Monday,]

to proceed with the discussion, I will not make the motion.

Mr. WILKINS, of Boston. I rise for the purpose of making a few remarks upon the various plans which have been submitted to the Committee, and also for the purpose of presenting one to the Committee myself. It seems to me, that the people of the Commonwealth are expecting of us some plan that shall materially diminish the House of Representatives. We have taken one step towards diminishing the length of the sessions. We have, to all intents and purposes, diminished in future, the session of the legislature from five months to three. But I think, in addition to this, our constituents are expecting some plan, some proposition by which we shall diminish the number of members in your House of Representatives, in nearly the same proportion. There are none of the plans which have been proposed, which accomplish this result to any considerable degree, except that presented by the minority of the Committee, and that has not been received with any degree of favor by the Committee, although I think the expression of the Committee upon it was not a fair one, and I hope the vote will be taken again. I say there are none of these plans which materially reduce the House, and many do not reduce it at all; and, therefore, upon this ground, if upon no other, I shall feel constrained to vote against them. I suppose we have come to the appreciation of a fact which appears to be a fixed one, that we must adopt some plan that will combine the principle of town representation with the basis of population. And, Sir, the various propositions submitted to us, are, to a very considerable extent, and, indeed, I think entirely, founded upon that plan.

Now I have drawn up a plan, which appears to me to be preferable to any which I have yet seen. It embraces the same general principles, but it carries them so far into effect as to make a substantial reduction in the House-a reduction that will be worth having-a reduction worth going before the people to advocate, which I think is not true of any of the other plans. With the leave of the Chair, I will read my proposition.

Resolved, That it is expedient so to amend the Constitution, as to provide that every town containing less than 1,000 inhabitants may elect one representative every third year, or be so grouped that three such towns may elect one representative annually; that every town having 1,000 inhabitants and not more than 2,000 may elect one representative every alternate year, or be so grouped that two such towns may elect one representative annually; that every town having 2,000 inhabitants and not more than 5,000, may elect one representative annually; that every town having 5,000 inhabitants and not more than 10,000, may elect two representatives annually; that every town or city having 10,000 inhabitants and not more than 15,000, may elect three representatives annually; that every city or town having 15,000 inhabitants and not more than 20,000, may elect four representatives annually; that cities and towns having 20,000 inhabitants and upwards, may elect one representative annually for every 5,000 inhabitants it contains, and one for each fraction over 2,500 inhabitants: said cities and towns having 20,000 inhabitants and upwards to be districted by law, and no one district to elect more than four representatives.

According to this plan

Now, Sir, that appears to me to be sufficiently large. Indeed, I should be glad if we could effect a still further reduction, but at least this plan will obviate the difficulty to which the thers are subject, to some extent. It has the elements of justice, and therefore, I hope, of popularity. I move it as an amendment to the proposition of the gentleman from Lowell, now under consideration, and ask that it be printed.

Mr. WILKINS subsequently withdrew his proposition, to be submitted at some future time, after it should have been laid before the members of the Committee in a printed form.

Mr. KEYES. We were engaged in some business this morning, Mr. Chairman, which was broken off by an adjournment. I supposed when the motion was made to go into Committee of the Whole, this afternoon, that some gentleman was prepared to address the Committee, but, from what occurred after the subject came before us, I am led to believe that such is not the case. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again upon this subject; and that we shall resume the consideration of the subject which we had under consideration at the time of adjournment.

I have another reason for making this motion, which I hope I may be allowed to state. It is this: as far as I can judge, there are no plans which have yet been presented which seem to combine the general assent either of any distinct class of gentlemen, or of the whole Committee itself, and it seems to me that these speeches, which are being made upon the private plans which are brought in, may be almost entirely wasted, because specches made in support of a plan which meets with no general favor, are entirely wasted. But if we had one general proposition before the Committee, which seemed in the minds of the members of the Committee liable to pass, the speeches would be mostly directed to that plan, and they would not be lost or thrown

away.

Now, Sir, it was stated by the gentleman for Berlin, (Mr. Boutwell,)—and I suppose I have the same reason to believe-that a substantial portion of the plan now before us would meet the concurrence of a large portion of the Committee, but we have not been able yet to comprehend what the whole of that plan is. Papers have just been presented by the gentleman from Lowell, showing what the effect of that plan will be upon the various portions of the Commonwealth. So far as I am able to understand it, I am perfectly satisfied with it so far as its application to the present census is concerned, but I am not satisfied with what it may be hereafter, because I cannot see clearly what will be its effect. If, however, the same amount of justice and equality can be provided as applied to the future censuses, as are provided in this plan for that of 1850, it is a proposition, I think, that will answer; at any rate, it will get a large number of the votes of the Convention. If it can be shown that it will operate as well for future, as it will for the present, I, at least, shall be satisfied. But I desire that the in

[June 27th.

formation presented by the gentleman from Lowell shall be placed before the Convention, and then, if members have propositions which are better than that now before us, they will know what they are about when they come to offer them. With the aim of giving an opportunity of having the tables, which we have ordered to be printed, come before the Convention, I move that the Committee do now rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

The motion was agreed to.

