0' ^% \ /.-^--^ />>^\ /.^^.>.'^ cv- "-o -,,1* .0-^ ^tS^ * o - " • -C J. ^- - » , w ■if • <$>■ ' o « -^ .0 i> n ■ O _ ♦^^ v;"?- "oV V .^ ^ ■■•■■■• --'^ ■•^. cV- ^^^^i^^ ^ .^ .\-.----^ % ^^^ ^f' .-^' v^ ^vP ./^^■ .^''^. "M^ •^ A> "Oi T* -. _ <1* A V I'-- ■i> ' .0' t^.0^ ^*^°< >* :'m^, %,^* _,^". \/ "•^ ^^' ^>(.^ . ^>^%*:'',/" % '■mms ^^-^ %%-.•■ ^^v -i \ ■^--0^ \ -^^^^ ^. ^ .•..^^v.^.'. >^' -^^ °.Y/ <^ New Orleans, 2Tth October, 1864. To the Hon. Henry Winter Davis, House op Representatives, Washington City, D. C, Dear Sir : The letter addressed to Hon . J. 11. Lane, TJ. S. Senator from Kansas, which appeared in the New Orleans papers of the 24th September last, signed by Major General N. P. Banks, has, no doubt, received a full share of your attention. The reputation which Gen. Banks brought with him to Louis- iana for statesmanship and administrative ability, gives to all he says on civil matters, here, a claim to respectful consideration ; while his character as a gentleman, repels the idea that he has in any instance, or in any degree, in the course of his communication, been led into wilful misrepresentation. ITo has, however, in my opinion, fallen into some essential errors of fact and law, which, in the most respectful manner, as a citizen of Louisiana, it becomes my duty to point out. The letter to Senator Lane treats of " the Reconstruction Bill" which passed both houses of Congress at the last session : seeks to show "its agreement with the new Louisiana Constitution," and enters into a defense of the Louisiana elections held under his orders. The act of Congress for guaranteeing republican government to the States declared to be in insurrection against the United States, was inferior in importance to no rneasurethat has ever been considered in the national councils. Its immediate relation to th(! rebellion, its effectual scheme for permanently removing the curse of slavery, together with the e.xalted patriotism and ability of its authors, had made a deep and general impression upon the mind of the nation. 2 Letter op Thomas J. Durant The bill was reported to the House of Representatives early in April last, was fully debated there, and passed on the 4th of May. It was reported to the Senate on the 2tth of May, debated there, and finally passed as it came from the House, on the 2d of July. On the eighth day of July, the President published his well known proclamation with regard to this bill, annexing thereto a copy of the act in full. This proclamation was received in New Orleans by the 19th of July, when the Constitutional Convention elected under Gen- eral Orders No. 35, from the Head Quarters of the Department of the Gulf, was in session, and we are told " that the proclamation of the President, and the protest of the Hon. Messrs. Wade and Davis, relating to this measure, attracted general attention here" ; which indeed could scarcely have been otherwise, as the bill was an au- thoritative condemnation by the only branch of the Government invested with power over the subject, by the Constitution, of all that the Major General commanding the Department was then engaged in, so far as the reorganization of civil government was concerned, though until recently, before the 24th of the following September, he had " not had an opportunity to examine the bill passed at the late session of Congress, providing for the reconstruction of Government in rebel States," a period at which examination became supererogatory, as the work of the Louisiana Convention had then been submitted to the vote of what is called " the people of Louisiana," and proclaimed adopted. We are further told that in the mean time " no attention was given to the provisions of the bill for reconstruction of govern- ment in seceding States, and but little interest was ruanifested in legislation on that subject." This inattention to a question that was worthy, in itself, of the deepest reflection, arose from the fundamental difference of opinion which exists between Congress and the President in relation to their respective powers over the subject of the reorganization of civil gov- ernment in the insurrectionary States. The President pretends to the right, in his military character, as commander-in-chief, to organize State Governments designed to survive the war, and, in the mean time possessing the right to participate in the government of the countr}^ by sending Senators and Representatives to Congress, and to To Hon, Henry Winter Davis. 3 cast votes, as States, in the presidential election. This power, the Constitution and Courts of the country, have declared does not exist in the executive department, but belongs exclusively to Congress. Gen. Banks adopts in its fullest extent the presidential idea, saying, " no declaration of war can be made without consent of Congress, but once waged by its order, it cannot restrict the power of the President as commander in chief." Giving this language its full meaning, would place the President above all law, and render the deliberations and acts of Congress useless in time of war; but limiting the application of the language to the subject matter of debate, it plainly means, that when the President choses to order a Maj-General to organize a State Gov- vernment in a State in insurrection, his power to do so is supreme, though exercised against the will of Congress. Such a doctrine is of the most dangerous character, and it is to be hoped will not be adopted by the Representatives of the Nation. It is not to be sup- posed that a reconstruction bill in Congress would attract much of the attention of the military department,- when such views of the power of the Comuumder-in-Chief were entertained. The whole course of proceedings, then, in regard to the reorganiza- tion of civil government in Louisiana, must be judged under the knowledge, that their managers conscientiously believed that the President, in his military capacity, was the sole master of the situa- tion, and that his will alone was the law of the case. The will of the President, however, is not exclusively relied on, and General Banks endeavors to show that his action in "Louisiana corresponds completely to the requisition of Congress." To this portion of his letter it is necessary to devote some