Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Tuesday,]

FORM OF NOTICE TO THE TOWN OF BERLIN. LORD.

there are some people who vote for it, and there are some people who vote against it, and thereupon it becomes an indestructible thing. Nobody can touch it. That is his proposition. These, Sir, are the three grounds upon which the proposition is attempted to be maintained.

Now, Sir, there are two or three general considerations, to which I desire to call the attention of the Convention before I propose to analyze either of these propositions; and the first general proposition which I wish to submit to the delegate representing Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett,) is this-Who are the people? That is what I want to know. Will the gentleman be kind enough to tell me who are the people? How many people are there in Massachusetts? We have been discussing about the people for the last three or four days, and now I want to know who they are, what they are, and how many they are? Are there a million? If there are a million of people in Massachusetts, have the people of Massachusetts had an opportunity to express their views upon this subject: Who are the people?

Mr. HALLETT. Does the gentleman desire an answer?

Mr. LORD. I do indeed, Sir; I desire to know who the people are.

Mr. HALLETT. If the gentleman will look into the history of constitutional law, and parliamentary action, he will find that settled from the time of Burke's political disquisitions down to the present day. The people are those who have the power to make laws. The people are the majority in every community; and the community consists of those who have the right to make laws. Every male person in the community, twenty-one years of age, who is a voter according to the rules prescribed by the proper authority under the Constitution of our Commonwealth is one of the people.

Mr. LORD. He is "one of the people." That I agree to. But, Sir, it comes down to the divine right of kings. They who have the power are the people. That is the answer. A little while ago, it required that a man should be the owner of freehold estate in order to be one of "the people!" There are then no "popular rights," no "rights of the people," except the rights of legal voters! No, Sir, I have higher notions of the people than that. I believe that every individual who is protected by the government, is one of the people. I believe that every individual who is subject to the law is one of the people. Whether or not, it is wise and prudent to adopt a form of government, giving to every one of the people a voice in every particular measure is a consideration which we have already had presented to us. Are not those the people who come here and ask in their own behalf to have the word "male" stricken from the Constitution? Do the friends of popular rights want to strike out, at once, one half of the human race as not having popular rights? But, Sir, the gentleman has come to the precise position that I had supposed he would; that "the people," as he understands it, means a majority of the legal voters expressing their opinions for the time being. I suppose that the gentleman from Brookfield agrees to that definition of "the people."

Mr. GREENE, (in his seat.) No, Sir, I do not. Mr. LORD. That, Sir, is the beauty of this whole system. There are no two gentlemen who think alike upon any one question, except that

they all love the "dear people" beyond all measure; but what this object of their affection is, no one of them can tell. They all love the "dear people," but the object of that affection has as many forms as the chameleon has colors. I am therefore to meet the delegate for Wilbraham upon his own ground, and take the people to be those who have a right to vote, and' of course it is they alone who have any right in the government. Of course, my friend from Wilbraham, would not extend the right of suffrage; because, if he goes beyond what the right of suffrage now is, he would give power to those who are not "the people." The people in whom the political power resides are to be the voters; and if he takes away from the Constitution the necessary qualification of tax-paying, then he lets somebody in who is not one of the people; and if they should happen to make up the majority, then we should be governed by outsiders and not by the people.

I believe, Sir, I meet his argument fairly. There is a fallacy all along through it. People set up for themselves an ideal abstraction which they do not understand, and call it "the people;" and when they are discoursing about the rights of sovereignty, they call it the rig! ts of the people. They are really, Sir, discussing the rights of sovereignty, wherever that sovereignty happens to reside. Now, Sir, I agree in that right, and I am in favor of having it apportioned among those, who, from age and condition in life, according to the general judgment of mankind, are suited to exercise it. I would not make all legal voters. I would not give this power to infants, to children, nor to women, because in the general judgment of mankind they are not suited to participate in the administration of public affairs. But they arg a part of the people of Massachusetts.

Now, Sir, having found out who the people are, as well as the gentleman from Wilbraham can tell us, I will proceed to examine these three propositions, and see if either of them is tenable. I do not think that it is worth the while to detain this Convention in speaking upon the question, whether or not we are a mere revolutionary, sovereign body, as claimed by the gentleman from Lowell, (Mr. Butler.) I admire one trait in the character of that gentleman; and that is, that whenever he has an object to accomplish, he puts himself in a position to accomplish it. When he had scanned all the other grounds, he was driven by force to this position; that if we are bound by any law, or by any constitution, if there is anything except our own wills to control us, then we cannot properly pass this order; and he marches square up to his ground, and says-having surveyed the whole ground, and having found no other position upon which I can stand and meet the opponents that I wish to meet, I will take the position that this is a revolution, that this is a sovereignty, that this is "the people;" here we are en masse; and whatever the entire people of Massachusetts-if they were assembled here all in one mass meeting of the Commonwealth-could do, we can do. We can build up, or we can pull down. We may, if we will, abolish all the institutions of government. It is well enough, perhaps, (is his course of reasoning) to keep the ordinary machine of the government in motion; it is well enough to let it run along; but if we will, we can abolish the whole at once. We can strike, not only the legislature, but the judiciary

[May 17th.

and the executive from their places by a single blow. That is the position, which, Sir, if this is not a peaceful and legal asse nbly, is the only position upon which the gentleman can stand. That question has been ably argued, and I do not propose to discuss it, inasmuch as it does not touch the question upon which I rose to speak, concerning the power of the legislature?

