were subject to military duty. This large number of persons, paying their full share of taxes, and bearing the heaviest burdens of the State, were deprived of all voice in the control of the government which imposed those burdens upon them. They, with the residue of their fellow citizens who were denied an enjoyment of the right of suffrage, constituting three fifths of the white adult male inhabitants of the State, had no more voice in the Government of the United States than so many slaves, who are represented by their owners. They paid their due proportion of the taxes of the Genderal Government, and were subject at all times to be called upon to peril their lives in battle for its defence; and yet, in consequence of their unjust disfranchisement by the charter government of Rhode Island, they were excluded from all voice in the Government of the Union. This glaring and intolerable injustice was one of the grievances of which the people of Rhode Island complained.

3. By the laws of the charter government, no citizen, unless he was the owner of a freehold, could commence a suit in a court of justice, for the recovery of a debt, or to obtain redress for a personal injury, without first procuring a freeholder to endorse or sign his writ. Thus was he depend ent on the arbitrary will of a freeholder for the privilege of seeking justice in a court of law. Such a disability was not only an injustice, but it was a stigma attached to his person, which could not fail to degrade him in his own estimation, as well as in that of the privileged freeholder, of whom he was compelled to crave the boon of being permitted to use his name in pursuing his rights in a court of justice.

4. The disfranchised citizen of Rhode Island was also deprived, through the operation of its laws, from the privilege granted by the constitution of the United States, to be tried by his peers, because freeholders only were allowed to serve on juries.

5. The people of Rhode Island also complained of the great inequality of representation, by which, as hereinbefore shown, a small minority of the people controlled the political power of the State.

6. Another cause of complaint was the gross frauds perpetrated under the freehold system of voting, by which, in the manufacturing villages, freeholds were expressly created for the purpose of multiplying votes; the grantor always retaining control of the land granted for such fraudulent purposes, as well as power over the voter who had been made such by the flagitious operation. For the manner in which the fraud was perpetrated, reference is made to the testimony of Aaron White, jr. (Appendix No. 20.) 7. But the grievance complained of as much as any other, was, that the government of the State was based on the charter of Charles II, which invested the legislature with unlimited power, making it despotic and su preme. The people were, in fact, without a written constitution created by their sovereign will, and existing by their consent.

Such were the prominent causes of grievance on the part of the people of Rhode Island which moved them to adopt, by the exercise of their own sovereign power, without the consent of the existing government of the State, a written constitution in place of the charter, and to organize and establish a government under it, and in conformity to its provisions. The people, however, did not resort to their ultimate sovereign right to change, alter, and reform the government existing over them, without repeated efforts to induce that Government to consent to, and provide for, a change;

all which efforts were unavailing, as is abundantly proved by the following facts, established by the contemporaneous history of the times.

Efforts to procure the establishment of a written constitution, and an extension of suffrage.

The new relations of the people to the Government, produced by the Rev. olution and final independence of the colonies, induced many patriotic citizens in the State of Rhode Island, at an early period after that event took place, earnestly to desire the abrogation of the old royal charter, and the adoption of a written constitution, republican in form, which would conform to the principles of the Revolution and the spirit of the age. And hence, as early as 1797 an effort was made to establish a republican constitution, and to extend suffrage. And the principle on which this movement was avowedly advocated, was the great American doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of the people proclaimed in the declaration of independence, and vindicated by the toils, sacrifices, and blood of the Revolution. (See ap pendix No. 18.)

In 1811 another attempt was made to secure an extension of the right of suffrage. A bill for that purpose passed the Senate, but was laid upon the table in the House of Representatives; and thus the attempt failed. (See Mr. Sayles's testimony, appendix No. 13.)

In 1820 the subject of an extension of suffrage, connected with a more equal division of power, was again agitated, and a convention assembled in Providence to consider the subject. But this attempt, like those preceding it, failed of any beneficial results. (See appendix, No. 19.)

In 1824 a fourth attempt was made to procure the adoption of a written constitution, an extension of suffrage, and an equalization of representa. tion. The General Assembly called a convention for the purpose, limiting the choice of delegates to the same to the freemen alone. (See act of the General Assembly passed at the January session 1824, appendix No. 150.)

The convention assembled and framed a constitution, which was submitted to the freemen, (landholders and their eldest sons,) and by them rejected. The extension of suffrage, however, met with no favor in the convention which framed this constitution, a proposition to that effect receiving but three votes in its favor.

