Tuesday,]

Bristol,

Plymouth,

Dukes,

Nantucket,

Barnstable,

6

3

2

3

1

There were only five votes against it in Worcester County, two in Franklin, and four each in Bristol, Plymouth and Barnstable Counties, and not one vote against it in either Nantucket or Dukes.

Gentlemen may perhaps say that all this proves nothing, but just that certain persons have changed their minds. To me it proves a good deal more --for when gentlemen tell me that the people of the Commonwealth look upon this change as a very hazardous one, one which shocks all their old prejudices, if I can show that almost all parts of the State, either at one time or another, have voted for it, it shows conclusively that the people do not regard this matter with any particular reverence, but look upon it as a custom to be altered at any time when convenience or expediency may require.

Mr. Chairman. I am much obliged to the Convention for the attention which it has indulgently given to me, and will not at this late stage of the debate trespass upon their patience, but to say one or two words more. It seems to me that gentlemen ought to be cautious how they allow themselves to be influenced by a veneration for what is old. This veneration, generally accompanied with strong prejudices, has always stood in the way of human improvement. No reform was ever suggested, which was not at the outset encountered by this very objection-you are unsettling foundations! removing land-marks! This was the very objection made by the Scribes and Pharisees to the introduction of Christianity, and the instances in history of a similar opposition to reforms and improvement are so very frequent that it would be superfluous pedantry to enumerate them.

One word as to the amendment. I have considered the resolution as the subject matter before the House, although in point of strict parliamentary usage, it is the amendment which is directly before us. This amendment I hope will be rejected and all other amendments; let us have the naked question unembarrassed by any insidious proposition, intended, under the guise of an amendment, to defeat the resolution. If these gentlemen think with me, that the modification proposed, is really no radical change of a principle fundamental in the Constitution, but only such a change as the people may very properly make when the state and condition of society demand it. If they believe that, in consequence of the ill-feeling and bitterness, the expense and inconvenience occasioned by frequent elections, the change is desirable. If they believe that the change, instead of repudiating the majority principle, will tend to confirm it, and give it new life and validity, I hope they will vote for the original resolution, as reported, without alteration or amendment.

Mr. OLIVER, of Lawrence. I only rise to make a single inquiry. I desire to know whether the gentleman from Framingham, (Mr. Train,) has withdrawn his amendment to insert the word "civil" before the word "officers" in the amendment?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Framingham did withdraw that amendment.

Mr. OLIVER. Then I move to insert the word "civil" between the words "of" and "officers," in the resolve, so that the resolve will then read:

Resolved, That it is expedient so to revise the Constitution, that in all elections by the people of civil officers named in it, the person receiving the highest number of votes shall be deemed and declared to be elected.

I make that motion because the resolve will otherwise probably interfere with the action of another Committee, and furthermore because I deem it inexpedient to apply the plurality principle to the election of military officers.

Mr. DANA, for Manchester. As it is rather late, as the Convention has agreed to adjourn to meet again at three o'clock, and as we could not possibly have time to take the question now, if no other gentleman desired to debate it, I move that the Committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

The motion was agreed to.

The Committee accordingly rose, and the President having resumed the chair of

THE CONVENTION,

The Chairman, (Mr. Sumner, for Marshfield,) reported progress, and asked that the Committee have leave to sit again.

Leave was granted.

On motion by Mr. EARLE, of Worcester, the Convention then adjourned until three o'clock, in the afternoon.

AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention met at 3 o'clock.

Time of Holding Elections.

Mr. BRIGGS, of Pittsfield, offered the following resolution:—

Resolved, That the Committee on the House of Representatives be instructed to inquire into the expediency of so altering that part of the Constitution which relates to the time of choosing representatives to the General Court, as to provide that representatives may be elected at any time before the day of the final adjournment of the legislature to which they are to be elected.

On motion of the gentleman from Pittsfield, the resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole, to take its place on the calendar with the majority and minority reports on the House of Representatives.

United States Senators.

On motion of Mr. WHEELER, of Lincoln, it

was

Ordered, That the Committee on so much of the Constitution as relates to the Frame of Government and the General Court, consider the expediency of incorporating into the Constitution a provision that Senators in Congress shall be chosen by joint ballot of both branches of the legislature, assembled in convention.

The Governor.

On motion by Mr. WILSON, of Natick, it

was

Ordered, That the Committee to whom was referred so much of the Constitution as relates to the Governor, be instructed to consider the expediency of amending article 7th, of section 1st, chapter second of the Constitution, by substituting

(May 31st.

ther for the following words, to wit: The Governor shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Militia of the Commonwealth, and of the Army and Navy.

