New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-09-07
FOLLOWING DEMOCRATIC EXAMPLE.

The REPUBLICAN has heretofore quoted
the messages of Presiden. Pierce and
Buchanan upon the enforcement of the
Federal law in the Territories and the
prevention of State Intervention in cleo.
tons. President Pierce said, in 1856
| The President is required by the con.
stitution to take care that the laws be faith
fully executed. If they be opposed in the
Territory of Kansas, the President NAV and
shall any public force of the United
States which happens to be within the
| jurisdiction to be used as q portion of the
| posse cOmitdttS. and if that be not sufficient
to maintain order, then he may call forth
the militia OF one or more States for that
| object, or employ for the same objec; any
part of the land or naval forces of the
United States. And if the territory be in
! vaded by the citizens OF other States,
whether for the purpose of deciding an
election or for any other, and the local au-
thOrities find themselves unable to repel or
Withstand it. they will be entitled to, and
| upon the fact being fully ascertained, they
| shall undoubtedly receive free aid of the
Federal government.
The Democratic President, Buchanan,
said in 1858 that he would postpone the
subjugation of Utah to the maintenance
of order at the election in Kansas. Such
was Democratic doctrine when the power
of the Federal government was invoked
by them for the purpose of putting down
a free soil instruction in Kansas. Pres
ident Buchanan actually said
Kansas is at this time therefore as much
slave State as Georgia or South Carolina.
He proposed to employ, and did en-
ploy, the army of the United States to
maintain this institution by enforcing the
laws of the United States. In this he was
sustained by the entire Democracy of the
South. He did not maintain slavery, He
executed the laws of the United States
and the decisions of the Supreme Court
Have the Democracy abandoned the
doctrine of Buchanan? Will thew
support any doctrine when it gives
them ''compensating advantages, and
oppose the same doctrine when it
does not promote their interests? We
would like our contemporaries to take
the language of the Democratic President
Pierce, when he announced the intention
Of his own executive authority to enforce
the law of the United States in Kansas,
and compare it with the order of Secre-
tary Cameron and the second section of
the act Of Congress, title, "Insurrection.
These documents will be found so
nearly identical as to show that the Re.
publican Congress enacted into law the
executive orders of the Democratic Presi-
dents. The whole population of the
North is convinced of the national SUI
premacy. They knew such law was
necessary. This explains why Messrs.
Holman, Randall and Cox would not per-
NIT the Southern Democracy to repeal
these laws The laws merely confirm by
the will Of the representative department
those very large powers which the Demo-
cratic Presidents claimed to possess er L;
regis from the inherent powers of the ex-
ecutive itself.
1t is, we may remark, an illustration of
the difference between those who claim
that the President possesses prerogative
Of constituting the law for himself, and
those who believe, with President Grant,
that the executive can only exercise those
powers which the representative depart
ment legitimates.
The Republican Congress then has fol-
lowed the examples of the Democracy in
demanding that the President execute the
laws. They have differed from the Dem
ocracy in defining the duties of the Presi-
lent by law, and SO restricting his au-
'hority by the legislative will of the
people. We now demand of the Demo.
ratio Representatives why they did not