OCR Interpretation


New Orleans daily crescent. ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, October 06, 1852, Morning, Image 1

Image and text provided by Louisiana State University; Baton Rouge, LA

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82015753/1852-10-06/ed-1/seq-1/

What is OCR?


Thumbnail for

DEBATES OF TEE' STATE o0w %r'1!N
OP LOUIa0 AJA.
JUOIS0DICTIOi OP JU TIOJ5. .. .
MR. IsAAcIs offered the followlngArtiole :
"The Legislature shall haeee anthprity to
extend juriadiotion to Justices f,.the,>pade.of
all minor crimes and offences."
Mo. fsAAcgs-I submit that it will be pro
per act of this Convention to relitve -t. pa.
rishes in this State of the immense tdato which
they are subjected in the necessity to summon
juriep for the trial of petty crimes and offences.
The present mode of procedure imposes not only
a heavy tax, but also a large amount of trouble
which is wholly unnecessary. Any one familiar
with the present mode of trial of these minor
cases, knows that the expense is great and op
pressive, and that it is also unnecessary. It
may be said that the Article which I now offer
will deprive citizens of their rights. But I an
swer that objection by saying that, instead of
depriving them of their rights, it gives them
their rights at once. The report of the Judi
ciary Committee seas forth that Justices of the
Peace " shall be elected by the qualified voters
of each parish, for the term of two years, and
shall have such criminal jurisdiction as shall
be provided by law." Now, it was only the
other day that the Chairman of the Judiciary
Committee told us that he was opposed to a
similar Article in relation to the city of New
Orleans, because it affected the right of trial
by Jury. This carries the very strong inference
that the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee
does not think that the Legislature should give
to Magistrates the right of trial in any cases
without the intervention of a jury. While on
this subject, I may notice another objection
which I have to the report of the Judiciary
Committee. It is not stifficiently distinct in re
lation to the nature of crimes to be tried before
Justidese of the Peace. The Chairman of the
Judiciary Committee has explained to us, at
length, his views as to what constitute misdeo
moanors, and it is evident that he does not in
tend that the Legislature shall make a special
provision for the trial of the largo number of
cases which he classed under that name,
although, at the same time, he argued that
there was a good deal of difficulty in defining
the nature of the jurisdiction that a Magistrate
might safely have. I apprehend that the Arti
cle which I have just offered is not so compre
hensive as to give to Magistrates improper
jurisdiction, while it is sufficiently restrictive to
limit them to safe jurisdiction in all minor
crimes and offences.
Ma. PanseLx moved that the farther conside
ration of the Article offered by Mr. Isaacks
should he postponed until Tuesday, the 20th
inst., to be then taken up with the report of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
The motion prevailed.
BAIL.
Mn. Oxevrsn, of St. Mary, having voted in the
majority, yesterday, on the substitute for Arti
cle 108, offered by Mr. Eustis, and adopted,
moved a reconsideration of the vote, which wasr
granted
Ma. ..,. tsrte esire to offer an amendment
to the substitute offered yesterday by the dele
gate from Orleans,---hL ve the same object in
view as that delegate; but his substitute does
not cover the whole ground. 1 wish that sub
stitute to be now read, that there may be no
mistake as to the nature of my amendment:
" All persons shall be bailable, by sufficient
sureties, unless for capital offences, where the
proof is evident or presumption great, or unless
after conviction by a petty jury for any offence
or crime punishable with death or imprisonment
at hard labor The privilege of the writ of
htabeas orpous shall not be suspended, unless
when in case of rebellion or invasion the public
safety may require it."
A oman may be convicted of a crime punisha
ble with implrisonment in the penitentiary, and
yet may not be convicted "by a petty jury."
I do nut think that when a man is arraigned,
the law makes it obligatory on him to be tried
by a jury of his peers. lie might, then, if he
waived ithe trial by jury, be pardonedl.under
this substitute article, after conviction of an
offence punishable with imprisonment anl hard
labor. It is not my purpose to restrict the priv
ileges guaranteed to the Governor, by Article
47 of the Coustetution, nor to affect his rights
under that article. But I wish the law of the
land to hbe so plain, that the decisions of our
Courts may not, under any circumstances, he
set at naught. Under the operation of this sub,
stitute, the true Intention of the law may be
violated. The Governor may do this. The pre
sent Governor has slhwn that he would be in
clined to act against the spirit of this substi
tute Article, if it shall not be so carefully
guarded as to restrain the Executive preroga
tive. It was only the other day, in iny own
district, that a man was convicted of man
slaughter, in the District Court eto appealed
to the Supreme Court, andi although his case
was advocated by some of the most able law
yers in the State, the Supreme Court allirmied
the decision of the District Court. Yet, hle was
reprieved by the Covernor, with this provision,
that he should enter into bond for $10,000, lest
hlis reprieve by the Governor should not be con
firmed by the Senate. Tile Senate refused to
confirm, and tle criminal is now a fugitive from
justice. Here is a solemn decision of our Su
preme Court, confirming a decision of conviction
by the District Court, set at naught. This is a
disgrace to the State of Louisiana. It would be
a reproach upon this Convention, were we to be
so lax in our provisions for the punishment of
crime, as to leave in this important Article rogmo
for a possibility, that solemn decisions of our
Supreme Court might be evaded under it. If a
man can be convicted otherwise than "by a
petty jury," it is clear that thle insertion of
these words in the Article is unnecessarily nar
rowing tile scope of our own views, and restrict
ing the operation of a constitutional provision,
on which so much depends, for tile safety and
well being of our people, anl the honor of our
State. I shall, therefore, move to strike out
tihe words "by a petty jury " Had I been here
on Monday, when Article 47 was under consid
eratiou, I should have moved, that in all cases
where an appeal may be taken, tile criminal
shall remain in the hands of tie Sheriff. from
the time of conviction, until the appeal shall be
disposed of. I am satisfied that that is tile true
kind of bail which will effectually prevent the
evasion of punishment.
MR. DliuorC.-The gentleman's object would
be accomplished, by striking out the words "by
a petty jury." Conviction for all offences such
as are excepted by Article 108, as adopted
yesterday, would thus preclude bail. It mat
ters not whether the prisoner may waive a trial
by jury, or not. He may stand convicted,
either by his own confession or by the decision
of a petty jury. If a prisoner pleads guilty,
he is convicted to all intents and purposes. On
a prisoner being arraigned, and confessing, he
stands convicted without any decision, so that
by leaving out the word "'by a potty jury,"
the operation of the Article will be free from
exception or evasion.
Mit. O.ivl:e.--Before the vote shall be ta
ken on my amendment, I will remark, that al
though it is periectly clear that the Governor
has no right to order a party to give bonds,
lest the Senate may not confirm his act of re
prieve, yet, this has been dlone, and may be
done again; and although the Sheriff has no
right to take such bonds, yet Sheriffs have ta
ken them; and we know that when commandedt
by the Chief Executive of the State, they may
do the same thing again. I wish to see the
State and justice protected against such bonds
and their consequences.