atten- tion. An account of what was actually done in Louisiana, so far as it can be examined from an outside point of view, will convince you that neither the provisions of the act of Congress, nor the Constitution and laws of the State of Louisiana, supposing them to be in force, were complied with. The act of Congress contemplates a civil organization : what was done here is purely military. The first section of the act of Congress directs the appointment by the President of a provisional Governor by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The provisional Governor of the State of Louisiana, Mr. Hahn, Avas appointed by the 4 Letter of Thomas J. Dueant Presicleut alone and in his military capacity, and as far as the letter of appointment shows, without the concurrence of any member of his cabinet. The second section of the act provides that the reorganization of the state government shall commence only when " the military resis- tance to the United States shall have been suppressed in the State.'' So far from that happy condition having been achieved, the rebels had undisputed control of far more than half the territory of the State, during the whole time of these proceedings. The same section of this act also provides that the Marshal of the United States, (a civil officer) shall make an enrolment of citizens, preparatory to a procla- mation of the provisional Governor, calling upon the loyal people of the State to elect delegates to a Convention, to declare the will of the people, as to the re-establishment of a State Government. The third section of the act provides that the convention shall con- sist of as many members as both Houses of the last Constitutional State Legislature, to be apportioned by the provisional Governor among the counties, parishes or districts of the State, in proportion to the white population returned as electors by the Marshal, &c. On this point (Jcncral Banks says: " delegates to the Convention were apportioned to the white population, not of enrolled electors merely, but of the whole State, and the number fixed as prescribed by the Constitution and laws of the State applicable to Legislative Asscuublies." You may ask why, in the above paragraph, is the expression, " enrolled electors, " put in apposition to the words " the wiiole State"? It is because, in only a part of the State were electors en- rolled; for in the greater number of parishes, no enrollment was made, nor was any possible, as they were under the control of the rebel government; notwithstanding which, an election was gravely ordered to be held in every parish of the State, though impossible to be eftected; and a convention assembled under this order which pur- ])()rted to represent all the parishes. On the 11th January, 1864, General Banks issued a proclamation " to the people of Louisiana," which said, " In pursuance of authority vested in me by the President of the United States,"— which it must To Hon. IIenry Winter Davis. 6 be remembered was military autliority only — " and upon consultation with ^ many ^representative men of diflerent interests, being fully as sured that more than a tenth of th(! population desire the earliest possible restoration of Louisiana to the Union, I invite the loyal citi- zens of the State qualilied to vote in public affairs, as hereinafter pres- cribed, to assemble in the election precincts designated by law, or at such places as may lu^reafter be established, on the 22ud day of Feb- ruary, 1864, to cast their votes for the election of State officers herein named. 1. Governor. 2. Lieut. Governor. 3. Secretary of State. 4. Treasurer. 5. Attorney General. G. Superintendent of Public Instruction. 1. Auditor of rublie Accounts^ — who shall, when elected, 'or the time being, and until others are appointed, by competent authority, constitute the civil government of the State, under the Constitution and laws of Louisiana, except so much of the said Consti- tution and laws as recognize, regulate, or relate to slavery, &c." Two cai)ital errors must be considered in this declaration. In the first place the military power of the United States is only competent for military purposes, and cannot constitule a civil government of a State; and in the second place no sucli officers elected in such a way could be a civil government un(hM- the Constitution and laws of Louis- iana; because those enactments pointed out an entirely different mode for the election of officers. The result of the action prompted by General P>anks' [)roclanuition, was in accordance with these views; the form of election which was goiu' through with was considered by the President merely as the indication of a lit and projjcr person for the office of n:ilitary Governor, and the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy conferred aninftirmal apitointment of that character upon Mr. llalm, who hnd lieeii retuiMK-d as having received a major- it v of the votes cast at that election. The commencement and the end therefore were purely military, and partook in no degree of a civil character. On the nth of March, ISOl, (xeniM-al Banks issued, from his Head Quarters, Department of the Gulf, " (^,eneral Orders No. 35." They said : " An election will be held on Monday, the 28th day of March, at 9 o'clock, A. M., in each of the Election Precincts established by 6 Letter of Thomas J. Durant law in this State, for a choice of Delegates to a Convention to be held for the revision and amendment of the Constitution of Louisiana." One might suppose from this, that there was no opposition to the authority of the United States in Louisiana ; and that to hold an election in each of the precincts established by law in the State, was a matter that no Union man would hesitate to undertake. Yet, the fact was, that in more than one-half of all the Parishes of the State no avowed adherent of the National cause could be found. It will be observed that this Order is for a revision of the Constitution existing, which harmonizes with the prior Proclamation of the General, declaring the Constitution and Laws of the State (except such as related to slavery) to be in force. The second section of the General Orders No. 35 declares that "the several Parishes shall be entitled to elect the number of Delegates