^^l --^^ms ^. :■%'''«> '%.'*!''%.'^^'%><«fr LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, W^%"^ .=^/«^...T!7X^ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. | c^v €:oCL<^-c. THE C^^^^^y"/^ CONSPIRACY TO DEFEAT THE LIBERATION OF GOVERNOR DORR! HUNKERS AND ALGERINES ^ ^ ^ 1^ t:^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ THEIR POLICY UJ¥VEIIiED PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY JOHN WTNDT, No. 9 9 R E A D i: S T R i: E T . 1845. TREASON DEFINED: FRANCIS C. TREAUWELL, COUNSELLOR AT LAW, AND LECTURER UPON THE CONSTITUTION. TO WHICH ARE ADDED, I UK DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. The Greatest Movemeut of the Age. " The Members of the National Reform Asssociation have adopted the foUowiDg Pledge, as a bond of uniun,aiid as a test for candidates who may be nomihated for legislative office: " Wc, whose names are annexed, desirous of restoring to Man his Natural Right to Land, do solemnly agree, lh;it vie will not vote for any m.an,for any legislative office, who will not pledge, himself, m writing, to use all the influ- ence of his station, if elected, to pi event all further traffic in tlii I'ublic Lands of the States and of the United States, and to cause them to be laid out in Farms and Lots for the free and exclusive use of actual settlers." A circular of the National Reform Association observes : " We see this singular condition of affairs: that, while wealth in our country is rapidly accumulating; while internal improvements of every description are fast increasing, and while machinery has multiplied the powers of production to an immense extent; yet, with all these 7iattonai advantages, the compensation for useful labor is getting less and less. We seek the cause of this anonialj-, and we trace it to the monopoly of the land, which places labor »t the mercy of capital. We therefore desire to abolish the monopoly; not by interfering with the conventional rights of persons now in possession of the land, but by arresting the further rale of all lands not yet appropriated as private property, and by allowing these lands hereafter to be freely occupied by those who may choose to settle on them. We propose that the Public Lands hereafter shall not be owned, but occupied only, the occupant having the right to sell or otherwise dispose of improvements to any one not in possession of other land ; so that, by preventing any individual from becoming possessed of more than a limited rtUiintity, every one may enjoy the right." FOR SALE BY JOHN WINDT, 99 Reade Street, N.Y. TREASON DEFINED, Price 6 Cents, A neat pocket etlition of the Decla- ration of Independence, and the Con- stitution, to which is prefixed a defi- nition of Treason, being an inquiry as to what constitutes that crime, and whether it be possible to commit it against an individual State. Every citizen, and particularly every juryman, ought to possess and study the Constitution of the United Stales, it being the "supreme law of the land," a plain and simple docu- ment, intended by its noble framers to be understood by the mass of the people, whose rights were to be pro- tected against legislative, executive or other oppression. Many enact- ments, dignified with the name of " laws," are passed by state and mu- nicipal legislatures, and even by Con- gress, that are repugnant to the "su- preme law," and are therefore not LAAv, and should be corrected in the jury box, which was designed to be as beneficial in correcting legislative (and sometimes judicial ) error, as the ballot box is to correct political error. Jurymen have so much neglected acquiring a knowledge of the "su- preme law of the land," and of iheir duties under if, that they are in gene- ral the mere automatons of the judge — and have thus brought into disre- pute the boasted Palladium of Free- dom — Trial by Jury. OCF On the last leaf of this cover are two pages of a most interesting pamphlet, just published by. John WiNDT, and for sale also at the ofiice of the Working Man's Advocate, 29 Ann Street, N"Y. entitled YOUNG AMERICA! Explaining the Principles and Ob- jects of the National Reform Asso- ciation, with diagrams of a Township and Village, and the testimony of nu- merous public men, public writers and public presses, in favor of the movement. $1..50 per hundred, neatly stitched anti trimmed. It isputatalovv price, that the well wishers of humanity may puixhase for circulation. Orders (post paid) may be ad- dressed to John Windt, 99 Reade Street, New-York. This pamphlet offers, perhaps, the best practical answer that has yet been given to two of the most mo- mentous questions of this age : What shall be done to secure the Right to Labor ? AND What can be done to insure Honest Industry its justReward ? /^^r7-. r t :i r\ i \ T ? --J. i w both of the Algerine factions — as will be fully proved whenever Dorr shall come out and unite them. These differences of the Algerines are differences, not of principle, for the principles of both are identical ; — but of position. The " Law and Order " Algerines are in power, and bask in its benefits. The Hunker Algerines are striving to oust their " Law and Order " brethren, and seize upon the spoils of office. The " Law and Order "Algerines want to keep Dorr grinding in the cells, and so do the Hunker Algerines, at least till the offices are filled under the new administration. The " Law and Order " Algerines are opposed to carrying up the case of Dorr by writ of error, and so are the Hunker Algerines. The " Law and Order " Algerines are at Avar with the Dorr Liberation Society, and so are the Hunker Algerines. In this latter particular, the Hunkers have practised to the full the villany so long taught by their examples, if they have not " bettered the instruction." The " Law and Order " Algerines, when forced by the distant thunders of public opinion, pealing upon their madness in conspiring against Dorr's right of appeal by writ of error, call in Burgess, who, faithful to his pledge to conceal the atrocious act of removing Dorr to the State Prison, from Messrs. Atwell and Turner, and faithless to his client in abandoning his cause, because the Inspectors refused him admission to the cell of Dorr afterwards, again becomes the confidential, if not the irresponsible counsellor of the oft betrayed Dorr. And in all this, the Hunkers entirely concur with their prototypes, the " Law and Order " Algerines. Both divisions of the Algerine army agree that the case shall not go up, if both combined can prevent it, by the destruction of the Dorr Liberation Society. But when both are forced to yield to the inflexible perseverance of that little band of Dorrite men and women, both unite as cor- dially as did Pilate and Herod, in recalling Burgess to resume his functions ; whether of i-esponsibility, or of ir-responsibility, doth not yet very clearly ap- pear. Both parties of Algerines agree that Dorr's cause shall be committed to a man who says that neither himself nor his client has any faith in his defence ! To a man who openly said, that carrying the case up by writ of error might operate to Dorr's prejudice in obtaining a pardon ! Verily Governor Dorr is 16 THE HUNKERS AND in the hands of the Algerines ; the combined " Law and Order " — Hunker Algerines, and if they have not selected a suitable counsellor for him, it must be admitted that they have made a very appropriate selection to represent themselves. The Dorr Liberation Society, finding Dorr's cause deserted by Burgess and the Hunkers, persevered in their efforts to sustain it, and issued certificates of contributions to the fund for that purpose, according to the resolutions herein- before given (page 10). Until now, the Society had been composed of females onl}'-, to calm the perturbed spirits of the Algerines, by assurances that none but peaceful means were contemplated ; and also to give them all the assur- ance that woman's devotion and a mother's love could afford, that it would not be in the power of faithless, treacherous man, to turn them from their pur- pose, by betraying afresh the suffering victim. A new set of missionaries all at once sprung up in the interest of one or the other division of the Algerines, in the shape of a sort of " Cowboys,"* who went to the ladies, and by a species of flattery, accompanied by coaxing, teasing, insinuating, menacing remon- strance, endeavored to intimidate and drive them to abandon their cause, and cease to issue their certificates of contributions, and recal such as had been issued. The rallying questions of the ladies about cartridge-box, ballot-box, and possibly sauce-box adventures and misadventures, deeds done and feared to be done, silenced the " Cowboys," and drove them, like lacerated hounds and snarling curs, back to their kennels. In this extremity, the falsely-styled