of every power conferred upon the Government. The principal arguments I have heard and seen against the existence of this power are designed to show, and do conclusively show, that the power, if abused, would lead to disastrous results; and the fear is always expressed that if the power were conceded it would be abused. But why is there more danger of the abuse of this than of many other powers of the Government? No one will question, I presume, that, as regards mere power, Congress might to-day decide the existing government of Connecticut not to be republican in form, and take steps to supplant it by another. This would of course be a scandalous abuse of the power. But does any one fear that it will be so abused? There is no doubt of the existence of the power, nor that it was wisely conferred. The safeguard against its abuse lies in the fact that the proceeding might be taken in regard to any other and every other State; and Senators are Lot likely to vote proceedings against another State which they would be unwilling to have applied to their own. Everybody, in the discussion of this question, refers to the election in New York when Griswold was elected, but Hoffman was canvassed in as Governor of that State; and it is asked triumphantly, Is it the daty of Congress to interfere in such a case? I say no; not because Congress did not possess the power, but because such a case would not stify the exercise of it. There is no parallel between that case and this.

The Senator from Connecticut must be aware that extreme cases are not proper tests of general principles. There are cases in which Congress should interfere. There are cases in which it should not. There may be other cases of which it would be difficult to say to which class they belong; and where Congress should be in doubt, prudence would dictate that no action should be taken."

Mr. Frelinghuysen: "In New York they had republican form of government, and that is all the Constitution guarantees."

Mr. Carpenter: "This suggests again the question I have already discussed in regard to the meaning of the phrase 'republican form.' If you merely mean the form of government fixed by the State constitution—”

Mr. Frelinghuysen: "I was using the words of the Constitution."

Mr. Carpenter: "The words of the Constitation must be construed; and the same word is used in different senses in the Constitution. The constitutional phrase is, the State shall have a republican form of government;' which I claim means a republican kind of government, or a republican government. If the Senator from New Jersey can maintain that while the constitutional structure of the government is republican it is immaterial whether t be administered by those who were elected or by those who were defeated by the people, then, in Wisconsin, which has a republican constitution, and where at the last election the

Democrats carried their State officers and the Legislature, while Republicans enough to have changed the result staid at home and did not vote, if Governor Washburn had said to his successor, 'True, you were elected, but I think I will stay in;' and the members of the old Legislature had said, 'We don't like to see Democrats in our place; we will hold over,' the government thus administered would have been republican in form, if the Senator from New Jersey is right, and would have satisfied the requirements of the Constitution. If this be so, the States of this Union are the legitimate prey of fraud and violence, and the guarantee of the Constitution is utterly worthless. construction of that instrument which gives the people of a State over to the usurpation of their rulers, and denies them all remedy, is, to say the least of it, not wisely devised to insure the domestic tranquillity or to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

A

Mr. Frelinghuysen: "I think that the Senator from Wisconsin strikes out of the Constitution the word 'form,' and makes the Constitution read that there shall be a republican government. I think that word 'form' has great significance. I think the two things that were guaranteed are a republican form of government, and tranquillity, peace, government. If the people of a State have a republican form of government, and if the United States maintain order and peace and tranquillity so that the people can correct their own errors, their own mistakes, I think that then we have done all that we ought to do; and that for the United States to intervene and force an election upon them is taking from them a republican form of government.'

Mr. Carpenter:

"The word 'form' is in the Constitution, but the question is, What does it mean? I think it is synonymous with 'kind' or class,' and the phrase is equivalent to 'republican government.' There is no doubt that the objection intended to be secured by this provision was to compel the States to remain republics, and prevent their becoming monarchies; to perpetuate government in which the people should enjoy the right of self-government by electing their officers, and to forbid governments in which the people should be governed either under the pretext of divine right or by usurpation; and any construction of the Constitution under which it fails to accomplish this end must be a misconstruction. Such a construction does injustice to the memory of the fathers; it is trifling with the whole subject to say that so long as usurpation and despotic power observe republican forms in administration they are protected by the Constitution."

Mr. Thurman: "Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him for a moment? Mr. Carpenter: 'Certainly."

