Tuesday,]

year, entitled to 26, and she will be entitled to 20 by my plan.

Mr. WESTON. I have endeavored to go over the calculations which I have made very carefully. I have shown them to other gentlemen and I have full confidence that they are accurate, and that the statements I have made are correct.

I would ask, Mr. Chairman, why this great inequality exists? Why are the political rights of Old Cape Cod thus disregarded-" the right arm of the Old Commonwealth," (as has been said by the gentleman from Boston on the opposite side of the hall,)" always stretched out to welcome the returning mariner from his labors and dangers on the mighty deep?" She has ever been regarded as the great nursery of our seamen ; and her noble and hardy sons have, in time of peace, with unequalled skill and enterprise, carried the stars and stripes of our glorious Union into every navigable ocean, sea, and river; and, in the future, as in the past, they will stand ready to defend the flag of their country in time of war. But, Sir, it does not become me to defend Old Cape Cod; she has able delegates upon this floor who can protect her rights with far more ability than I can.

Mr. Chairman, all that the Old Colony asks or claims, at the hands of this Convention, is a share of political power equal to that of other sections of the State; nothing more nor less. This she has a right to demand; and I trust this Convention will pause and deliberate before they adopt the amendment now under consideration. Mr. Chairman, I love the Old Colony; yes, Sir, I love the Old Colony, and I will say, in the language used by one of her distinguished sons, when standing upon the spot hallowed by the footsteps of our Pilgrim fathers and mothers :"She is the mother of us all. Unlike other matrons, her strength increases with her years, and her beauty with the number of her children."

Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of what may be called rather a large House of Representativessay a maximum of 350 or 400-and a minimum of 250 or 300. I am willing, Sir, to adopt any system of town representation that will produce this result, if it can be done upon any principle nearly approaching an equal distribution of political power. I do not expect to obtain numerical equality and retain town representation. The great difficulty in adhering strictly to an annual town representation, without making too large a House, is caused by the great increase of small

towns.

Much has been said, in this debate, of the danger apprehended, growing out of too great a centralization of political power and wealth in the city of Boston; and, Sir, I cannot shut my eyes to this danger. I fully concur in the sentiments expressed the other day, by my honorable friend for Berlin, upon this subject. But I do not stand here to say anything against the city of Boston, or anything to create a country prejudice against her or her inhabitants, nor to utter one word in disparagement of her "princely merchants," as they are called. In all my dealings and transactions with them, I have always found them governed by the highest principles of integrity and honor. I do not cast the slighest reflection upon the inhabitants of this noble city, when I speak in terms of disapprobation of her vast centralization of power, which is far greater than that of 130,000 people in the rural districts.

The citizens of Boston are not to be blamed that the evil exists. It is nothing more than a natural effect from a known cause.

Sir, it requires no argument, in addition to what has recently been said in this debate, to prove that the tendency of large municipal corporations is to place in the hands of their citizens a vast amount of political influence, which acts as an unit and moves with almost irresistible power in one direction. We need not cross the ocean and seek for illustrations of this subject among the despotisms of Europe; instances, fortifying the position which I have assumed, may be found nearer home. In this House, most of us have seen Boston represented for a few years past, by upwards of forty of her able and distinguished sons, who all entertain the same political opinions, and who stood shoulder to shoulder on all great political questions relating to the interest of their constituents. Why! the fact is before our eyes now. Here, this day, is this vast metropolis with forty-four delegates-among whom are many of the ablest men of our State, and not a few of those whose graceful oratory and finished rhetoric enchain our attention daily, and delight our ears. In order, Mr. Chairman, to check centralization, and restore to the large minority of the citizens of Boston a proper share of political influence, I have been able to devise no better plan than that which has been proposed of districting the city.

But Mr. Chairman, I will not longer detain the Committee.

Mr. ALLEN, of Worcester, (interrupting). Before the gentleman yields the floor entirely, if he will allow me, I will ask him, as he has stated the difficulties and the objections to the plan of the gentleman from Lowell, to tell the Committee what plan would meet his concurrence.

Mr. WESTON. I am aware that there is great difficulty in forming a plan which will be just and equal to all portions of the State, and which will at the same time preserve the principle of town representation. At some future time I may-I do not say that I shall-but I may submit a plan to the Convention which will embody my views of justice in regard to the basis of representation.

