The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1874-05-16
THE LOUISIANA CASE.
VIEWS OF A NORTHERN REPUBLICAN,.

There is a very ableresume of the Loui-
siana case in the New York Independent, OF
April %, which we regret our limited space
precludes us from giving in full. The writer
IS Republican who regards the welfare OF
the nation as Iar above that of the party,
and he brings to the examination of the
case clearness and force of intellect which
is at once remarkable and admirable.
The facts in relation to the official action
Of the President in relation to Louisiana, he
groups under four heads: the first, his order
to the United States Marshal to enforce the
orders of Durell second, his telegram to
acting Governor Pinchback on the 18th of
December, 1872 ). third, his special message
to Congress on the 25th of February, 1873,
and fourth, his proclamation, issued on the
22d of May, 1873.
In treating these several points he shows
most conclusively that in the recognition
Of Pinchback and Of Kellogg and in accord
ing them the aid of the Federal troops, the
President committed grave error, mas
much as neither of those parties had any
legitimate title to power under the laws of
Louisiana, as was clearly shown by the
report of the Senate committee. He con-
demns the hardness of the President in
sending in his message to Congress, and
insinuates that the delay was intentional
aud designed to prevent any action by Con-
oress upon the question before its adjourn
ment, in order that he might claim such
failure to act on their part as a tacit
Endorsement of his action.
He alleges that the investigation left no
shadow of a doubt as to the illegaliity of
the Kellogg Government, and puts this per-
tinent questions Does the President of the
United States think himself justified in
using the Federal power to snstain State
Government which he admits in his message
to be doubful!"
There are not many who will deny his
proposition that officers of law counted in
upon estimates without any election re-
turns are not legally elected; but, I'M
fortunately for us, unhaprily for the coun-
try, the President has established the preoe-
dent of maintaining a set ef.just such Off
GERS in their positions, spite Of protesta-
lions, spite of facts, and in defiance of the
spirit and letter Of the Constitution itself
In reference to the Presidents tlimsy plea
that he was guided by the decisions of the
courts of the State in regard to the Lynch
Board of Canvassers, the writer holds:
| As matter of law, the President, though
not a lawyer himself, yet guided by his
legal adviser, ought to have known these
two things: First, that the queston-as
between what are called the Kellogg and
the McEnery governments-is not judicial
in its nature, and hence cannot be settled
by any court. Secondly, that the Supreme
Court, even if it had jurisdiction, never had
/ this question before it. The proper parties
were not in the record of the case before
the court; and, hence, its decision of that
case concludes nothing as to the question
whether the Kellogg Government is or is
not the lawful Government of the State.
Either of these reasons, to speak of no
others, is complete answer to this part of
the Presidents message. If the President
does wrong in interfering with the local
government of a State, he does SO upon his
own responsibility and he cannot in law
appeal to the decision of State courts as
canceling that responsibility.
We should like to follow the article to its
close, but this being quite impossible by
reason Of its length, we will give the con-
Guiding paragraphs advising our readers to
procure the Independent, and read the entire
article:
The simple Truth is, there was no case be-
fore the President to justify the interference
of the Federal Government at all. His own
statement does not make such case, and it
did not exist in point of fact. The Presi-
dents command to the turbulent and dis
orderly persons to disperse and retire
peaceably to their respective abodes
within twenty days from this date" is,
hence, little short of being ludicrous. 1t
could not be obeyed, since there was no body
or bodies of men assembled and arrayed
with "fOrce of arms" against the Govern
ment. The idea Of putting down by the |
military power an instruction against a
State government that exists only on paper,
and which even the paper itself does not
show to be a living reality, may be reckoned
as one of the inventions of the nineteenth |
century.
The reader may be assured that this ex-
position of the Presidents official conduct
in respect to Louisiana has, to the writer,
been an unpleasant task, undertaken from
deep convection that a most terrible wrong |
mas been done, that public sentiment
throughout the land ought to protest against
1t, and that the Congress of the United
States ought to correct it, OF the motives
Of the President we have said nothing. The
case is precisely the one to which the Su-
preme Court of the United States referred
when it said: Undoubtedly, if the Presi
dent, in exercising this power, shall fall into
error, or iarade the rights Of the people Of the
State, it would be in the power Of Congress
to apply the proper remedy" We do not
see how it is possible 70 have clearer case
of official mistake, to say the least, than
that which is furnished by the history of
the Louisiana troubles; and if it De not
corrected it will remain on the record as
one of the worst possible precedents. The
Republican party had better wash itself
clear and clean of all responsibility for this
mistake and, being the party in power, it
can only do so by demanding that the cor
rective remedy shall be applied. 1t is
dark blot on our political history, and, I'M