66

Mr. Thurman: "I wish to make this suggestion: There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States that requires that a State

shall have a written constitution. Its constitution may be like that of Great Britain, without one word of writing. Now if the word 'form' be taken in its most narrow sense, pray what is the guarantee worth in a case where there is no written constitution of a State?"

Mr. Carpenter: "That well illustrates what I was trying to illustrate in another way, and it comes back to this: the question is, whether by that article of the Constitution it was intended to guarantee something to a State, or nothing; whether it was meant to deal with the reality of the thing, or with the mere fiction and form?"

Mr. Norwood, of Georgia, said: "Before the Senator passes from that point, I wish to ask him a question; and I will state in advance to the Senator that my object is to get light on this subject: because it is in my opinion the main point in the case, and the one in regard to which I have felt greatly embarrassed. I wish him to state whether he thinks there is but one remedy where a republican form of government has been destroyed or overthrown? The remedy he proposes is, by act of Congress to order a new election. Does he consider that a better remedy than for Congress, if it ascertains, as he says it can, by a review of an election in the State, that a minority has overthrown the majority and taken possession of the government, to determine that the majority shall have control of the government; and, if necessary, to authorize the Executive to see that the majority shall be installed?"

Mr. Carpenter: "The Senator, of course, is aware that I do not think that McEnery was in fact elected, although the returns show that he was."

Mr. Norwood: "I understand that. I am merely asking the Senator whether he thinks it is better to order a new election than to have those put in power who the returns show were elected."

Mr. Carpenter: "If I believed that McEnery was in fact elected at that election, the logic of the situation would dictate that Congress, if that were necessary, should recognize his government. But in the first place I do not believe that the McEnery government has any more right than the Kellogg government. In the second place the McEnery government never had an existence in fact.

"Mr. President, these interruptions (of which I do not complain) have drawn me somewhat away from the line of argument I intended to pursue, compelled me to interrupt the order in which I intended to discuss the topics involved, so that in returning to my subject I may repeat some things I have said. But I will resume, as well as I can, the thread I had in hand when I was interrupted.

"In the first place, if the present state of things in Louisiana amounts to a usurpation, then Congress may prescribe a remedy, or it can prescribe no remedy in case of any usurpation in a State. I had supposed that it was

universally conceded that this article of the Constitution was intended to vest this power in the General Government, that the guarantee of republican government was intended to protect the people against usurpation, and that the guarantee against domestic violence was intended to protect the State government against turbulence within the State; and that the jurisdiction to determine whether the state of things existing in a State authorized the General Government to interfere for the purpose of executing the first of these guarantees was vested exclusively in the General Government, not in the State; and I have read from the writings of Mr. Calhoun, the great champion of State rights, in support of this view.

"And when it is conceded, as it is by the Senator from Connecticut, that the only existing government in Louisiana is, root and branch, a usurpation,' I supposed Congress had the power, and was obliged, to provide some suitable remedy; and the bill under consideration seems to me to provide the only suitable remedy.

"But what seems to me a very important element of this case is, that we are not now considering in the first instance whether the Federal Government ought to interfere. The fact is, the Federal Government has already interfered through its judicial department. A Federal judge acting not only without jurisdiction, but in confessed violation of an act of Congress, has organized this usurpation; and the question is whether Congress has the power to undo the wrong he has done, by restoring to the people of that State the right of which he has deprived them. Can it be maintained that a Federal judge, in open defiance of Federal law, may take a State government from the hands of the people, confer it upon usurp ers, and that Congress is powerless in the premises? It may be said the judge might be impeached. This would punish him, but would not redress the wrong. The Kellogg government would still exist, protected by Federal troops, unless Congress should interfere; and I can imagine no form of interference that would redress the wrong, except to restore to that people, as this bill proposes, the right they have been deprived of, to choose their own rulers. And I shall be curious to hear the Senator from Connecticut point out any other remedy. For that, however, I must wait until he shall see fit to reveal it.

"I understand that the Supreme Court of the State is in collusion with Kellogg, has already corruptly decided many cases in his favor, and will continue in the same course. There can be no judicial remedy in that State, and the remedy of force is forbidden by the Constitution of the United States. This State government will not inaugurate any movement to overthrow itself. The people of the State cannot; because, first, the Constitution of the United States forbids it; and, second, because, if they should attempt it, they would be con

fronted with Federal bayonets. Now, sir, what is the device locked up in the mind of the Senator from Connecticut which will meet this case?

