USA > Connecticut > Connecticut in transition: 1775-1818 > Part 14
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32
The General Assembly 18 made and repealed all laws. It defined the powers of the executive or judiciary. It determined by statute the method of election and the suffrage qualifications. Legislative statutes defined the relation of church and state, and the status of dissenter. Toleration was its gift, not a human right. Liberty of the press and of speech were subject to its laws. Statutes which might revolutionize the state could be enacted in the same way as a private act of no importance. There was no appeal to the people and no responsibility to the electors, save in the desire of the representative to be re-elected. Money bills originated in either House; taxes and duties were levied; public lands disposed of; new towns incorporated; and banking, manufacturing and turnpike companies chartered. The General Assembly occasionally named the governor and lieutenant governor, a power which gave un-
16 Statutes, index; Swift, System of the Laws, I, 60, 90-93; Dwight, Travels, I, 248; Loomis and Calhoun, Judicial History, p. 167.
17 The division, which had existed since 1698, was regarded as contrary to the Charter and was not placed on the statutes until 1776. Baldwin in Amer. Hist. Assoc., Report (1890), p. 91.
18 For its powers, see: Statutes, index; Swift, System of the Laws, I, 71-76, 80, 86; Kendall, Travels, I, 25; Dwight, Travels, I, 237 ff.
I2I
THE WORKING GOVERNMENT
due influence over the executive.19 A joint committee counted the votes of state officers, save representatives. The General Assembly, of course, selected the United States Senators. It exerted a controlling influence over nominations by means of its caucuses, and in case of a vacancy appointed a councilor. Any court, magistrate, or officer might be called to account by the Legislature for a misdemeanor or for maladministra- tion. It granted pardons and reprieves in capital or criminal cases, bills of divorce, passed special bankruptcy acts, and considered equity cases over $5,334. In a judicial capacity it acted as the superior court of last resort. In this way justice might be defeated and sovereignty substituted for law. It had complete control of the militia. Its patronage was dan- gerously extensive, including military officers who had been nominated by the militia and all judicial officers.
Legislative powers were in short limited only by the honesty of members, by certain vague customs, and the frequency of elections. Students of government feared this outrageous combination of execu- tive, legislative, and judicial powers, as only disciples of Montesquieu could fear. This concentration of power in the General Assembly was bitterly criticized and was a prime argument for a written constitution.
Dwight recognized the inclusiveness of these powers when he wrote: "The power of the legislature is considered unlimited, except with re- spect to the rights of election, and the substance of the form of gov- ernment." 20 He felt, however, that the altering of the Charter would be regarded as a violation of something sacred and as a hazardous move. He believed that a civil law contrary to the law of God would be null and void. Judge Swift, the deepest student of Connecticut polity, de- fined the position of the Legislature:
By nature of the constitution, they possess the power of doing and di- recting whatever they shall think to be for the good of the community. It is difficult to define or limit its extent. It can be bounded only by the wants, the necessities, and the welfare of society.21
Kendall agreed with the local commentators on the powers of the General Assembly, which he described as a body-
from which, indeed, all other authority proceeds, and by which, at any moment, it may be reclaimed. Nothing exists but at its pleasure. It makes
19 Stiles, Diary, III, 21, 218; Ford, Webster, I, 76; Courant, May 14, 1798.
20 Travels, I, 236.
21 System of the Laws, I, 59, 73.
I22
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
laws, and it repeals them; and in the laws is the sole foundation of the political fabric; the constitution of government is to be found only in the statutes. In a word, the General Assembly is truly the single depository of power; of power at once governmental, legislative, and judiciary; at once civil, military, and ecclesiastical.22
Kendall struck the mark. This inclusive power which so impressed him caused men to demand its curtailment.
The Assembly represented the towns, every town having one or two representatives. They were elected semi-annually in the April and September freemen's meetings, by a majority of the qualified electors. The frequency of election caused no inconvenience because of the small areas of the constituencies, but made changes in the representation easy and lessened intrigue. Terms of service were exceedingly long because of "the disposition to re-elect men of merit." In many cases a family represented its town for two or three decades.23
Despite the "almost absolutely democratic" scheme of election, Re- publicans were to learn that to displace the old representatives of a town required considerable exertion. Yet this could be done. It was by revolutionizing the Assembly and electing a Republican here and there that the state was ultimately revolutionized. Had there been a universal secret ballot, thus removing the influence of family, office-holders, and ministers, the state would have experienced more changes in its repre- sentation, and the Republicans less difficulty in gaining control.
