National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1875-02-15
L. PRETENsE OF LEGAL AUTHORITY"

people, on the subject OF calling conStitu-
tional convention, was held without regard
10 the registration laws of the State, and
that the eleventh section of the act provid-
ing for constitutional convention was in
derogation of the constitution of the State
in this, that it destroys the secrecy of the
ballot, and after stating that the courts
were closed and that the question could not
be litigated, Judge Poland, in his report in
the Arkansas case, gives as the reason why
the Garland government would be sus-
tanned that "the election held for ratifica-
"tion was under the form of law, and the
"officers who conducted it acted under ap-
pointment and under official oaths." This
is a most remarkable statement, and it
strikes US as being inconsistent and contra
dictory with other assertions contained in
the report
1t must be borne in mind that the cleo
ton held for the ratification of the consti-
tuition was held under an ordinance of the
convention, and not by virtue of ANY law
of the State In speaking of the power of
the constitutional convention to provide
the election machinery and the officers to
conduct the election for the ratification of
the constitution, Judge Poland, in another
portion of his report, says: "This conven-
" ton had no legislative power whatever.
" 1t must now be regarded as settled that
L" no legislative power is inherent in such
conventions and none can be delegated
"to them by the Legislature. Continuing,
he says: THE convention might doubtless
1" have fixed a time for the election, and
made any other mere regulations in re-
" gard to it, but if they submitted it to the
"people for ratification, they should have
q" done it under the existing law, and to be
" conducted by the existing officers
"of the law. There was an ex-
isting registration, there were existing
officers of registration and election, and
4" the convention had no power to dis
"place them and provide others" Here
we have it asserted the convention had no
authority to pass an ordinance submitting
the constitution to a vote of the people, or
to dispense with registration and election
and registration officers, or displace them
| and substitute others in their stead. Not
withstanding this denial of power, the con-
stitutional convention of Arkansas did dis
| pense with registration and displsce the
registration and election officers of the
State, and substitute others to hold the cleo
ton for the ratification of the constitution.
Not only this, but the officers or persons
thus provided for by the ordinance held the
the election and declared the result which
put the constitution in force.
In the face of these facts and admissions
Judge Poland says "T The election held, for
ratification, was under the form Of Iaw,
"and the officers who conducted it acted
"under appointment and under official
"oaths." We are unable to see the form
of law" nor are we able to comprehend
how it can be claimed that any thing was
done under the form of law " when the
body attempting to create the claw or forms
Of law" had no legislative power. 1t is
| doubtless true, that the persons who acted
as election officers did so '' under appoint
ment and official % oaths." But the
question is, who appointed them, and from
whence was the authority derived to ap
GOAAb lASm4 1nC duS Wei ID, budI luC du
thority TO appoint was conferred by the con
vention, and Judge Poland says it does not
| possess any such power, and that the Legis-
lature could not confer any such power on
| it, 1t may be that the election officers
were sworn. If So the oath was admins
tered in compliance to the command ofan
ordinance of the convention, which, Judge
Poland says, it had no power to pass.
These things being true, the question fol-
| lowing these premises is, are the acts of
persons, assuming authority to act, from
body that has no authority TO provide for
the exercise of power, entitled to, or of the
same force and effect, as those of persons
acting under the authority of unquestioned
power? Judge Poland seems to think there
is no difference; and that body having no
authority may designate persons to perform
| certain acts, and that if the thing be per-
l., 'rmcd the execution Of the thing en-
iotnsl cures all illegality. In other words,
that au executed tort is not the subject, or
review, or redress, and that what was
wrong in the first instance, from the
moment of its Cnnsummation, begins to and
docs crystalline into right ere the setting of
the sun.
Judge Poland and his associates admit
that the election held for the IA ttfication of
the Constitution was an unauthorized cleo
ton, that it was held without authority of
law. If not authorized by law, then it WIS
not an election at all But in response to
our answer he says 'the officers who con-
Quoted the election.acted under appoint
''ment and foficial oaths," and that such
elections 'are entitled to be regarded diff.
ferently from mere voluntary meetings."
Why? Is this so because the officers of
election were deceived as to their author |
ltY, or because the electors were deceived, |
or because both were deceived as to the |
authority of the one and the acts of the |
other? Does the fact that persons assuming
to act as election officers at an unauthorized |
election, although Sworn, were mistaken |
and deceived as to the absence of power |
IN the convention to appoint them,
change either the law or the facts? or does
the validity of an election depend upon the
belief of either the voters or persons assum-
ing to act as election officers7 Does the
fact that either or both were mistaken le-
galize anything? Before what tribunal
was the clector responsible for illegal
voting, or the election officers amenable for
making false returns, if the election was
held without warrant or authority of law?
Will the Congress of the United States
allow State government to be overthrown
by vote obtained under circumstances
where the elector could not be punished for
illegal voting, or the officers of such cleo
lion punished for making false returns q?
Why there is not court in Christendom
that would recognize county subscription
10 railroad corporation as legal or valid
which had no other foundation than the
vote cast at an unauthorized election, no
matter by whom the judges of election
were appointed, nor no matter how often
I" sworn"