 divide the State into senatorial districts. 
 No parish shall be divided in the formation 
 of senatorial districts, the parish of Or- 
 leans excepted. And whenever a new par- 
 ish shall be created it shall be attached to 
 the senatorial district from which most of 
 I its territory was taken, or to another con. 
 ! tiguous district, at the discretion of the 
 j legislature; but shall not be attached to 
 ! mroe than one district. The number of 
 | senators shall be thirty two, and they shall 
 : be apportioned among the senatorial dis- 
 tricts according to - the total population 
 contained in the several districts: Pro- 
 vided^ that no parish shaft be entitled to 
 more than one eighth of the whole num- 
 ber of senators. 
 
 Art. 16. In all apportionments of the sen. 
 ate, the population of the city of New Or- 
 leans shall be deducted from the population 
 of the whole State, and the remainder of 
 the population divided by the number twen- 
 ty-eight, and the result produced by this 
 division shall be the senatorial ratio enti- 
 tling a district to a senator. Single or con- 
 tinguous parishes shall be formed into dis- 
 tricts having a population the nearest post 
 sible to the number entitling a district to %, 
 senator; ano! if in the apportionment to be 
 made, a parish or district fall short of or 
 exceed the ratio, one. fifth, then a district 
 may be foimed having not more than two 
 senators; but not otherwise. 
 
 No new apportionment shall have the 
 effect of abridging the term of service of 
 any senator already elected at the time of 
 making the apportionment. 
 
 After an enumeration has been made as 
 directed in the eighth article, the legisla- 
 ture shall not pass any laws until an ap- 
 portionment of the representation in both 
 houses of the general assembly shall be 
 made. 
 
 Art. 17. At the first session of the 
 general assembly, after this constitution 
 takes effect, the senators shall be equal- 
 ly divided, by lot, into two classes; the 
 seats of the senators of the first class 
 shall be vacated at the expiration of the 
 second year; of the second class at the 
 expiration of the fourth year; so that one- 
 half shallj^e chosen every two years, and 
 a rotation thereby kept up perpetually.—- 
 In case any district shall have elected two 
 
Journal of the Con vention of Louisiana. 311 
 
 or more senators, said senators shall vacate 
 their seats respectively at the end of two 
 and four years, aud the lots shall be drawn 
 between them. 
 
 Art. IS. No person shall be a senator 
 who at the time of his election has not 
 been a citizen of the United States ten 
 vears, and who has not attained" the age of 
 twenty seven years, and resided in the 
 State-four years next preceding his elec- 
 tion, and the last year thereof in the dis- 
 trict in which he may be chosen. 
 
 Art. 19. The first election for. senators 
 shall be general throughout the State, and 
 jat the same time that the election for rep- 
 resentatives is held; and thereafter there 
 shall be biennial elections to till the place 
 Df those whose time of service may have 
 expired. 
 
 Art. 20. Not less than a majority of 
 the members of each house of the general 
 assembly shall form a quorum to do busi- 
 ness; but a smaller number may adjourn 
 from day to day, and shall be authoiized 
 jby law to compell the attendance of absent 
 members. 
 
 Art. 21. Each house of the general 
 assembly shall judge of the qualification, 
 election and returns of its members; but a 
 contested election shall be determined in 
 such manner as shall be directed by law. 
 
 Art. 22. Each house of the general 
 assembly may determine the rules of its 
 proceedings, punish a member for disor- 
 derly behavior, and* with the concurrence 
 of two thirds, expel a member, but not a 
 second time for the same offence. 
 
 Art. 23. Each house of the general 
 assembly shall keep and publish weekly a 
 journal of its proceedings; and the yeas 
 and nays of the members on any question 
 shall, at the desire of any two of them, be 
 entered on the journal. 
 
 Art. 24. Each house may punish by 
 imprisonment any person, not a member, 
 for disrespectful and disorderly behavior 
 in its presence, or for obstructing any of 
 its proceedings. Such imprisonment shall 
 not exceed ten days for any one offence. 
 
 Art. 25. Neither house during the ses- 
 sion of the general assembly, shall with- 
 out the consent of the other, adjourn for 
 more than three days, nor to any other 
 place than that in which they may be sit- 
 ting. 
 
 Art, 26. The members of the general 
 
 assembly shall receive from the public 
 treasury a compensation for their services, 
 which shall be four dollars per day during 
 their attendance, going to and returning 
 from the session of their respective houses. 
 The compensation may be increased or 
 diminished by law; but no alteration shall 
 take effect during the period of service of 
 the members of the house of representa- 
 tives by whom such alteretion shall have 
 been made. No session shall extend to a 
 period beyond sixty days, to date fuom its 
 commencement, and any legislative action 
 had after the expiration of the said sixty 
 days, shall be null and void. This pro- 
 vision shall not apply to the first legisla- 
 ture which is to convene ai%r the adoption 
 of this constitution. 
 
 Art. 27. The members of the general 
 assembly shall, in all cases except treason, 
 felony, breach or surety of the peace, be 
 privileged from arrest during their atten- 
 dance at the sessions of their respective 
 houses, going to and returning from the 
 same; and for any speech or debate in ei- 
 ther house, they shall not be questioned 
 I in any other place. 
 
 Art. 28. No senator or representative 
 shall, during the term for which he was 
 elected, nor for one year thereafter, be ap- 
 pointed or elected to any civil office of 
 profit under this State, which shall have 
 been created, or the emoluments of which 
 shall have been increased during the time 
 which such senator or representative was 
 in officefexcept to such offices or appoint- 
 ments as may be filled by the elections of 
 the people. 
 
 Art. 29. No person while he continues 
 to exercise the functions of a clergyman,, 
 priest, or teacher of any religious persua- 
 sion, society or sect, shall be eligible to the 
 general assembly. 
 
 Art. 30. No person who at any time 
 may have been a collector of taxes, or who 
 may have been otherwise entrusted with 
 public money, shall be eligible to the gen- 
 eral assembly, or to any office of profit or 
 trust under the State government, until he 
 shall have obtained a discharge for the 
 amount of such collections, and for all pub- 
 lic moneys with which he may have been 
 entrusted. V» 
 
 Art. 31. No bill shall have the force 
 of a law until on three several days it be 
 read over in each house of the general as= 
 
312 
 
 Journal of ike Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 r-embly, and free discussion allowed there- 
 on, unless in case of urgency, four-fifths 
 of the house where the bill shall be pend- 
 ing- may deem it expedient to dispense 
 with this rule. 
 
 Art. 32. All bills for raising revenue 
 shall originate in the house of representa- 
 tives, but the senate may propose amend- 
 ments, as in other bills; provided they 
 shall not introduce any new matter under 
 the color of an amendment, which does 
 not rebate to the raising of revenue. 
 
 Art. 33' The general assembly shall 
 regulate by law, by whom, and in what 
 manner writs of election shall be issued to 
 lill the vacancies which may happen in ei- 
 ther branch theteof. 
 
 Art. 34. A majority of all the mem- 
 bers elected to the senate shall be required 
 for the conformation or rejection of of- 
 ficers to be appointed by the governor, with 
 the advice and consent of the senate; and 
 the senate in deciding thereon, shall vote 
 by yeas and nays, and the names of the 
 senators voting for and against the appoint, 
 ments respectively, shall be entered on a 
 journal to kept for that purpose, and made 
 public at the end of each session, or before. 
 
 Art. 35. Returns of all elections for 
 members of the general assembly shall be 
 made to the secretary of State. 
 
 Art. 36. A treasurer of the State shall 
 be elected biennially, by joint ballot of the 
 two houses of the general assembly. The 
 governor shall have the power to fill any 
 vacancy that may happen in that office 
 during the recess of the legislature. 
 
 Art. 37. In the year in which a reg- 
 ular election of a senator of the United 
 States is to take place, the members of the 
 general assembly shall meet in the hall of 
 the house of representatives, on the Mon- 
 day following the meeting of the legisla- 
 ture, and proceed to the said election. 
 
 Mr. Winder submitted the following 
 resolution, viz: 
 
 Resolved, that the question on the final 
 passage of this constitution be taken to- 
 morrow at twelve o'clock, m., and that if a 
 majority of the votes be in favor of its pas- 
 sage, that the same be adopted, and be 
 signed by the president and such members 
 of the Convention as may desire to sign it, 
 and countersigned by the secretary. 
 
 Mr. Conrad of Orleans moved to amend 
 the same by striking out the words "and 
 
 such members of the Convention as may 
 desire to sign it;" which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to amend said reso- 
 lution by inserting after the words "twelve 
 o'clock, m.," the words "without debate;" 
 which motion prevailed, and the resolution 
 as amended was adopted, viz: 
 
 " Resolved, that the question on the final 
 passage of this constitution be taken on to- 
 morrow at twelve o'clock, m., without de- 
 bate; and that if a majority of the votes be 
 in favor of its passage, that the same be 
 adopted, and be signed by the president and 
 such members of the Convention as may- 
 desire to sign it, and attested by the secre. 
 tary." 
 
 Evening Session, May 13, 1845. 
 On motion of Mr. Taylor of Assump. 
 tion, the general provisions were taken 
 up for a third reading, viz: 
 TITLE IV. 
 
 GENERAL PROVISIONS. 
 
 Art. 89. Members of the general as* 
 sembly, and all officers, before they enter 
 upon the duties of their offices shall take 
 the following oath or affirmation : 
 
 I (A. B.) do solemnly swear (or affirm) 
 that I will faithfully and impartially dis- 
 charge and perform all the duties incun* 
 
 bent on me as , according to tRfc 
 
 best of my abilities and understanding, 
 agreeably to the constitution and laws of 
 the United States, and of this State; and I 
 do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that 
 since the adoption of the present constitu- 
 tion, I, being a citizen of this State, have 
 not fought a duel with deadly weapons 
 within this State, nor out of it, nor have I 
 sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel 
 with deadly weapons, nor have acted as 
 second in carrying a challenge, or aided, 
 advised, or assisted any person thus of 
 fending, so help me God." 
 
 Art. 90. Treason against the State 
 shall consist only in levying war against, 
 or in adhering to its enemies, giving them 
 aid and comfort. No person shall be con- 
 victed of treason, unless* on the testimony 
 of two witnesses to the same overt act, or 
 his own confession in open court. 
 
 ^Art. 91. Every person shall be dis- 
 qualified from holding any office of trust 
 or profit in this State,' who shall have been 
 convicted of having given,, or offered a 
 bribe to procure his election or appoint- 
 ment, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 S13 
 
 Art. 92. Laws shall be made to exclude 
 from office and from the right of suffrage, 
 those who shall hereafter be convicted of 
 bribery, perjury, forgery, or other high 
 crimes or misdemeanors. The privilege 
 of free suffrage shall be supported bylaws 
 regulating elections, and prohibiting im- 
 
 i der adequate penalties ail undue influence 
 thereon from power, bribery, tumult or 
 
 I other improper practice. 
 
 Art. 93. Xo money shall be drawn 
 from the treasury but in pursuance of spe° 
 ciftc appropriations made by law, nor shall 
 
 [| any appropriation of money be made for a 
 longer term than two years. A regular 
 
 I "statement and account of the receipts and 
 expenditures of all public money shall be 
 published annually, in such manner as 
 shall be prescribed by law. 
 
 Art. 94. It shall be the duty of the 
 general assembly to pass such laws as 
 may be necessary and proper to decide 
 differences by arbitration. 
 
 Art. 95. All civil officers for the State 
 
 I at large shall reside within the State, and 
 all district or parish officers within their 
 districts or parishes, and shall keep their 
 offices at such places therein as may be 
 required by law. Xo person shall be 
 elected or appointed to any parish office 
 who shall not have resided in such parish 
 long enough before such election, or ap- 
 pointment, to have acquired the right of 
 voting in such parish: and no person shall 
 be elected or appointed to any district 
 office, who shall not have resided in such 
 district, or an adjoining district, long 
 enough before such appointment or elec- 
 tion, to have acquird the right of voting in 
 the same. 
 
 Art. 96. The duration of all offices not 
 fixed by this constitution shall never exceed 
 four years. 
 
 Art. 97. All civil officers, except the 
 govern or, and judges of the supreme and 
 district courts, shall be removeable by an 
 address of a majority of the members of 
 both houses, except those the removal of 
 I whom has been otherwise provided for by 
 this constitution. 
 
 Art. 98. Absence on business of this 
 . State or of the United States, shall not for- 
 feit a residence once obtained, so as to de- 
 prive any one of the right of suffrage, or 
 I of being elected or appointed to any office 
 40 
 
 [under the exceptions contained in this 
 
 ». constitution. 
 
 Art. 99. It shall be the duty of the 
 
 | legislature to provide by law for deductions 
 
 ! from the salaries of public officers who 
 may be guilty of a neglect of duty. 
 
 Art. 100. The legislature shall point out 
 the manner in which a person coming into 
 
 | the State shall declare his residence. 
 
 Art. 101. In all elections by the peo- 
 ple the tote shall be by ballot, 'and in ail 
 elections by the senate and house of repre- 
 sentatives, jointly or separately, the vote' 
 shall be given viva voce. 
 
 Art. 102. Xo member of congress, nor 
 person holding or exercising any office of 
 trust or profit under the United States, or 
 either of them, or under any foreign power, 
 shall be eligible as a member of the gene- 
 ral assembly, or hold or exercise any office 
 of trust or profit under the State. 
 
 Art. 103. The laws, the public records 
 and the judicial and legislative written 
 proceedings of the State shall be promul- 
 gated; preserved and conducted in the lan- 
 guage in which the constitution of the 
 United States is written. 
 
 Art. 104. The secretary of the senate 
 and clerk of the house of representatives 
 shall be conversant with tiie French and 
 English languages; and members may ad- 
 dress either house in the French or English 
 
 language. 
 
 Art. 105. The general assembly shall 
 direct by law how persons who are now or 
 may hereafter become sureties for public 
 officers may be discharged from such 
 suretyship. 
 
 Art. 106. Xo power of suspending the 
 laws of this State shall be exercised, unless 
 by the legislature or its authority. 
 
 Art. 107. Prosecutions shall be by in- 
 dictment, or information. The accused 
 shall have a speedy public trial by an im- 
 partial jury of the vicinage; he shall not 
 be compelled to give evidence against him- 
 self; he shall have the right of being heard 
 by himself or counsel; he shall have the 
 right, unless he shall have ded from justice, 
 of meeting the witnesses face to face, and 
 shall have compulsory process for obtain- 
 ing witneses in his favor. 
 
 Akt. 108. All prisoners shall be baila = 
 ble by sufficient sureties, unless for capital 
 offences, where the proof is evident; or pre= 
 
314 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 sumption great; and the privilege of the ] 
 writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspend- 
 ed, unless when in case of rebellion or in- 
 vasion the public safety may require it. 
 
 Art. 109. No ex-posi facto law, nor any 
 law impairing the obligation of contracts, 
 shall be passed; nor vested rights be di- 
 vested, unless for purposes of public utility, 
 and for adequate compensation previously 
 made. 
 
 Art. 110. The press shall be free. 
 Every citizen may freely speak, write, and 
 publish his sentiments on all subjects; being 
 responsible for an abuse of this liberty. 
 
 Art. 111. Emigration from the State 
 shall not be prohibited. 
 
 Art. 112. The general assembly which 
 shall meet after the first election of repre- 
 sentatives under this constitution, shall, 
 within the first month after the commence- 
 ment of the session, designate and fix the 
 seat of government, at some place not less 
 than sixty miles from the city of New Or- 
 leans, by the nearest travelling route; and 
 ii on the Mississippi river, by the mean? 
 ders of the same; and when so fixed, it 
 shall not be removed without the consent 
 of four-fifths of the members of both houses 
 of the general assembly. The sessions 
 shall be held in New Orleans until the end 
 of the year 1848. 
 
 Art. 113. The legislature shall not 
 pledge the faith of the State for the payment 
 of any bonds, bills or other contracts or 
 obligations for the benefit or use of any 
 person or persons, corporation or body 
 politic whatever. But the State shall have 
 the right to issue new bonds in payment of 
 its outstanding obligations or liabilities, 
 whether due or not; the said new bonds, 
 however, are not to be issued for a larger 
 amount or at a higher rate of interest, than 
 the original obligations they are intended 
 to replace. 
 
 Art. 114. The aggregate amount of 
 debts hereafter contracted by the legisla- 
 ture, shall never exceed the sum of one 
 hundred thousand dollars, except in case 
 of war to repel invasions or suppress in- 
 surrections, unless the same be authorised 
 by some law, for some single object or 
 work, to be distinctly specified therein ; 
 which laws shall provide ways and means, 
 by taxation, for the payment of running in- 
 terest during the whole time for which said 
 debt shall be contracted, and for the full 
 
 and punctual discharge at maturity of the 
 capital borrowed, and said law shall be ir- 
 repealable until principle and interest are 
 fully paid and discharged, and shall not be 
 put into execution until after its enactment 
 by the first legislature returned by a gene- 
 ral election after its passage. 
 
 Art. 115. The legislature shall provide 
 by law for a change of venue in civil and 
 criminal cases. 
 
 Art. 1 1 6. No lottery shall be authorized 
 by this State, and the buying or selling of lot- 
 tery tickets within this State is prohibited. 
 
 Art. 117. No divorce shall be granted 
 by the legislature. 
 
 Art. 118. Every law enacted by the 
 legislature shall embrace but one object, 
 and that shall be expressed in the title. 
 
 Art. 119. No law shall be revived or 
 amended by reference to its title; but in 
 such case, the act revived, or section 
 amended, shall be re-enacted and pubish* 
 ed at length. 
 
 Art. 120. The legislature shall never 
 adopt any system or code of laws by gen- 
 eral reference to such system or code of 
 laws; but in all cases shall specify the sev- 
 eral provisions of the laws it may enact. 
 
 Art. 121. The State shall not become 
 subscriber to the stock of any corporation 
 or joint stock company. 
 
 Art. 122. No corporate body shall be 
 hereafter created, renewed or extended, 
 with banking or discounting privileges. 
 
 Art. 123. Corporations shall not be 
 created in this State by special laws except 
 for political or municipal purposes ; but the 
 Legislature shall provide by general laws, 
 for the organization of all other corpora, 
 tioni, except corporations with banking or 
 discounting privileges, the creation of which 
 is prohibited. 
 
 Art. 124. From and after the month of 
 January 1890, the Legislature shall have 
 the power to revoke the charters of all cor- 
 porations whose charters shall not have 
 expired previous to that time, and no cor- 
 porations hereafter to be created shall ev- 
 er endure for a longer term than twenty- 
 five years, except those which are political 
 or municipal. 
 
 Art. 125. The General Assembly shall 
 never grant any exclusive privilege or mo- 
 | nopoly. for a longer period than twenty 
 years. 
 
 Art. 126, No person shall hold or exer- 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 cise, at the same time, more than one civil 
 office of emolument, except that of justice 
 of the peace. 
 
 Art. 127. Taxation shall he equal and 
 uniform throughout the State. After the 
 year 1848 all property, on which taxes 
 may be levied in this State, shall be taxed 
 in proportion to its value, to be ascertained 
 as directed by law. No one species of 
 property shall be taxed higher than another 
 species of property of equal value, on which 
 taxes shall be levied; the legislature shall 
 have power to levy an income tax, and to 
 tax all persons pursuing any occupation, 
 trade or profession. 
 
 Art. 128. The citizens of the city of 
 New Orleans shall have the right of ap- 
 pointing the several public officers neces- 
 sary for the administration of the police of 
 the said city, pursuant to the mode of elec- 
 tions which shall be prescribed by the le- 
 gislature ; provided, that the mayor and 
 recorders shall be ineligible to a seat in the 
 general assembly; and the mayor, record- 
 ers and aldermen shall be commissioned 
 by the governor as justices of the peace, 
 and the legislature may vest in them such 
 criminal jurisdiction as may be necessary 
 for the punishment of minor crimes and of- 
 fences, and as the police and good order of 
 said city may require. 
 
 Art. 129. The legislature may provide 
 by law in what case officers shall continue 
 : to perform the duties of their offices until 
 their successors shall have been inducted 
 into office. 
 
 Art. 130. Any citizen of this State who 
 shall, after the adoption of this constitution, 
 light a duel with deadly weapons, or send or 
 accept a challenge to fight a duel with deadly 
 weapons, either within the State or out of 
 I it, or who shall act as second, or knowing- 
 ly aid and assist in any manner those thus 
 offending, shall be deprived of holding any 
 ; office of trust or profit, and of enjoying the 
 right of suffrage under this constitution. 
 
 O CD 
 
 Art. 131. The legislature shall have 
 ., power to extend this constitution, and the 
 jurisdiction of this State over any territory 
 , acquired by compact with any State, or 
 ' with the United States, the same being 
 ; done by the consent of the United States. 
 A.RT. 132. The constitution and laws of 
 this State, shall be promulgated in the En- 
 glish and French languages. 
 
 On motion the 89th article was laid on 
 the table, subject to call. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies moved to lay the 112th 
 article on the table, subject to call. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brent, Briant, Cenas, 
 Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 Covillion, Culbertson, Derbes, DuBouchel, 
 Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, Humble, Ledoux, 
 Legendre, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, 
 Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Lan- 
 dry, Prudhomme, Roman, Roselius, St. 
 Amand, Saunders, Soule, Trist, Voorhies, 
 Wadsworth and Winchester voted in the 
 affirmative — 32 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Brazeale, Burton, 
 Ch'ambliss, Chinn, Dunn, Guion, Huds- 
 peth, Hynson, Kenner, Lewis, McCallop, 
 McRae, Peets, Porter, Pugh, Read, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana. Scott 
 of Madison, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor of 
 Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, Wad- 
 dill, Wederstrandt, Winchester and Winder 
 voted in the negative — 28 nays; conse- 
 quently said motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption moved to 
 lay the 38th section on the table indefi- 
 nitely. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 field, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Du- 
 Bouchel, Downs, Eustis, Garcia, Garrett, 
 Onion, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Legen- 
 dre, Lewis, Marign\% Peets, Prescott of 
 Avoylles, Preston, Read, St, Amand, Saun- 
 ders, Soule, Stephens, Taylor of Assump- 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, Wadsworth 
 and Winder voted in the affirmative— 3! 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudous- 
 quie, Briant, Burton, Cenas, Chambliss, 
 Chinn, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Huds- 
 peth, Kenner, McCallp, McRae, Mayo, 
 Mazureau, Porter, Prescott of St. Landry, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Voorhies, Wad- 
 dill, Wederstrandt and Winchester voted in 
 the negative — 31 nays; thevote being equal, 
 consequently the motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Dtjxn then moved for the adoption 
 of the section. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Cenas, Chinn, 
 Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Hynson, Ma- 
 
316 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 zureau, Porter, Pugh, Roman, Roselius, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, 
 Voorh.iesj Wadsworth, Wederstrandt and 
 Winchester voted in the affirm ative — 19 
 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Realty, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Chambliss, Conrad of 
 Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, 
 Downs, jDuBouchel, Eustis, Garcia, Gar- 
 re.tt, Guion, Humble, Kenner, Ledoux, 
 Legendre, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Ma- 
 rigny, Mayo, Peets, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, Prud-. 
 homme, Read, St. Amand, Saunders, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Sellers, Soule, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Trist, Waddill and Winder, voted In 
 the negative — 42 nays; consequently said 
 motion was lost, and the section rejected. 
 
