Page images
PDF
EPUB

TOWNS ON CONNECTICUT RIVER.

The general court of Massachusetts, May 6, 1635, granted "liberty to the inhabitants of Watertown to remove to any place they may think meet to make choice of, provided they shall continue under this government." Strong opposition was felt in that colony, to the proposed emigration to Connecticut, and a reluctant consent was given by the general court which, with the condition annexed, had application to other towns. Accordingly, emigrants from the three towns of Dorchester, Newtown and Watertown, severally, settled in Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield, and for a time were governed by commissioners appointed by Massachusetts, who held their first meeting at Hartford, April, 1636.

But the inhabitants of those three plantations or towns, after the experience of the government thus provided by Massachusetts, for a little more than a year, set up a government of their own. They preferred local laws of their own enactment, and a government of their own appointment, which went into operation, May 1, 1637, in place of the government of Massachusetts.

CONSTITUTION OF CONNECTICUT, 1639.

The planters of those three towns met together at Hartford, January 14, 1639, and formed a constitution in which there is no reference to the government of Massachusetts or of Great Britain. It was the constitution of an independent commonwealth, in which the "supreme power" is declared by the sovereign people to be lodged in the general court.

By this act of separating themselves from the government of Massachusetts, and forming themselves into an independent commonwealth, under a written constitution, they, one hundred and thirty-seven years before 1776, practically annulled the cardinal doctrine of the Declaration of Independence, that a people have a right to alter or abolish a form of government with which they are dissatisfied, and establish one which seems to them better adapted to promote their safety and happiness. Thus " a secession," as it is called by Graham, in his Colonial History, or a revolution, was effected, which Massachusetts, however reluctant, bad the prudence and good sense not to resist. Thus the people of Connecticut, without any to molest or to make them afraid, could rejoice in the supremacy of their own local laws. See vol. i. Conn. Col. Records, p. 20.

At the meeting of the general court at Hartford, October 10, 1639, the same year in which the constitution was adopted, the towns were authorized to manage their internal affairs. They had previously always enjoyed the right to manage their internal affairs. But now that there might be no mistake on this point as to the extent of their jurisdiction, the deputies of the towns in general court declare that the towns still have authority and right to manage their internal affairs by local law. Each town was a body politic from the first, and was independent, except for a little more than a year, when they submitted to be under the jurisdiction or government of Massachusetts. They had got rid of that government; they had adopted a constitution of their own for general purposes; and they now by their deputies, each town having the same number, declared they still enjoyed the pre-existing right to manage their internal concerns. This act of the general court defining the local jurisdiction, and securing for each town a local tribunal, is based on the doctrine prevalent in Connecticut for many generations, that those whom a law, in its operation, is immediately to affect, are better qualified to judge of its expediency, than those who are at a distance.

Thus, as early as 1639, it was well understood that each town as a body politic had certain rights, and was better qualified to take care of what peculiarly concerns itself, than the colonial legislature was, and that the authority of that legislature applied only to what equally affected the towns in common. In this way, the towns of the Connecticut colony combined or confederated, just as the towns of the New-Haven colony confederated, under one jurisdiction. See vol. i. Conn. Col. Records, p. 35.

THE NEW-ENGLAND CONFEDERACY.

In the year 1643 the New-England confederacy was formed between Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, "and the government of New-Haven with the plantations in combination with it." "This confederation," in the language of Palfrey, vol. i. p. 630, “was no less than an act of absolute sovereignty on the part of the contracting states." In this compact or constitution, there are twelve articles, in which the colonies declare, that they will henceforth be called by the name of THE UNITED COLONIES; that the said United Colonies do, "for themselves and their posterities, enter into a firm and perpetual league;" that each colony shall have a peculiar jurisdiction, and that the plantations under the government of each colony shall be forever under that government, with a right to manage its internal concerns in its own way, without the intrusion of others; that each colony raise its quota of men and money for service in war, in its own way, and grant such exemptions as it judges proper; that each colony shall have a right to the rendition of fugitive slaves and apprentices; thus having its own local laws sustained. Of this constitution Bancroft remarks:-" To each colony its respective local jurisdiction was carefully reserved. The question of state-rights is nearly two hundred years old." This remark was published in 1842. It is now two hundred and twenty-five years old.

