The Eaton Democrat. (Eaton, Ohio) 1875-1903, 1876-09-21

is evident in the opening of the order of
the Attorney General that its intent
was to have the United States conduct
lawlessness is already sufficiently appar-
ent. If the instructions were not issued
for the purpose of conducting the cleo
tions in the Southern States from
Washington, were they for the pur-
pose of preserving order? Then
they are equally lawless. That
is intrusted to the State authorities.
When VIM. NJ. Evarts was the Attorney
General he wrote letter to the United
States Marshal in Florida, naming the
limits of his authority under the laws to
which Taft appeals, and he says: "The
military persons obeying this summons
of the Marshal will act in subordination
and obedience to the civil officer, the
Marshal in whose aid 1.-THE execution of
process) they are called, and only to the
effect of securing its execution" There
was an Attorney General once who rec
ognized the fact that the officers of the
United States are only charged with the
duty Of executing the laws of the
United States, and that they must
not "crowd" the limit. The Mar
shal is a United States Sheriff,
not a County or State officer, and his
jurisdiction is limited. He is an officer
to assure the execution of legal process
in his district" in the words of Mr..
Evarts, and, he adds, "only to the effect
of securing its execution" The bound
ary lines of the United States Marshals
were recognized by Attorney-General
Evarts. He says: "The special duty
and authority in the execution of process
issued to you must not be confounded
with the duty and authority of suppress
ing disorder and preserving the peace,
which under our Government be-
longs to the civil authorities of the
States and not to the civil au-
thorities of the United States"
The United States can not legitimately
interfere in conducting elections in the
States, and can not lawfully interfere in
preserving the peace in the States.
And the only other possible excuse for
this order makes it equally lawless. 1t
might be claimed that it is the duty of
the United States to protect the States
against domestic violence" the dis
tinction is clearly drawn by Attorney
General Evarts: "Nor is this special
duty of the Marshal in executing process
issued to him to be confounded in accor-
dance with the authority and duty of the
President of the United States in the
specific cases of the Constitution under
the regulations of the statutes to protect
the States against domestic violence, or
with his authority and duty under special
statutes to employ military force in
subduing combinations in resistance to
the laws of the United States, for neither
of these duties or authorities is shared
by the subordinate officer of the Govern
ment, except when and as the same may
be specifically communicated to them.by
the President" This is in plain allusion
to the fourth section of the fourth
article of the Constitution, which de-
clares that ION application of the Legis-
lature, or of the Executive (when the
Legislature can not be convened), the
United States shall guarantee every State
against domestic violence. These are the
only conditions under which the National
Government can lawfully interfere, even
to stop domestic violence in the States.
Now, then, can United States Marshal
interfere in the elections? And Mr..
Evarts, Republican Attorney General,
further says: Nothing can be less in
accordance with the nature of our Gov
ernment or the. disposition of our people
than frequent or ready resort to mill
tary aid in execution of the duties con-
ided to civil officers"
And this is the law, and the limit of
the authority of the Marshals, and thus
appears the lawlessness and enormity of
the order issued by the Attorney General
of the United States to the United
States Marshals to carry the elections
for the Republican party. The facts are
that the United States Marshals can not
lawfully in any way interfere in any
election in any State; that they can not
lawfully interfere to preserve the
peace" in any State; that they can not
lawfully interfere, even to check edo
mestic Violence" until, first, the Legis-
lature of the State, if it is in session or
can be convened, has requested the aid
OF the United States; or until, second,
the Governor of the State, if the Legis-
lature can not be convened, has requested
the aid of the United States; and until,
third, the President of the United States
has ordered this assistance. And thus
the infamous order of Secretary Taft is
thrice lawless.