Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1848-02-18
TIE RHODE ISLAND QUESTION.
MIR. WEBSTER'S SPEECH

Mr.. WEBSTER said there was something novel
and extraordinary in the case now before the
Court. 1t is not such one as is usually pre-
scented, all will admit, for judicial consideration.
1t is well known that in the years 1871 and
1912 political agitation existed in Rhode Island
Some of the citizens undertook to form a new
constitution of government, beginning their pro-
edings toward that end by meetings of the
people, held without authority of law, and con-
Quoting those proceedings through such forms
as led them in 1912 TO say they had established
a constitution and form of government. The
previously existing, and then existing, govern
ment of Rhode Island treated these proceedings
as nugatory, so far as they went to establish a
new constitution, and as criminal so far as they
proposed to confer authority upon any persons
TO interfere with acts of the existing govern
ment.
All will remember that the state of things ap-
preached. if not actual conflict between men in
arms, at least the "perous edge of battle"
Arms were rcsortcd to, force was used and
greater force threatened.
In June 1872 this agitation subsidized. The
new government. as is called itself, disappeared
from the scene of action. The former govern
ment, the charter government. as it was some
times styled, rcassumed undisputed control, went
on in its ordinary course and the peace Of the
state was Restored
But the past had been too serious to be forgot
ten.--The Legislature of the state had. at an carly
stage of the troubcs, found it necessary to pass
special laws for the punishment Of the persons
ned ia TIC { iU.rt dina> IL define i the
crime of treason; as we'll as smaller offences,
and declared martial law. Gov. King proclaim;.
ed the existence of treason and rebellion in the
state, and declared the state under martial law:
This having been done, and the ephemerti
government of Mr.. Dorr having disappeared
the grand jures of the state found indictments
against several persons for having disturbed the
peace of the state and one against Dorr for trea-
son. The indictment against Dorr came on in
| the Supreme Court of Rhode Island. in 1874.
before tribunal admitted on all hands to be the
| legal judicature OF the state. lie was tried by
Jury of Rhode Island, above all objection, and
after all challenge. By that jury, under the in
siructons of the Court, he was convicted of troa-
son and sentenced to imprisonment forliie.
Now an action is brought in Courts of the L.
S. and before your honors by appeal. i'll which it
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 MIR. Dorr, in
stead of beng traitor or an insurreC,ionis, was
the real Governor of the state at the time that
the force used ey him was exercised in defence
of the constitution and laws and not against
them that he who opposed the constituted au-
thorites was not Mr. Dorr, but Gov King: and
that it was he who should have been indicted
and tried. This is rather an important mistake,
to be sure, if it be one. "Changc places" says
poor Lear, and, handy handy. which is the Justice,
and which the thiei!' So do our learned op.
poncnis say to us change places, and, haniy
haHdy. which is the Governor and which the
rebel ~
The aspect of the case, therefore, is, as have
said, novel. 1t may perhaps give vivacity and
variety TO judicial Investigations. 1t may re-
lieve the drudgery of peruslng briefs, demurrers
and pleas in bar, bills in equity and answers, and
introduce topics which give sprightliness and
freshness and novelty to courts OF law.
However impossible it may be, and suppose
it wholly impossible, that you should take Judi
cial cognizance of the questions which the plain
tiff ha, presented to the Court below, do not
think it matter of regret that the cause has
come hither. 1t is said, and truly said, that the
sac aYe YES the consideration and in
our American system OF public liberty. This is
very right The case does involve these ques-
tons, and harm can never come from thei. dis.
cusSion, especially when snch discussion is adj
dressed to reason and not to passon,-when it is
had before magistrates and lawyers, and not be.
fore excited masses out of doors. agree en-,
tirely that the case does raise considerations
somewhat extensive, of the true character of oul
American system of popular liberty; and al.
though am constrained to differ from the learn.
ed counsel who opened the cause for the plaintiff
in error, on the principl and character Of thai
American liberty,-upon the characteristics o.
that American system on which changes of the
government and constitution, if they become ne
cessary, are to be made, yet agree with hin
that this case does present them for consdcra
ton.
Now there are certain principles Of public lib
erty which, though they do not exist in al
forms of government, exist nevertheless to some
extent in different ,orms OF government The
protection Of lie and property, haboas corpus
trial by jury, the right of open trlal,-thcsc arr
principl OF public liberty existing in their hes
form in the republican institutions of this coun
try, but to the extent mentioned, existing in the
constitution of England. Our American liberty
allow me to say, therefore, has an ancestry, 8
: pedigree, a history. Our ancestors brought tC
n this country all that was valuable, in their judy
d ment, in the political institutions of England
and left behind them all that was without value
or that was Objectionable. During the colonia
period our ancestors were closely connected
with the colonial system; but they were En-
ellshmen as well as colonists, and took an in
'erest IN whatever concerned the mother country
: especially in all great questions of public Aberi,
III .hat country, Therefore they took an interes
IN The revolution Of 1858. The American col