Page images
PDF
EPUB

larly to the Royal African Company in England;" which company was expressly desired by the queen, "to take especial care that the colony should have a constant and sufficient supply of merchantable negroes, at moderate rates." No commodities were allowed to be imported into the colonies, or exported thence, but in vessels built in England, or in some one of her colonies, and navigated by British crews. The colonies were prohibited from exporting to any other country than England, and imposts were established by the royal government.

In 1703, the assembly, justly complaining of the misapplication of the colonial revenues, insisted upon the establishment of a treasury. Governor Cornbury refused to comply with this demand, saying to the assembly that "they talked of their rights," but he knew of "no rights they had as an assembly but such as the queen was pleased to allow." But the governor was nevertheless dependent upon the assembly for supplies, and that body, unmoved equally by executive influence and prerogative, became continually more democratic.

The judiciary of the colony consisted of such inferior courts as those held by justices of the peace, courts of session, and courts of common pleas, and the supreme court, which was as it now is, a court of general, civil, and criminal jurisdiction. In 1712, Governor Hunter, by the advice of his council, and without the consent of the assembly, and for the purpose of increasing the royal power, erected a court of chancery, assumed to himself the powers of chancellor, and appointed the requisite number of masters, with an examiner, register, and clerks.

The effect of this institution was to increase the power of the crown, and to diminish that of the assembly. That body thereupon protested against the establishment of the court, as an act of royal usurpation; but the lords of trade who then had superintendence over the affairs of the colony, affirmed her majesty's right to institute as many courts as she thought proper. The controversy on this subject formed one of the grounds of the division of parties until the Revolution. The ignorance and venality of the governors, and the extortions practised in the court, tended greatly to increase the popular odium; but Governor Burnet was exempt from these reproaches.

In 1724, a collision arose between the governor and the assembly, upon his refusing to administer oaths to a member named

De Lancey, who had been returned as a member of the assembly, on the ground that he was not a subject of the crown. The assembly claimed the right to judge of the qualifications of its members. This right of the assembly was not afterward questioned.

It is recorded, to the honor of Governor Montgomerie, who entered upon his administration in 1728, that he declined to officiate as chancellor until he received positive directions from the ministry. About this period in the history of the colony, the legal profession begins to claim attention.

Our first lawyer was Adrian Vanderdonk. He was educated at the university at Leyden, and came to America in a bark belonging to the patroon of Rensselaerwyck, in 1642. He resided in the last-mentioned manor several years, filling the office of scout, which combined to some extent the duties of judge and sheriff. He subsequently removed to New York, then New Amsterdam, where he acted as chamber counsel, the government denying to him permission to appear in the courts, because there was no other lawyer to confront him. He signalized himself, in 1650, by a remonstrance to the states-general, upon the abuses of power in the colony, and in 1653, by his description of the New Netherlands. The bar of the colony, in 1716, admitted to its honors William Smith, the father of the historian, and James Alexander, father of Lord Stirling, who afterward rose to emi

nence.

Rip Van Dam, lieutenant-governor, performed the executive duties in the interval between the death of Montgomerie and the arrival of Colonel Cosby, who was appointed the successor. Cosby had instructions to relinquish to Van Dam one half of the salary and perquisites of the office, which had accrued during his administration; and, upon Van Dam's refusal to refund, assumed to clothe the judges of the supreme court with the dignity of barons and the powers and jurisdiction of exchequer, similar to those of the court of exchequer in England, in order to facilitate a recovery by the governor of his claims against his predecessor. Smith and Alexander, of counsel for Van Dam, excepted to the exchequer jurisdiction of the court. Lewis Morris, then chief-justice, supported the exceptions, but was overruled by judges De Lancey and Phillipse. This decision, overruling the plea of Van Dam, excited high indignation among the people.

The governor, nevertheless, removed the chief-justice, whom he could not overawe, and the subservient De Lancey was, without consulting the council, appointed chief-justice; a promotion for which he manifested his gratitude, by directing all his efforts to procure the indictment and conviction of Zenger, for the libel before mentioned, and the detection of the authors of other libels in the "Weekly Journal." In 1735, Alexander and Smith, who appeared as counsel for Zenger, filed exceptions to the commission of the judges, De Lancey and Phillipse, on the ground that the tenure specified in the commission was during pleasure, and not during good behavior, and for other causes. The judges met the exceptions with the answer, "You have brought it to that point that either we must go from the bench, or you from the bar," and excluded the contumacious lawyers, as has been already mentioned. These proceedings, together with those on the subsequent trial of Zenger, gave new violence to the political dissensions already raging in the colony.

