Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Friday,]

made by the Chairman of the Committee, and I shall vote against any amendment, which goes for abridging the representation of the people, or which shall strike out that glorious word from our Constitution. Let us base our Senate and House upon the people, and then we can build up a superstructure which will last, but if we attempt to make narrow distinctions, and recognize only one portion of the people of the Commonwealth, we will dissatisfy not only the legal voters, but we will do injustice to the great mass, whom we may here represent. It seems to me, that the argument which the gentleman from Worcester, (Mr. Earle,) made yesterday, strikes at the right of petition. If there is no one here that has any right in this State but voters, and if they are the sovereigns and nobody else, I want to know why the people come up here and petition for some redress of grievances. Are we merely to consider those persons who come here with these petitions as some inferior class, something like the slaves of the South, or worse, because the Constitution of the United States does recognize, and does base representation in congress by giving five slaves the same right as three white men. If we adopt the proposition made by the gentleman from Essex, (Mr. Bradford,) and which is assented to by the gentleman from Palmer, (Mr. Wallace,) we are allowing to the white people of our State, who are not voters, no rights at all, and we do not recognize them at all. The Constitution of the United States does recognize the principle, that five black men at the South shall have the same political power as three white men, but here we make free white men at the North, if they happen not to be legal voters, men without any influence or consequence whatever. I cannot support any such doctrine, and I hope that the Convention will repudiate it. I hope that we shall take what we have before us, reported by the Committee, as the basis of representation for the Senate-the basis of population-and then we can open our arms wide to embrace the people of the whole State, who will, in my judgment, support such a basis and no other.

Mr. SIMONDS, of Bedford. Very unexpect edly, I feel constrained to inflict upon this Convention an explanation of the views which I have submitted upon this subject. Whenever I hear the principles which I hold characterized as narrow, illiberal, and monstrous, I am naturally induced to pause and consider where I am and what mystification of ideas I have been led into. I have listened with astonishment to some of the views which have been advanced upon this subject, and advocated as American ideas. I have learned different ideas from those which have been submitted against the amendment of the report of the Committee. In my investigation of the right of sovereign powers, I have instituted an inquiry as to the nature of those principles which are acknowledged to be American. In the first instance, I find that we, in this Commonwealth, have a precedent in politics which was entirely new to the civilized world, that our government was founded upon a system of politics which was based upon the consent of the governed, and which will be easily understood, when I refer to the compact formed by the first inhabitants who settled upon the shores of the old bay at Plymouth. In all my investigations of political principles, I have been naturally led to look to that compact as the origin of what are

THE SENATE. — SIMONDS.

I find

called American ideas of government. that they there entered into what was called a social compact, having been first gathered into families, the first social relation of all communities, and next, from families they organized a social compact, called a body politic. And how did they do this? What principles did they lay down as the chart to govern their action? I find, Sir, that there were one hundred persons in that community, and that forty-one of these persons were deputed to act for the whole people, and in whom was vested the sovereignty of the whole community. The forty-one persons were all males, most of whom were heads of families. I notice that the individual whose name stands first upon the list, was John Carver, representing eight persons of that community.

On this point I wish to call your attention to the opinion of John Quincy Adams. Speaking on this subject, he says:—

"Perhaps this is the only instance in human history, of that positive, original, social compact which speculative philosophers have imagined as the only legitimate source of government. Here was a unanimous and personal assent, by all the individuals of the community, to the association through which they became a nation."

Proceeding from these ideas to the principles from whence I suppose they were derived, I find that mankind, in common with all created intelligences, are divided into two principal classes, the independent and the dependent. My idea of sovereignty, then, is, that those rightfully possess it, who stand in the relation of independent in the community, and not that of dependent. I necessarily come to the conclusion, then, that the female portion of the community are in this condition of dependence, that they never can, and never ought, rightfully, to be considered as possessing sovereign power. I derive this view from the reflection, that whoever exercises sovereign power, must in himself be to that extent independent. I find, Sir, that a large proportion of the community is made up of children and young persons. Are these proper receptacles of power, are these to be considered as a part of the sovereignty of the Commonwealth? Not so, as I learn the principles of democratic institutions.

