USA > Connecticut > Tercentenary pamphlet series, v. 1 Connecticut and the British Government > Part 37
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
These measures constitute the advancement made in the direction of liberalism, the latter term being con- strued simply as one applying to any significant change from the established mode of social regulation. For the first half of the nineteenth century, therefore, it was still true that Connecticut remained a thoroughly conservative
43
community, whose people retained a traditional prejudice against changes of any sort. Greater advances in progres- sive legislation were made in the latter half of the cen- tury, when the rapid expansion of industry, fostered by railway communication, brought the state into more in- timate contact with outside communities, a contact which did much to break down the former exclusiveness that pervaded all ranks of society. For the earlier years of the century, however, progressives such as Oliver Wolcott, Henry W. Edwards, and Chauncey Cleveland, occupied the unenviable position of prophets without honor in their own country, the true public opinion of Connecticut being best expressed by William W. Ells- worth who, in 1841, eulogized the community thus:
Our territory is small, our laws and institutions few, uni- form, and without complexity ... . We resemble an industrious, economical, and well regulated family, presenting a republic which secures more good, and avoids more evil, than any other community of ancient or modern times.
Truly did Connecticut maintain for generations its claim to being regarded as the "Land of Steady Habits."
44
Bibliographical Note
THE following works have been of assistance: G. L. Clark, A History of Connecticut, chapters on educational reform and philanthropy; N. G. Osborn, History of Con- necticut, articles on agriculture and industry, written by E. H. Jenkins and G. B. Chandler, respectively. Generally speaking, however, the student of this period in local history must consult source material, of which I have found the following most useful: The State Records, manu- script volumes of the acts and resolutions of the general assembly, kept in the secretary of state's office at Hart- ford; The Journals of both houses of the legislature, man- uscript volumes also in the keeping of the secretary, al- though the printed volumes may be used for the lower house beginning in 1838, and for the senate beginning in 1840; The Session Papers, a most informing collection of petitions, committee reports, and miscellaneous papers accumulated by the legislature, and preserved also in the capitol building at Hartford. Source material other than that contained in the state archives may be found in three local repositories-the State Library, the Connecticut Historical Society, and the Yale University Library. Some assistance, though not a great deal, can be had from general works on religion, education, and women's rights, the titles of which may be searched in biblio- graphical guides such as that edited by Channing, Hart, and Turner, but for the Connecticut phases of general movements in social and economic progress, a study of the sources is indispensable. This article is an adaption of a longer work representing an independent study of the period, which has recently appeared from the Yale University Press, J. M. Morse's A Neglected Period of Connecticut History, 1818-1850 (1933).
45
1
74.6 054 10.17
ConnecLicuL. History
TERCENTENARY COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
QUI
SUSTINET
TRANSTULIT
L
COMMITTEE ON
HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS
Under the Constitution of 1818: The First Decade
PUBLISHED FOR THE TERCENTENARY COMMISSION BY THE YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS 1933
TERCENTENARY COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
COMMITTEE ON HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS
Under the Constitution of 1818: The First Decade
JARVIS M. MORSE
C ONNECTICUT has so often been called "The Land of Steady Habits" that one is surprised to discover a period when the foundations of the state were shaken, and political strife threatened to disrupt all peace and harmony. About 1800 there appeared a political party which maintained that the state had no legal constitution, and that the public policies upheld by tradition were subversive of civil and religious liberty. This party, usually called Republican, originated as a branch of the national organization as- sociated with Thomas Jefferson, but within a few years after 1800 its activities were focussed on local affairs. The Republicans objected to many features of contemporary politics, especially the fact that legislative and other gov- ernmental powers were derived from a charter granted by Charles II in 1662. From the Republican point of view it was undignified for a sovereign state to be governed ac- cording to rules laid down by a king who had once held the community in subjection. Mere prejudice against the royal charter would not have led to serious consequences, but the reform party injected into this constitutional con-
I
troversy some issues which were more certain to excite popular passions. Republicans protested that the ruling party monopolized all offices, manipulated elections to maintain itself in power, and, worst of all, favored one re- ligious sect to the discomfiture of others. The last charge laid bare the major cause of the upheaval which con- vulsed the state several years later.
Since early colonial days Connecticut had supported Congregationalism as an official church. Its ministers played an important part in politics, and its parishes were subsidized by funds secured from public taxation. Because of this situation nearly all the members of the Congregational church were also members of the domi- nant political party, the Federalist, and, conversely, most Episcopalians, Methodists, and Baptists flocked into the Republican fold. Thus the state was divided into two distinct camps-on one side were the Federalist- Congregationalists, supporters of an official church and an aristocratic form of civil government, and on the other the Republican-Dissenters, advocates of religious equal- ity and of a liberal constitution.
