USA > Rhode Island > Providence County > Providence > State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations at the end of the century : a history, Volume 1 > Part 28
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
.
The opposition created was certainly notable. David Howell, pro-
1The general subject of R. I.'s attitude upon the constitutional questions from 1781 to 1790 has been treated in documentary form in Staples's R. I. in the Continental Congress, and as a historical monograph in Bates, R. I. and the Formation of the Union. See also the bibliography at the close of the last volume of this work.
2Prov. Gazette, Jan. 26, 1782.
250
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
fessor of philosophy at Brown University and a rising Providenee lawyer, immediately answered with a series of letters abounding in local arguments and strongly illustrative of the states rights doetrine. Varnum had admitted that there was no express power in the Articles of Confederation to lay this impost, but said that there were "certain inherent latent powers in the supreme sovereignty which cannot be reduced to certain rules". The attributes of sovereignty angered Howell and he replied, "Why, for God's sake, are the powers of sov- ereignty said to be inherent, when they are the result only of compact and express stipulation ? And why are they said to be latent or to lie hid, and as it were in ambush for the subjeet, and ready to pop out upon every oceasion for his destruction ?" While not denying that the national government needed the additional revenue of im- port duties, he elaimed that the right of eolleeting them should reside in the separate states. "Although it is my opinion", he said, "that it is against the welfare of any eommereial state to elog and embarrass trade with any restrictions or duties what- ever, yet I most earnestly eontend, that if they are absolutely necessary and unavoidable in our circumstances, which wants proof, it is the best policy of this state, and a matter of our absolute and expressly stipulated right, to lay them on, eolleet and dispose of them, in our own way, and solely for our own benefit and advantage".1
The Rhode Island assembly, in the meanwhile, although reproached by Varnum for not complying with the proposal of Congress, had steadily refused to diseuss the matter. But now, foreed by the eon- currence of most of the other states to take one ground or another, she adopted views such as Howell had expressed, and heneeforth acted with the greatest of eonsistence. In the election of May, 1782, Varnum was retired from his position and a new set of delegates eleeted, among whom was the champion of the impost opposition, David Howell. From the moment of his arrival began liis controversy with the other members of Congress as to the merits, advisability, and eonstitu- tionality of the impost act. On October 10, 1782, Congress resolved to eall upon Rhode Island and Georgia for their immediate and definite answer to the proposal. Howell and his associate wrote home : "Con- gress has demanded of you an immediate answer, in regard to the impost. Should it be brought on whilst the least doubt remains in regard to its propriety, it will be safest to rejeet it. To adopt it
1Prov. Gazette, Mar. 30, 1782. Varnum's articles over the signature of "A Citizen", and those of Howell over the signature of "A Farmer", are in the various issues of the Providence Gazette from March 2 to May 18, 1782.
251
THE STRUGGLE FOR THE CONSTITUTION.
partially and on condition, as some states have done, would discover an aversion to the measure mixed with fear of declaring real sentiments. It can afterwards be adopted should evidence preponderate in its favor; but should it once be adopted, the fatal die is cast-it is to us irrevocable". The measure came before the lower house of the assem- bly on November 1, and was unanimously rejected, the following reasons being assigned :
"First, because it would be unequal in its operation, bearing hardest upon the commercial states, and so would press peculiarly hard on this state, which draws its chief support from commerce.
"Secondly, because it proposes to introduce into this and the other states, officers unknown and unaccountable to them, and so is against the constitution of this state.
"Thirdly, because by granting to Congress power to collect moneys from the commerce of these states, indefinitely as to time and quantity, for the expenditure of which they are not to be accountable to the states, they would become independent of their constituents, and so the proposed impost is repugnant to the liberty of the United States."1
This action of Rhode Island effectually defeated the impost. Bitter enmity was occasioned in Congress against Howell for his part in the proceedings. The attempts to defame his character and to injure his influence at home, as his colleague asserted, "would have swerved from his purpose any one not endowed with an uncommon share of firm- ness". But these attacks were all in vain, and the Rhode Island assembly officially expressed their approval of his action.