The Assembly 24 was composed of two hundred members, with a legal quorum of forty. Any freeman was eligible to serve as a repre- sentative, unless he was a federal office-holder or a judge of the superior court. As the statutes stood, the most infamous freeman was not ex- cluded from a seat, nor could a duly elected representative be expelled, unless for treason or felony. The Assembly elected its own speaker who had a casting vote, and the clerks who kept the official journal. The Chamber adjudged the qualifications and credentials of its members; administered their oaths; and determined its own procedure. Its mem- bers were guaranteed the usual privileges of freedom of speech and freedom from arrest.
In connection with the May session Connecticut had her one "great 22 Travels, I, 23.
23 Johnston, Connecticut, pp. 81-82; Bouton, Norwalk, pp. 55-56; Kilbourne, Sketches, pp. 375 ff.
24 Best accounts are: Dwight, Travels, I, 236-238; Swift, System of the Laws, I, 64-65, 70, 85.
123
THE WORKING GOVERNMENT
festival"-General Election Day, 25 when the votes were formally counted. At sunset of the previous day the governor was received by the blue-uniformed horse guards and escorted to his lodgings. About 9 A.M. the Assembly met and organized. Toward II A.M. an escort of the foot and horse guards, followed by the sheriffs, led the executive officers, councilors, representatives, a large body of ministers and citi- zens to the First Church. The religious services were conducted by four ministers, one minister giving the opening prayer, another the sermon, a third the concluding prayer, and the fourth the benediction. The sermon touched on matters of government, setting forth the glories of the state, lauding its steady habits, and praising its God-fearing officials. The Hartford Courant commented on the sermon in what seems to have been a set form, "sensible, solemn, and evangelical," while the American Mercury was apt to describe it as in "the usual style of obsequiousness to the dominant party." Abraham Bishop cynically but aptly character- ized them as political sermons-
in which there is a little of governor, a little of congress, much of politics and a very little of religion-a strange compost, like a carrot pye, having so little ingredients of the vegetable, that the cook must christen it.26
The procession then returned to the state house where the militia presented arms to the governor. There followed a public dinner, at which the governor and Council sat at the first, the clergy at the second, and the representatives at the third table, in an order suggestive of the three estates. The dining of the assembled clergy, often a hundred in number, was objected to by the Republicans as a burden to the taxpayer and an indication of the dangerous coalition of magistrate and minister. This criticism would have failed, if dissenting preachers had been wel- comed at the festive board. After the banquet the votes were counted, and the oaths of office administered to governor, lieutenant governor and councilors. The result was proclaimed with a military salute. In the evening there was an election ball, and the following evening a more select, formal ball. Thousands flocked to Hartford from the near- by towns to witness the ceremonies. Even those unable to be present played at ball and enjoyed themselves that day on the town greens.
Aside from the opening formalities, the session was marked by sim-
25 Kendall, Travels, I, ch. 1; Dwight, Travels, I, 233 ff .; Courant, May 18, 1813; Asbury, Journal, III, 197; Stiles, Diary, II, 533. III, 218; Morse, Geography, p. 165. 26 Bishop, Oration (1801), pp. 45-46.
