USA > Connecticut > History of Connecticut, Volume I > Part 40
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
450
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
made sizeable gains in the Senate and in the lower house. It was demon- strated repeatedly, however, that the legislature was more interested in political than in social problems.9
The question of representation in the Senate had become acute by
(Courtesy "Meriden Record-Journal"')
MERIDEN-CURTIS MEMORIAL LIBRARY
the year Tomlinson became Governor. Since the constitution had been adopted in 1818, the legislature had failed six times to agree upon a plan for establishing senatorial districts. In practice each of the small counties, Windham, Tolland, and Middlesex, had the privilege of elect- ing one Senator; New London two; and each of the other four counties two, except that one year in four each of them elected only one Senator. This informal arrangement achieved a reasonably equitable representa- tion in the Senate of the various areas in the state. In 1827, however, when Hartford County was to elect only one Senator, she insisted upon electing two, and a formal settlement was needed.
451
THE JACKSONIAN IMPRESSION
Sentiment in favor of the district plan was aided by clever ma- neuvering which secured agreement in the house in 1827 and the necessary two-thirds approval of both houses the following year on a bill to amend the constitution. There was general agreement that the Senate should be increased in size, but there were differences in regard to the method of districting. Finally, it had been agreed that single member districts would be drawn, in a manner not to cross county lines insofar as this was possible, and each county would have at least two senators. The majority necessary for the passage of the bill was assured by virtue of opposition from Jacksonian Democrats, especially John M. Niles. Those who supported districting adroitly identified all in opposi- tion as Jacksonians. The dislike for Jackson was such that the voters in 1828 returned to the legislature a predominance of pro-district men and secured approval of the bill. When the vote on the districting bill was referred to the voters in the November 1828 election, its outcome was uncertain. This first amendment to the constitution was approved, however, by a vote of 8,630 to 7,873.10
The details of implementation were left to the legislature. Al- though completely proportional representation was preferred by many, this was impossible to achieve because of the provision that districts should not cross county bounds and that each county would have two Senators. In the final determination, it was provided that the state was to be divided into twenty-one districts with one Senator to be elected from each district. This method of apportioning the Senate was fixed from the moment the amendment became effective in 1830. Its political effects were first measured in the Spring election of that year.
Previously preferences for nominations for the Senate were indi- cated at the caucuses held during sessions of the General Assembly. The district plan required a more direct influence of the people. Therefore, district conventions replaced legislative caucuses. Rival factions con- tended in several districts and some who were nominated did not choose to run. Confusion reigned throughout the state, compounding the existent discord in the Republican party for the benefit of the Jackso- nian element.11
The passage of the district bill and its approval by the voters did not mean that the legislature was ready to embark on a reform program.
452
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
Proposed Constitutional amendments to provide for the popular elec- tion of justices of the peace and to reduce the membership of the lower house to one delegate from each town were summarily set aside. An attempt to create a probate district in each town failed to pass for the ostensible reason that all towns did not have residents of sufficient train- ing to assume the responsibility.12 The degree of apathy and the penury of the legislature is revealed further in its failure to respond to the organized efforts to improve the common schools.
