In 1829, Ann Royall, a professional journalist was reported to be the first North American legally declared a "common scold". Royall was an outspoken critic of any attempts to forge an alliance between church and state when near her home in Washington D.C, a small Presbyterian congregation was allowed to meet in an engine house built with federal monies. Royall claimed that some children were throwing small rocks at her window and in response, the congregation began praying for her and one member even went as far as praying silently directly beneath her window. Whether the congregation was sincere or not, this irked Royall and she began cursing at them. Complaints were made by a number of citizens claiming that Ann Royall used "opprobrious and indecent language to respectable females and Gentlemen when on the publick street, whilst going to publick worship". They accused Royall of calling them thieves, villains and hypocrites and shouting insults at Sunday school teachers. These charges were brought against Royall in court by members of the congregation and on July 6, 1829, Ann Royal sat before a Grand Jury in the United States Circuit Court in Washington. After two days of trial and deliberations, the court found Ann Royal guilty of being a common scold and disturber of the peace. The traditional punishment of "Ducking" where a woman is lowered into a body of water on a chair attached to a long lever was found to be obsolete and instead the court fined Royal $10.
Scolding and Ducking were common in Old English laws of the 1600s, but in the United States, they were mostly done away with after Independence. A few states including Maryland where the District of Columbia drew its laws from, kept the statue in the books, but the law was rarely prosecuted. Those that were prosecuted were not publicized, at least not to the extent that Ann Royall's case was. This was just one example of what President Martin Van Buren called "obsolete or incomplete provisions" of laws in the Capitol City of Washington. Van Buren wrote in his first Annual Address to Congress, "Its (Washington City) codes, civil and criminal, are not only very defective, but full of obsolete or inconvenient provisions”. In addition, because the District of Columbia was carved out of parts of Maryland and Virginia, different laws continued to prevail in each part.
Unlike any other city, the District of Columbia is not part of any state, instead Article 1, Section 8 of US Constitution granted Congress full control over the district. In 1801, Congress confirmed this when they passed the Organic Act formally placing the district under the control of the United States Congress. Congress granted the District it's first municipal charter with a mayor and a 12-member council. In 1820, Congress granted the City of Washington a new charter, which allowed for a mayor popularly elected by voters. In 1837, President Martin Van Buren wanted Congress to once again revisit the charter with a "thorough and careful revision of its local government".
"Your attention has heretofore been frequently called to the affairs of the District of Columbia, and I should not again ask it did not their entire dependence on Congress give them a constant claim upon. its notice. Separated by the Constitution from the rest of the Union, limited in extent, and aided by no legislature of its own, it would seem to be a spot where a wise and uniform system of local government might have been easily adopted. This District has, however, unfortunately been left to linger behind the rest of the Union. Its codes, civil and criminal, are not only very defective, but full of obsolete or inconvenient provisions. Being formed of portions of two States, discrepancies in the laws prevail in different parts of the territory, small as it is; and although it was selected as the seat of the General Government, the site of its public edifices, the depository of its archives, and the residence of officers intrusted with large amounts of public property and the management of public business, yet it has never been subjected to or received that special and comprehensive legislation which these circumstances peculiarly demand. I am well aware of the various subjects of greater magnitude and immediate interest that press themselves on the consideration of Congress, but I believe there is not one that appeals more directly to its justice than a liberal and even generous attention to the interests of the District of Columbia and a thorough and careful revision of its local government."
Van Buren clearly cited obsolete laws as his reasoning, but it is worth noting that in 1836, Peter Force, became the first member of the anti-Jackson Whig party to be elected mayor of Washing D.C. There is no doubt that partisan politics played a role. Prior to Force, the mayors were all either Independent, or a member of the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican party. Martin Van Buren was a Jacksonian Democrat. Indeed, just four years later, when William Winston Seaton, another anti-Jackson Whig was elected mayor, some members of Congress submitted legislation to alter the charter to remove the city's elected governor. The legislation failed, but the partisan politics remained to this day.
References
“First Annual Message.” First Annual Message | The American Presidency Project, 5 Dec. 1837, www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/first-annual-message-4
Clapp, Elizabeth J. “‘A Virago-Errant in Enchanted Armor?’: Anne Royall’s 1829 Trial as a Common Scold.” Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 23, no. 2, 2003, pp. 207–32. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3125036. Accessed 22 June 2024.
https://maint.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/12th-congress/session-1/c12s1ch75.pdf
https://www.stateoftheunionhistory.com/2017/04/1818-james-monroe-washington-dc-voting.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Washington,_D.C.
No comments:
Post a Comment