DOCSLIB.ORG

Alexander Hamilton's Bank of the United States Charles J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Alexander Hamilton's Bank of the United States Charles J View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of St. Thomas, Minnesota University of St. Thomas Law Journal Volume 14 Article 4 Issue 1 The Pre-Marbury Constitution 2018 America's First Great Constitutional Controversy: Alexander Hamilton's Bank of the United States Charles J. Reid Bluebook Citation Charles J. Reid, America's First Great Constitutional Controversy: Alexander Hamilton's Bank of the United States, 14 U. St. Thomas L.J. 105 (2018). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UST Research Online and the University of St. Thomas Law Journal. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\U\UST\14-1\UST104.txt unknown Seq: 1 10-APR-18 14:36 ARTICLE AMERICA’S FIRST GREAT CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROVERSY: ALEXANDER HAMILTON’S BANK OF THE UNITED STATES DR. CHARLES J. REID* ABSTRACT This article aims at a careful reconstruction of what has been called America’s first great constitutional controversy—the 1791 debate over Al- exander Hamilton’s Bank of the United States. This article reviews this de- bate both at the congressional level and within the executive branch. The debate over the bank led to the articulation of theories of constitutional interpretation that are with us still. On the one hand, we find theories of interpretation that stress implied constitutional powers and an expansive role for the federal government. On the other hand, we encounter theories of interpretation that emphasize limited federal authority and a preeminent role for the states. These debates included not only well known figures such as Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, but other leading figures of the time less well known today, such as Fisher Ames, Theodore Sedgwick, and Elbridge Gerry. Introduction ..................................................... 106 R I. The Economic Crisis of the 1780s ........................ 112 R II. Alexander Hamilton and the Bank of the United States ..... 116 R A. Alexander Hamilton: Background ..................... 116 R B. Hamilton’s Proposal for the Bank of the United States . 118 R 1. The Sources of Hamilton’s Banking Theory ....... 118 R 2. Hamilton’s Report on a National Bank ............ 120 R C. Hamilton: Commerce, Nationhood, and the Constitution .......................................... 124 R * Dr. Charles J. Reid, Jr., is a professor of law at the University of St. Thomas (MN). He would like to thank Ann Bateson and her library staff for their fluency with the sources. He would like to thank Robert Delahunty for his many thought provoking conversations and questions. He would finally like to acknowledge in gratitude Dan Berlinger, Class of 2017, for his help as a research assistant. 105 \\jciprod01\productn\U\UST\14-1\UST104.txt unknown Seq: 2 10-APR-18 14:36 106 UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 14:1 III. Congress Debates Hamilton’s Bank of the United States . 128 R A. The Opposition to the Bank .......................... 128 R 1. The Personalities ................................. 128 R 2. The Opposition Case ............................. 133 R a. James Madison .............................. 133 R b. James Jackson ............................... 139 R c. Michael Jenifer Stone ........................ 140 R 3. Observations ..................................... 142 R B. The Supporters of the Bank........................... 143 R 1. The Personalities ................................. 143 R 2. The Proponents’ Case ............................ 147 R a. Fisher Ames ................................. 147 R b. Theodore Sedgwick .......................... 152 R c. Elias Boudinot ............................... 154 R d. Elbridge Gerry ............................... 160 R 3. Observations ..................................... 163 R C. Rebuttal ............................................. 165 R 1. William Branch Giles ............................ 165 R 2. James Madison .................................. 168 R 3. Observations ..................................... 169 R 4. The House Votes on the Bank .................... 170 R IV. The Bank Debate in Washington’s Cabinet ................ 172 R A. Edmund Randolph ................................... 173 R 1. Randolph’s Background .......................... 173 R 2. Randolph’s Opinions ............................. 174 R B. Thomas Jefferson .................................... 178 R 1. Notes on the State of Virginia .................... 178 R 2. Jefferson on the Bank of the United States ........ 