in prison, on charges of treason and other crimes; many were in forcible. exile, and a inajority were writhing under the degradation of military conquest. The fact is, therefore, that the existing constitution of the State was actually framed and adopted under the menace and duress of martial law and military force. And yet, in the face of this pregnant and pointed fact, the President coolly asserts to the House and the country, that this "great American experiment of a change of government" was accomplished "under the influence of opinion, and not of force !"

The committee submit to the House and the country to compare the facts with the President's assertion, and to draw the inference.

THE POWER OF CONGRESS IN RESPECT TO THE MATTER OF THE MEMORIAL.

The committee now proceed to consider, briefly, the power and the duty of the Government of the United States in reference to the matters presented to the consideration of the House by the memorialists. In addition to the inquiry into the allegations of fact in their memorial, they pray Congress to execute the guaranty of the United States to the people of Rhode Is land, by reinstating their constitution, which was suppressed by the charter anthorities, illegitimately holding power, assisted by the Executive of the United States with the military power of the Union. All the power which Cougress possesses over the subject-matter of the memorial is derived from the fourth section of the fourth article of the constitution, which has been before cited. That provision of the constitution guaranties to each State "a Tepublican form of government," and stipulates "to protect each of them against invasion; and, on the application of the Legislature, or of the Executive, when the Legislature cannot be convened, against domestic violence. This provision of the constitution vests in the Congress of the United States a supervision over all the State constitutions; so far as the ascertainment of their republican character is concerned. And when those constitutions do not provide for a republican form of government-which, in addition to an outward popular organization, the committee understand to be one which exists in the consent of the people, and over which they have Control-it is the duty of Congress to set it aside, and to recognise and enforce one which possesses this republican character. This act of supervision implies the prior action of the people, or of a party assuming to be the people, of a State. And further than the exercise of this supervision, the committee contend that Congress has no power and cannot go. Congress cannot prescribe to the people of a State the details of their constitution, if none of its provisions conflict with a republican form. It cannot dictate to the people as to whom shall be confided the political power of the State. The people, as herein before defined-who do not, in the opinion of the committee, include slaves, nor persons under pupilage or guardianship, nor aliens, or insane persons, nor paupers, who contribute nothing to the effective means of the community, nor persons who have forfeited the confidence of the community by crimes against its rights,-the people, thus defined, have preme, unlimited control over their constitutions. The majority may Jake such distribution of political power in their constitutions as they may ink proper. They may limit and restrict it as they please, provided it is the will of the majority, and provided the power is at all times reserved to the people as before defined, (to include every free male citizen, with the

exceptions above stated,) to alter, reform, or abolish the existing govern. ment, in manner and form as they shall deem most expedient.

The committee also are of the opinion that the Government of the Union is bound, at all times, to take notice of this sovereign act of the people, whenever it is done, and to protect the people in the exercise of it. Congress is bound to pass laws, if none now exist, (which the committee believe to be the fact,) to protect the people of the several States in the enjoyment and exercise of their sovereign powers. If this were done, and if these were the doctrines entertained by the authorities of the Union, no change of government by the people of a State would lead to bloodshed and civil war. Such changes would be made with as little excitement as occurs at an ordinary election. Each party would know that the validity of the act by which the change was effected would be tested by a superior tribunal, governed and controlled in its action by the supreme law of their common country; and they would await its decision-with anxiety, to be sure, but in tranquillity and peace. Then, indeed, would be exhibited the sublime spectacle of "the great American experiment of a change in government, under the influence of opinion, and not of force." It would not be effected by a resort to the bloody right of revolution, which is the common right of the serfs and vassals of every despot in every land and clime; but it would be brought about by the peaceful operation of the great principle which lies at the foundation of all the American institutions of government—THE SOV

EREIGNTY AND SUPREMACY OF THE PEOPLE.

Congress is as imperatively bound by the provision of the constitution before referred to, to protect the States from invasion and domestic insurrection and violence, as it is to guaranty to them republican forms of gov ernment. But those insurrections must, of course, be against governments rightfully existing, by the will and consent of the people, and not by usurpation, against their will. The people, in attempting to put down such governments, cannot be rebels and insurrectionists. On the contrary, they are entitled to the aid and succor of the General Government in such

an act.

