National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1875-02-17

was oNoeoAASN NoAANNAI N-tSS-s
den, Webster and Preston. Opposed to it
were Steamboat Bill Allen, of Ohio, and
the Tammany Democracy of New York.
The question presented in the Rhode
Island case was which of two governments
should be recognized. The same question
is presented by the Arkansas case, and is
not, as some suppose, as in Louisiana,
which of two men shall be recognized as
the Governor of the State. 1t will be OBJ
served that the President lays down three
distinct propositions which will govern
him in determining whether a change of
constitution has been properly made: first
that the change was effected in legal
manner; second, that it was done peace
ably, and third, that these legal and peace
able proceedings were adopted and pur-
sued by the authorities and people of the
State. The friends of the Dorr govern
ment, on the PRONUNCIATION of this policy,
were compelled to abandon all idea of
establishing their government. Being dis
satisfied with the Presidents position, the
friends of the Dorr movement induced the
House of Representatives of the United
States to appoint a committee, and clothe
it with powers similar to those conferred
on the committee in the Arkansas case.
That committee, after taking vast amount
of testimony, made report, or rather two
reports. The majority report fully recog-
nized the validity of the Dorr constitution,
and censured the President for interfering
with it, while the minority report sus-
tanned the charter government and ap-
proved the action of the President After
much discussion, the friends of the ma
jority report becoming convinced that the
House would not concur therein, rather
than suffer open defeat, allowed the same
to meet peaceful death by the expiration
of the session.
We think the position assumed by the
President in 1912 is the correct one, and
that it is just as good law to-day as it was
then, and if so, the people of Arkansas
have no right to do what the people of
Rhode Island were not permitted to do
We are aware there turks in the minds of
some men protesting to be Republicans an
idea that an indulgence of rebel violence to-
ward loyal men is evidence of great mag
nanimity, and that rebels have a right to
do what loyal people have not; but we are
not of this class. With charity toward all
men and malice toward none, we cannot
help extending helping hand to the loyal
man when he is set upon by a rebel. 1t
may be fault; if so, it is not q grievous
one. It is said since the President inter-
fered in the Rhode Island case number of
States have changed their constitutions,
and the Federal Government has not inter
fered. So they hsyej but in the cases al
luded to the officers of the old government
made no requisition on the President to
resist the installation of the new govern
nent. The change of constitution in those
States, if not effected in the mode pointed
out by the constitution itself, was by the
people and the courts of the country, re-
garded as illegal and peaceable," and the
manner of effecting it, one that was adopted
and pursued by the authorities and people
of the State" Acquiescence and con-
tentment followed the change, and
the power of the General Government
was not invoked to prevent change from
the old to the new. These cases furnish
no precedents in the Arkansas case, for two
reasons: first, because there is no acquies
cence, and the Poland committee so state;
and second, not only the Executive but the
Congress of the United States has been re.
quested to settle the question as to which is
the rightful government of the State. The
question at issue is not whether Arkansas
shall have carpet Dagger for Governor, or
whether the Governor shall be an old cit
zen. 1t is not whether the Governor of
Arkansas shall be loyal man or a rebel,
but is one that rises far above all partisan
questions and becomes one of national i'm
portance, which should be settled as be-
comes a question of that magnitude. It is
one that affects the entire American sys-
TEN Of constitutional governments, and
should be settled in the light of this fact.
The Poland report shows that the pro-
ceedings in the Arkansas case were neither
illegal nor peaceable," and that they were
not adopted by the authorities and peo-
pie of the State" 1t further shows that
the act calling constitutional convention
was unconstitutional in two respects, and
that the constitution was declared ratified,
not under any law of the State, but under
the provisions of an ordinance which the
constitutional convention had no authority
to pass, and that was in violation of the
Constitution and the rights of the electors
in at least two particulars. Can it be said
that q constitution thus declared ratified
was the result of illegal" proceedings
adopted and pursued by the authorities -
and people" Of the State The report
further states that martial law existed not
only during the time the constitution was in
cubating; but down to the time Of the inaugu
ration Of the new government; not only this,
but the committee say that they are satisfied
mo one holding Office under the old con-
st1tution, who should have attempted to
hold on to his position and test the ques.
ton Of his right, could have done 80
without great danger TO his life" Does
the existence Of martial law and the preva.
lence Of feeling 10 take the lives of those
who questioned the legality of the new
kO'SAAWSub bnOn pedCedOle Cnange
from one form Of government to anotherH
In what single instance have the "authori.
ties" and the people" Of the State of Ar.
kansas created by the constitution of 1858
admitted that the Garland constitution was
adopted by legal and peaceable proceed.
ings" On the contrary, Is 1t not true that
denials Of authority and protests have been
entered at every stepf And is 1t not true
that the man the President and the commit
tee say was elected Governor Of the State
under the constitution Of 1868 is protesting
against the Garland usurpationH
II Judge Poland and his associates had
embodied their views in q resolution, 1t
would have been about as follows:
"RsSolVsd, That the people OF the States Of
this Union have the inherent right to abrogate
and create State governments at pleasure, re-
gsrdless Of the forms Of law or the provisions
of the constitution Of the State under which
they NAV, for the time being, be living, and