Thursday,]

as far as those of any other gentleman towards that foreign population that have sought an asylum and a home in this country. And, Sir, there are certain rights and principles involved in this matter. Aye, Sir, our very form of government is involved in it; but so far as the form of the government is concerned, I am inclined to stand by that, however much my sympathies may be with the foreign population who have been driven from their homes and have sought refuge from oppression here.

Something was said here by the Chairman of the Committee who introduced this matter, to the effect that it would make very little difference practically, whether the amendment substituting the words "legal voters" for the word "population" was adopted or not. If that be the case, why should gentlemen be so tenacious of the word population striking it out and substituting the words legal voters would do no harm. It is said by the gentleman from Fall River, (Mr. Hooper,) if I understand him correctly, that there are about a thousand inhabitants in that town who are foreigners, and that for some time there has been a patent form in use for naturalizing them, and that about six hundred have been naturalized out a thousand. This certainly strikes me as rather singular. I am not going to impugn the declaration of the gentleman. I do not know but it is so; but I certainly supposed it was requisite that there should be in the first place, a declaration of the intention to be naturalized, and a residence of a certain number of years before naturalization could be perfected. It seems to me that this population, of which the gentleman speaks, instead of being a foreign population becomes almost a home population; but be that as it may, there are other questions involved in this matter of much impor

tance.

I am informed by a friend near me, that I misapprehended the statement of the gentleman from Fall River, (Mr. Hooper,) as to the number of the foreign population who have been naturalized. There are about three hundred instead of six hundred, as I formerly stated. I did not intend to misrepresent the matter, but be the number what it may, it does not affect the argument. Another gentleman, the gentleman from Worcester, who followed next in the debate, spoke of the sovereignity of the people. It reminds me of the expression used by Judge Jay, "that this is a nation of sovereigns without a subject." We shall not find a subject unless we go into the Southern States, and find one with a complexion different from our own. I do not understand this to be the principle of our government, and it is owing either to the fact of my own confusion of ideas, or else other gentlemen, who have been endeavoring to enlighten us on this subject, are confused in their ideas of the principles of our government. I had supposed that the great principle of government, which prevails in this State, as well as in all American States, was that laid down on board the Mayflower, on the 11th of November, when she lay in Plymouth Harbor, not that individuals are the sovereigns of this land, but that a majority constitute the sovereignty. This was the principle that was adopted as the platform upon which our great theory of self-government rested, and it has so remained from that day to this.

The gentleman from Boston, has said something about manufacturing voters, and that this govern

THE SENATE. -GREENE-HATHAWAY.

ment of ours is an artificial, and not a natural government. It may be so in practice, but is it so in theory? Let me say to the gentleman, that he will find that doctrine in the Constitution of this State, and every State in the Union, as well as the United States. This is the doctrine, that the people in forming the fundamental law, restrict their agents to start with, and they have a perfect right to do so; they not only restrict their agents, but I now speak of the people, the sovereignty, the great majority-in the same manner they restrict themselves. And yet gentlemen turn round and say it is not the Constitution of the people, because they have restricted themselves.

What are the restrictions which they have put upon themselves? They say no man shall vote if he be an alien; they say that a person who votes, shall have resided in the Commonwealth a year, and in the town in which he offers his vote, for six months, and that he shall be a tax payer. All these restrictions are placed upon themselves, and did not the people, who thus restrict themselves, adopt these restrictions from the outset ? Who adopted the present Constitution?. The people themselves. I contend that the sovereignty resides in the majority. If the majority of the people choose to restrict themselves, be it artificially or otherwise, the whole people are bound, for the majority represent the whole people. These are my views in relation to the abstract principle of the American system of government. I may be in error in reference to it, but it seems to me I cannot. These are considerations that have been forced upon my mind for years and years past. And is it not so? Can it be otherwise? Though this artificial system is introduced, yet is it not the people that have introduced it? Is it not the people that restrict themselves? Who can avoid an answer in the affirmative. If this be so, Sir, then the question is a plain one, in reference to this particular matter, as to whether we shall substitute the words "legal voters" for the word "population." If the people have restricted themselves, as well as their agents, in every branch of the government, I ask the Chairman of the Committee, why they should not restrict themselves still further by the words "legal voters." Who are to choose these senators? Base them upon population or not, as you will, who are to choose them?

Is it the population that chooses them? Not so, Sir; the gentleman must fall back upon his legal voters, even if he retains the word population; and the question who the legal voters are is to be settled probably by this Convention. I doubt very much whether the people or their representatives here, will hereafter restrict themselves to any greater extent than they are now restricted under our present Constitution. Well, who will have to vote for these senators? Will you call in men, women and children to elect them? The gentleman says nay. Then pray tell me who is to elect them? If you put in the word population will they not still be just as much chosen by the legal voters when the word population is there, as if the words legal voters were substituted?

