WILKINS. Friday,] [July 15th. greatest exigency and the safest loan, to grant the | (Mr. Gray,) who immediately followed him, both credit of the State. Sir, for one, I take my stand on the side of internal improvements; not that I would embark the credit of the State to an unreasonable or unsafe extent; but, for one, living in this age, I take my stand in favor of internal improvements, and I undertake to say that no man can stand up and defend himself in Massachusetts, in New England, in New York, or in this country, who is opposed to internal improvements. I hope, Mr. President, that this matter will be left, as it has been before, with the legislature. There is no danger of any unsafe loan being made. The great corporations which are interested to defeat any loans, using their influence in connection with men who are themselves opposed to these loans, will be power enough for any company who wish for a loan, to meet; and there will be no danger whatever, that an imprudent or unsafe loan will be made hereafter. Mr. WILKINS, of Boston. Mr. President. It has been no purpose of mine, to occupy a moment of the time of this Convention in discussing this subject. I have listened to the discussion, thus far, without wishing to be heard, because I thought I saw that the sense of this body was correct, and needed no aid from me, in coming to a correct conclusion. But the position of this matter has undergone a change-the right appears to me in jeopardy-and I must claim the indulgence of the Convention, while I briefly express my views upon it. It is altogether too late to attempt to disguise the fact, that the topic under discussion is indissolubly connected with the Hoosac Tunnel. The first speech made on the subject, by the gentleman from Abington, (Mr. Keyes,) has dovetailed them together; and nearly every subsequent speech and vote has only demonstrated the connection. Hence, it has seemed to me, that we have been engaged, while discussing this matter, in legislation, and that of the worst kind: special legislation. And, it would have been hardly an inappropriate mode of proceeding, to have issued an order of notice to the Troy and Greenfield Railroad, so that they might appear with their counsel and witnesses, and have a full hearing upon the merits of their case, before the Committee of the Whole. It is true that some few have addressed this body, either in Convention or in Committee, upon the merits of the question, without any apparent bias. My colleague, who early addressed the Committee, (Mr. Hillard,) in favor of the Report of the Committee, and the gentleman representing Manchester, (Mr. Dana,) and my colleague, in favor of the Report, seem to me to have fully and satisfactorily met every argument that has been or can be brought on the other side-and they have kept aloof from present exigencies, and from preconceived opinions. But how is it with some others who have taken part in this debate? Are they in a position to bring to this topic unbiased opinions, and candid judgment—and are their arguments entitled to the right in this matter, which we should all deem them entitled to on indifferent subjects? The gentleman from Taunton, (Mr. Morton,) has taken a conspicuous part, and made untiring efforts to defeat the acceptance of the Report, and what is his position? Why, Sir, he has himself told us, that his views on State credit were put upon record many years ago; and some of us well remember them. He has himself alluded to the probable fact, that in consequence of these recorded opinions, he found that he was obliged to quit a temporary office, for the attainment of which he had given up a permanent one. If that gentleman has any regrets for the change he then made, I will assure him that I believe he has the hearty sympathy of his political opponents. We, then, and still think, he left an office, the duties of which he was eminently well qualified to discharge, and was discharging, with great usefulness and acceptance, and entered upon another office, about his qualifications to fill which, there were at least two opinions at the time, though there appears to have been an approximation to one sentiment on the subject before the year expired. Now, Sir, it appears that this sentiment concerning the credit of the State, formed and enunciated in the dark prospects which then overhung the Western Railroad enterprise, is still, with him, a cherished sentiment. It has cost him too much not to be highly prized, and he now is desirous that the Convention and the people should adopt what the people then repudiated. The gentleman undoubtedly formed, and still cherishes this opinion, in all honesty and sincerity; but I submit, whether there be not with him some pride of opinion, some stickling for consistency, which may obscure his better judgment, under the particular circumstances of the present case; and whether he has not attached a value to this opinion, derived rather from what it has cost him, than what it is worth to us. And how is it with other gentlemen, who are throwing obstacles in the way of accepting the Report? One of my colleagues, (Mr. Hopkinson,) who has twice spoken on the matter in opposition, (though I was not present to hear him,) Friday,] WILKINS. [July 15th. daily eats the bread that flows from the bounty of | ly. We found we were too late in the