Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

growth of these cities and towns for the last ten or twenty years, and then calculate what it will be for ten or twenty years to come, and then tell me if the tendency is not to centralization? "Where the carcass is, thither will the eagles be gathered together," and where the cities and large towns are, there will be the great influx and cumulation of the people. Let the gentleman from Adams

compare the increase of these commercial and manufacturing towns with that of the agricultural portion of the Commonwealth, and cypher out the result by the rule of three. Why, Sir, the tendency is so plain that no man in his senses could mistake it.

Sir, there is danger to the Commonwealth from this centralizing power. I confess, when I heard my friend who represents Manchester, (Mr. | Dana,) the other day portray in characters of living light-in a manner so logical, so cogent, so clear, I was moved by it. I could but see that there was danger. If there is none, then human nature is not here what it is elsewhere.

I say that your district system will serve to increase this centralizing tendency, and to render it more dangerous, so far as the country is concerned, but if you will district the cities that will serve somewhat as a check. Now, Sir, people surely cannot complain, if they get themselves, just what they want every-body else to have; and if the people of the city of Boston want the whole State districted they certainly cannot with any reason, complain if they are districted themselves, as they want every-body else to be.

Mr. Chairman, I did not like the remarks made by a certain gentleman this morning upon the subject of reform; that a certain class of people were always the friends of reform and a certain other class opposed to it. I do not wish to misrepresent the gentleman, but it seemed to me as much as to say, "I, speaker,—I, first person singular-I have always been right upon the subject of reform." Sir, I confess that I cannot feel pleasantly to hear such remarks. I recollect upon a certain occasion, I shouldn't think it strange if it was in the year 1850, a certain bill was introduced into the legislature of Massachusetts to divide the State into single senatorial districts. The subject was discussed very ably upon both sides, then came the yeas and nays, and Sir, how do they stand? Yes, Sir, I repeat the interrogatory, how do they stand? The old county of Suffolk is first called, and what do we hear, save one unbroken chain of noes, not a solitary exception-and the same was virtually true of a certain party known, neither as the Democratic nor Free Soil party. Sir, does this look just like

[June 21st.

reform, and the reform of which the gentleman has this morning spoken so boastfully? Such facts as these and such professions for reform are wholly unreconcilable, by any metaphysics however subtile or complex, with the great principles of verity.

Mr. Chairman, I recollect that a certain gentleman from Boston, who occupied a very important side position in the House last winter, and who was a member of the House in 1852, and also a member of the Senate whose name I will not call-for "he was, and is not"-who, each proposed certain measures of reform, not in exact keeping with the feelings and active principles of the party to which they belonged, flying off as in a tangent from the old stereotyped action of the party; and for what was all this, think ye? It was ostensibly for reform, but what was it in reality? Was not the whole burden of that movement to head off this Convention? to make abortive the attempt to call a Convention? If it was not that, then what was it? All parties and the world so understood it. These measures were out of sight in advance of the party. "Always for reform !!" "O, consistency, thou art a jewel." Again, where were all these gentlemen on the plurality question, when it came up in 1849 and 1850? Were they head and shoulders in advance of their party in regard to reforms? Did they say it is our child, let us feed, clothe, educate it, and train it up as ours. Let facts, those stubborn things, speak for themselves. When one of my friends from a small town, who was born, reared and nurtured in the country, and had always breathed the exhilarating air of its hills, rose here and spoke against this principle, I was grieved; and it brought to mind the story of a certain regiment of soldiers who were carried away from Switzerland, their native land, to fight the battles of another country, and it unfortunately happened that the band of their regiment struck up a Swiss tune which brought so forcibly to their minds the scenes of their childhood, and awakened such strong and vivid recollections of the past, that they instinctively broke the ranks and fled. And it was something like that feeling which I experienced in listening to the speech of my friend. It recalled to my mind an anecdote of John Randolph, which I think illustrates his position pretty well. Upon one occasion a gentleman of eminent abilities, possessing a fine classical taste and a thorough acquaintance with literature, and who could speak the language more correctly than any man living, arose upon the floor of congress, and began there to defend the system of slavery, and to prove that slavery as an institution was right. When the gentleman had concluded his speech, Old John