De- mocratic State Central Committee, whose aid had been duly invoked by the galled jades, interposed with their Bull, as follows : BULL OF THE STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE. Providence, November 1, 1844. Mrs. Abbt H. Lord, President of the Dorr Liberation Society. Madam, — I would respectfully call your attention to the following Resolution, passed this evening at a nunnerous meeting of the Committee of the Democratic party of this City. "Resolved — That the Chairman of the Democratic State Central Committee be requested to address a note to Mrs. Abby H. Lord, President of the Dorr Liberation Society, to dis- suade her from any issue of the contemplated Dorr Liberation Stock, and to request her, if any has been issued, to call it in ; and that if the Society persist in their proposed plan, the Chairman of said Committee cause a notice of disapprobation to be pubUshed in the Demo- cratic nevfspapers." The above is an expression of opinion by Democrats, who are friends of Governor Dorr; and I presume that I need add nothing to induce you to comply with their declared wishes. Very respectfully, Your obedient Servant, W. R. Danforth, Chavtnan Dem. St. Ccn. Committee. Never let it be said hereafter that there are not courageous men in Rhode Island. These men may not, indeed, have taken up arms in support of the People's Constitution. They may not even have taken up their quills in sup- port of it, after having been forbidden to do so by the Algerines, Hunker, or " Law and Order." This, if true, would be no evidence of want of courage on their part, but rather of discipline and due subordination. That they are men of courage in an eminent degree, is proven by their Bull. No body of * During the Revolution, CowSoys were petty spies or scouts between armies or parties at variance ; pretending to be the iriends of both parties by turns, as they went from one camp to the other. ALGERINES IDENTIFIED. 17 men, however numerous, ?re//-appointed, well-armed, and well-commanded, destitute of that essential element of the soldier — the Ahjerine soldier — would dare to attack a Society of Ladies ! a Society of Dorr Liberation Ladies ! en- gaged in the holy cause of taking up Dorr's appeal to them.^ precisely where he left it, and carrying it where, in struggling to send it, he met worse than death, civil death, upon the cross of conspiracy and treachery — humation alive ! incarceration in the State Prison ; forbidden to see father or mother, friend or counsel, while yet, as is now proved, he had the right of an appeal to the highest civil tribunal in the land ! In this situation, when the Judas Iscariots had sold him, and the Simon Peters and Simon Sorcerers had fled from him in dismay, the Ladies' Dorr Liberation Society espoused his cause. And this is the time, and this is the Society of Ladies, that General Danforth, armed cap-a-pie, with all his troops on paper, and in paper, duly heralded by the terrors of an advanced guard of Old Harri's long nines, bravely marches forth to attack ! If General Danforth had all the original capital of Robert JVIorris's bank at his command — to wit : no money, no rations, and three hundred hogsheads of rum — it would puzzle him to collect, even upon paper, an army of more prowess. General Danforth must not en- gross all the honor of this brave exploit. Let him publish his roster and com- pany rolls, and let every ral, and rat, et tatterdemalion, have his meed of praise, glory, and pap. If he wait till the appointments are made, he may have to march through Coventry with but a lank corporal's guard, or a hollow square in the Herald. Thus attacked, and threatened with the fulmination of other Bulls in the " democratic newspapers," the Ladies of the Dorr Liberation Society laid the case before their husbands and other male friends, and invited them to join the Society. The latter promptly responded to this call, and the Society, with increased numbers and vigor, moved on, as it had begun, harmoniously in the pursuit of its objects. The idea of identifying the Hunker- Algerines of the State Central Committee exclusively with the democratic cause, was an artifice too shallow to deceive the people of Rhode Island. Every member of the Dorr Liberation Society, male and female, was a democrat, not merely in name, but in principle and practice. In the important Presidential Election then pending, and now so gloriously consummated, they performed a conspicuous part, and rendered efficient service, by a rapid succession of assemblies to raise hickory poles, upon which were displayed flags, bearing the inscriptions, " Poik and Dallas ; Dorr and Liberty." But a single exception is recollected. At Newport, certain Hunkers, who have never been guilty of treason against the Algerines, nor of having been incarcerated with Dorr for faithful adherence to the People's Constitution, insisted upon not having Dorr's name upon a flag which they raised in honor of Polk and Dallas. A heavy gale of wind soon arose, when Boreas pierced the tlag with his numerous arrows, and blew it to atoms. Another pole and flag was raised, duly dedicated and inscribed, " Polk and Dallas; Dorr and Liberty." Boreas flung abroad its folds in beautiful display, and there it waved until the elections ended in triumph ; showing that Boreas was in favor of Polk and Dallas, but not without the free sullrage qua- lification of Dorr and Liberty for the basis of their administration. The threat of the Hunkers, " that if the Society persist in their proposed plan, the Chairman of said Committee cause a notice of disapprobation to be pub- lished in the democratic newspapers," had no terrors in it for the Society. They sought to have their proposed })lan, the release of Dorr through the aid of a writ of error, and the diffusion of all possible knowledge of the Consti- tution and Laws of the United States, particularly the right of bearing arms, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and other important rights which 2 18 THE HUNKERS AND had been trodden down by the Algerines — published in the democratic newspa- pers. They pubhshed their " proposed plan," their constitution and proceed- ings, in the Gazette, and paid for it. They requested the Herald to publish them on the same terms, cash down ; but that organ of the Hunkers could not be induced to do it for love, money, nor hatred. The Committee dared not to publish the " proposed plan" in the Herald, and then follow it with a notice of their disapprobation in the same paper. The people would be able then to compare them. They would be sure to approve the " proposed plan," and ask what objection the State Central Committee, if they had any democracy or Dorrism about them, could possibly have to its most speedy consummation. This course would have exhibited the cloven foot of the Hunkers in all its de- formity. They might as well have published in their organ that the Herald had been sold to the " Law and Order " Algerines for fifteen hundred dollars ; and that the money, having been planked with the proposition to purchase,* with liberty to keep it over night, and dream upon it, and sleep upon it if possible, was a boon too tempting to be refused. The " proposed plan" of the Dorr Liberation Society, was hailed with joy wherever it was known, throughout the country, saving by the Algerines. To both divisions of that corps, the mere proposition was alarming, but perhaps more immediately so to the Hunkers. The Dorr Liberation Society, after vexatious detentions of about six weeks, obtained a copy of the record of the trial of the case, duly authenticated by the Clerk of the Supreme Court at Newport, and proceeded to draw up their pa- pers. They well knew that it was desirable to commence with a petition signed by Gov. Dorr in person, but as all access to him had been denied, they had no expectation of being able to obtain his signature in any very short time. Still, the regular steps were to be taken, and evidence of the denial of one right was deemed to be good ground for demanding another, or for the allowance of the original right to the writ of error, upon the best application that circumstances would admit of obtaining. On the 11th of Nov., 1S44, Mr. Treadwell, of counsel for the Society, made a written application to the Mayor of Providence, for liberty, in company with Gen. Fessenden, associate counsel, to visit Gov. Dorr, and confer with him upon all matters needful for his defence. A few days after this request was made, the counsel of the Society called on the chairman of the Board of Inspectors, and left a petition with him., with a request that Gov. Dorr might see it, and have liberty to sign it. His verbal and written reply, both in the negative, will he found in the affidavit of Gen. Fessenden, and in the copy of the letter an- nexed