564 



LOUISIANA. 



sexes separately, and therefore establish schools in 

 which the children of different sexes are educated 

 apart. By such a policy can it be said that the equal 

 rights of either sex are invaded ? Equality of right 

 does not involve the necessity of educating children of 

 both sexes, or children without regard to their attain- 

 ments or age. in the same school. Any classification 

 which provides substantially equal school advantages 

 does not impair any rights, and is not prohibited by 

 the Constitution of the United States. Equality of 

 rights does not necessarily imply identity of rights. 



These views have been held by the Supreme Court 

 of Ohio in respect to a law under which colored 

 children were not admitted as a matter of right into 

 the schools for white children. State vs. McCann et 

 al., 21 Ohio State. 198. See also State vt. Duffy, 7 

 Nevada, 342, and People vs. Gaston, 13 Abb. (New 

 York), 160, where substantially the same doctrine is 

 held. See also the able concurring opinion ot' Air. 

 Justice Clifford in Hall vs. De Cuir, 95 U. S., 491. In 

 the State of Georgia there is a law forbidding the inter- 

 marriage of white persons and persons of African 

 descent. It was held by Mr. Justice Erskine, of tho 

 United States Court, that this law was not obnoxious 

 to tho fourteenth amendment to the Constitution. 

 (Ex rel. Hobbs and Johnson, 1 Woods, 537.) Tho 

 argument in support of tliis decision is that the law 

 applies with equal force to persons of both races. Ita 

 prohibition applies alike to black and white, and tho 

 penalty for disobedience falls with equal severity on 

 both. These authorities, it seems to me, fully sustain 

 the views above announced by this Court. 



The last point was that the establishment of 

 separate schools was contrary to the Constitu- 

 tion of the State. The Court said : " Whether 

 the directors of the New Orleans schools aro 

 the State, or so represent the State that their 

 acts are to be considered the acts of the State, 

 it is unnecessary to decide. The Court has no 

 power, and it does not sit, to supervise the con- 

 duct of State officers, unless such conduct im- 

 pairs some rights confered by the Constitution 

 of the United States, or unless the citizenship 

 of the parties gives it jurisdiction. Otherwise 

 the Court will not and can not take cognizance 

 of violations of State law or State constitutions, 

 by the officers of a State." 



A bill was introduced to repeal the charter 

 of the Louisiana State Lottery. This charter 

 was granted in 1868 for a term of twenty years, 

 and the company paid an annual license fee of 

 $10,000. As this had been in part paid for 

 the year 1879, the point discussed turned on 

 the legality of an immediate repeal. The Sen- 

 . ate adopted March 31st as the date for the re- 

 peal to take effect, and passed the bill. In the 

 House the vote was 63 yeas to 20 nays. The 

 repeal, however, failed to become effective, the 

 law being regarded as violating a regular con- 

 tract. 



The elections for delegates to the seventh 

 State Constitutional Convention was held on 

 March 18th. The vote was much less than had 

 been anticipated, being under 70,000, which 

 'was smaller than at any election during the 

 twelve previous years. The delegates elected 

 from senatorial districts were divided politi- 

 cally as follows: Democrats 29, Eepublicans 

 5, National 1, Independent 1 ; total, 36. The 

 delegates from parishes were divided as fol- 

 lows : Democrats 69, Republicans 27, National 



1, Independent 1; total, 98. The total was: 

 Democrats 98, Eepublicans 32, Nationals 2, 

 Independents 2. Mr. L. A. Wiltz was chosen 

 President of the Convention, having received 

 102 votes, and Pierre Landry 27. One of the 

 first resolutions adopted by the Convention was 

 the following yeas 76, nays 49 : 



Jtesolved. That there is no intention whatever enter- 

 tained by this body of impairing or restricting the po- 

 litical, civil, or religious rights of any class of citizens 

 of this State on account of race, color, or previous con- 

 dition of servitude, but on the contrary the intention 

 is to defend and maintain the rights of the colored citi' 

 zens as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United 

 States and of this State, under the new Constitution 

 about to be formed. 



There were two or three seats of delegates 

 contested. In a case from East Carroll Parish, 

 the question turned on the citizenship of the 

 sitting delegate. The majority report was in 

 his favor, while the minority recommended 

 that he be ousted. Mr. Girard moved the rejec- 

 tion of the majority report, saying: "It has 

 been said there are no laws requiring qualifica- 

 tions for members of the Convention. This 

 was true, because no laws could be framed to 

 govern the duties of a Constitutional Conven- 

 tion. Consequently the Convention would nat- 

 urally follow the rules of other general assem- 

 blies. It was repugnant to every sentiment of 

 Americans to allow foreigners and aliens to 

 represent them. He could not recognize any 

 one as a true son of Louisiana who would favor 

 allowing aliens to make an organic law for this 

 State. It was admitted that no man could be 

 a citizen of two States ; the party in question 

 could not be a citizen of both Louisiana and 

 Ohio." Mr. Warmoth said " he did not believe 

 a man had to be a Louisianian to occupy a seat 

 in the Convention. This is an assemblage of 

 the people's representatives in their primary 

 capacity. The Convention has no laws or reg- 

 ulations governing its proceedings. There is 

 no law of any kind to limit the power of the 

 people to send a representative to this Conven- 

 tion. A parish might send a woman or any 

 one else, and it would be a piece of imperti- 

 nence to say such a representative should be 

 turned out." The motion to reject the major- 

 ity report was lost yeas 28, nays 83. 



The question relating to the powers of a 

 Constitutional Convention was incidentally dis- 

 cussed. It came up in connection with the 

 majority and minority reports on an ordinance 

 making appeals to the Supreme Court from 

 certain parishes returnable in New Orleans in 

 1880. The majority report advised the rejec- 

 tion of the ordinance, principally because it 

 partook of a legislative character and had no- 

 thing to do with the preparation of an organic 

 law. The minority report favored the ordi- 

 nance, and claimed that unless some such pro- 

 vision was made the appeals could never be 

 taken, which would be an act of injustice. 

 Judge Land moved to reject the majority re- 

 port, and touched on the powers of the Con- 

 vention. He said : 



