THE ’RI%IODE ISLAND QUESTION.

‘   MR. WEBSTER’S ARGUMENT

IN THE‘.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 

IN THIS CAM} 017'

MARTIN LUTHER.

VS.

LUTHER M. BURDEN AND OTHERS,

JANUARY mm, 1848.

WAS HINGTON:
PRINTED BY J. AN1) G; s. minnow. 
  1848.A

ARGUMENT.

 

Mr. Webster‘ said there was something novel and esztraordinaryin the
«case now before the Court. It is not such a one as is usually presented,
wall will admit, for judicial consideration.

It is Well known that in the years 1841 and 1842, political agitation
«existed in Rhode Island. Some of the citizens of that State undertook to
form a new constitution of government, beginning their proceedings to-
rivvatrds that end by meetings of the people ,held without authority of law,
and conducting those proceedings througli such forms as led them,iu
1842, to say that they had established a new constitution and form of gov-
ernment, and placed Mr. Thus. "W, Dorr, at its head. The previously
«exist.ing, and then existing, government of Rliocle island treated these
proceedings as nngatory, so far as they went to establish a new constitu-
tion; and criminal, so far as they proposed to confer authority upon any
persons to interfere with the acts of the eazisting government, or to exer-

cise powers of legislation, or administration of the laws. 1

All will rernernber that the state of things approached, if not actual

lrconflict between rnen in arms at least the “ erilous etlrre of battle.”
9 in

Arms were resorted to, force was used, and greater force threatened.
a In June, 1842, this agitation subsided. The new government, as it

” called itself, disappeared from the scene of action. . The former govern--

ment, the Charter Government, as it was sornetirnes styled, resumed
‘undisputed control, Went on in its ordinary course, and the peace of the
State was restored. , S

But the past had been too serious to be forgotten. The Legislature

«of the State had, at an early stage of the troubles, found it necessary to

pass special laws for the punishment of the persons concerned in these
proceedings. It defined the crime of treason, aswell as smaller offen-
ces, and authorized the declaration of martial law. Governor King,
runder this authority, proclaimed the existence of treason and rebellion
in t.he‘State, and declared the State under martial law. t
This having been done, andtthe epherneral government of Mr. Dorr
having disappeared, the grand juries of the State found indictments

against several persons for having disturbed the peace of the State,

4

 

and one against Dorr himself, for treason. This indictmen 

in the supreme court of Rhode Island in 1844, before a t1'ibun.al;;. ,..rniit~ I

ted on all hands to be the legal judicature of the State. He  jj =
by ajury of Rhode Island, above all objection, and after all challenge. I I
By that jury, under the instructions of the court, he was convicted 

treason, and sentenced to imprisonment for life. j

Now, an action is brought in thecourts of the United States, and b e--
fore your Honors, by appeal, in which it is attempted to provethat the
characters of this drama have been oddly and wrongly cast; that there
has been a great mistake in the courts of Rhode Island. They say, that
Mr. Dorr, instead of being a traitor or an insurrectionist, was the real
Governor of the State at the time; that the force used by him was em
ercised in defence of the constitution and laws, and not against them;.
«that he who opposed the constituted authorities was not Mr. Dorr, but
Gov. King; and that it was he who should have been indicted, and
tried, and sentenced. This is 1'at,l't,er an important mistake, to be sure ,.
if it be a tnistake. “Change places,” cries poor Lear, “c/range places,
and, /randy-darzdy, which is the Justice anclwhich the thief?” So our
learned opponents say, “ change places, and, lzarzdy-dartdg/, which is
the Governor and which the rebel !’A_’ p ,
v ‘ The aspect of the case, therefore, is, as I have said, novel. It may
perhaps give vivacity and variety to judicial investigations. It may re.-
lieve the drudgery of perusing briefs, demurrers, and pleas in bar, bills
in equity and answers; and introduce topics which give sprightliness,
freshness, and something of an uncommon public interest, to proceed»-
ings in courts of law. . p

However impossible it may be, and I suppose it to be to/telly irnpos-
sible, that this court should take judicial cognizance of the questions
which the plaintiff has presented to the court below, yet I do not think:
it a matter of regret that the cause has come hither. It is said, and truly
_said,thatthe caseinvolves the consideration and discussion of what
are thetrue principles of government in our American system of pub-

lic liberty. This is very right. The case does involve these questions,

and harm can never come from their discussion, especially whensuch
discussion isiaddressed to reason and not to passion; when it is had be

fore magistiates and lawyers, and not before excited masses out ofi doors.
I agree entirely that the case does raise considerations, somewhat ex»
tensive, of the true character of ouripArnerican system of popular liber-
ty 5 and although I am constrained to differ from the learned counsel.

5

itvhotlopeneld the cause for the plaintiff in error, on the principles and

elia1+aowj‘”.. of that American liberty, upon the true characteristics of that.

 

American system on which changes of the Government and Constitu«
,  ?tito,n,jifi they become necessary, areto be made, yet I agree with him
 .<that this case does present them for consideration. a

Now, there are certain principles of public liberty, which , though they
-do not exist in all forms of government, exist, nevertheless, to some ex»
tent in different forms of government. The protection of life and pro-
perty, the /taboos corpus, trial by jury,the right of open trial, these are
principles of public liberty existing in their best form in the republican
institutions of this country, but, to the extent mentioned, existing also in
the Constitution of England. Our American liberty, allow me to say,
therefore, has an ancestry, a pedigree, a history. Our ancestors brought
.;to this continent all that was Valuable, in their judgment, in the political
tinstitutions of England, and left behind them all that was without va-
lue, or that was objectionable. During the colonial period they were
«closely connectedof course with the colonial system; but they were
Englishmen, as well as colonists, and tools: an interest in whatever con»
cerned the mother country, especially in all great questions of public
liberty in that country. Therefore they tool: a deep concern in the revo—
lution of 1688. The American colonists had suflerecl from the tyranny
of James the Second. Their charters had been wrested from them by
rnockeries of law and by the corruption of judges in the city of Lon-
don ; and in no part of England was there more gratification or a more
resolute feeling,twhen James abdicated and William came over, than
in the American colonies. All know that Massachusetts immediately
reverthrew what had been done under the reign of James, and took pos»
session of the colonial fort in the name of the new King.

When the United States separated from England, by the Declaration
of .1776, they departed from the political maxims and examples of the
mother country, andpentered uponla course more exclusively American.
From that day down, our institutions and our history relate to ourselves.
Through the period of the Declaration of Independence, of the Confe-
deration, of the Convention , andthe adoption of the Constitution, all

-our public actsare records, out ofwiwliicli a knowledge of our system of

American liberty is to be drawn A .

