Newspaper Page Text
T IE NEW ORLEANS DAILY DEMOCRAT.
OFFICIA'0 L JOURNAL OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA. VOL. II--NO. 153. NEW ORLEANS, C UESDAY, MAY 22, 1877. PRICE, FIVE CENTS. O/.II--NO 153. NE OREAS " - r ' '. BY TELEGRAPII. WASHINGTON. terious Cliargrs of Misappropriation Made Against Den. Flanders, when tipeelal Agent of the Treasury. The President Proposes to Defer Ills Ap. pollaments in Lotalslna for a Time. A Full Hearlng of All the Charges Against Candidates for Office to be Made. r [Special to N. O. Democrat.] WASHINOTON, D. C., May 21.--Serious charges have just been lodged at the 'Treasury Department against Ben. Flanders, Assistant Sub-Treasurer at New Orleans, and a commission to in Sv'restigate them will be organized to morrow or next day. 1ie Is charged with having perpetrated gross frauds upon the government some years ago when acting as Special Agent for the Bureau of Captured and Abandoned Property. The fraud consisted in selz ing and selling about $300,000 worth of cotton in Texas and pocketing the pro ceeds of the same without making proper returns to the government. It is claimed by parties preferring the charges 4ghat they have the dead wood on him. The President to-day explained why the Louisiana appointments had not been made. He mays that so many charges and counter charges have been made, and there is such a war of factions, that he has determined to give all of them a full hearing before he acts. He must be more than ordinarily fond of chin music. BJUELL. IMPOIRTANT DECISION. Judge Whitaker on the Vagrant Law and the Workhouse. superior Criminal Court. State ex rel. Frank Hush alias the Weasel vs. J. D. Houston, Criminal Slheriff--The Court has liven muobh reflecti n to the matters presented by this appplotiou for deseharge upon habeas corpus, and aokuowledges its obligationUs t J. N. Hemly Esq., attorney for the relater, and Deputy Sherif Lionel Adams, appearlng tu person for the Otriminal Sheriff, for the hluod manuer In which they have presented the p dats involved. It is but jest to say that the oplui n of the court Ia taken almost varbatim Irum the careful brief of Mr. Adams. The provisions of sat 121 of 183i, re.enaoted in 1870, tathorleas the reoorders of the otty of New Orleans to deter mine who are vagrants, or vaga bonds and suepi lons pereons, and to commit theja to the Workhouse for a term not exceedinu ixamonthi, where th y are to bh kepa at hard i The relator in the present oese was con of being a vigrant within'the terms of the . land was nentenued to pay a fine of twenty or suffer imnprisonment in the Parish forg thlty davs. This sentence of convio 0,. tits elattor claims to be u,anuthorized and ileal, because, 1. The act is unorn·titutional; en dbeo.nse, 2, if conleitutional, the aot requires that the punishment be imprisonment in the City Workhouse and not in the Parish Prison. The unoonstitutio.ality of the aot is contendd for, because it violates tao of the provisions of article 0 of the eonstttution; the one orda*iing that every aousetd party "shall be entitled to a speedy pubito trial by an impartial jury of the par isa where the offense was uCmmitwed, unless the venue be changed;" and thellither req iring that all proseontions "shali he by indictment or in formation;'f and boecu e the o viotion of vs grants by the reo rder i+ the exercise of judicall powers and theref re contravenes the spirit of the 04th tarticle of toe same eonstitution which grants to officers not included in the feotion rela tive to the "judiciary department," ooguiza.ce only of cases athi.i g under the police regulations of towns and cities in the State. The act defining ant pnnishing vagrancy was adopted while the dbestitntlon of i1851 was in force. That instrument, like the constitutions of 1864 and 1868, guaranteed the acooeed a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the vicueige, but also contained an artiole, the 124th, which like the 13.rd aitiule of the constitution of 180l1, vested in the recorders of the city of New Orleans such crminl jurisdi ltion as might be necessary for the punisehment of minor crime , and offuenes, and as the peace and good order of the city migoit require. These articles, eractly similar in the two constitutions (that of 185' and that of 1804), are in no way repugnant to, or inconslatent with the Dptrit or letter tf article l94 of the ounetitution of 1888. Therefore, uuder the provisions of ar ticle 149 of the present counstitution, au act bear inug upon these cottstitntional articles (which was in foret and valid at the time of the adoption of the costhuittion of 18101), not inconsistent therewith, continues as if the new constitution had not been adopted. The constitutlonality of the vagrant act was denied in a written opinion of the late Judge Cooley, pronounotd in the case of "The Btate ex rel. Frbd Cobb er vs tne Keeper of the City Workhouse." This deolsion was sutplemented by the discharge of teelve off4nders agaiest this law, who applied to the Sixth District Court to be released by habeas corpus. Tthe decision of Judge Cooley was based upon three grounds which were by him very ably and very exhaustively elabor ated. 