Senators in Congress.

Mr. HATHAWAY, of Freetown, moved a reconsideration of the vote by which the order submitted by the gentleman from Lincoln, in relation to the election of United States Senators, was adopted.

The motion was agreed to.

The question recurred upon the adoption of said order,

Mr. HATHAWAY. I am opposed to the adoption of this order, and my reasons are very few and very plain. If the Convention adopt it, in my judgment, it will be doing an act which is in direct contravention of the Constitution of the United States. I hold that Constitution to be paramount to all other organic law that can be instituted in this country, and I am perfectly satisfied that neither this Convention nor the people of tais State, have any power over the subject that is embraced in this order. It is beyond our reach entirely. The matter has been settled by the United States Government, and having been so settled, it matters not what your Committee may do in regard to it; their action must necessarily be void if it come in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution of the United States. If this Convention were to adopt a measure which conflicts with a provision of the supreme organic law of this country, the measures so adopted must necessarily be inoperative. Would it be proper, then, to consider any proposition that would necessarily be void, provided it were adopted. If gentlemen will look at the first article of the Constitution of the United States, they will see that this whole matter has been disposed of, not only in reference to senators, but in reference to the elections of members of Congress, about the inconvenience attending which so much has been said, and so many arguments drawn in favor of a change from the majority to the plurality system of voting at elections.

The Constitution of the United States declares "that the times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may, at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing senators."

This provision of the Constitution directs in what manner these elections shall be regulated; it is to be done, not by the people, not by a body assembled to frame an organic law, but by the legislature of the State. The matter is fixed and determined; it is just as well settled and as irrevocable and unchangeable, so long as the Constitution of the United States remains in existence, as the laws of the Medes and Persians.

I maintain, therefore, that it would be perfect

nonsense for us to refer this matter to a committee

-perfect nonsense for us to attempt to make any constitutional provision in relation to it, and still more nonsensical would it be for the people of the State to pass upon such a provision. Sir, it is the province of the legislature to act in this Suppose we undertake to prescribe a rule for the people to act upon in regard to the election of United States Senators. Suppose this Convention choose to say that the two houses of the legislature shall meet in Convention for that

matter.

Tuesday,]

purpose, and that when the legislature comes together they take a different view of the matter, and say they will not meet in Convention but that they will act separately, while we require a concurrent vote of both branches. Who then is to decide which course shall be taken? Are not the legislature not only the judges, but the sole judges in reference to this matter? Hence I say it is perfectly useless, in my judgment, for us to attempt to make any provision in regard to it. If we do so it will amount to nothing, and I trust the order will not be referred.

Mr. WHEELER. I hope the Convention will indulge me in a few remarks in reply to what has been said by the gentleman from Freetown. The proposition that I have made is a mere matter of inquiry, and it will be for the Committee to consider whether any such provision as is indicated would be proper to be introduced.

There are gentlemen upon that Committee who have more experience in matters of legislation than I have, and I would like to have their views in relation to this point. One other remark only I will trouble the Convention with; it is simply this. Some other States of this Union have a provision in their Constitutions founded upon this provision in the Constitution of the United States. If the gentleman will look at the Constitution of the State of Louisiana, he will find that it is prescribed that in the year in which a regular election of a senator of the United States is to take place, the members of the General Assembly shall meet in the hall of the House of Representatives, and proceed to the said election. I can see no impropriety in requesting our Committee to inquire into this matter, and make such report as may seem to them to be proper and right.

Mr. HATHAWAY. I am aware, Sir, that the order is not imperative in its terms, that it is a mere matter of inquiry, but the gentleman does not answer my proposition at all. I care not if the people of the State of Louisiana have said that the qualifications of the voters for members of Congress shall be different from those of the voters for members of the most numerous branch of their State legislature; a thing that would be in contravention of the Constitution of the United States, because it prescribes that the qualifications of electors shall be the same precisely in the one case as in the other. Would that be any authority for us? Not at all; yet the gentleman has introduced the action of the people of the State of Louisiana as authority here. And although there is such a proposition in the Constitution of the State of Louisiana, I would inquire of the gentleman whether if the legislature of that State come together and the two branches agree that they will choose their senators by a concurrent vote of the two branches, instead of under the article of the Constitution which the gentleman has read, which course would be right? Which would be valid? Who would be sustained, the people or the legislature? Or, suppose they appoint some other place? The whole matter lies in a nut-shell. It is comprehended in one single question, is it a matter for the people to regulate, or does it belong to the legislature, under the provision of the Constitution of the United States? That is the question and the only question.

