Wednesday,]

revised. Thirty-one state constitutions have been formed, thirty-two conventions have been held in nineteen states for the revision of their organic laws. These sixty-three conventions, running through seventy-seven years, have almost uniformly been held in accordance with the provisions of legislative enactments. This mode to ascertain the sense of the people has become the practice of the states-the practice alike of states having provisions for thus taking the sense of the people, and of states having no such provisions. This mode has become the fixed practice of our political system-it is our common law, it is peculiarly American; Mr. Webster characterised it as the "American principle." The Act of 1852 is sustained by the almost uniform precedents of the Conventions which framed the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of the several states and of the conventions which have been called to revise the constitutions of the states.

The gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Choate,) maintains the doctrine, that the people simply voted that they would have a convention,—and "then they reposed,”—that they left it to the legislature to arrange the details. This doctrine is the product of the teeming fancy of that gentleman. "The people voted and then they reposed"! Not so, Sir, not so. The people voted that a Convention should be held according to the provisions of the Act of 1852, and upon no other terms. They examined the provisions of that Act; they voted for a convention upon the terms therein expressed. They never dreamed that the legislature of 1853 would change the provisions of that Act upon which their consent was given. The gentleman from Boston may just as well say, that when the Convention votes yea or nay upon a question, that it does not express an opinion upon the matters embraced in the proposition, as to say that the people simply voted for a Convention without considering the terms upon which it should be holden.

• The gentleman from Cambridge, (Mr. Parker,) while he admits the legality of the Act of 1852, claims that the legislature of 1853 had a legal right to amend or repeal the Act altogether; that it can even now repeal the Act, and dissolve this Convention which sits here in obedience to the sovereign will of the people. This is extraordinary doctrine to be heard at this day in America. It comes to this: that the legislature-the creature of the Constitution, which the people created, and which they can alter, amend, or abolish, at their own pleasure-can control the sovereign will of the people. This doctrine is a practical denial of the sovereignty of the people. The people hold the achieved right of sovereignty, not by their own orignal inherent right, but by the will of their creature-the legislature. The extraordinary powers claimed for the legislature, by the genleman from Cambridge, allows that body, not only to amend the law; to change the terms of the Act so as to defeat the popular will; to repeal the Act now, and send us to our homes; but it allows that body, after we have prepared amendments to the Constitution, to forbid the people to vote upon them; and thus this body and its acts are at the mercy of the legislature. Sir, this is contrary to the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people, to the opinions of every American state-man, and to the decision of every judicial tribunal, from the foundation of the government to the present moment. Where, Sir, are the au

thorities for such doctrines? The gentleman gives us none whatever. It is his mere opinion, to which we oppose the uniform declarations of American statesmen; the uniform decisions of American judicial tribunals; and the practice of the country for seventy-seven years; the legislature of New York alone excepted. That legislature amended the Act calling the New York Convention of 1846, but it did so against the unanimous decision of her Supreme Court. The Boston Daily Advertiser of February 2d, the organ of that conservative class which goes for the Constitution with all the "rust upon it," to use the words of the gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Choate,) referring to this decision of the Supreme Court of New York, admits that the Act would not be amended, although it claims for the legislature the right to repeal it. "That no such change," says the Advertiser. "would be made in such an Act, without referring it again to the people for their assent to the change, must be sufficiently obvious, because a change in the Act would be a change of the conditions on which the assent was given." Sir, I maintain that the legislature of 1853 had no right whatever to alter or amend the Act; because in so doing, it changed the conditions upon which the people gave their consent to the Constitution; and I maintain, also, that it had no right to repeal the Act, because such repeal would be a practical denial of the sovereignty of the people, who "alone," in the words of the Constitution of Massachusetts, "have an incontestible, inalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government, and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."

