The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-05-02

Governor
1t is evident there is an insurrection in
Arkansas, and it is well known that the Gov
ernor of that State has called upon the Presi-
dent to assist him in suppressing it. There
is consequently now before the general gov
eminent case of the kind provided for in
the fourth section of the fourth article of the
constitution. Domestic violence" has as
sumed already the character Of an open con-
fict between the persons called out by the
Governor to support his authority and the
persons leagued in interest as insurgents
against that authority Blood has been
shed in preliminary skirmish, and this fact
will fire the passions of parties The drum
beat will rattle throughout the State and q
general conflict is imminent With such facts
before them the people will watch with natural
curiosity to see If the government still pro-
poses to keep company of troops between
the lines Of the hostile parties, and is still
unable to get from its law officers or Cabinet
o satisfactory opinion as to its duty and
its obligation to perform it Reports from
will give his opinion on Tuesday next which
is at least an indication that the subject has
attracted attention at the capital and is not
regarded with entire indifference. In the case
of Louisiana the administration was not for
tunate in its conclusions, and its steps taken
in consequence were greatly mistaken steps.
and upon calm inquiry were found to involve
the defence and protection Of fraud All
that, of course, provoked sharp crit
cism, and was altogether o thorn in the
Presidents side. He has not forgotten it.
On the contrary, his course in the present
case indicates q painfully distinct remem-
brance of it, and the hesitation, the delay,
the procrastination that have encouraged the
present disturbance seem to express an
especially formed purpose to do nothing ''pre-
cipitately" Is this only puerile kind Of
spite at the remembrance of former mishaps,
or does it mean that Brooks advocates at
Washington are over-persuasive?
All the dust raised in this struggle to secure
the control of State government obscures, OF
course, the clear relation of the parties, but
subject is closely examined. If two men start
up and claim to be respectively Governors
of the same State and to have received the
majority Of the votes, and the country at
large knows nothing whatever of either man,
who is honest or dishonest, nor even by what
parties they were respectively supported for
the post they claim the people are,
of course, in . thoroughly mystifed
condition as to the rights of the case; but
this very circumstance is the best assurance of
their impartiality and their minds are in
condition to form correct opinions when the
facts are laid before them. Since, therefore,
the publication in Wednesdays HERALD of
the statements of Brooks and Baxter,
there has been little doubt with those
who have examined the subject as to the
as Governor of Arkansas Brooks claim
rests, as we have shown, upon grounds the
admission Of which is inconsistent with
the support of any authority in any State. If
Brooks is right everybody else in the United
States is wrong, and society may at any
moment be thrown back to the primitive con-
dition from which it has grown. We sup
pose that our constitutions have some value,
that the law which fixes the frame of State
government and locates the various political
powers is not merely an empty form, but the
basis of the whole political fabric ; but the
grounds upon which Mr. Brooks places his
claim to be Governor of Arkansas deny all
this; and for this reason alone, even if there
were no other, his claim seems to outlaw
itself. Politically, as well as morally, it
any benefit of q law-to claim its defence or
protection without recognizing its validity;
vet, this is what Mr.. Brooks does. He
claims the benefit Of that principle in our
American politics in virtue Of which the man
who gets the larger number of votes for an
Office receives the Office by the defined operation
of the regular political machinery. Yet he
denies the validity of the laws upon which the
very existence and operation of the machinery
stand.
Brooks claims to have received the larger
number of votes, and therefore to be entitled
to the Office of Governor and it is evident
that if it could be made to appear to the
proper authorities that he had received the
majority of the votes he should have the
Office. But, without any knowledge Of our
own as to the truth of his declarations in re-
gard to his vote, we would ask how he is
to establish this simple fact. Who is to
count this vote? Counting the votes, as this
community has found, is very important
part of the machinery of free government, and
the law in every State defines who shall per-
form this function, and, of course, no other
than the designated person or body has any
relation with it. In the State of Ar
kansas the constitution imposes the duty
of counting the vote for Governor upon
the President of the State Senate.
More than year ago that functionary counted