'These were: 1. That the act was repugnant to the oonstitutit nal right of trial ny jury guar anteed the citaen, and of which he could not be deprived by legislative enactments; 2. That pro esedinge under the vagrant oat were based upon aMfidtavts; offenders were summarily tried, and taally disposed of without other pleadings, in violation of the constituntonal requirement that prosecutions shall be by in ilotment or informa tion; and 8. That the provisions of the apt in question, applying only to the parish of Orleans, olted the eco, ud ara"ble of the "ball of rights," whioh says: "They (citizens) "hall enljoy the same civll political asid 'pub to rights and privileges nd be subjct to fIs same pains anl penadies." third reason was urged against the act rela to vagrants wi hin the Metropolitan Police ot, and, of course, cannot be considered in .e oonstruo Ion of the act of 1855, which applies .I6 all parts of the State. These decisions of Judge Cooley were fortified by the subsequent concur. rene of the tuperior Oriminal C urt therein, on an unopposed writ of habeas corons. An examination into the pr n nipies involved in the objectione f the selator, (which are exactly the points made by Judge Uooiey in his opinion) discaoses that the very questions now at issue have been construed by the tupreme Court of e State adversely to th' relator's claim. In 869, in New Orleans vs. Coetelo, that tribunat etermined that although the constitution ot 852 (art. 108) required prosecutions to be by in otment or informnation, an act of the Legisla which vested reoarders of this city with the of minor crimes and offenses, did not violate article, because such delegation of judicial were to the recorders was authorized by the ole 124 of the same ounstitution. (14 A. 38.) In 860. the same court, in the ease of State vs. tliler , laid down the dootrine that the ar ole 108 guaranteeiogg the right of tr al by laury the general rule to which article 124 forms an the former p:oolaies a right, the reoeg.l.ss ealap of cases to whi h that h.t tdoe extend. In other words, the article 108 jhar no appioartion whaiever to the class or offences which are to be tried summarily, without the nterv nation of an im partial jury of the vioinoge." (15 A., 191]) Eight I years later under a different adminl-tration of public affaire. the BSupreme Court, eomposed of 1 an entirely different bench, reaffirmed the prinol plee laid down in the tw, osses already cited, and under a proceeding by habeas corpus, after hav ing reviewed the very act now in question, held that article 105 of the constitution of 1861 was similar in its provisions to article 108 of the con s tution of 1852; that article 188 of the constitu lion of 1864 differed not from article 124 of the constitution of 1852, as "minor crimes and lf fences" are contained in the expression "minor offences;" and that the "vagrant soat," known as sections 120 and 121 of the acts of 1855, not being in conflict with the constitution of 1864, con. tinued in force under the provisions of article 149 of that constitution. ('J A., 820 ) Comparing the constitution of 1884 with that of 1868, it will be found that article 105 of the former is I en!ical with article 0 of the latter; that article 124, in the one, while differing in language front artiole 91, in the other, is the same in spirit, and similar in the extent of the delegation of Indhlial powers to ofloers neces sary in towns and cities for the enfuroemnnt of their police regulatint-s; and that article 149 of the constitution of 1864 is literally embJdied in the constitution of 18t68. It is necessary, however, to follow out the chain of logicat e tnences so unanawerabiy set out in these deociions. It is sate to rest the right of the reoorders of the city of New Or leans to punish summarily in cases of vagrancy, tn the delegation of J)cticial powers contained in the constitution of 186;t. Article 94 an horize the Legislature to create judicial ofl ,ert and vest them with cogni zance over eases arising under the police regula tions of towns and cities. If vagrancy belong to the class of eases whlich arise under the police regulations of the city of New Orleans, an act of the Legislature vesting re orders with the power to punish ofe'nders of this chsracter in a sum mary manner is in strict o. unaanoe with the constitutional grant of powers. Bisokstone defines the public police and economy as "the due regulation and domFstic order of the kingdom whereby the inhabitants of a State, like members of a well governed family, are bound to conform their general be. havior to the rules of propriety, good n,-ighbor hood and good masnners, and to be decent, indst Irious and inoffensive in their respective eta tions." (4 lB. Coin, 102.) The same author adds: "Idleness in any person whatsoever is also a high cff use against the public econemy. The clvil law expelled all sturdy vargrants from the city; and in our own law all idle persons or vagabonds whom our ansient statutes describe to be 'such as wake on the night and sleeps on the day, and haunt customable taverns and ale house, and route about, and no man woets fiom whence they came nor whither th-y go,' or such as are more particularly described by statute, 17 Geo. 1. O. 5, and divided into three cltsses, idle and disorderly persons, rognues and vaga hbonds, and incorrigible rogues; all these are of fenders against the good order, and blemi-hes in the government of any klngdronm They are therefore all punis'ed by the statute last men tioned,'" etc. (4 1l. GCo. 169.) Judge Cooley, in his work on "lonstitational Limitations" (p. 071) says, '"The police of a State, in a comprehensive sense, embraces its system of internal regnlatons, by which it is sonaht to preset vq the pub to order and to prevent offenses sgainst the tate." tummary proceedings in criminal causes are not infrequent