USA > Pennsylvania > History of proprietary government in Pennsylvania > 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 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51
1 Hall and Sellers, Laws of Pa. 2 Ibid.
43I
IN PENNSYLVANIA
431]
ernor accepted the bill, and the assembly was thought to have shrewdly gained a point. But the Board of Trade in recom- mending the repeal of the act criticised it in this very par- ticular, viz., that there was no connection between the main part of the measure and the provision for the additional issue and loan to Col. Hunter. The king in council thereupon de- clared the act to be void." The bills were issued, however, before the repeal of the law was made known. They were then promptly recalled.2
On April 12, 1760, Gov. Hamilton consented to the issue of £100,000 in bills of credit, to be redeemed by a tax of eighteen shillings per pound and twenty shillings per poll. For the purpose of cancelling them the treasurer annually, for three years following 1767, should pay £33,333 6sh. 8d., to the committee of the assembly.3 Again, urged by letters from Pitt and Amherst, the assembly in 1762 agreed to issue £100,000 in bills of credit. For the redemption of a part of this (£30,000), money was to be taken from the appropriation made by parliament to aid the colonies in defray- ing the expenses of the war, while the rest was to be redeemed by an extension of the excise till 1772. Certain provisions irrelevant to the substance of the measure were introduced, in order that, by forcing the acceptance of what was disapproved, the rejection of the whole might be prevented. Because of these defects Gov. Hamilton peremptorily refused to approve the bill. Then the assembly offered to grant for the king's service £23,500 in bills of credit, to be redeemed by money taken from the appropriation of parliament.4 On May 14, this was accepted by the governor.5 For the same purpose in Oc-
1 Col. Rec., viii, pp. 538, 557.
2 Phillips, op. cit., p. 25.
3Hall and Sellers, Laws of Pa.
4 Acts supplementary to this were passed in 1763, 1767 and 1771. Miller, Laws of Pa.
5 In 1759 and 1761 agents were appointed by the assembly to receive the share of Pennsylvania in the appropriation made by parliament. They were to pay the
432
[432
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
tober, 1763, the assembly voted £24,000. This sum was to be redeemed by the surplus money arising by virtue of several acts of assembly, and by an extension of the excise for three years. Certain commissioners, with the consent of the governor, were to use the money to support 825 men for the defense of the province.I In May of the following year,2 also, £55,000 more in bills of credit was granted for the king's service. They were to be redeemed by a continuation of the taxes ; and for their cancellation, the treasurer annually for two years after October, 1770, was to pay to the com- mittee of the assembly £27,500.
In April, 1764, the House of Commons resolved that an ad- dress should be presented to the king. This was for the pur- pose of requesting the Board of Trade to lay before parliament an account of the bills of credit issued in the plantations since 1749, of the time for redeeming and cancelling the same, and of the character of the funds appropriated for that purpose.3 The report of the Board caused parliament, September 17, 1764, to pass an act-4 Geo. III, chap. 34-prohibiting the issue of bills of credit as legal tender, or the extension of the legal tender quality of those already in existence beyond the periods of calling in and redeeming them. Any governor who
money to the trustees of the loan office, and they in turn to the committee of the assembly. The money was used for redeeming the sums granted to the king and for paying public debts. lbid.
1 Miller, Laws af Pa.
2 In January, 1764, during a discussion on the subject of paper money, the question was seriously debated whether proprietary quit rents should be excepted from payment in bills of credit, or whether a new species of notes, bearing inter- est but not intended to circulate as legel tender, should be issued. When the question was put to the vote, however, " such was the unaccountable attachment of a majority of the members to the usual mode of raising money, and their ill- judged fear of going out of the beaten track to try a new method of making money " that the former was the method chosen. Pa. Mag. Hist., v, pp. 68-9.
3 Pa. Arch., Ist series, iv, 173. Pennsylvania in 1764 had £500,000 in bills of credit outstanding. Of these, £293,000 remained in 1766, and it was believed that by 1773, the whole amount would be redeemed. Votes, v, p. 449.
433
IN PENNSYLVANIA
433]
should assent to bills containing provisions inconsistent with what was here specified, was made liable to a fine of £1,000, to dismissal from office, and to incapacity for future service. Petition after petition was laid before parliament against this statute, and the agents were repeatedly instructed by the sev- eral colonial legislatures to secure, if possible, its repeal. But the applications proved fruitless.
