Category: Stamp Act

What is a primary source?

Primary sources can be defined as sources that solely come from an individual who has had personal contact with someone or something.

When are primary sources vital?

Some people would answer always, but I believe primary sources are most vital when collecting factual information pertaining to history.

What is the Stamp Act?

The Stamp Act is an act created in 1765 by the British Parliament in which took income from the American colonies by placing a stamp obligation on newspapers and legal and business documents.’ Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania’ was written by John Dickson, a Philadelphia lawyer, in 1768. This analysis is primarily about the taxation on American colonies.

John Dickinson was a wealthy lawyer, but used the title, ‘Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania’, for the sole purpose of appealing to the colonists so that he can correlate himself to the ordinary man. John Dickinson’s purpose was to encourage protest against British Stamp Act and resistance to legislation he considered unfair.

The reason for John Dickinson, ‘Letters from a Farmer’ was to ensure that the pioneer was understanding the difficulties that the settler was experiencing, by the British. Additionally, they should take movements against the British, yet they ought to do it in a peaceful manner since it is the best way to get their privileges. Dickson advocated non-violence such as nonimportation pacts. Dickinson created the arguments that even though Parliament could pass governing economic methods that gave reason to minor revenue, it had no reasonable right to tax the American colonies only for the purpose of revenue. When he mentions liberty, he means that to commend and achieve them they had to go about it in the right way or possibly not gain anything at all. Dickinson mentioned the paper and glass to be unconstitutional because it was damaging to the colony’s liberty. He believed that Parliament was raising revenue from the American colonies in order to pay for the French and Indian War meaning the Stamp Act. What’s more, however a considerable lot of them forced obligations on exchange, yet those obligations were constantly forced with configuration to limit the business of one section that was damaging to another, and along these lines to advance the overall government assistance. He refers to it as a “dangerous innovation” because Parliament is taxing them for the wrong reason according to him. Dickinson suggest that the people exert themselves peacefully. He says it is their duty to help rectify the problem the government has created whether it was a passion or a mistake. Dickinson goes on to say that we are nevertheless pieces of an entire; and thusly there must exist a force some place to manage and save the association in due request.

The intended audience of this document was for the people. It was intended to all races who were affected or not affected by the taxation. This document is written in ordinary prose. The Stamp Act was created in 1765 and this document was written three years later.

Introduction

Arbitration is a practice where parties entrust their respective advocates to settle disputes outside the regime of courts believing that their chance of success increases by proportions due to the skill and experience of their advocates. The notion of arbitration is well settled in the judicial system of India but the scope of the same has increased exponentially in the past decade mostly with the effect of BALCO’s[footnoteRef:1] case. The effects of encouragement for the practice of arbitration in India has given us the opportunity to research in depth the observations of the India courts pertaining to the law of arbitration with an international viewpoint and to conclude the same while focusing on ‘question of law’ in the still-emerging field of arbitration. [1: BHARAT ALUMINUM CO. V. KAISER ALUMINUM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC (2012) 9 S.C.C. 552. ]

Our research pertains to three main topics which include domestic and international stand point of it.

A. Choice of law

It is a set of rules used to select which jurisdiction’s laws to apply in a lawsuit. Choice of law questions apply most frequently arise in lawsuits in the federal courts that are based on diverse jurisdictions where the plaintiff and defendant are from different states. In these lawsuits, the courts are often confronted with the question of which jurisdiction’s laws should apply. The choice of law rules establishes a method by which the courts can select the appropriate law.

Conflict of law is sometimes used interchangeably with “choice of law”, a conflict of laws arises when a lawsuit introduces conflicting laws of two or more jurisdictions.

There are four different choice-of-law issues in international arbitration that arise:

1. Determination of the substantive law applicable to the merits of the case.

Arbitrators will determine it according to the parties’ agreements, unless a mandatory national law, or public policy, trumps such an agreement. In the alternative, where parties have failed to agree, the arbitral tribunal will choose the law applicable depending on the facts of the case at hand, using criteria such as selecting the law with the closest connection to the dispute.

Belohlavek, Alexander J., Substantive Law Applicable to the Merits in Arbitration (March 14, 2014).

Romanian Review of Arbitration – Revista Românâ de Arbitraj[footnoteRef:2]. [2: 8 REVISTA ROMâNâ DE ARBITRAJ 1-16 (2(30) ISSUE 2014).]

2. Determination of the substantive law applicable to the arbitration agreement

The law applicable to the arbitration agreement itself, parties may also agree on such law, which can be different from the others on the basis of the presumption of severability. If the parties have not agreed on an applicable law, then the law applicable to the arbitration agreement is often found to be the law of the arbitral seat, but may also be found to be the law governing the parties’ contract or international principles.

Belohlavek, Alexander J., The Law Applicable to the Arbitration Agreement and the Arbitration of a Dispute (May 7, 2013).

Yearbook of International Arbitration, M. Roth and M. Giestlinger (eds.), Intersentia / DIKE / NWV, Antwerpen-Zurich-Vienna-Graz[footnoteRef:3]. [3: DICEY, MORRIS & COLLINS, THE CONFLICT OF LAWS 27-57 (2013).]

3. Determination of the procedural law applicable to the arbitral proceedings

This law will govern all issues relating to the arbitration proceeding, such as the appointment of arbitrators, the issue of provisional relief, the procedural timetable and provisions related to the award. In most jurisdictions, this law provides significant freedom to arbitrators in relation to the conduct of the proceedings, as long as due process is respected.

Dicey, Morris & Collins on the conflict of laws[footnoteRef:4] (Lord Collins of mapesbury et al eds). [4: SWEET & MAXWELL 16-031 (15th ed.2012).]

4. The conflict of law rules applicable to determine each of the above-mentioned laws.

B. Partial arbitral award

Whether the high court has to execute the arbitral award fully or it can execute it partially with application of doctrine of severability?

Case 1.Supreme Court in McDermott International Inc. vs. Burn standard company LTD. And ors.[footnoteRef:5] [5: (2016) 11 S.C.C. 181.]

