Wednesday,]

to encourage the fullest and freest expression of opinion at the polls, for this is the only way in which the sentiments of the Commonwealth can be ascertained. Sir, I do not wish hereafter to cramp the popular mind of Massachusetts into the iron mould of two parties. I do not wish to make coalition a necessity. I think the plurality rule illiberal, narrow and anti-democratic. I believe it to be the duty of the government to ascertain what is for the good of the whole, through and by means of the collected and expressed wisdom of the whole, and to carry out and apply that good by the power and force of the whole. Government is established for the good of the whole, to ascertain the sense of the whole, and to combine the power and force of the whole, in order to carry out that purpose. Now, where unanimity prevails, that is easily attained. But where that cannot be accomplished, the next step is to take the good of the larger part, and to ascertain that by the expressed sense and wisdom of the greater part.

Mr. Chairman, at this late stage of the debate, I will not detain this Committee longer. But I have heard no answer to the question of what will become of these smaller parties when they break off from the larger ones. And if, as I suppose, the object and tendency of this Convention is still more to popularize the government, to give a still greater power into the hands of the people, instead of taking that power from them, then I maintain that the adoption of the plurality system is not in conformity with this purpose.

Mr. HILLARD, of Boston, obtained the floor. Mr. STETSON, of Braintree, also rose. Mr. HILLARD. If the gentleman from Braintree desires to propose an amendment or to ask a question, I will give way; but if he desires to make a speech, I cannot yield.

Mr. STETSON. I rise to a question of order. I submit, that the gentleman from Boston has already spoken once upon the question pending, and I therefore claim the floor.

The CHAIRMAN. The question pending is the amendment of the gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Hubbard,) upon which only two gentlemen have spoken. The gentleman from Boston is therefore entitled to the floor.

Mr. HILLARD. Mr. Chairman. The delegate for Abington, (Mr. Keyes,) yesterday entertained the Committee with one of those characteristic speeches which may be called the pyrotechnics of debate, with which he is fond of relieving the austerity of our discussions. I listened with pleasure to the remarks of that gentleman upon this occasion. I generally listen to him with pleasure. I like his fiankness, his earnestness, his courage; and his voice and manner would commend far inferior matter to his. He arraigns with great sincerity a particular party for changing their position upon this subject of plurality. He says they now endure, nay embrace a proposition from which but a few years ago they recoiled in horror. It may be so; but unless a man be either a prophet or the son of a prophet, I do not know how he can proclaim it with so much confidence. From the means of information which I have been able to command, I had supposed there was the same division of opinion upon this subject as we have seen manifested in this Committee among the members of the other political associations, into which the whole Commonwealth is divided, and who are

ELECTIONS BY PLURALITY. — IIILLARD.

represented upon this floor. But, Sir, it is useless to speculate upon a matter which an hour or two will make certain. But if it be true that this party have changed their position upon this subjeet, the delegate for Abington, (Mr. Keyes,) should consider himself quite fortunate on that account; for I take it that between him and them there is a pre-established discord—a foreordained enmity; indeed, opposition to that party is the star by which he steers his political courseindeed, yesterday, to the great amusement of the Committee, he avowed as much, when he confessed that his great motive for advocating the calling of this Convention was the opposition of that party. I say, therefore, that he should consider himself as particularly fortunate that the party to which he alludes has changed its position, as it saves hi n from the necessity of changing his own position, and enables him now to stand before us to-day clothed in the grace of consistency. [Laughter.]

But, Sir, I should not have risen to defend that party, had not that gentleman stooped from his pride of place and made a pounce upon me individually. He alluded to a speech which I had the honor to make some three years ago in the Senate of Massachusetts upon this subject. Now, Sir, as I am presented before the bar of this Committee, upon this charge of at least negative inconsistency, I ask the privilege of holding up my hand and pleading not guilty to the indictment, and of saying a word or two in defence to the charge.

It is most true that I did speak against the application of the plurality rule to the election of members of congress. My offence hath this extent, no more. All that I said was directed, directly or indirectly, to this one issue of congressional elections. Sir, I then resided and still reside in a constituency which has felt as yet no inconvenience from the working of the majority rule in the election of members of congress, and therefore I could not give my personal testimony in favor of the change, founded upon the ground of inconvenience.

