ncrease of ent , which per per p

there has be

facture in t
rease of the

aber of bas
d consequent
spindles, s
number rang

is extracc
1 develope

nor in the a

shown.

South, has

dred per

North has

se of

e of crop, b
d. The
ime ago, d
anchester, t
ny other s

been publise
lade in this e

undred m

ig capital, a
our products

fairly char
What the
ensation, I
cotton man
to Masseriad

3 loss filt
in her valua

15, one having seventy-formi ur hundred

not a matter

of theoret

olute demand

rt years h it the repe

ed, and no the
nt for it

actice ag
se facts seen"

at no estad

such as h
real estat
when made n
Juctions th
if exager
have accrus?

setts, from
lat are we be
th some gesch

on this floor, have, with so much confidence predicted, at no distant day? The member for Berlin, (Mr. Boutwell,) in some remarks which he made in favor of this doctrine, was so sanguine of its early adoption by the people, that he said he would venture to predict, that in ten years, it would be the prevailing sentiment of the North; that Boston itself, would adopt it, and that at some remote period hereafter, a Custom House would be as great a curiosity, as the Coliseum of Rome, or the Temple of Carnac.

[July 20th.

1842, there was a general crash, or breaking down of all kinds of business. General bankruptcy, and universal prostration prevailed, as though a tornado had swept over the land, until the passage of the tariff in 1842, when there was a simultaneous quickening into life of all our dead and prostrate interests; and they continued to grow in an accelerating ratio, until that Act was repealed, when their growth was arrested, as by a sudden frost. Some of them have since remained stationary-few have flourished-during the six famine years, being sustained chiefly by the strength and impetus before acquired, to the present year, which fortunately proves to be a year of plenty and prosperity, such as Massachusetts has not seen since 1845. What is the cause of this great change, this universal and exuberent prosperity? Not, certainly, that there has been any change in the policy of our government. It was formerly thought that loyalty on the part of the citizen, and protection of person and property, on the part of government, were reciprocal duties; but that is now called an exploded idea.

Mr. HALLETT, for Wilbraham. I rise to a question of order. The gentleman from Millbury is discussing the tariff, and the doctrine of free trade. Now, I am anxious to make a speech upon that subject of several hours in length. But if it is to come in here, I wish to know whether the subject is legitimately before the Convention? Mr. WATERS. Whether legitimately before the Convention or not, I did not introduce the subject. In the discussion of this and various other questions, we have had several speeches in favor of free trade, and no member was called to order. Regarding this as a most fallacious and destructive doctrine, it seemed to me that some remarks, per contra, would not be ill-timed nor out of order. However, I do not wish to pursue the matter against the wishes of the House.

Cries of "Go on," "Go on."

This change, it is well known, has been brought about, chiefly, if not solely, by the rise of labor in Europe. The drain of laborers from the workshops of Europe, to the gold mines of Australia and other regions, has been so heavy as to cause a general rise in the prices of labor and manufactured products, carrying them up to a grade where our manufacturers and laborers can thrive and prosper. No reason can be assigned, why we cannot, at all times, manufacture as cheap as in Europe, except the price of labor. If capital is cheaper there, so also are taxes very much higher. To obviate this difficulty-the higher price paid here for labor, and also to prepare the way for the glorious advent of free trade, the member for Berlin (Mr. Boutwell) proposes, and in his prophetic vision confidently predicts, the importation of large numbers of coolies from China. In this direction his prophetic vision even discerns an antidote for the removal of slavery itself!

If the expansion of business to which I have referred had been developed in this country, it would have enhanced the value of every square inch of territory in Massachusetts; added thousands to her population, and opened new avenues of wealth and employment. The programme of those gigantic enterprises at Holyoke and Lawrence would have been filled up, and scarce a foot of available water power in the State would have remained unoccupied. Many a water-fall now wasting its power upon the desert air, would have been brought into requisition, and filled the surrounding region with the music of prosperous industry. In short, the six years of leanness ensuing the year 1846, would have been years of plenty and prosperity. It has been a common impression in the country, even among manufacturers themselves, that under the tariff of 1842, this interest was stimulated to an unnatural growth, and was in danger of a reaction, from being overdone. But the foregoing statistics prove that this opinion was entirely erroneous; that rapid as was the expansion, it did not keep pace with the growth of the crop, nor the consumption of the fabric, but fell far behind both. Massachusetts has probably never known a period of so rapid growth and dovelopment, as from 1842 to 1847. Before this period, say from 1836 to 123

Suppose this to happen; what is to become of all the Yankee boys and girls who now operate the machinery of our mills, and who are thus under-bid in the price of labor? Are they to be driven out from their native land, to make room for a horde of demi-barbarians from the Celestial Empire? Is that a wise and paternal statesmanship, looking to the best good of our country and our race? Besides, is the gentleman quite sure that these impassive Celestials, in wooden shoes, and with pumpkin-vine queues, are fitted to perform the labor of our versatile Yankees, with the same tact and rapidity? With all due deference

to that gentleman, I must say, that this vision of his seems to me more like a creature of fancy, than the gift of prophecy.

This whole, and much vexed question of protection, resolves itself into a question of labor. Capital, in this country, needs no protection. The rate of interest is always about three times as much as it is in England, while the price of labor there, averages about one-third as much as is paid here. Labor can never be so cheap under a democracy as under a despotism. The former is founded upon numbers, and makes no distinctions of persons, between the laborer and the lord, the mechanic and the millionaire. To enable the laborer therefore, to maintain the dignity of his station, it is necessary that he should be able to read books, take newspapers, educate his children, and have many of the comforts of life which are unknown to the boors of England, the serfs of Russia, or the coolies of China. He must maintain a higher and more expensive style of living, and ought not, therefore, to be exposed to a competition with the bone soup, and pauper labor of Europe. "But," say the advocates of free trade, "it is on the very ground of sympathy for the poor laboring man, that we advocate this doctrine. A tariff is indirect taxation, and operates unequally. In the article of sugar, for example, the poor man consumes six times, it may be, as much as the millionaire, and consequently pays six times as much tax. This system surrounds him unseen, like the atmosphere, and he does not know how he is abused." Very likely. Probably he never will. For argument's sake admit all this to be true. If by paying one cent a day extra, on sugar, and as much more on a few other articles, he gets, instead of fifty cents, from a dollar and a half, to two dollars per day more for his labor, is he not the gainer? Where in the wide, wide world, is the laborer so well paid, as in this country? And here, especially in New England, labor is never in so great demand, nor so high, as at periods when the manufacturing interest is prosperous. Witness the present year, the years 1844, 1845, and 1846. For the reverse, witness the years from 1836 to 1842-from 1846 to 1850.

Who are the great sticklers for free trade in this country? Importers of foreign merchandise, resident agents of foreign manufacturers, bankers, and brokers, who have expended vast sums of money to buy up and subsidize some of our most influential presses. Much the largest proportion of the press, in this country, is concentrated in cities; and of that, a large share is enlisted in the foreign importing business. Hence, the general delusion which prevails upon this subject.

[July 20th.

Another class of very obstreporous free traders, are the Southern planters, whose laborers are slaves. "Labor," say they, "should come from that quarter where it can be obtained cheapest." If this is a correct doctrine, we should expect that, like charity, it would begin at home. Let us see how their practice conforms to their teachings. The great interest of the South, is the slave interest. The raising of slaves is to Virginia, and the older slave States, what the raising of cattle is to Vermont-their most profitable production. Now, it is well known, that slaves can be imported from Africa, for two hundred dollars, which sell at the South readily, for eight and ten hundred-a —a difference of from three to five hundred per cent. But, be it remembered, whoever attempts to import this kind of labor is hung up at the yard arm, as a pirate! There is protection for you, with a vengeance! It is perfectly right and proper to bring the free labor of the North into competition with the pauper labor of Europe, but to bring the slave labor of the South, into competition with the slave labor of Africa, is PIRACY! True, the laws prohibiting the importation of this kind of labor, profess to be founded upon motives of philanthropy; but, on that score, what is the difference between the foreign and domestic slave-trade-whether the planter of New Orleans imports his slaves from Richmond, Va., from South America, or from Africa? If ever his highness, the arch prince of darkness may be supposed to grin horribly a ghastly smile, nay, to laugh outright, it must be when he hears Southern statesmen advocate the enforcement of these laws on the ground of humanity! They go in for free trade for the free labor of the North, and for entire prohibition, under a penalty of death, for the slave labor of the South. Abolish these laws, obtain your slave labor where it could be obtained cheapest, and you might reduce the cost of raising cotton fifty per cent., but you would also sink the whole valuation of the South, hundreds of millions. Let congress assume this ground, and we should soon witness as great a revolution at the South in regard to protection, as we have, recently, in regard to the doctrine of internal improvements. This doctrine they have denounced, until it has been fairly read out of the creed of all parties; and now, after the North has made all her own improvements, and built her railroads, the South find they want a railroad to the Pacific. Presto, these strict constructionists discover that there is nothing more constitutional, national, and patriotic than for the United States to build it for them, and if necessary, to take another slice from Mexico, to eke out the route.

Wednesday,]

respect to this matter, as it now stands and has always stood. It seems to me that the Convention, by the votes taken, has reached a conclusion, which, if I understand public opinion, ought not to have been taken; and I move this proposition with a view of deciding whether the Convention has reached a conclusion by which it is willing to abide. I should have been glad, for one, if we could have carried the elective principle; for I think it is demanded by a great portion of the people. Certainly it is in my own section of the State, if I am any judge of the public opinion of that portion of the Commonwealth which I have the honor, in part, to represent upon this floor. If I cannot carry that principle, I desire to approach as near as possible to it. This proposition varies from the other in one particular. It provides for the appointment of judicial officers, but it varies from the other in the limitation of the tenure, and in the confirmation by the Senate. The former was for a period of ten years; this is for the period of seven years. I offer it as a compromise between the two sections of the Convention-those who are in favor of the election of judges, and those who go for the appointment of judges for a period of ten years. I think we are in duty bound to present some proposition upon this subject to our constituents, upon which they can act, to say whether they desire that the Constitution shall remain as it is in regard to the judiciary, or whether its basis shall be reorganized. As I said in the beginning, I do not move this proposition with a view of reviving discussion upon this subject, but simply to test the sense of the Convention whether they are willing to go home to their constituents and leave the Constitution as it is in this respect, or present another proposition for their consideration.

Mr. ADAMS, of Lowell. I move that when the question is taken upon the proposition of the gentleman from Worcester, (Mr. Knowlton,) it be taken by yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

[July 20th.

lost by a majority of two votes. Every gentleman must be aware, that whether this proposition of the gentleman from Worcester be lost or carried, it must be by a small vote, with great difference of opinion, without a previous public demand, and without an issue raised before the people. I ask if it is well for us to submit a proposition to the people under such auspices? Besides, if the Convention will allow me, I will suggest, as a member of the Committee upon the Revision of the Constitution, and I think-and every gentleman in the Convention will agree with me in itthat it will be necessary to submit our Constitution to the people as an entirety. We desired, if possible, to submit it to the people in parts, in single propositions; but the farther we have gone in our labors, the more we are satisfied that it must be submitted to the people as a whole. We have the Constitution of 1780, a great part of which is already inapplicable to the present state of our affairs. We have the amendments of 1820, and we have a whole series of amendments since 1820. And now we shall have some twenty or thirty amendments scattered all over the Constitution, striking at every part of it, which are still to be submitted. The result will be, that you will have the smaller Constitution of 1780, with a series of amendments running through the time of three generations, dangling on the end of it, so that not only citizens unaccustomed to legal investigations, but lawyers themselves, would not be able to understand the Constitution without the utmost study. You will have amendments piled upon amendments. And then, too, when we come to examine the resolves which you pass here, we find that a single resolve of three lines will require the rewriting of the Constitution in several places. The sixth chapter, for instance, must be rewritten in almost every section, and four sections must be stricken out entirely. I fear you will find it impossible to submit such a Constitution to the people in any other way than as a newly-arranged, symmetrical instrument, to be adopted or rejected as a whole. If this propo

Knowlton,) is adopted here, you cannot give to the people of Massachusetts an opportunity to vote upon it, but it must go to the people with all the other propositions, and I submit to that gentleman as a matter of good faith, whether it is proper to cover up in the Constitution, without an opportunity to vote upon it separately, a fundamental change, for which the people of Massachusetts have never asked, as to which an issue has never been raised, and upon which the Convention is about equally divided? Our time is important to us. If we are to reconsider propositions passed

Mr. HUBBARD, of Boston. I rise to a question of order. I believe the only motion pending, is to lay the amendment of the gentleman from Worcester upon the table, which I understand is not a debatable motion. The Chair has ruled upon the question, and no appeal has been taken.

Mr. BUTLER, of Lowell. That is one of the matters which I should like to discuss, and I appeal to the gentleman for Manchester, if he thinks it is fair to make that motion? If he will withdraw the motion, I will renew it.

Mr. DANA. The objection will be, that the gentleman from Lowell would discuss the merits of this proposition, and I would not.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair would suggest, that the motion carries the resolution and amendments, all together.

Mr. LORD, of Salem. I would inquire of the Chair, if the motion made by the gentleman for Manchester, to lay the amendment of the gentleman from Worcester upon the table, if adopted, carries anything with it upon the table, except the resolution which is to be amended?

The PRESIDENT. The Chair understands, that it carries with it the fourth resolution.

Mr. DANA. I understood the Chair to say, that it carried the whole. Then, if it only carries the fourth resolution with it, I adhere to my motion.

Mr. ALLEN, of Worcester. I would ask the Chair, if a single resolution, a part of a series, can be laid upon the table, without laying the whole series upon the table? If you lay one portion of a resolve upon the table does not the act of necessity carry the whole there?

The PRESIDENT. The practice in considering a resolution of this character, is to take it up and vote upon its several parts, separately, if such a desire should be manifested on the part of any member. A motion is made to amend one of the series of resolves upon this subject, which the Chair does not understand, has any connection with the rest; and the Chair has ruled in this matter, according to the practice which has been adopted here, of considering resolutions separately.

Mr. EARLE, of Worcester. It appears to me, according to the recollection I have of legislative proceedings, that in a proposition of this kind, you cannot lay any portion of a report or bill upon the table, without laying the whole upon the table. You may take up a report and consider

Mr. HOOPER, of Fall River. I wish to make a motion to amend the second resolution, which I believe will take precedence of the motion made by the gentleman for Manchester, according to the decision of the Chair made a few days ago, that a motion to amend a previous section took precedence of a motion to amend any other part of a resolve.

The PRESIDENT. If the gentleman will withdraw his motion for a moment, the Chair will state, that upon reflection, he is satisfied that his decision is not correct. When the gentleman for Manchester made his motion, the Chair supposed it would necessarily carry with it the whole question; but the suggestion of gentlemen, that the practice has been to consider these matters separately, inclines me to the opinion that it would only carry with it the fourth resolution. But, no motion being made to consider them separately, the Chair rules that the motion to lay the amendment on the table, carries the whole with it.

Mr. DANA. I made the motion, that the question be taken on the resolution separately.

Mr. BUTLER. I rise to a question of order. The first motion of the gentleman for Manchester, was to lay the amendment on the table; and afterwards asked to have the vote taken separately.

Mr. HOOPER. I would inquire whether my motion, being for an amendment of the second resolution, does not take precedence? I believe that was the decision yesterday.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of opinion that it does not. The whole of the resolutions, being at the time the motion was made under consideration, the motion to lay on the table carries the whole with it. The simple question is, on the motion to lay the amendment on the table.

Mr. DANA. I rise for information. The gentleman from Worcester, (Mr. Knowlton,) did not move an amendment to all the resolutions; but he moved an amendment to the fourth resolution. The Chair states, that if I move to lay that amendment on the table, it carries the whole of the resolutions with it. That must be on the supposition that the amendment of the gentleman from Worcester, applies to the whole subject. I then withdraw my motion to lay the amendment on the table, and move for a division of the subject,