Слике страница
PDF
ePub
[graphic]
[blocks in formation]

THE RHODE ISLAND QUESTION-SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE.

THE case of the revolution, as it was called, in Rhode Island, in the years 1841-42, has given rise to a great deal of discussion in relation to the rights of the people to reform an obnoxious government. By one party it has been contended, that the people legally had no right to reform the organic law of a state, unless the legislature created by that law should first pass an act authorizing the people to call a convention. It has been agreed, that although the people are the source of all power, yet to provide against sudden and capricious changes, they have limited themselves in their own right to revise the organic law of their government, and have consented to put restrictions upon the manner in which they will proceed, whenever they are inclined to alter the constitution. This is no doubt in the main correct, but to all rules there are exceptions; and the exception to the rule here laid down is, that when those to whom are delegated the power of the people to pass laws, as well for the calling of conventions as for other purposes, abuse the delegated power by refusing to obey the popular voice, the "sacred right" of the people to resume the right they have delegated recurs to them, and they form conventions without reference to the contumacious delegates whom they seek to depose. The state of Rhode Island affords a singular example of the forbearance of the people under great oppression. Those difficulties grew out of the fact that the government was based on a royal charter, and never had emanated from the people. It was not what they had adopted, but what had been given them. They attempted to reform it as soon as the state became independent of the mother-country; but the power which it conferred on a class was such, that they continued to hold in the face of the people. From 1790 down to 1842, the citizens of Rhode Island had sought constitutional reform by the influence of opinion, and they obtained it ultimately only through the influence of force.

The first charter of the colony of Rhode Island was obtained from the British Parliament when that body was of a republican temper, and in arms against the king, in 1644. In accordance with this charter, a code of laws was adopted, and a government, declared to be a democracy, instituted, which declared freedom of religion. After the restoration of Charles II., a new charter was granted, embodying the principles of the old charter, and of the government organized under it. This charter continued to be the organic law of the state, down to 1842, when, at the period of the revolution, the authority of the crown had been thrown off, and the people

VOL. XXII.-NO. CXVII.

1

of the United States decided to form a new government, Rhode Island became a party to the confederation, and subsequently to the Union.— It is familiar to all, that the formation of the Union was one of the most delicate and hazardous measures that ever presented itself in the politi cal history of this continent. The existing governments of the several states, out of which it was proposed to form the Union, were deemed republican in their form and principles. If they were not strictly so, it Was no time for the unformed central authority to scrutinize too closely the workings of state governments, or to pry into those private affairs of the states with which the Federal government proposed to have no concern. The instrument of federation simply guaranteed to each state a republican form of government, and agreed that the Federal government should protect the several states against invasion, and, on application of the legislature, from domestic violence. In forming a union with Rhode Island, under its charter, therefore that instrument was admitted, without examination, to be the basis of a republican form of government. If the people of the state subsequently found that it was not a republican form of government, but in fact an oligarchy, inasmuch as that the elective franchise was under the restrictions of the royal charter, monopolized by a small class of persons, they had a right to reform it. The manner of doing this may have given rise to dispute. The Federal government guarantees a republican form of government to the several states, yet the several states being sovereign and independent, have a right to adopt any constitution they please. Suppose, then, that through the influence of Executive patronage, or any other cause, any state should adopt a monarchical constitution, in what way would the Federal government act to carry out its guarantee? To enable it to act at all, it must be shown that the government to be reformed is not republican. If the existing government is republican, then the Federal authority must protect it from domestic violence. If it is not republican, it must aid the people against it. How is this point to be settled? Possibly, on complaint of the people of the state, the obnoxious government would be cited before the Supreme Court, to show cause why it should not be dissolved and the wishes of the people complied with. Such a case, in fact, presented itself in Rhode Island; a minority of the people had for fifty years pertinaciously voted down every attempt at constitutional reform. In 1824, particularly, a new constitution was voted down, 1,668 for it-3,206 against it; Newport and Providence casting 1,184 votes against it and 31 for it. The aggregate vote cast was 3,206 against the constitution, among 22,110 free white males over the age of 21 years, showing that less than one-seventh of the population governed. In 1842, the people were tired of this rule, which had lasted 60 years, and by incipient movements at ineetings, a constitution was finally adopted by a large majority of all the white male inhabitants, and a government elected under it. The old government refused to recede, or to acknowledge the legality of the new, and an armed collision threatened. The new government having gone through the forms of organization, adjourned, and never met again, inasmuch as that this movement of the people had produced the desired effect upon the old government, which passed the necessary laws for calling a convention, in accordance with which a constitution was framed and adopted by the people. The new constitution provides, that all male native citizens of the United States, who have resided in the state two years; who have been registered seven days before the election; have paid one year a tax of one dollar, or have done military duty within the year, may vote; and all naturalized citizens, who, in addition to preceding qualifications, possess real estate worth an annual rent of seven dollars. During the contention between the people and the old government, Governor

