The Hancock Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Ohio) 1857-1870, 1866-11-02

On them, and more especially as their II
conduct may be shaped by his former
Fiat jusfifa ought to be
he pervading maxim of every one In
public or private trust. But where a
public functionary is clothed with
he is bound to temper jus.
tice with mercy; heis not to exercise
power merely because power,is del
egated to him. " -'.-'-'I 3 w , n
Again, is 1t so certain that those
friends of the Governor were right in
that all the consequences
resulting from q collision are TO be
visited upon those who array them
selves against him2 They assume
that he has the power to displace the
and that his action
in that matter is not subject to re
view. Let all this be granted. The
question of responsibility yet re
mains. II will turn on this other
question whether the Governor, un
der the circumstances, had authority
to resort to force fer the purpose of
investing his appointees with Officer
A ministeriSl officer may justify the
execution of process, riehtiully issu.
ed; an executive officer, clothed with
a quasi judicial discretion, cannot be
held amenablc for the exercise Of that
discretion. But where an executive
officer, intrusted with limited pow.
er, transcends his authority, he is re
sponsible, civilly and criminally, for
the consequences which may flow
from such usurpation of authority
This is q familiar principle. 1t needs
no illustration. Enough has been
said to convince the would-be friends
OF Governor Swami that there is more
of intricacy in the subject than their
philos ply has fathomed.
We are again told by Governor
Swann's friends--the Governor does
not say so--that the butchery of our
citizens, If resorted to at all, is to
devolve on the army of the United
States Baltimore is to be declared
in a state of insurrection, and the
President is to intervene This ex
pedient would not in any degree af
tect the question Of responsibility
But it may not be amiss to inquire
how far this power of interven ion
may be invoked
The act of Congress, approved
March Sd, 1907, provides, THAT in
all cases of insurrcction or obstruc.
ton to the laws of any in
diNidual State where it is
lawful Tor the President to call forth
the militia for the purpose Of sup
pressing such insurreclion, or oi
causing the laws to be duly executed,
it shall be lawful fer HIM to employ
for the same purposes such part OF
the land or naval forces oil the United
States as shall be judged necessary,
having first observed all the provis
ions of the law in that respect
The law referred to is the act ap-
proved February 90, 1875, which
says that "in case of an insurrec.ion
in any State against the Government
thereof, it shall he lawful for the
President, on application of the Leg
islature of such State, or of the Ex-
ccutive (when the Legislature can.
not be convened to call forth such
number OF the inhabitants Of any
other State or States as may be ap
piled for rs lie may judge sufficient
to suppress such insprrection."
Now, it will be observed that the
President is to intervene in the case
: ofan insurrection; and who is to judge
Of the existence OF state of insur,
rection? We answer, the President
is to judge of the existence of insur-
rcction rs a fact, and of the extent
or proportions ofthe iusurrection.-
In DORIS case, as it is called, an
armed force was arrayed against an
armed force, and there is nothing,
therefore, in the case TO conflict with
our position that tie President is t.
Judge of the fact OF insu rection =
J, What, then, is an "insurrection?' II
is nothing more or less than lcvying
Of war, and that levying of warmust
according to the letter of the act, be
directed "against the government
of the State. number of men arm
ed or not armed, array themselves
against another body, to fight out {
private quarrel, they may be punish
ed for breach Of the peace; or. i
you please, for riot, but not for in
surrection. The Commissioners o
Police are officers of the Govern
ment, and are entrusted with the
maintenance of the Government -
Is it possible to prove that those
Commissioners would become guilty
Of a levyiny OF war against the Gov.
ernment by resisting the intrusion
into theil office of other persons
, claiming under the Governors ap
pointment? A number of private in
dividuals, by persisi ent rioling in th,
presence, and in contempt, of publ,
authority, may possibly bring them
2 selves under the category OF insur
gents. But the Board of Commits
sioners are the chief of the police o
T. the city. They are intrusted witt
d the peace of the city, and have til,
police under their control. So Ions
4; vs. they remain de fdeiO in office, they
! must exercise the functions thereof
II others pretending q better title t,
: their office present themselves, the,
e have the right as individuals, and |
. is their duty as public officers, to ex