I am totally averse, Sir, to referring to a committee matters with which we have nothing to do, matters over which we have no power. Some other matters have been referred, over which, I

doubt if we have any power under the Constitution of the United States. Perhaps the gentleman has answered my proposition satisfactorily to himself, but his answer has not satisfied me. It does not meet the objection I have raised. IIence I hope the proposition will be rejected.

Mr. BIRD, of Walpole. I trust the Convention will pause before they reject a proposition for inquiring into a matter which any member may desire to be enlightened upon. If we are to discuss all propositions that are mere matters of inquiry where is to be the limit to debate? I have no doubt that orders of inquiry have been adopted, to which just as weighty objections exist as to this. If this order is to be rejected on this ground, a large number of others might be objected to upon the same ground, and there would be no end to discussions tending to no good purpose. I hope the order will be referred.

Mr. WHEELER. I find that I have opened a field of debate that I little expected when I proposed this order. I should like to be informed by the gentleman from Freetown whether this Convention has the power to make a Constitution that shall control the legislature of the State? I supposed that it had that power. But if the legislature is to determine the time and places of choosing senators, does it then follow that this Convention cannot direct the legislature how they shall do it. I was under the impression that this Convention had power to control the legislature, but the gentleman seems to have seen some new light regarding the powers of this body.

The question was then taken and the order was adopted.

Adjournment.

Mr. SHELDON, of Easton, moved that when the Convention adjourn, it be to meet at 9 o'clock to-morrow morning.

Mr. OLIVER, of Lawrence, said he hoped the motion would not prevail. There was such a thing as getting along too fast. He was a member of a committee that had had five or six meetings; but he had been called away in the early part of the session by a domestic calamity, which kept him absent about ten days. Since that time the Committee had endeavored to be together at 9 o'clock every morning, which they had assigned as their regular hour of meeting, but if this motion should prevail they would have no other opportunity for holding their sessions, as several who resided in the country, went home at night and returned in the morning. He thought if the motion was adopted it would be crowding the Committees too hard, and he hoped the gentleman would not insist upon it.

Mr. SHELDON said that in view of the seconsiderations, he would withdraw his motion.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

On motion by Mr. BROWN, of Douglas, the Convention resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Sumner, for Marshfield, in the Chair, and proceeded to consider the unfinished business, being the subject of elections by plurality of votes, the pending question being upon the amendment offered by the member from North Brookfield-to insert in second line after the word "that," as follows: "In the election of governor and lieutenant-governor, senators and representatives, a majority of all the votes cast shall be necessary for a choice; and the election of all other

[May 31st.

officers shall be by a majority or a plurality of the votes, as the legislature shall determine, unless otherwise specially provided for in the Constitution."

Mr. WALKER accepted the amendment to his amendment, offered by the member from Lawrence to insert the word "civil" before the word "officers."

I re

Mr. R. H. DANA, Jr., for Manchester. gret very much that the first time I have had the honor to address this Convention, except a casual word yesterday, I should be obliged to address it under circumstances of some embarrassment and some disadvantage. For I am very much afraid, from indications which I have seen about me, that I shall be obliged to vote and speak so as to separate me, in this instance, from the greater part of those in this Convention with whom I have had the pleasure of acting during the last six years. I regret to be obliged to allude to any such circumstances, but certain it is, and honestly we cannot shut our eyes to the fact, that no man with the least power of reading the signs of the times, can question that upon the point we are now considering, we are fast forming ourselves into party lines. When this Convention opened, it was said on all sides, that we came here not as party men, but to lay down organic laws which should survive all parties, and those sentiments met with general approbation. But there is "a law in our members warring" against the lead of our better reason, which seems to have prevailed, and it cannot be denied that we are fast falling into recognized party lines on the question now under consideration. It is not long ago that some gentleman, (I am happy to say that I forget his name,) desired to know under what colors members sailed in this body. If by that question he wished to know our opinions, I am ready to give mine anywhere; but, if the gentleman wished to know who sailed under party colors, he may as well understand, so far as I am concerned,—— though I expect to be a very humble member here, that he will not be able to ascertain my opinions in that way.

About four years ago my attention was directed to this great question of plurality and majority. I then examined a certain document which my friend the member from Brookline, (Mr. Aspinwall,) seems to have taken into his especial charge, and to have committed to memory. I confess I was greatly influenced by the reading of that document, and in fact that document almost persuaded me to be the advocate of the plurality sysIt went far towards it, removed many of my objections, presented to my mind a great many sound reasons for its adoption. Now because a good many advocates and signers of that document have changed their position, it does not follow that I must change mine. I may survive my teachers, and follow instructions which those who gave them have ceased to follow.

tem.

