Litchfield enquirer., 1875-01-21
KeIIoge's Nasty Defenders.

In the course of an article on the ejec- ton of the members of the Louisiana leg islature by United States troops. acting under the orders of Kellogg, the Hartford Conn Courant of January 9th says that although ''there was no excuse for the Il legal manner in which the (politicall con trol of the house was sought" neverthe. less, ''so far as facts are yet known, we beleive 1t would have been better for the Republicans to have submitted with a protest, and carried the matter to the courts, than for resort to have been made to the general government" This opinion Is better than that expressed by the New Haven Palladium, for example, which says that 'the troops were used merely to preserve the peace, and in this they fortunately succeeded" because the Courant does seem to have recollection although very faint one-of the exist ence in this country of courts of law and of their uses. Its recollection, however, leads only to a mild suggestion of pos sible alternative between courts of law and the use of military, and difident expression of preference for the former.
 The confusion of thought thus mani not so astounding. We should suppose
 
 different views, the intelligence which usually distinguishes the Courant would have preserved that journal from the ex- presslon of such sentiments. The writer seems to have lived so long under the reign of military law, or to have become so thoroughly impregnated with it's char acteristics, as to have forgotten utterly the institutions by which a free people govern themselves in time of peace, and the usages to which they conform in set ting their political differences. Lieu tenant General Sheriden's ingenious plea for leave to go to work at the "banditti" in Louisiana does not seem so wonderful when we consider what the Courant and one or two other journals of equal respec- liability have had to say on this subject.
 The radical mistake lies in assuming that Kellogg's use of the United States troops in unseat1ng five members of the Louisiana legislature can be justified by proving that the men thus driven out had no legal right to the seats they were occu- pying. That assumption Is false in every respect. The legal or illegal character of the Louisiana legislature, or of any of its members, or auy of its acts, furnishes no reason or justification or excuse for Kel- logg's use of military. Even if the legis- lative chamber had become a scene of bloodshed, instead of. what it was, scene of unparliamentary disputi-a kind of Bedlam-Kellogg would have had no constitutional right to use the troops of the United States as he did. Under such circumstances he might very properly have used the police and the state militia, but the United States troops could not have been employed legally by him with out making formal requisition upon the President of the United States and ob- taining the special authority of the latter. That he did not do. But there was no bloodshed or riot-there was nothing in the entire proceedings which justified the intervention of any military whatever the trouble was absolutely a civil one, re- quiring only civil remedies, ,and in the set clement of which the use of file of Uni ted States soldiers under any circum- | stances would have been unwise and ma | licious. As matter of fact Kellogg had no authority to send United States troops | into the legislative chamber under any circumstances, however pressing they | might have been, and his act therefore stands forth, without reference to any icing else whatsoever, as unconstitutional, illegal and absolutely without justification or excuse.
 That the interference of the military III civil affairs should be required at all, even in accordance with the prescribed forms, is an evil of enormous magnitude; but this evil becomes overwhelming when journalists and persons in public life lose the power of discerning the strict bound aries within which the Constitution of the United States declares such interference shall be confined. The confusion of mind on this very plain subject leads us to reassert that Kellogg's employment of the United States troops in New Orleans last Monday cannot be justified or excused by any proof as to the legality or iHegali- 1 ty of the Louisiana legislature, the title of any of it's members to their seat, or any of it's acts. Neither can Kellogg's con- duct be justified or excused by the alleg- ed fact that certain conservative members of the legislature requested the United States trooys to expel the crowd from the lobby and the legislative chamber. The proof required of Kellogg and his adyO- cates is that he made formal requisition upon the President for military aid, and that the President had given him special l authority to use the United States troops. | So far as known, the President has given | him no such authority since the 18th of | September, 1874. It may be question l whether the President possesses the pow CT, in any case, to authorize the invasion of legislative chamber; but of Kel- l logg's legal inability to use the troops l for such purpose at his own option, there is no question.-N H EUening Post.