CHAPTER III
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 thegovernor 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’sprotégéswere 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, auditorad 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 theauditor 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 theconstitution 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 cowardiceand 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 ofthe 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 exchanginghis 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-eightbills, 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” hadbeen 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 generalsupervision 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 railroadsand 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 housesat 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 inwhich 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]
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 citizenentitled 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 foundthreatening 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 Senatorswere 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 passageviva 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 MetropolitanPolice 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 withoutdelay. 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 obtainthe 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 delegateswere 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 itpossible 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 thePresidential 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.