I ought to say, however, that if the gentleman from Lowell, Mr. Butler,) was as unfortunate in reading his other precedents as he was in reading the one to which my attention has been called, the one which he cited from the debates of the Convention of 1820, he either very much misconceived them, or I have myself done so. The Convention will remember that the gentleman from Lowell said the issuing of precepts by a Convention was no new thing, was the exercise of no new power. He stated that in 1820 Mr. Bangs, of Worcester, in the presence of distinguished men, who endorsed what he said by not controverting it, took the ground that the Convention had the right to issue precepts to towns to fill vacancies. Now either that gentleman or myself reads that report very incorrectly, and therefore I desire the attention of the Convention a moment while I refer to it. My view of the position of the gentleman from Worcester, (Mr. Bangs,) is, that instead of expressing the opinion that that Convention had the power to issue precepts, he meant to say, that certain doctrines then advanced, if carried out, would result in such an absurdity, to wit: the issuing of 1 recepts by that Convention. He stated that as an abstract case which nobody would contend for. Now let us see if that is a precedent for the issuing of precepts by this Convention. I read from page 50 of the printed Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1820:

"Mr. Bangs, of Worcester, stated that he was one of the committee who dissented from the opinion which they had expressed in their Report, as far as it respected the Plymouth members. Ile thought they were not duly elected, and not entitled to their seats. The words of the act which provided for the Convention, and directed the choice of delegates, were, that the inhabitants should assemble in town meeting on the third Monday in October, and should elect one or more delegates. There could be no doubt that the intention of the legislature was, that the election should be holden on the third Monday of October, and on no other day. If they had not intended to confine the election to a single day, they would have so expressed it. They would have said that they should be elected within a prescribed number of days, as was provided by the Constitution for the choice of representatives in the general court. The legislature meant to make a distinction between this case and that of representatives, otherwise it would have used similar language. They have said the meetings shall be held on the third Monday, [in October) and have said nothing about adjourning. It was true the word then was not used in the act, but he contended the meaning was the same as if it had been. He asked what would be the meaning of the contrary construction? If town meetings had the power of adjournment, they might have adjourned to any time previous to the meeting of the Convention-to this very day. Delegates may yet be chosen, and the Couvention has now the power to issue precepts to elect delegates, where vacancies exist, or to supply those which shall exist."

Is he not giving them what would be the effect of the contrary construction to that which he held to be the correct one? Most certainly he is. He then goes on to say :

[blocks in formation]

"He knew it might be said that this was an assumption of power by the legislature. But it was necessary that the power should be exercised, and it was proper that the legislature should assume it, and that they should establish rules."

Now I should like to know what precedent that is for the gentleman from Lowell. It was the absurdity that would result from the adoption of such doctrines that Mr. Bangs referred to. He said it was proper that the legislature should assume power and establish rules. Well, has legislature now done anything but establish rules? If the gentleman from Lowell was sincere, and he undoubtedly was, in saying that the remarks of Mr. Bangs had the sanction of the venerable and learned men in that Convention, what does it prove? That it was considered a mere absurdity to say that a Convention could issue precepts; it was for the legislature to establish rules, and they had very properly done so.

I wish now to offer a remark or two only, in reply to the gentleman from Northampton, (Mr. Huntington.) He says-if I am correctly informed, though I had not the pleasure of hearing the gentleman that there is no law at all upon this subject anywhere, that there is no law under which the town of Berlin can hold a meeting for the election of delegates at this time. Now, I do not agree with him in that doctrine.

Mr. HUNTINGTON. I think the gentleman from Salem, (Mr. Lord,) could not have so misunderstood me, if he had heard the whole of my remarks. I said that there was no law prescribing the mode in which such an election should be carried on, whether by secret ballot or viva voce. That I believe was as far as my proposition extended.

Mr. LORD. I took care to preface my statement with the remark, that I did not myself hear the gentleman's remarks. I understand now, that he maintains this proposition, that there is no law regulating the manner of voting at the meeting proposed to be called in the town of Berlin for the election of delegate. From that proposition I dissent.

Mr. HUNTINGTON. No regulation except parliamentary law.

