The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-05-10
THE DORR REBELLION.
Its Close Resemblance to the Arkansas Diff
culty-Two Governors in Each Case
Views Of Daniel Webster and
Chief Justice fancy.

The present condition of affRirs In Arkansas re-
sembles, IN many respects, the situation In Rhode
Island during'the Dorr rebellion In 1912. There
were at the time IN the latter commonwealth two
Governors, each claiming to have been constitu-
tionally elected to the ofhce there were two State
governments In existence that were at war with
each other; the inhabitants were divided into two
hostile camps; martial law was proclaimed; troops
were mustered and armed by the contending par
ties for the purpose OF maintaining by force their
respective claims; collisions took place. and the
President was appealed to for military assistance to
put down the insurrection by the Governor whom
SDorr attempted to deprive OF once. D0rr was
defeated In his attempt to establish his authority
but 1t was the knowledge OF President Tyler's de-
cisOn to call out the militia to suppress domestic
violence in Rhode Island that put an end to his
armed opposition to the existing State govern
ment. What took place subsequently in connec-
ton with the trial OF Dorr and other legal pro-
ceedings are OF the greatest Importance at the
present juncture, for they were the occasion
OF elicting the views ahd opinions OF Daniel
Webster, Chief Justice fancy and Others on the
subject OF the powers and duty OF the President
under the constitution and laws to interfere the
domestic affairs OF State where two rivals resort
to force in order that one Of them should obtain
possession OF It's government. The existing gov
eminent, 1t win be seen by what follows, is con-
sidered the one that should be protected and that
the President is bound to uphold It. He has also,
1t would appear, the constitutional privilege to de-
eide which IL the legal government and to act &C
cordingly. In contested election for Governor 1t
would also appear that the courts have no power
to decide who ia elected or who Is not, tnat right
belonging to the Legislature. The opinions OF the
statesmen and jurists OF the highest and purest
character on these points would seem to leave no
doubt as to the proper course for the federal au-
thoritles to pursue In the Arkansas difficulties.
ORIGIN OF THE REBELLION.
The Dorr rebellion in Rhode Island, in 1s42,
originated out OF the EFFORTS that had been made,
to efect change in its constitution. The govern
ment at that time was based upon charter
granted by Charles H., In 1858. and the apportion
ment OF representation in the Legislature was
greatly at variance with the distribution OF the
population. The elective franchise was limited to
the holders OF certain amount Of real estate and
to their eldest sons. About one-t third only OF the
citizens were voters. 1t was under this form OF
government that Rhode Island united with the
other States in the Declaration Of independence
and afterwards ratified the constitution OF the
United States and became o member OF the Union.
In this form Of government no mode Of proceed
ing was pointed out by which amendments might
be made. The idea OF erecting change In the
constitution was entertained as far back as 1870.
large number of citizens were dissatisned with
the charter government. and particularly with the