Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Tuesday,]

what other States have done, and adopt what they have done as our rule of conduct? I ask whether we are to determine for ourselves in relation to the correctness of the course we intend to pursue, or to look to other States for an example? I think we ought to determine for ourselves; and hence the argument that other States have voted thus or so, has no weight whatever with me. Fifteen States have sanctioned slavery, but is that any reason why Massachusetts should sanction it? Or if twenty or thirty of the States had sanctioned it, would that be an argument why Massachusetts should do it? None at all. In the second place, it is said that it will be more convenient, that there will be fewer ballotings, if the plurality system be adopted. Why, Sir, as to that, there would be fewer ballotings if we were to provide that officers-once elected shall hold on during life; and if we went farther, and provided that they might appoint their successors by will, we should never be troubled with any more ballotings, and that would be better still. That is the result to which the argument of convenience leads. But, Sir, I believe the great question is not what is most convenient, but what is most proper and just.

But, again, it has been said, or may be saidfor I shall endeavor to anticipate the argument likely to be advanced on the other side-that the plurality system is the most economical. I very much doubt that. I presume it will be the policy of gentlemen on the other side to show that this system will be a great saving to the State, because it will save time and expense in balloting. I think if we try it, experience will show that such is very far from the truth. In my opinion, that system of government is most economical which makes the people most watchful and vigilant in the selection of their public officers; which brings them the most frequently to the ballot-box to exercise the sacred right of suffrage. I deny the force of that argument in favor of plurality altogether.

As to our town meetings in the country, they are not so great a nuisance as some gentlemen seem to imagine. They are our great exchange days. We have no 'change houses, no 'change hours; but at these country town meetings we get together and make trades, the constables collect their taxes, the farmers swap oxen, and the people exchange sentiments upon the various subjects connected with their business. I believe, as a matter of economy, it would be well if the people were compelled to have town meetings once a month. It would have a happy, socializing

effect.

Again, Sir, it will be said that these frequent elections tend to increase the asperity of party spirit. I deny that too. I am quite sure that we have advanced so far in civilization, that in this Commonwealth we are able to come together, and that without getting angry and abusing each other, either with our tongues or our hands; that we can meet as peaceable and good citizens. We do so meet, and I have always remarked one thing in particular, namely, that we have never had a protracted contest-and we have sometimes had a contest of eight or ten different trials-unless there was a sufficient reason for it. If there was not a sufficient reason for meeting so often, the people would not go as they do, to the polls, time after time. Should we be afraid to trust the people to meet at the polls? No, Sir, we will trust the

ELECTIONS BY PLURALITY. — WALKER.

people to go the polls as often as they please; they have a right to try to make an election by a majority, and not be compelled to do it by a plurality.

But it has been said, and it is one of the strongest points made on the other side of the question, that practically, after all, a plurality will some

times govern. It can never happen, however, that a plurality will govern under a true majority system, because when we speak of the majority, we do not mean a majority of all who have a right to vote, but of all who do vote. Candidates are seldom elected by a majority of those whose names are on the voting list. It is said that it sometimes happens under the majority principle, that in case of repeated trials, the candidate who is finally elected receives less votes than he did on the first ballot; that the people get tired of going to the polls, and the election is made at last by a less number than the plurality at the first trial; therefore we had better take the plurality system to begin with. No, Sir, let the grand principle of the majority system be preserved inviolate, and if the people do not see fit, in a given case, to avail themselves of it, that is their own concern. You take nothing from them. The difference between waiving our rights, and being debarred from them, is a very important one. By establishing the plurality system you debar the people from the right of deciding by a majority, which is a very different matter from their waiving the right voluntarily at the polls; because in the latter case they can at any time come out and avail themselves of that right, if they please.

I have heard it said, and it may be said here, that the people have got tired of having so many attempts to effect an election. I beg leave to say that I do not think that is the case. It is the politicians who have got tired of the majorities. That is my conclusion in regard to the matter. But if it has come to this, that the people have got tired of voting, they would do well to call over Louis Napoleon, who will let them vote as often as he pleases and no oftener. We deserve to be deprived of the privilege of voting altogether, if we are tired of voting on the principle that a majority shall rule. But I deny that it is so. The people are not tired of voting in this manner, and I have yet to learn that they are dissatisfied with our present majority system. Circumstances which have transpired in this State have done very much toward creating whatever sentiment there is in favor of the plurality system. A minority has governed here several times, and does govern at this moment in this Commonwealth. That is the very thing that many of us object to, that the minority is governing in Massachusetts when the majority ought to govern. But it is said that this state of things has happened under a majority system. I deny it. It has happened under a system which is virtually a plurality system, and only nominally a majority system. Owing to the peculiar manner in which we are represented in the House of Representatives, it has happened that we have been governed by a plurality (a minority of the whole) several times, and it is that fact which has brought this Convention together. The people feel that the majority ought to govern, and when they have seen that under the present system of representation a mere plurality could govern, they became dissatisfied, and ordered this Convention; and they expect us so to alter the Constitution in regard to representa