 On motion the 33th section was laid on 
 the table indefinitely. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, moved to 
 amend the 130th article by inserting after 
 the word "weapons," the words "with a 
 citizen of this State:" and to insert after 
 the words "witin the State or out of it," 
 the words "with a citizen of this State." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Benjamimin, Boudous- 
 quie, Brent, Briant, Cenas, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, CoviiHon, Cul- 
 bertsoo, D.crbes, Downs, DuBouchel, Gar- 
 cia, Guion, • Hudspeth, Humble, Kenner, 
 Ledoux, Legender, Marigny, Mayo, Ma- 
 zureau, Porter, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Ro- 
 man, St. Amand, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sel- 
 lers, Soule, Splane, Taylor of Assumption, 
 Taylor of St. Landry, Trist, Voorhies, 
 Waddill, Wadsworth, Wederstrandt, Win- 
 chester and Winder voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 45 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Burton, Chambliss, 
 Chinn, Eustis, Garrett, Hynson, Lewis, 
 McCallop, McRae, Peets, Preston, Pugh, 
 Read, Roselius and Stephens voted in the 
 negative — -16 nays; consequently said mo- 
 tion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Chinn moved for the adoption of 
 the section as amended. The yeas and 
 nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Chambliss, Chinn, Derbes Downs, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Lewis, McCal- 
 
 lop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Prescott of Avoy- 
 elles, Prescott of St. Landry, Pugh, Pres- 
 ton, Read, Roselius, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sel- 
 lers, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Tay. 
 lor of St. Landry, Voorhies, Waddill, Win. 
 Chester and Winder, voted in the affirma- 
 tive — 38 yeas, and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin Bou- 
 dousquie, Briant, Cenas, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Cul- 
 bertson, DuBouchel, Garcia, Kenner, Le- I 
 gendre Marigny, Mazureau, Porter, Prud- 
 homme, Roman, St. Amand, Soule, Splane, 
 Trist, Wadsworth and Wederstrandt voted 
 in the negative — 25 nays, consequently the 
 said section was adopted as amended, viz : 
 
 Art. 130. Any citizen of this State, who 
 shall, after the adoption of this Constitu- 
 tion, fight a duel with deadly weapons with 
 a citizeu of this State, or send or accept a 
 challenge to fight a duel with deadly weap- 
 ons, either within the State or out of it with a 
 citizen of this State, or who shall act as 
 second, or knowingly aid and assist in any 
 manner, those thus offending, shall be de- 
 prived of holding any office of trust or prof- 
 it, and of enjoying the right of suffrage un- 
 der this Consstitution. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Kenner, the article 
 112 was taken up, viz : 
 
 Art. 112. The general assembly whic h 
 shall meet after the first election of repre- 
 sentatives, under this Constitution, shall, 
 within the first month after the commence- 
 ment of the session, designate and fix the 
 seat of government, at some place not less 
 than sixty miles from the city of New Or- 
 leans, by the nearest travelling route, and 
 if on the Mississippi river, by the meanders 
 of the same ; and when so fixed it shall not 
 be removed without the consent of four* 
 fifths of the members of both houses of the 
 general assembly. The sessions shall be 
 held in New Orleans, until the end of the 
 year 1848. 
 
 Mr. Brent submitted as a substitute for 
 said article, the following, viz : 
 
 The seat of government shall be fixed 
 permanently, after the year 1848 in the 
 city of Baton Rouge. 
 
 Mr. Kenner moved to amend the sub- 
 stitute by striking out the words "in the city 
 of Baton Rouge," and inserting in lieu 
 thereof the words "in Donaldsonville," 
 which motion was lost. 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 317 
 
 Mr. Benjamin moved to amend said 
 ibstitute by striking out the words 
 in the city of Baton Rouge." The yeas 
 rid nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousqnie, 
 riant, Cenas, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 td of Jefferson, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 •erbes, Downs, DuBouchel, Eustis, Gar- 
 a, Hudspeth, Kenner, Ledoux, Legendre, 
 e> T7 is Marigny, Mazureau, Preston, Prud- 
 omme, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Sou- 
 i, Taylor of St. Landry, Wadsworth Win- 
 jiester and Winder, voted in the affirma- 
 ve — 31 yeas; and 
 
 ! Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 ield, Burton, Chambliss Chinn, Dunn, 
 rarrett, Gnion, Humble, Hynson, McCal- 
 >p, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescatt 
 f Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Pugh, 
 :ead, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 lana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Splane, 
 •tephens, Taylor of Assumption. Trist, 
 foorhies, Waddill and Wederstrandt, vo- 
 '3d in the negative — 32 nays ; consequent- 
 ly said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Brent then moved for the adoption 
 f the substitute. The yeas and nays be- 
 ig called for, 
 
 Messrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, Brum- 
 eld, Burton, Chambliss, Chinn, Dunn, 
 iarrett, Humble, Hynson, McCallop, Mc- 
 Lae, Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoy- 
 lles, Prescott of St. Landry, Pugh, Read, 
 Icott of of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 >cott of Madison, Sellers, Splane, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Voorhies, 
 Vaddill and Wederstrandt voted in the afa 
 irmative — 31 yeas ; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 3 riant, Cenas, Conrad of Orleans, Con- 
 ad of Jefferson, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 3erbes, Downs, DuBouchel, Eustis, Gar- 
 ria, Guion, Hudspeth, Kenner, Ledoux, 
 ^egendre, Lewis, Marigny, -Mazureau, 
 3 reston, Prudhomme, Roman, Roselius, 
 pti Amand, Soule, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Wadsworth, Winchester and Winder voted 
 n the negative — 32 nays ; consequently 
 ;aid motion was lost and the substitute re 
 ected, 
 
 1 Mr. VooRniEsthen moved to amend said 
 section by striking out the words tl at some 
 place not less than sixty miles from the city 
 of New Orleans, by the nearest travelling 
 route, and if on the Mississippi river, by 
 
 the meanders of the same." The yeas and 
 nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Brent, Briant, Cenas, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Covillion, Culbertson, 
 Derbes, Downs, DuBouchel, Eustis, Gar- 
 cia, Garrett, Guion, Humble, Ledoux, Le- 
 gendre, Marigny, Mayo, Mazureau, Porter, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, Pres- 
 ton, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Soule, 
 Splane, Trist, Voorhies, Wadsworth and 
 Winchester voted in the affirmative— -36 
 yeas ; and 
 
 Measrs. Beatty, Brazeale, Brumfteld,, 
 Burton, Chambliss, Chinn, Dunn, Huds- 
 peth, Hynson, Kenner, Lewis, McCallop, 
 McRae, Peets, Prescott of Avoyelles, Pugh, 
 Read, Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, 
 Scott of Feliciana, Scott of Madison, Sel- 
 lers, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Tay- 
 lor of St. Landry, Waddill, Wederstrandt 
 and Winder voted in the negative — 28 nays ; 
 consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Wadswoth gave notice that he 
 would on to-morrow, move to reconsider 
 the above vote. 
 
 Mr. Chinn moved for the adoption of 
 the section. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Chambliss, Chinn, 
 Dunn, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, 
 Hynson, Kenner, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, 
 Mayo, Peets, Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott 
 of St. Landry, Pugh, Read, Saunders, 
 Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feliciana, 
 Scott of Madison, Sellers, Stephens, Taylor 
 of Assumption, Taylor of St. Landry, 
 Waddill, Wadsworth, Wederstrandt and 
 Winder voted in the affirmative — 35 yeas; 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Cenas, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, Covil- 
 lion, Cidbertson, Derbes, Dozens, DuBou- 
 chel, Eustis, Garcia, Ledoux, Legendre, 
 Marigny, Mazureau, Porter, Prudhomme, 
 Preston, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, 
 Soule, Splane, Trist, Voorhies and Win- 
 chester voted in the negative — 27 nays ; 
 consequently said motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Mayo then moved for the reconsid- 
 eration of the above vote. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Briant, Cenas, Con- 
 rad of Orleans, Conrad of Jefferson, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Derbes, Downs, DuBouchel, Eustis, Gar- 
 cia, Ledoux, Legendre, Marigny, Mazu- 
 reau, Porter, Preston, Roman, Roselius, 
 Soule, Splane, Trist and Voorhies voted in 
 the affirmative — 22 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Auberi, Beatty, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Burton, Brumfield, Chambliss, Chinn, Cul- 
 berston, Dunn, Guion, Hudspeth, Humble, 
 Hynson, Kenner, Leicis, McCallop, Mc- 
 Rae, Mayo, Peeis, Prescott of Avoyelles, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Pugh, Read, Saun- 
 ders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of Feli- 
 ciana, Scott of Madison, Sellers, Stephens, 
 Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Waddill, Wadsworth, Wedersirandt 
 and Winder voted in the negative — 33 
 nays; consequently said motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth gave notice that he 
 would on to-morrow, move to reconsider 
 the above vote. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Taylor of Assump- 
 tion, the general provisions as reported and 
 amended was adopted, viz : 
 TITLE VI. 
 
 GENERAL PROVISIONS. 
 
 Art. 89. Members of the general as- 
 sembly, and all officers, before they enter 
 upon the duties of their offices shall take 
 the following oath or affirmation : 
 
 I (A. B.) do solemnly swear (or affirm) 
 that I will faithfully and impartially dis- 
 charge and perform all the duties incum- 
 bent on me as — — , according to the 
 
 best of my abilities and understanding, 
 agreeably to the constitution and laws of 
 the United States, and of this State; and I 
 do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that 
 since the adoption of the present constitu- 
 tion, I, being a citizen of this State, have 
 not fought a duel with deadly weapons 
 within this State, nor out of it, with a 
 citizen of the State, nor have I sent or 
 acepted a challenge to fight a duel with 
 deadly weapons with a citizen of the State, 
 nor have acted as second in carrying a 
 challenge, or aided, advised, or assisted 
 any person thus offending, so help me 
 God." 
 
 Art. 90. Treason against the State 
 shall consist only in levying war against, 
 or in adhering to its enemies, giving them 
 aid and comfort. No person shall be con- 
 victed of treason, unless on the testimony 
 of two witnesses to the same overt act, or 
 his own confession in open court. 
 
 Art. 91. Every person shall be dis- 
 
 qualified from holding any office of tru 
 or profit in this State, who shall have bee 
 convicted of having given, or offered 
 bribe to procure his election or appoin 
 ment. 
 
 Art. 92. Laws shall be made to 
 elude from office and from the right of su 
 frage, those who shall hereafter be convic 
 ed of bribery, perjury, forgery, or othe 
 high crimes or misdemeanors. 
 
 The privilege of free suffrage shall b 
 supported by laws regulating elections, an 
 prohibiting under adequate penalties a 
 undue influence thereon from powei 
 bribery, tumult or other improper practice j 
 
 Art, 93. No money shall be draw 
 from the treasury but in pursuance of spt 
 cific appropriations made by law, nor sha 
 any appropriation of money be made for 
 longer term than two years. A regula 
 statement and account of the receipts an 
 expenditures of all public money shall b 
 published annually, in such manner a 
 shall be prescribed by law. 
 
 Art. 94. It shall be the duty of the gen 
 eral assembly to pass such laws as may bi 
 necessary and proper to decide difference 
 by arbitration. 
 
 Art. 95. All civil officers for the Sta^j 
 at large shall reside within the State, an< 
 all district or parish officers within theri 
 districts or parishes, and shall keep then 
 offices at such places therein as may be 
 required by law. No person shall k 
 elected or appointed to any parish office 
 who shall not have resided in such parish 
 ilong enough before such election or ap- 
 pointment, to have acquired the right oi 
 voting in such parish; and no person shall 
 be elected or appointed to any district 
 office, who shall not have resided in such 
 district, or an adjoining district, long 
 enough before such appointment, or elec- 
 tion, to have acquired the right of voting 
 in the same. 
 
 Art. 96. The duration of all offices not 
 fixed by this constitution, shall never ex- 
 ceed four years. 
 
 Art. 97. All civil officers, except the 
 governor and judges of the supreme and 
 district courts, shall be removeable by an 
 address of a majority of the members of 
 both houses, except those the removal of 
 whom has been otherwise provided for by 
 this constitution. 
 
 Art. 98. Absence on business of tlii^ 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 319 
 
 tate or of the United State, shall not for- 
 :it a residence once obtained, so as to de- 
 rive any one of the right of suffrage, or 
 f being elected or appointed to any office 
 ider the exceptions contained in this con- 
 itution. 
 
 Art 99. It shall be the duty of the le- 
 .slature to provide by law for deductions 
 orn the salaries of public officers who 
 ay be guilty of a neglect of duty. 
 
 Art. 100. The legislature shall point 
 it the manner in which a person coming 
 ito the State shall declare his residence. 
 , Art. 101. In all elections by the people 
 ;.e vote shall be by ballot, and in all elec- 
 pns by the senate and house of represent 
 .tives, jointly or separately, the vote shall 
 3 given viva voce. 
 
 i Art. 102. Xo member of congress, nor 
 irson holding or exercising any office of 
 ust or profit under the United States, or 
 ither of them, or under any foreign power, 
 lall be eligible as a member of the gene- 
 f.1 assembly, or hold or exercise any office 
 f trust or profit under the State, 
 j Art. 103. The laws, the public records 
 jid the judicial and legislative written pro- 
 edings of the State, shall be promulgated, 
 eserved and conducted in the language 
 which the constitution of the United 
 ates is written. 
 
 'Art. 104. The secretary of the senate, 
 }id clerk of the house of representatives, 
 ..all be conversant with the French and 
 pglish languages, and members may ad- 
 less either house in the French or English 
 nguage. 
 
 Art. 105 The general assembly shall 
 [,;ect by law, how persons who are now, 
 I may hereafter become sureties for pub- 
 l; officers, may be discharged from such 
 fu-etyship. 
 
 ]Art. 106. Xo power of suspending the 
 wsof this State shall be exercised, unless 
 i the Legislature or its authority. 
 ! Art, 107. Prosecutions shall be by in- 
 ctment, or information. The accused 
 . all have a speedy public trial by an im- 
 .rtial jury of the vicinage : he shall not be 
 -mpelledto give evidence against himself: 
 I shall have the right of being heard by 
 psejf or counsel ; he shall have the right, 
 dess he shall have fled from justice, of 
 eeting the witnesses face to face, and 
 all have compulsory process for obtaining 
 itnesses in his favor. 
 
 Art. 108. All prisoners shall be baila- 
 ble by sufficient sureties, unless for capital 
 offences, where the proof is evident, or pre- 
 sumption great : and the privilege of the 
 writ of habeas corpus shall hot be suspen- 
 ded, unless when in case of rebellion or in- 
 vasion the public safety may require it. 
 
 Art. 109. Xo ex post facto law, nor any 
 law impairing the obligation of contracts, 
 shall be passed ; nor vested rights be di- 
 vested unless for purposes of public utility, 
 and for adequate compensation previously 
 made, 
 
 Art. 110. The press shall be free. Ev- 
 ery citizen may freely speak, write and pub- 
 lish his sentiments on all subjects ; being 
 responsible for an abuse of this liberty. 
 
 Art. 111. Emigration from the State 
 shall not be prohibited. 
 
 Art. 112. The general assembly which 
 shall meet after the first election of repre- 
 sentatives under this Constitution, shall, 
 within the first month after the commence- 
 ment of the session, designate and fix the 
 seat of government, at some place not less 
 than sixty miles from the city of Xew Or- 
 leans, by the nearest travelling route ; and 
 if on the Mississippi river, by the mean- 
 ders of the same : and when so fixed, it 
 shall not be removed without the consent 
 of four fifths of the members of both hous- 
 es of the general assembly. The sessions 
 shall be held in Xew Orleans until the end 
 of the year 1848. 
 
 Art. 113. The legislature shall not 
 pledge the faith of the State for the pay- 
 ment of any bonds, bills, or other contracts 
 or obligations for the benefit or use of any 
 person or persons, corporation or body po- 
 litic whatever. But the State shall have 
 the right to issue new bonds in payment of 
 its outstanbing obligations or liabilities, 
 whether due or not ; the said new bonds, 
 however, are not to be issued for a larger 
 amount or at a higher rate of interest, than 
 the original obligations they are intended 
 to replace. 
 
 Art. 114. The aggregate amount of 
 debts hereafter contracted by the legisla- 
 ture, shall never exceed the sum of one 
 hundred thousand dollars, except in case 
 of war, to repel invasions or suppres insur- 
 rections, unless the same be authorized by 
 some law, for some single object or work, to 
 be distinctly specified therein ; which law 
 shall provide ways and means, by taxation. 
 
320 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 for the payment of running interest during 
 the whole time for which said debt shall be 
 contracted, and for the full and punctual 
 discharge at maturity, of the capital bor- 
 rowed ; and said law shall be irrepealable 
 until principal and interest are fully paid 
 and discharged, and shall not be pu3 into 
 execution until after its enactment by the 
 first legislature returned by a general 
 election after its passage. 
 
 Art. 115. The legislature shall pro. 
 vide by law for a change of venue in civil 
 and criminal cases. 
 
 Art. 1 16. No lott'ery'shall be author, 
 ized by this State, and the buying or selling 
 of lottery tickets wiihin the State is prohi- 
 bited. 
 
 Art. 117. No divorce shall be granted 
 by the Legislature. 
 
 Art. 118. Every law enacted by the le- 
 gislature shall embrace but one object, and 
 that shall be expressed in the title. 
 
 Art. 119. No law shall be revived or 
 amended by reference to its title ; but in 
 such case, the act revived, or section amen- 
 ded, shall be re-enacted and published at 
 length. 
 
 Art. 120. The legislature shall never 
 adopt any system or code of laws by gene- 
 ral reference to such system or code of 
 laws ; but in all cases shall specify the sev- 
 eral provisions of the laws it may enact. 
 
 Art. 121. The State shall not become 
 subscriber to the stock of any corporation 
 or joint stock company. 
 
 Art. 122. No corporate body shall be 
 hereafter created, renewed or extended, 
 with banking or discounting privileges. 
 
 Art. 123. Corporations shall not be 
 created in this State by special laws, ex- 
 cept for political or municipal purposes ; 
 but the legislature shall provide by gene- 
 ral laws, for the organization of all other 
 corporations, except corporations with ban- 
 king or discounting privileges, the creation 
 of which is- prohibited. 
 
 Art. 124. From and after the month of 
 January, 1890, the legislature' shall have 
 the power to revoke the charters of all cor- 
 porations whose charters shall not have 
 expired- previous to that time, and no cor- 
 porations hereafter to be created shall ever 
 endure for a longer term than twenty-five 
 years, except those which are political or 
 municipal. 
 
 Art. 125. The general assembly shall 
 
 never grant any exclusive privilege or mo 
 nopoly, for a longer period than twent^ 
 years. 
 
 Art. 126. No person shall hold or ex 
 ercise, at the same time, more than orn 
 civil office of emolument, except that o 
 justice of the peace. 
 
 Art. 127. Taxation shall be equal am 
 uniform throughout the State. After th( 
 year 1848 all property, on which taxe; 
 may be levied in this State, shall be taxet 
 in proportion to its value, to be ascertainec 
 as directed by law. No one species o 
 property shall be taxed higher than ano 
 ther species of property of equal value, oi 
 which taxes shall be levied; the legisla 
 ture shall have power to levy an incom< 
 tax, and to tax all persons pursuing anj 
 occupation, trade or profession. 
 
 Art. 128. The citizens of the city toil 
 New Orleans shall have the right of ap. 
 pointing the several public officers neces 
 sary for the administration of the police oi j 
 the said city, pursuant to the mode of elec- 
 tions which shall be prescribed by the] 
 legislature; provided, that the mayor and] 
 recorders shall be ineligible to a seat in 
 the general assembly; and the mayor, re- ! 
 corders and aldermen shall be commissi^ 
 ed by the governor as justices of the pe&c^ 
 and the legislature may vest in them sot! 
 criminal jurisdiction as may be necessarj 
 for the punishment of minor crimes anc 
 offences, and as the police and good ordei 1 
 of said city may require. 
 
 Art. 129. The legislature may provide 
 by law in what case officers shall continue 
 to perform the duties of their offices unti] 
 their successors shall have been inducted 
 into office. 
 
 Art. 130. Any citizen 1 of this State who 
 shall, after the adoption of this constitutions 
 fight a duel with deadly weapons with a 
 citizen of ttais State, or send or accept a 
 challenge to fight a duel with deadly wea- 
 pons, either within the State or out of it, 
 with a citizen of this State, or who shall 
 act as second, or knowingly aid and assist 
 in any manner those thus oflendmg, shall 
 be deprived of holding any office of trust 
 or profit, and of enjoying the right of suf- 
 frage under this constitution. 
 
 Art. 131. The legislature shall have 
 power to extend this constitution, and the 
 jurisdiction of this State over any. territory 
 acquired by compact with any State, or 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 321 
 
 with the United States, the same being 
 done by the consent of the United States. 
 
 Art. 132. The constitution and laws of 
 this State, shall be promulgated in the En- 
 glish and French languages. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow at 9 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Wednesday, May 14, 1845. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to ad- 
 journment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Clark opened the pro- 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Read, chairman of the committee 
 on contingent ercpences, submitted the fol- 
 lowing report, and trie same was adopted, 
 viz: 
 
 " The committee on contingent expen- 
 ses beg leave to submit the following re- 
 port, in relation to the sale of furniture 
 used by the Convention while sitting in the 
 St. Louis Hotel: 
 
 Total amount of sales -$149.37^ 
 Of this sura Mr. Ratliff, chair- 
 man of the committee on 
 contingent expenses, collect- 
 ed #108,37 
 From A. Boudousquie 812,50 
 il Jacob Humble 4,12^- 
 44 A. Read 12,50 
 < ; R. C. Hynson 6 ; 25 
 44 J. B. Wederstrandt 2,00 
 « H. Waddill 12,50 
 41 Jas. Carpenter 7,10 
 44 Geo. Eustis 3,66| 
 44 W. Burton ,25^ 
 41 M. G. Penn 11,00 
 44 W. C. C. Glaiborne 7,75 
 44 W. B. Scott 12.50 
 Amount sold at auction 16,25 
 
 $108,39^ 
 
 All of which will more fully appear from 
 vouchers in the treasurer's office. Mr. i 
 Ratliff authorized the committe to deposit | 
 his per diem and mileage warrants in the 
 State treasury, amounting to one hundred 
 and twelve dollars eighty cents, as security 
 for the payment of the sum in his hands; 
 which has been done. 
 
 Your committee has since collected the 
 gum of fifteen dollars, to wit: 
 
 From Horatio Davis $10,00 
 44 Wm. Ruflier 5,00 
 
 $15,00 
 
 which has been paid into the treasury, 
 41 
 
 Eighteen dollars are yet due by Mr. B. 
 R. Mills, which will probably never be 
 collected. 
 
 All which is submitted, 
 
 (Signed) A. READ, 
 
 Acting Chairman Com. contingent ex- 
 penses." 
 
 Mr. Read submitted the following res- 
 olution, and the same was adopted, viz: 
 
 "Resolved, that the committee on con- 
 tingent expenses be authorized to issue 
 warrants in favor of W. Bloomfleld, book- 
 seller, for the sum of twenty dollars; in 
 favor of A. Brusle for five dollars; in fa- 
 vor of James Carpenter for five dollars ana 
 twenty-five cents; in favor of D. Jamier 
 for twenty-five dollars/' 
 
 Mr. Saunders submitted the following, 
 and the same was adopted, viz: 
 
 "Ordered, that this constitution be pub- 
 lished in newspapers as follows, to wit. — 
 In the New Orleans Bee, Louisiana Cou- 
 rier, Jeffersonian and Bulletin, and in all 
 the country papers printed in the State, 
 and the publishers of said papers shall 
 each be entitled to receive from the 
 treasury, on their own warrants, the sum 
 of twenty-five dollars for the said publica- 
 tion, when made in English only, and fifty 
 dollars when made in English and French; 
 Provided, said publication he made within 
 twenty days after the adjournment of the 
 Convention." 
 
 On motion, the article on impeachment 
 w t ss taken up for third reading, and adopt- 
 ed, as reported, viz: 
 
 TITLE V. 
 
 IMPEACHMENT. 
 
 Art. 84. The power of impeachment 
 shall be vested in the house of representa- 
 tives. 
 
 Art. 85. Impeachments of the gover, 
 nor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, 
 secretary of State, State treasurer, and the 
 judges of the district courts, shall be tried 
 by the senate; the chief justice of the su- 
 preme court, or the senior judofe thereof, 
 shall preside during the trial of such im- 
 peachments. Impeachments of the judges 
 ot the supreme court shall be tried by the 
 senate. AVhen sitting as a court of im- 
 peachment, the senators shall be upon oath 
 or affirmation, and no person shall be con- 
 victed without the concurrence of two- 
 thirds of the senators present. 
 
 Art. 86. Judgment? in cases of im 
 
322 
 
 Journal of the Conventio?i of Louisiana* 
 
 peachment shall extend only to removal 
 from office and disqualification from hold- 
 ing any office of honor, trust or profit un- 
 der this State; but the parties convicted 
 shall, neveitheless, be subject to indict- 
 ment, trial and punishment, according to 
 Taw. 
 
 Art. 87. All officers against whom articles 
 of impeachment may be preferred, shall 
 be suspended from the exercise of their 
 functions during the pendency of such im- 
 peachment. The appointing power may 
 make a provisional appointment to replace 
 any suspended officer until the decision on 
 the impeachment. 
 
 Art. 88. The legislature shall provide 
 by law for the trial, punishment and remo- 
 val from office of all other officers of the 
 State, by indictment or otherwise. 
 
 On motion, the report of the committee 
 of revision in relation to public education 
 was taken up for its third reading, viz: 
 TITLE VII. 
 
 PUBLIC EDUCATION. 
 
 Art. 133. There shall be appointed a 
 superintendent of public education, who 
 shall hold his office for two years. His 
 duties shall be prescribed by law. He 
 shall receive compensation as the legisla- 
 ture may direct. 
 