124
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
plicity. Meetings were held during both forenoon and afternoon, and there were few absentees. While the "wages" of two dollars a day were small, election to the Assembly was an honor, appealing to men of considerable ability. An English traveller was so impressed with the debates that he described them as comparing favorably with those of Parliament.27
The Assembly was criticized as too large a body for efficient work. As early as 1782 it was suggested that the representation should be cut down to one for every town. New York, with seventy men in her Lower House, had lower taxes. In 1786 the desirability of a reduction in number was considered in the Assembly. Those in its favor were ad- vised that this measure would be unconstitutional unless approved by the people. Some ridiculed the need of two sessions to carry on the small amount of business, which could be easily handled in a single session, with a saving to the taxpayer.28
The Council consisted of the ex officio governor and lieutenant gov- ernor and twelve elected assistants, representing the state at large. The governor or in his absence the lieutenant governor or senior assistant presided, but voted only in case of a tie. The presiding officer and six assistants made a quorum. Sessions were secret. No minutes were kept. A seat in the Council was one of honor and power. An assistant was an ex officio justice of the peace and could serve in the place of a judge of the superior court. With two of his fellows he could reprieve a crim- inal until the next session; on urgent need he could call out the militia; and he could preside at freemen's meetings. As all bills had to pass both Houses, seven members of the Council could veto a measure. Then, be- cause of their social and economic position, long terms and experience, the assistants were a powerful group. In practice, this small body gov- erned the state, for without its concurrence nothing could be done, no law passed or official appointed.29
27 Wansey observed: "There are some good orators among them: Mr. Granger, member from Suffield; Mr. Stanley; Mr. Phelps; Gen. Hart, member from Say- brook, made as good speeches as any I have heard in our own House of Commons." Journal, p. 58. Kendall believed that men of superior qualifications were not lack- ing. Travels, I, 171. But Tudor thought otherwise of Connecticut: "There was a sort of habitual, pervading police, made up of Calvinistic inquisition and village scrutiny, that required a very deleterious subserviency from all candidates for pub- lic life. A very conceited intolerance held opinion in subjection." Letters, p. 47.
28 Gale, Brief Remarks (1782), pp. 28, 34-36; Stiles, Diary, III, 124; Constitu- tion of Conn. (1901), State Series, p. 105; Republican Watch Tower article in Mercury, Jan. 29, 1801.
29 Swift, System of the Laws, I, 63, 84, 88; Kendall, Travels, I, 22-23; Dwight,
125
THE WORKING GOVERNMENT
The assistants were nominated and elected by the people.30 Up to about 1697 this function had fallen to the General Assembly, but a re- volt made the introduction of democratic forms necessary. The scheme of electing the Council was shrewdly arranged to satisfy the demo- cratic demands, yet to leave it under control of the aristocratic gov- erning class. In the September town meeting, every freeman wrote the names of twenty men whom he nominated for assistant. These papers were then collected by the constable, justice, or assistant in charge, and sent by the town clerk to the General Assembly, whose committee counted them and listed the highest twenty as nominees. About 1801 the revised election law called for oral nominations and an open stand- ing vote by the freemen. This permitted the control of the meeting by the upper class, for only a freeman of bold independence could nomi- nate his honest choice.
The list of twenty nominees was then submitted to the freemen in April, but so arranged that the present assistants or ex-assistants stood first on the list regardless of the number of votes which they had polled the previous fall. The freemen were given twelve slips of paper. The lists was read off, and the vote taken. In order to vote for one of the last eight, the freeman would have to preserve one of his twelve papers. To do this was virtually to proclaim oneself in open revolt. The only recourse by way of protest was the casting of a blank ballot. This meant a dearly purchased secrecy, for the twelve slips would be used up before the moderator commenced to read the names of the new candidates. However, the casting of blank votes became general and could not be prevented by an act passed for that purpose. To be sure, a freeman of strong character, economically and socially independent, could vote as he pleased. Few, however, could vote for an "atheistical" Republican with the minister present, under the eyes of local officers and men of wealth whose good will might be vitally necessary. The vote became mechanical, most freemen voting for the first twelve nom- inees or retiring through lack of interest in recognition of the futility of their opposition. Dwight rejoiced that the assistants were balloted on late in the day, when party zeal had been spent in the contest over the
Travels, I, 236-238. The Assembly was said to be as obsequious to the Council as the members of Parliament whom Queen Elizabeth cuffed. Mercury, Mar. 17, 1803; Aug. 27, 1816.
30 Statutes (1750), p. 46; ibid. (1796), p. 152; ibid. (1808), p. 244; Dwight, Travels, I, 223-228; William Beers, Address (1791); Baldwin in Amer. Hist. Assoc., Report (1890), pp. 87, 92; Mead, Corporate Colony, p. 12.
I26
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
representatives and the poll was left in control of the townsmen of wis- dom and wealth, "the ignorant, idle, and light minded citizens" having retired. The votes from the various towns were again forwarded to the General Assembly, counted on Election Day by the joint committee, and the names of the assistants were formally proclaimed.
