The Climax of Warmothism
The question of the governor’s power of appointment[169] involved two
serious conflicts with municipalities during 1869, from one of which,
at least, Warmoth emerged victoriously. A law of 1868 provided for the
filling of all vacancies of State or parish offices by appointment
for the remainder of the term by the governor with the consent of the
Senate, but by the Governor alone, if the Senate were not in session,
the appointment to expire the third Monday after the next session of
the Assembly.[170] Governor Warmoth chose to interpret this as giving
him the appointment even when the vacancy occurred by the expiration of
the term of office. In 1868 the legislature had amended the charter of
Jefferson City, requiring an election on the first Monday of January,
1869, and every two years thereafter for mayor, treasurer, comptroller,
and aldermen.[171] Section 4 also provided that the governor should
remove the existing aldermen and officers and appoint others until new
incumbents should be elected. Warmoth did not execute this portion
of the law but allowed matters to remain as they were until January,
1869, when an election should have been held. But none was ordered,
instead of which the governor proceeded the following May to appoint,
as in case of a vacancy. The original mayor, Kreider, refused to
yield office, and so the appointee applied to the district judge for
a mandamus to require the delivery of the books, which was granted.
The new board was installed May 19, by aid of the metropolitan police.
This action called out some violent demonstrations on the part of
the citizens but no serious disturbance resulted and it was decided
to leave the matter to the courts. Kreider carried an appeal to the
Supreme Court, which held that the term of the occupants in office had
not expired, for the failure to hold an election did not vacate the
office.[172]
The case of New Orleans was analogous. The term of office of one-half
of the Council had expired; and a special election was held May 19 to
fill the vacancies. But the governor under his unique interpretation
of the law made appointments to fill them. The old board claimed that
there were no vacancies, as, according to law, they were to hold their
offices until their successors were duly elected and qualified; namely,
until the next regular election. In this form it went to the courts
on July 19. A three-cornered comedy of injunctions took place; one,
granted by Judge Collins, admitted the newly elected members to their
seats; a second, by Judge Leaumont, placed the governor’s appointees
in office and a Democratic howl went up; a third, from Judge Cooley,
restored the elected members, and a Republican howl went up,[173] but
this latter injunction was dissolved December 25. Appeal was taken from
the decision of Judge Leaumont to the Supreme Court by the city of New
Orleans, but was dismissed November 19, because of a technicality.[174]
At the close of the year, the Governor decided to use the “mailed
fist.” December 28 the sheriff of the Fifth District Court read an
order before the council to exclude certain members and install the
appointees of Warmoth. The approaches to the council-room were crowded.
The board decided to obey under protest and the governor’s _protégés_
were seated and proceeded to organize. One old member stayed in his
seat, but as he made himself somewhat troublesome, he was ejected
and another with a commission seated. In the other chamber of the
city council that same evening one of the appointees appeared within
the bar. President Wiltz ordered him put out. After adjournment the
sheriff entered the chamber and read the above-mentioned order of Judge
Leaumont.[175] On December 30 the sheriff of the Sixth District Court
called the names of the appointees and served a paper upon each from
the elected members. But the attorney advised obedience to the orders
of the Fifth District Court and with this action the governor remained
triumphant.
The wrangle between the governor and Wickliffe, the auditor of public
accounts, which extended during most of 1869 and up until March of the
new year, resulted in a victory for the former. He accused Wickliffe
of extortion and corruption and had him arrested on several specific
charges. Fourteen indictments for malfeasance to the amount of $1800
were found by the grand jury. While awaiting the trial, the governor
suspended Wickliffe and appointed L. T. Delassize, a wealthy negro,
auditor _ad interim_, installing him by the aid of the metropolitan
police. But Wickliffe, nothing daunted, gave notice through the papers
that he had opened his office at No. 53 Conti Street, “opposite where
the Auditor’s office formerly was,” and warned the public not to pay
taxes or transact any business with the bureau until the auditor could
retake possession of his office.[176] A war of injunctions followed:
a writ from the Seventh District Court prohibited Delassize from
performing his duties on the ground that the governor had no power to
make the appointment; a counter injunction from the Fifth District
Court, March 29, restrained Wickliffe from acting. This conflict in
jurisdiction went before the Supreme Court,[177] but before a decision
could be rendered, two of the criminal cases came up for trial, in
both of which Wickliffe was acquitted, but in the one case the judge
considered it necessary to dismiss the jury with a reprimand.[178] The
remainder of the charges were dismissed by the attorney-general on the
ground that the auditor could not be tried until after impeachment.
Party feeling ran high in the press concerning the controversy, some
Democratic papers coming out emphatically for Wickliffe, due possibly
to mere opposition to the governor.[179] The governor withdrew his
opposition and allowed Wickliffe to resume office. In December the
auditor decided to move his archives at night into the building used
as a state house, but the governor on the 30th had his effects removed
from Mechanics Institute to the sidewalk.[180] But this fact created
no excitement in the city, as the affair seems still to have been
regarded as a petty, personal squabble.
In this shape the matter came before the General Assembly in 1870.
