Saturday,] ScHOULER BIRD-WHITNEY - FROTHINGHAM -- belong to every man alike, then they cannot be complained of. [Here the hammer fell, the hour to which the speaker, as chairman of the Committee, was entitled, by the order of the Convention, having expired.] Mr. DENTON, of Chelsea. I think this subject has been amply and fairly discussed, upon both sides. I think it has been discussed with great ability, and I therefore feel it my duty to move the previous question. Mr. SCHOULER, of Boston. I hope the previous question will not be sustained at the present time. If the question has been discussed, it has been all on one side. We have had a speech from the gentleman for Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett,) half an hour in length. The gentleman from North Brookfield, (Mr. Walker,) spoke half an hour. We have had a speech from the gentleman from Charlestown, (Mr. Frothingham,) and an hour's speech from the gentleman from Conway, (Mr. Whitney,) in favor of the adoption of this proposition, while scarcely anything has been said upon the other side. I should like ten minutes to set myself right upon this question. It seems to me, that the question is by no means exhausted. There are many points which have not been touched upon at all. The gentleman from Cambridge, (Mr. Sargent,) my colleague from Boston, and myself, have not spoken three quarters of an hour altogether; while the gentlemen upon the other side have spoken two hours and a half. The gentleman from Conway, (Mr. Whitney,) directed nearly his entire speech against the few remarks which I had the honor to make, and I desire ten minutes to say something in reply. Mr. BIRD, of Walpole. I only want to say that I hope the motion for the previous question will not be withdrawn, and that it will be sustained by the Convention. The gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Schouler,) has had the floor once, upon this subject. Mr. SCHOULER. I am aware that I have had the floor once, but only for a very few minutes, and the gentleman from Conway, (Mr. Whitney,) has directed his whole argument against the ground which I took. In the usual course of debate, the chairman of a Committee opens the debate upon the subject over which he has had charge, but, in this instance, he has closed the debate. Mr. WHITNEY, of Conway. I would suggest to the gentleman from Chelsea, (Mr. Denton,) who moved the previous question, that he withdraw his motion. I desire to treat the gentleman from Boston with courtesy. I did not finish the remarks I had intended to make before the hammer fell, and I always want the privilege of the last word, when I can have it, but I nevertheless desire that the gentleman from Boston should have an opportunity to reply, if he desires it; and I therefore suggest to the gentleman from Chelsea that he withdraw his motion for the previous question, and move that the question be taken at twenty minutes past 12 o'clock. That will give the gentleman from Boston ten minutes to reply. Mr. FROTHINGHAM, of Charlestown. I rose to make a suggestion somewhat similar to that of the gentleman from Conway, (Mr. Whitney). I have myself occupied not more than fifteen minutes in this discussion, and I should like an opportunity of saying something in reference to what has been said by the gentleman from Boston. I dare say there are many others who would also like to say something. I know, however, that the time of the Convention is precious, and, for one, I would be willing to forego the pleasure of answering the gentleman from Boston. I would, nevertheless, suggest to the gentleman from Chelsea, that the time for taking the question be fixed at half past 12 o'clock. This is a very important subject, and one which has occupied but very little of the time of the Convention. It seems to me but just, that the gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Schouler,) should be allowed time to answer the gentleman from Conway, and I think that to allow a little farther time for the discussion of the subject, would not be objectionable. I will, therefore, venture to suggest that the time for taking the question be fixed at half past 12 o'clock. Mr. WHITNEY, of Boylston. I have been waiting for some time for an opportunity to say a word upon this subject, but I see there are many others who are also waiting to say a word, if the previous question is withdrawn. If our friends are willing to waive their rights, I am willing to waive mine, and let the question be taken now. I hope the previous question will not be withdrawn. Mr. FRENCH, of Berkley. I hope the gentleman from Chelsea will withdraw his call for the prevous question. I have not said a word upon this subject, and the Convention very well know that I shall detain them but a short time in what I have to say. If I could have obtained the floor at a proper time, I wanted to say a word in reply to the gentleman on my left, (Mr. Schouler). But what I wanted to say at the time, I have now nearly forgotten, [a laugh,] and I shall therefore be content with still less time than I should then have occupied. If the Convention will give me five minutes, it will be all I ask. Mr. President: I shall be sorry to get into deep water, but if I do, it will not be the first time I have been off my soundings. Mr. BATES, of Plymouth. I rise to a question of order. I believe the gentleman is discussing the question, and replying to the member from Boston, (Mr. Schouler). Mr. FRENCH. I have not come to him yet. [Laughter.] The PRESIDENT. The Chair does not understand that the gentleman from Berkley is replying to the gentleman from Boston. Mr. FRENCH. This is a question in relation to corporations, or whether we are to have a general or special law as to corporations. What object do associations of persons have in view in being incorporated. They have some object or other The PRESIDENT. It is not in order for the gentleman to discuss the merits of the question. Mr. BIGELOW, of Grafton. I hope the previous question will be sustained. Mr. DENTON, of Chelsea. I wish the gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Schouler,) to understand that it was not my intention to cut him off from replying to the gentleman from Conway, (Mr. Whitney). I listened to his speech with a great deal of pleasure, and I think he went over the whole ground, and I really think that he would not have anything more to say, except in reply to the gentleman from Conway, which would lead to still farther discussion, and therefore I insist upon the previous question. The PRESIDENT. The Chair desires to remark, in relation to the suggestion of the gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Schouler,) that, with the exception of the mover of the amendment, the floor has been given alternately to the friends and opponents of the resolves. The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered. The PRESIDENT. The question first in order is, upon the amendment moved by the gentleman from Oxford, (Mr. De Witt). Mr. DE WITT. I withdraw the amendment. The PRESIDENT. The question now recurs upon the motion made by the gentleman from Worcester, (Mr. Davis,) to strike out all after the word "resolved," and insert the following, as a substitute : Resolved, That it is expedient to incorporate into the Constitution a provision, that corporations shall not be created by special act when the object of the incorporation shall be attainable under general laws. The question was then taken upon Mr. Davis's amendment, and it was agreed to. [July 16th. Adams, Shubael P. Aldrich, P. Emory Allen, James B. Alley, John B. Alvord, D. W. Andrews, Robert Austin, George Baker, Hillel Ballard, Alvah Barrett, Marcus Bates, Moses, Jr. Bigelow, Edward B. Bird, Francis W. Bishop, Henry W. Booth, William S. Boutwell, Geo. S. Boutwell, Sewell YEAS. Edwards, Samuel Freeman, James M. Frothingham, Rich'd, Jr. Gardner, Johnson Gooch, Daniel W. Griswold, Whiting Griswold, Josiah W. Hadley, Samuel P. Hallett, B. F. Hathaway, Elnathan P. Hawkes, Stephen E. Harmon, Phineas Haskins, William Hayden, Isaac Heath, Ezra 2d, Hewes, James Hewes, William H. Hobart, Aaron Hobart, Henry Bradford, William J. A. Green, Jabez Hobbs, Edwin Knox, Albert Kuhn, George, H. Saturday,] Morton, Elbridge G. Richards, Luther NAYS ABSENT. Simmons, Perez Stevens, Joseph L., Jr. Winn, Jonathan B. Abbott, Alfred A. Ball, George S. Bancroft, Alpheus Bartlett, Russel ABSENT. [July 16th. Banks, Nathaniel P., Jr. Greenleaf, Simon Bartlett, Sidney Cummings, Joseph Dana, Richard H., Jr. Lincoln, Frederic W., Jr. Davis, Charles G. Kendall, Isaac Livermore, Isaac Loud, Samuel P. Miller, Seth, Jr. Hall, Charles B. Hammond, A. B. Hapgood, Lyman W. Loomis, E. Justin Lothrop, Samuel K. Lowell, John A. Marvin, Abijah P. Marvin, Theophilus R. Meader, Reuben Monroe, James L. STETSON-HUBBARD. Mr. BOUTWELL, for Berlin. I am opposed to the passage of this resolution. If gentlemen will turn to page ninety-seventh of the rules and orders of the Convention, they will find in section 2d, chapter 5th, of the Constitution, the following: "It shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this Commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially the University at Cambridge, public schools and grammar schools, in the towns," &c. If gentlemen will observe the peculiar phraseology of this provision of the Constitution, they will see that it has divided institutions of learning into three classes: the university at Cambridge, public schools, and grammar schools. The proposition reported to us by the Committee is, that the words "University at Cambridge" be stricken out, so that the paragraph shall read: "It shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, [July 16th. in all future periods of this Commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them, especially the public schools and grammar schools in the towns," &c. The effect of this proposition is, to place the university at Cambridge where, as we believe, it ought not to stand, with those institutions of the State that rest upon private foundation, and are not supported by general taxation. I believe the friends of the university, at Cambridge desire to have that institution stand just exactly where, by the Constitution, it has been placed, with the public and grammar schools, preserving to it its original character as a public institution. Therefore, I am in favor of having the Constitution, in this respect, remain just as it is, and am opposed to the resolve, for the reason that it takes the university at Cambridge out of the class of public institutions, and makes it a private institution. Mr. STETSON, of Braintree. I should like to ask the gentleman for Berlin, why the university at Cambridge should be especially distinguished from the other institutions, in this respect. Mr. BOUTWELL. The reason for this is, that the university at Cambridge was established by act of the legislature, and endowed with the property of the people of all the Commonwealth, while neither of the other colleges has been so endowed. That is a very good reason why the university at Cambridge should stand with the grammar and public schools of the State, as an institution of the State, resting upon the foundation laid by the State. The other institutions are private institutions, while this is a public one. Mr. HUBBARD, of Boston. From the discussion which took place yesterday, I suppose it is a mooted question, whether the university at Cambridge is to be regarded as a public institution, over which the State has entire control, or whether it is a private institution, which the legislature cannot touch. It seems to me, it is assuming the question at issue, to assert that it is a public institution, standing upon the same foundation with our public schools, supported at the public expense. It is said, that the provision in relation to this institution was originally so inserted, when the Constitution was framed in 1780, but I suppose the reason for that was, because there was no other college or university in the State. It seems to me, that a similar provision for all the other colleges of the State, should be inserted with as much reason as this. If they all come under the provision in the antecedent clause, then the university at Cambridge will occupy the same position as the other colleges, and will have no right to claim preeminence over them in this respect. I hope the resolve, as reported by the Committee, will be adopted. Mr. GARDNER, of Boston. This resolve has been reported to the Convention by the unanimous voice of the Committee who had the subject in charge, and we are bound to suppose that they have given it sufficient attention to understand the bearings of the case. We must come to the conclusion that they were unanimous, because there is no Minority Report, or any other Report, but the one emanating from their chairman, recommending that the Convention should make this change. I supposed the object of this Convention was, to create a Constitution for the people of the State which should be adapted to all parts of the State, and uniform in its application to all the individuals and institutions of the State. This exception of Harvard University, as contended for by gentlemen here, acts in one of two ways, either as an obstruction to the interests of the university, and upon that ground I should oppose it, and I trust that the Convention will oppose it also, or else it acts as a benefit, as a special privilege to that university, and upon that ground I should oppose it. This institution is individually signalized in the original Constitution, simply, as I understand it, for the reason just given by my colleague, (Mr. Hubbard,)—and I have given the subject some little attention-that when the Constitution was first established, this was the only institution of the kind in the Commonwealth. We are called upon now, either to place this institution upon a footing with all the other institutions of the Commonwealth, or else give it special privileges. I am in favor of sustaining the Report of the Committee, and am in favor of adopting this resolve, irrespective of the action of the Committee, because I believe it is right, just, and democratic. [July 16th. for Berlin, (Mr. Boutwell,) that we ought not to pass this resolution. Harvard College was founded by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in the year 1636. The Constitution so declares it, and, by its provisions, we actually pledge ourselves in the legislature to foster and cherish that institution. I regard it as standing altogether different from Amherst and Williams College. All the State did in relation to those institutions was to incorporate them, and it did not found them, as it founded Harvard College. I wish to maintain this in the Constitution as it is, as the university of Massachusetts, and I wish it to maintain that position, now and hereafter. I trust that in the future, that right will be fully and clearly established and vindicated, and therefore I hope the resolution now before us will not be adopted, and that we shall leave that portion of the Constitution precisely as it stands to-day. Mr. BIRD, of Walpole. The gentlemen from Boston, have said that this matter in relation to Harvard College was put into the Constitution of 1780, because there was no other college in the State at that time. But, I may inquire, how it happens that it was kept in the Constitution of 1820 I say there was good reason for it. It was not retained by accident; and, admitting that it may have have been introduced in the Constitution of 1780 for that reason, which, as a matter of fact, I do not admit, yet it was retained in the Constitution of 1820, and for the reason that the relation between the Commonwealth and Harvard College is entirely different from the relation between it and any other institution in the State. It is not only the relation which exists between a founder and the institution which is founded; but beyond that, there is a peculiar relation, growing out of the fact, that the Commonwealth has had the entire control of the college from 1780 to 1810, without any exception. From 1636 to 1810, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had as much control of Harvard College as of anything which it undertook to manage, and the right of the Commonwealth to this control, was never questioned up to 1810. There were collisions frequently between the board of overseers and the corporation; but, without going into the history of the matter fully, I am pre Mr. WILSON, of Natick. The chairman of the Committee, to whom reference has been made, and who is now absent, moved, the other day, to lay this matter over. Upon that occasion I understood him to say, that he made the motion to see what the Convention would do with the resolution acted upon yesterday. The gentleman from Boston says that the Committee made an unanimous Report, and that we are bound to suppose 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 Committees, is this: that they report, and our duty is to examine their reports, and act according to our own views in regard to them. Of course, I would treat the report of any Committee of this Convention with great deference and respect, but we are not, by any means, compelled to follow the advice of those Committees. I agree with the delegate 1810, the corporation of Harvard College never questioned the right of the Commonwealth to an absolute and entire control of the institution, in every particular. That fact, as a matter of contemporaneous history, is perfectly conclusive, and it establishes a right of the legislature to control that college, which nobody claims that the legislature has over any other institution, or it establishes a |