Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1875-01-22
THE PRESIDENT IS WHAT

recent events in Louisiana from partisan |
point of view. Argument harnessed to |
nartisanry cannot reach to the true height |
of the crime OF blunder which has just |
been committed by the U. S. Government |
against the very principle of liberty on |
which the people depend for freedom. 1t |
is no offence alone against the Democratic |
party. or tie South, or Louisiana, but it is |
an invasion Of the rights Of the American
people. 1t is an offence Of that quality
which may touch any State in the Union,
and if tolerated now may be repeated by a
Democratic President in 1876 against South
Carolina or Mississippi OF any other State
where the people are FESTIVE under Repub-
lican rule, and with the advantage OF a
strong appeal to national sympathy. The
Republicans who support it now forget
that in the next House of Representatives
there is two-thirds Democratic majority,
who will be able to smother out all investi-
cations of the acts of the Democratic Pre-
sident in '76, who might prove equally
laWless with GRANT, and as unfit to adj
minister the government of the country.
The President has probably seen some
thing of the effect, and under the strong
protest of the people in various parts OF
the country through their Legislatures and
public meetings has sent to Congress an
apology or explanation Or whatever his
friends choose to call it. 1t is hard, from
a reading of it, to determine whether he IS
most ignorant OF careless in his statements,
and whether he has not devoted so much OF
his time to the pleasures Of his office that
he has really paid little attention to what
has been passing. Certainly we cannot
believe that he has carefully prepared
statements which the most meagrely in
formed rural editor of the country knows
at a glance are not founded in fact. Some
of them are glaringly incorrect. He says
that in 1872 his excuse for furnishing
troops to gut KELLOGG in was because
the mandate of the U. S. Court ISSUED by
DURELL, the drunken q. S. judge, who
has sinceresigned to escape impeachment
by Congress,) was 'contemptuously de-
fied,'' while it is a matter of history that
the order Of Judge DURELL was issued at
midnight, and at l O'Clock, just one hour
after, thetroops had been put in possession
of the State House, giving no time for
either defiance OIL resistance. And all this
proceeding is as well known to the country
through debates in Congress, in which the
celebrated 'fmidnight order" was fully dis
cussed, as is a question Oh the tariff or
currency. AS if, however, the facts in the
case were Of little moment, he adds in an
easy, off-hand way, that "whatever may
be said-oY thought Of these matters it was
only made known to me that the process Of
the United States Court was resisted, :"
and that then sEI considered it my duty to
enforce, &C." And then having disposed
in this way of the very gist OF the matter
the very question that decides whether he
was wise President OF d partisan ma
chine-he gets at once on clearer ground
among the "outrages." There he feels at
home, and discourses of scenes of blood
with gusto, never once thinking that the
cause of these riots and murders lay in the
very midnight erder'' which he had en-
forced with U. S. troops; that if you take
away from a people used to govern them
selves, their own government, and by VIC
lence and fraud set over them strange gov
errors, you ensure scenes of bloodshed.
1t has been the case since the world was
made. From the riot of ColfaX, he comes
down to assassination, and mentions the
murder of Judge CRAWFORD and District
Attorney HARRIS as done for political rea-
sons, when the facts as they come from
Louisiana are that CRAWFORD was a Re
publican and HARRIS a Democrat and an
intimate friend of GOV. MCENERY, and
they had been active in prosecuting band
of thieves, and were shot from ambush by
these desperadoes while riding together to
attend court. So much for his reliability
as narrator.
When he comes to the main point-the
in reference with the Louisiana legislature
on the 4th inst.-he, just as one would ex-
pect GRANT would do, loses sight of the
main point, and goes to talking about the
legality of the mode of procedure by the
Conservatives in getting control of the
body. He cannot see that no power in
cation Of legislative body and install OF
expel members of it at the call of anybody.
Whether the mode of organization was
legal or not, it is impossible to interfere
with it. Tt is the first body coming di-
rectly neat and close to the people, and
stringent laws are made in all countries
with representative bodies to protect its
almost freedom in meeting, organization
and legislation. He is SO obtuse that he
cannot see that there is no possible excuse
for doing thing that the law gives him
no power to do. No "necessity'' can ex-
cuse, for necessity" is the favorite plea
of tyrants in attacking the rights of the
people. His idea Of the rights of Gov
ernors Of States is the most remarkable
that ever entered the brain Of {, sober man.
1t is that 'swhether it was wrong for the
Governor. at the request Of the majority of
the members returned as elected to the
House, to use such means as were in his
power to defeat these lawless and revClu-
tionary proceedings is, perhaps, a debatable
question, but it is quite certain that there
would have been no trouble if those who
now complain of Illegal interference had
allowed the House to be organized in law
full and regular manner" Debatable!
The question whether Gov. KEMPER can
on the assembling of the Virginia legisla-
ture at the request of ''the majority of
members returned as elected' call on the
u. s. troops to expel the small Republ can
minority SO as, for example, to give the
Conservatives the advantage of two
thirds majority! Is that a debatable ques-
ton? And who is to determine whe! her