His Excellency JOHN TYLER,
_President of the United States_:
The undersigned, having been deputed by Samuel W. King, the governor
of the State of Rhode Island, to lay before you the present alarming
condition in which the people of that State are placed, and to request
from you the adoption of such prudential measures as in your opinion may
tend to prevent domestic violence, beg leave most respectfully to state
the following among the leading facts, to which your attention is more
particularly invited:
That the people of Rhode Island have no fundamental law except the
charter of King Charles II, granted in 1663, and the usage of the
legislature under it. Legislative usage under their charters has been
decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to be the fundamental
law both in Connecticut and Rhode Island.
That from the date of the Rhode Island charter down to the year 1841, a
period of nearly two hundred years, no person has been allowed to vote
for town or State offices unless possessed of competent estates and
admitted free in the several towns in which they resided.
That since the statute of 1728 no person could be admitted a freeman of
any town unless he owned a freehold estate of the value fixed by law
(now $134) or was the eldest son of such a freeholder.
That until the past year no attempt has been made, to our knowledge, to
establish any other fundamental law, by force, than the one under which
the people have lived for so long a period.
That at the January session of the legislature in 1841 a petition signed
by five or six hundred male inhabitants, praying for such an extension
of suffrage as the legislature might in their wisdom deem expedient to
propose, was presented.
That, influenced by that petition, as well as by other considerations,
the legislature at that session requested the qualified voters, or
freemen, as they are called with us, to choose delegates at their
regular town meetings to be holden in August, 1841, for a convention
to be holden in November, 1841, to frame a written constitution.
That the result of the last meeting of this legal convention in
February, 1842, was the constitution[118] accompanying this statement,
marked ----, which, in case of its adoption by the people, would have
been the supreme law of the State.
[Footnote 118: Omitted.]
Most of the above facts are contained in the printed report of a
numerous committee of the legislature at their session in March, 1842,
which report was adopted by the legislature.
That in May, 1841, after said legal convention had been provided for
by the legislature, and before the time appointed for the choice of
delegates by the qualified voters (August, 1841), a mass meeting was
held by the friends of an extension of suffrage at Newport, at which
meeting a committee was appointed, called the State committee, who were
authorized by said mass meeting to take measures for calling a
convention to frame a constitution.
That this committee, thus authorized, issued a request for a meeting
of the male citizens in the several towns to appoint delegates to the
proposed convention.
That meetings (of unqualified voters principally, as we believe) were
accordingly holden in the several towns, unauthorized by law, and
contrary to the invariable custom and usage of the State from 1663 down
to that period; that the aggregate votes appointing the delegates to
that convention were, according to their own estimate, about 7,200,
whereas the whole number of male citizens over 21 years of age, after
making a deduction for foreigners, paupers, etc., was, according to
their own estimate, over 22,000.
That this convention, thus constituted, convened in Providence in
October, 1841, and the constitution called the "people's constitution"
was the result of their deliberations.
That at subsequent meetings of portions of the people in December, 1841,
by the authority of this convention alone (elected, as its delegates had
been, by about one-third of the voters, according to their own standard
of qualification), all males over 21 years of age were admitted to vote
for the adoption of the people's constitution; that these meetings were
not under any presiding officer whose legal right or duty it was to
interpose any check or restraint as to age, residence, property, or
color.
By the fourteenth article of this constitution it was provided that
"this constitution shall be submitted to the people for their adoption
or rejection on Monday, the 27th of December next, and on the two
succeeding days;" "and every person entitled to vote as aforesaid who
from sickness or _other causes_ may be unable to attend and vote in the
town or ward meetings assembled for voting upon said constitution on the
days aforesaid is requested to write his name on a ticket, and to obtain
the signature upon the back of the same of a person who has given in his
vote, as a witness thereto, and the moderator or clerk of any town or
ward meeting convened for the purpose aforesaid shall receive such vote
on either of the three days next succeeding the three days before named
for voting for said constitution."
