Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1848-03-22
FER. WEBSTER'S ARGUMENT
IN The D0rr or Rhode Island Case.

! ooAAi', IVA JuuiCidi CONSIDERATION.
Ii Is well known that i'm the wears 1871 and IS4o
political agitation existed i'm Rhode Island Some
OF the citizens undertook 70 form new constitution
OF government, beginning their proceedings towards
that end by meetings of the people, hold without
authority oflaw, and conducting those proceedings
through such forms as led them in 1912 to say they
mad established constitution and form of govern
men'. L he previously existing, and then existing
Government Of Rhode Island treated these proceed
lngs as nugaory, SO far they went to establish
new constitution, and criminal so far as they
proposed to confer authority upon any persons to
intertS1 with the acts Of the existing Government
! ,Asp0 y remember that the state of things APP
preached If not actual conic, between men in arms
NJ least iie 'perilous edge of battle" Arms were
resortesto, force nsed and greater force threat
! ened.
! In June, 1912, this agitation subsidized. The
new Government, as it called itself, disappeared
from the scene Of action. The former Government,
the Charter Government, as it was sometimes styl
ed, reassumed undsputed control, went on in its
ordinary course and the peace of the State was re-
stored
But the past had been too serious to be forgotten.
The Legislature Of the State had at an early stage
OF the troubles, found il necessary 10 pass special
laws for the punishment of the persons concerned
In these proceedings. 1t defined the crime of trea-
son as well as smaller Offences ard declared martial
law. Gov. King proclaimed tho existence Of trea-
son and rebellion in the State, and declared The
State under martial law.
This having been done and the ephemeral Gov
eminent of Mr. Dorr having disappeared the grand
jures of the State found indictments against seve-
raj persons for having disturbed the peace of the
State, and one against Dor, for treason The in
dictment against Dorr came on in tho Supreme
Court of Rhode Island in 1874, before a tribunal
admitted on all hands to be the legal udicaure of
the State. lie was tried by jury OF Rhode Is
land, above all objection, and after all challenge
BY that jury, under the instructions of tho court
he was convicted of treason and sentenced TO i'm
prsonnent for lite
Now action is brought in courts of the Uni
ted States and before your honors by appeal, in
which II Is attempted to prove that the characters
OF this drama have been oddly and wrongly cast
that there has been great mistake in the courts Of
Rhode Island. They say that Mr.. Dorr, instead
oil being traitor or an lnsHrreconist, was the real
Governor or the State at the time-tat the force
used by him was exercised in defence OF the con-
stltuton and laws and not against them that he
who opposed the constituted authorities not
MIR. DoTr, but Gov King and that it was he who
should have been indicted and tried This is ra-
ther an important mistake, TO be sure if it be one
"Change places" says poor Lear, land, handy
dandy, which is the justice and which tho thief''
90 do our learned opponents say to US, ''change
places, and handy dandy, which is the Governor
and which the rebel.'
The aspect Of the case, therefore, is as | have
said, novel. II may perhaps give vvacity and va
riety TO judicial Investigations. 1t may relieve the
drudgery of perusing briefs. demurrers and pleas in
bar, bills in equity and answers and introduce to-
pics which give sprightlneSs and freshness and no.
velty to courts Of law.
However impossible 1t may be, and suppose it
to be wholly impossible, that you should take Judi
cial cOgnizance of the questions which the plaintiff
has presented TO the court below, yet do not think
1t matter Of regret that the cause has come hither
Ii Yc-
consideration and discussion of wha. are the true
principles Of government in our American system
or public liberty. This is very right. The case
does involve these questions, and harm can
never come from their discussion, especially when
such discussion is addressed TO reason and not to
pasSion-when it is had before magistrates and
lawyers and not before excited masses out OF doors
| agree entirely that the case does raise considera-
tons, somewhat extensive, of the true character Of
our American system of popular liberty and al
though am constrained to differ from the learned
counsel who opered the cause for the plaintiff in
error the principles and character of that Amer
lean hberty-upon the characteristics of that Amer
lean system or which changes of the Government
and constitution, if they become necessary are to
be made, yet agree with him that this case does
present them for consideration.
Now there are certain principles of public liber-
ty which, though they do not exist in all forms of
government, exist nevertheless to some extent in
different forms of government. The protection of
life and property, the hGbeas corpus trial by jury,
the right of open trlal-these principles of pub
lie liberty existing in their best form in the repub-
lcan institutions Of this country, but to the extent
mentioned, existing in the constitution OF England
Dur American liberty, allow me to say, therefore
has an ancestry, a pedigree, history. Our ances-
tors brought to this continent all that was valuable
In their Judgment, in the political institutions OF
England, and left behind them all that was with
.D,tt ,.,1, tl,, ~ l.
colonial period our ancestors closely connect
ed with the colonial system but they were English
men as well as cUlOniSts, and took an interest in
whatever concerned the mother country, especially
in all great questions Of public liberty in that coun-
try Therefore they took an interest in the reyo.
luton of 1858. The American coonisis had suf
fired from the tyranny flames the Second. Their
charters mad been wrested from them by mockeres
Of law and by the corruption Of judges in the CITY
Of London, and in no part Of England was there
more qualification or moro TesOlute feeling wher
James abdcated aud William came over than thr
American colonies. All know that Massachusetts
immediately overthrow what had been done under
the reign of James, and took possession Of the colo
NAL fort in the name of the new King.
When the United States separated from Eng
land By the Declaration Of l77G. they departed
from the political maxims and examples Of the
mother country; and entered upon a course more
exclusively American. From that dav down oul
institutions and orr history relate TO ourselvcs.-
Through the period OF tile Declaration OF Indopen-
dence, of the Confederation, Of the Convention and
the adoption Of the Constitution all these are re-
cords out of which our system Of American liberty
is to be drawn.
From Ito Declaration of Independence, the go
oernment Of what had been colonies before were a
daped 10 their new condition. They no longer
held allegiance to crowned heads. No tie bound
them to England. The whole system became sn-
troly popular, and all legislative and constitutional
provisions had regard TO this new, political, Amer