National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-09-29
ARKAMSAs RRPnRL1rANLgA

ARKANSAS REPUBLICANISM
There are so many phases of republican
ism in the South that we often hesitate to
express an opinion regarding the simon
pure article in that section. Just now, in
Arkansas, there is a difference of belief
on this point which serves to divide
the party and may perhaps deceive many
honest men who do not thoroughly under
stand the situation. A party which has
willfully and deliberately characterized itself
as the Democratic Conservative party"
has srrogated to itself the honor of repre-
senting the Administration, and has as
natural result claimed that it is the repre-
sentative of the National Republican party.
Embraced among its adherents are num-
Der of prominent men, including Judge
Wiltshire, who are entitled to recognition
as earnest friends nd supporters of the Ad
ministration; but the majority ofits followers
naturally find congenial political utilization
with those who are deiantly opposed to the
legitimate consequences of the war. As a
matter of course this majority has exerted
its influence in the way of controlling nomi-
nations, and the result has been, so far as
We are able to judge from the informa-
ton at hand, that the nominees are more
Democratic than Conservative. We have
never objected. under any circumstances, to
the use of eX- Confederate names on Republi
can tickets, or to the advancement ofex- Con
federates within the ranks of the Republican
party, and we do not now desire to be IN
derstood as intending to interfere with the
designs of true Republicans to induce ex-
Confederates to join with them in their
effort to perpetuate the success of the
party; but we are afraid that the Demo
cratic Conservative" party Of Arkansas
has not proved itself to be as lenient as we
have been. 1t is true that it has indorsed
President Grants action in the matter of
the gubernatorisl contest in that State,
and that it has pledged itself to many re-
forms which are essentially the result of
Republican ideas of progress; but we find
after reasonable examination of its pro-
ceedings in convention that it has failed to
recognize in positive and personal way
any member of the regular Republican
party. In palmer terms, the ticket which
it has put before the people of the State is
comprised of candidates not one of whom
has any natural sympathy with the Repub-
ican party of the North. It is true
that they may have some inclination to fol-
low President Grant at any hazard; but
none of them would be willing, If we judge
them correctly, to assert their Republican
ism in opposition to the theories and So
called principles laid down in the last
Democratic national convention. They,
one and all, boast that their past is guar
antee for their future" Accepting this
guarantee as final and satisfactory, we fear
that the future of the State will be clouded,
in the event of their election, by rebellious
demonstrations akin to those which have
destroyed the commerce, the peace, and
the quiet of Louisiana. The ticket is as
follows:
For Governor-A. H. Garland, Confederate
Senator.
For Chief Justice-E. H. English, Chief
Justice of the State during the rebellion.
For Associate Justices-David Walker, presi-
dent secession convention; W. N. Harrison,
commissary rebel army.
For Secretary of State-B. B. Beavers, lieu
tenant colonel rebel army.
For State Treasurer-S. J. Churchill, major
general rebel army and chiSf of Ku-Klux.
For Auditorium. R. Miller, lieutenant colo
mel rebel army and Grand Cyclops of Ku-Klux
in Independence county.
For Attorney Generals. P. Hughes, colo
mel reoel army.
For Land Commissioned. N. Smither,
captain rebel battery, member Of Blocker's
Khan and agent of Associated Press.
For Chsncellor-JOhn R. Eakin, lieutenant
colonel Of rebel army and member of Legisla-
ture of 1866 that rejected the fourteenth
amendment.
For Chancery Clerk-A. R. Witt, colonel
rebel army and Partisan Ranger regiment.
1t requires but little knowledge of the
past history of the State to convince intel
igent men that if the candidates whose
names are given above act in the future as
their past acts guarantee or suggest, they
will renew secession, and re-establish the
rebellion. If We are incorrect in our de-
ductions, we are willing to make any
amend in our power; but in the meantime
We seriously demand that some recognized
authority, speaking in behalf Of these gen.
tlemen, shall explain to US the difference
between the first clause of the Bill of
Rights in tue new constitution" which
they all indorse, and reaffrmAtion Of the
doctrine Of secession. We ask, again, that
they shall point out to us anywhere in that
new constitution an acknowledgment of
the supremacy OF the General Government.