Monday,]

printed--one set with yeas and another set with nays opposite to each proposition; and then each voter could select that which corresponds the nearest to the way he wishes to vote, and alter it to suit himself. If he votes "yes" on the majority of the propositions, and there are two or three which he does not like, he can take his pencil and mark "no" opposite to them, erasing the word "yes." I am in favor of the amendment as it now stands; I think there will be no difficulty arising from it. Mr. JENKS, of Boston. This seems to me to be merely a verbal dispute. It stands very well as the gentleman for Wilbraham proposes it, and it is much more plain and explicit. I presume the meaning is, that each voter shall state by a written or printed declaration; and perhaps that would be a good form in which to express it, instead of saying that he shall either write or print it.

Mr. HALLETT. I should be sorry to have this go out in a wrong form; and I will farther suggest that the word "stating" be substituted for "indicating," so that it will read as follows:

And every voter shall vote on each proposition by its appropriate number, stating on his ballot the subject of the proposition, in writing or printing, and the word yes or no opposite to each proposition.

The question being then taken on the amendment to the amendment, it was agreed to; and the amendment, as amended, was then adopted.

The resolve, as amended, was then agreed to. The question was then stated on agreeing to the fifth resolve:

Resolved, That a printed copy of these resolutions, with the several constitutional propositions annexed, shall be attested by the Secretaries of the Convention, and transmitted by them, as soon as may be, to the selectmen of each town, and the mayor and aldermen of each city, in the Commonwealth, whose duty it shall be to insert a proper article in reference to the voting upon said propositions, in the warrant calling the meetings aforesaid, on the second Monday of November

next.

Mr. BOUTWELL moved to amend by inserting after the words "attested by," the words "the President and," so that it would read "shall be attested by the President and Secretaries of the Convention," &c.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. STETSON, of Braintree. I should like to ask the chairman of the Committee, if it is intended that the same plan shall be pursued in the printing of the Constitution, which is pursued in the printing of these copies that have been distributed here. A part of this Constitution is set in open type, a part in close type, and a part in Italics. What I want is this: that in order that the people may understand what part of the Constitution is new and what part is old, it should be printed with all that is new inserted in Italics, and the old part in Roman. In that case, when it goes out to the people, they will not have to study and compare in order to find out what changes the Convention have made. I move that the Committee who have this matter in charge, direct all the new portion to be printed in Italics.

Mr. BUTLER, of Lowell. I wish to inform the gentleman from Braintree, that the new parts are already differently printed from the old, so that they can be very well distinguished. How

ever that may be, I had supposed that it was no part of the duty of the Committee on Revision to superintend the printing.

Mr. MARVIN, of Boston. I think some plan should be adopted to carry out the view of the gentleman from Braintree-either that which he has suggested, or, perhaps it may be well to have the new portions of the Constitution enclosed in brackets, as is frequently done in such cases. Every man who knows anything about printing, will agree with me in the opinion, that threequarters of the men in the Commonwealth would not readily discern the difference between solid and leaded matter-I speak as a practical printer. I think there should be some obvious distinction to the eye between what is new and what is old.

Mr. EARLE. These suggestions may all be very well, but I think we had better leave this to be attended to by the Committee, and not take any action on it now.

Mr. BUTLER. I beg leave to make a single suggestion farther. I think those gentlemen who have been instructing us so long, how much the people are to be trusted, and throwing brickbats at us for not trusting them, are putting themselves to unnecessary trouble in inserting brackets and Italics in order that the people may know what this Convention have been doing. I have no fear but that the people can find out where the changes are, without having them put in Italics. I believe in the people enough for that.

The question being taken, the resolve was agreed to.

Mr. MARVIN. I move to instruct the Committee, whose duty it is to provide for printing the resolutions, that the several propositions annexed, which are new portions of the Constitution, be printed in brackets.

Mr. STETSON. I trust that this Convention will adopt the motion of the gentleman from Boston, for this reason. I will venture to say that no member of this Convention can tell in two hours, what part of this revised Constitution is old and what part is new; and I believe, that without any orders, the Committee who have had this Constitution under revision, have made some changes in regard to matters which have never been under consideration by this Convention at all. I think the people have a right to know what portion of the Constitution which is sent out to them for their sanction is new and what portion is not; and they never will know if they have it printed in the way that this is.

Mr. WHITNEY, of Boylston, (interposing). I understood the gentleman to say, that no member could find out in two hours what was new and what was old. I wish to inquire if he is going to make a statement to occupy that length of time, in order that we can try the experiment. [Laughter.]

