Saturday,]

the amendment which would enable me to hold the office of governor if such should ever be my fortune. [Laughter.]

Mr. DAVIS, of Plymouth. I would not object to special legislation in favor of the gentleman who has just taken his seat. I suppose it will be sufficient to strike out the words "no person of foreign birth," and insert the word "alien."

Mr. DAVIS, of Fall River. I would ask whether a person can be a citizen until he is naturalized, and if the Act of naturalization is not an United States Act, so that a naturalized citizen or foreigner, being a citizen by naturalization is in reality a citizen of the United States, by the Act of the United States ?

Mr. WILSON, of Natick. The suggestions which I made, have no reference whatever to persons of foreign birth, whether they are eitizens of the United States or not. According to my understanding of the Constitution, a man who is not a naturalized citizen of the State or the Union could be elected governor of this Commonwealth to-day. The Constitution says that the governor shall be an inhabitant of the Commonwealth for seven years preceding his election, and that he shall pay taxes for a certain amount of property. These are the qualifications, and no citizenship for the State, or the United States is required. No qualification of age is required. I care nothing about the place where a man was born. I do not wish to bring this question into this discussion, and I do not like to have such words as "foreign birth" incorporated in the Constitution, as proposed by my friend. The suggestions which I made had reference to our own citizens. I would have preferred it better if the Committee had used the term "citizen of Massachusetts," rather than that of citizen of the United States, because I think there has been doubt about the question whether a citizen of Massachusetts was deemed and taken by the national government to be necessarily a citizen of the United States. Our courts so understand it in this State, and if this is our understanding and intention I would not make any great objection to it. But I do object to inserting anything in this Constitution which will make any distinction, under any circumstances, whatever, between any men or any race of men, and I would myself recognize men of every race, clime and country, upon the ground of perfect equality.

Mr. HUBBARD, of Boston. I am at a loss to see the ground of objection taken by the gentleman from Natick, (Mr. Wilson,) to the proposition as made by the Committee. It is declared by the Constititution of the United States, that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States. I suppose a citizen of Massachusetts, according to this provision of the Constitution, if he removes to any other State, is by the Constitution entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in that State. But it is for the local tribunals of the State to which he may migrate, to settle the question what his rights are. It is for the national government in this case to determine who are the citizens of the United States, and who are entitled to certain privileges and benefits resulting from that relation. No action of this Convention, or of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in their sovereign capacity can control the action of the officers of the federal government, or the officers and judicial tribunals of

the other States of the Union. Now the amendment of the gentleman from Plymouth, (Mr. Bates,) if I understand it rightly, provides, that native citizens of this Commonwealth, foreigners or aliens, or in whatever manner you may choose to designate them, who are naturalized, shall be eligible to the office of governor of this Commonwealth. I ask how that form of expression differs from that proposed by the Committee. It is merely expressing in a different form the same thing which is already suggested in the Report of the Committee. It is said truly, that fl e Constitution as it now stands contains no provision that a party to be elected governor, shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth. But what constituted citizenship in Massachusetts, when this Constitution was formed? That he should be an inhabitant. If our fathers could have foreseen the arrangements which would have been made by the confederation of States, united by the bonds of the Constitution as one great nation, I think we can well imagine, that they would have required citizenship certainly, to entitle a man to be elected governor of the Commonwealth. I think that the modification proposed by the gentleman from Plymouth, (Mr. Bates,) is a change not of sub-tance, but is merely an indirect and circuitous mode of expression, making the same provision that is contained in the proposition of the Committee.

Objection has been made to the qualification requiring a certain age for the governor. It is said that any person who is entitled to vote, shall be esteemed a fit person to receive thevotes of the people for governor. I am fully willing to leave that question for the action of the people of Massachusetts. But there might possibly be such a thing under some circumstances under the operation of these caucuses and conventions, the character of which was so eloquently portrayed by the gentleman from Natick, (Mr. Wilson,) yesterday, that some man might be imposed upon the citizens of Massachusetts, as being a man of discretion and fitness for the office, who had but the day before his nomination, been deemed, by law, unfit to take care of his own interests. A man just past twenty-one years of age, might be smuggled through some convention, or some caucus, get the nomination, and be declared, before the people of Massachusetts, as a meet and fit person to hold the executive power in his hands. I think it is wise and proper that the Constitution should guard against imposition, so that, perchance, if the people should be imposed upon in such a way, that when the man comes to present himself to take the oaths of office, his qualifications may be known by the legislature who are called upon to administer the oath, and if, by possibility, through the machinations of caucuses and conventions, which have been so decried, the people should have been imposed upon, that it may not be too late to correct the error, before he is invested with such high and important responsibilities as are intrusted to the governor of this Commonwealth.