Requests for a further issue of currency in Pennsylvania, however, became too strong to be ignored. A number of merchants in Philadelphia formed a company to issue £20,000 in promissory notes of the denomination of £5, and payable on demand with 5 per cent. interest.1 But they were com- pelled to discontinue the practice, for the assembly declared that the influence of such notes was injurious to the credit of the provincial currency.2 Still, in order to ap- pease temporarily the demand, the assembly agreed, May 20, 1767, to issue £20,000 in bills of credit for the support of gov- ernment, and the payment of public debts. By the use of the revenue derived from the excise, it should be redeemed in yearly installments extending over four years. Nothing was said as to its legal tender quality, but the change in this respect was apparent in the wording of the bills. In those issued prior to this time the words had been, "This bill shall pass current for," etc .; but now the bills read, " This in- dented bill of - shall entitle the bearer to receive of the provincial treasurer, the like sum of -, in bills of credit now current." This evasion of the statute, however, might be so construed as to give them the quality of legal tender.
On the 18th of February, 1769, the assembly passed an act to " enable the managers of contributions for the relief and em- ployment of the poor" in Philadelphia to raise £14,000 in bills of credit. The bills should be similar in form to those just mentioned, but with the substitution of the words " treas- urer of the contributors for relief, etc.," for the words, " pro-
1 Phillips, op. cit., p. 28. 2 Votes, v, p. 518.
434
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [434
vincial treasurer." To redeem them certain property was to be sold, or a tax might be levied on all the estates in Phila- delphia and vicinity. At the same time an act similar to that of 1767 was passed to raise £16,000 for the support of govern- ment and the payment of public debts. Provision was made for the cancellation of these bills within nine years.I
In the following May the house sent Gov. John Penn a bill providing for the issue of £120,000 on loan. In reply the governor contended that, as the king's representative, he had a share with the assembly, in nominating the trustees of the loan office, and in specifying the use to which the interest- money should be put. The assembly, however, refused to make concessions, and the bill was dropped.2 About two years later the house presented to Gov. Richard Penn a sim- ilar bill for the issue of £200,000. But his objections to the establishment of loan offices in the various counties, and to the method of appointing the trustees of the same, put an end to this bill also.3 But, March 21, 1772, an act was passed to issue for the support of government £25,000, to be redeemed by an extension of the excise for ten years.4 The following year £12,000 was issued in bills of credit, to be redeemed by a tonnage duty.5 About the same time £150,000 was ordered to be issued on loan,6 but this attempt to resuscitate the loan office failed, because several of the signers and trustees failed to act.7
We have thus traced the history of the issue of bills of credit in Pennsylvania during the colonial period. They amounted in the aggregate to upwards of £950,000. The development of the controversies incident to these issues reveal a steady and continuous increase of the power of the people and decrease of that of the proprietors. An important episode of this financial. controversy, which at the same time had a great constitutional significance, was the successful attempt to tax the public domain and private estates of the Penns.
1 Miller, Laws of Pa.
2 Votes, vi, p. 161. 3 lbid., p. 378, et seq.
+ Miller, Laws of Pa. 5 lbid. 6 Votes, vi, p. 517.
7 Phillips, op. cit., p. 29.
CHAPTER X.
TAXATION OF THE PROPRIETARY ESTATES.
THE earliest reference to the levying of taxes in Pennsyl- vania is to be found in the "Laws agreed upon in England." The fourth section of these proposed enactments reads as fol- lows: " That no money or goods shall be raised upon, or paid by, any of the people of this province by way of a public tax, custom, or contribution, but by a law for that purpose made ; and whosoever shall levy, collect, or pay any money or goods contrary thereunto, shall be held a public enemy to the province, and a betrayer of the liberties of the people thereof." This was further confirmed and enlarged by the 59th section of the " Great Law" passed at Chester in December, 1682, which expressly declared that no tax should be levied, except by a law " for that purpose made by the governor and freemen " of the province, and unless it continued for no longer "than the space of one whole year."2 In view of the fact that the royal charter distinctly states that parliament might levy a tax on the province without the consent of the "proprietary or chief governor and assembly," the language of this early law would seem to imply a defiance of parliament similar to that which the colonies exhibited eighty-three years later. But it is very doubtful if any such idea existed in the minds of the men who enacted the law. Penn himself proposed it,3 and his allegiance to England was too well known to be questioned. The law may be regarded therefore as merely the expression of the
1 Charter and Laws of Pa., p. 99.
2 Ibid., p. 123, confirmed in 1693, p. 203.
3 Penn MSS., Ford vs. Penn.
435]
435
436
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[436
opinion of the proprietor and assembly regarding arbitrary or irregular taxation, and not as a prophecy of antagonism to. England.
