New-York tribune., 1874-05-04
ARKINS1S.

ARKANSAS.
The action Of the President in tho Arkansas
case has thus far been just and prudent. He
has refused to interfere in the quarrel III any
way. or to give even moral influence to either
party. or to allow the Federal troops at Little
Rock to be used for any purpose except to
prevent bloodshed 1t is lot certain, however,
that he can preserve this impartial attitude
forever. There are cases in which it is the
duty of the President to interfere In local
disorders; and although the emergency has
not presented itself in Arkansas heretofore, 1t
may now be close at hand. The presence of
a passive body of soldiers at the State
capital has not suiliced to prevent blOodshed.
A fray has taken place in Jefferson County,
resulting in the loss of nine lives. The guards
of the rival Governors are marching and drill
ing IN sight of each other all day, and the
chances of further conflict are certainly alarm
ing. The precautionary measures OF the oiil-
Ger in command OF the regular troops having
proved unavaillng it becomes q serious queS-
ton whether the President ought to do any
thing more, and when he ought to do it.
The 4th Article of the Constitution makes it
the duty Of the United States to protect each
Of the States against domestic violence, ION
"applcation of the Legislature, or Of the Exec
"utive when the Legislature cannot be con-
"vened." The Legislature Of Arkansas is not
in session, but has been summoned by Baxter
to meet on the 11th of May, Brooks of course
denying the validity OF the call, and protest
ing in advance against recognizing the as
sembled legislators as the legally constituted
n. of hn t,ta
both claimants have formally demanded of the
President the assistance against domestic vio-
lence which the Constitution requires him to
render on proper occasion, and if 1t seems to
him that the situation is grave enough to call
for immediate action, the responsibility of de-
ciding who is the rightful Governor is thrown
upon him.
1t is a well established rule That the courts
of the United States, in controversies touching
the validity of State government, will always
follow the decisions of the State courts and
it can hardly be doubted that in deciding
between the claims OF these rival Governors
the President must be bound by the same
principle. 1t becomes important therefore TO
see what shape the legal controversy has taken
in Arkansas. The State Constitution provides
that contested elections shall be decided by
the General Assembly, in the manner pre-
scribed by law; and the statutes further
declare that if any person contest the
election of Governor, he shall present
{" his petition to the General Assembly
and shall pray for leave to introduce his
proofs, and vote shall be taken by yeas
"a and nays in each house whether the prayer
shall be granted" Brooks had brought an
action in the United States Circuit Court in
January, 1878, to establish his title to the Of
flee, but the court ruling in parallel case
brought about the same time, that it
had no jurisdiction, this suit was dropped
and petition was presented to the Legsla-
ture, in the manner prescribed by law. De-
feated in the Legislature by q large vote,
Brooks applied to the Supreme Court of the
State last June for leave to file petition for
a writ Of quo Udrrdnt0. This proceeding at
tracted unusual interest from the fact that the
Chief Justice, John Mcclure, was the noisest
and most aggressive of Brools's partisans, ad
ding to the duty Of dispensing justice from the
bench the more congenial function Of dispens-
ing red-hot politics through the columns of
The Little Rock Daily Republican, of which he
was the editor After great deal of excite
ment and symptoms Of an armed conflict, the
court decided. by the concurrence of three
members, Mcclure dissenting, that neither it
nor any other court in the State had juris-
diction in the matter, the General Assembly
being the sole tribunal for the dctermina-
tion of contest for the Office of Governor.
Mr.. Brooks meanwhile had two suits of the
same nature pending in the Pulaski Circuit
Court against Baxter, one brought on his
relation by the Attorney General, the other in
his own name The first was dismissed by the
Attorney General, as soon as tho decision of
the Supreme Court was made known. In the
other Baxter filed a demurrer, denying the
jurisdiction, and the case was put over. There
was third suit in the Pulaski Circuit Court
to contest the Office of Auditor-a suit
involving precisely the same questions
as the Brooks Baxter dispute-and this
was disposed of by writ from the
Supreme Court forbidding the Circuit Court
to exercise Jurisdiction the judges holding
unanimously that tho decision in the Brooks |
and Baxter case, that no State court could in
teriere III contests reserved exclusively for the
General Assembly, settled the whole question: |
AS the Supreme Court of Arkansas is the trib- |
unai OF last resort in the State. and cannot |
.N.aN. =. .I