Mr. MORTON, of Taunton. I rise, not to enter into this debate at all, but to make a single suggestion. It seems to me that the distinction made here partakes of a verbal character altogether, and that upon the question now before us, we really all think alike; and I think a mode of expression may be suggested which will meet the views of all the gentlemen present. I make a

[May 28th.

tion now, rather for the consideration of the gentleman from Plymouth, (Mr. Bates,) than as a distinct motion, and if it should meet his views, I hope he will accept it, and that it will be adopted by the Committee. We are acting here for the sovereign people of Massachusetts, and I think t'at we ought to confine our action within the limits of our own State. The nation is in some respects a foreign government, and I should be sorry to have allusion made to other States or the United States, farther than is necessary. I suppose t! e object of the Committee was that citizens of Massachusetts should be eligible to the office of governor. Therefore I beg leave to suggest, that by making a simple amendment, to strike out the words United States," and insert Massachusetts," we shall attain the object of the gentlemen who have spoken upon this subject.

64

Mr. BATES. I will accept the amendment. Mr. HOPKINSON, of Boston. I rise to make an inquiry of the learned gentleman from Taunton, (Mr. Morton,) what is legally a citizen of Massachusetts, as distinguished from a citizen of the United States.

Mr. MORTON. A discussion of this nice question, about which doctors disagree, was the precise thing which I wished to avoid by the amendment I offer. It is enough for us, in fixing the election of our own officers, to take care of our own citizens. Let this question come before some other tribunal, and before men more learned than myself, to decide this nice question.

Mr. HUBBARD, of Boston. I suppose in Massachusetts we all agree that the Constitution of the United States means what it says, and there can be no question with us that a citizen of Massachusetts is a citizen of the United States. If we reject this provision of the Committee, and say that a person who is a citizen of Massachusetts only shall be eligible to the office of governor, it seems to me that in some future generation, when more learned doctors of the laws are called upon to consider this question-I will not say more learned than the gentleman from Taunton, (Mr. Morton,)-it will be said that it means something less than a citizen of the United States. A man may come from Connecticut, or some other State, as it has been my misfortune to come, and may be excluded, as the gentleman from Brookline, (Mr. Aspinwall,) thinks he may, from being eligible to the office of governor, because he was not native born, but was a citizen of the United States. It will be held up in future times, when the debates and proceedings of this Convention shall become records of history, that we refused to admit a citizen of the United States, coming here and making himself an inhabitant of the State, to be elected governor of the Commonwealth; and it will be said, by refusing to say a citizen of the United States, and using the term citizen of Massachusetts, we meant to bring within a narrower limit and sphere, the class from which we should select candidates for governor than citizens of the United States who may have resided in Massachusetts from the period of boyhood, and even infancy, up to full manhood. The provision inserted by the Committee, is the only provision which will shut out the question in future as to who is a citizen of Massachusetts. No one disputes, I believe, here in Massachusetts, that a native born citizen, of whatever caste or color, is entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizenship, but if we restrict it to citizens of

Saturday,]

Massachusetts, it will give rise, I apprehend, to a discussion here, as to whether we did not intend to limit and restrict it to our own native born citizens. I shall therefore object to the amendment, and I humbly submit that the provision, as it is contained in the Report of the Committee, is a more fitting mode of prescribing citizenship.

Mr. KEYES, for Abington. It seems to me, if the theory of those gentlemen who object to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Taunton, (Mr. Morton,) is correct—if the two terms, a citizen of Massachusetts and a citizen of the United States are exactly alike, and there is no difference between them-the only question is, whether the term citizen of the United States or citizen of Massachusetts should be retained. It strikes me it would sound better, if there were no other reason, that we should say citizen of Massachusetts; but I think there are important reasons why the term citizen of Massachusetts should be retained. The congress of the United States is competent to declare who are citizens of the United States. The Constitution of the United States is a document which is translated very differently in one section of the country from what it is in another. We know that a citizen of Massachusetts, according to the Constitution of the United States, is not regarded by the United States Government as a citizen of the United States. One power-a great power in the country-tramples upon that Constitution whenever it sees fit; and the Senate of the United States has declared publicly and boldly that even the representatives of New England are not fit to belong to healthy political organizations, unless they indorsed a certain infamous law. Well, who knows but what that same congress of the United States may declare nobody to be a citizen of the United States unless he will indorse some law like that. This, I think, is no mere theory, but history, founded upon the facts of the case. The Supreme Judicial Court of the United States was organized and manufactured on purpose to declare slave law and not the law of the Constitution, for that Court is composed of nine members five of whom are from the slave States, representing not more than one-half of the white population of the free States. Our Circuits, with double the population of the Southern Circuits, have one judge less than they have in the Supreme Court. We have it on record that that Court is organized, not for the purpose of carrying out the principles of the Constitution, but in all cases to carry out a certain kind of Southern law, which we know has disfranchised citizens of Massachusettswhich has regarded them not as citizens of the United States-which has imprisoned them like felons in Southern dungeons; and the North apparently is satisfied with it and are content. I do not suppose there is any great fear that a negro-for I take it that is all the objection there is, and that in no other sense is it objected to-will ever be elected governor of Massachusetts. But if we are establishing principles and theories we ought to look at what may be their possible issue. I understand the theory of the Constitution is, that if one drop of African blood runs through the veins of any human being, then he is not a citizen of the United States. It is barely possible that by some sort of phlebotomizing or chemical analysis it may be found that some of our best men may have, in some generation long back, been tinctured with this African blood, but ae