The plan of this confederacy was adopted in about five years after it was first proposed. This long delay was caused by "divers differences" between Massachusetts and Connecticut. One of these differences is found in the fact that Massachusetts insisted on having a "pre-eminence," while Connecticut insisted on enjoying a full equality. Winthrop, vol. i. p. 342, A.D. 1638, gives the following account of the matter:-"The differences between us and those of Connecticut were divers; But the ground of all was their shyness of coming under our government, which, though we never intended to make them subordinate to us, yet they were very jealous, and therefore, in the articles of confederation, which we propounded to them, and whereby order was taken, that all differences which might fall out, should be ended by a way of peace, and never come to a necessity of danger and force-they did so alter the chief article, as all would come to nothing. For whereas the chief article was, that, upon any matter of difference, two, three or more commissioners of every of the confederate colonies should assemble, and have absolute power (the greater number of them) to determine the matter -they would have them only to meet, and if they could agree, so; if not, then to report to their several colonies, and to return with their advice, and so to go on till the matter might be agreed, which beside it would have been infinitely tedious, and extreme chargeable, it would never have attained the end, for it was very unlikely that all the churches in all the plantations would ever have accorded upon the same.".

In a letter written the same year, 1638, by Rev. Thomas Hooker, of Hartford, to Governor Winthrop (see vol. i. p. 11 of Collections of Con

necticut Historical Society), we have the following passage:- 66 That in the matter which is referred to the judge, the sentence should lie in his breast or be left to his discretion, according to which he should go, I am afraid it is a course which wants both safety and warrant. I must confess, I ever looked at it as a way which leads directly to tyranny, and so to confusion, and must plainly profess, if it was in my liberty, I should choose neither to live nor leave my posterity under such a government."

From these two passages we may understand another difference between Massachusetts and Connecticut. The one, speaking by Winthrop, wished the confederacy or commissioners to have the absolute power of decision; the other, speaking by Hooker, wished the general court of each colony to have the absolute power of decision. The one wished to have absolute power delegated to the confederacy; the other wished to have the absolute power reserved to each colony, and to have Connecticut, in the last resort, governed by its local laws.

THE TWO COLONIES UNITED.

Mention has already been made of the charter granted by Charles II., on the 23d of April, 1662, which virtually merged the colony of New-Haven in that of Connecticut; abolishing the laws of the former and substituting those of the latter. This charter, by itself considered, was a liberal one. In the language of Bancroft, "it conferred on the colonists unqualified power to govern themselves. They were allowed to elect their own officers, enact their own laws, administer justice without appeal to England, to inflict punishment, to confer pardons, and, in a word, to exercise every power deliberative and active. The king, far from reserving a negative on the acts of the colony, did not even require that the laws should be submitted to his inspection, and no provision was made for the interference of the English in any case whatever. Connecticut was independent, except in name."

It should be added that the colonists entertained a confiding, generous and affectionate attachment to the king; but they did not recognize any authority in parliament to interfere with their local laws. They insisted on the supremacy of the local laws of the colony in opposition to the imperial laws of parliament. They claimed that they themselves were better qualified to pass laws for their own advantage, living as they did on the territory, than was parliament at the distance of three thousand miles.

The colony of New-Haven, though entertaining these sentiments towards the king, were still strongly opposed to the charter which brought them under the laws enacted by Connecticut. They felt great repugnance to losing not only their local laws but their separate existence, as a body politic. True it is that a certain portion of the people in Stamford, in Southold, in Guilford and Milford, increasing in numbers in the three years or more of delay, preferred the laws and jurisdiction of Connecticut to those of New-Haven, and were ready to secede from the one colony to the other. But Mr. John Davenport, of New-Haven, and Mr. Abraham Peirson, of Branford, were the true exponents of the sentiments prevailing in the colony, both of whom left the colony in disgust, when its local laws were abolished by the charter of 1662: the one going to Boston; the other taking with him to Newark, New-Jersey, his church and others from the towns of Milford and Guilford. They sought exile when they could no longer be under the local laws of the colony of New-Haven. They were both martyrs to their love of self-government; but they were both cheered internally by the mens conscia recti, and externally, the one by the voices of his congregation who went with

him to the banks of the Passaic, and there laid the foundations of a great city, and the other by the farewell voices of one congregation and the welcoming voices of another congregation in that great city where stood the cradle of liberty.

DIVERSE VIEWS OF THE CHARTER.

The crown viewed the charters of the colonies as constituting corporations which might be annulled at pleasure, like other corporations in England, which were created as business corporations. The style "Governor and Company" did not imply political power in England.