181 R C. Alexander Hamilton .................................. 184 R Conclusion ...................................................... 191 R INTRODUCTION This Article has a single major focus. It aims at a careful reconstruc- tion of what has been called America’s “first great constitutional contro- versy”1—the 1791 debate over Alexander Hamilton’s Bank of the United States. The controversy unfolded over three stages. It commenced when Alexander Hamilton, who was George Washington’s Secretary of the Trea- sury, proposed that Congress create the Bank as one part of his larger pro- gram for national economic integration and renewal. 1. Stephen G. Calabresi, Text, Precedent, and the Constitution: Arguments for Overruling Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 22 CONST. COMMENT. 311, 334 (2005); Randy E. Barnett, The People or the State?: Chisholm v. Georgia and Popular Sover- eignty, 93 VA. L. REV. 1729, 1739 (2007). \\jciprod01\productn\U\UST\14-1\UST104.txt unknown Seq: 3 10-APR-18 14:36 2018] AMERICA’S FIRST CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROVERSY 107 In his proposal to Congress, Hamilton did not reference the Constitu- tion at all. He made the case for the Bank entirely on the grounds of public policy. It would benefit America’s commercial classes and thereby benefit the economy as a whole if the United States had a Bank of the sort that could be found in some European capitals. His sources for this claim in- cluded the latest developments in banking theory and European experience. One can infer from his silence on the matter that Hamilton must have viewed the constitutional question as unproblematic. Hamilton’s proposal, however, was immediately met with objections over its constitutionality. These objections led to the commencement of stage two of the controversy. A vigorous debate ensued in the House of Representatives between James Madison and a small group of mostly Southern House members, on one side, and, on the other side, a larger num- ber of mostly Northern and Eastern Representatives, many of them allies of Hamilton. The debate caused both sides to advance novel but important theories concerning the application and interpretation of the Constitution. The House and Senate both eventually enacted the Bill, but the contro- versy was not yet concluded. It entered its third and final stage when Presi- dent George Washington requested that three members of his cabinet brief him on the Bank’s constitutionality. Washington plainly took his role as constitutional interpreter seriously and thus he sought opinions on the Bank’s constitutionality from Edmund Randolph, his Attorney General, his Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, and from Alexander Hamilton. Having satisfied his own scruples, Washington finally signed the legislation into law. A careful examination of the three stages of this controversy provides an important window into how the Constitution was understood in its earli- est years. Madison and his allies argued that the Constitution must be seen primarily as a restraining document. It was meant to limit the federal gov- ernment. Consisting as it did of carefully enumerated powers, Madison maintained that Congress could not transgress these carefully-crafted boundaries. Hamilton and his allies, on the other hand, viewed the Constitution principally as an empowering document. The Constitution was created and ratified so as to preserve the Union from the chaos and disarray of the Arti- cles of Confederation. Consistent with this history and purpose, the federal government, they maintained, possessed broad and extensive powers to build a powerful and unified nation. In back of these theories was yet another layer of more fundamental ideas about nationhood and sectionalism. Hamilton and his supporters stressed national unity as the Constitution’s overarching goal, while Madison, and at a later stage Jefferson, contended for the primacy of the states. After careful deliberation, George Washington, himself a native Vir- ginian, aligned with the Hamiltonian side of this debate. \\jciprod01\productn\U\UST\14-1\UST104.txt unknown Seq: 4 10-APR-18 14:36 108 UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 14:1 Throughout, this Article will be sensitive to historical context. And that means chiefly that attention must be paid to the ways in which mem- bers of Congress and the executive branch viewed themselves as constitu- tional interpreters. It must be borne in mind that the debate over the Bank of the United States occurred twelve years before the United States Supreme Court handed down Marbury v. Madison.2 If we view the debate as the participants would have seen it, we must acknowledge that they could not have known whether a subsequent Supreme Court would claim for itself the implied power of judicial review. In that context, Congress was defining for itself what it meant to behave constitutionally, and the debate over the Bank was very much a part of that self-definition. Indeed, we must also note that the Congress that