Moe OLIVIER'S motion to strike out the words
" by a petty jury," was carried.
The substitute for Article 108, thus amended,
was re-adopted.
The Convention resumed consideration of Ar
ticle 130, which had been read on the previous
day, but on which no debate had ensued. The
Article is as follows:
,, Article 130. Any citizen of this State who
shall, after the adoption of this Constitution,
fight a duel with deadly weapons with a citizen
of this State, or send or accept a challenge to
fight a duel with deadly weapons, either within
the State or out of it, with a citizen of this
State, or who shall act as second, or knowingly
aid and assist in any manner those taus offend
ing, shall be deprived of holding any office of
trust or profit, and of enjoying the right of suf
frage under the Copstitution."
When this Article had been read,
Ma. LEBLANC moved to reject the same.
ML. CONNELY moved to lay Mr. LeBlano's
motion qn the table.
The question came up, this day, on Mr. Con
selfs motion to lay on the table; and Mr.
Lealano's motion to reject the Article was lost
1.t vote of 73 yeas, to lay it on the table,
•t'.6inst 33 nays.
MtA . Casarxmeaos offered the following sub
stitute for the above Article:
Article 180. The Legislature shall, from time
to time, make such Legislative enactments as
NEW OLEANS TAILY CRESCEN'T
. . PUBLIB!ED EVERY DAY, SUNDAY EXCEPTED, AT LN. 98 ST. CHARLES STREE, BY J. H. MADDOX.
VOLUMJE V. WEDNESDAY MORNING, OCTOBER 6, 152. sEBuBS 18s6
they may deem best calculated to suppress the
practice of duelling in this State.
Ma. C.sTELr.L..,Aos-T wish to set myself right
before the Convention in relation to my vote on
Article 130 of the Constitution. I think that
the course of gentlemen in this Convention ought
to be consistent with the duties actually imposed
upon them as members of this Convention. I
take tile ground that we must not assume duties
which we are not authorized to poriform in the
work of framing a Constitution. I take the
ground that the Legislature has the right to in
flict.punishment for offences, and I ask if the
provision in Article 130 is not a punishment for
the offence of duelling ? I think that gentlemen
will admit that what properly belongs to the
Legislature ought to be left to the Legislature.
But I take the further ground, that this law
does not operate equally on all our citizens. It
enforces its penalties upon some citizens who
may be placed in positions to incur them, while
it exempts other citizens who may be guilty of
the very same act or offence. It is unjust, be
cause it disfranchises and deprives of certain
rights the citizen who shall fight a duel, or aid,
in any manner, in a duel with a citizen of this
State, while the citizen who fights a duel, or as
sists in one, with a person who is not a citizen
of this State, although hecommits the very same
offence, does not come within the scope of this
Article, and is not liable to punishment.
Why this distinction ? Is not tihe offence the
same in tihe one case as in the other ? If fight
ing a duel makes a man an offender, it surely
ought to make offenders of all men who partici
pate in tihe practice.
But I consider that this is a subject which it
is the duty of the Legislature to discuss. The
Legislature can properly shape the punishment
for this offence, so that equal justice shall be
done to every citizen. I hold that the Article
130 of the Constitution is an injustice to the
citizen. It conflicts with the spirit of our Gov
ernment, and with the Constitution of the United
States, which clearly guards and defines the
right and position of the citizen at'the polls. I
ask every gentleman in this house, if it is not
degrading that a citizen, when he goes to vote,
should he obliged to incriminate himself, or, if
hie refuees to take the oath, that he should sub
ject himself td doubt of having comm.tted an
olfence punishable by the laws of the State. I
will take the case of a man who has fought a
duel. lie is asked at the polls if he has over
fought a duel, or assisted in a duel, with a citi
zen of this State. I submit whether this is not
in opposition to Article 10 of our Constitution,
which says that every free white male who has
attained a certain age, isa citizen of the United
States, and shall have resided a given length of
time within this State, shall be entitled to vote.
Article 10 contains all the qualifications to en
title a man to vote. There are no restrictions
in that Article, when the questions of citizen
ship and residence are satisfied.
I contend that a man has a right to present
himself at the polls, and assert his privilege as
a voter, without being subjected to the inquiry if
he has committed an offence of this nature.
That is a right inchoate with our Government
itself, and grave indeed must be the crime for
which the citizen is deprived of it.
I am not here advocating the practice of
dueling. 1 am opposed to thdt practice. But
I ask why the penalties of this Constitution are
not applied to those offences which are daily
committed on our streets ? Why are its most
marked and severe penalties ereervet for a se
condary offence? Our Constitution ought to be
comprehensive and stringent in its provisions to
prevcnt murders, punilh street fights, suppress
ilonies anti the like; but, by this Article 1381,
you deprive the man who has fbught a duel of
the privilege which you give to the felon The
ltlon is not disfranchiscd-he may hold office
he is not placed under the ban of the Constitu
tion. I wish to fasten attention to this odious
distinction, which places the felon above the
duelist.
I refrain here from entering into any argu
ment on the subject of duelling. But 1 believe
that, so long as nman is man, dueling shall be
practiced, whatever may be the penalties im
posed. It is ncedless ftr me to illustrate by ex
ample, that men will light duels without looking
to the sacrifice. Such examnples have conie un
dler the observation of all of us. But if duelling
is to, be punished a an offence, why should we
take hrom the Legislature that which properly
belongs to the Legislature, the right to pre
Feribe the punishment ?
We have, in this Convention, resolved to take
frot our Constitution all of its restrictive fea
tures. 1 have listened to the beautiful language
of gentlemen while they were maintaining that
no restrictions should be placed upon the qual
ifications of voters. Do they now intend to re
cede fromn that noble ground ? Do they intend
to recede so far as to favor a restriction so pal
pally unjust and offensive to the rights of the
citizen "
Another principle has been asserted and nc
quiesced in by this Convention. It is to take
front the Constitution every thing Legislative in
its character, keeping in view that we came
here for the sole purpose of framing the organic
law. I now call upon gentlemen to adhere to
that principle.
I agree with all those gdntlemen in thishouse
who think that dueling ought to be suppressed,
as fiar as it is possible to suppress the practice.
The only difference of opinion in this Convention
is as to the mode. Let us then leave to the
Legislature to consider what that mode shall
he. But do not let us, while we are boasting of
stripping our Constitution of all restrictions, al
low this Article 130 to remain in the Constitu
tion. If consistency has any place in this Con
vention, I call upon gentlemen to take from our
Constitution that odious-that barbarous re
striction.
I am opposed to Article 5u0
lst. Because it is odious in its intention, scope
and influence.
