Knollenberg Bernhard. Growth of the American Revolution: 1766-1775
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
in favor of the appropriation; Thomas now did not vote; and Cruger, sitting as
Speaker on the final division, also now did not vote.
By voting solidly in favor of supplying the troops, the New York City mem-
bers escaped the danger of dissolution and possible defeat at the election of a
new Assembly, but at the cost of losing the support of Sears and other ardent
Whigs commonly referred to as the Sons of Liberty or Liberty Boys.⁵⁰
Two days after the vote in favor of Nicoll’s motion, a handbill, signed “A
Son of Liberty,” was circulated in New York City, denouncing the New York
City members for thus “betraying the common cause of liberty” and asserting
that there was a coalition of “the De Lancey family...with Mr. [Acting Gov-
ernor] Colden...to secure to them the sovereign lordship of this colony.”⁵¹
At the same time, though the members of the Livingston group failed to se-
cure a majority that would force dissolution of the Assembly, they, instead of the
De Lancey group, were now in the position of championing colonial liberty.
During the next few months, Peter R. Livingston, Philip Livingston,
Alexander McDougall, an outstanding supporter of the Livingston ticket in the
New York City election of ,⁵² and John Morin Scott, one of the candidates
on the Livingston ticket in that election, strengthened this position.
Soon after the clashes between the soldiers and civilians in January, ,
over destruction of the Liberty Pole (described in the second appendix to
Chapter ), several New Yorkers petitioned the Mayor of the City for permis-
sion to erect a new liberty pole on the site of the old or on another suitable
piece of city property.⁵³ The Common Council of the city rejected this petition.
Whereupon Peter R. Livingston came to the fore, offering a strip of land
owned by him near the site of the old pole as the site for the new.⁵⁴
Next came the turn of McDougall, Philip Livingston, and Scott to demon-
strate their championship of colonial liberty.
Following publication of the Sons of Liberty handbill in December, ,
the New York Assembly voted this to be “a false, seditious and infamous Li-
bel,” and, at the Assembly’s request, Colden offered a reward of £ to any-
one who identified the author or authors of the handbill “so that they may be
brought to condign Punishment.”⁵⁵ On February , James Parker, printer of
the handbill, identified McDougall as the person who had hired him to print
it.⁵⁶ For some months, McDougall refused to secure release from imprison-
ment by giving bail, thereby becoming the American John Wilkes.⁵⁷ When he
finally consented to give bail, one of his two bondsmen was Philip Livingston,⁵⁸
and Scott acted as his attorney at the trial.⁵⁹
Peter R. Livingston, too, apparently was active in supporting McDougall,
judging from his letter to a Boston correspondent stating that he was “indeav-
oring to make Capt. McDougall’s Cause as popular as possible that in case he
should be convicted the fine may be light....”⁶⁰
Members of the Livingston family in the City continued to advance their
standing as champions of colonial liberty. They abstained from the movement
in for dilution of the New York merchants’ non-importation agreement
(described in Chapter ),⁶¹ and in Philip acted with Sears and McDougall
to try to persuade Governor William Tryon of New York not to protect the
landing of the East India Company’s tea consigned to New York (described in
Chapter ).⁶²
On the other hand, De Lancey and the other New York City members of
the Assembly further alienated the supporters of colonial liberty by favoring
dilution of the non-importation agreement⁶³ and by not opposing, openly at
least, the landing of the tea.⁶⁴
It is, therefore, understandable that when residents of New York City re-
sponded in to the appeal for an intercolonial congress, they chose Philip
Livingston, defeated candidate for the Assembly, as one of their delegates,⁶⁵
and did not include a single one of the City’s representatives in the Assembly.
MEMBERS OF THE FIRST
CONTINENTAL CONGRESS
T - of the First Continental Congress are listed below
by colonies from north to south and, except in the case of New York, in order
of precedence as stated in the credentials submitted by them to the Congress.