In the course of that argument I contended that it was a matter mainly within the province of the United States themselves to decide. The Constitution of the United States had not made it imperative that there should be a full representation in the lower house of congress; that whenever there was a triangular contest in a congressional district, and the members of the third party and by that, I mean the party which is numerically the smallest-chose to go the polls and vote for an impossible candidate, they, in point of fact, voted that they would not be represented at all, and that that was a right which the Constitution of the United States and our Constitution secured to them, and that the adoption of the plurality rule would in point of fact disfranchise the majority. For I then contended, and I now contend, that absolute non-representation is a right as sacred to the majority as that of representation. But if the Constitution of the United States had said, that in default of an election by the people, of a member of congress, the vacancy should be filled by appointment by the governor, or by a man chosen by the legislature, I should have felt that an entire new aspect of the case was presented; that the Constitution, in default of one rule, had prescribed another; that there was then an alterna

[June 1st.

tive presented, either for the people to choose a representative for themselves, or for another power to appoint one to represent them; that as the right of the majority, to be non-represented, had been taken away from them, it became the duty of the people, in default of an election by a majority, to have established a rule by which still a representative should be chosen by the people. But through a plurality, the rule for the election of members of congress has been changed. We have applied the plurality rule to their election, and I submit to that law, for it is my temper of mind to submit to laws, whether passed in Boston or in Washington. I have no doubt that the people of the Commonwealth, are well satisfied with the result. Certainly every one must be satisfied that it has operated in some districts to a very great saving of time and of money; but what is to be the practical working of the rule in future, whether we are to send men of the same ability, men of the same high character, as the men who have done us so much honor heretofore in the council of the nation, is a matter of doubt upon which I am by no means satisfied. So much for personal explanation.

Sir, I was then, as I am now, attached to the majority rule. I cling to it with tenacity, because, among other reasons, it is a rule which comes down to us, sanctioned by the traditions and hallowed by the associations of more than two hundred years. I am, by my mind, and still more by my temperament, a conservative. I am not of that sanguine mould which belongs to more vigorous health and higher animal spirits. I am sometimes compelled to see shades where other men see sunshine. The ways in which our fathers walked; the rules which guided them in all their course; the laws which they passed; the institutions which their pure hands reared; all these things are to me as sacred as a mother's grave. I listened with peculiar pleasure to the remarks which fell from the gentleman from Natick, (Mr. Wilson,) the gentleman for Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett,) and the gentleman from Worcester, (Mr. Allen,) upon this subject, when they said we should approach with reverent hands the institutions of our fathers, and not lightly change the inheritance they have transmitted to us. Sir, I responded from my heart of hearts, as they, like so many well-tuned instruments, swelled the general chorus of conservatism. And I said to myself, may the same spirit which now prompts their thoughts and hangs upon their lips, go with them to the end, and may they approach every part of the Constitution with the same reverent steps, and lay upon it the same gentle hand.

Sir, if it had been my task to mould this organic law, under which we and our fathers have lived so long and so happily, I would not apply the rule of the plurality with iron, unbending, unyielding rigor, to all elections whatever. By no means. I would discriminate, I would select, I would modify. Ifavor the amendment which has just been offered by my colleague, (Mr. Hubbard.) It is a very easy matter, by a single stroke of the pen, to say that in all elections a plurality vote shall decide. But, Sir, these simple rules which are so fascinating to speculating minds, often prove, when you apply them to the business and the bosoms of men, a source of much inconvenience and discomfort. As a general rule, the more complex, the more artificial and difficult the

Wednesday,]

mode of administration, the more beneficent are its results. You must have a rule which is flexible when you are going to apply it to the interests, the passions and the sympathies, nay, the prejudices of men. Take a French commune, for instance. There is but one official there, the Maire, and how much more simple does this form appear than the complicated machinery of a New England town, in which you must have not less (I believe) than nineteen magistrates and officers, and yet who does not feel that for all the practical purposes of life; that for all the objects for which men form them. selves into a state of civil society, the machinery of a New England town is an incomparably better instrument than that of a French commune