Rumors of impeachment had been rife,[181] and even before the
governor’s message was sent in, a resolution had been adopted by
the House for a joint committee to examine into the affairs of the
auditor’s office and the action of the governor in suspending the
auditor.[182] In the special message promised by the governor in his
annual address, he charged that the auditor’s offenses had seriously
embarrassed the government and rendered it difficult to pay the
interest on the State bonds. He specifically accused him of extortion
against individuals and the charitable institutions of the State,
and of fraud against the Commonwealth and collusion with evil-minded
persons.[183] The special committee of the House, to which the message
was referred, offered on January 31 a resolution of impeachment which
was debated at some length and adopted on the evening of February 1
with but five dissenting votes.[184] The seriousness of the question
sobered the Assembly so that the proceedings were marked throughout
the trial by a dignity and decorum sadly wanting in their other
discussions. Articles of impeachment were ordered prepared and the act
suspending him from office became effective by the prompt concurrence
of the Senate on February 4.[185]
February 3, Wickliffe brought thirty-four distinct counter charges
against Warmoth of violations of the constitution and laws, of
frauds upon the treasury, charges of corruption in levying blackmail
upon citizens, of bribery of witnesses, and numerous other acts of
malfeasance. “In short,” the accusation concludes, “his conduct in this
respect is so notorious that it can be proved that he never signed a
bill of pecuniary benefit to anyone that he did not demand and receive
money or other consideration for his signature.”[186] He summed up the
frauds to the State to the grand total of $800,000 and “untold millions
from forgery.” But the only effect this venting of his spleen had upon
Warmoth’s loyal vassals was to cause an investigation to be made which
enabled Warmoth to go before the people exonerated by an official
inquiry.[187]
The House preferred twenty-eight articles of impeachment against
Wickliffe, most of them for exacting bribes to issue his warrants for
money appropriated for printing and charitable institutions, and for
exceeding the appropriations.[188] The trial began February 14, and
continued almost daily until the close of the session, when on the
evening of March 3, the Senate found him guilty upon the fourth article
by unanimous vote.[189] A resolution removing him permanently from
office followed immediately. At the last moment he tried to escape
sentence by resigning,[190] and by fleeing from the State,[191] but
the Senate proceeded calmly to ignore such cowardice and to vote him
out of office. Whatever may be the fact as to Wickliffe’s dishonesty,
he was clearly guilty of gross irregularity and carelessness in the
keeping of his records.[192] And the governor had demonstrated to the
State that his hold on the legislature was sufficiently firm to enable
him to crush a presumptuous subordinate.
The legislation of 1870 marks high tide in Warmoth’s power. The rudder
he held firmly in his hands for almost two years longer; but against an
ever-increasing wave of opposition, it became constantly more difficult
to steer in the direction he would. Because of friction within his own
ranks, legislation did not again, after 1870, become the mouthpiece for
promulgating his decrees.
There were, in reality, two sessions, but the extra session followed so
closely on the heels of the first, and so much of the work was but the
completion of the unfinished business of the first session, that for
purposes of convenience the legislation will be treated as emanating
from one body. The Assembly convened for the first session at noon,
January 3. After a slight struggle over the speakership in the House,
Mr. Carr of Orleans was elected and the House reported itself ready for
the governor’s message. Its congratulatory tone sounds a bit forced
when he felicitates his people upon “the good feeling that exists among
the people of both races”; and the cheerfulness with which they are
accepting the new order of things, and the earnestness with which “our
people are addressing themselves to further protect the great interests
committed to their hands.”[193] But it is taken up, for the most part,
with a businesslike discussion of the various measures which, in
his estimation, called for action: encouragement of immigration, the
finances, levees, public improvements, emendation of the school law of
1869, charities, and gambling-houses.[194]
For the first time we hear the note of caution in regard to the
financial condition. The governor warned the Assembly that it was
not satisfactory and was such as to embarrass his administration. He
admitted that the credit of the State had not always been used for
practicable purposes, but insisted that under proper checks it might be
safely used to a still greater extent.[195] The usual expedients were
again resorted to: loans were negotiated to meet the interest due; and
the floating debt was provided for by the issue or exchange of fresh
bonds. But the same extravagance and folly which characterized their
actions in 1869 continued undiminished.[196]
By the session of 1870 an old feature of parliamentary tactics was
introduced: the opposition, though unavailing as to the final vote,
had become thoroughly organized for filibustering purposes and threats
of recourse to its use were held over the heads of the radicals as
a whip.[197] Mr. Lowell proposed once to make a bargain with his
party, to which he was opposed on a particular bill, by exchanging
his filibustering advantage for a grant of time.[198] By debates on
rules of order, appeals from the chair to the House, demands for the
roll-call on every little insignificant vote, they were able to waste
time and wear out their opponents until practically no business was
done at certain sessions.[199]
Four of the five measures which were destined to become the most
important of the session--indeed of the reconstruction period in
Louisiana--and the storm center about which the opposition to
the governor gathered, were, together with the appropriation and
revenue bills, introduced into the Senate as early as the third
day, thus gaining for that active body the questionable distinction
of initiative.[200] Nor did that body lose its zeal in pushing
legislation, for toward the close of the session bills went through
with a haste amazing even after the facility displayed on occasion in
1869. At a single evening session twenty bills were acted on,[201]
and yet, despite regular night sessions for about two weeks, the
session approached its close without concluding much important
legislation,[202] and without making provision for the revenues or
expenses of the government. And so, in accordance with the general
expectation,[203] the governor on March 3 notified the two houses of
the necessity to reassemble March 7 for ten days. In this extra session
the Assembly took up and passed the tremendous number of ninety-eight
bills, as compared with one hundred and seven in the first session.
An effort to tackle the problem of the government of New Orleans had
suffered indefinite postponement at the end of the session of 1869.
