The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1836-1851, 1842-06-01
Froetfe Gf7ot', Hey -.
rII.. pIIAlnR IGi.ANn CNSE.


THE RHODE ISLAND CASE
It pives us the greatest pain to n0seSXe ;sG INC
fe,,,rtv with which Federalism in Rhode Island
cl;n1c' 70 ro;ve-, at the cxrensc o principle. KS
HI. S;.,Iso,.aam;.. the day before yesterday,
tho s' Cs,rtcr Darty, claiming 10 bcasthe Gorer!i
,nont framal constitution extending suffrage
as f,s os was desirable TO ;h2ir opponents; bVt
disabled the right this conferred, by doHy!aF to
that suffrare in one part Of The State ;Iio weigt
r;ven % 10 # in anotherpart This--takoA il co.,
,5ecton with the fact that the PLACES wiero vot"S
= were THUS gifted With sthis double cI'c:cHoy'
through the greater Representation they wee
empowered to send to Tho legislature, "2;2 ..'!a-
cisely the places in which Tie C'aTtc: Fn,riE
could command the eieciicHs-o:2Hcs> Is F:;,':i
that tic minority, assuming - r'2'o c2'&,',"I
ton for the majority, embodied ice ana cqi:'i
sufftaseEiu il, as mockery lndH "''Se' 'o'
while itwas Al acknowledgment. o: .c l''p .io,.
Scontended for by the bo!y of the, people tEny
wore insulted By denying 10 them 'hH advantage
y for which alone twas soaght Thcv were III,
,,taJ 70 particpa.o in the forms Of free and
oanal: suffaoe, but the acts ofthe maorhJ en-
orci.;nn this rirht were rendered abo:ti,e,
TRe labor of going thron.,.l an election would
under the constitute tend @:od by the charter,
answer no otter eaa but that of>cSh:htMg 'le
snectacle of minority voting down theSln2ior!-
tv at the pclls;sand presenting the most oo'o"S
ofall distinctions in a society-that OF men per-
,formino' tbe same duty as frcemcm, bat under
sncb conditions, as to subject the greater number
to weld, inthc results, the superiority to the III
IF the freenlsn of Rhode sIslanl, on'the, &C;
complishment Of the Revolution, had es'apllshcd
= constitution containing even this niqnltouS
feature, and had provided on the tace OF the m
strument for the mode of amendment, we shouia
hayesheld that thepeopleg were bound te submit
to the constitution asestabllshed, lntii lnou'ii.u
in the way agreed uponssby the community
,,r;o;no1lv crsatiYlp it. or until successful revolt
tioS had absolutely extrpated it, aud firmly es,
%tahl;sbed another, superseding it as an actual
TGovernment. We admit, that when Constltu-
tion contains within itself the power OF eEendl-
tion. being the paramount law OF the land-the
sovereiipn will or all the people-the- lcgltenate
form Of altering and changing i, isln cc":1ii.i'y
Iu;thits provisions.s Nomajority, irrespective o!
the Constitution can consttutional!y and legl;l-
mate]y rise UP and alteriand change IT; and Tor
. this simple reason, there is no relation between
> the maoritvand minority, excepting by the Con-
stitution q Independent OF any Pohtcal orgahi-
Ization, establishing fundamental laws OF govern,
ment, one man'coud have nosrIglt to control
another, nor the many constituting majority
the fewer, constituting amlnorlty. Each has Il
natural right to govern himself. But zWhen' by
arreement-by the free assent, express or I'M
nfied. fthe citizens OF commonwealth Tree
5;overnment is adopted then, within its powers,
amajority has right to rule; and ITS ac's are,
constitutionaly speaking, the acts of the mInorI-
fv. because in conformity to the fundamental law
ofall. And if, in this fundamental law, there is
a method prescribed Of changing or altering IL
then this is the only legitimate means OF accom-
plishing this end. But suppose there Is no pro-
vision Of altering or changing the constitutions
isitunchangeable! is Certainly not. 1iiiS power
not being bestowed or regulated' IS sui WIN
the whole people, and of necessity, must oe
under the control of the majority. Now live
,,rdorstand the state of affairs in Rhode Island
tb;s Is precisely the case There is no provI..
ION for altering or changing the fundamental
law. and therefore the majority possesses the
power. ,o
The charter granted by King Charles to the
Land Company of Rhode Island, (now lnsstca
upon as a constitutional contains no provision
authorizing those entitled to the privileges, and
, exertinp the powers conferred by it, to alter or
amend it. The Sovereign who granted that
charter reservedto himself all sovereign authori-
tv. The charter-which gave to the shaTehoid-
ers the lands, conferred by it the right to vote,
and elect governors, legislators, or managers oi
the common Concern-gaVe 10 thoSe sHaic"o!"-
ers no right to vote a new charter or new 20
yernment to themselves, independently oil the
Kings will The Revolution, which detifoned
the Kings sovereignty in Rhode Island, did not
set up that of TIE land owners in its stead, but
: it made the whole people sovereign and IEdercn-
dent; and they might, then, have used the ro%er
'exertedsin every other Statc-;Int of ESTABLISH
ing another form OF government, abo!lshIng tic
Charter Government If they did not choose 10
exert this right instantly can it be pretended that
the sovereign people forfeited the r;;ght conquer
ed from the King; and that it vested in Tic cor
porators, under the charter, to the exclusion OF
the other free citizens ofthe State, Who i1ugh;
the battle OF sovereignty and independence! We
think not.
If our conclusion be right, then those who
have welded the powers OF government under
the old charter (Which contains 10 provision au-
thorizing its corporators TO change or substitute
something else for iO cannot pretend to assert
the privilege of making constitution lor tho peo-
ple With the minority it must be a privilege II
they have it at all; for surely will not be con-
fenced that the minority have the natural r:ght
to make the fundamental laws ol society. Tie
minority claim this privilege in Rhode Island;
but whence do they derive il! II is not confer