I come, then, Sir, to the conclusion, that I know of no American doctrine, which is not based upon this principle of independence; and when we speak of the people in a constitutional or in a legal sense, we refer to that class of persons who participate, and who have a right to participate, in the election of those officers who frame and constitute its government. Let us see how this stands. I refer now to that next organization of the government which was entered into between the people, the inhabitants, the citizens, or whatever term you please to use, in 1779 and 1780, and I would direct your attention to the preamble in that instrument. It is here that I look for principles; it is here that I expect to find what is the idea upon which they constituted the govern

ment.

I see in the second paragraph, that

"The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals; it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenant with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as

[May 20th.

well as for an impartial interpretation, and a faithful execution of them; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them.”

Here I recognize the principle of a government dividing itself up into two classes, the citizen covenanting with the whole people, and the whole people covenanting with the citizen. I refer also to the fifth article of the Bill of Rights of this Commonwealth, which is as follows:

"All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them.”

The tenth section of the same instrument is this:-

[ocr errors]

Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws."

Proceeding then, Sir, upon this idea, that this was a compact, that it was unanimously assented to by those who were governed by it, that it contains the same principle which it did at the time it was promulgated, I consider it as assuming the true American doctrine. And how did they proceed with the basis of representation in the legislature? They said, that a community consisting of so many ratable polls shall be entitled to a representation. But this doctrine is now called monstrous! When it is proposed to restore the Constitution to this principle, which was laid down in the first charter of American government, it is characterized as being monstrous, narrow, and illiberal, because, forsooth, it is proposed by this amendment, to exclude aliens as a basis of representation. If I understand the argument of gentlemen on the other side, it is, that these other persons to whom they refer are entitled to representation. I beg to know, Sir, when and where aliens and foreigners ever came to the right to exercise power in the direction of the affairs of the government of Massachusetts; I beg to know, when the principle was incorporated into this new American idea. According to my judgment, it never was recognized, and of course I do not recognize it as a correct principle at this time, nor as an American idea at any time, here or elsewhere.

What, then, is the true foundation as a basis? In my judgment, it is simply those who are accountable to the government; those who have the power to create, and those who have the power to control. I speak of the constitutional power; I do not speak of the revolutionary power. I speak of that power which is constituted before the Constitution, by which we have the right to change and alter our form of government according to the forms as they are laid down. Represented! Aliens and foreigners a right to be represented in Massachusetts! When did they get that right? Where did they get the right to claim it? Why, Sir, when I hear gentlemen stating this claim, it almost makes the revolutionary blood boil, to hear it asserted that they had a right to come in and claim this power. The gentleman from Natick, (Mr. Wilson,) has said they would feel indignant if we did not respect this claim. Shall we depart from the principle by which we have been guided for so many years?

[blocks in formation]

Mr. WILSON, of Natick. With the permission of the gentleman from Bedford, I wish to ask him one question, and that is whether he docs not understand, that by the Constitution of Massachusetts, these foreigners are now represented, and have been for years? It is the American doctrine, and has been recognized in all time. What I contend for, is, that we should not adopt a narrow basis, which we cannot stand upon before the people.

Mr. SIMONDS. I can reply to the gentleman, that I do know it, and I wish to return from that departure from what I consider the American idea, to the real principle upon which I think the government was founded. I will tell the gentleman how, and in what way this innovation came to be established. We never saw anything of it before we find the original Constitution came to suffer from the effects of legislative tinkering. That is the way in which this new principle was brought in. It comes in through and after the power of the legislature to tinker the Constitution of the people, as they had adopted it and maintained it. For one, Sir, I am unwilling either to grant to the legislature the power to touch the Constitution which we may form, or to allow them any longer to tinker that under which we now live. I desire that, before we leave these walls, we shall put such a Constitutution before the people, as will forever foreclose any such act. Our forefathers, when they established these principles, were careful to use such language as was plain and intelligible; and when they thought there was doubt about it, they gave an explanation to it. That language is so explained, that no man can get up and ask who the people are. They defined the word "inhabitants," stating how it is to be taken and considered in the Constitution which they made. What has the legislature done since? They have given a new and another interpretation to the word "inhabitants," and therefore we are interrogated in this manner as to which and what interpretation we are now to stand by.