Sir, this is my view of the subject, and so far, I understand the proposed amendment that I shall vote for it. As to the other portion of the amendment, unless I am convinced by the arguments that may be made here of its correctness, I shall vote against it, for I frankly confess I do not

[May 19th.

clearly understand the utility of making the change in the wording of the Report that is proposed by the amendment.

Mr. GREENE, of Brookfield. I desire through you, Mr. President, to ask the gentleman one question. According to my view of the matter, our form of government requires that a majority of the people shall govern. But according to the gentleman's argument, this is not correct. I should be glad to hear the gentleman explain to us more definitely his view as to who are the people. According to my view, the people are the community, but if, as the gentleman has told us, the people are the legal voters only, I must confess that the wind is completely taken out of my democracy.

Mr. HATHAWAY, of Freetown. I doubt whether I can answer the question of the gentleman satifactorily to himself, for he has evidently made up his mind already in regard to this matter. He says, that if the people are only the voters, the wind is taken out of the sails of the Democratic party. I am fearful, Sir, I shall not make myself understood. But, I say in reference to the word people, that I regard all men, women and children as the people, and I believe that they are so regarded in all portions of this country. It is a doctrine that I have not heard controverted. But, what I intended to say is, that by no means, would I extend the right of suffrage to this whole people, but it was by the whole people that our organic law was adopted. They in fact restrict their own rights under that organic law so adopted by them, and although they restricted their rights, they are no less part and parcel of the government; and I will give an illustration of such restriction by saying, that in the case of a family, the male members of the family only should be entitled to vote, and that the privilege should be confined to them. The privilege of voting is further restricted, by saying that no person shall vote who is not of the age of twentyone years, as the gentleman from Boston has said, forming a sharp line in reference to this matter. There are also other restrictions under our form of government. One is, that a man shall reside a year within the State, and six months within the town in which he offers his vote, before he shall be entitled to the privilege of voting. These are the restrictions which the people placed upon themselves, and they are but a few of the many I might enumerate. But the inquiry which I wish to make is, whether the Chairman of the Committee who reported the Resolution would strip off all these restrictions, and permit the people as contra-distinguished from the legal voters to come in and vote?

Mr. GREENE, of Brookfield. I am happy to agree with the gentleman from Freetown in respect to this point. I define the people to be the collective body, which includes within its limits every rational creature in the Commonwealth. And, Sir, I maintain that we are here as delegates of the people so defined. I take it to be a practical question; and I ask gentlemen to reflect upon the true situation of affairs at home, in their respective neighborhoods, where the bonds between husband and wife, parent and child are so natural, so strong, so immediate. I ask them to inquire, as a practical question, whether the husband and father are not the natural representatives of the wife and children? Starting upon this basis then, I come to this con

Friday,]

clusion, that the whole population are fairly and legally represented by the legal voters of the Commonwealt'. And this being so, I think that every man who looks fairly at the matter will say that we are fairly delegated by the whole people. Now, if this is the case, if the legal voters are the legal representatives of that portion of the community who are not entitled to votethat is, the women and children, I shall be content that the word population shall remain. It appears to me that the Report made by the Committee is one that is just and proper, and one that should be respected as coincident with the facts of the case. One other remark I desire to make, in regard to the illustration which has been brought forward by the gentleman from Boston, in reference to the slave representation of the South. It appears to me that it is a mistake to say that the slaves are represented. I think it is the slave power that is represented, and not the slaves themselves.

Mr. BRADFORD, of Essex. The object of my amendment, Sir, is to abolish the distinction now existing between the qualifications of persons who hold office and those who vote. It is well understood, that at the formation of the Constitution, there were many distinctions made between a person qualified to hold office and a person qualified to vote. The idea was to confine the government to as few hands as possible. Some of these distinctions still remain. Among others, there was one creating a money qualification. The object of the present amendment, is to do away with the distinction which excludes any portion of the legal voters from holding any office in the Commonwealth.

Mr. BATES, of Plymouth. I wish to make only a single remark. Upon looking at the statistics, I find that there are in Massachusetts 245,112 polls taxed. I see also that there are 182,328 legal voters, leaving a surplus of 62,814 men upon whom the people of Massachusetts impose taxes.

