Saturday,]

down, in order to bring your session to a close, and to pass the measures which ought to be passed. You must either do that, or if you pass the latter clause of the amendment of the gentleman for Wilbraham, you will lead to another thing which is as bad, and that is, you will lead to the corruption of that body. Suppose the session is limited, so far as pay is concerned, to ninety or one hundred days, and at the expiration of that time there is some great measure pending, which certain individuals desire to have passed. The friends of that measure will say to those members who are in favor of it, "Remain in session, and we will satisfy you, as to pay, since the Commonwealth of Massachusetts refuses it. Go on and sit a hundred and twenty days, and we will see that you get your pay." It seems to me that in doing so you are taking away from the people of the Commonwealth the power of sending men here, upon whose discretion they rely to adjourn when their business is perfected, and put it into the power of individuals, who desire to carry favorite projects, to pay the majority of the legislature to remain in session for the purpose of legislating upon their particular projects.

I hope, from our experience and observation, we shall be induced not to depart from the good old rule, "let well enough alone," and that the first part of the amendment will be adopted, and the latter part stricken out.

Mr. LIVERMORE, of Cambridge. I have some objections to the last paragraph of the amendment offered by the gentleman for Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett). I would do nothing to compromise the legislature, or to affect their credit with their constituents, or with the public. I have, with my friend from Boston, (Mr. Upton,) who has just taken his seat, served seven years in the legislature, and during almost every session the question as to the compensation of members has been brought up. A great deal of the time of the legislature has been consumed in discussing and settling that question. Now, instead of wishing to do anything to lower the dignity of the legislature, I wish to raise it by taking this question out of their hands. I do not wish to place my friends, or any members of the legislature, in a position where they will be tempted to vote one way when the vote is by voice, and to vote another way when the yeas and nays are called. I want a provision in the Constitution, by which the compensation of members of the legislature shall be fixed-and fixed at a sum which shall be ample, proper, just and fair.

was

I have some desire, too, indirectly perhaps, to limit the length of the sessions. My colleague (Mr. Sargent,) has spoken of legislation in the House, as being carried on with the greatest care and speed possible; and he said there no delay in carrying through the measures before the legislature, at least there was no delay but such as was unavoidable and irremediable. But, Sir, he will recollect and so will a great many others who have had experience in legislative affairs-that the greater part of the business of the session is done during the latter part of it, because the members are all looking forward to a certain period when they will adjourn, and before which their business must be accomplished. It will not be denied, I think, by any one who has had legislative experience, that when a day is fixed in the minds of members for adjournin, they are ready to, and

do, go to work with a little more earnestness and vigor, and accomplish much more than they do at any other time.

I have prepared an amendment which I shall offer if the amendment which has been offered by the gentleman for Wilbraham shall not be adopted. It is as follows:

Every member of the legislature shall receive two dollars and fifty cents for each and every day's attendance, and two dollars for every ten miles travel from their respective places of abode, once in each session; but in no case shall any member receive more than two hundred and fifty dollars for attendance during the time for which he is elected. The Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate shall respectively receive five dollars for every day's attendance.

Mr. SCHOULER, of Boston. If it shall ever be in order, I propose to offer the following amendment:

That the legislature shall sit as long as they are a mind to, regulate their own mileage, and fix their own pay." [Laughter.]

Mr. ALLEN, of Worcester. I do not believe the length of the session has much to do with the number of members composing the legislature. I think, if we will look at the experience of our own legislature, and at that furnished by other similar bodies, we shall find that to be a correct conclusion. And I am not satisfied that any gentleman who has addressed the Convention this morning, has discovered the true cause of the evil. It seems to me that we are groping in the dark to discover causes which do not exist, for the excessive length of the session, when it is perfectly obvious that the evil can be traced to a cause which is absolutely apparent. Now, if I may be allowed to refer to the proceedings of the last legislature-and let no one suppose I would impute any blame upon that body; I do it for the purpose of illustrating the system of legislation which has been pursued for many years; I take the legislature which has lately closed its session as a sample of that species of legislation, and not because it is different in any respect from its predecessors-I think it is evident that the evil consists in part in the lengthy debates, and not in the thoroughness which is given to the various subjects which are before the legislature.

Again, the evil is to be found in the amount not only of unnecessary business which is transacted, but in the transaction of much that is absolutely pernicious, from year to year. I have in my hands a list of the Acts of the legislature which was lately in session. How many hundreds of private Acts this list contains I am not able to say, for I have not been able to count them except by columns; but I find acts of incorporation for every species of business which has been done or could be done in the State of Massachusetts, and the whole of it might better be stricken from the statute book; or, I will not say the whole, but by far the greater part. I apprehend nine-tenths might be stricken from the statute book, and provided for by some general law to which the people should be required to adhere. But enough has been said upon that subject, and I do not like to take up the time of Convention by repeating the remarks of others.

