A 
 A 
 
 • 
 '■ 
 
 I 
 8 ! 
 7 I 
 6 I 
 
 1 i 
 
 2 i 
 9 1 
 
 Reply to the i- il'.t oi Li.e 
 Hon. Marcus Morton,
 
 M3QNHI Aaaids
 
 A REPLY 
 
 TO THE LETTER OF 
 
 THE HON. MARCUS MORTON. 
 
 LATE GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS, 
 
 ON 
 
 THE RHODE-ISLAND QUESTION. 
 
 BY ONE OF THE RHODE-ISLAND PEOPLE. 
 
 PROVIDENCE: 
 PRINTED BY KNOWLES AND VOSE. 
 
 1 8 42w
 
 REPLY. 
 
 To the Hon. Marcus Morton, 
 
 late Governor of Massachusetts. 
 
 I HAVE read, Sir, your letter of 27th August to tlie 
 clambake "gathering" at Medbury Grove. 
 
 Your are an educated man ; for several years you filled 
 the important station of an Associate Justice of the Su- 
 preme Court of Massachusetts, and, for one year, by a 
 majority of one vote, was elevated to the Chief Magistra- 
 cy of that most respectable Commonwealth. How you 
 could descend from these high stations to the level of 
 Slammism, and mingle your counsels with those who 
 have so much disturbed the peace, and threatened the lives 
 and property of the citizens of a sister State, may well ex- 
 cite our surprise, (if anything could surprise us, in these 
 days,) and cannot fail to kindle in the breast of every 
 true son of Rhode Island the strongest indignation. 
 
 But the problem is solved. You have been nominated 
 for that office for which you were a partisan candidate, 
 year after year, whilst you were clothed with the ermine 
 of justice, and which it was your nr.isfortune to obtain for 
 a brief period, and only long enough to lose the highly 
 honorable and more permanent station you were obliged 
 to relinquish. You are now seeking to regain a j)ortion 
 of what you lost, and are striving to make some political 
 capital out of the troubles of Rhode Island. 
 
 You would impress us with the belief, that in thus in- 
 terfering with the internal concerns of Rhode Island, you 
 are actuated only by a sacred regard for principle. If you
 
 can practise this deception on youisclf, you will not de- 
 ceive those who look beyond professions, and judge of 
 men by tiieir fruits. 
 
 You say, "no man has interfered less in the recent af- 
 fairs of Rhode Island" than yourself; and you ^'tnisl you 
 have been an impartial ohsGiVQX of passing events," though 
 not "an indifferent one." How much you have interfered 
 in our affairs, is best known to yourself. Your attendance, 
 as one of the " orators of the human race," at the Somer- 
 set "gathering," was caused, no doubt, by the anticipa- 
 ted nomination, which has since been made, and your 
 letter refutes all your professions of impartiality. 
 
 It may be, Sir, that you were as indifferent to the first 
 movements in Rhode Island, in relation to suffrage, as 
 were some of your party in that State, who were lookers 
 on, until they thought something could be gained by urg- 
 ing it on to revolution. They have since manifested, that 
 it was not the extension of suftVage, but a most unprinci- 
 pled contest for power, which induced them to raise the 
 whirlwind, in hopes of being able to direct the storm. 
 If the extension of suiTrage, as originally intended by the 
 Suffrage Association, had been their sole object, they would 
 not have rejected that Constitution by which suffrage was 
 so liberally extended, and they would have accepted the 
 very liberal basis upon which another Convention was 
 called, and would have united with their fellow citizens 
 in this measure of peace and conciliation. 
 
 Read, Sir, the history of the Rhode Island suffrage ques- 
 tion, by Mr. J. Frieze, recently published in Providence, 
 who wrote from knowledge and not from hearsay, being 
 himself a suffrage man, and you will behold the true mo- 
 tives of the politicians on this subject. 
 
 Their object and yours, I fear, is the same — power, 
 power. The lust of office and of power has ever proved 
 the greatest enemy of human rights. Such is the lesson 
 of history, and what is passing before us, shows that we
 
 are not free from the evils wliirh have caused the down- 
 fall of so many republics. 
 
 After attempting to persuade us that you are an imjiar- 
 tial judge of the Rhode Island controversy, and that your 
 interest in the same arises solely from principle, you pro- 
 ceed to state, in a manner that betrays the feelings of a 
 partisan, the nature of this controversy, and then say : 
 " This has assumed a party character, and may be consid- 
 ered indicative of the political principles of the two great 
 parties into which our country is divided."' 
 
 Thank God, many of the most respectable of that party 
 in Rhode Island, who supported Mr. Van Buren, felt their 
 attachment to their State stronger than their attachment 
 to party, and nobly came forth in defence of law, order and 
 government. Such men now compose a majority of the 
 Senate of the State, and many of them are foiuid in the 
 House of Representatives. This ought to lead you to 
 doubt, whether you are correctly informed as to the facts 
 and principles connected with this controversy. 
 
 But you are doing all you can to make this a party 
 question, in Massachusetts, and would thereby prevent 
 that impartial judgment, in reference to our affairs, which 
 you well know is not to be expected in matters of ])arty 
 controversy. In this you do us much wrong, and of this 
 we have a right to complain. 
 
 But how can you deem yourself an impartial judge of 
 a controversy, which, in your view, has assumed a ])arty 
 character, you yourself being the candidate of one party 
 for the chief magistracy of Massachusetts^ and attending 
 one clam bake, and writing a letter to another, to excite 
 the sympathies of Massachusetts men against the govern- 
 ment of Rhode Island, in order to facilitate your own ele- 
 vation ! We might as well expect gra[jes from thorns, or 
 figs from thistles, as impartiality under such circum- 
 stances. 
 
 You commence your statement of the Rhode Island 
 controversy, with the following sentence :
 
 6 
 
 " The people of Rhode Island, acting in their original 
 sovereign capacity, without the aid of governmental regu- 
 lation, but in a peaceable manner, and with all the for- 
 mality which the circumstances would admit, called a 
 convention, founded on an equal representation of their 
 numbers, to form a Constitution for their adoption or 
 rejection." 
 
 What do you mean by " the people of Rhode Island," 
 in this sentence ? Do you mean that the luhole people of 
 Rhode Island, acting in their original sovereign capacity, 
 called a convention ? This, you must know, is not true. 
 Do you mean that a majority of the people of Rhode 
 Island called this convention ? If you have been the at- 
 tentive observer you say you have been, you must know 
 that this is not true. There was not a majority of the 
 people, in any sense, that called that convention. 
 