'21. Because it makes unjust distinctions be
tween citizens of this State and citizens of other
States, in punishment for the same offence. I
mnight fight a duel with a citizen of Mississippi,
or with a European, and incur no penalty,
whereas my offence would be identically tiue
samne as that which might subject me to the de.
privations prescribed in Article 130.
3d. Because this Constitutional provision has
failed to suppress the practice of dueling.
4th. Because it is an unjust restriction.
5th. Because it is Legislative.
One remark more. Why has it been found
that the Constitutional Article 130 has done
nothing to put down the practice of dueling ?
I attribute it. to this--that the Constitution of
the State has put the duelist and the murderer
oil the same footing. The Constitutionatl provi
sions against dueling are repugnant to reason
and common sense, and openly at war with the
well matured opinions of society. Therefore, no
punishment for the offence of dueling can ever
be awarded. Can gentlemen cite one instance
of a man having been found guilty of murder
where his.antagonist had fallen in a duel ? No.
All the eloquence of the best Attorney General
that this State ever had, could not bring such a
verdict. It will be well, therefore, for this
Convention to leave the subject of this Article
to the Legislature, which body will, no doubt,
adopt the most salutary operative law to put
down the practice.
Ml. J.E.satrs-I am opposed to the gentle
man's substitute in every aspect in which it may
be presented. 1 did not think that it would be
proposed in this Convention, to pluck from the
Constitution its brightest gem. I am well
aware of the objections to this constitutional
article against dueling. They have beenloudly
and industriously uttered, but have failed to
affect the integrity of that noble provision in
our Constitution which the great mass of the
citizens of Louisiana coutemplateo with the
proudest satisfaction. I was struck for a mo
ment, with one very specious objection urged by
my colleague from NewOrleans (Mr. Preaux)
the other day, wherein he represented the in
justice of Article 180, by shllowing that the in
dividual who sent the challenge was punished
under the provisions of that Article, while he
who provoked the challenge was allowed to go
unpunished. It is a sufficient answer to this
objection, that if we look at the law of the land
and see that it is successful in its general ope
ration, it behooves us not to throw it aside be
cause it does not meet every case.
I think that this law has operated well.
There can be no doubt that it has prevented
many challenges being sent. Farther, it is now
well understood that no challenge is sent until
it is knowli that it will be accepted. I say that
this is the case in the majority of instances.
This understanding is usually obtained before
the challenge passes. Before the Constitution
put its mark on the practice of dueling, citi
zens were constantly liable to annoyance by
the disposition of many persons to send a chal
lenge on every trifling occasion of offence, whe
"hIri imiaginary ;r real. This annoyance has
hiiio ,P.,lTished by the operation of this Consti
it:r,. tI law. Some worthless individuals may
:::n the practice, but gentlemen are ab
-.. I i'from the necessity ofrecognizingthem by
the It,, !e itself No man of worth and charac
ter w.11 jive up the privilege of being an Amer
io.n citizen, that he may engage in a duel, un
les tiih offence is great, and so peculiar in its
chalnracter that all other means are unavailing
to wipe it out.
This very article in the Constitution of Louis
ian:a has been the themeof more praise through
out our whole country and abroad, in the lead
ing periodicals, while discussing the beauties
and defects of Constitutions, as well as in the
halls of legislation and other public assemblies,
than any other feature of our Government or
social organization. In Texas, the State Con
vention to remodel the Constitution met at
nearly the same time as ours, and incorporated
in the organic law of Texas nearly the precise
words of Article 1'0 of our Constitution. Several
States, since that time, have adopted the same
provision in the organic law. In the State of
Missouri they have shown how extremely anx
ious they have been to destroy the practice -of
dueling, on the ground that its worst effects
usually fathll on the innocent wife and children.
The law of Missouri makes the survivor provide
for the wile and children of the deceased. Here
is the law of Missouri :
" It shall be the duty of the General Assem
bly to provide by law for the mode and manner
in which the survivor of a duel and his estate
shall be rendered responsible to and be charged
with a compensation for the wife and children
of the deceased."
But, sir, although we have not gone so far as
this in our own State, we have gone far enough
to do us honor. We are entitled to respect, with
pride, a noble provision in our own Constitution
which has elicted much approval in other States
and been adopted in the re-structure of other
Stiate Constitution.
One of tile most plausable objections to this
law is this: that a citizen of this State, under
the operation of the dueling law, may hbe insulted
at any time with impunity, whereas recourse is
open for satisfaction of insult to any one who is
not a citizen of this State. Although I do not
attach much importance to the objection inas
much as it is quite partial, betokens a spirit of
dissatisfaction, and is not such a view of the
law as a good citizen ought to take, I had thought
that the objection might be removed and with
that view prepared the following substitute
which I shall now simply read to the Conven
tion :
" Any citizen of this State or any person re
siding or sojourning therein who shall after the
adoption of this Constitution fight a duel with
deadly weapons, either within this State or out
of it, or who shall act as second, or knowingly
aid and assist in any manner, those thus offend
ing, shall be deprived of holding any office of
trust or profit and of enjoying the right of suf
fliag under this Constitution acquired and to
be acquired.
Another objection urged with some force
against this law is that it opens the door to as
sassinations and kindlrcd crimes. All I can say
in answer to that objection is that when such
offences are committed, they will be properly
visited by the law of the land, and as to those
ciases of an aggravated nature whiol have often
been referred to as demanading a retort to hostile
wcapions, I believe that no jury will ever find a
mian guilty when lie can prove that the offence
for which he sought violent redress was such as
coull not have been wiped out by any other
means.
Bet how far are we called upon to acknowl
edge the innocence of dueling? I take the case
of a man well skilled in the use of duelling
weapons who gives mortal offence to another man,
in the full knowledge that he to whom Ihe is of
feriug this outrage is all unskilled in the prac
tices of dueling, as well as in the use of those
weapons with which it is carried on. The of
fendet1 party is compelled to send a challenge
to do, so or to ear the brand of "corlatrd '
are the alternatives presented-lie has no Con
stitutional law to shield him from reproachl-he
challenges and the offender exultingly accepts,
tihe atr of course nming his choice of coarse nuoeing his choice of weap
ons. The parties go on the field. True to all
expectation, lie who received the insult is the
victim. I ask if this is not as deliberate mur
der as can be committed ?
I rue, te man may avoid being murdered
he may reject the unequal terms of combat or
he may decline to challenge; but, without this
constitutional law, he would be stigluatized as
a coward: and we know that a man, whether
he is a coward at heart or not, will offer any
sacrifice before he will consent to bear that stig
ma. Mr. President, I mean it not irreverantly
by introducing the sacred volume into this dis
cussiou; but it seems to me that when Cain
having shed his "brother's blood, was branded
with the mark of divine indignation. and made
a fugitive and a vagabond on the earth, he was
in a condition in some respects assimilated to
the individual in our community who, before
the adoption of this Article in our Constitution.
chose not, for whatever reasons, to send or accept
a challenge. Sir, he was pointed at owith the
finuigr of scorn, shunned and despised by his
fi/llo-moute, with the stigma of society stamped
upon him, until he mnight well exclaim in the
pathetic language of the holy book, that for re
fusing to risk his own or another's life "his
punishment was greater than he could bear."