The few marked with asterisks had not been elected to any colonial As-
sembly; the others had served or were serving in the Assembly of their respective
colonies at the time of their election to the Congress. Nine of them—Caswell,
Cushing, Galloway, Hopkins, Philip Livingston, Middleton, Randolph, Rod-
ney, and Tilghman—were currently or had been Speakers.
I point out and emphasize that my statements concerning occupations are
based in some cases on biographical sketches in Biographical Directory of the Amer-
ican Congress, Appleton’s Cyclopaedia, or local histories which do not give the
source or sources on which the sketches are based. But though the list may be
inaccurate in detail, it is safe to say that about half of the members were prac-
ticing lawyers and the other half a miscellany of businessmen, planters, and
farmers. A number of them also were in part-time public office.
The businesses of those listed as engaged in business were of wide range.
Most of them, including Cushing, Philip Livingston, Alsop, Low, and Mifflin,
were merchants, but Rhoads, for example, was a builder, Humphreys a miller,
and Gadsden a wharfinger. The employment listed is the member’s apparent
chief current employment.
Massachusetts
Thomas Cushing, businessman
Samuel Adams, Clerk of Mass. House of Representatives
John Adams, lawyer
Robert Treat Paine, lawyer
New Hampshire
John Folsom, businessman
John Sullivan, lawyer*
Connecticut
Eliphalet Dyer, lawyer
Silas Deane, businessman
Roger Sherman, lawyer
Rhode Island
Stephen Hopkins, businessman
Samuel Ward, businessman
New York (listed in the order of election notice in Force I , n.)
New York City and County
Philip Livingston, businessman
John Alsop, businessman*
Isaac Low, businessman*
James Duane, lawyer*
John Jay, lawyer*
Orange County
Henry Wisner, businessman
John Haring, lawyer*
Suffolk County
William Floyd, farmer*
Kings County
Simon Boerum, farmer
New Jersey
James Kinsey, lawyer
William Livingston, lawyer
John Dehart, farmer
Stephen Crane, farmer
Richard Smith, lawyer
Pennsylvania
Joseph Galloway, lawyer
Samuel Rhoads, businessman
Thomas Mifflin, businessman
Charles Humphreys, businessman
John Morton, farmer
George Ross, lawyer
Edward Biddle, lawyer
John Dickinson (added to the Pennsylvania delegation near the close of
the Congress), lawyer
Delaware
Caesar Rodney, planter
Thomas McKean, lawyer
George Read, lawyer
Maryland
Matthew Tilghman, planter
Thomas Johnson, lawyer
Robert Goldsborough, lawyer
William Paca, lawyer
Samuel Chase, lawyer
Virginia
Peyton Randolph, lawyer
Richard Henry Lee, planter
George Washington, planter
Patrick Henry, lawyer
Richard Bland, lawyer
Benjamin Harrison, planter
Edmund Pendleton, lawyer
North Carolina
William Hooper, lawyer
Joseph Hewes, businessman
Richard Caswell, lawyer
South Carolina
Henry Middleton, planter
John Rutledge, lawyer
Thomas Lynch, planter
Christopher Gadsden, businessman
Edward Rutledge, lawyer
SAMUEL ADAMS’ CONDUCT AS
COLLECTOR OF TAXES
I , Thomas Hutchinson, Governor of Massachusetts, wrote of Samuel
Adams to Lord Dartmouth, “From large defalcations, as collector of taxes for
the town of Boston,...his influence was small until within these [past] seven
years....”¹ Peter Oliver, former Chief Justice of Massachusetts, wrote in his
Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion, that Adams “had embezzled the pub-
lick Monies of Boston.” The Reverend William Gordon, pastor for many years
of the Third Congregational Church at Roxbury, Massachusetts, wrote in his
History of the Independence of the United States, “His [Adams’] necessities probably
...urged him to supply himself, time after time, from the cash in hand [as Col-
lector of taxes], without attending to the accumulation of the balance against
him till called upon to settle.”²
The evidence bearing on these charges follows.