Shall we compel these men to assist in carrying on our government and yet say to them, that they shall not be represented? I desire to ask the gentleman whether he will deprive those men who are now taxed, of representation, as I think his amendment really has that effect? Mr. BRADFORD. I preferred the amendment as originally offered, for the reason that those young men who are ratable polls and are not voters, and who have to take an interest in the affairs of the government, should be included as a part of the basis of representation. I do not consider it at all important, for the reason, as I have before stated, in answer to the argument of the gentleman who thought the foreign population were entitled to representation, and that is, that by making ratable polls the basis of representation, they do not in fact become represented here. Mr. HOLDEN. I have been greatly interested in the discussion of this subject, and I can say for one, that I have been cheered by the magnanimous sentiments which have been uttered on this occasion. I hope that this amendment will not be adopted, for I believe the Senate ought to be based upon population. I consider the institutions of the country are safer when we make them popular, and when we do all we can to guard and protect the rights of the people. It has been ably shown by gentlemen here, that there are feelings and sentiments which we entertain incommon with cach other, and which go to make up the welfare

[May 20th.

tee on so much of the Constitution as relates to "the Frame of Government," &c., upon an order of May 7th, reported the following resolution:

Resale, That the Constitution be so amended as to provide that all popular elections of State and County Officers recurring at stated periods, be held horea'ter on the Tuesday next succeeding the first Monday in November.

Adjournment.

Mr. FRENCH, of New Bedford, moved that when the Convention adjourn, it adjourn to meet on Tuesday afternoon next, at 3 o'clock.

and happiness of the whole population, and that government which shall be the most popular and humanizing in its tendencies, will be the safest for us all. I am confident in the opinion, that sellators ought to be elected upon the basis of population. The foreign population bave wants which must be attended to, and it requires a knowledge of them to enable our legislators to make such laws as will be beneficial to them and t'e community in which they live. Gentlemen who live among this class of our fellow-citizens, under-1 stand and become acquainted with their wants, and are thus qualified to frame such laws as are best suited to them, and the community in which Mr. French said he had been requested to make they live. It has always been the case, that forthis motion, in consequence of a desire on the part eigners have come to the a'd of this country in its of the legislature to have the entire occupation of times of peril, and the more we can incorporate this Fall on Monday, without interruption, bethem into our government and diffuse the bless-lieving that if the whole of Monday were allowed ings of a free and republican government among them, the better it will be for them and for us. I hope that the principle of representation based upon population, agreed upon by the Committee, will not only prevail at this time, but in the Convention, when we shall be called upon finally to settle this question.

Mr. KINSMAN, of Newburyport. I do not rise to discuss this question, but simply to state, that in my view, this is the great question before the Convention. It is one which underlies the whole frame-work of government, and as such, I should like to hear it discussed and acted upon in a full Convention. For that purpose, I now move, that the Committee rise and report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. BUTLER. I would inquire of the Chair, if it is in order to discuss that motion?

The CHAIRMAN. It is not debatable. Mr. BUTLER. Well, Sir, I do not wish to discuss it, but simply to say, for one, I desire that a vote may be taken upon this question to-night, so that we may get through with one stage of our business, because the subject will evidently come up for discussion upon a motion for re-consideration.

The question was then taken upon the motion of Mr. Kinsman, and it was decided in the affirmative.

The Committee accordingly rose, and the President having resumed the chair of

them, they could close up their business on that day.

A Member remarked that the Senate had appointed two o'clock on Tuesday for the taking of a test vote upon an important question; it could scarcely be expected, therefore, that they were going to be prepared to adjourn on Monday.

Mr. WALKER, of North Brookfield, said he did not suppose it was expected that the legislature would be able to finish up their business on Monday; but he had been requested by members to say, that if they had the exclusive use of this hall on Saturday and Monday, they would be enabled to bring the business of the session to a close very soon thereafter, probably on Wednesday. He had himself no doubt it would greatly facilitate their labors, if the Convention were to adjourn until Tuesday at 3 o'clock.

The question being taken, the motion was agreed to.

Orders.

The following orders were adopted :—

On motion by Mr. FOSTER, of Charlemont,

Ordered, That the Committee on so much of the Constitution as relates to the Frame of Government, be instructed to inquire into the expediency of adding to the Constitution a provision, that the marriage contract shall not change the legal relation which the wife sustains to the ownership and disposal of the property which she possessed before marriage, or may legally acquire afterwards, by inheritance or otherwise.

On motion by the same gentleman,

Ordered, That the Committee on the Encouragement of Literature be instructed to consider the expediency of so amending the Constitution, that the State shall provide, or know that provis ion is made by private bounty, as liberally for the education of her daughters as for her sons, so far as the female character and condition require; that physical, moral, literary, and scientific education be made as accessible and as cheap to our daughters as to our sons, so far as the thirst and capacity of our daughters for education, the true interests and glory of Massachusetts, and the supply of that rapidly increasing demand for educated and highly educated females, requires; that such provision be made within the following ten years, and after, and be made in connection with and in some proportion to private endowments, since there is a reasonable expectation that private bounty will be directed in an eminent degree more than it has been to the superior education of the daughters of Massachusetts.