day to folthe State. Though not connected with the Western Railroad, that I know of, yet he is most intimately connected with another corporation whose life's blood is derived from the Western, and the Norwich and Worcester Railroads-both of which owe their existence to the credit of this State. Now, Sir, situated as that gentleman is, surrounded by such accidents as he is, he must feel no surprise if much less weight be attached by others to his arguments and suggestions, than he thinks them entitled to, and which, under other circumstances, they would undoubtedly be entitled to. But my catalogue is not yet finished. One other colleague, (Mr. Giles,) has proposed an amendment which threatens the acceptance of the Report; and still another colleague has announced his intention to offer another in opposition, if an opportunity occurs. And, what is the position of these gentlemen in relation to this matter? I find them, Sir, both to have been opponents to the Hoosac Tunnel bill, in the House of Representatives in April last. Among the nays upon the passage of that bill, I find both their names recorded, with those of seven others only of the Boston delegation. Now, Sir, these gentlemen are committed, both of them, upon this matter. They❘ have preexistent opinions to sustain, a consistency to maintain; and they appear to be throwing the weight of their talents into a scale here to defeat a measure which they were unable to defeat in the House of Representatives. If, Sir, these gentlemen had voted for that bill, and now should propose to take from the legislature the power to make such grant, then we should have proof that these gentlemen were actuated by principle and an unbiased judgment; and that in this course they were seeking the public good, though it would conflict with a great enterprise, to which they had showed themselves to be entirely friendly. But, we have no such exhibition before us; but on the contrary, we witness endeavors on their part to induce measures that will embarrass and defeat a great public enterprise, and this under circumstances calculated to raise a doubt of the unbiased character of their judgments and opinions upon those measures. Here, Sir, I close what I have to say upon the debate thus far. I will now address myself to the matter in hand, and advert to some matters not yet, I believe, touched upon. In settling the basis of representation, this Convention has departed from what it regarded right, and has bowed to the paramount forceexigency. Were we beginning the formation of a government, we should have formed one different low out theory, but were obliged to be controlled by practice. Now, Sir, it seems to me that we are in precisely the same predicament in relation to State credit. It is too late to set up a theory, but we must be controlled by practice. The current of State bounty and of State credit is already in motion; its refreshing influence has already been felt, and its sustaining power has imparted its blessings. Credit, both public and private, is the great instrument by which the miracles of civilization are being wrought in this nineteenth century. We have all read the beau-tiful simile of Junius, which is no more beautiful than true. "Individual credit," says he, "is wealth; public honor, is security; the feather that adorns the royal bird, supports his flight-strip him of his plumage and you fix him to the earth." Credit, Sir, both public and private, is the great element, the chief ingredient, of all true progress in civilization and refinement. By it, the experience of the past and the hopes of the future are made to blend and work in the present. Without it, we should retrograde, and with rapid strides should return to barbarism. It enters deeply into our social system and civil relations. It is like the air we breathe, everywhere circumambient, but ever unfelt. Deprive us of it, even in a slight degree, and we pine and die. It is a system of mutual obligation and mutual forbearance. It grows and flourishes upon mutual wants and mutual benefits; and it unites and knits together the mass of a community, so that it acts and works to one end like one man. Now, Sir, I say it is too late to rise up and stay this current of public credit in this State. It has been beneficially exercised. Its blessing are felt every day; and these blessings are of two kinds, one public and the other private. The credit of the State has been applied to improvements in the northern, the eastern, the southern, and the western parts of the State; but not in the northwestern. The ground on which this credit was loaned, was that the whole State, the public, was to be benefited thereby. This was true ground; but individual benefit and private good were also blended therein. For example, the Western Railroad was aided because it was deemed to be a benefit to the whole State. But, besides this public benefit, every farmer and mechanic on the line of the road, received a personal and private benefit which was not partaken of in any considerable degree by others of the line. Now, to accomplish these public and private benefits, the credit of the State has been loaned, and, as the gentleman representing Wilbraham, truly remarked, every man's farm and stock has been mortgaged for its redemption. To construct the Western Railroad, the farms in Shelburne