Mr. LORD. "Except parliamentary usage." That is another qualification that I am happy to hear. The proposition of the gentleman, now, stands thus: there is no law by which the town of Berlin can determine in what manner to vote except parliamentary usage. Now, is there anything in parliamentary usage that prescribes voting with an envelope? I do not understand the gentleman from Northampton to claim that there is. Then all that this parliamentary usage would apply to, is the manner of conducting the town meeting. Now, I do not think it is worth while for this Convention, composed of four hundred wise and able men, competent to revise the Constitution of Massachusetts, in their first constitutional act to request the town of Berlin to alter the parliamentary practice of their town meetings. I believe the best course for every body to pursue, is to keep exactly within the limits of duty. I have no doubt-throwing aside the question of good taste and propriety-that this Convention would have the right to say, if they chose-we respectfully request the town of Berlin to return to certain ancient customs, such as requesting all grave and elderly men to take seats by the side of the moderator, so as to give an aspect of

solemnity to the occasion, as was done in olden times, when gray hairs were considered much more venerable than they now are, and when town meetings were conducted with more solemnity than they now are. We might also, with just as much propriety, request them to change the parliamentary usage which prevails in some towns of receiving the votes in a hat, and receive them in a ballot box. That, however, is a question of taste. I do not think it worth while to pursue any such course. Should it be thought best, we might advise the authorities of the town of Berlin that when a question is raised, a motion should be made and seconded before the question should be considered as well taken. And there are a great many other particulars equally as important.

Then the question placed before us by the gentleman from Northampton, is, shall we notify the town of Berlin to change its parliamentary customs and practices? That gentleman does not claim that the parliamentary usage of the town of Berlin requires the secret ballot, but he thinks this Convention had better descend from its high position, and ask the town of Berlin to change its parliamentary usage in that respect. Now I do not think we are quite ready to proceed upon that ground. This notice to the town of Berlin, as I understand it, is a mere request, which the gentleman does not contend the town of Berlin are bound to follow. If they were bound to follow it, then it would become an order which we had the right to make; and the gentleman from Northampton does not contend that we have any right to order the town of Berlin to change its parliamentary mode of conducting elections. Then, if we have not the power or right to order this change, I respectfully submit that it would be unbecoming in us to make this request, as the town of Berlin could, act its own pleasure, follow our recommendation or not, as they chose; and should a delegate be elected contrary to our recommendation, we should be bound to receive him here, if the election be according to law and parliamentary usage. I do not think it worth while to examine that argument farther, because, if the order of the gentleman from Lowell can stand upon any ground, it must be that upon which he himself put it, that we choose to array ourselves in opposition and antagonism to the government, that we are independent of, above, and controlling the present government of this Commonwealth; and being that, we will direct this of our sovereign pleasure.

I come now to the other proposition, which is the one I rose particularly to address myself to, that the legislature of the present year had no right to amend the Act calling this Convention. We have found out who the people are, and I think it is just and fair to put this case upon the precise ground that the gentleman representing Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett,) has put it. If it cannot stand there, it cannot stand at all upon the idea that the law of 1852 was the people's order. If it cannot stand there, then it is not the people's order. The first proposition of the gentleman for Wilbraham is, that the legislature of 1852 did a void act. If there was any doubt about his views upon that subject, the other day, that doubt has been entirely removed to-day; for he has asseverated in language stronger than any I can command, that the Act of the legislature of 1852 was a mere nullity, a dead thing, until the people

[May 17th.

breathed into it the breath of life. The gentleman took that ground, and did so with the same manliness that he takes every ground that he occupies. His proposition is, that the Act of 1852 was a void Act, binding upon nobody because it was void; an Act which no man was bound to regard; an Act that I, as one of the people, had a right to spurn; an Act which every legal voter of this Commonwealth had a right to trample under foot, because it was a void Act. Then shall it be said, that because a small portion of the people chose to vote for that void Act, that small portion infused into that nullity, that inanimate thing, life, unchangeability, and indestructibility? Suppose that nearly the entire body of the people of this Commonwealth had thought, like the delegate for Wilbraham, that that Act was a mere nullity which the legislature had no right to pass, and had spurned the ballot boxes that had been put before them to receive their votes, and out of the whole body of the voters in this Commonwealth, but twenty had voted "yes," and not one had voted "no," would those twenty voters have infused life and indestructibility into that Act? The gentleman cannot pretend that a majority of the legal voters of this Commonwealth voted in favor of that Act. He cannot pretend even that a majority of those who voted upon that day did so. The historical fact proves the contrary; proves that there were 138,000 votes cast for governor on the same day and in the same ballot boxes in which the votes upon the calling of this Convention were cast, and only 66,000-not even a majority of the votes of those who voted on that day-were in favor of the Act calling this Convention; while the other half spurned it as a mere nullity.