eith r in England or in those States of toe Union where the common law is in force. Such convictions for vio ations of the game and kindred laws, amount in Enigland to more than 10, 000 a year, while in New York, where the law deflniug and punishing vagrancy is very like our own, neatly 800 vagrants are conflued in its penitentiaries. Our own bupreme Court, through its organ, Chief Justice Hyman, in one of the oases al ready cited, declared that the act vesting record ere with authority summarily to punish vagrant=, was an exercising of the counstitntional p'we. to clothe these officers with the criminal jtrisdic. tint necessary for the punishm at of such m nor off ences as the police and good order of the city required. (20 A 82'1.) The right of the Legislature to enect police laws for the government of towns and citie+ throughout the State is no longer an open ques tion. The Supreme Court of tae United States. in the celebrated "slaughterhouse" eases, has finally di posed of any olbjection of this character which might be urged against the vagrant oact of 1855. There are several considerations valuable in the construction of laws like this, which might be advanced; among others, the legal rule of inter pretation that acts should not be declared void, because they opp,se a spirit sapposed to pervade the constitution, but not expressed in wordu; and the furth. r rule that courts should not pronounoo a statute to be ntonelstitutional. unless the nullity and invalidity of the act are p aced beyond rea sonable doubt. But such an elabaration of the subject is deemed unnecessary, is vi -w of the fact that the vagrant lsv* in none of its provi sions, conil ot with the constitution of 1808 the Legislature is vested with absolute right of legiselation, except when restricted by the organic law. There is such restriction with regard to proceeding in iroeecotions, by indtotment or in formation, anti to triale. by the intermediary of a jury of the parish where the offense was com mitted. This, however, the Supreme onurt says, is a general rule which dies not apply when the offense charged is within the trrisdiction t f recorders as limited by article 94 'f the constitu tion. As demonstrated, tlhe act defining and punishing vagrancy is an act establishing a voli.e regulation; police regulations, according to article 91 of the constitution, rtay l e takret cogniz nue of by the recorders; ergo, the trial of vagrants by the recorders is ciearly cosnstitu tional. Act No. 120 of 1835, requiring that the punish ment nf vagrants be by Imprisonment at hard labr in the city Work-house, the seoond inquiry is, whether as ntence for esuch offense decreeing imprisonment in the Parlsh Prison ts legal and autit rized? The on y statute found by the court authoriz ing the erection of work-houses within the terri tory now known as the city of New Orleans, was an act passed in 1841 at a time when the city was divided into mumnoipalities, under separate sad distinot loal governments. This act provided "'hat the Council of each municipality of the city of New Orleans be and they are hereby author ized to establish within their respective limits a work-honuse or prison, and enact the requisite or dinances for the government of the same, in which shall be confined andti employed all persons legally committed by any magistrate authorized to commit vagrants." the second section of the act in regard to such work.houses vests the councilsof the municipalities with all the powers of police juries within the limits of such munic palites, and 37 oents per day was to be paid from the parish treasury fir each of the persons confined in said work-houses. The succeeding sections created the offnse of vagrancy, and provided for its punishment. 'Ihis act of the Legs lature, adoptod at a time when the oonstitution of 1812 was in force, is pe. ouliar in many of its provisions, and can be fully understood only after careful consideration. It delegated certain powers, nt to the ci'y of New Orleans, but to "the coun il of each mnicipal ity," "within their respective limits." The only persons subj ect to imprisonment in these work houses were vagrants legally committed by the proper magistrates. In the conocil of each muni croality was vested the powers of a police jury. rhese work-houses were substituted for and be oame the parish jails. 2lhe act which ostensibly purported to be /"n act to establish work-housse and houses of refoge by the several municipal ities of the cityof New Orleans," created and prt iahed a new off-nee. The primal obj~eot of the actM, the definition and punishment of vagrancy, was not mentioned in the ti:le otherwise than by the use of the words, "and for other purposes. The place of punishment was left to the discre ion of the recorders. The right to sentence to the workhbouse could only be'exercised alter such prisons had been erected by the councils of the municipalities of the cty of New Orleans. All this, it must be remembered, was in 1841, eleven years before sheriffs became oonstitutional olocers. In 1852, a consolidated and revised code of laws, known as the "8tatutee of 1852," was adopted, one section of which (under the title "prisons") provided that "the sheriffs of the dif ferent parlshes shall be the keepers of the public jails in their respective parishes." The work houses and other prisons used as parish jails in the city of New Orleans were, under this provis. ion of the "Statutes," placed under the control of the sheriff of the parish of Orleans, who