From the Declaration of Independence,«the governments of what
«had been colonies before, were adapted to their new condition. They
nolonger owed allegiance to crowned heads. No tie bound them to

t 6

' England. , The whole system became entirely popular, and all legisla-r-
tive and constitutional provisions had regard to this new, peculiar,iAme.-«W r
rican character, which they had assumed. Where the form of govern»
ment was already well enough, they let it alone. Where necessary,. 
they reformed it. What was valuable, they retained 5 what was essen#« it

iial, they added, and no,more. Through the whole proceeding, from.
1776, to the latest period, the whole course of American public acts,,.
the Whole progress of this American system , was marked by a peculiar
conservatism. The object was to do what was necessary, and no more ,3.
and to do that, with the utmost temperance and prudence.

N ow, without going into historical details at length, let me state what.
Iunderstand the American principles to be, on which this system rests..
 First and chief, no man makes a question, that the People are the
source of all political power. Government is instituted for their good ,.
and its members are their agents and servants. He who would argue
against this, must argue without an"‘"‘*adversary. And who thinks there

is any peculiar merit in asserting a doctrine like this, in the midst of”

twenty millions of people, when nineteen millions, nine hundred and
ninety-nine thousand,nine hundred and ninety-nine of them, hold it, as»-
well as himself ? There is no other doctrine of government here ;:
and no man imputes to another, and no man should claim for himself}.
any peculiar merit for asserting what every body knows to be true, and
nohodydenies. Why, where else can we look but to the People, for‘
political power, in a popular goviernrnent? We have no hereditary Ex-
eoutive, no hereditary branch of the legislature, no inherited masses:
of property, no system of entails, no long trusts, no long family settle-~»
ments, no primogeniture. Every estate in the country, from the ric.hest<
to the»poo'rest,r is divided among sons and daughters alike. Alienation
is made as easy as possible; everywhere the transmissibility of property
is perfectly free; the whole system is arranged so as to produce, as far as
unequal industry and enterprise render itpossible, a universal equality
amongmen 5 an equality of rights absolutely, and an equality of condi-4
tion, so far as the difl"erent charactersof individuals will allow such
equality toibe produced: He who considers that there may be, is, or
ever has been, since the Declaration of Independence, anybody who
looks to any other source of power in this country but the People, so as
to give those peculiar merit who clamor loudest in its assertion, muest be
out of his mind, even more than Don Quixote. His imagination

was only perverted. He saw things not asithey were, though What he

'7

sawtrttwereszthings. He saw windmills, and took them to be armed men
-e-lcnigetston horseback. This was bad enough; but whoever says, or

speaksajstif he thought, that any body looks to any other source ofjpoli-—

ticalpgower in this country but the people, must have a stronger and a

‘ rwil;der imagination ,,‘for he sees nothing but the creations of hisown

fancy. He stares atphantoms. Well,then,let all admit ,what none deny,

that the only source of political power in this country is the people. Let:

us admit that they are sovereign, for they are so; that is to say, the ag-4

gregate community, the collected will of the people, is sovereign. I

confess that I think Chief Justice Jay spoke rather paradoxically than

philosophically, when the said thatthis country exhibited the t3Xtl‘fl.Ol‘Cll—

nary spectacle of many sovereigns and no subjects. The people, he

said, are all sovereigns: and the peculiarity of the case is ,that they have

no subjects, except a few colored persons. This must be rather fanciful.

The aggregate community is sovereign, but that is not the sovereignty

which acts in the daily exercise of sovereign power. The people can»

not act daily as the people. They must establish a government, and in-

-vest it with so much of the sovereign power as the case requires: and this
sovereign power being delegated and placed in the hands of the govern»-
ment, that government becomes what is popularly called TI-IE STATE.
I like the old fashioned way of stating things as they are ; and this is the

true idea, of a State. It is an . organized government, . representing the
collected will of the people, so far as they see fit to invest that govern»

ment with power- And, in that respect , it is true that though If/zc'.sfGov..

ernment possesses sovereign power, it does not possess all sovereign pow»-

er: and so the State governments , though sovereign in some respects, are
not so in all. Nor could it~be shown that the powers of both , as delen

gated, embrace the whole rangeof what might .be called sovereign

power. We usually speak of States as sovereign States. I do not ob,
jest to this- Biutthe Constitution never so styles them, nor does‘ the
Constitution speak of the .Government here, as the general or the

federal Government. It calls this Government the United States; and
it calls the State governments, Stategovernments. Still the factis
undeniably so: legislation is a sovereign power, and is exercised by the

United States Government to a ,certain extent, and also by the States, ac;

cording t01h6 f01‘1‘I1S Whish they tl1emselveshav:e, established, and subject

to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States. V,
p Well, then, having agreed that all power is originally from the people,

and that they can confer as much of it as they please, the next principle is,"

8

that ,as the exercise of legislaftivei power and the other potver?s§of.governc a
meat immediately by the People themselves is impracticable,  must;
be exercised by Resnnsnuraarrvesrof the People: and what distinguishes i a
American Governments as much as anything else from any governments V
of ancient or of modern times, is the marvellous felicity of their representa=-«* it

tive system; It has with us, allow me to say, a somewhat different, origin
from the representation of the Com monsin England , though that has been
worked up to some resemblance of our own . The representative system
in England originated, not in anysupposed rights of the people them-
selves, but in the necessities and commands of the ‘crown. ; At first,
knights and burgesses were summoned, often againsttheir will, to a
parliament called by the King. lVIany remonstrances were presented
against sending up these representatives: the charge of paying them was,
not unfrequently, felt to be burdensome by the people. But the King
wished their counsel and advice, and perhaps the,presence' of’ a«popu-
lar body, to enable him to make greater headway against the feudal ha»
rons in the aristocratic and heredit.ary branch of the legislature; In pro-

cess of timethese knights and bnrgesses assumed more and morea 130- T

pular character, and became, by degrees, the guardians of popular rights.
The people through them obtained protection against the encroachments
of the crowniantl the aristocracy, till in our day they are understood to
be the Representatives of the People, charged with the protection
of their rights. With us it was always just so. Representation has
always been this. , The power is with the people; but they cannot
exercise it in masses or per capita; they can only exercise it bytheir re»
presentatives. The wholesystem with us has been popular from the
beginning. . i y  T r  r t . .
m Now, the basis of this representation is suffrage. The right to choose
representatives is every man’s part in the exercise of sovereign power :—-
to have a voice in it, if he has the proper qualifications, that is the fun-9
damental exercise of political power? by every elector. That isthebe—-
ginning. That is the mode in which power emanates from its source,
and gets into the hands of conventions,legislatures, courts of law, and

the chair of the executive. It beginsin suffrage. .Sufi"rage is the sclele‘-—

gation of the power of aniindividualito some agent. i i i it
lies of the American

