Tuesday,] DAWES. mittee say, would prevent the necessity of having two elections on two different days once in four years. And they go into calculations to show the saving thus made to the voters, and have the sum of $62,027 saved in a single election by this one change in the Constitution.' Now, Sir, I am in favor of this change." Thus, throughout this long and able speech, the Hon. Mr. Russell put himself, and those for whom he spoke, upon grounds clear, distinct and unequivocal, that they were in favor of distinct and important changes, and amendments of the Constitution; but, Sir, that they preferred to bring about those changes by and through the means provided in the Constitution itself. And some of them went so far as to entertain doubts whether that was not the only possible way of introducing these amendments. The gentleman for Erving, (Mr. Griswold,) and his friends upon the other side claimed the right, as inherent in the people, to call a Convention for this purpose, and they maintained the expediency of so doing, and after repeated trials the people sanctioned that view. This Convention came together under the authority of an Act thus passed. I, for one, never entertained a doubt, from the moment that the people, by a small majority though it was, adopted the law, what was the duty of every man in this Commonwealth? That duty was that he should cooperate with every other fellow citizen, whether on this floor or elsewhere, in any and every capacity, in bringing about the most healthy, wise and permanent amendments of the Constitution, in the way in which the people had decided that they should. But, Sir, we were not alone in some of the views we entertained. I understood my learned friend, the gentleman who here represents Berlin, (Mr. Boutwell,) a few days since to say, that although he was distinctly in favor of town representation -and he took his stand with firmness and power and eloquence upon that principle-yet he could not quite adopt the Majority Report. There was manifest injustice in that, in reference to the small towns, and it was impossible for him to go to the extent which his friend for Erving, (Mr. Griswold,) went. There must be some grouping together of small towns. There would be a manifest inequality and injustice in giving to every town, however small, the same power as every other town, however large, having a population not to exceed five thousand. In 1851 there was introduced into the Senate of Massachusetts a proposition, three or four lines of which settled this question. It was as follows: "Every city and town entitled by law to send [June 21st. The gentleman for Erving, (Mr. Griswold,) voted for that proposition. Now, I regret that I was not able to be present the other day, to hear the argument which he then adduced in favor of his Majority Report. I understand that it was characterized by all that ability and elaborate research for which he is so justly distinguished, and I regret it the more, because I desire to know by what logical reasoning-for I know it could not have been otherwise-after having given his assent to the proposition contained in the bill I have read, he should have arrived at the principles of that Majority Report. It seems that all that sanctity of town lines, all that importance of these municipalities, all that hallowed influence of these town associations upon which the gentleman dwelt with so much beauty, and power, has entirely faded, is all destroyed, so far as the cities and large towns are concerned. Our friend will acknowledge virtue and patriotism to exist nowhere except in the small towns. But, Sir, the honorable gentleman who represents Berlin, (Mr. Boutwell,) has departed from the principles of the Majority Report, as I understood from the tenor of his remarks, the other day, because he had found it necessary, on account of the absolute injustice of that system, so far as its application to the small towns is concerned. Justice compels him to group them together to a certain extent. Now, Sir, by looking back a little I find that gentleman's views in reference to the large towns. In a communication which the Constitution of the Commonwealth made it his duty to make to the legislature of the State in the year 1852, I find the following: "Heretofore the representatives of cities and large towns have been chosen by a general ticket. This mode does not seem to be required by the Constitution." Now, I ask the attention of the Convention to what he says about single districts : "And single districts are more in harmony with the general character of our representative system, whether state or national." Now, Sir, the gentleman will pardon me when I say that his "Swiss Cantons" are of a little later date than we have been led to suppose, for it is these doctrines which are manifest in the provisions in the Minority Report, which are breathing through the whole speech of the gentleman for Berlin. Now, Sir, what is to become of his "Swiss Cantons?" The small towns are grouped together and the large towns are divided into single districts, "more in harmony with the general character of our representative system, whether state or national," as proposed by the minority.