33f6 
 T77k 
 
 
 Trumbull 
 
 Historical Notes on the 
 Constitutions of Connecticut
 
 HISTORICAL 
 
 NOTES 
 
 r\N the Constitutions of 
 
 Connecticut and on CJje 
 
 Constitutional Contention of i 8 i 8 
 
 By J. HAMMOND TRUMBULL 
 
 Printed by Order of the Comptroller 1901
 
 HISTORICAL NOTES 
 
 O N 
 
 The Constitutions of 
 Connecticut 
 
 639 - 1 8 1 8 
 
 PARTICULARLY 
 
 On the Origin and Progress of the Movement 
 which resulted in the Convention of 181 8 
 and the Adoption of the Present Constitution 
 
 By J. Hammond Trumbull 
 
 H A R T FORD: 
 
 Printed by Order of the Comptroller 
 
 1901 

 
 Hartford Press: 
 The Case, Lockwood & Brainard Company 
 
 I 9 o i
 
 K 
 T77-K, 
 
 State of Connecticut, 
 Comptroller's Office, 
 
 Hartford, December, 1901. 
 
 The Historical Notes on the Constitutions of Con- 
 necticut, published in 1873 by the late J. Hammond 
 Trumbull, LL.D., recognized as an authority and an 
 invaluable help to the clear understanding of the history 
 of our existing Constitution, is now out of print. 
 
 By the kind permission of the family of the late 
 historian, I am enabled to publish this edition, realizing 
 its value at this time, on the eve of the Constitutional 
 Convention of 1902. 
 
 A. CHAMBERLAIN, 
 
 Comptroller. 
 
 Publication No. 2 
 necticut Constitutions 
 Series 
 
 20124;;
 
 THE following- historical sketch was written, some twelve 
 years ago, by way of introduction to a projected edition 
 of the Constitution of 1818, with the Journal of the Con- 
 vention by which it was formed, extracts from the Debates re- 
 ported in the newspapers of the time, and notes showing the 
 origin and authorship of the several sections, the intent of the 
 framers, and something of the secret history of particular pro- 
 visions and of the motives which influenced individual members 
 of the Convention to advocate or to oppose their incorporation 
 with the Constitution. The work was laid aside, till I should 
 have leisure — which now it seems unlikely that I shall ever 
 find — to revise and complete it. The fact that the Journal of 
 the Convention has just been printed by order of the General 
 Assembly, and the interest which is everywhere manifested in 
 the proposition to call another convention to amend the present 
 constitution or to frame a new one, may perhaps serve as an 
 apology for the publication of this sketch, unfinished and im- 
 perfect as it is. 
 
 J. H. T. 
 Hartford, Conn., July 1st, 1873.
 
 Historical Notes on the Consti- 
 tutions ^Connefticut, 1639-18 18 
 
 THE constitutional history of Connecticut properly 
 begins with the adoption, on the fourteenth of 
 January, 1638-39, of the " Fundamental Orders," 
 by which " the inhabitants and residents of Wind- 
 sor, Hartford, and Wethersfield " became "asso- 
 ciated and conjoined to be as one Public State or Common- 
 wealth," for the establishment of " an orderly and decent gov- 
 ernment, according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs 
 of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require." 1 
 
 At the first settlement of the colony a provisional government 
 had been instituted, under a commission from the General Court 
 of Massachusetts (March 3, 1636), to eight of the persons who 
 ; ' had resolved to transplant themselves and their estates unto 
 the River Connecticut": 2 "that commission taking rise from 
 the desire of the people that removed, who judged it incon- 
 venient to go away without any frame of government, — not 
 from any claim of the Massachusetts of jurisdiction over them 
 by virtue of Patent." 3 It was, in fact, an agreement, ratified in 
 the presence of the Massachusetts general court, between the 
 founders of Connecticut and the representatives of the Earl of 
 Warwick's grantees, who, as the instrument sets forth, had 
 " sometime engaged themselves and their estates in the planting 
 of the river of Connecticut," and had already made a beginning 
 at Saybrook. ' That some present government may be ob- 
 served," Roger Ludlow, William Pynchon, John Steele, William 
 
 'Conn. Records, i. 20-25. "Mass. Records, i. 170. 
 
 ' Rei of Comm'rs of N. England; Hazard, ii. no (corrected by 
 
 MS. Records).
 
 8 BEGINNINGS OF GOVERNMENT. 
 
 Swaine, Henry Smith, William Phelps, William Westwood, and 
 Andrew Ward, — two from each of the plantations afterwards 
 named Windsor, Hartford, Wethersfield, and Springfield, — 
 were authorized to hold courts for the trial of civil causes, to 
 punish offenders, and to make orders " for the peaceable and 
 quiet ordering the affairs of the said plantations." But it was 
 expressly provided " that this commission shall not extend any- 
 longer time than one year from the date thereof." 
 
 The first " General Court " — in which the river towns were 
 represented by their " committees " — was held on the first day 
 of May, 1637. 4 No reference to the election of magistrates or 
 committees appears on the records until the following year, 
 when at the close of the session of February 9th, it was 
 
 " Ordered that the general court now in being shall be dis- 
 solved, and there is no more attendance of the members thereof 
 to be expected except they be newly chosen in the next general 
 court." 5 
 
 There are records of two sessions of the general court, March 
 8th and April 5th, 1638, in both of which the names of Mr. 
 Pynchon and Mr. Smith of Springfield (Agawam) appear in the 
 roll of magistrates present. 6 In the April court that plantation 
 was represented also by " committees." A letter of the Rev. 
 Thomas Hooker, written in the autumn of 1638, supplies an 
 omission in the records, by showing how the general court was 
 at this period constituted, and under what obligation the magis- 
 trates were invested with authority: 
 
 " At the time of our election, the committees from the town of 
 Agawam came in with other towns, and chose their magistrates, 
 installed them into their government, took oath of them for the 
 execution of justice according to God, and engaged themselves 
 to submit to their government, and the execution of justice by 
 their means and dispensed by the authority which they put upon 
 them by choice." 7 
 
 The germ of the first written Constitution — the voluntary 
 compact of January, 1639, of which the Charter of 1662, the 
 declaration of State independence in 1776, and the Constitution 
 of 1818, were the necessary outgrowths — may be found in a 
 sermon preached by Mr. Hooker before the general court in 
 May, 1638: 8 "The foundation of authority is laid, firstly, in the 
 
 * Conn. Col. Records, i. 9. B Ibid., i. 12. 
 
 'Ibid., i. 13, 17. 7 Coll. Conn. Hist. Soc, i. 13. 8 Ibid., 20.
 
 MR. HOOKERS VIEW OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 9 
 
 free consent of the people. . . . The choice of public magis- 
 trates belongs unto the people, by God's own allowance. . . . 
 They who have power to appoint officers and magistrates, it is 
 in their power, also, to set the bounds and limitations of the power 
 and place unto which they call them." 
 
 A few months later, Mr. Hooker, writing to Governor Win- 
 throp, of Massachusetts, cited " the old rule, Quod ad omncs 
 spectat, ab omnibus debet approbari," and avowed his conviction 
 that, " on matters of greater consequence, which concern the 
 common good, a general counsel, chosen by all, to transact 
 businesses which concern all," is " most suitable to rule, and 
 most safe for relief of the whole." But, he argues, it is not 
 enough that the people exercise their right of choosing their 
 counselors and judges ; " the question here grows — what rule 
 the judge must have to judge by." There must be established 
 law, " to have chief rule over rulers themselves." ' 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 must confess," wrote Hooker, " I ever looked 
 at it as a way which leads directly to tyranny, . . . and must 
 plainly profess, if it was in my liberty, I should choose neither 
 to live nor leave my posterity under such a government." 9 And 
 in this declaration is suggested, not doubtfully, the motive which 
 impelled Hooker and his associates to withdraw from the juris- 
 diction of Massachusetts and to found a new colony in the valley 
 of the Connecticut. For in Massachusetts, though " the people 
 had long desired a body of laws, and thought their condition very 
 unsafe while so much power rested in the discretion of magis- 
 trates," " great reasons there were which caused most of the 
 magistrates and some of the elders not to be very fortvard in this 
 matter." 10 Governor Winthrop himself believed that the magis- 
 trate was sufficiently bound by his oath of office and his church 
 covenant, though he pronounce " not by any rule particularly 
 prescribed by civil authority," and moreover, he was firmly per- 
 suaded of " the unwarrantableness and unsafeness of referring 
 matter of counsel or judicature to the body of the people, quia, 
 the best part is always the least, and of that best part the wiser 
 part is always the lesser." 1 
 
 The Constitution of 1630, vested "the supreme power of the 
 
 •Coll. Conn. Hist. Society, i. II. 10 Winthrop's History, i. 322. 
 ' [bid., ii. 350; Reply to Vane, 1637, in Hutchinson's Collection, 98.
 
 IO THE FIRST CONSTITUTION. 
 
 commonwealth '* in a *' general court " to be composed of the 
 governor, magistrates, and deputies from the several towns. It 
 provided for the annual election, by a major vote of "the whole 
 body n\ freemen," by ballot, of a governor and magistrates, who, 
 after being severally sworn, in prescribed form, were empowered 
 " to administer justice according to the laws here established, 
 and for want thereof according to the word of God." Only free- 
 men of the commonwealth were eligible to the magistracy, and 
 the governor must be " a member of some approved congrega- 
 tion, and formerly of the magistracy." No person might be re- 
 elected governor " above once in two years," and no person 
 might be chosen a magistrate unless placed in nomination at a 
 previous general court. 
 
 "Two general assemblies or courts" must be held yearly; 
 the first, in April, to be the " Court of Election." If the gover- 
 nor and magistrates should at any time neglect or refuse to call 
 either of these two " standing courts, or a special session of the 
 court," when the occasions of the Commonwealth require, a ma- 
 jority of the freemen might issue summons, meet together, 
 choose a moderator, and exercise all the powers of a general 
 court. No court might be adjourned or dissolved without the 
 consent of a majority of its members. 
 
 Each of the three towns — Springfield having already with- 
 drawn from the jurisdiction of Connecticut — was authorized to 
 send four deputies to every general court. The deputies must be 
 freemen of the commonwealth, but in the choice of deputies 
 (which must be by ballot) all who had been admitted inhabitants 
 of the town, and had taken the oath of fidelity, might vote. 
 " And whatsoever other towns shall hereafter be added to this 
 jurisdiction, they shall send so many deputies as the Court shall 
 judge meet, a reasonable proportion to the number of freemen 
 that are in the said towns being to be attended therein." Only 
 the general court had the power to admit freemen, — residence 
 within the jurisdiction and previous admission as an inhabitant 
 of one of the towns being the only qualifications required by 
 the constitution. 
 
 The deputies w r ere authorized to meet by themselves, before 
 the meeting of the general court, " to advise and consult of all 
 such things as may concern the good of the public," and to in- 
 quire into the legality of the election of any of their number; the
 
 THE FIRST CONSTITUTION. II 
 
 authority of final decision that an election was illegal, being re- 
 served to the court. 
 
 The governor was sworn to " promote the public good and 
 peace," " to maintain all lawful privileges of this Common- 
 wealth," to execute " all wholesome laws that are or shall be 
 made by lawful authority here established," and to " further the 
 execution of justice according to the rules of God's word." Sim- 
 ilar obligations were imposed by the oath prescribed for magis- 
 trates. 2 Every freeman must acknowledge himself " subject to 
 the government of the jurisdiction of Connecticut," and must 
 swear " to be true and faithful unto the same," to submit per- 
 son and estate thereunto, and " neither to plot nor practise any 
 evil against the same." 3 
 
 t 
 
 The power to make and repeal laws, to levy taxes, to admit 
 freemen, and to dispose of unappropriated lands, was exclu- 
 sively in the general court, which also " shall have power to call 
 either court or magistrate, or any other person whatsoever, into 
 question for any misdemeanor, and may for just causes displace, 
 or deal otherwise, according to the nature of the offence." 
 
 One peculiarity of this earliest Constitution must not be over- 
 looked. The only allegiance it exacts is to " the government of 
 the jurisdiction of Connecticut; " the only " supreme authority " 
 it recognizes is that of " the body of the freemen and the general 
 court in which they are represented by their deputies; it demands 
 obedience to no laws except such as " are or shall be made by 
 lawful authority here established — and for want thereof, the 
 rule of the word of God." There is no word or hint of submis- 
 sion to any sovereign power not directly exercised by or pro- 
 ceeding from the people. Connecticut was already an inde- 
 pendent republic. 
 
 The right to alter or add to the Fundamental Orders, though 
 not explicitly affirmed, was understood to remain with the free- 
 men in general court assembled. It was repeatedly exercised 
 between 1639 and 1662. In 1645, it was ordered that a lawful 
 court might be held by the Governor or Deputy and three other 
 magistrates (instead of the Governor or Moderator and four 
 
 2 Conn. Col. Rec, i. 25, 26. "Ibid., o_>, 63. The oath of a free- 
 
 man was not recorded — and perhaps its form was not prescribed- — till 
 April, [640,
 
 12 THE CHARTER OF 1662. 
 
 magistrates) with a majority of all the deputies chosen, but " no 
 act shall pass or stand for a law which is not confirmed both by 
 the major part of the said magistrates and by the major part of 
 the deputies there present in court, both magistrates and deputies 
 being allowed, either of them, a negative vote " on the action of 
 the others. 4 At the Court of Election in 1646, " the Freemen 
 ordered " a change in the time of holding the Court thereafter — 
 from April to May. 5 In May, 1647, tne Governor or deputy and 
 two magistrates were authorized to hold " particular courts " for 
 the administration of justice when occasion should require. 6 In 
 April, 1660, — just before the expiration of John Winthrop's first 
 year of office as governor — the general court "propounded to 
 the consideration of the freemen," an alteration of the funda- 
 mental law which prohibited the election of the same person as 
 governor in two successive years, and at the ensuing Court of 
 Election, " it was voted by the freeman " that " for the future 
 there shall be liberty of a free choice yearly, either of the same 
 person or another." 7 
 
 In two or three instances the general court gave, and estab- 
 lished by law, a new construction of some provision of the Funda- 
 mental Laws. In 1643, the court " declare their judgment " that 
 those only shall be deemed " admitted inhabitants " who shall be 
 so admitted " by a vote of the major part of the town that receiv- 
 eth them," and again in 1657, the court ordered " that by ad- 
 mitted inhabitants in the 7th Fundamental, arc meant only house- 
 holders that are one and twenty years of age, or have borne 
 office, or have thirty pounds' estate." 8 
 
 The Charter procured from Charles II. (April 23, 1662,) was 
 not regarded as a grant of new powers, but as a formal recogni- 
 tion of the government already established by the people and a 
 confirmation of the rights and privileges they had exercised from 
 the first. As a guaranty of their title to the soil and a safeguard 
 of their liberties against the aggression of neighboring govern- 
 ments and the possible encroachment of the Crown, — as an ad- 
 mission of the colony's virtual independence of king or parlia- 
 ment, in all that concerned internal administration of govern- 
 ment, — the royal charter was a precious gift, and came to be the 
 
 4 Conn. Col. Rec, i. 119. "Ibid., 140. 6 Ibid., 150. 
 
 ' Conn. Col. Rec, i. 346, 347. 8 Ibid., 96, 293.
 
 THE PEOPLE'S — RATHER THAN THE KING'S — CHARTER. 13 
 
 object of almost superstitious regard. But it did not in any way 
 affect the relations previously established between the people 
 and their chosen rulers. The frame of government continued to 
 rest on the same broad foundation on which the Constitution of 
 1639 had placed it, and " the supreme power of the Common- 
 wealth " was made to consist, as before, in the general court. 
 
 The first draft of the charter itself, so far as it affected the lib- 
 erties of the colony, was in fact prepared by the general court in 
 Hartford, and the colony's agent was instructed that the patent 
 to be procured should comprehend " all the rights, privileges, 
 authority and immunities that are granted in the Massachusetts 
 colony's patent." Two or three lines which were finally erased 
 from these instructions to Winthrop show, more clearly perhaps 
 than any clause of the perfected draft, in what light the general 
 court regarded the object of the petition they preferred " to the 
 King's majesty: " " But if it cannot be granted that the bounds 
 [of the colony's jurisdiction] may extend at least to Hudson's 
 River, we do not judge it requisite to expend money upon a Patent." 9 
 The King was petitioned to bestow his royal favor and grace 
 " according to the tenor of a draft or instrument " that the Court 
 submitted for his formal approval. 10 In this view, " it was not 
 a charter of King Charles, but a charter of the people "; and under 
 it the people exercised all the powers of government, and en- 
 joyed as much freedom as had ever fallen to the lot of any com- 
 munity. " The application of the people for the charter and their 
 voluntary acceptance of it, gave efficiency to the government it 
 constituted, — and not the royal signature," 2 — in the judgment 
 of those who enjoyed the privileges it recognized and affirmed. 
 
 When the American colonies declared their independence of 
 Great Britain, the royal and provincial governments were thereby 
 dissolved, but that of Connecticut remained unchanged. The 
 General Assembly in October, 1776, after recording their ap- 
 proval of the Declaration of July 4th, and resolving " that this 
 Colony is and of right ought to be a free and independent State, 
 and the inhabitants thereof absolved from all allegiance to the 
 British Crown," — declared: 
 
 'Conn. Col. Rec, i. 580, 5X1. 
 