The Committee accordingly rose, and the President having resumed the Chair of

General Laws for Corporations. Mr. KEYES, for Abington. I move that the Convention do now resolve itself into Committee of the Whole upon the Report on the subject of General Laws for Corporations.

Mr. WHITNEY, of Conway. It will be remembered by the Convention, that in the morning session many objections were presented against considering this subject at this time. The chairman of the Committee on Banking entered his protest against its consideration at the present time.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair must remind the gentleman that the motion to go into Committee of the Whole is not debatable.

Mr. WHITNEY. I merely wished to call the attention of gentlemen to the objections which were urged against taking up the Report this morning, and to remind them that the same objections were still existing.

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

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE,

Mr. Wilson, of Natick, in the Chair, and resumed the consideration of the Report of the Committee appointed to consider the expediency of making a constitutional provision requiring that Corpora tions shall not be created by special act, except for municipal purposes, and in cases where the objects of the corporations cannot be attained under general laws. The pending question being upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Amesbury, (Mr. Nayson).

Mr. NAYSON. In offering that amendment, my object was, as I stated this morning, merely to embody, in a concise form, the declaration of principle which I supposed the Committee were desirous of engrafting upon the Constitution, a principle conferring upon the legislature general power to enact laws for the regulation of corporations. That is the object, as I understand, of the resolve in question, and such I understand to be the explanation of the chairman of the Committee who reported that resolve. In offering that amendment, I supposed I was doing what would receive the approbation of the chairman of the Committee. If I am mistaken in that supposition, and if the chairman of the Committee is desirous of obtaining a vote upon the resolve as it came from the Committee, I should feel it my duty to withdraw the amendment I have pro

posed.

Monday,]

Mr. WHITNEY, of Conway. I should like to have the sense of the Committee upon the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. UPTON, of Boston. I did not think of saying a word upon this question before I came in here, and now shall trouble the Committee but a moment. It seems to me, if we adopt any provision upon this subject, it must be the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Amesbury, (Mr. Nayson). I confess I was astonished, this morning, to hear the remarks of gentlemen upon this subject who are familiar with legislation and the manner in which legislation is effected. It is proposed by the Report of the Committee that you shall have special laws, and special laws only, excepting for certain cases, and those cases to be specified. Suppose you put upon your statute books these special laws. I ask gentlemen of this Committee if they intend to apply the provision of this Report to the special legislation which has already taken place in Massachusetts in certain cases, and put these cases under general laws; because if you do, you not only array against them the whole of these corporations but every other corporation hereafter to be created; provided those laws are not liberal enough. It does seem to me, therefore, as a matter of safety, as they began under acts of incorporation, it is better to leave them as they are than to undertake to put a provision in your Constitution specifying and defining the acts which shall come under some general act. If we were about to commence de novo, it would be a very different question. Take, for instance, the railroad interest in this Commonwealth. You have established, and have already a number of special railroad acts incorporating private railroad companies. If you undertake to change the system of legislation in regard to them, of course you array all these companies against any good legislation. This rule will apply to the legislation which has taken place, and I think that there was wisdom and sagacity in the remark of the gentleman from Natick, (Mr. Wilson,) when he stated this morning, that this would be one of the most difficult questions to be considered by the people. As, for instance, in the case of the railroad act, if any existing arrangement with regard to railroads already established should be disturbed, it would produce very great difficulty indeed. We have railroads running from this city to Salem, to Lowell, and various other points. Do gentlemen propose to have any general act by which another railroad shall be established between this city and Lowell, or this city and Salem? All of these various questions may and will come up in a way in which you cannot meet them easily. If you insert in the Constitution a general provision, that no special act shall be granted where general acts do not apply, I confess, the question, to my mind, will go to the people of the Commonwealth in about as unsatisfactory shape as any question can be presented. I should say, that where general acts of incorporation would apply, that there should be no special acts, and if I understood the amendment of the gentleman from Amesbury, (Mr. Nayson,) it provides that there shall be no special acts where the legislature has made provision for meeting the case by the passage of a general act. I hope, therefore, that the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Amesbury, as it is an important one, may meet the views of the Committee and be adopted.