I find in this list seventy Acts passed upon general subjects, to regulate the general affairs of the people of the Commonwealth. Now Sir, in

[June 18th.

all this labor is to be found much mischief, and great as I deem the passage of so many private Acts to be, I deem those which change the laws nows existing upon your statute book to be much greater. Seventy Acts passed in one session upon every subject, from providing a remedy for cases of insolvency down to the measurement of charcoal; upon every subject almost that can be mentioned and for which general laws before existed. I find that the legislature of last year did the same thing, and so did almost every preceding legislature. Sir, it is an evil and a great evil, not so much in the consumption of time by the legislature, not in the expense which is involved; for I take very little account of that; it is the necessary result of very long sessions, but in the entire uncertainty which is thrown over the whole statute laws of the Commonwealth. Let gentlemen call to mind any law upon the statute book which affects their business, I care not what it may be, for the legislature have been trying their hands at more perfect laws upon every subject, and tell me if they can rely with any certainty upon its precise construction. We talk of standing laws to regulate the conduct of men in Massachusetts. We have no standing laws. It is a misnomer. Call them the rules and regulations for the conduct of the people of the Commonwealth for the year 1853, and you will give the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts a proper name. Who believes that the people of Massachusetts require a regular new code of laws to be enacted every successive year by every successive legislature? Sir, laws, to be of value, should be known, otherwise they are a snare; and to be known, they must be abiding and permanent in their character. And thus perpetual change ought to destroy-or will destroy, if it ought not -all respect for the legislation of Massachusetts, and for its laws. They are not comprehended by the lawyers, by the courts, nor by the people. Another first Wednesday in January will arrive before the business men of Massachusetts will have even read the laws contained in this long list, and then they will have read them to little purpose, because the work of change and confusion begins again with the recurrence of that day. Sir, the great object which I think we should have in view, is to indicate to the legislature the business they are called upon to perform; and that is such legislation as is necessary to meet the exigencies of the present time, and to correct those things which time and a long experience have pronounced to be evils. Why, Sir, there has not, I apprehend, been a single legislature for the last eight or ten years, that has not made some change in the laws relating to a most important subject, which comes right home to every man's business, and upon which every man ought to have some knowledge-I mean that of insolvency. A change is made this year upon the suggestion of somebody, who, perhaps, has a case in court, and some provision of the existing law pinches him a little. A change is therefore made in all kindness to accommodate that man, and to remedy that particular evil. The next year

it is found that the law was better as it was before, and another change is made, and the old law restored. Now I ask gentlemen to bear in mind this important fact--for I address practical men-that laws fresh from the printer have not half the value which they have after they have been in existence and in operation for a series of

Saturday,]

years; and why? It is much with a new law as it is with a new piece of machinery-there is a great deal of friction about it which, until it has been removed by use, renders the motion uncertain and imperfect. There is an uncertainty about our language, as I think many gentlemen in this body must know by sad experience, and until the laws have received the interpretation of the courts, which they are sure to do in the course of time; then, and not till then, may they be said to be a rule of action. But a fresh legislature comes, and, with ruthless hand, uproots the whole work of past legislation, changes the whole course of justice, and renders uncertain that which by the decision of the courts, and by the general practice and understanding of the people of the community, had become fixed and settled.

Now, Sir, I hold that one hundred days will afford abundant time-more than sufficient time, for the transaction of all the necessary business of the Commonwealth; and if we can in this way, by a provision in the fundamental law of the State, indicate to the legislature, the nature of the duties which they will be specially called upon to perform, by limiting the time, so that the whole year shall not be before them, and so that the whole statute book will not be thrown open to amendment and alteration in every part, I think a great benefit will be conferred upon the people of the Commonwealth.

