View TEI
The Dorr Letters ProjectThomas Wilson Dorr to George Turner and Benjamin F. Hallet: |
Introduction
In this letter to George Turner and Benjamin Hallett, Thomas Dorr expresses doubt as to whether Robert Walker will take part in the arguments in Luther v. Borden before the U.S. Supreme Court. Dorr urges Turner and Hallett to push forward regardless of Walker’s position. Dorr details his views on the ideological positions of the judges and how the case will likely go. In the end, Dorr was wrong in terms of predicting the vote count and content of the ruling. The Court ruled 5-1 against the Dorrite position (three judges - John Catron, John McKinley and Peter Daniel - did not take part in the ruling).
Letter
Providence, Feb. 2, '47
Afternoon
To GeorgeTurner &
B.F. Hallet, of counsel
for Martin Luther:
Gentlemen,
The letter of Mr Turner,
dated on the 28th of Jan. was received on the 31st; and the continuation of
it by Mr H., dated on the 29th, came to hand this morning.
I lost no time in attempting to gather ^in conference some of our friends most
interested in the contents of these communications, but without
success until this afternoon; and I shall consequently be obliged
to return a brief reply to the matters proposed for consideration.
Without stopping to comment on the course pursued
by Mr Walker, I would remind you that the understanding
with which you left us was, that if, for any reason,
Mr W. should not be ready to discharge the duty assigned
to and accepted by him, you would look further for the
required aid (not to Mr C. in particular); and if no one,
eminent for ability or station, could be found, at this late day,
to step into the gap, you would go on with the case yourselves,
and argue it to the court. Your letters leave it still
an uncertainty whether Mr Walker will appear at all at the trial;
and, if no other desirable arrangement can be made, it will
be left to you to buckle on your armor, and enter the arena
without assistance, trusting in the potency of a great and
righteous cause to sustain you against all the assaults of the
great federal, Algerine D[r]agon himself. Even Mr Webster’s
acknowledged power cannot sustain him in a cause, which,
as by your statement of the points of the opposing counsel,
rests mainly on the principle, that, in this country, the
sovereignty is vested in the government and not in the People.
You are to be envied in your duty & privilege of assailing Mr
Webster, or any other man who shall occupy an old, exploded
Tory ground like this.
The reasons for going on with the argument
of the case at the present time are well understood by you,
and need not be enlarged upon. Our friends are impatient. Their
enemies are taunting them with a want of confidence in the case.
The delay injures us here politically. The Court is full
expecting ^the absence of a judge who is opposed to us. The concurrence of
five judges is necessary to give the case against us. The worst
we have to expect under the present appearances is an equal division
of the Court, 4 & 4. If Nelson be now “conservative”, he has
altered his mind since the summer of 1845, when, in a conversation
with a citizen of this State, not a lawyer, he expressed his
entire approbation of the proceedings of the R. Island Suffrage party.
We may rely then I think on Woodbury, Nelson, Grier & Catron.
With the addition of Daniel we have the decision in our favor.
In reference to the probable establishment of a new circuit, we shall
gain nothing by delay. The circuit cannot be established in the
few remaining days of the present session of Congress. What we might
gain by the appointment of a successor to McKinley we should be very
liable to lose by the absence of some friendly judge.
If the Supreme Court of the U. States shall decide this cause
against us, they will damage themselves vastly more than they
will the great right of reserved sovereignty in the People. The
question will once more enter the political field, and lead eventually
to the expuspation of such judges from the Constitution.
Nothing should prevent you from bringing this case
to final argument at the present term. We are opposed to any
arrangement for an argument in writing; and desire that our cause,
in all its proportions, should be held up to the fullest scrutiny in
open court; where we also wish to have exhibited the unmitigated
sentiments of the Algerine Tory party, by the authority of its greatest
Expositor.
Go on then, with or without the aid, which you
have been seeking; and we cannot doubt, from the preparations,
which we know to be made by you, that you will render
ample justice to the cause and acquire an honorable distinction
in vindicating it.
Tho's W. Dorr for M. Luther
Questions
Why do you think Dorr was interested in Robert Walker’s help with the case?