USA > Georgia > Georgia as a proprietary province; the execution of a trust > Part 13
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
On July 25, 1739, the Trustees did attempt to pass formal legislation, however. An act was read and approved for appointing and regulating pilots to conduct ships into the harbors of Georgia; and for laying a duty on all ships brought in by the pilots; and for laying an additional duty on all such ships to be applied to the beacon on Tybee Island; and for laying another duty the proceeds of which might be applied to signals and other like purposes. After various amendments and considerations of the details again and again, it was passed to the Privy Council for approval.21 In due course the act was submitted to the Board of Trade, and this body reported the measure unfavorably. The Trustees thought that the report was made with personal animosity toward themselves ; 22 but it is more likely that the Board of Trade was following its usual policy of dis- approving duties in the colonies which might have a tendency
"C. R. I: 345-346.
" Ibid., 355, 359.
"C. R. V: 390.
183
Legislative History
to restrict trade, and the report would doubtless have been made in the same way if Georgia had been a royal province. The Trustees placed the act in the hands of a committee for further consideration, but it seems to have met with the fate common to measures of the Trust which were unfavor- ably reported by the Board of Trade; for the Trustees were of the opinion that it would be unwise to change the act so as to make it acceptable to the British government.
On July 11, 1739, various details as to changes in the land tenures were agreed upon; and the question was raised in a meeting of the Trustees as to whether or not the terms should be embodied in a formal law to be approved by the king. It was urged by some present that the inhabitants had been led to expect such an act and that they might be disappointed, thinking that later Trustees could alter the action of the board as then constituted; but the majority of the Trustees thought it unnecessary to take such precau- tions. They pointed out that the charter gave to them the power to make such regulations as were proposed; and they asserted that if the rules were printed and had the Trust seal attached they might even be binding on successive Trus- tees. The members urging the latter course evidently wished to leave some way open of revoking the action taken if it proved unwise; and this would, not be the case if the meas- ures were approved by the king in council, for in that event the latter would be the judge of the expediency of revoking any law.23 The arguments advanced in the debate just men- tioned seem to have been the ones that determined the gen- eral course of the Trustees in the matter of legislation; that is, to adopt with more or less formality orders or resolu- tions concerning colonial affairs, but to avoid all legislation that would in any degree depend on authority outside of "C. R. V: 212-213.
184
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
themselves.
Their action regarding the enforcement of the rum act illustrates also this strong disposition to keep their affairs in their own hands. Early in 1742 it became apparent that the act had failed of its purpose and that rum was being freely imported into Georgia and used very publicly. The Trustees then wrote to their secretary in the province_ to wink at its importation and to discourage seizures of it, but to see that it was not sold except in houses licensed to sell beer. The Trustees hoped that the policy thus adopted would allow the act to become gradually obsolete without giving any public order on the subject, and they adopted the plan lest they might seem to be trying to repeal with- out the king's consent an act that had been approved by him.24
There is no apparent reason why they should not have applied for a repeal of the act which they frankly recog- nized to be a failure rather than to allow it to stand on the statute books and to encourage violations of it. So far as we can judge, it is one of the most reprehensible things in the usually honorable career of the Trust. The only excuse that seems at all available is that false pride made the Trustees unwilling to admit that they had erred in the original legislation. .
After the exhaustive examination of Georgia affairs had been made in the spring of 1742 before the House of Com- mons, and the latter had determined that rum should be allowed in the province, the Trustees drew up a formal act to repeal the law of 1735 and presented it to the king in council for approval.25 The Board of Trade, having as usual to pass on the expediency of the repeal measure, re-
24 C. R. V: 583.
*C. R. I: 54-56, 398-400.
