The question recurred upon the adoption of the resolve. Mr. SPOONER, of Warwick. I move to strike out the words "three dollars" and insert "two dollars and fifty cents." Much has been said, Mr. President, about the great sacrifices and inconveniences which gentlemen have suffered in coming here to represent the interests of the State. But, Sir, it is my opinion that there are not one-eighth of the gentlemen in this House who suffer to the extent of one dollar in their interests at home, or anywhere else, by coming here and receiving their per diem, but on the contrary, I believe they are making money by it. [A laugh.] Here is my honorable friend on my right, who represents Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett,) who is engaged in his ordinary duties of an officer of the United States, but, Sir, I do not believe the United States has suffered in the least from his attendance in this place. I will not consume the time in further remarks, however; I merely offer my amendment as a compromise, and I hope it will be adopted. Mr. EAMES, of Washington, moved that the Convention adjourn. The motion was not agreed to. The question was then taken on the amendment of the gentleman from Warwick, and it was decided in the negative. Mr. TYLER, of Pawtucket moved that the Convention adjourn. The motion did not prevail. Mr. THOMPSON, of Charlestown. I would ask if it is competent to withdraw the motion to take the question on the final passage of the resolution by yeas and nays? The PRESIDENT. If no objection be made, [June 29th. the gentleman can withdraw his motion for the yeas and nays. There being no objection, Mr. Thompson withdrew his motion. The question was then taken upon the final passage of the resolution as amended, and it was decided in the affirmative. So the resolution was adopted. On motion by Mr. FAY, of Southborough, the Convention then, at ten minutes past six, adjourned. WEDNESDAY, June 29, 1853. The Convention assembled at 9 o'clock, and was called to order by the President. Prayer by the Chaplain. The Journal of yesterday was read. On motion by Mr. BREED, of Lynn, the Convention proceeded to the consideration of the Orders of the Day. The first item in the Orders of the Day, was the resolve reported by the Committee on the House of Representatives, with the amendment offered by Mr. Butler, of Lowell, and recommended by the Committee of the Whole-the pending question being upon the amendment to the amendment, offered by the member from Northampton, (Mr. Huntington.) Mr. HUNTINGTON, of Northampton. When I made the motion, Sir, to strike out "one thousand" and insert "twelve hundred " inhabitants as the basis for annual representation, it seemed to me that it might bring the action of the House to some direct test, upon the question whether we should give the towns below twelve hundred in population, a full representation, or exclude them. It has occurred to me, however, upon further reflection, that the object will not be attained by this motion. Those who are in favor of a higher number than twelve hundred, and yet who would prefer twelve hundred to a thousand, would now vote against the basis of twelve hundred, because they prefer a higher basis. If presenting this amendment would secure a test vote, I should feel disposed to urge it. But it has seemed to me, upon the whole, that it may be proper and advisable to withdraw it, until gentlemen have had an opportunity to test the sense of the Convention on the higher numbers. There are schemes to take fifteen hundred as the basisthere are schemes ranging from fifteen hundred to two thousand, and from one thousand up to three thousand, as proposed by the member from Boston. By the common parliamentary rule, the question should be taken upon the highest number first; and perhaps fairness would require, that this amendment should now be withdrawn, unless it can be taken as a test question. We have reached a certain stage, upon this great question of representation, but the matter is yet open for amendment. To my mind, there are two great evils attending the present system. The first is the general ticket system, which has always been extremely obnoxious to me. We see the operation of it in regard to the city of Boston. Here there are forty-four representatives, elected by general ticket-no matter what party they represent, for I am not speaking with reference to party. In the future, we do not know what party is to prevail; in fact, judging from the vote last fall for President, it is not the whig party, at any rate. I say that there is an unfairness, standing out palpably in the general ticket system, where there is so great an inequality as exists between the city of Boston and all the other cities and towns in the Commonwealth. Where there is anything like an equal division of parties in the Commonwealth, forty-four men coming into the legislature, by general ticket, from one city, can control every political question, from the election of a United States Senator down. That is one great objection, in my mind, to the present general ticket system. Another great objection is, the operation of the amendment of the Constitution in 1840, as to representation upon the small towns. Not that the amendment of 1840 in itself unjust-not at all; but the operation of that amendment upon the small towns has been entirely unexpected, both by the inhabitants of the large and the small [June 29th. towns. By the rapid growth of the cities and large towns, the representation from the large towns has retained its strength, while the small towns have lost in their ratio. The basis of full representation has advanced from twelve hundred up to about sixteen hundred, more or less, and thus the small towns have dropped behind in the race. They have lost a portion of their representation; and we all wish to redress that wrong. Now, how is it proposed to remedy these two evils? We have gone so far as to decide not only that the general ticket system is a bad one, but that it is proper