The crisis came in 1818, when the reform party forced the calling of a convention to frame a constitution. The convention met at Hartford, its deliberations lasting from August 26 to September 15, and its work being given to the electorate on the fifth day of October. Dur- ing the three weeks which elapsed between the close of the convention and the date chosen for the referendum, political and religious propaganda poured forth from dozens of printing offices, public speakers branded their opponents with the most disrespectful terms ingenuity could devise, and Congregational ministers prayed for some divine interposition which would save the state from infidelity. On October 5, farmers left their fields
2
and mechanics deserted their shops to settle the great question, and when the returns were counted the reform party was found to have been victorious by the narrow margin of 1,554 votes. The people had ratified the con- stitution which, with numerous amendments, has re- mained the fundamental law of the state to the present day. Perhaps "the people" is too broad a term by which to designate those who registered their decisions on the constitution, for they comprised only about a tenth of the total population, but most of the adult males who were permitted to vote under the suffrage qualifications of the time availed themselves of the privilege, and on only one other occasion for the next sixteen years did a greater number of people take part in an election.
The outcome of the referendum was given prominence in newspaper comment within and without the state. Local journals with a conservative bias, such as the Connecticut Courant published at Hartford, predicted a general overthrow of peace and order which was certain to result from the tearing down of traditional forms of government. The Courant spoke for those people to whom change was in itself an evil. Papers of the Republican persuasion, on the other hand, prophesied the coming of the millenium. "Connecticut has now a Constitution, founded on sound and liberal principles," declared the American Mercury, one of the more restrained Republic- an papers. "The rights of all are secured"; it continued, "and the humble christian is now permitted to worship his God without fearing the lash of civil persecution." Many newspapers outside the state adopted a satirical tone as they commented on the fact that Connecticut people, who had long boasted of their excellent institu- tions, were awakening to the fact that the objects of their reverence had become antiquated. All of the other Ameri-
3
can states, Rhode Island excepted, had created new con- stitutions since the overthrow of royal government.
But at last the community, the policies of which were rooted in the Puritanism of Thomas Hooker and John Davenport, had ratified a sound and liberal body of law, and had at the same time acquired its first modern con- stitution. The earlier political system was based on docu- ments which cannot be regarded by present day students as being constitutions in the present American sense. The Fundamental Orders of 1639 made elaborate provision for the election of administrative officers and members of the legislature, but did not specify at length the powers and duties of different departments of the government. Eight of the eleven Orders were concerned with the setting up of administrative machinery, and only three with the more important problem as to how the machinery should function. The Orders of 1639, furthermore, could be amended without any special procedure, such as is cus- tomary in respect to modern constitutions; they could be, and were, changed by ordinary enactments of the legis- lature. The charter of 1662, although more detailed in its provisions than the earlier covenant, was not the work of the people, and its terms were modified by legislative action after the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. Hence Connecticut acquired in 1818 its first constitu- tion analogous to other contemporary state constitutions, as a body of law drawn up by a special convention, adopted by popular referendum, and subject to amendment by an exact process specified in the document itself.
Since the constitution has not been altered in any fun- damental particulars to the present day, its main fea- tures deserve more than passing attention. The most im- portant changes which it introduced were three in number: the division of governmental functions into dis-
4
tinct departments-the legislative, the executive, and the judicial; the separation of church and state; and the establishment of an independent judiciary. The first of these innovations was accepted by the convention with- out much debate, because it was a principle held in high esteem by political philosophers of the day. Politicians were not then so concerned, as they have been since, about the impossibility of drawing distinct lines between functions which inevitably overlap. The second innova- tion impressed contemporaries as being the most radical one in the constitution, because the Congregational church had enjoyed a favored position in governmental affairs since the middle of the seventeenth century. The third alteration was also one of consequence. Before 1818 all judicial appointments depended on the will or the caprice of the legislature, but the constitution assured the judges of the higher courts, the Superior Court and the Supreme Court of Errors, tenure for life or during good behavior, subject only to the usual method of removal by impeachment or by executive action upon the request of two-thirds of the legislature. Perhaps one further change should be included with the foregoing, although it was of less significance than the others. The framers of the con- stitution sought to create a new type of senate, differing from the older council in several respects; it was no longer to act as an advisory body to the executive, the governor being deprived of membership therein, and it was freed from the popular criticism which had been directed against the secrecy of its proceedings. The council had sat behind closed doors; the senate chamber was opened to visitors.
