A FEW
OBSERVATIONS
ON THE
CONDUCT
OF THE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OF
NEW-YORK,
FOR SOME YEARS PAST,
ADDRESSED TO THE
FREEMEN AND FREEHOLDERS
OF THE
CITY AND PROVINCE.
PRINTED in the Year M,DCC,LXVIII.
BUT NEVER PUBLISHED.
Page 3
A FEW
OBSERVATIONS
ON THE
CONDUCT
OF THE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OF NEW-YORK, &c.
The vile and sordid wretch who's bought and sold,
And basely barters liberty for gold,
Cannot, with any justice, sure complain,
If he's compell'd to drag the galling chain.
WHEN artful, designing and ambitious men, are grasping at power, solely to aggrandize themselves and their families, without any view to the public interest and emolument, and in order to obtain their base and destructive ends, make use of those very people, upon whose sacred rights and liberties, they, without the least scruple or remorse, intend to trample, as soon as they have nestled into power, it certainly becomes the indispensable duty of every member of the community continually to be upon their guard, carefully to watch their motions, and, like vigilant and alert sentinels, to give the alarm, as soon as they discover their pernicious schemes and designs. Such a conduct has frequently been the means of preserving the state from ruin; as bad men have as often been deterred from the commission of base actions, from the fear of having them dragged to light, and exposed to public view, as from any other motive or consideration whatever.
History furnishes us with a great many instances of men, who have risen to the highest and most considerable offices in the state, by no other means than by practising the most consummate hypocrisy, and dissimulation, without being possessed of a single qualification to recommend them; who, from appearing the greatest patriots, and patrons of liberty, have, as soon as they had gained their vile and detestable ends, thrown off the borrowed mask, and become the greatest tyrants that can possibly be conceived.
When the representatives of a people, who have been preferred, to the rest of their fellow-citizens, to be the guardians of their sacred rights and liberties, and to secure
them
Page 4
them in the full enjoyment of their property, can be guilty of so much baseness and ingratitude, and such a manifest breach of trust, as to give up the liberties and interests of their constituents and wantonly dispose of their property, to serve their own private interest, or that of individuals with whom they are connected, in order to encourage tyranny and oppression, it is high time for the people of such a country, to use their utmost endeavours to redress a grievance of such a crying nature, and to act with the greatest caution and circumspection, in the choice of members to represent them for the future.
If we take a retrospective view of the conduct of our assemblies, for some years past, we shall find that they have, more than once, acted in the manner here described, and that the caution here recommended is by no means to be dispensed with, but on the contrary, highly necessary. For a proof of which we need go no further back than the late war, when many of the acts, which they passed, were not only unconstitutional, but as arbitrary as any edicts of Lewis the XIVth, or the most lawless and despotic tyrant upon earth. The acts, here alluded to, are those which were passed, from year to year, for detaching men from the militia, to complete the number of troops voted by the assembly, as the quotas for this province. I am sensible that many well-meaning people among us have urged in their defence, that there was an absolute necessity for such measures, and that the troops would not have been completed, without such severe laws; but these people would do well to consider, that no circumstances, however extraordinary, could authorise the assembly to deprive their constituents of their liberty; that we were, during the existence of those laws, some of the most abject slaves under Heaven; and that the necessity, for which they plead, was entirely owing to the misconduct of the assembly, in not making provision for keeping the troops (which were raised) upon half-pay, during the winter season, on which terms, far the greatest number of them offered to serve, and the colony was not only under the disadvantage of raising a much greater sum (than would have been necessary for that purpose) to pay the bounties of fresh men every year, but by this ill-judged method, a set of raw troops were annually brought into the field, instead of a regular well-disciplined corps. Another great inconvenience, which attended this infamous measure, was the depriving great numbers of tradesmen of their servants and apprentices, so that the greatest part of the burthen (which should have been equally born by the whole community) fell with redoubled weight upon individuals, and those who were the least able to bear it; as they, who were thus deprived of their servants and apprentices, paid the same taxes, in other respects, as if no such event had happened; the great injustice of which must be so very obvious, that it is needless to dwell upon it here.