Held: arbitration and conciliation act makes provision for supervisory role of the court for review of the award only to ensure fairness and interference in cases of fraud, bias, violation of principles of natural justice etc. But the court cannot correct errors of arbitration. It can only quash the award leaving the parties to free to begin the arbitration again if they so desire.

Once an award has been set aside consequential relief cannot be granted and the parties have been left to begin with the arbitration if they so desire.

Case 2. Hindustan zinc LTD. vs Friends coal carbonisation[footnoteRef:6]. [6: (2016) 4 S.C.C. 445.]

Held: it was impermissible for the appellate bench of the High Court to do re calculation after it had failed to interfere with the portion of the award on the ground that it was opposite to the specific terms of the contract.

Case 3. J.C Budhraja vs. Chairman, Orissa mining corporation LTD[footnoteRef:7]. [7: (2008) 2 S.C.C. 444.]

Held: the entire award need not be set aside and part of the award which is valid and separable can be upheld.

Reference 4. Halsbury law of England.[footnoteRef:8] [8: 9 HALSBURY LAW OF ENGLAND 297-430 (4th ed.).]

General principles pertaining to severance in case of contract. The second principle states that severance can be allowed where it is possible to strike out the offending parts, without rewriting or rearranging the contract. Thirdly, the court would not alter entirely the scope and intention of the agreement and, fourthly, the contract must retain characteristics of a valid contract, otherwise the other parts of the contract would also become unenforceable.

Case 5. R.S Jawani vs. Ircon International LTD.[footnoteRef:9] [9: (2010) 1 Bom. C.R. 529.]

Held: Court has the power to set aside the award partly or wholly depending upon the facts of each case and principle of severability can be applied where the matters can be clearly separated from the matters not referred to arbitration.

Applying the dog chains of severability and partial validity had clarified that it the said principles can be applied only e when potions of claims/counterclaims are capable of being severed and separated from the rest and not when the decisions on issue are inter-connected and bifurcation would alter the scope of the award.

Case 6. Kinnari mullick and anr. vs. Ghanshyam Das Damani.[footnoteRef:10] [10: (2018) 11 S.C.C. 328.]

Held: the said power can only be exercised when there is a return request made by the parties to the arbitration proceedings; where an arbitration award add has not already been set aside; and challenge to the arbitration award has been set up under section 34 about the deficiencies in the arbitral award which may be curable by allowing arbitral tribunal to take such measures which can eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award.

Case 7. DMRC vs DAMEPL 307/2017

The Arbitral award can be partially awarded where doctrine of severability is applicable.

Case 8. M/s. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-operative Ltd. vs. M/s. Bhadra Products (Unreported decision of the Supreme Court dated January 23, 2018).

In the Judgement the Supreme Court concluded that an interim award or partial award is a final award on matters covered therein made at an intermediate stage of the arbitral proceedings.

With the correct view and application of doctrine of severability, the Supreme Court took the correct view in settling the issue of awarding a partial arbitral award. The essence of the above stated doctrine is to remove the illegal or mala fide from the legal and bona fide, so as to make the legal part applicable. Therefore the High Courts and the Supreme Court has to take the purview of this doctrine wherever there is an issue relating to the partial arbitral award. Moreover the arbitrator can pass an interim award and a partial award at the intermediate stage of the arbitral proceedings.

C. Non-signatory or third party to arbitration

[bookmark: _gjdgxs]There is no deciding formula which guides the arbitrators regarding which legal principles apply in determining when to join the non-signatories parties. Allegations of implied consent tells a different legal framework from arguments asserting lack of corporate personality. There needs to be either a direct relationship to the signatory party of the Arbitration Agreement or composite transaction between the parties. The court may refer the parties to arbitration at the request of either party or any person claiming through or under them.

Case 1. Chloro Controls (I) P. Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc.[footnoteRef:11] [11: JT 2012 (10) S.C. 187.]

The expression “any person” used in section 45 of the act clearly refers to the legislative intent of enlarging the scope of the words beyond “the parties” who signatory to the arbitration agreement. The expression “persona claiming through or under” would mean and take within its ambit multiple and multi-party agreement, through though in exceptional case. Such application should claim through or under the signatory party and once this link is established, then the court shall refer them to arbitration. arbitration , thus, could be possible between a signatory to an arbitration agreement and a third party, heavy onus lies on the party to show that, in fact and in law, it is claiming ‘through’ or ‘under’ the signatory party as contemplated under section 45 of the act.

Case 2. R.V. Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Dixit & ors. [footnoteRef:12] [12: (2019) S.C.C. Online Del 6531 CS Comm. 745/2017.]

The Delhi High Court held that a non-signatory or third party could be subjected to Arbitration without its consent, only in exceptional cases. There needs to be either a direct relationship to the signatory party of the Arbitration Agreement, or commonality of the subject matter, or composite transactions in the agreement between the parties.

The courts have established that when a party is not a signatory to the arbitration agreement and he still wants to be a party in the same, then the party must take prior permission from the corresponding court. Prior permission is necessary because the courts must apply it’s judicial mind to check the relevancy of the non-signatory party to the subsequent arbitration. In case 2(stated above), it was observed by the court that there only exceptional cases where prior permission is not required and still a non-signatory party can be a part of the arbitration.

D. Non-stamping of a foreign arbitral award

The Indian Stamp act, 1899 was amended by the British Government with the sole purpose of acting as a revenue-generating mechanism for the government. The imposed an obligation to pay stamp duty on certain and specific documents. It acted as a fiscal legislation.

The Objective of the said stature[footnoteRef:13] [13: The India Stamp Act, 1899]

1. The main purpose of this Act is to generate revenue for the Indian government.
2. A document which is stamped acts as valid evidence in a court of law.
3. The Stamp Act also makes payment of stamp duty on some documents compulsory which in return makes those documents legally valid and authentic.