be. oame their kee per. The same year was promulgated an act "to consolidate the city of New Orleans, and provide for the government and administration of its affairs." It provided that "all the powers, rights, privil les and immunities possessed and enjoyed by the FirestLeoond and Third Mutnicipalities of the city of New Orleans, shall cease and termi nate so far as regards the said mtlbiipalities and general council. This act did not and could not continue in the newly consolidated corporation a legisla'ive grant of power made specially to "the council of each municipality" "within their respective limits." The erection, and mainten anoe, of a work-house, within a corporation pi ovid. ed with the jail recognized in article 98 of the pres ent c~.nstitution ('he parish-prison) being unne. cessary, are the exercsng of legislative powers not within the proper province of municipal local government and void. Admitting, however, that, in this one regard the powers vested in the mu nicipalities were, by implication, continued in the new city of New Orleans, as established by the set of 18,32 by the act of 1830 amendatory to the act of 1852. (which repeals all former laws in conflict with I e provisions,) it is ernated that "the of New Orleans, as established by this a't, he vested with all the powers, rights, p ea and immunities incident to a municipal dorpo-ation, and necessary for the pr per government of the same." None of the powers. privtleges andimmunities enjoyed by the city of New Orleans, either when divided into innuiiriplities or when first consolidated in 1852 are vested in the altered corporation, even by implication. In none of the many charters provided for the government of New Orleans, from the first in 1,05 to the last in 1870, is con tained the slightest reference to the erection of work houses. Again, In 18.55 an act was passed defining and puniehitg vagrancy, materially and essentially different from the aot of 1811. This act of 1855 abolishes the act of 1841 by repealing all former laws on the same subject matter. Finally, the Ilevised Statutes of 1870 declare how commitments shall be drawn up. In this tate, no imprisonment being authorized unless by virtue of a warrant of commitment, and the statute being of a criminal nature, and therefore to be strictly construed, it is of great importance that its bearing upon this division of the disous slion should be fully estimated. Bection 1018 of the Revised tstatues reads: "Every magistrate committing any person to prison shall make out a commitment, which shall be signed by him, ordering the sheriff to keep tire person accused in sare and sure custody, until delivered by due course of law, and shell sub stantially set forth the nature of the offense of which suoh person is accused, which commitment shall be sufficient warrant and justification to the sheriff or nie deputy fur the detention and impris onment of the party so oharge'." A complianoe with this section requires Ihat the commitment should-first, contain the name of the prisoner; second, order the s/hertff to keep the accused in safe and sure custody until delivered by due course of law; third, substan tially set forth the nature of the offense charged; and, fourth, be signed by the magistrate. A iailure strictly to follow the statute in any one of these four essential particulars (as if, for in stance, the commitment ordered some person other than the Sheriff to keep the ccnsoed in cus tody) would render the mittlmus insufficient, and the detention of the prisoner unauthorized. Humming up the argoment relative to the right to imprison in the Workh:muse, we find that the oity act authorizing the erection of workhouses was passed in 1811; that the act gran ed o-rtain powers, in this regard, to "the Council of each muniocipality" "within their respective limits;" that it vested the municipalities with the powers of police juries; that it intended that the se work hiuses shuald be used as the parish jails within the respective limits of the several municipali ties, anti required the parish treasurer to pay 07/, cents per day for the maintenance of each prisoner confined therein. There is no proof that any one of the three municipalities of the city of New Orleans ever erected a workhouse under the provisions of the got, and, therefore, their control ant regu'ation could not be continued in the consolda eid city government. The powers vested in the munici palities were repealed beyond doubt in 1852, and still more positively in 1856 ; in the first instance by the oat consolidating the city of New Orleans, and in the other by the act amendatory thereto. The set No. 120 of 1855, defining and punishing vagrancy, repealing all former laws on the same subject matter, repealed the act of 1t41. The statute of 1852, making ach sheriff the keeper of the puhblie jails of his parish, would have given to the sheriffof Orleans exclusive contral over the workhouses contemplated by the act of 1811, had any been built. The later statutes of 1870 make it a fatal error to commit prisoners to the custody -f any officer other than the sheriff. Lastly, had the aot of 1811 continund uneffected by subse qoent legislation, it would be unconstitutional be cause it created a new offense w.thout, in the title, mentioning such to be one of the objects of the act. Having ascertained that acot 120 of 1F55 is con stitu.onal, but cannot be enforced by imoprieoo ment in the o ty work-house, the only remaining Ilquiry is whether the penal law therefore be comes in, p