On motion by Mr. KNIGHT, of Leicester,

Friday,]

Ordered, That the Committee to whom was referred so much of the Constitution as is contained in the Preamble and Declaration of Rights, be instructed to consider the expediency of so amending the Declaration of Rights as to provide that every citizen of this Commonwealth be at liberty to pursue any business, trade, or employment for a livelihood, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege, and that no law shall impair that right.

On motion by Mr. WATERS, of Millbury,

Ordered, That the Committee to whom was referred so much of the Constitution as relates to Sheriffs, Registers of Probate, and other County Officers, be instructed to inquire into the expediency of so amending the Constitution, as to provide for the election of Justices of the Peace by the people, for the term not exceeding five years, and in a proportion not exceeding one to every five hundred inhabitants in the several cities and towns of this Commonwealth.

On motion by Mr. WILSON, of Natick,

Ordered, That the Committee to whom was referred so much of the Constitution as relates to the Encouragement of Literature, be instructed to consider the expediency of so amending the Constitution, as to provide that all moneys to be derived from the sale of the public lands in Maine; and from that portion of the shares owned by the Commonwealth in the Western Railroad, paid for by the proceeds of sales of lands in Maine; and also the monies to be derived from the claim of the State on the General Government for military services, shall he added to the School Fund, until said fund shall amount to the sum of two millions of dollars; said fund to be preserved inviolate, and the income of the same to be applied only to the aid of Common Schools and for other Educational purposes.

On motion by Mr. GILBERT, of Harvard,

Ordered, That the Committee on so much of the Constitution as relates to Oaths and Subscriptions, be instructed so to amend, the same, that the exceptions made in favor of the "Quakers" be extended to all who have conscientious scruples in regard to taking an oath.

On motion by Mr. BIRD, of Walpole,

Ordered, That the Committee on the Frame of Government, &c., be instructed to inquire into the expendiency of a constitutional provision that no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted that may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the legislature, and to report thereon.

Debtors.

Mr. COLE, of Cheshire, offered the following Resolution:

Resolved, That the legislature shall have no power to pass an act, the provisions of which release or discharge debtors from the payment of just liabilities.

The Resolution was referred to the Committee on the Frame of Government.

Monitors.

The PRESIDENT announced the following Monitors:

Eastern Gallery-Mr. Ober, of Beverly, and Mr. Bliss, of Hatfield.

Western Gallery-Mr. Cleverly, of Wellfleet, and Mr. Wood, of Enfield.

Mr. WILSON, of Natick, moved that the Convention resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the unfinished business of yesterday.

THE SENATE.- KINSMAN.

Qualification of Voters.

The motion was temporarily withdrawn at the request of Mr. DURGIN, of Wilmington, upon whose motion it was

Ordered, That the Committee having under consideration so much of the Constitution as relates to the Qualifications of Voters consider the propriety of so altering the Constitution, as to provide that no individual shall be deprived of the privilege of voting for State and United States officers, in consequence of having changed his residence to another portion of the State, or lose his residence for the above purpose, until he shall have gained it in another.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHQLE."

Mr. WILSON, of Natick, renewed his motion, and it was adopted, and the Convention accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Morton, of Taunton, in the chair.

The Committee resumed the consideration of the Report from the Committee on the Senate; the pending question being on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Essex, (Mr. Bradford,) to the resolutions reported by the Commit

tee.

The gentleman from Newburyport, (Mr. Kinsman,) being entitled to the floor.

Mr. KINSMAN, of Newburyport. I would willingly dispense with my privilege of occupying the floor at this time, if any other gentleman, entertaining the same views with myself, is disposed to address the Convention, and there are many gentlemen who entertain those views who are better able to address the Convention on the subject than I am. I should not have arisen at all had it not been, that at the close of the session yesterday, it appeared likely that the Convention would take the question, and as my views had not been fully expressed by any member, I rose to protest, on the part of those who agree with me in opinion, as well as on my own part, against the adoption of the amendment to the order, embracing, as it does, a principle, which I think ought never to be adopted in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It proposes to change the basis of representation of the Senate so as to make that basis the legal voters. The Senate will consequently, under the operation of such a provision, be a popular body; and I suppose the House will also be so constructed. Now, allow me to call the attention of the Convention to another question. When this matter was first brought to my consideration, I was not aware that this proposition would materially alter the present basis, and supposed that the ratio of senators and representatives would so nearly coincide, that it would not make much difference whether the Report was based upon one or the other, but upon turning to the statistical tables, I find it will produce a very remarkable difference, I will name one or two of the

extremes:

Somerville has 9.03 voters out of every 100 inhabitants, while the town of Southwick has 26.11 out of every 100. A large proportion of the towns have less than 20, and many of the large cities and towns have only 13 or 14 voters to every 100 people.

