Page images
PDF
EPUB

he recognized no other course than that which led through all the horrors of a bloody war. He was requested to take charge of the New Jersey troops, but his tastes were not in that direction and fortunately for the State, another field was opened before him which he could occupy with credit to himself and benefit to his country. The Legislature, which met at Princeton, elected him Governor, and after assuming that office, his whole time was devoted to the performance of his duties as the Chief Magistrate of the Commonwealth. Those duties included not only what was required of him as the executive of the State, but, also, those of Chancellor, Ordinary, Surrogate General and President of the Council. It is altogether probable that very little was done in his courts during the war, but his time was fully occupied with the labors connected with the soldiers from New Jersey and with the many and varied matters constantly coming before the Council of Safety. He rarely failed in his attendance at its meetings and took an active and laborious part in all its proceedings. He was eminently successful as a Governor, securing the esteem and confidence of his constituents and was re-elected to the office thirteen times, serving the State, with general satisfaction, to the last, for nearly fourteen years. In 1785, Congress appointed him Minister to Holland; but, after some hesitation, he declined to accept. In 1787, he was appointed delegate to the Convention which formed the Federal Constitution, and took a very prominent part in the proceedings of that body.

During the war he was in great danger; his energy in organizing the militia of the State, his vigilance in thwarting the designs of the enemy and his entire devotion to the cause of the people rendered him obnoxious to the English and he barely escaped capture on several occasions. His residence was despoiled, his grounds wantonly laid waste and he was obliged to remove his family to Morris County to save them from capture. He was a man of literary tastes, and fond of writing articles for the press of his time, an occupation for which he found leisure even in his busiest moments. His Alma Mater conferred upon him the degree of LL. D. a short time before his death, which occurred in 1790. Of his thirteen children, one, Brockholst Livingston, achieved honor as a jurist, being for several years one of the Judges of the highest tribunal in New York, and, in 1797, he was transferred to the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States, retaining that position until his death, in 1823.

CHAPTER XI.

CONTENTS.

Radical Changes in Government by Constitution of 1776; The Council and Assembly; The Governor; No Essential Change in Selection of Judges; People Approved the Constitution; Second Meeting of the Legislature; Condition of Affairs in the Colonies at the Breaking out of the War; Jealousy of Smaller States Towards the Larger Ones; Continental Congress; Three Plans of Confederation; Franklin's Plan; Galloway's Plan; Third Plan Adopted; Delegates from New Jersey; Crisis in Period from 1783 to 1788; Action of the Colonies During the War; The Articles of Confederation; Condition of Country at Close of the War; The Wyoming Catastrophe; Defects of the Articles; Washington's Anxiety; His Action with Reference to a Federal Constitution; Constitutional Convention; Character of its Members; Three Parties in the Convention; Two Plans Presented, the Virginia and the New Jersey; Action of William Paterson in the Convention; Outline of the New Jersey Plan; Dissatisfaction with the Constitution; Washington Aids in its Adoption by the States; Finally Accepted; New Jersey's Action on the Constitution; Convention Elected; Its Action; Amendments to the Constitution; Advantage of the Constitution to New Jersey; That Document an Evolution; Action of the Soldiers after Peace; Federalists and Democrats; List of Governors from 1776 to 1844.

The change in the government of New Jersey by which it became a sovereign State instead of a dependent colony, was, in many respects, radical. Before the adoption of the Constitution of 1776, the king was the source of all authority; he appointed the governor and his Council, and those officers were responsible to him; he had absolute control over all laws passed by the Legislature; if he vetoed them, they were inoperative and could not be repassed. The Assembly was the popular branch of the law making power, and, it is true, was elected by the people, but the Royal Governor might prorogue or dissolve it at any time. Its action was controlled by the Governor and by the Council who held position at the will of the king.

The history of the colonists prior to 1776, made it patent that notwithstanding the "Grants and Concessions" and the "Concessions and Agreements," the king and ministry would not hesitate to encroach upon the rights of the people guarantied to them by those organic laws. There was no security that any of their liberties would

be preserved. The mutual dependence of king upon people and people upon king, was ignored; the protection which the sovereign was bound to afford to the subject was unjustly withdrawn and in its stead injustice and oppression prevailed. The king was deaf to remonstrance, impervious to the cries of his distressed people for succor and all hope for any righteous treatment from the throne was destroyed.

By the new Constitution no novel principle of government was introduced, but the fundamental idea of a government from the people and for the people was more strongly formulated and more firmly es tablished. This principle of self-government was introduced with a pronounced, unmistakable force into the new order of affairs and be came so incorporated into the very warp and woof of legislative action that it was recognized as an imperishable right of the people. It needed no direct asseveration in words to define or establish it; it was rooted and grounded in the very life blood of civil existence. It did not require any bill of rights; it was the birthright of the people— born with them-and could not be taken from them.