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

I say the same to my friend. I do not envy him his head, nor do I envy him his heart, if he can come here and exert all his influence against the interests, rights, and privileges of the small towns of this old Commonwealth, whose sons were first and last upon the battle field of the Revolution, fighting for the liberties which we now enjoy. I shall vote for the Majority Report of the Committee with some slight alterations which I have not the time now to suggest. I hope that this whole subject will be thoroughly investigated, and that we will consider it calmly and patiently, free from all party bias and feeling. Some people talk about sacrificing their political existence. do not have any, and I thank God I never had any. I am always willing to do all I can for the good of the Commonwealth, and I never condescended to ask political favors from any man. If the people choose to send me here or to the Legislature, all I have to say is, that I will serve them according to the best of my ability. I have no political existence in the sense in which it is generally used, but that only which is common to every man. But it is a crime almost, for any man not to bear his portion of the burden which devolves upon him in society.

I

I hope that there are gentlemen here who will bring forward a system of representation that will prove acceptable to every man in this Convention and the Commonwealth. But one thing I can assure, gentlemen, that the small towns will never consent to be disfranchised and deprived of their representation.

But in concluding these remarks, I will notice one objection to the Majority Report which proposes to give to every town a representative, and that is, it will increase rather than diminish the size of the House. Now, Sir, in order to meet this objection, we have only to compare the merits of a small, with those of a large House. Well, Sir, the only excellency, if an excellency it may be called, that a small House has, or can have over a large one, is the the simple item of expense. A small House will not possess more talent than a large one. It cannot do more than all the business brought before it; and if done in shorter time it is only an item of expense. Can it be done better than by a large House? I do not believe it. Is not a small House far more liable to corruption than a large one? Are not external influences far more likely to control a small House? Are the varied and numerous interests of a Commonwealth as likely to be fully understood and

[June 21st.

duly cared for by a small House? Surely not! Then, Sir, all these evils and dangers are to be counterbalanced by the single item of a trifling

expense.

What, Sir, are some of the advantages of a large House? Sir, in a country like ours, the government is for the people, and from the people, and they should be made, as far as may be, to share in its deliberations and bear its responsibilities.

In what school can the great principles of free government be so thoroughly learned and so clearly understood as in our legislature? Sir, the glory and strength of this great republic is, the full, clear and practical knowledge of the principles and workings of the government. Sir, I would like it much if every man in the Commonwealth and in the nation could possess the benefits arising from years of legislative experience; for it would make the nation stronger than could the standing armies of Europe! One word in regard to expense. The revenues of the Commonwealth had far better be expended for legislation than to accumulate in her treasury. Better for those who have access to the funds of the Commonwealthbetter for the whole people.

Sir, a large House is above and beyond the control of all extrinsic influences-not so liable to corruption. And, Sir, as the time of the legislature is to be limited to one hundred days, by an amendment already passed, the argument as to expense is fully answered. I hope we shall retain a large House. I shall vote for the Majority Report, or something of like character.

Mr. WALKER, of North Brookfield. I hope that the question will be taken. It is quite evident that we shall not make any advance by the course we are pursuing.

The CHAIRMAN. The question now pending, is upon the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Hale,) to strike out the resolution reported by the majority of the Committee, and substitute the resolution reported by the minority.

The question was taken and a count being demanded, there were yeas 61, noes 156. So the amendment was rejected. The question recurred upon the adoption of the Majority Report.

Mr. HILLARD, of Boston. I beg leave to suggest to the Committee the expediency of not pressing the question upon the Majority Report at this moment. I take it, there are amendments which may be offered, and which may very properly be discussed by gentlemen not now here. Besides, I presume there are gentlemen who are prepared to address the Committee, especially my

12

Tuesday,]

BRINLEY - HALLETT

SCHOULER-EARLE.

