The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1875-02-25
LOUISIANA AND ARKANSAS-THE
DIFFERENCE,


To show Presidents Grants nconsis-
tency and utter disregard for all SEM
blance of propTiety, we need only COM
pare his course JIM the Louisiana and Ar
kansas cases. If his action is right in
louisiana it is wrong in Arkansas, and
vice versa. In Louisiana there is a
color, however vague, Of authority to
interfere. An exchange thus puts the
case:
Grant assumes to support the Kellogg
administration because it is de facfO
power, in fact, exercising the govern
ment of the State. Whether it was le-
gally brought into existence, or not, he
does not know. The Judge who made
it power may have been in error, but
he has no authority to revise those errors
He finds the government in existence,
and he treats it as legal. This is the
Louisiana argument of his apologists.
In Arkar as Governor Garland has all
the advantages of Kellogg in Louisiana,
besides good many more. He is a de
tacf0 Governor He is in the unob.
structed exercise of authority. He is
universally recognized as such in Arkan-
sas, There is no rebellion there. There
is no insurrection there. All is as quiet
as in Ohio or Massachusetts. Two or
three months ago a man named Smith
pretended to be Governor of Arkansas,
but he had to hide to prevent an arrest
by a constable. To increase the strength
of the position of Governor Garland,
Grant himself used military force in the
recognition of that of which he is the le-
gitimate representative. A drunken Fed
eral Judge in Louisiana declared Kellogg
Governor. The Supreme Court of Ar
kansas decided that it had nothing to do
with contested elections for Governor;
that that power, by the State Constitu-
ton, belonged solely to the Legislature,
which had exercised it by declaring
Elisha Baxter the Governor. Now, then,
if Grant is bound by the Louisiana Court
decision, why isn't he bound by the Ar
kansas2 The President is not a Judge
of any contested Governors election.
That is determined in every State by a
tribunal within the States, and all he has
to do is to sustain that man as Governor
whom the laws have declared to be Gov
ernor. Nine months ago, acting upon
this principle, he put down the Brooks
rebellion in Arkansas, and maintained
Governor Baxter in power, Now he
says he is satisfied that Brooks was le-
gally elected, has been kept out by vio-
lenee, and that if Congress doesn't au-
thorize him to place Brooks in the Cub
ernatorial chair he will do it himself after
Congress adjourns. Theelection was in
November, 1872. The Arkansas Gov
ernor was inaugurated in January, 1873,
more than two years ago. If Brooks
was legally elected, and if it was Grants
duty to see that he had his seat, what has
he Grant been doing all this time 1t
would be rather late in the day for a
sudden awakening, even if he had not a
year ago, when his attention was called
to the, subject, taken a.contrary position,
The question is not in the least altered
by the fact that Arkansas has since
adopted a new State Constitution and
elected Governor and State officers un-
der it. 1t was brought into existence by
the consent of the Baxter Government,
which was recognized as legal, both by
the State and Federal authorities. If it
was not legally adopted, and if Grant has
any business in the premises, all he can
do is to put in force the old Constitution
with Baxter at its head as Governor.