Sir, the evil is a great one. It is worthy of at least trying the experiment of a remedy. I am opposed to the amendment which was adopted the other day, in Committee of the Whole, and which stands in the proposition now before you, because I believe it would be positively dangerous to fix the limit beyond which the legislature could not, under any circumstances, go. I think it would give rise to much mischief in the closing periods of the sessions. On the other hand, the amendment which is now before the Convention, it seems to me, will be entirely inoperative for the correction of the evil. It may have a pleasant sound, but there is no substance in it, and I apprehend that the Convention had much better do nothing than to adopt it. The gentleman from Cambridge, (Mr. Livermore,) has proposed an amendment which he designs to offer in case that pending, should be rejected, which is substantially the original provision as drawn up by the Committee and reported to the Convention. It is unnecessary for me to say that I approve entirely of that amendment, and if there are other gentlemen present who entertain the same views, I hope they will give to the Convention the benefit of their wisdom and experience. No provision was originally made for the payment of the speaker of the House of Representatives and of the president of the Senate beyond the ordinary compensation of members of the legislature, because it was believed to be unnecessary as a constitutional provision. We thought it better to provide in the Constitution for the compensation of the members simply, and to leave it for the legislature to determine the amount of extra compensation which should be given to these officers for their services. Nevertheless, I have no objection whatever, to an amendment making this provision. I am not at all particular as to the manner in which this restriction is to be brought about, provided it shall not operate with unnecessary strictness by closing the doors of this hall at

a particular moment, so that no business can, under any circumstances, be transacted after that moment shall arrive. I think the same benefit may be brought about, by limiting the compensation of the members to a certain period, without saying peremptorily that the session shall continue no longer.

Mr. BRIGGS, of Pittsfield. I am for some limit of this kind, but for a reason which I have not heard mentioned here to-day. I believe there is prevailing, a general, settled opinion and wish, upon the part of the people, that something of this kind should be done. I believe if there is any one thing upon which the people of the Commonwealth for the last six, eight or ten years, without regard to parties or localities, have had but one opinion, it is that too much time is spent in legislation. I appeal to every gentleman within the sound of my voice to say if this is not so. And this is not an evil which is confined to us alone; it is common to the wholy country. It is a national misfortune. Then, Sir, because I believe the people of the Commonwealth expect and wish that something of this kind should be done, I am in favor of submitting the proposition to them. But if I am mistaken in that belief, and others who think with me upon the subject are mistaken, why, the people can correct the mistake when the question comes to be presented to them. Sir, it seems to me little less than an absurdity to say that in Massachusettsone of the oldest States in the Union, whose institutions have been long in eixstence, onethird of every year, more or less, should be required in making and altering laws. It seems to me that such a thing is calculated to bring the whole business of legislation into reproach. If we fix the limit of the sessions at a hundred days, then for the next period of thirty years, ten years of legislation are to be spent in making and altering laws. Sir, I do not believe this amount of time is necessary. But in saying this it is the farthest thing in my mind to reflect upon past legislatures. I believe the evil has not arisen from any wish upon the part of any legislature to prolong its sessions beyond the time necessary for the transaction of the necessary public business. Certainly no one has wished to stay here beyond that time, for the miserable sordid consideration of two dollars a day.

I think the evil exists in the mode of transacting business in the legislature. Look at the records of the last legislature and two or three of its predecessors, and you will find that one of the evils is not in the consideration but the reconsideration of subjects. Just before I left home, in looking over the proceedings of the House, I recollect seeing that there were seven or eight motions made one morning for reconsideration. I asked the clerk of the last House what the number of motions for reconsideration would amount to, and he thought that they would average one a day, so that we would have one hundred and forty motions to reconsider acts after they had been discussed and acted upon, to be reconsidered, redebated, and to be again acted upon. And what is the reason of all this? Why, one-half of the members live at home, and their eyes are turned upward and eastward, to mark the hour for the departure of the cars, and when that nearly comes, off they go. Those who remain, and who come from distant parts of the Commonwealth, go on and do business until the

[June 18th.

usual time for adjournment. The next morning, these gentlemen who have been home come in, and, to their great surprise, find that this bill has passed, and that one has been defeated, wherefore they rise and move a reconsideration, and so it goes on day after day. I have the same objection to the resolution as it now exists, as the gentleman from Worcester, (Mr. Allen,) has. The resolution, as it now stands, does not admit of any necessity which would enable the legislature to act legally beyond the period of one hundred days. I would prefer the proposition as reported by the Committee, substantially that as read by the gentleman from Cambridge, (Mr. Livermore). That fixes a compensation somewhat more liberally than any other plan that has been presented, and provides that no more than $250 shall be received during any existing legislature. That will give members their usual pay, to the extent of one hundred days, if the public interests require it, and, in my opinion, when gentlemen find themselves obliged to limit their sessions, they will make their rules and modes of proceeding to conform to the actual state of things, and public business will be farther advanced than it is at present; questions of agitation will be avoided, which would have the effect of prolonging the session, and the public good be thereby promoted. In a long session they have topics creating more or less excitement and agitation, which extend through the whole community, just as a long session of congress keeps the great sea of public opinion heaving and swelling until the day of adjournment arrives, and then it settles down into calm and quiet, until it is again agitated by the same causes. Mark one thing in reference to that matter. One session they have a full swing of seven or eight months, and then comes the short session, but experience shows that they do about the same amount of business during the short as the long session. I have no doubt myself, that the public interest would be best promoted in this State, by having our legislative sessions limited to ninety days.

