USA > New Hampshire > Cheshire County > Sullivan > A history of the town of Sullivan, New Hampshire, 1777-1917, Volume I > Part 16
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 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93 | Part 94 | Part 95
* See pages 14 to 16 of this volume.
+ For authorities see address of Rev. A. H. Quint, D. D., delivered at the dedication of a monument to John Sullivan, on the site of the old Durham meetinghouse, in the pub- lished proceedings, entitled "Dedication of the Sullivan Monument, at Durham, N. H., Sept. 27, 1894".
Į See page 119.
161
REFERENDUM VOTES.
on June 17, 1690. He had four sons in the Revolution, and two, John of New Hampshire, and James of Massachusetts, were governors (the proper title of John however, at that par- ticular time, was president). Mary, the only daughter, married Theophilus Hardy, and was the ancestress of Gov. Samuel Wells of Maine. Special particulars relating to John Sullivan were given in the Centennial oration. His mother's name appears to have been Margery (for Margaret ) Browne.
It is worthy of note with how many events and institutions our John Sullivan was connected as first. A distinguished royalist, formerly of Portsmouth, Peter Livius, in a letter, very properly charges him with being the first to incite armed resistance to Great Britain in the colonies of America. He alluded to Sullivan's efforts in seizing the powder and ammuni- tion at Fort William and Mary, at New Castle, and secreting them under the pulpit of the old Durham meetinghouse. He was instrumental in establishing for New Hampshire her first constitution, which was the first adopted by any of the states, on seceding from the government of Great Britain. As presi- dent of the " Convention to ratify the Constitution of the United States ", it became his unique duty to proclaim that vote by which the great instrument was ratified by New Hampshire and which had the still further significance that, as this was the ninth state to ratify, it made possible the United States of America. He was one of New Hampshire's electors of the first President of the United States. He was the first presi- dent of the New Hampshire branch of the Cincinnati, of which George Washington was the first president-general. He was the first Grand Master of the New Hampshire Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons. He was also appointed by Presi- dent Washington as the first judge of the United States Dis- trict Court of New Hampshire.
v. REFERENDUM VOTES.
In looking through the municipal annals, beginning with page 119, the reader will observe that the opinion of Sullivan voters (in common, of course, with that of the citizens of other towns of the state) was often taken with respect to questions of public interest, to guide the members of the General Court with
·
162
HISTORY OF SULLIVAN.
respect to important legislation, it being understood that the sentiment of the people expressed at the polls should practically decide whether or not certain acts should be passed. When the General Court refers any such question to the voters of the state, in order to ascertain the sentiments of the people, as expressed by the condition of their votes, such a reference is called a referendum. The word has sprung into use in later years. There have been many such referendums in our state, as the reader will observe. It is interesting to know the fate of such votes, as our records show only the vote of our one town.
By far the larger part of these referendums have had refer- ence to the question of revising our state constitution. At the time of the convention of New Hampshire delegates which ratified the United States Constitution, Sullivan had only been incorporated a little more than four months and was not, so to speak, in working order, and sent no delegate to the convention. Surry and Gilsum, with which Sullivan was at first classed as a representative district, sent Jonathan Smith of Surry.
The first convention to revise the state constitution, called by the General Court, without a referendum to the people, assembled in Concord, Sept. 7, 1791, and continued, with adjournments, until Feb. 24, 1792. The classed towns of Surry, Gilsum, and Sullivan sent as their delegate Lemuel Holmes, Esq., of Surry. The Sullivan records do not mention the election of this delegate. The convention submitted 72 amendments of the constitution to the decision of the people at the polls. The action of Sullivan is given in the annals for the year 1792. The state, as a whole, accepted 46 of the proposed amendments and rejected 26. A second session of the conven- tion was held, lasting from May 30, 1792 to the fifth of the following June, when it was found that the accepted amend- ments would leave the remainder of the constitution a very inconsistent document. Some more amendments, to obviate these inconsistencies, were submitted to the people for their acceptance or rejection, the vote to be taken on Aug. 27, 1792, and the whole to be accepted or rejected together. They were accepted by the voters by an overwhelming majority. The Sullivan votes (omitted by an oversight on page 122) were 19 in favor and none opposed. The constitution of the state, as
163
REFERENDUM VOTES.
thus so greatly amended, became practically a new instrument and was so regarded, being usually quoted as "the constitution of 1792". The convention reassembled at Concord, Sept. 5, 1792 and adjourned on the following day, having declared the amended constitution to be the new constitution for the state.