To point out the misconduct of the late assembly, in every particular instance, would (besides being a very disagreeable task) take up rather too much time. I shall, therefore, confine myself to only a few instances; and in order to prove that they have been guilty of the most glaring breach of trust, I need only mention the gunning act, which restrains the freemen and freeholders of this city from gunning on this island, and thereby deprives them of a privilege granted by his Majesty's charter*, which the assembly, in this singular instance, have assumed a power to disannul--And tho' individuals may have suffered from the too free exercise of this privilege, yet there could not be the least necessity for passing such an act, as the persons aggrieved could have obtained redress by law, against any one who should have been guilty of trespassing upon their lands.
It is likewise indisputable, that they have wantonly disposed of our property, (contrary to the general sentiments and opinions of their constituents) by a resolve of the house, on the second day of July, 1766, which I shall here quote in their own words,
as
Page 5
as follows, "This house taking into consideration, that it may hereafter become necessary, "as it has lately been, to make use of a military force, to support the magistrates in the due "execution of the law--Resolved, that whenever his Majesty's forces, or the militia, at "the request or by order of the governor, by advice and consent of the council, shall march "to any part of this colony for that purpose, they will pay any extraordinary expence attending "that service, not otherwise provided for." A most extraordinary and stupid resolve, which will remain a lasting monument of their folly and wickedness, and will fix an indelible stain upon the memory of every member of the house who gave his assent to it; as it will doubtless some time or other be made a plea (by the enemies of our country) for saddling us with a greater number of troops. And should any attempts hereafter be made, to deprive us of our liberties, and we should exert ourselves in any manner to ward off inglorious bondage, if the governor, who is the immediate servant and creature of the crown, shall think proper to employ the troops, to cut our throats, we must pay any extraordinary expence attending that service, not otherwise provided for.
I scarcely need point out the flagrant abuse of the power with which the assembly were invested, in this remarkable instance. I shall, however, for the information of those who have not leisure to investigate this matter, shew the motives that induced some of the members to push this matter in the house; in the course of which I shall endeavour to throw some light upon this dark and mysterious affair, and shew the occasion of the memorable resolve above-mentioned. Some time in the year 1766, a dispute arose between a number of landholders and their tenants, respecting the tenure of their lands, and the conditions on which they had held them under a former proprietor, upon which it seems the landlords fell upon such severe methods, as drove the tenants to the disagreeable necessity of seeking redress by violent means, as the law (the only channel thro' which people aggrieved can obtain redress) was absolutely barred against them--the lawyers generally refusing to take their cause in hand; the consequence of which was, an open rupture between the tenants and their lordly masters; this alarmed the landed men in the assembly, who fearing their tenants might be tempted to take advantage of the times, they framed that infamous resolve, and by their weight and influence in the house, easily got it passed.*
To prevent our representatives, for the future, from passing any laws repugnant to the general interest, before we consent to give our votes for any of those who may propose themselves as candidates at the ensuing election, we should (while we have it in our power) bind them by their word of honour, that they will propose in the assembly, and use their utmost endeavours to get it passed into a law, that galleries, or seats, shall be erected in the assembly room, in order that the inhabitants who have leisure and inclination, may have free access, and attend to hear the debates of the house; by which means the public may, from time to time, be well informed what bills are preparing, or before the house; that if any of them should be thought to be improper, oppressive, or inconvenient, or to have any ill tendency, they may have an opportunity to petition and remonstrate against them, before they are passed into laws which we must submit to, however absurd, arbitrary, or inconvenient. This will appear the more necessary at this critical conjuncture, when the mother-country is endeavouring to deprive us of our inestimable rights and liberties; and especially when we consider, how much and how long we were in the dark, with regard to the assembly's proceedings relative to the billeting-act, and other matters of the greatest importance; of which we were as ignorant, as of the proceedings of the diet of the states of Germany.
B...........My
* It is said every one of the city members voted for it.
