The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1875-02-17

United States be, IL this bill should be-
come law? It is unnece sary to quote
the provisions of the revised statutes as our
readers are already familiar with Its main
features, they having been referred to so
many times in connection with the south
ern situation. 1t is sufficient to say that
the provision referred to authorizes the
President, In case of 'insurreclion in any
state or of the obstruction of the laws
thereof" TO employ the land and naval
forces of the United States to suppress such
instruction, protect the people from do
nestle violence, and cause the laws to be
duly executed. The object is simply TO
protect state governments and the citizens
thereof 1t may, also, be remarked that
in all of the southern troubles, since 1865.
there has not been the least pretence of OPP
position or rebellion to the United States
or It's constituted authorities. But now all
these unlawful acts are declared to be
rebellion against the United States" and
the Pres ident for the time being is to de-
clare who are the rebels. For instance
One year ago, Joseph Brooks and his fol-
lowers would have been engaged IN "a re-
belion against the United States" while
now it would be Elisha Baxter who, we
quote from the President, "oug,lt by its
citizens to be considered as the lawful ex-
ecuive' of Arkansas, or it might be Vol
ney v Smith or Augustus II. Garland
you pays your money and takes your
choice. But this is not the only kind of
'rebellion against the United States" BY
the provisions of this act, it is declared
such rebellion elf two or more persons"
within the jurisdiction of the United States
or of any state, ''shall forcbly overthrow
- state government, or any of the consti-
" tuted authorities of the same, or interfere
" in any forcible or unlawful manner with
the due execution of the laws of a state,
I" or of the United States, or conspire for
" such purposes with the intent to commit
a crime y or ''shall conspire to usurp by
force any such government, or any de-
paitment thereof, or shall attempt to
" subvert or usurp such state government,
" or shall actually overthrow the govern
'mcnt of any state" 1t might be some
what puzzling to understand how
the "attempt" of two six or twenty
men should be $50 numerous and powerful
as TO be able, by violence, to set at de-
fiance and overturn" the authorities of a
state, but if the President, whether it he
a Pierce, Buchanan, Grant, Jeff Davis or
may in "hs discretion" suspend the privi-
lege of the writ of habeas corpus. This
power of suspension may be used, mind
you, in the 'discrelion" Of any President.
DC he republican or democrat. Suppos-
ing such law had been III force, in 1861
with John G. Breckenridge as President
who think you. would have been declared
in rebellion against the United States,
and for whose benefit would this "dis
creton" have been used-thc north or the
south Again, no overt act is required &c
tOu5titutC iCOSihOhs IL WV vi
persons attempt to "interfere in any forci
bic or unlawful manner with the due exc
cution of the laws of a state, or of the
United States such attempt "shall be
deemed rebellion against the United
States. Are not such attempts made
every day? Were not such attempts
made by "two or more persons" to enter.
fere with the due execution" of the fugi
tive slave law? Are not such attempts
made to interfere with the due execution
of the customs and excise laws of the Uni
ted States? Are not such attempts
made by 1.-TWO or more persons in th'
very streets OF Rutland, to "interfere will
the due execution of the laws of the state
Is not the law, both state and national
actually set at defiance, almost daily, ant
its due execution unlawfully and forcibl.
interfercd with Did anyone ever con
slider such acts a "rebellion against tn
United States?' They never have been s.
'deemed," yet this bill proposes to max
them such. Further comment would b
superfluous.