The herald., 1896-09-12
HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
According to Attorney.General
HarmOn's Views
TIE SUPPRESSION OF RIOT
A Constitutional Prerogatlve of the
President
lie SUPPRESSION OF RIOT
In All Cases Where Resistance Is 1ade to
the Execution OF Federal Laws.
Bryan's Position

General Harmon today furnished the
following for publications:
IT have concluded to give public an
swer to the many inquiries made of me
upon subject Of great moment, to
| which general attention is now directed.
"Mr. Bryan, in his letter accepting the
nomination for president by the conven-
ton at Chicago amplifies the protest
which that convention made in it's plat
form against federal interference in To-
| cal affairs, which, strangely enough, is
not found in the platforms of the other
| conventions which have also nominated
him. AS nothing else has been pro-
posed to which they could possibly ap-
ply, these protests were intended and
are understood to be directed against
| the recent action of the president in
| forcibly suppressing riotous disorders
which had stopped the carriage of the
| mails and interstate commerce and were
defying the civil officers of the United
| States. The president took this action
not only without the requests, but in
some instances against the protest of
| the authorities of the state in which the
riots occurred, and Mr.. Bryan, taking
| section Nv. of article of the constitution
to be the law on the subject, pledges
himself against any repitition of thea
violation thereof, which his letter nee
essarily charges. He indicates the wis
| domf of the trainers of the constitution
by declaring that the local authorities
are better qualified than the president
to judge Of the necessity for federal as
| sistance.
This Is. in my judgment, a far more
serious matter than the money question
| or any of the other questions that are
| now before the people, grave as they all
are. Our form of government may sur
vive wrong decision on those questions
and the people may endure for a 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 consti-
tuition Is founded, by supplanting the
authority of a sovereign state by armed
| force, precedent has been made which
threatens our form of government. while
II candidate for president properly
! pledge himself in advance as Mr.. BRYAN
has done, to do nothing to protect the
property, maintain the authority and
STATES.
unless and until the officers Of another
government request or consent, then we
really nave no federal government: for
government which is not entirely free
TO use force to protect and maintain
user IN the discharge of it's own proper
functions is no government at ALL
Inc section of the constitution to
which Mr.. Bryan refers is as follows.
The United States shall guarantee to
every state in this union a republican
form or government and shall protect
each or them against invasion: and IN
application of the Legislature or of the
executive (when the legislature cannot
oe conVened) against domestic yio-
lence.'
Ihls section plainly refers merely to
the protection of the states against the
interference with their authority. law or
property, by domestic violence, and thew
are wisely made the sole judges whether
or when they need such protection. Mr..
Bryan betrays consciousness of the
limited operation of this provision in
the expression federal assistance in the
clause have quoted.
But, by the express terms of the con-
stitution, 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 Of
fenses connected with the mails. with
interstate commerce, with the admins
tration of justice in the federal courts
are committed to the general govern
ment and to it alone. Such offenses in no
wise menace the general government Of
the state within which they are commit
ted Therefore the state cannot re-
quire protection against them. The
state has no duties to discharge in these
matters. Therefore it can REQUIRE no
federal assistance" with respect to
them. OF course, domestic violence
often, as in the recent riots, is directed
against both state and federal author
ity irdiscriminately so that either or
both may suppress it, And in such
cases the action of each in maintaining
lts own authority 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
government and on it's own behalf II
would be absurd to claim that the
United States must neglect its own right
in this because in protecting them those
of state may be incidentally protected,
and as to the claim that a state must
let riot run free because it happens to
be directed against federal rights or Of
ficers as well as it's own. This would
limit and be|ittle the sovereignty of both
governments. Imperium in imperio
would be false.
According to Mr.. Bryan, there is
sqmewhere implied in the constitution,
for it is nowhere expressed, a prohibi-
ton of the use of force by the Unitel
States against persons who, within the
limits of state, may be successfully
resisting its officers and completely par
alyzing all its operations as govern
ment, unless the local authorities shall
first make request or give consent. This
is contrary to the settled principle that,
while the federal government y one