The General Assembly was made thoroughly aware of the need for improvement in education. Many members of the Assembly were members of the Society for the Improvement of Common Schools. Other public officials were members of local associations for the betterment of education. Governor Tomlinson was elected to membership in the Hartford County Society for the Improvement of Common Schools of which John S. Peters, the Lieutenant Governor, was first president. The Governor repeatedly called for assistance to education and the members of the Assembly received petitions for the improvement of education. Such petitions were generally referred to the education committees, which presented numerous proposals to both houses of the legislature, including a proposal recommended by Governor Tomlin- son to increase local taxes one cent on each dollar of the grand list. This would have raised a sum equal to the total amount then being collected for the operation of the state's government. The members of the As- sembly, governed by their conception of political realism, did not pass this bill.13
John Niles, Noah Phelps, and Gideon Welles, leaders of the Jack- sonian Democrats, who were less than enthusiastic about school reform, attempted to turn attention to Republican characteristics which they found reminiscent of the Federalists.14 First they saw, in the question as to the right of Universalists to offer testimony in court, an infringement of freedom of religion. The Supreme Court had ruled in 1828 in the case of Atwood vs. Walton that Universalists were incapable of giving legal testimony under oath. Judge David Daggett had ruled that one who did not believe in accountability to God or in a future state of existence could not be considered a competent witness. The Jacksonians protested vigorously. Gideon Welles expressed the opinion that reli-
453
THE JACKSONIAN IMPRESSION
gious belief or disbelief should not debar a person from the privilege of acting as a witness. A bill to this effect was presented to the assembly and carefully buried in the Judiciary Committee by the conservatives. A counter proposal was drafted which would have confirmed the court's decision by statute, but the Senate failed to act upon it before the session ended. A committee appointed to reconsider the question of testimony recommended in the 1829 session of the General Assembly that all ecclesiastical tests for court witnesses be abolished. It was ar- gued that heavy fines guarded against false testimony. The majority termed the proposal sacrilegious. A compromise measure provided that anyone believing in a Supreme Being should not, on account of reli- gious belief, be held an incompetent witness. By this, Universalists were permitted to offer testimony, but, technically, at least, atheists were denied the right.15
Other remnants of tradition remained which could be attacked in the name of Liberalism. The Jacksonians charged, for example, that the election day ceremonies had outlived their usefulness. In these the horse guards and state militia were involved. Also, the clergymen of the state, its officers, and the members of the Assembly were entertained at a banquet which was followed in the evening by a formal ball. Proces- sions, salutes, and entertainment cost about $180 a year in 1829 accord- ing to a committee report. The procedure was considered a violation of the separation of church and state and a burdensome expenditure. Although of scant intrinsic importance, since the sermons had ceased to have political significance after 1818, the issue served to identify the Jacksonian minority with the growing spirit of secularization and was a base upon which a majority might someday be built.16
Opposing groups coalesced to check the force of Jacksonianism. Old Hickory had begun to use the power of patronage and a number of Republicans, both on the local and on the Federal level, had been re- placed by Jacksonians.17 Charges of intrigue were mixed with the pro- tests and denunciations of the Jacksonian mob which came from meet- ings held in Hartford in the Fall of 1830, by Federalist remnants and Republicans.18 The factions closed ranks as the National Republican Party and adopted the tenets of Clay's American system as their party's platform. To give the old party with the new name the semblance of a
454
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
new character, an apparently more popular method of selecting nomi- nees for state offices was introduced. A state convention was called to make the nominations instead of leaving these up to a small party cau- cus.19
The new system of electing candidates did not break the custom of choosing the Lieutenant Governor to succeed the Governor as the choice of the party. Since Gideon Tomlinson had been named Senator, John S. Peters, the Lieutenant Governor, became the standard bearer of the conservatives. The National Republican Party appealed to the people to "rouse up and see who are their friends before it be forever too late."20 Their candidate won the office of Governor easily and the party also secured a majority in both branches of the legislature. The Democrat, Henry W. Edwards, however, gained the largest number of votes for Lieutenant-Governor, yet not a majority. The selection of the person to fill this position, therefore, had to be decided by the Assembly.21
This disputed election resulted in a constitutional amendment accepted in 1832 which provided that when the General Assembly had to select a Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, or a Treasurer, it would follow the same method as was prescribed for the selection of a Governor. In the 1831 dispute, the House had followed the precedent of 1823 and had invited the Senate to joint session to determine who would be Lieutenant Governor. The Senate refused to meet in joint session, insisting that since the dispute concerned its chairman, it should have the exclusive responsibility for selection. The House promptly reacted by naming Orange Merwin, a National Republican. The Senate refused to confirm this selection and countered by choosing Edwards. Since neither house would yield, Robert Fairchild was asked to act as Chairman of the Senate, and the state went without a Lieutenant Gov- ernor. The situation was too absurd to allow repetition, and the dis- puted elections bill was passed and ratified without incident. In the future, such an issue was to be decided without debate by a joint vote of both houses.22
The National Republicans did not constitute a positive political force in the state. They could not divest themselves of fears of Jacksoni- anism, yet were unable to do more than guard against the dreaded day
455
THE JACKSONIAN IMPRESSION
when Connecticut would succumb to the forces of "mobocracy." Peters, nephew of the arch-Tory Samuel Peters, whose experience hardly ex- tended beyond the narrow limits of Hebron before his election as Lieu- tenant Governor, was not equipped to vitalize a party. The Republi- cans in the National Assembly wasted their time discussing national issues about which they could do nothing. They failed to enact a con- crete state legislative program and earned the Democrats' reproachful designation "twaddlers." They were unwilling to translate the demands for reform into legislation. Instead, they sought to turn back the clock and repeal the law passed in 1830 abolishing the religious features of the election day ceremonies. The Democrats seized upon the issue as evidence of the true character of the Republicans and killed the bill in the Senate. The barrenness of constructive idea in the party was shown by the attention to this issue, yet the Republicans were successful in 1832. Their success was hailed as victory for the "sturdy freemen" who had again "thrust back impending corruption."23 This, however, was the party's last major victory.
