Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-10-26
JUDSON HARMON'SPOSTTION
SUPPORTS A CANDIDATE WHOM HE
sAvAGELY CRITICISED IN 1896.
Mr.. Cleveland's Attorney General ON
ference in the Debs Riots.

A few days ago IL was announced from
democratic headquarters that Judson Har-
mon Of Cincinnati, former Attorney Cen
eral under President Cleveland had de-
4caared his intention to vote for MI. Bryan
in this election. The fact was broadly pro-
claimed. 1t has attracted wider attention
than was perhaps expected. Lawyers with
retentive memories are freely expressing
their wonder at Mr.. Harmon's position in
view of his published opinion concerning
one of the doctrines for which Mr.. Bryan
stands in this campaign, in that of 1895.
1t will be recalled that the Chicago plat
form of 1896 took cognizance Of the action
Of President Cleveland during the Debs riots
| in Chicago, condemning his course in send
ing troops to that city in the following
| language:
I'VE denounce arbitrary interference by
federal authorities in local affairs vio-
lation of the Constitution of the United
States and a crime against free institu
tons. and we especially object to govern
ment by Injunction as new and highly
dangerous form of oppression, etc, etc.
1t is immaterial to the point of Judge
Harmons present position, yet an interest
ing fact, that the legal advice upon which
President Cleveland based his action in
sending federal troops to Chicago was fur
nished by Richard Olney, then his Attorney
General, now supporter Of Mr. Bryan
Mr.. Harmon succeeded Mr.. Olney at the
head Of the Department of Justice. Sep
| TENDER II. 1896, he issued a four-page cir
cular entitled Statement of the Attorney
General concerning the right of the Presi-
dent to enforce federal authority in all
parts Of the Union and Mr.. Bryan's posi-
ton with relation thereto" 1t was prefaced
by statement that many inquiries had
been made Of him concerning the response
bilities of the government in the Debs riots,
and then followed this sentence:
Mr.. Bryan in his letter accepting the
nomination for President by the convention
m hn nv fncfr inh hot
convention made in its platform against
| federal interference in local affairs
Before proceeding to discuss the right of
| the President to send troops to enforce the
| federal laws, the Attorney General said
This, in my judgment, Is far more
serious matter than the money question
any Of the other questions before the peo-
pie, grave as they all are. Our form of
government may survive a wrong decision
| OF those questions, and the people may en-
| dure for a time the evils which result from
| false systems of finance and taxation. But
If the President, has deliberately disregard
ed the instrument upon which the Union is
| founded, by supplanting the authority of a
| sovereign state by armed force, a precedent
| has been made which threatens our form
| OF government; while, if candidate for
| PRESIDENT may 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 government request consent,
| llltll we really nave no FEDERAL government.
1oE government which is not entirely free
| TO use force to protect and maintain itself
| IN the discharge of Its proper functions is
| no government at ALL
Mr.. Harmon showed that there is nothing
in the Constitution which was controverted
| by President Cleveland's action. He cited
| It's PROVISIONS and statutes enacted under
them to prove the authority of the execu-
| tive to use force to compel regard for the
laws of the nation, particularly section 529S
| OF the Revised Statutes, authorizing him to
employ such forces upon his own Judgment
alone, against unlawful Instructions COM
binations or assemblages of persons in
whatever state or territory thereof the laws
of the United States may be forcibly op-
posed or the execution thereof forcibly OBJ
| structed' Mr.. Harmon then said:
| 1t was under the power conferred by the
section last named that the late rebellion
was suppressed. Mr.. Bryan's doctrine that
this law is unconstitutional is more dan
| gerous than that of secession. The latter
at least, left the government some power
and authority in the territory Of states
| which should choose to remain. Mr.
Bryan's doctrine would reduce 1t to the
| idle mimicry of the stage"
In conclusion, the Attorney General noted
that the fact that the Senate, July II, 1894.
passed. without apparent dissent, resolution
| indorsing the prompt and vigorous meas
ures'' adopted by President Cleveland, Ito
repulSe and repreSs by military force the
| interference Of lawess men with the due
| process Of the laws and with the trans
portaton of the mails and with commerce
among the states.'' He further noted that
this resolution was introduced by Senator
Daniel of Virginia, who was president of
| the convention which nominated Mr.. Bryan.
Those who have recalled the circum-
stances and remember the terms of Mr.. Har-
mons letter. are now wondering how he
manages to indorse this year the same
| candidate whose doctrine he thus effective
ly assailed in 1896. and who stands now
upon platform which contains this clause:
| I'VE reaffirm and indorse the principles
| of the national democratic platform adopted
| at Chicago in 1895"