USA > Connecticut > History of Connecticut, Volume I > Part 38
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
Wolcott's inaugural address appealed to both parties. The burning issues of the campaign, such as the rights of conscience and the freedom of suffrage, were discussed as questions of principle, and emphasis was
427
AN ERA OF POLITICAL TRANSITION, 1817-27
given to the status of the economy of the state. Wolcott suggested that "by far the most important subject" to be considered by the legislature was the emigration of Connecticut residents to western lands: It was the business of the state to create conditions which would interest people in remaining in Connecticut. To this end, he recommended a freer circulation of capital, the extension of credit, and a more equitable taxing system. Any fundamental alterations in the last, however, should await a thorough study which could serve as the basis for systematic revision. He held out hope for both the laborer and the factory owner, for the poor and the affluent. He pleaded for an independent judiciary, but assuaged Federalist fears by recommending that Supreme Court Judges be named for life and good behavior. "It is the right of every man," he proclaimed, "to worship . . in the manner most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience." Even on this fundamental tenet of the Reform party, however, Wolcott did not call for immediate action, but for an investigation of grievances. Again, he indicated that the method of election should be studied to see if the rights of fran- chise were being maintained before the legislature attempted any re- forms. The suggestions were prudent. The Upper House, or Council, was still controlled by the Federalists and the legislative program would be limited to whatever could be gained in cooperation with the opposition.2
Even the judicious conciliation did not achieve bold accomplish- ments. The provision for extending to the Litchfield branch of the Phoenix Bank of Hartford the privilege of issuing notes in the name of its President was an effort to perfect the financial institutions of the state. This was the intent, too, of the provision for increasing the num- ber of directors of the Hartford Bank. The law requiring an annual accounting of the fiscal affairs of the state by the Comptroller was but a revision of an earlier law. A slight nudge toward the separation of the Church and State was contained in the alteration of the law requiring members of a congregation who wished to join another to file a certificate with the town clerk rather than with the clerk of the society as provided previously.3 A provision permitting one to certificate from one society to another of the same denomination was defeated for fear it would demoralize the societies. Each of the societies was permitted
428
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
to lay and collect taxes for the support of its denomination. The state continued to perform this service for the Congregationalists.4
Despite Wolcott's measured appeal, partisan considerations were not without weight during the session. Customarily, legislative pro- posals were submitted to joint committees of both houses, but the
CROMWELL-ST. JOHN'S CHURCH
Republicans exercised their newly won strength and referred all bills to the appropriate House committee. To the bitterness caused by this legislative breach was added the antagonism engendered by the Coun- cil's veto of a repeal of an infamous "stand up law" which had circum- vented the secrecy of the ballot as applied to the nominations of candi- dates for the Council. For these, oral nominations and an open standing vote came to be required about the turn of the century. The real political struggle came over the appointments of Justices. The Federal- ists sought to entrench themselves by naming as many Federalists as possible, even in Republican towns. Neither house would accept the
429
AN ERA OF POLITICAL TRANSITION, 1817-27
list prepared by the other and there the matter stood until it was finally compromised by adding a hundred Republicans to the already exces- sive number of justices. Understandably, in view of the Federalists' position on the Justices, all Republicans were not willing to entrench Federalist Judges in power, so Wolcott's proposal for the reform of the judiciary was postponed.5
The Tolerationists directed their attack toward the vicious closed control of the Council which seemed the last barrier to reform. They argued that to return the same members to office would mean a dead- lock on important legislation, make a constitutional convention im- possible, and postpone reform. At the same time they countered charges of radicalism by naming five Federalists to their list of nominees from which the members of the Council would be chosen later. The Fed- eralists could not attack the record of the May session which they had helped forge. They could criticize only those proposals which had been postponed or which suggested areas to be studied. It was implied that the proposed constitutional convention might result in circumstances similar to those which had prevailed in France: "A new constitution," it was said, would "put all things afloat on the ocean of visionary experiment."6 All charges were in vain. The Tolerationists elected their complete ticket and the Federalists could not delay the long-sought for reforms beyond the time new members of the Council took office.