But, Sir, I would not now apply the majority rule to the election of governor, lieutenantgovernor, nor of members of the Senate, and for this reason: In its application I would discriminate between those parts of the Constitution which are governed by the rule of must have, and those which are governed by the rule of may have. We must have a government for the protection of the rights of persons and property. By our organic law, we must make that government every year. By that same organic law, the materials or parts of that government, are made up of the executive and legislative departments. And unless you have a governor, licutenant-governor, and a quorum of the Senate the whole State is like a stranded ship, entirely useless for all the purposes of a State. The Constitution has provided for that difficulty. If you fail to bring about this result which is necessary, of organizing the government by one rule, it prescribes to you another. And the issue that is before us is not, as has been stated again and again here in debate, whether we shall give up the majority rule, but it is, whether in case the majority rule has entirely failed to accomplish its purpose, you will resort to one substitute or another; whether you will have recourse to the purely artificial mode which now prevails, or whether you will have recourse to the plurality system. For the matter of having recourse to some expedient or substitute, is a matter of indispensable necessity. Mr. Chairman, the profession to which you and I belong are familiar with a rule which is designated as Cy-pres -and from the number of lawyers in this Convention I shall not be deemed guilty of pedantry in using it as an illustration. It is a rule by which the direction given by a testator to a particular fund has become impossible, and the court having it in charge gives it the direction which shall as nearly as possible carry into effect the original intent of the testator. For instance, suppose a man, many years ago, left by will a certain sum of money for the redemption of Englishmen from slavery in Turkey. In course of time, there cease to be any English slaves in Turkey. The court of chancery then, inasmuch as it cannot carry out the will of the testator, applies the money to such other charitable purpose as shall carry out the will as nearly as possible. That is precisely the rule I desire to apply in our elections of these officers. If you cannot elect them by a majority principle-which is the true principle-I would much rather apply the plurality principle. I certainly would not obtrude this rule upon the election of town officers or the deliberations of town meetings. There is much force in the suggestion which fell from the gentle

man from Bedford, (Mr. Simonds,) that in all of these bodies a majority must rule, from their unlimited power to adjourn, and from the fact, that in the election of representatives the majority has at any rate the power of voting. But apart from that, I would guard with jealous care the independence of these local assemblies, the town meetings, which are the fairest growth of liberty and in which the best security for its protection is to be found. Our greatest blessings lie at our feet and no higher political boon was ever be stowed upon a people, than that which we enjoy in the town organizations of New England. Without municipal institutions, there is no constitutional liberty. These local, separate and independent assemblies through which the life blood of the national heart flows and circulates— in which matters are discussed important enough to awaken interest but not important enough to arouse ambition, are the fountains from which our political prosperity has flowed. May they ever remain as pure as they have hitherto been. What is the primal excellence of this Commonwealth, that we all so honor and love? It is that it is an aggregation, and not an interfusion of these local communities? The several towns that make up this Commonwealth which do not, like drops of water, part with their own identity to swell the general stream, but they rather blend like flowers in a garland, or stars in a constellation, each retaining its own light and its own beauty, but each contributing to the light and beauty of the whole. There is no term used among men for the designation of political assemblies, no Parliament, Congress, States General, Amphictyonic Council, or Wittenagemote, which to me comes invested with more venerable, more sacred associations, than the homely word, Town Meeting. Whatever may be done here, whatever measures may be here adopted by powerful pressure brought to bear upon a small body, so long as those little independent legislatures all over the land are guided by the same spirit of honor, the same spirit of integrity, the same spirit of patriotism, the same fear of God, which have hitherto guided their deliberations, all that we value is safe. I would not, for these reasons, apply the plurality rule to elections of representatives, if we shall adopt the principle of town representation. If we should adopt the district system I would also not apply it. The line of argument which I had the honor of explaining to the Committee, and which I employed about three years ago in reference to congressional constituencies, applies equally well to a district representative constituency, and I contend that the majority there have the right to say that they will not be represented upon this floor. I do not believe that party zeal or party tactics can ever go so far as to render it impossible in the popular elections of this State that we should not have a quorum here to do business, and all that the Constitution requires at our hands, is, that we shall send a quorum here, not that we shall send any certain number.

Mr. HALE, of Bridgewater. I wish to offer an amendment to the proposition now pending, in relation to the election of representatives.

"Also, that in all elections of representatives to the general court, where there shall be a failure to elect by a majority of all the votes given in on the first meeting for that purpose, the person or persons where more than one is to be chosen, having the highest number of votes at a meeting

[June 1st.

for that purpose, on any subsequent day, when such meeting may be constitutionally holden, shall be elected.”

