^^«*' 
 
 
Class Zri 
 
 Book u 
 
 r- 
 
I^^ 
 
^0 6-^6^- 
 
 "CHARTER OAK" 
 
 ^4iii( 
 
 By 
 
 ALBERT C. BATES 
 
 u 
 
 Librarian Connecticut Historical 
 Society 
 
 1907 
 

 Reprinted from 
 
 ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA 
 
 by permission 
 
 Gifl 
 
 Author 
 
 The C. L. &* B. Co. 
 
Charter Oak, a tree nearly seven 
 feet in diameter, formerly In Hartford, 
 Conn.; it blew down in a storm, 21 Au- 
 gust 1856. A section of its trunk was 
 preserved in the rooms of the Connec- 
 ticut Historical Society; the remainder 
 — currently believed to rival in miracu- 
 lous powers of reproduction the loaves 
 and fishes or the Mayflower furniture — 
 was kept or sold for small souvenirs. 
 It is thus venerated from a tradition, 
 first accredited to it in 1789, that in a 
 hollow of it was concealed the charter 
 of Connecticut rescued from Andros in 
 1687 ; earlier ones specify an elm, others 
 the houses of different persons. This 
 is of little moment; but the adventures 
 of the charter form a mystery which the 
 latest investigations, instead of illumin- 
 ating, render utterly insoluble. The 
 contradiction of unquestionable facts Is 
 absolute. The story without these is 
 
 (3) 
 
sufficiently peculiar. James II., wishing 
 to make Connecticut a part of his con- 
 solidated New England under Andros 
 (q. v.), found its charter in the way; 
 and as the colony declined to surrender 
 it, he brought writs of quo warranto to 
 vacate it, the last of which was return- 
 able in February 1687. To delay or 
 avoid voluntary surrender, yet escape for- 
 feiture and entire outlawry of rights, 
 they replied that they would much rather 
 stay as they were, but if they could not, 
 preferred a provincial union under An- 
 dros over annexation to any other prov- 
 ince. The Council chose to consider 
 this a formal waiver of charter rights, 
 and dropped proceedings under the writ ; 
 and on 31 October 1687 Andros rode 
 over from Norwich to Hartford, under 
 orders to assume the government. Call- 
 ing the governor and council together, 
 he demanded surrender of the charter 
 according to their dutiful assurances. 
 The meeting was secret; what happened 
 we learn only from tradition, and the 
 brief account of a later intimate of the 
 actors. The colonial officials protested 
 
 (4) 
 
and debated till after dark; that this 
 was prearranged Is not only morally 
 certain in Itself, but Trumbull's account 
 of a long speech by the governor, to no 
 conceivable purpose otherwise, deepens 
 the certainty. Candles were lighted; 
 the charter was (or the charters were) 
 at last brought in and laid on the table; 
 suddenly some officious candle-snuffers 
 put out all the lights, and when they 
 were relighted no charter was to be 
 seen. But if Andros had no longer a 
 charter to suppress, equally the colony 
 had no longer one to appeal to; the old 
 government was just as effectually ex- 
 tinguished as If they had let him have 
 the paper, they cannot have foreseen a 
 revolution in England, and it is not evi- 
 dent what they intended to do with It. 
 Most likely, from their previous actions, 
 it was merely to save their " face " from 
 the humiliation of a formal surrender. 
 There was no outcry by Andros, no 
 charge made against the officials, no ap- 
 pearance of ill-will to them, no report 
 of the affair to England, seemingly no 
 disclosure of It to the train of Massa- 
 