Both houses introduced bills early in 1870, but it was only late in
the extra session, after lengthy, heated debate, numerous amendments,
and the creation of committees of conference, that the two houses
could agree upon a measure which consolidated Jefferson City with New
Orleans, forced through by the country members, it was vehemently
declared, against the vigorous opposition of the city members. The
smaller city did not want to be saddled with the debt and taxes of the
larger. A representative of Jefferson said: “I say, sir, here in my
place, that the people--the masses--do not want to be forced to pay an
additional 2½ per cent tax.... There are not 150 people in Jefferson
who would vote for consolidation.”[204] An amendment to submit it to
popular vote was undemocratically voted down. The enlarged city was
to be governed by a mayor and seven administrators, presiding over as
many departments, who were to constitute the city council. Vacancies in
these offices were to be filled by appointment by the governor prior to
January 1, 1871, and subsequently by popular election.[205]
New Orleans was one of the few Southern cities which had had a system
of public schools before the war. Even in 1865 there were 141 schools
for freedmen and 19,000 pupils, the result of a free system for
twenty-five years.[206] A school law, providing in great detail for
the public education of all persons between six and twenty-one years
of age “without distinction of race or color” had been passed in
1869. But it had been a failure,[207] proving in the governor’s words,
“cumbrous and expensive.”[208] The governor, therefore, suggested that
the plan be simplified, the districts enlarged, and the powers and
discretion of the State board increased.[209] Shortly after the opening
of the session a bill was reported in the House and received, despite
attempts to choke it, full, heated discussion and amendment, section by
section, passing only on February 10.[210] In the Senate it came up for
a lengthy debate on the last evening, when it was crowded out by the
pressure of business so that it had to go over to March 9 and 10 in the
extra days of grace when, somewhat amended, it passed by a very large
majority, the dissenting votes coming from the city members.[211] The
House concurred in the Senate amendments the next day.
For the purposes of this bill the State was divided into six divisions,
of which New Orleans formed one. The State superintendent was
required to nominate to the governor, and the governor to the Senate,
a superintendent for each division to hold office three years. The
division superintendents with the State superintendent as president
constituted a board, having the general supervision and control of the
public schools throughout the State, while the division superintendents
were to have full control in their respective divisions. The system of
New Orleans was connected with that of the State by the selection of
a city board of directors by the State board, thus repealing all laws
granting control to the municipal authorities of that city. The State
board was also to appoint a board for every town, city, and parish in
the State with full corporate powers to sue and be sued. The general
school tax was fixed at two mills on the dollar in addition to a tax of
two mills to be collected in each parish. It continued, however, the
provision for the admission of all children between the ages of six and
twenty-one to the schools.[212]
A special civil court, the Eighth District Court, created at the
special session, proved of transcendent importance, when supported by
the criminal court,--created several sessions earlier. The two had
jurisdiction over all public matters, while the power of appointing the
judges was vested in the governor, thus circumventing the constitution.
All cases of a public character, contests for office, writs of quo
warranto, injunctions, mandamus had to be submitted to the former
court, to which all cases then pending before other district courts
must immediately be transferred.[213]
Numerous petitions to the legislature of 1870 showed that the idea of
improvements had now seized upon a large number of the constituents as
well as legislators.[214] Not only did members now propose to raise the
State to economic glory through the ordinary avenue of new railroads
and navigable bayous, but in their enthusiasm they were willing to
legislate parks[215] and factories into existence and to develop the
mineral resources of the State by the same agency. Bayou Bartholomew
was now to be improved; the New Orleans and Chattanooga Railroad
boosted by State bonds[216]; and a large sum of stock subscribed in the
Mississippi Valley Navigation Company.[217]
A number of amendments to the constitution were offered this
session,[218] but only four mustered sufficient strength to pass both
houses. The most noted were the one which removed the governor’s
ineligibility for a second term[219] and the amendment to Article
99, which removed the last restriction on the ex-rebels. It had been
offered in the Assembly, both in 1868 and 1869, and the governor had
urged it in his annual message in the latter year.[220] It stands out
in pleasing relief to most of the partisan legislation of that period,
inasmuch as it was introduced, we are told in debate, by one of the
most bitter opponents of the Democrats,[221] aroused very little
debate, and passed almost unanimously in both houses at a single
sitting.[222] Several speeches, all in favor, were made by negroes
to give, as one of them innocently said, “a little coloring to the
matter.”[223]
A third amendment was intended to secure the safety of the public
funds,[224] and the fourth was a most important restriction on the
public debt, namely, that prior to January 1, 1890, it could not be
increased beyond $25,000,000.[225]
But certain bills were of such transcendent importance that they all
but effaced the consciousness of other legislation, at least in the
mind of the public. These were the four great bills, the election,
registration, constabulary, and militia bills, which, together with
the constitutional amendment which removed ineligibility for a second
gubernatorial term, made it possible for Governor Warmoth to determine
the personnel of all offices practically at will, and, but for the
stumbling-block of the nominating convention, to continue himself
indefinitely at the head of affairs.
Whatever may have been the distrust of the governor in the State at
large--and complaints were not wanting from the first in Democratic
circles--confidence in their young leader was unshaken in the men who
constituted this Assembly. Even when opposing individual bills, members
were careful to express confidence in Warmoth[226] in some such terms
as follows: “Not that I have anything against the governor himself, but
I think it improper to give such extraordinary power to any man, were
he an apostle.”[227]
These measures were introduced together, as has been stated, on the
third day, and action on them extended during the entire period up
to the very close of the extra session. The greatest effort of the
opposition was expended on the election bill. This was not a new
conception of 1870, for a strenuous effort to press through such a
bill under cover of the excitement of the closing days of the session
of 1869 had failed. The note of alarm was sounded almost as soon as
this bill was reported to the Senate by the Judiciary Committee.[228]
“Now, sir, here is a bill giving the governor more than imperial
power--behind it is concealed an armed Grecian horse, with which he may
ride over the rights of the people....”[229] Debate raged every day
from January 18 to 24. The party aspect of the bill was so evident that
it was assailed at once as a device to perpetuate the Republican party
in power.