In March of the following year a bill was brought into the assembly, providing that the expenses of the several counties should be met by taxation, and that the members of the coun- cil and assembly should pay only half of their assessments. The latter provision was unfavorably received,' but a law was enacted that the county court should be empowered to " as- sess and lay such taxes upon the county" as should defray its expenses, " so that it be equal and according to propor- tion." One-half of the tax was to be raised from land, and the other half by poll; but non-residents should pay one-half more in proportion than residents.2 In the session of 1693, moreover, a law was enacted to provide funds to defray "the necessary charges in each county for the support of the poor, building of prisons, or repairing them, paying the salary belong- ing to the assembly, paying for wolves' heads, the judges' ex- penses, with many other necessary charges." It was stated that yearly, or oftener, as the case might require, the county court should estimate the expenses of the county, and make the proper assessments therefor. But the grand jury might also present any sum needful to be raised. The rate of assessment was to be the same as in the provincial land tax act of the same year.3 The power thus given to the county court to levy taxes without the approbation of the grand jury, appears to have caused con-
1 Votes, i, pt. i, pp. 17-20.
2 Charter and Laws of Pa., p. 147. The following orders, issued October 6, 1685, by the justices of Chester county, in accordance with this law, may be cited as an example of the procedure. Upon every hundred acres taken up and surveyed was levied 2 sh. 6 d., and in the case of non-residents, 3 sh. 9 d. The poll tax levied on all male citizens between the ages of 16 and 60 was also 2 sh. 6 d. The constable was to give the names of the inhabitants of the townships to the sheriff, the principal collector, who was allowed a percentage on his receipts, Hazard, Register of Pa., v, p. 157.
3 Charter and Laws of Pa., p. 233.
437
IN PENNSYLVANIA
437]
siderable dissatisfaction ; for in a list of grievances submitted by the assembly to Lieut. Gov. Markham, in April, 1694, was the following: "That the power given by the late law for raising money by the justices of the peace in their respective counties may not be made use of to the dissatisfaction of the country, but that the justices may be cautioned that what money is raised to defray the public charge of the country may be done by the approbation of the grand jury, or other sufficient in- habitants of the several counties, to assist in and approve the several taxes to be raised, and to have the hearing and exam- ination of the accounts of the several receipts and disburse- ments."1 In spite of this protest, however, it appears that the assembly itself, the following June, offered for the approval of Gov. Fletcher a bill of the same objectionable character. He, accordingly, refused to pass it, unless the method of taxation should be made more conformable to that employed in England.2 In 1696, however, it was enacted that the county court and grand jury, together with any three of six assessors to be elected by the freemen of the county, "should calculate the public charge of the county, and allow all just debts, dues and accounts."3
In 1715 the procedure was again changed.4 Three com- missioners for each county were named in the act. They should order the sheriff to summon the six assessors to meet them at the time the sessions of the county court were held.
1 Col. Rec., i, pp. 457, 466; Votes, i, p. 78-9.
? Ibid. In October, 1695, the grand jury of Chester county made an assessment of I d. per { and 3 shillings per poll. Every acre of land under cultivation was rated at {1 per acre ; and all uncultivated land at £10 per hundred acres, while for every hundred acres in the woods, £5 was the rate. On horses, cattle, sheep, negroes, mills, and on "handicrafts that follow no plantations for calling," a tax was also levied. Hazard, Register of Pa., v, p. 158.
3 Charter and Laws of Pa., pp. 256-258.
4 Several of the details of this procedure, it may be said, appear in acts passed in 1696, 1699, 1700, and 1705. Ibid., pp. 253-259, 280-282; Bradford, Laws of Pa.
