« ForrigeFortsett »
SCHOULER — BIRD — WHITNEY — FROTH INGHAM - FRENCH,
belong to every man alike, then they cannot be remarks I had intended to make before the hamcomplained of.
mer fell, and I always want the privilege of the [Here the hammer fell, the hour to which the last word, when I can have it, but I nevertheless speaker, as chairman of the Committee, was enti desire that the gentleman from Boston should tled, by the order of the Convention, having have an opportunity to reply, if he desires it; and expired.]
I therefore suggest to the gentleman from Chelsea Mr. DENTON, of Chelsea. I think this sub- that he withdraw his motion for the previous ject has been amply and fairly discussed, upon question, and move that the question be taken at both sides. I think it has been discussed with twenty minutes past 12 o'clock. That will give great ability, and I therefore feel it my duty to the gentleman from Boston ten minutes to reply. move the previous question.
Mr. FROTHINGHAM, of Charlestown. I Mr. SCHOULER, of Boston. hope the pre rose to make a suggestion somewhat similar to vious question will not be sustained at the pres that of the gentleman from Conway, (Mr. Whitent time. If the question has been discussed, it ney). I have myself occupied not more than fifhas been all on one side. We have had a speech teen minutes in this discussion, and I should like from the gentleman for Wilbraham, (Mr. Hal an opportunity of saying something in reference lett,) half an hour in length. The gentleman to what has been said by the gentleman from from North Brookfield, (Mr. Walker,) spoke half Boston. I dare say there are many others who an hour. We have had a speech from the gen
would also like to say something. I know, howtleman from Charlestown, (Mr. Frothingham,) ever, that the time of the Convention is precious, and an hour's speech from the gentleman from and, for one, I would be willing to forego the pleaConway, (Mr. Whitney,) in favor of the adoption sure of answering the gentleman from Boston. I of this proposition, while scarcely anything has would, nevertheless, suggest to the gentleman been said upon the other side. I should like ten from Chelsea, that the time for taking the quesminutes to set myself right upon this question. tion be fixed at half past 12 o'clock. This is a It seems to me, that the question is by no means very important subject, and one which has occuexhausted. There are many points which have pied but very little of the time of the Convention. not been touched upon at all. The gentleman It seems to me but just, that the gentleman from from Cambridge, (Mr. Sargent,) my colleague Boston, (Mr. Schouler,) should be allowed time from Boston, and myself, have not spoken three to answer the gentleman from Conway, and I quarters of an hour altogether; while the gentle think that to allow a little farther time for the men upon the other side have spoken two hours discussion of the subject, would not be objectionand a half. The gentleman from Conway, (Mr. able. I will, therefore, venture to suggest that the Whitney,) directed nearly his entire speech against time for taking the question be fixed at half past the few remarks which I had the honor to make, 12 o'clock. and I desire ten minutes to say something in re Mr. WHITNEY, of Boylston. I have been ply.
waiting for some time for an opportunity to say Mr. BIRD, of Walpole. I only want to say a word upon this subject, but I see there are that I hope the motion for the previous question many others who are also waiting to say a will not be withdrawn, and that it will be sus word, if the previous question is withdrawn. If tained by the Convention. The gentleman from our friends are willing to waive their rights, I am Boston, (Mr. Schouler,) has had the floor once, willing to waive mine, and let the question be upon this subject.
I hope the previous question will Mr. SCHOULER. I am aware that I have not be withdrawn. had the floor once, but only for a very few min Mr. FRENCH, of Berkley. I hope the genutes, and the gentleman from Conway, (Mr. Whit tleman from Chelsea will withdraw his call for ney,) has directed his whole argument against the the prevous question. I have not said a word ground which I took. In the usual course of upon this subject, and the Convention very well debate, the chairman of a Committee opens the know that I shall detain them but a short time debate upon the subject over which he has had in what I have to say. If I could have obtained charge, but, in this instance, he has closed the de the floor at a proper time, I wanted to say a word in bate.
reply to the gentleman on my left, (Mr. Schouler). Mr. WHITNEY, of Conway. I would sug But what I wanted to say at the time, I have now gest to the gentleman from Chelsea, (Mr. Denton,) nearly forgotten, [a laugh,) and I shall therefore who moved the previous question, that he with-be content with still less time than I should then draw his motion. I desire to treat the gentleman have occupied. If the Convention will give me from Boston with courtesy. I did not finish the five minutes, it will be all I ask.
FRENCH - DENTON — YEAS.
