Monday,] Griswold, Josiah W. Griswold, Whiting IIle, Nathan Haskell, George Hayward, George Hillard, George S. Hooper, Foster Hoyt, Henry K. LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR, &c. — WILSON — WILKINS — BUILER. Peabody, George Pease, Jeremiah, Jr. Howland, Abraham II. Preston, Jonathan Hunt, Charles E. Huntington, Asahel Hurlburt, Samuel A. Ide, Abijah M., Jr. Jackson, Samuel James, William Jenkins, John Kellogg, Martin R. Knight, Hiram Knowlton, Charles L. Knox, Albert Langdon, Wilber C. Lawrence, Luther Little, Otis Loomis, E. Justin Lord, Otis P. Mason, Charles Miller, Seth, Jr. Prince, F. O. Richardson, Daniel Marvin, Theophilus R. Turner, David P. Moore, James M. Parsons, Samuel C. Parsons, Thomas A. Tyler, John S. Vinton, George A. Yeas, 289; nays, 6; absent, 120. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Mr. WILSON, of Natick. I perceive, Sir, that the chairman of the Committee who reported the resolves on the subject of Elections by Plurality of Votes is absent, as also the chairman of the Committee on the subject of Lieutenant-Governor, and also the chairman of the Committee on the Qualifications of Voters, and as these gentlemen are doubtless desirous of being here when those subjects respectively are acted upon, and as we have other matters that we may proceed with, I will move that the Convention go into Committee of the Whole, to consider the Report of the Committee on the Frame of Government, that the name "The Commonwealth of Massachusetts" ought to be retained. The motion was agreed to. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. The Convention accordingly resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Thompson, of Charlestown, in the Chair, and proceeded to consider the resolve reported by the Committee on the Frame of Government, that the name the "Commonwealth of Massachusetts" be retained. The resolve was adopted by the Committee without debate, and on motion of Mr. HALL, of Haverhill, the Committee rose and reported the resolution back to the Convention, with the recommendation that it do pass. IN CONVENTION. The Committee of the Whole having reported as above, the resolution was ordered to a second reading. Mr. WILSON, of Natick, said he supposed there would be no opposition to the final passage of this resolution. He would move, therefore, that the rule be dispensed with, and that it be now read a second time. No objection being made, the resolution was read a second time and passed. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. On motion of Mr. HALL, of Iwerhill, the Convention resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Butler, of Lowell, in the Chair, on the Report of the Committee on the Frame of Government, concerning the time of holding State and County Elections. Time of Ilding Elections. The Secretary read the resolution as reported by the Committee, as follows: Resolved, That the Constitution be so amended as to provide that all popular elections of State and County Officers, recurring at stated periods, be held hereafter on the Tuesday next succeeding the first Monday in November. The resolution was adopted by the Committee without debate. On motion of Mr. EARLE, of Worcester, the Committee rose and reported the resolves to the Convention, with a recommendation that it do pass. IN CONVENTION. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole having reported as above, the resolution was ordered to a second reading, and on motion of Mr. WILSON, of Natick, the rule was dispensed with, and it was put upon its final passage. The resolution was accordingly read a second time and passed. Lieutenant-Governor. On motion of Mr. WILSON, of Natick, the Convention again resolved itself into COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, Mr. CROWNINSHIELD, of Boston, in the Chair, and proceeded to consider the Report of the Committee on the subject of the Lieutenant-Gov ernor. The reasons reported from the Committee on so much of the Constitution as relates to the Lieutenant-Governor, were read, as follows: Article 1. There shall be annually elected a Lieutenant-Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, whose title shall be His Honor, and whose eligibility to the office and qualifications therefor, shall be the same as those of the Governor; and the day and manner of his election, and the qualifications of the electors, shall be the same as are required in the election of a Governor. The return of votes for this officer, and the declaration of his election, shall be in the same manner; and if no one person shall be found to have a majority of all the votes returned, the vacancy shall be filled by the Senate and House of Representatives in the same manner as the Governor is to be elected, in case no one person shall have a majority of the votes of the people, to be Gover nor. The Lieutenant-Governor shall hold his office for one year, next following the first Wednesday of January, and until another is chosen and qualified in his stead. Article 2. The Lieutenant-Governor shall be President of the Senate when not acting as Gov [May 30th. ernor, but shall vote only when the Senate is equally divided. Article 3. Whenever the chair of the Governor s'all be vacated, by reason of his death or absence from the Commonwealth, or ot' erwise, the Lieutenant-Governor, for the time long, shall, during such vacancy, perform all the duties incumbent upon the Governor, and shall have and exercise all the powers and authorities, which, by this Constitution, the Governor is vested with, when personally present. Mr. BUTLER, of Lowell, moved to amend the first article by striking out the words "whose title shall be His Honor." Mr. WILKINS, of Boston, said that this subject had been fully considered by the Committee, and they were unanimously in favor of retaining that title. He supposed, however, that if the Convention decided to strike out the title of Ilis Excellency, attached to the office of the Governor, every gentleman present would also be disposed to strike out the title of "His Honor." He thought it would be improper to adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Lowell, until further action had been taken on the subject of the title of the Governor, and he hoped the motion would not prevail. Mr. BUTLER, of Lowell. As I moved the amendment, I will state to the Committee some of the reasons which induced me to make the motion. A preference is expressed by the Report of the Committee, that the Lieutenant-Governor shall be the President of the Senate, with the title of "His Honor," and I am rather fearful that if we make this title constitutional as is proposed, that when acting in his proper capacity in the Senate, instead of being addressed as "Mr. President," the appropriate title, he will always be addressed as "Your Honor." Whether this would be the case or not, however, I think there can be no doubt as to what course, should be taken by the Convention in regard to this matter of titles. without entering into a consideration of the somewhat mooted question, whether a title is or is not in contravention of the Constitution of the United States, it certainly is in contravention of the opinion of every true republican. If you adopt this system of attaching titles to the various offices of trust, I do not know where you are to stop, and I apprehend if you give to the President of the Senate this title of "His Honor," you will not hesitate to confer upon the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the appellation "His Reverence." I think, with the gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Wilkins,) that the title "His Excellency," as applied to the Governor, and the title "His Honor," as applied to the Lieutenant-Governor, should be both rejected or both be retained. And now that we have this resolution before us, I hope, without much debate, unless gentlemen have good reasons for retaining the title, that "His Honor," as a title, will be stricken from the Constitution. I think, Sir, it is no reflection upon our forefathers, that we now take this step; the wonder is they did not retain more of these titles, coming, as they did, from a monarchical government, fresh from the titled nobility, and from titular dignitaries, both of church and state. I think that if the Convention of 1820 had gone into a revision of the Constitution, instead of contenting themselves with amendments, they would have stricken out all titles of every description. But whether this be so or not, it is clearly our Monday,] LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR.- WILKINS-WILSON-TRAIN-KEYES- EAMES. duty to remove them. It is not the title in this country that gives the honor to the officer, but it is the qualification of the man. And I trust there will never be a lieutenant-governor elected in this Commonwealth, who will not be quite content with the plain nominal title which his office confers. Mr. WILKINS, of Boston. I wish to correct a statement that I made with r.gard to the unanimity of the Committee, in their Report. There was one individual, as it now occurs to me, who did not concur in the Report, and was adverse to retaining the title. Mr. WILSON, of Natick. The gentleman from Boston tells us that the Committee were not unanimous-that one gentleman was opposed to retaining this title. I hope, Sir, the Convention will be quite unanimous in striking out the title, and in adopting the motion made by the gentleman from Lowell. We have no title in our national government, and I believe there is no title in any State in the Union, and I really hope that in this age of the world, the Convention called in this old Commonwealth, will not make itself supremely ridiculous by retaining this title. Mr. TRAIN, of Framingham. I rise not to speak with reference particularly to the motion made by the delegate from Lowell, (Mr. Butler,) but simply to suggest whether these resolutions do not require a deeper incision of the knife than that amendment would make; because I think that in the end, the Convention will think it expedient to abolish the office of lieutenant-governor altogether. I find in the second article of the Report of the Committee, a provision that "the Lieutenant-Governor shall be President of the Senate, when not acting as Governor, but shall vote only when the Senate is equally divided." I know from what I have heard upon this subject from men.bers of the Convention and others, that there is a great objection to this article, and I have no doubt that at some stage of the proceedings, that article will be stricken out. I think the Convention will be satisfied that there is an impropriety in prescribing who shall be the presiding officer of one branch of the legislature; and I think that office should be left to be filled by the senators themselves, as we know a man might be elected to the office of lieutenant-governor who would not be well qualified to act as a presiding officer of a legislative body. If we abolish the office of Councillors, the lieutenantgovernor would be a mere ornamental officer, a sort of fifth wheel to a coach; there would be nothing left for him to do except to preside over the Senate. I am quite sure that that feature of the Constitution will be stricken out by the Convention. It seems to me that at some proper stage of our proceedings, these resolves should be amended by striking out the first and second resolutions, and amending the third so as to provide that whenever the chair of the governor shall be vacated by reason of death, or absence, the duties devolving on him shall be performed by the President of the Senate for the time being, and in case of absence or inability on the part of the President of the Senate to perform those duties, they shall be performed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. In the absence of the Council I do not see any occasion for the office. Certainly it would be inexpedient that we should provide for his being, ex-officio, President of the Senate; and if no other one makes the motion, I will, at the proper time, move to abolish the office of lieutenant-governor. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would suggest that after this article has been amended, if it shall be amended, it will be in order to move to strike out the whole of it. Mr. WILKINS, of Boston. I have two or three amendments which I wish to propose, which I think would improve these resolutions; and I hope we may go on and improve the resolutions as much as the Convention see fit. Then if any one wishes to apply the knife so deeply as to destroy the office, we can consider that point afterwards. Mr. KEYES, for Abington. It seeems to me that it would be better, in the first place, to find out what the character of this office is to be, before we discuss the title of the person who is to hold it. I suppose that the original design of giving these titles was not on account of the active official duties of the lieutenant-governor, but because he was placed there to receive the mantle of the governor, provided it should fall on his shoulders. Before we begin this change in view of the reports made, we should reflect on what is to be the final result of all this. Is it the purpose of this Convention so to take away the powers of these officers as to take away their titles and reduce their authority and make them contemptible? It was the original idea that the government owed something to its own respect and that of its officers, more than the laws themselves. That class of people who generally are considered the most adverse and opposed to titles are the very first to follow titles and apply titles and forms. It has been considered that these formalities and titles had a meaning, and undoubtedly they had; and if they had any meaning, the question is whether we will begin and destroy them all, take away all this legislative and executive importance, and leave them without power, and without respect. I do not consider this matter of "His Honor," as a very remarkable thing one way or the other. But what have the people done, without any constitution requiring it, of their own authority? We have, to be sure, often given titles which hold to a man as strongly as that proposed for the lieutenant-governor. If a man is elected into the executive council; for instance, he is called honorable then and forever after, however little he may be worthy. But we can give it as much worth as we please. It is a distinguishing mark, it is a testimonial that that gentleman has held some conspicuous place. I do not think it is any more anti-democratic than it is to call a man captain, or colonel, or general. Why is it? [Laughter.] Now I must say that I do not think the author of this Report, who certainly must have been familiar with the character of the office of lieutenant-governor, has done himself or the other gentlemen who have occupied that office in the government of Massachusetts, due credit. He says that the office of lieutenant-governor is nonessential in this government. If so, it is in consequence of the failure of the officer himself to discharge the duties that devolve upon him, and not on account of the character of the office. I once had the honor, Sir, of a seat in the Council. I saw and learned an important fact, that that Council is not a mere nothing as it is frequently represented to be. The duties which that Council have as the Committee on Pardons alone, render it one of the most important and essential [May 30th. branches of this government. Yes, Sir, in that uncertainty which must always attend the decisions of the courts, with those chances which send one man to prison and set another at large when both are equally guilty, there must be required the most careful study and attention of the most humane and philanthropic minds. The lieutenant-governor is chairman of that Board, and he participates also in the action of the governor himself. Sometimes, too, it happens that in his participation in the duties of the governor he is "a power behind the throne which is greater than the throne itself." How can the man who is to fill these posts be a non-essential in this govern ment? Then before I could vote for many of the things in this Report I should want to know whether the Council is to be retained. I think it should be; and if it is retained the lieutenant-governor has no business in the Senate. The great theory of our government was a separation of the several functions. After comparing all other governments the great success of ours has been attributed to the fact that each department was kept entirely separate from all others. The attempt to strike out the title is like the attempt of some of the old republics, when the aristocracy combined to strip the crown of its honors, because they thought that all of them should not be enjoyed by the crown any more than by themselves. What was the result? It was the ruin of the republic. It occurs to me that it would be proper to consider what other reports have been made to this Committee. It has been said that we shall break up the Council; but it seems to me it would be like breaking up one devil, or evil-which I regard as the same thing-and making seven more, worse than the original. It would break up this Council, and make three or four distinct councils. It seems to me that would be no improvement. It would be mixing up the various offices of the Commonwealth, and giving various powers to individuals who ought to confine themselves to their special business. I have alluded to that Report, for the purpose of suggesting the various matters which have been before us, that we may calculate how much this first step is to cost in breaking down, weakening, and in that respect, lessening the respect for the government. Mr. EAMES, of Washington. I had the honor to be a member of the Committee who made this Report; and I was the only member of that Committee that advocated taking away the title from the office of lieutenant-governor. We had the subject under consideration for two or three days. No one, I think, can show that the expense will be lessened by abolishing the office altogether. I was in favor of retaining the office of lieutenantgovernor, and the Council as they are. As it has been observed by the gentleman for Abington, (Mr. Keyes,) I consider the pardoning duty a great duty; and there is a great responsibility attached to