I trust, sir, that the substitute may not pre
vail, and now move to lay it on the table. 1
can never by my vote consent to expunge from
our Constitution one of its brightest gems.
MDr Brot.L.xt)o suggested that if Article 130
were adopted by this Convention, there should
be an amnesty for all past offences.
MIti. IIr--I am in favor of the adoption of
this clause as it now stands, and I hope it will
be engrafted in the Constitution witllout any
change whatever. All of us agree that the
practice of dueling is degrading and demoral
izing. There is not a gentleman upon thisfloor,
I presume, who does not feel upon this subject
as 1 feel, and who, could he see any effectual
means of suppressing the practice, would not
give the measure his hearty andl cordial support.
Nothing, sir, can be more desirable than legis
lation capable of effecting such a purpose; but
we have seen how utterly futile has been all
legislation to provide for its punishment. There
is not a single instance on record in the whole
country of a man having suffered the penalty
of the law for the olfncce of dueling. This has
been because the sound judgment of a jury
invariably acknowledges that the punishment
for dueling is too great, besides being, in an
important view, odious in this, that it places the
man who fights a duel on the same footing with
the felon and the murderer. Public opinion re
coils from such a classification of men. The
better elements of the lunman character conspire
and combine to reject it. Thus the law is a
nullity, and it is the part of wisdom to seek
a remedy in a law which may be rconciled with
common sense and social prosperity by the
meoasure of its soundness, its justice and its
moderation. To make laws elfectual the penalty
for their infringement must be certain. When
the punishment is certain, when it attaches by
the more operation of the law itself, without
the intervention and uncertainty of judge or
jury, the law will be respected. Ilere, sir, is
the benefit of this clause of the Constitution.
The penalty attaches at once upotn the infringe
mtent of the law-a penally, too, which a correct
public sentiment can justify, and yet at the
sante time sufficiently severe to enforce obedi
Senre..
In a country like ours; where tile avenues to
the highest honors and positions are open to
all-where the privileges of citizenship are so
numerous and so gratifying to human pride,
there can be no greater punishment than to say
to a man, " Sir, you have been engaged in a
duel; you have violated the Constitution of your
State; you have thub forfeited the most sacred
right of an American citizen; you can not
vote." To a high-minded citizen-to any good
citizen-this penalty must indeed be a severe
one; to the man of keen sense and correctpride
of character, it must be oppressive to the ex
treme point of endurance. ,Puch a man looks
to the past. His sound reflection forces him to
the acknowledgement that he has committed an
error, the serious consequences of which he now,
for the first time, contemplates. He looks to
the futurei the prospect is a blank, Honor,
station, and all that can stimulate honorable
energy, are effaced from his future. There is
nothing on which the objects of his ambition
may he impressed. " The punishment is indeed
terrible. Punishment such as this is guaran
tied by article 130 of the Constitution. Those
who think that it does not go far enough. may
search the records, anl they will find only how
ineffectual has been all legislation to go farther.
The duelist errs, but no debasing sentiment
prompts his course; notwithstanding his error,
the most noble, the most sacred affections of
fomily and friends will still cling to him. ItI
man reason and a healthy civilization alike
resist the monstrous idea of classing him with
the felon and the murderer.
But some gentlemen tell us that this article
of the Constitution is the prerogative of the
Legislature, and should have no place in the
organic law. The best answer to thee gentle
men is to point them to their own arguments,
where, in the same breath, they entertain us by
broadly denouncing all restrictions of the right
of a citizen to vote, as guaranteed to him by
the Constitution of the United States. They
contend that this law ought not to find a place
in the Constitution of Louisiana, because it is a
restriction of the right to vote. Those gentle
men do not keep in view that our Constitution
contains other restrictions of voters. It re
quires the voter to be twenty-one years of age;
that is a restriction; it requires that he shall
have resided a certain length of time within the
State; that is another restriction. Argument
has been exhausted to show that these restric
tions can ever be properly regulated by legisla
tion. Equally unsatisfactory and unavailing
would it be to trust to varying legislation to
provide penalties for dueling.
It has been objected to this law that it has
not accomplished its object. The objectioh is
not a good one. We know that when thedueling
sections, introduced by Judge Chinn, were dis
cussed ilt the Convention of 1845, the most fear
ful and bloody consequences to flow from the
law were predicted and portrayed. Objections
of every hue were presented against the new
feature of the Constitution. One gentleman
contended that it gave every advantage to the
skulking assassin over the open antagonist,
while in the operation of the law, another gentle
man saw the pathway open to assassinations in
broad daylight. The state of things to be
brought about by this dueling law was earnestly
represented by many of the most sagacious aid
distinguished members of that talented Conven
tion, as too dreadful for a civilized community to
armed men were to fall by the assassin's knife,and
contemplate-murders were to multiply-an
street fights were to become the order of the day.
But, sir, it is our proud province now to show
that not only have none of these inauspicious
predictions been realized, but, on the contrary,
the law has really accomplished its purpose be
yond the anticipations of its most sanguine ad
vocates. The sanred right of suffrage-theopen
path to honor and emolument-had never been
sufficiently appreciated before this rod of terror
was held over our citizens. Since that law came
ilto operation, there has not been one duel in
ou .:.o where there had been ten before. And
ib .. i yet to learn that street fights, or assas
sinations, or um'rders of any kind have occurred
since that time, beyond the ratio of the increase
of population. Sir, if any member of this Con
veltion can satisfy me tlitt murders and street
tights have increased with the operation of this
law, I shall vote to expunge it.
My colleague, who offers the substitute now
before the Convention, complains that this law
is unequal, unjust and oppressive in its operS
tion, lecause it disfranchises a citizen of the
State if Ihe detnonds of one of our own citizens
satisfaction for an insult, whereas he may obtain
redress front a citizen of anotlher Sctrte without
incurring this penalty. Sir, I look upon that as
the brightest feature in the law, and in its ab
sence would never consent to give this clause of
the Constitution the sanction of my vote.
Towards our own citizens we are wisely re
strained from the further practice of what, in
the State of Louisiana, may be styled semi
legalized violence; but our Constitution does not
tie us down in our intercourse with strangers.
It has not the power to lisfranchise the citizens
of another State, and has thtereorbe most wisely
decreed that, in our social relations with them,
we shall be placed upon a fair anil equ nl footing.
