Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Wednesday,}

Sir, there must needs be differences among us; there are questions upon which the members of this Convention must be divided. I know that such divisions do exist, although I regret that there are great, fundamental principles upon which we cannot all agree; but that party, or that association of men, who embark with nothing but mere forms like that before us, and go to sea in a bubble, will go where bubbles go.

This secret ballot law-whose birth was so unpropitious, and whose early promise was SO unfavorable, and around which its parents clung with so much fondness, who was reared and nursed by them with so much care and anxious solicitude-has grown up to be a matter about which I think it were worth our while to spend very little time or thought in this Convention. I am not disposed to quarrel with our friends of the majority, if they are very anxious to retain this measure. If there is anything so peculiar in the arrangement of parties or associations of men in this Commonwealth, which seems to make it desirable for any considerable portion of our fellow citizens to conceal the manner in which they vote, or to conceal the manner in which we all vote, in order that they may conceal the manner in which they vote, I am not, for one, disposed to make any trouble about it. If there is anything in the present aspect of affairs, or in the future promise of parties in the Commonwealth, which is calculated to awaken apprehension sufficiently to make it necessary or desirable to put this provision into the Constitution, beyond the reach of change-and whether that apprehension is well grounded, it is not for me to say-I am not at all opposed to its being put there. Let gentlemen strike out of the fourth resolve so much as relates to detail, and let them say they will establish in the Constitution the principle only of the secret ballot, and I am willing it shall be incorporated into the Constitution. But I would suggest that this is an age when improvements are marching onwards with rapid strides, and that it will not be a great while before we shall hear of an improvement much better than that of the envelope, for voting. Indeed I am not at all certain but the French method-which the chairman of the Committee on this subject, (Mr. Walker,) presented during the sitting of that committee he has spoken of, and which he at one time contemplated adopting in preference to the plan now proposed-is not superior to the plan of the envelope; but whether it is or not, we are an inventive people. That is a characteristic of the whole race of Yankees, and that portion of the American race who reside in Massachusetts are a peculiarly inventive people. I would suggest, therefore, to our friends of the majority, whether it would be proper, or whether it would be desirable, for them to tie their hands in reference to this matter.

Mr. WALKER, of North Brookfield. I call the gentleman from Adams to order. I understand he alludes to what took place in Committee; but if he says that I seriously contemplated substituting the French method of voting for that now before the Committee, he is simply mistaken. The French system of voting is not by secret ballot, and of that there is abundant evidence in the fact of 20,000 men being thrown out of employment for not voting to suit the gov

ernment.

Mr. DAWES. Well, Sir, the gentleman from

QUALIFICATION OF VOTERS. — DAWES.

North Brookfield described to me during one of the sittings of the committee of 1850, a system which he said was the French, and it was to that which I alluded. If I had time, I would describe it, and show why I think it superior to the system of the envelope, to which it is proposed to tie us up; but I do not know as it is worth while.

But I want to say one word to my friend who represents Northborough, (Mr. Burlingame.) Sir, I esteem that gentleman very highly, and assuming, that while referring solely to his remarks of yesterday, any allusion I make to them will not offend, I must be permitted to say that I thought very much of him when he was addressing the Convention yesterday, as the gentleman from Lowell (Mr. Butler) said of the bank directors. I thought that, as an individual, he was a very excellent man, but his political speeches were about on a par with the bank directors as a Board. [Laughter.] But I was surprised that the generous and chivalrous gentleman who represents Northborough, after he had called to mind the fact that the late Whig party were dead and buried, could not have permitted us to have slept in peace. Sir, I do not think it becomes knights errant of this day any more than those of other days, to taunt a fallen foc. But the cruelest of all things was to ask us to join ourselves to the Democracy of Virginia and Missouri. Why, Sir, the Democracy of Virginia and Missouri belong to a political association which has lately taken into their company the gentleman from Northborough and his friends, and there is no room left for us.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's speech reminded me very much of an anecdote which a gentleman now before me told me of his minister, and a description he gave me of his minister's sermon, the other day. I have no time to analyze the gentleman's speech, and I will therefore describe it by the sermon. My friend told me that his pastor undertook to preach a sermon upon one occasion upon the importance of method in preaching sermons; upon the importance of arrangement, order, &c.; and that when he rose in the pulpit on that occasion, he said he should confine his remarks to three distinct heads. In the first place, he should preach from his text; in the next place, he should preach to his text; and in the third place, he should scatter. [Roars of laughter.] Well, Sir, the gentleman representing Northborough preaches from the Whig party; he preaches to the Whig party; and then he scatters. [Renewed laughter.]