thereto, in the report of the case. The Mayor of Providence returned the petition that had been left with him on the 18th of Nov., on the evening of the same day. That petition was im- mediately taken to Mr. Sullivan Dorr, the father of Gov. Dorr, and left with him for his signature, full explanations of the objects of the Society having been made to him. Mr. Dorr expressed favorable opinions in relation to the course the Society had taken, and said he Avould consult his counsel upon the subject. The next morning Mr. Dorr returned the petition unsigned, and declined giving a reason for not having signed it ; but said that, at some future time, he might be able to give such a reason. Mr. Dorr expressed great indignation at the treatment his son received from the Inspectors of the prison. He had signed memorials to the Legislature to pardon his son, but he would not sign a petition * Such a proposal was made b}' the Algerines, accompanied with the money, about $1500, as was said; urging the proprietor to keep the money over night, and consider of it seriously. The proposition, it is understood, has been declined, and the money returned ; whether through the State Central Committee, or otherwise, is unknown to the writer. ALGERINES IDENTIFIED, I9 to the Supreme Court of the United States, for a writ of error, for the purpose of justifying his son, and establishing his innocence. Mr. Dorr had previously expressed the apprehension, that any attempt to carry up the case by writ of error would tend to his son's prejudice in an application for a pardon. On this subject, his remarlcs were in concurrence with the sentiments expressed by Walter S. Burgess, Esq. The Dorr Liberation Society regretted exceedingly tliis determination of the father, to withhold his signature from a petition to carry the case where the son had labored so hard, so ably, and so long, to have it go. The more so, inas- much as a judicial magistrate of the highest character in the country, was be- heved to have expressed the opinion, that the authorities of Rhode Island had no right to prevent Gov. Dorr from signing a petition for a writ of error ; and further, that under the circumstances, the signature of the father of Gov. Dorr to the petition, would be, and ought to be, deemed sufficient to allow the writ of error, if a case of jurisdiction should be presented. The next step was to get the petition signed by citizens of Providence. Here there was no difficulty. At a late hour in the evening, when it was pro- posed to have the petition so signed, more than forty citizens of Providence were collected in a few minutes at the " Banner Cottage," who were happy to have an opportunity to see and sign such a petition. Had it been desirable to obtain more signatures, hundreds, aye, thousands of the citizens of that city, where Gov. Dorr was so well known, would gladly have added theirs. This petition, for prudential reasons,* was addressed " To the Chief Justice and As- sociate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, holden at Washing- ton," and in this shape was shown to one of those Justices. It has been stated probably on good grounds, that the Justice referred to, after inquiring the reason why Gov. Dorr's father had not signed the petition, remarked, that if instead of having been addressed to the Court, it had, with the evidence exhibited of the exclusion of counsel, which he pronounced to be unlawful, been addressed to himself, he should have cited the authorities of Rhode Island to show cause why the writ of error should not be allowed. The term of the Supreme Court was now too near at hand, to admit of making such citation returnable before the close of that term, and the application was made to that Court at Wash- ington early in December. It is impossible to describe the consternation which now reigned in the ranks of both divisions of the " Identified." Before the record was obtained, it was confidently and tauntingly said that it never would be obtained. Now, it was manifest that a serious movement for a writ of error was in due progress. Every cow-boy and scout of the Hunkers was put upon duty to watch the movements of the Dorr Liberation Society and their counsel, and make due re- port ; and the reports came so thick, and so fatal to their hopes, that the coun- tenances of the Hunkers, like those of the " Law and Orders," sank down to the brink of despair. Each dynasty (for both are sovereign and admit of noth- ing but subjects under them) was, by itself, tremendously alarmed, and this alarm acted and reacted upon both houses of the identities. And they had good reason to be alarmed. Both factions were conspirators. Both had conspired to produce the same result, the perpetual imprisonment of Dorr. By diflerent means ; but tending to the same end. The one by excluding counsel, and the other by threatening beforehand, that unless they were admitted, they would abandon the case. You shall not see Dorr, said the " Law and Order" Alge- * The prudential reasons were in part, that the magistrate had been represented by both '• Law and Order" Algerines, and Hunker Algerines, to be decidedly averse to having the case "go up." Burgess and his associates repeatedly stated that they ^7i^the State Courts in the exercise of their ordinary jurisdiction. SUPREME COURT U. S. 37 With this view, the sixth article declares, that ' this Constitution, and the laws of the .United States, which shall he made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United wStates, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges, in every State, shall be bound thereby, anything, in the Constitution or hiws of any State, to the contrary not- withstanding.' It is obvious that this obligation is imperative upon the State judges in their' official, and not merely in their private capacities. From the very nature of their judicial duties, they would be called upon to pronounce the law, applicable to the case in judgment. They were not to decide, merely according to the laws, or Constitution of the State, but according to the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, — ' the supreme law of the land.'"— i6., 601. " It has been argued, that such an appellate jurisdiction over State Courts is inconsistent with the genius of our governments, and the spirit of the Con- stitution. That the latter was never designed to act upon State sovereign- ties, but only upon the people ; and that, if the power exists, it will materially impair the sovereignty of the Skates, and the independence of their Courts. We cannot yield to the force of this reasoning ; it assumes principles which we cannot admit, and draws conclusions to which we do not yield our assent. —lb., 603. " It is a mistake that the Constitution was not designed to operate upon States in their corporate capacities. It is crowded with provisions, which restrain or annul the sovereignty of the States, in some of the highest branches of their prerogatives. — Ih., 603. " The Courts of the United States can, without question, revise the pro- ceedings of the executive and legislative authorities of the States, and, if they are found to be contrary to the Constitution, may declare them to be of no legal validity. Surely, the exercise of the same right over judicial tribunals is not a higher, or more dangerous act of sovereign power. — lb., 604. " It is manifest, that the Constitution has proceeded upon a theory of its own, and given and withheld powers according to the judgment of the Ameri- can people, by whom it was adopted. We can only construe its powers, and cannot inquire into the policy, or principles, which induced the grant of them. The Constitution has presumed (whether rightly or wrongly, we do not inquire), that Slate attachments, State prejudices, State jealousies, and State interests, might sometimes obstruct, or control, or be supposed to obstruct, or control, the regular administration of justice. — lb., 007. " There is an additional consideration, which is entitled to great weight. The Constitution of the United States was designed for the common and equal benefit of all the people of the United States. The judicial power was granted for the same benign and salutary purposes. It was not to be exerciscrd exclu- sively for the benefit of parties, who might be plaintiffs, and would elect the national forum ; but also for the protection of defendants, who might be entitled to try their rights, or assert their privileges, before the same forum. Yet, if the construction contended for be correct, it will follow, that, as the plaintiff may always elect the State Courts, the defendant may be deprived of all the securi- ty, which the Constitution intended in aid of his rights. Such a state of things can, in no respect, be considered as giving equal rights. To obviate this difficulty, we