When I looked at this subject a few years ago, I found a large class of persons (I mean no party allusions now) who considered themselves, par excellence, the conservative part of the community, wedded entirely to the majority system. Because those gentlemen have all gone to the right about, and are supporting the plurality system, it does not follow that I should not support it. I do not think that my position here is to be determined by either the position of those who have heretofore argued zealously for the plurality and have for some reason

Tuesday,]

or other changed their position to the support of the majority system, or of those who have argued for the majority principle and have changed their position to the plurality system, and that the course which gentlemen may have taken on either side ought to drive me this way or that. Yet it cannot be denied that these considerations are having very great influence in this assembly, We are dealing with a matter of organic law, with a law which ought to survive parties. It is a very great evil in a republic that the same party lines should last a very long time, for they do, after a time, degenerate into factions. It is one of the blessings of our institutions that here, in this widely extended country, party lines become greatly broken up, party associations become weakened, and party names lose their efficacy. Therefore it ought to be borne in mind, that we are legislating here upon something which shall survive all these party lines, names, and considerations.

The Committee will permit me to observe-I hope that I do not indulge in any assumption by so doing-that I think we allow ourselves to some extent to be the subjects-I will not say the victims-of a slight fallacy upon the question of plurality and majority. It seems to have been conceded, that by adopting the plurality we do some violence to the great principle that majorities govern. I suppose there is no man in this Committee who does not agree to the great principle that majorities must govern, and majorities only. What is the meaning of that great maxim? I understand it to be a maxim aimed at the government of the few, against aristocracy, against oligarchy, against monarchy. I understand it to be a great republican principle the meaning of which really is, that numbers shall govern; not the strongest nor the richest, not those who profess to call themselves the best, but that the government shall be the government of numbers, and that the greater number shall prevail. This is perfectly true. Whenever you put a proposition, yea or nay, the greater number prevails. Still further behind that lies this question. When you are voting for a number of persons, A, B, C, and D, what do you mean by the term majority then? Why it means that the greater number should govern. It does not mean that any one man must have more votes than all the others put together. I beseech the calm judgment of the Committee to the fact, whether the proposition that one candidate shall have more votes than all the others put together, is not a device and contrivance-I do not mean to speak disparagingly of it, because I like it in most cases-a device or contrivance of a conservative nature, made to secure the highest possible expression of public opinion. What is the natural mode of voting? We are to vote for a candidate for governor. The question is not whether A B shall be the governor. If so, the votes would be all yeas or nays, and the majority would govern. The question is, who is govvernor when one candidate has ten thousand votes, another nine thousand, and another four thousand. The natural result is this, that the one who receives the highest number of votes prevails. That is the natural mode of doing the business, and the contrivance, that one man shall have more than all the others put together, is a contrivance of a conservative nature, as I said before, made to answer a special purpose.

We have a great In juries we

many devices of various sorts.

ELECTIONS BY PLURALITY. — DANA.

require unanimity. So in a board of selectmen, and certain commissioners, we require unanimity. In some cases we require a two-third vote. What are these but conservative devices and contrivances? In some cases we go not quite so far, and say that there shall be a majority of all the members, not merely of the members voting. What is that but a conservative device and arrangement? Some allusion was made the other day to the election of the President of the United States. I think gentlemen were acting under some misapprehension as to the manner in which the President shall be elected. The rule provides that there must be a majority of the votes of all the electors chosen, and not merely of all the electors voting, so that if any electors die, or for some reason are not able to vote, the President of the United States is not to be chosen by a majority of the votes of the electors, but he must have an absolute majority of all the electors chosen. What is that rule? It is but a device and contrivance of a conservative nature, having for its object the securing of the strongest expression of public opinion.