herein assigned to each, upon the basis of white population exhibited by the Census of 18G0, to be chosen in each Parish, on one ticket, by the qualified voters of the Parish, except in the Parish of Orleans, in which Parish the election shall be held in the several representative districts established by law, for the number of Delegates herein assigned to each District, to be chosen on one ticket by the (jualificd voters of the District, as follows, to-wit :" then going on to name each one of the forty-eight Parishes of the State, stating the white po[)uhition of each from the Census of 1860, and assigning to each its number of Delegates in the Convention ; making an aggregate of one hundred and fifty members, of which sixty-three were assigned to the parish and city of New Orleans. This was done under a distinct declaration tliat the Constitution and Laws of Louisiana — except in regard to slavery — were in force ; and is followed by the statement, in the letter to Senator Lane, that " the number of Delegates was fixed as prescribed by the Constitution and Laws of the State, applicable to Legislative Assemblies." The Constitution of Louisiana of 1852, article 8, says : "Repre- sentation in the House of Representatives shall be equal and uniform and shall be regulated and ascertained by the total population of each of the several Parishes of the State." To Hon. Henry Winter Davis. t Article 15 says — "The Legislature in every year in which they shall apportion Representatives shall divide the State into Senatorial Districts. No Parish shall be divided in the formation of a Senatorial District — the Parish of Orleans excepted." ' Thus the constitutional basis of representation in both branches of the General Assembly of Louisiana was the total population — white and black — of each parish ; while General Orders No. 35, make the basis of representation in the Convention, the wJiite population only. The article 8 of the Constitution further says: " the first enumera- tion by the State authorities under this Constitution shall be made in the year 1853, the second in 1858, the third in 1865." "At the first regular session of the Legislature after the making of each enumeration, the Legislature shall apportion the representation, among the several Parishes and election Districts, on the basis of the total population as aforesaid. A representative number shall be fixed, and each parish and election district shall have as many representa- tives as its' aggregate population shall entitle it to, and an additional representative for any fraction exceeding one-half the representative number. The number of Representatives shall not be more than one hundred, nor less than seventy." Article 15, also says : "The number of Senators shall be thirty-two, and they shall be apportioned among the Senatorial Districts accord- ing to the total population contained in the several districts : Pro- vided, that no Parish shall be entitled to more than five Senators." The number of Senators is fixed at thirty-two ; the number of Representatives may vary, at the will of the Legislature, from seventy to one hundred. After the enumeration of 1858, the Legislature, by an act, approved March 4, 1859, divided the State into twenty-one Senatorial Districts, electing thirty -two Senators, of which five were assigned to the city of New Orleans; it adopted a representative number of six thousand nine hundred and twenty, and apportioned ninety-eight representa- tives among the forty-eight parishes, assigning to the city of New Orleans twenty, and to the remainder of the parish — lying on the right bank of the river — one. 8 Letter of Thomas J. Durant The General Orders No. 35, established a rl^presentative number of two thousand two hundred and fifty-one, and the basis of the white population. The Constitution and laws of Louisiana esta)>lished a representative number of six thousand nine hundrcnl and twenty and the basis of the total population. The General Orders No. 35, assiii'tied to New Orleans city and parish sixty-three Delegates ; tlie constitution and laws of Louisiana gave them twenty-six. By General Orders No. 35, the Convention was to be composed of one hundred and fifty Delegates. By the constitution and laws of Louisiana, it should have consisted of one hundred and thirty mem bers only. Thus General Banks's order for llie election of Delegates to the Constitutional Convcuition was an absolute d(^piirturo from the Constitution and laws of the State, and in plain contradiction .of the Act of Congress. He apportioned the representation on the white population only, instead of the whole. He ordered one hundred and fifty members to be elected to the Convention instead of one hundred and thirty. He obliterated the Senatorial Districts and the legal provision for their representation. He gave New Orleans sixty-three Delegates instead of twenty-six. He essentially changed the reprcsentation'of the other parishes. Nor was all this done without deliberation. Before issuing General Orders No. 35, he appointed a committee consisting of Rufus K. Howell, Alfred Shaw and James Ready, three citizens of New Orleans, " to consider the (piostions connected with the calling a State Ccunvention and the election of Delegates." In their report to the General, made on the 3d jNlarch, 1864, the Committee say, their attention was directed hy libn to the following (piestions : 1. The basis of representation. 2. The election of Delegates Ity districts, or by general ticket. 3. The census upon which the election of Delegates is to be appor- tioned to the various i)arislies of the States. To Hon. Henry Winter Davis. 9 4. The number of Members. 5. The number of people to be represented by each represen- tative. 