The sovereignty of the people is not a rhetorical flourish. It is a living, actual reality. "Government," says the Declaration of Independence, "derives its just powers from the consent of the governed" and "it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it." The constitutions of the states recognize this living principle as the only lawful tenure of the existence of government. American statesmen from the Declaration of National Independence to this hour have held this doctrine. "The authority," says the great expounder of constitutions, Mr. Madison, "of constitutions over governments, and of the sovereignty of the people over constitutions, are truths which are at all times necessary to be kept in mind." The right and power of the people," says Washington, "is the basis of our system." Hamilton says, that "the consent of the people" is the "pure and original fountain of all legitimate authority." "The people," says Marshall, "hold all authority in their hands; they may resume and modify the powers of the government." Story recognizes the "original inherent sovereignty of the people." If the people possess this "original inherent sovereignty," this "unlimited," to use the words of Judge Tucker, "unlimitable authority and capacity" to alter, amend, or change their organic law, where does the legislature derive the power to alter or repeal the act of the people in their sovereign capacity, calling this Convention? The gentleman from Cambridge, (Mr. Parker,) assumes that the legislature is authorized to speak for the people-that it can repeal the act under which we are here-send us home, defeat the expressed will of the people, and do all this legally in the name of the people. He admits that it would be an outrage, which would justify even him in taking

[May 18th.

a part in a "revolutionary movement." This position of his drives him and us into a revolutionary movement against the people, speaking through their legal authorities, the legislature. Sir, this position is not, cannot, be a correct one. This would be a revolution of the people against the people themselves. Thank God! the people of this Commonwealth need not become rebels to vindicate their sovereignty.

Now, Sir, what do we propose to do? We say this, that the Act, calling this Convention, in the words of the distinguished gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Sprague,) whose resignation we all regret, is "our Charter, our Constitution," that the legislature of 1853 had no right whatever to alter or amend this "our Constitution." We do not propose, as some gentleman have suggested, to express the opinion that the delegates elected by the open ballot are illegally elected, and that their seats should be declared vacant. Those members are here by the voice of their people. The authorities of the cities and towns had the legal opinion of the attorney-general to guide them in their official duties-the people voted honestly in the mode provided by the Act of the 1st of March-the delegates are here, and I consider them in every sense the representatives of the people. I for one, Sir, meet them as equals on this floor. Forms," in the words of Mr. Madison, Fought to give way to substance."

A rigid adherence in such cases to forms, would render nominal and nugatory the transcendent and precious rights of the people," and I chose in this Convention of the people, to follow "substance," and not " forms," knowing that the final vote of the people upon the Constitution will "blot out," in the words of the same statesman, "all antecedent errors and irregularities." We simply propose to notify the town of Berlin that she has a vacancy, occasioned by the resignation of her delegate, and request her to fill that vacancy in accordance with the provisions of the Act of the people calling the Convention. We simply express the opinion, that the Act calling the Convention having been adopted by the people, the. the legislature of 1853 had no right to change it. We do not dictate to them, we do not say to them what we shall do when their delegate comes here. This is all. I shall vote against the reconsideration, but I express no opinion in regard to my action when the delegate from Berlin takes his

scat.

The gentleman from Salem, (Mr. Lord,) who addressed the Convention yesterday, undertook the task of defending the action of the legislature, of which he was a leading member. All of us acknowledge the tact and ability of that gentleman, but his defence of himself and his associates of the legislature was signally unfortunate. He did not venture to justify the outrage upon the sovereignty of the people. He asserted the right of the legislature to amend the Convention Act, but he gave us no authorities to fortify that right, nothing whatever to support his bold declaration of power. What was the position he assumed? It was this, the majority in the legislature of 1853 represent the people, and, therefore, they have a right to speak for the people! Coming into power in opposition to the secret ballot law, they had a right to repeal so much of the Act of 1852 as required the people to vote with the secret ballot in the election of delegates. Sir, the gentleman from Salem claims that the majority of