Mr. KEYES, for Abington, (interposing). I have understood that the statistics presented by the gentleman from Duxbury, are based upon the existing state of things; that he has contrasted the plan of the gentleman from Lowell with our present system. Now it is true that we may see difficulties with this comparison, and perhaps injustice, provided the present state of things is exactly just. But, supposing it so happened that the present system was also unjust, then it would not necessarily follow that the plan presented by the gentleman from Lowell was intrinsically unjust in itself because it differed from the system now in existence. It would only follow, that those counties of which the gentleman speaks as unjustly dealt with, were favored to a greater extent by one system than by the other. I understood the gentleman, all the time, to compare the plan before us with the existing state of things, and to complain of its injustice because it differed from that state of things. Now, the present system has been considered as entirely unjust, and has been rejected as absolutely out of the question; and it seems to me, therefore, that if the comparison he makes be a correct one-and I have no doubt that it is-it does not prove the

[June 28th.

plan under consideration to be necessarily or intrinsically wrong, but only differing from the present state of things.

Mr. WESTON. If I understand the gentleman, my answer to his remark is this. The injustice of the proposed plan is proved by comparing it with the present state of things, from the fact, that under the present system the four western counties of the State have a greater proportion of political power than the five southeastern counties, and therefore, any plan which gives to the former more political influence than they now have, and to the latter about the same as they now have, is a still wider departure from equity and produces still greater injustice.

I thank the Committee for their kind attention, and I will close by saying to my western friends, that I am willing to be just toward the western counties, and more than just-I am willing to be generous towards them in the distribution of political power; but the political inequality which would be caused by the adoption of the proposed amendment, as it now stands, I cannot, in justice to my constituents, vote for.

Mr. UPTON, of Boston. There has been a good deal of research and learning shown in the course of this discussion, to prove that, in the early history of the Commonwealth, town corporations, as such, are represented in the legislative department of the government. I do not propose to go into that matter, upon the present occasion, to any extent. I have probably not read the early history of the colonies aright; at least, the opinions I have formed from that reading in relation to this matter of representation, differ very materially from those advanced by various gentlemen who have spoken upon this subject. I can see in the early history of town representation in Massachusetts, little more than a representation of parishes, and by a representation of parishes I mean Protestant parishes, Congregational churches and societies, or by whatever name they at that period were known; and this sytem of representation was followed as long as the public opinion would have it. Within the memory of most gentlemen here, the towns were substantially, nothing more than ecclesiastical corporations. The minister was chosen by the town, and the people taxed for his support. At that period of our history, the representation was founded upon these religious societies, and the changes which have taken place is the transition state of representation based upon church-membership, to that upon ratable polls, property, or population. But as I remarked, I do not propose to discuss this particular question at this time.

The question arises, and it has been very much debated in this Convention, whether there is a necessity for all the small town corporations in the Commonwealth, as such, to have annual representation in the House of Representatives. Well, Sir, I am in favor of every individual in the Commonwealth being annually represented if they desire it. It was stated by the gentleman from Pittsfield, (Mr. Rockwell,) that if the entire inhabitants of the Commonwealth were assembled together for the purpose of enacting the laws which should govern them, that would have been an equal representation of the people. But let these inhabitants say how they will be represented. If they please to be represented by districts, each containing an equal number of inhabitants, that would be also an equal representation,

Tuesday,]

and abstractly speaking, it would be the only equal representation which can be provided. But a different system has hitherto been adopted in Massachusetts; according to the present indications, a different system is to prevail in future, and so far as my vote goes, I am willing to concede to the small towns twice the representation in proportion to their population, which I will ask for the city of Boston; but I am not willing to carry the principle further than that, particularly when you provide for districting the cities and large towns of the Commonwealth. Gentlemen must bear in mind one thing. The very moment you undertake to district the cities and large towns, that moment you divide those towns against themselves. You make, practically, an aggregation of small towns out of one large town, and in fact, politically neutralize the power of that town. So long as you allow the cities and large towns to elect by general ticket, so long you give them an advantage in your legislature, but the moment you provide for districting them, that moment the advantage ceases.

But the particular point to which I wish to call the attention of the Committee is, as to the question Whether there is any necessity that all the town corporations of the Commonwealth should be annually represented? In order to illustrate this question, it seems to me that it would be a fair proposition to place before the Committee a statement of the condition and size of the House of Representatives, when the members of the legislature were paid by the towns which sent them here, and when there were about three hundred town corporations, each entitled to as much as one representative, and with the right to send as many as five hundred members.

This is as far as I have carried the statistics, but I will state, for the information of the Committee, that the House of Representatives went on increasing, until the amendment to the Constitution of 1840.