[May 24th.

tion, that this result may not happen again. It is unfortunately true, Sir, that the operation of the plurality system has not been fully analyzed and weighed by the people of this Commonwealth, and is therefore not well understood. Its ultimate results are not generally comprehended, and consequently many now look with complacency on the system, who would repudiate it, if they fully perceived its ultimate effects. There are not a few now who, seeing the great faults of our present Constitution, under which a minority can, and often does rule, are ready to say, "Let us have a plurality system at once." Such persons

do not consider that all the evils they now see and complain of will be removed when a new Constitution shall restore a just representation; for, by such a representation, the rule of a minority will be forever prevented. The present difficulty will undoubtedly be obviated by the action of this Convention, and then no one will feel any occasion for the adoption of the plurality system in popular elections, since the majority will rule, in fact, as well as in theory.

Again, I do not know as it will be said, but I am sure it will be felt or thought by some, that by the proposed change we shall get rid of third parties. Well, Mr. Chairman, and what shall we get instead of third parties? Why, we shall get, instead of third parties, founded on principle, factions struggling for power. Is it not so? Does not the history of those States where the plurality governs, afford abundant evidence of this? Have they not more parties than in those States where the majority principle is maintained? We will not call names here, Sir, but I think we may find a State not far from Massachusetts where the whole vocabulary has been ransacked to find epithets with which to designate the different temporary factions that have arisen from time to time in rapid succession, after overturning the government and obtaining for the time being the power to rule. In that State, and in all States where this principle obtains, politics becomes a raffle, the contest of parties and factions a scrub race, in which the one who gets the first start is likely to come out best. In my humble opinion, Sir, Massachusetts stands in a much higher position in the eyes of the world, than those States, where the majority of the people's vote is not necessary to an election of rulers. She has more self-respect and is more respected.

But it may be said, and it has been said, that we have already admitted the principle in our Congressional elections. It is true we have, and we have seen its effects; and I am willing to submit those effects to the consideration of the Convention, for its decision, whether they intend to recommend the adoption of the plurality system.

Having noticed, as I suppose, most of the arguments which will be urged in favor of the plurality system, its convenience, its economy, &c., I now propose to give a few reasons why I am strongly in favor of the majority system. In the first place I prefer it, because it is already established in the Constitution of Massachusetts. I have no great veneration for the "rust" of which gentlemen have spoken; I do not understand that most things are made better by oxydation, but at the same time, I lay down the rule, that no change ought to be made in the Constitution, not demanded by the people. I have made up my mind that a few great and important alterations aro required, and these I am very anxious to make;

[ocr errors]

Tuesday,]

ELECTIONS BY PLURALITY. — WALKER-SCHOULER.

and that these may not be endangered, I am not willing to make any other changes, especially those I deem for the worse.

My second reason for wishing to retain the majority rule, is that it is a sound democratic doctrine. It gives every man his full power, so that a man may be a man under any circumstances whatever; so that at the ballot-box he may not be less than a full man, and his vote have its full effect, either for a candidate or against him. How is it under the other system? A man may be of some consequence by his vote, or he may not. It will depend upon circumstances. If he belongs to a third party, which is in the minority, then he comes up to the polls with the certainty that his vote has no weight whatever; that it can have no effect on the final result. He may vote according to his convictions of right, in order to bear his testimony against wrong, but so far as any political effect is concerned, he might just as well not vote at all. He finds himself a political cipher, unless he will resign his honest convictions, and join one of the two great struggling parties. All that is left to him under the plurality system is the miserable alternative of "choosing between two evils." Ought any man voluntarily to place himself in a position where he must choose one of two evils, or be politically annihilated? Ought we to present a Constitution to the people, which destroys individual independence and power, and makes the people the tools of caucuses and conventions, bodies not known or acknowledged in our state or national Constitutions?

Why, Sir, gentlemen seem to lose sight of the true operation of the plurality system. Looking at some immediate conveniences, which it may afford in particular cases, they seem blind to the great fact that it impairs the true democratic principle, and destroys all that is moral in political action. And it does more, it virtually limits the right of suffrage, since it compels every man to vote with some party that has a prospect of success, or else neutralizes his political influence. The majority principle on the other hand, gives a man his full power; under it his vote always tells, and he feels he has a voice in the government of the State.