Mr. BOUTWELL, for Berlin. I rise to second the motion made by the gentleman for Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett,) because I think this proposition best accomplishes what it is evident the Committee desires. First, to determine the pay of the members of the legislature by a standing law. If his amendment shall prevail, the legislature which shall first assemble will fix the pay. It will be in the power of any subsequent legislature to change the pay, but not in any manner to affect those that come after them. We put the pay of the members of the general court upon the question of public policy, and not upon any question of selfish or private interest, and therefore I think his amendment wise in that particular. Then next, it seems to be agreed that one hundred days is all the time that is needed for a legislative sitting in Massachusetts. In that opinion I most heartily concur. How can we in the best way determine the length of the session, and the manner in which it shall be conducted ? The amendment of the gentleman for Wilbraham proposes that the pay shall cease at the end of one hundred days. I don't think that gentlemen coming from various parts of the State as they do, will care about sitting beyond that time. The amendment does not determine that the session shall cease at that time, because it may hap

Saturday,]

pen, under a pressure of peculiar circumstances, that even a single hour or a day would be of incalculable benefit to the public interests, and I trust, that under such circumstances, there would be patriotism enough on the part of members to make so small a sacrifice for the public good. The power still remains in the executive to call an extra session by proclamation, but that power will not often be exercised. It is a great responsibility to be taken lightly, and therefore an extra session will be called only when there is some great public exigency calling for such an act of authority on the part of the executive. I think that the amendment of the gentleman for Wilbraham accomplishes all we desire, determining the compensation of members and the length of the session in a manner satisfactory to us all, and, therefore, if the Committee will allow me, I trust that his amendment will prevail, without any modification.

Mr. DURGIN, of Wilmington. The amendment of my friend for Wilbraham, as well as those of other gentlemen, seem intended to provide against the waste of time by the legislature. A great deal has been said here by gentlemen about former legislatures squandering the time and extending their sessions a longer time than was necessary. Let us analyze this charge a few moments. I recollect there was once a legislature here composed of most excellent Whigs, and they were intending, they said, not to hinder the progress of legislation at all. But the session proved a very long one, and they were a great while doing their business. Then the Democrats, who had complained so bitterly of the long session, came into power, and the result was that the people complained still more. Then the Free Soilers or Coalitionists came into power. They were going to do the business in seventy-five days, and they did fix it up in short order. [Laughter.] The people said if we cannot do better than this, we will go back to the old Whig system. In 1853 they returned to the old landmarks, and now things were going to be done in a hurry, in something less than one hundred days. What was the length of the session? Almost one hundred and fifty days. But who believes that past legislatures sat here and designedly squandered the public money and time in an unnecessary manner. I do not believe a word of it. Grave questions Come up here in the old Commonwealth of Massachusetts which cannot be evaded, and the people desire that they should receive a patient and thorough investigation, and after that has taken place, they wish something done. The legislature are not to blame. It is the people who are to blame. If you restrict the length of the session in the manner proposed by the gentleman, you virtually say to the people, "you shall not petition and if you do, we will not hear you." A great many people suppose that the work of legislation can be done in six weeks, but this is a matter of impossibility. For one, I am pretty much of the opinion, that it is best to let the legislature take Let them come up pretty much its own course. here and do the work for which they were chosen. They were chosen to do up the work for the people, and so long as the people give them plenty to do, who will complain? For my part, I think it is best to leave this matter pretty much to the candor, sobriety and integrity of the legislature

order, I should like to offer an amendment to the resolves now before the Convention. I propose to amend them by striking out all after the word "office" and inserting "no petition shall be received or acted upon unless presented within sixty days from the commencement of each session." I think if such a provision as that should be inserted in the Constitution, that all the evils of the long sessions which have been so much complained of would be remedied. It does appear to me, after all we have heard from various gentlemen in relation to fixing a specific time for the adjournment, that it would nevertheless be better and more in accordance with the views of the people of the Commonwealth, if you should not change the time at all. I had rather rely with the greatest confidence upon the judgment, honor and integrity of those who shall come up here year after year to transact the business of the Commonwealth with as much facility as possible and as would comport with the public interests. If you insert in the Constitution a provision that no petitions shall be received or acted upon unless presented within sixty days from the commencement of the session, then all trouble will be removed, and there is no question but that the sessions would be abridged in length at least onethird from what they have been in years past. It seems to me, that no other provision is necessary in regard to the limitation. I know it is objected by some gentlemen that no such provision as this should be inserted in the Constitution, and that it should be left to the legislature itself to make such regulations as they shall deem proper with regard to receiving petitions. I cannot see any objection whatever to such a provision, for the people will then understand that all the business they wish to come before them, every petition and request should be presented within the sixty days, and when that is done, the business of each session would be concluded within the time contemplated by this resolution, that is within the one hundred days, and perhaps in less than ninety.

