CHAPTER XII.

COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED TO EXAMINE THE PRISONERS. PROCEEDINGS. MEASURES TAKEN ΤΟ FORM ANOTHER CONSTITUTION. CONDITION OF THE PEOPLE AT THE TIME. CONSTITUTION DECLARED ADOPTED.

AT an adjourned session of the General Assembly, held at Newport in June, 1842, commissioners, as they were called, were appointed, whose duty was to hold courts of inquisition upon the prisoners, with whom the jails were crowded. It will be recollected that these prisoners had not been committed upon warrants, but by virtue of the bayonet, and they were not informed of the charges to which they would be required to answer. Each commissioner, like some grand inquisitor, possessed almost absolute power over every prisoner brought before him. The prisoners were not allowed counsel or witnesses, but each man was adjured, by the terrors of the bayonet and the dungeon, to confess his guilt and testify against himself. Some of the men, who now sat as judges in these dread tribunals, had, less than one year before, recorded their own names in favor of that constitution which they now declared illegal, and its support treason. A large number of prisoners, after having been kept in close confinement from

five or six days to as many weeks, were discharged, because their judges said nothing was found against them. Yet it is believed that in most instances, as a condition of their release, the prisoners were required to engage to support the charter government. Some complied with these humiliating terms, and others spurned them; and a large number of prisoners were retained in close jail, to be tried for treason. Some were tried, found guilty, and recommended to mercy by the jury. Martin Luther, a respectable farmer in Warren, in the county of Bristol, was arrested some time afterwards, and found guilty of acting as moderator of a town meeting held under the people's constitution, and sentenced to pay a fine of five hundred dollars, to be imprisoned in close jail six months, and to pay all costs of prosecution. This sentence was carried into execution.

Whoever candidly reflects upon the history which has been given of the Rhode Island controversy, must, we think, be satisfied of the following facts: First, that absolute political sovereignty is always inherent in the great body of the people, and that this prerogative is before and paramount to all constitutions and civil compacts, and that the right to its exercise can never be suspended by any means whatever; and, secondly, that the great body of the people of Rhode Island, in the exercise of that right, did, in the month of December, 1841, ratify and adopt a democratic constitution for the government of the state, and that also, in accordance with that constitution, a majority of the people of the state did, in 1842, organize and set up such a government as the constitution of the United

States guarantees to every state in the Union; and, lastly, it has been shown that the government so organized and set up, and so guaranteed by the constitution of the United States, was crushed out and suppressed by the combined forces of the State of Rhode Island and the United States.

In the month of June, 1842, while martial law was in full operation, the prisons filled with its victims, and the whole population of the state shook as with an ague, while the adjacent states were thronged with exiles who had fled from the fiery indignation of their barbarous pursuers, and while any one who should declare himself in favor of the people's constitution would be immediately consigned to a dungeon, the General Assembly issued a call for a convention to form a constitution. It has already been shown that the General Assembly could not, by force of law, take any initiatory steps towards forming a constitution, and also that that body solemnly declared, by the mouth of their committee, in 1829, that the legislature could not, and would not, do any thing in the premises, and that no constitution before or since the revolution had been formed, or could be formed, more free and popular than that under which the people then lived.

Notwithstanding all this, the General Assembly now, for the first time, ascertained that the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations had no constitution, and therefore thought proper that immediate steps should be taken to establish one. They considered it expedient that the work should be commenced forthwith; they believed that to be a favorable time for the

undertaking, when their own sabres gleamed and their own cannon roared in unison with those of the national executive. Now, when they had their iron heels upon the necks of the people, they deemed it a most favorable time to induce them humbly to accept a constitution as a special boon from the General Assembly, fearing that when they came to be released from duress, they might revive again their own constitution, which lay crushed beneath the weight of arms. Therefore the General Assembly proceeded to request all such of the people as possessed certain qualifications to meet in their respective towns on the 8th day of August, and vote for delegates to meet in convention and form a constitution. Pursuant to that request, meetings were held and delegates elected, who afterwards met in convention, and drew up a constitution, which was submitted to such of the people as were permitted to vote under its provisions. The voting took place on the 21st, 22d, and 23d days of November, 1842. The act of the General Assembly placing the state under martial law had not been repealed, and proceedings under it had only been suspended by proclamation of the governor, who might also, at any moment by proclamation, give it vitality. The people were not released from duress ; they durst not speak freely their own sentiments. Many suffrage men were still in exile, and others were in prison. Large rewards were offered for Mr. Dorr, and requisitions were continually made upon the governors of the neighboring states for the flying fugitives. Under such circumstances, the voting upon the proposed

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.