The New York herald., 1874-10-19
CONSTITUTIONAL CONTR0-
VERSY.
Letter from Mr.. George Ticknor
Curtis.


A Letter from Mr.. George Ticknor
Curtis.
TO THE EDIToR OF THE HEIALD:--
IL seems to me that In your ad hontnem appeal
10 me TO recognize the authority of Mr.. Webster
opposed to the views have taken OF the Louisl-
ana case you do not go far enough in dscriminat-
ting this case from that OF the Rhode Island gov
ernment about which Mr.. Webster was speaking
No one questions the general principle that when
the President Is applied to to protect State gov
ernment against domestic violence he is bound
TO regard "the existing government" as entitled
to make the application; aud certainly have not
questioned that the Kellogg government
was the existing government, and as such
entitled to move the Presidents considera-
ton OF Its title to be regarded as the lawful
government. But suppose that the Rhode Island
case had been the reverse Of what it was. Sup
pose that the President, using his power unlaw-
fully. had been instrumental in making the Dorr
government the existing government, by active
and forcbe measures assisting in its inception
and in it's attainment OF de Jacto power, can you
imagine that Mr.. Webster would have considered
1t the duty OF the President, in Mr.. Dorr had
applied to MIN to be projected under the cons.ltu
tion, to include that case within the gen.
eral principle OF recognizing and main.
tainlng the existing government ! can
not imagine 1t. suppose he would have
said just what his language In another part OF his
argument implies, and what is true IN oil cases OF
an application under the constitution. "These
constitutional and legal provisions" lie said
'make 1t the indispensable duty OF the President
to decide, in cases OF commotion what the right
lul government OF the state. He cannot avoid
such decision" That is to say he receives an ap-
plicatlon from an existing government, and hav-
ing received It, ne must decide whether It is the
lawful government. In the actual Rhode Island
case the Application was made by the old
or "charter" government which was "the exist
Ing government" OF which Mr.. Webster spoke.
The President acting by Mr.. Webster's advice,
decided that this government was the rightul
one. ami 'could not possibly have decided
otherwise" Whyf Because the Dofr govern
mens had not been created by the people under
any sanction given by the existing government
to proceedings Tor changing the constitution OF
the State-a mode Of action indispensable to the
validity OF such change. But II the proceedings
which gave rise 10 the Dorr government had been
promoted and aided by the President, 1t had be-
come thereby the existing government, ana had
as such applied to the President to he maintained
IN possession, the same indispensable duty'' OF
deciding what was "the rlghtful government"
would have required the President to ignore 1T.
You remark that 'tMr. Curtis thinks that the
President is bound to find that q threatened gov
ernment has perfect title before he can inter-
pose" This Is not quite correct view OF what I
maintained. My position was and is. that when
an application IL made to the President by an eX-
isting State government, and he knows that 1t
originally became the actual government by his
own unlawful interference he Is not at liberty to
treat 1t as the rightful government and thus en-
force his own wrong l am reluctant to tres
AGAIN hut I n
to be misunderstood.
GEORGE TICKN0R CURTIS.
NEW YORK, oct. II, 1874.
Letter from MIR. Samuel j. Bayard.
To THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD
TIE following incident viii show that LegIsla-
ture, consisting Of 600 or 700 members, refused to
the Chief Magistrate OF State the right to re-
verse his decision, and is an agreement OF that
number against one in favor Of your position and
that of Mr.. Johnson.
Samuel Adams, q Jenerson,an democrat, was
Governor OF Massachusetts, when the Legislature
OF that State passed Joint resolution authorizing
the Electoral College of Electors for President to
I'LL any vacancies IN their body which should occur
from death, resignation or otherwise.
The resolution was signed by Governor Adams
and deposited with the Secretary OF the Common
wealth. In the evening OF the day when he had
signed the resolution he went to the Secretary's
offce and erased his name from the resolution.
The next day he sent message to the Legislature
stating what he had done, and thaAon reflection
he was satisfied that the resolution was unc0n-
stitutional.
The Legislature, after prolonged debate in both
houses, resolved that the Governor had no right to
reconsider the resolution after having of1clally
signed 1t, that having afhxed his name TO it 1t
became tpSo f1cto the law, and could not be re-
versed without the Joint action OF the Legislature
and the Governors
Mr.. Adams was one OF those Jefersonian demo.
Gratis who prolessed great alarm at the monarchi.
cal tendency OF Washington's administration and
measures. yet did not hesitate IN the instances l
have cited to do what a king or queen OF England
would not have dared to do
Mr.. OConor is q strict constructionist, like Mr..
Adams yet his doctrine favors implied powers OF
Executive discretion which would allow the Ex-
ecutive to adapt his policy or measures to every
shifting caprice Of popular opinion. Yours truly,
SAMUEL j. BAYARD.
CAMDEN, Oct. II. 1874
sSee "Life of Samuel Adams" second volume.