rative. The dupreme Court of this State held that the Legislature cannot be o, in si'tered t bhe gulty of the absurdity of enaoling laws for the protection of life and property with out furnishing the means of bringing offenders to justice. Courts must presume that it was in tended to give effect to those laws, and to pro vide means for their enforcement, adequate to the ends which were in view. Applying under this o3nstruction of our lawIs the statute adopting thie o)mmon law of England in the method ol trial, the rules of evidence, and all other pro ceedings whatsoever of a orimirnal nature, we find the common law as laid down by Archbhold, to involve these princip!es: 1. "If a statute enjoin an act to be done with out assigning any punishment for the not doing of it, there an indictment will lie for disobeying the injunctions of the statute." 2. "If a statute forbid the doing of a thing without assig ing any punishment for it, the doing of it willfully is an indictable offense, and punishable as a common law misdemeanor." Practice and Pleadings, pages 3 and 4. Vagrancy, as laid down by Blackstone in the quotation already recited, is a common law offense, and the rule of interpretation just set forth may not be considered inapplicable to off nees of this character. There is no need, however, to turn to the common law to secure the enforcement of the statute. Section 1013 of the Revised statntes is a portion of the same aot as section 934. and the two sections of the ot must be construed together. In other words, the laws of the State make it an offense against its police regulations to be guilty of vagrancy, and require that perstas accused of crime should be o·mmitted to the custody of the sheriff. Re corders of the city of New Orleans are authorized to enforce the city ordinances and the State statutes amounting to police regulations by im posing a fine not exceeding twenty dollars, or in default of payment by imprisonment not ex oeeding thirty days. In other words, the nature and hlimit of the punishment for vagrancy and all oth r rffencee against the police and good order of the city is a fuine of twenty dollars or imprisonment for thirty days. The recorders' act in this respect abolishes the nature and ex tent of punishment imposed by the act of 1835 upon vagrants, and substitutes therefor a money penalty not to exceed twenty dollars, or impris onment (in the Parish Prison) for a term not to exceed thirty days. The act of 1835 being con stitutional, and the punishment thereunder by imprisonment in the Parish Prison being lawiul, the relator's application mast be refused. ----------.@4P- The "general massacre" of gentiles in Utah, predicted by the New York Herald, is doubtless a stretch of imagination. The Corwine (Utah) Record, a Gentile j mrnal, has sent a reporter all through the Territory, and the emissary was un able to find any evidences of Mormon rebellion, and was assured by Gentiles that the story was utterly absurd. The only "drilling" discoverable was that of some boys in a little town, who were in the habit of "playing soldier' ard going through military evolationm.--[otrier Joural.. THE NEW ORLEANS PACIFIE RAIL. ROAD. To the Voters of New Orleans. Fellow- Voters-In unusual emergen cies, so far from it being considered un becoming in a man pursuing any pece liar ivocation to place himself and his humble opinions on important pub lo topics before you, it may rather be considered the duty of the humblest to do all in his power, in every possible way, to avert that which appears a threatened evil, or to remove that which has been realized as oppression. The past few years have found me with you in waging unceasing war on political ty. rants and their villaihous works. With thousands of others I had earnestly hoped for a long respite from conflict with the enemies of those immu table principles which underlie well or ganized sooliety. I had hoped that the lesson of the past eight years would have taken such deep root in the hearts and minds of o~r peo ple that many a long year would elapse before any organized effort to violate natural laws and prime rights could possibly assert itself. More than all, I had such faith in ordinary human consistency that I could hardly have imagined a people just emerging from the curse of utterly wreckless and profligate government-government de nounced by every honest tongue for annihilating all property value by a sys tem of rotten subsidies-now contem plating a close imitation of the works of their oppressors. But it seems that we ourselves are to a certain extent vitiated, anTi it is quite evident that we are either to calmly and earnestly enter the lists and battle against our own obliqui ties, or lapse into a system of govern ment only better than that from which we have escaped by sharply-defined comparison. When we were still under the iron heel of the oppressor, but beginning to raise a voice in the General Assembly of the State, a few gentlemen of this city so-called "business men"-associated themselves together and started the idea of building a railroad from Alex andria, on the Red River and one hun. dred and ninety miles from New Or leans, to Marshall, Texas; the ultimate plan being to connect New Orleans by railroad with Alexandria. This rail road, when complete from New Orleans to iarshall, would be three hundred and thirty-six miles long, and it was to be called the New Orleans Pacific i4il road. They laid their plan belore our people, and the most thoroughly dis tinctive feature in