Wolcott's address to the General Assembly was devoid of the acrimony of the campaign. He extolled the virtues of the old system of government and cautioned that it should not be too radically changed. "It is natural and just that institutions which have produced so much honor and advantage should be objects of veneration and attachment," Wolcott admitted. He pointed out further that "if, as may be admitted, some changes are expedient ... still, we are bound to recollect, that whatever is of common concern, ought to be adjusted by mutual con- sultations, and friendly advice; that party spirit and sinister interests ought to be wholly excluded from influence; that it is the duty of reformers to repair and improve, not to subvert and destroy. . . . ืืื
The General Assembly in the October session of 1817 was marking time until the following Spring when the Tolerationists would have complete control of the government. Neither house had any respect for
430
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
the other. The lower house again referred all legislation to its own com- mittees and the Council countered by forcing Federalist justices upon Republican towns. Most of the legislation was routine, but the repeal of the "stand-up" election law marked the waning of Federalist strength and the report of the committee on taxation laid the basis for later reforms. This committee had discovered an inequitable tax system which was unfair for farmers, unjust to professional men, a deterrent to industry and an invitation to migration. It was recommended that there be a complete revision of the tax system, to include a reduction in the poll tax and the assessment of property on the basis of its valua- tion.8 Although questions of taxation, militia, and suffrage had been considered, little was accomplished. As the session drew to a close, the Tolerationists drew attention to the need for a constitutional conven- tion in preparation for the campaign to follow.9
The need for a new constitution had been underscored during the October session when the legislature had exercised its privilege of judicial review. This privilege dated from colonial times and the legality of this judicial authority was unquestioned. In the post-revolu- tionary period, the view that "when proper courts of law were con- stituted, the legislature are [sic] divested of all judicial authority"9ยช was gaining some acceptance. Yet, in the absence of law prohibiting it to do so, the Assembly might exercise its prerogative at any time. In the October session the Assembly had annulled the judgment and set aside the sentence pronounced against Peter Lung, a murderer convicted by the Superior Court of Middletown. In an appeal to the public defend- ing himself, the judge argued that the government of Connecticut consisted of three branches, coordinate and independent of each other: It ought to be a fundamental axiom "that the Legislature should never encroach on the jurisdiction of the Judiciary."10 The Peter Lung case gave new force to the arguments for constitutional reform, and in- fluenced some Federalists to vote for the reform ticket.10a
Election day, May, 1818, was a day of rejoicing for the reformers. Whether because of their satisfaction with Wolcott or because they recognized the fruitlessness of their efforts, the Federalists did not name another candidate for Governor. The barometer of public opinion con- cerning the constitution was indicated when the voters placed one hun-
431
AN ERA OF POLITICAL TRANSITION, 1817-27
dred and thirty-two Tolerationists in the assembly to sixty-nine Federal- ists. In his inaugural address Wolcott sought to establish a middle ground upon which the reformers and the remnants of the standing order could meet. He recognized the charter as the basis of Connecticut liberties for by it the King's claims to the territory were surrendered to the people, but recognized, too, that as an instrument defining the powers and duties of public officials it was deficient. Since some of the citizens now desired "that the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial au- thorities of their own government may be more precisely defined and limited and the rights of the people declared and acknowledged," Wol- cott felt that it was the responsibility of the legislature "to dispose of this important subject in such manner as will best promote general satisfac- tion and tranquillity."11
The committee appointed to consider the constitutional question reported "a general manifestation of a desire for a revision and re- formation of the structure of our civil government and the establish- ment of a Constitutional Compact." The happiness which had been enjoyed by the Connecticut people, it was suggested, was due to "other causes, rather than to any peculiar intrinsic excellence in the form and character of government itself." It was concluded that the "frail founda- tion of legislative will or discretion" should not be the basis for separa- tion of the powers of government, tenure of office, elective franchise, liberty of speech and press, freedom of conscience, and trial by jury. The time for action had arrived.12
The debate which followed the proposed resolution calling for towns to elect delegates to a constitutional convention centered around the number of delegates to be chosen from each town, the date of the election, and the method of ratification of the constitution. There was a variance of opinion as to whether the constitution should be ratified by the towns, by the voters of the state, or by a vote of the lower house of the Assembly. It was finally decided that the method of ratification would be determined by the convention itself. A move to name only one delegate from each town was rejected and the apportionment of representation was the same as for members of the House. Although some protested, the election of delegates was scheduled for the Fourth of July. It was a "merry day," but is was argued "if the people began
432
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
early in the morning, they would be able to get through before they were disqualified."13
The delegates who were elected represented all elements of Con- necticut society, a balanced and respected group including many who were equipped by training and long years of experience to erect a new structure of government. Seven had been members of the convention which had ratified the constitution in 1788, three had been representa- tives in Congress and five others were later to be elected to that office. Two of the number became Governors of the state and three became Senators of the United States.14 Plain farmers were seated with the wealthy, physicians with lawyers, Princeton graduates with Yale grad- uates. It was a delegation called in the spirit of reform, but one which maintained its ties with the past. If the convention had been called in the midst of partisan wrangling, it proceeded with the intent of erecting a structure of government which was in harmony with the needs of the state.15 The convention was organized on August 26th, and by August 28 heard the first report of the committee named to draft the con- stitution.16
The report of this committee was submitted in four parts. The first, submitted on August 28, contained the recommendation for a Preamble and Bill of Rights. A general statement on the distribution of powers and the provisions pertinent to the legislative and executive branches were contained in a second section submitted on September 1. The proposals for the judiciary and for the qualifications of electors were submitted on the third and the final report containing the recom- mendations on religion, education, impeachments, general provisions and the method of amending the constitution the next day.17 Each article was taken up by sections. Then, after discussion and amend- ment of the several sections, each article was again considered as a whole before a vote was taken on its adoption. After an article gained initial approval and was printed it was again open for consideration before being finally approved by the convention.18