438
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[438
They were furthermore to issue warrants to the constables of the townships to bring to the assessors the names of the resi- dents therein, as well as a detailed statement of their property. The right to hear and determine appeals concerning unjust taxation was also transferred from the assessors to the com- missioners ; and the collectors appointed by the assessors were to render their accounts to the provincial treasurer. Lastly, the uses to which the money should be put were distinctly specified, and the right of appropriation by the assembly alone asserted.3 In 1724 the tenure of the commissioners became elective, and they were made amenable to the county court. In the same act the commissioners and assessors were directed to exempt from taxation "all unsettled lands, although formerly rated."2 Eight years later the tenure of the commis- sioners was limited to three years, and both they and the as- sessors were ordered to submit their accounts yearly to the county court and the grand jury.3
The first provincial tax bill was prepared in 1693, in response to orders from the queen for assistance against the French. The committee of the assembly chosen to consider that part of Gov. Fletcher's speech which related to the granting of sup- plies, reported that there was a "necessity of raising money to support the government,4
by tax on strong beer and ale retailed, by deer skins, * * by the poll, by land per hun- dred acres, by rent of houses, [and] upon wine and cider im- ported ;5 but " with respect had to the moderate assessment of all uncultivated and unprofitable lands."6 Thereupon a law
3 Bradford, Laws of Pa. 2 Ibid. 3 Franklin, Laws of Pa.
4 A resolution of this tenor was passed by the assembly in 1684. Votes, pt. i, P. 27.
5 About 1718 the tax on imported wine and cider was extended to horses, cattle, sheep, swine, beef, pork, butter, cheese, hops, flax, molasses, negroes, im- migrants, convicts, and vessels. Some of these laws were repealed by the crown, particularly those taxing negroes and vessels, but whenever this occurred, the law was reenacted by the assembly. , Bradford, Laws of Pa.
6 Votes, i, pt. i, pp. 69-71.
439
IN PENNSYLVANIA
439]
was passed imposing for one year a tax of Id. per £ on the clear value of all property, real and personal. From the im- position of this tax the proprietor, and the deputy governor were exempted, as were also persons who had "a great charge of children, and become indigent in the world," and were "so far in debt that the clear value of their real and personal es- tate " did not amount to £30. But freemen who had been out of their servitude six months, and who were not otherwise rated in the act, nor worth $100, should pay a poll tax of 6 shillings. For the assessment and collection of these sums two or more members of assembly' within the respective counties, acting with three justices of the peace or substantial freeholders, were to assess the rates specified, and appoint col- lectors. By a warrant issued by a justice of the peace, the assessors should direct the constables to bring in certificates of the names of the inhabitants, and of the property possessed by them. The assessors were then to ascertain the valuation of the property and assess it, but with due regard to the ability of the people, and the amount of unprofitable land they held. A statement of the assessment and collection was to be rendered to the next assembly. Provision, furthermore, was made for the punishment of officers who failed to discharge their duties, for the sale of property upon non-payment of taxes, and for appeal to any three of the assessors in case a wrong had been done to any individual in the assessment of his taxes. The amount raised was to be expended by the gov- ernor and council, but an account of the items should be rendered to the assembly.2 In 1696, 1699, 1700, 1705, 1715 and 1717, when general provincial taxes were levied, and in all the acts for raising county taxes, the estates of the pro-
1 The participation of the members of assembly in the assessment of taxes was excluded by the act of 1699 and subsequent acts. Charter and Laws of Pa., p. 280 ; Bradford, Laws of Pa.
2 Votes, i, pt. i, p. 86; Col. Rec., i, p. 461; Charter and Laws of Fa., pp. 221-224.
440
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[440
prietor and of the lieutenant governor were again expressly exempted from taxation.I
Having thus indicated the nature of the taxes levied prior to the issue of paper money, as well as the methods prescribed for their collection, we are ready to consider the taxation of the proprietary estates themselves. The position of the pro- prietors was a peculiar one. They were feudal lords of Penn- sylvania. True, their right to make laws was modified by the necessity for the advice and consent of the assembly, but that did not destroy the essentially feudal character of the grant. They were the representatives of the king. They were great landholders. Since they were feudal lords, and sharers by del- egation in the prerogatives of the crown, it would seem absurd that a dependent colonial legislature should assume the power of taxing their estates. But whatever may have been their legal powers, they were in reality private men possessed of vast es- tates, and holding the position of hereditary governors. More- over, the power of taxation in general words is given by the charter to the proprietor and assembly, and no restrictions as to the objects of taxation are imposed. The proprietors had hitherto been expressly exempted from assessment. But now the needs of the country called for increase in taxation. The progress of the democratic spirit demanded that feudal rights of exemption should be abolished, and that, as owners of private property, the proprietors should be considered in the light of private individuals. In the public management of their prop- erty they might not be subject to the colonial legislature, but in their private ownership they were on a level with the poor- est freeholder. To crown all, any plea for exemption, which they might choose to make, lacked the powerful support of precedent in other provinces, both royal and proprietary.2