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Party Leaders in the United States Congress, 1789-2019
    Party Leaders in the United States Congress, 1789-2019 Valerie Heitshusen Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process Updated September 4, 2019 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov RL30567 Party Leaders in the United States Congress, 1789-2019 Summary This report briefly describes current responsibilities and selection mechanisms for 15 House and Senate party leadership posts and provides tables with historical data, including service dates, party affiliation, and other information for each. Tables have been updated as of the report’s issuance date to reflect leadership changes. Although party divisions appeared almost from the First Congress, the formally structured party leadership organizations now taken for granted are a relatively modern development. Constitutionally specified leaders, namely the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate, can be identified since the First Congress. Other leadership posts, however, were not formally recognized until about the middle of the 19th century, and some are 20th-century creations. In the earliest Congresses, those House Members who took some role in leading their parties were often designated by the President as his spokesperson in the chamber. By the early 1800s, an informal system developed when the Speaker began naming his lieutenant to chair one of the most influential House committees. Eventually, other Members wielded significant influence via other committee posts (e.g., the post-1880 Committee on Rules). By the end of the 19th century, the formal position of floor leaders had been established in the House. The Senate was slower than the House to develop formal party leadership positions, and there are similar problems in identifying individual early leaders.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shape of the Electoral College
    No. 20-366 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., Appellants, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, ET AL., Appellees. On Appeal From the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE MICHAEL L. ROSIN IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES PETER K. STRIS MICHAEL N. DONOFRIO Counsel of Record BRIDGET C. ASAY ELIZABETH R. BRANNEN STRIS & MAHER LLP 777 S. Figueroa St., Ste. 3850 Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 995-6800 [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................... i INTEREST OF AMICUS .................................................. 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .......................................... 2 ARGUMENT ....................................................................... 4 I. Congress Intended The Apportionment Basis To Include All Persons In Each State, Including Undocumented Persons. ..................... 4 A. The Historical Context: Congress Began to Grapple with Post-Abolition Apportionment. ............................................... 5 B. The Thirty-Ninth Congress Considered—And Rejected—Language That Would Have Limited The Basis of Apportionment To Voters or Citizens. ......... 9 1. Competing Approaches Emerged Early In The Thirty-Ninth Congress. .................................................. 9 2. The Joint Committee On Reconstruction Proposed A Penalty-Based Approach. ..................... 12 3. The House Approved The Joint Committee’s Penalty-Based
    [Show full text]
  • NEWSPAPERS and PERIODICALS FINDING AID Albert H
    Page 1 of 7 NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS FINDING AID Albert H. Small Washingtoniana Collection Newspapers and Periodicals Listed Chronologically: 1789 The Pennsylvania Packet, and Daily Advertiser, Philadelphia, 10 Sept. 1789. Published by John Dunlap and David Claypoole. Long two-page debate about the permanent residence of the Federal government: banks of the Susquehanna River vs. the banks of the Potomac River. AS 493. The Pennsylvania Packet, and Daily Advertiser, Philadelphia, 25 Sept. 1789. Published by John Dunlap and David Claypoole. Continues to cover the debate about future permanent seat of the Federal Government, ruling out New York. Also discusses the salaries of federal judges. AS 499. The Pennsylvania Packet, and Daily Advertiser, Philadelphia, 28 Sept. 1789. Published by John Dunlap and David Claypoole. AS 947. The Pennsylvania Packet, and Daily Advertiser, Philadelphia, 8 Oct. 1789. Published by John Dunlap and David Claypoole. Archives of the United States are established. AS 501. 