Page images
PDF
EPUB

THE STRUGGLE IN RHODE ISLAND; TREVETT VS. WEEDEN. 363

time business was at an end,* Providence and Newport indeed presenting a doleful appearance. The farmers thereupon retaliated by refusing to sell anything to the merchants or shopkeepers, hoping to starve the city people into submission;t street fights became daily occurrences; and finally food became so scarce in the large towns that prices soared and great distress followed. The farmers persuaded the Legislature to pass a new forcing act, whereupon the merchants determined to test the legality of the acts in court. The case was Trevett vs. Weeden. sides were represented by eminent legal talent, and the debate was warm and conducted with great animosity. The court decided that the odious act was unconstitutional§ but the paper men called a special session of the Legislature, which, after sharply reprimanding the

Both

* Bates, p. 127; Fiske, Critical Period of American History, pp. 172-175.

Bates, p. 127; Fiske, p. 175.

‡ McMaster, United States, vol. i., pp. 333–335. Acts and Resolves of the General Assembly [MS] 1786–1787, 59, August 25, 1786. One clause of the act provided that, if a creditor should refuse to take payment of debts in paper at par, the debtor might carry his rag money to court and deposit it with the judge, who must thereupon issue a certificate discharging the debt. The form of these certificates began with the words "Know Ye," and from that time the State was called Rogue's Island, the home of Know Ye men and Know Ye measures. Fiske, p. 177.

§ Bates, pp. 131-134; Brinton Coxe, An Essay on Judicial Power and Unconstitutional Legislation, pp. 234-248. See also James B. Thayer, Cases on Constitutional Law, vol. i., pp. 73-78; James M. Varnum, The Case, Trevett against Weeden (1787).

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

judges,* took under consideration an iron-clad Test Oath as a means of enforcing their mandates regarding money. This consisted of an oath to support the paper bank and to take the paper money at par, and a long list of penalties was provided for those who declined to subscribe to the oath. Until they had taken the oath, declaring paper to be as good as gold, ship captains could neither leave nor enter port, lawyers could not practice, men could not vote, members of the Legislature could not take their seats, nor politicians run for office. But when this proposition was placed before the people even some of the advocates of paper rebelled and everywhere the oath was denounced in strong terms. Only three towns - North Kingston, Scituate and Foster-approved the measure, and in November the Test Oath was thrown out by an overwhelming majority. At the same time four of the judges were dismissed, the forcing acts were repealed, and paper went down to about six for one.‡

In New Hampshire the paper money issue followed practically the same course. Petitions were sent to the Legislature requesting an emission of paper money, but it was pointed out that the State had no specie funds with which to back the paper and secure it from depreciation, and paper currency unsecured

* Bates, pp. 134-138. Bates, pp. 139–141.

McMaster, United States, vol. i., pp. 339-340.

364

NEW HAMPSHIRE AND VERMONT.

by coin was not worth printing. The legislators therefore urged the people to build up manufactures and encourage agricultural pursuits. But the people ignored this advice and demanded a tender law, which was passed, securing the paper money with real or personal estate, and making it a legal tender for all debts. The debtors now began to avoid payment of debts and the creditors sought to levy on property, but the debtors evaded this by transferring the property, and as a result the courts became clogged with suits. The people then cried out against the courts, saying that there were too many judges, lawyers, etc.* Soon acts of violence became common, culminating in September in the attempt of an armed mob of 100 men to coerce the General Court (or Legislature) into enacting a law in accordance with its desires. Upon the General Court's refusal, its members were held prisoners until relieved by the State troops, when over 40 of the malcontents were placed under arrest. The Legislature then proposed a plan for an issue of paper and sent it to the towns for ratification, but it was defeated. It was next decided that the Legislature had no power to make paper legal tender for debts contracted prior to the passage of the act and also that no good plan

Belknap, History of New Hampshire, vol. ii., p. 457 et seq.

