The Development of Religious Liberty in Connecticut Part 23

190, J. Leland, A Blow at the Boot, pp. 7, 8.

191, See Rep. of Supt. of Public Schools, 1853, pp. 74-95.

192, Ibid., pp. 101, 102.

193, Published in Courant of March 16, 23 and 30, 1795.

194, See Hollister, Hist, of Connecticut, ii, 568-575; Report of Superintendent of Public Schools, 1853; Swift's System of Laws, i, 142 et seq.

CHAPTER XIV. THE DEVELOPMENT or POLITICAL PARTIES IN CONNECTICUT.

195, Wolcott Ma.n.u.script, in vol. iv, Library of Conn. Historical Society, Hartford, Conn.

196, Judge Church's Ma.n.u.script, deposited with New Haven Historical Society.

197, Swift, System of the Laws of Connecticut, i, 55-58.

198, Hollister, Hist, of Connecticut, ii, 510-514, quoting Judge Church.

199, D. G. Mitch.e.l.l, American Lands and Letters, i, 142; F. B. Dexter, Hist, of Yale, p. 87.

200, Minutes of the General a.s.sociation, Report of the Session of 1797.

201, A. Bishop, Proofs of a Conspiracy, p. 32.

202, Connecticut Journal, April 30, 1816, quotes the Pet.i.tion and reply.

203, J. Leland, Van Tromp lowering his Peak, p, 33.

204, A. Bishop, Oration in Honor of the Election of Jefferson, pp. 9, 10, 11-16.

205, Judge Church's Ma.n.u.script.

206, Lyman Beecher, Autobiography, i, 257, 259, 260, 342, 343.

207, Const.i.tution of the United States, Article II, Sect, ii, 1; Art. I, Sect, viii, 15. For the correspondence between General Dearborn and Gov. J. C. Smith, see Mies' Register, viii, 209-212.

208, Hildreth, History of United States, vi, 319-325; Schouler, Hist, of United States, ii, 270.

209, Niles' Register, viii, 291; ix, 171; also American Mercury of April 19, 1815.

210, New Haven Register, and also the American Mercury of Feb. 12, 1817.

211, Niles' Register, xi, 80.

212, Swift, System of Law, i, 74.

213, Swift, Vindication of the calling of the Special Superior Court, pp. 40-42.

214, Report of the Committee. See also J. H. Trumbull, Historical Notes, pp. 43-47.

215, Connecticut Courant of Aug. 25, 1818.

216, J. H. Trumbull, Historical Notes, pp. 55, 56.

217, Journal of the Convention, pp. 49, 67. (The Connecticut Courant and the American Mercury published the debates of the Convention in full as they occurred.)

218, Trumbull, Historical Notes, p. 60. See also the text, preceding this note, p. 483.

The Const.i.tution of 1818, admirable for the conditions of that time, leaves now large room for betterment. The century-old habit of legislative interference was not wholly uprooted in 1818, and soon began to grow apace. The Const.i.tution stands to-day with its original eleven articles and with thirty-one amendments, some of which, at least in their working, are directly opposed to the spirit of the framers of the commonwealth. The old cry of excessive legislative power is heard again, for the legislature by a majority of one may override the governor's veto, and, through its powers of confirmation and appointment, it may measurably control the executive department and the judicial. Moreover, apart from these defects in the const.i.tution, certain economic changes have resulted in a disproportionate representation in the House of Representatives. The Joint-Stock Act of 1837 gave birth to great corporations, and with railroads soon developed the formation of large manufacturing plants. As a result, there was a rush, at first, of the native born, and, later, of large numbers of immigrants, who swelled the population, to the cities. This, together with the development of the great grain-producing western states, changed Connecticut from an agricultural to a manufacturing state, and from a producer of her own foodstuffs to a consumer of those which she must import from other states.

Such s.h.i.+fting of the population has produced a condition where a bare majority of one in a House of two hundred and fifty-five members may pa.s.s a measure that really represents the sentiment of but one-fifteenth of the voters of the state. There results a system of rotten boroughs and the opportunity for a well-organized lobby and the moneyed control of votes. It is a.s.serted that the first section of the bill of rights, namely, "That no man or set of men are ent.i.tled to exclusive public emoluments or privileges from the community," is constantly violated by this misrepresentation, which especially affects the population in the cities, and is felt not only in all state measures, but in all local ones about which the legislature must be consulted. As an ill.u.s.tration of the inequality of representation, the following figures are given. In the Const.i.tutional Convention of 1818, 81 towns sent _two_ delegates each, and 39 towns sent _one_, from communities out of which 11 had a population of less than 1000, and 100 ranged between 1000 and 4000, while only 9 surpa.s.sed this last number. In the Const.i.tutional Convention of 1902, 87 towns, with an aggregate population of 781,954, sent each _two_ delegates, while 81, with a combined population of 126,411, sent each _one_ delegate. Thus it happened that in 1902, New Haven, population 108,027, sent _two_ delegates, and the town of Union, population 428, also sent _two_ delegates, while ten other towns, with a population ranging from 593 to 885 each, sent _two_ delegates.

The "Standing Order" of to-day is not a privileged church, but a dominant political party strong in the privilege and powers derived from long tenure of office and intrenched behind const.i.tutional amendments which, in addition to this unequal representation in the House, provide for the election of Senators upon town and county lines rather than upon population. The Const.i.tutional Reform Party of to-day propose radical measures to remedy these more glaring defects in the administration of government, and to consider these, called the Const.i.tutional Convention of 1902. In it, the influence of the small towns on the drafting of the proposed const.i.tution was so great that, when it was presented to the people for ratification, an adverse majority in every county refused to accept it. In fact, only fifteen per cent of the whole people thought it worth while to express any opinion at all.

References for the Const.i.tutional Convention of 1902: Clarence Deming, Town Eule in Connecticut, Political Science Quarterly, September, 1889; and M. B. Carey, The Connecticut Const.i.tution. (These will be found useful as summing up much of the newspaper discussion of the period, and also for the data upon which the argument for the desired changes is based.) There is also "The Const.i.tutions of Connecticut, with Notes and Statistics regarding Town Representation in the General a.s.sembly, and Doc.u.ments relating to the Const.i.tutional Convention of 1902," printed by order of the Comptroller, Hartford, Conn.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. HISTORIES

1. GENERAL

A few t.i.tles are given of those works found most useful in acquiring a general historic setting for the main topic.

Bancroft, George. History of the United States. New York, 1889.

Gardiner, S. R. History of England from Accession of James I. London, 1863.

----History of England under the Duke of Buckingham and Charles I. London, 1875.

----History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate. London and New York, 1894-1903.

Green, John Richard. Short History of the English People. London, 1884.

----History of the English People. New York, 1880. 4 vols., chiefly vol. iii.

Hildreth, Richard. History of the United States to 1824. New York, 1887. 6 vols.

McMaster, John Bach. A History of the People of the United States from the Revolution to the Civil War. New York, 1884-1900. 5 vols.

Schouler, James. History of the United States of America under the Const.i.tution. Was.h.i.+ngton, Philadelphia, and New York, 1882-99. 6 vols.

Tyler, Moses Coit. A History of American Literature, 1607-1765. New York, 1879. 2 vols.