It

If

What has been the device of New England or Massachusetts? It is, that men to be chosen to office, shall have more votes than all the others put together. We call it a majority. In England, as was remarked by the gentleman from Brookline, (Mr. Aspinwall,) in their popular elections, they give the election to the one who has the greatest number of votes, and they call it majority. They have called it so for six hundred years, and they have believed that they supported the majority principle, because they gave the election to the one who had the greatest number of votes. If you trace the meaning of the word through the books, (as, pardon me, I do not mean to do,) you will find that it has always been applied to the greatest number. So it is in almost every State of this Union. They say that the majority shall prevail, and they mean the greatest number; and I should be glad to know why it is not a majority. The principle upon which we act ought to be called the maximum principle. Majority is a comparative, and not an absolute term. means the greatest, or the greater number. you take up the newspapers from the middle and the southern States, you will find they state that Governor Hunt, or Governor Jones, is chosen by 5,000 majority, meaning that he has 5,000 more votes than any other candidate. That is the legitimate use of the word "majority." I make this argument for the benefit of the Committee, merely to caution them against the idea that, because we have adopted the technical term "plurality," therefore we are violating the majority principle. When we adopt the plurality system, we do not at all violate or touch the great maxim, that majorities shall govern. I do not desire to make any personal allusion, but I recollect of reading one of the strongest arguments which I have seen against the plurality system, in the newspaper known in Boston as especially "respectable," in which the writer said that we violate by the plurality principle the great principle that majorities shall govern. It immediately occurred to me, here is a fallacy. The term that the majority shall govern, is used in a general sense, and then it is applied in its restricted and technical sense. And I submit to the judgment of the Committee if there has not been a good deal of argument like this used here, first employing the term "majorities shall

[May 31st.

govern," in its widest sense, and then afterwards in its restricted sense. This is a verbal argument, but perfectly good for answering a verbal position. If my position is a true one, it is a question of mere expediency, and no question of deep principle, whether we shall adhere to this device of requiring a man to have more votes than all the others, or whether we shall take the simple and natural mode of saying, that he who gets the greatest number of votes shall be elected. I grant that in smaller bodies where there is no embarrassment in frequent votings, and votes may be taken by suprise, I would require an absolute majority.

But, the question is, whether in great popular elections, when we are voting by tens of thousands, when we are voting on fixed and settled days, known and established in the Constitution, for well-known officers, and where frequent elections are a great inconvenience; the question is, whether we ought in these elections, to adhere rigidly, in all case, to the majority system. That is your rule now, because, as your Constitution now stands, you must adhere to the majority rule on every occasion. Now, I have not yet heard the first member of this Convention, say that he is in favor of making the majority rule absolute in all cases. I put it to the Committee; has the first man said that he would be in favor of making the majority rule absolute, irremediable and unchangeable in every case? I think there has not been one. I submit it to the good judgment of this Convention, if the question were now put, will you provide that there shall be an absolute majority of votes in every case, and that neither the legislature, nor any body else shall touch it, would there be fifty men to stand up in this Convention and sustain it? Almost every-body says, there are cases where we had better have a plurality. If I am right, that almost all so think, and that the general impression is, that we must discriminate then, there is an end of the argument that we cannot violate the majority principle. Is it not the general impression in this Convention, that in some cases we should introduce the plurality system? What is the cause of our being here to-day? I would like to know to-day, if the present Constitution, as it relates to the choice of senators and members of the House of Representatives, has not been the occasion of the calling of this Convention? The fact, that the House of Representatives chose a part of the Senate, and that the House of Representatives and Senate together, chose the governor, has produced this effect, in a great measure. So far as I have been conversant with the public sentiment as expressed in private conversations, on public platforms, and in the newspapers, that has been the chief cause assigned for the calling of this Convention, and that has been the one which led me to sustain the Convention. What did that arise out of? Out of the general ticket system, and the majority system combined. Now, say gentlemen, let us not have that any more. not seen any persons in favor of choosing the governor and representatives in this hall. It is said we must make some change in this respect.

I have

Does any body want to have three or four gubernatorial elections in a year? No man wants them. Then, if by the majority system, you do not elect a governor by the people, twice in ten years, you do elect the governor here. He ought not to be elected here. You elect a part of your

Tuesday,]

Senate here, because you fill all vacancies here. You may yet adopt the district system for the choice of representatives. What will you do then? You will have few elections at the first trial, because gentlemen must bear in mind that if they have the district system, they cannot have elections three days in succession. If you adopt the district sytem, your choice of representatives will fall into the same category with that of the choice of senators; and you will then have to call frequent district meetings, or there will be many vacancies in the House of Representatives, which will have to be filled here on this floor. I would now ask gentlemen whether they are prepared to fill up the House of Representatives on this floor. Whether they are prepared to fill up the Senate here on this floor, and to elect your governor here on this floor? Are you prepared to elect your judges, if they are made elective, as I hope they never will be? But if they are made elective, are you prepared to elect them on this floor? Are you prepared to elect your sheriffs and coroners, your registers and clerks of courts, on this floor? It strikes me we must come to that, if we adhere to the majority system.