Wednesday,]

the legislature came into power upon that issue. I do not wish to speak of parties here, but I cannot allow the gentleman, on the floor of this Convention, thus to misstate the position of parties. The majority of the legislature of 1853 came into power upon no such issue. It came into power by one of those accidents which will sometimes happen in political affairs. That gentleman and his political associates came into power because of divisions among their opponents upon national questions, and upon an absorbing local question, by which means nearly one hundred and fifty vacancies in the House were made, although they had thirteen thousand popular majority before the people. The majority in the House represent only 27,000 out of 138,000 voters. Coming into power under such peculiar circumstances, wise men would have accepted as a fixed fact, the Convention-have held its provisions as the will of the people, which could be neither altered or repealed. Having voted against the Convention Act in the session, of 1851-having denounced it in their State Convention, in September of that year, as an "uncalled for and hazardous project,” by which "the independence of the courts is to be broken down-the stability of property shaken, and everything which distinguishes Massachusetts laid in the dust,"-" a project called at the cost of a quarter of a million of dollars ;"-having, in the session of 1852, voted against it as "a measure inconsistent both with the letter and the intent of the Constitution," and in their State Convention of September of that year, denounced it as "the war upon the Constitution to prostrate the bulwarks which our fathers reared," these gentlemen came together in January last, determined, if possible, to destroy the hopes of the people. The governor, in his message, used that unfortunate phrase, that the Convention was "of doubtful constitutionality." Yes, Sir, I say that was an unfortunate phrase, which will not soon be forgotten. Ardent politicians, learning nothing from their past misfortunes, came together breathing destruction upon the "uncalled for and hazardous project." A Senator from my own county of Middlesex, himself the creature of a political accident, introduced a repeal project into the Senate. Party caucuses were held, the project of repeal abandoned, as too desperate an enterprise, and a bill introduced into the Senate, repealing so much of the Act as required the delegates to be chosen by the secret ballot law-hurried in hot haste through the Senate—taken out of its place in the House-pressed to a vote by violating all the rules of the House for the protection of the rights of the minority, and made a law on the 1st of March, six days before the people were to vote, and after the warrants for the meetings were out in all the cities and towns in the State. A bill was also introduced and hurried through the Senate, changing the qualifications of delegates in regard to residence, and providing for the election of delegates by the plurality system. This bill, introducing this sweeping change, was only abandoned in the House for the want of time to force it through. Sir, the gentleman from Salem, (Mr. Lord,) tells us that the people approved of the Act of the legislature, by voting the open ballot in ninety cases out of a hundred. This is not so, Sir, and I am not a little surprised at this assumption. I venture to say that three-fourths of all the votes given on the 7th of March, were given in en

velopes; that in three hundred of the three hundred and twenty towns, a majority of the votes were in sealed envelopes. I appeal to the members of the Convention to say if this is not so. When, Mr. President, the minority of the House had been defeated, overruled, their rights trampled upon by the unparalleled decisions of the Chair, they united in an address to the people-an address written with great ability, and scattered by tens of thousands over the Commonwealth. In this address they say that "the minority of the legislature will continue to demand, and to the extent of their ability, maintain, their rights, under the rules and the parliamentary law, to ezamine, to deliberate, and to discuss. If the arbitrary decisions of the Speaker prevail, and overthrow their rights, they will still do the utmost that circumstances may put in their power to do, lawfully and peaceably to protect the rights of the people and their own honor. But should the unconstitutional and revolutionary measures be forced through, they solemnly appeal to the Old Commonwealth of Massachusetts to rally to the polls on the 7th of March, and condemn, in thunder tones, the reckless and factious revolutionary majority of the legislature, and thereby

SAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION."

The people promptly responded to this appeal. Men who differed widely upon questions of publie policy, united to rebuke this audacious interference with the sovereign rights of the people, and by an unprecedented majority the people rebuked this legislative interference, and sent more than one hundred majority of the friends of Constitutional reform into the Convention. We stand here to-day, with the hearts of the people of Massachusetts beating in our bosoms. If a legislative body ever received a scathing, withering rebuke, the legislature of 1853 received such a rebuke on the 7th of March. Not one member of the Convention-no, not one-has ventured to vindicate the justice or policy of the action of the legislature. I venture to say, Sir, that this is the last time any legislature of this Commonwealth will thus trifle with the sovereignty of the people.