Therefore, every document[footnoteRef:14] agreed upon between parties must stamped under this stature so that the court can consider the same as evidence and enforce it or decree a relief upon it. [14: Section 2(14), The Indian Stamp Act,1899]

Applying the above inference, an arbitral award in India has to be stamped with respect to this act only then it can become enforceable[footnoteRef:15] by the corresponding High Court. It is done so because, the award given by the arbitration tribunal formulated has to be present before the corresponding High Court for enforcement, thus acting as an evidence but, the pre-requisite for the same is that it first has to adhere to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. [15: Section 36, Arbitration and conciliation act, 1996]

The contemporary issue arose, after the judgment of the the Bhatia’s[footnoteRef:16] case which gave observation pertaining to the enforcement of an award given under an International Commercial Arbitration. [16: Bhatia International V. Bulk Trading AIR 2002 SC 1432]

The question arose was whether can Foreign Arbitral Award with no stamp under the Indian Stamp Act be enforced?

An award passed by an arbitral tribunal is basically a document which has to be presented before the corresponding court for enforcement. For the said document to have value enforceable value has to be stamped and registered and without paying the stamp duty no document can be registered.

But, under the Indian Stamp Act[footnoteRef:17] courts and arbitrators may admit documents which are unstamped or deficiently stamped on payment of proper duty and penalty. Moreover, section 48 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides the conditions for the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award and nowhere in these conditions it is requires it to be stamped under the referred act. With the application of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and sections 48 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 a foreign award has to be enforced without a stamp if presented. The statutory provisions of the acts clearly provide that a foreign award should be enforced with a stamp. [17: Section 35, Indian Stamp Act, 1899]

The Judicial System of India has interpreted the same in such a way which has led to the integration of the arbitral proceedings in India with that of the world, as it was intended to.

Case 1. Naval Gent Maritime Ltd vs. Shivnath Rai Harnarain (I) Ltd[footnoteRef:18] [18: (2009) 174 DLT 391]

It was observed that a foreign award would not require registration and can be enforced as a decree, and the issue of stamp duty cannot stand in the way of deciding whether the award is enforceable or not

Case 2. Narayan Trading Co. v. Abcom Trading Pvt. Ltd[footnoteRef:19] [19: (2012) S.C.C. Online MP 8645]

The arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 was enforced, no amendment was made in the definition of award given in the Indian Stamp Act. Also, the schedule which lays down the stamp duty payable on award was not amended by including the foreign award. Thus, it shows that the law makers were of the view that a foreign award shall be enforceable as if it were a decree of the court, no amendment was brought either in the definition of award or in the schedule relating to payment of stamp duty on award. Since the definition of award given at Entry No. 11 of the schedule of the Indian Stamp Act, it doesn’t cover the foreign award.

Case 3. Vitol S.A vs. Bhatia International Limited[footnoteRef:20] [20: (2014) S.C.C. Online Bom 1058]

In this case the court accepted the precedent established in the Naval Gent Maritime Ltd vs. Shivnath Rai Harnarain (I) Ltd and subsequently observed that the award passed in England becomes executable in India.

Case 4. M/S. Shriram EPC Limited vs. Rioglass Solar SA[footnoteRef:21] [21: (2018) S.C.C. Online SC 1471]

The supreme court held that a foreign award, is not contained within the expression of ‘award’ under Schedule I, it is not taxable under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and thus, non-stamping of foreign award would not render it not enforceable under section 49 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996.

Conclusion

India was one of the original signatories to the New York Convention and it has taken an a lot of time to come at par with the international practices of arbitration and still there are many short comings. In the past decade it can be witnessed that the future of arbitration is bright in India as many Indian jurist, Judges and Advocates are in consensus to promote arbitration in the purview of Indian law and many judgments are in evidence to show the same.

The courts are emitting their pro-belief of arbitral proceeding as citied above in the research. The ‘question of law’ relating to arbitration law is developing in the country on a right path as it is unifying the Indian practices with that of other nations in the world.

Exciting times are ahead for the Indian Arbitration Jurisprudence and our courts and advocates are ready to take on several challenges pertaining to it.

Identification and evaluation of sources.

In this investigation, the exploration of the question “To what extent did the taxation system of the British Empire contributed to The American revolution and the declaration of independence?” will be discussed. The exploration will mainly focus on 1770’s. The regions investigated will be USA and the question will investigate the extent of the taxation system of the British empire contributing to the American revolution and the declaration of independence.

The first source to be investigated is the primary source, the speech of Edmund Burke on American taxation (April 19, 1774). “On American Taxation’ was a speech given by Edmund Burke in the British House of Commons on April 19, 1774, advocating the full repeal of the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767. Parliament had previously repealed five of the six duties of this revenue tax on the American colonies, but the tax on tea remained. The value of this source is that it is a written during that time meaning that it is a primary source therefore more or less reliable. However, there are limitations to this source as well due to its origin and purpose. It is a British document written by a British official which may be biased and one sided

For my second source which is a secondary source I am using “Taxation and the American Revolution” by John Passant. The sources value is that the writer has done a lot of research on this topic and his collected works can be used to create an accurate investigation. Although Passant’s work will help me in my research I have to be carefeul considering the limitation of most secondary sources. Secondary sources often have historians’ opinions on the topic they are researching and sometimes these not at all relevant. Nevertheless Passants’ work will come in use if used correctly.

Investigation:

On July 4, 1776, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the Continеntal Congrеss formally adopted the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence is a declaration to the world that the U.S. proclaimed its independence from King George III and Great Britain. The decleration came after a year of the shootings at Lеxington, Massachusеtts, that sparked the beginning of the Amеrican Revolutionary War. This was a major change. The British had ruled the settlements since the mid seventeenth century when Virginia Company turnеd into the Virginia Colony in 1624, the first of what wе think about thе first thirteen British coloniеs. Thе British, besidеs the U.S had additionally assumed control over parts of Canada, the Caribbеan, and South America. Their impact and richеs wеre huge, and their property was trеmendous. Howevеr, controlling huge parts of the world bеcame expensive. Guarding settlеments and attacking nеw ones takes monеy and now and then brought about battles with different domains. That is what occurred in the mid-eighteenth century when Great Britain еnded up combating sevеral nations. “After the rebellions against taxes on its own citizens, the British Parliament imposed a range of taxes on the American colonies without thеir approval. These taxes were, at first designed to pay for the Sevеn Years’ War, to pay for thе cost of colonization, to rеduce taxеs on the squires in Britain and to control tradе for the bеnefit of British еerchants” (“Taxation and the American Revolution” by John Passant) . At the point whеn the war finished in 1763 the British government was almost bankrupt. Thе King еxpected to raise incomе rapidly. The British Empire tax their experimental colonies who werе sufficiently far away like America. Therе was only one issue with this arrangement: The King thought littlе of precisely how noisily the Colonies would respond. The increasing tеnsion between the colonists and the British was rising and taxes were a big contribution. But thеre are other factors that could be considerеd as causеs for the colonists to dеclare indеpendence.

