USA > Connecticut > History of Connecticut, Volume I > Part 34
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 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46
Although the state was particularly interested in textile manufac- turing it extended its aid to efforts in other fields as well. For example, in 1783, the state granted William and Elisha Pitkin and Samuel Bishop a monopoly of glass-making for 25 years in return for the aid which the Pitkins' father had given during the Revolution. The factory made bottles and demijohns, jars and inkstands in an establishment large enough to employ 30 men on day and night shifts. Production supplied items for export as well as for local trade. Items for export were taken to Hartford by oxen teams and shipped to the West Indies. The factory continued in operation until 1830 when work was suspended. One
380
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
source credits lack of fuel, wood, as a reason for cessation. At this time, it might be noted, the monopoly had ended, two other glass factories were in operation in the area, and subsequently several others were es- tablished, all within a fifty-mile radius of the Pitkin site.31
The numerous enterprises in which the Pitkin family engaged in- dicate the variety of undertakings in the state and typify the multi- plicity of interests and flexibility which was conventional in families en- gaged in business in Connecticut. They show, too, the continuity of experience by which the enterprises of the 18th century contributed to the next. In 1747, Colonel Joseph Pitkin received a fourteen-year monopoly under which he established a forge for bar-iron and a mill for iron slitting. In these buildings, his son, Richard Pitkin, made powder for the Continental Army. In partial compensation for this, the 25-year monopoly for glass manufacture was awarded to his sons, William and Elisha. In 1770, Elisha had also built a mill which housed the state's first wool-carding machine run by power. Here his son, Joseph, made felt under a patent for making "cloth without yarn." Samuel Pitkin started the first successful cotton factory in Connecticut, which still exists as the Union Manufacturing Company. John O. and Walter Pit- kin succeeded to John Sargent's silver, jewelry, and clock manufactory, continuing the successful marketing of hand-made silver, after mechan- ical aids had been introduced by their competitors and tried and dis- carded by them, through advertisements which persuaded the public that hand-made silver was more durable. In 1834, Henry and James F. Pitkin made the first watches produced in this country, the American lever, and trained workmen who contributed to the Waltham Watch Company.
In the same way Jeremiah Wadsworth illustrates the multiplicity of interests typical of individuals engaged in business in Connecticut.
Ironically, Connecticut's greatest industrial success, as judged by an ability to compete with imports and the extent of its subsequent de- velopment, attended an unsubsidized trade, clockmaking. In all, it is estimated that there were 100 clockmakers in Connecticut during the eighteenth century, who were engaged in making clocks with both brass and wooden works. The industry flourished because clocks could be supplied by the local clock shops at a substantially lower cost than
381
FEDERALISM AT HIGH TIDE
those imported. Two outstanding clockmakers were Thomas Harland of Norwich and Daniel Burnap, who had great ability as a brass worker, of East Windsor. The marked increase in this production after the Revolution, came in the manufacture of wooden clocks. Though these may have been made in Europe, as early as metal clocks, it appears that the first such clocks to be made in America may have been made in the vicinity of New Haven as early as 1715. The earliest surviving wooden clocks are those of Benjamin Cheney of East Hartford, who learned the trade from Seth Young of Hartford. Active makers of wooden clocks included Gideon Roberts and John Rich of Bristol, James Harrison of Waterbury, Wooster Harrison of Newfield, and Eli Terry (who became the outstanding maker of the next century) of Plymouth. These peddled their clocks throughout New England and as far south as New Jersey and Pennsylvania. This trade is considered an important base for the large-scale clock industry which developed in Connecticut in the next century.33
The expanding economy of the state was reflected in the develop- ment of a turnpike system which outlined the major routes of a modern highway system. The Mohegan Road between New London and Nor- wich, which was authorized by the General Assembly in 1792, was the second turnpike to be established in the United States. The Old Post Road established in Greenwich was the third.34 Initially it was planned that these early roads would be operated by public authority and administered by commissioners responsible to the county courts. A road from Norwich to Rhode Island, also, was authorized on this basis, but funds for its necessary improvement were lacking. Only the Mo- hegan Road remained a public enterprise.
