but that town communities are entitled to be represented, through the individuals who compose these respective communities. That is the only principle upon which I can act, in advocating town representation; and there I can stand. Now, if you give to these communities the right to be represented in one branch of the general court, is it safe to say, that these communities may be represented here by a minority? I have great doubts upon this matter, because, then it comes to this point: you may put your House of Representatives in the hands, in the first place, of of a minority of the whole people, by the mode of a representation of communities, instead of that based upon the aggregate population; and then, you go one step farther, and put these communities into the hands of a minority of the communities, so that it is a minority of a minority that will elect your representatives, for a term of years, until the Constitution is changed, and control this branch of the legislature. It is true— and therefore our town representation principle is sound-that the House of Representatives, so apportioned, does not control the government, and if you preserve the other departments of the government in the hands of a majority, that may so far balance it, and the government will be only of a majority. But, I think that we should preserve, at least, the great principle in regard to the election of representatives, that they should be chosen by a majority, and nothing less. That renders this portion of the Report of the Committee especially important, as a matter of principle.

Now, as it regards the question of expediency in town representation, if I am right in this principle of government, that we must have a majority in government to be republican, the practicability of electing by majorities is very different in town elections from what it is in elections at large. In the first place, the towns may continue to try to elect representatives, and they may be allowed to try as they did under the old law. At all events, they continue to have trials for the election of representatives. But, Sir, a town has a right to be represented, or not represented, as it pleases. That is an ancient town right; and I hold that if the people cannot agree as to a representation by a majority, it is just as much a vote determining not be represented, as if it were placed upon the record not to send. But herein you propose that a town, by the operation of the plurality, in effect, shall be represented, whether it will or not. I very much question if that is not introducing a principle more restrictive of town rights than if we limited their representation, because you allow a minority to compel a

[July 18th.

town to be represented, when a majority of the people of that town are opposed to being represented by the person who is chosen. A few voters will go into the town meeting, who get there first, and vote to send, or begin to ballot, when three-fourths of the voters will not be represented in the general vote, or in the choice. So a minority may dissolve the meeting. You may, nevertheless, call a meeting by the selectmen, at the proper period in November, and then have an election, by a minority vote; and if you have four or five parties in the field, a plurality, consisting of a minority of one-fourth, may elect a representative and send him to the general court, against the majority who vote, and against the corporate will of the town, not to be represented. I do not wish to place the towns in that attitude. If I were going to vote in this matter merely as a politician, so as to cull a plurality party out of all the three parties in the Commonwealth, I would go for this; and it is a strong temptation to do so, because I confess I want to get rid of that third party. I believe that they will do much better for themselves and for their country, by being fused into the other two parties, according to their individualities, than by undertaking any longer to keep house themselves as a party; and I will say, that those who carry this plurality doctrine out, in the choice of all officers, must not blame us who opposed it, if we hold the knife which they have whetted, to their throats. But I stand here, upon the general principle, that I consider these communities of towns as the elements of House Representation, and being the elements of that representation, I cannot consistently vote for sending their representatives here by a minority. I hope, therefore, as it was only my purpose to set myself right on this question, that this amendment, as regards the third resolve, will be adopted, so that it will read, “that in the election of representatives to the general court, a majority of all the votes given in shall be necessary for an election," and if that does not prevail, then, at least, let the amendment which has been suggested, be adopted. You ought to have an election by plurality at the first trial, at all events, otherwise you say that those who are to elect your representatives shall be men who can afford to ride to the polls, and not those who have to walk, and cannot well lose a day's work; for that is all the difference, a difference between men of property in the villages, and a sparse population of farmers and laborers, scattered in the rural sections. Almost every man can and will go to the polls on the first day, when a trial is to be made; but the laboring man cannot afford to lose his dollar each day, for four or five times, unless

Monday,]

[July 18th.

Mr. FOSTER, of Charlemont. I am in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Plymouth. My constituents have been unrepresented for the last two years because they could not agree upon the man to be sent, and when I was at home the other day I told them that I should still sustain the majority principle on the subject, and they consented still to be without representation; for they considered the majority principle a safe one. I told them that there was a special reason why I should support this principle, and that is: that we are likely to have a large House of Representatives and I would be very willing to have the House thinned out a little by these very failures to elect, and that that was one of the strong motives why I am so much in favor of the majority system.

