Page:Hawkins v. Filkins 01.pdf/32

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.
317

TERM, 1866.]
Hawkins vs. Filkins.

tion so confusedly intermingled, it may, to some extent, be said to partake of both.

In position, it precedes the constitution, and is as follows:

"We, the people of the state of Arkansas, having the right to establish for ourselves a constitution in conformity with the constitution of the United States of America, recognizing the legitimate consequences of the existing rebellion, do hereby declare the entire action of the convention of the state of Arkansas, which assembled in the city of Little Rock, on 4th of March, 1861, was, and is, null and void; and is not now, and never has been binding and obligatory upon the people.

"That all the action of the state of Arkansas, under the authority of said convention, of its ordinances, or of its constitution, whether legislative, executive, judicial or military, (except as hereinafter provided) was, and is hereby declared null and void; Provided, that this ordinance shall not be so construed, as to affect the rights of individuals, or to change county boundaries, or county seats, or to make invalid the acts of justices of the peace, or other officers in their authority to administer oaths, or to take and certify acknowledgments of writings, or in the solemnization of marriages; And, provided further, that no debt or liability of the state of Arkansas incurred by the action of said convention, or the legislature, or any department of the government, under the authority of either, shall ever be recognized as obligatory."

It is contended by the counsel for the defendant, that if the constitution framed by the convention of 1861, and the government and laws thereunder, should be hold to have been originally valid, still, the convention, which subsequently, in 1864, convened, had the power to declare the constitution of 1861, and the acts of the government under its authority, null and void; and in fact had done so. On the other hand, the counsel for the plaintiff contends, that upon a fair and just construction of the ordinance of 1864, such was not the intention of the convention;