Page:Hawkins v. Filkins 01.pdf/17

302Rh Did the passage of the ordinance of secession, and the revolutionary action of the state, destroy the state government, or make invalid the acts of her civil government?

No question can arise with regard to the position of Arkansas in the national government; her position was equal to that of any other state; her rights and responsibilities the same. Nor can any question arise with regard to the regularity, in all respects, of her call of the convention which passed the ordinance of secession. It was called under an act ot the legislature, and approved by a direct vote of the people at the polls—a majority of those voting upon the question, being in favor of calling the convention. The objection to the validity of the proceeding, is not in this, but in the action of the convention, whereby an ordinance was passed, declaring the bonds of union dissolved, and renouncing all further allegiance to the United States government.

It is contended, that the state of Arkansas, by her convention, had no power to withdraw from the compact she had entered into with the United States, and that the act of secession, by which she attempted to do this, was void for want of such power. Suppose we concede this to be true, can it be said that a void act could affect the validity of the constitution and government of the state; or on the other hand, should it be said that the state had such power, the mere exercise of a lawful power would impair no other right. Therefore, in neither alternative could such effect be produced. There was no change made in the state government; the ordinance of secession neither added to, or detracted from the constitution. It was not intended by the convention to destroy the state government, whose existence as a state did not depend upon such connection. The constitution remained, substantially, the same (although re-affirmed,) as that under which the state government was originally organized. The same statute laws were continued in force, the same officers were continued in office, to administer the laws under the state government; no other state government, indeed no government whatever, contested with the state her right to administer the laws under such