ever, seems to provide differently. The second article of amendment provides that "the general court shall have full power and authority to erect and consitute municipal or city governments, in any corporate town or towns in this Commonwealth, or to grant to the inhabitants thereof such powers, privileges and immunities, not repugnant to the Constitution, as the general court shall deem necessary or expedient for the regulation and government thereof, and to prescribe the manner of calling and holding public meetings of the inhabitants, in wards or otherwise, for the election of officers under the Constitution, and the manner of returning the votes given at such meetings: provided, that no such government shall be erected or constituted in any town not containing twelve thousand inhabitants, nor unless it be with the consent, and on the application of a majority of the inhabitants of such town, present and voting thereon, pursuant to a vote at a meeting duly warned and holden for that purpose," &c. Hence it will be seen that the Constitution, as it at present exists, makes a marked distinction between city and town governments, and makes "municipal" and "city" governments synonymous.

If the resolve should pass as it now stands, it will lead to confusion in its application, because many people might entertain the same idea that I have entertained, that a town government, as well as a city government, is a "municipal" government. But, from the Constitution, it would seem that that this is not the case, and hence the necessity of striking out the word "municipal." It is not sufficiently definite; and therefore I am in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from North Brookfield, which proposes to strike out the word "municipal" and insert the word "city." The meaning of the resolution will then be clear and definite. It seems that there should be a distinction, and there is unquestionably a marked distinction between town and city governments. Before the city, which I represent here, was incorporated, I remember that we had at our town elections several separate and distinct ballotings; and every gentleman will see, that where a secret envelope is to be used in such case, every balloting would be attended with great inconvenience, while, on the other hand, the elections for city governments are like the state elections-all done in one ballot. We have but one ballot a-day. Our tickets are deposited in a ballot-box, for all officers at one and the same time, and therefore no inconvenience arises from the use of the envelope in this case.

I concur fully in the remarks of my friend from Lowell. If there be any case of any kind in which a secret envelope is required for security in the right of voting it is in our city governments rather than in our state governments. I therefore hope that the amendment of the gentleman from North Brookfield will be sustained.

Mr. SARGENT, of Cambridge. I should not have arisen to address the Convention upon this subject, did I not feel that I was particularly pointed out by the gentleman from North Brookfield, (Mr. Walker.) He called upon the members of this Convention who represent cities out of Boston, to answer for themselves, whether they were in favor of the amendment which he proposed, and whether that amendment was not desired by their constituents. But, Sir, he was very careful, and very kind, to say that he would excuse those

gentlemen who represent cities not in favor of the secret ballot.

Mr. WALKER. I said not in favor of the Convention.

Mr. SARGENT. Very well. I never asked to be excused from the discharge of any duty which devolves upon me. I believe, in the outset, that the citizens of the city which I have the honor in part to represent, are not in favor of ingrafting this principle into the Constitutionthat is, that a very small minority of them are in favor of it, and I am borne out in this belief, from the fact that I found, on going to the polls at the last election, when a law had been passed, giving to every man the option of voting by the secret or open ballot, that a considerable portion of the men who were in favor of this Convention, and who belonged to the party to which the gentleman himself, (Mr. Walker,) belongs, came up and voted the open vote, rejoicing that they were again restored to that privilege.

Another thing, Sir; I hold that the citizens of the city I represent, ask no special privileges. They ask that under the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth, no right shall be guaranteed to them, that is not guaranteed to every citizen of Massachusetts. Now, Sir, let us not lose sight of the principle of this resolve. What is it? It is to protect the right of suffrage. Now, Sir, the citizens of Cambridge ask no greater protection than you award to the citizens of every town of this Commonwealth. Well, does the importance of the right of suffrage rest alone in the election of governor, lieutenant-governor, senators and representatives? Is there no importance attached to it, in reference to the election of your municipal officers in cities and in towns? If there is any importance attached to those elections, then the importance of applying this principle is just as strong in towns as it is in cities. I ask if it is not of as much importance that the right of the citizens of towns should be protected in the election of their selectmen, as it is that those of the cities should be protected in the election of their aldermen and common councillors?