had yet been proposed as a proper basis for a paper currency.*

Conditions in Vermont were in a chaotic state. She was not as yet a member of the Union, and indeed had no well defined limits or stable government. During the war, the inhabitants of the southern counties of the territory known as the New Hampshire Grants had seceded from New Hampshire, chosen an Assembly, elected a governor, and formed a State which they called "New ConNew necticut, alias Vermont." † Hampshire shortly afterward knowledged her independence, but her peace was soon disturbed by the claims of New Yorkers who had settled in the territory, built villages and towns, and paid taxes to New York. The latter State determined to protect the communities thus settled by the Yorkers," and the following seven years showed a shame

ac

ful record of barbarous warfare that would overshadow the famous Indian atrocities. In 1784, however, New York abandoned her claims and the Vermonters were left to govern their State as they saw fit. But the inhabitants were impoverished and discontented, and in the summer of 1786 broke out into open rebellion. The Legislature then attempted to correct matters by passing a Specific Tender Act, by which creditors were

* McMaster, United States, vol. i., pp. 341-347; Bell, History of Exeter, p. 96 et seq.; Hamilton, History of the Republic, vol. iii., p. 156.

Hall, History of Eastern Vermont, vol. i., p. 253; Slade, Vermont State Papers, pp. 68-73.

ARMED MOBS IN VERMONT; COINAGE.

forced to take in payment of debts such articles of personal property as the debtor agreed to give, but as most of the debtors were destitute of personal property the measure afforded little relief. Judge Nathaniel Chipman then drew up a set of resolutions, which the Legislature passed, providing that the freemen of each town should meet on the first Tuesday in January, 1787, and vote on the two propositions: whether paper money should be issued and whether the Tender Act should be continued. While this bill for relief was under debate the Court of Common Pleas at Windsor was attacked, but the mob was dispersed by the sheriff; the Superior Court was then broken up; and even after the bill was passed the County Court was assaulted at Rutland. At the latter place an armed multitude surrounded the courthouse and ordered the judges to adjourn sine die, but they refused and for two hours were kept prisoners in the courthouse by the mob. The mob soon grew tired of guarding the judges and allowed them to depart, sending a committee. to wait upon them and present their demands, but early the next morning the militia was assembled and after a little bloodshed the mob was dispersed.*

There was much trouble over the

* Caverly, History of Pittsford, pp. 252-258; Hall, History of Eastern Vermont; McMaster, United States, vol. i., pp. 347-355; Hollister, History of Pawlet.

365

coins then in use, particularly in New
York, Rhode Island, and New Jersey,
where there were a large number of
counterfeits. So many base pennies
and half-pennies had been circulated
in Rhode Island that it was found
necessary to pass an act imposing a
fine of six shillings for every spuri-
ous coin taken. On March 3, 1787, a
committee of the New York Assem-
bly rendered an elaborate report
showing conditions of coin circula-
tion in that State and estimating the
loss suffered. In January, 1786, the
New Jersey Legislature had passed
an act providing that fifteen coppers
should constitute a shilling, but later
from twenty to thirty were
were de-
manded.* For correcting these evils
Congress had had several measures
under consideration. In the summer
of 1785 (July 6) two copper coins-
a penny at 100 to the dollar and a
half-penny at 200 to the dollar - had
been ordered struck, but none had
been put into circulation. On August
6, 1786, a national currency act was
passed, which adopted the decimal
system and provided that eight coins
should be made with the mill as the
lowest money of account. The cop-
per coins were to be cents and half-
cents; the silver coins dimes, double
dimes, half-dollars and dollars; and
the gold coins eagles and half-eagles.
The dollar was to contain 375 grains.
of pure silver and the eagle a frac-
tion over 2464 grains of gold. This

McMaster, United States, vol. i., pp. 400-403.

