Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Tuesday,]

BRIGGS BRADBURY.

[June 21st.

members who may have a principle of importance | have had an opportunity of submitting his prop

to submit, which they feel ought to be incorporated in the Constitution as a guide to future legislation, but which they cannot, because of the ordering the previous question, have the privilege of presenting to the Convention. Sir, an occurrence which took place the other day will sufficiently illustrate the practical operation of this kind of procedure in such cases, and although the gentleman to whom I refer is not present, I may take the liberty of alluding to it. The distinguished member from Taunton, (Mr. Morton,) gave notice that he intended to offer an important amendment to a proposition which was pending; but the previous question was called for, and it was sustained, and he therefore lost the opportunity of presenting what perhaps might have been a very important principle.

Now, my impression upon this subject is this, --and I entertain the same opinion as many other gentlemen,-that as we have assembled here to alter, amend and modify the Constitution of the Commonwealth-one of the most sacred duties which we could be called upon to perform-the debate upon every question should be continued as long as any delegate upon this floor in honest, good faith, may desire to address the Convention. Why, Sir, who will say that Mr. A. or Mr. B. shall have an opportunity to speak, but that Mr. C. shall not have that right. When any one of the majority of the Convention is satisfied that any person present wishes to abuse the privilege of debate, or occupy one moment of time for any other purpose than fair and legitimate discussion, let there be a restriction at once put upon him, both in Committee and in Convention; but so long as any member wishes to discuss any question honestly and fairly, it is my impression that he ought to be allowed to do so. It may prolong debate, perhaps, it may prolong the session; but what of that? Is it not of far more importance that when we get through here, every member should feel that he has had an opportunity for expressing his views upon the various questions which have come before the body, and that propositions have not been voted down without due consideration? What is a few days in a session of the character of this, or the few thousand dollars which we may cause to be expended, by our sitting here, compared with the fair, full and open discussion which ought to be allowed? Entertaining these views upon the subject generally, I am led to doubt the wisdom and propriety of the proposition of my friend from Natick; and I do hope that this question will not be interfered with in Committee of the Whole, at least not until every gentleman who desires to do so shall

osition, and given his reasons why, in his opinion, it should be adopted.

Mr. BRADBURY, of Newton. I have listened with pleasure to the remarks of the gentleman from Pittsfield, they so perfectly coincide with my own views. But there is one consideration as to the course taken in discussion in Committee of the Whole, which I think he has omited. As I understand the ruling of the Chair, in regard to the proceedings in Committee of the Whole, it is that every gentleman may have a right to submit an important proposition, but may keep it in his pocket until within five minutes of the time of closing debate, when he may offer it, and thus compel the Convention to come to an issue upon a question which cannot be debated. It seems to me that we shall get on much faster in our consideration of all the subjects which may come before us, by pursuing a system of unrestricted debate in Committee of the Whole, than where gentlemen undertake to apply the gag and stop debate in this manner.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair would remind the gentleman that he cannot speak of the Convention in that manner.

Mr. BRADBURY. I allude to the rule The PRESIDENT. The gentleman cannot speak of the rule in that form.

Mr. BRADBURY. I speak of the tendency of the rule; not of the intention of those who made it, and I suppose it is perfectly competent for every member to do so without necessarily implicating the author of the rule. I refer to the power which every gentleman has of holding back an issue, until the time arrives when there can be no debate upon it, and to the impropriety and inconvenience of adhering to a rule which shall compel us to vote upon certain issues without debate.

Sir, I know it has been said by gentlemen, that we can take refuge under a negative, and gentlemen of your profession know full well the value of a negative answer in special pleading. I hope that time may be allowed for the proper discussion of this subject. I recollect the occurrence of a discussion in the legislature upon this identical question, which took place more than forty times in this very house, and yet it was not then canvassed in the manner it should be. It was at a time, too, when there was more interest felt by the community in that discussion than there is at present felt in the proposition to change the basis of the popular branch of your government. We have here also all the projects and suggestions which were brought forward in the Convention of 1820, and in subsequent years,

[blocks in formation]

though they have not been fully discussed and considered; I hope that sufficient time will be allowed for that purpose.