And it seems to me, I again repeat, that no other provision is necessary. I would, therefore, with the leave of the Convention, like to make a motion to have the resolves thus amended. I do not know whether it is proper to make that motion

now.

The PRESIDENT. The amendment suggested by the gentleman from Seekonk is not in order at this time, as that matter is before another Committee of the Convention.

Mr. GRISWOLD, for Erving. I propose, Sir, to occupy but a moment of the time of the Convention. Not having listened to these debates until to-day, I do not know, except from the speeches made this morning, what the sense of the Convention may be. But I hear some gentlemen speak in opposition to any restriction upon the length of the sessions of the legislature, and therefore I do not know precisely what the amendment which is proposed is. Without the experience which some gentlemen have had, I have had occasion to attend some of the longest sessions of the legislature which we have ever had in the Commonwealth, though I believe that the last one, of which I was not a member, was the longest we have ever had. When I first took a seat in the legislature, I went there with the impression that the business which the members were sent there to accomplish, might be done in fifty or sixty

[June 18th.

days. I supposed really that that was the case. It was so regarded in the country, that the legislature consumed two or three times as much time as was necessary, and that the session was wasted and frittered away. But, after some five years' experience in the matter, I find this to be true: that some portion of the feeling upon the subject is founded in error; that in the present position of Massachusetts, and with the interests embraced in this Commonwealth, which properly come before the legislature, it is impossible to receive all the petitions that come before them, to give them a proper hearing, and act upon all of them, within the short period I had supposed. There is the great railroad interest, the commercial, and the manufacturing interest, the agricultural interest, the mechanical interest, and the great system of common school education, and the great system of your charitable institutions, all of which come before the legislature for its action at every session, and they are all very important subjects.

I find, therefore, that, as a matter of fact and as a matter of practice, the business cannot be done in that very short time in which I once supposed it might be done. But the question comes up, not whether the business can be done in fifty or sixty days, but is it necessary to sit here one hundred and forty, or one hundred and fifty days. I undertake to say, notwithstanding the remarks of my friend before me, from observation and experience on this subject, and that too amid the longest sessions we have had, that it is entirely unnecessary for the legislature of Massachusetts to be in session for that length of time, and therefore I am decidedly in favor of putting some restriction upon this subject. I am in favor, therefore, of the Report of the Committee, or at least of limiting the sessions to one hundred or ninety days, or somewhere in that vicinity; and so far as I have been able to reflect upon this subject, I think that ninety days is sufficient for all practical purposes of legislation in this Commonwealth. The effect is, that with our present system of railroads, so that so many of the members can go home, and with the present mode of conducting business, which is by referring all the subjects that come before the legislature to standing or special committees, it is difficult very to prosecute, with the rapidity which the legisla ture ought to, the business of the session. The first month of the session is spent before the committees begin to report to any extent, and then, unless somebody drives up the members by the previous question, or something of the kind, the session is protracted beyond the expectation of anybody when they first came here. I do not like to reflect upon members of past legislatures, but I have sometimes mistrusted that there were more men in the legislature who were quite wil ling to see the session protracted, than most people would be willing to admit. Then, in point of fact, there is a necessity for putting a limit, beyond which the legislature shall not go, or else the session of the legislature will run into a session of four or five months.

In the first place, I would give a reasonable time for these great and important questions which come before the legislature of Massachusetts, and I think one hundred days is a reasonable time. Then I would fix a limit, beyond which the legislature could not go; and the result of that would be that the members of the legisla

Saturday,]

ture, when they come here, will understand that they have but one hundred days to do their work in. The people will also understand that the legislature is to sit but one hundred days; the business will come in earlier, and the committees will report earlier, and the whole machinery of legislation will be put in motion two or three weeks sooner, and when put in motion it will move much more rapidly than it does now. Therefore, I hope that no member of this Convention will vote against limiting the session of the legislature to one hundred days. I prefer the amendment of the gentleman for Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett,) rather than the amendment of the gentleman from Cambridge, (Mr. Livermore,) because, if I understand his amendment, the effect of it will be that we shall have raised the pay of the members fifty cents a day, and we shall have to go back to the people of Massachusetts, and offer them an amended Constitution, in which we have inserted a provision that the pay of the members shall be increased fifty cents a day, while we place no limit on the length of the sessions of the legislature. We do not know that they would sanction it, or that the members of the next legislature will fix the compensation at the amount we propose. I think the compensation of members had better remain the same that it always has been. Therefore, I shall vote for the amendment of the gentleman for Wilbraham, and then for the resolve.

