Rhode Island : three centuries of democracy, Vol. II, Part 10

Author: Carroll, Charles, author
Publication date: 1932
Publisher: New York : Lewis historical Pub. Co.
Number of Pages: 716

USA > Rhode Island > Rhode Island : three centuries of democracy, Vol. II > Part 10

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).

655

IDEALS AND STATE POLITICS

Samuel P. Colt and Samuel Clark, candidates respectively for Lieutenant Governor, Secre- tary of State, Attorney General and General Treasurer. Sprague's associates were Ziba O. Slocum, Warren R. Pirce, Willard Sayles and James B. Cottrell. The second Democratic ticket included Charles R. Cutler, Horace A. Kimball, William J. Miller, Oscar Lapham and Thomas A. Reynolds; it met the fate usually awaiting bolting third parties, polling an aver- age of 650 votes in a total of 23,995. The vast majority of Democrats had voted for Sprague. They favored the revolution in state politics he was capable of achieving if elected. Governor Bourn increased his majority of 2141 to 6331 in the election of 1884, and George Peabody Wetmore, with Prohibition opposition, had little difficulty in defeating Ziba O. Slocum, Dem- ocrat, in 1885, and Amasa Sprague, Democrat, in 1886. The Democratic party was holding remarkably well, nevertheless; it was polling steadily year after year, close to 10,000 votes, and was maintaining strength in the General Assembly.

PROPOSED SUFFRAGE AMENDMENTS-Two amendments to the Constitution were proposed by the General Assembly at the January session, 1884. One forecasted the Bourn amend- ment, but differed in the detail of retaining the registry tax. It struck the adjective "native" from the qualifications for registry voters, but extended the limitation of the personal prop- erty qualification to all cities; theretofore this restriction had been limited to Providence.§ The other proposed constitutional prohibition. In the following year the prohibitory amend- ment, with slight technical change in form, was proposed again, and with it two other amend- ments, one extending suffrage to soldiers and sailors who were naturalized citizens and other- wise qualified, and the other extending suffrage to women on the same terms as men. The prohibitory amendment and the amendment extending suffrage for soldiers and sailors were approved in 1886, and ratified by the voters on April 7, 1886. The proposed woman suffrage amendment was referred to a joint special committee of the General Assembly in 1886; another resolution proposing a woman suffrage amendment was introduced and adopted. This was advanced in January, 1887, for reference to, and was rejected by, the voters, 21,957 against, 6889 for. The suffrage amendment of 1886 read as follows: "All soldiers and sailors of foreign birth, citizens of the United States, who served in the army and navy of the United States from this state, in the late Civil War, and who were honorably discharged from such service, shall have the right to vote in all questions in all legally organized town, district or ward meetings, upon the same conditions and under and subject to the same restrictions as native-born citizens." It was approved, 18,903 for, 1477 against. It became obsolete in 1888, with the adoption of the Bourn amendment.

The Bourn amendment, adopted April 4, 1888, approve 20,068, reject 12,193, enfran- chised adult male citizens of the United States, naturalized as well as native, resident in Rhode Island two years and in a town or city six months, who had registered before December 31 in the year preceding, but excluded such persons from voting on "any proposition to impose a tax or for the expenditure of money," and in the election of city councilmen, unless the per- son within the year next preceding paid a tax in the town or city of residence "assessed upon his property therein valued at least at $134." The registry tax was repealed; instead the assessors of taxes were directed to assess upon all persons eligible for suffrage a tax of one dollar annually or so much as with his other taxes would amount to one dollar. The statute submitting the amendment to the referendum required that the ballots cast in April be counted "after the first Tuesday in November, 1888, and before the third Tuesday," and that the Governor should "announce the result by proclamation, on or before the fourth Tuesday in November, 1888." The effect of the counting provision was to postpone the operation of the amendment until after the popular vote for presidential electors and Congressmen in Novem-

§In re Newport Charter, 14 R. I. 655.

