The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-09-14

being a great soldier, but little of
civilian, and, being little versed in civil
law, accepted the position, and IN a
city where there was no preteEce that
any law of the United States was like
ly to be violated or any property OIL une
United States likely to be destroyed,
gave his orders as an ofhcer OF the
United States army, as If he had oeen
in one of the conquered cities OF the
south in 1864 or 1865 I presums no re
spectacle lawyer would venture the
opinion that General Sheridan was
acting within the laws or constitution
of the United States or Of the state OF
Illinois Governor Palmer was well
known as an able and distinguished law
yer before he ever buckled on a sword
or became a distinguished general IN
the war of the rebellion. He had al
ways been a Democrat. strict con-
structfonist and believer in states
rights in the proper sense OF the term,
until the passage of the Eansas-Ne-
braska bill, when he parted company
with his party upon the slavery ques-
ton solely.
After the slavery question was set
tied and the Republican party adopted
the protective policy to which, WIN
all paternalistic legislation he had al
ways been strongly opposed, he re-
turned to his old party. He acted
promptly at the time of the Chicago
fire. The writer well remembers how.
standing in sight of the Mississippi
river, $50 miles from Chicago, early in
the morning of October 10, he saw an
extra train carrying two field pieces
and a company of Illinois mlhtla,
speeding swiftly towards the wrecked
city, other companies nearer by were
already there. They encountered no
mob, but very possibly their prompt
presence prevented one. Governor Pat
mer, thus called upon to abdlcate ms
functions as governor of Illinois in it's
greatest city, strongly protested. To
many, accustomed, so recently, to see
the army take the place of all civil
government in conquered cities and
states, Governor Palmer's vigorous as
serIion of the rights and dignity OF
the state and its chief executive in the
management of it's local affairs seemed
under the circumstances in extremely
bad taste. While to the governor, with
his years of legal training, inspiring as
it always does the true lawyer with IN
creased veneration for the law of the
land, it seemed rather a matter of con-
science, to perform the duty imposed
by the solemn obligation of the oath
he had taken to support the constitu-
ton and laws of a great common
wealth. He carried the responsibility
of governor of a great state, his critics
had no responsibility.
What is Altgeld's case? In July, 1894,
for days and weeks the storm had been
gathering in Chicago. A strike had
been organized that seemed at least
likely to end in disorder and in serious
violations of the laws of the state of
Illinois and ultimately of the United
States.
The president, at Washington, unless
he mad been purblind, must have seen
the storm approaching, and yet as long
as only the laws of that great state
were ruthlessly trodden under foot by
the mob he was powerless to act, eX-
cept upon the call Of its legislature or
governor. But when the mob began TO
obstruct the mails and defy the laws
of the United States, he began prompt
ly, firmly and effectually to enforce the
laws of the United States within the
boundaries of the sovereign state of
Illinois and elsewhere. 1t is true that
in order to do this he necessarily as
sisted to enforce the laws of Illinois
and to prevent that foul blot upon the
fair fame of that great state from be-
coming darker and larger. Very pos
sibly the fact that his action was likely
to save many lives and millions OF
property from destruction did not deter
him from performing his plain duty.
1t is equally true that had the laws
of the state of Illinois been faithfully
executed he would have been spared
this duty Altgeld, living in the city
of Chicago, amid all the signs of COM
ing disaster. after millions of property
had been destroyed and many lives
lost, woke up at last in the midst Of
this reign Of terror and complained
and protested against this invasion of
a sovereign state.
AS the writer has always understood
it, it has always been good Democratic
doctrine, at least from the days of
Jackson and Calhoun until the Chicago
convention in July last, '@That the con-
etitution of the United States and the
laws made in pursuance with it are
the supreme law of the land, and that
it is the duty Of the president of the
United States to see that they are
faithfully executed, even though it be
necessary TO invade the soil of a
sovereign state to do it." Whoever
eensures the action of the president
puts the brand of condemnation on the
last Democratic congress (three-fourths
Democratic in the house,, which by a
unanimous vote of both Democrats and
Republicans, the few Populists alone
dissenting, heartily approved of his
action instead of disappearing it, as it
should have done if wrong This was
the house in which William Jennings
Bryan sat. He also oensures every daily