 Now, Sir, I should like to know, by what authority a 
 Tninority of the people can undertake to act, or can act, 
 in their original sovei'eign capacity ? And if they can, 
 how far, Sir, does their sovereignty extend ? And by 
 what authority did a minority of the male population over 
 twenty-one years of age, and a very small minority, call 
 a convention in opposition to the convention which had 
 already been called by the Legislature of the State? Does 
 the democratic principle furnish a satisfactory answer to 
 these questions ? 
 
 If it be true that a majority of the people have a right, 
 at their own will and pleasure, to throw oil their allegiance 
 to the government, and to "act in their original sovereign 
 capacity," which I do not admit, have the minority 
 the same right ? If not, then at the very commence- 
 ment of your statement, we have already discovered two 
 errors, the one of fact and the other of principle. It is not 
 true that " the jjcople of Rhode Island called this conven- 
 tion," and it is not true that those who did call it " acted 
 in their original sovereign capacity. 
 
 But we are accustomed to hear such language from
 
 gentlemen of your democratic profession. You seem to 
 think that you are emphatically the people, and that there 
 are none beside you, and that any small portion of you, 
 wherev^er collected, have a right to speak and act in the 
 name of the " sovereign" people ! 
 
 The next sentence conveys a meaning which is no 
 nearer the truth. 
 
 You say, " the people of Rhode Island, 6cc., called a 
 convention founded on an equal representation of their 
 numbers, to form a constitution for their adoption or re- 
 jection. This convention performed the duty required 
 of it." I understand by this, that you mean to convey 
 the meaning that a convention, thus called, and in which 
 the people were not only represented, but ^^ eijually re- 
 presented,''^ met and formed what you are also pleased to 
 call " the people's constitution." The truth is, that a 
 majority of the people were not represented at all in this 
 convention, much less ^^ equally represented.^' 
 
 Those who chose delegates to this convention, acted 
 under no legal authority, and had no authority to speak 
 or act for any but themselves. If they acted, to use your 
 language, "in their original sovereign capacity," they 
 still acted only for themselves; and those whom they 
 chose, to act as delegates, had no authority to represent 
 any but those who chose them. These delegates were 
 chosen by less than eight thousand votes, about seven 
 thousand two hundred, not more than one third of the 
 male population over twenty-one years of age. Yet this 
 convention called itself " the People's Convention," and 
 the result of their doings they christened " the People's 
 Constitution y 
 
 Such was the origin of " the People's Constitution," 
 and its progress was in the same spirit. Those who had 
 the assurance to go thus far in the name of the jieople, 
 were determined to complete their work. In this small 
 State, they deemed it necessary that the voting upon its 
 adoption should go on for six days! On the first three
 
 8 
 
 days, tlie people were to hand m their votes to tlieir mod- 
 erators, but, on the last three days, votes might be collect- 
 ed by any jjerson who had voted, in any place, in any 
 nnmbers, and by him handed to their moderators, with 
 no other clieck than signing his own name upon such votes 
 as a witness. Here was room enough for fraud, and for 
 the voting of the same person, again and again ; for, in 
 voting, no one was confined to the town in which he liv- 
 ed. And how could the moderators judge whether the 
 votes which were thus brought in to them, contained the 
 names of real or fictitious persons, or whether, if real, they 
 were signed by these persons? In Newport, it is said, 
 that the graveyards were ransacked for names to give to 
 the returns some semblance of truth! When the tomb 
 stones failed, imagination was drawn upon, and the re- 
 turns exhibit the names of those who were never heard of 
 before, and have not been seen since. More than one third 
 of the votes returned from that town have been discover- 
 ed to be fraudulent.* The history of this matter has never 
 been fully told. All, however must know that such a ma- 
 chine for fraud never would have been contrived, if it had 
 not been intended to put it in operation. Men would not 
 gratuitously have subjected themselves to the imputation 
 of opening the door so widely to fraud, if they had not 
 been conscious that frauds were necessary to crown their 
 labors, and finish their work, in the name of the people. 
 
 In this way, the requisite number of votes was returned 
 and counted by this " People's Convention,''^ and the 
 Constitution declared by them to be the supreme law of 
 the land. 
 
 Is so solemn an instrument as a Constitution of Govern- 
 ment to be thus formed, thus proposed, and thus imposed 
 upon the people of a State ? We all know what would be 
 the answer of the people of Massachusetts, if such a fraud 
 had been attempted upon them, and they may well under- 
 
 * See the Pamphlet of Elisha R. Potter, Esq. App. No. 4, page 57.
 
 stand that the people of Rhode Island are as little \villin£> to 
 submit to pretensions winch they well know are as un- 
 founded in fact, as they are monstrous in principle. 
 
 Yet, Sir. you have the boldness to say, this Constitu- 
 tion " was adopted by the votes of a large majority of all 
 the adult male population of the State." And in another 
 part of your letter, you say : 
 
 *' Let it not be denied that a majority of all the people 
 voted for the Constitution. The returns shew about 
 three fifths. They have been in the power of the oppo- 
 nents of the new Constitution." 
 
 " Let it not be denied .''^ This, Sir, is arrogance itself! 
 By what authority do you place your veto upon us, and 
 deny to us the right to deny what you have had the bold- 
 ness to assert without any legal evidence ? '• The re- 
 turns ? " Are we to be concluded by such returns, made 
 under no legal sanctions ; if false, subjecting no one to 
 any legal penalties, and made by those who, if honest 
 themselves, were in a situation, for three days and more, 
 to be imposed upon by the dishonesty of others, without 
 the means of detecting it ? Returns made by those and 
 counted by those who had ev^ery thing at stake in the 
 shape of political power, who had the management of 
 every thing to themselves, and who had pre-determined 
 that their Constitution should be the people's Constitu- 
 tion ! And are our mouths to be stopped by such returns ? 
 
 But you say these returns •' have been in the ])OWpr of 
 the opponents of the new Constitution." Do you know 
 what you say, and whereof you aflirm ? 
 
 It is true. Sir, that the Suffrage Convention, just before, 
 their dissolution, authorised their Secretaries " to copy 
 any part of the registry of said votes or the votes them- 
 selves, upon the application of any pcrsuny But it is 
 also true that, in a short time afterwards, the Sulfrage As- 
 sociation annulled this resolution ! 
 
 Before this was done, copies of the list of votes, in 
 2
 
 10 
 
 ?ome of ihe towns, had been obtainod, and such frauds- 
 discovered, that it may have been thought most prudent 
 to close the avenue to all further inquiry. 
 
 But if this large majority ever existed, as you, in your 
 impartiality, are so willing to believe it did, what has be- 
 come of it? In the voting for and against the Constitu- 
 tion framed and proposed by the legal Convention, under 
 a system of suffrage as extended in relation to native born 
 American citizens as that under the Suffrage Constitution, 
 except that the former reqaired one year's longer resi- 
 dence in the State, the friends of the latter, thougli they 
 rallied all their force, were found in the minority. It was 
 only by the aid of those who were opposed to both Con- 
 stitutions, that the legally proposed Constitution was de- 
 feated by a majority of 676. 
 