This elaborate plan guaranteed the stability of the government. Their long tenure which became so characteristic is clearly shown in a final appendix [infra. following Ch. IX]. Generally a councilor held office until he resigned, was promoted to the governorship, or sent to Congress. From 1783 to 1801 it was said that there was only one assist- ant who failed at the polls for re-election.31
The Council represented the aristocracy of the state, the leaders in the ruling caste. Its members were men of family, of wealth, of talents, of education, and of wide political experience. Demagogues might break into the Lower House, but the Council was secured against their in- trusion.32 An obvious evil was the control which the large towns pos- sessed, thus prejudicing the Council's representative character.33 The high average of ability in the Council was an advantage to the state as well as a check upon the popular House. The conservative element gloried in the Council as the bulwark of the church, the state, and of law and order. To the method of election all was due. Believing this, the Standing Order took pains to provide for the election of Congress- men in the same way, a fact which affords better evidence than their eulogies of the regard in which they held the nomination system.
This method of election was later attacked by the Republicans as an unfair means of thwarting the popular will. They argued that the candidates who received the highest vote on the nomination should head the list. This would give new men the very advantage which the system had always given to candidates for re-election. Judge Swift saw no logic in such reasoning nor any unfairness in letting this mechanical advantage operate in favor of the permanency in office of tried men. It was this very advantage, however, which made the Council the last stronghold of Federalism and Congregationalism.34 Men with the high-
31 Theodore Dwight, Oration (1801).
32 Dwight, Travels, I, 226; Gale, Brief Remarks (1782), pp. 31, 34-36.
33 From 1639 to 1818 there were only 185 councilors, giving an average service of twelve years. Only forty-five towns had been represented, of which ten ac- counted for 128 assistants; that is: Hartford, 27; Windsor, 17; Fairfield, 15; New Haven, 14; New London, 11; Norwich, 8; Wethersfield, 8; Litchfield, 8; etc. Kings- bury in New Haven Hist. Soc., Papers, III, 65-66.
34 Baldwin, Amer. Hist. Assoc., Report (1890), p. 93.
127
THE WORKING GOVERNMENT
est vote at the nomination might fall in one of the eight last places on the list and stand no chance of being elected. Several years might elapse before a man reached a place at the head of the list and the goal of election. This period of expectancy lasted from four to ten years, a measure of the Council's distance behind public opinion. Abraham Bishop pointed out in a striking arraignment of this Federalist safety device that, although in 1790 Jonathan Ingersoll led the poll, William Williams, the senior assistant, falling to twentieth place on the nomina- tion, was placed at the head of the ticket and elected, while Ingersoll waited another year.35 Williams, a signer of the Declaration of Inde- pendence, had opposed the ratification of the constitution; but he was a Congregationalist while Ingersoll was merely an Episcopalian. Such a citation convinced the Standing Order of the efficiency, not the injus- tice, of the system.
A later writer, lamenting the good old days, naïvely described the election of assistants:
In illustration of the scrupulous regard which was had to actual merit in the popular election of senators, we have often heard Mr. Sherman say, that of the whole number nominated, there was one man who at each elec- tion for several years was almost but not quite elected; and this exactly rep- resented his actual merit in comparison with his rival candidates.36
Even in the counting of votes favoritism was shown. If a freeman threw in a blank vote against one of the first twelve, he merely lost the vote without prejudicing the candidate, who might possibly receive more blank than affirmative votes, which alone counted.37 Republicans asked why a double election should be necessary for assistants and not for the governor, if it was not "an ingenious and complicated piece of mechanism designed by the multiplicity of its wheels and springs, of its clogs and checks, to divert from the instrument of government, a direct application of the popular power." 38
Kendall in his discussion of the Council has afforded us the valuable criticism of an impartial foreigner:
Credit is undoubtedly due to this scheme or system for its ingenuity, and its practical effects in Connecticut may be completely beneficial; but I venture to express an opinion, that it is undistinguished by any feature of
35 Bishop, Oration (1801), pp. 16, 76; Mercury, Mar. 24, 1803.
36 Sketch of Sherman (1846), p. 8.
37 J. C. Welling, "Connecticut Federalism" in Addresses, Lectures and Other Papers, p. 306.
38 Richards, Politics of Connecticut.
128
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
that wisdom which is contended for, and that it is altogether unfit for imi- tation. In Connecticut, its effect is to keep in power the party which has from the first possessed it. That party, from the accuracy of the principles upon which it acts, or the virtues of those who espouse it, may be the proper depository of power; but, were it not so, the effect would be the same.39
In more populous states he felt that it would leave all to intrigue, calumny and violence, and in England would enable an administration to maintain itself forever in defiance of crown and electors.