The question was then taken on Mr. Nayson's amendment, and a count being had, there wereayes, 96; noes, 27.

So the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MORTON, of Quincy. I move that the Committee rise and report to the Convention that the resolution ought not to pass.

The question was taken on Mr. Morton's motion and it was not agreed to-ayes, 61; noes, 119.

Mr. DAVIS, of Worcester. I do not understand precisely the condition of the question at this time. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Cheshire, (Mr. Cole,) being rejected by the Committee, I immediately arose, and, in my place, made a motion to substitute a new resolve in its place. That substitute was stated to the Committee of the Whole, but for some reason, another proposition is substituted in its place. I rise to ascertain how this matter stands.

The CHAIRMAN. All the various propositions offered have been considered in the light of independent propositions and not as amendments. The design was, to take the question upon each one in the order in which it was proposed. There was one failure to preserve that order. The gentleman from Walpole, (Mr. Bird,) introduced an amendment that the word "manufacturers" should be introduced in the proposition, and the question, by mistake, was taken upon it at the time, but in all other respects, the Chair, in taking the question, has followed the order in which the amendments were introduced. The gentleman from Cheshire, (Mr. Cole,) introduced the first amendment, which was rejected. The gentleman from Natick, (Mr. Wilson,) introduced the second, which was adopted. Then, before the gentleman from Worcester, (Mr. Davis,) presented this proposition, the gentleman from Amesbury, (Mr. Nayson,) introduced his amendment, and the question has now been taken upon it. Had that been rejected, then the proposition of the gentleman from Worcester, (Mr. Davis,) would have been considered. If the gentleman from Worcester wishes to offer his amendment as a substitute for that just adopted, he has opportunity now of doing so.

The resolve, as amended, is as follows:

Resolved, That it is expedient to incorporate into the Constitution the provision, that corporations may be formed under general laws, in all cases, where the object of such corporations is obtainable under the same; and where provision is thus made by general laws no incorporation shall be formed by special act.

That is the form in which the resolution now stands before the Committee.

Mr. DAVIS, of Worcester, I would rather prefer to have the phraseolgy a little altered, but carrying out precisely the same principle. I do not know that, inasmuch as it is simply a proposition to go to the Engrossing Committee, it would be worth while to propose any change.

Mr. NAYSON. I have no manner of objection that the gentleman from Worcester should have an opportunity to introduce his proposition, so that it may have the action of the Committee. Deferring to the superior judgment of the gentleman from Worcester, I am not tenacious at all about having my proposition retained; and for the purpose of affording him an opportunity to introduce his, I will, if the gentleman desires it, move a reconsideration of the vote adopting my amendment. I think, however, they are very nearly precisely alike.

[June 27th.

Mr. DAVIS. I do not desire to have the gentleman make the motion he proposes.

The question was then taken on the adoption of the resolve, as amended, and it was decided in the affirmative.

On motion by Mr. WILSON, the Committee then rose, reported the resolve, as amended, to

THE CONVENTION,

With a recommendation that it do pass.

The question on concurring in the amendment made in Committee, was decided in the affirmative.

The question then recurred on ordering the resolve to a second reading.

Mr. BUTLER. On that question I ask for the yeas and nays.

There being a division, on the question of granting the yeas and nays on the question of ordering the resolve to a second reading, there were-ayes, 46; noes, 152.

So the ayes and nays were ordered, there being one-fifth voting in the affirmative.

Mr. LORD, of Salem. I do not precisely understand the phraseology of the amendment, whether the mover intended that if there should have been a general law passed, no special act shall be passed upon the subject. If that is not not what it means, then when there is a majority in favor of passing any special act, they must first repeal the general act. It does not seem to be worth while to put such a clause in the Constitution. That seems to me to be the whole of the proposition; that the same power that desires to create a special act shall not do it till they have repealed the general act. I do not know that I understand it.

Mr. NAYSON. I am not surprised that the gentleman from Salem does not understand the proposition, for those who know his course with regard to the general law on the subject of banking last winter, know that he is not in favor of such a law. But I suppose the gentleman will give me credit for understanding the amendment which I had the honor to submit to the Committee. As an illustration, take the general banking law of this State, and which the gentleman from Salem has had occasion to pass his opinion upon. We have had that law on our statute book for some time; and until it is repealed, if this provision is put into the Constitution, it will not be competent for the legislature to grant any special act so long as that general banking law is retained. That principle may apply with regard to many corporations. I take it that the gentleman from Salem understands that principle so well that he will not consider me so stultified as not to know what this Committee have accepted and adopted. It seems to me to be a very plain matter, and the banking law is a good illustration in point; and I presume that the gentleman from Salem will admit that to be the operation of the principle generally.