In this matter of the proposed impost, Rhode Island was not so much alone as her detractors were fond of asserting. Few of the states were unanimous in their approval of the measure. Georgia never acted upon it, and Virginia directly repealed her grant. A writer in a Philadelphia paper asserted that "The State of Rhode Island deserves to be hailed as the saviour of the liberties of America, and I yet hope that many of the other states who have unguardedly complied with this ill-judged recommendation of Congress, will, before it is too late, repeal the acts that have been passed to vest them with the power of levying an impost, as unequal in its operation as it is dangerous and impolitic in its consequences".2 Whatever may be said on the score of advisability or public necessity, so far as principle was concerned, Rhode Island was doubtless actuated by just and conscientious motives.3 She fully believed that the proposed scheme
1Staples's R. I. in the Continental Congress, p. 394, 398, 400.
2Prov. Gazette, Dec. 28, 1782.
3F. G. Bates, in his admirable monograph on R. I. and the Im-
252
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
was in violation of the Articles of Confederation and an infringement upon her rights as a separate state. In arguing that the impost would raise prices in neighboring states, she evidently overrated its effect; but the constant struggle which she had had to preserve her territory from outside aggression, combined with the isolation and waywardness of her carly history, were causes productive of greater jealousy of centralized power within her borders than in any other colony. She had taken her share in the Revolution, not because she desired to be one of a great confederacy, but because she felt compelled to resist British commercial oppression, not for the sake of colonial union, but for the preservation of her rights. In view of her past experience she was most chary of sharing any of her own inherent and established privileges with her neighbors.
But the tremendous debt with which the country was burdened, and the need of a stable revenue, caused Congress in 1783 to make another proposition for impost duties, somewhat modificd, in that it was limited in its duration and was to be collected by state appointed officers. This plan was steadfastly opposed by the Rhode Island delegates, and was rejected by the assembly in June, 1784. Events in the commercial world, however, were occurring to cause a weakening in their opposi- tion. In July, 1783, Parliament had restricted the trade between the British West Indies and America to British ships. The great quan- titles of English goods flooding the country and underselling domes- tic manufactures was drawing specie out of the country, while "the American merchant who took his goods to England to sell for specie was met by a heavy tariff".1 The commercial party, thrown into consternation by these restrictions upon trade, realized that some retaliatory measure must be quickly taken. Though opposed to the previous propositions for imposts, they now were more willing that Congress should have the power of regulating import duties. So far had this feeling progressed that by two acts in 1785 the Rhode Island assembly granted to Congress the power to regulate foreign importa- tion and also the interstate trade. In February, 1786, through the evident exertions of the mercantile class, the impost law was passed, granting to Congress the power to levy and collect, under stated
post of 1781 (Am. Hist. Assoc. Rept. for 1894, p. 351, and later embodied in his R. I. and the Formation of the Union), says that her "motives may be reduced to three: (1) A misunderstanding of the effects of an impost duty. (2) Anxiety respecting the disposal of western lands. (3) A jealousy of yielding to an outside authority any power over her internal affairs."
1Bates, R. I. and the Formation of the Union, p. 101.
253
THE STRUGGLE FOR THE CONSTITUTION.
limitations and conditions, certain duties on goods imported from foreign ports.1
The reflection of a few years, the realization that such a general matter as trade regulation must be governed by united action, and a greater confidence in the other states, had brought about a gradual change in Rhode Island. The constant discussion of subjects of a federal nature had given rise to differing parties-one favoring a closer union of the states, and the other opposing this idea. The commercial class, as has been shown, for various reasons desired a more centralized government. The agricultural class, partly from their inextinguishable antipathy against the merchants and partly from economic interests, desired no closer form of union than the confederated government under which they were then living. As in the earlier political controversy of a quarter of a century before, town and country became arrayed against each other, and local as well as national issues became hopelessly involved in the conflict.