It is, therefore, obvious that the principle of equality by the operation of an amendment like this, can no longer be maintained. But the system of equality I think lies at the foundation of our whole representative system. It is needless for me to quote authorities on the subject, for you

[May 20th.

can hardly look at a declaration or bill of rights, in the Constitution of any State in the Union, where you will not find it asserted. I should not care so much about it, if the term legal voter had a fixed permanent meaning; it is not so. A legal voter in one State is not required to possess the same qualifications as in another, and it so happens, that a voter in Massachusetts is not required to possess the same qualifications at one time as at another. You thus take a fluctuating, arbitrary rule, and make it a common measure of equality in representation throughout the Commonwealth. It is the same as if you take a yard measure, and sometimes call it two feet and sometimes three feet, and sometimes four, and make it still the general standard. My impression is, that all the people should be represented. But who are the people? I agree with the gentleman from Brookfield, that the word people comprehends every human being, males, females, and children, although I could not but think, if a man looked upon our political papers, just before an election, he would form a very different idea of the people, from that which he would form after the election was over. Ile would suppose that the people were only those upon "our side," and that the rest were all outsiders. But that is no part of my creed. I am a member of a political party it is true, but I know no party here. I go for a comprehensive view of the whole people, and an equal representation of the whole people.

I will now briefly revert to the instances in which this inequality of which I have spoken exists, and whence it arises. In the first place, it is said that women and children constitute more than one half the community, and that wherever there is a disproportion of this kind, of course, adopting this rule, there will be a disproportion in respect to the voters. Another is the population of manufacturing towns; another is where the population consists to a considerable extent of aliens. Now, how do these inequalities arise? I find them to exist chiefly in those communities bordering upon the sea coast. It is there, perhaps, that the inequality is the greatest. But how does it arise? It arises chiefly from the fact that most of the male population of these towns and cities are at sea. It is true, a man does not lose his right to vote, if he is at sea, and but few persons would care to have their names upon the voter's list, if they were conscious that they could not enjoy the privilege of voting. A great part of this inequality has also arisen, not from any human arrangement, but from that over which man has no control, namely, the act of God. Those terrific storms which have prevailed in the neighborhood of Prince Edward's Island, for several successive years, have made hundred of widows, and left many children fatherless, and now gentlemen wish to add to the distress of these unfortunate persons, by depriving them of the privilege of representation, from their own immediate neighborhood, and friends. The inequality also occurs amongst the fluctuating population of manufacturing towns. Where an alien population is numerous, it also occurs. Alien population is another cause, is another class upon whom it is said that this will operate unequally. Now, Sir, can it be made to appear that with reference to taxation, with reference to the school fund, and the thousand other matters of municipal regulation, the alien population of Boston have not a fair and equal interest with the other citizens of Boston?

Friday,]

There is no use in saying, that if you give the alien population a right to vote, they will control the election, and that they may elect representatives of a different political party from the native population. Of all the thousand questions that enter into the political contest of the day, one half of them have no practical result. You introduce, for instance, resolutions upon the subject of slavery. Very well, they are passed, and there is an end of the matter. So with other questions of no immediate interest to the community; but whenever a legal and practical question comes up, the parties all unite just as they do on the subject of slavery at the South. Our Southern friends are more enthusiastic and earnest in their political 'feelings than we are, generally speaking. They are, as whigs and democrats, bitterly opposed to each other, but when the question of slavery is agitated, they all walk up to the mark without any divisions and dissensions among them. Therefore, it is that, considering Boston as one municipality, it is no matter whether the delegates are elected by the resident or foreign population.

But it is said gentlemen are unnecessarily alarmed about this matter; that if the representation is based upon legal voters, thereby depriv ing towns having a large female manufacturing, or alien population, of representatives for that population; yet they will still be represented by the whole representatives of the State, or in other words, the country towns will take care of the cities upon whom this loss of representatives will fall; that they will be taken care of by the people of the interior whose interests are adverse to those of the sea coast towns. Now, would any man like to have his interests represented by any other than neighbors and friends? Would any man like to be told, Oh! it is all right, we'll protect you; you don't need representatives. True, you may be taxed, but it is for your own good; no matter who represents you; it is all right.