Mr. LORD. I have learned from the gentleman just what I desired, simply to know what was his understanding of the proposition. Now the gentleman did not quite do me justice when he said I had repeatedly expressed an opinion against the banking law. I was a member of the legislature last winter, and I expressed no opinion against it at that time, for I had no such opinion that I desired to express, and I found no occasion when I felt called upon to express any opinion

Monday,]

on the subject. And let me tell him, that I do not think that that banking law could have stood with that legislature or any other legislature against any determination they might have had to make a special act; no, Sir, not for an hour. Therefore, you put into the Constitution a provision which the legislature could repeal at any moment. I think it is hardly worth while. Last year petitions came in for special acts in relation to banks, and the legislature were willing to grant them; but inasmuch as many desired the general law to stand, they were content that it should remain, in order that if any persons desired to avail themselves of its provisions they might do so. But suppose this provision had been in the Constitution, what must the legislature have done? They must first have repealed the general banking law, before they could have incorporated any bank under a special charter. Now, when we have adopted this provision in the Constitution, there will be nothing to prevent the legislature from passing as many special charters as they choose. If the legislature desires to pass a special act they will use the means necessary to accomplish their purpose; and if it be necessary, in order to do so, to repeal a general law, then that general law will, of course, be repealed. I am very happy to understand the designed operation of this amendment. I supposed that the gentleman must have meant, that whenever the legislature shall once have exercised the authority and made the law, that that law should be irrepealable by the legislature for the purpose of granting special charters; but that not being his purpose, it seems to me, it only requires the legislature, if the amendment be adopted, to do circuitously what they might otherwise do directly.

Mr. WHITNEY. I find that some gentlemen around me do not understand the resolution, as amended. We have ordered the yeas and nays on that resolution as amended, and as a friend of that resolution, I fear that many gentlemen will not vote understandingly upon it at present. I therefore would move, as it is now on its second reading, that we reconsider the vote ordering the yeas and nays, and order the resolve to be printed, so that when the question is taken, we may act understandingly. It seems to me, that there is an alteration of the language, which I must confess, that I do not fully comprehend myself. I would like to examine it in its printed form.

Mr. BUTLER. I would like to suggest in some form, that the object sought to be obtained by the gentleman from Conway, can be obtained if he will withdraw his motion.

Mr. WHITNEY. I will withdraw it.

Mr. BUTLER. My object is, that when the question shall be taken upon this resolution, it may be taken by yeas and nays. Now, as I understand, the resolve may be amended, altered or postponed; but that upon its final passage, when it is put into the form in which the Convention are desirous of having the question taken, then the yeas and nays are to be had. Therefore, the gentleman from Conway can obtain his object by moving to postpone the taking of the question With his consent, I will make till to-morrow. that motion, that it be postponed till to-morrow and that it be printed as amended.

Mr. DAVIS. Is it in order for me to offer an amendment.

The PRESIDENT. Not unless the pending

motion is withdrawn.

Mr. BUTLER. I will withdraw it to accommodate the gentleman.

Mr. DAVIS. I then move the following substitute for the resolve,

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 corporation shall be attainable under general laws.

The question being then taken on the motion to postpone until to-morrow, it was agreed to.

Qualifications of Voters.

Mr. WILSON, of Natick, moved that the Conven ion resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, upon the resolves in relation to the loss of residence in consequence of absence on the business of the State or of the United States, and also respecting idiots, insane persons, and persons convict d of infamous crimes, which had been reported by the Committee on the Qualifications of Voters.

The motion was agreed to.

The Convention accordingly resolved itself into

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

Mr. Frothingham, of Charlestown, in the Chair, and proceeded to consider the said resolves. They were read as follows:

Resolved, That the Constitution be so amended, as to provide that no person shall be deemed to have lost his residence in this Commonwealth by reason of his absence while on the business of this State or of the United States.

Resolved, That no idiot or insane person, or person convicted of a felony, unless pardoned and restored to the right of suffrage, shall be entitled to vote in any election.

Mr. HOOPER, of Fall River. I wish to inquire of the Committee who reported these resolves, what effect this special provision, that persons shall not lose their residence by reason of their absence on the business of the State or of the United States, will have upon other cases of absence. I believe that the general practice is now, that persons absent from the State upon their own business do not lose their residence. There are citizens in the section from which I come, comprising quite a large class, who follow the sea, and they are gone for years sometimes on fishing voyages. I wish to understand from the Committee who reported this resolve, whether this special provision, in regard to absence on public business, is intended to exclude those who may have been absent upon their own business, contrary to what has been the practice heretofore.