are referred to the power, which it is admitted, Congress possess, to remove suits from State Courts to the National Courts ; and this forms the second ground upon which the argument we are considering has been attempted to be su.stained. — lb., 607, 608. " A. writ of error is, indeed, but a process, which removes the record of one Court to the possession of another Court, and enables the latter to inspect the 38 EX PARTE DORR; proceedings, and give such judgment, as its own opinion of the law and justice of the case may warrant. There is nothing in the nature of the process which prohibits it from being apphed by the Legislature to interlocutory, as well as final judgments. And if the right of removal from State Courts exist before judgment, because it is included in the appellate power, it must, for the same reason, exist after judgment. — 76., 609, 610. " The remedy, too, of removal of suits would be utterly inadequate to the pur- poses of the Constitution, if it could act only on the parties, and not upon the State Courts. In respect to criminal prosecutions, the difficultyseems admitted to be insurmountable ; and in respect to civil suits, there would, in many cases, be rights without corresponding remedies. If State Courts should deny the Constitutionality of the authority to remove suits from their cognizance, in what manner could they be compelled to relinquish the jurisdiction .'' In respect to criminal cases, there would at once be an end of all control ; and the State de- cisions would be paramount to the Constitution. And though, in civil suits, the Courts of the United States might act upon the parties, yet the State Courts might act in the same way ; and this conflict of jurisdictions would not only jeopard private rights, but bring into imminent peril the public interests. On the whole, the Court are of opinion, that the appellate power of the United States does extend to cases pending in the State Courts ; and that the 25th sec- tion of the judiciary act, which authorizes the exercise of this jurisdiction in the specified cases, by a writ of error, is supported by the letter and spirit of the Con- stitution. We find no clause in that instrument, which limits this power; and we dare not interpose a limitation, where the people have not been disposed to create one." — 76., 610. 611. The Court, in support of these strong positions, appeals to three historical facts, the latter of which, with a single remark of the Court, closes their deci- sion of this immensely important case. " It is an historical fact, that the Supreme Court of the United Spates have, from time to time, sustained this appellate jurisdiction, in a great variety of cases, brought from the tribunals of many of the most important States in the Union ; and that no State tribunal has ever breathed a judicial doubt on the subject, or declined to obey the mandate of the Supreme Court, until the present occasion. This weight of contemporaneous exposition by all parties, this acqui- escence of enlightened State Courts, and these judicial decisions of the Supreme Court, through so long a period, do, as we think, place the doctrine upon a foundation of authority, which cannot be shaken, without delivering over the subject to perpetual and irremediable doubts." — 76., 611, 612. The character of the case of Mr. Dorr, as it stands upon the record here pre- sented, appears to be as free from ambiguity, as are the Constitution, law, and judicial decisions to which such liberal reference has been made. The indict- ment charges Thomas W. Dorr with having committed the crime of treason against the State of Rhode Island ; with certain acts of hostility against that State, in violation of a statute of its Legislature. The defence set up, asserts that the statute in question is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States ; that the acts in question were not acts of hostility to the State, but on the contrary, were acts of duty to the State, done and performed by said Thomas W. Dorr as the Governor thereof, having been duly elected to that office by the people of the State acting under a valid Constitution and a Republican form of government ; and that the acts of said Thomas W. Dorr, if they amount- ed to treason at all, were treason against the United States, and could not be inquired of in any State Court. The record proves that the whole defence was overruled by the Supreme Court of the State of Rhode Island. That Court held, that the crime of treason might be committed against the State, and that SUPREME COURT U. S. 39 the statute of the State in relation to treason was valid ; and refused to permit the defendant to prove, or give evidence tending to prove, the validity of the Constitution under which he claimed to have acted. Here, it is contended, is a direct issue on constitutional grounds. The court has overruled one ground of defence, and refused to receive evidence in support of an- other. The jury, under the charge of the court, have found a verdict of guilty, and the court have sentenced the defendant to confinement for life in the State Prison. The defendant, sensible that injustice had been done him by the court, in overrul- ing his defence, employed all the means in his power to command, to prepare his case for revision by this tribunal. Of this fact, the record exhibits conclusive evi- dence. Why then, it may be asked, does he not, under his own hand, petition this court for a writ of error, to bring before it the record of his trial and sentence .'' The affidavits which have been read give the reply. He is not permitted to sign or see a petition. He has signified his desire to bring his case before this court, in the only way or manner left open to him, by placing his intentions upon the record. He seems to have anticipated a surprise, and it has been sprung upon him, for he was hurried to the State Prison without allowing him time to have his application for a writ of error prepared, or even to consult with his counsel upon the subject. Harsh and anomalous as this act was, it appears to have been but the prelude to a series of oppressive measures, all conspiring to de- prive the defendant of his right to a revision of his defence by this court. *• By a law of the State (p. 414, Pitb. Laws'R. /.), the control of the State Prison is vested in a board of seven inspectors, appointed annually by the Legis- lature. The act comprises thirty-five sections which, generally, are so many rules and regulations for the government of the prison. One section authorizes the inspectors to make rules and regulations, " provided the same are not incon- sistent with law.'''' Many of the rules are humane. They require that one of the inspectors " shall, at least once in every week, visit each prisoner, and in the absence of the warden and under-keepers, examine into his situation, hear any complaints that he may make, and see that the rules and regulations of the prison be strictly observed ; they shall keep a particular record of all their meetings and proceedings, of their weekly visits, and complaints made to them by prison- ers, whether well or ill-founded. The inspectors may provide for the comfort of the prisoners, by admitting such communication to and from their friends and among themselves, and such books and other articles as they may deem expe- dient." The inspectors shall appoint the warden, who shall appoint under- keepers, keep a journal, in which, among other things, he shall enter " all complaints that are made to him by the convicts ;'" all punishments, and the visits of the inspectors and physicians, and " see that the rules of the prison are strictly obeyed." " Sec. 2S. The governor and lieutenant governor of the State, the speaker of the House of Representatives, the secretary of State, the attorney general, and the justices of the Supreme Court shall, ex-officio, be official visitors of the prison." " Sec. 29. No person not an official visitor, shall be allowed to vi.sit the prison, without a written permit from one of the inspectors ; nor shall any per- son other than an official visitor have any conversation or communication with any convict, except as provided for in the general rules established for the prison. This rule may be dispensed with in flivor of any person visiting the prison from without the State, for the purposes of general information, by a written permit from two inspectors." " Sec. 35. All breaches of this act shall be punished by indictment." The Court will perceive that there is nothing in these prison rules to prevent a man from seeing his counsel, and petitioning for a writ of error. This is his 40 EX PARTE DORR; right, in prison, or out of prison. This is the law of the land, and, if that would make the case any stronger, the laws of the land are recognized by these prison laws. The