Without going over this whole subject, the few remarks which I propose to make will close all that I have to say on this and kindred subjects, which are to follow in the order of business. I shall go then for the American doctrine, as I understand it, and as laid down in the charter by the people; that is, that representation and taxation shall go together. I will add but a word upon the subject alluded to by the gentleman from Newburyport. I agree with him in his view, that representation and taxation should go together; and then I ask of him if he will show me how these aliens and foreigners are represented? It is the mere assertion of a principle which has no force or vitality in it. How are they represented? They are counted as a basis of representation by the rules which he assumes, and which I agree should be universal, to the extent of making it as perfect as possible. But how is the rule applied to population? We find the rule in Boston and various other localities is altogether short of the rule which is applied to other districts; and when applied to some districts it is altogether too long. Why is it? It is this, Sir. We find in regard to the representation in the Senate, that twenty thousand legal voters in the city of Boston are to be represented by six senators, and twenty-seven thousand legal voters in Middlesex County are to be represented by only

six senators. Is that the equal rule by which he would measure? I think his rule is as much at fault as his principle of representation is at fault. Are these foreigners represented by the delegation chosen from this or that locality? I admit that possibly they may be, but the probability is that they would tell you they are misrepresented. I cannot understand the logic which is used to obviate this difficulty, that it so happens in all communities that all those who do not vote for the successful candidates are not represented. They are represented in this particular. They have the privilege of doing the best they can to get the man into office whom they desire to have placed there. Do these parties-the women, children, and foreigners-exercise any such power? Not in the least. I prefer, then, that the system shall prevail which has been in use for the whole period of our existence as a State, excepting some twelve or thirteen years. I ask gentlemen from all sections of the State to consider this subject, and see where it is to have an actual bearing. To-day you may, in one particular locality, be a little benefited by this change; but under other circumstances, owing to the transient character of foreign population, no benefit will be derived from it. I ask gentlemen, then, to look at it as a fundamental principle, and not with respect to any accidental or present prospects of benefit to be derived from continuing this new feature in the organic law of the State.

With regard to the charge of illiberality, I have to say, that I claim here to be as liberal upon the principles upon which our government was established, as most of my colleagues in this body; and I think it will be found, that by my vote, I shall be standing very near the front rank in liberality, but upon the established principles of the government. My doctrine is, to give expansion and application to the great principles that have heretofore prevailed in government, and not to change and alter by instituting others. I have, Sir, whenever an opportunity has been offered, been ready to be as liberal toward our foreign population-to offer every inducement for them to come here and settle-as the foremost of those in the ranks with which I have labored. agree, that we should give them privileges and inducements to become citizens, by allowing them to hold property in real estate. This is a full answer to my friend the gentleman from Newburyport, (Mr. Kinsman,) on the subject of taxation. If we grant them the privilege of holding real property, we give it to them with this contingency, that they pay taxes upon that property; and that is their consideration, in addition to the other consideration of protection.

I

Mr. BRADFORD, of Essex. I do not intend to trouble the Committee with a speech, nor to answer the arguments at length which have been advanced against the amendment which I have offered to the Report now under discussion. I desire only to say a very few words in relation to the two leading ideas which ran through the whole of this discussion, upon the other side. A question was started last week which has pursued us into this week's discussion, and into the whole range of this debate. It seems to me, it smacks rather of the Lyceum than of any particular school of politics, as far as I have heard, or of any particular class of politics. The question, who are the people, we have been called upon to answer in various parts of the House, and by gentlemen of

er.

[May 20th.

different political views. It seems to me, that it is a question easily answered. The Constitution is a political instrument, and is not a treatise upon natural history. It does not treat of man in his relations to the animal creation, but in his relations to the political institutions of government. The great leading idea and doctrine of the old monarchies of Europe was, that the origin of power was divine, and that kings hold their power by divine authority. That was the doctrine held, universally, by all those who supported kingly governments. In the time of the Commonwealth of England, a new idea was promulgated by the republicans of that day, and afterward adopted by the very celebrated philosopher, politician, and author, John Locke, that the people are the source of power, and that they hold the sovereign powThis was the doctrine maintained in that day, as antagonistic to the doctrine of divine right. There can be but one meaning to the word "people." This reference to its origin and to the character of the Constitution, shows the full extent and meaning of the word, and as used in that day, and by those who incorporated the same word into our Constitution, had reference to that portion of the inhabitants of the country who are capable of instituting, maintaining, and altering government. It did not mean the child who was incapable of any act towards instituting, supporting, and maintaining government, but referred to the person, whose mental and physical faculties were more matured, and who was, by that very quality of mind, more competent to take a part in the discharge of government matters. It did not mean the female part of the community, who, by their physical organism, habits, and more gentle traits of character, are totally unsuited to take a part in all the departments of government, in war and in peace, and in carrying out the relations of commerce, and engaging in all the complicated and extensive business of life. This idea of the English republicans was adopted into our Constitution when our government was established. This shows what was their idea of the word "people." It was intended to signify the adult male portion of the people, those who were competent to take part in the management of the affairs of the government. The precise line of distinction in determining who shall constitute the class of legal voters, must be, of course, an arbitrary one. There must be some rule to decide who shall and who shall not be a voter, and the laws of Massachusetts have decided that point. If we consider that the Constitution is a political instrument, and that the term is used in a political sense, as shown by a reference to its origin, I think that there can be no question as to the meaning of the word "people." In former days a great deal of stress has been laid here, upon the idea that taxation without representation was unconstitutional, or unfavorable to the rights of the citizen. I do not see the ground upon which gentlemen have maintained this doctrine. It is a great wrong for a community to be deprived of the right of representation, and compelled to submit to taxation, for the reason that it strikes at the very foundation of their independence. It does not affect any question of the form of government, but of independence. It does not affect the question of republicanism, monarchy, or aristocracy; or of any particular form of government, as I understand it; but strikes at the ind pendence of the State; and therefore it is a humiliat