656

RHODE ISLAND-THREE CENTURIES OF DEMOCRACY

ber, 1888; but the amendment might affect the electorate in by-elections necessitated by the operation of the majority election statutes. The late counting also placed the determination of the result in a period between the May and the January sessions of the General Assembly, giving the Assembly no opportunity, unless a special session were called, to adopt legislation that might be desirable, if not indeed necessary, to carry the amendment completely into effect.

Such questions as these were suggested: "Was registration under the statutes previous to November 16, 1888, the date of the Governor's proclamation, valid for purposes of the amendment, or must all registrations be made anew? No new registration legislation having been enacted, how could registration be accomplished under the amendment?" Governor Taft asked the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion on these questions: "I. Does the recent constitutional amendment repeal 'the registry act?'" "2. Is there any officer or class of officers now authorized to receive the registry of persons entitled to register . .? "

Will the persons that have registered this year or who shall register . . . be legally registered, or will they be obliged to register anew?" "4. Will persons taxed on personal prop- erty .... be entitled to vote?" Four justices of the court, Justice Wilbur being absent, agreed in advising* (I) that as the court had already held that a statute may be constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part,t the test being whether they are so interwoven and inter- . dependent that they can stand only as a whole or whether they are capable of separation, and as the registry sections of the election law in the Public Statutes "are so distinct and independ- ent that they may stand and be administered without in any way conflicting with the consti- tution as amended," registration under the prevailing laws was valid both before and after the amendment, and that town clerks might continue to register voters. On the fourth ques- tion the court ruled that the amendment did not change the status of persons who paid a tax amounting to one dollar which had been assessed on $134 of personal property. In the event that the tax did not amount to one dollar, however, the person must register ; in the event that the tax amounted to one dollar, but the property taxed were valued at less than $134, the per- son continued as registered but not eligible to vote on the property list. Another decision might have invalidated all registrations in 1888 for 1889, unless the General Assembly were called in special session and made provision for new registration in December, 1888.

In a later advisory opinion,§ 1890, the court ruled that the names of persons taxed for personal property, removed from the property list for failure to pay the taxes, are to be placed on the registry list.

Suffrage qualifications, as adjusted by the Bourn amendment, were destined to remain unchanged for forty years. The restriction upon complete suffrage in the proviso of the Bourn amendment placed the control of city councils in the hands of taxpayers, and continued to exclude all but taxpayers from participation in financial town meetings. As applied to Newport, Pawtucket and Woonsocket it excluded from voting for city councilmen native cit- izens who did not qualify by owning real estate or by paying taxes on personal property, thus depriving many of suffrage already enjoyed. The amendment of 1928 abolished this restric- tion in all cities, including Providence, Central Falls and Cranston in which none but tax- payers had participated in city council elections. The term "property qualification," which under the Charter and Constitution to 1888 had meant, as the term was commonly used, qual- ification by ownership of land, after 1888 was applied with reference to restriction of complete suffrage to land owners and taxpayers. The Bourn amendment enfranchised naturalized cit- izens not landowners for participation in the choice of presidential electors, Congressmen,

*In re the Constitutional Amendment, 16 R. I. 754.

+State vs. Clark, 15 R. I. 383.

#State vs. Tonks, 15 R. I. 385.

§In re the Canvassers' Power, 17 R. I. 809.

657

IDEALS AND STATE POLITICS

general state officers, members of the General Assembly, mayors and other city officers chosen by popular ballot, and members of town councils and officers chosen by ballot in towns.

The prohibitory amendment of 1886 was annuled by a repealing amendment adopted June 20, 1889; and, in 1892, the General Assembly, by constitutional amendment, was author- ized to "provide by general law for the creation and control of corporations," with the excep- tion that no corporation could be created with power to exercise the right of eminent domain or to acquire franchises in streets and highways of towns and cities except by special act of the General Assembly, upon petition and with notice. At the same time that they approved the "corporations" amendment, the electors rejected an amendment providing for biennial elec- tions, 18,749 approve, 13,907 reject. The majority of 4842 for biennial election was 2000 short of the majority required to make sixty per cent., and thus biennial elections were post- poned for twenty years.

