constitution took place, and the most strenuous exertions were made to bring out a large vote in its favor. On counting the votes, it was found that 7024 had voted in favor of it, and 51 against it. The legislature therefore proceeded to declare the constitution adopted by a majority of 6973 votes. Now, it will be recollected, that although the people's constitution received 13,944 votes, the charter government repeatedly declared in their General Assembly, and by their delegates in Congress, that it had not received a majority of the votes of such as had a right to vote for it, and therefore it could not be considered as an expression of the wishes of a majority of the whole people; but now, when their own constitution had received but one half that number of votes, the General Assembly proceeded without hesitation to declare it legally adopted. And yet, at the very first session of the legislature, under that constitution, it was found that 16,520 votes had been polled for general officers. This shows as plainly as figures can show, that the last constitution received only the votes of a minority. Without taking into consideration the comparative merits of the two constitutions, we will barely remark that the people's constitution received the votes of full two thirds of all who had a right to vote upon that occasion, and the present constitution received only the votes of one third of such as were qualified to vote for it; and with these observations we leave the public to decide which of the two constitutions in question was the free and voluntary choice of the people. The following table shows the number of votes polled in each town in the State of Rhode Island, on the 27th, 28th, and 29th of December, 1841, for the people's constitution. Votes in the City of Providence. CHAPTER XIII. MR. DORR'S RETURN. HIS ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT. TRIAL. CONVICTION. SPEECH. SENTENCE. REMOVAL TO STATE PRISON. LEAVING for a time the desultory history of affairs in Rhode Island, we will return to Mr. Dorr. As has been shown, he left Chepatchet in the evening of the 27th of June, 1842. He well knew that a spirit of deadly hostility had been excited against him, and supposed that his enemies, emboldened by his flight, would cry aloud for blood. In this he was not mistaken. As soon as it was ascertained that he had left the state, Governor King issued his proclamation, offering a reward of five thousand dollars for his apprehension; but the chief magistrates of the neighboring states protected him from the fury of his mercenary pursuers. The Hon. Henry Hubbard, then governor of the State of New Hampshire, gave the exiled patriot a cordial welcome. Here Mr. Dorr found a safe asylum from the fury of his mad pursuers. The bosom of that illustrious chief magistrate glowed with true patriotic fire his purpose was firm as his own granite hills, and his heart as pure as the snowy mantle which covered their sides - unborn generations will bless his memory for the noble deed. Democracy had fallen in Rhode Island; the fundamental principles upon which the American governments are based had been publicly violated, and the power of an oligarchy established by the bayonet. Mr. Dorr remained a voluntary exile, hoping that the camp fires of his exulting enemies would at length be extinguished, and peace and quiet be so far restored as to allow him to return unmolested to his native state, and the bosom of his anxious friends. Confiding too much in the honor and magnanimity of his conquerors, after an absence of nearly one and a half years, he concluded to return to his native city. Accordingly, on the last day of October, 1843, in the capacity of a quiet citizen, he arrived in Providence, and entered his name at the City Hotel. Soon after this, Mr. Dorr was arrested by an officer upon the charge of treason against the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, and thrust into jail in Providence, where he was kept in close confinement until Thursday, the 29th of February, 1844, when he was removed to the jail at Newport, in which county it had been decided that his trial should take place. Contrary to the common law of England and the United States, and in violation of every principle of justice and humanity, the Supreme Court of the State of Rhode Island decreed that the prisoner should be tried in a county in which he was a stranger, where it was known that almost every man was his avowed enemy, away from all his friends and his witnesses, and contrary to the earnest solicitation of the prisoner and his counsel. We would not rashly impugn the motives of a high |