"Let me return once more to this question of power, from which I have been so often drawn to answer the questions that have been put to me. The Constitution provides that the United States shall guarantee to every State a republican government. The State of Louisiana has not such a government at present. What remedy may we employ? I answer, in the language of the Constitution, any proper and necessary remedy; and we are the exclusive judges of the means proper to be employed, provided we possess the power to do any thing in the premises. I deny that any power conferred by the Constitution upon the United States is subject to the consent, or falls by the dissent, of any State. The powers conferred upon this Government are sovereign powers; they are unlimited, except where the Constitution itself has regulated their exercise. Where the Constitution confers power over a given subject, and does not regulate the exercise of the power, the power of this Government is as absolute as the power of the Czar of Russia. Take the power to declare war. Has not this Government as much power in that respect as the Czar of Russia or the Sultan of Turkey? Take the power of taxation. In certain particulars it is restricted by the Constitution; but, excepting those restrictions, it is an unlimited and arbitrary power. We may declare war to-morrow, with or without cause, against any nation or all mankind. We may, by the power of taxation, withdraw the last dollar from the pockets of the people and place it in the Treasury. We may put every man, woman, and child, into the army. Take the power to establish post-offices and post-roads. This is one of the unlimited powers conferred by the Constitution, and Congress may establish as many or as few as it pleases, and provide such method as it pleases for carrying the mails.

"The Constitution of the United States was intended to classify and distribute the powers of sovereignty between the General and State governments. It enumerates the powers which shall be possessed by the General Government, but does not, like a code of procedure, prescribe the mode, manner, or extent of their execution. All that is committed to the discretion of Congress. What is proper to be done within the Limits of reason is for Congress to determine. The Constitution says nothing about a military academy; but it authorizes Congress to raise and maintain armies. How they shall be raised, whether by encouraging volunteering or by draft, how they shall be armed, disciplined, and regulated, all that is committed to Congress by that provision of the Constitution which empowers Congress 'to make all laws necessary and proper to raise and maintain armies. Congress has deemed it advisable to establish

a school of instruction at West Point as a means of securing suitable officers of the army.

"Now, take this power to guarantee a républican government to a State, and assuming, as the Senator from Connecticut agrees, that the existing State government is a usurpation, and assuming, as I maintain, that a republican government is a government by the people, and that a government by usurpation is not a republican government, and that the United States are bound to correct this evil, no man can deny the constitutionality of this bill, because it provides one, if not the best, remedy for the evil. In other words, if the United States have the power to interfere in this case, the mode in which that interference shall be made is entirely within the discretion of Congress; and by passing this bill we shall determine that this is a proper mode. Those who deny the power of Congress to pass this bill deny the power of Congress to interfere at all; deny-if they concede, as my friend from Connecticut does, that this is a case of usurpation

the power of Congress to interfere in case of any usurpation of a State government. If this be a sound doctrine, then the Constitution of the United States secures to the people of a State not 'the blessings of liberty,' but the evils of usurpation and despotism. The people cannot by force overthrow such usurpation, because the government de facto will appeal to the President, as this government has done, and will be supported by him, as this is. It must be presumed that the clause of the Constitution under consideration was inserted for some purpose; and if not for a case like this, for what purpose was it inserted? To deny that it authorizes Congress to interfere in the most flagrant case of usurpation, is to deny that it has any effect whatever; and if it applies to a flagrant case of usurpation, it applies to every case of usurpation.

“But the great objection which this bill encounters is as to its expediency. It is said that to pass this bill would be a dangerous precedent. What is meant by saying that this would be a dangerous precedent? It is a dangerous precedent to hang a man, and it might be argued that if a government were clothed with power to hang a murderer, it might abuse that power, or make a mistake, and hang a man for murder who had not committed that offense. Calomel is a dangerous remedy, and it might be argued that to allow physicians to administer it would set a precedent for them to administer it where it was unnecessary. But all this class of argument merely tends to show that, if the power to pass this bill were conceded, it might encourage the passage of a similar bill in a case where it was unnecessary; in other words, the power might be abused. But if this is a satisfactory argument against this power, it would be against every other power conferred by the Constitution. Chief-Justice Marshall said, in a case long ago, that there was no power conferred upon the Government that might not be

