The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-09-12
FEDERAL POWER SUPREME.
NEITHER REQUEST NOR CONSENT
EIGHTY is ATTACKED.
LEGAL PHASE OF THE PROBLEM
Clear and Simple Analysis of the
Organic and Statute Law In
vOlyed.

lO1OWlnS LOT puDllcaIlOn.
81 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 di-
rected. Mr.. Bryan, in his letter f ac-
cepting the nomination for president
by the convention at Chicago amph-
fies the protest which that convention
made in it's platform against federal
interference In local affairs, which.
strangely enough, is not found in the
platforms Of the other two conventions
which have also nominated Tim.
CAS- nothing else has been done or
proposed to which they can possibly
apply, these protests were intended
and are understood to be directed
against the recent action of the presi-
dent in forcibly suppressing riotous
disorders which had stopped the car
riage of the mails and Interstate COM
merce, defying the civil officers of the
United States. The president took
this action not only without request,
but in some instances against the pro-
test Of the authorities Of the states In
which the riots occurrerd, and Mr..
Bryan, taking section 4, of article w
Of the constitution to be the law upon
the subject, places himself against any
repetition of the violation thereof,
which his letter necessarily charges.
He vindicates the wisdom of the franz
ers of the constitution by declaring
that the local authorities are better
qualified than the president to Judge
of the necessity for federal assistance.
This, in my judgment is a far more
"a
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 those
questions, and the people may endure
for time the evils which result from
false systems of finance and taxation,
but, if, the president has deliberately
disregardeds the instrument upon which
the Union is founded by supplanting
the authority of a sovereign state by
armed force, precedent has been
made, which threatens our form of
government, while IL candidate for
president properly pledge himself In
advance, as Mr.. Bryan has done, to
do nothing to protect the property,
maintain the authority and enforce the
laws of the United States, unless and
until the officers of another govern
ment request or consent, then we
really have no federal government:
for government which is not entirely
free to use force to protect and main
tain its own functions is no govern
ment at ALL The section of the con-
stitution to which Mr.. Bryan refers
is as follows:
The United States shall guarantee to every
Cfnfa in h yTriN 1xIs o.
government and shall protect each of them
against invasion; and on application of the
legislature or the executive (when the legis-
lature cannot 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 protection. Mr.. Bryan betrays a
consciousness of the limited operation
Of the provision in the expression. fed
eral assistance in the clause 1 have
quoted. But by the express terms Of
the constitution, state has nothing
to do with the maintenance of the au-
thority or the execution of the laws
of the United States, within the terri
tory of the state. The prevention and
punishment of offenses connected with
the mails, with interstate commerce
and with the administration of justice
in the federal courts are committed to
the general government, and to 1t
alone. Such offenses in nowise men
ace the government of the state in
which they are committed. Therefore,
the state cannot require protection
against them. The state has no duties
- H.,
fore, it can defy no federal assist
ance' with respect to them.
"Of course, domestic violence often,
as in the recent riots, is directed
against both state and federal author
ity unfortunately, 80 that either or
both may suppress it, And In such
cases, the action of each in maintain
ing its own authority over the sub
jects committed to it, tends to aid the
other. But in such cases each Is act
ing in it's own independent right as
sovereign government in it's own be-
half 1t would be as absurd to claim
that the United States must neglect
its own interests because In
protecting them, those of a
state may be incidentally pro-
tected, as to claim that state must
let riot run free because 1t happens to
be directed against federal rights of
would limit and belittle the sovereignty
of both governments. Imperium in i'm
perio would be false.
According to Mr. Bryan, there Is
somewhere implied in the constitution,
for 1t is nowhere expressed prohf-
bition of the use Of force by the United
States against persons who, within the
limits Of a state, may be successfully
resisting its officers and completely
paralyzing 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 in it's operation, is confined to
certain subjects, 1T has to those SUBJ
jects all the attributes of sovereignty
and one of these is always and every
where within the territory of the states
which compose it, to suppress and pun
ish those who in anywise interfere with
the exercise of Its lawful powers. The
fact that there are within that terri
tory other governments exercising SOW
ereignty over all matters not SO conf
mitted to 1t, can make no difference
under our double form of government,
the essential principle Of which is
partition of powers to be exercised In
depently over the same territory.
This sovereign right of the United
States necessarily follows its officers
and agents everywhere they go, pro-
tecting and maintaining them In the
discharge Of their duties Congress-