Mr. STETSON, of Braintree. I do not intend to detain the Convention. When I hear my friend oppose what I consider a democratic principle, and a democratic rule, I am induced to address the Convention. I believe, Sir, that the majority principle, as it now exists in the State, is, in fact, a rule by which the very smallest minority rules the majority. That is the fact; and I think that some provision should be made in the Constitution by which this may be overcome, or set aside, in some way or other; and I know of no way unless we adopt what is called the plurality system. I believe that the system of plurality is the most just and equal to the majority of all parties, and that the rule itself, nine times out of ten, results in giving a fair majority of the people in favor of such candidates as are brought forward for election. And is it not a fact that under the majority rule, you find the little party v.will govern in almost all cases? Where there are two parties, the Whig and the Democratic,or the Free Democratie and the Democratic,where the two parties are nearly balanced, and we say that the majority shal rule, one or the other of these parties are bound to coalesce if they wish to choose. And what is the result? By a coalition one party will succeed; but if each party stands upon his own right, independently of the others, no person can be chosen. Now that is the rule. I hope the Convention will adopt the Repart of the Committee. I am willing to go far

far as it can be made to go; that we should elect all officers under the State government by a plurality vote. That is the true doctrine, and I can well conceive why my friend for Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett,) is so loath to concede that even a majority should rule; because I do not know but he is one of the fathers of the two-thirds rule, contending that two-thirds of a party should be brought to bear upon a single object, or else no one can be chosen.

Now the two-thirds rule is one of the most destructive inventions that ever existed; and I would appeal to gentlemen, whether that rule does not throw out all the men who are the most deserving of office? I say, that by this iron rule, the most valuable men are thrown aside. I can conceive no other reason why my friend is so loath to adopt the Report of the Committee, except that he wants that iron rule to continue. Now, I am sorry to say, we had some long speeches made, on a former occasion, upon the subject; that those who have always supported the democratic principles, have come out and said, here upon this floor-and I believe my friend on the right is among the number--that the plurality principle tends to destroy the very foundation of the government.

Sir, I am sometimes called radical; but if this plurality rule is a radical measure, then I am a radical. I do not believe but that the principle itself produces the effect which we all desire; that it develops the true principles of the majority. I will venture to say, Sir, that two-thirds of all the legal voters in the State of Massachusetts are among the working classes. One of the principles of democracy, I believe, is to relieve the masses from the oppressions of wealth; and I contend that the majority rule, as it operates under present circumstances, is one of an oppressive character. The men upon whom the burdens of taxation fall most heavily, are the working men -men who are often compelled to meet, from time to time, and from day to day, at the polls to vote, or relinquish their right of being represented. And I would appeal to every member of the Convention if he does not know, in every election, after the first or second day, who are the parties who do not appear at the polls? Is it not the laboring classes, the rank and file of the party? The consequence is, that we cannot get even a fair plurality of the voters of the towns when an election takes place. Persons are thus voted into office by a very small number of voters. I have myself been voted into the House of Representatives, on a majority vote, by a less number than would have constituted a plurality

Monday,]

vote on the first day of election. And why is it that we suffer this thing to remain on the statute book, year after year, without bringing the matter forward, and putting it to the people what they desire; that is what the laboring classes want, that we should adopt this plurality question. Sir, during the sittings of this Convention, I have not seen a Democrat among my constituency, or among any other, who does not believe that the people desire, and want this principle of plurality adopted. They desire it for the best of all reasons in the world-that they may relieve themselves from the oppressive burden which this majority rule inflicts upon them.

I contend, Sir, that this principle is one of Democratic birth; that it has received the support of Democrats in all the States of the Union, and that it has been advocated in an address to the people of the Commonwealth. But enough has been said upon that point. The people know it; they understand it; and they expect to have the question put to them upon this plurality mode of election. They ask for it; and, I believe, that in the present state of parties, as that principle has operated, it has developed itself in the best possible manner. It entirely does away with that oppressive burden which is thrown upon the working classes. It is right and just that we should adopt it; and therefore I am in favor of the Report of the Committee being sustained, as far as it goes. I admit that it does not go far enough for me; but I shall sustain the Report of the Committee.

On motion by Mr. CRESSY, of Hamilton, the Committee rose, and, the President having resumed the chair of

THE CONVENTION,

The chairman of the Committee of the Whole reported progress, and asked leave to sit again. Leave was granted.

Reports from a Committee.

Mr. HALLETT, for Wilbraham, presented the following Reports from the Committee on the Bill of Rights, which were referred to the Committee of the Whole, and ordered to be printed.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.