Unsuccessful Administration:

In the American Colonies, England’s administrativе systеm was unsuccessful. Each colony had its mеmbers elected and its assembly. Yet the British Parliament’s appointed governors were unbearable for the colonists. Conflict becamе inеvitable many times between the governors and the elected representatives of different coloniеs. Without British Parliament’s permission, the governors did not act. Meaning that, the administrativе systеm of each colony was controlled by the British. The British Parliamеnt did not recognizе the colonial problems. The colonists became frustratеd and started to rebеl against England’s dysfunctional administrative systеm. This could be seеn as one of the reasons of the colonists being rеvolutionary and ultimately one of the causes of American indepеndence declarations.

Seven years’ war

The Sevеn years’ war that began in 1756 and ended in 1763 definitеly had an impact on the American coloniеs. Britain was invading Canada after crushing Francе. The Amеricans had beеn relеased from the threat from Francе. This made it possible for peoplе to stand alonе. Wе did not feel the need to keep the British army at their own cost. After the sеven-year war the American Coloniеs began to believe that they could rule over themsеlves and became revolutionary. These are indeed somе of the other causes of the Amеrican declaration of independence, but furthеr research is nеeded to determine the extent of the taxation causing this casе.

The first hugе tax was the Stamp Act of 1765, which required that the matеrials which wеrе printеd and utilized in the settlemеnts, similar to magazines and papеrs, be pronounced on stampеd papеr and dеcorated with a rеvenue stamp, confirming that a tax had beеn paid on the matеrials. The idea of the tax turnеd out poorly, and the Stamp Act was rеvoked the following yеar As Edmund Burkе said: “Thus, Sir, I have disposed of this falsehood. But falsehood has a perennial spring. It is said, that no conjecturе could be made of the dislikе of the Coloniеs to the principlе. This is as untruе as the othеr. Aftеr the resolution of the Housе, and beforе the passing of the Stamp Act, the Coloniеs of Massachusеtts Bay and Nеw York did send remonstrancеs, objеcting to this mode of Parliamеntary taxation. What was the consequence? They werе suppressed; they were put undеr the table, notwithstanding an Ordеr of Council to the contrary, by the Ministry which composеd the vеry Council that had madе the Ordеr: and thus, the Housе proceеded to its businеss of taxing without the lеast regular knowlеdge of the objections that werе made to it. . .”

(Edmund Burke on American taxation, April 19, 1774) In this part of his address to Parliamеnt on American taxation, Edmund Burkе, givеs a history of the subject in America. Hе brings up that at the Amеrican Revenue Act, in 1764, the colonists did not objеct to port taxеs (at least not as much) and that statеments made in Parliamеnt itself demonstratеd that the colonists had not gone into controvеrsy with the British governmеnt on the first excusе, that the colonists had really been pushed into rebеllion by the activities of Parliamеnt. Burkе then brings up that fеw lies about the Americans had beеn overexaggеrated, in addition to the lie that they’ve bеen looking for controvеrsy. In short, this speech givеs insight to that era and the different perspectives on taxing the Americans. It also is a good primary source to help us determine the extent of which the taxation affected the uneasiness of the Americans.

The sеcond endeavor was a progression of acts which came to be known as the Townshеnd Acts of 1767 (independently, they were the Revenue Act of 1767, the Indеmnity Act, the Commissioners of Customs Act, the Vice Admiralty Court Act, and the Nеw York Restraining Act). It could be said that the British complеtely ignored the incrеasing tension between themselves and the Amеricans, and placеd further taxеs. Thеy thought making slight changеs to how they appliеd their taxes would be a relevant factor that would change the outcome in contrast to the stamp act. The thought behind the taxеs of the Townshеnd Acts, after the disappointmеnt of the Stamp Act, was to attempt a system of indirеct taxеs since the colonists had responded so strongly to the immеdiate Stamp tax. However, the outcomе was the same. The colonists wеre dissatisfiеd with the new taxеs that forcеd them to make pеace with regularly paying more for papеr, paint, lеad, glass, and tea imports. They werе partly cancеlled three years after the taxes were forcеd. Under the Townshеnd Acts, few of any odd expеnse was reversed, which annoyed the colonists. In 1773, over the remaining Townshеnd Acts, the Tеa Act was forced, which was the issuе that was finally too much to bеar for some colonists. Strangеly, the Tеa Act did not force any new taxes on the colonies, however it kеpt the obligation on tea imports to the colonies set up by the Townshеnd Act. The rеason for the Tеa Act was to give the East Indian Tеa Company an exchangе preferred standpoint, prеtty much rеmoving the possibility of the colonists to do business on their tеrms. The colonists saw this as a different way of being controllеd. The colonists plottеd to disrupt the exchange, dismissing British tea-carrying ships heading for Philadelphia and Nеw York. Yеt Boston was different. The govеrnor would not allow the ships to turn back, and the colonists would not allow thе ships to unload. It was a standoff. In the end, colonists snuck onto the ships and dumpеd out thе tеa, which would later be referred as the Boston Tеa Party. The Boston Tеa Party did not immediately lеad to the Dеclaration of Independence or the Rеvolutionary War, despite the fact that some historians like to connеct them just as they occurred one after anothеr. The Tea Party occurred on Decеmber 16, 1773, wеll before the shots at Lеxington and before the Declaration of Independence. What it did do very quickly, however was annoy the British Parliamеnt. As a result, The British attеmpted to punish the Amеricans through the Coercive Acts. With the Coercive Acts, Boston Harbor was closed to merchant shipping, town gatherings were restricted, and the British commander of North American forces was appointed the governor of Massachusetts.

