USA > Rhode Island > The Dorr war; or, The constitutional struggle in Rhode Island > Part 22
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33
June 7, 1844, Burke's report was read to the House and post-
(e) Congressional Globe, I Sess., 28 Cong., 1843-44, Vol. XIII, p. 504. In this reply, President Tyler said : "I have to inform the House that the Executive did not 'deem it his duty to interfere with the naval and military forces of the United States,' in the late disturbances in Rhode Island ; that no orders were issued by the Executive, or any of the departments, to military officers, for the movement or employment of troops to or in Rhode Island, other than those which accompany this message, and which contemplated the strengthening of the garrison at Fort Adams, which, consid- ering the extent of the agitation in Rhode Island, was esteemed necessary and judicious; that no orders were issued to naval officers to prepare steam or other vessels of the United States for service in the waters of Rhode Island ; that no orders were issued 'to the officers of the revenue- cutters for said service ;' that no instructions were borne by 'the Secretary of War to Rhode Island, on his visit in 1842 to review the troops of the charter government ;' that no orders were given to any officer or officers of the army or navy to report themselves to the charter government."
Alas alas! when Dory is free King Charles charter will be destroyed and with it the last British form of Government in these Stoles. and the last hope of our Aristocracy for the people will have triumphed !
Speed the sound O & all your plaines The Martyrs freed from shameful chains! Around his trow will firemen twine A dortens wreath of myrtle rine!
As sure as a God ofJustice rates on high he will befree
Our Folk obey the people's call ; The Tigrant sees las Shackles fall ! And every son of Liberty
Shoutlong live Norr tuegive the Free!
Ah my master say not sofer then Church and State will
The process of this Court does not reach the man within. Firme this sentence of the tart lappeal tothe People. your State and var laty')
The people will speak in tones of thunder yet they brock no old Kings charter, lorachain true Patricts!
0
Tariff
frelinghausen
Clay
ording to del of tanpress on in the Jar 1848 byd Baillie on Ne Clarks Micro in the It Court of the S' Archit of
LIBERTY TRIUMPHANT.
Porr
TYRANTS PROSTRATE
( COLLECTION OF CHARLES H. GREENK. )
1
Yos they will If" erejein the imer ican Party. and raise a Pro- Lestand succession onthe ruins of Papery
unitræ!
V
277
CONGRESSIONAL INTERFERENCE.
poned until the first Monday in December ;(26) and not till January 2, 1845, by a test vote of 102 to So, was it resolved to print 5,000 extra copies.(27) Then began a discussion on the report, participated in by Burke, Elmer, of New Jersey, and Williams, of Massachu- setts, which was completed on the 28th of February. (25) Four days later, the twenty-eighth Congress expired; John Tyler retired to private life, James K. Polk became President, and Rhode Island was at last left to herself.
Burke's Report was elaborate, there being eighty-six pages of formal reports and nearly a thousand more pages of documents, depo- sitions, and other testimony. Unfortunately for the student of Rhode Island history, the evidence herein furnished is not impartial. The 1 testimony of five witnesses, together with the documents which they furnished to the committee, the depositions of fifty persons, copies of the indictments of thirteen men, the documents prepared for the case of Luther vs. Borden, the correspondence furnished by the President, and a few other documents, fill the large volume. Not one of the witnesses belonged to the charter party or was an anti- Dorrite; nor was a single document, deposition, or testimony pre- sented on that side of the case. This was due to two things : the committee was interested merely in obtaining a partisan advantage from the publication of the Dorrite side of the struggle; and the law and order authorities, having sure possession of the govern- ment, refused to present any testimony, on the ground that Con- gress had no right to make the investigation.
The brief narrative of the work of the select committee and the proceedings of the House of Representatives given above show . clearly that the investigation was undertaken for purely party r . sons. The investigation had barely begun when the nearly u imous re-election of Governor Fenner occurred in Rhode J
278
THE DORR WAR.
