USA > Rhode Island > Rhode Island : three centuries of democracy, Vol. I > Part 81
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 | Part 96 | Part 97 | Part 98 | Part 99 | Part 100 | Part 101
*Seventy-two Representatives for 77,031 gives 1070.
#See "Disquisition on the Constitution of the United States," John C. Calhoun, for a splendid exposition of the theory of apportionment.
474
RHODE ISLAND -- THREE CENTURIES OF DEMOCRACY
issue. Suffrage, primarily, and representation, secondarily, eventually became the dominating issues in the constitutional movement. Suggestion of the significance of suffrage as an issue appeared as early as 1811 in the complaint in that year that Providence was propounding and creating freemen voters at an extraordinary rate, sufficient, it was alleged, to affect the state election.
THE PROPERTY QUALIFICATION NOT CONSTITUTIONAL BUT LEGAL-Before proceeding to trace the development of the suffrage movement it should be pointed out that the rather common belief that the Charter established a property qualification for suffrage is erroneous. The Charter created a self-perpetuating corporation, with power in the members named therein and their successors "to choose, nominate and appoint such and so many other persons as they shall think fit and shall be willing to accept the same to be free of the said company and body politic, and them into the same to admit." The Assembly prescribed a property qualification in 1665 as a minimum requirement for eligibility to admission as freeman. It lay within the power of the General Assembly at any time previous to the adoption of the Con- stitution of 1842 to repeal the property qualification by law. Had suffrage been so dominant an issue in the period of close contests between Federalists and Republicans following the War of 1812 as to warrant making it a partisan political question, either party in a year in which it controlled the General Assembly could have abolished the property qualification altogether or have set up another qualification. Neither party for the time being wished to modify suf- frage. Although the question was brought before the Assembly occasionally, suffrage was not an issue in the earlier constitutional conventions. The Senate, in 1811, passed a bill granting a right to vote for general officers and Representatives to all male adults who paid either poll or property tax or who served in the militia; the bill was indefinitely postponed in the House of Representatives after discussion. The "Providence Phenix," Republican, accused the Federalists of opposing the bill; an analysis of the vote on indefinite postpone- ment shows that little more than half the Republican members voted no, the full strength of the Federalists being for postponement. A similar measure, presented in June, 1818, was postponed to the next session; and, in October, the Assembly appointed a committee to report on the expediency of amending the law regulating the admission of freemen.
MOVEMENT TO OBTAIN A CONSTITUTION-In February, 1819, a bill requesting a referen- dum on the question of the expediency of holding a constitutional convention was referred to . a committee, and, in the following year, the question was discussed thoroughly. Curiously, three newspapers in Providence, two Republican and one Federalist, unitedly, advocated a convention. The new "Manufacturers' and Farmers' Journal and Providence and Paw- tucket Advertiser," founded in January, 1820, declared in November, 1820, that "a free people have for more than forty years submitted to a species of government, in theory, if not always in practice, as despotic as that of the Russias." The Federalist opposition of two years before had been withdrawn, but the issue for the time being was sectional. In ten years Jamestown, Middletown, Newport and Portsmouth, electing fourteen Representatives, and all of Newport County, electing twenty, had lost in population, although the state had increased eight per cent. Providence County, with forty-two per cent. of the population, elected thirty per cent. of the Representatives. Newport, once the metropolitan town, was receding in size and influence. Comparatively, Newport elected six Representatives for 7319 population, and Providence elected four for 11,767; the unit for representation was 1216 in Newport and 2942 in Provi- dence. Governor Knight, in 1820, recommended that inhabitants who complied with the militia law be admitted to the privileges of freemen.
The Assembly, at the January session, 1821, voted to submit the question of holding a constitutional convention to a referendum at the April town election. The freemen voted no, 1905 to 1619. The issue was representation ; the towns that would have gained by reappor-
Elsha Robotter
ELISHA REYNOLDS POTTER (1764-1835) of Rhode Island
475
SECOND REVOLUTION IN RHODE ISLAND
tionment on the basis of the census of 1820, as a rule supported the proposition. In Provi- dence a united press favored the convention, and only two of 600 freemen voted no. In New- port only fifty-seven of 332 voted yes. All of Newport County, all of Washington County except Hopkinton, all of Kent County except East Greenwich voted no. Bristol, Providence and six other Providence County towns voted yes. Besides indicating opposition to reappor- tionment that involved loss of representation, the division tended to be sectional. A year later, April, 1822, on the same question the vote was adverse, 1804 to 843. The question submitted to the freemen was : "Is it expedient that an act be passed by the General Assembly providing for the election of delegates by the freemen of the several towns in the same numbers and proportions as said towns are now represented in the General Assembly, and organizing said delegates into a convention for the purpose of forming a written constitution of government for this state, such constitution when framed to be submitted to the freemen for final deci- sion?" Printed ballots carrying the words "yes" and "no" were supplied, the freemen voting to write their names upon their ballots. The adverse vote was ascribed to want of enthusiasm due to the failure of the preceding year.
