The record-union., 1896-09-12
Attorney General HarmOn'S Views Re-
SpeCting the Political Situation.
Does Not Agree With the Protest in
the Chicago Platform
Relating to the Action of the Presi-
dent in FOrcibly SuppreSsing
RiOtouS Disturbances Which Had
Stopped the Carriage of Mails and
Interstate Commerce and Defying
the Civil Officers of the United
States.
States.

the Civil Officers of the United
States.
| WASHINGTON, Sept 11.-Attorney-
General Harmon to might made public
his views respecting the political situa-
ton, emphatically emphasizing his
opinion on Federal interference in local
affairs, on which subject the Attorney
General does not agree with the protest
emodled in the Chicago platform. Mr..
Harmon'S communication follows:
| Il have concluded to give public
answer to the many inquiries made Of
me upon a subject of great moment to
Which general attention is now directed.
Mr.. Bryan, in his letter accepting the
nomination for President by theconven-
tion at Chicago, amplifies the protest
which that convention made in its plat
form against Federal interference in
local affairs, which strangely enough
is not found In the platforms of the
other two conventions which have also
nominated him. AS nothing else has
been done or proposed to which they
can possibly apply, these protests were
intended and are understood to be di-
A~GS~Ne
President in forcibly suppressing riot
Gus disturbances which had stopped the
carriage of the mails and interstate
commerce, and was defying the civil
| officers of the United States
! The President took this action not
only without request, but In some in
stances against the protest of the
authorities of the States in which the
riot occurred, and Mr.. Bryan, taking
Section of Article w of the Consti-
tuition to be the law on the subject,
pledges himself against any repetition
OF the violation thereof which his letter
necessarily charges. He vindicates the
wisdom of the trainers Of the Constitu-
ton by declaring that the local author
tiles are better qualified to judge of the
necessity for Federal interference.
This in my judgment is a far more
serious matter than the money ques-
: tlon or any of the other questions now
before the people, grave as they all are.
| Our form of Government may survive
| a wrong discussion of these questions.
| and the people may endure for time
| the evils which result from false sys-
TENS Of finance and taxation, but if the
President has deliberately disregarded
the instrument upon which the Union is
| founded by supplanting the authority
OF sovereign State by armed force. a
precedent has been made which threat
ems our form of government. While,
II a candidate for President may prop
erly pledge himself i'll advance, as Mr..
! Bryan has done, to do nothing to pro-
| tect the property, maintain the author
lty 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 Government which
is not entirely free 20 use force to pro-
| tect itself and maintain itself in the
| discharge Of its own proper functions,
is no Government at all.
The section of the Constitution to
which Mr.. Bryan refers plainly refers
| merely to the protection of the States
against interference with their author
| lty, laws or property by domestic vio-
! lence, and they are wisely made solely
the judges whether or when they need
i the protection. But by the express
| terms Of the Constitution a State has
nothing to do with the maintenance OF
the authority or the execution of the
laws of the United States within the
territory of the State.
The prevention and punishment of
| offenses connected with the mails. with
| interstate commerce and with the ad-
| ministration of justice in the Federal
| courts are committed to the General
| Government, and to it alone Such Of
| lenses in no wise menace the govern
ment of the State in which they are
committed. Therefore, the State cannot
require protection against them. The
| state has no duties to discharge in this
/ matter. Therefore it can REQUIRE no
Federal assistance with respect to them.
Oh course domestic violence often as in
| the recent riots. is directed against both
| State and Federal authority indiscrim-
| lhately, and either or both may suppress
| IT, And in such cases the action of
each in maintaining it's own authority
over the subjects committed to it tends
10 ald the other But in such cases
each is acting in it's own Independent
| right as sovereign government and on
its own behalf
1T would be as absurd to claim that
the United states might neglect it's own
interests because in protecting them
| those Of State may be incidentally
protected as to claim that a State must
|
be directed against Federal representa-
/ tlVeS or officers as we'll as its own
| According to Mr.. Bryan, there is
somewhere implied in the Constitution,
for 1t is nowhere expressed, a prohibi-
ticn OF the use of force by the United
| states against persons who, within the
| limits of a State. may be successfully
! resisting its officials and completely
paraiyzing all its operations as a gov
| ernment, unless the local authorities
shall first make request or give con-
sent. This is contrary to the settled
| principle that while the Federal Gov
| ernment is one whose operation is con-
| lined to certain subjects it has, as to
those subjects, all the attributes of SOW
ereignty, and one of these is always
and everywhere within the territory of
the States which compose it, to sup
press and punish those who in any
wise interfere with the exercise of its
| lawful powers.