Tuesday,]

[June 28th.

deed to all amendments which have been offered to the original Report. And I would say to the gentleman from Cambridge, (Mr. Sargent,) that I am not sorry that this question has come up for discussion at this time, for I am ready to discuss this question independently and by itself, as I am every other question, upon its own merits. I have no fear that there will be any injustice done to any other question which can have any bearing upon this. Sir, if this were a new question, if this credit of the State never had been loaned in any case, I for one would take a different position from what I shall now take. I should have contended at the outset that under no circumstances should the credit of the State be loaned, without the question being first submitted to the action of the people. But the case is now different, and the question is not an open one, as the credit of the State has been loaned, and repeatedly loaned, and thus far successfully. Now gentlemen come forward and propose and desire to put a provision into the Constitution, that shall put a stop to this policy, and cut off the loaning of the State credit. But these very gentlemen would put in a saving clause, by which the operation of the provision should go into effect so far in the future as to accommodate a particular project, as I understand it, to which, in my opinion, if the State credit can be safely loaned, it can be safely done in any case which may hereafter arise. If we leave the principle open to projects which have already been proposed and advocated, I see no reason why we should not leave it open hereafter to every case that may arise, for I can conceive no project which will ever be started that can present more risk than this to which gentlemen refer.

Now, Sir, in relation to this question, I wish to say in the outset, that I have no hostility to it, though I do not know that I am an advocate of it. I have not examined it to an extent sufficient to enable me to judge whether the scheme is practicable and plausible or not. But I say this, that if a case can be made out as favorable to loaning the State credit to that undertaking, showing it to be safe to do so, then I go for letting the State assist that project as well as others. I believe, if I know the feeling of the people of the section of country from which I come, they have no prejudices and jealousies upon the subject, and they are willing that it should receive the same aid that other projects receive. I see no reason why we should make this project an exception, or why we should put it into the Constitution at all. I say leave it out, and accept the Report of the Committee, and let that project stand upon its own merits, and leave the legislature to judge and vote in relation to it, as upon any other case which

may be presented to them. For this reason, I shall vote against every proposition to amend, and in favor of the original Report.

Mr. KEYES, for Abington. I never expected to take a very active part in the discussion of this question, nor do I pretend to take a very lively interest in it one way or the other, though it appeared to me that it was one of that sort of questions which might require me to say something, because it is somewhat delicate in its nature, and I have never been in the habit of being alarmed by public opinion.

It seems to me, that there may be a few words said in relation to some representations which have been made upon this subject. In the first place, it will be borne in mind, that if the amendment offered by the gentleman from Braintree, (Mr. Stetson,) is adopted, it will not shut up the public treasury entirely against great public works. It simply puts upon the matter this restriction, that the question shall be left to the people to decide. Is there anything wild in that?

Now, this Convention have decided that the legislature, chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, are not fit to be trusted even with the simple question of their adjournment. It has been intimated here that they will either sit here day after day for two dollars pay per day, or else for the purpose of wrangling and quarrelling and debating, and using up time unnecessarily. If that is the character of the legislatures which are to be hereafter-and that is the character which this Convention has assumed that they will holdit seems to me, that it will not be very wild if we refuse to trust such a body with the unlimited wealth and property of the State. Therefore there is nothing alarming in the proposition itself.

Now, Sir, there are other things to be considered; and it strikes me, and I am firm in the faith, that were it not for the matter of the Hoosac Tunnel, some restriction would now be put into the Constitution upon the matter of loaning the State credit. The loan first made to the Western Railroad commenced, I believe, about the year 1836-7, and ended in 1841. Here was a great project, which was supposed to be beyond the reach and accomplishment of private corporations and individuals. It was an experiment, and an experiment which ought to have been tried. It was tried, and the object was accomplished. That was an experiment worthy of being tried, even had Massachusetts sunk every dollar of that loan. But so long as that object has once been accomplished, you do not want to try it again on the same ground. So long as the object was to open one avenue from the seaboard to the Hudson River, it was a project worthy the enterprise of

the whole people of the Commonwealth. But since it has been accomplished, you do not want another of the same kind effected, either by public or private means, until this great avenue ceased to be able to perform the work for which it was made. The arguments which were made in favor of the Western Railroad are not at all applicable to the Hoosac Tunnel. The one, I hold to be a great State project, and the other a local project. I do not propose, however, to go into a discussion of that subject at all; but I want to say, that the legislature, in consequence of granting that loan, found that many other corporations in the State came before them one after another, and by arguments drawn from that loan, succeeded in inducing the legislature to make other loans.

