Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1883-04-23
making An amendment

of making an amendment Is
specifically provided. In that
case the authority of the court was
involved for the admission of oral
evidence to overthrow the existing
government and establish new one
In Its place; In this that authority IL
involved simply to preserve the present
constitution intact. 1t is apparent
from the reasoning employed, II it
should be done by sanctioning the
doctrine contended for, q precedent
would be set which would plague the
state for all future time. A "Ban-
auo's ghost" would arise at our inoan.
tation which would not down at our
bidding. The contest of would-be
rival governments in the state OF
Rhode Island raised squestion which
was above the power of existing
courts, and 1t is matter of history
that 1t was not determined until the
adherents of the Dorr constitution
fed at the point Of the bayonet. We
have read history to little purpose If
We refuse to learn from It's examples
or profit by its teachings. The public
dangers which threatened the republic
from
RIVAL CLAIMS FOR THE PREsIDENCY,
30 graphically, and so beautifully
described by the appellants attorney,
were averted only through Q commits.
sion created by congress and entrusted
with judicial powers, which iudioiously
determined the questions involved
and to whose decisions the people
yielded voluntary obedience. That
judicial decision averted the horrors
Of civil war. The political department
of the government to which much
reference has been made In this case
stood appalled, and impotent In the
face of the great dangers, and yet We
ere asked to vindioate our functions,
to deny our jurisdiction, to leave the
question of an amendment to the
constitution unless voluntarily as
qulesced In, to be determined by q
resort to arms. We ought to ponder
long before we adopt doctrine 30
fraught with danger. All danger lies
In the line of argument Of the appel.
lant's attorney.
Courts can never overturn our In
stitutions or subvert our liberties.
They command neither peace nor the
sword of state, but people which Ii
educated to disrespect the decisions
and disregard the ad Indication of the
courts Is prepared for anarchy and all
its attendant evils and
DREADFUL CONSEQUENCES.
We may perhaps be excused, II in
the interest of social order and public
security and the permsnency of repub
lican institutions We enter a most ear
nest protest against the heresiei
which have been advanced In this case
The court then refers to cases oitet
nv appellant, Is Peters, Al 4.15
Biatchford 1918; Wallace 646, ant
others, and poiats out where they
differ from the case at bar. Th'
count quoted from 70 Psnnsylvani
state ss applicable here, that there ar
bat three known modes by which tn
whole people OF the state can CIV
their assent to an alteration of an ex
istipg lawful form of government:
First-The mode provided In tn
i, existing constitution.
Second-A constitutional conven
tion.
. Third-A revolution.
The people are under an organize
government. They cannot change
unless In an authorized manner. N
|. heresy has ever been taught In th
. country 80 fraught with evil as tn
!. doctrine that the people have a cor
= stitut;on right to disregard the col
!, stitution. 1t tends to revolution an
. anarchy. 1t is incumbent upon .
= who influence and mould public oPil
!, lon to repudiate so dangerous . do'
= trins before II bears fruit destruoti'
; Of republican institutions.
o THE COURT TEEN SAWS:
10 The authority without conflict Il tn
q not only must the constitution
% amended In the manner prescribed