abused; therefore, that a particular power might be abused was no argument against its existence. This power is undoubtedly one of the most delicate of those conferred upon this Government, and its abuse would be attended with wide-spread and disastrous results; but it was thought necessary to confer it in order to prevent revolutions in the States, which would be likely to result in monarchy. It was said in the Federalist the existence of such a power would in most cases render its exercise unnecessary. And so it has proved. For nearly a century no other case has arisen that called for its exercise. But, now that the case has arisen, to deny the existence of this power would encourage the repetition of such wrongs to an extent that cannot be foreseen. We may well wish the necessity for our decision had not arisen; but it has without our fault. If you were crossing Long Bridge, prudence would dictate that you should avoid running off on the right-hand side; but if to avoid this accident you should drive so far from that side as to go off on the other, your very prudence would cause your calamity. So here it is as dangerous not to act when the case calls for action as it is to act when the case does not call for it. And I cannot resist the unpleasant conclusion that for Congress to refuse to act in a case like this, and to deny its power to do so, would be setting a precedent to be followed by fatal results."

Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, said: "Every Senator in the whole body will admit that the Senator from Wisconsin has redeemed his pledge faithfully, eloquently, and ably. No one will gainsay that; but I think it is equally clear, if any one will read not only the newspapers but the indications that we have from persons from Louisiana-and I have also been on the ground in Louisiana and heard from both sides -that a large majority of the people of Louisiana have acquiesced in the existing condition of affairs. It is as plain, as palpable to me as the light of day, that it is wise that they have so acquiesced. They will have an opportunity at the next election in November to redeem their State government, if it has fallen into the hands of usurpers. The power will be again restored to them, and I think it is the wisest thing in the world to pass in silence all that has occurred in Louisiana, with the certainty that the people themselves will correct any evils that have been done there.

"I sympathize with my friend from Wisconsin, but at the same time I do not believe he is pursuing the course best for the people of the United States or for the people of Louisiana. I believe Congress had better attend to their ordinary legitimate business, leaving matters in Louisiana to right themselves, and they are now being rapidly righted, and at the next election we may probably have a Legislature elected by the consent of the governed, ready to pass laws to suit their wishes without difficulty. The very election law now pend

ing has been passed, perhaps by the general consent of all, and is declared to be a fair law. There is no practical difficulty in the Louisiana matter. If we let things alone in Louisiana, the popular will as expressed in a legal election will undoubtedly prevail. The only result of this movement now to overthrow the government of Louisiana will be to derange and disorder the condition of affairs there, and turn out of office two or three State officers whose terms happen to extend beyond next fall."

Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, said: "Mr. President, I do not know that I shall vote for the bill of the Senator from Wisconsin when it comes before the Senate; but I think it is right that he should have the privilege of bringing that question before the Senate whenever he sees proper to do so. I concur with him that no more important question can be presented at the present session of Congress than the question involved in the condition of affairs in Louisiana. I am surprised at the enunciations of Senators on this floor that there has been a general acquiescence on the part of the people of Louisiana in the present condition of affairs in that State. Why, sir, it is known to every Senator on this floor that if the Federal power was withdrawn, if the troops of the United States were removed from Louisiana and a proclamation made that the people of Louisiana should settle this matter for themselves, the Kellogg government would vanish out of existence in less than one month. The people of Louisiana have protested against such proceedings in every way that it was possible for them to resort to. They have been before the Committee on Privileges and Elections at the present session protesting; they have appealed to the President of the United States, but have been turned away; and now are they to be turned away from this Hall of Congress? Are we to spurn their appeals for relief simply on the ground that because they do not resist the Federal authority they are supposed to acquiesce in the present condition of affairs?"

Mr. West, of Louisiana, said: "I will say one word to those gentlemen who are crying about the people of Louisiana, who are here beseeching Congress to come to their relief. Who are they? The disappointed office-holders, the disappointed expectants of office; and the men who have countenanced assassination and murder in my State. Sir, the opportunity will come to reply to these men. I do not shirk it. I shall not move to lay the Louisiana bill on the table, but I shall stand here and I shall show to this Senate, if I have the power, that the rightful government of the State is now exercised there.