have been just as heavily mortgaged as the farms in Chester; but, besides the public benefit derived therefrom, which accrues to the inhabitants of both Shelburne and Chester equally, there has accrued to the inhabitants of Chester an enormous private benefit which is not shared at all by the inhabitants of Shelburne. This benefit lies in the increased value of land, of water power, and other articles, growing out of the increased facility of reaching a market. Out of this very unequal private benefit growing out of the public loan, arises a demand, I will say a claim, for reciprocal accommodation; a claim resting upon justice, though of course not to be enforced by law. A claim, the justice of which every upright mind sees, and every honest heart acknowledges. Then, I repeat, that if in the four quarters of the State, great and important private advantages have been derived from the loan of the State credit over and above the advantages derived equally to all the citizens of the State; and if these private advantages have been attained by a lien upon the private property of those living out of the range of these advantages --then I say these citizens who have obtained no private advantages from such public loan or credit, have a claim, and I think a strong and irresistible one, for reciprocal accommodation and favor. As this point has not been before alluded to, I will dwell a moment upon it. The people of this State, dwelling along the lines of various railroads, and especially upon the line of the Western, have derived great benefit individually from the loan of the State credit, in which benefit the people living in the northwestern part of the State had no interest. But the people living in the north-western part of the State, were as much bound, and their property as much pledged to pay said loan, as were those living in the benefited districts. Now, it seems to me, that out of this fact which exits, and has existed for years, the people of the north-western part of this State have a claim, a forcible and a valid claim, upon the people of the other parts of the State for reciprocal favor -a claim which will not be lost sight of, and not be the less urgent, because there is no tribunal to enforce it. And while such a claim exists, and is unrealized, it is, as it appears to me, a gross piece of injustice to increase the difficulty, and throw impediments and obstacles in the way of obtaining that reciprocal benefit to which they are entitled. I cannot reconcile it to my sense of justice and propriety, thus to shut down the gate [July 15th. at this time, and stop the flow, I will not say of favor, but of equity. But, it will be said that the proposition now before us does not shut down the gate, it only increases the ordinary and common difficulty of accomplishing the object. This is true in the end, but not, I think, in fact. I think it shuts down the gate. Sir, the gentleman for Manchester, (Mr. Dana,) in his forcible argument, stated that the questions which would arise in relation to the State credit, would be sectional questions. This is true, and need not to be put in a prospective form. It is now, here on this floor, and has been and will be in our legislative hall, a sectional question. We hear it here in the speeches on what should be an abstract question. We see it in the votes. The interests promoted by and connected with the Western Railroad, are here, and have been elsewhere, an adverse party to this claim in equity. There is no pretence that that corporation is not deeply interested in this question, and did not influence many votes upon it. Now this is sectional. That road runs, with its adjunct having identical interests, through the whole length of the State. Its interests are identified with the interests of the people dwelling upon its line, between Boston and the New York line. There is a tremendous local and sectional interest already blossomed, and fast running to seed, standing before the public, and in divers ways operating upon public sentiment adversely to the exercise of the proposed power by the legislature. Now, Sir, we have agreed to a basis of representation which, in future, will give a House of four hundred and seven members; a majority will be two hundred and four, and two-thirds two hundred and eighty-one. It will require, then, seventy-seven more votes in a full House to carry such a measure, if the proposition before us be carried, than it will to pass ordinary bills. Is there here a single individual who believes that a bill of the character of the Hoosac Tunnel bill could ever be carried by such a vote, in the face of such an enormous local and sectional opposition as has already manifested itself, and is lively and active at this moment? And this, too, entirely irrespective of the merits of the case. For the greater the merits of the case, the stronger and more vigorous the opposition. If the Tunnel cannot be made, then the interests on the line of the other road have no special reason for opposition; but the more feasible such an enterprise is proved to be, the more those interests are endangered, or deemed to be endangered. I cannot, therefore, think that any person can vote for the proposal before us, who is not willing to pass judgment upon the Tunnel enterprise, and shut down the gates of right and equity upon the people of that section of the State. Now, Sir, allow me to say a word in relation to the effect which such an article in the Constitution will probably have upon its adoption. I do not profess to know very well what the people will do and what they will not do, in given circumstances. They have done some things which I thought they could not do, and they have sometimes failed to do what I thought they could do. But, Sir, we all know that sectional feeling is not all on one side. When it is indulged in in one region, a counter feeling will certainly be engendered in the other. If the proposed provision be inserted in the Constitution, how will the northern half of this State, from Boston to the New York line, vote upon it? Sir, it seems to me that we need no prophet to tell us; it seems to me that the people in that region, must be hungering and thirsting for a new Constitution, if they are willing to adopt one containing a clause so hostile to their interest, and inserted with almost the avowed purpose of rendering the execution of a favorite enterprise forever impossible. Mr. President, allusion has been made here to the practice of other States. It seems that a considerable number of the other States of the Union, have adopted a clause in their Constitutions, prohibiting their legislatures from granting the credit of the State to the aid of individual or corporate enterprises. Sir, I imagine that there is some misapprehension upon that subject. Most of the States which have adopted this provisionat all events very many of them-are States which have been unfortunate in their undertakings, and have suffered considerable loss in consequence, and incurring large debts. But, Sir, I apprehend that in most of the cases in which losses have been sustained, they have been those in which the State itself has undertaken to carry out the enterprise, and not in instances in which their credit has been loaned to companies for that purpose. Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Pennsylvania, to some extent-though not to the full extent-and all the other States which have suffered, are those States which have undertaken to do their own work, and reap the profits. I do not rememberto be sure I am not very well posted up in these matters, and there may be instances which have not come to my knowledge—but I do not believe that a single instance can be found of any of those States having loaned their credit to the amount of a single pistareen to any private company; and what losses they may have incurred, have doubtless been in consequence of having undertaken these works themselves; and there can be no [July 15th. doubt, that they have met with great losses. The State of New York has adopted both of these modes. She has both loaned her credit, and carried on internal improvements on her own account. She has aided companies; and one which I have now particularly in my mind, is the New York and Erie Railroad. When that road was first projected, the company raised a certain sum-I do not remember how much-but having a very hard grade to overcome in passing from the Hudson River to Orange County, they spent all their money, and the State loaned them several millions. Still, not having enough to complete it, the State took the road and sold it at auction, but did not realize anything worth while, and the State itself sustained considerable loss. But now that road is completed; and when four or five millions of dollars had been expended upon it, and the principal difficulties overcome, another company came in and took up the road and completed it. Now, Sir, it is quite probable, that the whole of that region would yet have been without that railroad accommodation, had it not been for the expenditure of the State; and if you now go into that State, I doubt whether you can find five reasonably intelligent men in the whole of it, who do not rejoice at this day that the State made this advance. [Here the hammer fell.] Mr. LADD, of Cambridge. I am glad to find at length that the policy in regard to granting the aid of the State credit in furthering and carrying on the great objects of improvement in our Commonwealth, has at last received its proper consideration; and while I concur entirely in what appear to me to be the very conclusive views of the gentleman for Erving, (Mr. Griswold,) on this subject, as a reason why we should not now, and at this stage of our progess, forever close all chance in the future of aid from the Commonwealth in regard to projects of this character, I will take the liberty of presenting very briefly my views upon this question; and while they may be very general in their character, I will premise that if they have no other quality to recommend them, they shall at least have that of brevity. I am one of those who, from principle, have always adhered to that policy of legislation which is not confined to the minimum amount of legislation-not to those simple and naturally general laws-but I have always regarded it as one of the highest functions of the Commonwealth, and of its legislature, to extend a beneficent and parental aid to those projects which tend to develop all the resources of the State, and for the improvement of the possessions of all its citizens; and is there any gentleman on this floor, or any man in this Commonwealth, that will deny that that policy which has been pursued for twenty or twentyfive years in encouraging these enterprises, has been a good policy? Is there any man who will deny that it has been a sound policy? Will any man deny that it has brought untold riches to the Commonwealth, and that it has contributed, directly or indirectly, to the wealth and prosperity of our citizens? No gentleman, I think, will deny it. Then the question comes, whether at this time the policy should be changed; whether we should introduce into our organic law in absolute prohibition that no legislature hereafter shall grant any such aid? And yet I understand that to be the effect of the amendment as it now stands, if it should be adopted. This matter, then, it seems to me, depends upon higher considerations. If we come to that conclusion, we must foresee that the time has arrived when no farther aid should be granted, and all supplies of this nature in future should be forever stopped. Now, this is sufficiently answered, by the fact that we have brought into this discussion a great enterprise, in which a large portion of the Commonwealth is directly or indirectly interested. It can only be brought in here for the purposes of illustration; and does not every gentleman know that if this provision passes, requiring a vote of two-thirds of both houses of the legislature before any such grant is made, it will defeat the object to which I refer, and perhaps every object, however meritorious? I concur with the gentleman for Erving, that it might, and in all probability will, have that effect in the organization of the legislature of the Commonwealth on questions of that kind; that there will be differences of opinion-honest differences of opinion-in the first place, as to its necessity, and in the second place, as to its security, and in the third place, as to the propriety of granting aid in any particular instance; and the result will be in every case, however meritorious, if you require two-thirds of each House of the legislature to concur in the grant, that they never will concur. I think, therefore, that gentlemen ought not to come hastily to the conclusion that it may never hereafter be desirable that such aid should be granted. And if that be so, are gentlemen prepared to incorporate a provision into the Constitution, the effect of which will be to declare that it never hereafter shall be granted? Such will be the effect of the provision as it now stands. Why require that two-thirds of the legislature shall be required to concur? Sir, it seems to me that such a provision originates in this consideration: that you are not willing to trust the legislature. A distrust of future legislatures, appears [July 15th. to me to be the sole foundation of the argument on which the proposition is based. And why should that be so? Why are you unwilling to repose in successive legislatures a reasonable confidence that they will not abuse the trust confided to them? With all the checks and securities that you have, is there any danger that they will overstretch their power? Is there any danger that any proposition will be passed, unless it be such a one as ought to be adopted? Sir, with the light of past experience, with the facts which we have all around us, illustrating the policy of the Commonwealth on this subject, it seems to me that we cannot shut our eyes to the importance of leaving this matter entirely free to the legislature. We do not, and we cannot know what important questions may arise. I am, therefore, in favor of a reconsideration of this subject, with a view to strike out that provision requiring the concurrence of two-thirds of each House. I would have the matter left entirely to the wisdom and discretion of successive legislatures to determine. We must repose confidence somewhere; and I do not know where we can repose it better, or more securely, than in the legislature chosen by the people to watch over their interests. Mr. HATHAWAY, of Freetown. When this subject was under consideration the other day, I had, I believe, about four or five minutes time in which to express what I desired to say. I then stated to the Convention, that at some future time, if I found an opportunity, I should endeavor to present my views in relation to this matter of loaning the State credit. As my friend from Fall River, (Mr. Hooper,) remarked, a day or two ago, I never made a set speech in my life, and therefore my remarks may be of rather a desultory character; but I have my views in respect to this question, and they are views which I have entertained for a long period of time. Permit me to say, before advancing farther, that the gentleman for Erving remarked that this was not a part of the programme under which the Convention was called together. I do not know that it was; but I know very well-as well as that gentleman knows-that this matter has been before the people, and has been discussed for years, and years, and years, that have passed by; and, as my friend from Taunton, (Mr. Morton,) said the other day, such is the truth. I have had something to do with this matter for years, and years, and years; and I am not yet convinced but that the argument-I am not about to say in reference to the particular matter which has been referred to, whether all the farms were mortgaged or not, or whether our farmers would suffer from |