6. The apportionment to each District. *l. The question of residence— that is, whether a Delegate must necessarily be a resident of the District for which he is chosen. Now, inasmuch as all these questions were definitively settled by the Constitution and laws of Louisiana, proclaimed to be in force, the fact that the Major General Commanding referred their solution to a committee, showed that he did not intend to be bound either by law or Constitution. The report of the committee solved most of the questions in a sense contrary to the Constitution and the laws, and their report was, in its leading features, adopted by the Major General and embodied in his General Orders No. 35 ; and therefore, he cannot but be in error in saying that the Constitution and laws were followed. Although the General Orders No. 35 directed, as has been seen, an election of Delegates in each of the fo^-ty-eight parishes of the State, yet it was well known that in a majority of parishes no elections could bo held. Accordingly the third paragraph of said Orders states that " Any parish not noiv within the lines of the army shall be entitled to send Delegates as herein specified, at any time before the dissolution of the Convention, should such parish be brought within the lines of the army :" which is an acknowledgment that the programme announced could not be carried out, though silence is preserved as to the real extent of this impracticability. Wheit the Convention assembled in New Orleans, on the 6th April, "S. Wrotnoski, Secretary of State," reported that members had been returned as elected from the following parishes — the number of votes in the parishes not being given — viz : Orleans, Ascension, Assumption, East Baton Rouge, West Baton Rouge, Concordia. East Feliciana, Jefferson, Lafourche, Madison, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Mary, Terrebonne — (see journal of the Convention pp. 3 and 4) — in all sixteen parishes out of the forty-eight into which the State is divided. The number of Delegates as thus returned was, from the parish and city of New 2 10 Letter of Thomas J. Durant Orleans, sixty-three ; from the fifteen other parishes twenty-seven, making a total of ninety ; and of these eighty-two answered to their names on roll-call. On the 7th iVpril, the Committee on Credentials reported as duly elected, not only the Delegates from the Parishes reported by the Secretary of State, " but also, two from the Parish of Avoyelles and four from the Parish of Rapides," increasing the number of parishes said to be represented to eighteen ; and the number of members entitled to seats to ninety-six ; but the number who voted, the same day, on the election of a President of the Convention was only eighty- four. The vote in the Convention on the adoption of the Constitution as a whole, was in the aggregate eighty-two, of which sixty-six were in the affirmative, and sixteen in the negative — see journal p. 165; and as the whole number of Delegates ordered to be elected by " General Qrders No. 35" was one hundred and fifty, and as a quorum to do business consisted of not less than seventy-six, it appears the Constitution was finally adopted by a vote less by ten than a quorum, and only equal to the number of Delegates from New Orleans, with three Delegates from the country ; so that New Orleans and Jefferson, which are as closely allied as New York and Brooklyn, were enough to constitute this " regenerated" State. On the report of the Committee on Enrolment, the number of mem- bers who signed the Constitution was only sixty, being sixteen less than a quorum. See Journal, p. 1*10. The Convention has not been dissolved, a resolution having been adopted, sixty-two to fourteen — ^a bare quorum — to re-assemble again in certain contingencies — same page. One curious feature may be noticed here, although not strictly within the scope of the present branch of the inquiry. On the last day of the sitting of the Convention, Mr. Fish offered a series of patri- otic and loyal resolutions, referring in a preamble to the Secession Convention and its treasonable Ordinance of separation ; and declar- ing, 1-t, that the people denounce the doctrine of State Rights and sovereignty, interpreted as a justification of secession ; 2d, declaring a primar}'^ allegiance to the United States, and that the ordinance of To IIoN. Henry Winter Davis. 11 secession was a nullity; 3d, declaring the desire of the Convention that Slavery should be abolished through the whole country by an amend- ment to the Constitution of the United States. These excellent reso- lutions were, indeed, adopted, but by only sixty-eight in the affirmative and eight in the negative; thus showing that not even a number equal to a bare quorum of the Convention could bQ found to endorse the principles laid down. On recurring to the report of the Secretary of State, and to that of the Committee on Credentials above referred to, it will be found that S. A. Lobdell is returned as elected from the Parish of West Baton Rouge, but he never, as I am informed, appeared in the Convention. It is difficult to understand how an election could have been held in that parish, or in Avoyelles, Rapides or Madison, nor have the public ever had any official* information on that subject. Certain it is, how- ever, that when the Constitution was submitted to the popular vote for ratification, no votes were cast, according to the Proclamation of Governor Hahn of 19th September, 1864, in the parishes of West Baton Rouge, Avoyelles or Rapides, either for or against the Constitution; so that no election could be held at that time in these parishes which it was maintained had sent seven members to the Convention. On the other hand, by the same Proclamation of the 19th September, it is de- clared that the question of ratification was voted upon in the parishes of Pointe Coupee, St. Martin, St. Charles, Iberville and St. Landry, though those parishes were not returned as having elected any mem" bers to the Convention, and no members sat in it from those parishes. It is said by General Banks, in further enlarging upon the regular- ity of proceedings that "Commissioners] of Election have been ap- pointed according to the laws and usages of the State.'" In this, it seems to me, there is also an error. The statute of March 19, 185T, provides for elections in the parish and city of Nev/ Orleans. It directs that the election precincts, at that time established by law in New Orleans, should not be changed except by an Act of the Le- gislature, and that there should be two election precincts in each ward of the city, except the^seventh, in which'[;there should be three. The act further provided for the creation of a Board of Commissioners of Election, to be composed of the Mayor of the