 In the voting under the Suffrage Constitution for Gov- 
 ernor and Senators, but 6,500 votes were given. 
 
 The result, too, of the attempt to enforce the Suffrage 
 Constitution by a resort to force, plainly shows the senti- 
 ments of the real people of Rhode Island. 
 
 You say, in reference to the voting on the Suffrage 
 Constitution : 
 
 "Doubtless errors were committed, but they have not 
 been pointed out ; and it would be unreasonable to sup- 
 pose that they existed to the extent of the thousands 
 which composed the majority. Besides, it is a common 
 presumption that those who omit to vote intend to ac- 
 quiesce in the decision of those who choose to exercise 
 that right. And this is believed to be the first instance 
 in which a majority of all the qualified voters ever was 
 required, or obtained, in favor of any Constitution. If a 
 majority of all the people were opposed to the adoption of 
 the new Constitution, why did they not turn out and re- 
 ject it ?" 
 
 Your zeal, in behalf of the Rhode Island revolution- 
 ists, has carried you beyond what they were satisfied was 
 correct. They acted upon the principle that a bare ma-
 
 jority of those who voted, was not sufricicnt for their pur- 
 pose, and in this were more consistent than yourself. 
 You say, the people acted in their " original sovereign 
 capacity ^''^ and so they pretended ; they, therefore, were 
 more consistent than yourself in believing that, to estab- 
 lish their constitution, it was necessary to obtain the 
 votes of a majority of the whole people who, according 
 to their theory, had the natural right of voting. 
 
 You have overlooked, in your desire to establish the 
 Suifrage Constitution, the principle upon which you 
 started — the " act of the people of Rhode Island, in 
 their original sovereign capacity." In voting under the 
 sanction of law, and a regular government, it is very true 
 that a majority of those who vote may be all that is ne- 
 cessary, and usually it is all that is required ; those who 
 are present, and act, are authorised, by the compact of 
 government, and the law, to bind those who are absent, 
 or who do not act. But when men act in then- " or/^'-i- 
 ?m/ sovereign capacity," by what law do you detcrniinc 
 " the qualified voters ?" When they act in this capacity, 
 they can act for none but themselves; they can bind 
 none but themselves; society is then resolved into its 
 original elements ; a new compact is then to be formed 
 which is binding only upon those who agree to it ; if this 
 ncAv compact is attempted to be enforced upon those who 
 do not agree to it, they have a right to resist it, and this 
 brings every thing to the test of force, and this is revo- 
 lution. 
 
 Man acting in his ''on^^wmZ capacity," is '^ sovercig7i" 
 only over himself. If, in this capacity, he undertakes to 
 exercise sovereignty over another without his consent, he 
 may be lawfully resisted, and the union of many, acting 
 m this capacilij, cannnot give to the mass a right which 
 none of them individually possessed — the right of exer- 
 cising power over others, equally free with themselves, to 
 which they have never expressly or impliedly assented. 
 
 Your absurdity, therefore, is this : you resolve society
 
 li 
 
 m Rhode Island i-nto its original elements ; you decide 
 that the people there acted in their ^^ original capacity," 
 and before the formation of a new social compact, you 
 claim for a majority of the male population over twenty- 
 one years of age the right to govern all the rest ! Your 
 absurdity goes farther than this ; you would gi\ e this right, 
 under such circumstances, to a ininority of the people, if 
 they are a majority of those who assume to themselves 
 the right to vote upon such a question ! And this power 
 you would confer on such a minority by virtue of their 
 ^^ sovereign capacity !" 
 
 Sovereignty comes by compact or by force. There 
 was no compact in Rhode Island which gave to those 
 who voted for the Suffrage Constitution the right to im- 
 pose it on the State, even if they were the majority you 
 pretend. The setting up of such a right against the estab- 
 lished government was necessarily an appeal to force. 
 You set up this right, and yet pretend to deprecate an 
 appeal to " the God of battles."' We have much reason 
 to believe that if those men whose cause you advocate 
 had succeeded in their appeal to arms, you would have been 
 as ready to interpret in their behalf the Vox Dei, as you 
 now are the Vox Populi. 
 
 You very formally state three " great principles, oppo- 
 sition to which (you say) is implied in opposition to the 
 People's Constitution." They are, 
 
 " I. The right of the people to govern themselves, and 
 to establish their own forms of government. 
 
 II. Free Suffrage. 
 
 III. Equality of representation." 
 
 These, you say, "are the vital principles of government, 
 which the one party is supposed to maintain, and the oth- 
 er to deny." 
 
 You take the liberty. Sir, to suppose and to impute 
 many things which are not true. 
 
 I have never heard any body deny " the right of the 
 people to govern themselves, and to establish their own
 
 18 
 
 form of government." AVo claim for iho people of Rhode 
 Island tiiis right, and we iiave just reason to complain 
 that so many of the citizens, and some of the Governors 
 and would-be Governors of other States, have assumed the 
 right to decide for us, what we have the right of deciding 
 for ourselves. 
 
 We say that the people of Rhode Island established, 
 for themselves, a democratic form of government, under 
 which they have lived, from the days of Roger Williams, 
 and Clarke, and Coddington, to the present. And if you 
 wish to know how well they prospered under it, and how 
 much liberty they enjoyed, I will refer you to the iiistory 
 of Mr. Bancroft, written when he was a more impartial 
 judge of our aftairs than he now appears to be. 
 
 You add your voice to the slang which has been utter- 
 ed in reference to that Charter which yet remains the basis 
 of our Constitution, and exclaim, — " One man grant rights 
 to millions ! Liberties depending on the Charter of a 
 King !" 
 
 This may do very well. Sir, for a clam bake, but it comes 
 with a very bad grace from a late Justice of the Supreme 
 Court of Massachusetts ! 
 
 Did the people of Rhode Island ever pretend that thcu* 
 rights were granted by one man, or were dependent upon 
 the Charter of a King? You are either very ill read in 
 our history, or not very well disposed to do us justice. 
 