| But, Sir, although it appears from the record that the party to which I belong has heretofore been in favor of the plurality system, although in 1845 the members of that party in both branches of the legislature voted for the adoption of that principle; although the same was true in 1848, 1849, 1850 and 1851, when it passed both Houses almost unanimously, with only three men of all parties in the Senate voting against it; although we thus stood upon the record, we are charged with inconsistency in regard to this plurality measure here. It is said that while we go for the plurality principle in the elections of the members of the legislature, and in the election of the public officers of the State, yet we make complaints against the Majority Report now before us, upon the ground that it puts the power of the Com monwealth into the hands of a minority of the people. It is said that we advocate the plurality principle which is to put the power of electing our officers into the hands of a minority of the people and then complain of this Majority Report, which is upon the same principle, because it places the power of the Commonwealth in the hands of one-third of the people of the Commonwealth. Sir, is there no difference between placing a rule in the Constitution by which a majority may elect their representatives and other public officers if they will, but providing that if they do not choose to elect them a plurality shall elect-I say, is there no difference between that proposition and another which is to place the organic basis of your government unconditionally within the power of one-third of the people of the Commonwealth, for all time to come, whether the majority acquiesce or not? Sir, this feature was admitted by the gentleman for Berlin, to exist in the Majority Report of the Committee upon this subject, and it was justified by him upon the ground of analogy-upon the ground that it could not become a part of the organic law of the land unless a majority of the people sanctioned it, and that the majority of the people had the right to say that they would be governed by one-third if they chose. Now, Sir, it is admitted upon all sides by the advocates of the majority system, that it is based upon the principle that the power of [June 21st. the Commonwealth, in its House of Representatives, shall, for all time to come, be placed in the hands of one-third of the people; but when we complain of that we are charged with inconsistency because we advocate the doctrine that the majority of the voters may always elect if they choose, but if they do not choose to elect, then that number which approaches the nearest to the majority shall elect, viz., a plurality. Sir, gentlemen forget that if it be inconsistent for us to advocate the plurality system upon this ground and oppose the Majority Report upon this subject upon the same ground, those who advocate the majority principle against the plurality principle, and yet who advocate this Majority Report which puts the power of the Commonwealth into the hands of a minority, are themselves equally chargeable with inconsistency. If it be inconsistent for us to advocate the plurality principle and oppose this Report, it is just as inconsistent for them to advocate the majority principle and yet support the opposite principle contained in this Majority Report. Gentlemen seem perfectly willing to convict themselves of inconsistency, provided they can also convict us of the same offence. They are perfectly willing to build gallows for themselves provided they can draw up with them those whom they think oppose them in this matter. Sir, it is a stretch of refinement even exceeding that of the man in the fable who found himself in the stern of a ship during a storm at sea, while his foe was in the prow of the same vessel, and when they were about being lost, he went up to the captain and inquired which end of the ship would go down first; and when he was satisfied that the prow would sink first he resigned himself with perfect composure, willing to go to the bottom since he had been assured that his foe went there before him. But, Sir, these men are willing to go there with their foes, at one and the same moment. The gentleman for Abington, (Mr. Keyes,) in charging us with this inconsistency, remarked that he did not care about boasting much as to his past life, but if any body could catch him in such a scrape they might hold him up. Now, Sir, I do not know as it would be perfectly safe to touch the gentleman for Abington. Perhaps I had better let him alone; but as he seemed rather to court inquiry, rather to invite me to the record, I propose to show in what manner that gentleman in one instance kept himself out of a scrape. The bill which was introduced into the legislature in 1851, establishing the plurality principle in some of our elections, passed both branches of the legislature, and became the law of the land. But, in 1852, certain gentlemen, whose names are Tuesday,] DAWES. [June 21st. recorded, in both branches of the legislature, pro- | government at all. I do not hold one man posed to repeal a portion of that law, and to abrogate the principle. For that purpose, a