456 



LOUISIANA. 



ditor to punishment for general corruption in 

 office, and, in a special message to the Legisla- 

 ture, which convened on January 4th, referred 

 as follows to the charges against that official : 



His offences against the constitution and the laws 

 of the State have seriously embarrassed the govern- 

 ment, and rendered it difficult to pay the interest on 

 the State bonds. He lias been guilty of numerous 

 acts involving extortion against individuals, and 

 against the charitable institutions of the State ; also 

 involving fraud against the Commonwealth, and col- 

 lusion with evil-disposed persons to defraud the 

 same. 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. 



The committee of the Legislature appointed 

 to investigate these charges reported adversely 

 to the Auditor, and the House decided, by a 

 vote of seventy -two to two, to prefer articles 

 of impeachment. The trial before the Senate, 

 organized as a Court of Impeachment, was of 

 short duration, and on the 3d of March re- 

 sulted in the conviction of the accused. Pend- 

 ing the trial, the Auditor tried to escape the 

 sentence of the court by resigning his office, 

 but his resignation was not accepted, and it 

 was decreed by the court "that George M. 

 "Wickliffe, Auditor of Public Accounts of the 

 State of Louisiana, be and is hereby removed 

 from said office, and that he be disqualified 

 from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit 

 in this State." 



The litigation growing out of the act of the 

 Legislature of March 8, 1869 (see ANNUAL CY- 

 CLOPAEDIA for 1869), incorporating the Crescent 

 City Live Stock Landing and Slaughter House 

 Company, was continued into the present year. 

 Contradictory decisions on the subject in dif- 

 ferent district courts had been given, and the 

 cases had been carried to the Supreme Court 

 of the State, which, in the beginning of the 

 present year, rendered a decision in favor of 

 the company, enjoining all persons from inter- 

 fering with its privileges. The aggrieved par- 

 ties then brought suit in the United States Cir- 

 cuit Court for an injunction against the com- 

 pany and for the purpose of enjoining the State 

 courts and officers from proceeding further in 

 the premises, claiming that the act incorporat- 

 ing the company was in violation of the Civil 

 Rights Bill and the fourteenth amendment to 

 the Federal Constitution. The Court decided 

 that the Civil Rights Bill had nothing to do with 

 the case, and that the act of Congress of 1793 

 prohibited United States courts from enjoin- 

 ing proceedings in State courts; but it granted 

 the injunction against the company, on the 

 ground that the act of incorporation created 

 a monopoly, in violation of the fourteenth 

 amendment. Upon this point Judge Bradley, 

 in his opinion, remarked as follows : 



But the fourteenth amendment prohibits any State 

 from abridging the privileges or immunities of the 

 citizens of the United States, whether its own citi- 

 zens or any others. It not merely requires equality 

 of privileges, but it demands that the privileges and 

 immunities of all citizens shall be absolutely un- 

 abridged, unimpaired. 



So far as reiates to the question in hand, we may 

 safely say that it is one of the privileges of every 

 American citizen to adopt and iollow such lawful 

 industrial pursuit not injurious to the community 

 as he may see fit, without unreasonable regulation or 

 molestation, and without being restricted by any of 

 those unjust, oppressive, and odious monopolies or 

 exclusive privileges which have been condemned by 

 all free governments. 



These privileges cannot be invaded without sap- 

 ping the very foundations of republican government. 

 A republican government is not merely a govern- 

 ment of the people, but it is a free government. 

 Without being free, it is republican only in name, 

 and not republican in truth, and any government 

 which deprives its citizens 01 the right to engage in 

 any lawful pursuit, subject only to reasonable re- 

 strictions, or at least subject only to such restrictions 

 as are reasonably within the power of government to 

 impose, is tyrannical and unrepublican. And, if, to 

 limit arbitrary restrictions made for the benefit of 

 a favored few, it takes away and destroys the citi- 

 zens' property without trial or condemnation, it is 

 guilty of violating all the fundamental privileges to 

 which I have referred, and one of the fundamental 

 principles of free government. 



There is no more sacred right of citizenship than 

 the right to pursue unmolested a lawful employment 

 in a lawful manner. It is nothing more nor less than 

 the sacred right of labor. 



"Writs of error were subsequently allowed, 

 and the matter is now pending before the Su- 

 preme Court of the United States. 



Under the provisions of the new school law 

 there was due from the State, in December, to 

 the various parishes, to be expended for the 

 support of public schools, the sum of $315,773, 

 of which $197,788 was apportioned to New 

 Orleans. During the year a controversy arose 

 between the City Board of New Orleans and 

 the several ward Boards of that city, as to 

 their respective rights and jurisdiction, which 

 was carried into the courts, and in December 

 still remained unsettled. As the result of this 

 difficulty, the portion of the school-fund be- 

 longing to New Orleans remained in the State 

 Treasury, no one having authority to receive 

 and disburse it on the part of the city; in con- 

 sequence of which the public-school teachers 

 remained unpaid from August. To obviate 

 this state of affairs, and to prevent the threat- 

 ened closing of the schools of the city, Judge 

 Dibble, of the Eighth District Court, on the 

 application of the Attorney-General of the 

 State, in December, appointed a receiver of the 

 fund, with authority to make the necessary 

 disbursements, when the salaries of the teach- 

 ers were promptly paid. The proceeds of the 

 Peabody Education Fund had been expended 

 in this State for the benefit of the white chil- 

 dren, under the direction of the local agent, 

 Mr. Lusher. The State Superintendent of Edu- 

 cation, Mr. Conway, addressed a letter to Dr. 

 Sears, the general agent of that fund, request- 

 ing him to "transfer to the State Board of 

 Education such portion of the Peabody fund 

 as may at any time be set apart for the good 

 of the State," on the alleged ground that 

 "neither the sentiments nor the action of the 

 present local agent is in harmony with the 

 State system of public education." 