Mr. WILSON. I must say that I am not a little disappointed at the remarks of the gentleman from Pittsfield, and I do not think that gentleman or any other member of this body can say on his conscience, that there has been the slightest attempt to stifle the debate upon any question that is or has been before the Convention.

Mr. BRIGGS. I ask the gentleman if he understood me as saying any such thing? I merely alluded to the course which has been taken here of arresting discussion by fixing the time for the closing of the debate in Committee, and by calling for the previous question in the Convention. I had not the slightest intention to intimate that injustice had been intended.

Mr. WILSON. I am very glad to understand that the gentleman does not charge that there has been any disposition of that kind in this Convenion, and I moreover doubt if there is a single man in this body who has ever been denied the privilege of saying all that he desired to say. In regard to the closing of the debate, I will remark again that I think my proposition will allow ample time for every one to discuss the subject, and I wish that it might be adopted. But there are rumors about this house that the Convention will adjourn in a short time, to meet again in September; I think, Sir, it is a feeling that is quite prevalent, and unless we can finish the consideration of the various subjects which must come before us, in a reasonable time, we shall be compelled to adopt that course. In order to satisfy my friends upon the other side of this question, however, I will withdraw my motion. On motion of Mr. SCHOULER, of Boston, the Convention resolved itself into

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE,

Upon the resolves on the

Basis of Representation.

Mr. Wilson, of Natick, in the Chair. The question being upon the motion of the member for Boston, (Mr. Hale,) to substitute the Minority for the Majority Report.

Mr. DAWES, of Adams. When I first took my seat in this Convention, I had little expectation that any circumstances would arise under which I should feel myself compelled, either from inclination or a sense of duty, to throw myself upon its indulgence in debate. The position of things here, the distinguished talent and wisdom of years with which those have been clothed with whom I have had the honor of being associated

[June 21st.

here, all contributed to strengthen my resolution to sit here in silence. And, Sir, when, a few days ago, I was drawn aside from this resolution into the debate upon another subject, it was most unexpectedly to me; and was brought about by causes which I thought surely would not arise sufficiently strong to induce me again to ask the privilege of this floor. But, Sir, I forgot to preface my remarks upon that occasion with the usual proclamation, that I "know no party in this Convention;" that in coming here I "had laid aside all party feeling, and that I had disavowed all allegiance to the requirements or exactions of any political party." Perhaps, Sir, it may be too late for me now to make that proclamation; and I think, upon the whole, that it may be better to let it be until the close of our labors here; for I would rather be judged, on the whole, by my course here; and when we have done our work I will submit whether I have worn a party color more or less closely than those around me, for I think it is good to follow the old maxim, which says "Let not him that putteth on the harness boast with him that taketh it off."

And, Mr. Chairman, I must also be allowed to say that I have not aspired to the floor on this occasion for the purpose of mingling in the discussion of one of the most important questions likely to be considered by this Convention, for the rash purpose of attempting to add to the strength or the beauty of the arguments which have been adduced from various sides of the House, in support of the one proposition, and especially those brought here and moulded and beautified by that genius of which it is true, as it was of another of old,

Nil tetigit quod non ornavit;"

nor, on the other hand, would I rush rashly among the ponderous blows which have been dealt in opposition. But, Sir, the course which the argument-if it may be called argumenthas taken in reply to the arguments which have been adduced and brought forward in support of the principles of the Minority Report, has been of such a nature that it seems to me, considering the character of the Convention to whom it has been addressed, and of the subject on which it has been indulged in,—I say, that considering the nature, the mode, and the circumstances connected with these arguments, it seems to me that they are worthy of some passing notice.

Gentlemen upon this floor, upon a subject acknowledged by every one to be surrounded with difficulties, intrinsic and extrinsic, have addressed the sober judgment of the Convention, have appealed to its sense of justice, have invoked its

Tuesday,]

DAWES.