 10 Petition, in Trumbull's Hist, of Conn., i. 511, 512. 
 
 1 Speech of Hon. Jona. W. Edwards, in the General Assembly, May, 
 1 8. 
 
 2 Swift's System of the Laws of Connecticut, i. 56.
 
 14 ACTS OF I776 AND 1 784. 
 
 " That the form of Civil Government in this State shall con- 
 tinue to be as established by Charter received from Charles the 
 Second, King of England, so far as an adherence to the same 
 will be consistent with an absolute Independence of this State 
 on the Crown of Great Britain, &c." 
 
 In the revision of the laws in 1784, a similar declaration is in- 
 corporated with the " Act containing an Abstract and Declara- 
 tion of the Rights and Privileges of the People of this State." 
 The preamble of this act affirms that, 
 
 " The people of this State, being, by the Providence of God, 
 free and independent, have the sole and exclusive right of gov- 
 erning themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; 
 and having from their ancestors derived a free and excellent con- 
 stitution of government, whereby the Legislature depends on 
 the free and annual election of the people, they have the best 
 security for the preservation of their civil and religious rights 
 and liberties." 
 
 The first section of the act is as follows: 
 
 " Be it enacted and declared by the Governor, Council and 
 Representatives, in General Court assembled, and by the Au- 
 thority of the same, that the ancient form of Civil Government, 
 contained in the Charter from Charles the Second, King of Eng- 
 land, and adopted by the People of this State, shall be and re- 
 main the Civil Constitution of this State, under the sole authority 
 of the People thereof, independent of any King or Prince what- 
 ever." 3 
 
 In May, 1777, an act was passed " prescribing the form of an 
 oath to be taken by the freemen of this State," by which those 
 receiving it were bound " to be true and faithful to the Governor 
 and Company of this State, and the Constitution and government 
 thereof." Every freeman was required to take this oath before 
 being allowed to vote in the election of any officer of the govern- 
 ment. The same form — with the substitution of " said State," 
 for " the Governor and Company of this State " — was incorpo- 
 rated in the revision of 1784. 
 
 If the government of the colony, before the revolution, derived 
 its authority from the consent of the people, and not from the 
 royal charter — and such was the opinion of distinguished jurists 
 — then, " the constitution which originated from the people, and 
 had been practised upon, continued in operation after the declar- 
 ation of independence, in the same manner as before, and was 
 
 Rev. Acts and Laws, 1784, p. 1.
 
 VALIDITY OF THESE ACTS QUESTIONED. 1 5 
 
 equally valid;" the act of 1776, to establish and perpetuate it, 
 was merely declaratory, and there was no necessity of calling a 
 convention of the people, either to ratify the action of the gen- 
 eral assembly, or to agree on a new form of government. 4 
 
 But on this point, questions soon began to be raised. The 
 author of a pamphlet printed in 1782. 5 propounds " a modest and 
 decent inquiry, whether, in this state, since our Charter has been 
 vacated by King, Lords, and Commons, our Independence de- 
 clared by Congress and ratified by the Legislature of this State, 
 we have, strictly and properly speaking, any Civil Constitution?" 
 He contends that the charter by which the colony was invested 
 with all the powers of government and legislation, having been 
 vacated, " whatever powers of government we derived from our 
 charter, terminated with it," and that when " the King who 
 grants, and a corporation possessed of a charter, both agree to 
 declare it null and void, it is vacated to all intents and purposes 
 whatever; " that the civil constitution of Connecticut having 
 thus terminated with the charter, " it most certainly was the 
 undoubted right of the People to say, whether they would be gov- 
 erned by our old form of government, or whether they chose to 
 frame a new one; " and, " if that is right and prerogative of the 
 people, to say how and in what manner they choose to be gov- 
 erned," then " the making new forms of civil government, or 
 establishing old ones, is not the proper business of our repre- 
 sentatives, without that power being specially delegated to them 
 by the people," and " it now lies with them [the people] to say 
 whether they will abide in the same situation we now are in, or 
 to appoint a committee of delegates, well qualified to so im- 
 
 * So thought Judge Swift. System of the Laws of Connecticut, i. 57, 58. 
 Judge Root (C. J., 1796-1807), in the introduction to the first volume of 
 his Reports of Cases Adjudged, discusses " the origin of governments and 
 laws in Connecticut," and argues that, though all connection with the 
 crown of England was broken and dissolved by the revolution, yet "the 
 Constitution of the State remained, in all other respects, the same un- 
 altered basis of government, in its principles, regulations, and efficient 
 powers, which it had ever been from its first foundation and establish- 
 ment." 
 
 Brief, Decent, but Free Remarks and Observations on Several 
 Laws passed by the Honorable Legislature of the State of Connecticut. 
 since the year 1775. By a Friend to his Country. Hartford. 1782." 
 (8vo, p. 55.) The authorship may be confidently assigned to Dr. Ben- 
 jamin Gale, of Etillingworth — who adopted nearly the same course of 
 oning, and in the same style, in his letter to Erastus Wolcott. quoted 
 on the following page. I a copy of this pamphlet with Dr. Gale's 
 
 autograph pri sentation to Christopher Leffingwell.
 
 l6 DR. B. GALE, ON THE ACT OF 1776; 
 
 portant an undertaking " as that of framing a constitution. He 
 states that the action of the general assembly in 1776 was 
 ' looked upon by the more thinking and judicious, only as a 
 temporary thing, until our troubles should be over, and our in- 
 dependence acknowledged; and I know some freemen," he adds, 
 " who were conscientious in those matters, neglected to take the 
 freeman's oath, upon these very principles, who cheerfully took 
 the oath of allegiance and fidelity to the States — supposing the 
 assembly's adopting our charter constitution de novo, unin- 
 structed, to be unprecedented, and that it contained some things 
 which in our state of independence are not salutary." 6 
 
 At the October session, 1786, a bill was offered in the House 
 of Representatives, for referring to the freemen a proposition to 
 reduce the number of representatives. Mr. James Davenport 
 (of Stamford) moved to substitute for this a bill to reduce the 
 number of representatives, without the reference to a vote of the 
 freemen. Several members objected, that this was a " constitu- 
 tional question; the assembly having no right to alter the repre- 
 sentation without authority given by their constituents." Mr. 
 Davenport replied: 
 
 ' We have no Constitution but the laws of the State. The Char- 
 ter is not the Constitution. By the Revolution, that was abro- 
 gated. A law of the State gave a subsequent sanction to that 
 which before was of no force; if that law be valid, any altera- 
 tions made by a later act will also be valid; if not, we have no 
 Constitution so defined as to preclude the Legislature from ex- 
 ercising any powers necessary for the good of the people." 7 The 
 objection to the introduction of the bill was sustained by the 
 House, by a small majority. 
 
 A few months later (February, 1787), Dr. Benjamin Gale, in a 
 letter to Gen. Erastus Wolcott (who was then a representative 
 in Congress), wrote, confidentially, as follows: 8 
 
 8 Pp. 24-27. The writer points out three particulars in which alterations 
 of or additions to the established form of government might prove of 
 advantage to the State; (1) a constitutional provision "that no citizen 
 shall hold at one and the same time, more than one place of public trust, 
 either civil or military; " (2) a reduction of the number of representatives 
 to one from each town, and (3) an increase of the number of councillors 
 (or upper house) to three from each county, to be chosen by the several 
 counties, and not on a general ticket, pp. 34, 35. 
 
 7 New Haven Gazette and Conn. Magazine, Nov. 2, 1786, p. 297. 
 
 8 This letter is with the Wolcott MSS. (vol. iv.) in the Library of the 
 Conn. Historical Society.
 
 PROPOSES A CONVENTION TO FORM A CONSTITUTION. \J 
 
 " Since I am speaking of Constitutions, suffer me to tell you, 
 in this State we have no civil constitution at all. Our charter, while 
 in force, was a grant of privileges by the Crown of England to 
 the inhabitants of this colony. After the Crown vacated our 
 charter, we ratified it by our Declaration of Independence. Our 
 assembly voted it should be deemed the Civil Constitution of this 
 State. But, sir, you know that a civil constitution is a charter, a 
 bill of rights, or a compact made between the rulers and the ruled. 
 Most certain, our charter can in no sense of propriety be so re- 
 puted. Our representatives are in no sense chosen to frame a 
 civil constitution for us, nor is any general assembly which I ever 
 yet saw, collectively considered, proper persons to frame a civil 
 constitution. They are too numerous a body; nor do they suffi- 
 ciently understand government, to do this thing." 
 
 In the pamphlet of 1782 (" Brief, Decent, but Free Remarks," 
 &c.) Dr. Gale had suggested the same objections to referring to 
 the general assembly so " nice, delicate, and important an affair," 
 and proposed " that each town be directed to make the nomina- 
 tion of one man, for that end; and that the honorable assembly, 
 out of that nomination, elect two, four, or six, in each county, to 
 carry the same into execution," by framing a new constitution, 
 which shall be printed, and submitted to the people " deliberately 
 to adopt or reject it." (p. 29.) 
 
 The author of " An Address to the Legislature and People of 
 Connecticut, on the subject of dividing the State into Districts for 
 the Election of Representatives in Congress," printed in (Janu- 
 ary) 1791, 9 advocates the amendment of the constitution by a con- 
 vention to be specially entrusted with that work. Though Con- 
 necticut " has the merit of giving, at a remote period, a degree 
 of perfection to some parts of her constitution, which, if it be 
 not final, is at least unrivalled," yet, says this writer: 
 
 " I am sensible that the constitution is susceptible of a great 
 number of fundamental improvements; and I look forward, with 
 an anxious heart, to that mature and happy season, when the 
 spirit of people will admit of a great and radical reform, by their 
 own delegates commissioned for this express purpose. I am 
 aware that the policy of assembling a convention, and establish- 
 ing a form of government superior to the power of the legisla- 
 ture, has been called in question by some; and in particular, lias 
 been ingeniously controverted by a writer of our own State-. 
 
 '" Bj 1 < itizen ol Connecticut." Printed in New Haven. 8vo, p. 37. 
 
 2
 
 l8 JUDGE SWIFT, ON THE CONSTITUTION. 
 
 whose merit I have in high estimation. But whatever influence 
 his reasonings might have in my mind, in respect to the strictness 
 of principle, I must acknowledge I should despair of ever seeing 
 a complete reform in the political establishments of this State 
 accomplished in the ordinary course of legislation. The ques- 
 tion then in my mind is whether the great and pressing import- 
 ance of renovating a defective and unbalanced government will 
 not justify a departure from that strict political principle on which 
 the legislature would claim all the powers of the community." 
 
 Prior to 1800, the number of those who denied the validity of 
 the act of 1776 and maintained the necessity, or the propriety, 
 of calling a convention to frame a new constitution, was very 
 small. The doctrine laid down by Judge Swift in 1795, is that 
 which was generally held by the leaders of public opinion, was 
 sustained by the courts, and accepted by a large majority of the 
 freemen: 
 
 " Some visionary theorists have pretended that we have no 
 constitution, because it has not been reduced to writing, and rati- 
 fied by the people. It is, therefore, necessary, to trace the con- 
 stitution of our government to its origin, for the purpose of show- 
 ing its existence, that it has been accepted and approved by the 
 people, and is well known and precisely bounded. . . . The 
 colonial governments of Connecticut and New Haven derived 
 their authority from the voluntary association and agreement of 
 the people. Here the social compact was made and entered into, 
 in the most explicit manner. . . . The application of the people 
 for the charter [of 1662], and their voluntary acceptance of it, 
 gave efficacy to the government it constituted, and not the royal 
 signature. . . . During the whole period of the existence of 
 the colonial government, Connecticut was considered as having 
 only paid a nominal allegiance to the British Crown, for the pur- 
 pose of receiving protection and defence, as a part of the British 
 empire ; but always exercised legislation respecting all the inter- 
 nal concerns of the community, to the exclusion of all authority 
 and control from the King and parliament, as much as an inde- 
 pendent State." 
 
 " The necessary consequence was that the renunciation of al- 
 legiance to the British crown, and the withdrawing from the 
 British empire, did not in any degree affect or alter the constitu- 
 tion of the government. The constitution which originated from 
 the people, and had been practised upon, continued in operation, 
 after the declaration of independence, in the same manner as be- 
 fore, and was equally valid. The people were only discharged 
 from a nominal allegiance to Great Britain. . . . Their inter- 
 nal government remained unaltered and the same. . . . The 
 general assembly ratified and confirmed the declaration of inde-
 
 ACT OF I776 VALIDATED BY THE PEOPLE'S ASSENT. 19 
 
 pendence, they passed an act recognizing the ancient form of 
 government, they made such alterations and introduced such 
 amendments, as the change of circumstances required. If the 
 principles before stated are true, then the conduct of the legis- 
 lature was constitutional, and there was no necessity of calling 
 a convention of the people to agree on the form of the govern- 
 ment." 10 
 
 Even if it be admitted that the charter was the sole basis of 
 government, and, consequently, that separation from Great 
 Britain annulled the constitution — that the legislature having 
 no power to act under the former constitution, could give their 
 acts no binding authority on the people — " yet the subsequent 
 conduct of the people," says Swift, " in assenting to, approving of, 
 and acquiescing in the acts of the legislature, has established 
 and rendered them valid and binding, and given them all the 
 force and authority of an express contract. . . . The assent of 
 the people may be expressed by delegates chosen for that pur- 
 pose to meet in convention, or it may be implied by a tacit ac- 
 quiescence and approbation." 
 
 The same doctrine was maintained by Mr. (afterwards Chief 
 Justice) Daggett, in an anonymous pamphlet published in 1805. 1 
 " Nothing can be more groundless and false," he says, than the 
 statement that the existing government " never had the consent 
 and sanction of the people": 
 
 ' It was originally framed and adopted by the people. . . . 
 In all their elections, in all their appointments of ofheers, the 
 people have practically assented to this government as the gov- 
 ernment of their own choice; and this practical assent continued 
 for ages, and repeated hundreds of times by their own volun- 
 tary acts, is the strongest possible evidence of a hearty approba- 
 tion; it is an approbation, too, that has rested on the surest 
 foundation — that of a long and thorough experience. . . . More 
 than almost any other government upon earth, it is the legitimate 
 child of the people, who have hitherto constantly nursed it and 
 cleaved to it with affectionate attachment ; and whenever the 
 people (far off be the day!) shall cease to give it their voluntary 
 assent and support, it must instantly fall." 
 
 While the notion that no constitution could be valid without 
 formal ratification by the freemen was making its way from the 
 brains of " some visionary theorists " to the apprehension of a 
 considerable minority of the people, a new political party had 
 grown up in Connecticut and the " anti-fcederalists " — who 
 
 1 it 
 
 Swift's Sttgtem of the Laws of (011m cticut, vol. i., pp. 55-58. 
 Steady Habits Vindicated," &c, p. II.
 
 20 ANTI-FEDERALISM. THE MIDDLETOWN CONVENTION. 
 
 afterwards took the name of " republicans," but were stigmatized 
 by their opponents as " democrats," — became strong enough in 
 numbers and influence seriously to embarrass the action of the 
 federal majority. The history of this party in the State begins 
 with the " Middletown Convention" of September 30th, 1783, — 
 or more accurately, with the manifestation of opposition to the 
 " commutation act " by which Congress granted five years' full 
 pay to the officers of the revolutionary army, in lieu of half pay 
 for life. In the summer of 1783, town meetings were held in 
 several towns, at which the justice of this payment was called in 
 question, and resolves were passed denouncing it as oppressive 
 to the people, and subversive of the principles of a republican 
 government. A convention was called by committees of Hart- 
 ford, Wethersfield, and Glastenbury, to meet at Middletown on 
 the third of September, to consider this subject and devise a mode 
 of redress. At the adjourned meeting of this convention, Sept. 
 30th, about fifty towns — a majority of all the towns in the State 
 
 — were represented, and a petition or remonstrance against the 
 commutation was addressed to the general assembly. At a sec- 
 ond adjourned session, Dec. 16th, opposition to the order of the 
 Cincinnati was manifested, by commending a pamphlet which 
 had recently been published against that society, by Judge y£da- 
 nus Burke of South Carolina. At the last meeting, in March, 
 1784, an address to the people of Connecticut was framed, pre- 
 senting objections to the commutation act and to the Cincinnati. 1 
 
 When the question of ratifying the federal constitution was 
 submitted to a convention in 1788, the vote in the affirmative 
 was one hundred and twenty-eight; in the negative, or anti- 
 federal, forty — about one-fourth of the whole. This nearly rep- 
 resents the relative strength of the two parties in Connecticut 
 at this time and for some years afterwards. 
 
 Among the prominent anti-federal leaders of this period, were 
 some who had filled high offices in the State, distinguished patri- 
 ots of the revolution, and men of influence in the general assem- 
 bly as well as among their immediate constituents. William 
 Williams of Lebanon (a signer of the Declaration), Gen. James 
 Wadsworth of Durham, Gen. Erastus Wolcott of East Windsor, 
 
 — all members of the Council, or upper house, — Dr. Benjamin 
 
 1 See Noah Webster's " History of Polit. Parties in the U. States," in 
 "A Collection of Papers," &c. (1843), pp. 317-320.
 