it; and I think councillors are needed, to discharge that duty. The lieutenant-governor, as I understand, and have always understood, is the chairman of that Board. Now if you abolish the Council, and place the lieutenantgovernor in the Senate, where are we to get our pardoning committee? I think it will still be necessary that we shall have a pardoning committee. It has been suggested by members of this Convention that we shall take the pardoning committee Monday,] LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR. — FROTHINGHAM — WILSON — WILKINS — HALLETT, from the Senate. I am from the county of Berkshire, and as an inhabitant of the county of Berkshire, I shall not be willing that any part of that county shall be unrepresented in the Senate. From what little experience I have had, I am in favor of retaining the executive department as it now stands. I think there can be no saving of expense by abolishing the Council, as we shall have to take other persons to fill their places, which will make the expense greater than it will be to retain them. On Saturday I was very urgent that we should make greater progress with our business, but toward the close of the session on that day, I was led to conclude that we had almost done what we may have to do; for when toward the close of the session, there came up a resolution to strike out the titles, His Excellency and His Honor, I concluded we could have little more business before us. Mr. FROTHINGHAM, of Charlestown. I rise to inquire whether it will not be well to amend the first article of these resolutions, so that it will not determine the plurality question. If gentlemen will read it they will find that in the last clause it states that "The return of votes for this officer, and declaration of his election shall be in the same manner; and if no one person shall be found to have a majority," &c. I move to amend the article by adding, after the word “manner," the words "as that of governor ;" and strike out the words "be found to have a majority of all the votes returned," and insert the words "have been elected;" so that it will read as follows: "The return of the votes for this officer, and the declaration of his election shall be in the same manner as that of governor; and if no person shall have been elected, the vacancy shall be filled by the House of Representatives, in the same manner as the governor is elected," &c. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would suggest that there is an amendment now pending, so that the motion of the gentleman from Charlestown is not at present in order. Mr. FROTHINGHAM. Then as I have indicated what I desire, I will, while I am up, make a remark with reference to the question of striking out the title of "IIis Honor." I am in favor of striking it out; for I think that if it be struck out, there will still be retained for the lieutenant-governor a very respectable title to begin with. In the next place, neither the power of an officer nor his respectability, nor the honor in which he is held by the community, depends upon the title, but upon the manner in which he exercises his duty. We confer a title upon the lieutenant-governor when we speak of him. We call him governor; and that, after all, is better by far than any title which you can confer upon him by placing that title in the Constitution. I remember that I found in reading the debates in the first congress, there were long consultations and long discussions in reference to the title which should be given to the president of the United States; and then it was thought necessary, in order that he should be respected abroad and be held to be respectable at home, that he should have some high-sounding title conferred upon him, such as His Highness, or The Protector of our Liberties, or something of that sort. But no one could tell what title would be so much respected abroad, or be held to be so very respectable at home; and neither the Senate nor the House-the House, however, I believe did not even entertain the proposition-but the Senate could not find out any title which would te called respectable. Mr. Chairman, what more beautiful, what more simple, what more admirable arrangement could be made than that which was suggested at the time, to call him President of the United States? Who would stand up now aud venture to propose to change t'at title? What an honor there is about it, and how could that honor be increased? No, Mr. Chairman; let us have no such titles in our Constitution. We should go beyond them. Let us have the title as simple as republican simplicity itself, and we shall be up with the times. I am in favor of abolishing both the title of "His Excellency" and His Honor." Mr. WILSON, of Natick. I am a little surprised at the suggestions of my friend, tl e delegate for Aington. My friend fears that we are to rob the exccutive branch of the government of all influence, patronage and res; ecta! ility; but I have no such fears. I hope and trust, S'r, t' at this Convention will strip the executive branch of this government of all the patronage and power whica it possesses, that can be put into the hands of the people, for them to exercise. I have no fears that by so doing we s! all impair in the least the influence and respectability of the executive of this Commonwealta, or the confi lence which the people have in it. I fully agree with the remarks of the gentleman from Charlestown-I believe that this Convention would make itself ridiculous in the eyes of the people of Massachusetts and of the country, if it should allow this title to stand in the Constitution of this State. The time has passed by in this country, to retain any title whatever, further than to let every man bear the name and title of the office to which he has been elevated. We may call this particular officer the Lieutenant-Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; and I should think that title was honor enough for any man who serves the people of Massachusetts in that capacity. I agree with my friend from Framingham, who has just addressed this body, that the second article should be stricken out. I