that the State should be districted to some extent. So far as the vote went yesterday afternoon, it decided that the districting system is to be applied to the cities. Another step has been taken. It has been decided that towns containing less than one thousand inhabitants, are not to have a full representation; but it has not been decided that a still higher number than one thousand should not be adopted. Another thing has been decided. It has been decided that a system of representation for every town in the Commonwealth, every year, is not a just system, in the opinion of this Convention. So far we have advanced, and perhaps we have gone one step farther, and that is, to reject the plan of districting the whole Commonwealth. Some gentlemen say that has not been fairly tested; if it has not, I hope it will be. But, in my opinion, the sense of this Convention is, that the people are not ready for a full district system, especially a district system based upon population and mere numerical equality, for every district. And, Sir, if a district system ever is adopted in this Commonwealth, I think it will be with a different basis in the different districts-one basis for the cities and large towns, and a smaller basis of representation for the smaller towns. If we have such a feature as that, in my opinion, there is no great objection to the district system. I did not come here with my mind made up as to town representation or district representation. I can see good and evil in both systems; both can be attacked, and both can be defended. I came here in the spirit of the document which was put forth by the friends of this Convention, a majority of the legislature of 1852; and by that, no particular preference was expressed for town representation over the district system. Let me say, further, that by that document, the idea was not even shadowed, that towns containing less than twelve hundred inhabitants, were to be entitled to a representative every year. What was complained of, then, by the majority of the legislature friendly to this Convention? It was the unjust and unexpected operation of the amendment of 1840, tending to disfranchise the small towns. Not, that in itself it was wrong, or that it was wrong at the time when it was adopted. There was no intimation that the basis of annual representation was to be depressed below twelve hundred. That document alludes to both systems-the district system and the town system, and no great preference is expressed for one or the other. I read from it : "The first subject which would demand the attention of the Convention is, a change in our present system of representation. The present constitutional provisions on this subject, though complicated, are ingenious, and though they have been the source of much complaint during the last few years," [mark these words,] "yet the practical working of the system has been much better, thus far, than it is likely to be if continued in future. But however light, comparatively speaking, may have been the evil hitherto, ten years' experience under it, coupled with a knowledge of its future operation as now established by official facts and calculations, can leave no doubt, &c., that some change is absolutely necessary." Again : "Whether this most desirable result can be best accomplished by dividing the State into single districts based upon the number of people, of legal voters, or of ratable polls, or whether corporate or town representation under which the people of the Commonwealth have so long lived and prospered, and for which there unquestionably exists a strong attachment-it is not the province of the legislature to say." I do not think any member of this Convention has the right to say that one system is more democratic than another. I have no doubt that if the basis of representation was fixed altogether on the district system, it would operate with some inconvenience for a time; but I think the people would flourish as well under that system as under any other, when they should have accommodated themselves to it. I have a preference for the town system on some accounts, if we can get a system which shall be tolerably fair, without conflicting too much with the habits and feelings, or if you please, with the prejudices of the people. I do not place any stress upon the past history of the Commonwealth in regard to this matter; the habiliments of the child are not the habili ments of the grown man. I care not whether by the colonial history of the Commonwealth it is shown that the district system or the town system prevailed. I believe it has been a corporate right long enough to establish it in the feelings or the prejudices of the people of this Commonwealth. It is a corporate right, and the Consti [June 29th. tution recognizes it as such. The right to be represented does not exist in the people of the Commonwealth independently of this corporate right. That doctrine has been established by the supreme court of this Commonwealth. The question was raised of the right of a town to vote not to send a representative; and it was argued, that a town could not vote not to send, because, according to the Constitution, the right existed in the people, and not in the town. The Constitution, it was argued, declared that the people shall have a right to be represented. The answer of the supreme court was, that this right to be represented, by the Constitution, was a corporate right, and not a right of the people, independent of their municipal institutions. That is the doctrine in this Commonwealth. It may be changed, I admit; and we have settled it, as I conceive, that this corporate right, to some extent, shall continue. What is the next thing to be done? Well, Sir, by the amendment of the gentleman from Lowell, the basis of annual representation is changed from that established in 1840; it is changed from twelve hundred to one thousand. He proposes that all towns having one thousand inhabitants, shall have a representative every year. Now, Sir, can