Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1865-1872, 1868-03-13
[WHOLE NO. 324.

~N"t'oe' e"~ wv fee'eto'y eehou"Se 90
usurper.
But our Senator has saved me the trouble
Of refuiing this theory, By doing the work
himself. In another part Of bis speech,
in commenting upon the Rhode Island
case (Luther vs. Borden and others, 9Th
Howard page y he SAYS that the case
establishes this proposition; that the Ex
ecutive Of the United States having re-
cognized State Government, the recog-
milton is biudiug upon the Judiciary"
Now. although the Court in that case
established no such proposition, let US, for
the sake of the argument. suppose it did.
tsud what .is che effect OF st,,ss doctfipe up
OF the. other position. that this section OF
the Constitution is addressed 10 each de-
pariment of the government? Is il not
mnniIesty absurd TO say that the language
speaks TO each department, and vet the
decision Of the Executive Department is
conclusive on the courts. Suppose the
courts should first decide one way, and
decision, then We should have the specta.
Gle Of the President overruling the Su-
prenc Court
But Mr.. Hendricks does not state the
doctrine established in the Rhode Island
case correctly In that case there we're two
rival uoSernments, each claiming 10 be
the Legitimate Government Of The State of
Rhode Island. One was the old Govern
ment existing at the commencement Of the
Revolutionary war, and known es the
"Churter Government" and the other
new Government. known as the "Dorr
Government An appeal was about 10
be madeNt0 tho sword to settle the qucs.
ton which was legitimate Governor
King, the acting Governor under the old
Government, applied TO the President for
aid 10 protect the State from domestic
violence threatened by the Dorr party, not
because the Constitution itself gave the
President powet TO grant such aid. but be
cause congress, by act passed in 1I95,
had expressly authorized aud empowered
the President ''in case Of an insurrection
in any State against the Government
thereof, on application Of the l. 2 stature
oi such State, or of the Executive (when
the Legislature can not be convened) TO
call furIh such number Of the militia of
any other State or Suites us might be an.
piled for, or Us the President migh judge
sufficient TO suppress such insurreeiiop."
The President recognized this call, and
in doing so recognized Governor King US
the legitimate Governor Of Rhode Island.
The question was iairly presented to the
Supreme Court in this case whether the
"Cbar'er' Government OF the Dorr Gov
erumcnt was the legitimate Government Of
the Staie-of Rhode Island,
Now the Court had to decide whether
ths, question was political question or a
judicial question. II it was a judicial
question, the Court itself was bound to de-
eide without reference 10 what any other
department had decided or might decide.
The Cour, in terms decided that it was
u political question, and not a judicial
question; and that ihc Constitution Of the
United States, in the section continuing
the guarantee clause, had placed the pow.
er to decide all such questions between
rival State Go, ernments in the hands Of
the political department; that is. in the
hands of Congress But that because Con
eress bad passed the act of lT35, giving
the President the power Of deciding
whether the exigency had arisen upon
watch the Government of the United
States was bound TO interfere, his decision
was conclusive on the Courts
The Court expressly say that Congress
might, ii they had deemed il most adyisa-
bic to do so. have placed il in the power
OF a Court TO decide when the contingency
had happened which required the Federal
Government TO Interfere. But Congress
had thought otherwise. and had given the
power TO the President. That he is to so
act upon interpolation of the Legisla-
turc or Executive OF the State, and conse-
qnently he must determine what body of
men constitute the Legislature, and who is
Governor, before he can act. And that
his decision, because Congress had given
him The power to decide, was binding on
the judiciary.
L have said that this section contains
three distinct clauses, each imposing dis
iinct duty on the Government OF the Uni.
ted States. They are as folloys:
Flrst-to guarantee to every State in the
Union a republican form of government.
Second-to protect each State against
invasion.
Thlrd-On application Of the Legisia-
ture or Executive. TO project each State
from domestic violence.
have insisted. too, that these three dis
tiuct duties are primarily political OF legis-
iat've duties addressed TO the political or
legislative department OF the Governiren.,
aud can never, under any circumstances.
be performed by tho President, or by the
Counts. except as Congress shall give them
power to act. Let US test this by a lew
questions. How is the President or
Court to protect State from invasion
without authority from Congress 10 ac,?
Can the President by virtue of bis office
levy and subsist troops? Will the Courts
issu writs of CdPias od respondsnduD, aud
arrest the invaders? low can either of
these departments suppress an insurrec
tion, oi take one step in that direction
without an act of Congress? Or suppose
majority OF the people Vt a State shah.
by Convention duly called, abrogate
their Republican, Constitution. aud, with
out violence, erect monarchy on its ruins
in the hearts of the Republic, can the
President, OF the Judiciary, smiie the
bastard thing as it deserves TO be ssii'cn?
Clearly reason, as we'll as authority, shows
that all these are political duties
which must be performed by Congress or
by its authority.
But again, look at the position that the