do not believe, Sir, that the lieutenant-governor of this State should be made president of the Senate, for I wish to keep the executive and legislative branches of this government entirely separate and distinct. The president of the Senate must necessarily wield great power in that body in the appointment of committees, and not only of committees of the Senate, but of the two branches of the legislature. The president of the Senate has to appoint a large number of joint standing committees; and during a long session here he must appoint something like twenty or thirty, and sometimes perhaps more, joint special committees. Now, Sir, I think the president of the Senate should be a member of that body, elected to the Senate by the people, and that the lieutenantgovernor, if we retain that officer, should be a branch of the executive power of the State, and should have no connection whatever with the legislative power of the State. Gentlemen may refer to the example of other States, to show what we should do in relation to this matter; but I do not choose to follow a wrong principle merely because another State has adopted it. It may be necessary, and I rather think it is necessary, that we should have this office of lieutenant-governor. Some three or four times in our history, the duty [May 30th. of administering the office of governor of the Commonwealth has devolved upon the lieutenant-governor, and the same ting may happen again; but I am opposed to making an executive officer, and one wo is elected as an executive officer, eit er president of the Senate or speaker of the House of Representatives. I think these powers should not be thus commingled. Besides, Sir, a man may be selected as candidate either for governor or lieutenant-governor, who possesses unquestiona' le ability, and yet who is totally unfitted to preside over either branch of the legi-lature. I hope that tis amendment, which is moved by the gentleman from Lowell, will be sustained by the Committee and by the Convention. I hope t' is Convention will retain no titles whatever; and I hope, further, Sir, that we shall strike out the second article, and not undertake to make he lieutenant-governor sit as presiding officer in either of the legislative branches of this government. T. e question being taken on the amendment of Mr. Butler, it was agreed to. Mr. WILKINS, of Boston, then moved to amend the first article by striking out of the 11th and 12th lines the words "have a majority of all the votes returned," and insert in lieu thereof the words “be elected ;” and also to strike out of the 10th line the words “a majority of,” and insert in lieu thereof the words "Leen elected by ;" which was agreed to. Mr. WILSON, of Natick, moved to strike out the second article, in the following words: "The Lieutenant-Governor shall be President of the Senate when not acting as Governor, but shall vote only when the Senate is equally divided." course. Mr. HALLETT. I hope this subject will be well considered before we consent to adopt that I have been very desirous that a question which lies behind this-a change that has been proposed by a report which has been referred to the Committee of the Whole, but which has not been reached in the order of business-should be first considered. There should be harmony in the changes which are adopted in your Constitution, if you desire to make it sustain itself throughout as a whole; although each chapter and section may have its substitute, these various substitutes when put together, should make a consistent whole. If you abolish the Council—which I am very much inclined to think the Convention will do when they hear the reasons for it-then you will be obliged to have some office like that of the lieutenant-governor; and the very fact of your being obliged to have such an officer carries with it the necessity of assigning to him some duties. If you take the example of every Commonwealth in the United States, where a substitute officer for the chief magistrate exists, and he is not surrounded by a council, in all such cases, without exception, that officer is made the presiding officer of the first branch of the legislative department. Why should it not be so here? So long as you have a council and the governor presides there, the lieutenant-governor acts in that body and is necessarily withdrawn from the Senate; but if you do away with that body, the lieutenant-governor is the proper presiding officer of the Senate. The suggestion has been made that a man may be perfectly qualified to be a lieutenant-governor, who is not qualified to preside over the Senate. I deny the proposition, Sir, that any man is fit to be lieutenant-governor of this Commonwealth, who could not perform the duties of presiding officer in the Senate-the most quiet, incidental sort of duties which it is possible to attach to any Chair in the world, requiring absolutely no more talent or ability than to preside at town meetings or over a board of selectmen. If he had to sit as presiding officer in the House of Representatives, or in a Convention like this, I would be ready to admit that it would require some talent; but without referring at all to recent periods, if we go back to the ancient history of things in this State, and look at the examples which we have had in the Senate, I think it never need be apprehended that the people of this Commonwealth would ever choose a lieutenant-governor who could not preside there. [Laughter.] But if that should chance to be the case-if it be a possible fact to suppose that a lieutenant-governor might be elected who would not be fit to preside over forty men, where they have no particular rules of order except what their own convenience prompts, if the presiding officer did not know anything about the rules of order he would always have somebody there to tell him; the Secretary of the Senate, who is occupied there without intermission, would always know how to advise him, if there is any apprehension that the people of Massachusetts will not elect a lieutenant-governor who has talent enough to know how to discharge the duties that properly devolve upon