Ch. 3.6. Primary Source: Address to Gov. Clinton by the General Assembly of New York, 1749
Perhaps the single most important issue that caused disputes between the royal Governor, George Clinton (see above), and the New York Assembly, was that of the governor’s salary. The British royal government preferred to have virtually all of its colonial officials paid with funds derived from the colonies in which they served. The governor and officials in London repeatedly asked or ordered the New York Assembly to pass a bill that would provide these funds for the New York governor. The Assembly refused, and thus the governor, without any substantial funding under his own control, remained in a very weak position. The address below to Gov. Clinton expresses the Assembly’s reasons for their refusal. A similar situation applied in most of the colonies.
We his Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the General Assembly of the Colony of New York…[provide] our answer to your Excellency’s [the Governor’s] message… Your Excellency begins by charging us with renewing differences in every new session…, [but the current] dispute…arose…from your Excellency’s demand of a five-year support…
We are very sensible that it is the usage of the Parliament of Great Britain, in raising money for the public service…, to…leave the particular application or disposition thereof to his Majesty. But we beg leave to observe to your Excellency that…there is a vast difference between the condition of those of his Majesty’s happy subjects who live under his immediate government in the Kingdom of Great Britain, and those whose unhappy lot it is, by the great distance they are from him, to be under the command of governors of provinces. Our most gracious Sovereign neither has, nor can have, any interest separate from his people…; if any misapplication [of public money] happens, it must be entirely owing to subordinate officers, who may be called to an account and punished by Parliament.
But the case of his Majesty’s subjects in the plantations is vastly different: they have governors sent to them, generally entire strangers to the people they are sent to govern. They seldom have any estates in the colonies where they are appointed governors, and consequently their interest is entirely distinct and different from that of the people… They seldom regard the welfare of the people, otherwise than as they can make it subservient to their own particular interest. And as they know the time of their continuance in their governments to be uncertain, all methods are used…to raise estates to themselves [i.e., acquire landed property]. And therefore, should the public money be left to their disposition, what can be expected but the grossest misapplication under various pretenses…! This has often been actually the case in this colony, and when such misapplications happen, there are no means of redress: the governors cannot be called to an account by the representatives of the people…
In this situation of things, we are fully persuaded that our most gracious Sovereign…will not condemn the General Assembly… We must declare to your Excellency that we cannot answer it to our constituents to pass any bill for raising money on them, and leave it to be disposed of at the will and pleasure of the governor. And this we hope your Excellency will accept for a categorical answer… We are extremely grieved that we are obliged to remain here [in session]…, but…no inconvenience…shall ever prevail upon us to abandon the true interest of our country.
Questions: What arguments does the Assembly use in rejecting Gov. Clinton request, and why does it respond this way? How does the Assembly manage to completely reject the governor’s request or order, while maintaining a respectful attitude towards British authority?