Frightеned, the colonists gathered the First Continental Congrеss in Philadelphia on September 5, 1774, to think about their subsequent stagеs. Rеsistance against the British increased, that’s what lеd to those first shots in Massachusetts triggering the Rеvolutionary War. The Sеcond Continental Congress convened about two years latеr in Philadelphia. On July 2, 1776, that Sеcond Continеntal Congress voted to separate from Britain. Two days latеr, on July 4, the Declaration was formally adoptеd by 12 of the 13 coloniеs (the one holdout of the colonies, New York, approved it a couple of weeks later).The Dеclaration of Independence is in fact a letter to the King. At the point whеn the Dеclaration was bеing drafted, the pioneers fеlt that it was critical that the accurate purposes behind their misеry were clarified. The biggest segmеnt of the Dеclaration, after the linеs is a rundown of complaints. Obviously, includеd in the list were taxеs:

“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

The word ‘Consent’ was important. Under the British Constitution, no British subjects could be taxed without the consent of their representatives in Parliament. But the colonies didn’t elect representatives to Parliament. They were, however, clearly being taxed. The colonists considered the constant imposition of taxes without a vote to be unconstitutional. It was, they felt, ‘taxation without representation.’ (Declaration of Independence, 1776, Thomas Jefferson).

Conclusion

To conclude the causes of the American declaration of independence was a combination of many factors that occurred on a span of almost a century. Apart from taxes, other factors cannot be ignored. The seven years’ war showed the Americans that Britain was not invincible and gave them hope to one day break from their rule. One could even doubt that without the seven years’ war the Americans would not be as rebellious and determined to have independence. Apart from these the appointed governors of the British empire certainly increased the tension. It gave the Americans the feeling that they had no freedom whatsoever. America, from the beginning strived to be very democratic and fair, which is impossible to do when some other country has tremendous power and influence on them. But all aside, the American declaration of independence was a cause of continuous rise of tension between the colonists and the British and to a high extent the cause of this tension was the taxation system of the British. The taxes were unfair and became unbearable, further more these taxes didn’t even go to their country and the betterment of the state. In the end American politicians became fed up with the unfairness of the predicament as well and on July 4, 1776 declared independence.

Reflection

The process of this investigation has certainly allowed me to use a variety of research methods and experience some of the challenges that face historians. Firstly, reading material for this topic specifically was too much so I had to pay close attention to what sources I needed to use. Secondly, I had to pay attention to the structure, not to go too off topic and stick to the question, which I found to be difficult at times. Apart from this I had to be careful in using sources because the reliability of most sources is questionable, sometimes due to them being biased and sometimes them just not being accurate. I was worried about Edmund Burkes “On American Taxation” considering that he was a British official in the time when Great Britain wanted to have control over the colonies. However, with the source I actually found that Burke was criticizing the British that the measures they were taking were too harsh. This goes to show that history is not black and white, rather complex and full of multiple perspectives. Historians are tasked to find out as many perspectives as possible and that’s what I found to be difficult as well.

To add on to this, the sheer amount of information that is available on Colonial America both helps and challenges historians. With this information I questioned the extent of the British taxation system causing the American declaration of independence. Historians are tasked with finding sources that best explain the period. I was aware of this during my investigation, so I selected a combination of primary and secondary sources that more or less confirmed each other which helped me construct a coherent picture on Colonial America.

Charles Lindblom’s theory of incrementalism is argued to be the model that is used for policymaking when the rational ideal breaks down. However, because the conditions necessary for rational decision-making to take place is quite unlikely or even impossible, it is inevitable that policymakers will have to turn to incrementalism. In other words, incrementalism helps to explain the “realistic” way in which policy making occurs. In an ideal world, legislators would be able to know all the possible alternatives and potential consequences for each. Incrementalism, however, does not require “calculated choice among alternatives.” Instead, various actors must work together to implement gradual change over time as they gain more experience and knowledge. Incrementalism is a continuous cycle in which there is always room for adjustments in the subsequent cycle. In this paper, I will describe Lindblom’s theoretical model of disjointed incrementalism as well as explain why this model is “superior” when compared to the rational decision-making process. Furthermore, I will apply Lindblom’s incrementalism to the policy evolution of the Food Stamp Program (FSP).

Rational decision-making is an unrealistic route to policy making for several reasons. In today’s world, it is quite impossible to reach unanimity on objectives. Each individual or group is always looking to pursue their own interest. However, modern decision making is characteristically pluralistic and contentious. The policy process consists of many groups, with different information, ideas, and interests. For example, in terms of the Food Stamp Project, there was conflict between players who wanted to lower costs by lowering benefits or decreasing the number of those who were benefitting and those who wanted to increase benefits which would raise costs. With this in mind, it is fair to say that policies arise from a series of compromise and bargaining between these groups. Even if there was a situation in which people agreed on objectives, it would still be insufficient. For example, everyone favors a clean environment and better healthcare, but people differ in terms of prioritizing each of these concerns. Furthermore, there is always a dispute in regard to how much resources should be allocated to a certain program relative to others. This produces a tradeoff or opportunity cost. If more resources are apportioned to one policy, there will be less resources going to another policy. Secondly, there is inadequate information which is necessary to predict the consequences for each alternative when using the rational model. There is not enough research nor knowledge that can give rise to certainty over outcomes. As a result, policymakers turn to incrementalism to reform policies because it is “much less demanding than the rational method, requiring neither comprehensive information nor agreement among policy makers on objectives.”