Does the gentleman representing Wilbraham claim that the rights of the people-aye, "the dear people,"-may be affected by an Act which they have a right to despise and reject as a mere nullity? His proposition is, that that Act was void when it was passed, and therefore no meeting could lawfully be held under it, no votes could lawfully be received under it; the selectmen of no town could be indicted for refusing to receive votes upon it; and who knows that 20,000 votes were not refused: The selectmen had a right to refuse to receive them; being a void Act, nobody was bound by it. And yet, all at once, this dead and worthless carcass became, by some sort of transfiguration, an angel of light, life, and power.

Now I deny both the premises and the conclusion. I deny that it was a void Act. I deny that if it were a void Act, the votes of any portion of the people could give it any vitality. It was not a void Act. It was an Act passed by the regular forms of legislation, to be operative only upon the happening of a certain contingency, a common form of enactment, the contingency in some cases depending upon the popular vote, in others upon other circumstances. Now, without going into the question whether or not it is right and proper for the legislature to submit any act to the people, I will concede for the purpose of argument, that it is a proper exercise of legislative authority respecting a matter affecting the constitutional law of this Commonwealth, to take measures to ascertain whether or not there is a proper proportion of the people of the Commonwealth who desire that a Convention shall be called to revise and amend the Constitution. I submit, however, that

[ocr errors]

Tuesday,]

FORM OF NOTICE TO THE TOWN OF BERLIN. — LORD.

it would have been competent for the legislature, instead of saying that that law should go into operation if a majority of the people shall vote for it, to have said, that if 100,000 votes shall be cast in favor of that proposition, upon the day when the proposition shall be properly presented to them at the ballot boxes, then a Convention shall be called. The gentleman for Wilbraham, I think, will not controvert that position. I think, also, that it would have been competent for the legislature, if they had chosen to exercise their powers thus, to have said, that in so important a matter as the amendment of the fundamental law of this Commonwealth, more than a bare majority ought to be required in favor of disturbing the existing order of things, and therefore, unless twothirds of the people voting upon that question shall vote in its favor, the Convention shall not be called. It would also have been competent for the legislature to have reasoned thus-whether it would have been good reasoning or not, it is not for me to determine-the fundamental law of this Commonwealth ought to be, as nearly as possible, a mere series of axioms, fundamental principles, matters of common right, which every body agrees to; and all matters of expediency, temporising, questions of detail, are matters that the administrative government should regulate; but the fundamental faw, which is unalterable except by the people in their primary capacity, should be merely a series of axioms and general principles. If, therefore, there are even 10,000 people in the Commonwealth who say that there are portions of the Constitution which should be stricken out, or that there are portions of it which need revision, then that shall be the contingency, upon the happening of which, this law shall become operative, and delegates shall be chosen, and shall meet in Convention to consider the expediency of so amending and revising the Constitution.

Now I am not quite willing to admit the correctness of the argument used upon both sides in this discussion, that this is an Act adopted by the people, an Act to which the people have responded, and thus been made the people's Act. I consider it an Act, the going into operation of which, was dependent upon the happening of a certain contingency, just like acts that we pass every session of the legislature, to go into effect or not, upon the happening of a certain contingency. It is just such an act as the one in which we said, that while the bankrupt law of the United States should be in force, the entire insolvent law of Massachusetts, with one single exception, should be suspended; but the instant that the act of congress should be repealed, that instant the insolvent law of Massachusetts should be revived. Now when it was so revived, did any body pretend to say that congress had passed our insolvent law for us, that we had an insolvent law that had had no vitality until congress had given vitality to it, and therefore, if we wanted to repeal it, we must first go to congress and ask and obtain their consent to its repeal, because it did not go into operation without their action? And yet it seems to me that gentlemen are led irresistibly to such a conclusion, if they adopt the views I have referred to. But, if I am correct in the positions I have laid down, then this law is but a legislative enactment to become operative whenever a certain contingency shall arise. It is not, therefore, a law of the people in their primary capacity, as contended for here, though I think it is really a law

of the people, because I am one of those who believe that the people make all laws. I have no sort of sympathy with the cry that the people are antagonistic to the government. The people are the government, and the laws of the government are the laws of the people.

Mr. HALLETT. Will the gentleman from Salem tell us his definition of the term-the people?

Mr. LORD. I will answer that enquiry, and I will take care that the gentleman shall not have as good a chance to reply to me, as I had to reply to him. When I am speaking of the people in the connection in which I am now speaking of them, I mean those people who have a right to act in the affairs of government; but when I soar more highly and get up into abstractions, such as the “dear people,” &c., I go a good deal beyond the mere voters-I include all the nursing babies and their mothers. [Laughter.]

Mr. HALLETT. I understand this to be the meaning. In a state of society where there is no constitutional government instituted by the people, the people include every living soul; but under a constitutional form of government the people are those who have the power of voting and making laws. Is that the definition?

