The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-02-26
AN ENGLISH VIEW OF THE LOUISE.
ANA CASE.
President Grants Southern Policy.

hahd OF the constitutional quarrel in Louis
ana. one Is that the interference of til
ouiteo o1ates troops was provoked by pure
, y technical dispute between the two partie
IN the House of Representatives In this as
pect OF the question it is immaterial whethe
the conservatives were right or wrong in til
election Of a Speaker or in the confirmatio,
of the five disputed Conservative returns
If the Constitution Of the United States ha
provided no method by which disputes o
this kind can be settled by the Fedora
courts, 1t must have meant them to be settlet
in such ways as the people of the Sat,
should determine. It certainly did not con
template their being settled without a hear
ing by the general commanding the militar,
district in which Louisiana is included.
On the principle by which President Grant
processes to have been gaided, there is he
reason why the Federal troops should not
occupy the House of Representatives in every
State in the Union whenever parties are
| equally divided, and the validity of some act
OF the majority is challenged by minority
composed OF nearly half the members. To
say, as the Louisiana Democrats said, we are
| strong enough to elect Speaker and when a
| Speaker has once been elected the House is
organized, and is competent to decide on dis
| puted elections, may be bad law, according to
the Louisiana code or according to the United
States Constitution. But if bad law, unat-
tended by violence Of any kind, is to be set
right by the appearance of the Federal troops,
the so-called sovereign States of North Ame-
RIGA are subject, not to Federal supremacy as
defined In the Constitution and interpreted
by the Supreme Court, but simply to per
petnal court-martial sitting at Washington
Even IT all the sensational kilograms sent by
Gen. Sheridan could be made good, they
would not justify the measures taken by Gen.
De Trobriand
Let it be granted that the White League
are banditi, and that defiance to the laws
and the murder OF individuals can be in
duiged III with lmpunity; still the House Of
hepres natives was not aetyinG the law in
electlnS Speaker, nor numbering individ-
uais when 1t seated the five members whose |
seats were contested. In the LEGISLATURE. At
ali events, the worst that can be charged |
against the bandittl is that they differed |
from the Republican half of the House on q |
question OF parliamentary procedure. If a
conflict OF opinion like this is to be put down
by Federal troops, the several States of the
Union will do well to give up parliamen tary
government. Legislature which is not
to regulate the conduct of is own
business Is merely useless appendage to the
Executive.
The second thing tina. is clear is that this
Of the United States troops in
dispute arising out of & question of parlia-
mentary procedure has met with general dis
APPRECIATION. L may not in itself be a
stronger measure than President Grant has
lad recourse to before, but it looks stronger,
and 1t comes at moment when even his own
party inclined to criticise such measures
'ery closely. The case is remarkably free
rom complications. No violence was used,
md II Is not even pretended that violence was
likely to be used. The Democrats were in
possession OF the building in which the ..
louise OF Representatives meets, and the Re
'ublcars had retired by way of protest
Galnst the competence of the House as ac-
ually constituted. There was nothing to
revent the rival Legislatures from sitting in >
lfterent parts OF the city, just as they have
zen sitting since.
The only difference is that if the troops !
al not lnterfered the Democrats would have
stained the ordinary Place of meeting. while
lie Republicans would have had to find !
ouse-room elsewhere: whereas as it is, il is l.
re Republic rs that have tanned the or u
mary place Of meeting, and the D III 1crats L
lat have Lad to migrate. This is rather d
nall result to show in justification OF an aci t.
hlcn overrides State Institutions, and makes c
Federal general the virtual dictator of ?
oulslana. If the people OF the North had d
ded with the President i'll such matter as =
Us, they must have been prepared to govern :, N
10 Southern States as so many conquered X
rritories. But this last act of the Presidents e.
'me at the very moment that they had I'M n
repudiated this policy I
he electors who voted with the Democrats
the autumn elections naturally resent this K
i1dence that the President means to 90 his ia
Hn way, no matter what the country NAV n
link and show that it thinks. The electors Ct
no voted with the Republicans are naturally II
armed that the President shows so little n
adlness to profit by the lesson that has lust II
zen read to him. The one party has &C. IL
pted MS action Ia Louisiana as contrma- st
IN OF all that has been alleged against him III
tie Democrats The other party is too g
uch Impressed by the advantage that his te
lstdke Will give his alversaries to venture to 1r
} more than ask that Judgment shall be de- ~
rred. pf
The peculiarity of the situation is that ~
'esldent Grant must have foreseen all this. III
g must have l1uo WI that the occasion which
selected fer interference was of a purely y"
clinical character. He must have known at
at his interference i'll cases when there was OF
all events more apparent justification has nj
en- one OF the principal causes which turned ~
e recent election againat the Republican &c
rty. There are only three ways, so far as tn
see. OF explaining his conduct. One is ssp
1T he thought himself bound to act as he De
l, and that having once made up his mind III
this point, he simply did his duty without ne
gard to consequences. This theory might s 81
We been applicable to a fanatic like Thad- IL ne
us Stevens but it seems altogether out of III
ace as applied to General Grant, who is no. en-
the least a fanatic. pr
There are men who might say, perish the pr
institution OF the United S ates and the so
ole system of human society rather than " WI
lay for an hour the elevation of the blacks II! ie
an absolute equality with the whites But n
-sldent Grant has never INDUCED in any "a
ID talk Of this kind, AMI there is no reason HI
suppose that III this respect his deeds will
beyond his words A second explanation ga
hat he thought that the step would prove a IRA
Sc one-wlse. that is, In party point of ga
W, step likely to win back truant votes we
fix wavering ones. This theory is mad cal
5slble as the first. Three months earlier RE
esdent Grant might have urged with some IN
visibility that he was only following what Cal