Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-08-01

peaceful determination of this matter, as fair
q determination as possible, and lawful one.
| No other determination could stand the test.
The country, if not plunged into revolution,
would become poorer day by day. Business
would languish, and our bonds would come
home to find deprecated market.
| I was not in favor of the military action
in South Carolina recently, and if General
Ruger had telegraphed to me or asked me
for advice, would have advised him not un-
der any circumstances to allow himself or his
troops to determine who were the lawful
members of State legislature. could not
have given him better advice than to refer
him to the message of the President in the
case of Louisiana some time before. But in
South Carolina he had the question by de-
| cision of the supreme court
of the State, the highest tribunal
which had acted on the question SO his line
of duty seemed even to be clearer than in
the action in the Louisiana case. If the
federal court had interfered and overrluled
this decision of the State court there might
have been doubt, certainly, that the
federal court only interferedsto complicate,
not to decide or overrule. Anyhow it is no
business of the army to enter upon such
questions and even if it might be so in any
event, if the civil authority is supreme, as
the constitution declares 1t to be, then the
South Carolina case was one in which
the army had plain duty. Had General
Rieger asked me for advice, and if I had
given it should of course have notified you
of my action Immediately, so that it could
have been promptly overruled if it should
have been deemed advisable by you or other
superior in authority, Gen. Rieger did not
ask for my advise and inferred from that
and other facts that he didn't desire it, or
that. being in direct communication with
my military superiors at the seat of govern
ment, who were nearer to him
in time and distance than I was, he
deemed it unnecessary. As General Rieger
had the ultimate responsibility of action,
and had really the greater danger to confront
him in the final action in the matter, I did
not venture to embarrass him by suggestions.
He was department commander and the
lawful head of the military administration
within the limits of the department. But,
besides, knew that he had been called to
Washington for consultation before taking
command, and was probably aware of the
views of the administration as to civil af-
fairs in his command. I knew that he was
in direct communication with my superiors
IN authority in reference to the delicate sub
jects presented for his consideration, or had
ideas of his own which he believed to
be sufficiently in accord with
the views of our common superiors to
enable him to act intelligently, according to
his judgment and awithout suggestions from
those on the spot and not as fully acquainted
with the facts as himself. He desired, too,
to be free to act, as ne had the eventual
greater responsibility, and so the matter
was governed as between him and myself.
AS I have been writing thus freely to you
1 may as well unbosom myself by stating that
1 have not thought it lawful or wise to use
federal troops in such matters as have trans
pired in East Mississippi within the last |
few months, save so far as they may be
brought into action under the article of the
constitution which contemplates meeting
armed resistance or invasion OF q State more
powerful than the State authorities can
subdus by the ordinary process, and then
only when required by the legislature, or if |
it could not be convened in session, by the |
governor, and when the President of the
United States intervened in that manner it
is state of war, not peace.
The army is laboring under disadvan-
tages and has been used nnlawfuliy at times,
in the judgment of the people-in mine GER
talnly--and as we have lost a good deal of
the kindly feeling which the community at
large once feel for Us it is time to stop and
unload. Officers in command of troops
often find it difficult to act wisely and safe
ly, when superiors in authority have differ.
ent views from theirs, and when the legisIa-
ton have sanctioned action eemingly in
conflict with the fundamental law, and they
generally defer to the known Judgment
of their superiors. Yet the superior officers
of the army are so regarded in such great
crisis, and are held to such responsibility,
especially those at or near the head of it,
that it is necessary on such momentous &C.
casions to dare to determine for themselves
what is lawful and what is not lawful. Un-
der our system of the military authorities
should be enacted as might possibly be the
case in such exceptional times. When there
existed such divergent views as to the cor
rect result, the army will suffer from past ac-
ton if it has acted wrongfully. Our regular
army has little hold upon the affections of
the people Of to-day, and its superior officers
should certainly, as fer as is in their power,
legally and with righteous intent, aim to de-
fend the right, which to us is the laws and
the constitution which they represent. 1t is
q well-meaning institution, and it would
have an opportunity to be recognized as
bulwark in support of the rights of the peo-
pie and of the law. am yours truly,
(SIgned) WINFIELD s. HANCOCK.
To Gen. w. T. Sherman, Commanding the
Army of the United States.
THE GLOBE HOROSCOPE.