Another and fifth attempt to procure the establishment of a written constitution, and an extension of suffrage, was made in 1829, by a respectful petition numerously and respectably signed by citizens of the State of Rhode Island, addressed to the Legislature of the State. The subject was referred to a committee, and an elaborate report made through one of its members (Benjamin Hazard) against the further extension of suffrage. The report referred to, which is appended to this report, advances doctrines directly at war with republican principles, and the American theory of human rights. (See exhibit B among the papers in the case of Martin Luther, appendix No. 79.)

In 1832 another attempt was made to procure an extension of the enjoy. ment of the right of suffrage, but without success. (See message of Governor Dorr, appendix No. 213, and testimony of W. B. Sayles.)

In 1834 a seventh and last attempt to procure the adoption of a republican constitution, and an extension of the right of suffrage, through the charter Legislature, was made; which resulted in the call of a convention, the delegates to which were elected by landholders and their eldest sons.

The act calling the convention also provided that the constitution which it might frame should be submitted to the freemen for its adoption; thus excluding a great majority of the adult male citizens of the State from all voice in its framing or adoption. (See act of the General Assembly, June session 1834, appendix No. 151.)

A convention was elected and assembled in pursuance of the provisions of this act, but finally broke up for want of a quorum; and thus was nothing accomplished by this movement. A proposition made in this convention, to extend the enjoyment of the right of suffrage, received but seven

voles.

Thus it appears that, from 1797 to the movement of the people in 1841, repeated efforts had been made by the advocates of free suffrage to procure of the charter legislature an extension of the basis of suffrage, and an equalization of representation; but they were made in vain. Every effort was thwarted and defeated by the inexorable minority who had the exclusive possession of the government of the State. After such patient but persevering attempts to procure an acknowledgment of their just rights from the oligarchy into whose hands the political power of the State had fallen, without success, what recourse or alternative was there left to the people, but to resort to their original, inherent, and inalienable right of sovereignty, which is admitted by the American theory of government to be supreme over all laws and all political organizations? There was no other alternative left to them, but a resort to their ultimate right of sovereignty; and the people resolved upon exercising it.

Necessity of the people's acting independent of, and without the consent of, the charter government.

The question then occurred, How shall it be done? There was no provision in the charter pointing out the mode by which they could proceed in changing it, or in forming and adopting a constitution. And the existing authorities of the State refused to provide by law for the change in the form of government which the people had resolved to make. The people, therefore, had no other mode in which to proceed in the great work which they had resolved upon, but by acting independently, and without the consent of the existing authorities, in the exercise of their sovereign power; and upon this course they deliberately resolved.

HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ADOPTION OF THE PEOPLE'S CONSTITU. TION, AND THEIR ACTION IN REFERENCE TO THE LANDHOLDERS' CONSTITUTION, AND ALSO TO THE EXISTING CONSTITUTION.

It is proper here to remark, that during the period commencing with the suffrage movement, in 1840, and ending with the establishment by the charter government of the existing constitution, three constitutions were framed and proposed to the people of Rhode Island for their adoption, viz: the people's constitution, the landholder's constitution, and the constitution now in fact existing in that State. A brief history of the action of the people, in reference to all of the three constitutions above named, will be now given; after which, the committee will proceed to consider

1st. The question whether or not the people's constitution was, in fact,

adopted by a majority of the adult male citizens of the State of Rhode Island, entitled to vote under its provisions.

2d. The right of the people to change, alter, and reform existing systems of government; in connexion with which question, the right of suffrage will be considered.

3d. The suppression of the people's constitution, and the government es. tablished under it, through the intervention of the President of the United States, with the military power of the Union.

4th. The power and duty of the Congress of the United States to act in relation to the prayer of the memorialists.

5th. The acts of the charter government, complained of by the memorialists, by which the people of Rhode Island were prevented, under severe pains, penalties, and perils, from taking any action by which they could test the correctness of their proceedings, in the Congress or in the judicial tribunals of the United States.

The committee will now briefly give the prominent facts connected with the history of the adoption of the people's constitution.

Adoption of the people's constitution.