It has been said that the city governments raise money in the cities, while the people raise it in the towns. Sir, it is not proposed that it shall be raised by vote, under sealed envelopes, in towns or cities, and therefore, the argument does not apply. I say, if you are to establish this rule at all, you should make it equal throughout the Commonwealth. Why, Sir, it is a principle of the Constitution, that the legislature can pass no law, which is not equal in its operation throughout the Commonwealth. But what do you propose to do here? You propose to establish in your Constitution-in your fundamental lawwhat you declare to be a great principle, demanded for the safety of the people, and the right of the elective franchise; and yet, in the very same breath, you declare that it is not necessary to carry out this principle equally to all the citizens of the Commonwealth. That citizens of different towns conduct their affairs in different manners, seems to me to bear no weight upon this question of the right of suffrage. You say undue influences are brought to bear. Will they not be brought to bear just as much in towns, as in cities-just as much in the election of selectmen and other town officers, as in the election of city officers? I doubt whether there is any class of officers, chosen in this Commonwealth, in whose election more feel

[June 10th.

ing is engendered, than in that of the board of the selectmen. I think there is no election contested so strongly.

I hold, then, that if this is a sound principle, if it is necessary in order to protect the right of suffrage, to incorporate it into the Constitution, it is necessary that it should be applied to all cases, as well as to a part.

I am therefore, opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Brookfield, (Mr. Walker,) unless he shall include in that amendment, towns as well as cities.

Mr. CARTER, of Chicopee. The gentleman from North Brookfield, (Mr. Walker,) advocates the adoption of his amendment upon the ground of the difference in the manner of voting in towns, and voting in cities. Now, Sir, although there may be a distinction in the manner of voting in some towns and cities of the Commonwealth, yet it is not so general as may be supposed. I have the honor of representing in part, one of the towns of the Commonwealth, and the manner of voting in that town is for a large portion of town officers, by general ticket. The selectmen, assessors and school committee, being borne on the same ballot. I do not therefore, see the force of the objection which the gentleman makes, founded upon that difference. I do not know that I shall be disposed to vote for the secret ballot law, but if I should, it will not be because I believe it will have any tendency to secure the ballot-box against the commission of fraud.

It has been urged with a great deal of force here, that this provision is wanted by the laboring men and mechanics, for their protection against the influence, dictation and restraints of their employers. I am willing to go for it, if it is demanded by that class of people, for that reason. If they desire it, they should have it. If they want security in that respect, they are entitled to it; and they have a right to demand at our hands independent suffrage.

It has been my fortune for many years to be connected as an employer, with some of the large manufacturing establishments in the town I represent, and I always supposed, and I still suppose, that the workmen in the mills, and the mechanics in the workshops, go to the polls with as much freedom, and with as little restraint, as any other portion of the citizens of their towns. And therefore, I do not believe, that, for the reasons which have been presented, they demand the incorporation of the secret ballot into our organic law.

The gentleman from North Brookfield, (Mr. Walker,) has undertaken to prophesy in regard to the effects of this law, if adopted. Sir, I will not venture to prophesy in regard to it, but I will venture to suggest to the members of this Convention, that, after they shall have presented this proposition to the people of this Commonwealth for their adoption, and after the votes of the several towns of the State shall have been returned, testifying their desire in relation to its adoption, they will look at the vote of the town of Chicopee-which vote will be chiefly given by this class of citizens, that is, the working men and the mechanics-and see, and judge from those returns, whether those men go up to the ballot-box with manly boldness or cringing fear; and whether, in the discharge of their duties and rights, as freemen and American citizens, they desire to perform their duties in the light of day, and in the face of their fellow-citizens, or whether they desire to

Friday,]

have a cover under which to hide their want of manly independence, as they have been charged with upon this floor. I wish to give these men an opportunity to show how far they appreciate this provision, and it will be from considerations of this kind, if induced to vote for this proposition at all, that I shall do so; and not because I believe the purity of the ballot-box will be promoted by it.

Mr. BIRD, of Walpole. The friends of the secret ballot have reason to congratulate themselves upon the course which this debate has taken. Two-thirds of us came here with the expectation of finding it a difficult matter to incorporate such a provision into the Constitution, but I am surprised, I confess, that the other third agree with us, and are inclined to go further even than we are inclined to go. The difficulty with us is, they think, that we do not go far enough. This being the case, and regarding this matter as settled, as far as its incorporation into the Constitution is concerned, I move the previous question. The previous question was ordered by a vote of 200 in the affirmative to 90 in the negative. Mr. ASPINWALL asked that the question on the first amendment be taken by yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were refused.

The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. Walker, to the amendment of Mr. Bates, and it was agreed to, by a vote of 183 in the affirmative, and 82 in the negative.