 The Charter which, so far as it goes, is our written 
 Constitution of government, did not originaUy derive all 
 its authority from the crown. The King had no right to 
 force his Charter upon any body without their consent. If 
 the people of Rhode Island had not consented to this Char- 
 ter, and accepted the same as their Constitution of govern- 
 ment, it could not have been imposed upon them. It was 
 granted to the people of Rhode island at their request, and 
 was accepted by them, at a great meeting of the freemen of 
 the colony, after it was granted. When they accepted it. 
 they agreed with each other, and they agreed with th«'
 
 14 
 
 King, to accept of it as their internal form of government. 
 Because the King was a party to this instrument, it was 
 none the less binding upon the people as their social com- 
 pact, made with each other, with the consent and grant 
 of the King. When the people of Rhode Island, by their 
 delegates in Congress, declared their independence, did 
 they suppose that they thereby aimullcd their Charter as 
 a compact of government, made with each other? Such 
 a supposition is contrary to all their acts during the war 
 of the revolution, and since. These very delegates were 
 chosen by the General Assembly under the Charter. 
 
 The people of this State never considered the Charter 
 as annulled by the Declaration of Independence, but only 
 the authority of the crown ; that portion of the sovereign- 
 ty which the crown had a right to exercise over them, 
 under the Charter, was gone, but their agreement with 
 each other remained. The powers of self-government 
 which they had, previously to the Declaration of Indepen- 
 dence, in conformity with this social compact, now became 
 absolute and independent of all foreign control, and have 
 ever since been exercised by the people of Rhode Island 
 in conformity to the Charter, as their compact or Constitu- 
 tion of government. Under this form of government, 
 Rhode Island adopted the Constitution of the United 
 States, and has been since represented in the Senate and 
 House of Representatives of the United States, for nearly 
 half a century, the Senators being chosen by the Legisla- 
 ture, which we are now told has no authority except un- 
 der a charter, which was annulled by the Declaration of 
 Independence. What next are we to learn, in this age of 
 progress, will no doubt very much depend upon that ne- 
 cessity which is the mother of invention. 
 
 The Supreme Court of the United States, when they 
 shall have the benefit of this new light, will no doubt re- 
 verse their own decision. In the case of Leland vs. Wil- 
 kinson (2 Peters, S. C. R. page 656) they say : "Rhode 
 Island is the only State in the Union which has not a
 
 15 
 
 written Constitution of government, containing its funda- 
 mental laws and institutions. Until the revolution in 
 1776, it was governed by the Charter granted by Charles 
 II, in the fifteenth year of his reign. That Charter has 
 since continued, in its general provisions, U) regulalr the 
 exercise and distribution of the powers of govcrtimoit. It 
 has never been formally abrogated by the people ; and ex- 
 cept so far as it has been modified to meet the exigencies of 
 the revolution, may be considered as now a fundamental 
 law. By this Charter, the power to make laws is granted 
 to the General Assembly in the most ample manner, so as 
 such laws, &c. be not contrary and repugnant unto, but as 
 near as may be agreeable to the laws, &:.c. of England, 
 considering the nature and constitution of the place and 
 people there." 
 
 You say : " The several charters never contemplated 
 the establishment of independent governments, and nev- 
 er authorised the charter officers to take any step towards 
 the formation of democratic constitutions." 
 
 Rhode Island and Connecticut already had democratic 
 constitutions under their charters. On the declaration of 
 Independence, there was no necessity for them to form 
 new constitutions, as in Massachusetts, and those States 
 where the Governors were appointed by the Crown. Mr, 
 Rawle, on the Constitution of the United States, page 9, 
 says : " The provincial Constitutions of America were, 
 with two exceptions, modelled with some conformity to 
 the English theory ; but the colonists of Rhode Island and 
 Providence Plantations were empowered to choose all their 
 officers, legislative, executive, and judicial, aiul about the 
 same time a similar charter was granted to Connecticut. 
 And thus, complains Chalmers, a writer devoted to regal 
 principles, 'A mere democracy, or rule of the people, was 
 established. Every power, deliberative and active, was in- 
 vested in the freemen or their delegates, and the supreme 
 executive magistrate of the empire, by an inattention 
 which does little honor to the statesmen of those days.
 
 10 
 
 was wholly excluded." He expresses his own doubts 
 whether the King had a right to grant such charters." 
 
 " But although in all the other provinces," Mr. Rawle 
 continues, " the charters were originally granted, or sub- 
 sequently modified, so as to exclude the principle of rep- 
 resention from the executive department, these two prov- 
 inces, at the time of our revolution, retained it undimin- 
 ished. The suggestion of the full unqualified extension 
 of the principle of representation, may therefore be just- 
 ly attributed to the example of Rhode Island and Con- 
 necticut, which, when conv^erted into States, found it un- 
 necessary to altei- the nature of their governments, and 
 continued the same forms in all respects except the nomi- 
 nal recognition of the king's authority, till 1818, when 
 Connecticut made some minor changes, and adopted a 
 formal Constitution. Rhode Island, however, is still sat- 
 isfied with the Charter of Charles II., from which it has 
 been found sufficient to expunge the reservation of alle- 
 giance, the required conformity of its legislative acts to 
 those of Great Britain, and the royal right to a certain 
 portion of gold and silver ores, which, happily for that 
 State, have never been found within it." 
 
 You further say ; " It will not be pretended that the 
 Rhode Island Charter conferred upon the legislature the 
 power to propose a Constitution or to call a Convention 
 for the purpose." Why not ? You do not seem to be 
 well acquainted with the Rhode Island Charter, and have 
 probably taken this matter on trust. 
 
 The Rhode Island Charter contains, among other enu- 
 merated powers granted to the General Assembly, the 
 following: "and, from time to time, to make, ordain, 
 constitute or repeal, such laws, statutes, orders and ordi- 
 nances, forms and ceremonies of government and magis- 
 tracy, as to them shall seem meet, for the good and wel- 
 fare of the said Company, and for the government and 
 ordering of the lands and hereditaments, hereinafter men- 
 tioned to be granted, and of the people that do, or at any
 
 17 
 
 time hereafter shall, inhabit or In- uitliin lite same; so as 
 sucl) laws, ordinances and ronstitulioiis, so made, be not 
 contrary and repugnant unto, but as near as may bo, 
 agreeable to the laws of this our realm of England, con- 
 sidering the nature and constitution of the ]tlaceand peo- 
 ple there." 
 
 If the Legislature of Rhode Island had the jiowcr to 
 "make, ordain, and consutuw foi'ms of government,'^ and 
 ^^ constitutions,''^ under certain restrictions, these restric- 
 tions, beginning, in the above recited clause, with the 
 words — " so that,'' were done away by the declaration 
 of Independence, and left the power of the Legislature 
 unrestrained by the Charter in this respect. If the Legis- 
 lature possessed the greater power, to form a Constitution, 
 they possessed the lesser powers contained within tho 
 greater, the power to propose a Constitution to the people, 
 or to call a Convention for the purpose of framing a Con- 
 stitution to be proposed to the people. If the Charter 
 had not contained the above provision, unless the Charter 
 prohibited the General Assembly from the exercise of this 
 power, it belonged to them since the revolution, as inci- 
 dental to the legislative power. 
 