In May, , a committee of twelve leading citizens of Boston appointed at
a recent Boston town meeting “to examine the state of the Town Treasury...”
made the following report:
“There appear’d to be due the Town from the respective Collectors of
Taxes to the of April last, Six thousand eight hundred and four Pounds, but
as the said Collectors had not then been paid their Premium [fees] for the Year
, which with what will be due to them as Premiums for , amounts to
one Thousand and eighty five Pounds four Shillings and six Pence, and as they
are to be allowed for the abatements made and to be made in that Year,³ which
the Assessors estimate at about £,, the sum really due from them will be
four thousand seven hundred and eighteen pounds fifteen shillings and six
pence for the taxes of the year ....
“Your committee [further] find by certificate from the province treasurer
that there is now due to the province for the year , four thousand and thirty
two pounds five shillings and seven pence vizt.—
From John Ruddock Esq. £ ::
Mr. Samuel Adams : :
Mr. Jonathan Payson :
: :
And the whole tax for the year ::
::
which, with the aforesaid sum due [for
] to the town treasurer of ::
makes : : .”⁴
In explanation of the above statement, it should be pointed out that the
taxes payable by residents of Boston to the Collectors elected by the town were
to be apportioned among the town, the province, and the County of Suffolk,
of which Boston was the county seat.⁵
So far as appears, no action was taken at this time to enforce payment of
the amounts found by the committee to be overdue.
In March, , the town again chose a committee to examine the state of
the town treasury. This committee reported the following May that, as of March
, , the Collectors owed the town £, and the province, £,. Most
of this was for the year ; but Adams owed the town £, for and the
province £, for and . The committee expressed the opinion that
“it would be to the Interest of the Town to take some effectual Measures to have
the Taxes collected and paid into the Treasury by the Time fixed by the Town
for the payment of the same....”⁶ But, again, apparently no action was taken.
Two years later (March , ), a committee elected to report “respecting
the Moneys due to the Town from the present and late Collectors of Taxes” re-
ported debts due from several current or past Collectors and recommended
that bonds of office given by the delinquent Collectors “be put in suit” at the
July term of court. The chief delinquent was Adams, who owed £, to the
town for and £, to the province for and .⁷
On June , David Jeffries, treasurer of the town of Boston, brought suit
against Adams, returnable at the July term of the Court of Common Pleas of
Suffolk County on a bond for £, given by him covering his –
’
term of office. The county court gave judgment for Adams, but on appeal, the
Massachusetts Superior Court gave judgment against him on March , ,
for £, plus costs of about £.⁸
Soon afterward (March ) a Boston town meeting granted petitions from
Adams that “Six months be allowed him for Collecting his Taxes, and that
the [Town] Treasurer be directed to stay Execution untill that time.”⁹ On
March , the town further voted that Harrison Gray, treasurer of the prov-
ince, be requested to suspend for six months an execution against Adams for
taxes due the province, which had been levied at Gray’s order by the
sheriff of Suffolk County.¹⁰
Gray replied to the town’s request, “I can appeal to Mr. Adams that I have
treated him with great tenderness and delicacy. But as I have delivered to
Mr. Sheriff [Stephen Greenleaf] an execution against him . . . I do not think
it prudent or safe for me to give Mr. Greenleaf any particular directions con-
cerning it. He no doubt knows his duty; if he fails in the execution of it he alone
is recountable.”¹¹
So far as is known, Greenleaf took no proceedings against Adams.
On March , , Adams presented a petition to a Boston town meeting,
reciting that from various mishaps to persons owing him taxes, it was “very diffi-
cult” for them to pay him, with the result that he “was obliged finally, contrary
to his Judgment in ordinary Cases, to make use of the first Money he could col-
lect in a new year to make good the Deficiencys of the year preceding”; that
“having satisfyed the Demands of the several [province, county, and town]
Treasurers for all the said Years except the last, viz. , the Treasurer of the
Province issued Execution against him for said year And afterwards the Town
Treasurer, by order of the Town put his bond in suit, & recovered Judgment for
the Sum due, but thro’ the Indulgence of the Town Execution was stayed.”