Mr. LORD. As to that matter, I do not know that I precisely understand the exceedingly philosophical and metaphysical abstraction which the gentleman has in view; and not being disposed to go into such måtters at this time, I am afraid I cannot give his query a proper reply. As I was saying, I have no sympathy with those who set up the people as being antagonistic to the government. I hold that the goverement of this Commonwealth is a government of the people-it is the people speaking through their own constituted organs, and they have made such organs as they chose for their own use. What follows from that? The existing government is the people's government; it is a government not made by the masters of the people, or by the servants of the people, but by the people themselves, who are represented by delegates chosen from among themselves, just as they are represented in this Convention. That is the way in which the people of Massachusetts make their laws; for they learned how to make laws a good many years ago, and they have not forgotten it yet. They know that if they want a particular law made, the legislature must make it for them; and they know, if they want a particular kind of law made, what sort of men to send to make it. Last November, when the people determined that they wanted a law which should restore to them the rights which their fathers had exercised for centuries, they took care to send men who would enact such a law.

Now, Mr. President, it has been my fortune to be a member of the House of Representatives for several years, and I have always thought that I was really one of the people. I have had a constituency who sent me here by some six or seven hundred majority, who thought very much as I did about that matter; and I thought they were all people too. But somebody comes in, who just barely gets in by close counting, and he immediately professes to be a lover of the dear people; he says, "I represent the people, and you are here representing" nobody knows what. They are using the same unmeaning clap-trap phrase, without any very definite ideas of what

[ocr errors]

(May 17th.

they are talking about; but all they want is to get the admiration of the people. Now I thought that I was one of tc people, and I thought that the member from Walraam was also one of the people; and if the Constitution of Massachusetts gives him any rights which it does not give to me, or vice vers 1, then I say that the Constitution does not properly secure the rights of the people. But, Sir, I have yet to hear the first gentleman in this Convention, or the first gentleman among

e who advocated the Convention, say that he his had any of his rights al ridged or taken away. They are the rights of somebody else which have been infringed upon. In 1852 the people of this Commonwealth thought that it would be an advantage to them to have restored to them the ancient | rights of their fathers. They had previously sent representatives here who had passed a law which they thought abridged the freedom of that suifrage which both they and their fathers had been accustomed to enjoy. They tried to send a set of representatives who would restore that, but they failed. They tried again, Sir, and they succeeded. Now let me put to this Convention two or three propositions. Suppose that every voter in this Commonwealth last November had desired that this Convention should be held; how should he manifest that desire? By voting "yes" to the question which was propounded to him. But suppose that every voter in the Commonwealth had also desired to be permitted to exercise his option whether he would vote the open or the secret ballot; how would that be carried into effect? There is another mode of accomplishing that object; that is a matter for legislative action, and if they desired that they should be permitted to vote according to their wishes, they would select gentlemen to represent them in the legislature who would give them that right. How else could it be done? There is no other mode known to the Constitution and laws, in which they could have expressed their opinion upon the subject; and they therefore expressed it thus.

There is a little provision in the Constitution, Mr. President, which I love to think of. I do not know but that in these days of wisdom it may be stricken out; but while it is there I shall prize it. There is a provision in the Constitution that the inhabitants of the various towns may assemble and instruct their representatives. There was a proposition before the legislature to amend this law a proposition to give the people a right which they had been accustomed to enjoy. Was there a single municipality in this Commonwealth that undertook to instruct its representatives? They had a right to instruct them-there is the constitutional provision, and their injunction must be obeyed; but did any such instructions come up here? This matter was under discussion day after day, and week after. week-there was time enough if they had desired to send instructions, and it was a matter which it may well be supposed was calculated to attract public attention; but did any constituency see fit to instruct its representative to vote either for or against that law? Not one. What is the fair and logical deduction? It is that every single municipality in this Commonwealth consented to that act on the part of the legislature. They consented to it because they had a right to interpose and prevent it if they desired to do so, and they did not interpose. But that is not the strongest view of the case.

Wednesday,]

DEBATES-INSTRUCTIONS TO COMMITTEES, &c.— GOURGAS — SUMNER - HOOD.

