New national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1870-1874, 1872-07-18

takes especial pains to show his contempt for
the course of these two Governors in con-
demning the use Of Government troops to
preserve order and prevent fraud at the cleo
tons in New York city, and in some of the
Southern States. After quoting from the
message Of Gov. Geary, of Pennsylvania, his
denial of the right of theePresident to use the
military force of the United States in time of
peace, without application from the authori-
ties of the State, Mr.. Greeley thus comments:
"This is said with reference to the enforce
ment of an act of Congress which the United
States Circuit Court has pronounced consti-
tutional. The prevailing idea which under
lies the opinions of the statesmen above
mentioned is evidently that of the exclusive
sovereignty Of the State-the right to give or
withhold its military at its pleasure. 1t is,
in fact, the old political heresy of the South
the same that caused Fort Sumter to be fired
upon, that paralyzed the United States Gov
eminent under Buchanan, caused Iincoln's
proclamation to be scoffed at by the Gov
ernor of Kentucky, and the Southern officers
to quit the army when their States seeded"
Mr.. Greeley then quotes Art. ", Sec. 4,
of the Constitution, guaranteeing to every
State in the Union a republican form of gov
eminent, protection against invasion, &C.,
and also from the Act of Congress of February
%, 1895, and of March !, 1907, and says:
"This Act of 1895 came before the United
States Supreme Court while presided over by
Chief Justice Marshall, in 1920, in the case of
Houston agt. Moore, 6 Wheaton's Rep, p.
15,) and Mr.. Justice Washington, in deliver
ing the judgment of the Court, said: The
eo a. Yag
Executive Magistrate of the State, or to any
militia officer he may think proper Mr..
Justice Johnson, in delivering a concur
ring opinion in this case, said, (page 81
Historically it is known that the Act of 1895
was passed with a view to a state of things
then existing in the State of Pennsylvania,
when it became probable that the President
of the United States would have to exert the
authority of the General Government mme-
diately on detached portions of the officers of
the militia of the Union to aid in the cxecu-
ton of the laws of the United States Later,
in 1897, the United States Supreme Court, in
the case of Martin agt. Mott, ~ Wheaton's
Rep, p. 49, again ruled that the Act of
1895, which confers power on the President
to call forth the militia, in certain eXigencies,
is constitutional law, and the President is
the exclusive and final Judge whether the ex-
igency has arisen Mr.. Justice Story, in de-
livering the opinion of the Court, said, (page
81 THE Act of 1875 is not confined in its
operation to cases of refusal to obey the Or
ders of the President in time of public war.
On the contrary, that act authorizes the
President to call forth the militia to suppress
instructions and to enforce the laws of the
United States in times of peace Recently,
in 1869, Judge Mason, of the New York State
Court of Appeals, while delivering the opinion
of that highly respectable Court in the case
of The People agt. Campbell, Gao \. Y.
p. 1867 used this language
Congress, nv the Act of February %,
| 1895, gave full power to the President to call
| forth the militia of the United States for the
purposes stated, to serve for three months,
and by the Act of July l., 1862, the time was
extended to nine months. The President is
made the sole Judge whether the exigency has
arisen and this call may be made by the
President upon the State Executive, or by
orders to any subordinate officers Of militia"
From these acts and decisions Mr.. Greeley
declares no other deduction can be drawn
than Q.) "that when the laws Of the State
are INSTRUCTED, when there is domestic vio-
lence, and the State is not, in the judgment
of its Legislature or Governor, able to en-
force them with its own power, and applies
| to the United States for aid, the President is
empowered to send into il the militia of the
adjoining States; and CD that whore the
question is either one of external danger or
of resistance to the tasrs cfthe United States, the
and have no part whatever but such as he
may assign them. The President is the
Commander-in-Chief of all the forces of the
country, and he can legally and coasti'aionally
exercise his authority as such acahom the consent
or concurrence of any official whatsoever"
We have reproduced this strong argyll
ment of the present Democratic candidate for
President in favor Of the power Of the Presi-
dent to use the military forces of the Govern
ment in States where he deems it necessary,
not only without, but in spite of, the Cover
nor or Legislature thereof, to show the
Southern rebels and Ku-Klux where he
stands on that important question, and to
show the loyal people of the South that ac-
cording to Mr.. Greeley, before he sold himself
to the Democracy, the President possesses
ample power to use Government troops for
putting down Ku-Klux conspirators, preserv-
ing the peace, protecting the loyal and OPP
pressed, and enforcing all the laws, notwith-
standing Congress refused to continue the
Ku-Klux or Enforcement Act. The law and
the legal construction of it quoted by Mr..
Greeley, seem to leave no doubt that the
President is authorized by the Constitution
and laws to use the military forces at his COM
mand at his pleasure. The clamOr raised by
rebel sympathizers, and by weakened and
soreheaded Republicans against specifically
vesting him for another year with this right,
was therefore all noise and confusion for
nothing, or else Mr.. Graeley's opinions and
| facts are worthless.
Regulating Their own Offs pring.
The "Civil Service Reform" scheme was
an invention of the Liberal Republican"