City of New Orleans, 12 Letter of Thomas J. Durant the Register of Voters of said city, the Attorney General of the State, and two citizens of New Orleans to be appointed by the Governor of the State. The duty of this Board was declared to be to appoint all the Commissioners of Election, to preside in the various precincts of the ci-t}' established by law. No such Board of Commissioners as the law contemplates existed here. It is true a body of five citizens called a Board of Commission- ers of Elections, was in being, but none of them were appointed ac- cording to law. They were B. L. Lynch, Esq., Attorney General, J. R. Terry, Register of Voters, S. Hoyt, Mayor, Charles Leaumont and E. Ames, citizens of-New Orleans. B. L. Lynch, Esq., Attorney General, was elected under the mili" tary order of the Major General commanding the Department of the Gulf; he was not therefore elected according to the Constitution and laws of Louisiana, which have nothing to do with military officers in election matters. Mr. Lynch therefore holds office from the military powers of the United States, not from the laws of Louisiana; he is not a civil officer of the State. J. R. Terry holds his office of Register of Voters for New Orleans by the appointment of M, Hahn, Governor. ^Mr. Hahn is not and cannot be civil Governor of Louisiana, for he was elected under the military order of General Banks, who has no power under the Consti- tution and laws of the State to order elections. The article 11 of the Constitution of Louisiana, declared by General Banks to be in force except in regard to slavery, says: "The Legis- lature shall provide by law that the names and residence of all qualified electors in the city of New Orleans shall be registered, in order to entitle them to vote." The act of March 20th, 1856, p. 131, section 1, says that there shall be appointed by the Governor of this State, by and with the advice of the Senate, for four years from the fourth Monday of January, 1856, a discreet citizen of the city of New Orleans as Register of the names and residence of the qualified electors of said city." The lav.' is, that a civil Governor shall make the appointment by and with the advice of the Senate. The fact is that the Register is appointed by a jniltary Governor without a Senate. Mr. Terry then is simply ft To Hon. Henry "Winter Davis. 13 military appointee to register voters. He is not a Register of Voters according to the Constitution and laws of Louisiana. S. Hoyt, the Mayor of the city, is a purely military appointment, placed in office l)y the Major General commanding, the charter of the city, requiring the election of a Ma3^or by the people, having been totally disregarded. Messrs. Leaumont and Ames, the two citizens on the board, having been selected by one who has no authority, except as military Gover- nor, have no powers derived from the laws of the State; and are therefore no such members of the Board of Commissioners as the law requires. It is clear, that such a Board as this could make no pretension to be organized according to law, and therefore no commissioners ap- pointed by it would be "legal," in the true civil meaning of the word; they would derive all their powers form the military authority of the United States. The Board thus constituted, proceeded to perform the acts required by the laws of the State. On the 29lh of Aug.ust, 1804,. the aforesaid Board of Election Com- missioners met, and prepared a publication in the usual form, con- taining a list of the precincts, the number of polls in each precinct and the names of the commissioners of election for each poll to be held for the election of 5th September, on which day the Constitution was to be submitted to the popular vote; when also in pursuance of an ordinance of the Convention, five members of Congress were to be chosen; and under a proclamation issued on the 30th day of July, 1864, by " J. Madison Wells, Lieutenant and acting Governor of the State of Louisiana," members of the General Assembly were also to be chosen. The publication of the Board of Commissioners, signed by their Secretary, Charles Leaumont, appeared in the New Orleans papers on the 31st August, and it designated only those polls and precincts which were established by law. But on the 4th September, the day preceding the election, the publication was changed, and four more polls, not established by law, were added, and styled poll No. 3, first precinct, corner of Terpsichore and Chippewa; poll No. 3, second precinct, corner of Euphrosyne l4 Letter of Thomas J. Durant and Calliope; poll No. 3, Ninth precinct, corner of Robertson and Canal streets; and poll No. 3, seventeenth precinct, Lakehouse. This changed advertisement was put over the signature of the Sec- retary of the Board, Charles Leaumont, as though it wltc an ofl&cial act. On the 2Gth September, a letter having been addressed to the Sec- retary, Mr. Leaumont, by E. Abcll, Esq., one of the candidates for Congress, enquiring by what authority these four additional polls had been created and advertised, Mr. Leaumont deemed it proper to call a meeting of the Board, which was accordingly held on the 5th of October, all the members being present except -S. Hoyt, the acting Mayor of New Orleans under military appointment, when on con" sidering Mr. Abell's enquiry, "the Secretary was ordered to^answer that the notices and changes wdiich he observed, creating four other polls, more specifically described in his communication, though put over the official signature of the Secretary of said_^Board, was not the act of said Board, as they had no meeting or action taken on the matter after the meeting of the 29th of August, 1864, at which meet- ing no reference was made to the opening or creation of any other polls but those designated in the act of 1857'. And now as a part of these minutes the Secretary being called upon to account for this unathorized change, made by the creation of the above named four polls, as published in the Bee and Era of the 3rd September, 1864, over his officiaPsignature, solemnly pronounces it to have been done without his consent, will or knowledge, and says that at the time of the above change appearing in the papers, he, along with Dr. Ames, upon being informed of that fact, did then and there protest." Such arc the official proccedingSj of the Board, They speak for themselves. Their official publication had been perverted and falsi- fied, none of those present appeared to know by whom. When such things can be done with success, what assurance or guarantee have the people of fairness in the election ? or how can it properly be said that such an election was conducted according to the laws of the State ? To Hon. Henry Winter Davis. 