The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1896-09-12
QUESTION
OF RIOTS.
Attorney General Harmon Crit
icizeS Mr.. Bryan's Position
On the Subject of Federal In
reference.
DEFENDS CLEVELAND
In His Action During the Chi.
cagO Riots.
Doubts If Mr.. Bryan Really
Means What He Says.

! mon has furnished the following for
! publication:
| 1 have concluded to give a public an
| swer to the many inquiries made upon
a subject of great moment.
| Mr.. Bryan in his letter accepting the
nomination for president by the con-
vention at Chicago amplifies the pro-
| test which that convention made in its
platform against federal Interference
in local affairs, which strangely enough
| is not found in the platforms of either
| of the other conventions which have
! also nominated him.
AS nothing else has been proposed to
which they can possibly apply, these
| protests were intended and are under
! stood to be direct against the recent
| action of the president in fOrcibly sup
pressing riotous disorders which had
| stopped the carriage of mails and in
! terstate commerce and were defying
! civil officers of the United States. The
/ president took this action not only
/ without the request, but in some in
stances against the protest of author
tiles of the states in which the riots
/ occurred, and Mr.. Bryan, taking sec
ton 4 of article l. of the constitution to
be the law on the subject pledges him
self against any repetition of violation
thereof which his letter necessarily
charges. He vindicates the wisdom of
the trainers of the constitution by de-
claring the local authorities are bet
| ter qualified than the president to judge
of the necessity for federal assistance
This in my Judgment is far more
serious matter than the money ques-
ton or any of the other questions now
before the people, grave as they are.
Our form of government may survive a
wrong decision of these questions and
the president may endure for a time
the evils which result from false state
ments but if the president has deliber-
ately disregarded the instrument upon
which the union is founded by supplant-
ing the authority of a sovereign state
by armed force, a precedent has been
made which threatens our form of gov
eminent, while if a candidate for presi-
dent pledges himself in advance as Mr..
Bryan has done, to do nothing to pro-
tect the property, maintain the author
ity and enforce the laws of the United
States unless and until the officers of
another government request or con-
sent, then we really have no federal
government; for a government which is
not entirely free to use force to protect
and maintain itself in the discharge of
its own proper functions is no govern
ment at all. The section of the cOnsti-
tuition to which Mr.. Bryan refers is as
follows:
me Onll6Q states Sndll guarantee
to every state in this union a Republic
can form of government and shall pro-
tect each of the states against invasion
and application of the legislature
or of the executive when the legislature
can not be convened against domestic
violence
This section plainly refers merely to
the protection of the states against in
reference with their authority, laws
or property, by domestic violence and
they are wisely made the sole judges
whether and when they need such pro-
lection. Mr.. Bryan betrayS a con-
sciOusness of the limited operation of
this provision in the expression Fed
eral assistance" in the clause 1 have
quoted.
But by the express term of the con-
stitution a state has nothing to do
with the maintenance or the execu-
ton of the laws of the United States
within the territory of the state The
prevention and punishment of OffenseS
connected with the mails, with inter
state commerce, with the adminfStra-
tiOn of justice, are committed to the
general government and to 1t alone
Such Offenses in no wise menace the
general government of the state within
which they are committed therefore
the state cannot require protection.
Therefore it cannot ask for federal as
sistance, with respect to them. OF
cOure, domestic violence often, as in the
recent riots is directed against both
state and federal authority, indiscrin-
inately, so that either or both may sup
press it And in such cases the action
of each in maintaining its own author
ity over the subjects committed to it
tends to aid the other. But in such cases
each is acting in its own Independent
right as a sovereign and on its own be-
half. It would be absurd to claim that
the U. S. must neglect its own interests
because in protecting them those of
a state may be incidentally protected
as fla state must let riot run free be
cause it happens to be directed against
federal rights or officers as well as its
own This would limit and belittle the
sovereignty of the states. 1mperium in
imperia would be false.
According to Mr.. Bryan there is some
where implied in the constitution, for
it is nowhere expressed, prohibition
of the use of force by the United States
against persons who within the limits
of a state may be successfully resist
ing its officers and completely paralyZ-
ing its operations as a government IN
less the local authorities shall first
make request or give consent.
This is contrary to the settled prin-
cfple that while the federal government
is one whose operation is confined to
certain subjects it has, as to those sub
iects, all the attributes Of sovereignty
and one of those is always and every
where within the territory of states
which compose it to suppress and pun
iSh those who in anywiSe interfere in
the exercise of its powers? The tact
that there are within the territory or
the United States other territories ex-
ercising the power OF sovereignty can
make no difference under the double
form of government
This sovereignty of the United States
necessarily follows its officers and
agents everywhere they go, protesting
and maintaining them in the discharge
of their duties Congress has accord
inzly by section 52S7, Of the revised
eraf1,fes l1ThoriZad the president to