View TEI
The Dorr Letters ProjectThomas Wilson Dorr to George Turner: |
Introduction
In this important letter to George Turner, Thomas Dorr once again presses upon the Newport attorney to push for a full argument on the Luther case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court Court. Dorr was clearly afraid that Turner and Benjamin Hallett would somehow orchestrate with the defense attorneys a closure to the case without a full argument at Court. He answers the three arguments against the Dorrite position that were raised in the lower courts and likely to come up again before the Supreme Court by defense counsels John Whipple and Daniel Webster. Nearly another year would pass before the case was fully argued before the Court, frustrating Thomas Dorr to no end.
Letter
Providence, Feb. 3, '47
GeorgeTurner Esq:
Dear Sir,
I addressed a letter yesterday to
yourself & Mr H., in reply to your communications of Jan. 28th
& 29th, and committed it to the hands of a friend, who left last
evening en route, without delays, for Washington; and I write
again today, to guard against accidents, repeating the most
urgent request that Luther’s case ^may be argued and disposed of at
the present term of the Court. A farther continuance is out
of the question; and the demand is universal to go ahead. We
oppose also any propositions or agreement for an argument in
writing; desiring that the case may receive the freest investigation
in open Court. The understanding with you as counsel
was, that, in the event of a failure of Mr Walker for the closing
argument, you were to do the next best you could; and, if no
additional aid could be procured, you were to open and close the case
yourselves. And this understanding we expect to have carried
out, excepting only an intervention by the act of God, which shall
disable you entirely from proceeding with the case.
The ^main points of the opposing counsel, as disclosed
by Mr H., do not suggest any new matters for consideration.
The first ^point that a Constitution has no validity without the original
consent of the Legislature, embraces the bold Tory doctrine, that
the sovereignty of the State resides in the government and not
in the People (define them how you may); and can be easily turned
by principle & authority. Where the mode of amending a Constitution
through the Legislature, as prescribed in the instrument itself, is
to be pursued, the Legislature ^of course could take the initiative; but
even in this case the final vote of the electors is the binding act, and
it is not an ordinary election act, but an act of the electors as
representatives of the sovereign body. But when the proceeding is
on the outside of the Constitution, any act of the Legislature can only
be by way of ^inquiring or solicitation to the electors, or to the sovereign body, or of
convenience to place accustomed forms at their disposal, or to provide
for expenses. The New York case here comes in importance;
and the opinion of the Supreme Court of that State, that
the precedent act of the legislature was nothing till validated by
the vote of the electors (who voted in their sovereign capacity, and not
by the authority from the Constitution) must stagger the dialectics
even of the “Expounder” himself.
In regard to the second point, that, in order to be
recognized by the Supreme Court, a State government must be represented
in & recognized by Congress, we can say, that, if the People’s
government, which is not now in existence, and which the Court are
not called upon in this action to resuscitate, had not been suppressed
by force, representatives & senators to Congress would have
been chosen under it, and would have made good their seats.
The opposition surely do not intend the absurdity of saying that
no constitutional changes are valid unless ratified by Congress.
As to the third point, that no new government can be
established by force of arms – there is ^as in the preceding, a play upon the word government.
We have never attempted, properly speaking, to set up a new government,
but to continue an old one under the form of a new Constitution.
We may admit that to assail & obstinate the government under the
old charter would have made a case of “domestic violence”
for the intervention of the President. But after the People,
by an authentic sovereign act, had set up a Constitution, and
elected officers under it, the government began to proceed
under the new form, the old Legislature became defunct, and
all persons offering violence to the government as thus transformed
and continued, were put over into the category of rebels
and traitors. There have never been two governments in the state. One
or the other was no government at all. The “Algerines” saved themselves,
by their own & the force of Tyler, from the penalties of treason.
By refusing to inquire into the facts of the case, when the People’s
Constitution was presented to their Legislature, they have stopped
themselves from denying the authentic act of the People, wh[ich]
was the basis of the new Constitution.
If the “Algerine” laws ^against our elections had been put in force,
a difficulty might have arisen. We should have declared
these laws null & void, as conflicting with the ^superior organic law, whose
operation they were designed to obstruct. Then there might have
been a difficulty as to our mode of relief before the transfer of the
government to the new Legislature. These laws however were
not put in force. They were not resisted, and no question relating
to our rights against them now arises.
Very truly,
Tho's W. Dorr
P.S. Let me hear from you as often as convenient. It will be advisable to present only the first case at this term.
Questions
Why were the repeated delays in the Luther case injurious to Dorr’s cause?