Dodgeville chronicle. [volume] (Dodgeville, Wis.) 1862-current, 1874-12-04
From Harper's HTeekly.
A ARKANSAS.


is admitted, but whether the constitu-
tion was lawfully adopted, and, there
fore, whether all proceedings under
it, including Garland's election, have
any other than revolutionary title.
The Arkansas case presents the ques-
ton, in what way the people of State
may lawfully exercise their undoubted
right of amending or changing their
government. The Arkansas Consti-
tuition of 1868 provided a certain way
for amending that instrument The
Legislature of last spring disregarded
this provision entirely, and called a
convention, which the Constitution did
not authorize, land it is this Convention,
assembled in disregard Of the Consti-
tuition, which framed the instrument
that was adopted by the voters, and
under which Garland was elected. A
similar course was followed in Pennsyl-
vania in 1889, in Delaware in 1892,
and in Maryland in 1850. In each
case the convention was wholly
illegitim ate. cit is obvious" says
Judge Jameson, "that to justify such
proceedings on legal grounds would be
to take from the fundamental law that
characteristic gu atty by which it is
the law Of laws, the supreme law of the
land. If it be not the supreme law
for all the purposes of constitution,
in the American sense,it might as well
be piece of blank paper"
The Rhode Island case was different.
In that state the old charter authorized
no method of altering the government
and the political situation had become
abnormal, the Legislature being elect
ed by less than half the white male
adult resident citizens. Mr.. Dorr was
gentleman Of the best social con-
nections, of high character, refinement,
ard education, and dilligent student
of political science. He and his friends
agitated and organized, and at last
mass convention assembled, upon the
basis of one delegate for every one
thousand inhabitants, elected by Amer
lean male citizens twenty-one years of
age and upward who had resided in
the state for one year next preceding
the election. This con yention drafted
a Constitution and submitted it to
vote. 1t received, as was claimed, a
clear majority of all the adult male
residents, and majority also of all
who were qualified to vote by existing
laws. The Convention thereupon de-
clared the Constitution adopted, and
at the election for which it provided
Mr.. Dorr was elected Governor. He
tried twice to inaugurate his govern
ment, lived for some time an exile, then,
returned to the state was tried for trea-
son, convicted, sentenced to imprison-
ment for life, but was pardoned after a
short time, and soon after died. The
Legislature ordered the record of his
sentence to be expunged. In this case
f,as was claimed, the Dorr Constitution
received a majority of the legal votes,
the event proved that the voters did
not mean to justify such revolution
airy method of changing the govern
ment, but only to show that they
thought the suffrage should be extended
When the essential question of the
lawful power of the people to change
the fundamental law in the Dorr man
ner was raised in the Circuit Court of
the Rhode Island district, Jud ge Story
held that the old charter government
ha been continuously in full force and
eff ct, and therefore its lawful acts
we're justifa bic. The case, known as
Luther and Borden, was carried up to
tho Supreme Court of the United States.
The decision Of this tribunal equally
evaded the question. 1t held that up
on a question involving the lawful es-
adjustment of State government the
Supreme Court must follow the de-
cision of the state courts, and that under
the constitutional clauses guaranteeing
defense of state against domestic vlo-
Ience, etc., it is the function Of Con-
gress to decide which one Of conflicting
governments is to be protected. While,
however, the court avoided decision
of the vital point, it was fully discussed
by the counsel. Mr.. B. 4. Hallett,
of NJ massachusetts,, argued the case upon
DORIS principles. Mr.. Webster OPP
posed him. Mr.. Halletts argument
was plea for anarchy. Mr.. Websters
set forth the principles upon which an
organized popular government is dis
tinguisAed from a mass meeting. The
poi Mt of his argument was that popular
action to be valid must be lawful.
There must be authority qualifications,
securities, sanctions. The people limit
themselves, and their will can be
known not from the utterances of mass
meetings, but only in the recognized
manner which they hare authorized. The
people is political body, not col
lection of individuals, and except
when acting by it's recognized organs
has no constitutional power whatever.
To abandon this ground is to invite
anarchy.
There is no pretcnse that the consti-
tuition of Arkansas did not provide for
its own amendment, and the Legisla-
ture called Constitutional Convention
not only without authority, butin con-
PREVENTION of authority. The call
therefore, and the Convention were il
legal: they were revolutionary. Nor
is the act made legal by an overwhelm-
ing popular majority for the work of
the convention, since there may be an
illegal and revolutionary majority.