Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1861-02-05

military despotisms. As q Government we
can no more allow this to be done than a
State can allow enc or more counties within
its jurisdiction to dissolve their connection
al pleasure with the State government and
establish government hostile TO the State.
The fact that the citizens OF these counties
might vote unanimously for secession would
not justify tho citizens in the remaining
counties OF the State in permitting the State
thus TO be dismembered, any more than the
Government OF the United States could
permit aState TO be withdrawn, even though
the citizens Of the seeding State should vote
unanimously in favor OF the propositon.---
Neither could we permit States in the Union
to change their governments, aud adopt gov
ernments anti-republican in form, much less
TO establish monarchical or military desPot-
isms in violation of the fundamental proVis-
ions of the national constitution.
Chief Justice Taney, in the case Of Luther
Us. Borden, sL a., (s Howard, page 45,)
case growing out Of the Dorr rebellion IN
Rhode Island, and to which l may again
allude, declared that
Unquestionably, & military government,
established rs the permanent government OF
a State, would not be republican govern
ment and it would be the duty of Congress
to overthrow it"
If il be the duty of Congress, as Chief
Justice Taney declares, and as believe, to
overthrown a military government, establish
ed by the legal authorities Of any State, 1t
cannot be denied that it is also the duty of
Congress to overthrow and abolish any form
of government in State which is in fact
anti-republican and oppressive, no matter
whether established by the legally constituted
authorities or by usurpation. The power OF
the Federal Government to prohibit any State
from establishing an anti-republican form of
government is as clear and unquestioned as
is its authority to prohibit any State from.
setting the national Constitution at defiance,
and assuming the power Of an independent
nation.
The mode and manner of procedure in
either case is committed entirely to the discre-
| ton of Congress, as provided in section eight,
clause eighteen of the Constitution, which
authorizes Congress
"To maze all laws which shall be necessary
and proper to carry into execution the forego-
ing powers, and all other powers vested by
/ this constitution in the Government of the
United States, or in any department or officer
/ thereof"
In the Rhode Island case, to which have
alluded, there was, | believe an admitted
majority Of the people of the State who
desired to change from the charter govern
ment of Charles II, granted in 1868, under
which the State had always acted, to
a constitutional Government, which should
extend the right of suffrage, and fairly adjust
the inequality in the apportionment of Re
! ,erEs fbo CF,Fn arrie1ofurn Nhh
charter pointed out no mode of procedure by
which amendments could be made; and the
charter party, by the unfair apportionment
and the property qualification for electors,
were able to keep possession of the Govern
ment and on a pretense of want Of power to
propose any amendments to the charter they
repeatedly refused to initiate proceedings on
application of the people for change OF the
organic law from the old mOnarehical char
ter to republican constitution.
The people falling to obtain a redress Of
grievances from the recognized authorities,
proceeded to secure them in a revolutionary
manner. They formed associations, held pub
lie meetings, prescribed rules for the election
of a convention of delegates TO form State
constitution; in accordance with which dele
gates we've elected throughout the State, who
met, framed an excellent constitution, aud
submitted it to the people for adoption or re-
lection. A vote was taken upon it at the time,
and in the manner prescribed by the conven-
ton; and it was adopted and ratified by
large majority of the people. Elections wore
subsequently held in accordance with the pro-
visions of this constitution; and Thomas ".
Dorr was duly elected Governor, together
| with a Legislature and all State officers
provided for in the Constitution. This Leg
stature convened and organized; Dorr was
inaugurated Governor, and attempted to take
possession of the arsenals and public prop
ertv of the State The charter government
resisted the peoples government proclaimed
martial law by act of their Legislature, and
called on the President of the UEited States
for military aid to assist inputting down the
rebellion.
As soon as Dorr and his party learned
that the President had decided to assist
the charter government he fed from the
State; and thus ended the sO-called Dorr re-
bellion, and with it their government. Of
course, need hardly add what all know so
well, that Dorr was subsequently tried for
treason, convicted, and sent to the peniten-
tiary for life. do not speak of the justice
or injustice of the charter government, | only
speak of the fact
Ihave been thus minute in this matter to
show that if an admitted minority of the eiti-
zens of any State may thus have the assist
ance of the Federal Government against an
admitted majority who were seeking in a
peaceful and, as they supposed, the only man
ner in which they could proceed to secure
their own rights, without inhicting or intend
ing to infict injury or wrong on the minority,
or establish government hostile to the Unit
ed States, how much more important that a
minority of the citizens Of any State, who are
loyal to the Union, shall be protected in their
constitutional rights, even though large
majority, through the forms of law, attempt
to destroy their liberties, make war upon the
naticlal Government and establish despot
ic instesd Of a republican form of govern
mentl
Mr.. Chairman. I have introduced the sub
iect matter OF the Rhode Island controversy
here. for the double purpose of showing the
mower conferred on the Federal Government
by the national Constitution, and the duty Of
the Government in contingencies that now
seem likely to happen. Suppose FIVE or ten,
! or even ali the slave States should, with the
50 4ciion of a majority OF their citizens and
-. the forms Of law enacted by their pres
e1t recognized authorities, join South Caro-
lima in hcr treasenable movements. What
would be fhe duty of the General Govern
ment towards the pstTiOtic and loyal minority
in these States2 Undoubtedly there can be
but one answer to this question. 1t Is their
duty to protect and secure them in the enjoy
ment of al their constitutional rights, and by
force. if necessary. And though the loyal
citizens should be largely in the minority, if
they remain faithful to the Constitution and
the Union, they may and should disregard
the action and usurpations Of a majority, re-
fuse to recognize their REASONABLE proceed
ings, either in declaring the States sovereign
and independent changing the State consti-