member of another party from that to which I belong, intoduced a bill into the Senate of Massachusetts. The honorable member for Abington was at that time a member of the Senate. He has announced, upon this floor, that he has always been opposed to the plurality principle, and in favor of the majority principle; but when that bill came up. for its final passage in the Senate, the gentleman for Abington found it convenient to be away from home. The gentleman succeeded in being absent- - we sometimes call it dodging, dodging a scrape. Well, Sir, the eel has a constitutional capacity for dodging a scrape, but he seldom goes his way and boasts of it. responsible for the doctrines of another who is associated with him, whatever they may be; and because there are marked instances of gentlemen here who had independence enough to stand out and openly advocate the majority principle, I do not think it fair for them to be held responsible for the sentiments and principles of almost their entire party. But, Sir, the gentleman from Lowell, (Mr. Butler,) came very near committing himself to this very plurality principle. He was present at a convention which nominated the candidates of his party for governor last year, was made chairman of a committee for the purpose of drafting and submitting to the convention an address and resolutions. Well, Sir, the gentleman reported his resolutions indicative of the principles upon which the canvass was to be based, and they were exceedingly well calculated for the party upon whom they were designed to operate, but he begged that he might have further time to prepare his address. In due time the address made its appearance. It was not signed by the gentleman from Lowell, and I do not know that he wrote it, but I know that it came in answer to a request upon his part, which was granted by the convention. Well, Sir, in that address the plurality system is claimed as "an essential democratic measure." It says the plurality system has always been a But, Sir, the gentleman from Lowell, a few days since remarked, that if he had signed that report, out of which grew this Constitutional Convention, as his learned friend for Erving, (Mr. Griswold,) did, he should have been compelled, for the sake of consistency, to have made a speech in favor of the plurality principle, as the gentleman for Erving did, or to have said nothingindicating, as I understood him, that after the gentleman for Erving had signed that report it would have been inconsistent for him to have advocated the majority system. But, Sir, was the gentleman for Erving the only man who committed himself by signing that report? Every gentleman, from all quarters of the Common-leading feature in the democratic policy. I have wealth, in both branches of the legislature, who recorded their names in favor of the adoption of that report were as much committed in favor of the plurality principle as the gentleman for Erving. I submit, that if it was inconsistent to turn round and advocate the majority system, after having taken his stand in favor of that of the plurality, it was just as inconsistent for every member of his party, who voted for that report, to abandon that principle, for almost every one of them had committed themselves by voting for it in one branch of the legislature or in the other. Mr. EARLE, of Worcester, (interposing.) If the gentleman from Adams will look at the record I think he will find that he is laboring under a mistake when he says that all the members of the party to which he alludes voted for that report. He will find that there were gentlemen associated with that party who defended the majority principle then as they always had done before, and as they do now. Mr. DAWES, (resuming.) There are always exceptions to every rule. I do not hold the gentleman responsible because there are those associated with him upon this floor who believe in no not that address before me, but I recollect that the substance of it was that the plurality principle was essentially the democratic principle, and it also said that this principle was to be made the issue in the last fall's election. It went on to say that if they triumphed, the plurality principle would be retained; but if those who were opposed to them in politics triumphed the majority principle would be asserted. So I think the gentleman from Lowell will find a great many of his party in the same position of the distinguished gentleman who represents Erving. Sir, I do not impugn the motives which have actuated that gentleman in his conduct in this Convention. I bring no railing accusation against him or against any man. But, Sir, I submit, that in political parties the test of consistency is a rather severe Tuesday,] DAWES. [June 21st. jewel. I do not know that I should like, myself, | population of this entire Commonwealth will be to be brought rigidly to the test, but I say if we are to be charged with inconsistency we would a little prefer that the charge should be brought by somebody else. Whoever is without sin let him cast the first stone. Mr. BUTLER. "He that is without sin among you let him cast the first stone." The gentleman is mistaken in his reading. Mr. DAWES. Although