[ocr errors][merged small]

Friday,]

ADJOURNING OVER. — BUTLER - KINSMAN — HALLETT.

ing condition. But is it so personally? Has this idea of a connection between representation and taxation any personal, any individual application? To my mind, such a connection, a personal and individual connection of the idea of representation and taxation, so far as it has any force, as a force, against the spirit of our government, has a tendency to an aristocratical form of government. Lat me illustrate this by one or two cases. A boy of five years of age, has had the misfortune to have a large sum of money come into his hands by descent, and he is taxed for it. Upon this ground of connection between taxation and representation, he must have a right to be represented; but his playmate, of the same age, whose father is living, or who, if deceased, has left him no property, is not taxed, and therefore has no right to be represented. This will be much better illustrated by referring to the old Constitution of Virginia. I think it was t'iat Constitution-you undoubtedly know, Mr. Chairm in-which provided, that if a man owned land in two or three counties in different parts of the State, he should have a vote in every such county. That is carrying out the principles of personal connection between representation and taxation, and shows well to what the doctrine leads. Here is another instance; and that is in the Constitution of this State as it originally stood. The idea was, that the Senate should not be a popular, but an artistocratic body, and for the purpose of making it something anti-popular, it was based upon property, wealth, and taxation. There is an example of earrying out the idea in that case, and it shows what the character of this influence is when personally applied, and not applied to nations or states. The idea is a totally different one when applied to a state and when applied to individuals; and if I understand it correctly, is of an entirely opposite and different character. In order, however, to make out the argument which gentlemen present in relation to this question of taxation and representation, if it is good for any thing, it goes much further than any one has proposed to go. It does not affect the question at all, whether a particular portion of the people shall be included as the basis of representation, but it affects the question really, whether they shall be represented. Let me ask any one of these gentlemen who has taken this remarkable position in the argument of this question, if he was sitting under the shadow of this building with a foreigner, who had not the right of voting, whether he would attempt to make him believe that the building itself, and not the shadow, covcred him, and that he was the owner of all this magnificent pile, with its high dome, large and spacious rooms, and splendid architectural adornments. That is precisely the parallel to the argument that the foreigner is represented, because he is made a part of the basis of representation. I do not understand that any gentleman here undertakes or wishes to alter the law of the United States in relation to naturalization, or alter, in this Commonwealth, the effect which has been usually given to that law, by not considering foreign citizens as citizens of the Commonwealth. For myself, I am I neither wish entirely satisfied with that law.

to put the foreigner on probation twenty years,which I consider as bad as seventy,-nor do I wish to allow him to vote upon a three months' residence; and I am satisfied with the law as it is.

The question being about to be taken upon the

adoption of the amendment submitted by Mr. Bradford,

Mr. EARLE, of Worcester, asked for a division of the question, so that the sense of the Convention might be first taken upon the proposition to insert the words “legal voters" instead of the word "inhabitants" wherever that word occurs. The question being so taken, that amendment was rejected.

The question being taken on the residue of the amendments, they were not agreed to.

On motion of Mr. BATES, of Plymouth, the Committee of the Whole then rose, and by their chairman, Mr. Morton, of Taunton, reported to

THE CONVENTION

That they had adopted the resolutions without amendment.