The gentleman, Mr. President, undertakes to read lectures to the members of the Convention for speaking of the people. He cannot comprehend that phrase, "the people." He calls it "clap-trap and humbug." When members of the Convention speak of the people, they use the language of the Declaration of Independence, of the Constitution of the United States, and of all the States of all the judicial discussions of the country; and, Sir, they were the dialect of American statesmen-the language which the institutions of the country, and the state-men of the country have taught us to use; and if the gentleman from Salem cannot comprehend that language, if he cannot understand that dialect, it is his misfortune, not our fault.

Mr. LORD, (interposing, and the floor being yielded.) I desire to know if the gentleman from Natick understands that the statesmen of this country understood and used the phrase "people" in the sense in which the member for Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett,) said he understood it. Because if doctors differ, I may well say that I do not understand it.

Mr. WILSON, (resuming.) I choose to go into no nice distinctions as to the meaning of the phrase "the people." I take the word as used in the Constitutions of the country, in the judicial

[May 18th.

decisions of the land. I take the word as used by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Marshall, Joseph Story, and other eminent statesmen and jurists of the republic, who have pronounced the "people" to be the "source and fountain of all legitimate authority."

Mr. LORD. I want the gentleman to say, does he agrce with the delegate for Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett,) in reference to this point? That is my question. He knows whether he does or not, and he will be kind enough to say.

Mr. WILSON. I am not given to nice metaphysical distinctions. I choose not to go into this very minute analysis as to the exact meaning of the phrase. I leave that to the gentleman from Salem. I am content to take it in its general acceptation. I accept it as it is used by the statesmen and jurists of the country.

I do not, Mr. President, regret the time consumed by this debate. It has been conducted with elainent ability, and I am quite sure we have more distinct views of the questions, so fully and ably discussed, which will not be lost to us. Opinions have been advanced by gentlemen, which, in my judgment are at war with the whole doctrine of popular sovereignty as defined in our constitutions, pronounced by our judicial tribunals, understood by our state-men, and practiced by our people since the sovereign power passed from England to the American people. The real, actual, living sovereignty of the people is not yet fully comprehended by some men of learning and talents. They regard it, as Mr. Calhoun regarded the Declaration of Independence, as "a rhetorical flourish." Our history is marked by what Mr. Madison calls the "little, ill-timed scruples," of men who "indulge under the mask of zeal for adhering to ordinary forms, their secret enmity to the substance contended for.”

Mr. President. The gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Choate,) in his brilliant speech the other day, which delighted us all so much, implored us to "spare the rust of the Constitution." I had. thought, Sir, that our free democratic institutions were to be ever new, bright, perennial! I had thought that these institutions were to be ever renewed by the popular intelligence, made to conform to the ever-advancing spirit of the ages, and to the wants of the living people? I had thought that the marked feature of our institutions was, that they were ever to be kept free from the "rust" of the ages, and to be imbued with the living, actual life of the people! I would not, Mr. President, allow the "rust" of the ages to gather upon our Constitution of government, but I would keep it as bright as when it came from the hands of the illustrious statesmen who framed it and of the people who breathed into it vitality and force.

The hour assigned for taking the vote upon the motion to reconsider having arrived,

Mr. BATES, of Plymouth, demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.

Mr. PARKER, of Cambridge. I would ask, Mr. President, whether it be in order to move, at this time, to lay the Orders of the Day upon the

table.

The PRESIDENT. The Convention having directed that the vote be taken at this hour, the Chair thinks the motion indicated by the gentle

man would not be in order.

Mr. PARKER. If I may be permitted, I will state why I made the inquiry. I desire the vote

Wednesday,]

to be deferred in order that I may introduce, in some shape, the opinion of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts; that the Convention may see whether the wording of this order is in accordance with that opinion.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will suggest, that in the present state of the question, the only motion that will reach the case, is a motion to postpone the taking of the question. If the gentleman will name a particular hour, the Chair will entertain the motion.

Mr. PARKER. I move then, Sir, to postpone the taking of the question until Friday next, at 4 o'clock.

Mr. KEYES, of Abington. I hope, Sir, the taking of the question will not be postponed. I regard this debate as being of no practical utility. I do not believe the decision of the question will have any effect whatever upon any election that may take place hereafter, or upon any question that may arise in reference to such election.