Allow me, Sir, still further to show the nature of the plurality expedient, for it cannot be called a principle. A simple illustration often determines or exhibits the operation of a great principle better than a labored argument. I will suppose that nine persons form a copartnership for the purpose of making a trading voyage to California. They own the vessel, man and navigate it themselves. Before sailing they agree that a plurality shall govern in case there is any difference of opinion about the course of the voyage. After they have been sailing a while, becoming rather discouraged, perhaps, they begin to debate whether they shall not change their direction. A part of the company think that they will do well to engage in the African slave trade. Another part think that they had better engage in smuggling, while a third part are disposed to proceed on their voyage to California, according to the original agreement, pursuing an honorable and lawful traffic. There is no way of deciding but by a vote, and when this is taken, it is found that four persons declare themselves in favor of engaging in the African slave trade, three for smuggling, and two for proceeding to California. What is the result? Why, that they must

all go to the coast of Africa, for a cargo of slaves, because the plurality have so decided! What choice had the two men who desired to proceed to their original destination? The glorious choice between two evils, to choose the least! Now is not that an excellent position in which to place the voters of Massachusetts? Yet such is the effect of the plurality system, undoubtedly. For one, I do not believe that any body of men ought ever to place themselves in such a position. After what has been said, I think it will appear very clear that the majority principle is a good conservative principle in any popular government, and that a departure from it is a departure from a just and correct principle, and as a consequence, that mischief must follow. I believe if we were to examine the history of other States, we should find that political demoralization has always followed the adoption of the plurality system. It must follow as a matter of course, if I understand the matter, for it destroys the moral clement of politics. That is my firm conviction, and the reasons I have adduced in the support of my position, are to my mind entirely sufficient. I know very well that many persons came to this Convention under the impression that it was inevitably fixed, that the plurality system must be adopted, and, therefore, had made up their minds to be resigned to it. Within my own knowledge, many who came to this Convention expecting to vote for the plurality system, have made up their minds to vote against it, under the conviction that it is impolitic and wrong.

For myself, I have no party feeling on the subject, and believe that any man who votes upon this question under the influence of party consideration is very unwise, to say the least. Who can tell which party is going to be benefited or injured by its operations for the next two years? and who can judge what party will stand the best chance of success? I beg leave to say that parties are in a transition state, and it is quite impossible for any but the Omniscient to foresee how they are to stand. We cannot tell even what parties will rise to plague us next fall. No man can do more than conjecture. I think no one should be ready to make an important change in the Constitution upon a mere conjecture. Besides, Sir, it is utterly wrong for us to be swayed by any party considerations whatever. We ought to examine and see whether the majority principle is right, whether the great interests of Massachusetts are to be maintained by preserving it, and if so, then we should sustain it under all circumstances and at all hazards.

Mr. SCHOULER, of Boston. I desire to say a few words in reply to the gentleman from North Brookfield, (Mr. Walker,) who has discussed this question before. I recollect a remarkable speech which he once made when this same subject was under discussion in the House of Representatives. He began by making a speech in favor of the plurality system.

Mr. WALKER. I appeal to the Chair, because in the first place he is not telling the truth, and in the second place he has no right to refer to my action in another body.

Mr. SCHOULER. I think the gentleman will not forget the fact, that before he got through with the speech, he came out against the plurality system.

Mr. WALKER. I wish to call the gentleman to order for stating that, which I say, is not true.

[May 24th.

Mr. SCHOULER. I have a very distinct recollection of what the gentleman said, and gentlemen who were in the House of Representatives at the same time, will recollect the facts. However, as the gentleman disclaims it, of course I do not desire to say anything that will give him any offence. The gentleman concluded his speech today, by stating, that a great many men had come to this Convention who were in favor of the plurality system, but had seen sufficient reason to change their minds. I do not know what influences have been brought to bear upon members to change their minds upon this question in so short a time, for t'e gentleman from Brookfield, (Mr. Walker,) tells us that he considers it one of the most important questions which would come before the Convention. I have in my possession a document which I find in the proceedings of the Senate for 1852, and as the gentleman has voted for and advocated the proposition that the people, by their vote in favor of calling this Convention, adopted the whole of the law under which it was called, I ask him whether they do not also adopt the Report of the Committee who reported the bill for calling this Convention. The bill was accompanied by a very elaborate report and argument in favor of the Convention, and I have no doubt the circulation of that document among the people had a great effect in inducing them to vote for calling the Convention. I find in this report the following. I read from the 7th section of Senate Document.

Mr. WALKER. Of what year?
Mr. SCHOULER.