O)ne lending necessity for retaining this clause
in the Constitution is to be found in our regard
fr a sound public opinion, which, after ill, I
believe to be the only, or at lelst the most.
effectual means of suppressing the practice of
ldueling. The clause iut the Cosititution of '45
has already done muoel towards forming a cor
rect pnhlic opinion on this point, and if it be re
et:inel in the Constitution which we are now
ttaking. it will prove entirely effectual. But if
you strike it from the Constitution, tihe effect
will be most injurious. It will be said, and ex
ulted over, that an attempt was made to abolish
the practice of dueling in Louisiana by a con
stitutional law, but that the law was found to
be inoperative. and in six short years it was re
pealed. It would be saying, in effect, that the
people of Louisiana are opposed to any restric
tions upon dueling. This would be taking a
long and dangerous step backwards in civiliza
tion. On the other hand, if this Constitution
ahall preserve Article 181), public opinion will
be strengthened and justified, the wisdom and
virtue of the law will e vindlicated, a more
general respect for it inculcated, and increased
Ilticiency given to its operation.
iBut weo are told that by this law we are
striking a blow at the chivalry of the State of
Louisianua-that its citizens are always able to
defend themselves, and want no Constitutional
protection, or Constitutional provisions, to settle
their difficulties for them. All that I have to
say in answer is, that if the chivalry of our
State is shown in the practice of dueling, it is
the lowest of all chivalry to shed the blood of
our own citizens, and the sooner we tear that
olat frotm the records of our clivalry the better.
it ore are never wanting higher occasions in the
history of nations for exhibitions of their chiv
alry.
There are, indeed, times when thile most pru
dent of men feel a necessity to resort to arms.
lut on these occasions the wound has reached I
the heart of hearts, and reason fails to dictate
its remedies. On such occasions all prohibitions,
whether Constitutional, Legislative, or of any
other character, are disregarded, awl that law
which then becomes the highest law, and as
sumes sole control of the humnan breast-the law
of honor reigns unrestrained. But these cases,
thank God, are rare-so rare, that they do not
etfcet the great question now bctobre the Cnven
tion, for laws in their operations must be gen
eral, and cases of individual hardship must yield
to the general good. The dueling clause in our
State Constitution has become a leading princi
ple of our social policy. I trust that this Con
vcntion will so recognize it.
hla. REsevEc-I rise to oppose the substitute
offered by the gentleman from NewOrleans, Mr.
Castellanos. The object of the gentleman in
offering this substitute is to strike out and
totally annihilate Article 180 of the Constitu
tion. That article is the brightest feature in
the whole Constitution. It casts its radiating
.. mn" over every provision in that instru
tme , 'points, with unerring certainty, back
to ..o superior intelligence and exalted moral
worth of the framers of the Constitution of
1$-l5. Mr. President, it was a noble, humane.
and in every sense praiseworthy motive that
prompted the framers of that Constitution to
embody in it this most salutary article. It was
not lone until after that venerable and intelli
gent body had given it the most mature delib
eration. And it was done to suppress the
odious custom of dueling-that ancient cus
tom, which is the legitimate olfspriag of bar
barism and the pride of all uncivilized nations
that custom which, for centuries past, has
swept with tornado power over the nations of
the earth, leaving desolation and ruin in its
train-that custom, which has shaken to the
centre the moral fabric of every nation of the
globe. And, sir, it is a lamentable fact that
the same harbarous custom has triumphantly
winged its flight across the Atlantic, and has
found a cordial reception in our own highly
favored land-this land, which boasts of being
the cradle of liberty, and the social as well as
moral paragon among nations-this land, which
is illuminated from East to West, and from the
Atlantic to the Pacific, by the lights of science,
morality and literature! Sir, this odious cus
tomn has pervaded nearly evey State in our glo
rious Union, and society has felt its withering
influence from the lowest to the highest circles.
But, sir, there is a glorious consolation in the
anticipation and conviction that Louiisana has
arisen in her strength to crush and for ever put
on end to this obnoxious practice of duelling.
She has emblazoned her veto power against it
in the I30:th Article of her Constitution. There
it stn.o!s in the face of the world as a living
mon.~,.. fI her bold declarations. Sir, I
trot. i " :, that it may stand there until
t'::c" ,;: ii no more. There it stands, as a
l.b::. n- i" .: t. her sons, to warn themtto spurn
thut , i.;: e a :lom of dueling, at the peril of
thl;ti coelt cred rights.
L ,i iiann, by embodying this Article in her
Constitution, has excited the admiration of the
world, and the States of this glorious Union
point to hers as to an example worthy of imi
tation by them all. This Article has been pro
ductive of great good, exercising at all times a
most salutary influence, and I trust that it may
bepermitted to stand in the Constitution, to
shed its light and influence upon those who are
to come after us-on our sons and sons of sons,
as they rise up and lean to respect it. We live
in an age of unparaleled progress and improve
ment, and it is an object near my heart to see
our moral standard rise to the highest degree of
excellence. Sir, the gentleman has said that
we were inconsistentin our course in this Con
vention. I presume that we all have acted as
faithful public servants in the discharge of our
duties, being prompted by none other than hon
est and correct motives; and I trust that all of
us will be able to give a faithful account of our
stewardship But I think that gentlemen in
this Convention mistake qualification for re
striction, and thus confound the true argument,
which, I have no doubt, it is their desire to elu
cidate. And now, Mr President, I have done;
but I cannottake my seat without reiterating
the sentiment, that my voice shall ever be lifted
in opposition to the barbarous custom of duel
ing. I therefore trust, and confidently hope,
that the gentleman's resolution may not pre
vail.
The substitute of Mr. Castellanos was laid
upon the table.
The Dueling Article was then adopted, with
out amendment, and so nearly unanimous was
the vote, that a motion to call the yeas and
nays was unsuccessful.
Messrs. Prcaux. IIernandez and Staes asked
leave to have their votes recorded, against the
adoption of the article, which was ordered.
Msl. PRc:Ax gave in the following explana
tion of his views and vote: I vote "no," be
cause I consider Article 130 of the Constitu
tion of 1845, as a penal statute, and that the
guilty party is placed in the situation of being
compelled to give evidence against himself, and
to support the chances of the sentence of dis
franchisement, without a fair hearing of his
case, which effects are, in my opinion, contrary
to the true principles of a Republican Govern
ment.
Article 130 having been adopted, Article 80,
which had been postponed with IMr. Preaux's
substitute, was next taken up.
Msl. COTTON moved to lay the substitute on
the table. The motion prevailed.
MAl. JOsxc proposed to amend Article 8, as
follows: 1 farther do solemnly swear that I
have not procured any appointment or election
by bribery or the purchase of votes, neither di
rcctly nor indirectly.
The amendment was rejected.
AlR. Grelo moved to amend tile oath by add
ing, "I will support the Constitution of the
United States, and this State."
Mrs. DCeous thought the amendment super
fluous, because the party already swears to do
his duty agreeahly to the Constitution and laws
of the United States, and of this State. The
whole object was already embraced.