him. And, Sir, I think it is very important that we should assign this duty to that office, in order that the people may select a candidate for the office of lieutenant-governor who has the requisite qualifications. If he has got to preside over the Senate, the people would be sure to select a man who is fitted for the duty which they know he has to perform. You never knew the people to fail in that respect; when they require certain duties of an officer, they will find an officer who is competent to discharge those duties; but if you are to take a man for a mere figure-head, who has never got to act as captain except in case of an accident, if the captain should be knocked overboard, the people will say, "any body will do well enough for that." What is the design of this office? What is the lieutenant-governor for? That he may advise and assist the chief magistrate of this Commonwealth; and yet we were told, forsooth, that the people may elect a man who is not fit to preside over the Senate, when if death comes to take away your governor, he is to act as governor. Cases of that kind have happened in the United States government; this may happen in our own Commonwealth. The instances of that kind which have occurred heretofore, have shown the people the importance of having the second officer chosen with reference to that contingency; and for this reason I would have this duty assigned to the lieutenant-governor, so that the people would be more likely to choose a proper man to fill that station. Why should he not be presiding officer of the Senate? The gentleman from Framingham, (Mr. Train,) who rarely makes a suggestion that does not make an impression upon me, says that body should have the choice of its own officers. That is not necessarily important; it is certainly unimportant, with reference to the political relations existing in that body, for the presiding officer of the Senate has no vote except simply the casting vote. Then you find great inconvenience in the Senate from another source. It often happens now, and unless you adopt the plurality rule, will happen again, that your Senate has only some thirteen or fourteen members when it is organized, and there is no man among them who is well fitted to preside over the body, or who would be selected if the body was full; still, out of the thirteen members who are here, some individual must be chosen, and under these circumstances, it causes great embarrassment. On the other hand, if the lieutenant-governor, is the man to preside; in case he is elected he will be here present; and in case there is no election, the preceding lieutenant-governor presides, and none of these inconveniences are experienced. But I will not enlarge upon this view of the subject. It seems to me that the reasons are so obvious and so numerous, that if gentlemen will reflect upon it for a moment, they will see that there is a fitness in this very service, if the officer will bring his mind to it and qualify himself for its duties; for there will be thereby added to the office a dignity, employment and position, which properly fit him to supply the vacancy, if one should occur, in the office of chief magistrate. Mr. SARGENT, of Cambridge. If we are to abolish the Council, I have yet to learn that we have any necessity for this office at all; and if that should be done, I think that in the end the Convention will abolish the office of lieutenantgovernor. As the gentleman who has last addressed us has said, if we abolish the Council the lieutenant-governor will be nothing but a figurehead; but in my opinion he will be a figure-head at the stern of the vessel; and I do not think we shall need any there. I am therefore in favor of the amendment; for if we retain the officer, I think that is the last position he ought to occupy. The Senate, as it seems to me, ought to have an opportunity to choose their own presiding officer; and if a lieutenant-governor is to be elected at all, he is a part of the executive branch of the government, and not a part of the Senate, for if he were, the Senate would have forty-one members. Being, then, a part of the executive branch, I think he ought not to preside in a legislative branch, but that it is altogether preferable to leave the Senate as it has been heretofore. It might, perhaps, be well to provide, if the office of licutenant-governor should be abolished, that in case of the death or absence of the governor, the president of the Senate should temporarily discharge the duties of that office. Mr. HUBBARD, of Boston. While I respect the Committee that reported these articles, it seems to me that the course which has been pursued by other committees is the more convenient onethat of making suggestions as to the modification of the Constitution, without proceeding so far as to embody those suggestions in specific articles, to be inserted in the Constitution. These articles, as reported, enter into minute details of the mode and manner of electing the lieutenant-governor, and as to the duties which he shall perform. Now the whole frame-work of these resolves or articles may have to be revised and altered, if certain other amendments, which have been reported or will be reported, shall be adopted. There seems to be much doubt as to what duties the lieutenant-governor will have to perform, even if that office is retained in the Constitution, as there is great diversity of sentiment upon that point. [May 30th. It has been decided already that the title, which the present Constitution prefixes to his name, shall be stricken out, for, if I remember right, that vote has been taken, and it is now proposed to strike out one particular article which the Committee have proposed, after having prescribed his duties. I submit, Sir, if, in the present state of the question, as it stands before the Convention, before we have determined what shall be done with the Council, before we have determined how the governor shall be elected, the Convention should now simply declare that it is expedient and proper to retain the office of lieutenant-governor, and that so much as relates to his title shall be expunged from the