I only produce these statistics by way of answer to the argument which has been adduced here, and with a great deal of force, that there is a necessity for an annual representation of each town. I ask gentlemen, if there was that necessity, why did it not exist, when towns paid their own members from their own treasuries? I ain

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. — UPTON.

not going very far back in the records, although the book from which I intend to quote seems to be such a formidable one. I am speaking, let the Committee bear in mind, to one important point only, and that is, whether there is a necessity for towns, as such, to be annually represented upon this floor in their corporate capacity. It was found, at a very early stage of the government, that the towns did not value this right of sending representatives, and although they occasionally sent them here, they came, staid a day or two, and then went home. Precepts had to be issued, calling in members, and the House would be often left without a quorum. The result was, that towns were often fined. The following is a resolve passed in 1801, and is a sample of the various resolves which were passed, commencing at this period:

"Resolve, abating Fines to Towns for not sending Representatives.

"Whereas, the towns hereafter mentioned were fined in the several sums annexed to their respective names, for not sending a representative to the general court the last year-that is to say

"Hamilton, forty-nine dollars and twenty-three cents; Holliston, sixty-four dollars.”

And so on, for fifty different towns, and concluding as follows:

"Resolved, for reasons set forth by representatives from the aforesaid towns respectively, That the said sums be remitted, and the towns aforesaid are hereby respectively discharged from paying the same; any resolve or order to the contrary, notwithstanding."

This, as I have before stated, is a sample of the various resolves which have been passed upon this subject, from the year 1801 to the year 1826. I desire the Committee to bear in mind the point upon which I have been speaking, and that is, does a necessity exist, of such an important character, as that each town in this Commonwealth should be represented here in its corporate capacity annually? It seems to me, that I have shown from the records, when the question was put to the towns themselves,- Have you any particular business affecting your prosperity coming before the legislature of Massachusetts, to make it necessary that you should be represented there? that they have said no, by refusing to send representatives. I now submit, for the consideration of the Committee, a form of tax act, passed in 1824, four years after the Convention was held for revising the Constitution.

"An Act

"To apportion and assess a tax of seventy-five thousand dollars, and to provide the reimbursement of sixteen thousand nine hundred and ninety dollars, paid out of the public treasury, to the members of the House of Representatives, for their attendance the two last sessions of the general court."

The Committee will bear in mind, that the representatives were paid from the public treasury, and then the assessment was made afterwards up on these towns. The pay of the various members, commencing with the county of Essex, was as follows:

"Salem, three hundred and forty-two dollars; Marblehead, one hundred dollars; Danvers, one hundred and fourteen dollars; Beverly, fifty-six dollars; Gloucester, seventy-four dollars; '

[June 28th.

And so on, through all the counties, with such towns as were represented in those counties, respectively. The aggregate amount paid for the whole representatives of the Commonwealth, ac- . cording to this tax, in the year 1824, was the sum of $16,990. That was the amount assessed upon the various towns and cities of this Commonwealth, in the year 1824, for the pay of their representatives. And now, Mr. Chairman, I think, if anything is to be gathered from statistics, it is, that there is no necessity for each town to be represented in its corporate capacity, annually. It seems to me, that this is a fair argument. I think that the business of the Commonwealth can be better accomplished with a smaller House than has been proposed by the gentleman from Lowell, (Mr. Butler). According to that gentleman's proposition, we are to have, upon an average, for ten years, a fraction of over three hundred and ninety-seven members, that is to say, we are to have three hundred and fifty-nine members for four years in the ten, and four hundred and twentythree members for six years, which gives a fraction over three hundred and ninety-seven. I am very free to admit, that that, in my opinion, is too large a House. If you adopt the basis of the gentleman from Lowell, (Mr. Butler,) in regard to the small towns, I think that you would have to increase the basis of the large towns, particularly if you propose to district them, which would make altogether too large a House, It has been argued in favor of a large House, that it is the means of diffusing information among the people. I concede to a certain extent that it is. It has occurred to me, however, in the course of this debate, why should not this information be divided equally among all the inhabitants of the Commonwealth? Why confine it to small localities? I find, in looking over the statistics, that there are two hundred towns in the State which have an average population of only 1,175. Gentlemen can see at once that to undertake to give a representative, even half the time, to towns of that size is going to make a very large House, too large a House, in my opinion. There is another important matter which has a bearing upon this question. By the basis proposed by the gentleman from Lowell, (Mr. Butler,) I have shown that we shall have about four hundred members of the House of Representatives. The pay of these members is proposed to be fixed by a resolution which was offered a few days ago, at $250 each. The pay of the members annually cannot be less than $110,000. The average annual pay for your House of Representatives for the last six years, has been $108,000. You propose to increase the pay of your House of Representatives, and make it $110,000. I submit, to the members of this Committee, and the representatives of small towns generally, if, in the period of ten years, there will not be drawn from the treasury for the pay of representatives alone, one million one hundred thousand dollars. Will it be drawn by equal representation of the people of this Commonwealth? By no means. The sum of $1,100,000 will be divided among the citizens of this Commonwealth, but it will be divided very unequally, less than one-third of the population of this State, through their representatives, drawing more than one-half this amount. I have a table of forty cities and towns, having an aggregate population of more than one-half of the inhabitants of the Commonwealth, which, according

Tuesday,]

to the proposition of the gentleman from Lowell, will elect less than one-third of the members of the House of Representatives.