Mr. STETSON. I can assure the gentleman in the gallery that he has never seen me asleep in this Convention, and he probably will not. I take it, Mr. President, that the people have a right to know precisely what alterations have been made in the Constitution which we send out to them, before they vote for its adoption. I think, therefore, that it is no more than proper, in sending out a proposition of so much importance as a new Constitution, that the people should know how to distinguish between that which is new and that which is old. I trust, Mr. President, that this Convention will pass the resolution

[August 1st.

of the gentleman from Boston, unless they mean to deceive the people by putting a proposition before them which they know that they cannot understand. I do not want to throw bricks at a man's head, or brick dust into his eyes so that he cannot see. All that I ask is that the proposition may go forth to the people in such a shape and manner that they can understand it. I think that if it should be printed in the form in which this has been printed for us here, there is not one man in ten that could tell what he was voting onwhether a particular proposition was a part of the old Constitution or whether it was something new. I believe that the people of Massachusetts are as well enlightened, and understand their rights as well as the people of any other State in this Union. There is not a State which has a more enlightened constituency than we have in this Commonwealth; but, Sir, I believe, notwithstanding that they are so intelligent they would be apt to get puzzled with this document, printed in this way; for it requires a very astute man to understand all that is new and all that is old in this Constitution.

Mr. DANA, for Manchester. It is proposed, as I understand it, that all the new parts of the Constitution submitted to the people, shall be printed in brackets to distinguish them from the old Constitution. Now there will be one great difficulty in that. Some amendments are merely in the way of transposing words, some where the same substance remains with very little variation of form. The Committee found it necessary to adopt three modes of printing-common type, leaded type, and brackets. I do not believe it possible that by mere brackets amendments can be sufficiently distinguished so as not to mislead the people.

Another difficulty. If it shall be issued in the form of brackets, we shall be held responsible for their accuracy, for the people will rely upon them. I should not like to trust to the accuracy with which any person could do that work. It would be a matter of difference of opinion what should be placed in brackets, and how. I do not think the gentleman from Braintree, (Mr. Stetson,) really thinks the people have an inalienable right to brackets. Will he permit me to ask him whether it would not suit him to have a part in crotchets? [Laughter.]

Mr. KNOWLTON, of Worcester. I think the proposition is susceptible of improvement. I therefore move to strike out all after the word brackets," and insert in lieu thereof the words “in such form as to distinguish, as far as possible, the amendments from the text of the Constitution."

66

ment.

Mr. MARVIN, of Boston. I accept the amendI take it that if the main amendments, that is those which are entire paragraphs, are put in brackets, and the less important alterations are put in Italics, the amendments would be perfectly obvious to every-body. I trust that the Committee will take that course.

The question was then taken upon the motion of Mr. Marvin, as modified by the motion of Mr. Knowlton, and it was decided in the affirmative.

Mr. HATHAWAY, of Freetown. I desire to call the attention of the Committee which reported these resolutions, to the proposition made here in reference to article second, chapter first, which is as follows:

ART. 2. The political year shall begin on the

Monday,]

first Wednesday in January; and the General Court shall assemble every year on the said first Wednesday in January, and shall be dissolved on the day next preceding the first Wednesday in January following, without any proclamation or other act of the governor. But nothing herein contained shall prevent the General Court from assembling at such other times as they shall judge necessary, or when called together by the gover

nor.

The last paragraph of that article was passed over for the purpose of giving the Committee time to make an examination of that matter, and giving an answer to the inquiry which was made in reference to it, and that was, whether the Convention had passed upon that very proposition, and agreed to have it stricken out. I should like to know whether the Committee have satisfied themselves in reference to that matter? Can the Committee answer now, whether the Convention have acted upon it, and whether they have struck it out or retained it?

Mr. BOUTWELL, for Berlin. The Convention have not passed upon it. It stands as it ever has in the articles of amendment to the old Constitution. It was struck out of the original Constitution of 1780, but, by a provision inserted with great care in the amendments, and which annulled a part of the article with which this provision was connected, and this provision was preserved, and has not been acted upon by the Convention. There is nothing upon the record which shows that it has been acted upon.

Mr. LIVERMORE, of Cambridge. A part of the same words were struck out by a Report of the Committee on the Frame of Government, or at least they left out that part of it. The Report was to substitute something for the article as it then stood, and the part relating to the governor having the power to call the legislature together, But the whole has been was not stricken out. inserted into this article, after the old article had been amended, by striking out a part, and a new article substituted for it. It was left out, but the Revising Committee found it in another part of the Constitution, and put it in here.

The PRESIDENT. It can only be reached by a motion to reconsider.

Mr. LIVERMORE. I shall not make a motion in regard to it.

Mr. BOUTWELL. The Committee on the Frame of Government made no reference whatever to that provision in the Constitution in which this clause was found. No reference whatever.

