Source: https://www.masshist.org/publications/apde2/view?id=LJA02d014
Timestamp: 2016-09-29 00:03:51
Document Index: 122080203

Matched Legal Cases: ['§8', '§9', '§2', '§6', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§3', '§5', '§1', '§2', '§1', '§1', '§5', '§1', '§3', '§2', '§7', '§6']

Prov. Law. 16. 33. 386. Temporary Laws. About Certificates for Anabaptist Ministers and ...
Court decisions, one of which was Green v. Washburn.23 1. For the 1691 Charter provision, see 1 A&R 14. As to its construction, see Susan M. Reed, Church and State in Massachusetts, 1691–1740 21–23 (Urbana, Ill., 1914). The nature of the problem was altered after
Itinerant,” 62 Amer. Antiq. Soc., Procs. 155, 207–215 (1952); Leonard Levy, The Law of the Commonwealth and Chief Justice Shaw 29–42 (Cambridge, Mass., 1957). 2. Act of 4 Nov. 1692, c. 26, 1 A&R 62, as amended by Act of 17 Feb. 1693, c. 46, §§8–11, 1 A&R 102–103. The latter act was made expressly inapplicable to Boston, where ministers
had always been supported by voluntary contributions. Id., §9; see Reed, Church and State in Mass. 38. Parts of both acts are set out in notes 225 and 326, below. The Act of 13 June 1695, c. 8, 1 A&R 216, provided that a council of ministers called by the church might overrule a town's
rejection of the church's choice. Later acts permitted ministerial taxes to be raised
in precincts set off for church purposes from existing towns. Act of 9 Nov. 1702,
c. 10, §2, 1 A&R 506; Act of 24 Dec. 1732, c. 14, 2 A&R 306. The Act of 19 June 1718, c. 1, 2 A&R 99, permitted taxes to be levied for the construction and repair of meeting houses
in precincts. Presumably such taxes were levied in towns under their general power
to levy taxes “for the defraying of other necessary charges.” Act of 16 Nov. 1692,
c. 28, §6, 1 A&R 66. Another provision strengthened the power of the Court of Sessions by authorizing
it to appoint assessors in delinquent towns or districts and to direct the grand jury
to investigate conditions in such communities. Act of 9 Nov. 1702, c. 10, §1, 1 A&R 505. If the towns remained recalcitrant, the General Court was empowered to settle
a suitable minister and provide for his maintenance. Act of 14 Nov. 1706, c. 9, 1
A&R 597; Act of 20 Dec. 1715, c. 17, 2 A&R 26, extended to May 1730 by Act of 5 July 1722, c. 4, 2 A&R 244. As to all of this legislation and its enforcement, see Reed, Church and State in Mass. 24–34, 50–85. Despite these provisions, in a few instances where dissenters were
in the majority in a town, they were permitted to treat their church as the established
one, thus gaining the benefit of the tax collection process. See id. at 70–73; Shipton, “The Locus of Authority in Colonial Massachusetts,” in George
A. Billias, ed., Law and Authority in Colonial America (Barre, Mass., in press). After 1760 the requirement that ministers have the equivalent
of a college education provided a further basis for opposing this practice. See notes
15, 16, 327, below. Although the Privy Council held certain applications of the establishment
acts invalid (notes 3 and 14 below), the basic principle of establishment embodied in the acts of 1692 and 1693
was upheld by the Crown law officers against an attack based on the charter clause
in 1732. See 2 A&R 477–484; Reed, Church and State in Mass. 183–184. 3. On the 1724 decision, see Reed, Church and State in Mass. 75–78, 119–127. The General Court had acted under the Act of 20 Dec. 1715, note 2 above. The tax act in question, the Act of 3 July 1722, c. 8, §1, 2 A&R 251, 254–255, had not provided on its face that the assessments were intended to
support ministers, although the Quakers presented evidence that this was its effect.