Mr. ALDRICH, of Barre. As I see that the chairman of this Committee is not present, and no other member of the Committee being disposed to answer the inquiry of the gentleman from Fall River, I will state what my views in regard to this matter are. I think the resolve is entirely unnecessary; for I suppose, that under the law as it now stands, a man would not lose his residence by absence from the Commonwealth on business for the State or for the United States, any more than if he were absent on his own business. I suppose it would be determined whether he would or would not lose his residence by finding out what the intention was at the time of leaving his residence-whether he went away with the intention of returning or not. If he goes away, no

[June 27th.

matter what may be his business, with the intention of returning, I presume he would not lose his residence. It seems to me, that the incorporation into the Constitution of a provision, that if a man was absent from the Commonwealth upon business of the State or of the United States, he should not be deemed to have lost his residence, might leave some doubt whether it was not to be inferred that he should so lose his residence in case of absence upon other business; but I suppose, as it now stands, it is perfectly clear.

Mr. MORTON, of Andover, moved that the Committee rise and report to the Convention that the resolves ought not to pass.

Mr. DURGIN, of Wilmington. Before the question is taken on the motion of my friend from Andover, I would like to offer an amendment by adding a resolve, if this be the proper time and place to do it, in the following words:

Resolved, That no individual shall be deprived of the privilege of voting for State or United States officers in consequence of having changed his residence to any other portion of the State, or shall lose his residence for the above purpose in one place until he shall gain it in another.

The CHAIRMAN. The motion is in order. It takes precedence of the motion that the Com

mittee rise.

Mr. BATES, of Plymouth. I rise for the purpose of making an inquiry. It is my impression that a resolve embodying the same idea, or substantially the same, with that of the one now of fered by the gentleman from Wilmington, has been before submitted and disposed of, and is now either in the hands of the Convention or the Committee of the Whole. I wish to inquire if this be not the case, for if so, there is no necessity for acting upon the same subject again.

Mr. ALDRICH. I will state, for the information of the gentlemen, that if they will turn to document No. 55, they will find the resolve to which the gentleman from Plymouth alludes, in the following words:

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 offcers, until six months after his removal.

Mr. DURGIN. I was not aware that the substance of my resolve had been acted upon, and I was anxious that it should be put into the Constitution somewhere. As the matter has been already disposed of, I withdraw the amendment.

The question being then taken on the motion of Mr. Morton, it was agreed to. The Committee accordingly rose, and the President having resumed the Chair of

THE CONVENTION,

The Chairman, Mr. Frothingham, of Charlestown, reported to the Convention that the resolves ought not to pass.

Mr. HOOPER asked that the question might be taken separately upon the two resolves; and the question being taken on the first resolve, it was rejected.

The question then recurred upon the second resolve.

Mr. HASKELL, of Ipswich. There is one provision in the second resolve that I hope will be adopted, for it is not covered by existing laws,

Monday,]

as I understand the subject. That is, that no person convicted of a felony, unless pardoned and restored to the right of suffrage, shall be permitted to vote in any election. It appears desirable that there should be some such penalty annexed to the commission of crime; and I hope that this, at least, will not be rejected.

Mr. HATHAWAY, of Freetown. I move to amend the second resolve by striking out the words "idiot or insane person," and inserting, instead thereof, the words "pauper, or person under guardianship." My difficulty in reference to this resolve is, that the only criterion that I know of, or that any one can know of, by which to settle this question of insanity or idocy, is the judgment of a tribunal that is fit to pass upon that matter. I would not, by any means, be willing to leave it to the selectmen, when the day for voting comes, to pass upon the question whether I was idiotic or insane. I should think that was a miserable tribunal to judge of this question, as regards myself, to say nothing about any other gentleman in reference to this matter; and hence, I would adopt the other provision which is contained in the third article of the amendments to the Constitution, and then I hope that the resolve will be agreed to, retaining, to suit the views of the gentleman from Ipswich, the provision in reference to persons convicted of felony, and who had not been restored to the right of suffrage by virtue of pardon.

Mr. BATES, of Plymouth. I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Freetown in what manner the restoration to the right of suffrage may be supposed to be obtained. By the laws of Massachusetts, a man who has been convicted of felony, and who has been punished in the State Prison, when he comes out of the State Prison, is a voter. When his time of imprisonment has expired, there is no provision of law that prevents him from being a voter. Now it is proposed to say in this resolve, that he shall not vote unless he is restored to the right of suffrage; and my inquiry is, in what manner is it proposed to restore him to the right of suffrage?