From the Senate Document of 1852, and it is signed by some very respectable members of this Convention, who were members of the Senate at that time. The following are the names of those who signed this document: Whiting Griswold, Anson Burlingame, Moses Wood, Isaac Davis, R. C. Brown, Martin Briant, John B. Nichols, Samuel C. Pomeroy, William W. Bacon, William Cleverly, John W. Simonds. I find in the report, which is very elaborate, that the seventh reason which they give for calling this Convention, reads as follows:

"The present cumbersome, formal mode of organizing the government, we submit, should be abolished. Eight or ten days are now usually occupied in this organization, which is nothing less than an annnal waste of six or eight thousand dollars of the people's money. The election of Secretary of the Commonwealth, Treasurer and Receiver-General, Auditor of Accounts and Executive Councillors, by the people, with an application of the plurality principle to these officers, as well as to the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, and State Senators, would do much to remedy this evil. These changes, with a few other slight modifications of the Constitution in the same direction, especially the establishment of a Board of men to count the votes, declare the result, and notify the persons elected, would enable the legislature to organize the government, and be ready to proceed with the business of the session in two, or at the longest, in three days. This change alone, would, in the course of ten years, nearly or quite defray the whole expense of the Convention."

I say that the people had read that argument in favor of the plurality system, when they voted to call the Convention, and there is nothing in that report which is more true than the section which I have just read. We voted yesterday to divide the State into forty Senatorial Districts. Suppose that we keep in operation the majority system,

[ocr errors]

Tuesday,]

why, it may happen that we should not have a single senator elected. This event is not improbable, but very possible, and then what would follow. But the gentleman from Brookfield has gone on to theorize against the principle of plurality, and he supposes a case, that in a town of twenty-one voters nineteen of them should be candidates, and the person getting two votes should be elected. What a beautiful republican principle this would be, to have a man elected who only received two votes. Now, I wish to apply the argument to the majority principle. Suppose there was a town of twenty-one inhabitants, and nineteen of them were candidates, and no man should have more than two votes; and suppose that that principle should be applied in all the towns of the Commonwealth, because the gentleman has put it forth as a general principle, and we are to discuss general principles here. I desire to know, under the operation of the majority principle, where your government is, and where your House of Representatives and Senate are? And, I ask, whether it is not better to have these men elected by two votes, when the people by their votes have adopted this principle, than to have no government at all. The gentleman says that my proposition is extravagant, but I can turn around and say that his is equally so; for there is no town in the Commonwealth of twenty-one voters that would have nineteen candidates, and elect a man by two votes.

Now, Sir, I am not so much given to theorizing as the gentleman from North Brookfield is. I know, Sir, that he looks at things very metaphysically, and sometimes argues very abstractly; but I am going to take things as they are, and I am going to show, if it is in my power, that the plurality system is the best system which we can adopt. As the gentleman from Fall River has shown, this system represents the majority of the people more nearly, and has for the last ten years, than the majority system. Let us look, for ininstance, at the Senate as now based. There are gentlemen in the Senate, and have been for the last ten years, who do not even represent a plurality of the county that voted for them. There are and have been men there, and there always will be so long as we keep up this majority system, who did not receive even a plurality of the votes of that county which they are elected to the legislature to represent. I want to know whether this is right, and I should like to hear the gentleman from North Brookfield explain it. We will take, for an example, the county of Middlesex, as it is now represented in the Senate; and I beg gentlemen to understand that I mean nothing personal in this illustration. There are gentlemen in the Senate from the county of Middlesex, who did not receive a plurality of votes; and how did they get into the Senate? They have got there by the operation of what the gentleman calls the beautiful system of the majority. I have assisted for several years in electing senators from the counties of Worcester, Bristol, and almost every other county in the State except Barnstable county, and she has always elected her own; and Sir, I have sometimes had some doubts or scruples whether I had a right to vote for senators from all these counties. The operation of the thing has been that instead of being elected by a majority of the people of the counties where they reside, they are elected by mere party votes, irrespective of their having had more or less, at home,-they are

[blocks in formation]

elected because they are on the party ticket, and they come into the legislature and are made senators. Now, I ask whether it would not be better to allow the people of the counties to clect their own senators under the plurality system, than it is to throw the question into the House of Representatives, and let us elect them. That is the question now before the Committee, and I ask gentlemen to give it their careful consideration.

