The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1875-02-08

Morrill,, "turn back while 1t Is yet time"
and with General Grant, "let us have
peace" But these 'outrages' on either
side, whether real or pretended, have moth
ing to do with Kelogg's or McEnerys cleo
ton, or with the legality or Illegally of
either of the legislatures of 1872 or 1874,
save in so far as they may bear on the
question of in,imidaton-and that Ques-
ton, at present, is left where it was placed
by Messrs. Foster, Phelps and Potter,
namely, that intimidation was as apparent
on the one side as the ether. Moreover, we
agree with General Grant that in any event,
"to hold the people of louisiana RESPONSE
bic for these atrocities would not be just.
A word, more or less, in reference to in
reference with armed troops of the United
States in the affairs of state. The occa-
sions for such interference are explicitly
stated in the Federal constitution, and are
limited thereby. We have quoted this pro.
vision too often to make it necessary for
us to repeat it now. We think that the
President was right when he telegraphed
in January, 1880 New Orleans, THAT the
"troops will not be furnished to disperse
any body of men claiming to be legisla-
lure, or otherwise assembling. peaceably,
"and not obstructing the administration of
''the recognized government of the state
With him we hold THAT any military inter
" ference by the officers or troops of the
United States with the organization of
state legislature, or any of its proceedings,
sis repugnant to our ideas of government"
and with him we ''can conceive of no case.
I" not involving rebellion or Instruction,
where such interference by authority of
'thc general government ought to be per-
Emitted or can he justified" Moreover,
we conceive that the President was exactly
right when, on the 9th of December, 1874,
he telegraphed to Governor Kellogg as fol-
lows: ct is exceedingly unpalatable to
" use troops in anticipation of dangers. Let
''the state authorities be right, and then
"proceed with their duties without appre-
'hension of danger If they are then mo-
Tested the question will he determined
"whether the United States is able to
maintain law and order within its lin
"its or not" Wherein, then, do we differ
in this matter? Simply in this We be-
licve that the practice is just as good as
the theory. Believing that the President
has stated the law correctly, we desire
that it shall not remain simply a theory,
but that it shall be put into practice. We
believe moreover, that the reference to the
dispersion of the so-caled legislature of
| Kansas and that of the legislature of Mary
| land, by Senator Logan and others, is dis
| ingenious and intended to cover up, rather
| than elucidate the real case in Louisiana.
1t is true that democratic President or
dered the dispersion of the free state
| legislature" of Kansas, and that the demo-
cratic party sustained his course; let them,
also, have all the glory there is in such ac-
tons. And what kind of glory did they
reap theretrom The country held the
| democratic party responsible, hurled them
from power, gave the government into the
hands of the republican party, and we
firmly believe that the forty-fourlh Con-
| gress would have been as strongly republl-
| can as is the forty-tbird Congress, if we
| had kept our hands off from Louisiana,
| and had not been cursed with William Pitt
| Kellogg How is it with Maryland? The
legislature was dispersed, and we believe
that its dispersion was justified as an act
of war founded upon military necessity.
The democrats violently denounced the
act, and no more endorsed it by the nomi-
| nation of Mcclellan then he did their
"peace at any price" policy, or they did
his letter of ccepance-wherein, by the
way he pretty effectually snubbed the party
that nominated him-nor any more than
we republicans endorsed General Grants
vote for Buchanan when we nominated,
elected and reelected him President.
| We have referred to these matters at
greater. length than we intended, but it
seemed necessary in order that our readers
might see wherein we differed, if we do
differ, fiom the avowed sentiment of the
President and the party, wherein the prac-
which ought to follow from these sen,i-
ments, and that they might have a full un-
Outstanding of the proposed compromise.
OF this compromise, we must necessarily
| speak briefly. 1t is proposed that Kellogg
shall be recognized as governor, and Penn
as lieutenant ..governor-McEnery, conser-
vative, and Antoine, republican, with
drawing or 'abdicating." If Kellogg was
| elected governor, Antoine was, as surely
elected Acknowledgements and if Penn
was elected instead of Antoine, then was
McEnery, also, elected governor. If
neither was elected, as we believe to be the
fact, and if Kellogg and Antoine were
properly recognized as de facto governor
and licutenant-governO as we, also, con-
celvc TO be true. what warrant of law is
there for setting up the one and knocking
down the other 1t seems to us very much
like Rutland's precedent of electing mod
orator of town meetings by " drawing
cuts" This, 10 be sure, has quasi Judi
cal endorsement, but it is rather a bad
precedent TO follow. But, perhaps, as
there has been no legal determination of
the results of the election of 1872. and as
peace is preferable to anarchy. and ''homc
government better than a government
propped up solely by bayoncts, that
"drawing cuts or Il compromise" will
give Louisiana as legal government as she
has had during the past two years. If con
sent can cure illegality, if necessity, like
army officers, knows no law, If peace can
be restored, If the people of Louisiana can
then take care of themselves, then, per-
haps, Kellogg and Penn will be good as
| anuhnd.r Icil $500. l.