States, and of all the several States, with their Bills of Rights, as expounded by Washington, Wilson, Hamilton, Madison, Rawle, Patterson, Iredell, Marshall, Story; in accordance with the ethics of the American divines of the Revolutionary age; Stiles, Emmons, and their cotemporaries. Among the moderns, Clay, Buchanan, and the "majority of Congress" that admitted Michigan.

If these witnesses are trust-worthy, then those, if there are such in Rhode Island, who forcibly resist the authorities of that State, under the Constitution of December, 1841, are insurgents, and revolution. ists, legally as well as morally, at open war with the "BASIS of all our political systems." Whether such facts have occurred, and if so, what shape they have assumed, will appear as we proceed. But it is im. portant, in the mean time, to carry along with us, a remembrance of the great principles of American Constitutional law, just exhibited, and to remember that, not only as a historical fact, but also "in a legal and Constitutional view of the matter by courts of justice"-(ac. cording to Judge Story) the Declaration of Independence has estab. lished these principles of "law and order" in the place of those that prevailed under the British Crown, and which may be claimed under the "Charters.". Much as the Waylands of Rhode Island may regret the fact of the change, it has nevertheless taken place, and the fact is a legal fact. The "powers that be"-in this country, accord. ing to their own use of the phrase, are the sovereign People-the oath to support the Constitution of the United States, is an oath to support that sovereignty-so that, by their own principles, their State officers can not rebel against the Constitution of Rhode Island, without a violation of their oaths-and (according to their expositions of Paul and of Peter,) bringing down their own anathemas upon their own heads. So that they must change their principles before they can justify their practice.

"THE LUST OF OFFICE". "THE RAGE OF POLITICAE AMBITION." Wayland.

sures.

There was a session of the old Charter Assembly in March 1842. It contained some members who were in favor of a free government, and they exerted themselves to bring the Assembly to adopt just meaThe Assembly were reminded that the popular will had been twice expressed-once in favor of the free suffrage Constitution, and again in the rejection of the Constitution prepared by the "freemen's" Convention, under their authority. With the hope of terminating the unhappy dissensions of the State, and averting the calamities of a civil war, the following propositions, through these liberal members, were distinctly and successively made, and each, in turn, promptly and contemptuously rejected; viz:

1. A Bill was introduced, to conform the general election to the provisions of the adopted Constitution. By passing this Bill, the Assembly could have given all the sanction of their needful authority (if that were the thing wanting) to make the People's Constitution orderly and valid. But the Bill was rejected.

1

2. Another Bill was then introduced to submit the People's Constitution, that had already been once adopted, to the test of a new ordeal by the people, so that the town meetings should be held, and the counts and returns made, under direction of the Charter Assembly, and its "authorized" and "duly qualified officers." This would obviate all the difficulty alledged to have arisen from the declaration of "a majority ascertained by no forms of law." And to make the Bill more acceptable to the Assembly, it was provided that the constituency to be called upon to vote on the adoption of this Constitution, should be the same who would have been qualified to vote under the rejected Constitution of the freeholders. This would meet the current objection that the People's Constitution had been adopted by the votes of aliens, who had not been, for a proper time, resident in the State. But this Bill, too, was rejected!

The adoption of either of the preceding Bills would have terminated the controversy, and in a manner sufficiently courteous, one would think, to the ruling minority dynasty, under the Charter. But both attempts failed. Other expedients were nevertheless tried.

3. A proposition was made for an extension of the suffrage by Act of Assembly. This was asking them to exercise the very power over the suffrage that they held by the Charter, and without relinquishing that power. In complying with it, they would still have preserved their Charter authority over the whole subject. Whether this would have satisfied the people or no, they could have tried the experiment. And they could have given some evidence of the sincerity of their professions of willingness that the franchise should be extended, if it could only be done in the proper manner, and by competent authority.-But the proposition was repulsed! One more proposition remained, viz:

4. At the adjourned meeting of the same Charter Assembly in April, a proposal was made to call another Convention, whose delegates should be chosen by a constituency only a little larger than that which existed under the old laws. But in vain! Not one single movement would they make in favor of the disfranchised.

