Wednesday,]

Mr. WATERS, of Millbury, moved that the Convention adjourn.

The motion did not prevail-there being on a division, ayes 81, noes 90.

Mr. WILSON, of Natick, moved that the Convention resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, upon the Report concerning the

Election of Senators

By the legislature on joint ballot.

The motion was agreed to, and the Convention accordingly resolved itself into

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE,

Mr. Cushman, of Bernardston, in the Chair, and proceeded to consider the said Report, namely, that it is inexpedient to act thereon.

The Report was agreed to, and the Committee rose, and by their chairman reported the same

to

THE CONVENTION,

With a recommendation that it be adopted.

The Report of the Committee of the Whole was concurred in, and the resolution accompanying the Report was adopted.

On motion by Mr. WILSON, of Natick, the Convention resolved itself into

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE,

Mr. Briggs, of Pittsfield, in the Chair, on Convention Document No. 55, being resolves reported by the Committee to whom was recommitted the resolves on the qualifications of voters, as follows:

1. Resolved, That for the purpose of voting, no person shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence by reason of his presence or absence while employed in the army or navy of the United States, or while navigating the waters of this State, or of the United States, or of the high seas, or while a student of any seminary of learning.

2. Resolved, That no person removing his domicil from one town or city within this Commonwealth, to another, shall, by reason of such removal, be deemed to have lost his residence in the former, for the purpose of voting for National and State Officers, until six months after his removal.

Mr. CHURCHILL, of Milton. If I am not too late, Mr. Chairman, I was about to express one or two objections which I have to the second of these resolves. The first resolve is substantially the same as that originally reported by the Committee; but the second is an amendment. I am sorry to say, Sir, that in this case, the word amendment does not convey the proper meaning,

[June 22d.

for I am far from regarding it as amended, which was proposed when the subject was previously under discussion; and it seems to me that it is open to this objection, it gives to persons who have given up their residence in any town, and who may have gone to a distant part of the Commonwealth to reside, who have dissolved, perhaps entirely, all connection with their previous residence, whose interests in their former residence have entirely ceased, and who, perhaps, may be actuated by no very friendly motives to it. This resolve, I say, as it now stands, leaves such persons at liberty to return, within six months after, and vote, in all elections of that town, both for officers national and state, and for the imposition of taxes. By this resolve, such persons can vote in such town, and perhaps influence an election contrary to the real feelings of the people actually living in such town. Such a provision seems to me to be too broad an extension of this privilege, and perhaps it might give rise to other serious abuses. I am, therefore, opposed to the adoption of the resolve, and hope it will not be passed.

Mr. ALDRICH, of Barre. This first resolution which has been reported by the Committee, is precisely and substantially the same as was once before reported, and, by a vote of the Convention, recommitted to the Committee who reported it. It strikes me, that it ought not to pass, and I will state very briefly the reasons why I think it should not. It has been the policy of this Convention, so far as I know,—and it is a policy in which I concur,-to enlarge the right of suffrage, rather than to restrain it; not in any manner to restrict that right; but this resolution does partially restrict it so far as it applies to the particular classes of persons named in it. But one strong objection which I have to the resolution is that it means nothing-that it decides nothingthat it leaves everything precisely as it now stands under the laws of the Commonwealth. Take for example the student in a seminary in any given town, and the resolution says that the simple fact of his residence there shall not give him the right to vote in that town. Why, Sir, that is the law now. If he resides there for that purpose, and no other, that is the law as it is at present; and therefore, in regard to them by incorporating this provision into the Constitution, you do nothing but leave the law precisely as it now is. But, Sir, the question whether a student has a right to vote in any particular town, while attending a seminary of learning, depends not merely upon his residence, for that purpose, but upon his intentions, as well as upon a variety of other considerations. Domicil, as I understand it, depends both upon the fact and the intention with

which the party resides there. If he is there simply for the purpose of obtaining an education, even now he has no right to vote under the laws of the Commonwealth, and the decisions of the supreme court; but if that is his home, and he is ready to say that it is his home for all purposes, then, I say, that he would be entitled to vote there even if this resolution should pass; while on the other hand, if it should be adopted, it might, in many instances be seized upon by the selectmen or other officers presiding over elections, for the purpose of depriving a man of his right to vote, when, in fact, he was in full possession of such right.