According to the constitution, the people must have the opportunity, once in seven years, of determining by vote whether a revision of that fundamental compact is desired. Such votes were taken at the annual meetings of 1800, 1807, 1814, 1821, 1833, 1834, 1838, 1842, and 1847, also upon Nov. 4 of the year 1844. At all of these meetings, the votes of Sullivan are given at the proper places in the " Municipal Annals". The votes of the state, as well as of Sullivan, were against revision in every instance, from the establishment of the constitution of 1792 until 1850. At the annual meeting in 1850, votes were again taken on the question of revising the constitution. This time, a majority of the votes cast in the state favored revision, and the legislature arranged for a convention, which met at Concord, on Nov. 6, of that year. There was, even that year, a small majority of Sullivan votes against the measure. On Jan. 3, 1851, the convention adjourned to Apr. 16, having agreed upon 1 5 amendments, which they submitted to the people. On Oct. 8, 1850, Sullivan chose Asa E. Wilson as a delegate to this convention, but he declined to serve and no one else was chosen in his place. At the annual meeting in 1851, the voters of the state voted upon the 15 proposed amendments to the constitu- tion and rejected every one of them. The Sullivan votes favored eight and a half of the votes were in favor of another. The convention reassembled on April 16, and, finding all of its pro- posed amendments rejected, agreed upon three more, which were practically repetitions of three of the rejected amendments, and then adjourned, on Apr. 17, sine die. These three amend- ments were submitted to the voters at the annual meeting in 1852. All three received a large majority of the Sullivan votes, but only one was adopted by the votes of the entire state. That amendment only changed the constitution by simply omitting the property qualification of a candidate for representative, senator or governor. It left the constitution practically as it was. The president of this constitutional convention of 1850-5 1
.
164
HISTORY OF SULLIVAN.
was Franklin Pierce, soon after President of the United States. The secretary was the well known Thomas J. Whipple of Laconia, known far and wide as " Tom " Whipple.
At the annual meetings of 1858, 1861, and 1863, the voters of New Hampshire decided by vote not to alter the constitution, except in 1861, when the war excitement prevented the calling of any convention for the purpose. There is no record of Sulli- van's vote on that subject in 1858. In 1863, little interest in the matter seems to have been taken by Sullivan. Only four votes were thrown upon that question, all in favor of revision. Everybody was then too much absorbed in the great war to think much about constitutions. At the time of the Presidential election, Nov. 8, 1864, a vote with reference to the subject was in favor of revision, but no convention was called. That time, Sullivan voted 29 to 5 in favor of revision. Again, at the Presi- dential election, Nov. 3, 1868, Sullivan voted 23 to 22 against revision ; and at the annual meeting in 1870, 49 to 2 against it. The returns of the state at large for the last two votes upon the subject are not preserved.
At the annual meeting in 1876, a referendum upon the subject of revising the constitution resulted in favor of the project. Sullivan was 49 to 14 against it. A convention was called to meet at Concord on Dec. 6 of that year. On Nov. 7, preceding, Asa E. Wilson was chosen as the delegate from Sullivan. The convention lasted eleven days. Thirteen amend- ments to the constitution were agreed to and submitted to the people. The referendum was on the annual meeting in 1877. Eleven of the thirteen proposed amendments were accepted by the voters of the state and two rejected. The accepted amend- ments provided for the trial of certain causes without reference to a jury ; biennial elections ; a representation based upon popu- lation, classing the smaller towns in representative districts ; a senate of 24 members instead of 12; the election by the people of registers of probate, solicitors, and sheriffs; the abolition of a religious test as a qualification for office; prohibiting the General Court from authorizing cities or towns to loan or give their money or credit to corporations; changing the time of holding the state elections from March to November ; allowing appeals from a justice of the peace to be tried by some other
165
REFERENDUM VOTES.
