The New York herald., 1874-09-22
Tho Problem In Loaisiana-Mr. Rev
erdy JOhnsOn's Opinion.

We print elsewhere o statesmanlike letter
from the venerable and distinguished Reverdy
Johnson, in which lie discusses the LOUISIANA
| question. In the ancient times the State was
well served when the elder men, or the
Alder men as they came to be called. were
summoned to give counsel in affairs OF o'a'e'
In the advice of the aged there ls saie'y.
Time, experience, opportunity, responsibility
ripen the intellect and teach that caimness
which is in many respects the truest states
manship. Reverdy Johnson is now an old
man, long past the time assigned by the
Psalmist as the measure Of human life. 1t Is
more than fifty years since he entered the
Maryland Senate, and he may, therefore, be
said to have celebrated the golden wedding of
his public career. Thirty years ago be was
Senator in Congress, when Webster. Calhoun,
Clay and Crittenden were Senators. quar-
ter of century since he was member OF a
Cabinet in which Clayton and Collamer held
seats. Serving the Union, as he did, during
the larger part of his life, as the representa-
tive of slave State, he had the felicitous
courage to give his earnest support to the
Union. We owe to Reverdy johnson more,
perhaps, than to any other citizen OF Mary
land the fact that we were enabled to keep
that restless and reluctant State within the
limits of the federation.
Upon question like this of Louisiana it is
eminently proper that Reverdy Johnson should
be heard, and at time especially when, in
the honors we are paying to John A. DIX,
Havemeyer, Tilden, Governor Allen, OF Ohio;
Thurlow Weed and other centennial statesmen,
We show disposition to listen to our alder
men and not run heedessly off into wild ways
of the younger heads, that so often lead to
misery and disappointment MIR. johnson,
with the calm precision of lawyer. looks at
the Louisiana case from three points Of view.
| First, he asks, Was the President right in
recognizing the Kellogg government? Second,
if be was not, had the people the right to
drive Kellogg from power by force OF arms?
And, thirdly, has the President the right to
restore Kellogg and the government of which
| he is the head?
! In discussing these propositions Mr.. john
son makes an argument singularly like the
I view of the case presented by the HERALD
! when the revolution first took place in Louisi-
ana The President certainly committed an
error when he recognized Kellogg as the legit-
innate Governor. He apparently adopted this
course in obedience to decree of the United
States District Court of Louisiana. But, as
Mr.. johnson shows, the question whether
o State government has been legtimately
established is political, not Judicial, and does
! not come within the authority Of
q federal tribunal, the inquiries neces-
sary to establish the claim are OF such
character that it must be obvious no federal
court can have appropriate jurisdiction In
the case Of Arkansas, where two contestants
came to the verge of civil war, the President
interfered against Brooks, who claimed the
Office by virtue Of process of the court, and
in behalf of Baxter, who rested his claim solely
4 upon political grounds. Mr.. johnson cites
! the well known decision of Chief Justice
Taney in the '.Dorr rebellion" case in Rhode
Island, to which the HERALD called attention
the other day. In this decision, rendered by
Chief Justice Taney and unanimously con-
Cured in by the Court it was expressly held
that the inquiry whether government exists
in any State is political, and not judicial, or,
to use the exact language of the Court, the
question 'belonged to the political power and
not to the judicial" In such decision, as
the HERALD showed when presenting this case
to the President as guide of action, the de-
termination of the Executive is conclusive.
Therefore, as Mr.. Johnson so cogently reasons,
if Judge Durell had no authority to pass upon
, the validity of Kellogg's election, the Presi-
dent, likewise, had no authority to accept his
.'decision" as binding upon his own executive
action. The responsibility was the President s
in the first place, and he cannot now undo or
escape its consequences.
The question as to how far the President s
error in the recognition of Kellogg should
affect his action in dealing with the Penn rev.
olution is answered by MI. Johnson upon pre-
cisely the grounds advanced by the HERALD.
The Penn party had no right but that OF revo-
luton. ga right of revolution, as Mr.. John
son truly says, "can never be supposed to
exist under an established government. Such
right, indeed, supposes no existing legal
authority, but asserts itself upon natural and
elementary principles, such as are stated in
the Declaration OF Independence" Howeve,
praiseworthy and undeniable these principles
may be, they cannot enter into the sovereignty
of the Union. As Mr. Johnson so clearly puts
it: each State is bound to the other States
. and to the United States, and the obligation
, / is such that right by force
, to change her form Of government is
not possessed by her, as its exercise nigh
{ interfere with the relation she bears to hel
sister States as to the paramount authority O
the United States This logic is unanswera
ble As we showed during the progress o
|. the Penn revolution, if any combination
of people could overthrow a government
o legal in form and in the unchallenged exercis