Mr. WILSON, of Natick. I propose to detain the Committee but a few minutes. I am very thankful, at least my friend for Erving, (Mr. Griswold,) ought to be thankful to the gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Hillard,) who has just addressed the Committee. That gentleman has made a splendid and brilliant argument in favor of the majority Report of my friend for Erving upon the House of Representatives, and I hope it will have decided weight upon this Committee. He has spoken of the importance of these town organizations of Massachusetts, and of preserving their rights and powers, and in that view of the subject I entirely agree with the gentleman. I am not in favor of the amendments which have been proposed. It is evident that a portion of the Committee are opposed to the original proposition for adopting the plurality rule, and that another portion of the Committee are strongly in favor of that rule. Now as an opponent of the plurality rule, and as a friend of the majority system which has existed in Massachusetts for more than two hundred years, I am ready and willing to adopt a compromise in this matter, which I think will correct all the evils of which gentlemen have complained. If the friends of the plurality and the friends of the majority systems will accept a mixed system which will do away the evils complained of in the majority system, and at the same time preserve most or what we who contend for the majority system wish to preserve, perhaps we can all of us obtain something which we should prefer. I will read the resolutions to which I would be willing to assent. It is not in order now, and I do not intend to offer them now, but I will read them for the information of the Committee.

"Resolved, That it is expedient so to amend the Constitution that all vacancies occasioned by failures to elect senators and representatives by a majority on the day of the annual election, shall be filled by elections to be held on the 2d Tuesday of December by a plurality of votes.

Resolved, That it is expedient so to amend the Constitution as to give the legislature authority to provide by law that county and municipal officers may be chosen by a plurality of votes, such law not to take effect until two years after its passage."

Now, Sir, I am willing to agree to something of that character. We preserve the majority system in regard to our State affairs. If there are vacancies occasioned by a division of sentiments in the senatorial districts at the annual election, such vacancies may be filled up five weeks afterwards by a plurality vote. That will give the people of these districts an opportunity to review their action-to come together and elect a senator that will express the sentiments, probably, of a large portion of the voters of the district. It will also give to the towns that have failed on the first day to elect their candidates, an opportunity to come together and elect by a plurality, and it will give an opportunity to all, on the first day of that election to vote for their own principles, their own men, and then after having expressed their sentiments, to vote for their own first choice.

They will have then an opportunity to review their decision and obtain the most they can, with deference alone to the wishes of others. I do

Wednesday,]

hope that we will not introduce the sweeping proposition here to elect all our officers by a plurality. I believe the whole tendency of that system would be to introduce a choice of evils at all times and on all occasions into political affairs, and to enthrone and make powerful the caucus and the convention, which have already stepped in between the people and their government, and now dictates and controls the policy of the country. Many of the great statesmen of the country have denounced the caucus and convention system. Mr. Benton, in a speech recently delivered upon this subject, took strong ground against the system of caucuses and conventions, which have been introduced in recent times; and every man acquainted at all with the political affairs of Massachusetts, or the country, know that they are already too powerful. I believe that in those States where the majority system prevails, that such influences are the least powerful, but in those States where the plurality system is adopted, their influence is more powerful and omnipotent. I was rather surprised at the course of the remarks made yesterday, by the gentleman for Manchester, (Mr. Dana,) upon this subject. That gentleman, I think, assumed upon this matter an entirely erroneous position, which is not sustained by the practical operations of these two systems in the country. The gentleman complained of our repeated elections here. Why, the men who framed the Constitution, incorporated the idea into the Constitution, that frequent elections were necessary in order to preserve liberty. We have a system of annual elections" in this State, but in some of the States where they have adopted the plurality system, they have gone so far as to have their governors elected for the term of two, three and four years. They do not vote at annual elections, and they do not desire an expression of the popular will. I believe long terms of office and the plurality system are just what the politicians of this country wish to see established, and not a system which brings out and develops the purer, nobler and better sentiments of the people themselves. I am willing, as I said before, to make a compromise between the two systems. I am willing to say, if we did not elect these officers at the annual elections, that the vacancies may be filled by the people themselves at some subsequent day. As to the question of elections by the legislature, I know of no very great evils which have arisen from this system. I venture to say, that no man has been elected governor of this State up to this year, by the legislature, unless he expressed the wishes of a large majority of the people of the State. I would ask those gentlemen who are complaining of this system, who have suffered by it. I hope gentlemen will be inclined to vote down the proposition introduced by the Committee, and adopt something like what I have proposed in the resolution which I have read, and which I am willing to offer as a compromise between the two systems. Mr. BUTLER, of Lowell. Having occupied but some five or eight minutes of this Convention upon this question, I trust that a few words of explanation of the vote I shall give, after having heard the full discussion, may not be out of place. I have listened, Sir, with all the attention I am able to give, to the various propositions; I have listened to the various arguments, and I would beg leave to examine for a moment the proposition of the gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Hubbard). His