The Council was assailed for its secrecy. Its doors were only open to receive petitions. Divisions of leaders, minutes, arguments, and votes were never disclosed to the public. The Council stood as a body; its proceedings were veiled in a cabinet-like secrecy. Kendall wrote:
The Council is impenetrable; it is one; it has no weak part, by which it may be entered and subdued. All its acts are the acts of the party; the in- dividual never appears . .. . Nothing is shown us but unanimity, and whence that unanimity arises we have no means of discovery.40
Assistants were thereby freed from individual criticism and responsi- bility, under which they might have labored hard on election day.
The Council was taxed with an influence which prevented the in- dependence or impartiality of the judiciary. Its appointing power en- abled the Council to control every judge and justice of the peace, for without its concurrence the Assembly was powerless. As the major part of the assistants were lawyers of extensive practice, they sometimes acted as advocates before judges whose tenure depended upon them. This only made them more successful practitioners and increased their clientèle. Up to 1807 the Council acted as the supreme court of errors, reviewing cases in which as individuals they might have been profes- sionally interested. This obvious unfairness was finally remedied by the creation of a special court of errors.41 Up to 1804 assistants were not forbidden to plead before the Legislature in its highest appeal capacity, nor before their fellow-members of the court of errors. The necessity of this self-denying ordinance was apparent when David Daggett and Nathaniel Smith resigned from the Council. As two of the foremost attorneys they were reputed to have a lucrative practice which they would not give up for the honors of the Council board.42
39 Kendall, Travels, I, 43-44.
40 Travels, I, 171-173; cf. Greene, Religious Liberty, p. 402; Mercury, June 18, 1816.
41 Infra, p. 130.
42 See Mercury, June 14, 21, July 5, 1804.
129
THE WORKING GOVERNMENT
Some of the assistants held pluralities in the judicial administration. For instance, David Daggett, while in the Council, also served as state's attorney for New Haven. Jonathan Brace was a member of the Council from 1802 to 1818, a judge of the county court (1809-1821), judge of the probate court (1809-1824), state's attorney for Hartford (1807- 1809), mayor of Hartford, judge of the city court (1799-1815), and an ex officio justice of the peace. Elizur Goodrich, while an assistant, was also mayor of New Haven and judge of the county court (1805- 1818).43 Such cases gave force to Republican attacks on the Council. Assistants were virtually procuring for themselves remunerative judge- ships. Small wonder that even Federalists admitted that the judiciary was not independent.
Lack of patriotism was another count against the Council. The Coucil took a lead in the opposition to the Embargo and to the War of 1812. Governor Griswold's refusal to accede to General Dearborn's call for the militia was made on the advice of the Council. He was really only the mouthpiece of their policy. Chauncey Goodrich and Samuel Sherwood were members of the Committee of Safety of 1814. Every representative of the state at the Hartford Convention, including its sec- retary, were members or ex-members of the Council. Such was the record of the recognized leaders in the desperate time when America faced foreign invasion.44 The worst feature was that this small group were in a position to determine the state's policies.
Abraham Bishop's assault on the Council focussed attention on the "septem viri," as he described David Daggett, Nathaniel Smith, Jona- than Brace, J. Allen, William Edmond, Elizur and Chauncey Goodrich. The reason for his exclusion of Aaron Austin, who sat in the Council from 1794 to 1818, and his inclusion of Allen are not apparent. Republi- can writers, following Bishop, enlarged upon the evils of an oligarchy, greatly exaggerating the dangers which the state faced. As seven men could control the Council, such an inner group would be able to govern the state or at least neutralize the power of the Lower House. Republi- can agitators liked to emphasize their association with banking, insur- ance and turnpike interests, their activity in the Congregational mis- sionary and Bible societies, their position on the board of governors of
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.