The Act provided that it should be optional with the voter, whether he would use the secret ballot or the open ballot; and how did the people exercise that option? Every voter in the Commonwealth, who put a vote into the ballot box, had a right to deposit it in a sealed envelope; but what was the result? The result was that a very large majority of all the voters in the Commonwealth, voted without the secret ballot; and does not that show that they liked the law and ratified it? I have taken pains to make some examination in various quarters, to ascertain the facts with regard to this matter, and I find, that among the farming interest, there were but a very few who were willing to encumber themselves with this machinery. As I inquired in various towns, one after another, I found that here there would be perhaps one, in another town two, and in another none, and so on. In some parts of the State, there was a different result, because in some places it was deemed important, for political effect, that there should be a great show of popular feeling upon the subject; but notwithstanding these occasional exceptions, a very great majority of all the voters voted with open ballots. I do not know what more effectual mode could have been adopted by the people in which to manifest their sanction and ratification of the Act of the legislature. If the people of Massachusetts had not approved of the law, they would not have acted on it; because there was nothing compulsory about it. If the law had been of a compulsory character, saying, "you shall vote in a particular manner," I admit there would have been no force in this argument, for the reason that men would vote in the way prescribed, under protest. They would deposit their ballots, saying, "I am afraid that I shall lose my rights, if I do not vote in the mode in which I am required by this law, and although I protest against it-although I say it should not be so, yet rather than lose my right to vote, I will vote as the law prescribes." Was this the feeling? No such thing, Sir. The law gratified all parties. If there was among the people, here and there, one so dependent, that he did not dare to let it be known how he voted, or one so recreant, that he was ashamed to show how he voted, then, Sir, he had the right, if he chose, to exercise it, to vote in this secret mode. And we all know, Mr. President, that means of the most extraordinary character were used to induce the people to vote in that way. Some of the leading journals exhorted and almost commanded all who belonged to their party, or who acknowledged their faith, to vote in this particular mode. Appeals were made, not only to their prejudices, but to their fears. They were told that the Convention would reject all those who were not elected in that way, and very many men in this Commonwealth voted according to the secret ballot system simply because of these threats, and because they feared, that if they did not do so their votes would not be counted. But, Sir, notwithstanding all that, a vast majority of the people of the Commonwealth, gave their sanction and their ratification to the Act by voting in the open mode.

Now, Mr. President, when gentlemen tell me that all they want to get at, is the will of the people, I want to see them follow out that doctrine where it leads, and not abandon it when it does not lead just where they would like to go. I must say, that I never in my life, saw one of these lovers of the "dear people," who was will

ing to follow the people. Oh no! They all want to lead them, and if the people do not follow their lead, they refuse to acknowledge them as the people. I have found this so in the House of Representatives; if there was a small political party here, that small portion were always "the people" -there were no people at all except those whom they represented. That is the popular cry --they are always talking about legislating for "the people." I say this, Mr. President, with all due respect, for I am speaking of a different body, and perhaps, my remarks are not applicable here; but I will simply ask gentlemen to reflect and see whether I am not right in this matter-see if the cry about "the people" is not always the strongest, when those who make it are in the smallest minority. I will freely admit, that when we refer to individual right, the smaller the minority, the more danger there is that this right may be violated; but when we are talking of popular rights, as exercised by majorities, it is a very different thing. The difficulty arises from confounding these two kinds of right. The popular majority has the right to control and govern; but individual right includes the the exercise of that freedom which is guaranteed in the declaration of rights, to which the eloquent gentleman has alluded. I agree with him in hoping that those rights may be preserved, and I should like to have some more added to them. These are rights which I respect, and I care not how strenuously gentlemen may advocate them.

It is now almost six o'clock, Sir, and as I have already occupied the time of the Convention, at least an hour more than I intended when I commenced, I will briefly re-state my position, and then leave the subject. In the first place, I dissent entirely from the doctrine which has been advanced, that we are mere sovereigns coming here at our own pleasure, doing what seems good in our own eyes, and responsible to nobody. I reject that idea, and I trust that the Convention will reject it. I also reject the other misconception or delusion, that it is proper for us to leave the high positions which we hold here, and descend to be the mere advisers of a municipal corporation in a matter over which we have no authority; I regard that as unbecoming and beneath the dignity of this body. Further, I reject the proposition, that the Act calling this Convention was a mere nullity, until certain action on the part of a majority of the voters of this Commonwealth, converted that nullity into an indestructibility. I maintain that the legislature enacted a law in the regular course of its agency under the people, which law was to take effect upon a certain contingency, and did so take effect; and it is proper, in justification of myself, and those with whom I act, that I should add, that the law was still subject to legislative discretion in preparing the details for carrying out the wishes and views of the people, as expressed at the ballot box, and that the law was changed in accordance with their will, to facilitate their purposes instead of thwarting them. It is also shown that the change in the law met with the approbation of the people, by their acting upon it, a vast majority thus ratifying and approving it. These are the propositions on the one hand, which I deny, and on the other hand, which I mantain; and I have said thus much not from any wish to obtrude myself upon the Convention, but because it seemed to be proper that some one situated as I am, should say

[May 18th.

something in defence of the legislature which has been attacked as being a traitor to the people. Feeling that the duty devolved upon me, I have humbly endeavored to discharge it.

Mr. WILSON, of Natick, obtained the floor, but gave way to a motion for adjournment; whereupon

The Convention adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, May 18, 1853. The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. Prayer by the Rev. WARREN BURTON. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

Debates.

