The New York herald., 1874-10-08
ME-. O'COnor's Second Letter to Rev
erdy johnson.

higher ranks of the profession, will feel new
pride in his intellect in perusing the vigorous
letter which we print to-day His personal
friends will be gratifed to find that advancing
age brings no decay of his great faculties,
which shine forth on this occasion with the
unabated splendor of his most brilliant efforts.
His legal admirers could hardly find in the
whole record of his forensic arguments more
marvellous specimen Of acumen conveyed in
felicitous diction than is presented in the
letter which we lay before our readers. Be
sides the abilities of a consummate lawyer
and logician Mr.. O'Conor has mastery of
apt legal phraseology which makes him
model in that kind of style. Perhaps no
lawyer of his time save Webster, and in
the opinion of many competent judges
not even Webster, has surpassed him
in that kind of diction of which the great
lights of English jurisprudence provide the
examples-examples which few American
lawyers have tried TO emulate, and none
unless Mr. Webster be an exception, with
such admirable success as Mr.. OConor The
exquisite finish. given to legal arguments by
this great accomplishment strikes the spec
tator like the last polish and keen edge of the
weapons employed by a different order of
combatants. Mr.. O'Conor is also the greatest
living master-he deserves to rank with the
greatest masters that have ever lived of the
yelled and courteous sarcasm which remin DIS
one of the famous executioner whose wife
boasted that he could take off head with so
Il n kn hof fha tatn har lu
perceive that it was severed from the trunk
until it dropped by seeming accident Some
\ OF Mr.. OConors incest exhibitions of this
kind Of skill will be recognized in his present
letter but obvious motives of courtesy forbid
US to point them out. But the glittering
polish of controversial weapons is something
separate from the sureness of stroke which
leaves an antagonist disabled on the field.
The public must not allow itself to be
dazzled by the brlliancy Of Mr.. O'Conor
controversial tactics. The real merits Of the
controversy may be discovered by men less
wonderfully equipped for such gladatorial ex-
hibitions than this consummate master Of
legal fence Mr.. O'Conor's arguments must
be weighed in the same impartial balance as
those of inferior men. Some parts Of his
| answer to Mr.. Johnson seem triumphant but
the public and the legal profession may
wisely suspend their judgment until Mr..
Johnson shall have been heard again. The
strength and stress of Mr. Johnson's last
argument rested on the assumed consequences
of . reversal by the President of his first de-
cision. Mr. OConor argues, with great force
and cogency, that those apprehended conse-
quences would not follow; that all private
rights which accrued under the Kellogg ad-
ministration would remain untouched it he
should be deposed. Until successful reply
is made the opinion of Mr.. O'Conor on this
point would seem to be correct and if SO
Mr.. Johnson's position would seem materially
weakened, if not quite undermined. The
authorities cited by Mr.. O. Conor on this point
seem very pertinent, and we are curious to see
how Mr. johnson will parry them.
1t may perhaps seem presumptuous in US
to hold decided opinions on points which
divide these great lights of our jurispru-
dence But since they differ, our freedom of
judgment is not restrained by authority, and
when learned doctors disagree reason and not
authority must be the umpire. Before pro-
ceeding to state additional reasons in support
of the views we expressed at the outset OF this
controversy we trust we may be pardoned
tor criticising one point made by Mr..
O'Conor in the letter printed to-day. He
says that the constitution "confers no express
power on the President or even on Congress
it is the United States that must protect the
true State governments from domestic vio-
lence'" Mr.. O'Conor seems to have over
looked one Of the most important, and, as re-
CARDS this controversy, most pertinent pro-
visions of the federal constitution. We claim
no originality for the point we are about to
state. 1t is often presented in the works of
Mr.. Calhoun, with an emphasis which attests
the importance which that profound constitu-
tional reasoner attached to it. The point
is that every undistributed or unassigned
power conferred on the federal government is
vested in Congress. The provision which that
great statesman and masterly logician per-
petually quoted in support of this view is
this :-''Congress shall have power to make
all laws which shall be necessary and proper
for carrying into execution the foregoing
powers and all other powers vested by this
constitution in the government of the United
States, or any department or officer thereof"
The argument which Mr.. Calhoun deduced
| from this part of the constitution admits of no
successful answer. All the implied powers of
the federal government, all powers vested in
the United States without defining the mode
of their exercise, belong to Congress. No
other department or officer of the federal gov.
ernment can take any step toward putting
them in execution until Congress shall have
passed laws conferring the requisite authority.
This seems SO plain on the very face of the
constitution that the opinion of Mr.. Calhoun,