proposition is, that we elect the governor, lieutenant-governor, and senators by a plurality, and that is all the amendment he proposes to the Constitution in this behalf. He then leaves the election of representatives wholly unprovided for by the Constitution; and if that election follow, in the same way that it has followed the majority system, that leaves the election to a plurality; and therefore, while I might agree with him in part, I must vote against the amendment, for I have found nothing yet to shake the view which I presented to the Committee, that we should vote down this resolution, which ties up our hands to a plurality, and then elect the given officer by a plurality, or by a majority, as the Convention shall deem fit.

Now I have a word to say in this debate upon the course which it has taken. I grant there is a great division among parties. No, Sir, I take that back; I am not quite correct. In the reform party, that had the honor to originate and carry through this Convention, I find there is a great division; but among the opponents of the Convention I find they are a phalanx of iron men in behalf of the plurality system. Why, on my right sits the cloquent gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Hillard,) with a beautiful conservatism, whose extent he is fain to excuse with ill health; and on my left is the gallant gentleman, my friend from Boston, (Mr. Schouler,) who wished to rub off all the rust and have no conservatism at all. I find that upon this question both of them agree. Why is it? What is the meaning of this agreement between young America, Sir, on the one side, and the very phantom of a sickened fancy of conservatism on the other. [Laughter.] Perhaps my friend will excuse me when I say that, perhaps, after all, the effect of the doctrine which he explained to us as being known to our profession as "cypres," is only this, to wit: in common language, when a man cannot do as he would, he will do as near it as he can. Perhaps, when the feeling of conviction comes that they can no longer govern Massachusetts by a majority rule, they will do it as near as they can by a plurality. Is not that the application of the doctrine of "cypres ;" is not that about what the gentleman from Boston means, when the doctrine is expressed in good, common, plain, old AngloSaxon language-like that of the town meeting? The argument of the gentleman on my right, (Mr. Hillard,) as I understand, is that we must have a government. I do not understand it so; we want to be let alone. We do not want a government much while we behave well; if the old government had held over for one year I should have shed no tears. Therefore, I doubt very much the necessity of having a governor or a lieutenant-governor.

I agree with much which was said by my friend for Erving, (Mr. Griswold,) and I appreciate the difficulty of his position. I understand well that, having put his name to that Report he must defend it. I like consistency, it is a jewel; and therefore I can excuse him for differing from me, although we go together generally. I suppose that if my name was there, I should either keep silence, or make pretty much such a speech-barring the ability-as the gentleman for Erving did. But at the same time I admire the manly independence of the gentleman from Worcester, (Mr. Davis,) who, when he saw that a change of sentiment was right, changed;

[June 1st.

when he found that those who had opposed the Constitutional Convention and the Constitution were ranking themselves contrary to their own preconceived conservative opinions; when he and others found that the sickened fancy of my friend from Boston, (Mr. Hillard,) had changed, I do not wonder that they changed, and that the gentleman for Abington, (Mr. Keyes,) changed, in order to be opposed to them still.

I think our friends who signed that report have taken altogether too tamely this charge of inconsistency. There was a minority report, which I will commend to the remembrance of the gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Schouler,) signed by a gentleman who writes himself in full length, William Schouler, agreed to by my friend from Brookline, (Mr. Aspinwall).

Mr. ASPINWALL, of Brookline. No, Sir.
Mr. BUTLER. Not dissented from.
Mr. ASPINWALL. Yes, Sir.

Mr. BUTLER. Not by anything I can find here, Sir.

Mr. ASPINWALL. I desire to say, that when a majority of a committee make a report, and sign their names to it, and certain gentlemen make a minority report, and sign their names to it, I suppose the gentlemen who sign no report are supposed to dissent from both, which was the fact in my case. I refused absolutely to sign either.

