Sections 5298 and 5299 of the Revised Statutes of the United States provide for the calling out of the militia or to employ the regular military or naval forces to enforce the laws of the United States. Quoting these se tions, Judge P schal says: Under these laws the authority of the Presid nt to act as he did, cannot be denied. If, in his judgment, there existed the state of facts contemplated in section 5298, or if, under section 5299, the State of Illinois was unable, or, for any cause, failed, to protect the eople in such rig its, he was not only authorized but it was his duty to act.

The section which requires the President to be called on by the legislature of a State before he is authorized or permitted to call out the troops contemplates an entirely different state of facts, to wit: "An insurrection in any State against the government thereof."

THE UNDERLYING REASONS.

But let us glance for a moment from the plain provisions of the law to the reasons underlying it. There is a Government of the Uited States. Its laws embrace every inch of her soil. Its executive officers, from the President down, must execute these laws. They are likewise bound as much, under the Constitution, to enforce the orders, decrees and judgment of its courts while they stand as the Governor is to lend all eedful assistance to enforce those of our State courts If the Federal Government mu t ask permission, or wait till informed by the State that the Federal st tutes or Federal mils or d crees or judgments, writs or processes of the United States are b ng opposed, ob tructed or imp ded by lawless bands, suppose the State a thorities, either hrough fer or sympathy with the lawless elements, should decline to call on the Prcs d nt; or, as was done by the Governor of Illinois, oppose any effort on the part of he President to restore peace and quiet and the supremacy of i laws and to norce ob die ce to the mandates of its courts; is it seriously contended that the Government of the United S.ates must stand with hat n hand and ask permission of a State, or wait for an invitation to nforce its own laws or the jurisdiction of its own courts and protect its own mails while, in their defiant obstruction, arson, pillage, robbery and murder run riot, and the mighty commerce and traffic of the whole Nation is paralyzed?

Is there any moral, or legal, or constitutional obligation resting upon the people or the Government of the United States to submit to the e things-this violation of their own most sacred and constituional and legal rights and privileges-in order that Mr. Debs and the Amer can Railwa Union may exp rim nt to see whether they can compel all railroad con anies, against whom they have no pretext even of a grievance, to violate their contract with the Pullman Pa ace Car Company to haul their cars?

THE CONVERSE OF HOGG'S POSITION.

But let us look at the converse of the Governor's position. If the United States cannot enforce its own laws, judgments and decrees, writs, etc., nor protect its mails unless first permitted to do so by the States whose citizens are powerful enough to defy and obstruct them, then why should not the State government ask leave of the United States to enforce its own laws, judgments, decrees, etc. One is as reasonable as the other. If the theory contended for s the law of the land, then we have no Federal Government worthy of the name. It onl remains for mobs, anarchists and other lawless y disposed persons to first override by fear the State or local authorities, or gain their sympathy through political presti e, and they may then set at defiance all laws or decrees or writs of the United States courts, and paralyze the country's commerce and mail systems.

The Governor complains of the jurisdiction, decrees and procedure of the Federal courts. Granted, for argument's sak, that they are often obnoxious. The remedy is to curtail by legislation their powers and jurisdiction, if they are sustained on appeal to the Supreme Curt. But while they stand they cannot, under a government of law and liberty, be overridden by a mob without the President exhausting every lawful means to sustain them against such violence. If the grand and fundamental principle of free Republican institutions that declares liberty to be the absolute right to do with your own as you please so long as you do not interfere with the equal rights of another to the free use of his own were more widely taught and dissemi

nated and, above all, thoroughly understood in all its deep significance, many of the evils flowing from paternalism and socialism (of the more radical type) would vanish Referring to the frightful acts of violence at Chicago, Judge Paschal enters a protest against Governor Hogg's closing remarks. Judge Paschal says:

In that protest such sound, conservative patriots as Archbishop Ireland join. Says this eminent prelate:

"Labor must learn that however sacrel its rights be, there is something above tem and absolutely superio-social order and the law of public justice. There is no civil crime as hideous and pregnant of evil results as resistance to the law and constitutional statutes of the country. This resistance is revolution. It begets chaos. t is anarchy. It disrupts the whole social fabric which insures life and safety to the poor as well as the rich, to employee as well as employer. There can be no hesitancy to bring in the repressive powers of society when life and property is menaced. Only savages or men who, for the time being, are turned into savages, will burn or destroy p operty, whether it be the factory of the rich or the poor man's co tage, a railroad car or N tional building.. Murdering and endangeri g the lives of human beings is worse still.”