The PRESIDENT. It appears that no amendment has been made in reference to this matter.

Mr. BOUTWELL. The Committee on the subject of Revising the Amendments to the Constitution, were also charged with the matter of preparing an Address to the people of the Commonwealth; and, with the consent of the Chair, and of the Convention, I will read the Address which the Committee has instructed me to report.

The Convention of Delegates, assembled by your authority, and directed to revise the Constitution of the Commonwealth, has now closed its labors; and it seeks only to commend and commit the result to your consideration and final judgment. The necessity for the Convention was great, and its labors have been arduous and protracted. As your delegates, we have sought for the principles of freedom in the ancient institutions of the State; but we have thought it wise also to accept the teachings and experience of nearly a century of independent existence. It has

then been our purpose to unite in one system of organic law the principles of American republican institutions, and the experiences of other free States, all contemplated in the light derived from the history and usages of Massachusetts.

And first of all, we think it proper to present for your consideration a complete system of organic law. The present Constitution was adopted in 1780, and there have since been added thirteen important amendments. By these amendments, much of the original text is already annulled, and it is only by a careful and critical analysis and comparison that the existing provisions can be Constitudetermined. This ought not to be. tional laws should be plain, that they may be impartially interpreted and faithfully executed"that every man may at all times find his security in them." We have not, then, thought it wise, or even proper, to preserve, as a part of the Constitution, provisions which have long since been annulled; nor do we feel justified in proposing new specific amendments whose adoption will render the fundamental law of the Commonwealth more difficult to be understood and less certain in its requirements.

We have, therefore, taken what remains unchanged of the Constitution of 1780, and the subsequent amendments, preserving the original language wherever it appeared practicable, as the basis of a new Constitution, and incorporated therewith such of the resolutions of this Convention as are necessary to give to the whole, at once, a comprehensive and concise character. This has been our purpose; and if our view of duty is correct, we are entirely justified in submitting so much of our work as will give to the people of Massachusetts a complete system of organic law, as one proposition, for your adoption and ratification. It is undoubtedly true, that when amendments are specific and not numerous, they should be separately submitted to the judgment of the people; but this mode becomes impracticable in the formation of a new government, or the thorough revision of an old one. Our attention has been necessarily directed to every provision of the Constitution, and but one chapter is preserved in its original form. It only remained for us either to submit our work, to be added to the old Constitution as specific amendments, with the conviction that their ratification would render your form of government more complicated than it now is, or else to embody all of the old and new that appears necessary to the safe and harmonious action of the system, and present it as "the Constitution of Massachusetts."

This we now do, and we invite you to consider that, while government is essential to the safety and happiness of each individual, it must necessarily happen that it cannot be in every part alike acceptable to all. "We may not expect," said the founders of the Commonwealth, "to agree in a perfect system of government; this is not the lot of mankind. The great end of government is to promote the supreme good of human society." We commend the new Constitution to you, not as being perfect, but as greatly to be preferred to the existing frame of government. It declares the rights and liberties essential to the freedom of the people; it contains, as we believe, a framework arranged according to reason and correct analogies, and it embodies all the fundamental provisions necessary to a just administration of every department of the government.

You will naturally examine with care the character of the changes we have proposed. We have thought it necessary to make a provision for the purpose of limiting the sessions of the General Court to one hundred days, and to require that the pay of its members shall be fixed by standing

laws.

At present the members of the Senate are chosen by the several counties which clect from one to six senators, upon a general ticket. We have provided for the division of the State into forty districts, of equal population, and each entitled to

elect one senator.

[August 1st.

The basis of the House of Representatives has been a subject of careful and anxious deliberation. Differences of opinion existed among us; but a majority of more than one hundred members determined to preserve the system of town representation, under which Massachusetts has existed so long and prospered so well. We have, then, based the House of Representatives upon the municipal institutions of the State, having reference, so far as practicable, to their relative population. By the proposed system, towns containing less than one thousand inhabitants are entitled to elect a representative for the year when the valuation of estates is settled, and one in addition, annually, for five years out of every decennial period. Towns having a population of one thousand and not more than four thousand inhabitants, are entitled to elect a representative every year; towns of more than four thousand and less than eight thousand, will elect two representatives; towns of eight thousand and less than twelve thousand, will elect three representatives, while towns and cities of twelve thousand inhabitants, will elect four representatives, and one additional representative for each addition of four thousand to their population. We do not claim that this system, separately considered, is precisely equal; but if it is in some degree favorable to the rural districts, the loss sustained by the large towns and cities is in a fair measure compensated by the manifest advantages accorded to them in the constitution of the Council and the Senate. The inequality of representation between particular towns, when tested solely by population, may in some cases apparently be great; but when the rights of different interests and different sections of the Commonwealth are considered in connection with the whole system of elective government, the basis of the House cannot be deemed unequal or unjust. The Senate and Council are based upon population rather than voters, by which the inhabitants of the cities and large towns have influence in these two important departments of the government quite disproportionate to their just elective power.