Private corporations undertook the management of the Old Post Road and the development and management of the Norwich-Rhode Island road and all roads chartered subsequently.35 By the end of the eighteenth century, seventeen such companies had been incorporated and a general procedure for the incorporation of companies for this purpose had been established. The Assembly, acting upon a report of a committee appointed to survey an existent route and recommend al- terations, would declare the improved road to be an open and public highway and would reserve the right to erect one or two turnpikes (toll-
382
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
gates) upon it. As capitalists became interested they would be incor- porated to operate the road as a private enterprise after they expended a stipulated sum in improving it. In general, incorporators kept all net income from the authorized tollgates until they reimbursed themselves for all expenditures at 12 per cent per annum.36
A factor in Connecticut's economy was the land which the state controlled in the west. In 1786, Congress agreed to accept from Con- necticut a cession of the right, title, interest, jurisdiction, and claim to a region in the Northwest Territory west of a line drawn 120 miles west of the Western boundary of Pennsylvania. This allowed Connecticut to retain her claim to the land between Pennsylvania's western bound- ary and the parallel line 120 miles to the west, which she wished to re- serve for her use.37 Connecticut's disposition of this Western Reserve was deliberate and business-like.
It was not until 1792 that Connecticut set aside 500,000 acres of the Western Reserve as additional compensation for residents along the coast who had suffered heavy losses from British incursions during the Revolution. Many of these residents had been granted some relief through abatement of taxes, and a general survey of losses had been undertaken by a committee of the Assembly in 1790. This survey was the basis of the allocation of the "Sufferer's Lands," as they came to be called, in the Western Reserve.38 The westernmost part of the Reserve was chosen for this grant, in the hope, one authority suggests, that its settlement would hasten the occupation of the entire area and enhance the value of the entire Western Reserve.39 Values did appreciate, and, although actual distribution and settlement of this part of the area did not precede other settlement, its anticipation may have been a factor in increasing values. Indians still posed a threat and lent importance to a buffer of settlement. The ingenious colonial method of sizing was adapted so that the size of a grant would be in proportion to the extent of suffering. The grantees were divided into 120 classifications based on the amount of their losses and grouped so that each classification repre- sented approximately equal losses. Each classification was to be assigned by lot 120 tracts into which the land would be divided. Thereafter, the recipients were to be allowed to divide the land proportionately among themselves or to dispose of it as a whole or in any mutually agreeable
383
FEDERALISM AT HIGH TIDE
fashion.40 The Indian titles to the land were not cleared until 1805, and another three years were required for the completion of surveying. The drawing was finally held November 9, 1808, thirty years after the first of the losses had been incurred.41 Even then, there was not a rush to
(Courtesy Stamford Historical Society)
STAMFORD-FIRST HIGH SCHOOL, ONE ROOM USED IN 1873
occupy the land, partially, at least, because of the developing pattern of settlement of the Western Reserve.42
The state made no other disposition of the remaining land in the Western Reserve until 1795, with the exception of selling a 24,000 acre "Salt Springs Tract" to General Samuel Parsons.43 Although a sale price of not less than three shillings per acre had been established, all other applications for purchase were refused. The Courant criticized the policy of holding the lands while waiting for a rise in value. The value did rise from a reported $225,000 to one million dollars in 1794.44 Another factor delaying the sale of the lands was the political situation which arose from Great Britain's attempt to interrupt the trade of the United States with France and the French possessions and the attempts
384
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
of the British Governor of Canada to incite the Indians of the North- west. Because of this, the committee for the sale of western lands was instructed in May 1794 to suspend all negotiations for the sale of lands.45 Relations with England became more amicable and General Anthony Wayne had subdued the Indians in the Ohio territory by May 1795.
