New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-11-16
ARKANSA2 AGdIN.


orshp of Arkansas, q new appeal to Washing
ton for recognition" new demand for
troops to suppress domestic violence, and alas!
Mr.. Williams is still Attorney. General and
Secretary of State for Southern Affairs 1t is
a bad outlook. The legal difficulties in the
case are not formidable but no human fore
sight can tell what complications of law and
politics, chicanery and prejudice, obstinacy
and rascality, may bedevil the affair
until the case of Arkansas becomes
as desperate as the case of Louisiana.
Gov. Baxter having come triumphant out of
his contest with Brooks, held office in peace
until new constitution, adopted by the
people at the October election by an over
whelming vote, cut short his term. At the
same time Mr.. Garland was chosen Governor
under the new constitution, receiving about
s6venty-fve per cent of all the ballots cast
Mr.. Baxter thcreupOn turned over his office to
the new Executive. The Republicans were not
disposed to acquiesce in their defeat They
questioned the validity of the constitutional
revision, and it has been reported for some
time that they were devising a scheme to
upset the result of the October election.
and get Mr. Brooks into Office under
the old law. Now comes forward
accordingly Mr.. V. V. Smith, Lieutenant
Governor of Arkansas in the Baxter admin
istration, claiming the GOvernorship as the
lawful successor of Baxter, who has abdi-
"cated.n He asserts that the pretended con-
sttution of 1874 is no constitution at all, be-
cause it was not adopted in accordance with
the method indicated in the Organic law of
1868 for the revision of the constitution. al
claim" he says, !" that the constitution of
" the State of Arkansas cannot be altered or
amended in any other manner than that
provided by the constitution ITSELF and that
"the pointing out how this constitution
"should be altered or amended is an inhibi-
" ton on the General Assembly and the people
"of the State to pursue another or different
"mOde.o
The Convention of 1868 provided that
amendments might be made by the concur
renee of two successive legislatures and sub
sequent approval BY the people The method
adopted in this case however was the calling
of Convention, whose work was afterwards
submitted to the people and emphatically rat
ifed Mr.. Smith does not pretend that this
or any other method was actually prohibited
by the constitution; he only argues that the
prohibition must be inferred from the fact
that different process was indicated. If
his argument were sound it would still
be question whether constitution, proposed
by an irregular or illegal convention, would
not become valid by the popular acceptance
In point of fact the case has several times
arisen. Pennsylvania In 1900 adopted new
constitution framed by convention acting in
fragrant disregard of the prohibition of the
Constitution of 1776, which declared that
amendments should only be made through
the instrumentality of the Council of Censors.
Delaware adopted constitution in 1902 by
similar disregard Of tho organic law; and
Maryland did the same thing in 1851. No
one would dream of attempting to set
these constitutions aside, and some eminent
authorities-Mr. Reverdy Johnson among them
have maintained that the people cannot
limit their own right to abolish or modify
their constitutions. But where there is no
positive prohibition there is hardly any ques-
ton among constitutional lawyers that it is
competent for the people to adopt either the
machinery for amendment specified by the ex-
listing law or any other mode which custom
has sanctioned and circumstances may ap-
prove. Tho precedents in support of this
opinion are overwhelming, and indeed may be
said to have settled the rule. The COnven-
tions of New-YOrk in 1846, Louisiana in 1859,
Massachusetts in 1853, and Missouri in 1916
and 1861, are conspicuous examples of the dis
regard of methods of revision indicated by the
constitutions in force at the time of their as
sembling.
Gen. Grant can do no wrong by refusing to
interfere In any way with this fresh dispute,
while on the other hand he can do great mis-
chief by meddling. He has shown pleasing
indispOsition to interfere in Arkansas, and
indeed we doubt whether he wants to Ebe
bothered any more by any of his Southern
Governors, so that we are not without hope
that Mr.. Smith may be speedily snubbed.