 FEDERALISTS OPPOSE THE RE-ELECTION OF ADAMS. 21 
 
 Gale of Killingworth, Joseph Hopkins, Esq., of Waterbury, 
 Col. Peter Bulkley of Colchester, Col. William Worthington of 
 Saybrook, Capt. Abraham Granger of Suffield, — were counted 
 with the opposition, and denounced by the zealous supporters of 
 the administration, as anti-federalists, ' democrats,' ' anarchists,' 
 or worse. 2 
 
 After the ratification of the national constitution, there was, 
 for a few years, comparative quiet in Connecticut politics. It 
 was not until the last year of John Adams's administration, that 
 the " steady habits " of the State were again disturbed by the 
 violence of party. Federalism was never more absolutely dom- 
 inant than in 1798. Two years afterwards (Aug. 3, 1800) Fisher 
 Ames, of Massachusetts, in a letter to Oliver Wolcott of Con- 
 necticut — who was then secretary of the treasury, — forebod- 
 ing defeat in the approaching presidential election, suggested a 
 truth which experience authorizes us to regard almost as a gen- 
 eral law of political revolutions in a republic: " Perhaps a party 
 whenever it thinks itself strong, naturally splits; nothing but 
 dread of its rival will bind it firmly enough together." 3 The 
 federalists were already divided, and knowledge of this fact, 
 which could no longer be concealed from the people, revived the 
 hopes and stimulated the energies of the opposition. 
 
 It was certain that Mr. Adams could not again receive the 
 unanimous vote of his party, for the presidency. For reasons, 
 the soundness of which need not be discussed here, he had lost 
 the confidence of influential federalists in Connecticut. " It is 
 with grief and humiliation, but at the same time with perfect 
 confidence " — wrote Oliver Wolcott, to George Cabot of Mas- 
 sachusetts, in June, 1800, — " that I declare that no administra- 
 tion of the government by President Adams can be successful. 
 ... It is clear to my mind that we shall never find ourselves 
 in the straight road of federalism while Mr. Adams is presi- 
 dent." 4 Uriah Tracy assured Senator Stockton of New Jersey, 
 
 2 To what height party spirit had risen in 1786-7, and with what extrava- 
 gant license the federal wits and the federal press generally, assailed their 
 opponents, may be seen in " The Anarchiad," a scries of papers in verse, 
 originally published in the A'<?cC Haven Gazette, which are understood 
 to have been written by Col. David Humphreys, John Trumbull, Joel 
 Barlow, and Dr. Lemuel Hopkins, — possibly, with sonic help from Dr. 
 ■lit. 
 Gibb's M'-inoirs of the Administrations of Washington and Adams, ii. 
 
 396. 
 
 ' Ibid. ii. 371.
 
 22 THE REPUBLICAN MINORITY GAINS STRENGTH. 
 
 " that the State of Connecticut would do any thing to promote 
 the true interest of the government at this crisis; that they had 
 no predilection; on the contrary, the men of most importance 
 were disgusted and entirely alienated from the president." 5 
 Two months later, Wolcott, in a letter to Fisher Ames, not only 
 expressed his conviction that " Mr. Adams ought not to be sup- 
 ported," but intimated a doubt whether " his re-election would 
 be a less evil to the country than to incur any risque of the pro- 
 motion of Mr. Jefferson ": for, "however dangerous the elec- 
 tion of Mr. Jefferson may prove to the community, I do not 
 perceive that any portion of the mischief would be avoided by 
 the election of Mr. Adams." 6 " Let who will be president " — 
 so thought Chauncey Goodrich, — " the pride of American 
 character and office for awhile must be faded "; as for Connecti- 
 cut, " the public mind is puzzled and fretted. People don't 
 know what to think of measures or men; they are mad because 
 they are in the dark." 7 
 
 When leaders speculate on the advantages of defeat, and the 
 rank and file are " puzzled and fretted," opposition is likely to 
 gain a good many new recruits. The republicans understood 
 how to take advantage of the situation. The federalists began 
 to admit that, even in Connecticut, " the skillful attacks of a vin- 
 dictive and intelligent opposition," were becoming formidable, — 
 were " destroying all confidence " in the administration, even 
 while " the papers on our side are filled with toasts and nonsen- 
 sical paragraphs attributing wisdom and firmness to the Presi- 
 dent." 8 Gen. Ebenezer Huntington wrote from Norwich, in 
 August: " There is a change of opinion affecting the people of 
 this State; and at present, I am doubtful what extent it will 
 gain. There are many who have heretofore assumed the charac- 
 ter of federalists, who have lately shown themselves democrats, 
 and are high in their commendation of Jefferson, in hopes to 
 partake of the loaves and fishes which are to be distributed by 
 the new President." 9 (The federalists spoke of their opponents, 
 indifferently, as "Jacobins," or "democrats," — never conced- 
 ing to them an exclusive right to the designation of " repub- 
 licans.") 10 
 
 6 Ibid. ii. 374. 6 Ibid. 401. 7 Ibid. 394. 
 
 8 Ibid. 371 (Wolcott to G. Cabot). "Ibid. 398. 
 
 10 Abraham Bishop, in an Oration on "Connecticut Republicanism"
 
 a 
 
 STEADY HABITS " RE-ESTABLISHED. 23 
 
 National defeat, in the election of Mr. Jefferson, restored 
 union to the federal party in Connecticut. Its relative strength 
 was somewhat impaired by desertion, and — to say nothing of 
 changes wrought by honest convictions — " the loaves and 
 fishes," might now and then tempt a straggler to the republican 
 camp. But the State, as well as the national government, had 
 its rewards for the faithful, and the federal managers took care 
 that these were judiciously distributed. The party was no 
 longer without that wholesome " dread of its rival," so essential 
 to the preservation of union: but it was strong enough to main- 
 tain, for sixteen years yet, against a vigorous opposition, and 
 all the republican influences which could be brought to bear 
 from without, absolute control of the State government and of 
 legislation. It was the boast of the federalists, and the sneer of 
 their adversaries, that the " steady habits " of Connecticut were 
 too firmly established to be affected by changes in the national 
 administration or in neighboring States. The Republican 
 Watch-Tower (Cheetharfi's paper) of New York, in an article 
 on " Connecticut Policy," June 17th, 1801, declares that 
 
 " The sentiments of the State have been marked, as well while 
 a colony as now, with a steadiness that excludes both retro- 
 gradation and advancement. Like an isthmus, inanimate and 
 immovable, she bids defiance to the meliorating progression 
 made on both sides of her. The advancement of political sci- 
 ence, generated by our revolution, has neither changed her con- 
 stitution nor affected her steady habits. . . . A fanatic venera- 
 tion for a pampered, deluding and anti-christian priesthood, 
 renders [her people] the dupes of their cunning, and sub- 
 servient to their power. . . . And the citizens, really honest, 
 but enveloped in superstition, arc converted into instruments by 
 the cunning of their priestly rulers, to debase themselves and to 
 exalt their oppressors." 11 
 
 •' The steady habits of New England," said Mr. Abraham 
 
 ( New Haven, Sept., 1800.) seems to accept for his party the name of 
 Ifcmocrals. " The terms ' repuhlicans ' and ' democrats ' are," he says, 
 "used synonymously throughout the oration, because the men who 
 maintain the principles of 1776, are characterized by one or the other 
 of these names in different parts of the country " (p. 7). 
 
 " " Kvery person who has read the principal Jacobin gazettes for a 
 
 considerable time past," says Mr. Dwight, in his Cincinnati oration, 
 
 with reference to this extract from the Watch Tower, "must have seen 
 
 that there is existing a peculiar animosity against the government, in- 
 
 •ltions, clergy, and people of Connecticut." The federalists recipro- 
 
 • <1 all the animosity, and were noways humbled by the rebukes they
 
 24 THE " STEADY HABITS OF CONNECTICUT FEDERALISM. 
 
 Bishop, in his oration at Wallingford, March nth, 1801, "pre- 
 sent the fourth obstacle to the diffusion of truth. The sailor 
 nailed the needle of his compass to the cardinal point, and swore 
 it should not be always traversing. So does the New England 
 friend of order." 
 
 " It has become very fashionable," replied a federal orator, " to 
 ridicule the attachment of the people of Connecticut to their 
 government, their institutions, and their " steady habits." But be- 
 fore we add our sneers to those of the Jacobins', let us devote a 
 few moments to a consideration of the nature and effects of that 
 government, those institutions, and habits." In the course of 
 this review, he remarks: 
 
 " Connecticut exhibits the only instance in the history of na- 
 tions, of a government purely Republican, which has stood the 
 test of experience for more than a century and a half, with firm- 
 ness enough to withstand the shocks of faction, and revolution. 
 Our government is a government of practice, and not of theory. 
 
 constantly received from the " Jacobin " press of other states. They 
 boasted of the position of their State, " placed as a bulwark against the 
 approaches of a disorganizing spirit." " However enslaved they may be, 
 either by superstition or priestcraft, the people of Connecticut have got 
 sense enough left, to appreciate the merits of those who thus traduce 
 their character, country, government, and religion, whether they spring 
 from her own soil, or are the renegadoes of Europe." " If we are to 
 learn the principles of liberty and government from the Coopers, Cal- 
 enders, Duanes, and Cheethams, of England, Scotland, and Ireland, we 
 have got to pass through a tremendous and bloody schooling." 
 (Dwight's oration, 15, 32, 41.) The following lines from " Sketches of 
 the Times, for the year 1803 " — a New Year's address for the Hartford 
 C our ant, 1804, (re-printed with " The Echo," in 1807), were probably 
 from Theodore Dwight's pen: 
 
 " And here, in erring reason's spite, 
 
 'Mid storms of truth, and floods of light, 
 
 Unmov'd by threats, unawed by fears, 
 
 Connecticut her front uprears. 
 
 On Democratic frontiers plac'd, 
 
 By spirits base and foul disgrae'd, 
 
 Annoy'd with Jacobinic engines, 
 
 And doom'd .to Govermental vengeance, 
 
 Straight on her course she firmly steers, 
 
 Nor jibes, nor tacks, nor scuds, nor veers. 
 
 Not the whole force they all can yield, 
 
 Can drive her vet'rans from the field. 
 
 The same pure, patriotic fires 
 
 Which warm'd the bosoms of their Sires, 
 
 That generous, that effulgent flame, 
 
 Which glow'd in Winthrop's deathless name, 
 
 Unsullied through their bosoms runs, 
 
 Inspires and animates her sons."
 
 THE STATE HAS NO WRITTEN CONSTITUTION. 2$ 
 
 . . . Resting its claim to pre-eminence on the ground of long 
 experience and practice, it sets all theory at defiance. At the 
 same time, it is not easy to say what constitutes its strength and 
 force. . . . We have, in fact, no written constitution, no ex- 
 ecutive power or patronage." 1 
 
 In a note to this oration, Mr. Dwight gave a sketch of the con- 
 stitutional history of the State, and of the provisions of the char- 
 ter of 1662, which was " little more than a re-establishment of 
 the first constitution, with somewhat more explicitness." 
 
 " This charter, of course, stands at the head of our laws, as the 
 only constitution which the State possesses. ... It impowers 
 the inhabitants of the corporation to plead, and to be impleaded, 
 in legal suits, to have a seal, to choose yearly a governor, 
 deputy-governor, and twelve assistants, to hold two general as- 
 semblies in a year, to appoint and admit freemen, to elect offi- 
 cers, to erect judicatories, to ordain laws, to impose fines, and 
 to erect wharves for the purpose of drying fish. With no other 
 powers than these, it would seem impossible that a Colony, or 
 State, could possibly exist in peace and safety for so long a time 
 as since the year 1639. Such, however, is the fact, and it is 
 owing to the rectitude of the administration of the government, 
 and the effects of the institutions established under it. All the 
 defects in the constitution have been supplied by practice; and 
 the practical range is as well understood as though every prin- 
 ciple had originally been reduced to writing.' 
 
 "2 
 
 " Steady habits " and federalism came to be regarded as syn- 
 onymous terms; and a distinguished federal writer, in 1805, in 
 " a serious remonstrance to the people of Connecticut, against 
 changing their government," reminds them, that " a new struc- 
 ture or form of government would gradually produce a corre- 
 spondent change in manners, and your steady sober habits — the 
 theme of ridicule, but the real glory of Connecticut — would be 
 lost." 3 The minority complained that " every man who cher- 
 ished republican principles, was derided and abused as a deserter 
 from steady habits." 4 
 
 1 Theodore Dwight's Oration at New Haven, before the Society of the 
 Cincinnati, July 7, [8oi, pp. 7, 8. 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 35- 
 
 1 Steady Habits Vindicated, or a Serious Remonstrance, &c. By a 
 Friend to the Public Welfare [David Gaggett, Esq.] Hartford, 1805. 
 p. 14. 
 
 4 Abraham Bishop's Oration, [804. (p. 15.)
 
 26 THE REPUBLICANS DEMAND A CONSTITUTION". 
 
 Though leading republicans had, from time to time, urged the 
 necessity and importance of forming" a new constitution, to be 
 submitted to the people for ratification, it was not until the year 
 1804, that this measure was incorporated in the republican plat- 
 form. It was brought prominently into notice by Abraham 
 Bishop, of New Haven, in an oration delivered in Hartford, May 
 1 ith, 1804, at a republican celebration, " in honor of the election 
 of President Jefferson, and the peaceable acquisition of Louisi- 
 ana." 5 
 
 " At the Declaration of Independence," said Mr. Bishop, " the 
 charter of Charles II. became of no effect and it was proper that 
 the people of this free State should, like the people of other free 
 States, have been convened to form a constitution. But the 
 Legislature, which was not empowered for that purpose, and 
 which may repeal at pleasure its own laws, usurped the power 
 of enacting, that the form of government contained in the char- 
 ter of King Charles should be the civil constitution of this State. 
 Thus, by the pleasure of his Majesty, all the legislative, execu- 
 tive, and judicial powers of government tumbled into a common 
 mass, together with the power of raising armies, whenever the 
 stockholders of power should think best. 
 
 ' This precise condition of society, absurd and unsafe as it is 
 in theory, has proved far more so in practice. At the present 
 moment all these powers, together with a complete con- 
 trol of elections, is in the hands of seven lawyers, 6 who have 
 gained a seat at the council board. These seven men virtually 
 make and repeal laws as they please, appoint all the judges, plead 
 before those judges, and constitute themselves a supreme court 
 of errors to decide in the last resort on the laws of their own 
 making. To crown this absurdity, they have repealed a law 
 which prohibited them to plead before the very court of which 
 they are judges." (pp. 9, 10.) 
 
 After pointing out various evils which, from the republican 
 point of view, were necessary results of " such complicated usur- 
 pation of power," he proposes (p. 16) as the remedy — 
 
 ' That the people shall be convened to form a constitution 
 
 " Printed for the General Committee of Republicans." From Sidney's 
 Press, 1804, 8vo, pp. 24. 
 
 6 In a note, Mr. Bishop named " Messrs. Daggett, [Nathaniel] Smith, 
 Chauncey Goodrich, [Jonathan] Brace, [John] Allen, [William] Ed- 
 mond, and [Elizur] Goodrich, — holding the same undefined powers 
 which their predecessors have held, and which their successors shall hold, 
 till we shall have a constitution."
 
 REPUBLICAN DELEGATES MEET AT NEW HAVEN. 2.J 
 
 WHICH SHALL SEPARATE THE LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, AND 
 
 JUDICIAL POWERS, SHALL DEFINE THE QUALIFICATION'S OF 
 
 FREEMEN, SO THAT LEGISLATORS SHALL NOT TAMPER WITH 
 ELECTION LAWS, AND SHALL DISTRICT THE STATE, SO THAT FREE- 
 MEN MAY JUDGE OF THE CANDIDATES FOR THEIR SUFFRAGES." 
 
 Mr. Bishop's oration was " printed by the republican general 
 committee," and distributed throughout the State. A writer in 
 the American Mercury (republican) of August 2d, 1804, " on the 
 subject of a Constitution," says, that until the publication of this 
 oration, " it was not generally known that the State of Connect- 
 icut had not a constitution," and recommends that the freemen 
 in each town should hold meetings for the appointment of com- 
 mittees to confer on a plan for the election of delegates to a con- 
 vention. The (federal) Courant, of August 15th, notices this 
 recommendation, remarking that "Abraham opened on this sub- 
 ject on the nth of May, and the writers in the Mercury seem de- 
 termined to make the most of it." 
 
 That discussion of this subject should immediately assume a 
 partisan character was unavoidable, for Mr. Bishop's political 
 associates believed, with him, that " a constitution would give a 
 death-blow to Connecticut federalism, and, with it, to all hos- 
 tility against the general government," 7 and some, if not all, of 
 the federal leaders shared this conviction. 
 
 On the 30th of July, the Republican General Committee (of 
 which Pierpont Edwards was chairman) addressed a circular to 
 their party, stating that " many very respectable republicans are 
 of the opinion that it is high time to speak to the citizens of Con- 
 necticut, plainly and explicitly, on the subject of forming a con- 
 stitution ; but this ought not to be done without the approbation 
 of the party;" and a general meeting was proposed, to be held 
 at Xew Haven on the fifth Wednesday (29th) of August. 
 