Now, gentlemen will say, we agree we must depart from the majority system. And then the question comes back, How far are you willing to depart, and where will you make the discrimination? I understand there are two plans before the Committee: one is, that we shall discriminate here; and the other is that which was made by the gentleman from Framingham, (Mr. Train,) and which is now withdrawn; but which will be renewed by and by, that we should leave the power to the legislature. So that the question narrows itself down to this: Who shall discriminate? Shall the Convention discriminate, or shall the legislature discriminate? Now, with all the jealousy that I can have of legislators,and the conduct of some legislators has not been such as to inspire me with the greatest respect,with all the want of confidence I should have in their judgment, is there not a great objection to our discriminating here? If the legislators make a false discrimination, it is amendable; if we make a false discrimination, it is not. Gentlemen have said that we can amend the Constitution. So we can. But I submit, if amending the Constitution is not a great work, involving not only many difficulties, but great expense; if it is not the medicine, and not the daily food of the State. Do the people of Massachusetts wish you to put a provision into this Constution, which would require that it should be amended very often? I apprehend not. Therefore I would not put detailed discriminating provisions into a law, which, like the law of the Medes and Persians, altereth

not.

Shall we discriminate? How shall we do it? Shall we say that A, B, X, Y, and Z, shall be elected by a plurality, and that C, D, E, R, and W, shall be elected by a majority? If we make that discrimination, it is irrepealable. Imagine that such a proposition is sent out to the people of the State, for their consideration. One man says, I would rather have the governor chosen by a plurality, and another says he would prefer to have him chosen by a majority, and the Senate chosen by a plurality. The people will differ to an indefinite extent on these propositions, and the probability is, that the whole plan will be swamped, because the people do not like

ELECTIONS BY PLURALITY. - DANA.

the means, though they like the end to be reached. That is one evil which will result from our discrimination. Another evil would be, that we should introduce too much of detail into the Constitution. In the State of New York they now agree that they made a great error in carrying their Constitution too far into detail. Let us beware of that error; let us assert general principles, and make general provisions; let us say that we will have a majority in all cases, or a plurality in all cases, or else leave the whole thing to the legislature. I do not mean to say that if gentlemen can draw a definite line, not like that between A, B, C, and D; but like that between military and civil officers, or between executive and judicial officers, I might not sustain them. But the kind of amendment now proposed by the gentleman from North Brookfield, I must say, does not strike me as judicious for a permanent organic law.

I would be willing to go the whole length, and say, let us introduce the plurality system out and out. Why? Because I look upon it as one of those undefinable political necessities which every man feels to be hanging over the State, but for which he cannot quite give the reason. I do believe there is an over-ruling political necessity which will bring us to adopt the plurality system. Public opinion has been going in that direction. I do not refer to the changes of recent occurrence in this body, for they may all be changed back again. The next November elections may change them all back again. But public opinion has been turned towards the plurality system. We have adopted it in congressional elections in certain cases, and it has been well received. I do not know of any objections to it, and I believe that "to this complexion must we come at last." I believe that now we have met together and we may never meet again in this generation to act upon organic law- - we had better regard the signs of the times, and say we will have the plurality system out and out. Twenty-five of the States of the Union have adopted it wholly, and three have adopted it partially, and we are going toward it. Let us make clean work of it.

But the people are to pass upon it! I do not quite agree with the proposition, as I understood it, of the late chief magistrate, the member from Taunton, (Mr. Morton,) that we may put propositions for the people to act upon, which they may negative or not. I think that every proposition we put to the people, we recommend; and we ought not to put any proposition to the people, that we do not think ought to be adopted, or that we do not think the people themselves wish to adopt. We should not put propositions to them merely to try them; they will have enough to do without that. As I understood the member from Taunton, that was his ground.

Mr. MORTON, of Taunton. I meant to confine it to those propositions which are stated in the recommendation of the Convention.

Mr. DANA. The people are to pass upon it, and they have abundant time to consider and reflect upon it. Now, I think, as the representative of a town which has done me the honor to go out of its regular limits to send me here, I would like rather to go back to them and say, we have put it in your power to adopt the plurality if you choose, or to reject it if you choose, than to go back and say to them, there can be no

[May 31st.

change-this thing you are not to touch. They will say, we have heard a great deal about it, we are in favor of it, other States have tried it and like it, and we would like to try it. I think the Committee and every gentleman will be better satisfied to go home and say, here is a proposition which you may pass upon, and take or reject as you think best.

I do not like to trespass upon the attention of the Committee, but I would like to say a word or two with reference to the argument of the member from Worcester, (Mr. Allen). His argument was not made with reference to existing third parties, for he was very careful to keep entirely clear from them; but he referred to third parties in all times. The mission of third parties is, when the two dominant adhere to something that a portion of the people think is not right, or when they refuse to support something which they think is right and of great importance, for the dissentients to continue together and act. They usually combine for some moral or political purpose, or at least, that is their profession, and they cannot live long unless they have something better to live on than pretence. I grant that they should be respected, and they will be respected in a community of thinking men, like our own.

