1785 & 1787 Referenda

1785: "Quieting Ancient Settlers" and the Betterment Acts

Background

Competing jurisdictions, uncertain surveys, and overlapping deeds clouded land titles held by Vermont's early settlers. After the laborious work of converting wilderness to farms, some of these "ancient" settlers faced eviction because their titles proved invalid.

Issue

Revolutionary leaders such as Thomas Chittenden believed that ancient settlers with invalid titles should receive full compensation for the value added by their work and enacted a Betterment Act to that effect in 1781. Opponents, associated with Nathaniel Chipman, argued that compensation violated common law tenets on trespass by requiring the legal owner to pay the settlers for their trespass. Their opposition blocked enactment of a new Betterment Act in 1784.

Referendum

To break the deadlock the 1784 General Assembly sought an advisory referendum, to be held at 1785 town meeting. The freemen were asked whether they supported the 1784 bill's call for full compensation. At the June 1785 session of the General Assembly it was reported that the betterment bill was supported by a 756 to 508 margin (some towns did not comply with the requirement to certify the actual vote and simply noted how the town voted). Result: Despite the vote the betterment bill was defeated by a 29-31 legislative vote. On June 16, 1785 a compromise bill, limiting compensation to half the assessed value of the improvements, was approved by a 33 to 29 vote.

1787: Fiscal Policies

Background

The end of the Revolution brought peace, but not prosperity. Lack of specie, land speculation, and war related delays in establishing productive farms left debtors in difficult straits as their notes came due. Many settlers were threatened with the loss of their farms to creditors.

Issue

A rematch of the 1785 split, old revolutionary leaders sought to protect the settlers by extending the periods of contracted debt, enacting "tender acts" allowing payment of debts in livestock, grain and other goods, and creating a state bank to increase circulating currency by issuing paper money. Again Nathaniel Chipman led opponents who argued that such measures violated the sanctity of contracts and undermined creditors. Threats of eviction led debtor mobs to attempt closing the county courts to halt evictions (see Rutland Court Riots of 1786).

Referendum

Recognizing that popular support was against them, Chipman's allies proposed delaying action until an advisory referendum could be held and "the passions of the people should have a time to cool." By capturing "the democratic side of the question," Chipman stymied efforts to quickly enact the revolutionaries' fiscal policies and the referendum measure passed October 31, 1786 (see Daniel Chipman's Life of Nathaniel Chipman).

Four questions were put to the voters at a town meeting to be held on the first Tuesday of January, 1787: Shall there be established a bank for the issue of paper money on loan to the people? Is it expedient to pass a general tender act? Shall the present act making articles a tender on the execution be continued? Shall the act for the fulfillment of contracts in kind after the specified time of payment is elapsed, passed in October 1786, be continued?

The first three measures were defeated by, respectively, votes of 456 to 2197, 128 to 781, and 419 to 591. The fourth measure passed 835 to 229 (see Vermont State Papers, Vol. III. pp.284- 285).

Results

An act to compel fulfillment of contracts according to the intent of the parties was passed March 9, 1787, thus continuing the October 31, 1786 act. The general tender acts were repealed on March 10, 1787. A state bank was created in 1806.