Now, Sir, supposing we change that proposition and take the converse of it, and it should be argued on this floor by the gentlemen who represent the large towns in this Commonwealth, that the small towns should pay in this ratio. I ask gentlemen if they think such an argument, if advanced, would be sustained for a single moment? I think not.

Mr. FRENCH, of Berkley. I wish to ask the gentleman whether he could give us any assurance that a small House would not cost more than a large one?

Mr. UPTON. I would say, in answer to the gentleman from Berkley, in the first place, I do not think he could have heard my remarks. I read from the list of the State-taxes for 1824, and I stated the number of representatives for that year, and every town was entitled to send. The amount of the taxes for that year, for the pay of representatives to the towns, was $16,900, and I think if the gentleman will put my argument together, it would be satisfactory that a small House did not cost nearly as much then as a large

one.

Much has been said about centralization, and its effect being unfavorable to the small towns. I do not claim to know as much about the internal affairs of this Commonwealth as many gentlemen on this floor. It so happened, however, that what little education I obtained, was obtained in a quiet town situated between this city and the city of Lowell; and it was before the city of Lowell was conceived of. I think, therefore, I know something of the inhabitants between here and the city of Lowell, and the effect of centralization upon them. I think I understand that as well as any gentleman who lives either in Lowell or Boston. I am well acquainted in the vicinity of Lowell, I have seen salmon taken in the Merrimac River, where Lowell now is, and if any boy in those days caught more fish in the Concord river than I, it was because he got up earlier and fished later. [Laughter.] But this is an episode. I supposed that this centralization was for the advantage of the whole State of Massachusetts. I confess that in other bodies than this, I have done what I could to get this centralization here and prevent it from going to New York. I have thought that I was doing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts good service in that way, that I was not doing any wrong to the internal population of this State. Why Sir, in some towns that I know of in the neighborhood of Lowell, the centralization here complained of, by the gentleman from Lowell, (Mr. Butler,) is the very lifeblood of those towns. Lowell has given them a market. If other towns have not the same advantages which Lowell has, it is because nature did not give the same resources to make them which she gave to Lowell.

I know, Sir, of no evil which has resulted from centralization. I associate in society in the city of Boston, and I associate with a great many from the country; and none of the gentlemen with whom I associate from the city or country have any of those feelings which have been stated upon the floor of this Convention, as existing with regard to this question of centralization. Why, Sir, the gentleman from Lowell, in speaking of this matter, when he introduced it, did not mani

fest exactly the spirit which I liked. He said- | and I thought I saw his eye twinkle as though it could not be answered-" that great fish eat up the little ones; but that nobody ever heard of little ones eating up the great ones." The gentleman is a little wrong in his natural history. In the Pacific Ocean, the sperm whale, which I suppose may be called a great fish, finds one of its greatest enemies in the smaller fish called the killers and in the sharks. You can fancy these little killers with their associates, the bill-fish, with their bills sticking out from their nose, going off a reasonable distance and then darting forward and thrusting their pointed weapon into the body of the sperm whale, and then going off in those blue waters and making an attack again, trying if possible to hit the former wound a second time; and finally are the death of the whale. But there is the shark a little way off

Mr. BUTLER. Do they eat them?

Mr. UPTON. Yes, Sir, they do. I will give the gentleman the moral of it. They eat as long as they can after they have destroyed the whale. But there is a very wise ordination of Providence with regard to it, which, after the life is out, causes these carcasses to float upon the waves, and long before the sharks have had time to consume them, the blasted carcass lies floating upon the ocean, unfit even for the stomachs of the sharks.

Now, Sir, I do not believe that centralization will do the State of Massachusetts any harm; because if it will, we had better stop our large towns in their growth. Let us take the converse of the proposition; let us abolish Lowell and let us pull down Boston. It is hardly worth while to have these wharves stretching out here. Let us send our ships to other ports; and so far as the great mart of trade gathers here, let us seek for it another channel, so far as this place is concerned. Now I appeal to the members of this Convention, to gentlemen representing the towns in this Commonwealth, whether the language upon this floor has not been rather bitter, and whether any cause for it exists in fact. I think it leads to irritation of feeling which does no good. I should be most happy as a representative on this floor, to give my vote upon any question affecting the basis of representation, which should give to the small towns of the Commonwealth, and to all in fact, a just and reasonable share of representation.

