Year: 1861

Rights side Of politics, that for the privilege
OF acting directly on individual citizens the
General Government paid the price of giving
up all presnsion of right to coerce or use
force against State. If the General Gov.
ernment finds itself so situated that il can.
not reach by its legal process the individual
citizens Of State, because the State Gov.
ernment interposes itself, it is an unhappy
condition Of things. but there seems to be
no remedy Of the nature of force. Il ia
clear it is not lawful to use as a remedy the
army and navy 10 make war against a State
Government. To have sent strong reinforce.
menls South as preventative of secession.
would have been either absurd, if not intend,
ed to be used against State, or criminal.
if intended 10 be so used.


The statute Of our own State passed in
1901, defining treason. is in harmony with
this view, 1t reads: IF any person do levy
war against the people Of this State within
this State" such act is treason. No excep,
ton, it will be seen, is made in favor of per.
sons wearing the uniform of the United
States, or commissioned by the President.


1t is worth our while to observe while the
Constitution authorized Congress 40 raise
and support armies" without SAYING for what
purpose, it authorizes them 10 call forth the
uNi,ia "to execute the laws of the Union"
Our forefathers were very jealous of stand.
ing arm es, as are the friends of free gov.
ernment all over the world. The excsue for
raising armies in all governments is defence
against foreign enemes-for purpose Of for,
eign war. The army is used, we know for
other purposes-say, for controlling internal
disturbances; and is used to greater or less
exten for such purposes, just in proportion "a
government Is more or less despotic. Did
our forefathers give this authority to raise
armies for any purpose but the one exclusive
purpose of defense against foreign enemies9
One of their complaints against the King of
England was, that "he has kept among US.
in times of peace, standing armies without
the consent Of our legislatures" If they
deemed this incompatible with the respect
due to colonial legislature, what would
they have thought Of standing army, or
any portion of it, being kept in State. in
times of peace with foreign nations, against
the wish Of q State legislature9


But, it will be said, the mere display of
a large force in the South, without using it
would have deferred both the people and the
leaders from carrying out their purposes.
The people would not, in such case, have
ventured to choose secession delegate es; or IL
they had, the delegates would not have dar.
ed to put State in the attitude of secession.
Is this legitimate use of the armyl-to
make the people and their representatives
afraid?--lo overawe the people in the cleo.
tons OF their representatives in ortheir Gelib.
er"'ions? 1.-THE President may transfer the
Army and Navy from State to State to inl
fluence an election turning upon the ques,
ton of secession or anti secession, why may
he not do so to influence an election in this
city turning upon the question of the con.
lnuance or discontinuance of the Metropol.
itan Police9 Where is the limit of the
Presidents discretionary use of the Army
for such purposes9


That the measure would have had any
such effect AS is claimed for it is very far
from certain; for the suspicion of an ex,ral
ordinary arming of the forts in Virginia is
it seems to us, he ping to spur on secession
there


There has been no time from the begin.
ming of these troub es Till now, when a more
threat of force or the actual use
Of force, would not have made matters
worse, nor any time from the beginning till
now, when the frank disavowal cf a peace
policy by the plain act Of withdrawing the
soldiers, would not have made things better.