MAJORITY AND PLURALITY ELECTIONS -- Three times under the Charter, in 1806, 1832 and 1839, the election of Governor by popular majority failed. In 1806, the Lieutenant Gov- ernor served as Governor; in 1832, after five failures to elect Governor, Lieutenant Governor and Senators, officers holding over were continued in office; in 1839-1840, there having been no popular majority for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, Samuel Ward King, first Sen- ator, acted as Governor. Under the Constitution, except in 1846, when the General Assembly chose Byron Diman, there was no failure of a popular majority for Governor until 1875. In that year and the following year and again in 1880, the Republican disagreement on prohi- bition so split the party at the polls as to prevent the achievement of a majority for the party candidate for Governor, and thus threw the election into the grand committee of the General Assembly. The House of Representatives in 1887 requested an advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on the legality and constitutionality of election by plurality instead of major- ity, in view of the provision in the tenth section of Article VIII of the Constitution, which provided : "In all elections held by the people under this Constitution a majority of all the elec- tors voting shall be necessary to the election of the persons voted for." Specifically the court was asked to answer four questions, substantially as follows: "May a plurality of the electors voting elect lawfully and constitutionally (1) a member of Congress, (2) a presidential elector, (3) a member of the city council of Providence, (4) any civil officer in the election held by the people?" The court advised :* I. That the office of Representative in Congress is created by the Constitution of the United States, and that the manner of election is left by the Constitution to the state legislature, which may provide for plurality election. Under the Rhode Island practice in 1887 election by plurality might follow failure to elect by majority in the first election. 2. That the appointment of presidential electors under the Constitution of the United States is "in such manner as the legislature .... may direct," and that the practice of plurality election in use since 1798, was constitutional. 3 and 4. "It is unques- tionably competent for the General Assembly to determine that the officers elected by the people to fill the various offices in the state shall be elected by a plurality, unless the Consti- tution contain some provision which makes a majority necessary." The court construed the language of section 10 of article VIII, "under this Constitution," as applying only to the officers mentioned in the article VIII, that is, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General and General Treasurer, holding that the General Assembly might by law provide for plurality election of all other officers. Nothing was done, however; the Gen- eral Assembly did not amend the statutes requiring majority elections.

The question raised in 1887 in connection with the election of a congressman was sug- gested again in 1889, 1890 and 1891 by failure of the people to elect Governor and other gen-

*In re the Plurality Elections, 15 R. I. 617.

R. I .- 42

658

RHODE ISLAND -- THREE CENTURIES OF DEMOCRACY

eral officers by majority vote; in 1893 the election machinery was close to utter failure, with the Secretary of State alone of general officers elected on the face of unofficial returns, and the control of the grand committee and of both branches of the General Assembly left unset- tled in the first balloting. The crisis had cast its shadow before it; Rhode Island, always intensely political, was never more so than from 1888 to 1894. The strength of the Democratic party in state elections from 1883 to 1886, inclusive, in which years, in spite of annual defeat, the consistent polling of 10,000 votes was maintained, has been noted; the election of 1886 witnessed the polling of the largest popular vote cast in Rhode Island up to that time. In the same election the people voted for two amendments to the Constitution-prohibition and votes for soldiers and sailors. Governor Wetmore, as a candidate for reelection, polled a larger vote in 1887 than in the two earlier elections, in which he had won easily, but was beaten in 1887 by John W. Davis, Democrat, whose vote of 18,095 was the largest cast for Governor up to that date. It is altogether improbable that all soldiers and sailors enfranchised by the constitutional amendment of 1886 voted for Honest John Davis, as he was affectionately known by Democrats; yet the increase of 8000 in the Democratic vote corresponded almost exactly with the increase of 8000 in the total vote for Governor in the election of 1887 over 1886.

