mitted that women had a right to vote, but insisted that it would be a mistake for them to "enter into conflict with men, in political and governmental affairs. . . that softness and delicacy of character, and those bland enchantments which bind the world in silken chains, would be lost, and lost forever. ... Daniel S. Whitney of Boylston said a word on the women's side, and the question was duly shelved.1

Article II of Chapter IX provided for the secret ballot by requiring that all ballots (which until 1888 were printed by the various parties, and distributed before the election) be deposited in sealed envelopes furnished by the Commonwealth. A Coalition Legislature had adopted this system a year or two before in order to protect employees from compulsion; the Whig Legislature of 1853 repealed it, on the ground that it insulted the manliness and independence of the laboring men. The same line-up occurred in the Convention. The Rev. Samuel K. Lothrop of Boston asked the Convention to trust the people. Shubael P. Adams said that to his certain knowledge there was not a single moment during the presidential election of 1848 when the ballot boxes of Lowell were not closely watched by "overseers of a certain political stripe" in order to scrutinize employees' ballots. He had seen men forced to change their vote for fear of discharge. All was changed when the sealed ballot law went into effect, "for the votes all looked alike."

Article III provided, for the first time in the history of the Commonwealth, for the registration of voters.

Article VII proposed to hold State and national elections on the same date, instead of a week apart, as had been required by Amendment X.

Articles V-IX were called by the opponents of this Constitution the "plurality patch-up." For many years the constitutional requirements for a majority instead of a plurality to elect all officers had been a nuisance. So long as there were only two parties, a majority was generally secured for one candidate; but powerful third parties had been common since 1830. The choice of Governor (under Chapter I, Section I, Article III) had frequently been thrust on the Legislature. Repeated ballotings, causing unnecessary delay and expense, had often been neces

1 Debates, II, 726-738.

The

sary to secure a majority for other elective officials. In one case twelve ballotings took place before a candidate could be elected; and one Congressional district, for a failure to give one of these candidates a majority, remained unrepresented for the entire Congress. The plurality system for all elections had long been agitated; its necessity had been emphasized as one of the main reasons for holding the Convention, and the popular mandate thereon was clearer than on any subject save representation. The committee on elections, presided over by Henry W. Bishop of Lenox, reported in favor of the plurality system. The conservative side pressed for it, but most of the "reformers" developed a sudden tenderness for the old majority system, from which the Coalition party had greatly profited in the past. report was recommitted to Benjamin F. Butler et al., who reported the "plurality patch-up" of Chapter IX.1 William Schouler attempted to restore it to the form of the original report (plurality for all elections), but his resolve was rejected by a vote of 159 to 160, the casting vote of President Banks deciding in the negative.2 Chapter IX adopted the plurality system for Councillors, Senators and county officials, but maintained the majority rule for all others, "until otherwise provided by law." "You talk to me about principle", said Josiah G. Abbott, "when you have given up all principle, and all that you have got in exchange, is something to go into the legislature and trade upon. . . . That is so apparent, that it sticks out in every direction; the lion's skin is not a quarter large enough to cover something that I will not give any name to."3

Chapter X included everything in the Constitution on oaths, disqualifications for office, writs and commissions, only a few minor changes being adopted. Chapter XI was devoted to the militia. It was a serious attempt to strengthen and popularize that force, then in a most depressed condition, by having every officer, from major-generals down, elected by the members of the grade below. Article II provided that "All citizens of this Commonwealth liable for military service. shall be enrolled in the militia, and held to perform such military duty as by law may be required."

Chapter XII corresponded to Chapter V of the Constitution

1 Debates, III, 86.

2 Journal, 240; Debates, III, 134.

1 Debates, III, 153.

of 1780. The "University at Cambridge" had its usual overhauling, and a clause was introduced declaring the right of the Legislature to alter the powers vested in that corporation, "provided, the obligation of contract shall not be impaired." Article IV protected the school fund against misappropriation.

Chapter XIV provided that a popular vote on the question of calling a new constitutional convention may be held by action of the Legislature, on the demand of towns and cities containing one-third of the votes, and, in any case, every twenty years. Article III repeated Amendment IX, and Article IV provided for the special constitutional referendum on the district system of 1856.

This was the last chapter of the Constitution of 1853. But many contentious points were embodied in the seven additional propositions. No. 2 related to the writ of habeas corpus. No. 3 provided that the jury in criminal cases should have the right to determine the law as well as the facts. No. 5 forbade imprisonment for debt (which had already been abolished by law). No. 6, forbidding appropriations for sectarian schools, was subsequently adopted as Amendment XVIII.