“I believe,” declared one member, “the only persons belonging to this
State who desire this enactment are those in office, and who are
afraid that unless such a bill as this is passed, they will not retain
the positions they now occupy, and this fear, Mr. President, is not
based on any fraud or violence that might occur at the next election
in which they might become candidates, but in the simple fact that a
revolution has taken place in public opinion.”[230] Even a Republican
felt obliged to break from his party because of its objectionable
features.[231]
Feeling reached a perfect climax of frenzy and sank to depths of
despondency for which it was difficult to find language sufficiently
vehement.
“Therefore, I hope you will believe me when I tell you that this is
the snake in the grass--the form that the devil himself assumed when
he seduced our mother Eve. I tell you that this is a devil, covered
and concealed perhaps, under perfumed flowers, but nevertheless, the
devil--his tail and horn comes out, and not only his tail, but his
horns and hoof. I tell you that this bill is a devil of a bill--the
concocters are devilish fellows, and the only way we can destroy their
sulphuric power is to give them hell.”[232] Another outburst was
clothed in more funereal garb:
I believe really that if ever there has come a day to the State of
Louisiana when the whole edifice of her political government ought to
be draped in mourning, that day has come now. I believe if ever there
has come a day when all the pomp and glory of the past had forsaken
her--widowed as she is in affection, destitute of all those glorious
sympathies that used to awaken a nobler people--we have arrived,
unfortunately for us, at that miserable period.[233]
In his excitement one member cried: “By God! I do not vote when they
are passing bills here to take away the lifeblood of the people.”[234]
The Republicans rested their defense on the necessity of an election
law which would secure to every citizen entitled to vote a free
exercise of his rights.[235] They turned the debate on the Democrats
by declaring that if they could not carry an election without violence
and were unwilling to pass a law to insure a fair election, they did
not want an honest vote.[236] Radicals who were not satisfied with the
bill declared that the opposition by their refusal to discuss it fairly
and by filibustering had prevented any modification. The attitude
of the mulatto leader, Pinchback, was that it was the lesser of two
evils.[237] It reëmerged from a special committee, to which it had been
committed, January 24,[238] and which again submitted a majority and
minority report, for a second period of debate from January 27 to 31,
on which latter date, much amended and fought to the bitter end, it was
adopted by a vote of 20 to 12.[239]
It came before the House on February 4, where it was argued at length
from February 11 to 16, in keen, searching debate. Members did not
scruple to speak plainly: “This bill, as I believe it, and as I know
it, makes the Republican party dominant; it makes the Governor,--not
clearly, but tacitly--all power; it makes the many parishes of this
State but fiefs of the Executive. It adds one more power to those he
is already endowed with.”[240] Note the succinct condemnation of it
as a party measure in the following query: “Why is the whole State
outlawed in consequence of the misbehavior of portions of it? Outlawed,
I say, for it provides for the outlawry of those who refuse to vote
a Republican ticket.”[241] Party feeling ran as high as in the other
House, and members found threatening documents on their desks, placed
there, Republicans declared, by the Ku-Klux.[242] Finally, suffering
much amendment here too, it was passed February 18 immediately after
prayer, with a burst of party effort: with the reading of only thirteen
sections,[243] the passage of the bill as a whole was moved and
carried, the reading of more than fifty sections being thus suppressed,
notwithstanding the protest of the Democrats at the unconstitutional
manner in which it was passed.[244] February 19 the Senate concurred in
the House amendments.[245]
The other measures seem almost to have turned on the fate of the
election law, for the opposition evidently exhausted its great effort
on that bill. There was little heat over the other measures; little
filibustering, few long speeches. Such few members as spoke seemed to
do so to discharge a moral duty.[246] The registration bill passed
the Senate, February 9[247] without amendment and the House entirely
without debate on the last evening of the regular session.
The history of the militia bill in the House was truly remarkable.
It was introduced March 9 from the Senate, where the interest was so
slight that only seven Senators were present to register their vote
against the fourteen votes which carried it[248]; the necessity of
considering it in Committee of the Whole was dispensed with, and it was
hurried to its third reading. The story of its passage on the evening
of March 14 is told in the following brief passage from the debates:
“Chief Clerk Vigers read the bill.
“I move its final passage, and on that call the previous question.
“The Speaker put the question on the final passage _viva voce_, and it
was declared carried.”[249]
This action caused the greatest confusion, surprise, and protest.
The registration bill threw into the control of the governor the power
to declare who should vote, as the election bill allowed him to declare
for whom the votes were cast. With the consent of the Senate he was to
appoint a State registrar, and one supervisor in each parish--except
Orleans, where the State registrar was to serve--whose duty it should
be to cause every qualified voter to be registered and make out lists
of the registered voters for the commissioners of election at each
polling-place.[250] The decision of any supervisor was final. Courts
were prohibited from interfering in any way with him or his assistants.
The supervisors, in turn, appointed three commissioners of election at
each poll.
The election bill vested in the governor power to take all necessary
steps to secure a fair, free, and peaceable election; and gave him on
election day paramount charge and control of the peace and order of
the State, over all peace and police officers, and over all sheriffs
and constables. Parish and district judges were forbidden to issue
writs of mandamus or injunction or other order to compel a commissioner
of election to do his duty, as the latter was to be responsible only
to the supervisor and he to the governor. On election day citizens at
large were expressly forbidden to carry arms except under orders of
the executive or his appointees. In all parishes except Orleans, the
duty and function of sheriffs were superseded by men appointed by the
governor. The governor and his officers were to be able to withhold
certificates of election to the General Assembly whenever in their
discretion they might see fit, in all cases where fraud, violence,
bribery, or other irregularity might be reported. The capstone of
the structure, as it has been aptly called, was the returning-board,
consisting of the governor, lieutenant-governor, secretary of State,
and two Senators indicated by name--John Lynch and T. C. Anderson,--in
whom was vested the entire revisory power. They were empowered to fill
vacancies within their own number by a majority vote.[251]
In order fully to comprehend the opportunity for fraud in elections, it
must also be noted that the State constitution gave the right to vote
in any parish or in any part of a parish after a residence of ten days,
so that a man, armed with his registration papers, could vote at as
many polls as he could visit in one day.