Sir, the first time I ever saw that gentleman, I was delighted to hear him say the same things about the "fierce Democracy," which I heard from him yesterday about the Whigs; but I little thought when I was then so much delighted and carried away with that speech, that the very next time I heard him speak I should receive it all back again into my own face. But, to come back to the occasion of my trying to get the floor, the gentleman from North Brookfield (Mr. Walker) undertook to detail to the Committee, yesterday, the evidence upon which he based his secret ballot law, in 1850, and he detailed it as well as he was able upon that occasion, I have no doubt. I do not think he intended to omit any portion of that testimony which should give a different coloring to the matter than that which he gave us, but that testimony was exceedingly swollen, and of a

[June 8th.

character which would not bear a puncture. I believe it is a principle in law, that when we have heard a part of a story we are entitled to the whole of it, and I think that in one instance the gentleman from North Brookfield told us one portion of a story, and forgot to tell the whole. He tells us of a witness, who, when going up to cast a vote, in the sixth ward I think it was,―met a man who told him he could not vote because another man had told him he must vote for Briggs and not for Bancroft. Well, Sir, the best part of the story he omitted entirely; indeed he did not tell any portion of it with half the strength with which it was testified before the committee. Why, Sir, when that man came before the committee and told his story, it created such a sensation that whenever I have met that man in the streets of Boston to this day, the whole scene immediately comes up before me. Said he, "As I was going up the sixth ward to cast my vote, on my way there I met the sexton of the Brattle Street church, With his locks as white as the foamy sea,' coming back, with tears in his eyes, saying that he could not vote. • What's the matter?' said I. " Why,' said he, I went up to the polls with this vote in my hand, and when there I met a man who told me I must not cast the ticket I held in my hands, but that I must vote for Briggs, or I should lose my place as sexton.' I took that man by the hand, and led him to the polls; strengthened his arm, and cheered his spirit, and he deposited a vote in the ballotbox for Bancroft. The man went away, and lost his place." But the gentleman omitted to tell us the name of this man who had committed such an outrage upon the rights of citizenship in the nineteenth century, here in the city of Boston. I would suggest that his argument lost a great deal of its force by firing his blank cartridges. If he had given the name of that man, his argument would have told upon this assembly as it told upon that committee at the time. Why, Sir, that man was Deacon Moses Grant. Well, when that story was told in the committee there were some gentlemen of the committee who were a little incredulous-or, in other words, they did not believe a word of it. One of the members of the committee wrote to Deacon Grant a note upon the subject, and the next day he appeared, on paper, before the committee, as much astonished as one possibly could be, for he had never heard a word of it before; saying, also, that he had that morning called on the sexton, and he was as much astonished as the Deacon was, as something he had never heard of before. Now, I have given you the whole of the testimony taken in this particular, and, ex uno dice omnes.

But, Sir, I am willing to admit that influence is exerted upon the voter. Sometimes it is good influence, and sometimes bad influence; sometimes it is exerted upon a member of this party, and sometimes upon a member of that party; whenever it can be exercised it is exercised; but I say this secret ballot law does not have any effect to place a check upon the exercise of that influence. It is a mere outward form; it does not reach the substance. Men will disregard any such provisions, and this influence will be continually exercised. If you desire to prevent this influence, you must go back to the organizations of society. Give the man independence; give the voter independence; put into your Constitution, if it be possible, a provision which will

Wednesday,]

QUALIFICATION OF VOTERS. — OLIVER — SCHOULER.

have that effect, and you will accomplish something. Let him go up to the polls feeling that the ballot

"Executes the freeman's will,

As lightning does the will of God,”

and he will vote according to the guidance of his own conscience, but he will care nothing for your forms. He will not care whether he deposits his vote in an envelope or whether he deposits it open. Sir, I wish that some method could be devised by which we could secure the independence of the voter. I would most cheerfully go for any provision, either in our constitutional law, or upon the pages of our statute book, which would secure that result; but, Sir, you cannot enact that result. You may enact any of these forms which you please; I will not quarrel about that matter. I care not what ceremonies you impose upon me when I come to exercise the privilege of a freeman at the polls, but you cannot, by any such forms, prevent the exercise of my influence within the circle of it, however small and narrow it may be. If I can teach any one of my fellow men that he is a man, that by voting he executes a power behind all this which will ultimately sweep away all this, I do not care through what forms, through what channels, you require him to pass, whether his ballot is secret or open will be a matter of the smallest consequence to him.