Congress knew, beyond a doubt, that the people of Rhode Island, as a whole, were contented with the existing situation; it knew that no result could be obtained from an investigation. The presidential campaign was about to open; the President, whose "interference" the committee was to investigate, had lost favor with his own party and was bidding for a nomination, not by the Whigs, but by his former enemies, the Democrats. What better campaign document could the Democrats ask than a Dorrite account of the Rhode
: Island controversy. With it they could attack the Whigs every- where, and President Tyler in particular: they had no love for him.
The whole course of the discussion shows that the party and the select committee had no idea of helping the malcontents in Rhode Island, but rather of promoting their own cause in the com- ing election. It was Burke himself who moved the postponement of the discussion on the report from June to December. As soon as the House voted to print a second edition, the matter practi- cally dropped; the resolutions which closed the report were under discussion for two days only. That good should come to the peo- ple of Rhode Island was a consideration too remote to occur to any one.
Let us briefly summarize the conclusions and proposed resolu- tions of this report. After an historical review of the happenings in Rhode Island, the committee proceeded to answer in the affirm- ative the question whether the People's Constitution was adopted by a majority of the adult citizens of Rhode Island. They gave four reasons for coming to this conclusion: first, they had exam- ined the votes and found them as represented, and therefore they were "strong prima facie evidence" of the adoption; second, the rejection of the Freemen's Constitution was an indication that a majority of the people were in favor of the People's Constitution ;
.
279
CONGRESSIONAL INTERFERENCE.
third, the existing constitution did not receive a majority of the votes of the citizens of Rhode Island; and, fourth, the charter authorities persistently refused to make any investigation into the legality of the vote.
After a long discussion of authorities, the report reached the conclusion that " the sovereign power of the State [resided] in the people of the State," and that the majority of the people could, "in any manner, and at such time as they [deemed] expedient, without the consent of existing authorities, and even against an express provision of a constitution once agreed to by them point- ing out the mode," change their form of government. It then debated the question "who are the people?" and decided that the right of suffrage was a natural right ; that it belonged to all men, though not to women nor to boys under the arbitrary age of twenty-one; and that the "people [included] all free white male persons of the age of twenty-one years, who are citizens of the State, are of sound mind, and have not forfeited their right by some crime."
The committee next examined into the actions of the President, and showed conclusively, as they seemed to think, that he did inter- vene with the military power of the Union, and did thereby suppress the People's Constitution. The report, after stating the case against the President, closed the point with the words: "The committee submit to the House and the country to compare the facts with the President's assertion, and to draw the inference." Next the report discussed the power of Congress in respect to the matter of the memorial, and concluded that Congress had the power to set aside a State constitution which did not provide a republican form of government, and to recognize one that did so provide. The committee, however, did not recommend any action by the
280
THE DORR WAR.
House with regard to the constitution of the State of Rhode Island, inasmuch as more than a majority of the free white male citizens, etc., of the State, voted at the first election held under the existing constitution. It did recommend that Congress should pass some law, " with a view to meet emergencies like that which [had] occurred in the State of Rhode Island."
The report showed, by reference to a long list of instances, the tyranny and despotism of the charter authorities, and con- cluded by presenting a set of seven resolutions: affirming the equality of all free men; the right to alter their government at will; the right of the people of Rhode Island to form a constitu- tion in their own way; the adoption of the People's Constitution, and that all acts done under it were legal until the people assented to the new constitution ; condemning the President of the United States for his unauthorized interference; and criticising the actions of nine men in Rhode Island for personally entering into the local controversy while holding office under the federal government.
Such was the somewhile famous report and such its fate. No one desired its adoption by the House, and it died with the House that appointed the committee. The printed volume continued to live, however, and the thousands of copies, scattered far and wide, were so many pieces of political capital. The controversies and ill-feelings due to the trouble in Rhode Island have long since passed away, and Burke's Report has been forgotten. It is unfor- tunate, however, that an historical document of so one-sided a nature should be the only original source of record on this sub- ject which is at all accessible to the student of American history to - day.
AUTHORITIES. - 1 See p. 203. 2 Providence Journal, June 2, 1842 ; Providence Express, June 2, 1842. 3 Providence Journal, May 28, 1842. 4 Providence Express, June 15, 1842.
281
CONGRESSIONAL INTERFERENCE.