 Art. 134. The legislature shall establish 
 free public schools throughout the State, 
 and shall provide means for their support 
 by taxation on property or otherwise. 
 
 Art. 135. The proceeds of ail lands 
 heretofore granted by the United States to 
 this State for the use or support of schools, 
 and of all lands which may hereafter be 
 granted or bequeathed to the State, and not 
 expressly granted or bequeathed for any 
 other purpose, which hereafter may be 
 disposed of by the State, and the proceeds 
 of the estates of deceased persons to which 
 the State may become entitled by law, 
 shall be held by the State as a loan, and 
 shall be and remain a perpetual fund, on 
 which the State shall pay an annual inter- 
 est of six per cent; which interest together 
 with all the rents of the unsold lands, shall 
 be appropriated to the support of such 
 schools, and this appropriation shall remain 
 inviolable. 
 
 Art. 136. All moneys arising from the 
 sale which have been or may hereafter be 
 made of any lands heretofore granted by the 
 United States to this State, for the use of a 
 
 seminary of learning, and from any kind of 
 donation that may hereafter be made for 
 that purpose, shall be and remain a perpet- 
 ual fund, the interest of which at six per 
 cent per annum, shall be appropriated to 
 the support of a seminary of learning for 
 the promotion of literature and the arts and 
 sciences, and no law shall ever be made 
 diverting said fund to any other use than to ! 
 the establishmeht and improvement of said 
 seminary of learning. ^ 
 
 Art. 137. An university shall be estab- 
 lished in the city of New Orleans. It shall 
 be composed of four faculties, to wit: one 
 of law, one of medicine, one of the natural 
 sciences, and one of letters. 
 
 Art. 138. It shall be called " the Uni- 
 versity of Louisiana," and the Medical Col- 
 lege of Louisian as at present organized^ 
 shall constitute the faculty of medicine. 
 
 Art. 139. The legislature shall provide 
 by law, for its further organization and go- 
 vernment; but shall be under no obligation 
 to contribute to the establishment or sup- 
 port of said university by appropriations, j 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption moved to 
 amend the first section by striking out the 
 words ''appointed" and insert in lieu there- 
 of the words "elected by the qualified 
 electors of the State." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Beatty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, 
 Brumfield, Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chain- 
 bliss, Covillion, Hudspeth, Humble, Hyn- 
 son, Ledoux, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, 
 Mayo, Peets, Porter, Prescott of Avoy- 
 elles, Prescott of St. Landry, Preston, 
 Prudhomme, Pugh, Read, Saunders, Scott 
 of Baton Rouge, Scott of Madison, Sel- 
 lers, Stephens, Taylor of Assumption, Tay- 
 lor of St. Landry, Wederstrandt and Wad- 
 dill voted in the affirmative — 35 yeas; and 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Briant, Ce- 
 nas, Chinn, Conrad of Orleans, Conrad of 
 Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, Dunn, Eus- 
 tis, Garcia, Garrett-, Grymes, Guion, La» 
 bauve, Legendre, Marigny, Mazureau, Ro- 
 man, Roselius, St. Amand, Voorhies, 
 Winchester and Winder voted in the neg- 
 ative — 25 nays; consequently the motion 
 was lost, and the said report was adopted 
 as reported above. 
 
 On motion, the report of the committee 
 of revision, on the mode of revising the 
 constitution was taken up for its third read- 
 ing, viz: 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 TITLE VIII. •* 
 
 :-I0i)E OF REVISING THE CONSTITUTION. 
 
 Art. 140. Any amendment or amend, 
 ments to this constitution maybe proposed 
 in the senate or house of representatives, 
 and if the same shall be agreed to by three- 
 fifths of the members elected to each house 
 and approved by the governor, such pro- 
 posed amendment or amendments, shall 
 be entered on their journals, with the yeas 
 and nays taken thereon, and the secretary 
 of state shall cause the same to be pub- 
 lished three months before the next gen- 
 eral election, in at least one newspaper in 
 French and English, in every parish in 
 the State in which a newspaper shall be 
 published; and if, in the legislature next 
 afterwards chosen, such proposed amend- 
 ment or amendments shall be agreed to by 
 a majority of the members elected to each 
 house, the secretary of state shall cause 
 the same to be again published in the man- 
 Iner aforesaid, at least three months pre- 
 vious to the next general election for rep- 
 resentatives to the State legislature, and 
 such proposed amendment or amendments 
 shall be submitted to the people at said 
 flection; and if a majority of the qualified 
 electors shall approve and ratify such 
 amendment or amendments, the same shall 
 become a part of the constitution: If more 
 than one amendment be submitted at a 
 time, they shall be submitted in such man- 
 ner and form that the people may vote for 
 or against each amendment, separately. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption moved to 
 amend said article by striking out in the 
 fourth line the words ."three-fifths," and 
 insert in lieu thereof 4i a majority." 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent. Brumfield, 
 Cade, Chambiiss, Covillion, DuBouchel, 
 Garrett, Humble, Hynson, Ledoux, Mc- 
 Callop, McRae, Mayo, Peets, Penn, Por- 
 ter. Prescott of Avoyelles, Prescott of St. 
 Landry, Preston, Read, Seott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Madison, Stephens. TV.y- 
 [or of Assumption, Voorhies, Waddill and 
 Wederstrandt voted in the affirmative — 23 
 jyeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Briant. Burton, Carriere, 
 Cenas, Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 eans, Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Der- 
 jes, Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Grymes, Guion, 
 Hudspeth, Kenner. Labauve, Legendre, 
 
 Lewis, Marigny, Mazureau, Prudhomme, 
 Pugh, Roman, Roselius, St. Amand, Sel- 
 lers, Soule, Taylor of St. Landry, Wads- 
 worth, Winchester and Winder voted in 
 the negative — 38 nays; con^quently said 
 motion was lost, and the report was adopt- 
 ed. 
 
 On motion, the schedule was taken up 
 for its third reading, as follows, viz: 
 TITLE IX. 
 
 SCHEDULE. 
 
 Art. 141. The Constitution adopted in 
 1812 is declared to be superseded by this 
 Constitution, and in order to carry the same 
 into affect, it is hereby declared and ordain- 
 ed as folllows : 
 
 Art. 142. All rights, actions, prosecu- 
 tions, claims and contracts, as well of indi- 
 viduals as of bodies corporate, and all laws 
 in force at the time of the adoption of this 
 Constitution, and not inconsistent therewith 
 shall continue as if the same had not been 
 adopted. 
 
 Art. 143. Until the first enumeration 
 shall be made as directed in article eighth, 
 of this Constitution, the parish of Orleans 
 shall have twenty representatives, to be 
 elected as follows, viz: 
 
 Eight by the First Municipality, seven 
 by the Second Municipality, and four by 
 the Third Municipality, to be distributed 
 among the nine representative districts as 
 follows, by allotting to the 
 
 First district, two Rep. 
 
 Second 4; two 
 Third 44 three 
 Fourth 44 three 
 Fifth 44 three 
 Sixth 44 two 
 Seventh 41 two 
 Eighth 44 one 
 Ninth " one 
 And to that part of the parish on the rio-ht 
 bank of the Mississippi, one 
 The parish of Plaquemines, 
 
 shall have three 
 s: St. Bernard, one 
 " Jefferson, three 
 ;< St. Charles, one 
 44 St. John the Baptist, one 
 " St. James, two 
 44 Ascension, two 
 4i Assumption, three 
 " Lafourche Interior. three 
 " Terrebone, two 
 44 Iberville. two 
 
324 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 The parish of West Baton Rouge, one 
 
 (( 
 
 J-jdbL UO. 
 
 three 
 
 It 
 
 West Feliciana, 
 
 two 
 
 u 
 
 III do t UO 
 
 three 
 
 it 
 
 
 one 
 
 it m 
 
 Washington, 
 
 one 
 
 14 
 
 Livingston, 
 
 one 
 
 
 t 1 ■ o m m t ii \r 
 KJ I. J. alii 111 ally , 
 
 one 
 
 (S 
 
 Point Coupee, 
 
 one 
 
 (« 
 
 Concordia, 
 
 one 
 
 
 1 P>T C '3 C 
 
 X CilodS, 
 
 one 
 
 >.' 
 
 n nicnn 
 lYXdUl&Ull, 
 
 one 
 
 « 
 
 1 . O T 1 ^^ 1 1 
 
 v^drroii, 
 
 one 
 
 tt 
 
 c 
 
 i 1 cllllvllll , 
 
 one 
 
 »» 
 
 St Marv 
 
 two 
 
 u 
 
 Gf lY/Fovtin 
 
 iol. iviarun, 
 
 three 
 
 M 
 
 V P x* m ill i n n 
 
 » CI 111 llllUll 9 
 
 one 
 
 il 
 
 _I_jclJ d^ G lie, 
 
 two 
 
 u 
 
 S»,t 1 ■ Q 11 rl Y" T7" 
 
 cji. j^diiaiy, 
 
 five 
 
 it 
 
 <UaludbieUi 
 
 one 
 
 tt 
 
 Avoyelles 
 
 two 
 
 tt 
 
 Rapides, 
 
 three 
 
 
 Natchitoches., 
 
 three 
 
 
 Sabine, 
 
 two 
 
 <{ 
 
 in ., ,i j 
 
 one 
 
 t ( 
 
 Uc OOIO, 
 
 one 
 
 (( 
 
 Ouachita, 
 
 one 
 
 <t 
 
 Morehouse, 
 
 one 
 
 u 
 
 Union 
 
 one 
 
 tt 
 
 Jackson, 
 
 one 
 
 (( 
 
 Caldwell, 
 
 one 
 
 it 
 
 Catahoula, 
 
 two 
 
 tt 
 
 Claiborne, 
 
 two 
 
 44 
 
 Bossier, 
 
 one 
 
 Total, ninety-eight. 
 
 And the State shall be divided into the 
 following senatorial districts : 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river shall compose one senatorial district, 
 and shall elect four senators; 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines, St. Ber- 
 nard, and that part of the parish of Or- 
 leans lying on the right bank of the river, 
 shall compose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of Jefferson shall compose 
 one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of St. Charles and St. 
 John the Baptist shall compose one dis- 
 trict, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of St. James shall compose 
 one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of Ascension shall compose 
 one district with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Assumptton, Lafourche 
 
 Interior arftl Terrebonne shall compose 
 one district, with two senators; 
 
 ' The parishes of Iberville and West 
 Baton Rouge shall compose one district, 
 with one senator; 
 
 The parish of East Baton Rouge shall 
 compose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of Point Coupee shall com. 
 pose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of Avoyelles shall compose 
 one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of St. Mary shall compose 
 one distrtct, with one senator;- 
 
 The parish of St. Martin shall compose 
 one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Lafayette and Vermil- 
 lion shall compose one district, with one 
 senator; 
 
 The parishes of St. Landry and Calca* 
 sieu, shall compose one district, with two 
 senators; 
 
 The parish of West Feliciana shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of East Feliciana shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of St. Helena and Livings- 
 ton shall compose one district, with one 
 senator; 
 
 The parishes of Washington and Si 
 Tammany, shall compose one district, with 
 one. senator; 
 
 The parishes of Concordia and Tensas 
 shall compose one district with one sen- 
 ator; 
 
 The parishes of Carroll and Madison 
 shall compose one district, with one sen. 
 atpr; 
 
 The parishes of Jackson, Union, More- 
 house and Ouachita shall compose one dis- 
 trict, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Caldwell, Franklin and 
 Catahoula shall compose one district, with 
 one senator; 
 
 The parish of Rapides shall compose 
 one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Bossier and Claiborne 
 shall compose one district, with one sen? 
 a tor; 
 
 The parish of Natchitoches shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Sabine, De Soto and 
 Caddo shall compose one district, with one 
 senator; 
 
 And whenever a new parish shall be crea, 
 ted,it shall be attached to the senatorial dis* 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 325 
 
 rict from which most of its territory was 
 aken or to another contiguous district at 
 hediscretion of the legislature, but shall not 
 :>e attached to more than one district. 
 
 Art. 144. In order that no inconveni- 
 mce may result to the public service from 
 ihe taking effect of this Constititution, no 
 office shall be superseded thereby ; but the 
 aws of the State relative to the duties of 
 he several officers, executive, judicial and 
 Military, shall remain in full force, though 
 :he same be contrary to this Constitution, 
 md the several duties shall be performed 
 by the respective officejs of the State accor- 
 iincr to the existing laws, until the organi- 
 zation of the government under this Con- 
 stitution, and the entering into office of the 
 new officers, to be appointed under said 
 r {government, and no longer. , 
 
 Art. 14a. Appointments to office by 
 ||the executive under this Constitution, shall 
 i jbe made by the governor to be elected wi- 
 lder its authority. 
 
 \rt. 146. The provisions of article 28, 
 concerning the inability of members of the 
 legislature to hold certain offices therein 
 mentioned, shall not be held to apply to 
 the members of the first legislature elected 
 unde r this Constitution. 
 
 Art. 147. The time of service of all of- 
 ficers chosen by the people, at the first 
 election under this Constitution, shall ter- 
 minate as though the election had been hoi- 1 
 [den on the first Monday of November; 
 1345, and they had entered on the discharge 
 of their duties at the time designated therein. 
 
 Art. 148. The legislature shall provide 
 for the removal of all causes now pending 
 in the supreme or other courts of the 
 courts under the Constitution of 1812, to 
 State created by this Constitution. 
 
 Art. 149. Appeals to the supreme 
 court from the parishes of Jackson, Union, 
 Morehouse, Catahoula, Caldwell, Ouachi- 
 ta, Franklin, Carroll, Madison, Tensas, 
 and Concoreia, shall until otherwise provi- 
 dod for, be returnable to New Orleans. 
 
 Mr. Winchester moved to amend the 
 first ordinance by striking out the words 
 * 4 and under this constitution." 
 
 The ye^s and nays being called for; 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Beatty, Benjamin, Bou- 
 dousquie, Bourg, Briant, Cade, Cenas, 
 Chinn, Claiborne, Conrad of Orleans, 
 Conrad of Jefferson, Culbertson, Derbes, 
 : Garcia, Guion, Hudspeth, Keneer, La- 
 
 bauve, Legendre, Lewis, Marigny, Mazu- 
 reau, Pugh, Roman. Roselius, St. Amand, 
 Saunders, Sellers, Taylor, of St. Landry, 
 Wadsworth, Winchester and Winder voted 
 in the affirmative — 33 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Carriere, Chambliss, Covillion, 
 Downs, DuBouchel, Eustis, Garrett, Hyn- 
 son, Humble, Ledoux, McCallop, McRae, 
 May, Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Pres- 
 ton, Prudhomme, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Scott of Madison* Splane, Ste- 
 phens, Taylor of Assumption, Trist, Voor- 
 hies, Wad dill and Wederstrandt voted in 
 the negative —34 nays; consequently said 
 motion was lost, and the schedule was 
 adopted as reported above. 
 
 It being the hour fixed, Mr. Voorhies 
 moved that the vote be taken on the final 
 passage of the constitution. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Joseph Walker, president, Beat- 
 ty, Bourg, Brazeale, Brent, Brumfield, 
 Burton, Cade, Carriere, Chambliss, Chinn, 
 Covillion, Culbertson, Downs, DuBouchel, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garrett, Guion, Hudspeth, 
 Humble, Hynspn, Kenner, Labauve, Le- 
 doux, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Marigny, 
 Mayo, Peets, Penn, Porter, Prescott of 
 Avoyelles, Prescott of St. Landry, Pres- 
 ton, Prudhomme, Pugh, Read, Roselius, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Scott of 
 Madison, Sellers, Soule, Splane, Stephens, 
 Tayior of Assumption, Taylor of St. Lan- 
 dry, Trist, Voorhies, Waddill, Wadsworth, 
 Wederstrandt and Winder voted in the af- 
 firmative — 55 yeas;and 
 
 Messrs. Aubert, Benjamin, Boudousquie, 
 Briant, Cenas, Claiborne, Conrad of Or- 
 leans, Conrad of Jefferson, Derbes, Garcia, 
 Legendre, ?>Iazureau, Roman, St. Amand 
 and Winchester voted in the negative — 15 
 nays; consequently said motion was car- 
 ried, and the constitution adopted, as fol- 
 lows, viz: 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE 
 STATE OF LOUISIANA. 
 
 PREAMBLE. 
 
 We the people of the State of Louisiana 
 do ordain and establish this Constitution. 
 TITLE I. 
 distribution or powers. 
 Art. 1. The powers of the government 
 of the State of Louisiana shall be divided 
 
326 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 into three distinct departments, and each 
 of them be confided to a separate body of 
 magistracy, to wit: those which are legis- 
 lative to one; those which are executive to 
 another, and those which are judicial to 
 another. 
 
 Art. 2. No one of these departments, 
 nor any person holding office in one of 
 them, shall exercise power properly be- 
 longing to either of the others, except in 
 the instances hereinafter expressly direct- 
 ed or permitted. 
 
 TITLE II. 
 
 LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Art. 3. The legislative powers of the 
 State shall be vested in two distinct branch- 
 es, the one to be styled the "house of rep- 
 resentatives," the other "the senate," and 
 both "the general assembly of the State 
 of Louisiana." 
 
 Art. 4. The members of the house of 
 representatives shall continue in service 
 for the term of two years from the day of 
 the closing of the general elections. 
 
 Art. 5. Representatives shall be chosen 
 on the first Monday in November, every 
 two years; and the election shall be com- 
 pleted in one day. The general assembly 
 shall meet every second year, on the third 
 Monday in January next ensuing the elec- 
 tion, unless a different day be appointed 
 by law, and their session shall be held at 
 the seat of government. 
 
 Art. 6. No person shall be a represen- 
 tative, who, at the time of his election, is 
 not a free white male, and has not been for 
 three years a citizen of the United States, 
 and has not attained the age of twenty-one 
 years, and resided in the State for the three 
 years next preceding the election, and the 
 last year thereof in the parish for which 
 he may be chosen. 
 
 Art. 7. Elections for representatives 
 for the several parishes or representative 
 districts shall be held at the several elec- 
 tion precincts established by law. The 
 legislature may delegate the power of es- 
 tablishing election precincts to the paro- 
 chial or municipal authorities. 
 
 Art. 8. Representation in the house of 
 representatives, shall be equal and uniform, 
 and shall be regulated and ascertained by 
 the number of qualified electors. Each 
 parish shall have at least one representa- 
 tive; no new parish shall be created with 
 
 a territory less than six hundred and twen- 
 ty-five square miles, ner with a number ol 
 electors less than the full number entitling 
 it to a representative, nor when the crea- 
 tion of such new parish would leave any 
 other parish without the said extent of ter- 
 ritory and number of electors. 
 
 The first enumeration to be made by the 
 State authorities under this constitution 
 shall be made in the year \ 847, the second 
 in the year 1855; and the subsequent enu- 
 merations shall be made every tenth year 
 thereafter, in such manner as shall be pre- 
 scribed by law for the purpose of ascer- 
 taining the total population and the number 
 of qualified electors in each parish and 
 election district. 
 
 At the first regular session of the legis- 
 lature after the making of each enumera- 
 tion, the legislature shall apportion the re- 
 presentation amongst the several parishes 
 and election districts on the basis of quali- 
 fied electors as aforesaid. A representa- 
 tive number shall be fixed, and each parish 
 and election district shall have as many 
 representatives as the aggregate number 
 of its electors will entitle it to, and an 
 additional representative for any fraction 
 exceeding one half the representative 
 number. The number of representatives 
 shall not be more than one hundred nor 
 less than seventy. 
 
 That part of the parish of Orleans situ- 
 ated on the left bank of the Mississippi, 
 shall be divided into nine representative 
 districts, as follows, viz : 
 
 1st. First district to extend from the line 
 of the parish of Jefferson to the middle of 
 Benjamin, Estelle and Thalia streets. 
 
 2d. Second district to extend from the 
 last mentioned limits to the middle of 
 Julia street, until it strikes the New Or- 
 leans canal, thence down said canal to the 
 lake. 
 
 3d. Third district to comprise the resi- 
 due of the Second Municipality. 
 
 4th. Fourth district to extend from the 
 middle of Canal street to the middle of 
 St. Louis street, until it reaches the Me- 
 tairie road, thence along said road to the 
 New Orleans canal. ^ 
 
 5th. Fifth district to extend from the last 
 mentioned limits to the middle of St. Philip 
 street, thence down said street until its in- 
 terseetion with the bayou St. John, thence 
 
Journal of the Convention of liouisiana. 
 
 32? 
 
 ilong the middle of said bayou until it in- 
 ersects the Metairie road, thence along said 
 road until it reaches St. Louis street. 
 
 6th. Sixth district to be composed of the 
 residue of the First Municipality. 
 
 7th. Seventh district, from the middle j 
 Esplanade street to the middle of Champs \ 
 Blysees street. 
 
 8th, Eighth district, from the middle of 
 Uhamps Elysees street to the middle of 
 Soghein street and Lafayette Avenue. 
 
 9th. Ninth district, from the middle of 
 Snghein street and Lafayette Avenue to 
 he lower limits of the parish. 
 
 Abt. 9. The house of representatives 
 ;hall choose its speaker and other officers. 
 
 Art. 10. In all elections by the people, 
 p.very free white male who has attained 
 he age of twenty-one years, and resided 
 n the State two consecutive years next 
 Preceding the election, and the last year 
 •hereof in the parish in which he offers 
 o vote, shall have the right of voting. 
 Provided, that no person shall be deprived 
 f)f the right of voting who at the time of 
 he adoption of this constitution was enti- 
 tled to that right under the constitution of 
 1812. Electors shall, in all cases, except 
 treason, felony, breach or surety of the 
 )eace, be privileged from arrest during 
 heir attendance at, going to, or returning 
 rom elections. 
 
 I Art. 11. Absence from the State for more 
 han ninety consecutive days, shall inter- 
 •upt the acquisition of the residence requi- 
 •ed in the preceding article, unless the 
 )erson absenting himself shall be a house- 
 keeper, or shall occupy a tenement for car- 
 ■ying on business, and his dwelling house 
 >r tenement for carrying on business shall 
 >e actually occupied during his absence, by 
 
 I lis family or servants, or some portion 
 hereof, or by some one employed by him. 
 j Abt. 12. No soldier, seaman or marine 
 n the army or navy of the United States, 
 10 pauper, no person under interdiction, nor 
 inder conviction of any crime punishable 
 vith hard labor, shall be entitled to vote 
 it any election in the State. 
 
 Art. 13. No person shall be entitled to 
 •ote at any election held in this State, ex- 
 cept in the parish of his residence, and in 
 bities and towns divided into election pre- 
 kincts, in the election precinct in which 
 le resides. 
 Art. 14, The members of the senate 
 
 shall be chosen for the term of four years. 
 The senate when assembled, shall have 
 the power to choose its officers every two 
 years. 
 
 Art. 15. The legislature in every year in 
 which they shall apportion representation in 
 the house of representatives shall divide the 
 State into senatorial districts. Xo parish 
 shall be divided in the formation of a sena- 
 torial district, the parish of Orleans ex- 
 cepted. And whenever a new parish shall 
 be created, it shall be attached to the sena- 
 torial district from which most of its ter- 
 ritory was taken, or to another contiguous 
 district, at the discretion of the legislature; 
 but shall not be attached to more than one ' 
 district. The number of senators shall be 
 thirty-two, and they shall be apportioned 
 among the senatorial districts according to 
 the total population contained in the seve- 
 ral districts: Provided, that no parish shall 
 be entitled to more than one-eighth of the 
 whole number of senators. 
 
 Art. 16. Li all apportionments of the 
 senate, the population of the city of New 
 Orleans shall be deducted from the popu- 
 lation of the whole State, and the remain- 
 der of the population divided by the number 
 twenty eight, and me result produced by 
 this division shall be the senatorial ratio 
 entitling a senatorial district to a senator. 
 Single or contiguous parishes shall be 
 formed into districts having a population 
 the nearest possible to the number entitling 
 a district to a senator; and if in the appor- 
 tionment to be made, a parish or district 
 fall short of or exceed the ratio, one-fifth, 
 then a district may be formed having not 
 more than two senators, but not otherwise. 
 
 Xo new apportionment shall have the 
 effect of abridging the term of service of 
 any senator already elected at the time of 
 making the apportionment. 
 
 After an enumeration has been made as 
 directed in the eighth article, the legisla- 
 ture shall not pass any laws until an ap- 
 portionment of the representation in both 
 houses of the general assembly be made. 
 