 The power of making "such laws as to them shall 
 seem meet for the good and welfare of the State, in- 
 cludes the power of providing for the call of a Conven- 
 tion of the delegates of the people to form a Constitution, 
 and of making those regulations which may be necessa- 
 ry for taking the sense of the people ujkmi the Constitu- 
 tion which might be proposed to them, and carrying the 
 same into effect. This power the Legislature of Rhode 
 Island exercised in calling that Convention which adopt- 
 ed, in the name of the people of Rliode Island, the Con- 
 stitution of the United States. 
 
 You have resorted to this argument, borrowed from a 
 Rhode Island man, to justify the assumption of power on 
 the part of those who called that Convention which 
 3
 
 18 
 
 Iramed what tlicy chose to call " the People's Constitu- 
 tion." 
 
 Bat is it a necessary inference that, because there is no 
 written provision -which gives to a government the power 
 of reforming its Constitntion, it has no power to do 
 any thing in this respect ? Is not this power necessarily 
 incidental to every government. Revolution and reform 
 are in their nature very distinct. Revolution comes from 
 without, and overturns government, but reform originates 
 with or is consummated by the government. If, there- 
 fore, every government must necessarily liave within 
 itself the power of originating or sanctioning reform, 
 where docs it exist ? Not in the judiciary, nor in the 
 Executive, but in that legislative power which can com- 
 mand what is right and expedient, and prohibit what is 
 wrong. 
 
 You farther say : " But the assumption that the Legis- 
 lature alone can initiate proceedings for the formation of 
 a Constitution, and that none can be formed without their 
 consent and preliminary action, seems to me to be found- 
 ed in the most palpable usurpation ;" and you close the 
 paragraph in which this sentence is found, after endeavor- 
 ing to frighten us with the doctrine of the dark ages, 
 with the following : " Will the American people, or the 
 friends of free government, any where, acknowledge, the 
 principle that the people can only make or amend their 
 Constitutions by the permission of their rulers?^' 
 
 And in a former part of your letter you say: "But 
 what are the forms prescribed to regulate the action of the 
 people in the exercise of their highest sovereign power? 
 Who can establish forms to govern their proceedings?" 
 
 This is very specious, and no doubt very flattering to 
 those who are disposed to consider all legal restraints as 
 so many infringements upon liberty. 
 
 Who shall question the prerogative of the king? said 
 the courtiers of Charles I., and their flatteries cost the 
 king his crown and his head.
 
 19 
 
 Who shall question the power of the people? say the 
 demagogues of our day, as they said in former days, and 
 as we fear they will continue to say, until licentiousness 
 shall destroy all the security and liajjpiness of regidated 
 liberty. 
 
 Whom, Sir, do you call the " ru/t-rs" of the people in 
 this country ? Those who, for a short period, by the free 
 choice of the people, are entrusted with certain powers, to 
 be exercised for the public good, and who are governed 
 by the same laws which they enact lor the connnunity? 
 We have been in the habit of calling such men our ser- 
 vants, and not our '^ rulers.'^ 
 
 But there is one sovereign to which we all have hith- 
 erto professed to owe obedience. There is one power 
 which ought to govern the people. It is the sovereignty 
 of the law, '-the State's collected will." 
 
 If the doctrine is to prevail, that the majority, fur the 
 time being, may act their pleasura, and that they are 
 above the law, there will be an end to all constitutional 
 freedom. Constitutions have been considered, in this 
 country, as the great security of persons and property, 
 giving to minorities and individuals a protection from the 
 power of a factious majority. In many of the State Con- 
 stitutions, it has been provided that a larger number than 
 a majority should be necessary for their amendment. 
 This secures individuals from oppression, and the State 
 from the evils of perpetual change. In the Constitution 
 of the United States, this principle is carried very far, 
 and the small States are thereby protected against the 
 power and ambition of the large .States, and secured an 
 equal representation in the Senate. 
 
 But this new ^' democraticaf. pn'n'^iple^' levels all legal 
 and constitutional barriers, and exposes all things and all 
 persons to the ruling demagogue of the day. INIajoriiies, 
 real or pretended, will iind all things lawful and all 
 things expedient, and should they be fettered by Consti- 
 tutions, or forms of government, they have only to re-
 
 20 
 
 solve themselves into " their original sovereign capaci- 
 ty,'''' and they may act their j)Icasuro, until another fac- 
 tion, stronger than they, shall arise to make them feel, in 
 their turn, the miseries of such licentiousness and anar- 
 chy. 
 
 Yon tliink it usurpation for the Legislature of a State 
 to claim for itself the rjght to call a Convention to form 
 a Constitution, and to deny this right to a portion of its 
 citizens. Then, Sir, has Virginia been guilty of this iisiir- 
 pation for nearly sixty years ? Strange that George 
 Washington, and Thomas JciTerson, and James Madison, 
 and John Marshall, and the other enlightened friends of 
 freedom in that State, did not perceive and endeavor to 
 remove this abomination ! And Virginia had no mode of 
 amendment prescribed in her first, nor has she in her pre- 
 sent Constitution ; yet, by her laws, those who may at- 
 tempt to set up a Constitution of government, without 
 the permission of the Legislature, are guilty of treason, and 
 are liable to be punished with death ! Tliis, I suppose, 
 you would call an Algerine laic, but no doubt it has pro- 
 ved a wholesome one, and proservcd the public peace 
 without any infringement upon individual liberty, though 
 you may be disposed to consider it unworthy this age of 
 progress. 
 
 Why is it not usurpation lor the Legislature to claim 
 the exclusive exercise of the legislative power ': Why 
 not allov/ any portion of the people to resolve themselves 
 into ''their original sovereign capacity," and to legislate 
 for the community as well as to form Constitutions of 
 government ? 
 
 You have confounded in your own mind or would con- 
 found in the minds of others, the great distinction be- 
 tween revolution and reform. Revolution is not to be 
 regulated by law. This is an appeal to force against the 
 law and the government. With regard to the exercise of 
 this ultimate right of the people, you may Avell say, 
 '•who can establish forms to govern their proceedings?"
 
 21 
 
 In such an appeal there is no law to govern their proceed- 
 ings ; it rides over all the provisions of fundamental or 
 constitutional law, and is not to be regulated or control- 
 led by the decisions of Courts, or the veto of magistracy. 
 As well might you attempt to put a hook into the nose of 
 Leviathan. 
 
 But the right of reform is to be exercised in conformity 
 with the fundamental laws of the State, and the rights of 
 the government. And if a portion of the people, under 
 the pretence of reform, violate their allegiance to the gov- 
 ernirent, and set up a government upon their own author- 
 ity, this is rebellion and treason, and it is the duty of the 
 government to put it down. 
 
