The New York Herald

Submitted by Messrs. WHIPPLE, FRANCIS, And POTTER to the President of the United States.

The undersigned, having been deputed by Samuel W. King, the Governor of the State of Rhode Island, to lay before you the present alarming condition in which the people of the State are placed, and to request from you the adoption of such prudential measures as, in your opinion, may tend to prevent domestic violence, beg leave, most respectfully, to state the following, among the leading facts, to which your attention is more particularly invited.

That the people of Rhode Island have no fundamental law except the Charter of King Charles the Second, granted in 1663, and the usage of the Legislature under it. Legislative usage under their charters has been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to be the fundamental law, both in Connecticut and Rhode Island.

That from the date of the Rhode Island Charter down to the year 1841, a period of nearly two hundred years no person has been allowed to vote for town or State officers unless possessed of competent estates, and admitted freeman in the several towns in which they resided.

That since the statute of 1723, no person could be admitted a freeman of any town unless he owned a freehold estate of the value fixed by law. (now one hundred and thirty-four dollars, or was the eldest son of such a freeholder.

That, until the past year, no attempt has been made, to our knowledge, to establish any other fundamental law by force, than the one under which the people have lived for so long a period.

That, at the January session of the Legislature in 1841 a petition, signed by five or six hundred male inhabitants praying for such an extension of suffrage as the Legislature might, in their wisdom deem expedient to propose, was presented.

That, influenced by that petition, as well as by other considerations, the Legislature at that session, requested the qualified voters, or freemen, as they are called with us, to choose delegates at their regular town meetings to be holden in August, 1841, for a Convention to be holden in November, 1841, to frame a written constitution.

That the result of the last meeting of this legal Convention, in February, 1842, was the Constitution accompanying this statement, marked A, which, in case of its adoption by the people, would have been the supreme law of the State.

Most of the above facts are contained in the printed report of the numerous committee of the Legislature at their session in March, 1842, which report was adopted by the Legislature.

That in May, 1841, after said legal Convention had been provided for by the Legislature, and before the time appointed for the choice of delegates by the qualified voters, (August, 1841.) a mass meeting was held by the friends of an extension of suffrage at Newport, at which meeting a committee was appointed called the State Committee, who were authorized by said mass meeting to take measures for calling a Convention to frame a Constitution.

That this Committee, thus authorized, issued a request for a meeting of the male citizens in the several towns, to appoint delegates to the proposed convention.

That meetings, of unqualified voters principally, (as we believe,) were accordingly holden in the several towns, unauthorised by law, and contrary to the invariable custom and usage of the State from 1663 down to that period. That the aggregate votes appointing the delegates to that Convention was, according to their own estimate, about 7200, whereas the whole number of male citizens, over twenty-one years of age, after making a deduction for foreigners, paupers, &c. was, also according to their own estimate, over 22,000.

That this Convention, thus constituted, convened in Providence in October, 1841, and the Constitution called the "People's Constitution" was the result of their deliberations.

That at subsequent meetings of portions of the people in December 1841, by the authority of this Convention alone, (elected, as its delegates had been, by about one third of the voters, according to their standard of qualification,) all males over twenty-one years of age were admitted to vote for the adoption of the People's Constitution. That these meetings were not under presiding officers whose legal duty, or legal right it was to interpose any check or restraint, as to age, residence, property or color.

By the fourteenth article of their constitution it was provided that "This constitution shall be submitted to the people for their adoption or rejection, on Monday the 27th of December next and on the two succeeding days" "And every person entitled to vote as aforesaid, who from sickness or other causes, may be unable to attend and vote in the town or ward meetings, assembled for voting upon said Constitution, upon the days aforesaid, is requested to write his name on a ticket, and to obtain the signature upon the back of the same, of a person who has given in his vote, as a witness thereto. And the moderator or clerk of any town or ward meeting, convened for the purpose aforesaid, shall receive such vote, on either of the three days next succeeding the three days before named, for voting for said Constitution."

