Q. Under the act of 1864, what have been the regulations—I do not quite understand you on that point—about calling out troops?
A. We have not fallen back upon the act of 1864, because the sheriffs have always called. In fact, the sheriffs are generally very prompt to call for troops. They often wanted our assistance when we thought it was not necessary, and in every instance when troops have been ordered out during my administration, they have been ordered, as they were in this case, upon the call of the civil authorities to aid them. We have always kept the troops, so far as we could, subordinate to the civil authorities. In this instance, and some other instances, perhaps the civil authorities were not quite as active as they ought to have been, and they, to a certain extent, disappeared, and then, of course, we came under the act of 1864. But in the first instance we have never exercised our authority under that act.
Q. You would consider that under that act you have authority to call out the militia upon notice, or your own knowledge, that there is any serious riot or outbreak in the State?
A. Yes. If there is a riot in any section of the State, and the civil authorities are unable or unwilling to suppress it, I think it would be my duty, as Executive, to order out the National Guard, and to take charge of the situation to protect life and property. I would not hesitate to do it, whenever I became satisfied of that fact.
Q. In your judgment, would that be in conflict—would such an action be in conflict, in any way—with the Constitution, which says that the military shall always be in subordination to the civil authorities?
A. Well, I do not pretend to give any legal opinion upon that point; but, so far as the past has been concerned, we would have been glad and willing to let the civil authorities take entire control, and it is only when they were willing and anxious that we took part, and there never has been a conflict.
Q. That has always been the rule adopted by you, as commander-in-chief?
A. Yes, sir. I am not quite sure that that question may not arise. I can see very easily how it might arise in the near future, in any locality where the civil authorities might be in sympathy with the lawless elements, but we hope that it may not.
Q. And is that a reason why you have adhered to the rules that you have just mentioned?
Q. I do not know that it was because of any supposed conflict, but I adhered to that because I thought it was the common-sense way of doing it. That is about all.