Even though Connecticut supported Clay, the impetus of Jackson's victory in 1832 carried over into the gubernatorial election in Connecti- cut the following Spring. The Democratic convention opened confi- dently and festively around a hickory tree set against a colorful back- ground in the convention hall. Under this symbol of Jacksonian Democracy, Henry W. Edwards was nominated for Governor and a relatively liberal platform was adopted. The party stood for a free and unrestricted franchise, limited judicial terms, and tax revision to favor labor.
The Republicans, supporting high tariffs and identified as the protectors of the manufacturers, felt secure, since Jackson had proposed a tariff reduction and Connecticut sentiment for a high tariff had in- creased. However, the Anti-Mason Party cut into the vote of both the other parties and no gubernatorial candidate received a majority of the vote, although the Republican, Peters, received more votes than the Democrat, Edwards. The contest was to be resolved by the General Assembly, where the Democrats exercised their recently gained majority to elect Edwards the Governor.24
In this session, when the Democrats first controlled the Assembly,
456
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
they gave some indication of attempting a bold program of reform to accord with the beliefs they proclaimed in their campaigns. Statutes were enacted ending the exemption of clergymen from the poll tax, altering restrictions on liquor sales, and abolishing restrictions on recre- ation on public fast days. These accomplishments, however, were less
(Courtesy Hartford Chamber of Commerce)
HARTFORD-TRINITY COLLEGE
than revolutionary. An amendment to change the date of the convening of the legislature from May to January was blocked by rural representa- tives who apparently valued tradition more than the opportunity to get home to care for their crops. An effort to drive a wedge into the prop- erty qualification for voting by permitting those who moved into the state to vote after a year's residence without fulfilling the customary
457
THE JACKSONIAN IMPRESSION
property requirement was unsuccessful. Action was postponed on an- other proposed constitutional amendment to permit a voter to cast a single ballot on which all candidates would be listed rather than to cast a separate ballot for each office seeker. Only small strides were made, then, toward social progress by these measures and added to them was a statute granting to civil authorities of towns the prerogative of denying a license to schools for negro children.25 The democratic ideal has many dimensions and Jacksonian Democrats in 1833 kept it within the bounds of Connecticut interests.