This being so, then follow two other great prmcip
System: . r r  »  A an it s  
.1 . The first is, thatthe Right of Suffrage shall beguarded-,protected,
secured against force and againsttfi-and; and, r T it  r  T i l  -«

9

I .  Thesecond is, that its exercise shall be prescribed by previous law;
its qualtiidieiations shall be prescribed by previous law; the time and place
«of, itsjexercise shall be prescribed by previous law ; the manner of I its

. .eXercise——under whose supervision-«——always sworn ofiicers of the law,
  tobe prescribed. And then again the results are to be certified to

«the central power by some certain rule, by some known public officers,
in some clear and definite form, to the end that two things may be
irlone—-mfirst, that every man, entitled to vote, may vote; second, that
his vote may be sent forward and counted, and so he may exercise his
part of sovereignty, in common with his fellow men. it

In the exercise of political power through representatives we know

nothing, we never have known any thing, but such an exercise as
;should be carried through the prescribed forms of law; and when we
depart from that, we shallivvander as widely from the American track as
the pole is from the tracl: of the sun. C
I have said that it is one principlesof the American System, that the
' people limit their governments, National and State. They do so;
but it is another principle, equally true and certain, and according to my
judgment of things equally important, that the people often lime‘: Z/zem—
selves. They set bounds to their own power. They have chosen to
secure the institutions which they establish against the sudden impulses
«of mere majorities. All our institutions teem with instances of this. It
was their great conservative principle, in constituting forms of govern-
ments, that they should secure what they had established against hasty
changes bysimple majorities. By the fifth article of the Constitution of
the United States, Congress, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, may
propose amendments to the Constittttion; or, on the application of the
legislaturesofr two-thirds of the States, may call aconvention; and amend-
. anents proposed in either of r these forms must be ratified by the legisla-
tures or conventionstof three-fourths of the States. That fifth article of
she Constitution, if it was made a topic for those who framed the F‘ peo-
,ple’sf constitution ” of Rhode Island, could only have sheen a topic
«of reproach- It gives no countenance to any of their proceedings or
to any thing. like them. On the contrary, it is one remarkable instance
.of the enactment and application joftthatgreat American principle, that
;,theconstitution of governmentshould be cautiously and prudently in-;
tterfered with, and that changes should not ordinarily be begun and carg-
siedthrough by bare majorities. . . , .
 But the people limit themselves also in other ways. They limit therm-

10

selves in the first exercise of their political rights. They limittpthemw S

selves, by all their constitutions, in two important 1'espects,-9-«tlaat tisito»
say, in regard to the qualifications of electors, and in regard to the qualifi.

cations of the elected. In every State, and in all the States, the people  

have precluded themselves from voting for anybody they may cl1ootse’;:tl

r they have limited their own right of choosing. They have said, wewill;
elect no man who has notlsuch and such qualifications. We will not;

vote ourselves, unless we have such and such qualifications. They have

also limited themselves to certain prescribed forms for the conduct of ‘

elections. They mustvote at a particular place, at a particular time,
and under particular conditions;“ or not at all. It is in these modes that
we are to ascertain the will of the American people; and our Constitu-
tion and laws know no other mode. We are not to take the will of the-
people from public meetings, nor from tumultuous assemblies, by which
the timid are terrified, the prudent are alarmed, and by whichisociety is

dristuirbedt. These are not American modes of signifying the will of the a

people, and they never were. If any thing in the country, not ascer-
tained by a regular vote , by regular returns , and by regular representation,
has been established , it is an exception and not the rule; it is an anoma-~
ly which, I believe, can scarcely be found. It is true that at the Reva»-
lution , when all government was irnmediatelydissolved , the people got
together, and what did they do? Did they exercise sovereign power?’
They began an inceptive organization , the object of which was to
bring together representatives of the people, who should form a govern»-
ment. This was the mode of proceeding in those States where their lew
gislatures were dissolved. It was much like that had in England upon
the abdication of James the Second. He ran away-—--he abdicated. He’
threw the great seal into the Thames. I am not aware that on the 4th»
of May, 1842, any great seal was thrown into Providence river! But
James abdicated, and King William took the government 5 and how did;-‘
he proceed? Why he at oncerequested all who had been members of
the old Parliament, of any regular Parliament in the time of Charles

the Second, to assemble. The Peers, being a standing body, could of?

course assemble, and all they didwas to recommend the callingof a.

convention , to be chosen by the samdl electors, and composed of the same i

numbers, as composed a parliament. A, And the convention assembled,..
and, as all know, was turned into, a parliarnent. This was a case of new
cessity—--a revolution. Don’t we callit so? And why? Not merely

because a new soverre-ign then ascended the throne of the Stuarts, butt

11

r because thterie was a change in the organization of the government.» Thai  r '
"tablished succession was broken. The convention did not:

 

legal‘ ands

assemble tinder‘ any preceding law. There was a /ziatus, a syncope, its 

 theaction of the body politic. This-was revolution, and the parlia-5

 

lution. ‘ ”

wévetntsrrrthat assembled afterwards referred their legal origin to that revue r t

Isrit not obvious enough, that men cannot get together and count A

themselves, and say they are so many hundreds and so many thousands,
and judge of their own qualifications ,‘and call themselves the people,
and set up a government? it Why, another set of men, forty miles off,
on the same day, with the same propriety, with as good qualifications,
and in as large numbers, may meet and set up another government;
one maymeet at Newport and another at Chepachet, and both may
call themselves the people. What is thisbut anarchy’? What liberty
is there here but a tumultuary , tempestuous, violent , stormy liberty---a
sort of South American liberty, Witltetat power except in its spasms»--a
liberty supported by arms today, crushed by arms to-tnorrovv. Is that
our liberty? r .
The regular action of popular power, on the other hand, placesupon
public liberty the most beautiful face that ever adorned that angel form..
All is regular and harmonious in its features, and gentle in its operation.
Thestream of public authority, under American liberty, running in
this channel, has the strength of the Missouri, while its waters are as
transparent asthoser of a crystal lake. It is powerful for good. it It pro-
ducesfino tumult, no violence, and no wrong; i A e
' it “Though deep, yet clear, though ,gentle, yet not dull;
“Strong without rage, withotrt werflowing, full.” o
it Anotlier American principle growing out of this, and ust as important
and well settled as is the great truth that the people are the source of‘

power, is, that when in the coursepoi',events"it becomes necessary to as- A
. certain the will of the people on a new exzigency, or a new state of

things or of opinion, the legislative powerprovides for that ascertainment

by an ordinary act of legislation. Has not that beenour whole history?“ -

It would take me from now till the sun shall go "down, to advert to all
the instances of it, and AI sha.11,on1‘y refer to the most prominent, and yes-r
pecially to‘ the establishrnent of the Constitution, under which you sit.
The old Congress, upon the suggestion of the delegates who assembled;
at Annapolis, in May ,17'86, recornmended to the States that they should