any one man tell me why a town of one thousand people should have a representative every year, and why a town containing five hundred inhabitants should not? If you take a standard below twelve hundred, can any good and valid reason be assigned for making this distinction in favor of a town of one thousand inhabitants, while you refuse to admit a town of nine hundred to the same privilege? I cannot see any such reason; and therefore I can see a degree of justice, or less injustice, in the plan of the gentleman for Erving, which I cannot find in the plan of the gentleman from Lowell, in this respect, because while it admits every town in the Commonwealth to a representation every year, it also adopts the general ticket system, which is a compensating advantage given to the large towns and the cities, and one wrong is neutralized by another. And if I were compelled now to vote, and choose between these two systems alone, that of the gentleman for Erving, and that of the gentleman from Lowell, I should give my vote for that proposed by the gentleman for Erving, unjust as I think it is. My amendment proposes to take twelve hundred as the basis; it can be defended by good, substantial reasons. I go to the Constitution as it was amended in 1840; and what is the history of the basis which was adopted at that time? That amendment was, that a town of twelve hundred inhabitants should be entitled to a representative [June 29th. against that compact or compromise of 1840; and the senatorial basis entered into that compromise. Now, Sir, there has been no retrograde movement in relation to the basis of the Senate in this Convention. The avowed movement is certainly the other way. The Senate is to become the popular branch, and the House is to become the conservative department it is said, which seems to be a perversion of all theory and practice, and ali constitutional doctrine. At any rate there is no advance proposed by this Convention towards a more conservative or property foundation in constituting the basis of the Senate. every year, but that no town below twelve hundred should be thus entitled. That, Sir, was the result of a compromise. At the time when that was adopted, the question of the property basis in the Senate was before the people; and there were friends of the property basis in the Senate who belonged to the legislatures that passed that amendment. There were also the friends of a large House, and there were those who were in favor of reducing the number, which was very great at that time. Committees embracing these different interests and opinions were constituted, and the result was the amendment now standing in our Constitution, that towns containing twelve hundred inhabitants should be entitled to a representative every year, and all others below proportionately. And, Sir, from the earliest history of the Commonwealth down to the present time, there has been this distinction in relation to small towns. The doctrine has always been recognized that the smallest towns were not entitled to a representative every year, with the compensating principle of the general ticket. The amendment of 1837, which had been adopted but recently, did not stand, because the House was rapidly becoming more unweildy than ever, and the basis of 1840 was adopted, almost by the unanimous consent of the people of the Commonwealth. Every small town in the Commonwealth had an opportunity to know, and did know, exactly what the compact was. Every town containing less than twelve hundred inhabitants knew that it would not be entitled to a representative every year. That amendment received the sanction of one general court. It then came before another general court, and received the sanction of that also, by a vote of two-thirds of the House of Representatives each year. It then went to the people. Less than five thousand of the people recorded their votes against that compact-that compromise. We have, then, the calm, deliberate agreement, that all towns containing less│(Mr. Butler,) while in the other direction, a boon than twelve hundred inhabitants should not be entitled to a representative every year. Mr. GRISWOLD, for Erving. If the gentleman will give way, I will state that there were less than thirty thousand people who voted for it, while there were probably 140,000 voters in the Commonwealth at that time. Mr. HUNTINGTON. True, Sir; but I take it a man must be considered as approving a measure when, having the opportunity, he does not dissent. If a man does not choose to express any opinion when called on to vote yea or nay, it is fair to conclude that he acquiesces in the doings of the majority, in such a case as this. As I stated, there were less than five thousand votes recorded Now, Sir, I can justify myself to my constituents, and to the people of this Commonwealth, in taking the basis of twelve hundred. When I am asked, why do you fix the basis there? I can reply, that it was because that number was solemnly agreed upon in 1840, by two legislatures, and not five thousand people in the Commonwealth recorded their votes against it. I can give a good reason for my course upon that ground. But when I am asked why I give my support in favor of a basis of one thousand, and why I allow these thirty-one towns,-I believe there are that number, with a population between ten hundred and twelve hundred,‚—a representative every year, and exclude all towns having less than one thousand from having a representative every year, and lessen the representation in towns that have gained in population, I can give no good reason. The selection of that number is entirely arbitrary, and cannot be supported by any principle what ever. Since 1840, I suppose the population of the Commonwealth, in the large towns and cities, has increased from two to three hundred thousand. (About 235,000.) These two or three hundred thousand are to be cut down in the basis of representation, cities are to be divided into districts, by the amendment of the gentleman from