The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-01-13

Ths Rhode Island Case.
A. some confusion with mistakes, has prevailed
= ,,a,on TO the decision OF the Supreme Court upon the
nor case we publish with great pleasure the following
communication from a gentleman who is thoroughly
,omve,ent 10 understand the positions. and has taken
come pains to obtain statement of the preclse points
which have been decided by the court
tn The Editor of the Union.
In portions OF the public press, is represented per-
eeye that the Supreme Court, in lis recent decision in
he Rhode Island case has denounced Donism and
rued all its principles and claims.
This is said have been done by the unanimous
Of every member of the Court. except single dissent by
Judge Woodbury. (and this is cehsured very ground
less against the correctness OF the establishment OF mar
tIal law by the STATE
of nine expressed any opinion in the case, Judges
MKinly. Catron and Daniel decneddto sit.
The other six did declare that Dorr did did not
improperly sci up the new constitution, or that was
moi of right entitled to be supported BY him; but they,
on The contrary, expressly held (anl the chief scope Of
their opinion to justify what they heidi that these
10 decide that they political questions, and
be settled by The political tribunals political Junct1Ond
RES without the dangerous interference OF body OF
men, not chosen by the people, directly amenabe to
them {; and, when SO settled, it the duty of the
Judges to take the decision of those political authorities
Tor guide that in this case the political authorities Of
The State and of The general government having decided
in favor of the old charter and sustained it, the Supreme
Court must take their decision for its guide, whether be-
lievng it to be correct or not.
This was the whole case in brief, except the dissent
Of one Judge against five the correctness OF the ex-
tension OF martial arc, BY the State over all its people
every State Of the Uion. and is worthy Of general ex
understood the five Judges to hold that, in such a
civil strife existed among its citizens the State OF Rhode
Island possessed the power 10 declare martial law. The
other judge who sat il the case, Justice Woodbury. on
the contrary expressed the OPINION that such measure
his reasons to be, in substance-
Because it was temporary abolition of all other laws
and all the people, and not merely
the military at the mercy Of system OF martial law
which had been exploded in England, IN peace, Tor two
hundred years.
government possessed authority to suspend abolish
all the constitutional rights OF its people, either in PEACE
rebelllOn or war;
Because, in period OF domestic violence, these const
tutonal rights exist both in England and the United
States. fully in undsturbed peace, until Parliament
there. and Congress here, interpose.
Because though Parliament, by its omnipoence may,
through special law, suspend such rights in extreme
cases, such power is confded in this country TO a
legislature and i it exists at al as right OF war Il is
declare war and TO wage it, and not in State
Because if State. though expressly. forbidden to-
engage in war, may under certain exceptions, do it. it
suddenly invaded or in imminent danger of it from
abroad to allow delay to resort to the general
government there was in this case no such invasion or
danger. :,
Because here likewise, war had been declared by
the general any war measures adopted by
it, allowed when applied to by the State, as there was
time to make the application, and it had been made
Because the general government alone s by the con-
sttution, empowered not only to declare war, but to
resort to war measures to suppress Instructions and
put down domestic violence; and that the duties OF the
State first to use Its civil authority ana power 10
suppress them next if these insufficient, to call out
it's militia aid the municipal officers in serving pre-
ceps and making arrests and, when these fall (though
they never have yet Sate) then to call the gen.
era government for further aid rather than declare and
wage war by themselves.
Because such course furnishes the only theory for
security of constitutional rights and public order and is
virtually the only sanctioned by precedent here, no
less than principle in our only of this character
as in Shays rebellion in the Pennsylvania instruction,
and in Burr's conspiracy.
This is brief view of the decision in the case re-
erred to- and of some Of the reasons, understood
ihem urged by the learned judge who felt his duty to
dissent upon the question of the authority OF State to
declare martial la,c in of civil strife amongst its
citizens As do not purpose to discuss this question at
ClvIS.