A suggestion of the piecemeal method of changing the constitution, the practice preferred later in Rhode Island to either constitutional convention or radical wholesale amendment, appeared in a bill introduced in June, 1822, by Elisha R. Potter of South Kingstown, to increase the House of Representatives to seventy-nine members, apportioning three addi- tional members to Providence, and one each to Bristol, Coventry, North Kingstown and South Kingstown. The Potter bill was postponed to the next session, and then apparently forgot- ten. Meanwhile, the general statutes had been revised and consolidated, and the new Public Laws of 1822, repealing all statutes not included, incorporated color discrimination in the law regulating admission of freemen, thus: The freemen of any town "may admit white persons, inhabitants," etc., if qualified. Representative Potter, in June, 1823, introduced a new bill calling a constitutional convention; it was referred to the October session.
The General Assembly, in January, 1824, directed the freemen in April town meetings to choose delegates to a constitutional convention to meet at Newport on June 21, 1824. Repre- sentation was the same as in the House of Representatives, a majority of delegates to consti- tute a quoroum. The constitution drafted at Newport was submitted to the freemen for ratification or rejection, the Assembly providing 8000 printed ballots carrying the question : "Do you ratify the constitution framed by the delegates meeting in convention at Newport on June 21, 1824?" The freemen rejected the constitution, 3206 to 1668. The more sig- nificant changes proposed in the constitution of 1824 were: (I) Veto power for Governor, who ceased to be a member of the Senate; (2) Lieutenant Governor as presiding officer in Senate, with a vote only in case of tie; (3) a House of Representatives of seventy-three members, apportioned on the basis of population, thus: Two members for towns of less than 3000 population, three members for 3000 to 5000, four members for 5000 to 8000, five mem- bers for 8000 to 12,000, six members for 12,000 to 17,000; seven members for over 17,000. Bristol, Coventry, Warwick, North Kingstown, Smithfield and South Kingstown, three each ; Newport, four ; Providence, five; twenty-three towns, forty-six members; total seventy- three. The same apportionment on the census of 1830: Bristol, Coventry, Cumberland, North Providence, Scituate, North Kingstown, South Kingstown, three each; Warwick, Smithfield, four each; Newport, five; Providence, six; twenty towns, two each ; total eighty members. The Senate consisted of ten members elected at large on general state ticket, with the Lieutenant Governor as presiding officer. Changes were made in the times and places of sessions of the General Assembly, but Rhode Island continued to have five capitals, viz .: Bristol, East Greenwich, Newport, Providence and South Kingstown. All towns of Kent, Newport and Washington counties voted against the constitution of 1824, as did all Provi- dence County, except Glocester, Johnston, North Providence, Providence and Smithfield.
476
RHODE ISLAND-THREE CENTURIES OF DEMOCRACY
The three Bristol County towns voted yes. The constitution of 1824 did not change the prop- erty qualification or the method of admitting freemen, except as it excluded the eldest son of a freeholder from voting on the father's estate. Other changes than those related to represen- tation were not sufficient to affect the vote materially. The single, dominating issue was appor- tionment of representation, and the answer of the freemen to the question submitted to them was decisively that they did not wish a change. Thus the matter rested for five years. In ten years from 1820 to 1830 the population of Providence increased nearly fifty per cent., of Providence County nearly thirty-three per cent., while Bristol and Washington counties lost, and Newport County remained almost stationary. Providence, 16,836, was twice as populous as Newport, 8010; and the disproportion of representation was three to one. The state valua- tion of 1824 placed Providence at $9,500,000 to $2,000,000 for Newport.