16 By the oflScial returns of the election pubUshed in the True Delta of September 7th, it appears that the following votes were polled at the four extra legal polls interpolated upon the advertisement of the Board of Commissioners, on the question of the adoption of the Constitution. Poll No. 3, First Precinct • 343 Poll No. 3, Second do 29 Poll No. 3, Ninth do 145 Poll No. 3, Seventeenth do (none reported,) sn These votes were not cast according to the Constitution and laws of Louisiana. The General, in his letter to Senator Lane," further says, " the Delegates were chosen by white male citizens of the United States, 21 years of age, who had the qualifications required by law." ".Soldiers who had enlisted in the Army from this State were per- mitted to vote at the polls opened at their respective commands by regularly appointed Commissioners of Elections, not by Officers, where it was impossible for them to vote in established legal Precincts." The General pays a just tribute to the merits of the soldiers who have enlisted from this State, when, in another part of his letter he says — "Nearly ten thousand white troops, and fifteen thousand colored soldiers have been enlisted here in the armies of the Union. They ore among the best men of the service. Every battle field from the llio Grande to Port Hudson and Florida has been honored by their valor and hallowed by their blood." Every patriot will say with the General, all honor to the brave soldiers of Louisiana. These twenty-five thousand men were as well entitled to participate in the reorganization of civil government as any other equal body of men to be found ; fifteen thousand of them were, most likely, all native citizens of the United States. But by the laws of Louisiana, which alone are in question here, not One of the twenty- five thousand was a qualified elector. The 12th Article of the Constitution says . " No soldier, seaman or marine, in the Army or 16 Letter of Thomas J. Durant Navy of the Uuited States, shall be entitled to vote at any election in this State." How many soldiers voted, no means are at hand to ascertain ; their votes are not distinguished from others in any official report. The qualifications of voters are prescribed by the 10th Article of the Constitution of Louisiana of 1852, which says : " 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 thereof in the Parish in which he offers to vote, and who shall be a citizen of the United States, shall have the right of voting." In the city of New Orleans, it is required that the voter shall be registered more than three days before the- election, as during the three days preceding, the Office of the Register must be closed. The Constitution submitted to vote on the 5th September, in defining the qualifications of electors, in Article 14, makes no change in the above except as to residence in the Parish, which is reduced to three months. It is publicly stated, and by many believed, in New Orleans, that persons were registered as voters, who had resided only six months in the State, and one month in the Parish, and this too Avithout proof of citizenship. I have seen a statement to this effect sworn to before a Justice of the Peace by one who was a clerk in the Registers' office, but have no means of ascertaining what number of voters were so registered ; however, if the statement be true, of which I have no doubt, the registration was illegal, and the whole subject ought to be subjected to a satisfactory investigation. Enough has been shown, in what goes before, to demonstrate that the laws of Louisiana with regard to elections have not been complied with, but that there have been departures from them of the most essential character. The Act of Congress of the last session, which the President did not sign, provided that at elections "no person who has held or exer- cised any office. Civil or Military, State or Confederate, under the rebel usurpation, or who have voluntarily borne arms against the United States, shall vote or be eligible to be elected as Delegate at such elec- To HOxV. Henry Winter Davis. It tion." And in reference to this feature General Banks' letter says — " so far as is known no person who has held office under the Confede- rate Government, or who has borne arms against the United States, has participated in these elections." This docs not appear to meet the difficulty. Congress desired these persons to be excluded from voting, and serving in the Convention. The rules adopted on the subject of the call of the Convention in Louisiana made no provision for excluding them either as Voters or Delegates. As the vote was by ballot, no means are now at hand of knowing whether any such voted at the elections. But it is known that several Avho would have been excluded by the Act of Congress,, held seats as Delegates in the Convention. Nor is any such exclusion as the above extract from the Act of Congress provides for, embodied in the new Constitution of Louisiana. The reason of this omission is explained by General Banks' letter. He says — "The only provision of the bill not embodied in the Consti- tution is that which denies the elective franchise to men who have borne arms against the United States. The Convention would have readily adopted this provision, but, although the State, under the Constitution, establishes the condition of suffrage even for Members of Congress, it was impracticable for Louisiana, to overthrow the policy of the General Government in this respect. The principal officer in the Treasury in New Orleans, held a commission in the Rebel army, and the Quarter Master and the Chiefs of other Depart- ments have been ordered to employ in public services deserters from the enemy." There appears to be an error in this statement ; the policy of the General