Incrementalism consists of agenda setting, policy adoption, and policy implementation. The first step to agenda setting is to identify the problems that must be addressed and resolved. Lindblom describes this process to be “remedial” in the sense that “it focuses on concrete problems to be alleviated rather than on abstract ideals to be attained. The process moves away from problems rather than toward ideals, which cannot be specified with sufficient precision.” Policymakers are merely trying to relieve the concerns that have risen rather than aim to improve the policy or reach higher goals. The Food Stamp Program (FSP) development began in the 1930s to address the problem of surplus agricultural yields which was occurring at the time of the Depression era. The goal was to distribute surplus agricultural food to the unemployed and their families in order to raise farm prices. The identification of this problem helped to bring about the Food Stamp Plan that was in effect in May of 1939. The initial objective was not necessarily to help the hungry or poor but, rather, to simply create a more systematic disposal system that would allow for the increase in farm prices. This change in objective from helping to increase farm prices to reduce hunger shows the development and evolution of the program over time. Priorities had shifted and thus policy had to adjust to that change. Agenda setting also deals with social fragmentation of analysis. As mentioned previously, this is the idea that there is a collection of people who all have differing opinions and concerns when it comes to policymaking. These actors each bring valuable information that can be used to examine the problem. Actors may differ completely on an issue or disagree in the degree of help the government should provide. When the War on Poverty was announced, the priority shifted and a new national policy objective was announced to “raise the levels of nutrition among low income households.” This promoted the creation of the Food Stamp Act of 1964. Claffey and Stucker emphasize that there “is a vast difference between a program intended to eradicate hunger and one that will help a family to feel less hungry. Everyone affiliated with the program—from policymaker to administrator to recipient—will have a different attitude about the benefits derived from such a program, depending on the objectives.” This goes to show that there are actors with opposing objectives and opinions in terms of the extent of help the government should provide to the hungry. Some people hold the belief that too much aid will make people too reliant. Another example of how different actors had to work together is shown by The Food Stamp Act of 1977. “For reformers, it included stringent clauses to control waste, fraud, error, and abuse. For those in need, both current and potential program participants, the purchase requirement was eliminated altogether. Further to appease budget watcher, a cap was fixed on total program expenditures.” The Food Act of 1977 shows the negotiation that took place between groups. Each group differed on the margins in regard to the past Food Stamp Act and took the action to create incremental changes which brought about the updated version. However, this cap on the budget was not as successful as the policymakers had hoped. It later prompted for the Food Stamp Act of 1981 which focused on budget restraint and the expectation for the Food Stamp Project to provide help to those who truly needed it. The Food Stamp Act of 1939, 1964, 1977, and 1981 illustrates how incremental change took place. Policymakers did not aim to completely eradicate the policy each time they were faced with a problem, but instead worked to amend it slightly each time. They used the information that they had to make decisions quickly. Furthermore, with the passing of each Act, policymakers were able to gain greater experience and knowledge that enabled them to better the existing policy.

The second step to agenda setting is policy adoption which deals with the idea of margin-dependent choice. Hayes states that this is when policymakers “will compare alternatives by focusing on the increment by which various proposals differ from each other and from past policies.” Marginal incremental change can be exemplified by the 1971 Food Stamp Program amendments. In 1964, the Food Stamp Act stated that the beneficiaries should be able to “more nearly obtain a low-cost nutritionally adequate diet.” However, in 1971, the words, “more nearly” were removed. After gaining further knowledge about the importance of nutrition, policymakers modified the past policy. Another part of the 1971 amendments was that it lowered the amount of money needed to obtain bonus stamps. “Before the 1971 amendments were passed, a four-person household with a $60 monthly income had to pay $20 for $65 worth of stamps; after the amendments, the household paid $10 for $108 worth of stamps.” Policymakers realized that a significant portion of people’s incomes were going towards purchasing these stamps and made an effort to lessen the burden. The slow decrease in cost for stamps shows the incremental changes that the amendment had implemented. Policymakers were able to adjust to the changing economic environment and amend the existing policy to fulfill the current needs of the poor. There is a clear understanding that new problems arise even after a policy is formed. While non-incremental reforms can be problematic and attract resistance, incremental reforms such as the ones mentioned above can be comparatively a lot easier to pass and implement. Moreover, because incrementalism is a continuous cycle, as new problems come to light, there is opportunity to address those issues in the succeeding cycle.

Often times, policy implementation is very difficult because of limited appropriations or inadequate statutory powers. During the Ford administration, the U.S. was experiencing tough times with high unemployment, high inflation, and large budgetary deficits. This caused an immense increase in the number of people eligible for the Food Stamp Program. It had reached a point where “one out of give Americans were eligible for stamps.” In order to address this problem, Ford wanted to implement a policy that would raise the price of food stamps to 30% of a recipients’ monthly income. However, he was a faced with a strongly opposed Congress and Supreme Court. There was also a similar case during the Carter administration. President Carter had proposed the Better Jobs and Income Program which would have allowed for cash assistance as well as job programs. However, this too was rejected by Congress because it would have potentially replaced the Food Stamp Program. This illustrates how nonincremental proposals such as the Better Jobs and Income Program are met with greater resistance than incremental proposals. Additionally, amending previous policies allows for officials to acquire greater understanding. For example, administrators realized that the problem of hunger should not be observed in a vacuum. Addressing hunger can help to solve other issues such as “poor performance at work and school caused by a limited attention span, constituting a vicious cycle of poverty and hunger.” With each new incremental policy change, officials gain more experience and expertise in the topic which is incredibly beneficial for the next cycle of incremental change.

Richard P. Nathan makes a strong case for incrementalism and describes how the Food Stamp Program is a prime example. Nathan argues that “income-security programs have become so large, diverse, and complex that, rather than starting from scratch, the best prospect for the future is to build on the base that currently exists.” As times change, new problems arise and the existing policy may not be able to fully resolve these complications. Additionally, he argues that “incrementalism is advocated as a useful method of program adjustment because the positive features of a program remain intact.” There is no need to create a whole new policy when the foundation of the existing policy is still going strong. Nathan emphasizes how the eradication of the purchase requirement of the Food Stamp Program is a commendable example of incrementalism. The problem that was brought up was that the “working poor often found it difficult to take part in the food program because participants have to buy their stamps…in order to receive a monthly stamp allotment of $166, an eligible family of four with net countable income of $300 has to pay $83.” Through research and experience, policymakers came to realize that the purchase requirement was a burden to those who were not left with much after other miscellaneous expenses such as rent, gas, and other bills. Another goal of this incremental change was to decrease fraud of those who took advantage of the system by streamlining the process to obtain the food stamps. Hence, to resolve this issue, the purchase requirement was abolished. This allowed people to obtain food stamps without paying for them which in turn left more money for other expenses. In other words, a “family with $300 in monthly income, now entitled to $166 worth of stamps for a cash payment of $83, would simply receive $83 in stamps—without having to pay any cash.” Policymakers believed that by doing this, the program costs would decrease but that was not the case. Instead, there was an enormous increase in the number of people who now were able to benefit from the program. This illustrates how the Food Stamp Program was fluid in the sense that when a part of the policy no longer seemed to serve the intended purpose, changes were made but even then, there were still issues that remained.