The Board of Trade in its report of 20 Dec. 1723 to the Privy Council thus did not
recommend disallowance, but pointed out that taxing the majority to support the minority's
minister was not consistent with the Massachusetts Charter's grant of an “absolute
and free liberty of conscience for all Christian Inhabitants there, except Papists.”
2 A&R 276. The tax act for the next year, Act of 29 June 1723, c. 8, §1, 2 A&R 293, 296, contained an express statement of the purpose of the assessment. The Board
of Trade, on 6 May 1724, recommended disallowance of this act, urging both the Charter
clause and an inconsistency with the establishment statutes, in which it was “laid
down as a just and equitable rule that the majority of each Town or Congregation shou'd
have the choice of their own Teacher.” 2 A&R 277. The Privy Council, in its Order of 2 June 1724, granted relief only under the
1722 act and did not disallow it. Ibid.; see 3 Acts, Privy Council (Col.) 58–59. Other materials concerning the case, which pertained to Dartmouth and Tiverton,
are collected in 2 A&R 269–277. 4. The Episcopalian relief measure was the Act of 19 Dec. 1727, c. 7, 2 A&R 459, which provided that members of the Church of England should be taxed at the
same rate as members “of the churches established by the laws of this province,” but
that if there were a minister of the Church of England within a town, taxes assessed
against inhabitants who worshipped with him and lived within five miles of the church
were to be paid over to him by the town treasurer. They were also exempt from meetinghouse
taxes. For the problems of Episcopalians generally, and subsequent legislation concerning
them, see Reed, Church and State in Mass. 141–143, 148–189; Meyer, Church, and State in Mass. 14, 27–30, 69–89. The Act of 20 June 1728, c. 4, §1, 2 A&R 495, exempted from tax the polls of Baptists and Quakers “enrolled or entred in their
respective societies as members thereof, and who alledge a scruple of conscience as
the reason of their refusal to pay any part or proportion of such taxes as are from
time to time assessed for the support of the minister or ministers of the churches
established by the laws of this province in the town or place where they dwell,” with
the proviso that they attend “meetings of their respective societies” regularly and
live within five miles of the meetinghouse. The provision for determining eligibility
for exemption was in id., §3. Persons so exempted were barred from voting on church questions in town meeting.
Id., §5. See note 7 below. By Act of 20 Dec. 1729, c. 6, 2 A&R 543, the estates of Baptists and Quakers were exempted under the same conditions.
For the passage of this legislation, see Reed, Church and State in Mass. 128–135. After the expiration of these acts, separate measures were passed for Quakers
until 1758. See id. at 135–144; Meyer, Church and State in Mass. 15–17. The exemption for Baptists “who alledge a scruple of conscience” was continued
and extended to taxes for the construction of meetinghouses, by Act of 4 July 1734,
c. 6, §1, 2 A&R 714. The certificate provision for determining exemption was in id., §2. It was superseded in 1753. See note 6 below. The 1734 act omitted the five-mile requirement, but provided that the exemption
did not apply in “new towns.” See text at note 9 below. This statute was re-enacted in virtually identical form by Act of 30 June
1740, c. 6, 2 A&R 1021, renewed until 1757 by Act of 29 June 1747, c. 6, 3 A&R 362. For the Baptists' account of the passage and implementation of all of this legislation,
see Petition of a Committee of Baptists to the General Court, 29 May 1754, 4 A&R 122–126. See also Reed, Church and State in Mass. 132–135, 141–143. 5. Quoted in Meyer, Church and State in Mass. 36. See also id. at 18; C. C. Goen, Revivalism and Separatism in New England, 1740–1800 213 (New Haven, 1962). Mr. Goen argues convincingly that this charge was largely
unfounded, since in some communities even unquestioned Baptists were not able to take
advantage of the exemption acts, and where this was not the case many Separates hesitated
to become Baptists precisely because of the material advantage. Even the sources which
he quotes, however, show that adoption of Baptist principles was urged by some “as