The principle is just the same with regard to the governor. Year before last, and last year, we had a governor who did not receive a plurality of the votes of the people of the Commonwealth. The gentleman who had a plurality was not made governor, while the gentleman who had twenty thousand less votes was made governor; and how was this effected? It was done by a party vote in this hall. I do not say that this was not constitutionally right, for in all probability I should have done the same thing if I had been in similar circumstances; but I want to have the Constitution so amended that this matter shall be taken out of the hands of the legislature, and let the people decide at the polls who shall be governor, and who shall be senators, instead of placing the burden on the members of the legislature from the county of Suffolk to say who shall be senators from the county of Berkshire, as is sometimes the case now. Sir, I think that from the present state of things in this respect arises a great evil, and one which we have met here for the purpose of remedying. It is my opinion that the people would be very much disappointed if we were to submit a new constitution to them without embodying in it the plurality principle; and I agree with the report of the committee last year in regard to the subject of expense. There is no legislature in the whole country that is so long delayed in the early part of its session, about going to work, as the legislature of Massachusetts; and this delay all arises from the cumbrous machinery in the Constitution, with regard to the organization of the government. In the first place, Mr. President, after we come here we have to appoint a committee to count the votes, and it takes them a good while to do that. Then in the other branch they have got to see who are senators, and it takes them a good while to do that. After having found out how many vacancies there are in the Senate, they are reported to the House, and there is a day appointed when those members of the Senate who are elected shall come here and the vacancies in the Senate shall be filled. All this time, Sir, we have no governor elected, and after being in session something like eight or ten days upon an average-I think it was ten days this year-we finally find out who the governor is; and then we know also, in a great many cases; that the man who is governor has not received so large a number of the votes of the people as another man has who is not chosen. Now, Sir, such being the effect of the old system, and seeing the evil of frequent elections in our congressional districts, this legislature have applied a remedy so far as they had the constitutional power to apply it-they have applied it to the election of members of Congress; and I put the question to every gentleman here, whether the operation of that law has not been satisfactory and salutary to the people of the Commonwealth, and whether it be not better that our congressional delegation should be full all the time, than that three-tenths of it, and sometimes four-tenths of it should be kept

[May 24th.

out of congress for a whole session. The people saw that there was an evil, and they applied a remedy; and now we have our congressional delegation full. I believe, Sir, that there is no law which the legislature have passed for many years that is so satifactory to the people as the law with regard to the election of members of Congress by a plurality vote. If the principle is a good one for the election of members of Congress, it is equally good for the election of members of the House of Representatives or of governor; but they could not apply it in these cases because there was a constitutional difficulty in the way. We now have the question before us just as the legislature had it before them. That measure was passed by the popular branch of the legislature for six successive years, I believe, and it was not until the seventh that it was adopted by the other branch-showing that the popular will was in favor of it, and after a time the other branch had to yield to the popular will.

The gentleman from North Brookfield attempted to illustrate his theory by a supposed case of a vessel sa ling from Boston to California; and he said that they agreed in the outset that a plurality should decide disputed questions among them. But, Sir, how did they agree? Did they agree by a plurality or did they agree by a majority? I take it that a majority of them made this agreement, just the same as a majority of the people of this Commonwealth have agreed that a plurality of the Senate shall elect a governor when there is no choice by the people-no matter whether he has the highest or the lowest number of votes. And, Sir, if we adopt the plurality principle in our constitution and send it to the people, and a majority of the people agree to it, it will not then be a law of the minority or a law of the plurality, but it will be the will of the majority. It will be a part of the fundamental law, agreed to by the people just as they agreed to exclude minors, women and idiots from a participation in the elective franchise. If the question be proposed to them whether they will agree that the plurality shall decide these elections, and the majority agree to that, the decision of the plurality is the will of the majority. This is merely devising an expedient to relieve ourselves of a difficulty which has long perplexed us. Now, Sir, to return to the illustration of the gentleman, suppose that after the vessel of which he speaks had got outside, the crew or passengers had begun to quarrel, and they agree that the majority shall decide where they shall go; but after they get to sea there is a small party who want to have their way, and another small party who want to have their way, and a third party who want to have their way-making three nearly equal divisions. It is very evident that on the majority system neither party could do what they wished, and between them all they could not go anywhere, and the ship would in all probability be cast away. Or suppose that a majority agreed to go to the coast of Africa and catch slaves, and the minority disagreed to it. Would not the moral guilt rest upon the majority just as much as upon the plurality in the case to which the gentleman has referred? It is merely adding one on one side and taking one off of another side. It is nothing after all but the morality of numbers, instead of the morality of morals. Now, Mr. President, I go for the morality of morals.

Among other things, the gentleman said, if I

Tuesday,]

ELECTIONS BY PLURALITY. — BALL — FRENCH — DAVIS — CHURCHILL — KEVES,

understood him, that he was in favor of having frequent elections—he thought they added to the morals of the people and did a great deal of good, inasmuch as they brought the farmers together, so that they could swap horses.

Mr. WALKER, (in his seat.) I said, oxen. [Laughter.}

Mr. SCHOULER. Well, Sir, it does not make much diference whether it be horses or oxen. Now if this is a correct view of the subjeet, we might hold our elections once a month, and instead of having a market day, we could have an election day. Instead of having an annual fair in the fall for the exhibition of cattle, we might have all this on election days, and ¡erhaps this would accom'u »date our farming friends very well. He thought, as I understood him, that it would be an advantage to have elections once a month. Now, Sir, I do not think so-I think it woull be a great disadvantage. I think if we have yearly elections, that is sufficiently often for the people to come together to vote, and they ought then to decide the question without bringing it into the halls of the capitol.

It is for the people to decide whom they shall have for governors, who shall be their senators and representatives; and those questions should be kept outside of this hall.

