Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

EARLE -KNOWLTON- STEVENS

[July 15th.

Friday,]

be rather inconsistent for him to accept it as an amendment; but he would say, for himself, that if the order was adopted, and hereafter at the close of any half hour speech, there should be a cry of "go on," "go on," he would pledge himself to rise in his place, and object. If the order was adopted, he hoped it would be adhered to rigidly, and he could see no reason why it should not be. | A MEMBER suggested that all the subjects of importance had been before the Convention, and had been discussed to a considerable extent, and there was, therefore, no more need of long speeches.

Mr. EARLE, of Worcester, said, that so far as he was personally concerned, he did not care whether the order was adopted or not, but if it was adopted, he hoped that members would not be allowed to go on by general consent, beyond the time allotted to them under the rule. If one member was allowed, by general consent, to go on beyond his time, no gentleman would think of enforcing the rule against another member who desired also to speak more than his time. He hoped the rule would be rigidly enforced if it was adopted. And he gave notice that if, should it become one of the rules of the Convention, and any member in future was allowed to go on beyond his time, he would move to abrogate the rule itself.

Mr. KNOWLTON, of Worcester, said, he was as anxious as any member in the Convention to bring this session to a close. He had given a practical demonstration of his anxiety in that respect, by sitting quietly in his seat ever since the session first commenced. But there were important questions upon the table of the Convention, which had not been touched. There was one, especially, which he had been waiting a fortnight for an opportunity to call up, but had not yet found a chance-a subject which is regarded by a portion of the community, and an influential portion too, as one of the most important that can be brought before the Convention. While, therefore, he did not wish that any man should occupy the time of the Convention for a moment more than necessity required, he desired that the subject to which he had referred should receive more consideration than it could receive in a half hour discussion. For that reason, he hoped the order would not be adopted.

Mr. STEVENS, of Rehoboth, remarked that he had noticed, since the hour rule was adopted, that when members had spoken to the extent of their limit, there was a general cry of "go on," and they had taken it for granted that such was the desire of the Convention, and without any formal action upon the part of the Convention

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

That was all

granting them leave, have gone on. right. He supposed that when any one came to the end of his hour, and no one cried "go on," he would take it for granted that the Convention did not want to hear him, and sit down.

Again, he had noticed that when any attempt had been made here to curtail debate in any shape whatever, for the purpose of progressing more rapidly with the business, nothing had been accomplished by it, and he believed no good would be accomplished by the adoption of this limit. There was yet important business to come before the Convention. The gentleman from Worcester, (Mr. Knowlton,) had referred to an important matter which he had been for some time waiting for an opportunity to call up.

So far as the one hour system was concerned, if any gentleman could not say all he wanted to say in that time, and it should be the general wish for him to continue, he saw no objection. He should vote against the adoption of the order.

Mr. WALKER, of North Brookfield, trusted that the motion would prevail, as the Convention ought to adjourn next week, and the adoption of this rule would facilitate such a result. The hour rule had worked well, and although in a few instances speakers had been allowed to go on beyond their hour, yet we had gained a good deal of time in the long run by its adoption. He hoped, therefore, that the present proposition would be adopted.

Mr. ALLEN moved the following amendment, to come in at the end of the resolution :-" Provided the chairman of each Committee of the Convention shall be allowed one hour upon the subject of his Report."

The question was taken on the amendment, and it was agreed to.

The question was then taken on the order as amended, and it was agreed to.

Loan of State Credit.

The PRESIDENT. The first question before the Convention is upon the motion of Mr. Thompson, of Charlestown, to reconsider the vote by which the resolve concerning the loan of the State credit, was ordered to a second reading.