In 1795 then, after a committee had been authorized to negotiate with anyone desirous of purchasing the territory, the state sold the land to a group of forty-eight speculators known as the Connecticut Land Company.46 At least fifteen of the purchasers had served at least one year in the Connecticut legislature and two had served in the Congress of the United States. The Company made plans for the survey of the territory, its division into townships, and its subdivision into lots for purchase by the settlers. Moses Cleveland, who was named agent of the Company, arrived with the surveying party at the Reserve on July 4, 1796. Settlers began to arrive soon after, and, by 1800, about one thou- sand people had settled there, beginning settlement in 35 of the 103 townships. The widely scattered settlements resulted from the fact that once the proprietor received his land he was responsible for its distribu- tion.47
Connecticut's other involvement with western lands came as a re- sult of the state's attempts to build a "large and convenient" State House in Hartford. The building was not completed when monies raised by public subscription and by a lottery were exhausted. The Assembly then decided in July 1795 to grant to Jeremiah Halsey and Andrew Ward a quit claim to a parcel, or gore, of land about two miles wide and over 200 miles long which extended along the northern boundary of Pennsylvania and to which Connecticut was thought still to have some basis for claim under its sea-to-sea charter. In return, Hal- sey and his associates posted a bond of $40,000 as surety that they would complete the State House. The work was attacked with energy, but within two months their resources were exhausted. This necessitated the formation of the Connecticut Gore Land Company, in which each contributor held from one-twelfth to five-twelfths interest. New capital for continuing construction of the State House was provided by the sub- scribers at the rate of $300 for each twelfth interest. The next year stock in the Company was offered for sale, first in amounts of one-ninety-
385
FEDERALISM AT HIGH TIDE
sixth of the total and later as 381 shares, or one-four-hundredths as they were commonly identified. The value of the tract had increased from fifty to four hundred thousand dollars.48
In the meantime, the company's title was called into question as 50,000 acres of land had been put up for sale, and twenty-five deeds had been passed. Some were attempting settlement in the face of a threat by New York to use militia to prevent anyone from intruding upon that portion of the Gore tract which she claimed. A court test loomed, but decision was postponed as the defendants from New York were able to obtain continuances for four years while they attempted to have the case declared outside the jurisdiction of the Connecticut Cir- cuit Court. Preliminary actions of this court and of the United States Supreme Court implied a final decision in favor of the Gore Company, especially since the Connecticut General Assembly had resolved in 1797 that Connecticut would transfer jurisdiction of the area to New York once the matter of ownership was settled so that no question of jurisdic- tion complicated the issue. The last continuance in 1799 was granted in the expectation that settlement would be achieved out of court by commissioners appointed by Connecticut and New York.49
An official act of the State of Connecticut in which it seemed that politics replaced legalisms and profits replaced principles, resolved the matter in New York's favor, however, before the appointed commis- sioners could meet to consider the matter. Since Connecticut found it difficult, because of distance, to exercise the jurisdiction she had re- tained over the land in her Western Reserve, she sought in 1797 to transfer jurisdiction to the United States. The United States did not agree to accept this jurisdiction while leaving Connecticut in control of the land until April, 1800, and then only with the proviso that Con- necticut within eight months should renounce all jurisdictional and territorial rights to all lands west of the existent east bounds of New York. This wording, which, it has been suggested, was influenced by delegates from New York, included renunciation of all rights in the Reserve and in the Gore with the right of soil being granted anew only to land in the Reserve. The Assembly decided in May the agreement was necessary in order that Connecticut would be sure of receiving payment for the land in the Reserve, for although she had sold this in 1795 to
386
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
the Connecticut Land Company, payment was not due until Septem- ber 1800. Although this would have fallen within the eight months allowed Connecticut, an additional urgency may have been added to the situation by the reactions of the settlers in the Reserve. Some of these wished to assume juridical rights and form a new state and others felt the settlers had the right to choose to be governed under the authority of the Northwest Ordinance. It may have been remem- bered, also, that the Federal Congress had assumed authority over Presque Isle without waiting for a formal cession from Connecticut. The money which would have been endangered by any of these even- tualities had been allocated to the school fund. When the bill was trans- mitted to Connecticut by Charles Chauncey, it was recommended that she comply and compensate the Gore proprietors for any consequential damage they might suffer.50