Constitution, we probably shall have proceeded as far as the Convention, at the present time, is prepared to proceed. If the Committee of the Whole should now make that report, it should be placed on the table, until other general principles are settled, and by and by we can arrange the various matters of the Constitution, so as to make it harmonious in its several parts. I therefore beg leave to submit the following amendment, as a substitute :-Strike out all after the word "Resolved," and insert "That it is expedient that the office of Lieutenant-Governor should be retained, and that chapter two and article first should be amended by expunging the words, whose title shall be His Honor.'" Mr. BUTLER, of Lowell. I quite agree with the gentleman from Boston, who has just taken his seat, in the statement made by him, that the discussion of the details of this matter, at this time, is premature, and of course of little value. While I might vote for his amendment, I would suggest to him, and to the Committee, (with the permission of the gentleman who made the motion to amend,) whether it might not be the best manner of reaching a result satisfactory to all, to let the Committee rise, and report the resolutions as they now stand, to the Convention. Then we shall have the first resolution amended, and nothing done with the second and third. Then, in Covention, let some gentleman move that the resolves be again referred to the Committee of the Whole, to take their place upon the calendar, which would transfer them to a position after the resolves in reference to the Council, and after the resolves which we have before us. They will then come up in their regular place, which I think would be agreeable to the gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Hubbard,) as it would meet exactly the point which he wishes to meet, and we should not lose the labor we have done, in amending the first article. If the gentleman from Framingham, (Mr. Train,) will withdraw his amendment, I will move that this Committee rise and report the resolves to the Convention, with a view, when in Convention, of moving that they be recommitted to the Committee of the Whole, so that they then may take their place after the resolves in relation to the Council. If the gentleman from Boston, and the gentleman from Framingham, see no objection to this course, I think it will disembarrass the Convention on this matter. Mr. HUBBARD, of Boston. I would inquire whether if the amendment I have suggested should be adopted by the Committee of the Whole at the present time, we could not then take the course, in Convention, which has been proposed by the Monday,] OATHS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS. — FROTHINGHAM — WILSON — GRAY — BUTLER — TRAIN. gentleman from Lowell, (Mr. Butler). Then the resolves coming up a second time in Committee of the Whole, we could append such additional resolves as the subsequent action of the Convention might render proper and expedient. As it now stands, the resolves go back to the Convention containing certain provisions in regard to the duties of lieutenant-governor and which, if the matter again comes up before the Committee of the Whole, must be amended; but if it goes back as a simple proposition that we have a lieutenant-governor, without the prefix of a title, we can then add to his name what prefix we choose. Mr. FROTHINGHAM, of Charlestown. I confess I could have no objection to the course proposed by the gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Hubbard,) did it not seem to me, that, after all, it is not quite parliamentary to take up the report of a Committee, in the absence of its chairman, and cut and carve it in any manner which we choose to. I believe, Mr. Chairman, he is the only gentleman who is a member of this Convention, that has ever been lieutenant-governor. I would suggest to members of the Convention whether it would not be, after all, a mere act of courtesy to the chairman of that Committee to postpone farther action upon this Report, until he shall be present. I would make that suggestion to members all around. I think I never knew, in the limited experience I have had in deliberative bodies, a single instance when the report of a committee has been taken up and considered under such circumstances. For one, I confess I like to proceed in a parliamentary manner, and in a manner as courteous to every member of the Convention as we can, without interfering with the business of the Convention. I am aware of the circumstances under which we act this afternoon, that there seems to be no other business before the Convention; but still I submit whether it would not be best, on the whole, for the Committee to rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. Mr. WILSON, of Natick. I agree with the gentleman from Charlestown, who has just taken his seat. I understand that we can go on with No. 8 on the Orders of the Day,-being the Report of the Committee on Oaths and Subscriptions. However, I will assent to that arrangement. But I wish simply to say, while I am up, a single word in relation to the remarks of the gentleman for Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett). I understood him to say that there would be no trouble in this matter, as the people always select men qualified to discharge the duties of any office, when they know what the duties are. This may be so. I, however, have the opinion, that in this matter it would be better to leave the Senate to select its own presi ling officer, and that, as a general thing, the business of the legislature would be promoted by so doing. I am also in favor of retaining the office of lieutenant-governor. Governors Sullivan and Eustis died in office, and the duties of governor thereupon devolved upon the lieutenant-governor. Governor Davis was elected a senator of the United States while in office, and his duties devolved upon lieutenant-governor Armstrong. We have had four instances in our history of that character, and it may be so again; and I would provide ment suggested by the gentleman from Charlestown, (Mr. Frothingham,) that the Committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. For that purpose I make the motion, The CHAIRMAN. Does the Chair understand the gentleman to withdraw his former motion? Mr. WILSON. I do. Mr. HUBBARD, of Boston. I would inquire if the motion made by the gentleman from Natick would then be considered as a pending motion, when this subject shall come up again? The CHAIRMAN. It would not be, as it is withdrawn. Mr. GRAY, of Boston. This seems to be merely a matter of form. Upon that there appears to be unanimity of sentiment. It appears to me, as I understand the matter, that if the motion to report these resolves, with the amendment already passed, to the Convention, be adopted, it will enable us to refer them again to the Committee of the Whole, in connection with the Report in reference to the Council. Perhaps the Chair can inform me upon that subject. I wish to have them referred to another Committee, and also to have them put into such a condition, that that Committee can act upon both resolves together. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would state that the whole matter would be subject to the control of the Convention. Mr. WILSON. I withdraw my motion, in order to enable the gentleman from Lowell to make his. Mr. BUTLER, of Lowell. I now renew the motion before indicated by me, to wit: that the Committee rise, and report back the resolves to the Convention. I will further say, that when in Convention I will move to have the second and third resolves referred to the Committee of the Whole, at the same time with the resolves in reference to the Council. That will bring all these matters up together. Mr. HUBBARD, of Boston. Would not that motion amount to a recommendation that the resolves should be adopted by the Convention? The CHAIRMAN. Not necessarily so. The question was then taken upon the motion of Mr. Butler, and it was agreed to. The Committee accordingly rose and the chairman reported that the Committee had had under consideration, according to order, the Report of the Committee to whom was referred so much of the Constitution as relates to Lieutenant-Governor and had made some progress therein, and had instructed him to report back the same to the Convention, with an amendment to the first article. Mr. BUTLER. I now move that the second and third articles be referred to the Committee of the Whole, for consideration, at the same time with the report in reference to the Council. Mr. TRAIN, of Framingham. I would inquire if we recommit the second and third articles to the Committee of the Whole, where do we get the power, if we desire to do so, to act upon the first article? The PRESIDENT. The question will immediately be submitted to the Convention, upon ordering the first article to its second reading. Mr. TRAIN. My own idea is that the whole Report should be recommitted, because there are serious considerations, which may be urged, and [May 30th. will be urgel, to abolish the office of lieutenantgovernor, if the Committee report in favor of abolishing the Council. It seems to me that this consideration should be met while the subject is under discussion in Committee. I suggest that the whole resolves be recommitted. Mr. BUTLER. I have no objection to that, and I modify my motion accordingly. Mr. LORD. I would inquire if, after the Convention have adopted an article, and the whole article is sent back to the Committee of the Whole, whether the Committee have the power to modify it? Mr. GRAY, of Boston. I suggest to my colleague, whether it would not be entirely competent for the Committee to strike out the article, in spite of the amendment. The PRESIDENT. In committing an article to the Committee the Committee have full control over it. The question was then taken upon the motion of Mr. Butler, to recommit the whole Report to the Committee of the Whole, to take their place on the calendar with the resolves in reference to the Council, and it was agreed to. Oaths and Subscriptions. Mr. BUTLER, of Lowell, moved that the Convention resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, upon the resolves reported by the Committee upon Oaths and Subscriptions. The motion was agreed to. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. The Convention accordingly resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, (Mr. Gray, of Boston, in the Chair,) and proceeded to consider the said Resolves. They were read, as follows: 1. Resolved, That it is expedient to amend, and alter the existing Constitution in the first article of the sixth chapter, by incorporating the oath of allegiance and the oath of office into one formula. 2. Resolved, That it is expedient to alter and amend this part of the Constitution, as follows, namely:-Strike out the words, "So help me God," where they first occur, and in lieu thereof insert the word "and." Also, strike out in the official oath the words, "I, A. B., do solemnly swear and affirm." So that there shall be but one oath taken and subscribed, which, as amended, shall read as follows: "I, A. B., do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and will support the Constitution thereof; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as (here insert the office), according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the rules and regulations of the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth. So help me God." 3. Resolved, That it is expedient to amend and alter the proviso in this article as follows: 1. Strike out the words, "of the denomination of the people called Quakers," and insert the words "conscientiously scrupulous of taking and subscribing an oath." 2. Strike out the letter "s" in the word "oaths," which follow the words "taking the said;" and strike out the words, "in the foregoing form." 3. Strike out the words "in the first oath." Also, the words "in the second oath," and in each of them, the words, " So help me God." 4. Strike out the words, “instead thereof," where it first occurs in said proviso, so that the proviso, as amended, shall read as follows: "Provided, alcays, that when any person, chosen or appointed as aforesaid, shall be con |