Mr. OLIVER, of Lawrence. I believe the Committee will bear me witness that I have troubled them very little during the progress of this Convention, and I shall only detain them now but a very few minutes, for my friend from Adams, (Mr. Dawes,) who has just taken his seat, has stolen all my thunder, and so completely covered the ground that I have but little to say. My only object in rising now, is to define my own position, because I shall probably vote somewhat differently from gentlemen who have been in the habit of thinking and acting with me, especially in regard to the fourth resolve. I desire that this Report may be so divided that the question may be taken upon each separate resolve. I cannot vote upon these resolutions in mass, because I do not agree to them all. I may agree to one or two, but I cannot agree to the others, and I hope that the gentleman from Charlestown, (Mr. Frothingham,) who advised placing the four resolutions together, will not insist upon it, because there are gentlemen here, probably, like myself, who may be able to agree to some of them separately, but may have to vote against them if joined together.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is of the opinion that any gentleman has a right to call for a division when the question is to be taken.

Mr. FROTHINGHAM, of Charlestown. The gentleman from Lawrence misapprehended my remark, which was not that the question should be taken on the resolutions, en masse, because I well know that the Convention had a right to have the question taken separately upon each proposition.

Mr. OLIVER. My objection seems to be removed, then, as to the manner in which these resolves shall be acted upon. In regard to this idea of secret voting, I never had any doubts, from the time the law was first passed. I never could see any objection to a voter, if he saw fit, making his opinions known or not, just as he pleased, and when we were first called upon to exercise the right of voting by secret ballot, I pinned my vote upon the phylacteries of my frock coat, and I

think it was perfectly understood by all, which way I intended to vote. I intend that it shall be known hereafter what way I shall vote, But I do not mean thereby to restrain those who are under my guidance in any vote they may choose to cast. I belong, Sir, to that class of the community who have been held up here to public indignation and censure, as dictating to those in their employ, by gentlemen who have done it most eloquently, I dare say with reason, in some cases, but not with any reason so far as I am personally concerned, nor so far as I know in the case of many honorable gentlemen with whom I am closely acquainted and connected. It is not in the power of mortal man to bring such a charge against me, and if I could have obtained the floor yesterday, I would have appealed to the very men in my employ, some of whom I saw standing at the door, if they had ever heard the slightest word fall from my lips, when transacting the business of which I have charge, instructing or directing them how to vote, or in what manner to deposit their votes. And I can bear this testimony in the case of a good many honorable men of my acquaintance, similarly situated as myself. The gentleman from Berkley, (Mr. French,) made the remark that in many of our large establishments, the operatives are brought in the day before an election, compelled to define their position, and how they should vote, and if they intended to vote not according to the opinions of those who have them in charge, they are discharged from their employment. I pronounce the statement so far as my knowledge extends, to be incorrect, not to use any other stronger phrase, and I am perfectly willing that an investigation of the matter should be made to the fullest extent.

But to the point. I have reflected, Mr. Chairman, a good deal, about the effect and operation of the secret ballot, ever since the law was first enacted, and especially during my attendance upon the sittings of this Convention, and I am ready, if a provision of this kind can be put in some such form as shall meet my views more fully, yet covering the great principle involved, I am ready, I say to my friend from Berkley, to support it most cordially. I am ready to adopt the principle, whether other gentlemen with whom I have been in the habit of voting, go with me or not. I care nothing about that; and if my neighbors would feel more comfortably when they go to the polls, by depositing a secret ballot, why, then, I say, let them so vote. But I should like the principle, for myself, of voting openly or not, just as I please. I should infinitely more respect the manliness and courage, and plain dealing of the laborer or operative who works with me, if he should come to the polls on a day of election, and there boldly and freely deposit his open ballot, even in opposition to my candidate and my political views, than he should vote with me, and on my side, against his own convictions, and by such fawning and cringing hypocrisy, seek to win my favor. Such a man I should honor too highly to be willing to part with him. Faithful here, he would be faithful elsewhere. If he were too cowardly to vote the open ballot in accordance with his honest convictions, for fear of offending me, what assurance have I that he will not show both cowardice and duplicity in other matters? I should lose confidence in the steady fidelity, the strong integrity, the persistent sincerity of men, who lack the moral courage to carry out, by an

[June 8th.

open vote, their honest and conscientious views→ I say the moral courage, and that is the loftiest and holiest courage. I make these remarks in order to define my position when the final vote shall come. I am ready to help any man to be honest, and if he can be helped to an honest and fearless vote, by means of a secret ballot, I consent to help him to get it. As the resolution now stands, I do not like it; yet I am perfectly willing, in some form, to carry out the principle. I adopt it. The reception of a principle and the manner of carrying that principle into detail, are different things. I prefer that the word "may" should take the place of the word "shall,” in the fourth resolve; and this, it appears to me, is protection enough.

It is idle, however, for gentlemen to say that the system of voting by secret ballot is security against compulsion or the restriction of a voter. I can testify to the contrary.