This Connecticut Act created a changed situation from that which existed when the contract had been made. It was this action on the part of the state which, alone, seemed to invalidate the Gore Company's title claims. The Company had completed the State House according to the original agreement at a cost of from $15,000 to $25,000, and, premising its actions upon the constancy of factors integral to the contract, it had, also, made surveys, proceeded as far as possible with clearance of Indian titles, and sustained court suits at a cost of more than $20,000. The value of the company's shares had risen to represent $300,000. They now dropped from $1000 to $70 a share. The Gore proprietors re- quested compensation, acknowledging that they purchased at their own risk, but pointing out that "the State received a valuable consideration and then, by legislative act, had deprived them of the property they purchased."51 All requests for relief were denied until, in 1804, the As- sembly granted $40,000 without interest, payable in four equal annual payments.52 The state explained that it "would undoubtedly have been willing to have held the jurisdictional right for the benefit of the pur- chasers of the soil had it not interfered with a far greater interest of their own."53
Changes in laws of settlement in Connecticut towns had economic implications. Whereas, early restrictions on choice of residence may even have contributed to pauperism, in the early federal period it be-
387
FEDERALISM AT HIGH TIDE
came possible for one to live wherever he could make a living.53ยช Con- necticut towns still remained somewhat closed and exclusionist al- though the laws governing choice of residence and acquisition of legal settlement were liberalized. Anyone might gain residence in a town through a vote of the Inhabitants, the consent of local officials, or the appointment to and execution of some public office during residence. In addition, an Inhabitant of another state could secure a legal settle- ment by possession of unencumbered real estate valued at $334.00 dur- ing a year's residence, and an Inhabitant of another Connecticut town could secure settlement on the basis of a property qualification of $100.00 held during a year's residence. Moreover, a Connecticut Inhabi- tant could secure a legal settlement by a six years' residence if he were self-supporting. A foreigner could not claim legal settlement on the basis of property qualifications, however, and could only hold or buy property with the permission of the General Assembly.58b
The most important provision was that which based settlement on a period of residence, the right of commorancy. In 1792, it was provided specifically that a Connecticut Inhabitant could now remove to and re- side in any place of his choosing for a period of six years without being subject to prosecution if he were self-supporting. At the end of this time he automatically acquired a new legal settlement. By this, the time requirement for earning settlement was increased, but a person could not be prevented from staying this requisite time so long as he was able to support himself, whereas before he could have been prosecuted and removed on such other grounds as the possibility of failure to be self- supporting.53e It seems possible that this could have been suggested and argued by an established businessman to avoid the settlement of a competitor. With this eliminated competition could become more free.
Exclusion had always been in part based on moral reasons but also was designed to avoid the responsibility which would devolve upon the towns for those who might become public charges. The underlying principle of Connecticut poor relief was that it was primarily a town re- sponsibility, and during the period of early statehood the State guarded its liability ever more tightly. The State was obligated to support all paupers without settlements in Connecticut. In 1820, when the early distinction between Resident and Inhabitant may have become blurred
388
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
and the determination of legal settlement complicated by the new set- tlement laws, especially those based on commorancy, the State explicitly excluded anyone born in Connecticut or adjoining states, anyone who had ever been an inhabitant of a Connecticut town, and anyone for whom any individual or town was responsible. It has been suggested that towns were loosely charging against the state costs which they should have assumed in these cases. State aid was in any case limited to a maxi- mum of $1 a week for those over 14 years and to fifty cents a week for those under 14. They were, however, cared for actually by contract with the lowest bidder. Even for unsettled persons the state limited its re- sponsibility to a three months' period, except in the case of an illness beginning in this period and lasting longer. After this period, the town was responsible unless it had the person removed.54 Yet, the trend toward ensuring that relatives would bear the burden of support was actually limited by several court decisions. Only blood relations, not relations by marriage, were liable, assessment had to be prospective rather than re- imbursement for past expenditures.55 A person's estate had been made liable for his support and could be disposed of when necessary in ac- complishing this. After statehood it was also provided that the estate of a town pauper when not exceeding $30 could be disposed of by select- men for use of town, if no one took out administration within ninety days.56
There existed three methods of town relief, in one's home, in the almshouse or other place designated by the town, or by the contractor for the town poor.57 The selectmen were overseers of the poor, were required to furnish aid to all in need, even though the person were not an inhabitant, and notify the town responsible, if this were known. If this were neglected after he had received notification of need, the select- man was fined $7.58 Workhouses were authorized in individual towns up until 1813 when general authorization was granted. Beggars and vagrants, deserters of families, fakirs, and prostitutes and drunkards were to be confined in these workhouses. Sentences were for 40 days on first conviction, and additional time, not exceeding 40 days, for a second offense. Also stubborn and rebellious minors could be sentenced for a maximum of 30 days. The object of a workhouse was the reformation of a prisoner, and there was belief in the efficacy of the workhouse to do
389
FEDERALISM AT HIGH TIDE
this. Therefore the master was obligated to compel the prisoner to work, even if the prisoner59 promised to pay for his food.