 Art. 17. At the first session of the 
 general assembly, after this constitution 
 takes effect, the senators shall be equally 
 divided by lot into two classes ■ the seats 
 of the senators of the first class shall be va- 
 cated at the expiration of the second year, 
 of the second class at the expiration of the 
 fourth year; so that one-half shall be chosen 
 
328 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 every two years, and a rotation thereby kept 
 up perpetually. In case any district shall 
 have elected two or more senators, said 
 senators shall vacate their seats respective- 
 ly at the end of two and four years, and 
 the lots shall be drawn between them. 
 
 Art. IS. No person shall be a senator, 
 who at the time of his election, has not 
 been a citizen of the United States ten 
 years, "and who has not attained the age of 
 twenty. seven years. and resided in the State 
 four years next preceding his election, 
 and the last year thereof in the district in 
 which he may be chosen. 
 
 Art. 19. The first election for senators 
 shall be general throughout the State, and 
 at the same time that the general election 
 for representatives is held; and thereafter 
 there shall be biennial elections to fill the 
 place of those whose time of service may 
 have expired. 
 
 Art. 20. Not less than a majority of the 
 members of each house of the general as- 
 sembly shall form a quorum to do business; 
 but a smaller number may adjourn from 
 day to day, and shall be authorised by 
 law to compel the attendance of absent 
 members. 
 
 Art. 21. Each house of the general 
 assembly shall judge of the qualification, 
 election and returns of its members; but a 
 contested election shall be determined in 
 such manner as shall be directed by law. 
 
 Art. 22. Each house of the general 
 Assembly may determine the rules of its 
 proceedings, punish a member for disor- 
 derly behavior, and with the concurrence 
 of two-thirds expel a member, but not a 
 second time for the same offence. 
 
 Art. 23. .Each house of the general as- 
 sembly shall keep and publish weekly a 
 journal of its proceedings; and the yeas 
 and nays of the members on any question 
 shall, at the desire of any two of them, be 
 entered on the journal. 
 
 Art. 24. Each house may punish by im- 
 prisonment any person not a member, for 
 disrespectful and disorderly behavior, in 
 its presence or for obstructing any of its 
 proceedings. Such imprisonment shall not 
 exceed ten days for any one offence. 
 
 Art. 25. Neither house, during the ses- 
 sion of the general assembly, shall without 
 the consent of the other, adjourn for more 
 than three days, nor to any other place 
 than that in which they may be sitting. 
 
 Art. 26. The members of the genera' 
 assembly shall receive from the publk 
 treasury a compensation for their services, 
 which shall be four dollars per day during 
 their attendance, going to and returning 
 from me session of their respective houses, 
 The compensation may -be increased oij 
 diminished by law; but no alteration shall 
 take effect during the period of service o :i 
 the members of the house of representa 
 tives by whom such alterations shall have 
 been made. No session shall extend to n 
 period beyond sixty days, to date from iu 
 commencement, and any legislative actior 
 had after the expiration of the said sixty 
 days, shall be null and void. This pro 
 vision shall not apply to the first legisla 
 ture which is to convene after the adoptioi 
 of this constitution. 
 
 Art. 27. The members of the genera 
 assembly shall, in all cases except treason 
 felony, breach or surety of the peace, be 
 privileged from arrest during their attend 
 ance at the sessions of their respective 
 houses; and going to or returning from the 
 same, and for any speech or debate in 
 either house, they shall not be questioned 
 in any other place. 
 
 Art. 28. No senator or representatb 
 shall, during the term for which he 
 elected, nor for one year thereafter, be ap 
 pointed or elected to any civil office o! 
 profit under this State, which shall hav( 
 been created or the emoluments of whicl 
 shall have been increased during the tirm 
 such senator or representative was if 
 office, except to such offices' or appoint 
 ments as may be filled by the elections o 
 the people. 
 
 Art. 29. No person, While he continues 
 to exercise the functions of a clergyman, 
 priest or teacher of any religious persua- 
 sion, society or sect, shall be eligible tc 
 the general assembly. 
 
 Art. 30. No person who at any tirm 
 may have been a collector of taxes, or who 
 may have been otherwise entrusted with 
 public money, shall be eligible to the 
 general assembly, or to any other office of 
 profit or trust under the State government, 
 until he shall have obtained a discharge 
 for the amount of such collections, and for 
 all public moneys with which he may 
 have been entrusted. 
 
 Art. 31. No bill shall have the force of 
 a law until on three several days, it be read 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 329 
 
 over in each house of the general assem- 
 bly, and free discussion allowed thereon, 
 unless in case of urgency, four-fifths of the 
 house, where the bill shall be pending, may 
 deem it expedient to dispense with this rule. 
 
 Art. 32. All bilk for raising revenue i 
 shall originate in the house of representa- 
 tives, but the senate may propose amend- j 
 ments as in other bills ; 'provided, they j 
 shall not introduce any new matter under j 
 the color of an amendment which does not 
 relate to' raising revenue. 
 
 Art. 33. The general assembly shall 
 regulate by law, by whom, and in what j 
 manner, writs of election shall be issued, 
 to rill the vacancies which may happen in 
 either branch thereof. 
 
 Art. 34. A majority of all the members 
 elected to the senate, shall be required for i 
 the confirmation or rejection of officers to 
 be appointed by the governor, with the ad- 
 vice and consent of the senate; and the 
 senate, in deciding thereon, .shall vote by 
 yeas and nays, and the names of the sena- j 
 tors voting for and against the appoint- | 
 ments respectively, shall be entered on a 
 journal to be kept for that purpose, and i 
 made public at the end of each session, or 
 before. - 
 
 Art. 35. Returns of all elections tor 
 i members of the general assembly shall be 
 made to the secretary of state. 
 
 Art. 36. A treasurer of the State shall j 
 •. be elected biennially, bt joint ballot of the 
 two houses of the general assembly. The 
 governor shall hare the power to rill any 
 vacancy that may happen in that office 
 during the recess of the legislature. 
 
 Art. 37. In the year in which a regular 
 election of a senator of the United States ; 
 j is to take pluce, the members of the gene- 
 ral assembly shall meet in the hall of the 
 house of representatives, on the Monday 
 following the meeting of the legislature, j 
 and proceed to the said election. 
 
 TITLE III. 
 
 EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, 
 
 Art. 38. The supreme executive pow- 
 er of the State shall be vested in a chief 
 magistrate, who shall be styled the gover- 
 nor of the State of Louisiana. He" shall 
 hold his office during the term of four years; 
 and together with the lieutenant governor 
 chosen for the same term, be elected as j 
 follows:— -The. qualified electors for repre- ! 
 seti&fives, shall vote for a governor and i 
 
 lieutenant governor, at the time and place 
 of voting for representatives; the returns of 
 every election shall be sealed up and trans- 
 mitted by the proper returning officer to 
 the secretary of state: who shall deliver 
 them to the speaker of the house of repre- 
 sentatives on the second day of the session 
 of the general assembly, then next to be 
 holdem The members of the general as- 
 sembly shall meet in the house of repre- 
 sentatives, to examine and count the votes. 
 The person having the greatest number of 
 votes for governor shall be declared duly 
 elected, but if two or more persons shall be 
 equal and highest in the number of votes 
 polled for governor, one of them shall im- 
 mediately be chosen governor by joint rote 
 of the members of the general assembly. 
 The person having the greatest number of 
 votes for lieutenant governor shall be lieu- 
 tenant governor, but if two or more per- 
 sons shall be equal and highest in the num- 
 ber of votes polled for lieutenant governor, 
 one of them shall be immediately chosen 
 lieutenant governor by joint vote of the 
 members of the general assembly. 
 
 ,\st. 39. Xo person shall be eligible to 
 the office of governor or lieutenant govern- 
 or, who shall not have attained the age of 
 thirty-live years, been fifteen years a citi- 
 zen of the United States, and a resident 
 within this State for the same space of time 
 next preceding his election. 
 
 Art. 40. The governdr shall enter on 
 the discharge of his duties on the fourth 
 Monday of January next ensuing his elec- 
 tion, and shall continue in office until the 
 -Monday next succeeding the day that his 
 successor shall have been declared duly 
 elected, and shall have taken the oath or 
 affirmation prescribed by this Constitution. 
 
 Art. 4-1. The governor shall be ineligi- 
 ble for the succeeding four years after the 
 expiration of the time for which he shall 
 have been elected. 
 
 Art. 42. Xo member of congress or 
 person holding any office under the L'nited 
 States, or minister of any religious society, 
 shall be eligible to the office of governor or 
 lieutenant governor. 
 
 Art. 43. In case of the impeachment 
 of the governor, his removal from office, 
 death, refusal or inability to qualify, resig- 
 nation or absence from the State, the pow- 
 ers and duties of the office shall devolve 
 upon the lieutenant governor for the resi- 
 
330 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 due of the term, or until the governor, ab- 
 sent or impeached, shall return or be ac- 
 quitted. The legislature may provide by 
 law for the case of removal, impeachment, 
 death, resignation, disability; or refusal to 
 qualify, of both the governor and lieutenant 
 governor, declaring what officer shall act 
 as governor, and such officer shall act ac- 
 cordingly, until the disability be removed, 
 or for the residue of the term. 
 
 Art. 44. The lieutenant governor, or 
 other officer discharging the duties of gov- 
 ernor, shall, during his administration, re- 
 ceive the same compensation to whicji the 
 governor would have been entitled, had he 
 continued in office. 
 
 Art. 45. The lieutenant governor shall, 
 by virtue of his office, be president of the 
 senate, but shall have only a casting vote 
 therein. Whenever he shall administer 
 the government, or shall be unable to at- 
 tend as president of the senate the sena- 
 tors shall elect one of their own members 
 as president of the senate for the time 
 being. 
 
 Art. 46. While he acts as president of 
 the senate, the lieutenant governor shall 
 receive for his^ services the same compen- 
 sation which shall for the same period be 
 allowed to the speaker of the house of rep- 
 resentatives, and no more. 
 
 Art. 47. The governor shall have pow- 
 er to grant reprieves for all offences against 
 the State, and except in cases of impeach- 
 ment, shall, with the consent of the senate, 
 have power to grant pardons and remit 
 fines and forfeitures, after conviction. In 
 cases of treason he may grant reprieves, 
 until the end of the next session of the gen- 
 eral assembly, in which the power of par- 
 doning shall be vested. # 
 
 Art. 48. The governor shall at stated 
 limes receive for his services a compensa- 
 tion, which shall neither be increased or 
 diminished during the term for which he 
 shall have been elected. 
 
 Art. 49. He shall be communder-in- 
 chief of the army and navy of this State 
 and of the militia thereof, except when 
 they shall be called into the service of the 
 United States. 
 
 Art. 50. He shall nominate, and by and 
 with the advice and consent of the senate, 
 appoint all officers whose offices are es- 
 tablished by this constitution, and whose 
 appointment is not therein otherwise pro- 
 
 vided for: Provided, however, that the 
 legislature shall have a right to prescribe 
 the mode of appointment to all other offices 
 established by law. 
 
 Art. 51. The governor shall have pew- 
 er to fill vacancies that may happen during 
 the recess of the senate, by granting com- 
 missions which shall expire at the end of 
 the next session, unless otherwise provided 
 for in this constitution; but no person who 
 has been nominated for office, and rejected 
 by the senate, shall be appointed to the 
 same office during the recess of the senate 
 
 Art. 52. He may require information 
 in writing from the officers in the execu- 
 tive department, upon any subject relating 
 to the duties of their respective offices. 
 
 Art. 53. He shall from time to time, 
 give to the general assembly information 
 respecting the situation of the State, and 
 recommend to their consideration such 
 measures as he may deem expedient. 
 
 Art. 54. He may on extraordinary oc- 
 casions convene the general assembly at 
 the seat of government, or at a different 
 i place if that should become dangerous from 
 I an enemy or from epidemics; and in case 
 of disagreemet between the two houses as 
 to the time of adjournment, he may adjoura 
 them to such time as he may think proper, 
 not exceeding four months. 
 
 Art. 55. He shall take care that the 
 laws be faithfully executed. 
 
 Art. 56. Every bill which shall have 
 passed both houses shall be presented to 
 the governor; if he approve he shall sign 
 it, if not, he shall return it with his ob- 
 jections to the house in which it origina- 
 ted, which* shall enter the objections at 
 large upon its journal, and proceed to re- 
 consider it; if after such reconsideration 
 two-thirds of all the members elected to 
 that house shall agree to pass the bill, it 
 shall be sent with the objections to the 
 other house, by which it shall likewise be 
 reconsidered, and if approved by two- thirds 
 of all the members elected to that house, 
 it shall be a law; but in such cases the vote 
 of both houses shall be determined by yeas 
 and nays, and the names of the members 
 voting for and against the bill, shall be en- 
 tered on the journal of each house respec- 
 tively. If any bill shall not be returned 
 by the governor within ten days (Sundays 
 excepted) after it shall have been presented 
 to him, it shall be a law in like manner as 
 
Journal of the Contention of Louisiana. 
 
 331 
 
 if he had signed it, unless the general as- 
 sembly by adjournment, prevent its return; 
 in which case it shall bea law, unless sent 
 back within three days after their next 
 meeting. 
 
 Art." 57. Every order, resolution or vote 
 to which the concurrence of both houses 
 may be necessary, except on a question of 
 adjournment, shall be presented to the gov- 
 ernor, and before it shall take effect, be 
 approved - by him, or being disapproved, 
 shall be repassed by two-thirds of the 
 members elected to each, house of the gen- 
 eral assembly. 
 
 Art. 59. There shall be a secretary of 
 state, who shall hold his office during the 
 time for which the governor shall have 
 been elected. The records of the State 
 shall be kept and preserved in the office of 
 the secretary; he shall keep a fair register 
 of the official acts and proceedings of the 
 governor, and when necessary shall attest 
 them. He shall, when required, lay the 
 said register, and all papers, minutes and 
 vouchers relative to his office, before either 
 house of the general assembl}^ and shall 
 perform such other duties as may be en- 
 joined on him by lav,-. 
 
 -\rt. 59. All commissions shall be in 
 the name and by the authority of the State 
 of Louisiana, and shall be sealed with the 
 } State seal and signed by the governor. 
 Art. 60.' The free white men of the 
 State shall be armed and disciplined for 
 j its defence; but those who belong to reli- 
 gious societies whose tenets forbid them to 
 carry arms, shall not be compelled so to do, 
 but shall pay an equivalent for -personal ser- 
 vices. 
 
 Art. 61. The militia of the State shall 
 f [be organized in such manner as may be 
 ' "hereafter deemed most expedient by the 
 legislature. 
 
 TITLE IV. 
 
 JUDICIARY DEPAR3IEXT. 
 
 Art. 62. The judicial power shall be j 
 vested in a supreme court, in district courts 
 >and injustices of the peace. 
 
 Art. 63. The supreme court, except in ' 
 cases hereinafter provided,, shall have ap- ; 
 pellate jurisdiction only, which jurisdiction j 
 shall extend to all cases when the matter j 
 in dispute shall exceed three hundred dol- 
 lars, to all cases in which the constitution- 
 ality of any tax, toll, or impost of any kind 
 pr nature soever, shall be in contestation. 
 
 ! whatever may be the amount thereof; and 
 likewise to all fines, forfeitures and penal - 
 | ties imposed by municipal corporations; 
 and in criminal cases on questions of law 
 alone, whenever the punishment of death 
 or hard labor may be inflicted; or when a 
 fine exceeding three hundred dollars is ac- 
 tually imposed. 
 
 Art. 64. The supreme court shall be 
 composed of one chief justice and of three 
 associate judges, a majority of whom shall 
 constitute a quorum. The chief justice 
 shall receive a salary of six thousand dol- 
 lars, and each of the associate judges a sal- 
 ary of five thousand five hundred dollars, 
 annually. The said court shall appoint 
 its own clerks. The said judges shall be 
 appointed for the term of eight years. 
 
 Art. 65. When the first appointments 
 are made under this constitution, the chief 
 justice shall be appointed for the term of 
 eight years, one of the associate judges for 
 six years, one for four years and one for 
 two years; and in the event of the death, 
 resignation, or removal of any of said 
 judges, before the expiration of the period 
 for which he was appointed, his successor 
 shall be appointed only for the remainder 
 of his term: so that the term of office of 
 no cwo of said judges shall expire at the 
 same time. 
 
 Art. 66. The supreme court shall hold 
 its sessions in New Orleans from the first 
 Monday of the month of November to the 
 end of the month of June, inclusive. The 
 legislature shall have power to fix the ses- 
 sions elsewhere during the rest of the 
 year; until otherwise" provided, the ses- 
 sions shall be held as heretofore. 
 
 Art. 67. The supreme court, and each 
 of the judges thereof, shall have power to 
 issue writs of habeas corpus, at the instance 
 of all persons in actual custody under pro- 
 cess, in all cases in which they may have 
 appellate j urisdiction. 
 
 Art. 68. In all cases in which the judges 
 shall be equally dived in opinion, the judg- 
 ment appealed from shall stand affirmed; 
 in which case each of the judges shall 
 give his separate opinion in writing. 
 
 Art. 69. All judges, by virtue of their 
 office, shall be conservators of the peace 
 throughout the State. The style of all 
 process shall be "the State of Louisiana." 
 All prosecutions shall be carried on " in 
 the name and bv the authority of the State 
 
332 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 of Louisiana," and conclude "against the 
 peace and dignity of the same." 
 
 Art. 70. The judges of all courts with- 
 in this State shall, as often as it is possible 
 so to do, in every definitive judgment, re- 
 fer to the particular law in virtue of which 
 such judgment may be rendered, and in 
 all cases adduce the reasons on which such 
 judgment is founded. 
 
 Art. 71. No court or judge shall make 
 any allowance by way of fee or compen- 
 sation in any suit or proceedings, except 
 for the payment of such fees to the minis, 
 terial officers as may be established by 
 law. 
 
 Art. 72. No duties or functions shall 
 ever be attached by law to the supreme or 
 district courts, or to the several judges 
 thereof, but such as are judicial; and the 
 said judges are prohibited from receiving 
 any fees of office, or other compension 
 than their salaries for any civil duties per- 
 ormed by them. 
 
 Art. 73. The judges of all courts shall 
 be liable to impeachment; but for any rea- 
 sonable cause, which shall not be suffi- 
 cient ground for impeachment, the govern- 
 or shall remove any of them, on the ad- 
 dress of three-fourths of the members pre- 
 sent of each house of the general assem- 
 bly. - In every such case, the cause or 
 causes for which such removal may be re- 
 quired, shall, be stated at length in the ad 
 dress, and inserted in the journal of each 
 house. 
 
 Art. 74. There shall be an attorney 
 general for the State,, and as many district 
 attorneys as may be hereafter found neces- 
 sary. They shall hold their offices for 
 two years; their duties shall be determined 
 by law. 
 
 Art. 75. The first legislature assem- 
 bled under this constitution, shall divide 
 the State into judicial districts, which shall 
 remain unchanged for six years, and be 
 subject to reorganization every sixth year 
 thereafter. 
 
 The number of districts shell not be less 
 than twelve, nor more than twenty. 
 
 For each district one judge, learned in 
 the law shall be appointed, except in the 
 district in which the cities of New Orleans 
 and Lafayette are situated, in which the 
 legislature many establish as many district 
 courts as the public interest may require, 
 
 Art. 76. Each of the said judges shall 
 receive a salary to be fixed by law, which 
 shall not be increased or diminished dur- 
 ing his term of office, and shall never be 
 less than two thousand five hundred dol- 
 lars annually. He must be a citizen of 
 the United States, over the age of thirty 
 years, and have resided in the State for six 
 years next preceding his appointment, and 
 have practiced law therein for the space of 
 five years. 
 
 Art. 77. The judges of the district 
 courts shall hold their offices for the term 
 of six years. The judges first appointed 
 shall be divided by ballot into three class- 
 es, as nearly equal as can be; and the term 
 of office of the judges of the first class 
 shall expire at the end of two years, oi i 
 the second class at the end of four years, j 
 and of the third class at the end of six 
 years. 
 
 Art. 78. The district courts shall have 
 original jurisdiction in all civil cases when 
 the amount in dispute exceeds fifty dollars, 
 exclusive of interest. In all criminal ca- 
 ses, and in all matters connected with suc- 
 cessions, their jurisdiction shall be unlim- 
 ited. 
 
 Art. 79. The legislature shall hay^l 
 power to vest jn clerks of courts authority 
 to grant such orders, and do such acts asl 
 may be deemed necessary for the further- 
 ance of the administration of justice; and 
 in all cases the powers thus granted sha!3 
 be specified and determined. 
 
 Art. 80. The clerks of the severs 
 courts snail be removable, for breach ol 
 good behavior, by the judges thereof; 
 subject in all cases to an appeal to the su- 
 preme court. 
 
 Art. 81. The jurisdiction of justices oi 
 the peace shall never exceed in civil cases 
 the sum of one hundred dollars, exclusive 
 of interest, subject to an appeal to the dis- i 
 trict court in such cases as shall be provid. 
 ed for by law. They shall be elected by 
 the qualified voters of each parish, for the|] 
 term of two years, and shall have such i 
 criminal jurisdiction as shall be provided I 
 for by law. 
 
 Art. 82. Clerks of the disirict court' 
 in. this State shall be elected by the quali- 
 fied electors in each parish for the term, oil 
 four years, and should a vacancy occur sub- 
 sequent to an election, it shall be filled b) 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 333 
 
 he judge of the court in which such vacati- 
 y exists, and the person so appointed shall 
 loid his office until the next general elec- 
 ion. 
 
 Art^. 83. A sheriff and a coroner shall 
 >e elected in each p'arish, by the qualified 
 oters thereof, who shall hold their offices 
 or the term of two years, unless sooner 
 e moved. 
 
 Should a vacancy occur in either of these 
 iffices subsequent to an election, it shall be 
 illed by the governor; and the person so 
 appointed shall continue in office until his 
 : successor shall be elected and qualified. 
 TITLE V. 
 
 IMPEACHMENT. 
 
 Art. 84. The power of impeachment 
 shall be vested in the house of representa- 
 : lives. 
 
 if Art. 85. Impeachments of the gover- 
 nor, lieutenant governor, attorney generd. 
 it secretary of State, State treasurer, and fra 
 :i .judges of the district courts, shall be tried 
 s by the senate; the chief justice of the su- 
 2' preme court, or the senior judge thereof, 
 c shall preside during the trial of such im- 
 peachments. Impeachments of the judges 
 jot the supreme court shall be tried by the 
 senate. When sitting as a court of im- 
 peachment, the senators shali be upon oath 
 : dv affirmation, and no person shall be con- 
 ; victed without the concurrence of two- 
 ■ thirds of the senators present. 
 |i Art. 86. Judgments in cases of im- 
 peachment shall extend only to removal 
 from office and disqualification from hold- 
 I ing any office of honor, trust or profit un- 
 ; der this State; but the parties convicted 
 ; shall, nevertheless, be subject to indict- 
 ment, trial and punishment, according to 
 ] law. 
 
 Art. 87. All officers against whom articles 
 ; of impeachment may be preferred, shall 
 . be suspended from the exercise of their 
 
 functions during the pendency of such im- 
 •■ peachment. The appointing power may 
 
 make a provisional appointment to replace 
 
 any suspended officer until the decision on 
 
 the impeachment. 
 
 Art. 88. The legislature shall provide 
 
 'by law for the trial, punishment and remo- 
 val from office of all other officers of the 
 
 State, by indictment or otherwise. 
 
 On motion, the report of the committee 
 
 of revision in relation to public education 
 
 was taken up for its third reading, viz: 
 
 TITLE VI. 
 
 GENERAL PKOVISIONS. 
 
 Art. 89. Members of the general as- 
 sembly, and all officers, before they enter 
 upon the duties of their offices shall take 
 the following oath or affirmation : 
 
 I (A. B.) do solemnly swear (or affirm) 
 that I will faithfully and impartially dis- 
 charge and perform all the duties incum- 
 bent on me as , according to the 
 
 best of my abilities and understanding, 
 agreeably to the constitution and laws of 
 the United States, and of this State; and I 
 do further solemnly sw T ear (or affirm) that 
 since the adoption of the present constitu- 
 tion, I, being a citizen of this State, have 
 not fought a duel with deadly weapons 
 within this State, nor out of it, with a 
 citizen of the State, nor have I sent or 
 acepted a challenge to fight a duel with 
 deadly weapons with a citizen of the State, 
 nor have acted as second in carrying a 
 challenge, or aided, advised, or assisted 
 any person thus offendinfr, so help me 
 God." 
 
 Art. 90. Treason against the State 
 shall consist only in levying war against, 
 or in adhering to its enemies, giving them 
 aid and comfort. No person shall be con- 
 victed of treason, unless on the testimony 
 of two witnesses to the same overt act, or 
 his own confession in open court. 
 