it was that the rail road was to be built entirelyt by prwtiCte enterprise-that the vicious system of State aid direct or indirect, was to be eschewed. Soon after subscription lists were started I was waited on in person by the President of the board directing this enterprise and requested to subscribo $1000. I honestly replied that I was not able to make so large a subscription, but he was earnest in his appeal both to mypurse and to my public spirit. I agreed to put my name down on his list on conditions, the most prominent of which was that under no circumstances whatever would he or his board approach the L.gislature for pe cunlary aid, either directly from the State Treasury, or by taxation of prop erty. He then and there assured me that he would only attempt to build the road through private subscription, and pledged me his word that he and his board would never ask legislative aid nor seek to tax property for the purpose. On this pledge I signed the subscription list. Of course I do not seek to prove what'I here say. I assert it to be posi tively true. Yet it can be fully corrobo rated if necessary. It was not long after this interview before I heard that it was contemplated by the president and his board to tax the property of this city to build the road; then we found them in the halls of the General Assembly urging a bill to tax; then we found their bill engineered through the house without that body being fully aware of it; then we found the House passing a resolution to recall the bill from the Sonate; then we found that most corrupt of Senates refusing to accede to this call, and passing the bill and fixing it on the House and the peo ple; then we found the Property Holders' Association opposing this measure and carrying the mat ter up to the Supreme Court of the State, where it has been decided that the law calling on the peo ple to vote whether property shall or shall not be taxed for such a purpose is constitutional. The Court says you have a right to vote on this subject, but it has not said you have a right to tax. Now, what is the state of the ease, and what is it that is proposed to be done? A few parsons in a great communily of more than two hundred thousand souls get together and conclude that a railroad from New Orleans to Marshall, Texas, via Alexandria, is a positive ne cessity-that the sunr of the trouble that is on us is the want of this railroad connection-and they propose to take the money of a special class-property owners of all kinds taxed-and build itas their (the board's) intelligence may direct. Now, l am wholly at a loss to conceive how the advocates of this road can logically assume the absence of this road to be the prime business cause of our general distress, or that if it were built and put in running order to-mor row our prosperity would be thereby promptly and necessarily restored, if they will but take a casual glance at the present condition of the civilized world to-day and for one year past. England is threaded with railroads yet, such is the frightfully depressed business condition of that country, money has for a year past been loaned at the extraordinary rate of one per cent, or even one-half of one per cent, per annum. The Bank of England during that term has been lending money at two per cent. The northern and western portions of this country are shown by the map to be a perfect network of railroads, and these railroads have been largely built by a system of government subsi dies or through the same means now proposed to this people; yet bank ruptcy and ruin stalk all over those re gions, those railroad stocks and mort gages are the great gulf that has swal lowed everything, and tens of thou sands of workingmen are consequently asking for bread. Prof. Bonamy Prioe, in a resent article in the Contem porary Beview, directs attention to the terrible condition of England and the United States, and traces the trouble to the mania for railroad building in this country, which drained money from le gitimate channels of trade to build roads not imperatively and legitimately de manded; this, as U consequence, stim ulated, for the time being, the establish ment of additional collieries, iron works, etc, at the same time drawing other millions of money into speculative oper ations in the stocks of these roads and works, and now that the inevitable re action has come, all that was invested is sunk, and ruin and suffering hold sway. I briefly cite these facts, not to prove that railroads are evils intrinsically, but that they may be easily made so by the folly of man. I believe that their establishment should be governed by the same natural laws that regulate the establishment of factories, lines of steamboats, etc., and that interference with these laws, while it may for the moment dazzle the public eye (as we have seen in this country during the ten yeare previous to the fall of 1873), will inevitably lead to disaster. The company proposing to tax this people have recently issued a pamphlet which is circulating largely. I propose to review it briefly. 1. They hope our voters will give a large affirmative vote, and thus set an example to other parishes. If our action is to be a matter of ex ample to others, I earnestly trust that my fellow-citizens will see to it that such action Is guided by the ordinary rules of common sense anwl justice. 