Now, I may make one remark about the Irish population, showing that they are more favorably represented by the representatives of the city of Boston than by any other. It is this: there is an unfriendly feeling existing towards the Irish in the interior towns. The people of the interior are suspicious of them; they do not like them. I do not say it is so everywhere, nor do I say it is unreasonable; but I say this, that where the Irish are best known, there they are the most respected. It is true, they come over here in a state of ignorance, and have much to learn; but they are industrious, and contribute greatly to the good of the Commonwealth; wherever they are known, their qualities are appreciated; and certainly those who employ them and know them best, would be more likely to represent them truly than could be done by this system of vague representation, which is everywhere and nowhere.

There is another objection that I have to this amendment and to this sort of representation. It is, that there is no accountability. This is one of the most important points in our representative system--the ability of the people to call those delegated who represent them, to account for their

acts.

How are the Irish population of Boston to call to account any representatives, for instance, of Roxbury, or any of the adjoining towns, or the town of Westfield, in Franklin County. They can call to account representatives of Boston, by holding meetings and giving expression to their feelings; and there is not a single representative

THE SENATE. — WALLACE.

in all Boston, who, if he should consent to do injustice to the Irish, would ever be sent here again. Every body knows that. There is, therefore, every reason why the present system of representation should be retained.

But I have another objection still more important. One of the principles which lies at the foundation of the frame-work of our government is, that taxation and representation shall go together. We have abolished all property qualification of electors; but there is a wide difference between saying a man shall be worth one hundred pounds sterling to entitle him to vote, and saying

[May 20th.

as many things that it may do. It derives its power from two sources; first, from the legisla ture, which is its father; and next, from the body of the people, which is its mother; and when it assembled here and organized, this child, so brought forth, became of age, and capable of doing all that it is authorized to do by the parents who created it.

But even if it were revolutionary, as some gentlemen have contended, still there are some acts which this Convention cannot perform. For instance, it cannot change the character of the government from a republican to a monarchial. It cannot change the principles upon which the gov

judicial, and the executive authority in any one person. Another thing they cannot do, as I ap¦ prehend, is this very thing I have been naming. It cannot alter the basis upon which the representation of this Commonwealth is founded, so as to allow of taxation without representation. These are, in short, the reasons which have operated in my mind to induce me to vote against this amendment.

a man shall not vote who is at the same time sub-ernment is based by vesting the legislative, the ject to taxation. And it will be found that property is one of the greatest elements in all governments, even greater than the rights of persons. Many nations have suffered the greatest injustice and oppression without resistance, so long as they were left in the enjoyment of their property. Persons have been killed and imprisoned, and have borne almost everything. But when you come to touch their property, they rise up in rebellion. If you kill a man, he is gone, and there is an end of him; but if you take a man's property by fraud, so long as he breathes the breath of life, he will try to get it back, and revenge himself for the wrong.

You recollect how it was in England in the time of Charles I. The moment he attempted to extort ship-money, England was in a blaze. So it was in the case of our own Revolution. It resulted from a question of property. And you will find in our entire history, that taxation without representation has been considered the utmost degree of injustice which can be inflicted on the people. Now, the argument made by gentlemen here is somewhat inconsistent. They are perfectly willing to adopt this principle, basing representation upon the voters so long as they profit by it. They see nothing improper about it, no tyranny in that; but when they come forward here and talk about the smaller towns, and ask that the representation be altered, so that they may have a representative every year, then their argument is changed; they say that inasmuch as these towns are represented but a few years out of every ten, and that these same towns may be taxed many years when they are not represented; that this is taxation without representation, and is, therefore, tyranny. I, too, say it is tyranny, and, for that reason, ask the Convention to vote against this amendment.

I was gratified to hear the remarks of the gentleman from Worcester, (Mr. Earle,) who said, that if the doctrine of the gentleman from Natick was correct, he had been all his life at the wrong school. I should not have said a word if he had not, in regard to this matter; but as he has alluded to it, I must congratulate him that his thoughts are turning in a right direction. But it is said that this Convention is revolutionary in its character, and can change the old principles of the government. There is no question but this is the case; and so we have a revolution every year whenever there is an election of the officers of government; and it is one of the beauties of our system of government. It is like a well-balanced machine, having the principle of compensation belonging to it, by which any irregularity may be corrected without breaking the machine, or even retarding its motion. But there are certain things that the Convention cannot do, as well

