The Roanoke daily times. (Roanoke, Va.) 1895-1897, 1896-09-12


Washington, Sept. 11.-Attorney Gen.
eral Harmon to-day furnished the follow
ing for publication:
II have concluded to give public an
swer to the many inquiries made upon
me upon Il subject of great moment, to
winch general attention is now directed.
'Mr. Bryan, in his letter accepting the
nomination of President by the conven-
ton 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 pro-
posed to Which they can possibly apply.
these protests were intended, and are nm
derstood to be directed against the recent
action of the President in forcibly sun
pressing riotous disorders, which had
stopped the carriage of the mails and in
terstate commerce. and were defyinp the
civil officers of the United States.
The President took this action. not
only without the request. but in some in
stances against the protest of the author
tiles of the States in which the riots
occurred, and Mr. Bryan, taking section
4, OF article ~ of the constitution 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 constitution by de-
clarinB that the local authorities care
better qualified than the President to
judge of the necessity for federal as
sistance.' This, in my Judgment. is n
Tar more serious matter than the money
question, or any other question now be-
tore the people, grave as they all are Our
form OF government may survive Il wrong
decision of those questions, and the peo-
pie may endure for time the evil which
results from false systems of finance and
taXatloni but If the President has DELHI
erately disregarded the instrument upon
whlch the Union is founded, by supplant-
ing the uthority of II sovereign State nv
armed force, u precedent has been made
which threatens our form of government.
while, II candidate for President NAV
properly pledge itself in advance, ms Mr..
Bryan mas done, to do nothing to protect
tne property, maintain the authority and
enforce the laws of the United States I'M
less and until the officers of another gov
eminent request or consent, then we
really have no federal government: for n
government which is not entirely free to
use force to protect and maintain itself
III the discharge of its own proper func-
lions is no government at ali.
The section of the constitution to
which Mr.. Bryan refers, is as follows
The United States shall guarantee to
every State in this Union republican
form OF government, and shall j3rotcct
each of them against invasion: and on
application of the legislature or of the
executive (when the legislature cannot
be convenedD against domestic violence
This section plainly refers merely to
the protection of the States against inter
ference with their authority, laws or
property by domestic violence, and they
are wisely made the sole Judges whether
and when they need such protection.
MIR. Bryan betrays consciousness of the
limited operation of this provision in the
expression federal assistance in the
clause have quoted
but by the expressed terms of the
constitution, 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 admin.
istration of justice in the federal courts.
are committed to the general government
and to it alone. Such offenses in no wise
menace the government of the State
within which they are committed. There
fore, the State cannot require 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 VIC.
lence often, us in the recent riots. is
directed against both State and federal
authority indiscriminately, so that each
or both may be suppressed. And in such
cases the action of each in maintaining
its own authority over the subjects COM
mitted to it tends to aid the other. But
in such cases each is acting in it's own in
dependent right as q sovereign govern
ment, and on its own behalf. 1t would
be as absurd to claim that the United
States must neglect its own interests be.
cause in protecting them those of a State
may be incidentally protected, as to
claim that the State must let riot run free
because it happens to be directed
against federal rights or officers as we'll
as its own. This would limit and BELT.
tie the sovereignty of both governments.
'Imperium in imperio' would be false.
According to Mr. Bryan there Sis
somewhere implied in the constitution.
for it is nowhere expressed prohibition
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 q government, unless
the local authorities shall first make re-
quest or give consent.
This is contrary to the settled princi-
pie that while the federal government is
one whose operations are confined to GER
"a N 81.