Ties with the past were revealed in the preamble which acknowl- edged "the good providence of God in having permitted them to enjoy a free government." The proposed constitution was intended "more effectually to define, secure, and perpetuate the liberties, rights and
433
AN ERA OF POLITICAL TRANSITION, 1817-27
privileges which they have derived from their ancestors."19 It was evi- dent that the new constitution was not to be a vehicle for a political party, but "that the great and essential principles of liberty and free government" would be recognized and that all which was vital in the charter would be retained.20
Not everyone considered it necessary to guarantee individual rights through a Bill of Rights. Connecticut had never formally ratified the Federal Bill of Rights. In 1818, a Federalist bloc led by John Tread- well continued to maintain that such protection was unnecesary. These conservatives could not admit a necessity for protection against tyranny, aristocracy, or usurpation and this was the precise design of the Bill of Rights. The repetition in the statement of rights, which occurred principally in regard to police power and court procedure, seem to imply former transgressions. Although it was not included in the final document, the provision of the draft that "no citizen of this State . .. shall be prevented for emigrating" can be interpreted only as indicating that some believed that inhabitants had been coerced to remain in the state and that the safeguard was necessary. The conserva- tives seemed to view the constitution as a contract between the body of citizens and the state while the forces of reform insisted that it should also be a contract with the individuals. That individual rights were a central issue is indicated by a tabled motion that all rights not delegated by convention should be reserved by people. The approval of the Bill of Rights clearly indicates the determination of the majority that the rights of individuals should have specific legal protection.21
The dominance of small towns in the Lower House of the General Assembly was established firmly by the decisions of the Convention of 1818. An attempt to limit towns with populations of less than 4,000 to one representative was defeated. Subsequent efforts to establish this limitation for towns of less than 2,500 and even for towns of less than 2,000 people also failed. If towns of less than 4,000 had been limited to one representative, the House would have been reduced to 124 mem- bers, while if towns of less than 2,500 had been so limited the House would have been reduced to 164. The drafting committee suggested that the General Assembly be given the prerogative of reducing the number of delegates within the restriction that each town have at least
434
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
one representative, but the Convention disapproved this, too. Subse- quently, as the population became more concentrated in urban areas, the inequity became more pronounced until moves to the suburbs in the 20th century reversed the trend. The modification of representa- tion which the delegates of 1818 refused to effect, the elected representa- tives of more recent years refused even to attempt.22
Attempts to endow the Senate with the basic characteristics of the former Council failed. A proposal to make the Governor the presiding officer in the Senate was defeated, as was the suggestion, reminiscent of elections of Councilmen, to have this presiding officer selected from a list of twenty nominees. Representation in the Senate was restricted to twelve members, however. Three attempts to provide for a larger initial number of Senators failed as did an effort to provide for a future increase to 21 members two years after the next census.23
Although the powers of the Governor remained limited as com- pared to later standards, the executive department was made inde- pendent of other branches of the government. With the exception of the Comptroller, who continued to be appointed by the General Assembly, the officers of the administration were elected by the electors of the state. The provision that the ballots were to be counted publicly and canvassed by the executive officers lessened the possibilities of cor- ruption. The salaries of the administrative officers, although to be fixed by the legislature, were not to be determined annually. In the event the two houses could not agree upon a date of adjournment, the Governor was empowered to adjourn the Assembly to a stated date. The Gov- ernor was given the right to veto. It was a power, however, which was not exercised for a number of years and then only at the risk of political fortune.24 Connecticut was still so afraid of a strong executive that the convention would not approve the drafting committee's statement that "the supreme executive power of the State shall be vested in a Governor."24a
The creation of an independent judiciary was recognized as a mandate from the people. It had been a principle of the Republicans for years and in the elections of 1816 and 1817, it was an issue of the campaign. Although the General Assembly was reluctant to relinquish its power of judicial review, by 1818 even a number of Federalists had
435
AN ERA OF POLITICAL TRANSITION, 1817-27
spoken out in opposition to the practice. At the convention, the Fed- eralists did not contest the basic idea, but conservatives of both parties rallied to check attempts to limit the tenure of the judges or to make their tenure subject to the will of the General Assembly.25
Suffrage rights were extended to include all white male citizens, who had reached twenty-one years of age, who had gained a settlement in the state, who had resided in a town for six months, and who had a freehold estate in Connecticut which had a yearly value of seven dollars. If one had paid a tax within the state during the preceding year, the property qualification could be waived. The liberal element of the con- vention blocked an attempt on the part of conservatives to strike out a provision whereby militia service could be offered in lieu of the prop- erty qualification.26
Separation of church and state was assured in an article which guaranteed freedom of conscience to all and granted equality of rights to all Christians. The article was submitted in two sections. The first concerned freedom of conscience and equality of rights and passed by a partisan vote of 103 to 86. The second section initially provided that one could separate himself from any religious society of which he was a member, and, if he left a written notice of separation, would not be liable for any expenses of the group. A Federalist motion to delete this section was defeated, again by a partisan vote of 84 to 105, for the Republicans regarded it as essential to principles which they had main- tained and would not see it altered in any way. Two amendments to the first section, however, were then affirmed without a vote. One pro- vided that a person would continue a member of a society until his connection was legally dissolved and met Congregationalist fears of a gross attrition of their societies which would result as members would become delinquent without formally filing a petition. The other amend- ment provided that tithes, which had already been recognized in the first section, could be imposed only by a majority of legal voters of a society at a legally announced meeting. The state, however, no longer collected tithes for the Congregationalists. Although the influence of Congregationalists was still significant, the union of church and state had been broken.27
Once this basic issue had been resolved, the remaining business
436
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
of the Convention was speedily concluded. The articles concerning edu- cation, impeachment, constitutional amendment, and certain general provisions were adopted as reported or with little change. Proposals of extremists in both parties, which included efforts to restrict the fran-
hi !