 Art. 91. Every person shall be dis- 
 qualified from holding any office of trust 
 or profit in this State, who shall have been 
 convicted of having given, or offered a 
 bribe to procure his election or appoint- 
 ment. 
 
 Art. 92. Laws shall be made to ex- 
 clude from, office and from the right of suf- 
 frage, those who shall hereafter be convict* 
 ed of bribery, perjury, forgery, or other 
 high crimes or misclemeanorr. 
 
 The privilege of free suffrage shall be 
 supported by laws regulating elections, and 
 prohibiting under adequate penalties all 
 undue influence thereon from power, 
 bribery, tumult or other improper practice. 
 
 Art. 93. No money shall be drawn 
 from the treasury but in pursuance of spe- 
 cific appropriations made by law, nor shall 
 any appropriation of money be made for a 
 longer term than two years. A regular 
 statement and account of the receipts and 
 expenditures of all public money shall be 
 
334 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 published annually, in such manner as 
 shall be prescribed by law. 
 
 Art. 94. It shall be the duty of the gen- 
 eral assembly to pass such laws as may be 
 necessary and proper to decide differences 
 by arbitration. 
 
 Art. 95. All civil, officers for the State 
 at large shall reside within the ; State, and 
 all district "or parish officers within their 
 districts or parishes, and shall keep their 
 offices at such places therein as may be 
 required by law. No person shall be 
 elected or appointed to any parish office 
 who shall not have resided in such parish 
 long enough before such election or ap- 
 pointment, to have acquired the right of 
 voting in such parish; and no person shall 
 be elected or appointed to any district 
 officej who shall not have resided in. such, 
 district, or an adjoining district, long 
 enough before such appointment, or elec- 
 tion, to have acquired the right of voting 
 in the same. 
 
 Art. 96. The duration of all offices not 
 fixed by this constitution, shall never ex- 
 ceed four years. 
 
 Art. 97. All civil officers, except the 
 governor and judges of the supreme and 
 district courts, shall be removeable by an 
 address of a majority of the members of 
 both houses, except those the removal oj 
 whom has been otherwise provided for by 
 this constitution. 
 
 Art. 98. Absence on business of this 
 State or of the United State, shall not for- 
 feit a residence once obtained, so as to de- 
 prive any one of the right of suffrage, on- 
 of being elected or appointed to any office 
 under the exceptions contained in this con- 
 stitution. 
 
 Art 99. It shall be the duty of the le- 
 gislature to provide by law for deductions 
 from the salaries of public officers who 
 may be guilty of a neglect of duty. 
 
 Art. 100. The legislature shall point 
 out the manner in which a person coming 
 * into the State shall declare his residence. 
 
 Art. 10 i. In all elections by the people 
 the vote shall be by ballot, and in all elec- 
 tions by the senate and house of represen- 
 tatives, jointly or separately, the vote shall 
 be given viva voce. 
 
 Art. 102. No member of congress, nor 
 person holding or exercising any office of 
 trust or profit under the United States, or 
 either of them, or under any foreign power, 
 
 shall be eligible as a member of the gene- 
 ral assembly, or hold or exercise any office 
 of trust or profit under the State. 
 
 Art. 103. The laws, the public records 
 and the judicial and legislative written pro- 
 ceedings of the State, shall be promulgated, 
 preserved and conducted in the language 
 in which the constitution of the United 
 States is written. 
 
 Art. 104. The secretary of the senate, 
 and clerk of the house of representatives, 
 shall be conversant with the French and 
 English languages, and members may ad- 
 dress either house in the French or English 
 language; 
 
 Art. 105 The general assembly shall 
 direct by law, how persons who are now, 
 or may hereafter become sureties for pub- 
 lic officers, may be discharged from such 
 suretyship. 
 
 . ^Art. 106. No power of suspending the 
 \Gm$ of this State shall be exercised, unless 
 by the Legislature or its authority. 
 
 Art, 107. Prosecutions shall be by in- 
 dictment, or information. The accused 
 shall have a speedy public trial by an im< 
 partial jury of the vicinage : he shall not be 
 compelled to give evidence against himself: 
 he shall have the right of being heard bf 
 himself or counsel ; he shall have the righti 
 unless he shall have fled from justice, oij 
 meeting the witnesses face to face, and] 
 shall have compulsory process for obtaining 
 witnesses in his favor. 
 
 Art. 108. All prisoners shall be baiia- 
 ble by sufficient sureties, unless for capita: 
 offences, where the proof is Evident, or pre- 
 sumption great ; and the privilege of the 
 writ of habeas corpus shall hot be suspen- 
 ded, unless when in case of rebellion or in- 
 vasion the public safety may require it. 
 
 Art. 109. No ex j^ost facto law, nor an) 
 law impairing the obligation of contracts, 
 shall be passed ; nor ve'sted rights be di- 
 vested unless for purposes of public utility 
 and for adequate compensation previously! 
 made, 
 
 Art. 110. The press shall be free. Ev- 
 ery citizen may freely speak, write and pub- 
 lish his sentiments on all subjects ; being 
 responsible for an abuse of this liberty. 
 
 Art. 111. Emigration from the State 
 shall not be prohibited. 
 
 Art. 112. The general assembly which 
 shall meet after the first election of repre- 
 sentatives under this Constitution, shall 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 335 
 
 vithin the first month after the commence- 
 nent of the session, designate and fix the 
 eat of government, at some place not less 
 han sixty miles from the city of New Or- 
 eans, by the nearest travelling route ; and 
 fon the Mississippi river, by the mean- 
 ders of the same : chid when so fixed, it 
 hall not be removed without the consent 
 f four fifths of the members of both hous- 
 s of the general assembly. The sessions 
 hall be held in New Orleans until the end 
 f the year 1848. 
 
 Art. 113. The legislature shall not 
 ledge the faith of the State for the pay- 
 lent of any bonds, bills, or other contracts 
 r obligations for the benefit or use of any 
 erson or persons, corporation or body po- 
 ntic whatever. But the State shall have 
 re right to issue new bonds in payment of 
 is outstanbing obligations or liabilities, 
 whether due or not ; the said new bonds, 
 owever, are not to be issued for a. larger 
 mount or at a higher rate of interest, than 
 ae original obligations they are intended 
 o replace. 
 
 Art. 114. The aggregate amount of 
 ebts hereafter contracted by the legisla- 
 j Jre, shall never exceed the sum of one 
 undred thousand dollars, except in case 
 ! / war, to repel invasions or suppres insur- 
 wections, unless the same be authorized by 
 i ome law, for some single object or work, to 
 
 • e distinctly specified therein ; which law 
 hall provide ways and means, by taxation, 
 
 1 >r the payment of running interest during 
 1 le whole time for which said debt shall be 
 
 lontracted, and for the full and punctual 
 fl! ischarge at maturity, of the capital bor- 
 *pwed ; and said law shall be irrepealable 
 " jntil principal and interest are fully paid 
 
 nd discharged, and shall not be put into 
 ll i xecution until after its enactment by the 
 ? rst legislature returned by a general 
 I lection after its passage, 
 j; Art. 115. The legislature shall pro. 
 ricfe by law for a change of venue in civil 
 
 iud criminal cases. 
 
 • Art. 116. No lottery'shall be author. 
 ll} ;ed by this State, and the buying or selling 
 °l f lottery tickets wiihiri the State is prohi- 
 
 ited. 
 
 • Art. 117. N© divorce shall be granted 
 y the Legislature. 
 
 d j Art. 118. Every law enacted by the le- 
 islature shall embrace but one object, and 
 i bat shall be expressed in the title. 
 
 Art. 119. No law shall be revived or 
 amended by reference to its title ; but in 
 such case, the act revived, or section amen- 
 ded, shall be re-enacted and published at 
 length. 
 
 Art. 120. The legislature shall never 
 adopt any system or code of laws by gene- 
 ral reference to such system or code of 
 laws ; but in all cases shall specify the sev- 
 eral provisions of the laws it may enact. 
 
 Art; 121. The Btate shall not become 
 subscriber to the stock of any corporation 
 or joint stock company. 
 
 Art. 122. No corporate body shall be 
 hereafter created, renewed or extended, 
 with banking or discounting privileges. 
 
 Art. 123. Corporations shall not be 
 created in this State by special laws, ex- 
 cept for political or municipal purposes ; 
 but the legislature shall provide by gene- 
 ral laws, for the organization of all other 
 corporations, except corporations with ban- 
 king or discounting privileges, the creation 
 of which is prohibited. 
 
 Art. 124. From and after the month of 
 January, 1890, the legislature shall have 
 the power to revoke the charters of all cor- 
 porations whose charters shall not have 
 expired previous to that time, and no cor- 
 porations hereafter to be created shall ever 
 endure for a longer term than twenty-five 
 years, except those which are political or 
 municipal. 
 
 Art. 125. The general assembly shall 
 never grant any exclusive privilege or mo- 
 nopoly, for a longer period than twenty 
 years. 
 
 Art. 126. No person shall hold or ex- 
 ercise, at the same time, more than one 
 civil office of emolument, except that of 
 justice of the peace. 
 
 Art. 127.- Taxation shall be equal and 
 uniform throughout the State. After the 
 year 1848 all property, on which taxes 
 may be levied in this State, shall be taxed 
 in proportion to its value, to be ascertained 
 as directed by law. No one species of 
 property shall be taxed higher than ano- 
 ther species of property of equal value, on 
 which taxes shall be levied; the legisla- 
 ture shall have power to levy an income 
 tax, and to tax all persons pursuing any 
 occupation, trade or profession. 
 
 Art. 128. The citizens of the city of 
 New Orleans shall have the right of ap- 
 pointing the several public officers neces- 
 
336 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 sary for the administration of the police of 
 the said city, pursuant to the mode of elec- 
 tions which shall be prescribed by the 
 legislature; provided, that the mayor and 
 recorders shall be ineligible to a seat in 
 the general assembly; and the mayor, re- 
 corders and aldermen shall be commission- 
 ed by the governor as justices of the peace, 
 and the legislature may vest in them such 
 criminal jurisdiction as may be necessary 
 for the punishment of minor crimes and 
 offences, and as the police and good order 
 of said city may require. 
 
 Art. 129. The legislature may provide 
 by law in what case officers shall continue 
 to perform the ? - duties of their offices until 
 their successors shall have been inducted 
 into office. 
 
 Art. 130. Any citizen of this State who 
 shall, after the adoption of this constitution, 
 fight a duel with deadly weapons with a 
 citizen of this State, or send or accept a 
 challenge to fight a duel with deadly" wea- 
 pons, either within the State or out of it, 
 with a citizen of this State, or who shall 
 act as second, or knowingly aid and assist 
 in any manner those thus ollending, shall 
 be deprived of holding any office of trust 
 or profit, and of enjoying the right of suf- 
 frage under this constitution. 
 
 Art. 131. The legislature shall have 
 power to extend this constitution, and the 
 jurisdiction of this State over any territory 
 acquired by compact with any State, or 
 with the United States, the same being 
 done by the consent of the United States. 
 
 Art. 132. The constitution and laws of 
 this State, shall be promulgated in the En- 
 glish and French languages. 
 
 TITLE VII. 
 
 PUBLIC EDUCATION. 
 
 Art. 133. There shall be appointed a 
 superintendent of public education, who 
 shall hold his office for two years. His 
 duties shall be prescribed by law. He 
 shall receive compensation as the legisla- 
 ture may direct. 
 
 Art. 134. The legislature shall establish 
 free public schools throughout the State, 
 and shall provide means for their support 
 by taxation on property or otherwise. 
 
 Art. 135. The proceeds of all lands 
 heretofore granted by the United States to 
 this State, for the use or support of schools, 
 and of all lands which may hereafter be 
 granted or bequeathed to the State, and not 
 
 expressly granted or bequeathed for any 
 other purpose, which hereafter may be 
 disposed of by the State, and the proceeds 
 of the estates of deceased persons to which 
 the State may become entitled by law, 
 shall be held by the State as a loan, and 
 shall be and remain a perpetual fund, on 
 which the State shall pay an annual inter- 
 est of six per cent; which interest togethei 
 with all the rents of the unsold lands, shai^ 
 be appropriated to the support of such 
 schools, and this appropriation shail r email 
 inviolable. 
 
 Art. 136. All moneys arising from th( 
 sale which have been or may hereafter b( 
 made of any lands heretofore granted by th< 
 United States to this State, for the use of i 
 seminary of learning, and from any kind c 
 donation that may hereafter be made fo 
 that purpose, shall be and remain a perpet 
 ual fund, the interest of which at six pe 
 cent per annum, shall be appropriated t 
 fhe support of a seminary of learning fo 
 the promotion of literature and the arts an 
 sciences, and no law shall ever be mad 
 diverting said fund to any other use than t 
 the establishment and improvement of sai 
 seminary of learning". 
 
 Art. 137. An university shall be estd> 
 lished in the city of New Orleans. It sha 
 be composed. of four faculties, to wit: on 
 of law, one of medicine, one of the natun 
 sciences, and one of letters. 
 
 Art. 138. It shall be called " the Un 
 versity of Louisiana," and the Medical Co 
 lege of Louisian as at p'resent organizes 
 shall constitute the faculty of medicine. - 
 
 Art. 130. The legislature shall provid 
 by law, for its further organization and g( 
 vernment; but shall be under no obligatio 
 to contribute to the establishment of suj 
 port of said university by appropriations. 
 TITLE VIIL 
 
 MODE OF REVISING THE CONSTITUTION'. ! 
 
 Art. 140. Any amendment or amen 
 ments to this Constitution may be prop 
 sed to -the senate or house of represent 
 tives, and if the same shall be agreed' I 
 by three-fifths of the members elected) 
 each house, and approved by the governo 
 such proposed amendment or amendmen 
 shall be entered on theii* journals, wit 
 the yeas and nays taken thereon, and tl 
 secretary of state shall cause the same 
 be published, three months before the ne 
 general election, in at least one newsp' 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 337 
 
 >ers in French and English, in every parish I 
 11 the State in which a newspaper shall 
 )e published: and if, in the legislature next 
 ifterwards chosen,' such proposed amend- 
 ment or amendments shall be agreed to by 
 i majority of the members elected to each 
 house, the secretary of state shall cause 
 :he same again to be published in the man- 
 ner aforesaid, at least three months pre- 
 rious to the next general election for re- ! 
 oresentatives to the State legislature, and ; 
 $uch proposed amendment or amendments 1 
 shall be submitted to the people at said 
 election: and if a majority of the qualified 
 Selectors shall approve and ratify such 
 amendment or amendments, the same shall 
 .become a part of the constitution. If more 
 Ithan one amendment be submitted at a 
 (time, they shall be submitted in such man- 
 iner and form that the people may vote for 
 I or against each amendment, separately. I 
 TITLE IX. 
 
 SCHEDULE. 
 
 Art. 141. The Constitution adopted in 
 1812 is declared to be superseded by this \ 
 Constitution, and in order to carry the same 
 into affect, it is hereby declared and ordain- ; 
 ed as folllows : 
 
 Art. 142. All rights, actions, prosecu- 
 tions, claims and contracts, as well of indi- 
 • , sals as of bodies corporate, and ail laws 
 | in force at the time of the adoption of this 
 Constitution, and not inconsistent therewith 
 shall continue as if the same had not been I 
 adopted. 
 
 Art. 1 4*3. Until the first enumeration ; 
 shall be made as directed in article eighth, 
 of this Constitution, the parish of Orleans 
 shall have twenty representatives, to be i 
 elected as follows, viz: 
 
 Eight by the First Municipality, seven 
 by the Second Municipality, and four by 
 the Third Municipality, to be distributed 
 among the nine representative districts as 
 follows, by allotting to the 
 
 First district, two Rep. 
 
 Second ** two 
 
 Third " three 
 
 Fourth k - three 
 
 Fifth " three 
 
 Sixth " two 
 
 Seventh y two 
 
 Eighth " one 
 
 Ninth Ji one 
 And to that part of the parish on the right 
 
 bank of the Mississippi, one 
 43 
 
 The 
 
 parish of Plaquemines. 
 
 
 
 shall have 
 
 three 
 
 it 
 
 St. Bernard. 
 
 one 
 
 cc 
 
 Jefferson. 
 St. Charles, 
 
 three 
 
 
 one 
 
 
 St. John the Baptist. 
 
 one 
 
 tjC 
 
 St. James, 
 
 two 
 
 u 
 
 Ascension, 
 
 two 
 
 b< 
 
 Assumption, 
 
 three 
 
 <( 
 
 Lafourche Interior. 
 
 three 
 
 
 Terrebone, 
 
 two 
 
 
 Iberville, 
 
 two 
 
 The parish of West Baton Rouse, one 
 
 
 East do. 
 
 thre e 
 
 a 
 
 West Feliciana. 
 
 two 
 
 •• 
 
 East do 
 
 three 
 
 (I 
 
 St. Helena, 
 
 one 
 
 
 Washington. 
 
 one 
 
 K 
 
 Livingston, 
 
 one 
 
 a 
 
 St. Tammany. 
 
 one 
 
 a 
 
 Point Coupee, 
 
 one 
 
 i< 
 
 Concordia, 
 
 one 
 
 
 Tensas, 
 
 one 
 
 H 
 
 Madison, 
 
 one 
 
 
 Carroll, 
 
 one 
 
 
 Franklin, 
 
 one 
 
 
 St. Mary. 
 
 two 
 
 
 St. Martin, 
 
 three 
 
 u 
 
 Vermillion, 
 
 one 
 
 CI 
 
 Lafayette, 
 St. Landry, 
 
 two 
 
 u 
 
 five 
 
 It 
 
 Calcasieu., 
 
 one 
 
 tc 
 
 Avoyelles 
 
 two 
 
 M 
 
 Rapides, 
 
 three 
 
 
 Natchitoches, 
 
 three 
 
 
 Sabine. 
 
 two 
 
 
 Caddo, 
 
 one 
 
 M 
 
 De Soto. 
 
 one 
 
 
 Ouachita, 
 
 one 
 
 
 Morehouse, 
 
 one 
 
 
 Union 
 
 one 
 
 
 Jackson. 
 
 one 
 
 .*< 
 
 Caldwell, 
 
 one 
 
 (£ 
 
 Catahoula, 
 
 two 
 
 (( 
 
 Claiborne. 
 
 two 
 
 M 
 
 Bossier, 
 
 one 
 
 Total, ninety-eight. 
 And the State shall be divided into the 
 following senatorial districts : 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river shall compose one senatorial district, 
 and shall elect four senators; 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines, St. Ber- 
 nard, and that part of the parish of Or- 
 leans lying on the right bank of the river, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 shall compose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of Jefferson shall compose 
 one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of St. Charles and St. 
 John the Baptist shall compose one dis- 
 trict, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of St. James shall compose 
 one district,, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of Ascension shall compose 
 one district with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Assumption, Lafourche 
 Interior and Terrebonne shall compose 
 one district, with two senators; 
 
 The parishes of Iberville and West 
 Baton Rouge shall compose one district, 
 with one senator; 
 
 The parish of East Baton Rouge shall 
 compose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of Point Coupee shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of Avoyelles shall compose 
 one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of St. Mary shall compose 
 one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of St. Martin shall compose 
 one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Lafayette and Vermil- 
 lion shall compose one district, with one 
 senator; 
 
 The parishes of St. Landry and Calca- 
 sieu, shall compose one district, with two 
 senators; 
 
 The parish of West Feliciana shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of East Feliciana shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of St. Helena and Livings- 
 ton shall compose one district, with one 
 senator; 
 
 The parishes of Washington and St. 
 Tammany, shall compose one district, with 
 one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Concordia and Tensas 
 shall compose one district with one sen- 
 ator; 
 
 The parishes of Carroll and Madison 
 shall compose one district, with one sen- 
 ator; 
 
 The parishes of Jackson, Union, More- 
 house and Ouachita shall compose one dis- 
 trict, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Caldwell, Franklin and 
 Catahoula shall compose one district, with 
 one senator; 
 
 The parish of Rapides shall compose 
 one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Bossier and Claiborne 
 shall compose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of Natchitoches shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Sabine, De Soto and 
 Caddo shall compose one district, with one 
 senator; 
 
 And whenever a new parish shall be crea- 
 ted.it shall be attached to the senatorial dis- 
 trict from which most of its territory was 
 taken or to another contiguous district at 
 thediscretion of the legislature, but shall not 
 be attached to more than one district. 
 ~ Art. 144. In order that no inconveni. 
 ence may result to the public service from 
 the taking effect of this Constititution, no 
 office shall be superseded thereby ; but the 
 laws of the State relative to the duties of 
 the several officers, executive, judicial and 
 military, shall remain in full force, though 
 the same be contrary to this Constitution, 
 and the several duties shall be performed 
 by the respective officei s of the State accor- 
 ding to the existing laws, until the organi- 
 zation of the government under this Con- 
 stitution, and the entering into office of the 
 new officers, to be appointed under said 
 government, and no longer. 
 
 Art. 145. Appointments to office bp 
 the executive under this Constitutton, shall 
 be made by the governor to be elected un- 
 der its authority. 
 
 Art. 146. The provisions of article 28, 
 concerning the inability of members of the 
 legislature to hold certain offices therein 
 mentioned, shall not be held to apply to 
 the members of the first legislature elected 
 unde r this Constitution. 
 
 Art. 147. The time of service of all of- 
 ficers chosen by the people, at the first 
 election under this Constitution, shall ter- 
 minate as though the election had been hoi- • 
 den on the first Monday of November 
 1845, and they had entered on the discharge 
 of their duties, at the time designated therein. 
 
 Art. 148. The legislature shall provide 
 for the removal of all causes now pending 
 in the supreme or other courts of the 
 courts under the Constitution of 1812, to 
 State created by this Constitution. 
 
 Art. 149. Appeals to the supreme 
 court from the parishes of Jackson, Union, 
 Morehouse, Catahoula, Caldwell, Ouachi- 
 ta, Franklin, Carroll, Madison, Tensas, 
 and Concoreia, shall until otherwise provi- 
 ded for, be returnable to New Orleans, 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 339 
 
 TITLE X. 
 
 ORDINANCE. 
 
 Art. 150. Immediately after die ad- 
 ournment of the Convention, the governor 
 iball issue his proclamation, directing the 
 several officers of this State authorized by- 
 law to hold elections for members of 
 he o-eneral assembly, to open and hold a 
 )ollm every parish of the State, at the pla- 
 ;es designated by law. upon the first Mon- 
 iay of November next, for the purpose of 
 aking the sense of the good people ot 
 his State in regard to the adoption or re- 
 
 fciection of this constitution ; and it shall be 
 he duty of the said officers to recive the votes 
 
 jjf all persons entitled to vote under the 
 Did constitution and under this constitution. 
 Each voter shall express his opinion by 
 
 | iepositing in the ballot-box a ticket where- 
 
 f pn shall be written "the constitution ac- 
 
 Ipepted," or ''the constitution rejected," or 
 
 Ikome such words as will distinctly convey 
 :he intention of the voter. At the conclu- 
 sion of the said election, which shall be 
 
 > ponducted in every respect as the general 
 State election is now conducted, the parish 
 judges and commissioners designated to 
 preside over the same, shall carefully exam- 
 
 ijine and count each bailot so deposited, and 
 shall forthwith make due returns thereof to 
 the secretary of state, in contbnnity to the 
 
 I provisions of the existing law upon the sub- 
 
 f> ject of elections. 
 
 Art. 151. Upon the receipt of the said 
 returns, or on the hrst Monday of Decern- 
 
 i ,ber, if the returns be not sooner received, 
 it shall be the duty of the governor, the 
 secretary of state, the attorney general, 
 and the state treasurer, in the presence of 
 all such persons as may choose to attend, to 
 compare the votes given at the said poll, 
 
 : Tor the ratification and rejection of this 
 constitution, and if it shall appear from 
 said returns that a majority of all the votes 
 given is tor ratifying this constitation, then 
 
 ; it shall be the duty of the governor to make 
 proclamation of that fact, and thenceforth 
 this constitution shall be ordained and es- 
 tablished as the constitution of the State of 
 Louisiana, But whether this constitution 
 be accepted or rejected, it shall be the duty 
 of the governor to cause to be published 
 in the State paper the. result of the polls, 
 showing the number of votes cast in each 
 parish, tor and against the said constitution. 
 Art. 152. Should this constitution be 
 
 accepted by the people, it shall also be the 
 duty of the governor forthwith to issue his 
 proclamation declaring the present legisla- 
 ture elected under the old constitution, to 
 be dissolved, and directing the several offi- 
 cers of the State, authorized by law, to hold 
 elections for members of the general assem- 
 bly, to hold an election at the places des- 
 ignated by law, on the third Monday in 
 January next, (1846) for governor, lieu- 
 tenant governor, members of the general 
 assembly, and all other officers whose elec- 
 tion is provided for pursuant to the provis- 
 ions of this constitution. And the said 
 election shall be conducted and the returns 
 ! thereof made in conformity with existing 
 laws upon the subject of State elections. 
 
