The Massachusetts spy, and Worcester County advertiser. [volume] ([Worcester, Mass.]) 1825-1831, 1826-04-19

been doubted, from high authority, whether,
under anv circumstances, and by virtue Of any /
law that Congress can pass, u would DC COM
peteut for the United States to issue an order
to Governor: such is the peculiar relations
in which he stands to his own government
and that of the United States: and it is said
the law of '95 was passed with reference to
this view of the subject and, therefore, takes
no notice Of the Executives OF States, but
gives the right to issue orders TO the officers oil
the militia but, be this as II may, 1t is mani
fest Governor cannot be called upon under
that law. except as an officer Of militia, aud
in that CAPACITY alone. Where, then, is ms
power to throw himself between the two Gov
ernments, and arrest the power OF the unteo
States. and prevent the President from calling
into the service the militia. lie stands on the
same ground as a General OF division, IN TINS
respect. Suppose such an ofhcer should re-
ceive an order to bring into the service
brigade or division under his commando anu
he should neglect TO obey the order because
lie believed there was no authority Tor issuing
it; the contingency upon when the troops
NAV be called into the service not ha'ins
happened Does this arrest the power OF Tue
United States, and prevent the fresioeue iron
calling those troops into service, II thete Is Sn
actual constitutional oxigency: NO, ON une
officer can do nothing more than oe0oe ioI
himself, as TO his own duty. Inc oeoe's li'
b. rsvss-i 60 any other officer or officers, ana
the troops be drawn into the service, although
he declines personally either to execute them,
or TO enter the service. The liability Of the
troops to come into the service is not depen-
dent on his will So Il is with the Governor.
He must be addressed as an officer oil the
| hat alone
whatever authority he possesses, is by virtue
of the command assigned to him. He, too,
can only decide for himself upon his own
course of duty, but cannot withhold the troops,
or prevent the United States from taking them
into public service; for the law gives the
President power over the troops, indepen'
dent of the will Of any officer. 1t tolioys'
therefore, that a neglect to execute an eoer
| is a mere omission of obedience to a com
mand, done at the peril of him to whom II Is
dire cted, acting upon his owl individual re-
| sponsibity, and is not withholding Of troops
from the United States, for that is not win
held which can be taken with pleasure and
without interruption. The power, Therefore,
of the Governors Of States over the militia, is
almost nominal under the law OF '95, and me
argument which assumes, under this law, tfat
| they can interpose, and arrest the powers
OF the United States, is without toundation'
r. ] will now consider more distinctly me
effect of the opinions and the acts OF the t'sV-
ernor. 1t is said in these documents, that me
claim could not be allowed because OF certnn
anti-constitutional opinions advanced by me
Governor. 1t was conten6ed by the Stae'
that large portion Of the claim had no con-
| nexion with the Governors neglect TO comply
with the order of June 90, 1912, and OF SIP
tember 5, 1911, for il is for services rendered
on sudden and pressing emergencies, wlthppt
any special order from either Government, ana
came clearly within class OF claims, such as
had been allowed to other States; but 1t was
objected that the opinions OF the Executive
tainted this part of the claim also, and 1t has
not been allowed.
Where is the authority by which state is
made responsible fol the opinions OF It's OH,
cers-and especially of its military officers I:
! Is it in the Constitution ? Is it in the laws
No, sir, it has not even the authority o:prece-
dent. The Stale has claim for money, such
wIthheld-and Why: Not becahse II Is not
due, but as punishment tor the heretscat
opinions of an officer Of militia. Can this be
done, sir? Can you punish State for the
heresy Of itsmiiitary officers? If so, where is
the tribunal that can pronounce the verdict OF
guilty? Where the tribunal that can
measure out the punishment? Where the au-
thority TO inhict it Punish State ! mem
Der Of this confedcracy and for the opinions
OF one of its citizens! The doctrine is 100 ex-
traVagant to merit serious reGutation. But 1t
is said that the State is responsible for the acts
OF its officers. have shown, sir, that the u.
States have no authority over the Governor,
unless in his military capacity. With Inn as
chief magistrate and the organ Of State sove-
reignty, they cannot interfere. Is it true, that
State is responsible for the disobedicnce OF its
militia officers, when called into the service OF
the U. States2 lfso, again repeat where is the
authority Is it in the Constitution: No sir
Is it in the laws? The law of '95 makes dis
obedience of orders punishable by fine and by
loss of office. 1t makes the indiUidual respon-
sble. but not the State. This doctrine is, in
my judgment, no less extravagant than that Of
making State responsible for opinions. A
State, under the law of '95, has nothing 10 do
with calling out the militia-it is no party to
the transaction-it is not consulted--it has no
power Of enforcing an order, and cannot be
responsible for its execution. By that law,
the geographical divisions of the United States
iL.o States, is not regarded; the militia is con-
considered as one consolidated body Of troops
subject to The power Of the United States,
upon constitutional exigency. That
law does not provide that the call shall
be made upon the State. No, sir, the
State is not regarded at all--the call is upon
an officer of the militia, wh1, for this purpose,
is considered as an officer of The United STATES,
and made punishable, By The lG,Csofth United
States for diSobedience. In passing that law, sir,
States and Governors were not thought Of;
the object seemed TO be to bind the militia hand
and foot to the Government Of the United
States and il was pretty effectually done. Can
State, then, be made responsible for the opin-
ions and acts OF militia officers, when ordered
into public sefyice-ofiicers over whom, in
this matter, It has no control--no power of
punishment-but officers whom the United
States claim as their own, both for service and