During the first three days about 9,000 votes were received from the
hands of the voters in the open meetings. By the privilege granted
to any and all friends of the constitution of _bringing into_ their
meetings the _names_ of voters during the three following days 5,000
votes more were obtained, making an aggregate of about 14,000 votes.
This constitution, thus originating and thus formed, was subsequently
declared by this convention to be the supreme law of the land. By its
provisions a government is to be organized under it, by the choice of
a governor, lieutenant-governor, senators and representatives, on the
Monday preceding the third Wednesday in April, 1842.
By the provisions of the "landholder's constitution," as the legal
constitution is called, every white native citizen possessing the
freehold qualification, and over 21 years of age, may vote upon a
residence of _one_ year, and without any freehold may vote upon a
residence of _two_ years, except in the case of votes for town taxes,
in which case the voter must possess the freehold qualification _or_
be taxed for other property of the value of $150.
By the "people's constitution" "every white male citizen of the United
States of the age of 21 years who has resided in this State for _one_
year and in the town where he votes for six months" shall be permitted
to vote, with the same exception as to voting for town taxes as is
contained in the other constitution.
The provision, therefore, in relation to the great subject in
dispute--the elective franchise--is substantially the same in the two
constitutions.
On the 21st, 22d, and 23d March last the legal constitution, by an
act of the legislature, was submitted to all the persons who by its
provisions would be entitled to vote under it after its adoption, for
their ratification. It was rejected by a majority of 676 votes, the
number of votes polled being over 16,000. It is believed that many
freeholders voted against it because they were attached to the old form
of government and were against any new constitution whatever. Both
parties used uncommon exertions to bring all their voters to the polls,
and the result of the vote was, under the scrutiny of opposing interests
in legal town meetings, that the friends of the people's constitution
brought to the polls probably not over 7,000 to 7,500 votes. The whole
vote against the legal constitution was about 8,600. If we allow 1,000
as the number of freeholders who voted against the legal constitution
because they are opposed to any constitution, it would leave the number
of the friends of the people's constitution 7,600, or about one-third of
the voters of the State under the new qualification proposed by either
constitution.
It seems incredible that there can be 14,000 friends of the people's
constitution in the State, animated as they are by a most extraordinary
and enthusiastic feeling; and yet upon this trial, in the usual open and
fair way of voting, they should have obtained not over 7,600 votes.
The unanimity of the subsequent action of the legislature, comprehending
as it did both the great political parties--the house of representatives
giving a vote of 60 in favor of maintaining the existing government of
the State and only 6 on the other side, with a unaminimous vote in the
senate--the unanimous and decided opinion of the supreme court declaring
this extraordinary movement to be illegal in all its stages (see
----[119]), a majority of that court being of the Democratic party, with
other facts of a similar character, have freed this question of a mere
party character and enabled us to present it as a great constitutional
question.
Without presuming to discuss the elementary and fundamental principles
of government, we deem it our duty to remind you of the fact that the
existing government of Rhode Island is _the_ government that adopted the
Constitution of the United States, became a member of this Confederacy,
and has ever since been represented in the Senate and House of
Representatives. It is at this moment the existing government of Rhode
Island, both _de facto_ and _dejure_, and is the only government in that
State entitled to the protection of the Constitution of the United
States.
It is that government which now calls upon the General Government for
its interference; and even if the legal effect of there being an
ascertained majority of unqualified voters against the existing
government was as is contended for by the opposing party, yet, upon
their own principle, ought not that majority in point of fact to be
clearly ascertained, not by assertion, but by proof, in order to justify
the General Government in withdrawing its legal and moral influence to
prevent domestic violence?
That a domestic war of the most furious character will speedily ensue
unless prevented by a prompt expression of opinion here can not be
doubted. In relation to this, we refer to the numerous resolutions
passed at meetings of the friends of the people's constitution, and more
especially to the Cumberland resolutions[119] herewith presented, and
the affidavits,[119] marked ----, and to repeated expressions of similar
reliance upon the judgment of the Chief Magistrate of the nation.
[Footnote 119: Omitted.]