 Art. 153. The general assembly elec- 
 j ted under this constitution shall convene at 
 the state house, in the city of New Orleans. 
 I upon the second Monday of February next. 
 (1846) after the elections; and that the 
 i governor and lieutenant governor, elected 
 | at the same time, shall be duly installed in 
 office during the first week of their session, 
 ; and before it shall be competent for the 
 said general assembly to proceed with the 
 transaction of business. 
 
 Mr. E.03IAX submitted the following 
 reasons for not voting in favor of the adop- 
 tion of the constitution, and the same were 
 ordered to be inserted in the journal, viz: 
 
 I will vote against the adoption, because 
 I think that this Convention would never 
 have been called, if a majority of the peo- 
 [ pie w r ould have foreseen that the constitu- 
 , tion of 1812 would be entirely put down, 
 and another adopted, in which almost every 
 i conservative principle has been set aside. 
 
 Because in extending the right of suf- 
 frage, sufficient care has not been taken to 
 confide it to those only who are identified 
 : with the State, and no guide has been 
 . given to the officers who are to preside 
 1 over the elections to enable them to decide, 
 j who are those who ought and those who 
 : ought not to vote. 
 
 Because the senate has been so framed 
 | as to form »o check in the popular branch 
 ! of the legislature, and this last has been 
 ! rendered so numerous as to be too un- 
 j wieldly and too expensive. 
 | Because the tenure of office of the judges 
 of the supreme and district courts is such 
 I as not to render them independent of the 
 j party politics of the day, and the election 
 
340 
 
 Journal of the Convention of houisiaiia. 
 
 by the people of justices of the peace, 
 clerks of courts and sheriffs, is calculated 
 to jeopardize still more the impartial ad- 
 ministration of justice. 
 
 For these reasons, and also because a 
 part of this constitution is actually put - in 
 force without being submitted to the assent 
 of the people, I vote No. 
 
 Mr. Kenner offered the following reso- 
 lution, and the same was unanimously 
 adopted, viz : 
 
 "Resolved, That the thanks -of this Con- 
 vention be tendered /to the Hon. Joseph 
 Walker, president of the Convention, for 
 the able and impartial maimer with which 
 he has presided over our deliberations. 
 
 Mr. Cade submitted the following reso- 
 lution, and the same was unanimously 
 adopted, viz : 
 
 Resolved, That the thanks of this Con- 
 vention be tendered to Horatio Davis, Esq., 
 our secretary, for his assiduous attention to 
 business, and for the correct and faithful 
 discharge of his important duties. 
 
 Mr. Sellers submitted the following 
 resolution, and the same was unanimously 
 adopted, viz : 
 
 Resolved, That the thanks of this Con- 
 vention be tendered to the clergy of this 
 city. 
 
 Mr. Beatty offered the following reso- 
 lution, viz: 
 
 Resolved, That the secretary and minute 
 clerk, and other clerks, be continued in 
 their functions for a space not exceeding 
 one month from the adjournment of this 
 Convention, and that the secretary be di- 
 rected to superintend the printing and dis- 
 tribution of the debates and constitution, 
 and completion of the journals. That the 
 secretary be authorized to draw his own 
 warrant for their compensation. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to amend said reso- 
 lution, by adding "and the printers to the 
 Convention." 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to lay the resolution 
 and amendment on the table, subject to 
 call; which motion was lost. 
 
 Mr. Cade then moved to lay the amend- 
 ment on the table indefinitely; which mo- 
 tion prevailed. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Beatty, the resolu- 
 tion was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Garcia submitted the following 
 resolution, viz: 
 
 Resolved, That an additional compen- 
 
 sation at the rate of two dollars per day, 
 from the commencement of the session at 
 New Orleans to the close of their labors 
 be allowed to each of the reporters, Messrs. 
 Foulhouse and Kerr. 
 
 Mr. Garcia moved for the adoption of 
 the above resolution: which motion was 
 lost. 
 
 Mr. Guiqn' offered the following resolu. 
 tion, and the same was adopted, viz : 
 
 Resolved, That the committee on con- 
 tingent expenses be instructed to enquire 
 whether any additional compensation ought 
 to be granted to the English and French 
 printers to this Convention. 
 
 Mr. Soule offered the following resolu. 
 tion, viz: 
 
 Resolved, That a period not to exceed 
 thirty days be allowed to the reporters to 
 conclude their labors, in compensation for 
 which they shall be paid by the treasurer 
 on their warrant, countersigned by the 
 secretary! ' 
 
 Mr. Brent moved to amend the same 
 by inserting "fifteen" instead of "thirty 
 days;" which motion was lost. 
 1 On motion, the Convention N adjournec 
 till to-morrow at 9 o'clock, a. m. 
 
 Theusday, May 15, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Clark opened the pro 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Read offered the following resolu 
 tion, and the same was adopted, viz: 
 
 Resolved, That the sum of twelve dol 
 lars be allowed John E. Layet, for service 
 rendered as additional clerk for two days 
 Mr. Read then offered the following 
 resolution, and the same was adopted, viz 
 Resolved. That the sum of one hundrei 
 dollars be allowed D. O. Nadaud, as extr 
 compensation for his services as recordin, 
 clerk. 
 
 On motion, the committee of enrollmer 
 was authorized to fix the compensation ( 
 the enrolling and engrossing clerks, an 
 draw a warrant on the treasury for th 
 payment of the same. 
 
 Mr. Chinn moved that an addition? 
 compensation of one hundred dollars be a 
 lowed to Mr. James Carpenter, sergeant-al 
 arms. 
 
 Mr. Downs moved to amend the sai 
 resolution by adding the same compensf 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 341 
 
 tion to all the other officers of the Conven- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Lewis moved to lay the resolution 
 and amendment on the table indefinitely. 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 Messrs. Benjamin. Brazeale, Brumfield. 
 Burton, Cade, Chambliss, Claiborne, Con- 
 rad of Jefferson. DuBouchel, Eustis, Hud- 
 speth, Humble, Labauve, Ledoux, Legen- 
 dre, Lewis, McCallop, McRae, Mazureau, 
 Peets, Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, 
 Saunders, Scott of Baton Rouge, Sellers, 
 ? Splane, Taylor of Assumption, Taylor of 
 St. Landry, Voorhies Waddill and Wads- 
 worth voted in the affirmative — 31 yeas, 
 and 
 
 Messrs. Briant, Cenas, Chinn, Derbes, 
 Marigny, Porter, Scott of Madison, Soule 
 and Wederstrandt voted in the negative— 9 
 nays, consequently said motion was car- 
 ried. 
 
 Mr. McCallop moved that James Car- 
 penter be allowed mileage to and from 
 Jackson to New Orleans. 
 
 Mr. Derbes moved to amend the same 
 by allowing mileage to the other officers. 
 
 Mr. Cade moved to lay the motion of 
 Mr. McCallop, and amendment, on the ta- 
 ble indefinitely. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin, Brazeale, Brumfield, 
 Brent, Burton, Cade, Chambliss, Conrad 
 of Jefferson, Covillion, DuBouchel, Hum- 
 ble, Labauve, Lewis, McRae, Mazureau, 
 Prescott of St. Landry, Prudhomme, 
 Splane, Stephens and Voorhies voted in 
 the affirmative — 20 yeas; and 
 
 Messrs. Briant, Cenas, Chinn, Derbes, 
 Dunn, Eustis, Garcia, Legendre, McCal- 
 lop, Marigny, Porter, Read, Scott of Baton 
 Rouge, Soule and Wederstrandt voted in 
 the negative — 15 nays; consequently said 
 motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. Soule submitted the following reso- 
 lution, which was read and adopted, viz: 
 Resolved, That a period not to exceed 
 thirty days be allowed to the reporters to 
 conclude their labors, in compensation for 
 which they shall be paid by the treasurer 
 on their warrant, countersigned by the 
 secretary. 
 
 Mr. Ce^as submitted the following reso- 
 
 o 
 
 lution, and the same was unanimously 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Resolved, That the thanks of this Con- 
 vention be tendered to Wm. Debuys, Esq., 
 
 state treasurer, for his kindness in assum- 
 ing the troublesome task of keeping the 
 account and paying the warrants of the 
 members of the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, offered the 
 following resolution, and the same was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Resolved, Thai when the Convention 
 adjourns this day it will adjourn to meet at 
 12 o'clock, in., to-morrow. 
 
 Mr. Taylor of Assumption, offered the 
 following resolution, and the same was 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Resolved by the Convention, That the 
 president be authorized to close the ses- 
 sion of the Convention, by adjourning it on 
 to-morrow, the 16th day of May, 1845, 
 sine die. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned 
 till to-morrow, at 12 o'clock, m. 
 
 Friday, xMay 16, 1845. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Clark opened the pro> 
 ceedings with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Read offered the following resolu- 
 tion, and the same was adopted, viz: 
 
 Resolved, [that the committee on con- 
 tingent expenses be authorized to issue a 
 warrant in favor of James Carpenter for 
 the. sum of three dollars. 
 
 Mr. Read submitted the following reso- 
 ' lution, and the same was unanimously 
 adopted, viz: 
 
 Resolved, that the sum of two hundred 
 dollars be allowed A. Duplantier, as extra 
 compensation for his faithful and laborious 
 services- in the capacity of minute clerk, 
 and that the committee on contingent ex- 
 penses be authorized to issue a warrant for 
 said sum. 
 
 Mr. Lewis submitted the following res- 
 olution, and the same was adopted, viz: 
 
 Resolved, that the committee on con- 
 tingent expenses be authorized to advance 
 to the secretary of this convention the 
 amount of his per diem for thirty days 
 services, to be rendered by him after the 
 adjournment on this day. 
 
 On motion the sum of one hundred dol- 
 lars was allowed Gaspard Debuys for ser- 
 vices rendered as assistant recording clerk. 
 
 Mr. Mayo submitted the following res- 
 olution, and the same was adopted, viz: 
 
 Resolved, that five thousand copies of 
 
312 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 the new constitution, in the English, and 
 the same number in the French language, 
 be printed under the direction of the sec- 
 retary of the Convention, and distributed 
 by him to the members for the use of their 
 constituents, at the expense of the State; 
 provided he can procure the same to be 
 done at an expense not exceeding three 
 hundred dolars. 
 
 Mr. Roselius submitted the following 
 resolution, and the same was adopted, viz: 
 
 Resolved, that the sum of one hundred 
 and twenty-five dollars be paid by the 
 treasurer of the State to Besangon, Fer- 
 guson & Co., for printing the reports and 
 bills of the House, since the bill allowed 
 by the Convention; and that the secretary 
 of the Convention be instructed to pay the 
 printers of the Convention at the rate of 
 two dollars per page, for such number of 
 pages as mry be printed after the period 
 of such allowance, to complete the work. 
 
 Mr. Marigny submitted the following 
 resolution, and the same was adpted, viz: 
 
 Resolved, that the sum of two hundred' 
 dollars be allowed to Mr. Fouihouse, and 
 the sum of two hundred dollars be allowed 
 to Mr. R. J. Kerr, as a compensation lor 
 their services as reporters of the Conven- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Culbertson submitted the following 
 resolution, and the same was adopted, Viz: 
 
 Resolved, that the sum of one hundred 
 dollars be allowed Mr. Alexander Derbes, 
 and that the sum of one hundred dollars 
 be allowed Theodule Montreuil, as an ex- 
 tra compensation for services rendered as 
 translating clerks. 
 
 Mr. Garcia submitted the following 
 resolution, and the same was adopted, 
 viz : 
 
 Resolved, that the translator of the 
 constitution, Edward Louvet, Esq., be al- 
 lowed his per diem, at the rate of eight 
 dollars, and that he receive the same com- 
 pensation which was allowed to the other 
 translating clerks. 
 
 Mr. Soule, chairman of the committee 
 of enrolment, reported the constitution en- 
 roled, viz: 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE 
 STATE OF LOUISIANA. 
 
 PREAMBLE. 
 We the people of the State of Louisiana 
 do ordain and establish this Constitution. 
 
 TITLE I. 
 
 DISTRIBUTION OP POWERS. 
 
 Art. 1. The powers of the government 
 of the State of Louisiana shall be divided 
 into three distinct departments, and each 
 of them be confided to a separate body of 
 magistracy, to wit: those which are legis- 
 lative to one; those which are executive to 
 another, and those which are judicial to 
 another. 
 
 Art. 2. No one of these departments, 
 nor any person holding office in one of 
 them, shall exercise power properly be- 
 longing to either of the others, except in 
 the instances hereinafter expressly direct- 
 ed or permitted. 
 
 TITLE II. 
 
 LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Art. 3. The legislative powers of the 
 State shall be vested in two distinct branch- 
 es, the one to be styled the "house of rep- 
 resentatives," the other "the senate," and 
 both "the general assembly of the State 
 of Louisiana." 
 
 Art. 4. The members of the house of 
 representatives shall continue in service 
 for the term of two years from the day of 
 the closing of the general elections. 
 
 Art. 5. Representatives shall be chosen? 
 on the first Monday in November, every 
 two years; and the election shall be com- 
 pleted in one day. The general assembly 
 shall meet every second year, on the third 
 Monday in January next ensuing the elec- 
 tion, unless a different day be appointed 
 by law, and their session shall be held at 
 the seat of government. 
 
 Art. 6. No person shall be a represen- 
 tative, who, at the time of his election, is 
 not a free white male, and has not been for 
 three years a citizen of the United States, 
 and has not attained the age of twenty-one 
 years, and resided in the State for the three 
 years next preceding the election, and the 
 last year thereof in the parish for which 
 he may be chosen. 
 
 Art, 7. Elections for representatives 
 for the several parishes or representative 
 districts shall be held at the several elec- 
 tion precincts established by law. The 
 legislature may delegate the power of es- 
 tablishing election precincts to the paro- 
 chial or municipal authorities. 
 
 Art. 8. Representation in the house of 
 representatives, shall be equal and uniform, 
 and shall be regulated and ascertained by 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 343 
 
 the number of qualified electors. Each 
 parish shall have at least one representa- 
 tive; no new parish shall be created with 
 a territory less than six hundred and twen- 
 ty-five square miles, ner with a number ot 
 electors less than the full number entitling 
 it to a representative, nor when the crea- 
 tion of such new parish would leave any 
 other parish without the said extent of ter- 
 ritory and number of electors. 
 
 The first enumeration to be made by the 
 State authorities under this constitution 
 shall be made in the year 1 847, the second 
 in the year 1855; and the subsequent enu- 
 , derations shall be made every tenth year 
 £ thereafter, in such manner as shall be pre- 
 scribed by law for the purpose of ascer- 
 taining the total population and the number 
 of qualified electors in each parish and 
 election district. 
 
 At the first regular session of the legis- 
 lature after the making of each enumera- 
 1 pion, the legislature shall apportion the re- 
 ore sentation amongst the several parishes 
 .uid election districts on the basis of quali- 
 fied electors as aforesaid. A representa- 
 :ive number shall be fixed, and each parish 
 , ind election district shall have as many 
 representatives as the aggregate number 
 of its electors will entitle it to, and an 
 Additional representative for any fraction 
 3xceeding one half the representative 
 lumber. The number of representatives 
 shall not be more than one hundred nor 
 ess than seventy. 
 
 That part of the parish of Orleans situ- 
 ated on the left bank of the Mississippi, 
 shall be divided into nine representative 
 districts, as follows, viz : 
 
 1st. First district to extend from the line 
 of the parish of Jefferson to the middle of 
 Benjamin, Estelle and Thalia streets. 
 
 2d. Second district to extend from the 
 last mentioned limits to the middle of 
 Julia street, until it strikes the New Or- 
 leans canal, thence down said canal to the 
 lake. 
 
 3d. Third district to comprise the resi- 
 due of the Second Municipality. 
 
 4th. Fourth district to extend from the 
 middle of Canal street to the middle of 
 St. Louis street, until it reaches the Me- 
 tairie road, thence along said road to the 
 New Orleans canal. 
 
 5th. Fifth district to extend from the last 
 
 mentioned limits to the middle of St. Philip 
 street, thence down said street until its in- 
 terseetion with the bayou St. John, thence 
 along the middle of said bayou until it in- 
 tersects the Metairie road, thence along said 
 road until it reaches St. Louis street. 
 
 6th. Sixth district to be composed of the 
 residue of the First Municipality. 
 
 7th. Seventh district, from the middle 
 Esplanade street to the middle of Champs 
 Elysees street. 
 
 8th. Eighth district, from the middle of 
 Champs Elysees street to the middle of 
 Enghein street and Lafayette Avenue. 
 
 9th. Ninth district, from the middle of 
 Enghein street and Lafayette Avenue to 
 the lower limits of the parish. 
 
 Art. 9. The house of representatives 
 shall choose its speaker and other officers. 
 
 Art. 10. In all elections by the people, 
 every free white male who has attained 
 the age of twenty-one years, and resided 
 in the State two consecutive years next 
 preceding the election, and the last year 
 thereof in the parish in which he offers 
 to vote, shall have the right of voting. 
 Provided, that no person shall be deprived 
 of the right of voting who at the time of 
 the adoption of this constitution was enti- 
 tled to that right under the constitution of 
 1812. Electors shall, in all cases, except 
 treason, felony, breach or surety of the 
 peace, be privileged from arrest during 
 their attendance at, going to, or returning 
 from elections. 
 
 Art. 11. Absence from the State for more 
 than ninety consecutive days, shall inter- 
 rupt the acquisition of the residence requi- 
 red in the preceding article, unless the 
 person absenting himself shall be a house- 
 keeper, or shall occupy a tenement for car- 
 rying on business, and his dwelling house 
 or tenementfor carrying on business shall 
 be actually occupied during his absence, by 
 his family or servants, or some portion 
 thereof, or by some one employed by him. 
 
 Art. 12. No soldier, seaman or marine 
 in the army or navy of the United States, 
 no pauper, no person under interdiction, nor 
 under conviction of any crime punishable 
 with hard labor, shall be entitled to vote 
 at any election in the State. 
 
 Art. 13. No person shall be entitled to 
 vote at any election held in this State, ex- 
 cept in the parish of his residence, and in 
 
344 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 cities and towns divided into election pre- 
 cincts, in the election precinct in which 
 he resides. 
 
 Art. 14. The members of the senate 
 shall be chosen for the term of four years. 
 The senate when assembled, shall have 
 the power to choose its officers every two 
 years. 
 
 Art. 1 5. The legislature in every year in 
 which they shall apportion representation in 
 the house of representatives shall divide the 
 State into senatorial districts. No parish 
 shall be divided in the formation of a sena- 
 torial district, the parish of Orleans ex- 
 cepted. And whenever a new parish shall 
 be created, it shall be attached to the sena- 
 torial district from which most of its ter- 
 ritory was taken, or to another contiguous 
 district, at the discretion of the legislature; 
 but shall not be attached to more than one 
 district. The number of senators shall be 
 thirty-two, and they shall be apportioned 
 among the senatorial districts according to 
 the total population contained in the seve- 
 ral districts: Provided, that no parish shall 
 be entitled to more than one-eighth of the 
 whole number of senators. 
 
 Art. 16. In all apportionments of the 
 senate, the population of the city of New 
 Orleans shall be deducted from the popu- 
 lation of the whole State, and the remain- 
 der of the population divided by the number 
 twenty eight, and the result produced by 
 this division shall be the senatorial ratio 
 entitling a senatorial district, to a senator. 
 Single or contiguous parishes shall be 
 formed into districts having a population 
 the nearest possible to the number entitling 
 a district to a senator; and if in the appor- 
 tionment to be made, a parish or district 
 fall short of or exceed the ratio, one-fifth, 
 then a district may be formed having not 
 more than two senators, but not otherwise. 
 
 No new apportionment shall have the 
 effect of abridging the term of service of 
 any senator already elected at the time of 
 making the apportionment. 
 
 After an enumeration has been made as 
 directed in the eighth article, the legisla- 
 ture shall not pass any laws until an ap- 
 portionment of the representation in both 
 houses of the general assembly be made. 
 
 Art. 17. At the first session of the 
 general assembly, after this constitution 
 takes effect, the senators shall be equally 
 divided by lot into two classes ; the seats 
 
 of the second class at the expiration of the j 
 fourth year; so that one-half shall be chosen 
 every two years, and a rotation thereby kept | 
 up perpetually. In case any district shall 
 have elected two or more senators, said 
 senators shall vacate their seats respective- 
 ly at the end of two and four years, and 
 the lots shall be drawn between them. I 
 
 Art. 18. No person shall be a senator, 
 who at the time of his election, has not 
 been a citizen of the United States ten 
 years, and who has not attained the age of 
 twenty-seven years,and resided in the State 
 four years next preceding his election, 
 and the last year thereof in the district in 
 which he may be chosen. 
 
 Art. 19. The first election for senators 
 shall be general throughout the State, and' 
 at the same time that the general election | 
 for representatives is held; and thereafter | 
 there shall be biennial elections to fill the I 
 place of those whose time of service may 
 have expired. 
 
 Art. 20. Not less than a majority of the 
 members of each house of the general as- 
 sembly shall form a quorum to do business; 
 but a smaller number may adjourn from 
 day to day, and shall be authorised by 
 law to compel the attendance of absen^l 
 members. 
 
 Art. 21. Each house of the general 
 assembly shall judge of the qualification, 
 election and returns of its members; but a 
 contested election shall be determined in 
 such manner as shall be directed by law. 
 
 Art. 22. Each house of the general 
 Assembly may determine the rules of its 
 proceedings, punish a member for disor- j 
 derly behavior, and with the concurrence i 
 of two-thirds expel a member, but not a. 
 second time for the same offence. 
 
 Art. 23. Each house of the general as- 
 sembly shall keep and publish weekly a 
 journal of its proceedings; and the yeas 
 and nays of the members on any question j 
 shall, at the desire of any two of them, be 
 entered on the journal. 
 
 Art. 24. Each house may punish by im- j 
 pristfnment any person not a member, for 
 disrespectful and disorderly behavior, in 
 its presence or for obstructing any of its 
 proceedings. Such imprisonment shall not 
 exceed ten days for any one offence. 
 
 Art. 25. Neither house, during the ses- 
 sion of the general assembly, shall without 
 the consent of the other, adjourn for more. 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 345 
 
 of the senators of the fir3t class shall be va- 
 cated at the expiration of the second year, 
 than three days, nor to any other place 
 than that in which they may be sitting. 
 
 Art. 26. The members of the general 
 assembly shall receive from the public 
 . treasury a compensation for their services, 
 
 ■ which shall be four dollars per day during 
 ttheir attendance, going to and returning 
 >from the session of their respective houses. 
 • The compensation may be increased or 
 Idiminished by law; but no alteration shall 
 pake effect during the period of service of 
 
 ■ the members of the house of representa- 
 tives by whom such alterations shall have 
 been made. No session shall extend to a 
 period beyond sixty days, to date from its 
 commencement, and any legislative action 
 had after the expiration of the said sixty 
 days, shall be null and void. This pro- 
 vision shall not apply to the first legisla- 
 ture which is to convene after the adoption 
 of this constitution. 
 
 Art. 27. The members of the general 
 assembly shall, in all cases except treason, 
 I felony, breach or surety of the peace, be 
 I privileged from arrest during their attend- 
 | ance at the sessions of their respective 
 I houses; and going to or returning from the 
 | same, and for any speech or debate in 
 I either house, they shall not be questioned 
 m any other place. 
 
 Art. 23. No senator 4 or representative 
 shall, during the term for which he was 
 elected, nor for one year thereafter, be ap- 
 pointed or elected to any civil office of 
 profit under this State, which shall have 
 been created or the emoluments of which 
 shall have been increased during the time 
 such senator or representative was in 
 office, except to such offices or appoint- 
 ments as may be filled by the elections of 
 ! the people. 
 
 Art. 29. No person, while he continues 
 i to exercise the functions of a clergyman, 
 i priest or teacher of any religious persua- 
 sion, society or sect, shall be eligible to 
 the general assembly. 
 
 Art. 30. No person who at any time 
 i may have been a collector of taxes, or who 
 ' may have been otherwise entrusted with i 
 public money, shall be eligible, to the 
 general assembly, or to any other office of 
 profit or trust under the State government, 
 until he shall have obtained a discharge 
 for the amount of such collections, and for 
 44 
 
 all public moneys with which he may 
 have been entrusted. 
 