In Convention, July 18, 1853. The undersigned, a minority of the Committee on so much of the Constitution as is contained in the Preamble and Bill of Rights, report that the second Article of the Bill of Rights ought to be so altered as to change the words "for his religious profession or sentiments," to the words

[July 18th.

"for his profession or sentiments concerning religion."

So that it will read, if so amended: "And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his profession or sentiments concerning religion."

B. F. HALLett. ANSON BURLINGAME. CHARLES SUMNER. HENRY WILLIAMS.

GEO. S. HILLARD.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.
In Convention, July 18, 1853.

The undersigned, a minority of the same Committee, also report.

To strike out from the 28th Article of the Bill of Rights the words "but by the authority of the legislature."

So it will read, if amended: "No person can, in any case, be subjected to law-martial, or to any penalties or pains by virtue of that law, except those employed in the army or navy, and except the militia in actual service."

B. F. HALLETT. L. MARCY.

H. WILLIAMS.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. In Convention, July 18, 1853. The undersigned, a minority of the same Committee, also report.

That there should be added to the 15th Article of the Bill of Rights the following clause :—

In all trials for criminal offences, the jury, after having received the instruction of the court, shall have the right, in their verdict of guilty or not guilty, to determine the law and the facts of the

case.

B. F. HALLett. ANSON BURLINGAME. CHARLES Sumner.

L. MARCY.

CHARLES ALLEN.
H. WILLIAMS.

On motion by Mr. HALE, of Bridgewater, the Convention adjourned, until three o'clock, P. M.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

The Convention reassembled at three o'clock.

Specie Payments.

Mr. FROTHINGHAM, of Charlestown, from the Committee on the subject of Banking, submit

Monday,]

ted the following Report, which was referred to the Committee of the Whole, and ordered to be printed.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.

In Convention, July 18, 1853. The Committee on the subject of Banking, to whom was referred an order, to consider the expediency of providing that the legislature shall have no power to authorize, or pass any law sanctioning the suspension of specie payments by any corporations issuing bank notes, have considered the same, and report, that it is inexpedient to take any action on this subject.

RICHARD FROTHINGHAM, JR., Chairman.

Final Adjournment.

Mr. EARLE, of Worcester, from the Committee on the subject of the Final Adjournment of the Convention, reported, that in the opinion of the Committee, the Convention may finish up its business, and adjourn on Saturday, the twentythird instant.

The Report was laid upon the table.

The Pay Roll.

Mr. WILSON, of Natick, submitted the following order, which lies over for consideration

to-morrow:

Ordered, That the Committee on the Pay Roll be instructed to make up the same, including the day of adjournment, and that no member receive pay except for the days of actual attendance.

Limitation of Debate.

Mr. ADAMS, of Lowell. I move now, Mr. President, that debate in Committee of the Whole, upon the subject of Elections by Plurality, cease in one hour after the Committee shall again resume the consideration of the same.

Mr. BRADBURY, of Newton. It will be remembered, by the Convention, that this subject has been under consideration heretofore, in the Committee of the Whole, and that we found ourselves, at the close of that discussion, with some eight or nine entirely new and distinct questions to settle, after the hour had arrived at which debate had been ordered to be closed, by an imperative vote of the Convention. There is little time now allowed, very little, and there are a number of questions before the Committee of the Whole, and they may be varied, by new motions constantly offered; and I submit, whether it is proper or fair, to the members of the Convention, to put it in the power of a member of the Committee of the Whole, to bring a member to a vote upon a

[July 18th.

question instanter, without any opportunity for discussion?

The proceedings in this Convention, in this respect, have been very unlike the usual deliberative proceedings in this capitol, and I have heard members of different views unite in condemning them. Under a procedure similar to that now recommended by the gentleman from Lowell, (Mr. Adams,) the basis of the House, which had been for many days under discussion, and had been deliberately modified, was at once, without debate, essentially transformed, on a motion which, for want of time, could be neither discussed nor examined.

And I am fully of opinion that, exclusive of those who had had the privilege of previous examination, there was not one man in ten that knew the effect of the proposition to which I refer, of the gentleman from Lowell, (Mr. Abbott,) which constitutes the vital part of the adopted basis of the House of Representatives.