185
Legislative History
ported that they had no objection to the general tenor of the proposed repealing act, but that they were unwilling for the Common Council of the Trustees to make any rules it chose for the purchasing and sale of rum, as the sug- gested law provided. The Trustees thought that they might still accomplish their purpose of retaining control in the colony by getting the magistrates invested with power to license public houses as in England; 26 and then of course these magistrates could be directed by the Common Council; but on further consideration the Trust decided to divide the proposed act into two parts and to present each part some- what modified as a separate law to the king.27 These acts were approved by the law officers of the crown, but the Board of Trade again reported adversely on both of them on the general ground that they were too severe in their restrictions of British trade and in their penalties upon the people of Georgia. The Trustees were indignant that their efforts to carry out the directions of the House of Com- mons should be a second time rejected, and they determined to make no further changes in their acts.28 There were, however, some later negotiations with the Board of Trade on the subject, and the matter was agitated until the middle of 1745; but the laws were never approved, and the Trus- tees allowed the rum act of 1735 to be openly violated with- out further effort to repeal or modify it.29
In 1742 also the Georgia authorities prepared an act to change and regulate the land tenures in the province and it was presented to the king for approval at the same time that the first act for repealing the rum law was sent.
2º C. R. I: 406-407.
" Ibid., 410-412.
2ª Ibid., 453. " Ibid., 465.
186
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
The law officers disapproved of the land tenure measure on the ground that it established within the colony two tenures of land.30 It was returned to the Trustees for their amendments or alterations; but they seem to have done nothing further in that matter also.
The only other formal act which the Trustees attempted to pass was prepared on August 8, 1750, for the purpose of repealing the prohibition of the sale or use of negroes . in the colony. For eighteen years, the Trustees had bit- terly opposed every suggestion of negro slavery; but those members of the Trust who were so hostile to the use of slaves were no longer in active attendance on its meetings, and the pressure from the colonists for negroes had become so strong and so general, that the Trustees determined to yield the point. An act was accordingly drawn in accord- ance with suggestions that had been made by prominent Georgians. Before the proposed law was adopted by the Trustees, however, they referred it to a mass meeting of the people of the province itself, in order that it might be sure to meet their approval.31 This was a most unusual concession for the managers of Georgia affairs to make; for, as we shall later see, there had been little inclination on the part of the Trustees to allow the people of Georgia any part at all in the control of their legislation. On this occasion, the proposals of the Trustees were cordially ap- proved by the people, and so the act was passed on to the king in council for final enactment into law. So far as the records show, it was never considered either favorably or otherwise by either the Board of Trade or the Privy Council; and it did not receive the approbation of the king
"C. R. I: 433.
" B. T., Ga., X: Martyn to Pres. and Assts., July 7, 1749. C. R. I: 56-62.
-
187
Legislative History
previous to the end of proprietary control. Though it did not become a formal law, its provisions were put into actual operation through the simple authority of the Trust itself.
It seems most remarkable that only three real laws were ever passed for the government of Georgia. We have noted numerous attempts on the part of the Trustees to pass others, and there is no doubt that the people of Georgia were eager that further legislation be adopted. The gen- eral reasons for the failure to pass other laws may be sum- marized under two heads: (1) the very decided preference of the Trustees for managing the province themselves and their fear that they would be unduly restrained by fixed acts which they could not readily change; (2) the difficulty en- countered in passing laws through the opposition of the Board of Trade to so many proposals of the Trustees and also through the delays of executive action in the govern- ment of England. It would have been better for the prov- ince if there had been more genuine legislation and less government by mere orders from the Trustees or from the Common Council or from the Committee of Correspondence. It was very easy to send such orders or directions, and conse- quently they were frequently given without due consideration and without foreseeing always the results that would follow. These directions also could be given by only three members of the corporation, and it was quite often the case that this number did transact important business. General laws would have required the attention of more members; and, more important, it would have brought the Trustees into closer touch with the various organs of the British govern- ment. This contact would no doubt have been more or less provoking to the managers of Georgia, since it would have interfered with some of their plans and rules; but, if the latter had been earlier criticised and opposed by the gov-
?
188
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
ernment of England, the Trustees might have changed them earlier to the general benefit of the province.