No human government can attain to theoretic accuracy; and in a state where pursuits, habits, and interests are various, it certainly is not the part of wisdom to place unlimited power in the hands of any. We invite you to consider that the Governor represents the voters of the State; that the Council and Senate represent population, without any reference to voters, and as a consequence, that these two departments of the government will eventually be in the control of the cities and chief towns; and finally, that we have sought only to secure to the several districts and to the agricultural and mechanical population and interests a reasonable share of power in one branch of the Legislature. This influence gives to this portion of the people power to assent to, but never to dictate, the policy of the government. The Convention of 1780 declared that "an exact representation would be impracticable even in a system of government arising from the state of nature, and much more so in a State already divided into nearly three hundred corporations." We have encountered the same difficulty, and hope that we have overcome it in our day as well as they overcame it in their day.

But our deliberations have not been confined to the proposed system. Many of your delegates are of opinion that the State should be divided into districts for the election of representatives, according to the number of voters in each. In this opinion a large majority of the Convention do not concur; but we think it our duty first to interpret the people's will, and then to give a fair opportunity for its expression upon all questions of importance whenever such a course is practicable. We have, therefore, made a constitutional provision that the Legislature of 1856, under the census to be taken in 1855, shall present a district system, which may be then substituted for the one recommended by the Convention, if, in the judgment of the whole people, it is wise to make the change.

Monday,]

We have also provided that the cities and large towns shall be so districted for the choice of representatives that no district shall be entitled to elect more than three members. In the judgment of the Convention the election of many officers on a single general ticket is not compatible with the freedom and purity of the representative system.

The property qualification of the Governor and Lieutenant-Governor has been abolished.

The Council has been made elective by the people in single districts, and the records of that body are hereafter to be subject to public examination.

We have provided that the Attorney-General, the Secretary of the Commonwealth, the Auditor and the Treasurer, officers now appointed by the Governor, or chosen by the Legislature, shall hereafter be elected annually by the people; and that the Judges of Probate, Registers of Probate, Sheriffs, Clerks of the Courts, Commissioners of Insolvency, and District-Attorneys, officers now appointed by the Executive or the Courts, shall also be elected by the people for terms of three years.

We have also provided that the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court and of the Court of Common Pleas, hereafter appointed, shall hold their offices for the term of ten years. In a free government, the people should be relieved in a reasonable time, and by the ordinary course of affairs, from the weight of incompetent or unfaithful public servants. Under the present Constitution a Judge can only be removed by the difficult and unpleasant process of impeachment, or of address. Such remedies will be resorted to only in the most aggravated cases. Under the proposed system we have no apprehension but that faithful and competent Judges will be retained in the public service; while those whose places can be better filled with other men, will retire to private life without violence or ungracious circumstances, and scarcely with observation.

It is proposed that Justices of the Peace shall be divided into two classes. Those whose duties are chiefly ministerial, will be, as heretofore, appointed by the Governor and Council; while those intrusted with judicial authority are to be elected by the people and to hold by a tenure of three years.

Under the original Constitution, voters and public officers were required to possess property qualifications. These have heretofore been removed in part, and we now recommend the entire abolition of the property qualification in the voter for all national and all state officers mentioned in the Constitution. The obligations of citizens to contribute to the public expenses by assessment of taxes are not in any degree changed.

Provision is also made for the secrecy of the ballot. By the ballot the citizen at the same time declares his opinion on public affairs, and asserts his equality with every other citizen.

Freedom of opinion, and freedom in the expression of opinion, are individual rights, to be limited or controlled only by a public necessity. We see no public necessity which ought to deprive the citizen of these rights, and we have therefore made provision for their protection.

We also provide, absolutely, that in many elections, persons having the highest number of votes shall be chosen. This rule has been applied principally to the elections in counties and districts, where the trouble of frequent trials is great. The Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Secretary of the Commonwealth, Attorney-General, Treasurer, Auditor, Representatives to the General Court, and town officers, are exceptions to the rule. In case of a failure to elect either of the first six named, the election is referred to the General Court; while subsequent trials may be had for the choice of Representatives and municipal officers. We have, therefore, as we think, retained the majority rule where its application will be least burdensome to the people. At the

same time we have provided that the Legislature may substitute the plurality rule whenever the public will shall demand it, with a condition that no act for that purpose shall take effect until one year after its passage. Thus we have given an opportunity to test the wisdom of the plurality system, by experience, and power to apply it to every popular election in the Commonwealth, whenever the deliberate judgment of the people shall require it.