the way God had opened to escape such sufferings [i.e. ministerial taxes].” Id. at 213–215. It is clear, however, that there were many other factors—doctrinal as
well as practical—which influenced conversion. Id. at 208–257. As to the Great Awakening and its effect generally, see id. at 34–67, 206–207, 272–275, 285–287 and throughout; see also Meyer, Church and State in Mass. 20–47. For an example of a typical transition from Standing Church to Separate to
Separate Baptist, see note 932 below. 6. Act of 5 Jan. 1753, c. 15, §§1, 3, 3 A&R 644, quoted in part in note 528 below. 7. Act of 25 Jan. 1758, c. 20, §§1, 3, 4 A&R 67–68, renewed to 30 Jan. 1771 by Act of 31 Jan. 1761, c. 21, 4 A&R 420. As to the construction of this act, see note 8 below. The 1758 act did not contain the provisions of earlier measures (note 4 above) that those exempted should be deprived of the vote on church matters and that
the exemption should not apply in new towns. As to the former, see No. 31, note 511. As to the latter, see text at note 10 below. Subsequent legislation carried forward the exemption and certificate provisions,
with the major variation that a town could vote to exempt Baptists and Quakers without
regard to certificates. See Act of 20 Nov. 1770, c. 10, 5 A&R 111; Act of 16 June 1774, c. 6, 5 A&R 392. For Baptist objections to the 1753 act, see Petition of 29 May 1754, 4 A&R 122–126, discussed in Goen, Revivalism and Separatism 270–271. Although the 1753 act's requirement of certification by other churches (text
at note 6 above) was not carried forward by statute after 1758, the practice seems to have
been continued. The Baptists of Haverhill in John White's case (note 8 below) submitted to the assessors not only the requisite certificate of their pastor
and elders, but certificates of the First and Second Baptist churches of Boston and
James Manning's Warren, R.I., church that the Haverhill church had been received as
“Breathern and Sisters of the same Denomination,” and that the pastor, Hezekiah Smith,
was duly ordained and qualified. SF 131793. 8. For a discussion of many of the cases from the viewpoint of an active Baptist participant
in the struggle, see Isaac Backus, A Church History of New England, 2:239–265, 277–282 (Providence, R.I., 1784), a continuation of Backus' A History of New England, With particular Reference to the Denomination of Christians
called Baptists (Boston, 1777). Volume 3 of this work, also entitled A Church History of New England, was published at Boston in 1796. See also Meyer, Church and State in Mass. 51–68. JA was a participant in one of the best known of these suits, White v. Bartlett. John
White, “shopkeeper” of Haverhill, sued Enoch Bartlett and Jonathan Webster, the town
assessors, in trespass for £30 damages, alleging that they had taken from him goods
and chattels valued at £16 12s. 8d. White won on demurrer in the Inferior Court, Ipswich,
in March 1767, and on appeal to the Superior Court under an agreement stipulating
“The trial of this appeal to be final,” won a verdict of £30 and costs at the Salem
Nov. 1767 term. Min. Bk. 85, SCJ Essex, June 1767, N–11; Nov. 1767, C–19. White remitted £12 to the defendants, but
they moved for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was against law and the
damages excessive. The new trial was granted, although the court, apparently paraphrasing
English authority, noted that there were “Few new Tryals after a Tryal at Bar. Not
to be taken out of the course of the Law.” SF 131793. Min. Bk. 85, SCJ Essex, Nov. 1767, C–19; Nov. 1768, C–7. See No. 12. On the new trial at Ipswich in June 1769 it was stipulated by the parties that the
issues were limited to the legality of the town's actions, “The sufficiency and legallity
of the appellees Certificate in the case (it being agreed that the Certificate was
given in to the assessors before the first assessment was voted) and whether the appellee
was Conscientiously of the Anabaptist persuasion.” SF 131793. With JA now appearing for White, the jury reversed the former judgment, awarding costs to
the assessors. Min. Bk. 85, SCJ Essex, June 1769, C–3. Backus was incensed by this result, both on account of the
technicality which was used to avoid the agreement that the first appeal would be
final and by the fact that Baptists were not allowed to testify on grounds of interest.