A visit of Jackson and Van Buren to the state during the summer of 1833 could not offset the disadvantages which beset any party with the misfortune of being in power during a business depression. Several sec- tions of the state were affected by the dip in the economy. A number of stores in New Haven and factories in various parts of the state were closed, and the mills in the Hartford area were operating on part time.26 Once again, the Republicans combined forces with the Federalists and laid the basis for the nascent Whig party, developing as anti-Jackson forces coalesced.27 Voters were urged to restore the state to its usual prosperity by voting against the Democrats. The majority was not per- suaded, but a sufficient number of voters returned to the conservative fold to force the choice of Governor into the Assembly again. The Whigs had the commanding vote here and Samuel A. Foote, with Yale- Litchfield credentials, was the choice for Governor.28
The Whig-dominated General Assembly of 1834 did little more than damn the politics of the national administration and undo the work of the previous Democratic Assembly. It repealed an act of 1833 dividing the state into districts for the election of Congressmen. It also rejected the amendment for the short ballot only in order to credit their party with this arrangement, for they adopted a similar resolution for consideration in 1835. Many groups in Connecticut society were calling for change, yet the Whigs were content, in the absence of a positive program, to attempt to end "Democratic tyranny." When the depression continued, they were forced to share responsibility for it and the issue on which they had come to power was cut from beneath them. Federal- ism, this time under the name of the Whig party, once more was de- feated; the voters returned Edwards to the Governor's chair.29
458
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
Edwards was equipped by training and birth to give leadership to a period of reform. He was the great-grandson of the "Pope of the Connecticut Valley," the grandson of the finest intellect in eighteenth century America, and the son of a member of the Continental Con- gress. After completing his courses at Princeton and at Litchfield, Ed- wards had begun the practice of law in New Haven. From 1819 to 1827, he represented the state in Congress, as Representative and as Senator. When he was elected to the state Senate in 1827, he was already identified as a part of the advance guard of Jacksonianism. Edwards was elected to the House in 1829 and during the Tomlinson administra- tion he was in a strategic position to advance the cause of the Demo- crats and to gain further knowledge of the intricacies of the Connecti- cut legislative process. As Governor in 1833, he had not recommended a bold program. During the years 1835-38, however, he came forward with legislative proposals which were in marked contrast to what the General Assembly had been willing to enact.30 The Democratic propo- sals ranged across many subjects and included recommendations to alter suffrage requirements, modify the judicial system, introduce social re- forms, and encourage business and improve the economic condition of the state. Through statute and constitutional amendment, attempts were made to bring Connecticut life more nearly in accord with the spirit of national developments.31
The base for suffrage was broadened by an alteration in the me- chanics of voting rather than through any direct enfranchisement of large groups of Connecticut residents. The amendment for a short ballot was revived by the Democrats in 1835, passed for a second time in 1836, and ratified by the voters in the November election of that year. When this amendment was first introduced in 1833, it had been argued that the system of casting a separate ballot for each candidate was so cumbersome as to make it impossible for large numbers to vote. Conceivably, then, the change in the voting method enabled a larger number of the working class to exercise their franchise rights. Recom- mendations to abolish property qualifications for voting and to permit anyone who was a citizen of the United States to vote failed to secure the approval of the Assembly. Although the Assembly would not ap- prove any direct extension of the franchise, it killed a proposal to deny
459
THE JACKSONIAN IMPRESSION
the right of suffrage to college students, refusing to further restrict the privilege.32
The Assembly was even more cautious as it considered measures relating to the judiciary system. Criticism that the course of justice was too slow had resulted in an effort to make the courts subject to greater legislative control. A constitutional amendment to limit the member- ship of the Superior Court to five members to be named by the General Assembly was proposed in 1835 and amended the following year. As amended, the Superior Court Justices then in office would continue in office until 1837 when the Assembly would make new appointments. A defect in the draft of the resolution was discovered the next year which, it was argued, could limit the tenure of the judges to one year and thereby make them completely subject to the will of the legislature. Accordingly, the proposal was set aside and an amendment was intro- duced which established a five year term for superior court judges. The amendment calling for popular election of Justices of the Peace failed to secure the approval of the Assembly for the required second time. Such proposals as permitting atheists to testify in court were summarily dismissed as extreme. The abolition of the provision that jurors should be freeholders was a measurable advance, however.33
