might be found here to-day, and there to-morrow.  Sovereignty is above courts or juries, and the creature cannot sit in judgment upon its creator.  Were this instrument offered as the constitution of a foreign state, we might, perhaps, under some circumstances, require proof of its existence; but, even in that case, the fact would not be ascertained by counting the votes given at its adoption, but by the certificate of the secretary of state, under the broad seal of the state.  This instrument is not offered as a foreign constitution, and this court is bound to know what the constitution of the government is under which it acts, without any proof even of that high character.  We know nothing of the existence of the so-called ‘people’s constitution’ as law, and there is no proof before you of its adoption, and of the election of the prisoner as governor under it; and you can return a verdict only on the evidence that has passed to you.”

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.  Regular proceedings for a change of government may in some cases, perhaps, be taken notice of by a court; but this court must look elsewhere than out of doors, and to public meetings, irregular and unauthorized, for the decision of such a question as this.  It naturally looks to that authority under which it sits here, to the provisions of the Constitution which have created this tribunal, and to the laws by which its proceedings are regulated.  It must look to the acts of the government of the United States, in its various branches.