During the first three days about nine thousand votes were received from the hands of the voters in the open meetings. By the privilege granted to every and all the friends of the Constitution, of bringing in to their meetings the names of voters, during the three following days five thousand votes more were obtained, making an aggregate of about fourteen thousand votes.

This Constitution, thus originating and thus formed, was subsequently declared by this Convention to be the supreme law of the land. By its provisions a government is to be organized under it, by the choice of a Governor, Lieut. Governor, Senators and Representatives, on the Monday preceding the third Wednesday in April, 1842.

By the provisions of the "Landholders' Constitution." as the legal Constitution is called, every white male native citizen, possessing the freehold qualification, and over 21 years of age, may vote upon a residence of one year; and without any freehold, may vote upon a residence of two years, except in the case of votes for town taxes, in which case the voter must possess the freehold qualification, or be taxed for other property of the value of $134.

By the "People's" Constitution, "every white male citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years who has resided in this State for one year and in the town where he votes for six months," shall be permitted to vote, with the same exception as to voting for town taxes as is contained in the other Constitution.

The provision therefore in relation to the great subject in dispute, the elective franchise, is substantially the same in the two Constitutions.

On the 21st, 22d and 23d March last, the legal Constitution, by an act of the Legislature, was submitted to all the persons, who by its provisions would be entitled to vote under it, after its adoption, for their ratification. It was rejected by a majority of 676, the number of votes polled being over 16,000. It is believed that many freeholders voted against it because they were attached to the old form of government, and were against any new Constitution whatever. Both parties used uncommon exertions to bring all their votes to the polls, and the result of the vote was, under the scrutiny of opposing interests, in legal town meetings, that the friends of the People's Constitution brought to the polls probably not over 7000 to 7500 voters. The whole vote against the legal Constitution was about 8600. If we allow 1000 as the number of freeholders who voted against the legal Constitution, because they are opposed to any Constitution, it would leave the number of the friends of the People's Constitution 7600, or one third of the voters of the State under the new qualification proposed by either Constitution.

It seems incredible that there can be 14,000 friends of the People's Constitution in the State, animated as they are by a most extraordinary and enthusiastic feeling, and yet upon this trial, in the usual open and fair way of voting, they should have obtained but about 7600 votes.

The unanimity of the subsequent action of the legislature, comprehending as it did both the great political parties, the House of Representatives giving a vote of 60 in favor of maintaining the existing government of the State and only six on the other side, with a unanimous vote in the Senate; the unanimous and decided opinion of the Supreme Court declaring this extraordinary movement to be illegal in all its stages, a majority of that court being of the democratic party, with other facts of a similar character, have freed this question of a mere party character, and enabled us to present it as a great constitutional question.

Without presuming to discuss the elementary fundamental principles of government, we deem it our duty to remind you of the fact that the existing government of Rhode Island is the government that adopted the Constitution of the United States, became a member of this Confederacy, and has ever since been represented in the Senate and House of Representatives. It is at this moment the existing government of Rhode Island, both de facto and de jure, and is the only government in that State entitled to the protection of the Constitution of the United States.

It is that government which now calls upon the general government for interference and even the legal effect of there being an ascertained majority of unqualified voters against the existing government was contended for by the opposing party, yet, upon their own principle ought not that majority point of fact be clearly ascertained, not by assertion, but by proof, in order to justify the general government in withdrawing its legal and moral influence to prevent domestic violence?

That a domestic war of the most ferocious character will speedily ensue, unless prevented by a prompt expression of opinion here, cannot be doubted. In relation to this we refer to the numerous resolutions passed at meetings of the friends of the People's Constitution, and more especially to the Cumberland resolutions, herewith presented, and the affidavits marked B—and to repeated expressions of similar reliance upon the judgment of the Chief Magistrate of the Nation.

All which is respectfully submitted by

JOHN WHIPPLE.

JOHN BROWN FRANCIS,

ELISHA R. POTTER.

To his excellency, JOHN TYLER,

President of the United States.