inspectors are authorized to make rules— provided the same are not inconsistent with law. The prisoners, although by a fiction of law, not a reality, called civilly dead, still have rights. They have the right to complain, and the officers of the prison are bound to make record of these complaints, and redress such as may be well founded. Nor are these the only means of protecting the prisoners from oppression, provided by the laws of Rhode Island. The execu- tive, and certain other officers of the State, including the justices of the Supreme Court, are, ex-officio, official visitors of the prison. They can go in and out freely, without let or hindrance. They can read the record of the inspectors, and the journal of the wardens, and communicate freely with the prisoners, and it is their duty so to do, and see that the officers of the prison perform their duty. That the prisoners be not oppressed ; that " cruel and unusual punish- ments " be not inflicted ; that the laws of the land be duly executed there, in the prison, as well as in other parts of the State. For this the official visitors were appointed. How have the inspectors and official visitors performed their respective duties 1 Let the evidence in this cas?, the affidavits that have been read, answer. No sooner is Dorr, in hot haste, hurried to prison, than these mild and humane rules, these laws of the State, manifestly referring to the supreme law of the land, as the basis upon which they are to rest, are superseded by a new code,"* put in practice by the prison inspectors, if not in solemn form enacted by them, and put upon their records. In violation of these laws, the inspectors of the prison say that Dorr shall not see father, mother, brother, or sister, nor even counsel, and the stern edict is sternly enforced. After a month of delay, the former counsel of Dorr made a formal application for liberty to consult with him, in the prison, in reference to an appeal to this tribunal by a writ of error. This was refused by the inspectors. The latter proposed a reference to the judges of the Supreme Court of the State, and to the Legislature. Irregular as this procedure was, it was resorted to, and proved ineffectual. All access to their client having been denied them, Messrs. Burgess and Turner, for themselves and Mr. Atvvell, abandoned the cause, and declared, that as they were forbidden to consult with him they would take no further measures or means to carry up the case by writ of error. In this extremity, the neighbors of the prisoner, prompted by feelings of hu- manity, interposed, by employing General Fessenden and myself to render our aid in bringing the case, by writ of error, before this Court for revision ; in the confi- dent expectation, that, under the circumstances, the peculiar hardships of this case, such interposition will be looked upon with fiivor, and allowed by this tri- bunal. The affidavits prove, that by virtue of this employment, we applied to the inspectors of the prison for liberty to see the prisoner upon the subject, and that this request was, after taking time for consideration, refused. That we then presented a petition to Thomas M Burgess, Esq., mayor of Providence, who is the chairman of the board of in.spectors, with a request that he would permit said Dorr to read and sign it, if he should think proper to do so. The reply of Mr. Burgess to this plain and reasonable request, exhibits not merely his own decision, but the long foregone determination of the authorities of Rhode Island. He speaks for himself, and he speaks for his fellows. He knows their mind and will, upon the subject, for he has consulted with them; and they already agree with him, that Dorr should never sign or see such a petition ! That it was the determination of the authorities of the State, that said Dorr should have no opportunity to carry up his case by writ of error, and they did not intend that there should be any interference on behalf of said Dorr for SUPREME COURT U. S. 41 that end • This bold attack upon the rights of a prisoner in their power, suffi- ciently indicates the kind of law and order which prevails in Rhode Island. The authorities of that State are not ignorant of the right of Dorr to come before this tribunal for a revision of his case. They know it lull well. 1 hey tacitly admit that they know the fact, by combining to deprive him of the benefit ot it. After much persuasion, the chairman of the board of inspectors consented to show the petition to the other members, and consnll with them. But, as he de- clared beforehand, so the tact turned out. He knew ih^ii they, as well as lum- self, were resolved that Dorr should neither sign nor see the petition. 1 he letter of this officer which accompanies the return of the papers, and which makes a part of the evidence in support of this motion, after stating, that the other members of the board had been consulted, and now as before, agreed with him in taking no action upon the request, adds as the reason, " because it is so very similar ni its character to one which the general assembly, at their October session, virtually refused to grant." _ i .i rcj •* Another branch of the government, the executive, it appears by the alhdavit of Col Eddy, was applied to, to permit the prisoner to see and sign the petition. As the Governor was an official visitor, it was supposed there could be no im- propriety in his taking the petition to the prisoner, for perusal and signature. The law of the State upon the subject was supposed by distinguished civilians to authorize the Governor to do this ; but that officer took a different view of his power under that law, and as ho alleged, for want of power, refused to present the petition to the prisoner or permit any one else to do so. Without questioning the sincerity of the Governor in the view which he ex- presses of his want of power, it may be remarked as a singular fact, that no branch of the Government of Rhode Island could be. induced to make the slicrhtest effort to promote the desire of the prisoner to obtain a writ of error. The inspectors declare that the authorities of the State have resolved that Dorr shall have no opportunity thus to carry up his case, and nothing appears to discredit their assertion. What a spectacle! The whole power of the State placed in the hands of a horde of prison inspectors, and brought to bear upon a sin-le individual, who is claimed .to be civilly dead ! And for what > To keep hTm out of this Court ! Such a determination indicates anything but confidence in a cause which requires such means to sustain it. Dorr relies upon his innocence, and upon his ability to show, that in order to procure a verdict acrainst him, the Constitution has been violated. The authorities of Rhode Is'fand rely, not upon Dorr's supposed guilt, nor upon a consciousness that in his trial they have not violated the Constitution ; but upon the vigilance oi thciv hoard onmson inspectors to keep from his sight a petition! Ihey seem to rely, too, on the supposed power of their prison inspectors to persuade Dorr to petition, not to this Court to allow him to establish his innocence, it he can do so, but to them for a pardon ! They say that if he will ask for a par- don, he shall have it promptly. The chairman of the board of inspectors says he told him so ! What was Dorr's reply > We have not heard it yet ; but if this Court shall issue its process to bring him here, they may hear it trom his own lips, probably in the words of our revolutionary fathers in reply to a similar proposal fronr the minions of George III.: "Wo have comm.tted no offence, and want no pardon !" , , • .i + +i,„.