THE SUFFRAGE ISSUE-The suffrage issue in Rhode Island was inevitable; it was related before 1842 not so much to the freehold property qualification, for that in amount was scarcely so prohibitive as tax payment qualification elsewhere, as to the manner of acquiring suffrage by admission as freemen. The increase in population in commercial and factory towns as the economic life of the state shifted from emphasis on farming to manufacturing brought into strong relief the disproportion of freemen to inhabitants that suggested oligarchy, and fur- nished a fact basis for the movement for "free suffrage." That the latter assumed marked strength in 1829 was resultant in no small part, however, from the example of manhood suf- frage in the new states admitted to the union, and the trend to manhood suffrage in older states. Strangely, the "Providence Herald," Jacksonian, warned Rhode Island farmers against the movement; in Providence the agitation for free suffrage was supported by leading citi- zens, and several large meetings were held in Providence, with other meetings elsewhere. Petitions were sent to the General Assembly in May, 1829, but rejected after reference to committee. The issue as to representation had been between freemen; the issue as to suffrage was between freemen and non-freemen. Those who enjoyed privilege and power were reluctant to yield or share it. The situation recalled the declaration in Burrill's oration on July 4, 1797, that an appeal to a vested majority is wasted. The Assembly committee to which the suffrage petitions were referred denounced "democracy," and advocated restricted suf- frage. In this report the Assembly concurred by adopting a motion to give the petitioners leave to withdraw.
The suffrage movement of 1829 was short-lived; it ceased almost abruptly with the curt, decisive, adverse report of the Assembly committee, which was entirely consistent with Rhode Island traditions. From the earliest days the colony had distinguished accurately political rights from civil rights. The latter were guaranteed, in measure nowhere else equalled, to all inhabitants; the former were restricted rigorously to freemen. The tender regard for civil rights enunciated in the Digest of 1798 had not abated thirty years later, when the Assembly adopted a committee report repudiating "democracy" in the sense of government participated in by all the inhabitants. Little over a year earlier the Assembly had reiterated with emphasis the guaranty of complete religious liberty, in a statute declaring that "by the laws of this state all men are free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of reli- gion"; that "the same do not in any wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil rights or capacities"; and that "no man's opinion, in matters of religion, his belief or disbelief, can be legally inquired into or made a subject of investigation with a view to his qualifications to hold office or give testimony, by any man or men, acting judicially or legislatively." Five years later, 1833, a committee was appointed to examine all charters theretofore granted to religious corporations to ascertain and report how far any such charter contains provisions empowering the corporation by coercive means to exact and enforce from its members taxes or contributions for the support of its religious establishment. A charter of the type would be clearly contrary to the statute on religious liberty embodied in the Digest of 1798 and
477
SECOND REVOLUTION IN RHODE ISLAND
repeated in the Public Laws of 1822; the committee did not report. With reference to suf- frage-"presidential" suffrage was extended in 1832 to include all persons qualified to vote for general officers, a larger group than those qualified to vote for Representatives in the Gen- eral Assembly, the latter freeholders owning land in the town of residence. The freeman whose land lay in the town in which he lived could vote for all officers, town, state and federal ; the freeman qualifying by owning land elsewhere than in the town in which he lived could vote for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Senators in the General Assembly and presidential electors, but not for Representatives in Congress because not qualified to vote for Representa- tives in the General Assembly.t
MAJORITY ELECTIONS-The Assembly, in the same year, 1832, relinquished its own right under the Charter and by precedent to elect Governor, Lieutenant Governor and Senators if the annual plebiscite in April failed to return majorities ; a statute ordered new elections until majorities were secured. It happened within the first year of experience under the new statute, May, 1832, to May, 1833, that four elections were conducted, each of which failed to produce a majority for Governor, Lieutenant Governor and Senators enough to organize the Senate ; and the statute of 1832 was repealed in 1833. To prevent similar failure with reference to Representatives in Congress, a statute enacted in 1832 established election by plurality in a second plebiscite if the first failed to produce a majority. Two years later similar provision was made for the election of state general officers; if the general election in April failed to produce a majority of enough Senators with the Governor "or" or "and" the Lieutenant Gov- ernor to organize the Senate, a second election was ordered, in which pluralities might elect. Secretary of State, General Treasurer and Attorney General were added to the list of officers to be chosen in the general election in 1836, another concession by the General Assembly.