5 Providence Express, June 7, 1842; Republican Herald, June 8, 1842. 6 Vational Intelligencer, June IS, 1842. 7 Republican Herald, May 25, 1842. S New York Courier and Enquirer, May 10, 1842 ; Providence Journal, May 11, 1842. 9 Providence Journal, October 5. 1842. 10 Prov- idence Journal, November 15. 1842. 11 Burke's Report, 241 -244. 12 Rhode Island Manual,
1896-97, 102. 13 Turner, Trial of Dorr, 77. 14 Republican Herald, April 6, 1844, 15 Rhode Island Manual, 1896-97, 102. 16 Providence Journal. April 5, 1844. 17 This memorial is given in Burke's Report, 1 - 4. 1S Congressional Globe, I Sess., 28 Cong., 1843 - 44. Vol. XII, p. 295 ; House Journal, I Sess., 28 Cong., 1843 - 44, pp. 419- 421. 19 Burke's Report, S7. 20 Con- gressional Globe, I Sess., 28 Cong., 1843 - 44. Vol. XIII, P 356. 21 Congressional Globe, I Sess., 28 Cong., 1843-44, Vol. XIII, p. 419. 22 Burke's Report, 87-92. 23 Congressional Globe, I Sess., 2S Cong., 1843 - 44, Vol. XIII, p. 464 24 Burke's Report, 91. 25 Congressional Globe, I Sess., 2S Cong., 1843 - 44, Vol. XIII, P. 522 ; House Journal, I Sess., 2S Cong., 1843-44, p. 795; House Documents, I Sess., 28 Cong., 1843 - 44, Vol. V, pp. 4, 5. 26 Burke's Report. I. 27 Con- gressional Globe, II Sess., 28 Cong., 1844 - 45, Vol. XIV, p. 81. 2$ Congressional Globe, II Sess.,
28 Cong., 1844-45, Vol. XIV, P. 370.
36
مـ
.
CHAPTER XXII.
THE STRUGGLE ENDED.
S TEP by step the conservative party had moved towards a liberal constitution, and the causes and result of their move- ment may here be briefly sketched. Early in 1841 the Smith- field memorial and the Dillingham petition led the General Assem- bly to issue a call for a convention to be held ten months later. The mass meetings and conventions in Providence and Newport during the spring of 1841 caused the legislature to rectify the ap- portionment of delegates to that convention. The continued suf- frage agitation, the holding of the People's Convention, and the declared adoption of the People's Constitution resulted in the act of the General Assembly permitting such persons to vote on the adoption of the Freemen's Constitution as would be qualified to vote if that constitution were adopted.
" It may be even more difficult to adopt a constitution than it is to make one."(1) The Freemen's Constitution was defeated, March,
1842. Again the legislature met and discussed the constitutional issue : it decided to let the question go over to the next Assembly, which would meet the following week. The newly-elected body met at Newport, in May, only to find another legislature in session
283
THE STRUGGLE ENDED.
in Providence. This was not the time, evidently, to make any con- cessions ; the contest was on. But the Foundry legislature col- lapsed ; the attack on the arsenal failed. Now was the time to act ; now was the time for the existing. government to show that it under- stood the desires of the people. The anti-suffrage organ saw that it must make great concessions. It at once affirmed as its opinion that a new convention must be held, and that a new constitution was an absolute necessity. (2) It even ventured the assertion that a majority of each house of the legislature was of the same opinion; which statement was duly copied in the papers throughout the country.(3) ...
Accordingly, on the second day of the June session, 1842, a committee was appointed, consisting of two members from each county, to which all matters relating to an extension of the suffrage and the formation of a new constitution might be referred.(+) Pc- titions and memorials were coming in in great numbers. The committee reported an act calling a constitutional convention, which was adopted just before Governor Dorr appeared at Chepachet.(5) As has been stated, the three important points of this call were the new attempt to apportion the delegates from the various towns ; the permission that all native males, of three years' residence, might vote for the delegates; and the direction that the persons qualified by the constitution which would be formed might also vote upon its adoption. At once, certain portions at least of the suffragists ac- cepted the olive branch. (6) A note, signed by Dutee J. Pearce and five other members of the Foundry legislature, appeared, stating that the act, in most of its provisions, met with their cordial approba- tion, and would, as a whole, receive their support.(?) Other mem- bers of the suffrage party appeared in print, recommending the new convention. Even the Express, though just about to suspend pub-
.
