New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1877-01-11
rHE CASE PuLLY MADE.

THE CASE FULLY MADE.
1t would be q grave error to suppose
that bloodshed is essential to prepare and
present a case of treason against the gov
eminent. No government is bound to
await field fight with the insurgent be-
fore taking any measures for its own |
security, bat the State or Federal govern
nnent may under the constitution recog- /,
nize popular resistance to the laws as an
offense against the government, and sup
press 1t accordingly. Tie case Of Rhode
Island was perfectly parallel with that of
Louisiana. There a government claim
ing under formal law held possession
of the State offices. There another gov
eminent claiming to have been elected
by the people in opposition to the law
made an armed demand for possession of
the offices. There, as here, the demand
and refusal was made without the efuSion
Of drop Of blood; there the Democrats
were tried and convicted of treason against
the State, and in that case the Federal
government and the courts sustained the
action of the formal government against
the government claiming possession of the
offices by an adversary title.
The case has been made in Louisiana
to the same effect as in Rhode Island and
it will devolve on the government of the
United States to Determine which of the
contending parties is entitled to its pro-
lection. The constitution of Louisiana
employs the same language with that Of
the United States in defining the oftense Of
treason. There must have been levying
of war against the government proven by
some overt act. With several thousand
men under arms, surrounding and be-
sieging the formal government, with the
forcible capture of the police force, the
eviction of the Supreme Court and the
forcible installation of other judges in
their place and duty, there can be no
question of war levied against the State
government, nor can there be any want
of evidence that these acts have been
overt.
The technical offense has been estab-
lished We might cite the highest au.
thority of our Supreme Court in proof Of
this proposition. The question arises,
however, is the Federal executive bound
to recognize this state of facts, and re-
spond to the demand of the Legislature
to afford aid in the suppression of thii
domestic violence? The executive pauseE
to ascertain what Congress thinks of thu
respective rights of the formal or revolu
tionary governments of the State.
In the meantime, the President is EN-
powered by the laws to which we have
made frequent reference to act, withou
reference to the legality Of this or tina
government existing in this State. TIL
act of Congress says:
That whenever insure elton, domestic vic
lenee, unlawful combination, or oOnspira
eies in any State 80 obstructs or hinders TIN
execution of the laws thereof, and of tn
United States, as to deprive any portion o
class of the people of such State of any 9
the rights, privileges or immunities or Pre-
r lection named in the constitution. etc, j
! shall be TIL duty OF the President to TAX
such measures as he may deem proper 70
the suppression Of such violence, etc.
5 1t would, therefore, appear that if tn
4 President shall deem the obstruction @
law in Louisiana sufficient to justify in
3 tervention, he may proceed to perforr
! that duty. While, therefore, the Presi
dent may not deem himself authorized t
respond to the demand of the Legislature
! without the cooperation of Congress,
is very plain that under that law whic
has authorized General Augur to dil
} perse the levy of war against the Stat
government Of Louisiana, the Presider
may proclaim those who obstruct the op,
ration Of the State and Federal laws
instruction, and take such measures 9
may make his purpose effectual.