Omaha daily bee., 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 Q new n
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 s%anctioning the
doctrine commended for, q precedent
would be set which would plague the
state for all future time. A "Ban-
uuo's ghost would arise at our inoan.
tation which would not down at nj
bidding. The contest of would-be
rival governments In the state OF
Rhode Island raised question which
wal above the power of existing
courts, and 1t Ia q 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
are 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 q 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
situations or subvert our liberties.
They command neither peace o the
sword of q state, but q people which Ia
educated to disrespect the decisions
and disregard the ad publication 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 heresiel
which have been advanced In this case
The court then refers to cases oitet
nv appellant, Is Peters, Al 4.15
Biatchford 1918; Wallace GAG, ant
others, and poiats out where they
differ from the case at bar. Tht
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
existing constitution.
Second-A constitutional conven
tion.
. Third-A revolution.
, The people are under an organize
I. government. They cannot change
> unless In an authorized manner N
: heresy has ever been taught In TIL
> country 80 fraught with evil as tn
: doctrine that the people have a cor
: stitut;on right to disregard the COZ
!, stitution. 1t tends to revolution an
anarchy. 1t Ia incumbent upon .
: who influence and mould public oPil
|, lon to repudiate so dangerous . do
= trins before II bears fruit destruoti'
) Of republican institutions.
THE COURT TEEN SAWS:
The authority without conflict Il tn
not only must the constitution
amended In the manner prescribed