Mr. President: I shall be sorry to get into deep The PRESIDENT. The question now recurs water, but if I do, it will not be the first time I upon ordering the resolve to a second reading, as have been off my soundings.
amended. Mr. BATES, of Plymouth. I rise to a ques Mr. STETSON, of Braintree, demanded the tion of order. I believe the gentleman is discuss yeas and nays upon that question. ing the question, and replying to the member from They were ordered. Boston, (Mr. Schouler).
The yeas and nays were then taken, and there Mr. FRENCH. I have not come to him yet. were—yeas, 188; nays, 52-as follows:[Laughter.]
The PRESIDENT. The Chair does not understand that the gentleman from Berkley is re
Adams, Shubael P. Edwards, Samuel plying to the gentleman from Boston.
Aldrich, P. Emory Fay, Sullivan Mr. FRENCH. This is a question in relation
Allen, James B. Fisk, Lyman
Alley, John B. Fitch, Ezekiel W. to corporations, or whether we are to have a gen- Alvord, D. W. Foster, Abram eral or special law as to corporations. What ob- Andrews, Robert Fowle, Samuel ject do associations of persons have in view in Austin, George Freeman, James M. being incorporated. They have some object or Baker, Hillel French, Charles A. other
Ballard, Alvah French, Samuel The PRESIDENT. It is not in order for the Bates, Moses, Jr.
Barrett, Marcus Frothingham, Rich'd, Jr.
Gale, Luther gentleman to discuss the merits of the question. Bigelow, Edward B. Gardner, Johnson
Mr. BIGELOW, of Grafton. I hope the pre- Bird, Francis W. Gates, Elbridge vious question will be sustained.
Bishop, Henry W. Giles, Charles G. Mr. DENTON, of Chelsea. I wish the gen
Booth, William S. Giles, Joel
Boutwell, Geo. S. tleman from Boston, (Mr. Schouler,) to under
Gooch, Daniel W.
Boutwell, Sewell stand that it was not my intention to cut him off Bradford, William J. A. Green, Jabez
Gooding, Leonard from replying to the gentleman from Conway, Breed, Hiram N. Griswold, Josiah W. (Mr. Whitney). I listened to his speech with a Bronson, Asa
Griswold, Whiting great deal of pleasure, and I think he went over
Brown, Artemas Hadley, Samuel P. the whole ground, and I really think that he
Brown, Hiram C. Hallett, B. F. would not have anything more to say, except in Bryant, Patrick
Brownell, Joseph Harmon, Phineas
Haskins, William reply to the gentleman from Conway, which Buck, Asahel Hathaway, Elnathan P. would lead to still farther discussion, and there- Burlingame, Anson Hawkes, Stephen E. fore I insist upon the previous question.
Hayden, Isaac The PRESIDENT. The Chair desires to re
Caruthers, William Heath, Ezra 2d, mark, in relation to the suggestion of the gentle- Chandler, Amariah
Hewes, William H. man from Boston, (Mr. Schouler,) that, with the Chapin, Daniel E. Hobart, Aaron exception of the mover of the amendment, the Childs, Josiah
Hobart, Henry floor has been given alternately to the friends and Churchill, J. McKean Hobbs, Edwin opponents of the resolves.
Clark, Ransom Hood, George The previous question was seconded and the
Clarke, Alpheus B. Hooper Foster
Clarke, Stillman Howard, Martin main question ordered.
Cleverly, William Hoyt, Henry K. The PRESIDENT. The question first in Cole, Sumner
Hunt, Charles E. order is, upon the amendment moved by the gen Crane, George B. Hurlbut, Moses C. tleman from Oxford, (Mr. De Witt).
Jacobs, John Mr. DE WITT. I withdraw the amendment.
Crittenden, Simeon Johnson, John The PRESIDENT. The question now re
Cushman, Henry W. Kingman, Joseph
Cushman, Thomas Knight, Hiram curs upon the motion made by the gentleman Cutler, Simeon N. Knight, Jefferson from Worcester, (Mr. Davis,) to strike out all Davis, Ebenezer Knowlton, J. S. C. after the word " resolved,” and insert the follow- Dean, Silas
Knowlton, William H. ing, as a substitute :
Denison, Hiram S. Knox, Albert
Denton, Augustus Kuhn, George, H. Resolved, That it is expedient to incorporate DeWitt, Alexander Ladd, Gardner P. into the Constitution a provision, that corporations Duncan, Samuel Lawrence, Luther shall not be created by special act when the object Dunham, Bradish Leland, Alden of the incorporation shall be attainable under Durgin, John M. Lincoln, Abishai general laws.
Littlefield, Tristram The question was then taken upon Mr. Davis's
Earle, John M. Marble, William P.
Easland, Peter Merritt, Simeon amendment, and it was agreed to.
Edwards, Elisha Mixter, Samuel
NaYs — ABSENT.
Morton, Elbridge G. Simmons, Perez
Abbott, Alfred A. Foster, Aaron
Abbott, Josiah G. Fowler, Samuel P. Newman, Charles Sprague, Melzar
Adams, Benjamin P. French, Charles H. Nichols, William Spooner, Samuel W.
Allen, Charles French, Rodney Norton, Alfred Stacy, Eben H.
Allen, Joel C.
Gilbert, Washington Ober, Joseph E. Stetson, Caleb
Goulding, Dalton Orne, Benjamin S. Stevens, Joseph L., Jr.
Goulding, Jason Osgood, Charles Stiles, Gideon
Graves John W. Paine, Benjamin Talbot, Thomas
Ball, George S.
Gray, John C.
Bancroft, Alpheus Greene, William B. Parris, Jonathan Thomas, John W.
Banks, Nathaniel P., Jr. Greenleaf, Simon Parsons, Samuel C. Thompson, Charles
Bartlett, Russel Hall, Charles B. Partridge, John Tilton, Horatio W.
Hammond, A. B. Peabody, Nathaniel Turner, David
Bates, Eliakim A. Hapgood, Lyman W. Pease, Jeremiah, Jr. Turner, David P.
Beach, Erasmus D. Hapgood, Seth Penniman, John Tyler, William
Bell, Luther V. Hayward, George
Bennett, Zephaniah Henry, Samuel
Blagden, George W. Heywood, Levi Phelps, Charles Ward, Andrew H.
Bliss, Gad O.
Hillard, George S. Pomroy, Jeremiah Warner, Marshal
Bliss, Willam C. Holder, Nathaniel Pool, James M. Waters, Asa H.
Briggs, George N. Hopkinson, Thomas Putnam, John A. Weston, Gershom B.
Brown, Adolphus F.
Houghton, Samuel Rantoul, Robert White, Benjamin
Brown, Alpheus R.
Howland, Abraham H. Rawson, Silas White, George
Huntington, Asahel Rice, David Whitney, Daniel S.
Huntington, Charles P. Richards, Luther Whitney, James S.
Bullen, Amos H.
Huntington, George H. Richardson, Daniel Wilbur, Daniel
Hyde, Benjamin D. Richardson, Nathan Wilbur, Joseph
Butler, Benjamin F. Ide, Abijań M., Jr. Rockwood, Joseph M. Wilson, Henry
Carter, Timothy W. James, William
Chapin, Chester W. Kellogg, Martin R. Ross, David, S. Winn, Jonathan B.
Keyes, Edward L. Royce, James C. Winslow, Levi M.
Kimball, Joseph Sanderson, Chester Wood, Charles C.
Kinsman, Henry W.
Coggin, Jacob Knight, Joseph
Knowlton, Charles L.
Langdon, Wilber C.
Crockett, George W. Little, Otis Appleton, William Hurlburt, Samuel A. Crosby, Leander Loomis, E. Justin Aspin wall, William Jackson, Samuel
Cross, Joseph W. Lord, Otis P. Atwood, David C. Jenkins, John
Crowell, Seth Barrows, Joseph
Lothrop, Samuel K. Jenks, Samuel H. Cummings, Joseph Lowell, John A. Beebe, James M. Kellogg, Giles C.
Curtis, Wilber Marcy, Laban Bennett, William, Jr. Kendall, Isaac
Dana, Richard H., Jr. Marvin, Abijah P. Bigelow, Jacob Lincoln, Frederic W., Jr. Davis, Charles G. Marvin, Theophilus R. Bradbury, Ebenezer Livermore, Isaac
Mason, Charles Braman, Milton P. Loud, Samuel P.
Meader, Reuben Brewster, Osmyn Miller, Seth, Jr.
Davis, Robert T.
Monroe, James L.
Davis, Solomon Moore, James M.
Dawes, Henry L.
Morss, Joseph B.
Dehon, William Morton, Marcus, Jr. Copeland, Benjamin F. Reed, Sampson
Deming, Elijah S. Nash, Hiram Crowninshield, F. B. Sargent, John
Doane, James C. Gardner Henry J.
Noyes, Daniel Schouler, William Dorman, Moses Nute, Andrew T. Gilbert, Wanton C. Tileston, Edmund P. Easton, James, 2d Oliver, Henry K. Gould, Robert Tower, Ephraim
Eaton, Calvin D. Packer, E. Wing Hale, Artemas Tyler, John S.
Eaton, Lilley Parker, Adolphus G. Hale, Nathan Upham, Charles W.
Ely, Joseph M. Parker, Joel Heard, Charles Walcott, Samuel B. Ely, Homer
Parker, Samuel D. Hersey, Henry Walker, Samuel
Eustis, William T. Parsons, Thomas A. Hindsdale, William Weeks, Cyrus
Farwell, A. G.
Payson, Thomas E. Hubbard, William J. Wheeler, William F. Fellows, James K. Peabody, George Hunt, William Wilson, Milo
Perkins, Jonathan C.
Phinney, Silvanus B. Sumner, Increase in all future periods of this Commonwealth, to
cherish the interests of literature and the sciPlunkett, William C. Taber, Isaac C.
ences, and all seminaries of them, especially the Powers, Peter
Taft, Arnold Preston, Jonathan Taylor, Ralph
public schools and grammar schools in the Prince, F. O. Thayer, Joseph
towns," &c. The effect of this proposition is, to Putnam, George Tilton, Abraham
place the university at Cambridge where, as we Richardson, Samuel H. Train, Charles R.
believe, it ought not to stand, with those instituRing, Elkanah, Jr. Underwood, Orison
tions of the State that rest upon private foundaRockwell, Julius Upton, George B. Sampson, George R. Vinton, George A.
tion, and are not supported by general taxation. Sanderson, Amasa Wales, Bradford L. I believe the friends of the university, at CamSheldon, Luther Wallace, Frederick T. bridge desire to have that institution stand just Sherman, Charles Warner, Samuel, Jr. exactly where, by the Constitution, it has been Sleeper, John S. Wetmore, Thomas
placed, with the public and grammar schools, Stevens, Charles G. Wilder, Joel
preserving to it its original character as a public Stevens, Granville Wilkins, John H. Stevens, William Wilkinson, Ezra
institution. Therefore, I am in favor of having Stevenson, J. Thomas Williams, Henry the Constitution, in this respect, remain just as it Storrow, Charles S. Williams, J. B.
is, and am opposed to the resolve, for the reason Strong, Alfred L. Wood, Nathaniel
that it takes the university at Cambridge out of Stutson, William Woods, Josiah B.
the class of public institutions, and makes it a Sumner, Charles Wright, Ezekiel
private institution. Absent and not voting, 178.
Mr. STETSON, of Braintree. I should like So the resolve was ordered to a second reading sity at Cambridge should be especially distin
to ask the gentleman for Berlin, why the univerUniversity at Cambridge.
guished from the other institutions, in this respect. The PRESIDENT. The next matter in order,
Mr. BOUTWELL. The reason for this is, that is No. 2 of the calendar, being the resolve to the university at Cambridge was established by amend section 2, chapter 5, of the Constitution, by act of the legislature, and endowed with the striking out the words “ University at Cam. | property of the people of all the Commonwealth, bridge.” The resolve has been read twice, and while neither of the other colleges has been so the question now is upon the final passage. The endowed. That is a very good reason why the resolve is as follows:
university at Cambridge should stand with the
grammar and public schools of the State, as an Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the
institution of the State, resting upon the founsecond section of the fifth chapter of the Constitution, by striking out therefrom the words
dation laid by the State. The other institutions “ University at Cambridge.”
are private institutions, while this is a public one.
Mr. HUBBARD, of Boston. From the disMr. BOUTWELL, for Berlin. I am opposed cussion which took place yesterday, I suppose it to the passage of this resolution. If gentlemen is a mooted question, whether the university at will turn to page ninety-seventh of the rules and Cambridge is to be regarded as a public instituorders of the Convention, they will find in sec tion, over which the State has entire control, or tion 2d, chapter 5th, of the Constitution, the fol whether it is a private institution, which the legislowing:
lature cannot touch. It seems to me, it is assum“ It shall be the duty of legislatures and mag
ing the question at issue, to assert that it is a istrates, in all future periods of this Common public institution, standing upon the same founwealth, to cherish the interests of literature dation with our public schools, supported at the and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; public expense. It is said, that the provision in especially the University at Cambridge, public relation to this institution was originally so inschools and grammar schools, in the towns," &c.
serted, when the Constitution was framed in If gentlemen will observe the peculiar phrase- 1780, but I suppose the reason for that was, beology of this provision of the Constitution, they cause there was no other college or university in will see that it has divided institutions of learning the State. It seems to me, that a similar provisinto three classes : the university at Cambridge, ion for all the other colleges of the State, should public schools, and grammar schools. The prop be inserted with as much reason as this. If they osition reported to us by the Committee is, that all come under the provision in the antecedent the words “ University at Cambridge” be strick clause, then the university at Cambridge will en out, so that the paragraph shall read : “It occupy the same position as the other colleges, shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, I and will have no right to claim preeminence over
· WILSON — BIRD.
them in this respect. I hope the resolve, as for Berlin, (Mr. Boutwell,) that we ought not to reported by the Committee, will be adopted. pass this resolution. Harvard College was
Mr. GARDNER, of Boston. This resolve has founded by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, been reported to the Convention by the unanimous in the year 1636. The Constitution so declares voice of the Committee who had the subject in it, and, by its provisions, we actually pledge ourcharge, and we are bound to suppose that they selves in the legislature to foster and cherish that have given it sufficient attention to understand institution. I regard it as standing altogether the bearings of the case. We must come to the different from Amherst and Williams College. conclusion that they were unanimous, because All the State did in relation to those institutions there is no Minority Report, or any other Report, was to incorporate them, and it did not found but the one emanating from their chairman, them, as it founded Harvard College. I wish to recommending that the Convention should make maintain this in the Constitution as it is, as the this change. I supposed the object of this Con- university of Massachusetts, and I wish it to vention was, to create a Constitution for the maintain that position, now and hereafter. I trust people of the State which should be adapted to all that in the future, that right will be fully and parts of the State, and uniform in its application clearly established and vindicated, and therefore to all the individuals and institutions of the State. I hope the resolution now before us will not be This exception of Harvard University, as con adopted, and that we shall leave that portion of tended for by gentlemen here, acts in one of two the Constitution precisely as it stands to-day. ways, either as an obstruction to the interests of Mr. BIRD, of Walpole. The gentlemen from the university, and upon that ground I should Boston, have said that this matter in relation to oppose it, and I trust that the Convention will
Harvard College was put into the Constitution of oppose it also, or else it acts as a benefit, as a 1780, because there was no other college in the special privilege to that university, and upon that State at that time. But, I may inquire, how it ground I should oppose it. This institution is happens that it was kept in the Constitution of individually signalized in the original Constitu 1820 ? I say there was good reason for it. It tion, simply, as I understand it, for the reason just was not retained by accident; and, admitting that given by my colleague, (Mr. Hubbard,)—and I it may have have been introduced in the Constihave given the subject some little attention—that tution of 1780 for that reason, which, as a matter when the Constitution was first established, this of fact, I do not admit, yet it was retained in the was the only institution of the kind in the Com- Constitution of 1820, and for the reason that the monwealth. We are called upon now, either to relation between the Commonwealth and Harvard place this institution upon a footing with all the College is entirely different from the relation beother institutions of the Commonwealth, or else tween it and any other institution in the State. It give it special privileges. I am in favor of sus is not only the relation which exists between a taining the Report of the Committee, and am in founder and the institution which is founded; favor of adopting this resolve, irrespective of the but beyond that, there is a peculiar relation, growaction of the Committee, because I believe it is ing out of the fact, that the Commonwealth has right, just, and democratic.
had the entire control of the college from 1780 to Mr. WILSON, of Natick. The chairman of 1810, without any exception. the Committee, to whom reference has been made, From 1636 to 1810, the Commonwealth of and who is now absent, moved, the other day, to Massachusetts had as much control of Harvard lay this matter over. Upon that occasion I un College as of anything which it undertook to manderstood him to say, that he made the motion to age, and the right of the Commonwealth to this see what the Convention would do with the reso. control, was never questioned up to 1810. There lution acted upon yesterday. The gentleman were collisions frequently between the board of from Boston says that the Committee made an overseers and the corporation ; but, without going unanimous Report, and that we are bound to sup into the history of the matter fully, I am prepose they had good reasons for making that Re-pared to stand upon that statement, that up to port. All we are bound to know about Com 1810, the corporation of Harvard College never mittees, is this : that they report, and our duty is questioned the right of the Commonwealth to an to examine their reports, and act according to our absolute and entire control of the institution, in own views in regard to them. Of course, I would every particular. That fact, as a matter of contemtreat the report of any Committee of this Conven poraneous history, is perfectly conclusive, and it tion with great deference and respect, but we are establishes a right of the legislature to control that not, by any means, compelled to follow the advice college, which nobody claims that the legislature of those Committees. I agree with the delegate has over any other institution, or it establishes a