The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-01-12

tations be arbitrarily disregarded by the national
authorities we shall surely say that our system
OF republican government Is IN danger. We are
by the recent events In Louisiana forced to inquire
how the cause OF local seli-governuen: and Of
legislative privileges stand to-day In the United
States. Before laying their hands upon things 80
important aud sacred the authorities shoud have
well assured themselves that they hnve the clear
est, most obvious and most unequivocal warrant
OF law Tor their doing.
WARRANT FOR FEDERAL INTERFERENCE.
What Is that warrant In the constitution w
find but one sentence referring to the subject.
says IN section 4, article 4:-"The United States
shall guarantee to every State IN this Union re-.
publican form OF government, and shall protect
each or them against invasion, and, on
application OF the Legislature, or Of the
Executive when the Legislature cannot
be convened, against domestic vioence.n
There are two statutes prescribing the
mode in which this is to be done, the statute
OF 1895 and the statute OF 1907 The former pro.
vides "that in case OF insurrection In any State
against the government thereof 1t shall be lawful
for President OF the United States, on applicar
ton OF the Legislature OF such state, or OF the Ex
ecutive when the Legislature cannot be convened,
to cal upon the militia OF other States to sup
press the insurrecuon." The statute Of 1907 an.
thorlZes the President to employ The regular army
and navy for the same purpose having first OBJ
served the prerequisites OF law. That is all. There
had been in Louisiana on the 14th OF September,
1874, an insurrection against the State govern
ment recognized by the President. That State gov
eminent had been overthrow by the insurgents
The President, having been called upon by Acting
Governor Kellogg, issued MS proclamation COM
manding the insurgents to desst. They did 80 at
once and the Kellogg governments was restored
and has not been attacked slnce
NO AUTHORITY FOR THE USE OF THE Army.
The instruction was totally ended. On the 4th Of
January there was no insurrection; the State OF
Louisiana was quiet; the laws were obeyed; there
was no domestic violence, not even an attempt AZ
It.; the State House was surrounded by the armed
70 ces OF the Governors those forces were not re-
sisted, their services were not even called into
requisition; there was certainly no demand upon
the PRESIDENT Tor military interference by the
Legislature, nor was there by the Governor in case
the Legislature could not be convened, for the
Legislature did convene at the time and In the
place fixed Dy law, and was called to order
by the officer designated by law, and
yet there being neither 1nsurrection nor domestic
viOence-there being neither call for military
interference upon the President by the Legs.
lature could not be convened; there being not the
remotest shadow OF an observance OF all the pre-
requisites of law provided by statute the troops
of the United States proceeded, not against an
resurrection, not against q body OF men commit.
ting domestic Violence but against q legislative
body, and the soldiers were used to execute an
order OF the Governor determining what persons
should sit In that Legislature as its members.
What provision Of the constitution what
laws are there on the statute book furnish
ing q warrant Tor such proceedinRsf 1t ID
said in exrenuaton OF the interference Of
the military power Of the United States
that the persons elected from the Legislature By
the federal soldiery were not legally elected men,
bers OF that Legislature. Suppose that had been
so-but that is not the question. The question IL,
Where ia the constitutional prnciple-where the
law authorizing United States soldiers with mus.
Sets in their hands, to determine who Is legally
elected member Of State Legislature ana who
notS 1t ID said that the mode OF organising that
Legislature was not In accordance with the stat.
utes OF the state. Suppose that had been so-but
that Is not the question. The question is,
WHERE Is THE CONSTITUTIONAL Or LEGAL WARRANT
for the bayonets OF the federal soldery 70 inter.
pref the statutes Of States and to decide for and
in Legislature points of parliamentary lawi
1t is said that the Governor requested
the Legislature Of Illegal members. That may
be so, but that Is not the question.
The question Is, Where Is the law
authorizing United States soldiers to do the bid
ding OF o State Governor who attempts to decide
who are to be the members OF y Legislature regu.
larry convened at the place and at the time fixed
by lawP 1t is said that trouble threatened be.
tween contending parties In Louisiana. Suppose
that had been so-0ut that Is not the question
The question is, Where Ia the law from which the
national government, In case OF threatened
trouble in a State, derives Its power to invade .
legislative body py armed force, to drag out per
sons seated as members Of . Legislature tina,
others may take their places Where Is the law
askY You will search the constitution and stat
utes In vain. It Ia my deliberate Judgment, con
scientiously formed, that the deed done on the
9TH OF January In Louisiana constitutes gross and
manifest violation OF the constitution and laws
We have an act before us indicating spirit our
government which either ignores the constitution
and laws or 80 interprets them that they cease to
be the safeguard OF the independence OF legislar
ton. the rights ana liberties OF the people. and
that spirit shows itself more alarming still in
THE INSTRUMENT THE EXECUTIVE HAS CHOSEN
to carry out his will No American citizen can
have read without profound regret and equally
profound apprehension, the recent despatch OF
General Sheridan to the Secretary OF War, In which
he suggests that o numerous class Of citizAns
should, py wholesale, be outlawed as ''bandltt"
by mere proclamation OF the President, to be DC.
livered over to the military commander ior sum.
mary judgment by q military commission. No
body respects General Sheridan more than do iOr
his brilliant deeds on the field OF battle The na.
ton has delighted in nonorlng his name, and the
nation would sincerely deplore to see the hero of
the Ride Of Winchester and the charge At
the Five Forks stain his name BY an
attempt to override the laws and lead
q charge against the constitutional rights
OF his countrymen. Tho policy ne has pro
posed IL so appalling that every American citizen
who loves his liberty stands aghast at the mere
possibility OF the suggestion. 1t Is another illus.
tration how great man NAV he as a soldier and
how conspicuousy unable to understand what
civil law and Q constitution mean. how glorious
In nRhtinR for You. but how little lt to govern