1790 Gazette of the United States, New York City, 17 July 1790. Report on debate in Congress over amending the act establishing the federal city. Also includes the Act of Congress passed 4 January 1790 to establish the District of Columbia. AS 864. Columbia Centinel, Boston, 3 Nov. 1790. Published by Benjamin Russell. Page 2 includes a description of President George Washington and local gentlemen surveying the land adjacent to the Potomac River to fix the proper situation for the Federal City. AS 944. 1791 Gazette of the United States, Philadelphia, 8 October, 1791. Publisher: John Fenno. Describes the location of the District of Columbia on the Potomac River.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitution in Congress: Substantive Issues in the First Congress, 1789-1791 David P
    The University of Chicago Law Review VOLUME 61 NUMBER 3 SUMMER 1994 of Chicago © 1994 by The University The Constitution in Congress: Substantive Issues in the First Congress, 1789-1791 David P. Curriet Judicial review of legislative and executive action has been such a success in the United States that we tend to look exclu- sively to the courts for guidance in interpreting the Constitution. The stock of judicial precedents is rich, accessible, and familiar, but it does not exhaust the relevant materials. Members of Congress and executive officers, no less than judges, swear to uphold the Constitution, and they interpret it every day in making and applying the law.' Like judges, they often engage in t Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor and Interim Dean, The University of Chicago Law School. The author wishes to thank the Kirkland & Ellis Faculty Research Fund, the Mayer, Brown & Platt Faculty Research Fund, the Morton C. Seeley Fund, the Raymond & Nancy Goodman Feldman Fund, and the Sonnenschein Faculty Research Fund for financial support; Charlene Bangs Bickford, Kenneth R. Bowling, and Helen E. Veit of the First Federal Congress Project for access to hitherto unpublished reports of the debates; Kenneth Bowling, Gerhard Casper, Richard Posner, and Richard Ross for invalu- able advice and encouragement; and Keith Garza for exemplary research assistance. ' "M[T]he whole business of Legislation," said Representative Theodore Sedgwick in 1791, "was a practical construction of the powers of the Legislature. ." Gales & Seaton, eds, 2 Annals of Congress 1960 (1791) ("Annals"). See generally Frank H. Easterbrook, PresidentialReview, 40 Case W Res L Rev 905 (1989-90); Jefferson Powell, ed, Languages of Power: A Source Book of Early American ConstitutionalHistory xi-xii (Carolina Aca- demic Press, 1991).
    [Show full text]
  • Construction of the Massachusetts Constitution
    Construction of the Massachusetts Constitution ROBERT J. TAYLOR J. HI s YEAR marks tbe 200tb anniversary of tbe Massacbu- setts Constitution, the oldest written organic law still in oper- ation anywhere in the world; and, despite its 113 amendments, its basic structure is largely intact. The constitution of the Commonwealth is, of course, more tban just long-lived. It in- fluenced the efforts at constitution-making of otber states, usu- ally on their second try, and it contributed to tbe shaping of tbe United States Constitution. Tbe Massachusetts experience was important in two major respects. It was decided tbat an organic law should have tbe approval of two-tbirds of tbe state's free male inbabitants twenty-one years old and older; and tbat it sbould be drafted by a convention specially called and chosen for tbat sole purpose. To use the words of a scholar as far back as 1914, Massachusetts gave us 'the fully developed convention.'^ Some of tbe provisions of the resulting constitu- tion were original, but tbe framers borrowed heavily as well. Altbough a number of historians have written at length about this constitution, notably Prof. Samuel Eliot Morison in sev- eral essays, none bas discussed its construction in detail.^ This paper in a slightly different form was read at the annual meeting of the American Antiquarian Society on October IS, 1980. ' Andrew C. McLaughlin, 'American History and American Democracy,' American Historical Review 20(January 1915):26*-65. 2 'The Struggle over the Adoption of the Constitution of Massachusetts, 1780," Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society 50 ( 1916-17 ) : 353-4 W; A History of the Constitution of Massachusetts (Boston, 1917); 'The Formation of the Massachusetts Constitution,' Massachusetts Law Quarterly 40(December 1955):1-17.