I know of an instance which occurred where compulsion of the strongest kind was exercised upon a certain class of voters who were not able to read, and who had particular ballots placed in their hands. They were noted as they came into the town hall, and were told by certain parties that unless they deposited the ballots given to them, (to use the language of the person who informed me,) "they shall be spotted, and should never have a day's work again to do in the place." Compulsion may be practised in one way, as well as in another. The true secret lies where my friend from Adams, (Mr. Dawes,) put it—that the voter should be so educated, and brought up to the highest possible state of improvement, by the operation of our institutions, whether political, educational or otherwise, that the secret ballot will not be required, and you will thereby, by educating his moral courage, bring him up more nearly and properly to the position he should occupy.

I had designed to say something else, but as the time has now arrived for taking the question, I must bring my remarks to a close.

Mr. SCHOULER, of Boston. I intend to move that the Committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again; but before I make that motion, I wish to say one word. As it has been decided that what is said in Committee cannot be alluded to in Convention

The CHAIRMAN. By the order of the Convention, debate must cease at 12 o'clock, and that hour has now arrived.

Mr. SCHOULER. I wish merely to state my reasons for making the motion.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has not made any motion, and it is out of order for him to give his reasons.

Mr. SCHOULER. The order was that debate should cease at 12 o'clock, and not that the question should be taken at that time.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands the effect of the resolution to be that debate must close at 12 o'clock, and nothing is in order except the question upon the amendments and resolutions.

Mr. DAVIS, of Plymouth. I move to amend the resolutions by striking out the second resolve. Mr. UPTON, of Boston. Are amendments to the first resolution in order?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair stated originally that the vote upon each resolve must be taken separately, and that amendments could not be received to the first resolve after we had passed

Wednesday,]

QUALIFICATION OF VOTERS.- UPTON - HATHAWAY - BRADBURY — LORD.

to the second. The Chair is disposed, in order to expedite business, to adhere to that order.

Mr. UPTON. The first resolution has not been acted upon yet, and I ask if amendments to that resolution are not in order?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is disposed to receive amendments to resolutions in the order in which they stand, and therefore the amendment of the gentleman from Plymouth, (Mr. Davis,) cannot be acted upon at present. The Chair wishes gentlemen of the Committee to propose amendments in the order of the resolutions. Amendments will now be received to the first resolution.

Mr. UPTON, I move to strike out of the first resolution all after the word "vote.”

Mr. DAVIS, of Plymouth. I will withdraw my amendment with the understanding that the vote is to be taken on the first resolution.

Mr. SARGENT, of Cambridge. I will inquire if it would be in order to have the vote taken upon each resolution separately.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is of the opinion that any gentleman may require the vote to be taken upon each resolution separately.

Mr. SARGENT. I would, then, make that motion.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be done, as a matter of course, if it is called for.

Mr. BRADBURY, of Newton. I move to amend the amendment, by adding to the part of the proposition to be stricken out, the words "in any election."

The question was taken on Mr. Bradbury's amendment, and it was rejected.

The question was then taken on Mr. Upton's amendment, and it was rejected.

Mr. ALDRICH, of Barre. I move to amend the first resolution, by striking out all after the word "Resolved," and inserting the following: "And that all persons exempted by law, or under any provision of law, from taxation, and who are otherwise qualified as the Constitution now requires, shall be allowed to vote in all elections."

The question was then taken upon Mr. Aldrich's amendment, and it was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. The question will now be on the recommendation that the first resolution be adopted by the Convention.

Mr. HATHAWAY, of Freetown. I am not sure that I shall be in a right position before the Convention if I allow the first resolution to be adopted, under the ruling of the Chair. I do not rise for the purpose of debating the matter, but rather to make an inquiry of the Chair. I wish to propose to strike out the first, second and third resolutions; and if the first resolution is passed, then the question is, whether I can go back, unless I propound my amendment now.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is of opinion that if the first resolution is recommended for adoption, the Committee cannot go back afterwards and amend it.

Mr. HATHAWAY. The second and third resolutions are not under consideration, and how can I reach my amendment?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would suggest to the member from Freetown, that he may move to strike out the first resolution now, and each one in its order.

Mr. HATHAWAY. But suppose I move to strike out the first resolution, and the motion fails, then where am I?

The CHAIRMAN. That will be for the gentleman to decide for himself.

Mr. HATHAWAY. I perceive there is a difficulty. I do not rise to debate the matter, but I wish to say I do not wish to retain the property qualification.

The CHAIRMAN. The remarks of the gentleman, being in the nature of debate, are considered by the Chair as being out of order.

Mr. HOOD, of Lynn. I move that when the question is taken on the first resolve, it be taken by yeas and nays.

The CHAIRMAN. That motion is out of order in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. BRADBURY, of Newton. May I ask the Chair whether he does rule, that after the amendments have been passed upon, with regard to this first resolve, he deems it necessary that it should be passed upon finally in the Committee, before we go to the consideration of the second resolution.

