Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-09-22
CRANE IN ARKANSAS AND GRANT
IN LOUISIANA. IN

IN LOUISIANA. ~
A preposterous difference appears
between Grant in the Arkansas i'm
broglio last April and his conduct last
week toward Louisiana. The science
and system Of Federal interference has
made astonishing progress from April
to September. When Brooks forcibly
seized the Statehouse, there was no
Customhouse refuge for Baxter; the
latter was compelled TO depend on his
own resources. When Baxter appealed
to Grant for military aid, April Is,
there followed no Presidential proela-
nation dispensing the insurgents with
in five days. Tout en- contraire. The
war in the streets of Little Rock was
allowed to drag its weary length
through thirty days. President Grant
made no haste toreclaim the Statehouse
from the intruder Brooks, nor to re-
place Baxter as the Governor who had
been recognized at Washington for two
years previous. Daily scenes Of blood
shed did not suffice to arouse to deci-
sive action the same President whom
we saw last week issuing his
fat the moment Kellogg was
displaced. Day after day, week after
week, Brooks and Baxter were permit
ted to march and countermarch, and
meetoin bloody clash. There was no
decree from Washington against the
insurgents. Both parties were treated
as equals, and the Federal power held
aloOf. The usurper Brooks was given
every opportunity to make good his
case IN court or camp. Contrast the
war and rapine that ragged in Little
Rock for thirty days with the peace
which followed McEnery's coup d'etat
in New Orleans. Then contrast the
tardy action of the President in the
one case with his swift imperialism in
the other.
Yet there was a singular similarity
in the two cases, which seemed to call
for similar speedy action if there be
any method ip the madness Of central
ism that rules the hour. Like Kellogg,
Baxter had been illegally counted in
as Che administration candidate. Bax-
ter had been Bequently and continuous
" recognizedSas the lawful Governor.
Brooks, Ike McEnery, had received the
majority IF the vote at the polls, but
had been ruled out as being at the time
of his election Observation-Disclosures
There were also some salient differ
ences, arising mainly from the fact
that both Baxter and Brooks had
changed their politics between 1872
and 1874. Hence we see Baxter. when
ousted from the Statehouse, sustained
as strenuously by the people as was
Penn when he s,ok forcible possession.
Baxter could have readily reinstated
himself and routed Brooks, but for
Federal intervAtion. While thus pre-
vented from recovering his own.
Brooks was allowed to paiisade the
State capitol and convert it into a
fortress. Contrast this with the treat
mcnt Of McEna,y and Penn in Louis
lana. In the arkansas affair, it was
evident Throughout that the
Grant admi6istrasion gave the
usurper Brooks seyery opportu-
nifty possible to maiAtain himself. Not
until be had proven his impotence in.
field and clbinet-in fact, not until the
State Legislature had convened and
Joined IN the demand of Baxter for
Federal aid, did Grant take action. At
the last, 1t was the Legislature that the
Washington dictator recognized, and
not the Governor. How different his
action when the immaculate Kellogg
was placed in jeopardy
What lesson can we derive from
these striking differences, except the
great danger Of allowing the central
government to interfere in local affairs:
Inevitably, its acSon viii be biased in
favor Of the dominant party at Wasa-
ington. Republicans, if they believe
the country has sfuture, should take
alarm at this matter IS quickly as
Democrats. To-day the central power Is
Republican, but tslas been Democrat
ic, and may be again in a few years.
Mining riots in Pennsylvania or mill
riots in Massachusetts, may yet prove
asaiausible pretexts for Federal inter-
ference in the North, as isolated muir
ders in the South.
-