The resolutions were ordered to a second reading.

Adjourning Over.

Mr. BUTLER, of Lowell. I move that the Convention reconsider the vote by which they agreed, that when we adjourn this afternoon, it be to meet on Tue-day next. I understand that no division was called for, and it will therefore be in order for me to submit this motion; and I desire to say a word or two upon it. I am informed, Mr. President, that the reason given why this Convention should adjourn over Monday was, that if the legislature have all day on Monday and Tuesday forenoon, they will be able to finish t'eir business. I wish to say, that one branch of the legislature have voted to take ih uestion on the third reading of an important bill on Tuesday, at two o'clock; so that it will be impossible for them to adjourn before that time; and in my judgment they will not be able to adjourn before Wednesday. Then why should we lose our session on Monday? We are sent here by the people of the Commonwealth-whether you call them legal voters, inhabitants, or ratable polls, I care not-to attend to certain important interests; and would our constituents like to have us lose even one day that might be devoted to their business? No, Sir; they want us to stay here and attend to our duties, until they are finished. I hope that we shall go to work in earnest, and that not a day will pass over without being signalized by a vote upon some important proposition. I will say what I have to say upon this subject once for all; and I do hope and trust that this body will not fritter away its time, and prolong its session so as to become a laughing-stock for the community, as another body in some other age and country may have done! [Laughter.] I want to have our business done promptly, and I hope that the motion to reconsider will prevail. Mr. KINSMAN, of Newburyport. As I understood the reason assigned for adjourning over until Tuesday was, that by so doing we should facilitate the business of the legislature, and enable it to adjourn sooner than it otherwise could. If that is the case, it seems to me that we should thus do greater service to the people of the Commonwealth than if we remained in session ourselves; and I should be sorry to have the motion reconsidered.

The question being taken on the motion to reconsider, on a division there were-aycs 139, noes 70; so the motion was agreed to.

The question then recurred on the motion, that

(May 20th.

when the Convention adjourn, it be to meet on Tuesday afternoon at three o'clock; and on motion of Mr. WILSON, of Natick, that motion was laid upon the table.

Mr. BUTLER, of Lowell, then moved that when the Convention adjourns to-day, it be to meet on Monday afternoon, at three o'clock.

Mr. HALLETT. Although I was not present when the first motion was made, that we should adjourn over until Tuesday, yet I understand that that motion was made on the supposition that such a course would facilitate the business of the other body which occupies this hall. By so doing we should simply be extending three hours' courtesy to a co-ordinate branch, if I may so speak; and I really hope that we shall not suddenly and hastily adopt the motion to meet here on Monday afternoon, if it is known that the House of Representatives desire to occupy the hall themselves at that time. It seems to me desirable that we should by all means avoid any thing which would have the appearance of a conflict with the existing legislature and the existing government. I believe we derive our origin from two distinct principles, each equally dear to the people,—one, a power by delegation, for the purpose of forming and creating government; the other, a power by representation, for the purpose of making statute law. I hope there will be no attempt to make any issues between these two bodies. We have sat here thus far, from the beginning of our session, with entire courtesy to each other; and I should be extremely sorry to have any act done by this Convention which would lead to the impression that we were unwilling to accommodate the other body which meets here in the morning. So much upon the principle of courtesy-now, a word as to the necessity of the case. If we have nothing to do but to employ our time in discussion, I admit that we are now progressing as rapidly as possible. But I think, Mr. President, that we have got some work to do-work which occurs but once in a generation, and hardly so often as that; and therefore, in order to do it wisely, we must not do it too rapidly. Your committees have made very little progress in reporting; they have not made that progress which they ought to have made; and if you come here on Monday next, you have got but a single question before you, and that comparatively an unimportant one. The Committee on the Bill of Rights have not yet had a quorum; although certain gentlemen upon that committee have met from time to time, there has not yet been a quorum present, and the very first chapter of your frame of government remains untouched. If the gentleman from Lowell, (Mr. Butler,) desires progress, I think he would accomplish his object better by applying some quickening rules to the committees, so that they will be ready to come here next Tuesday and report upon one or more of the subjects which have been referred to them. More can be effected in this way than by our meeting on Monday, when we shall really have nothing to do. The principal part of our work at present is to be done in the committee

rooms.