I sought not to quote the words, I accept the gentleman's correction, and say, well, Sir, if there is any man in the party to which the gentleman belongs in that position, let him take the advice. I say to his entire party, "he that is without sin among you let him cast the first stone." Now, Sir, asking the pardon of the Convention for this tiresome exposé of the condition of parties among us, I beg leave, if it be lawful for a humble member of the minority on this floor to express his views upon pending reforms, to submit a few remarks upon the principle involved in the majority and minority reports before us. And first, let me inquire what are the difficulties that attend this question? It is admitted, on all hands, and it is demonstrated by the discussion here, that this subject is one of great practical difficulty, as well as practical importance. But the difficulties with which it is surrounded arise in the main, from the fact that the population of the State is not distributed all over it equally, that portions enjoy the blessings and advantages of the city, while other portions enjoy the delights and sweets of the country. This inequality has been marked as constantly increasing, and it has been dwelt upon with great ability by the distinguished member for Berlin, (Mr. Boutwell,) and the future of it has been portrayed by him with great force. Upon that future the gentleman has founded most of his argument. That future he drew from the ratio of increase between 1840 and 1850-a ratio of increase, permit me to say, the like of which will not be seen in this Commonwealth again for half a century. Under that ratio of increase, and that calculation, the gentleman stated here, that in less than fifty years, more than one-half of the entire population of this Commonwealth would be in twelve towns and cities. By what sort of process does the gentleman make that out? According to that ratio, in seventeen years from this time, the city of Boston will contain 377,000 inhabitants, more than twice the number she has got to-day. Does any body believe that there is room enough to pack them within the present limits of the city of Boston? In 1900, the time when the gentleman finds that one-half of the concentrated in this city, and eleven associate cities and towns, there is to be more than a million of souls in this city alone. And its property and wealth, out of which the gentleman drew so many fears and alarms, and arrayed them in favor of the principles of the Majority Report, are to increase from two hundred millions, the present value, to more than fifty hundred millions of dollars, upon this basis. Who believes that, in seventeen years from this time, the city of Lowell will have 78,000 inhabitants, the city of Worcester 81,000, the little town of Adams 16,681, and the then city of Taunton nearly twice its present population, somewhere about 18,000? It was by this process of reasoning that the gentleman who represents Berlin was enabled to produce here an argument of great weight and strength, upon a basis which I think will satisfy any one who will look at the question candidly, has no foundation. Who believes that the city of Boston will ever have 377,000 inhabitants? I repeat that the ratio of increase between 1840 and 1850 will never be seen again in the city of Boston. It was during that ten years that the great avenues of trade were opened, that her great arteries of communication were built anew, and that her system of Internal Improvements began to assume shape. It was during these years that the city of Boston and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts scaled the Alps, and went westward. It was during these ten years that she stretched forth her hand eastward, and has been enabled to box the compass with railroads turning to every part of the State, all concentrating here, and bringing in a flood of population and wealth, which have given a stimulus to every branch of industry, and awakened anew her life. But that ten years will not be seen again in the city of Boston. The city of New York has opened her Erie Railroad, and the State, too, is opening her canals. The city of Baltimore is building her Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. The whole South is met in convention to devise means by which the trade of that storehouse of the wealth of the nation, the great West, shall be diverted from Boston and turned to other points, carrying with it all the incidents which have made Boston what she is to-day; and he who builds an argument, as to the future position of things here in Massachusetts, upon the ratio of increase, either in wealth or population, between 1840 and 1850, makes a great mistake. Why, the present basis of the House of Representatives was founded upon the ratio from 1830 to 1840, and hence the difficulty we now have with it. Had that ratio continued between 1840 and 1850, the present basis of the House of Repre Tuesday,] DAWES. [June 21st. sentatives would have answered the expectations | ing made this calculation, produces figures by of its friends. The distinguished gentleman who represents Bernardston, upon this point gave us a promise in 1840 of what would be