of all the voters has been preserved and has been open to investigation for fifty years. The opposition to the constitution claimed fraud, but no definite proof of illegal (?) voting has been found sufficient to vitiate the result. In January, 1842, the people's convention again met and declared that the constitution had been legally adopted, inasmuch as nearly fourteen thousand votes had been cast for it. The total number of males over twenty-one, by the census of 1840, was but a little over twenty-six thousand, and, even without deducting any from this number in order to omit those not naturalized, the insane, convicts, etc., the constitution seems to have received the votes of a majority of all the citizens. Nearly five thousand freemen had voted for the constitution, according to the face of the returns, a number more than half as large as had ever voted at a State election.

Propositions were at once made in the General Assembly to accept the constitution, to dissolve the constitutional convention, and to adjourn sine die. These motions were rejected by a vote of fifty-seven to eleven. The legislature also refused to investigate the vote on the constitution, claiming that the whole operation was illegal and void.

The landholders' convention met again in February, completed its labors, and referred its constitution to the people for adoption. By a vote of the General Assembly, all those citizens to whom the constitution would grant the suffrage were permitted to vote for or against the ratification. Three days in March were assigned for the vote. At this point the suffragists took the surprising step of voting, with the charter advocates and those opposed to any change, in opposition to the constitution. Nearly seventeen thousand votes were cast, and the constitution was defeated by a majority of six hundred and seventy-six.

It is difficult to determine how much influence the fact that the constitution was prepared by the landholders had upon the vote, but that it had much there can be no doubt. Many voted against it because they thought it implied a surrender of what they considered an invaluable right, namely, the sovereignty of the people over the government. The difference between the two constitutions was not great. The requirement of a two years' residence, instead of one, and a small property qualification for naturalized citizens were the two features of the landholders' constitution most severely criticised by the

suffragists.

The fact that nearly seventeen thousand votes were cast, about double the largest number ever given before, is a proof of a considerable extension of the suffrage. Yet the constitution was defeated and the suffragists practically said, "Our constitution or none."

The Rubicon was passed. Either the "law and order" party or the supporters of the people's constitution must quietly surrender or a civil war would ensue. The sequel is fairly well known. Two governments were elected, rival legislatures took their seats, Governors King and Dorr were both inaugurated, and a desperate struggle appeared imminent. Two months of intense excitement followed. Armed bodies attacked arsenals and threw up fortifications, the gar rison at Fort Adams was increased, and martial law was proclaimed by the charter authorities.

Before the end of June the people's government entirely collapsed, and Governor Dorr fled from the State for the third time. After his voluntary return, he was arrested, tried for treason, and condemned to imprisonment for life. He spent one year in confinement, and was then pardoned under a general amnesty act. Though the charter government was entirely victorious, nevertheless it yielded to the public sentiment, and even before the struggle was over, in June, 1842, called a new constitutional convention. This prepared an even more liberal constitution, which was ratified almost unanimously. Under this constitution of 1843 the State has continued without disturbance. In 1888 and 1893, amendments were passed, and the universal suffrage demanded in 1841 has been practically obtained.

In conclusion it may be legitimate to make a brief commentary in connection with the very condensed narrative which has been presented. The entire movement of the suffragists, from the call of the convention up to the election of the government under the people's constitution, was entirely revolutionary. The fact that the proceedings were peaceful up to the 1st of May, 1842, and that no attempt to use force had been made by either of the parties, does not diminish its illegitimacy.

The controversy was entirely unique in character, inasmuch as no agitation over the adoption of a constitution or of amendments to an existing constitution in any of the fortyfour States has resembled that of Rhode Island in its peculiar

features. The people, who had waited so long for an extension of the suffrage, had few precedents by which they might be guided. Even the constitution of Connecticut, which superseded the charter of King Charles, was framed by a convention legally summoned by the legislature. The revolutionary conventions that framed the constitutions of Pennsylvania and Delaware in 1789 and 1792, though called in disregard to the previous constitutional limitations, were nevertheless authorized by the legislative bodies of those two States. The only precedent that could be suggested besides those of the period of the American Revolution itself was that of Michigan, in 1836. Even here, however, in the change from a Territory to a State many questions were presented which rendered it very unlike the conditions in Rhode Island.

If we conceive that the movement in Rhode Island was revolutionary, then its failure stamped it as rebellion. If the circumstances in the State rendered a change from the aristo-, cratic to a democratic form of government impossible by legal means, then the revolution might have been justified. Later developments showed, however, that this was not the case, If the revolution had been upheld by the best judgment of the citizens, it might have presented an exceedingly important addition to the history of constitutional government.

Under some circumstances the wild revolutionary scheme of the suffragists might have succeeded. If the great majority of the people of Rhode Island had accepted the announcement of the vote on the people's constitution as an accurate statement of facts, and if the leaders of the movement had proceeded wisely in the establishment of the government which the new constitution created, and if the character of all the leaders had been such that the people could put real confidence in the wisdom of the movement, then the old charter might have given way to the more modern instrument. But all these possibilities failed to be realized, and the minute that it became apparent that the peaceful revolution must be followed by a condition of hostilities, into which the Federal Government might feel compelled to enter, the movement was doomed.

The right step for the suffragists to have taken in March, 1842, was to abandon their constitution and to hasten to ratify that which the landholders had prepared. The agitation would have then accomplished its legitimate result. In failing to take this step and in bringing about the defeat of that constitution H. Mis. 91-24

they made the serious mistake of the whole movement. The disastrous struggle which followed, together with the adoption of the second landholders' constitution, of November, 1842, may, perhaps, be said to have definitely furnished the precedent that "all lawful changes in government must be made by and with the consent of the constituted authorities," or, in the words of President Tyler, the existing government must be "altered and abolished and another substituted in its place only by legal and peaceable proceedings, adopted and pursued by the authorities and people of the State."

XXI.-PARTY STRUGGLES OVER THE FIRST PENNSYLVANIA

CONSTITUTION.

By SAMUEL B. HARDING.

In speaking of the violence manifested in Pennsylvania by the opponents of the Federal Constitution, Madison says, in one of his letters to Jefferson: "The cause of the inflammation, however, is much more in their State factions than in the system proposed by the convention." In this statement he gives the clew to the whole course of the contest in that State. The most superficial examination of the writings of those participating in it soon brings one face to face with this fact. Yet nowhere in the later writings about the Constitution, so far as the present writer is aware, is this fact taken sufficiently into account. Bancroft quotes this statement from Madison, but gives no elucidation of it; Curtis ignores the question; and Professor McMaster, despite his research in this field, by no means makes clear the relation of State to Federal politics in this connection. A brief account, therefore, of the party struggles in the State during and immediately following the Revolution, and the way in which these influenced the contest over the Federal Constitution, may not be without some general interest to students of American history.

At the beginning of the contest with Great Britain the control of affairs in Pennsylvania was still in the hands of the aristocratic element of the province, which centered in Philadelphia and the richer and more thickly settled counties adjacent thereto, and whose power politically was supported by the requirement of a £50 property qualification for the franchise. To the natural conservatism of this element, resulting from the possession of property and assured social position, there was added the conservatism springing from the religious

February 19, 1788: Madison's Writings, I, p. 377.