These four changes are generally recognized as having considerable importance in the development of Connecti- cut's constitutional history, but it must be noted that
5
they were offset by provisions which perpetuated earlier practices. The political habits of the people which were not subjected to revision were, in fact, much more numer- ous than those which were modified. For example, the state did not desire, and would not tolerate, a strong ex- ecutive. The governor was granted a number of formal but unimportant powers; he was, ex officio, captain-gener- al of the militia and justice of the peace, but he had at his disposal only a small amount of patronage. In 1818 the governor was given the right of veto, a power which he had not previously possessed, though for many years this privilege proved to be of little value. In the second place, it soon became apparent that the constitution had sanc- tioned an omnipotent legislature. The powers of this de- partment were restrained in so few particulars that its members believed, with justice, that they could do any- thing not specifically denied to them in the constitution. The Connecticut legislature, as President Timothy Dwight of Yale once remarked, could do almost anything except to change the result of an election. Had there been a Tammany Hall in the state, even this feat might have been possible. With very few exceptions the legislature paid scant respect to the wishes of the governor, exer- cised judicial functions which properly belonged to the courts, and in other ways nullified the principle of a sepa- ration of powers. The constitution did introduce a few innovations but it also placed a seal of approval upon practices made familiar by years of experience. It made no alterations in the system of town representation in the lower house of the assembly, and offered no encourage- ment to the introduction of a more democratic suffrage.
Such being the leading features of the constitution, it is pertinent to inquire as to how the instrument worked in practice. A brief survey of political developments for a
6
decade following its ratification will reveal the funda- mental characteristics of contemporary politics. Until 1833 the constitution was administered by the party which had secured its adoption, since the Republican control of affairs was not seriously challenged until a local Democratic party had risen to power, largely due to the prestige of President Andrew Jackson. There were three major points in the program of the Republican group: the maintenance of the constitution, economy in state finances, and adjustment of taxation to lessen the burden of farmers and mechanics. These policies may be taken up in order.
As a part of their pledge to maintain the constitution the Republicans paid considerable attention to ecclesi- astical affairs. In spite of the fact that the constitution was supposed to sever all connection between the Con- gregational clergy and the state government, ministers continued to attend the annual Election Day ceremonies, held at the opening of the legislature, on which occasions they were provided with refreshments at public expense. In 1820 this custom evoked protest from members of the assembly. By some mischance a bill for a part of the en- tertainment supplied in 1819 failed to reach the comp- troller, who would probably have paid it without ques- tion, and appeared in the legislature, whereupon the Republicans, led by Henry Channing of New London, investigated the whole subject of Election Day expenses. Channing discovered a small error in the account under discussion-he found that the creditor, a Hartford mer- chant named Bennett, had overcharged the state three dollars on a dozen bottles of wine. This bill, for the in- significant total of about forty dollars, was eventually paid, but its settlement was followed by a measure in- tended to emphasize the separation of church and state.
7
The assembly resolved that no more appropriations should be made from the treasury for the entertainment of clergymen on Election Day. Not all of the seventy ministers who had attended the ceremonies in 1819 were of the Congregational faith, but a majority were, so that the refreshment controversy, which has its humorous aspects, was nevertheless a serious discussion of the posi- tion that a free church should have in a free state. To the delight of most Republicans the anti-entertainment bill worked very effectively, as the number of ministers con- gregating in Hartford or New Haven on the opening day of the legislature rapidly declined. Whether the clergy- men who absented themselves from this traditional cere- mony felt rebuffed by the attitude of the assembly or dis- appointed by the absence of refreshments it would be hard to say.
A year after this incident occurred, the assembly dis- cussed another measure which touched upon the priv- ileged position of clergymen, whatever their denomina- tion. Ministers of the gospel were at the time exempted from taxation upon a certain amount, about $2,500 worth, of their property. Several of the Republican law- makers regarded this favor as a state contribution to the support of religion, although their argument was weak- ened by the consideration that other groups, such as academy instructors and college professors, were given a similar concession in being released from the poll tax. The anti-privilege sentiment was strong enough to bring about the ending of tax exemption for ministers in 1822.
These measures led many clergymen to think that con- stitutional reform signified a growing antagonism to re- ligion in general, but as a matter of fact the Republicans had no prejudices against religion when confined within its proper sphere. Even if the reform party had once
8
hated Congregationalism because of its favored position, their antipathy to that faith subsided after the special privileges had been abolished. Tax exemption was given up because it was a concession which encouraged clergy- men to think that they deserved particular consideration from the state government. It also deprived the public treasury of income. Politicians were, on the other hand, anxious to preserve ecclesiastical organizations from harm provided it could be done in a constitutional man- ner; they passed statutes safeguarding the peace and order of church services, of camp meetings, and even, until 1831, invited some well-known clergymen to preach a formal sermon to members of the assembly at the be- ginning of each annual session. In 1830, furthermore, the legislature enforced by statute a principle which had for some time been followed in court practice-the disability of anyone who did not believe in a Supreme Being to act as a competent witness in judicial proceedings.