' . “I?

send delegates to a convention to be holden at Philadelphia , topyforrna
Constittition. No article of the old Confederation gave thetnipower to

do this; but they did it, and the States did appoint delegates,Cwhoa‘s-_- W

sernbled at Philadelphia, and formed t.he Constitution. It was com-

municated to the old Congress, and that body recornmended together

States to make provision for calling the people together to act upon its
adoption» Was not that exactlyattlie case of passing a law to ascertain
the will of the people in a new exigency? And this method was adopt-
«ed without opposition, nobody suggesting that there could be any other
mode of ascertaining the will of the people. i

_ My learned friend went through the constitutions of several of
ithe States. It is enough to say ,‘that t of the old thirteen States, the
«constitutions, with but one exception, contained no provision for their
«own amendment. In New Hampshire there was a provision for taking
the sense of the people once in seven years. Yet there is hardly one
that has not altered its constitution, and it has been done by conven-t
tions called by the Legislature, as an ordinary etstercise of legislative
power. Now what State ever altered its constitution in any other motle?
Whrat alteration has ever been brought in, put in, forced in, or gottin
any how, by resolutions of mass meetings, and then by applying force?
In what State has an assembly, calling itself the people, been held with-
»out law, without authority, without qualifications, without certain offi-
-cers, with no oaths, securities, or sanctions of any kind, met and made
.a constitution, and called it the constitution of the STATE?

There must be some authentic mode of ascertaining the will of the
people, else all is anarchy. It resolves itself into the law of the strong-
est, or, what is the same thing, of the most numerous for the moment,
and all constitutions, and all legislative rightsare prostrated and disre-
garded. , r ,1, I
” But my learned adversary says .that if we maintain that the people
(fortihe speaks in the name and on behalf of the people, to which I do
not object) cannot commence changes in their government but by some
previous act of legislation, and if thelegislature will not grant such an
act, we do in fact follow theexarnple of the Holy Alliance, the doctors
of Laybach,wl1ere the assembled sovereigns saidtlirat all changes of
government tmust proceed from sovereigns; and it is said ithatxwe
mark out the same rule for the people of Rhode Island. I I I A  A

Now, will any man ,will myiadlversary here ,on a”'rnotnent’s retice-
tion‘, undertake to show the leastT»Iesemblan‘ce on earth, between what

r 13

,Ihavecal1editl1e American doctrine, “and the doctrine of the sovereigns

 

at Laybat What do Itcontendtfor? I say that the willof the poo»-
plet.1r1ustp~prevail , when it is ascertained; buttthere must be some legal

p and authentic mode of ascertaining th‘at=will; and then the people make
”wh}atigove1'nment they please. Was that the doctrine of Laybach,*pray?“

Was not the doctrinethere held this, that the sovereign should say"wl:1a~t
changes shall be made? Changes mttst proceed from them; new consti-
tutions and new laws emanate from them ;and all the people had to do was
to submit. That is what they maintainedi All changes began with the
sovereigns and ended with the sovereigns. Pray, at about the time that
the Congressof Laybach was in session, did t.he allied Powers put it to
the people of Italy to say what sort of‘ change they would have ’.? And at a
more recent date, did they ask the citizens of Cracow what change they

would have in their constitution? Or did they take away their constitution ,

laws, and liberties, by their own sovereign act? C N c ! All that is neces-
sary here is, that the will of the people should be ascertained, by some
regular rule of proceeding, prescribed by previous law. But when as—-

certained , that will is as sovereign as the will of a despotic prince, the Czar

ofMuscovy, or the Emperor of Austria himself, though not quite so
easily made known. A ukase or an edict signifies at ‘once the will of a
despotic prince; but that will of the people, which is here as sovereign

as the will of such a prince, is not so quickly ascertained or known;.

and thence arises the necessity for sulliage, which is the mode whereby
each man’s power is made to tell upon the constitution of the govern»

ment, and in the enactment of laws.

One of the most recent laws for taking the will of the people in any
State is the law of 1845, of the Statetof New York; It begins by re-
commending to the people to assemble in their several election districts,
and proceed to vote for delegates to a convention. If you will take the
pains to read that, act, it will be seen that New York regarded it as an
ordinary exercise of legislative powers. It applies all the penaltiesfor
fraudulent voting, as in other elections. ‘ ‘It punishes false oaths, asrin
other cases. Certificates of the proper oflicers were to be held concluv-
sive, and the will of the people was, in this respect, collected essentially
in the same manner,,supervised by the same ofl‘icers, under the same
guardsryagainst force and fraud ,collusion and misrepresentation, as are
usual in voting forrState or United States officers. V
2 i .We see, therefore, from the commencement of the Government under
which we live, down to this late actttof the State of New York, one uni-«

. 14

form current of law, of precedent, and of practice, all going toestab-:
lish the point that changes in government are to be brought about by

the will of the -people , assembled under such legislative provisious- as

may be necessary to ascertain that Will, truly and authentically.

In the next place, may it please your Honors, it becomes veryimé

portant to consider what bearing the Constitution and laws of the Uni-
ted States have upon this Rhodetlsland question. , Of course the Con_
stitution of the United States recognises the existence of States. One
-branch of the legislature of the United States is composed of Senators,
appointed by the States, in their State capacities. The Constitution of
the United States (Art. iv. , §4,) saysthat “ the United States shall
guarantee to each State a republican. form of government, and shall
protect the several States against invasion; and oil the application of the
legislature, or of the executive, when the legislature cannot be convened,

against domestic violence.” N ow ,I cannot but think this a very strin-
gent article, drawing after it ithernost important consequences, and all

good consequences. The Constitution, in the section cited, speaks of
States as having existing legislatures and existing executives; and itspeaks
of casesin which violence is practised or threatened against the State ,in
other words,“ domestic violence ;” andit says the State shall be protected».
It says, then, does it not, that the existingrgovernment of a State shall
be protected? My adversary says, if so ,and if the legislature would
not call a convention, and if, when the people rise to make a cionstitu»

'.tion, the United States step in and prohibit them, Why the rights and

privileges of the people are checked , controlled. Undoubtedly l The
«Constitution does not proceed on the grotmd of revolution; it does not
proceed on any riglzt of revolution; but it does go on the idea that with-
in , and under the Constitution ,no new form of government canbe estab-
.~.li~shed in any State, without the authority ‘of. the existing government.
This cannot help the gentlernan’s argument much, because his OWE
tcaserfallstvvithin the szarnerange.  has proved, he thinker, thatthere
twasran existing ‘government, a paper governmelint, at 1east,a rightful
ygovernrnent, as he alleges. Suppose it to be “ rightful, in his sense of right.
Suppose three-fourths of the people of Rhode Island tohave been engaged
in it, and ready to sustain it . Wha”ttthen'.? How is it to be done withut the
Aconsentof the existing government? How is the fact, that three-fourths
of the people are in favor of thenew government, to belegally ascertained?
Antdcif the existing govetrnment deny that fact, and if that government
hol.ds:on,rand.will ntotsurrender Vtthldisplaced by force, and if it is threat-