In respect to the guaranty claimed by the memorialists for the people's constitution and government, the committee have before remarked, that, on the first election under the existing constitution of Rhode Island, an undoubted majority of the people did register their names and give their suffrages according to its provisions. Whether that act was equivalent to an abrogation of the people's constitution, and a ratification of the present constitution of the State, the committee, as they have before remarked, will not undertake to decide. And for the purpose of producing unanimity, as much as possible, in the opinion of the House, they do not propose any further action in reference to the subject, than to declare, by resolution, that, until the people's constitution was thus abrogated, the acts of the government established under it were rightful, and entitled to full faith, credit, and authority.

And the committee would here respectfully suggest to the House the propriety of some legislation by Congress, with a view to meet emergencies like that which has occurred in the State of Rhode Island. The action of the Executive in that emergency, by which the will of the people of that State was suppressed, and the people themselves conquered and degraded. clearly demonstrates the necessity of such legislation, in order to prevent that arm of the General Government which is first applied to in such

cases, from becoming the arbiter of the people in questions affecting the exercise of their sovereign power, and the "CONSTITUTION-MAKER" of the States.

TYRANNY AND DESPOTISM OF THE CHARTER AUTHORITIES.

The committee will now pass to the consideration of the conduct of the charter authorities in reference to the people of Rhode Island, with a view to prevent them from adopting a constitution, and organizing a government under it; together with such other acts of tyranny and outrage, in the name and under the forms of law, perpetrated by the charter authorities and their adherents, against the advocates and supporters of the people's constitution and government, during the late unhappy disturbances in that State. And, first, the legal expedients resorted to, to prevent the people from adopting y their constitution, and organizing their government, will be noticed.

Coercion of the people by penal enactments.

The charter assembly, at its session in March, 1842, with a view, and for the express and avowed object, of preventing the people from proceeding to the election of a governor and other State officers, and a legislature, according to the provisions of their constitution, passed an act entitled "An act in relation to offences against the sovereign power of the State," more generally known afterwards in the political vocabulary of the State as the "Algerine act." (See appendix, No. 2.) The first section of this act, after declaring all" town, ward, or other meetings," for the election of any "town, ward, city, or State officer or officers," not held according to the laws of the charter government, illegal and void, proceeded to enact that "any person or persons who shall act as moderator or moderators, warden or wardens, clerk or clerks," in such meeting declared to be illegal, "or in any name or manner receive, record, or certify votes" for any officers at such meetings declared to be illegal, "shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and be punished, by indictment, with a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, nor less than five hundred dollars, and be imprisoned for the term of six months."

The second section enacts, that any person or persons who shall "signify that he or they will accept" any office by virtue of such elections declared by the act to be illegal, or shall "knowingly suffer or permit his or their name or names to be used as a candidate or candidates" for any office at such election, shall be adjudged guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor, and be punished, by indictment, in a fine of two thousand dollars, and be imprisoned for the term of one year."

The third section, in substance, enacts that any person who shall "assume to exercise" any office "under any pretended constitution of government for this State, or otherwise," within the territorial limits of said State, or "shall assemble for the purpose of exercising any such functions," every such exercise of, or meeting for the purpose of exercising any of said functions "shall be deemed and taken to be an usurpation of the sovereign power of this State, and is hereby declared to be treason against the State, and shall be punished by imprisonment during life."

The fourth section of the act provides that "all indictments under this act, and all indictments for treason against this State, may be preferred and

found in any county of this State, without regard to the county in which the offence was committed." The same section authorizes the supreme court to remove any indictment for trial to any county in the State.

