The New York herald., 1874-11-09


sidered as one, oy any legal aurnority under the
! State or under the United states. Kellogg, then,
! was the only Governor who could invoke the aid
or the President to put down an insurrection in
tended to remove him and TO subvert the govern
ment OF which he was the actual head.
CAESARS DILEMMA.
Was the President authorized to refuse such
aid 7 II ne was then the very purpose OF the con-
sttution and the act OF 1885, as Tar as this state
was concerned would have been defeated, and
the State have been lett to decide by battle who
was her Governor and government. Violence OF
this kind 1t was the avowed object of the constitu
ton to prevent, and yet IT seems to me to be per-
fectly obvious that the President, under the cir
cumstances OF the Louisiana case, possessed no
authority to prevent II, II Mr.. Curtis be right
word or two IN regard TO the view taken BY
Judge Black. He holds, as do that the President
was bound, upon the application OF Kellogg. In
1873. to interfere. He places 1t, however, upon
the ground that Kellogg was at that
time the de Jact0 Governor. and then
holds that Kelogg's right TO call upon the
President was solely because he was the
de tacto Governor He agrees with me land In
this differs with Mr.. OConor that the President
could not change his decision. But he maintains
that the state OF things existing in 1874 was en-
tirey different from that upon which the President
acted in ls73 as Kellogg had then ceased to oe the
de Jdcto Governor. hts official existence having
become extinct by force OF successful insurrection
which placed McEnery IN power. The Judge Is OF
opinion that Kellogg was never legally elected by
the people, but that McEnery was, and ne assumes
this upon the authority or the report made by Mr.
Carpenter. OF the special committee OF the Senate,
to whom the subject had been referred. Accord
ing to my recollection that report asserted that
neither Kellogg nor McEnery was elected, and
therefore ADVISED q new election In TRUTH II rnis
was the case, as far as this point is concerned,
neither had any legal right to the Ohce by choice
OF the people. Now the Judges proposition Is
that although the President was bound In 1873, on
application OF Kellogg as Governor, to Interfere
because at that time he, In Jdct, held the office
yet that, having been removed bv force, lie ceased
TO hold or TO have any legal claim to 1t. In tnls
with due submission to the Judge, think he Is in
error. Governor who is authorized to do so
and does call Tor the Presidents interference to
put down an insurrection aimed at the subversion
or the State government, has q right to have the
insurrection frustrated, whatever may be the
stage which 1t has reached. II 1t be an insurrec.
ton when 1t began 1t Is not less an insur-
rectlon because OF Its success. II Kellogg
had right to be protected against
1t at its commencement, he had none the less
right to be restored to his ofice when the insur-
rectionists had succeeded iu driving him from 1t.
The man placed In power by the insurrecton IS
there without legal authority. because the insur-
rection Itself was wholly illegal There is, in my
view. no distinction IN a or this kind between
q call made upon the President under the act Of
1895 by q Governor de jare and Governor de
Tacto.
HAMILTON INVOKED
The President is bound to prevent the success
OF the insurrection and TO drive the lnsur-
rectionists from power II they have achieved
their purpose Suppose the President when
he marched his army, as Judge Black ad.
mlts he was obliged TO do, had f0unu, when
they reached the limit OF the State. tnat the
insurrectionists had rrlumphed; was he to recall
thems Or suppose his troops had marched into
the State and mad been defeated by the insurrec-
tionists and driven out OF 1t, and they had over.
thrown the existing government; was the Presi
dent bound to acquiesce in the result, or, on the
contrary, would he not be bound to send as many
more troops there as might be necessary TO put
down the insurrectionf Otherwise, an insurrec-
tOn begun may be defeated, but an tnsurrectlon
which progresses to success Is beyond the power
OF the United States, and the people OF
the State have means OF relief except
/ by continued resort to arms. II the Judge 0e
right therefore, in his view OF this point, q State
In the condition IN which Louisiana now Is 10
without the remedy for which the constitution
! provides; remedy. too, for which Hamilton, In
the twenty-nrst number Of the Fsderaltsk truly
represented as vital to the success OF the govern
ments, federal well as State. In closing, all
that have 60 say on this subject say with per-
feet sincerty-that differ, with all possible re-
spect and some difidence, with the three gentle
men, Messrs. OC0nor. Curtis and Black, whose
legal ability 10 known to the country. I remain,
with much regard. your obedient servant,
REvERDY JOHNSON.