The various provisions relating to the militia have been revised, some important changes have been made, and that department of the government will rest more firmly than ever on a constitutional basis.

Changes are proposed concerning the University at Cambridge, and the General Court is instructed to take means for the enlargement of the school fund, until it shall amount to a sum not less than two millions of dollars.

Although the Constitution has always asserted, in the strongest terms, the right of the people, at all times, to alter, reform, or totally change their frame of government, yet it has been contended by some, that the operation and effect of the specific provisions for amendments, contained therein, have been such as practically to impair or render doubtful this great right. We have, therefore, thought it wise, while we recognize and retain the modes of exercising the right practised hitherto in this Commonwealth, to introduce additional provisions, to meet possible future exigencies, and to enable the people, without controversy, to hold periodical Conventions that shall not be subject to, or restricted by, any previous or subsequent act of the Legislature.

Trusting that you will examine with care the proceedings of the Convention, and the result to which it has come, we deem it unnecessary to explain several less prominent changes proposed in the Constitution of the Commonwealth.

We also submit seven distinct amendments, which are presented separately for your ratification. Some of them are new, and all of them are independent of the frame-work of the government, and may either be adopted or rejected without disturbing the system or harmony of the Constitution. They have all, however, been sustained by decisive majorities of your delegates, and embrace important essential principles in popular government. The formation or the revision of a popular constitution is an epoch in the history of a free people.

We are sensible of the magnitude of the trust which you have confided to us, but it is not more important than the just decision of the question which we submit to you. We have no doubt that your decision will secure a result beneficial to Massachusetts, and, under Divine Providence, will render more and more illustrious our ancient Commonwealth.

The question was then taken upon adopting the Address, and it was agreed to without a division.

Mr. HALLETT, for Wilbraham. I move that the Address which has been read and accepted by the Convention, be signed by the President and Secretary of the Convention, and published.

Mr. BUTLER, of Lowell. Will the gentleman for Wilbraham allow me to suggest an amendment to his motion. In addition to the printing, I suggest that the same number be printed as we have ordered of the Revised Constitution, and that it be circulated among the people that is 100,000 copies-and bound with them.

Mr. HALLETT. I presume the Address, under that resolution, would be published in connec. tion with the Constitution.

Mr. BIRD, of Walpole. I will read an order which I have drawn up, which covers that matter, and also another matter:

[August 1st.

Ordered, That the Resolves contained in document No. 128, and the Address to the People, signed by the President and the Secretary, be printed in connection with copies of the Revised Constitution ordered to be printed for distribution; and that 35,000 additional copies of said Constitution, with the Resolves and Address, be printed for distribution in accordance with orders already adopted.

The latter clause of the order is a distinct subject, and it is for this reason, that since the passage of the resolve ordering the printing of 100,000 copies, we learn that last winter the legislature ordered the printing of 100,000 copies of the old Constitution, and it was found by them, after distributing the 100,000 copies, they were 35,000 copies short, and they were obliged to order that number of copies more, costing about as much as the original edition of 100,000 copies. It was thought best, therefore, to order that the same number of the new Constitution should be printed. It will be cheaper to do so now than hereafter.

Mr. WEEKS, of Harwich. Where did the gentleman get his information.

Mr. BIRD. From the printer, the sergeantat-arms, and others.

Mr. WEEKS. I had the honor to offer the resolution myself, and it provided for 30,000 copies.

Mr. BIRD. Then there were 130,000 copies, in all, ordered.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair would suggest that the question can be first taken upon signing the Address, and then upon the other matter.

Mr. HALLETT, for Wilbraham. I so modify my motion.

The question was then taken upon Mr. Hallett's motion, and it was agreed to.

The question was then taken upon the motion offered by Mr. Bird, and it was decided in the affirmative.

So the motion was agreed to.

Monday,]

Mr. GREENE, of Brookfield. At the proper time I should like to hear the pay roll read. It must prove an interesting document.

The question was taken upon the acceptance and adoption of the Report of the Committee, and it was decided in the affirmative.

Distribution of Documents.

Mr. WALKER, of North Brookfield. I move that the Report of the Special Committee on the distribution of documents, be taken up at the present time.

Mr. GREENE. Before that matter is gone into, I should like to hear the pay roll read. But if the Convention does not want to hear it, I will not urge the matter.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of opinion that it would not be in order to do so at this time. Mr. LIVERMORE, from Cambridge. I would suggest the course indicated by the gentleman from Worcester, (Mr. Earle,) that it be read by its title. [Laughter.]

The question was then taken on Mr. Walker's motion, and it was agreed to.