(Courtesy Chamber of Commerce of Greenwich, Inc.)
GREENWICH-THE PUTNAM COTTAGE
chise, to delete the article on religion, and to limit the judicial terms, were defeated. Work was completed on the afternoon of September 15. After a half hour's recess, the Convention reconvened at five o'clock for a final reading and vote on the constitution. It was accepted by 134 affirmative votes as opposed to 61 negative votes. The convention ad- journed the next day.28
The constitution to be submitted to the electors in October repre- sented the margin of consent derived from overlapping fringes of atti- tude and reaction of the members of the constitutional convention.
437
AN ERA OF POLITICAL TRANSITION, 1817-27
The 61 negative votes included extremists among the Republicans as well as among the Federalists. If measured in terms of developments elsewhere or in terms of nineteenth century reforms, the constitution was neither new nor radical; if measured by the changes made, the pro- visions should not be minimized.
The right of freedom to worship "in the mode most consistent with the dictates of their consciences" was admitted and would seem to in- clude non-Christians. Although the assertion that it was "the right and duty of all men to worship the Supreme Being, "the Great Creator and Preservor of the universe," would not imply approbation of atheism, even the right of non-worship would have been technically accorded by the provision that no person shall be compelled to join or support, nor by law be classed with, or associated to any congregation, church or religious association." Equality of powers, rights, and privileges, how- ever, including the "power and authority to support and maintain the Ministers or Teachers of their respective denominations, and to build and repair houses for public worship, by a tax on the members of their respective societies only, or in any other manner," was limited to Chris- tians. Even within the stated limitations, the provision attested to a greatly extended toleration.
The rights of individuals for the first time was incorporated for- mally into the fundamental law of the state and the power to change this fundamental for the first time was made the sole prerogative of the electors. Suffrage was extended with an alternative provided for even the minimum property qualification and the absence of any refer- ence to "Freemen" not only eliminated the last vestige of a formal religious requirement, but also the dependence of individual rights upon securing personal approbation of a number of fellow residents. Powers and responsibilities were more clearly identified and more definitely distributed to the various branches of government. The judi- ciary gained a greater independence of the legislature, but the assembly still retained some judicial powers.
The document met the prerequisites of a written constitution. It did not represent the reforms which the extremist among the Republi- cans desired, yet it went further than the stalwarts of the standing order approved. The response of the electorate indicated that in its entirety
438
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
the proposal represented acceptable limits. For some time, the ratifica- tion of the constitution was doubtful. Many who had voted for it in convention apparently voted for it as a choice of evils, but did not feel themselves obligated to defend it to their constitutents, Many of the Republicans were disappointed that the Constitution did not include additional reforms such as a provision for senatorial districts and did not exert their efforts to secure ratification. The Federalists, who, in convention, had argued unsuccessfully for a two-thirds majority for ratification, now reiterated that a bare majority did not provide ade- quate protection for the minority. They charged that insufficient time had been allowed for the deliberations of the convention and pointed out that it was only through their efforts that a more revolutionary proposal had not been submitted. Finally, in an effort to gain votes, the conservatives attempted to arouse sympathy for Governor Treadwell, who, it was charged, had been treated unfairly. The one article to which all the Federalists gave their unqualified support was that calling for an independent judiciary. Independent Federalists who had voted according to their own views in the convention rallied to the support of the document and aided in its ratification by electors by a margin of 1,554 votes.29
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.