284 ·
THE DORR WAR.
lication because of martial law, in a leading editorial, advised its friends to render the convention their undivided support. " The late law of the General Assembly, containing in our opinions the substance of what we have even contended for, we heartily recom- mend its provisions to the candor of our friends."(8) This liberal disposition of the suffrage organ did not last, however.
A few days later the Republican Herald, which, now that the Express was suspended, considered itself the suffrage organ, began to criticise. It acknowledged that "the principles of the Suffrage Party [had] gained a signal triumph over the Charter party," but it advised the adherents of the People's Constitution to refrain from electing delegates, because of the unequal apportionment, the exclu- sion of naturalized citizens and new-comers from voting, and the "reign of martial law."(9) Three days later the Herald was em- phatic in its condemnation of the act, which it claimed had been "artfully formed to perpetuate power in the hands of the few, to rule with arbitrary sway, over the many." It added that " partici- pating in the approaching election of delegates " would virtually condemn them "for having voted for the suffrage constitution."(10)
Martial law was suspended on the eighth of August, 1842; a wise, though late, step of the charter government. It was, however, a mistake merely to suspend it, for it gave the enemies of the gov- ernment the opportunity to claim that the delegates to the conven- tion, chosen at the regular town meetings in August, were elected under " the duress of military force and the menace of political per- secution." (11) There were no opposition candidates to the regular law and order tickets, and a very light vote was cast. In the town of Glocester, on motion of Samuel Y. Atwell, who doubtless voiced the suffrage party, the people even voted, 77 to 53, not to elect delegates. (12) There is no way of obtaining the exact vote cast, but
1
285
THE STRUGGLE ENDED.
it was doubtless less than 7,000, or less than the gubernatorial vote at the previous election. (13)
The convention met at Newport, on the twelfth of September, with Henry Y. Cranston chairman and Thomas A. Jenckes clerk. (11) It referred the various subjects of which a constitution treats to sub-committees, and awaited their reports. Naturally the friends of the People's Constitution not only held aloof, but were very free with their criticisms. The Herald was rabid in its opposition. It declared that it doubted if an instrument would be framed that could be approved. The delegates, it said, "are not the men to establish the rights of the people on a liberal and permanent foun- dation." (15) The Express, on its re-appearance, began more gently : it even acknowledged that there were "liberal sentiments among many of the members which [were] ably advanced and [were] en- titled to the respect even of the suffrage men." (16) The next day the Express stated that the committee on suffrage had reported a fair and liberal article; though it had no hope that the convention would not radically change it.(17) Doubtless this did not please the suffrage leaders, for the next day the Express reconsidered. " On more carefully perusing the report of the committee on Suf- frage we find reason to retract our approbation of its liberality, which was bestowed on a hasty glance." (18)
Before the end of September the convention had finished a draft of a constitution and adjourned to November, to allow the delegates to ascertain whether their constituents desired changes. (19) The proposed constitution was published in the newspapers. (20) The Express declared that it printed it in order merely that the peo- ple's party might compare its provisions with those of their own existing constitution ; they would thereby be confirmed in their opinion that the new plan was inferior and would cling to their
.
,
286
THE DORR WAR.
own, which was still the fundamental law of the State. The con- vention re-assembled, adopted the constitution, and submitted it to the people, appointing the twenty-first, twenty-second, and twenty- third days of November, 1842, for the election.
