New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1842-09-15
The Doc,rine. OF Dorrism-No. 2.


question from view Be it known, then, that there
is no controversy about the formation Of Com
Estitution in Rhode Island, procidtng cery lsb-
heral e.rtession Of tie Right Of Suffrage. On
this ali partes are agreed. Each party has formed
a Constitution, abolishins the Property qualica-
ton and extending the Right of Suffrage: the
Dorr party to all citizens of the Unien who have
been one wear residents of the State; the Govern
ment TO all native citizens who have been resi-
dents three years. To characterize them, there
fore, as the Free Suffrage party on one side and
! ,be I.andhoders or Charter on the other, Is
gross and wilful deception, yet one which the
Loco-F oco press habtually resorts to for the ac-
colnplshment Of the main purpose for which The
narty las embarked in this agita,ion--to wit,
the creating of popular impression that they are
The friends cf Free Suffrage and the Wings its
enemies The Government party not only formed
an essentially Free Constitution, but they sup
norted j, with all their force and would have
adopted it, but that the Dorr men rallied all their
forces and defeated it at the Polls by small me-
ior;1v-by the votes, toe of the very men to whom
i extended the Right of Saftage! By this in
tensely factous movement-intended to drive the
Government party back upon the old state OF
thing. and thus enable the agitators to keep up
the slang about King Charles's Charter they
clearly pronounced their own Constitution a farce
since this had before been adopted, and if valid,
rendered any farther action OF the old Govern
| ment OF no legal force. In voting down the legal
Constitution, the Dorrites therefore clearly repu-
dated their OWL
The objections made to the legal Constitution
were that it required man to reside too long in
the State before he became voter; that 1t did
not extend Suffrage equallyto Adopted and to Ma
tive Citizens and that it did not 2pportion the Rep
rotation of the State equally on the basis of its Pop
ula,ion. To all these the ready answer is, that
they could have been legally corrected at any time
the People chose, by simple resolution OF these
friendly to a change 20 vote for no Members of
Congress. State Officers, &c. who were not favor
able to such change. This would very soon bring
it about,-however averse rotten borough MAJOR
ity in the Legislature might be. In all this, we
assume the reality of the grievances complained Of
In most Of the States these similar exist or lave
existed, yet who has thought of the Dorr mode OF
abating them? In Virginia at this moment the
Suffrage is based on Property and the Representa-
ton mere unequal than that complained of in
Rhode Island. In North Carolina none but
freebooter may vote for Senator. In these States
Lece-F ocosm has the full legal power to establish
Equal Representation and Universal Suffrage
Why do not they claim its attention and its sym
pathies? There the work is easy without anarchy
or violence. So in Vermont the disparity of Rep
rcsentation is vastly greater than that complained
of in Rhode Islaad-a township with twenty vot-
ers having one Representative, while one with six
or nine hundred has no more. Here itoperates in
favor of the Loco. Focos, who are stronger in the
small towns than the large ones. Why do they
no, start revolution in Vermont? 1t is most OBJ
vous thar the evils complained Of in Rhode Island,
admitting their reality, could have been promptly
and surely corrected by adopting the legally form
ed Constitution and then taking the proper steps
to amend and change It. That Constitution more
than doubled the legal voscrs Of the State Why
not secure so much, including the power to take
more The answer is clear: The leaders in the
Dorr movement and their sympathisers abroad had
other and dearer objects than that of securing "a
Popular Constitution.
The document which the Dorrites proclaim to
be the righ,ful and subsisting Constitution Of
Rhode Island originated in wholly irresponsible
and irregular call of State Convention by men
who had never possessed political power; the
| Convention was chosen at an Election wholly un-
] authorized BY law and unattended, uncounteDanced
by any legal authority; it assembled without legal
authority, framed a Constitution without author
itv, submitted it TO the People of its own motion,
admitted every resident to VOTE held Elections to
ratfy it, and, when no more People would come
and vote for it sent round aud took their ballots.
In this way the authorities OF the State recog
aizug nor taking any part in the movement, 1t was
declared 10 be adopted by majority of the Peo-
ple-that is, of the male citizens over twenty-one
of Rhode Island, and as such proclaimed the
fundamental law of the State.
Now the first question which arises is not whe-
Their this is proper and suitable Constitution, but
Is IL a Constellation at all? Can the Govern,
ment of State be made or overturned in this
way? Ifis can, thentis most obvious that all Con-
situations, all Naturalization or Suffrage Laws, are
the merest farce and wastc-paper. We talk OF
our Constitutions securing 10 the People this, or
forbidding that, but we nigh, as well talk of the
West wind of this morning securing quick pas
sage to the vessel which sails for England or
China. Our City digutaries, especially our ex.
ceedingly Democratic Mayor, are wont to talk
loudly of the City Charter, to protest against as
serted nfiactions of it, and to claim and exercise