Mr. KINGMAN, of West Bridgewater. I cannot aid the Convention by speeches, and I will do my part of the work in another way. I am very anxious that we shall accomplish our work and go home; 1 therefore move the previous question.

The previous question was ordered.

The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. HALLETT, for Wilbraham, and it was then adopted.

The question then recurred on the final passage of the resolve as amended.

On motion by Mr. MORTON, of Andover, the yeas and nays were ordered on the final passage of the resolution.

Mr. KEYES, for Abington. I am in favor of the first two paragraphs of the resolve, and opposed to the third. Can there not be a division

of the question?

The PRESIDENT. The question is susceptible of division.

• Mr. KEYES. Then I ask for a division; and I presume there is no necessity for taking the yeas and nays on the first two paragraphs.

The PRESIDENT. The yeas and nays will not be taken upon them, unless they are specially required.

There being no objection, the question was taken without yeas and nays on the first two paragraphs, and they were adopted.

The question then recurred on the final passage of the resolve as amended, and upon that question the yeas and nays were taken, as follows:

Bennett, Zephaniah Bigelow, Edward B. Bigelow, Jacob Bird, Francis W. Bliss, Gad O. Bliss, William C. Booth, William S. Boutwell, George S. Bradbury, Ebenezer

Hapgood, Lyman W.
Hapgood, Seth
Haskins, William
Hawkes, Stephen E.
Hayden, Isaac
Heath, Ezra, 2d
Hersey, Henry

[June 18th.

Hewes, James

Spooner, Samuel W.

Hewes, William H.

Stacy, Eben II.

Wheeler, William F.

Stetson, Caleb

White, Benjamin

Hobbs, Edwin
Holder, Nathaniel
Hood, George
Hooper, Foster
Hopkinson, Thomas
Hubbard, William J.
Hunt, Charles E.
Huntington, Charles P.
Hurlbut, Moses C.
Ide, Abijah M., Jr.
Jackson, Samuel
Jacobs, John
Jenkins, John
Johnson, John
Kingman, Joseph
Knight, Hiram
Knight, Jefferson
Knight, Joseph
Knowlton, William H.
Knox, Albert
Ladd, John S.
Lawrence, Luther
Lawton, Job G., Jr.
Leland, Alden
Lincoln, Abishai
Little, Otis
Littlefield, Tristram
Lothrop, Samuel K.
Loud, Samuel P.
Lowell, John A.

Marble, William P.
Marcy, Laban

Stevens, Joseph L., Jr. White, George

NAYS.

Easton, James, 2d

Giles, Joel

Taft, Arnold

Marvin, Theophilus R.

Gray, John C.

Hale, Artemas

Hale, Nathan

Meader, Reuben

Bradford, William J. A. Hinsdale, William Breed, Hiram N. Brewster, Osmyn Briggs, George N. Bronson, Asa Brown, Artemas Brown, Hammond Brown, Hiram C. Brownell, Frederick Bryant, Patrick Buck, Asahel Bullen, Amos H. Burlingame, Anson Butler, Benjamin F. Cady, Henry Carter, Timothy W. Case, Isaac Chandler, Amariah Chapin, Daniel E. Churchill, J. McKean Clark, Ransom Clarke, Alpheus B. Clarke, Stillman Coggin, Jacob Cogswell, Nathaniel Cole, Lansing J. Cole, Sumner Cooledge, Henry F. Crane, George B. Cressy, Oliver S. Crittenden, Simeon Cross, Joseph W. Cushman, Henry W. Cushman, Thomas Cutler, Simeon N. Dana, Richard H., Jr. Davis, Isaac Davis, Robert T. Davis, Solomon Dawes, Henry L. Day, Gilman Dean, Silas Deming, Elijah S. Denison, Hiram S. Denton, Augustus Duncan, Samuel Dunham, Bradish Eames, Philip Earle, John M. Easland, Peter Edwards, Elisha Edwards, Samuel Farwell, A. G. Fay, Sullivan Fisk, Lyman Fitch, Ezekiel W. Foster, Aaron Foster, Abram Fowle, Samuel Freeman, James M. French, Charles A. French, Rodney French, Samuel Frothingham, R., Jr. Gale, Luther Gardner, Johnson Gates, Elbridge Gilbert, Wanton C. Gooding, Leonard Gould, Robert Goulding, Jason Graves, John W. Green, Jabez Griswold, Josiah W. Griswold, Whiting Hall, Charles B. Hallett, B. F. Hammond, A. B.

