Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1871-10-20
RADICAL RULE IN TIE SOUTH.

RADICAL RULE IN THE SOUTH.
In the editorial columns Of the New York
Tribune of Saturday, Oct. IA, we find the
following remarks on letter from Arkan-
sas: ' ~
ave print herewith letter from Little
Rock, exposing the villainieS which have
distracted the Republican party in that
State. Though long, il win be found deep
ly interesting as well as instructive. twill
serve to explain the weakness of the Re
publican party, not only in Arkansas, but
in several other Southern States, wherein
selfish, unprincipled, rapacious scoundrelS
have been enabled to clutch the reins of au-
thority and ride recklessly over public inter
est and private rights to the achievement Of
their sordid and shameful ends" .
The Baltimore Gazette asks: Could there
possible be more apt aud significant COM
msntary ON the Ku-Klux proclamation just
issued by Gen. Grant than Is to be found in
this pithy extract from the most influential
of all the Northern Radical journals? 1t is
plain, downright confession of the viIlainy
practiced by the "selfsh, unprincipled, rap
acious sconndrels"-to use the strong lang
uage Of the Tribuae-who rule over the
Southern States, and "ride recklesSly over
public interest and private right to the
achievement of their sordid and
selfish ends" It explains and illus
trates the causes of those sporadic disturb
aaces by which some parts of the South are
affected. The letter alluded to by the Tri-
buuse is a plain recital of the demoralized
condition of the Arkansas Radicals, which
it charges has been brought about by the
arbitrary, despotic and illegal conduct of
Gov. Clayton, recently on trial before the
United States Court at Little Rock for vio-
lating the provisions of the Ku-Klux law,
and who, being put on his defense, actually
had the boldness to put in the plea that
1.-THE law is unconstitutional But the
letter in question is worthy of notice
in another respect. The writer says:
ain the Convention which framed the
new Constitution of the State, under the
Reconstruction acts, it was believed neceS-
sary, on account of the violence which then
existed in many parts ofthe State, TO confer
great and, indeed, extraordinary powers
upon the Chief Executive. Many thought
. al Republicans, foreseeing the evil conse-
qtkences of placing so much power in the
hal nds Of the Governor, earnestly protested
against clothing any man with what they
described as almost imperial powers; but
the argument and necessity of the hour.
prevailed, unfortunately for the party, anf
the predictions of the more prudent have
been fulfilled"
Ii is very curious circumstance, adds
the Gazette, that the Radicals Of Arkansas
should have discovered that the grant of
extraordinary powers to the Chief Magis-
trate was an unmixed evil, whilst the Radi-
Gals elsewhere are boldly attempting to jus
tify the grant of still more extraordinary
powers to the Chief Magistrate of the whole
Union. If the Arkansas Constitution
clothes the Governor of that State with des-
potic authority, what shall be said of the
Ku-Klux law? The difference between
the two cases thus far lies simply in
this: Iu Arkansas the Radicals have
suffered from the despoti SIN they
intended should be practiced on others, and
are now bewailing the consequences of
their folly. In other Southern States the
despotism which the Radical party has sane
toned, is employed by the President of the
United States in sustaining the unprincipled
scoundrels whom the Tribune 50 vigorously
denounces, and in depressing, plundering,
maligning and prosecuting those who are
native to the soil, and opposed to them in
politics. From which we gather that des-
potie authority is an execrable thing when
the Radicals themselves suffer by il, but
that it is laudable exercise of power when
others are the sufferers.