New-York tribune., 1874-12-05
TIE ARKANSAS FEUD.

| JUDGE JOHN A. JANKSON5 REPLY TO 1JiH QUE3-
TIONs RAISED AZ TO THE LEGALITY or nIR
| NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. POR TIE ACTION o,
TIN ARKANSAS LEGISLATURE or IUDGa
| POLANDs THEORY.
| The suboned extract from recent ST.
Louis Dispatch. atrlbiung certain opinions upon the
Arkansas question 10 Judge PJan1 has induced Judge
John !. Jameson Of Chicago TO reply through the col
unns OF Tie Tribune OF that city 10 the theories al
vanccJ. He considers tho extract as containing OF
the most substanhal OF the grounds OF controversy be
tween The factions troubling tho StIte. ana bases
| his replies and arguments upon ~:
Judge Poland asserts that although both Baxter and
Brook, have disappeared from ac political arena yet
Tie question at Issue Is. Whic5 then Iseieeed
Governor IN Is72i The Consultation. Jhire Poland
says WAS conceived ana a iOp Ell IA very irf'ghir
n and nr"scribcI te eihoi for tneir sdoptinn No
power was delegated to tue General Assembly OF tns
ot they ~onld ho'd CSnsutonal Convention. Thus
Il appears that acou OF the ArKanas L9gi,ature IN
a parasI case 10 this Mr. Poi Hnis in the ceie
brated Dorr Rebellion IN Rhode Island gIarter o.
century ago. The hopes ana a,,'i ION VI oA''- '''
| upon the Iilegaty OF This Constitution.
Judre Jameson understands from the tenor OF the
dispatch that the theory attributed to Judge POLAND
the view OF the Republicans, AMI tbat tlo
oppo,ite thoory-that the Convention IN question was
valid boiy-represeAts that Of the Democrats II Is far
moro important, he SAYS. that the point at issuo
| should be rightly decided than that either party
should succeed Ia holding the Government OF Ar@ansls
| and adds: Ia truth, it would be better iof Una
country that the Republicaa and Democratic plrue'
both shonlI be wiped out OF existence than that any
material question relating to tho powers OF Coniti'
uonal Conventions snonld be decided wrongly. by a
what careful study this question. am convinced
that the theory announced Dy your corresDohd;h!as
that of Jndge Poland and Of the republican party,
| wrong and would lead to the most fatal results
TIE POWER or A LEGISLATURE TO CALL CoN5H-
TUuoNAL CONVENTION
4. ultg a T. fura
has power to call Constitu ional Convention. when
not mower has not been specifically given by the Con
tituon but when the power to propose specaj amend
mens 10 he voted upon by the peope) mas been gYeh
as was tho case in Arkansas Upon THIS point Jid"
jameson says: "Tbe history OF this power OF msSui
specific amendments constitutions, at the suegstor
OF Legislature, shows very clearly that Wasla
tended be ex rcis ed only when few aud slRt amDh
| nents ~ere desired. aud never wne,e gencrd' re-
! :u'' the action Of tie Legislature -"'rotm'
1mendp penss - the ppsegS va. es.s yn5is.
| By the expression "whOly Irregular" Judge JImesoo
supposes II was Dcant tGat the action Of The
| Arkansas Legislature In calling Convention
unprecedented that the rule Judge Poland contends
for ls substantially without excrpion Ol tue con-
crptiOns 50 much so that thIuk /. established 10 the
public law OF the United States that 10 IL awlvs In hs
| power OF legislature 10 call convention. when
ever 1t may deen II necessary or exos:ent 70 10
with a view either to ameni remodel the COns'iu.
ton. The only exception would ee where the existing
Constitution should Ia express terms have prohibited
The exercise OF such power. II go un@ise prohibition
| were be Inserted ia constitution. 1t seems yry
clear that legislature organ ed under 1t e0ali call
Convention without b9nS gIity OF ~ act of reyola
| ton.
let us now look at tho precetents toaeha.