[June 21st.

serious deliberations; and, Sir, how have they | to inquire how and why we are here? By what

been answered? In many instances, instead of weighing these arguments, attention has been called to the quarter from which they came, rather than to the weight to which they were entitled. Here in this Convention, composed of more than four hundred men, commissioned by the Commonwealth to the discharge of the highest and most solemn duty with which any of her agents were ever intrusted, I have heard it asked upon this floor, in answer to these arguments, "From whom do we get these lessons of reform ? Are not these new doctrines from Boston Whigs?" And, Sir, by another gentleman it was said in reply: "Are not these the men who opposed the calling of this Convention? Did not these very men say, but a few days ago, or a few months ago, at the most, that the Constitution did not need amending? Sir, I distrust arguments from such a source."

Another says, "I belong to the reform party, per se, upon this floor, and with whom do they belong?" Sir, I hope the gentleman likes that term "per se;" but, Sir, there is an odor about it that I disrelish; it was born out of lawful wedlock, and he who likes it, may cherish it.

And another upon this floor, commenting on a proposition made by himself, which he offered for introduction into the organic law of the Commonwealth, accompanied the moving of it with the request that those who resided in localities that voted what he called the reform ticket, might be expected and desired to express their views on the subject, and not those who come from Boston, or other localities that had not voted the reform ticket. Another gentleman, in answer to a most elaborate and powerful argument adduced in favor of the principle of the Minority Report, exclaims, in the language which was put into the mouth of an old Trojan, when he felt his cause giving way: "Timeo Danæos et dona ferentes "-I fear these Greeks even when they bring gifts. I distrust the sources from which these arguments come.

Another appeals to the Convention, in alarm, to know whether they are going to follow the lead of the gentleman from Pittsfield. "We must take our stand; we are responsible for this Convention, and we must do its work." I think that these and similar sayings-sayings in substance like these will occur to the minds of most of us here as having been bandied about in this Convention, from time to time, in answer to what has been addressed to us by members of the Convention, seriously, with candor, and with an earnest desire to discharge faithfully and fully the duties incumbent upon us here. Permit me, Sir,

sort of commission do we hold our places here? By what authority has any particular member of this Convention a right to appropriate to himself the title of "reformer?" Sir, do you hold your commission here differing in terms from the one which I hold? Have you a work to do here differing from that which I am sent here to do? Certainly not, Sir, except in so far as your experience and ability may devolve upon you greater and more responsible duties. Who sent us here? Was I sent here for any other purpose than that for which you and your friends were sent? And are we not all here upon this floor alike about our master's work? I pray to know, Sir, whence comes the authority-by what sort of religion we are actuated when we come here into this temple of reform and stand up to say to our fellow laborers, "Stand off, for I am holier than thou! I thank God that I am not as other men, even as these poor publicans." I claim to be a reformer, Sir, and shall not permit that name to be filched from me on this floor by any one, however broad may be the phylacteries he wears. But, Sir, if it is proper for gentlemen to indulge in this course of remark, it is also proper to endeavor to reply to it, and I would ask those who thus answer the arguments which have been made here from time to time upon matters before us, to judge us by the record before they bring these accusations against us. By what sort of record, Sir, is a man justified in saying, upon this floor, that there is a portion of this Convention opposed to reform? For one, Sir, I will stand by the record from the beginning of the Convention to its close; and in the end I will submit it to those who sent us here whether there is any justification in this accusation. Take the several matters passed upon finally by this Convention; take the basis of the Senate; take the removal of the tax qualification for voters; take the question of the council; take, seriatim, everything which has passed upon the records of the Convention, and as to everything appertaining to just and important reforms those who are under this serious charge stand out upon the record up to the line-and as some gentlemen have said here, a little over the line. Why, Sir, it seemed at one time here that nothing did so offend as a proposition of reform coming from certain quarters; nothing would put certain men so much out of temper as to have propositions of reform brought forward from a certain quarter. Sir, what was the position in which we found ourselves here when the learned gentleman from Pittsfield sought to infuse a little Whig reform (if I may use that phrase here,) into the proposition for removing the tax qualification from

[blocks in formation]

voters, viz., to remove it entirely? I have never seen so much trouble manifested; I have never seen such distress evinced by gentlemen here, as if it had been said most distinctly, "Stand aside; you don't play this game." It reminded me, Sir, of a gentleman on board a steamboat on the Mississippi river. Taking his breakfast one morning, the waiter brought him a liquid of which he could not exactly tell the quality, and, after having tasted it, he said to the waiter, "if this is coffee bring me some tea, and if it is tea bring me coffee." [Laughter.] If the Whigs are in favor of a measure we will oppose it-if they oppose it we are in favor of it.

