National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1875-02-09

of the ballot shall be preserved inviolate.
After citing the fact that the law calling
the convention provided for marking the
lallots the committee say: "By this pro-
vision a certain means of evidence was
provided and perpetuated, by which it
"could be shown how, or for whom, every
"elector voted. The committee think 1t
every clear that this was not preserving
"the secrecy of the ballot inviolate, and
"that this provision was a clear violation
"of the constitutional provision, and if
this question was raised before
ga judicial tribunal to determine the
validity of the action in suit between
"private parties, it would necessarily have
"to be decided unconstitutional. In order
to show that the question could not be pre-
scented TO the courts, the majority allude to
the fact that the State officers and supreme
judges were impeached for treason by the
State House of Representatives and sus-
pended from Office, and Baxter clothed with
power to fill the places by Gd interim ap-
pointments, and cite the passage of an act
prohibiting call judges of election from is
suing any writ or process whatever, or
taking any action, or assuming any juris-
"dictiOn in or about or in connection with
"the election" for constitutional conven-
ton. "This act effectually closed the door
to all remedies by judicial action to re-
"strain proceedings under and in the man
"ner provided by the Legislature and by
"the convention. Nothing can, therefore,
"be claimed in their favor on the ground
"0f dcQUieSceRce, or waiver of anything ir
regular or illegal by not attempting to
"stop it, or by allowing it to proceed"
Here we have the admission of the ma
iority that the constitution of the State was
violated in two respects before the consti-
tutional convention assembled. After the
convention assembled the committee, in
speaking of its acts and powers, say: The
convention might doubtless have fixed a
" time for the election, and made any other
"mere regulations in regard to it, but if
"they submitted it to the people for ratif-
"cation they should have done it under
"the eTiSting law, and to be conducted by
"the existing officers of the law. But
"this convention had no legislative
power whatever. Although there had
"been great diversity of opinion and prac-
"tice by such conventions formerly, we
"think it must now be regarded as settled
THAT no legislative power is inherent in
"such conventions, and none can be dele
"gated 10 them by the Legislature. There
"was an existing registration; there were
existing officers of registration and cleo
"tion, and the convention had no power to
"displace them and provide others"
Now, what are the admissions made by
the committee? First that the law provid
ing for the calling of the convention was
unconstitutional in two respects second,
that the constitutional convention had no
power to provide by ordinance for the sub
mission of the constitution to the electors;
and third, that nothing can be claimed on
the ground of ''acquiescence, because the
courts were Theoretically sealed. With
these findings we are at a loss to know why
it is that the conclusions are not in accord
ance with the facts, but strange to say,
they are not, for the committee, in cOnclu-
sion, say ''The committee believe that,
"upon principles now well established, all
"these defects and Irregularities in the pro-
"ceedings must be regarded as cured by
"the verdict of the people" We should
like to know when and where the princi-
pie was established that the people of
State can cure violations of the constitution
and laws Of the State, when it is admitted
that the Republicans of the State have not
acquiesced in the illegal and revolutionary
proceedings2 We are advised that in
many of the States having pro-
vision for amendment similar to
that of Arkansas the Legislature of the
State has called constitutional convention,
and that the convention thus called
framed constitution, and that the consti-
tuition thus framed was ratified and adopted
by the people, and that those States, among
which are New York and Pennsylvania,
are now organized and administered under
constitutions thus adopted; but in each of
the States named and those not named,
where change has been effected in a man
ner at variance with the constitution and
the forms of law, the provisions of the old
constitution were faithfully observed and
adhered to. The question in those States
was one of construct ton, and whether the
pointing out of one mode inhibited the peo-
pie from pursuing any other. There is no
instance on record, where the Legislature
took the sense of the people by an uncon-
stitutional act that the government was
sustained; nor is there an instance on record
where the people of the State ever before
attempted to change their organic law, I'M
der and by authority of an ordinance of
constitutional convention, which ordinance,
if the convention had the authority to pass
it, the committee say, is unconstitutional.
The committee, in point of fact, say that
the people of State, in violation of all law
and constitutional provisions, may overturn
their governments at pleasure, and that no
power exists anywhere to prevent this sort
of thing. The enunciation of such doc
trine is too startling to go unrebuked. The
President yesterday sent message to the
Senate, taking issue with Judge Poland's
theory, in which he depicts what the estab-
lishment Of such doctrine will lead to.