Kansas City daily journal., 1896-10-28
BRYAN AND JEFFERSON DAVIS.

A writer in the New York Sun calls at
tention to the great similarity of sentiment
which the Chicago platform and the
speeches Of Mr.. Bryan and Governor Alt
geld bear to the utterances of jefferson
Davis In his history of the rise of the
Southern Confederacy. Mr.. Bryan and
Governor Altgeld are of the opinion thatit
is an outrage for the president to employ
the use OF the federal power to put down
a riot which is obstructing interstate COM
merce and delaying the United States mails
unless first called upon by the legislature
or governor of the state affected. 1t was
the opinion Of Jefferson Davis that Abra-
ham Lincoln overstepped his constitutional
rights in seeking to put down the Southern
rebellion without first waiting for call
from the governors or state legislatures.
As both the governors and state legisia-
lures were in a state of rebellion, the alb
surdty Of this is very apparent. So. too,
is the anomaly Of the position assumed by
Governor Altgeld and Mr.. Bryan. To all
intents and purposes Governor Altgeld was
in a state of insurrection at the time Pres
ident Cleveland crossed the state line and
put down the Chicago riots. If he had
waited for call from the governor of IL
linois the riots would still be in progress.
for the state militia ordered out by that
dignttary was wholly unequal to the task
of restoring order and was found to be
largely in sympathy with the rioters.
1t is preposterous to suppose that the
American people will ever vote to sustain
the position first presented by Jefferson
Davis and now assumed by Mr.. Bryan.
The war Of the rebellion established the
fact that this is a nation with a big \,
and it is impossible that the doctrine will
ever again be recognized that the president
cannot cross a state line to put down, do
mestic violence In any state. The govern
ment which cannot furnish Its citizens of
every degree and In every portion of Its do
main with protection is totally unworthy
Of allegiance.
To show the striking similarity between
the present contention of Mr.. Bryan and
the governmental theories Of Jefferson Da-
Wis, it Is only necessary to present the fol-
lowing brief extracts from the history OF
the rebellion, written by its ex-president:
ION the 18th day of the same month
(April 1861 President Lincoln, introducing
his farce of combination too powerful to
be suppressed by the ordinary course ot
judicial proceedings called forth the mill
itary of the several states. to the number
of 70 5.0O0 and commanded the persons COM
posing the combinations to disperse, etc.
The levy of so large an army could
only mean war; but the power to declare
war did not reside in the president; 1t was
delegated to congress only. If. however,
1t had been a riotous combination or an in
surrection, II must have been, according to
the constitution, against the state; and
the power of the president to call forth the
militia to suppress it was dependent upon
an application from the state for that pur-
pose; it could not precede such application,
and still less could 1t be rightfully exerc
against the will of the state.
Suffice it to say that, by section 4, arti-
Gle w. Of the Constitution, the United
States are bound to protect each state
against invasion and against domestic vio-
lence whenever application shall have been
made by the legislature, or by the execu-
tive when the legislature cannot be con-
vened, and that to fail to give protection
against any invasion whatsoever would be
a dereliction of duty. To add that there
could be no justification for the invasion Of
state by an army of the United States
is but to repeat what has been said on the
absence Of any authority in the general
government to coerce a state.
Surely, IL federal troops could not be
sent into a state without its application
even to protect 1t, against domestic vio-
lence. still less could it be done to over
rule the will Of its people,"