The gentlem in speaks about the immoralities of other States where the plurality system prevails. He might also speak of the immoralities of his own State under the majority system. I have seen some things in this capitol, to which I doubt whether he can find a parallel in any State where the plurality system is adopted. But I do not wish to bring into this Convention any of those matters in reference to other States. I believe that all these difficulties have arisen from the fact that the election of all the great officers of our government-the governor, treasurer, and others -is virtually taken out of the hands of the people and thrown into the hands of the small body of men who annually assemble here. I wish in our new Constitution to provide that all these great matters shall be settled by the people, and outside of the walls of this capitol, and I believe that object can only be accomplished by adopting, in all elections, the plurality system.

Mr. BALL, of Upton. I am not disposed to intrude my opinions upon the Convention, but I have one or two thoughts in reference to this matter, which I desire to express. As far as I have listened to the discussion, I have heard no attempt made to prove that the system of majority elections is not democratic, and that it is not the true system. Nor have I heard any attempt to prove that the plurality system was more nearly in accordance with the true principles of democracy. Here, then, is the proper starting pointto ascertain which is the true principle. We believe that elections by a majority of the voters, as now established, is that true principle, and it has not been denied. Now, gentlemen propose to make a change, on some certain suppositions in regard to the action of the plurality principle. And what is it? It is that the officers who shall be elected under the plurality system, will, on the whole, have as many votes as they now have Then what is under the majority principle. gained? There is nothing gained; and if so, is it well to alter the Constitution without gaining something? What is to be gained? We are told that we shall thereby rid ourselves

[ocr errors]

[May 24th.

legislature, and so we do not get ahead at all.

I sincerely hope that the good sense of this · Convention will be sati fiod that our fathers acted wisely when they adopted the principle that the majority should rule.

of this cumbersome government, and that if we' thing which has been done by the previous
continue to adhere to the plan of requiring a
majority to elect, by and by we may find
ourselves in that situation in which the ship of
state will be foundered for want of a goverament
to rule. Is there even a distant probability of
such an occurrence? You may make extravagant
suppositions against the workings of any system,
and if you ar„ue against its sality or expediency
upon those suppositions, you may argue down
any principles, cither in morals or in polities.
Has the practical working of the present system
ever resulted in that? Has there ever been a | I do not rise for the purpose of expressing my
time when we have been left without a govern-
ment? So far from it, there has never been a
time when any trouble in regard to the govern-
ment has arisen from tl at source.
To be sure, it

has sometimes been necessary to hold a number of el ctions, but that matter rests with the people themselves, and I have never known of an instance in the rural districts where the people have found fault because t ey were obliged to go to the poils from time to time in order to give expression to their will.

I am opposed to the proposition before the Convention, and I hope and trust that gentlemen are willing, as they professed themselves to be yesterday, to advance rat: er than go backward. And if we do not advance by adopting this change, why alter the Constitution? Shall we be advancing by ado; ting this course? Gentlemen have talked here about extending the basis of representation as to the Senate, and they wanted it to include the whole people, and give them all a voice, and shall we to-day say that the minority instead of the majority shall rule? I was in favor of extending the basis of the Senate, and I am to-day in favor of having the majority, and not the minority, rule.

Mr. FRENCHI, of Stoughton. Before I am called upon to vote upon this question, I have one word to say. I have listened to the arguments thus far advanced, and have endeavored, as far as I could, to weigh them. I have heard nothing as yet to convince me that so great a change as is now proposed, should be made in reference to the fundamental principle of our government. Was not this government originally based upon the principle that a majority should govern? I know we have been progressing in our ideas of government, and probably we are a great deal wiser than our predecessors; but if I understand the arguments which have been advanced, the adoption of the plurality system will not obviate the difficulties under which we are now laboring, and will not prevent the minority from ruling. I never expected to see the time when an attempt would be made in Massachusetts to change the basis of representation in the Constitution, so that the minority should rule. But it is said by the gentleman upon my left, (Mr. Schouler,) that the Legislature, Senate, Governor and other officers cannot be elected by a majority. Well, Sir, if they cannot be elected by a majority, let them not be elected by a minority; and if nobody can be elected by a majority, perhaps it will be well for the State, for one year, that nobody should be elected. [Laughter.] I am not sure that we do not have much more legislation than the State needs, for I find that when the political tables are changed, when one party is turned out of power, and another party comes in, that the first thing which the in-coming party does is to upset every

[ocr errors]

Mr. DAVIS, of Plymouth. I was in hopes that this question would not be taken before some member of the Committee that reported the amendment, Fad explained more fully to the Convention the reasons which induced them to recommend so great a change in the Constitution.

views, at this time, upon the question before the Convention, but, as a member of it, to call upon fiat Committee, or some one of them, to give to this Convention, fully and fairly, the reasons which induced them to adopt and recommend that Report.