Mr. WALLACE, of Palmer. I am disposed to regard this question as one of more importance than gentlemen seem to attach to it, from the manner in which they were yesterday inclined to press it to a vote. I look upon it as one of three very grave questions which are to be considered and settled by this Convention. This question relates to the basis of representation in the Senate. The two other questions to which I refer relate to the basis of representation in the House of Representatives; whether the principle shall be that of allowing one representative from every town, or whether it shall be by the district system with a basis either of population, legal voters, or ratable polls. I think, as was suggested by the gentleman from Newburyport, (Mr. Kinsman,) that they properly belong together, and, as such, bear important relations to each other, and are in some degree dependent upon each other. The Senate basis, as proposed by the Committee in their Report, is, in my opinion, of less importance practically, than it is in the establishment of the true principle upon which the representation should be based. If I understood correctly the statistics which were read yesterday by the gentleman from Natick, (Mr. Wilson,) after all, practically, it is but of little importance whether the basis is placed upon the whole population, or whether it is fixed upon the number of legal voters. As I understood those statistics, the practical effect will only be to transfer one senator from the county of Suffolk to the county of Plymouth. Therefore, it seems to me that the practical effect is of very little consequence.

I am aware, Mr. Chairman, that it sounds very well to say that in our Constitution we base the representation upon the whole people; and as a mere matter of sound there is something in it, but not much of principle. I think, that if we are to embody an idea in the Constitution, it should be a practical one and a vital one, not one resting simply in terms. I rather believe that the true basis of representation is that of legal voters; for I hold that it is the legal voters who have been heretofore, and will be hereafter, practically, those upon whom the representation will be based, and not upon population. I therefore prefer to call things by their real names. Now, who are represented? I think that question is pertinent to the case which is before us. Is it the population

Friday,]

in gross, or is it, in point of fact, and practically, the legal voters? I think it is the latter. We speak of population, or the people, in two senses. We speak of them in an actual sense, wherein would be embraced every living soul in the Commonwealth or the country. We speak of them, in the second place, in a legal or constitutional sense, wherein are embraced only those persons who have been recognized, and who are recognized, by common consent, under a constitutional government, as properly exercising the rights of suffrage at the ballot-box. Consequently, it excludes minors, women, and foreigners. That is practically a truth. That being the case, I could hardly conceive, the other day, how the gentleman from Salem, (Mr. Lord,) should mistake, or doubt, or be led to make the inquiry, who the people were-when, at the same time, he informed us he had been sent to this body, and had been honored with a seat in the legislature, by a majority of seven or eight hundred, when there were others who came with a majority of only one merely counted in. I thought that gentleman could have no doubt who the people are in his case, nor that he is one of them. If I supposed we were about to ingraft into the Constitution a principle providing for the millenium, which my friend from Brookfield, (Mr. Greene,) is in anticipation of seeing, or seems to desire-not indeed that millenium in which the lamb and the lion shall lie down together-but when men and women shall march up to the ballot-box together, then the true basis of representation would be the whole people. But such is not the case, and, as I conceive, it is not to be provided for. If it were so, the gentleman would be correct. But I think the time has not yet arrived when this Convention are to consider the subject with much gravity. In a Convention which may sit here some thirty or forty years hence, that may then be a living and vital principle; but it is not the case now. We must take things as they are.

The gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Hillard,) who first addressed us yesterday, took the position that it was essential to make the Senate basis that of the whole people, so that these people who are in a particular district, and who have not the right of voting, can be represented. If it were a fact that the whole people were represented, practically, that doctrine would be correct. But when I am led to differ with that gentleman, I am inclined to distrust my own convictions, and to think that perhaps my own mind may be too obtuse to appreciate his argument. I do not conceive that the whole people are represented. Then who are represented? I hold that if an individual has not the right of suffrage, if he can neither politically create, nor politically destroy, a representative, he is not in any strict sense represented. The gentleman illustrates his position by saying that in any given district, in nine cases out of ten, not one-half of the legal voters vote for the person who is elected, but that, nevertheless, they are legally and constitutionally represented. But if an individual has no right to create his representative, and no power to destroy his representative, how and wherein is he represented? Suppose the representative totally misrepresents all those persons who have no voice in his election, is there any remedy? None except that suggested by the gentleman from Newburyport, (Mr. Kinsman,) and that is, the influence they can exert among those who have the right to vote.

THE SENATE. SCHOULER.