SSIM. GGrox-The objection of the gentleman
is not tenable. I want all officers, both federal
and State, to take an oath to support the Con
stitutious, not only in the line of their official
duty, but in all their actions in life
li.t. I0Ex.ta.tsN-When the first Governor was
sworn in under the Constitution of this State,
Judge Martin, theno Supreme Judge, took the
Act or Congress and the Constitution of this
State, and made him take the oath of fidelity tc
both, giving it as his opinion that the oath tc
observe both was necessary. I think that thL
amendment of the gentleman from Lafourche is
clearly proper.
3Sl. Iuxr--The Constitution of the United
States requires that all officers shall take the
oath. Sly colleague is right. The act was
passed by the first Congress, and the oath re
ferred to has been required ever since.
Sitc. Gritox' s a men.lment was adopted.
M1t. DEr.ox. offered the following additional
article, which roeads thus:
Article -. Tir people of this State have the
sole andt exclusive right of governing themselves
as a tree, sovereign and independent State, and
of exercising each and every power, jurisdictiosn
indl right pertaining thereto, whichr is not, or
may not hereafter be, by them expressly dele
gated to the Government of the United States.
M31. DELOx-5I desire to advance only a few
words in support of this resolution. T'Iere are
a variety of powers claimed by a large portion
of the people ff the United States as belonging
to Congress. We find ourselves continually
disputing as to the rights of Congress. Tihere
are implied powers and there are necessary
powers, and there are powers in Congresi
to carry out specific purposes. Now, nm
desire is that the Constitution which we
are now framning fbr the State of Louisiana
will express itself most clearly that the State of
Louisiana claims for itself, and reserves to
itself, the right to exercise all powers which it
has not expressly delegated to the General Gov
ernment. These are my reasons for placing
thia resolution before the Convention.
The article was rejected.
SWtAtI" LA.N) ttONATION.
Mo. BENJa.sUN offered the folloswing additional
article, under the title of General Provisions:
Article -. None of the lands granted by
Congress to the State of Louisiana for aiding it
in constructing the necessary levees and drains,
to reclaim the swamp and overflowed lands in
this State, shall be diverted from the purposes
for which they were granted.
Mi. BEIcxt.txl-Mr. President, my reason for
offering this article is to prevent any casual Le
gislative authority from diverting the purposes
of this grant. I hold in my hand the act of
Congress which makes the grart. It is ex
pressly designed to aid the State of Louisiana in
constructing the necessary levees and drains to
reclaim the overflowed lands therein. The grant
was a just one, and all of us know the reason.
The citizens of the low lands had, at their own
expense, through a series of years, reclaimed a
vaet portion ot the overflowed lands of this State,
and the greatest part of the benefit resulting
from their act went to the General Government,
the improvement bringing a large additional
quantity of lands into successful cultivation.
There was yet an immense quantity of land to
reclaim, and as Congress could not reclaim it in
the condition of things, it made a grant of nine
millions of acres to this State, that the people
of the State might do the beneficial work. Now,
sir, 1 believe that none of us desire to see that
grant diverted to other purposes, but the time
may come when a Legislature may feel disposed
to divert a portion of that magnificent grant to
the purposes of improvement in other portions
of the State. I therefore hope that the plain
design of the grant by Congress may be incor
porated in the organic law, so that the Legis
lature may be restrained from applying any
portion of the grant to other purposes than
those for which they were intended.
Mo. lhUTr--I will vote for the article intro
duced by my colleague, although its incorpora
tion in the Constitution would seem to imply a
suspicion that the Legislature woutld do some
thing, which it is plain that it never could, le
gally or in justice. But I am induced to vote
for the article by my recollection that the lands
granted to this State for school purposes, were
soll and the funds misapplied.
The article was adopted.
ENGIt.lS AND FIRENCH LANGUAGES.
Article 182 of the Constitution being then ta
ken up and read as follows, to-wit:
Article 132. The Constitution awl laws of this
State shall be promulgated in the Englislh and
French languages,
Mi. TunoIteoN moved to insert at the end
thereof, the following words: "'unless other
wise provided by law." $
Mn. 'TuoxrsoeN-It may be remembered that
in former years, when the laws and proceedings
of the Legislature were read, it was necessary
regularly to elect an interpreter. Now, we
have no such election. Our Legislative pro
ceedings are duly read in the language of our
country. The cause does not now exist. This
shows that the mass of our follow-citizens are
rapidly acquiring a proper acquaintance with
o.r language. As we are now m.aing a Con
stitution which we hopewill last for a.lesat one
hundred years, I am anxious that the Constitu
tion may show that we have now made such
progress in the American language that it is
not deemed necessary to pull: ih anything in
the French language, that ii may be under
stood in any part of this Statc.
MR. CO,.lESN--The gentl.,: .,i':s amendment
is against reason and again facts. It has
nothing to support it. I tl.-rce.o.e move that it
he laid on the table.
AMr. Thompson's amendment wra laid on the
table. The article was adopted.
EXE5Ut TI V OFFICe: S.
MR. DUPOrn morel to add to the title " Ex
ecutive Department," the following articles:
Article -. There shall be a Treasurer of the
State, who shall hold his office during the term
of two years.
Article -. The Secretary of State and Treas
urer of State shall be elected by the qualified
electors of the State.
And in case of any vacancies caused by the
death, resignatiosr or absence of the Treasurer
or Secretary of State, the Governor shall order
an election to fill said vacancy.
MR. Dr-FOc said that the Convention had
passed over the consideration of the official po
sition of Treasurer, and also of Secretary of
State. The object was that they might be
placed by theConvention into strictly the Ex
ecutive Department. He, therefore, offered the
above resolutions.
MR. BENJAMIS asked to know if his colleague
had any objections to another resolution,
making the Auditor of Public Accounts also an
Executive officer.
MR. HERROa offered the following additional
article to the above articles:
Article -. There shall be an Auditor of Pub
lic Accounts, elected by the qualified voters of
the State, who shall hold his office during the
term of two years.
MI. WAnDILL. objected to making the Auditor
a Constitutional officer. It was not improbable
that at the very first meeting of the Legislature
it would be found that the office was unnecessary
and would be abolished.
MR. RiCHAetaso , of Ouachita, hoped that the
motion of tli delegate from NewOrleans would
not prevail. It was only since the year 1847
that the office of Auditor of Public Accounts
was known in Louisiana. Previously to that
time, the duties now performed by the Auditor
were discharged by the Treasurer. Whether
that officer may remain by the voice of the peo
pie and the vote of the Legislature, it is not
necessary to inquire. Sufficient is it to know
that a large portion of the people always have
thought, atnd still think, the office an unneces
sary one, and it may be made so. The greatest
evil which has afflicted the State of Louisiana
is, that we have had too many oftces-that the
officers have been too well paid; and that is one
great cause why many of the people of this
State desired to call this Convention. They de
sired reform-reform in the construction of the
offices that drained so much money from the
State. The office of Auditor of Public Accounts
can be carried on without the office being made
a Constitutional one. iHe thought that under
the circumstances, the Constitution ought not to
be saddled with that office. Certainly such a
movement would be against the popular wish.