15

ened byipforlce, then the case of the Constitution arises, and the United
States  aid the government that is in, because an attempt to displace
agovernment by force is “domestic violence.” It is the exigency pro—
vided for by the Constitution. If the existing government maintain its

is p.qst,,;tthougl1 three—fourths of the State have adopted the new constitu-

tion“, is it not evident enough that the exigency arises in which the con-
stitutional power here must" go to the aid of the existing government’?
Look at the law of 28th February, .1795 , in vol. 1 of the Statutes at
Large, p. 424.: “And in case of insurrection against any State, or
against the govermnent 2.‘/zereof, it shall be lawful for the President, on
application of the legislature, to call out the militia of other States, as
he may judge suflicient, to suppress such insurrection.” Insurrection
against the existirzg government is, then, the thing to be suppressed.
But the law and the Constitution, the whole system of American
institutions, do not “contemplate a case, in which a resort will be
necessary to proceedings alitmcle, or outside of the law and the Con
stituticn, for the purpose of amending the frame of Government. It
goes on the idea that the States are all republican, that they are all
representative in their forms, and that these popular governments in each
State, the annually created creatures of the people, will give all proper
facilities and necessary aids to bring about changes , which the people may
judge necessary in their constitutions. It takes that ground and acts on

_ no other supposition. . It assumes that the popular will will be accom-

plished in all particulars. And history has proved that the presumption
iseweltltfoundedn ~ C » 4 I r t ‘ i
t , This, may it please your Honors, is the View I take of what Ihave
called the Anterican System. These are the rnethods of bringing about
changes in government. a t l
  _Now, it is proper to look into this record, and see what the questions
are thatare presented by it, and consider: r * A t i
ll. Whether the case is one for findicial investigation at all ;i that is,
whethler this Court can try the tnatters which the plaintiii has ofi"ered to
prove in the court below; and . t y  i t   t t V, l
2. In the second place, whether nanny things which he did offer to
prove, if they could havebeen , andrhtad been proved, were not actstof
crirniality,and,therefore no jttstification; and it t t
, ,3. Whether all that was offered to be proved wouldsshow, that in
point of fact, there had been established and put in operation any new
constitution , A displacing the old charter governrn eat of Rhode Island.

516

I The declaration is in trespass. The writ was issued ori"?tdl1e8thof

October, 1842, in which Martin Luther complains that Luther M,rr,to1fd en
and others broke into his house in Wa1'ren, Rhode Island, o~njt, t¥he  t

of June, 1842, and disturbed hisfamily, &c.

.1 The defendant answers, that large numbers of men were in armrsgrttim. 

Rhode Island, for the purpose of overthrowing the government of the
State, and made war upon it; that for the preservation of the govern-
ment and people ,martial law had been proclaimed by the governor, under-
an act of the Legislature, on the 25th of June, 1842. The plea goes on-
to aver, that the plaintiff’ was aiding and abetting this attempt to over-~
throw the government, and that the defendant was under the military
authority of John '1‘. Child, and was ordered by him to arrest the plain-
tiff, for which purpose he applied at the door of his house, and being
refused entrance he forced the door. I ‘

The action is thus for an alleged trespass, and the plea is j ustification»
under the law of Rhode Island. The plea and replications are as usual in:
such cases in point of form. The plea was tiled at the November term of ‘
1842, and the case was tried at theNovember term of 1843 , in the circuit

court in Rhode Island. And in order to make outa defence ,the defendant

ofi’ered the charter of Rhode Island, the participation of the State in the
Declaration of Independence ,its uniting with the Confederation in 177 8 ,
its admission into the Union int1790, its continuance in the Union, and
its recognition as a State down to May, 1843, when the constitution now
in force was adopted. And here let it be particularly remarked, that
Congress admitted Rhode Island into the Constitution under this
identical old Charter government, thereby giving sanction to it as a re--
publican form of government. 1 And the defendant then refers to all the
laws and proceedings of the Assembly, till the adoption of the present
constitution of Rhodexlsland. To repel the case of the defendant the
plaintiff read the proceedings of the 91d legislature, and documents to show
that theidea of changing the governrnent had been entertained as long ago
as 1790. 1 He read alsocertain resolutions of the Assembly in 1841; me-
morials praying changes in the constitution, doc. , 650.. He next offered to
prove that suffrage asseciationstwere formed throughout the State in 1840
and 1841 ;that steps were taken byrthem forholding. public meetings ,and
to show the proceedings had at those meetings. 1 In the next place, he
offered to prove that a mass conventiotn was held at Newport, attended
by over four thousandtpersons, and another at Providence, at which over
sinthousand attended, at (which, resolutions were passed ,which were

17

ofi“'ered.y 1pThen he offered to prove the election of delegates; the meeting
of the conveiition in October, 184], and the draughting of the Dorr
constitution; the reassembling in 1841, the completion of the draught, its
submission t.o the people, their voting upon it, its adoption, and the

1, proclamation on the 13th of January,1842, that the constitution so

adopted was the law of the land.
That is the substance of what wasaverred as the formation of the Dorr

constitution. The plaintiff next ofi"ered to prove that the constitution was
adopted by a large majority of the qualified voters of the State; that offi-
cers were elected under it in April, 1842; that this new government as-
sembled on the 3d of May, and he ofl'ered a copy of its proceedings.

And he sets forth that the court refused to admit testimony upon these
subjects, and to these points; and ruled that the old governmerit and laws
of the State were in full force and power, and then existing when the
alleged trespass was made 3 and that they justified the acts of the de-
fendants,according to their plea. j  v

I will give a few references to other proceedings of this new govern-
ment. The new constitution was proclaimed on the 13th of January,
1842, by some of the oflicers of the convention. On the 13th of April,
officers were appointed under it, and Mr. Dorr was chosen governor.
On Tuesday, the 3d of May, the new legislature met, was organized,
and then, it is insisted, the new constitutionbecame the law of the land.
The legislature sat through that whole day, morning and evening; ad-
journed: met the next day, and sat through all. that day,morning and
evening, and dida great deal of paper business. It went through the
forms of choosing a supreme court, <’$Lc., and on the evening of the 4th
of May, it adjourned, to meet again:..on the first Monday of J1uly,~in
Providence , t 11

, 1 “And word spake never more.” 1 1 1

It never re-assembled. This government, then, whatever it was,
came into existence on their/ztird dam-o1f May, and went out of existence
on the fourth day of May. 1 1 1 1 v  

I will now give some references concerning the new constitution au-
thorized by the government, authorized by the; oldgovernment, and
which is now the constitution of Rhoda Island. It was framed in_l\plo_.—
vember, 1842.. It was voted upon by the people onthe 21st 1, 22nd, , and
23rd days of .November,lwas then by them accepted, and became by
its own provisions the constitution of Rhodellsland on the firstlTuesday
of May, 1843. 1 ' 1
2

18

'‘ Now, what in the mean time had become of Mr. Dorr’s government?