Both bodies of the Legislature were elected by the people, one to be a check on the other; each within its own proper sphere to be independent of the other, and yet, each responsible to the same master, who was the creator of both. Each moved within its own orbit, and yet, they were so connected, that each owed certain duties and was under certain liabilities to the other, and neither could finally act without the co-operation of the other. The power of taxation was jealously guarded; all money bills must emanate from the Assembly and the Council could not prepare nor even alter any such bill. No earthly power could prorogue, much less dissolve any legislature; each body was chosen for the same definite term and both must hold their sessions at the same time.

The governor was no royal favorite, selected because of servility to his master, dependent upon the favor of the king for continuance in office and liable to be sharply reprimanded by arrogant ministers or privileged lordlings. He was the servant of the people, who, mindful of their own rights and quick to recognize and appreciate the privileges. of others, demanded a strict performance of duty in those who owed allegiance and were responsible solely to them. In his election both bodies of the legislature united, representing their constituents and pro tecting their interests.

Very little change in the selection of the Judiciary was created by

the Constitution of 1776. By the "Grants and Concessions," the power of instituting courts and electing judges was vested in the Assembly; by the new organic law, the right of electing judges was granted to the Council and General Assembly, in joint meeting. The Constitution seemed to take it for granted that the courts in operation at the time of its formation should still continue without further enactment. It certainly was silent on that subject, but it did indirectly establish those tribunals, as it provided that the judges of certain named courts should continue in office for stated terms and that they should be elected by the Legislature.

These are some of the main features in the change of government in New Jersey, created by the new Constitution.

These changes met with the hearty approval of the great majority of the people, who went about their daily avocations as usual, submitting cheerfully to the new order of affairs and manifesting that approval by a more alert discharge of their duties as citizens under the new régime. There were a few who disapproved-who refused to submit-who clung with unswerving loyalty to king and ministry and risked life and fortune in their efforts to preserve the royal authority. Some of the best men in the State were among these adherents to the English crown.

But the machinery of the new government worked admirably and with little attrition. It is true that the new Constitution of the Commonwealth was crude and lacking in many essential qualities, but the people looked beyond the surface to the spirit and did not regard the letter so much as the real meaning. It is wonderful that so great changes worked so little disorder; there was, in fact, none except such as was necessarily caused by the after events of the war and the antagonism created by the conflicting action of those who supported the new government and those who ranged themselves in opposition to it by adhering to the royal cause.

The different branches of the administration of the State, the Execu tive, Legislative and Judiciary, began calmly and quietly to perform their several duties.

The second meeting of the Legislature, under the new Constitution, convened on the 13th of November, 1776, at Burlington, and continued until the 2d day of December, following. By this time the British army was in pursuit of Washington and the Continental forces, in full retreat after the disastrous campaign of Long Island. Haddonfield was the next place of meeting, when the Legislature was called to

gether by special summons from the Speaker. From that time until the peace of 1782, the Assembly had no abiding place, meeting at Princeton, Trenton, Haddonfield, and, occasionally, at Burlington.

At the time of the breaking out of the war, the colonies were bound by no other ties than those of self-interest, and the patriots who had the direction of public affairs fully appreciated the perilous condition. There was no head except the Continental Congress, and during its vacation, a Committee; both of which might be dissolved at a moment's warning by the defection of one or more of the States. Those municipalities were all free, independent sovereignties, each equal to the other, and rivalries and jealousies existed among them, even at that early period in their history. The smaller States feared that the preponderating influence of the larger might destroy, or, at least, weaken their power and authority; they looked askance at every movement, and so, unanimity did not prevail in the general councils of the nation. It was imperative that the States should be bound together in an organization which should recognize and sustain the rights of all. Although impressed with this necessity, it seemed to be a problem impossible of solution, but it must be accomplished, and all minds were addressed to the production of some plan to meet the necessities of the occasion.

The Continental Congress met in 1774; in 1775 war was virtually begun, and for two years Congress directed the operations in the field. without any defined plan of government; it had no guide during that terrible juncture except its own patriotism and wisdom. There was no cohesive power cementing the union of the several States but the common danger and the universal moral support of the people.

Three separate plans for confederation were proposed and discussed from time to time, before any conclusion was reached. The three plans were these: One introduced by Benjamin Franklin, in 1775, an outgrowth and improvement of one proposed by him twenty years and more before, at a meeting in Albany, when an attempt was made to establish a confederation between the colonies. Franklin claimed that he had matured this plan on his road to the meeting at Albany, but it is almost precisely like the one already referred to in these pages, emanating many years before from Daniel Coxe, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Another plan was presented by Joseph Galloway, which, if adopted, would undoubtedly have prevented any separation from the mother country and was, in fact, avowedly intended to prevent that result. The third plan was the one which was

« PreviousContinue »