Слике страница
PDF
ePub

to come out. He replied that he should not. Two of the armed party then rushed into the house, to force him out. A scuffle ensued between them in the entry, and the front door was accidentally shut. Lieutenant Pitman, observing this, gave the door a kick with his foot, but it did not open; he then levelled and took aim with his carbine, and appeared to be going to discharge it. Seeing this, I caught him by the shoulder, and begged of him not to fire, as he might kill some of his own men, as well as others. He replied, 'I don't care a God damn, if I can kill somebody,' and instantly fired. A ball passed through the key-hole of the front door, and took effect in the thigh of Horace Bardine; and I saw. him in a few minutes coming from the house, led by two men, and shot in the thigh. Lieutenant Pitman's party charged upon them as soon as they appeared, and were forced back; and I did not see Bardine afterwards."

Another witness (Colonel Mitchell, of Boston) gives substantially the same account of the conduct of the charter troops on the occasion referred to, and states the additional fact, that Colonel Bankhead, of the United States army, was there in company with the charter troops.

The next day, after picking up as many stragglers as they could find to swell their triumph, the charter army returned to the city of Providence with their prisoners in charge, and the spoils and plunder of the enemy. The finale of this celebrated military enterprise is thus described by Henry Lord, a man sixty years of age, who was among the captives. The troops had in charge about one hundred prisoners, all unarmed men, whom they had picked up by the wayside in their march from Providence. He says, "The next morning, we were mustered and tied together with large bed cords. The rope was passed in a close hitch around each man's arm, passing behind his back, and fastening

him close to his neighbor, there being eight thus tied together in each platoon. We had no use of the arm above the elbow. In this way we were marched on foot to Providence, sixteen miles; threatened and pricked by the bayonet if we lagged from fatigue, the ropes severely chafing our arms; the skin was off of mine. In two instances, when the soldiers were halted, we were refused the use of their cups to get water from the brook which passed the road, and had no water till we reached Greenville, about eight miles. It was a very hot day; I had had no water or breakfast that morning, and I received no food until the next day in Providence. We were marched thus tied through the streets, and, after being exhibited, were put into the state prison. Fourteen were put into my cell, which was seven feet by ten. After remaining in prison twenty-five days, I was released on parole." (See Lord's testimony, page 140.)

Such was the achievement of the charter troops at Chepatchet, and such the exhibition they made in their march of triumph through the streets of Providence!

The testimony under the last-named head proves also the following important facts, namely:

That the United States troops at Fort Adams were provided with ammunition, flints, and haversacks to carry rations. Provisions were also prepared for them for two days' service. They were daily inspected, and in every respect prepared for active service, and were given to understand by their officers that they were to act on the charter side against the suffrage cause.

That the magazine at Fort Adams was used as a depository for powder belonging to the charter government, which was taken away from time to time.

That cartridges for cannon, and United States muskets, were delivered to the charter troops from the United States magazine at Fort Adams.

That the United States custom house at Providence

was made a depot of arms and accoutrements by the charter authorities.

That the following officers and persons in the service of the United States took an active part on the charter side, bearing arms and serving in the military, viz.: John Pitman, United States judge for the district of Rhode Island; John S. Pitman, clerk of the United States courts; Edward J. Mallet, postmaster at Providence; William R. Watson, United States collector; Sylvester Hartshorn, United States marshal; Richard W. Greene, United States district attorney; Peleg Aborn, United States surveyor; Remington Arnold, inspector of customs; and Elisha H. Rhodes, United States boatman. All these individuals were seen in arms in the ranks of the charter troops, and Edward J. Mallet and Sylvester Hartshorn were particularly officious in heading armed men and searching the houses of citizens belonging to the suffrage party. For the details of which, the committee must refer to the testimony taken by the commissioner.

It is also proved that arms belonging to the State of Massachusetts were provided for the use of the charter troops; and it is also in proof that boxes of accoutrements marked "U. S. A.," and belts bearing the initials of the United States, were among the deposits of arms at the custom house in Providence. This, and other facts proved in the course of the investigation, leave no doubt on the minds of the committee that both arms and ammunition were supplied to the charter troops from the stores of the United States.

The testimony shows that, especially after the declaration of martial law, the most lawless and outrageous proceedings, on the side of the charter party, took place in reference to the persons and property of the suffrage party. Every individual of the former party seemed to imagine himself clothed with a license to

invade the domiciles of the latter, seize and injure their property, and commit assaults upon their persons. Never in the history of this country were the rights of the minority, in a political quarrel, so grossly disregarded and so wantonly violated. And never in our annals were such outrages perpetrated, even under the iron rule of martial law. The committee have given but few of the instances of insult and outrage upon persons and property which have come to their knowledge in the course of their investigations; a full detail of which would require more time and space than they could devote to this portion of their report. And they are bound, in justice to the suffrage party, to say that, during all their trials, so well calculated to exhaust their forbearance, they were guilty of no bloodshed nor personal violence. Their fellow-citizens of the charter side suffered neither in person nor property by their

acts.

CONCLUSION.

The committee cannot forbear, in concluding the views which they have very hastily, and therefore crudely and imperfectly, thrown together in relation to the questions of fact and of right connected with the suffrage movement in Rhode Island, to submit a few remarks designed to awaken the House, and, through the House, the American people, to the transcendent importance of the great leading question involved in this inquiry, viz.: THE INHERENT SOVEREIGN RIGHT OF

THE PEOPLE TO CHANGE AND REFORM THEIR EXISTING GOVERNMENTS AT PLEASURE.

It is the solemn conviction of their minds, that upon the full, free, and universal acknowledgment of this sacred right, in this and in every other country pretending to be free, the liberties of the people depend. For if they surrender this great principle, and admit that the sovereign power of the state does not reside in

them, but in the political organization, or actual existing government, and that they cannot correct the defects in the original organic forms of government, or cannot abolish them and substitute others in their places, without the consent of the existing government, what defence have they against the encroachments of those in power, either by actual and forcible usurpation, or false and insidious construction of the fundamental law? What ramparts exist against the approaches of despotic power ? In what does the doctrine that the people cannot resort to their ultimate right of sovereignty, without the consent of the existing authorities of a state, as contended for by the president of the United States, differ in substance and essence from the divine right of kings, openly preached in the dark ages of European despotism?

The committee feel more deeply the importance of this subject of their investigation, from the great and imminent danger which now threatens the invaluable conservative principle of popular sovereignty, upon which, in their humble belief, the whole fabric of the American system of republican government is reared. They have seen, with deep regret and anxious alarm, the principle for which they are contending openly scoffed down and repudiated by one of the great political parties into which the people of this country are divided. They have seen it smothered by the leaders of that party in the Senate of the United States, who refused to listen to the complaints of the aggrieved people of Rhode Island, or to make an effort to stay the executive arm of the government, when it was unlawfully levelled against them and their cause. (See the speech of Mr. Allen, of Ohio, in the Senate of the United States, on the Rhode Island question, page 257.) And, lastly, they have seen one of the leaders of that party, now their acknowledged candidate for the highest office in the gift of the American people, arraying himself against the

« ПретходнаНастави »