He reported that the ground for the decision was a ruling by the court that the law
exempted only “a steady worshipper,” not “a baptized church member,” and that White's
certificate did not state that he was the former. 2 Backus, Church History 241–242. Ezra Stiles, in a diary entry of 11 Jan. 1773, reported that in conversation
Justice Peter Oliver of the Superior Court gave a slightly different reason: “By the
old Law [i.e. pre-1770] the Baptists were to certifie themselves as to three things—that they were
conscientiously Baptists—usual Attendants—and Members i.e. baptized by immersion and
Communicants. Mr. Whites Certificate showed the two first, not the last; and for this
Defect Judgment was given against him.” 1 Stiles, Literary Diary 333. Oliver's version is borne out by the certificate of the pastor and elders of
the Haverhill church that White and fourteen others “are conscientiously of our Persuasion
and that they do frequently and usually attend the Publick Worship with us on the
Lord's Day.” SF 131793. That the content of the certificate was the issue, rather than the actual
facts as to White's persuasion, is also suggested by the statutory language (text
at note 7 above), which would seem to make the certificate conclusive. If the court found that
it could look only to the certificate, despite the stipulation of the parties, then
its ruling excluding the Baptists as witnesses may have been based merely on a finding
that their evidence as to White's beliefs was immaterial. JA was of counsel in at least one other similar case, this time arguing for the successful
assessors. See Taft v. Cragin, Min. Bk. 101, SCJ Worcester, April 1774, C–3. SF 152818. He appeared for the assessors also in Follansbee v. Pearson, a case in which
a Newburyport Presbyterian was successful in claiming an exemption under an order
of the General Court dating from 1752 which expressly exempted members of his society
from tax, there being no general statute covering Presbyterians. Min. Bk. 85, SCJ Essex, Nov. 1767, N–11; June 1768, C–12; June 1769, N–8; Nov. 1769, C–11. SF 131661, 131867. In at least two cases involving the tax on members of the Church
of England (note 4 above), JA appeared for the church. Richmond v. Walker, Min. Bk. 84, SCJ Taunton, Oct. 1770, N–4. SF 145564 (plaintiff discontinued after jury impaneled); Bass v. Knight, Min. Bk. 93, SCJ Essex, June 1773, N–9; Min. Bk. 102, SCJ Essex, June 1774, C–21; Min. Bk. 108, SCJ Essex, June 1780, C–3. SF 92148, 132321, 132714 (verdict for assessors; on review continued after special verdict
until neither party appears). 9. Act of 4 July 1734, c. 6, §5, 2 A&R 715. The provision was carried forward in re-enactments and renewals of this act
cited in note 4 above. 10. Act of 25 Jan. 1758, c. 20, §1, 4 A&R 67. See note 7 above. The Act of 4 July 1734, note 9 above, and its successors prior to the 1758 act applied to taxes levied on Baptists
“in the town or place where they dwell.” 11. Act of 21 June 1765, c. 13, 4 A&R 815. §3 of this act provided “That all taxes already raised for settling a minister, or that may be raised for
his support, for building a meeting house, clearing and repairing roads, be levied
on the several proprietors of said plantation, according to their interests, until
the further order of this [i.e. the General] court; and that said inhabitants and proprietors of said town proceed
by the same rules, in levying and collecting said taxes, as proprietors in new plantations
are obliged, by law, to observe.” The last clause presumably refers to the Act of 19 June 1753, c. 1, §2, 3 A&R 670, which provided machinery for the proprietors of undivided lands to assess proportionally
their individual shares for the purpose of raising funds “for bringing forward and
compleating the settlement of such common lands . . . and for carrying on and managing
any other affairs for the common good of such proprieties.” That the proprietors considered
this legislation a sufficient basis for taxing the Baptists and proceeded to do so
appears in the complaints of the latter to the General Court in 1768 and 1769 set
out in 4 A&R 1036–1037. A provision similar to that involved in the Ashfield controversy is found
in other acts of incorporation passed at the same time. See Act of 21 June 1765, c.