The first movement in favor of the adoption of the constitution before mentioned was in the autumn of 1840, and resulted in the formation of a suffrage association in the city of Providence, which was followed by the organization of similar associations throughout the State of Rhode Island. These associations were formed with a view to give concentration and energy to the suffrage movement. They were followed by a mass meeting of the friends of suffrage, which convened in Providence on the 17th day of April, 1841, and which was numerously attended. This meeting was followed by another mass meeting, which was held at Newport on the 5th day of May, 1841. At this meeting, resolutions were adopted setting forth the principles of the suffrage movement, avowing its entire disconnexion with the existing political parties of the day, and appointing a State committee of eleven persons to superintend the affairs of the suffrage cause.-(See exhibit F, in the case of Martin Luther, appendix No. 83.) This last mentioned meeting adjourned to meet in the city of Providence on the 5th day of July following; prior to which time (viz on the 11th day of June, 1841) the State suffrage committee is sued an address, setting forth the grounds and principles which constituted the basis of the action of the suffrage party, and recommending the calling of a convention to frame a constitution.-(See exhibit J b, in Luther's case, appendix No. 87.)

The next event in the history of this movement of the people, with a view to the adoption of a constitution, was the holding of the mass meeting adjourned from Newport to Providence on the 5th day of July, which was attended by a large concourse of people from all portions of the State, and at which resolutions were passed, and other proceedings had, expressive of the inflexible determination of those present to establish, by a resort to their inherent sovereign power, a republican constitution and govern. ment. (See exhibit G, in Luther's case, appendix No. 84.)

The next step was the issuing of an address by the State committee, dated on the 24th day of July, 1841, calling upon the people to meet in their several towns and places on the 8th day of August then next, and choose dele

gates to a convention to be held on the first Monday in October ensuing, for the purpose of framing a constitution to be submitted to the people of the State of Rhode Island for their adoption or rejection. The address also prescribed the qualifications of the electors who were to vote in the election of delegates to the proposed convention, the manner in which the election was to be conducted, and the number of delegates to which each town was entitled. (See exhibit J a, in Luther's case, appendix No. 86.)

In accordance with this call, delegates were duly elected in the several towns and places in the State, with very few exceptions; and, on the first Monday in October, the convention assembled and proceeded in the business for which it was called. It sat during the remainder of the month of October, and a part of November, during which time it framed a constitution, and adjourned to the 16th day of November; at which time the convention re-assembled, made some slight alterations in the instrument, published it on the 18th, and directed it to be submitted to the people, for their adoption. or rejection, on the 27th day of December, to be voted for, as therein prescribed, on that and the five succeeding days. The convention then adjourned, to meet again on the 12th day of January, 1842.

Every person voting on the question of the adoption or rejection of this constitution, was required to be an American citizen of the age of twentyone years, and was required to have his permanent residence, or home, in the State of Rhode Island. He was required to vote by a written or printed ballot, with his name written upon the face of it, and which was in the words following: "I am an American citizen of the age of twenty-one years, and have my permanent residence, or home, in this State. I am (or not) qualified to vote under the existing laws of this State. I vote for (or against) the constitution formed by the convention of the people, assembled at Providence, and which was proposed to the people, by said convention, on the 18th day of November, 1841." (See a true copy of the vote in favor of the people's constitution given by William Sprague,* late a Senator of the United States from Rhode Island, and now opposed to the constitution for which he voted-appendix, No. 75.)

The constitution also required that meetings of the citizens entitled to vote under it, should be held for the purpose of its adoption or rejection, in the several towns of the State, and wards of the city of Providence; at which meetings moderators and clerks were to be chosen, who were to preside over and direct the business of said meetings.

It also provided that on the three first days prescribed for receiving the votes of the people, the citizens should deposite their ballots in person; and, on the last three, in accordance with an ancient law of the colony, by proxy.. (See appendix No. 143.) The proxy ballot was in the same form as the ballot which was required to be given in person, with the addition of the name of the person by whom it was received and deposited in the ballot-box, which was endorsed on the back thereof as a witness. (See exhibit K, in Luther's case, appendix No. 88.)

The proposed constitution also required the moderators and clerks to receive, and carefully to keep, the votes of all persons qualified to vote under its provisions, and to make registers of all the persons voting; which, together with the tickets given in by the voters, were required to be sealed up,

The Hon. Mr. Sprague, as did many others who voted for the people's constitution, afterwards turned his back upon it, and gave his assistance and his influence to the charter authori ties, to suppress it.