The Assembly was firm in maintaining the rights of freemen properly qualified, and the requirement of signed paper ballots, identifying the elector, repugnant as it appears to modern practices of secret balloting, lent itself to determination of contested elections on a fact basis. Thus the General Assembly in 1828 in the instance of an election contested because two "eldest sons" were excluded by reason of the moderator's refusal to put the motion to admit persons qualified as freemen, seated the contesting candidate whose vote of thirty-five, increased by the two excluded, would give him one more than his opponent's thirty-six. A proposed city charter for Providence was submitted to a referendum of the freemen of the town in 1830; rejected then, another referendum was conducted a year later, and the charter was adopted by the freemen .* The procedure varied radically from the incorporation of New- port as a city in 1784 by action of the General Assembly, and the equally arbitrary repeal of the Newport city charter in 1787. Perhaps the practice of submitting questions on constitu- tional conventions and constitutions had been educative in developing recourse to the plebiscite from the older practice of reference to the town meetings for instruction of their Representa- tives. A referendum on the question of building a state prison and paying the cost from the proceeds of a state tax on ratable estate was ordered in 1834. The tax, rather than the build- ing of the prison, was the real issue. With the acquisition of a state revenue from excises, including taxes on banks and lottery franchises, and fees and licenses of various types, so abundant that the General Treasurer was ordered in 1829 to seek a depository for the treas- ury surplus on the basis of a competitive offer of interest, the older practice of state-town taxes had fallen into disuse. The referendum on the tax to build a prison resembled the submission of proposed bond issues to the electors for approval or rejection in the present century and late in the nineteenth. The tax for the prison was not levied; eventually the cost of building the prison and a county jail, construction having been delayed, was paid from the "deposit
*Constitution of the United States. Article I. The Rhode Island law was changed in 1838 to permit all freemen to vote for Representatives in Assembly and Congress.
*In 1839 a referendum on repealing the city charter was negative.
478
RHODE ISLAND-THREE CENTURIES OF DEMOCRACY
fund," money distributed to the states in Jackson's administration following the refusal to continue the charter of the Bank of the United States.
REQUESTS FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION-A convention of delegates "to promote the establishment of a state constitution" met in Providence, February 23, 1834. Cumberland and Smithfield had united in issuing a call for the convention. Bristol, Burrillville, Cranston, Cumberland, Johnston, Newport, North Providence, Providence, Smithfield and Warren were represented by delegates at the first meeting, and Scituate and North Kingstown sent delegates to a second meeting held on March 12. The convention adopted an address to the people of Rhode Island prepared by a committee, consisting of Thomas W. Dorr, Joseph K. Angell, David Daniels, William H. Smith and Christopher Robinson, and written principally by Dorr. The address declared (I) that "all obligation to acknowledge obedience to a British charter as a constitution of government was, of course, dissolved, and the people of each state were left free and sovereign . . when the American states severed the political tie which formerly bound them to Great Britain"; (2) that "sovereignty . . . . passed not to the Governor and Company of Rhode Island, but to the people at large who fought the battles of the Revolution,
and to their descendants"; (3) that it "cannot for a moment be doubted . . that the peo- ple of Rhode Island retain their inherent right to establish (in their original, sovereign capacity ) a constitution"; (4) that, the government of Rhode Island resting upon narrowly restricted suffrage is essentially "an oligarchy, or the rule of a few"; (5) that representation is unequal; (6) that "no man should be excluded from" voting "except from circumstances of unavoidable necessity"; (7) that "participation in the choice of those who make and administer laws is a natural right, which cannot be abridged nor suspended any farther than the greatest good of the greatest number imperatively requires"; (8) that the freehold quali- fication in Rhode Island is opposed to the spirit of the Constitution of the United States, and to the American theory and practice as exemplified in most of the states. Dorr clearly under- stood and stated that the freehold qualification had been established by the General Assembly and not by the Charter. His statement that Rhode Island practice varied from the "spirit" of the Constitution of the United States avoided the literal acceptance in the Constitution of the qualifications established by the several states in 1787, in the provision that electors of Repre- sentatives in Congress should have the same qualifications as those prescribed for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature .; But the attack upon the sovereignty of the General Assembly was significant, as it portended the theory on which Dorr, as the leader eventually of the suffrage party, would launch within ten years the movement in history known as Dorr's "rebellion," "insurrection," or "war." Dorr and the convention advocated (I) reapportionment of representation; (2) adult male suffrage restricted only by perhaps a small tax, a classification of native and naturalized voters, and registration; (3) an independent judiciary with competent salaries and tenure during good behavior, and (4) a convention called by the people or suspension of the freehold qualification for constitutional convention pur- poses, to permit "the exercise by the people of the great, original right of sovereignty in the formation of a constitution." The address, and petitions for a convention were presented to the General Assembly. The city government, mayor and council, of Providence presented a petition urging unequal representation as a reason for action. When Benjamin Hazard of Newport, author of the committee report which in 1829 had recommended dismissal of the petitions for suffrage, moved to call a convention to annul the Charter, Dorr, then a member representing Providence, moved, as a substitute, that a convention be called to draft a consti- tution. The Dorr motion prevailed. The convention resolution, as adopted at the June ses- sion, called a convention to meet in Providence on September I "for the purpose of amending the present or proposing a new constitution for the State." Towns were directed to choose delegates in number equalling their representation in the House of Representatives, a majority
#Article I.