1848.] The Rhode Island Question-Sovereignty of the People. 195

Dorr was indicted for treason, and tried under the new constitution, and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The house of Martin Luther was, it appears, broken open during the disturbance, for which he brought a suit at law against Luther Borden and others. The defence was, that the plaintiff was in arms against the constituted authorities, and that his house was taken possession of by the governor. The case came recently before the United States Court, turning upon the legality of the new government, in defence of which Luther was said to have been in arms. Daniel Webster, Esq. argued the case for the defendants, maintaining that the proceedings of the people, without the sanction of the existing government, were entirely illegal. On this point, Mr. Webster remarked

"Is it not obvious enough that men cannot get together, and count themselves, and say there are so many hundreds and so many thousands, and judge of their own qualifications, and call themselves the people, and set up a Government? Why, another set of men, forty miles off, on the same day, with the same propriety, with as good qualifications and in as large numbers, may meet and set up a Government for themselves:-one may meet at Newport, and another at Chepachet, and both may call themselves the people. What is this but anarchy? What liberty is there here but a tumultuary, tempestuous, violent, stormy liberty,-a sort of South American liberty, without power, except in spasms,—a liberty supported by arms to-day, crushed by arms to-morrow. Is that our liberty?

"This regular action of popular power, on the other hand, places upon public liberty the most beautiful face that ever adorned that angel form. All is regular and harmonious in its features, and gentle in its operation. The stream of public authority under American liberty, running in this channel, has the strength of Missouri, while its waters are as transparent as those of a crystal lake. It is powerful for good. It produces no tumult, no violence and no wrong. It is well enough described in those lines of Sir Thomas Denman: it is a stream,

"Though deep yet clear-though gentle yet not dull,
Strong without rage-without o'erflowing full.'"

"Another American principle growing out of this, and just as important and as well settled as is the great truth that the people are the source of power, is, that when in the course of events it becomes necessary to ascertain the will of the people on a new exigency, or a new state of things or of opinion, the legislative power provides for that ascertainment by an ordinary act of legislation. Has that not been our whole history? It would take me from now till the sun shall go down, to advert to all the instances of it, and I shall only refer to the most prominent and especially to the establishment of the constitution under which you sit. The old Congress, upon the suggestion of the delegates who assembled at Annapolis in May, 1786, recommended to the states that they should send delegates to a Convention, to be holden at Philadelphia, to form a constitution. No article of the old Confederation gave them power to do this. But they did it, and the states did appoint delegates, who went to Philadelphia and formed the constitution. It was communicated to the old Congress, and that body recommended to the states to make provision for calling the people together to act upon its adoption. Was that not exactly the case of passing a law to ascertain the will of the people in a new exigency? And this method was adopted without opposition, nobody suggesting that there could be any other mode of ascertaining the will of the people.

66

Again: my learned friend went through the constitutions of several of the states. It is enough to say, that of the old thirteen states, the constitutions, with but one exception, contained no provision for their own amendment. In New-Hampshire there was a provision for taking the sense of the people once in seven years. Yet there is hardly one that has not altered its constitution, and it has been done by Conventions called by the Legislature, as an ordinary exercise of legislative power. Now, what state ever altered its constitution in any other mode? What alteration has ever been brought in, put in, forced in, or got in any how, by resolutions of mass meetings, and then by applying force? In what state has an assembly, calling itself the people, without law, without authority, without qualifications, without certain officers, with no oaths, securities or sanctions of any kind, met and made a constitution, and called it the constitution of the STATE?"

« ПретходнаНастави »