How and why was all this? Why refuse now, what would seem, at first glance, to be a smaller concession to popular freedom than was accorded in the rejected Constitution of the landholders?

The answer is at hand. They had so adroitly adjusted the details of that Constitution, (as already shown,) that the apparent extension of the suffrage would avail the people nothing, but to bind their fetters the closer. It did not give them the independent power of the ballotbox, nor destroy the caste of the freeholders, nor secure the benefits of trial by jury, nor properly limit the power of the legislature, nor provide for the extension of the suffrage, by a popular vote, to the colored people, nor terminate the sure reign of the aristocratic minority; but on the other hand, it would have confirmed and perpetuated all these abuses by a vote of the people, putting all future amendments of the Constitution out of their hands, and placing it in the power of the

minority. If the people would have accepted the suffrage as a franchise, as a privilege, and on these prescribed terms, they might have had it. But this they had refused, and therefore the Assembly would now grant them nothing at all-nor concede an inch, to prevent a popular commotion !

FORBEARANCE-FACTS VERSUS PRETENSIONS.

Now mark! It was not until all these pacific overtures had been made and rejected, that the people went forward under their Constitution, adopted in December, and elected their State officers, with Gov. Dorr at their head, on Monday, April 18th, 1842. They waited, in the hope that something would be conceded by the minority.

What a comment have we here, in these naked facts, upon the pretense lately made, that every body almost, in R. Island, including the members of the Charter Government, were ready, all along, to extend the franchise, and that they only objected to its being done in an irregular, unlawful and unauthorized manner! How remarkably did they fulfil the prophecy (so to speak) of President Madison, when he said, (as already quoted,) that "no ill-timed scruples, no zeal for adhering to ordinary forms, were any where seen, except in those who wished to indulge, under these masks, their secret enmity to the SUBSTANCE CONTENDED FOR"!

Turn we now to the Letter of Mr. A. C. Barstow, in the Emanci cipator of June 9th, and hear him gravely affirm-" The question at issue here is, not whether we shall have a written Constitution-an extension of suffrage-or an equalized representation. The question is as to the manner in which these blessings shall be secured-a large majority of all parties being in favor of the things themselves." And again, in the same paper of July 21st, hear him say:-"After the prayer of their petition to the Legislature was answered," [when? how?] "the Suffrage Association, as though bent on mischief, determined to steal a march on the legal authorities, called a Convention themselves." Thus charging on them a disposition to quarrel with the Charter Government, though it was ready to answer and to grant in a proper manner, all their reasonable requests! What do people mean by such representations?

If Mr. Barstow means to affirm, on the strength of the December vote, adopting the People's Constitution, that a large majority of the people, of all parties, are in favor of those objects, let him say so, and admit too, that they are in favor of the manner in which it was done. Let him guess, if he can, (since his powers seem adapted to that service,) what other mode or manner of securing their rights, peacefully, this majority could have adopted, with any prospect of success. But we resume the narrative.

THE" ALGERINE LAW."

Though the Charter Assembly of April 1842 could take no measures, in any direction, in favor of "those blessings" which, as Mr. Barstow himself attests to us, were desired by "a large majority of

all parties," they were nevertheless, at no loss to find out something connected with passing occurrences, to which they could direct their legislative attention-they could transcend all the powers they had ever held, even under the Charter of Charles II.-they could enact a law too despotic to be described by a British monarch as being "not. repugnant to the laws of this our realm of England"-in order to prevent "a large majority" of the sovereign people from securing "those blessings," in conformity to American Constitutional law, viz. "in such MANNER as they thought proper."

