Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-09-08
TURMOIL In TENNESSEE.
Protest of n Republican Journal
Against the: Protest Of the stokes
Radicals.
From the Now York Times. Sept. 4.

Radicals.
From the New York Times. Sept. 4.
Partisan protests against thu
results of elections are too com
mon to attract much attention
People generally look upon them
as devices employed by an unsue-
cessful pan ty to mitigate the morti.
fication of defeat, and to throw q
shadow Of anxiety over the course
of the victors. 1t is not difficult to
make out case against either side
in hot and protracted contest !;
but it is dific ult SO to state a 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 a committee of the
Stokes Republicans, apropos of the
Tennessee election, is not an excep-
ton to the prevailing rule. 1t pur-
ports to be "protest against the
legality and validity" of the cleo
ton, and as such is entitled to at
tention. But its general character
is that of an every day political
appeal-partial and manifestly i'm
perfect in its recital of facts, vehe-
ment and vindictive in its tone, and
aiming at results which do not
commend themselves to the judg-
ment of dispassionate observers,
There are many, perhaps, who
share Mr.. Maynard's regrets, and
make allowance for his anger.
There are few, we hope, who will
indorse his demand for the inter-
reference of the federal govern
ment to unseat Gov. Senter, res
verse the electoral verdict, and in.
vest with local power those whom
Tennessee itself has rejected.
Take as one example of partisan
perversion, the allusion of the adj
dress to the removal of registrars
by Senter. The proceeding is re-
presented to BIS wanton exercise
OF usurped authority for purposes
which merit Reproduction. Senter's
motives we cannot criticise: we
are safe in conceding, probably,
that he desired TO be rid of officials
who were using their positions to
his detriment. But at least he had
law on his side and decent pretext
for his action. The law vests in
the Governor the power Of removal;
the open question is, was he justi-
fed in its exercise? To answer in
diligently, it is necessary to re-
member that in the pursuit of
merciless DISTINGUISHING policy,
Gov. Brownlow, through the regis
trars whom he appointed, deprived
Of votes large 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 can
vass, decision was rendered to
the effect that there could be no
legal disfranchisement Of men
whose title to registration had been
admitted 1t was seen at once that
the large body whom this equitable
decision reentranchised secured the
triumph of Senter. Those of the
registrars who were adherents of
Stokes disregarded the decision
and refused to register the citizens
whom Brownlow by his mandate
had cut off. Hence the removals
by Senter, who thus gave practical
validity to an important judicial
decision. Whether the substitutes
he installed were more scrupulOus
in the promotion of his interest
than were the expelled officers in
behalf OF Stokes, is question not
pertinent to the issue. The essen
tial point in connection with the
address of the Stokes Republican
is, that the chief count in the in
dictment they prefer is at variance
with fact. Senter'5 action in the
registration matter may have been
arbitrary, but on its face it was law
full; the registrars he removed
were removed because they por-
sisted in acting in contraventiOn of
law.
Again, in regard to the number
of legal voters in the State, the adj
dress suppresses q portion Of the
truth. That fraudulent votes were
cast we do not doubt; the election
is rare nowadays into which fraud
does not enter moro or less. But
the difference in the number of
votes recorded at the presidential
election and the number recorded
at the recent election is in part eX
planned by the circumstance to
which we have adverted. A judicial
decision restored the franchise to
many thousands who, last Novem-
Der, were voiceless in the contest.
1t is known that the registrars of
last year pushed the proscriptive
agencies at their command to an
extent which entailed scandalOus
injustice. The vote the nrecorded,
therefore, is not q 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 against
the protest. The facts it presents
are neutralized by facts which it
omits. The cry of revolution
which it raises, does not constitute
q warrant for the federal meddling
which it invokes. The defeat of
Stokes may be a great calamity /;
but it is not calamity great enough
to render necessary,or even excuse,
the proposed interference by fede-
raj authority in the affairs of a
State. 1t is not the business Of the
general government to determine
the partisan result of local cleo
ton.
The language attributed the 9TH
er day by our Washington CORE
spondent to the President, leads us
to believe that the appeal now made
will meet its proper fate. ale had
no moro idea of interfering in the
local concerns of Tennessee" he is
reported to have remarked, ethan
he had in the local management of
New York" The right to inter-
fcre, we may add, would be as val
| - - 800 oo,o oc IN 4bA thar