Mr. HOPKINSON, of Boston. I desire to ask the gentleman from Lowell upon what evidence the conservative party-by which I suppose he means the whig party-are supposed to have been against the plurality rule. In 1845, they had a large majority in the House of Representatives, and that body voted in favor of the plurality rule in the election of members of Congress. Every member from Lowell, I believe, and almost every member from Boston also, voted in favor of the plurality rule.

Mr. BUTLER. Will any more gentleman make inquires? [Laughter.] If no other gentleman wishes to put a question, I will proceed. To the gentleman from Brookline I will say, that I supposed he might have been absent or sick rather than that he actually dissented from both reports, because I supposed that if the gentleman did not agree with either one or the other, he would have brought forward some proposition that he did agree to. I am glad that he did not agree to either. He did not agree to a plurality rule. Now he has come round and agrees to that. He did not agree to the unconstitutional part of the report, and I am happy to see that he does not now.

But I will give you what was said by the gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Schouler) :

:

"It is," said he, "a plain inference, also, from the first paragraph of said opinion, that a Convention would not be a constitutional measure, but a measure beyond the Constitution, in other words, in violation of it, and to be justified only by that imperious necessity which would involve the general question of natural rights, and the inherent and fundamental principles upon which civil society is founded.'

The whole matter then, resolves itself into the following inquiry, viz.: is the Commonwealth in a case of so great emergency, or has the existing Constitution so obviously failed to accomplish the objects for which it was designed, as to justify a disregard of it,-notwithstanding our oaths to support it, and authorize a resort to revolutionary violence?

Wednesday,]

(Mr. Oliver,) who instructed me about military science-and I am afraid I have not profited much by his instructions, but if so, that is my own fault-I would like to have him tell me, when he presses his amendment here, minute after minute, and hour after hour, why he is not willing to include military officers as well as civil. If it is a good thing that civil officers should be elected by the plurality system, why should not the same rule apply to military officers likewise? I know what his answer will be. I know him to be a good military officer. He will say that it is best that the commander of a company, or the commander of a battalion or a brigade should have the confidence of a majority of those whom he is to command, at least. I agree with him, Sir. So he should; and then, why not the commander-inchief of all the military and naval forces of this Commonwealth? why should not he have the confidence of a majority of those whom he is to command? But, Sir, as the gentleman upon my left, (Mr. French, of Berkley,) wishes to make a proposition before the expiration of the hour, I will not pursue this strain of remark further; but I really hope my friend from Lawrence, if he gets an opportunity, will tell us why this principle should not be applied to military as well as to civil officers. I agree with him that it should not be applied to military officers, and I think that it should neither be applied to the civil or executive officers of this government.

Mr. FRENCH, of Berkley. As the hour has very nearly arrived for taking the question, I shall only make a few remarks. I have paid particular attention to the debate on this question, and I have heard a good deal of oratoryan attempt at imitations of Demosthenes and Cicero; but I have sometimes thought that I heard more oratory than reasoning. It is said, Sir, that the people want the plurality system; it may be so in some places, but I believe there are more disappointed aspirants who want this plurality system, than the people themselves. I am opposed to all the amendments that have been proposed to the Report of the Committee, and 1 am opposed to the Report itself; for I hope we shall continue to follow the old standing rule of majorities, and I do not want to see inserted into our Constitution a hermaphrodite principle.

Mr. HOOPER. I wish, Sir, to have an opportunity of stating, as briefly as possible, the reasons for the vote which I shall give upon this question. I shall be under the necessity of voting against the gentleman's amendment, with a view, if that amendment is rejected, of offering an amendment for the purpose of enabling gentlemen to discriminate, as that seems to be the wish that has often been expressed here. I shall propose an amendment in such a form that the question can be taken separately on the several classes of officers, and thus gentlemen can have an opportunity of discriminating between them. In order that the proposition may be understood, I will read it, and in case the amendment under consideration shall be voted down, I shall then submit it. It is to strike out of the second line of the resolution, the words "officers named in it," and to insert in lieu thereof, "governor and lieutenant-governor, senators in the state senate, representatives in the general court, all county officers, and all municipal officers," so as to take the question upon each separately. I desire to give gentlemen an opportunity to gratify their

own wishes in relation to the matter; and if we cannot carry the whole, I hope we shall at least carry a large portion of them. There are reasons which will apply to the election of some of these officers by the plurality system, which will not apply to others; for instance, your governor and lieutenant-governor may fail of an election by the people, and they may be elected by the representatives of the whole people, assembled in the legislature. Your senators cannot be so elected; under the existing provision in relation to the election of senators, if the people fail to make a choice, the election is taken away from that constituency, and transferred to another constituency entirely foreign to them. This is a thing which should be obviated. Besides, Sir, if we are to have forty separate and distinct senatorial districts, there will have to be as many elections by the legislature as there may be vacancies to fill, and the expense will be thereby increased in proportion

The sound of the Chairman's hammer announced that the hour of twelve o'clock had arrived, when debate on the subject of elections by plurality of votes must cease, agreeably to the order of yesterday.