Attention has been called to the fact that the charter gave no legislative rights to the people of Georgia and did not seem to anticipate that any such rights would be given during the twenty-one years that the Trustees would con- trol the government of the colony. During the first nine- teen years of the colony's existence, the people did have indeed an insignificant part in their own government. The failure to permit an assembly or other representative body for the people of the colony was no doubt due to the un- happy experiences that both the government of England and the proprietors of provinces had encountered in dealing with colonial assemblies. These generally exercised in Amer- ica two functions ; the making of laws and other regulations for a given province or colony was one of these functions, and the other was the self-imposed duty of protesting against grievances either real or imaginary. The first of these duties was exercised, as we have seen, by the Trustees of Georgia ; and they hoped to escape the second activity of an assembly, but the protesting and complaining was done by the people of Savannah to a great extent. In this town there was gen- eral dissatisfaction and numerous complaints were made as to regulations adopted by the Trustees. Such protests were not organized or official in any way, however. The general method of protest was the circulation and signing of petitions to the Trustees, though in 1741-1742 the people went so far as to unite in appointing an agent to represent them before the British government.32 This action was not of itself legislation, but it was a step that looked to obtaining for the people of the colony some part in its government.
The inhabitants of Georgia had almost no part in even "C. R. V: 592-593.
189
Legislative History
local matters. The nearest approach to local self-govern- ment during the first eighteen years of the colony occurred on August 6, 1739. On that day there was "a voluntary convention of the freeholders of Savannah for the purpose of drawing up regulations for the control of cattle in that region." The pindar, who had been appointed by Ogle- thorpe to care for the cattle of Savannah, summoned the convention and suggested various regulations that ought to be passed. The people themselves did little more than en- dorse his suggestions. This action was incorporated in a paper and signed by those present.33 This was only a trivial matter concerning a single community, and yet it was the nearest approach made to self-government in Georgia dur- ing the first eighteen years of the colony.
At length on March 19, 1750, the Committee of Cor- respondence suggested to the Common Council the advisa- bility of establishing an assembly for the province. The reason assigned for the suggestion was the fact that Georgia had many scattered settlements and that it was very diffi- cult for the Trustees to secure information concerning these and concerning the colony as a whole. It was designed to be a sort of information bureau as well as a link to bind into a single unit the scattered sections of the province.34 Another reason for the establishment of the assembly which the Trustees did not mention openly and yet felt strongly was the desire to preserve Georgia as a separate province. They feared that, if their twenty-one years of government expired without there being any assembly in the colony to assert the independence of Georgia, South Carolina might succeed in annexing the new colony.35 Whatever motives
*C. R. IV: 383-384.
* C. R. II: 498.
35 B. T., Ga., XI: Martyn to Parker, July 11, 1750.
190
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
were strongest with them, the members of the Common Council were sufficiently impressed with the need of an as- sembly to act favorably on the suggestion of the committee.
The resolution adopted by the Common Council antici- pated an annual assembly, but the Trustees seemed timid about committing themselves to a permanent arrangement, and so only a temporary assembly was called to meet in the year 1751. It was to sit at Savannah during the most convenient time of the year, the exact day being left for the President and Assistants to select ; and its deliberations were to be completed within three weeks or a month at furthest.36
Representation in the assembly was to be based upon the number of families within given limits. Every town, village or district having ten families would be entitled to one deputy or representative; and, if there were units containing as many as thirty families, they would be entitled to two repre- sentatives. Special provision was made that Savannah should have four deputies, that Augusta and Ebenezer should have two each, and that Frederica should have two if thirty families were situated there at the time of the assembly. Details concerning the time of elections, the rules and meth- ods for selecting delegates, and of dividing the colony into suitable districts for elections were left to the President and Assistants. 37
As we have seen, the Committee of Correspondence had recommended the assembly to the Common Council and the latter had passed a resolution in its favor; but the formal appointment of the assembly was in the nature of a law, and that could be passed only by the Trustees sitting as a corporation. This formal action was taken on June 26,
*C. R. II: 498-499.
