Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1874-12-04
EHPHgS APPEAL
rRIpar noRNna. DC. 4. Iss4.



Our sister State across the river is still
pursued by Radical mslignity. The
carpetbaggeis are sverse to giving up
the bone they have so long picked. v.
Y. Smith is still the wild man of the
woods, but ne and Clayton are busy in
their nefaTious schemes. The people Of
Arkansas shudder at the idea OF being
plundered again by thieves, and they
are restless under the Vaccinations OF
these villsins. A desperate effort viii
be made by the present Radical con-
gress, which convenes on Monday next,
TO restore the State to Radical rule upon
the ground that the new constitution
was not lawfully adopted and that the
% proceedings under it are revolutionary
and void. 1t is admitted that the new
constitution was adopted, by the people
by large majority, and it is conceded
that Garland has been elected by an.
equally large majority; but say these
vultures, the new constitution OF Arkan-
sss was adopted by methods unknown
10 the laws of the State. Two
years SgO the Radicals would have
taken advantage of the pretext they
are now urging, and would have
remanded the State back TO the rule
Of the infamous Clayton and
his gang; but the result Of the recent
elections viii prevent the contamination
Of The proposed outrage. We trust our
friends in Arkansas viii suffer no unea-
siness. A struggle will no doubt be made
TO place in power the, wandering Smith,
but it viii result in ignominious failure.
The northern papers are showing that
the action Of Arkansas in adopting the
new constitution and electings governor
has many precedents. The Chicago
Times shows that, in 1883, the constitu-
tiOn Of Pennsylvania was changed in
disregard of, and by a mode of proceed
ing very different from, the particular
way of amendment prescribed in the
ure-sEisting iu-Fument So, likewise
tne constitution OF Dr.gwala. in 1892,
ana that OF Mary land. iH $3.50. ll each
Of these cases, the constitution Tsz
framed by a convention called iI 8 mani
ner different from that provided in the
old instruments. The provisions Of the
old instruments, as to the mode of
amendment, were either in part or
wholly departed from. And these are
not the only cases Of the kind that could
becited, as 10 changes in the organic in
struments, called State constitutions.
Not q few of the reconstructed" SOUTH !
ern constitutions present further cases |
in point. That the same was done in
Illinois, in 1870; that in 1860 the ILL.,
nOis legislature passed an act calling a
convention TO change the constitution,
and in that act provided how the con-
stitution should be changed, how the
convention should proceed, how its
members should be paid, and so on.
That act was approved by the governor,
became the claw OF the State" and in
virtue Of il the convention assembled.
And the very first thing the convention
did was TO openly, Intentionally, DELHI
erately, and with "malice afore-
thought" proceed to violate and
disregard that claw Of the State.n
And then it proceeded to frame a new
in q way not only "un-
known TO the law Of the State" but in
defiance oft and the people of Illinois |
ratified and adopted the new instru-
ment, by a mode Of voting prescribed /
by the convention for that especial pur-
pose, and wholly different from any
method known 70 the laws Of the State.
And that constitution, adopted by
methods unknown to the laws of the
State" is, strange as the fact may be,
the organic law Of Illinois at the pres
snt time. The new constitution Of Ar
kansas is another instance of the same
"The constitution Of 1865 pro-
Drived a certain way for amending that
instrument" The Legislature disre-
garded that provision entirely, and
called q convention which the cOnstitu-
ion did not authorize, which framed
the instrument that was adopted by the
people, and under which the State
government is now in peaceable opera
ion.