CONSIDERATIONS

ON THE

RHODE ISLAND QUESTION.

ON reading the remarks made upon the Rhode Island difficulties in the papers of other States, it is at once apparent to a Rhode Islander, that many of the facts are but imperfectly understood, even by those who discountenance the revolutionary movement.

The colony of Rhode Island originally consisted of four separate settlements or townships. Providence, settled in 1636; Portsmouth, March, 1638; Newport, March, 1639; and Warwick. The people of these several settlements, formed themselves into political societies by voluntary compacts. And afterwards, in 1643-4, Roger Williams was sent over to England, and obtained a patent, uniting them as one colony. This continued until 1663, when the charter was obtained from Charles II., by which the colony has always since been governed.

Upon this charter and its history we have several remarks to make before proceeding further.

First, the charter or form of government was the deliberate act of the people themselves. It was drawn by agents appointed by the colony for that purpose, and sent to England, expressly to obtain for it the sanction of the English government. That sanction was, of course, necessary to its validity, as we were then a colony dependent upon England.

Second, the charter, when obtained and brought back, was formally accepted by a vote of the whole people, assembled together, as was then the usage, at Newport.

The government was, therefore, originally established by voluntary compact of the whole people, and the present form, as settled in the charter of 1663, was also solemnly accepted and adopted by the people.

So far as the charter derived its force from the act of the king of England, (as the charter of a mere corporation,) it, of course, ceased to be of any binding force after the revolution of 1776. But as the act and compact of the people themselves, it would still remain, and the government exist under it, until changed, either by a revolution, or peacea bly and legally, in such a way that it might be presumed to be done with the consent of all, of which we shall speak hereafter.

This charter only prescribed the boundaries of the colony, and the form and manner of election of the General Assembly, or legislature. All other matters were left to be provided for by the General Assembly. With the law, and practice settling the construction of it, and the usages which have grown up under it, it now forms the present constitution of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.

We have heard a great deal from declaimers about the omnipotence of the General Assembly, and it has frequently been asserted, that they have always treated the charter as a mere thing of straw, and without consulting the people, have altered it to suit their own pleasure. An examination of the cases will show, that all the instances, usually quoted to prove this, are instances where the General Assembly have interfered, either to settle a doubtful construction, or to provide for cases for which the charter had made no provision; but never to contradict its express declarations.

As, by the charter, the governor or deputy-governor and six assistants, (or senators,) had it in their power to prevent the passage of any law, and thus had a practical negative on all proceedings, an act was passed in May, 1696, providing that they should sit in a separate room and constitute a separate branch of the legislature. This was presumed to be in conformity with the spirit of the charter

itself. It was adopted upon the request of the deputies themselves. It had been considered and debated at several sessions about twenty years before, and the people had now become convinced of its propriety. In Connecticut, whose charter was like that of Rhode Island, in this respect, a similar act was passed in October, 1698, dividing their General Assembly into two branches.

By the charter, the voting for general officers was to be at Newport," or elsewhere, if urgent occasion do require." The General Assembly afterwards authorized the people to vote at Newport, by proxy.

There are also a number of cases where the Assembly have passed laws to provide for the contingencies of a failure of election, death, resignation, or removal, and as to whether a majority or plurality should elect. In all these cases, it will be perceived, there was either no provision made in the charter, or there was doubt about its construction. The party against whom any such case was settled, would, of course, consider it unconstitutional.

The truth is, that the charter always has been substantially adhered to. The number of assistants or senators, the number and apportionment of deputies or representatives, the manner of the election, the whole form of the government is as of old. But as to the law-making power, the charter contained no limitations on the General Assembly. On the contrary, it expressly gave them all power. Our ancestors were a practical people. They inserted in the charter a provision requiring their deputies to be elected semi-annually. They thought this would be sufficient to prevent the legislature ever becoming the masters of the people. And time has proved their wisdom.

In June, 1732-3, the Assembly passed "an act for choosing the deputies of the several towns in this colony annually," with an express proviso that the act should not take effect until after another election. But so determined were the people that the charter should not be infringed upon, and of so much importance did they consider this semi-annual election, that they sent men to the next Assembly who repealed it in December, 1733. And in September, 1789, the General Assembly, by resolution, declared, that, of themselves, they had no power to alter the constitution of the State.

The government of Rhode Island, it is believed, has been practically, and in spirit if not in form, one of the most democratic in the Union. There has been no State in which changes in popular sentiment have made themselves sooner felt, owing to the frequency of elections. This has been the case to a fault. There is no State in which the rights of the poor have been so carefully guarded by securing to every one a cheap administration of justice. For it is no use to give a man rights, and then, (as is done in some of the most ultra-democratic States,) make the law process so intricate and expensive that he cannot obtain them. Our government has always been economical, because the representatives felt their responsibility to the people, and the voters were the tax payers. The Senate, elected by general ticket, always expresses the views of the political majority. Without knowing much about Pope, the people have acted on his principle, as to government,

that

"That which is best administered is best."

Instead of looking at the form of government as the end, and making that their ultimate aim, which is a common error in modern times, they have regarded good government as the end to be aimed at, and the form as essential only so far as it is more or less adapted to produce that result.*

* In the course of these remarks, I shall introduce several quotations from an able writer, Rev. O. A. Brownson, who has been much misunderstood and misrepresented, because very little read by those who have abused him. Those who will take the pains to examine the whole of what he has written upon the subject of government, and will take it together, and not by piecemeal, will not find much to condemn. And while his democracy will not be impeached, he will be found to be no demagogue, or flatterer of the sovereign people.

"The ENDS of government are determined by the law of eternal and absolute justice, and are every where and always the same. Always and every where it is obligatory on government to maintain justice between man and man, and to direct the activity of society to the common good of all its members. But the FORM of the government is a mere question of means to an end. One form of government, in itself, is no more just and equitable than another, and no more obligatory upon a people.

Hitherto, all governments have failed to realize, in any tolerable degree, the twofold end of government designated. The American governments form no exception to this statement. They have merely demonstrated that the American people can maintain a strong and stable government without kings or nobles; nothing more. It remains to be demonstrated that they can establish and maintain wise and just governments, which fulfil their duty alike to society and the individual.' Boston Quarterly Review, vol. v. p. 29.

-