court without the intervention of a jury; authorizing the Gen- eral Court to increase the jurisdiction of justices of the peace to one hundred dollars; and prohibiting money raised by taxation from being applied to the support of the schools or institutions of any religious sect or denomination. The Sullivan votes favored all of these accepted amendments, excepting the one providing for the abolition of a religious test as a qualification for office. Two of the proposed amendments were rejected by the voters of the state, at this referendum. One of them was a proposition to strike out the word "Protestant " from the bill of rights, the other would have prohibited the removal of officers for political reasons. Logically, both of these amendments should have been accepted. Removing officers for no other than a political reason (by which is ordinarily meant a partisan reason ) is not the highest standard of ethics. Sullivan favored the second of these two rejected amendments but opposed the former.
The two amendments not favored by Sullivan were those which would have removed the word Protestant from the bill of rights and from the clause defining the qualifications for holding the more important offices. In the former case, the voters of the state were of the same opinion as Sullivan, as expressed by a majority vote. There can be no doubt that the best interests of the state would have been served, and the most wholesome laws passed, if the old qualifications for holding office, which were in force from the beginning of the state until 1877, had been continued in force many years longer, if not forever. The non-Protestants and the anti-Protestants are principally for- eigners, many of whom have no proper conception of the true character of our institutions. Their influence has been largely against the purity of the ballot, against temperance legislation, and often against educational interests. The descendants of the old native stock very naturally observe with no little pain the influence which this foreign, non-Protestant element is exerting upon our state and national politics. In large cities, they are a menace to good morals, seriously corrupt the suffrage, and exert a baneful influence upon social institutions. They have interposed serious hindrances and objections to our system
13
166
HISTORY OF SULLIVAN.
of public education, and were the chief causes in bringing about what may be called a commercial voting system.
Notwithstanding all these facts, the spirit of the age, viewed in its abstract nature, is opposed to any class distinctions based upon creeds or denominational lines. True political ethics would discountenance the rejection of a man's vote because he was not a Protestant. Protestants and non-Protestants, Jews and Christians, persons in fact of any shade and all shades of religious belief must have the same civic rights before the law in a perfect republic. On the other hand, it is equally true that if we live up to this high standard of political ethics and admit all to the same civic rights, we must take the bitter with the sweet. Education of the masses, moral and spiritual, as well as intellectual, is the only hope and the only remedy for the evil.
On Nov. 4, 1884, and at the annual meeting in 1886, there were referendums with reference to a revision of the constitu- tion. Sullivan was opposed on the former and favorable (by a single vote) on the latter occasion to revision. A majority of the votes of the state, cast in 1886, favoring a revision, a con- vention for the purpose was called, which convened at Concord, Jan. 2, 1889, and remained in session until January 12. They agreed upon seven amendments which were submitted to the people, who voted upon them at the annual March meeting in 1889. Five of the seven proposed amendments were accepted by the people, at the polls. These amendments changed the meeting of the legislature from June to January, together with the beginning of the terms of office in the executive and legisla- tive departments; provided for compensating the members of both houses of the General Court by a fixed salary ; made pro- vision for filling any vacancy in the Senate by a new election ; provided that the Speaker of the House of Representatives should act as Governor of New Hampshire, in the case of vacancies in both the office of governor and that of president of the Senate; and also made provision for a better system of representation from the small towns, by arranging that each should send a representative such a proportionate part of the time as its population bore to 600. The two proposed amend- ments rejected were those which prohibited the manufacture and sale of alcoholic liquor, and the striking of the Protestant
167
REFERENDUM VOTES.
clause from the bill of rights. Sullivan votes favored all except the one to eliminate the Protestant clause. Geo. K. Harvey of Surry was the delegate to the convention of the classed towns, Surry, Sullivan, and Roxbury.