According to theirlown principle, they say they are forced to admit that 

it was superseded by the new, that is to say, the present government,

ihecause the people had accepted the new government. But tI18yi3hlad:'n0 . ,
?1!~eW7 government till May, 1843. According to them, then, there was ‘

«an irzterregvzuzn of a whole year. If Mr. Dorr had had a government,
‘What became of it’? If it ever came in, what put it out of existence?
‘Why did it not meet on the day to which it had adjourned? A It was not

«wdtispiaced by the new constitution , because that had not been agreed upon

in convention till November. It was not adopted by the people till the
last of November, and it did not go into operation till May. What had
heciome of Mr. Dorr’s government?

I think it is important to note that the new constitution, established
according to the prescribed forms, came thus into operation in May, 1843 ,
and was admitted by all to be the constitution of the State- What then
happened in the State of Rhode Island? I do not mean to go through
all the trials that. were had afterthistideal government of Mr. Dorr had
»ceased to exist; but I will ask attention to the report of the trial of Dorr for
‘treason , which took: place in 1844, before all the judges of thesupreme
«court of the State. He was indictecl in August, 1842, and the trial came

win in March, 1844. The indictment was found while the charter gov- it

taramentywas in force, and the trial was had under the new constitution.
He was found guilty of treason. And I turn to the report of the trial
stow, to call attention to the languageof the court in its charge, as de-
Iivered by Chief Justice Durfee. I I present the following extract from
tzhat ch.arge:---- '
“ It may be, gentlemen, that he really believed himself to be the
flovernor of the State,and that he acted throughout under this delusion.
However this may go to extenuate the of‘Tence, it does not take from it
its legal guilt. It is no defence to an indictment for the. violation of any
davvfor the defendant to come into court and say, ‘ I thought thatlwas
hut exercising a constitutional right, and Iclaim an acquittal on the
ground of mistake.’ Were it so, there would be an end to all law and
 governnient. Courts and juries would have nothing to do but to sit
in judgtmentt upon indictments, in order to acquit or excuse. n'I‘he ac-
cused has cnlyto provethat hehas been systematic in committing crime ,

and that he thought that he had a right to commit it ; and, according to

tthis doctrine, you rnustacquit. The I main ground upon which the

prisoner sought for a justification was, that a constitution had been

r 19

adopted by a majorityof the male adult population of this State, voting
in their,,,p1'i111a1*y or natural capacity or condition, and that he was sub}?

‘ sequently elected, and did the acts charged, as Governor under it. He

offered the votes themselves to prove its adoption,which were also tube

_ followed by proof of his election. This evidence we have ruled out...

Courts and juries, gentlemen, do not count votes to determine whether

ya constitution has been adopted or a governor elected, or not. . Courts

take notice without proof ofi”ered from the bar, what the constitution is
or was , and who is or was the governor of their own State. It belongs
to the legislature to exercise this high duty. It is the legislature which ,
in the exercise of its delegated sovereignt.y, counts the votes and declares
whether a constitution be adopted ora governor elected, or not; and we
cannot revise and reverse their acts in this particular, without usurping
their power. Were the votes on the adoption of our present constitu-
tion now offered here to prove that it was or was not adopted; or those

., given for the governor under it , to prove that he was or was not elected;

we could not receive the evidence ourselves;we could not permit it to

pass to the jury. And why not? Because, if we did so,we should
cease to be a more judicial, and become a political tribunal, with the

whole sovereignty in our hands. Neither the people nor the legislature
would be sovereign. We should be sovereign, or youwould be sove-

reign; and we should. deal out to parties litigant, here at our bar, sove-

reignty to this or that, according to, rules or laws of our own making,

. and heretofore unknown in courts.

“ Inwhat condition would this country be, if appeals could be thus
taken to courts and juries? ‘Iris jurylmiglrt decideone way, and t/mt.‘
another, and the sovereignty might be found here to-—day,and there to-
morrow. Sovereignty is above courts or juries, and the creature cannot;

sit in judgment upon its creator. Were this instrument ofiered as the

constitution of a foreign State, we might, perhaps, under some circum-~ A

stances, require proof of its existencetg but, even in that case, the fact

would not be ascertained by counting the votes, given at its adoption, but

by the certificate of the Secretaryof State ,under the broad seal of the:

A State. This instrunhentis not .ofi'ered as a foreign constitution, and this

court is bound to know what theconstitution of the governrnent is under

which itacts, without any proof even of that high character. a We know‘
nothing of the existence of the so-called ‘people’s constitution’ as law,
' . r, and there is no proof before youof its adoption, and of the election of

20

the prisoner as Governor under it 5 and you can return a verdict only on
the evidence that has passed to you.” 

Having thus, may it please your Honors, attempted to Vstatethei
questionsas they arise, and having referred to what has taken place ‘in r 
Rhode Island, I shall present what further I have to say in three pm; i

positions: ,
1st. I say, first, that the matters offerecl to be proved by the plaintifi’
in the court below, are not of judicial cognizance; and proof of them,
therefore, was properly rejected by the court.
2d. If all these matters could be, and had been, legally proved ,they
would have constituted no defence, because they show nothing but an
illegal attempt to overthrow the government of Rhode Island.
3d. No proof was offered by the plaintiff to show that, in fact, ano-
ther government had gone into operation, by which the charter govern‘
ment had become displaced. ‘
And first, these matters are not of judicial cognizance. Does this
need arguing ".3 Are the various matters of fact alleged, the meet-
ings, the appointment of committees, the qualifications of voters,--—-is
there any one of all these matters of which a court of law can take
cognizance in a case, in which it is to decide on sovereignty? Are
fundamental changes in the frame ofttagovernment t.o be thus proved?
The thing to be proved is a change of the sovereign power. Two legis~
latures existed at the same time, both claiming power to pass laws.
Both could not have a legal existence. What, then ,is the attempt of our
adversaries? To put down one sovereign government, and to put ano-
ther up , by facts and proceedings in regard to elections out of doors,
unauthorized by any law twhatevert“ Regular proceedings for a change
of government may in some cases, perhaps, be taken notice of by a
courtgibut this court must look elsewhere than out of doors, and to pub-
lic meetings, irregular and unauthorized, for the decision of such a
question as this. It 1'riatu1'alIylooks””% that authorityiunder which it
sits here, to the provisions of   the Constitution vvhichthave created this
tribunal, and to the laws by which its proceedings are regulated. A It
must look tothe acts of gthetgovernmenttof the United States, in its*va~€
“rious branches. S  t g S  U i it t y ‘ t
t t'I‘his Rhode Island’ disturbance, as every body knows, was brought
to the knowledge of the President of the United States by the public an-