The question then recurred upon the amendment as amended.

Mr. BRAMAN, of Danvers. I was not present the other day when the chairman of this Committee, (Mr. Walker,) enforced his argument upon the Convention in favor of the resolution now under consideration.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair would suggest to the gentleman that the resolution cannot now be discussed, the previous question having been ordered.

Mr. BRAMAN. I thought the previous question had been exhausted.

The PRESIDENT. It has not.

The question was taken and the amendment as amended was adopted.

The question then recurred upon ordering the resolution to a second reading.

Mr. HOOPER, of Fall River, moved that when the question be taken, it be taken by yeas and nays. Mr. BRAMAN desired to discuss the resolution. The PRESIDENT decided that no discussion was in order until the previous question had been exhausted.

Mr. HOOPER then withdrew his motion for the yeas and nays upon ordering the resolution to a second reading, proposing to move for them upon the final passage of the resolution.

Mr. THOMPSON, of Charlestown, renewed the motion and desired to express his reasons, but was called to order by the President.

The yeas and nays were ordered-65 members having voted therefor.

The question "shall the resolution be ordered to a second reading," was then taken and the result was-yeas, 233; nays, 91-as follows:

Baker, Hillel
Ballard, Alvah
Ball, George S.
Bancroft, Alpheus
Barrett, Marcus
Bates, Moses, Jr.
Beach, Erasmus D.
Beal, John
Bennett, William, Jr.
Bennett, Zephaniah
Bigelow, Edward B.
Bird, Francis W.
Bishop, Henry W.
Bliss, Gad O.
Booth, William S.
Boutwell, Geo. S.
Boutwell, Sewell

Griswold, Whiting
Hadley, Samuel P.
Hapgod, Lyman W.
Hapgood, Seth
Haskell, George
Haskins, William
Hawkes, Stephen E.
Hayden, Isaac
Heath, Ezra, 2d
Hewes, James
Hewes, William H.
Heywood, Levi
Hobart, Henry
Hobbs, Edwin
Holder, Nathaniel
Hood, Geerge
Hooper Foster

Bradford, William J. A. Howard, Martin
Breed, Hiram N.
Bronson, Asa
Brown, Adolphus F.
Brown, Alpheus R.
Brown, Artemas
Brown, Hammond
Brown, Hiram ('.
Brownell, Frederick
Brownell, Joseph
Bryant, Patrick
Buck, Asahel
Bullen, Amos II.
Burlingame, Anson
Cady, Henry
Carter, Timothy W.
Caruthers, William
Case, Isaac
Chapin, Daniel E.
Childs, Josiah
Churchill, J. McKean
Clark, Henry
Clark, Ransom
Clarke, Stillman
Cleverly, William
Cole, Lansing J.
Cole, Sumner
Crane, George B.
Cressy, Oliver S.
Cross, Joseph W.
Cushman, Henry W.
Cutler, Simeon N.
Davis, Charles G.
Davis, Ebenezer
Davis, Isaac
Davis, Robert T.
Day, Gilman
Dean, Silas

Deming, Elijah S.
Denton, Augustus
De Witt, Alexander
Duncan, Samuel
Dunham, Bradish
Durgin, John M.
Earle, John M.
Easton, James, 2d
Eaton, Calvin D.
Edwards, Elisha
Ely, Joseph M.
Fiske, Emery
Fisk, Lyman
Fitch, Ezekiel W.
Foster, Aaron
Foster, Abram
Fowle, Samuel
Freeman, James M.
French, Charles A.
French, Samuel
Gale, Luther
Gardner, Johnson
Gates, Elbridge
Gilbert, Washington
Giles, Charles G.
Gooch, Daniel W.
Gooding, Leonard
Gourgas, F. R.
Graves John W.
Green, Jabez

Greene, William B.
Griswold, Josiah W.