It is assumed on all hands here, that Massachusetts has never lost anything, and never will lose anything by these loans. How is it known? Scarcely one of those loans have been paid. We are not wholly out of the woods, and it is by no means entirely impossible that Massachusetts may lose a great deal by these corporations yet. I do not hold it entirely certain she may not. The stock of some of the railroads which have obtained the aid of State credit, has been worth almost nothing, and in the multiplication of railroads, and in view of their being affected by the various new internal improvements that have been projected, who knows but that, within the twenty-five years which are to elapse before the loans are to be paid, these roads may not fail altogether.

After the legislature stepped in, and made these loans, the railroad corporations from every quarter of the Commonwealth came pressing into the legislature for similar grants. The legislature saw that it had commenced a plan or system which it would be dangerous to carry out, and I ask if the people of Massachusetts did not accord with the design and purpose to put a stop to it? From 1841, if I am not mistaken, until the present time, the legislature has retused constantly to grant a loan of the State credit for these purposes, and I ask if the people of Massachusetts do not approve of that? To be sure, the legislature came very near granting the State credit to the amount of two millions of dollars at the last session of the legislature, and if it had been made, would it not have been the source of other applications and grants? Would it not have been the basis upon which to found arguments for repeating the same grants for other sections of the State? The argument in favor of this grant of the State credit to the Hoosac Tunnel, was founded upon the fact that the State of Massachusetts granted its credit to the Western Railroad. Such was the argument, and such its

[June 28th.

foundation. Had it not been for the prejudice against the Western Railroad, which was brought to bear upon the question, the Hoosac Tunnel claim would not have been half as successful as it was. When I had the honor of being one of the directors of that road, I recommended to its directors to say nothing about the Hoosac Tunnel, and to keep its attorneys and agents out of the State House. I told them not to lift a hand, if they did not want the Hoosac Tunnel loan to be carried. I saw that the prejudice against that Western Railroad was the chief capital for the Hoosac Tunnel. In relation to buying friends by a liberal distribution of tickets, that corporation has never been considered as very liberal, but has had a reputation directly the other way. Along its line I found that its enemies exist in great numbers, on account of the manner in which it conducted its affairs.

But it strikes me that, over and beyond all this, there is another subject which should be considered, and that is, the influence, growing out of attempts to obtain State loans, which is brought to bear upon the legislature, not only in regard to the loan claimed, but in regard to all other subjects. When a corporation wants one or two millions of State money, we all know what inducement there is to use all attainable means, whether proper or improper, to accomplish that end. And how do such influences affect the legislature here, not only upon the question at issue, but upon all other subjects of legislation? For the first time, perhaps, a man comes to the legislature from some distant quarter of the State, whose constituents have some project which they expect him to carry through. It may be one so reasonable and so just, that there would be no difficulty in carrying it. But he is timid and doubtful, and wishes to recommend himself to his constituents by his success, and the friends of some great project, which is to plunder the treasury out of some one or two millions of dollars, finding him in such a position, come to him and say, "You want to carry your project?" "Yes, Sir." "Well, you vote for our great project, and we will put yours through." In this way bargains are made in the legislature, and in this way, I believe, many of the members of the legislature are pledged to vote for those great projects before they hear an argument in favor of them, and before there is any necessity for pledging themselves, even as a means of promoting their own ends; and thus, when the discussion arises afterwards, they are not in a condition to be influenced either by truth, justice, or anything else. I do not allude particularly to the Tunnel matter at this time, but to other projects which