 Now, Sir, if you mean to put the Rhode Island contro- 
 versy on the ground of revolution, and to advocate what 
 you call the People's Constitution on that ground, with 
 what consistency do you deprecate an appeal to arms, or 
 suggest, as a better mode of settling the controversy, an 
 appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States ? 
 
 By what rule of law could the Supreme Court decide 
 a question of revolution ? The necessity which alone 
 can justifyr evolution is a political (question, and can never 
 be a legal question ? "Will you submit poliliral (jucstions 
 to the Supreme Court ? or would they undertake to deter- 
 mine such questions? 
 
 You say, the people of Rhode Island, ''acted in their orig- 
 inal sovereign capacity."' They acted, therefore, without 
 any law, and against the laws of the State, which in your 
 opinion, were of no more binding effect to control them, 
 than the withs and the cords of the Philistines to control 
 the strength of Samson. 
 
 The case you have made is one which is above or 
 against the law, and sets the law at defiance. If judges 
 are obliged to decide upon such a case, as they must de- 
 cide according to law, and cannot look to questions of po- 
 litical necessity, they must decide in favor of law and 
 government. Dorr had the sagacity to see this, and he
 
 22 
 
 scouted the idea of submitting his case to the Supreme 
 Court of the United States, though you have intimated the 
 contrary. To a gentleman who suggested to him this 
 course, before his appeal to arms, he said : " We have 
 nothing to do with the Supreme Court, the People will 
 settle this question for themselves." 
 
 Bat how, think you, would it consist with the dignity 
 of a sovereign State to agree to make a case with its law- 
 less citizens, and submit, to the decision of the Supreme 
 Court of the United States, the question whether the gov- 
 ernment which had existed for nearly two hundred years, 
 and under which the State had become a member of the 
 Confederation, and a party to the Constitution of the United 
 States, whether this government was a lawful jgovernment, 
 and had a right to enact and execute laws for its preserva- 
 tion, for the punishment of treason, and for the security of 
 the lives and property of her citizens ? To such degrad- 
 ation, I thank God, Rhode Island did not submit, and, I 
 trust in God, she never will! 
 
 Yet you intimate as the reason why the " Charter par- 
 ty," as you are pleased to call the government of Rhode 
 Island, did not adopt this course was " from an apprehen- 
 sion that the decision would be against them, and a desire 
 by military operations, martial law, and other arbitrary 
 and oppressive measures to overawe the people into the 
 substitution of a less free and democratic Constitution for 
 the one heretofore adopted by them." 
 
 Is this a specimen of your impartiality, or of that zeal 
 in this new school of democracy, which is as regardless of 
 truth as of decency ? 
 
 You know that the first appeal to arms was made by 
 Dorr and his associates. I speak not now of their military 
 array at the organization of their government, when they 
 marched through the streets of Providence with about 500 
 men under arms, summoned to overawe the government 
 under the pretence of an escort. This was itself an overt
 
 2S 
 
 act of treason, not under wiiat Ims boon called the Alge- 
 rine law merely, but under the criminal code of 1S36. 
 
 I refer to the events of ^lay, when Dorr returned from 
 New York and summoned his military force for offensive as 
 well as defensive operations. It was not until he had sent 
 his armed men into the centre of Providence, and took from 
 thence two brass field pieces with which he niip;iit attack 
 the arsenal ; it was not until he attemjited to fire upon the 
 arsenal, that the government and citizens were aroused to 
 arms. Then " the people's Governor" fled from the indig- 
 nation he had excited, and it was hoped that here the ap- 
 peal to arms would end. But Dorr found friends in New 
 York and Connecticut, and sympathizers in Massachusetts, 
 and was again encouraged to summon his men to arms, 
 and to form his camp at Chepatchet. It was then that the 
 people of the State poured in from every quarter to defend 
 the State and the government, and the 'people's Governor' 
 fled a second time! It was when the State was thus invaded 
 that martial law was declared by the Legislature, and the 
 crisis fully justified it. What you are pleased to call "arbi- 
 trary and oppressive measures," were necessary to protect 
 the lives and the property of our citizens, and our city from 
 devastation and plunder. Yet you have not a word of 
 censure for those who thus invaded the State ; all your 
 sympathies are enlisted in their behalf, and all your cen- 
 sure is reserved for those measures which so successfully 
 defended our State and our city from the invasion, with 
 scarcely the sacrifice of a single life ! 
 
 But it is worse than ridiculous to hear you talk of " the 
 leaders of the Charter party overawing the people by 
 military operations!" How have these military opera- 
 tions been executed, but by the peop/c themselves ? The 
 people overawe the people ! ! 
 
 The proposition you speak of to submit this controversy 
 to the Supreme Court of the United States had never the 
 sanction of Dorr. lie spurned all terms of comj)roniise 
 which did not acknowledge his Constitution. His letter
 
 24 
 
 published in New York, after his attempt upon the arse- 
 nal, is sufficient evidence of this. 
 
 By what rule of charity or justice do iron impute such 
 motives to the government and freeholders of Rhode Is- 
 land ? You know, or ought to know, that a majority of 
 the freeholders, so far from being disposed by force to 
 hold on to the Charter and the freehold qualification, have 
 been compelled to do so by the act of those men who 
 have endeavored to force their Constitution on the State, 
 A majority of the freeholders voted for the Constitulion 
 which was proposed by the legal Convention, and which 
 gave to native American citizens as free a suffrage as the so 
 ^called People's Constitution, except that it required a longer 
 residence in the State of one year. And you know, or ought 
 to know, that at the time you penned this letter, the 
 Legislature of Rhode Island had passed an act for calling 
 another Convention upon a very liberal basis. This ba- 
 sis was satisfactory to the suffrage men, until they re- 
 ceived other instructions, and were encouraged, by men 
 out of the State, from such motives as are most apparent 
 in your letter, to persevere in their revolutionary preten- 
 sions. It was for this purpose, that these clam-bakes 
 have been got up. The gathering, to which your letter 
 was written, was on the borders of the State, and on the 
 very day when the people of Rhode Island were to vote 
 for delegates to the Convention ; and there is no doubt 
 that this day was fixed upon to withdraw the suffrage 
 men from the polls and prevent them from voting upon 
 this question. Such are the means, adopted by yourself 
 and others, which may render a resort to arms again neces- 
 sary, in Rhode Island ; yet you deprecate an appeal to 
 force ! ! 
 
 I have a few words to say upon the questions of "/ree 
 suffrage'' and "equality of representation," which are 
 held up by you as "great principles'' of division between 
 the friends and the opposers of the suffrage Constitution ! 
 