1 Charter and Laws of Pa., pp. 253-256; Bradford, Laws of Pa.
2 In Maryland, by an act passed in 1715, only beneficed clergy, persons who received alms and slaves past labor were exempted from taxation (Bacon, Laws of Maryland). There were apparently no exemptions in South Carolina. An act
44I
IN PENNSYLVANIA
. 441]
The earliest utterance of the proprietors on the subject, is to be found in a letter to one of their officers, March 29, 1748. In it they declared that, although they were willing to assist in making full legal provision for the defense of the province, they would not personally contribute, for the Board of Trade had told them that they were no more liable to tax- ation than were the royal governors. In fact they hinted that Pennsylvania was the only colony that expected protection at. the expense of her governors. Three years later the assembly, in a representation on Indian affairs, declared that the vast es- tates of the Penns were not liable to taxation by England, and could not, by any law then in existence, be assessed in Pennsyl- vania.2 In their reply to this representation, however, the pro- prietors asserted that they were not desirous of avoiding a proper contribution to any reasonable public object. They stated also that the expenses they incurred in furthering the interests of the province were greater than any sum which the taxation of their estates would yield.3 But this contention availed less and less as the war with the French advanced. The counter claim was raised that the colonists were over- burdened with taxes, and the effect of this was enhanced by the cry of distress which came from the districts that had been laid waste by the enemy. The proprietors clung feebly to
was passed in 1703 (Cooper, Carolina Statutes, ii, p. 206) for raising the sum of £4,000 " on real and personal estates, and of and from the profits and revenues of the inhabitants of the province." It provided that the estates, stocks and abilities of all and singular, the inhabitants, merchants, and other persons residing in South Carolina, should be subject to taxation. In Virginia, by an act passed in 1705 (4 Anne, chap. 7, sec. 8) only the governor and his family and the beneficed clergy were exempted from being tithables. An act passed in 1748 (22 George II., chap. 21), provided that the exemption should extend to the president, masters .. and fellows of William and Mary College. There were no exemptions in New York (Parker, Laws of N. Y., pp. 373, 381, 395).
1 P. L. B., ii, T. P. to Lardner.
2 Votes, iv, pp. 362-3.
3 Ibid., pp. 362-67 ; P. L. B., iii, T. P. to Hamilton, Oct. 26, 1752.
442
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[442
their claim, but, as time passed, it became evident that they must resign it, at least in part.
While treating of the subject of paper money, the bill of 1755, which provided for the redemption of £55,000 by the taxation of all estates, real and personal, has been referred to. Gov. Morris, who had previously been chief justice of New Jersey, in reply to the assembly's message, insisted that the estates of the proprietors should be exempted from taxation. He quoted that portion of his commission which forbade him to do anything whereby the property of the Penns might be injured. "This proviso," said he, " being contained in the body of the commission from which I derive the power of act- ing as governor, it is not only the highest prohibition to me, but any law that I may pass contrary to that proviso, I imagine would be void in itself for want of power in me to give it a being." He declared that, even without instructions from the proprietors for that purpose, he would not consent to a bill for the taxation of their estates. He argued that not only were all governors, from the nature of their office, whether hereditary or otherwise, exempt from the payment of taxes, but that, on the contrary, "revenues were generally given to them to support the honor and dignity of government," and to enable them to dis- charge the duties of their station. He stated that this exemp- tion of the proprietary estates from taxation, which arose from such a conception of the nature of government, was enforced by the positive law of the province. He asserted that for taxes to be imposed upon the estates of the proprietors was contrary to the practice in other proprietary governments. He declared, further, that the proprietors through the governor had assented to several laws vesting in the people the sole choice of the persons who assessed and levied taxes, without reserving to themselves or their deputy a negative upon such selection, which by charter they were privileged to do. This had been done, said he, with the express proviso that the pro- prietary property should not be taxed. The assembly re-
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.