This committee, which made the report upon the basis of the Senate, that has just been adopted, now have their greatest work to do; and unquestionably that will be the case with other committees. After the resolutions which they introduce are adopted, they will have to prepare the particular amendments which are desired to

Monday,]

ADJOURNING OVER, &c.—FROTHINGHAM - WILSON - KEYES - MORTON — BUTLER — LORD.

be made to the Constitution. They will have to frame the chapters and sections which they wish to substitute for those that now exist. For the reasons which I have thus briefly stated, I think courtesy and propriety demand that we should adjourn over until Tuesday afternoon.

Mr. FROTHINGHAM, of Charlestown. I voted in favor of the reconsideration, and I did it on account of the statement made by the gentleman from Lowell. If, however, it is true that the House of Representatives desires to hold its sessions in the afternoon, so as to facilitate its business, I am willing to change my vote. But allow me to say, in reply to the remarks of the gentleman from Wilbraham, who has just taken his seat, that in my view there is business enough before the Convention to engage its attention should we meet here on Monday afternoon. We have already subjects enough in the Orders of the Day to occupy us, if I am not greatly mistaken; and therefore, unless an adjournment over until Tuesday will have the effect to promote the adjournment of the legislature, or unless we can have some intimation that such is the desire or expectation of the House, I shall adhere to the vote which I gave.

Mr. WILSON, of Natick, said he thought the delegate from Wilbraham, was altogether mistaken. If he would look at the Orders of the Day, he would find there are five orders not yet reached, and the questions embraced in them could not be settled in one week, by this Convention. The first item on the orders, the Report and Resolves on the subject of Elections, would take three days at least. The Convention was now crowded with business. He believed that the more hours the Convention sat the more hours would the Committees work. The Committees would only work when pressed up by the bodies to which they belong. Even if the House could be ready to adjourn by Monday, the Senate were behind the House, and could not adjourn on that day. One of the most important measures before the Senate was made the order of the day for Tuesday next. Mr. KEYES, of Abington, said he would be in favor of adjourning for the purpose of accommodating the legislature, even until Wednesday next, or Thursday. The legislature, as an act of courtesy, had given the Convention the use of this hall in order to organize; and now if it was necessary that the legislature should occupy the hall, he thought the Convention should secure another place of meeting. But if it was so important to save one day's sitting, why not sit to-morrow? Much had been said about precedent, and the importance of following it. He recollected an instance of a former Convention sitting until eight o'clock on Saturday night. If the precedent set by our fathers, were so sacred, why not adopt that one for once, if it were necessary to save one afternoon? They were overlooking, in his opinion, the economical notions of those who had the most to do in the calling of the Convention, and extravagance had run through the legislature and the Convention both. He did not wish to control the Convention. He wished it to pursue its own course. It was said, that the more hours the Convention sat, the more hours the Committees would labor. If so, let the Convention sit every day till midnight, and see if the important Committee, to which allusion had been made, and which had not yet been together, could not be got together in that way.

Mr. MORTON, of Taunton, suggested that when the motion was made, to adjourn to three o'clock, on Tuesday next, it was stated by the mover that the business of the legislature was in such a state that they could accomplish it during the residue of this week, and on Monday and Tuesday forenoon. He did not himself think such would be the case; but inasmuch as the mover of the motion, and several other gentlemen, had left the city on the supposition that the Convention would not meet again till Tuesday afternoon, he would be in favor of adhering to the vote, as a matter of courtesy to those gentlemen, and especially to the mover; although he would have preferred that the motion should have been originally, to adjourn to Monday.

Mr. BUTLER, of Lowell, said he did not understand what the gentleman from Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett,) meant by the assertion that the Convention has nothing to do. Would he not call the alteration of the whole system of clections in this Commonwealth, something to do? The questions relating to elections, and to the duties of the Chief Magistrate, and relating to the qualifications of voters, would take some little time, unless those who have heretofore interfered with the rights of voters step out of the way. As to the courtesy due to the House, he could only say, that he had heard no motion made in that body, of which he was a member, to work with a view to adjourn on Tuesday. He had no wish to bring about any collision between the House and the Convention, nor did he suppose any collision need be apprehended. If gentlemen had gone home on the supposition that the Convention would not meet till Tuesday, there were the railroads and the telegraph, which could be used to bring them back again. He would say, with very great respect, however, that those gentlemen who had gone, if they chose to leave while so much business was before the body, could probably very well be spared. He hoped the Convention would not adjourn over until Tuesday. The gentleman from Abington, (Mr. Keyes,) had asked why they did not regard a certain precedent and sit on Saturday till eight o'clock. If British cannon were thundering in our ears, said Mr. Butler, we might, in the spirit of our fathers, sit here not only till eight o'clock, but till midnight, or even on the Sabbath, for revolutions know no Sabbath days. This, however, is but a peaceful revolution, and there is no necessity for indecent haste, in the action of the Convention. He hoped the Convention would show the people that they are determined to do their business right on, and continue in session. That was the only way in which the business could be forwarded.