Mr. CHURCHILL, of Milton. As no other gentleman seems to be prepared to present his views to the Convention, and as the question is about to be taken, I will occupy a few minutes in stating my reasons for opposing the adoption of this Report. It appears to me, that the effect of adopting the plurality system will be, virtually, to distranchise all third and small parties. Suppose a town in this Commonwealth is divided into three parties, one of which casts fifty-one votes, another fifty, and the other forty-nine. Now, the adoption of the plurality principle, not only throws out of consideration this smaller party, and renders their appearance at the polls utterly and entirely useless, but it says to them that, as the questions at the polls are to be settled by a small plurality, your vote can have no effect, and you must be driven into the ranks of one or the other great parties, for if you adhere to your independent organization, your votes will have no influence upon the final result. I say it tends to disfranchise all those small parties which do not give up their organization, and join themselves to the two leading parties of the Commonwealth. Has this Convention a right to say, by their action, that forever hereafter, the parties of this Commonwealth shall embody themselves under two standards, and under only two, and thus drive the people to the choice between two evils? The only argument I have heard advanced in its favor, is that of expediency.

The system of the majority seems to rest upon principle-upon the fullest expression of the sentiments and opinions of all the people of the Commonwealth; but the plurality system goes upon expediency-upon saving time and money. Now, as the question has narrowed itself down to that of principle or expediency, with the light I have heretofore been able to obtain, so far as I now can judge, I shall go in favor of the majority, which is founded upon principle, and against the plurality system contained in the Report before us, which is based upon the ground of expediency.

Mr. KEYES, for Abington. Mr. Chairman, I intimated when before up, in reference to this question, that I thought this discussion would last for several days, and I certainly hoped it would last a little longer than it is now likely to. I recollect some three years ago, when this principle was alluded to, and when attempts were made in some cases to adopt the plurality system, that it awoke a very strong feeling among the people, all over the State, and that the newspaper press, and, especially that in the city--with one

[blocks in formation]

exception perhaps―were aroused with fear, by this strange and extraordinary innovation. Among all the precedents which we have been called on to follow, or to which we have been referred, in the Convention of 1820, not one has been brought forward to support the plurality system. Such a thing was not then thought of at all. It was supposed that the majority system was the system of the Revolution; and it may have been conquered, for ought I know, in the battles of the Revolution. It was then held to be somewhat sacred. But it shows the downward tendency of opinion, and the rapidity with which we move, when we, in a Convention like this, composed of men of all political parties, with every shade of political opinion, without having given even one day's discussion to it, will sit with so much apparent indifference, and allow such a subject to be disposed of. It is possible, however, that all minds are made up upon it; that the opinions of all have been perfected; that it is unnecessary to discuss it further, and that we are ready to take the final vote upon it.

[ocr errors]

Now, Sir, as a member of the Senate of this Commonwealth, when the subject was before that body, I constantly opposed this innovation, although, many of those with whom I usually acted in reference to most que-tions, went in favor of it. But, nevertheless, the plurality system was, at that time, to some extent adopted. Of its consequences, I am not the judge. Indeed, I care nothing about the consequences. I think, if it be right that the majority shall rule, we ought to stand by that principle and not allow it to be winked out of sight in this Convention altogether. A question upon which so much depends, should not, at least, be passed silently by as a matter of no consequence.

Mr. Chairman, the subject of party influence is a somewhat delicate one to allude to in this connection, but as it has been mentioned by others, I trust I shall be excused for alluding to it. It is a fact well known, that all reforms proeced from small beginnings. The idea may, perhaps, originate in the mind of a single man, in his closet, dreaming over what another man has said a thousand years before; there, the thought has arisen in his mind to make some great and important steps in advance; to make some important reform in science, politics or religion. Himself, as well as his doctrine, has been received by the world with sneers, with insolence and derision; but, with the true spirit of martyrdom and heroism, he continues undaunted, till at last the world adopts his reforms. All the inventions and reforms in the arts and sciences, as well as in politics and religion, have been founded, and have proceeded in this manner. I look upon these third parties, therefore, as something not to be disregarded; composed, perhaps, originally of a single man, around this small nucleus, a few of his comrades and sympathizing friends will cluster, increasing till the little band organize and go to the polls amid the derisive sucers of the crowd; and they go on increasing till at last, like heroes, they lead the world to triumph and victory. Well, Sir, our majority system has been the patron of this class of men. It may be that we do not all think that these third parties are for th benefit of the Commonwealth. It may be that some of us think, they deserve the treatment they have at first received; that the world would have been better off if they had been crushed in their

infancy. But, Sir, although this Convention is composed of men of all parties, yet I trust, that for the moment, they have forgotten all party distinctions. I certainly know of no party man to oppose. I think nothing of party, and care not a fig for the might of any party opposed to me, nor of any hostility which they may manifest, towards the party to which I belong, in consequence of any supposed strength which they possess. I do not think there has been a period for half a century, when party animosity has so died out for want of material to feed upon, as at this very day in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. But, if we will step out of the circle in which we exist, it will be found that in times past, these small minority parties, struggling on for a time, as if under a cloud, side by side with the great parties of the day, and afterwards triumphing upon their own hooks, or infusing themselves into the other parties, have been the life-giving and controlling spirit of the people of Massachusetts. And, Sir, if Massachusetts is different from the other States of the Union, this has made her different.

