The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1872-09-27
The August EIeetlon..rhe Dom
To The EaiiOr. q ~ Iu,elnrcneer: n.


To the EtitOgs q Ne IaielHFsHeer; -A
In your SditoriAlof yesterday you say
that the case Of Lhther q Boxden, o. a.
: Howard, p. /, cUmmonly known Is the
Dorr case, 4 against the position assume,
that the election for officers held on the
e2d Of August last was legally held. Let
us examine this case and see whether Il Is
in point, and II %. does Ii make iOr You
or for me. Prior TO May, 1913, Rhode
Island was organized under the charter Of
Charles the Second, granted in 1868, with
such legislative alterations Is were neces.
sAry TO adapt II to their condition a. q
state Of the Union. On the 5th Of May,
1871, what was termed q mass CONVEX
ton Of the male citizens Of that
State assembled al Newport aud I'D.
t99rhed TO meet at Providence,
July 9Th, 1871. These meetings
were held a. time when the legal gov.
eminent Of the State was in fun force and
we've without color Of legal authority.
The proceedings Of this Convention 70.
suited in . CONVENTION which proposed
what they termed constitution, which Il
was alleged was ratified by 8 majority Of
the voters. Under this alleged conStilu.
ton Thomas W. Dorr was elected Cover.
nor, and the case grew out Of his efforts
10 get possession OF the government
against the charter government He fail.
ed, was arrested, tried and convicted.
During the contest persons acting under
authority VI the charter government,
among whom was Luther 81, Borden,
broke into the house Of one Martin In.
ther, an adherent Of the DOR government,
and Luther sued for 9 trespAss. Here
was contest between two Constitutions
and two sets Of officers, each claiming 10
be the righuul one. In this state Of AfAirs
the President Of the United States and
the courts Of Rhode Island recognized
the old, or charter, government q
the legitimate one-and the SupFeme
Court Of the United States decide that II
did not belong to the Judicial but to the
political department TO determine whether
3 proposed Constitution or amendment
was adopted or not By the people Of Z
State Il will be pNeceived that there Is
no similarity between the case OF Rhode
Island In 1872 and West Virginia in 1872,
and the case to which you refer has no ap.
pNcation TO the legality OF our August
elections There is however striking re.
eeuolance between the case OF Rhode
IslAndin 1879 and Virginia in 1851, ex.
ceR in the case Of Rhode Island the
President declared in fSvor Of the old
government and in the case Of Virginia
in favor Of the new IS setupat Wheeling.
In delivering the opinion in the case 10
which ! have referred the Supreme
Court Of the United States says "So one
We believe has ever doubted the
proposition, that, according to the
institutions in this country the sovereign
" in every StSte resides in the people Of
the Stste and that they may alter snd
change their form Of government at their
own pleasure. You concede the adoption
Of the Constitution snd schedule. In
adopting the schedule the people adopted
the seventh section Of Il In adopting
that section they said ave will on the ed
Of August, 1872, eleC; al officers reour.
ed to be excited BY this Constitution and
they did it Your mistake rests in the
ideS that the election w&S ordered by the
Convention, whereas It vas ordered By
the people in whom resides the sovereign.
ty Of the StRte-Aud in doing 50 they
were acting in s matter coaoaninS which
they were absolutely sovereien-the selec.
ton q their local officers Whist lSy
statutory Q: Constitutional did the people
vio!ate n dcsng this! II
We we're aware be.oSe the reception
OF our correspondents f1ros that the
Rhode Island Csc N il history AMI
se0Ial features HAS aTE1y different oae
loaa oGc Own There vss che PRINT,
AoEsTsr, thN seemed Ec-thy Of C, ouS.
0esqa6sat's A;:satioO 10 view q his opin.
IN ;a.i 5 vOsC o. approval By the people
eS4GSSe tie 4zgIE eseesca Of cAeess
TlE4 UastkeE tie aectioa WIS hesi sc.
oo-iins 20 kE OF not An We claimed
:oc tie DoRR Csc Wa th.titsh ,hH;
~ Illegal proposition Is not made legal
By popasGr ratification. An the pro
oaa3;rss preliminary TO the yose On the
DORR Constitution we've without authority
q kE. Only plzt Of those prelinL
aS'y 70 or election weeso, Thst seems
to Be lie difference. There w2s differ.
'0eeG degree not Of principle The
poPai&E approval in Rhode Island could
rot TahdSse = Constitution which h.d
bseo illegally framed and submitted So
Likewise, it seems to Is the pop1la, ssuc-
doa hare oOlld not legIli1s an election
ordered and hs!d without sathnrity Of
law.
We beg to suggest that our correspond.
eut Qike the RaTsE1 kIls intoero, when
be talks about he schedule having been
RATIFIED ey TIA people Toescheduls vas
10 part Of the Constitution Twas sinp,
y IN ordinance Of the Conveutioa, Legs.
lsdve in its nature, to provide for submit.
ting the Constitution 10 9 vote and for
holding an election IOr officers. The
ScheddeiseH Vas not Submitted 70. rai.
icaiou or rejection We voted 90 the
Constitution alone. There was no IN.
thosity for taking vote on anything else
The Schedule, therefore, derived none Of
that remarkable authority which our cor.
respondent processes to ind ia popular
vote II had precisely such authority
as the Convention was empower
ed TO give it and no other; and sol
lar as thAt related 10 he provision
for an election Of officers, it was exae4ly
no authority Al all The whole argument
OF our correspondent rests on his Issump-
ton has the people rAtidsi the Schedule
and thereby legatzed the election IurI
nd3nn,, ,,,a,,sE,,R -