Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-03-27

The Tennessee Precedent.
Now the query comes up, what has been
| the course Of the Government in reference
to cases Of this kind / viii refer TO one
for the sake Of making ad Introduction to
| what I am going to say; aud It is case
which occurred in 1866. In the State o.
Tennessee, in a reorganization Of govern
ment there, there was a Governor elected
| and a Legislature elected under an amend
ed constitution which had been adopted by
the people in convention amending the
original constitution. The Legislature was
convened; the GOVerTSr was qualified and
in tie discharge Of bis duties as Governor
of the State. Here was the Legislative De
partmeDt, here was the Executive Depart
ment, here was the Judicial Department,
coordinate branches Of the government.
According TO the theory that has been
acted upon by the States and by the Federal
Government, each one Of these branches OF
the Government, each one Of these depart
ments, should move in its appropriate
sphere, and one has no right TO encrOach
| upon the others.
When the Legislature was convened,
there came to be q difference Of opinion be-
tween the Governor Of the State and The
Legisls. ure, and that difference of opinion
became almost factious; the Legislature be-
| came refractory and the Governor became
refractory. The Governor undertook to
control the Legislature. The Legislature
| refused to keep quorum. Here was con-
| test between two civil departments Of the
| Government Of the State of Tennessee.
| The Governor wanted his policy carried
| ont, his measures acted upon. The Legis-
lature were opposed to them, and for the
| purpose Of defeating the Governor in carry
| inc ont his plans they reduced the number
Of members present below quorum.
Here was a struggle between two civil
departments of the Government, the legis-
lative and the executive. According to the
theory and according 20 the Constitution
itself they were coordinate branches Of the
Government and one had no right to en-
croach upon the other. We know the pro-
vision that is made in nearly all the States,
and perhaps in all Of them, IN the estab-
lishment and in the government Of legisla-
lures. There are certain rules prescribed.
The executive department is laid down,
the legislative is prescribed also, and the
Legislature has the power 10 be the judge
Of the qualifications and elections Of its
own members. II has a right to prescribe
rules fol its Own government; It has the
power to compel tue attendance Of absent
members, thereby making inherent in the
body the power to preserve its organization
and its existence, and the responsibility is
upon the Legislature and not upon the
Governor. To defeat some measure that
WIS favored and advocated and recon-
mended by the executive department,
they, members of the legislative depart
ment, reduced the Legislature below quo
rum. Then the struggle came. The FIX
eCutiYe assumed the high preTOgative Of |
taking charge Of the Legislature and having |
the members brought in and compelled 70 |
act. Some Of the members rendered their |
designations, which were rejected by the |
Governor; others absented themselves or |
refused TO vote, and thus reduced the /
House below a quorum. Here was almost |
the precise case that you have in LOuisi- /
ana. Here, though the struggle was not /
strictly between the Governor and contend |
ing members fOT seats in the Legislature,
the main issue was between the Legisla- /
tuye and the Governor. That was the 1
great struggle. We find in the case OF
Louisiana, and it Is. so said and conceded |
by ali who speak on the subject, that the
military was there obeying the beheSts Of
the Governor in organizing the Legislature
and organizing Legislature that favored |
him. In principle il is precisely the same
,ase. Let us see what was the action of
he Government in the first case referred to
in 1866.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, July 8, IS6G-Sir: |
As IL is evidently the design of your resignation
% reduce the House below a quorum, and 10 |
lreak up the Legislature, the same Is not &C
,eptCd. W, q. BROWNLOW. /
Hon. II. =. ". DuInEWav.
Here was an attempt 10 force a member
o act by a refusal of his resignation on the
part Of the Governor. II was not for the
Governor to organize the Legislature; it
vas not for him to compel the attendance |
Ogative belonging to the body itself, and
lot 10 the Governor. l proceed with the !
.ccOuut ofthe transaction:
MI Williams, member from Carter county,
ent in communication, declaring that he
Ould not and would Dot participate IN adopting
he proposed amendment until he had first sub |
nltted II 70 his constituents, and he therefore re
used TO attend the session.
Well, that is pretty good reason on the
art Of a member,
The Governor applied to the military com
nander OF the district Tor assistance in bringing
he fugitive members back TO their duties; when
he following correspondence took place.
General George II. Thomas was then in
command Of that department, and lie was
induced by the Governor to apply to the
Lieutenant General Of the army, here at |
hat time, for military aid to assist Gov.
3rOTnlow in organizing the Legislature.
This is bis dispatch:
NASHVILLE, Tenn, July Il, Is66.-Lieutenaut |
General Grant, Washington: Some Of the mem
erE OF the House Of Representatives OF the Ten |
lessee General Assembly conduct themselves in |
very refractory manner, abSeniIng themselves
prevent a quorum, thus obstrucfng business. /
The Governor cannot manage them with the /
means at his disposal, and has applied to me for
Military assistance. Shall furnish it?
GEO. b. THOMAS,
Major General Commanding.
This dispatch was sent to the Lieutenant
Ieneral Of the army at that time-and in |
alling him by name it is simply to be I'M
erstOOd, for il is not my intention on this
ccasiOn to give utterance to a single per
onal expression, but 10 speak Of public |
cts in the manner and mode that a public
ian has a right to speak Of them, This
ispatcA was brought TO the Secretary of
Var, by the Secretary of War it was brought | !
D the President Of the United States, and
his reply was prepared and forwarded to
General Thomas, TO which l call the al 5
sntion Of the Senate:
WASHINGTON, d. c., July Il, Is5G.-General
rant will instruct General Thomas that the |
.cts stated in his telegram do not warrant the 5
Interference Of the military authority. :
The administration of the laws and the pres | :
walton Of the peace in Nashville be,ong prop !
IL 10 the State authorities and the duty OF the
nited States forces is not TO interfere in any (
ay in the controversy between the political | !
Ithorities of the State, and General Thomas
i'll strictly abstain from any interference be- 7
Yeen them. q
There is the precise case, and that was | !
le action Of the Government. 1t was +
fought then that that was a civil struggle, 2
contest between two divisions Of a State =
with which the military au- 8
lority of the United States could not in
.rfere, as stated in the telegram sent back =
J him. That dispatch was signed by the | I
Of War, but written in the pres +
nee of the President, and sent by General | :
rant to Gen. Thomas, saying that this is Z
OF a case that calls for the Interference Of 4
he military, and that Gen. Thomas should | a
Jstain under all circumstances from any 4
reference whatever. +
It would seem that this marked the line a
etWeen the civil and the military authOTi- r
:. There is the precedent of the Govern +
.ent in that case, and the cases are almost I
lrallel. That is what the Government | q