The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-02-15
Another Letter from Mr.. Curtis.

WIS more oi PniloSopny tnan daily lie.
Another Letter from Mr.. Curtis.
Mr.. Curtis thinks that in our recent COM
parison of his views with those of Mr.. CAL
houn we misrepresented him, though not in
tentionaly, and informs us that he accepts
that statesman's construction of the guarantee
clause as ''entirely right" Of course we
must consider that writer is the best Judge
Of his own meaning, but without the assist
ance of so authentic an expositor we should
never have discovered the accordance between
the construction of Mr.. Curtis and that of Mr..
Calhoun. In his previous letter Mr.. Curtis
stated in effect that he had changed none of the
views expressed in his History Of the Consti-
tuition" and we felt authorized to regard his
history as correct statement of his present
opinions. In that work he quotes the guaran-
tee of ga republican form of government as
applicable to cases like Shays rebellion, which
was q mere case of domestic violence against
the government of State. According to Mr.
Cahoun's exposition the guarantee quoted by
Mr.. Curtis has no application to cases Of
domestic violence against State, like Shay's
rebellion. Also in the letter which Mr. Curtis
complains that we misrepresented, and which
discusses the guarantee of republican govern
ment, he strongly reprobates the idea that
Congress can interfere under that guarantee
without any call by the State or its people,
and constituting itself the sole and absolute
judge of the exigency." But, according to
Mr.. Calhoun "it would be q perfect absurdity"
to require an application IN cases arising
under the guarantee of republican form of
government. Calhoun's argument hinges in
great part on the fact that the constitution
requires an application under the guarantee
against domestic violence and not under the
guarantee of a republican form of govern
ment. We think, therefore, that the con-
formity Of Mr.. Curtis construction of the
guarantees with that of Mr. Calhoun could
not have been discovered by anybody but
himself According to Mr.. Calhoun Congress
is necessarily the sole judge of the exigences
which permit it to exercise its right of inter-
ference in cases of usurpation. "While I
admit the right" he says, 81 also admit that
it is high and delicate one; the highest and
government" This delicacy explains why
Congress has never passed general law for
carrying out this particular guarantee. There
is general law clothing the President with
authority to act in cases of domestic violence
and in cases of invasion, but Congress has
reserved to itself the sole authority to decide
on each case as it arises under the guarantee of
republican government.
Mr.. Curtis discusses the Louisiana case as
if it were only an ordinary case of disputed
election, and on that theory of the facts no.
body could very well differ with him as to the
impolicy of federal interference But is it a
mere case of disputed election? If so, there
has been great deal of misplaced denuncia-
ton of the Kellogg "usurpation." It it be
in truth the fragrant ''usurpation" which has
been declalmed against with so much demo-
cratic fervor why does Mr.. Curtis shrink from
discussing it on that basis? Why does he
belittle it to mere case of disputed election
unless he is conscious that if he admitted it to
be a usurpation his arguments would not
hold?
A republican form Of government is one in
which the rulers are the free choice of the
people and hold their offices in conformity
with the constitution and laws. If Mr. Curtis
believes there is such government in Louisi-
ana he is quite logical in contending that
there is no occasion for Congress to execute
the guarantee of republican form of govern
ment But if, as majority of Congress be-
leves Kellogg is q usurper and McEnery has
no legal title to the Office, there is at present
no government in Louisiana republican in
form, and it is the duty of Congress to see
that the people have an opportunity to re-
establish one If there be any other way of
restoring republican government than by
giving the people chance to elect their rulers
and revise their constitution, nobody, so far
as we are aware, has ever yet defined what
it Isl