The question was put to the gentleman from Duxbury, (Mr. Weston,) what he proposed, or if he had any plan. Now, I have no plan to propose. There was a plan proposed by my friend from Charlestown, (Mr. Thompson,) which I think looks like the most reasonable one which has been proposed. It was printed and distributed this morning. There may be objections to it, for, as I understand, it is very easy to find fault with any plan. Still, that looked to me more reasonable than any which has been proposed. But I think the plan proposed by the gentleman from Lowell is too severe upon the large towns; and the effect will be that it will lead to irritation of feeling in the great towns and cities, which after all, results in no good to this question. I suppose it is the desire of every member of this Convention, if possible, to have this question settled by some fair and amicable adjustment which shall not only be satisfactory to the Convention but to the great body of the people in the Commonwealth.

[June 28th.

Mr. KINGMAN, of West Bridgewater. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that every member in this Convention ought to have the privilege of expressing his views upon the subjects to be discussed here. I have not spoken one word upon the subject now before this Committee, and I do not intend to detain the Committee more than ten minutes, and perhaps not even that. My friend from Duxbury, (Mr. Weston,) has anticipated much that I intended to say; therefore I shall not go over, if I can possibly avoid it, what he has said. I have the honor to represent a small town in the county of Plymouth; but I do not appear here to claim or ask any special privilege for the town that I represent. All that I ask for it, is, what is right and just and equal. I do not propose to make any invidious comparison between my constituency and the people of any other portion of the Commonwealth. I merely say this, Sir, that in point of general intelligence, they will compare favorably with any other portion of the Commonwealth; and I will remark, that we have a very fair sprinkling of "men of eminent gravity." But I wish to show, not so much what is proposed to be done, as what already has been done by this Convention. I had the honor to make a very few remarks when the basis of the Senate was under consideration. I then endeavored to show the inequality of the basis then established, and I remarked that if the power thus taken from the smaller towns and given to the large manufacturing towns and cities, was returned when the basis should be fixed for the House of Representatives, I would be content.

I have here a very few statistics merely comparing the county of Suffolk with the county of Plymouth; and I wish to show that in making that basis, it gives to the county of Suffolk one senator which I think, fairly belongs to the county of Plymouth; because I think the legal voters are the only true expression of political power. While in the county of Suffolk it takes 3,767 to choose a senator, in the county of Plymouth it takes 6,104. These include all the voters upon the check list. If we take the votes actually given in the election for governor in 1850, the result is far more unfavorable to the county of Plymouth. We find the number of votes then required in the county of Suffolk to elect a senator was 1,641 only, while in the county of Plymouth the number of votes required, was 3,816.

Thus, by the basis fixed for the Senate, it takes two legal voters in the county of Plymouth to be equal to one in the county of Suffolk. All I ask is, that the county of Plymouth shall have equal justice done. Much has been said by the representatives of the city of Boston on this floor, with regard to their wish to establish representation upon principles of equality. I am ready, as far as I am concerned, to meet those gentlemen on that issue, and whenever they are ready to place it on legal voters, as a basis of representation, I am ready to adopt any just system, even the district system.

Mr. Chairman, I promised not to detain the Committee more than ten minutes, and I intend to fulfil my promise. I came here with strong prepossessions in favor of town representation. I should still desire it, but I consider that one thing is settled. In my mind it is a fixed fact, that sooner or later, we have got to come to the district system. That is a settled fact; how soon it may

Tuesday,]

come, I do not know. But I wish whenever that system is adopted, it may be upon a just and reasonable basis; and it appears to me that that basis is the legal voters.

Mr. WILKINS, of Boston. When the gentleman from Duxbury, closed his argument, I understood him to say that he had not seen the statistics of the gentleman from Lowell, which have just been distributed. I suppose he referred to the Document No. 84, made to illustrate the amendment of the gentleman from Lowell. Now, it so happens that I have not seen anything else on this subject, I should be glad to read what I regard to be wrong in respect to this table. The county of Barnstable has only two hundred and ninety-three less inhabitants than Hampshire and only sixty less legal voters, but has ten less representatives. Franklin County, that county so often referred to has five towns less than Berkshire, and has 18,049 less population; and it has four more representatives.

Mr. BUTLER. Do I understand the gentleman to say that Franklin has four less representatives than Berkshire?