Tuesday,]

[June 28th.

are urged and hurried through the legislature by this species of log-rolling. But from the time the Hoosac Tunnel project was first brought before the legislature, it has been amazing to witness the increased corruption of that body, not only in regard to that special measure, but to other matters which the people know nothing about. Now, Sir, how did this matter, which came so near passing at the last session, differ from the Ogdensburg and Vermont Central railroads? What reason had we to believe that the latter would not be just as likely to pour wealth into Boston, and to be as profitable an investment as this Hoosac Tunnel project? I ask, if these two corporations, which contemplated opening a communication between Lake Ontario and the city of Boston, could not, on the ground of the very same arguments which have been used in favor of the Hoosac Tunnel, have claimed the aid of the State credit, with as much force as the Tunnel?

Sir, the gentleman from Natick, (Mr. Wilson,) stated that this Western Railroad Corporation had vindicated its character, and stood before the public, fully justifying all the reasons on which its application was founded when these grants were made. Now, Sir, I do not understand that to be the universal opinion, by any means. If I understand it, the arguments of the friends of the Hoosac project are based upon the ground, that the Western railroad has utterly failed to accomplish the objects for which it was constructed, and therefore another great avenue must be opened to do the business which that road has utterly failed to perform. If that is not so, what are the arguments in favor of the new avenue? None at all, Sir.

They are based entirely upon the ground that another avenue is wanted in order to conduct the trade and produce of the Western States to the city of Boston. In my opinion, it is perfectly absurd in that view-supposing the argument is good for anything under any circumstances. If the Western Railroad has done what it pretended it would do when it asked the loan of the State credit, that is sufficient, and we do not want any more answers, but if it has failed to accomplish that object, then the argument, based on the wisdom and propriety of the grant to that road, falls to the ground, and there is no other which can be adduced.

Now, Sir, allusion has been made to other States. I care but little about the example of the Western States or of the Southern States. I think they are not in the habit of setting examples which it would be well for us to follow, but I think we may place some reliance upon the provisions of the Constitutions of those States

which have grown out of their experience and misfortunes. I know that Mississippi and Michigan, and several other States have placed provisions in their Constitutions forbidding their legislatures to loan the credit of their States to private corporations, and what did they do it for? It was because, before these restrictions were placed in those Constitutions, the States had become absolutely beggared by State loans, or what is about the same thing, State expenditures for internal improvements. It was because the credit of these States had become a by-word, and a sneer to the whole world in consequence of the acts of their legislatures in loaning their credit. They have placed these provisions in their Constitutions because their experience taught them that their safety and security depended upon it, and it seems to me, it would not be very unwise if we should allow their experience to admonish us.

Sir, I dislike very much to appear as the opponent of any project like that of the Hoosac Tunnel. Some very good friends of mine are very warmly interested in the success of that project. Sir, I am not opposed to the accomplishment of that work. I should be glad to see it completed, for I believe some good may be accomplished by it. But it has never been my habit or custom in places like this, to forbear saying what I believe in regard to subjects of this character, because it will have any effect to prejudice the interests of any party or section of the Commonwealth. But I think the gentleman from Williamstown, (Mr. Duncan,) in his remarks upon this subject, has not assisted that project at all, nor has he done any credit to the people of his section by intimating that they will oppose the new Constitution provided their wishes in regard to the Tunnel are not complied with. I do not know whether these things operate upon others as they do upon me ; but when I answered a question the other day, by saying, that because one large party-who did not oppose the calling of a Convention, but denied the power of the people to call a Convention-I went for it. That was one of my reasons, and that was enough in itself. And when it was stated that the military of the State, five thousand in number, proposed to vote against the Constitution which we shall make, if we did not set the feathers higher than any thing else, I would have voted to kick them out of the Constitution alto

gether for that very reason. [Laughter.] And now, if gentlemen in favor of the Tunnel project cannot vote for the Constitution because we cannot approve of their project, I would say to them, "If that is the case, you may go through the Tunnel if you please." But I think the Tunnel people need not be at all alarmed. I have no

power or wish to oppose the Tunnel, against what I believe will be the action of this Convention, although I trust that if we are not to oppose the project by the action of the Convention we shall not endorse it directly, as the amendment of the gentleman from Sudbury, (Mr. Hurlbut,) would do if adopted.