. thoritiesoftflhode Island; and how did he treat it C’  The United States
have guarantied to each State a republican formtof government. And by

21

re; latwroilfl Gongress has directed thePresident, in a rconstitutional case re-r

 

ouiring  adoption of such a proceeding, to call out the militia to put
down. djornestic violence, and suppress insurrection. Well, then, appli-
itcatirlonx was made to the President of the United States, to the Executive

t -vowterof the United States. For, according to our system, it devolves
upon the Executive to determine, in the first instance, what are and

 

wh at are not governments. The President recognises governments, for-
-eign governments, as they appear from time to time in the occurrences
of this changeful world. And the Constitution and the laws make it his
duty, if an insurrection exists against the government of any State, ren-
dering it necessary to appear with an armed force, to call out the militia
and suppress it. .

Two things may here be properly considered. The first is, thatrthe
rflonstitution declares that the United States shall protect every State
against domestic violence; and the law of 1795 , rnalcing provision for car-
rying this constitutional duty into effect in all proper cases, declares that
r“ in case of an insurrection in any State against the government there-
«of,rit shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call out
the militia of other States to suppress such insurrection.” These con-
trstitutional and ltegarl provisions make it the indispensable duty of the
President to decide, in cases of clo~rnrnoti.on, what is the rightful govern-
ment of the State. He cannot avoid such decision. And in this case,
he decided, of ‘course, thatthe existing guvernment, the charter govern-
men.t,.wasthe  government.. He could not possibly have de-
«cided othervvise. A f A t  r   "

In the next place ,if revels had made it necessary to call out the militia:
and the ofiicers and so1r~d,i.ers»oftsluclr militia, in protecting the rexisting.gov—
~-ernnnent, had done precisely Whattrthe drefendants in this case did, could
an action have been maintained againsti them ? No one twouldiassert
so absurd a proposition. , l i t .   l r r

In reply to the requisition of the.Gove«rnor, the President statedtchat he
did not think it was yet time for the application offorgceg: but  Wrote a let-
fiter to the Secretary of War, in which he tdirectedr him to‘ confer with the
Governor‘ of Rhoderllsland 5 and ,whe;never it sliiouldc appear to them to be
inecessary,to call out from Massachusetts and Connecticut a militia force
sufficiternt to termrinate at A oncethis. insurrection by the authority of the
«Government of the United States. We are at no loss, therefore, to
glcnow how the Executive Government: of the United States treated
eats insurrectiion. It was regarded as fit to be suppressed. ,That is

22

manifest from the President’s .letters to the Secretary of I War and tn
Gov. King. a

Now, the eye of this Court must bedirected to the proceedings:

of the General Government, which had its attention called to the sub»-

ject, and which did institute proceedings respecting it. And thel.Co.urt

will learn from theproceedings of the Executive branch of the Govern?-

ment, and of the two Chambers above us, how the disturbances in Rhode
Island were regarded; whether they were looked upon as the establish,-

ment of any government, or as a mere, pure, unauthorized, unqualified

insurrectiort against the authority of the existing government of the
State.

I say, therefore, that, upon that ground, these facts are not facts
which this Court can inquire into, or which the court below could try;
because they are facts going to prove, (if they prove any thing,) the
establishment of a new sovereignty; and that is a question to be settled
elsewhere and otherwise. From the very nature of the case, it is not

a question to be decided by judicial inquiry. Take, for example, one

of the points which it involves: My adversary offered to prove that
the constitution was adopted by a majority of the people oflihode

.Island; by a large majority, as he alleges. What does this offer call?
it on your Honors to do? Why, to ascertain, by proof, what is the num-

ber of citizens of Rhode Island; and how many attended the rneetings,
atrwhich delegates to the Convention were elected; and then you have-
to add them all up, and prove by testimony the qualifications of every
one of them to be an elector. It is enough to state such a proposition
to show its absurdity. As none such ever was sustained in a court of
law, so none such can be or ought to be sustained. Observe that 777/5-
nutes of proceedings can be no proof, for they were made by no au-
thentic persons; registers were kept by nowarranted oflicersg chairmen
and moderators were chosen without authority. In short, there are no
qfiicial records; there is no testimony in the case but parole. Chief
Justice Durfee has stated this so plainly, that I need not dwell upon it-.

But, again, I say you cannot look into. the facts attempted to be

proved, because of the certainty of the continuance of the old govern-
;ment till the new and legal cotlstitution went into eflfectton the 3d of

May, 1843. r Tolprovethat there was another constitution of two days’

length ,would be ridiculous. And I say that the decision of Rhode Island:
herself, by her Legislature, by her Executive,bytthe adjuidication of
highestcourtrofalawl, ontthe trial of Dorr, has shut up the Wllolse

23

t «case. , ADO you propose-——I will not put it in that form---but would it

be proper!;tt:t,for' this Court, to reverse that adjudication’? That declares

Mthatthe Judges of Rhode Island know nothing of the ‘‘People’s Con- t

‘ .stit,ution.’’ o Is it possible, then, for this Court , or for the court below,
i toknowl any thing of it? ‘

It appears to me that, if there were nothing else in the case, the pro-

ageedlngs of Rhode Island herself mustclose every body’s mouth, in

the court and out of it. Rhode Island is competent to decide the
question herself, and every body else ought to be bound by her decision.
And she has decided it. ‘

And it is but a branch of this to say, according to my second propo-
:sition--— I "

2. That if every thing offered had been proved ,,if in the nature of
the case these facts and proceedings could have been received as proof,
the court could not have listened to them, because every one of them
is regarded by the State in which they tookplace, as a c7'z'mt'7zal act.
‘Who can derive any authority from acts declared to be criminal? The
very proceedings which are now set up here, show that this pretended con-
stitution was founded upon acts which the Legislature of the State had
provided punishment for, and which the courts of the State have punt
cished. All, therefore, which the plaintiff’ has attempted to prove,
Jare acts which he was not allowed to prove, because they were crimi—
nal in themselves,and have been so treated and punished, so far as the
~tStateGovernment, in its discretion, has thought proper to punish them.

” 3. Thirdly, and lastly,I say that there is no evidence ofl'"ered, nor
has any distinct allegation been made, that there was anactual govern-
iment established and put in operation to displace the charter govern-
ment, even for a single day. That is evident enough. 3.7ou find the
whole embraced in those two days, the third and fourth of May. .The
French revolution was thought to be somewhat rapid. That took three
‘days. But this work waslaccotnplisliiédlllin two. It is all there, and what
is it? Its birth, its whole life, and its death,were accomplished inforty-
~eighthours. e What does it appear the members ‘of this government did?’