Such, in substance, are the provisions of the celebrated act in relation to offences against the "sovereign power" of the State. The whole of it was aimed at the people's constitution, and was intended to prevent the election and organization of a government under it. The first section was designed to deter the people from electing the officers necessary for the organization of their government; and with that view, it was declared to be a misdemeanor to officiate as moderator or clerk at such meeting, under a penalty of $1,000, and imprisonment for the term of six months. The second section was designed to prevent the people from having any candidates; and to intimidate such persons as were inclined to act as candidates, it was declared to be a "high crime and misdemeanor" if they "signified" that they would accept an office to which they might be elected, or if they knowingly "suffered or permitted" themselves to be candidates; and the offender subjected himself to a penalty of $2,000, and imprisonment for the term of one year. The third section declares the exercise of the functions of any office, or meeting for that purpose, (which was thus forbidden,) to be "treason" against the State, which subjected the offender to imprisonment for life! The fourth section committed an atrocious violation of every principle of justice, by authorizing a partisan court (since proved to be-see Charge of Judge Durfee, appendix No. 212) to transfer the accused from the county in which the alleged offence was committed, to some other county, for trial, (perhaps among his enemies,) in which his conviction would be rendered more certain. Such a provision is in direct conflict with the sixth amendment of the constitution of the United States, which secures to the accused an impartial trial by a jury of his peers in the county or district in which the offence shall have been committed. Such a provision in regard to the trial of the accused would not, in this age, be permitted to disgrace the legislation of any civilized and enlightened European Government which professes to be free. In all its provisions, it is equally obnoxious, derogatory to the rights of the people, and disreputable to the State and the age. seems to have been reserved for the legislators of Rhode Island to discover that "signifying" to accept an office, or "permitting" one's name to be used as a candidate, was a high crime and misdemeanor;" or that, assuming to exercise the functions of such office was "treason against the State." When were such acts before denounced as crimes in any free country? When, before, were men accused of high crimes, permitted to be transported from the county in which the crime was committed, to another, for trial, in order to insure conviction? The venue is often permitted to be changed when the accused cannot have a fair trial in the county in which the offence was committed, but never to render his conviction more certain. The change of venue is permitted as an act of humanity to the accused, to secure to him a just and impartial trial, and not to enable the government to wreak its vengeance with more sure and certain success. Such vindictive tyranny is worthy only of the age of the Stuarts and their judicial instrument, the infamous Jeffries; and would now be scouted for its abominable injustice and tyranny, even in England.

The recent trial and conviction of Thomas W. Dorr, who officiated as governor under the people's constitution, for the alleged offence of treason, furnishes a conclusive illustration of the tender mercies of the act under con

they

no

sideration. His alleged offence was committed in the county of Providence; in which county, the people's constitution had most friends and supporters. He was transported to the county of Newport for trial, where he had the most political enemies. After several days wasted in empannelling a jury, there being over 100 summoned, a jury was at length packed, being every man of them his political enemies; and he was passed through the forms of a trial, and convicted, as every man knew he would be, under such a farcical, if not disgraceful proceeding, in the name of justice.

The committee rejoice that such a law, and such an administration of it, have never soiled the character of any State in the Union-except Rhode Island. They believe it to be violative (in two of its features, at least) of the constitution of the United States. Its definition of treason is a violation of that provision of the constitution which declares that treason shall consist in "levying war against the United States, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Its provision authorizing the transfer of persons accused of crimes from the county in which the offence was committed, to another county, for trial, with the obvious purpose of enabling the government the more readily to convict them, is, as has been before remarked, in violation of the constitution of the United States, which provides that the accused shall be tried in the district in which the offence shall have been committed, and which has been previously ascertained by law.

The whole aim and object of this act was to prevent the people of Rhode Island from organizing a government under the constitution adopted by them; and if they should persist, to enable the charter government, if successful in the contest, to wreak its vengeance upon those who dared to advo cate and defend that constitution and government. The people, however, treated the act with the scorn and contempt which it merited, and proceeded to elect the officers provided by their constitution, and to organize their government. They, also, through their legislature thus elected, repealed the odious law, the provisions of which have been recited, and set it aside as one of those execrable acts of a despotic power which deserve the decisive condemnation of freemen. And if it had not been for the unauthorized and censurable interference of the Executive of the United States with the military power of the Union, on behalf of the charter government, the defunct power of the odious statute under consideration would have never , been revived, and the State of Rhode Island would not have attained that pre-eminent distinction for vindictive and relentless political proscription which it now enjoys, and which exceeds in its ruthless vengeance the conduct of any modern civilized government pretending at all to regard the forms of liberty, equity, and justice.

The act above mentioned was passed before any election had occurred under the people's constitution, and before any government under it was organized. Its object was, as before remarked, to prevent such election and organization from taking effect. After their constitution and government were suppressed, the people of Rhode Island, as the memorialists allege, in order to bring the question in relation to their right to change their form of government before the House of Representatives of the United States, to be there considered and determined, proposed to elect members to the House, that the question might be raised by the competition for seats which would take place between the members elected under the people's constitution, and those elected under the existing constitution of the State. To prevent the people from resorting to this peaceful mode of testing the questions, both of