DEMOCRATIC VICTORY IN 1887-With Governor Davis the Democrats elected Ziba O. Slocum as Attorney General and John G. Perry as General Treasurer. In grand committee the General Assembly elected Edwin D. McGuinness, Democrat, as Secretary of State, and Samuel R. Honey, Democrat, as Lieutenant Governor. The Democrats organized the House of Representatives with Charles E. Gorman as Speaker. Other causes than the extension of suffrage contributed to the Republican defeat. George W. Danielson died in March, 1884, and Senator Henry B. Anthony, in September of the same year. George W. Danielson is one of a few citizens other than state officeholders or members of the Assembly to whose funeral the General Assembly sent a delegation. Danielson and Anthony had been editors of the "Providence Journal," and had supported the party so consistently that the "Journal" had been recognized as the party organ. After a short interregnum Richard S. Howland became managing editor and treasurer of the newly organized Journal Company, and Alfred M. Williams the chief editorial writer. On June 3, 1885, the "Journal," editorially, announced that it was still Republican, but independent. Under the new administration it became con- stantly more independent than Republican, assuming with reference to economic issues a posi- tion that deviated emphatically from high protection, and in state politics an attitude that was critical of Republican as well as of Democratic errors. The Republican party in Rhode Island never needed a strong newspaper apologist so seriously as in the ten years from 1885; yet the sturdy support that had been given unstintedly and without question in such crises as the campaign of 1883 with William Sprague challenging, had been withdrawn.

MAY DEAL OF 1886-The "May deal," so-called, of 1886, was another cause contributing to Republican defeat in 1887. The General Assembly, following approval of the prohibitory amendment, elected General Charles R. Brayton as Chief of State Police under the new bone- dry prohibition law; and also created a system of district courts to replace the old town jus- tice courts. For the twelve courts thus erected the General Assembly elected twelve judges and six clerks, with an annual salary schedule of $21,000. Long perspective has softened the popular judgment of the May deal. The creation of a system of district courts had been rec- ommended by Governor Bourn in his annual messages to the General Assembly in 1884 and 1885. Ultimately the organization was justified by its superiority over the justice courts theretofore existing, although in 1886 there might be a question as to the need for twelve district courts, and there had been partisanship in the election of judges and clerks. Five of the new judges were members of the General Assembly, who helped to elect themselves to

659

IDEALS AND STATE POLITICS

office; and the others judges and the clerks were not hostile, certainly, to the Republican organization. The Democratic party had been encouraged also by the success of the national Democratic party in electing Grover Cleveland as President in 1884, and as an organization had been strengthened by the distribution of federal patronage. It was supported also by a faction vigorously opposed to prohibition.

REPUBLICANS RETURN TO POWER-The Republican party returned to power in 1888, electing Royal C. Taft as Governor by 1833 majority. Governor Davis had lost 500 votes ; Governor Taft polled 5500 more than Wetmore in 1887; the total vote had been increased nearly 4500. The "Journal's" comment on the election was this: "The contest would have been decided honestly by both parties, except for the fear of corruption by the other. But there is a purchasable and corrupt element in the state, which has existed for many years, sufficient to decide the elections, and both parties attempted to gain it. The Republicans had the most money and were successful." The answer of the Republican party was the formal reading of the "Journal" out of the party, at the state convention of May 3, 1888. The "Jour- nal" announced the anticipated ceremony, thus: "It is understood that one of the solemn functions of the Republican convention today .... will be the reading of the 'Journal' out of the party with the ceremonies of the major excommunication and quenching the candles upon it. In itself this may be regarded as somewhat of a work of supererogation, but the performance will undoubtedly be of considerable thaumaturgic interest." The convention adopted resolutions presented by Rathbone Gardner, as follows: "We deem it expedient at this time to put on record the fact that the newspapers published by the Providence Journal Company have long since ceased to represent the Republican party in this state. They have factiously opposed wise and well considered acts of legislation which were devised in the councils of the party and have been approved by the consent of the people. They have wan- tonly misrepresented the acts and motives of honorable gentlemen by whom those laws have been conscientiously and laboriously framed, enacted and administered. They have recklessly and without justification or excuse charged upon the party a selfish and corrupt use of the elec- tive franchise and of the legislative vote; they have falsely and maliciously traduced the good name of the state; they have betrayed the party which they professed to support, and they have forfeited all claim to public confidence." The "Journal" confessed and avoided, thus : "This is a formidable list of crimes, and the worst of it is that they are all true. They com- pletely disqualify the 'Journal' from being considered an organ of the Republican party. They deprive it of all standing in party conventions, all weight in party counsels, and all official recognition of any name and nature. So much must be admitted and endured by the 'Journal' with such suffering and humiliation as belong thereto. Nevertheless, despised and cut off from party fellowship as it is, there are certain rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States under the general terms of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,'§ among which is the privilege which the 'Journal' will claim of supporting Republican candidates when it believes them entitled to the suffrage of honest and intelligent citizens, and advocating Republican principles when it believes them calculated to subserve the interests of the coun- try, incidentally telling the truth as it sees it at all times and courting the good will of no party or individual to whom the truth is offensive or honest criticism objectionable." Governor Taft had been elected in 1888 before the "excommunication" of the "Journal"; he was the last Republican to poll even a plurality of the votes cast in annual election of Governor until 1892. Honest John Davis, Democrat, polled a plurality, but not a majority, of the votes cast for Governor.

