The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-02-10

nent members Of the New York Bar, replies II
our columns this morning to the letter o.
Mr.. George Ticknor Curtis, another distin
guished democratic lawyer, which we pub
lished on Monday. Mr.. Stoughton holds sub
stantially the same views on the particular
feature of the Louisiana case which he dis
cusses that have been constantly maintained
by the HERALD; but we should have been
equally willing to print his communication il
he had dissented from our opinions. The
public Judgment on important questions il
assisted by seeing the best that can be said by
able reasoners on both sides. The fact that
democratic lawyers of the highest professional
standing differ with one another respecting
the powers Of the federal government in emer-
gencies like that which has arisen in
Louisiana proves that the subject is not
free from difficulties, and that the law on it is
as yet unsettled During the autumn the
HERALD was the vehicle of controversy on
another branch Of the same subject between
democratic lawyers of the highest ability and
distinction, controversy in which Mr..
OConor, Mr.. Reverdy Johnson and Judge
Black bore leading parts and held differing
views. That dispute related to the powers of
the President and was an admirable display
of legal acumen. The present conflict be-
tween democratic lawyers relates to the powers
of Congress. We are confident that the prog
ress of the discussion will satisfy the legal
mind of the country that the opinion of Mr..
Stoughton is substantially correct
This seems fit occasion for recalling the
views of MIR. Calhoun on the very point which
divides Mr. Curtis and Mr.. Stoughton. Mr..
Calhoun, the chief apostle of State rights,
was the acutest logician and one of the most
mastery rsasoners on constitutional questions
among our ilustrious statesmen. This fore
most champion of State rights maintained,
With invincible force OF reasoning, the duty of
the federal government to interpose its author
ity and protect the States against usurping
rulers. There may be found, in the sixth
volume of his works, letter of Mr. Calhoun,
in which he discusses, with greater acumen
than any other writer has brought to the same
subject, the scope of that part Of the constitu-
ton which he calls ''the guarantee section"
He does not at all agree with Mr. Curtis that
the federal government cannot intervene in
the domestic affairs of q State ex-
cept on call Of the State authori-
ties. The guarantee section contains
three separate provisions-one protecting the
States against invasion, one against domestic
violence and the other against tho usurpation
of rulers. I'm order" says Mr.. Calhoun, ''to
form true conception Of the mode in which
they were intended to act and to place correct
construction on the guarantees, it will be
necessary to inquire what are the quarters
from which the peace, safety and liberty Of
the States may be endangered and against
which the guarantees were intended to pro-
tect them. They may be, in the first place,
from force or violence from within, against
which the guarantee of protection against
domestic violence is clearly intended. They
nay be, in the second place, from hostile Of
tacks from without, and against which the
guarantee against invasion is as clearly in
tended. And, finally, they may be from the
ambition and usurpation of their govern
ments, or rather rulers, against which the
guarantee of a republican form of government
is intended, as I hold and shall hereafter
show, as protection" Instead of jumbling
the guarantees together and confusing the
subject. Mr.. Calhoun carefully points out the
separate operation Of each. Passing over his
discussion of the two which are not relevant
to the present discussion, We will introduce q
short extract bearing on the guarantee Of n
republican form of government 1t will be
seen that the State rights doctrine, as Mr.
Calhoun held it, falls very far short of the ex-
IRENE view OF Mr.. Curtis. Here is o part Of
what Mr.. Calhoun says on the guarantee of o
republican form Of government: 81 hold
that, according to its true construction, its
object is the reverse of that Of protection
of being intended to protect the governments
of the States, it is intended to protect each
State against its government, or, more strictly,
against the ambition or usurpation of its
rulers. That the objects of the constitution, to
which the guarantees refer-and liberty more
especially-may be endangered and destroyed
by rulers will not be denied If it
be added that, without this construction, the
guarantees would utterly fail to protect the
States against the attempts of ambition and
usurpation on the part of rulers (the danger
above all others to which free governments
are exposed), it would seem to follow ire
sistibly, under the rule have laid down, that
the construction l have placed on the pro-
vision as to the object of the guarantee is
the true one. But if doubts should still re-
main, the fact that it fully explains why the
provision which requires the application of
the State in the case of the guarantee against
domestic violence is omitted would place it
beyond controversy; for it would be per-
feet absurdity to require that the party against
which the guarantee is intended to protect
should make application to be protected
against itself. -