Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1875-01-28
Louisiana.

AhS ONiNSbNS 10 an ih' w
have heard both sides and all
sides. Sheridan, kellogg, the
two parties in the Legislature,
the President of the United States,
and the Committee OF the House
of Representatives appointed to
ascertain the facts. In the midst
of all this testimony we ought
surely TO find the truth.
And it is a remarkable fact
that in all points essential to the
formation of an opinion as to the
constitutionality of the action Of
military in expelling persons from
the Legislative Hall, there is little
or no conflict OF evidence. 1t is
in the testimony of all parties
and all witnesses, and all advo-
Gates, that soldiers Of the United
States army entered the Hall of
the Louisiana Legislature and
took out five men by force. We
have nowhere seen the case more
clearly stated and. stripped of
all needless APPENDICES than in
the remarks of S;natpr S;hurz in
his place IN the Senate Of the
United States:
ut is said in extenuation of
the interference of the military
power of the United States that
the persons elected from the Leg.
islature by the Federal soldiery
were not legally members of that
Legislature. Suppose thathad been
so; but that is not the question.
The question is, Where is the
constitutional principle, the law
authorizing United States soldiers
with musketS in their hands to
determine who is a legally elected
member of Il State Legislature
and who not? 1t is said that
the mode of organizing that Leg
islature Was not in accordance
with the statutes Of the State.
Suppose that had been SO; but
that is not the question. The
question is, Where is the con,
Stitutioual or legal warrant for
the bayonets OF the Federal
soldiery to interpret the statutes
of States and to decide Tor and
in a Legislature points Of parlia
mentary law! 1t is said that the
Governor requested the aid of the
/ United States soldiers to purge
the Legislature Of illegal MEM
bers. That may be so; but that
is not the question. The question
/ is. Where Is the law authorizing
/ United States soldiers to do the
bidding of State Governor who
attempts to decide who are to be
the members CT a Legislature reg
ularly convened at the place and
at the time fixed by law? 1t is
said that trouble was threatened
between contending parties in
Louisiana. Suppose that had
been so; but that's not the ques,
ton. The question is, Where is
the law from which the national
government, in case Of threatened
trouble in a State, derives. It's
power to invade a Legislative
body by armed force, to drag out
persons seated as members of a
State Legislature that others may
take their places2 Where is the
law, | ask? You will search the
Constitution and the statutes in
vain"
The report of the Congression-
al Committee shows:
First-That the last election in
Louisiana was, in the words of
the committee, "lull, fair, free and
peaceable." Second-That it re-
suited in the election of a demo.
cratic majority Of twenty nine in
the lower House of the Legisla-
ture. Third-That the report of
the Returning Board was fraud
ulent, unjust and contrary to the
very law under which it acted.
There is therefore no doubt on
the minds of the people of the
United States, that the invasion
of the Legislature was wholly un-
juStifiable.