The CHAIRMAN. A division has been called for on all the four resolutions, so that the question shall be taken upon each separately. The Chair is of the opinion that they are in their nature distinct and divisible, and that the question must be taken on each separately.

Mr. BRADBURY. The question is, whether the Chair would feel it incumbent upon him to take the question on the first, before passing to the consideration of the second.

Mr. HATHAWAY. I will move to strike out all after the word "6 Resolved," and insert the third article of the present Constitution of Massachusetts, with the substitution of the word "three" in the place of the word "six," where the residence within the town or district is referred to. It will be as follows.

Resolved, That every male citizen, of twentyone years of age and upwards, (excepting paupers and persons under guardianship,) who shall have resided within the Commonwealth one year, and within the town or district, in which he may claim a right to vote, three callendar months next preceding any election of governor, lieutenantgovernor, senators or representatives, and who shall have paid by himself or his parent, master or guardian, any state or county tax, which shall, within two years next preceding such election, have been assessed upon him, in any town or district of this Commonwealth; and also every citizen who shall be by law exempted from taxation, and who shall be in all other respects qualified as above mentioned, shall have a right to vote in such election of governor, lieutenant-governor, senators and representatives; and no other person shall be entitled to vote in such elections.

The question being taken on the amendment of the gentleman from Freetown, there were on a division-ayes, 118; noes, 185.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. LORD, of Salem. I move that the Committee rise, report the first resolve to the Convention, and ask leave to sit again.

The motion was not agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is now upon the second resolution.

Mr. DAVIS, of Plymouth. I move to strike out the second resolution.

The resolution is as follows:

Resolved, That the term of residence in a town or district now required as a qualification to vote be reduced from six to three months.

The question was taken and the motion was agreed to.

[June 8th.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is now on the third resolution.

The resolution is as follows:

Resolved, That for the purpose of voting, no person shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence by reason of his presence or absence while employed in the army or navy of the United States, or while navigating the waters of this State or of the United States, or of the high seas, or while a member of any seminary of learning.

Mr. WALKER, of North Brookfield. I wish to propose an amendment-which is to substitute the word "student" for the word member in the last line; so that it will read "or while a student of any seminary of learning." As I stated before it is merely a clerical error.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HATHAWAY, of Freetown. I now move to strike out the whole of the third resolution. It is not a matter to be debated here; but there has not been a single reason given why it should be incorporated in the Constitution. It is precisely what the Constitution now is. The motion was not agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is now upon the adoption of the third resolution by the Committee.

The question was taken and the resolution was adopted.

The question then being on the adoption of the fourth resolution which is as follows:

Resolved, That all ballots required by law to be given at any national, state, county, or municipal election, shall be deposited in sealed envelopes of uniform size and appearance, to be furnished by the Commonwealth.

Mr. EDWARDS, of Southampton. I move that the word "municipal" in the fourth resolution be stricken out, and that the word "or" be inserted before the word "county."

The motion was not agreed to.

Mr. SCHOULER moved to strike out the fourth resolution, and insert in lieu thereof, the following substitute :

Resolved, That all votes required by law to be given at any national, state, county or municipal election, shall be given by secret ballot.

The amendment was not agreed to.

Mr. OLIVER, of Lawrence, moved to strike out the word "shall" in the second line of the resolution, and insert the word "may" in lieu thereof; which was not agreed to.

Mr. UPTON, of Boston, moved to add the word "town" after the word "county," in the second line of the resolution; which was not agreed to.

Mr. LORD, of Salem, moved to strike out the words "national, state, county or municipal;" which was not agreed to.

Mr. DAVIS, of Plymouth, moved to add the word "district" after the word "county," in the second line; which was not agreed to.

[ocr errors][merged small]

Wednesday,]

QUALIFICATION OF VOTERS. — LORD-FRENCH — WILSON.

THE CONVENTION, That the first, third and fourth resolutions ought to pass, with an amendment to the third. The amendment to the third resolution, which had been reported by the Committee of the Whole, was then agreed to, and the question was stated on the adoption of the resolutions.

Mr. LORD, of Salem. I suppose now, Mr. President, that the whole subject matter of the report is before the Convention, and I am most happy to be able to obtain the floor at this time, in this liberal and reformatory assembly; I call it liberal, Sir, because there has been another body assembled here which did not regard the rights of minorities, as I have repeatedly heard it said. It is said, they had an overbearing presiding officer and an overbearing majority. Now I design, Sir, and I have no doubt it will be profitable to do so, to consider hastily, whether that body deserves to be rebuked for the action of its majority towards its minority, especially by us. I take it for granted that it is in order to defend another body in any place where it is in order to attack another body; and I take it for granted, therefore, that I shall be permitted to reply to any attack which has been made upon a different assembly who have met within this hall. The subject matter is not unimportant in connection with the principles of organic law-the right of free discussion, and the right of minorities to be heard and to defend themselves when they are overpowered by numbers. It is a right most vital in a deliberative assembly-the right of the individual against the mass-the right of speech against the mere power of action. That is the right which is involved here, and is, to a considerable extent, compromitted here. A thousand voters send me up here, to express their views and mine, and I do not like to be told by gentlemen from another part of the State, that you shall not listen to my suggestions because they do not happen to come from the right quarter. I do not believe in any such doctrine of popular rights as that. We are not to be heard here, and it is said that you shall not listen to the suggestions of the minority.