 Art. 31. No bill shall have the force of 
 a law until on three several days, it be read 
 over in each house of the general assem- 
 bly, and free discussion allowed thereon, 
 unless in case of urgency, four-fifths of the 
 house, where the bill shall be pending, may 
 deem it expedient to dispense with this rule. 
 
 Art. 32. All bills for raising revenue 
 shall originate in the house of representa- 
 tives, but the senate may propose amend- 
 ments as in other bills ; 'provided, they 
 shall not introduce any new matter under 
 the color of an amendment which does not 
 relate to raising revenue. 
 
 Art. 33. The general assembly shall 
 regulate by law, by whom, and in what 
 manner, writs of election shall be issued, 
 to rill the vacancies which may happen in 
 either branch thereof. 
 
 Art. 34. A majority of all the members 
 elected to the senate, shall be required for 
 the confirmation or rejection of officers to 
 be appointed by the governor, with the ad- 
 vice and consent of the senate; and the 
 senate in deciding thereon, shall vote by 
 ^as and nays, and the names of the sena- 
 tors voting for and against the appoint- 
 ments respectively, shall be entered on a 
 journal to be kept for that purpose, and 
 made public at the end of each session, or 
 before. 
 
 Art. 35. Returns of. all elections for 
 members of the general assembly shall be 
 made to the secretary of state. 
 
 Art. 36, A treasu.ir of the State shall 
 be elected biennially, b^ joint ballot of the 
 two houses of the general assembly. The 
 governor shall have the power to fill any 
 vacancy that may happen in that office 
 during the recess of the legislature. 
 
 Art. 37. In the year in which a regular 
 election of a senator of the United States 
 is to take pluce, the members of the gene- 
 ral assembly shall meet in the hall of the 
 house of representatives, on the Monday 
 following the meeting of the legislature, 
 and proceed to the said election. 
 
 TITLE III. 
 
 EXECUTIVE DEPART3IE.NT. 
 
 Art. 38. The supreme executive pow- 
 er of the State shall be vested in a chief 
 magistrate, who shall be styled the gover- 
 nor of the State of Louisiana. He shall 
 hold his office during the term offour years: 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 and together with the lieutenant governor 
 chosen for the same term, be elected as 
 follows: — The qualified electors for repre- 
 sentatives, shall vote for a governor and 
 lieutenant governor, at the time and place 
 of voting for representatives; the returns of 
 every election shall be sealed up and trans- 
 mitted by the proper returning officer to 
 the secretary of state; who shall deliver 
 them to the speaker of the house of repre- 
 sentatives on the second day of the session 
 of the general assembly, then next to be 
 holclen. The members of the general as- 
 sembly shall meet in the house of repre- 
 sentatives, to examine and count the votes. 
 The person having the greatest number of 
 votes for governor shall be declared duly 
 elected, but if two or more persons shall be 
 equal and highest in the number of votes 
 polled, for governor, one of them shall im- 
 mediately be chosen governor by joint vote 
 of the members of the general assembly. 
 The person having the greatest number of 
 votes for lieutenant governor shall be lieu- 
 tenant governor, but if two or more per- 
 sons shall be equal and highest in the num- 
 ber of votes polled for lieutenant governor, 
 one of them shall be immediately chosen 
 lieutenant governor by joint vote of the 
 members of the general assembly. 
 
 Art. 39. No person shall be eligible to 
 the office of governor or lieutenant govern- 
 or, who shall not have attained the age of 
 thirty-five years, been fifteen years a citi- 
 zen of the United States, and a resident 
 within this State for the same space of time 
 next preceding his election. 
 
 Art. 40. The governor shall enter on 
 the discharge of his duties on the fourth 
 Monday of January next ensuing his elec- 
 tion, and shall continue in office until the 
 Monday next succeeding the day that his 
 successor shall have been declared duly 
 elected, and shall have taken the oath or 
 affirmation prescribed by this Constitution. 
 
 Art. 41. The governor shall be ineligi- 
 ble for the succeeding four years after the 
 expiration of the time for which he shall 
 have been elected. 
 
 Art. 42. No member of congress or 
 person holding any office under the United 
 States, or minister of any religious society, 
 shall be eligible to the office of governor or 
 lieutenant governor. 
 
 Art. 43. In case of the impeachment 
 of the governor, his removal from office, i 
 
 death, refusal or inability to quality, resig- 
 nation or absence from the State, the pow- 
 ers and duties of the office shall devolve 
 upon the lieutenant governor for the resi- 
 due of the term, or until the governor, ab- 
 sent or impeached, shall return or be ac- 
 quitted. The legislature may provide by 
 law for the case of removal, impeachment, 
 death, resignation, disability; or refusal to 
 qualify, of both the governor and lieutenant 
 governor, declaring what, officer shall act 
 as governor, and such officer shall act ac- 
 cordingly, until the disability be removed, 
 or for the residue of the term. 
 
 Art. 44. The lieutenant governor, or 
 other officer discharging the duties of gov- 
 ernor, shall, during his administration, re- 
 ceive the same compensation to which the 
 governor would have been entitled, had he 
 continued in office. 
 
 Art. 45. The lieutenant governor shall, 
 by virtue of his office, be president of the 
 senate, but shall have only a casting vote* 
 therein. Whenever he shall administer 
 the government, or shali be unable to at- 
 tend as president of the senate the sena- 
 tors shall elect one of their own members 
 as president of the senate for the time 
 being. 
 
 Art. 46. While he acts as president o£ 
 the senate, the lieutenant governor shall 
 receive for his services the same compen- 
 sation which shall for the same period be 
 allowed to the speaker of the house of rep- 
 resentatives, and no more. 
 
 Art. 47. The governor shall have pow- 
 er to grant reprieves for all offences against 
 the State, and except in cases of impeach- 
 ment, shall, with the consent of the* senate, 
 have power to grant pardons and remit 
 fines and forfeitures, after conviction. In 
 cases of treason he may grant reprieves, 
 until the end of the next session of the gen- 
 eral assembly, in which the power of par- 
 doning shall be vested. 
 
 Art. 48. The governor shall at stated 
 times receive for his services a compensa- 
 tion, which shall neither be increased or 
 diminished during the term for which he 
 shall have been elected. 
 
 Art. 49. He shall be communder-in- 
 chief of the army and navy of this State 
 and of the militia thereof, except when 
 they shall be called into the service of the 
 United States. 
 
 [ Art. 50. He- shall nominate, and by and 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 347 
 
 with the advice and consent of the senate, 
 appoint all officers whose offices are es- 
 tablished by this constitution, and whose 
 appointment is not therein otherwise pro- 
 vided for: Provided, however, that the 
 legislature shall have a right to prescribe 
 the mode of appointment to all other offices 
 established by law. 
 
 Art. 51. The governor shall have pow- 
 er to fill vacancies that may happen during 
 the recess of the senate, by granting com- 
 missions which shall expire at the end of 
 the next session, unless otherwise provided 
 for in this constitution; but no person who 
 has been nominated for office, and rejected 
 by the senate, shall be appointed to the 
 same office during the recess of the senate 
 
 Art. 52. He may require information 
 in writing from the officers in the execu- 
 tive department, upon any subject relating 
 to the duties of their respective offices. 
 
 Art. 53. He shall from time to time, 
 give to the general assembly information 
 respecting the situation of the State, and 
 recommend to their consideration such 
 measures as he may deem expedient. 
 
 Art. 04. He may on extraordinary oc- 
 casions convene the general assembly at 
 the seat of government, or at a different 
 place if that should become dangerous from 
 an enemy or from epidemics; and in case 
 of disagreemet between the two houses as 
 to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn 
 them to such time as he may think proper, 
 not exceeding four months. 
 
 Art. 55. He shall take care that the 
 laws be faithfully executed. 
 
 Art. 56. Every bill which shall have 
 passed both houses shall be presented to 
 the governor; if he approve he shall sign 
 it, if not, he shall return it with his ob- 
 jections to the house in which it origina- 
 ted, which shall enter the objections at 
 large upon its journal, and proceed to re- 
 consider it; if after such reconsideration 
 two-thirds of all the members elected to 
 that house shall agree to pass the bill, it 
 shall be sent with the objections to the 
 other house, by which it shall likewise be 
 reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds 
 of all the members elected to that house, 
 it shall be a law; but in such cases the vote 
 of both houses shall be determined by yeas 
 and nays, and the names of the members 
 voting for and against the bill, shall be en- 
 tered on the journal of each house respec- 
 
 tively. If any bill shall not be returned 
 by the governor within ten days (Sunday.- 
 excepted) after it shall have been presented 
 to him, it shall be a law in like manner as 
 if he had signed it, unless the general as- 
 sembly by adjournment, prevent its return; 
 in which case it shall bea law, unless sent 
 back within three days after their next 
 meeting. 
 
 Art. 57. Every order, resolution or vote 
 
 ! to which the concurrence of both houses 
 may be necessary, except on a question of 
 adjournment, shall be presented to the gov- 
 ernor, and before it shall take effect, be 
 approved by him, or being disapproved, 
 shall be repassed by two-thirds of the 
 members elected to each house of the gen- 
 eral assembly. 
 
 Ar - ^ 53.' There shall be a secretary of 
 state, who shall hold his office during the 
 time for which the governor shall have 
 been elected. The records of the State 
 shall be kept and preserved in the office ot 
 the secretary; he shall keep a fair register 
 of the official acts and proceedings of the 
 governor, and when necessary shall attest 
 them. He shall, when required, lay the 
 
 , said register, and all papers, minutes and 
 vouchers relative to his office, before either 
 
 , house of the general assembly, and shall 
 perform such other duties as may be en- 
 joined on him by law. 
 
 Art. 59. All commissions shall be in 
 the name and by the authority of the State 
 of Louisiana, and shall be sealed with the 
 
 ; State seal and signed by the governor. 
 
 Art. 60. The free white men of the 
 State shall be armed and disciplined for 
 its defence; but thos.e who belong to reli- 
 gious societies whose tenets forbid them to 
 carry arms, shall not be compelled so to do, 
 but shall pay an equvalent for personal ser- 
 
 . vices. 
 
 Art. 61. The militia of the State shall 
 be organized in such manner as may be 
 hereafter deemed most expedient by the 
 legislature. 
 
 TITLE IV. 
 
 JUDICIARY DEPAKXENT. 
 
 Art. 62. The judicial power shall be 
 vested in a supreme court, in district courts 
 and injustices of the peace. 
 
 Art. 63. The supreme court, except in 
 i cases hereinafter provided, shall have ap- 
 • pellate jurisdiction only, which jurisdiction 
 shall extend to all cases when the matter 
 
348 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 in dispute shall exceed three hundred dol- 
 lars, to all cases in which the constitution- 
 ality of any tax, toll, or impost of any kind 
 or nature soever, shall be in contestation, 
 whatever may be the amount thereof; and 
 likewise to all fines, forfeitures and penal- 
 ties imposed by municipal corporations; 
 and in criminal cases on questions of law 
 alone, whenever the punishment of death 
 or hard labor may be inflicted, or when a 
 fine exceeding three hundred dollars is ac- 
 tually imposed. 
 
 Art. 64. The supreme court shall be 
 composed of one chief justice and of three 
 associate judges, a majority of whom shall 
 constitute a quorum. The chief justice 
 shall receive a salary of six thousand dol- 
 lars, and each of the associate judges a sal- 
 ary of five thousand five hundred dollars, 
 annually. The said court shall appoint 
 its own clerks. The said judges shall be 
 appointed for the term of eight years. 
 
 Art, 65. Ayhen the first appointments 
 are made under this constitution, the chief 
 justice shall be appointed for the term of 
 eight years, one of the associate judges for 
 six years, one for four years and one for 
 two years; and in the event of the death, 
 resignation, or removal of any of said 
 judges, before the expiration of the period 
 for which he was appointed, his successor 
 shall be appointed only for the remainder 
 of his term: so that the term of office of 
 no two of said judges shall expire at the 
 same time. 
 
 Art. 66. The supreme court shall hold 
 its sessions in New OrPeans from the first 
 Monday of the month of November to the 
 end of the month of June, inclusive. The 
 legislature shall have power to fix the ses- 
 sions elsewhere during the rest of the 
 year; until otherwise provided, the ses- 
 sions shall be l?eld as heretofore. 
 
 Art. 67. The supreme court, and each 
 of the judges thereof, shall have power to 
 issue Writs of habeas corpus, at the instance 
 of all persons in actual custody under pro- 
 cess, in all cases in which they may have 
 appellate jurisdiction. 
 
 Art. 68. In all cases in which the judges 
 shall be equally dived in opinion, the judg- 
 ment appealed from shall stand affirmed; 
 in which case each of the judges shall 
 give his separate opinion in writing. 
 
 Art. 69. All judges, by virtue of their 
 office, shall be conservators of the peace 
 
 throughout the State. The style of all j 
 process shall be " the State of Louisiana." \ 
 All prosecutions shall be carried on "in 
 the name and by the authority of the State 
 of Louisiana," and conclude "against the 
 peace and dignity of the same." 
 
 Art. 70. The judges of all courts with- 
 in this State shall, as often as it is possible 
 so to do, in every definitive judgment, re- 
 fer to the particular law in virtue of which 
 such judgment may be rendered, and in 
 all cases adduce the reasons on which such 
 judgment is founded* 
 
 Art. 71. No court or judge shall make 
 any allowance by way of fee or compen- 
 sation in any suitor proceedings, except 
 for the payment of such fees to the minis* 
 terial officers as may be established by 
 law. 
 
 Art. 72. No duties or functions shall 
 ever be attached by law to the supreme or 
 district courts, or to the several judges 
 thereof, but such as are judicial; and the 
 said judges are prohibited from receiving 
 any fees of office, or other compension 
 than their salaries for any civil duties per- 
 ormed by them. 
 
 Art. 73. The judges of all courts shall 
 be liable to impeachment; but for any rea- 
 sonsable cause, which shall not be suffi- 
 cient ground for impeachment, the govern* 
 or shall remove any of them, on the acL 
 dress of three-fourths of the members pre- 
 sent of each house of the general assem- 
 bly. In every such case, the cause or 
 causes for which such removal may be re- 
 quired, shall be stated at length in the ad- 
 dress, and inserted in the journal of each 
 house. 
 
 Art. 74. There shall be an attorney 
 general for the State, and as many district 
 attorneys as may be hereafter found neces- 
 sary. They shall hold their offices for 
 two years; their duties shall be determined 
 by law. 
 
 Art. 75. The first legislature assem- 
 bled under this constitution, shall divide 
 the State into judicial districts, which shall 
 remain unchanged for six years, and be 
 subject to reorganization every sixth year 
 thereafter. 
 
 The number of districts shell not be less 
 than twelve, nor more than twenty. 
 
 For each district one judge, learned in 
 the law shall be appointed, except in the 
 district in which the cities of New Orleans 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 349 
 
 id Lafayette are situated, in which the 
 gislature many establish as many district 
 juris as the public interest may require. 
 Art. 76. Each of the said judges shall 
 iceive a salary to be fixed by law, which 
 lall not be increased or diminished dur- 
 ig his term of office, and shall never be 
 :ss than two thousand five hundred dol- 
 irs annually. He must be a citizen of 
 le United States, over the age of thirty 
 ears, and have resided in the State for six 
 ears next preceding his appointment, and 
 ave practiced law therein for the space of 
 ve years. 
 
 Art. 77. The judges of the district 
 purts shall hold their offices for the term 
 iS |.f six years. The judges first appointed 
 ? hall be divided by ballot into three class- 
 s, as nearly equal as can be; and the term 
 ia Uf office of the judges of the first class 
 fli hall expire at the end of two years, of 
 he second class at the end of four years, 
 tie ind of the third class at the end of six 
 '% /ears. 
 
 a Art. 78. The district courts shall have 
 ."' original jurisdiction in all civil cases when 
 he amount in dispute exceeds fifty dollars, 
 ill jxclusive of interest. In all criminal ca- 
 ies, and in all matters connected with suc- 
 jessions, their jurisdiction shall be unlim- 
 ited. 
 
 c. Art. 79. The legislature shall have 
 • power to vest in clerks of courts authority 
 q. to grant such orders, and do such acts as 
 j; may be deemed necessary for the further- 
 ; ance of the administration of justice; and 
 ]. in all cases the powers thus granted shall 
 Jj be specified and determined. 
 
 Z.. Art. 80. The clerks of the several 
 v courts snail be removable, for breach oi 
 :l good behavior, by the judges thereof; 
 ;. subject in all cases to an appeal to the su- 
 preme court. 
 
 Art. 81. The jurisdiction of justices of 
 the peace shall never exceed in civil cases 
 , the sum of one hundred dollars, exclusive 
 J of interest, subject to an appeal to the dis- 
 trict court in such cases as shall be provid- 
 » ed for by law. They shall be elected by 
 the qualified voters of each parish, for the 
 term of two years, and shall have such 
 criminal jurisdiction as shall be provided 
 for by law. 
 
 Art. 82. Clerks of the disirict courts 
 in this State shall be elected by the quali- 
 fied electors in eaoh parish for the term of 
 
 four years, and should a vacancy occur sub- 
 sequent tb an election, it shall be filled by 
 the judge of the court in which such vacan- 
 cy exists, and the person so appointed shall 
 hold his office until the next general elec- 
 tion. 
 
 Art. 83. A sheriff and a coroner shall 
 be elected in each parish, by the qualified 
 voters thereof, who shall hold their offices 
 for the term of tw r o years, unless sooner 
 removed. 
 
 Should a vacancy occur in either of these 
 offices subsequent to an election, it shall be 
 filled by the governor; and the person so 
 appointed shall continue in office until his 
 successor shall be elected and qualified. 
 TITLE V. 
 
 IMPEACHMENT. 
 
 Art. 84. The power of impeachment 
 shall be vested in the house of representa- 
 tives. 
 
 Art. 85- Impeachments of the gover- 
 nor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, 
 secretary of State, State treasurer, and the 
 judges of the district courts, shall be tried 
 by the senate; the chief justice of the su- 
 preme court, or the senior judge thereof, 
 shall preside during the trial of such im- 
 peachments. Impeachments of the judges 
 or the supreme court shall be tried by the 
 senate. When sitting as a court of im- 
 peachment, the senators shall be upon oath 
 or affirmation, and no person shall be con- 
 victed without the concurrence of two- 
 thirds of the senators present. 
 
 Art. 88, Judgments in cases of im- 
 peachment shall extend only to removal 
 from office and disqualification from hold- 
 ing any office of honor, trust or profit un- 
 der this State; but the parties convicted 
 shall, nevertheless, be subject to indict- 
 ment, trial and punishment, according to 
 law. 
 
 Art. 87. All officers against whom articles 
 of impeachment may be preferred, shall 
 be suspended from the exercise of their 
 functions during the pendency of such im- 
 peachment. The appointing power may 
 make a provisional appointment to replace 
 any suspended officer until the decision on 
 the impeachment. 
 
 Art. 88. The legislature shall provide 
 by law for the trial, punishment and remo- 
 val from office of all other officers of the 
 State, by indictment or otherwise. 
 
 On motion*, the report of the committee 
 
350 
 
 Journal of ihe Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 of revision in relation to public education 
 was taken up for its third reading; viz: 
 TITLE VI. 
 
 GENERAL PROVISIONS. 
 
 Art. 89. Members of the general as- 
 sembly, and all officers, before they enter 
 upon the duties of their offices shall take 
 the following oath or affirmation : 
 
 I (A. B.) do solemnly swear (or affirm) 
 that I will faithfully and impartially dis- 
 charge and perform all the duties incum- 
 bent on me as , according to the 
 
 best of my abilities and understanding, 
 agreeably to the constitution and laws of 
 the United States, and of this State; and I 
 do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that 
 since the adoption of the present constitu- 
 tion, I, being a citizen of this State, have 
 not fought a duel with deadly weapons 
 within this State, nor out of it, with a 
 citizen of the State, nor have I sent or 
 acepted a challenge to fight a duel with 
 deadly weapons with a citizen of the State, 
 nor have acted as second in carrying a 
 challenge, or aided, advised, or assisted 
 any person thus offending, so help me 
 God." 
 
 Art. 90. Treason against the State 
 shall consist only in levying war against, 
 or in adhering to its enemies, giving them 
 aid and comfort. No person shall be con- 
 victed of treason, unless on the testimony 
 of two witnesses to the same overt act, or 
 his own confession in open court. 
 
 Art. 91. Every person shall be dis- 
 qualified from holding any office of trust 
 or profit in this State, who shall have been 
 convicted of having given, or offered a 
 bribe to procure his election or appoint- 
 ment. 
 
 Art. 92. Laws shall be made to ex- 
 clude from office and from the right of suf- 
 frage, those who shall hereafter be convict* 
 ed of bribery, perjury, forgery, or other 
 high crimes or misdemeanors. 
 
 The privilege of free suffrage shall be 
 supported by laws regulating elections, and 
 prohibiting under adequate penalties all 
 undue influence thereon from power, 
 bribery, tumult or other improper practice. 
 
 Art, 93. No money shall be drawn 
 from the treasury but in pursuance of spe- 
 cific appropriations made by law, nor shall 
 any appropriation of money be made for a 
 longer term than two years. A regular 
 statement and account of the* receipts and 
 
 expenditures of all public money shall b( 
 published annually, in such manner a: 
 shall be prescribed by law. 
 
 Art. 94. It shall be the duty of the gen 
 eral assembly to pass such laws as may"b< 
 necessary and proper to decide difference 
 by arbitration. 
 
 Art. 95. All civil officers for the Stat* 
 at large shall reside within the State, am 
 all district or parish officers within thei 
 districts or parishes, and shall keep thei 
 offices at such places therein as may b* 
 required by law. No person shall I 
 elected or appointed to any parish offic 
 who shall not have resided in such pari* 
 long enough before such election or a| 
 point ment, to have acquired the right c 
 voting in such parish; and no person sha 
 be elected or appointed to any distru 
 office, who shall not have resided in sue 
 district, or an adjoining district, Ion 
 enough before such appointment, or ele< 
 tion, to have acquired the right of votin 
 in the same. 
 
 Art. 96. The duration of all offices n< 
 fixed by this constitution, shall never e: 
 ceed four years. 
 
 Art. 97. All civil officers, except tl 
 governor and judges of the supreme an, 
 district courts, shall be removeable by a 
 address of a majority of the members I 
 both houses, except those the removal 
 whom has been otherwise provided for \ I 
 this constitution. 
 
 Art. 98. Absence on business of th 
 State or of the United State, shall not fo j 
 feit a residence once obtained, so as to d< I 
 prive any one of the right of suffrage, < 
 of being elected or appointed to any offi( 
 under the exceptions contained in this coi 
 stitution. 
 
 Art 99. It shall be the duty of the 1 
 gislature to provide by law for deductioi 
 from the salaries of public officers wl 
 may be guilty of a neglect of duty. 
 
 Art. 100. The legislature shall poij^j 
 out the manner in which a person comir | 
 into the State shall declare his residence; 
 
 Art. 10 i. In all elections by the peop 
 the vote shall be by ballot, and in all ele 
 tions by the senate and house of represeii 
 tatives, jointly or separately, the vote shsj 
 be given viva voce. 
 
 Art. 102. No member of congress, n< 
 person holding or exercising any office 
 trust or profit under the* United States, < 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 351 
 
 ther of them, or under any foreign power, 
 all be eligible as a member of the gene- 
 1 assembly, or hold or exercise any office 
 trust or profit under the State. 
 Art. 103. The laws, the public records 
 id the judicial and legislative written pro- 
 edings of the State, shall be promulgated, 
 eserved and conducted in the language 
 which the constitution of the United 
 nates is written. 
 
 'Art. 104. The secretary of the senate, 
 id clerk of the house of representatives, 
 |jiall be conversant with the French and 
 llnglish languages, and members may ad- 
 M*ess either house in the French or English 
 nguage. 
 
 fj Art. 105 The general assembly shall 
 rect by law, how persons who are now, 
 ; may hereafter become sureties for pub- 
 ic officers, may be discharged from such 
 iretyship. 
 
 [j Art. 106. No power of suspending the 
 liws of this State shall be exercised, unless 
 
 I jy the Legislature or its authority. 
 
 Art, 107. Prosecutions shall be by in- 
 lictment, or information. The accused 
 hall have a speedy public trial by an im- 
 artial jury of the vicinage : he shall not be 
 ompelled to give evidence against himself; 
 e shall have the right of being heard by 
 imself or counsel ; he shall have the right, 
 
 Knless he shall have fled from justice, of I 
 leeting the witnesses face to face, and j 
 hall have compulsory process for obtaining | 
 vitnesses in his favor. 
 