Why, theyvoteA, Treasurer, and 0, Secretary, and Mr. Dorr, Gover-4 t

nor; and choose otficers of the Supreme Court. But did ever anymant
under that authority attempt to exercise‘ a particle of oflicial power’!
Did any manever bring atsluit? i Did ever anofiicer rnakean arrest?W Did
?:any act proceed from any member of this government, or from any agent
«of lit,‘ to touch a. citizen oftlthodeilsland in his person, his safety, or his

‘.24

property, so as to make the party answerable upon an indictment oriim
a civil suit? Never. It never performed one single act of govern-
ment. It never did a thing in the world! All was patriotism, and all

was paper; and with patriotism and with paper it went out on pthe 4th _
of May, admitting itself to he, as all must regard it, a lconttetnptihlea a

sham.’

I have now done with the principles involved in this case, and the
questions presented on this record. ,

In regard to the other case, I have but few words to say. And , first,
I think it is to be regretted that the court below sent up such a list of
points on which it was divided. I shall not go through them, and
shall leave it to the Court to say whether, after they shall have disposed
of the first cause, there is any thing left. I shall only draw attention to
the subject of martial law; and in respect to that, instead of going
back: to inertial law as it existed in England at the time the charter of
Rhode Island was granted , I shall merely observe that martial law con-T
fers power of arrest, of surnrnary trial, &c.; ancl that when it has been
proclaimed, the land becomes a camp, and the law of the camp is the
law of the land. Judge Story defines martial law to be the law of
war-——-a resort to military authority, in cases where the civil law is not
sufficient; and it confers summary power, not to be used arbitrarily or
for the gratification of personal feelings of hatred or revenge,but for
the-if preservation of order and of the public peace. The officerclothed
with it is to judge of the degree of force that the necessity of the case
may demand; and there is no limit to this, except such as is to be
found in the nature and character of the exigency.

I now take leave of this whole case. That it is an interesting incident
in the history of our institutions, I freely admit. That it has come hither,
is a subject of no regret to me. I might have said that I see nothing to
complain of in the proceedings of What is called the Charter Government
of Rhode Island , except that it might perhaps, have discreetly taken mea-
sures at an earlier period for revising the constitution. If in that delay
it erred, it was the error into which prudent and cautious men would’
fall. As to theenorrriity of freehold suffrage, how long is it since Vir-
ginia, the parent of States, gave up her freehold suffrage? How long“
isitrsince ‘nobotdylvoted for governor in New York without a freehold
qualification? Thereare now States inwhich no man can vote for jmema
lovers of the upper branich of the legislature who doesnot own fifty acres

of land. Every State requires more or less of a property qualification A

as I

in its‘offi"cer's and electors; and itis for discreet legislation, or clonstitu-it

tiottalfl;fgitovisions, to determine what its amount shall be. _ Even the

Dorrcdnstitution had a property qualification; According to its pro-I

 

I ,visions, for officersiofthe State, to be sure, anybody couldvote,-I but its.

at fauithors remembered that taxation and representation go together, and

therefore they declared that no man, in any town, should vote to lay a‘
tax for town purposes, who had not the means to pay his portion. It
said to him, you cannot vote in the town of Providence to levy a tax
for repairing the streets of Providence; but you may vote for governor,
and for thirteen representatives, from the town of Providence, and send
them to the legislature, and there they may tax the people of Rhode
Island at their sovereign will and pleasure. . . 

I believe that no harrrr can come of the Rhode Islandagitation in
1841 , but rather good. It will purify the political atmosphere from some

a of its noxious mists , and I hope it will clear men’s minds from unfound-

ed notions and delusions. I hope it will bring them to look at the reg-
ularity, the order with which we carry on what, if the word were not
so much abused, I would call our gZorz'ous representative system of
popular government. Its principles will stand the test of this crisis, as
they have stood the test and torture of others. They are exposed al-
ways, and they always will be exposed to dangers. There are dangers
from the extremes of too much and of too little popular liberty; from men»-
archy, or military despotism, on one side, and from licentiousness and
anarchy on the other. This always will be the case.- The classical
navigator had been told that he must pass a narrow and dangerous strait:

“ Dextrum Scylla latus, laevurn i placate. Charybdis,
“ Obsidet”   it

Forewarned , he was alive to his danger, and knew, by signs not doubt-
ful,where he was, when he approached its scene: «
“Et gemitum ingentem pelagi, Mpulsataque saxa,
“Audirnus longs, fractasque ad litciia voces ;
“Exsultanq_ue vada, atque aestu miscentur arenas.
“. . . ... .. . . .. .Nimirum hmc ills. Charybdis 1”

The long seeing sagacity of our fathers enables us to know, equally
well,where we are,when we hear the voices of turnultuary assemblies,
and see the turbulence created by numbers, meeting and acting without
the restraints of law; and has most wisely provided constitutional means
of escape and security. When the established authority of Government
is openly conternned; when no deferenceiis paid to the regular and an-

4

 

26

thentic declarations of the public Will; when assembled 1nassesp1itthem—
selves above the law, and calling themselves the people, attempt by
force to seize on the Government; when the social and political order

of the State is thus threatened with overthrow, and the spray orlcthe,
waves of violent popular commotion lashes the stars, our political pilots it 5

may Well cry out:
“ Nimirurn heec illa Charyhdis 1”
The prudence of the country, the sober Wisdom of the people, has

i thus far enabled us to carry this Constitution, and all our constitutions,

through the perils which have surrounded them, Without running upon
the rocks on one side, or being swallowed up in the ecldying Whirlpools
of the other. And I fervently hope that this signal happiness and
good fortune will continue, and that our children after us will exercise
a similar prudence, and wisdom, and justice; and that, under the Di-
vine blessing, our system of Free Government may continue to go on,
with equal prosperity, to the end of time.

Digitization information for the
Daniel Webster Pamphlet Project

University Libraries

University of Missouri——Columbia

Local identifier

web000

Digitization work performed by the
University of Missouri Library Systems Office

Capture information

Date captured
Scanner manufacturer
Scanner model
Optical resolution
Color settings

File types

Source information

Format
Content type
Derivatives — Access copy
Compression
Editing software
Editing characteristics

Resolution
Color

File types
Notes

2004-2005
Minolta
PS7000
600 dpi
Unknown
tiff

Pamphlets
Text with some images

Uncompressed
Adobe Photoshop

600 dpi

Bitonal; images
grayscale

tiff

Pages cropped and
brightened

Blank pages removed

Property marks
removed