The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1880-08-12

cumstances, to allow himself or his |
troops to determine who were law
full members of state legislature L
could not have given him better adj
vice than to refer him to the special
message of the President in the
case of Louisiana. some time before;
but in South Carolina he had the
question settled by a decisive act of
the Supreme Court of the state, the
highest tribunal which had acted on
the question, so that his line of duty
seemed even to be clearer than the
action in the Louisiana case. If the
federal court had interfered and
overruled the decision of the state
court, there might have been doubt,
but the federal court only interfered
to complicate, not TO decide or over
rule. Anyhow, ii is no business of
the army to enter upon such ques-
tions, even ii il might do so in any
event. If the civil authority is SUI
preme, rs the constitution declares
ii to be, the South Carolina case was
one in which the army had plain
duty. Had Gen. Ruger asked me
for advice, and if | had given it. |
should, of course, have notified Won
of my action Immediately, so that it
could have been promptly over
ruled. If it should have been
deemed advisable by you or other
superiors in authority. Gen. Ruger
did not ask for my advice. and / in
ferred, from that and other facts
that he did not desire it, or that, be-
ing in direct communication with
my military superiOrsat the seat of
government, who were nearer to
him in time and distance than Twas,
he deemed it unnecessary. As Gen.
Ruger had the ultimate responsible
ity of the action and had really the
greater danger to confront in the
final action in the matter, did not
venture TO embarrass him by sug-
gestions. He was a 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 consulta-
ton before taking command, and
was probably aware of the views of
the administration as to the civil af-
fairs in his command. | knew that
he was in direct communication with
my superiors in authority in refer
ence to the delicate subjects pre-
scented for his consideration, or had
ideas of his own, which he believed
to be sufficiently in accord with the
views of common superiOrs, to en-
able him to act intelligently accord
ing to his Judgment, and without
suggestions from those not on the
spot, and not as fully acquainted
with the facts as himself. He de-
sired, too, to be free to act, as he
had eventually greater responsible
ity, and so the matter was governed
as between him and himself
AS | have been writing thus free
ly to you, | may still further unbo-
som myself by stating that | have
not thought it lawful or wise to use
Federal troops in such matters as
have TRANSFERRED east of the Missis-
sippi 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 inva-
sion of a state more powerful than
the state authorities can subdue by
ordinary processes, and then only
when requested by the Legislature,
or if it could not be convened i'll ses-
sion by the governor, and when the
president of the United States inter
Venes in that manner it is state of
war, not peace. The army is labor
ing under disadvantages and has
been used unlawfully, at times. i'll
4 % I,a
mine certainly and we have lost a
great deal OF kindly feeling which
the community ut large once felt for
us. 1t is time to stop and unload.
Officers in command of troops often
find it difficult to act wisely and
safely when superiorS i'll authority
have different views of the law
from theirs, and when legislation
sanctioned action seemingly in con-
flict with the fundamental law.
They generally defer to the
known Judgment Of their superiors.
The officers of the army are
so regarded in such. a great crisis,
and are held to such responsibility,
especially those at or near the head
of it, that it is necessary ON such
termine for themselves what is law
full under our system. If our mill
tary authorities should be invoked,
as might possibly be the case in such
exceptional times, when there ex-
listed such divergent views as to the
correct result, the army will suffer
from its past action. 1t 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 far as
lies in their power, legally and with
righteous intent, aim to defnnd the
right, which to us is the law, and the
institution which they represent. 1t
is well meaning institution, and it
would be well if it should have an
opportunity to be recognized as a
bulwark in support of the, rights of
the people and of the law.
| am truly yours,
| WINFIELD S. HANCOCK.
| To Gen. w. Il. Sherman, commanding
Army of the United States, Washing