Part 18

Footnote 83:

The best account of the commerce of the colony is to be found in the report to the Board of Trade in 1708, already referred to. (note 74) The land on the island had been well taken up by this time and the younger generation in that part of the colony was betaking itself, in the words of the report, "to trades and callings," especially to navigation for which their situation so well fitted them. Twenty-nine vessels were now owned in the colony in place of the four or five of twenty years before, and all but two or three were owned in Newport. Ship building also became an important trade, no less than eighty-four vessels having been built in the colony from 1698 to 1708. Direct foreign trade existed with the Bermudas, the West Indies, Madeira, Fayal and Curacoa, the colony sending out lumber, beef, pork, dairy products, horses, cows, onions, cider, rum, and, sometimes money, and receiving in return sugar, molasses, cotton, ginger, indigo, pimento, rum, English goods, Spanish iron, brasalleta, wines, salt and cocoa. Some of these articles, together with the products of the colony, were taken to all the coast colonies to the South who gave in return, rice, pitch, tar, turpentine, valuable woods, skins, flax, pork, grain, and rigging. With England the colony had no direct trade but received most of its English goods through Boston, paying for them in dairy products and money. It was estimated that £20,000 in cash was annually sent to Boston on this account. It is evident that the colony had entered upon a new phase in its economic development.

Footnote 84:

The records of Providence do not show but the provision was complied with.

Footnote 85:

The poll tax as we have seen was introduced under Andros, but does not seem to have been assessed since his fall. It must be remembered that the present act was not a general law (see p. 33). How the law of October, 1699, (note 88) may have affected this question we do not know. The law of January, 1703-4, is chiefly administrative and makes no mention of a poll tax, and it would hardly seem to fall under the law of May, 1704. (Note 90). It seems probable on the whole that the poll tax was not as a rule assessed. The wording of the law in 1707, exempting the governor from taxation might seem to imply that a poll tax was assessed, (see note 75)

Footnote 86:

Indians had been exempted as early as 1672. (R.I. Col. Recs. II, 436)

Footnote 87:

For this law see R.I. Col. Recs. III, 343, et seq. If those appointed to take account of estates neglected the work they were to be fined twenty shillings.

Footnote 88:

The most important of the modifying laws seems to have been passed in October, 1699. It is referred to as the model law in subsequent acts assessing taxes before January, 1703-4. This law is unfortunately not preserved in the records, but references go to show that it did not essentially modify the administrative features of the law of the previous year. By act of August, 1702, any assistant or justice neglecting his duty under the act was made subject to a fine of £20.

Footnote 89:

For this law see R.I. Col. Recs. III, 484, et seq. The likeness to the present law is seen still more fully in some of the details of administration which have not been changed since that time. Later some of the towns seem to have been divided into districts and constables assigned to, and held responsible for, each district. The fine imposed on an assessor for neglect of duty was 40s.

Footnote 90:

R.I. Col. Recs. III, 501. The oath was as follows: "You A.B., do, on your solemn engagement, hereby declare the accounts and list as you present of your estate, is the whole and true account of all your rateable estate, as to your knowledge you know of (or is in your care and custody), and this you declare to be the truth, and nothing but the truth, upon the perill of the penalty of perjury". The same act declares that what is rateable estate shall be known by the act of 1698. That act contains on the subject only what is given in the previous pages. I have unfortunately found no return of estates by individuals for this period, but there is no reason to suppose it different from what it was before or after; that is, it included everything with the possible exception of clothes and necessary household furniture.

Footnote 91:

There were some three or four such returns ordered in all and severe penalties were sometimes enacted for neglect. Complaints against the apportionment among the towns do not seem to have been frequent, though there are one or two instances of dissent on record.

Footnote 92:

As earlier, the difficulty was political rather than economic. There seems to have been in the colony at this time a party, how strong it would be difficult to say, in sympathy with the efforts to curtail the charter privileges. There were also disputes between the towns as to boundaries, while the colony dispute with Connecticut was not settled until 1703. In 1700 the sheriff while attempting to collect a tax in Westerly was carried off to Connecticut. It is worthy of note in connection with this difficulty of collection that the severity of the penalty seems to have had little influence. The assessors or collectors were not infrequently made responsible for the whole tax in case of neglect, but taxes were not promptly collected until government had become firmly established and could rely on the united support of the people. When it was strong enough to enforce the penalties, the necessity had passed away. In the copy of the laws sent to Bellemont in 1699, the sedition act (see page 20) seems to have been included, though repealed nearly thirty years before. The act was again repealed in March, 1702.

Footnote 93:

The first mention of the constables fees for collection which I have seen was in 1684, and allowed two shillings on the pound. As long as this lasted collectors' fees alone eat up ten per cent of the tax, but by the law of January, 1703/4, the fees were reduced to one shilling. Assessors were paid by the day, the amount varying from two to five shillings. The act just referred to placed it at two shillings and six pence, and a law of 1705 provided that no rate maker should charge for more than three days. The most full and detailed statement of loss on the articles in which taxes were paid, is in the accounts of the treasurer under Andros. It was as follows: Loss by 935 bushels of corn and rye £20-0-10, by 9 ferkins of butter £1-12-1. Twelve bushels of corn had been sold and delivered but no payment had been made. In addition there were the following expenses and losses: Freight £5-3-4, warehouse room for 1300 lbs. of wool £1, turning corn ten or twelve times 18s., "275 lbs. of wool taken out of my house £9 3-4." "Money taken out of Major Goulding's house £32-10-0." As the total receipts did not exceed £230 it will be seen that expenses and losses eat up a good part of the revenue. They were in this case probably far larger than usual, but they must always have been considerable in amount, while no satisfactory money existed, in quantities sufficient for the needs of the community.

Footnote 94:

R.I. Col. Recs. III, 357, et seq. The proceeds of the tax were to be for the poor, highways and bridges. It was indeed a town and not a colony tax.

Footnote 95:

R.I. Col. Recs. III, 421, et seq.

Footnote 96:

R.I. Col. Recs. III, 438.