The Secretary then read the Report, as follows:

1. Resolved, That White & Potter be instructed to deliver, without additional charge, the remaining numbers of the quarto edition of the Journal of Debates, at such places in Boston, as the members shall respectively order.

2. Resolved, That each member of this Convention be furnished with one copy of the Journal of the Debates, of the octavo edition, additionally to the one heretofore ordered.

3. Resolved, That the Messenger be directed to deliver, without additional cost, the copies of the Debates aforesaid, together with the Journal of the Convention, heretofore ordered, with the completed file of the documents belonging to each member, at such place in Boston as the members shall respectively order. And also to send, in the usual manner, the copies of the Journal and Debates to the towns, cities, and public bodies, as ordered by the Convention, and also to send to each town or city, its quota, in proportion to population, of copies of the New Constitution, heretofore ordered to be published.

The PRESIDENT. To that Report the gentleman from Worcester, (Mr. Earle,) moves to add the following words: "That no member shall be entitled to more than three copies."

Mr. BATES, of Plymouth. Before the Convention in this stage of its session pass a vote to give each member of the Convention three copies, amounting to fifteen or eighteen dollars to each member, I hope they will stop and look at it. Besides that, it enjoins upon these persons to do certain work, without pay hereafter. I suppose by the Act calling this Convention, the Convention is to provide its own expenses. They have no more authority to order this Messenger to do any work without pay, than we have to order the Governor to do so.

Mr. WALKER, of North Brookfield. It has been my misfortune on several occasions, while acting as chairman of a Committee, to present reports, with some of the propositions of which I did not agree. That is the case in the present instance. The Report was almost unanimously adopted in Committee, though I dissented from the second resolve which provides that three copies of the octavo cdition shall be furnished to members in addition to what they already have. I presume that the resolve introduced at

the beginning of the session by the gentleman from Cambridge, was a mistake, because under the resolve, it would have required nine thousand copies of the Debates to supply all the members, if they had elected to take as many as they were entitled to under that order. That being the case, we are brought into the condition in which we now are, with one hundred members of this Convention without a copy of the quarto edition, and this second resolve says that all alike shall receive three copies of the quarto edition. That did not strike me as just. It seemed to me that those who had taken more of the other, should have but one copy of the quarto form. I think the operation of that second resolve would not look well under the circumstances which surround the case, and therefore, I hope the amendment will prevail. Otherwise, the Report is correct in every respect, in my judgment.

In regard to the duties which we impose upon the Messenger, I will say that we waited upon him upon the subject, and he consented to perform all those duties. The duties must be performed by somebody, or else the documents will not be distributed.

Mr. LELAND, of Holliston. When this subject was under discussion on a former occasion, the gentleman from Worcester, (Mr. Earle,) said that I had received twenty-one copies.

Mr. EARLE, of Worcester. I rise to call the gentleman to order for misstating what I said. I made no such statement.

Mr. LELAND. I do not know what point of order there is in that. All I can say is, that I understood the gentleman to say, at the time referred to, that I had received twenty-one copies, and that I now wanted three copies more. I did say that I thought it but fair that if one member was to receive three copies of the bound Reports, it was but fair that all should receive them.

Mr. BATES, of Plymouth. The Convention, by two several orders, have directed what should be done with every copy. If the Convention passes this resolve, they must direct the Committee what to do, and make all needful provisions to enable them to do it.

Mr. EARLE. My proposition does not enlarge the distribution, but restricts it. By an order of the Convention, the members were entitled to receive a certain number of copies of these Reports. Three-fourths of the members have received them, while the other fourth have not got any, and it is imperative upon the Secretary to furnish them. This amendment proposes to limit the distribution to three copies to each member, including the one copy which all the members are to receive. So that the members will get but two copies as an offset to the twenty-one copies the other members have already got. If they have not got them they have got their equivalent in newspapers. It appears to me that there is nothing but what is perfectly fair in this proposition. I did not suppose that there was a man in the Convention who would raise a voice against it.

Mr. BATES. I move that when the question is taken it be taken by yeas and nays.

Mr. ALVORD, for Montague. I move that the whole subject be indefinitely postponed.

Mr. BIRD, of Walpole. Gentlemen ought to remember that there is a great deal more to do than the mere distribution of these Reports. But I believe that both the Messenger and the State printer agree to do this work without any extra

[August 1st.

pay, and I think, therefore, that no question ought to be raised on that head.

Mr. ALVORD. I listened attentively to the reading of the resolves, and I understood them merely to refer to the distribution of the Reports. If the Messenger is willing to do this work without any extra pay, I can have no possible objection.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I am not well pleased, either with the Report of the Committee or the amendment. If I understood the latter, it proposes to give three copies of the bound Reports to each member.