I hope we shall not give the friends of the tunnel project cause, when they come into the legislature next winter, for saying that this Convention, representing some of the talent and all the people of Massachusetts, favored it, and opened the door by which they might enter into the public treasury. I would not do anything here improperly to influence the legislature to be chosen hereafter, for or against it. But I think the friends of the Tunnel need not be at all alarmed, for, if what they say of the general popularity of this measure be true, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Braintree, if adopted by the Convention, will materially aid them.

They appear to be perfectly convinced that a large majority of the people of Massachusetts are anxious that the credit of the State should be granted to the Tunnel project. Now, if the assertion be true, I have no doubt that a bill, submitting the question to the people, would go through the legislature with a great deal less trouble, and one quarter the expense, that it would require to put it through, if the legislature were to settle the question definitely themselves, because there is a tendency upon the part of the members of the legislature, as well as upon the part of members of this Convention, to throw the burthen of responsibility from their shoulders, upon the broad shoulders of the people, and there may be many men would vote for a bill submitting the project to the people, who would not vote for it if they were to bear the responsibility themselves.

As I said before, I sometimes make prophecies, and I would now prophecy that the best method, the easiest and most facile way of obtaining the loan of the State credit for the Tunnel project, would be to put this provision, submitted by the gentleman from Braintree, into the Constitution, and then for the legislature to pass an act referring the ultimate decision of the question to the people; for I can tell those gentlemen, that though they represent an important section of the State, and although they represent a great many small towns which are going to be pretty well represented in the legislature hereafter; yet, if it is intimated that their friendship or their hostility to the Constitution which we shall adopt, is going to grow out of the favorable or unfavorable action of the Convention towards their favorite project, I do not believe they will gain any friends by it,

[June 28th.

but I believe that the open hostility which they will incur by such a course, will be perfectly and completely fatal to them. Let them pursue a liberal course towards this Convention and Constitution, and my word for it, the people will meet them with equal frankness and the same liberality.

These are the views which I entertain upon the subject. I shall vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Braintree. I think it is safe; I think it is wise, and so far as the legislation of the Commonwealth for the future is concerned, I think it is eminently proper. In these days of railroads and rapid inter-communication among the people, when the remotest corners of the State are placed within a few hours reach of this capitol, I think our repesentatives need protection, and their authority needs limitation. I think every guard should be thrown around them which it is possible to throw around them. The temptations are yearly becoming greater in number and in magnitude, and it will, ere long, become as impossible, unless some check be placed upon them, to obtain justice without paying for it more than it is worth, as it is now in the congress of the United States.

These considerations have induced me to adopt the conclusion to which I have come. I have lived in the railroad cars somewhat for the last year, and I have seen a great many of the people of Massachusetts. Something has been said about what the people expect of this Convention in regard to the various subjects which have been placed before us. Well, Sir, I will give it as my opinion, that the people expect that some check shall be placed upon the power of the legislature to loan the credit of the State. The legislature has kept as clear of these matters as possible.. They have held off as long as possible, but now, when they are about to be overwhelmed, this Convention is called. The people come to their rescue, and I believe that it is in accordance with the wishes of the people, that this protection or guard should be thrown around them. I would not restrict the legislature where it is not necessary for its own and the public good. I have. voted against such restriction in every case. I have some confidence in that body, but it is not precisely confidence that we want. We want safety. They want to be protected from the hundreds of claims and petitions which they have no arguments in their own minds to oppose; and when we throw this shield around them, they will sit with much more satisfaction and ease in their seats than they otherwise would.