This anti-sectarian amendment was proposed, so George W. Blagden explained for the committee, in order to put a stop to the pressure for public funds from certain religious sects for the support of their denominational schools. Francis W. Bird proposed that the colleges be included, and gave an account of the collegiate drive upon the State treasury a few years before. Charles W. Upham maintained that the amendment might cause considerable trouble, since the common schools of the State themselves had a sectarian character.1 The most interesting debate came on a motion for reconsideration, after it had been formally adopted. Nathaniel Wood of Fitchburg and Benjamin F. Butler argued that the amendment was unfair to the Roman Catholics, who could not conscientiously send their children to public schools as then conducted. Francis W. Crowninshield of Boston said: "I can assure these gentlemen, their Catholic friends are not to be caught by such chaff as this. ... Gentlemen have sat in their seats while this provision has passed through all of its stages to its final passage, and no voice

1 Debates, II, 543-550.

was raised against it. And now, on the very last day . . . but one of the sessions, lo! a violent indignation is gotten up against the resolution, and it is insisted that it must be expunged." The motion to reconsider failed, 87 to 183.1

Propositions Nos. 7 and 8 were a laudable attempt to further the movement for general incorporation laws, in which Massachusetts was the pioneer State.

(d) Adoption by the Convention, rejection by the People. Monday, August 1, was the last day of the Convention. At 10.15 A.M. the printed draft of the new Constitution and the changes submitted separately was circulated among the members, and the final debate began. Boutwell, in spite of his weariness, led the defence of the new Constitution, which was subjected to severe criticism from Ex-Governor Morton, Otis P. Lord, and George S. Hillard. Boutwell was called upon to explain upon what principle some changes were incorporated in the Constitution, and others submitted as separate propositions. He replied that the committee desired to give the people "an intelligible and systematic organic law," which could not be had by allowing them to express a distinct opinion upon every separate change. It therefore placed in the new Constitution "so much and many of the resolutions adopted by this Convention. as were necessary to perfect and make harmonious the government which we propose to establish;" the seven separate propositions were "not necessary to the working of the government," and of such nature that they may be rejected or adopted without disturbing the harmony of either the old or the new Constitution.2

This statement, inevitably, opened the door for a flood of such questions as "Why did you leave out this and put in that?" The real principle of choice, of course, was individual preference. That none of the thirty-five changes were strictly necessary to the working of the government, their total rejection proved. The committee had simply selected those it thought most desirable to incorporate into the new Constitution and discarded the rest; though necessarily, in many cases, a

1 Debates, III, 613-626.

2 Debates, III, 655.

group of changes could not be separated. There was no logical reason, for instance, for incorporating the secret ballot and discarding imprisonment for debt. There followed a series of amendments offered by Conservatives with a view to dismantling the new Constitution. Otis P. Lord moved to separate the new system of representation, taking the view that the new Constitution had been built up around this nucleus in order to sweeten it, that the majority dared not to trust the people "to accept it on its own merits." Hillard compared the majority to the Arab who proposed to sell his camel for five ducats and his cat for a hundred, provided the same purchaser takes both. But the motion was rejected, 91 to 205.1

Similarly, Rufus Choate proposed to remove from the Constitution and submit as four separate propositions the changes in judicial tenure. But Dana and Boutwell showed that this might leave the Commonwealth without any judiciary. In Chapter XIII a few minor changes in phraseology were agreed

to.

After the fourteenth and last chapter had been read, ExGovernor Morton delivered a speech which turned out to be prophetic:

I fear, Sir, that we have somewhat forgotten the mission upon which we were sent to this house; that we have been acting together in the exercise of unrestrained power, till we have forgotten the source of our authority, and have not sufficiently borne in mind the wishes and rights. of those who stand behind us, to act upon the propositions which we may submit to them. I fear that, while we profess democracy, and a love for the people, we have acted on an opposite principle. Distrust of the people is stamped on almost every act. Look what was said with regard to the State credit. It was avowed, by some of the majority — I do not remember whom that "the" people could not be trusted with power in regard to this matter. And what was the result? They were divested of the power to decide where the credit of the State might be loaned or given away. What! Not trust the people with the management of their own money, and their own credit! And, Sir, it has been just so with regard to every other act. No principle, however sound and just, is fully carried out. So it was with regard to the secret ballot. . . . Just so, likewise, was it in regard to the plurality question. You would not let the people decide the question, for or against it, as they might choose. And in regard to the subject of representation, the most important subject which

1 Debates, III, 676-679.

...