Mr. WILKINS. Franklin has four more than Berkshire.

Mr. BUTLER. The gentleman is mistaken, I think. I presume he is looking at the wrong column of the table. As I read it, Franklin has seven less than Berkshire.

Mr. WILKINS. I believe I have got the wrong column, Sir.

Mr. WILKINSON, of Dedham. It was at one time my intention, Mr. Chairman, to have gone over the ground of this question somewhat at large, so many have spoken upon the subject, however, and the matter has been so thoroughly discussed, I had almost abandoned the idea of addressing the Committee at all. But coming as I do from a town and county whose inhabitants it is deemed unsafe to intrust with an equal share of power in the legislation of the Commonwealth, it may not be improper for me, perhaps, to make a few remarks in reference to the Report of the majority of the Committee. The inequalities and injustice of the system proposed by this Report, have been clearly pointed out and are not denied by its friends. It seeks its justification, however, in the history of the past. Corporate representation has existed, therefore it should continue to exist. It has always been unequal and unjust therefore its inequality and injustice should not only continue but be progressive. I do not think there is a very striking analogy between the towns of the Commonwealth as they are now, and as they existed under the colony charter, or the province charter, or even under the Constitution in its earliest state. The present great disparity in the size of towns is of more modern growth. Under the old colony charter, towns were more nearly equal in population. They were allowed by the general court until they had a sufficient number of church members, in whom alone was the right of suffrage, to maintain a church government, and support the administration of its ordinances. They had also to provide for their defence against the Indians. They were established before representation, and while the freemen assembled in general court as a body, the representative system was merely the substitution of a part of the freemen for the whole. When representation was adopted for the freemen of the towns, the sending of a representative to

not

the general court was considered rather as a matter of duty on the part of the towns, than as a matter of right.

These towns were not only required to pay their own representatives, but to send men "sound in judgment concerning the main points of Christian religion, as they have been held forth and acknowledged by the generality of the Protestant orthodox writers." The towns were fined if they failed to send a representative sound in the orthodox faith, and such unsound representatives might be, and actually were, expelled the general court. Besides, the subject matters of legislation at that time were of a more general and public character. Their statute books were not so filled with acts of local and special legislation as they are at the present day. The colony towns in point of fact, however, were not entitled to representation equally. Nor were they all required or allowed to send. Until they had a certain number of freeholders, they were to vote for representatives with some other town-that is, towns were put together so as to constitute representative districts.

When the Province Charter came, in 1692, then, for the first time in the history of the Colony, or Province, as then called, all the towns and places were entitled to equal representation, but at the same time that charter authorized the legislature to prescribe the number of representatives for each county, town, or place, and that body accordingly did make such an enactment, destroying this equality of town representation.

There is another point, which has not been alluded to in the course of this debate, or if so, it has escaped my attention; the provincial legislature proceeded to incorporate towns and districts with all the rights and privileges of towns, with the exception of the right of sending representatives to the general court; and continued so to do till their dissolution by the revolution. A large number of towns thus grew up in the Commonwealth, which were either not entitled to be represented at all, or else were formed into representative districts. They were sometimes called, in the act of incorporation, districts, and sometimes they were simply called towns, there being no distinction between them and the other towns, with the exception that they were not singly entitled to representation. Why, Sir, the town of Palmer, when incorporated in 1752, represented to the general court that she did not wish to be represented in that body, and a charter was granted giving her all the rights and privileges, and making her subject to all the duties of other towns, but exempting her from the privilege of representation, the right of which she disclaimed. There was the representative district of Deerfield, as I should call it, composed of the towns of Deerfield, Greenfield, Conway, and Shelburne, all of which were classed together, for the purpose of electing a representative to the general court. Thus an extensive system of district representation grew up and existed under the provincial Charter.

I am aware that when the Revolution commenced, this power of incorporating towns under the charter without the right of representation, as has been stated by the gentleman for Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett,) was questioned. The provincial congress, which was then assembled, considered that it was an exercise of power in derogation of the Charter, and went on to declare, that the dis

[June 28th.

tinction between the districts and towns should be abolished, and to provide that all towns and districts having thirty voters should be entitled to a separate representative.

In May, 1776, the general court was composed of two hundred and sixty members, and great complaint was then made in regard to the size of the House. The number was said to be double that of any general court prior to the year 1774. Induced, by this evil of a large House, or some other cause, the general court, in 1779, incorporated the town of Mount Washington, and restricted her from the right of separate representation; they also incorporated a district in the year 1780 with the same restriction. These acts show that their former disapprobation of the course pursued by the provincial legislature was confined to the creation of towns and districts whose inhabitants should have no right to vote for a representative at all, and not to the denial of the right of corporate representation. When the Constitution was adopted, it contained a provision that each town, then existing, should be represented, but that no new town should be created, with the privilege of representation, unless it should contain one hundred and fifty ratable polls.

