452 



LOUISIANA. 



plan and that of Judge Warmoth. The duty of ini- 

 tiating a move in opposition to all the powers of the 

 executive, would be_ the death-warrant of the Pres- 

 ident of your committee. Have you the power to go 

 in another State, in Ohio, for instance, and call upon 

 the people to set up a new government ? The Gov- 

 ernor of Ohio would arrest forthwith the promoters 

 of such a move. Will not the position be the same 

 in Louisiana? It will be worse. In Louisiana you 

 will be arraigned before the court-martial. The 

 matter is, therefore, very important, and however 

 good be the motives of those who uphold the resolu- 

 tions, we have to look to the consequences. The 

 cause of liberty is sometimes jeopardized by the very 

 men who profess to promote it. He knows men who 

 now profess to be your friends, and who rode in cars 

 in New Orleans, and had for their motto, " no negro 

 equality." His suspicions are aroused when he sees 

 men advocating the cause of liberty who have slain 

 liberty before. He alluded to the past events of our 

 State history to illustrate that sentiment. In con- 

 clusion, he stated that he has always done his duty 

 to the cause, and is ready to fall with it. 



Mr. Waples thought that the people of the Terri- 

 tory could act in their primary capacity and get up a 

 Constitution without asking the consent of Congress 

 or anybody else. He pronounced the present Con- 

 stitution a mockery, and declared that " the black 

 people would have been justified all the time to claim 

 their rights," and added : " But here we have to bear 

 in mina that Congress cannot pass a bill without the 

 cooperation of the President, and he seems bent 

 upon vetoing all measures in favor of the emanci- 

 pated. There are a great many things which are right 

 but which are not expedient. The whole question is 

 in the expediency. The case, according to his 

 view, was surrounded bv difficulties, and he seriously 

 doubted the ability of his colored friends, even with 

 the Central Committee at their back, to carry a Con- 

 stitution against the authority of all the powers that 

 be. 



"When we take this matter in hand," said he, 

 "let us put it through. But it is not yet quite time 

 to determine upon claiming our rights at all hazards. 

 It is said that acts of violence would be the best 

 evidence that the policy of the President has been a 

 failure ; but we would stand in the position of a man 

 who undertook to build a house and did not calculate 

 the cost. We have already acted our part ; we have 

 sent Judge Warmoth to Congress. Why did not 

 Congress act upon that ? They had the power to 

 admit him ; the House could do so without the co- 

 operation of the President. On the contrary, to 

 have the State admitted will require the signature of 

 the President. 



The plan of calling a convention to adopt a 

 constitution for Louisiana was finally given up, 

 and the more favorable project of reassembling 

 the Convention of 1864 adopted, by which the 

 existing constitution of Louisiana was formed, 

 and subsequently adopted by the voters. The 

 agitation of this measure was at first received 

 by the press and the public generally with de- 

 rision, but as it became manifest that those 

 desiring to effect the reassembling of the con- 

 vention were seriously in earnest some excite- 

 ment was produced. Finally, the President 

 Srotem., Judge Howell, not the President, Judge 

 urell, of the Convention of 1864, issued an 

 order reconvoking the same on July 30th. The 

 convention, previous to its adjournment, passed 

 a resolution providing, "that when this con- 

 vention adjourns, it shall be at the call of the 

 President, whose duty it shall be to reconvoke 

 iho convention for any cause, or in case the 



constitution should not be ratified, for the pur- 

 pose of taking such measures as may be neces- 

 sary for the formation of a civil government in 

 Louisiana. He shall also in that case call upon 

 the proper officers of the State, to cause elec- 

 tions to be held to fill any vacancies that may 

 exist in the convention in parishes where the 

 same may be practicable." The vacancies were 

 fifty-two in 1864, from twenty-one parishes. 

 This movement was noticed before the grand 

 jury by the judge, presiding in the only court 

 of record sitting in New Orleans, which had 

 jurisdiction of crimes and offences against the 

 laws of the State. The Judge (Abell) was a 

 member of the Convention of 1864, and thus 

 expressed his views to the jury on July 23d : 



GENTLEMEN OF THE GRAND JURY : You ask for more 

 specific instructions relative to your powers to sup- 

 press unlawful assemblies, dangerous to the peace 

 and good order of the State, such as is advised to 

 take place on the 30th instant. Every thing is com- 

 prehended in the instructions already given. 



The Constitution of 1864 is the fundamental law 

 of the State, and furnishes ample protection for its 

 supremacy, and can only be altered or amended in 

 accordance with the provisions contained in the in- 

 strument itself. The oath required to support a con- 

 stitution by officers of a State who are intrusted with 

 its admission is one of the guaranties that it will not 

 be betrayed. In some governments, a violation of 

 that oath would not only be perjury, but treason, 

 which being a higher grade of felony, perjury is 

 merged in it. 



Under the Constitution of this State, a violation 

 of oath of office would be perjury and nothing more. 

 I, and every officer in the State of Louisiana, have 

 sworn to support the constitution, and substantially 

 make oath that it shall not be altered in any other 

 manner than is provided in the I'Tth article of that 

 instrument. 



I now charge you that a violation of that oath is 

 perjury in the officer or officers who violate it, and 

 subornation of perjury in all who procure it to be 

 done. 



The 147th article of the constitution of 1864, made 

 by the late convention, clearly points out the mode 

 of amending it. It reads: "Any amendment or 

 amendments to this constitution may be proposed in 

 the Senate or House of Representatives, and if the 

 same shall be agreed to by a majority of the members 

 elected to each house, such proposed amendment or 

 amendments shall be entered on their journals, with 

 the yeas and nays taken thereon. Such proposed 

 amendment or amendments shall be submitted to 

 the people at an election to be ordered by the said 

 Legislature, and held within ninety days after ad- 

 journment of the same, and after thirty days' publica- 

 tion according to law ; and if a majority of the voters 

 at said election shall approve and ratify such amend- 

 ment or amendments the same shall become a part 

 of this constitution. If more than one amendment 

 is submitted at a time they shall be submitted in 

 such manner and form that 'the people may vote for 

 or against each amendmjnt separately."^ 



This, gentlemen, is the only mode pointed out by 

 the constitution, and it being fully ratified by the 

 people, it can only be altered by their own consent 

 expressed at the ballot-box or by the Legislature. 



By the second clause of article 149 it is declared 

 that "all laws in force at the time of the adoption 

 of this constitution, and not inconsistent therewith, 

 shall continue as if the same had not been adopted." 



These laws furnish ample vindication for the in- 

 tegrity of the constitution. Among the laws thus 

 adopted, by the convention itself, are several sec- 

 tions against breaches of the peace, misdemeanor in 