Howland, Abraham II. Hoyt, Henry K. Hubbard, William J. Huntington, Charles P. Huntington, George II. Hurlbut, Moses C. Hyde, Benjamin D. Ide, Abijah M., Jr. Jacobs, John Johnson, John Kendall, Isaac Kimball, Joseph Kingman, Joseph Knight, Hiram Knight, Jefferson Knowlton, Charles L. Knowlton, J. S. C. Knowlton, William H. Knox, Albert Kuhn, George, II. Ladd, Gardner P. Langdon, Wilber C. Lawrence, Luther, Lawton, Job G., Jr. Lincoln, Abishai Little, Otis Loomis, E. Justin Marble, William P. Marvin, Abijah P. Mason, Charles Meader, Reuben, Merritt, Simeon Monroe, James L. Moore, James M. Morton, Marcus Morton, Marcus, Jr. Morton, William S. Nash, Hiram Nayson, Jonathan Newman, Charles Nichols, William Norton, Alfred Nute, Andrew T. Orne, Benjamin S. Osgood, Charles Packer, E. Wing Paine, Benjamin Paine, Henry Parsons, Samuel C. Partridge, John Pease, Jeremiah, Jr. Penniman, John Perkins, Daniel A. Perkins, Jesse Perkins, Noah C. Phelps, Charles Phinney, Silvanus B. Pierce, Henry Pool, James M. Powers, Peter Putnam, John A. Rantoul, Robert Rawson, Silas

Richards, Luther Richardson, Daniel Richardson, Nathan Richardson, Samuel H. Rockwood, Joseph M. Rogers, John

[June 10th.

NAYS.

Abbott, Alfred A. Andrews, Robert

ABSENT.

Banks, Nathaniel P., Jr. Chapin, Henry

The Report of the Committee was read by the Secretary, as follows:

Resolved, That the words "Solicitor-General" be stricken from article 9, section 1, chapter 2, of the Constitution, and that said article be so amended as to require that all Sheriffs, Coroners, and Registers of Probate be elected triennially by the people in their respective counties, and that the Attorney-General be elected annually by the people of the Commonwealth.

Resolved, That article 1, section 4, chapter 2, be amended by striking out the word "and" after the word "Secretary" in the first line, and inserting after the words "Receiver-General" in the second line, the words, "and Auditor of Accounts," and also, by substituting for the words "by joint ballot of the senators and representatives in one room," the words "by the people of the Commonwealth," so that said article, as far as, and including the word "room," may read thus: "The Secretary, Treasurer, and ReceiverGeneral, and Auditor of Accounts, shall be chosen annually by the people of the Commonwealth."

Upon the order of May 12, instructing your Committee "to consider the expediency of incorporating into the Constitution provisions for the election by the people of Judges of Probate, Commissioners of Insolvency, Clerks of the Courts, District-Attorneys, and all other county and district officers,"

Resolved, That Judges of Probate, Clerks of the

SECRETARY, TREASURER, &c. - BISHOP.

Courts, Commissioners of Insolvency, DistrictAttorneys, Registers of Deeds, County Treasurers, and County Commissioners, be elected triennially by the people of their respective counties and districts.

Upon the order of May 30, 1853,

Resolved, That it is not expedient so to amend the Constitution as to provide for the election by the people of the Commonwealth of a Prison Inspector.

Mr. BISHOP, of Lenox. As chairman of the Committee to whom was referred the subject now under consideration, I beg leave to say, that the several matters which were referred to them have received a good deal of deliberation on the part of that Committee. They embrace a variety of subjects, although they are such as belong to one general class.

The first question which was submitted to us was the resolve which was first read to the Committee. And with regard to that, the Committee came to an almost unanimous conclusion that the words "Solicitor-General" be stricken from article 9, section 1, chapter 2, of the Constitution, and for this reason, among others. The office of Solicitor-General has not been in existence for now nearly a quarter of a century-I think not for more than twenty years. It expired upon the change in relation to the criminal law, which was made several years ago.

The office of Attorney-General was at that time retained; but upon the distribution of the powers of jurisdiction among the various courts of the Commonwealth, this office became unimportant, and, in fact, unnecessary; and so long as that distribution continues, that office will continue to be unnecessary, because the duties of the office are better performed by the District-Attorney, or by the attorneys in the several counties, than by the Attorney-General. For that reason, we thought it was better to strike the office from the Constitution, and if it should ever be found necessary to create it, or an office of a similar character, it is in the power of the legislature, at any time, to do so; but so long as the existing state of things continues, the office will certainly remain unnecessary.

In relation to the second resolve, the Committee recommend that the word " and " be stricken out in the first line, and that the words "ReceiverGeneral and Auditor of Accounts," be inserted in the second line. That is a mere change of phraseology, in order to admit the insertion of the officer which we had deemed necessary to be recognized by the Constitution. The office of Auditor of Accounts was created several years ago-at what precise time I do not recollect-but it was found, as has been previously stated in Committee, to be an office of great importance, and under the existing state of things, one necessary to be retained. The duties performed by the Auditor would be performed by some one else, if not by an officer of that character, and the Committee were of the opinion that an officer of this character, vested with the powers with which that officer is vested, could better discharge those duties than they could be discharged by a committee of the legislature, or by any other officer. They were, therefore, of the opinion that it was wise to recognize this as an officer, in the Constitution.