14, 4 A&R 815 (Lanesborough); Act of 21 June 1765, c. 15, 4 A&R 816 (Charlmont). 12. Act of 24 June 1768, c. 5, 4 A&R 1015. Although the proprietors had proceeded to levy taxes under the 1765 act of
incorporation, note 11 above, they had been aware of its ambiguities, since in March 1767 they had petitioned
the General Court, reciting that the provision for levying taxes was “a clause of
great uncertainty” and praying for an act to remedy the consequent difficulties. These
appear to have been at least three: (1) the lack of any express authority to tax the
Baptists; (2) the fact that many provisions of the statute governing meetings of proprietors
of undivided lands (note 11 above) did not apply to lands that were actually within a township and had been laid
out; (3) the fact that the Act of 6 March 1762, c. 44, 4 A&R 532, detailing the machinery for levying against unimproved lands, had expired on
1 April 1765. The first problem was met by the statutory language quoted in the text.
To resolve the second it was provided that meetings were to be called in accordance
with the Act of 25 March 1713, c. 9, 1 A&R 704, covering meetings of proprietors of common lands within a town, and that the
provisions for levying and collecting taxes were applicable to lands “already laid
out or agreed to be laid out.” Finally, the machinery of the 1762 act was expressly
adopted. 13. See the various petitions and complaints of the Baptists in 1770 and 1771 in 4 A&R 1038–1045. 14. The Representation of the Lords of Trade, 31 May 1771, is set out in 4 A&R 1016, and in slightly different form in 5 Acts, Privy Council (Col.) 323–324. For the decision itself, see ibid.; 4A&R 1045. The memorial on which the Board of Trade acted asserted only that the Ashfield
Act was contrary to the general exemption law, but the Board seems to have taken a
broader position. It was not until 1774 that the complicated financial questions arising
out of the Act's disallowance were resolved. See Act of 6 March 1773, c. 30, 5 A&R 228; Act of 9 March 1774, c. 24, 5 A&R 331. See also notes, 5 A&R 278–279, 371–375. On the controversy generally, see 2 Backus, Church History 246–261; Meyer, Church and State in Mass. 54–66. JA does not seem to have been directly involved in the dispute, but in 1774 as a member
of the Continental Congress he felt the effects of the organized Baptist campaign
for religious liberty of which the Ashfield matter was a part. Isaac Backus, James
Manning, and other Baptist leaders, through the offices of Philadelphia Quakers, procured
a meeting with the Massachusetts delegation at which the Ashfield case and other complaints
were aired and the intolerance of the Massachusetts establishment was urged as an
obstacle to colonial union. JA and his colleagues promised to have action taken on the matter at home, and the Massachusetts
Provincial Congress accordingly resolved in favor of the Baptists. A committee of
the General Court was appointed to bring in a bill, but the onset of revolution brought
a postponement of such problems until after the end of hostilities. See 2 JA, Diary and Autobiography 152–154 and sources there cited; 3 id. at 311–313; Meyer, Church and State in Mass. 92–95. 15. Act of 13 Feb. 1760, c. 24, 4 A&R 288, set out in part in note 427 below. 16. See 2 Backus, Church History 242–243. Compare 4 A&R 876. The minister involved was apparently James Mellen. 3 Backus, Church History 185. 17. Memorial of Ebenezer Smith and Reuben Ellis [1768], 4 A&R 1037. See also 2 Backus, Church History 246–247; note 23 below. The statute affording relief for an “overrated” taxpayer provided that he
might complain to the General Sessions and be reimbursed whatever amount he was entitled
to, “with the charges” (presumably costs of court) to be paid “out of the town or
parish treasury.” The court had power “to require the assessors to produce the lists
of their assessment.” Act of 3 Oct. 1730, c. 1, §7, 2 A&R 551. It is not clear whether the “charges” adjudged against the assessors here were