cording to that theory, as I understand it, laid down and carried out to the extreme, they would be no longer citizens of the United States. If I believed that that Constitution was executed thoroughly, and that the congress and executive of the United States would see it executed thoroughly, I would not say one word against it. But the records of the country's history are alive and full with facts entirely in contradistinction to that theory. The Constitution of the United States may answer for citizens of South Carolina when they come here, in all cases, but it will not answer for a citizen of Massachusetts in South Carolina. If the gentlemen who have spoken upon the other side of the question are satisfied with the paragraph to which reference has been so often had in this discussion, that the terms mean precisely the same thing, I can scarcely see why they can have any objection certainly to the adoption of the term "citizen of Massachusetts."

Mr. HOPKINSON, of Boston. Not having heard the first part of the discussion, it may be that the ideas which occur to my mind have been all considered, and the difficulties of this question settled, before I came in. It appears to me that it is a question of some importance, and I should like to know whether it has been considered in all its bearings. My objection to this amendment is not that the term "citizen of Massachusetts" means the same thing as "citizen of the United States." If I believed it did, I certainly should not question the propriety of the amendment for those who have doubts upon this subject, and think that its adoption would improve the matter. It is not, therefore, a mere verbal distinction which I have in my mind. The question which I asked some little time ago of the gentleman from Taunton, (Mr. Morton,) I asked in good faith, because I supposed, from his knowledge of kindred subjects, he could probably give an answer which would clear up some of my doubts and difficulties. The difficulty which presents itself to my mind is this. I do not know what a citizen of Massachusetts means, for it is to have a technical and legal interpretation, and not a loose and conversational one. I ask gentlemen, then, who are citizens of Massachusetts ? I cannot very easily tell who would be so considered if you look to that uncertain and somewhat vague and indistinct code called the law of nations, I suppose that it is everywhere recognized that persons born on the soil are citizens of the United States, unless there is some positive exclusion. I do not suppose that gentlemen mean to confine the term "citizen" to the term "native," otherwise they would exclude every man born out of the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, just as effectually as they would every man born out of the United States, because we are now told that that is a foreign government which we are not called upon to recognize. I suppose, therefore, that they do not mean to say "native," Do they mean to say that the term shall be coextensive with the term inhabitant? I presume not; because I do not think that the courts, either in Massachusetts, or elsewhere, will ever give that construction to the clause. It will be borne in mind that the Committee propose an amendment to the Constitution, not a substitute for the section of the Constitution. Among other provisions remaining in the Constitution, is one, that the governor elected shall have been a resi

[May 28th.

dent in the Commonwealth for seven years, which secures residence, and therefore if this term "citizen of the United States" is put into the Constitution, the courts will necessarily infer that we mean something by it-that it is not intended to be synonymous with inhabitant or resident, but something more. I ask for information from those gentlemen who are better posted up in legal matters, constitutional law, and the law of the United States, than myself, what shall be the meaning of the term "citizen of Massachusetts." Will you exclude every person born out of her jurisdiction, by saying that it means "native;" or will you say that it means every person who is a resident and inhabitant of Massachusetts. I am confident that the Committee do not mean that, because they have provided a seven years' residence as a qualification for holding the office of governor. Let us go back to the question suggested by the gentleman for Abington, (Mr. Keyes). I do not see any necessity of referring to the construction which the United States courts may give of it, because I suppose it perfectly clear that a citizen of the United States, if he unites residence, is also a citizen of Massachusetts. I do not say that the converse is truethat every citizen of Massachusetts is a citizen of the United States, but I mean to say that every citizen of the United States, who is a resident in Massachusetts, is a citizen of Massachusetts. Upon that point I have something to present, which, I think, will be satisfactory; and if I am wrong in the view which I take, I hope gentlemen will correct me.