Government cannot be held to be such as is declared, for the Act of Congress, tlie only means we have of ascertaining its policy, is entirely different. The policy of the Executive, may be correctly stated by General Banks, but the Executive is not the General Govern- ment ; and the reason assigned for the omission of the Convention, is therefore insufficient. This difference between the Act of Congress and the new Louisiana Constitution is of an important character. Under the Act of Congress it is designed to put the State government in the hands of the real friends of the Union, whereas, if the govern- 3 18 Letter of Thomas J. Durant . ment of the new Constitution could be spread over the whole State, there is danger that the result would be of quite another kind. The entire want of compliance with the forms required by the Constitution and laws of Louisiana, in the various orders and elections which have preceded the formation of this Constitution have been insistedon, not merely on account of their own importance, but be- cause the attempt is made to recommend the instrument to favor by alleging that these forms have been complied with. The far weightier objections are, that all these movements were impelled by mere Military authority ; that the resulting Constitution is no more than a Military rescript ; that the whole proceedings has been in opposition to the will of Congress, which alone, possesses the constitutional power to act on the subject ; that not one-half of the Parishes or Territory of the State had any thing to do, even nomi- nally, with the Elections or the Convention ; and that of that portion of the State, which did participate, there is nothing to guide us but uncertain conjecture as to the amount of population ; that the Pa- rishes nominally represented in these elections and the Convention are only partially controlled by the National arms; and that no satis- factory census of their population, whereon to base represention in a Covention, has been taken. General Bank;?, devotes a portion of his letter to an estimate of the population of the State. On this subject, it must be premised that if the rebellion of the State has produced no change in its relations to the General Government, if its Constitution survived, and, without any enabling Act of Congress, the citizens, or a fractiion of their number can send Senators and Representatives to Congress, and cast an electoral vote for President, then the question of population becomes of no importance, for no matter how much it may have been reduced, the rights of the State to representation under the census remain unimpaired, unless the causes effecting that reduction have also changed the relations of the State. But if such be not the condition of the political relations of the in- habitants of Louisiana, if the State has forfeited its rights by rebel- lion, as we believe, then there must be an enabling act, and an enu- meration of the people, not conjectural but actual. To Hon. Henry Winter Davis. 19 General Banks says: "the statement that Louisiana does not control half the population or half the territory of the State is very far from being true." Let us examine the question. The Constitution framed by the Con vention assembled under General Orders No. 35, was submitted to a vote of the people of "this State", on the first Monday of September 1864. On the nineteenth of the same month Mr. Halin, Military Governor of Louisiana, issued a Proclamation, declaring the official vote "cast in the State, as far as received for and against the Constitution ac- cording to returns received at the office of the Secretary of State," to be as follows : FOB. AGAINST. Orleans 4,6G2 789 Pointe Coupee 65 85 St. Martin 34 — St. Mary 99 ~ Jefferson 328 124 Plaquemines 47 70 St. Bernard 31 118 St. Charles 30 7 St. John the Baptist. ... 9 — St. James — 7 Ascension 239 ,27 Assumption 210 ' 9 Lafourche 247 70 Terrebonne 258 213 Iberville 26 2 East Baton Rouge 104 , 35 East Feliciana 159 5 St. Landry 32 — Concordia 247 — Madison 9 — 6,836 1,566 In looking at this table, it is found, that the vote in favor of the Con- stitution in Orleans, is greater than the aggregate of all other votes, both for and against the Constitution, so that the State is made by the city alone, and would have been so made had every vote outside of it, been unanimously cast against the Constitution. Now it is pre- cisely in New Orleans, there is the strongest reason for believing that influence and patronage carried the election, and where a Congres- 20 Letter of Thomas J. DugANT sional investigation would most probably show that tlie majority con sisted of electors who were not duly qualified, and that the influences at work overpowered dissent. When you look for the above named parishes on the map, you will find them all, except St. Martin, St. Mary, Assumption, Lafojirche, Terrebonne and St. Landry (six in all), lying on both sides of the ^Mississippi river; and inquiry will assure you that in most of those above Jefferson, but little more is possessed by us, than the immediate bank of the river; while in regard to St. Martin, St. Mary and St. Lan- dry you will not find that we control one half of cither. The following statement of the area of each of the above named parishes, except Orleans, is drawn from Lippincott's Gazeteer, pub- lished in 1855, which is believed to be substantially correct. SQUARE MILES. Orleans (estimated from Latourette's Map) 180 Pointe Coupee GOO St. Martin 750 St. Mary 860 Jefferson , 384 Plaquemines 900 St. Bernard 620 St. Charles 340 St. John the Baptist 200 St. James 330 Ascension 420 Assumption 320 Lafourche 1,200 Terrebonne 1640 Iberville 450 East Baton Rouge 500 . East Feliciana 480 St. Landry 2,200 Concordia 190 Madison 640 13,804 Now the whole area of the State of Louisiana, according to the Amer- ican Almanac, Boston, 1861, is 41,346 Deduct the above Parishes 13,804 Leaves 21,542 Showing that the area of all the parishes which voted on the Con- To Hon. Henry Winter Davis. 