„ The authorities of Rhode Island seem to be under a delusion, that there is no safety for themselves until Dorr shall confess that he is guilty ot a crime of which he asserts his innocence, and sue for pardon. He is ready to prove his innocence before this Court, or failing to do it, to sufTer the consequences This will not answer the purposes of the authorities aforesaid Indeed, it seems to be what they most dread. A delusion not entirely uuhke this, per- 42 EX PARTE DORR;" vaded several towns in Massachusetts at the time of the Salem witchcraft. Some of the most quiet, harmless, and innocent persons in that vicinity, were indicted for the alleged crime of witchcraft — a crime which had no existence but in the minds of the accusers, and the authorities before whom the accused were arraigned. The delusion was so general, that to be accused was almost certain to ensure conviction. To defend, was worse than useless. Confession of guilt, or death under the gallows, were the alternatives. The friends of the accused joined with the authorities in imploring the accused to confess guilt. " But we are innocent," said the accused. " No matter," was the reply ; " you have no other way to escape death ! Death on the gallows ! !" In this awful predicament, some of tlie accused made confession of guilt, and thus saved their lives. Margaret Jacobs made such a confession, and was par- doned, or entitled to pardon. But Margaret Jacobs was a conscientious woman, and was seized with horror on reflecting that she had confessed to a lie. She sent for a friend, who drew up for her a retraction of her confession, which she signed as it were in the face of death and the authorities, and died under the gallows, rejoicing in her innocence, and that she had, by her retraction, escaped the lying snare of the authorities. Margaret Jacobs suffered, but not for crime. The alleged crime of witchcraft was wiped away by confession ; but she suffered for the truth, for asserting her innocence ! At length one of the accused commenced a suit against his accusers for de- famation, which did much to arrest the delusion. The authorities, their coun- sellors and prompters, were made sensible of the crimes they had all commit- ted, in combining to accuse, condemn, and execute, innocent persons. They did what they could to mitigate the sufferings of some of the living victims, but they could not re-animate Margaret Jacobs, and other tenants of the grave on "Gallows Hill." The authorities of Rhode Island seem disposed to treat Dorr as Paul was sometimes treated by the Roman Courts. That great Apostle of the Gentiles was a lawyer of no inconsiderable attainments in the science of the civil law. He well knew the Roman law ; and when falsely accused by his Jewish or Roman brethren, appealed to its provisions, to protect him from mock trials, as well as from punishment without trial. This Apostle had an exalted opinion of " due process of law " before punishment. The Supreme Court, the Court of the highest appellate jurisdiction in Paul's time, was held by Ccesar. Falsely charged with sedition, and other crimes, perhaps treason, and finding that his enemies had conspired against his life ; bandied about by the Roman Judges, and in danger of being sent to Jerusalem to be sacrificed, the Apostle asserted his right of appeal. " I appeal," said he " to Ceesar :" and the Court of Fes- tus, after due conference upon the matter, allowed the writ of error. " Hast thou appealed unto Cffisar .'' unto Caesar shalt thou go," said the Court : and they sent the illustrious prisoner, through perils of storm and shipwreck, up to the Supreme Court, to the judgment-seat of Ceesar, for the establishment of his innocence. In this last particular, the authorities of Rhode Island have departed widely from the precedent of the Roman Court. When Dorr asserts his innocence, and appeals to Csesar, to the Supreme Court of this country for an opportunity to establish it, the authorities of Rhode Island combine together, and tell him, unto Caesar shalt thou not go ! You may confess yourself guilty of a crime of which you say you are innocent, and ask our pardon ; but you shall not go to the Supreme Court of the United States for justification ! You shall not go to Washington with your case at all, but you shall go to the State prison and paint fans for life, or ask our pardon ! Such is the practical language of the barbar- ous authorities of Rhode Island, to an American citizen who, it is believed, this SUPREME COURT U. S. 43 .ourt will say, has a right to send up his defence foyev.s.on^ If such men do not out-Herod the Herods of Galilee, thoy out-Algenne the Algennes of Barbary ' This contempt of the supreme law, and of the rights of American dozens, on the part of the authorities of Rhode Island, brings to mind another Sent in the life of St. Paul. In company with Silas, Paul encountered the witchcraft or divination of a fortune-teller, and cast out the ev. sp.nt. n re- 7en-e for the lost hope of their gains, the members of the craft drao,ged Paul Ind'silas before the magistrates, who stripped oft" their clothes, and ordered ?hem to be lynched until, f^erhaps, the blood ran down to heir heels^ Cast nto pi^^on, under a strict charge to the jailor, that otiicer put in force the new and severe rules and regulations of the authorities. An earthquake suddenly fnterposed and shook every stone in the foundation of the prison, and set the pHsoners at liberty to escape, but they would not flee. 1 he warden w^s alarmed and the magistrates too, but not like the warden, to contrition. The ^alTsStes sent theii- officers to the warden, with orders to let Paul and S.ks r°and the warden delivered the message with an exhortation to peace ^ow fet us hear the law from the illustrious prisoner, the Christian, as well as the Jewish and the Roman lawyer. " They have beaten us openly, uncondemned beZ Romans"-with the rights of Romans, to a trial, aye, and a revision of defence too, before punishment-" and have cast us into prison ; and now do S t^'i"k to thrust us out privily ? nay, vek.lv ; but let them come themselves and fetch us out." And he made them do it. He made them come down to the pifon shattered as it was, and attend to their own jad delivery. Paul knew the iLw, and he compelled the magistrates, the courts without even mJr^- «a/Tu isdiction in the case, ultimately to submit to its supremacy, and ce tify him ee "stead of praying to such courts for pardon, Paul soon taught them fo pray to him and SilL for impunity for such outrageous acts of violence, per- petrated in the consecrated sanctuary of justice. . j at • if An interposition of that character is not now to be expected Nor is it need ul Let but the process of this court go forth, to bring up either Dorr or hL case and if the authorities of Rhode Island do not tremble as did the magis- trates who lynched Paul, the former may have as good an opportunity to certify Dorr f^^e from the crime of treason, as the latter had to release Pau At any rate Dorr thinks he has a right to come here for a revision ; and until he does come here, or learns from this Court that he cannot come, he will never ask for mXn If this Court should revise his defence, and say that he had commit- ted trLon, Ue decision would doubtless have its due weight with h.m and with the great body of the people who deem him innocent, and will so deem Tim untir this Court shall decide against him. In that event although cou- scous "nothing but pure and laudable intentions in the course he has pursued he mlht perhaps be justified in asking for a pardon. It he could not do that, he would submit to his punishment with dignified composure. . ,. ^ . '^.at this case is cleaHy embraced by the appellate J-'-hction of this Court will nrobablv not be denied. Still it may not be amiss to refer the Court to one other case7that of Cron^ell v. Rarrdail, Wth Peters^ R, 392, 39S, m which after reference to many cases, the Court consider the rule as too firmly settled ^ be shaken The writ of er'ror in that case was disallowed because the record d^d no exhibit a case of jurisdiction. Admitting this Court to have jurisdiction in this ca^e, it is important to inquire whether either the executive, legislative, or udiciarpo;er of Ly State, or'the three branches of a ^:^tate government com- bined, can, by any means, deprive this Court of «"^Vm v Ifltr as dispo ition to do so has existed, appears by the case of Martm v. HujUcr^l well as by the case of Dorr. But the question, though impor ant seems to be we settled. So far as power is clearly given by the Constitution to this Court, 44 EX PARTE DORR; or to either branch of the general government, it is supreme and controlling over the State authorities : all of which are under the strongest obligations which human authority can impose, to support the " supreme law of the land." The cases of McCulloch v. Maryland^ 4 TFAea^, 316,and Westonx. The City Council of Charleston, 2 Peters^ K., 449, must be considered as settling the gen- eral doctrine, " that the States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to re- tard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, 'the operations of the Constitu- tional laws enacted by Congress, to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government." — 2 *S7on/'s Com. on Con., 495. And further, " that the powers of a State cannot, rightfully, be so exercised, as to impede and ob- struct the free course of those measures, which the government of the United States may rightfully adopt." — 76-, 497. The Courts of the United States have exclusive authority over their own judgments and proceedings. — lb. Hi. 625. McKimv. Voorhis, 7 Crunch R.,21Q. "Nor can any State Court, or any State Legislature, annul the judgments of the Courts of the United States, or destroy the rights acquired under them. — United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch^ 115 — nor in an?