With regard to the third resolve, that, too, has received the consideration of the Committee. But here, Mr. Chairman, permit me to remark, that

[June 10th.

the Committee came to the conclusion, if not with entire unanimity, with considerable unanimity, that all the officers mentioned in the order of May 11th, which was referred to them, should be elected by the people: the Attorney-General, the Treasurer, the Receiver-General, and the Auditor of Accounts; that all the State officers should be elected annually, and that all the other officers which were mentioned in the Constitution, should be elected triennially. They also recommend that all the officers mentioned in the order of may 12th, should be elected by the people for the same reason. All these officers, with the exception of Treasurer and Receiver-General, have heretofore been appointed by the executive power. This power of appointment has been vested in the supreme executive magistrate of the Commonwealth. Such has been the rule, such the practice, ever since the adoption of the Constitution of Massachusetts. We regard it as a correct principle that the supreme power should be the appointing power. The supreme executive has always been regarded in the country from which we emigrated, as the supreme power of the state, not only of the judicial and executive departments, but also of the legislative. This conferred upon the supreme executive the power to make all appointments of all the subordinate officers, whether judicial, ministerial or executive. Under this theory of government it was undoubtedly proper that all these appointments should be made by the supreme exccutive magistrate.

But the theory of our government is different. With us, the supreme power is with the people. The people have the appointing power, and they should, therefore, make the appointment of all the officers within their gift, of all the officers created by the Constitution and laws, unless there be sound reason why that appointment should proceed from a delegated source. We assume then, as a principle, that wherever an appointment may be made directly by the people, it should be made, but where it cannot be made without great inconvenience to the public service, by them, it should be made by the delegated powers appointed by those parties. But we see no reason why all these officers should not be appointed by the people. If there is any reason, it will be applicable to all the officers whose duties relate to the commonwealth of the State, as much as to those of Treasurer, Attorney-General, Receiver-General and Auditor of Accounts. The Treasurer and Receiver-General have, heretofore, been elected by the joint ballot of both houses of the legislature, assembled in one room. This

election has, heretofore, been made by a delegated power, but there was no reason which occurred to the Committee, why that delegated power should longer be employed to elect those officers, and why the appointments should not be made by the people themselves.

In relation to the other officers, the majority of the Committee had but little doubt respecting their appointment. Their duties principally relate to the matters in the county for which they are elected, and their jurisdiction does not extend beyond the limits of a single county, with the exception, perhaps, of that of District Attorney, where two or more counties are associated togethIn relation to the appointment of these officers, the Judges of Probate, Clerks of the Courts, Commissioners of Insolvency, District Attorneys, Registers of Deeds, County Treasurers, County

er.

Friday,]

Commissioners, and all other county officers, the Committee were of the opinion that there was no reason why they should not be appointed strictly by the people. The people are conversant, within their own counties, with the people who reside among them, and they are better acquainted with the officers who may be selected, than the executive, or any one else to whom the power may be delegated, can be.

We have reported the same term of office for Registers and Judges of Probate, Commissioners of Insolvency and Commissioners of Highways. In relation to the tenure of these offices, a question of no little difficulty was presented. It may be that this Committee will come to the conclusion, that the same tenure of office should not be affixed to all the offices-that the Judge of Probate should hold a longer term than three years-that the Register of Probate, whose duties are by no means easy, and which are attended with some considerable difficulty in their execution, requiring considerable experience and much skill, should retain his office for a longer period than three years. The office of the Judge of Probate is a judicial office, intermingled, perhaps, with executive and administrative duties, and it is an office which requires, for the matters which fall within its jurisdiction, not only a competent amount of legal learning but some considerable experience derived from practice, and which the retention of such an office for a considerable period only, would furnish. The conclusion to which the Committee came, in respect to the other officers was, that should they prove acceptable, and be found competent to discharge the duties imposed upon them by law, they could be re-elected, and if they should be found to be incompetent, then the period of three years was sufficiently long for them to retain those offices. These are the views which I deem it proper for me to submit to the Committee of the Whole, upon the presentation of these resolutions.