Immediately after the adoption of the Constitution, the system was again pursued of incorporating districts, with all the rights and privileges belonging to towns, excepting the right of sending a representative to the general court, and from that time to the present, a large number of corporations, exercising the rights and privileges, and subject to the duties and obligations of towns, but excluded from the privilege of representation, have always existed. It would therefore seem to be clear, from the history of this matter, that with the exception of one or two short periods, and each of those at some great crisis in the affairs of the country, there has never been in this Commonwealth, either under the colonial or the provincial charter, or under the Constitution, a time when all the town corporations then existing had a right to be represented in the general court; and nowhere do I find the principle recognized that all such future corporations should have that right by inheritance. I submit, then, that we are called upon by the Majority Report of the Committee, to adopt a new system, that is: that all towns existing, and hereafter to be created-for this is the way I understand the Majority Report-shall be entitled to a representative in the general court. I conceive that to be the introduction of a principle which does not exist now, and which I am not aware has ever existed in the history of this Commonwealth. Our legislation, so far from being general, as was formerly the case, become to a great degree local, special, and sectional in its character; and for this reason, together with many others which may exist, we can not safely continue, much less increase and endeavor to make perpetual, this inequality of repre

sentation.

has now

Much has been said about log-rolling. I will not enter into the discussion of that matter at all, for I think that it is an argument in itself against the increase of power in local districts. If legislators are subject to improper influence the danger of giving their election to a minority of the people is much increased.

Who, I would ask, first created these towns? Was it not the freemen in whom the right existed, not only of creating towns, but of making laws

Tuesday,]

for the guidance of the Commonwealth? It must certainly be conceded. Towns existed before representation was known,-I had almost said, before it was thought of,-and after these towns had been created, then it was that representation was established. And is it to be said that the equality of freemen is to be sacrificed for the preservation of the representation of these towns? Perhaps I may unconsciously argue this question as though the system of district representation would destroy the towns. Gentlemen have spoken of it in that aspect, but I cannot conceive it to be so. In my opinion, towns will exist for all the purposes of their original creation, just the same under the district system as they do at the present time. Individuals will go into their town meetings and vote as they do now, and all the town duties will be performed and the town rights preserved as they are and have ever been, with the simple exception of a corporate representation in those towns too small to constitute a district.

I have listened in vain for some reason to satisfy my mind of the necessity for an increase of our already overgrown House of Representatives and making the election of its members still more unequal.

The preservation of town rights, does not require this, because I do not understand that any body is desirous of adopting a district system which would divide towns or destroy their municipal charac

ter.

In fact, excepting the tendency to centralization which has been so forcibly urged, I do not know that I have heard any very strong argument suggested. I am anxious, as are some other gentlemen who have participated in this debate to know what is meant by centralization. I come from the county of Norfolk, a county in which, by the Report of the majority, three men are allowed to have about as much political power as one man in the county of Franklin, and all for the purpose of getting rid of the supposed tendency to centralization. What evidence of centralization has Norfolk given to cause this great alarm, and justify the restraints to be imposed upon her. What great tendency to centralization existing on Cape Cod, deprives her of a fair and equal representation? I am aware that when this argument is pressed, the place usually selected as the centralizing point is the city of Boston. Why, then, should other portions of the State suffer on her account? Or is there no centrifugal force to counteract this centralizing tendency, except in the West? A district system would divide this central point, and, one would think, thus neutralize its force. But I do not know what is meant by the centralizing power in the State of Massachusetts-a State scarcely two hundred miles long and less than half that in breadth, and a constituent part of a great country, extending from ocean to ocean. Can it be, that this State has within her limited borders a portion of territory inhabited by a class of legal voters who cannot be safely trusted with an equal share of legislative power. I think this matter of centralization is only terrible from its vagueness and incomprehensibility. Its dangers cannot be defined and pointed out with accuracy; they are, therefore, easily magnified by the imagination.