/ ??tanner deprive the Supreme Court of its appellate jurisdiction — Wilson V. Mason, 1 C ranch, 94 — nor in any manner interfere with, or control the process (whether mesne or final) of the Courts of the United States — United States v. Wilson, 8 Wheaton R., 253 — nor prescribe the rules or forms of proceeding, nor effect of process, in the Courts of the United States — Way- man V. Southard, 10 Wheaton R., 1, 21, 22 — nor issue a mandamus to an officer of the United States, to compel him to perform duties, devolved on him by the laws of the United States." — McClung v. Silliman, 6 Wheaton R., 698; 3 Story''s Com. on Con., 625. Many other judicial decisions to the same effect might be cited, but the position is deemed too strong to need their support. Taking for granted, then, that this Court have appellate jurisdiction over this case, the question presents itself, in what way shall it be exercised .'' By allow- ing the writ of error upon the petition of the friends of the prisoner, or by issuing a writ of habeas corpus, to bring him before the Court ? It is contended that the Court have full power to do either. The former mode is plainly prescribed by the judiciary act of 1789. The latter mode, it is maintained, is also pre- scribed by the same act, although, it may be admitted, some degree of ambigui- ty may appear in the provisions of that act, in this, and some other important particulars. The object of this part of the act of 1789 was, to carry out, into practical operation, two important provisions of the Constitution ; the one relative to the appellate jurisdiction of this court, and the other to the great privilege or right, of the writ of habeas corpus. The provisions are remedial, and must be con- strued in favor of and not against, the remedy. The jurisdiction having been given, the duty was imperative to provide the means necessary to its exercise ; if, indeed, the power of the court to issue the writ in such a case as this, is not, necessarily, incident to these two constitutional provisions. The 14th section of that act, in providing, " that the courts of the United States shall have power to issue writs of scire facias, habeas corpus, and all other writs not specially provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the principles and usages of law," was, beyond question, intended, to the full extent of its terms, to apply to these two provisions. The sentence gives ample power, and it gives no more. The reason or object of the power is given — the exercise of jurisdic- tion, and the writs must be issued according to law. The power is manifestly within the scope and objects of the Constitution, and no necessit}^ existed for a further proviso to restrict it. The next sentence gives power to the separate justices of the courts to issue SUPREME COURT U. S. 45 writs of habeas corpus, not for the necessary exercise of jurisdiction, but for the purpose oi inquiry into the cause of commitment ; and to this sentence is annexed a proviso, which, it is maintained, cannot be so appHed to the former sentence, if apphed to it in any degree, as to deprive this court of the power of exercising a clear case of appellate jurisdiction. Such a construction, it is apprehended, would not only eviscerate this clause of a remedial statute, but would strike at the Constitution ; and in all cases like the one now under consideration, would operate as a perpetual suspension of the " privilege of the writ of habeas cor- pusV So favorably has this provision of the Constitution been interpreted by the State judges, that they have issued writs of habeas corpus, " in cases where the party has been in custody under the authority of process of the courts of the Uni- ted States.''^ — 3 Story''s Com. on Con., 625. It would be a singular anomaly in our system of government, to allow the inferior power to issue the writ of ha- beas corpus and take a person from the custody of the superior power ; and deny to the superior power the right to issue the writ, when it should be necessary to the exercise of a case of acknowledged jurisdiction, because the party might be in custody of the inferior poicer. And shall the inferior power incarcerate a man who has a right to come before this tribunal for a revision of his defence, and say that he shall have no opportunity to come up hither ? Shall the State of Rhode Island be sustained in such a course, or shall she be made to bow in submission to the "supreme law of the land," as uniformly interpreted by this court. The great States of New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio and Ma- ryland have promptly submitted to the decisions of this court. So must the small State of Rhode Island submit, if she shall be found, as other States have been found, to have passed acts repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. A case like this of Dorr's has never before occurred. It will be in vain, therefore, to seek for precedents entirely applicable to it. The case, Ex parte Bollman (4 Crunch R., 75), may be referred to, as sustaining the general prin- ciple, that the power of Courts, and of this Court, to issue writs of habeas cor- pus, for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, is a constitutional power, and is given to this Court by the judiciary act of 1789. The Court in that case granted the w rit of habeas corpus, because it had appellate jurisdiction. In the case. Ex parte Kearney (1th lllieaton^s R., 38), the Court refused to grant the WTit, because it had no jurisdiction in the case. The power of this Court to issue the writ is, it is confidently contended, co-extensive with its ap- pellate jurisdiction. The friends of the prisoner who have petitioned for the interposition of this Court in the case, have, in common with the great body of the people whose attention has been drawn to the subject, taken a deep intei'est in having the case deliberately revised by this Court. Coming as its members do, from va- rious and distant States, and removed by their official stations, as well as by habit and age, from exciting party contests, the solemn judgment of this tribu- nal in this, as it has in other exciting cases, w^ould doubtless allay every improper feeling, and be cheerfully, nay, joyfully acquiesced in by the w'hole country. If the Court shall now decide to issue the writ of habeas corpus, and bring the prisoner to this place, his friends, who have long sympathized with his suffer- ings, will be enabled to mingle with unwonted zest in the scenes of gladness and joy which the approaching holidays will witness. The act, it is main- tained, is due to the case ; and the time, it is submitted, would be exceedingly appropriate for the performance of it EX PARTE DORR; MK. JUSTICE McLean delivered the opinion of the court over- ruling THE MOTION. Ex parte : Application of Thomas W. Dorr for a writ of habeas corpus. Thomas W. Dorr was convicted before the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, at March term, 1844, of treason against the State of Rhode Island, and sen- tenced to the State's prison for life. And it appears from the affidavits of Francis C. Treadwell, a counsellor at law of this court, and others, that per- sonal access to Dorr, in his confinement, to ascertain whether he desires a writ of error to remove the record of his conviction to this court, has been refused. On this ground the above application has been made. Have the court power to issue a writ of habeas corpus in this case ? This is a preliminary question, and must be first considered. The original jurisdiction of this court is limited by the Constitution to cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and where a State is a party. Its appellate jurisdiction is regulated by acts of Congress. Under the common law, it can exercise no jurisdiction. As this case cannot be brought under the head of original jurisdiction, if sustainable, it must be under the appellate power. The 14th section of the judiciary act of 1789 provides, "That the courts of the United States shall have power to issue writs oi scire facias, habeas corpus., and all other writs not specially provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the principles and usages of law. And that either of the justices of the Supreme Court, as well as judges of the district courts, shall have power to orant writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment : provided that writs of habeas corpus shall in no case extend to prisoners in jail, unless where they are in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States, or are committed for trial before some court of the same, or are necessary to be brought into court to testify." In the trial of Dorr, it was insisted that the law of the State, under which he was prosecuted, was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. And on tliis ground a writ of error is desired under