At the state elections, in November of 1894 and 1896, referendums were taken on the matter of revising the constitu- tion. In both instances the vote of the state, as well as of Sullivan, were against revision. At the November election of 1900, however, the voters of the state favored revision by a small majority. Sullivan was 16 to 13 against it. On Nov. 4, 1902, Daniel Willard Rugg was chosen as a delegate to the convention for revising the constitution, which assembled at Concord on the second day of December, 1902, and continued in session until the 19th. The convention agreed to ten pro- posed amendments which were submitted to the people. At the annual March meeting in 1903, four only of the ten pro- posed amendments were approved by the voters. The amend- ments approved provided that every person in order to vote or be eligible for office must be able to read the constitution in the English language and be able to write (excepting those who already had the right to vote, or who would be 60 years of age and upwards on Jan. 1, 1904) ; that captains and subalterns in the militia of the state shall, before their nomination and appointment, be examined and found duly qualified by an exam- ining board appointed by the governor ; that the legislature be empowered to impose taxes, not only upon polls and estates, but also upon other classes of property, including franchises and property when passing by will or inheritance; and that the General Court shall have power to enact laws to prevent the operations within the state of all persons and associations, trusts and corporations, who endeavor to raise the price of any article of commerce or to destroy free and fair competition in the trades and industries through combination, conspiracy, monop- oly, or any other unfair means. The Sullivan votes had favored all these except the taxation of franchises, &c. The six pro- posed amendments which were defeated had reference to the appointment of a commissary general, instead of choosing him by the legislature ; the extension of the jurisdiction of the police courts ; the elimination of the " Protestant " clause in the bill of
168
HISTORY OF SULLIVAN.
rights ; the granting of female suffrage; a new way of appor- tioning representatives ; and a provision for voting precincts. The Sullivan votes upon the same propositions had favored the extension of the jurisdiction of police courts, female suffrage, and the proposed new way to apportion representatives. They were a tie upon the matter of voting precincts and were unfavor- able to the others.
It will thus be seen that, since the amendments of 1792, which practically made a new constitution, that instrument has been amended more or less on four occasions only. The people have shown a great unwillingness to change, and a great regard for, this fundamental law of the land.
Three referendums were proposed to the inhabitants of the original Cheshire County, to obtain opinions with respect to a division of the county. These were taken at the annual March meetings in 1819, 1820, and 1827. The Sullivan votes were decidedly against the division. The last referendum appears to have resulted in a vote by the county favoring division. The result was that the General Court divided the county, July 5, 1827, the northern part being called Sullivan county, and the southern part retaining the name of Cheshire County.
At the annual meeting of 1825, two referendums were sub- mitted to the voters of the original Cheshire County, with reference to the shire town for the northern portion of what was then Cheshire. The first was the question whether Charles- town should be retained as the shire town, the second was whether Newport should be substituted for Charlestown. The town of Sullivan, by a small majority, expressed her preference as against Charlestown, in favor of Newport. The decision was in favor of Newport, as expressed by the voters of the county. Accordingly the legislature enacted, on Dec. 8, 1824, that the May term of court should be held at Newport.
At the March meeting in 1838, a referendum was sub- mitted to the voters of the state upon the question: "Is it expedient to enact a law authorizing town clerks to record deeds ?" Sullivan was 76 to one against it. The sentiment of the state was opposed to the measure. No such law was passed. In some towns, however, warranty deeds were sometimes recorded, not officially or as an obligation. They are of value
169
REFERENDUM VOTES.
historically, but would be of no avail in court except as circum- stantial evidence. The town clerks did record attachments of property, and often recorded mortgages.
At the annual meeting of 1839, there was another refer- endum, submitted to the voters of Cheshire County, on the question of providing a fire proof building. Such a building, of two stories, was built of granite, in 1840, upon the site of the present Court House at Keene. It was removed to make way for the latter building.