Then, again, Mr. Chairman, I object to this resolution, because it makes an invidious distinction. You point out students in particular, who are among the most intelligent and best informed classes of society, and because they are students, at least, so it would appear upon the face of the thing,-you apparently attempt to prevent them from exercising the elective franchise, while you do not say the same thing with respect to other classes of persons. Why not say that if a person resides in a town simply for the purpose of learning a trade he shall not, for that reason alone, be entitled to vote in that place, or even if he is residing there for any other single purpose; why do you not say, that from the simple fact of his being a resident in a place, he shall not, for that reason, be allowed to vote? Why not make the same rule applicable to other and less capable classes of men? Suppose, for example, that this Hoosac Tunnel, of which we have here and elsewhere heard so much, were to be undertaken and carried through-a work which would doubtless occupy some three or four years; and suppose that there were three or four hundred men to be employed in that work-Irishmen and others-and I have nothing disparaging to say of Irishmen as such-why not incorporate a provision in your Constitution, saying that laborers employed on such a work in any given town, and were there simply for the purpose of carrying on that work, they should not, for that reason, be allowed to vote? I do not see why such a provision is not just as proper and necessary as to select the students of Cambridge, and other places, and say that because they are students, they shall not be entitled to vote. For this reason, therefore, I have strong objections to the provision, because it makes an invidious distinction against one class of our fellow-citizens, and that class, too, always among the most intelligent and best informed. I do not see any good reason why you should select this class of persons to the exclusion of all others.

[June 22d.

Then, Sir, in regard to those persons who belong to the army and navy of the United States, the same general remark is applicable. If a soldier or a sailor of the United States should happen to be within the borders of Massachusetts, and residing here for a period of twelve months, and he is here merely as a soldier or a sailor, and has his family or his domicil elsewhere, he has, under the existing laws, no right to vote here, nor, if his home is here, would he by temporary absence lose his right to vote in this State; so that, if you incorporate this provision in your Constitution, and it is properly understood, you will not enlarge the elective rights of the soldier or sailor, but on the contrary, this resolve being a part of that instrument, it will be liable to be understood as an attempt to abridge the right of suffrage as to sailors and soldiers coming into this State from other States, although they come with the purpose of making this their home. Now, as the policy of the Convention has been to extend and enlarge the right of suffrage, I do not see why you should now attempt to introduce a provision to restrain and limit the rights of one or two classes of voters. I say, therefore, it should not be incorporated for these general reasons-first, because the provision, if properly understood, leaves the law entirely as it now stands; and, secondly, if incorporated in the Constitution, the design of the framers of that instrument will be likely to be taken as meaning to abridge the right of suffrage in regard to these classes.

Then, with regard to the second resolution, I did not agree to it in Committee, and I do not agree to it now. It provides that the voter removing his domicil from one town to another shall not be deemed to have lost his residence for the purpose of voting, in the former, until the expiration of six months. This, I think will introduce confusion into our elections. Another resolution which I believe has been reported for adoption into the Constitution provides that there shall be a registration of all the voters. Now, if you allow persons who are floating about the community and removing from one part of the State to another, to return to a former domicil to vote, it strikes me that you will open a very wide door to fraud. Tell me, Sir, how it is to be known how long a person has been absent? If he has a residence in any given town it is well known to his neighbors, and is likely to be known to those who preside at the elections. But if you open the door and allow any person to come in and vote on his mere declaration of having been absent from a town for less than six months, you will open a door to fraud, the end of which I venture to say none of us can see.

Wednesday,]

But, Sir, there is another objection. The resolution says:—

That no person removing his domicil from one town or city within this Commonwealth, to another, shall, by reason of such removal, be deemed to have lost his residence in the former, for the purpose of voting for national and state officers, until six months after his removal.

Now, suppose that a person has resided in a town for three months and then removes to another town and resides there four months, and goes again to another town and resides there five months; where has he a right to vote? If he returns to the first town has he any right there? or if he returns to the second or the third town has he any right there? It might be difficult for even a constitutional lawyer to answer the question, and much more so for those who usually conduct our elections.

Now, Sir, as it seems to me that this provision would be applicable only to a very small number of honest voters, and as I think it would open the door to an immense number of dishonest ones to perpetrate frauds in our elections, I conceive that while the mischief it might effectuate is not only apparent but extensive, the advantage to be gained is by no means equivalent, and, therefore, I would have no such provision in the Constitution, but would reject both the resolutions reported by the Committee.

Mr. HOUGHTON, of Sterling. I object, Sir, to both resolutions, particularly on one account, that a person residing in any given town, and leaving it to reside in another, might, if so disposed, vote in both places. He would certainly have a chance of voting twice for state officers; which, in the event of a close contest, might determine the result. As has already been remarked by the speaker who has just taken his seat, it would open the door to great frauds, and it appears to me that, for that reason alone, it would be very wrong to adopt this section of the Report.

Mr. HOPKINSON, of Boston. I confess that I do not like this second resolution. I do not think it is so material as to demand a place in our Constitution; but if it is to be here I certainly think that it might be improved. I find that it proposes that any person having removed from a town shall still, within the space of six months, have the right to vote for state officers. I do not know that I am exactly aware of what a "state officer" is, as meant by this resolve. If, before this matter had been placed here, I had been asked what I meant by "state officers," I should have said the Senate and House of Representatives, and that the Committee so intended; but I

[June 22d.

suppose now that the Committee mean officers chosen by the vote of the State at large, and with that meaning I must confess that I see a strong objection to the proposition.

But, Sir, there is another objection which I have to it, and that is that it does not touch another class of cases in which the whole people are interested, or those questions on which they may all be called upon to vote. Now, Sir, in order to secure the right of every person in regard to his right to vote, where he truly has such right, I would move to amend the second resolution, by striking out, in the last line but one, the words, "and state," and insert, after the word "officers," in the next line, the words, "or for any officer to be chosen, or upon any question to be decided by a vote of the people of the whole State." So that it will then read :—

domicil from one town or city within this Com2. Resolved, That no person removing his monwealth to another, shall, by reason of such removal, be deemed to have lost his residence in the former, for the purpose of voting for national officers, or for any officer to be chosen, or upon any question to be decided by a vote of the people of the whole State, until six months after his removal.

Mr. FRENCH, of Berkley. I hope that this amendment will not prevail. If we are to amend the Constitution let us amend it, and make it better than it was before; and as I do not believe that either of these resolutions are necessary, or that, if they are adopted, they will make the Constitution any better than it is at present, I hope the Committee will reject them both. I am opposed to the first one because it neither adds anything to the Constitution as it now stands, nor takes anything from it. I am opposed to the second one because I think it is not only unnecessary but might be highly mischievous. If a man leaves his domicil and goes to sea, or anywhere else, and has a home somewhere, and he comes home, why then, of course he is a voter. And why should we undertake to insert into the organic platform of our government anything which is extraneous and unnecessary to be there? After spending so much time upon that instrument we want it to look well, after we have done with it, and when it is presented to the people. I hope therefore that these resolves will not be accepted. They will only add to the Constitution matter which is of no possible use, and will do no earthly good. I trust that the amendment which was offered by the gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Hopkinson,) will not prevail; and, if it should not, then that both of the resolutions themselves will be rejected.

Thursday,]

MONTON

[June 23d.

Mr. MORTON, of Quincy. The amendment which is pending is simply to prevent persons from voting for representatives. But when questions come up upon which all persons who vote are voters in the State, vote, then the removal from one place to another should not prevent them from voting. The proposition is very simple, very clear, and it is a good one. It takes away the objection suggested by the gentleman from Milton, (Mr. Churchill,) and it seems to me that if it is understood, it will be passed by the Committee without hesitation.

The question was again put upon the adoption of the amendment; and there were, upon a division-ayes, 74; noes, 47.

So the amendment was agreed to. Mr. STEVENS, of Clinton. I move to strike out from the first resolution the words "or while a student of any seminary of learning."

I do not wish to occupy much of the time of the Convention, with a statement of the views I entertain upon this subject. They have been already expressed in part by my friend from Barre. I cannot see any reason why this distinction should be made; why, if it is proposed to exclude any class or any classes of our citizens from voting, in the towns where they reside, this distinction should not be carried to a greater extent.

It has been stated upon this floor, that elections in our manufacturing towns have been carried, from time to time, by individuals who come to those places to reside but for a short time. It was stated by the gentleman from Lowell, and others who entered into the discussion of the same subject, that it was the custom of certain citizens, of a neighboring State, to come to these manufacturing towns in the spring, for the purpose of engaging in mechanical or manufacturing pursuits or other occupations, and there remain until after the State elections, participating in the elections, aiding in the election of the officers of Lowell, and then returning to their homes.

Now, if there is a reason for excluding from the privilege of voting, students of seminaries of learning, and of colleges, who usually reside for a period of three or four years in the town where they pursue their studies, that reason is much stronger in favor of excluding those persons to whom I have referred, who come into the State to reside for a period less than a year. Residing myself in a manufacturing town, I have seen the effect of this course, and have known repeated

reside for a period of time less than a year, and aiding in the election of the representatives of towns in the State legislature,-a matter in which they had and could have no particular interest. On the other hand, the students in our seminaries of learning, who, for the most part reside for four years in the institution with which they are connected, must acquire more or less interest in the affairs of that town, and especially so far as the election of representatives to the State legislature is concerned, for the action of such legislature may have a serious influence upon such seminaries of learning. If this amendment shall not prevail, I shall then move to add to the resolution a clause, which shall include within it, this class of persons to which I have referred.

Mr. DUNCAN, of Williamstown. I move, Mr. Chairman, that the Committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

The motion was agreed to, and the Committee accordingly rose.

Ordered, That hereafter, no member shall speak more than one hour on any question, either in Committee of the Whole, or in Convention, without leave.

Mr. ADAMS. I wish simply to say one word in reference to this order, which was introduced by me yesterday. I suppose that it is the desire and the hope of many, if not all of the members of this body, that the Convention may be able to close its labors as early as the tenth of July. That will allow us, including to-day, fourteen