One of the reasons for the adjournment was a clause in the fourth section of the call for the convention, reading : " If said constitution be adopted by a majority of the persons having a right to vote, the same shall go into operation."(21) It was evident that the General Assembly did not literally mean what it said in that clause; therefore the convention, in the following resolution, de- cided to ask the legislature to interpret it officially :
" Whereas, from the manifest impracticability of ascertaining the precise number of persons that might have a right to vote on the adoption of any constitution to be submitted for adoption under the provisions of the act calling this convention, it is inferrible that it is the true intent of said act that none but those actually voting should be counted; and whereas there is an ambiguity in said act in this particular: Therefore,
" Resolved, That the General Assembly be requested to pass such declaratory law as may be deemed necessary for the plainer expression of the intent and meaning of the act aforesaid." (22)
Accordingly a declaratory act was passed. at the October ses- sion of the legislature, in accordance with the request of the con- vention. (23) During the fortnight which elapsed between the day of the adoption of the constitution by the convention and the days set for the voting by the people, the entire community watched the attitude of the suffrage, or Dorrite, leaders. Those voters who upheld the People's Constitution as still the fundamental law of the State must, logically, either refrain from voting on the pro- posed document or vote against it. The leaders adopted the for-
1
287
THE STRUGGLE ENDED.
mer course: Governor Dorr wrote from New Hampshire, advising this step, and editorials in the suffrage newspapers recommended such action. The Express gave as its opinion that every member of the suffrage party would stay at home on election day. (21)
Why this decision was made is not clear. According to their own doctrines, if this constitution received the votes of a majority of " the people," it would supersede the People's Constitution. They could not deny the right of the people to propose a new constitu- tion, or to vote for or against its adoption. They had defeated one constitution by their votes in the previous spring; might they not expect to accomplish the same result now by voting against this new proposition ? No sufficient reason is apparent for bid- ding the suffragists not to vote, rather than for advising them to vote and to vote " No." One is led to wonder if the Journal may not have spoken wisely when it declared that the "Dorr men dare not come out against the constitution, because they know that, by doing so, they would show their own weakness." (25) Is it not pos- sible that they remembered the falling off of their vote from De- cember to March, and that they did not care now to stand up and be counted ? At least, we may say that the result proved their decision unwise: they threw away one of the remaining chances of showing themselves to be a majority of the people.
Although the opposition refrained from voting, the constitution was adopted by a vote of 7,032 to 59. (26) January 13th, 1843, the General Assembly counted the votes cast at the November election, and gave official announcement that the constitution was adopted. At the same time the legislature passed an act, carefully regulating · the election laws so as to adapt them to the new regime. (27)
The constitution of 1842, as it has been called, was closely pat- terned after the Freemen's Constitution. One- half of the sections
288
THE DORR WAR.
in the two constitutions were identical, even in the wording. One- half of the remaining sections convey practically the same ideas, though slightly changed in form or words. Two sections of the Freemen's Constitution are not to be found in that of 1842: one ordering that a sixth part of every direct tax should be laid. upon polls; the other continuing the Court of Probate until provided for by the legislature. Three sections appear in the later constitution that are doubtless due to the agitation of the summer of 1842: one of these provided for referring all acts creating corporations or mili- tary and fire companies to the next legislature; the other two ex- pressed the conservative view of governments and constitutions, as opposed to the opinions of the upholders of the People's Constitu- tion. (28) Slight changes were made in six other clauses: martial law was restricted to cases of necessity ; (29) the salaries of Senators and Representatives were fixed; (30) a vote of two-thirds of the mem- bers of the House was required to impeach the Governor; (31) the Secretary of State should administer the oath to the Governor, in- stead of the Speaker of the House; (32) members of a school com- mittee need not be qualified electors;(33) and the Supreme Court judges were directed to give their written opinion on any question of law, if requested by the Governor or either House. (1)
The fundamental differences in the two constitutions lay in the sections relating to suffrage and the apportionment of Senators and Representatives. By the later constitution each town was entitled to one Senator, and one only. (35) This was evidently a bid for the vote of the smaller towns, and was an acknowledgment that a town had rights irrespective of its population. The apportionment of Representatives was more nearly in proportion to the population than had been previously proposed by any responsible body. The House was to consist of seventy-two members, divided proportion-
.
289
THE STRUGGLE ENDED.
ately among the towns in accordance with the population as shown in each census. There was one limitation on the principle: no city or town was to be allowed more than twelve Representatives, or one-sixth of the entire membership.(%) Considering the jealousy between the city and the rural communities, considering the abso- lute chaos of views as to apportionment that we have found in Rhode Island in the " forties," we must conclude that the conven- tion of 1842 deserves to be complimented on the happy issue of this dispute, which had been a cause of trouble for several decades.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.