" B. T., Ga., XIII: 151.
191
Legislative History
1750. The purpose of the representative body thus created was declared to be "to propose, debate and represent to the Trustees what shall appear to them to be for the benefit, not only of each particular Settlement, but of the Province in general." 38 It was expressly declared that the assembly would not have the right to make laws itself.
As the people of Georgia were not acquainted with the methods for choosing delegates and for making other neces- sary preparations, the President and Assistants held fre- quent consultations in order to give the needful instructions and to divide the colony into proper districts. On Decem- ber 15, 1750, writs were issued for holding the elections, and the deputies who might be selected were ordered to re- port on January 15, 1751, in Savannah for the first meeting of the assembly.39
We have no information as to the methods of voting em- ployed, nor do we know what were the qualifications for voters. These matters were left to the discretion of the President and Assistants; and it is likely that the heads of families in each district chose their deputy by a viva voce decision.
Obedient to the election writs, there gathered in Savan- nah on January 15, 1751, sixteen deputies from eleven dis- tricts as follows : From the Savannah district, Francis Har- ris, John Millidge, William Francis, and William Russel; from the Augusta district, George Cadogan and David Doug- lass ; from the Ebenezer district, Christian Reidlesperger and Theobald Keiffer ; from Abercorn and Goshen districts, Wil- liam Ewen; from Joseph's Town district, Charles Watson; from Vernonburg district, Patrick Houston; from Acton dis- trict, Peter Morell; from Little Ogeechee District, Joseph
38 C. R. I: 547.
& C. R. VI: 368.
-
192
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
Summers; from Skidoway district, John Barnard; from Midway district, Audley Maxwell; from Darien district, John Mackintosh.
The representatives from Savannah, Augusta, and Darien were leading men in the province. Those from Ebenezer were perhaps least known, and one of them had been recently aided by the government as a pauper.4º Most of the depu- ties were owners of five hundred acre tracts of land, but a few of them were not even freeholders.
The assembly was organized with the choice of Francis Harris, of Savannah, as speaker. He was the senior mem- ber of the leading commercial house in Georgia, and he was one of the wealthiest and most prominent men in the col- ony. After an exchange of courtesies between the assembly and the chief executive of the province, the deliberations for which the deputies had been summoned were begun. Ef- forts were started by some of the malcontents of the colony to create dissensions in the assembly and to interrupt its business; but none of the representatives appear to have been of the discontented faction, and the business of the colony was followed closely.41
During the first fifteen days of the session, the attention of the delegates was particularly directed to such matters as it was thought the President and Assistants in Georgia would be able to remedy. These were largely affairs of detail or of local importance. On January 30, the following list of grievances was reported to the President of the colony with the request that they be remedied :
1st. The want of a proper pilot boat.
2nd. The want of leave to build a wharf at Savannah, such building to be by subscription.
"C. R. VI: 183.
" B. T., Ga., XXIV: 40-41; XXV: 35.
193
Legislative History
3rd. The need of standard scales and measures.
4th. The need of a survey of the Savannah river.
5th. The want of an order to prevent ballast from being discharged into the river.
6th. The want of a commissioner to regulate pilots and pilotage.
7th. The need of a sworn packer and inspector to look after the produce of the colony.
8th. The want of a clerk of the market.
9th. The need of proper regulations for the guard.
10th. The want of suitable officers to command the militia.
11th. The need of repairs on the court house.
The Georgia authorities agreed to redress all matters within their power, but they intimated that the purchase of a pilot boat was of so great expense that it ought to be referred to the Trustees. 42
During the last nine days of the deliberations, the assem- bly was principally concerned with preparing for the Trus- tees a report on matters of general colonial interest. The conclusions of the deputies were embodied in a series of rep- resentations or addresses formally prepared, signed by the Speaker of the assembly, and sealed with the seal of the town court. The more important of these representations were :
Ist. A complaint against Thomas Bosomworth for at- tempting to purchase Indian lands, and an urgent plea that private persons be forbidden to secure the reserved Indian lands near Savannah and on the coast islands.