Mr. LORD, of Salem, desired that the Convention should adjourn till Monday, and gave certain reasons for his preference for that course. He thought that the House might be ready to adjourn by Monday noon, if it were to have two sessions to-morrow. There was nothing in the fact that the legislature had consumed a long time in their session, which should make that body a laughing stock, as it had been said they were. There were other things beside the mere consumption of time which might expose a person, or a body of men, to censure. It might be well for the legislature, and for the Convention, if no other charge could be made, than that they had sat a long time.

Mr. GRISWOLD, for Erving, said he thought

[May 23d.

He thought

the question was a very simple one. the reason given for adhering to the vote to adjourn till Tuesday, because certain gentlemen had left the city, was not a sufficient one. They should have remained here. The Senate could not possibly be ready to adjourn on Tuesday, even if the House could do so. He thought that if the legislature were prepared to adjourn by Saturday of next week, it would be well. He hoped, as the business of the Convention was now happily progressing, the body would not adjourn for a longer time than till Monday.

The question was then taken on the motion, that the Convention, when it adjourn to-day, adjourn to meet on Monday next, at three o'clock, P. M.; and it was decided in the affirmative. On motion by Mr. NOYES, of Newbury, The Convention then adjourned.

MONDAY, May 23, 1853.

The Convention assembled, pursuant to adjournment, at 3 o'clock.

Prayer by the Chaplain.

The journal of Friday's proceedings was read and approved.

Petition.

Mr. KEYES, of Abington, presented the following petition, signed by Wendell Phillips and 930 others:

To the Convention assembled to Revise the Constitution of the Commonwealth. The undersigned, citizens of Massachusetts, respectfully ask that you will report an amendment to the Constitution, striking out the word "male," wherever it occurs in that instrument.

On motion by Mr. HUBBARD, of Boston, the petition was laid upon the table.

Board of Education. On motion by Mr. CUSHMAN, of Bernardston, it was

Ordered, That the Committee on the " Encouragement of Literature,” be requested to consider the expediency of so amending the Constitution, as to provide that the Board of Education and the Board of Agriculture shall be established as permanent Departments of the Government.

The Governor.

On motion by Mr. HOBART, of East Bridgewater, it was

Ordered, That the Committee on so much of the Constitution as relates to the Governor, consider the expediency of amending the same, by striking out such parts thereof as provide that the Governor shall have the title of "His Excellency," the Lieutenant-Governor the title of "His Honor," and that the Councillors, in the civil arrangements of the Commonwealth, shall have rank next after the Lieutenant-Governor.

Privilege of Voting.

Mr. GREENE, of Brookfield, presented the petition of Mrs. Abby B. Alcott and seventy-three others, praying for the right to vote on the amendments and alterations to the Constitution; and moved that it be printed.

Mr. HALE, of Bridgewater, said he thought the Convention could better decide as to the propriety of printing such a document, after having

Monday,]

PETITIONS, ORDERS, &c.— BATES — HALE — THOMPSON - KEYES — HUBBARD,

heard it read; he desired, therefore, that it should be read.

The petition was accordingly read by the Seeretary as follows:—

To the Constitutional Convention, now in Sossim. We, the undersigned, women of Massae usetts, believing ourselves to be PEOPLE, fed that we hold a nearer and more intimate relation to your Fonora le body tan we ever have done to any ordinary legislature.

The peo, le's Act, of 1852, delegated power to their Convention, to submit alterations and amendments of te Constitution to te people, in such a mar as tey, te said Constitutional Convention, mig't see fit to direet. We note, in t at Act, firt, tat te alterations and amendmeats are to be submitted to t' e people, of wie a we el im to be a conent part; and, secondly, t at your oaorable body have full control over te maner in whie i te popular will is to be certained.