Now I repeat the inquiry, when we speak of citizens of Massachusetts, what do we mean? Where are our limits? I regret to hear reflections cast upon the government of the United States; I regret to hear it said here in this dignified assemblage of the people of Massachusetts, by any of their delegates, that their courts are packed, and are not fit to decide questions of law. I think we should forbear, either here or elsewhere, making any such issue between the two governments. All should be harmonious, and go on together, for the greatest good of the whole people. Let us not array them in hostility one against the other. Let us understand that when we are citizens of Massachusetts, in a popular and general sense, we are always citizens of the United States; and palsied be the arm that wishes to peril the Union. I am ready to act here, and to do all I can, for the purpose of improving the laws of the landas well of the United States as of the State in which I have the honor to live. I am ready to use all the power which we have, to correct abuses; and I think we should all join heart and hand in correcting them, but I am not willing to declare war-I do not mean a war with the sword, for nobody resorts to such hostile demonstrations as that, but a war of words by which ill feelings are excited against the government of the United States; and it seems to me that there is no necessity for the indulgence of such a strain of remarks as we have listened to in this body. I assume, Sir, that every native born African and Indian, either in or out of Massachusetts, in the United States, is a citizen of the United States, unless he is excluded by some positive Act; and how can we go beyond that in Massachusetts ? When wo say, citizens of Massachusetts, what is the meaning? Who is to make citizens of Massachusetts? Have you any naturalization laws,

Saturday,]

laws? Certainly not. How then is the man of foreign birth to become a citizen of Massachusetts, except by becoming so under the naturalization laws of the United States? I know very well, Sir, that in making a Constitution, we have a right to say whether persons shall vote in regard to State matters; but conferring the power to vote in State elections gives a man no rights as a citizen of the United States. We can give no rights of that kind-it is a matter altogether beyond our control. I submit, then, that if the words "citizen of Massachusetts" should be substituted, and even if we should be able exactly to define what a citizen of Massachusetts is, there would be nothing gained; for while you would have no opportunity to elect a man who is not a citizen of the United States, you might exclude thousands from that office who were good citizens. It seems to me, therefore, that the argument of the gentleman representing Abington does not accomplish the object which he intended it should, for the insertion of the words citizen of Massachusetts does not make the basis so large as he desired that it should be. At all events, it leaves the matter in uncertainty; and I hope that some gentleman more versed in this subject than I am, will give us some definition of the word citizen, so that we can see who shall and who shall not, under this Constitution, be eligible to the office of governor; and unless I can see some better reason than I have yet seen to satisfy my mind that the language can be improved, I shall be under the necessity of voting against the amendment.

Mr. KEYES, for Abington. The gentleman seems to arraign me for the illustration which I used; but I wish to say that it came in very legitimately and very properly as an allusion in accordance with the general tenor of the debate, and as it had already been referred to. What is that parchment, the Constitution of the United States? Is it anything more than a record of the power and authority of the government, conferred by the people who instituted it? Nothing

more.

It was referred to in the paragraph which was read, saying that citizens of Massachusetts are citizens of the United States. I say that it is not so, notwithstanding that the Constitution says it is so; and I gave as a reason why it is not so, because we have got a Supreme Court who have determined to the contrary, and the court had a right to determine to the contrary. That is the law as applicable to certain sections of the Union; but whenever we have tried the experiment, you know very well what success we have met with in endeavoring to carry out that principle. Now, Sir, I do not think that the government of the United States is too sacred to be alluded to. It has been the policy of some persons to blind the eyes of the people of Massachusetts to the state of ignominy and servitude in which they live under the government of the United States, and they would make us believe that if we do not surrender to the demands of another section, the Union will be endangered. Sir, nobody believes this is going to endanger the Union. That old hypocritical cry about danger to the Union has been completely exposed, and the only fears with regard to the safety of the Union grow out of that peculiar institution, which, unless restricted, can destroy it, if the lessons of history be not all false.

Why, Sir, if

cessfully now, when there are only about three millions, what will they do when there are twenty millions held in bondage? There is no danger to the Union. The only danger is that we shall lay down our arms and yield to the insults of tyranny; but if we stand up manfully and demand our rights, we shall obtain them. That is my theory, although it may not be the gentleman's theory. I do not feel alarmed about the dissolution of the Union in consequence of anything said in our debates here; if I did, perhaps I might alter my course. I do not apprehend that anything which I may say or do is going to tear this Union asunder. The gentleman wants to know who a citizen of Massachusetts is; but I should like to have him tell me who a citizen of the United States is. I think it is much more difficult to answer that question than the one which seems to puzzle him so much. I had supposed that a citizen of Massachusetts was a man entitled to be a voter in Massachusetts. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Essex, (Mr. Bradford,) was precisely equivalent to this, only expressed in different language. Legal voters in the State of Massachusetts, as I suppose, are always considered citizens of Massachusetts; and that is what I understand to be the meaning of this amendment. There may be questions asked which are very difficult to answer; but I think I never before heard the question raised, “Who is a citizen of Massachusetts ?"