 ( )n the day appointed, republican delegates from ninety-seven 
 towns assembled at the state-house, in New Haven. Major 
 William Judd, of Farmington, was chosen chairman, and Henry 
 W. Edwards and Lemuel Whitman, clerks. The meeting was 
 held with closed doors. It was declared, as " the unanimous 
 opinion of this meeting, that the people of this State are at pres- 
 ent without a Constitution of civil government," and it was 
 thereupon resolved, " thai it is expedient to take measure's pre- 
 
 1 V Bishop' I h ation, page 16.
 
 28 FEDERALISTS OPPOSE A CONVENTION. 
 
 paratory to the formation of a Constitution, and that a commit- 
 tee be appointed to draft an Address to the People of this State, 
 on that subject." The committee reported an address, which 
 was accepted, and ten thousand copies were ordered to be 
 printed and distributed. 8 
 
 The issue thus formally presented was made a prominent one 
 in the fall election. The federalists denounced the project of a 
 convention as revolutionary, subversive of law and order, and of 
 the " steadv habits " which had been the boast of the State. The 
 republicans were by no means unanimous in support of the 
 measure, notwithstanding the urgent appeals of the party press 
 and the untiring exertions of the party managers. In Septem- 
 ber, just before the election, a federal reply to the New Haven 
 address was printed, under the title of " Count the Cost. [An 
 Address to the Freemen of Connecticut on sundry political sub- 
 jects, and particularly on the proposition for a New Constitu- 
 tion. By Jonathan Steadfast."] The writer (David Daggett) 
 reviewed the proceedings of the New Haven meeting, impugned 
 the motives of the leaders of the movement, and presented, with 
 remarkable ability, the arguments against the proposed change 
 in the form of civil government. " This project," he said, " orig- 
 inates entirely in a spirit of Jacobinism: it is a new theme on 
 which to descant to effect a revolution in Connecticut. The ob- 
 ject is, by false assertions, to induce a belief that no constitution 
 exists, and that tyranny prevails." Commenting on the course 
 of the republican party for a few years previous, he comes down 
 to " Mr. Bishop's oration on the nth of May, declaring among 
 other outrageous and wicked falsehoods that Connecticut had 
 no constitution," to which he opposes Mr. Bishop's declaration 
 in 1789, that " the Constitution of Connecticut is the best in the 
 world, — it has grown up with the people, and it is fitted to their 
 condition." The writer proceeds to show that " we have a con- 
 stitution — a free and happy constitution. It was to our fathers 
 
 8 It was printed on a small half-sheet, in double columns, apparently 
 from " Sidney's Press," New Haven. Soon afterwards appeared a bur- 
 lesque, printed in the same style (and at the same press,) professing to 
 be the address and draft of a constitution " presented to the Sovereign 
 People " by " a Convention of Republicans, styling themselves ' The Up- 
 per-House of Delegates from ninety-seven towns,' " &c. At its head 
 stand, in large capitals, ' Liberty ! ' ' Equality ! ' The proposed Con- 
 stitution vests the Executive Power ' in Three Consuls to be chosen for 
 life by the President of the United States, provided he be a Republican; if 
 not, by the Sovereign People."
 
 PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE FIVE JUSTICES. 20, 
 
 like the shadow of a great rock in a weary land; it has enabled 
 them to transmit to us a fair and glorious inheritance; if we 
 suffer revolutionists to rob us of this birthright ' then are we 
 bastards and not sons.' " (pp. 10-13). The address closes with 
 an eloquent and skilfully framed appeal to every freeman to 
 " count the cost " before acting with the republicans for the pro- 
 posed reform. 
 
 The result of the October election, in an increased federal 
 majority, showed that the popular mind was not yet prepared 
 for a radical change. 
 
 When the General Assembly met, the leaders of the dominant 
 party, elated by success, resolved to administer a signal rebuke 
 to the revolutionary designs of the minority. Five justices of 
 the peace, 9 who had attended the republican meeting at Xew 
 Haven and taken part in its proceedings, were cited to appear 
 before the Assembly, " to shew reasons why their commissions 
 should not be revoked," since " it is improper," as the preamble 
 of the resolution sets forth, " to entrust the administration of the 
 laws to persons who hold and teach that the government is an 
 usurpation." Asher Miller and David Daggett were appointed 
 managers on the part of the State, for the prosecution, and Pier- 
 pont Edwards, by permission of the Assembly, appeared as 
 counsel for the respondents. The case was heard by the two 
 Houses in joint convention, October 30th. Mr. Edwards ar- 
 gued in defence of the Justices. Mr. Daggett replied in behalf 
 of the State. He reviewed the proceedings and the published 
 address of the New Haven meeting, and, succinctly tracing the 
 governmental history of the two colonies and the State, from 
 the adoption of the compact of 1639, and the foundation of civil 
 polity in New Haven, he aimed to " demonstrate, that the peo- 
 ple of Connecticut, not only are not without a constitution, but 
 are possessed of one made by the people, in a sense not applicable 
 to any other people," and that theirs was, in fact, " the only 
 government ever formed upon entirely popular principles." The 
 original compact, he argued, " contains the vital principles of 
 our present government." 
 
 ' 'I In- people, in [639, vested the general court, or assembly, 
 with the power of making and repealing all laws, and of dealing 
 
 1 Major William Judd of Farmington (who was Chairman of the New 
 Haven meeting), Jabez II. Tomlinson of Stratford, Augur Judson of 
 Huntington, Hezekiah Goodrich of Chatham, and Nathaniel Manning 
 ol Windham.
 
 30 THE ASSEMBLY REVOKES THEIR COMMISSIONS. 
 
 in all other matters, except the choice of magistrates. And might 
 not the people grant this power? This is now our Constitu- 
 tion — our fundamental regulation by which power is exercised. 
 Who then shall complain? Surely not those who reiterate with 
 every breath, that the people are the source of all power. If the 
 people of Connecticut made this Constitution, I intreat those who 
 advocate the right of the people to make Constitutions, to permit 
 the people still to enjoy it." (p. 15.) 
 
 He showed the relation of the compact of 1639 to the charter 
 of 1662, and the acceptance of the charter by the people, not 
 only by their action on its first receipt, but by the re-establish- 
 ment of its authority after the revolution of 1689. The general 
 assembly not only declared, in 1776, that " the form of govern- 
 ment should continue to be as established by charter," but pre- 
 scribed (by act of May, 1777) the form of oath to be taken by 
 freemen, by which they were bound " to be true and faithful to 
 the Governor and Company of this State, and the Constitution 
 and government thereof." This oath, substantially, had been 
 taken by all admitted freemen, and, since May, 1777, " more 
 citizens have thus sworn to support our Constitution than there 
 are now taxable males in the State." 10 
 
 The New Haven address was not — he argued — "a decent 
 expression of opinion," merely; it was "an outrage upon de- 
 cency" ; and it was the duty of the Legislature " to withdraw 
 from men who denounce the government, the power of exer- 
 cising its authority." 
 
 On the day after the hearing, the governor and council unani- 
 mously passed a bill revoking the commissions of the offending 
 justices, and in this bill the house of representatives concurred 
 by a majority of 67, — yeas, 123, nays, 56. 
 
 Major Judd, who was a lawyer by profession, prepared an 
 argument in defence of himself and his associates, but soon after 
 his arrival in New Haven — where the general assembly was in 
 
 10 Air. Dagget's Argument, before the General Assembly, in the 
 Case of certain Justices of the Peace. To which is prefixed a brief 
 History of .the Proceedings of the Assembly [and a copy of the New Ha- 
 ven Address]. New Haven, 1804. 8vo. pp. 30. The cause of the prose- 
 cution could not have been intrusted to better hands. Mr. Dagget's 
 argument was very ingeniously framed, and presented with great ability. 
 But his view of the case was naturally partisan rather than judicial. 
 After he became Chief Justice, he did not speak of the government under 
 the charter with the same unqualified eulogy. The old constitution, he 
 then admitted, " gave very extensive powers to the legislature, and left 
 too much (for it left everything almost,) to their will." (Starr v. Pease, 
 8 Conn. Rep., 548).
 
 MAJOR JUDD'S ADDRESS. A QUESTION OF ORDER. 3 1 
 
 session — he was taken ill, and was unable to appear on the day- 
 assigned for the hearing before the two houses. With the help 
 of his friends, his " brief, or summary of defence " was hurried 
 through the press, but he died before the last sheet was printed, 
 Nov. 13th, 1804. The next day, his " Address to the People of 
 the State of Connecticut, on the subject of the removal of him- 
 self and four other Justices from office," was published " for the 
 general committee of Republicans." 1 
 
 While the bill for revoking the commissions was under discus- 
 sion in the house of representatives, Mr. Samuel Hart (a mem- 
 ber for Berlin) ventured the suggestion that " arguments against 
 it would be unavailing, when there was the disposition and the 
 ability to pass it." This was construed by the federal majority as 
 an imputation on the justice and impartiality of the House, and 
 the offender was ordered to be reprimanded by the Speaker. 
 When called upon to rise in his place to receive the prescribed 
 censure, Mr. Hart submitted a novel question of order, by asking 
 " if there was any rule of the House which obliged a member to 
 rise, for a reprimand?" After some discussion, the Speaker 
 (Hon. Timothy Pitkin) gave a decision in the affirmative. An 
 appeal was taken, and the House sustained the opinion of the 
 chair. Thereupon, Mr. Hart rose, and the reprimand was given 
 and received in due form. The " dilatory motion " and the tem- 
 porary embarrassment of the majority and of the Speaker 
 blunted the edge of the censure and occasioned great glee to 
 the republicans. 
 
 In the spring election of 1805, the question of a new constitu- 
 tion was again the main issue, and again the friends of " steady 
 habits " were successful. 2 The measure continued to hold a 
 prominent place in the republican platform, but, for several suc- 
 ceeding years with decreasing probability of attainment. Dur- 
 ing the administration of President Madison, it was almost lost 
 sight of, in the discussion of matters of more immediate and ex- 
 citing interest. But opposition to the existing order of things in 
 Connecticut was gaining strength and was no longer confined to 
 the so-called democratic party; and when, in the spring of 1817, 
 the contest was actively renewed, the friends of new measures 
 were so strong in numbers, position, and influence, that success 
 
 'Sidney 1 Pn - [ N'ew Haven]. 8vo, pp. 24. 
 
 2 Just before this election was published a pamphlet, entitled " Steady 
 Habits Vindicated," etc (Hartford, 1805). 8vo, pp. 20. Attributed to 
 David Daggett.
 
 2,2 ECCLESIASTICAL CONSTITUTION OF THE COLONY. 
 
 became nearly certain. The " standing order," in church and 
 state, had now to encounter a determined sectarian as well as a 
 political opposition. 
 
 To understand the character and extent of this opposition, it 
 will be necessary to review, briefly, the ecclesiastical constitution 
 of the colony and state. The foundation of this was the act of 
 October, 1708, 3 approving the confession of faith, heads of 
 agreement, and regulations in the administration of discipline 
 agreed to by the synod at Saybrook, and enacting that all 
 churches thus united in doctrine, worship, and discipline, should 
 be " owned and acknowledged established by law." A proviso 
 assured to societies and churches which " soberly differ or dis- 
 sent " from the established churches, and which were allowed by 
 law, the right of " exercising worship and discipline in their own 
 way and according to their consciences." But dissenters were 
 not thereby relieved of their obligations to pay their proportion 
 of town taxes for the support of the established ministry. By 
 a colony law (May, 1697) every town and society was required 
 to provide, annually, for the maintenance of their minister, in 
 accordance with the agreement made at settlement, by a tax 
 levied " on the several inhabitants according to their respective 
 estates." 4 A minister settled by the major part of the house- 
 Iwldcrs of a town or society was, by a law passed in 1699, to be 
 accounted the lawful minister of such town or society, and the 
 agreement made with him was declared to be binding on " all 
 of such town." 5 And when in 1708, the general assembly, by 
 an act " for the ease of such as soberly dissent from the way of 
 worship and ministry established by the ancient laws of this 
 government and still continuing," extended to all qualified dis- 
 senters in the colony, the same liberty and privileges granted by 
 the Toleration Act of William and Mary, it was with the special 
 proviso, that this should not be construed " to the excusing of 
 any person from paying any such minister or town dues as are 
 now or shall be hereafter due from them." 6 
 
 In 1727, an act was passed directing that all taxes collected for 
 support of the ministry, from members of the church of Eng- 
 land, should be paid to the settled ministers of that church; and 
 if, in any parish, the amount so paid should be insufficient to 
 
 6 
 
 Col. Records, v. 87. 4 Col. Records, iv. 198. 
 
 Ibid., iv. 316. a Ibid., v. 50.
 
 LEGAL RIGHTS ()F DISSENTERS. 33 
 
 support the minister, the members of his church were authorized 
 to tax themselves for the deficiency. 7 Two years afterwards, 
 similar privileges were granted to Quakers and Baptists. 8 
 
 At the revision of the laws in 1784, the act of 1708, recogniz- 
 ing "established churches" was omitted; and in October, 1791, 
 the general assembly passed " an act securing equal rights and 
 privileges to Christians of every denomination, in this State." 
 Every dissenter who should lodge with the clerk of an ecclesias- 
 tical society a certificate of having joined himself to any other 
 than the established denomination, was, " so long as he shall 
 continue ordinarily to attend on the worship and ministry in the 
 church or congregation to which he has chosen to belong," ex- 
 empted from the payment of society taxes for the support of pub- 
 lic worship or the ministry. And all churches and congrega- 
 tions of dissenters, so formed, were empowered to tax themselves 
 for maintaining their ministers, building meeting-houses, etc. 9 
 
 This — so thought Judge Swift — " levelled all distinctions, 
 and placed all denominations of Christians equally under the 
 protection of the law." 10 It was not, however, so favorably re- 
 garded by the dissenters. They complained that " when a per- 
 son attends on public worship in no religious society," he should 
 be taxed in the located society in which he lives. The located 
 societies had a right by law to tax all within their limits who did 
 not lodge the prescribed certificates, and this lodging of cer- 
 tificates — though it was considered by the general assembly as 
 " nothing more than an act of the dissenter to inform the located 
 society that he does not belong to them," was " deemed by some 
 of the dissenters themselves, a mark of degradation " or confes- 
 sion of inferiority. While the law professed to secure equal 
 rights and privileges to all denominations of Christians, it main- 
 tained, in fact, a distinction between the located or established 
 and the dissenting societies. Moreover, it was objected, these 
 were differences of opinion as to the construction of the law. 
 " As it was always in the power of the inhabitants of the located 
 societies, to try the legality of the certificates of dissent," dis- 
 senters had sometimes — as Judge Swift admits, — "been sub- 
 jected to hard and rigorous usage. Courts and juries had 
 usually been composed of what was considered the standing 
 
 'Col. Rec. (MSS.) vol. v., p. 587. 8 Ibid., pp. 688, 704. 
 
 "Revised Statutes, 1808, p. 575. '"Swift's System (1795), i. 144. 
 
 3
 
 34 THE DISSENTERS COMPLAIN". 
 
 church, and they had frequently practised such quibbles and 
 finesse with respect to the forms of certificates and the nature 
 of dissenting congregations, as to defeat the benevolent inten- 
 tions of the law." 2 
 
 The well-known Baptist elder, John Leland, in a pamphlet 
 published soon after the enactment of the " Certificate Law " of 
 1791, denounced it, as founded on the principle "that it is the 
 duty of all men to support the gospel and worship of God," and 
 that " human legislatures have the right to force them to do so." 
 ' The certificate that a dissenter produces to the society-clerk, 
 must be signed by some officer of the dissenting church, and 
 such church must be protestant-christian; for heathens, deists, 
 Jews, and papists, are not indulged in the certificate law; all of 
 them, as well as Turks, must therefore be taxed to the standing 
 order, though they never go among them or know where the 
 meeting-house is." 3 
 
 Another ground of complaint was found in the peculiar favor 
 manifested to Yale College, which, from its foundation in 1702, 
 had been under the exclusive direction and control of the con- 
 gregationalists. The special privileges secured to the college 
 by charter, and the repeated grants which had been made to it 
 by the general assembly, were regarded by the dissenters as in- 
 consistent with the concession of " equal rights and privileges 
 to Christians of every denomination." 
 
 The Baptists and Methodists had repeatedly addressed them- 
 selves to the general assembly, for relief from the operation of 
 laws which they regarded as oppressive, and which subjected 
 them to the compulsory payment of taxes for the support of any 
 ministry — even of their own denomination. They demanded 
 that " legal religion " should be abolished, and " the adulterous 
 union of Church and State, forever dissolved." 
 
 The Episcopalians were seeking aid from the State for the en- 
 dowment of their Academy in Cheshire and for the establish- 
 ment of a fund for the support of a bishop. In the former ob- 
 ject they had been partially successful, obtaining from the gen- 
 
 2 Ibid., 146, 147. 
 
 3 " The Rights of Conscience inalienable, And therefore Religious 
 Opinions not cognizable by Law; or, The High-flying Church-man, 
 Stript of her Legal Robe, Appears a Yaho — By John Leland." New 
 London, 1791 (8vo, p. 30). It was reprinted, with other tracts, by Charles 
 Holt, New London, 1802, under the title of " The Connecticut Dissenter's 
 Strong-Box: No. I, Containing The high-flying churchman, &c."
 