Mr. FRENCH, of New Bedford. If the gentleman will allow me, I will ask if he refers to me. Mr. LORD. Yes, Sir, I do.

Mr. FRENCH. I made no such remark as that. The gentleman must have misunderstood

me.

Mr. LORD. It will be hardly safe for that gentleman to appeal to this assembly, whether he said you shall not listen to the suggestions of those who were opposed to the calling of this Convention. I am one of those who was opposed to the calling of this Convention.

Mr. FRENCH. I do appeal to this Convention that I said no such thing. I said, let this question be debated, pro and con, but that we should not be guided by the counsels of those who were the opponents of the Convention.

Mr. LORD. I am just as well contented with the modification. You shall not be guided by our counsels-that is the language-no matter though the counsels be wise, and prudent, and safe; though they be wisdom itself you are not to be guided by such counsels, for they come from the opponents of the Convention, they come from the minority and therefore you are not to be guided by them. I do not believe that it is right for a majority, by the mere force of numbers, to overcome the minority, without permitting that

minority to be fully and freely heard; and that is the opinion upon which I have acted, not only here but elsewhere. Now, Sir, there was a certain exciting occasion when gentlemen said that the rights of the minority were invaded in relation to this matter of free discussion, and it has been the subject of frequent animadversion here. Now I appeal to the record and upon that record you will find that the majority asked the minority how long a time was necessary for discussion. The minority fixed the time; and the majority subsequently consented, at the request of the minority, to enlarge the time. The record shows all this. And so protracted had been the time used in the discussion that when the last appointed time was reached no gentleman of the minority asked to be further heard. No, Sir; not only was the time so ample, that was assigned for the discussion, as to allow every gentleman in the minority to express his views fully, but the debate actually dragged heavily, so much so that at one time a member of the minority proposed to take up another subject, because there was no one who desired to speak. There was then quite sufficient time allowed for the discussion and by whom was it occupied? Why, during the whole debate, Sir, where this minority's rights were said to have been invaded, not a single word of discussion was had by the majority, but every word of it was by the minority, not only through the whole time first allotted for the debate but through the extended time also. Indeed, although the majority was promised fifteen minutes they were allowed just thirty seconds by the clock, and thirty seconds only. Do gentlemen here, then, talk about a body being oppressive which acted thus towards the minority, when I, this morning, as an humble individual upon this floor, who has been attacked from every quarter all day yesterday, and asked that I might have the poor, humble privilege of reply, was voted down by the same majority. They talk about oppression, do they! They talk about the minority in some other body having been limited in their right of free discussion, when I, attacked here by one after another, hour after hour, and by speaker after speaker, and having requested an opportunity to reply to all those attacks, was not permitted to reply. Sir, when you find any such vote as that of mine, when in a majority, I give you leave, so long as you and I live, to taunt me with it forever, as being one of those overbearing men who does not regard the rights of minorities. I beg gentlemen just to see where the proper application of the principle which they undertake to hold another body to, will place their conduct towards the minority here.

Upon this very matter of these resolutions, upon this very matter of the secret ballot law, gentlemen get up and talk of the action of myself and others, in a different capacity, but in a capacity imposed upon me just as much by that sovereignty-the people, whom all of us so delight to honor, but love more to be honored by -as that in which I am now acting, and say that the people of the Commonwealth have rebuked us for that action. Time after time we have been told that the action of the people of this Commonwealth, upon the seventh of March last, showed how they regarded the conduct of the legislature. Sir, I propose to examine and see what the people think. I have no fear upon that question.

[June 8th.