The steady rise of the mercantile class in power and wealth, and the apparent tendency of yielding to Congress in all federal matters, created an opposition in the agricultural class that was to manifest itself in a manner disgraceful to the state and productive of discord and misery among the inhabitants. Economic motives combined with political causes to bring this manifestation closer to the minds of the people. Rhode Island, in common with the other colonies, had emerged from the Revolution burdened with a tremendous debt. Both the Continental and the colony currency had greatly depreciated, specie was being drained out of the country, and the debtor class was rapidly increasing. The farmers, who had incurred most of the debt in their dealings with the merchants, felt the pressure first. Laboring under taxes and debts which they could not pay, and expecting little relief from a Congress which their political creed bade them to entrust with as little power as possible, they came to the conclusion that paper money was the only solution of the difficulty.
It was a terribly mistaken notion. But it must not be inferred that Rhode Island was alone in this matter. In New Hampshire and Massachusetts discontent over financial conditions brought on mob violence, culminating in the latter state in the famous Shays rebellion of 1786. In the end only four of the thirteen States escaped the paper money craze.
1The action of the assembly is in R. I. C. R. x, 90, 130, and in the printed schedules for February, 1786, p. 37. Power over exports as well as imports was granted to Congress in March, 1786. (R. I. C. R. x, 180.)
254
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
In February, 1785, a petition praying for an issue of paper money was handed into the general assembly, but was rejected by a large majority. This defeat only nerved its advocates to renewed effort. During the ensuing year they. increased their strength, adding to their ranks many of the anti-federalist faction. The complexion of the lower house gradually took on a paper money hue, and several towns expressly instructed their delegates to favor such issues. Warnings and remonstrances against such plans were not wanting. Both Provi- dence and Newport, where the merchants realized that a depreciated currency would mean the decay of commerce and business, urged that the credit of the state should not be destroyed.1 Their arguments availed for the time being, and the motion to issue paper money, introduced in the assembly in March, 1786, was defeated. The act granting to Congress the control of the imports was also passed at this session. This act, together with the growing financial discontent, created a powerful opposition. In the election of May, 1786, the party in power was completely overthrown. Governor Greene was displaced by John Collins, Deputy-Governor Bowen by Daniel Owen and over half of the assembly suffered a change.
The paper money party now in power lost no time in putting their principles in force. In May, 1786, the assembly passed an act emitting £100,000, to be loaned out on mortgage at four per cent. interest for seven years, to be paid within that period in seven annual installments. The act directed that these bills should be considered legal tender and should pass in all business transactions and contraets at par with specie. Most extraordinary measures were taken to insure its reception. If a.creditor refused to receive the paper, the debtor could deposit the amount with the judge of the county court, who was to issue a citation for the creditor to appear and take the money. If the creditor did not appear within ten days, the debt was declared cancelled. In the following month another forcing act was passed, subjecting those who refused to receive the bills the same as specie to a fine of £100 and to the loss of franchise.2 These arbitrary measures aroused great opposition.
Providence, Newport, Westerly and Bristol strenuously opposed the
'The town instructions to delegates are in Papers relating to the Adoption of the Constitution, no 47-63, a MS. volume in the state archives. The Provi- dence and Newport remonstrances are in the Prov. Gazette, Mar. 4, 1786, and R. I. H. S. MSS. iii, 110. See also Bates, R. I. and the Formation of the Union, p. 120.
2The act is in the printed schedule for May, 1786, p. 13, and the additional clause in that for June, 1786, p. 8.
1
WASHINGTON SQUARE, NEWPORT, IN 1818, FROM AN OLD PAINTING.