[June 21st.

distinguished colleague, the attorney-general, who is not here now, but who intimated a wish to reply to some of the arguments adduced against his proposition. I therefore, submit, whether it may not be better to postpone taking the question upon the Majority Report, and leave it to be modified, so long as gentlemen may wish to continue the debate.

Mr. BRINLEY, of Boston. I intimated this morning that there was a proposition which I had the honor to submit, being No. 42 of the printed documents. It was only very partially distributed, and as the weather is very hot, and the hour rather late, I would prefer not to go into any explanation of it this afternoon. I move that the Committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion was upon a divisionayes, 88; noes, 81-agreed to, and the Committee accordingly rose, and the President having resumed the Chair of

THE CONVENTION,

consideration is necessary before it can be acted upon.

Mr. HALLETT. I move a reconsideration, then, for the purpose of moving to strike out the word " Supreme" and inserting the word "Chief;" and if I have an opportunity, I shall furnish a very excellent article.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will state the question, which is on the reconsideration of the vote by which the resolution was passed.

Mr. HALLETT. My reason for desiring the reconsideration on the subject of the title of "His Excellency" is for the purpose of striking out the adjective supreme, attached to the word "Executive," and inserting "Chief," so that it will be "Chief Executive Magistrate." The phraseology as it now stands is; "There shall be a Supreme Executive Magistrate.". That was adopted before there was any Constitution of the United States, and I suppose we shall concur in the propriety of striking it out, from the reasoning of gentlemen in a very celebrated document which I hold in my

The chairman reported progress, and obtained hand, which was printed in 1840, and is entitled, leave to sit again.

Orders of the Day.

On motion of Mr. BOUTWELL, the Convention proceeded to the consideration of the Orders of the Day, being the resolve in relation to the title of "His Excellency," reported from the Committee on so much of the Constitution as relates to the Governor, said resolve being upon its second reading.

"Answer of the Whig Members of the Legislature of Massachusetts, constituting a majority of both branches, to the address of His Excellency Marcus Morton, delivered in the Convention of the two Houses, January 22, 1840."

Upon the first page I find a commentary upon His Excellency, as follows:-“You announce yourself as the SUPREME EXECUTIVE Magistrate,' -a title which, though authorized by the Constitution, has heretofore been waived for the more

[ocr errors]

The resolve was then read a second time and simple one of Chief Magistrate.'' passed.

Mr. HALLETT. I desire to move an amendment to the Report, with regard to the title of governor, by striking out the word "Supreme,” and inserting the word "Chief" before the word "Executive."

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will suggest that the resolution is passed.

Mr. HALLETT. With reference to one portion of the title, I know it is passed; but, I supposed that an alteration might be made in any other portion.

The PRESIDENT. The question which the Convention has disposed of, was upon that part of the resolve which is comprehended in the words "His Excellency."

Mr. HALLETT. The Committee had referred to them, "so much of the Constitution in chapter 2, section 1, (except articles 9 and 10,) as relates to the Governor, and an order of May 23d, relative to the title of the Governor."

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman must see that the Convention has disposed of it, and a re

This was signed by many gentlemen who are now members of this Convention, and it had an amazing influence upon the votes of that party

Mr. SCHOULER. I rise to a point of order, Mr. President.

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. SCHOULER. By the rules, a motion for the reconsideration of a question goes over till

to-morrow.

Mr. HALLETT. I think the gentleman should have been willing to receive this lesson of Whig wisdom, and that he should not have stopped me in this part of the debate.

Mr. SCHOULER. I will withdraw my objection to taking the question on the reconsideration of the vote at this time.

Mr. EARLE, of Worcester. I hope the reconsideration will not take place. I see no occasion for it. It is true the Constitution was adopted before the present government of the United States was established, but still, as I understand it, the

Tuesday,]

MILLER-HALLETT-WHITNEY.

[June 21st.

consent. Objection was made, and the question was not put.

