National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1875-02-10
HOW TO TREAT THEARKANsAs QUESTION.

-Four estimable gentlemen, constitutinga
majority Of the special committee on Arkan-
sas affairs, have presented their views to
the House of Representatives and arrived
at a conclusion not altogether warranted,
We think, by their own statement of the
facts relating to the controversy for the
government of that State. We propose to
repeat some of their expressed opinions and
views as arguments in favor of the adop-
ton of the resolution presented by Mr.
Ward, which reads as follows:
RESOLVED, That Joseph Brooks, having been
by the people of Arkansas elected to the Office
of Governor of said State under the constitu-
ton of 1868, for the period of four years, end
ing in January, 1877, and said constitution
never having been legally overturned or abro-
gated, and being still in force, he is the lawful
Governor of said State of Arkansas.
On page of the report the committee
they sum up the result of the testimony in
regard TO the election as follows:
without going more into detail, the com
mfttee are unanimously of opinion that by a
fair and honest return and count of the votes
actually given at the election Brooks was
elected Governor, and of right should have
been so declared"
That is exactly what the above resolution
proposes to do, and although it might have
been done two years ago, Congress, to
whom the case has come at last, cannot
make right that neglect by neglecting now
or refusing to declare what the committee
unanimously say should have been declared
two years ago. The circuit Judge who
gave judgment in favor of Brooks on the
18th of April, 1874, had arrived practically
at the same conclusion as that reached so
unanimously by the committee, but the
arguments presented by the majority in
favor of no action at this time were Just as
weighty then as they now are. The mass
Of the people on both sides were more in
clined to peace and good government, and
to allow all the enjoyment of their legal
rights one year ago than they are today.
These young men who cannot be re.
strained" are far more numerous and de-
monstrative now than then, and they con-
troll the Garland government. In support
Of this assertion we cite the fact that there
is in Little Rock militia company com.
posed Of those young men who cannot be
restrained" called the Halle Rifles. This
organization decided that, as Garland was
recognizing the militia, and making briga.
der generals about as thick as blackberries,
they must have one Of their number dubbed
a brigadier. Accordingly, they sent dep
utation TO the executive Office to present
their request, which Garland refused to
grant. These young men thereupon dis
banded their organization and laid down
their arms, at the same time declaring that
they were as willing to fight as ever, and
would reorganize if their demands were
complied with. In few days Garland
had appointed their brigadier general, and
the Halle Rifles recognized and recently
fred salutes in honor of the majority report
of the Arkansas committee
In relation to the action Of the Arkansas
House of Representatives in rejecting Mr..
Brooks petition to contest the election of
Baxter, the report Of the committee is as
follows, on page 4:
1.-THE singular unanimity Of this vote can
hardly be accounted for except upon the sup
position that there was some connection be-
tween this vote and the appointment soon after
by Baxter Of more than forty members of this
Legislature to various offices in the State"
The manner in which Baxter corruptly
prevented the hearing of Brooks contest
by the Legislature is thus clearly set forth.
How he treated the judgment of the circuit
court against him is related on pageP, as
follows:
"Baxter might have answered over by filing
an affidavit of merits, or he might have ap-
pealed to the supreme court; but he did not
do either. Indeed, Baxter appears from the
first to have insisted that no court had juris-
diction to try the contest, and constantly de-
clared that he UOuld not Be deprived Of The office
By TIE judgment Of any court"
On the same page it is stated that the su-
preme court of the State, in the nlaRdamUs
case Of Brooks VS.. Page, held that the judy
ment of the Pulaski circuit court was regu-
lar and conclusive, that the court had juris-
diction, and the judgment had been allowed
TO become final. On this point, however,
the majority say:
"The committee has not deemed it necessary
to decide whether the Legislature or court had
jurisdiction, or whether the Jurisdiction was
exclusive in either, or how conclusive a de-
cision by either was on the question. Should
Congress conclude that the National Govern