[blocks in formation]

Dispute over carrying out the terms of the treaty of 1783- Debts owed to English merchants - Confiscated property-England accused of violating treaty Recommendations of Congress treated with Contempt John Adams sent to England - His instructions - His treatment in England Negotiations with Lord Carmarthen-States repeal conflicting Laws - Adams' return — Dispute with Spain regarding navigation of the Mississippi - Negotiations between Gardoqui and Jay - Action in the Western States — Retaliatory expedition under George Rogers Clark-Dispute compromised - Debates in Congress - Dispute with the Barbary Powers - Treaty concluded.

The foreign relations of the country were in a condition almost as unsatisfactory as were the finances, and here again Congress displayed its incompetence, making it extremely it extremely difficult to satisfactorily adjust the differences with other nations.

Almost immediately after Congress had assembled in January, 1784, a dispute arose over the carrying out of the terms of the treaty of 1783, Great Britain charging the United States with infringing the fourth, fifth and sixth articles pertaining to the payment of debts, confiscation of property, and the persecution of individuals (Tories) for the part they had taken during the war. When the Revolution began, it was estimated that the colonists owed British merchants about £3,000,000

sterling,† and during the war much property belonging to Loyalists had been confiscated. Upon the termination of the war, it was ascertained that on the statute books of five States were laws prohibiting the recovery of the principal of the debts, the recovery of interest, or the transferring of land in payment in place of money. As Congress had no power to enforce the treaty of peace, that body could only send a recommendation to the States asking that such laws as interfered with the terms of the treaty should be re* Ibid, vol. i., pp. 403-404.

+ Curtis, Constitutional History, vol. i., pp. 170– 171.

On the treatment of the Loyalists, see Flick, Loyalism in New York, chap. ix.; Van Tyne, Loyalists in the American Revolution, chap. xiii.; Fiske, Critical Period of American History, p. 119 et seq.

PROPERTY CONFISCATIONS.

pealed. As Mr. Curtis remarks, this treaty "could not execute itself. It was made, on the one side, by a power capable of performing, but also capable of waiting for the performance of the obligations which rested upon the other contracting party. On the other side, it was made by a power possessed of very imperfect means of performance, yet standing in constant need of the benefit which a full compliance with its obligations would insure. After the lapse of three years from the signature of the preliminary articles, and of more than two years from that of the definitive treaty, the military posts in the western country were still held by British garrisons, avowedly on account of the infractions of the treaty on our part."*

Congress therefore passed a resolution on the subject of confiscated property, taking the middle course, as suggested by John Adams, by recommending that the States seize no more goods and property belonging to Loyalists and put no obstacles in the way of their recovering that already confiscated. This raised a storm of protest throughout the country and divided the inhabitants into three parties: those Tories, who wished to regain their property and former rights and power; those violent Whigs, who desired to drive the Tories from the country; and those moderate Whigs, who advocated a

* Curtis, Constitutional History, vol. i., p. 173.

367

less rigorous interpretation of the laws, first, because if the Loyalists were driven from the country they would settle in Nova Scotia and destroy the American fisheries, second, because they thought the Tories, if allowed to remain, would contribute to the prosperity of the country, and third, because they knew the Tories had no political influence.* Believing that there was little prospect of obtaining justice in this country, many of the Tories departed for England, hoping that the king, for whom they had suffered, would care for them until their affairs should assume their previous condition. Others went to Florida, then a Spanish possession; others to Canada and Bermuda ;t while a few turned pirates, infesting the waters of Chesapeake Bay. In the main, the hopes of the refugees were blasted. While making some small donations to relieve their sufferings, the king practically turned a deaf ear to their entreaties and ignored their claims for damages. They also received a somewhat cold treatment in Canada.

On the other hand the English army was accused of taking away a large number of negroes, in violation of the seventh article of the treaty, and when remonstrance was made it was claimed claimed that the negroes were freemen and went voluntarily, and that therefore the British com

* McMaster, United States, vol. i., pp. 108-109. † Fiske, Critical Period, p. 130. McMaster, vol. i., p. 112.

« PreviousContinue »