By Stanley I. Evans
November 2025 — TONA Historical Analysis Series
Introduction
Newly examined archival evidence sheds light on Connecticut’s August 12, 1814 certification concerning the proposed Titles of Nobility and Honor Amendment (TONA).
While this document has long been cited as proof that Connecticut “did not ratify” the amendment, close legal and forensic analysis reveals a critical distinction: the certification issued by Secretary of the State Thomas Day was authentic in form—but potentially void in substance.
This distinction, grounded in both state and federal law, fundamentally alters how historians and constitutional scholars should interpret Connecticut’s official position on the 1810 amendment.
1. The 1813 Legislative Record: Foundational Defect
The controversy begins with two key 1813 documents from the Connecticut General Assembly:
-
The House Journal entry of May 1813,
-
The Committee Report on the proposed Titles of Nobility Amendment.
Both records bear non-authentic signatures of House Clerk Charles Denison and Committee Chairman Theodore Dwight.
Under evidentiary law, this is no small defect.
Connecticut Code of Evidence § 9-2 and Federal Rule of Evidence 901–902 both require that official writings be authenticated by the officer whose attestation confers authority.
When such a signature is proven forged, the record loses its presumption of authenticity and becomes secondary evidence—not a lawful record of legislative action.
This means the May 1813 records, as they exist today, are void as official legislative acts.
2. The 1814 Certification by Thomas Day
On August 12, 1814, Connecticut Secretary of the State Thomas Day issued a certification under the Great Seal of the State, stating:
“I do hereby certify and make known that the above and foregoing is a true copy of record… In faith whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of this State the twelfth day of August one thousand eight hundred and fourteen.”
The document bears a clear embossed seal and Day’s handwritten signature, making it an authentic attestation under Connecticut law.
At that time, the Secretary of the State was the lawful keeper of the public records, empowered to certify legislative acts without the governor’s countersignature.
Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which governs amendment ratifications, the federal government recognizes as valid any certification bearing the signature and seal of a state’s duly authorized officer.
Day’s certificate therefore satisfied the formal requirements of authentication.
3. The Legal Distinction: Form vs. Substance
Despite its formal validity, the August 1814 certification was based on a defective underlying record—the falsified 1813 House Journal and Committee Report.
This creates a legal paradox:
| Element | Legal Status |
|---|---|
| Secretary’s signature & seal | Authentic and within authority |
| Governor’s absence | Not fatal—common practice |
| Legislative record | Defective (forged attesting signatures) |
| Substantive validity | Tainted; certification authenticates a false record |
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence and Connecticut Code of Evidence, this makes the 1814 certification authentic in form but void in substance—a faithful copy of a falsified original.
4. Federal Recognition Under Article V
Two landmark Supreme Court rulings define the federal standard for recognizing state certifications:
-
Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920) – Only duly authenticated state legislative acts can constitute ratification or rejection under Article V.
-
Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922) – Once an authenticated certificate is received by the Secretary of State, it is conclusive on its face unless the state itself later corrects or withdraws it.
Thus, the formally authentic 1814 certificate would have been accepted by the federal government unless Connecticut later corrected it.
However, since the underlying record was falsified, it carries no genuine constitutional force—Connecticut’s action was never properly taken or authenticated as required by Article V.
5. Why the 1818 “Non-Ratification” Listing Lacks Authority
When the Monroe administration’s Department of State compiled its 1818 summary of amendment ratifications, it listed Connecticut as having “not ratified.”
But no new authenticated certification accompanied that entry.
Under Article V, administrative listings have no legal effect unless supported by authenticated state filings.
Therefore, the 1818 “non-ratification” notation was merely a clerical summary, not a constitutional act.
6. Applicable Laws and Precedents
-
U.S. Const. art. V – Amendment process requires duly authenticated legislative ratification or rejection.
-
1 U.S.C. § 106b – Assigns the Archivist of the United States (formerly Secretary of State) the duty to record and proclaim amendments only upon receipt of properly authenticated state certifications.
-
Conn. Code Evid. § 9-2 – Writings must be authenticated by sufficient evidence that they are what they purport to be.
-
Fed. R. Evid. 901–902 – Defines authentication and self-authentication requirements for official records.
-
Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920).
-
Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922).
-
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-153 – Criminalizes willful alteration or falsification of public records.
7. The Current Legal Implication
In light of these principles:
The August 12, 1814 Connecticut certification is authentic in form (lawfully executed by the Secretary of State under seal)
but void in substance (because it authenticates a legislative record shown to be non-authentic).
This means that Connecticut’s constitutional status regarding TONA remained unsettled as of 1818.
The supposed “rejection” lacks a valid, authenticated foundation, leaving open the question of whether Connecticut’s 1813 legislative action was, in fact, ever lawfully reversed.
8. Conclusion
What emerges from this chain of evidence is a portrait of bureaucratic confusion and potential record manipulation.
The Secretary of State’s certification was executed in good faith and according to formal procedure—but it rested on a legislative record that no longer meets the legal definition of authenticity.
In constitutional terms, Connecticut’s 1814 certificate stands as an administratively valid but substantively void act—a historical artifact of a moment when paperwork replaced lawful ratification procedure.