Mr. DAVIS, of Plymouth. I now renew my motion that the several resolves reported by the Committee shall be considered separately. We have seen from our experience in Committee of the Whole, that the debate upon subjects before it for consideration took a very wide range; and I make this motion now for the purpose simply of confining the debate to the subjects under consideration.

Mr. ASPINWALL, of Brookline. I have very little objection to the motion myself, but I should like to know what superiority the system of going into Committee of the Whole has over that of considering matters in Convention, if we are to take up these questions by piece-meal in this way. One of the objects of going into Committee of the Whole is, that debate may be unrestricted by the rules which obtain in Convention, and that it may take the wide range which the gentleman seems to think is so objectionable. I would suggest to the gentleman whether we shall not really save time by having the whole subject It will occur to under consideration at once. every gentleman that the same reasons will apply to every one of these resolves. I have not read them lately, and do not know exactly their tenor, but I believe many of them are of a similar character; and therefore as cach resolution is taken up, we shall have a repetition of the reasons which were introduced upon former resolutions, so that we shall have many similar discussions, instead

of one upon the whole subject. I care nothing about the matter myself, because I suppose I shall have nothing to say; but it seems to me that the gentleman's reason for considering each resolution separately is not a sati-factory one.

Mr. DAVIS, of Plymouth. It seems to me that the gentleman's objection is very easily answered. I do not understand it to be the definite object of going into Committee of the Whole for the purpose of discussing every matter, and I believe that the foolishness of doing it in the manner which we have heretofore pursued is sufficiently apparent from the debate which took place on the Report of the Committee concerning qualifications of voters. The first resolve in that Report was under debate almost the whole time during one day, and the next day when we went into Committee of the Whole, we were entertained during the whole day almost by a speech from the gentleman from Salem, (Mr. Lord,) upon the fourth resolution. It was entirely impossible for the Committee to get a definite vote upon any one of the propositions until they were instructed by the Convention to close debate at a certain hour; and by so doing we found ourselves in such a position, that when amendments were offered, they were not understood, and we were obliged to vote for them, or vote them down without fully understanding what the object of the mover of an amendment was. I think, therefore, that it is best to consider each resolution separately, and by that course we shall confine ourselves more strictly to the subject under consideration. I make the motion, then, that we take up these resolves separately.

The question was then taken on Mr. Davis's motion, and it was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The question now before the Committee is upon the first resolution, which reads as follows:

Resolved, That the words "Solicitor-General" be stricken from article 9, section 1, chapter 2, of the Constitution, and that said article be so amended as to require that all Sheriffs, Coroners, and Registers of Probate be elected triennially by the people in their respective counties, and that the Attorney-General be elected annually by the people of the Commonwealth.

Mr. HOOPER, of Fall River. I wish to inquire of the chairman of the Committee why Coroners are inserted in this article to be elected by counties at large. They are a numerous class of officers, and would it not be better and more convenient to have them elected by towns than counties. I believe every town has one or more, and some towns have three or four. The duties which these officers have to perform hardly ever call them out of the town in which they reside. Mr. BISHOP, of Lenox. We regarded them as county officers, and not as town officers. The question was then taken on the first resolution, and it was agreed to.

The second and third resolutions were severally read and adopted.

Mr. DANA, for Manchester. I would like to inquire of the Chairman or some other member of the Committee, the reasons which induced the Committee to make the Judge of Probate elected triennially. The other officers follow the rule I presume, which has been adopted in the second resolution.

Mr. BISHOP. It was for the purpose of es

[June 10th.

tablishing an uniform rule in relation to county officers.

Mr. DANA. I understand the chairman to say that the object was to have all the county officers elected in the same manner. I would respectfully submit to the consideration of the Committee, that the county character of the Judge of Probate is not the principal element of his office, that the judicial element is the main one, and we should be rather disposed to make the tenure of office depend upon its judicial and executive influences, rather than the territorial limit over which it exercises its jurisdiction. Though I see no objection to electing District Attorneys triennially, there will be this difficulty growing out of it, that not being elected from counties, there will be necessarily new election districts all over the State. Besides our senatorial and representative districts, if we adopt them, and councillor districts, we have also DistrictAttorney districts to look after, and the result will be that we shall have a complicated system. But I merely wished to speak of the Judge of Probate, and upon this matter I confess I have not had time enough and information enough which would warrant me to vote in favor of making Judges of Probate elective triennially. The subject is new to us, and it seems to me a little out of place in the position in which it now stands. To this Committee are confided questions relating to county officers, Registers, Clerks and District-Attorneys. There is a Committee on the Judiciary which has the charge of the subject of the Judge of Probate. I believe there was some discussion upon that point the other day, and it was considered that the subject of the Judge of Probate was referred to this Committee, but as the county character of the office is not the main, leading feature in it, but is rather of a judicial nature it should have been rather a subject of reference to the Committee on the Judiciary than any other committee. I move, therefore, that the words "Judges of Probate" be stricken from that resolve, and if that amendment pass, as I hope it will, I shall move to refer that same subject to the Committee on the Judiciary, or bring it up as a separate resolution, because it seems to me that we had better pass upon the questions relating to those officers who are in their nature county officers, executive or clerical officers, together, and keep this question of the Probate Judge separate and distinct, and take it up at another time.

