to revive the dead Whig party. I did not know that he attributed to me the power of working miracles before; but it is quite true, that with the countenance of the gentlemen for Berlin, (Mr. Boutwell,) the gentleman from Springfield, (Mr. Beach,) and the gentleman from Lowell, (Mr. Butler,) the gentleman for Otis, (Mr. Sumner,) the gentleman from Charlestown, (Mr. Frothingham,) and some others, I did try to revive the Whig party, if the plurality will revive it. wish that when a majority cannot be obtained, and we cannot have a second trial, to say that the people shall elect by a plurality.

[July 22d.

It has been said by some Whig gentlemen, that the purpose of that first resolution is to enable certain parties to govern the State; and by other gentlemen-the gentleman for Abington among others-that those who favor the plurality principle, do it to enable another party to govern the State. Now, I wish to put the question to my Democratic friends whether they have so little faith in their principles, so little confidence in their star, as to sit down in despondency, in the belief that the Whig party is always to be the popular party in this Commonwealth; whether, with a popular New England man president, who had a majority of the voters of Boston in his favor, with the prestige of almost unbroken success on their side throughout the Union, they will sit down in despondency in the belief that the Whig party is always to be in the ascendant here? I wish to put the question to the gentleman for Abington, who is a member of an "unhealthy organization,"—and better be unhealthy than be dead, for while there is life there is hope, -whether the party to which we belong has so little faith in its principles as to believe that we are never to prevail; whether, with principles which both the other parties have recognized as true, within ten years; and with principles which almost all the leading public men in this State have recognized within ten years, at some time or other, to be true; whether, with principles in support of which he can point to resolutions passed unanimously, or nearly unanimously, by the legislature of this State, within ten years; he I will sit down in despondency, and make his legislation in the belief that his party will never be the dominant party? I would ask him whether the necessity of having more votes than both the great national parties together, has not been a discouraging fact in our history? Whether it has not operated so, and whether, under the plurality rule, it would not operate otherwise?

But, I ask pardon of the Convention for suggesting any considerations like these. I do it in reply-and I wish the Convention to bear me

Mr. KEYES, for Abington. The gentleman for Manchester, says I have paid him two or three compliments. If I have, certainly they were given in sincerity. I do not know but I ought to balance the account, and say something on the other side. At any rate, after the long contest had the other day, when there was a full house; when we talked about ending debate on this subject; when we took it up, item by item, and discussed it thoroughly and understood every part of it, and voted in detail on the whole of it; I supposed that ended the whole matter, if anything ever can end a matter in this House. Unless there is a limit somewhere, how shall we know when we are beaten, and when victorious; where is to be the end? It has been said of some of our brave and popular generals that they never knew when they were beaten; and it seems the gentleman for Manchester is in the same category, after the contest the other day, when we made a fair fight and the Report was victorious; that ought to have been the end of the debate. If, therefore, anybody under the circumstances should be permitted to introduce amendments, it should not be the enemies, but the friends of the Report. I have no sympathy with persons who attempt to amend and prepare for the people articles which they utterly oppose from beginning to end, and which they mean to oppose forever. That is not the way; it is not natural that they should care anything about the condition of this bantling, only to try to have it go forth in the most monstrous shape that it can.

Now, Sir, the gentleman for Manchester is the last whom I should suspect of improper

motives; and I have no wish to arraign the motives of anybody, for we cannot see the heart; but it is a little strange that he should be so anxious for the adoption of a system so utterly opposed to all the sentiments of his whole life-a system which, if it should prevail, would break down the old landmarks of the Constitution and utterly revolutionize the government. Sir, if this policy should be adopted, it would be absurd to call this a republican government-there is no such definition of the word in any of the dictionaries, Latin, Greek, French, or Sanscrit. I trust that if this Convention has arrived at the period when it can justify itself in limiting speeches to fifteen minutes, it can assume authority in other respects. Although originally opposed to the previous question, still, I regard this as a matter which has been fully discussed and settled by the Convention; and the only attempts which are now made to make a change, are by its bitterest enemies in all respects; and, therefore, I think the time has now come to put the screws on.

Mr. DANA. If the gentleman will allow me, I would like to ask him one question. He says that if we adopt the plurality rule instead of the majority rule, there is no republicanism. I want to ask him what remains of the majority rule in that Report?

Mr. KEYES. I am perfectly content to say, nothing remains; but then, if he thinks that this is all plurality, why does he not vote for it? If it is all plurality, what more does he want? These plurality men are not satisfied with that; but if his argument is good for anything, they are entirely unjustifiable in making any objection to it at all. It is said that we have surrendered nothing to that side; but, Sir, seems to the gentleman for Manchester, that we have surrendered the whole. I am glad that he has reminded me of that point, for I had nearly forgotten it, although I took a note of it at the time. Mr. President, we have surrendered almost everything, and yet they are not satisfied unless they get more than the lion's share, Now, I ask him again, if this is a good plurality system, why is he not satisfied with it? What does he want more? What he seems to desire is a mere forma ity, and he ought to be willing to submit to a fair compromise, for the harmony of the Convention, which is almost equally divided on the subject. Now, I am strongly in favor of the majority system; and, Sir, we have the gentleman's own arguments in reference to all other subjects, in its favor; the history and experience of this country is in its favor; the history of every country that is not disgraced and dishonored, is in its favor. Sir, if I know anything about politics,

[July 22d.

I know that the effect of the plurality system is to degrade, to demoralize, and dishonor any people, or any government, where it is adopted. I say that this change which is proposed, is one of the most radical character; and it was so considered by the united Whig party two years ago; and their change, in this respect, has neither been by reason, or common sense, or justice. It has been for a purpose-I do not charge anybody with improper motives, or with any motives at all-as I said before, I do not profess to look at the heart; the motives may have been good, or they may have been bad; I do not care what they were, I only look at the surface of things; but I know, and every man here knows, that there are Democrats in Massachusetts who have done nothing else but work in aid of the Whig party; they want to keep the Democratic party conveniently small, so that they, and their friends may absorb all the spoils which fall to the State. But men who call themselves Democrats, vote upon the other side; that particular class of men to which he alluded, and some of whom he pointed out, are, at heart, in favor of this, and yet have voted all the time in aid of the Whig party. Now, I do not wish to act in such company, however distinguished the men may be. I do not suppose that any gentleman can find himself in such company on the ground of reason, or common sense, or conscience. I beg to be understood that I charge no improper motives upon any one upon this floor; but the grand argument which I would now impress upon the minds of this Convention is, that this thing has been discussed over and over again, and it is time that the discussion was brought to a close. I hope, therefore, that we shall take up the items one by one, and if it be possible to gain a victory upon this Report, that we shall stand by it under all circumstances.

Mr. BIRD, of Walpole. Mr. President: I move to amend the Report by striking out the third resolution, and substituting in lieu thereof the following::

Resolved, That it is expedient so to amend the Constitution as to provide that a majority of the votes shall be necessary for the election of representatives to the general court, until otherwise provided by law.

I offer this amendment, Mr. President, principally because something of the kind is necessary, in order to make this proposition at all of the character of a compromise. A great deal has been said about compromise in this resolution; for one, I must say, in relation to that, that I do not see much of a compromise in it; and I never could give my support to such a resolution as this upon the ground that it was a compromise.

I do not know as anybody has told us, in the course of this debate, what the compromise consisted in. It has been intimated, that it was a compromise which was concocted in an eatinghouse, or that some arrangements was made there which foreshadowed the final result here. All that I have to say in relation to that matter, is, that I know of no such arrangements, and, least of all, in connection with this matter. The charge, that the order of business here is the result of caucus arrangements, is far from complimentary to the majority; for, if such arrangements are made, nobody adheres to them.

I do not regard these resolutions as being any compromise at all, as they give absolutely nothing to the friends of the majority system. They provide that the governor and other State officers shall be chosen by a majority at the first ballot; but that if there is not a majority at this popular election, then they are to be chosen by the legislature. In the present state of parties in this State, these six State officers will not be chosen by a majority of the popular vote at the first election. This gives us nothing at all; because then the election is given to the legislature. The county and district officers are all to be elected by a plurality; and the representatives to the general court are to be chosen by a majority at the first trial, and the plurality system at the second; and this is what they call a concession to the friends of the majority system! Sir, it is no concession at all. Every-body knows that it is a fact, that the election of representatives in a majority of towns, is not ordinarily made at the first ballot. I do not say that it is not made on the first day, but not at the first ballot. Now as a party man, if I am going to have the plurality system at all, I want to have it at the first ballot rather than the second. I do not want any second trial by plurality for representatives to the general court.

But I do not look at this matter in a party light at all. I want to establish in our Constitution, some sort of recognition of the majority principle; and, unless we adopt the amendment which I have proposed, I think we shall not have it. Although I should prefer, personally, that the majority rule should apply to a larger number of officers than even this amendment will include, still I am willing to go with our friends who are in favor of the plurality rule, as a matter of compromise. I ask nothing unreasonable in this compromise; but simply that you will give us a chance to elect our representatives to the general court by the majority system; and, if afterwards, the people, through the legislature, shall decide that it is better to apply the plurality rule to the election of representatives, I will be

[July 22d.

willing then to yield, and give that up too. I say that this is what I consider a fair compromise. We give you all the State officers, councillors, senators, judges of probate, county commissioners and commissioners of insolvency, and all county and district officers; and, all that we ask, is simply the concession that we may retain the majority system for the election of representatives to the general court.

I should have been glad to have adopted the rule indicated by my friend from Melrose, (Mr. Gooch,) the other day; and that is, that in the election of the law-making power, a majority vote should be required in all cases; but, in the election of administrative officers, who were not to make laws, but merely to administer them, the plurality system should be adopted. I considered that as a very good rule, and a fair compromise, that the governor, lieutenant-governor, senators, and representatives-for I do not care much which rule you apply to the secretary, treasurer, auditor, and attorney-general, whether they are chosen by plurality or not-should have been chosen by the majority system; but I am willing to concede even more than that. I am not willing, however, to go farther than the amendment which I have now submitted, indicates. Until the people shall decide that the plurality rule shall be adopted, I am unwilling to yield the majority principle. I I want to hold on to that, to the extent that we shall at least have one branch of the legislatureone branch of the law-making power, which is to choose the governor under certain circumstances-elected by the majority principle.

But I will not go into this matter at length. If gentlemen are not disposed to yield us this one point-of applying the majority principle to our representatives-I do not suppose they can be argued into it by anything which I can say. I will add, however, that if we cannot secure this recognition of the majority principle in the Constitution on this one point, rather than to go for the Report as it stands now, I would go for the plurality rule clean through from top to bottom. Rather than accept the proposition of the gentleman for Manchester, I would give up entirely, and let the plurality principle be applied to everything. This amendment, which I have offered, is submitted in a spirit of compromise, and I am willing to go more than half way for the sake of harmony; but, if we cannot agree upon a fair compromise, in God's name let us at least have a principle, or something that looks like a uniform rule, to stand upon.

Mr. GOOCH, of Melrose. I wish to submit an amendment to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Walpole; and with the addi

Friday,]

tion which I propose, I shall be in favor of his amendment. I move to add, at the end of the amendment, the following proviso :—

Provided, that no law on this subject shall take effect until two years after its passage.

Mr. DENTON, of Chelsea. I rise to a question of order. I will inquire if the gentleman for Manchester did not propose an amendment to the resolution, and if the gentleman from Walpole did not propose an amendment to his amendment?

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will state, for the information of the gentleman, the position of the question. The delegate for Manchester moves to amend by striking out the resolution and inserting another resolution. The delegate from Walpole moves to amend the part to be stricken out, which takes precedence of the motion to strike out. The vote must first be taken on the amendment proposed by the delegate from Walpole, to amend the part which it is proposed to strike out; and the delegate from Melrose moves to amend that amendment, which is in order.

Mr. GOOCH. The reason why I propose the amendment which I have submitted, is this: I think, that by the adoption of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Walpole, together with my amendment, the matter will be placed where it ought to be, in the hands of the people. It will be placed so that the people shall have control over it. No one legislature can have entire control over the matter, but it will be put in a position so that if one legislature sees fit to change the present rule to the plurality rule, and the people see fit to ratify that action, it can be done; and otherwise it cannot be done. I am willing to leave the matter in this position. If the people desire that the majority principle may be continued for the election of their representatives, then, Sir, with this provision, they have power to accomplish their object whenever they choose to do so. If they send to the legislature men who pass a law making a change to the plurality system, and if that measure is not repealed by the subsequent legislature, then it goes into effect as a law of the Commonwealth, and the plurality rule is established. It takes it out of the hands of any political party, and places in the hands of the people; because, if the legislature pass a law changing the majority rule, then, Sir, the people, if they do not approve of the change, can send men to the next legislature who will repeal the law making the change. If the two amendments are adopted, it requires two years to carry the law into effect, and another legislature must intervene before it can take effect. Then,

[July 22d.

Sir, if a change takes place, it obtains the sanction, not of one legislature merely, but of two successive legislatures; and the sanction also of the people, because the members of the second legislature will be chosen, knowing that the matter might be altered or changed by the subsequent legislature; and of course, if the people are opposed to it, they will elect members to the legislature who will put the matter right, and leave it in such a shape as the people desire to have it stand. I hope the amendment which is presented by the gentleman from Walpole, and the amendment which I have moved to that amendment, may both be adopted.

Mr. HOOPER, of Fall River. I moved the previous question, in the outset, in the hope that this Report, as presented here, would satisfy all parties. It is manifest that there is a difference of opinion among those who generally act together in this Convention, and it is necessary that something should be conceded on both sides. I am in favor of the plurality system throughout. I have been so from the beginning, and I am so still; but I find other gentlemen are opposed to it. There are certain instances in which I am desirous of having it applied more than in others, because the convenience and the wishes of my constituents require it. Now, Sir, I am willing to give up something, a part, to obtain the remainder-I am willing to give up what the Report has given up-the election of those officers who are to be elected by the whole people at large. And I can the more readily concede this, because the principle is in accordance with the one which has been suggested by the gentleman for Manchester, (Mr. Dana,) and other gentlemen here-that the legislature, or those persons who are to be elected by the people at large, can exercise those delegated powers as well as, and perhaps better, if their doctrine is true, than the people themselves. He goes for having the governor, who is elected by the people at large, appoint the judges. Others contend that this is an election by the people. Now, if this be so, why is it not as well for the legislature, elected by the people of the State, to elect those officers named in the Report, to be elected by them in a certain contingency? It is a business they have been accustomed to do in part, that is, to elect a secretary, treasurer, and auditor, and a governor and lieutenant-governor, frequently. Now, I am willing to let the whole matter rest where the Report of the Committee leaves it, and sustain that Report, as the only safe ground on which we can stand, under existing circumstances.