Mr. GOURGAS, from the Special Committee on Debates, reported the following orders:

Ordered, That fifteen hundred copies of the Reports of the Debates of this Convention be printed, and bound in a durable manner, for distribution as follows:-one copy to each member of the Convention, and to each town and city in the Commonwealth, and the remainder to be placed in the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth for such gratuitous distribution as is usually made of such books published by the State; and that an additional fifteen hundred copies of the same edition be placed in the hands of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, on sale, at such price as may be hereafter determined upon by the Convention, the proceeds of such sales to be paid into the public treasury.

Ordered, That the Messenger, under the direction of the President, provide all necessary accommodations for the official reporters of the Con

vention.

Mr. GOURGAS, in submitting this Report, remarked that the Committee had nearly completed their arrangements with the Reporter, and State Printers, in relation to the reporting and publishing of the debates. It was necessary, however, that the number of copies of the reported debates required to be furnished should be fixed by the Convention. The Committee had therefore directed him to report the preceding orders, so that on their adoption the printers might proceed at once, and without delay to the execution of the work. The Report was adopted.

Instructions to Committees. Mr. SUMNER, of Otis, submitted the following resolutions:

Resolved, That each of the Committees appointed under the fifteen resolutions adopted by this Convention be authorized to consider any proposition they may deem compatible with the objects or purposes of their appointment, though not expressly or impliedly embraced in the resolutions submitted them; and report thereon.

Resolved, That the Committee on the second resolution, respecting the Frame of Government and the General Court, &c., be instructed to consider the expediency of permanently establishing the seat of Government at the city of Boston.

[blocks in formation]

Wednesday,]

FORM OF NOTICE TO THE TOWN OF BERLIN. — WILSON.

sider and report, upon the order of business which it may be expedient, or necessary, for the Convention to adopt, in order to bring the session to a close on or before the first day of July next.

Lieutenant-Gvernor.

Mr. CUSHMAN, of Bernardston, from the Committee to whom was referred so much of the Constitution as relates to the Lieutenant-Governor, presented a report, which was referred to the Committee of the Whole, and ordered to be printed.

The Vote on Recmsideration ordered.

Mr. FRENCH, of New Bedford, moved tat the hour of four o'clock this afternoon, be assigned as the time for taking the votes on thé motion to reconsider the vote by which the order was adopted concerning the form of notice to the town of Berlin.

Mr. GOURGAS said he hoped the gentleman would consent to modify his motion in such a way that the vote might be taken at an earlier hour, or else at some hour to-morrow; and his reason for making this suggestion, was, that many members of the Convention residing out of town, were obliged to leave in time for the four o'clock train of cars, and they would consequently be deprived of the opportunity of voting.

The question being put, the motion of the gentleman from New Bedford prevailed.

Credentials.

Mr. ALVORD, of Montague, presented the credentials of Rev. Mr. Chandler, of Greenfield, which were accepted, and placed upon the files.

Orders.

The following orders were adopted :—
On motion by Mr. IDE, of Attleborough,

Ordered, That the Committee, to whom was referred so much of the Constitution as relates to the Frame of Government, and mode of settling Elections in the Legislature, consider the expediency of so amending the Constitution, as to provide therein for elections to fill all vacancies which may occur in both branches of the legislature by reason of death or resignation of members thereof, or from any other cause, not otherwise provided for.

Ordered, That the Committee to whom was referred so much of the Constitution as relates to the Qualifications of Voters, consider the expediency of so amending the Constitution, as to provide that the payment of any poll or registry tax, exceeding in amount the sum of one dollar, shall not be required to constitute any part of the qualifications of voters in this Commonwealth.

On motion by Mr. BIRD, of Walpole,

Ordered, That the Committee to whom was referred so much of the Constitution as relates to the Frame of Government, Elections by the Legislature, &c., be instructed to inquire into the expediency of so amending the Constitution, that all elections for State and county officers shall be on the Tuesday next following the first Monday of November of each year, and to report thereon.

On motion by Mr. WALKER, of North Brookfield,

Ordered, That the Secretary of this Commonwealth be requested to furnish, for the use of this Convention, an alphabetical list of all the towns in the State entitled to only a fractional representation, or less than one each; also, of all towns having a representation of one each year; also, of all

having each two, three, four, five, six, ten, and over ten representatives annu dhy.

On motion by Mr. COLE, of Cheshire,

Ordred, That the Committee to whom was referred so much of the Constitution as relates to tle Frame of Government and the General Court, be instructed to consider tat propriety of so amer ding the Constitution, that no private or local bill, making appropriations of the pu' lie funds, skall be passed without t'e asent of three-fiths of all the members elected to both branches of the legislature.