 Art. 108. All prisoners shall be baila- I 
 tie by sufficient sureties, unless for capital j 
 •ffences, where the proof is evident, or pre- 
 umption great ; and the privilege of the 
 vrit of habeas corpus shall hot be suspen- 
 led, unless when in case of rebellion or in- I 
 'asion the public safety may require it. 
 
 Art. 109. No ex post facto law, nor any 
 aw impairing the obligation of contracts, 
 
 '?hall be passed ; nor vested rights be di- j 
 
 jested unless for purposes of public utility, j 
 
 jmd for adequate compensation previously 
 
 hiade, 
 
 [ Art. 110. The press shall be free. Ev- 
 ,3iy citizen may freely speak, write and pub- j 
 lish his sentiments on all subjects ; being j 
 responsible for an abuse of this liberty. 
 
 Art. 111. Emigration from the State 
 shall not be prohibited. 
 
 Art. 112. The general assembly which j 
 ■hall meet after the first election of repre- i 
 
 sentatives under this Constitution, shall, 
 within the first month after the commence- 
 ment of the session, designate and fix the 
 seat of government, at some place not less 
 than sixty miles from the city of New Or- 
 leans, by the nearest travelling route ; and 
 if on the Mississippi river, by the mean- 
 ders of the same : and when so fixed, it 
 shall not be removed without the consent 
 of four fifths of the members of both hous- 
 es of the general assembly. The sessions 
 shall be held in New Orleans until the end 
 of the year 1848. 
 
 Art. 113. The legislature shall not 
 pledge the faith of the State for the pay- 
 ment of any bonds, bills, or other contracts 
 or obligations for the benefit or use of any 
 person or persons, corporation or body po- 
 litic whatever. But the State shall have 
 the right to issue new bonds in payment of 
 its outstanding obligations or liabilities, 
 whether due or not ; the said new bonds, 
 however, are not to be issued for a larger 
 amount or at a higher rate of interest, than 
 the original obligations they are intended 
 to replace. 
 
 Art. 114. The aggregate amount of 
 debts hereafter contracted by the legisla- 
 ture, shall never exceed the sum of one 
 hundred thousand dollars, except in case 
 of war, to repel invasions or suppres insur- 
 rections, unless the same be authorized by 
 some law, for some single object or work, to 
 be distinctly specified therein ; which law 
 shall provide ways and means, by taxation, 
 for the payment of running interest during 
 the whole time for which said debt shall be 
 contracted, and for the full and punctual 
 discharge at maturity, of the capital bor- 
 rowed ; and said law shall be irrepealable 
 until principal and interest are fully paid 
 and discharged, and shall not be put into 
 execution until after its enactment by the 
 first legislature returned by a general 
 election after its passage. • 
 
 Art. 115. The legislature shall pro, 
 vide by law for a change of venue in civil 
 and criminal cases. 
 
 Art. 116. No lottery shall be authorized 
 by this State, and the buying or sellingof lot- 
 tery tickets wiihin the State is prohitcd. 
 
 Art. 117. No divorce shall be granted 
 by the Legislature. 
 
 Art. 118. Every law enacted by the le- 
 gislature shall embrace but one object, and 
 that shall "be expressed in the title. 
 
 -> 
 
352 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 Art. 119. No law shall be revived or 
 amended by reference to its title ; but in 
 such case, the act revived, or section amen- 
 ded, shall be re-enacted and published at 
 length. 
 
 Art. 120. The legislature shall never 
 adopt any system or code of laws by gene- 
 ral reference to such system or code of 
 laws ; but in all cases shall specify the sev. 
 eral provisions of the laws it may enact. 
 
 Art. 121. The State shall not become 
 subscriber to the stock of any corporation 
 or joint stock company. 
 
 Art. 122. No corporate body shall be 
 hereafter created, renewed or extended, 
 with banking or discounting privileges. 
 
 Art. 123. Corporations shall not be 
 created in this State by special laws, ex- 
 cept for political or municipal purposes ; 
 but the legislature shall provide by gene- 
 ral laws, for the organization of all other 
 corporations, except corporations with ban- 
 king or discounting privileges, the creation 
 of which is prohibited. 
 
 Art. 124. From and after the month of 
 January, 1890, the legislature shall have 
 the power to revoke the charters of all cor- 
 porations whose charters shall not have 
 expired previous to that time, and no cor- 
 porations hereafter to be created shall ever 
 endure for a longer term than twenty-five 
 years, except those which are political or 
 municipal. 
 
 Art. 125. The general assembly shall 
 never grant any exclusive privilege or mo- 
 nopoly, for a longer period than twenty' 
 years. 
 
 Art. 126. No person shall hold or ex- 
 ercise, at the same time, more than one 
 civil office of emolument, except that of 
 justice of" the peace. 
 
 Art. 127. Taxation shall be equal and 
 uniform throughout the State. After the 
 year 1848 all property, on which taxes 
 may be levied in this State, shall be taxed 
 in proportion to its value, to be ascertained 
 as directed by law. No one species of 
 property shall be taxed higher than ano- 
 ther species of property of equal value, on 
 which taxes shall be levied; the legisla- 
 ture shall have power to levy an income 
 tax, and to tax all persons pursuing any 
 occupation, trade or profession. 
 
 Art. 128. The citizens of the city of 
 New Orleans shall have the right of ap- 
 pointing the several public officers neces- 1 
 
 sary for the administration of the police c 
 the said city, pursuant to the mode of elec 
 tions which shall be prescribed by lh< 
 legislature; provided, that the mayor am 
 recorders shall be ineligible to a seat ii 
 the general assembly; and the mayor, re 
 corders and aldermen shall be commission 
 ed by the governor as justices of the peace 
 and the legislature may vest in them sucl 
 criminal jurisdiction as may be necessar] 
 for the. punishment of minor crimes am 
 offences, and as the police and good orde, 
 of said city may require. 
 
 Art. 129. The legislature may providi 
 by law in what case officers shall continui 
 to perform the duties of their offices un^i 
 their successors shall have been induetei 
 into office. 
 
 Art. 130. Any citizen of this State wh< 
 shall, after the adoption of this constitution 
 fight a duel with deadly weapons with i 
 citizen of this State, or send or accept? 
 challenge to fight a duel with deadly wea 
 pons, either within the State or out of it .i 
 with a citizen of this State, or who shal 
 act as second, or knowingly aid and as sis 
 in any manner those thus offending, shal 
 be deprived of holding any office of trus 
 or profit, and of enjoying the right of suf- 
 frage under this constitution. 
 
 Art. l'3i\ The legislature shall haifei 
 power to extend this constitution, and the 
 jurisdiction of this State over any territory 
 acquired by compact with any State, oi 
 with the United States, the same being 
 done by the consent of the United States. 
 
 Art. 132. The/constitution and laws $ 
 this State, shall be promulgated in the En 
 glish and French languages. 
 
 TITLE VII. 
 
 PUBLIC EDUCATION. 
 
 Art. 133. There shall be appointed a 
 superintendent of public education, whc 
 shall hold his office for two years; Hi* 
 duties shall be prescribed by law. He 
 shall receive compensation as the legisla- 
 ture may direct. 
 
 Art. 1 34. The legislature shall establish! 
 free public schools throughout the State, 
 and shall provide means for their support 
 by taxation on property or otherwise. 
 
 Art, 135. The proceeds of all lands 
 heretofore granted by the United States to 
 this State for the use or support of schools, 
 and of all lands which may hereafter be 
 granted or bequeathed to the State, and not 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 Bipressly granted or bequeathed for any 
 •ther purpose, which hereafter may be 
 disposed of by the State, and the proceeds 
 fthe estates of deceased persons to which 
 lie State may become entitled by law, 
 hall be held by the State as a loan, and 
 hall be and remain a perpetual fund, on 
 ,*hich the State shall pay an annual inter- 
 est of six per cent: which interest together 
 t'ith all the rents of the unsold lands, shall 
 iie appropriated to the support of such 
 :-hools 5 and this appropriation shall remain 
 iviolable. 
 
 A.rt. 136. All moneys arising from the 
 lie which have been or may hereafter be 
 ade of any lands heretofore granted by the 
 nited States to this State, for the use of a 
 miliar)' of learning, and from any kind of 
 ^nation that j^iy hereafter be made for 
 at purpose, sM be and remain a perpet- 
 il fund, the interest of which at six per 
 3nt per annum, shall be appropriated to 
 e support of a seminary of learning for 
 :e promotion of literature and the arts and 
 iences, and no law shall ever be made 
 verting said fund to any other use than to 
 e establishment and improvement of said 
 miliary of learning. 
 
 Art. 137. An university shall be estab- 
 •hed in the city of New Orleans. It shall 
 
 it composed of four faculties, to wit: one 
 law 7 , one of medicine, one of the natural 
 
 Uences, and one of letters. 
 
 | Art. 138. It shall be called " the L ni- 
 
 ;?rsity of Louisiana," and the Medical Col- 
 ge of Louisian as at present organized, 
 
 kail constitute the faculty of medicine. 
 
 j Art. 139. The legislature shall provide 
 r law, for its further organization and go- 
 irnment; but shall be under no obligation 
 contribute to the establishment or sup- 
 >rt of said university by appropriations. 
 TITLE VIII. 
 
 |lODE OF REVISING THE CONSTITUTION. 
 
 Art. 140. Any amendment or amend- 
 ments to this Constitution may be propo- 
 d to the senate or house of representa- 
 |rc s, and if the same shall be agreed to 
 v three-fifths of the' members elected to 
 ich house, and approved by the governor, 
 ch proposed amendment or amendments 
 iall be entered on their journals, with 
 i e yeas and nays taken thereon, and the 
 =cretary of state shall cause the same to 
 3 published, three months before the next 
 jneral election, in at least one newspa- 
 45 
 
 pers in French and English, in every parish 
 in the State in which a newspaper shall 
 be published; and if, in the legislature next 
 afterwards chosen, such proposed amend- 
 ment or amendments shall be agreed to by 
 a majority of the members elected to each 
 house, the secretary of state shall cause 
 the same again to be publishedMn the man- 
 ner aforesaid, at least three months pre- 
 vious to the next general election for re- 
 presentatives to the State legislature, and 
 such proposed amendment or amendments 
 shall be submitted to the people at said 
 election; and if a majority of the qualified 
 electors shall approve and ratify such 
 amendment or amendments, the same shall 
 become a part of the constitution. If more 
 than one amendment be submitted at a 
 time, they shall be submitted in such man- 
 ner and form that the people may vote for 
 or against each amendment, separately. 
 TITLE IX. 
 
 SCHEDULE. 
 
 Art. 141. The Constitution adopted in 
 1812 is declared to be superseded by this 
 Constitution, and in order to carry the same 
 into affect, it is hereby declared and ordain- 
 ed as folllows : 
 
 Art. 142. All rights, actions, prosecu- 
 tions, claims and contracts, as well of indi- 
 viduals as of bodies corporate, and all laws 
 in force at the time of the 'adoption of this 
 Constitution, and not inconsistent therewith 
 shall continue as if the same had not been 
 adopted. 
 
 Art. 143. Until the first enumeration 
 shall be made as directed in article eighth, 
 of this Constitution, the parish of Orleans 
 shall have twenty representatives, to be 
 elected as follows, viz: 
 
 Eight by the First Municipality, seven 
 by the Second Municipality, and four by 
 the Third Municipality, to be distributed 
 among the nine representative districts as 
 follows, by allotting to the 
 
 First district, two Rep. 
 
 Second " two 
 Third " three 
 Fourth " three 
 Fifth M three 
 Sixth two 
 Seventh " two 
 Eighth " one 
 
 Ninth 
 
 one 
 
 And to that part of the parish on the right 
 bank of the Mississippi, one 
 
354 
 
 Journal of the Convention of Louisiana, 
 
 The parish of Plaquemines, 
 
 
 clifill Via vp 
 
 ollctll 11 CL V t/ 
 
 three 
 
 a 
 
 kJl, UclllalUj 
 
 one 
 
 a 
 
 1 onAvcn in 
 
 j eiicroun, 
 
 three 
 
 a 
 
 Ol, V^Iialico, 
 
 one 
 
 
 oi. jonn me Baptist, 
 
 one 
 
 
 St, James, 
 
 two 
 
 
 Ascension, 
 
 two 
 
 t • 
 
 Assumption, 
 
 three 
 
 u 
 
 Lafourche Interior, 
 
 three 
 
 (c 
 
 x ei rtjuuiicj 
 
 two 
 
 
 Iberville, 
 
 two 
 
 t< 
 
 Wp«?t Raton R nnw 
 
 one 
 
 t< 
 
 East do 
 
 three 
 
 (( 
 
 »V col x cllCldlla, 
 
 two 
 
 u 
 
 Fln^t dn 
 
 three 
 
 if 
 
 St TTplpm 
 
 one 
 
 it 
 
 11 afeiilUg lUXJ, 
 
 one 
 
 a 
 
 T vi n rr>5 tnn 
 
 XJlvlllHSlUll, 
 
 St. Tammany, 
 
 nrsp 
 uiic 
 
 (( 
 
 one 
 
 it 
 
 Point Coupee, 
 
 one 
 
 tt 
 
 UIIOUI Uld, 
 
 one 
 
 » 
 
 Tensas, 
 
 nn p 
 
 
 Madison, 
 
 one 
 
 
 Carroll, 
 
 one 
 
 
 Franklin, 
 
 one 
 
 
 St. Mary, 
 
 two 
 
 
 St. Martin, 
 Vermillion, 
 
 three 
 
 
 one 
 
 
 Lafayette, 
 fct. JLandry, 
 
 two 
 
 
 five 
 
 St 
 
 
 one 
 
 t£ 
 
 A xtcwtpA 1 P« 
 
 two 
 
 4 t 
 
 XVcLUlUCS, 
 
 l>i dlCilllULHub, 
 
 LIU CO 
 
 s; 
 
 three 
 
 tt 
 
 
 twA 
 
 I vv u ^ 
 
 U 
 
 riarlfln 
 
 \J dUUU,; 
 
 
 6C 
 
 De Soto 
 
 one 
 
 tt 
 
 Ouachita, 
 
 one 
 
 tt 
 
 Morehouse, 
 
 one 
 
 ii . 
 
 Union 
 
 one 
 
 ii 
 
 Jackson, 
 
 one 
 
 >il 
 
 Caldwell, 
 
 one 
 
 ii 
 
 Catahoula, 
 
 two 
 
 ii 
 
 Claiborne, 
 
 two 
 
 ii 
 
 Bossier, 
 
 one 
 
 Total, ninety-eight. 
 
 And the State shall be divided into the 
 following senatorial districts : 
 
 All that portion of the parish of Orleans 
 lying on the east side of the Mississippi 
 river shall compose one senatorial district, 
 and shall elect four senators; 
 
 The parishes of Plaquemines, St. Ber- 
 nard, and that part of the parish of Or- 
 leans lying on the right bank of the river, 
 
 shall compose one district, with one senator 
 
 The parish of Jefferson shall compose 
 one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of St. Charles and St, 
 John the Baptist shall compose one dis - 
 trict, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of St. James shall compose 
 one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of Ascension shall compose \ 
 one district with one senator; 
 . The parishes of Assumption, Lafourchi 
 Interior and Terrebonne shall compose ' 
 one district, with two senators; 
 
 The parishes of Iberville and Wes 
 Baton Rouge shall- compose one district 
 with one senator; 
 
 The parish of East Baton Rouge shal 
 compose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of Point Goupee shall com 
 pose one district, with onPlenator; 
 
 The parish of Avoyelles shall composi 
 one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of St. Mary shall composi 
 one distrtct, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of St. Martin shall composi 
 one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Lafayette and Vermil 
 lion shall compose one district, with on 
 senator; 
 
 The parishes of St. Landry and Galea 
 sieu, shall compose one district, with tw< 
 senators; 
 
 The parish of West Feliciana shall com 
 pose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parish of East Feliciana shall com 
 pose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of St. Helena and Livings 
 ton shall compose one district, with on 
 senator; 
 
 The parishes of Washington and m 
 Tammany, shall compose one district, wit] 
 one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Concordia and Tensa, 
 shall compose one district with one sen 
 ator; 
 
 The parishes of Carroll and Madisoi 
 shall compose one district, with one sen 
 ator; 
 
 The parishes of Jackson, Union, More 
 house and Ouachita shall compose one dis 
 trict, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Caldwell, Franklin anc 
 Catahoula shall compose one district, witl" 
 one senator; 
 
 The parish of Rapides shall compos* 
 one district, with one senator; 
 
Journal of the Convention of Louisiana. 
 
 355 
 
 The parishes of Bossier and Claiborne 
 (shall compose one district, with one senator; 
 J The parish of Natchitoches shall com- 
 pose one district, with one senator; 
 
 The parishes of Sabine, De Soto and 
 Caddo shall compose one district, with one 
 j senator; 
 
 And whenever a new parish shall be crea- 
 ked, it shall be attached to the senatorial dis- 
 trict from which most of its territory was 
 j taken or to another contiguous * district at 
 ithediscretion of the legislature, but shall not 
 be attached to more than one district. 
 
 Art. 144. In order that no inconveni- 
 ence may result to the public service from 
 the taking effect of this Constitilution, no 
 office shall be superseded thereby ; but the 
 Iaw3 of the State relative to the duties of 
 the several officers, executive, judicial and 
 military, shall remain in full force, though 
 ithe same be contrary to this Constitution, 
 Stfld the several duties shall be performed 
 by the respective office js of the State accor- 
 ding to the existing laws, until the organi- 
 zation' of the government under this Con- 
 stitution, and the entering into office of the 
 new officers, to be appointed under said 
 government, and no longer. 
 
 Art. 145. Appointments to office by 
 the executive under this Constitutton, shall 
 be made by the governor to be elected un- 
 der its authority. 
 
 Art. 146. The provisions of article 28, 
 concerning the inability of members of the 
 legislature to hold certain offices therein 
 mentioned, shall not be held to apply to 
 the members of the first legislature elected 
 unde r this Constitution. 
 
 Art. 147. The time of service of all of- 
 ficers chosen by the people, at the first 
 election under this Constitution, shall ter- 
 minate as though the election had been hol- 
 den on the first Monday of November 
 1845, and they had entered on the discharge 
 of their duties at the time designated therein. 
 
 Art. 148. The legislature shall provide 
 for the removal of all causes now pending 
 in the supreme or other courts of the 
 courts under the Constitution of 1812, to 
 State created by this Constitution. 
 
 Art. 149. Appeals to the supreme 
 court from the parishes of Jackson, Union, 
 Morehouse, Catahoula, Caldwell, Ouachi- 
 ta, Franklin, Cari^p. Madison, Tensas, 
 and Concoreia, shall until otherwise provi- 
 ded for, be returnable to New Orleans. 
 
 TITLE X. 
 
 ORDINANCE. 
 
 Art. 150. Immediately after the ad- 
 journment of the Convention, the governor 
 shall issue his proclamation, directing the 
 several officers of this State authorized by 
 law to hold elections for members of 
 the gerteraj assembly, to open and hold a 
 poll in every parish of the State, at the pla- 
 ces designated by law, upon the first Mon- 
 day of November next, for the purpose of 
 taking the sense of the good people of 
 this State in Regard to the adoption or re- 
 jection of this constitution ; and it shall be 
 the duty of the said officers to recive the votes 
 of all persons entitled to vote under the 
 old constitution and under this constitution. 
 Each voter shall express his opinion by 
 depositing in the ballot-box a ticket where- 
 on shall be written ' ; the constitution ac- 
 cepted," or "the constitution rejected," or 
 some such words as will distinctly convey 
 the intention of the voter. At the conclu- 
 sion of the said election, which shall be 
 conducted in every respect as the general 
 State election is now conducted, the parish 
 judges and commissioners designated to 
 preside over the same, shall carefully exam- 
 ine and count each ballot so deposited, and 
 shall forthwith make due returns thereofto 
 the secretary of state, in conformity to the 
 provisions ofthe existing law upon the sub- 
 ject of elections. 
 
 Art. 151. Upon the receipt of the said 
 returns, or on the first Monday of Decern- 
 benjif the returns be not sooner received, 
 it snail be the duty ofthe governor, the 
 secretary of state, the attorney general, 
 and the state treasurer, in the presence of 
 ail such persons as may choose to attend, to 
 | compare the votes given at the said poll, 
 for the ratification and rejection of this 
 j constitution, and if it shall appear from 
 I said returns that a majority of all the votes 1 
 given is for ratifying this const itation, then 
 it shall be the duty of the governor to make 
 proclamation of that fact, and thenceforth 
 this constitution shall be ordained and es- 
 tablished as the constitution ofthe State of 
 Louisiana. But whether this constitution 
 be accepted or rejected, it shall be the duty 
 of the governor to cause to be published 
 in the State paper the result of the polls, 
 showing the number of votes cast in each 
 parish, for and against the said constitution. 
 Art. 152. Should this constitution be 
 
356 
 
 journal of the Convention of Louisiana* 
 
 accepted by the people, it shall also be the 
 duty of the governor forthwith to issue his 
 proclamation declaring the present legisla- 
 ture elected under the old constitution, to 
 be dissolved, and directing the several offi- 
 cers of the State, authorized by law, to hold 
 elections for members of the general assem- 
 bly, to hold an election at the peaces des- 
 ignated by law, on the ^third Monday in 
 January next, (1846) for governor, lieu- 
 tenant governor, members of the general 
 assembly, and all other officers whose elec- 
 tion is provided for pursuant to the provis- 
 ions of this constitution. And the said 
 election shall be conducted and the returns 
 thereof made in conformity with existing 
 laws upon the subject of State elections. 
 
 Art. 153. The general assembly elec- 
 ted under this constitution shall convene at 
 the state house, in the city of New Orleans, 
 upon the second Monday of February next, 
 (1846) after the elections; and that the 
 governor and lieutenant governor, elected 
 at the same time, shall be duly installed in 
 office during the first week of their session, 
 and before it shall be competent for the 
 said general assembly to proceed with the 
 transaction of business. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Lewis, the secretary 
 was ordered to call the names of the dele- 
 gates by counties, to sign the constitution, 
 and the following members affixed their 
 signatures to the same, to wit: 
 Joseph Walker, President of the Conven- 
 tion, and senatorial delegate of the coun- 
 ty of Rapides, | 
 Isaac T. Preston, C.M.Conrad, ™ 
 F. B. Conrad, John Culbertson, 
 
 Felix Garcia, George Eustis, 
 
 V. DuBouchel, Bernard Marigny, 
 T. M. Wadsworth, Christian Roselius, 
 
 J. P. Benjamin, P. Soule, 
 H. B. Cenas, James McCallop, 
 
 Zenon LaBauve, A. R. Splane, 
 Wm. Bernard Scott, P. Briant, 
 Amasa Read, A. Waddill, 
 
 B. Derbes, W. M. Prescott, 
 
 Thos. H. Lewis, of Stephen W. Wikoff, 
 the district of Ope- R. Taylor, 
 lousas, J, Fenwick Brent, 
 
 Green Hudspeth, Robert C. Ilynson, 
 John Blake* Weder- Thos. B. Scott, 
 
 strandt, G. Mayo, 
 
 Pierre Covillion, A. H. McRae, 
 M. B. Prescott, A. M. Dunn, of Fe- 
 Phanor Prudhomme, liciana, 
 Thos. C. Porter, R. Cade, of Lafay- 
 Geo. W. Peets. ette, 
 Wm. D. Stephens, C. Voorhies, of At- 
 S. W. Downs, of the takapas, 
 Ouachita senatorial Thos. W. Chinn, of 
 district, N. Baton Rouge, 
 
 Isaiah Garrett, L. Saunders, of E. 
 Jacob Humble, Feliciana, 
 Pierre Porche, Miles Taylor, of As- 
 Zenon Ledoux, Jr. sumption, 
 Walthall Burton, 
 Attest, 
 
 HORATIO DAVIS, 
 Secretary of the Convention 
 
 Mr. Garcia, offered the following res- 
 olution, which was read and adopted, viz: 
 
 Resolved, that the thanks of the Conven- 
 tion be tendered to its reporters, Messrs. 
 James Foulhouze and Robert Kerr, for. 
 the care and accuracy with which they 
 have complied with the arduous and deli- 
 cate task imposed on them. 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned, 
 sine die. 
 
 Attest, HORATIO DAVIS, 
 
 Secretary of the Convention. 
 
Louisiana . Const Itut- 
 
 Convent ion , 1844-45 . 
 
 ProcftPdin g g arm QabflJLOS 
 
 ISSUED TO