Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

CHAPTER VI.

AN animated dispute grew up between the three smaller Colonies on the one side, and Massachusetts on the other, occasioned by a law which had been made by Connecticut in order to fulfil her contract with George Fenwick for the purchase of the fort at Saybrook. The reader will remember that the all-important measure of confederation had been delayed by "divers differences" between Massachusetts and the company which first emigrated from her territory to the west. One of these related to Pynchon's settlement at Springfield, where the Connecticut people" went on to exercise their authority," while Massachusetts claimed the place as within her chartered limits. Among other arrangements

1 See Vol. I. 605; comp. Conn. Rec., I. 266-272.

[ocr errors]

2 See Vol. I. 626, note 2.- Since the publication of my first volume, a paper of prime importance in respect to the making of the confederation has been printed in the first volume of the Collections of the Connecticut Historical Society, by Mr. J. Hammond Trumbull, from the original, disinterred by him from the chaos of the Archives of Massachusetts. It is the answer which, in the autumn of 1638, Hooker made to Winthrop's letter mentioned in my note above referred to.

The warmth of its tone is such as forbids the reader to wonder that some time had to pass before the confederation could proceed. Hooker complains that he and his friends were represented in Massachusetts as "poor rash-headed creatures, who rushed

themselves into a war with the heathen [the Pequot war], and, had we [Massachusetts] not rescued them, they had been utterly undone;" that in Massachusetts, and in England by her friends, emigrants had been dissuaded from going to Connecticut; and that the natives had been taught to hold the planters along the river in inferior respect. He disapproves the treaty which, in October, 1636, Winthrop had made with Miantonomo, and denies that any obligation was imposed by it on Connecticut. And he defends the scruples which had delayed the assent of Connecticut to the Articles of Confederation, differing from his correspondent in relation even to some statements of fact.

[blocks in formation]

Imposition

duty at Say

brook.

1645.

Feb. 5.

made by Connecticut for the collection of an export duty to pay the debt incurred to Fenwick, officers of an export were appointed to give clearances at Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield; and the fort was to "make stay" of vessels which did not produce "a note or certificate from them."1 The traders from Springfield, the other river town, refused to pay the duty, on the ground of their belonging to the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. The prescribed penalty was confiscation of the property, "the execution whereof" Connecticut "deferred until the judgment of the Commissioners of the other Colonies might be understood in the premises."2 She accordingly brought the question the Commis- before that body, representing that the purpose of the impost was "chiefly to maintain the fort for security and conveniency," and that "Springfield had in its proportion the same benefit" as the other towns. The Commissioners were of the same opinion; but, as Massachusetts had given her representatives no instructions touching the matter, they postponed the consideration of it.3

Appeal to

sioners re

specting it. 1646.

Sept. 22.

Massachu

setts.

1647.

July.

A special session was held the next summer at Boston. The fort had now been destroyed by fire. Objections of A written argument was delivered by both the contending Colonies. That of Massachusetts was embodied in Resolves of her General Court, to the effect,-1. that the people of Connecticut could not rightfully compel the inhabitants of another jurisdiction to contribute to a purchase of theirs; 2. that, if the question were only as to money for maintaining the fort at Saybrook, it was "not useful" to Springfield; 3. that it was unreasonable to claim from Englishmen of Springfield a payment not demanded of Dutchmen at

1 Conn. Rec., I. 120, 121; comp. 170, where again only Hartford, Wethersfield, and Windsor are named.

* Ibid., 189.

* Records, &c., in Hazard, II. 72.

[ocr errors]

Hartford, who had as much use of the river navigation; 4. that an imposition, which had been objected to by Massachusetts people before the confederation with a repugnance which "hindered it above ten years," could not, after that friendly union, be made, without "putting them to new thoughts;" 5. that the course taken was the more unjust to the settlers at Springfield, because "they with the first took possession of the river, and were at great charge at building, &c., which, if they had foreseen, would not there have planted;" and 6. that, "if Hartford jurisdiction should make use of this power over any of theirs, they conceived they had the same power to imitate them in the like kind, which they desired might be forborne on both sides." 2