A bill was passed in the assembly for the frequent meeting and calling of the general assembly; but the council amended it in such a manner as to change its effect, and it failed to become a law. In 1735, Mr. Garretson, a member from Kings county, submitted a report to the effect, that the maintenance of a court of chancery within the colony, without consulting the general assembly, was contrary to law, unwarrantable, and of dangerous consequence to the liberties and the property of the people, and the house concurred in the report. Still, Governor Cosby, finding the assembly more practicable than he had a right to expect, from the temper of the times, a succeeding one would be, continued that body, for a period of six years, refusing to dissolve it, or issue new writs of election; which term was prolonged three years by his successor. These grievances justly irritated the people, and they are recorded in the declaration of independence among the wrongs suffered at the hands of the king of Great Britain.

The general assembly of 1737 truly represented the spirit which then pervaded the people; and its proceedings are regarded as constituting an important era in the history of American legislation. In their address to the governor, they affirmed that none ought to represent the people but such as were freely and fairly chosen by them; that elections ought to be frequent;

that experieuce had shown the danger of trusting the same men too long with power; and that proper checks and balances were necessary for the preservation of the liberty and happiness of any country. The assembly distinctly informed the representative of the crown, that they would not raise sums unfit to be raised, nor put what they should raise into the power of the governor to misapply, if they could prevent it; that they would not at any one time make provision for the support of government for a period longer than a year, nor would they even for that period, until such laws should be passed as were necessary to the safety of the inhabitants of the colony. They asserted the importance of having an agent at the court of Great Britain, appointed and paid by the house, independently of the governor. They firmly remonstrated against the continuance of the court of chancery, as then constituted, declaring that the governors, in maintaining that court without the consent of the assembly, had treated that body with unreasonable neglect and contempt, and affirmed that some of the governors were wholly unfit for the duties of chancellor or of any other station, though buoyed up and bloated with flatteries by the instruments of their misrule and oppression. The house now first adopted the important principle of recording the votes of members. They passed a bill to appoint an agent to the court of Great Britain, which was lost by non-concurrence, as to its principal features, by the council; demanded from that body satisfaction for the insult it had offered by transmitting messages by the clerk, instead of a committee; limited supplies granted to the period of one year; and inhibited the treasurer from paying any part of the funds collected, until proper laws should be passed for that purpose. They passed a bill for the frequent election of representatives, and the governor being intimidated, gave it his assent, but it was afterward disallowed by the crown. After coming into direct collision with the governor, the assembly was ordered to attend him, when he, in an angry strain of invective and abuse, pronounced their proceedings presumptuous, daring, and unprecedented: and saying that he could not look upon them without astonishment, nor with honor suffer them to sit any longer, he declared the house dissolved.

One of our best historians* pronounces a high eulogium upon

* John Van Ness Yates.

this legislative body, declaring that its members properly appreciated their own dignity, and that neither ministerial smiles nor frowns could sway them from the path of duty. Yet the record contains one spot which the friends of rational liberty would wish to see effaced. On a question concerning a contested seat, the assembly resolved that Jews could neither vote for representatives, nor be admitted as witnesses.

The election showed that the assembly had not misunderstood the feelings or sentiments of their constituents; and the new legislature firmly adhered to the principles which had been asserted. The maintenance of those principles rendered the executive dependent upon the legislature, and thus an important step was taken toward that independence which was afterward established.

The institution of domestic slavery now began to produce its fruits of suspicion and fear. By the laws regulating that institution, every colored person was a slave, and a slave could not be a witness against a free man. The persons thus held in servitude were punishable by their masters to any extent short of privation of life or limb. The disabilities of the slave were hereditary, and the race was therefore plunged into hopeless bondage and degradation. This oppression was supposed to be justified by the assumption, that those thus injured were of "the accursed seed of Cain." Several fires having occurred in 1741, the negroes were suspected as incendiaries. The magistrates, the police, and the common council, were seized with a panic which extended itself to the judges of the supreme court and throughout the city. All the members of the bar, consisting of Bradley, the attorney-general, and Alexander, Smith, Chambers, Nichols, Lodge, and Jamieson, were summoned to attend and aid the court. The lawyers, sharing the panic, volunteered to assist the public prosecutor by turns, and left the accused defenceless. Convictions were easily procured upon confessions, and the testimony of perjured informers extorted by threats and promises. The court forgot not only its own dignity, but the claims of justice and humanity. Four white persons, implicated in the supposed crimes, were executed. Eleven negroes were burned at the stake, eighteen were hanged, and fifty were transported and sold into foreign slavery.

The legislature in 1741 manifested a disposition to inquire into

« PreviousContinue »