256
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
act at its pasage. The Providence deputies entered a formal protest, asserting that the paper money would not be accepted in the other states, which would accordingly withhold supplies, that the bill was a stretch of power inconsistent with justice, and that it was "calculated only to accommodate certain persons, who, being deeply in debt, have now promoted this measure to serve their own private purposes". John Brown, the Providence merchant, writing just before the passage of the penalty act, said that the farmers generally refused to take the bills of credit in exchange for produce, and that in order to escape from the coming arbitrary order, "some are packing up their goods to carry out of the state, others to secure them, and some propose shutting up their stores."1
The situation became critical almost immediately. The townspeople refused to sell their merchandise for the paper, and in retaliation the farmers withheld their produce. Great enmity between the two classes was engendered. The paper money assembly met in special session in August, 1786, and passed further high-handed acts enforc- ing the circulation of the bills. They deprived of jury trial any one who was brought before the court charged with refusing the paper, and also ordered that the bills should be made a tender in payment of United States taxes. Thirteen members of the lower house dissented from the act on the ground that it was in violation of the Articles of Confederation, that through taking away the privilege of jury trial it was an invasion of civil and constitutional rights, and that it was "destructive of credit, on which commerce depends, and will involve a useful part of the community, the tradesmen and the mechanics, who rely on trade and commerce for their subsistence, in ruin; and will inevitably lessen the value of real estates; and in the end will involve the farmer in poverty and misery".2
The progress of the paper money party had about reached its height. The scenes that ensued during the next few months were amusing as well as extraordinary. A debtor would obtain a loan of some of this paper, and then start forth in search of those whom he owed. The hapless creditor, after he had dodged his pursuer several times, would pick up his weekly paper, and find that his debtor had deposited with some county judge the whole amount of his debt in these worthless bills. A crisis was bound to arrive. It was through the agency of the highest court in the state that measures were taken leading to a
1Prov. Gazette, May 13, July 13, July 8, 1786.
2The act is in R. I. C. R. x, 212, and the protest, which was rejected, in the Prov. Gazette, Sept. 2, 1786.
257
THE STRUGGLE FOR THE CONSTITUTION.
repression of these disgraceful conditions. A certain John Trevett had brought a charge against John Wecden, a Newport butcher, for refusing to take paper money at par withi specie. The case came before the Superior Court in September, 1786. Weeden, through his counsel, General Varnum and Henry Marchant, pleaded that the court should not take cognizance of Trevett's complaint for the fol- lowing reasons : "Because it appears by the act of the General Assem- bly, whereon said information is founded, that the said act hath expired, and hath no force: Also for that by the said act the matters of complaint are made triable before special courts, incontrollable by the supreme judiciary court of the state : and also that the court is not, by said act, authorized and empowered to empanel a jury to try the facts charged in the information : and so the same is unconstitutional and void."
Varnum made the chief plea for the defendant in a speech that was, to quote the newspapers of the day, "learned, accurate, judicious and masterly". He stated that the wording of the penalty act gave the possible construction that the penalties prescribed were to be valid for only ten days, and therefore the act, through expiration, was not cognizable by the present court. He asserted that the legislature, by allowing paper money cases to come before lower courts without trial and without appeal to the Superior Court, had subverted the constitu- tion. "If Courts existed uncontrollable by the Supreme Judiciary, then there was an end to constitutional liberty." Trial by jury, he said, was a birthright that could be alienated only by a change in the constitution. He closed his speech of nearly three hours' duration with an argument clearly showing the distinction between the legis- lative and judicial power, and pleading for the independence of the latter. The Court rendered its decision "that the information was not cognizable before them". Judge Howell declared the penalty laws to be unconstitutional, Judge Tillinghast found the absence of jury trial "repugnant", and Judge Hazard, although a prominent member of the paper money party, also voted against taking cogni- zance. Paul Mumford, the chief justice, declared the judgment of the Court, without having to give his opinion.1
1The documentary sources for the Trevett-Weeden case are in Varnum's pamphlet, The Case Trevett against Weeden; R. I. Acts and Resolves, Oct., 2d session, 1786, p. 5; the Prov. Gazette for September 30, Oct. 7, 1786; the U. S. Chronicle Oct. 5, 1786; and the Newport Mercury for Oct. 2, 1786. Modern constitutional treatment is in Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, p. 194, Coxe's Essay on judicial powers and unconstitutional legislation, p. 234. See also Book Notes, vi, 42, xi, 62, where the editor clearly shows that the Court
17-1
258
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
The Court's decision was received by the towns with joy and congratulation. The dread of penalties and informations was dis- pelled. Shops were opened and markets supplied with provisions. The paper currency obtained a more extensive eirculation, sinee every one found himself at liberty to receive or refuse it. The legislature, however, angered by the refusal of the Court to support their arbitrary aets, summoned the justices before them. Led by David Howell, three of the justices appeared at the session of October, 1786, to answer for their conduct. They lost no time in telling the assembly that the penal aets were despotic and uneonstitutional, and that as the Supreme Judiciary of the state they were not accountable to the legislature, or any other body on earth, for their judgments. The assembly, although angry enough to remove them from offiee, could find no ground for impeachment and therefore discharged them from further attendanee.1 The penalties laws through the judicial decision had become a "dead letter", and in faet were repealed at the Deeember session. Defeated in its attempt to assume domination over the courts, the legislature now proceeded to make the paper eurreney as useful as possible. They passed an aet ordering that one-fourth of all debts against the state should be paid in paper. If ereditors refused to aceept this, that part of the debt was immediately cancelled.2 This law which practically defrauded the ereditors of the state of one-fourth of their due showed more than any previous aets the dishonest motives of the promoters of this scheme. Even more despotie were eertain measures passed in the session of March, 1787, such as the removal of the postmaster at Newport for some alleged insult to the Governor, the repealing of the Newport city eharter, and the refusal to aid Massachusetts in her attempt to arrest eertain leaders in the Shays Rebellion who had fled to Rhode Island.
