of the State. There were gentlemen in that
Convention who claimed that they had a
right, legally, to assemble such a portion of
the people as demonstrated a general assent,
and that they had the right by law, by such
a movement to call a Convention, which Con-
vention should be considered as the repre-
sentative of the popular will, and therefore
entitled to respect at the hands of the State.
This doctrine was opposed. It was said, and
I had the honor myself to entertain and ex-
press that opinion, that the only mode origi-
nally known by which government could be
changed was that of revolution. I had yet
to know the man who denied the right of re-
volution to any people. We claimed our
national existence, La consequence of main-
taining that doctrine, and we established it
when we separated from Great Britain. I
know no class of persons who have ever
thought proper to deny that any community
possessed the right, when oppressed to an ex-
tent that by universal assent requires resist-
ance, to revolutionize its government. I hold
that now the people of this State have the
right, if in their majesty they can rise and
obtain the sanction of the community to their
proceedings, to resist oppression by revolution.
But revolution is not only very fatal to the
interests of a community, but it is a very
troublesome operation. No revolution can
be effectual without a subsequent acquiescence
of the community in which that revolution
has existed. It will not do for a revolution-
ary government to declare itself, without the
aid of any military force or offensive weapon,
omnipotent; and to declare its proceedings
obligatory upon all within its territorial juris-
diction. Such a declaration would be a
brutum fulmen. It must be obeyed by the
existing government, not opposed by it. It
must be admitted to have effect, by the com-
munity. It then becomes the will of that
community. The preceding government re-
tiring voluntarily, gives place to the govern-
ment which comes in without force, or they
are compelled to abandon their position by
force and the new government takes their
place.
The difficulty, as well as the dangers of re-
volution, have given rise to what has been very
emphatically, as well as very properly, termed
the American system of changing the govern-
ment—a system known throughout all the
States of this Union and practiced everywhere.
Those who for the moment represent the peo-
ple in their legislative bodies, or in some
recognized assembly supposed to utter the
sentiments of the people, prescribe that a
Convention shall be held, the time and manner
being named. This question is submitted to
the people calmly, and a vote is taken in the
proper place and at the proper time, and if
sanctioned, the object being considered proper
and landable, the Convention is held by the
express acquiescence of the community.
10 |
This constitutes the case of the Dorr rebel-
lion. There a certain class of individuals, a
very large, portion of the voters of the State
of Rhode Island, undertook to change the
government without any preliminary legis-
lative act. The government of Rhode island
did not choose to submit to the Constitution
which they made. The government existing
prior to the Convention thought proper to
maintain their position and to treat this effort
to change the government as a rebellion.
Mr. Dorr, who was the leading person in the
movement, was indicted; and in the course
of that trial gentlemen will find a great deal
of learning exhibited by the counsel in the
case, especially by Mr Webster; and this
American doctrine was enforced. Now if
Mr. Dorr's project had been acquiesced in by
the existing government, and the Constitu-
tion which they proposed to adopt bad been
sanctioned by the people, and they had organ-
ized their government under it, no doubt at
all it would have very properly been consid-
ered the organic law of the land. But they
did not choose to do so; and the people
neither had the benefit of an insurrectionary
or revolutionary government, nor of a gov-
ernment created by the instrumentality of the
American system,
The result, therefore, is that in all the States
of this Union the mode prescribed by the Con-
stitution of the State is adopted.
It has been contended by some that the
mode in which the people may alter or reform
their organic law was not to be controlled by
any previous constitutional enactment. Yet
our ablest minds have held differently. Judge
Story in his commentaries, and Mr. Webster
in his speeches, have maintained that the peo-
ple may impose restraints upon themselves.
Some gentlemen say you cannot bind the peo-
ple; that you cannot make any generation
submit to the dictates of the generation pre-
ceding, and so on. We know a man can bind
himself. I am a perfectly free agent, but 1
may enter into a contract with my neighbor,
and impose obligations upon myself. Certain
it is that in this State, with the exception of
the last Convention, the Constitution has never
been changed except in the mode prescribed
by the Constitution. And as I understand,
the opinion is not now expressed anywhere
that the powers of this Convention arise from
any other source than the observance by the
people of the advice of their Legislature to
hold a Convention.
My colleague upon the committee (Mr.
Hebb) Is very much more acquainted with the
discussions that preceded the adoption of this
bill of rights by the committee than I am.
However, I will say no more about that. 1
invoke his recollection whether there was not
adopted by the committee in their report
an article at the close of this bill of rights, re-
lating to the manner of altering or changing
the Constitution. Such is my recollection,
" |