The question being on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Bridgewater, to the amendment of the gentleman from Boston.

The question was taken on the amendment to the amendment, and it was decided in the negative.

The question then recurred on the amendment of the gentleman from Boston, being the resolutions offered by him as a substitute for the Report of the Committee.

The question was taken on that proposition, and it was decided in the negative.

The question recurred on the original resolve reported by the Committee.

Mr. HOOPER moved to amend the resolve by striking out the following words, "officers named in it," and inserting the following, "6 governor and lieutenant-governor, senators in the state senate, representatives of the general court, all county officers, and all municipal officers."

Mr. HOOPER. I should like to state to the Committee

The CHAIRMAN, (Mr. Sumner, for Marshfield). No debate is in order.

Mr. SCHOULER, of Boston. I rise to a question of order. My question is, whether it is in order to offer amendments after the debate has closed?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair considers that question to have been settled in Convention this morning, by the President, and now rules in accordance with that decision, that amendments may be offered, but no debate is in order.

The question being on the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Fall River.

Mr. ALLEN, of Worcester. I would like to have a division of this proposition, if it is capable of division, so as to have a vote taken upon each of the officers named in it.

[June 1st.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair in this matter will follow the direction of the Committee; but the Chair does not think that the amendment of the gentleman from Fall River, is in its nature divisible. It may, however, by general consent be so treated; and if it be the desire of the Committee, the Chair will proceed to put the question in that way.

Mr. SARGENT, of Cambridge. It seems to me, the whole difficulty can be removed in this way. If any part of the proposition be not agreeable to the Committee, a motion can be made to strike out that part.

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly; such a motion would be in order. The question is now on striking out and inserting an aggregate of words. The gentleman from Worcester, may make his motion in this form, viz.: to strike out from the pending amendment, any particular words, as for instance, the "governor," or the lieutenantgovernor," or any other officer named in it. That will be an amendment to the existing amendment.

Mr. ALLEN. I move then to amend the amendment of the gentleman from Fall River, by striking out the words "governor, lieutenantgovernor, senators in the state senate and representatives in the general court."

Mr. HUBBARD. I rise to make an inquiry. Should the proposition of the gentleman from Fall River be adopted, and the original resolution be so amended, the question then recurs on the passage of the resolution as amended. Then, it will be in the power of the Convention to amend it by striking out a part as from the original resolution. I understand that to be the better course, and my inquiry is, whether it is in accordance with the decision of the Chair.

verse.

Mr. BRADBURY, of Newton. I do not understand the rule to be as stated by the gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Hubbard,) but the reWhat is here an aggregate of words is a compromise proposition. The gentleman from Worcester, does not like it; he wishes a different set of words to be inserted. I apprehend that after the Committee have adopted one class of names, and inserted them as an amendment to the original resolution, the proposition thus inserted will not be divisible. I recollect a ruling by Judge Story, many years ago, which was this, that when you have amended a proposition by inserting certain words, you cannot strike out a part of the words so inserted without first reconsidering the vote by which they were inserted.

Mr. BANKS, of Waltham. I understand the practice to be this: that when a motion is made to strike out a paragraph or section and insert a paragraph or section, it is permitted that the part to be stricken out be first perfected, if the Committee choose, by amendment, and the part to be inserted be first perfected, if they choose, by amendment, and when the part to be stricken out or the part to be inserted, or both, are thus perfected by amendment, then the question is upon striking out and inserting, and that question is indivisible. This is the practice of every deliberative body.

Mr. GRAY. I will make this suggestion: whether the gentleman from Worcester will not attain his object by allowing the question to be taken upon the proposition of the gentleman from Fall River, voting against that proposition himself, and if the majority be against him he will have to submit, as we all have to do in like cases; but if he succeeds in rejecting it, then I suppose