The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-03-24

main forever Ascertained taxation is
theirs, commercial relation is ours"
The Americans view is shown by a
voice from New Jersey, in 1850, which
declared it ''as fundamental in their
constitution and government that this
King of England could not justly take
his subjects goods without their con-
sent
In 1863 the Virginia House of Bur-
eesses declared that the General As
sembly of that colony has the only eX-
elusive right and power to lay taxes
and imposts upon the inhabitants of
that colony In the Congress of 1865
it was declared: "A conformation of
orr essential and common rights as
Englishmen may be pleaded from
charters safely enough, but any fur
Their dependence on them may be fatal.
We should act upon the board common
ground of these natural rights that we
all feel and know as men and as de-
scendants Of Englishmen.'
The Congress of 1774 by resolution
denied the right OF Parliament TO tax
the colonies but from the necessity of
the case consented to Us regulation Of
commerce. excluding every idea of
taxa. internal or external This was
compromise not Of opinions. but of
phrases. One side could argue that
this was assent 20 the rightfulness of
such laws. and the other that the laws
denied the rightfuiness from the con-
sent while the denial OF every idea of
taxation was not the idea, but an
evolution incident. and the other to
argue that when taxation resulted 1t
must have been intended
Afterwards a resolution was passed
IN 1913 by Congress, but II was followed
by a declaration that il is a funda-
mental principle of the British Con-
stitution that every man should have
at least a representative here in the
formation of these laws ny which he
is bound
The colonists would not be bound by
the acts Of Parliament because they
were not represented there. Nor at
that time do I think would they have
accepted representation 1t would have
been de1usive. The presence of colonial
members could not defeat, but only
encourage hostile legislation. The ar
eunIent Of the colonists, stated IN full
~as,
We cannot lawfully be laxec bg a
bodv in which we have no representa-
iiOu We are not represented in the
English Parliament; therefore we cam
not be taxed by it. We cannot have
any real representation in Parliament;
therefore we will be taxed only bY our
colonial assemblies.
Although in number of cases the
acts of Parliament were recognized by
the colonies there seems to have been
no safe middle ground between the adj
mission of full legislative power by
Parliament on the one hand and d
total denial Of any on the or1ei.
Perhaps the following is a fair sum
mary of the colonial view just prior to
the revolution as 10 the force of Eng
lish statute law in the colonies:
First, the general statutes enacted
before the institution of any govern
ment in the respective colonies were Of
continued obligation, so far as they
were applicable. This upon the prirl-
ciple thai such laws were enacted by a
Parliament IN which the colonists. be-
ing then residents OF England. were
represented
Second that no latter act of Parlia-
ment had>any vilidity in the colonies,
but the supreme legislative power was
vested in the colonial legislature
Mr.. Story says that many of the
leading minds passed by an easy
transition to a denial, first, of the
power of taxation, and next of all
authority whatever to bind them by its
laws The Declaration of Independence
refers TO Parliament in these terms:
He Qhe King has combined with
others TO subject US to jurisdiction
foreign TO our constitution ana uIi-
acknowledged by our laws giving his
assent to their acts of pretended 1egis-
lation.''
Many of the grievances catalogued
involved also questions of bad and
vindictive administration. 1t was not
unlawful for the King to refuse his
assent to laws or to prorogue an as
/ sembly. but when these things were
done vexatiously to deprive the people
of their rights, to compel them into a
surrender of them, the executive power
was abused Other constitutional
rights were invaded. The Crown as
/ serted its right to transport persons to
j England for trial.
! In ITO the Privy Council inaugurated
a seriese of royal instructions which
ruthlessly disregarded the provisions
( of the Colonial charter. 1t was said
even in the House of Lords, that these
acts invested the Governor and Council
with powers with which the British
! constitution had not trusted his Ma
! jesty nor his Privy Council, and that
/ the lives. blierties and properties of the
subjects were put into their hands
without control.
LITERARY NOTE