The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1874-10-14
The Louisiana tQusstion-0pp
Views Of Two Distinguished Lawyers.

We publish elsewhere o summary OF
the views of Mr.. Charles O'Conor, con
tained in lettcrto the Net0 York Her.
ald, taking issue with the position OF
Mr.. Reverdy Johnson, that the Presi-
det, having once recognized the Kellogg
government, his deciaion was final and
irreversible, and was binding equally
upon himself and others. Mr. O'Conof
holding, on the contrary, that whenever
an occasion was presented, as in the late
appeal for Federal aid, 1t was the duty
Of the President to examine anew the
question of which was tlleslegM govern.
ment of Louisiana, and if satisfied that
he had made al error, then to correct 1t.
Mr.. Joluson has replied to Mr..
OConor's letter, reasserting his former
views, and citing additional arguments
to show that the latter's opinion has no
grounds to sustain it. either in principle
or authority. His position is that to
hold otherwise, and conecde power OF
reversal to the President, would be to
invalidate all the aets of the so-called
government, the laws passed by its Leg
islature, the DEGREES of its courts, and the
decisions of its Executive; to repudiate
all debts made under it, and to INTRO
duce general confusion and insecurity.
Such, he thinks, cannot be sOund doc
trine, yet that it cannot be successfully
attacked, except upon the ground that
the decision of the President, when once
made is equally binding upon himself
and others.
Yet the argument Of Mr.. Johnson, as
shown by the Herald, would apply
f, <,f N
premises and all the confusion and i'll
security which would result from re.
versal by ihe President of his own de-
cision would following equally from q
reversal by Congress nullifying all
laws, vacating all official proceedings,
and divesting all rights. If the argu.
ment he valid, the decision Of the Pres
ident is as much binding upon Congress
us upon himself Yet this is opposed tn
the uanirnous opinion of Congress and
the country, and in the debate In the
Senate, subsequent to the Presidents
recognition Of the Kellogg government,
none Of the able lawyers of that body,
doubted for moment the competency
of Congress to decide the question anew
after the Presidents action.
Mr.. johnson agrees with Mr.. O'Conol
in his opinion of the danger to be aprc'
hended from the power of a President tc
interfere with the government of
State, and can imagine no doctrine moro
centralizing than that which he asserts
that is. power to interfere from time
according to the varying opinions Of the
President. AS this power, however
can be exercised only in the case of edo
mestic violence" when the proper call il
made by the State Legislature or Exec
utive, we are unable to see the force oi
the argument.
A noteworthy feature in this question
is, that the President has constantly as
sumed the whole power that Mr.. O'Con.
or has claimed for him. Whilst con.
ceding the poweryof Congress in the
premises, he has always asserted his
| right to recognize or not, the Kel
! loyg government, in the absence of any
Congressional action.. In conclusion
we may adopt the language of the Her.
did: ,.t'3'.' '... = ..,
"The subject is one of the most com
plex that ever engaged the attention O
profound lawyers, and when men oftht
ripe experience and pre-eminent :profes
sional standing Of Mr.. Johnson and Mr.
O'Conor maintain opposite views tht
qasstion cannot be thought free from
difficulties" .t3:",aTn,
Since writing the foregoing, the fol
lowing Washington despatch to TIN
Herdttg has beer published; which i
said to reflect the views Of the Presi
i dent =. - =
4 1.-THE opinions Of Revcrdy Johnsor
ard Charles c. 'Conor, with the rejoindel
Itof Mr.. Johnson, on the Louisiana ques
Ition, have called attention to an impor
] tant principle in the political govern
fment of the country, viz: The fight o
Lie Rfssident to review his Own act