In this sentiment and protest T. V. Powderly joins, and with him stood the great and thoughtful conservative patriot, Chief Arthur, the head of one of the mno t powerful bor organizations. Gompers tacitly conceded that the str ke wante moral force or justificatio in he unprecedented lengths to which it had gone, and withheld his act ve aid; and lastly, as stated, Debs stood aghast as he surveyed the rum he had wrought, and as if in deep contrition to the violated majesty of his country's laws, eschews this method forever to settle labor disputes and adopts that of the ballo instead. The press and sentiment of the country North, South, East and West, irrespective of Darty or creed, save a few populists, endorse the President's action. Even such bitter opposition papers as the New York Sun, which gave o Democracy its grea issue in the last campaign-Federal election laws-in ringi ng patriotic tones conmended him. Chicago Times itself, which incre sed its circulation by the thousands by sympathiz ng with the strikers, paused and condemned them when they entered upon their career of violence.

PATERNALISM THE GOAL.

The

To my mind all these violent strikes aim at ne end, and the grievance is often incidental, viz: T› force the Government to take its second long st ide toward that dead sea level of paternalism by assuming control of telegraphs, railways, etc., while yet the people's minds are indoctrinated with the idea, from thirty-five years of teaching, that it is the duty of the Government to take one man's property expressly to enable another man to make a profit out of his business. The difference in princi e is s› slight as to defy detection between this demand and that of the man who asks the Go ern nent to compel his employer to in rease his salary or wages whether his employer's business will justify him in doing so or not, either by abstaining from interfering with him while he tries by lawlessness to compel his employer to accede to his demands, or by enacting laws having the same end in view, or the man w o wants the Government to give a million or five hundred millions of dollars to the extermination of a thistle, or to construct immense irrigating canals on every one of the public dom ins, or yet to build a vast system of roads. Yet hundreds of such schemes are before Congress and all are with more or less public sentiment behind them that has been weakened, vitiated-and I may say debauched-by the fundamental principles of republican institutions having been lost sight of for a generation past.

CLEVELAND TO ALTGELD.

During the progress of the insurrection in Chicago, Governor Altgeld of Illinois addressed a protest to the President, to which the latter replied as follows:

Federal troops were sent to Chicago in strict accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States, upon the demand of the Post Office Department that obstruction of the mails should be removed, and upon th representations of the judicial officers of the United States that process of the Federal Courts could not be executed through the ordinary means and upon abundant proof that conspiracies existed against commerce between the States.

To meet these conditions, which are clearly within the provinces of Federal authority, the presence of Federal troops in the city of Chicago was deemed not only proper but necessary, and there has been no intention of thereby interfering with the plain duty of the local authorities to preserve the peace of the city. GROVER CLEVELAND.

Cleveland's Rejoinder to Altgeld.

Governor Altgeld still further protesting, the President telegraphed him as follows:

While I am still persuaded that I have neither transcended my authority nor duty in the emergency that confronted us, it seems to me that in this hour of danger and public distress, discussion may well give way to active effort on the part of all in authority to restore obedience to law and to protect life and property. GROVER CLEVELAND.

Action of Senate.

In the Senate of the United States, July 11, 1894, the resolution of Senator Daniel (Democrat) of Virginia, was adopted without a division. It is as follows: Resolved, That the Senate indorses the pro npt and vigorous measures adopted by the President of the United States and the members of his Administration to re'pulse and repress, by military force, the interference of lawless men with the due process of the laws of the United States, and with the transportation of the mails of the United States, and with commerc among the States.

The action of the President and his Administration has the full sympathy and support of the law-abiding masses of the people of the United States, and he will be supported by all departments of the Government and by the power and resources of the entire nation.

Action of House of Representatives.

In the House of Representatives, July 16, 1894, Mr. McCreary of Kentucky moved to suspend the rules and pass the resolution, which the Clerk read, as follows:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives indorses the prompt and vigorous efforts of the President and his Administration to suppress lawlessness, restore order, and prevent improper interference w th the enforcement of the laws of the United States and with the transportation of the mails of the United States and with interstate commerce, and pledges the President hearty supp rt, and deems the success that has already attended his efforts cause for public and general congratulation. After debate, the resolution was adopted without division.