The information which it is proposed we shall obtain, may be obtained, and be of just as much value after the question has been decided, as before. A considerable time has been taken up already with this debate, which practically speaking, has been wholly unimportant. It appears to me, that it has extended quite as far as is necessary. It might be continued from day to day for a month, and every delegate would find something to say upon it. I, myself, could make a speech of considerable length, but I take it is quite unnecessary to open the debate again, for the purpose of getting the opinion of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, which we can lay our hands upon at any moment, if we do, it may occupy two or three weeks yet. I can see no necessity for it whatever, and I hope the taking of the question will not be postponed.

Mr. CADY, of Monson, remarked, that if he could be made to believe that this order did not transcend the authority of the Convention, he would have no objection to its adoption; but with his present impression that it did transcend the order that came from the proper authority, that is from the people, he should be compelled to vote for reconsideration.

Mr. PARKER, of Cambridge. If gentlemen suppose that I made the motion to postpone with the view of giving opportunity for debate, they are mistaken. I understand, though I have not his authority for it, that the gentleman from Lowell, (Mr. Butler,) wishes to get the floor, and it was with the view of accommodating him as much as anything else, that I made the motion.

Mr. BUTLER, of Lowell. As I have been alluded to as being desirous of addressing the Convention, I will simply say, that parliamentary usage and courtesy would have given me the right to close this debate upon a proposition originally mine; and I had intended to be heard upon this great question, at such fitting time as seemed best to the Convention. But, Sir, private engagements have called me away, so that I have lost the opportunity, and I shall not now at this late hour ask the privilege of addressing the Convention in reference to it. In order to save the time, I waive my right to be heard at present. I cannot agree not to postpone the taking of the question, however, for one of the reasons given by my friend from Abington, (Mr. Keyes,) that is, on the ground that this debate is of no practical consequence. I think it is of consequence; it gives

every man an opportunity to show his colors; to let us know on which side he is, whether he is on the side of the people, or whether he sails under an adverse flag; whether he be found encrusted with the rust of conservatism. I cannot agree with my friend from Abington, that this is not a practical question; I think it is practical. At another time, and upon another branch of the subject, I may have an opportunity to be heard, and the gentleman from Cambridge, and all gentlemen who wish, will have an opportunity to be heard.

The question being taken, the motion to postpone was decided in the negative.

Mr. SCHOULER, of Boston. I will move, Sir, to postpone the taking of the vote upon this question until six o'clock, this afternoon, in order to give the gentleman from Natick, (Mr. Wilson,) an opportunity to finish his remarks. If we take the question now, we shall have no other business before us to fill up the remainder of the day, and as we have commenced this discussion, why not continue it to the close of this day's sitting, so that we may come to a satisfactory conclusion. I do not intend myself to make a speech, or define my position. I consider that the question, “Who are the people," is one that has been sufficiently debated. It has been answered in various ways, and I do not choose to discuss it farther.

Now, Sir, if we postpone the taking of the question until six o'clock the gentleman from Natick will be enabled to finish his speech. I know that his innate modesty, which is apparent from the blush upon his check, will prevent him from asking the privilege for himself

[Mr. WILSON, of Natick. Not at all, Sir.] If, after that, no one else wishes to address the Convention, I myself will endeavor to fill up the time.

Let us talk until six o'clock. I move that it be postponed until that hour.

Mr. HOOD, of Lynn, said that it would give him great pleasure to hear the gentleman from Natick continue his speech, but he hoped the taking of the question would not be postponed.

Mr. WILSON, of Natick. I assure my friend from Boston and my friend from Lynn that I do not wish to address the Convention any further. I had intended originally to occupy about forty minutes, but I will not trespass upon their time any further at present.

Mr. HOOD, of Lynn. I hope that the taking of the question will not be postponed until six o'clock, because, before that hour a large number of the members of the Convention will have gone home, and it is desirable that every vote should be recorded. The subject has been thoroughly discussed and must be perfectly understood by every member.