 THE BISHOPS FUND; THE PHOENIX BANK BONUS. 35 
 
 eral assembly, in October, 1802, license to raise 15,000 dollars 
 by a lottery. An act incorporating trustees of a Bishop's Fund 
 was granted in 1799, but this fund, derived from private contri- 
 butions, grew so slowly that in May, 1817, it hardly exceeded 
 6000 dollars. When the charter of the Phoenix Bank at Hart- 
 ford was granted (May, 1814), the State exacted a bonus of 
 50,000 dollars. The trustees of the Bishop's Fund alleged that 
 a portion of this bonus had been appropriated by the petition- 
 ers for the bank, to the benefit of the fund, and they complained 
 that it was unfairly withheld from the trustees, while an appro- 
 priation of 20,000 dollars, from the same bonus, was granted to 
 Yale College. 4 Another ground of dissatisfaction was the re- 
 peated refusal of the legislature to confer the powers and privi- 
 leges of a college, on the Academy at Cheshire, or to charter a 
 new Episcopal College of Connecticut. It is not surprising that 
 the federal majority — members of the " standing order," and 
 warmly attached to the school of the prophets at New Haven — 
 hesitated to contribute from the State treasury to the mainte- 
 nance of a bishop or for the establishment of an episcopal rival 
 to Yale. It is not more strange that the episcopalians, as a 
 body, became associated with the republican party, from which 
 they received assurances of support. 5 
 
 In October, 1816, as a measure of conciliation and compro- 
 mise, the general assembly passed " An Act for the support of 
 Literature and Religion," by which the balances due the State 
 from the United States, on account of disbursements for the 
 general defence in the war with Great Britain, were appropriated 
 as follows: one-third to the Presbyterian or Congregational so- 
 cieties, to be divided in proportion to their rate-lists, for the 
 support of the gospel; one-seventh to the trustees of the 
 Bishop's Fund, " for the use and benefit of the Episcopalian de- 
 nomination of Christians; " one-eighth to the Baptists' trustees, 
 and one-twelfth to the Methodists' trustees, for the«use of their 
 denominations respectively; one-seventh to Yale College; and 
 
 4 Eleven years afterwards (1825), the State granted to the Trustees of 
 the Bishop's Fund, $7,064.88, in commutation of their claim on the 
 Phcenix Bank honu 
 
 •The Rev. Dr. Shelton ("rector of St. Paul's, Buffalo, N. Y.,) in a 
 memoir of his father, the Rev. Philo Shelton, of Fairfield (1785-1825), 
 thus states the position of the Episcopal church in Connecticut, in the 
 te t which preceded the political revolution of [817: " When the 
 Epjscopal Church petitioned the Legislature in vain, as she did for a 
 Beries of years, for a charter to a college, he, with others of his brethren,
 
 36 A TOLERATION TICKET NOMINATED. 
 
 the balance, a little more than one-sixth of the whole, to remain 
 in the State treasury. 6 As might have been anticipated, this 
 measure pleased nobody, but tended rather to promote than to 
 diminish opposition to the established order in State and church. 
 The federalists and Congregationalists felt that too much had 
 been conceded. The minor sects thought the division unjust, 
 and, even if the provisions of the act in their behalf had been 
 more liberal, they could not, consistently with their past profes- 
 sions, approve the appropriation to the support of the ministry, 
 of a fund originally raised by taxation. Some of the Methodists 
 at first refused to receive their share of the fund. The Baptists' 
 trustees did not accept theirs, till June, 1820. In February, 
 1818, the trustees of the Methodists — a majority of the board, 
 it may be remarked, were federalists — voted that, though that 
 denomination had not been granted their full proportion of the 
 money to be distributed by the act, yet, not thinking it right 
 that the appropriation should remain useless, they would receive 
 it from the treasury. This action, however, was strongly cen- 
 sured by many members of the denomination in Connecticut. 
 
 In January, 1816, " a meeting of citizens from the various 
 parts of the State " was held at New Haven, for the purpose of 
 nominating a governor and lieutenant-governor, and to cement 
 an alliance between the republicans and such of the federalists 
 as were opposed to the " standing order " and were friends of 
 " toleration and reform." The nomination of Oliver Wolcott 
 for governor, and of Jonathan Ingersoll for lieutenant-gov- 
 ernor, was unanimously agreed on, " as the one most likely to 
 produce that concord and harmony among parties which have 
 too long, and without any real diversity of interests, been dis- 
 
 proposed a union with a political party, then in a minority, to secure what he 
 regarded a just right. And the first fruit of the union was the charter of 
 Trinity [Washington] College, Hartford. He was one of a small num- 
 ber of clergymen who decided on this measure, and were instrumental 
 of carrying it into effect; and it resulted in a change in the politics of the 
 State which has never yet been reversed." — Sprague's Annals of the 
 Am. Pulpit (Episc), v. 351. 
 
 6 The amount received from the U. S., before Nov., 1817, was $61,500. 
 This was apportioned as follows: 
 
 To Congregational Societies $20,500.00 
 
 Trustees of Bishop's Fund 8,785.71 
 
 Baptists' Trustees 7,687.50 
 
 Methodists' Trustees 5- 125.00 
 
 Yale College 8,785.71 
 
 Balance unappropriated 10,616.08
 
 WOLCOTT AND INGERSOLL. 7)7 
 
 turbed, and which every honest man must earnestly desire to 
 see restored." 7 
 
 Oliver YVolcott, in former days, had been a federal of the fed- 
 erals. He had opposed the re-nomination of John Adams be- 
 cause he believed that " we should never find ourselves in the 
 straight road of federalism while Air. Adams is president." 8 
 While secretary of the treasury, and after his resignation of that 
 office in 1800, he had been charged by the anti-federals, not 
 merely with maladministration and evil counsel, but with down- 
 right crime, and, as he on one occasion complained, he had en- 
 countered some of " the most flagitious and profligate devices of 
 party malice." 9 But retirement from political life and absence 
 for fourteen years from Connecticut had given old-time resent- 
 ments time to cool. " There were few men in this country " — 
 as republican writers now truly averred — " who would more 
 advantageously bear a scrutiny of character as to moral qualifi- 
 cations, than Oliver Wolcott." Moreover, " he was opposed to 
 the Hartford convention; like Washington was a friend to the 
 Union, a foe to rebellion; with mild means resisted bigotry, with 
 a glowing heart favored Toleration "; 10 and as, with all this, " he 
 had for the last eight or ten years approved of the general sys- 
 tem of measures adopted and pursued by the government of the 
 United States," 11 he was deemed an available candidate of the 
 coalition. The Mercury — in which, fifteen years before, he had 
 been accused of setting fire to the buildings of the War and 
 Treasury departments for the purpose of destroying the evidence 
 of his frauds and defalcation 1 — cordially supported his nomina- 
 tion, and challenged the federalists " to produce a single in- 
 stance, throughout his whole life, of impurity of motives in the 
 discharge of his public service." 2 
 
 Jonathan Ingersoll, an eminent lawyer of New Haven, had 
 been a member of the council, 1792-1798, and a judge of the 
 superior court, 1798-1801, and from 181 1 to 1816. He was a 
 federalist, in good standing with his party, but his nomination as 
 
 'Araer. Mercury (republ.), 27th Feb., [816. The Hartford 'rimes. 
 
 Feb., spoke of the new " American Toleration and Reform" ticket. 
 
 one "agreed upon with alia] to the conciliation of 
 
 political parties, the harmony of the different religious denominations, 
 
 and subsidence of tlie spirit of intoleran 
 
 p. 10 Admin, of Wash, and Adams, ii. 482. 
 
 '" X. Haven I' r, and Am. Mercury, tith Feb., 1817. 
 
 " " An in Am. Mercury, 26th March, [816. 
 
 ' Am. Mercury, Feb. ?tli and 25th, [801 Ed., 25th March, 1816
 
 38 TOLERATION TICKET SUCCESSFUL. 
 
 lieutenant-governor was made a condition of the support of the 
 new ticket by Episcopalians. Judge Ingersoll was a prominent 
 member of that church, and the senior trustee' of the Bishop's 
 Fund. ' It was deemed expedient, by giving the Episcopalians 
 a fair opportunity to unite with the republicans, to attempt to 
 effect such a change in the government as should afford some 
 prospect of satisfaction to their united demands." 3 
 
 The new ticket — first called " American," then " American 
 and Toleration " — was not successful in the spring election of 
 1816; but the diminished majority of the federal candidates fore- 
 shadowed the coming revolution. Judge Ingersoll, by the help 
 of federal votes, was chosen lieutenant-governor, by a majority 
 of 1,453. Mr. Wolcott received 10,170 votes, out of 21,759. 
 
 The next year, the same nominations, " adopted at a general 
 meeting of the friends o>f toleration," at New Haven, in October, 
 were again submitted to the freemen; and now, Oliver Wolcott 
 was elected governor by a majority of about 600, 4 over the fed- 
 eral incumbent, John Cotton Smith. Lieutenant-governor In- 
 gersoll, receiving the votes of both parties, was re-elected with- 
 out opposition, and in the house of representatives there was a 
 decided " Toleration " majority. The council — chosen from 
 the nominations made in October preceding — was still federal, 
 and without its concurrence, the radical changes to which repub- 
 licans and tolerationists were mutually pledged, could not be 
 effected. 
 
 The first act passed by the general assembly of 1817, was one 
 " securing equal rights, powers, and privileges, to Christians of 
 every denomination in this State." It provided that any person, 
 separating from any society or denomination of Christians to 
 join any other, should, on lodging a certificate of the fact, with 
 the town clerk, be exempted from taxation from any future ex- 
 penses of the society from which he withdrew. Every society of 
 Christians was authorized to lay taxes for the maintenance of 
 
 3 " Aristides," 26th March, 1816, and " Episcopalian," in Am. Mercury, 
 1 2th March. 
 
 4 The legal returns gave: 
 
 Wolcott, 13,655 
 
 Smith, 13,119 
 
 Scattering, 202 13,321 
 
 Wolcott's majority 334 
 
 But the correction of some errors in the returns increased this major- 
 ity — as the federalists conceded — to about 600.
 
 REPEAL OF THE STAND-UP LAW. 39 
 
 ministers, the support of public worship, for building meeting 
 houses, &c., and all Christian societies were to " have and enjoy 
 the same and equal powers, rights and privileges, to every effect, 
 intent, and purpose, whatever." 
 
 Even this concession was not sufficiently explicit and broad to 
 satisfy the minor sects; and the next year, another bill was intro- 
 duced, for more effectually securing equal rights and privileges to 
 all denominations. On the question of referring this bill to a 
 committee, Mr. (and the Rev.) Daniel Burrows, of Hebron, said: 
 " It was stated that the law of 1817 was designed to extend equal 
 rights to all religious denominations; but it did not change the 
 thing; it did not effect the object or answer the design of the ag- 
 grieved party. It contained no declaration which would enable 
 them to have recourse to the same measures that were enjoyed 
 by the standing order." 5 
 
 In October, 1816, the complete success of the Toleration party 
 was assured by placing in nomination their ticket for Assistants. 
 In the general assembly, they had again a majority of nearly two 
 to one. At this session, the obnoxious " Stand-up Law " was 
 repealed. This law was enacted in October, 1801, to regulate 
 the manner of voting in freemen's meetings. It directed that 
 in all elections by ballot, the freemen should " lay their ballots 
 on the lid " of the box, " and the presiding officer on being satis- 
 fied that the ballots given in are single, shall put them into the 
 box," &c. And further, that when the freemen were to vote for 
 persons to stand in nomination for assistants or representatives in 
 congress, they were first to be seated, and when any name was 
 proposed for nomination, those who would vote for the person 
 so named, should signify it by rising. If the accommodations 
 would not admit of seating all the freemen present, the vote 
 might be taken " by holding up the hand." Every freeman was 
 to be provided with a number of slips of paper " equal to the 
 number which are by law to stand in nomination "; and. at each 
 time of his voting, by rising or show of hand, he was to " drop 
 one of the said slips of paper, that he may not be exposed through 
 mistake to vote for more than the prescribed number." 8 This 
 l aw — which deprived the freemen of the privilege of secrel bal- 
 lot — had become unpopular, even anion-- the federalists. To 
 
 5 D< hi Conn. Courant. ' Rev. Statutes, [808, pp. 251, 252.
 
 40 " CONSTITUTION AND REFORM." 
 
 the republicans and their " toleration " allies it was odious in the 
 extreme. 7 It had been a favorite subject of animadversion, with 
 their orators and party press. It was one of the few real griev- 
 ances of which the freemen had to complain, and contributed, 
 perhaps as much as any other, to bring about the political revo- 
 lution which began in 1817. 
 
 In April, 1818, the revolution was consummated, by the re- 
 election of Wolcott and Ingersoll, the election of eight new 
 assistants, 8 and an anti-federal majority in the house of repre- 
 sentatives. 
 
 In this election, the question of a new Constitution was a rec- 
 ognized — in fact, the main issue. During the winter of 1817-18 
 and the following spring, town meetings had been held in many 
 of the towns, for expression of the views of the freemen, and to 
 instruct their representatives in the general assembly to vote for 
 calling a convention to frame a constitution. The " American 
 and Toleration Ticket " of 1816, and " Toleration and Reform 
 Ticket " of 1817 — this year appeared under the name of " Con- 
 stitution and Reform." The necessity of a change in the form of 
 civil government had been argued, with much ability, by writers 
 in the leading republican newspapers, and in pamphlets which 
 were liberally distributed throughout the State. 9 The American 
 Mercury, in the first number of the new year, began the publica- 
 tion of a series of articles on " The Constitution," addressed " to 
 the People of Connecticut," on the benefits to be anticipated 
 from the proposed reform and to answer objections which were 
 urged against it. The writer, in his first communication, admits 
 that, in past years, " the minds of the community had seemed 
 generally to revolt against opening the question, choosing rather 
 to endure existing imperfections than to throw aside the present 
 system, — lest a more perfect one might not be adopted." But 
 now, it appeared that all such apprehensions were removed, and 
 " the people were agreed, almost without dissension, that some 
 
 7 The republicans ascribed the authorship of this law to Lieut. Gover- 
 nor (afterwards Governor) Treadwell. See " Aristides," on Conn. Poli- 
 tics, in the American Mercury, 12 March, 1816. 
 
 8 Wm. Bristol, Elijah Boardmen, David Tomlinson, Sylvester Wells, 
 John S. Peters, James Lanman, Enoch Burrows, and Peter Webb. Four 
 of the old assistants were re-elected: Jona. Brace, Fred. Wolcott, Asa 
 Chapman, and Elias Perkins. 
 
 9 One of these, on "The Politics of Connecticut: by a Federal Re- 
 publican" [George H. Richards, of New London], was received with 
 much favor by the republicans, and widely circulated.
 
 NEW HAVEN FEDERALISTS FAVOR REFORM. 41 
 
 changes were expedient to adopt our government to the princi- 
 ples of a more enlightened age than that in which it was formed, 
 and to reconcile it with the institutions which surround us." 
 
 While the republicans and tolerationists were unanimous in 
 support of the measure, the federalists were not united in opposi- 
 tion. In several towns, prominent members of the federal party 
 concurred in the vote instructing their representatives, or 
 avowed themselves in favor of a new constitution. The jealous 
 rivalry between the two capitals — which dates from the union 
 of the colonies — was not without its influence. The modern 
 fiction of a " compact " by which the enjoyment of a state house 
 and biennial election-parades was guaranteed to New Haven for- 
 ever, does not appear to have yet gained even local credence; 
 but it was an avowed purpose of the Tolerationists, to abolish the 
 October session and provide for the annual meeting of the gen- 
 eral assembly alternately at Hartford and New Haven, thereby 
 placing the two capitals, as nearly as might be, on political 
 equality. The prospect of gaining such an advantage of a rival, 
 by remodeling the constitution, was an inducement which party 
 ties were weak to resist. Many federalists of New Haven and 
 its vicinity openly favored " Constitution and Reform," or were 
 careful not to manifest their opposition. 
 
 At a town meeting in New Haven, Dec. 29, 1817, a resolution 
 instructing the representatives " to use their interest and exer- 
 tions that measures be immediately taken for forming a written 
 constitution of civil government," introduced by Henry W. Ed- 
 wards and advocated by Ralph I. Ingersoll and Isaac Mills, was 
 passed "almost unanimously," and the Register, in publishing 
 the fact, was " happy to add that many of the most respectable 
 and candid of the Federalists have united with the Republicans." 
 