Insanity was accepted as a basis for acquittal or pardon in the case of murder in 1793. However, the selectmen of a place of residence of the afflicted were responsible for preventing a person who was dan- gerously insane from going at large, even if it were necessary to confine him in jail. Concurrently, however, the authority to commit such a person to a workhouse was withdrawn. In 1797, confinement to jail was also forbidden unless the person were criminally insane, but no substi- tute was provided. There was a reported instance in 1786 of a person who had been kept chained for 20 years, yet lack of provision was as much due to lack of knowledge as to what would help as to indiffer- ence.60
The care and custody of prisoners remained essentially as in pre- revolutionary days. The subterranean caverns of the copper mines in the present town of East Granby were converted into a public jail, Newgate Prison, in 1773. Prison breaks and fires punctuated the history of the institution. In 1790 steps were taken to render it a permanent establishment through the improvement of its facilities and the grant of greater autonomy to its overseer. Although, in May, 1799, Governor Jonathan Trumbull pleaded for the separation of the more hardened convicts from the rest of the prisoners, there were no fundamental al- terations in the prison until its abandonment in 1827.61
During the Revolutionary War the citizens of Danbury had consid- ered it "a palpable absurdity" to complain of the attempts of the British to enslave them "while they were actually enslaving others."62 Emanci- pation by individual masters had been permitted in Connecticut since 1777 and the practice was accelerated through the use of slaves as sub- stitutes during the war. Because of the practice of emancipating slaves after they were too old and broken to work effectively, masters had been made responsible for their support if they could not support them- selves after emancipation. It was provided that this responsibility could be escaped if permission were secured from selectmen before emancipa- tion, and in 1792 it was specified that permission could be obtained to liberate a slave who was not less than 25 nor more than 45 years old, if he were in good health and indicated that he wanted his freedom.63
390
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
A step toward abolition of slavery in the state was taken in March 1784 when children born of slaves after that date would be freed when they reached 25 years of age. It was asserted that sound policy demanded "that the abolition of slavery should be effected as soon as may be con- sistent with the rights of individuals and public safety."64 As interpreted by the courts such children held the status of apprentices until they reached 25 years. After 1797, the age was reduced to 21.65 Although the importation of slaves for sale was prohibited as early as 1774, citi- zens of the state engaged in the slave trade until it was specifically pro- hibited in 1788, and the transportation of slaves outside the state for the purpose of sale was forbidden in 1792.66 The proponents for the aboli- tion of slaves pressed for immediate action in 1794. The state's first abolition society, the Connecticut Society for the Promotion of Free- dom and the Relief of Persons Unlawfully Held in Bondage, had been organized in 1790 and was instrumental in having a proposal submitted to the General Assembly which would have freed after April 1, 1795 all those held as slaves. The bill became ensnarled in the legislative process and overshadowed by the controversy over western lands. 67
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.