cases, including that OF Ark insas in whla
legislative bodies have called cVlventons. whero t
autnorzing such action. Tnr Conyeuto,s were th,s,
Of GeorSia Jan rsa May l;So s9a l;i' soatn CalS
ana 1876; Connecticut. 1873; Mas acnuetts ls.o Aai
E4Gds aGd ist & i aud ID s 81 hS sd Har r
North Carollua. 1885, Pennsylytna, 1881 NewJ seq,
Missouri, 13i5. 1861, aud ls5dH aud indiana ls51
In regard to tue last Convention sAoI'i D. observed
that. although there was coht2ne1 IN the In!HA C'H
ventiOn every twelfth year tneredteI-,ha -. ia ioa
1870 1882 etc1the power was not pursued D-t ola'
yenton called IL iepenfeGty of II, by m act ap
proved jan Is, lSJJ winch met On the 81 OF Juae iooS
! ing"
THE OBJECTIONS RAISED IN ARKANSAS
"Itis true" Judge Jameson says, thai thros o.
four OF these Convontons.s that OF yrSnii, 1879;
OF Pennsylvania 1887 OF NewYork 1916 and OF MLsss
chusetts 1S53-:he objection stated oy JIdse Pc
land raised and discussed The objection, EOSeyer
commonly urged by minority, whose party oi
other interests inclined them look with
any change Of the existing Constitution Ia large pro
portion Of these cases tne same objection Was made a
IN Arkansas case; that these existed constitutions
provisions for e5clng amendments TO the Organic Law
Ia more summary manner Oy vote OF The people upo'
propositions made by the General A. emily. TAerc
ing been provided II was sa1. mOte IN which amend
ments to the Constitution might be Effected 1t "ass
violation OF legal analogy to inier power do sab
stanaliy the Thing In another authOrzd
especially by the Cousttuon-the wel.rstlOisbed rae
being. sald that eIpreSSI0 u,IuS est erc.usa
alierius. But, TO this reasoning. two answers mA5
First: Tha, tina revision OF the WHOLE OF arss
part. OF q Constitution Is Substantially different tA'nS
IRON the proposal OF slight aud not numerous amend
mcnts 10 IL: and that there Is no violation Of lrgh
analogy when tue Consultation provides tor dong Que
tnug IN certain way. 10 infer from tnat lastruments
power to do different taug different although
cidly IL the power inferred De IN harmony wItn hs
spirit OF our institution, aud IN conf, miIy Win as
nraa nj Tnnaa al. IN tnatI
Secondly: II has been deuied by good legal authority
maxim aUoye cItcd. erpresSiO nHs etc, applicable
TO the construction " fundamental laws Is Brto ".
BrOom's Legal AiximS, PIP. so. 81; alJ. JamosoAs
constitutional Convention. secs 2l9. S9J. Ss'"
proposed constitutions were nrr adopco by vote
tho people, Or when NOS submitted 10 tao people were
ratified by their acQuiesssnce N them. Notwithstanding
the mode In which the Conventions were called
IHB DoRR REBELLION - THE EVILS OF JUDGD
PoLAyD'S THEORY
Another point upon which wish 20 touch" Judss
Jameson continues. els that Judge Poland finds IN The
celebrated Dorr rebellion, quarter OF century ago.
parallel TO this In Arkansas. IL dlcdlt 10 con
ceive that eminent judge should have 50 far for
gotten the facts 10 the Rhode Island case. which an
fully aud clearly ses f'rsh IN the case OF Latter A;L
Martin reported In H1Nards u .. t., piSo l. as ~ ~
mako such assertion. That case tn short was Ole
wDlcn such of tne male citizens OF Rhoie Island. otA
years OF and upward. a.. by tno tAen eAlstlus
cnarter Of the State, had no right 10 vote conceNnk
themselves TO DO majority OF all the mae rls hsin
the State of that age, called Convention without any
legal authority whatever, which framed tni snbh'tcl
the whole people ol Rhode Island beng males,
age, new Constitution. 1t was adopted 10y M JJrV
OF all the people 10 whom IL was submitted. nelidlsa
ma Hlority. was claimed OF the legal voters an an
attempt made by force "a establish stale IfVIep
ment under It, with Thomas W. Dorr as Governor ln
Charter Government resisted. called upon Presideu'
Tyler assistance and assistance being promised Ino
socalled rebellion subsidized. Finally the whole QUESTION
carried the supreme Court of the Unlted sites
by appeal from tho Circuit Court Raode Isaui and
the Court decided that such mode of amendins ts
state Constitution by th action OF persons who mo.
not voters, was Illegal Fcom this recital II u e'a .
that Judge Poland longer rrcOlecieJ. II he o'ot
knew OF the Rhode Isllnd CASE whom no Wv