    [Show full text]
  • Grasso on Chervinsky
    Lindsay M. Chervinsky. The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2020. 432 pp. $29.95, cloth, ISBN 978-0-674-98648-0. Reviewed by Joanne S. Grasso (New York Institute of Technology) Published on H-Early-America (July, 2021) Commissioned by Troy Bickham (Texas A&M University) As a grand epic but over a shorter period of jor author of the Federalist Papers. And Bradford history, Lindsay M. Chervinsky’s The Cabinet served in the Revolutionary War and then went chronicles George Washington and the creation of into law. The Virginia dynasty of presidents was in the first US presidential cabinet. In this expansive the making: Jefferson first served as secretary of account of how Washington oversaw, constructed, state, James Madison in the House of Representat‐ and ultimately organized his cabinet, the author ives, and James Monroe as an ambassador. segments her book from his pre-presidency days, In the introduction, the author begins her nar‐ when he developed relationships and strategies, in rative with the grandiose ceremony of the inaugur‐ the chapter “Forged in War,” to the initial stages of ation of Washington as the first president of the the development of his cabinet in “The Cabinet United States and then discusses many of his ad‐ Emerges,” and all the way through to problems in ministration’s initial tasks and strategies. Wash‐ “A Cabinet in Crisis.” ington used the “advice and consent” clause found As depicted, some of the brightest and time- in the United States Constitution with respect to tested minds from the Revolutionary War era were the US Senate, which states that the president cabinet members, including Henry Knox, Edmund “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Randolph, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided and William Bradford.
    [Show full text]
  • 2. Why Is That Man Mad? ​He Cannot Pay the Debt He Has, Including His
    Binder Page_______ Name _________________________________________________ Period ________ Liberty’s Kids- “We the People” Date ____________ Worcester, Massachusetts,1786: 1. Who is James trying to interview in Massachusetts? Daniel Shays ​ 2. Why is that man mad? He cannot pay the debt he has, including his taxes. The ​ government of Massachusetts is taking over his farm and those of others like him. Mount Vernon, Virginia, February 1787: ​ 3. What is George Washington concerned about? There are many places close to having ​ rebellions happening. The national government cannot do anything to stop them. The nation is “close to collapse.” 4. “Our current system of government has turned us into the Dis-United States.” ​ ​ Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 1787: 5. Who are the two men talking? George Washington & Ben ​ ​ Franklin 6. What does Washington want to do? Use the convention to ​ build a strong central government and a new constitution 7. Who will be president of the convention? Washington ​ 8. What does Alexander Hamilton of New York believe in? A strong central government ​ 9. The delegates have many points of view. What are some of the problems that they mention here? Fix the Articles of Confederation or throw them out? ​ ● Large states vs. small states ● Slavery? 10. Why does James Madison say that the meetings are going to be closed to the newspapers? So that the delegates can change their minds. Compromise can be made. 11. What did Edmond Randolph of Virginia propose? He introduced a plan to scrap the ​ Articles of Confederation and start a whole new constitution. 12. How many branches would there be in his proposal? three ​ 13.
    [Show full text]
  • CRS Report for Congress Received Through the CRS Web
    Order Code RL30665 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web The Role of the House Majority Leader: An Overview Updated April 4, 2006 Walter J. Oleszek Senior Specialist in the Legislative Process Government and Finance Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress The Role of the House Majority Leader: An Overview Summary The majority leader in the contemporary House is second-in-command behind the Speaker of the majority party. Typically, the majority leader functions as the Speaker’s chief lieutenant or “field commander” for day-to-day management of the floor. Although the majority leader’s duties are not especially well-defined, they have evolved to the point where it is possible to spotlight two fundamental and often interlocking responsibilities that orient the majority leader’s work: institutional and party. From an institutional perspective, the majority leader has a number of duties. Scheduling floor business is a prime responsibility of the majority leader. Although scheduling the House’s business is a collective activity of the majority party, the majority leader has a large say in shaping the chamber’s overall agenda and in determining when, whether, how, or in what order legislation is taken up. In addition, the majority leader is active in constructing winning coalitions for the party’s legislative priorities; acting as a public spokesman — defending and explaining the party’s program and agenda; serving as an emissary to the White House, especially when the President is of the same party; and facilitating the orderly conduct of the House’s business. From a party perspective, three key activities undergird the majority leader’s principal goal of trying to ensure that the party remains in control of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • John Adams, Political Moderation, and the 1820 Massachusetts Constitutional Convention: a Reappraisal.”
