Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1848-03-29
sYAUNYoN. < A. WEDNESDAY,, MARCH 90 s4s

wiii now give some references concerning the
new Constitution authorized by the Government
L he present Constitution was framed in Novem
per, 'S3E. IL was voted upon by the people on the
Elst, "a, and 23d days OF November, was then
accepted, and became by its own provisions the
Constitution Of Rhode island ON the first Tuesday
of May, lSi3
NOW what, In the meantime, had become Of Mr.
DORIS Government? According to their own prin-
ciPle tney say they forced to admit that il was
superseded by the new Government. because the
Pfepia had accepted the new Government Blu.
icy lad no new Government till May, 1873
'accordi ig them then there was an inferycoo.tu
of whole year IL they had a Government, what
became oft! lii ever came in, what put it out
OF eNis,1acC Why did ii not meet on tue day to
which 1t had Adjourned? 1t was not displaced by
the new Constitution, because that had not been a.
greed upon in Convention till November, it was
not adopted by the people till the last of November,
and 1t did not go into operation till May. What
became of it
1 think II is important to note that the new Con
siltution, established according 10 the prescribed
forms, came thus into operation in Nav 1913, and
was admitted by all 10 be the Constitution OF the
Slate. What tnen happened i'll the State of Rhode
Island do not mean To 90 through all the trials
that were had after this ephemora Government had
dlsappeared but will ask attention TO the report
OF the trial of Dorr for treason, which took place in
August, 1912, and the trial came OH in March,
1874 The Indictment was found while the Char
Ter Government was in force, and the trial was had
under the new Constitution of the State. He was
found guilty of treason. And turn to the report
OF the trial to call attention to the language of
the court in its charge, as delivered by Chief JUS
tlce Duriee in that case. present the following
extract from that charge:
sit may be, gentlemen, that he really believed
himself 10 be the Governor the State and that he
acted throughout under this delusion However
this may go TO eXtenuae the offence, it does not
lake from Ii lis legal guilt 1t is no defence to an
indictment Tor the violation of any law, for the de
lendant to come into court and say, Il thought that
was but exercising constitutional right, and
claim an acquitai on the ground OF mistake -
Were il So, there would bo an end to all law and
all government. Courts and jures would have no.
thing to do but TO sit III Judgment upon indictments
In order To acqul or excuse. The accused has only
to prove that he has been systematic in committing
crime, and that he thought that he had a right to
commit II, and according 10 this doctrine, YOU must
acquit. HE main ground upon which the prisoner
sought Tor justification was, that constitution
had been adopted by a majority Of the male adult
population of this State, voting in their primary or
natural capacity OF condition, and that he was sub
sequent!y elected and did the acts charged, as Go.
werner, under it. He offered the votes themselves
to prove lie adoption, which were also TO be follow
ed by proof OF his election. This evidence we have
ruled cut. Courts and jures, gentlemen, do not
count votes to determine whethera constitution has
been adopted or Governor elected or not Courts
lake malice, without proof offered from the bar
what the Constitution is was, and who is or was
the Governor of their own State Ii belongs TO the
Legislature TO exercise this high duty 1t is the
Legislature which in the exercise of its delegated
sovereignty counts the votes and declares whether
constitution be adopted or Governor elected or
not and we cannot revise and their acts in
this particular without usurpng their power
Were the votes on the adoption OF our present CON
stltutlon offered here to prove that ii was or
was not adopted, or those given for the Governor
under IT, to prove that he was or was not elected
could not receive the evidence ourselves, we
could not permit it to pass 10 the jury. And why
not Because if we did SO, we should cease TO be
mere Judicial, and become political tribunal
with the whole sovereignty in ourhandS. Neither
the people nor the Legislature would be sovereign
We should be sovereign or you would be sovereign ::
and we should deal out to parties litigan, here at
our bar, sovereignty to this that, according to
rules or laws Of our own making, and heretofore
unknown in courts. In what condition would this
country be, if appeals could be thus taken to courts
and jureS This jury may decide enc way, and
that another, and the sovereignty might be found
here to-day, and there tomorrow. Sovereignty is
above courts or jurios and the creature cannot sit
in judgment upon its creator. Were this instru-
ment offered the constitution of foreign State
we might, perhaps, under some circumstances, re-
qure proof of lis existence, but even in that case
the fact would not be ascertained by counting the
votes given at lis adoption, but by tho certificate OF
the Secretary Of State under the broad seal of the
State. The instrument is not offered rs a foreign
constitution, and this court Is bound 10 know what
the constitution of the Government is under which
it acts, without any proof even Of that high charac
ter. We know nothing of the existence of the So
called ''people's constitution" as law, and there is
proof before you Of lis adoption aud OF the cleo
ton of the prisoner as Governor under it and YOU
can return a verdict only on the evidence that has
passed to you"
Having thus attempted to state the questions a.
they arise. ard having referred TO what has takeI
place in Rhode Island, shall present what fnrthc
/ / have TO say in three propositions:
I lst ! say, first, that the matters offered TO h
proved by the plaintiff in the court below, are no
of Judicial cognizance; and proof ofthem therefore
was properly rejected by the Court.
/ I'd. If all these matters could be. and had bee
legally proved, they would have constituted no de
fence, because they show nothing but an illegal at
tempt to overthrow the Government of Rhode Is
land.
Sd. No proof was offered by the plaintiff to sho,
that, in fact, another Government had gone int
operation, by which the Charter Government ha
been displaced.
And first, these matters arc not Of judicial cogn
zancc. Does this need arguing? Are the varlor
matters Of fact alleged, The assembly of meeting
the appointment Of committees, the qualifications
voters,---ls there any Of these matters Of which
court Of law can take cogu:zanco in questo
where they are to decide on sovorcgntyl III
thing 70 be proved is a change Of the soverciq
power. Two Legislatures existed at the sau
time, both claiming power to pass laws. Both cal
not have legal existence. What then is the a
tempt Of or adversafies? TO put down ono SOY
reign Government, aud 10 put another up, by FAC
and proceedings in regard 10 elections out of door
unauthorized 10y any law whatever. Regular pr