But, while they are not content with examining us upon the record, and insist upon travelling out of the record, and going beyond the Convention, I inquire again by what authority does any man upon this floor say, that those who act with us here have been opposed to any reform in the Constitution? When, Sir, was it? Where, and by whom? Acting for any portion of that party who are charged with being opposed to reform, speaking by authority and for any considerable number, by whom, when, and where was it said that the Constitution of Massachusetts did not need reform ?

A MEMBER, (in the eastern gallery). What is the question before the Committee, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. DAWES, (continuing). We differed as to the method of amending the Constitution, but not as to the Constitution itself except in some of its details. Why, Sir, we stood committed to propositions for the amendment of the Constitution which have since been brought in here and adopted.

In 1847, we stood upon the very first proposition which has been adopted here-I think it was the first-which was attempted to be put through, but failed precisely in the same manner that certain propositions offered by the gentleman who represents Erving, (Mr. Griswold,) failed in a House of his own friends.

[June 21st.

proposition for single senatorial districts, for forty members. It was brought into the House under the gallant lead of a distinguished gentleman of Boston, (Mr. Schouler). We were pledged to the support of a proposition to base the House of Representatives, of two or three hundred members, elected upon the principle of equality. Precisely where we stand now. We stood pledged to apply the plurality system to all elections of state officers, and to provide for the election of sheriffs, registers of probate and commissioners of insolvency by the voters of the respective counties, and the justices of the peace by the voters of their respective towns. To these propositions, thus introduced, every member of that party which has been denounced upon this floor, as opposed to all reform in the present Constitution, stood pledged, and for which every member of that party voted, both in the House and the Senate.

And, Sir, every member of that party which now bring these accusations against us, voted them on to the table, and it would be just as fair for me to say that they are opposed to all reforms, because they voted down these propositions, as it would be for others to say that we were opposed to all reforms because we were not satisfied with the mode of bringing about those reforms, viz.: by the means of a constitutional Convention.

I know, Sir, that these matters are foreign, in some degree, to the questions directly before us. I do not wonder that the gentleman in the g lery, who inquired a few moments since, what the question was before the Committee, was lost in this maze. I have not seen him here listening to the debates which have taken place, and therefore I wonder the less that he should be bewildered.

If it is not in order, to indulge in the course of remarks which I have pursued, I trust I have not wandered beyond the beaten path, though I may have gone beyond the letter.

This is what has been brought against us here. We are charged with inconsistency, and with In 1850, we stood committed upon propositions shifting about-that we are a party of shifts and which have come up here and been adopted, one changes. Well, Sir, I ask for the record and the after another. In 1850, we stood committed to proof. On what point have we changed our the propositions which the gentleman who repre- ground? We proposed, in 1850, a board of cansents Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett,) brought in here, vassers to count the votes cast for state officers, to abolish the executive council, and to establish and we have voted for that proposition in this Cona board of canvassers, and that, too, almost in vention. In 1847, we proposed to change the time the very words in which the gentleman for Wil- of holding elections to the first Tuesday in Novembraham proposes to amend the Constitution in ber, and here in this Convention we have voted those respects. Sir, that was a Whig measure, for the same proposition. In 1851, we proposed and the Whigs advocated it-and as here in this a Senate of forty members, with single senatorial Convention, some went for retaining it. districts, and we, every one of us, have voted for Then, Sir, in 1851, we stood pledged to the that proposition in this Convention. In 1850,

