The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-10-17
George Ticknor Curtis ON the Louisi-
ana Case.

ana Case.
This distinguished jurist makes contribu-
ton in our columns this morning to the inter-
esting discussion in which Mr.. Reverdy John
son and Mr. Charles OConor have hitherto
been the chief disputants. Mr.. Curtis sup
ports Mr.. O'Conor's view of the power of the
President, reaching the same conclusion by
different process Of reasoning. He contends
that it was not merely the right, but the clear
duty of the President to revise and revoke
his former decision when Kellogg made
his new application last month for federal as
sistance We are no more convinced by his
arguments than we were by Mr.. O'Conors 8.
We still think that the action of the Presi-
dent was in the true spirit of the constitution.
We admit that Kellogg was never elected by
the people, and not legally indicted into
Office, and that his original title is indefen-
sible. But being once in possession he
could have been properly busted only by
judicial process or by the action OF Congress.
The most unsafe and mischievous prece-
dent that could be established would
be sanction by the President of the over
throw of an actual State government by armed
violence. 1t is open to the objection which
lies against allowing claimants to Office to be
their own judges of the validity of their title
q principle which would open the door to
general anarchy. It is open to the further OBJ
lection that it would defeat the whole purpose
of that provision of the constitution which
permits federal interference to suppress do
nestle violence 1.-THE guarantee" said
against changes to be effected by violence.
Towards the prevention Of calamities of this
kind too many checks cannot be provided
The peace Of society and the stability of gov
eminent depend absolutely on the efficiency of
the precautions adopted on this head" The
Penn movement in Louisiana was not armed
with Judicial warrant. It was in pursuance
neither of the judgment Of court nor of an
act of Congress- 1t was an act of sheer vio-
lence and if such acts of violence were sup
ported by the federal authority encourage
ment and license would be given to every
defeated party in every State election to
attempt to gain possession of the government
by force.
We incline to think it is the duty of the
President in cases of domestic violence to
sustain the de fdctO government of o State
without going into inquiries respecting it's
de ylre validity. On this point we are sup
ported by an authority to which Mr. Curtis
at least cannot object. The disciples, ad-
mirers and biographers Of Daniel Webster
must naturally respect such of that great
lawyers opinions as cannot be shown to be
untenable. Mr. Webster seems to have been
clearly of the opinion that the actual govern
ment Of q State Is the one which the
President is bound to protect against domes-
tic violence 1.-THE constitution" he said
Works, vi, 230), 'speaks of States having
existing Legislatures and existing govern
ments, and it speaks of cases in which vio-
lence is practised or threatened against the
State-in other words, domestic violence =
and it says that the State shall be protected.
1t says, then, does it not that the existing
government Of q State shall be protected ?"
The existing government is Mr.. webster's
good English for what is commonly called
the de fdcto government He adheres to this
phrase, the EXISTING government" through
out his discussion, maintaining that it is the
only government to which the federal au-
thority owes protection. He supports this
view by quoting the law of 1895. Its words
are :--"And in case of an instruction in an
State against the government thereof, it shall
be lawful for the President" &c. The italics
are Mr.. Webster's own, as they also are in
the following deduction from thus language Of
the statute :-sInsurrection against the erist-