that the United States are not republican? Does he mean to say that the State of Virginia is not republican, and the State of New York, and Ohio, and Kentucky, and in fact, all the States except South Carolina and some of the New England States, who still retain the majority principle-are none of these republican? Sir, it is an absurdity. We do live under a republican government, and we live under a republican government which has this plurality principle applied to nearly all the offices. We must look at facts instead of theories; we must look at principles and the actual workings of principles, instead of going back to abstract declarations of what democracy is, or of what republicanism is. I regret exceedingly, Sir, that anything of a party nature should have been alluded to in this debate. I know, and others know, that the party to which I belong, and to which I presume I always shall belong, is in a minority in this body; but, Sir, nothing of a party character will deter me from voting in this Convention for any measure which I may deem to be a reform, and which I think is desired by the people. I voted for the amendment before us the other day, to cut up the State into forty senatorial districts; and I had hoped that the gentleman who was held up as the representative of "Young America," and the new ideas of the age, would have some better notions of progress than to be found still walking in the footsteps of the fathers of the republic-I thought he would try to adapt our Constitution to the wants of the present time. I know of no reason why we should not have this change as well as any other change which it is proposed to make.

One thing more, Sir, and then I have done. I cannot understand the logic of the gentleman from Natick, and others, who are continually talking about the minority ruling under the plurality system. I cannot understand it, and I have a better opinion of their good sense than to suppose they believe it themselves. They must know, if they know anything about the history of the country or the politics of the country-and the gentleman said that he had been a student of those subjects for fifteen years-that the majority principle provides that men may be elected by minorities. In those States where the majority principle prevails, men are elected in nine cases out of ten-yes, Sir, I venture to say, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred-by a minority. But on the other hand, when did you ever hear of a governor being elected in Kentucky, or Ohio, or Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or any one of those States where they elect under the plurality principle, who did not receive a majority of the votes. They almost invariably receive a majority of the votes; and in the election of members of congress the case is the same. The reason of this is, that men combine. The natural effect of the plurality system is to combine public sentiment and not to scatter it. If every man were to vote upon his own hook, there could be no government at all,the people would be so divided that there could be nobody elected; hence it is desirable that some means should be devised of combining public sentiment and uniting it upon particular individuals, and this is just what the plurality system does. It thus gives tone and character to the legislation of the country. The gentleman says that we live under a democratic government-under a republican government, because we have this theory of majorities. But the gentleman knows just as

| well as any one in the world knows, that we have not had a majority governor in this State for the last eight years. He knows that when the legislature met here two years ago, no man could tell who was going to be governor; and he knows that there was a meeting held up in one room, where the doors were locked, and men were stationed to keep interlopers outside, and that there was another meeting in another room down below, and that certain individuals came together to talk the matter over and to have the whole thing arranged. During all this time we were delayed here, and no man knew who would be governor until the whole matter had been settled in these secret rooms. There was a proposition made in the House of Representatives, before the government was organized, to go into the election of United States senators, before we went into the election of governor; that was debated here for nearly two days, but gentlemen said, and the gentleman from Natick said-and not only that, but he wrote it-and not only that, but he published it, and if any body wants to go into an examination of the files of newspapers, and to bring party politics into a discussion of this kind, it may there be found that he said no governor should be elected until certain other things should be done. Now I wish to keep all such things as this out of the hands of the legislature. I think that this is a good deal worse than it is for a man to be coming up the steps of the State House to ask the governor for an office. I want to have these questions left to the people to decide; I think they will decide them better than we shall, and we shall not have those combinations here which people outside condemn and consider wrong. I only speak of this because the subject has been brought up here, and not in any offensive sense; I allude to these things simply as historical facts, in order to illustrate the principle that if we wish to have a government free from all this mere machinery and trickery, we should leave this question outside of the walls of the capitol, to be decided by the people in their primary capacity; and as experience has shown it to be impossible, to concentrate the voters upon two candidates so long as this majority principle prevails, I wish to have the plurality system substituted for it. We have seen the workings of both systems. We have seen that in the first meeting for the clection of members of congress there has been a division of sentiment, and no choice could be effected; but when the second trial came on, under the plurality law, there was a giving way in parties on each side-men came together to settle their differences, and I believe all were satisfied. Now what is there so outrageous in the idea of attempting, by the plurality system, to put down the third party? I speak of the third party without any particular reference, for it is very hard to tell which is the third party; and I ask if it is not just as bad to have the representatives of the people combine as it is to have the people themselves combine? I think it is a little worse. Now with regard to what is said about third parties, let me remark that every one knows that there are three parties, so that no election can be made by the majority principle. These three parties are represented in the House of Representatives in just about the same proportion; and unless there is some sort of a combination, the result will be that there can be no governor at all. There must be a combination in order to have a governor; and as that is