merely costs of court, or were a reimbursement of the tax, perhaps assessed against
them by analogy to §6 of the Act, which provided that assessors “failing of their
duty” should themselves pay the sums which they were to have assessed. 18. As to the formation of Green's church, see note 932 below. Green (1721–1791) and his congregation moved again in 1772, this time to Charlton, where he remained
pastor until his death. See generally 3 Backus, Church History 176; Estes, “Historical Discourse,” in The Greenville Baptist Church in Leicester, Massachusetts 56–57 (Worcester, Mass., 1889); Emory Washburn, Historical Sketches of the Town of Leicester 114–115 (Boston, 1860). As to the Warren Association, see David Benedict, A General History of the Baptist Denomination in America and Other Parts of the World 469–470 (N.Y., 1848); Henry S. Burrage, A History of the Baptists in New England 80–85 (Phila., 1894); Goen, Revivalism and Separatism 272, 277–282. 19. See the various warrants in the tax proceedings, the writ, and the pleadings in SF 152427. 20. The statutes cited by JA appear in notes 2–525–28 below. 21. The Inferior Court judgment is in SF 152427. 22. Min. Bk. 90, SCJ Worcester, Sept. 1769, N–10. SCJ Rec. 1769, fol. 115. According to this source “Sewall” joined Putnam as counsel for the
assessors in the Superior Court. While this might not be conclusive as to JA's participation in the argument, an examination of the rest of the cases heard at
this term does not reveal his name as counsel in any of them, strongly suggesting
that he did not even attend this session of court. An MS account of Baptist sufferings by John Davis states that on appeal to the Superior
Court “it went in Greens favor there also and they allowed him Costs, all that it had cost
him; that is, what Mony he had expend in the Law, and lawful Cost. The Jury did not
go out—because the Judges advise Green to settle it. Green says it cost him 20 Dollars
more than what he was allowed—beside all his Travelling for Witnesses—to prove himself
a Minister.” Isaac Backus Papers, Andover Newton Theological School, Newton Center,
Mass., on temporary loan to RPB. As to Davis, an important figure in the Warren Association and a member of the American
Philosophical Society, see 2 Backus, Church History 275–276. The Warren Association (note 18 above) on 12 Sept. 1769 “Voted to give a Certificate acknowledging that he is regular,
and in Fellowship to Rev. Nathaniel Green, to be made use of at the Superior Court
at Worcester.” MS Minutes, p. 3, Backus Papers. No such document appears in the Superior Court file
of the case. SF 152427. The editors are indebted to Prof. William G. McLoughlin of Brown University
for these and subsequent references to the Backus Papers, as well as for his invaluable
aid in plumbing various ecclesiastical mysteries. 23. 2 Backus, Church History 263. Backus did not positively identify the cases in his printed history, but in
a draft of the work, discussing the case of Ebenezer Smith of Ashfield (note 17 above), he said “And though they assert that Mr. Smith is not a minister in law,
yet the honorable justices of our Superior court, by their decisions in two parallel
cases, have made them know that therein they did not speak the truth: and consequently
that it was a violation of law and equity, to punish the baptists assessors in 1762,
for allowing him the privileges of such an one.” Backus subjoined a footnote identifying
the “two parallel cases” as “The case of elder Green of Charlton, and of elder Clark
of Wilbaham, the last of which was decided in the court of Northampton near the close
of this year [1771].” 2 Backus, Church History (MS—preliminary draft) 248, Backus Papers. Cite web page as: Founding Families: Digital Editions of the Papers of the Winthrops and the Adamses, ed.C. James Taylor. Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 2016.