The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1874-03-09
REPUBLICAN FORM 0E GOVERN
MENT

REPUBLICAN EDkM OE cav hbGN- |
MENT.
Senator Carpenter has closed the debate, |
on his part on the bill ordering new cleo |
ton in Louisiana The speech was in re-
ply to that of Senator Norton and was, in |
the main, restatement or condensation OF |
his former ono. which embraced every ar |
gument that could be brought 10 bear upon |
that side of the question. When we come |
to sift the whole matter. there are only two |
rrCunds-or rather one. which is made the |
basis for the othcr-upon which it is at |
tempted to justify the ordering of new
election, and upon which the legality and |
cOnS;iutionaliy Of the measure is based.
The first Of thcsc-thc one under which the
other is built-s that there was no legal
election held in Louisiana in November
1872 With this is, also, involved the
proposition that there was no legal and
proper counting of the votes Upon this
proposition everyone is substantially agreed.
Republicans and democrats, here, stand on
the same ground. If there had been le-
gal election, followed by proper counting
of the votes, there would have been no
contest or controversy The first trouble
arose in the election, the next, and perhaps
the most important one, or most important
part of the same trouble. in the attempt
made by Governor Warmoth TO have the
votes. or what pretended to be returns OF
votes, counted by an alleged illegal board.
Walmoths board went through with pre-
tended count, and certified that NcEncry
and others were elected to certain offices.
The other board took similar course, and
certified that Kellogg and others were elect
ed to the same offices. The courts OF tile
state, having full jurisdiction of the mat
ter, decided that the latter board were the
legal aboard of state canvasscrs.' 1t fol
lowed, therefore, that their certificates
ton, and that Kellogg and others
were the proper incumbents Of the
several offices to which they were thus de-
clared to have been elected. BY an order
of the now notorious Durrcll, the Kellogg
legislature obtained possession of the proper
rooms and organized as such. The Nc
Emery legislature organized elsewhere.
Here, then, were two bodies claiming to
be tie legislature, and two individuals claim
ing to be tie governor, and the President
was called upon to recognize the one or the
other This was duty imposed upon him
by the constitution and the laws, and he
could not shirk it. He recognized the Kel-
logg government, and we do not see how
he could have done otherwise. He could
have known nothing of any malfeasance or
corruption on the part of Durrell. He could
have known nothing to the discredit of the
supreme court of Louisiana He must act
at once, and he was bound to act upon the
best light he could obtain. He followed
the decisions of the state and United States
courts of Louisiana, and the certificate of the
board of state canvasscrs. Could he have
done otherwise, under the circumstances
We think not. The same illegality at
tached to the election of one as to the other.
Neither is, or perhaps could he, Of right the
government Of Louisiana. The kellogg
government is the de .factO government. 1t
must he remembered moreover that the
matter Of these frauds were not Us fully I'M
aerstood then as now. There was not then
as now, n concession of ilegality on both
sides.
There were three courses for the Prcsi
dent to pursue, only one Of which WaS
legal and constitutional he could have
recognized one party as the deJacto govern
,nrnt, have ordered new election, or an
pointed n military governor and taken arm
cd possession of the state. The first wa
legal and proper, the others would have
been illegal and acts of usurpatiun I,
chose the proper, legal and constitutions
course. Upon the conceded 'illcgally o
the election, the pretended canvas of th'
votes on both sides, and the fact that Kcl
logg is de .frct9 governor OF the state by TN
recognition of the President, is based tn
main argument 1t stands with the con
siilniional provision that " the Unite,
States shall guarantyito every state in ill.,
Union q republican Joym Of goeelnnent.
From the admitted state Of facts in Louis
lana, he argues that they have not ''re
publican form of government" because tn
government was not elected by the people
We understand him to say that the sam
result would have followed if the Preslden
had recognized McEnery and his legisla
ture as the de Jacto government of tir--+utr
The whole force of his argument may b
summed up as follows. That if an elecio
is SO tainted with fraud, that its declare
results give to state governor and othe
state offices not elected by the people, the
that state has not republican form
government, and that it is the duty {
Congress, under the clause of the consttl
ton quoted, to order a new election.
his argument means anything and leads I
any result, it is this. The only fact upo
which it is claimed there should be q ne
election is that the last one was 80 tainto
with fraud that the true expression of Il
honest voters was not and could not be a
certained. The only power claimed f.
Congress to so provdelis derived from Il
one clause of the constitution. What wou
he the logical result of the passage of sue
bill, based upon such an argument
Could more dangerous precedent be G
tablished What would become of Il
rights of the several states to control the
own offairs We naad tolta b,t A o;,,.