Mr. GRAY, of Boston. I would suggest to the Convention, whether the better way of closing the debate would not be, rather by moving the previous question than by fixing a specific time for taking a vote. This mode of postponing the question and fixing a time for taking the vote, is, I am aware, practised in the House of Representatives in this State, but it appears to me that the mode I have indicated is preferable. I have always entertained the belief that questions of order, though merely technical, are, in fact, important to the minority. I hope, however, the Convention will assign a later time than the present for taking the question.

Mr. BATES, of Plymouth, said he hoped the

[May 18th.

question would be taken now. He could easily conceive, that it would be very convenient to stave off the question until many gentlemen had gone away. If it was important that the town of Berlin should be represented in this Convention, it was important that this question should be decided promptly.

Mr. SCHOULER, of Boston, remarked, that the Convention had already spent nearly twentyfive minutes in discussing whether they would take the question at four o'clock or not; and if the gentleman from Plymouth, supposed that by such remarks as he had just made he could gag members of this Convention

The PRESIDENT. It is not proper for the gentleman to make reflections of that kind.

Mr. SCHOULER, (continuing.) Sir, the gentleman cast a reflection upon me when he intimated that I made this motion for the purpose of postponing the taking of the question until gentlemen had retired. I made the motion for no such purpose. I would ask the gentleman from Lynn, at what time the cars leave for that place? He ought to be here at the taking of the vote. Mr. HOOD, of Lynn. Does the gentleman wish me to answer his question ?

Mr. SCHOULER. No, Sir; it is not important.

Mr. HOOD. I will inform the gentleman. I have staid here every day since the Convention met, until the close of the proceedings, and have gone home in the train which leaves at seven o'clock.

Mr. SCHOULER. I hope, Sir, the gentleman's constituents will appreciate the eminent services he has rendered, and honor him accordingly. But I trust that members will not tie themselves to the time of the railroad, but that they will remain and attend to their duties in the Convention. If there are those who prefer to go home rather than do this, let the people know it. For my own part, I came into the Convention for the purpose of doing what I believe to be right, whether my party coincide with me or not. I am not to be turned aside from the performance of that duty, however I may differ from other gentlemen. I do not go for a Constitution with "rust" upon it, but for one that is up to the mark-one that is suited to the living age.

Mr. Schouler concluded, by saying that he did not approve of the order that had been adopted by the Convention, and when the question recurred upon it, if it did recur, he should vote "Nay." He merely threw out the suggestion because it had been intimated that the motion which he had made had been made from improper motives, and he desired to repudiate such an imputation.

The question was then taken on Mr. Schouler's motion to postpone the taking of the vote until six o'clock, and it was, without a division, decided in the negative.

Mr. DANA, of Manchester, called for the reading of the order of notice to the town of Berlin. It was read by the Secretary.

The question upon the motion to reconsider the vote by which the said order of notice was adopted, was then taken by yeas and nays, as follows: Suffolk County.

Thursday,]

Benjamin F. Copeland, Ezra Wilkinson. George White,

ABSENT.

Total-Yeas 118, Nays 220, Absent 80.

The next item on the order of business being a Report from the Committee on Vacancies, declaring it to be inexpedient to take action at the present time, was taken up.

The Report having been read, it was agreed to. The Report of the Committee on the Frame of Government, recommending that the name "Commonwealth of Massachusetts" be retained, was also adopted.

Mr. FROTIIINGHAM, of Charlestown, suggested that there were two vacancies in the representation of the city of Boston, and inquired whether it would be necessary for the Convention to take any action in reference to those vacancies.

The PRESIDENT replied that it would be proper to direct the Secretary of the Convention to give notice of such vacancy.

Mr. FROTHINGHAM moved that the Secretary be directed to notify Boston in regard to the existing vacancies, in the same form as that prescribed for the town of Be.lin.

Mr. BUTLER, of Lowell, moved to amend the motion of the gentleman from Charlestown, so that the instruction to the Secretary should apply to all cases where vacancies may hereafter occur. Mr. FROTHINGHAM accepted the amendment, and the motion, as amended, was agreed to. On motion of Mr. FRENCH, the Convention, at half-past five o'clock, adjourned.