Mr. BIRD, of Walpole. I see no need of troubling ourselves about the difficulty of defining who a citizen of Massachusetts is, in the new Constitution which we are forming, until some inconvenience is found to arise from not knowing who a citizen is, as mentioned in the Constitution under which we are now living. The ninth article of the last chapter, says, "Every male citizen, of twenty-one years of age and upwards," &c. &c., shall be a voter, and also “every citizen who shall be by law exempted from taxation," &c., shall be a voter. Now I take it for granted that it means every male citizen of Massachusetts shall be a voter, provided he has the specified qualifications. It does not mean every male citizen of Rhode Island, or every male citizen of South Carolina, but every male citizen of Massachusetts. You have no right to infer that it means every male citizen of the United States, for if it had meant so it would have said so; and the inference from its not saying "citizen of the United States," must undoubtedly be that it means every male citizen of Massachusetts, and no one else. I am willing, sir, to take the same phraseology in our new Constitution which is used in that under which we live. I think the question asked by the gentleman from Abington is a very pertinent one; although perhaps it is hardly fair to answer one question by asking another, yet I put the same inquiry, will any legal gentleman tell me who a citizen of the United States is? I have asked several gentlemen who are learned in the law, but I cannot get a satisfactory answer. I suppose that citizens of the United States under the Constitution are those who are declared to be citizens of the several States; for the Constitution of the United States, and the laws of the United States, so far as I know anything about them, have not defined who are citizens of the United States, except by saying that the citizens of each State shall enjoy the privileges of citizens of other States. I

[May 28th.

want the States to make their own regulations about these matters, and prescribe who shall be citizens; and I do not see why we caffnot stand up bravely upon the doctrine of State rights. We are making a Constitution for Massachusetts,not to please the federal government—not to please the government of any other State of this Union —not to please the government of any other power upon earth; we propose to make a Constitution to please the people of Massachusetts alone. As it seems to me, then, we are to confine our-clves entirely to the formation of a Constitution for the interest and the welfare of the people of Massachusetts; and if, in any respect the Constitution which we form infringes upon the powers of the general government, of course the Supreme Court will set us right about the matter; but so far as it is competent for us to form a constitution within the rights reserved to the people of Massachusetts, so far I trust we shall make that Constitution to suit ourselves and not to suit any other power on the face of the globe.

Mr. LIVERMORE, of Cambridge. I do not profess to have much legal knowledge, but it seems to me that this difficulty may be obviated without entering into considerations of that sort. I have thought that it might perhaps be well to amend the resolution by striking out all after the word "that," in the second line, and inserting in lieu thereof the following :-" Any person who is a legal voter in this Commonwealth, and who shall have attained the age of twenty-five years, shall be eligible to the office of governor." If that should be done, there would be no misunderstanding as to who were meant by it, and I think it would attain the object which this Convention has in view. I simply rise for the purpose of saying that if the amendment now under consideration shall not prevail, at the proper time I shall offer that which I have suggested.

Mr. BUTLER, of Lowell. I propose, after the present amendment shall have been disposed of, to submit one, the purport of which I will state in the course of my remarks. I am in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Taunton, using the expression, "citizen of Massachusetts," because we are making a Massachusetts Constitution; and although it may excite a smile, I will add that I want to make such a Constitution as we could live under if we should ever have the misfortune not to live under the government of the United States. I have good authority, Sir, for a remark of that kind. I find that in 1820, when the Chief Justice of this Commonwealth, Judge Parker, proposed certain amendments to the Declaration of the Bill of Rights, he made use of the following language ::-"If, by misfortune, we should ever cease to be governed by the Constitution of the United States, we should want our Constitution as it now is." tend, therefore, that the word " Massachusetts," should be substituted, and then, according to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, a citizen of Massachusetts would have the privileges of a citizen of the United States. Then, Sir, another difficulty arises here. If the resolution should be adopted, leaving it as it stands, perhaps you would be going farther than you intend to. It might be construed to apply to insane persons, paupers, or persons under guardianship; and I want to know if you are going to do that. It is best that we should see exactly where we are going; and after seeing what the

I con

Saturday,]

effect is, if the Convention choose to adopt it, I have nothing more to say.

Mr. DAVIS, of Worcester. If the gentleman from Lowell will allow me, I would like to ask him whether he considers paupers and insane persons as citizens.

Mr. BUTLER. In the name of all that is right, yes. I do not think that a man ceases to be a citizen because he has the misfortune to be poor or insane.

Mr. DAVIS. They cannot exercise the duties of citizens.