    The Historical Journal of Massachusetts “John Adams, Political Moderation, and the 1820 Massachusetts Constitutional Convention: A Reappraisal.” Author: Arthur Scherr Source: Historical Journal of Massachusetts, Volume 46, No. 1, Winter 2018, pp. 114-159. Published by: Institute for Massachusetts Studies and Westfield State University You may use content in this archive for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the Historical Journal of Massachusetts regarding any further use of this work: [email protected] Funding for digitization of issues was provided through a generous grant from MassHumanities. Some digitized versions of the articles have been reformatted from their original, published appearance. When citing, please give the original print source (volume/number/date) but add "retrieved from HJM's online archive at http://www.westfield.ma.edu/historical-journal/. 114 Historical Journal of Massachusetts • Winter 2018 John Adams Portrait by Gilbert Stuart, c. 1815 115 John Adams, Political Moderation, and the 1820 Massachusetts Constitutional Convention: A Reappraisal ARTHUR SCHERR Editor's Introduction: The history of religious freedom in Massachusetts is long and contentious. In 1833, Massachusetts was the last state in the nation to “disestablish” taxation and state support for churches.1 What, if any, impact did John Adams have on this process of liberalization? What were Adams’ views on religious freedom and how did they change over time? In this intriguing article Dr. Arthur Scherr traces the evolution, or lack thereof, in Adams’ views on religious freedom from the writing of the original 1780 Massachusetts Constitution to its revision in 1820. He carefully examines contradictory primary and secondary sources and seeks to set the record straight, arguing that there are many unsupported myths and misconceptions about Adams’ role at the 1820 convention.
    [Show full text]
  • The Federal Constitution and Massachusetts Ratification : A
    , 11l""t,... \e ,--.· ', Ir \" ,:> � c.'�. ,., Go'.l[f"r•r•r-,,y 'i!i • h,. I. ,...,,"'P�r"'T'" ""J> \S'o ·� � C ..., ,' l v'I THE FEDERAL CONSTlTUTlON \\j\'\ .. '-1',. ANV /JASSACHUSETTS RATlFlCATlON \\r,-,\\5v -------------------------------------- . > .i . JUN 9 � 1988 V) \'\..J•, ''"'•• . ,-· �. J ,,.._..)i.�v\,\ ·::- (;J)''J -�·. '-,;I\ . � '" - V'-'� -- - V) A TEACHING KIT PREPAREV BY � -r THE COIJMOMVEALTH M,(SEUM ANV THE /JASSACHUSETTS ARCHIVES AT COLUM.BIA POINf ]') � ' I � Re6outee Matetial6 6ot Edueatot6 and {I · -f\ 066ieial& 6ot the Bieentennial 06 the v-1 U.S. Con&titution, with an empha6i& on Ma&&aehu&ett6 Rati6ieation, eontaining: -- *Ma66aehu6ett& Timeline *Atehival Voeument6 on Ma&&aehu&ett& Rati6ieation Convention 1. Govetnot Haneoek'6 Me&6age. �����4Y:t4���� 2. Genetal Coutt Re6olve& te C.U-- · .....1. *. Choo6ing Velegate& 6ot I\) Rati6ieation Convention. 0- 0) 3. Town6 &end Velegate Name&. 0) C 4. Li6t 06 Velegate& by County. CJ) 0 CJ> c.u-- l> S. Haneoek Eleeted Pte6ident. --..J s:: 6. Lettet 6tom Elbtidge Getty. � _:r 7. Chatge6 06 Velegate Btibety. --..J C/)::0 . ' & & • o- 8 Hane oe k Pt op o 6e d Amen dme nt CX) - -j � 9. Final Vote on Con&titution --- and Ptopo6ed Amenwnent6. Published by the --..J-=--- * *Clue6 to Loeal Hi&toty Officeof the Massachusetts Secretary of State *Teaehing Matetial6 Michaelj, Connolly, Secretary 9/17/87 < COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS !f1Rl!j OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE CONSTITUTtON Michael J. Connolly, Secretary The Commonwealth Museum and the Massachusetts Columbia Point RATIFICATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION MASSACHUSETTS TIME LINE 1778 Constitution establishing the "State of �assachusetts Bay" is overwhelmingly rejected by the voters, in part because it lacks a bill of rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Screen View
