Year: 1874

When the New York World or Its cotem-
porsry in iniquity, the Tribune, finds fault
with the President for having delayed def
mite action in the Arkansas affair, we are
forced to recall their adverse criticisms
when similar action was taken regarding
the much -muddled Louisiana question. The
two cases are similar in many respects, and
involve what is known In popular phrase as
the American governmental system to such
an extent as to render the action Of the
President in either one exceedingly impor-
tant. The truth is that if either of the Ar
kansas contestants had been in political
sympathy with the World and the Tribune,
as McEnery Of Louisiana was, they would
have pursued different course As it is,
both the contestants being Republicans,
these high-toned journals are compelled to
satisfy themselves with fault-tinding regard
ing natural and excusable delay-in short,
a necessary delay.


The basis Of our governmental system,
as defined by one of the most prominent
features of the constitutions of nearly all
the States Of the Union, provides that the
courts shall not have Jurisdiction over
purely political questions, and that such
Jurisdiction shall reside In the bodies known
as the political representatives Of the peo-
pie. The Executive has no power to act in
contravention Of this provision, and is
therefore compelled, when called upon to
take sides in such contingencies, to accept
the verdict Of the General Assembly of the
State. This Is what the President did in
the Arkansas case, and if wrong has been
done it is the fault of the system rather than
the Executive. The verdict of jury may
be improper; men may be punished for
crimes of which they are innocent, but the
officers who were mere instruments in car
rying into effect the results Of the verdict
Rrenot responsible. The Office of Governor of
Arkankans being political Office, and not
ajudicial one, is place which carries with
it certain salaries, perquisites, and dignities;
but the fact that It does carry with it these
adjuncts. valuable though they may be to
the person who enjoys them, does not rob
it Of its purely political character, and the
courts were therefore at fault when they
assumed that the personal values of the Of
flee were the paramount questions at stake.
When the President was called upon to de-
eide between Baxter and Brooks, he un-
doubtedly took this fact into consideration,
and remembering that the judges of the
Arkansas courts derived the power, or rather
assumed the authority under which they
acted from the same constitution which
gives the Legislature sole authority to de-
eide contests Of political character, he no
doubt resolved that it was his duty to set
aside their judgments. Admitting, for
the sake Of argument that Brooks
received a majority of the votes
cast for Governor, and was counted
OUT by the Legislature, he might be con-
sidered Governor as matter of equity, but
after the Legislature had counted Baxter
in, Baxter was entitled to be considered
Governor as matter Of law, and. although
it might be disagreeable thing to do. the
people would be compelled TO submit to the
acts of their own political representatives.
In other words. the Assembly having
seated Baxter, the President had no more
right to recognize Brooks than he would
to recognize the acts of judge of one
of the interested courts who had been un-
seated by conviction under regular forms
of impeachment no matter what the mo-
tives Of the impeachment court might have
been. So long as the regular forms of the
law are observed, and SO long as no
usurpation Of authority is resorted to,
the people are compelled to SUBJ
mity as they seem to do willingly,
70 the constitutional authority of
their political representatives If the forms
of law had not been observed, and II any
unconstitutional authority had been usurped,
the case would have presented different
aspect 1t is in vain that Brooks friends