Up to November 1841, they had always looked upon" the suffrage movement as a " FARCE”! They "took no notice of it." They thought it "really doubtful whether any change was actually desired by any large number of the citizens." The "petitions never seemed to arise from any strong feeling, nor to assume a form that called for immediate action." But now, the Constitution prepared in November had been adopted by the people, and they found it was no "farce." Now, therefore, there became, in their view, evidence of "strong feeling"-aye, and strong feeling, too, by "a large number of citizens" yes! 13,944 of them! A "large majority of all parties," as Mr. Barstow hath it. (For it was, we presume, by no other "forms of law," that Mr. Barstow's "large majority" was "6 ascertained"!) Now, therefore, the Charter Assembly found it compatible with its dignity to "take notice of it." Now, at length, the move. ment had "assumed a form that called for immediate action"! And what action was it? A force-law and resolutions for the suppression (not the support) of the People's Constitution! A law prohibiting the holding of elections, and declaring it HIGH TREASON against the State, to accept any office at the hands of the PEOPLE!

The Charter Assembly, in February, had denounced the People's Constitution, with the evident intention of forcing them to accept the landholders' Constitution, on the alternative of obtaining that or none. But the people, with this threat over them, had nevertheless rejected it. And now it was declared treason to accept an office under the People's. A more palpable and direct denial of the people's sovereignty can not be imagined.

CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT ORGANIZED.—GOV. DOrr,

And now, in the month of April, 1842, under this interdict of treason from the minority, (who were closely approaching to treasonable action themselves, unless popular sovereignty be "a farce,") the majority proceeded to the business of the State election. Was it a marvel that under such an interdict from the party in power, that many of the suffrage men were overawed-that they absented themselves from the polls-that numbers who had been prominent among them declined standing as candidates for office, and especially for the office of Governor ? And what a comment have we here upon the pretense that the diminished vote, at this election, discredits the majority adoption of the People's Constitution in December! And that

too, when the April vote of the Constitutionalists, even in these circumstances and without an opposing candidate, was nearly 1,600 more than the vote for the Charter Governor! What can match the effrontery of men who can first hold the halter and the prison before the people, in terrorem, and then claim the diminished vote as an evidence of their free and deliberate abandonment of their cause-evidence of their minority, too, when they show a majority of nearly 1,600 over their opponents! What reliance can the community place upon the representations of such men ?

The Constitutional Government was regularly and peaceably organized, by the election of State officers, in April 1842. As no opposing candidates were set up, there can be no doubt of the legality of their election. The Governor elected was THOMAS W. DORR, Esq., son of Sullivan Dorr, who is recognized as one of the substantial inhabitants of that city-a gentleman of high respectability and of wealth, and altogether loyal, even at the present time, to the Old Charter authorities of the State. Young Mr. Dorr was a popular member of the State Legislature at the time of the attempts made by Mr. Hazard and others, in 1835-6, to procure legal enactments against abolitionists, in accordance with the Southern demands. Quite unexpectedly to many of his friends, and much to the annoy. ance and disgust of some of them, Mr. Dorr threw himself suddenly and with great power and effect, into the opening breach, on that memorable occasion. With a clearness of argument and force of eloquence seldom exceeded, and aided by George Curtis, Esq. another member from Providence, he succeeded in holding the Hazard party in check, and in finally defeating their plans.

For this disorganizing and almost treasonable act, as it was deemed, Mr. Dorr received, of course, the customary measure of aristocratic abuse. He had disgraced his high parentage and his kin. He had betrayed the high trust of city interests, committed to his charge. Thenceforward, he was an ultra-a radical-an incendiary -a leveler-an agrarian,-in the cant vocabulary of the day. Thenceforward he was a "marked man.”

The manly independence of his course, it is true, at a time when most of his supporters were exceedingly mad against the abolitionists, could scarcely fail to command the respect even of his more intelligent opponents; and the brilliancy of his talents, the respectability of his connections, and his rising political influence, held at bay, for the mo. ment, very many who have greedily availed themselves, since, of the first convenient opportunity to vent upon him their long cherished spite.

Mr. Dorr committed another legislative offense against the monied aristocracy, about the same time, for which he has never been forgiven. He succeeded, to their great chagrin, in procuring a repeal of that unequal law by which the Banks were enabled to push the summary collection of their debts, by a process which other creditors could not use, and which enabled them to fleece a debtor before he could either