 The last is a question about which the freeholders of
 
 25 
 
 Providence county feel as great an interest as the non- 
 freeholders, for they liave quite as much at stake. Hut 
 they do not feel that they have suffered any sucli prac- 
 tical grievance, in this respect, as to justify revolution ; 
 and they trust that, by legitimate reform, they will be 
 able to obtain what they ought to ask, and live in peace 
 with their southern brethren. But this is a very local 
 question, and I do not see how it affects the United States 
 at large, or Massachusetts in particular, so as to give you 
 a right to interfere with it. If you deem it your duty to 
 interfere wherever this inequality prevails, you will have 
 work enough, and will no doubt feel yourself called upon, 
 by a sacred regard for this ^^ great principle,'''' to endeavor 
 to destroy the right which Rhode Island and Delaware 
 and the smaller States have to an equal representation 
 with the largest States in the Senate of the United States. 
 
 In the Senate of Rhode Island, under the Charter, all 
 the voters are equally represented, for the Senators are 
 chosen by a general ticket. In this branch, therefore, 
 there is a greater equality of representation than exists 
 under most of the State Constitutions, and the inequality 
 which exists, in the House of Representatives, is the result 
 of circumstances, and not of any original inequality in the 
 provisions of the Charter. 
 
 I have, however, been not a little surprised at the fact, 
 that those who talk so much about the democratical prin- 
 ciple are so much disposed to forget it, when it becomes 
 necessary to secure to themselves the power, in dividing a 
 State into senatorial or representative districts. Then it 
 is perfectly lawful and proper to secure to that party which 
 may be a minority of the people, the greater number of 
 senators and representatives. 
 
 If, by/ree suffrage^ you mean universal suffrage, I sup- 
 pose you know the " People's Constitution" excluded 
 persons who were not white. If by free suffrage you 
 mean a suffrage extending beyond the freehold qualifica 
 4
 
 26 
 
 iioii, there arc but few, in our State, who are not wilhng 
 to extend suffrage very much beyond this; and if our State 
 were as large as Massachirsetts, or had the conservatism of 
 her Judiciary, there would not be on this point that diffi- 
 culty in the minds of many, which there now is. Those 
 who believe that the great security and conservatism of 
 our republican institutions, are the virtuous and intelligent 
 yeomanry which compose a majority of the people of the 
 United States, are desirous, that, in the extension of suf- 
 frage, this class of the Rhode Island people should not be 
 put down by the stranger and sojourner, or by those who 
 may be imported for the occasion. 
 
 That Convention, which, in the name of the people of 
 Rhode Island, adopted the Constitution of the United 
 States, declared, " that all men having sufficient evidence 
 of permanent common interest with, and attachment to the 
 community, are entitled to the right of suffrage." A sim- 
 ilar declaration is in the declaration of rights in the Vir- 
 ginia Consitution. 
 
 What this ^'■sufficient evidence'^ is, it is for those to 
 decide, where the Constitution has not decided it, who 
 are entrusted with the other powers of government. 
 
 '•The right of self government (yon say) belongs to 
 man as man and does not depend upon the accidents of 
 birth or of real or personal estate." 
 
 The right of self government is one thing, but the right 
 to govern others, is another. The one may belong to 
 man as man, but die right of suffrage is a right to govern 
 others, to control the destinies of thousands. It is a right 
 to take the property of others, by taxes, and to dispose of 
 it to such uses as the majority may prescribe. It is a pol- 
 itical power, upon the judicious and virtuous exercise of 
 which the well being of the community essentially de- 
 pends, and the community have a right so to regulate it, 
 as may best promote the public good. 
 
 Thus thought and thus acted the people of Rhode Is- 
 land. The freehold qualification was their own act, not
 
 27 
 
 imposed upon thorn by a King, as it was originally in Vir- 
 ginia. It made no part of the Cliartor, Inn \ho people of 
 Rhode Island, finding that it was necessary lor their secur- 
 ity, adopted it in 1724. 
 
 You say this right does not depend " upon the accident 
 oi hirthy Do you mean to say that free States have no 
 right to exclude foreigners from voting in their pohtical af- 
 fairs ? Have not all independent States a right to say 
 whom they will admit into, and whom they will exclude 
 from, their body politic ? All States have a right to ex- 
 clude foreigners from their dominions, and to admit them 
 on such terms as they please. If States arc willing to 
 suffer foreigners to reside in their territory, but are not 
 willing to extend to them their political privileges, have 
 these foreigners a right, as men, to these political privi- 
 leges, in opposition to the laws of the State, and to assert 
 this right by the right of revolution ? 
 
 This, Sir, would have been thought strange doctrine if 
 you had proclaimed it from the Supreme Court of Massa- 
 chusetts, and it is not entitled to more reverence, because 
 it was communicated to a clam-bake "gathering," by a 
 candidate for popular favor. 
 
 You may have thought the doctrine was necessary for 
 the case. You may have heard how many foreigners 
 residing in Rhode Island, acted as " the people of Rhode 
 Island in their original sovereign capacity," in the mak- 
 ing and adoption of " the People's Constitution!"' 
 
 We say that persons born out of the State, have no 
 right to come into the State, and in violation of its laws, set 
 up a natural right to become members of our body politic, 
 and enforce it by revolution. If they are disposed to act 
 in their ^'-original capacity," and to claim their />/>M- 
 right, they should go to the land of their birth. 
 
 When they came into Rhode Island they were bound 
 to know our laws, and they virtually submitted to them, 
 and owed allegiance to the govennnent of the State. 
 They had no right to violate this allegiance, because they
 
 , 28 
 
 became dissatisfied with those institutions to which they 
 originally assented and came to hve under. 
 
 I now come towards the close of your letter. You 
 say, "it is one of the beauties and excellencies of our 
 admirable system of government, that it provides for the 
 redress of all grievances, and the settlement of all contro- 
 versies, without a resort to physical force.''' And then 
 follows a lamentation over the military movements in 
 Rhode Island, which you think " have added nothing to 
 the happiness of the people, or the reputation of the 
 State." 
 
 Sir, I do not rejoice at the cause of those military 
 movements ; and that we have been rendered very un- 
 happy as a people, by the threats and forcible attempts of 
 those with whom you so much sympathize, is very true. 
 But I do rejoice that Rhode Island has manifested a por- 
 tion of her ancient spirit, and I trust she will be able to 
 defend her soil against invasion, and establish and main- 
 tain, for herself. Constitutions for her own government. 
 