2. "This tax is not asked as a donation to a private enterprise, but as a subscrip tion to forward a public work." Look the matter fairly in the face, and you will not fail to see that to vote that I shall use my private funds in an enterprise that is not of my choice, or that my judgment tells me is unprofit able, is to force a contribution through the power of the ballot-box, under the dictate ofj Jdgments no better than mine, and this is tyranny of the worst kind. 3. "I'hiscompany was organized exclu sively by our own citizens (and then fol lows a list of fifteen names) who have been animated in their prosecution of the work by no other motive but that of accomplishing a measure which all agree is indispensable to the recovery of the lost trade," eto. I address you not for the purpose of questioning the motives of men. It has long been said that "hell is paved with good intentions," and yet we never find a man willing to go there to see the pave ment. I prefer always to judge men by their acts. This company started out before this community on the basis of private enterprise; its pres ident got my subscription only by solemnly pledging himself to this basis. I told h m I would out off my right arm before I would vote away any man's property to build a railroad or admit the propriety of any man's voting away mine. The board went into the Legislature with their bill to tax without publicly declaring to the people that they had changed their pro gramme. The bill was engineered through the House so irregularly that the House tried to call it back from the Senate, and we have never heard that either the President or directors made any effort to induce the Senate to send the bill bacj ; and the spirit of the war waged through the public press and now in the pamphlet before me against all who oppose this tax (amounting at times to bitter denunciation)-all this leads the common sense man. away from the sentimental contemplation of good motives, and brings him down to the rude analysis of acts. I do not cite these facts to prove cor ruption (although our press stands em bellished with charges of worse than meanness against us who differ with them, and all clearly dictated by them); God knows I should deplore such a ne cessity, and I should feel like hiding my own head in shame; but I have a right to charge that such a record as this proves clearly that the zeal of the board has crushed out its regard for the rights of others, and has made them even forget that to rush a bill through the Leglela (or permit it to be rushed through) as theirs has been, is to poison the foun tain head of our political institutions. If a great enterprise of this kind is based on false representations of its contemplated mode of establishment, on legislative jugglery, and on doenun ciation of particular classes of the peo ple proposed to be taxed, what is any reasonable man to expect? 4. Under the head of "Necessity for the Road," the board argues five points: 1. "The ruin of small proprietors, who have not the means to avail of the chicanery of the law to evade the pay ment of taxes." This is alow appeal to the passions of the poor and a mean assault on the integrity of another class. But, worse than all this, it is not based on that essential quality of all thiugs-truth. Any fair reference to the record will show that, under the circumstances that have surrounded us, it is only wonderful how our people generally have stood up to the matter of tax paying. And yet it is an indis putable political truth, that inasmuch as we were under a government not of our choice, It was a solemn duty of all real men not to ipay a dollar of taxes save through for'ce. Could the acts of Individuals be closely scrutinizea it would no doubt be found that those who now casi obloquy on a class of their fellow-men in this unmanly mode were ever active in casting cold water on all efforts to crush despotism by the only modes known as efficient, and at last proved to be so in this State, viz: the bayonet and resistance to the tax gatherers. 2. "The trade of our port shows a vast fallio, off in every department." And so dot the trade of New York Boston and P iladelphia, of Liverpool and of Manchester. And yet these places have all the ralroads they want. A crisis is on the world, but the board are too zealous to see it. 3. "Over twenty millions of dollars' worth of the improved property of this city is now vacant and tenantless." And a worse condition of things is to be found in New York, with all her rail roads, but the board ignore it. 4. "Neither merchant, clerk, shop keeper, mechanic, artisan, professional man nor laborer can earn by his utmost efforts a decent support for his family." Exaggeration that is beneath the dig nity of such a board. But the condition of the people of the Northern and West ern cities is fully as bad as ours, and Bonamy Price tells us the condition of things In England Is worse, and yet these oountries have been surfeited with railroads. And the board declare matters are getting worse every day, which is un true, for they are really improving. 