The Placer herald. [volume] (Auburn, Placer County, Calif.) 1855-1991, 1861-06-29
NUMBER / 4s.

hights s'oe OF poiltcs, that tor the privilege
OF acting directly on individual citizens the
General Government paid the price of giving
no all pretsnson Of right to coerce or use
force against State. If the General Gov.
eminent finds itself so situated that it can.
not reach by its legal process the individual
citizens of State, because the State Gov.
ernment in,erposes ITSELF it is an unhappy
condition Of things, but there seems to be
no remedy Of the nature of force. It 10
clear it is not lawful to use AS a remedy the
army and navy TO make war against a State
Government. To have sent strong reinforce.
ments South as preventative Of secession,
would have been either absurd, if not intend
ed to be used against State, or criminal.
if intended 10 be so used.
The statute Of our own State passed in
1901, defining treason. is in harmony with
this view 1t reads: IF any person do levy
war against the people Of this State within
this State" such act is treason. No except
ton, it will be seen, is made in favor of per.
sons wearing the uniform of the United
States, or commissioned by the President.
1t is worth our while to observe while the
Constitution authorized Congress 80 raise
and support armies" without saving for what
militia "to execute the laws of the Union"
Our forefathers were very Jealous of stand.
ing arm es, as are the friends of free gov.
eminent all over the world The excsue for
raising armies in all governments is defence
against foreign enemies-for purpose Of for,
egn war. The army is used, we know for
other purposes-say, for controlling internal
disturbances; and is used to greater or less
exten for such purposes, just in proportion 40
a government is more or less despotic. Did
our forefathers give this authority to raise
armies for any purpose but the one exclusive
purpose of defense against foreign enemes9
One of their complaints against the King of
England was, that "he has kept among US.
in times of peace, standing armies without
the consent Of our legislatures" If they
deemed this incompatible with the respect
due 10 colonial legislature, what would
they have thought of standing army, or
any portion of it, being kept in State, in
the wish Of State legislature9
But, it will be said, the mere display Of
a large force in the South, without using it
would have deferred both the people and the
leaders from carrying out their purposes.
The people would not, in such case, have
ventured TO choose secession delegates; or IL
they had, the delegates would not have dar.
ed to put State in the attitude of secession.
Is this a legitimate use of the armyG-to
make the people and their representatives
atraid!-to overawe the people in the cleo.
tons of their representatives in ortheir DELHI
eraions? 1.-THE President may transfer the
Army and Navy from State to State to inn
huence an election turning upon the ques'
ton of secession or antisecession, why may
he not do so to influence an election in this
city turning upon the question of the con.
inuance or dscontinuance of the Metropol-
itan Police? Where is the limit of the
Presidents discretionary use of the Army
for such purposes?
That the measure would have had any
such effect AS is claimed for it is very far
from certain; for the suspicion of an extra,
ordinary arming of the forts in Virginia is
it seems to us, helping to spur on secession
there
There has teen no time from the begin.
ming of these troub es Till now, when more
extensive threat of force or the actual use
of force, would not have made matters
worse, nor any time from the beginning till
now, when the frank disavowal Of peace
policy by the plain act of withdrawing the
soldiers would not have made things better.