The Weekly Kansas chief. [volume] (Troy, Kan.) 1872-1918, 1877-09-20

tion to show under what circumstances, and to pro
vide how, the power here conferred il to he exercised
Accordingly. far back A. ID. 1875 and 1907, pro
vision made in the real spirit and letter of the
Constitution with whose purposes the statesmen Of
the period were familiar. These laws provided for
the Of an insurnection against the Government
of the State and made it lawful for the President
application of the Legislature, Of the Executive,
when 1t could not be convened to call out such force
of the mita Of other States such part of the land
and nsysl forces he should deem necessary to
press sueh insuection Il il scarcely worth while to
suggest that the facts presented no such case in
either of those States covered BY the provs-
ions Of these statutes 1t not deemed
during all the period from the adoption of the Consti
tuition mp to the attempted seccssion of States and
the consequent great civil STRIFE to provide any
stringently for any extraordinary contingencies.
These simple provisions had proven abundantly suf-
cient in all that interval had met the requirements
of the occasion of the whskey Insurrection i'm Penn
sylvana and ofthe Dorr Rebellion in Rhode Island 1t
IN. natural however, that after the attempted seces
sion, other and much more comprehensive measures
should be suggested to meet the extraordinary ocea
sions growing out Of then existng attempt States
and State authorities. to defy the power of the Gen
eral Government. Thus see that early after that
date very much more farresching acts were passed.
50 farresching, indeed, scarcely to present the
semblance of claim to be within the Constitutional
grant Based upon the clause We have referred to-
no court, with any pretensons Of concedng suprema-
cy to the Constitution would for . moment have
held Of any validity the Act of July 29th,
1861. Whatever Of authority it could invoke to
entitle it to acquiescence and support, was only
such, and could only be such, as results in the
unquestioned necessity which, under whatever form,
all governments claim to adopt any measures de-
manded by the supreme law of selfprotection and
defense. As a war power it was passed as q war
power it was Indispensable; q war power it claim
ed and received unquestioning acquiescence; and
such but only as sush was and is entitled to be held
Of authority. Nor indeed docs it claim to have its
origin in the clause have quoted, or to be an en-
actment in defense Of State authority-on the con-
trary, covers only the of unlawful "ebstruc
tions, combinations assemblages of persons, or
rebellion against the authority of the Government of
the United States-
is therefore, even less worth while than in refer
ence the statutes of79 &C., say that such case
existed in either Louisiana South Carolina as was
covered by this statute and any pretense ofreasou
demanded the voluntary nterposition the President
There remains one other statute which extremists
may invoke In maintenance of their claim of au-
thOrity the part of the President for retaining
and using to any extent the military forces which he
found occupying the capitals Of those States. But
only extremists of the extremist find in this
act justification even apology for such policy rs
presented the sole alternative to that pursued by
President Hayes.
The law now refer to, is that of 25th April, 1871
But find this paper too long to permit the consid
GRAFTON of this act in its bearings this question
WILL therefore, reserve the further discussion for a
future article. Yours, truly, Sd. L.