 (5) 
 
chusetts magnates who accompanied 
 him (and may or may not have attended 
 the meeting), or to any one else; and 
 (perhaps the most curious of all the 
 circumstances of this curious affair) 
 both our Informant and tradition stop 
 short at the relighted candles and the 
 missing document, and give no hint 
 what Andros said or If he said anything, 
 or whether he seemed puzzled or of- 
 fended, or any of the Immediate sequelae 
 of the business. The governor (Treat) 
 had called a meeting of the General 
 Court, which accepted the situation and 
 the annexation; the secretary Inscribed 
 It on the colonial records and wrote 
 " Finis " on them; and the next day An- 
 dros publicly proclaimed his commis- 
 sion. When James was overthrown 
 and Andros with him, the colony re- 
 sumed Its government, appealed to its 
 charter brought from hiding, and the 
 English authorities admitted without 
 trial that it had never been vacated. 
 But that was chance and not foresight. 
 This, however, is only the beginning of 
 mystery. The charter, obtained by Gov. 
 
 (6) 
 
John Winthrop from Charles 11. 's coun- 
 cil In April 1662, was engrossed in 
 duplicate, and the official fees are en- 
 tered on the English records. No other 
 copies were made, nor could have been 
 unless both the others were lost; and 
 neither was lost. The first copy was 
 sent to the colonial government, which 
 acknowledges receipt of " the charter^ 
 the duplicate and the old copy of the 
 former charter " (that is, the Warwick 
 Patent). Duplicate of what? It Is 
 usually assumed to mean, of the charter; 
 but the facts to be cited prove that It 
 was of the patent. Winthrop was to 
 bring over the duplicate of the charter 
 with him ; and a legislative committee 
 was appointed to receive It from him. 
 That he did not, Is conclusively shown 
 by a letter from the colony to Its agent, 
 William Whiting, in 1686, Instructing 
 him to obtain It from James Porter In 
 London, with whom Winthrop had left 
 it, and use It In defending the colony's 
 rights before the council. That Win- 
 throp may have taken It across once 
 more on official business, and left It 
 
 (7) 
 
there, is barred out by the fact that he 
 never visited England again. That 
 Whiting sent it back within the next 
 year, is equally negatived by the fact 
 that he continued to need It there and 
 the colony did not need It at all, that he 
 would not have sent It without orders 
 and they gave him no such orders, 
 and that In his correspondence there is 
 no letter of transmittal. Furthermore, 
 a legislative committee of 17 15 voted a 
 money acknowledgment to Joseph 
 Wadsworth for safely preserving the 
 " Duplicate Charter " when " our con- 
 stitution was struck at " : It is absurd to 
 suppose they made him the grant for 
 preserving a second copy when they had 
 one safe already. Obviously, the one 
 he preserved was the only one they had. 
 On the other hand, Roger Wolcott, the 
 first narrator (1759), distinctly says 
 that " the charters were set on the 
 table," and that when the candles were 
 relighted the charters were gone. Still 
 more specifically, President Stiles of Yale 
 writes In his Itinerary, as from Wolcott, 
 that Nathan Stanley took one copy and 
 
 (8) 
 
Gov. Talcott's father the other. Wol- 
 cott was only eight at the time; but by 
 17 14 he was In the council, in 17 15 was 
 on the very committee which made the 
 grant to Wadsworth, and was certainly 
 Intimate with many who were present 
 at the scene and probably helped arrange 
 It. We have, then, the certain fact that 
 there was but one copy of the charter in 
 America In 1687, set against the posi- 
 tive assertion of one who must have 
 known, that two were abstracted. Still 
 a third mystery Is, that Wadsworth was 
 not present at the meeting and could not 
 have taken the paper; that Wolcott, 
 who publicly honored Wadsworth as 
 the savior of the charter, privately gives 
 all the credit to others and does not even 
 mention Wadsworth, and that the names 
 he cites are really those of members 
 present; and that if one of the actual 
 abstracters passed it to Wadsworth 
 waiting outside, he and not they should 
 receive the public acknowledgment. The 
 writer can guess at solutions to these 
 problems, but all solutions are guesses 
 alike. 
 
 (9) 
 
SEP B3 190/ 
 

 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 014 110 452 4 C