Читать книгу Government and Administration of the United States - William F. Willoughby - Страница 6

Table of Contents

Colonial Governments; Their Relation to Each Other, and to England.

To understand clearly the early history of our country; to appreciate the reasons for the grievances of the colonists against their mother country; and to gain an intelligent idea of the events of that most critical period of our history, when the colonies, then free, were in doubt as to the nature of the federal government they should adopt; properly to understand all these facts, it is of essential importance that we should gain a correct knowledge of the condition of the colonies during those times, their relations to one another, their governmental connection with and attitude towards England.

The thirteen American colonies, which in 1775 dared defy the might of Great Britain, and which in a stubborn struggle were able to win their independence, were settled at various times, and by colonists actuated by widely different motives. At the time of the beginning of their resistance to the oppressive acts of their mother country, they were, in their governments, entirely separate from and independent of each other. "Though the colonies had a common origin, and owed a common allegiance to England, and the inhabitants of each were British subjects, they had no direct political connection with each other. Each in a limited sense, was sovereign within its own territory. … The assembly of one province could not make laws for another. … As colonists they were also excluded from all connection with foreign states. They were known only as dependencies. They followed the fate of their mother country both in peace and war. … They could not form any treaty, even among themselves, without the consent of England."[1]

[Footnote 1: Story's Commentaries on the Constitution, Vol. I, p. 163.]

All the colonies did not bear the same relation to the English government. Owing to the different manner in which the right of settlement, and occupancy of the soil had been obtained from the king, the colonies had obtained different rights of government, and were placed under different obligations to the crown. There came thus to be three types of colonial governments; the provincial or royal, the proprietary, and charter governments.

#I. Provincial Colonies.#—Those colonies which possessed a provincial form of government were royal colonies, being governed almost entirely by England, as she governs many of her colonies to-day. At the head of each was a Governor appointed by the King of England. He was assisted by a council, also appointed by the king. The constitution and laws for this form of government were contained in the commission and instruction given to the Governor by the English government. By them the Governor was empowered to summon a representative assembly. The legislative body consisted, then, of the Governor, his council, appointed by the king, and a lower house elected by the people. The Governor had the right of veto, and the power to dissolve the assembly. The legislature could make laws, provided they were not repugnant to the laws of England. These laws were subject to the approval of the Crown. The governor, with the advice of his council, could erect courts, appoint judges, levy forces, etc. From the highest courts in all the colonies an appeal lay to the English King in Council.

#II. Proprietary Colonies.#—The English King often gave to individuals large tracts of land in the New World. In addition to ownership of the soil, was given in many cases the right to establish civil government. These proprietors had all the inferior royalties and subordinate powers of legislation. The proprietor could appoint or dismiss the governor, he could invest him with the power to convene a legislature, with power to veto its acts according to his wishes, and to perform all other powers of a governor. All laws made, those of Maryland excepted, were subject to the approval of the English Crown.

#III. Charter Colonies.#—Colonies under this form of government were so called from their possessing constitutions for their general political government. These written constitutions were charters obtained from the King, in which were granted to the people of the colony certain privileges and rights of self-government which the English government could not justly take away from them. One of the unjust acts that did much to arouse the colonists to resistance, was the attempt of the English government in 1774, to annul the charter of Massachusetts by the Regulation Act. In this act was contained a precedent that (as Curtis says) "justly alarmed the entire continent, and in its principle affected all the colonies, since it assumed that none of them possessed constitutional rights which could not be altered or taken away by an act of Parliament." The charters were very liberal, granting almost entire self-government. As in the royal colonies, the executive was a governor, and the law-making branch a legislature of two houses.

In Massachusetts the governor was appointed by the Crown, and had a veto power. The Council or upper branch of the legislature was chosen annually by the lower house, but the governor had a right of veto on their choice. The lower house was elected by the people. In Connecticut and Rhode Island the governor, council, together with the assembly were chosen annually by popular vote, and all officers were appointed by them. In these two the governor had no right of veto, and the laws before going into execution did not require the royal approval.

Seven of the original colonies began under proprietary governments—New

York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, North and South Carolina, Maryland and

New Jersey. Of these, four—New York, New Jersey, North and South

Carolina—became eventually provincial colonies, and Maryland was at one

time a proprietary.

Three of the colonies, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island, were settled under charters that were never surrendered. Three others, Virginia, Georgia and New Hampshire possessed charters for a while, but eventually became royal colonies.

Notwithstanding these diversities of government that have been pointed out, there were many features common to all the colonies. All considered themselves dependencies of the British Crown. All the colonists claimed the enjoyment of the privileges and rights of British-born subjects, and the benefit of the common law of England. The laws of all were required to be not repugnant to, but, as nearly as possible, in conformity with the laws of England. In all the colonies local legislatures existed, at least one branch of which consisted of representatives chosen by the people.

The general condition of the colonies at the time of the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, so far at least as concerns their governments, has now been given. What were the grounds upon which the colonists justified their resistance to the acts of English government?

In the first place, they claimed that their rights were received from, and their allegiance was due to the King, not to the Parliament. The colonists said the King was the only tie that bound them to England; that Parliament was composed of representatives from England alone, and therefore had powers of legislation only for England. Later, however, it was conceded that in matters of general interest to the whole United Kingdom, Parliament might exercise control, but that concerning all matters of domestic and internal interest, and of concern only to themselves, it was the right of their own legislatures to legislate, and that under this head came taxation.

Says Story:[1] "Perhaps the best summary of the rights and liberties asserted by all the colonies is contained in the celebrated declaration drawn up by the Congress of nine colonies assembled at New York in October, 1765 (Stamp Act Congress). That declaration asserted that the colonists 'owe the same allegiance to the Crown of Great Britain that is owing from his subjects born within the realm, and all due subordination to that august body, the parliament of Great Britain,' That the colonists 'are entitled to all the inherent rights and liberties of his (the King's) natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain. That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people, and the undoubted rights of Englishmen, that no taxes be imposed on them but with their own consent given personally or by their representatives.' That the 'people of the colonies are not, and from their local circumstances cannot be represented in the House of Commons of Great Britain. That the only representatives of these colonies are persons chosen by themselves therein; and that no taxes ever have been or can be constitutionally imposed upon them but by their respective legislatures, and that trial by jury is the inherent and invaluable right of every British subject in these colonies.'"

[Footnote 1: Commentaries, Vol. I, p. 175.]

In opposition to these views, the English government held that Parliament had the authority to bind the colonies in all matters whatsoever, and that there were no vested rights possessed by the colonies, that could not be altered or annulled if Parliament so desired.

At the beginning of the Revolutionary War, complete independence was not claimed by the colonies. It was not until July 4, 1776, that they were driven to a declaration of full and entire independence and self-government. By this declaration the colonies threw off their colonial character, and assumed the position of states. This they did by simply taking into their own hands the powers previously exercised by the English King and Parliament. In the state constitutions which many colonies formed during the year, their old colonial forms of government were closely followed. Connecticut and Rhode Island, in fact, merely declared their allegiance to England absolved, and retained unchanged their old charters as their fundamental law. In Connecticut no other state constitution was adopted until 1818, nor in Rhode Island until 1842.