The purport of the third bulwark of Warmothism, the constabulary
law, was to vest in the governor special power to keep the peace.
With the consent of the Senate he might appoint one chief constable
in each parish, whose duty it should be to preserve the peace, quell
disturbances and riots, and upon warrant of any competent court,
summarily arrest all persons charged with murder, assaults, robberies,
arson, and riots, subject to the power of the governor. The chief
constable of the parish was to assign to each precinct a deputy
constable to perform his duties. Offices of all existing constables
were declared vacant and the governor empowered to bring in a set of
his loyal followers at once.[252]
The militia bill provided the necessary military power to enforce the
execution of the preceding laws. Under its provisions the governor was
constituted Commander-in-Chief of all the militia and could organize,
arm, equip, and uniform as many of the able-bodied male citizens
between the ages of eighteen and forty-five as he deemed necessary and
call the same into active service. Full lists were to be submitted from
each parish to the governor from which he might assign a sufficient
number of persons to make up five regiments. He was to appoint officers
for terms of two years to carry out details under his direction. And
the sum of $100,000 was appropriated to carry out the act.[253]
Several minor bills helped to build up this autocratic power of the
executive. Against stormy debate and attacks on its constitutionality,
a bill was passed which authorized the governor to issue a warrant for
the arrest of any person committing a crime punishable by death or
penitentiary imprisonment upon failure of the regularly constituted
officials to seize him, to be tried in a parish or district court.
Although the accused was assured of the service of attorney, the
bill violated State feeling by obliterating parish lines, and by
allowing high fees to the sheriff, levied on the parish where
the offense occurred.[254] Likewise, the bill which rendered the
Metropolitan Police Board no longer responsible to the recognized
legal tribunals,[255] and which did not require a bond in case suit was
brought against it, was only freeing his hands the more. Nor should
the reader fail to notice in this connection, as the last link in the
chain, that the governor could, under the new city charter, absolutely
control the city politics until after the election, a period of seven
months of grace for manipulating his wires.
Legislation so vital and revolutionary as the measures just outlined
and those appropriating State aid, naturally, aroused hostility, not
only within the legislature, but also outside, where it raged even more
violently, if possible. The Democratic press was thoroughly alarmed; it
attacked the various bills continually and held the most dire threats
over the heads of the Senators who dared to support them.[256] Fiery
language was intended to stir the people to action.[257] Feeling rose
to its greatest intensity over the four most important bills.[258]
Significant calls for secret meetings, signed K. W. C. and I. C.
U.,[259] appeared in the papers, and mass meetings began to be held
both for and against the bills. The Republican party met in mass
meeting on January 27 in the hall of the Representatives to urge the
Assembly to pass these bills without delay. This action was probably
to forestall and nullify the effect of a vast mass meeting of the
opponents of the legislation, which was arranged to take place, January
31 in Lafayette Square. The call was issued to all citizens “opposed to
the financial schemes now pending before the legislature, calculated to
increase the burdens of the people, depreciate the bonds, and ruin the
credit of the people, and cripple commerce.”[260] The enthusiasm of the
crowd here almost outstripped that of the leaders. Said one speaker:
“It is designed not to defend, but to plunder the country, and take
away the liberties of the people. What is to be done?”
“Kill them,” came the prompt response from the crowd.
“Ah, no, not yet. But put your foot down and say that this thing shall
not be. There is power in the fixed determination of the people, and if
the bills are then passed, do as Boston did to the minions of George
III. What is to be done with a Legislature that does these things?”
“Lynch them,” was the verdict of his hearers.[261]
A series of resolutions was passed protesting against the proposed
bills as destructive of the freedom of elections and as creating an
absolute despot of the executive, and denouncing their advocates as
public enemies. Men gave the world notice that they intended to use
all the means in their power to prevent the payment of any bonds or
other obligations of the State which were not indispensably necessary
to the proper administration of the government, and threatened openly
to vote for no man who would not refuse to vote any appropriations for
such obligations.[262] Committees in every parish sought to obtain the
signatures of the citizens of the State to the above resolutions, and
a delegation of one hundred citizens was chosen to present them to the
governor and the Assembly.
The governor’s reception of the committee was cordial, but his response
contained some remarkable charges; he laid the blame for the excesses
on lobbyists who knew how to manipulate the negroes, and laid the
corruption at the door of individuals and corporations who represented
the very best people; nor did he scruple to withhold names.
“The bill (the five million bond bill) went to the Senate. I walked
into the Senate chamber and saw nearly every prominent broker of the
city engaged in lobbying that bill through the Senate, and it was
only by exposing the fact that one of their emissaries had come into
this very chamber and laid upon the desk of my secretary an order for
$50,000 that I was able to defeat it. Mr. Conway, the mayor of your
city, came here and offered me any consideration to induce me to sign
this bill.”[263]
The visit of the delegates to the Senate on February 2 degenerated
into pure farce. A long and amusing debate as to whether they should
receive them or not took place before the delegates, as by some
misunderstanding they had crowded into the chamber before the Senators
had settled this momentous question. And Pinchback explained in
great detail that he had been obliged to admit them at once or they
“would go off with an additional excuse that we would not listen to
the representatives of the people.”[264] After the reading of the
resolutions the delegates were virtually asked to leave[265] and the
indignation of the Senators found wordy expression.[266] Though the
suggestion to return the resolutions as “disrespectful and insulting”
was not adopted, the latter were promptly tabled.