But my answer to that gentleman's argument is, that it is wholly immaterial in practice, whether one-half the people who have the right to vote, exercise that right, because by not exercising it, they permit an election to go by default, they confess an election, they tacitly consent to the election from the very fact that they do not seek to exercise their right. But it is not so with those who have not the right, and cannot exercise any power at the ballot-box; it is not so with minors, it is not so with women, and it is not so with foreigners. They have no remedy and no help. It is, in my estimation, rather a stretch of the imagination to say that persons who cannot exercise the elective franchise are represented. The most that can be said of it is, that those persons who are elected, exercise a sort of guardianship over the women and children and foreigners in their districts. They are not their representatives. They assume a guardianship, and perhaps it is their duty to exercise a guardianship over the interests of those who have no voice in the election; but this is not representation. They exercise a guardianship in the same sense as the law exercises a guardianship over those who are compelled to pay taxes and have no right to any voice in regard to levying them. They are compelled to pay taxes, because it is said the law exercises a guardianship over them. They are protected in their lives, their property, and their reputation, and for that reason they are compelled to pay taxes for their guardianship. I think the representative stands in the same relation as that of a guardian to the class of minors, women and foreigners, and that he has no higher relation. I am not disposed to be illiberal in this matter. As an individual, I would go as far as any other sane and rational man to take away the barriers which prevent every one from exercising the right to vote. But I think the time has not come when all should exercise that right; and I believe that the true basis of representation is that of legal voters rather than the whole population.

Mr. SCHOULER, of Boston. I believe that the true basis of representation is the people, and therefore I disagree altogether with the gentleman from Palmer, (Mr. Wallace,) who has just taken his seat. I do not believe, that the representatives of the people here assembled in legislature, are the mere guardians of the people, or the guardians of those who have no votes, but they come here for the purpose of representing the interests of their constituents, and they are the persons who reside in the districts which send them. Aside from that, they are the representatives of the people of the whole State, and not of the legal voters. Why, Sir, are there no persons in this Commonwealth that have any rights, any interests, with the exception of those who vote? Are there no interests to be regarded but of those who happen to vote? Are we to represent only those who have a right to put a ballot into the ballotbox? What becomes of one half of our laws, that are made for the interests of women, children, the insane and the paupers? We came here to represent the whole general Commonwealth, by a faithful discharge of our duties, and we are to consider those who are not voters as a part of our constituents. I have had the honor of a seat upon this floor for eight years, and it is the first time that I ever imagined, or heard the doctrine broached, that I was to represent only those who happened to vote for me. There is not a person

[May 20th.

living in my district, let him be the humblest, poorest, and weakest individual among us, if he had some rights which the legislature could redress, to whom I would not cheerfully lend my assistance in obtaining them; and I have always felt it my duty to exercise what influence I could in order to give them the redress they ask, and I believe that is the feeling of the representatives of the whole people. Massachusetts legislators have never made any distinction between the voters and the remainder of their constituents. I say, that what we represent here is the great public opinion of the Commonwealth. Will any one say that the public opinion or the public sentiment of the Commonwealth is confined to the legal voters? No, Sir! There are others besides legal voters who contribute to swell the volume of public sentiment, and contribute to the advancement of the public weal, and we are not to represent mere men. Why, Sir, if we are to put this into the Constitution, that we are only to recognize men who are legal voters, we would be forming a sort of exclusive aristocracy in our republic, to which I am altogether opposed. Let us recognize the people as the basis of power, and when we have founded our government upon such a basis, and that government gives tone and character to the great Commonwealth, why then, we truly represent the people, and not without. The gentleman says that all power rests with the voters. Bless my soul. [Laughter.] Suppose it were so, and suppose our country was invaded by a foreign army, or an insurrection should arise in the State, are we to call upon no one but legal voters to put it down or repel the invasion? You would find that those who are not voters, the young men of fifteen or sixteen years, would be the very first to come forward to offer their services. They now do their duty in military service, and they are always ready to be called upon, and go, too, whenever the interests of the Commonwealth demand that they shall go. say that we should recognize in the basis of representation, that great body of men, and as my colleague said yesterday, we should remember, that the people are those who have souls, arms, sinews, and blood-men who can repel invasion and support constitutional liberty, and also add to the great common sentiment of humanity and right. When we have our Constitution founded upon that basis, it is founded upon the great broad principle of Democracy. That is the principle which I wish to see engrafted upon the Constitution-the recognition of the people-and in looking over the other constitutions of the country, I find, that there are only two or three of them where this great principle is not recognized. In the neighboring State of New Hampshire, I find that representation is founded upon ratable polls, and in some of the older States of the Union the same principle is recognized, but in the great mass of the States nearly all the constitutions are founded upon the people as the basis, and that is the basis for us to adopt. How many men there are who leave us every day to carry our commerce to far off and distant shores, and do you suppose, because they do not happen to be actual voters at the time, that they have lost and ought to lose their influence? No, Sir! They feel that they are a part of the people and government recognized by the Constitution and represented in the legislature; and whether they be at home or abroad, they have their influence there. I like the Report