Images de page
PDF
ePub

acquired land. The division line between the two to be the thirty-third degree of north latitude, extending from Mississippi River to the western bounds of Louisiana. The land north of this line to form the District of Louisiana, and to be governed, in general, in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory. For administrative purposes this northern section was to be joined to the Territory of Indiana. The governor and judges of this Territory were to exercise jurisdiction in the District of Louisiana, though it was not incorporated into Indiana Territory.

This arrangement would give to the officials of Indiana Territory control over an immense area in which there were but few people. Great tracts, large enough to form good sized States, were destitute even of Indians. The scattered whites had little need for the interference of the law-making power, and, moreover, Indiana was too remote from much of the "District of Louisiana" to make this regulation a matter of much importance.

According to the bill for the government of the newly acquired land, the section south of parallel thirty-three was to be called the "Territory of Orleans." The government of this part of the purchased land was the difficult problem. Instead of widely scattered Indian tribes, with here and there a few hunters and trappers, a thickly settled, rapidly growing country must be ruled. It was felt that here the Ordinance of 1787 would not apply without essential modifications. The Republicans believed that the national government had power over Territories which it did not have over States and that the president could exercise an authority over the Territories similar to that exercised by European rulers. They believed that this would apply especially to the Territory of Orleans because of the peculiarities already mentioned. In accordance with this idea, the bill submitted to Congress provided for a government much less democratic than that of the Northwest Territory. The governor and secretary were to be appointed by the president, the

former to hold office for three years, and the latter for four. These two, with a Legislative Council consisting of thirteen members, also appointed by the president, made up the Legislative Assembly. These thirteen men with the governor and the secretary had the power of appointing such courts and justices as they might think wise.

The proposed bill did not give the people any voice in the selection of the men who were to be members of the Council. The Council had no power to amend a bill placed before it by the governor; it could only accept or reject it. The members of this body were further reduced in their efficiency by the fact that their salaries stopped when they were not in actual service, and the governor could send them home when he chose to do so. These restrictions on the privileges which had belonged to the American immigrants in the States from which they came made the bill obnoxious to them. The citizens from the Southern and Western States were further aggrieved by the restrictions on the right of trial by jury. This right was restricted to cases where the sum involved was at least $100. The French also disliked the bill because it interfered with slavery. These matters were all warmly and intelligently debated in Congress.

The need of legislation was evidenced by a memorial presented to the House of Representatives by merchants of the City of New Orleans, February 20, 1804, stating the great inconveniences under which they labored, through the want of an extension to them of the laws of the United States. They were yet subject to duties on their exports and imports, according to the Spanish tariff, and for want of proper papers, their vessels and ships were laid up and their trade was in jeopardy.

Unfortunately we do not possess the Senate debate on this subject, but the speeches in the House, where the matter was fully considered, give us both sides of the question. It is one of the ablest debates of the period, and is of more than passing interest because the question

considered was similar to one which caused much discussion nearly a century later, when the matter of the acquisition. and government of the Philippine Islands was being considered by Congress. In both cases a people accustomed to a despotic government, with no training or understanding of American institutions, came under the control of the United States, and in both cases they were not consulted about the change of authority, or about the way in which they should be governed. The views expressed in the debates are quite similar, as the principles involved were the same, and the speakers of 1803 and 1804 do not suffer by comparison with their descendants.

In this long debate over the government of Louisiana there was much opposition to the arbitrary authority which was placed in the hands of the governor and the lack of any opportunity for the people to express their wishes. Various replies were made to this opposition; all may be summed up by saying that the people were given all the power which they knew how to use.

There was great objection to the Territorial Council. It was asserted that it was so dependent upon the governor that it would be better not to have such a body. Too much power was placed in the hands of the governor and it is a mere form to say that the appointment was in the hands of the president, because the only way in which he could get any information was through the governor or his appointees. The proper way to appoint the legislative body was through the people and only in this way could the treaty obligations be fulfilled. The rule by the governor and council was regarded as a violation of the treaty because it gave the people nothing to say about the way in which they should be governed.

In answer to the objection that the people of Louisiana were not qualified for self-government it was said that "they have a right by nature and treaty to have some concern in their own government. We may not be willing to put them on the same footing with the people of a free and

independent State, but they should be allowed by their representative to come before the governor in an organized way with an expression of their wishes and wants and to propose such laws as they think fitting for the government of their country. If the governor has the right of proroguing the Assembly and an unqualified negative on every bill, the representation of the people could do no harm. The appointment of a legislative council by the president is an insult to the people. It does not fit his character, but is a work which could be better done by Mr. Bonaparte. It is ridiculous to say that they must be kept in slavery until they have learned to think and behave like free men. They have already endured this probationary slavery longer than was good for them. How are we to know when slaves ar fitted to become free men?"

The question was asked, what kind of government was best for the people, and the answer was, one which has been tried successfully. It was stated that "the best way to make these people attached to the United States is to conciliate them to us, and to our manners and laws: and to show them that they are considered a part of the Union, and that they have a right to expect the enjoyment of privileges which were before denied them. It is not proven that they are unable to govern themselves; probably onefourth or one-fifth of the population is made up of American citizens, and there are also many British subjects. It would not be right to give liberty by degrees. There is never danger in giving too much of it. If we attempt anything of that kind the world will say that in spite of our declaration that all men are equal, and that governments derive their rightful power from the consent of the governed, we exercise despotic power on our first opportunity, under the pretense that the people are not capable of governing themselves."

It was further said that "giving these people their just rights will not make them enemies of the government. This is as impossible as for streams to turn backward or sparks

to cease to fly upward. They will be so circumscribed that no possible harm can come from giving them the elective franchise. The executive and military power will remain absolutely in the hands of the national government. The appointment of the Council would be an extension of executive patronage beyond what is necessary, and if the nation is to follow the destiny of other nations, it will be accelerated by the overwhelming torrent of Executive patronage."

Those who were in favor of this form of rule by means of governor and executive council replied that "although it was a kind of government which had never been known in the United States, it was necessary because the people to be governed differed materially from those in the United States; that the provisions of our institutions were inapplicable to them. It would be foolish to extend to them political privileges which they could not understand. When they become better acquainted with the principles of our government and desire to participate in our privileges, it will be time to extend to them the elective franchise. It is useless to ingraft on a people the principles of civil liberty suddenly when they have been accustomed to a rule directly opposite to that. Their approach to liberty must be gradual. At present they are totally unqualified to exercise it. They might consider it a burden if they were asked to vote. There is nothing of the equality which exists in the United States; grades are very highly marked and they may deem it rather a matter of oppression if the privileges which we consider inestimable are extended to them. Their relation to the United States is essentially that of a conquered country. They have the right to be admitted to the Union but not yet. The government is only temporary and we are at liberty to change it when we get more information."

It was argued by the supporters of the administration that the bill really secured to the people of Louisiana more liberty than that to which they had been accustomed under the rule of France and Spain; for instance, they had never enjoyed the privilege of habeas corpus under the old régime.

« PrécédentContinuer »