Now, I propose to deal with these things pretty plainly. I have sat here long enough and heard that abuse, and that sort of political ebullition, quite too frequently. It answers no argument of mine. Be it so, Sir, if you please that the people were dissatisfied with the conduct of the legislature, does that answer my argument upon this question. I am not yet prepared to admit the premises; but if it be true really that the people have been misled, and they really suppose that those most extraordinary and disgraceful proceedings which several times characterized the conduct of the House of Representatives, or more properly speaking, some members of the House of Representatives, were to be attributed to the majority instead of the minority-which those conversant with the proceedings of deliberative assemblies will be slow to believe-does it make the proposition of mine that the Constitution of this Commonwealth should be a series of maxims, commanding the general assent of the popular mind, a whit the more or less true? And if I say, as I said the other day, that nothing should be put into the Constitution, outside of the necessary frame of government, except fundamental principles, it may round a period, perhaps, and may give a pretty turn to a sentence, or a happy adornment to a rhetorical flourish, to say that I do not know who the people are, or that the people have rebuked me with a "rill from every hill, a stream from every valley, and a whole avalanche of reformers," but I don't understand that it meets the proposition or in any manner tends to weaken or disturb it.

The hour of one o'clock having arrived, the hammer fell and the Convention was adjourned until 3 o'clock, P. M.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

The Convention met at three o'clock, P. M. Mr. WILSON, of Natick. A document was this morning received from the Secretary of State, containing some valuable statistics. I move that it be printed for the use of the Convention. The motion was agreed to.

Leave of Absence.

Mr. FAY, from the Committee on Leave of Absence, reported that leave of absence be granted to Mr. Knight, of Peru, for five days. The Report was concurred in.

Orders of the Day.

On motion of Mr. LORD, of Salem, the Convention proceeded to the consideration of the Order of Day, being the resolves of the Committee on the Qualifications of Voters, the pending question being on ordering said resolves to a second reading.

Mr. LORD. I was this morning, at the time of the adjournment, perhaps a little too earnest in complaining that opportunity had not been given to those persons, and especially to myself, who were opposed to these resolutions, or to some of them, to discuss them.

The determination in Convention to stop debate in Committee of the Whole at a given hour, seemed to me to be most objectionable. It is in the nature of an application of the previous question,—a motion unknown in parliamentary law in Committee of the Whole,-and in the most odious form of that almost universally odious motion. The debate in Committee may be

Wednesday,]

in the condition, at the time appointed in Convention for stopping debate, in which that course would be most improper. The time being thus fixed beforehand, a single individual may occupy the whole of it, and his statements and his arguments may need refutation or reply; he may attack positions of others whom the Committee might desire to hear in reply; and if the power were with them, they would not order the previous question; but no reply can be made; neither in Committee for debate must stop by a vote of the Convention,-nor in Convention, because in Convention it is not in order to reply to arguments made in Committee.

In my opinion, it is the much better course— though upon that I do not purpose to make any extended remarks-that the entire discussion of a subject should be in Committee of the Whole. In the short experience I have had in deliberative assemblies, I have found that nothing is gained by attempting to force the decision upon any question against the wishes of those who desire to express their views upon it. Nothing can be gained. If the subject is not fully discussed in Committee of the Whole, it will be discussed in the Convention. If it is not discussed in Convention upon the first reading of the resolve, a motion will be made to reconsider, which, under the liberal rule of this assembly, any person can make; and then if it is not discussed sufficiently, it will be discussed in the next stage of its progress; and it may be discussed still further on, upon a motion to reconsider the final vote. And if, after all, a vote is pressed without a full discussion, it will not be till more time has been frittered away in the attempt to discuss, than the discussion would have consumed. I say, therefore, that nothing is gained by closing debate before gentlemen have spoken who desire to. Gentlemen who have had experience in deliberative assemblies, I am quite sure, will concur with me in this view.

I desire to say, because of the remarks made to myself this morning, and of the scenes which then took place; I desire to say, in behalf of myself and of those who are with me in the minority in this Convention, that from the beginning of the session to this time, there has been no attempt whatever by them to delay the proceedings. Every gentleman in the minority here has seemed desirous to conduct himself with propriety and decorum. No one has attempted to embarrass the presiding officer of the Convention or its proceedings. I have, I confess, Sir, trespassed upon the indulgence of this Convention more frequently than I have desired; but, at the same time, I venture to say that I have occupied not an unreasonable time, considering the position I happen to occupy in another body, and considering the attacks which have been made upon me, and upon those who are associated with me in that other body; for I believe, with the exception of expressing my opinion upon the question under consideration, I have not risen in this assembly except when an attack has been made upon the legislature.