I agree that by the majority system, we feel the pulse of the community; we look at the thermometer and barometer, after every election, and ascertain how the community stands; and we have the power to say to the great parties-if you will not adopt this course which we desire and recommend, you shall not be represented. I agree that non-representation is better that misrepresentation.

But I know that in England, where they have had the plurality system, the people, allowing for the form of government under which they live, have done wonderful things through their elections. How were the corn laws carried, how was Catholic emancipation effected, and the abolition of slavery in the West Indies? It was done by the influence of the plurality system. The great whig and tory parties run neck and neck. In one town five hundred voters say we want Catholic emancipation, and they say we will not go for any candidate unless he is in favor of it. The whigs say that unless these five hundred men stand by the whig ticket, the tories will elect their candidate, and so they nominate the man to suit the third party. I heard another reason given by a gentleman, not in debate, but not out of this hall. He was a man experienced in party tactics. He said that where the plurality system prevailed, and two parties were running their candidates, and one has a majority of five hundred over the other party, if there are some four or five hundred men who have a notion of anti-slavery, or temperance, or something of that sort, and they go forward and say, we will not vote for your candidate, we will throw our votes away or put up another candidate. Thus they set at defiance the dominant party, which, becoming terrified lest so many shall leave them, as to give the plurality to the other great party, it will put up the candidate preferred by the third party, and he will be elected.

Under the majority system, the dominant party will say, we will not listen to you; you cannot elect any one. The worst that can happen is a non-election. Our adversaries shall not succeed, and you will not succeed. We will go to the polls and we will keep you there; and the public do not

Tuesday,]

sympathise with long, protracted elections, nor with small minorities; and bolting is not very popular. In that way they will hold these men down, as they have done heretofore in this Commonwealth, until they have wearied them out, or wearied out the public.

Now, gentlemen have in their minds certain districts in this State. I do not think that things have operated there as they suppose. I think the majority system has enabled the dominant party to use the minority of their own number while they will not listen to them. Here, for instance, is a party convention called, of some two hundred men; and thirty or forty of these men are of a particular way of thinking upon some great question. The majority say "we will not listen to you-you cannot alter the result of the election, for at best you can only make a non-election." This result follows: there is no election, and consequently we have towns and representative districts in this Commonwealth deprived of their representation. I do not think it is the third party which keeps them unrepresented; I regard it as the dominant interest in one of the two great parties which keeps them unrepresented. Twothirds of the dominant party say that they will not listen to the remaining third, and the consequence is the district is unrepresented. Under the plurality system the one-third says, "You must listen to us, for if you do not-if you persist in keeping the party lines too taut, we will vote for a third candidate." In order to prevent the election of the opposition candidate the dominant interest will give way. Is not this so? I appeal to the calm judgment of members of this body to say whether there is not a good deal of truth in it. I will illustrate by an example. There has been a third party, for better or for worse, for right or for wrong, in this Commonwealth. It is said that that party would not have existed without the majority law. Possibly not; possibly it would; at any rate it exists in other States where they have the plurality law. But admitting that it would not have existed, does it follow that the principles of that party would not have been as far advanced as they are now? Does it follow that these forty thousand men, with whom I had the honor of voting in 1848, would not, under the plurality system have made themselves felt in the two old parties, so that we would have got as large a proportion of the eleven representatives as we have got to-day? If this be true, that the plurality system does not destroy the independence of the third party, one great argument is gone. How do we propose to manage great parties? Suppose you are in the minority of one of the great parties. Under the majority system, you leave that party and organize a third party; but under the plurality system we propose to fight them in conventions, in committees, in caucuses, and we frighten them on election days. It is only a change of tactics.

We all know that for better or for worse, public affairs have got to that stage in this country that the great fight is not at the ballot-box but at the conventions, and the committees, and the caucuses, which precede the opening of the polls. The ballot-box determines which of two men shall be chosen-that is about all which it determines; but which, out of twenty millions of men those two candidates shall be, is determined by conventions and caucuses.

In this Commonwealth the ballot-box determines whether Mr.

ELECTIONS BY PLURALITY. — DANA.