I will say no more, because I have spoken three or four times upon this subject, but I have been brought to vote upon propositions entirely new to me, and upon which, not one word of explanation was allowed, pro or con. On the previous occasion, after having consumed a great deal of time in the discussion of the general question of plurality, we were brought to vote instanter upon eight or nine distinct issues; and now I submit, whether it is right to place ourselves in a position where we cannot fairly and fully understand the questions which may be presented? I submit, as the Convention has full control over the Committee of the Whole, whether it would not be better for the Convention to instruct the Committee of the Whole to report at a certain time, so that the right to submit new propositions, and the right to debate, may be coextensive?

Mr. WOOD, of Fitchburg. This Convention has already been in session a month longer than it was expected to be, and this subject now under discussion, has heretofore had one full discussion, and at the time it was recommitted, it was said, as an objection to its recommitment, that we should have to go over the whole matter, de novo, its origin, its history, and all, at as great length as at first. But we were assured by many members of the Convention that it should not be so, for as most of us understood all the bearings and all the suggestions in relation to the matter, though we should not precisely approve of the Report of the Committee, we could proceed to vote without much discussion; indeed, without there being any necessity for much discussion. I was surprised, under these circumstances, to see, this forenoon,

with what ardor certain gentlemen made an attack upon the Report of the Committee, and to see them proceed to argue it as a new question before 118. If this course is to be pursued, I seriously ask, when are we to get through? The question has been asked by our constituents many times, and as often we have been compelled to say we do not know, and cannot tell; that many of our debates are spun out to an unreasonable length, and that things which were fairly understood by all of us, have been talked about over and over again, until we were disgusted by them. Now, the question is, whether we shall go on talking over these matters, or whether we will come to a decision upon them, and thus be able to meet our constituents with honest faces ?

It seems to me that it is about time, that now, the latter part of July, we should seriously think about adjournment, and that we should expedite business by working seriously, and talking less. Here is a fit subject for us to begin upon; and will we keep talking about the matter? The gentleman from Newton, (Mr. Bradbury,) thinks that we are unable to understand the matter, as though we were fools. It is not so. I am somewhat surprised to see how well the members of this Convention understand subjects brought before them-most of them much better than I do. Without saying anything more-because I wish to exemplify my theory by practice-I hope the motion will prevail.

Mr. BRADBURY, of Newton. I move to amend the motion of the gentleman from Lowell, (Mr. Adams,) by striking out the word "one," and inserting in lieu thereof, the word "three," so as to provide that the question shall be taken in three hours after the Committee of the Whole shall resume the consideration of the subject.

The question was taken on the latter amendment, and it was not agreed to.

Mr. BRADBURY. I now move to strike out "one," and substitute "two."

[July 18th.

that the Convention resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, upon the unfinished business of the morning, to wit: the subject of Elections by Plurality.

The motion was agreed to.

The Convention accordingly resolved itself into

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE,

Mr. Hillard, of Boston, in the chair.

The CHAIRMAN stated the question to be first, upon the amendment submitted by the gentleman from Plymouth, (Mr. Davis,) and then upon the motion of the gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Schouler,) heretofore inserted.

Mr. LADD, of Cambridge. I confess that I do not fully understand the object sought to be accomplished by the third resolve, to which the amendment of the gentleman from Plymouth, (Mr. Davis,) applies, nor have the Committee which reported them, thrown much light upon the subject. I find that it is reported here, that, upon the first trial for the election of representatives, the majority principle shall obtain. But if no one shall obtain a majority, then that the candidate having the highest number of votes upon a second, or any subsequent ballot, shall be declared elected. I can very well understand what the majority rule itself is, and the force of the arguments which are brought to sustain it and show why it should be applied. I can very well understand what the plurality system is, and can appreciate the force of the arguments which are advanced in support of that rule. But when it is proposed, that a majority of all the votes cast, shall be required upon the first balloting, to elect a member of the legislature, and a plurality only of votes cast upon a second, or any subsequent ballot, it seems to me that, in the first place, an unnecessary amount of machinery is introduced, to accomplish precisely the same purpose. If there is an election upon the first balloting, the majority rule prevails. If there is a plurality

accomplished as is proposed to be accomplished

pears to me that, as the first trial is ordinarily held, and will be held, when a choice of officers for the Commonwealth is to be made, that there will, in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred, be a much fuller expression of public opinion, than there will be upon the second trial; and I should like to be informed of the object to be accomplished by this resolve, that there shall be an election by a plurality vote upon a second trial. I can see no purpose to be accomplished. I suppose, in point of fact, that in the large towns of the Commonwealth, if there should be no choice