[May 28th.

so, I say let the combination go to the sovereigns and not to the servants-let it be among the people themselves. Now there has been, as is admitted, some corruption and log rolling in the House of Representatives of Massachusetts; but it is said that the reason why there has not been so much there as in some bodies which are smaller, is on account of the size of it. If that is the case, let us give the broadest scope; and if there can be very little corruption in the House because it is so large, there can be none at all among the people when they are assembled in their primary capacity in the different towns. I wish to place this matter on a common sense platform, for in making a Constitution I want to have a common sense Constitution-one that is suited to the wants of the present age-without any "rust" on it, or anything which can impede the people from giving a free expression of their sentiments, thus bringing the power closer to the people, which can be done without any violation of principle. It is for this reason that I advocate the plurality principle; I believe it will free us from corruption, and from a great many inconveniences, and that it will give the power to the people in whose hands the power should rest. It will bring the public servants into closer relations with the people, and increase their responsibility for the interests which are intrusted to their keeping.

On motion of Mr. MORTON, of Quincy, the Committee rose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again.

Leave was granted.

On motion of Mr. SHELDON, of Easton, the Convention then, at 20 minutes to seven o'clock, adjourned.

SATURDAY, May 28, 1853.

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment,

at 10 o'clock, A. M.

Prayer by the Chaplain.

The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

Preliminary Motion.

Mr. DAVIS, of Worcester, moved that the Convention resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, for the purpose of taking into consideration the resolutions relative to the amendment of the Constitution, so far as regards the subject of the governor of the Commonwealth.

Mr. DAVIS said that he made this motion at the request of a number of gentleman who were friends of the plurality law, and also at the request of a number of gentlemen opposed to it. It was a question of great interest, and they were desirous of being when the vote should be taken upon it. Several of these gentlemen had returned home on account of sickness, and inasmuch as these resolves relating to the governor embraced questions upon which the Convention would not be much divided, they had desired him to make the motion he did, in order that they might be here when the question upon the plurality system was to be taken.

Mr. SUMNER, for Otis, said he hoped this motion would not prevail. Although he was aware that there was not at present a full attendance of gentlemen of the Convention, yet there was a plurality, and let us, he observed, try the

Saturday,]

individual eligible to the office of governor. There is one State which requires the age of thirty-five, one twenty-five, and another twentyeight; but most of the constitutions of the States fix the age at thirty.

The next resolve proposes to abolish the property qualification. The property qualification now required is £1,000. The Committee were of opinion that a man who is qualified in all other respects for governor of this Commonwealth, ought not to be required to have property in addition. They were further of opinion that property of itself is no qualification for office, and they were unanimous in favor of striking it out of the Constitution.

The next resolve provides that the governor shall be elected on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, annually. This alters the time of our election a very few days, so as to make it correspond with the time of the national elections. Once in four years we are called together on that day to elect electors of president of the United States. The result is, that on such years we have two elections taking place within a few days of each other. The Committee therefore recommend, in order to prevent the necessity of calling the people together twice every four years, that the time of election be altered for a few days, and that the election for governor shall take place on the same day that electors of president of the United States are chosen. That day is fixed by the statute law of the United States, and it is uniform all over the United States, and will not probably be altered. This provision, if adopted, will result in a great saving of time and expense to the Commonwealth.

The next resolve provides that the Constitution shall be so far altered that the governor, in case of a failure of election by the people, shall be elected by the joint ballot of the Senate and House of Representatives. By that amendment the machinery of electing a certain number of candidates, and sending them up to the Senate, is done away, and the House and Senate will come together and elect by joint ballot. If the plurality system prevails the result will be that the House and Senate will elect from those having an equal number of votes. If the majority principle is to prevail, then they will elect from the two or three highest candidates.