On motion by Mr. CADY, of Monson,

Ordered, That the Committee to whom was referred so much of t' e Constitution as is contained in the Declaration of Rig, ts, be instructed to consider the expediency of so amending the eleventh article, as to make compensation for sacritice of time and expense of counsel to the injured party in case of unjust prosecution.

On motion by Mr. MORSS, of Newburyport,

Ordered, That the Committee on the Frame of Government consider the expediency of so amending the Constitution, that the Governor and all State Officers, and the members of the General Court, be chosen for a term of two years.

Orders of the Day.

Mr. BATES, of Plymouth, moved that the Convention proceed to the consideration of the Orders of the Day. The motion was, upon a division, decided in the affirmative;-ayes, 128; nays, 98.

The first of the unfinished business being the motion to reconsider the vote by which the order was adopted concerning the form of notice to the town of Berlin.

Mr. WILSON, of Natick. The vote which has been taken this morning in reference to the termination of this debate, admonishes, Mr. President, that I must be very brief in the remarks I am about to make. This debate, Sir, has already run through several days, and gentlemen of eminent ability have participated in it. I had intended to reply to some of the remarks of gentlemen who have supported the motion for reconsideration, but I shall cheerfully acquiese in the vote just taken, and omit much that I had intended to say. I desire briefly to state the reasons for the vote I am about to give against the motion of the gentleman from Framingham, (Mr. Train,) for the reconsideration of the vote adopting the form of notice to the town of Berlin.

In the outset I wish to say, that I disagree altogether with the opinion expressed by my friend from Lowell, (Mr. Butler,) that this is in any sense whatever a "revolutionary" body. I maintain, Sir, that this Convention is a legal and constitutional body; that it is constituted according to the forms of law and according to precedents, of which we have already had nearly sixty in the several States of the Union. If gentlemen mean simply, to say that the change in the public sentiment of the State which has brought about this Convention is a revolution of opinion, I agree with them; but if they mean to say that this Convention, called by the people of the Commonwealth, in accordance with the forms of law, and in the exercise of their sovereignty, is a revolutionary body, I utterly deny it. The right of the people of Massachusetts "to institute government, and to reform,

[ocr errors]

[May 18th.

alter, or totally ang the same, when their protection, sa cty, pro perity and happiness require it," is not a “revolutionary" right—it is a constitutional rig.t. The original, inherent soveregnty of the people is t'e achieved. Aucrie in doctri e. The exercise of t. at sovereignty is not reco'u in or reh". The sovereignty of the prople in America is held by no such uncertain tenure as the right of revolution. The rig' t of revolution exists everywhere, in Austria as well as in

merica. The distraction between the more riget of revolution-the right of the people in all countries depending upon more physical forceaal te rig it of the people of Massachusetts in the exercise of their sovereignty, to “institute, alter and change" goycrament, is clear to the comprehension of all men. This Convention is here in obedience to the voice of the people of Massachusett, expressed through the forms of law-it is not the creature of revolution or rebellion.

Now, Sir, I agree entirely with the distinguished gentlem in from Cambridge, (Mr. Parker,) that the law calling this Convention is a legal enactment, having all the forms and force of law. The legality and constitutionality of the Convention, the gentleman admits without the least reservation. I thank him for this unqualified admission. I commend this frank admission of the learned jurist to the consideration of gentlemen, who regard the law as an act of “doubtful constitutionality."

The delegate for Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett,) maintains that the Act of 1852, submitting to the people the question for a Convention, was a mere proposition unauthorized by any provisions of the Constitution. Now, Sir, what I maintain is this -that the Act of the legislature of 1852, directing the question to be put to the people whether they would have a convention or not, was simply an Act to take the sense of the people. It did not add anything to the right of the people to alter or amend their Constitution at pleasure. This Act simply imposed upon the authorities of the cities and towns the duty of submitting the question to the people, and to receive, sort, count, declare and return the votes; it imposed upon the governor and council the duty to open and count the votes, and make proclamation of the same. So far, this Act was a simple legislative enactment, having the force of law. When the question had been submitted, the sense of the people taken, and the result announced, the Act, so far as it was an Act of the government, had been executed. The people breathed into the provisions for the Convention vitality and power-the power and force of law. They had willed that a convention should be held; that it should be composed of delegates to be elected on the 7th of March, in the districts entitled to elect representatives in the year of the general valuation, the delegates to be elected by the secret ballot, and to meet at the State House in Boston on the fourth day of May. We are here to-day, not by the will of the legislature of 1852, we are here by the voice of the people, in response to the question submitted to the people by the legislature of 1852, and in accordance with the provisions of the Act, to which the potential voice of the people alone gave the force of law. Whether the Act of 1852 has any warrant in the Constitution or not, it has the authority of precedent, the precedent of the Convention of 1780 that framed the Constitution, and of the Convention of 1820, by which it was

« ForrigeFortsett »