Page 6
My dear friends and countrymen, let me conjure and entreat you, to banish from your minds all thoughts of giving your votes for any lawyers, (which if you should by any means be cajoled to do, you will sorely repent it, when it will perhaps be too late to remedy the evil) as too many of them look upon themselves to have a separate interest from the rest of the community, and hold opinions incompatible with the general welfare. I, for my part, shudder to think on the consequences, should any of them ever get footing in the assembly, as I should then despair of seeing a reformation of the abuses in the law, so generally and so justly complained of. Nor could we with any reason expect that they would lend a helping hand to remove our distresses, while they are interested to increase them as much as they possibly can, as they are sure to fatten and grow rich upon the ruin of the people; nor could we expect that the assembly would ever come into the passing a law for a land-tax, so necessary for lessening the burthen of our taxes; as the interest of the lawyers (they being mostly possessed of considerable landed estates) would prevent such a measure, to oppose which, we may assure ourselves they would not fail to use their utmost endeavours. The selfishness of these wretches, and the sordid principles upon which they act, evidently appeared in their opposition to that useful law, empowering justices of the peace to give judgment in cases of debt, where the sum did not exceed five pounds. This law was doubtless designed to relieve the poor, by preventing their being put to any considerable expence, for the recovery of trifling debts, for which the suits at law (before the passing that act) were most frequently commenced; and it is notorious, that they not only made all the opposition to it here, that they possibly could, but even petitioned and remonstrated to his Majesty and Council, in order to prevent its passing, or to procure a disallowance of it, in case it should be passed; upon which Governor De Lancey received instructions not to pass it; but upon his informing the King and Council, that the law would be of the greatest benefit and utility to the people in general, and particularly to the poor, he obtained leave to give his assent to it. This beneficial and useful law (which will expire in two-years) we must never expect to see renewed, if any of these gentry should get footing in the house; for which reason, I sincerely hope that we may unanimously agree to keep them out of all public offices, especially those of such a nature as may put it in their power to act inconsistent with, and repugnant so, the general interest of the community.
PHILANTHROPOS.
New-York, Feb. 9, 1768.
**********
* - Let's take a closer look at this English-American "privilege" shall we?
"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law..."
- English Bill of Rights 1689, An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown.
A very respected early American legal scholar expounded upon the PRE-EXISTENT NATURAL Right here:
"The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
- William Blackstone, 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 136, 1765–1769.
That was the Natural Right of the British-American "subject" BEFORE the U.S. Constitution was ordained. And, the Right indeed was subjected to "to their condition and degree" and such allowances "by law". So much so, that it started the American Revolution. The men that framed the new Constitution/Bill of Rights were fully aware of the above "conditions and degrees". Which is why they drastically altered and expanded the Natural Right "of having arms for their defense". To Wit:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government...."
"....This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty....The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
"...In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty..."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries, (1803).
A FACT which later Constitutional authorities seemed to understand perfectly:
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
- William Rawle, A View of the Constitution, 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829). (Appointed by President George Washington as U.S. District Attorney for Pennsylvania in 1791)."The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.[1]
"The Right is General. — It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.
"Standing Army. — A further purpose of this amend-[1] [1 - Tuck. Bl. Com., App. 300.]
ment is, to preclude any necessity or reasonable excuse for keeping up a standing army. A standing army is condemned by the traditions and sentiments of the people, as being as dangerous to the liberties of the people as the general preparation of the people for the defence of their institutions with arms is preservative of them."- Thomas M. Cooley, LL.D., THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [1880], FOURTH EDITION EDITED BY JON ROLAND, (Constitution Society), 2002.
(Mr. Cooley was Dean of the University of Michigan's Law School, Michigan Supreme Court justice, and a nationally recognized scholar. He is also one of the authorities quoted in the recent D.C. Court decision).
Thus it is made abundantly clear that "the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed" means EXACTLY that which was written. And, that it was a PRE-EXISTENT Natural Right intended to be SECURED by our National government, as shown by Mr. Madison here:
"It is a fortunate thing that the objection to the Government has been made on the ground I stated; because it will be practicable, on that ground, to obviate the objection, so far as to satisfy the public mind that their liberties will be perpetual, and this without endangering any part of the Constitution, which is considered as essential to the existence of the Government by those who promoted its adoption...."
"In some instances they assert those rights which are exercised by the people in forming and establishing a plan of Government. In other instances, they specify those rights which are retained when particular powers are given up to be exercised by the Legislature. In other instances, they specify positive rights, which may seem to result from the nature of the compact. Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from a social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature."
- James Madison, June 8, 1789 House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution 8 June
.
**********
An American Time Capsule: Three Centuries of Broadsides and Other Printed Ephemera
Return to:
Right to Keep and Bear Arms -
2008 GunShowOnTheNet.com