Adams further stated that he had “lodged with the Selectmen a List of his
outstanding Debts, which...he verily thinks a true List of Debts”; had “ex-
hibited a State of his Account, by which it appears that the Sum of £,.,
together with the said List of Debts, will fully compleat the Sum in which he
still remains indebted to the several Treasurers”; and therefore prayed “That
the Town would order him final Discharge, upon Condition of his paying the
aforesaid sum of £,. into the Province Treasury, and would also make
Choice of some suitable Person to receive said List, upon the Condition afore-
said, & collect the outstanding Taxes therein mentioned.”¹²
Adams’ petition did not mention the source of the £, offered by him
toward settlement of his debt; but probably it came chiefly from a subscription
of £, “towards Mr. Adams’s debt,” made by a number of Boston citizens,
including John Hancock, who subscribed one-fourth of the amount.¹³
The town voted in favor of the proposed settlement, and chose Robert Pier-
pont, one of the sureties on Adams’ bond as Collector for , to collect the
outstanding tax debts shown on the list submitted by Adams.¹⁴
Three years later (March , ), a committee chosen at a Boston town
meeting “to make a full enquiry into the state of the Town Treasury and the
Debts & Credits of the Town,” reported that “from the Information given us
by Mr. Robert Pierpont it appears that there is no probability of any part of the
sum of £, remaining unpaid of Mr. Adams Debt to the Town will ever be
received and paid into the Treasury.”¹⁵
The next and final record on this matter is a vote of a town meeting in
March, , directing the town treasurer to write off his books “what Samuel
Adams, a late Collector, erroneously stands Debtor for on Town Treasury
Books.”¹⁶
Hutchinson’s charge that Adams “made defalcation,” using “defalcation”
in the sense of failing to collect money that he was responsible for collecting,¹⁷
is clearly sustained. But whether Adams’ applying money collected for a later
year against an earlier year’s deficiency in collection constitutes “embezzle-
ment” involves a fine point of law on which opinions probably would differ.¹⁸
As to the charge that Adams used public funds “to supply himself, time af-
ter time, from cash on hand,” Gordon gives no evidence to support this, and I
have found none. The other is described in the well-known letter of August ,
, from John Andrews, a moderate Whig and Boston merchant, to his
brother-in-law, William Barrell of Philadelphia, concerning the outfitting and
financing of Adams shortly before he left for Philadelphia as a delegate to the
First Continental Congress.
“However some may despise him,” wrote Andrews, “he has certainly very
many friends.¹⁹ For not long since some persons (their names unknown) sent and
ask’d his permission to build him a new barn, the old one being decay’d, which
was executed in a few days. A second sent to ask leave to repair his house,
which was thoroughly effected soon. A third sent to beg the favor of him to call
at a taylor’s shop and be measur’d for a suit of cloaths....A fourth presented
him with a new wig, a fifth with a new Hatt, a sixth with six pair of the best silk
hose, a seventh with six pair of fine thread ditto, a eighth with six pair shoes,
and a ninth...oblig’d him to accept a purse containing or Johannes.”²⁰
I have not found evidence as to what occasioned Adams’ financial difficul-
ties, but judging from an entry in John Adams’ diary of December , , his
’
cousin’s penchant for entertaining friends handsomely and keeping up an ele-
gant appearance may have been his financial undoing.
The diary entry states, “Spent this Evening with Mr. Samuel Adams at his
House....He affects to despize Riches, and not to dread Poverty. But no Man
is more ambitious of entertaining his Friends handsomely, or of making a de-
cent, elegant Appearance than he. He has lately new covered and glased his
House and painted it very neatly, and has new papered, painted and furnished
his Rooms. So that You visit at a very genteel House and are very politely re-
ceived and entertained.”²¹