Mr. BATES, of Plymouth. I would like to inquire of the gentleman for Manchester, (Mr. Dana,) if the words Judges of Probate are stricken from the resolution, whether it does not preclude action upon this subject. If the gentleman will withdraw his motion to strike out and leave it so as to consider this question separately I will vote for it. I wish to have the matter considered, because having been a member of the Committee, I am aware that there are serious difficulties upon this point, and that there were strong reasons why this officer should be made elective for a certain period of time.

Mr. DANA. I will say in answer to the gentleman from Plymouth, that I did not propose in making the motion to strike out, to make that a test question at all; not to have it considered as expressing the opinion of the Convention. But, being struck out, it would be of course competent for any member-and if no one else does it, I would do it-to move to amend, either in that

Friday,]

resolution, or to bring in a separate resolution, declaring that Judges of Probate shall be elected triennially by the people in their respective counties; or refer it to the Committee of the Whole, or make any disposition agreeable to the Committee that reported it.

Mr. HOOPER, of Fall River. What is the real objection to acting upon it now. It is before us. Why send it to another Committee? It is a class of officers by itself, and will scarcely class any better with any other than it does with those where it is placed. I think that it is now time to act upon it, while it is before us. If the gentleman for Manchester has any amendment to propose, as to changing the time, let him propose it. I am willing to consider it separately, but I am opposed to striking it out. It seems to me that we should only lose time, for another Committee to report; and we should find it difficult to class the Judges of Probate any better than they are now classed. If the gentleman wants to amend the resolution, I hope he will take that course, and let us consider it.

Mr. THOMPSON, of Charlestown. It appears to me that Judges of Probate should be elected for a longer time than that which is specified in the resolution; and if the amendment of the gentleman for Manchester prevails, I think there will be no difficulty in providing for these officers in a separate resolution; and I would propose one somewhat in this form, if the amendment now under consideration prevails:

Resolved, That Judges of Probate be elected for a term of five years, and for each and every five years after the first election.

I hope the amendment of the gentleman for Manchester may prevail. It is suggested that the term should be six, instead of five years, and I will present the amendment in that form if the amendment of the member for Manchester prevails.

Mr. SCHOULER. If the object of the gentleman for Manchester is merely to strike out, for the purpose of referring it to the Committee on the Judiciary, I have no particular objection, although I do not see why we may not as well act upon it at this time, as we can when we shall have another report. Now if I am radical on any point, it is on Judges of Probate; and I trust they will be elected by the people. Indeed, it was putting that in that makes me like the resolution so well; and if the Convention should decide not to make it general, the same as they have the secret ballot law and the tax, I pray that we may have it in the county of Suffolk, that we may elect them by the people.

I will state again, if the object is merely to strike it out to have it referred to another committee, for them to report upon it, I have no objection; but if it is to take the matter from before the Convention, and have it kept in the Constitution that these men are to be appointed for life, I hope the amendment will not prevail.

It

Mr. BATES, of Plymouth. In looking at this matter, I can see no reason why we may not as well consider it at this time as at any other. is objected that the principal feature in the character of the office of the Judge of Probate is judicial. That may be so, and doubtless it is so. I would like to ask the gentleman for Manchester why that objection does not apply to County Commissioners. In many respects the

County Commissioners have judicial authority exceeding that of the Supreme Court; and the Commissioners of Insolvency are also judicial officers. I think that three years should be the period for which the Judge of Probate should hold his office, as well as the other officers named in the resolution. If the Judge of Probate is a good officer and satisfies the people, he will be re-elected. There is no earthly reason why he should not stand on the same footing as other county officers. The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Charlestown, (Mr. Thompson,) is, that the Judge shall be elected for a term of six years, and for every six years thereafter. I do not know but that would require that he should be elected for life, if he must be elected for six years and every six years thereafter. I hope we may proceed to consider it at once. The matter has been fully considered in the Committee before it was brought before the Convention; and now to recommit it, and await the report of another committee, will only occasion delay; and the Committee of the Whole will be no better prepared to act upon it than they are now. I hope it will be considered

now.

