The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-04-30

AiSnto VI tuuSo VINO Voyeu IOr MIN, ana tnht,
ii they are the majority, he is asserting the
night OF the sovereign body, and not merely
his individual right. But when the tribunal
authorized to declare who has received the
largest vote has pronounced against him he
cannot urge this without invalidatng the
already pointed out, is not permissible step,
for beyond it is precipice. At the next adj
vance we fall into political chaos. In the
assertion of q political right no argument is
legitimate which contemplates and involves
condition inconsistent with the existence and
recognition Of rights of any sort.
| 1t appears to us, therefore, that If Mr.
Brooks has been wronged in his exclusion
from the Office Of Governor of the State Of
Arkansas he must submit TO the evil and be
content to number himself with the thousands
of other candidates who have been similarly
wronged before him, since there is no remedy
that is not altogether too expensive for any
State to accord it; no remedy that does not
involve evils infinitely greater than the con-
tinuance of the original evil. He will perhaps
stand in very good company, even if it should
be clearly admitted that he stands as candidate
excluded by fraudulent returns from On Office
for which he had received the greater number
of votes 1t has been shrewdly believed that
many Governor before him has been kept
out in the same way and even that some OF
our Presidents did not represent an honestly
counted vote, while SO many congressman
are in the category that the historians of that
body will never try to number them. Sup
pose they had all asserted the same
right now asserted in the name of MIR.
Brooks, where should we be? In politi-
cal history it has always been
point Of particular difficulty to determine
the exact limit of the right Of resistance;
and, while our constitutional theories are
political existence starts from it, and we thus
give it the largest conceivable recognition
it has never been admitted by any one that it
went so far as to justify private war for de-
fence Of the rights Of candidates who believe
themselves to be unjustly excluded from Office.
In all this we have written from the state
ment Of Mr. Brooks position as given by
himself in the HERALD of yesterday, and we
do not even touch the argument as to whether
or no he really received the greater or the
smaller number of votes in the election in
which he was q candidate. It seems to us that
the case has reached point where it must be
determined on grounds that do not involve
that inquiry, and that examined on these,
the proper political grounds his position,
even as presented by himself, is untenable.
Senator scnurz's Eulogium ON Sum-
Senator SchuE delivered his orntion on
Charles Sumner in Boston yesterday. The
speech was not great in the oratorical sense
Of greatness; it had in it few of the graces
which characterize funeral oratory from
Pericles to Everett Indeed, it was scarcely
funeral eulogium at all But it was full Of
what is perhaps better than rhetorical senti-
distinguished dead and contained sturdy
estimate Of Charles Summers character and
work. We reproduce it this morning almost
in its entirety, partly because it was
| labor of love in the orator and partly
because it is part of the record of Mr.. Sum-
ner's career. II it falls short of being great
oration it has value in itself as being the
solemn judgment of the statesman who knew
the Massachusetts Senator best in the latter
years Of his life, and who could thoroughly
sympathize with him in the opposition to
slavery which is the marked and absorbing
feature of his career
If we were disposed to be critical we
should find fault with Mr.. Schurz for the
feebleness with which he brings Charles
Sumner upon the field of his greatest achieve
ments. His retrospections Of American
history are singularly weak; they are not
striking in their presentation of the era pre-
ceding Summers entrance into the United
States Senate, nor comprehensive, or even
Just, in their estimates OF the great men who
left the political arena to die when Charles
Sumner entered it to undo all that had been
accomplished in the era OF compromises. But
! when Mr.. Schurz comes to speak of Sum-
ner in the Senate fighting his battle against
slavery we have more glowing picture. We
see in Mr. Schurzs portrait man who was
/ not politician, man who was not conscious
either Of possessing or needing courage, man
whose moral sense obliterated his appreciation
of the singing force Of his words, standing in
his place before the country among the high
priests and worshippers Of slavery and dealing
terrible blows at an institution until that time
held sacred. We see in the picture being
possessed Of the faith Of devotee and uncon-
scious of everything except the wrong
which fred his soul and called him
to battle. Charles Sumner then and always
was like an anabaptist iconoclast, stripping
the priests Of their robes and overturning the
images on the affairs Of the Church. He had
more Of the spirit Of the martyr than Of the
leader. He was not man either Of COM
| nrnmises or CONCESSIONS. and his ringing