the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act above named. That as the prayer for this writ can only be made by Dorr, or by some one under his authority, and as access to him in prison is denied, it is insisted that the writ to bring him before the court is the only means through which this court can exercise jurisdiction in his case by a writ of error. Even if this were admitted, yet the question recurs, whether this court has power to issue the writ to bring him before it. That it has no such power under the common law, is clear. And it is equally clear that the power nowhere exists, unless it be found in the fourteenth section above cited. The power given to the courts in this section to issue writs of scire /acia^, habeas corpus, &c., as regards the writ of habeas corpus is restricted by the proviso to cases where a prisoner is " is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States, or has been committed for trial before some court of the same, or is necessary to be brought into court to testify." This is 80 clear, from the language of the section, that any illustration of it would seem to be unnecessary. The words of the proviso are unambiguous. They admit of but one construction ; and that they qualify and restrict the preceding pro- visions of the section, is indisputable. Neither this, nor any other court of the United States, or judge thereof, can issue a habeas corpus to bring up a prisoner who is in custody under a sentence or execution of a State court, for any other purpose than to be used as a wit- EX PARTE DORR; SUPREME COURT U. S. 47 ness. And it is immaterial whether the imprisonment be under civil or criminal process. As the law now stands, an individual who may be indicted in a circuit court, for treason against the United States, is beyond the power of federal courts and judges, if he be in custody under the authority of a State. Dorr is in confinement under the sentence of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island consequently this court has no power to issue a habeas corpus to bring him before it. His presence here is not required as a witness, but to signify to the court whether he desires a writ of error to bring before this tribunal the record of his conviction. The counsel in this application prays for a writ of error ; but, as it appears from his own admission that he does not act under the authority of Dorr, but at the request of his friends, the prayer cannot be granted. In this view, it is unnecessary to decide whether the counsel has stated a case which, with the authority of his client, entitles him to a writ of error. The motion for a habeas corpus is overruled. Ex parte : In the matter of Thomas Wilson Dorr, on petition for a writ of habeas corpus, or for a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Rhode Island : On consideration of the motion made by Mr. Treadwell, of counsel for the petitioner, on a prior day of the present term of this court, to wit : on Wednes- day, the 11th iastant, and of the argument of counsel in support of the motion thereupon had, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that the said motion be, and the same is hereby, overruled. By Mr. Justice McLean. 27th December, 1844. ['• Working Man^s Advocate" Extra. Read and Circulate.] thih pxnv ntjET Is issned at the suggestion of a Lady (the Vv^ife of a distinguished Philanthropist and large Landholder of New- York) who approved of the National Reform Measure, and contributed $10 for the purpose of placing it before Governors and Legislators throughout the Union. YOUWO AlflEKICAI ••Tlic J^andshrtll not be sold for- ever." — Moses. • "There is no foundation in nature or in natural law, w.y a set of words on parchment should convey tha do- minion of /.Mnd.' — Blackstone. "The mass of mankind has ndt been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legiti- mately by the grace of God."— TAo- mas J^eriou. rRIWCIPLES Al^D OBJECTS OF THE NATIONAL REFORM ASSOCIATION, OR AGRARIAN LEAGUE. BY A MEMBER. Fellow-Citizens : What is the present condition of things among U3 1 That equa- lity which is declai-ed, by the great charter of our independence, to be the birthright of all, is not realized. The laborer does not receive a just recompense for his toil. Labor is rewarded in an inverse ratio to its usefulness. Those who produce the most are allowed to consume the least. New luxuries are provided for some, by those who do not receive a sufficiency of the necessaries of life. Men and women are in want, in the midst of an abundance created by themselves. Crime and Pauper- ism increase. Prisons and poor houses are multiplying. Yet, do party leaders propose anything more than palliatives for these evils % Let us look around. At the South, the master lives in opulence on ihe labor of his colored slaves, whose stimulus to exertion is too often the driver's lash, but who are, almost universally, provided with the absolute necessaries of life in all stages of their existence. At the North, tlie master has a lash more potent than the whipthong to stimu- late the energies of his white slaves — the fear of xoant. At the (as yet comparatively free) far West, mercenary capitalists are continually throwing obstacles in the way of those who seek in its wilds a refuge from oppression. Are these things right / Is it right that any man should be compelled, by any sort of force, to work for any other man to \ ■* YOUNG Al^ERICA. obtain the means of existence ? Thousands are now prepared to an- swer these questions in the negative. Ti-ue, they have not all ^reed ui^on the remedy ; but they see the diseas\ and that is one point ^dned • and they know the origin of it, and that is,another. With thousands' t^retore, it only remains to discover the rcmedij for the evils that now afflict Humanity. Human improvement is progressive. By slow degrees men have arrived at the art of self-government. Having thrown off some of the shackles by which the few held the mass in bondage, of mind as well as body our progress in reform ought now to be more rapid. It will be so. Self-government will be followed by less government : le.s Go- vernment, perhaps, by none at all. The time for less government has arrived. & a=. Individuals are prepared for all great and beneficial changes before the mass, and must go forward as pioneers. We contend for less government. We say to our public agents, cease to interfere, in tlic business arrangements of the people j let their voluntarvcflflAtacts be adjusted between themselves, so that character, and no1l0be^m]\ be the dependance for their fulfilment. Lej.tl^em ^e^^l^i- oun markets without let or hindrance. Aim to prevektcAe] and^to reform rather han pumsh the criminal. And, ehoveM,. arrest the mmonoly of the land. Follow these principles, and you will .find your statute books reduced nine-tenths in bulk. _ We say to our legislators, male the Puhlic Lands free— ?vee as the air or the water— to those who are now deprived of their birthright and have no home. Say no longer to the heartless speculator, come,' and monopohze, for your selfish purposes, that which would give the means ot susteoance and enjoyment to your fellow creatures. Tempt no longer the fortunate worker, the one of a hundred who has chanced to obtain a small prize in the lottery of human folly and misery, to invest his hard earnings m the purchase oHiis own, isolating him from his less tortunate fellows, and placing him in a position, in which his own safety will urge him to shift his own burden to their shoulders. Look about you, and ^ee if you wish to establish on Nature's wide domains, a counterpart of thaf cursed system of splendid misery and squalid wretchedness tha^ow prevails on the land held as private property. JJo it by xvay of experiment, if you please ; you experiment at far greater cost to the nation. Let the trial be made, whether it would not be cheaper even, to let the vast surplus laboring populations, which it is the ten- dency ol our present system to produce, be getting their own living on the now waste soil, leaving full omployment for the rest, than to support the prisons and poor houses necessary to accommodate that portion who cannot through other means obtain a scanty and precarious subsistence. In a word, we say to government, that is, the people, no longer with- hold from men their rights "to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi- ness the very foundation of which is the right to the soil. Undo what you have done contrary to that first great principle of your Declaration ot Independence, and then let men alone, to work out their own salvation. ,i?^ I J^'-'^j. z^^ i>>T J>^ ^> :.^2^ 3Tr> -.^ ^0 i^- >:>::» ^ :>? Z> 33 _Jte3i^^ ^^^^ y> "^^mH ^(jtiilll?" ^^:2» fdKj^^. >^ ::!» _>vi> .::^s; t> >-> IT ^^i^3^ .:»-^ # ^ 3^ 3^C^ ^^ _3r-> J>> / ^5^-ir*^ L-^