Mr. WILSON. I think we had better consider this matter where it is. The Judge of Probate is a county officer, occupying a judicial capacity, and I see no reason why the counties should not select their own officers. I undertake to say that if a Judge of Probate be a capable, honest and faithful officer, he will be re-elected as long as he shall wish to be elected. He is brought into contact with the whole people of the county. I should prefer, however, that the term should be longer than three years, and if it be in order, I will move to amend that resolution so that judges shall be elected by the people in their respective counties for the term of six years, and I hope that amendment will be concurred in.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Natick, (Mr. Wilson,) moves to amend the amendment proposed by the gentleman for Manchester, by inserting after the words "Judges of Probate," the following words: "be elected every six years by the people, in their respective counties;" so that, if the amendment prevails, the whole resolution will read as follows:

Resolved, That Judges of Probate be elected every six years by the people, in their respective counties, and the Clerks of the Courts, Commissioners of Insolvency, District-Attorneys, Registers of Deeds, County Treasurers, and County Commissioners, be elected triennially by the people of their respective counties and districts.

Mr. SCHOULER. It seems to me the amendment of the gentleman from Natick is not in order. The motion made by the gentleman from Manchester was to strike out. If it is in order, I hope it will not pass. I think three years is long enough to have a bad Judge of Probate, and if we have a good one, we can re-elect him. If we put in a provision to elect only once in six years, the people will forget when the election comes about. A man, unless he lives to a very green old age, would not have a chance to vote but a few times in his life. I want a chance to vote as often as once in three years. If the amendment of the gentleman from Natick is in order, I hope it will not prevail.

Mr. BISHOP. The reason which has been

[June 10th.

assigned by the gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Schouler,) was one which had great weight with me; to wit, that if the people should make a mistake and I hold that the people very rarely do make a mistake-it would be in their power to correct it. But if the people should happen to elect a man who may be found incompetent, or unpleasant, or disagreeable in any way to those with whom he was brought into connection in business-and he has to transact business with widows and orphans, and men of very little acquaintance with the probate law, and who want great assistance and information-if he should be found disagreeable to that class, he can be very easily displaced. I said that I was not particular as to the period of time. I think there is force in the remarks of the gentleman from Boston, and the suggestion which he has made was one that occurred to the Committee, and it prevailed in the Committee. The Judge of Probate can be re-elected without difficulty, and if he is found to be really a pleasant man, perfectly competent to transact the business, and renders himself agreeable to those with whom he comes in contact, he will be more likely to be re-elected than to have his place supplied by another. I am opposed to the amendment suggested by the gentleman from Natiek. I think the resolution stands as it should. Give the people an opportunity to correct the errors, if they think there are any, and give them an opportunity to confirm the choice made, provided it is satisfactory.

Mr. MORTON, of Quincy. I wish only to say, that I hope the resolution may stand as it came from the Committee. They had every opportunity to examine the question, and see all its bearings on the whole subject, and I hope the amendment will not be adopted. I think three years is long enough for the tenure of office, and if the people then wish to re-elect the judge, they can do it.

Mr. WILSON. I have been requested, Mr. Chairman, by gentlemen, some of whom at first suggested to me to propose the amendment, to withdraw it now, and let the question be taken on the amendment of the gentleman for Manchester. I made the motion with the hope that some gentleman, who did not like the Report of the Committee, might be content if the tenure of office of the judge of probate was longer than three years. For my own part I prefer three years-I think it long enough; and the people of every county will re-elect a worthy man when they have one, and when they have not such a one, three years is long enough. I withdraw the motion to amend the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question now recurs on the amendment of the gentleman for Manchester.

Mr. HALE, of Newton. I would inquire if there is any provision for filling vacancies, in case of the death of the incumbent within the three years?

One o'clock having arrived, Mr. HOOPER, of Fall River, moved that the Committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

The motion was agreed to, and the Committee rose, reported to

THE CONVENTION, And obtained leave to sit again. The Convention then adjourned.