These are in part the simple amendments recommended by the Committee to that part of the Constitution which relates to the governor. Mr. WILSON, of Natick. I should like to ask the chairman of the Committee whether it is the intention of the Committee to report resolutions upon any other provisions of the Constitution in relation to the office of governor? I have a couple of resolves which Lwish to propose for the consideration of the Convention, if the Committee does not intend to report them. I will read them so that the Convention may know what they are, and that the gentleman may be able to answer my inquiries.

The first is-Resolved, That it is proper and expedient to alter and amend article first, section first, chapter second of the Constitution by striking out the words "and whose title shall be His Excellency."

The second is-Resolved, That it is proper and expedient to alter and amend article seventh of section first, chapter two of the Constitution, by substituting therefor the following: "The gov

ernor shall be commander-in-chief of the militia of the Commonwealth, and of the army and navy."

I wish the chairman of the Committee would inform me whether it is their intention to report anything in accordance with these resolutions.

Mr. DAVIS, of Worcester. I would state to the gentleman that both of those subjects have been considered by the Committee, but that they have come to no definite conclusion thereon. The Report we have submitted is but a report in part.

Mr. HATHAWAY, of Freetown. I perceive, Sir, that we have already encountered a difficulty which I apprehended before this matter was taken up. Before we went into Committee I foresaw the difficulty, but hoping and believing that the subject would not be taken up, I did not choose to trouble the Convention with any remarks upon it. If the Committee will look at the Report they will see at once that it is only a partial one. The difficulty is that we do not know what the Committee may report hereafter, they having said expressly that it is only a partial report. They may change the very propositions they have already reported; they may report matters which I and other members may desire to have introduced here, or they may not. When their report comes here as a whole, it may be such that every member may be satisfied with it.

I would put the question to the respectable and honorable chairman, whether the Committee intend to say that any citizen of the United States without regard to his place of residencewhether in this State or in other States-is to be eligible to the office of governor? Whether a gentleman from Virginia, or Ohio, or California, though he may never have seen the State of Massachusetts, shall be eligible to the office of the governor of this Commonwealth? I do not know but that they may report hereafter that a residence of seven years, immediately preceding the election, within the State, shall be required as one of the qualifications to that office.

Mr. DAVIS. We mean that the Constitution shall remain, as far as regards the office of governor, just precisely as it now stands, with the exception of the amendments proposed by these resolves.

Mr. HATHAWAY. Then the Committee should have negatived the first article by saying that no further amendments were necessary, whereas it is now left, by the Report, further open to amendments by the Committee.

If the Committee intend to make no further alterations in reference to the office of governor, I have an amendment to propose, as far as relates to the subject of the first resolve. It is this: "That no person except a citizen of the United States, and who shall have been an inhabitant of this Commonwealth for seven years next preceding the election, shall be eligible to the office of governor." But I do not know what the Committee propose to do, and not having the whole subject before me, I do not know how to act in regard to the matter. The whole Report should be laid before the Convention before it is taken up for discussion. When the Committee shall say they are done with the whole subject, then we can act understandingly upon the entire proposition they present. I do not propose to submit my amendment at this time, because, for aught I know, the Committee may change their

[May 28th.

mind in reference to this very matter of the qualification for the office of chief magistrate. It would not be a very wonderful matter for the Committee to come to one conclusion this morning, and to-morrow morning change it, and report a different conclusion.

For these reasons and for the purpose of testing this question, I move that the Committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. MILLER. I rise merely for the purpose of making an explanation to the gentleman from Freetown, (Mr. Hathaway). I was upon the Committee which made this Report, and I do not know but we proceeded upon a wrong principle. I suppose that the whole Constitution is to remain as it is, in relation to governor, where we have not altered it.

Mr. HATHAWAY. Upon suggestion, Mr. Chairman, I will change the motion I made, and move that the Committee rise, report progress, and direct that this matter be referred to the Committee for further consideration.