The Militia.

governor is no less the supreme executive magis- | the question again, unless it was done by general
trate of the State than he was then; and, although
the government of the United States is supreme,
yet it is not over the State as a State, but over the
Union as a Union, and therefore I see no occasion
for any change. And, unless there is a clear and
positive reason in favor of the change, I am op-
posed to making any. I hope, therefore, the
reconsideration will not take place.

Mr. MILLER, of Wareham. I have but a single word to say. I hope this Committee will not strike out the word "supreme." As was well stated by the gentleman from Worcester, the governor is the supreme executive of our Commonwealth. I suppose the idea of the gentleman who moved the reconsideration is, that because the President of the United States is the supreme executive, this term ought not to be applied to the chief magistrate of a State. But we use that term in another department of this government. We have a court called the Supreme Court; yet we have a court of the United States before which matters are brought from other courts, and which is called the Supreme Court of the United States. I know not where we shall end if we persist in making these mere verbal changes in the Constitution. The word "chief," is a word generally applied to warriors. The first idea of it is generally that of the title of the head of a band of Indian warriors, and I should not like to go back to anything like that barbarous idea, and change the word "supreme" to that of "chief." I have nothing more to say.

Mr. HALLETT. I merely wish to say, in reply to my friend from Wareham, that there is no such term as "supreme," applied to any individual in this Commonwealth except the governor. We have a Supreme Judicial Court, but we do not call the chief justice the supreme justice. No man in this Commonwealth should have the title of supreme, nor should any man in this republic have that title. I think it is antirepublican, no longer necessary, and should not remain in the Constitution.

Mr. SCHOULER, of Boston. I am somewhat in a quandary how to vote on this question. The gentleman for Wilbraham has come down to 1840. I wish to ask him what the supreme executive was called in 1636?

[ocr errors]

Mr. HALLETT. He was called supreme executive in 1780.

The question was taken upon the motion to reconsider the final vote and it was decided in the negative.

Mr. HOOPER, of Fall River, asked for a division; but the PRESIDENT said that the vote having been announced, it was too late to take

The resolve and articles of amendment on the subject of the militia, as amended, then had their second reading; and the question was stated on their final passage.

Mr. WHITNEY, of Boylston. I have a few thoughts in relation to this subject which I desire to offer at this time. I confess that I believe it is wrong to take human life, but that is a question which I shall not discuss now. I will say

one word, however, with reference to certain gentleman who seem to suppose that those who look upon life-taking as wrong and sinful in the sight of God are no-government men-that they are anarchists-that they want to see this whole frame-work of government go to pieces if they could be the gainers by any such result. I wish to say, Sir, that we do not belong with such men. We believe, however, that God forbids us to take human life, and therefore we must obey him. If other men believe that they are commissioned, and that under certain circumstances they are justified in taking it, to their own Master they stand or fall. Let them do their duty; but when gentlemen suppose that we cannot have any way to govern our families, and to discharge the various duties and offices of life, because we deny the right of one man to take the life of another, they altogether misjudge the matter; they do not understand the reasons and the grounds upon which we act. If gentlemen want an illustration to see how we would deal with bad men, or violent and dangerous men, let them go to the Insane Hospitals in this land and throughout the world, and see how the most violent men are managed without the use of the life-taking power. We regard all violent and vicious and unruly men-all those who are dangerous to their fellow men-as laboring under a moral insanity, and we think that they ought to be restrained. But we hold that we can restrain them without resorting to the life-taking principle; and we accomplish that object by simply using physical force in love and kindness, just as you would take care of a raging maniac. That is the only means to which we think a man can rightfully resort in overcoming evil.

