That the convention was not wholly in sympathy with the president is shown by the fact that when a motion to endorse his nomination for a second term was made, it was carried by a vote of 60 to 20, the minority doubtless representing those who inclined to the choice of General McClellan, the Democratic candidate. Still, all the members were bitterly opposed to secession, and sincerely believed they would be hanged with great promptness if the "Rebels" regained possession of New Orleans. The only points on which the members did not show harmony and homogeneity were three: (1) compensation of loyal slaveholders; (2) the education of freedmen at the expense of the whites and blacks together; (3) the granting of the suffrage to certain classes of negroes.

As we have seen, Banks had suspended all laws concerning slavery. A large majority of the convention were in favor of immediate emancipation by constitutional enactment. When the provision came up on its third reading, that "slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted," should be forever abolished and prohibited throughout the State, and the legislature should make no law recognizing the right of property in man, it was adopted by a vote of 72 to 13. Of those voting against emancipation one member moved as a substitute that all legislation hereafter to be had on the subject of slavery should look to the amelioration of the condition of the slaves with a view to their final emancipation on the first of January, 1900, as offered by the government of the United States through the president. The rest of the minority, however, seem to have voted "nay" on the ground that the convention should pass some provisos touching the questions of compensation and the suffrage, and they wished to hold up the question of emancipation until these important matters were settled.

As to compensation, the great majority of the members were in favor of first emancipating and then seeking compensation for loyal owners, which last, some one suggested,

might best be accomplished by taxing the property of rebels. For, argued one member, the slaveholders outside the Federal lines, in spite of the president's proclamation, still owned their slaves and were getting rich from them, while slaves within the lines had been set free. Hence, if the loyal owners were not compensated, they would suffer injustice. Wishing to pacify as far as possible the members demanding compensation, the convention finally adopted a report recommending an appeal to Congress on the following grounds: (1) that the loyalists would be impoverished by emancipation; (2) that Great Britain, in 1832, in abolishing slavery, gave £20,000,000 for the compensation of slaveholders,1 and that the United States government had likewise given compensation in the District of Columbia. Moreover, Louisiana was still more deserving because she had abolished slavery voluntarily. To carry out this resolution, a committee was appointed to correspond with members of Congress, but though the appeal, to the unprejudiced mind, seems to have been a just one, no favorable answer was ever received from the Federal government. Loyal and disloyal slaveholders were to be treated alike in the matter of compensation.

As to the suffrage, there seems to have been, in the early stage of the work of the convention, a strong sentiment against granting it to the negro. In fact, on May 10 that body adopted a resolution declaring that the legislature should never pass any act authorizing free negroes to vote. But as time passed pressure from without2 and a consequent change of policy within induced the convention to throw the burden of responsibility on the legislature that was to meet in the autumn. Accordingly, on June 23 a member named Gorlinski moved that "the Legislature shall have power to pass laws extending the right of suffrage to such persons,

It was also urged that Great Britain in her colonies had established an apprenticeship of four years before emancipation; and this compensated the owners for the care of the aged and infirm, who, in Louisiana, must be supported at public expense.

2 Denison says that nearly forty votes were changed by the influence of Banks and Hahn. Chase Correspondence, p. 452.

citizens of the United States, as by military service, by taxation to support the government, or by intellectual fitness, may be deemed entitled thereto." When this seemingly innocent resolution1 was first offered, it was doubtless not clear to many of the members what was its true intention. The word "negro" was not in it, but Sullivan, of Orleans, jumped to his feet to denounce it as a "nigger resolution," and moved to lay it on the table. In spite of this protest it passed the convention without further discussion by a vote of 48 to 32. Subsequently one of the delegates (Bailey) resigned, giving as his reason the passage of Gorlinski's resolution.