Now, these examples which have been brought forward from the other States, instead of inducing me to adopt the system which they recommend, are the strongest possible arguments, to my mind, why we should not adopt it. Whatever may have been the cry in relation to the politics of Massachusetts; and, however much we may have abused each other at home, we all know that the history of Massachusetts gives abundant testimony to the whole country, that the politics and the politicians of our State are far superior to those of any other State in the Union. We have a government which has commanded the respect and esteem of every other State. All this grows out of these very difficulties in our elections, of which gentlemen so much complain. It has grown in part, out of our corporate representation, which has made even the smallest town in the State feel an interest in our public affairs. It has kept them acquainted with the action of the legislature, and with the laws adopted. It has kept even, every man in every school district acquainted with the progress of the government and of the legislature, all the time. But, if you diminish or take away this interest in their annual elections, you will render them careless, heedless, and indifferent, and finally ignorant as to the conduct of their government. But I am travelling out of the range of my subject, for I did not intend to allude to this matter on this occasion. I think these difficulties and inconveniences must be borne with.

Now, Sir, in reference to what has been said of a plurality electing the officers under the majority system, I do not hold it to be the fact. A man expresses his opinion just as much by staying away from the polls as by going there. If the election becomes of so little importance as not to induce him to go to the polls, he expresses his opinion by staying away, and if for the same reason, a portion of the inhabitants of a town stay at home, the candidate who is elected, is elected by the will of the majority, just as much as if every man went to the polls and cast his vote; for every man who stays at home, stays, because the question at issue is not of sufficient importance, or, because the difference in the candidates is not of sufficient importance to bring him out; therefore, the majority principle is maintained precisely as much as if every man were at the polls.

[May 24th.

Now, one word, in reference to the idea that these numerous elections cause unnecessary trouble. Sir, there is no law sending men to the polls, which causes unnecessary trouble. Men are well paid for such trouble, and if they are not, it certainly is no trouble for them to stay at home. Suppose they do stay at home, the election finally takes place, and it is a majority election. Those who are elected will not be taunted with being minority candidates; they carry with them the majority principle, and the majority respectability. It cannot be thrown in their faces that they are the representatives of a small minority, chosen perhaps, by accident, and that whatever they utter may be directly contrary to the wishes of the people they represent.

But, Sir, I did not come here to make a speech upon this subject. I have thought nothing of it, until I saw it in these rules this afternoon; but I should not think I had wasted the afternoon, if, without enlightening the mind of any one in reference to this subject, I had served to postpone a little longer the decision. I should like to hear further upon this subject before I am called upon to give my vote in relation to it. I think our fellow-citizens will desire that we should consider this subject more maturely before we make so important an interpolation into the system adopted by our fathers. I should like to hear whether there are arguments which can be advanced which should induce me to change my opinion in this matter, for I hold myself in reference to this as in reference to all other subjects-open to conviction. And I am ready to change my opinion forty times a-day, if necessary, to come to what I believe a correct conclusion.

Mr. HOLDER, of Lynn. I have listened to the various arguments which have been made upon this question with great attention, and it is with some little reluctance that I rise to make a very few remarks at this time. I was in hopes that the question would not have been taken for a few days; but as I perceive that gentlemen are already beginning to manifest an anxiety to vote upon this subject, I wish to say a few words. The great argument that has been advanced against the Report of the Committee is, that a part of the people would be disfranchised-the third party or some other. I do not believe in that doctrine. In this Yankee land, when we find any obstacle in our way, we are always ready to overcome it, and adapt ourselves to the exigencies of the case. If the plurality system is an obstacle in the way of those who vote with the third party, I venture to say that they will overcome it. I am anxious, for one, to preserve every democratic sentiment which is contained in the Constitution, and I believe the people of this State expect that we shall make progress in the facilities for carrying on the right kind of a government. Progress and Democracy are one. I do not believe that the people desire to go to the polls so often as seven or eight times a year, as may often happen, and has occurred within the present and former years. I think that such frequent elections rather have a tendency to array men against men in bitter enmity; and the great political and true feeling of Democracy loses its value in consequence. By the incorporation of the plurality system into our Constitution, I have no doubt that we shall dispense with these frequent elections, which produce so much bitter and exasperated feeling, and that our elections will be rendered, in consequence, comparatively quiet and

« ForrigeFortsett »