Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-12-28
Important Points Touched on by
"Olde Writer'S"
AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION
Rhode Island and Pennsylvania the
Main Subjects.
G A n A d. AN A r M Y p 0 ST s

| National Museum. There will be session
this evening at o'clock at the Columbian
| University, and the tenth annual meeting
| will then have ended.
| There were eight papers on this morn
| ings program. beginning with one by Prof.
| Harold ID. Hazeltine of Brown University
| on Appeals From Rhode Island Courts to
| the King in Council" He said the English
| privy council was the predecessor of our
| Supreme Court. The general appeal regula-
| tiCns of the council apply to Rhode Island.
| In 1855 the appellant was required to give
security for prosecution. In l6S9 governors
we're directed not to allow an appeal unless
the amount involved was $500 more. In
| 1126 the colonies were instructed to sus-
| pend execution until the final decision of
| the king in council. About 1850 appeals
| were demanded in several of the colonies,
| especially in New Hampshire and Connec-
| ticut, and although at first refused by the
| colonial officials, were finally granted.
| This denial of the right of appeal was one
| of the chief causes of hostile British senti-
| ment toward the charter colonies In 1901
| and again in the beginning of the reign of
| George l parliament seriously contemplated
| annulling the charter.
In Rhode Island under the charter Of
| 1647 and for many years under the inStru-
| ment of 1868, the general court. was the
| supreme colonial tribunal. Special courts
| were erected in 1866 with an appeal to the
| king in council. In 1723 county courts were
| established, with an appeal to the superior
| court, and thence to the king in council, in
some cases through the general assembly.
| The act of 1I41 provided that the decision
| of the superior court was to be final, save
| an appeal to England. From the first,
however, the general assembly exercised
| appellate powers, granting refusing,
| also, appeals to the king in council. In
| l7l2 1t erected a court of chancery to hear
appeals, but continued its own former ap-
pellate Jurisdiction by means of petition
| The paper went through the history of the
| judicial system of the colony with interest
| ing particularly.
| ImpOst of 1871.
| Professor Frank Greene Bates of Cornell
| read the next paper. on Rhode Island and
| the Impost of ISL" He said that in the
| straits to which Congress was reduced in
| 1850 and 81 that body recommended that
| power be given to it to levy a per cent
| impcst duty. All the states but Georgia
and Rhode Island responded readily. Rhode
Island, which throughout the revolution
| had been foremost in resistance to oppres-
| sion, for the first time now departed from
hearty cooperation. Congress had hereto
fore simply had charge of the war and for
eign relations ard now proposed to exert
civil power in the states. This was an
intrusion upon the Rhode Island idea of
state rights. Through the efforts of the
opposition the question was kept out of the
general assembly until the autumn of 1882.
In the meantime David Howell one of the
Rhode Island delegates, had appeared be-
fore congressional committee and stated
the grounds of his states inaction.
These were, first, that the system tended
to raise revenue in the state for the use
of the general government; second, the
state should retain this power to compen-
| safe for her losses in the war; third, to
permit officers not under her control to
| collect duties in the state would be deroga-
| tory to her sovereignty; fourth. the grant
urnS on ind n6nit he k1,..
| called on to decide the question November
| l, 1882 rejected 1T unanimously. Antic-
| ipating this result, steps were taken to de-
| stroy Howells influence a. home, prepar-
atory to winning over the state to the i'm
post. Certain writings Of his, representing
| favorable condition to foreign loans
| were declared reprehensible, and an inves-
tigation was ordered. He acknowledged
| their authorship and pleaded this truth
| in justification. His motion, with a state
| ment Of the foreign loans, was ordered to
| be sent to Rhode Island to prove his false
| hood.
| The general assembly in 1888 passed reso-
| lutions approving the action of her dele
| gates in regard to the impost The true
reasons for Rhode Islands opposition to
the lmpoSt may be said to have been three
| In number, thus: First, a misunderstanding
| of the effects of an impost duty; second
| anxiety respecting the disposal of western
| lands. third, jealousy of yielding to out
| side authority any power over her internal
| affairs. These ideas arose from the pecu-
| liar economic conditions of the state and
| the experience of the first century of her
! existence which had been a constant strug-
| gle against encroachment. from without
| Rhode Island Again.
| Prof. Arthur May Mowry of Harvard
| read a paper on the constitutional contro-
| versy in Rhode Island in 1871. He said
that the Rhode Island civil war. which
broke out in May, 1912. had it's origin in
1
| tiQuated charter by more modern and
democratic constitution. The limitation of
| the suffrage to land owners and their eld-
| est sons and the inequalities of the repre-
| sentation in the general assembly were
| the principal Objectionable features of the
government, which had grown up under
| the charter. The agitation for reform be-
| gan soon after the presidential election of
| 1910, and the modern campaign features,
pro AeSsionS, aSsemblageS and mass con-
| ventions, were employed by the suffragists
| during the first half of the year 1911. The
legislature responded TO the agitation by
summoning a convention, which framed
| a constitution and submitted it to the peo-
pie for ratification. The suffrage leaders
| criticised this action because the nom
| freeholders were excluded from participa-
| ton in the deliberations of the convention.
| Ignoring the legal authorities, the suffra-
| gists summoned an extra Legal conven-
| ton, previous to the regular convention,
| admitted to it's membership all classes Of
I
was submitted to 1.-The people, in Deem
| Der, 1871, and declared ratified by a ma
jority, both of the freemen and non-free-
| men of the state The legislature, spurred
| on by these actions, passed a law permit
| ting those who would be qualified voters
| by the provisions of the land holders"
constitution to vote on it's ratification.
This constitution was rejected in March,
1872 the radicals and extreme conserva-
tiyes outnumbering the law and order
rarty." Rival governments were elected,
the Dorr rebellion followed and the char
ter authorities victorious over the so-caled
peoples party" prepared new consti-
tuition, which went into operation in 1913.
The revolution, though 1t must be called
rebellion, might have been successful.
Its failure was due to the following facts,
among others: First, subsequent events
proved, the change of government could
have been obtained by legal means; Sec
ondly, the people did not put real conf
dence in the leaders of the movement;
thirdly, the revolutionary vote contained
elements of doubt; fourthly, the suffragists
acted unwisely in the attempted establish
ment of the new government The right
step TO take in March, 1912, YVES to aban-
don the constitution and ratify that which
the landholders had prepared Though not
quite as liberal a document, 1t was vastly
superior to the charter which 1t would
have superseded. The rebellion would have
been escaped, all doubtful constitutional
l Al