Mr. BRADBURY, of Newton. I think the gentleman from Freetown, when he sees the effect of his motion, will withdraw it. The Committee undoubtedly have their reasons for making their Report as they have. They probably thought that this Convention would like to discuss distinct propositions, but the motion shuts out all debate.

Mr. HATHAWAY. At the suggestion of several gentlemen around me, I will withdraw the motion that the Committee rise.

The CHAIRMAN. Then the whole subject is again open to discussion.

Mr. MILLER, of Wareham. I did not suppose this Committee were necessarily bound to report upon the whole of that portion which was referred to them in one entire report. As I remarked before, I supposed we were to state to the Convention, by our report, such alterations or changes as we thought ought to be made, but that there was no necessity of stating that entire opinion in one single report, upon every subject referred to us. We proceeded upon this principle; when there was nothing in the present Constitution which we thought advisable to alter in reference to a particular subject, we said nothing about it. In this manner we have prosecuted our investigations, and have completed them in every branch of the subject upon which we have reported with one exception. For instance, in the second article it is provided that the governor shall be chosen annually. We have said nothing about that. It provides that the governor shall be a resident of the Commonwealth for seven years preceding his election. We have said nothing about that, and we suppose those provisions are understood to remain a part of the Constitution. We recommend the alterations which are recommended in this Report, and no others relative to this subject, and for my own part, I am unable to discover why the Report of the Committee is not complete so far as the subjects to which it refers are concerned. I was averse to going into Committee of the Whole this morning upon this Report, because the last resolve embraces subjects which are not definitively settled. That resolve embraces the subject of plurality. If the Convention should declare in favor of the plurality system, that last resolve must necessarily be materially altered. But that is the only substantial reason I can discover why we should not proceed with this Report now.

Saturday,]

Every part of this Report-all the provisions of the Constitution which relate to the choice of Governor, have been considered, and the amendments proposed are contained in this Report, and can be now considered and decided as well as any time, with the single exception of the last resolve. If new subjects should be referred to the Committee, or if they should see fit to report upon distinct subjects, in future, they may report further, and they will report. But with the exception, as I have said, of the last resolve, the Report is complete upon the subject to which it refers. This is all I propose to say at this time.

Mr. HATHAWAY. I have listened with some degree of care to the explanations of the gentleman from Wareham, (Mr. Miller,) but I beg to ask him whether he has answered the objections which I made? I will again state those objections, and I ask his attention. I objected that this Committee had not reported in full. They expressly say so in their Report. They only ask leave to report in part. Now how is this Convention to know that they will not change these very resolves which we have before us when they come to make their report in full. The Constitution now provides that the governor shall have resided in the State seven years. The gentleman says the Committee have said nothing about that, and that it is therefore to remain. But suppose they should in future change their decision upon this subject, and say that instead of a residence of seven years, a residence of seven days or one day should be the only qualification for governor of the Commonwealth, have not they the right to make such a report? I say, therefore, the gentleman from Wareham has not answered my objections. He may think that nothing further will be reported upon this subject, and I presume they will report nothing further; but it is entirely within their scope and power to do so. therefore, that it is important for us to know what to depend on before we proceed to the discussion of subjects contained in this Report.

I say,

Mr. BRADBURY, of Newton. As a member of the Committee who reported these resolves, I desire to say a single word. I had supposed that this Committee, as every other committee to which the different subjects in the Constitution were referred, had the right to report in full or in part, as they might see fit, and the necessity of reporting in part in this case must be manifest to every one, after a moment's reflection. If we had reported in full, we should have had to decide whether the governor shall be elected by a majority or by a plurality, and we should have been obliged to decide in what manner the judiciary shall be created. All this is in the hands of another committee, and we must wait for them to report and for the Convention to act upon their report before we can act definitely upon those subjects. From the very nature of the case, therefore, these committees must report in part. We must wait for the action of the Convention and of the other committees, to guide us in finally settling all the matters referred to us. It is perfectly manifest, that in order for our committee or any other Committee, to come to any clear and intelligible understanding upon the subjects committed to us, we must take one thing at a time; if we undertake to do otherwise, we shall find ourselves in inextricable confusion.

It is enough

for this Convention to consider whether the gov ernor shall be chosen for two or three years.