Mr. BUTLER. That depends upon the provisions of the Constitution. I I know of no reason why paupers should be disfranchised. Paupers do exercise the right of voting in the State of New York at the present time. If a man loses his money, he does not lose the right of citizenship there, and perhaps it may be so here before we get through amending our Constitution-I cannot tell how that may be. In amending the Constitution of New York, the matter was discussed; and while they would not allow colored persons to vote, they took care that all paupers should be allowed to vote. The article, if amended as proposed, would read something like this: "The governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office unless at the time of his election he shall be a citizen of Massachusetts, and shall have been an inhabitant of this Commonwealth for seven years next preceding, and attained the age of thirty years." Now there are insane persons and paupers who would come within all these provisions. I throw out these suggestions to call the attention of the Convention to the subject; and it seems to me that this difficulty might be obviated by inserting after the word "Massachusetts" the words "and a legal voter therein," so that the article would read as follows:

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

If it should be amended so as to read in that manner, it will cover all classes of persons whom we shall, by constitutional law, consider entitled to exercise the duties of citizenship, without including paupers, insane persons, persons under guardianship or any others whom it may be thought best to omit. Now while I think of it, I will ask this Convention and the learned chairman of the Committee in particular, if women are not citizens. I believe the ladies are citizens; at least, I know one who is-I am pretty certain upon that point, [laughter,] and that being so, you have left it so that ladies will be eligible to the office of governor. My friend over the way nods at me, as much as to say that they generally do govern, as it is; but that is not what I am alluding to. Perhaps some gentlemen will think that this is hypercriticism, but we are framing a Constitution which is to last after we shall have passed away from the stage of action, and if any doubts arise as to the construction of any portions of it, they will have to go to the courts for an explanation. The courts may say then just what the courts say with regard to the present Constitution; they say they cannot look into the debates which took place when the Constitution was

framed to get any light to show how it ought to be construed. It is not sufficient that these matters are understood among ourselves-what is said here in the discussion of the amendments will not give any light to those who are to come after us, and we have got to leave the Constitution so that its phraseology will express exactly what we mean, because the courts may say that these debates cannot be used to give a construction to the instrument. I make these remarks, because there is a case in point to illustrate this very thing. Our Constitution says that certain officers shall be chosen by written votes; and when that matter came before the court for explanation, the question was raised whether "written" should be construed to mean "printed;" and although the distinct proposition that the word written should mean printed had been voted down in the Convention, yet our court decided that it should mean printed. Thus they allowed printed votes to be used, although the Constitution expressly declared that the votes should be written, and the proposition to allow printed votes had been voted down in the Convention; the court decided against the understanding and wishes of the Convention, because they would not allow the debates to be brought in as evidence-they would not look into the book.

I am by no manner of means saying that it is not a right decision. Far be that from me, when I am in the performance of practice before courts of law. Of course it is right. But I mean to say this, if nothing more, that we must look at the language we use in framing a fundamental law. I hope the term "Massachusetts" will be adopted. That saves the question; because if a man is a citizen of "Massachusetts," then by the law of the land and the Constitution of the United States, he is a citizen of every other State of the Union-that is, he is entitled to all the immunities and privileges of citizens of the other States, and he is protected in his rights of person and property. By the law of land he is entitled to that. Let us so frame the Constitution that we may have a Constitution, according to the language of Chief Justice Parker already cited, which shall be a sufficient protection for us, if the time shall ever come when the Union shall be dissolved; which I heaven pray may never come. I do not believe it will soon come, and I believe the Union will be preserved, although the apprehensions of the gentleman for Abington, (Mr. Keyes,) seems to be of a different character. I want the word "Massachusetts" inserted, and then, unless some good reason is perceived for the contrary, I will cordially agree to the insertion of the words proposed by the gentleman from Cambridge; and then, I think, no man will have any difficulty in agreeing to the provisions, except upon the ground of age. Perhaps some gentleman will remark that Napoleon commanded the armies of Italy some years before the age of thirty.

Mr. LIVERMORE, of Cambridge. I believe that the amendment that I shall propose, will cover the whole ground, and leave nothing for legal gentlemen to decide hereafter. I will once more read the proposition which I shall submit to the Convention.

"That it is expedient to alter and amend the Constitution so as to provide that any person who is a legal voter in this Commonwealth, and shall have attained the age of twenty-five years, shall be eligible to the office of governor."

[May 28th.

By passing the resolution in that shape, all the legal difficulties which gentlemen have suggested, as to who is to be considered a citizen of the United States, or a citizen of Massachusetts, will be obviated, and all can understand it.