 Other considerations than those which were suggested by sec- 
 tarian or local interests contributed to weaken federal opposition 
 to the projected reform. Circumstances had brought promi- 
 nently into notice the most serious defect of the old constitution 
 and of the existing form of government — the omission to define 
 or limit " the supreme power and authority of the State " which 
 was vested in the general assembly without any reservation oi 
 judicial authority to the proper cunts of law. The legislature 
 had, from the settlement of the colony, been regarded as the 
 court of ultimate re orl in all matters, civil and criminal. It had
 
 42 UNLIMITED TOWERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 
 
 for a long time reserved to itself sole jurisdiction in equity, and 
 had not yet delegated to the courts the power of granting relief 
 in equity, where the amount in controversy exceeded 5,335 dol- 
 lars. 10 It might call to account any court or magistrate, and, for 
 cause found, fine, displace, or punish them, at discretion; and its 
 power to grant pardons, suspensions, and reprieves, in capital or 
 other criminal cases, was unquestioned. It was natural, there- 
 fore, that — the occasional remonstrances of the bench notwith- 
 standing — the opinion should be maintained by many, and es- 
 pecially by those who, for the time, were invested by popular 
 election with this unrestricted power — that " the assembly, by 
 virtue of their supreme authority, may superintend and overlook 
 all inferior jurisdictions, and may proceed, upon the principles 
 of abstract right and perfect justice, to grant relief to the people 
 in all instances in which they have sustained wrong in any possi- 
 ble manner whatever." 11 And here was danger of the very evil 
 against which the founders of Connecticut sought to guard them- 
 selves and their posterity, in framing the constitution of 1639 — 
 the " way which leads directly to tyranny, and so to confusion " 
 ■ — for, as Hooker believed — when, " in the matter which is re- 
 ferred to the judge, the sentence should lie in his breast, or be 
 left to his discretion, according to which he should go, is a course 
 which wants both safety and warrant." 12 Judge Swift, in 1795, 
 though he characterized those who pretended that Connecticut 
 had no constitution, as " visionary theorists," did not overlook 
 " a question of great nicety and difficulty [which] arises respect- 
 ing the constitutional jurisdiction of the general assembly, in 
 controversies of a private and adversary nature." Admitting 
 that the assembly " possessed the power of doing, and directing 
 whatever they shall think to be for the good of the community," 
 he maintained that " it ought to be deemed an inviolable maxim, 
 that when proper courts of law arc constituted, the legislature are 
 divested of all judicial authority" 1 But in the absence of any dis- 
 tribution of powers, by the organic law, it was not easy to effect 
 the separation of the law-dispensing from the law-making power. 
 In 181 5, the action of the general assembly in a case in which 
 Judge Swift (then Chief Judge) was nearly concerned, attracted 
 
 10 Rev. Statutes, 1808, p. 550. The amount was fixed as the equivalent of 
 1600 pounds, the limit of jurisdiction by the revision of 1784, p. 192. 
 
 11 Swift's System (1795), i. 75. " Ante, p. 7. 'System, i. 74.
 
 JUDGE SWIFT'S VINDICATION". 43 
 
 general attention, and gave occasion to the publication of some 
 excellent " Observations on the constitutional power of the Leg- 
 islature to interfere with the Judiciary in the administration of 
 justice." 2 At the October session, the general assembly an- 
 nulled the judgment and set aside the sentence pronounced 
 against a murderer convicted at a special session of the superior 
 court, at Middletown — on the ground that the court was irreg- 
 ularly and illegally convened, and that the order for summoning 
 the grand jury had been illegally issued. The chief judge, who 
 presided at the trial, felt himself constrained to appeal to the 
 public in vindication of his judicial character, against the im- 
 plied censure of the assembly. " It is true," he observes, " we 
 have no written constitution; our constitution is made up of usages 
 and customs: but it has been always understood that there were 
 certain fundamental axioms which were to be held sacred and 
 inviolable, and which were the basis on which rested the rights 
 of the people. . . . The government of the State, like most 
 others, is divided into three branches, the executive, the legisla- 
 tive, and the judiciary. These are co-ordinate and independent 
 of each other, and the powers of one should never be exercised 
 by the other. ... It ought to be holden as a fundamental 
 axiom, that the Legislature should never encroach on the jurisdic- 
 tion of the Judiciary, nor assume the province of interfering in 
 private rights, nor of overhaling the decisions of courts of law." 
 If this principle should be disregarded, " the Legislature would 
 become one great arbitration, that would ingulf all the courts of 
 law, and sovereign discretion would be the only rule of decision — 
 a state of things equally favorable to lawyers and criminals."* 
 
 " Peter Lung's case " gave a new argument to the advocates 
 of constitutional reform, and the Chief Judge's " Vindication' 1 
 was well calculated to exert influence in drawing a portion of the 
 more conservative federalists to the support of the republican 
 and toleration ticket in the elections of the two following years. 
 
 The election of 1818 was regarded by all parties as decisive — 
 as to the change not only of the policy, but of the frame of gov- 
 ernment. When the assembly nut in May,' it was well under 
 
 1 "A Vindication of the calling <>f the Special Superior Court, at 
 Middletown . . . for the trial of Peter Lung . . . with Observations" 
 Windham, 1816, 8vo. 
 \ Vindcation, &c, pj 
 deon 1 on, of Fairfield, wa n Speaker; Elisha Phelp . 
 
 of Simsbury, and Samuel A.. Foot, oi I h< hire, clerk
 
 44 gov. wolcott's message, 1818. 
 
 stood that its principal business was to provide for calling- a Con- 
 stitutional Convention. Governor Wolcott, in his speech to the 
 two houses, at the opening of the session, presented this subject 
 to their consideration, with characteristic fairness, caution, and 
 good sense: 
 
 " As a portion of the people have expressed a desire that the 
 form of civil government in this State should be revised, this 
 highly interesting subject will probably engage your delibera- 
 tions. I presume that it will not be proposed by any one to im- 
 pair our institutions, or to abridge any of the rights and privi- 
 leges of the people. The State of Connecticut, as at present 
 constituted, is, in my opinion, the most venerable and precious 
 monument of republican government, existing among men. 
 With the exception of less than two years from its first settle- 
 ment, embracing a period nearly coeval w with the revival of civil 
 and religious liberty in Europe, all the powers of government 
 have been directly derived from the people. The governors and 
 counsellors have been annually, and the representatives semi- 
 annually elected by the freemen, who have always constituted the 
 great body of the people. Nor has the manifestation of the 
 powers of the freemen been confined to the elections. They 
 have ever been accustomed to public consultations and delibera- 
 tions of intricacy and importance. Their meetings have been 
 generally conducted with the same order and decorum as those 
 of this assembly. No instance is known in which a single life 
 has been lost, in consequence of any mob, tumult, or popular 
 commotion. The support of religion, elementary schools, pau- 
 pers, public roads and bridges — comprising about eight-tenths 
 of the public expenses — has been constantly derived from taxes 
 imposed by the votes of the people; and the most interesting 
 regulations of our police have ever been and still are enforced 
 by officers deriving their powers from annual popular appoint- 
 ments. 
 
 " Prior to the establishment of American independence, the 
 Charter of Charles the Second of England was viewed as the 
 palladium of the liberties of Connecticut. It surely merited all 
 the attachment it received; for whatever had been the claims of 
 the British crown or nation, to jurisdiction or territory, they 
 were all, with nominal exceptions, surrendered to our ancestors, 
 by that instrument; especially, there was expressly ceded to 
 them and their posterity, the inestimable privilege of being gov- 
 erned by municipal regulations framed and executed by rulers 
 of their own appointment. The revolutionary war of course 
 occasioned no change or dissolution of our social system. 
 
 " Considered merely as an instrument defining the powers and 
 duties of magistrates and rulers, the Charter may justly be con- 
 sidered as unprovisional and imperfect ; yet it ought to be recol-
 
 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE. 45 
 
 lected that what is now its greatest defect was formerly a pre- 
 eminent advantage, it being then highly important to the people 
 to acquire the greatest latitude of authority, with an exemption 
 from British interference and control. 
 
 " If I correctly comprehend the wishes which have been ex- 
 pressed by a portion of our fellow citizens, they are now desir- 
 ous, as the sources of apprehension from external causes are at 
 present happily closed, that the Legislative, Executive, and Judi- 
 cial authorities of their own government may be more precisely 
 defined and limited, and the rights of the people declared and 
 acknowledged. It is your province to dispose of this important 
 subject, in such manner as will best promote general satisfaction 
 and tranquillity." 
 
 The House of Representatives raised a select committee of 
 five, " on so much of the Governor's Message as relates to a re- 
 vision of the form of civil government," and Messrs. Orange 
 Merwin of Xew Milford, David Plant of Stratford, Shubael Gris- 
 wold of East Hartford, Nathan Pendleton of North Stonington, 
 and Nathaniel Griffing of Guilford were appointed as such com- 
 mittee. The Council passed a resolution appointing the Hon. 
 Elijah Boardman (Rep.) and Hon. William Bristol (Tol.) with 
 such gentlemen as might be designated by the house, as a joint 
 committee, — and sent it down for concurrence. The House 
 refused to consider it, and ordered it to lie on the table, until 
 the committee they had already appointed should report. 
 The House committee presented the following report: 
 
 " General Assembly, May Session, 1818. 
 " The Committee appointed on that part of His Excellency 
 the Governor's Speech which relates to a revision of the form of 
 Civil Government in this State, Report: 
 
 That in conducting their minds to a result on this deeply im- 
 portant subject, your committee have deemed no small deference 
 due to public feeling and opinion. From resolutions adopted in 
 many towns, and petitions from a respectable number of our fel- 
 low citizens in others, together with information derived from 
 various other sources, they can entertain no doubt of a general 
 manifestation of a desire for a revision and reformation of the 
 structure of our civil government and the establishment of a 
 Constitutional Compact. 
 
 As all just political power is founded cm the authority of the 
 people, and instituted for their safety and happiness, a free and 
 deliberate expression of the public will as to any modification of 
 that power is eminently entitled to regard, — a regard strongly 
 enforced by the consideration, thai no government, whatever in 
 other respects may be its character, can 1m- expected to produce
 
 46 RESOLVE. 
 
 the best effects, to which the governed are not attached by affec- 
 tion and respect. 
 
 Although the political happiness which has been enjoyed 
 under the laws and government of this State affords cause for 
 grateful acknowledgment, yet, in the opinion of your commit- 
 tee, this happiness is to be ascribed to other causes, rather than 
 to any peculiar intrinsic excellence in the form and character of 
 the government itself. Destitute of fundamental laws defining 
 and limiting the powers of the Legislature, the citizen has no 
 security against encroachments on his most sacred rights, and 
 violations of the first principles of a free government, except 
 what may be found in the dependence of that body on the fre- 
 quency of popular elections. Yet even these boasted barriers 
 against arbitrary power may at any time be prostrated by the 
 Legislative will. What sufficient security, then, have the people 
 against the most extravagant exercise of power by such a Legis- 
 lature, always liable to be impelled by passion, caprice, and party 
 spirit, or to be influenced by intrigue or misinformation? There 
 is none to be found in the theory of our government, and experi- 
 ence, to which we, with regret, recur, may teach us that there is 
 none elsewhere. 
 
 The organization of the different branches of government, the 
 separation of their powers, the tenure of office, the elective fran- 
 chise, liberty of speech and of the press, freedom of conscience, 
 trial by jury, — rights which relate to these deeply interesting 
 subjects ougiit not to be suffered to rest on the frail foundation 
 of legislative will or discretion. 
 
 Regarding the present as a period peculiarly auspicious for 
 carrying into effect the wishes of our fellow-citizens on this im- 
 portant subject, — a period in a great measure happily free from 
 the agitation and collision of party spirit, and in which we have 
 the advantage of the instruction which experience has alike de- 
 rived from the excellencies and faults of the Constitutions of 
 our sister States, your committee beg leave to recommend the 
 adoption of the accompanying Resolution. 
 
 Per order, 
 
 Oraistge Merwin, Chairman. 
 
 The Resolution, as subsequently completed, by filling the 
 blanks left by the Committee, was as follows: 
 
 Resolved by this Assembly. That it be, and it is hereby recom- 
 mended to the people of this State, who are qualified to vote in 
 Town or Freemen's Meetings, to assemble in their respective 
 towns, on the fourth day of July 1 next at 9 o'clock in the morn- 
 ing at their usual place of holding Town or Freemens Meetings, 
 and, after having chosen their presiding officer, then and there 
 to elect, by ballot, as many delegates as said towns now choose 
 representatives to the General Assembly, who shall meet in con- 
 
 1 The words printed in italics were inserted by the House.
 
 CALLING A CONVENTION. 47 
 
 vention at the State House in Hartford, on the 4th Wednesday 
 of August next, and when so convened shall, if it be by them 
 deemed expedient, proceed to the formation of a Constitution of 
 Civil Government, for the people of this State: a copy of which 
 Constitution, when so formed, shall be by said convention forth- 
 with transmitted to each town clerk in this State, to be by him 
 submitted to the qualified voters in the town to which he belongs, 
 assembled at such time as said convention may designate; which 
 time shall not be less than one week, nor more than three weeks 
 from the rising of said convention, for their approbation and 
 ratification: and said Constitution, when ratified and approved, 
 by such majority of said qualified voters convened as aforesaid, as 
 shall be directed by said convention, 1 shall be and remain the Su- 
 preme Law of this State. 
 
 And be it further resolved, That it shall be the duty of the Se- 
 lectmen in the several towns aforesaid, to give legal notice of the 
 time, place, and object of holding town meetings as aforesaid, 
 whether for the election of Delegates, or for the ratification of 
 the Constitution : and the votes in the meetings for the choice of 
 delegates shall be counted, and certificates of election shall be 
 supplied to said delegates, in the same manner as is now prac- 
 tised in the election of representatives to the General Assembly. 
 And the presiding officer chosen by said meetings for ratifying 
 the Constitution as aforesaid, shall, as soon as may be, transmit 
 by the representatives of their respective towns, to the General 
 Assembly next after such meetings are held, a certified statement 
 of the number of votes given in said towns, on the question of 
 ratifying said Constitution, both affirmative and negative, and 
 a like statement said presiding officer shall also lodge with the 
 town clerks of their respective towns, which votes shall be re- 
 turned to said assembly, and counted in the same manner, as is 
 by law provided for returning and counting the votes, for Gov- 
 ernor of this State. 
 
 And be it further resolved, That two-thirds of the whole num- 
 ber of delegates so elected, shall form a quorum, and said con- 
 vention shall choose a president and clerk; and the clerk of said 
 convention having been sworn to a faithful discharge of the 
 duties of his office, shall proceed to administer to the president 
 and members thereof, the following oath or affirmation, viz: 
 
 " You, being chosen delegates to this convention for the pur- 
 pose, if need be, of framing and devising a Constitution of Civil 
 Government for the people of the State of Connecticut, do sol- 
 emnly swear (or affirm) that you will faithfully discharge the 
 trust confided to you." 
 
 And said delegates shall 1"- allowed the same fees for travel 
 
 and attendance OH said convention, as is now by law allowed to 
 
 the Representatives to the General Assembly.
 
 48 AMENDMENTS PROPOSED. 
 
 Be it further resolved, That all such persons as are, or may, at 
 the time of either of said meetings, be qualified by law, and duly 
 certified as such, by the lawful board for said purpose, to be 
 made freemen of this State, may then and there be admitted and 
 sworn, and shall be authorized to act as such, in the business of 
 said meetings. 
 
 An unsuccessful attempt was made to amend the resolution — 
 on motion of Samuel A. Foot — by substituting, in the sixth 
 line, the words " one delegate," for, " as many delegates as said 
 towns now choose representatives to the general assembly." 
 This was opposed by Mr. Channing of New London and Mr. 
 Austin of New Hartford, and was rejected. 
 
 To a motion to fill the first blank, by fixing the " fourth day 
 of July " as the time of holding the freemen's meetings for the 
 choice of delegates, Mr. Griswold of East Hartford (Fed.) ob- 
 jected, because this was a holiday, and moreover, the fourth of 
 July happened this year to fall on a Saturday, when it was in- 
 convenient to the freemen to attend town meetings. Col. John 
 McClellan, of Woodstock (Fed.) " could not agree with the 
 gentleman from East Hartford ; he knew the fourth of July was 
 a merry day, but he thought, if the people began early in the morn- 
 ing, they would be able to get through before they were disquali- 
 fied to vote" 2 
 
 On filling the remaining blank — thereby determining what 
 majority should be required for ratification — there was more 
 diversity of opinion and longer debate. Mr. John Alsop, of 
 Middletown, proposed " two-thirds of the whole number of 
 tozvns." Mr. James Stevens, of Stamford, proposed " three 
 fifths " instead of " two-thirds." 3 Mr. Austin, of New Hartford, 
 objected to both propositions, because " two-thirds of the whole 
 number of tozvns might not contain one-fourth of the people." 
 Mr. Calvin Butler, of Plymouth, wished to substitute " four- 
 fifths." Mr. Foot preferred to leave this question to be decided 
 by the convention itself. Mr. Jonathan W. Edwards, of Hart- 
 ford, moved to fill the blank with the words, " which, when rati- 
 fied by three-fifths of the legal voters of this State, assembled in 
 legal town meeting warned for that purpose, shall become the 
 Constitution and supreme law of the land," and by vote of the 
 house the blank was so filled. But the bill having been re- 
 turned to the committee for revision, they reported it with an 
 
 2 Report of debates, in Conn. Courant, June 9th. 
 
 3 Had either proposition been adopted the Constitution would not have 
 been ratified. It received in October a majority of the votes in only 
 fifty-nine of the one hundred and twenty towns.
 
 SPEECH OF J. W. EDWARDS. 49 
 
 amendment requiring- only a " majority of the freemen," and this 
 amendment was accepted by the house — by a bare majority 
 (yeas, 81 ; nays, 80). Air. Foot then offered another amend- 
 ment, providing for ratification " by such majority of the quali- 
 fied voters as shall be directed by said convention" and this was 
 finally adopted. 
 