Mr. EARLE. Only to those who have not already got any copies.

Mr. ADAMS, of Lowell. I understand that at an early period of the session many members of the Convention availed themselves of the privilege of the order presented by the gentleman from Cambridge, and passed by the Convention, of taking two, three, or half a dozen copies. I understood the proposition of the gentleman from Worcester to be that those who had received three or six copies of the quarto form, were not to receive any of the octavo. I understand that the Debates as circulated in the quarto form, without binding, are to cost $1.50 per copy, and that the bound octavo volumes will cost $5 per copy, and that those who have not subscribed for the quarto copies will be entitled to $15 worth of the octavo.

Mr. EARLE. The statement that has just been made is calculated to deceive. In fact there is no truth in it. [Loud cries of "Order, Order."] I do not mean to say that the statement is not true, as the gentleman made it, [laughter,] but that in point of fact, there is no truth in it. [Cries of "Order, Order."] The State printers have stated the matter to me thus: The whole amount of type setting they have charged, in making up their account, upon the octavo form, and have charged nothing for composition upon the quarto. That makes the octavo form nominally cost a good deal more. If there is any difference it is in favor of the octavo form. But there is no difference about it. The composition is the same and the press work is the same.

Now I understand that even if this order is adopted, the State will still have fifteen hundred volumes, or more, left at the disposal of the legislature. That body will probably place them at the disposal of the governor and council, who, again, will probably distribute them amongst their friends.

[Loud cries of "Question, Question."] Mr. DAVIS, of Worcester. By this order, if it is amended as proposed by my colleague, and adopted by the Convention, every member will receive one copy of the bound Reports, andn one can receive more than three copies.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I would like to know how you are going to get back the copics from those who have got their twenty copies ?

Mr. EARLE. The order relates only to the octavo edition.

The question was then taken on the amendment, and it was rejected, on a division-ayes, 107; noes, 67.

Mr. BATES, of Plymouth. I wish simply to state one fact in this connection. Each member has voted himself one copy already, of the octavo edition-that is upon the journal-and now it is proposed to give each member two copies more, as the motion is that the number shall not exceed

Monday,]

three copies; so that if this passes, each member will have voted himself three copies, or six volumes, amounting to fifteen dollars in value, which will be rung from one end of Massachusetts to the other.

Mr. EARLE. If there is any apprehension that members by that vote are depriving themelves of one copy, it is very easy to add the words, "under this order."

Mr. HALLETT, for Wilbraham. Is the question susceptible of division?

The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of opinion that the question on the several resolves may be taken separately.

Mr. HALLETT. Then I call for a division. I want that part which relates to voting three copies, put separately. We have each got one copy, and I think we ought to be satisfied with that.

Mr. CARRUTHIERS, of Salisbury. I wish to ask a question, in order to obtain a little information about this matter. If a delegate has subscribed for, and received his twenty-one newspapers, he is to have three copies of the Reports, as I understand it; but if he has only subscribed for fifteen newspapers, and has made up the remainder with documents, is he not to have any extra? I want to have that matter plainly understood, whether we are going to vote three copies to those who have had their twenty-one newspapers, and are not to vote any copies to those who have had no newspapers.

Mr. PAIGE, of Boston. As I am one of those who have not subscribed for newspapers, I may perhaps vote on this subject with as good grace as anybody. I understand that we have already voted one copy to each member-that each member should have one copy of the octavo edition, and that should be the end of it, whether he had received newspapers or not. If a man has had twenty-one copies already, which he has taken in the place of newspapers, he had a right so to do; and I see no difficulty in putting the proposition fairly. We have already voted to give each member one copy in the octavo form-my proposition is to give each member one more, so that each member shall have two copies, whether he has had newspapers or not. We cannot go back and undo what has already been done.

Mr. CHAPIN, of Worcester. I like the amendment which has been offered by the gentleman from Boston. Some persons were not quite so keenly anxious as others for these Reports, and subscribed for newspapers, while others thought that they would take these instead of newspapers. Some members were "green" enough not to see this until after they had subscribed for their newspapers; and those who were sharper than the rest of us, will of course have the profit of it.

Mr. EARLE. I have not made the motion which I did, because I cared about having a copy of this work in addition to the copy to which I am already entitled; but I did so simply to see if the Convention would do an act of justice. I wanted to see if those members who had received their copies of the work under a vote of this Convention, would now allow those who were entitled under the same vote to other copies but who could not obtain them, to have partial justice done to them-whether they would not be willing to furnish the Secretary with the means of carrying out in part, their own vote. If they

are not disposed to do that, I, for one, shall vote against the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Boston; for that, instead of doing justice, is giving to those who have not received anything, only just as much as it gives to those who have already received from ten to twenty copies.