The attempt with the House on the same day met with no more success,
though preliminary arrangement for a ten-minute recess prevented any
such undignified parley as had occurred in the other body. But the
House took much the same attitude of offense toward the resolutions and
buried them in a special committee.[267]
Nominating conventions for the selection of candidates for State
officers were held in the month of September by both the Republican and
Democratic parties. A feature of both conventions was the appearance
of a large number of colored delegates. Inquiries were sent to the
Democratic State Central Committee as to the admission of colored
delegates and so the committee in the regular address to the people
took occasion to voice the party sentiment in the following language:
“The interests of both white and black men are identical in this
struggle. Whatever rights and privileges either enjoy under the
constitution are sacred, and it is the duty of every citizen to see
that they are maintained. The Democratic party has always upheld and
defended the constitution of the country and will now, as ever in the
past, protect and defend every citizen in the full and free exercise
of all rights guaranteed by that instrument.”[268] It declared its
platform to be retrenchment and reform, reduction of the debt and
taxation, rebuilt levees, restored confidence, and a desire to develop
the agricultural resources of the State.
The election was remarkable for its peaceful character.[269] But later
investigation established the fact that there was much fraud both in
connection with the appointment of registrars and in the count of the
election ballots. The law required the appointment of registrars six
months before election. Yet in August but two had been appointed. It
was charged that the governor purposely delayed appointment in order
to influence the August convention.[270] He had appointed in at least
sixteen parishes Democratic supervisors of registration on the score
that it was hard to find competent Republicans willing to undertake
it and that it was good policy.[271] The same investigation concluded
that “there is no doubt that most scandalous frauds were committed by
and with the connivance of some of these registrars,[272] sometimes in
the interest of Republicans and sometimes in the interest of Democratic
candidates.”[273] An old negro, who had been nominated, was astonished
at the result of the count and cried: “Is it possible I have no vote
come out of the box? ’Fore God, I know I vote for myself.”[274]
A considerable number of registrars, clerks, and friends of registrars
were returned elected to the legislature.[275] Carr, who was returned
from De Soto Parish without a nomination, was not even a resident
of that parish,[276] nor was his the only case of that kind. It was
conspicuous that fraudulently returned members were friends of the
governor,[277] and he was charged with direct complicity in two
cases. Some rioting, notably at Donaldsonville and Baton Rouge, was
reported.[278] This naturally gave rise to many contested elections
which hung on to furnish the opponents of the governor their
opportunity in 1872.
It was a clear Republican victory. Graham and Dubuclet, the Republican
candidates for auditor and treasurer, came in with majorities of about
twenty-five thousand each, and that party secured majorities in both
branches of the Assembly. The four constitutional amendments were
submitted to popular vote and adopted. The amendment to Article 99 was
indorsed unanimously.[279]
An interesting fact is to be noted here. In the spring of 1868, while
the Democracy was wholly unorganized and the negroes aggressive
under the protection of the military government, the State went
Republican, but was carried by a reinvigorated Democratic party in
the Presidential election of November of the same year; but in 1870
it swung back to the party in power.[280] But there are two perfectly
intelligible explanations which do not necessarily invalidate the vote
for Seymour in 1868: the new election law and the Enforcement Act of
May 31, 1870,[281] which imposed heavy penalties for infringement upon
the right to vote.
FOOTNOTES:
[169] Under this apparently harmless clause of the
constitution he controlled even the lowest local offices in the
remotest parts--constable, justice of the peace, etc.
[170] Session Laws, 1868, No. 27.
[171] _Ibid._, No. 75.
[172] 21 Louisiana Ann., 483-485.
[173] New Orleans _Commercial Bulletin_, July 19, 1869.
[174] No pecuniary interest was at stake for the city, because
the positions of aldermen had no salaries attached. 21 La. Ann., 744.
[175] New Orleans _Commercial Bulletin_, Dec. 29, 1869.
[176] New Orleans, _Comm. Bull._, _Bee_, Mar. 27, 1869.
[177] The Supreme Court subsequently affirmed the judgment of
the Seventh District Court, which sustained Delassize. 21 La. Ann.,
710-12.
[178] _Ann. Cyclop._, 1869, 398.
[179] “We do not propose to inquire into the legality of the
action of the Governor in ejecting Mr. Wickliffe from his office and
appointing a person to supply his place, because we consider it too
clear for dispute that Mr. Warmoth has no such power, and that his
proceeding is a naked trespass.... The white population of Louisiana
are entirely callous to the result, and don’t care whether ‘Mossup
whip Barry’ or ‘Barry whip Mossup.’ They are in the situation of the
onlookers at the fight of the Kilkenny cats, and would have no cause to
weep if the combatants scratched each other’s eyes out.” _Bee_, Mar.
27, 1869.
The _Bulletin_ and the _Picayune_ took the same side more
conservatively. See _Bulletin_, Mar. 27.
[180] Sen. Jour., 1870, 138 (rear of book).
[181] Sen. Deb., 1870, 51.
[182] House Jour., 1870, 7.
[183] “He has extorted sums of money from the creditors of
the state as a condition precedent to the issuance to them of the
certificates of indebtedness or warrants to which they were entitled by
law.” _Ibid._, 1870, 11-12.
[184] _Ibid._, 1870, 141.
[185] _Ibid._, 1870, 141, Sen. Jour., 130.
[186] House Jour., 1870, 152-5.