I am reminded, by a gentleman near me, that I did speak upon the Berlin case. And why? Because it was said in that debate that the legislature of which I was a member had committed treason, and more than one gentleman declared that it had passed a law which it had no right to pass. That legislature has been attacked here

QUALIFICATION OF VOTERS. LORD.

almost daily, in a manner, in my opinion, unbecoming, and certainly unparliamentary. A decision made by the gentleman, Mr. President, who occupied the chair which you now so acceptably fill, has been made the subject of animadversion by one and another, who, one would suppose, would have been deterred from any such attack, from the peculiarly delicate position in which they happen to be placed. But, Sir, let me say to you that the very ruling about which the most violent and bitter complaint has been made of the presiding officer of that assembly, was a ruling which you yourself have made within the last ten minutes-that when a subject matter was under consideration no motion could be entertained but the motions, and in the order, in which they are specified in the tenth rule. I thank you for making that ruling, most heartily, and the more heartily because it was made in the very words which were used by the officer to whom I refer. No judge of parliamentary law who understood the decision ever doubted its propriety -and the sanction of your high authority was always expected if you should be called upon to rule, as you have now been called upon to rule upon the same question. And yet gentlemen get up here and denounce the ruling of that presiding officer, who conducted himself in the duties of that place with as much ability, and with as much dignity, and with as deep, conscientious fidelity, as any one of all those illustrious men who have adorned and dignified that chair.

Sir, this resolution which I hold in my hand was offered by a gentleman who made complaints of the ruling of that officer who has been so often arraigned upon this floor. That gentleman offered this resolution at the close of the session, and it is as complimentary a vote of thanks, in my judgment, as was ever passed before to the presiding officer of that body, and, considering the circumstances under which it was passed, even more so. It is a resolution of thanks for the "faithful and efficient" discharge of his duties -aye, Sir, for the FAITHFUL-and what significant import has that word! FAITHFUL! For the FAITHFUL AND EFFICIENT manner in which the duties of the chair had been discharged. But I will read the resolution itself.

"Resolved, That the thanks of this House, be and they are hereby presented to the honorable George Bliss, for the faithful and efficient manner in which he has discharged the duties of Speaker of the House of Representatives during the present session."

And although we were told in the heat of debate and under the strong and bitter excitement of defeat, that if certain parties were above ground, they would vote against any vote of thanks that should be offered to that officer; that no consideration should induce them not to be present and refuse a vote of thanks-yet reason dawned again-a sense of justice prevailed over the excited feeling of the moment, and to the credit of the minority, as well as in full vindication of that most estimable man and faithful officer, the resolution which I have just read passed with entire unanimity. In this manner that minority testified that the duties of the chair had been performed with faithfulness and efficiency, and when you have said that, nothing has been left unsaid; and he who has thus performed them, not only appreciates but has mastered the

[June 8th.

manner in which those duties should be discharged. Now, Sir, after the party who claimed on the spur of the moment to have been oppressed by certain rulings of the then occupant of the chair, shall have declared by this vote that that officer had discharged his official duties with faithfulness and efficiency, it ill becomes one not a member of that body to come here and complain upon that subject. Good taste, no less than parliamentary propriety, forbid it.

But, say they, the people came up upon the seventh of March, in obedience to the manifesto, and rebuked the conduct of the legislature, and it is that which has given you one hundred majority in this body. Now, Sir, I propose to examine that matter a little, for if it was a fit matter to be presented here in debate as an argument, it is fit to be answered.

In the first place, what is the charge which this assertion makes upon the people? Why, that they are a mere whining set of children. Because one set of their representatives or agents had failed to do what they thought was right and proper, in one instance, what did they do? They turned exactly round and voted for men with principles directly the reverse of their own. That is, they would have chosen Whigs to this Convention, instead of Anti-Whigs, but for that vote in the legislature. They wanted Whigs, thought Whigs ought to be chosen; but they would not choose them because certain persons in the legislature conducted differently upon that occasion from what they desired. This must, of necessity, be the result; for if the people, on the seventh day of March, voted just as they intended to, when they decided to call a Convention, then their vote rebukes nobody and is no expression of opinion upon anybody's conduct. If, however, they did not vote, as when they decided they would have a Convention they intended to, but voted for gentlemen of different political principles and of different views in relation to what should be the organic law of the Commonwealth, the people are obnoxious to the charge of changing their whole views of organic law and constitutional principles, because a most honest and worthy presiding officer misconstrued the tenth rule of the rules and orders of the assembly over which he presided, and the majority of the body sustained him in his construction. Now, I desire to know who believes one word of that? Nobody. Nobody. I am obliged again to rescue the people from the people-lovers-the guardians of the people. I pronounce it a scandal upon the intelligent voters of the Commonwealth. The result was otherwise brought about. The people wanted Anti-Whigs, but wanted them for different purposes. They wanted gentlemen who would vote to change the Constitution; but I apprehend it will turn out that they did not all want the same changes. Some desired, for an example, an elective judiciary, but would not tolerate the introduction of the plurality principle in elections; while others desired the plurality, but would reject the idea of an elective judiciary. But all wanted reforms, and the question was, how they should get a reform convention. And this was the question to be solved. This the consummation to be wished.

It seems to me that it was brought about in this wise. Two of the political parties of the Commonwealth did just as they had done before. They made up their minds to unite. It was not

« ForrigeFortsett »