Although incrementalism can be an incredibly useful process, Claffey and Stucker point out that “policymakers need to be more cognizant of the consequences of such an approach.” This is because “unintended results can often be costly, and correcting one problem may create another.” When policymakers eliminated the purchase requirement in hopes to reduce fraud and better aid the poor, this created another problem where there was an immense increase in the number of people who joined in the program. As a result, the cost of the program increased. Another potential problem with incrementalism is that it can produce “program overlap.” For example, “Although the Food Stamp Program is accepted as the primary vehicle for delivering general food assistance, FDP participants often receive food assistance and other income transfers through more targeted programs. In preliminary results from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, over 83 percent of the households receiving food stamps participated in more than one assistance program.” Program overlap itself is not an issue. However, Claffey and Stucker state, “…some needy households may have higher medical costs as well as insufficient income for an adequate diet. However, overlap can cause problems when it distorts the distribution of available assistance funds. Programs are designed to bring living conditions up to a minimally acceptable standard, but households eligible for and participating in more than one federal program may have post benefit disposable incomes…” It becomes a problem when the funds for these programs are distributed unequally. While some people may need more assistance than others, others may take advantage of it and receive more benefits than necessary. However, despite these concerns, Claffey and Stucker still argue that “for a society as a whole, incremental behavior may be optimal behavior, given the need to immediately satisfy program goals.” Incrementalism allows for an easier and quicker way to move away from problems by preserving the foundation of the policy, but making marginal changes.

Incrementalism is a valuable tool when it comes to policymaking because it does not require a full understanding of the different alternatives and its potential outcomes. Additionally, there is no pressure to completely solve the issue with one concrete policy. For most policy areas, it is difficult to engage in rational decision making because we have neither a true consensus on goals nor enough information to construct policies that we can be absolutely certain will resolve the problem. Instead, incrementalism allows for a degree of trial and error where policymakers can amend current policies to tackle the problems that come up further down the road. Furthermore, there is the possibility that a buildup of individual policy changes can ultimately help to create large policy change. This is the idea that perhaps with each incremental policy change, the policy is continuously improving because policymakers have a better understanding of the issue at hand. The Food Stamp Program was a clear model of incrementalism at work. It demonstrated the progress and change that it had experienced over the years as new problems arose. It started off with the objective to raise farm prices but later transitioned to address hunger in America. As objectives change, so must the policy. However, if the U.S. were to create a new policy each time a different problem came up, it would be an extremely inefficient process. As a result, legislators turn to Lindblom’s model of incrementalism to build on existing policy.

Samuel Adams

Samuel Adams is by far one of the most important historical figures in American History. He was a massive influence on colonial America to push for independence from Great Britain. Adams helped orchestrate the sons of liberty as well as held multiple political office positions in his home state of Massachusetts, as well as served as governor of the state from the years of 1793 to 1797.

On the day of September 27th, 1722, Samuel Adams was born in Boston, Massachusetts. He was born into a very wealthy family in which his parents were heavily involved with christianity. His mother supported the Calvanist movement and his father was a deacon of the Congressional church. Because of this, they pushed Samuel to become a minister of the church as his future career, but alas, it simply did not capture his interest. Instead, he wanted to pursue a more political career, which was much more of a passion for him.

Samuel’s privileged upbringing granted him access to a fantastic education. He attended the Boston Latin school, which, lo and behold, was famous for educating the most privileged kids in Boston. In 1736 at only age 14, he attended Harvard University. In 1743, he achieved his masters degree in Arts and was ranked fifth in his class of twenty-two. During his time in college, however, his family was impacted by the Massachusetts Land Bank Controversy, which greatly deteriorated his family’s monetary holdings. Because of this, Samuel had to work while studying, and most importantly, influenced him to publish a thesis questioning England’s eligibility to tax the colonies in the same way they tax their subjects in England. Clearly, this was a spark for his impending impacts in American History.

Within the same year, Samuel Adams began a career in law that his mother did not approve of and pushed him to work in a counting house with a family friend, Thomas Cushing, who would attempt to give him experience in the business industry, but to no avail. Samuel’s father then granted him one thousand pounds to start his own business of his choice, but upon putting it to use, Samuel quickly lost all of his money. Samuel now had no choice but to work at the family brewery, but no matter how desperately his parents attempted to pry him off of the path of politics, Samuel still had a passion, as well as a drive to succeed in that career. Because of this, Samuel gathered a few of his colleagues and decided to create a newspaper titled the Independent Advisor, in which he wrote about liberty, politics, and continued to question Great Britain’s power of the colonies, all while writing anonymously. At the time, the Independent Advisor was highly controversial and unapproved by the colonists. Because of this, its publication had only lasted about a year. Later, in 1747, Samuel successfully snagged a job in politics, but only as a clerk in the Boston Market, but still a foothold nonetheless.

In the year 1748, both of Samuel’s parents had passed, Samuel inherited their estate and was now in charge of the family brewing business. Although this sounds like a leap forward in his life, it only began to cause more problems. Lawsuit after lawsuit rolled in against Samuel because of his father’s involvement with the Massachusetts Land Bank Controversy. Either way, he couldn’t pay off many things as he was barely compensated for his current government job. Not only that, but his estate was under pressure from being taken as well. This, he could also not afford to pay off, so instead, he wrote multiple, powerful broadsides and other pieces, threatening those who might come to take his property. He had successfully warded off anyone who might come to buy, and thus, no government seizure took place. The whole endeavor only fueled Samuels thoughts on England’s seemingly unfair power over the colonies. Eventually, he was invested in politics full-time.