Thus elosed perhaps the most disgraceful politieal year in Rhode Island's annals. The party in power had overriden the constitution, violated the natural rights of the people, destroyed trade and industry, and brought disgrace upon the whole state. The townspeople, unable to stem the tide, oeeasionally ejaeulated their disgust of proceedings in
did not declare the action of the assembly unconstitutional, but merely assert- ed its non-jurisdiction over the case.
1See R. I. C. R. x, 220; Varnum's Trevett vs. Weeden; Prov. Gazette, Nov. 11, 1786; and U. S. Chronicle, Nov. 9, 1786. See also a pamphlet by John Winslow, The Trial of the R. I. Judges.
2This repudiation was completed in March, 1789, by an act requiring all outstanding notes against the state not already forfeited by various acts passed in 1788 to be presented within two months for redemption in paper currency.
259
THE STRUGGLE FOR THE CONSTITUTION.
the public print. One signing himself "A Friend to Mankind", wrote in the Providence Gazette that the assembly, predetermined against the voice of reason, "still persisted in their determination, of forcing their favorite coin down the throats of those who are not willing to receive it in payment for property, when the value is not equal to more than an eighth. Strange infatuation! and how much more in- credible, when the very men who have ever argued and voted for such an unjust measure actually discharged their tavern-expenses, at the close of their last session at Little Rest, at the rate of eight for one !"1 The situation was indeed critical. The character of the state was assailed in the newspapers and magazines throughout the whole country. A contributor to the Connecticut Magazine expressed his feelings on the subject by the following pocm, which he entitled "The Anarchiad":
"Hail, realm of rogues, renown'd for fraud and guile, All hail, ye knav'ries of yon little isle; There prowls the rascal clothed with legal power, To snare the orphan and the poor devour; The crafty knave his creditor besets, And advertising paper pays his debts; Bankrupts their creditors with rage pursue, No stop-no mercy from the debtor crew. Armed with new tests, the licensed villain bold Presents his bills and robs them of their gold; New paper struck, new tests, new tenders made, Insult mankind, and help the thriving trade. Each weekly print new list of cheats proclaims, Proud to enroll their knav'ries and their names; The wiser race, the snares of law to shun, Like Lot from Sodom, from Rhode Island run".2
Such views as have been given were not always the carpings of jealous and prejudiced critics, but often came from disinterested and impartial observers. The learned Frenchman, Brissot de Warville, who travelled through America in 1788, visited Rhode Island in October of that year. The description he leaves to us is anything but complimentary and clearly shows the evil effects of the previous two years' administration. "The silence which reigns in other American
1Prov. Gazette, March 31, 1787.
2Prov. Gazette, April 14, 1787. For similar views, see Pres. Manning's letters in Guild, Brown University and Manning; Amer. Museum, i, 290, iv, 320; Gilpin, Writings of Madison, i, 286, and ii, 629, and the writings of nearly all the prominent federalists of the day. Rhode Island's own delegates wrote: "We need not inform you how it wounds our feelings to hear and see the proceedings of our legislature burlesqued and ridiculed, and to find that congress and all men of sober reflection, reprobate in the strongest terms the principles which actuate our administration of government". (Staples, R. I. in the Continental Congress, p. 566.)
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.