The Land We Live In: The Story of Our CountryMann, Henry
History
The Land We Live In: The Story of Our Country
Mann, Henry
United States -- History
A peculiar feature of early Rhode Island government was the jealousy with
which the people retained in their own control the law-making power.
Matters of general concern were proposed in some town meeting, and notice
of the proposition had to be given to other towns. Towns which approved
of the proposition were ordered to declare their opinion at the next
general court through their committees. If the court decided in favor of
the proposition a law was passed which had authority only until ratified
by the next general assembly of all the people. The general court was
also allowed to debate matters on its own motion, but its decisions must
be reported to each town by the committee representing that town. A
meeting of the town was held to debate on the questions so reported and
then the votes of the inhabitants were collected by the town clerk and
forwarded with all speed to the recorder of the colony. The latter was to
open, in the presence of the governor, all votes so received, and if a
majority voted affirmatively the resolution of the court was to stand as
law until the next general assembly. This complex method was repealed in
1650, and instead, it was ordered that all laws enacted by the assembly
should be communicated to the towns within six days after adjournment.
Within three days after the laws were received the chief officer of each
town was to call a meeting and read them to the freemen. If any freeman
disliked a particular law he could, within ten days, send his vote in
writing, with his name affixed, to the general recorder. If within ten
days the recorder received a majority of votes against any law, he was to
notify the president of that fact and the latter in turn was to give
notice to each town that such law was null and void. Silence as to the
remaining enactments was assumed to mean assent.
After 1658, the recorder was allowed ten days instead of six, as the
period within which the laws must be sent to the towns. The towns had
another ten days for consideration, and then if the majority of the free
inhabitants of any one of them in a lawful assembly voted against a given
enactment, they could send their votes sealed up in a package to the
recorder. If a majority from every town voted against the law it was
thereby nullified; but unless this was done within twenty days after the
adjournment of the court the law would continue binding. In 1660, three
months were allowed for the return of votes to the recorder. Instead of a
majority of each town, a majority of all the free inhabitants of the
colony was sufficient to nullify a law. The charter of King Charles II.
restricted the privilege of voting to freeholders and the eldest sons of
freeholders.
CHAPTER VIII.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account