Mr. THOMPSON, of Charlestown. I have but few words to say in reference to the motion I had the honor to submit a few days since. I deem the question to be too important, involving as it does the great interests of the Commonwealth, to be settled by so thin a House as it was the day when the amendment was offered to the original Report, and adopted by the Convention. I am opposed to that amendment, and desire to submit some reasons why I am thus opposed.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Sir, I am opposed to thus restricting the legisla- | up openly and boldly, and assert, in the organic ture in their action upon a matter of so much interest to the Commonwealth. What has been the experience of the State in relation to the action heretofore taken by the legislature upon this subject of loaning the credit of the State? Has it not been promotive of her best interests? I believe no one will deny that it has, at least no member has as yet denied it. Has it not done more to develop the mineral and other resources of the Commonwealth, to build up villages and increase the taxable property of the State on the lines of the several roads to which the loans have been made, than any other cause? And I would ask, has the Commonwealth suffered any loss, or is it within the range of probability that she can suffer any loss, from the course pursued on this matter? I believe no one will for a moment pretend that she has, or that she can.

Two corpo

rations to whom smaller loans have been made by the State, have been prepared to reimburse to the State, and if I am correctly informed, have offered to redeem the whole, or a large portion of that loaned to them, but the Commonwealth declined taking it. How stands the matter with reference to the other great corporation about which so much has been said here, and to which the loan of four millions of dollars was made. The Commonwealth holds stock of that corporation to the whole amount of the loan, besides having a preference over the whole stock held by individuals in that corporation, which is now worth about par, and has been within a short time above par, and could have been sold in the market at a profit of over $50,000. It may be asked, why was not that done? I believe a good and sufficient answer to that is, it was for the interest of the Commonwealth to allow it to remain, for the reason that the State was receiving from that stock seven or eight per cent. interest, and she could not have obtained over five per cent. upon the money derived from the sale thereof; hence, as a business transaction, I say it was a wise and judicious course for the executive to refuse to sell the stock, or take any portion of the money.

We are told these loans were an experiment. Admit they were; but does the success of an experiment furnish any argument why it should not be repeated? I think not.

The amendment which was adopted, I conceive to be one that amounts to an entire prohibition of loaning the credit of the State, under all or any circumstances. What is it, and what does it require? A vote of two-thirds of both branches of the legislature-a greater vote than is required to amend the Constitution. I think, Sir, it would be more to the credit of the Convention, to come

law, that the credit of the State shall never be loaned, than to attempt to prohibit it by such an indirect measure as this amendment would practically carry out. Sir, I am in favor, in all cases, of doing things openly and boldly, and not by any covert means, or the introduction of amendments which may have some plausibility in them, but which, when they come to be applied practically, amount to a prohibition, as much as if explicit words to that effect had been used in the Constitution. I wish that the legislature may stand, in reference to this matter, as they have stood heretofore; and, as I before remarked in relation to the experience of the Commonwealth, it does strike me that it is the dictate of wisdom to profit by the experience of the past. Generally, in business matters, the lessons of experience are the most advantageous and profitable; and I think we need not fear any loss by following the experience of the past in this matter, and allow every case that comes up to be judged of or acted upon in reference to its merits. There may be, and I have no doubt there will be, cases come up when the interests of the Commonwealth may be promoted to as great an extent as they have been in times past; but if we allow this amendment to remain as the action of this Convention, however great may be the necessity, and however much the interests of the Commonwealth might be promoted by carrying out or adopting the same policy which has been heretofore pursued, the gates are entirely closed against the adoption of any such policy. I hope, therefore, that the restrictive amendment will be rejected, upon farther consideration, and that we shall trust the servants of the people to legislate upon this subject as they have in times past, believing, as I do most fully, that the interests of the Commonwealth will be guarded and protected, and that we may expect a promotion of our true interests, instead of any loss which may accrue from such a course.

Mr. GRISWOLD, for Erving. I have been desirous, at some stage of the proceedings, to make a few remarks in relation to this matter, and I will now occupy but a few minutes of the time of the Convention. It seems to me that some false issues have been raised in the course of this discussion. In the first place, the proposition which has been adopted by the Convention, and which it is now proposed to reconsider, will have the effect of putting it out of the power of the legislature hereafter to make a loan in any case; because, if you make a restriction that it shall require a vote of two-thirds of each branch of the legislature, any gentleman can see that it is equiyalent to shutting down the gate altogether. I

[blocks in formation]

have taken the trouble to go back and examine the yeas and nays upon the loans which have been made heretofore, and I find that where they were taken in the House, in no one instance-I have only examined those in relation to the Western Railroad-did one of these loans pass by a vote of two-thirds of the members present. If you require a vote of two-thirds of all elected, it is nearly absolutely certain that no loan hereafter can be passed by the legislature, so that the question before this Convention is, whether you will do as you have done in times past, and leave it to the legislature to settle these matters upon their merits, or whether you will put an absolute prohibition into the Constitution. That is the practical effect of the proposition which we now propose to reconsider. I am not a little surprised at the course which this question has taken. Who supposed, when this Convention was called, that the proposition would be seriously entertained here of incorporating a provision in your Constitution which should forever after tie up the hands of the legislature, and put it out of their power to enter upon and maintain such a policy, however great the emergency might be for a different course of policy. This is a new proposition. It was not entertained by gentlemen who first advocated the proposition for calling this Convention. I think that our true policy requires that we should make such changes, and such only, in the Constitution as are clearly warranted and demanded by the public sentiment of the Commonwealth. I think it would be a short-sighted and dangerous policy for this Convention to enter upon experiments and incorporate into the Constitution a provision in regard to which no great feeling was entertained—a provision which, perhaps, in its results, might endanger the whole Constitution. I say then, as a matter of expediency, let us confine ourselves in our action here to those changes which the public clearly demands, and upon which there cannot be that diversity of sentiment which must exist in regard to the question now before us. In the first place, is there any necessity, any exigency for incorporating such a provision into the Constitution? I do not now raise the question as to the expediency or propriety of granting loans by the State at all; but is there anything in the past experience of Massachusetts which requires that any such provision should be incorporated into the Constitution? None whatever. Massachusetts has loaned her credit to seven different railroad corporations. Almost every portion of the Commonwealth has received the benefit of the resources of the Commonwealth in this respect, and every one of these loans has been perfectly safe to the Common

[July 15th.

wealth. I have taken the trouble, in order to put this question at rest, to examine this matter myself, and I have a letter also before me from the auditor of the Commonwealth, who of course is perfectly familiar with this whole subject, in which he says that there is no probability that the State will ever lose the first dollar by it. Every one of these lines is perfectly secure; the interest has been promptly paid whenever it was due, and the principal itself is sufficiently secured in future, and two of the roads have paid up the loans. If this be so, what is the reason for incorporating into the Constitution a provision such as this, when the legislature has hitherto been a wise and safe depository of this power. Why, gentlemen say, because other States have run foolishly into debt. This reminds me of a person in health sending for a physician. The physician calls, and he tells his patient that he is not sick, and that he has no need of a physician; but the individual says, My neighbor is sick, and I shall certainly be sick, and I must take some medicine; and thus, against the protestations of the physician, he concludes to take medicine and thus destroys his health, when, if he had let it alone, he would have been quite well. The fact that other States, upon this subject of granting loans, have run into experiments, is no argument for Massachusetts.

Allow me to say a single word in relation to the matter of our farms being mortgaged. I do not know that I should have said anything upon this point, had it not been that an appeal was made to the Democratic portion of this Convention. I know very well that at one time there was a great cry in this Commonwealth that our farms were all mortgaged in consequence of loans to the Western Railroad. I am free to confess that I joined in that cry myself; and it was one of those things which the party with which I was associated used for political capital for several years. I was honest in the sentiments I then entertained, that our farms were mortgaged, and that these loans were not safe; but a most careful examination of the whole matter, together with the experience of eight or ten years, has convinced me—and I am equally honest in saying now what I know to be true—that there is no incumbrance whatever upon our farms in this respect, but on the other hand, there can be no doubt that the real and personal property of Massachusetts has been advanced in value by these loans, many millions.

Why, Sir, I speak from the book in relation to this matter, for I have been now nearly four years in the direction of the Western Railroad, as one of the State Directors. Will gentlemen just look

[blocks in formation]

for one moment at the position of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in relation to the Western Railroad. That road, in round numbers, cost $10,000,000; $5,000,000 of which is represented by capital stock, $4,000,000 of which is owned by private stockholders, and $1,000,000 by the State. The other $5,000,000 is represented by scrip; | $4,000,000 of which is State scrip, or sterling bonds, and $1,000,000 of which is scrip of the city of Albany. Two sinking funds are provided, one for each amount of scrip. These funds are instituted by the premium on the sale of the scrip, one per cent. which the Western Railroad is obliged by law to pay, annually, into each fund, and the annual increase of the funds by interest.

Since the opening of the road from end to end, that is, since about 1844, the Western Railroad has paid the interest on this five millions of scrip, has paid one per cent. annually into each of the sinking funds; has built a second track from Worcester to Springfield; has greatly improved its baggage and passenger cars; has built new, large and commodious depot buildings and freight houses along its whole line; has paid an annual loss of from five to $8,000 on the guaranty on the Pittsfield and North Adams Railroad; has paid its president a salary of $5,000 annually, and other officers and agents in proportion, has suffered a defalcation which shocked the whole financial community, resulting in a loss of from $50,000 to $75,000; has a contingent fund of over $100,000, and during this period has paid upon the five millions of stock a semi-annual dividend of four per cent.

Now, what is the state of this matter? The sinking fund of the Western Railroad loan is now nearly $800,000; the sinking fund of the Albany loan is more than $350,000. The sterling bonds, the scrip issued by the State, is payable in thirty years from the time it was issued, and of course about 1870, and the Albany scrip is payable, I believe, about the same time. If you will go down to the auditor's room and see him, (he having made the calculations,) he will tell you that if the Western Railroad continues as it has for the last few years, it is absolutely certain that in 1870 it will be nearly or quite able to meet the $4,000,000 scrip, the sterling bonds, and the $1,000,000 Albany scrip. Then what have you? You will have

Mr. HOPKINSON, of Boston. I wish to ask the gentleman for Erving, a question. I wish to know if the Western Railroad Company has paid four per cent. annually from the time the stock was paid in.

Mr. GRISWOLD. I said from about the time the road was completed, which was in 1844 or 1845.

|

[July 15th.

Mr. HOPKINSON. I think it is not more than about three and a half per cent. since the stock was paid.

Mr. GRISWOLD. I presume that may be so. Mr. HOPKINSON. Does the gentleman say that the double track was built out of the income of the road?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I suppose it was not. I am only stating general facts in relation to the road. What I say is this,—and you will not rely on my authority, if you will look through the Auditor's Reports of the last few years, you will see the same facts stated there,-that you will find that in 1870, these five millions of scrip will be nearly or quite paid off. Then how will the Western Railroad stand? Why, the entire income of that road will be applied upon the five millions of stock, one million of which the State owns.

Now the interest which the Western Railroad pays annually on the $5,000,000 of scrip, and the one per cent. which it pay sinto the sinking funds, will then be divided upon the five millions of stock, in addition to the eight per cent. which we now divide annually, making fifteen cents on the dollar, which they will divide after about 1870, upon the five millions of stock. So that, instead of the State's ever losing a dollar from the Western Railroad, if we can believe in the future, she will double the value of her million dollars of stock which she now owns. Every dollar will be worth double its par value. The auditor has reached the same conclusions in his reports for the last few years.

Now what incumbrance is that upon the farms in Massachusetts? It is the same incumbrance which the issue of scrip in the city of Boston, for obtaining Cochituate water is, or, rather it is not half as bad, for I understand that the income from the water does not pay the interest on the scrip issued for obtaining this water. But the introduction of this water, at the expense of more than five million dollars of scrip of the city of Boston, has advanced the value of the real estate in this city, and why? Because the benefits, present and prospective, arising from the Cochituate water, are greater than the interest on the five millions or more of scrip which they have issued to bring that water into the city of Boston. It is just so in the matter of the State scrip, only it is a much better case. I am willing to stand upon the facts in the case, and I dislike to have gentlemen take us back to the old issue upon the subject of having our farms mortgaged. I know very well that the party with which I was connected, thought, at that time, the loans would be unsafe, and I dare say, if I had been a member of the legislature at that time, I should

[blocks in formation]

have voted against them myself. But all experience has shown us that the loans are safe, and that the State, so far from losing anything, will make a half a million or a million of dollars, if she holds her stock till 1870.

But the great point in this question, is this. Will you leave this matter to the legislature, or will you submit it to the people, or require a two-thirds vote? The question of submitting it to the people, I think, is now out of the case; that has been decided shall not be done. It seems to me that as this policy has worked well heretofore, as the State has incurred no risk, as the State is in no possible danger from any loan hitherto made, it is the part of wisdom and good policy to leave it where we find it. It will be soon enough to put in a constitutional provision upon the subject, whenever the State is in danger in this respect.

I will say that, as something has been said in relation to the Hoosac Tunnel, that is not the issue before this Convention. It is not properly raised in this connection. The question is, whether we will trust the legislature, who are the proper judges, and before whom the facts in one case and another can be presented, so that they will be able to understand them. The question is, not as to this measure or that measure; and I am not to be drawn into a controversy on such an issue, for I am unwilling to tie up my hands in that manner. Other counties, the county of Bristol, the county of Plymouth, the county of Barnstable, the county of Essex, and even the county of Suffolk, may need this aid. The time may come when it will be an object of immense importance that a loan should be nade by the State, for an object in one or the other of these counties, which every-body will agree is important and safe. Now will you put a provision into this Constitution which will tie forever the hands of the legislature, when you might as well leave it as it has been left in the past, to the discretion of the legislature, which has acted wisely and safely heretofore?

I wish to say a single word farther. I dislike to allude to matters that concern party, and I rarely or never do it in debate. But an appeal has been made, evidently with a design to influence some gentlemen with whom I am politically connected, or the party with which I am associated. Now, allow me to say, it has always been a Democratic doctrine in this country, so far as I understand it, to favor internal improvements; and every Democratic president, from Jefferson down to president Pierce, has done it. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, and Polk, each in urn, suggested to the people of this country, the

extent.

[July 15th.

propriety of changing their Constitution, so that a system of internal improvements could be carried on by the general government, so powerfully were these great men impressed with the necessity of internal improvements, and with the belief that the Constitution did not permit them to be made by the general government, except to a limited And several of them strongly recommended that, so long as it could not be done by the general government with the United States Constitution unamended, it should be done by the States themselves, which would better understand the wants of each locality. I do not wish to advise to enter upon any rash experiments. I would not grant a loan in every case, but I would leave that power with the legislature; so that whenever there is a necessity, and wherever there is a great public exigency, and the loan can be safely made, I would make it, at least. I would leave it to the legislature, which is the proper body to settle that question. Shall we sit here to forge chains and shackles and sepulchres, I may say, for the industry of Massachusetts? For one, I will not do it.

I have not time, but I should like if I had a few moments, and if I had the ability, to set forth the advantages which have accrued to Massachusetts, to Boston, and to every part of the State, from the great railroad enterprises which were aided, to a very great extent, by the credit of the Commonwealth, many of which would, probably, not have been built without that aid. And this aid has been granted, too, without the Commonwealth being in danger of losing the first mill, and by simply endorsing this paper. I would like, if I had time, to set forth in my poor way, some advantages which have accrued to the people of this Commonwealth from these loans, or from the railroads to which they were loaned. Sir, standing here, we seem to underrate the great advantages to the farmers, the mechanics, to the manufacturers, to the mercantile interests, and to all the industrial pursuits in Massachusetts, accruing directly and immediately from the construction of these railroads. Look over the valuation of 1850; look at Pittsfield, and Springfield, and Worcester, and Boston, and Lowell, and Fitchburg, and all the main points where these great railroads pass, and look at the millions and millions of increase of property. It is a direct and immediate result, to a very great extent, of the construction of these roads. Sir, when the policy of Massachusetts has resulted in such beneficence and advantage to the State, I am surprised that there is any man of any party who will come up here and seriously propose to shut down the gate entirely, and put it out of the power of the legislature, even in the

« ForrigeFortsett »