of our political institutions. It leaves it in the power of the legislature to declare who shall have the privilege of voting; and, consequently, they may pass a law excluding every one but themselves perpetuating to themselves and to their descendants the privilege, and excluding all others. The sovereignty is thus vested in the agent, and not in the principal in the representatives of the people, and not in the people themselves. Well, sir, under these circumstances, what did the people of Rhode Island gain by the revolution? They thought they were struggling to exchange British authority for the rights of civil liberty. Yet we see the great body of the people-three fifths, at least, of the entire population - being disfranchised, left to the remaining two fifths the power of governing. But we have seen that the people have regenerated the government have thrown off this usurpation under which they have so long been deprived of their rights; and I will here ask, By what authority, under this charter, (if it does exist,) do senators from that state occupy places upon this floor? Does the charter authorize the state to elect senators to the Congress of the United States? Sir, does the charter authorize a convention of the people of Rhode Island to incorporate that state into the body of the American republic? I presume not, sir. By what authority, then, did they act, when they became a constituent part of this Union? Was it under that charter, granted more than a century before the revolution was it by virtue of that charter, under which the majority of the inhabitants were disfranchised, that that state took refuge, like a tempest-tost vessel, and became safely moored in the harbor of the republic? Do you bring the charter into the federal constitution with you? No, sir; the people of the State of Rhode Island adopted, in solemn convention assembled, the federal constitution- the vital, elementary principle of civil liberty. It was recognized by all parties. Without this, the state could not have become a member of the Union, because the constitution requires that this shall be done. This was not the work of a party; it was effected by the fathers of the revolution, who laid down the fundamental law of civil liberty men whose veins were drained of their lifeblood in procuring that independence and the enjoyment of that civil liberty for their descendants. What did that convention do? They declared "that there are certain natural rights of which men, when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety; "" that all power is naturally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates, therefore, are their trustees and agents, and at all times amenable to them;" "that the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness." Never was there a declaration stronger or more comprehensive than this, made by the sovereign people of the State of Rhode Island. Well, sir, what have they subsequently done? Why, as soon as they got snugly established as a part of the Union, the Governor and Company of the province effected the resumption of the sovereignty, because there was not popular power enough around them to resist. They resumed the sovereignty, meting out to the people as much right and as much wrong as those sovereign legislators thought proper to mete out. Instead of having their own duties prescribed to them, they assumed the right to prescribe to the people their lords and masters-how much liberty they should enjoy. Sir, the president of the United States, it seems, is now called upon to sustain this charter of a British monarch. John Tyler is called on to act as Charles II. of England would have done in enforcing this charter by force of arms. Who ever before heard of an appeal to an American president to support British authority? And I say again, if he has the right to call in the aid of an armed force to sustain that authority, the independence of this country does not exist. Such a proceeding might be tolerated in Canada; but, in relation to one of the states of this Union, the supposition is as ridiculous as it is odious. The president declares that he feels himself bound, and that it is his duty, to employ an armed force, if it becomes necessary, in order to enforce obedience to this usurpation, which has been for half a century in existence in Rhode Island; he will march an armed force of American citizens into that state, in martial array, to shoot down the people, in order to sustain that charter, which it was the main object of the revolution to destroy. Let him try it! let him try it! The president is a man, and but a man; he is an officer of the government, and but an officer. The power which constitutes the president rests neither with this body nor its friends; it possesses a moral force which is superior to either. Let the president undertake to march an army into Rhode Island, to put down the liberties of the people at the point of the bayonet, and he will have done a deed of which his posterity will be ashamed of which the nation will be ashamed. But, though he threatens to do it, and stands officially pledged to do it, I tell him (as I have told him face to face) that the American people will not permit him to do it. Here is what will test the question, [holding up a placard.] This I look upon as the first Hash of indignation from the enraged brow of an angry people; and I warn the president to take notice of the lightning's flash, as being the forerunner of a storm that will cover him with deep disgrace. Yes, sir, this is a government of principle, sustained by the sense of the people; and the man who rashly undertakes to put down popular liberty in this country will meet with signal discomfiture. In connection with my honorable colleague, I have the honor of representing one of the great and glorious states of this Union; and, sir, I can assure you that I speak the feelings of the great body of the people, acting only under the promptings of a bold and heroic magnanimity, when I say that they would be roused that they would rally as one man in defence of our glorious liberties, whether invaded by foreign or domestic foes. I now offer a resolution, which will test the sense of this body upon the vitality of our whole system. I have introduced into it nothing but what has been prompted by a natural impulse of patriotism—nothing but will be responded to by the whole body of my countrymen. Had the Senate acted upon the resolution. when it was first offered, the president would have retracted; he would not now have stood pledged; the government of the people would have gone on; the rights of all would have been protected by the votes of all. 23 CHAPTER XVII. PROPOSITIONS FOR THE RELEASE OF MR. DORR ON CON DITION THAT HE WILL ENGAGE TO SUPPORT THE EXISTING CONSTITUTION. HE REFUSES, AND IS AFTER THE leaders of the "law and order " party in Rhode Island have made repeated efforts to justify themselves in view of the people of the sister states, and various printed documents have been extensively circulated for that purpose; and it is obvious that many of the errors and mistakes that are found abroad with regard to this matter have arisen from such sources. It has been said that Mr. Dorr would not have been sent to the state prison even after sentence if he had consented to take an oath. The circumstances upon which that report is founded are simply these: During the trial and conviction of Mr. Dorr, disinterested men of all parties, at home and abroad, regarded the proceedings as extremely unjust; and before he was removed to the state prison, his persecutors heard with concern the loud murmurs which arose against them from all quarters. They wished to screen themselves from the threatening indignation, and therefore devised the following scheme: |