 But what provision is there " in our admirable system 
 of government," for such a case as has happened in 
 Rhode Island," without a resort to physical force ?^^ 
 The remedies you have pointed out, the resignation of a 
 Senator ! and the making a case by agreement for the Su- 
 preme Court ! are not provided for in our system of gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 There is a remedy provided " in our admirable system 
 of government," but it is "a resort to force,''^ the force 
 of the Union, to preserve the State from " domestic vio- 
 lence." Read that provision of the Constitution of the 
 United States, and then read the 43d number of the 
 Federalist, written by Mr. Madison, which is a commen- 
 tary upon it, and you will there see the Rhode Island case 
 supposed almost by the spirit of prophecy, and provided 
 for. 
 
 "At first view, (said Mr. Madison) it might seem not 
 to square with the republican theory, to suppose either
 
 29 
 
 that a mojority have not the ri'^ht, or that a minority will 
 have the force to subvert a gorcrnmcut, andconso»|ii(iitly 
 that the federal interposition will never be required but 
 when it be would improper. Rut tlunrctic reasoninir in this, 
 as in most cases, must be qualified by the lessons of prar- 
 tice." 
 
 Did Mr. Madison, and the wise master builders who 
 framed the Constitution of the United States, dare to 
 question the ?'7ghi of a majority to subvert a govcrn- 
 Tuent ? Had they the folly to prefer the school of prac- 
 tical wisdom to the '' reasoning" of theorists ? How 
 unworthy were they to lay the foundations of our " ad- 
 mirable system of government !" What a pity that they 
 could not have been initiated into the mysteries of democ- 
 racy by Thomas W. Dorr, and our clam-bake orators ! 
 Then the Constitution of the United States would not 
 have been so unworthy this age of progress. 
 
 But to proceed with Mr. Madison — " Why," said he, 
 "may not illicit combinations for purposes of violence, be 
 formed as well by a majority of a State, especially a 
 small State, as by a majority of a county, or a district of 
 the same State : and if the authority of the State ought 
 in the latter case to protect the local magistracy, ouglit 
 not the federal authority, in the former, to support the 
 authority of the State V 
 
 Mr. Madison asks — " Is it true that force and right are 
 necessarily on the same side in republican governments?" 
 He puts several cases to show they are not, and then the 
 following, which is the Rliode Island case, supposing the 
 Suffrage men liad the majority which they claim : 
 
 "May it not happen, in fine, that the minority o[ citi- 
 zens may become a majority of persons by the accession 
 of alien residents, of a casual concourse of adventurers, 
 or of those whom the Constitution of the Stale lias not 
 admitted to the right of Suffrage ?" 
 
 Such was the meaning of the Constitution of the Uni- 
 ted States, when it was formed and adopted. Is it now
 
 30 
 
 to be interpreted in a difTcrent sense, and by those who 
 have sworn to support it ? 
 
 Mr. Madison thought the existence of this power in the 
 general government would generally prevent the ne- 
 cessity of its exercise. 
 
 The government of Rhode Island, not wishing to re- 
 sort to force, and believing that this appeal to the general 
 government would prevent a resort to force by the revo- 
 Uitionists, called upon the President of the United States 
 to protect the State from " domestic violence." The an- 
 swer of the President was in conformity with the Consti- 
 tution, but how we have been protected, we all know. 
 
 Rhode Island has been left, a prey to domestic and for- 
 eign violence, to fight her own battles. God be thanked, 
 she has nevertheless been preserved ! And we trust the 
 same power which scattered our enemies, and gave us our 
 bloodless victories, will still preserve us. We trust that 
 the land which has been the cradle of religious liberty, 
 is not to be the grave of Constitutional freedom. We 
 trust that the spirit of party will pause before it sanctions 
 doctrines so subversive of the Constitution of the United 
 States, of the rights of Rhode Island as one of the States 
 of the Union, and so destructive of social order and le- 
 gitimate government. 
 
 But, whatever may come, we trust that Rhode Island 
 will be true to herself, and maintain those rights which 
 she has never surrendered — the right of legislating in 
 reference to her internal concerns, of vindicating her au- 
 thority over her own citizens, of judging for herself, and 
 establishing such republican Constitutions as she may 
 deem best fitted to promote her own happiness, and resist- 
 ing all attempts, under whatever sanction, to impose 
 upon her a Constitution which was conceived in sin and 
 brought forth in iniquity, and has been the fruitful parent 
 of so many abominations. 
 
 If you are really the friend of peace you profess to be, 
 and would promote the welfare of our State, you might
 
 31 
 
 have found a better mode of accomplishing both, tlian by 
 encouraging with your presence and your pen, those men 
 who have aheady been so much dehided. You may 
 urge them on to scenes of bloodshed which may bring 
 your own soul to a fearful account. The cant of de- 
 mocracy may here varnish over the crimes of rebellion 
 and treason, but. in that day when the secrets of all 
 hearts shall be revealed, the crimes of unprincipled am- 
 bition will receive their merited punishment. 
 • Towards yourself. Sir, I have no feelings of personal 
 hostility, but I have felt it my duty to comment freely upon 
 a letter which has been industriously circulated through- 
 out our State, which so misrepresents facts, and advo- 
 cates such dangerous principles. May "even-handed 
 justice" never " commend the poisoned chalice to your 
 own lips." May Massachusetts never feel the evil con- 
 sequences of your doctrines. She has had her troubles, 
 and may have them again, if your principles prevail. She^ 
 had her agrarians, daring the rebellion of Shays. When 
 Constitutions and laws are not strong enough to govern the 
 people, what is to protect our persons or our property ? 
 Free Suffrage lies now on the surface, but there are other 
 principles and feelings which lie beneath. In Rhode Is- 
 land, we have seen and heard enough to satisfy us that, in 
 the opinion of our radical reformers, it is not the mere fabric 
 of government which is out of joint, but the whole fabric 
 of society. To ensure their success, they have infused 
 into the poorer class those passions which would not only 
 destroy our government, but our property and our lives. 
 Methinks, your house is somewhat too high to suit the 
 taste of the levellers. It might be spared you awhile, as 
 belonging to Monsieur Egalite ; but the moment you 
 would stop the ball which you are now putting in mo- 
 tion, you would fall, as did many a French revolutionist, 
 beneath the power of a greater Jacobin than himself. 
 
 In this country, our liberty has most to fear, not irom 
 the reign of law and order, but from the unrestrained li-
 
 32 
 
 centiousness of the people. The true friends of liberty, 
 and the best friends of tlie people are those w?io would 
 strengthen those principles which are so necessary to re- 
 strain the violence of parties, to curb the will of trium- 
 phant majorities, and to give that security to minorities 
 which will give security to all. 
 
 One 01;' THE Rhode Island People.
 
 
 THE LIBRARY ■[ 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 Santa Barbara 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGION/ 
 
 AA 000 87( 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW.