without the consent of the legislature. And we should adopt this, not only as a great popular measure, but also as a conservative measure, a peaceful measure for reforms and changes in government, by the popular will, without danger, and without the necessity of resorting to physical revolution. That is my sole purpose, and if it can be secured in this mode, or in any other which shall be found adequate to the purpose, I shall be satisfied that the great and inherent will of the people, which is now denied to them by courts and lawyers, has been affirmed.

Mr. GILES, of Boston. I do not rise for the purpose of opposing the amendment of the gentleman for Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett,) because I said the other day that I agreed with him in reference to this subject. I have seen the amendment now before us, and the only objection I have to it is its length and complexity, which I fear will impede its adoption, if not defeat it entirely.

The difficulty in incorporating a Convention law into the Constitution is, that if it goes into specific provisions, it is too long; and more than that, it undertakes to settle details which should be left to posterity. I agree with the gentleman for Wilbraham, and I believe he agrees with me, that we do not wish to say in the Constitution that it shall be constitutional to violate the Constitution; nor do we wish to say that it shall be legal to violate law. When a revolution comes, basing itself upon the right of revolution, it will declare itself, and needs no declaration from us beforehand. What we wish is, to secure to the people the right of amending their Constitution whenever they see proper; so that when they declare their will to that end, no hostile legislature shall ever have the power to come in and baulk them in their purpose. And when I say the will of the people, I mean that will legally expressed. I mean the people in the legislature, otherwise the people in the towns at one end of the State might vote for one proposition, and those at the other end for another, and their votes would bind nobody. What I want is, the will of the people in the legal sense; that the popular voice, constitutionally expressed, shall be considered and recognized as obligatory. I want it to have "free course, to run and be glorified;" I speak it with deference.

Now, I should be content with this first resolution. In fact, I should prefer the first resolution, with an addition which I shall read for information, and which, at a proper time, I propose to offer. I shall be willing to strike out the second and third resolutions entirely. The language of the first is a little objectionable, but I

[July 18th.

take it the Committee on Revision, will take care of that. I say, then, that I should rather prefer the first resolution, with this addition :

And the right of the people at all times to vention or otherwise, according to their will, amend that constitution of government, by Conlegally expressed, shall never be restrained or

obstructed in this Commonwealth.

It seems to me that this will secure all that is necessary for us to secure in the Constitution. It will provide, that when the people have signified their will, the legislature shall not obstruct or restrain that will; but on the contrary, that they shall promote and assist in carrying it into execution. So that, if the people have willed a Convention, and in the mean time the State House should burn down, it would be the duty of the legislature, if in session, to provide another place for the meeting of the Convention. Or if any other unforeseen event should intervene to render legislation necessary, the legislature, if in session, should perform it with a view to carry out the will of the people. I will go any length to secure that object. If it should be thought advisable to go farther than that first resolution, with the addition I have indicated, and have a Convention Act incorporated into the Constitution, you must do one of two things: You must either adopt, as a part of your resolution, the Convention Act of 1852,-which is the same as that of 1819,-and entail that for substance and detail upon posterity, whether it will suit or not, or you must depend upon the intervention of the legislature.

I have drawn up a Convention Act, which I should prefer, if the Committee would go that length, as a substitute for the one offered by my friend for Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett,) for the reason that, instead of calling upon the people to vote whether they want a Convention, and then to vote for delegates to that Convention, or depending upon future legislation, or incorporating existing law into the Constitution, it will secure a Convention once in twenty years. I will read it for the information of the Committee, and as a part of my remarks:

Resolved, That the qualified voters in State elections, in the several cities and towns, shall, in the year eighteen hundred and seventy-three, and in each twentieth year thereafter, and as much oftener as shall be required by law, elect Convention Delegates, in conformity with the law then in force for the election of representatives; and the delegates so elected shall meet at the State House on the first Wednesday of May next after said election, and when organized, with not less than one hundred members as a quorum for

the transaction of business, may consider, and adopt, and submit to the people for their ratification, such amendments of the Constitution, as shall be deemed best; and the right of the people, at all times, to amend their constitution of government, by Convention, or otherwise, according to their will legally expressed, shall never be restrained or obstructed in this Commonwealth.

Mr. CHURCHILL, of Milton. I am opposed to the proposition which has been submitted to us upon this subject, because I see no good reason or sense in it. It seems to me it is an attempt to foresee, for fifteen or twenty years, when the people of this Commonwealth will need and require a Convention to reform their Constitution, which we had better leave to the people themselves. I contend that we should leave the matter as it stands in the Bill of Rights, and upon the precedent set in calling this Convention. The Bill of Rights declares nearly all that the gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Giles,) who has just taken his seat, has embraced in his proposition, and the precedent cited for calling this Convention will enable the people hereafter, when they desire a Convention, to demand of the legislature that they shall pass an act for that purpose. It seems to me that such a proposition as this is nothing more or less than subjecting this subject of calling a Convention to the decision of political parties, and the party which is dissatisfied with the operation of the Constitution, will be perpetually submitting a proposition for calling a fresh Convention. I think the people hereafter will be able to settle better than we can, when they need a Convention; and when they need it, they have a precedent and Bill of Rights, to which they

can resort.

The CHAIRMAN. How are we to ascertain that fact?

Mr. ASPINWALL. By a count taken by the moderators. That is the way it is done in the House of Commons, or any other legislative body.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is of the opinion, that while the gentleman from Natick is occupying the floor, that a motion for a count is not in order.

Mr. WILSON. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, very strange, that gentlemen who are daily and hourly pressing upon the Convention the importance of closing our labors here, should find it convenient to themselves to be absent so much of the time. Some of us are left here, however. I suppose those who are here at this hour, are governed by a sense of public duty in remaining; and, therefore, we had better proceed to do the business before us. The proposition made by the delegate for Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett,) is a lengthy one, and therefore we cannot fully comprehend it, unless it be printed, and we have an opportunity to examine it. The gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Giles,) has already presented another proposition. It seems to me, that a plain, clear, and distinct proposition, can be prepared, and incorporated into our amended Constitution, providing for future amendments. Some gentlemen of the Convention think it unnecessary to have any such proposition inserted in the Constitution. I do not agree with these gentlemen, in that respect. Some gentlemen think that such a provision would be a limitation of the power of the people. I do not so understand it. In the debate upon the Berlin case, the judgment of this Convention was, that the people have a right to

Mr. WILSON, of Natick. The proposition made by the delegate for Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett,) is rather a lengthy one.

Mr. ASPINWALL, of Brookline. I rise to a question of order. I suggest that there is not a quorum present.

Mr. OTIS, of Sumner. I move that the Committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. WILSON. I believe I have the floor. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Natick has the floor. The gentleman from Brookline rises to a point of order, but the Chair cannot see how that can be properly made at the present time. Therefore, the gentleman from Natick will proceed.

Mr. ASPINWALL. Will the Chair allow me to suggest that the Committee cannot sit if there is no quorum present?

legislature for authority so to do. Now, gentlemen propose to leave the Constitution, in this respect, precisely and exactly where it is at pres

ent.

We know that nearly all the eminent lawyers of Massachusetts, believe that we are sitting here without any constitutional authority-that this Convention is an unconstitutional body. My friend for Manchester, (Mr. Dana,) shakes his head, but does he not know that in the canvass of 1851, that, for party purposes, the judgment of the learned and distinguished gentleman from Cambridge, (Mr. Greenleaf,) and professor in the law school, who addressed the Convention the other day, was taken as an opinion, and that he declared the call for a Constitutional Convention was not constitutional? Another eminent lawyer of Boston, Mr. Charles G. Loring, a man whose opinions upon legal subjects are not surpassed by any other man, perhaps, in Massachusetts, gave it as his deliberate opinion, that the

Tuesday,]

On motion by Mr. WILSON, of Natick, the propositions submitted by Messrs. Hallett and Giles, as substitutes for the resolves reported by the Committee on future amendments to the Constitution, were ordered to be printed.

The Convention then, on motion, at seven o'clock, adjourned until to-morrow morning, at nine o'clock.

TUESDAY, July 19, 1853.

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. Prayer by the Chaplain.

The Journal of yesterday was read.

Delegate from Concord.

Mr. HOBBS, of Weston, presented the credentials of Mr. CHARLES C. HAZEWELL, elected a delegate from Concord, in place of Mr. Gourgas, deceased, which were received, and the delegate took his seat.

Report from a Committee.

Mr. GRISWOLD, for Erving, from the Committee on the House of Representatives, reported that it was inexpedient to act upon the subject of an order of May 25th, concerning the expediency of providing that towns and districts may have the right to be represented by any citizens of the Commonwealth.

[July 19th.

There is necessarily a very great inequality in regard to the attendance of members here. The record shows that about one-half of the members of this Convention live at their own homes, and that they go home each evening and have some opportunity to attend to their business, while those who live farther have not that privilege. Some who live at a distance go home every Saturday and return on Monday. If, then, such a rule as this be stringently applied, it will cut off a large part of the compensation of those who are so situated. It appears to me there should be a little more liberality in matters of this kind. I speak in behalf of those members who live away from their homes as well as myself, and whose only opportunity to go home is to take a part of Saturday for that purpose, and a part of Monday to return. So far as I am concerned, I shall have no hesitation in putting down in my charge for attendance, every day in the week, although I have been absent on Saturday and Monday. I should have no compunctions of conscience whatever on that score, the more especially if those gentlemen who go home every day, leaving this hall long before the adjournment in the evening, are entitled, under this order, to make a charge for such days' attendance. I merely wish to be informed in regard to this order what is to be its construction in this respect.

Mr. WILSON, of Natick. I can only say, Mr. President, that it appears to me that the

Compensation of Members.

The order submitted yesterday by Mr. Wilson, of Natick, being the first item on the Orders of the Day, was taken up for consideration.

It was read, as follows:

Ordered, That the Committee on the Pay Roll be instructed to make up the same, including the day of final adjournment, allowing to each member pay only for his actual attendance, except in cases of sickness.

this. I think that honesty and sound policy alike demand its adoption. What are the facts? The record will show that from the commencement of the session to the present time there have been at least a hundred members absent each day; one-fourth of the members of this Convention have been daily absent. That is about the average. Now, Sir, we have voted ourselves three dollars a day. This is a large increase over the pay of members of the legislature, and if we are to draw our pay while we are not here attending to our duties, twenty-five or thirty thousand dollars will be taken out of the

Mr. BRIGGS, of Pittsfield, said he would like to be informed how the mover of this order intended that it should apply in the case of those members who were absent a part of Saturday and a part of Monday. He would like to hear the gentleman explain what he means by a day's attendance. I do not, continued Mr. Briggs, intend to take up any time in talking about this matter, but it does seem to me that the proposition should not be adopted.

The gentleman from Pittsfield may think it unnecessary to adopt a resolution of this character, but I confess I view the matter differently. There has been a similar rule in the legislature, but what has been the action of gentlemen of the legislature, during the past year? I hold in my hand the record of the pay of the members of the last legislature, taken from the books of the treasury office, which shows that the last legislature must have taken out of the public treasury twenty or twentyfive thousand dollars that did not belong to them.

Tuesday,]

There were two hundred and eighty-seven members at least; and from the pay roll it would appear that there was an average attendance of two hundred and eighty-four and a half, although every one knows that there were eighty or ninety members absent every day. Our record shows that one-quarter and recently one-third of the members of this Convention have not attended here daily.

Now I am one of those who believe, that the sense of public justice should be stronger than the instinct of public plunder. I am in favor of having our pay while we are here, attending to our duties; and, while we are at home, attending to our own private business, let us pay ourselves. I have not, myself, been absent from the Convention for a single hour, from the time of its first meeting until the present time. I have not been at home, because I cannot go home, while the Convention is in session, without absenting myself from some one or more of its sittings. And I feel it to be my duty to remain here, so long as the public business remains to be done. I think there is only one fair and honest way of dealing, in making up the pay roll. It is that members shall receive pay while attending to their duties, and not while absent. What I wish, is, that the Committee on the Pay Roll should see to it, that a proper reduction is made for absences, and that money be not paid where no service is rendered.

Mr. SCHOULER, of Boston. I have nothing to say in regard to this order, but I do wish to correct an erroneous impression that may go abroad, in regard to the last legislature taking twenty-five or thirty thousand dollars out of the public treasury which did not belong to them, as would appear to be the case, according to the testimony of the gentleman from Natick. It appears he has been down to the office of the Auditor, and found out that thirty thousand dollars have been taken out of the State treasury by the members of the last legislature, without any authority.

Mr. WILSON. Will the gentleman allow me to explain ?

Mr. SCHOULER. Yes, Sir. I think it requires explanation.

[July 19th.

them. That is what I said, and I am ready to stand by it.

Mr. SCHOULER. That is exactly what I said, or intended to say, that according to the gentleman's statement, twenty or twenty-five thousand dollars were taken out of the State treasury wrongfully. Now I do not know how it may be. I presume the figures of the gentleman are right, in regard to the attendance of members of the legislature. Every-body knows that they have a rule in the legislature—and there is a similar rule here-that every member shall keep an account of his own time, and make returns of his attendance to the Committee on the Pay Roll. And the custom has been, from time immemorial, I believe, for members to return quite as much time as the rule permitted, and this practice has not been confined to members of the last legislature. If the gentleman had only pursued the investigation, he would have found, that all legislatures, heretofore, have pursued the same course. Members think they are entitled to pay, whether here or not. I will state for myself, that I never did take a day's pay for a day on which I did not attend; but I am aware that members who have been absent attending to their own private business, and who have not been in attendance in the legislature more than half the time, have drawn more pay for the session than I have, although I had been present every day with the exception of two or three. I merely rose to correct an erroneous impression, that might naturally be entertained in view of the representation of the gentleman from Natick, in reference to the last legislature being culpable in this matter, more than former ones. I do not think there is any good grounds for making the distinction.

Mr. WILSON. I did not mean, Sir, to speak of the last legislature as being at all different from those which preceded it. But I have only examined in reference to that, and in my opinion the legislatures of the last six years, have pursued about the same course.

Mr. SCHOULER. That is what I want to get at. I do not wish that the last legislature should bear all the blame to which others are equally liable. I think each member ought to keep an account of his own time, and render a correct account to the Committee. Therefore, I see no necessity for this resolution.

that the twenty-seventh rule prescribes that every member shall keep an account of his own attendance and travel, and deliver the same to the Committee appointed to make up the Pay Roll, and