New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-04-26

is 81 faf the most powerful, 6hcruaches on
the executive or Oh the judiciary.
Governor Kellogg was right in making
1shis applicsti0u for I'D toHd11 a Aoeonsti-
tuition rather than upon any statute.
But submit that 1t is perfectly clear
that the President was by statute also au,
thorized to afford this protection. The sta
tute of 1895 authorizes the President to use
the militia in case of An instruction IN
any State against the government thereof
on the application or the Governor or Leg
| islature.
| The act of 1897 substitutes the army for
! the militia, and goes further than the act of
| 1895, and authorizes the President to use
the army not only in cases of "insurrection,' :
| but in cases of Construction of the laws
either of the United States or of any indi-
| vidual State" This certainly. was a case
of obstruction of the laws of an individual
State. I have that confidence in the legal
| Judgment of the Senator from Wisconsin
that am induced to believe that he will
| agree with me that the statute of 1907 ap-
plies directly to this case. My friend inter
rupts me and truly says that the statute OF
| 1907 contains a provision that the President
| is to use the army where the militia could
be used.
Mr.. Carpenter-Under the then existing
law.
Mr.. Frelinghuysen-On the construction
of the statute Of 1907 we join issue; and as
that issue is determined the President, so
far as he acted under the statutes, was right
or was wrong. My friend would strike out
the statute of 1907 the words sin case OF
obstruction, of the laws of the United States
or of any individual State" He would
limit and nullify those words, because the
act further says that he was to use the army
where it was lawful for him to call forth
the militia to suppress and instruction.
In constituting law, We must, if we can,
give effect to every part of it. submit
that those words, "where it is lawful for the
President of the United States to call forth
the militia" do not in any way limit or
restrict the power given to the President to
prevent the obstruction of the laws of
State, but have an entirely different Office.
They mean this: The statute OF 1895 had
declared that the President might use the
militia where he was called upon by the
Legislature or Governor of State to sup
press an instruction r
The statute of 1907 provides that he may
use the army to suppress an insurrection,.
or to prevent the obstruction to the laws Of
the United States, Or any State where he
could have used the militia, which is where
he is called upon to. prevent such Obstruc-
ton to the laws by the Legislature or by
the Governor Of State. There is, in the
act of 1907 no provision, excepting this ref
erence back to the act Of, H96, requiring
the using Of the army TO prevent an OBJ
struction to the laws, to depend on the
President being called pcnn by the Cover
nor or Legislature tor the aid Of the army.
Let me read the two acts, and | do not see
that there can be any difference between us
as to their construction. The first act is IN
these words:
SIN case of an instruction in any State,
against the government thereof, it shall be
lawful for the President of the United |
States ION application of the Legislature of |
such States, or Of the executive, when the |
Legislature can not be convened Ito cali |
forth such number of the militia of any |
other State or States as may be applied for |
as he may judge sufficient to suppress such |
The act OF 1907 is as follows:
lin all cases of instruction or ebstruc- |
ton to the laws, either of the United States |
or of any individual State or Territory. |
where it is lawful for the President of the |
United States to call forth the militia for
the purpose of suppressing such insurrec-
ton, or of causing the laws to be duly |
it shall be lawful for him to en-
ploy, for the same purposes, such part of
The land or naval force of the United States
rs shall be judged necessary, having first
all the prerequisites of the law in
that respect"
Mr.. Carpenter-WIl my friend allow me
10 put a question at that point
Mr.. MISUNDERSTANDING.
Mr.. Carpenter-We entirely agree that
1nder the act of 1907 the President can not
Use the army or navy except in cases where
,y the former law he could use the militia.
understand that to be the Senator's view.
Mr.. Frelinghuysen-Nota at all.
Mr.. Carpenter-I am speaking simply of
he statute, not of the constitution, now.
Mr.. Frelinghuysen-NOt by the statute.
hold that under the act of 1907 the Presi-
lent may use the army and navy in a case
# 1nsurrectiOn, and
Mr.. Carpenter-Where he could not have
lsed the militia before!
Mr.. Frelinghuysen-No.
Mr.. Carpenter-Then 1 understand the
;enatOr, as I did before, to concede that
nder the act of 1907 the President is only
to use the army and navy in
hat class of cases where by the statute Of
795 he might have used the militia!
Mr.. Frelinghuysen-NO; we differ again.
iy position is that he can only use the army
nd navy where, under the act Of 1895, he
Ould use the militia to suppress an insur-
ectiOn, but under the act of 1907 he may
Sc the army and navy in other cases than
D suppress instruction; he may use them
here there is an obstruction to the laws of
u individual State.
Mr.. Carpenter-I now understand the
enator's position. That was all I wanted ,
!, do.
Mr.. Frelinghuysen-I think it would be
ontrary to all rules of construction to hold
nat you are to strike out those words, "in
tates or any individual State" and give !
lem no significance.
Mr.. Carpenter-DOes not my friend do
le Same thing with the words ''in cases
here by law he is authorized to use the l
ilitia?" / take that to be description Of !
le case in which the President is author 1
ed to use the army and the navy. 1t must
> case where, prior to the act of 1907, he
,uld have used the militia. Then, under e
le act of 1907, he may have used the army c
Id navy instead of the militia. Then go c
sck to the former law to see where he may =
,e the militia in State, and it must be !
Ise of instruction in q State against the
,vernment thereof.
Mr.. Frelinqhuysen-No, Mr.. President; i
10 significance Of these words, "where he s
,uld use the militia" is this: where he is
lied upon by the Governor or the Legis- q
ture, as 10 provided in the act of 1895 in Il
ference to the militia. 1t will be observed S
at there is in the act of 1907 no other pro- Il
sion requiring the use of the army and c
avy to depend upon the call to be made a
? the Governor or Legislature. We thus t
We effect and force if we can to every word 0
the act Of 1897. By giving the construc- Il
IN to the statute of 1907 which nay friend t
sists on, we strike out the words Gin case a
obstruction to the laws Of the United t.
ates or of any individual States" and Fl
SO leave the act without any provision p
hatever, making call by the Governor b
the Legislature necessary precedent to p
9 use of the army and navy. The Presi- a
mt was authorized by the constitution, o
anding alone, and was authorized by the q
atutes to give the protection he did to Q
luSianA 2