In the year 1749, Samuel had married Elizebeth Checkly, his pastor’s daughter. Together they had two surviving children, Hannah and Samuel Adams. Years later in 1757, Elizabeth Checkly passed, and Samuel remarried to Elizabeth Wells.

Only a year before Checkley’s passing, Samuel was elected as a tax collector in Boston and did not meet the tax criteria he was tasked with collecting. Because of this, many of the Boston citizens began to uphold him, as he did not take as much money from them as he was asked to.

After the French and Indian war, Great Britain was in debt and needed to pay off most of the damages, as well as use of soldiers. In order to help with the debt, Great Britain launched both the Sugar and Stamp Act in 1764. These controversial acts began to stir some political unrest within the colonies as many citizens recognized some unfairness within the taxations. Samuel Adams, who this controversy rested most uncomfortably with, would use this as his political debut. Befriending a popular lawyer, James Otis, Samuel would use him as a pedestal to get his message across about the unfairness of these taxations. Shortly thereafter, Samuel proposes to launch a protest against the British Parliament which actually wins popular vote among the people of the Massachusetts Assembly. Samuel Adams began to ramp up his campaign against the sugar act which granted him a massive amount of recognition, in which he used to spark the flames of revolution.

1765 is arguably the turning point in Samuel Adams’ life as this was the year that would chronicle his legacy into the history books. This is because it is the same year in which Great Britain imposed the Stamp Act among the American colonies right after they had issued the controversial Sugar Act. Because of this, Samuel Adams was able to unite most of Boston into what would be famously named the Sons of Liberty. In this group they organized political demonstrations such as riots. They had mostly targeted tax collectors and are mostly responsible for most of the stalling of Great Britain’s taxing. The Sons of Liberty were also responsible for the creation of the Stamp Act Congress in which representatives of the colonies would kongregate in order to attempt to get the message to Great Britain to repeal the Stamp Act. A year later, Great Britain would repeal the tax and Samuel Adams’ popularity would grow because of it.

Shortly thereafter, a man by the name of Charles Townshend was appointed by Great Britain to formulate a better plan of taxation to impose upon the American colonies. Here, he came up with the idea to shift tax duties into the trade itself rather than taxing the colonists directly. This would allow the taxation to be more difficult for the colonists to avoid. Soon enough, Great Britain began to issue these new duties. This would be known as the Townshend Acts

Samuel Adams would eventually pick up on these actions and quickly began to organize riots and other protests. The Sons of Liberty themselves also started to take action by encouraging others to sabotage the collection of taxes by Great Britain in order to minimize any monetary gain they may acquire. This became a problem to Great Britain who then responded by beginning to send troops to the American Colonies. The colonists saw this as a threat and the Sons of Liberty under Samuel Adams began to attempt to organize more riots in order to stir away the impending arrival of the troops, although the majority of the colonists did not take action. As a consequence, the British soldiers arrived and began to take hold of Boston.

Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty began to issue propaganda against the British soldiers, slandering their intentions and making them out to be nothing more than a threat to Boston. They continued to organize riots with the intention to force the troops out of Boston. Unfortunately this led to a controversial event that would send a ripple throughout history.

On March of 1770, a historical confrontation would occur, known as the Boston Massacre. The story goes that a group of a few people began to throw snowballs at the British soldiers who then got after the kids, but the mob grew with more protesters who then began to throw more objects, such as rocks and snowballs containing shards of glass. Without warning, the British soldiers began to fire back at the mob, killing three and wounding eight. Samuel Adams was prominent once again as the voice of the people when he sent a message demanding the removal of the British troops from Boston, which ended up being successful.

As one can imagine, this counted as another victory for Samuel Adams which only resulted in more popularity and praise on his end. Unfortunately, this is not the last problem he would solve.

In 1773 Britaish Parliament then imposed the Tea Act, which taxed the tea in India, rather than at the colonies themselves. Still, the colonists boycotted the tea by purchasing smuggled tea rather than the British Tea. Samuel Adams, again, would protest these taxes. He began to encourage the other colonists to boycott the British Tea as well, otherwise, they would be known as “an enemy to America.” In 1773, a British Ship named the Dartmouth was about to dock in Boston Harbor, but Samuel Adams heavily protested its arrival, taking the argument to Faneuil Hall. Here, he organized a petition to Governor Hutchinson, who forcefully turned it down. Again, another of Samuel Adams’ acts (although it is unknown whether he directed it or not) would be documented in the history books, famously referred to as the Boston Tea Party, in which the Sons of Liberty boarded British ships in Boston Harbor and dumped three hundred and forty-two chests worth of tea into the harbor.

In 1774 the British parliament would issue what the colonists would call the Intolerable Acts, which Parliament used to punish the colonies for their adamant refusal to conform to the tax laws. At this point, Samuel Adams, as well as his Sons of Liberty, would outwardly protest against these acts, claiming that they were nothing more that an infringement to the rights of the colonists.

Soon after, Samuel Adams would help set up the beginnings of the American Revolution, as well as having future involvement within it. He was massively instrumental for the movement of a free America and has rightfully become a staple in American history because of it. His massive amounts of contributions and endless support of America’s independence is what granted him the title of a founding father of the United States of America. It is probably a safe bet to assume that America’s history, as well as its future would not have been nearly the same if Samuel Adams had not existed or simply did not go down the path he ended up taking. From a mere passion in politics to being one of the most important people in American History, Samuel Adams will not only be important to America, but to the whole world as well.

Works Cited

1. “Early Life and Education.” Samuel Adams Heritage Society, http://www.samuel-adams-heritage.com/biography/early-life.html.
2. History.com Editors. “Samuel Adams.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 4 Nov. 2019, https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/samuel-adams.
3. “Samuel Adams Biography.” Encyclopedia of World Biography, https://www.notablebiographies.com/A-An/Adams-Samuel.html.