That question is enough for them to settle at one vote. It seems to me that the Convention has enough and more than enough to occupy its time for the present, and that the committees should not be required to determine questions which, at this period of our proceedings, are so complex and so intimately connected with the subjects committed to other committees, that their decisions may at any moment be reversed by the decisions of those other committees, when they shall come in with distinct propositions for the action of the Convention.

The subject of the council is also intimately connected with that of governor, and that may be decided by another committee, which must necessarily restrain the action of this. I think the Convention will understand by this time that ours is not the only committee which must necessarily report in part.

Mr. SUMNER, for Otis. I do not perceive that there is any difficulty whatsoever in proceeding in the discussion of the Report as presented by the Committee. I think it is not only a very proper mode, but in a great many instances a very judicious mode of presenting subjects to this Convention, which this Committee have adopted in reference to this subject. And I would suggest, as the best mode for the Committee to pursue in the consideration of these resolves, that they take them up and discuss them, seriatim—di-cuss each one of them in the order in which it is presented, or in any order they may see fit to prescribe, and to dispose of them in the same order. With the purpose, therefore, of getting something directly before the Committee for consideration, I will move that the Committee proceed to the consideration of the first resolve reported by this Committee. I think we can settle everything in that resolve without danger of any disturbance which may arise from its connection with any other subjects or any other resolves which may hereafter be reported by any other committee or by this Committee.

Mr. BRIGGS, of Pittsfield. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire if there is any need of the motion made by the gentleman who has just taken his seat? If the Chair will allow me, I think that resolve comes up for the consideration of the Committee as a matter of course.

I entirely concur in the opinion of the gentleman from Otis, (Mr. Sumner,) in all he has said in relation to the Committee who reported these resolves. But they have been reported to the Convention, and by the Convention referred to this Committee of the Whole. I therefore think, that, according to parliamentary usage, unless some motion intervenes to prevent, they come up as a matter of course, and a motion to take them up is unnecessary. I ask the Chair whether I am correct?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thinks no motion is necessary.

Mr. BRIGGS. This resolve relates to the qualification for governor. In the first place, it is provided in the present Constitution that the governor shall have resided in the Commonwealth for seven years prior to his election. This, it is proposed to leave as it is, and I can see no objection. Next, this resolve proposes that he shall be a citizen of the United States. It seems to me that is an extremely proper amendment. Then it is provided that the governor shall have attained the age of thirty years. It seems to me that is

[May 28th.

also an amendment which should commend itself to the judgment and understanding of every one. So far, then, as the amendments are proposed to this clause of the Constitution I see no possil le objection to them. Now when some committee shall be appointed, as doubtless such a committee will be appointed, to take into consideration the arrangement of the amendments adopted, they will arrange these amendments, and place each one in its proper position, and then present the Constitution as a whole for the action of the Convention. Then when that committee come to these amendments they will engraft them upon the present article so as to make it perfect in its arrangement and phraseology. I see no difficulty in adopting all these amendments, and I entirely concur in the Report of the Committee.

Mr. SARGENT. Do I understand that only the first resolve is under consideration? The CHAIRMAN. That is the question under consideration.

Mr. SARGENT. It strikes me that the two resolves are intimately connected, and unless we are to act absolutely upon each specific provision, separately and distinctly, I think it would be well to act upon the two first resolves together. I had embodied them with the section of the present Constitution to which they relate. Should they both be adopted the section would then read:

"The governor shall be chosen annually, and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless at the time of his clection he shall be a citizen of the United States, shall have been an inhabitant of this Commonwealth for seven years next preceding the time of his election, and shall have attained to the age of thirty years."

I think that is precisely as this provision will read if these resolves are adopted. I think these two may be considered as one, although I think certainly they should be taken separately and distinctly from the others, reported by the Committee.

Mr. BRADFORD, of Essex. I move to amend the Report of the Committee by striking out all after the word, "Resolved," and inserting the following:

"Every legal voter in the Commonwealth shall be eligible to the office of Governor."

Mr. WILSON, of Natick. Mr. Chairman, I do not know that I am prepared to vote for the amendment of the me nber from Essex, (Mr. Bradford,) and at the same time I should hesitate in voting for this resolve as reported by the Committee.