[187] “After a lengthy and thorough examination of all the
witnesses whose attendance your committee has been able to procure,
they have been able to find from the testimony elicited no foundation
whatever, for any one of the charges preferred by George Wickliffe
against his Excellency.” _Ibid._, 1870, 310.
[188] See Sen. Jour., 1870, 2-7 (rear) for articles in full.
[189] _Ibid._, 1870, rear, 191. For full account of the trial
see Impeachment Proceedings in rear of _Ibid._, 1870.
[190] _Ibid._, 1870, rear, 176, March 3.
[191] On the authority of Herbert, _Why the Solid South_, 410.
[192] “I found that the books were not written up to date, or
those that were written up, the columns were not footed up; addition
had not been made. A great many appropriations had been overdrawn.”
Sen. Jour., 1870, 66.
[193] House Jour., 9.
[194] For the full text of the message, see House Jour., 1870,
9 ff.
[195] House Journal, 1870, 9.
[196] They were very generous with the fees for postage,
lavish to their officers and employees, made a specialty of special
committees, passed a most liberal and loose pension act for the
veterans of 1814-15, and took active steps for the erection of a new
state house. They had learned nothing from the deficiency in the
revenue of the preceding year but proceeded to quibble about levying
a tax of four or five mills though Federal investigation would show
that agricultural property could easily bear a heavier tax. Sen. Jour.,
1870, 41, 57; House Deb., 1870, 238; Sen. Repts., 42 Cong., 2 Sess.,
No. 41, Pt. i., 203.
[197] “But I say, take up the city charter bill, and if you do
not, I assure you that you will not make much progress on the school
bill.” Sen. Deb., 1870, 783. Also House Deb., 200.
[198] “I now make a fair, honest proposition to the friends of
the bill. If they will give me time--say till to-morrow, to read this
bill, to examine it--I promise then, upon my word and sacred honor,
that I will not oppose its passage by resorting to those parliamentary
tactics commonly known as filibustering.” House Deb., 1870, 74.
[199] Jan. 21, _Ibid._, 48-57; Jan. 24.
[200] Sen. Jour., 1870, 12, 13.
[201] _Ibid._, 216-22.
[202] The militia, registration, and New Orleans charter bills
had run the gauntlet of the Senate but were still pending in the House.
[203] The House had already consulted the attorney-general
about the constitutionality of prolonging the session. House Jour.,
1870, 97.
[204] House Deb., 1870, 295.
[205] Laws of Louisiana, Extra Session, 1870, No. 70.
[206] Sen. Reports, 42 Cong., 2 Sess., No. 41, 279.
[207] McMillan charged ineffectiveness of the law. “There is
not in my whole parish, as far as I know, a single schoolhouse, no
sirs, not even a shed devoted to educational purposes. There has not
been a cent of the taxes raised for educational purposes expended in
Carroll Parish since the war. We have a statute providing for a system
of common school education, and under that superintendents have been
appointed. The salary set apart for such officers has been punctually
drawn.” House Deb., 1870, 115-16.
[208] “Under the law of 1869 we find that the sum of $262,000
would be required for the salaries of officers, leaving nothing with
which to pay teachers, or build or rent schoolhouses.” New Orleans
_Republican_, Jan. 25, 1870.
[209] Governor’s Annual Message, House Jour., 1870, 10.
[210] House Deb., 1870, 188. House Jour., 220. On this
question and the social status the negro could wax eloquent.
[211] Sen. Jour., 1870, 267.
[212] Session Laws, Extra Session, 1870, No. 6.
[213] _Ibid._, No. 2.
[214] The writer noted twenty-six such bills reaching various
stages of progress, besides the fourteen bills which succeeded in
becoming law. There were doubtless many more which were never reported
from committee.
[215] Session Laws, Extra Session, 1870, No. 59.
[216] _Ibid._, No. 31.
[217] _Ibid._, No. 84. This bill became law without the
governor’s signature by lapse of the time limit.
[218] The writer counted seven.
[219] It appears almost incredible that this most personal
measure of all passed both houses with almost no opposition. The
explanation may lie in the bribery later charged. House Misc. Doc., 42
Cong., 2 Sess., No. 211, 272-73.
[220] “In this spirit (of forgiveness) I recommend the
abrogation of the 99th Article of our Constitution, and believe, if
an amendment should be submitted to the people at the next general
election, it would receive their almost unanimous approval. I regretted
its insertion in the constitution, favored the proposition to abrogate
it at the last session, and now officially recommend it.” _Cyclopedia_,
1869, 394.
[221] Senate Deb., 1870, 61.
[222] Sen. Jour., 1871, 37; House Jour., 146-47.
The House Committee reported it as a “partial proscriptive measure in
direct conflict with the spirit of the age and unnecessary.” House
Jour., 1870, 146.
[223] House Deb., 1871, 42. Only one voice was raised in
opposition.
[224] No person who had been a collector or had been otherwise
intrusted with public money was eligible to any office of trust until
he had obtained a discharge for the amount with which he had been
intrusted. Session Laws, 1870, No. 21, Regular Session.
[225] Session Laws, 1870, Extra Session, No. 12.
[226] “Although I would have the greatest confidence in
whatever he reported.” Senate Deb., 1870, 118.
“I do not say the present governor would abuse these powers,” says even
a Democrat, 744.
[227] _Ibid._, 120.
[228] Two minority reports came in, in one of which Packard
urged that a new apportionment must precede any election law. _Ibid._,
143.
[229] _Ibid._, 147.
[230] Senate Deb., 1870, 155-56.
[231] “I believe the object of the bill, as it stands, is
to perpetuate the power of a certain political party--the Republican
party.” _Ibid._, 149.
[232] _Ibid._, 1870, 168.