He hoped that the motion would not prevail
Mil. Ii RRnON's additional article was rejected.
The resolutions by Mr. Dufour were adopted.
JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
Mu. I'PAau offered the following article, to
come under the head of "Generel Provisions,"
to-wit:
The Legislature shall have power to confer
jurisdiction on Justices of the Peace, for the
trial without a jury of all petty offences; pro
vided that the accused shall not be imprisoned
for more than ten days, nor fined more than fifty
dollers, at the discretion of the Justice of the
Peace.
MnR. PAnnas would ground the justice of this
resolution on Articles 80 and 107 of the Consti
tution. Taking these two Articles together, the
last Legislature thought that Justices had not
the power to act without summoning a jury.
During the Legislature a number of petitions
came in to that effect front Police Juries in the
State. These Police Jurors thought that a law
in conformity with the above resolution ought
to be passed. The sources of remonstrance
were certainly entitled to respect. It was not
the proper time to inquire and ascertain how
far the provision would operate justly. Hte be
lieved that it would. Iis object in offering the
resolution to have a Constitutional provision on
the subject was that there might be no differ
ence or conflict of opinion as to the powers of
the Legislature over the subject in the future.
Mu. ISAACKss-I call the attention of the dele
gate from Madison to the fact that this morning,
I offered a resolution giving authority to the
Legislature to extend the jurisdiction of Jus
tices of the Peace in the trial of all minor crimes
and offences. The resolution of the delegate
from Madison must be produced as either an
amendment or substitute to his own; and he de
sired to know which he proposed it to be. The
resolution presented by himself (Mr. Isaacks)
had, on motion of Mr. Preaux, been postponed
till the Convention should take up the report of
the Judiciary Committee, which, by resolution
of the Convention, would be taken up on Tuesday
next. So he preferred that if his resolution did
not cover the whole ground, that now offered by
the delegate from Madison must be considered
and received as a substitute resolution: but, if
his resolution of the morning was deemed suffi
cient, it would be well to defer the consideration
of the gentleman's resolution also, until the Ju
diciary report came up. It was the opinion of
some that, in the event of the change being
made, it would be the Magistrate's prerogative
to sunmmon juries, but much as he disliked the
present system, he preferred it to that sugges
tion, for the reason that it would augment the
expenses.of each parish in the State, if the Magis
trate were clothed with such authority, because
Magistrates would summon juries to try all
causes where an affidavit had been made, they
not having the means to ascertain whether there
was probable ground of guilt or innocence before
the case was put to the jury. On the other
hand, the Grand Jury, under the present system,
intervened, as it were, between the Court and the
accused, and established a probable ground of
guilt before the party wasurraigned for trial,
and frivolous and malicious cases were thus far
checked and prevented from becoming a tax and
an annoyance to the District Courts. For these
reasons, I prefer the present District Court sys
teom to that of a Magistrate with power to sum
ntn juries. But the power of Magistratesjis
an imaportant subject for the consideration of
this Convention, and at the proper time I hope
it will receive the attention that it merits.
iOn motion of Mr. Benjamin, the subject was
postponed until Tuesday, the 20th, to be taken
up with the report of the Judiciary Committee.
THE EL.CtORAL oFRoAN.t'ISE.
The Convention then took up for consideration
the majority and minority reports of the Com
mittee on the Electoral Franchise.
Ma. WAnnOsi. m1ove0' to post peo the considera
tion of the reports, and smoved to have the same
printed for the use of this Convention, which mo
tion was lost.
Mit. BvRsE mloved to take up as a substitute
to the first Article, reported by the majority,
the Article reported by the minority of said
committeo, which reads as follows, to-wit:
Article 10. Every free white male, who has
attained the age of twenty-one years, and who
has been a resident of the State twelve months
next preceding the election, and the last six
months thoreot in the parish in whh,-t hle offers
to voto, and who slhall be a citizen oi the United,
States, shall have the right of voting. Electors
shall, in all cases except treason, f:lony, breach
or surety of the peace, be privileged from arrest
during their attendance at, going to, or return
ing from eleotions.
MRs. AituAsT msoved to lay the above Article
on the table.
On said motion, Mr. Moss called for the yeas
and nays, which resulted as follows:
Messrs. Anderson of St. Landry, Akenhead,
Anderson of Carroll, Armant, Bradford, Ben
jamin, Bernard. Brother, Boudousquie, Camp
bell, Collens, Conrad, Deolouet, Dorsey, Doug
lass, Dufour, Duffel, Edwards of 0., Edwards of
Wash., Eggleston, Guion, Hays, Hodges, Jones,
Key, King of St. Landey, Leeds, Lobdell, Lyle,
McMillen, Mathtews of Orleans, Martin, Mather,
Olivier of St. Martin, Palfrey, Preaux, Pujo,
Richardson of St. Mary, Roselius, Roman, Roys
dtn, St. Paul, Swazey, Smithof West Peliians,a
teflon, Pris, Piere,
errxoodd, Villm W s
Onachita, Boaiaqnll.
,0 nays.
Consequently the said oli ra ~
the Conventioareaee~ to lSy
table.
sIB. Ean. t mve4o stajs;
articlethe th llooti words : *r
and - .. mobel," sag to em. t.
the weds '"-eg th0s,' Sa
Ma. Ton,!st w )p
emigratesmi to th. s.l. e,
flowing i
February. now, It
term of twelve meo
requisite for voting,
to settle as citizens, ]i
two years before they
I cannot see what gi
poliy which wii hek
State,,for.heck it anch ae1w
It is the Lg pmls eof
our citi~ene duly ate
frsge. Sir, t ....e. i
tens comienng fwa h ote a i
institutionesas ,bees
policy to srhow,*
tshnees, evqsifas
the general interet if
and their own Stat. .:
asunred that ifior.
emigrant, we shall make le_
body of lands to settle.
settle on and ctprlive t$esi,
come amongous, theye
of citizens. Theqyharevts
and military duty, sad to 'bk
not see the neoessity of
main two year in he8tate
entitled to vote. . ý.
Mn. SMART"-- wodM enot
on this question, at this time,
friend has overlooked
this State are bd. oce t
sequently a large i'n of
State would have t.witai
under the Artiwl befbr'
selvesof a vote. .ahha.u.4.
to do thednetiaep. a
should they not 1qe
that everyman wase
gration to thisSte--t
in astate olftrnle~.'
who is e. firt of t eLate-.. -
for its proo. '.w t a. ...et"ij
but I give g.snt .rn
call for the yeas aidnasrUia
am determined .ait thei e pr
are in favor of giving to ou
a reasonable time, se right aL '
who are not.