Mr. HALLETT. I would inquire of the gentleman from Cambridge, and of the gentleman from Lowell, whether they mean the full force of their suggestions in regard to this matter? Do they mean to confine the office of governor of this Commonwealth to legal voters? What will be the result? If you happen to choose a man who has been out of the State for two years, or one who has not paid his tax, he is ineligible to that office. Do you intend that result? Now, the principle with which I came into this Convention and mean to carry through with me, is to seek everywhere the largest liberty, consistent with the security and interest of the people. By and by, I dare say I shall be more conservative, in the application of principles, than others are, but when we lay down principles, I desire that they shall be as large as the people. The Constitution as it now reads, is "that no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this Commonwealth for seven years next preceding; and unless he shall, at the same time, be seized, in his own right, of a freehold within the Commonwealth, of the value of one thousand pounds.” That first restriction I hope we shall knock off, to some extent at least; and we shall undoubtedly dispense with the freehold qualification. Now, shall we enlarge or restrict that provision? Now this resolution is, that we shall say to the people, that we do not consider it expedient that they should elect a man for governor who is not thirty years of age. Now, any farmer in our Commonwealth knows when a man arrives at an age when he is capable of managing a farm, or a school commissioner at what age a man can manage a school. I think it is a simple absurdity to put a restriction of that kind upon your candidate for governor. I believe the people who send us here are as wise as we ourselves are, and I propose to leave that matter to them.

Again, he shall have been, immediately preceding the election, an inhabitant of this Commonwealth, for seven years. Now, the only amendment offered, which I should consider as worthy of adoption, is that which proposes, that in addition to being an inhabitant, he shall he a citizen of the United States. Now that enlarges the sphere of eligibility, and because it enlarges it, I am in favor of the proposition.

The gentleman from Lowell, (Mr. Butler,) says that it includes women. That is the very reason why I am in favor of it. I go for the right of the people of this Commonwealth to choose women for their governors, if they see fit to do so. I say if the people of Great Britain have a right to make a woman their queen, we ought to have the right to make women governors. De Loam said that the power of Parliament is such as to do anything except to make a man a woman, or a woman a man. Lord Bacon in his comment upon that passage, declared that Parliament had the power even of making a woman a man, for they declared a woman to be Lord Mayor of London. The qualification should not confine the office to who are voters, but should allow the candiu.... 3 to be taken from any branch of the people, or from any class of society, if they have that quality

9

Saturday,]

we represent. For t'is reason I proposed it, and all this discussion, which has taken a wide range, has not changed my mind upon the question. It may not prevail, but if it does it may be because great and important reasons have been urged in

Now you require your governor to reside seven years within the Commonwealth. You therefore, extend the office to every alien who comes here, for if he remains here five years, he becomes naturalized. So it is no restriction upon aliens at all.

Mr. BUTLER. Does the gentleman mean to inform the Committee that every alien who resides here five years, becomes a citizen, as a matter of course?

Mr. HALLETT. What I said was, that a residence here of five years, gives to every person who comes to this country, a right to be a citizen. If he comes here when under eighteen years of age, he may be naturalized without any previous declaration. If he is over twenty-one years, he must make a previous declaration, but under no circumstances is he required to be in the United States over five years. In that the gentleman will agree with me as a matter of law.

Now I say if a person comes to this country not intending to be a citizen, I have no idea of extending to him citizenship. What I want is, that the foreigner who puts his foot upon our soil, and says that he comes here to identify himself with our institutions, shall, after a sufficient and proper time be incorporated among us; that he shall be made bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. Therefore I say I would make no amendment to the existing provision, unless it be to say that the person eligible to the office, shall be a citizen of the United States.

And while I am upon this subject, let me say in regard to this possessive pronoun "his" which appears in the law, that we have a general provision of law by which "he" may mean "she" and "she" may mean "he," and therefore that does not interfere with the proposition.

Mr. DAVIS, of Plymouth. I wish to ask the gentleman for Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett,) whether a person born in servitude, who may have escaped to this State, or a person who may have been manumitted and has arrived in this State, is a citizen of the United States ?

Mr. HALLETT. The gentleman must first make him a citizen of this Commonwealth. If he is a slave he is not a citizen. When he is free, and then remains seven years in the State, he is eligible to the office of governor.

Mr. MORTON, of Taunton. When I suggested this alteration it was not because I had any great objection to the amendment as it stood, or because I thought any great principle was impaired by it. I threw it out as a peace offering, as one upon which all could stand, and as tending to put an end to this discussion. But it sometimes happens that a man attempts to do a thing and fails; and in this instance it turns out, as it generally does when a man interferes in a quarrel between man and wife,

I have no particular attachment to my mode of expression; but I thought that as we were legislating for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

its favor.

