Litchfield enquirer., 1877-04-26
The Right of Peaceful Revolution
 in States.

In0 Wt2ng 01 P0dCO10b WONOtOhsSh
 in States.
 It is naturally source of pride to as small paper as the Litchfeld Enquirer tO find the views we have so long main tained regarding Southern affairs. and which have been in such strong opposi- ton to those of the orthodox Republican press during the intense political heats of the past half year. sanctioned by the prac- tice of Republican administration, and now commanding the more or less cordial support of Republican journalism. It is rather pleasant to call our 'doxy," ortho- doxy; and the 'doxy" of leviathan like the New York Times. heterodoxy; and to answer friends who speak of our having ''gone over," with the explanation that we ''uent over" with Hayes. Still it is but fair to acknowledge that while some of our ''indepeudent" notions have the government stamp and are become legal tender, our success as prophet has not at all equaled our success as a statesman.
 The truth is we never could see how Hayes could accept the presidency and still do justice to the fellows to whose rascaIity he owed it. The following ex- tract from an Enquirer editorial last Jan- uary sets forth the dilemma from which we saw no way of escape:
 The conservative wing of the Republi- can party acknowledge the failure of the attempt to control Southern States through negro majorities led by unprinci pled adventurers. They are placed at great disadvantage, just now, by the fact that they find it hard to give up Mr. Hayes. and vet do not see how they can save him aithout accepting. the carpet haRgers with him Ia truth sUe sec no asiddge ground. We must take the Nor ton and Blaine view that the Southern whites and traitors are murderers who deserve just such a government as the cnrpet-baggers give them. or we must frankly acknoWldge that Hayes has not received a fair majority of the electoral vote.
 From this apparent dilemma, however. Mir. Hayes escapes by an unexpected re- version to constitutional theory which. we must confess seem very plausible If not absolutely incontrovertible. His theory is all the more polite and effective be- canse it approaches closely to the old Jeff fersonian views of States rights. Start ing with the decision of the Electoral Commission refusing to go behind the action of the constltututed state authorl- ties in the matter of the count, Mir. Hayes has taken the further States rights ground that the general government has no right to interfere to protect state gov. ernmenk against revolution and overthrow unless sucA revolution is accompanied by armed violence. This position is concise ly stated in his order for the removal oi government troops from Louisiana (ir almost identical terms with the order ir the South Carolina easel, as follows.
 In my opinion there does not now exist in Louisiana such domestic violence as is contemplated by the Constitution as the ground upOn which the military power of the National Government may be invoked for the defense of the State. Tho disputes which exist as to the right of certain clai. mants to the chief Executive office of tha State, are to be settled and determined not by the Executive of the United States, but by such orderly and peaceabl, methods as may be provided by the con stit1tiOn and the laWs of the State. Hay ing the assurance that no resort to Vio fence is contemplated, but, on the contra ", that the disputes in question are to b. settled by peaceful methods under ant ia accordance with law. I deem it prope to take action in accordance with tn principles announced when entered uI on the duties of the Presidency.
 In short the principle enunciated b the administration is substantially this Grzating that Mr. Packard's election wa entirely ,legal-ss legal as that of MT Hay@-it by no means follows that it the duty of the general government t saseakn him permanently with thei troops. The constitution only promise the several State governments in case ( ''domestic violence" There has been n domestic violence either in South Carol na or in Louisiana; nor is any threatened What right then has the national goverr msnt Co interfere in the internal affairs ( State iH time of profound peace
 The Statsts quo of the later administr ton of Grant has undoubtedly prove Packards ruin. Ies senabled the tax.pa srs and bIsiness men of Louisiana to tai their choice between the rival state go ernments. without danger of attack fro either; and their preference for Nicho Wss ao etrQng that three months peac tal revolution practically decided Il matter, m advance of the Presidents wit drawal of the troops. Could Packal have taken active measures to suppo his authority at the outset, and cou
 he have forced his opponents into actl Frslstance, he might then have claim, assistance from the national governme with some show of right. Now-with
 l<gislatare containing a majority of I taraine board members in both branc es recognizing Nichols. and Nichol's i dicaary-Paekard can expect nothing b ua<tyrdom from an appeal to arms. w1ll be observed that Mir Hayes careful disowns any responsibility for tbe milit Fy indifference which he only proioEgs whEls coming to definite and final de. sssa That the. employment of nation kzsRs e police force in tLe organiz