A. or Mr. B. shall be governor; but the ballotbox does not determine which two out of the five hundred thousand men in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts shall be nominated for that office. That is usually the most important question, and that question is decided at caucuses and conventions; and I do not expect to live long enough to see that system abandoned in this country. I know there are evils connected with it, which were ably set forth by my friend from Natick, (Mr. Wilson,) the other day. He said the more he saw of these caucuses, caballings and intrigues, the less he liked the system; but after all, we would much better have this system than none. It strikes me, then, Mr. Chairman, that the question really is, not whether independence shall exist under the plurality system, but how that independence shall manifest itself, and through what channel it shall come. I therefore beg those gentlemen who sympathise either with present or with possible future third parties-because we must not act with reference to the present entirely-to consider whether it is true that we shall need this majority system to give us power-I do not say existence, for what do I care about the existence of my party? Nothing at all. What does it exist for? It exsits for certain ends, and if I can accomplish the ends without the party, that is enough; I will not sacrifice the ends to the means, and if my ends can be answered without the existence of the party, then I would just as lief answer them without it, and perhaps rather. If we would do better without third parties, and if personal independence can be maintained under the plurality system, then the greatest argument against that system is gone. There is then but one question left, as it strikes me; shall we adopt the plurality system or shall we leave the matter to be settled by the discrimination of the legislature? As I said before, I do not find the first man who says that the people should not act upon the question -not one; and why should we not leave it to the discrimination of the legislature? It is said that we should not trust the legislature; and there is great force in the argument which was advanced in reference to that matter; it affected my mind very considerably, and I must say that if I supposed there would be this log-rolling and caballing, this contriving and "swapping,"-to use an expression which has been used already in this discussion-if the matter was left to the legislature I would never let it go to them in the world.

The gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Schouler,) argued with great force, that this is something which ought not to be left to the legislature. He went on to instance one case, with regard to the adoption of the plurality system for the choice of electors of president. But it seems to me, that instead of being an argument in his favor, it turned against him, for the truth was, that the thing failed. I believe it passed one branch, but if I remember right, it was stated by the gentleman himself that it could not make any progress in the lower branch. And why was it that it fell almost dead in the House of Representatives? It was because the legislature felt that it was a vital question which had been settled, and which in they could not turn into a log to be rolledother words, the log was too heavy for the legislature to roll, That is my impression now; I think this log will be too heavy for the legislature

[May 31st.

to roll. If the legislature next year adopts the plurality system, it will not be in the power of any legislature, with the executive signature, to change it, for the purpose of making a change in the influence of parties. There have been instances, I know, where the legislature have done things of this kind; and the distinguished gentleman from Taunton mentioned what might sound like an ancient fable to the younger part of the Convention, the Gerrymander. He told us also what was the effect of all such log-rolling, and showed that schemes of this kind react to the injury of any party that undertakes to advance itself by resorting to such means. That was a lesson to the legislators of that day, and it may be a wholesome lesson to the legislators of all future time. But after all, Sir, these things relate to such small matters as running town and district lines; and let me ask, gentlemen, have we found that the legislature of Massachusetts has ever been disposed to turn great fundamental questions into log-rolling for political purposes? If that is the case, I confess that my confidence in the legislature would be very much diminished. I will not say that such cases may not have happened in a few instances. I think there was such a case the last year, which the gentleman from Boston might have mentioned, but did not, in the change of the secret ballot law of 1853. There was a case in which I think party was carried into the consideration of a fundamental question, and in a very serious manner, too; because, if the doctrine be true which has been maintained here, that the legislature of 1853 had a right to alter in any material part the law calling the Convention, they had a right to prohibit the meeting of the Convention entirely, by repealing that law; and if the doctrine be true, as maintained here, that the legislature had the right, even the week or the day before they adjourned, to pass an Act for the dispersal of this Convention, then they had the right to change the manner of election. But the important consequences of that doctrine may easily be shown. If the legislature had a right to enact a law ordering the dispersal of this Convention, and should see fit to exercise that right; and then, if, as I very much fear would be the case, this Convention did not disperse, it would remain here in a state of insurrection, and the next duty would be to communicate the fact to the president of the United States at Washington; and his duty would be to recognize the government de facto, and to order out the militia of Rhode Island and Connecticut, to suppress the insurrection. This is an extreme case, but it tests the principle. There can be no doubt but that if the legislature of 1853 had a right to repeal the Convention Act of 1852, and they had exercised that right, and the Convention had still chosen to continue its sessions, it would have been an insurrection; and the president of the United States would have been bound to put it down by the bayonet, if necessary. I did not get the floor upon that great question; it was very ably discussed, but it did strike me that if the doctrines which were advanced by some gentlemen, were true, they would lead to some results which gentlemen did not dream of. Now, Sir, the seventh article of the Bill of Rights declares that the people have a right to alter or amend their Constitution. The Constitution authorizes the legislature to make "all needful and wholesome laws" for Constitu