Mr. HATHAWAY. I cannot, of course, be expected to know what were the views of the Committee who reported this resolve; I am not responsible for it, not having been a member of that Committee. I suppose, however, that the Committee had in view certain persons who had been, or who might be hereafter convicted of felony, and who had not been restored to their civil rights by pardon. Now, a remission of the penalty or the judgment of the Court, as I understand it, is a very distinct matter from the restoration to civil rights; and I suppose that the Committee had in view the pardon of an individual and his restoration to his civil rights, no matter where he should stay. I suppose it was their intention, that a pardon should be necessary for a restoration to civil rights after the termination of the sentence which has been inflicted upon a person for the commission of felony. That is my idea with regard to the matter, although I have no authority to speak for the Committee.

Mr. BATES. With that understanding, and that explanation on behalf of the Committee, or rather, in the absence of the Committee, I certainly hope this resolve will not pass. The object of the resolve appears to be simply this: that when a man has been convicted of felony, and has been sentenced to the State Prison, and his

friends apply for pardon to the governor and council, they can grant a pardon and restore all his rights to the individual except his civil rights. By the laws of Massachusetts, hitherto, he has been entitled to vote, and I have never learned that any inconvenience has yet resulted from that vote; and now it is proposed to deprive that man of his right of suffrage until some future time when his civil rights shall be restored.

Mr. HOOD, of Lynn. I hope the resolution will not pass, and that we shall not incorporate into the Constitution a clause containing a provision that a man who has been convicted of a State prison offence, shall never be a voter, but that we shall leave the law as it now is in that respect. A man who is in the State Prison and comes out, does not forfeit his civil rights as a citizen, and I hope we shall not throw any obstacle in the way of the reformation of men who have been so unfortunate as to serve a term in the State Prison. There are many of them upon whose characters the punishment has had the effect which should be the end of all punishmentreformation; and many of them are just as well qualified to vote as the body of citizens with whom they live.

I object to this provision for another reason. This question must arise in town-meeting, and it will be a difficult matter to settle, to determine there whether a man has been convicted of a felony, and should thereby not be permitted to vote ; or if convicted of a felony, whether he has been pardoned and restored to the right of citizenship. How is it to be decided there? It places the officers in an embarrassing situation. It is hardly to be expected that any one will be there prepared to produce the record to prove that a man has been convicted of a felony. And still, if the provision is to have any effect, the officers must receive the individual's vote, or else somebody must produce the record of conviction, as the only satisfactory evidence of the commission of the crime. They would not be justified in taking hearsay evidence, which, besides its unreliable nature, would open the door to great difficulties in the discharge of their duties. I hope we shall not adopt the resolve.

Mr. KEYES, for Abington. It seems to me, that the passage of this amendment would be somewhat inconsistent with votes already passed by the Convention. In the first place, in regard to the matter of the punishment of felony, it strikes me, that the purpose and intention of the courts, is to make it severe enough to meet the nature of the crime with which the criminal is charged, and therefore it appears to be rather out of place for this Convention, or for the people, in any other form, to add to the penalty already prescribed for the commission of crime. The judges are not backward, as far as my observation extends, in dealing out, within the limit of the statute, as great a penalty in each case as the crime deserves. Therefore, I oppose that part.

Then, in regard to that other part about paupers. It was said the other day, and the question was decided on that ground, that the right to vote was a natural and inalienable right. Now, I take it that we are too democratic to take away the inalienable rights of men because they happen to be poor. I did not expect to see such a proposition coming from such a quarter. The ground, that the right to vote is a natural and inalienable one, is not my faith, but it is the faith of this

[June 27th.

Convention as expressed by their votes, a few days since. There we held out a temptation for persons to become public paupers in some respects, and now we propose to insert a provision, that if they do become paupers, they shall not vote.

It was maintained, that a man owes no particular duty to society in order to be entitled to claim the privilege of voting. That is a right which, it was argued, is forced upon man because he lives in society, and while he lives in society, it is not expected that he will forfeit his rights, because he fails to perform his duties. It was decided, also, that no man should be deprived, while he is permitted to live in society, of any of the rights and privileges which belong to all others. It seemed to me that it was settled in Convention, on that occasion, that a man's property was not the criterion of his rights, or the measure by which they were to be apportioned; and if that principle is correct, I do not know why we should not extend the right of voting to all paupers, because they have, I was going to say, more interest in the laws, and in the conduct of the administration of affairs, than any other class of persons, inasmuch as they are the children of the government, and affected in their food and their raiment by the laws which are passed, and therefore, of all people, they have the highest interest in voting.

They are not views which I entertain which make these amendments improper in my estimation, especially the one in reference to State paupers, but it is because of the votes already given by the Convention that I think it would be improper to adopt them. I agree with the gentleman from Monroe, (Mr. Phelps,) that no difficulty on this matter has arisen heretofore. It has generally been believed, and such has been the practice, that when a man has been sent to the State Prison he must come back to the governor and council and be pardoned, and undergo the formality of being restored to his civil rights in order to become a voter. But I understand there is no necessity for that, as a man is entitled to vote the very next day after he comes out of prison, if he chooses to exercise the privilege.

66

Mr. MORTON, of Andover. I simply wish to say, that it seems to me to be entirely useless to insert the provision in this resolution, inasmuch as it already exists in our present Constitution. Article Third of the amendment says: Every male citizen of twenty-one years of age and upwards, (excepting paupers and persons under guardianship, &c.,) shall have the right to vote, &c," and I have yet to hear that there is any proposition before this Convention to alter or amend that portion of the Constitution. Therefore I submit that the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Freetown, (Mr. Hathaway,) is entirely useless.

Mr. HATHAWAY, of Freetown. I do not wish to be placed in an improper or false position, in reference to the amendment which I proposed, for be it known and understood that I am opposed to the resolution, even if the amendment shall be adopted. But I am disposed to make the original resolution as perfect as I can, and the gentleman over the way, (Mr. Haskell,) having expressed the wish to retain in it the class of persons who might be convicted of the crime of felony, I did not move to strike that out. But the Committee had reported that “insane persons" should not vote,

Monday,]

and the reason why I wished to substitute for that "persons under guardianship" was, because I would not deprive any person of the right to vote upon the judgment of the selectmen, and because they might believe a person to be idiotic or insane who was not so, and the only evidence that they should consider as sufficient to deprive any voter of his rights was a solemn adjudication, by a competent tribunal of law or probate, that the person was so, and that he was incompetent

to vote.

In reference to paupers, I know there is a provision in regard to them in the Constitution at the present time. And I do not know but that the Committee intended and meant to introduce the provision that persons who are paupers should have the right to vote. If such was the intention of the Committee, I differ entirely with them, and also with the gentleman from Abington, (Mr. Keyes,) in reference to the proposition that every individual has the natural, essential, and inalienable right to vote. If that gentleman intends that proposition as broadly as he stated it, then I inquire why any individual should be naturalized before he has the right to vote? I regard that matter in a very different light from what he does. Let me say, in reference to that matter, that foreign persons who come here, under our laws, if we choose so to provide by law, would have the right to vote the very day after they came here. I do not regard that proposition as he does.

Mr. KEYES. I wish the gentleman would state my views upon the subject.

Mr. HATHAWAY. I stated simply what the gentleman said, and if he says his opinions are different from what his words warrant, I do not understand them.

Mr. KEYES. I intended to say that I did not believe in the doctrine which I presumed the Convention sanctioned the other day, that everybody had a natural and inalienable right to vote.

Mr. HATHAWAY. Very well, I am happy to know that the gentleman and myself then agree upon that matter. The reason, then, why I moved to amend, was to make the resolution, in case it did pass, as perfect as I could, so that it should not be quite as bad as it was originally; but I intend to vote against the whole resolution, even if the amendment is adopted.

Mr. BUTLER, of Lowell, Here are some resolves reported by a Committee, the chairman of which, and I believe most of its other members are absent. They are are now about to be passed finally upon, for if, as it seems to me to be the intention of the Convention, they reject them, that is a final disposition of them. I would inquire -without expression any opinion upon the resolves one way or the other-if some such courtesy is not due to the chairman of the Committee, by which at least we should postpone final action upon the matter, until he can be present here to explain to the Convention the reasons which induced them, a very laborious Committee of the Convention, without intending to pay a compliment where it is not needed,-to report the resolves? I hope the Convention will give some time, and if it is in order, I would move to postpone the further consideration and action upon this subject until to-morrow. hope the conMr. MORTON, of Quincy. sideration of this matter will not be postponed, but that we shall proceed with it now, and reject

it.

If we continue to postpone matter after matter, day after day, as we have done, we shall not get through our labors until winter. I hope the Convention will pass upon the matter now. Mr. HATHAWAY. Will the gentleman from Lowell withdraw his motion for a moment? Mr. BUTLER. I will.

Mr. HATHAWAY. I perceive that the Convention prefers to take the question upon the naked resolution as reported, and I therefore withdraw the amendment.

Mr. BUTLER. I now renew my motion to postpone.

The question was taken, and the motion was not agreed to.

The question then recurred upon rejecting the second resolve.

Mr. HASKELL, of Ipswich. I desire to say a word or two upon this subject. I think the question raised by the gentleman from Plymouth, admits of another answer than that given by the gentleman from Freetown. He asks what the second resolution can mean, by requiring, that a person convicted of a felony, should be restored to his right of suffrage before he can vote. I do not know what was the intention of the Committee, or of its chairman, in the preparation of this resolve, but I suppose and understand it to be this, that a party convicted of a felony shall be deprived of the right of suffrage. That is the import and effect of the resolution, as reported. As I understand it, the resolution simply provides, that such a party, thus deprived of his right of suffrage, by the commission of a felony, shall not vote until he is restored to that right by a pardon. It refers to the deprivation which a person is to suffer by his own act, and that he shall not be restored to that condition he was formerly in, until he has received a pardon. Such I apprehend to be the meaning of the resolution, and it is perfectly proper to declare that fact.

One word in reference to the suggestions of the gentleman from Lynn, (Mr. Hood). None of the difficulties to which he alludes, can possibly arise. I infer, from the gentleman's connection with a town, that he must have observed the manner in which the voting list is prepared. It is not prepared in town-meeting. The question of one's qualifications to vote almost always arises in the preliminary meeting of the selectmen, which takes place before the town meeting. It is there that the subject of qualification is canvassed, and there that the right of the party to vote is denied, if denied at all, and determined by the consultation and decision of the select

men.

There is, too, a mode of proof, in reference to the commissions of felony, than which nothing can be more certain. The selectmen are not to become the tryers of that fact, and I apprehend that there can be no uncertainty about ascertaining the conviction. The record is open at all times, to the inspection of every one, and accessible to all, and it is only necessary, in order to prevent a person from voting, who has been convicted of a felony, to obtain a copy of the record and lay it before the selectmen. There are abundant means of ascertaining by the record, whether or not a party is disqualified to vote from such cause. If this provision is adopted, that any person convicted of a felony, unless pardoned and restored to the right of suffrage, shall not be entitled to vote in any election, the party whose

[June 27th.

vote is questioned on that ground, can produce his papers, showing that he has been restored to that right.

This question has arisen quite unexpectedly to me, but I think much might be said, properly and justly, of the reasonableness and propriety of including a disqualification to vote, as one of the punishments for the commission of a criminal offence. Does it look reasonable, that a man who has violated the law of his country, by the commission of a felony, will take that interest in placing the execution of those laws into the hands of competent and proper persons, that all voters should take? We know that many men are restored to society, at the expiration of their term of confinement, without any more moral merits or qualifications, and with no more interest in the welfare of society, than they had at the time of their conviction for the offence, and yet you will let him exercise all the functions of an independent freeman, knowing that he is no more moral, and has no more interest in the welfare of that society whose laws he has violated, and whose interests he has sacrificed by the commission of a criminal offence. It is well deserving of serious consideration by the Convention, whether it would not be reasonable and just to provide, as an additional punishment for the commission of crime, the forfeiture of the elective franchise. Of course such a provision would be made applicable only to offences committed after the adoption of the principle. It seems to me, to be neither just or right, to permit a person who has violated one of the most important and fundamental laws of society, to come out of his confinement, and do, by his vote, perhaps as great a wrong as he has before done by violence, or in some other way.

Mr. ALDRICH, of Barre. I am glad to be able to state to the Convention that, although I could not concur with the Committee which reported these resolutions, in many respects, yet it was not the intention of that Committee-it certainly was not my intention as a member of that Committee-that the disqualification of a felon to vote, should be considered a part of his punishment. That is, in my judgment, entirely an erroneous view of this subject. We have no right to punish a man for a crime after he has suffered the punishment which a court of justice, upon a full hearing of his case, has inflicted upon him. My idea of the reason for making such a provision in relation to the disqualification of a felon, is this. When a man has committed felony and has been convicted of the crime, he may be considered so perfectly reckless- so utterly regardless of the best interests of society, as to ren der himself entirely unworthy to take any part in the administration of its affairs. We deprive an insane person of the right of voting, not as a punishment, but because he is unfit to take. part in the affairs of government. He is intellectually disqualified. And the Committee propose to deprive the felou of the right of suffrage for the reason that he is morally disqualified, and not as a part of the punishment due to his crime. Mr. Chairman, it has just been said, by some member, who saw that the chairman of the Committee that reported these resolves is absent, that the Committee is absent. Nor is this the first time that such a declaration has been made with relation to this and other Committees.

Now, I beg leave to inform gentlemen, that,