2nd. A suggestion that the charter of Georgia be re- newed if possible, and a strong protest against the annexa- tion of Georgia to South Carolina, as the assembly under stood had been suggested by some.
42 Stevens I: 248-250.
194
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
3rd. A request that the Trustees apply for a reduction of the quit rents.
4th. An account of the interest taken by the people of Georgia in the silk industry and the desire that the Trustees may continue to encourage it.
5th. An earnest petition that the assembly might have the power to make by-laws for the colony to be of force until the Trustees might disapprove of the same.
6th. The request that a court of equity be established in Savannah to which persons who think themselves ag- grieved by verdicts of the town court might appeal.
7th. The desire that the negroes who were already in Georgia before slaves were duly licensed and that those who might be brought from South Carolina or other colonies be freed from the duty on slaves proposed in the negro act of the Trustees.
8th. A request for a substantial pilot boat to rescue dis- tressed vessels on the coast and also for an engine to ex- tinguish fires in Savannah.
9th. The desire that conservators of the peace and con- stables be appointed in those districts which had none; and also that a small body of soldiers be provided to protect the beaten paths into Spanish and Indian territories.
10th. A complaint that one company in Augusta had secured a monopoly of the Indian trade and a request that steps be taken to break its power.43
The Trustees either fully complied with or approved all but three of the representations above mentioned, but the three rejected were of great importance. They refused to allow the assembly to make by-laws even of the most tempo- rary sort, though they promised to act promptly on any suggested legislation that the assembly might from time to "C. R. II: 557 et seq.
1
·
195
Legislative History
time propose. They also refused to allow equity courts in Savannah. They thought that the establishment of such courts would encourage vexatious suits at law. Dissatisfac- tion with the decisions of the town court might be appealed to the Trustees, they asserted, without cost; and that ought to be sufficient to insure justice to any one. In both these cases, the real secret of the action of the Trustees was the feeling that they constantly showed; namely, that they them- selves were best able to care for the affairs of the colony and that they ought not to relinquish any essential part of their authority over the province. The third matter in which the Trustees refused to act in accord with the wishes of the Georgia assembly was the desired release of duties on all negroes except such as might be brought from foreign coun- tries. The Trustees did not want slaves at all in the colony, and they very naturally would not make it easy for them to be brought in; so that their action on this matter was to be expected.4+
On the whole, the Trustees were pleased with the results of the assembly. It had been established for only one year as an experiment, but in 1751 it was definitely constituted as a permanent body. It could hardly be called a part of the colonial government, for it had no real power; but was at least a part of the provincial machinery. No important changes were made in the general plans for the assembly ; but the qualifications for deputies were made much stricter, as had been contemplated from the first. After June 24, 1751, no person could be elected to represent a district in the assembly who had not one hundred mulberry trees planted and properly fenced upon every tract of fifty acres which he possessed; and after June 24th, 1753, no one would be eligible to act as deputy who had not strictly conformed " B. T., Ga., XI: Martyn to Parker, July 10, 1751.
196
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
to the limitation of the number of negro slaves held in pro- portion to his white servants, and who had not in his family at least one female instructed in the art of reeling silk, and who did not annually produce fifteen pounds of silk for every fifty acres possessed by him.45 It is evident that one might meet all the prescribed qualifications without being in reality at all suitable to represent his district in the assembly; for the whole emphasis of the Trustees' regulations was put upon the raising of silk in Georgia. As a matter of fact, there was not in Georgia any inhabitant who did conform to the full requirements of the Trustees either in 1751 or in 1753; but before another assembly was summoned the Trustees had determined to resign their control of the province, and the second meeting was never called.
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.