The legal voters who voted on the question whether the Convention should be held, and those wo elected its members, simply indicated-if we are rig tly informed-t e will of that Sovereign People of wom t ey themselves were mere agents. We humbly conceive, terefore, t at your honorable body now stands as delegated, not by the legal voters, but by the Sovereign People tem elves. The legal voters have done their work, and have cea ed from it, having performed their office; two bo lies stand, there ore, in each others pre eace at t is time, without any intervening element-te Honorable Convention and the Sovereign People.

We, therefore, women of Massachusetts, as aforesaid, do respectfully requestt e Constitutional Convention now in session, to ordain that, wienever the said amendments and alterations are submitted to the people for their ratification and adoption, all women, residents of the Commonweilth, who have attained the full age of twentyone years, shall be entitled to vote on the same, and that their votes shall be counted as of equal value and potency with those of men. And we submit this request, in order that, in case our power to govern ourselves shall be deemed to be transferred out of our own hands, where it naturally belongs, it may be so transferred by our own consent, and in order, also, that the Government of the Commonwealt' may really be constituted by the consent of the governed.

The motion to print was not adopted.

Per Diem.

Mr. BATES, of Plymouth, offered the following order :

Ordered, That the Committee on the Pay Roll be instructed to consider the expediency of providing for the pay of the members of this Convention at the rate of three dollars per diem, for the term of sixty days, and that no pay shall be allowed beyond that period of time.

The order was adopted.

The President laid before the Convention the following communication, which was read by the Secretary:

BOSTON, May 23, 1853. Hon. N. P. BANKS, President, &c., &c. :—

Sir, I ask leave, through you, to resign the seat in the Convention for the revision of the Constitution with which my constituents have honored me. The state of my health, which has prevented my attendance thus far, which renders it improbable that I should be able to fulfil the duties of a member in a suitable manner, is my reason for asking a discharge.

Respectfully, your obedient servant,
SAML. A. ELIOT.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

[May 234.

vided into cz' teqal Representative Districts, by a subdivision of each of the Senatorial Districts; and cach R, resentative District shall elect three representatives,

The resolution having been read,

Mr. HALE moved that it be referred to the Committee on the House of Representatives. The motion was ado; ted.

Petition referred.

Mr. THOMPSON, of (! arlestown, moved that t'e petition of Wendell Pillips and others, be taken up from the ta' le, with a view of its being referred to the appropriate Committee, and printed. Mr. Thompson remarked that he made t'as motion in order that t is petition, which seemed to have been hit erto disregarded by the Convention, might be treated wit i t. e same courtesy that was usually extended to all other petitions. It was signed, he believed, by upwards of nine hundred

persons.

Mr. KEYES, of Abington, said it would almost seem, from the motion now made, and from the fact that the petition had not been referred, that he had failed to do his duty in regard to it. But the truth was, that he had taken it for granted that a Report upon the same subject had already been agreed upon by the proper Committee, and he had been daily expecting such Report to be laid before the Convention. It was under this expectation that he had permitted the petition to remain upon the table; and not from any improp er neglect on his part.

Mr. HUBBARD, of Boston, said he had not yet had the pleasure of seeing the Report of the Committee of which he was a member, and to whom had been referred so much of the Constitution as relates to the qualification of electors, though his impression was, that he had heard the Report read by the chairman, who stated that the Committee had had the subject under consideration, and had agreed to report certain Resolves, and that they had come to the conclusion that it was inexpedient to recommend any such amendment as the one prayed for by this petition; and, without intending any discourtesy to the signers of this petition, but in accordance with the usual practice in legislative bodies, when the subject of a petition had been disposed of, it had been laid upon the table. If he was wrong in his impression in regard to this matter, the chairman of the Committee could set him right; the printed Report had not yet come into his hand.

Mr. WALKER, of Brookfield, said the Committee had made a Report, and in that Report they had not recommended that the word "male" be stricken from the Constitution. There was business still before the Committee, and they would probably have another meeting to-morrow or the next day. His impression was that it would be best, on the whole, that these various petitions should be referred to the Committee. The petition was accordingly referred to the Committee on the Qualifications of Voters.

Orders of the Day.

Mr. NAYSON, of Amesbury, moved that the Convention proceed to the consideration of the Orders of the Day, being the resolutions reported from the Committee on the Senate.

The motion was agreed to, and the said resolutions were taken up for consideration. The question being on their final passage,

« ForrigeFortsett »