In making a Constitution, I do not think it is wise or proper to incorporate any provision in it which shall array one portion of the citizens of the Commonwealth against another, or which shall

make any invidious distinction. In my opinion, if this Majority Report is adopted, especially if adopted for the reasons suggested in the argument before the Convention, it will be said that the Constitution cannot give a fair and equal representation to all portions of the people of the Commonwealth, because crime exists in some portions to a greater extent than in others; because a larger proportion of the persons who exercise the elective franchise in some localities are dependent, ignorant, vicious, or unsafe, than those in other sections of the State. I ask, will not such a course engender the greatest dissatisfaction, to say nothing of its injustice. Will it not make the Constitution itself unpopular in certain portions of the Commonwealth, not only creating a prejudice against this the organic law of the State, but causing the most bitter heart-burnings and jealousy among the people? Can it be, that gentlemen are prepared to say that there is this great difference in the people of the several parts of the Commonwealth. I am led to believe, as I said before, that there is not that inequality which would make it proper for us to provide in the organic law for such an unequal representation of the citizens as is proposed by the Committee. It seems to be admitted on all hands that entire town representation, with anything like an approach to popular equality, would give us a House of Representatives far too large for the proper discharge of public business. If, then, the so-called town rights come in direct collision with human rights, which should be preferred? I submit, we are required to preserve town representation only so far as is consistent with the equal rights of all the community.

The question was then taken upon the adoption of the amendment of Mr. Butler, of Lowell, as a substitute for the Report of the minority, and upon a division-ayes, 155; noes, 113-it was decided in the affirmative.

So the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BIRD, of Walpole, moved that the Committee rise and report to the Convention the resolve and the amendment.

The motion was agreed to.

The Committee accordingly rose, and, by their chairman, (Mr. Wilson,) reported to

THE CONVENTION,

That they had had under consideration the Report of the Committee on the subject of the Basis of the House of Representatives, had adopted an amendment to the same, and recommended to the Convention that it ought to pass.

The amendment was read by the Secretary. The question being upon concurring in the amendment reported by the Committee of the Whole,

Mr. HUNTINGTON, of Northampton, inquired of the Chair, if it was proper to amend the amendment?

The PRESIDENT replied that it was.

Mr. HUNTINGTON. I move, then, to strike out from the third paragraph of the amendment of the gentleman from Lowell, the words "one thousand," and insert "twelve hundred;" and likewise in the fourth paragraph, to strike out and insert the same words.

The question was upon the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. HUNTINGTON. This proposition presents the question in an entirely new aspect, but

[June 28th.

it has been suggested to me by the mover of the amendment which has been adopted in Committee, (Mr. Butler,) that the further consideration of the subject had better be postponed until to-morrow. I am perfectly willing that it should take that course, as, on account of the lateness of the hour, but little progress could be made this afternoon. I would state, however, that I have incorporated here the main principle which I intended to submit in my plan which has been printed. There are a few reasons which I have to present in favor of this alteration, but I defer them for the present. I now move that the further consideration of this subject be postponed

until to-morrow.

Mr. HALLETT, for Wilbraham. Will the gentleman withdraw his motion for one moment; I desire to suggest an amendment.

Mr. HUNTINGTON. I should like to know what the gentleman's amendment is.

Mr. HALLETT. I do not know that I can inform the gentleman without the withdrawal of his motion.

Mr. HUNTINGTON withdrew his motion. Mr. HALLETT. I propose to amend the amendment of the gentleman from Lowell, by striking out from the second paragraph the word "five," aud inserting the word "two," so that it will read, "towns may unite for a period of not less than two years," instead of five years. In the last paragraph, I wish to substitute the word "two" for the word "three," so that the last fine will read, "no district will be entitled to elect more than two representatives.”

The PRESIDENT. The Chair would state to the gentleman for Wilbraham, that his amendment will not be in order until the amendment of the gentleman from Northampton is disposed of.

Mr. HUNTINGTON renewed his motion to postpone the further consideration of the subject until to-morrow, and the question being taken, it was decided in the affirmative.

Compensation of Members.

Mr. LIVERMORE, of Cambridge, moved to take from the table the resolve reported by the Committee on the Pay Roll, on the compensation of members.

The motion was agreed to.

The resolve was read by the Secretary as follows:

Resolved, That there be paid out of the treasury of this Commonwealth, to the members of this Convention, respectively, three dollars for each and every days' attendance, and two dollars for every ten miles travel from their respective places of abode, once during the session; and to the President three dollars a day, in addition to his pay as a member: provided, that, in no case, shall any member receive more than two hundred dollars for attendance, and the governor is hereby authorized to draw his warrant accordingly, on the treasurer, on an order of this Convention.

Mr. LIVERMORE. I move to amend the resolution, by striking out the word "authorized," and inserting the word "requested." The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. LIVERMORE. As the Committee have seen fit to report a different sum for the compensation of the members of the Convention, from that usually received by members of the legislature, it will probably be desired that an explanation should be given why the Committee were