The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-02-27
THE RULE AND THE PRECEDENT.

We believe tho position we have here
totore assumed In regard to the man.
ner In which the establishment OF the
Nichols government Is to be brought
about, is the correct one, and reflects
the sentiments OF this community but.
for the benefit OF those who think that
Gov. Hayes would shrink from the
positive or negative recognition of Gov.
Nichols unless he could find justif-
cation In some precedent, we shall re-
late the action taken by President
Grant In the Coke. Davis controversy In
Texas.
In 1879 Edmund J. Davis, then filling
the Office of Governor OF the State OF
Texas, was defeated for reelection by
Gov. Coke. The Legislature elected at
the same time assembled at Austin en-
the day appointed by the constitution,
and proceeded to inaugurate Coke on the
10th of January, 1874. ThsrsuPsn Davis
claimed that his term as Governor did
not expire until the 2sth Of April, that
being the end Of the fsur years term
from his installment. He based his
claim upon certain section Of the con-
stitution which, II left to itself, clearly
supported 1t. But attached to the con-
stitution was schedule, or declaration,
which provided that the State and other
officers elected hereunder should hold
their respective Offices for the term
Of years prescribed by the con-
stitution, beginning from the day
OF their election. The day OF election
was the Sd Of December preceding, and
Coke claimed TO be Governor from that
date. Davis made q requisition upon
the National Executive for troops to
resist the attempt OF Coke and the Leg
islature to GUST him from the office. To
this requisitien Attorney General VIII
liams, speaking for President Grant.
replied, after stating the issue raised by
Davis, that the President was of the
opinion that his right te the office OF
Governor at that time aoas at least 90
doubtful that he did not feel warranted
IN furnishing United States troops 10
aid him in holding further possession Of
it, and that he therefore declined TO com
PLY ,tth his request.
In this letter Davis replied In very
cogent argument in support Of his con-
struction of tho constitution, and to
show the invalidiry OF the schedule, or
declaration attached to the constitu-
ton but, as he alleged, never voted on
by the people. on the strength OF which
declaration Coke claimed the right to
hold the Office from the Sd Of December,
the day of election.
| He added: IT will further call to
your attention feature Of the Presi-
dents refusal to assist against this
violence. He does not decide which is
the legitimate government. Now, the
two parties were in open arms at the
time I telegraphed, and one or the other
was certainly chargeable with domestic
violence and one or the other was GER
tainly entitled to call upon the Presi-
dent for support against this violence. %
This is precisely the rule upon which
the Executive may act in reference to
the conflicting claims OF the two parties
| in Louisiana. Gen. Grant did not ac-
tually deny the claims OF Davis. He
did not attempt to decide that legally
and constitutionally there was not some
authority and force In the grounds as
sumed by him; but the fact that the
A question was doubtful one was con-