But it is proposed, on the other hand, to change the election of representatives and town officers.

[July 22d.

Friday,]

That is a point, of all others, which I wish to retain. It is the one in which my constituents feel the most interest. There I wish to have the plurality system applied. I should prefer to have it in the first instance; but I am willing to concede something even there.

Now, this Report is the Report of a Committee which was appointed expressly with the view of making a compromise report upon this matter. Gentlemen will recollect that one Report that was brought in, recommended the plurality system throughout. That Report was in part accepted, and in part rejected. A Committee was appointed to draw up a report incorporating the different views which had been expressed. They-the Committee-supposed they had done this; and now I hope that gentlemen will stand upon the Report as it is. I am willing to stand upon it, for one; but if this amendment is adopted, I shall be constrained to vote against that Report as a whole. Let it therefore stand as it is, and I will go for it. I think it is the only safe ground we can take.

Mr. HURLBUT, of Sudbury. Mr. President: On a former occasion, I expressed my views upon this subject. Then, I attempted to show that the majority principle was the only true one. My convictions are the same to-day. Sir, I am not prepared to stand upon this Report, and for this reason we are called upon to compromise; and what does that imply? Why, that two or more parties disagree, and that each shall surrender something. When this question was under discussion before, so nearly were the Convention balanced between plurality and majority, that neither party were willing to press the matter. For this reason, it was, Sir, that a new Committee was appointed, with the understanding that a different proposition should be submitted, recognizing the two principles; not that one should lose all, and the other gain everything; but that each should yield to the other-that there should be mutual concession. And now, Sir, what have they presented us? A plan by which plurality must elect every department of the government. I submit, Sir, that there is no feature of compromise in the whole bill. There is running through each resolve the cry of "give, give." Sir, I am prepared to yield one-half, yes, more than that, much more, if need be; but I cannot surrender everything; and I would much prefer to remain silent in my seat, did I not believe gentlemen to be deceived in this matter. apprehend, Sir, that the third resolve has quieted the fears of gentlemen; that they do not fully understand its operation. It is for this reason, that I rise, to save, if possible, the principle of

I

elections by majority from complete and perpetual ruin.

Sir, let us examine the several resolutions in their order. The first proposes that the governor and lieutenant-governor shall be elected by majority; but, Sir, who does not know that we are to have but one trial, and in case there is no choice of State officers, provision has been made to elect them on this floor. And who does not know, too, that the people have failed to elect such officers in years past, and in all probability will fail to do so in years to come? Have the friends of the majority principle anything to expect, then, from such an arrangement? Certainly not. It must then depend upon the manner of choosing representatives whether your State officers are elected by majority or plurality. And how is it in regard to county officers? Why, we accede to the opposition the right to elect on the first ballot, and by plurality. Now, then, we come to town representation, and how, I ask, do the Committee propose to elect? By plurality, most clearlyand I appeal to every honest gentleman present, if it be not so? True, they say we may elect by majority, if we can, on the first ballot. Sir, the first ballot is only the bringing forward of candidates; and frequently, perhaps I may say generally, gentlemen who are to lead off in the several parties are not named till declared by the chair. Then for a second trial, and that is to decide. The party then which happen to have a plurality of voters present, though it be a small minority in the city or town, must be triumphant. Are gentlemen prepared for this? I trust not. Let us not be deceived. If gentlemen intend to go for plurality, let it be done fairly, openly, manfully. I can understand how gentlemen may vote on that principle. I can understand how they may vote for majority, too, and I can see with what propriety both parties may meet on a common platform of compromise; but, Sir, I do not understand why we should adopt these resolutions, which acknowledge neither plurality or majority, and are wanting in every important particular of a fair and honest compromise.

Sir, the Report is without principle. I want a compromise, or else I want to vote upon principle, and only upon principle. I am prepared to vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Walpole, because we surrender everything but town majorities, and if we can secure that to our towns, we have a compromise; not such as in my humble judgment we had a right to expect, but the best we shall be likely to obtain, at this late stage of the bill. Should that amendment fail, then I will vote for that of the gentleman for Manchester, which, in my judgment, is preferable