5. The next section of the pamphlet is "fow the city will be benefited." They assert that the building of this railroad will "restore New Orleans to her former prestige, and to a greatly augmented prosperl." "It will- bring to our city four hundred thousand bales of cotton that have been diverted by railroads which have their termini in Northern cities." To prove that this is not necessaril true, we have only to look at the bs ness of the magnificent railroad bit over a level plaln to Mobile, and taoppi the hearts of the great cotton 8tates Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Ten nessee (a field infinitely wider and richer in products than that appealed to), and yet has it accomplished so much ? Ever since the close of the late war causes have been operating to divert the cotton trade of this rich region of coun try, which any oqmmerclat mind ought to be able to comprehend without grasp ing at the chimera of a railroad wanted. When it was proposed to build the Mo bile road the same exaggerated prom lees of hundreds of thousands of bales of cotton were held out, but as yet they have not come, and notwithstanding we have tapped with a fine road the great cotton empire named, values of every kind have steadily declined down to the very moment when, the dawn of better government has broke upon us. If this can be truly said of the one article of cotton, so can it be said of the millions of bushels of grain, the meat, hides, tallow, hay, etc., so eloquently treated of. 6. The next clause is "The oppositlon of foreign property holders." If I did not have before me the printed manifesto of the Board of DI rectors of this projected railroad I could hardly believe that any set of 1n telligent gentlemen in our community could so far wander from a proper ap preelation of our troubles, or so far for get the ordinary justice due to their fellow-men (if they are unfortunate enough to be "foreign property hold cre") as to hold them up to scorn, cover them with the unjust opprobrium of de siring to oppress "the toiling and suffering of our popula tion, " of being "narrow-minded foreign property holders," of desiring to establish a " favored caste, with absolute power to control the destinies and override the interests of the great laboring masses," of refusing to con tribute at all to the welfare of our city while holdlin forty millions of its property, of expending the revenues of their investments here in "foreign communities," of "leaving the people, from whose sweat they extract the large profits, to struggle against the adversities and obstacles against which, by their narrow and selfish policy, they seek to deprive us of the only means of defense and eventual triumph" - in fine of being both fools and knaves. Alas! the frailty of humanity. Lauda ble zeal has crazed this board, and they have o'er-leaped themselves. What is this poor "foreigner" doing that is not done by every man on the board, vis: Investing his money as seems to him best, and spending (if there is any to spend) as he pleases ? Do none of this board take their thousands of revenue to the North or to Europe every summer and scatter them broadcast among "for eigners," or what is worse, domestie enemies? have none of them any in vestments of what they have earned here at the North or even abroad I But because these men are " foreign ers," have they no rights like our own, and which we are bound to respect-aye, even to protect? If they oppose tams tion to build this road they are no worse than I am. I oppose it, too, and with all my head and heart, and I have lived here nearly thirty years, spend all I make here, and have earned a right to as good an opinion from my fellow-citi zens as any man of the board. If these "foreigners" are fools and knaves, then am I, and thousands who think as I do, not one whit better, If I, who simply advocate the right to do with my earn lngs as I please, am entitled to the re spect of the community, then are these "foreigners" entitled to the same. But what would this board do? Force these "foreigners" tosell out their forty millions of property and take the money away? Who of us can buy it? Or if the sale could be effected, would they have forty millions sent away and forty millions of our means drawn from the demands of trade and sunk in real estate? The board claims to be"busi ness men." There they stand before yon, fellow voters ; follow their lead! But this attack on the foreign prop erty holder is the lowest demagoguery imaginable; it is worse; it is Commui, ism, and the cheeks of every true American citizen who reads it should tingle with shame. For my part I pass beyond the feeling of shame, and am indignant that any man or men should thus despise the intelligence of the voting masses and wantonly appeal to their passions. Poor opinion indeed have this board of the "toiling masses" over whose wrongs they are showering the tears of the crocodile ! Fellow voters! Tzmeo danaos et dona ferentes. I fear the Greeks bringing presents-of this kind. 7. The next clause is, "How was it in Cincinnati?" and the board then tells us of the glorious sacrifice to the South ern Railroad on the part of " the sags clous cltizens of that enterprising city." If I were not discussing a serious sub ject I think I might safely venture to kill the board with the old weapon of ridicule. Voters, if you want to know the effect of the building of that rail road you must talk to Cincinnatians inl a quiet way-not take the ipse disxt ao our board. The simple truth of the matter is that the effect of the with drawal of many millions of the capital of Cincinnati has been to paralyze her trade, drive her patrons elsewhere, the road is not finished, runs nowhere, and what is built the directors are trying to let out to private enterprise-as you ean see by the papers. Cincinnati is paying dearly for the whistle-of the looomo tive. 8. The next elause is: "The road will be built. The subscription now de manded will be ample," etc. Not "subscription,' if you please, gentlemen. If you force a contribution on a man sgainst his intelligenoe and will, call it y its right name. Bab-