THURSDAY, May 19th, 1853.

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment, and was called to order at three o'clock. Prayer by the Chaplain.

The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

Delegates.

ELIJAH S. DEMING, of Sheffield, and WILLIAM STUTSON, of Sandwich, presented their credentials from the selectmen of their respective towns, as delegates to the Convention, and took their seats.

Petitions.

Mr. BUTLER, of Lowell, presented the petitions of Benjamin K. Brown, et al, citizens of Watertown; of Solomon Howe, et al., of Ware; and of B. G. Veazie, et al., of Randolph, severally in aid of the petition of John W. LeBarnes and others.

Orders.

The following orders were adopted:
On motion by Mr. CHURCHILL, of Milton,

Ordered, That the Committee to whom was referred so much of the Constitution as relates to the Qualifications of Voters, be instructed to inquire into the expediency of so amending the Constitution as to provide that no person, who shall make, or become directly or indirectly interested in any bet or wager depending upon the result of any election, shall have a right to vote at such election, or be qualified to hold any office for which he shall be a candidate at such election.

Ordered, That the same Committee consider the expediency of excluding from the right of suf

[May 19th.

frage, and the right to hold any office of profit or trust, all persons who may be convicted of bribery larceny, or any infamous crime; all persons who forcibly, or by promises of reward, shall attempt to induce any voter to refrain from casting his vote, or shall attempt, in either of such ways, to procure votes for any candidate for office at any election hereafter to be held in this State; and all persons who shall give, or cause to be given, any illegal vote, knowing it to be such, at any election to be held in this State.

On motion by Mr. LOTHROP, of Boston,

Ordered, That the Committee, to whom was referred so much of the Constitution as relates to Harvard College, inquire whether there are any reasons for having the members of the corporation of that college chosen by the legislature, which do not appertain in principle to the two other Colleges in the Commonwealth; and whether it would not be expedient to provide that the members of the Boards of Trustees of these two other Colleges, should also be chosen by the legislature, and that no one religious denomination, and no one political party, should have a majority in either of those Boards.

Ordered, That the same Committee inquire how much of the present property and available instrumentalities of education, possessed by Harvard College, may be traced to direct grants from the legislature, and how much has been received from private donations and benefactions; and to what extent, comparatively, in this respect, Harvard College differs from the two other Colleges in the Commonwealth.

Ordered, That the same Committee consider the expediency of providing for the separation of all the Colleges, now established in the Commonwealth, from any direct connection with the State, so that the legislature shall not clect all or any of the members of any of their Board of Corporation, Trustees, or Overseers, and so that those institutions shall only be so far connected with the State, as to be subject to the same general laws, duties, liabilities and penalties that attach to all other corporate franchises.

Ordered, That the same Committee consider whether it be expedient or practicable to provide that Harvard College, and all other Colleges now existing, or that may hereafter be established in this Commonwealth, shall be so incorporated with the general system of Public Instruction, through Primary, Grammar and High Schools, now sustained by the State, as that the annual expenses of these Colleges, so far as those expenses exceed the income of the funds and endowments now possessed and held by them, shall be met by a general tax, and by such appropriations as the legislature may see fit from time to time to make-and that every male child throughout the Commonwealth, who, upon examination, shall be found duly qualified, shall be at liberty, at any time between the ages of 14 and 21 years, to enter either of these Colleges, and enjoy their advantages and receive their honors or degrees, without any charge for tuition, lectures, use of library, College-rooms or text books.

On motion by Mr. THOMPSON, of Charlestown,

Ordered, That the Committee on the House of Representatives, consider the expediency of providing, that the House consist of two hundred and eighty members, based upon ratable polls, to be elected in single districts, composed of contiguous territory, and of as nearly equal number of ratable polls as is practicable.

On motion by Mr. BUTLER, of Lowell,

Ordered, That the Secretary of the Commonwealth be requested to furnish for the use of the Convention, a table containing the names of all the cities and towns in the Commonwealth, ranged