In the first place, I am not clear that a limitation of thirty years of age should be placed upon the candidate for governor. I have no special objection to that however. But, I have an objection to another provision in the resolve, which, unless it be properly and satisfactorily explained to the Committee by some one, I can hardly support. I refer to that which prescribes that the governor shall be a citizen of the United States. I maintain that a citizen of Massachusetts should be eligible to any office in the gift of the people of Massachusetts. Besides, there is considerable doubt among different authorities, as to what constitutes a man a citizen of the United States. I do not believe any member of this Convention can tell us precisely what constitutes citizenship. That question has never to my knowledge been definitively settled. Now, I undertake to say, that if a citizen of Massachusetts, or one of a certain

class of the citizens of Massachusetts should be created governor of the Commonwealth, and should wish to visit Europe while holding the office of governor, he could not obtain a passport of the national government to protect him while abroad. Now, Sir, is a citizen of Massachusetts necessarily a citizen of the United States? And, is he to be protected and considered everywhere as a citizen of the United States by the national government? Or, if we should happen to elect some one of our citizens governor of Massachusetts, and he should desire to go abroad, must he be compelled to go abroad without carrying a passport from the national government for his protection? Or, if he wishes to travel in some of the States of this Union, can he travel as governor of Massachusetts without incurring the risk of being locked up in the State of South Carolina? No, Sir, I see no necessity of putting these words "citizens of the United States" into the Constitution. I am content that a citizen of Massachusetts shall be the governor of Massachusetts if the people choose to make him such. I do not say that I shall vote against the resolve as it now stands, though I shall hesitate very much to do it, unless some one learned in the law can show to this Committee that every citizen of Massachusetts is a citizen of the United States. But, if that thing is not settled to my satisfaction, I shall vote against the resolution, as I will vote against every proposition in this Convention, which shall in any way compromise the rights of any citizen of the Commonwealth.

Mr. BRADFORD, of Essex. The object of the amendment is expressed in as plain language as I could express it, and it is, that all distinction whatever, of any sort between the citizen and an office holder in the Commonwealth, should be abolished. Our fathers, who framed the present Constitution, which has been in existence over seventy years, were men strongly imbued with the feeling and spirit of liberty, and with the idea of making this Commonwealth a good and republican government. They, were men born one hundred years before our day; and they were raised under a government very different from our own, and from that which they intended to establish here. They had, in their idea in forming a government here, reference constantly to the government of the mother country, for which, they had yet great respect and reverence. There was a great fear prevalent at that time-it may have been a very prudent and proper fear-that the people were incapable of self-government. The government they were about to establish was one of experiment altogether, and they feared they might establish a government that could not stand. The experience of this last generation, has shown that those fears with another population than our own, might have been very resonably indulged. We have seen in attempts to establish republics in other countries, that the people in all parts of the world are not fitted for self-government. That was the prevailing idea here when this Constitution was established. And, beside, that there was a great restraint upon the gentlemen who formed the Constitution, by the strong opinions of another party in the Commonwealth, who, were still more favorably inclined to the government existing at that time in England. The idea which they made to prevail in the Constitution was, that as small a number of persons as possible should participate in the government, and in order to carry out their

principles and prevent any danger to the Commonwealth, to restrict the government to as few hands as it was in England. They looked to the wisdom of eminent men to sustain this Commonwealth. Various restrictions were made to carry out this idea. There was a restriction upon the legal voters in the shape of a money qualification, and there was a qualification for each office holder, from the governor and senators, down to the members of the House of Representatives. There were restrictions of age and residence required, and various other restrictions of that kind, all tending to one thing, all parts of one system, to confine the government of this State to as few hands as possible. Is there a man in this house, who believes if the original Convention of 1780, were now sitting in this place, instead of the gentlemen who are now sitting here, that there would be one vote in favor of adopting such a system at the present day. If the question were now originally to come up of forming a new constitution, who would propose or vote for, or in any manner sanction, this system. It seems to me, if there is any one just and proper reform which this Convention is called upon to undertake, it is to abolish all distinction whatever between the office holder and the voter. I do not care how much jealousy is exhibited towards the rulers or the existing government. You may make as many restrictions in this respect as you please, and I will vote for them, but I will vote for no restrictions whatever upon the people, or for anything that carries an intimation that the people of the Commonwealth are not capable of self-government to the fullest extent. I suppose that a majority of the gentlemen of this Convention will agree in the propriety of the amendment, and will think with myself, that there ought not to be any limit whatever to the election of any officer whatever, except that of the distinction of voters. I believe myself, that the distinction of voters is a perfect safeguard in the election of officers without any restriction whatever, and I wish that every man of twenty-one years of age, who is a voter in the Commonwealth may be made eligible to any office without any restrictions or limitations whatever, but the distinction of being a voter.

