Clarksville chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 186?-1872, 1869-09-18
nisll, TURMOIL IN TENNEssEE.
PROTEST OF q 'RepubIican Journal
Aeeinst the Protest OF the stokes
Radicals.

liAna TURMOIL IN TENNEssEE. s.
Prctcst or Republican Journal
Assinss the Protest Of the stokes
From the New York Times, Sept. A.
Partisan protests agninsts the re-
suits of elections are too common to
attract much attention. People gen.
orally look upon them as devices en-
ployed by an unsuccessful party to
mitigate the modification Of defeat,
and to throw q shadow of anxiety
over the course of the victOrs. 1t Is
not difficult to make out case
agaist either side in a hot and pro-
tracted contest; but it Is difficult 50
to state case as TO convey an idea of
fairness and moderation, or to inspire
the respect which springs from an
apparent desire for Justice, rather
than for partisan advantages. The
address just issued by q committee OF
the Stokes. Republicans, 0propOs OF
the Tennessee election, 1t is not an ex-
ception to the prevailing rule. 1t
|purports TO be 4 nprotest against the
legality and validity of the election,
and as such is entitled to attention.
But its general character is that ofan
everyday political appeal-partial
and manifestly imperfect in It's reci-
tai of facts, vehement and vindictive
in Its tone, and aiming at results
do not commend themselves to the
judgment OF dispassionate observers.
There are many, perhaps, who share
Mr.. Maynard's regrets, and make al
lowance for his anger. There are
few, we hope, who will indorse his
demand for the interference of the
federal government to unseat Gov.
Senter, reverse the electoral verdict,
and invest with local power those
whom Tennessee itself has rejected.
Take as one example of partisan
perversion, the allusion ofthe address
to the removal of registrars by Sem
ter. The proceeding is represented to
be q wanton exercise of usurped au-
thOrity for purposes which merit rep.
rotation. Senter's motives we cannot
criticise: We are safe in conceding,
probably, that he desired to be rid OF
officials who were using their posi-
tions to his detriment. But at least
he had law on his side and a decent
pretext for his action. THETA vests
In the Governor the power of remoy-
al; the open question is, was he justi-
fled in its exercise? To answer in
diligently, 1t Is necessary to remem-
Der that in the pursuit of a merciless
DISTINGUISHING policy, Coy. Brown
low, through the registrars whom he
appointed, deprived Of votes a number
Of citizens who had previously been
admitted to the rolls. The right to
do this was challenged in the courts
and almost simultaneously with the
commencement Of the State canvass,
q decision was rendered to the effect
that there could be no legal disfran.
chisement of men whose title to reg
istration had been admitted. 1t was
seen at once that the large body whom
this equitable decision reenfranchised
secured thetriumph of Senter. Those
i,Of the registrars who were adherents
Iof Stokes disregar.led the decision
and refused to register the citizens
whom Brownlow by this mandate
had cut off. Hence the removals by
Senter, who thus gave practical
validity to an Important judicial de.
cision. Whether the substitutes he
Installed were more scrupulous in the
promotion of his interest. than were
the \ expelled officers In behal
of Stokes, is q question not pertinent
to the issue. The essential point in
connection with the address of the
Stokes Republican is, that the chic
count in the indictment they prefer
1t at variance with fact. Senter's &C
ton In the registration matter may
have been arbitrary, but on its face /
was lawful; the registrars he removed
because they persisted In acting in
contravention oflaw.
Again, In regard TO the number o
legal voters i'm the State, the addres.
supresses q portion of the truth
That fraudulent votes were cast W.
do not doubt; the election Is rare
nowadays into which fraud does moi
enter more orless. Butthe difference
In the number of votes recorded al
the presidential election and the
number recorded mt the recent cleo.
ton is In part explained by the cir
lcumstance to which we have adver.
ted. A judicial decision restored the
franchise to many thousands Who
last November, were voiceless In the
contest. 1t Is known that the regis.
trars of last year pushed the proscrip
tive agencies at their command TO an
extent which entafled scandalous. in
Justice. The vote then recorded
therefore, II not criterion of the
number of legal voters In the State
whatever the address before us may
say to the contrary.
We, in turn, then, protest agains
the protest, The facts IL presents mr.,
neutralized by facts which ii omits
The cry of revolution which Il
|invokes. The defeat of Stokes may
be great calamity; but 1t is not
calamity great enough to rendei
necessary, or even excuse, the pro
l posed interference by federal author
lily in the affairs Of a State. 1t Is no
the business OF the general govern
ment to determine the partisan re
suit of local election. iI,-r,r .ai
/ The language attributed the othe
day by our Washington correspon
dent to the President, leads, TO bcIiev,
that the appeal now made, will NEE
Its proper fate. "He had no NOR
idea of interfering In the local con
Germs OF Tennessee" he IL reported
Ito have remarked, ethan he had il
the local management Of New York. /,
The right 10 interfere, We may add
would he us valid in one case as il
the other, ..l.,-
The counsel rendered by Gen. Gran
Ito both sections of the Republican
party in Tennessee, is that. which 4
best adapted to the situation. Sen
ter's friends he advised ito harmonic,
and put an end to their difficulties
personal and political, by q genera
amnesty.p To Stokes he recon-
mended " the practice OF forbearanc'
land forgiveness to his successful OPP
Ilporlent.V These suggesstiOns indl