479
SECOND REVOLUTION IN RHODE ISLAND
to constitute a quorum. Amendments or a new constitution, as drafted, were to be submitted to the freemen for ratification. The convention did not complete its task. It met on Septem- ber I; adjourned September 13 to November 10, adjourned in November to February, and in February to June. It did not reassemble in June, 1835. If the failures up to 1835 had accom- plished nothing more, they were sufficient to convince advocates of a change that little could be expected of the General Assembly or of a constitutional convention limited to freemen, or of the freemen themselves through the referendum, although Dorr in January, 1837, was willing to try again and introduced a resolution for a convention, which the House of Repre- sentatives rejected, thirty-nine to seventeen.
LANDHOLDERS' CONVENTION-A third constitutional convention* was called by the Gen- eral Assembly, at the January session, 1841, to meet in Providence on November I, "to frame a new constitution for the state either in whole or in part, with full power for this purpose; and if only for a constitution in part that said convention have under their especial considera- tion the expediency of equalizing the representation of the towns in the House of Representa- tives." Delegates equal in number to the town representation in the House were ordered chosen in August town meetings. In May, 1841, the basis of representation in the convention was changed to population, towns with less than 850 inhabitants to choose one delegate, towns of 850 to 3000 two delegates, towns of 3000 to 6000 three delegates, towns of 6000 to 10,000 four delegates, towns of 10,000 to 15,000 five delegates, and towns over 15,000 six delegates. The convention consisted of seventy-seven delegates, five more than in a convention equalling the House of Representatives. Delegations from Burrillville, Charlestown, Cranston, East Greenwich, Exeter, Foster, Glocester, Hopkinton, Johnston, Little Compton, Middletown, New Shoreham, North Kingstown, Richmond, Warren, Westerly and West Greenwich remained unchanged in the new apportionment. Bristol, Coventry, Cumberland, North Providence, Scitu- ate, South Kingstown and Tiverton gained one delegate each; Smithfield, two; and Provi- dence, two, the city delegation being six instead of four. Warwick remained unchanged, with four delegates. Barrington and Jamestown lost one delegate each, Portsmouth and Newport, two each. By counties the changes were : Kent and Washington gained one each ; Providence gained seven; Newport lost four; Bristol, unchanged. The convention met as directed on November I, framed a constitution, adjourned to February, 1842, and amended and adopted the constitution which was known subsequently as the Landholders' Constitution. As a fur- ther concession to those who at the timet were agitating a more radical program, the General Assembly, in February, 1842, after defeating a bill to grant suffrage "to all male citizens of lawful age, natives of the United States, resident two years in the state and six months in the town," adopted a statute as follows: "Whereas the good people of this state have elected dele- gates to a convention to form a constitution, which constitution, if ratified by the people, will be the supreme law of the state; therefore, be it enacted by the General Assembly as follows : All persons now qualified to vote, and those who may be qualified to vote under the existing laws previous to the time of such their voting, and all persons who shall be qualified to vote under the provisions of such constitution, shall be qualified to vote upon the question of the adoption of said constitution." The suffrage qualifications stated in the Landholders' Consti- tution would permit (I) all qualified freemen; (2) all native white adult male citizens of the United States resident in the state one year and in the town six months, holding real estate valued at $134; (3) all native white adult male citizens of the United States resident in the state two years and in the town six months, and (4) all naturalized white adult male citizens of the United States resident in the state three years and in the town six months to vote. The action of the General Assembly permitted these persons to vote also in the referendum on the question of ratification or rejection ; 16,072 persons did vote, or approximately twice as many
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.