Year: 1874

Judge jameson has written for Tie Chlcago
Tribune a review of the reported OPINION OF
the Hon. Luke p. Poland on the Arkansas
Constitution, and we copy it III another part
of this paper. Judge Jameson is the author
of the standard American treatise on Consul
tutional Conventions, and his views are cnti-
tied to the greatest possible weight. He con-
firms in the strongest manner the judgment
we have already expressed upon this SUBJECT
and exposes the fallacy of Mr. Poland and the
other Administration patriots who pretend
that because the old Constitution OF Arkansas
provided o method by which amendments
might be adopted, namely, by the votes OF
two successive Legislatures subsequently raul
fed by the people, therefore it was unlawful
for the Legislature to authorize the calling Oh
Convention, and the new Constitution
framed by that body and adopted by the
popular vote is of no force and en-
titled to no respect from the Federal
Government. Judge Jameson shows, both
upon principles of law and by numerous
precedents, that the specification IN the
organic law of one mode of revision does not
imply the prohibition of any other mode. He
goes further, and maintains that the power OF
making constitutional changes through the
agency of the Legislature "was intended to
"be exercised only when few and slight
Amendments were desired, and never wheie
a general revision of constitutions was IN
"tended.n Indeed, if the people were to put
it out of their own power to change their
constitutions except by the slow and uncertain
process of legislative resolutions, which must
occupy at least two years, and in many cases
more, they would often find themselves In
critical emergencies driven to tho expedient OF
revolution.


Judge Jameson cites twenty-six instances
Of constitutions adopted in this country by
the process which Mr.. Poland denounces as
unauthorized and wholly irregular. We may
add a twcnty-seventh which is especially
striking not only because it is very recent.
but because it illustrates the great danger of
the absurd restriction upon which Judge
Poland and the Arkansas Republicans insist.
We refer to the new Constitution of Pennsyl-
vania adopted last year. The old COnstitu-
tion of that State contained precisely the same
provision for its amendment that the old Con-
sttuti,n of Arkansas did, and no other
namely, the action Of two successive Legisla-
lures, afterward approved by vote of the peo





ple Nevertheless a Convention was called
which revised the whole Constitution the
instrument thus framed is now the funda-
mental law of the State; and no question has
been raised as to its validity. One great object
of the revision was to check the power of poll
ticians to commit frauds in the elections;
another was to put certain salutary restraints
upon the Legislature. If it had been neces-
sary to obtain the assent of two successive
Legislatures to these reforms, 1t is plain that
they could never have been effected at all.
And so in any State where the Legislature,
through some constitutional defect. ceased to
represent the people and became merely the
agent of a corrupt combination, it would be
impossible, under Mr.. Poland's theory, for the
people ever to remove the cause of such
misfortune unless the Constitution expressly
authorized them to assemble in convention
which most of our State Constitutions have
failed to do.