The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-04-24

Arkansas by q conflict of wretched factions,
held in check by the fortunate presence OF
federal troops at the State capital challenges
public attention to the widespread anarchical
tendencies and spirit of factious turbulence
which exist in the South and Southwest
accompanied by an unsettled fsverish feeling
in the West which might easily be kindled
into dangerous fame. The condition OF the
public mind in large sections of the country
has seldom given SO much reason for appre-
hension and foreboding anxiety. The recent
occurrences at Little Rock are among the
symptoms of deep-seatsd disease. whose
nature we will, at some future time, attempt
to point out in the hope that its threatened
consequences may be avcrtsd.
The latest news from Arkansas indicates
that the difficulties, if we may so distinguish
them, have been postponed What threatened
to be tragedy is only comedy. The oppos-
ing forces have succeeded in killing one man,
who was slain by accident, as though he had
fallen from railway train. So what threat
ened to be treason is little more than high
way brawl or assault and battery. The Dorr
Rebellion in Rhode Island-the only case of
constructive treason on our books before the
war-was contest between two rival State
governments, and really affords no parallel
Governor Dorr, the usurper, and Governor
King, his rival, had not been voted
for at the same election. The controversy
differed from what we see in Arkansas in this
that one had been regularly elected according
to law, while his rival claimed election by
votes given without authority of law by
party which had pretended to form State
constitution. No one doubted that King was
Governor. The courts so held. Dorr assumed
the attitude of rebellion, and all the powers Of
the general government were necessarily used
| to crush him.
| Therefore the Arkansas trouble does not
form in any way parallel case. That pro-
vision Of the constitution which requires the
federal government to protect each State
! against domestic violence is, no doubt, one of
the wisest in that instrument But it is doubt
full whether its trainers ever contemplated
its application to cases like the three which
Louisiana Texas and Arkansas. They are
simply cases Of contested elections, and it was
not supposed that State elections would ever
need to be settled by any other authority than
the State judicatures. There is q manifest un-
fitness in the federal government undertaking
to decide such questions Each house Of Con-
gress is made the sole judge of the elections
and qualifications of its own members,
but it il seldom that contested seat is
awarded with impartial justice or on
any other than party considerations No
great mischief is done beyond injustice to the
rejected claimants and their constituents for
the admission or exclusion Of one or two mem
bers of large body does not obstruct the
regular course of legislation, and the excluded
claimants are helpless. But if Congress
should assume to decide contested elections Of
State officers, not only would State govern
ments be paralyzed by the delay which attends
cumbrous investigations, not only would the
final decision be partisan, but calls for inter-
ference would be multiplied until Congress
could transact no other business. The Presi-
dent is even less fitted to decide such ques-
tons than Congress. He has host of depend
emit appointees in every State, who, as politics
are managed in recent years, are required to
do their utmost to prevent the success of the
opposition candidates. He listens to and is
disposed to credit their representations, and
decides with mind prepossessed, like juror
whose opinion is fixed before he comes into
court to be sworn or judge who has q per-
sonal interest in o suit Assuredly it was not
the intention of the constitution to make the
federal government, or any branch of it.
Judge of contested elections in the States.
The Fsderalist in discussing the clause re-
lating to protection against domestic violence,
makes these observations cases where it
may be doubtful on which side justice lies,
what better umpires could be desired by two
violent factions flying to arms and tearing q
State to pieces than the representatives of the
Confederate States not heated by the local
fame2 To the impartiality of judges they
would add the affection of friends" True
and forcible as this doubtless is when applied
to the kind of cases in contemplation by the
founders of the government, it would be
egregiously false if applied to contested cleo
tons. Instead of 'the impartiality of judges"
there would be nothing but the INSCRIPTIONS
zeal of partisans.
In discussing the same provision the Fsder-
dlst says:-"The existence of right to inter-
fere will generally prevent the necessity of ex-
erting it." Most true again, as the provision
was meant to be understood, but quite absurd
if extended to contested elections, as expert
ence demonstrates. For the first eighty years
a flor tho rrran ization Of the government khera
was but one application by State for aid in sup
pressing domestic violence, but since the clause
has been stretched to include contested cleo
tons there have been three applications within
period of sixteen months. The hope of
federal interference is o strong incentive to
L. lacaa4ad ~ xk,u "a mn Ia froublo Tho