 The resolution was supported in debate, by Mr. Plant of Strat- 
 ford, Mr. Foot of Cheshire, and Mr. Burrows of Hebron, and 
 opposed by Mr. Griswold of East Hartford, and Jonathan \Y. 
 Edwards of Hartford. An abstract of Mr. Edwards* speech, 
 from a newspaper report, 4 may appropriately be inserted here, 
 as presenting the views of the federal minority and the grounds 
 of their opposition to a change in the form of civil government : 
 
 " Mr. Jona. W. Edwards, of Hartford, said : I do not rise, 
 Mr. Speaker, at this late hour, under the expectation that any 
 observations which I may make will change the vote of a single 
 member of this house ; but as I deem it my duty to give my vote 
 on this bill, I shall not hesitate to avow the reasons by which I 
 am influenced. 
 
 " We are blessed with a Constitution, sir, and if it is not a writ- 
 ten one, it is one under which the citizens of Connecticut have 
 enjoyed more peace, more happiness, and more freedom, than 
 could ever be boasted of by any other people under any other 
 government. Our form of civil government has remained from 
 1662, almost without a change. It was in its first outlines 
 formed by all the free male inhabitants of the three towns of 
 Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield. Afterwards the Charter 
 of Charles was drawn, in this town, made as we wished, and sent 
 to England for ratification. It rendered us independent, and 
 accordingly we were governed solely by laws made by ourselves. 
 The royal and proprietary governments were dissolved by the 
 revolution — but ours, a charter government, remained unal- 
 tered. The first charter was drawn up, perhaps, about the spot 
 where I now stand. It was drawn up. sir, at the request of the 
 people. It was not a charter of King Charles, but a charter of 
 the people, and under it we have always exercised all the powers 
 of government, and have enjoyed as much freedom as has fallen 
 to the lot of any other community. The assent of the people, by 
 long usage and acquiescence, has been as fully expressed, as if 
 the votes of the people had been taken, and the assent is less 
 equivocally expressed than even by a voir. What advant 
 then, shall we gain, sir, by a written Constitution? A written 
 Constitution app 1 me to be of no value, excepl in two 
 
 ,: Fir re a people have been holden in servitude, and 
 
 rant. June 9th,
 
 50 THE CONVENTION CALLED. 
 
 have obtained their freedom from their sovereigns. All the 
 people of Europe have emerged from a state of vassalage ; they 
 were once the dependents of their military chieftains, and the 
 privileges which they now enjoy were extorted by degrees from 
 their lords, and holden by charter. To such a people a written 
 constitution is highly important. The other case in which it is 
 proper to have a written constitution, is where several sovereign 
 states are united under one general and federal government. It 
 is indispensably necessary to have the limits of the general and 
 of the particular government accurately defined by a written con- 
 stitution. The State of Connecticut is not composed of inferior 
 sovereignties. As a state, it is one and indivisible. Neither do 
 the people hold their liberties from the grant or license of any 
 lord or sovereign ; they are of themselves free, sovereign, and 
 independent; they can never be more free ; they cannot even form 
 a Constitution, without relinquishing some part of their free- 
 dom — the freedom, at least, of changing their laws whenever 
 they are dissatisfied with their operation. They now choose one 
 branch of the legislature half-yearly, and the other annually, so 
 that no law will probably continue in force more than six 
 months, and certainly it cannot more than one year, before it 
 will be abolished, if the people wish it. The people, therefore, do 
 not ask for a Constitution — and those who are now in power 
 may be satisfied with uncontrolled dominion. They surely can- 
 not wish to part with the power of making wholesome laws and 
 regulations ; and they will not admit that the people are in any 
 danger from their usurpations. I think, sir, we have nothing to 
 gain, and have much to hazard, by an innovation. If, however, 
 we must have a Constitution, I would postpone it till the next 
 session of the Legislature, and if we must then form a Constitu- 
 tion, we ought all to join and make it as perfect as possible." 
 
 The resolution was adopted June 2d, and the Assembly ad- 
 journed, on the 6th. 
 
 The result of the town elections on the fourth of July assured 
 a considerable majority to the Tolerationists, in the convention. 
 Both parties had placed in nomination their strongest men, and 
 although, in a few towns, sectarian resentment or party spirit 
 prevented the election of some whose talents and experience 
 qualified them to take a prominent part in the work of recon- 
 struction, yet the federalists did not hesitate to admit, that " the 
 freemen seemed to have been in a great measure impressed with 
 the importance of the subject, by selecting, for the most part, 
 judicious and intelligent men, instead of furious and bitter parti- 
 sans," — including " many who had long possessed and deserved
 
 THE CONVENTION ORGANIZED. 5 1 
 
 the confidence of their fellow-citizens." And all parties con- 
 curred in expressions of confidence " that the wisdom, patriot- 
 ism, and experience of the members of this Convention, would 
 enable them faithfully and satisfactorily to discharge the great 
 and responsible duties of their station — to frame a Constitution 
 that will be acceptable to every class of freemen." 5 
 
 Such confidence was well-grounded. Seldom, if ever, has any 
 body of men so respectable, by the character, talents, political 
 experience, and good sense of its members, been convened in 
 Connecticut. 
 
 The federal leaders accepted the coming constitution, as in- 
 evitable, and, refraining from any parade of hopeless opposition, 
 directed their efforts to preserve as much as possible of the es- 
 tablished institutions of Connecticut under a new form — and 
 distribution of the powers — of government. " Federalists," 
 they said, " are far enough from being opposed to a constitution, 
 and instead of being ' enemies to it ' [as had been charged upon 
 them], will be heartily glad to co-operate with all honest repub- 
 licans, to form such a constitution of civil government as will 
 secure to the freemen of Connecticut ' equal rights ' and a con- 
 tinuance of those numerous privileges which have so long dis- 
 tinguished the people of this State." 6 
 
 On Wednesday, August 26th, the Convention met. in the Hall 
 of Representatives at Hartford. It was called to order by the 
 Hon. Jesse Root of Coventry, the oldest delegate present, and 
 proceeded to the choice of a clerk. Some discussion was had, 
 as to the propriety of conferring that office on any person who 
 was not a member of the Convention. Thomas Day, the secre- 
 tary of the State, was the leading federal candidate. On the 
 first ballot, the vote stood: James Lanman, 37; Thomas Day, 
 35; Gideon Tomlinson, 26; Ralph I. Ingersoll, 21; Timothy 
 Pitkin. 18; and 22 scattering. Mr. Lanman was chosen, on the 
 third ballot. 7 
 
 Governor Wolcott, who came as one of the delegates from 
 Litchfield, was elected president of the Convention. 
 
 In the afternoon of the same day, on motion of Mr. James 
 Stevens, it was 
 
 "Conn. Courant, July 14. 1818. The writer estimates the Strength of 
 parties in the Convention at 105 Dcninc-rats. 05 Federalists. 
 •Conn. Courant, June 21. ' Ibid.; Journal of Convention.
 
 52 
 
 THE DRAFTING COMMITTEE. 
 
 " Resolved, That this Convention do deem it expedient to pro- 
 ceed at this time to form a Constitution of Civil Government for 
 the people of this State." 
 
 The next morning - , 
 resolved to appoint, 
 from each county, to 
 the Convention. Th 
 
 For the county of 
 
 Hartford: 
 New Haven: 
 New London: 
 Fairfield: 
 Windham: 
 Litchfield: 
 Middlesex: 
 Tolland: 
 
 on motion of Mr. Robert Fairchild, it was 
 by ballot, a committee of three members 
 draft a Constitution and report the same to 
 is committee was constituted as follows : 
 
 Sylvester Wells, 
 Timothy Pitkin, \S 
 Elisha Phelps, 
 
 William Bristol, 
 Nathan Smith, 
 William Todd,^/ 
 Moses Warren, 
 Amasa Learned, 1 *^ 
 James Lanman, 
 
 Pierpont Edwards, 
 James Stevens, 
 Gideon Tomlinson, 
 
 Peter Webb, 
 George Larned, v 
 Edmund Freeman, 
 
 John Welch, 
 Augustus Pettibone, 
 Orange Merwin, 
 
 Joshua Stow, 
 William Hungerford, 
 Thomas Lyman, 
 
 Daniel Burrows, 
 Asa Willey, \^ 
 John S. Peters, 
 
 of Hartford. 
 
 of Farmington. 
 of Simsbury. 
 
 of New Haven. 
 « 
 
 of Guilford. 
 
 of Lyme. 
 
 of New London. 
 
 of Norwich. 
 
 of Stratford. 
 
 of Stamford. 
 
 of Fairfield. 
 
 of Windham. 
 
 of Thompson, 
 of Mansfield. 
 
 of Litchfield. 
 
 je>f Norfolk. 
 
 of New Milford. 
 
 of Middletown. 
 
 of East Haddam 
 
 of Durham. 
 
 of Hebron. 
 
 of Ellington, 
 of Hebron. 
 
 More than half the members of this committee had already 
 attained honorable distinction in professional or public life. 
 Others, not yet so well known to the people, were soon to be 
 called to important trusts and to receive the highest honors in 
 the gift of the State. Pierpont Edwards — who was chosen 
 chairman — was regarded by the federalists as the contriver of 
 the coalition by which democracy came into power under the 
 flag of " toleration." He still held the office of judge of the 
 U. S. district court, to which he was appointed by Mr. Jefferson. 
 He and Mr. Amasa Learned had been members of the conven- 
 tion which, thirty years before, ratified the constitution of the 
 United States. Five other delegates to the convention of 1788,
 
 THE DRAFTING COMMITTEE. 53 
 
 were in the convention of 1818, namely, Jesse Root, John Tread- 
 well, Stephen Mix Mitchell, Aaron Austin, and Lemuel Sanford. 
 Five members of the committee (Messrs. Bristol, Wells, Peters, 
 Lanman, and Webb,) were assistants. Three (Messrs. Pitkin, 
 Edwards, and Learned) had been representatives in congress, 
 and five others (Messrs. Phelps, Stevens, Tomlinson, Merwin, 
 and Burrows) were afterwards elected to that office. Gideon 
 Tomlinson and John S. Peters became, in turn, governors of the 
 State, and James Lanman, Nathan Smith, and Tomlinson, sen- 
 ators of the United States. 
 
 Considering the hostility to Yale College which had been man- 
 ifested by some of the republicans and the jealousy with which 
 its relation to the State was regarded by dissenters from the es- 
 tablished order, it is remarkable that so many alumni of Yale 
 were chosen delegates to the convention, and that twelve of these 
 were placed on the committee (of twenty-four) to draft a consti- 
 tution. 8 
 
 Five members of the committee were taken from the federal 
 minority, — Messrs. Pitkin, Todd, G. Larned, Pettibone, and 
 Willey. Of these, Mr. Pitkin had been the most prominent in 
 his party, and had the largest experience in public affairs. He 
 had represented his town in twenty sessions of the general as- 
 sembly, had been five times speaker of the house, and since 1805 
 a representative in congress. Nathan Smith, of New Haven, 
 though a federalist by conviction and affinity (his brother, Judge 
 Nathaniel, was a delegate to the Hartford Convention of 1814), 
 was now — as an episcopalian, a trustee to the Bishop's Fund, 
 and the agent of his church to obtain an appropriation from the 
 State — associated with the republicans for " toleration and re- 
 form." 
 
 Among the delegates to the convention at large, were three 
 honored chiefs of federalism and pillars of the established order; 
 the venerable ex-chief-judges, Jesse Root (now in his eighty- 
 second year) and Stephen Mix Mitchell (in his seventy-fifth), and 
 
 "Hon, Nathan Smith, who received an honorary degree of A.M. in 
 1R08. is included in this number. Dr. John S. Peters was a fellow of 
 the Connecticut Medical Society, but did not receive from Yale the de- 
 gree of M. D., till after the meeting of the convention. Two mem- 
 of the committee, Messrs. Lamed and Freeman, were graduates of 
 Brown University. Thirty-nine delegates to the convention were alumni 
 or honoraries of Yale. William Hungerford, of the class of 1800, and 
 Thomas Lyman, of 1810, were the two youngest graduates on the com- 
 mit 1 '
 
 54 THE CONVENTION. 
 
 ex-governor Treadwell (in his seventy-third). Gen. Nathaniel 
 Terry, of Hartford, divided with Gov. Treadwell the leadership of 
 the party in the convention. The Hon. Aaron Austin of New 
 Hartford, another federal delegate, had sat with the assistants at 
 the council-board for nearly a quarter of a century, till displaced 
 by the revolution of 1818. The Hon. Wm. Perkins of Ashford, 
 Col. Shubael Griswold of East Hartford, Gen. Levi Lusk of 
 Wethersfield, the Rev. Aaron Church of Hartland, Henry Terry, 
 Esq.. of Enfield, Col. John McClellan of Woodstock, were well 
 known as federalists and friends to the established order. 
 
 On the side of Toleration and Reform, prominent among the 
 original republicans and their recognized leader, was Alexander 
 Wolcott, of Middletown, a Jeffersonian democrat of the most 
 pronounced type, who, " more than any other individual, de- 
 serves to be considered as the father and founder of the Jeffer- 
 sonian school of politics in this State." 10 The Rev. Asahel 
 Morse (Baptist) of Sufheld, the sometime Rev. Daniel Burrows 
 (Methodist) of Hebron, Joshua Stow of Middletown — whose 
 misadventure with the republican circular in 1806, supplied the 
 federalists with some capital and gave his " saddle bags " a place 
 is political history, 1 — Gen. Joshua King of Ridgefield, David 
 Tomlinson of Oxford, one of the new Toleration councillors, 
 
 8 His town gave only 34 votes for — to 156 against — the Constitution, 
 in October. 
 
 10 Hon. John M. Niles; quoted in Stiles's History of Windsor, p. 834. 
 The federalists of 1800 to 1817, though they would not have hesitated 
 to concede this position to the " State Manager " of his party, would 
 hardly have accepted, without dissent, Mr. Niles' eulogy of Alex. Wol- 
 cott, as a man who, " always frank in his purposes, was equally direct 
 in his means, despising chicanery and artifice, the constant resource of 
 feeble minds." 
 
 1 " Joshua Stow, whom the State Manager [Wolcott] had appointed 
 County Manager, lost his saddle bags filled with copies of the general 
 orders. They fell into the hands of gentlemen who had no interest to 
 promote, by secrecy, and thus they were published in the federal papers." 
 — The Sixth of August, or the Litchfield Festival, [Hartford] 1806, p. II. 
 
 ' These men have reduced their plan to a system, and they are com- 
 pletely organized and officered. This is fully evidenced, by a circular let- 
 ter, from their Chief Manager. This letter was a business of secrecy, 
 but providentially discovered; it was safely committed by the post, to the 
 portmanteau on the horse; but the horse, like Absalom's Ass, despised 
 his burden, and frighted at the contents, broke his fast and ran, till the 
 letter was dislodged in the street. Here were peremptory, yea, sovereign 
 orders given to every town manager," &c. " What friend to his country 
 can read the Manager's letter without alarm? If so, he must have less 
 feeling than the horse, who generously communicated the contents to the 
 public." — The Two Brothers: a Dialogue. Hartford, 1806, p. 12.
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS. 55 
 
 Christopher Manwaring, of New London, were republicans such 
 as partisan speakers of our time are wont to honor as the " old 
 war horses " of democracy. Several of the most distinguished 
 members of the party — besides those already mentioned — were 
 on the drafting committee. Besides Dr. Sylvester Wells and Dr. 
 John S. Peters, (both members of that committee,) there were in 
 the convention at least a dozen physicians, nearly all on the tol- 
 eration side : Dr. Shelton of Huntington, Perry of Woodbury, 
 Turner of Norwich, Lacey of Brookfield, Jehiel Williams of New 
 Milford, and others : Drs. Bela Farnham of East Haven, and S. 
 Everest of Canton were with the federalists. 
 
 Mr. Lanman having been placed on the drafting committee, it 
 became necessary to provide an assistant clerk for the conven- 
 tion, and Robert Fairchild was chosen. 
 
 On Friday, Aug. 28th, the committee, by their chairman, made 
 a partial report, submitted a Preamble, and a Bill of Rights, be- 
 ing Article I. of the Constitution. The discussion which ensued 
 — unimportant in itself — indicated the result at which the con- 
 vention, constituted as it was, must almost of necessity arrive. 
 It was evident that the new constitution was not to be fashioned 
 as an engine or a platform of party. The tolerationists — many 
 of whom were drawn from the federal ranks — would accept the 
 republicanism of their allies, but stopped short of pure democracy. 
 All that was vital in the first constitution and the charter, was 
 to be preserved in the new frame of government. " The great 
 and essential principles of liberty and free government " would 
 be recognized and established, but the liberty must be enjoyed 
 under the restraints of established law. 
 
 Gov. Treadwell, for the old federalists, and Alex. Wolcott, for 
 the democrats, opposed the incorporation of any bill of rights in 
 the constitution. The former argued that, " such a declaration 
 of rights might be proper and expedient, or even necessary, if we 
 had to contend with a tyrant, or an aristocracy disposed to wrest 
 from the people their rights, — but it was well known, that all 
 power is vested in the people and exercised by a government ap- 
 pointed by the people. Was it then necessary to make certain 
 regulations for that government which sli« >nl<1 Ik- unalterable f" 1 
 
 1 Debates in Conn. Conrant. Gov. Treadwell's argument is tin- same 
 which Alex. Hamilton presented in The Federalist, No. lxxxiv. (Daw- 
 'a < ■'].. p. 598, fT.).
 
