Year: 1874




possession since its date, some twelve days
ago. 1t has been SO long withheld because
we feared that its weighty juridical reasoning
would not command the attention it merits
amid the tumult of an exciting popular elec-
tion- We trust the public mind has SO Tar re-
sumed its wonted quiet that it VIII again
relish the depth, gravity and logic which have
SO often impaired dignity to our columns in
the recent varied discussion of the Louisiana
question by the great lights OF the American
Bar This discussion is the newest and not
the least instructive development of modern
journalism, or rather of that side of journalism
which seeks to enlighten the public Judgment
on the great occurrences which it is the
first duty of newspaper to report. Such
discussion as is going on In the
HERALD between the ripes. legal minds in the
country is, on some classes Of questions, more
satisfactory and instructive than the new prac-
tice of oral interviews, although the value Of
interviews is not to be underrated Even the
impromptu haste with which the views ex-
pressed in a newspaper interview are formed
is no dispaagement if the subjects are not
such as require elaborate investigation. The
first thoughts of sharp, expert man, are
often useful as hints and sometimes as settled
conclusions. Many of the views of journalists
themselves are as extemporaneous and unpre-
pared as the opinions gathered in interviews,
and there is no argument against this form Of
instruction which is not equally good against
most of the sudden editorial writing done on
fresh topics. There is no reason why men
engaged in banking, commerce, railroading,
navigation, diplomacy or other special pur-
suits should not be as competent to form
prompt opinions on sudden occurrences in
their respective lines of activity as journalists
are expected to be to judge Of the same 90
currences when the telegraph reports them at
midnight; and yet no journal can maintain
its standing if it does not explain important
news by immediate comments. The advan-
tage of interviewing is that it gives readers
the different views, all equally sudden, Of va
rious men of capacity, and the means of es-
timating their soundness by comparison.


But questions often arise requiring graver
consideration and deeper treatment, like the
points Of constitutional law involved in the
Louisiana controversy. On points so intricate
and difficult the only men whose opinions are
of any value will not hazard them without
reflection, and the ordinary process of inter
viewing is not available. The HERALD claims
the merit of having found superior substi-
tute. 1t solicited the written views of several
of the most distinguished statesmen and
lawyers in the United States, and the result
is the extremely able discussion which is con-
tinued in our columns to-day. When jour-
nal has become SO great, respectable and
widely circulated that all the first minds are
willing to make it the vehicle of conveying
their views to the public such journal may
then be said to subsidize and lay under tribute
oil the intellectual resources Of the country,
collecting the brightest rays of intelligence to
one powerful focus, whence they are again
diffused for the universal enlightenment of
the people.


Mr.. Johnson's present letter is the longest
which either he or any other of the
eminent disputants has contributed to
this discussion; but it is the copi-
business of 1uu mind which has many
strong points to present and does not intend
to recur again to the subject. He goes into Q
searching examination of the arguments OF
Mr. O. Conor, and reviews incisively, but at
less length, the letters Of Mr.. George Ticknor
Curtis and Judge Black, both of whom also
opposed his opinion. We have SO often ex-
pressed our concurrence in Mr.. Johnson's
main position that we will not take up space
with repetition nor impair the force Of his new
arguments by restating or abridging them. Be-
speaking for Mr.. Johnson's letter the attention
which it will richly repay, we wish to submit
to the Judgment of the legal profession view
of this subject which has not yet been pre-
sented by any Of the eminent reasoners who
have handled it.


We wish TO suggest, with proper difidencs
and Difference, that the correct standpoint for
the discussion of this question is standpoint
taken from the principles of international law,
whereas it has been almost exclusively dis
cussed as question of constitutional author
ity This suggestion is not intended as q
paradox, but rs view susceptible of being
sustained by solid arguments which we will pre-
sent with all possible brevity. Most unques-
tionably international law has certain
sphere Of application to the mutual relations
of the States with each other and with the
federal government. "The States are foreign
to each other in relation to the unsurrendered
part of their sovereignty" This expression
is Madison's, repeated from jefferson but
we cannot make it very ineligible without
the aid Of an example, and we will select the
most pertinent one in American history. We
refer to the requisition made by the Gov
ernor of Virginia, in 1889, on the Governor Of
New York for the surrender of escaped GRIM
inals, which led to protracted and elabor-
ate controversy between the Executives Of the
two States.-(See Seward's Works, vol. H.,
PIP. 449-518) In that controversy the two
/ coyarnoro ouofad oipcf aoch other V,ftel