Mr. OLIVER, of Lawrence, moved the previous question, which was ordered.

The question being taken on the amendment of Mr. Paige, it was agreed to; and the question was then stated on ordering the resolves to a second reading, as amended.

Mr. EARLE asked for a division of the question; and the question being put on ordering the first and third resolves to a second reading, it was agreed to.

The question then recurred on ordering the second resolve to a second reading; which resolve provided that each member of the Convention should be furnished with an additional copy of the octavo edition.

Mr. BOUTWELL, for Berlin, moved that the resolve lie upon the table, which was not agreed

to.

The question then being taken, the resolve was ordered to a second reading.

Rights of Colored Citizens.

Mr. STETSON, of Braintree, moved a reconsideration of the vote by which the Convention ordered the protest of William C. Nell and others to be entered upon the journal of the Convention.

The PRESIDENT. The motion lies over until to-morrow, under the rule. [Laughter.] Mr. STETSON. I move a suspension of the rule.

Mr. HALLETT, for Wilbraham. I rise to a question of privilege, in regard to this matter. I should not, on my own account or interest have called up the subject which the gentleman from Braintree has moved to reconsider; but it being presented, I think it my duty to refer to this protest, because I suppose that it was intended to bear upon myself, and others much more distinguished gentlemen than myself

Mr. BIRD, of Walpole. Mr. President, I rise to a question of order. The point which I make is, that the gentleman must state his question of privilege, before he speaks upon it.

Mr. HALLETT. That is just what I am doing. The Convention have ordered to be entered upon the journal of this body, a statement in the form of a protest, which places some of the members of the Convention in a false position, and attributes language to them which they did not utter. I take it that that is a question of privilege.

Mr. BIRD. I ask for the ruling of the Chair upon that point.

Mr. HALLETT. Certain statements were made upon this floor in debate with regard to the admission of colored persons into the militia of the United States, and I find that in a protest which has been received and acted on while I was absent, there is a statement manifestly, though not by name, attributed to me, which I never made. The Convention, I presume, without understanding the matter at the moment, by a party vote, ordered that statement to go upon its records. It is wholly immaterial to me whether the Convention choose to persist in that course or

[August 1st.

not, as respects myself; but before the question is decided, I want it fully understood that the protest which they have ordered to be entered upon their journal contains intimations against two of the members of this body; I want the Convention also to know what they are charged with as a body, in that protest, so that they may knowingly decide whether they are ready to cause to be placed upon their records a statement that they have done an act which is unconstitutional, and also that in their opinion, a law of the United States is unconstitutional. That protest farther says, among other things, that a member of this Convention, in a speech made to this Convention, declared that if a colored person were to be elected governor of Massachusetts, the United States would interpose to prevent his acting as commander-in-chief of the Commonwealth. Now, Sir, no such thing was said by any member, and I do not want that class of our fellow-citizens, who very honestly, I dare say, make this protest, and whose rights I respect as much as any body, to labor under a misapprehension on that subject, for I have no doubt they were misled by some false report. I said all that was directly said upon that topic except the similar opinion given by the member from Boston, (Mr. Choate,) and what I did say was precisely this

Mr. BIRD, (interposing). Mr. President: This discussion is entirely out of place at this time, for the gentleman from Wilbraham is not alluded to by name, or in any way that would lead any one to suppose he was alluded to at all, in that document.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will take the liberty to state that as this is the last day of the session, and the motion for reconsideration must be entertained now or it never can be entertained, the Chair will admit the motion without putting the question on a suspension of the rules. The question is, therefore, upon the motion of the gentleman from Braintree that the vote of the Convention be reconsidered, by which the petition of William C. Nell and others was ordered to be entered upon the journal.

Mr. BUTLER. Upon the motion of reconsideration I move the previous question.

Mr. HALLETT. I hope the gentleman will have the courtesy to withdraw that motion and allow me to finish my statement.

Mr. BUTLER. I certainly will.

Mr. HALLETT. The language attributed in that petition to a member of this Convention, although it was not what I said, yet evidently could be attributed to no one but me, because that was the line of argument which I used, although the statement which I made was entirely different. It was in reply to a question of the gentleman from Natick, who now occupies the chair, (Mr. Wilson,) when the resolutions in relation to the militia were under discussion, as to what would be the powers of the governor of this Commonwealth under the Constitution of the United States, if the person who should be elected governor of this Commonwealth should happen to be a person of color; and my exact language, as reported at the time, I now quote.

What I said in answer to that question was :

"That while the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by her Constitution makes no distinction of color in the choice of governor, yet the Constitution of the United States gives the power to congress to declare what shall constitute the militia;