[233] _Ibid._, 164-65.
[234] _Ibid._, 180.
[235] Sen. Deb., 150.
[236] _Ibid._, 187.
[237] “If any gentleman can show me where we can repose the
execution of this law outside of the Executive of the State, I would be
glad to hear it; but we must have some protection, sir.” _Ibid._, 172.
[238] _Ibid._, 190.
[239] _Ibid._, 347, Sen. Jour., 110.
[240] House Deb., 1870, 213.
[241] _Ibid._, 207.
[242] House Deb., 217.
[243] These thirteen sections had been read February 15 and
on February 18, immediately after prayer, a motion was made to suspend
the rules in order to put it upon its third reading and final passage
at that time. No vote was taken, but the speaker asked if there were
any objection to the suspension of the rules, and immediately announced
that there was none, notwithstanding the fact that Dr. Wren and
many other members did object, but they were unheeded by the chair.
According to the protest of the Democrats. House Jour., 254.
[244] _Ibid._, 236, 254. Vote was 247 to 26.
[245] Sen. Jour., 1870, 188.
[246] On the final suspension of the rules on the registration
bill, a Senator remarked briefly: “I object to the suspension of the
rules because I wish to give the senate as much time as possible to
repent.” Sen. Deb., 470.
[247] Sen. Jour., 150.
[248] Sen. Jour., 245.
[249] House Deb., 1870, 343. McMillan was refused permission
to record his protest. House Jour., 360.
[250] Laws of Louisiana, 1870, No. 99.
[251] Laws of Louisiana, 1870, No. 100. The power to reject
votes for fraud or violence was capable of abuse and yet was held by
Republicans inadequate as a remedy, as it did not add the Republican
ballots which would have been polled.
[252] Laws of Louisiana, 1870, No. 74.
[253] _Ibid._, Extra Session, No. 75.
[254] _Ibid._, No. 40.
[255] Session Laws, 1870, No. 55.
[256] My authority for this is the statement of a Senator in
debate. Senate Deb., 1870, 618. But names were printed in the papers on
important bills so that it is probably true.
[257] “Let us have a united meeting and prompt action to bring
our lawmakers to their just responsibility to an outraged community.”
_Bee_ of Jan. 30.
[258] “We then protest against this bill on constitutional
grounds,” declared the _True Republican_, “for by this bill Warmoth
actually fills three offices. Now, we know that this is a moderate
demand for him, who wants to be the political Brigham Young of this
State. We, Gentiles, are naturally satisfied with one office, but this
political Mormon wants them all.” Quoted Sen. Deb., 1870, 537.
[259] The writer has come across no clue to the meaning of
these letters. The first are, doubtless, Knights of the White Camelia.
[260] The movement for concerted action against bad
legislation had begun in 1869 when the Taxpayers’ Organization had been
created in a mass meeting, Oct. 23. _Commercial Bulletin_, Oct. 25,
1869.
[261] _Pic._, Feb. 1.
[262] For the resolves in full see House Jour., 148-9.
[263] _Cyclopedia_, 1870, 455. One of his charges was against
the leading brokers, who subsequently denied the charge against them;
and other persons indicated by the governor, while admitting their
attempts to bribe him, alleged that he was interested against them,
or that he was not satisfied with the prices offered. Sen. Repts., 42
Cong., 2 Sess., No. 41, 202.
[264] Senate Deb., 360-1.
[265] A very pointed hint is given: “But all the Senate can
do in self-respect is to intimate to this body of citizens the rules
of the Senate, and their own sense of propriety should dictate to them
what to do.” Senate Deb., 358.
[266] “I looked upon that as an act of the grossest incivility
and abuse; and sir, as a matter of self-respect and vindication
of the privileges of the House, I deem it right that a rebuke be
administered.”
[267] House Jour., 184.
[268] _Annual Cyclopedia_, 1870, 457.
[269] The Governor called it “the most quiet, peaceable, and
orderly election the State has witnessed for many years.” Sen. Jour.,
1871, 23.
[270] House Misc. Doc., 42 Cong., 2 Sess., No. 211, 121.
[271] House Reports, 42 Cong., 2 Sess., No. 92, 4.
The attempt to control the negro vote made by the Democrats in 1868
seems to have been abandoned. See Nordhoff’s story of how a prominent
citizen dismissed a personal servant for voting against him and then
restored him with the resolution never again to try to control a black
man’s vote.
[272] Packard states that the registrar in West Feliciana made
a contract with the Democrats whereby he agreed to give a certain vote
to the Democratic parish officers in return for Democratic help in
electing a Republican Senator. House Misc. Doc., No. 211, 143.
[273] _Ibid._, 18, 438, 439. A part of Caddo Parish where
eight hundred voters lived was cut off by water and so no registrar
went to that section at all, 50.
[274] Senate Reports, 42 Cong., 2 Sess., No. 457, 718.
[275] According to Bovee fifteen or twenty registrars were
returned. House Misc. Doc., No. 211, 245.
[276] He was put on the ticket by the Parish Committee as
the man named by the convention said he could not leave. Part of the
tickets bore his name, part the name of the former nominee, so that the
friends of the latter who could not read were tricked into voting for
Carr. _Ibid._, 224-25.
[277] Bovee stated: “I think there was a regular system of
fraud entered into with a view of electing certain men.... As far as I
can learn, all were perpetrated in the governor’s interest.” _Ibid._,
243.
[278] Sen. Jour., 1871, 32.
[279] _Ibid._, 1871, 24.
[280] See the table which illustrates this shifting in Sen.
Repts., 42 Cong., 2 Sess., No. 41, 250.
[281] United States Statutes at Large, XVI., 140-6.