Year: 1872

We refer to the Louisiana question
again, not for the purpose of discussing
Its origin, course or present situation
We believe, as we have had occasion
to say before, that the question is
practically settled for the present al
least. We published yesterday, Attor-
npy-Grneral Williams statement Of facts
in the case, upon which the President
felt called upon to act, and, upon that
statement, which we believe to be cor
rect, in our opinion the President was
bound by his official oath to act. For
his course in the premises, President
Grant has been most bitterly assailed by
the Democratic and Liberal press of the
country. He has been called dolt, an
idiot, q, tyrant, an usurper, i'll fact the
whole vocabulary of low and vile epi-
thets has been exhausted in this torrent
Of Misrepresentation and abuse. II has
come, too, from that party, which
pirates 40 much about obedience to law,
inviolability of constitutional obligations,
and respect and submission to the deci-
sion Of the United States Supreme Court.
Fortunately, we are not left to mere
theory, nor a forced construction of the
law or the constitution, to find a com
plete justification of the Presidents
course. His duty in the premises was
plain, and could not be avoided. and the
only possible tenable ground, on wbicA
complaint can be hinged. is that the
President may have committed an error
Of judgment Every one is liable TO
errors of this kind, for to err is human,
and it would be strange indeed if a man
could be found so perfect, in every res
pect, as to be beyond the liability or
possibility of error But, as we have
said, in our judgment, the President is
not compelled to shield himself behind
this plea If he had the right to act. it
was his duty to act, and having acted
there is no appeal from his decision. Let
us look at his right and authority to act.
The Constitution of the United States
(SpctiOn 4 of Article four provides, that
.thp United shall guarantee to every
State in this Union Republican form
of government, and shall protect each
of them against invasion, and on appli-
cation of the legislature, or of the eXecu-
tive (when the legislature cannot be con
vened) against domestic violence. Con-
gress, in 1895, and again in 1907, under
this constitutional provision, enacted
laws, empowering the President to use
the military force of the nation to sup
press insurrectiOn. or the obstruction of
National or State laws, when properly
called upon. Fortunately there was no
occasion to use the power, thus granted
by the Constitution and special enact
ments, until 1912, when John Tyler.
then President of the United States ''in-
terfered," as they call it, in ''the domcs-
tic affairs" of Rhode Island, at the time
of the Dorr rebellion, and recognized and
sustained the old State government as
against Dorr How this act was reCeiv-
ed by the Democratic party is matter
of history. Not content with the cOurs-
est and most virulent denunCiatiOns of
the President, they held large meetings,
\ passed resolutions of sympathy with
Dorr and rendered him, and actually
money. The question of the power Of
the President, thus to act, was then new,
and perhaps, although the language of
the constitution is perfectly plain and
prhf hn hnpn O
of doubt as to the right of the Executive
to'udge between the contending parties,
and to uphold one as the legal State gov
ernment,, and sustain its action in at
tempting the suppression of the other.
The question was carried to the Supreme
Court of the United States and there de-
cided. The opinion of the court was
delivered by Chief Justice Taney, whose
decision in the Dred Scott case is such an
object of peculiar veneration TO our
Democratic brethren. He says The
power of deciding whether the eXigenCy
has arisen upon which the Government
of the United States is bound to inter
fere, is given TO the President. He is to
act upon the application of the legisla-
ture or the executive, and consequently
ne must determine what body of men
constitute the legislature, and who is the
Governor before he can act. The New
York World, alone of the Democratic
Dress, sees the dilemma in which they
are placed, takes new departure, and
accuses the President Of abuse of power,
because the constitution makes him tho
Judge, and he acted only after Judge
Durrell had decided the same question in
the same way Because, forsooth, the
President believes the law and facts to
be as they have been judIcially decided,
must he decide the other way, or refuse
TO decide or act at all Can the Presi-
dent, under the constitution, laws and
decisions of the court, decide or act, un-
til the case is properly before him? And
if his interference is not asked until after
judicial decision has been made, is he
then powerless to act 2 The propositions
are too absurd for argument. Look at
the question In any light, and the action


Of the President Is justified. The law


and the facts, the constitution and the
courts sustain him and we believe that


ne will be sustained by the intelligent


public opinion of the country.