I do not know that it is materially better than the proposition of the gentleman from Cambridge. I have no objection to that, and I am willing to vote for it; but yet, instead of making it more certain, it may make it more uncertain, because it may happen that you have people in this Commonwealth who may make very excellent governors, who yet are not voters. And this brings to my mind the fact, that a person who was a candidate for governor, lost his election because he was not a voter in the Commonwealth.

The term legal voter is very uncertain, because it depends upon the performance of various duties, and mainly upon the payment of taxes. It may so happen that some gentleman may neglect to pay his taxes, and thus be excluded from being eligible to the office of governor.

In relation to the apprehension of some gentlemen, that it may include women, insane persons, and paupers, that fact may have some weight with them, but it has none with me. I go upon the ground of opening a wide door.

I shall vote against the proposition, because of the restriction of the age of thirty years, though I believe that the greatest minister who ever held the seals of Great Britain, went into office at the age of twenty-one, and Washington saved the army of General Braddock at the age of twentytwo. But these instances are rare. I should never want to elect a very young man for governor, but there is no danger in leaving the people to take the man they please.

I do not know that I have any very substantial objection to making it citizens of the United States, though I should rather prefer making it citizens of Massachusetts. I do not know that there is any certainty about one more than the other. I think it is a mere matter of preference. I do hope, however, that we shall settle the question in some way, and whether you decide that he shall be a citizen of the United States, a citizen of Massachusetts, or a legal voter, I shall be content, for I do not believe it involves a matter of any very vital importance.

Mr. BRIGGS, of Pittsfield. Mr. Chairman, I desire to say a single word in reference to some remarks which fell from my friend for Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett). That gentleman used several times, the expression that he was opposed to restrictions; that he was not afraid to trust the people to chose their own governor, and expressions of that nature. Now, Sir, what are this Convention doing? Are we making laws which shall bind the people, whether they will or no? No Sir, all we can do is simply to propose amendments for the people to adopt or reject, as they may see fit. If we adopt, as a qualification for governor, that he shall be thirty years of age, that does not make it obligatory upon the people. The proposition must be submitted to their judgment before it can become binding upon anybody. If they think it more prudent to fix the age at thirty years, they will do so, and if not, they will do otherwise; and the same is true with regard to every other proposition. Therefore, let me say to my friend for Wilbraham, who says so fre

[May 28th.

quently he is not afraid to trust the people, that the people will do just as tacy please, and we cannot Help ourselves. We need not talk about allowing the people to do this or that, for they will have their own way. They have sent us here to propose amendments to the Constitution, and if the amendments we shall propose, meet their approbation, they will adopt t'em, and if not, they will reject them. We can have no definite decision of any matter connected with the Constitu

tion.

Now, my friend for Wilbraham has taken hig er democratic ground upon this occasion than I ever knew him take before. He goes for making women governors. Well, Sir, I shall object to putting that provision into the Constitution, for this reason: they are our governors already. They hold a higher authority over us than would be the case if they were made governors of the Commonwealth by a political election. Now, I beg to ask my friend for Wilbraham, _ (Mr. Hallett,) who advances this doctrine, what the | authority of the Fathers is upon this subject? What is the authority of the Democratic Fathers? What have they said about women being governors (Laughter.]

Mr. HALLEIT. I will answer the gentle

man.

Mr. BRIGGS. Let me ask the gentleman one question more, and then he can answer both at the same time. If you were to exclude women from being governors, would this be a republican government?

Mr. HALLETT. The gentleman states my proposition rather backhandedly. I think I said nothing about women being elected governors. I only said that I am not going to restrict the power of the people, nor am I going to ask them to restrict their own power. If they choose to make women their governors, I would not prevent them from making that choice. Now that is something entirely distinct from placing a provision in the Constitution making women governors, and making them voters. What I said, and all I said upon this subject was that I do not wish to restrict the people, nor to ask the people to restrict themselves, in their choice for governor. There is my position, and that is my democracy. My democracy is to allow the people the widest range in the selection of their candidates for office and I have confidence in them that they will make a judicious selection.

But the gentleman from Pittsfield says that we cannot dictate to the people what they shall do; that the people have the absolute power in their own hands, and will do as they choose. Now, Sir, it often happens that those who talk the largest of the power of the people, are the very ones, when they come to restrictions, to go for, and to induce the people to go for, the largest restrictions, which shall take from the people the largest amount of power. These are all the remarks I propose to make.

Mr. WHITNEY, of Boylston. The gentleman for Wilbraham enlarges upon the idea of having the word "United States" retained. Now I do not like that idea. I do not think it is necessary. It carries with it the fact that a slave is not a citizen. Now, according to my impression, a slave cannot tread the soil of Massachusetts.

Mr. HOOD, of Lynn. Mr. Chairman, it strikes me, and it must strike every member of the Convention, that with the course we are pur