expected of it. I do not bring up his report of that year for the purpose of charging him with inconsistency. I make no charge of that kind. I produce the report to show that the basis he founded upon the ratio between 1830 and 1840, has not found its realization in the ratio of increase between 1840 and 1850. This is his language: "Considering all these circumstances, your Committee are of opinion that the plan here proposed will be as nearly equal and satisfactory to the people as any that can be devised." Such was the opinion of the gentleman from Bernardston in 1840. In that opinion joined the venerable father of the honorable member for Erving-now gone hence, but, let me say, worthy to be the father of that worthy member. the Based upon that ratio, the present House of Representatives was founded. Had that ratio continued, we should have found no complaint existing in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to-day with the present basis, defective as it is in principle and in its application. I allude to the report here merely to show that we are upon verge of falling into precisely the same mistake. We are undertaking to found a system of representation upon what is to be the probable state of things here in 1870, seventeen years from to-day, or in 1900, forty-seven years from this time, upon the basis of increase between 1840 and 1850, and with no other basis. I say it will be well for us to inquire into the probable continuance of this ratio. It would be well for us to see whether we shall continue to go on, in some portions of the State increasing and in other portions waning and decreasing in this wonderful and incredible ratio. Why the town of Nantucket has lost, in a few years, about a thousand of her population, who have gone to California. You take the basis of increase or decrease, as the case may be, and Nantucket, before seventeen years are passed, will have lost five or six thousand; and by what sort of rule are you going to form a basis of the House of Representatives upon any calculation like that. Nobody believes that Nantucket is going to be depopulated, or that she is going to suffer beyond her present limits, to any great extent, in the decrease of her population. It is because we go upon a mistaken principle that we are led into these difficulties, and which would place us in the same predicament with those who formed the present basis of the House of Representatives. The gentlemen who represents Berlin, after hav which he expected, in less than fifty years from this time, a majority of the population of Massachusetts would reside within these few cities, and argued from this state of things that the time would come when Massachusetts would be at the mercy of those cities. I did not learn from that gentleman's speech, or from the speeches of any member of this Convention, that in the present state of things, any reasonable cause for the accusation exists, that the city of Boston and its associate cities have undertaken to control legislation here in Massachusetts. But the complaint was of the future. All the fears and apprehensions of gentlemen arose from what was to be the state of things in 1870 and 1900. The wealth of Boston was one element of this concentration of power. Nobody is more astonished than I am at the aggregate of wealth in Boston. I pay no homage to it; neither do I fear it. It disarms itself. Is it not based upon diverse and opposite interests? Are not the manufacturers who have accumulated their wealth here, dependent upon the prosperity of the manufacturing interest of the country? Is there not a shipping interest, a commercial interest, a banking interest, a railroad interest, and other important interests here, all forming the source of this great aggregate wealth of Boston, as multiplied and diversified as the sands of the sea -each holding in check the other, with no common interest or common policy. From what source did all this wealth come, and where does it go? It was brought into Massachusetts from the great West, from the islands of the sea. The sails of her ships whiten every ocean, and the luxuries and wealth of nations have contributed to increase and augment her great wealth. There is no interest in or out of Massachusetts, that has not a representative in Boston. It is as impossible to concentrate that wealth upon any given point, as it would be to concentrate all the opposing forces of nature, as they exist in the system in which this earth makes her journey, rendered stable and eternal by the very fact that they are opposing forces. In this view of the subject you plant one interest here and another there; you may augment this and decrease that, but there is a compensating principle pervading the whole. But, is the wealth of Boston hoarded here? It was brought here by men who came from the country. It has gone back into the country in many instances. There are your institutions for the insane, for the blind, and for the deaf and dumb, for the reform of the erring, and there is Williams College at the fartherest extreme of the State, all rejoicing, living and drawing their life-blood from the wealth of Boston. She has given eyes to the blind, ears to |