The move to pass a general incorporation law was good Jacksonian doctrine. Jackson had waged a dramatic battle against the concentration of wealth and power in a single class.34 Edwards, in his address to the Assembly in 1836, pointed out the need for a general incorporation law. He based his recommendation upon the desirability of saving time and avoiding an undue amount of private legislation, instead of point- ing to the corruption and opportunity for purchasing votes which pre- vailed under the separate charter procedure. Obviously, the special charter provision was supported by those who had already secured charters and wished to keep out competition.35 Strangely, the opposition of delegates from the small towns blocked passage of the proposal until the next year when the Hinsdale Act was passed.36 The bill established the general laws governing the conduct of a corporation: it was required that the articles of corporation be published; that the books of the corporation be open to any stock holder; and that a certificate specifying the purpose of the company, the amount of capital, the amount paid
460
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
into the company, the names of the stockholders, and the amount of stock held by each be filed with the Secretary of State.37 As has been pointed out, this "first modern corporation law" was a part "of the legacy of Jacksonian democracy."38
Democratic success at the polls and achievement of legislation in the Assembly were determined by the degree to which the party secured at least partial support in the traditionally conservative small towns. The appeal of Jackson helped secure their votes in times of national elections. It was only by artful statecraft that this support could be retained to implement a constructive legislative program. Their ap- proval was won by the geological survey proposed by Edwards in 1835. The popularity of studying the natural resources of the state was indi- cated when additional funds were voted in 1836 and 1837. The administration's support of railroads also appealed to Connecticut farmers who were already experiencing problems in getting their prod- ucts to market. The support of the Democratic party by the small towns was always precarious and continually demanded additional stimulus.39
The distribution of monies received from the Federal government from the surpluses in the national treasury offered an opportunity to make a special bid for the support of the small towns. At a special session of the General Assembly in December 1836 the Governor recommended that these funds be placed in the charge of the school fund commis- sioner. He pointed out that the annual dividend, then $1.05, received for each child could be trebled by the addition of these funds. Some of the pressure for improved schools had subsided by 1836 and the As- sembly refused to follow the Governor's suggestion. Instead, the money was divided among the several towns according to population. Each town was to serve as a trustee of the state in administering its fund and in allocating the proceeds from its share of the capital which was to remain intact. One half of the proceeds was to be used for public schools and the other half was to be applied to the ordinary expenses of the town. The return of the Democrats to office in 1837 attested to the po- litical merits of the plan.40
In the three years of Democratic control, significant, but limited, ad- vances had been made in the area of social reform. The Assembly was not yet ready to approve such an advanced suggestion as the abolition of
461
THE JACKSONIAN IMPRESSION
capital punishment, which was offered by the Whigs in 1837, yet the continuing depression had given emphasis to the need for reforms in areas where economic conditions accentuated the inadequacy of prac- tice. For example, a mechanic's lien law was passed in 1836, which provided that wages would receive priority of payment. Also, in 1837, it was proposed that imprisonment for debt be abolished. The action of the House on the morning of June 9 to postpone the bill until the next session was reversed in the afternoon. The Senate, which appeared to have the political strength to direct the vote of the House, had approved the bill in the meantime. On the vote in the House to reconsider and concur, the bill was passed by the overwhelming majority of 164 to 18. There is reason to believe that either there was a misunderstanding of the purpose of the vote or else there had been sharp political maneuver- ing. Subsequent motions to suspend the act, however, were defeated as the Jacksonian forces held firm.41
The panic of 1837 focused the attention of the Governor and the Assembly on the financial condition of the state. The state was author- ized to borrow $25,000 and assessed a tax of one cent on each dollar of the grand list to meet the general expenses of the government. A proposal to extend the credit of the state further for the development of internal improvements, including rivers, canals, and railroads, was defeated.42 The state had never quite recovered from the business depression of 1834 and the lack of specie which characterized the panic generally resulted in an effort to increase the money supply within the state. The Assembly approached the question of issuing additional pa- per money with customary caution. Proposals which would have per- mitted the banks to have issued bills payable in New York or Boston notes or to receive small bills of credit of other states were defeated. Instead, banks were authorized to issue post notes for a limited time.43 An 1835 bill prohibiting the circulation of small bills was repealed and bills in denominations of one or two dollars were made redeemable in specie. Such measures were definitely temporary, however. At the same time it was provided that the circulation of all bank notes in denomina- tions of less than five dollars was prohibited after July 1, 1838.44 In the meantime, efforts were made to overhaul the banking system in the state.
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.