[blocks in formation]

we proposed, some of us, to abolish the executive | council, and some of us disagreed to that proposition. In 1853, upon this floor, the gentleman who represents Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett,) proposes to abolish the executive council. Some of us have gone with him, and some against him. We proposed, in 1851, Sir, the district system for representatives. We have been charged, upon this floor, that upon this subject of the district system, we have made sudden and mysterious changes. We have been charged with introducing something new-something, as my friend upon my left, (Mr. Boutwell,) said, new and unheard of before. I submit, Sir, that it was a question to which we invited the attention of our friends long ago, and to which we committed ourselves before this Convention was thought of. Before my learned and esteemed friend who represents Erving, (Mr.❘ Griswold,) proposed his amendment to the Constitution, in the Senate, before he had matured, and I presume before he held it necessary to mature his ideas of a Convention to revise the Constitution, one of the prominent members of the party against whom this charge is made, addressed the Senate upon that question. He then put himself and put us, precisely where we now stand, where we have stood before, and where we hope and believe we shall stand when the Consti

tution shall be finally ratified by the people of

this Commonwealth. I will read a few words, in order to see whether this is so new, and strange and startling a proposition.

These remarks were offered by the Hon. Charles Theodore Russell, a member of the Senate from Suffolk. He says:

[ocr errors]

"If, therefore, any change is to be made, we may as well meet the matter boldly on its merits, and not by a temporary compromise to expediency. I would, as the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, in the House, now a member of this body, (Honorable Mr. Buckingham,) said, a few years ago, when the subject of retrenchment was referred to that Committee, in professional language, take the bull by the horns,' and come at once to the system of equal districts. The amendment proposes single districts for Senators. Here ends the sanctity and inviolability of county lines in representation-a system just as old and cherished as that of towns, and adopted for the same reasons of convenience and predilection. Adopt now the proposal made last year in the House, and divide each of these senatorial districts into five equal representative districts, and you have a perfectly equal system of ' representation of the people.' This will make a House of two hundred members, or one member to about 5,000 inhabitants."

Gentlemen who have gone before me in this debate must pardon me if I say that their remarks

[June 21st.

bear a strong resemblance to what I find put forth two or three years ago, and then presented to the consideration of the people of the Commonwealth. And I submit they had as much to do with the forming of that public sentiment which called this Convention as any other document that issued at the time.

And Sir, after the proposition of the gentleman who here represents Erving, (Mr. Griswold,) failed in a House of his own, he proposed a constitutional Convention similar, though I do not know that it was precisely like that under which we here hold our seats. This gentleman, from whom I have read extracts, again, in reference to that Convention, and to the question of calling a Convention, and the purposes for which it was called, put himself and put us in a position, such that while we keep it, no man, I submit, who cares to be candid and fair in bringing charges against us, if he has posted himself upon the subject, will bring the charge which has been brought against us upon this floor. In viewing the several reasons adduced by the chairman of the Committee which introduced that bill, and who is the same gentlemen who has the honor of being the chairman of the Committee which reported the resolves under consideration, he said :—

[ocr errors]

adopt the plurality system in more of our elec"Next, the Committee cautiously propose to tions.' The Committee speak hesitatingly on this subject. How much of doubt, if any, in regard to it has been infused into their minds, by the law of last year as to presidential electors, they do not tell us. But I am free to say, I go for this principle in all elections, as the lesser of two evils although I have had doubts in regard to it. I voted for the Act of last year, and would vote for one this, as to all remaining elections within legislative control. Settle once the principle, and two or three lines introduced into the Constitution, will cover all the cases there."

Then in reference to the immediate question now before the Committee, the gentleman put himself and put us upon the position, before the people of this Commonwealth, where we stand to-day, in the following language :

[ocr errors]

"Do the Committee mean to foist into the Constitution the rotten borough system' of which the honorable chairman, (Mr. Griswold,) is the distinguished progenitor. If so, I am opposed to it. Do they intend a just and equal district system? If so, I am willing to go for it."

So in reference to changing the time of holding the annual election, he said :—

"It is next proposed to alter the day of the annual election, so as to conform to the day for choosing presidential electors. This, the Com

« ForrigeFortsett »