The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-01-11
Sheridan Versus the Congregational
ComlGzttee.

Sheridan Versus the Congressional
ComlSzttee.
Our dispatches by telegraph yesterday con-
tanned two noteworthy bat conflicting state
ments. One, the official report by General
Sheridan to the Secretary of War;
the other, an authentic summary of
the points to be presented in the report Of
the Committee Of the House Of Representa-
tives sent to New Orleans to investigate the
facts. These statements are so irreconcil-
able with each other that it is impossible to
believe them both. AS question of prinaa
facie probability it would seem more reason
able to credit the report of the committee.
They went to New Orleans clothed with all
the requisite authority and possessing all the
facilities for acquiring correct information.
They had power to summon witnesses, put
them on oath and subject them to rigorous
cross-examination. General Sheridan had no
authority to conduct an investigation, or
summon witnesses, or administer oaths,
or to apply the tests by which
true testimony is Disseminated from
false. All that he has learned he
has caught up by hearsay, and it is settled
maxim of law that hearsay is not evidence.
The report of the committee has, therefore, q
better title to belief than the statements Of
General Sheridan when the two are in con-
lict The two republican members of the
committee were present as spectators at the
organization Of the Legislature and are able.
to speak from personal knowledge; but Gen
eral Sheridan was not at the scene, and as
only one of the contendiRg parties holds any
intercourse with him, he is the mere vehicle
or conduit for its BIASED statements I'm
partial people will find it easier to believe the
committee than to believe Sheridan.
According to the committee 'the disorder
in the Legislature had ceased, and the meet
ing was entirely orderly and quiet before and
at the time General de Trobriand entered the
hall to arrest the members" and 'the only
request of Mr. Wilt to General de Trobriand
was to help in keeping order in the
lobby outside of the hail." which che
accomplished by his personal presence,
attended only by an aid" These statements
are in strict conformity with the facts as re-
ported by the public press, and seem worthy
of full credit. If this be the actual truth it
was clearly case for legal and not for mill
tary remedies. Not even Governor Kellogg
had any right to weed out members, because
the constitution and laws of Louisiana give
him no authority to interfere with the organ
ization Of the Legislature. He could not
have employed even the State militia to unseat
members, the whole matter being entirely
outside of his duties and jurisdiction. The
five members may not have been entitled to
seats but that was question in which there
was no warrant of law for the Governor to in
terfere. 1t was as indefensible an outrage as
it would be for the President of the United
States to send files of soldiers to drag out
members improperly admitted to seats in the
national House of Representatives
General Sheridan's report discloses the
hand of some artful and tricky Kellogg law
yer, who exerted his poor skill to ''make the
worse appear the better reason" Four sew
eral times Sheridan's report calls the federal
soldiers with studied selection of word,
ing betrayal Of sef-conscious illegality. If
the federal troops had been properly employed
there would be no necessity for this weak
subtertuge Of divesting them of their military
character and describing them as Governor
Kellogg's ''posse" AS every lawyer knows
'posse" is made up of the miscellaneous
bystanders or accidental persons whom
sheriff or other officer, the performance of
whose duty is resisted, may summon to his
aid. They derive their authority solely from
his fortuitous call, and look to him
alone for their justification. If the
invading federal soldiers at New Orleans
were merely "posse" it would follow that
the federal government is no more responsible
for their employment on that occasion than it
would be for an equal number of mechanics
picked up for the nonce in the streets of New
Orleans. The attempt of General Sheridan,
or rather the attempt of Kelloggs lawyers,
making him their mouthpiece to divest the
troops of their organized military character
and make them mere civil 'posse," shows
how conscious the apologists of this out
rage are that there is no valid defence for
employing the federal army for such pur-
pose
1t is also piece of sophistry to put Witt s
request and Kellogg's in the same category, as
General Sheridan's prcmpters try to do.
Wilt, as the Speaker of the House, was it's
legal organ, charged with the preservation of
order and warranted, with it's consent, in ask
ing assistance against the mob in the lobby
which threatened to interrupt its proceed
ing. Kellogg, on the contrary, had
no legal status in the House, no
right to interfere in any way with its organi-
cation or its business, and consequently no
shadow Of authority to summon ''posse" to
aid him in violating the law. Ordinarily q
resisted officer leads his own "posse,' and
the absurdity of Kellogg's position cannot be
put in stronger light than by supposing he