I do not know but I should make a break down if I were to undertake to make an apology to the

Tuesday,]

[June 28th.

friends of the Tunnel, as I am not much in the habit of making apologies. Yet, I am constrained to say, that I have no word to oppose to them. I like the small towns and the people who live in them, and I do not feel that I could take their property, or their credit, and appropriate it for the benefit of a corporation. If I could do something for their great project—and it is worth something for its very grandeur-I would do it, and it is with no feelings of hostility to it that I have made the remarks which I have.

Mr. HILLARD, of Boston. I think it is obvious, from the tenor of this discussion, that many gentlemen are inclined to look at this question through the telescope of the Hoosac Tunnel. But I submit that we want more light, and a wider horizon than such a point of view affords. Now, I happen to be one of that small minority who have no opinions at all about Hoosac, any more than I have who were the men that built "Stone Henge" or what tune the "Syrens sang to Ulysses." I have carefully barred the doors of my mind against all arguments for or against the Hoosac Tunnel project. I have studiously avoided reading any thing that has been written upon one side or the other of the question, and therefore, so far as this project is concerned, I am in a state of absolute indifference.

Then what is it that we propose to do, in rejecting the Report? We propose to give away a portion of the natural sovereignty of the State of Massachusetts. We propose to surrender a portion of that sovereignty which is, and ever has been, devolved upon everything like a sovereign State-I mean the power of lending its credit in aid of enterprises which have for their object the prosperity and welfare of the whole community. And what is the argument upon which this proposition to surrender, rests? It is an argument drawn against the use of this power from its liability to abuse. Well, Sir, suppose you extended that consideration to all the business of life, what would be the result? The world would absolutely come to an end. No man would send his ship to sea because it might be wrecked. No man would give a promissory note in his business, because when it should become due he might not be able to pay it. No man, in short, would ever go into water until he had learned to swim. By imposing this restriction upon the future legislatures of the State, we assume the spirit of prophecy, and suppose that we who sit here to-day, are better able to judge of the exigencies that may arise ten or fifteen years hence, and are better able to apply the principles of wisdom and expediency, than the men into whose hands the government of the State will then be intrusted. I think that

the gentleman from Natick, (Mr. Wilson,) gave the doctrine of the true political church.

He said, that he would leave the power in the hands of the sovereignty, but would exercise the greatest caution in the use of it. Now the history of this restriction is curious. It illustrates two things. It illustrates the tendency of the human mind to seek right in reverse of wrong, and it illustrates the tendency of the American mind to rush from one extreme to the other. New York, while smarting under the evils produced by an abuse of this system, in granting the aid of the State to private corporations, also felt powerfully the contagion of the example of Pennsylvania, where the same evil was felt in a greater degree, and under that pressure she incorporated into her Constitution a restrictive clause. New York being so great a State, naturally served as an example to the States which followed in her path, and, therefore, they, one after the other, I suppose without much reflection, incorporated into their Constitutions the same clause. I suppose that the Constitutions which have been formed since 1846, have adopted that restriction. What has been the result? The State of New York has felt the inconvenience of that policy so severely, that since this Convention has been in session there has been a law introduced into the legislature to amend the Constitution, which passed both branches unanimously, I believe, with the exception of a single dissenting voice in the Senate. So take the State of Michigan. I understand, that in consequence of the restriction in her Constitution, she has found very great inconvenience in her inability to give the aid of the State to a most excellent scheme of internal improvements, and the result has been, that the congress of the United States has granted aid to a private corporation to enable them to do that very thing which Michigan wanted to do. If I am wrong, my friend who represents Marshfield, (Mr. Sumner,) will correct me. We see what are the results of a measure made under the pressure of temporary inconvenience, and which looks forward to a long period. I submit for the consideration of the Committee, that the temptation which led Pennsylvania and New York to overdo this matter, does not exist in Massachusetts. What was the cause of this over-issue of the State credit in Pennsylvania? It arose from her remarkable material resources, from her remarkable mineral wealth, which it was very important to bring to the sea-coast in order to be distributed to other parts of the country. What was the case in New York? That great State, touching on one side upon the great Western Lakes, and having at the other end the greatest commercial metropolis of