"
Having thus, may it please your honors, attempted to state the questions
as they arise, and having referred to what has taken place in Rhode
Island, I shall present what further I have to say in three
propositions:--
1st. I say, first, that the matters offered to be proved by the
plaintiff in the court below are not of judicial cognizance; and proof
of them, therefore, was properly rejected by the court.
2d. If all these matters could be, and had been, legally proved, they
would have constituted no defence, because they show nothing but an
_illegal_ attempt to overthrow the government of Rhode Island.
3d. No proof was offered by the plaintiff to show that, in fact, another
government had gone into operation, by which the Charter government had
become displaced.
And first, these matters are not of judicial cognizance. Does this need
arguing? Are the various matters of fact alleged, the meetings, the
appointment of committees, the qualifications of voters,--is there any
one of all these matters of which a court of law can take cognizance in
a case in which it is to decide on sovereignty? Are fundamental changes
in the frame of a government to be thus proved? The thing to be proved
is a change of the sovereign power. Two legislatures existed at the same
time, both claiming power to pass laws. Both could not have a legal
existence. What, then, is the attempt of our adversaries? To put down
one sovereign government, and to put another up, by facts and
proceedings in regard to elections out of doors, unauthorized by any law
whatever.
Pages:
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473