The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-09-13
SCOPE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

The service which Encouragement Har-
mon has rendered the country in exposing
the dangers of Mr.. Bryan's Interpretation
of the power of the President in suppress
ing disturbances in the States is all the
more valuable because no man who has
held that office has heretofore felt it his
duty to criticise the views Of a candidate
for a high Office. Attorney general Har-
mon explains his action by saying that the
attitude which Mr. Bryan has assumed has
raised an issue of far more serious import
than the question of the currencys And it
is because it involves the existence of the
federal government. If the President is
denied the authority to enforce the federal
laws, or If a candidate pledges himself that
he will leave the enforcement of the feder-
al laws to State executives and will allow
them to be broken because the State Of
fetal did not do his duty, then the United
States is not a government.
The chief service which Mr. Harmon has
rendered is that he has made IT very clear
that the federal laws should be enforced
in the States without as much as recognize
ing the existence Of local officials The
laws regulating the carriage of the mails,
the commerce between the States, the col
lection of federal revenues are among the
federal laws which the President must en-
force. If their enforcement is disturbed by
mobs it would be equivalent to declaring
that the federal government is a nonentity
if the President must ask a Governor If he
shall suppress a mob which is impeding
mail trains or the commerce of a half dozen
States. Suppose Governor like Altgeid
should refuse permission and the President
should in consequence neglect to enforce
the acts of Congress, would there be any
pretext for the longer existence Of the
Union and it's government? Mr.. Bryan,
the follower of Governor Altgeld, takes that
position, in effect. He has invoked the ghost
of that State supremacy, the real being
of which died with the preservation of the
Union. The secession movement was based
upon the heresy which Mr. Bryan
declares is the belief of the party which ne
leads, and which he will observe, should he
be elected Mr.. Harmon is very plain
with Mr.. Bryan this point. Under a
qaoted section of the law of the United
States the President is authorized to en-
ploy force to overcome the forcible resist
ance of federal laws. Under that section,
says Mr.. Harmon, secession was sup
pressed Then the Encouragement
makes of this strong language: Mr.
Bryans doctrine that this law is unconsti-
tutional is more dangerous than that of
secession"
The Encouragement quotes the resolu-
ton which was presented by Senator Dan
ia1 IF nd of
President Cleveland. which mortally Of
Tended Governor Altgeld, and which was
adopted without dissenting vote. In this
connection it is curious to note that Mr..
Daniel, in his original draft of the resolu-
ton, declared that sit is within the plain
constitutional authority of Congress to reg
ulate commerce among the several States,
establish postoffices and post roads; that
the judicial power of the United States ex-
tends to all cases in law and equity aris-
ing under the Constitution and the laws of
the United States, and that the President is
made commander-in-chieft to the end that
the laws may be faithfully executed, and
that it is treason against the United States
to levy against them or to adhere to
their enemies, giving them aid and COM
fort" The House, under suspension of the
rules, passed a resolution which assumes
that it lis the duty of the President to en-
force federal laws in the States by such
means as he deems necessary" When the
vote was taken there were not sufficient
numbers against the resolution to demand
the yeas and nays. The fact that these res
olutions were passed by the practically
unanimous vote Of both branches of Con-
of opinion as to the power of the President.
1t has remained for Governor Altgeld to
revive the heresy of State sovereignty and
to Mr.. Bryan to declare, in effect, that the
laws giving the President power to enforce
such statutes in the States are unconstitu-
tional.