'Sir, it is a fallacy to suppose that Mr. Kellogg cannot maintain himself. Where are the United States troops in Louisiana to-day, and how many have you got? Less than five hundred men there, and less than you have had

there for the last ten years-five hundred men distributed all throughout that State to preserve tranquillity there, in a State where lawlessness has predominated to the extent that we all know of, and where lives almost innumerable have been sacrificed by the men who are now here seeking to get another chance to have possession of that government.

"I only desired to say that much to the men who claim that the people of Louisiana are here asking for relief. The people of Louisiana are quietly pursuing their industrial avocations, and the government of their choice exercises the functions that they have conferred upon it. The Senate and the House are in possession of no information that will at all warrant action. But let the question come up and let it be debated whenever the Senate is ready."

Mr. Frelinghuysen: "Mr. President, having rather incidentally than by deliberate purpose taken some subordinate part in the discussion of this question when it was before the Senate on a former occasion, I propose now to submit concisely my views on two propositions: First, that the President of the United States was authorized by the Constitution, standing alone, and that he was also authorized by the statutes of the country, to send armed protection to Louisiana; and second, that Congress is not authorized to order a new election in that State.

"And I may here say that while I cannot agree with the conclusions of the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Carpenter), I trust I do not violate delicacy in stating that I admire the marked ability with which he has presented his views. He has so presented the case that he may properly demand and not petition for it a serious and careful consideration. It is to the labors of that Senator and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Morton) that we and the country are indebted for an understanding of this somewhat complicated subject.

“I submit that the President was authorized by the Constitution, standing alone and not enforced by any statute, to send the protection he did to Louisiana. Mr. Kellogg was the Governor de facto of that State. The President told us that he had so recognized him, and that he would continue so to do unless Congress directed to the contrary, and we purposely did nothing. Kellogg was therefore Governor de facto, recognized by the President and by the silent acquiescence of Congress; and on the 13th of May, 1873, he sent the President this communication:

SIR: Domestic violence existing in several parishable to suppress without great expense and danger of bloodshed, and the Legislature not being in session, and it being impossible to convene the Legislature in time to meet the emergency, I respectfully make application, under the fourth section of article four of the Constitution of the United States, for a sufficient military force of the United States Govern

es of this State which the State authorities are un

ment to enable the State authorities to suppress insurrection and domestic violence.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, WM. P. KELLOGG, Governor of Louisiana. To his Excellency U. S. GRANT, President of the United States.

"If the President was satisfied that domestic violence existed, on being called upon by the Governor for a force to suppress it, he was bound under the provisions of the Constitution to do so, whether there was or was not any disorder existed in that State cannot be quesstatute imposing that duty upon him. That tioned, because the preamble of the bill introduced for a new election truly declares in

these words:

Whereas, The public peace in said State is at present preserved and can only be preserved during the existing state of things in said State at the expense of the United States and by retaining a part of the army in said State.

"That the demand upon the President was made according to the constitutional requirements (whether in compliance with the statutes or not) cannot be questioned, after reading the foregoing application.

"Sir, the Constitution carefully distributes the powers of government into three branches, the legislative, judicial, and executive. Article one, section 8, declares the powers of Congress in eighteen different clauses. Article three, section 1, declares that the judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may ordain and establish; and article two, section 1, declares that the executive power shall be vested in the President of the United States. This distribution of power is essential to republican liberty. The aggrandizement of all power in one body, whether it consists of many individuals or of a unit, is despotism. The question is, to which of these three divisions of government the duty under the Constitution attaches to protect a State from domestic violence? The Constitution says that it is the United States' that is to give this protection. We are here told that saying the United States' shall give the protection is equivalent to saying that Congress shall give it. To that I cannot agree. If the Constitution had intended that Congress, as contradistinguished from the Executive or judiciary, should give this protection, it would have enumerated this power among those conferred upon Congress in the eighth section of the first article. In that enumeration of the powers of Congress it is provided that Congress may suppress insurrection and repel invasion; but a general insurrection is a very different thing from domestic violence in a State. That term includes insurrection, but it comprehends much more that does not amount to insurrection. Neither can it be claimed that this power is given to Congress by the last clause of the eighth section of the first article, which says Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the forego