As to the status of the slaves, Banks's proclamation, as we have seen, had declared that all laws upholding slavery were null and void within Federal lines, though the claim for compensation on the part of loyal owners was not ignored. In the convention this act of Banks was regarded by some as abolishing slavery de jure and de facto wherever it was left untouched by Lincoln's proclamation but by others as merely suspending the laws on this subject. But even after the convention had passed the ordinance of emancipation that body was astonished one morning by the news that W. W. Handlin, a judge of the third district court and a bitter opponent of slavery and secession, had virtually decided, by dismissing the suit of a negro woman brought against her master, that slavery still existed in New Orleans. In a lower court, judgment had been given in favor of the woman, and an appeal had been taken to Handlin's court. The defence was that the plaintiff, being a slave, had no rights in the court, that she could neither sue nor be sued. Handlin, sustaining the objection, dismissed the case and overruled the motion for a new trial. This news created great excitement in the convention, and the following resolu

It was not generally admitted that the negro was a "citizen of the United States."

2 Debates in Convention, 1864, p. 450.

Banks later said his action left slavery existing de jure but not de facto.

tion was offered: "That all decisions of the courts of the State that declare slavery exists in the State, are contrary to the fundamental laws of the State, and are contempts of the emancipation ordinance passed by this Convention." In the discussion of this resolution the president, Durell, gave it as his opinion that all blacks in New Orleans were free. "Go out into the street," said he, "and order your slave to perform your work: will he obey? Is there any means by which you can make him obey? The military has declared slavery no longer existent in Louisiana, and as all the Courts have been organized by military order, they must obey. There is not a District Judge in the City that doesn't sit as a military Judge." One of the delegates, Mr. Abell, in answer declared that Banks had no power to abolish slavery and the present constitution had not yet been ratified by the people. Finally, however, it was agreed by a vote of 58 to 21 to drop that part of the resolution declaring such decisions of the courts to be "contempts" and to pass the

rest.

In the meantime, Governor Hahn had revoked the commission of Judge Handlin,2 which caused the resignation of Howell, another judge of the civil courts. It would seem, therefore, that the courts held that slavery still existed in New Orleans, the decision of the commanding general to the contrary notwithstanding; but we hear of no more rulings to that effect. The function of the convention was simply to make permanent what was temporary under

'Debates in Convention, 1864, p. 540. The attorney-general of the State, B. F. Lynch, had previously given his opinion that all slaves in Louisiana were free, de facto and de jure, and hence could testify in court.

Roselius sarcastically remarked that Handlin had been removed on account of the only correct decision he had ever rendered. Handlin, some years later, brought suit against the State for salary on account of illegal removal. The case reached the United States Supreme Court on appeal. The opinion of the court, given by Justice Chase, was that Hahn had the right as military governor to remove Handlin, a military appointee, "though the reasons assigned for the removal are not approved by the Court." It is not recorded that Handlin derived much satisfaction from the sop thrown to him at the end of the decision. Cf. 12 Wallace, p. 175.

Banks's proclamation. The action of Hahn showed that he regarded the State within Federal lines as strictly under martial law, for no sensible person could maintain that the provision for the emancipation of slaves incorporated in the pending constitution was binding on the courts before that constitution had been ratified by the people; the convention itself had decided that such ratification was necessary.

That the government of Louisiana was military was still further shown by a general order issued on March 22, 1864, before the assembling of the convention. General Banks, on his own responsibility, had made provision for the establishment of schools for freedmen. He appointed a board of education of three persons, and granted it large powers. It was to establish one or more common schools in every school district defined by the provost-marshal; to acquire by purchase or otherwise lands for school sites; to erect schoolhouses and employ teachers (as far as practicable among the loyal citizens of Louisiana); to furnish books; to provide each adult freedman with a library costing two dollars and fifty cents, this amount to be deducted from the wages of said freedman; and, finally, to levy for these purposes a school tax on real and personal property in every school district.

In the convention this order of Banks was discussed. Mr. Abell moved to declare it unconstitutional on the ground that it had been imposed without the consent of the people, but the convention approved it by a vote of 72 to 9. When, however, the question of providing for the education of the negro came before the convention, that body showed much diversity of opinion as to ways and means, and its final action on the subject was much more liberal toward the negro than the position at first taken, for at an early stage of the proceedings it was decided to establish schools for the whites to be supported by taxation of whites, and for the colored to be supported, in like manner, by taxation of colored persons. If this measure were not adopted, argued Abell, "whites and blacks might be com