Mr. Hopkins presented the case of Connecticut. Replying to the arguments of Massachusetts one by one, he said:-1. that "it concerns not the party that Reply of pays to inquire after, or to call to account for, Connecticut. the employment of the moneys raised by this imposition," but that, further, "it might be absolutely denied that what was imposed to be paid by Springfield, as they passed, was to purchase lands or fort;" 2. that, in point of fact, the fort at Saybrook had "for nigh twelve years past," was still, and would be in future, "useful" to Springfield; 3. that the reference to the immunity of the resident Dutchmen was "but a presumption, and if it had any clear foundation, yet the comparison was not equal;" 4. that the facts relating to the causes of delay

1 To this statement it was correctly replied on the part of Connecticut, that "it was not above five years from the mentioned agitation for combination, and the conclusion of this present confederation, the one being June, 1638, the other agreed upon in May, 1643." (Records, &c., in Hazard, II. 82.) The Massachusetts Commissioners vindicated themselves for the apparent error

VOL. II.

21

by explaining that there was
a mis
take in the words for want of one syl-
lable." There would have been no
pretence, they say, for this criticism,
"if the word 'since' had been added,
according to the true meaning." (Ibid.,
112.)

2 Mass. Rec., II. 182, 183. The date of these Resolves was Nov. 4, 1646. Comp. Records, &c., in Hazard, II. 81.

in making the confederation were altogether misstated, and that the question of an impost had not then arisen; 5. that no expectation of such an impost would have prevented the planting of Springfield, and that Mr. Pynchon, the principal settler at that place, had anticipated that it would be laid, and had for a time acknowledged its justice; 6. that the principle last asserted by Massachusetts was equitable, and would legitimately be applied to other cases, provided other cases truly parallel should arise.1

Provisional decision of the Commissioners.

The reasonings having been "weighed and considered with all due tenderness and respects," the Commissioners from Plymouth and New Haven gave their decision in favor of Connecticut; adjudging, however, that the duty should "be neither at any time hereafter raised, nor increased upon any of the inhabitants of Springfield, without just and necessary cause, to be first approved and allowed by the other Colonies," and that the whole question might be reconsidered at the next meeting, if Massachusetts or Springfield should so desire.2

Oct. 27.

1648.

At the next meeting, accordingly, the controversy was renewed; but not till a communication had been made from Massachusetts, which manifested the painful feeling that had been excited in that Colony. A General Court was held there in the month after those deliberations of the Commissioners which have just been related; but the subject was not then brought up. The next spring, at the great annual Court of ElecMay 10. tion, the Governor, Deputy-Governor, and three Assistants, with Mr. Speaker Hathorne, three other Deputies, and the Surveyor-General, were "appointed a committee to join to peruse the Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies, as also the acts which had passed the Commissioners already, which might seem to confound the power of the General Court, or so interfere with it as Ibid., II. 84.

1 Records, &c., in Hazard, II. 82, 83.

2

.....

might in a short time prove, not only prejudicial, but exceeding uncomfortable." They were to "draw up what remedies they could think of, with such arguments as might be prevalent with all whom it might concern, . . that posterity might have no cause to blame" the promoters of the confederation "for uniting themselves in such a way as was feared did not now, nor was like to, answer the ends of the Colonies hereafter." The committee was to come together in the following month; and "what the major part should determine of," the Commissioners of Massachusetts were "to present to the rest of the Commissioners of the United Colonies." 1

setts for a

the Articles

of Union.

The result of the deliberations was accordingly communicated at the first opportunity to the Commissioners of the Colonies assembled at Plymouth. The com- Proposal of mittee proposed, that, to the end of settling the Massachu construction of some parts of the Articles of Con- revision of federation, certain specified declarations should be made, the main import of which was that "the Sept. 7. Commissioners' power should not extend to limit or interrupt the civil government or church affairs within any of the Colonies," or to the government of Indians, or to the constituting of any "general officer of a civil nature" to execute their determinations, within the bounds of any Colony. The questions were submitted, whether the stated annual meetings of the Commissioners would not be "better to be triennial;" and whether, instead of the existing provision, which, in default of an agreement of six Commissioners to give effect to a measure, required the approval of it by all four of the General Courts, "it were not more expedient to be determined upon the agreement of any three of them, provided it be in such case wherein the Commissioners have to deal." Inasmuch as "the Colony of the Massachusetts bore almost five for one in the proportion of charge with any one of the rest, they desired

1 Mass. Rec., III. 129.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »