New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-01-19
LAW AND LAw-BEEAKIYG IN MINE.

Tho election of Governor Davis by the
Maine Legislature, and his peaceable inau-
guratOn, will sharply remind the Democrats Of
that State that, in the strlctest and most lit
cral sense, they are law-breakers Their de-
fance of law has not, up TO this time
been adequately appreciated or condemned
even by the outside public but the law
breakers are now in fair way to see il them
selves. Party feeling, or the fear OF party
bias, has prevented full appreciation OF the
insnrrechonaly and revolutionary proceedings
taken in Maine. For the truth is that the
Democrats became in every sense rebels and
insuuechonsts, when they withstOod and
defied the first decision of the Supreme Court.
Not the less were they guilty of law-bleaking
when they disOwned the legitimate authority
resting with the General commanding the
military ferces. Defiance Of the second de-
cision of the Court, and refusal to recognize
the Governor elected under its sanction will
be law-breaking also, but Of worse
type by just so much as persistence
in crime is considered to be more cul-
pable than a single offence. Though these
PROPOSITIONS are likely to be much obscured
by partisan claims, they are nevertheless,
truth should be understood.
Let us comprehend, first of all, that there
can be 10 real lapse of civil authority Some
where civil authority has existed in the State Of
Maine. The people did elect Legislature, and
that Legislature had power to choose Cover
nor. Meanwhile the President of the lawful
Senate, after it was organized and its president
had qualified, was in reality the acting Cover
nor. Where, under the Constitution and the
laws of Maine, was that civil authority which
beyond doubt actually existed, delegated by
the people through their votes The Supreme
Court twice expOunded the law. That was
its function. 1t was called upon first.
by Governor of undoubted. authority, and
next, by body believing itself to be the legally
elected Legislature of the State. AS required
by the laws, when so called upon, it set forth
the law bearing upon the summOning of duly
elected representatives, and also the law bear
ing upon the right of legally elected MEM
Der TO claim his seat, in spite of the failure
Of the proper authorities to provide him with
his certificate. Thenceforth it became the duty
of every citizen of the State, whether claim
ing to. be its Governor or member of its
Legislature or what not, to obey the Law thus
eXDOunded. from tndb luStdit, any ucNldtiOn
from the law so set forth, any disregard OF it,
any attempt to thwart it, was an act Of law
breaking, aw-defying, and rebellion.
But it is said that this was partisan Court.
The statement is untrue, for there is a Dem
ocratic representation in the Court. while the
whole Bench, Democratic and Republican
alike. united in its unanimous de-
cisions. The implication is equally untrue.
| There has been no trace of partisanship in the
exposition Of law by the Court thus far.
But in another sense any and every Court
is necessarily partisan. Its members have
political opinions; there is possibil-
ity that those political opinions may at
any time bias their judgment. None the
less they are the constituted authority
to expound the law, and obedience to the law,
AS expounded by them, becomes the duty of
every citizen. IL the Supreme Court of the
United States should to-day render decision,
| being required so to do in conformity with
law, that Rutherford b. Hayes is the lawfully
elected President of the United States
any Democrat might declare the decision