The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1874-10-10
THE PRESIDENT, MIR. O'CONOR AND
REYERDY JOHNSON.
ME RIGHTS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE uNIr1D
STATES IN REGARD TO THE RECOGNITION
OF A GOVERNOR.

CHE FIGHTS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE uNIr1p
STATES IN REGARD TO THE RECOGNITION
OF A GOVERNOR.
There has appeared lately controversy, in
the columns of the New Yord Herald, about
the right Of the President to recognize Gov
ernor, and of his right or his duty to change
decision that he has once made.
obtained the written opinion of Rsverdy John
son on the subject, and based thereon his
justification for the course he has pursued.
This opinion of Reverdy johnson was con-
troverted by Chas. O'Conor, in letter to the
New York Herald of the date Of October LIST,
wherein he gives at length his reasons tor dis
senting from that opinion.
On the 9Th of October, Mr.. Reverdy John
son, in letter to the Herald, makes . reioin-
der to Mr.. Charles O'Conor, with arguments
sustaining previously expressed opinions.
The question is very important and deli
cate one, and discussed by two of the great
est legal minds OF the country. Surprising
that they are both sincere and honest and
have given their best judgment in the mat
ter, great dif6dence should be felt in criticis-
ing opinions emanating from such high au-
thority. But, inasmuch as they have given
contrary opinions, it follows that one OF tho
other is mistaken, and the question is left
open for commentary, and the opinions open
to revision.
The principal points in Mr.. O'Conor's
opinion are: That the President had right
to reverse the decision he once made through
error; that such reversal could we'll be made
when evidence had since been acquired calou-
lated to produce conviction and that, in that
case, it became the duty of the President to
undo what he had done.
1t is absolutely certain, from the evidence
adduced, that Kellogg was not elected, and
almost as sure that MoEnsry was elected.
The President has tho right to have an
opinion, and to act in accordance herewith,
and the only restriction to suoh q right is that
the opinion should be based upon the evil
dence adduced in the case.
Mr.. O'Conor, for the purpose OF argument,
has recourse to analogy for illustration, and
compares the decision of the President to
Judgment of court of last resort. court
may, when convinced that it was in error in
previous Judgment. give a contrary decision,
or it may reverse its judgment upon q new
trial, and consequently SO could the Presi-
dent Mr.. Reverdy johnson takes Mr.. O'Conor
to task for using analogy in an argument, be-
cause it is unsafe, in that there may be some
difference in the circumstances, and, curl
the same fault; but it is Of no use to g into
such metaphysics and syllogisms. 1t is better
to give the naked argument for what it is
worth, or, at least, to have recourse 20 more
correct methods
Mr.. Reverdy johnson endeavors to show
that the faculty of the President to alter his
decision would lead to absurd and danger
Gus consequences, in that, he could every
week or every month recognize q new gov
ernor, etc. But this would be going beyond
and out of the question, which is simply,
whether the President has the right to change
or alter his decision. once made. II he has
the right, the consequences Of tho exercise OF
that right do not take away any Of his priv
leges.
In all the disquisitions about this matter,
there is very important consideration which
seems to have been lost sight Of and which
should be kept in view it is that of defining
with exactness what are tho rights and duties
of the President in the premises. They arc a.
follows:
When there are in State two Governors and
two Legislatures and the President is called
upon by one of the parties to be sustained as
against the other party, it then becomes evil
dent that the President must decide between
them and adopt one in preference to the other,
otherwise he could not act. The power which
ident in such case is given by implication:
it results err necessitate rel. This is the only
power conferred upon the President. When
power is conferred by implication in one
case, it canno, be made to apply to or extended
to another and different case; for it would
then have to be special Such special power
is not given by the Constitution or act OF Con-
gress, and therefore does not exist.
In illustration of this, let it be supposed
that State be in anarchy, without any gov
eminent at all, either BY the death or the re-
Mgnation of the officers. BY lapse, or other
WISE Then some individual usurps the office
Of Governor. styles himself such, causes An
election to be made Of Legislature, officers
can in form and reality, with the consent Of .
majority of the people; if under such ciroum-
stances the State be invaded by . foreign
power, and the Governor calls upon the Pre-
sident for aid to repel the invasion, the duty
of the President is to grant such aid. But no
has no business to 70 behind the record OF
that Governor and inquire If he Is legally tho
Governor
The State liz one OF the United States, it
makes part of the Union, it has q republican
government established with the consent OF
the people, it is sovereign State except 80
far as concessions made in the Constitution OF
the United States; the President has no more
right to take into consideration and decide
upon the legality of that Governor than he
would have to decide upon the legality Of .
Governor of a province Of China
Just as much right would he have to decide
upon the legality of the governorship of Ohio,
Of New York, Of Missouri, if one of those Gov
errors should to-day call upon him for aid.
The case of Louisiana might still be con-
sidered in another light
The Government OF Louisiana was upset BY
revolution; II Governor and all the officers
of State were expelled; their places supplied
immediately by others apparently elected; the
Governor was absent or constructively so,
because he was hidden in the Custom-House
in United States territory; there was then but
one Governor in Louisiana, and that was Mo-
Emery, apparently elected, and actually IN
Office; there were not two Governors, between
whom the President had the implied right to
decide; all that he had to do was simply to