In one or two other respects the Republicans carried out in consistent fashion the principles of the constitu- tion. Independence of the judiciary was an ideal which generally passed without question. The Supreme Court of Errors and the Superior Court were released in 1818 from dependence on the assembly, and this freedom was not criticised until after 1828. With the rise of the Demo- cratic party some support was given to proposals for re- ducing the higher courts to subordination, but amend- ments favored by the Democrats in 1835 and later years did not receive popular approval, so that the judges of these courts were not placed in danger of short term ap- pointments, or of removal for political opinions.
Another constitutional principle, that which declared in favor of more publicity in governmental affairs, was favorably interpreted by the reform party. In 1819 ses-
9
sions of the senate were opened to visitors, except during the making of appointments, and a journal was begun. During the same year the state comptroller was ordered to publish his accounts in the same newspapers which printed the public laws, so that everyone who had suffi- cient curiosity could read the record of general expendi- tures. In course of time the assembly made provision for further publicity in regard to its proceedings. Some ac- count of debates had found its way into the press through the reports given by individual assemblymen, or through stenographic notes made by newspaper men present in the galleries of the legislative chambers. In 1827 the speaker of the house of representatives was ordered to give a place on the floor to one or more reporters who should keep accurate records of debate for publication, and three years later the president of the senate was simi- larly instructed to aid the fourth estate.
While the assembly carried out in many ways the ob- vious mandates of the constitution, in some others it refused to be bound by the implications of that docu- ment. A striking example of this unwillingness to apply all of the recent changes may be seen in the treatment ac- corded to the governor. In colonial days, and also from the close of the Revolutionary War to 1818, the Con- necticut executive enjoyed no very extensive powers. Individual governors, to be sure, exercised considerable influence because of their intellectual capacities, wealth, or social standing, and many of them enjoyed long terms, a rule of fifteen years being not unusual. The framers of the constitution intended to increase the prestige of the chief executive by giving him the right of veto, a power previously withheld. In actual practice this power proved to be of little effect, since it was seldom exercised, and was hardly ever respected by the assembly. Governor Wol-
IO
cott, in 1820, refused his signature to a bill defining the qualifications of electors. He objected to the measure be- cause it was so faultily worded as to permit persons to vote in a town of which they were not residents, but the assembly disregarded the criticism and, taking the atti- tude that the veto was an undesirable interference with their freedom of action, passed the bill over the gov- ernor's remonstrances. Two years later the assembly re- fused to be bound by Wolcott's veto of a bill enabling Connecticut citizens to retaliate against a steamboat monopoly authorized by the state of New York. On only one occasion before 1850 was the governor's veto sus- tained; in 1837 Henry W. Edwards was able to prevent the assembly from repealing the charter of the City Bank of New Haven, but this action cost him the nomination for another term of office. Men of all parties, Federalists or Republicans, Whigs or Democrats, set their faces against the veto power, and thus subverted the plain in- tention of the constitution, which was to make the Con- necticut executive an officer of substance and standing. Particularly did representatives from small country towns, the centers of extreme conservatism, override with élan all executive criticism of dubious legislation. Not only was the governor denied the full benefit of the veto, but was forced to see his prestige curtailed in other re- spects also. In 1825 he was deprived of the right to issue proclamations calling for funds for charity, especially in case of fires, epidemics, or other calamities. About the same time an attempt was made to transfer the appointment of the adjutant general of militia from the governor to the assembly, but this measure failed. The governor, who might not remain in office very long, said Representative John McClellan of Woodstock, might as well be suited while he was there. The assembly, it may be added, sel-
II
dom paid much attention to the governor's advice on plans for new legislation. Governor Wolcott, especially, found that the legislature was deaf to pleas for the en- couragement of agriculture, manufactures, transporta- tion, or for the betterment of schools and prisons. Not until the second quarter of the nineteenth century did the assembly, on a few occasions, give to executive recom- mendations the serious consideration which they de- served. In this respect two Democratic governors, Chauncey Cleveland in 1842 and Isaac Toucey in 1846, were more successful than their predecessors.
Perhaps this lack of cooperation between the legisla- tive and the executive branches of the government should not be stressed unduly, as such contests are not rare in the history of local politics, but other examples of an un- willingness to observe the spirit of the constitution can easily be found. The assembly was extremely reluctant to apply the injunction regarding a separation of powers, a consideration which involved the lawmakers in contro- versy over a great number of small but significant ques- tions. Political theorists will be tempted to remark that it is impossible to secure an absolute division of powers into the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, but re- gardless of philosophical objections which contemporaries may or may not have appreciated, they rejected pro- posals which would have carried out this principle in a practical fashion.
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.