Now, Sir, this matter before us is one that interests us very much. Not that we suppose this State or any other State is ready to adopt our own views of principle in relation to this matter, but because we regard with a good deal of interest the tendency of our citizens in various parts of the

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

community towards the abandonment of arms and the laying aside of physical force. We are glad to see them getting rid of this thing, because we consider it a great evil to have a military spirit, in any of its manifestations, increasing and spreading among our fellow men. More than seventeen times as many human beings as now people this fair world of ours, have been slaughtered in mutual strife. Our own Burritt has computed the amount of blood which has thus been shed, and which if brought into one great ocean, the entire navy of the entire world could float upon its crimson surface. We say, this is enough-let it be stayed, at any rate, so far as it can be done with any safety to what is good among the human race. We think that the time has come when all good men should be seeking for a deliverance from this terrible scourge. I should be glad if this State of Massachusetts, which gave birth to so many members of this Convention would take the lead in this great work of peace on earth, and good will among men.

Now the point which I wish to make against the Report of the Committee is this-that the militia as an occasional aid to the civil power and to the police in the execution of the laws, is entirely useless at the very time when it is most needed. Reference was made in the remarks of one of the gentlemen who preceded me, to the burning of the convent in a neighboring city. Now I ask, Sir, why was it burned? You had time enough to call out your militia. It was not a sudden matter; it was premeditated and talked about for days and nights, and the whole surrounding region knew all about it. Why did you not then have the tap of the drum and the steady tramp of the soldiery, and have that building protected? Simply because the tone of public sentiment was against the matter. Public sentiment said "burn it!" and it was burned, to the deep disgrace of Massachusetts. I believe it was the same year, or the next year at any rate, that one of the most peaceful, loving and gentle citizens whom this Commonwealth has ever reared, was taken in broad daylight and dragged through the streets of the city of Boston, with a rope around his neck, like a criminal. Where were the militia then? Why did they not protect the rights and the safety of this unoffending man? Was it because they had no right to do so? Sir, it was because the public sentiment of Boston said, "let the fanatic be suppressed." That is the only reason. Now, Sir, your common soldiers who go about the streets are not real soldiers. Because they have a little bear skin upon them, it does not prove that they are real soldiers, who will fire upon anybody-not at all. They carry guns and bayo

[June 21st.

nets; but they do not use them. If you order these soldiers to fire upon their fathers or brethren do you believe they will do it? Not they. I say then, as a matter of police assistance, in times of great danger, this banded military power is useless. Two or three years ago, the public sentiment of Boston-and permit me to refer to these matters as mere matters of fact, for I do not refer to them with any evil design-within two or three years the public sentiment of Boston, from political considerations, or commercial considerations, or considerations of some other character, allowed one of our sable brethren to be carried away from Boston, into a state of interminable slavery. The great public sentiment of Boston said the thing must be done; and then the military were on hand to do this duty; and when there was any danger of an uprising of the same spirit in the hearts of men that threw the tea overboard and that committed the other acts which were charged against them, as set forth in years gone by, the military were on hand and ready to act. When the public sentiment goes in favor of a great wrong, the military is ready to enforce the wrong; but when you need the the military to protect the poor and humble individual who has no power to protect himself, and the public sentiment says, "let him be crushed!" then you may tap the drum as long as you please, but the swords and bayonets will not make their appearance-you cannot get them to act in opposition to their own brothers and their own fathers. therefore assert, that as a matter of occasional police regulation, the military power is inefficient where it is most needed. I am not certain, Mr. President, how much assistance the faithful and laborious leader in the great temperance movement would receive from the military power of Boston, in the execution of the laws of the Commonwealth against the sale of liquors. It is very doubtful how much assistance the military power would grant him if he should undertake to execute these laws; but I am certain that if the public sentiment was strong against their execution, the military power would be of no use to him. It is ready when there is no necessity for its services; but when it is most needed it is of no avail. I will say here, although I do not suppose that a great many military men are total abstinence men, yet in urging the subject of temperance once upon an old militia colonel, he answered me by saying, that it was as much impossible to maintain the military spirit without the use of ardent spirits, as it would be to make a world. Now, Sir, I told him that I would be perfectly willing, if that was true, that these twin sisters of destruction-the military spirit and intoxicating spirit—

I

« ForrigeFortsett »