 56 RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE. 
 
 Mr. Wolcott objected to such a bill, because it circumscribed the 
 powers of the general assembly, and offered specific objections 
 to several clauses. 
 
 When the fourth section — " no preference shall be given by 
 law to any religious sect or mode of worship " — was under dis- 
 cussion, the Rev. Asahel Morse offered the following substitute : 
 
 " That rights of conscience are inalienable ; that all persons 
 have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God 
 according to their own consciences ; and no person shall be com- 
 pelled to attend any place of worship, or contribute to the sup- 
 port of any minister, contrary to his own choice." 
 
 The substitute was opposed by Mr. Pitkin and Gov. Treadwell, 
 (feds.) and by P. Edwards (repub.), and was rejected. A mo- 
 tion was afterwards made, to amend by adding the last clause of 
 Mr. Morse's proposed substitute. This also was rejected. On 
 the motion of Gov. Treadwell — opposed by Alex. Wolcott, but 
 sustained by Pierpont Edwards and Nathan Smith, — the word 
 " Christian " was substituted for " religious." With this amend- 
 ment the section was approved and adopted, notwithstanding the 
 opposition of Messrs. Wolcott, Burrows, and Joshua Stow. 2 
 
 The second, third, and fourth articles were reported by the 
 committee on Tuesday, September I. 
 
 Their final report, comprising Articles VII. to XL inclusive, 
 was presented on Friday, September 4th. 
 
 Each article was considered by the convention — first, by sec- 
 tions ; then, after discussion and amendment of the several sec- 
 tions, the whole article was again open to amendment before the 
 question was taken on its adoption. And when the several 
 Articles had been, in turn, approved, the whole instrument, hav- 
 ing been printed as amended, was again subjected to revision and 
 amendment before receiving the final approval of the convention. 
 
 The seventh Article — " Of Religion " — was the subject of 
 protracted and lively debate. The federalists contested its pas- 
 sage, at every point, and succeeded in modifying, in important 
 particulars, the draft of the committee, but they could not pre- 
 vent the complete severance of church from state, the constitu- 
 tional guaranty of the rights of conscience, or the recognition of 
 the absolute equality, before the law, of all Christian denomina- 
 tions. 
 2 Debates, in Conn. Courant, and Journal of the Convention.
 
 DEBATE ON THE SEVENTH ARTICLE. 57 
 
 To the first clause, as reported : " It being the right and duty 
 of all men to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and 
 Preserver of the Universe, in the mode most consistent with the 
 dictates of their consciences" — Gov. Treadwell objected, that 
 " conscience may be perverted, and man may think it his duty to 
 worship his Creator by image, or as the Greeks and Romans did ; 
 and though he would tolerate all modes of worship, he would not 
 recognize it in the Constitution, as the duty of a person to wor- 
 ship as the heathen do : " and Mr. Tomlinson subsequently 
 moved to amend this clause to the shape in which it now stands 
 (" the duty of all men to worship . . . and their right to ren- 
 der that worship," &c.) Gov. Treadwell also objected, that this 
 clause " goes to dissolve all ecclesiastical societies in this State," 
 — and this was doubtless the intent of its framers. Mr. Stow 
 thought, " if this section is altered in any way, it will curtail the 
 great principles for which we contend." 3 The committee's draft 
 was supported, in debate, by Alex. Wolcott, Mr. Tomlinson, 
 Daniel Burrows, Pierpont Edwards, Messrs. Waldo, Hart, Ste- 
 vens, and Lanman, and opposed by Gov. Treadwell, Nathaniel 
 Terry, and Timo. Pitkin. The first section was adopted by a 
 vote of 103 to 86, and a motion by Mr. Pitkin to strike out the 
 whole of the second section was rejected by 105 to 84. 4 These 
 votes indicate, nearly, the relative strength of parties in the con- 
 vention. On the final revision of the constitution, Mr. Terry 
 offered two amendments to the first section — the effect of which 
 was to continue the old ecclesiastical societies and to secure their 
 legal rights and privileges as corporate bodies : and these amend- 
 ments were adopted by the convention, without a call of the 
 yeas and nays. 5 
 
 "This article (as I was informed by the late Mr. Hungerford) was 
 assigned by the drafting committee to Messrs. Gideon Tomlinson and 
 Joshua Stow. Its first clause, as reported, seems to have been taken, with 
 slight change of language, from Gov. Wolcott's speech to the general 
 mbly in May, 1817: " It is the right and duty of every man publicly 
 and privately to worship and adore the Supreme Creator and Preserver 
 of the Universe, in the manner most agreeable to the dictates of his own 
 conscience." The statement has been repeatedly made, by writers whose 
 authority is entitled to respect, that " the Article on Religious Liberty 
 in the Constitution was drawn up by the pen of Rev. Asahel Morse," a 
 Baptist minister in Sufficld, who was a delegate to the Convention. This 
 is manifestly incorrect — unless Mr. Morse was the draftsman of the 
 governor's speech in 1X17. As is mentioned above, Mr. Morse offered 
 a substitute for the fourth section of the bill of rights, but this was re- 
 jected. 
 
 I ''hates in Conn. Courant, Sept. 22d; and Journal, pp. 4Q-54. 
 
 5 Journal, p. 07.
 
 58 THE CONSTITUTION ADOPTED. 
 
 On Tuesday, September 15th, "the draft of the Constitution, 
 as amended and approved when read by sections, was read 
 through for the last time before the final question of acceptance 
 or rejection. The Constitution was then accepted and approved 
 by yeas and nays, — Yeas, 134; Nays, 61." 
 
 The names of Nathaniel Terry, Judge Mitchell, William Todd, 
 John McClellan, and other prominent federalists, are found 
 among the yeas ; while those of Alex. Wolcott, James Stevens, 
 and Robert Fairchild are with the nays. 
 
 After the vote was taken, a resolution, offered by Gideon 
 Tomlinson, was passed by the convention, directing that the en- 
 grossed copy of the Constitution should be signed by the presi- 
 dent and countersigned by the clerks, and deposited in the office 
 of the Secretary of the State ; that seven hundred copies should 
 be distributed by the Secretary, to the several towns ; " and that 
 the number required to approve and ratify said constitution, be 
 a majority of the qualified voters present and voting " at the 
 town meetings to be held on the first Monday in October, agree- 
 ably to the Resolution of the General Assembly by which the 
 convention was called. 
 
 Unsuccessful attempts to amend the last clause of this resolu- 
 tion, were made, by motions to substitute, for the majority requi- 
 site to ratification, three-fifths, — four-sevenths, — and five- 
 ninths, of the number of votes given. 
 
 The engrossed copy of the Constitution having been signed, 
 by the president and clerks, and delivered to the Secretary, on 
 Wednesday morning, September 16th, the Convention ad- 
 journed, after a session of three weeks. 
 
 Fortunately, for the best interests of the State, the Constitu- 
 tion now submitted to the votes of the people, was not altogether 
 such as either federalists or republicans wished to make it. In 
 all its more important features, it was the result of compromise 
 between radical democracy and the conservative federalism 
 which held to old institutions, to established order, and to the 
 " steady habits " which had given a name and character to Con- 
 necticut. Moderate men, of all parties, were content with the 
 work of the convention. To the republicans, generally, the 
 overthrow of " charter government " was a triumph — even 
 though the reforms to be effected thereby were less sweeping 
 than they had hoped to make them. The so-called toleration
 
 RATIFICATION BY THE PEOPLE. 59 
 
 party had gained the ends at which they professed to aim, in the 
 guaranty of perfect religious liberty and the enjoyment of " the 
 same and equal powers, rights, and privileges " by all denomi- 
 nations of Christians. Jeffersonian democrats of the old school 
 were not so well satisfied. Alexander Wolcott, as we have seen, 
 voted against the amended draft. " The deliberations and con- 
 clusions of a majority of the convention were not such as to com- 
 mend themselves to the enlarged comprehension, the progres- 
 sive republican mind, and high expectations of Wolcott," — so 
 wrote his friend and eulogist, himself one of the most distin- 
 guished of Wolcott's successors in the leadership of his party : 
 ' The Constitution as presented, he discovered as defective, as 
 unjust, as founded on no basis of republican equality, as avoid- 
 ing in important particulars accountability and responsibility, as 
 a mere embodiment of the charter of 1662, which, though liberal 
 in its day, was not adapted to present circumstances and the 
 changed condition of the country and times in 1818." 6 
 
 Ratification by the people was for some time doubtful. As is 
 always the case where a compromise is effected by mutual con- 
 cessions, the proposed constitution encountered warm opposi- 
 tion without receiving from its friends of either party very zeal- 
 ous support. A federal editor, reviewing the work of the con- 
 vention, expressed what appears to have been the general senti- 
 ment: 
 
 ' We can say with truth, that many of the members with 
 whom we have conversed, dislike it, and though they voted for it, 
 as a choice of evils, did not consider themselves pledged to sup- 
 port it in town meeting." 7 
 
 So many of the democrats were dissatisfied with it, that but 
 for the help of a considerable portion of the federal party, it 
 must have failed of ratification. The federal delegates who had 
 voted for it in convention, nearly all supported it, in good faith, 
 when submitted to the people, and their example and influence 
 brought it many federal votes. 8 
 
 on. John M. Xiles, as quoted in Stilcs's History <>f Windsor, p. 835. 
 
 ( Miiii. ( '..iirant. Sept. 22. 
 
 "The late Seth P. Beers, who was one of the last survivors of the 
 
 toleration leaders of 1818, expn jsed to me (1862) liis decided belief that 
 
 Gen. Nathaniel Terry, by personal and political influence, did more than 
 
 any other individual t.. ecure a majority For ratification — and that had 
 
 ed tli. constitution, it could not have escape,! defeat.
 
 60 BECOMES THE SUPREME LAW. 
 
 On the first Monday (fifth) of October, the constitution was 
 ratified by the freemen by a majority of 1,554, in a vote of 
 26,282.° By counties the vote stood as follows : 
 
 
 Yeas. 
 
 Nays. 
 
 Hartford, 
 
 2,234 
 
 2,843 
 
 New Haven, 
 
 2,385 
 
 1,572 
 
 New London, 
 
 1,740 
 
 792 
 
 Fairfield, 
 
 1,836 
 
 1,019 
 
 Windham, 
 
 1.777 
 
 1,671 
 
 Litchfield, 
 
 2,027 
 
 2,779 
 
 Middlesex, 
 
 1,051 
 
 786 
 
 Tolland, . 
 
 868 
 
 902 
 
 13,918 12,364 
 
 The four southern counties, New Haven, New London, Fair- 
 field, and Middlesex, with a vote of 11,181, gave a majority for 
 ratification of 2,843 ! tne northern tier, Hartford, Windham, 
 Litchfield, and Tolland, with a vote of 15,101, gave a majority 
 of 1,289 against ratification. 
 
 When the votes had been counted, at the October session, 
 the Assembly requested the governor to issue his proclamation 
 declaring that the constitution had been duly ratified, and the 
 Secretary was directed to cause the constitution to be engrossed 
 on parchment and enrolled, with the State seal affixed, and 
 deposited in his office. Governor Wolcott's proclamation was 
 issued on the twelfth of October, and thereafter, " the Constitu- 
 tion of civil government for the People of the State of Connecti- 
 cut, framed by a Convention and published on the fifteenth day 
 of September last," was " to be observed by all persons whom 
 it doth or may concern, as the Supreme Lazv of this State." 
 
 As Abraham Bishop predicted in 1804, the " Constitution gave 
 a death blow to Connecticut federalism " — that is, to that type 
 of federalism which identified itself with the established order in 
 the church, and believed, with the elder Winthrop, in " the un- 
 warrantableness and unsafeness of referring matter of counsel 
 or jurisdiction to the body of the people." But the disintegra- 
 
 9 Exclusive of the town of Burlington, which made no returns. The 
 vote by towns is printed with the Journal of the Convention (pp. 117, 
 118), from the official returns.
 
 FEDERAL AND REPUBLICAN COMMENTS. 6l 
 
 tion of the old federal party had been going on for years, and 
 much of its strength had been transferred — not directly to re- 
 publicanism, but — to the cause of " toleration and reform," be- 
 fore the constitution was framed. The standard bearers of that 
 cause, in its first substantial victories, were taken from the fed- 
 eral ranks. The influence of the federal element in the conven- 
 tion made itself felt in every article of the constitution. The re- 
 sult, as we have seen, was not entirely satisfactory to radical re- 
 publicans, — some of whom complained that this instrument was 
 " a mere embodiment of the charter of 1662." Federalists of 
 the old school did not so regard it. The editor of the Connecti- 
 cut Mirror (William L. Stone), in a review of the political situa- 
 tion in October, 1818, mourned for the departed glory of the 
 State : 
 
 " Our venerable customs, usages, and laws, have been assailed 
 with more than vandal rudeness ; our form of government, under 
 which for near two hundred years we have enjoyed privileges 
 and blessings unknown to any other people upon earth, has been 
 swept away, as it were by the first surge of the tempest, and we 
 are left upon the ocean of experiment, under the direction of 
 officers possessing, with perhaps one or two exceptions, neither 
 skill nor capacity." 
 
 The Hartford Times — which, under the editorship of John M. 
 Niles, had been one of the most efficient promoters of the politi- 
 cal revolution 10 — summing up, at the close of the year, the im- 
 mediate results of the victory won by the party of constitution 
 and reform, expressed the satisfaction which, with the before- 
 mentioned exceptions, the republicans felt in their success : 
 
 " This charter is not only valuable for the rights which it se- 
 cures, but also from the difficulties which have attended the sub- 
 ject, the perseverance which it discloses, and the evidence which 
 it affords of the sure, but slow progress of light and intelligence, 
 of liberal sentiments, and of the ultimate establishment of the 
 empire of reason and philosophy on earth. It is the product of 
 more than fourteen years, and during most of this period it has 
 been like a ray of light enveloped in clouds and darkness — the 
 
 '".Mr. Niles embarked in these reformatory measures with zeal, energy, 
 and ability; and more than any other man. perhaps, contributed to the 
 revolution of parties which followed. To forward his views, and give 
 them efficiency, he with the co-operation of others established the Hart- 
 ford Times, in January, 1817, a paper that acquired an immediate local 
 position and influence." — Hon. Gideon Welles, communicated to Stiles's 
 History of Windsor, p. 727.
 
 62 THE IMMEDIATE RESULTS. 
 
 impervious gloom of prejudice, in part the relic of former times, 
 and partly the offspring of the juggling and delusion of political 
 and clerical craftsmen." 
 
 ******* 
 
 ' The rights of conscience are secured and established, the 
 adulterous union of church and state dissolved, legal religion 
 abolished, and the religion of the heart encouraged, a powerful 
 motive to hypocrisy removed, grace left free to all ' without 
 money and without price,' and the primitive rights of Christianity 
 restored. A government of men has been superseded by a gov- 
 ernment of laws founded upon a Constitution; a system of cus- 
 toms or steady Jiabits, established without the consent of the 
 people and maintained against their will, has been discarded ; 
 distinct and independent bodies of magistracy have been con- 
 stituted, their powers and duties defined, limited, and separated, 
 and their proceedings required to be public. 
 
 " The rights of suffrage have been recognized and established 
 upon just and liberal principles, excluding all qualifications but 
 those of a personal nature; the election laws new modified, ren- 
 dering the mode of voting convenient and expeditious, pro- 
 visions made for a correct return and counting of the votes, the 
 infamous ' stand-up law ' repealed, the system of nomination, 
 that wonderful invention of political empirics, whereby the same 
 public officers were chosen twice over, abolished, and semi- 
 annual elections, which were a great and unnecessary burden to 
 the freemen, have been discontinued, and an annual election 
 established. 
 
 " The sessions of the General Assembly have been reduced to 
 one in a year, thereby saving about $14,000 annually ; the su- 
 perior and county courts reorganized, and the number of judges 
 reduced nearly one-half, which will proportionately reduce the 
 expense. The salary of the Commissioners of the School Fund 
 has been reduced $500 ; arrangements made to place those funds 
 which were in a very neglected and ruinous condition, in a safe 
 situation ; the duties of the treasurer and commissioner of the 
 school fund separated and regulated ; and a system of taxation, 
 founded upon just and liberal principles, nearly perfected, and 
 will undoubtedly be adopted at the next session. These are 
 some of the changes which characterize the last year."
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 t-NTEfcttBRARY LOAflS 
 
 MAR 2 8 1963 
 
 FOUR WEEKS FROM DATE 
 NON-RENEWABIF 
 
 'I 
 
 Form L9-116m-8,'62(D1237s8)444
 
 I ■ 
 
 I 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 a 
 
 iimSL".^ REGIONAL LIB 
 
 AA 000 557 785 
 
 ••• ' 
 
 
 I 
 
 PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE 
 THIS BOOK CARDS 
 
 ^HIBRAJMfc. 
 
 ^OJITVDJO^ 
 University Research Library 
 
 T» 
 
 
 
 s3l6 
 
 T?7h