The morning call., 1894-03-20

damental law in their constitution and govern
mept that the King of England could not justly
take his subjects goods without their consent"
And in 1865 the Virginia House OF BuTseSses
declared that the general assembly OF that col
ony had ''the only exclusive right 3nd power 10
lay taxes and imposts upon Tue lnnaDuants OF
that colony" ln the Congress OF 1850 Chrls-
fopneF Gadsen said: "a confirmation OF our
essential ana common rights as Engllshmen
may be pleaded from charters safety enongh;
nut any further dependence on Them may De
fatal. We should stand upon the broad COM
mon ground of those natural rights that we all
feel and know as men and as descendants OF
EngliShmeD."
The Congress of IVA by resolution denied
The right of Parliament TO tax the colonies, but
from the necessity of the case" consented"
10 its regulation OF commerce, excluding every
idea OF taxation internal or eXternal.' This
was compromise not of opinion but of phrases
One side could argue that this was an assent 10
the rightfulnesS of such laws, and the other
thar the laws derived their tigbIfulness from
tie consent; while jhe denial OF every Idea
of taxation left Que side free to say. in par
tlcnlar case that taxation was not the idea but
al incident; and The other TO argue that when
taxation resulted IL must have been INTENDED.
A similar resolution was passed II ITO by
Congress, but it was followed by declaration
That "it Is fundamental principle OF lhe Bit
lsh constitution that every man should have at
least a representative share in the formation OF
those laws by which lie is bound.
Tie colOnists would not be bound by acts OF
Parliament, because they were not represented
there; nor, at that time. do think they would
have accepted representation. 1t would have
been delusive. Tie presence of colonial men,
bers could not defeat, but only sanction hostile
legislation. The argument of the cOl0Eists,
stated in full was: We cannot lawfully be taxed
by q body in which we have no representation
We are not represented in the English Parlia-
ment, Therefore we cannot be taxed by II. we
cannot have any real representation III Parlia-
ment, therefore we will be taxed only by our
colonial assemblies.
Although In a number of cases acts of Par
lament were recognized by the colonies. there
seems 10 have been no safe middle ground be-
tween The admission OF tuII legislative powers
by Parliament on The one hand aud total de-
NAL OF any on the other.
Perhaps the following is fair summary of
the colonial view just prior TO the revolution as
TO the force OF English statute law in the col
OnieS: First, the general statutes enacted be-
fore the institution OF any government in the
respective colonies were of continued obliga-
tton there. so far as they were applicable. This
upon the principle that such laws were enacted
By Parliaments In which the colOnists. being
then residents OF England, were represented.
Second, that no later act OF Parliament had any
Inherent validity In the colonies but that the
supreme legislative power was vested in the
Colonial Legislature.
Mr. Story says that many OF the leading
minds passed by an easy transition 10
denial, first of the power OF taxation, and,
next. OF all authority whatever to bind them by
It's lawS.'
The Declaration OF Independence refers TO
Parliament ID these terms: He Che kiug) has
combined with others to subject us TO a iurisdic-
tlOu lOIetSu 10 our constitution anu Oudc-
knOwledged by our laws, giving his assent to
their acts OF pretended legislation"
Many OF the grievances catalOgued involved
also questions OF bad and yiudictive admins
tratiOn Ii was not unlawful for the king TO
refuse his assent 10 laws or TO DrorOgue an
assembly; but when these things were done
vexatiously, TO deprive the people of their
rights or TO co rec them into a surrender Of
them. the executive power was abused.
Other constitutional rights were invaded
The crown asserted Its right TO transport per-
sons TO England for trial. In 1870 the Privy
Council inauguraIed a series of royal instruc-
tions which Tuthlessly dlsregarded the pro-
visions of The colonial charters.
Ii was said. even in :he House of Lords that
these acts invested "Ihe Governor and council
with powers with which the British constltu-
ton had not trusted his Majesty and his Privy
CounclI"; and that "the lives, liberties ana
properties of the subject were put into their
hands without control"