Mixter, Samuel
Monroe, James L.
Morey, George
Morton, Marcus, Jr.
Nash, Hiram
Nayson, Jonathan
Newman, Charles
Nichols, William
Norton, Alfred
Orcutt, Nathan
Orne, Benjamin S.
Packer, E. Wing
Paine, Benjamin
Paine, Henry
Parker, Joel
Parris, Jonathan
Parsons, Samuel C.
Partridge, John
Peabody, Nathaniel
Pease, Jeremiah, Jr.
Penniman, John
Perkins, Daniel A.
Perkins, Jesse
Perkins, Noah C.
Phelps, Charles
Phinney, Silvanus B.
Pomroy, Jeremiah
Pool, James M.
Preston, Jonathan
Rantoul, Robert
Rawson, Silas
Rice, David

Richardson, Daniel
Richardson, Nathan
Richardson, Samuel H.
Ring, Elkanah, Jr.
Rockwood, Joseph M.
Rogers, John
Ross, David S.
Royce, James C.
Sampson, George R.

Hathaway, Elnathan P. Wetmore, Thomas

Hayward, George

Williams, J. B.

ABSENT.

Saturday,]

Kellogg, Martin R. Kimball, Joseph Kinsman, Henry W. Knowlton, Charles L. Knowlton, J. S. C. Ladd, Gardner P. Langdon, Wilber C. Lincoln, F. W., Jr. Livermore, Isaac Loomis, E. Justin Lord, Otis P. Marvin, Abijah P. Mason, Charles Merritt, Simeon Miller, Seth, Jr. Moore, James M. Morss, Joseph B. Morton, Marcus Morton, William S. Noyes, Daniel Ober, Joseph E. Oliver, Henry K. Osgood, Charles Park, John G. Parker, Adolphus G. Parker, Samuel D. Parsons, Thomas A. Payson, Thomas E. Peabody, George Perkins, Jonathan C. Pierce, Henry Plunkett, William C. Powers, Peter

Prince, F. O.
Putnam, George
Putnam, John A.
Read, James
Reed, Sampson
Rockwell, Julius
Sanderson, Chester
Sargent, John
Simmons, Perez
Sleeper, John S.
Sprague, Melzar
Stevens, Charles G.
Stevens, Granville
Stevenson, J. Thomas
Storrow, Charles S.
Strong, Alfred L.
Stutson, William
Taber, Isaac C.
Thayer, Joseph
Thayer, Willard, 2d
Thompson, Charles
Tilton, Abraham
Tyler, John S.
Vinton, George A.
Wales, Bradford L.
Wallace, Frederick T.
Walker, Samuel
Waters, Asa II.
Whitney, James S.
Wilkinson, Ezra
Wood, Nathaniel
Woods, Josiah B.

Yeas, 242; nays, 40; absent and not voting, 137.

So the resolve was passed.

Hour of Adjournment.

Mr. WESTON, of Duxbury. On casting my eyes over the calendar, I see there are many subjects yet undisposed of, and as I suppose it is not expected that there will be any session of the Convention this afternoon, I move that the hour of adjournment be fixed for two o'clock instead of one o'clock this day.

The question being taken, on a division, there were-ayes, 91; noes, 68.

So the motion was agreed to.

Hour of Meeting.

Mr. BATES, of Plymouth. Will a motion at this time, be in order?

The PRESIDENT. It depends very much upon what it is. [Laughter.]

Mr. BATES. I move, then, that when this Convention adjourn, it be to meet at this place on Monday morning next, at ten o'clock.

The motion was agreed to.

Report of Committee on Qualification of Voters. Mr. WALKER, of North Brookfield, submitted the following Report from a Committee:

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.

In Convention, June 18, 1853. The Committee on the Qualifications of Voters, to whom was recommitted the third resolve of this Committee reported on the 19th of May, together with an amendment prepared thereto, have considered the same, and report the following resolves.

AMASA WALKER, Chairman.

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 student of any seminary of learning.

