The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1875-03-09
TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 1875.
THE PRECEDENT FOLLOWED

THE PRECEDENT FOLLOWED.
When we denounced the acts of General
de Trobriand in New Orleans, others ex-
cused, justified and applauded HIM. When
we claimed that legislature was the sole
Judge of the qualifications, election and re-
turns of its own members, and that legally
elected representatives had been elected by
the army of the United States, others re-
spopded that these men were "mob, that
dc Trobriand only quelled riot" and
again they excused, justified and APP
plauded. When we said that if the army
of the Union could interfere, except as pro-
yided in the constitution and the laws, IN
Louisiana, Mississippi or Arkansas, then
they could in New England and Vermont,
and that it might be our turn next others,
still applauding, ridiculed the idea and as
serted there was no danger. The national
house of repree entatives have determined,
by an unanimous vote, that that mob
was legal legislature, that those "rioters"
were legally elected representatives of the
people, and that they were unjustly, wrong
fully and illegally elected from the hall of
the Louisiana house of representatives.
And now comes the conflict at the north
Oh, there was no danger in New England,
the idea was ridiculous and absurd that any
interference on the part of federal troops
should occur here. How absurd, how rdic-
ulous the idea has proved to be, go and ask
Henry Howard, the republican governor of
Rhode Island. He will tell you whether
there was any danger. He will tell you
whether the army of the United States re-
spect or regard state laws or state officers.
He will not be satisfied, any more than the
people Of Rhode Island or of the country
will be, with the sneer.Ig answer that army
officers cannot be expected TO draw nice
distinctions of law. that the army is not
composed of lawl ers. But he will proba-
bly, tell you that the army, like necessity,
neither knows or cares for the law. lie
will refer you to the facts and let them de-
monstrate not only that there was danger,
Dul tuut luC SONNatlEbtg VI VIZ SN''S h''N
been invaded and its laws set at defiance
and trampled under foot.
The facts are few. By virtue OF law
of Rhode Island, certain Intoxicating liquors
had been seized, and were IN the possession
of the state. They were forcibly taken
from the possession of the state by an
United States marshal, 'backed" by United
States troops from Fort Adams and by
revenue cutter. The whole object of the
proceeding, If the governor is well inform
ed, was to nullify the laws of Rhode Island;
to defeat the operation of its laws by col
lusvc action and "a thinly disguised sham"
Is there no danger Well may Governor
Howard answer and he does answer when
he says, in addressing the state senate
"Your presence here, senators, is mock
"ery and farce, if such proceedings as
'these are sustained by the federal govern
"mcnt, and your honorable judiciary and
executive may as well resign their offices
land leave the control and direction of
estate affairs to subordinates of the United
estates government. No graver question
"has ever been forced upon the state since
sits first settlement. 1t is a vital question,
"for in it are involved the sovereignty of
"the state and the harmonious relations OF
'the state with the United States" The
''gravest question" that has ever been fore
ed upon the state since its settlement, the
governor says. How grave he considers
the question may be inferred when we re-
call the history of Rhode Island, and find
there recounted the story of its early set
Element, the incursions, ravages and mas
sacres by savage Indians, the adhesion OF
the then colony to the other colonies, the
declaration of independence, the war OF
the revolution, the invasion of the British
army, the destruction of towns and vii
lagos by the British navy, the adoption OF
the federal constitution, the Dorr rebellion
and the part taken in the suppression o.
the shareholders rebellion. Remembering
all these events and the "grave questions
connected Herewith, the governor says
that 'no graver question has ever beer
''forced upon the state since its settlement.
Does he oyerrate the gravity of the ques
ton, the importance of the occasion? Blu
could it have been unexpected? We d.
not, tor moment suppose that the ad
mnistraton knew of these acts, much les
ordered them. Neither did it, as the Pres
ident says, with reference to de Trobriand'
uc.s. Almost every word that the Prcsi
dent uses in justification, palliation or ex
cuse of de Trobriands acts will apply wit
equal or greater force to this Rhode Islam
case. Can he not now say with equal force
as then: 81 repeat that the task assume
'by the troops is not pleasant one to them
THAT the army is not composed OF lawyer
"capablc of judging at moments motto
''of just how far they can go. TIL
''troops were bound to act upon the Judg
'ment of the commanding officer upo
leach sudden contingency as it arose. Tn
army, or the commanding officer, was nc
rebuked for the part they had played
New Orleans and at Vicksburg; and IL
United States marshal and the command
ing officer at Fort Adams, doubtless, il
ferred therefrom that their acts, too, woul
be justified, palliated and excused, IL
they were not composed of lawyers cap
''ble of judgingJus how far they could go
We repeat, we believe that the acts of Il
marshal and of the army were unknown
Washington, and that they were done witt
out the consent of the administrator
much less by its direction. The quality
the act however, remains the same.
was an invasion of the sovereign state
Rhode Island. 1t was a notification of
laws 1t was an illegal, arbitrary, unco