Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1874-11-20
BY NAIL.

I tell what complications OF law and poll
tics, cbicanery and prejudice, obstinsey
and rascality, may bedevil the affair
until the case Of Arkansas becomes as
desperate as the case of Louisiana. Gov
erBOr Baxter, having come triumphant
out OF his contest with Brooks, held of
fice in peace until q new constitution,
adopted by the people at the October
election by an overwhelming vote, cut
short his term. At the same time Mr..
! Garland was chosen governor under
the new constitution, receiving about
seventy five per cent. of all the ballOts
cast. Mr.. Baxter thereupon turned
over his Office to the new execu-
tive. The Republicans were not dis
posed to acquiesce in their defeat. They
questioned the validity Of the eonstitu-
| tionai revision, and il has been reported
/ for some time that they were devising q
! scheme TO upset the result of the Octo-
/ b-r election, and get Mr.. Brooks into
office under the old law. Now comes
] forward accordingly Mr. V. Y. Smith,
lieutenant governor of Arkansas iu the
/ Baxter administration, claiming tht
/ governOrshlp as the lawful successor of
/ Baxter, who "abdieated.n He asserts
{ that he pretended constitution of 1874
! is no constitution at all, because it was
not adopted in accordance with the
method of the organic law Of 1858
l for the revision of the constitution. "a
fclaim,' be says, " that the constitution
Of the State Of Arkansas cannot be
altered OF amended ia any other man
ner than that provided by the cOnstitu.
I ton itself, snd that the pointing out
/ how this constitution should be altered
or amended isan inhibition on the gen.
eraI assembly and the people of the
State 10 pursUe another or q different
mode - The convention of 1858
provided that amendments might
I be made by the concurrence
Of two successive Legislatures and
/ subse quent approval by the people. The
/ method adopted in this case, however,
was the calling OF a convention; whose
work was afterwsrd submitted TO the
I people and empba-ically ratified. 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 iDdicat-
es. II his argument were sound it
would still be question whether a con-
stitutiOn, proposed by an irregular or IL
legal convention, would not become val
ID by the popular acceptance. In point
II fact the case has several times arisen.
Pennsylvania, in 1870, adopted new
constitution, fra ned by q convention
acting Ia fisgrani disregard of the uro-
hibitiOn Of the constitution of I776, which |
declared that amendments should only |
be made through the in-tTumentslity OF |
the council of ceusOrs. Delaware adopt |
ed a constitution in 1892, by a similar |
disregard Of the organic law; and Ma |
rylaDd did the same thing in 1851. mol
one would cam of attempting to set
these constitutions aside, and some
eminent au-1OTities-Mr. ReVerdy
johnson amol ? them-have main
tained that be people cannot
limit their own right to abolish or mod |
ify their constitutions. But where there
is 20 positive prohibition there is hardly
Sny question among constitutional law
yers that ii is competent for the people
TO adopt either the machinery for
amendment specified by the existing
law or any other mode where custom
has sanctioned and circumstances may
approve. The pIecedeDts in support Of
TINS opinion are overwhelming. and in /
ed may be said to have settled the /
rlls. The conventions Of New York in |
1916, Louisiana in 1852, Mas ,achusetts |
in 1858, md Missouri in 1S45 and 1881, |
are conspicuous examples of the disre- |
gard OF methods Of revision indicated |
by the constitutions i'm force at the time /
OF their Assem- bling. General 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 a |
pleasing indispOsitiOn to interfere in |
Arkansas, and indeed We doubt whether |
he wants TO be bothered any more by
any Of his southern governors, so that |
we are not without hope that Mr.. Smith |
may be speedily snnbbed.
A Curious Pamphlet.
From the New York Times's Washington /
CorTespondent.l
WASHINGTON, November I5.-The /
latest attempt at revolution in Arkan-
sas attracts little attention and causes
little excitement here, fo- the reason,
no doubt that it happens after election.
The Arkansas cOHps d'etdt have been
also too often repeated. Probably the
will not act immediate
ly, il az all, further than may be neces-
sary to preserve peace in the State. The
Dorsey Clayton ring are, of course,
making great efforts to create excite
ment and stimulate the belief that q
conflict is imminent if the Federal gov
ernment does not interfere. A curious
pamphlet is circulated here which
shows conclusively the existence Of Do
litical trickeTy and conspiracy, aud
proves tuat the claim to the State GOV
eminent which Smith now sets up is
not a recent cOntrivance. The pamphlet
in question Is entitled, "V. V. Smith.
LieutenSnt-GOvernorO Of Arkansas, as.
A. II. Garland.n Il was printed ip
Chicago, and contains over one hun
dred psges. It IS a letter and argu-
ment con ined written by smith to one
Hon. ]. ID. w. YOnley, atgOrney-at-
law; asking for legal opinion, which
opinion Is also a part Of the pamphlet
Tie opinion covers a list OF eleven
propositions relative 10 the Arkansas
elections, the last OF which Is, whether,
if Baxter should voluntarily surrender |
the office TO some person claiming to be
elected under the new constitution, etc,
would Smith be authorized to discharge 4
the duties Of tue uneXpired term, and /
whether Baxter would have a night to
resume the Office OF governor If the
President, or some proper authority, |
should dispeTse the government estsb.
lished under the new constitution. This /,
Is a condensed statement of the prOpO- |
sition which is submitted to Yonley. |
Now, the remarkable feature of this |
document Is its date, which is October /
let. twelve dsys before the new cOnsti- |
tuition was vOied on al sll. Il was
wri ten IN anticipation Of the adoption /
Of the new constitution, and the cleo |
ton Of q conservative governor under /
il, IN which event there could be no /
doubt tilEt Baxter would surrender /
the Office to the new gJyernment. The |
case Of smith IS Garland was made I'D
while GariEud was yet only q csudi- /
date. Whatever the merits Of the legal |
questions involved, there can be no doubt /
OF the conclusion by the Clayton party 4
that they must 90 outside the State to /
get aid, or lose their control of affairs al |
together. Senator Dorsey came here, |
bringing the lesrns5 opinion OF Hon. T. |
D W. Yonley, and having heen in- |
I rned Ffiday OF the readiness Of smith /
to issue this proclamation next day, be |
used this pamphlet in the way he
Thought would do the most good. He |
got q part OF IL printed in one OF two pa |
pers, and to-day the Morning Chronicle |
Is full Of specials from Little Rock, that
ii not written here might have been as
well. And yet the attempt to mannfac-
ture excitement has failed. II there
should be any violence, Il viii be quick
ly suppressed by the Federal auth 1rlties.
It Is probable that Mr.. Dorsey viii have
TO take his pamphlets AND bis esse back