21 stitution does not, in the aggregate, much exceed one third of the en- tire area of the State, and of this portion we have not the actual con- trol of more than a half, even if so much. It is impossible for any one to say, with accuracy, what the popu- lation of T.ouisiana is, at the present time. It might be taken as a fair presumption that it has deci'eased in about equal proportions in all parts of the State, and in that case, by far the greater part of the po- pulation is under the dominion of the rebel Governor Allen. The letter of General Banks controverts this theory of equal dimi- nution of the population and insists that the decrease has been greater outside of the Union lines than inside : a conjecture which may be right or wrong, but nothing else than an enumeration can determine which it is. According to the United States Census of 1860 and the Report of the State Auditor of Public Accounts made to the Legislature .of Louisi- ana in January 1862, the population of those parishes, which according to Governor Hahn's Proclamation recently voted on the Constitution, was as follows : U. S. CENSUS 18G0. .S. CENSUS 1861. Orleans 114,491 137,228 PointeCoupee 17,118 16,359 St. Martin 12,614 15,065 St. Marv ' 16,816 16,157 Jefferson 15,312 13,111 Plaquemines 8,494 11,243 St. Bernard 4,016 3,421 St. Charles 5,291 4,192 St. John the Baptist 1,930 1,216 St. James 11,499 11,568 Ascension 11,484 11,143 Assumption 15,319 14,601 Lafourche 14,044 13,768 Terrebonne 12,091 . 10,188 Iberville 14,661 15,833 East Baton Rouge 16,046 15,104 East Feliciana 14,691 14,294 St. Landrv 23,104 26,423 Concordia" 13,805 13,238 Madison 14,133 : 13,190 423,811 386,360 The above will show the inaccuracy of what purports to be official 2 Letter of Thomas J. Dukant ensuses, taken within a few months of one another. Let us take as ur basis the United States Census. As the total population by bat was 700,802 •educt the above Parishes 423,811 276,991 This, at the first glance, admitting the population to have remained nehanged, would seem to show a large majority within the par- ches which voted on the Constitution. But this appearance will van 5h when it is considered, that in a number of those parishes, though eal or pretended elections may have been held in some points Of hem, yet that the control of our forces does not extend over a third if their territory; such are : Point Coupee 17,718 St . Martin 12,674 St. Mary 16,816 Iberville 14,b61 East Baton Kouge 16,046 East Feliciana 14,697 St. Landry 23,104 Concordia 12,805 Madison 14,133 143,654 Of those Parishes, we do not hold, on the average, one-third of he area; but assuming that proportion, then the population being mchanged, we would have a right to count one third of it, i. e., 17,884 as within our lines, leaving 95,770 outside, which, deducted 'rom the aggregate of tlic twenty Parishes above, leaves 328,157, ess than one half of the population of 1860. I, of course, am well aware that the pupulation has not remained mchanged; and I am equally well convinced that the proportions ire not such as arc stated, but that, in point of fact, there is a nuch smaller ])roportion within tlie Union lines than allowed ibovc : all wliich serves to show that, as a preliminary to organi- sation, a trustworthy census should be taken. . I now give the votes cast in these twenty Parishes in the Presi- lential election of 1860, and in the vote for tlic ratification of the ^lonstitution in 1864, To Hox. Hexry Winter Davis. 23 The vote of 1800 is taken from the New Orleans Crescent, Decem- ber -Ith, of that year, and that of 18G4, from the New Orleans True Delta of 22nd September. 1860 18G4 Orleans 10,S(>T 5,451 Point Coupee 890 150 St. Martin 1,1«8 34 St. Mary 942 104 Jefferson- 1,588 452 Plaquemines 448 IJT St. Bernard 281 149 St. Charles 163 37 St. John Baptist 392 , ' 9 St. James 560 ,7 Ascension TT9 266 Assumption 1,022 219 Lafourche 1,047 317 Terrebonne 965 471 Iberville;...-'. 865 28 East Baton Kouge 1,195 139 East Feliciana 785 164 St Landry 1,866 32 Concordia : 332 247 Madison 519 9 26,694 • 8,402 Now, admittini;- all tlu; votes proclaimed as liavir*p; been cast on the 5th Septcmlier last to Ix; g-ciiuine, which many are very far from belciving-, compare tlu; vote of 1864 with that of 1860, and we find the former is not one third of the latter : and if wo should suppose that the vote in the whole i^tate — the Convention election was ordered to take place in every Parish — has fallen ofT in the same ratio us in the above named Parishes, then the vote in Parishes where no election was held on the 5th September last, would be found to be 7,530, making- an aggregate of (by supposi- tion) 15,932 votes in the entire State at this time. This result, however, is entirely inconsistent with what I believe to be the facts of the case, and also with the estimates contained in Gen. Banks's letter. That letter tells ns that from forty-two to forty-five thousand men have eidisted from Louisiana in the rebel armies. His sources of information are probably correct ; and if all these were voters, Letter of Thomas J. Durant there would be left only eight thousand in the State, as the tota^ vote polled on the Presidential election of 1860 was 50,510, whereas there must be, according to the estimate made above, nearly sixteen thousand. So that it is impossible to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion either as to the number of voters or the popu- lation by any estimate or conjecture. This becomes more apparent when we learn further from the General's letter, that ten thousand white men have enlisted in the National Army, making a total en- listment (by supposition) in the two Armies of fifty-two to fifty- five thousand men, far more than the whole number of voters in 1860 ; and yet when these are disposed of, for the forty-two to forty- five thousan'd rebel soldiers or voters are all out of the State, we still have some sixteen thousand left; such results demonstrate the fatal errors of the estimate and must serve to convince all, that no means have been adopted to ascertain with reasonable accuracy the number of electors in the State and, and not even of that portion of them within the Union lines, or which can, in any degree be deemed satisfactory by one who seeks correct or safe results. General Banks avows the belief that from f \>* .s^'^V .0^ .••■• W.' .*'■ *o .r^^- ^ A^^- a' \s , ^oC^f^i^ -f '"^ ^' JI& %/• ^ ■ <>'U N. MANCHESTER, ^^=^ INDIANA 46962 f '<'\ LIBRARY OF CONGRESS llllli 007 882 1802'