SMR. DOo mov 4 to lay the
,the table, w mehio m in
The followiag amed
Shave their v.tes reoodud
cDufour tolay onthe tal ac, `
fered by Mt. 'asibt,wl
they voted'in the i
Messrs. Richnrdsosot?4T.,'
SHerron, Harris, King of J.,
Addison, Isaicks, Waddiljl, Boyr,
ven, Eustis, Ste ndrt,.S ge, Y
Mathews of Poit Co irc
Villere, Whittingtonota a dan a
Mo. MARTNm moved to
months" and" sixmoatha?'
and to insert in lieu thereqf then
years," and "one year,"whiohau
Mn ToDD moved to strike out "t
and to inser " nine months," an t
" six months" Rnd to insert " three'
On motion to lay the same on the .~tlphiQ '
yeas and nays were called, and resalte. i ;
lows .
Miessr. Anderson of St. L
Andrews, Anderseon of Waiidt-l
ford, enjamsia, Be~art
quie, Byne, OiCstelli o.
Dectouet, Dory,
Duffel, Edwarda of
Onion, Hateh, Hays H
Hunt, Jennings, Jones, Seys l
dry, Leefe, Leeds, LeBlan,
Ilhenny, Mathews of Orleans, Mactin
Monge, Nicholls, Olivier of St. tar;
Poston, Patterson, Preaux, Pnfee,
T'ajo, Reeves, Richardson of St. Mlary, lao '
liuhas, Roman, Roysden, St. Paul, Swasey, Sitith
of West Feliciana, Sibley, Tatman, Thibods.
and Thompson-70 yeas.
And Messrs. Addison, Beard, 1
Boyer, Cotton, Doeson, Edwards of
Eustis, Harris, Herron, Isaaacks,.iJadajj -
of Jackson, Mathews, MeMil.l.o 0to ,
Moss, Olivier of St. Martizi, P
Ricihardson of Ouachita,
Smart, Scarborough, Shelton Smith
Stewart, Taliaferro, Todd, VanWiekle or s'
WRaddill and Whittington-33 nays.
Consequently the motion prevailed, sad
amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. CARTER then offered the followin aprovso :
Provided, That no voter shall lose hiiljp
of voting in any parish until the sameshailW-bj
acquired in another.
On motion the proviso was adopted.
MR. COLLsNS moved to strike out the- E'
" and who shall be a citizen of theiss
States," and to insert the iO. : 511 .
" who shall have been one year a coitten oafh
United States." l - ' .
MR. SMART moved to lay thoe' mo s ,.
table.
Pending the consideration of the saae-.'.
On motion, the Convention adjett.nsedi
Monday morning at nine o'closk. t
Boee DIte Ie Loa hea Ee-It willlie remee
Mr. Millefort, so dietlnguished in uie. l
hae undertaken to raise the Exp.e Comnn e "
the steomer eAtlht uo, mut upward s q of i GIA .ot
ifty feet telow the surface at the bottee ef e,
The lee.t attempt wan emoeeeefe. from ..
the diving appOaratus. The enOOee attLmpt ..
the vesel was reaeohed, but ftom eto a'
nothing was accomplished toeard eom *Oph ·
onthe w.ek. The Bufflo Coemmret bua ba It '
nithed with the foliowing aeoouet of thist .e. T iI..
the deepest dive on record, and willbe read ~eithfie}
Noltwtthetadilng the momewhat nuavoeahljsmeb Ip~~
of the weather and the reughness of the~ t .Cgttq
lermiued to make an attempt Co reaoh itle te6e AR .
odady merning. ltth September, in orerje to Sot of b
cily oI the new hoes.
Mr. Grmee, therefore, r.eayed bhem ef in i°"a ,
armor, and started on a semond trip to theoettme
Eriet. He d'ended without cay d yit d',r
directly in the interior of the ntte i
tlp and ides of which he .flt withllhise *at
tus theo elevrtd again some little disetaeee.
the eecoud time on the branees. flbwln dwoini..o C
otonto the ero brean. He did neot, ehouwawm,.f nl
to making a firm footing Ou deck. owing to thl-pB LyrM.:
n.sof the small seteamer used ou the o. dZu"t
ommunieateo d too much motgt ta ithe. itpe
There w mouch rhisk of tbhe ittre.lod j6e
tangled in the ropes aad weodti . .Ie.e eid net-o '
extricate himself, or to tear thedee, en
elnvated he denceoded a third tinme
the wreck. e nw elen a ec fepr e
upper deck and even with tbegaaee blh
heondrd and thirtyainloafet, and hi tont tae
sad foety-toen feet hetow the.enface f NLeeke Ue.
te the deepest dive eve made, one h.endoed aed
six feet'betlng the greatee depth ever hefore
ith new hose ws found to he peehetyl..aeo7 V
diver felt quite at ease, and went down and Up
th, 'Uightest injury to dAeen, pipes, or man.
The marine armor consists of a perfetly
rubber dress. topped by copper hlmet.nitha
plate of giast I front. The pipen erhinl
haust the air, lead from the top of tole
pumoping requnres moth oaboe ;ete nmdretwi
men being employed epe it at tbe ,e
ploed to work hard at that. Agreat
experienced by the diver upoh ,
the inch, d da very few ioud;vhlolaete ee
booth of ttelr. a daetenaa
VWh.. fei gt ig into the diessthe i .
,iou o very overooming, hbut jeewain
lfter entering the water. Woe a.d.tl.,of
reached int thedcet, te deebboomA tM
,f air end c aeed to tbehon.q.=t "t !
over the diver equal to the Afte f t Len o
eaxepting as t thoe head, whiet is'peoteetib ,perp
helmet. Thadleultylin
pataful eeassaon a is aperteEeeh,
come distended, end1e heedn e th"i
continune until aftoe deeondenditg
foeet, then teepln is Uleved, theet nlO einon e
oodeopeerbeeeenofnriecrengao
When etbou sextty feet the.e e
Sthe legitinatae inbaitbe of the water ns
diveo, aiblhizatether seMtrmage ae ho
Sfood for the di.hes, After reaching n
alt is perfectly dark--a lekt, i.p.peteibe
ant en eletlrie deme plays aronad theeinahh Of
met. oaused by the oieio0 of the p 4
hundreo end sixetyifee the water nel 'IF'
the present asenen witlita feoto 37
Mr. Mailefort bee rentmorto_
steamer, e snteto welt fo ettled d
f m Za~0to; lr Attempt Oe
that t i.ort wdll r e n
G ea thsedtrtkt peroed btoneK
work effeOtnaLy, and must rMnkL
most ,eful "under-watr"mn itie eat
moot excellent divern bhidonir. .o.eaati.gl
with Mr. Melefort. WYe shellelek With
for the rult o the nest t eL bet thta'
eul w' b .'ee m dsotbk '

xml | txt