But the "Freemen" of Connecticut viewed their charter as a solemn compact between them and the king, which could not be altered either by the king or parliament without their consent. The only limitation to the legislative power, conferred by the charter, was that the laws should not be repugnant to the laws of the realm of England. And by the laws of the realm, the colonists understood the constitution, the fundamental laws, which are the birth-right of every British subject, secured by Magna Charta and declared in the Bill of Rights.

THE WRIT QUO-WARRANTO ISSUED.

In 1685, soon after the accession of James II. to the throne, and twenty-three years after the grant of the charter, the writ quo-warranto was issued against the colony, followed, not long after, by two other writs,' in which Connecticut was summoned to show by what right she exercised certain powers. The object of the three writs was to deprive the colony of its charter, and in this way to abolish its local laws. We are told by Trumbull, vol. i. p. 367, that the Assembly, after the most serious deliberation, addressed a letter, in the most suppliant terms, to his Majesty, beseeching him to pardon their faults of government, and continue them a distinct colony, in the enjoyment of their civil and religious privileges. "They pleaded the charter they had received from his royal brother, and his commendation of them for their loyalty, in his gracious letters, and his assurances of the continuance of their civil and religious rights." To enforce the reasoning in the letter, they sent William Whiting, of Hartford, to present their petition to the king. Fear and trembling pervaded the assembly and the colony, in view of the apprehended loss of the charter, the basis of its local laws.

SIR EDMUND ANDROS.

In the year 1675, when the colony was engaged in a war against Philip, Sir Edmund Andros, commissioned by the Duke of York, the patentee of New-York, brought forward a claim to all that part of Connecticut which lies west of Connecticut river, and, backed by a strong naval force, demanded the surrender of the fort at Saybrook. Forthwith the assembly, being in session in Hartford, drew up a strong protest against this demand of Major Andros, which with a letter of instructions they sent by express to Captain Thomas Bull, who was in command at Saybrook. How bravely he bore himself in resisting the demand; how he silenced the secretary who attempted to read a paper containing the assumed authority; and how he won from the Major the doubtful compliment of a pun upon his name"it is a pity that your horns are not tipped with silver"—is familiar to every intelligent school-boy.

[blocks in formation]

On the 31st of October, 1687, Sir Edmund Andros, having been appointed, by the crown, governor of New-England, entered Hartford attended by several members of his council, surrounded by a body-guard of sixty men, to take possession of the charter, which, though declared to be forfeited, the assembly had hitherto refused to deliver up.

Of the solemn and protracted debate which took place in the presence of the royal governor, who had declared that the charter was forfeited and the government under it was dissolved; of the extinguishment of the lights, and of the silent and secret conveyance of the charter to the hollow oak, it is not necessary to speak. Nor is it necessary to describe how the governor abolished some of the local laws, and declared that the Indian deeds by which the colonists acquired their lands, were no better than the "scratch of a bear's paw;" how he interfered with town-meetings, and marriages; how he denied the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, under the plea of necessity; how the people endured the loss of their civil liberty nineteen months, when the revolution brought William and Mary to the throne of England, it is not necessary to speak. In 1689, the colony resumed the functions of a free, independent and sovereign commonwealth, subject only to their own local laws.

THE MILITIA.

In the year 1692, Col. Benjamin Fletcher, governor of New-York, received a commission from the British government, by which he was invested with plenary power for commanding the militia of Connecticut. As by the charter the right of commanding the militia was expressly given to the colony, the colonial legislature refused to submit to the requisition. On the 26th of October, Governor Fletcher came to Hartford while the assembly was in session, and, in his majesty's name, demanded the submission of the militia to his command, as they would answer it to his majesty, and that they would give him a speedy reply, in two words, "yes or no." But the assembly boldly refused to surrender their chartered rights, intimating that the demand was subversive of their essential privileges. Among other things they state, "that whoever commanded the persons in a colony would also command the purse, and be the governor of the colony; that there was such a connection between the civil authority, and the command of the militia, that the one could not subsist without the other." Allusion only can be made to the attempt of Governor Fletcher to have his commission read to the train bands of Hartford, of the beating of the drums to drown the voice of the reader, of the command of silence by Governor Fletcher, and of the declaration addressed to him by Captain Wadsworth:-" if I am interrupted again, I will make the sun shine through you in a moment." The assembly were willing to grant to the king's officer such a portion of the militia, as they should judge proper, but they were not willing that he should take any or all at his discretion. They insisted upon the right to judge what number, and what persons, should be employed in the military service, and to select their officers. They were not willing to place the people under a military conscription to be enforced by the king's authority. They insisted on the supremacy of their own local laws.

[To be continued.]

« PreviousContinue »