Resolved, That no person removing his domicil

from one town or city within this Commonwealth, to another, shall, by reason of such removal, be deemed to have lost his residence in the former, for the purpose of voting for National and State officers, until six months after his removal.

Mr. BIRD, of Walpole. I move that the Convention resolve itself into

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

On No. 24 of the calendar, concerning

The Compensation of Commissioners. The motion was agreed to, and Mr. Nayson, of Amesbury, was invited to take the Chair. The Report of the Committee was read, as follows:

In Convention, June 9th, 1853. The Committee on so much of the Constitution as relates to the Frame of Government, &c., upon an order of June 3d, concerning the Compensation of Commissioners, report that it is inexpedient to act thereon.

CHARLES ALLEN, Chairman.

The question was then taken on the acceptance of the Report, and it was decided in the affirmative.

The Committee then rose and reported its action to the Convention, and,

IN CONVENTION,

The Report of the Committee of the Whole was agreed to, and the Report of the Standing Committee was accepted.

On motion by Mr. WILSON, of Natick, the Convention resolved itself into

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE,

On No. 26 of the calendar, being the Report of the Committee on the subject of

The Pardoning Power.

Mr. Bradbury, of Newton, was invited to take the Chair.

The following Report of the Committee was read :

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.

In Convention, June 14th, 1853. The Committee on so much of the Constitution as relates to the Governor, to whom was referred an order of June 3d, relative to the Pardoning Power, have had the same under consideration, and report that it is inexpedient to act thereon.

ISAAC DAVIS, Chairman.

Mr. CHURCHILL, of Milton. I did not know that this subject would be called up to-day, and I have not prepared myself to say what I intended to say with regard to it. I had the honor, sometime ago, to submit an order to the consideration of the Convention, in relation to the exercise of the power to pardon, requesting the Committee to whom it was referred to consider the expediency of so amending the Constitution that public notice should be given by all applicants to the executive, for the exercise of the power to pardon, or to commute the sentence of convicts. I did not do this, Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of casting any censure upon the manner in which this power had ever been exercised, or for the purpose of limiting or prejudicing its exercise in any manner hereafter; but for the purpose of giving that assistance to the governor and

[June 18th.

council of this Commonwealth, which I presume they would wish to have, and which I think the public interest requires in the exercise of this important function. I also proposed in that order that the attorney for the Commonwealth, who had been employed in the trial and conviction of the person in whose behalf an application for pardon was made, should be notified, or that his attendance should be required at the time the application is made, that he may give such assistance as he can, to the governor and council, upon the subject of the propriety of granting the application.

I offered the order after consulting with the chairman of the Committee, and it is at his suggestion, in part, that I now call attention to the matter. I desire to move, if it will be in order, that this Report be recommitted to that Committee, with instructions to report in conformity with the suggestions contained in that order.

The CHAIRMAN. The motion is not in order in the precise shape in which the gentleman has made it. The Committee of the Whole cannot recommit the Report, but they can report it to the Convention with a recommendation that it be recommitted.

Mr. CHURCHILL, I will modify my motion in that manner; and I merely wish to say, without taking up the time of the Committee, or desiring to intrude my views upon them, that while I pay great deference to the opinions of the gentleman who made this Report, I would like very briefly to give the reasons why I offered the order. It seems to me that the whole tendency of modern legislation has been of a philanthropic and lenient nature, both as regards the civil and the criminal law. This is shown, in relation to the civil law, by the acts which have been passed for the relief of debtors, insolvent acts, &c.; and it is shown, in regard to criminal legislation, by the almost total abolition of capital punishment, and the very great amelioration of the penal code, particularly in this country. A few years ago, the number of capital crimes was very large; while that number in this Commonwealth is now reduced to the single crime of murder, and that is only made capital at the option of the executive. I consider, therefore, that there has been very great progress in relation to this matter; and it is progress that every man commends, because it is in a philanthropic direction. But the exercise of the pardoning power is not so often necessary at the present time as it was when the criminal code was more severe. When the Committee consider the course of investigation which takes place in relation to alleged crimes at the present day, they will perceive that the exercise of this power is not so frequently required as formerly. Let us take for an illustration the perpetration of the crime of murder, and consider the various stages of investigation, and we shall see how great safeguards are thrown around the prisoner, to prevent his conviction, if there are any circumstances which will permit him to go free. In the first place, the coroner's investigation, which is very thorough and complete, of all the circumstances connected with the case; next, the investigation by the grand jury, who also make a thorough examination of the offence, and if a true bill is found, the accused has his trial before the petit jury, where he has counsel, and the judges, as well as the jury, are all leniently and favorably disposed, in the spirit of modern times;