Lowell, is extended to some thirty-one towns, which, for ten or twelve years past, have not thought of having a representative every year, and they are to be allowed to come in and enjoy rights which they have not even asked for. I ask why it is, that these two or three hundred thousand people are to be cut down in their rights, and why these thirty-one small towns are to enjoy privileges which they had not before? I have, here the number of representatives which it was estimated in 1840 would constitute the House, when the census of that year should have been taken. When the amendment of 1840 was adopted, two hundred and forty constituted the number of representatives, and it was esti mated that when the census should be taken, upon which the amendment was to operate, the House would consist of two hundred and seventy members. The number of small towns, at that time, which were not entitled to representatives every year, was one hundred and four. Now, upon the basis of twelve hundred, which I propose by my amendment, that number of towns is reduced, and it excludes from annual representation only ninety-four. So that my amendment does not operate against the spirit of the compact entered into at that time. Another circumstance I call to mind. It is said that this system has operated unjustly upon the small towns since 1840. I agree to that. But what was the extent of the injustice? In 1851, a proposition to call a Constitutional Convention was laid before the people, with a full knowledge, on their part, of the extent of this inequality and injustice. And what did they do? They rejected the idea of calling a Convention to cure it. That system, which required twelve hundred as the basis of one representative, had been in operation some ten or twelve years, and the people of the Commonwealth knew all about its effect, and yet the evil had not reached a magnitude which would induce them to come together to correct it. Next year, to be sure, they did call a Convention. I say these are controling considerations, in my mind, why towns, containing less than twelve hundred inhabitants, should not be admitted to a full representation. Well, Sir, there is another feature in the amendment offered by the gentleman from Lowell, which I do not like; and that is, that it does not allow for the advantage gained by the operation of the general ticket system. It says: "Every town of one thousand inhabitants, and of less than four thousand, shall be entitled to one representative each year." Here the increasing ratio is "three thousand." The next clause is: "Every town of four thousand inhabitants, and of less than eight thousand, shall be entitled to two representatives each year." Here the increasing ratio is "four thousand," and no more is required in the next advance, from eight to twelve thousand, in order to entitle a town to an additional representative. And when you go above twelve thousand, the increasing ratio is again brought down to three thousand; and above that number, a still different ratio is adopted. Now, the amendment which I have suggested, but have not yet offered, though it is in the hands of the members of this Convention, has regard to that objection. It proposes to establish an increased ratio for each additional representative. As you increase the number by general ticket, [June 29th. you should increase the ratio also. But I do not look upon that as an all-important objection. But there is another feature in this proposed amendment, the operation of which I do not fully understand. It seems to me, that it may make a very large House, much larger than is contemplated. The proposition says: "In all apportionments after the first, the numbers which shall entitle any city or town to two, three, four or more representatives, shall be so adjusted, in proportion, as herein before provided, that the whole number of representatives, exclusive of those which may be returned by towns of less than one thousand inhabitants, shall never exceed three hundred and seventy." Now, there are some sixty towns, containing less than one thousand inhabitants. To be sure, it takes three hundred and seventy as the number to compose the House, but to that you add sixty more, and you have four hundred and thirty. To that, also, you are to add representatives from all towns of fifteen hundred inhabitants, which shall hereafter be incorporated. So that, in 1855, when a new census is to be taken, you have a House composed of from four to five hundred members, for aught I can see. Even that I can vote for, but for reducing the number below twelve hundred inhabitants, as the number required to entitle a town to a representative every year, I can find no reason satisfactory to myself. I am free to say, that I think twelve hundred too low a basis, but there is a show of substantial justice in it, and it seems to me, that in adopting that number, full and ample justice is done to the small towns, and it is as far as they could ask the people of this Commonwealth to go. Well, Sir, so much for this amendment. I have already said that I approve of one feature of that amendment, and that is the one in relation to the district system. That system is convenient for the large towns, and they can easily adopt it, but I think "five thousand" is too low a ratio of increase for the city of Boston. I think a basis of "six thousand" for the large cities would operate more fairly and equally upon the people of the Commonwealth. That would be convenient for their wards, and a double district would make twelve thousand inhabitants, and one half of a senatorial district; or if we should give them a general ticket of four representatives, it would cover a senatorial district. But this consideration has nothing to do with the justice of it. I propose to explain in a few words, why I think an increasing ratio and a larger basis of representation should be adopted in relation to the large cities and towns. There are three great interests in this Commonwealth: the commercial, |