set up by three fourths of the people was illegal and void because the legislature refused to sanction it, then if every man in the state, except the eighty-four who composed the General Assembly of the State of Rhode Island in 1841, had voted for the people's constitution and agreed to support it, it would still have been just as illegal, and the eighty-four men who composed that legislature might just as rightfully have declared the whole proceedings of the people void, and still claimed their right to rule the state, and have called upon the president of the United States, or any foreign power, to sustain them; and if, by means of menaces from abroad, and concessions and promises at home, that body found themselves able to subdue the people, they would maintain their power by the same right that the charter government was maintained in 1842. If three fourths of the people could not rightfully set up a government without the consent of the legislature, then all the people could not. It was upon that ground alone that the charter government held on to power in 1842; and we ask if there is a single unprejudiced individual living under the democratic institutions of the United States, who has any claim to common sense, who agrees to that doctrine? But we are told that the people of Rhode Island had no reason to complain of the government under the charter. Has it not been shown that more than half of the male citizens of that state over twentyone years of age were by law excluded from all participation in the affairs of the government, whilst at the same time they were required by law to do duty in military and fire companies, and also to pay their full proportion of all public taxes? Has it not been shown also that the laws of that state gave non-freeholders no remedy against any wrongs that they might sustain unless they obtained the assistance of freeholders? Has it not been shown that they were denied the right of trial by a jury of their peers ? If they were satisfied to be thus disparaged and outlawed, why did they petition the legislature, time after time, during almost half a century? What was meant by the petition presented to the General Assembly in 1829, signed by two thousand citizens? What meant the suffrage organizations throughout the state in 1838 and 1839? What brought together the immense mass meetings in the summer of 1841? For what purpose did ten or twelve thousand men meet in convention in the city of Providence? What did these people mean by their loud complaints against the oppressive acts of the charter government, and what did their strong resolutions declare? Is it not true that "all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed"? And might not the disfranchised citizens of Rhode Island have said, in the language of their revolutionary fathers, “In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury." Although the president was over-persuaded and misadvised, yet the following "private and confidential" letter to Governor King, dated May 9, 1842, shows that he was desirous that the controversy should be amicably settled by the parties themselves. May 9, 1842. SIR: Messrs. Randolph and Potter will hand you an official letter; but I think it important that you should be informed of my views and opinions as to the best mode of settling all difficulties. I deprecate the use of force, except in the last resort; and I am persuaded that measures of conciliation will at once operate to produce quiet. I am well advised, if the General Assembly would authorize you to announce a general amnesty and pardon for the past, without making any exception, upon the condition of a return to allegiance, and follow it up by a call for a new convention upon somewhat liberal principles, that all difficulty would at once cease. And why should not this be done? A government never loses any thing by mildness and forbearance to its own citizens; more especially when the consequences of an opposite course may be the shedding of blood. In your case, the one half of your people are involved in the consequences of recent proceedings. Why urge matters to an extremity? If you succeed by the bayonet, you succeed against your own fellow-citizens, and by the shedding of kindred blood; whereas, by taking the opposite course, you will have shown a paternal care for the lives of your people. My own opinion is, that the adoption of the above measures will give you peace, and insure you harmony. A resort to force, on the contrary, will engender, for years to come, feelings of animosity. I have said that I speak advisedly. Try the experiment; and if it fail, then your justification in using force becomes complete. Excuse the freedom I take, and be assured of my respect. JOHN TYLER. GOVERNOR KING, of Rhode Island. But the charter authorities, elated with the idea of putting down the suffrage party by force of arms, were not inclined to make any concessions or adopt any conciliatory measures, and the president's advice was disregarded. CHAPTER VIII. MR. DORR'S VISIT TO WASHINGTON AND NEW YORK. HIS RETURN TO PROVIDENCE. ATTACK UPON THE ARSENAL. IMMEDIATELY after the adjournment of the constitutional legislature, Mr. Dorr proceeded to Washington, and laid his case before the chief magistrate and heads of the departments. But he soon found, to his mortification, that the administration had become strongly prejudiced against him in consequence of misrepresentations which had been made by the envoys of the charter government. Southern men had become imbittered against him and his cause by being told that it was wholly an antislavery movement. This was false; not a particle of abolitionism was mingled in the controversy. At home the vilest slanders and most egregious falsehoods were conjured up and put in circulation by the obsequious minions of power; the desk and the forum assisted to give them currency, and they were echoed and reëchoed from high places. At one time it was rumored that Mr. Dorr was coming with murderous legions from abroad, and at another that he and his men intended to rob all the banks in the state, to pillage and burn the city of Providence, and ravish its fair inhabitants. |