BALLOT REFORM-The poll of 1889 was 3500 greater than that for 1888. The postpone- ment of counting the votes and proclaiming the Bourn amendment had limited new registra-

§Not mentioned in Constitution, see Declaration of Independence.

660

RHODE ISLAND-THREE CENTURIES OF DEMOCRACY

tion to the month of December, practically. The increase of 15,000 in 1892 over 1888, both presidential election years, is probably a more accurate measure of the effect of the Bourn amendment. The General Assembly in January, 1889, enacted for state elections an Aus- tralian type of secret ballot law to replace the older type of secret ballot in envelopes .* The new statute required the furnishing of printed ballots by the Secretary of State, and the filing with him, in ample time for printing, of lists of candidates. Candidates for particular offices were to be grouped and listed alphabetically, with addresses and party designations for iden- tification. The elector might indicate his preference for one candidate in each group by plac- ing a cross to the right of a name .; Identifying marks made by the elector on his ballot invalidated it. The same type of ballot law, applicable to city elections, was enacted at a spe- cial session of the General Assembly in June, 1890, called by Governor Davis; and in 1891 was extended to town elections.

The need for an effective secret ballot law had become definite with the charges of bribery and corruption following elections. The envelope law might be made effective by the elector if he saw fit to prepare his own ballot and seal it in the envelope provided at the polls ; but it was possible also under the envelope law to place a ballot in the hands of an elector and watch him place that identical ballot in an envelope and in the box. The use of envelopes would insure also single voting and guard against stuffing such as was revealed in one instance, in which wads of ballots printed on thin paper and folded together were found in the ballot box.± The effect of placing an identifying mark upon a ballot of the Australian type was to invalidate the ballot. The secrecy of this ballot might be avoided corruptly by claim of illiteracy and request for assistance of a supervisor .** The charge was made frequently in the period that, though votes were seldom bought, instead the elector sometimes was paid a price for refrain- ing from voting. The author on one election night after the closing of the polls witnessed the distribution of money to electors who had not voted. The Rhode Island secret ballot in its original form imposed a difficult task upon the elector; the number of ballots rejected as defective was large in proportion to the total number cast, and in one instance affected the result of the election of a candidate for the General Assembly, and ultimately the composition of the grand committee that might elect a Governor.§

For Governor, John W. Davis polled 4500 votes more than Herbert W. Ladd, his nearest competitor, in 1889, but failed to attain a majority because 4800 ballots were cast for candi- dates nominated under the party designations "Law Enforcement" and "Prohibition." The "Law Enforcement" group had combined as a protest against failure to enforce constitutional prohibition ; it ceased to be a party with the annulment of the prohibitory amendment accom- plished in the same election. Ziba O. Slocum, Democrat, was elected Attorney General by the people. Other Democratic candidates, like ex-Governor Davis, received pluralities but failed of majorities. The Democrats controlled the House of Representatives and elected Augustus S. Miller as Speaker. But the Republicans controlled the Senate, and the grand committee.

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.

Rhode Island : three centuries of democracy, Vol. II, Part 10

Author: Carroll, Charles, author Publication date: 1932 Publisher: New York : Lewis historical Pub. Co. Number of Pages: 716

Author: Carroll, Charles, author
Publication date: 1932
Publisher: New York : Lewis historical Pub. Co.
Number of Pages: 716