The question was then taken upon the adoption of the amendment, and it was not agreed to.

Mr. DAVIS, of Plymouth. I move to strike out the words, "except a citizen of the United States," and add at the end of the resolve, the words, "and no person of foreign birth shall be eligible to the office of governor, unless he is a naturalized citizen."

I suppose the Committee intended that such should be the effect of the resolve. I have not time to put the amendment in writing, but it will be seen by the Committee what my object is. There may be some misapprehension as to what was intended by the words, "except a citizen of the United States." Members of the Committee differ, as I understand, upon this question, as to whether a person can be a citizen of Massachusetts, and not a citizen of the United States. It seems to me, reference to foreigners, or persons who have been foreigners, in the way I have mentioned, would obviate the difficulty and be as explicit as the state of the case requires.

my

Mr. WILSON, of Natick. I do not understand what friend from Plymouth, (Mr. Davis,) is to gain by his amendment. I hope he will explain it to the Committee, so that they may see

[May 28th.

the necessity for its adoption. I understand the resolution before the Committee settles this matter, and if so, I see no necessity for bringing in this provision. I wish the gentleman would give us his reason for adopting such an amendment.

Mr. DAVIS, of Plymouth. I supposed I made myself sufficiently understood. My object was to remove the doubt or misapprehension which seemed to exist in the minds of many members of the Committee, and the very doubt which was suggested by the gentleman from Natick, (Mr. Wilson). As the resolution reported by the Committee now reads, it seems to me, that it is subject to this doubt. If a colored person, for instance, is deemed or has been, by the laws of this State, a citizen of this State,-inasmuch as he has been deemed a citizen of this State, it becomes a matter of doubt in the minds of many, whether he can be deemed by the United States, under any circumstances, as a citizen of the United States. If, therefore, the Committee intended, as I do not believe they did, that no colored person should be eligible to office in the government, because he is not a citizen of the United States, and it is a mere matter of construction, as you will perceive, Mr. Chairman. I say that that misapprehension may be cured by the amendment which I have stated. I suppose it was the intention of the Committee, when they added the provision that no person should be eligible to office but a man who is a citizen of the United States, to refer especially to those persons who have been foreigners, but who afterwards reside in this country and become naturalized. I suppose in adding those words they merely intended that the foreigner should become naturalized before he should be eligible to offices in the government. If I understood the gentleman from Natick, (Mr. Wilson,) correctly, it was his own suggestion, and my amendment was intended merely to cure the difficulty which suggests itself to my mind. If gentlemen will refer to the Report of the Committee, and if they will suppose for a moment that a colored person is not a citizen of the United States, they will see the difficulty in which this matter appears under the phraseology adopted by the Committee. I think that all danger of misapprehension may be cured by the adoption of the amendment which I have offered.

Mr. ASPINWALL, of Brookline. I should like to ask the gentleman what he means by the words "foreign birth." Does he mean persons born in a foreign land I am sure he does not wish to cut off my hopes of being elected governor myself, and I hope that he will modify his amendment in such a manner as to place me among the persons eligible. [Laughter.] It unfortunately happens that I was not born in the United States, but yet was born a citizen of the United States, and I suppose that there is a very large class of persons at all times in the United States, who are not born within the limits of the United States, but yet born citizens of the United States. I refer to persons born abroad, the children of persons holding office under the United States government. I happen to be among that class, and was born in England, my father being a resident there holding office under the United States government, and by the rules of the common and civil law as recognized in this country, I became a citizen of the United States, without any process of naturalization. I would, therefore, suggest to the gentleman that he should make some alteration in