History of Taxation in Rhode Island to the Year 1790

by Henry B. Gardner

[20]. There are several instances of laws imposing fines of from £1 to £10 for refusal to bear office. A man could not be compelled however to bear office for several years in succession. In 1659, an assistant who had been elected several times was excused from further service, and a law of 1665, imposing a fine of £5 on constables for refusal to serve, provided that the same man should not be elected more than once in three years. By act of 1672, no man need serve as a deputy for two courts in succession. More than this, a town law, "declared all the inhabitants, though not admitted freemen, liable to be elected to office," (Staples Annals of Prov. p. 118) By act of Assembly in 1670, any person judged capable of holding public office might be elected a freeman whether he desired it or not. (R.I. Col. Recs. II, 357).

[21]. The only legislative officers under the Patent who received any pay were the commissioners from the towns, who were allowed 3s. a day payable by the towns, with a double fine for absence (R.I. Col. Recs. I, 307). No salaries appear to have been paid under the charter for the first few years. In 1666, (R.I. Col. Recs. II, 167) 3s. a day was granted to all who served in the general assembly or colony court of trials (except such as had stated fees), payable in the former case by bills receivable for taxes in the town of the holder and in the latter case out of the general treasury. The fine for non-attendance was double the pay. In April, 1672, these salaries were increased, but the increase was repealed the next month, and in November deputies wages were fixed at 2s. a day, payable by the town, with a fine of £1 for non-appearance at the assembly or £2 in case there was no quorum, for an assistant in the latter case the fine was £5. (R.I. Col. Recs. II, 443, 456, 473) By acts of 1664 and 1666, a like fine had been imposed on magistrates absent from the court of trials in case of no quorum. By act of 1680, (R.I. Col. Recs. III, 87) magistrates and deputies were to be paid out of the general treasury at the rate of 7s. a week. Perhaps this was a substitute for the act of 1679. This comprises all the legislation in the records on the subject. There seems to be some doubt as to the extent of the action of these laws. Arnold (Vol. I, 532) says "Salaries had occasionally been paid to the civil officers, but most of the time public service had been performed gratuitously." In any case the imposition of fines for non-attendance must have gone far to make the system self supporting.

[22]. The sergeant in particular was a considerable source of expense. Several times as late as 1664, we find taxes of from £5 to £25 levied for the payment of his bills, and an act of 1673, recites that the inhabitants have been "greatly oppressed and grieved" by the sergeant's "great wages" and that henceforth he shall receive but 3s. a day for attendance in the general assembly, and simply his fees at the court of trials, instead of "great fees at the Court of Tryalls, and four shillings a day, alsoe" as heretofore.

[23]. A law of 1670, (R.I. Col. Recs. II, 361) provides that for rates formerly or now ordered the treasurer shall have one shilling in the pound for all he receives in provisions, but nothing for what he shall receive in money or for any fines now due the colony, "and what charge he shall be at he shall be allowed for that besides." In 1671, (ib. 385) it is ordered that for all (in money or other pay) that the treasurer has received during the last, or shall receive during the coming, year he shall be allowed twelve pence on the pound. An audit of 1681, speaks of the treasurer's commissions as 5%. An audit of the accounts of the treasurer under Andros show that the commission was 10%, and this rate seems to have been continued after the reestablishment of the colonial government. In the case of the tax levied in 1679, the towns are ordered to pay the treasurer's salary in addition to the tax, but as a rule his commission seems to have been deducted from the receipts.

[24]. Later the colony, in some instances, made grants to meet the expenses of certain of the roads and bridges of more than local importance.

[25]. R.I. Col. Recs. I, 222.

[26]. Ib. 288.

[27]. This is shown often in the wording of the laws; for example, in the salary law of 1666. (see p. 97 Note 21) the treasurer is ordered to make payment "out of those monies which either by fine, forfeiture or otherwise, are brought into the Treasury," and in the act granting diet and lodging in 1679, (see ib.) the expense is to be met out of "the fines and forfeitures due to the Collony." Taxes are not specified as a source of revenue. The audit reports entered in the colony account book show the same thing. The decentralization which marked the government under the Patent is seen in the order "that the Publick Treasurer shall only receive such fines, forfeitures, amercements and taxes, as fall upon such as are not within the liberties" of the four towns. (R.I. Col. Recs. I, 197). An act of 1656 (Ib. 334) provides that all "fines that are committed about ye Generall Courts, as of juriemen, &c., shall all returne and belong to ye Generall Treasurie." And in general it was the fines imposed in the colony courts that were the most fruitful sources of revenue.

[28]. R.I. Col. Recs. I, 223: The towns of Providence and Warwick were to have each one barrel of powder, five hundred pounds of lead, six pikes, and six muskets. Portsmouth was to have two barrels of powder, one thousand weight of lead, twelve pikes, and eighteen muskets; Newport, three barrels of powder, one thousand weight of lead, twelve pikes, and twenty-four muskets.

[29]. A tax of £24 was levied for this purpose in November, 1658, and in the following May another of £50 (R.I. Col. Recs. I, 395, 416). It is not quite clear whether or not the second was meant to include the first.