    A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF STATE POLITICAL PARTY NEWSPAPERS by Robert Eddy Jednak A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the College of Social Science in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton, Florida August, 1970 A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF STATE POLITICAL PARTY NEWSPAPERS by Robert Eddy Jeanak This thesis was prepared under the direction of the candidate's thesis advisor, Dr, Robert J. Huckshorn, Department of Political Science, and has been approved by the members of his super­ visory committee, It was submitted to the faculty of the College of Social Science and ~vas accepted in partial fulfill­ ment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, (Chairman, D College of Social Science) (Date) TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. STATE POLITICAL NEWSPAPERS: EVERPRESENT AND LITTLE KNOHN • • • • • • . 1 II. FIVE PROPOSITIONS TliAT TEST THE IMPORT OF THE STATE POLITICAL PARTY NEWSPAPER . 8 III. THE FINDINGS OF CONTENT ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSITIONS I-V • • • • • • . 21 IV. A TUfE ANALYSIS OF SIX SELECTED STATE POLITICAL PARTY NE\-lSPAPERS . 36 APPENDICES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 54 BIBLIOGRAPHY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 61 CHAPTER I STATE POLITICAL NEWSPAPERS: EVERPRESENT AND LITTLE KNOWN Thus launched as we are in an ocean of news, In hopes that your pleasure our pains will repay, All honest endeavors the author will use To furnish a feast for the grave and the gay; At least he'll essay such a track to pursue, That the \-mrld shall approve---and his ne~11s shall be true.l ~Uth the above words Philip Freneau, a poet, \vriter, and journalist of renown during the latter part of the 18th century, summarized the conduct of the political press in the October 31, 1791 issue of The National Gazette.
    [Show full text]
  • South-Pacific-Script.Pdf
    RODGERS AND HAMMERSTEIN'S SOUTH PACIFIC First Perfol'mance at the 1vlajestic Theatre, New York, A pril 7th, 1949 First Performance in London, Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, November 1st, 1951 THE CHARACTERS (in order of appearance) NGANA JEROME HENRY ENSIGN NELLIE FORBUSH EMILE de BECQUE BLOODY MARY BLOODY MARY'S ASSISTANT ABNER STEWPOT LUTHER BILLIS PROFESSOR LT. JOSEPH CABLE, U.S.M.C. CAPT. GEORGE BRACKETT, U.S.N. COMMDR. WILLIAM HARBISON, U.S.N. YEOMAN HERBERT QUALE SGT. KENNETH JOHNSON SEABEE RICHARD WEST SEABEE MORTON WISE SEAMAN TOM O'BRIEN RADIO OPERATOR, BOB McCAFFREY MARINE CPL. HAMILTON STEEVES STAFF-SGT. THOMAS HASSINGER PTE. VICTOR JEROME PTE. SVEN LARSEN SGT. JACK WATERS LT. GENEVIEVE MARSHALL ENSIGN LISA MANELLI ENSIGN CONNIE WALEWSKA ENSIGN JANET McGREGOR ENSIGN BESSIE NOONAN ENSIGN PAMELA WHITMORE ENSIGN RITA ADAMS ENSIGN SUE YAEGER ENSIGN BETTY PITT ENSIGN CORA MacRAE ENSIGN DINAH MURPHY LIAT MARCEL (Henry's Assistant) LT. BUZZ ADAMS Islanders, Sailors, Marines, Officers The action of the play takes place on two islands in the South Pacific durin~ the recent war. There is a week's lapse of time between the two Acts. " SCENE I SOUTH PACIFIC ACT I To op~n.o House Tabs down. No.1 Tabs closed. Blackout Cloth down. Ring 1st Bar Bell, and ring orchestra in five minutes before rise. B~ll Ring 2nd Bar three minutes before rise. HENRY. A Ring 3rd Bar Bell and MUSICAL DIRECTOR to go down om minute before rise. NGANA. N Cue (A) Verbal: At start of overt14re, Music No.1: House Lights check to half.
    [Show full text]