to the State executive certain letters substantiating Howell's statements the motion was postponed. That the circumstance might not be used by Howell in justification of his action, the proceedings were placed on the secret journals.' This occasioned no little vexation in Congress. It was irregular, and adopted only in the last extremity. That this attack on Howell was made to break down his influence at home is abundantly proved. Madison says the " unanimous suspicions were fixed on Mr. Howell." It was thought that the exposure of the author of the writings "would destroy in his State that influence which he exerted in misleading its counsels in regard to the impost."3 The Rhode Island champion was the ultra state rights member of the Continental Congress. Holding extreme opinions, and forced often to maintain them against great odds, he sometimes overstepped the bounds of parliamentary courtesy and practiced an obstruction policy no less vigorous than has been pursued in our national Capitol in more recent years. Of his sincerity and singleness of purpose there is ample proof in his own writings and those of his colleague, Dr. Arnold. The latter says: It appears to have been his first and only wish to serve his country generally, and especially his constituents, with unshaken fidelity. He clearly understood the Articles of Confederation, and distinguished between the rights relinquished by the separate States and those retained.4 When the contest was at an end, the Assembly, at its session in February, 1783, adopted resolutions approving the conduct of their Delegates. The resolutions expressed their appreciation of "the meritorious services rendered to this State and to the cause of freedom in general by the firmness and patriotic conduct of the said Delegates, particularly in their strenuous exertions to defeat the operation of measures which this State considered as dangerous to the public liberty."5 The attack on the Rhode Island Delegate had failed. The impost was lost. In reviewing Rhode Island's action on the impost the motives may be reduced to three: (1) A misunderstanding of the effects of an impost duty. (2) Anxiety respecting the disposal of the western lands. (3) An extraordinary jealousy of 1 Secret Journal of Congress, I, 248-249. 2 Letters, 1782-83, No. 47, January 8, 1783. 3 Madison Papers, I, 223. 4 Letters, 1782-83, No. 34, December 6, 1782. 5 Acts and Resolves, MS., February, 1783. yielding to outside authority any power over her internal affairs. In relation to an impost Rhode Island stood in a peculiar position. She was the only small State in which commerce and manufactures predominated. No State was so dependent on her neighbors for agricultural produce. To build up the former commerce of the State was the dream of the new race of merchants. Free trade was to be the foster mother of their enterprise. But should a duty be levied it must be paid by the importer. He might or might not be able to add this to the price of his goods. In case it was added, the neighboring States would probably raise correspondingly the price of produce. The proceeds from the duty, instead of remaining in the State to balance this enhanced price, would be withdrawn for the use of the National Government. Should the neighboring States be provoked to lay an embargo against her, the State would be in a sorry plight. The attitude of Rhode Island toward the public domain was similar to that of New Jersey, in that she did not contend for national jurisdiction over the territory.' She simply demanded that the proceeds from the sale of such lands should accrue to the benefit of the general Treasury. From the first discussions of the subject did her Delegates strive, as by their instructions they were directed "to contend earnestly for this State's proportion of vacant or back lands."2 Filled with this solution of the nation's finances Rhode Island refused to yield her peculiar advantages until she was assured of a fair share of the proceeds of this great domain. The founders of the State represented the extreme of individualism and the trait strongly marked their descendants. Civil and religious liberty was granted by the charter of 1663 to a degree heretofore unknown and handed down the generations as a precious heirloom. The colony's first century had been a struggle against oppression. From Plymouth, from Massachusetts, from Connecticut, even from all combined, had come persecutors of her citizens and claimants to her territory. As a sovereign State she hastened to resist British oppression. But the century of controversy with her neighbors could not fail to leave its scar, even after the wound had healed, and now when the first step was taken toward transferring to the Journal of Congress, II, 605. 2 Acts and Resolves, MS., November 2, 1782. General Government any power over the local affairs of the State, she halted and refused to advance. In defeating the impost of 1781 Rhode Island was victorious. But by her act she began that course of opposition which, misunderstood by our historians, is to this day flung at her as a reproach-a course which ended only after a vital struggle in 1790. BIBLIOGRAPHY. Congress, Journals of, 1774-1788, 4 vols., Washington, 1823. Foster, Theodore, Correspondence of, MS. vols., in library of the Rhode General Assembly of Rhode Island, Acts and Resolves of, 1728-1860, 52 MS. folio vols., in Rhode Island State archives. Letters, 1731-1800, 21 MS. vols. in Rhode Island State archives. Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Records of, edited by J. R. Bartlett, 10 vols., Providence, 1856-1865. Washington, George, Writings of, edited by W. C. Ford, 14 vols., New York and London, 1889-1893. XX. THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROVERSY IN RHODE ISLAND IN 1841.1 By ARTHUR MAY MOWRY. The general peace and the customary quiet of the State of Rhode Island were rudely disturbed in the spring and summer of 1842. The whole population was in a panic, and in the northern county, especially, the consternation was widespread. The struggle was confined within a restricted area and to a limited population, and the violence of the contest was very great. Son rose against father, brother attacked brother, neighbor was opposed to neighbor, and the resulting wounds are scarcely yet healed. The Rhode Island civil war was begun during the first week of May, 1842. Then two rival legislatures were organized, The sources for the history of the Rhode Island contest are nearly all conscious material, but fortunately both sides of the controversy are well represented. The majority and the minority reports of the select committee of the House of Representatives appointed to consider the question of the interference of the President, commonly called Burke's report and Causin's report, contain an almost unlimited amount of valuable material. Turner and Burgess's report of the trial of Dorr, prepared by his supporters, is well offset by Pitman's report, which presents the opposite side. The arguments of Messrs. Hallett, Whipple, and Webster in the Luther-Borden case present the constitutional questions. King's Life of Dorr, Frieze's History of the Suffrage Movement, Potter's Considerations on the Rhode Island Question, and Bowen's Recent Contest in Rhode Island furnish very complete presentations of the subject. Reports of speeches in Congress and the Rhode Island newspapers have been found valuable to supplement the other sources. During the controversy the newspapers teemed with argumentative discussions, and a large number of these were later issued in pamphlet form. Open letters were written to Governor Morton, of Massachusetts, to George Bancroft, and to others who encouraged Dorr and his supporters. This mass of tracts is nearly unlimited, and most of the older private libraries in New England, as well as the public libraries, contain many of these publications. The perusal of these pamphlets is extremely monotonous, but in no other way can the true inwardness of the contest be obtained. |