At the March meetings of 1837 and 1846, votes were taken upon the acceptance of certain public monies which the state had received (or was entitled to receive), as the result of dis- tributions voted by Congress, to be divided among the states according to the electoral vote. The action in 1837 is suffi- ciently explained in the annals for that year (page 134). This distribution had pleased the people. When the Whigs acquired power, in the Harrison-Tyler administration, they soon got an act through Congress to distribute among the states some of the proceeds of the sales of the public lands of the United States. Their motive was doubtless none other than to win the favor of the people, as an offset to the popularity of the Demo- crats in distributing the surplus revenue in Jackson's time. Each party fought the other bitterly in the two distributions. On each occasion, the party in power favored distribution, and the party not in power opposed it. Neither distribution should have been made. There were probably legal objections to both schemes. At all events, where money comes thus easily, extravagances are quite likely to follow in the use of it. After the funds are gone, taxation is dreaded and avoided more than ever.
Nov. 4, 1844, a referendum was presented to the people upon the expediency of abolishing capital punishment in the state. Sullivan was 64 to 19 against the abolition. The senti- ment of the state was and always has been opposed to the aboli- tion of this law. Undoubtedly the injunction in Genesis, " Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed ", has operated more than all things else to keep that law upon the statute books. There were many laws given to the Hebrews in their wanderings, such as the laws about leprosy and animal
170
HISTORY OF SULLIVAN.
sacrifices, as well as the laws about purification and about clean and unclean animals, which had a very local application and were designed for a people in their semi-civilized and nomadic condition. We do not ourselves, in this more civilized day, " shed blood", to avenge murder, although this literal interpre- tation of the law was what was implied in the text quoted. The Old Testament exhibits a progress in the character of the com- mands given to the Jews, suited to their advancing stages of civilization. This law given to a people in a half-barbarous condition may have been necessary to restrain murderous pas- sions. We are living in a different age. It is argued by many that we cannot do away with some form of capital punishment, as a preventive of murder. It is doubtful how far such a law makes' any difference. The ethics of Jesus would certainly point to a more humane law. At the same time, it is still a very difficult and troublesome question. We are persuaded that the spirit of the age is rather against it, and future ages will doubt- less furnish a better way of preventing murder, as well as of dealing with murderers. For militia referendum, see end of this section.
At the annual meeting of 1848, there was a referendum upon the vexed question of the sale of alcoholic liquors, except for chemical, mechanical, or medicinal uses. Sullivan was 65 to 24 in favor of such a measure. Sullivan has always been very sane upon this subject. In olden times, liquors were sold at stores and hotels as freely as groceries. When the so-called Washingtonian movement swept over the country, about the time of which we are speaking, Sullivan wheeled nobly into the temperance column and has always so remained. The senti- ment of the state, at the time of which we speak, was lukewarm upon this subject. Eight or ten years later, good temperance laws were passed, which were fairly well enforced for many years. Opponents of temperance use many fallacious argu- ments. They contend that laws are useless (and should not even be on the statute books), unless they are rigidly enforced. Such reasoners should be made to understand that, if their reasoning were to be universally applied, there could never be a law of any kind. All laws are broken, deliberately and repeat- edly, but we must have them all the same. The laws against
171
REFERENDUM VOTES.
murder are very stringent and mete out the severest punishment that can be inflicted upon one who has been convicted of murder in the first degree (although, at present, the jury can make a choice between execution and life imprisonment). Notwith- standing, men and women murder, and much more frequently than could be reasonably expected. We have strict laws against arson and larceny, yet men, and women too, are too frequently caught stealing and burning the buildings of their neighbors. Our courts have to deal with a large batch of offenders, in spite of laws. Would you wipe out the laws? Of course not. The trouble with men is that too many of them actually desire to use alcoholic spirits as a beverage, too many policemen and con- stables love ardent spirits and are too much in sympathy with the dealers in them. The trouble is not at all with laws of any kind, as a rule, but with the manner of their enforcement. It is also a fallacy that free rum makes a community more moral, or that high license, or any kind of license, does such a thing. The exact opposite is the truth. The writer has lived in states with stringent laws, and in places where they have been loose. He knows by observation that the temperance municipalities are many per cent. more moral than any others.
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.