The herald and mail. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 1873-188?, 1874-10-02
Grant In Arkansas and Grant In LouIEisna.

A preposterous difference appears be-
tween Grant in the Arkansas imbroglio last
April and his conduct last week towards
Louisiana. The science and system of
Federal interference has made astonish-
ing progress from April to September.
When Brooks forcibly seized the State
house, there was no Customhouse refuge
for Baxter; the latter was compelled to
depend on his own RESOURCES. When
Baxter appealed TO Grant fofRilitary aid,
April Is, there followed no Presidential
proclamation dispensing the insurgents
within 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 to reclaim the Statehouse from the
intruder Brooks, nor to replace 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 decisive action the same
President whom we saw last week issuing
his fat the moment Kellogg was dis
placed. Day after day, week after week,
Brooks and Baxter were permitted to
march and countermarch, Gnd meet in
bloody clash. There was no decree from
Washington against the insurgents. Both
parties were treated as equals, and the
Federal power held aloof Usurper
Brooks was given every opportunity to
make good his case N court or camp.
Contrast the war and rspine that ragged in
Little Rock for thirty days with the peace
which followed McEnery's coup detGt 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 singular similarity in
the two cases, which seemed to call for
similar speedy action if there be any
method in the madness of centralism that
had been illegally counted in" as the ad-
ministration candidate. Baxter had
been frequently and continuously recog-
like McEnery, had received the majority
of the vote at the polls, but had been
ruled out as being at the time of bis cleo
ton anti-administration
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 took
forcibly possession. Baxter could have
readily reinstated himself and routed
Brooks, but for Federal Intervention.
While thus prevented from recovering his
own, Brooks was allowed to palisade the
State capitol and convert it into a for
tress. Contrast this with the treatment
of McEnery and Penn in Louisiana. In
the Arkansas affair, it was evident
throughout that the Grant ad uinistration
gave the usurper Brooks every oppOrtu-
nifty possible to maintain himself Not
until he had proven his impotence in field
and cabinet-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, it was
the Legislature that the Washington dicta-
tor recognized, and not the Governor.
How different his action when the immac-
ulate kellogg was place in jeopardy.
What lesson can we derive from these
striking differences, except the great dan
ger of allowing the central government
to interfere in local affairs2 Inevitably,
its action will be biased in favor of the
dominant party at Washington. Repub-
licans, if they believe the country has q
future, should take alarm at this matter
as quickly as Democrats. To-day the
central power is Republican, but it has
been Democratic, and may be again in
few years. Mining riots in Pennsylvania
or mill riots in Massachusetts may yet
prove as plausible pretexts for Federal in
reference in the North, as isolated muir
ders in the South.