Vermont farmer. [volume] (Newport, Orleans County, Vt.) 1870-1877, 1874-12-25
Constitutional Changes.

Judge Jameson has written for The Chica-
90 Tribune n review of the reported opinion
of the Hon. Luke p. Poland on the Arkan-
sas Constitution, and we copy it in another
part of this paper. Judge Jameson is the
author of the standard American treatise on
Constitutional Conventions. and his views
are entitled to the greatest possible weight.
lie confirms in the strongest manner the
judgment we have already expressed upon
this subject and exposes the fnllncy of Mr..
Poland and the other administration patri-
OTIS who pretend that because the old Con-
sutution of Arkansas provided method by
which amendments might be adopted,
namely, by the votes of two successive Leg
isatures subsequently ratified by the people,
therefore il was unlawful for the Legislature
to authorize the calling of Convention, and
the new Constitution framed by that body
and adopted by the popular vote is of no
force and entitled to no respect from the
Federal Government. Judge Jameson
shows, both upon principles of law and by
numerous precedents, that the specification
in the organic law Of one mode of revision
does not imply tho prohibition of any other
mode. He goes further, and maintains that
the power of making constitutional changes
through the agency of the Legislature twas
intended to "be exercised only when few
and slight amendments were desired, and
never where ~ general revision of constitu-
tons was intended" Indeed, if the people
were to put it out of their own power to
change their constitutions except by the
slow and uncertain process of legislative
resolutions, which must occupy ut least two
years, and in many cases more, they would
often find themselves in critical emergen-
cies driven to the expedient of revolution.
Judge Jameson cites twenty-six instances
of constitutions adopted in this country by
the process which Mr. Poland denounces as
unauthorized and wholly irregular. We
may add n twenty. seventh which Is especial
ly striking not only because it is very re.
cent, but because it illustrates the great dan
ger of the absurd restriction upon which
Judge Poland and the Arkansas Republi-
cans insist We refer to the new Consttu-
ton of Pennsylvania, adopted last year.
The old Constitution of that State contained
precisely the same provision for its amend
lhtllt lllit Olu SOlSllLullOu Vi hTkh0SuS
did, and no other-nNmely, the action of two
successive Legislatures, afterward approved
by vote the people. N everthoess Con-
vention was called which revised tho whole
Constitution; the instrument thus framed is
now the fundamental law of the State; and
no question has been raised rs TO its validity.
One great object of tho revision was to
check the power of politicians to commit
frauds in the elections; another was to put
certain salutary restraints upon the Legisla-
ture. If It had been necessary 10 obtain the
assent of two successive Legislatures TO
these reforms, 1t is plain that they could
never have been effected Mt all. And so in
any State where the Legislature. through
some constitutional defect, ceased to repre-
sent the people and became merely the
agent of u corrupt combination, il would be
impossible, under Mr.. Poland's theory, for
the people ever to remove the cause of such
a misfortune unless the Constitution express
ly authorized them to assemble in conven-
tion-which most Of our State Constitutions
have failed TO do.-ReiC York Tribune.